Softpanorama

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

Cold War II bulletin, 2017

Home 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Jan 11, 2020] Atomization of workforce as a part of atomization of society under neoliberalism

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... a friend of mine, born in Venice and a long-time resident of Rome, pointed out to me that dogs are a sign of loneliness. ..."
"... And the cafes and restaurants on weekends in Chicago–chockfull of people, each on his or her own Powerbook, surfing the WWW all by themselves. ..."
"... The preaching of self-reliance by those who have never had to practice it is galling. ..."
"... Katherine: Agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I am skeptical of various evangelical / fundi pastors, who are living at the expense of their churches, preaching about individual salvation. ..."
"... So you have the upper crust (often with inheritances and trust funds) preaching economic self-reliances, and you have divines preaching individual salvation as they go back to the house provided by the members of the church. ..."
Apr 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
DJG , April 17, 2017 at 11:09 am
Neoliberalism is creating loneliness. That's what's wrenching society apart George Monbiot, Guardian

George Monbiot on human loneliness and its toll. I agree with his observations. I have been cataloguing them in my head for years, especially after a friend of mine, born in Venice and a long-time resident of Rome, pointed out to me that dogs are a sign of loneliness.

A couple of recent trips to Rome have made that point ever more obvious to me: Compared to my North Side neighborhood in Chicago, where every other person seems to have a dog, and on weekends Clark Street is awash in dogs (on their way to the dog boutiques and the dog food truck), Rome has few dogs. Rome is much more densely populated, and the Italians still have each other, for good or for ill. And Americans use the dog as an odd means of making human contact, at least with other dog owners.

But Americanization advances: I was surprised to see people bring dogs into the dining room of a fairly upscale restaurant in Turin. I haven't seen that before. (Most Italian cafes and restaurants are just too small to accommodate a dog, and the owners don't have much patience for disruptions.) The dogs barked at each other for while–violating a cardinal rule in Italy that mealtime is sacred and tranquil. Loneliness rules.

And the cafes and restaurants on weekends in Chicago–chockfull of people, each on his or her own Powerbook, surfing the WWW all by themselves.

That's why the comments about March on Everywhere in Harper's, recommended by Lambert, fascinated me. Maybe, to be less lonely, you just have to attend the occasional march, no matter how disorganized (and the Chicago Women's March organizers made a few big logistical mistakes), no matter how incoherent. Safety in numbers? (And as Monbiot points out, overeating at home alone is a sign of loneliness: Another argument for a walk with a placard.)

Katharine , April 17, 2017 at 11:39 am

I particularly liked this point:

In Britain, men who have spent their entire lives in quadrangles – at school, at college, at the bar, in parliament – instruct us to stand on our own two feet.

With different imagery, the same is true in this country. The preaching of self-reliance by those who have never had to practice it is galling.

DJG , April 17, 2017 at 11:48 am

Katherine: Agreed. It is also one of the reasons why I am skeptical of various evangelical / fundi pastors, who are living at the expense of their churches, preaching about individual salvation.

So you have the upper crust (often with inheritances and trust funds) preaching economic self-reliances, and you have divines preaching individual salvation as they go back to the house provided by the members of the church.

[Dec 21, 2019] A walk down memory lane

Oct 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 28, 2017 at 2:29 pm

A walk down memory lane:
http://theduran.com/5-discarded-anniversaries-of-western-led-aggression/
And here is the list:

1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)

Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)

The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of lives forever damaged.

USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)

Cortes , October 29, 2017 at 6:23 pm
And no mention of

Indonesia.

Just the 1m plus deaths.

[Dec 21, 2019] A walk down memory lane

Oct 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 28, 2017 at 2:29 pm

A walk down memory lane:
http://theduran.com/5-discarded-anniversaries-of-western-led-aggression/
And here is the list:

1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)

Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)

The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of lives forever damaged.

USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)

Cortes , October 29, 2017 at 6:23 pm
And no mention of

Indonesia.

Just the 1m plus deaths.

[Dec 21, 2019] All The Countries America Has Invaded... In One Map

Notable quotes:
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Aug 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Tyler Durden Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0 SHARES US has had a military presence across the world , from almost day one of its independence. For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research required to find an answer, The Anti Media points out that a crew at the Independent just made things a whole lot simpler.

Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.

To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:

" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.

But indy100 didn't stop there. To put all that history into context, using data from the Department of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly 200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.

For more details, click on the country:

[Dec 21, 2019] War is the health of the state, but death of empires

Notable quotes:
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Sean , August 25, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?

You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like, or how long it would last.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny, peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.

For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies, living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.

And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.

In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.

While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through unlimited war) I take a different view.

Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting, to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together for mutual advantage and defence .

The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.

Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.

[Dec 21, 2019] War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror

Aug 22, 2017 | warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm

Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem. At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.

"War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" . http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

[Dec 21, 2019] There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK military forces thinking

Notable quotes:
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anonymous | Aug 4, 2017 7:00:33 PM | 37

Enrico Malatesta @13

The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.

There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.

[Dec 21, 2019] William Astore on War as Art and Advertising – Antiwar.com Blog

Notable quotes:
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.

A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.

For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans, living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism: two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.

If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration. What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly, with no human backstory.)

Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy) are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.

Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?

Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole, is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.

So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!

My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.

As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up your own brush and compose away in the comments section.

P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.

William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

Jim Savell , 19 hours ago

Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.

[Dec 21, 2019] In places like Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the United States is deepening its involvement in wars while diplomacy becomes largely an afterthought

Mar 31, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
anne , March 30, 2017 at 12:47 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/world/middleeast/us-war-footprint-grows-in-middle-east.html

March 29, 2017

U.S. War Footprint Grows, With No Endgame in Sight
By BEN HUBBARD and MICHAEL R. GORDON

In places like Yemen, Syria and Iraq, the United States is deepening its involvement in wars while diplomacy becomes largely an afterthought.

ilsm -> anne... , March 30, 2017 at 01:51 PM
14 years as if US were going strong on Hanoi in '79!

Putin is a Tibetan Buddhist compared to Obama and so forth

mulp -> anne... , March 30, 2017 at 04:30 PM
Well, sending US troops is a US jobs program.

Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more demand for labor produced goods.

[Dec 21, 2019] The Pentagon s New Map War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Azblue on July 31, 2006

Global cop

Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language.

The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap, may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.

The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing globalization.

After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S. now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle East), but a condition (disconnectedness).

Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs. individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."

Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea, Syria or Iran.

Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future, system-wide dangers to globalization.

At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.

Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built.

What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are) the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are, leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.

Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."

Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen 18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.

The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?

Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?

Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history as Barnett councils; heed it.

Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride. Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.

I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.

It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.

I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed.

Alan H. Macdonald on April 1, 2013
A misused book waiting for redemption

I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire gets its hands on.

For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama (but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing "The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.

"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.

Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful, guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets ---- quite yet!

Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.

"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country."

[Dec 21, 2019] We are all Palestinians: possible connection between neocons and Pentagon

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

schrub , August 25, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT

People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.

Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close look at their opinions about Israel.

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.

Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..

Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns "the size of your hand".

On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them. No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go along".

If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.

Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to. Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit Israel, our troops would simply not be there.

We are all Palestinians.

[Apr 23, 2019] Groupthink at the CIA by Philip Giraldi

Looks like tail wags the dog -- CIA controls the US foreign policy and in the last elections also played active role in promoting Hillary. A the level of top brass we have several people mentioned by Giraldi who are probably as dangerous as Allen Dulles was. Brennan is one example.
The parade of rogues that Philip describes is really alarming. Each with agenda that directly harms the USA as a country promoting the interest of military-industrial complex and neocon faction within the government...
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter. ..."
"... Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort. ..."
"... Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago. ..."
"... Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. ..."
"... Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down. ..."
"... And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time. ..."
"... Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia. ..."
"... The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. ..."
"... As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State. ..."
"... The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes. ..."
"... The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done. ..."
"... The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. ..."
"... While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi. ..."
"... I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama. ..."
"... Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness. ..."
"... How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN. ..."
"... Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began. ..."
"... Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. ..."
"... So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face. ..."
"... Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections. ..."
"... What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action. ..."
"... To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible. ..."
Aug 01, 2017 | www.unz.com

Long ago, when I was a spear carrying middle ranker at CIA, a colleague took me aside and said that he had something to tell me "as a friend," that was very important. He told me that his wife had worked for years in the Agency's Administrative Directorate, as it was then called, where she had noticed that some new officers coming out of the Career Trainee program had red tags on their personnel files. She eventually learned from her boss that the tags represented assessments that those officers had exceptional potential as senior managers. He added, however, that the reverse appeared to be true in practice as they were generally speaking serial failures as they ascended the bureaucratic ladder, even though their careers continued to be onward and upward on paper. My friend's wife concluded, not unreasonably, that only genuine a-holes had what it took to get promoted to the most senior ranks.

I was admittedly skeptical but some recent activity by former and current Directors and Acting Directors of CIA has me wondering if something like my friend's wife's observation about senior management might indeed be true. But it would have to be something other than tagging files, as many of the directors and their deputies did not come up through the ranks and there seems to be a similar strain of lunacy at other U.S. government intelligence agencies. It might be time to check the water supply in the Washington area as there is very definitely something in the kool-aid that is producing odd behavior.

Now I should pause for a moment and accept that the role of intelligence services is to identify potential threats before they become active, so a certain level of acute paranoia goes with the job. But at the same time, one would expect a level of professionalism which would mandate accuracy rather than emotion in assessments coupled with an eschewing of any involvement in the politics of foreign and national security policy formulation. The enthusiasm with which a number of senior CIA personnel have waded into the Trump swamp and have staked out positions that contradict genuine national interests suggests that little has been learned since CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State Colin Powell in the UN and nodded sagaciously as Saddam Hussein's high crimes and misdemeanors were falsely enumerated.

Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter.

Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort.

The most recent inexplicable comments come from the current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking at the Aspen Institute Security Forum. He began by asserting that Russia had interfered in the U.S. election before saying that the logic behind Russia's Middle Eastern strategy is to stay in place in Syria so Moscow can "stick it to America." He didn't define the "it" so one must assume that "it" stands for any utensil available, ranging from cruise missiles to dinner forks. He then elaborated, somewhat obscurely, that "I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find that something that's useful."

Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago.

Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee back in May, he suggested that some Trump associates might have been recruited by the Russian intelligence service. He testified that "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."

In his testimony, Brennan apparently forgot to mention that the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens. Nor did he explain how he had come upon the information in the first place as it had been handed over by foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and at least some of it had been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate started.

Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down.

A lesser known former CIA senior official is John McLaughlin, who briefly served as acting Director in 2004. McLaughlin was particularly outraged by Trump's recent speech to the Boy Scouts, which he described as having the feel "of a third world authoritarian's youth rally." He added that "It gave me the creeps it was like watching the late Venezuelan [President Hugo] Chavez."

And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

I and others noted at the time that Putin and Trump had never met, not even through proxies, while we also wondered how one could be both unwitting and a recruited agent as intelligence recruitment implies control and taking direction. Morell was non-plussed, unflinching and just a tad sanctimonious in affirming that his own intelligence training (as an analyst who never recruited a spy in his life) meant that "[I] call it as I see it."

One could also cite Michael Hayden and James Clapper, though the latter was not CIA They all basically hew to the same line about Russia, often in more-or-less the same words, even though no actual evidence has been produced to support their claims. That unanimity of thinking is what is peculiar while academics like Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, and John Mearsheimer, who have studied Russia in some depth and understand the country and its leadership far better than a senior CIA officer, detect considerable nuance in what is taking place. They all believe that the hardline policies current in Washington are based on an eagerness to go with the flow on the comforting inside-the- beltway narrative that paints Russia as a threat to vital interests. That unanimity of viewpoint should surprise no one as this is more of less the same government with many of the same people that led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They all have a vested interested in the health and well-being of a fully funded national security state.

And the other groupthink that seems to prevail among the senior managers except Pompeo is that they all hate Donald Trump and have done so since long before he won the election. That is somewhat odd, but it perhaps reflects a fear that Trump would interfere with the richly rewarding establishment politics that had enabled their careers. But it does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CIA employees. Though it is admittedly unscientific analysis on my part, I know a lot of former and some current CIA employees but do not know a single one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Nearly all voted for Trump.

Beyond that exhibition of tunnel vision and sheer ignorance, the involvement of former senior intelligence officials in politics is itself deplorable and is perhaps symptomatic of the breakdown in the comfortable bipartisan national security consensus that has characterized the past fifty years. Once upon time former CIA officers would retire to the Blue Ridge mountains and raise Labradors, but we are now into something much more dangerous if the intelligence community, which has been responsible for most of the recent leaks, begins to feel free to assert itself from behind the scenes. As Senator Chuck Schumer recently warned "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."

exiled off mainstreet, August 1, 2017 at 5:06 am GMT

In jumping this fascist nihilist shark, the groupthinkers have closed themselves off from the logical conclusion to their viewpoint, which is final annihilation.

Dan Hayes, August 1, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

Schumer's statement is true (and probably the only such one in his political career!).

annamaria, August 1, 2017 at 6:03 am GMT

Brennan, Morell, and Pompeo should better find ways to justify their salaries: the U.S. has suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity on their watch:

" an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump, but t he media avoids providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised Congress ."

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-awan-brothers-compromised-at-least-80-congregational-computers-and-got-paid-5-million-to-do-it-we-may-never-know-the-extent-of-the-breach/

"In total, Imran's firm was employed by 31 Democrats in Congress, some of whom held extremely sensitive positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Committee on Foreign Affair s."

polistra, August 1, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT

Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time.

Bruce Marshall, August 1, 2017 at 6:39 am GMT

And back to reality we have VIPS Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia.

That is war, World War Three and it would seem now that Congress is marching that way, but the report below hold the key to fighting back.

http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_30-39/2017-30/pdf/37-41_4430.pdf

One of the VIPS is William Binney fomer NSA Technical Director, an important expert. leading the group is Ray McGovern with some whit and grace, well yes how about some sanity, to which humor is important to the insight and to stay in the sights of what is clever thievery and worse. Much worse, and there is a twinkle in the eye when realize that it is straight forward.

And Congress could stop it tout sweet, but well old habits but they have taken an Oath of Office, so, so what, yeah they did go after Bernie, so will you challenge your elected officials, either do their sworn duty or resign, for what this sanctions bill against Russia and Iran is a declaration of war, not only against Russia and Iran, but a declaration of war against the United States. for there is no reason to do this against Russia when indeed there are great opportunities to get along, but war is the insanity as it is sedition and treason. Tell them that,

https://larouchepac.com/20170731/breaking-lyndon-larouche-crush-british-coup-against-president

Priss Factor, • Website August 1, 2017 at 7:01 am GMT

Moderate Rebels = Toothfairy Rebels

jilles dykstra, August 1, 2017 at 7:21 am GMT

I wonder if groupthink exists. In any organisation people know quite well why the organisation exists, what the threats are to its existence. If they think about this, I wonder.

The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. If indeed Trump changes USA foreign policy, no longer trying to control the world, the CIA is obsolete, as obsolete as NATO.

animalogic, August 1, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT

" but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter."

Not to defend the CIA, but didn't Rumsfeld, doubt the enthusiasm of the CIA for providing the slanted, bogus, "sexed up" intelligence the Executive required to make its "destroy Iraq now" case ? So Rumsfeld therefore set up an independent intelligence agency within the Defence Dept to provide/create the required "intelligence" ?

The Alarmist, August 1, 2017 at 7:45 am GMT

I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find that something that's useful."

Yeah, because that's what resource-constrained countries with limited ability to tap the global capital markets do. Methinks Mr. Pompeo is projecting his and the neocons' fantasies on the Russians.

Realist, August 1, 2017 at 10:14 am GMT

As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State.

CalDre, August 1, 2017 at 10:43 am GMT

If only Trump would really clean the swamp – particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and globalists. One can dream .

Wizard of Oz, August 1, 2017 at 11:04 am GMT

Being resistant to jargon and catch phrases it is only slowly that I have accepted that "Deep State" is not entirely pretentious waffle when used to describe aspects of the US. However I may not be your only reader PG who would appreciate a clear explanatory description of the American Deep State and how it works.

Here are some suggested parameters.

The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes.
And its origins imply that it is not just one in a number of major influences ln government or those who vote for it.

So one has to acknowledge that in the US the Deep State has to be different in the important respect that levers of power are observably wielded by lobbies for the aged, gun owners and sellers, Israel, Wall Street, bio fuels, sugar and other ag, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, the arms industry, Disney and other Hollywood and media, health insurers and the medical profession, and I could go on.

These are all relevant to legal events like votes on impeachment or to hold up appointments. The CIA and FBI together completely united (and note how disunited 9/11 showed them to be) wouldn't remotely approach the old Turkish Deep State's ability to stage a coup. Are all of the putative elements of the Deep State together today as powerful as J.Edgar Hoover with his dirt files on everyone? (A contrast and compare exercise of today's presumed Deep State configuration and modus operandi with the simpler Hoover days might shine some light on who does what and how today. And how effectively).

To avoid lack of focus can a convincing account of the US Deep State be best given in terms of a plausible scenario for

  1. getting rid of Trump as President and/or
  2. maintaining the lunacy and hubris which has the US wasting its substance on totally unnecessary antagonistic relations with China and Russia and interference in the ME?

I would read such accounts with great interest. (Handwavers need not apply).

Jake, August 1, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT

Of course the US Deep State must hate Russia. First, Jews have a very long history of hating Russia and Russians. That never changed. The USSR was not Russia; the USSR was Marxism replacing Russia. Jews tended to love that. Rich Jews from across the world, from the US and the UK of most interest to us, sent money to support the Bolshevik Revolution.

Russia managed to survive the USSR and is slowly coming back around to Russian common sense from the Christian perspective. Neither Jews nor their WASP BFFs can ever forgive that. They want Russia to act now to commit cultural and genetic suicide, like Western Europe and the entire Anglosphere are doing.

Jake, August 1, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT

@polistra The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done.

The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency.

jacques sheete, August 1, 2017 at 11:36 am GMT

While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi.

We should always keep that in mind.

Jake, August 1, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

@CalDre If only

But doing so would mean a voluntary end to playing the role of Sauron, determined to find and wear the One Ring to Rule Them All. The average Elite WASP, and his Jewish BFF, definitely would prefer to destroy the world, at least outside their gated compounds of endless luxury, than to step down from that level of global domination.

Philip Giraldi, August 1, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Wiz – Here is an article I did on the Deep State two years ago. It was one of the first in the US media looking at the issue. It would have to be updated now in light of Trump, but much of what it states is still more-or-less correct.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/deep-state-america/

Jake, August 1, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Yes, indeed.

But we need to make certain that your use of the word 'mafiosi' does not lead anyone to assume that group has more than a handful of Italians. Jews, WASPs, and continental Germanics each will outnumber Italians by at least 30 to 1.

Chris Bridges, August 1, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT

I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama.

Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness.

Well before he was elected I had a letter delivered to President Trump in which I outlined in detail what would happen to him if he did not immediately purge the CIA of these assholes. I know that at least some people on his staff read it but, of course, my advice was ignored. Trump has paid dearly for not listening to an ordinary CIA guy who wanted to give him a reality brief on those vicious snakes.

Proud_Srbin, August 1, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

Historical facts teach humanity that Anglo-Saxon group of Nations was built on slavery, thuggery and theft of other peace loving Civilizations. We Slavs are the New "niggers", hate is the glue that holds you "toGether".
People of color have been successfully conditioned and practice it as well.
Time will tell how well it holds when balloon bursts and 99% gets called to serve as cannon fodder.
Terrorizing UNARMED and WEAKER is not true test of "superiority" and "exceptionalism".
Tiny, extremely tiny minority of Anglo-Saxons and Satraps understand this.

Bernie voter, August 1, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT

How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN.

Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began.

Beauracratic Mind, August 1, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

I wonder if groupthink exists.

It probably does as do group psychoses and group fantasies.. Anyone who's ever served in a beuaracracy knows that groupthink exists.

Take a bunch of mediocre minds. And, they do exist, as Garrison Keiler once famously made a joke out of with his line Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.

Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. If everyone is wrong, then there is safety in the group. After all, if they are wrong, so was everyone else in the organization. Thus they are immune to attack and censure for being wrong. But if someone takes a position outside of the group consensus, that can be a career-ending move if they are wrong, as now everyone else will be in the I-told-U-So camp. And even if they are correct, they will still be hated and shunned just for being the person who pointed out to the group that they are wrong.

So, you take your typical average mind, and not only do they not have any great insights of their own, but they tend to stick to the group out of sheer survival and then when you take a mass of these mediocre minds you have 'groupthink'.

Eticon, August 1, 2017 at 2:00 pm GMT

@CalDre

If only Trump would really clean the swamp - particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and globalists. One can dream ....

What we've learned from Trump is that 'Draining the Swamp' will take more than an individual. It will take a political movement.

One sees this on the fringes of politics. Someone gets the idea of running for President, and they point out all that is wrong. But, they focus only on their own campaign, their own goal, and they thus gloss over the fact that they'll be outnumbered and powerless even if they win.

Seen this often on the Left. The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Likewise, had Bernie been elected President, he too would face an entrenched establishment and media with only a small fraction of the Congress supporting him.

Change has to be built from the bottom up. There are no shortcuts. Electing a Trump, or a Nader or a Bernie does not lead to real change. Step one is to build the political movement such that it has real voting block power and which has already won voting majorities in the legislature before the movement achieves the election of a President.

What Trump has needed to be doing for this first two years is to form clear divisions that he could then take to his voters in the mid-term elections. He's needed to lay out his own agenda. So what if he loses votes in Congress? He then takes that agenda back to the voters in 2018 with a nationwide slate of Congressional candidates who support that agenda and runs a midterm campaign asking the voters to help him drain that swamp.

So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face.

Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections.

ChuckOrloski, August 1, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

@Jake Hey Jake,

It is a serious error to consider President Trump "naive."

What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action.

To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible.

Mr. Trump is neither naive nor stupid. Sheldon Adelson would not donate $millioms to any POTUS wannabe who could not effectively lead the American Groupthink tradition. Subsequently, the political horror show is brought to you in the understandable form of the perpetually elusive Deep State which gets annual Academy Award.

Beware the fake, Jake!,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pamela Geller: Thank You, Larry David

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasbarist 'Kenny', you said:

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

You continue to claim what you cannot prove.

But then you are a Jews First Zionist.

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

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

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

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

+ review of other frauds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.

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

They are given the political line and they broadcast it.

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

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

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

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

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

So what are you going to do about all this?

Continue to whine?

Continue to keep your head stuck in your ass?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Think Peace -- Art

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are being exceptionally arrogant.

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

Think Peace -- Art

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

right at 1:47

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

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

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

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

MAGA bitches!

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

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

A Peoples History of the USA? Which Peoples?

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

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

[Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

Highly recommended!
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
And on the heels of Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes , Greenwald asserted in an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.

https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2017/2/16/greenwald_empowering_the_deep_state_to

Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned the motives behind them.

"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true, this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries in the Trump White House."

According to an in-depth report by journalist Mike Lofgren:

"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."

As Greenwald explained during his interview:

"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."

Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald noted that Mike Morell, acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump during the presidential campaign.

Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.

"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."

"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."

Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel ban.

He continued:

"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."

He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.

As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties, across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."

He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.

[Mar 05, 2019] The Shadow Governments Destruction Of Democracy

Highly recommended!
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
Feb 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
And on the heels of Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes , Greenwald asserted in an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.

https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2017/2/16/greenwald_empowering_the_deep_state_to

Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned the motives behind them.

"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true, this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries in the Trump White House."

According to an in-depth report by journalist Mike Lofgren:

"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."

As Greenwald explained during his interview:

"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."

Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald noted that Mike Morell, acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump during the presidential campaign.

Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.

"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."

"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."

Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel ban.

He continued:

"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."

He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.

As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties, across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."

He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.

[Mar 02, 2019] Watters Words The swamp strikes back

Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Feb 18, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal

Louis John 2 hours ago

@hexencoff

McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag

Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.

ryvr madduck 1 hour ago

+belaghoulashi

Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?

Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo

don't they...they do say shit floats.

Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago

@Michael Cambo - Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living - explain to me how he is draining the swamp

tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks

He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies 2017 the best is yet to come

Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan

Very FakeStream Media

aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News Network.

Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago

@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country - if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree

[Mar 02, 2019] Pulling a J. Edgar Hoover on Trump

So the coup against the President was exposed already in Jan 2017 and Trump did not take any measures to prevent the appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick. ..."
"... However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets. ..."
"... In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide. ..."
"... Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years. ..."
"... Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people. ..."
"... Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart. ..."
"... The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet) ..."
"... At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". ..."
"... I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. ..."
"... Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? ..."
Jan 12, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: President-elect Trump is fending off a U.S. intelligence leak of unproven allegations that he cavorted with Russian prostitutes, but the darker story might be the CIA's intervention in U.S. politics, reports Robert Parry.

The decision by the U.S. intelligence community to include in an official report some unverified and salacious accusations against President-elect Donald Trump resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press.

Legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

In this case, as leaders of the U.S. intelligence community were pressing Trump to accept their assessment that the Russian government had tried to bolster Trump's campaign by stealing and leaking actual emails harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Trump was confronted with this classified "appendix" describing claims about him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room.

Supposedly, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan included the unproven allegations in the report under the rationale that the Russian government might have videotaped Trump's misbehavior and thus could use it to blackmail him. But the U.S. intelligence community also had reasons to want to threaten Trump who has been critical of its performance and who has expressed doubts about its analysis of the Russian "hacking."

After the briefing last Friday, Trump and his incoming administration did shift their position, accepting the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta. But I'm told Trump saw no evidence that Russia then leaked the material to WikiLeaks and has avoided making that concession.

Still, Trump's change in tone was noted by the mainstream media and was treated as an admission that he was abandoning his earlier skepticism. In other words, he was finally getting onboard the intelligence community's Russia-did-it bandwagon. Now, however, we know that Trump simultaneously had been confronted with the possibility that the unproven stories about him engaging in unorthodox sex acts with prostitutes could be released, embarrassing him barely a week before his inauguration.

The classified report, with the explosive appendix, was also given to President Obama and the so-called "Gang of Eight," bipartisan senior members of Congress responsible for oversight of the intelligence community, which increased chances that the Trump accusations would be leaked to the press, which indeed did happen.

Circulating Rumors

The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick.

However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets.

Trump has denounced the story as "fake news" and it is certainly true that the juicy details – reportedly assembled by a former British MI-6 spy named Christopher Steele – have yet to check out. But the placement of the rumors in a U.S. government document gave the mainstream media an excuse to publicize the material.

It's also allowed the media to again trot out the Russian word "kompromat" as if the Russians invented the game of assembling derogatory information about someone and then using it to discredit or blackmail the person.

In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide.

However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump. It could just be rumors concocted in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, first among Republicans battling Trump for the nomination (this opposition research was reportedly initiated by backers of Sen. Marco Rubio in the GOP race) before being picked up by Clinton supporters for use in the general election.

Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years.

Hurting Both Candidates

Though I was skeptical of that information, it did turn out that FBI Director James Comey, one of the top officials in the intelligence community, badly damaged Clinton's campaign by deeming her handling of her emails as Secretary of State "extremely careless" but deciding not to prosecute her – and then in the last week of the campaign briefly reopening and then re-closing the investigation.

Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people.

The intelligence community's assessment set the stage for what could have been a revolt by the Electoral College in which enough Trump delegates could have refused to vote for him to send the election into the House of Representatives, where the states would choose the President from one of the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College. The third-place finisher turned out to be former Secretary of State Colin Powell who got four votes from Clinton delegates in Washington State. But the Electoral College ploy failed when Trump's delegates proved overwhelmingly faithful to the GOP candidate.

Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media.

Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump or whether the intelligence community genuinely thought that the accusations might be true and deserved inclusion in a report on alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics or whether it was some combination of the two, we are witnessing a historic moment when the U.S. intelligence community has deployed its extraordinary powers within the domain of U.S. politics. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Bryan Hemming , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

Excuse the mixed metaphors, but this looks like another entirely predictable nail in the coffin of US democracy, as the chickens come home to roost. For some time it has been quite obvious the CIA has been pulling strings from behind the scenes to make whatever puppet occupies the White House dance to its tune. But it won't end there. Only when the CIA climbs completely out of the coffin can the epic finale between the CIA, FBI and NSA begin.

The big question is as to how long the people of states like Texas and Florida stand by in the wings as the theater catches fire.

There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.

Jean-David , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am

Don't mix your metaphors before they are hatched. ;-) Reply

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm

There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.

The United States has been accused of decadence for decades by Americans and non-Americans without much concern being shown by anyone not in a certain minority. The great tragedy of a decadent way of life is its durability.

In 1961 William Lederer's book, "A Nation of Sheep" revealed the abuse of American power and the ignorance of the American people regarding this misrule. Nothing much has changed since then except the names of the aggressors and their primary geographic areas of intended domination. The mass of people are essentially clueless and content to believe whatever lies and salacious tales are told them from the nation's Towers of Babel. This is in line with human history that shows people of authoritarian dispositions tend to be more aggressive and dominant in politics and commerce and the masses accept their lot as long as they get enough crumbs from establishment's plate..

(The title of the book was also an insult to sheep, but that is another story.)

Common Tater , January 12, 2017 at 4:59 pm

The saying goes, "power corrupts," but i believe that it is the corrupt who seek power to begin with.
Most people are content to live and let live, to live by the golden rule, mind their own and reciprocate kindness etc., etc.
Then there are those who get a thrill from exercising control over others. Those are the ones who shoot straight to the top.

Jack Flanigan , January 14, 2017 at 1:47 am

An interesting and clear observation. As an australian I note our system is dominated by two major parties (and I mean dominated) similar to the US. The two parties are vehicles for ambitious and corrupt individuals to fast track political careers. The power rests in these organizations and attracts the corrupt like bees to honey. Reply

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Bill, regarding your sense of human history I might add that for many centuries people couldn't read, except for the aristocracy and the religious sects mostly. The reformation produced a 100 year war and literacy was at an all time low in Luthers time but something motivated them to fight for such a long time, and it wasn't information nor intellect.

Where has our literacy gone which would prevent a repeat of endless war and violence these days? Oh yes, corporate controlled media hiring people who are certain to have no critical thinking skills, no moral rudder, nor worldly experience to shed the scales from their eyes. We are almost in pre-Gutenberg times of short attention spans and 140 character 'news truths' covering the landscape of the ignorant. One can only hope the Tower of the oligarchs Babel has rapidly decaying clay feet. We certainly know how to reduce cultures more ancient than ours to ashes without so much as a second thought regarding the sanctity of life. Where are all the pro-lifers now? Oh yeh, that's only in the womb, and after the umbilical cord is cut they are fair game for destruction. The US values we rave about will really hurt when other cultures treat us as they have been treated.

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Or better yet, we are in Gutenberg times where the "type" is set by the big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at the national level to inhibit discourse, excluding this site of course. Reply

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Or better yet, we are in times of the early press machines, where the "type" is set by the big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at the national level, meant to inhibit discourse and ideas. (excluding this site of course) Reply

Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:41 pm

In its Hoover relation, this article reprises the passage in The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet).

It describes the power struggle involved post-FDR, during-HST 1946-48, at the institution of the CIA (The Agency was not legislatively enacted, only instituted through Executive Order.)
Hoover opposed the creation of an intelligence collection that would compete with the FBI's monopoly of spies snoops and snitches.

The compromise settlement set the FBI with domestic coverage and the CIA with international haunts for its spooks.

Come the the present day, they still have turf wars in power rivalry for budget money.
However, in effect, after the budget shuffle the two legions merge their 'assets' - making each one double its real size. They join in advocating for (the oxymoronic) 'authoritarian morality,' gaining both the unlawfulness funded in the Judiciary with same unlawfulness, (or, being 'outlaw,' 'above the law'), funded by the Executive.

You can depend that they employ the same techniques. Coercion, extortion, blackmail, assassination, torture, defamation, slander and Press Release aspersion. The polity is hung pendant on those strings the outlaws pull. Or, 'hanged' pendant.

As Hoover, so Clapper et al.

Trump seems to have reconsided, maybe recanted, his defiance of 'intelligence' after he has seen some truth in it regarding things he knows he did in places he knows he was. He knows he dare not let the public see him through the cyclopian 'eye' of the intelligentia illumination.
_____
My wit sez, Lo! That explains his undocumented wife - he heard about Russian mail-order brides and flew off to visit the showroom. And brought back some capital equipment, manufactured in foreign lands.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:04 pm

The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet)

Try alibris or abebooks dot coms. They have copies.

Joe Lauria , January 14, 2017 at 9:08 am

There's a Kindle edition available. Reply

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:34 am

Good comment Bryan, but I wonder if we should pay attention at all to this decline of everything, not only of democracy. Yet, I wish to highlight two humorous comments which best characterise the situation.

The first one was a title I saw on Russia-Insider website: "Trump watch out! John Brennan throws even a kitchen sink at Trump in desperation."

The other was a comment by a zero-hedge reader: "Trump could have had sex with a goat in a Moscow hotel room and be videod as much as I care if he only delivers on his election promises. I voted based on his policy promises, not on his sexual preferences."

The sexual smear is so 20th century, the same as the CIA – obsolete.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:39 am

To continue on the humorous side, the vile RT has one on the Pornhub reporting a huge increase in searches for "Golden Showers". Perhaps the kiddies are adding a new term to their vocabularies.

https://www.rt.com/viral/373545-pornhub-golden-showers-trump/ Reply

rosemerry , January 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm

It seems that Trump supporters are many and varied, and very loyal. To pretend that all these shenanigans were needed to help elect him against such a faulty candidate as Hillary is pathetic in the extreme. The terrible results, when we see how the new Administration is being gently helped by the Senate including Democrats, will be bad for us all if their warlike statements lead to facts. However, Obama's sending of 2800 tanks and 4000 troops to help Germany(!) and Poland against "Russian aggression" right now, plus Hillary's promises, do not give a hopeful alternative scenario for the "land of the free" or peace on earth. Reply

W. R. Knight , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

The saddest part of this entire debacle is that the intelligence agencies, as well as main stream media, the president and most members of Congress have destroyed their own credibility. Lacking credibility, they cannot be believed; and when they cannot be believed, they cannot be trusted; and a government that cannot be trusted is doomed.

J. D. , January 12, 2017 at 1:35 pm

Trump proved more feisty than expected at his first press conference as President-Elect, hitting back at both Buzzfeed ('You're fake news" and CNN ("you're organization is terrible") And went on to say that "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a liability," describing the urgency of cooperation in defeating terrorism. Lost in the shuffle however was the source of the lies - British intelligence agencies.In fact, the NYTimes reported Jan. 6 that the official report released last week by the US intelligence agencies, which accused Putin of subverting the U.S. election, also came from British intelligence, which "raised an alarm that Moscow had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer servers, and alerted their American counterparts.Talk about foreign interference.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:52 pm

friends of Israel in action in the UK Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:40 pm

A 4 chan blogger wrote it as a hoax Reply

Steve Abbott , January 12, 2017 at 2:15 pm

Get with the program! We are supposed to believe that all we have heard from and about the CIA in this century was pure and innocent incompetence, and should therefore continue to put all of our faith in their motives and methods. Reply

Godfree Roberts , January 13, 2017 at 4:55 am

Do you know which major government is the most trusted by its citizens?
The Edelman Corporation does. They've been doing 'government trust' surveys for decades. Check it out. http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanAPAC/2016-edelman-trust-barometer-china-english .
Hint: China Reply

Dan Kuhn , January 12, 2017 at 11:08 am

The entire sordid mess needs to be dismantled brick by brick and rebuilt from the ground up. Washington should be razed to the ground. It is beyond rescuing. it is beyond saving. It is rotten from the foundations to the pinicle of the obilisk. The American People should declare war on Washington DC and invade the place and clean house. Bring the Guillotine along with them and the baskets for the heads.

The stench is overwhelming. It needs to be cleaned up. No it needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. One of the founding fathers said that periodically, the tree of democracy had to be watered with blood. That time has arrived. Reply

Znam Svashta , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am

George Orwell predicted our current mess in his classic, "1984". Interestingly, that was the year that the neocons took over the Pentagon's Office of Risk Assessment, the State Department, and the whore-house American media. Reply

Lin Cleveland , January 12, 2017 at 11:50 am

What's going on here? I think Julian Assange may be on to something. ( my bold )

"Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider , he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better."–Julian Assange

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Thanks, Lin [for your 'bold.' Assange and Snowden are two voices "in the wilderness" always worth listening to. Reply

Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Brilliant– as always. No matter how vilified JA is and no matter how much he's lied about, he still is a force for reason and subversion, both of which we desparately need. Thanks for the quote. Reply

D5-5 , January 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm

Curious to me in the two-pronged attack on Trump (a. demonizing to delegitimize and replace with Pence coming from the political establishment; b. hysterical fear of Trump coming from left wing journalism sources including left-oriented alternative news sites) is why the hysteria in the left continues so virulently. Assange's comment, to me, is balanced and sober. We don't know what will happen out of Trump and his collection of "idiosyncratic personalities," we don't know what will turn out "change for the worse and change for the better," and all the fear-mongering from people like Robert Reich, appearing regularly in Truthdig, is entirely speculative. I then question–would these same people on the left, that I once thought to be colleagues, prefer Hillary Clinton and "consolidation of power in the existing ruling class"? This fracturing in what I had thought was an intelligent left opposition is disturbing.

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 9:36 pm

As an "old leftie" myself, I'd have to agree with Paul Craig Roberts that there IS no left anymore. It was co-opted and bought by Big Money. Maybe we need to forget about "left" and "right" and operate according to our own minds rather tha taking our cues from apologists for the establishment like Robert Reich. But it sounds like you're already doing that. Reply

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm

Change that will undoubtedly benefit the privileged in a big way.

I don't give a crap about if Trump had prostitutes. That's between he and his wife. What I do care about is if there are Trump financial threads to Russia and if his team had illegal meetings with Moscow before the election. There are too many questions that need to be answered.

Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts.

Why won't he release his tax returns? It could only mean he is hiding something.

What benefit does the world intelligence community gain in smearing a president elect? Is it financial? idealogical? Power? Are they not tied and beholdened more to the entrenched financial hierarchies then to the ever changing political landscape?

What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info? Money, fame, a 2nd home in Portugal?

How does anyone watching that press conference not come away with the chilly realization that our president-elect is psychologically impaired? My god you don't have to be a trained psychologist to see the guy has some serious mental health issues.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

"He's a vicious killer " – this is a music for the Kagans' clan Reply

JayHobeSound , January 13, 2017 at 4:10 am

"What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?"

Reportedly he asked his neighbours to feed his cats and he went into hiding. Bizarre.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article126129709.html Reply

Godfree Roberts , January 13, 2017 at 4:59 am

'Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts.'
Facts? I'm pretty familiar with Putin's career and I've seen nothing to suggest that Putin is a killer at all.
Can you provide links to evidence? Not just links to other people making assertions without evidence, please. Reply

Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm

"Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts."
You talking about Trump or Putin? In any case has Russia or Putin killed as many people as America or Obama. The "facts" say no, not even close. Reply

stinky rafsanjani , January 16, 2017 at 9:36 am

vicious killer? since when is that a bad thing? jinkies, obama of nobel fame
sends missiles and drones around the planet, bombing and killing for fun and
profit. why, he even orders the assassination of citizens of his own country,
without trial even. meanwhile, putin has, umm look! a squirrel!

James van Oosterom , January 16, 2017 at 11:45 am

Nobody said it was a bad thing. You're inferring things. Stick to squirrels . Ah yes, the door . Reply

Andreas Wirsén , January 12, 2017 at 11:54 am

A "new phase" in Intelligence meddling with presidential candidates, yes – but only in how openly they stand behind it as the source. Campaigns to scandalize unwanted primary challengers have been alleged before. Senator Gary Hart, for one, has said in interviews he believes he was caught in a honey trap, which cost him his candidacy.

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

Gary Hart, a potentially strong contender, was also [like Trump] not up to Deep State's standards in Russophobia. Reply

LongGoneJohn , January 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm

Didn't Trump just acknowledge that attacks on cyber US infrastructure including the DNC takes place, in a general way? That is what his statement read and to me that does not sound like "Trump acknowledges Russian DNC hack" at all.

So is it me, or ?

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:12 pm

No, LGJ, it's not just you who can read through MSMB[ullsh t.] Reply

Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 12:05 pm

If Trump & Co. accept "the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails," they are only saying that, as is common knowledge, everybody hacks everybody. This is not, as Parry says, an acceptance of the intelligence "assessment" that Putin or Russian hackers released the emails, or even got them. Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.

Assange and Murray might be right, and they might not. There is a term being tossed around – "cutout". Just because an intermediary claims to be a DNC leaker doesn't mean he actually was such.

Under the circumstances I just don't care. Now if the Russians or Chinese or Ugandans or anybody else had done more than facilitate the release of true information useful to voters, I'd be agitated myself. Not that I'd expect anybody else to be. US votes have been hacked ever since the no-verify touchscreen devices were first introduced, and nobody in authority has given a hoot about it.

Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm

Zachary–you are so right. It drives me crazy that Bush got away with stealing the voting system and all the Damn Dems care about is using it themselves. And now it drives me crazy that the Clintonistas took down Bernie and are getting away with it. With that cat's paw Obusha hanging around to "work" on rebuilding the DNC, we'll never see democracy again.

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 6:52 am

We must indeed Dump the Dems. We need a progressive party.

There is a strong progressive majority everywhere which is being deliberately fragmented by the Dems. In the US, Clinton supporters must unify not only with the critics of Dem warmongering for Israel and KSA, but also with the Trumpers who want economic security in a rapacious oligarchic state. Clinton supporters will have to admit their mistake and abandon the Dems as a scam of oligarchy serving only as a backstop for the Repubs.

The solution is for a third party to align moderate progressives (national health care, no wars of choice, income security) with parts of the traditional right (fundamentalists, flag-wavers, make America great) leaving out only the extreme right (wars, discrimination, big business imperialism), use individual funding, and rely upon broad platform appeal to marginalize the Dems as the third party.

RMDC , January 13, 2017 at 9:28 am

Sam F. I agree with you but you have to stop using the term "progressive." The Clinton faction of the demo party owns that term. It arose with John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Podesta is the ideologue of contemporary progressivism. It has nothing to do with the Progressive movement of the early 20th century.

The right term is Sander's term: Democratic Socialism. I know socialism is a problematic term, too, but at least it is now claimed by the right people.

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 2:20 pm

RMDC: Do you think "Progressive" can be brought back to its original meaning, or given a better one, despite people falsely claiming to be progressive? Sanders' term might be incorporated into that. It would be nice to deny the fakers the use of it.

Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:23 pm

"we'll never see democracy again."

Humm? When did we last see that "democracy" thing? Reply

Bill Cash , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Trump could end all this by releasing his tax returns but he won't do it. I believe the intelligence community had fears that once inaugurated, Trump would squash the whole thing. The Russian connection is the only theory that connects all the dots. I'm waiting t see what happens with Assange. Will he suddenly be able to go to Sweden?
As far as Trump's behavior, don't forget he was accused of raping a 13 year old girl but the woman had to withdraw the suit because her life was threatened.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Why is your post such a strong reminder of Pizzagate? Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm

Wont make any difference what t he does. He's an outsider. There's no escape except trying & convicting the traitors running obama. Reply

Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm

Very interesting column. I guess Mr. Trump is getting a lesson in who really runs things around here. Reply

Patricia Victour , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm

Unless Trump killed a prostitute on film, how could whatever is on the alleged video be any worse than the pussy-grabbing debacle and all the other accusations of sexual predation? I don't think you can embarrass Trump. He would just brush it off, and his base would probably think he was a super stud.

Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Oh, I don't know, they could well have much worse stuff to leak, given Mr. Trump's complete lack of control of his desires.

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:59 pm

I collected a lot of "stuff" on Trump from the internet in the past year, and was surprised to see virtually none of it used against him. My best guess is that Hillary & Co. didn't think it was necessary against their carefully selected "easiest" opponent. That "stuff" is still available, and might well be used to buttress wilder and unverifiable claims.

col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Yesterday on anther site i wrote how Hillary was complicit in a very serious charge.
Please watch video titles, where is Eric braverman on you tube . I have watched some and most of the material gives you the reality of what is occurring. A example is this. A fact is Gaddafi wanted to have some kind of gold backed Dina money policy. Fact. So Libya had a lot of gold maybe hundreds of tons. Where is it now. Did the "invaders' get it with their usual cut out Libyan man?
In the spirit of trying to make a better world i put this up, it seems political unbiased however it shows the Clinton as they are?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vam6qxfQrgA

day 70

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:48 pm

"For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi's rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/20/libya-from-africas-wealthiest-democracy-under-gaddafi-to-terrorist-haven-after-us-intervention/

"Libya's Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

"African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya's own state-owned bank.
That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it."

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987399/why_qaddafi_had_to_go_african_gold_oil_and_the_challenge_to_monetary_imperialism.html

dave , January 12, 2017 at 3:24 pm

Speaking of "leaks", isn't the specific accusation in this case that Trump paid a prostitute to "take a leak" on the bed where he believed the Obamas had spent the night? (So I guess it was the prostitute that had "worse stuff to leak"!)

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:58 pm

And while no one at Trump's press conference mentioned the specifics, Trump stated, "Does anyone really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me."

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Check Chan4

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 11:04 pm

Anna, do you mean the British television programme?

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm

What? Dim wit. Reply

backwardsevolution , January 12, 2017 at 12:36 pm

The Saker writes in "The Neocon's Declaration of War Against Trump":

"After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump. [ ] All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed. [ ]

As I predicted it before the election, the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of Americans will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life

If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA."

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:54 pm

If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people.

At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". I suspect that's why a great many of them joined up in the first place. Finally, carefully chosen drone operators thousands or tens of thousands of miles away won't have the slightest problem slaughtering evildoers. That's what they do all the time in their regular jobs.

Brad Owen , January 12, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Don't forget veterans, millions of them. When THEY stepped up to the North Dakota pipeline, security forces backed off. Backwards' described scenario could be our "1991" moment to break free and break the Deep State, and reinstating Glass-Steagall would break their Imperial paymasters in The City and The Street. A new World could suddenly come about, faster than even the USSR/Warsaw Pact disappeared. Reply

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:14 pm

At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".

Police departments all over the U.S. and other nations have a long history of acting as goon squads and occasional firing squads for their local establishments. Lots of examples in labor histories. Reply

Peter Loeb , January 13, 2017 at 8:23 am

KILLING OUR OWN PEOPLE .

Special thanks to Zachary Smith.

In the US it's called "heroism", patriotism" and the rest. But if we are
inconvenienced to kill our own people, we can kill other peoples'
people. Gigantic weapons deals to Saudi Arabia and Israel
are proof of that.

By the way, did anyone happen to notice in the NDAA (Defense Authorization
Act) the increase of funds to rebels in another country whose goal is to
defeat the Syrian Government?

-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

PS For those who object to our killing our own people in the US join
Black Lives Matter. Reply

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 2:53 am

At the very least, the US should get rid of this prolonged waiting period between the elections and actual assuming power by the president-elect. It was meant to facilitate the orderly transition of power, but as we see now it is serving just the opposite goals. I cannot believe Obama is so keen on hurting Trump he is ready to badly hurt his own country as well. Reply

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:37 pm

Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump

The motive I see is to "soften" him up for his impeachment. Given Trump's temperament, it could be a winning strategy for the people who prefer President Pence. In my barely informed opinion, that would include a majority of both parties in both houses of the US congress.

Joe Tedesky , January 12, 2017 at 1:41 pm

Read section 4 of the 25th amendment .

"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. Although Donald Trump may give one some consternation to his being a qualified person to sit in the Oval Office, Mike Pence may bring down the house with his religious leanings inside of his political philosophy. Either way we Americans are in for a most interesting time of it in our country's brief history. We should all probably prepare ourselves for the worst, and hope that the best will happen.

Zachary wasn't Mike Pense your governor, or do I have you in the wrong state?

Realist , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm

Fascinating and disturbing at the same time. That section was surely MEANT to apply to the president's health and physical capacity to do the job. However, a declaration by the VP (supported only by a simple majority of the cabinet or the congress) "that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" can be based in an insurrection, a coup, or simply the erosion of political capital. Gerald Ford could have argued that Richard Nixon no longer had the support to govern (which is what Nixon himself conceded as the basis for his resignation). It basically gives the VP and whatever insurgents he can muster the ability to quickly overthrow the sitting president without the inconvenience of an impeachment and trial in the Senate. It could be the Maidan without the messy blood all over the pavement. How wonderful.

Very resourceful of you in looking that up, Joe. I would never have imagined the seeds for a coup existed right in the constitution.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:16 am

I have a saying: For the people in law-enforcement, law is a fringe benefit. Those who control law always use it as a tool. Have you ever heard of a coup which was not based on some law, even if it was the one written post-festum by the coup plotters? In other words, a coup is never difficult to justify by the winners.

I have no doubt that the coup that Joe describes is possible. But the issue for the coup plotters has always been: what happens with all the Trump voters after such a coup, the millions of them? Will they sit and just watch the destruction of their social contract?

To some extent such US coup dilemma is not dissimilar to the nuclear war dilemma: easy to start, difficult to finish.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 10:53 am

KIza, nice to hear from you it's been awhile.

Read this link. Trump got 26.8% of the total citizenry to vote for him. In all honesty I haven't seen any polls on how the American populace shakes out on these controversies such as this most recent fake news story, but I would imagine that a clever beat down campaign would be able to soften the blowback .but then again I agree with you to some extent, that by pushing Trump out of office this would have to have some kind of consequence that would not be pretty.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/12/bringing-trump-nation-down-to-size/

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:20 am

Joe, in general I am trying to highlight that it is one thing to bamboozle sheeple with a talk of democracy (which does not exist) and another to openly crush even this reassuring lie. I just cannot see the end game of a US coup and Trump is but a minor obstacle if they want to start it.

Therefore, they really want to make a Trump a lame and controllable President, not to take over. Maintaining a reassuring lie of democracy is a much more sophisticated and efficient control mechanism than direct control. I may we wrong but I do believe that Trump is just being house trained/broken by TPTB in front of our eyes.

You write: I have not seen any polls how American populace shakes out on these controversies.
My reading of the online beat is that the Trump voters are not swayed, whilst the Clinton voters use the "controversy" as confirmation that they were right all along about Trump. But then Clinton voters would receive a confirmation even from an oily rag thrown in their direction. In other words, a mountain shook and a mouse was born – almost no change at all on either side.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm

KIza your comparing Trump's attackers to how the MH17 story was spun is right on.

http://journal-neo.org/2017/01/11/trump-and-mh17-just-one-step-too-far/

Trump is an easy target since his nature is certainly different than that of the usual norm of our politico class who are cookie cutter politicians on the whole. I'm disappointed by how people such as Michael Moore are going out of their way attacking Trump, while they completely ignore how corrupt and dishonest the Clinton's are.

I wouldn't go so far as to predict that Trump supporters won't rebel against his impeachment, but there again I believe the Trump supporters would be out numbered due to an over aggressive media who could sway the majority into believing we must get Trump out of office. Any other method other than impeachment is to horrible to even contemplate, so let's hope that all of our concerns turn to ashes, and that for the good or bad of it that Trump finishes out his first term in good health.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm

Yes, Joe, those 26.8% of citizenry who voted for Trump are built into 75-76% of citizenry who do not believe in the MSM any more and in the John Brennan's two kitchen sinks, that is, his two top secret but leakable kompromat dossiers on Trump – the first one apparently from an MI6 agent and the second one promoted by the BBC (source unknown yet).

But this is not about Clintons any more, this is about the owners of the Clintons training/braking Trump to be like the Clintons. If they cannot have a Clinton as a President, they want to have a President as Clinton. If kompromat does not work, maybe a billet will, their patience is limited.

Always enjoyable to exchange thoughts with you Joe.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 11:14 am

Realist, considering how our country's founders were a bunch of slave owners declaring how all men are created equally well need I say more?

Words are just words, that is until lawyers interpret these legal words into a reality, which doesn't always fit into our own personal definition of a certain word usage. You and I deal with this stuff all the time. Whether it be a traffic ticket, or an ordinance summons, we read one thing, and the judge administers another thing. Prisons are filled with people who swear with, 'yeah but' explanations which give these prisoners no relief what so ever so I do think these crafty legislators could pull a fast one, and install Mike Pence into the White House. Let's you and I hope that I'm the one out in left field with my 25th amendment comment, and that we won't end up with a Christian whack job as our president. Reply

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Yeah, Pence was elected Governor of Indiana. But despite this state being one of the most conservative in the nation, Pence was too "nutty" and "far-right" for Mississippi North, and would have surely been defeated. Now the man is one heartbeat/one impeachment conviction from becoming President of the United States.

Quote: "From his denial of climate change to his belief in creationism, Pence is the most hard-right radical to ever appear on a national ticket. Just this week a federal court had to block his atrocious bill barring Syrian refugees from his state because his reasoning that Syrians scare him is discriminatory."

Quote: "it is a literal truth, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am in Congress today because of Rush Limbaugh, and not because of some tangential impact on my career or his effect on the national debate; but because in fact after my first run for Congress in 1988, it was the new national voice emerging in 1989 across the heartland of Indiana of one Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, that captured my imagination.""

It's a fact we are very, very close to having a Rush 'druggie' Limpaugh clone as President. In my opinion, Pence is Trump's worst mistake up till now. If they can't have Hillary, for the neocons and neo-liberals and the Christian End-Timers there remains Worse-Than-Hillary Mike Pence.

Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.

"The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That's the only legitimate government," contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power." "So when they speak of business, they're speaking not of something separate from God, but they're speaking of what, in Mike Pence's circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system is God-ordained."

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/mike-pence-will-be-the-most-powerful-christian-supremacist-in-us-history/

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Zachary I looked forward to your reply, since you always have references to your level headed comments .so thanks for getting back to me.

In my world I don't even like bringing up the word God, or religion, since I believe a government should be governed in a truly secular way. Who I pray to, and who I pay taxes to, are two completely different things. My devotion to God is a very private matter, and I don't need some politician interpreting God's greatness to me in anyway. So with that if Mike Pense wants to preach the gospel to me, then he should resign from public office and become a full fledged preacher and even then I will not go to his mean spirited church. Amen.

Realist , January 13, 2017 at 3:13 pm

What a troubling coincidence that Hulu is releasing its production of "the Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood this April, which tells the story of the United States government being taken over by extreme Christian fundamentalists and the consequences, especially to women and religious dissenters. Read the book by Atwood and you'll see where Isis/Daesh got many of their ideas on punishment and control of the masses. The Spanish Inquisition was six hundred years ago, but its urges lie just beneath the veneer of our civilised modern world. Human nature hasn't changed, only technology has. I thought this country was in danger of playing out the novel during Dubya's administration, as 9-11 was exactly the kind of pretext for such a takeover in the book's plot narrative and the Islamic world was portrayed as the great global adversary just as many Americans believe in the real world. Trump has never struck me as a religious man, certainly not a zealot, but Pence, with a little help from the Deep State, he could bring this disturbing novel to life.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:16 pm

I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence.

A very plausible and ominous possibility.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:53 am

Seriously Bill even taking into consideration how some like Glenn Beck along with Rick Santelli ridiculed an early President Obama back in 2009, I can't recall a more hostile media such as the likes of how this current day corporate media is going after Trump. True, that Donald Trump by just being Donald Trump can be an outrageous person with his words and actions, but still I just can't get over the 24/7 media coverage, and how most of it isn't good coverage at that. This leaves me to wonder if we all are not being setup for something big.

With Trump's winning streak putting away a whole herd of Republican primary candidates, and how he sent 'low energy Jeb' packing, and then to go on and beat Hillary by his winning the Electoral vote, he has had a great run. Now Donald Trump is battling not only the CIA/FBI/NSA, but he is also bumping up against the congressional establishment. You know that McCain and Graham hate him, but you can only bet that there is yet much more to come.

I'm sorry, but I don't sense there is much good to come with all of this. Thanks for the reply.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:57 am

Joe, I wonder if people missed the crazy similarity of the media campaign on the Trump "report" and the one on MH17 ?

It appears that the TPTB have decided that if they generate enough media screaming, the lack of proof does not matter any more.

Thus, I have become a strong proponent of the theory that whatever TPTB use outside, it is only a practice for what they will use (more productively) inside. Drones anyone?

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:06 pm

KIza read my comment above, it pertains to what you brought up here.

Gregory Herr , January 13, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Weaponized drones anyone?

http://youtu.be/1sK5mDTCNEU

Pablo Diablo , January 12, 2017 at 12:42 pm

All this turmoil and a dysfunctional Congress insures that nothing will change. The 1% loves the status quo and will do anything to preserve it. Simply a smokescreen to keep US from dealing with the corporate stranglehold on our government.
An Empire in decline. Reply

Mike Flores , January 12, 2017 at 1:24 pm

While others laugh and make jokes, those of us who study Intel know that what just happened with the leaked report was that the CIA has involved itself in U.S. politics, which it is forbidden to do. How did the alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA begin? President Truman had allowed 200 Nazi Intel agents to come into the U.S. – including the men who created the blueprint for the holocaust. Fearing Joe McCarthy would discover this, the CIA faked an Intel report and has spent decades ever since lying about Joe. They actually confessed that his 2 lists were correct, so they had to fool him with a fake dossier right before the Army hearings to shake his confidence. Just search CIA AND THE POND and you will find on their website STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE in the last third of the article a full confession of framing Joe. This Facebook photo album THE REAL JOSEPH McCARTHY is packed with forbidden information and can be viewed with this link by anyone whether they are on FB or not. The alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA began by hiding the people responsible for the holocaust. ( We should keep in mind Truman was KKK and forbade the bombing of the train tracks to the death camps. The reason soldiers were not prepared for the camps was that none had been told about them. Truman did not want our troops wasting time on them). Interesting to note that absolutely no one has ever done an article or book on the impact of the beliefs of the KKK on the 5 Democrats who were Presidents and Klansmen in the 20th century. That would reveal the true nature of the Democratic Party.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153995222685986.1073741929.695490985&type=1&l=6dd1544b9d Reply

Bill , January 12, 2017 at 1:37 pm

You don't mention President Obama, but it certainly seems likely that he's involved with this. Who told Brennan and Clapper to go on TV to hype the intelligence reports and bad-mouth the next President?

And were the leakers within the agencies acting on their own, or were they given orders from above? There's a conspiracy going on and it's not my imagination.

Does the behavior rise to the level of treason or espionage?

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:58 pm

Obama is a deadhead it is Brennan who instructs him. But who instructs Brennan? Reply

Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm

As I have just learned from another reader's comment on another article, David Spring has augmented his earlier article to an 85-page expose. Seems it was both a leak and a hack, but in neither case by "the Russians."

I hope Ray McGovern and especially Wm Binney (and some Trump guy) read this and tell us what they think!

https://turningpointnews.org/hack-everything-special-report

Lois Gagnon , January 13, 2017 at 11:04 am

I read it last night. Very much worth the couple of hours it took. Reply

Realist , January 14, 2017 at 3:42 am

Well, that's THE comprehensive treatment in a nutshell. Everything documented chronologically. Nothing important left out. Everything explained clearly and concisely. As organised as possible and argued like a philosopher rather than a lawyer. The man has exceptional writing skills as well as incredible computer knowledge. I'd like to see him question Clapper on the witness stand. I hope that President Trump puts the Justice Department on this case to do a thorough investigation, including potential indictments of spooks that perjured themselves and/or engaged in partisan activities during the election and its ugly aftermath. Reply

Oleg , January 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I am really surprised to no end. Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? I do not really know what would happen in the US but in Russia there would be riots. Any leader in Russia can govern only until he/she is trusted. Think Tsar Nicholas II, Gorbachev I hope it will not get to this and some sanity will prevail in your country.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:22 pm

Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government?

What credibility? Oleg, if you check the graphic at the top of the right sidebar on this page you will see a reference to "I. F. Stone" who was one of this nation's great journalists of the 20th Century. He is noted for a dictum that says, "All governments lie." All governments certainly include the U.S. government. You can get plenty of examples of lies with a little effort.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 11:12 pm

Lies out of government agencies and elected politicians are not the only problem. Hypocrisy is another and has been part of American governance since the writing of the Declaration of Independence by slave owners who said that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now hypocrisy is rampant with politicians decrying alleged Russian intervention is U.S. elections with the claim that it is wrong for any nation to interfere in the elections of another nation. There is no nation on the planet that interferes in the governments of other nations than the United States. Reply

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:02 am

Well, I certainly agree, but a government can still be largely trusted even if they resort to some petty lies. As we all do too sometimes. But this this is not a petty thing, this is an intentional attack on the whole institution of elections and democracy when they try to impeach the elected President because some part of the establishment, not the people, dislike him. This has a potential to really get very dangerous, and having any kind of uprisings (as was also mentioned by other commenters above) in a country like the US is extremely dangerous for the whole world. Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm

Anyone in Washington seeking a golden shower from a couple of Russian prostitutes just has to hop on one of those all-expenses-paid AIPAC junkets to Israel.

It's truly amazing how streams of urine help elevate one's anxiety about Iran's nuclear energy program.

Adam , January 13, 2017 at 3:11 am

Best comment, Abe! Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:25 pm

American journalist and activist Chris Hedges noted a key purpose of the declassified report "Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election" from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):

"to justify the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beyond Germany, a violation of the promise Ronald Reagan made to the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Expanding NATO in Eastern Europe opened up an arms market for the war industry. It made those businesses billions of dollars. New NATO members must buy Western arms that can be integrated into the NATO arsenal. These sales, which are bleeding the strained budgets of countries such as Poland, are predicated on potential hostilities with Russia. If Russia is not a threat, the arms sales plummet. War is a racket."

The Real Purpose of the U.S. Government's Report on Alleged Hacking by Russia
By Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 4:54 pm

Israeli arms sales to Europe more than doubled from $724 million in 2014 to $1.63 billion in 2015. http://jfjfp.com/?p=83806

Israel is the leading arms exporter in the world per capita (2014), and ranks 11th among the top 20 exporters of military equipment and systems (2011-15).

75-80% of Israeli military exports are generated by just three companies - the state-owned Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries and the publicly traded Elbit Systems.

The largest categories of Israeli military exports are upgrading aircraft and aerospace systems (14%), radar and electronic systems (12%), drones (11%), and intelligence and information systems (10%).

In 2015, the Russian government described Israel's delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine as "counterproductive". There is a close arms trade and production co-operation between Israel and Poland. Israeli companies have invested in building arms manufacturing facilities in Poland. Reply

jfl , January 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm

However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

- said to have been said by redhat richelieu

what is known is that the nsa/cia/fbi have all the dirt on everyone, and that they use it on the leaders of the eu, for instance.

if the only thing that comes out of this filthy little exercise is the death of the nsa/cia/fbi – superpower america's superstazi – by executive fiat it will have been worth trump's election.

it's either that or another dead president. with pence playing lbj. Reply

F. G. Sanford , January 12, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Funny how these "leaks" work, isn't it? If there really were an "insider" able to provide insight on the deepest, darkest secrets that had been gathered by Russian intelligence, why would any responsible intelligence agency completely destroy that asset only to expose a mundane fetish like "golden showers"? But don't anybody dare leak "The Torture Report". Don't even consider leaking information about war crimes, election fraud, financial crimes, murder, state corruption or state sponsorship of terrorism.

Just my opinion, but here's how it really went. The "hack" scenario is a diversion from the "leak" scenario. The "deep state" didn't really want Hillary. While she may superficially represent their interests, the Clinton machine is too knowledgeable, too experienced and too selfish and self-centered to predictably execute their programs. The Clintons have plenty of dirt on them. But they had enough dirt on her to compromise her electability. They don't want Trump either, but they can manufacture or dig up enough dirt to compromise his Presidency. Their first choice was Jeb Bush. Their second choice is Mike Pence.

The DNC stuff was leaked by an insider, and the Podesta stuff was hacked by the NSA. The only plausible alternative points to hacking attempts by the neo-Nazi Ukrainian hacking outfit "RuH8", not the Russians.

A bunch of recent articles seek to analyze Barack Obama's legacy, personality and motivations. That's all superfluous. The "real deal" has been well documented. His grandparents were CIA His mother was CIA His first job after law school was with Banking international Corporation, a CIA "front company". He was groomed and thoroughly vetted.

Nobody wants to hear the truth or look at real evidence. The circumstantial – though well documented – evidence connecting Ted Cruz's father to the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald is actually much more plausible and substantial than the evidence for "Russian hacking" of the election, yet the general public has no problem dismissing that as a "conspiracy theory".

Between the two, Trump was perceived – mistakenly – as the lesser threat to the "deep state". Just a guess, but we may be about to see all hell break loose.

It's about time some journalists and researchers started naming names and making lists. The "New McCarthyism" uses lists to good advantage. It creates the perception of a vast subversive network dedicated to destroying our "democracy". Until some names are named and fingers pointed, the "deep state" and its intelligence community enforcement arm will continue to control the "democracy" we don't really have. Blackmail is just one of their methods, and it's far from the worst.

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 4:14 pm

Funny how these "streams," er, "leaks" work:

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.764452

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:17 pm

Buzzfeed's "explosive and unverified" golden shower (guess that's not highlighter on the documents):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 4:42 am

And someone has been paying for this crap? If anything, this report exposes its authors much more than anybody else. Reply

Abe , January 13, 2017 at 1:00 pm

The "authors" dominate a post-truth regime that demands popular attention to and participation in its discursive games.

Are you not entertained?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs Reply

F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:37 pm

My favorite quotes from the "Company Intelligence Report":

"However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow " (Is this a pun?)

"PUTIN angry with senior officials who "overpromised" on TRUMP and further heads likely to roll as result. Foreign minister LAVROV may be next" (What Putin is going to make him change the sheets in Trump's hotel room?)

" TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key witnesses silenced and evidence hard to obtain" (Were the "key" witnesses the same ones that claim Putin shot down MH-17?)

I think they dug up the script writers from "The Man from Uncle" and put them back to work. This sounds like a Quinn Martin Production straight out of a Hollywood "B Movie". Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:24 pm

First Draft coalition "partner" BuzzFeed is leading the charge to make fake news, hybrid war propaganda, and hoaxes "more shareable and more social"

https://firstdraftnews.com/buzzfeed-wants-use-social-media-might-take-hoaxers/ Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Funny how that "leak" worked:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb565-Was-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Fuel-Diverted-to-Israel/

"OK, but I doubt advisability of getting into this (redacted)." – FBI Director J. Edgard Hoover Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 5:17 pm

Funny how that other "leak" worked:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB407/ Reply

Gregory Kruse , January 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm

FG, I'm not gay, but I always scroll down to find your comment. You are always looking into the big picture, not the big illusion.

backwardsevolution , January 13, 2017 at 1:44 am

Gregory – I agree. His comments are always very good. Reply

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Me three.

F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:41 pm

Thanks to all – sometimes I wonder if it's worth putting in my two cents. We're probably a statistically insignificant group of readers on the world's stage, but I like to think at least it's worth a try. Reply

Jessica K , January 12, 2017 at 4:34 pm

We must organize beyond cyberspace as this is a coup in action. CIA is greatest meddler of all nations, coups and assassinations well documented. DC is the Aegean stable that must be cleaned, a truly Herculean task and We the People have to get organized because this planet is imperiled. Agree with Dan that whole sordid mess is beyond a swamp, a stinking pit and pitchforks are necessary! Reply

LJ , January 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm

It's more doublethink logic from the Intelligence heads. It would require a tremendous leap of faith for anyone with a brain to think that Russia/Putin/Lavrov would use this info, if it existed at all, in public manner. To do so wouldn't help them achieve a goal and it would only hurt Russia .. The tape would never become public even if it existed. That means this rumor is clearly slander and was aimed at some political end. . Where is the smoking gun?, sorry. By the way , Putin is friends with Bertoloscini , Sarkozy and other notorious womanizers and is known to like women himself. This is not something he would do. He is not a mobster. This is puerile and it is coming from the Democrats although the word is that George Bush initially hired the guy, the former MI5 spy, who wrote the dossier/smear piece on Trump in the first place. . Hoover would have kept it in shop and tried to leverage Trump himself. Reply

Bernie , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

There's an article at ABC News today about US tanks rolling into Poland. This reminds me of Nazis rolling into Austria in 1938 and then Poland on Sept 1, 1941 to start WWII. "American soldiers rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia. Some people waved and held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. "

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Like Poland, Ukraine is eager to express its devotion to the Reich, er, its "Euro-Atlantic aspirations".

If only for the sake of NATO "cooperation" and "capacity building", Poland and Ukraine have much to forgive and forget:

http://observer.com/2016/09/from-friends-to-bitter-rivals-poland-and-ukraine-accuse-each-other-of-genocide/

Of course, reports of Russian "euphoria" remain "unconfirmed". Reply

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Absurd. Who is this "they" everyone is talking about? How many are/is this 'they'? 5, 10 20? Who is in control of 'they'? Who's in charge? The political elite? Do they have a club and do they meet for bridge every Tuesday? Do they have a secret handshake? Are they all really Mason's?

This conspiracy holds no credibility because 'they' is just an 'idea'. That is all. Until someone can give names of those who are responsible and running this political elite then its all storybook conjecture. We should be more concerned with the obvious psychological dementia affecting the president elect. He was a total looney tune in that press conference.

Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:52 pm

Here are the names.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet-the-80-people-who-are-as-rich-as-half-the-world/

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 7:09 pm

What you are saying with this list then, Wendi, it is not the political elites, intelligence agencies or career politicians whoTrump continuously rails against as the cause for the end of the American Empire. It is the financial hierarchies that Trump so desperately wants to be a part of. Putin is obviously at the top of this list and Trump sees him as a way to become a player in this club. That makes sense to me. Reply

Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 12, 2017 at 6:14 pm

"THEY" are the people who control the MONEY. They are referred to as the BANKERS. Those are a mafia that runs the political circus BEHIND the scene. The parties and elections are a diversion to keep the idiots busy arguing with each other like the crazy fans of sports teams. The BANKERS always make sure that the "idiots" are choosing between alternatives that ultimately BOW to the BANKERS. Read for example the following:

– "All the President's Bankers" by Naomi Prins.

– "Memoirs" by David Rockefeller.

– "The Crisis of Democracy" a publication of the Tri-Lateral Commission on their website.

-Here's How Goldman Sachs Became the Overlord of the Trump Administration
http://wallstreetonparade.com/

-Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism | The Inline image 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-whetten/goldman-wall-street-and-f_b.. .
Jun 19, 2010 · The most disturbing aspect of the recent Goldman Sachs lawsuit isn't just the legal violations involved Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism.

-Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists | FacebookInline image 1
http://www.facebook.com/Stop.Goldman
Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists. 95,662 likes · 6,188 talking about this. Get the Honest truth on the economy, this page sponsors no organization

Those will give you a good start ..Good Luck. Reply

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 7:29 am

Perhaps you do not mean the ridicule you suggest. The effects of economic aristocracy and political conspiracy are of course not "storybook conjecture" but the combined deductions of experienced observers. That would become conjecture only if specific persons were accused, which is seldom done without evidence.

The demand for detailed evidence of an old-fashioned conspiracy to effect societal trends is not valid. It becomes propaganda when used to attack the means by which we all deduce that events are driven by cabals, or loose organizations of interested parties. While we are occasionally surprised by the detailed evidence that emerges long after events, even that is incomplete and not very relevant.

The means of ridicule shows its invalidity. There is no reason to speculate upon clubs, meetings, or handshakes, as there is no need for such specific or antiquated organization. No modern organization works that way, no one has suggested that, and no one here has reasoned from such nonsense, but rather from well documented effects of cabals. So I hope that you merely overstated a wish for more evidence.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:49 am

Bravo. Reply

Howard Mettee , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Robert, Could it not be true that the real losers in the neocon push to extend the American dominion might actually be the intelligence services? They have become so politicized in domestic politics since the Iraq War build up (a la Rice, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell) that they figure they can shape American public opinion to support any war, no matter how "unthreatening" the enemy (say Russia) might actually be. Originally they were basically "fact collectors" (objective) – at first from around the world, but since 9/11's Patriot Act, at home also. Then, they became "interpreters and analyzers of motives" which takes a bit of a weed-gee board (subjective!) on the part of the "experienced eye". When whatever these very effective (and appreciated) fact collectors opine suddenly becomes gospel in their "estimates" (interpretation), we have lost the ability to even influence the fate of our nation. Is this the country I grew up in? Or, has it been this way since we were led so effectively to support World War I? Take care, HM Reply

Thurgle , January 12, 2017 at 6:44 pm

The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying. Reply

BlackPete , January 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm

When it comes to cavorting with prostitutes JFK was the undisputed champion. Given the high regard JFK is held in in some circles maybe Trump's alleged misbehaviour is a positive sign. Also, now that Trump's behaviour has been made public isn't the Russian threat to expose him now worthless and their alleged hold/influence gone?

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm

Its not about the hookers. That's useless drivel. It's about the potential of illegal financial dealings with Russia prior to the election. Just show the damn tax returns. What the hell is he afraid of? What could possibly go wrong?

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Are you keen on asking Clintons to reveal their financial dealings with Saudis, the sponsors of 9/11?
How about the Kagans' clan being currently "supported" financially by Qatari?
And this is much more interesting than tax return: "The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying."

col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 10:25 pm

I read it was Rubio commissioned the dirt.
Look at day 69 of eric braverman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKhbsASDhI Reply

akech , January 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm

Is this the face of the "DEEP STATE"?

It is controlling, deceptive, organized, bloody and does not give a "rat ass" about the needs of any other human being on earth who does not belong to it!

It neither tolerates opposing views from anybody who does not belong to its members nor allows the outsiders to organize . It is determined to be the lens through which everybody under its control see the rest of the world; any conclusion drawn by the besieged population, based on what it is forced to see, must conform to the "DEEP STATE" norms; otherwise, you are in deep trouble. The POTUS or the Congress must toe lines dictated by the members of this organization, (the Deep State). We are observing that no effort is being spared to see to it that President-Elect toes the "DEEP STATE" line; it is deep and scary indeed! Reply

John , January 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Russia is the half naked female in the magic show The real slight of hand is the relationship with the American oligarch and china .wow !!! . talking about messing with the bottom line some of you big brain folks will get this in 4 ..3 2 ..lol Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

What I Learned From the Intelligence Report on "Russian Hacking"
By James Corbett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecxu7EStgs Reply

CitizenOne , January 12, 2017 at 9:55 pm

There is little doubt that the obvious blackmail will never be covered in that light by main stream media. To those of us who are historians or are natural skeptics or have actually lived through those times, this is all fairly obvious. They are trying to put Donald Trump in a corner so he can be controlled.

I suspect that is why Trump retained Steve Bannon for. Not just a house racist but someone who can get down and dirty on those that dish up dirt on Trump. We'll have to see if it works. Headlines: "Donald unleashes TwitterBomb on CIA". But he'll have to go on the internet since the CIA owns the press in the USA.

He has two choices. Listen to the CIA and do their bidding which is the requirement to start WWIII with Russia or resist and be smeared in the press. It's an uphill battle too. Unlike Silvio Berlusconi or Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump does not actually own the press. That will make it especially hard to do.

This thing is shaping up to be a geopolitical oil war. Rex and the Russians vs the Saudi/CIA Team USA.

All I can say is fine America. Don't give a damn about privacy. Don't give a damn about anything. But one of these days this massive spying ring gathering every shred of any and all traces of your life and filing them away forever cannot be good. It will most certainly not end well.

When AI has us all pinned up against a wall threatening to out all of us if we do not do exactly what it wants then what will we do?

We need some privacy laws. Also we need to throw the main stream media out with the trash. It is pure evil. Back in the day, the press wouldn't run the stories about MLKs extramarital affairs it recorded secretly. The press demanded to know the source of the B.S. and the FBI did not want to tip their hand so the Mexican standoff led to the suicide letter which said "if you accept the Nobel Prize, we will shame you and ruin you and you should consider preserving you legacy by killing yourself instead. At least the MSM had some ethical standards and smelled a rat and refused to run the stories. Imagine that. If MLK was alive today we and we still had segregation, people and the media would fight to keep it! MLK would be a portrayed in the press as a philandering bad guy. A sexual predator. The Civil Rights movement would end in a quagmire of gossip surrounding its leader.

The Republicans have certainly had their fun with it too making Monica Lewinsky describe to a court the distinctive features of the president's privates. I bet they were rolling in the aisles when that happened. Now it's their turn. Will they defend Trump or will they hope that perhaps Mike Pence would make a better leader.

All this tawdry B.S. really gets old fast. I could care less what people do in private as long as nobody gets hurt.

One person abroad when asked what they thought about Bill Clinton's circumstances replied they were confused since after all we were not electing the Pope. Amen. I feel the same way about Trump. It's all B.S.

The problem is America can't remember what happened yesterday. We are collectively like terminal Alzheimer patients. Two seconds after we see something, we forget it and are completely susceptible to B.S.in two seconds after we forgot what just happened which ignores the facts which occurred a mere two seconds earlier but we are none the wiser since we can't remember what happened more than two seconds ago. That means there are a lot of opportunities each day to fool us.

What ever happened to the story about James Comey influencing the election? We just forgot it. What ever happened to all of the other historically "likely suspects" thought to have been likely suspects in vote rigging schemes. They are all absent and not presented as possible influencers of the election by our CIA owned press. Instead we are presented with a fake narrative filled with salacious gossip and naughty bits designed to turn public opinion into a weapon for further increases in militarization and military spending while preserving foreign relationships which benefit wealthy investors.

We need to wake up and start taking some strong medicine to ward off the Alzheimer disease that is affecting us in order to put the daily snow job presented by the MSM and the CIA into perspective. That perspective would include what just happened two seconds ago.

Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen since the medication would have to include administering it to the MSM too.

The ability of the MSM to erase our collective memory and present us with a new fake narrative on any given day should ring alarm bells that we are obviously vulnerable to being fooled.

We are being fooled. Every day. Time to start taking the meds. Reply

Jurgen , January 12, 2017 at 10:01 pm

This is no "deep state" this is rather in-plain-sight US Government at work.
Trivial task:
1) Create a dense smoke screen by broadcasting on every single TV channel non-stop anti-Russian and anti-Trump*** hysteria (they know it can't go wrong – they know Trump would try to reply to every single fake thus making their task easier and the picture even more colorful)
2) Behind that smoke screen ship few thousands of US troops and tanks over to Poland and to those parasitic micro quasi-states in Baltic and by doing that de-facto lay foundation for 4-5 new military bases,
which (yet another NATO expansion) otherwise would not be approved and likely axed by Trump. But now it went through s-m-o-u-ht-ly, like a butter. Highest class of the old Shell Game. Where CIA, FBI and other spook shops are used as shills and the population of the US are total losers (everyone's taxes will be used to pay for that yet another NATO expansion).
3) Behind the same smoke screen Obamacare has just been demolished late last night, congrats 20 million of poor folks!

*** Just wait till grainy videos surface showing some naked figures – one of them would be vaguely resembling Trump.
That'd be no hard task for talented movie makers from either PSYOP or/and PAG (just remember their masterpieces featuring Jessica Lynch and other ones featuring fat "Osama bin Laden"-looking dude).

Note: Authorization to create and finance state Propaganda apparatus, S.2943, was quietly passed late Friday night Dec.23 behind the smoke screen of the same anti-Russian and anti-Trump hysteria, thus what we are seeing now is perfectly lawful – propaganda machine at full throttle, who said bureaucracy is slow(?)

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 10:05 pm

is not it nice that Obama is leaving office while being decorated with salacious fake stories which he is promoting Petty and dishonest in everything.

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 11:17 pm

I tried to watch his good riddance speech last night, but couldn't get through the half of it. For relief I turned to this video:

http://youtu.be/F5K7UmYkD1I Reply

Franz Rock , January 12, 2017 at 10:11 pm

As a non-citicen one has to wonder about the mind boggling machination the US politic is capable of.
After WW2 the European countries looked upon the USA as the beacon of democratic values.
How bitter for the young generation to find, bit by bit, that behind the American facade lurked a system
of smoke and mirrors. As ruthless as the very system they replaced in Europe. Slowly sugarcoating
their deep aims of domination. Under words like freedom,liberty and equality there is the underlying
unbelievable lust for money and with it power. From a human point of view, and the thinking person,
the politics and aims of the United States of America is an abomination for all the worlds people.

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:27 am

I certainly agree with you, but also I am really saddened that this pattern is far from being unique and repeats itself all over and over again. The power corrupts, and it is true for states as well as for people. But the US are indeed a sad champion in hypocrisy. Their predecessors were not as skilled in hiding their true intentions behind the screen of freedom and all other very attractive values. This makes it especially hard to accept. Reply

Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:08 am

You've fingered the wrong culprits, or rather indicted fellow victims. It's the same bloody, titled ruling class and their managerial elites in business and banking from old-line European/British families who've been playing their Imperial games and still are. THEY created the late 19th century Synachist Movement for Empire (SME) that gave birth to Fascism and its' feverish twin NAZIism,really just movements to update the workings of the old-fashioned European Empires. It's also the Cecil Rhodes/Milner RoundTable Group that dove-tailed with SME machinations to update old Empires, campaigning strenuously, through their managerial elites on Wall Street, to recapture their "rogue colony" USA and bring it into the British version of Empire. Right at the moment of FDR's death (may have been assassination), the tables were turned on us, with Churchill leading stupid Truman around by the nose speaking of iron curtains and Red Scares and Cold Wars. FDR's intelligence community was taken over by Anglophile RoundTable allies in the post-war 40s. Having helped win the battles, we lost the War to the fascist/NAZI SME and RoundTable groups who never received so much as a scratch from all the bombs and bullets. Have you seen the show Hunting Hitler? WWII never ended, the methods of fighting just changed.

Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:44 am

P.S. Not only did WWII never end, just a change in fighting methods, BUT the SME/RoundTable Groups managed to get the two most powerful allies turned against each other: USSR and USA, so that we, together, couldn't focus on the REAL enemy; SME/RoundTable group of elites (which would have happened under FDR in post-war. He would have been President until January 1949 if he hadn't died/been killed, Stalin told FDRs son that "that Churchill gang killed him" been trying to do the same to Stalin) and THIS is why Trumps' Russophilia is such a grave and real threat to our Establishment.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Brad you hit the nail on the head with your comments here .bravo! Reply

John P , January 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm

Where on earth did you get this fable. Roosevelt had polio and needed a wheelchair, he was a heavy smoker, had high blood pressure, angina followed by congestive heart failure all finalized by a stoke. He had been weakening over a long period. This is all before the days of polonium the USSR uses to kill its foes today.
Russia wasn't following the agreements drawn up in Yalta and fair free elections were not provided in Poland and many Poles who fought for the allies in the war felt betrayed. The Soviets went their own way, so were we to tell the Poles, tough.
Allied convoys, mainly British, at great cost in ships and men, supplied the Russians with war supplies. They faced U-boats and heavily armed German battle-cruisers in freezing arctic waters. After the war Germany got assistance in rebuilding, but the British were held to paying off debts for US build liberty ships used to replace ships lost on the Atlantic convoys. I had an uncle who's ship was sunk and very luckily, after much time in a life boat, was picked up. Many Americans sat back and watched until Pearl Harbour. The British had warned the Americans some time before, that they had lost contact with one of the Japanese fleets they were following, and you can guess the consequences.
Britain saw what was coming when Germany attacked Poland and declared war on Germany. We didn't have much. My father was almost killed assisting surgeon in a Liverpool hospital and luckily had to leave to go out in an ambulance. When he came back the OR was gone. Bombed out. Luckily on another occasion, the day staff had been told to stay on duty with the night staff and the nursing residence was flattened. We had rationing until 1950, and had to grow food in our small back garden, sprouts, peas, cabbage. We had 6 chickens and a rooster, a source of much needed nutrition from eggs. I remember my mother weeping terribly after telling the police she had lost her ration books. As a young lad I went on a search and eventually found them in the folds of a chair. You may never have had to live through something like that.
And if you think America is any better than others, read "What is America?" by Ronald Wright. Learn about the Trail of Tears and traders knowingly giving natives blankets used by whites with small-pox.

Brad Owen , January 15, 2017 at 6:47 am

You relate the manufactured cover story, thanks to the anglophile Intel community that took over in post-war forties, and did their typical change of the narration, much like they do today with the phony crap about Russian aggression. This kind of sh!t has been going on since the revolution, as the wealthy and powerful Imperial Tories never left and never relented. I got this"fable" from EIR and Tarpley.net. It makes more sense to me than the current fable we call history. Check it out for yourself, it amounts to mountains of articles and essays. It took me years to piece it all together and relay it adequately in brief paragraphs. Choose to believe there is no over-arching Imperial ruling class inimical to the interests of commoners if you want. I refuse to be blind to it anymore.

David F., N.A. , January 12, 2017 at 10:18 pm

What if the intelligence community wasn't choosing between HRC and Trump, but, in stead, between HRC and Pence. So no matter who won, wouldn't this hedged election mean business as usual?

Sorry, HRC, but for this downward neoliberal/fascist spiral thingy to work, you lesser-of-2-evil conservaDems are just going to have to learn to share with the equally-corrupt conservatives. See ya in 4 (or maybe 8 (naw, 4)).

Hail to the de facto Chief. da dada da dada dada dada da. Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:36 pm

You forgot to declare who is the drag queen in this matter?

Let's warn these evil psychopaths that a JFK OUTCOME IS OFF LIMITS.
That is the inference of your article.

By the way, Trump NEVER READ THE REPORT PRIVATELY. THERE WAS AN ORAL PRESENTATION, & CLAPPER & Brennan took the CLASSIFIED documents back with them. Trump never read the 2 pg libel nor was it discussed in the presentation.

Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:38 am

This is also reminiscent of Hoover and JFK. When JFK attended Hoover's office, he was handed the President's file. JFK read some of the file while Hoover waited. When JFK stood up to leave, Hoover told the President that the file remains with him. No wonder JFK and Bobby hated this dangerous psychopath. Reply

John P , January 12, 2017 at 11:43 pm

It's all slime, Americans let their political system fall into the trap of big money (lobbying system and PACs) and neo-liberalism. I have no faith that Trump has the capabilities to be a good president. His dialogue is simple, his temper easily aroused as are his feelings of hurt. He shows little historical knowledge or political skills and speaks in a petty childish way. Who is going to pay for the southern border wall ?! What is going to replace Obama's medical care programs, more big business institutions ?! To me it looks like the Palestinians are on the Titanic run by captain Trump and his son-in law, and only minutes to go. What real in depth policies has Trump ever stated ?! Look out because Trump has a habit of passing on the bills be it cash, broken promises or a road you never thought he would take.
And yes we need a calming down and discussion between the US, Russia and China, but I don't see any hope in the line of folks Trump has chosen or Clinton. To me, Trump is like passenger on an aircraft in which the pilot has expired and he is relying on others to tell him what to do because he has no idea or understanding.
I think this and a world where jobs have been taken by microprocessors and robots, is a very dangerous place and we don't need a blind narcissist leading the way. Sadly Bernie Sanders got burnt on the stake. Reply

Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:28 am

At times like this I miss the wise words of the late Chalmers Johnson. Chalmers was not encouraged by the possibility of America stepping back from her efforts to control the entire world. He felt the deep state was too committed to America's Full Spectrum Dominance. Is this the sloppy end to the legacy of the Sole Super Power? Or, is this just the middle of the play before curtain call?
When Russia came to the aid of Syria, I believed that we were entering the Multipolar World Order. Hopefully that is still possible but better sooner than later before we enter the No World Order of endless chaos. Does the American deep state really want to play Russian Roulette with live nucs?

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:16 pm

I wish Chalmers Johnson were still with us, and able to comment on our current events good of you to bring his name up. Reply

John P , January 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm

I'm sorry Brad. With your EIR's reference, the first story I saw concerned Obama-care connected to some Nazi policies. Next they claim global warming is fake. The US was the only western nation without a national health program. People die because they haven't the money to pay for drugs or health care. The health of a labourer is more important to them that a rich bloke sitting at a desk. And excuse me but back in the late 60s I studied astronomy besides my major, another science, and even then learned that both CO2 and methane each trap the sun's energy and cause temperatures to rise. That was long before global warming came to peoples attention. Sorry, your story is pure fiction.

Also, Trump hasn't a clue what he's talking about as far as global warming is concerned. Take a look at the temperatures in the far north. They have been warmer than ever while we down here are having huge cycles of heat and cold and are experiencing the fury that those changes can induce.

Dieter Heymann , January 16, 2017 at 2:23 pm

As a scientist you ought to know that CO2 and methane do not trap the sun's energy but absorb upward IR radiation from Earth part of which they radiate back towards Earth's surface part out into space. The blanket I use on my bed at night does not trap the heat generated by me either. If it did it might catch fire?

John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Dieter I was just trying to make it simple, not write an article for Nature. The point being so many people don't believe that we are altering the earths climate through burning fossil fuels. We take down our forests, and plants are a big reason we are here as they take in carbon dioxide, utilize the suns energy through photosynthesis and create organic compounds thus setting the stage for further developments. There is so much irrationality out there brought on by job losses through technology, and this creates huge divisions within society and that can lead to awful consequences as history has shown.
I not sure some would understand the true science behind it. The subject was a reliance on a web site that promoted climate change denial and a mentioned link between Obamacare and Nazism. Is that a firm foundation of reliance ?

John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm

Just to clarify, I said astronomy wasn't my major, it was microbiology and medical sciences. I had an interest in star gazing and following the planets. Reply

Jamie , January 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Many liberals fail to understand that Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. Unlike the unwashed masses - these forces don't care if politician has a 'D' or 'R' next to their name. It is how well they will serve capital.

[Mar 02, 2019] Watters Words The swamp strikes back

Pretty interesting video... no we know that the Swamp consumed Flatfooted Donald rather quickly
Notable quotes:
"... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
"... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
"... FakeStream Media ..."
"... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
Feb 18, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal

Louis John 2 hours ago

@hexencoff

McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag

Gary M 3 hours ago
McCain is a globalist
belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
(edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.

ryvr madduck 1 hour ago

+belaghoulashi

Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?

Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
@Michael Cambo

don't they...they do say shit floats.

Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago

@Michael Cambo - Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living - explain to me how he is draining the swamp

tim sparks 3 hours ago
Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
@tim sparks

He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies 2017 the best is yet to come

Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
FakeStream Media
Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
@Patrick Reagan

Very FakeStream Media

aspengold5 4 hours ago
I am so disappointed in McCain.
orlando pablo 4 hours ago
my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six more years!
robert barham 4 hours ago
The very Fake Media has met their match
H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
(edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
kazzicup 3 hours ago
We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News Network.

Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago

@kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country - if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree

[Mar 02, 2019] Pulling a J. Edgar Hoover on Trump

So the coup against the President was exposed already in Jan 2017 and Trump did not take any measures to prevent the appointment of the Special Prosecutor.
Notable quotes:
"... The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick. ..."
"... However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets. ..."
"... In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide. ..."
"... Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years. ..."
"... Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people. ..."
"... Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart. ..."
"... The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet) ..."
"... At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". ..."
"... I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. ..."
"... Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? ..."
Jan 12, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: President-elect Trump is fending off a U.S. intelligence leak of unproven allegations that he cavorted with Russian prostitutes, but the darker story might be the CIA's intervention in U.S. politics, reports Robert Parry.

The decision by the U.S. intelligence community to include in an official report some unverified and salacious accusations against President-elect Donald Trump resembles a tactic out of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover's playbook on government-style blackmail: I have some very derogatory information about you that I'd sure hate to see end up in the press.

Legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover

In this case, as leaders of the U.S. intelligence community were pressing Trump to accept their assessment that the Russian government had tried to bolster Trump's campaign by stealing and leaking actual emails harmful to Hillary Clinton's campaign, Trump was confronted with this classified "appendix" describing claims about him cavorting with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room.

Supposedly, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan included the unproven allegations in the report under the rationale that the Russian government might have videotaped Trump's misbehavior and thus could use it to blackmail him. But the U.S. intelligence community also had reasons to want to threaten Trump who has been critical of its performance and who has expressed doubts about its analysis of the Russian "hacking."

After the briefing last Friday, Trump and his incoming administration did shift their position, accepting the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton's campaign chief John Podesta. But I'm told Trump saw no evidence that Russia then leaked the material to WikiLeaks and has avoided making that concession.

Still, Trump's change in tone was noted by the mainstream media and was treated as an admission that he was abandoning his earlier skepticism. In other words, he was finally getting onboard the intelligence community's Russia-did-it bandwagon. Now, however, we know that Trump simultaneously had been confronted with the possibility that the unproven stories about him engaging in unorthodox sex acts with prostitutes could be released, embarrassing him barely a week before his inauguration.

The classified report, with the explosive appendix, was also given to President Obama and the so-called "Gang of Eight," bipartisan senior members of Congress responsible for oversight of the intelligence community, which increased chances that the Trump accusations would be leaked to the press, which indeed did happen.

Circulating Rumors

The stories about Russian intelligence supposedly filming Trump in a high-end Moscow hotel with prostitutes have been circulating around Washington for months. I was briefed about them by a Hillary Clinton associate who was clearly hopeful that the accusations would be released before the election and thus further damage Trump's chances. But the alleged video never seemed to surface and the claims had all the earmarks of a campaign dirty trick.

However, now the tales of illicit frolic have been elevated to another level. They have been inserted into an official U.S. intelligence report, the details of which were leaked first to CNN and then to other mainstream U.S. news media outlets.

Trump has denounced the story as "fake news" and it is certainly true that the juicy details – reportedly assembled by a former British MI-6 spy named Christopher Steele – have yet to check out. But the placement of the rumors in a U.S. government document gave the mainstream media an excuse to publicize the material.

It's also allowed the media to again trot out the Russian word "kompromat" as if the Russians invented the game of assembling derogatory information about someone and then using it to discredit or blackmail the person.

In American history, legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was infamous for using his agency to develop negative information on a political figure and then letting the person know that the FBI had the dirt and certainly would not want it to become public – if only the person would do what the FBI wanted, whether that was to reappoint Hoover to another term or to boost the FBI's budget or – in the infamous case of civil rights leader Martin Luther King – perhaps to commit suicide.

However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump. It could just be rumors concocted in the middle of a hard-fought campaign, first among Republicans battling Trump for the nomination (this opposition research was reportedly initiated by backers of Sen. Marco Rubio in the GOP race) before being picked up by Clinton supporters for use in the general election.

Still, perhaps the more troubling issue is whether the U.S. intelligence community has entered a new phase of politicization in which its leadership feels that it has the responsibility to weed out "unfit" contenders for the presidency. During the general election campaign, a well-placed intelligence source told me that the intelligence community disdained both Clinton and Trump and hoped to discredit both of them with the hope that a more "acceptable" person could move into the White House for the next four years.

Hurting Both Candidates

Though I was skeptical of that information, it did turn out that FBI Director James Comey, one of the top officials in the intelligence community, badly damaged Clinton's campaign by deeming her handling of her emails as Secretary of State "extremely careless" but deciding not to prosecute her – and then in the last week of the campaign briefly reopening and then re-closing the investigation.

Then, after the election, President Obama's CIA began leaking allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin had orchestrated the hacking of Democratic emails and provided them to WikiLeaks to reveal how the DNC undermined Sen. Bernie Sanders's campaign and what Clinton had told Wall Street bigwigs in paid speeches that she had sought to keep secret from the American people.

The intelligence community's assessment set the stage for what could have been a revolt by the Electoral College in which enough Trump delegates could have refused to vote for him to send the election into the House of Representatives, where the states would choose the President from one of the top three vote-getters in the Electoral College. The third-place finisher turned out to be former Secretary of State Colin Powell who got four votes from Clinton delegates in Washington State. But the Electoral College ploy failed when Trump's delegates proved overwhelmingly faithful to the GOP candidate.

Now, we are seeing what looks like a new phase in this "stop (or damage) Trump" strategy, the inclusion of anti-Trump dirt in an official intelligence report that was then leaked to the major media.

Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump or whether the intelligence community genuinely thought that the accusations might be true and deserved inclusion in a report on alleged Russian interference in U.S. politics or whether it was some combination of the two, we are witnessing a historic moment when the U.S. intelligence community has deployed its extraordinary powers within the domain of U.S. politics. J. Edgar Hoover would be proud.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Bryan Hemming , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

Excuse the mixed metaphors, but this looks like another entirely predictable nail in the coffin of US democracy, as the chickens come home to roost. For some time it has been quite obvious the CIA has been pulling strings from behind the scenes to make whatever puppet occupies the White House dance to its tune. But it won't end there. Only when the CIA climbs completely out of the coffin can the epic finale between the CIA, FBI and NSA begin.

The big question is as to how long the people of states like Texas and Florida stand by in the wings as the theater catches fire.

There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.

Jean-David , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am

Don't mix your metaphors before they are hatched. ;-) Reply

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 2:05 pm

There are moments in history when it seems almost the entire population of a nation has been struck with deafness and blindess. This maybe one such moment for the United States as a political elite begins the process of tearing the Union apart.

The United States has been accused of decadence for decades by Americans and non-Americans without much concern being shown by anyone not in a certain minority. The great tragedy of a decadent way of life is its durability.

In 1961 William Lederer's book, "A Nation of Sheep" revealed the abuse of American power and the ignorance of the American people regarding this misrule. Nothing much has changed since then except the names of the aggressors and their primary geographic areas of intended domination. The mass of people are essentially clueless and content to believe whatever lies and salacious tales are told them from the nation's Towers of Babel. This is in line with human history that shows people of authoritarian dispositions tend to be more aggressive and dominant in politics and commerce and the masses accept their lot as long as they get enough crumbs from establishment's plate..

(The title of the book was also an insult to sheep, but that is another story.)

Common Tater , January 12, 2017 at 4:59 pm

The saying goes, "power corrupts," but i believe that it is the corrupt who seek power to begin with.
Most people are content to live and let live, to live by the golden rule, mind their own and reciprocate kindness etc., etc.
Then there are those who get a thrill from exercising control over others. Those are the ones who shoot straight to the top.

Jack Flanigan , January 14, 2017 at 1:47 am

An interesting and clear observation. As an australian I note our system is dominated by two major parties (and I mean dominated) similar to the US. The two parties are vehicles for ambitious and corrupt individuals to fast track political careers. The power rests in these organizations and attracts the corrupt like bees to honey. Reply

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Bill, regarding your sense of human history I might add that for many centuries people couldn't read, except for the aristocracy and the religious sects mostly. The reformation produced a 100 year war and literacy was at an all time low in Luthers time but something motivated them to fight for such a long time, and it wasn't information nor intellect.

Where has our literacy gone which would prevent a repeat of endless war and violence these days? Oh yes, corporate controlled media hiring people who are certain to have no critical thinking skills, no moral rudder, nor worldly experience to shed the scales from their eyes. We are almost in pre-Gutenberg times of short attention spans and 140 character 'news truths' covering the landscape of the ignorant. One can only hope the Tower of the oligarchs Babel has rapidly decaying clay feet. We certainly know how to reduce cultures more ancient than ours to ashes without so much as a second thought regarding the sanctity of life. Where are all the pro-lifers now? Oh yeh, that's only in the womb, and after the umbilical cord is cut they are fair game for destruction. The US values we rave about will really hurt when other cultures treat us as they have been treated.

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Or better yet, we are in Gutenberg times where the "type" is set by the big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at the national level to inhibit discourse, excluding this site of course. Reply

Curious , January 12, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Or better yet, we are in times of the early press machines, where the "type" is set by the big players and the papers around the country keep the same type and only add ink. It's their only function now at the national level, meant to inhibit discourse and ideas. (excluding this site of course) Reply

Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:41 pm

In its Hoover relation, this article reprises the passage in The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet).

It describes the power struggle involved post-FDR, during-HST 1946-48, at the institution of the CIA (The Agency was not legislatively enacted, only instituted through Executive Order.)
Hoover opposed the creation of an intelligence collection that would compete with the FBI's monopoly of spies snoops and snitches.

The compromise settlement set the FBI with domestic coverage and the CIA with international haunts for its spooks.

Come the the present day, they still have turf wars in power rivalry for budget money.
However, in effect, after the budget shuffle the two legions merge their 'assets' - making each one double its real size. They join in advocating for (the oxymoronic) 'authoritarian morality,' gaining both the unlawfulness funded in the Judiciary with same unlawfulness, (or, being 'outlaw,' 'above the law'), funded by the Executive.

You can depend that they employ the same techniques. Coercion, extortion, blackmail, assassination, torture, defamation, slander and Press Release aspersion. The polity is hung pendant on those strings the outlaws pull. Or, 'hanged' pendant.

As Hoover, so Clapper et al.

Trump seems to have reconsided, maybe recanted, his defiance of 'intelligence' after he has seen some truth in it regarding things he knows he did in places he knows he was. He knows he dare not let the public see him through the cyclopian 'eye' of the intelligentia illumination.
_____
My wit sez, Lo! That explains his undocumented wife - he heard about Russian mail-order brides and flew off to visit the showroom. And brought back some capital equipment, manufactured in foreign lands.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:04 pm

The Craft of Intelligence, by Allen Dulles, (1965, if memory serves; alas, that book's text seems unavailable on the internet)

Try alibris or abebooks dot coms. They have copies.

Joe Lauria , January 14, 2017 at 9:08 am

There's a Kindle edition available. Reply

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:34 am

Good comment Bryan, but I wonder if we should pay attention at all to this decline of everything, not only of democracy. Yet, I wish to highlight two humorous comments which best characterise the situation.

The first one was a title I saw on Russia-Insider website: "Trump watch out! John Brennan throws even a kitchen sink at Trump in desperation."

The other was a comment by a zero-hedge reader: "Trump could have had sex with a goat in a Moscow hotel room and be videod as much as I care if he only delivers on his election promises. I voted based on his policy promises, not on his sexual preferences."

The sexual smear is so 20th century, the same as the CIA – obsolete.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:39 am

To continue on the humorous side, the vile RT has one on the Pornhub reporting a huge increase in searches for "Golden Showers". Perhaps the kiddies are adding a new term to their vocabularies.

https://www.rt.com/viral/373545-pornhub-golden-showers-trump/ Reply

rosemerry , January 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm

It seems that Trump supporters are many and varied, and very loyal. To pretend that all these shenanigans were needed to help elect him against such a faulty candidate as Hillary is pathetic in the extreme. The terrible results, when we see how the new Administration is being gently helped by the Senate including Democrats, will be bad for us all if their warlike statements lead to facts. However, Obama's sending of 2800 tanks and 4000 troops to help Germany(!) and Poland against "Russian aggression" right now, plus Hillary's promises, do not give a hopeful alternative scenario for the "land of the free" or peace on earth. Reply

W. R. Knight , January 12, 2017 at 11:06 am

The saddest part of this entire debacle is that the intelligence agencies, as well as main stream media, the president and most members of Congress have destroyed their own credibility. Lacking credibility, they cannot be believed; and when they cannot be believed, they cannot be trusted; and a government that cannot be trusted is doomed.

J. D. , January 12, 2017 at 1:35 pm

Trump proved more feisty than expected at his first press conference as President-Elect, hitting back at both Buzzfeed ('You're fake news" and CNN ("you're organization is terrible") And went on to say that "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a liability," describing the urgency of cooperation in defeating terrorism. Lost in the shuffle however was the source of the lies - British intelligence agencies.In fact, the NYTimes reported Jan. 6 that the official report released last week by the US intelligence agencies, which accused Putin of subverting the U.S. election, also came from British intelligence, which "raised an alarm that Moscow had hacked into the Democratic National Committee's computer servers, and alerted their American counterparts.Talk about foreign interference.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:52 pm

friends of Israel in action in the UK Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:40 pm

A 4 chan blogger wrote it as a hoax Reply

Steve Abbott , January 12, 2017 at 2:15 pm

Get with the program! We are supposed to believe that all we have heard from and about the CIA in this century was pure and innocent incompetence, and should therefore continue to put all of our faith in their motives and methods. Reply

Godfree Roberts , January 13, 2017 at 4:55 am

Do you know which major government is the most trusted by its citizens?
The Edelman Corporation does. They've been doing 'government trust' surveys for decades. Check it out. http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanAPAC/2016-edelman-trust-barometer-china-english .
Hint: China Reply

Dan Kuhn , January 12, 2017 at 11:08 am

The entire sordid mess needs to be dismantled brick by brick and rebuilt from the ground up. Washington should be razed to the ground. It is beyond rescuing. it is beyond saving. It is rotten from the foundations to the pinicle of the obilisk. The American People should declare war on Washington DC and invade the place and clean house. Bring the Guillotine along with them and the baskets for the heads.

The stench is overwhelming. It needs to be cleaned up. No it needs to be wiped from the face of the earth. One of the founding fathers said that periodically, the tree of democracy had to be watered with blood. That time has arrived. Reply

Znam Svashta , January 12, 2017 at 11:22 am

George Orwell predicted our current mess in his classic, "1984". Interestingly, that was the year that the neocons took over the Pentagon's Office of Risk Assessment, the State Department, and the whore-house American media. Reply

Lin Cleveland , January 12, 2017 at 11:50 am

What's going on here? I think Julian Assange may be on to something. ( my bold )

"Hillary Clinton's election would have been a consolidation of power in the existing ruling class of the United States. Donald Trump is not a D.C. insider , he is part of the wealthy ruling elite of the United States, and he is gathering around him a spectrum of other rich people and several idiosyncratic personalities. They do not by themselves form an existing structure, so it is a weak structure which is displacing and destabilizing the pre-existing central power network within D.C. It is a new patronage structure which will evolve rapidly, but at the moment its looseness means there are opportunities for change in the United States: change for the worse and change for the better."–Julian Assange

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Thanks, Lin [for your 'bold.' Assange and Snowden are two voices "in the wilderness" always worth listening to. Reply

Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Brilliant– as always. No matter how vilified JA is and no matter how much he's lied about, he still is a force for reason and subversion, both of which we desparately need. Thanks for the quote. Reply

D5-5 , January 12, 2017 at 4:50 pm

Curious to me in the two-pronged attack on Trump (a. demonizing to delegitimize and replace with Pence coming from the political establishment; b. hysterical fear of Trump coming from left wing journalism sources including left-oriented alternative news sites) is why the hysteria in the left continues so virulently. Assange's comment, to me, is balanced and sober. We don't know what will happen out of Trump and his collection of "idiosyncratic personalities," we don't know what will turn out "change for the worse and change for the better," and all the fear-mongering from people like Robert Reich, appearing regularly in Truthdig, is entirely speculative. I then question–would these same people on the left, that I once thought to be colleagues, prefer Hillary Clinton and "consolidation of power in the existing ruling class"? This fracturing in what I had thought was an intelligent left opposition is disturbing.

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 9:36 pm

As an "old leftie" myself, I'd have to agree with Paul Craig Roberts that there IS no left anymore. It was co-opted and bought by Big Money. Maybe we need to forget about "left" and "right" and operate according to our own minds rather tha taking our cues from apologists for the establishment like Robert Reich. But it sounds like you're already doing that. Reply

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:10 pm

Change that will undoubtedly benefit the privileged in a big way.

I don't give a crap about if Trump had prostitutes. That's between he and his wife. What I do care about is if there are Trump financial threads to Russia and if his team had illegal meetings with Moscow before the election. There are too many questions that need to be answered.

Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts.

Why won't he release his tax returns? It could only mean he is hiding something.

What benefit does the world intelligence community gain in smearing a president elect? Is it financial? idealogical? Power? Are they not tied and beholdened more to the entrenched financial hierarchies then to the ever changing political landscape?

What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info? Money, fame, a 2nd home in Portugal?

How does anyone watching that press conference not come away with the chilly realization that our president-elect is psychologically impaired? My god you don't have to be a trained psychologist to see the guy has some serious mental health issues.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

"He's a vicious killer " – this is a music for the Kagans' clan Reply

JayHobeSound , January 13, 2017 at 4:10 am

"What advantage did this operative from British intelligence gain from compiling this info?"

Reportedly he asked his neighbours to feed his cats and he went into hiding. Bizarre.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article126129709.html Reply

Godfree Roberts , January 13, 2017 at 4:59 am

'Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts.'
Facts? I'm pretty familiar with Putin's career and I've seen nothing to suggest that Putin is a killer at all.
Can you provide links to evidence? Not just links to other people making assertions without evidence, please. Reply

Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:20 pm

"Why does Trump continue to dote on Putin? He's a vicious killer who has no qualms of eliminating his opponents. Those are facts."
You talking about Trump or Putin? In any case has Russia or Putin killed as many people as America or Obama. The "facts" say no, not even close. Reply

stinky rafsanjani , January 16, 2017 at 9:36 am

vicious killer? since when is that a bad thing? jinkies, obama of nobel fame
sends missiles and drones around the planet, bombing and killing for fun and
profit. why, he even orders the assassination of citizens of his own country,
without trial even. meanwhile, putin has, umm look! a squirrel!

James van Oosterom , January 16, 2017 at 11:45 am

Nobody said it was a bad thing. You're inferring things. Stick to squirrels . Ah yes, the door . Reply

Andreas Wirsén , January 12, 2017 at 11:54 am

A "new phase" in Intelligence meddling with presidential candidates, yes – but only in how openly they stand behind it as the source. Campaigns to scandalize unwanted primary challengers have been alleged before. Senator Gary Hart, for one, has said in interviews he believes he was caught in a honey trap, which cost him his candidacy.

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm

Gary Hart, a potentially strong contender, was also [like Trump] not up to Deep State's standards in Russophobia. Reply

LongGoneJohn , January 12, 2017 at 12:04 pm

Didn't Trump just acknowledge that attacks on cyber US infrastructure including the DNC takes place, in a general way? That is what his statement read and to me that does not sound like "Trump acknowledges Russian DNC hack" at all.

So is it me, or ?

floyd gardner , January 12, 2017 at 2:12 pm

No, LGJ, it's not just you who can read through MSMB[ullsh t.] Reply

Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 12:05 pm

If Trump & Co. accept "the intelligence community's assessment that the Russian government hacked the emails," they are only saying that, as is common knowledge, everybody hacks everybody. This is not, as Parry says, an acceptance of the intelligence "assessment" that Putin or Russian hackers released the emails, or even got them. Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Assange and Murray have said unequivocally that the source was inside the DNC, which means it cannot have been the Russians.

Assange and Murray might be right, and they might not. There is a term being tossed around – "cutout". Just because an intermediary claims to be a DNC leaker doesn't mean he actually was such.

Under the circumstances I just don't care. Now if the Russians or Chinese or Ugandans or anybody else had done more than facilitate the release of true information useful to voters, I'd be agitated myself. Not that I'd expect anybody else to be. US votes have been hacked ever since the no-verify touchscreen devices were first introduced, and nobody in authority has given a hoot about it.

Jessejean , January 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm

Zachary–you are so right. It drives me crazy that Bush got away with stealing the voting system and all the Damn Dems care about is using it themselves. And now it drives me crazy that the Clintonistas took down Bernie and are getting away with it. With that cat's paw Obusha hanging around to "work" on rebuilding the DNC, we'll never see democracy again.

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 6:52 am

We must indeed Dump the Dems. We need a progressive party.

There is a strong progressive majority everywhere which is being deliberately fragmented by the Dems. In the US, Clinton supporters must unify not only with the critics of Dem warmongering for Israel and KSA, but also with the Trumpers who want economic security in a rapacious oligarchic state. Clinton supporters will have to admit their mistake and abandon the Dems as a scam of oligarchy serving only as a backstop for the Repubs.

The solution is for a third party to align moderate progressives (national health care, no wars of choice, income security) with parts of the traditional right (fundamentalists, flag-wavers, make America great) leaving out only the extreme right (wars, discrimination, big business imperialism), use individual funding, and rely upon broad platform appeal to marginalize the Dems as the third party.

RMDC , January 13, 2017 at 9:28 am

Sam F. I agree with you but you have to stop using the term "progressive." The Clinton faction of the demo party owns that term. It arose with John Podesta's Center for American Progress. Podesta is the ideologue of contemporary progressivism. It has nothing to do with the Progressive movement of the early 20th century.

The right term is Sander's term: Democratic Socialism. I know socialism is a problematic term, too, but at least it is now claimed by the right people.

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 2:20 pm

RMDC: Do you think "Progressive" can be brought back to its original meaning, or given a better one, despite people falsely claiming to be progressive? Sanders' term might be incorporated into that. It would be nice to deny the fakers the use of it.

Truth First , January 13, 2017 at 6:23 pm

"we'll never see democracy again."

Humm? When did we last see that "democracy" thing? Reply

Bill Cash , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Trump could end all this by releasing his tax returns but he won't do it. I believe the intelligence community had fears that once inaugurated, Trump would squash the whole thing. The Russian connection is the only theory that connects all the dots. I'm waiting t see what happens with Assange. Will he suddenly be able to go to Sweden?
As far as Trump's behavior, don't forget he was accused of raping a 13 year old girl but the woman had to withdraw the suit because her life was threatened.

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Why is your post such a strong reminder of Pizzagate? Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm

Wont make any difference what t he does. He's an outsider. There's no escape except trying & convicting the traitors running obama. Reply

Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:14 pm

Very interesting column. I guess Mr. Trump is getting a lesson in who really runs things around here. Reply

Patricia Victour , January 12, 2017 at 12:22 pm

Unless Trump killed a prostitute on film, how could whatever is on the alleged video be any worse than the pussy-grabbing debacle and all the other accusations of sexual predation? I don't think you can embarrass Trump. He would just brush it off, and his base would probably think he was a super stud.

Wm. Boyce , January 12, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Oh, I don't know, they could well have much worse stuff to leak, given Mr. Trump's complete lack of control of his desires.

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:59 pm

I collected a lot of "stuff" on Trump from the internet in the past year, and was surprised to see virtually none of it used against him. My best guess is that Hillary & Co. didn't think it was necessary against their carefully selected "easiest" opponent. That "stuff" is still available, and might well be used to buttress wilder and unverifiable claims.

col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 7:49 pm

Yesterday on anther site i wrote how Hillary was complicit in a very serious charge.
Please watch video titles, where is Eric braverman on you tube . I have watched some and most of the material gives you the reality of what is occurring. A example is this. A fact is Gaddafi wanted to have some kind of gold backed Dina money policy. Fact. So Libya had a lot of gold maybe hundreds of tons. Where is it now. Did the "invaders' get it with their usual cut out Libyan man?
In the spirit of trying to make a better world i put this up, it seems political unbiased however it shows the Clinton as they are?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vam6qxfQrgA

day 70

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:48 pm

"For over four decades, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi's rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/20/libya-from-africas-wealthiest-democracy-under-gaddafi-to-terrorist-haven-after-us-intervention/

"Libya's Qadhafi (African Union 2009 Chair) conceived and financed a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency (United States of Africa). In 2004, a pan-African Parliament (53 nations) laid plans for the African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

"African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for oil/gas Qaddafi had done more than organize an African monetary coup. He had demonstrated that financial independence could be achieved. His greatest infrastructure project, the Great Man-made River, was turning arid regions into a breadbasket for Libya; and the $33 billion project was being funded interest-free without foreign debt, through Libya's own state-owned bank.
That could explain why this critical piece of infrastructure was destroyed in 2011. NATO not only bombed the pipeline but finished off the project by bombing the factory producing the pipes necessary to repair it."

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987399/why_qaddafi_had_to_go_african_gold_oil_and_the_challenge_to_monetary_imperialism.html

dave , January 12, 2017 at 3:24 pm

Speaking of "leaks", isn't the specific accusation in this case that Trump paid a prostitute to "take a leak" on the bed where he believed the Obamas had spent the night? (So I guess it was the prostitute that had "worse stuff to leak"!)

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 8:58 pm

And while no one at Trump's press conference mentioned the specifics, Trump stated, "Does anyone really believe that story? I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me."

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 9:56 pm

Check Chan4

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 11:04 pm

Anna, do you mean the British television programme?

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:48 pm

What? Dim wit. Reply

backwardsevolution , January 12, 2017 at 12:36 pm

The Saker writes in "The Neocon's Declaration of War Against Trump":

"After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump. [ ] All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed. [ ]

As I predicted it before the election, the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of Americans will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life

If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA."

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:54 pm

If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people.

At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people". I suspect that's why a great many of them joined up in the first place. Finally, carefully chosen drone operators thousands or tens of thousands of miles away won't have the slightest problem slaughtering evildoers. That's what they do all the time in their regular jobs.

Brad Owen , January 12, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Don't forget veterans, millions of them. When THEY stepped up to the North Dakota pipeline, security forces backed off. Backwards' described scenario could be our "1991" moment to break free and break the Deep State, and reinstating Glass-Steagall would break their Imperial paymasters in The City and The Street. A new World could suddenly come about, faster than even the USSR/Warsaw Pact disappeared. Reply

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:14 pm

At Kent State the National Guard was quite willing to shoot "their own people". The increasingly militarized Police of the US have been getting lots of practice shooting at "their own people".

Police departments all over the U.S. and other nations have a long history of acting as goon squads and occasional firing squads for their local establishments. Lots of examples in labor histories. Reply

Peter Loeb , January 13, 2017 at 8:23 am

KILLING OUR OWN PEOPLE .

Special thanks to Zachary Smith.

In the US it's called "heroism", patriotism" and the rest. But if we are
inconvenienced to kill our own people, we can kill other peoples'
people. Gigantic weapons deals to Saudi Arabia and Israel
are proof of that.

By the way, did anyone happen to notice in the NDAA (Defense Authorization
Act) the increase of funds to rebels in another country whose goal is to
defeat the Syrian Government?

-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

PS For those who object to our killing our own people in the US join
Black Lives Matter. Reply

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 2:53 am

At the very least, the US should get rid of this prolonged waiting period between the elections and actual assuming power by the president-elect. It was meant to facilitate the orderly transition of power, but as we see now it is serving just the opposite goals. I cannot believe Obama is so keen on hurting Trump he is ready to badly hurt his own country as well. Reply

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 12:37 pm

Whether this move was meant to soften up Trump

The motive I see is to "soften" him up for his impeachment. Given Trump's temperament, it could be a winning strategy for the people who prefer President Pence. In my barely informed opinion, that would include a majority of both parties in both houses of the US congress.

Joe Tedesky , January 12, 2017 at 1:41 pm

Read section 4 of the 25th amendment .

"Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President."

I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence. Although Donald Trump may give one some consternation to his being a qualified person to sit in the Oval Office, Mike Pence may bring down the house with his religious leanings inside of his political philosophy. Either way we Americans are in for a most interesting time of it in our country's brief history. We should all probably prepare ourselves for the worst, and hope that the best will happen.

Zachary wasn't Mike Pense your governor, or do I have you in the wrong state?

Realist , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm

Fascinating and disturbing at the same time. That section was surely MEANT to apply to the president's health and physical capacity to do the job. However, a declaration by the VP (supported only by a simple majority of the cabinet or the congress) "that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" can be based in an insurrection, a coup, or simply the erosion of political capital. Gerald Ford could have argued that Richard Nixon no longer had the support to govern (which is what Nixon himself conceded as the basis for his resignation). It basically gives the VP and whatever insurgents he can muster the ability to quickly overthrow the sitting president without the inconvenience of an impeachment and trial in the Senate. It could be the Maidan without the messy blood all over the pavement. How wonderful.

Very resourceful of you in looking that up, Joe. I would never have imagined the seeds for a coup existed right in the constitution.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:16 am

I have a saying: For the people in law-enforcement, law is a fringe benefit. Those who control law always use it as a tool. Have you ever heard of a coup which was not based on some law, even if it was the one written post-festum by the coup plotters? In other words, a coup is never difficult to justify by the winners.

I have no doubt that the coup that Joe describes is possible. But the issue for the coup plotters has always been: what happens with all the Trump voters after such a coup, the millions of them? Will they sit and just watch the destruction of their social contract?

To some extent such US coup dilemma is not dissimilar to the nuclear war dilemma: easy to start, difficult to finish.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 10:53 am

KIza, nice to hear from you it's been awhile.

Read this link. Trump got 26.8% of the total citizenry to vote for him. In all honesty I haven't seen any polls on how the American populace shakes out on these controversies such as this most recent fake news story, but I would imagine that a clever beat down campaign would be able to soften the blowback .but then again I agree with you to some extent, that by pushing Trump out of office this would have to have some kind of consequence that would not be pretty.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/12/bringing-trump-nation-down-to-size/

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 11:20 am

Joe, in general I am trying to highlight that it is one thing to bamboozle sheeple with a talk of democracy (which does not exist) and another to openly crush even this reassuring lie. I just cannot see the end game of a US coup and Trump is but a minor obstacle if they want to start it.

Therefore, they really want to make a Trump a lame and controllable President, not to take over. Maintaining a reassuring lie of democracy is a much more sophisticated and efficient control mechanism than direct control. I may we wrong but I do believe that Trump is just being house trained/broken by TPTB in front of our eyes.

You write: I have not seen any polls how American populace shakes out on these controversies.
My reading of the online beat is that the Trump voters are not swayed, whilst the Clinton voters use the "controversy" as confirmation that they were right all along about Trump. But then Clinton voters would receive a confirmation even from an oily rag thrown in their direction. In other words, a mountain shook and a mouse was born – almost no change at all on either side.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:56 pm

KIza your comparing Trump's attackers to how the MH17 story was spun is right on.

http://journal-neo.org/2017/01/11/trump-and-mh17-just-one-step-too-far/

Trump is an easy target since his nature is certainly different than that of the usual norm of our politico class who are cookie cutter politicians on the whole. I'm disappointed by how people such as Michael Moore are going out of their way attacking Trump, while they completely ignore how corrupt and dishonest the Clinton's are.

I wouldn't go so far as to predict that Trump supporters won't rebel against his impeachment, but there again I believe the Trump supporters would be out numbered due to an over aggressive media who could sway the majority into believing we must get Trump out of office. Any other method other than impeachment is to horrible to even contemplate, so let's hope that all of our concerns turn to ashes, and that for the good or bad of it that Trump finishes out his first term in good health.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 8:19 pm

Yes, Joe, those 26.8% of citizenry who voted for Trump are built into 75-76% of citizenry who do not believe in the MSM any more and in the John Brennan's two kitchen sinks, that is, his two top secret but leakable kompromat dossiers on Trump – the first one apparently from an MI6 agent and the second one promoted by the BBC (source unknown yet).

But this is not about Clintons any more, this is about the owners of the Clintons training/braking Trump to be like the Clintons. If they cannot have a Clinton as a President, they want to have a President as Clinton. If kompromat does not work, maybe a billet will, their patience is limited.

Always enjoyable to exchange thoughts with you Joe.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 11:14 am

Realist, considering how our country's founders were a bunch of slave owners declaring how all men are created equally well need I say more?

Words are just words, that is until lawyers interpret these legal words into a reality, which doesn't always fit into our own personal definition of a certain word usage. You and I deal with this stuff all the time. Whether it be a traffic ticket, or an ordinance summons, we read one thing, and the judge administers another thing. Prisons are filled with people who swear with, 'yeah but' explanations which give these prisoners no relief what so ever so I do think these crafty legislators could pull a fast one, and install Mike Pence into the White House. Let's you and I hope that I'm the one out in left field with my 25th amendment comment, and that we won't end up with a Christian whack job as our president. Reply

Zachary Smith , January 12, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Yeah, Pence was elected Governor of Indiana. But despite this state being one of the most conservative in the nation, Pence was too "nutty" and "far-right" for Mississippi North, and would have surely been defeated. Now the man is one heartbeat/one impeachment conviction from becoming President of the United States.

Quote: "From his denial of climate change to his belief in creationism, Pence is the most hard-right radical to ever appear on a national ticket. Just this week a federal court had to block his atrocious bill barring Syrian refugees from his state because his reasoning that Syrians scare him is discriminatory."

Quote: "it is a literal truth, Mr. Speaker, to say that I am in Congress today because of Rush Limbaugh, and not because of some tangential impact on my career or his effect on the national debate; but because in fact after my first run for Congress in 1988, it was the new national voice emerging in 1989 across the heartland of Indiana of one Rush Hudson Limbaugh, III, that captured my imagination.""

It's a fact we are very, very close to having a Rush 'druggie' Limpaugh clone as President. In my opinion, Pence is Trump's worst mistake up till now. If they can't have Hillary, for the neocons and neo-liberals and the Christian End-Timers there remains Worse-Than-Hillary Mike Pence.

Trump is a Trojan horse for a cabal of vicious zealots who have long craved an extremist Christian theocracy, and Pence is one of its most prized warriors. With Republican control of the House and Senate and the prospect of dramatically and decisively tilting the balance of the Supreme Court to the far right, the incoming administration will have a real shot at bringing the fire and brimstone of the second coming to Washington.

"The enemy, to them, is secularism. They want a God-led government. That's the only legitimate government," contends Jeff Sharlet, author of two books on the radical religious right, including "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power." "So when they speak of business, they're speaking not of something separate from God, but they're speaking of what, in Mike Pence's circles, would be called biblical capitalism, the idea that this economic system is God-ordained."

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/mike-pence-will-be-the-most-powerful-christian-supremacist-in-us-history/

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Zachary I looked forward to your reply, since you always have references to your level headed comments .so thanks for getting back to me.

In my world I don't even like bringing up the word God, or religion, since I believe a government should be governed in a truly secular way. Who I pray to, and who I pay taxes to, are two completely different things. My devotion to God is a very private matter, and I don't need some politician interpreting God's greatness to me in anyway. So with that if Mike Pense wants to preach the gospel to me, then he should resign from public office and become a full fledged preacher and even then I will not go to his mean spirited church. Amen.

Realist , January 13, 2017 at 3:13 pm

What a troubling coincidence that Hulu is releasing its production of "the Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood this April, which tells the story of the United States government being taken over by extreme Christian fundamentalists and the consequences, especially to women and religious dissenters. Read the book by Atwood and you'll see where Isis/Daesh got many of their ideas on punishment and control of the masses. The Spanish Inquisition was six hundred years ago, but its urges lie just beneath the veneer of our civilised modern world. Human nature hasn't changed, only technology has. I thought this country was in danger of playing out the novel during Dubya's administration, as 9-11 was exactly the kind of pretext for such a takeover in the book's plot narrative and the Islamic world was portrayed as the great global adversary just as many Americans believe in the real world. Trump has never struck me as a religious man, certainly not a zealot, but Pence, with a little help from the Deep State, he could bring this disturbing novel to life.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:16 pm

I'm wondering if we are seeing the beginnings of a President Pence.

A very plausible and ominous possibility.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 12:53 am

Seriously Bill even taking into consideration how some like Glenn Beck along with Rick Santelli ridiculed an early President Obama back in 2009, I can't recall a more hostile media such as the likes of how this current day corporate media is going after Trump. True, that Donald Trump by just being Donald Trump can be an outrageous person with his words and actions, but still I just can't get over the 24/7 media coverage, and how most of it isn't good coverage at that. This leaves me to wonder if we all are not being setup for something big.

With Trump's winning streak putting away a whole herd of Republican primary candidates, and how he sent 'low energy Jeb' packing, and then to go on and beat Hillary by his winning the Electoral vote, he has had a great run. Now Donald Trump is battling not only the CIA/FBI/NSA, but he is also bumping up against the congressional establishment. You know that McCain and Graham hate him, but you can only bet that there is yet much more to come.

I'm sorry, but I don't sense there is much good to come with all of this. Thanks for the reply.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:57 am

Joe, I wonder if people missed the crazy similarity of the media campaign on the Trump "report" and the one on MH17 ?

It appears that the TPTB have decided that if they generate enough media screaming, the lack of proof does not matter any more.

Thus, I have become a strong proponent of the theory that whatever TPTB use outside, it is only a practice for what they will use (more productively) inside. Drones anyone?

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:06 pm

KIza read my comment above, it pertains to what you brought up here.

Gregory Herr , January 13, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Weaponized drones anyone?

http://youtu.be/1sK5mDTCNEU

Pablo Diablo , January 12, 2017 at 12:42 pm

All this turmoil and a dysfunctional Congress insures that nothing will change. The 1% loves the status quo and will do anything to preserve it. Simply a smokescreen to keep US from dealing with the corporate stranglehold on our government.
An Empire in decline. Reply

Mike Flores , January 12, 2017 at 1:24 pm

While others laugh and make jokes, those of us who study Intel know that what just happened with the leaked report was that the CIA has involved itself in U.S. politics, which it is forbidden to do. How did the alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA begin? President Truman had allowed 200 Nazi Intel agents to come into the U.S. – including the men who created the blueprint for the holocaust. Fearing Joe McCarthy would discover this, the CIA faked an Intel report and has spent decades ever since lying about Joe. They actually confessed that his 2 lists were correct, so they had to fool him with a fake dossier right before the Army hearings to shake his confidence. Just search CIA AND THE POND and you will find on their website STUDIES IN INTELLIGENCE in the last third of the article a full confession of framing Joe. This Facebook photo album THE REAL JOSEPH McCARTHY is packed with forbidden information and can be viewed with this link by anyone whether they are on FB or not. The alliance between the Democratic Party and CIA began by hiding the people responsible for the holocaust. ( We should keep in mind Truman was KKK and forbade the bombing of the train tracks to the death camps. The reason soldiers were not prepared for the camps was that none had been told about them. Truman did not want our troops wasting time on them). Interesting to note that absolutely no one has ever done an article or book on the impact of the beliefs of the KKK on the 5 Democrats who were Presidents and Klansmen in the 20th century. That would reveal the true nature of the Democratic Party.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153995222685986.1073741929.695490985&type=1&l=6dd1544b9d Reply

Bill , January 12, 2017 at 1:37 pm

You don't mention President Obama, but it certainly seems likely that he's involved with this. Who told Brennan and Clapper to go on TV to hype the intelligence reports and bad-mouth the next President?

And were the leakers within the agencies acting on their own, or were they given orders from above? There's a conspiracy going on and it's not my imagination.

Does the behavior rise to the level of treason or espionage?

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:58 pm

Obama is a deadhead it is Brennan who instructs him. But who instructs Brennan? Reply

Michael Morrissey , January 12, 2017 at 1:46 pm

As I have just learned from another reader's comment on another article, David Spring has augmented his earlier article to an 85-page expose. Seems it was both a leak and a hack, but in neither case by "the Russians."

I hope Ray McGovern and especially Wm Binney (and some Trump guy) read this and tell us what they think!

https://turningpointnews.org/hack-everything-special-report

Lois Gagnon , January 13, 2017 at 11:04 am

I read it last night. Very much worth the couple of hours it took. Reply

Realist , January 14, 2017 at 3:42 am

Well, that's THE comprehensive treatment in a nutshell. Everything documented chronologically. Nothing important left out. Everything explained clearly and concisely. As organised as possible and argued like a philosopher rather than a lawyer. The man has exceptional writing skills as well as incredible computer knowledge. I'd like to see him question Clapper on the witness stand. I hope that President Trump puts the Justice Department on this case to do a thorough investigation, including potential indictments of spooks that perjured themselves and/or engaged in partisan activities during the election and its ugly aftermath. Reply

Oleg , January 12, 2017 at 2:47 pm

I am really surprised to no end. Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government? I do not really know what would happen in the US but in Russia there would be riots. Any leader in Russia can govern only until he/she is trusted. Think Tsar Nicholas II, Gorbachev I hope it will not get to this and some sanity will prevail in your country.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 10:22 pm

Why are you in the US so keen on destroying any credibility of your government?

What credibility? Oleg, if you check the graphic at the top of the right sidebar on this page you will see a reference to "I. F. Stone" who was one of this nation's great journalists of the 20th Century. He is noted for a dictum that says, "All governments lie." All governments certainly include the U.S. government. You can get plenty of examples of lies with a little effort.

Bill Bodden , January 12, 2017 at 11:12 pm

Lies out of government agencies and elected politicians are not the only problem. Hypocrisy is another and has been part of American governance since the writing of the Declaration of Independence by slave owners who said that all men are created equal with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now hypocrisy is rampant with politicians decrying alleged Russian intervention is U.S. elections with the claim that it is wrong for any nation to interfere in the elections of another nation. There is no nation on the planet that interferes in the governments of other nations than the United States. Reply

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:02 am

Well, I certainly agree, but a government can still be largely trusted even if they resort to some petty lies. As we all do too sometimes. But this this is not a petty thing, this is an intentional attack on the whole institution of elections and democracy when they try to impeach the elected President because some part of the establishment, not the people, dislike him. This has a potential to really get very dangerous, and having any kind of uprisings (as was also mentioned by other commenters above) in a country like the US is extremely dangerous for the whole world. Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:01 pm

Anyone in Washington seeking a golden shower from a couple of Russian prostitutes just has to hop on one of those all-expenses-paid AIPAC junkets to Israel.

It's truly amazing how streams of urine help elevate one's anxiety about Iran's nuclear energy program.

Adam , January 13, 2017 at 3:11 am

Best comment, Abe! Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 3:25 pm

American journalist and activist Chris Hedges noted a key purpose of the declassified report "Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election" from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI):

"to justify the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization beyond Germany, a violation of the promise Ronald Reagan made to the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Expanding NATO in Eastern Europe opened up an arms market for the war industry. It made those businesses billions of dollars. New NATO members must buy Western arms that can be integrated into the NATO arsenal. These sales, which are bleeding the strained budgets of countries such as Poland, are predicated on potential hostilities with Russia. If Russia is not a threat, the arms sales plummet. War is a racket."

The Real Purpose of the U.S. Government's Report on Alleged Hacking by Russia
By Chris Hedges
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_real_purpose_of_the_us_governments_report_on_alleged_hacking_by_russi

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 4:54 pm

Israeli arms sales to Europe more than doubled from $724 million in 2014 to $1.63 billion in 2015. http://jfjfp.com/?p=83806

Israel is the leading arms exporter in the world per capita (2014), and ranks 11th among the top 20 exporters of military equipment and systems (2011-15).

75-80% of Israeli military exports are generated by just three companies - the state-owned Rafael and Israel Aerospace Industries and the publicly traded Elbit Systems.

The largest categories of Israeli military exports are upgrading aircraft and aerospace systems (14%), radar and electronic systems (12%), drones (11%), and intelligence and information systems (10%).

In 2015, the Russian government described Israel's delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine as "counterproductive". There is a close arms trade and production co-operation between Israel and Poland. Israeli companies have invested in building arms manufacturing facilities in Poland. Reply

jfl , January 12, 2017 at 3:26 pm

However, in this case, it is not even known whether the Russians have any dirt on Trump.

If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.

- said to have been said by redhat richelieu

what is known is that the nsa/cia/fbi have all the dirt on everyone, and that they use it on the leaders of the eu, for instance.

if the only thing that comes out of this filthy little exercise is the death of the nsa/cia/fbi – superpower america's superstazi – by executive fiat it will have been worth trump's election.

it's either that or another dead president. with pence playing lbj. Reply

F. G. Sanford , January 12, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Funny how these "leaks" work, isn't it? If there really were an "insider" able to provide insight on the deepest, darkest secrets that had been gathered by Russian intelligence, why would any responsible intelligence agency completely destroy that asset only to expose a mundane fetish like "golden showers"? But don't anybody dare leak "The Torture Report". Don't even consider leaking information about war crimes, election fraud, financial crimes, murder, state corruption or state sponsorship of terrorism.

Just my opinion, but here's how it really went. The "hack" scenario is a diversion from the "leak" scenario. The "deep state" didn't really want Hillary. While she may superficially represent their interests, the Clinton machine is too knowledgeable, too experienced and too selfish and self-centered to predictably execute their programs. The Clintons have plenty of dirt on them. But they had enough dirt on her to compromise her electability. They don't want Trump either, but they can manufacture or dig up enough dirt to compromise his Presidency. Their first choice was Jeb Bush. Their second choice is Mike Pence.

The DNC stuff was leaked by an insider, and the Podesta stuff was hacked by the NSA. The only plausible alternative points to hacking attempts by the neo-Nazi Ukrainian hacking outfit "RuH8", not the Russians.

A bunch of recent articles seek to analyze Barack Obama's legacy, personality and motivations. That's all superfluous. The "real deal" has been well documented. His grandparents were CIA His mother was CIA His first job after law school was with Banking international Corporation, a CIA "front company". He was groomed and thoroughly vetted.

Nobody wants to hear the truth or look at real evidence. The circumstantial – though well documented – evidence connecting Ted Cruz's father to the anti-Castro Cubans, the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald is actually much more plausible and substantial than the evidence for "Russian hacking" of the election, yet the general public has no problem dismissing that as a "conspiracy theory".

Between the two, Trump was perceived – mistakenly – as the lesser threat to the "deep state". Just a guess, but we may be about to see all hell break loose.

It's about time some journalists and researchers started naming names and making lists. The "New McCarthyism" uses lists to good advantage. It creates the perception of a vast subversive network dedicated to destroying our "democracy". Until some names are named and fingers pointed, the "deep state" and its intelligence community enforcement arm will continue to control the "democracy" we don't really have. Blackmail is just one of their methods, and it's far from the worst.

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 4:14 pm

Funny how these "streams," er, "leaks" work:

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.764452

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:17 pm

Buzzfeed's "explosive and unverified" golden shower (guess that's not highlighter on the documents):
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984/Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.pdf

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 4:42 am

And someone has been paying for this crap? If anything, this report exposes its authors much more than anybody else. Reply

Abe , January 13, 2017 at 1:00 pm

The "authors" dominate a post-truth regime that demands popular attention to and participation in its discursive games.

Are you not entertained?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs Reply

F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:37 pm

My favorite quotes from the "Company Intelligence Report":

"However, he and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow " (Is this a pun?)

"PUTIN angry with senior officials who "overpromised" on TRUMP and further heads likely to roll as result. Foreign minister LAVROV may be next" (What Putin is going to make him change the sheets in Trump's hotel room?)

" TRUMP has paid bribes and engaged in sexual activities there but key witnesses silenced and evidence hard to obtain" (Were the "key" witnesses the same ones that claim Putin shot down MH-17?)

I think they dug up the script writers from "The Man from Uncle" and put them back to work. This sounds like a Quinn Martin Production straight out of a Hollywood "B Movie". Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 10:24 pm

First Draft coalition "partner" BuzzFeed is leading the charge to make fake news, hybrid war propaganda, and hoaxes "more shareable and more social"

https://firstdraftnews.com/buzzfeed-wants-use-social-media-might-take-hoaxers/ Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Funny how that "leak" worked:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb565-Was-U.S.-Nuclear-Weapons-Fuel-Diverted-to-Israel/

"OK, but I doubt advisability of getting into this (redacted)." – FBI Director J. Edgard Hoover Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 5:17 pm

Funny how that other "leak" worked:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB407/ Reply

Gregory Kruse , January 12, 2017 at 8:37 pm

FG, I'm not gay, but I always scroll down to find your comment. You are always looking into the big picture, not the big illusion.

backwardsevolution , January 13, 2017 at 1:44 am

Gregory – I agree. His comments are always very good. Reply

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Me three.

F. G. Sanford , January 13, 2017 at 6:41 pm

Thanks to all – sometimes I wonder if it's worth putting in my two cents. We're probably a statistically insignificant group of readers on the world's stage, but I like to think at least it's worth a try. Reply

Jessica K , January 12, 2017 at 4:34 pm

We must organize beyond cyberspace as this is a coup in action. CIA is greatest meddler of all nations, coups and assassinations well documented. DC is the Aegean stable that must be cleaned, a truly Herculean task and We the People have to get organized because this planet is imperiled. Agree with Dan that whole sordid mess is beyond a swamp, a stinking pit and pitchforks are necessary! Reply

LJ , January 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm

It's more doublethink logic from the Intelligence heads. It would require a tremendous leap of faith for anyone with a brain to think that Russia/Putin/Lavrov would use this info, if it existed at all, in public manner. To do so wouldn't help them achieve a goal and it would only hurt Russia .. The tape would never become public even if it existed. That means this rumor is clearly slander and was aimed at some political end. . Where is the smoking gun?, sorry. By the way , Putin is friends with Bertoloscini , Sarkozy and other notorious womanizers and is known to like women himself. This is not something he would do. He is not a mobster. This is puerile and it is coming from the Democrats although the word is that George Bush initially hired the guy, the former MI5 spy, who wrote the dossier/smear piece on Trump in the first place. . Hoover would have kept it in shop and tried to leverage Trump himself. Reply

Bernie , January 12, 2017 at 5:09 pm

There's an article at ABC News today about US tanks rolling into Poland. This reminds me of Nazis rolling into Austria in 1938 and then Poland on Sept 1, 1941 to start WWII. "American soldiers rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia. Some people waved and held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. "

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 6:32 pm

Like Poland, Ukraine is eager to express its devotion to the Reich, er, its "Euro-Atlantic aspirations".

If only for the sake of NATO "cooperation" and "capacity building", Poland and Ukraine have much to forgive and forget:

http://observer.com/2016/09/from-friends-to-bitter-rivals-poland-and-ukraine-accuse-each-other-of-genocide/

Of course, reports of Russian "euphoria" remain "unconfirmed". Reply

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Absurd. Who is this "they" everyone is talking about? How many are/is this 'they'? 5, 10 20? Who is in control of 'they'? Who's in charge? The political elite? Do they have a club and do they meet for bridge every Tuesday? Do they have a secret handshake? Are they all really Mason's?

This conspiracy holds no credibility because 'they' is just an 'idea'. That is all. Until someone can give names of those who are responsible and running this political elite then its all storybook conjecture. We should be more concerned with the obvious psychological dementia affecting the president elect. He was a total looney tune in that press conference.

Wendi , January 12, 2017 at 5:52 pm

Here are the names.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/meet-the-80-people-who-are-as-rich-as-half-the-world/

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 7:09 pm

What you are saying with this list then, Wendi, it is not the political elites, intelligence agencies or career politicians whoTrump continuously rails against as the cause for the end of the American Empire. It is the financial hierarchies that Trump so desperately wants to be a part of. Putin is obviously at the top of this list and Trump sees him as a way to become a player in this club. That makes sense to me. Reply

Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 12, 2017 at 6:14 pm

"THEY" are the people who control the MONEY. They are referred to as the BANKERS. Those are a mafia that runs the political circus BEHIND the scene. The parties and elections are a diversion to keep the idiots busy arguing with each other like the crazy fans of sports teams. The BANKERS always make sure that the "idiots" are choosing between alternatives that ultimately BOW to the BANKERS. Read for example the following:

– "All the President's Bankers" by Naomi Prins.

– "Memoirs" by David Rockefeller.

– "The Crisis of Democracy" a publication of the Tri-Lateral Commission on their website.

-Here's How Goldman Sachs Became the Overlord of the Trump Administration
http://wallstreetonparade.com/

-Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism | The Inline image 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-whetten/goldman-wall-street-and-f_b.. .
Jun 19, 2010 · The most disturbing aspect of the recent Goldman Sachs lawsuit isn't just the legal violations involved Goldman, Wall Street and Financial Terrorism.

-Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists | FacebookInline image 1
http://www.facebook.com/Stop.Goldman
Goldman Sachs Are Financial Terrorists. 95,662 likes · 6,188 talking about this. Get the Honest truth on the economy, this page sponsors no organization

Those will give you a good start ..Good Luck. Reply

Sam F , January 13, 2017 at 7:29 am

Perhaps you do not mean the ridicule you suggest. The effects of economic aristocracy and political conspiracy are of course not "storybook conjecture" but the combined deductions of experienced observers. That would become conjecture only if specific persons were accused, which is seldom done without evidence.

The demand for detailed evidence of an old-fashioned conspiracy to effect societal trends is not valid. It becomes propaganda when used to attack the means by which we all deduce that events are driven by cabals, or loose organizations of interested parties. While we are occasionally surprised by the detailed evidence that emerges long after events, even that is incomplete and not very relevant.

The means of ridicule shows its invalidity. There is no reason to speculate upon clubs, meetings, or handshakes, as there is no need for such specific or antiquated organization. No modern organization works that way, no one has suggested that, and no one here has reasoned from such nonsense, but rather from well documented effects of cabals. So I hope that you merely overstated a wish for more evidence.

Kiza , January 13, 2017 at 9:49 am

Bravo. Reply

Howard Mettee , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Robert, Could it not be true that the real losers in the neocon push to extend the American dominion might actually be the intelligence services? They have become so politicized in domestic politics since the Iraq War build up (a la Rice, Chaney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Powell) that they figure they can shape American public opinion to support any war, no matter how "unthreatening" the enemy (say Russia) might actually be. Originally they were basically "fact collectors" (objective) – at first from around the world, but since 9/11's Patriot Act, at home also. Then, they became "interpreters and analyzers of motives" which takes a bit of a weed-gee board (subjective!) on the part of the "experienced eye". When whatever these very effective (and appreciated) fact collectors opine suddenly becomes gospel in their "estimates" (interpretation), we have lost the ability to even influence the fate of our nation. Is this the country I grew up in? Or, has it been this way since we were led so effectively to support World War I? Take care, HM Reply

Thurgle , January 12, 2017 at 6:44 pm

The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying. Reply

BlackPete , January 12, 2017 at 7:46 pm

When it comes to cavorting with prostitutes JFK was the undisputed champion. Given the high regard JFK is held in in some circles maybe Trump's alleged misbehaviour is a positive sign. Also, now that Trump's behaviour has been made public isn't the Russian threat to expose him now worthless and their alleged hold/influence gone?

Mark West , January 12, 2017 at 8:01 pm

Its not about the hookers. That's useless drivel. It's about the potential of illegal financial dealings with Russia prior to the election. Just show the damn tax returns. What the hell is he afraid of? What could possibly go wrong?

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Are you keen on asking Clintons to reveal their financial dealings with Saudis, the sponsors of 9/11?
How about the Kagans' clan being currently "supported" financially by Qatari?
And this is much more interesting than tax return: "The NYT skirts around the issue of who paid the huge sums for the research that produced the story of Trump's alleged sexcapades in Moscow. They never say the funders are unknown, but instead use devices like the passive tense to avoid saying. But it would be very interesting to know who signed the checks. Apparently, there was a Republican funder during the primaries who stopped payment when Trump prevailed, whereupon Fusion found a Clinton backer to write their checks. It would be very interesting to know who these funders were and why the MSM seems so keen to avoid saying."

col from oz , January 12, 2017 at 10:25 pm

I read it was Rubio commissioned the dirt.
Look at day 69 of eric braverman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwKhbsASDhI Reply

akech , January 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm

Is this the face of the "DEEP STATE"?

It is controlling, deceptive, organized, bloody and does not give a "rat ass" about the needs of any other human being on earth who does not belong to it!

It neither tolerates opposing views from anybody who does not belong to its members nor allows the outsiders to organize . It is determined to be the lens through which everybody under its control see the rest of the world; any conclusion drawn by the besieged population, based on what it is forced to see, must conform to the "DEEP STATE" norms; otherwise, you are in deep trouble. The POTUS or the Congress must toe lines dictated by the members of this organization, (the Deep State). We are observing that no effort is being spared to see to it that President-Elect toes the "DEEP STATE" line; it is deep and scary indeed! Reply

John , January 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm

Russia is the half naked female in the magic show The real slight of hand is the relationship with the American oligarch and china .wow !!! . talking about messing with the bottom line some of you big brain folks will get this in 4 ..3 2 ..lol Reply

Abe , January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm

What I Learned From the Intelligence Report on "Russian Hacking"
By James Corbett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ecxu7EStgs Reply

CitizenOne , January 12, 2017 at 9:55 pm

There is little doubt that the obvious blackmail will never be covered in that light by main stream media. To those of us who are historians or are natural skeptics or have actually lived through those times, this is all fairly obvious. They are trying to put Donald Trump in a corner so he can be controlled.

I suspect that is why Trump retained Steve Bannon for. Not just a house racist but someone who can get down and dirty on those that dish up dirt on Trump. We'll have to see if it works. Headlines: "Donald unleashes TwitterBomb on CIA". But he'll have to go on the internet since the CIA owns the press in the USA.

He has two choices. Listen to the CIA and do their bidding which is the requirement to start WWIII with Russia or resist and be smeared in the press. It's an uphill battle too. Unlike Silvio Berlusconi or Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump does not actually own the press. That will make it especially hard to do.

This thing is shaping up to be a geopolitical oil war. Rex and the Russians vs the Saudi/CIA Team USA.

All I can say is fine America. Don't give a damn about privacy. Don't give a damn about anything. But one of these days this massive spying ring gathering every shred of any and all traces of your life and filing them away forever cannot be good. It will most certainly not end well.

When AI has us all pinned up against a wall threatening to out all of us if we do not do exactly what it wants then what will we do?

We need some privacy laws. Also we need to throw the main stream media out with the trash. It is pure evil. Back in the day, the press wouldn't run the stories about MLKs extramarital affairs it recorded secretly. The press demanded to know the source of the B.S. and the FBI did not want to tip their hand so the Mexican standoff led to the suicide letter which said "if you accept the Nobel Prize, we will shame you and ruin you and you should consider preserving you legacy by killing yourself instead. At least the MSM had some ethical standards and smelled a rat and refused to run the stories. Imagine that. If MLK was alive today we and we still had segregation, people and the media would fight to keep it! MLK would be a portrayed in the press as a philandering bad guy. A sexual predator. The Civil Rights movement would end in a quagmire of gossip surrounding its leader.

The Republicans have certainly had their fun with it too making Monica Lewinsky describe to a court the distinctive features of the president's privates. I bet they were rolling in the aisles when that happened. Now it's their turn. Will they defend Trump or will they hope that perhaps Mike Pence would make a better leader.

All this tawdry B.S. really gets old fast. I could care less what people do in private as long as nobody gets hurt.

One person abroad when asked what they thought about Bill Clinton's circumstances replied they were confused since after all we were not electing the Pope. Amen. I feel the same way about Trump. It's all B.S.

The problem is America can't remember what happened yesterday. We are collectively like terminal Alzheimer patients. Two seconds after we see something, we forget it and are completely susceptible to B.S.in two seconds after we forgot what just happened which ignores the facts which occurred a mere two seconds earlier but we are none the wiser since we can't remember what happened more than two seconds ago. That means there are a lot of opportunities each day to fool us.

What ever happened to the story about James Comey influencing the election? We just forgot it. What ever happened to all of the other historically "likely suspects" thought to have been likely suspects in vote rigging schemes. They are all absent and not presented as possible influencers of the election by our CIA owned press. Instead we are presented with a fake narrative filled with salacious gossip and naughty bits designed to turn public opinion into a weapon for further increases in militarization and military spending while preserving foreign relationships which benefit wealthy investors.

We need to wake up and start taking some strong medicine to ward off the Alzheimer disease that is affecting us in order to put the daily snow job presented by the MSM and the CIA into perspective. That perspective would include what just happened two seconds ago.

Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen since the medication would have to include administering it to the MSM too.

The ability of the MSM to erase our collective memory and present us with a new fake narrative on any given day should ring alarm bells that we are obviously vulnerable to being fooled.

We are being fooled. Every day. Time to start taking the meds. Reply

Jurgen , January 12, 2017 at 10:01 pm

This is no "deep state" this is rather in-plain-sight US Government at work.
Trivial task:
1) Create a dense smoke screen by broadcasting on every single TV channel non-stop anti-Russian and anti-Trump*** hysteria (they know it can't go wrong – they know Trump would try to reply to every single fake thus making their task easier and the picture even more colorful)
2) Behind that smoke screen ship few thousands of US troops and tanks over to Poland and to those parasitic micro quasi-states in Baltic and by doing that de-facto lay foundation for 4-5 new military bases,
which (yet another NATO expansion) otherwise would not be approved and likely axed by Trump. But now it went through s-m-o-u-ht-ly, like a butter. Highest class of the old Shell Game. Where CIA, FBI and other spook shops are used as shills and the population of the US are total losers (everyone's taxes will be used to pay for that yet another NATO expansion).
3) Behind the same smoke screen Obamacare has just been demolished late last night, congrats 20 million of poor folks!

*** Just wait till grainy videos surface showing some naked figures – one of them would be vaguely resembling Trump.
That'd be no hard task for talented movie makers from either PSYOP or/and PAG (just remember their masterpieces featuring Jessica Lynch and other ones featuring fat "Osama bin Laden"-looking dude).

Note: Authorization to create and finance state Propaganda apparatus, S.2943, was quietly passed late Friday night Dec.23 behind the smoke screen of the same anti-Russian and anti-Trump hysteria, thus what we are seeing now is perfectly lawful – propaganda machine at full throttle, who said bureaucracy is slow(?)

Anna , January 12, 2017 at 10:05 pm

is not it nice that Obama is leaving office while being decorated with salacious fake stories which he is promoting Petty and dishonest in everything.

Gregory Herr , January 12, 2017 at 11:17 pm

I tried to watch his good riddance speech last night, but couldn't get through the half of it. For relief I turned to this video:

http://youtu.be/F5K7UmYkD1I Reply

Franz Rock , January 12, 2017 at 10:11 pm

As a non-citicen one has to wonder about the mind boggling machination the US politic is capable of.
After WW2 the European countries looked upon the USA as the beacon of democratic values.
How bitter for the young generation to find, bit by bit, that behind the American facade lurked a system
of smoke and mirrors. As ruthless as the very system they replaced in Europe. Slowly sugarcoating
their deep aims of domination. Under words like freedom,liberty and equality there is the underlying
unbelievable lust for money and with it power. From a human point of view, and the thinking person,
the politics and aims of the United States of America is an abomination for all the worlds people.

Oleg , January 13, 2017 at 3:27 am

I certainly agree with you, but also I am really saddened that this pattern is far from being unique and repeats itself all over and over again. The power corrupts, and it is true for states as well as for people. But the US are indeed a sad champion in hypocrisy. Their predecessors were not as skilled in hiding their true intentions behind the screen of freedom and all other very attractive values. This makes it especially hard to accept. Reply

Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:08 am

You've fingered the wrong culprits, or rather indicted fellow victims. It's the same bloody, titled ruling class and their managerial elites in business and banking from old-line European/British families who've been playing their Imperial games and still are. THEY created the late 19th century Synachist Movement for Empire (SME) that gave birth to Fascism and its' feverish twin NAZIism,really just movements to update the workings of the old-fashioned European Empires. It's also the Cecil Rhodes/Milner RoundTable Group that dove-tailed with SME machinations to update old Empires, campaigning strenuously, through their managerial elites on Wall Street, to recapture their "rogue colony" USA and bring it into the British version of Empire. Right at the moment of FDR's death (may have been assassination), the tables were turned on us, with Churchill leading stupid Truman around by the nose speaking of iron curtains and Red Scares and Cold Wars. FDR's intelligence community was taken over by Anglophile RoundTable allies in the post-war 40s. Having helped win the battles, we lost the War to the fascist/NAZI SME and RoundTable groups who never received so much as a scratch from all the bombs and bullets. Have you seen the show Hunting Hitler? WWII never ended, the methods of fighting just changed.

Brad Owen , January 13, 2017 at 5:44 am

P.S. Not only did WWII never end, just a change in fighting methods, BUT the SME/RoundTable Groups managed to get the two most powerful allies turned against each other: USSR and USA, so that we, together, couldn't focus on the REAL enemy; SME/RoundTable group of elites (which would have happened under FDR in post-war. He would have been President until January 1949 if he hadn't died/been killed, Stalin told FDRs son that "that Churchill gang killed him" been trying to do the same to Stalin) and THIS is why Trumps' Russophilia is such a grave and real threat to our Establishment.

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Brad you hit the nail on the head with your comments here .bravo! Reply

John P , January 14, 2017 at 9:55 pm

Where on earth did you get this fable. Roosevelt had polio and needed a wheelchair, he was a heavy smoker, had high blood pressure, angina followed by congestive heart failure all finalized by a stoke. He had been weakening over a long period. This is all before the days of polonium the USSR uses to kill its foes today.
Russia wasn't following the agreements drawn up in Yalta and fair free elections were not provided in Poland and many Poles who fought for the allies in the war felt betrayed. The Soviets went their own way, so were we to tell the Poles, tough.
Allied convoys, mainly British, at great cost in ships and men, supplied the Russians with war supplies. They faced U-boats and heavily armed German battle-cruisers in freezing arctic waters. After the war Germany got assistance in rebuilding, but the British were held to paying off debts for US build liberty ships used to replace ships lost on the Atlantic convoys. I had an uncle who's ship was sunk and very luckily, after much time in a life boat, was picked up. Many Americans sat back and watched until Pearl Harbour. The British had warned the Americans some time before, that they had lost contact with one of the Japanese fleets they were following, and you can guess the consequences.
Britain saw what was coming when Germany attacked Poland and declared war on Germany. We didn't have much. My father was almost killed assisting surgeon in a Liverpool hospital and luckily had to leave to go out in an ambulance. When he came back the OR was gone. Bombed out. Luckily on another occasion, the day staff had been told to stay on duty with the night staff and the nursing residence was flattened. We had rationing until 1950, and had to grow food in our small back garden, sprouts, peas, cabbage. We had 6 chickens and a rooster, a source of much needed nutrition from eggs. I remember my mother weeping terribly after telling the police she had lost her ration books. As a young lad I went on a search and eventually found them in the folds of a chair. You may never have had to live through something like that.
And if you think America is any better than others, read "What is America?" by Ronald Wright. Learn about the Trail of Tears and traders knowingly giving natives blankets used by whites with small-pox.

Brad Owen , January 15, 2017 at 6:47 am

You relate the manufactured cover story, thanks to the anglophile Intel community that took over in post-war forties, and did their typical change of the narration, much like they do today with the phony crap about Russian aggression. This kind of sh!t has been going on since the revolution, as the wealthy and powerful Imperial Tories never left and never relented. I got this"fable" from EIR and Tarpley.net. It makes more sense to me than the current fable we call history. Check it out for yourself, it amounts to mountains of articles and essays. It took me years to piece it all together and relay it adequately in brief paragraphs. Choose to believe there is no over-arching Imperial ruling class inimical to the interests of commoners if you want. I refuse to be blind to it anymore.

David F., N.A. , January 12, 2017 at 10:18 pm

What if the intelligence community wasn't choosing between HRC and Trump, but, in stead, between HRC and Pence. So no matter who won, wouldn't this hedged election mean business as usual?

Sorry, HRC, but for this downward neoliberal/fascist spiral thingy to work, you lesser-of-2-evil conservaDems are just going to have to learn to share with the equally-corrupt conservatives. See ya in 4 (or maybe 8 (naw, 4)).

Hail to the de facto Chief. da dada da dada dada dada da. Reply

Furtive , January 12, 2017 at 11:36 pm

You forgot to declare who is the drag queen in this matter?

Let's warn these evil psychopaths that a JFK OUTCOME IS OFF LIMITS.
That is the inference of your article.

By the way, Trump NEVER READ THE REPORT PRIVATELY. THERE WAS AN ORAL PRESENTATION, & CLAPPER & Brennan took the CLASSIFIED documents back with them. Trump never read the 2 pg libel nor was it discussed in the presentation.

Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:38 am

This is also reminiscent of Hoover and JFK. When JFK attended Hoover's office, he was handed the President's file. JFK read some of the file while Hoover waited. When JFK stood up to leave, Hoover told the President that the file remains with him. No wonder JFK and Bobby hated this dangerous psychopath. Reply

John P , January 12, 2017 at 11:43 pm

It's all slime, Americans let their political system fall into the trap of big money (lobbying system and PACs) and neo-liberalism. I have no faith that Trump has the capabilities to be a good president. His dialogue is simple, his temper easily aroused as are his feelings of hurt. He shows little historical knowledge or political skills and speaks in a petty childish way. Who is going to pay for the southern border wall ?! What is going to replace Obama's medical care programs, more big business institutions ?! To me it looks like the Palestinians are on the Titanic run by captain Trump and his son-in law, and only minutes to go. What real in depth policies has Trump ever stated ?! Look out because Trump has a habit of passing on the bills be it cash, broken promises or a road you never thought he would take.
And yes we need a calming down and discussion between the US, Russia and China, but I don't see any hope in the line of folks Trump has chosen or Clinton. To me, Trump is like passenger on an aircraft in which the pilot has expired and he is relying on others to tell him what to do because he has no idea or understanding.
I think this and a world where jobs have been taken by microprocessors and robots, is a very dangerous place and we don't need a blind narcissist leading the way. Sadly Bernie Sanders got burnt on the stake. Reply

Carl Rising-Moore , January 13, 2017 at 2:28 am

At times like this I miss the wise words of the late Chalmers Johnson. Chalmers was not encouraged by the possibility of America stepping back from her efforts to control the entire world. He felt the deep state was too committed to America's Full Spectrum Dominance. Is this the sloppy end to the legacy of the Sole Super Power? Or, is this just the middle of the play before curtain call?
When Russia came to the aid of Syria, I believed that we were entering the Multipolar World Order. Hopefully that is still possible but better sooner than later before we enter the No World Order of endless chaos. Does the American deep state really want to play Russian Roulette with live nucs?

Joe Tedesky , January 13, 2017 at 1:16 pm

I wish Chalmers Johnson were still with us, and able to comment on our current events good of you to bring his name up. Reply

John P , January 15, 2017 at 7:01 pm

I'm sorry Brad. With your EIR's reference, the first story I saw concerned Obama-care connected to some Nazi policies. Next they claim global warming is fake. The US was the only western nation without a national health program. People die because they haven't the money to pay for drugs or health care. The health of a labourer is more important to them that a rich bloke sitting at a desk. And excuse me but back in the late 60s I studied astronomy besides my major, another science, and even then learned that both CO2 and methane each trap the sun's energy and cause temperatures to rise. That was long before global warming came to peoples attention. Sorry, your story is pure fiction.

Also, Trump hasn't a clue what he's talking about as far as global warming is concerned. Take a look at the temperatures in the far north. They have been warmer than ever while we down here are having huge cycles of heat and cold and are experiencing the fury that those changes can induce.

Dieter Heymann , January 16, 2017 at 2:23 pm

As a scientist you ought to know that CO2 and methane do not trap the sun's energy but absorb upward IR radiation from Earth part of which they radiate back towards Earth's surface part out into space. The blanket I use on my bed at night does not trap the heat generated by me either. If it did it might catch fire?

John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Dieter I was just trying to make it simple, not write an article for Nature. The point being so many people don't believe that we are altering the earths climate through burning fossil fuels. We take down our forests, and plants are a big reason we are here as they take in carbon dioxide, utilize the suns energy through photosynthesis and create organic compounds thus setting the stage for further developments. There is so much irrationality out there brought on by job losses through technology, and this creates huge divisions within society and that can lead to awful consequences as history has shown.
I not sure some would understand the true science behind it. The subject was a reliance on a web site that promoted climate change denial and a mentioned link between Obamacare and Nazism. Is that a firm foundation of reliance ?

John P , January 16, 2017 at 4:33 pm

Just to clarify, I said astronomy wasn't my major, it was microbiology and medical sciences. I had an interest in star gazing and following the planets. Reply

Jamie , January 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Many liberals fail to understand that Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. Unlike the unwashed masses - these forces don't care if politician has a 'D' or 'R' next to their name. It is how well they will serve capital.

[Feb 26, 2019] THE CRISIS OF NEOLIBERALISM by Julie A. Wilson

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... While the Tea Party was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-, it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering. Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. ..."
"... Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders' energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood" path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy. ..."
"... In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism. ..."
"... We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism. ..."
"... While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."' ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Quote from the book is courtesy of Amazon preview of the book Neoliberalism (Key Ideas in Media & Cultural Studies)

In Chapter 1, we traced the rise of our neoliberal conjuncture back to the crisis of liberalism during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, culminating in the Great Depression. During this period, huge transformations in capitalism proved impossible to manage with classical laissez-faire approaches. Out of this crisis, two movements emerged, both of which would eventually shape the course of the twentieth century and beyond. The first, and the one that became dominant in the aftermath of the crisis, was the conjuncture of embedded liberalism. The crisis indicated that capitalism wrecked too much damage on the lives of ordinary citizens. People (white workers and families, especially) warranted social protection from the volatilities and brutalities of capitalism. The state's public function was expanded to include the provision of a more substantive social safety net, a web of protections for people and a web of constraints on markets. The second response was the invention of neoliberalism. Deeply skeptical of the common-good principles that undergirded the emerging social welfare state, neoliberals began organizing on the ground to develop a "new" liberal govemmentality, one rooted less in laissez-faire principles and more in the generalization of competition and enterprise. They worked to envision a new society premised on a new social ontology, that is, on new truths about the state, the market, and human beings. Crucially, neoliberals also began building infrastructures and institutions for disseminating their new' knowledges and theories (i.e., the Neoliberal Thought Collective), as well as organizing politically to build mass support for new policies (i.e., working to unite anti-communists, Christian conservatives, and free marketers in common cause against the welfare state). When cracks in embedded liberalism began to surface -- which is bound to happen with any moving political equilibrium -- neoliberals were there with new stories and solutions, ready to make the world anew.

We are currently living through the crisis of neoliberalism. As I write this book, Donald Trump has recently secured the U.S. presidency, prevailing in the national election over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Throughout the election, I couldn't help but think back to the crisis of liberalism and the two responses that emerged. Similarly, after the Great Recession of 2008, we've saw two responses emerge to challenge our unworkable status quo, which dispossesses so many people of vital resources for individual and collective life. On the one hand, we witnessed the rise of Occupy Wall Street. While many continue to critique the movement for its lack of leadership and a coherent political vision, Occupy was connected to burgeoning movements across the globe, and our current political horizons have been undoubtedly shaped by the movement's success at repositioning class and economic inequality within our political horizon. On the other hand, we saw' the rise of the Tea Party, a right-wing response to the crisis. While the Tea Party was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-, it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism.

Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering. Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. There were just too many fissures and fault lines in the glossy, cosmopolitan world of left neoliberalism and marketized equality. Indeed, while Clinton ran on status-quo stories of good governance and neoliberal feminism, confident that demographics and diversity would be enough to win the election, Trump effectively tapped into the unfolding conjunctural crisis by exacerbating the cracks in the system of marketized equality, channeling political anger into his celebrity brand that had been built on saying "f*** you" to the culture of left neoliberalism (corporate diversity, political correctness, etc.) In fact, much like Clinton's challenger in the Democratic primary, Benie Sanders, Trump was a crisis candidate.

Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders' energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood" path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy.

Universal health care. Free higher education. Fair trade. The repeal of Citizens United. Trump offered a different response to the crisis. Like Sanders, he railed against global trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). However, Trump's victory was fueled by right neoliberalism's culture of cruelty. While Sanders tapped into and mobilized desires for a more egalitarian and democratic future, Trump's promise was nostalgic, making America "great again" -- putting the nation back on "top of the world," and implying a time when women were "in their place" as male property, and minorities and immigrants were controlled by the state.

Thus, what distinguished Trump's campaign from more traditional Republican campaigns was that it actively and explicitly pitted one group's equality (white men) against everyone else's (immigrants, women, Muslims, minorities, etc.). As Catherine Rottenberg suggests, Trump offered voters a choice between a multiracial society (where folks are increasingly disadvantaged and dispossessed) and white supremacy (where white people would be back on top). However, "[w]hat he neglected to state," Rottenberg writes,

is that neoliberalism flourishes in societies where the playing field is already stacked against various segments of society, and that it needs only a relatively small select group of capital-enhancing subjects, while everyone else is ultimately dispensable. 1

In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism.

We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism.

While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."'

Mark Fisher, the author of Capitalist Realism, put it this way:

The long, dark night of the end of history has to be grasped as an enormous opportunity. The very oppressive pervasiveness of capitalist realism means that even glimmers of alternative political and economic possibilities can have a disproportionately great effect. The tiniest event can tear a hole in the grey curtain of reaction which has marked the horizons of possibility under capitalist realism. From a situation in which nothing can happen, suddenly anything is possible again.4

I think that, for the first time in the history of U.S. capitalism, the vast majority of people might sense the lie of liberal, capitalist democracy. They feel anxious, unfree, disaffected. Fantasies of the good life have been shattered beyond repair for most people. Trump and this hopefully brief triumph of right neoliberalism will soon lay this bare for everyone to see. Now, with Trump, it is absolutely clear: the rich rule the world; we are all disposable; this is no democracy. The question becomes: How will we show up for history? Will there be new stories, ideas, visions, and fantasies to attach to? How can we productively and meaningful intervene in the crisis of neoliberalism? How can we "tear a hole in the grey curtain" and open up better worlds? How can we put what we've learned to use and begin to imagine and build a world beyond living in competition? I hope our critical journey through the neoliberal conjuncture has enabled you to begin to answer these questions.

More specifically, in recent decades, especially since the end of the Cold War, our common-good sensibilities have been channeled into neoliberal platforms for social change and privatized action, funneling our political energies into brand culture and marketized struggles for equality (e.g., charter schools, NGOs and non-profits, neoliberal antiracism and feminism). As a result, despite our collective anger and disaffected consent, we find ourselves stuck in capitalist realism with no real alternative. Like the neoliberal care of the self, we are trapped in a privatized mode of politics that relies on cruel optimism; we are attached, it seems, to politics that inspire and motivate us to action, while keeping us living in competition.

To disrupt the game, we need to construct common political horizons against neoliberal hegemony. We need to use our common stories and common reason to build common movements against precarity -- for within neoliberalism, precarity is what ultimately has the potential to thread all of our lives together. Put differently, the ultimate fault line in the neoliberal conjiuicture is the way it subjects us all to precarity and the biopolitics of disposability, thereby creating conditions of possibility for new coalitions across race, gender, citizenship, sexuality, and class. Recognizing this potential for coalition in the face of precarization is the most pressing task facing those who are yearning for a new world. The question is: How do we get there? How do we realize these coalitional potentialities and materialize common horizons?

HOW WE GET THERE

Ultimately, mapping the neoliberal conjuncture through everyday life in enterprise culture has not only provided some direction in terms of what we need; it has also cultivated concrete and practical intellectual resources for political interv ention and social interconnection -- a critical toolbox for living in common. More specifically, this book has sought to provide resources for thinking and acting against the four Ds: resources for engaging in counter-conduct, modes of living that refuse, on one hand, to conduct one's life according to the norm of enterprise, and on the other, to relate to others through the norm of competition. Indeed, we need new ways of relating, interacting, and living as friends, lovers, workers, vulnerable bodies, and democratic people if we are to write new stories, invent new govemmentalities, and build coalitions for new worlds.

Against Disimagination: Educated Hope and Affirmative Speculation

We need to stop turning inward, retreating into ourselves, and taking personal responsibility for our lives (a task which is ultimately impossible). Enough with the disimagination machine! Let's start looking outward, not inward -- to the broader structures that undergird our lives. Of course, we need to take care of ourselves; we must survive. But I firmly believe that we can do this in ways both big and small, that transform neoliberal culture and its status-quo stories.

Here's the thing I tell my students all the time. You cannot escape neoliberalism. It is the air we breathe, the water in which we swim. No job, practice of social activism, program of self-care, or relationship will be totally free from neoliberal impingements and logics. There is no pure "outside" to get to or work from -- that's just the nature of the neoliberalism's totalizing cultural power. But let's not forget that neoliberalism's totalizing cultural power is also a source of weakness. Potential for resistance is everywhere, scattered throughout our everyday lives in enterprise culture. Our critical toolbox can help us identify these potentialities and navigate and engage our conjuncture in ways that tear open up those new worlds we desire.

In other words, our critical perspective can help us move through the world with what Henry Giroux calls educated hope. Educated hope means holding in tension the material realities of power and the contingency of history. This orientation of educated hope knows very well what we're up against. However, in the face of seemingly totalizing power, it also knows that neoliberalism can never become total because the future is open. Educated hope is what allows us to see the fault lines, fissures, and potentialities of the present and emboldens us to think and work from that sliver of social space where we do have political agency and freedom to construct a new world. Educated hope is what undoes the power of capitalist realism. It enables affirmative speculation (such as discussed in Chapter 5), which does not try to hold the future to neoliberal horizons (that's cruel optimism!), but instead to affirm our commonalities and the potentialities for the new worlds they signal. Affirmative speculation demands a different sort of risk calculation and management. It senses how little we have to lose and how much we have to gain from knocking the hustle of our lives.

Against De-democratization: Organizing and Collective Coverning

We can think of educated hope and affirmative speculation as practices of what Wendy Brown calls "bare democracy" -- the basic idea that ordinary' people like you and me should govern our lives in common, that we should critique and try to change our world, especially the exploitative and oppressive structures of power that maintain social hierarchies and diminish lives. Neoliberal culture works to stomp out capacities for bare democracy by transforming democratic desires and feelings into meritocratic desires and feelings. In neoliberal culture, utopian sensibilities are directed away from the promise of collective utopian sensibilities are directed away from the promise of collective governing to competing for equality.

We have to get back that democractic feeling! As Jeremy Gilbert taught us, disaffected consent is a post-democratic orientation. We don't like our world, but we don't think we can do anything about it. So, how do we get back that democratic feeling? How do we transform our disaffected consent into something new? As I suggested in the last chapter, we organize. Organizing is simply about people coming together around a common horizon and working collectively to materialize it. In this way, organizing is based on the idea of radical democracy, not liberal democracy. While the latter is based on formal and abstract rights guaranteed by the state, radical democracy insists that people should directly make the decisions that impact their lives, security, and well-being. Radical democracy is a practice of collective governing: it is about us hashing out, together in communities, what matters, and working in common to build a world based on these new sensibilities.

The work of organizing is messy, often unsatisfying, and sometimes even scary. Organizing based on affirmative speculation and coalition-building, furthermore, will have to be experimental and uncertain. As Lauren Berlant suggests, it means "embracing the discomfort of affective experience in a truly open social life that no

one has ever experienced." Organizing through and for the common "requires more adaptable infrastructures. Keep forcing the existing infrastructures to do what they don't know how to do. Make new ways to be local together, where local doesn't require a physical neighborhood." 5 What Berlant is saying is that the work of bare democracy requires unlearning, and detaching from, our current stories and infrastructures in order to see and make things work differently. Organizing for a new world is not easy -- and there are no guarantees -- but it is the only way out of capitalist realism.

Against Disposability: Radical Equality

Getting back democratic feeling will at once require and help us lo move beyond the biopolitics of disposability and entrenched systems of inequality. On one hand, organizing will never be enough if it is not animated by bare democracy, a sensibility that each of us is equally important when it comes to the project of determining our lives in common. Our bodies, our hurts, our dreams, and our desires matter regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, or citizenship, and regardless of how r much capital (economic, social, or cultural) we have. Simply put, in a radical democracy, no one is disposable. This bare-democratic sense of equality must be foundational to organizing and coalition-building. Otherwise, we will always and inevitably fall back into a world of inequality.

On the other hand, organizing and collective governing will deepen and enhance our sensibilities and capacities for radical equality. In this context, the kind of self-enclosed individualism that empowers and underwrites the biopolitics of disposability melts away, as we realize the interconnectedness of our lives and just how amazing it feels to

fail, we affirm our capacities for freedom, political intervention, social interconnection, and collective social doing.

Against Dispossession: Shared Security and Common Wealth

Thinking and acting against the biopolitics of disposability goes hand-in-hand with thinking and acting against dispossession. Ultimately, when we really understand and feel ourselves in relationships of interconnection with others, we want for them as we want for ourselves. Our lives and sensibilities of what is good and just are rooted in radical equality, not possessive or self-appreciating individualism. Because we desire social security and protection, we also know others desire and deserve the same.

However, to really think and act against dispossession means not only advocating for shared security and social protection, but also for a new society that is built on the egalitarian production and distribution of social wealth that we all produce. In this sense, we can take Marx's critique of capitalism -- that wealth is produced collectively but appropriated individually -- to heart. Capitalism was built on the idea that one class -- the owners of the means of production -- could exploit and profit from the collective labors of everyone else (those who do not own and thus have to work), albeit in very different ways depending on race, gender, or citizenship. This meant that, for workers of all stripes, their lives existed not for themselves, but for others (the appropriating class), and that regardless of what we own as consumers, we are not really free or equal in that bare-democratic sense of the word.

If we want to be really free, we need to construct new material and affective social infrastructures for our common wealth. In these new infrastructures, wealth must not be reduced to economic value; it must be rooted in social value. Here, the production of wealth does not exist as a separate sphere from the reproduction of our lives. In other words, new infrastructures, based on the idea of common wealth, will not be set up to exploit our labor, dispossess our communities, or to divide our lives. Rather, they will work to provide collective social resources and care so that we may all be free to pursue happiness, create beautiful and/or useful things, and to realize our potential within a social world of living in common. Crucially, to create the conditions for these new, democratic forms of freedom rooted in radical equality, we need to find ways to refuse and exit the financial networks of Empire and the dispossessions of creditocracy, building new systems that invite everyone to participate in the ongoing production of new worlds and the sharing of the wealth that we produce in common.

It's not up to me to tell you exactly where to look, but I assure you that potentialities for these new worlds are everywhere around you.

[Apr 02, 2018] Confronting Russophobia by Srdja Trifkovic

Notable quotes:
"... The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other "issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude. ..."
"... The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus, in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. ..."
"... The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature." It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or Muslims. ..."
"... Cheesepopes be gaslighting ..."
"... Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true. ..."
Apr 23, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
by Srdja Trifkovic via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

There is a paranoid, hysterical quality to the public discourse on Russia and all things Russian in today's America. The corporate media machine and its Deep State handlers have abdicated reason and common decency in favor of raw hate and fear-mongering. We have not seen anything like it before, even in the darkest days of the Cold War.

The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other "issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude.

The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus, in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. The result is a surreal narrative that mixes supposedly unprovoked "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, hostile intent in the Baltics, serial war crimes in Syria, political destabilization in Western Europe, and gross interference in America's "democratic process". The result is an altogether fictitious "existential threat," which has made President Trump's intended détente with Moscow impossible. He may have been serious about turning over a new leaf, but the Deep State counterpressure proved just too great. A solid rejection front emerged, left and right, conservative and liberal, which extends even into his own team and finally inhibited him from making moves that could have appeared too friendly to Putin.

The Russophobes' narrative is unrelated to Russia's actual policies. It reflects a deep odium of the elite class toward Russia-as-such. That animosity has been developing in its current form since roughly the time of the Crimean War, when in his Letters From Russia the Marquis de Custine said that the country's "veneer of European civilization was too thin to be credible."

"No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant-in short, as untrustworthy in every way-as the Russians," President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1905. John Maynard Keynes, after a trip to the Soviet Union in 1925, wondered whether the "mood of oppression" might be "the fruit of some beastliness in the Russian nature." J. Robert Oppenheimer opined in 1951 that, in Russia, "We are coping with a barbarous, backward people." More recently, Sen. John McCain declared that "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country." "Russia is an anti-Western power with a different, darker vision of global politics," Slate wrote in early 2014, even before the Ukrainian crisis reached its climax.

This narrative has two key pillars. In terms of geopolitics, we see the striving of maritime empires-Britain before World War II, and the United States after - to "contain" and if possible control the Eurasian heartland, the core of which is of course Russia. Equally important is the already noted cultural antipathy, the desire not merely to influence Russian policies and behavior but to effect an irreversible transformation of Russia's identity. Some of the most viscerally Russophobic stereotypes come from Russia herself, from those members of Moscow's "intelligentsia" who feel more at home in New York or London than anywhere in their own country. The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature." It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or Muslims.

The Russophobic frenzy comes at a cost. It further devalues the quality of public discourse on world affairs in the United States, which is already dismally low. It has already undermined the prospects for a mutually beneficial new chapter in U.S.-Russian relations, based on a realist assessment that those two powers have no "existential" differences - and share many actual and potential commonalities. It perpetrates the arrogant delusion that there is a superior, "Western" model of social and cultural thought and action that can and should be imposed everywhere, but especially in Russia.

Saddest of all, Russophobic mania prolongs the European civil war that exploded in July 1914, continued in 1939, and has never properly ended - not even with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would be in the American interest, as well as Russia's and Europe's, for that conflict to end, so that the existential challenge common to all- that of resurgent jihad and Europe's demographic crisis - can be properly addressed.

francis soyer , Apr 23, 2017 7:28 PM

Cheesepopes be gaslighting

Blue Balls -> francis soyer , Apr 23, 2017 7:35 PM

Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true.

Ramesees -> Blue Balls , Apr 23, 2017 7:39 PM

We don't have to go to war with Russia, but let's agree that Russia is, at a minimum, a rival.

Lumberjack -> Ramesees , Apr 23, 2017 7:40 PM

Wrong. China is.

Ramesees -> Lumberjack , Apr 23, 2017 7:43 PM

Russia has its own interests, just like the United States. Sometimes our interests align, more often they do not.

How is that any different than China, other than Russia's demographic death spiral that will eliminate them as a rival in 50-75 years?

knukles -> Ramesees , Apr 23, 2017 7:46 PM

Why can't we all just get along?

Dizzy Malscience -> knukles , Apr 23, 2017 8:16 PM

..it seems like our foreign policy is like an angry poor, innocent "motorist", whacked out on amphetamines, speeding over 100 mph and destined to drown in his liberal negro lottery swimming pool.

Volkodav -> Ramesees , Apr 23, 2017 8:09 PM

missed fact Russian demographic is much improve

sure better than europe

Centerist -> Volkodav , Apr 23, 2017 8:24 PM

Da, comrade. Russian demographic is much improve. Population shrink less fast now.

Lumberjack -> Lumberjack , Apr 23, 2017 8:10 PM

Comment: why US allies Israel, Saudi Arabia are cosying up to China

http://m.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2082673/comment-w...

Furthermore...

Breaking:

The United States is closely watching a recent increase in piracy off the coast of Somalia, a senior U.S. military official said on Sunday as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited an important military base in Djibouti.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-mattis-africa-idUSKBN17P0C7?utm_ca ...

-----

Hate to use huffpo but this is relevent...

Why China and Saudi Arabia Are Building Bases in Djibouti http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-braude/why-china-and-saudi-arabi_b_ ...

Then this:

http://thediplomat.com/2017/02/the-chinese-navys-djibouti-base-a-support ...

malek -> Ramesees , Apr 23, 2017 7:49 PM

"Russia is, at a minimum, a rival."

If I ignore your bullshit "but at the maximum..." implication:

So what do you conclude from that. Is it a bad thing to have rivals? Should we strive to turn every remaining rival into a vassal? Is there a limit on methods allowed toward a rival?

Centerist -> Ramesees , Apr 23, 2017 8:20 PM

I'll give you a green arrow to make up for the narrow-mindedness of the simpletons who all gave you red arrows.

We don't need a war with Russia, and the US won't instigate one, either. The juice wouldn't be worth the squeeze.

With all of that being said, Russia is a rival to the US in other parts of the world. The US isn't the only country with a desire for influence around the world.

As much as there is a "Russo-phobia" being perpetuated in the US, you can bet a buck that there is an "Ameri-phobia" being perpetuated out there.

The big difference is that in Russia, they don't have message boards full of people sh*tting on their own country.

Lumberjack -> Centerist , Apr 23, 2017 9:03 PM

They will accomplish the war by proxy.

Centerist -> Lumberjack , Apr 23, 2017 9:17 PM

Well, that is kind of how major powers compete for influence. It takes two to tango. We can't exactly engage in war by proxy if the Russians aren't involved in it, too.

monk27 -> Blue Balls , Apr 23, 2017 7:49 PM

I hate to say it but the so called "elites", in charge of our beloved deep state controlling everything, are quite stupid -- This continuous news hysteria, against whatever subject du jour our intelligentsia decides to float publicly, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that said "elites" suffer from a combination of low IQ, partial education (at best !), and high self-delusion... We might get to witness nuclear war, just because our "elites" are too idiotic to realize what a nuclear war really is...

dsty , Apr 23, 2017 7:29 PM

Yes ZH, tell us once again how wonderful and humane Putin's Russia is.

Don't forget the loving relationship he has with little Kimmy of NK.

Billy the Poet -> dsty , Apr 23, 2017 7:34 PM

I see no such thing in this article. Can you provide quotes to support your criticism?

rccalhoun -> dsty , Apr 23, 2017 7:39 PM

dsty-- ZH does promote putin too much (ZH bias), but ZH is correct in that the MSM has the full court press on to instigate

and insult russia in any way possible.

my question; why the fuck does the USSA stick their fucking nose into everything? if the USSA wants supreme power...then go

conquer these nations and see how that works out.

Justin Case -> rccalhoun , Apr 23, 2017 7:47 PM

They stick their hook nose into everything because they want to own the whole 4th rock from the sun. These people are ill, very ill and as I read these comments it's obvious that some just don't get it yet.

Pure Evil -> Justin Case , Apr 23, 2017 7:59 PM

If we're the fourth rock from the sun, then the other three rocks between us and the sun are.......Venus, Mercury and ?

Implied Violins -> Pure Evil , Apr 23, 2017 9:03 PM

Nibiru. Or Wormwood. Nemesis? Planet X?? Ah fuck it.

knukles -> rccalhoun , Apr 23, 2017 7:48 PM

Which tells us that since we all live rent free in Tyler's pro-Russian basement, that we're now on 2 different sets of lists? That's disturbing.

Brazen Heist -> dsty , Apr 23, 2017 7:40 PM

Do tell us of that more loving butt-buddy relationship the US government has with the Wahhabi terrorist state.

Squid Viscous -> dsty , Apr 23, 2017 8:08 PM

Dsty, dirty stinking tacky yid?

35 Whelen , Apr 23, 2017 7:39 PM

"haven't seen anything like this since the darkest days of the cold war" ... that's because the media was by and large pro-Soviet.

Normalcy Bias , Apr 23, 2017 7:41 PM

All of this B.S. Russophobia evolved from a convenient distraction from the CONTENT of the leaked DNC emails, and has been amplified because of the symbiosis with Neoconservative/Globalist strategies.

dilligaff , Apr 23, 2017 7:42 PM

What amazes me is how well the propaganda seems to be working. There's a bunch of old farts (not that I'm really young!) at the gym every morning talking about how awesome it is that we bombed Syria and it'll show that bastard Putin we're tough and mean business. "America, Fuck yeh!" I wanted to ask them if they were mentally defective or just fucking retards...

Justin Case -> dilligaff , Apr 23, 2017 7:49 PM

Typical merica pie. Fuck tarts

UncleChopChop -> dilligaff , Apr 23, 2017 7:50 PM

sad

monk27 -> dilligaff , Apr 23, 2017 7:51 PM

Propaganda works very well with stupid subjects; the dumber the better...

Reaper -> dilligaff , Apr 23, 2017 7:58 PM

They "think/emote" alike, because each fears the others would otherwise discover their real ignorance.

Reaper , Apr 23, 2017 7:42 PM

Hate = emote. Emote = antithesis of reason. Hate controls the hater. Ergo, the creators of the hate control the haters.

medium giraffe -> Reaper , Apr 23, 2017 8:02 PM

Pretty much. Society has opted to run on emotion rather than fact, emotional manipulation being the key part of the most popular forms of entertainment. Sadly this bleeds into our dealings with each other which are increasingly emotional or insulting. Most of human behaviour and attitudes are due to fear, particularly the egoic fear of inadequacy. As a control mechanism, fear is a formidable tool. But fear is also a choice.

Reaper -> medium giraffe , Apr 23, 2017 8:18 PM

Fear is less effective tool than respect, especially in diplomacy. http://www.businessinsider.com/dale-carnegie-on-habits-of-influential-pe...

aloha_snakbar , Apr 23, 2017 7:44 PM

"Say Russia one more time... I DARE you"...

IranContra , Apr 23, 2017 7:50 PM

The Strategic Culture Foundation who published this piece has an evil agenda, and they are not even friends of Putin. They are very subtle warmongers. You will see when the time comes.

Putin was duped by Iran in Syria, Iran got Syria, not Putin. Trump and Saudi can give Russia what it needs to survive, if Putin stops being duped by deceptive hegemonial Iran.

Billy the Poet -> IranContra , Apr 23, 2017 7:56 PM

The Saudis gave us September 11 -- the gift that keeps on giving. But I doubt that Putin's jealous.

earleflorida -> IranContra , Apr 23, 2017 8:39 PM

"Iran approves six presidential candidates-- blocks Ahmadinejad"

have you any ideal how powerful this nutjob was? ahmadinejab was so powerful at one tyme he challenged the actual ayatollah position as last word! now, this guy was nuts!!! http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/20/iran-approves-six-presidential-candidates-blocks-ahmadinejad/

sbenard , Apr 23, 2017 8:00 PM

This reminds me of when the ZerroHedge owners mentioned that Bloomberg article several months back that involved an interview of a former Zero Hedge writer blowing the lid off this place. He mentioned how pro-Russia the ZH owners were. This article suggests that he may have been right after all!

number06 -> sbenard , Apr 23, 2017 8:10 PM

Its pretty obvious many around here are in the superbowl ring stealing midgets pocket

stpioc -> sbenard , Apr 23, 2017 8:16 PM

Here is that article showing the Russiophile Zerohedgers:

http://rightwingers.org/forums/thread-156.html

Yea, we shouldn't be afraid of a country with nukes, that invades it's neigbours, has an uber crony economy the size of Italy's, dominated by oligarchs in mining and the obligation to keep friendly with the Kremlin or risk being put in jail and have your assets taken away on trumped up charges. The country that murders it's opponents and critics with nasty stuff like Polonium, even abroad, that interferes in others elections with misinformation campaigns and troll factories, that is on the side of the ayatolla's of Iran and the mass murderer in Syria, helping him by bombing hospitals and refugees, only to be "recognized as a player again on the world stage" A coutry of alcoholics with one of the lowest life expectancy in the developed world. Really, a model state.

As Paul Graig Roberts, the inhouse idiot here noted, Putin for the Nobel peace price!

Neochrome -> stpioc , Apr 23, 2017 8:33 PM

Which of the above does NOT apply to US and even worse?

Volkodav -> sbenard , Apr 23, 2017 8:24 PM

maybe here is one few places balance from the foamy mouth MSM

ZH far more logic, reason informed visitors

momprayn , Apr 23, 2017 8:28 PM

Wikileaks has disclosed the tactic to blame Russia for the election results, Trump's collusion, etc. back to spring of 2016 --- I remember when they started making those "Russia" comments. They wanted to start the thoughts about him/his staff being in collusion with the Russians. That was to hopefully make more decide not to vote for him and in case he won, use it to prove election fraud, treason and somehow impeach him.

Those who know about the Globalists NWO agenda, Deep State, Neocons, etc. realize we've all been lied to about Russia (among all the other lies) since the end of the Cold War. for "their" agenda purposes - need for continuous wars for MIC, etc. also. Putin is not as portrayed at all. Russia is not the "big bad Commie" beast that wants to take over the world as they want us to believe to "justify" another war.

Putin is an Eastern Orthodox Chrsitian who protects Christians, hates and fights terrorists and Globalism. He is not a Globalist. We have those goals in common and Pres. Trump and Putin would be a fantastic duo that when united, terrorism and Globalism would finally be dealt death blows,

Our enemies within know that and therefore they're trying to do everything they can to hurt that relationship and not let it happen because it would mean finally - the end of their evil world order plan.

VW Nerd -> momprayn , Apr 23, 2017 8:45 PM

Excellent assessment. I'll have to share it with my sister. She's a Republican Russia/Iran/Syria hater.

Neochrome , Apr 23, 2017 8:34 PM

Amount of pressure applied commensurate to strength of a country in question. For some of them all it takes is a stern talk from the ambassador, Russia right now is safely beyond the US ability to apply the required pressure, including the threat of Nuclear War. What is happening instead is that world being interconnected the way it is, applying pressure at hardened point that is Russia is also increasing pressure at other weaker points as well, pretty much all over the world. EU and NATO are posturing against Russia in display of lunacy that is symptomatic for the West, it seems that God is taking away humans ability to reason. Day 1, Russia announces indefinite cuts of gas supplies to Europe, stocks crater, world economy craters, Russia and China who were hoarding gold watch the West collapse like a house of cards while passing the popcorn. The End.

earleflorida -> Neochrome , Apr 23, 2017 8:51 PM

"Where Empires go to Die?"?!?

Afghanistan is about to go full retard again, as taliban cuts ussa out of heroin billions--- as our afghan troops turn their weapons on their masters[1]

seems, we bunker-busted the wrong cavity?

http://news.antiwar.com/tag/afghanistan/

Spinkbottle , Apr 23, 2017 8:51 PM

The Jewish media has been obsessed with this business about Russia allegedly influencing the recent 2016 U.S. election. This obsession has concealed the real problem with foreign influence over the American electoral system. It isn't Russian influence that's the problem, it is Israeli influence that's the problem.

Below is a list of stories showing how Israelis or Jews substantively connected to Israel have been subverting the American electoral process.

https://www.dailystormer.com/israel-is-the-main-foreign-power-subverting-the-american-election-system/

globalintelhub , Apr 23, 2017 8:55 PM

Read it and weep www.splittingpennies.com

Son of Captain Nemo , Apr 23, 2017 8:59 PM

You know we will have turned the corner when Donald Trump gives the American people a "Fireside Chat" and tells the public the real reasons the media spearheads a constant barrage of hate filled anti-Russian LYING PROPAGANDA filled rhetoric... BECAUSE

A) THEY ARE THE WORLDS LEADER IN OIL PRODUCTION B) HAVE NO DEBT C) HAVE THERE OWN BALANCE OF PAYMENT CREDIT SYSTEM MIR THAT WILL REPLACE THE WESTERN CENTRAL BANK(S) SYSTEM "SWIFT"

And after he delivers that truthful message he will NEVER BE ALLOWED TO EVER AGAIN... He will probably be shot like HOWARD BEALE in the movie NETWORK... Or WWWIII will be LAUNCHED!!!

[Apr 02, 2018] Russophobia Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by A. Tsygankov

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com

It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda.

As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation.

... ... ....

Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region.

And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation, and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent assertions of Russophobic observers.

Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching way.

Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia -- a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.

The Anti-Russian Lobby

When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour- nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite, Across the Moscow River, 2002)1

....

Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future. (Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2

This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence, and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1 argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.

1. Goals and Means

Objectives

The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics.

According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4

Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available.

This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6

In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's "practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7 Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values. In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history" thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®

... ... ...

Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated, the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11

In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12

Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States. Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions, the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any partnership with the United States.14

The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15

... ... ...

The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence of firm policy commitments.

Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91

Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004, Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.

President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American Sense of History

It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal, November 28, 2006)

If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate. (John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)

On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin, Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the Cold War the first time around.

("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions, presenting those differences as incompatible.

1. Contested History

Two versions of history

The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4

In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood.

In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue with the tradition of freedom as independence.

The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.

This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S. narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation, emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7 They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe, but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9

If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal, but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to address these deep-seated suspicions.

In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it would have to be transformed.

Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines of a scaled-down Cold War?"113

Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114

[Jan 30, 2018] The Real Foreign Policy Scandal Is Its Sabotage By Trump Enemies

Notable quotes:
"... During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against the Islamic State and other terrorists. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and a new cold war. The foreign policy establishment, the media and the CIA were solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice. It was Trump and his views of policies that were elected. ..."
"... After Trump had won the election, he advised his staff to set up a confidential track-2 communication channel with the Russian government. He rightfully did not trust the established official channels through the State Department and the CIA His incoming National Security Advisor Flynn and his foreign policy advisor Kushner worked on his behalf when they soughed contacts with Russian officials. Such diplomacy is by nature not acted out in public. ..."
"... The various formulations in those pieces are painting the discrete diplomatic contacts as something sinister and illegal ..."
"... The scandal is Clinton, the DNC BS and the murder of staffer Seth Rich. All this msm noise is simply mass denial and paid for smoke screens. Trump should have stepped forward and taken it head while he had the people's voice behind him. His retreat has undermined any credibility and momentum he may have had. ..."
"... The meta-narrative is that the "deep state" as personated by Comey actually hated Clinton, at least some segments do. Foreign policy of USA seems indeed to be infested by a cabal that spends considerable effort to tame anyone who comes to Oval Office. It is as if the most glorious pastime of our ruling class was fox hunting, something that offers only a faint pleasure to the outsiders, but each time there is a new lord, the dog pack spares no trick, being cute and friendly, or growling and nipping, whining and biting, until the glorious fox hunt runs again. ..."
"... the dnc/cia/clintons are up to their asses in the same trough, that's why they're making the 'patriotic' charges they are instead of airing the real grift and graft that they all engage in as part of their oligarchic bans. that chicken just might come to roost in their own hen houses as well, whereas with a 'clean' frame they can 'create' the charges, making sure that no one can validate or falsify them ... kill their victims via smoke inhalation, not burns. ..."
"... The anti-Russian campagn is so well globally broadcasted that it serves as a ***WARING*** to French, German or British politicians (+ probably everywhere else on the planet). The REDS is the RED line. Now as before and a little more. ..."
"... Yes, I agree with everything you said b. Trump is under constant, vicious, unrelenting attack from both sides, the question for me is why? What was planned to occur during a Clinton presidency that he has now, probably unknowingly, stalled? Was it war/war profiteering, was it the Climate Change 17 trillion dollar scam, has he somehow derailed the UN 2030 plan? ..."
"... They could have simply blocked everything and anything he advanced as they did with Carter, why the need to destroy him personally? I supported Bernie (clearly a mistake) and now I am flooded with anti Trump emails 24/7; I get about 20 a day. There is something we/I am missing, is it as simple as Clinton wanting to stay out of jail, is it Pizzagate, what drives this near blood lust to bring him down? ..."
"... For students of history, JFK set up alternate lines of communication with both the Soviet Union and Cuba in order to bypass the CIA, which Kennedy knew was continually trying to suck the US into their war against communism. Students of history remember what happened next. ..."
"... Trump is like an untrained circus animal - untrained that is by Anglo-Zionists. In contrast, and waiting in the wings is steely-eyed Pence, trained to psychopathic levels. Trump has no idea what he has got himself into. He is in a maze precisely because he has neither done the study nor has he been trained. How long did it take people on this site to work it out? In my case a hell of a long time plus two hundred or more books. ..."
"... First, one of Trump's best policy proposals was to cut funding for NATO and say to European countries, if you want this big Cold War-era military juggernaut, then why don't you pay for it? The argument against NATO is pretty clear - just as the Warsaw Pact was dissolved after the Cold War, so should have NATO been dissolved. If EU countries want a military cooperation agreement, fine, but why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for it? We have this massive infrastructure collapse problem that would be money better spent, that would do far more for the average American citizen. ..."
"... Trump just doesn't have the bureaucratic infighting skills, he's basically folded on everything the Borg State and the corporate media wanted on foreign policy, supporting Saudi Arabia, bringing in McMaster, bombing Syria, supporting the war on Yemen, etc. He's also loaded up his administration with just as many Goldman Sachs insiders as Hillary Clinton would have, and his energy and infrastructure plans are just idiotic, compared to countries like China and Germany - it's a giveaway to private financial interests, just like Bush and Obama did back in 2008. Trump is looking more like Boris Yeltsin every day, really. ..."
"... What does this Trumpet foreign policy amount to? The first real move was it seems to me that Tomahawk missile attack, 59 o-them, on the airfield outside Homs (April) as a riposte for one of those mythical 'chem' outrages. ..."
May 29, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
During the election campaign Donald Trump argued for better relations with Russia. He wanted to engage in a common fight against the Islamic State and other terrorists. Hillary Clinton argued for a confrontational policy against Russia and a new cold war. The foreign policy establishment, the media and the CIA were solidly on Clinton's side. The people of the United States made their choice. It was Trump and his views of policies that were elected.

After Trump had won the election, he advised his staff to set up a confidential track-2 communication channel with the Russian government. He rightfully did not trust the established official channels through the State Department and the CIA His incoming National Security Advisor Flynn and his foreign policy advisor Kushner worked on his behalf when they soughed contacts with Russian officials. Such diplomacy is by nature not acted out in public.

But now the U.S. people are told by their media that it is a scandal, A SCANDAL , that President Trump's advisors pursue the policies the candidate Trump had argued for. Today's headlines:

The various formulations in those pieces are painting the discrete diplomatic contacts as something sinister and illegal

NBC News reported on Thursday that Kushner was under scrutiny by the FBI, in the first sign that the investigation, which began last July, has reached the president's inner circle.
...
FBI investigators are examining whether Russians suggested to Kushner or other Trump aides that relaxing economic sanctions would allow Russian banks to offer financing to people with ties to Trump, said the current U.S. law enforcement official.

But paragraphs down from that:

While the FBI is investigating Kushner's contacts with Russia, he is not currently a target of that investigation , the current law enforcement official said.
...
There may not have been anything improper about the contacts , the current law enforcement official stressed.

The WaPo author has at least the honesty to note:

It is common for senior advisers of a newly elected president to be in contact with foreign leaders and officials.

As an aside the Washington Post leakers reveal that U.S. intelligence can listen to Russian diplomatic communication between the embassy in Washington and Moscow. This is a criminal breach of a "sources and methods" secrets that should be punished.

The scandal here are not various contacts of Trump advisors with Russian and other country's diplomats. The scandal is the undermining of the constitutional prerogative of the elected President of the United State to set foreign policy:

Under the Constitution, the President serves as head of state and head of government. [..] As head of government, he formulates foreign policy, supervises its implementation and attempts to obtain the resources to support it. He also organizes and directs the departments and agencies that play a part in the foreign policy process. Along with the Vice President, he is the only government official elected nationally. This places him in a unique position to identify, express and pursue the "national interests" of the U.S.

The scandal here is not Trump and are not his advisors' contacts with Russian officials. The scandal are the leaks by "officials" about confidential diplomacy, the sham FBI "investigations" and the general undemocratic hostility and resistance of the foreign policy establishment, the security services and the media towards the president's chosen policies. This is completely independent of whether one likes those policies or not.

x | May 27, 2017 6:05:02 AM | 1
The scandal is Clinton, the DNC BS and the murder of staffer Seth Rich. All this msm noise is simply mass denial and paid for smoke screens. Trump should have stepped forward and taken it head while he had the people's voice behind him. His retreat has undermined any credibility and momentum he may have had.
Peter AU | May 27, 2017 7:43:12 AM | 5
Trump seems to be taking a different approach. The neo-cons/globalists/powers that be have blocked him from carrying out policies openly. His policy now seems to be fucking up every geo-political move they make or want make. What has come of his flashbangs and war talk so far since he appeared to go full neo-con. In each case the opposite to what appeared his neo-con intention, with a result closer to his campaign position.

US arms sales to the Saudi's? If its tanks and armoured vehicles, the Houthi's will turn them to scrap. From what I have read, Saudi's have more tanks and planes than they can ever use anyway. If it's smaller stuff that can be past on to the jihadists, that's a different matter. He seems to be milking the Saudi's dry and setting them up for a fall.
Iran. What will come of that? More war talk and flash bangs?

Obama wanted some sort of detente with Iran. Why? Because Obama was a benign forgiving sort of fellow? Still some time to go to be sure of where Trump is headed, but at the moment, he is messing up the Obama/Clinton/Neo-con plans

Piotr Berman | May 27, 2017 7:53:58 AM | 6
It is a bit hasty to declare Trumpistas as innocent victims. The sinister narrative is that Russian equivalent of NSA got hold of valuable secrets of Democratic party and passed them to Republicans in exchange for favorable policies.

The benign narrative that b favors is that Democrats have fallen victim of non-Russian related leaks and Trump wanted to change the policy in respect to Russia because he has a different perception of American national interests on those issues as he duly announced during his election campaign. Once elected, he had legal and moral mandate to discuss some stuff with Russians to "hit the ground running in January".

The benign narrative is spoiled by the existence of the actual leaks, moreover, if Trump wanted to exercise his moral prerogative, he should send Flynn, an associate that actually could figure out what he would be talking about with Russians, to the embassy to be duly photographed on the way there by reporters, giving them some soundbites about the purpose. He did not need any secret channels at this point.

The meta-narrative is that the "deep state" as personated by Comey actually hated Clinton, at least some segments do. Foreign policy of USA seems indeed to be infested by a cabal that spends considerable effort to tame anyone who comes to Oval Office. It is as if the most glorious pastime of our ruling class was fox hunting, something that offers only a faint pleasure to the outsiders, but each time there is a new lord, the dog pack spares no trick, being cute and friendly, or growling and nipping, whining and biting, until the glorious fox hunt runs again.

Trump is like the new guy who does not really hate hunting, to the contrary, but have never ridden a horse and given a choice, he would simply stick to golf and pussy grabbing. Could we modify the hunt with dog packs so I could use a golf cart, say, we could hunt badgers? (Iran? I am stretching the analogy to the limit.) You can see how the entire hunting establishment is barfing. Only the fox hunt lends itself to cooperation and elegance, shooting pheasants purchased by the dozen is a good for shooting practice but it will never, ever replace the pursuit of proper game for the nobles.

jfl | May 27, 2017 9:01:29 AM | 8
Trump adviser and son-on-law Jared Kushner under investigation in probe of Russia ties
The same week that Trump released a budget proposal that calls for $1.7 trillion in social cuts, including the virtual destruction of Medicaid, the government health program for the poor, the Democrats and allied media outlets have continued to focus on his alleged collusion with Russian President Vladimir Putin. This, in turn, is based on claims that Putin hacked Democratic Party emails during the election campaign and gave them to WikiLeaks to publish in order to embarrass Hillary Clinton and tip the election to Trump-claims that have not been backed up by any substantive evidence.

Also last December, Kushner met with Sergei Gorkov, the head of the Russian bank Vnesheconombank, which has been under US sanctions since 2014. That meeting points to the completely corrupt character of the Trump presidency, which has brought the criminality that pervades Wall Street into the White House. Trump officials described the meeting as routine and inconsequential, but the bank described it as a "negotiation" about "promising business lines and sectors."

ABC News reported that the meeting was part of talks "with a number of potential investors" about the development of a skyscraper on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan owned by the Kushner family real estate firm, Kushner Companies.

when the rump talks about getting along with the russians, this is what he has in mind. oligarchic theft oligarch-to-oligarch 'globalist' money laundering. and wouldn't it be nice to have secure communications to conduct such discussions over.

the dnc/cia/clintons are up to their asses in the same trough, that's why they're making the 'patriotic' charges they are instead of airing the real grift and graft that they all engage in as part of their oligarchic bans. that chicken just might come to roost in their own hen houses as well, whereas with a 'clean' frame they can 'create' the charges, making sure that no one can validate or falsify them ... kill their victims via smoke inhalation, not burns.

Piotr Berman | May 27, 2017 9:31:56 AM | 9
Anti-Russian hysteria reaches levels that I would not guess that are possible. How a software businessman can get so deranged that he manhandles a reporter by grabbing him by the neck, slamming on the ground and punching on the face?

Russian influence!

Richard Nephew, the former principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the state department, told the Guardian that "there is definitely a question here but my initial reaction is that this is not something to freak out about".

He added: "Index funds [Gianforte has 0.1% of his holding in index funds based on Russian stocks] are usually just like mutual funds, excluded from consideration from a sanctions perspective because the ownership stake per person is incredibly small."

But he noted that it did raise some concerns from "a Russia policy perspective" as a conflict of interest because "betting on Russia's economy is problematic".

Noirette | May 27, 2017 10:14:22 AM | 11
The Dems created the Trump-Russia "ties", "alliance", or what-not, as a multi-purpose tool.

> of course merely to keep the neo-cons-libs and **payers** on board, and persevere in the present scheme, with rah rah USA, Israel, KSA, Qatar (..), Muslim brothers and sisters and djhadists, against Assad, Iran, and Russia, in a multi-facetted proxy war. 1

> it provides an excuse for the Clinton loss - the whole mess, her unpopularity, lousy campaign, is blamed on Russian machinations via or with Trump, convenient scape-goats.

> DNC/Dem turpitude and crime and convolutions (fixing the primaries againt Sanders, e-mail scandal, Podesta mails, leaks, ex. Seth Rich - blowing up now, and much more!) are left in the shade, and/or become so confused that the 'base' just blames Russia, all can be attributed to the hidden evil influence of a powerful enemy.

> the accusation are so broad, amorphous (don't point to any specific actions, sayings, so one can ratisser large - scan widely) anything will fly. This is the wedge a large section of the PTB has settled on to impeach Trump. A vicious underground war is taking place. Trump is defending himself, but not well, perhaps it is impossible, idk. The landscape was evident from the moment he chose Pence as VP (2) then he let Flynn go - collaboration and appeasement in Bizness and Politics don't work in the same way.

1. Heh "Social democrats" showing their true heart-heart for apartheid, fundamentalist oppressive religion, cabals of despotic cruel unelected royals, hyper control of women, murder of blacks, war and bombs on millions of innocent ppl, and banksters scammers!

2. From far off, surprising. A renewal and change agenda would have mandated a less marked figure - perhaps just a neutral place-holder, or a little-known appeal candidate (white youngish woman for ex. but not Palin!), or a total break-away thingie. Trump either did not understand this or could not effect it. Idk.

Mina | May 27, 2017 10:26:19 AM | 12

The anti-Russian campagn is so well globally broadcasted that it serves as a ***WARING*** to French, German or British politicians (+ probably everywhere else on the planet). The REDS is the RED line. Now as before and a little more.

Posted by: Mina | May 27, 2017 10:26:19 AM | 12

frances | May 27, 2017 11:20:13 AM | 13
Yes, I agree with everything you said b. Trump is under constant, vicious, unrelenting attack from both sides, the question for me is why? What was planned to occur during a Clinton presidency that he has now, probably unknowingly, stalled? Was it war/war profiteering, was it the Climate Change 17 trillion dollar scam, has he somehow derailed the UN 2030 plan?

They could have simply blocked everything and anything he advanced as they did with Carter, why the need to destroy him personally? I supported Bernie (clearly a mistake) and now I am flooded with anti Trump emails 24/7; I get about 20 a day. There is something we/I am missing, is it as simple as Clinton wanting to stay out of jail, is it Pizzagate, what drives this near blood lust to bring him down?

Bob In Portland | May 27, 2017 11:32:19 AM | 14
For students of history, JFK set up alternate lines of communication with both the Soviet Union and Cuba in order to bypass the CIA, which Kennedy knew was continually trying to suck the US into their war against communism. Students of history remember what happened next.
dh | May 27, 2017 11:49:10 AM | 15
Trump is seen as racist, sexist and fascist in some quarters. Israel isn't too crazy about him either. But it could just be a small group running the anti-Trump campaign. Sending out emails is a job. The idea is to impeach him or get him to resign. I'm not sure how much average Americans care.
DougDiggler | May 27, 2017 12:32:57 PM | 16
Wow, if having a secret back channel to discuss foreign policy is a crime, then let HENRY KISSINGER be the first to be put on trial, convicted and executed!
Greg Bacon | May 27, 2017 12:38:03 PM | 17
Whoa, what about those jobs Trump promised? Making nice w/Russia will un-employ thousands of overpaid intelligence personnel and thousands of SA jihadis!

Russia is a mostly white, mostly Christian nation, a natural ally of Occupied America, unless our Overlord is PO about the rapprochement.

ToivoS | May 27, 2017 1:01:18 PM | 20
The opening of secret back channels is almost routine with US presidents. Obama initiated contacts with Iran in the winter of 2011-12. The BostonGlobe published one of many stories on this. In Feb 2012 there was even a more informal envoy who went to Tehran (the person, I forget the details, was a private citizen and friend of Obama from his Chicago days) to sound out possibilities for the nuclear deal.

Khalid at #2 is dismally naive. We are not shilling for Trump, what we see is that the highly secretive US intelligence agencies are attempting to take over US foreign policy to thwart Trump's efforts at detente with Russia, which is the one thing he campaigned on and is trying to achieve. Maybe Khalid wants the US to go to war with Russia but we don't.

Noirette | May 27, 2017 1:27:12 PM | 22
.... what drives this near blood lust to bring him down? frances about Trump at 13.

DT is an interloper, a maverick, a time-bomb. He has made enough threats, has enough dirt to bring down the central Gvmt. US apparatus. (E.g. Finance/Banking, Clinton Foundation, Pizzagate, no doubt more, other.)

He is a threat to the whole status quo, the fake duolopy (Dem-Rep), but is using this power in a Mafia-like landscape (as are the others), in true corrupt fashion, for personal advantage, which includes acclamation and admiration. In that sense he is part of the system and playing within it. That is one of the reasons he is gingerly tolerated, and hasn't been 'suicided' (yet.) Still, someone 'breaking in' like Trump did (the Republicans in lame disarray, the media running their own agenda, the Dems asleep at the wheel, nobody in charge, everyone just on their personal profit gig) is terrifying, and shows up the extreme vulnerability of the instituted powers, which is unbearable to all of them, so they loathe, despise, Trump with a supreme passion.

nonsense factory | May 27, 2017 2:32:11 PM | 26
Why does the U.S. Borg State hate Russia and China and Iran, but loves Israel and Saudi Arabia and Ukraine?

1) The American Empire program is suffering a collapse in global influence in the 21st century, much as the British and French Empire programs collapsed after in the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. GW Bush's Iraq invasion, and Obama's Libya-Syria regime change program, will almost certainly be viewed by historians as the last gasps of the Empire program (comparable to Britain in Iran and the Suez Canal issue in Egypt in the 1950s, the independence of Pakistan and India, France's loss of Indochina and Algeria, etc.). This is what the Borg State is trying to reverse. Their only allies in this are pet client states like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Ukraine - all with serious human rights and lack-of-democracy issues. Borg State efforts in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria have all been major debacles.

2) Russia in particular is upsetting the Borg ever since Putin rejected the Boris Yeltsin-era programs (takover of the Russian oil industry by U.S. and British banks in particular) and imprisoned America's favorite Russian plutocrat, Mikhail Khordokovsky and booted out Berevozsky and Gusinsky (the latter two being key players in electing Boris Yeltsin to a second term in 1996, if you want to talk about foreign influence in elections!). China is behaving similarly, running its own Central Asian economic integration plan through to Iran (note: not a military invasion) and exerting influence over the South China Sea (which is rather like its Gulf of Mexico, isn't it? Don't see any Chinese naval vessels doing "freedom of navigation there". Ditto for Russia's Black Sea.

There's another big issue for the Borg State: loss of domestic political control. Their agenda for the election was a puppet show featuring Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush; they almost lost complete control (which would have meant a Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump general election). They managed to put Clinton in the general election by nefarious means, with corporate media support (as in Russia in 1996), but then Trump won - with once-Democratic states like Ohio, etc. that were hit hardest by neoliberal trade policies giving him the edge.

But Trump is quickly demonstrating that he's can be just as much a tool of Borg State interests as Hillary Clinton was - his love-in with the Saudis being exhibit A, followed by typical bowing to the Israeli government, along with loading his administration up with the very Wall Street insiders who've spent decades screwing over the very people who supported him in Ohio and other industrial wastelands whose jobs have been shipped to Mexico, China and India so fat cats can get fatter. Trump looks to be playing the same games Hillary Clinton did with the Saudis; something like $100 million from the Saudis & UAE has been deposited in a Ivanka Trump-related foundation/endowment. This has been GCC Arab policy for decades - bribe U.S. politicians for support; bailing out GW Bush, dumping millions into foundations linked to the Clintons and McCain, buying billions in U.S. arms - it's the only reason they're still in power, otherwise Saudi Arabia would have seen a democratic revolution and the House of Saud's 15,000 members would be getting drunk in Europe and Switzerland after being evicted.

Meanwhile, under this media circus spilling over the U.S. (which is best just ignored), we have the U.S. military in Mosul coordinating with Iraqi Army efforts to kick out ISIS, the Iraqis also coordinated with Iranian-backed Shia militias. No reporting on this in the U.S. media but here's a good clip from France24:
Exclusive: Inside the Battle for Mosul, May 26

All you can really say about American corporate media is that it's almost useless as an information source on global events. It's consolidate Borg State propaganda and until some politician dares to bring anti-trust legislation aimed at breaking up the media cartels into hundreds of independent outlets, none of that will change.

annie | May 27, 2017 2:38:11 PM | 27
toivo, it was Sultan Qaboos the Sultan of Oman who was the instrumental go between for obama and iran. I agree with khalid "Trump is a huckster, a salesman and a bully. He is not a friend of anybody but himself" and fully agree with everything b has written. i think, more than anything, the establishment dems controlling the dem party have determined the best way to take down trump and ensure they will win the next election plus distract Americans from their culpability for hoisting the most undesirable candidate imaginable into the election process is -- this cold war replay of demonizing Russia.
nonsense factory | May 27, 2017 2:55:46 PM | 28
As far as Trump and Iran, this from a few days ago should raise questions about whether Trump has come around to the Clinton view on foreign policy agendas:
The U.S. Treasury is reviewing licenses for Boeing Co and Airbus to sell aircraft to Iran, department head Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday, telling lawmakers he would increase sanctions pressure on Iran, Syria and North Korea.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-sanctions-idUSKBN18K2U4
And for your full video clip of Trump and Glowing Orb of Satanic Illuminati Power:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUQUhypZpx4
Jeff Kaye | May 27, 2017 4:52:28 PM | 43
Thr National Security establishment doesn't like having people in who they feel they can't control or who aren't "made". It's not enough to be a billionaire or a former ex-FBI informant. Obama was establishment. Vetted. Clintons ditto. Bushes are of the royal blood. Someone like Perot: have to make them look craaazy! Really they are all crazy and these are clique fights. Don't believe Trump and his gang won't in the end irradiate anyone that stands in the way of their dominance. The tip-off is the torture. They're all depraved. The UN Committee Against Torture states the US tortures today, not just under Bush/Cheney. Press and politicians and lazy Americans yawn. So what? Meanwhile blacks shot down in greater numbers. Refugees and Muslims cower in fear. The superannuated elderly are slotted for the kind scythe of medical neglect. But Lockheed and Raytheon and General Dynamics and their ilk dine in splendor. The journalists of the people at the NYT, Washington Post, etc. make out at $200 grand per year. Dancing, dancing on the good ship USS NukeApocalyse.
Lochearn | May 27, 2017 5:01:15 PM | 44

Trump is like an untrained circus animal - untrained that is by Anglo-Zionists. In contrast, and waiting in the wings is steely-eyed Pence, trained to psychopathic levels. Trump has no idea what he has got himself into. He is in a maze precisely because he has neither done the study nor has he been trained. How long did it take people on this site to work it out? In my case a hell of a long time plus two hundred or more books.

Trump seems to function on some primordial level of hunches and we should be grateful for some of them. Almost daily news of new equipment or troops being sent to the Baltics/Poland etc. that we saw in the Obama days seems to have died down. He does not like Poroshenko's Ukraine. The fight is in Washington where it is safe, at least for the time being. Yes, he sold the Saudis a bunch of new stuff but you felt he was happy because business-wise he had them over a barrel (pun excused I hope). I can just see him give out the order, "Send 'em a load of junk."

Trump is an elite spanner in the works. Due to his enormous ego he was bound to make it difficult for the political elites because he's an elite.

nonsense factory | May 27, 2017 6:53:17 PM | 49
@Khalid, I think B. has some good points you're ignoring.

First, one of Trump's best policy proposals was to cut funding for NATO and say to European countries, if you want this big Cold War-era military juggernaut, then why don't you pay for it? The argument against NATO is pretty clear - just as the Warsaw Pact was dissolved after the Cold War, so should have NATO been dissolved. If EU countries want a military cooperation agreement, fine, but why should the U.S. taxpayer pay for it? We have this massive infrastructure collapse problem that would be money better spent, that would do far more for the average American citizen.

But, this was something that drove the unelected Borg State bureaucrats crazy and was one of the main reasons for their attacks on Trump. They want to go back to Cold War era thinking - and Russia is not a military threat, it's just that they're the dominant gas supplier to Europe and they've thwarted the rise of ISIS in Syria and prevented a Libya-like outcome in Syria. Russia's main problem is that it hasn't diversified its economy away from fossil fuels, particularly its exports, unlike China. But the Russian government does recognize this (see Putin's most recent "State of the Union" speech).

Trump just doesn't have the bureaucratic infighting skills, he's basically folded on everything the Borg State and the corporate media wanted on foreign policy, supporting Saudi Arabia, bringing in McMaster, bombing Syria, supporting the war on Yemen, etc. He's also loaded up his administration with just as many Goldman Sachs insiders as Hillary Clinton would have, and his energy and infrastructure plans are just idiotic, compared to countries like China and Germany - it's a giveaway to private financial interests, just like Bush and Obama did back in 2008. Trump is looking more like Boris Yeltsin every day, really.

Noirette | May 28, 2017 9:42:57 AM | 76
nonsense factory @ 26. Agree with the gist of what you wrote ...

Still overall there is a kind of mystery. What does this Trumpet foreign policy amount to? The first real move was it seems to me that Tomahawk missile attack, 59 o-them, on the airfield outside Homs (April) as a riposte for one of those mythical 'chem' outrages. (Talk about sanctions etc. doesn't count.) The Russians were warned, and it seems like there were not more than 10 deaths and little or no damage (didn't follow this closely)? The MSM and PTB came out in praise, saying Good Boy! as to a dog or cute toddler when they finally get with the agenda and jump through a hoop.

Then DT runs off to the only ones who hit the like button 50 times, KSA and Isr. (Plus off to the Pope for balance?) Previous he attempts some links with China while adopting a sorta belligerent attitude - and making a huge sturm und drang about N Korea.

All of which - I mean all of it - amounts to very little in terms of foreign policy actions. It is as if he was pretending to don a role, or is playing a double game. What is in question here of course is not DT's personal aims/understanding but the actions of the USA. I feel I am missing some parts of a puzzle. But maybe I am over-analyzing the 'death and convulsions of Empire' situation (point 1, very important and mostly denied.)

From The Hague | May 28, 2017 6:25:00 PM | 86
Jackrabbit #84
Western culture has much to offer (to the rest of the world), like: democracy, human rights, napalm and white phosperous.
hopehely | May 28, 2017 7:23:04 PM | 87
Posted by: From The Hague | May 28, 2017 6:25:00 PM | 86
As well as mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps.

[Jan 14, 2018] Trump Stumped As Bannon-Backed Roy Moore Wins Alabama Republican Primary By Landslide

Bannon backed candidate later lost. So much for this Bannon "success".
This idea of Trump playing 6 dimensional chess is a joke. It's the same explanation that was pushed for Obama disastrous neocon foreign policy. Here is one very apt quote: "What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan..." What 6-dimetional chess?
According to Occam razor principle the simplest explanation of Trump behaviour is probably the most correct. He does not control foright policy, outsourcing it to "generals" and be does not pursue domestic policy of creating jobs as he promised his electorate. In other words, both in foreign policy and domestic policy, he became a turncoat, betraying his electorate, much like Obama. kind of Republican Obama.
And as time goes by, Trump looks more and more like Hillary II or Republican Obama. So he might have problems with the candidates he supports in midterm elections. His isolationism, if it ever existed, is gone. Promise of jobs is gone. Detente with Russia is gone. What's left?
Note the level disappointment of what used to be Trump base in this site comment section...
Notable quotes:
"... In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide ..."
"... The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted... ..."
"... These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. ..."
"... Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole. ..."
"... I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included. ..."
"... The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger. ..."
"... Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" ..."
"... A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office. ..."
"... When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population. ..."
"... Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope. ..."
"... In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless. ..."
"... I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports... ..."
"... Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that. ..."
"... What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan... ..."
"... It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America ..."
"... YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Congratulations to Roy Moore on his Republican Primary win in Alabama. Luther Strange started way back & ran a good race. Roy, WIN in Dec!

In a serious rebuke for President Trump (and perhaps moreso for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell), ousted judge and alt-right favorite Roy Moore has won the Alabama Republican Primary by a landslide

The Steve Bannon-backed candidate, who defied court orders to remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom and refused to recognize gay marriage after the Supreme Court's June 2015 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, is leading by 9.6 points with 92% of the votes counted...

... ... ...

However, as Politco reported this evening, President Donald Trump began distancing himself from a Luther Strange loss before ballots were even cast, telling conservative activists Monday night the candidate he's backing in Alabama's GOP Senate primary was likely to lose ! and suggesting he'd done everything he could do given the circumstances.

Trump told conservative activists who visited the White House for dinner on Monday night that he'd underestimated the political power of Roy Moore, the firebrand populist and former judge who's supported by Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, according to three people who were there.

And Trump gave a less-than full-throated endorsement during Friday's rally.

While he called Strange "a real fighter and a real good guy," he also mused on stage about whether he made a "mistake" by backing Strange and committed to campaign "like hell" for Moore if he won.

Trump was encouraged to pick Strange before the August primary by son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner as well as other aides, White House officials said. He was never going to endorse Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, who has at times opposed Trump's agenda, and knew little about Moore, officials said.

... ... ...

Déjà view -> Sanity Bear •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

AIPAC HAS ALL BASES COVERED...MIGA !

On Sept. 11, the Alabama Daughters for Zion organization circulated a statement on Israel by Moore, which started by saying the U.S. and Israel "share not only a common Biblical heritage but also institutions of representative government and respect for religious freedom." He traced Israel's origin to God's promise to Abram and the 1948 creation of modern Israel as "a fulfillment of the Scriptures that foretold the regathering of the Jewish people to Israel."

Moore's statement includes five policy positions, including support for U.S. military assistance to Israel, protecting Israel from "Iranian aggression," opposing boycotts of Israel, supporting Israel at the United Nations, and supporting direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without outside pressure. He added, "as long as Hamas and the Palestinian Authority wrongly refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, such negotiations have scant chance of success."

While those views would give Moore common ground with much of the Jewish community regarding Israel, most of the state's Jewish community has been at odds with Moore over church-state issues, such as his displays of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and his outspoken stance against homosexuality, both of which led to him being ousted as chief justice.

http://www.sjlmag.com/2017/09/alabama-senate-candidates-express.html?m=1

justa minute -> Déjà view •Sep 27, 2017 2:53 AM

moore misreads the Bible as most socalled christians do. they have been deceived, they have confused the Israel of God( those who have been given belief in Christ) with israel of the flesh. They cant hear Christs own words, woe is unto them. they are living in their own selfrighteousness, not good. they are going to have a big surprise for not following the Word of God instead following the tradition of men.

They were warned over and over in the Bible but they cant hear.

I Claudius -> VinceFostersGhost •Sep 27, 2017 6:27 AM

Forgive? Maybe. Forget? NEVER!! He tried to sell "US" out on this one. We now need to focus on bringing "Moore" candidates to the podium to run against the RINO's and take out McConnell and Ryan. It's time for Jared and Ivanka to go back to NYC so Jared can shore up his family's failing empire. However, if his business acumen is as accurate as his political then it's no wonder the family needed taxpayer funded visas to sell the property. Then on to ridding the White House of Gen Kelly and McMaster - two holdover generals from the Obama administration - after Obama forced out the real ones.

Clashfan -> Mycroft Holmes IV •Sep 26, 2017 11:33 PM

Rump has hoodwinked his supoprt base and turned on them almost immediately. Some refuse to acknowledge this.

"Ha! Your vote went to the Israel first swamp!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gdw_MVY1Vo

Déjà view -> Clashfan •Sep 27, 2017 1:00 AM

MIGA !

These attacks on Bannon were one of the most prominent news stories in the first week following Trump's election victory. It didn't take long, however, for a counter-attack to emerge - from the right-wing elements of the Jewish community. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) came to Bannon's defense and accused the ADL of a "character assassination" against Bannon.

http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.807776

The Wizard -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:12 PM

Trump should figure out the Deep State elites he has surrounded himself with, don't have control of the states Trump won. Trump thought he had to negotiate with these guys and his ego got the best of him. Bannon was trying to convince him he should have stayed the course and not give in.


Theosebes Goodfellow -> Oh regional Indian •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM

~"American politics gets moore strange by the day..."~

Technically speaking OhRI, with Moore's win politics became less Strange, or "Strange less", or "Sans Luther", depending on how one chose to phrase it [SMIRK]

Adullam -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar •Sep 26, 2017 11:05 PM

Trump needs to fire Jared! Some news outlets are saying that it was his son in law who advised him to back Strange. He has to quit listening to those who want to destroy him or ... they will.

overbet -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:41 PM

Bannon is a true fucking patriot trying to pull this once great country from the sinkhole.

Juggernaut x2 -> overbet •Sep 26, 2017 10:07 PM

Trump better pull his head out of his ass and quit being a wishy-washy populist on BS like Iran- the farther right he goes the greater his odds of reelection because he has pissed off a lot of the far-righters that put him in- getting rid of Kushner, Cohn and his daughter and negotiating w/Assad and distancing us from Israhell would be a huge help.

opport.knocks -> Juggernaut x2 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

Distancing us from Israel... LOLOLOLOL

https://youtu.be/tm5Je73bYOY

The whole Russiagate ploy was a diversion from (((them)))

NoDebt -> Killtruck •Sep 26, 2017 9:42 PM

I think the reality is that this was a message to McConnell much more than Trump. That message is simple: I'm coming to kill your career. Bannon went out of his way to say he fully supports Trump (despite backing the opposite candidate). And, let's face it, if Bannon buries McConnell, he's doing everyone a service, Trump included.

Oldwood -> NoDebt •Sep 26, 2017 10:08 PM

I think it was a setup.

Bannon would not oppose Trump that directly unless there was a wink and a nod involved.

Trump is still walking a tightrope, trying to appease his base AND keep as many establishment republicans at his side (even for only optics). By Trump supporting Strange while knowing he was an underdog AND completely apposed by Bannon/his base he was able to LOOK like he was supporting the establishment, while NOT really. Trump seldom backs losers which makes me think it was deliberate. Strange never made sense anyway.

But what do I know?

Urahara -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 12:20 AM

Bannon is hardcore Isreal first. Why are you supporting the zionist? It's an obvious play.

general ambivalent -> Urahara •Sep 27, 2017 2:23 AM

People are desperate to rationalise their failure into a victory. They cannot give up on Hope so they have to use hyperbole in everything and pretend this is all leading to something great in 2020 or 2024.

None of these fools learned a damn thing and they are desperate to make the same mistake again. The swamp is full, so full that it has breached the banks and taken over all of society. Trump is a swamp monster, and you simply cannot reform the swamp when both sides are monsters. In other words, the inside is not an option, so it has to be done the hard way. But people would prefer to keep voting in the swamp.

Al Gophilia -> NoDebt •Sep 27, 2017 3:58 AM

Bannon as president would really have those swamp creatures squirming. There wouldn't be this Trump crap about surrounding himself with likeminded friends, such as Goldman Sachs turnstile workers and his good pals in the MIC.

Don't tell me he didn't choose them because if he didn't, then they were placed. That means he doesn't have the clout he pretends to have or control of the agenda that the people asked him to deliver. His backing of Stange is telling.

Lanka -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 26, 2017 11:07 PM

McMaster and Kelly have Trump under house arrest.

Bobbyrib -> LindseyNarratesWordress •Sep 27, 2017 5:38 AM

He will not fire Kushner or Ivanka who have become part of the swamp. I'm so sick of these 'Trump is a genius and planned this all along.'

To me Trump is a Mr. Bean type character that has been very fortunate and just goes with the flow. He has nearly no diplomacy, or strategic skills.

NoWayJose •Sep 26, 2017 10:35 PM

Dear President Trump - if you like your job, listen to these voters. Borders, Walls, limited immigrants (including all those that Ryan and McConnell are sneaking through under your very nose), trade agreements to keep American jobs, and respect for our flag, our country, and the unborn!

nevertheless -> loveyajimbo •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

I had hope for Trump, but as someone who reads ZH often, and does not suffer from amnesia (like much of America), I knew he was way too good to be true.

We all know his back tracking, his flip flops...and while the media and many paid bloggers like to spin it as "not his fault", it actually is.

His sending DACA to Congress was the last straw. Obama enacted DACA with a stroke of his pen, but Trump "needed to send it to Congress so they could "get it right". The only thing Congress does with immigration is try and get amnesty passed.

Of course while Trump sends DACA to Congress, he does not mind using the military without Congress, which he actually should do.

Why is it when it's something American's want, it has to go through the "correct channels", but when its something the Zionists want, he does it with the wave of his pen? We saw the same bull shit games with Obama...

Dilluminati •Sep 26, 2017 11:02 PM

Anybody surprised by this is pretending the civility at the workplace isn't masking anger at corporate America and Government. I'll go in and put in the 8 hours, I'm an adult that is part of the job. However I'm actually fed up with allot of the stupid shit and want the establishment to work, problem is that we are witnessing failed nations, failed schools, failed healthcare, even failed employment contracts, conditions, and wages.

The echo chamber media "is so surprised" that in Germany and the US we are seeing a rising tide of pissed off people, well imagine fucking that? Leaving the echo chamber and not intellectually trying to understand the anger, but living the anger.

You haven't seen anything yet in Catalonia/Spain etc, Brexit, or so..

This is what failure looks like: That moment the Romanovs and Louis XVI looked around the room seeking an understanding eye, there was none.

Pascal1967 •Sep 26, 2017 11:19 PM

Dear Trump:

Quit listening to your moron son-in-law, swamp creature, Goldman Sachs douchebag son-in-law Kushner. HE SUCKS!! If you truly had BALLS, you would FIRE his fucking ass. HE is The Swamp, He Is Nepotism! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HATE HIM.

MAGA! LISTEN TO BANNON, DONALD.

DO NOT FUCK THIS UP!

ROY MOORE, 100%!!!!

You lost, Trump ... get your shit together before it is too late!

ElTerco •Sep 26, 2017 11:28 PM

Bannon was always the smarts behind the whole operation. Now we are just left with a complete idiot in office.

Also, unlike Trump, Bannon actually gives a shit about what happens to the American people rather than the American tax system. At the end of the day, all Trump really cares about is himself.

samsara •Sep 26, 2017 11:25 PM
I think most people get it backwards about Trump and the Deplorables.

I believed in pulling troops a from all the war zones and Trump said he felt the same

I believed in Legal immigration, sending people back if here illegal especially if involved in crime, Trump said he felt the same.

I believed in America first in negotiating treaties, Trump said he felt the same.

I didn't 'vote' for Trump per se, he was the proxy.

We didn't leave Him, He left us.

BarnacleBill •Sep 26, 2017 11:31 PM

Well, we can only hope that Trump gets the message. He was elected to be President of the USA, not Emperor of the World. Quote from that Monty Python film: "He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" It's high time he turned back to the job he promised to do, and drain that swamp.

napper •Sep 26, 2017 11:47 PM

A cursory background reading on Roy Moore tells me that he is one of the worst types for public office. And he might just turn out to be like Trump -- act like an anti-swarm cowboy and promise a path to heaven, then show his real colors as an Establishment puppet once the braindead voters put him in office.

America is doomed from top (the swarm) to bottom (the brainless voters).

Sid Davis •Sep 27, 2017 1:40 AM

When Trump won the Republican nomination, and then the Presidency it was because people were rebelling against the establishment rulers. There is considerable disgust with these big government rulers that are working for themselves and their corporate cronies, but not for the US population.

Trump seems to have been compromised at this point, and his support of the establishment favourite, Luther Strange is evidence that he isn't really the outsider he claimed to be. Moore's victory in Alabama says the rebellion still has wheels, so there is some hope.

In Missouri where I live, the anti-establishment Republican contender for the upcoming US Senatorial 2018 race is Austin Peterson. It will be interesting to see how he, and his counterparts in other states do in the primaries. Both of the current Missouri Senators are worthless.

nevertheless -> pfwed •Sep 27, 2017 7:33 AM

I remember well the last "3-Dimensional Chess master" Obama while he too was always out maneuvering his apponents, per the media reports...

LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 2:56 AM

Every now and then Trump tends to make huge blunders, and sometimes betrayals without knowing what he is doing. "Champions"- (great leaders) do not do that.

nevertheless -> LoveTruth •Sep 27, 2017 7:16 AM

What Trump has done are disasters, and equates to treason. Selling billions of dollars of weapons the our enemies the terrorists/Saudis, killing innocent people in Syria, and Yemen, sending more troops to Afghanistan...

But most treasonous of all was his sending DACA to "get it right", really? Congress has only one goal with immigration, amnesty, and Chump knows dam well they will send him legislation that will clearly or covertly grant amnesty for millions and millions of illegals, dressed up as "security".

Obama enacted DACA with the stroke of a pen, and while TRUMP promised to end it, he did NOT. Why is it when it's something Americans want, it has to be "Constitutional", but when it comes form his banker pals, like starting a war, he can do that unilaterally.

archie bird -> nevertheless •Sep 27, 2017 7:45 AM

Bernie wants to cut aid to Israel https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/09/25/bernie-sanders-yeah-i...

nevertheless •Sep 27, 2017 8:04 AM

It is epitome of self-delusion to see people twisting themselves into pretzels, trying to justify/rationalize Trump's continuing display of disloyalty to America, and loyalty to Zionism.

Trump should always have been seen as a likely Zionist shill. He comes form Jew York City, owes everything he is to Zionist Jewish bankers, is a self proclaimed Zionist...

YOU CAN'T BE A ZIONIST AND AN AMERICAN FIRSTER, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER.

Either Zero Hedge is over run with Zionist hasbara, giving cover to their boy Chump, or Americans on the "right" have become as gullible as those who supported Obama on the "left".

[Jan 13, 2018] Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

Looks like Bannon is really weak in political economy. He does not even use the term neoliberalism. Go here to read the full transcript of his speech.
One very interesting quote is ""I believe we've come partly off-track in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism."
Notable quotes:
"... That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age. ..."
"... I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism. ..."
"... I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism." ..."
"... One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century. ..."
"... The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States. However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom." ..."
Jan 13, 2018 | the-american-catholic.com

Buzzfeed has the remarks of Stephen Bannon, former CEO of Breitbart News , and currently appointed by President Elect Trump to be his chief advisor, at a conference at the Vatican in the summer of 2014:

Steve Bannon:

Thank you very much Benjamin, and I appreciate you guys including us in this. We're speaking from Los Angeles today, right across the street from our headquarters in Los Angeles. Um. I want to talk about wealth creation and what wealth creation really can achieve and maybe take it in a slightly different direction, because I believe the world, and particularly the Judeo-Christian west, is in a crisis. And it's really the organizing principle of how we built Breitbart News to really be a platform to bring news and information to people throughout the world. Principally in the west, but we're expanding internationally to let people understand the depths of this crisis, and it is a crisis both of capitalism but really of the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian west in our beliefs.

It's ironic, I think, that we're talking today at exactly, tomorrow, 100 years ago, at the exact moment we're talking, the assassination took place in Sarajevo of Archduke Franz Ferdinand that led to the end of the Victorian era and the beginning of the bloodiest century in mankind's history. Just to put it in perspective, with the assassination that took place 100 years ago tomorrow in Sarajevo, the world was at total peace. There was trade, there was globalization, there was technological transfer, the High Church of England and the Catholic Church and the Christian faith was predominant throughout Europe of practicing Christians. Seven weeks later, I think there were 5 million men in uniform and within 30 days there were over a million casualties.

That war triggered a century of barbaric -- unparalleled in mankind's history -- virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we're children of that: We're children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.

But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people -- whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the Polish resistance fighters, or it's the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it's the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we've come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we're starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.

And we're at the very beginning stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that's starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we've been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.

Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you're seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.

I see that every day. I'm a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it's a very, very tough environment. And you've had a fairly good track record. So I don't want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, "Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya' around capitalism."

But there's a strand of capitalism today -- two strands of it, that are very disturbing.

  1. One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that's the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it's what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn't spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.
  2. The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I'm a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that's a very big part of the conservative movement -- whether it's the UKIP movement in England, it's many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

    However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the "enlightened capitalism" of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost -- as many of the precepts of Marx -- and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they're really finding quite attractive. And if they don't see another alternative, it's going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of "personal freedom."

The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we've talked about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.

... ... ...

[Jan 07, 2018] Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news

This article is one year old but still looks like it was written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. ..."
"... "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump." ..."
"... Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line. ..."
"... For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books. ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

RGC, June 27, 2017 at 07:27 AM

On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun.

Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.

The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.

Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence.

"None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump."

Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
........................
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

RGC -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:33 AM
June 27, 2017

Hersh's New Syria Revelations Buried From View

by Jonathan Cook

.................

Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line.

For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books.
................
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations-buried-from-view/

RGC -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:37 AM
White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria

The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly be to its disadvantage.

The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which will be blamed on the Syrian government.
.................
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/white-house-says-it-will-fake-chemical-weapon-attacks-in-syria.html#more

JohnH -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:38 AM
When the going gets tough, the US fakes a chemical weapons attack...
JohnH -> RGC... , June 27, 2017 at 07:37 AM
Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news.

Hirsh has been a thorn in the side of the national security state ever since his expose of the My Lai massacre in 1969...and they're doing their best to shut him up.

[Jan 06, 2018] Looks like Bannon self-immolated himself by his cooperation with Wolff

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them. ..."
"... The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words. ..."
"... Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least. ..."
"... Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated." ..."
"... I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past." ..."
"... five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks. ..."
"... I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment. ..."
Feb 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
... ... ..

Bannon is almost universally loathed by the Washington press corps, and not just for his politics. When he was the CEO of the pro-Trump Breitbart website, he competed with traditional media outlets, and he has often mercilessly attacked and ridiculed them.

The animosity towards Bannon reached new heights last month, when he incautiously told the New York Times that "the media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while." He also said the media was "the opposition party" to the Trump administration. To the Washington media, those are truly fighting words.

Joel Simon, of the Committee to Protect Journalists, told CNN that "this kind of speech not [only] undermines the work of the media in this country, it emboldens autocratic leaders around the world." Jacob Weisberg, the head of the Slate Group, tweeted that Bannon's comment was terrifying and "tyrannical."

Bannon's comments were outrageous, but they are hardly new. In 2009, President Obama's White House communications director, Anita Dunn, sought to restrict Fox News' access to the White House. She even said, "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent." The media's outrage over that remark was restrained, to say the least.

Ever since Bannon's outburst, you can hear the media gears meshing in the effort to undermine him. In TV green rooms and at Washington parties, I've heard journalists say outright that it's time to get him. Time magazine put a sinister-looking Bannon on its cover, describing him as "The Great Manipulator." Walter Isaacson, a former managing editor of Time , boasted to MSNBC that the image was in keeping with a tradition of controversial covers that put leaders in their place. "Likewise, putting [former White House aide] Mike Deaver on the cover, the brains behind Ronald Reagan, that ended up bringing down Reagan," he told the hosts of Morning Joe . "So you've got to have these checks and balances, whether it's the judiciary or the press."

Reporters and pundits are also stepping up the effort to portray Bannon as the puppet master in the White House. Last week, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski said, "Legitimate media are getting word that Steve Bannon is the last guy in the room, in the evening especially, and he's pulling the strings." Her co-host, Joe Scarborough, agreed that Bannon's role should be "investigated."

I'm all for figuring out who the powers behind the curtain are in the White House, but we saw precious little interest in that during the Obama administration.

It wasn't until four years after the passage of Obamacare that a journalist reported on just how powerful White House counselor Valerie Jarrett had been in its flawed implementation. Liberal writer Steven Brill wrote a 2015 book, America's Bitter Pill , in which he slammed "incompetence in the White House" for the catastrophic launch of Obamacare. "Never [has there] been a group of people who more incompetently launched something," he told NPR's Terry Gross, who interviewed him about the book. He laid much of the blame at Jarrett's doorstep. "The people in the administration who knew it was going wrong went to the president directly with memos, in person, to his chief of staff," he said. "The president was protected, mostly by Valerie Jarrett, from doing anything. . . . He didn't know what was going on in the single most important initiative of his administration." How important was Jarrett inside the Obama White House? Brill interviewed the president about the struggles of Obamacare and reported Obama's conclusion: "At this point, I am not so interested in Monday-morning quarterbacking the past."

Brill then bluntly told the president that five of the highest-ranking Obama officials had told him that "as a practical matter . . . Jarrett was the real chief of staff on any issues that she wanted to weigh in on, and she jealously protected that position by making sure the president never gave anyone else too much power." When Brill asked the president about these aides' assessment of Jarrett, Obama "declined comment," Brill wrote in his book. That, in and of itself, was an answer. Would that Jarrett had received as much media scrutiny of her role in eight years under Obama as Bannon has in less than four weeks.

I've had my disagreements with Bannon, whose apocalyptic views on some issues I don't share. Ronald Reagan once said that if someone in Washington agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he is an ally, not an enemy. I'd guess Bannon wouldn't agree with that sentiment.

But the media's effort to turn Bannon into an enemy of the people is veering into hysterical character assassination. The Sunday print edition of the New York Times ran an astonishing 1,500-word story headlined: "Fascists Too Lax for a Philosopher Cited by Bannon." (The online headline now reads, "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists.") The Times based this headline on what it admits was "a passing reference" in a speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014 . In that speech, Bannon made a single mention of Julius Evola, an obscure Italian philosopher who opposed modernity and cozied up to Mussolini's Italian Fascists.

- John Fund is NRO's national-affairs correspondent . https://twitter.com/@JohnFund

[Dec 31, 2017] How America Spreads Global Chaos by Nicolas J.S. Davies

Highly recommended!
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite, especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.

As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment that had already killed millions of people.

As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented, the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as Pete Seeger satirized it , and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.

Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive Diem regime and its successors ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them.

The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."

Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.

Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.

Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.

Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans. As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.

The CIA's Pretexts for War

U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy.

Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future, both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war.

The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.

Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.

Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.

CIA in Syria and Africa

But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi, the CIA and its allies began flying fighters and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.

Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even more savage "Islamic State," triggered the heaviest and probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into the chaos of Syria's civil war.

Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N. has published a report titled Journey to Extremism in Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment , based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.

The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family, was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups, and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.

The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study, The People's Perspectives : Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves or their families.

The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective.

"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit of some national objective in the first place."

The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to 53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first place.

This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale.

Taking on China

What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."

China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business."

China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.

Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty and displacement.

As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others.

But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.

Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.

The Three Scapegoats

In Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments, whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure. But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official Elliott Abrams' failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.

How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya, once ranked by the U.N. as the most developed country in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.

In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.

In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the solid victory of Venezuela's ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.

The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.

Boxing In North Korea

A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated its commitment to North Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.

Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul, a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only 35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.

U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats of war. Under the Agreed Framework signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for one nuclear bomb.

The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.

Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental reactor was shut down as a result of the "Six Party Talks" in 2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.

But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.

North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range from 110 to 250 kilotons , comparable to a small hydrogen bomb.

The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal of 4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.

The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.

China has proposed a reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.

This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy that is possible in official circles."

Demonizing Iran

The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA, which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild goose chase in his 2011 memoir, Age of Deception : Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .

When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."

Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book, Manufactured Crisis : the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.

But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.

"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized in a prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought Iran to the table."

In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book, A Single Roll of the Dice : Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council. In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S. from coming to the table itself.

As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer. Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's failures in the Middle East.

The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and attacks by Israel.

Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has run its course.

What the Future Holds

Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the heaviest U.S. aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.

Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.

But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.

If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems, it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.

But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.

In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies. Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the world.

Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by calling for a recommitment to the rule of international law , which prohibits the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea, Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.

Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction.

Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other than putty in the hands of the CIA

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .

[Dec 30, 2017] Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. That increases the probably of confrontation by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. ..."
Dec 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

Russia option 1 : rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal (that is politely called "freeze") Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this, but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and there is much I don't know here, I therefore assessed the risk as "unknown" for me.

Russia option 2 : the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in 2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US do – attack a Russian S-400 battery?

The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35.

Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real electronic warfare suite (the F-22's INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hyper maneuverability, electronic warfare, passive engagement, etc.).

This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?

What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Donbass : will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already! Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new "frog-jump" (pseudo) strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming, re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the Neocon point of view:

Possible outcomes US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War v2 in Europe.

The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course.

Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already. Furthermore, western made weapons won't make any difference, at least from a military point of view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any category.

The real difference is a political one: shipping "lethal weapons" (as if some weapons were not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.

[Dec 30, 2017] Bill Maher as a tool of deep state

It is interesting how easily Bill Maher was owned by Stone. Stone has higher level of IQ and that shows.
And Bill Maher is not that easy guy to own. Pretty slick political operative is this Roger Stone.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Maher gets absolutely stumped. He can't stop stammering after what Roger says about the CIA. ..."
"... Bill Maher is a LIAR, and a very cunning one at that. ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.youtube.com

mrbossandbeast , 8 months ago

Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!

Diego Carrera , 8 months ago

Roger Stone nails it at 12:25 - 12:45 ish, and what our real problems are in America. The dude is spot on.

Lui Pietro , 8 months ago

You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left. You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.

These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.

So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?

Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them. If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.

This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have our country back.

Patrick Corbett , 7 months ago (edited)

11:00 Bill Maher gets absolutely stumped. He can't stop stammering after what Roger says about the CIA.

Steven Paul , 4 months ago

Bill Maher is a LIAR, and a very cunning one at that.

Eric Courtois , 8 months ago (edited)

BILL MAHER IS SIMPLY A RUDE IDIOT!

[Dec 30, 2017] The recent blather in the "Conservative" Commentariat that Haley is looking like Presidential material. God help us all

Dec 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

The Alarmist , December 29, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

"Nikki Haley -- there is the real imbecile!"

And yet there is recent blather in the "Conservative" Commentariat that Haley is looking like Presidential material. God help us all.

[Dec 30, 2017] Not a single officer resigned in protest despite the fact that the US is deeply in bed with ISIS and those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11

Saker, of course, if "Russia firster". And that makes his analyses of Russia weaker than it should be. But his analysis of the USA is superb.
Notable quotes:
"... What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq, and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially 'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world. ..."
"... And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever, and the Zionists are happy. ..."
"... And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked. ..."
"... re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the message, that one "USA bad" etc. ..."
"... The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say. ..."
"... US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change. ..."
"... Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations, good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action. ..."
"... It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American victory as well as a Soviet one." (c) ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Priss Factor , Website December 29, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.

But for 9/11, Alqaeda was always the US's baby. They were used in Afghanistan against the Soviets. US and its ally Pakistan fully backed Osama and his ilk for a long time. If not for 9/11, US and Alqeda's good relations would have been unbroken.

It's like US-Japan's relations. It got rocky cuz of disagreement over China and then Pearl Harbor. But had it not been for that, US-Japan relations would have been smooth throughout the 20th century. US had initially backed Japan's war with Russia and looked the other way when Japan moved into Korea and China. It was Japan's over-reaching that set the two nations apart and led to Pearl Harbor. But after WWII, they were friends against against China and Russia.

So, it shouldn't surprise us that US and Alqaeda are pals again. They were for a long time. It was US presence in Saudi Arabia that made Osama bitter and turn against his ally, the US. But with Iran and Shias as the Big Enemy, the US and Alqaeda are friends again.

Priss Factor , Website December 29, 2017 at 5:53 am GMT
And yet, somewhere, to some degree, these guys must know that the odds are not in their favor. For one thing, an endless stream of military defeats and political embarrassments ought to strongly suggest to them that inaction is generally preferable to action, especially for clueless people.

What defeats? US achieved its real goal in Iraq, which was to smash it and leave it divided. Zionist wanted a weak Iraq, and it is weak indeed. US still occupies Afghanistan and uses it for whatever it wants. The longer the war goes on, the Occupation is justified like continued US presence in South Korea. US doesn't want to win in Afghanistan. As long as the war is officially 'on', US can stay and rule that part of the world.

And Libya is destroyed. Gaddafi's dream of counter-currency is finished. Libya is like humpty dumpty, smashed forever, and the Zionists are happy.

And Syria? It didn't cost America anything to see that nation totally wrecked.

...These were great successes in a sick way. The Zionist-US goal was to spread chaos and turn those nations into hellholes that will take many decades to recover. And since 9/11, there's been hardly any major terrorist attacks in America.

peterAUS , December 29, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT
Beauties of time zone(s). Anyway . The usual Saker's "panic attack". So, for those 10 % here who aren't actually on his wavelength, a brief comment. As usual there is a bit of discrepancy between:

the AngloZionist Empire is reeling from its humiliating defeat in Syria

and

Syria (threats of a US-Israeli-KSA attack; attack on Iranian and Hezbollah forces in Syria)
attack on Russian forces in Syria)
.attack Iranian forces in Syria)

but not important, of course. Just think "USA bad", "Russia good" and all makes sense. Surprisingly, though, this is well stated

Let me immediately say here that listing pragmatic arguments against such aggression is, at this point in time, probably futile.

with a bit of Freudian slip

that is really frightening.

re the first sentence of this comment. And probably confusing for "Russia-Firsters"; USA is this/that (all bad) and Russia/China are this/that (all good) but there is a fear about the "bad boy". Doesn't make sense but, well, who cares. We gotta go with the message, that one "USA bad" etc.

Now, he got this mostly right:

whereas those in the elites not only know that they are total hypocrites and liars, but they actually see this as a sign superiority: the drones believes in his/her ideology, but his rulers believe in absolutely nothing.

Except they do believe in something: POWER.

He got close here, I admit:

Because they profoundly believe in four fundamental things:
1. We can buy anybody
2. Those we cannot buy, we bully
3. Those we cannot bully we kill
4. Nothing can happen to us, we live in total impunity not matter what we do

Now, I also admit THIS is quite interesting:

The same goes for the US military: not one single officer has found in himself/herself to resign to protest the fact that the US is deeply in bed with those who are responsible, at least according to the official conspiracy theory, for 9/11. Nope, in fact US special forces are working with al-Qaeda types day in and day out and not a single one of these "patriots" has the honor/courage/integrity to go public about it.

Still, the explanation feels weak.

Imbeciles and cowards. Delusional imbeciles giving orders and dishonorable cowards mindlessly executing them.

He could've gone deeper, but that would've complicated the message. Propaganda is all about keeping things simple and close to the lowest denominator (read imbecile). Makes sense, actually. He is correct here, though:

Alas, this is also a very hard combo to deter or to try to reason with.

The usual "Bad USA has been losing badly" compulsory part of the article we'll skip here, save:

.to engage either the Iranians or Hezbollah is a very scary option

("panic" thing) And, of course oh man .

Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart.

I suggest reading this a couple of times. For a couple of reasons I'd leave to the reader. Back to topic at hand:

I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it.

with

I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!)

..("panic" thing)
and

Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely

..("panic" thing).
and

The truth is that at this point nobody knows what the outcome of a US attack on the DPRK might be, not even the North Koreans. Will that be enough to deter the delusional imbeciles giving and dishonorable cowards currently at the helm of the Empire? You tell me!

("panic" thing).

And, at the end, kudos actually, he appears to be getting there:

Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018. All my education has always been based on a crucial central assumption: the other guy is rational.

This isn't bad:

The burden now is clearly on Russia and China to do everything they can to try to stop the US from launching even more catastrophic and deeply immoral wars. That is a very, very difficult task and I frankly don't know if they can do it. I hope so. That is the best I can say.

But I'd keep focus on "I frankly don't know if they can do it". Now, back to fanboys and resident agenda pushers.

Priss Factor , Website December 29, 2017 at 6:23 am GMT
Frankly, I am not very confident about this attempt as analyzing the possible developments in 2018.

US foreign policy flows from internal conditions. As long as the US is ruled by ...Globalists... as their cuckaroo dogs like Joe Biden, Lindsey Graham, and the rest, nothing will change.

America needs a new civil 'war' to set things right. The ruling elites must be outed, routed, and destroyed. But the elites have framed the civil war in America as between 'nazis' and 'antifa', and this divide-and-conquer strategy gets nothing done. The American Left is more at war with Civil War monuments than with the REAL power. This civil 'war' must be between people vs the elites. But elites have manipulated the conflict as 'blue' vs 'red'.

What happens IN America will affect what happens OUTSIDE America.

There are people on both right and left who know what is going on with this neo-imperialism BS. Elite intellectuals are useless as critics because the filtering system for elitism favors the cucks and toadies. To reach the top in any profession, one has to suck up to Zionists, denounce Russia, worship homos, and denounce any form of white agency as 'white supremacism'.

... ... ...

How can the elite power be challenged by non-elites? Is there some way? A new way to use the internet? Maybe. That must be why the Platforms are shutting down so many alternative voices.

And how can masses of Trumptards and Anti-Trump resistance be convinced that the real power is not with Trump or any president but with the Deep State that colludes with Big Media and Big donors?

So many Trumptards think all is fine because Trump is president. Likewise, so many progs paid no attention as long as Obama was president even though Obama proved to be a war criminal.

US is now a silly nation where progs are totally incensed over 'gay cakes'. With dummy populists who think in terms of flag and guns and idiot decadent proggists who think in terms of 'muh gender' and 'white privilege', a true challenge to sick elite power is impossible.

We need more on the right to call out on Trump, and we need more on the left to call out on likes of Obama and Hillary. And both sides need to focus on the Power above Trump-Hillary-Obama. But they are too childish to see anything cuz for most of them, it's either 'muh guns' or 'muh gender'.

Fran Macadam , Website December 29, 2017 at 7:46 am GMT
Simplistically, it appears most Americans because of the Cold War view geopolitics as a Manichean struggle of civilizations, good versus evil. Therefore, as they understand the United States, representing absolute good, to have been the victor in that battle for the planet, the United States now has the right to dictate terms to the entire globe in a mopping up action.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 29, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

Yet none of that prevents them from claiming that they, not Russia, defeated Daesh/ISIS/al-Nusra/etc. This is absolutely amazing, think of it –

It is US "elites" Modus Operandi, otherwise "exceptionalism" flies out of the window. With some effort and time given we may yet see the US taking credit for the Battle of Lepanto and, eventually, for Thermopylae. Consider his: "Kursk was an Anglo-American victory as well as a Soviet one." (c)

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-battle-kursk-might-just-be-the-most-misunderstood-22931?page=3

You see where it is all going? In real everyday life this is qualified as Stolen Valor and there is a Federal Law from 2013 which makes it a crime.

Diversity Heretic , December 29, 2017 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Priss Factor

Calvin Coolidge referred to Japan as America's natural friend. Were the economic sanctions imposed because of Japanese expansion in China, Indochina and the Dutch East Indies really necessary? How important was it to Mr. and Mrs. Average American that China be governed by Communists, warlords and corrupt nationalists, that Indochina be governed by French colonialists, and the Dutch East Indies be governed by Dutch colonialists, than by Japanese imperalists? Pat Buchanan has called WWII in Europe the unnecessary war; I think the truly unnecessary WWII conflict was in the Pacific.

[Dec 30, 2017] On Luke Harding interview, give the guy who exposed him some credit if you have Twitter

Dec 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jen , Dec 28, 2017 2:49:47 PM | 1

Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present, courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.

True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to have given her permission for the reposting.

Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?

Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.

What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

Anonynmous , Dec 29, 2017 6:16:02 AM | 34
Jen / 1

Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.

Anonynmous , Dec 29, 2017 11:03:36 AM | 46
Re: On Luke Harding interview, give the guy who exposed him some credit if you have Twitter,
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate

Its is people like him, b etc that makes the big work these days researching and exposing the corruption of this world.

Tony_0pmoc , Dec 29, 2017 12:31:06 PM | 50
Anonymous @ 46

I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense of betrayal.

http://www.newsweek.com/assange-how-guardian-milked-edward-snowdens-story-323480

[Dec 30, 2017] Panic of Boris Johnson in Moscow: Agony of a Rotting Empire by Andre Vltchek

Notable quotes:
"... The UK has been playing appalling, truly Machiavellian games all over the Middle East, and it has been doing it for centuries – in Palestine, in what is now Iraq and Kuwait, and in many other areas. To borrow from the colorful lexicon of the Prime Minister Lloyd George, it was reserving rights "to bomb those niggers", to bomb them and to fry them alive, to rob them of everything, even of the land itself. The UK, together with their close friends and allies such as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, managed to manufacture the most conservative branch of Islam, just in order to keep the local population in fear and submission to its commercial and colonialist interests. ..."
"... The country responsible for hundreds of millions of dead, for tens of millions of human beings who have been hunted down like animals and shipped to America as slaves, has been reserving the right to judge the world, to decide what is 'free' and what is not, what is 'democratic' and what is dictatorial, what is true and what is false or even 'fake'. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

It has been all very ugly, aggressive and often distinctly vulgar: the way the British Foreign Secretary has behaved before and during his official visit to Moscow.

Mr. Johnson described Russia as "closed, nasty, militaristic and anti-democratic" concluding that it could not be "business as usual".

He did not define what the UK has become, and the Russian hosts were too polite to explain.

The "business as usual" it was not.

During the last few weeks, the behavior patterns of both the UK and US have began increasingly to resemble those of the badly brought up leadership of the provincial Italian mafia: "You do as we tell you, or we'll poke out your eyes or break your leg or perhaps we'll kidnap your daughter".

It appears that there is absolutely no shame left in Washington, in London, and in several other 'provincial capitals' of the Empire. Insults are piling on insults and then shot to all corners of the globe. Lies are being spread barefacedly, and bizarre deceptions and fabrications have been manufactured with impressive speed.

It is clear that the Empire is now missing its composure, its nerve; that it is scared of losing its control over the world and its monopoly on deciding what should be universally accepted as the truth.

The more the world realizes that it has been controlled and brutalized by shameless neo-colonialist gangsters, the more the Empire says, indirectly but sometimes even straight into the faces of the international community: "Our interests are what really matter! You will behave and obey, or we will smash you to pieces, starve you to death, invade you and bathe your land in blood".

It is nothing new, of course: the West has been doing all this for many decades and centuries. Hundreds of millions of Asians, Africans, South Americans, Middle Easterners and Russians lost their lives in the process. All non-white continents were occupied, plundered and enslaved; all, without a single exception. But it was always done "for the good of the victims", or "in order to protect them" (most likely from themselves).

The Brits were at the forefront of the art of manipulating the brains of their 'subjects'. Their propaganda used to be refined, effective, some would even say 'brilliant'. For decades after the end of the Second World War, they used to teach its offspring in North America and Australia, how to lie elegantly and how to convince even those nations that were being barbarically raped, that they were actually being rescued, pampered and made love to, gently and respectfully.

Now the masks have fallen off, and the ugly, gangrenous face of imperialism has been clearly exposed. Britain is simply not in the mood for refinements. It is brutal. It was always brutal. Now it is also, finally, honest.

It is all absolutely frightening, but it is also good, truly significant, that the West is suddenly behaving with such clarity.

*****

What is it that Mr. Johnson is accusing Russia of? Of liberating Syria from those Western, Saudi, and Qatari backed terrorist groups? What else could be expected from the Foreign Secretary of the country that had been, for long centuries, the mightiest, ruthless and the most deceptive colonialist empire in the history of the mankind? Mr. Johnson is definitely not going to thank the liberator of the oppressed people, is it?

In his open letter to Boris Johnson, the British writer and journalist Neil Clark wrote:

In April you canceled your planned visit to Moscow and traveled to the G7 talks instead, where you urged other countries to consider fresh sanctions against Russia (and Syria), saying that Vladimir Putin was "toxifying his image" by backing Assad.

But if Russia hadn't supported the Syrian government, ISIS/Al-Qaeda affiliates would probably have taken control of the whole country. Is that what you wanted?

Of course it was! More chaos, the better!

The UK has been playing appalling, truly Machiavellian games all over the Middle East, and it has been doing it for centuries – in Palestine, in what is now Iraq and Kuwait, and in many other areas. To borrow from the colorful lexicon of the Prime Minister Lloyd George, it was reserving rights "to bomb those niggers", to bomb them and to fry them alive, to rob them of everything, even of the land itself. The UK, together with their close friends and allies such as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, managed to manufacture the most conservative branch of Islam, just in order to keep the local population in fear and submission to its commercial and colonialist interests.

The country responsible for hundreds of millions of dead, for tens of millions of human beings who have been hunted down like animals and shipped to America as slaves, has been reserving the right to judge the world, to decide what is 'free' and what is not, what is 'democratic' and what is dictatorial, what is true and what is false or even 'fake'.

'Fake news' – the latest invention of the crumbling, paranoid Western regime!

Now the Empire is hunting down almost all 'alternative media' outlets, including the highly successful and informative RT (Russia Today) international television channel. It is important to remember and to understand: only the official Western channels and press agencies are allowed to spread indoctrination all over the world. To broadcast or to print 'counter-propaganda' (or call it an intellectual detox) is considered an arch crime, and punished as such. The RT is now portrayed as a hive of 'agents', at least in both Washington and London.

*****

As the Syrian city of Aleppo was celebrating its first anniversary of liberation, grateful citizens were carrying, in reverent silence, portraits of Russian soldiers who spilled their blood for the liberation of their nation.

The Syrian people know, they clearly understand, who ignited the war, and who came to their rescue.

Boris Johnson can insult Russia as much as he desires, but one thing he cannot deny: there are no men, women and children carrying portraits of British soldiers, be it in Iraq or Afghanistan, in Syria, Libya or Yemen.

In Yemen, the UK talks peace but manufactures bombs that are enriching the already deadly Saudi arsenal of weapons, used to terrorize, and to murder thousands of defenseless Yemeni civilians.

Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov said nothing about the crimes against humanity that are being committed by British troops in several parts of the world. I believe that he should have said something, that he should have said a lot, but Mr. Lavrov is a seasoned diplomat, and he knows perfectly well what is appropriate, what is effective and what is counter-productive.

*****

Yes, the Empire is evidently in panic.

It is scared of everything: of public opinion all over the world, of the great Chinese new Silk Road initiative which is gaining great popularity all over the Asian continent, of the Sino-Russian alliance, of the silent rebellion in the ranks of its former allies, particularly in Asia, of the undeniably increasing economic might of its adversaries, of the new 'alternative media', and even of its own tail lost somewhere in the darkness.

For many years, one effective way for the Empire to control the world was to spread dark cynicism and nihilism, in order to 'pacify', to immobilize its colonies and even its own people living in Europe and North America. Now this strategy is backfiring: British and North American citizens are not only passive and unwilling to fight for the internationalist and left wing ideals, they are also unimpressed, even disgusted with their own rulers and regime. Yes, most of them are cynical about such countries like Russia, China or Venezuela, but they are also cynical about the corporatism, capitalism, as well as Western domestic and foreign policy. They are not willing to commit to anything. They trust nothing. They believe in very few things.

For the Empire, people like Boris Johnson are extremely useful buffoons: they offer cheap entertainment to the masses, and they deliver it with impeccable upper-class English accents (the BBC-style). They play it dirty, trying to smear, to humiliate their opponents. They try to bring back pride to their imperialist and white supremacist regime, by humiliating the victims, who are now finally standing on their feet and ready to fight for the right to be different.

People like Mr. Johnson turn reality upside down, and it is all done 'spontaneously', with a boyish, almost innocent grin. Except that there is actually absolutely nothing innocent in this entire charade. It is all perfectly choreographed, all extremely professional.

*****

The Empire is rotting and it is in agony. It panics. It fights for its life.

Peace is dangerous. If the world is at peace, it is indisputable that the Western Empire would lose, in no time. It would be defeated on social, moral, creative and even economic fronts.

That is why the Empire is spreading chaos, fear, war, perpetual conflicts and antagonism everywhere, all over the world: in Syria and Afghanistan, Libya, in all corners of Africa and parts of Southeast Asia, in Iran, Central and South America, even in the tiniest countries of Oceania.

It is challenging, provoking North Korea, it is insulting countries that have already suffered more than enough from Western terror and barbarism; countries like Russia, China and Iran.

It threatens those nations (and even some international organizations like UNESCO) that are supporting Palestine.

It essentially bullies all those who want to live their own lives, their own cultures, and their own economic and social systems. It punishes those countries that are refusing to plunder their own people and resources in order to support the high-life of the Western nations. It overthrows governments, and murders individuals.

*****

In Moscow, the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson made a fool of himself. He did! With his unmistakable spineless jellyfish style, he tried but failed to humiliate the nation, which, for several centuries fought determinedly against Western imperialism and colonialism, and, on numerous occasions has already managed to save the world.

Mr. Johnson applied an old and rather disgusting approach: he came to Russia with spite and superiority complex, ready to preach, to insult, to scold those white-looking but essentially Asian people – to 'show them their place'.

But this is 2017 now, not 1990. London is not the center of the universe, anymore, just the capital of a confused and rather aggressive and increasingly badly behaved nation.

The British bulldog came to Moscow. Frankly, it did not even look like a bulldog, anymore – it looked totally weird: stoned and mentally unbalanced. It barked and barked, while the Russian bear was calm, maintaining its composure. It was clear who of the two has the upper hand, and who is provoking and who is refusing to fight. It was also obvious who of the two is really scared.

And, it was so apparent to whom belongs the past and to whom belongs the future!

• First published in New Eastern Outlook (NEO)

[Dec 30, 2017] Putin's "thank you"

Dec 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

librul , Dec 29, 2017 6:45:10 AM | 39

@2, spudski,

Sarcasm-much ?

An alternate view of Putin thanking the CIA for your consideration:

If the Kremlin hacked/tapped/bugged/infiltrated the CIA or a relevant third-party and discovered the terrorist plot that way, might they not
signal to the CIA that Russia knows what the CIA is up to?

In other words, Putin was being sarcastic when he thanked the CIA.

The CIA knows very well that they did not intentionally alert the Kremlin to the terrorist plot, so the CIA now has to ask, "how was this leaked and by whom?". The CIA had (*perhaps*) told Israel, Saudi Arabia and MI6 of the imminent attack, and *before* the Kremlin learned about it, so now the CIA has to question the wisdom of sharing information with those parties.

Maybe Israel didn't accidentally leak the information to the Kremlin, but used it for a quid pro quo.

Putin's "thank you" was one move in the great chess game?

Also, did the CIA merely have knowledge of the terrorist plot or did they participate at some level?

One more ... terrorist groups must now rethink whether they can trust their CIA masters.

elsi , Dec 29, 2017 7:01:28 AM | 40
@librul | Dec 29, 2017 6:45:10 AM | 39
The CIA knows very well that they did not intentionally alert the Kremlin to the terrorist plot, so the CIA now has to ask, "how was this leaked and by whom?"

A "mole", obviously....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW-F1H-Nonk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-SnKzglU7g

[Dec 30, 2017] In Syria Russia has been very restraint to avoid direct conflict with US even under attacked.

Notable quotes:
"... Russia know Erogan is only the meganomania fool puppet. A Russia counterstrike will activate NATO obligation. So Putin ingeniously bring Turkey to his side, finished off terrorists, have whole Syria, Iran & Hezbollah so indebted, perpetual base in Syria, showcase Russia weapons and power, take high moral ground to raise Russia status in world stage as indispensable leader of Middle East, that's true Art of War -- Winning everything at least cost. Humiliating US is the biggest revenge. ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

TT , December 29, 2017 at 5:23 pm GMT

Saker, this article has only general facts without your usual sharp analysis. It even contradict your own previous NK war analysis. Has Crazy Trumps & his WH really disheartened you so much? But some said Trumps is godsend, he has bared all US(Nato & Israel too) hypocrisy, destroying whole US in every aspects, either intentionally to reconstruct the ultra corrupted & manipulated US, or unintentionally hasten the empire collapse. Cheer up, look at the bright side like China, they are very positive about Trumps(he only love $, not war).

1. Afghanistan: Yes nothing will happen, unless US attack Russia army in Syria, then this will be one hot spot that Russia can heat up by equipping whoever(Taliban) to inflict heavy casualties for US.

The rockets attacked in Afghanistan airport during US Defense Secretary Mad Dog visit is to sent a very clear warning signal to US incharged, what Russia can pay back for the death of its General in Syria? To kill a few generals won't scare off Mattis, this will.

2. Syria: Russia has been very restraint to avoid direct conflict with US even under attacked. This emboldened US & Nato. So its likely US/Israel will conduct some air raids or missiles attack on SAA, Iran, Hezbollah, but no suicidal ground attack with these war harden formidable fighters.

3. Russia: Swift & Assets freeze -- Russia already has its own clearing system set up for this. China got its warning from WH too. When US did that to Russia, the world will hasten the Petrol dollar replacement with Yuan. So its unlikely US like it, unless direct war break out.

Shoot down Russia plane? Not likely, Syria plane Yes -- Recent Su35 chasing off F22 showed US is just a paper tiger. S400 can bring down some US birds too in return. Come to direct conflict, Russia is fully capable to inflict greater damage to many US bases in Middle East with missiles. So US can only continue using its "moderate" terrorists to harass but not shoot down Russia plane directly.

There is probably agreement in place, No SAM equipment to terrorists(ISIS hasn't got any SAM in entire Syria war), as it can threaten US too when moderates switch camp. Certainly Israel know Russia has no lack of SAM to equip Hezbollah as a return courtesy.

That's right, when Putin failed to direct attack Turkey after its Su24 is shot down, it emboldened US Nato. But Putin is a cold Grand chess player. He won't let a impulse lost his entire game. Sure he had exacted the revenge later. As a starter, he had the entire Turkey's Uyghur Turks terrorists army that killed the pilot carpet bombed, making Turkey Erogan thumping chest. Doubt US want its whole terrorists with its embedded Special force get carpet bombed yet.

Russia know Erogan is only the meganomania fool puppet. A Russia counterstrike will activate NATO obligation. So Putin ingeniously bring Turkey to his side, finished off terrorists, have whole Syria, Iran & Hezbollah so indebted, perpetual base in Syria, showcase Russia weapons and power, take high moral ground to raise Russia status in world stage as indispensable leader of Middle East, that's true Art of War -- Winning everything at least cost. Humiliating US is the biggest revenge.

4. Iran May be more than tearing off Nuclear deal, Trumps is all in with Israel. So everything is possible, including US limited missiles attack to Iran to fulfil Israel wish, but not full scale war which need much preparation.

5. Ukraine US sure love to escalate this proxy war to suck in Russia for full scale war. Its depends whether Ukraine will get force into this bloody shit hole . which is very likely with its manipulated leaders.

6. Korea War No war, all hot air, as your last analysis shown its gonna too bloody for US to contemplate. Biggest factor is Russia and China behind, not about $. US knew too well in Vietnam war and previous Korea war. FB has some good analysis in this.

Myanmar is certainly a cakewalk, but why for last 50 years US didn't attempt to attack for its tremendous rich unexplored resources? Its the China factor.

7. Venezuela This is the easiest sweetest soft target for Trumps if he ever need a war. Army is weak. There is no China Russia next door factor. And it has the world largest oil to pay. At the same time can destroy China and Russia dominant investments like Libya case, also removing their present at its backyard. Venezuela is what US capable to bully, not Iran or DPRK.

[Dec 30, 2017] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity All Is Not Quiet on the Syrian Front US to Launch Another War

Notable quotes:
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

This is a classic example of flip-flop policy. In November, the US promised Turkey to stop arming Kurdish militias in Syria after the Islamic State was routed. Brett McGurk, the US Special Presidential Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat Islamic State, explained that after the urban fighting in Raqqa was over "adjustments in the level of military support" would be made. "We had to give some equipment – and it's limited, extremely limited – all of which was very transparent to our NATO ally, Turkey," he said during a special briefing on December 21. In June, the US told Turkey it would take back weapons supplied to the Kurdish the People's Protection Units (YPG) militia in northern Syria after the defeat of Islamic State.

But sophisticated weapons will continue to be sent to Syria in 2018, including thousands of anti-tank rocket launchers, heat seeking missiles and rocket launchers. The list of weaponry and equipment was prepared by US Department of Defense as part of the 2018 defense budget and signed by Trump of Dec. 12. It includes more than 300 non-tactical vehicles, 60 nonstandard vehicles, and 30 earth-moving vehicles to assist with the construction of outposts or operations staging areas. The US defense spending bill for 2018 ("Justification for FY 2018 Overseas Contingency Operations / Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund") includes providing weapons worth $393 million to US partners in Syria. Overall, $500 million, roughly $70 million more than last year, are to be spent on Syria Train and Equip requirements. The partners are the Kurds-dominated Syria Democratic Forces (SDF). The YPG – the group that is a major concern of Turkey – is the backbone of this force.

The budget does not refer to Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) but instead says "Vetted Syrian Opposition". According to the budget list, there are 25,000 opposition forces supported as a part of the train and equip program in Syria. That number is planned to be increased to 30,000 in 2018. The arming of Kurdish militants with anti-tank rockets is a sensitive topic because of Turkey's reliance on its armored Leopard tanks in northern Syria.

Talal Sillo, a former high-ranking commander and spokesperson of the US-backed SDF, who defected from the group last month to go to Turkey, divulged details of the US arming the Kurdish group.

The list does not detail which vetted Syrian groups will receive certain pieces of equipment. In northern Syria, there is the SDF, including the YPG, and the Syria Arab Coalition -- a group of Arab fighters incorporated into the SDF. The Maghawir al-Thawra and Shohada al-Quartayn groups are operating in the southeastern part of Syria. They are being trained by US and British instructors at the al-Tanf border crossing between Syria and Iraq.

Besides the SDF and the groups trained at al-Tanf, the US is in the process of creating the New Syria Army to fight the Syrian government forces. The training is taking place at the Syrian Hasakah refugee camp located 70 kilometers from the border of Turkey and 50 kilometers from the border of Iraq.

Around 40 Syria opposition groups on Dec. 25 rejected to attend the planned Sochi conference on Syria scheduled to take place in January. They said Moscow, which organizes the conference, was seeking to bypass the UN-based Geneva peace process, despite the fact that UN Syria envoy Staffan de Mistura said that Russia's plan to convene the congress should be assessed by its ability to contribute to and support the UN-led Geneva talks on ending the war in Syria. If fighting starts, these groups are likely to join the formations created by the US.

So, the United States not only maintains its illegal military presence in Syria and creates new forces to fight against the Syrian government, it appears to be preparing for a new war to follow the Islamic State's defeat. The continuation of arming and training Kurdish militias will hardly improve Washington's relations with Ankara, while saying one thing and doing another undermines the credibility of the United States as a partner.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation .


What are you supporting? When you join the
Ron Paul Institute
for Peace and Prosperity
You are supporting

News and analysis
like you'll get nowhere else

Brave insight on
foreign policy and civil liberties

A young writer's program
and much more!

Support Ron Paul
Support the Institute!
Support Peace and Prosperity! Archives


[Dec 30, 2017] Russian Foreign Minister: US Military Must Leave All Of Syria

Notable quotes:
"... For now, the Iranian's Trump-tautning has remained unanswered. The problem is that if Iran continues to dare the US, and its new regional allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, now that there is a regional axis meant to "contain" Iran by any means necessary, it won't take much for the US, and especially Israel, to respond accordingly." ..."
"... The more desperate the establishment grows, the more rabid it will turn. For those, for whom cannot be what can't be, devastating times lie ahead. The polarization of the planet has reached a new dimension. ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Here is the latest from ZH on Syria

Russian Foreign Minister: US Military Must Leave All Of Syria

The take-away quote

"Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated on Thursday that US forces must leave all of Syria. Speaking to Interfax news agency, Lavrov stated that the UN Security Council has not approved the work of the United States and its coalition in Syria, nor has been invited by the legitimate Syrian government.

Concerning a prior statement by US Defense Secretary James Matisse voicing the intent for US troops to stay in Syria until achieving progress in a political settlement, Lavrov pointed out that such statement is "surprising" because it means that Washington reserves the right to determine such progress and wants to maintain control over parts of Syrian territory in order to achieve the result it wants."

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 28, 2017 5:03:22 PM | 6

elsi , Dec 28, 2017 5:50:04 PM | 7

@Jen | Dec 28, 2017 4:10:15 PM | 4

Well, it took also the "casuality" that the Russian Syrian base of Hmeimim was attacked by missiles launched by terrorists today...Of course, not only St. Petersburg, but the world is wide and huge...but, eventhough, I think that all these "terrorist attacks" are related...to the current insistence by Russian officials on US troops leaving Syria asap....

psychohistorian , Dec 28, 2017 8:43:51 PM | 18
Sometime ZH has news that is portrayed more in a propaganda manner than other times or authors...whatever. That said the link and quotes below show how the ME rhetoric is marching along

US And Israel Reach "Secret Plan" To Counter Iran

"One month after we reported that Israel would take the unprecedented step of sharing intelligence with Saudi Arabia as the two countries ramped up efforts to curb what they perceive as "Iranian expansion" in the region, on Thursday Israel's Channel 10 reported that Israel has also pivoted to the US and reached a similar plan to counter Iranian activity in the Middle East. As Axios adds, U.S. and Israeli officials said the joint understandings were reached in "a secret meeting" between senior Israeli and U.S. delegations at the White House on December 12th."

"Meanwhile, apparently unconcerned by the Saudi-Israeli-US axis that has formed to contain his nation, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump would fail in his hardened stance towards Iran, saying Tehran is stronger than during the time of Ronald Reagan.

"Reagan was more powerful and smarter than Trump, and he was a better actor in making threats, and he also moved against us and they shot down our plane,"

Khamenei said in a speech carried on state television.

For now, the Iranian's Trump-tautning has remained unanswered. The problem is that if Iran continues to dare the US, and its new regional allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, now that there is a regional axis meant to "contain" Iran by any means necessary, it won't take much for the US, and especially Israel, to respond accordingly."

Beat those drums! Beat those drums! There must be a war for Trump to be a Real US President and cover for the posturing of the other two "new"(grin) regional allies.

My hope is that instead of a war, Trump gets to oversee the US default on the national debt, which he has some experience with personally. That would be the precipitation event for the new Bretton Woods agreement about global finance going forward.

What is the next chapter in this story and is everyone fearful enough yet?

nottheonly1 , Dec 29, 2017 4:40:00 AM | 25
Who Are The Leading State Sponsors of Terrorism?

For many, that has not been a serious question for a very long time. The answer reveals, that the umpire has only two possible exit strategies. One is that start WW3 and the other one is actually not a strategy - only an exit from the world.

Pretty much everybody is no longer wearing clothes. The naked truth is for all decent people to see. The implosion is underway and can no longer be averted. The only question that remains is how many lives will be lost/wasted and how many can be saved.

The more desperate the establishment grows, the more rabid it will turn. For those, for whom cannot be what can't be, devastating times lie ahead. The polarization of the planet has reached a new dimension.

And yes, I am convinced that the inability to post and glitches when typing have nothing to do with b. or this website, but everything to do with the manipulation of the internet and all it's users.

USS America is sinking. No iceberg was needed.

[Dec 30, 2017] Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. That increases the probably of confrontation by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. ..."
Dec 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

Russia option 1 : rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal (that is politely called "freeze") Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this, but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and there is much I don't know here, I therefore assessed the risk as "unknown" for me.

Russia option 2 : the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in 2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US do – attack a Russian S-400 battery?

The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35.

Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real electronic warfare suite (the F-22's INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hyper maneuverability, electronic warfare, passive engagement, etc.).

This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?

What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Donbass : will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already! Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new "frog-jump" (pseudo) strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming, re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the Neocon point of view:

Possible outcomes US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War v2 in Europe.

The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course.

Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already. Furthermore, western made weapons won't make any difference, at least from a military point of view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any category.

The real difference is a political one: shipping "lethal weapons" (as if some weapons were not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.

[Dec 30, 2017] Bill Maher as a tool of deep state

It is interesting how easily Bill Maher was owned by Stone. Stone has higher level of IQ and that shows.
And Bill Maher is not that easy guy to own. Pretty slick political operative is this Roger Stone.
Notable quotes:
"... Bill Maher gets absolutely stumped. He can't stop stammering after what Roger says about the CIA. ..."
"... Bill Maher is a LIAR, and a very cunning one at that. ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.youtube.com

mrbossandbeast , 8 months ago

Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!

Diego Carrera , 8 months ago

Roger Stone nails it at 12:25 - 12:45 ish, and what our real problems are in America. The dude is spot on.

Lui Pietro , 8 months ago

You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left. You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.

These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.

So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?

Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them. If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.

This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have our country back.

Patrick Corbett , 7 months ago (edited)

11:00 Bill Maher gets absolutely stumped. He can't stop stammering after what Roger says about the CIA.

Steven Paul , 4 months ago

Bill Maher is a LIAR, and a very cunning one at that.

Eric Courtois , 8 months ago (edited)

BILL MAHER IS SIMPLY A RUDE IDIOT!

[Dec 30, 2017] Stone Releases His Opening Statement

The opening statement can be also hear at Roger Stone Opening Statement for a Secret Session of the House Intel Committee, September 2017 - YouTube
Dec 30, 2017 | dailycaller.com

"I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, the Trump Campaign and the Russian state," Stone writes in the opening statement he provided to The Daily Caller.

外国人说中文 3 months ago Roger Stone is the MAN!!!

Steve McAtee 3 months ago

WAIT! Didn't Debbie Washerwoman Shultz's long term, computer team from Pakistan just get criminally charged with not only hacking over 30+ democrats in the House and possessing not only the DNC files and all of Shultz files but also of selectively sending secure DNC and congressional files to their own clandestine server, and then probably dispersing those files to various foreign parties or the highest bidders?

WHEN THIS WAS UNCOVERED IN PART, THE DEMOCRATS DESPERATELY COBBLED TOGETHER INFORMATION FROM A DOSSIER AND OTHER SOURCES AND ACCUSED TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS! DUH!!!!!!!!!sm

Polydynamix 3 months ago

Well as long as this guy 'believes' it then I guess there's no need for evidence. Go forth, subservient minions and spread the fake news based on a Trump advisors 'feelings'. Because there's no incentive for a Trump advisor to say something negative about Democrats so by all means, spread it as if it were true and if ANYONE asks for evidence or says you're wrong don't you DARE give them any kind of evidence, or talk to them like they have a valid request- just get mad, freak out, call them a 'libtard'

[Dec 30, 2017] The Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to its Russiagate investigation

Dec 30, 2017 | theduran.com

The email reveals that the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to its investigation , which means the Russiagate conspiracy theory and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism – smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia – eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple , which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators have long predicted.

The American government has now gone full blown McCarthy.

The fact that Russia hating, progressive left news channel, The Young Turks, has uncovered and published this bombshell email should concern all Russian Americans that the witch-hunt against Russia may now be extended to US citizens, residents, and tourists in the United States no evidence needed except profiling based on Russian heritage.

Via Zerohedge

The Young Turks Network (TYT), a popular progressive YouTube channel and news site, has obtained a bombshell internal email related to the Senate committee probing alleged Russian interference in the American political system, and though currently being covered in Russian media, mainstream US media is passing it over without comment.

The email reveals that the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to its investigation , which means the Russiagate conspiracy theory and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism – smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia – eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple , which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators have long predicted.

[Dec 30, 2017] Russiagate Is Devolving Into An Effort To Stigmatize Dissent

Confident elite does not file such "amicus briefs". This is a sign of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Frightened elite now was to stigmatize the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information." ..."
"... Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s." ..."
"... In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641 ..."
"... They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. ..."
"... Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'. ..."
"... Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training. ..."
Dec 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former deputy secretary of state William Burns; former CIA director John Brennan; former director of national intelligence James Clapper; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit.

The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information."

The former officials portray the amicus brief as an offering of neutral ("Amici submit this brief on behalf of neither party") expertise ("to offer the Court their broad perspective, informed by careers spent working inside the U.S. government").

The brief claims that Putin's Russia has not only "actively spread disinformation online in order to exploit racial, cultural and political divisions across the country" but also "conducted cyber espionage operations to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process and, in the general election, influence the results against Secretary Hillary Clinton."

Much of this has been said before. But where the briefers branch off into new territory is in their attempt to characterize journalism and political speech with which they disagree as acts of subversion on behalf of a foreign power.

According to the 14 former officials, Russia's active-measure campaign relies "on intermediaries or 'cut outs' inside a country," which are rather broadly defined as "political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen."

Such "intermediaries" can range from "the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian operations and objectives."

In other words, a Russian "cut out" (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those "activists, academics, journalists, [or] web operators" who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief.

In a recent essay for the London Review of Books, the historian Jackson Lears observed that "the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords." And this amicus brief is one such pronouncement.

In spite of the brief's high-flown language ("The threat posed to our democracy by Russian active measures campaigns is serious, ongoing and will require vigilance on the part of the U.S. government and people"), it is little more than yet another effort to stigmatize political speech that questions the necessity of demonizing Russia -- political speech, in other words, with which these former high-ranking intelligence and national-security officials surely disagree.

Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."

That is only too true; indeed, as of this writing, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative is fast devolving into an effort to stigmatize and marginalize expressions of dissent, with the overarching aim of short-circuiting and stifling debate over US-Russia policy.

Billy the Poet -> BlindMonkey Dec 29, 2017 9:32 PM

Knowledge is power, the truth will set you free. Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

chubbar -> Billy the Poet Dec 29, 2017 10:29 PM

Not only no forgeries, which means the emails told the truth about what these morons were doing, but also it's been demonstrated that the emails could only have been downloaded to a thumb drive because of the speeds they were transmitted. Why these fucking dimwits keep overlooking that inconvenient truth is anyone's guess, likely because it doesn't dovetail with their scenario of a Russian hack. This lawsuit goes nowhere but is being used to slowdown and divert attention away from the crimes of the DNC, et al.

It burns me that Brennan and Clapper, those two fucking traitorous cunts, filed a brief supporting this bullshit. Those 2 assholes were running the illegal spy operation against Trump during his campaign.

AgLand Dec 29, 2017 9:07 PM

The US loses it's collective sanity in the "New McCarthyism"...

nmewn Dec 29, 2017 9:22 PM

"In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former deputy secretary of state William Burns ; former CIA director John Brennan ; former director of national intelligence James Clapper ; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit."

How revealing, the co-conspirators have filed an amicus brief ;-)

TheGhostOfJame Dec 29, 2017 9:23 PM

In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641

At the very minimum many high fliers who put on these Smith-Mundt hoaxes are going away for charity fraud. That's one reason they're so desperate.

MuffDiver69 -> TheGhostOfJame Dec 29, 2017 9:30 PM

They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. It's a bit like my wife when I tell her I'm not in the mood.. hehehehehe

scraping_by Dec 29, 2017 9:23 PM

"In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."

Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'.

Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training.

Promethus Dec 29, 2017 9:26 PM

These people are TRAITORS.

They have violated their oaths of office and have conspired to over through the constitutionally elected President of the United States. Instead of filing amicus brief they should be swinging from ropes.

WTFUD -> Promethus Dec 29, 2017 9:42 PM

Yeah true, but think of the Army of New Recruits/Converts if Trump had the foresight/Inclination to Drain that SWAMP . . . . To have a modicum of credibility in my eyes he'd have to Deputize Deplorables to shoot these treasonous bastards in the face.

Billy the Poet -> Promethus Dec 29, 2017 9:44 PM

The mutineers must be held accountable according to the harshest possible terms.

MuffDiver69 Dec 29, 2017 9:26 PM

We see this thought pattern all over college and lower education now. People defending the right to censor and even criminalize things they don't believe in and often enough these people have nice penalties for not bowing down to our betters...We've come full circle back to King George the III and the American Revolution it seems..The founders had enough of this exact bullshit ...

WTFUD -> MuffDiver69 Dec 29, 2017 9:33 PM

'lower edumakation' at premium rates. lol

gwar5 Dec 29, 2017 9:29 PM

All nonsense. The Russians wanted Hillary to win. She (and everybody else) was already bought and paid for after Uranium One.

John Brennan still needs to answer for Passport Gate and the murder of his employee, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., in 2008 two weeks before he was to testify. Brennan hacked the State department and tampered Obama's passport and was rewarded with the first post-election appointment. Before there was Seth Rich there was 24 year old, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passpor

WTFUD Dec 29, 2017 9:29 PM

Claptrap, Brennan . . . two warmongering Shadow Government Lackey's who should be in Orange Jumpsuits. 12 months on and NO jail sentences. MoFo Puppet!

otschelnik Dec 29, 2017 9:35 PM

Roger reemed the dem's on the house intel committee, only his opening statement has been made public.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ6sgOpKeUM

so now the deep state trying to settle the score with Roger.

[Dec 30, 2017] On Luke Harding interview, give the guy who exposed him some credit if you have Twitter

Dec 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jen , Dec 28, 2017 2:49:47 PM | 1

Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present, courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.

True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to have given her permission for the reposting.

Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?

Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.

What Happens When A Russiagate Skeptic Debates A Professional Russiagater

Anonynmous , Dec 29, 2017 6:16:02 AM | 34
Jen / 1

Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.

Anonynmous , Dec 29, 2017 11:03:36 AM | 46
Re: On Luke Harding interview, give the guy who exposed him some credit if you have Twitter,
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate

Its is people like him, b etc that makes the big work these days researching and exposing the corruption of this world.

Tony_0pmoc , Dec 29, 2017 12:31:06 PM | 50
Anonymous @ 46

I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense of betrayal.

http://www.newsweek.com/assange-how-guardian-milked-edward-snowdens-story-323480

[Dec 29, 2017] The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left

Dec 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Christian Chuba , 26 December 2017 at 07:23 PM
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.

The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN, their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine, call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea, maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist attack.

Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too (picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.

BTW this link shows the flight pattern of US surveillance aircraft as they take off from Bulgaria and files along the coast of Sevastopol http://russia-insider.com/en/us-keeps-loitering-coast-russian-naval-base-sevastopol-russia-adds-second-s-400-air-defense-battery

EEngineer , 26 December 2017 at 01:30 PM

All signs that the citizens of the imperial court have poisoned themselves with their own propaganda. Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the rubes. An exceedingly dangerous condition.

I was surprised neither China or Russia vetoed the recent UN sanctions on North Korea. I can see how the SCO countries would want to play for time, but I wonder if throwing NK to the wolves makes war more likely rather than less so. I could see Iran interpreting it as being on deck (next, a baseball term), and the Neocons as a green light.

And so few seem to care... It's almost as if they've been conditioned to want war.

I was dragged to the latest Star Wars movie this weekend. Explosion porn... For a story ostensibly about sacrifice and honor, it had so many silly comic book jokes I was almost surprised it didn't have a laugh track.

Lyttenburgh , 26 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who "threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is true.

If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national security threats" as Iran and DPRK.

Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here a sort of détente is possible.

[Dec 29, 2017] Luke Harding on Trump, Russia, and 'Collusion' The Nation

So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as we now know, included Peter Strzok)
And then Harding talks about Watergate he might be right: it might well be that CIA setup Nixon to remove him from the office. See Watergate Was A Setup - Business Insider, Why the CIA targeted Nixon for removal from office in 1972 - Watergate - The Education Forum and Did you know that Richard Nixon was set up in Watergate Yahoo Answers
Notable quotes:
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Dec 11, 2017 | www.thenation.com

[Dec 29, 2017] Luke Harding : the hack who came in from the cold by BlackCatte

Notable quotes:
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Sep 09, 2015 | off-guardian.org

Luke Daniel Harding (born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in 1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.

Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine of the eXile for publishing an article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.

According to his own testimony , Luke Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom windows open.

A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it had to have been the FSB.

You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why it had been so clear to him, even without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get him .

The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher: take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had vanished like ghosts.

And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement and a kind of cold rational rage."

Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account. Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.

That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had begun.

A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.

When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his phone.

After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.

All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end, they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.

He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage problems were over, they started up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.

This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised they'd met their match and stopped.

He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.

I mean that would just be stupid.

NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.

Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.

We also recommend you take in this opinion piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat in Moscow.

After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:

Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser

Comments

PaulC says December 28, 2017

Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge.
London Grad says December 28, 2017
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's latest fictional release titled "Collusion".

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20761:Debate:-Where%27s-the-%27Collusion#pop1

Even the Soros-Worshipper cargo cultists running the Guardian must surely realise by now that Luke's becoming a liability.

https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/945324064494714881

Alfred Nassim says October 9, 2016
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity – totally unsupportable.
Flinx says August 13, 2016
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.

In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/

Francis says September 11, 2015
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra

No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I, a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!

Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god! Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must remove my head from my .

(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)

Jen says September 10, 2015
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?

Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?

Steven Lacey says September 10, 2015
Can you please do Lucas and the horrible Neo Con Weiss. Brilliant !
Eric_B says September 10, 2015
Luke wrote:

I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.

I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"

WTF indeed. Dude, Chris just fancied you.

Moscow Exile says September 10, 2015
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that I am probably a member of the FSB.
Mark Chapman (@MarkCha40189515) says September 9, 2015
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
Bryan Hemming says September 9, 2015
Luke Harding, even tapping his name onto my keyboard makes me think he is watching over my shoulder. Get away! Luke! Get away!
Dipset says September 9, 2015
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.

It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and smears in Mr Harding's articles.

How did he/they respond ?

Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.

It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on Russia haha.

It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Fun times

Eric_B says September 9, 2015
yes indeed, hilarious article on the Guardian about how people who dare to dispute their propaganda are either Russian or brainwashed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/08/russia-troll-army-red-web-any-questions

Way to go Guardian, vilify your regular readership. That should really sort out your revenue problems.

shatnersrug says April 7, 2016
Surely it's obvious to all that Luke Harding is an establishment stooge isn't it? He might even be MI5 (not 6 – he's not smart enough)
Jim Scott says December 24, 2017
Just started reviewing Harding's past articles and agree he is clearly a stooge but I can't decide whether he is Curly Larry or Mo.
Nino says September 9, 2015
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher: take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had vanished like ghosts."

That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch, someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time "The dark symbolism of the open window .."

There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:

"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet, it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."

I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.

Eric_B says September 10, 2015
Who knows what the terrifying window openers might do on a subsequent visit? Perhaps give Luke and Phoebe an air freshener or even a pot pourri?
Rob Baggott says September 9, 2015
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
BlackCatte says September 9, 2015
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank.
Eric_B says September 9, 2015
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia vehicles in Chechnya.
Francis says September 10, 2015
Nice to see we're developing a decent comments section as well, keep it up .
astabada says September 23, 2015
Luke did take pictures of the Russian tanks entering Ukraine, but the FSB promptly deleted any footage.
Jennifer Hor says September 10, 2015
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going in the other direction.

BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.

"Moscow walks. Spring" by Phoebe Taplin goes on sale
http://themoscownews.com/ournews/20120503/189687562.html

Moscow Exile says September 11, 2015
Mrs. Harding's articles in the now defunct "Moscow News" were always an interesting and informative read, I thought.
Katherine Da Silva (@KathyDaSilva2) says September 9, 2015
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
BlackCatte says September 9, 2015
Personally I'm not sure Luke has ever been anything definable as a journalist – but he definitely has survived.
Yonatan says September 9, 2015
Tricky – a mix of 3 and 4 might do it.

On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of substantive difference between these two organs of State.

Rhisiart Gwilym says September 9, 2015
E L Wisty used to shout "Get away, silly old government!" down his loo, because he knew they were bugging it.
Jen says September 9, 2015
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Eric_B says September 9, 2015
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave a sex manual by his bed.

Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?

yalensis says September 10, 2015
When KGB left the orgasm manual, that was Putin's way of voting #4: "Tosser".
Jennifer Hor says September 10, 2015
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded in the manual?
Brad Benson says September 10, 2015
Maybe his wife left the book because she was tired of walking through parks in Moscow by herself.

[Dec 29, 2017] Luke Harding on Trump, Russia, and 'Collusion' The Nation

So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as we now know, included Peter Strzok)
And then Harding talks about Watergate he might be right: it might well be that CIA setup Nixon to remove him from the office. See Watergate Was A Setup - Business Insider, Why the CIA targeted Nixon for removal from office in 1972 - Watergate - The Education Forum and Did you know that Richard Nixon was set up in Watergate Yahoo Answers
Notable quotes:
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Dec 11, 2017 | www.thenation.com

[Dec 29, 2017] The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left

Dec 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Christian Chuba , 26 December 2017 at 07:23 PM
A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.

The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN, their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine, call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea, maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist attack.

Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too (picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.

BTW this link shows the flight pattern of US surveillance aircraft as they take off from Bulgaria and files along the coast of Sevastopol http://russia-insider.com/en/us-keeps-loitering-coast-russian-naval-base-sevastopol-russia-adds-second-s-400-air-defense-battery

EEngineer , 26 December 2017 at 01:30 PM

All signs that the citizens of the imperial court have poisoned themselves with their own propaganda. Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the rubes. An exceedingly dangerous condition.

I was surprised neither China or Russia vetoed the recent UN sanctions on North Korea. I can see how the SCO countries would want to play for time, but I wonder if throwing NK to the wolves makes war more likely rather than less so. I could see Iran interpreting it as being on deck (next, a baseball term), and the Neocons as a green light.

And so few seem to care... It's almost as if they've been conditioned to want war.

I was dragged to the latest Star Wars movie this weekend. Explosion porn... For a story ostensibly about sacrifice and honor, it had so many silly comic book jokes I was almost surprised it didn't have a laugh track.

Lyttenburgh , 26 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who "threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is true.

If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national security threats" as Iran and DPRK.

Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here a sort of détente is possible.

[Dec 29, 2017] Luke Harding : the hack who came in from the cold by BlackCatte

Notable quotes:
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Sep 09, 2015 | off-guardian.org

Luke Daniel Harding (born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in 1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.

Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine of the eXile for publishing an article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.

According to his own testimony , Luke Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom windows open.

A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it had to have been the FSB.

You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why it had been so clear to him, even without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get him .

The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher: take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had vanished like ghosts.

And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement and a kind of cold rational rage."

Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account. Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.

That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had begun.

A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.

When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his phone.

After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.

All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end, they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.

He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage problems were over, they started up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.

This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised they'd met their match and stopped.

He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.

I mean that would just be stupid.

NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.

Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.

We also recommend you take in this opinion piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat in Moscow.

After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:

Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser

Comments

PaulC says December 28, 2017

Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge.
London Grad says December 28, 2017
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's latest fictional release titled "Collusion".

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20761:Debate:-Where%27s-the-%27Collusion#pop1

Even the Soros-Worshipper cargo cultists running the Guardian must surely realise by now that Luke's becoming a liability.

https://twitter.com/jeremyscahill/status/945324064494714881

Alfred Nassim says October 9, 2016
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity – totally unsupportable.
Flinx says August 13, 2016
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.

In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/

Francis says September 11, 2015
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra

No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I, a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!

Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god! Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must remove my head from my .

(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)

Jen says September 10, 2015
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?

Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?

Steven Lacey says September 10, 2015
Can you please do Lucas and the horrible Neo Con Weiss. Brilliant !
Eric_B says September 10, 2015
Luke wrote:

I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.

I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"

WTF indeed. Dude, Chris just fancied you.

Moscow Exile says September 10, 2015
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that I am probably a member of the FSB.
Mark Chapman (@MarkCha40189515) says September 9, 2015
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
Bryan Hemming says September 9, 2015
Luke Harding, even tapping his name onto my keyboard makes me think he is watching over my shoulder. Get away! Luke! Get away!
Dipset says September 9, 2015
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.

It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and smears in Mr Harding's articles.

How did he/they respond ?

Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.

It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on Russia haha.

It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Fun times

Eric_B says September 9, 2015
yes indeed, hilarious article on the Guardian about how people who dare to dispute their propaganda are either Russian or brainwashed.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/sep/08/russia-troll-army-red-web-any-questions

Way to go Guardian, vilify your regular readership. That should really sort out your revenue problems.

shatnersrug says April 7, 2016
Surely it's obvious to all that Luke Harding is an establishment stooge isn't it? He might even be MI5 (not 6 – he's not smart enough)
Jim Scott says December 24, 2017
Just started reviewing Harding's past articles and agree he is clearly a stooge but I can't decide whether he is Curly Larry or Mo.
Nino says September 9, 2015
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher: take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had vanished like ghosts."

That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch, someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time "The dark symbolism of the open window .."

There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:

"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet, it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."

I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.

Eric_B says September 10, 2015
Who knows what the terrifying window openers might do on a subsequent visit? Perhaps give Luke and Phoebe an air freshener or even a pot pourri?
Rob Baggott says September 9, 2015
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
BlackCatte says September 9, 2015
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank.
Eric_B says September 9, 2015
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia vehicles in Chechnya.
Francis says September 10, 2015
Nice to see we're developing a decent comments section as well, keep it up .
astabada says September 23, 2015
Luke did take pictures of the Russian tanks entering Ukraine, but the FSB promptly deleted any footage.
Jennifer Hor says September 10, 2015
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going in the other direction.

BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.

"Moscow walks. Spring" by Phoebe Taplin goes on sale
http://themoscownews.com/ournews/20120503/189687562.html

Moscow Exile says September 11, 2015
Mrs. Harding's articles in the now defunct "Moscow News" were always an interesting and informative read, I thought.
Katherine Da Silva (@KathyDaSilva2) says September 9, 2015
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
BlackCatte says September 9, 2015
Personally I'm not sure Luke has ever been anything definable as a journalist – but he definitely has survived.
Yonatan says September 9, 2015
Tricky – a mix of 3 and 4 might do it.

On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of substantive difference between these two organs of State.

Rhisiart Gwilym says September 9, 2015
E L Wisty used to shout "Get away, silly old government!" down his loo, because he knew they were bugging it.
Jen says September 9, 2015
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Eric_B says September 9, 2015
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave a sex manual by his bed.

Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?

yalensis says September 10, 2015
When KGB left the orgasm manual, that was Putin's way of voting #4: "Tosser".
Jennifer Hor says September 10, 2015
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded in the manual?
Brad Benson says September 10, 2015
Maybe his wife left the book because she was tired of walking through parks in Moscow by herself.

[Dec 28, 2017] How CrowdStrike placed malware in DNC hacked servers by Alex Christoforou

Highly recommended!
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken. If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits. So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed get a new more sinister life.
I suspected many of such firms (for example ISS which was bought by IBM in 2006) to be scams long ago.
Notable quotes:
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | theduran.com

Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's pathetic election defeat to Trump, and CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this entire DNC server hack an "insurance policy."

... ... ...

[Dec 28, 2017] Regime Change Comes Home: The CIA s Overt Threats against Trump by James Petras

Highly recommended!
This was written almost a year ago. Not author demonstrated tremendous insight which was confirmed by subsequent events.
Notable quotes:
"... The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries. ..."
"... The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'! ..."
"... Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound " ..."
Jan 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over 'Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the 'defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.

These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.

We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.

Regime Change in America

In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine – under an unofficial doctrine of 'regime change'.

The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.

Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.

The decisive shift to 'regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.

Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.

Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office – by claiming Trump was an 'enemy agent'.

The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.

Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a 'tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason.

The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate 'dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or 'vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance 'security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to 'take the bite' on the 'smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain ('war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government 'act on these vital revelations'!

Under scrutiny by serious researchers, the 'CIA dossier' was proven to be a total fabrication by way of a former 'British official – now – in – hiding !' Undaunted, despite being totally discredited, the CIA leadership continued to attack the President-Elect. Trump likened the CIA's 'dirty pictures hatchet job' to the thuggish behavior of the Nazis and clearly understood how the CIA leadership was involved in a domestic coup d'état.

CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous 'regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home – against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to ' just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound "

Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.

From a Scratch to Gangrene

The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the 'progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated 'regime change'.

Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many – they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and 'in`telligence' hierarchy.

Mass propaganda, a 'red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason ('Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad 'coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.

James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. http://petras.lahaine.org/

[Dec 28, 2017] On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Ghost Ship , Dec 27, 2017 10:17:37 AM | 92

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Dec 26, 2017 3:56:16 PM | 35
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.

I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse.

Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news.

As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.

[Dec 28, 2017] The Mueller investigation will delay and stall closing the investigation until the 2018 Congressional Elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be won and Nunes removed

Notable quotes:
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sid2 , Dec 26, 2017 12:58:36 PM | 12

I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.

Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.

http://theduran.com/fbi-russiagate-strategy-stonewall-congressional-elections/

Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.

I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.

[Dec 28, 2017] Napalm An American Biography

Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

131

Harry , Dec 27, 2017 7:25:26 PM | 130

@james #120

Robert M. Neer

Napalm An American Biography

Grieved , Dec 27, 2017 7:32:42 PM | 131
@120 james

It actually appears to be from "Napalm: an American Biography" by Robert M. Neer, 2013. The book is divided into 3 sections: Hero, Soldier, Pariah - hence the seeming title of Soldier at the top of the page.

A Google search on "correspondent Cutforth" (including the quotation marks) returns a slightly differently typeset book but with the same copy as b's image. The image itself is also returned under Images for that search. So it's definitely the Napalm book.

Try scrolling through this to find your page:
https://books.google.com/books?id=BbKvLs2TZKAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

rjj , Dec 27, 2017 8:03:20 PM | 135
JAMES @ 120 and 122


Robert Neer, Napalm, page 100

[Dec 28, 2017] The Harding book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons

Dec 28, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Amazon Customer , November 29, 2017

If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here. That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on" types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged scandal.

Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.

Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate) has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political slant.

This book provides no insight into Donald Trump himself. If you want to learn something about how Trump's mind works, try Scott Adams' excellent book, Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter .

Good source of confirmation bias, bad source of new information

azon.com/gp/customer-reviews/ROHSECZT4AORE/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0525562516">

By Amazon Customer on December 16, 2017
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!

I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!

[Dec 28, 2017] The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel interview with plagiarist Luke Harding

Notable quotes:
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Thominus , Dec 27, 2017 2:52:00 AM | 81

@Ike , Dec 27, 2017 3:39:17 AM | 82

The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819 It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill, noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1731&v=9Ikf1uZli4g

The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.

[Dec 28, 2017] Harding is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters in MSM A real bottom feeder

Notable quotes:
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Sini Koncar , 4 days ago

How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job Aaron!

RVGODZILLA , 4 days ago (edited)

That was the best interview I've watched in awhile about this trumprussia stuff // Aaron mate you did a stellar fckn job bro! Cheers!

MI55ION , 4 days ago

Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the Democratic party insiders.

eglaham , 4 days ago

Thanks for keeping this joker honest, Aaron!

Peace Beuponyou , 4 days ago

Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace.

M V , 4 days ago

Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always appreciated by your loyal viewers.

Sergio Rico , 4 days ago

Good job Aaron for doing actual journalism and not simply taking statements with no evidence for granted

beelovedfuzz , 4 days ago

I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing anything new or any actual proof.

manti core , 4 days ago

That is just a brilliant destruction of the Russia hysteria. Harding just fell apart. Well done!

magicpony9 , 3 days ago (edited)

Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"

Luke O'Brien , 4 days ago (edited)

I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision. Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in, little more. Good job, Aaron.

tom robbins , 4 days ago

Storyteller told on himself

rollofnickles , 4 days ago

Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3] is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30 years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ

Niding , 4 days ago

Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con journalists.

Marta K. , 4 days ago

I just ❤️ that look on Aaron's face at 11:47 ! Like "dude, you can't be serious... are you serious?"

Kristen Saunders , 3 days ago

Great interview! Awesome push back with facts! This should be done EVERYTIME!

Cartoonishly Inept , 4 days ago

So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30 "I'm a story teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.

441rider , 4 days ago

Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)

MI55ION , 4 days ago

Shit just got real... one of the finest interviews I've seen in a while. Bravo Aaron, bravo! ));

frosty buckets , 4 days ago

This is why I watch real news network. They are willing to debate the issues

Michael Maxfield , 4 days ago

Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist" challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world would be in a lot better shape.

Richard Gere , 4 days ago

Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased journalism seems very rare these days

Paul Randall , 4 days ago

Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.

And I wouldn't be surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue (like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow 'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random, laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT, Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.

And there is NO REAL EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy! mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always evil Reds... errr, Russians.

Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror, especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)

Baal Baphomet , 4 days ago

this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better - Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to Journo school .

Michael , 4 days ago

What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.

Lissen Tome , 4 days ago

I'm not even a trump fan and dude there is no collusion this guy's a shill

Noss Cern , 4 days ago

I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want to get into Russia and start doing deals.

They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.

I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.

arcanaco , 4 days ago (edited)

Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :))

Paddy Flaco , 3 days ago

A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.

miclewis55 , 4 days ago (edited)

Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence perfectly.

Anticapitalist X , 4 days ago

Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.

John Mina , 4 days ago

Well done Aaron. This guy is a liar, plain and simple.

[Dec 28, 2017] I think many British journalists work for the British secret service, and they were recruited at university and slotted into journalist employment

Notable quotes:
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Sep 15, 2012 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile says: September 15, 2012 at 11:58 am

Something went wrong there!

Here's Tisdall on Russia:

And on and on

Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters.

I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.

Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.

[Dec 28, 2017] Collusion Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win

The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Kenneth Timmerman on December 22, 2017

A shoddy piece of work

Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump.

I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece of work I have rarely seen.

Dawna Donaldson on November 27, 2017
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.

This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven.

Beverly Smith on November 16, 2017
Confusing

I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?

[Dec 28, 2017] Luke Harding is not a complete lunatic. He is just an intelligence asset who is paid to propagate all this nonsense

The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Greg McKenzie , 4 days ago

The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.

Zorro in Hell , 4 days ago

Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!

jones1351 , 4 days ago

Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or Hedges.

Bryan Wallace , 1 day ago (edited)

He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)

bboucharde , 4 days ago

Luke, Now you should investigate the collusion between Russia and the Clinton Foundation---and the direct transfer of Russian funds to Bill Clinton.

Jared Greathouse , 4 days ago

The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.

dylan , 3 days ago

"I'm a storyteller."

Tochukwu Azubike , 4 days ago (edited)

I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage

Consuelo Concepcion , 4 days ago

This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations. I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep State.

Raymoan Ford , 4 days ago

Aaron Mate should have read the book before interviewing the author about the book. LOL.

Dan Howard , 4 days ago

Great interview! Harding was getting uncomfortable.

HongPong , 1 day ago

this interview is a good example of how TheRealNews is careful at what they cover -- and how far a British accent can help to inflate fuzzy claims!

Animal Farm , 4 days ago (edited)

I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says, 08:25 "I think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or "Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs' real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7 countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up. You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial aggression since the beginning of time.

Camcolito , 2 days ago

My God this guest is full of it.

J Scott Bryant , 1 day ago

What a joke-- rambling, deflecting, with no evidence presented in almost 20 minutes!

Pete Smith , 3 days ago

Host - So basically your proof of collusion = Putin is bad? Book author - No...but...yes...but...no...but...(logs off in a strop)

Pete Smith , 3 days ago

Host - So basically your proof of collusion = Putin is bad? Book author - No...but...yes...but...no...but...(logs off in a strop)

John Snow , 19 hours ago

Harding is an ordinary opportunist, useful idiot and evil man.

M.K. Styllinski , 17 hours ago (edited)

Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality, Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United States.

Klub Svetnikov , 4 days ago

This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer get?!

Jon Stephen , 3 days ago

Good job Aaron! Luke Harding is bathing in the kool aid.

Michael , 2 days ago

Can you imagine if the so-called journalists on MSM interviewed like Aaron. Think corporate MSNBC here, Chris Hayes, and Rachel Maddow.

Paul Jackson , 4 days ago

Good work again Aaron. Luke Harding and Marcy Wheeler would be such a cute couple, maybe populating the West with a new race of sycophants.

minkusmaz , 3 days ago

I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book. This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they are from that.

Ahmed Mansour , 2 days ago

Aaron was enjoying this a bit too much 😂😂👌🏽👌🏽. Great work

John Johnson , 1 day ago

Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context." Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own book...

Aaron Childers , 1 day ago

That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.

scuddymud2 , 4 days ago

This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!

M Rede , 1 day ago

Brave Luke "kind of" Harding.

Charles Robertson , 4 days ago

Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian. Thanks again Aaron.

fearhungerpride , 4 days ago (edited)

This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.

Chill Bill , 4 days ago

Impressive dissection of this guy's factless assertions and parroted MSM hollow-headedness, Aaron.

David Ramsay Steele , 4 days ago

"Collusion" is to the left what birtherism was to the right.

Nick Mando , 4 days ago

What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral process, one is just a lot easier.

Nick Mando , 4 days ago

ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because spoiler, you didn't commit it.

Loyd Frontham , 4 days ago

Thank you, Aaron, for being one of the few reasonable voices in news today.

ThaddeusCorn , 4 days ago

Great job. Good guest and the interviewer didn't just let the guest go unquestioned.

Ramiiam , 4 days ago

Aaron Mate is your best journalist, among the new TRN crowd. You could do with more of him, less of people like the Noors.

Invisible Man , 18 hours ago

I loved Real News for years...but lately ur guys content exposing the blind Russiaphobia has been award winning caliber.

ZantherY , 4 days ago (edited)

Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!

Anthony George , 4 days ago

A "story-teller". Yep.

szymborska , 2 days ago

Aaron 1 - Other Guy - 0

Jonathan Mintram , 4 days ago

Well done Aaron. Your focus on evidence and proof was perfect. That guy makes me feel embarrassed to be British.

Busterpeek21 , 2 days ago

One of the best interviews I've seen in awhile! I put it up there with Jimmy Dore's recent interview with Jill Stein.

Doginu , 4 days ago

It sounds like your Butt hurt about getting thrown out of Russia..This guy is a Repeater, not a Reporter!

Karl Malone , 3 days ago

Bravo Aaron

craig robb , 4 days ago

nice job aaron, the dude was about5 seconds away from calling you a puppet of putin lol

Jen V , 1 day ago

This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti. And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!

wleao13 , 4 days ago

Luke 'alex jones' Harding what joke. he claim be a reporter

oldscorpion13 , 3 days ago

This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden outburst one of these interviews

TheSpiritOfTheTimes , 4 days ago

Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.

The Solo Activist , 4 days ago

Refreshing!

truthcrusades , 4 days ago

I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office. Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.

Farero Lobos , 9 hours ago

10:29 Please, I beg you, Luke the fluke, decide if you are a journalist or a story teller.

Angel Tibbs , 1 day ago

"Saddam has WMDs!" - same agencies.

Doginu , 4 days ago

It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years later... Idiot....

Ian Nixon , 3 days ago

Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating, BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?

Other Voices, Other Choices , 4 days ago

Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.

Trevor R.N. , 2 days ago (edited)

Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.

Koot Orand , 4 days ago

This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or any other gutter press

RichardTheThird , 2 days ago

I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the least.

Luther Rhein , 3 days ago

this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence. That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!

Pete D. , 4 days ago (edited)

Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation, speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.

zwergie256 , 20 hours ago

Omg, how embarrassing. ;))

Josh Lockie , 2 days ago

This guy is deep state and super bad at it lol

j bloggs , 17 hours ago

Great interview. Shows up Harding for what he is, an establishment shill.

GreySide , 23 hours ago (edited)

The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh

EveyMash , 4 days ago

Luke Harding is a conspiracy theorist.

bookashkin , 3 days ago (edited)

They say where there's smoke, there's fire. Sometimes there's fire without smoke. Like Luke Harding's pants.

Raph Tjoeb , 2 days ago

Jesus christ, did this Guardian guy take a fall flat on his face. Reality hit you 'ol fella.

shamanahaboolist , 4 days ago

Gerrymandering and the "Democrats" election fraud against Sanders was the cause of Trump's victory more than anything else.

Julius Galacki , 1 day ago

I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose style is less overly vulgar and divisive.

Andrew Zibuck , 7 hours ago

At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.

kerpital , 1 day ago

If you remove "kind of" "sort of" "I think that" "I mean" "Uh" from that man's vocabulary, there's nothing left.

frosty buckets , 4 days ago

Russia is a paper tiger .. Let's focus on deescalation and saving humanity from over consumption and climate change .. Russia will follow.

War Dynamics , 12 hours ago

Aaron Mate not having any of this guys BS. Great interview.

bookashkin , 3 days ago

Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's gruesome murder?

Michael Maxfield , 4 days ago

I think Mr. Harding completely missed Sergey Nalobin's tongue-in-cheek sense of humor.

Hollywood Art Chick , 1 day ago

Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much respect to RT.

deliciousmorton , 16 hours ago

Luke Harding is all over the place.

Peace and Love , 4 days ago

Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's corruption.

adammontana9 , 16 hours ago

"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology." https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html

Simon and Gar Farkell , 1 day ago (edited)

This Real News host could teach "mainstream media" how to ask hard questions.

mrtriffid , 1 day ago

Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to true journalism.

ParrhesiaJoe , 1 day ago

Fantastic interview. All interviews should be like this :)

leboulenoire , 1 day ago

Great to see a REAL journalist make an absolute FOOL of this story teller. Wonder why you don't see this sort of debate on the corporate media.

Gabriel Olsen , 4 hours ago

This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.

Bim Star , 1 day ago

Nailed it.

Punk Rock Kick , 3 days ago

That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media here is "London thinks this, so you should too"

HorstQueck , 2 days ago

Harding is a stumbling joker, but he's right when he says that he is a storyteller..

Kathy Smith , 1 day ago

Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I think he was well grilled by the time he left.

Ghassan Karwchan , 16 hours ago

OMG. He totally trashed him, with politeness and class

jjbeerj , 1 day ago (edited)

17:09 "Did they do this with Donald Trump? We don't know". Interview over.

Matthew Hamann , 1 day ago

This is one of the best owns I've ever seen. Well done Aaron Mate, I now hold you in high esteem. Chorus of applause on this side of the interwebs.

Paul Shippam , 16 hours ago

Well done for not reading the whole book Aaron. I hope you didn't pay for it either. Great interview.

Avalaon Adulwulf , 20 hours ago

It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30 years...

jerseygrl5 , 15 hours ago

Well, that's one book I won't be adding to my "Need to read" list.

tim measures , 4 days ago

thank Aaron mate this guy is just a fiction writer

Joel Rodriguez , 16 hours ago

Oh please, that is the best that guy had, read my book? The notion that russia influenced voters is absurd.

Auguste Comte , 4 days ago (edited)

Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.

joe564357 , 1 day ago

"Do you have any evidence that the Russian government interfered in the U.S. election or colluded with Trump?" "I can see Russia from my house!!!!"

joe564357 , 1 day ago

"I'm a journalist and a storyteller." Storyteller, yeah. Journalist, no.

his202 class , 4 days ago

When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria once again.

Nick Mando , 4 days ago

It is like Project Veritas only on an international level. Disinformation 101. Also the author clearly has a personal vendetta against Russia.

AP CreativesLDN , 4 days ago (edited)

This man is Luke Harding he is owned by the British Conservative Friends of Israel. The biggest lobbyist in Britain. Nice try... Next!

godkingofspace , 4 days ago

Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed about..."

Chris Ramsbottom Isherwood , 1 day ago

Check Mate!

teronnie richardson , 4 days ago

I see y'all trying to discredit him

Julie Rowan-Zoch , 1 day ago

Great work, Aaron. Thank you.

Mari Ma Cheri , 3 days ago

How Aaron kept a straight face, I don't know. He looked like he was going to laugh a time or two because of the absurdity of this Luke guy.

Drago Varsas , 1 day ago

What bollocks. The guardian has become less than toilet paper lately anyway.

Libby Arndt , 6 hours ago

Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.

izamugginzweebopalaba , 14 hours ago (edited)

Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' - it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one, however.

lapsus5 , 1 day ago

I hope this fucker's factless conspiracy theory stops people from buying his shitty book.

crushsatan , 4 days ago

sounds like this guy just wrote his book off of watching the news.

maskedavenger777 , 4 days ago (edited)

Oh as if we don't have kleptocracy here in the States. And the assassination of Seth Richards is no where comparable to Putin's hits?

TheOldGods , 1 day ago

Omg this guy is unreal! Good job Aaron and thank you Real News for exposing frauds like this poophead

Se Lu , 4 days ago

Isn't it the authors job to sell his book rather than demand that the interviewer must have read it from cover to cover to question him?

Jen V , 1 day ago

OMG is Purim a former KGB agent? I had no clue😂😂 why did Putin quit the KGB? I bet he won't address that or tell the truth there, right?

Hello, Jerk! , 1 day ago

"Have you heard of Estonia?"

sinisa majetic , 4 days ago

Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his cunningness.

danmcc22 , 3 days ago

Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it belongs.

allgoo19 , 3 days ago

He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.

Noosejunkie , 4 days ago

Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.

nicolas grey , 4 days ago

He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .

Geoff Whyte , 3 days ago

Absolutely nothing in 28 mins to justify writing a book with evidently a faceless title.

red fury91 , 4 days ago

This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol

Farero Lobos , 8 hours ago (edited)

21:11 Deripaska sits at the right hand of Putin?! Please, I beg you pardon.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Kk7kobMQY

G. , 13 hours ago (edited)

This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some history.

jacqueline thomson , 1 day ago

In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!

ano nymous , 3 days ago

Great interview. The stories this guy keeps making up because of lack of evidence is jaw-dropping.

freespeech_zone , 4 days ago (edited)

The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.

Patricia Leary , 4 days ago (edited)

Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got. That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!

Andi Amador , 4 days ago

Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails, which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw

Yuri muckraker , 4 days ago

aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.

No Way , 4 days ago

Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion? IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.

HighFieldLux , 2 days ago

Aaron is hot!

Peter Lermann , 4 days ago

How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally forgot

DootDoot , 4 days ago (edited)

Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the 1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There are real problems to deal with.

Robert , 4 days ago

LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have one on.

Jode Ville , 4 days ago

The collusion is with Israel.

John Mastroligulano , 1 day ago (edited)

Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).

ozwhistles , 4 days ago (edited)

So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage. (edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public "hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand. That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out .. your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders - so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders. Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist. And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating, drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking around for.)

MsTree1 , 4 days ago (edited)

PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy, organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic

Tony Smith , 3 days ago

Not Israeli collusion then?

Mr. Agnew , 4 days ago

That guy wants a war with Russia

Mr. Agnew , 4 days ago

The funny thing is usa/russia tied havent gotten better at all but are even worse than obamas time

Yarrski , 3 days ago

the little liar got HAD

Platewarp , 18 hours ago

Hillary lost because most Americans despise her not because of Russian hackers.

Dan , 4 days ago

Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great work...I bow to you.

Zedwoman , 11 hours ago

Luke Harding is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

G shawponee , 1 day ago

I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!

Ahmad Reza Haj Saeedi , 4 days ago

Good journalism by Aaron. Thanks!

Robin Jagoda , 1 day ago

Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!). Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't seem to defend his position.

Aniket Ghosh , 3 days ago

"Look, I'm a storyteller!"

Bryan Hemming , 18 hours ago

The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.

Bob Cicisly , 4 days ago

;)). :)) ;)):))

Ian Brown , 1 day ago (edited)

Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.

Cygnus X-321 , 3 days ago

Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!

Cygnus X-321 , 3 days ago (edited)

Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World War 3 in 2018?

fkujakedmyname , 4 days ago (edited)

the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people

wilson lawson , 3 days ago (edited)

''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?

wilson lawson , 3 days ago (edited)

I just discovered theRealNews recently and they're certainly not a fake news echo chamber... impressive.

David Hanks , 1 day ago

"Not sure if that was intentional or not ..." hahaha owned

danny j , 4 days ago

This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.

Shan Ri Ha , 4 days ago

This guy is a goose.

Shan Ri Ha , 4 days ago

No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by Podesta back in 2015. Peace

hoodiewoman louisiana , 4 days ago

He's playing "5 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon." So profound.

hoodiewoman louisiana , 4 days ago

"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.

Neil Mason , 4 days ago

This guy lives in a fairy tale land! STFU!

Philip Hall , 1 hour ago

Good job

Peter Smith , 1 hour ago

Aaron, Brilliant journalism. Well done sir that was a masterclass that should be studied in every journalism school across the globe.

lcrooks69 , 1 hour ago

wow. luke harding is a complete and utter moron. never thought a brit could make a british accent synonymous with stupidity.

Alexis Porter , 2 hours ago

That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy World" would have been a better title for his book.

mysterbee06 , 3 hours ago

Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute *evidence*.

Kniteknite23A , 3 hours ago (edited)

@ 23:27 What is this "essentially a lie, kind of untrue" ? lol and "Now We know that...made... allegedly from kind of His activities..."and how does this schmuck expect to sell any books advertising it like this, unless His target group is 17-24 year old niblits.I almost forgot 30 is the new 20. Keep on talking and eventually Your mouth will come out with stuff. Silly~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NS7Gkv4NNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo bonus~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJVROcKFnBQ

Abhishek Agarwal , 3 hours ago

It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the interests of their masters

MISTERASMODEUS , 4 hours ago

Brilliant and adversarial, yet respectful. Difficult combination to defeat.

hoochymama , 5 hours ago

Subscribed. Amazing job by the interviewer.

Angel O , 6 hours ago

Subscribed!

Evan Schulz , 6 hours ago

MI6 not sending their best.

Bob Boldt , 8 hours ago

The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." George Orwell

Toni Feldstein Chicago Luxury Real Estate , 10 hours ago

Clearly no compelling, unbiased evidence yet.

DeNeice Kenehan , 10 hours ago

Maybe Aaro Mate can read the rest of the book when he stops laughing.

Nan Bread , 10 hours ago

This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.

Allan Ewart , 11 hours ago

https://medium.com/@Scifiscreen/presscoin-the-voice-of-sanity-in-a-world-of-chaos-71176010477f

John Barker , 11 hours ago

The interviewee is lost in his fantasy world, and patronizing at that.

Johnny Maudlin , 11 hours ago

It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's premise.

Stars Die , 13 hours ago

Wow, this guy really doesn't have much. Surprised he wrote a book out of this stuff.

mitrovdan , 13 hours ago

17:58 , BINGO...Maté strikes.

Alex Bakaev , 13 hours ago (edited)

I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble. The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.

sugarhigh4242 , 14 hours ago

No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA, showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing something?

Soft Insubordination , 15 hours ago

I had no idea "rejectionist" was a real term. I'm going to continue to live in a world where it's not a real term.

Charles W R , 16 hours ago

Folks, this is a garbage production, no better than S Bannon or S Miller products. Trash this video.

Charles W R , 16 hours ago

It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron, go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate

Charles W R , 16 hours ago

TRNN and Aaron Mate, this is Alt-Right channel.

adammontana9 , 16 hours ago

Great job Aaron

steven bones , 16 hours ago

bullshit beyound belief.

Ardavon Yazdi , 16 hours ago

Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and opportunism

peterboy sonicat , 17 hours ago

Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.

John Kelleher , 17 hours ago

Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?

Fred Munoz , 18 hours ago (edited)

Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to hear.

Denis Lee , 18 hours ago

Wow Aaron Mate. Great interview.

Frank , 18 hours ago

great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or his hypothesis,

banjo234 , 19 hours ago

Harding's persona could not be more like Tony Blair if he was trying to do an impersonation. Trust him like you'd trust a rat in your underpants.

Andrew Ahonen , 19 hours ago

The first Cold War was a tragedy. This new one is a Farce.

Pique Dame , 20 hours ago

Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking about.

Tellthetruth n/a , 23 hours ago

Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth. No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.

Nikolai Szép , 23 hours ago

what a laughable muppet!

nikita novikov , 1 day ago

That's is some grade A interviewing. Never seen an argument so thoroughly dismantled.

Jim James , 1 day ago

This guy (Harding) can't make a point.

DM R , 1 day ago

Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his questioning

DM R , 1 day ago

This Harding guy is a silly man. Grow up and get some integrity and speak the truth

damenji , 1 day ago

Harding do you still believe in Santa Claus, show us the evidence you tool!

Kevin Schmidt , 1 day ago

Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to recover.

Najat Madry , 1 day ago

proper journalism

texshelters , 1 day ago

That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost Clinton the election

PJ Authur , 1 day ago

I can see both sides. I want the evidence, but can see strong links...

Syncopator , 1 day ago (edited)

The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a better term...

John Keown , 1 day ago

this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.

poofendorf , 1 day ago

By "collusion" he means smiley faces.

Lee Lull , 1 day ago

Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots to see.

BlackTalkRadio , 1 day ago

On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.

Kay Donnelly , 1 day ago

He doesn't prove collusion . Lol

lapsus5 , 1 day ago

This was a great interview. Thank you.

guttural truth , 1 day ago (edited)

Aaron, you fucking badass. Really top notch interview, brilliantly done.

R.V. Scheide Jr. , 1 day ago

Should have just said you're a speed reader, Aaron.

R.V. Scheide Jr. , 1 day ago

Is he a journalist or a story teller? Those can be two different things.

R.V. Scheide Jr. , 1 day ago

Nice job Aaron, not caving to the Russophobic Guardian writer.

Terry P , 1 day ago

The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.

garyweglarz , 1 day ago (edited)

Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying! :) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies! Drats!

Matt Styles , 1 day ago (edited)

*slow clap*

Sear Tactical , 1 day ago (edited)

Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10 minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)

MarStoryTime , 1 day ago

Of course he just left the conversation at the end. A complete fraud.

AttnJack , 1 day ago

That was painful and hilarious!

Song Mozart , 1 day ago

Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just take his and his "sources'" word for it?

AD T , 1 day ago

Harding is so full of BS... good to see him being massacred. Good job!

mrtriffid , 1 day ago

Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'

Nhoj737 , 1 day ago

Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach, who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as potential double voters." http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/

Song Mozart , 1 day ago

"Did they (Putin and Russia) do this with Donald Trump? We don't know."

Nhoj737 , 1 day ago

"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of improvisational 05:00 the most important thing is that you you 05:02 have people with access which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?

Greg Van , 1 day ago

The author who's own research is clearly dubious was chomping at the possibility of the host not reading the book. This man is made of straw.

Sleepy Alligator , 1 day ago

The lengths they go to take attention off of the content of the leaks.

godisgood603 , 1 day ago

Just outed himself, he has absolutely nothing, NADA, what a complete money grabbing douchbag. A TOTAL FAKE

Green Energy , 1 day ago

Luke Harding is a tool

Green Energy , 1 day ago

Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans & Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Green Energy , 1 day ago

Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance. Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth. Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats. Oregon Green Energy

Paulo Machado , 1 day ago

Hahahahah. One would expect a journalist/writer, who earns a living writing articles, to be a bit more, ahem, articulate. What a fool!

Song Mozart , 1 day ago

Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the argument.

Song Mozart , 1 day ago

You have to believe in fairy tales. Harding would have earned an F in my class.

Lloyd Succes , 1 day ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Glad that Aaron took Luke to task.

Danny White , 1 day ago

Ah- when something you claim to be true is actually inconclusive, it becomes "contextual". Got it.

00Billy , 1 day ago

crushing book sales in 30mins.

Ken Javor , 1 day ago (edited)

Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion with North Korea and Iran.

Natural Theist , 1 day ago

Excellent job of interviewing! Actually asked important questions, unlike the way mainstream media simply parrots propaganda.

John Pagoto , 1 day ago

Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....

Grant Jarvis , 1 day ago

Breath of fresh air. A journalist actually questions his interviewee.

Raphael Bernard , 2 days ago (edited)

This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.

Buddy Lee , 2 days ago

The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans are awake to the scheme.

Ad year3 , 2 days ago

In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing though.

Alien Robot , 2 days ago (edited)

If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious. Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from, shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility. He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews. Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?

John Smith , 2 days ago (edited)

For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion deniers".

John Smith , 2 days ago

Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show (tee hee), Huff Po etc etc

psychanaut , 2 days ago

*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away. Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should still marry me though.

psychanaut , 2 days ago

whoever this Aarons guy is: 1/ you should be my husband 2/wonderful interviewing process

Nimo Ali , 2 days ago

Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition! I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!

Lola Lee , 2 days ago

Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.

Terrence Alford , 2 days ago

Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for this nonsense.

David Thompson , 2 days ago (edited)

The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions is utterly ridiculous.

Ae Rein , 2 days ago

Inspiring work Aaron. Luke had to be thinking "Bugger off, asking for facts"-LOL

William Huston , 2 days ago

OMG! GREAT JOB!! by Aaron Maté, holding this guy's feet to the fire.

Vicki Kennedy , 2 days ago

Delusional, he has no evidence just hearsay. Just another Bolshevik

Juan Hdez. Vigueras , 2 days ago

This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.

nicolas grey , 2 days ago

I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either . If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it, as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as it's not a genuine debate .

Goberto Angela , 2 days ago

Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof. Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.

lxathos , 2 days ago

hehe.........

paganmaestro , 2 days ago

Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.

Act1veSp1n , 2 days ago

Luke uses CIA operation, opposition Navalny as a legitimate source....facepalm.

Bobby Cesspool , 2 days ago

His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire, they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.

Act1veSp1n , 2 days ago

Russian KGB sent me here :)

Bobby Cesspool , 2 days ago

Well done.

Robert Kettering , 2 days ago

Dem Party media collusion.

roman brandle , 2 days ago

It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question . This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how dare you not believe me .

sheezle3 , 3 days ago

Good job, Aaron, thanks

S.E.L. 25 , 3 days ago (edited)

Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on truckin'...

madrussian1000 , 3 days ago

Great job,Aaron! What a sleazeball this Luke character is, jee wiz!

Andre De Angelis , 3 days ago

How did this clown manage to actually write a whole book based on zero evidence?

Kokoro Wish , 3 days ago (edited)

Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are being led to believe.

Joanne Leon , 3 days ago

This is how every Russiagate interview should be conducted! Bravo.

Clint Warren , 3 days ago

This is painful to watch.

Joe shawn , 3 days ago

His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA) if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during the campaign.

Dave Klebt , 3 days ago

or it could just be a business trip to attract a successful real estate developer to invest in their country.

DanEMO592 , 3 days ago

This needs way more views. This is amazing

dylan , 3 days ago (edited)

Aaron did such a stellar job reigning this man's charade in 10:55

Thomastine , 3 days ago

"Uh, yes yes, I understand that, but let me dither on a bit more, offering non-evidence and avoiding your questions."

g00nther , 3 days ago

What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom feeders.

Martin Jančar , 3 days ago

i am thinking about writing a book about that collusion :-D doesn't seem much of an effort :-D what a BS :-)

0tube0user , 3 days ago

Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction. The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist. The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.

Denver Attaway , 3 days ago (edited)

Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media softball.

Ilfart 218 , 3 days ago

Yeah don't trust evidence. Listen to "people" they'll tell ya something shifty is going on. This damn fool is all too common.

Zina J , 3 days ago

It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016 election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for decades.

Sendan , 3 days ago

It was funny how the color of his face steadily changes:) OH NET NET did I put a smile face

MrDiogenes OfElmhurst , 3 days ago (edited)

Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that? Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the only thing that matters.

Steve Ennever , 3 days ago

Bravo Aaron. Bravo.

artcenterjo , 3 days ago

good on you Aaron Mate!

Frodo Ring , 3 days ago (edited)

Why he loses volume in the most critical parts of the video. He says """:the level of russians at the moment @#$%@#&$%@%#^$$&@^#""""" at minute 8:05

Hagbard Celine , 3 days ago

really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.

TheRedsRus , 3 days ago

@14.44 he talks about steele and trusted http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-24/wife-fusion-gps-founder-admits-her-husband-was-behind-fake-russiagate-story

Leo Jansen , 3 days ago

Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him whatsover!

TheJagjr4450 , 3 days ago

ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE... is all we ask... ONE POSITIVE PIECE.

TheJagjr4450 , 3 days ago (edited)

HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE!

TheJagjr4450 , 3 days ago (edited)

**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter" (used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the Russian Lawyer into the country.

Tony Smith , 3 days ago

Guardian have always been estb. Clinton spent $10mn on opponent research w Russian collusion

hohaia rangi , 3 days ago

As soon as he started talking about Russian hacking of DNC he lost credibility. That claim has never been proven.

HighFieldLux , 3 days ago

10:30 "I'm a storyteller." Welp.

[Dec 28, 2017] Aaron interview is a case study of how to deal with the author of a shitty book

Notable quotes:
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Lear King of Albion , 3 days ago (edited)

This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing. After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron, except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer had patience.

freydenker , 3 days ago

Best joke: "I am not a storyteller" at around 10.00 : ]]]

Timothy Musson , 3 days ago (edited)

Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like, but you did it politely.

Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.

Jason Parker , 3 days ago

Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!

Michael Leone , 3 days ago

I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. He probably shouldn't use it methinks...

proudhon100 , 3 days ago

Now Jill Stein is being caught up in the witch hunt. Everyone's to blame for the election loss . . . except Hillary!

Ross Kolaric , 3 days ago

Just rubbish. Name the book collusion and sell lots of copies. Come on, get real.

Microsoft Word Technical Support , 3 days ago

You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into.

omlezna , 3 days ago

Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview. Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!

earthie48 Johnson , 4 days ago

Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic Party!

Citizens.Against.Corruption USA , 4 days ago

Hillary Clinton...COLLUSION!

tink2090 , 4 days ago

Having watched this interview, I feel the need to write the phrase: 'what a nutter.'

ValhalaFiveSix , 4 days ago

This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has.

MsTree1 , 4 days ago

This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews

Swinglow Alabama , 4 days ago

Remember some Tony Blair. Loud and big mouth and a big nought in the end.

Antman4656 , 4 days ago (edited)

LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings. So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.

Laura Cortez , 4 days ago

So basically he is saying that we should believe that Russia hacked elections in USA, France and Germany just because Putin is Baaaaad. 

drumsnbass , 4 days ago

I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night.

uche007us , 4 days ago

This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her

tdr , 4 days ago

Good God I couldn't watch this silly yellow teeth Brit imperialist from the first few seconds. His accent is insufferable.

L G , 4 days ago

That's quite a title for a book that contains no evidence!

Laura Cortez , 4 days ago

Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate

Jared Greathouse , 4 days ago

One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't happen to be much of a threat externally

Darwin Holmstrom , 4 days ago

Someone's trying to sell a book by giving it a hyperbolic title .

Jraymiami , 4 days ago

Omg these so called "journalists" opportunists are everywhere!!! Bravo Aaron Mate!

Canuck516 , 4 days ago

I guess to be hired by the Guardian, "opportunism" is a must-have!

DootDoot , 4 days ago

27:13 Sums up the entire book... And where the Author got his factless opinion.... How can a writer have such a clear comprehension problem?

Alan Mclemore , 4 days ago

Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.

But Clinton is a front for the neocon wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face, would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs even more.

Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon" hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its planes.

And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into power.

Dan Harris , 4 days ago

The interviewer totally owned that asshole. Awesome journalistic interview.

R Speechley , 4 days ago

Harding is a joke, he just talks nonsense

Alan Mclemore , 4 days ago

Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?

ZantherY , 4 days ago

It sounds as if someone has a book to flog! He should had stuck to CNN or Democracy Now, reporters there aren't likely to ASK anything intelligent!!

Joy Wilder , 4 days ago

How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention??

mic mccoy , 4 days ago

Luke Harding got his ass handed to him!!!!!!! Can't believe his book is a best seller as it states nothing provable.

mic mccoy , 4 days ago

This guy Luke Harding calls himself a journalist???? He is trying to sell a book based on no evidence.

mic mccoy , 4 days ago

This guy Luke Harding is a puppet of Main-Stream Media. What a joke!!!!!!

scheminsiman , 4 days ago

Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.

marsmotion , 4 days ago

the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.

Rick O'Brien , 4 days ago

Wow imagine governments having people killed. Outrageous! Can you say drone strikes? This guy Harding in not a serious person. Good job Aaron!

0 1 , 4 days ago (edited)

Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish watching this. Good job Aaron.

hypo krites , 4 days ago (edited)

Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the position.

This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.

The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding people accountable.

smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.

old fan , 4 days ago

This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?

ameighable , 4 days ago

I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up. It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories. There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to prison finally.

Marko Kraguljac , 4 days ago (edited)

Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his.

rvaclavek , 4 days ago (edited)

If you live in the empirical world, you just believe the hearsay of the elites. DNC and Podesta hacks were empirically done with an external drive.

fahrout4 , 4 days ago

So, the Russians are running around the globe hacking elections?

Meta Vinci , 4 days ago

Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ, State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet. Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.

Lenore Olmstead , 4 days ago

So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.

Scott Turner , 4 days ago

That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point to any evidence."

doubtingmantis , 4 days ago

Luke's book is speculation. Thanks Aaron for holding his feet to the fire.

Colonel Chuck , 4 days ago

1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2 parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of unemployeed young draftees.

CryinFester , 4 days ago (edited)

Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?

[Dec 28, 2017] I think many British journalists work for the British secret service, and they were recruited at university and slotted into journalist employment

Notable quotes:
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Sep 15, 2012 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile says: September 15, 2012 at 11:58 am

Something went wrong there!

Here's Tisdall on Russia:

And on and on

Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters.

I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.

Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.

[Dec 28, 2017] My Response To The McCarthyists – Extra Newsfeed

Dec 28, 2017 | extranewsfeed.com

Back in August of 2016, which feels like millions of years ago in terms of everything that's happened in American politics since that time, Glenn Greenwald published an article in The Intercept titled " Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S. ". I took note of the article because I look up to Greenwald, but because of my focus on the US presidential election I couldn't really see the looming terror on the horizon that he was warning of at the time.

After the election I started getting comments on my anti-Democratic establishment articles accusing them of being "Kremlin propaganda", and I had no idea how to respond to this. I'm an Australian mother who started doing political commentary last year because I fell in love with Bernie Sanders; I've never been to Russia, I've never been involved with Russia, and at that point my interest in Russia amounted to an affection for Regina Spektor, those cool fur hats and the movie Spies Like Us . I'd certainly never in my life been accused of writing propaganda.

https://extranewsfeed.com/media/e3eac8cd5216d1c3f2fbea96b0d376d3?postId=ad769fcddc10

Now these comments have become a daily occurrence. I make unapologetically frequent use of social media blocking features, but I still get accused of being a Kremlin propagandist multiple times a day for my skepticism of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and my criticism of the Democratic party.

And now pro-establishment outlets are starting to publish attack editorials full of outright lies about me. Rantt News ran a hit piece on me last month which reported completely falsely that I'm a Russian shill hired "to spread alternative facts and false equivalencies in order to divide leftists and ensure Trump, Ryan, their cabal of billionaires, and their newfound Russian friends all continue to enjoy power at the expense of your civil rights." To substantiate his claim the author cited two articles of mine that I'd written for the Melbourne site Newslogue which were then republished without my permission by a website called Russia Insider, with whom I have never had contact apart from my recent request that they remove the articles.

As I pointed out in my response to the Rantt smear piece , Russia Insider very clearly labels those articles as copies that it took from elsewhere. Here is a screenshot from the first one , which very plainly labels the article as having come from Newslogue:

Here is a link to my original article from Newslogue . Here is a screenshot from that one:

Note the dates. Here is the second article Russia Insider published, again labeled as being from Newslogue:

And here is my original article.

[Dec 28, 2017] Napalm An American Biography

Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

131

Harry , Dec 27, 2017 7:25:26 PM | 130

@james #120

Robert M. Neer

Napalm An American Biography

Grieved , Dec 27, 2017 7:32:42 PM | 131
@120 james

It actually appears to be from "Napalm: an American Biography" by Robert M. Neer, 2013. The book is divided into 3 sections: Hero, Soldier, Pariah - hence the seeming title of Soldier at the top of the page.

A Google search on "correspondent Cutforth" (including the quotation marks) returns a slightly differently typeset book but with the same copy as b's image. The image itself is also returned under Images for that search. So it's definitely the Napalm book.

Try scrolling through this to find your page:
https://books.google.com/books?id=BbKvLs2TZKAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

rjj , Dec 27, 2017 8:03:20 PM | 135
JAMES @ 120 and 122


Robert Neer, Napalm, page 100

[Dec 28, 2017] Collusion Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win

The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Kenneth Timmerman on December 22, 2017

A shoddy piece of work

Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump.

I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece of work I have rarely seen.

Dawna Donaldson on November 27, 2017
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.

This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven.

Beverly Smith on November 16, 2017
Confusing

I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?

[Dec 28, 2017] Luke Harding is not a complete lunatic. He is just an intelligence asset who is paid to propagate all this nonsense

The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.youtube.com
Greg McKenzie , 4 days ago

The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.

Zorro in Hell , 4 days ago

Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!

jones1351 , 4 days ago

Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or Hedges.

Bryan Wallace , 1 day ago (edited)

He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)

bboucharde , 4 days ago

Luke, Now you should investigate the collusion between Russia and the Clinton Foundation---and the direct transfer of Russian funds to Bill Clinton.

Jared Greathouse , 4 days ago

The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.

dylan , 3 days ago

"I'm a storyteller."

Tochukwu Azubike , 4 days ago (edited)

I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage

Consuelo Concepcion , 4 days ago

This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations. I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep State.

Raymoan Ford , 4 days ago

Aaron Mate should have read the book before interviewing the author about the book. LOL.

Dan Howard , 4 days ago

Great interview! Harding was getting uncomfortable.

HongPong , 1 day ago

this interview is a good example of how TheRealNews is careful at what they cover -- and how far a British accent can help to inflate fuzzy claims!

Animal Farm , 4 days ago (edited)

I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says, 08:25 "I think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or "Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs' real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7 countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up. You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial aggression since the beginning of time.

Camcolito , 2 days ago

My God this guest is full of it.

J Scott Bryant , 1 day ago

What a joke-- rambling, deflecting, with no evidence presented in almost 20 minutes!

Pete Smith , 3 days ago

Host - So basically your proof of collusion = Putin is bad? Book author - No...but...yes...but...no...but...(logs off in a strop)

Pete Smith , 3 days ago

Host - So basically your proof of collusion = Putin is bad? Book author - No...but...yes...but...no...but...(logs off in a strop)

John Snow , 19 hours ago

Harding is an ordinary opportunist, useful idiot and evil man.

M.K. Styllinski , 17 hours ago (edited)

Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality, Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United States.

Klub Svetnikov , 4 days ago

This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer get?!

Jon Stephen , 3 days ago

Good job Aaron! Luke Harding is bathing in the kool aid.

Michael , 2 days ago

Can you imagine if the so-called journalists on MSM interviewed like Aaron. Think corporate MSNBC here, Chris Hayes, and Rachel Maddow.

Paul Jackson , 4 days ago

Good work again Aaron. Luke Harding and Marcy Wheeler would be such a cute couple, maybe populating the West with a new race of sycophants.

minkusmaz , 3 days ago

I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book. This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they are from that.

Ahmed Mansour , 2 days ago

Aaron was enjoying this a bit too much 😂😂👌🏽👌🏽. Great work

John Johnson , 1 day ago

Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context." Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own book...

Aaron Childers , 1 day ago

That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.

scuddymud2 , 4 days ago

This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!

M Rede , 1 day ago

Brave Luke "kind of" Harding.

Charles Robertson , 4 days ago

Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian. Thanks again Aaron.

fearhungerpride , 4 days ago (edited)

This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.

Chill Bill , 4 days ago

Impressive dissection of this guy's factless assertions and parroted MSM hollow-headedness, Aaron.

David Ramsay Steele , 4 days ago

"Collusion" is to the left what birtherism was to the right.

Nick Mando , 4 days ago

What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral process, one is just a lot easier.

Nick Mando , 4 days ago

ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because spoiler, you didn't commit it.

Loyd Frontham , 4 days ago

Thank you, Aaron, for being one of the few reasonable voices in news today.

ThaddeusCorn , 4 days ago

Great job. Good guest and the interviewer didn't just let the guest go unquestioned.

Ramiiam , 4 days ago

Aaron Mate is your best journalist, among the new TRN crowd. You could do with more of him, less of people like the Noors.

Invisible Man , 18 hours ago

I loved Real News for years...but lately ur guys content exposing the blind Russiaphobia has been award winning caliber.

ZantherY , 4 days ago (edited)

Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!

Anthony George , 4 days ago

A "story-teller". Yep.

szymborska , 2 days ago

Aaron 1 - Other Guy - 0

Jonathan Mintram , 4 days ago

Well done Aaron. Your focus on evidence and proof was perfect. That guy makes me feel embarrassed to be British.

Busterpeek21 , 2 days ago

One of the best interviews I've seen in awhile! I put it up there with Jimmy Dore's recent interview with Jill Stein.

Doginu , 4 days ago

It sounds like your Butt hurt about getting thrown out of Russia..This guy is a Repeater, not a Reporter!

Karl Malone , 3 days ago

Bravo Aaron

craig robb , 4 days ago

nice job aaron, the dude was about5 seconds away from calling you a puppet of putin lol

Jen V , 1 day ago

This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti. And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!

wleao13 , 4 days ago

Luke 'alex jones' Harding what joke. he claim be a reporter

oldscorpion13 , 3 days ago

This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden outburst one of these interviews

TheSpiritOfTheTimes , 4 days ago

Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.

The Solo Activist , 4 days ago

Refreshing!

truthcrusades , 4 days ago

I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office. Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.

Farero Lobos , 9 hours ago

10:29 Please, I beg you, Luke the fluke, decide if you are a journalist or a story teller.

Angel Tibbs , 1 day ago

"Saddam has WMDs!" - same agencies.

Doginu , 4 days ago

It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years later... Idiot....

Ian Nixon , 3 days ago

Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating, BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?

Other Voices, Other Choices , 4 days ago

Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.

Trevor R.N. , 2 days ago (edited)

Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.

Koot Orand , 4 days ago

This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or any other gutter press

RichardTheThird , 2 days ago

I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the least.

Luther Rhein , 3 days ago

this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence. That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!

Pete D. , 4 days ago (edited)

Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation, speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.

zwergie256 , 20 hours ago

Omg, how embarrassing. ;))

Josh Lockie , 2 days ago

This guy is deep state and super bad at it lol

j bloggs , 17 hours ago

Great interview. Shows up Harding for what he is, an establishment shill.

GreySide , 23 hours ago (edited)

The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh

EveyMash , 4 days ago

Luke Harding is a conspiracy theorist.

bookashkin , 3 days ago (edited)

They say where there's smoke, there's fire. Sometimes there's fire without smoke. Like Luke Harding's pants.

Raph Tjoeb , 2 days ago

Jesus christ, did this Guardian guy take a fall flat on his face. Reality hit you 'ol fella.

shamanahaboolist , 4 days ago

Gerrymandering and the "Democrats" election fraud against Sanders was the cause of Trump's victory more than anything else.

Julius Galacki , 1 day ago

I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose style is less overly vulgar and divisive.

Andrew Zibuck , 7 hours ago

At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.

kerpital , 1 day ago

If you remove "kind of" "sort of" "I think that" "I mean" "Uh" from that man's vocabulary, there's nothing left.

frosty buckets , 4 days ago

Russia is a paper tiger .. Let's focus on deescalation and saving humanity from over consumption and climate change .. Russia will follow.

War Dynamics , 12 hours ago

Aaron Mate not having any of this guys BS. Great interview.

bookashkin , 3 days ago

Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's gruesome murder?

Michael Maxfield , 4 days ago

I think Mr. Harding completely missed Sergey Nalobin's tongue-in-cheek sense of humor.

Hollywood Art Chick , 1 day ago

Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much respect to RT.

deliciousmorton , 16 hours ago

Luke Harding is all over the place.

Peace and Love , 4 days ago

Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's corruption.

adammontana9 , 16 hours ago

"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology." https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html

Simon and Gar Farkell , 1 day ago (edited)

This Real News host could teach "mainstream media" how to ask hard questions.

mrtriffid , 1 day ago

Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to true journalism.

ParrhesiaJoe , 1 day ago

Fantastic interview. All interviews should be like this :)

leboulenoire , 1 day ago

Great to see a REAL journalist make an absolute FOOL of this story teller. Wonder why you don't see this sort of debate on the corporate media.

Gabriel Olsen , 4 hours ago

This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.

Bim Star , 1 day ago

Nailed it.

Punk Rock Kick , 3 days ago

That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media here is "London thinks this, so you should too"

HorstQueck , 2 days ago

Harding is a stumbling joker, but he's right when he says that he is a storyteller..

Kathy Smith , 1 day ago

Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I think he was well grilled by the time he left.

Ghassan Karwchan , 16 hours ago

OMG. He totally trashed him, with politeness and class

jjbeerj , 1 day ago (edited)

17:09 "Did they do this with Donald Trump? We don't know". Interview over.

Matthew Hamann , 1 day ago

This is one of the best owns I've ever seen. Well done Aaron Mate, I now hold you in high esteem. Chorus of applause on this side of the interwebs.

Paul Shippam , 16 hours ago

Well done for not reading the whole book Aaron. I hope you didn't pay for it either. Great interview.

Avalaon Adulwulf , 20 hours ago

It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30 years...

jerseygrl5 , 15 hours ago

Well, that's one book I won't be adding to my "Need to read" list.

tim measures , 4 days ago

thank Aaron mate this guy is just a fiction writer

Joel Rodriguez , 16 hours ago

Oh please, that is the best that guy had, read my book? The notion that russia influenced voters is absurd.

Auguste Comte , 4 days ago (edited)

Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.

joe564357 , 1 day ago

"Do you have any evidence that the Russian government interfered in the U.S. election or colluded with Trump?" "I can see Russia from my house!!!!"

joe564357 , 1 day ago

"I'm a journalist and a storyteller." Storyteller, yeah. Journalist, no.

his202 class , 4 days ago

When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria once again.

Nick Mando , 4 days ago

It is like Project Veritas only on an international level. Disinformation 101. Also the author clearly has a personal vendetta against Russia.

AP CreativesLDN , 4 days ago (edited)

This man is Luke Harding he is owned by the British Conservative Friends of Israel. The biggest lobbyist in Britain. Nice try... Next!

godkingofspace , 4 days ago

Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed about..."

Chris Ramsbottom Isherwood , 1 day ago

Check Mate!

teronnie richardson , 4 days ago

I see y'all trying to discredit him

Julie Rowan-Zoch , 1 day ago

Great work, Aaron. Thank you.

Mari Ma Cheri , 3 days ago

How Aaron kept a straight face, I don't know. He looked like he was going to laugh a time or two because of the absurdity of this Luke guy.

Drago Varsas , 1 day ago

What bollocks. The guardian has become less than toilet paper lately anyway.

Libby Arndt , 6 hours ago

Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.

izamugginzweebopalaba , 14 hours ago (edited)

Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' - it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one, however.

lapsus5 , 1 day ago

I hope this fucker's factless conspiracy theory stops people from buying his shitty book.

crushsatan , 4 days ago

sounds like this guy just wrote his book off of watching the news.

maskedavenger777 , 4 days ago (edited)

Oh as if we don't have kleptocracy here in the States. And the assassination of Seth Richards is no where comparable to Putin's hits?

TheOldGods , 1 day ago

Omg this guy is unreal! Good job Aaron and thank you Real News for exposing frauds like this poophead

Se Lu , 4 days ago

Isn't it the authors job to sell his book rather than demand that the interviewer must have read it from cover to cover to question him?

Jen V , 1 day ago

OMG is Purim a former KGB agent? I had no clue😂😂 why did Putin quit the KGB? I bet he won't address that or tell the truth there, right?

Hello, Jerk! , 1 day ago

"Have you heard of Estonia?"

sinisa majetic , 4 days ago

Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his cunningness.

danmcc22 , 3 days ago

Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it belongs.

allgoo19 , 3 days ago

He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.

Noosejunkie , 4 days ago

Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.

nicolas grey , 4 days ago

He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .

Geoff Whyte , 3 days ago

Absolutely nothing in 28 mins to justify writing a book with evidently a faceless title.

red fury91 , 4 days ago

This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol

Farero Lobos , 8 hours ago (edited)

21:11 Deripaska sits at the right hand of Putin?! Please, I beg you pardon.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Kk7kobMQY

G. , 13 hours ago (edited)

This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some history.

jacqueline thomson , 1 day ago

In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!

ano nymous , 3 days ago

Great interview. The stories this guy keeps making up because of lack of evidence is jaw-dropping.

freespeech_zone , 4 days ago (edited)

The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.

Patricia Leary , 4 days ago (edited)

Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got. That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!

Andi Amador , 4 days ago

Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails, which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw

Yuri muckraker , 4 days ago

aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.

No Way , 4 days ago

Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion? IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.

HighFieldLux , 2 days ago

Aaron is hot!

Peter Lermann , 4 days ago

How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally forgot

DootDoot , 4 days ago (edited)

Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the 1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There are real problems to deal with.

Robert , 4 days ago

LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have one on.

Jode Ville , 4 days ago

The collusion is with Israel.

John Mastroligulano , 1 day ago (edited)

Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).

ozwhistles , 4 days ago (edited)

So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage. (edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public "hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand. That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out .. your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders - so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders. Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist. And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating, drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking around for.)

MsTree1 , 4 days ago (edited)

PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy, organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic

Tony Smith , 3 days ago

Not Israeli collusion then?

Mr. Agnew , 4 days ago

That guy wants a war with Russia

Mr. Agnew , 4 days ago

The funny thing is usa/russia tied havent gotten better at all but are even worse than obamas time

Yarrski , 3 days ago

the little liar got HAD

Platewarp , 18 hours ago

Hillary lost because most Americans despise her not because of Russian hackers.

Dan , 4 days ago

Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great work...I bow to you.

Zedwoman , 11 hours ago

Luke Harding is pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

G shawponee , 1 day ago

I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!

Ahmad Reza Haj Saeedi , 4 days ago

Good journalism by Aaron. Thanks!

Robin Jagoda , 1 day ago

Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!). Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't seem to defend his position.

Aniket Ghosh , 3 days ago

"Look, I'm a storyteller!"

Bryan Hemming , 18 hours ago

The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.

Bob Cicisly , 4 days ago

;)). :)) ;)):))

Ian Brown , 1 day ago (edited)

Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.

Cygnus X-321 , 3 days ago

Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!

Cygnus X-321 , 3 days ago (edited)

Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World War 3 in 2018?

fkujakedmyname , 4 days ago (edited)

the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people

wilson lawson , 3 days ago (edited)

''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?

wilson lawson , 3 days ago (edited)

I just discovered theRealNews recently and they're certainly not a fake news echo chamber... impressive.

David Hanks , 1 day ago

"Not sure if that was intentional or not ..." hahaha owned

danny j , 4 days ago

This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.

Shan Ri Ha , 4 days ago

This guy is a goose.

Shan Ri Ha , 4 days ago

No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by Podesta back in 2015. Peace

hoodiewoman louisiana , 4 days ago

He's playing "5 degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon." So profound.

hoodiewoman louisiana , 4 days ago

"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.

Neil Mason , 4 days ago

This guy lives in a fairy tale land! STFU!

Philip Hall , 1 hour ago

Good job

Peter Smith , 1 hour ago

Aaron, Brilliant journalism. Well done sir that was a masterclass that should be studied in every journalism school across the globe.

lcrooks69 , 1 hour ago

wow. luke harding is a complete and utter moron. never thought a brit could make a british accent synonymous with stupidity.

Alexis Porter , 2 hours ago

That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy World" would have been a better title for his book.

mysterbee06 , 3 hours ago

Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute *evidence*.

Kniteknite23A , 3 hours ago (edited)

@ 23:27 What is this "essentially a lie, kind of untrue" ? lol and "Now We know that...made... allegedly from kind of His activities..."and how does this schmuck expect to sell any books advertising it like this, unless His target group is 17-24 year old niblits.I almost forgot 30 is the new 20. Keep on talking and eventually Your mouth will come out with stuff. Silly~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NS7Gkv4NNA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zP0sqRMzkwo bonus~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJVROcKFnBQ

Abhishek Agarwal , 3 hours ago

It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the interests of their masters

MISTERASMODEUS , 4 hours ago

Brilliant and adversarial, yet respectful. Difficult combination to defeat.

hoochymama , 5 hours ago

Subscribed. Amazing job by the interviewer.

Angel O , 6 hours ago

Subscribed!

Evan Schulz , 6 hours ago

MI6 not sending their best.

Bob Boldt , 8 hours ago

The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." George Orwell

Toni Feldstein Chicago Luxury Real Estate , 10 hours ago

Clearly no compelling, unbiased evidence yet.

DeNeice Kenehan , 10 hours ago

Maybe Aaro Mate can read the rest of the book when he stops laughing.

Nan Bread , 10 hours ago

This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.

Allan Ewart , 11 hours ago

https://medium.com/@Scifiscreen/presscoin-the-voice-of-sanity-in-a-world-of-chaos-71176010477f

John Barker , 11 hours ago

The interviewee is lost in his fantasy world, and patronizing at that.

Johnny Maudlin , 11 hours ago

It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's premise.

Stars Die , 13 hours ago

Wow, this guy really doesn't have much. Surprised he wrote a book out of this stuff.

mitrovdan , 13 hours ago

17:58 , BINGO...Maté strikes.

Alex Bakaev , 13 hours ago (edited)

I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble. The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.

sugarhigh4242 , 14 hours ago

No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA, showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing something?

Soft Insubordination , 15 hours ago

I had no idea "rejectionist" was a real term. I'm going to continue to live in a world where it's not a real term.

Charles W R , 16 hours ago

Folks, this is a garbage production, no better than S Bannon or S Miller products. Trash this video.

Charles W R , 16 hours ago

It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron, go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate

Charles W R , 16 hours ago

TRNN and Aaron Mate, this is Alt-Right channel.

adammontana9 , 16 hours ago

Great job Aaron

steven bones , 16 hours ago

bullshit beyound belief.

Ardavon Yazdi , 16 hours ago

Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and opportunism

peterboy sonicat , 17 hours ago

Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.

John Kelleher , 17 hours ago

Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?

Fred Munoz , 18 hours ago (edited)

Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to hear.

Denis Lee , 18 hours ago

Wow Aaron Mate. Great interview.

Frank , 18 hours ago

great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or his hypothesis,

banjo234 , 19 hours ago

Harding's persona could not be more like Tony Blair if he was trying to do an impersonation. Trust him like you'd trust a rat in your underpants.

Andrew Ahonen , 19 hours ago

The first Cold War was a tragedy. This new one is a Farce.

Pique Dame , 20 hours ago

Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking about.

Tellthetruth n/a , 23 hours ago

Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth. No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.

Nikolai Szép , 23 hours ago

what a laughable muppet!

nikita novikov , 1 day ago

That's is some grade A interviewing. Never seen an argument so thoroughly dismantled.

Jim James , 1 day ago

This guy (Harding) can't make a point.

DM R , 1 day ago

Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his questioning

DM R , 1 day ago

This Harding guy is a silly man. Grow up and get some integrity and speak the truth

damenji , 1 day ago

Harding do you still believe in Santa Claus, show us the evidence you tool!

Kevin Schmidt , 1 day ago

Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to recover.

Najat Madry , 1 day ago

proper journalism

texshelters , 1 day ago

That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost Clinton the election

PJ Authur , 1 day ago

I can see both sides. I want the evidence, but can see strong links...

Syncopator , 1 day ago (edited)

The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a better term...

John Keown , 1 day ago

this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.

poofendorf , 1 day ago

By "collusion" he means smiley faces.

Lee Lull , 1 day ago

Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots to see.

BlackTalkRadio , 1 day ago

On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.

Kay Donnelly , 1 day ago

He doesn't prove collusion . Lol

lapsus5 , 1 day ago

This was a great interview. Thank you.

guttural truth , 1 day ago (edited)

Aaron, you fucking badass. Really top notch interview, brilliantly done.

R.V. Scheide Jr. , 1 day ago

Should have just said you're a speed reader, Aaron.

R.V. Scheide Jr. , 1 day ago

Is he a journalist or a story teller? Those can be two different things.

R.V. Scheide Jr. , 1 day ago

Nice job Aaron, not caving to the Russophobic Guardian writer.

Terry P , 1 day ago

The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.

garyweglarz , 1 day ago (edited)

Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying! :) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies! Drats!

Matt Styles , 1 day ago (edited)

*slow clap*

Sear Tactical , 1 day ago (edited)

Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10 minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)

MarStoryTime , 1 day ago

Of course he just left the conversation at the end. A complete fraud.

AttnJack , 1 day ago

That was painful and hilarious!

Song Mozart , 1 day ago

Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just take his and his "sources'" word for it?

AD T , 1 day ago

Harding is so full of BS... good to see him being massacred. Good job!

mrtriffid , 1 day ago

Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'

Nhoj737 , 1 day ago

Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach, who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as potential double voters." http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/

Song Mozart , 1 day ago

"Did they (Putin and Russia) do this with Donald Trump? We don't know."

Nhoj737 , 1 day ago

"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of improvisational 05:00 the most important thing is that you you 05:02 have people with access which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?

Greg Van , 1 day ago

The author who's own research is clearly dubious was chomping at the possibility of the host not reading the book. This man is made of straw.

Sleepy Alligator , 1 day ago

The lengths they go to take attention off of the content of the leaks.

godisgood603 , 1 day ago

Just outed himself, he has absolutely nothing, NADA, what a complete money grabbing douchbag. A TOTAL FAKE

Green Energy , 1 day ago

Luke Harding is a tool

Green Energy , 1 day ago

Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans & Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Green Energy , 1 day ago

Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance. Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth. Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats. Oregon Green Energy

Paulo Machado , 1 day ago

Hahahahah. One would expect a journalist/writer, who earns a living writing articles, to be a bit more, ahem, articulate. What a fool!

Song Mozart , 1 day ago

Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the argument.

Song Mozart , 1 day ago

You have to believe in fairy tales. Harding would have earned an F in my class.

Lloyd Succes , 1 day ago

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Glad that Aaron took Luke to task.

Danny White , 1 day ago

Ah- when something you claim to be true is actually inconclusive, it becomes "contextual". Got it.

00Billy , 1 day ago

crushing book sales in 30mins.

Ken Javor , 1 day ago (edited)

Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion with North Korea and Iran.

Natural Theist , 1 day ago

Excellent job of interviewing! Actually asked important questions, unlike the way mainstream media simply parrots propaganda.

John Pagoto , 1 day ago

Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....

Grant Jarvis , 1 day ago

Breath of fresh air. A journalist actually questions his interviewee.

Raphael Bernard , 2 days ago (edited)

This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.

Buddy Lee , 2 days ago

The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans are awake to the scheme.

Ad year3 , 2 days ago

In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing though.

Alien Robot , 2 days ago (edited)

If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious. Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from, shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility. He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews. Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?

John Smith , 2 days ago (edited)

For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion deniers".

John Smith , 2 days ago

Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show (tee hee), Huff Po etc etc

psychanaut , 2 days ago

*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away. Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should still marry me though.

psychanaut , 2 days ago

whoever this Aarons guy is: 1/ you should be my husband 2/wonderful interviewing process

Nimo Ali , 2 days ago

Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition! I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!

Lola Lee , 2 days ago

Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.

Terrence Alford , 2 days ago

Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for this nonsense.

David Thompson , 2 days ago (edited)

The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions is utterly ridiculous.

Ae Rein , 2 days ago

Inspiring work Aaron. Luke had to be thinking "Bugger off, asking for facts"-LOL

William Huston , 2 days ago

OMG! GREAT JOB!! by Aaron Maté, holding this guy's feet to the fire.

Vicki Kennedy , 2 days ago

Delusional, he has no evidence just hearsay. Just another Bolshevik

Juan Hdez. Vigueras , 2 days ago

This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.

nicolas grey , 2 days ago

I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either . If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it, as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as it's not a genuine debate .

Goberto Angela , 2 days ago

Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof. Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.

lxathos , 2 days ago

hehe.........

paganmaestro , 2 days ago

Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.

Act1veSp1n , 2 days ago

Luke uses CIA operation, opposition Navalny as a legitimate source....facepalm.

Bobby Cesspool , 2 days ago

His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire, they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.

Act1veSp1n , 2 days ago

Russian KGB sent me here :)

Bobby Cesspool , 2 days ago

Well done.

Robert Kettering , 2 days ago

Dem Party media collusion.

roman brandle , 2 days ago

It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question . This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how dare you not believe me .

sheezle3 , 3 days ago

Good job, Aaron, thanks

S.E.L. 25 , 3 days ago (edited)

Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on truckin'...

madrussian1000 , 3 days ago

Great job,Aaron! What a sleazeball this Luke character is, jee wiz!

Andre De Angelis , 3 days ago

How did this clown manage to actually write a whole book based on zero evidence?

Kokoro Wish , 3 days ago (edited)

Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are being led to believe.

Joanne Leon , 3 days ago

This is how every Russiagate interview should be conducted! Bravo.

Clint Warren , 3 days ago

This is painful to watch.

Joe shawn , 3 days ago

His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA) if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during the campaign.

Dave Klebt , 3 days ago

or it could just be a business trip to attract a successful real estate developer to invest in their country.

DanEMO592 , 3 days ago

This needs way more views. This is amazing

dylan , 3 days ago (edited)

Aaron did such a stellar job reigning this man's charade in 10:55

Thomastine , 3 days ago

"Uh, yes yes, I understand that, but let me dither on a bit more, offering non-evidence and avoiding your questions."

g00nther , 3 days ago

What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom feeders.

Martin Jančar , 3 days ago

i am thinking about writing a book about that collusion :-D doesn't seem much of an effort :-D what a BS :-)

0tube0user , 3 days ago

Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction. The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist. The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.

Denver Attaway , 3 days ago (edited)

Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media softball.

Ilfart 218 , 3 days ago

Yeah don't trust evidence. Listen to "people" they'll tell ya something shifty is going on. This damn fool is all too common.

Zina J , 3 days ago

It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016 election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for decades.

Sendan , 3 days ago

It was funny how the color of his face steadily changes:) OH NET NET did I put a smile face

MrDiogenes OfElmhurst , 3 days ago (edited)

Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that? Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the only thing that matters.

Steve Ennever , 3 days ago

Bravo Aaron. Bravo.

artcenterjo , 3 days ago

good on you Aaron Mate!

Frodo Ring , 3 days ago (edited)

Why he loses volume in the most critical parts of the video. He says """:the level of russians at the moment @#$%@#&$%@%#^$$&@^#""""" at minute 8:05

Hagbard Celine , 3 days ago

really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.

TheRedsRus , 3 days ago

@14.44 he talks about steele and trusted http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-24/wife-fusion-gps-founder-admits-her-husband-was-behind-fake-russiagate-story

Leo Jansen , 3 days ago

Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him whatsover!

TheJagjr4450 , 3 days ago

ONE SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE... is all we ask... ONE POSITIVE PIECE.

TheJagjr4450 , 3 days ago (edited)

HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE!

TheJagjr4450 , 3 days ago (edited)

**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter" (used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the Russian Lawyer into the country.

Tony Smith , 3 days ago

Guardian have always been estb. Clinton spent $10mn on opponent research w Russian collusion

hohaia rangi , 3 days ago

As soon as he started talking about Russian hacking of DNC he lost credibility. That claim has never been proven.

HighFieldLux , 3 days ago

10:30 "I'm a storyteller." Welp.

[Dec 28, 2017] Aaron interview is a case study of how to deal with the author of a shitty book

Notable quotes:
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Lear King of Albion , 3 days ago (edited)

This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing. After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron, except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer had patience.

freydenker , 3 days ago

Best joke: "I am not a storyteller" at around 10.00 : ]]]

Timothy Musson , 3 days ago (edited)

Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like, but you did it politely.

Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.

Jason Parker , 3 days ago

Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!

Michael Leone , 3 days ago

I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. He probably shouldn't use it methinks...

proudhon100 , 3 days ago

Now Jill Stein is being caught up in the witch hunt. Everyone's to blame for the election loss . . . except Hillary!

Ross Kolaric , 3 days ago

Just rubbish. Name the book collusion and sell lots of copies. Come on, get real.

Microsoft Word Technical Support , 3 days ago

You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into.

omlezna , 3 days ago

Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview. Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!

earthie48 Johnson , 4 days ago

Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic Party!

Citizens.Against.Corruption USA , 4 days ago

Hillary Clinton...COLLUSION!

tink2090 , 4 days ago

Having watched this interview, I feel the need to write the phrase: 'what a nutter.'

ValhalaFiveSix , 4 days ago

This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has.

MsTree1 , 4 days ago

This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews

Swinglow Alabama , 4 days ago

Remember some Tony Blair. Loud and big mouth and a big nought in the end.

Antman4656 , 4 days ago (edited)

LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings. So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.

Laura Cortez , 4 days ago

So basically he is saying that we should believe that Russia hacked elections in USA, France and Germany just because Putin is Baaaaad. 

drumsnbass , 4 days ago

I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night.

uche007us , 4 days ago

This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her

tdr , 4 days ago

Good God I couldn't watch this silly yellow teeth Brit imperialist from the first few seconds. His accent is insufferable.

L G , 4 days ago

That's quite a title for a book that contains no evidence!

Laura Cortez , 4 days ago

Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate

Jared Greathouse , 4 days ago

One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't happen to be much of a threat externally

Darwin Holmstrom , 4 days ago

Someone's trying to sell a book by giving it a hyperbolic title .

Jraymiami , 4 days ago

Omg these so called "journalists" opportunists are everywhere!!! Bravo Aaron Mate!

Canuck516 , 4 days ago

I guess to be hired by the Guardian, "opportunism" is a must-have!

DootDoot , 4 days ago

27:13 Sums up the entire book... And where the Author got his factless opinion.... How can a writer have such a clear comprehension problem?

Alan Mclemore , 4 days ago

Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.

But Clinton is a front for the neocon wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face, would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs even more.

Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon" hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its planes.

And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into power.

Dan Harris , 4 days ago

The interviewer totally owned that asshole. Awesome journalistic interview.

R Speechley , 4 days ago

Harding is a joke, he just talks nonsense

Alan Mclemore , 4 days ago

Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?

ZantherY , 4 days ago

It sounds as if someone has a book to flog! He should had stuck to CNN or Democracy Now, reporters there aren't likely to ASK anything intelligent!!

Joy Wilder , 4 days ago

How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention??

mic mccoy , 4 days ago

Luke Harding got his ass handed to him!!!!!!! Can't believe his book is a best seller as it states nothing provable.

mic mccoy , 4 days ago

This guy Luke Harding calls himself a journalist???? He is trying to sell a book based on no evidence.

mic mccoy , 4 days ago

This guy Luke Harding is a puppet of Main-Stream Media. What a joke!!!!!!

scheminsiman , 4 days ago

Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.

marsmotion , 4 days ago

the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.

Rick O'Brien , 4 days ago

Wow imagine governments having people killed. Outrageous! Can you say drone strikes? This guy Harding in not a serious person. Good job Aaron!

0 1 , 4 days ago (edited)

Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish watching this. Good job Aaron.

hypo krites , 4 days ago (edited)

Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the position.

This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.

The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding people accountable.

smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.

old fan , 4 days ago

This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?

ameighable , 4 days ago

I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up. It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories. There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to prison finally.

Marko Kraguljac , 4 days ago (edited)

Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his.

rvaclavek , 4 days ago (edited)

If you live in the empirical world, you just believe the hearsay of the elites. DNC and Podesta hacks were empirically done with an external drive.

fahrout4 , 4 days ago

So, the Russians are running around the globe hacking elections?

Meta Vinci , 4 days ago

Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ, State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet. Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.

Lenore Olmstead , 4 days ago

So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.

Scott Turner , 4 days ago

That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point to any evidence."

doubtingmantis , 4 days ago

Luke's book is speculation. Thanks Aaron for holding his feet to the fire.

Colonel Chuck , 4 days ago

1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2 parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of unemployeed young draftees.

CryinFester , 4 days ago (edited)

Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?

[Dec 28, 2017] Harding is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters in MSM A real bottom feeder

Notable quotes:
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Sini Koncar , 4 days ago

How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job Aaron!

RVGODZILLA , 4 days ago (edited)

That was the best interview I've watched in awhile about this trumprussia stuff // Aaron mate you did a stellar fckn job bro! Cheers!

MI55ION , 4 days ago

Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the Democratic party insiders.

eglaham , 4 days ago

Thanks for keeping this joker honest, Aaron!

Peace Beuponyou , 4 days ago

Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace.

M V , 4 days ago

Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always appreciated by your loyal viewers.

Sergio Rico , 4 days ago

Good job Aaron for doing actual journalism and not simply taking statements with no evidence for granted

beelovedfuzz , 4 days ago

I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing anything new or any actual proof.

manti core , 4 days ago

That is just a brilliant destruction of the Russia hysteria. Harding just fell apart. Well done!

magicpony9 , 3 days ago (edited)

Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"

Luke O'Brien , 4 days ago (edited)

I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision. Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in, little more. Good job, Aaron.

tom robbins , 4 days ago

Storyteller told on himself

rollofnickles , 4 days ago

Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3] is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30 years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ

Niding , 4 days ago

Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con journalists.

Marta K. , 4 days ago

I just ❤️ that look on Aaron's face at 11:47 ! Like "dude, you can't be serious... are you serious?"

Kristen Saunders , 3 days ago

Great interview! Awesome push back with facts! This should be done EVERYTIME!

Cartoonishly Inept , 4 days ago

So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30 "I'm a story teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.

441rider , 4 days ago

Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)

MI55ION , 4 days ago

Shit just got real... one of the finest interviews I've seen in a while. Bravo Aaron, bravo! ));

frosty buckets , 4 days ago

This is why I watch real news network. They are willing to debate the issues

Michael Maxfield , 4 days ago

Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist" challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world would be in a lot better shape.

Richard Gere , 4 days ago

Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased journalism seems very rare these days

Paul Randall , 4 days ago

Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.

And I wouldn't be surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue (like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow 'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random, laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT, Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.

And there is NO REAL EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy! mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always evil Reds... errr, Russians.

Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror, especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)

Baal Baphomet , 4 days ago

this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better - Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to Journo school .

Michael , 4 days ago

What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.

Lissen Tome , 4 days ago

I'm not even a trump fan and dude there is no collusion this guy's a shill

Noss Cern , 4 days ago

I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want to get into Russia and start doing deals.

They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.

I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.

arcanaco , 4 days ago (edited)

Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :))

Paddy Flaco , 3 days ago

A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.

miclewis55 , 4 days ago (edited)

Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence perfectly.

Anticapitalist X , 4 days ago

Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.

John Mina , 4 days ago

Well done Aaron. This guy is a liar, plain and simple.

[Dec 28, 2017] The Harding book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons

Dec 28, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Amazon Customer , November 29, 2017

If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here. That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on" types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged scandal.

Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.

Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate) has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political slant.

This book provides no insight into Donald Trump himself. If you want to learn something about how Trump's mind works, try Scott Adams' excellent book, Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter .

Good source of confirmation bias, bad source of new information

azon.com/gp/customer-reviews/ROHSECZT4AORE/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0525562516">

By Amazon Customer on December 16, 2017
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!

I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!

[Dec 28, 2017] The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel interview with plagiarist Luke Harding

Notable quotes:
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Thominus , Dec 27, 2017 2:52:00 AM | 81

@Ike , Dec 27, 2017 3:39:17 AM | 82

The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819 It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill, noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real News.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1731&v=9Ikf1uZli4g

The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.

[Dec 28, 2017] The Mueller investigation will delay and stall closing the investigation until the 2018 Congressional Elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be won and Nunes removed

Notable quotes:
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Sid2 , Dec 26, 2017 12:58:36 PM | 12

I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.

Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.

http://theduran.com/fbi-russiagate-strategy-stonewall-congressional-elections/

Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.

I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.

[Dec 28, 2017] Jill Stein the first victim of the political Witch-hunt that has started by the exposed McCarthyism in America

Dec 28, 2017 | bit.ly

Posted by: nhs | Dec 26, 2017 12:20:37 PM | 5

[Dec 28, 2017] The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering

Notable quotes:
"... With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government ..."
"... The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert). ..."
"... That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia. ..."
Dec 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Allen , Dec 26, 2017 3:52:34 PM | 34

The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering. Put aside all the obvious items such as, zero evidence, US elections are already rigged by the US elites before a single vote is cast, the US has been tampering in just about every countries elections for decades overtly and covertly- and just consider the more recent attempt BY THE US to tamper in Russian elections through the ever-handy NED.

With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government

The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert).

That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia.

But yes, of course, let's Call it Democracy and have some pretend outrage in the US Propaganda Sector where the US Chattering Classes are aghast that Russia won't allow the NED to interfere in it's elections.

[Dec 27, 2017] Bannon Puts Jared Through the Grinder

Notable quotes:
"... After scorning the Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss. And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into the grinder, Bannon turned the crank. ..."
"... "[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity level." ..."
"... Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. ..."
"... Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached. ..."
"... There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded. Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats." ..."
"... Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.) ..."
"... Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail . This week Christie said that Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder, cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation. ..."
"... President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin blamed the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate." According to CNN , Trump took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it." ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | www.politico.com

Former Trump chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon milled his former Oval Office colleague Jared Kushner into a bloody chunk of battle sausage this week and smeared him across the shiny pages of Vanity Fair . You've got to read Bannon's quote three or four times to fully savor the tang of its malice and cruelty. After scorning the Russia collusion theories as fiction, Bannon acknowledged the grisly reality that the Russia investigation poses for his former boss. And he blamed it all on Kushner, for having created the appearance that Putin had helped Trump. Dropping Kushner head first into the grinder, Bannon turned the crank.

"[Kushner was] taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff. This tells you everything about Jared," Bannon told the magazine's Gabriel Sherman. "They were looking for the picture of Hillary Clinton taking the bag of cash from Putin. That's his maturity level."

Informing Vanity Fair that Kushner's hunt for political smut led him to over-fraternize with the Russians might not be the best way for Bannon to throw special counsel Robert S. Mueller III off the collusion scent. So what was the big man in the Barbour coat up to?

That Bannon and Kushner skirmished during their time together in the White House has been long established. Kushner advocated the sacking FBI Director James B. Comey, for example, and Bannon opposed it. He later told 60 Minutes that the firing was maybe the worst mistake in "modern political history" because it precipitated the hiring of the special counsel and had thereby expanded the investigation.

Sherman's piece reveals the cognitive split that evolved between Bannon and others, specifically Trump, on how to handle the mess that had been created. "Goldman Sachs teaches one thing: don't invent shit. Take something that works and make it better," Bannon told Sherman. He said he consulted with Bill Clinton's former lawyer Lanny Davis about how the Clintons responded to Ken Starr's probe. "We were so disciplined. You guys don't have that," Bannon recalls Davis advising him. "That always haunted me when he said that," Bannon told Sherman. Bannon said the investigation was an attempt by the establishment to undo the election, but he took it seriously and warned Trump he was in danger of being impeached.

Bannon's gripe against Kushner in Vanity Fair continues: He claims that Donald Trump's disparaging tweets about Attorney General Jeff Sessions were designed to provide "cover" for Kushner by steering negative media attention toward Sessions and away from Kushner as he was scheduled to testify before a Senate committee.

There's even more hot Bannon on Kushner action. Bannon tells of an Oval Office meeting he attended with Trump, Kushner and Kushner's wife Ivanka Trump in which he called Ivanka "the queen of leaks." "You're a fucking liar!" Ivanka allegedly responded. Hard to know how to score this round, but shattering the public image of Ivanka as poised princess must have been satisfying for a guy who called Javanka "the Democrats."

Getting mauled by Steve Bannon might not be the worst thing to happen to the president's son-in-law this week. He and Ivanka were sued by a private attorney for failing to disclose assets from 30 investment funds on their federal financial disclosure forms. Perhaps more ominous for Kushner, and according to the New York Times , federal prosecutors in Brooklyn have subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records about Kushner's family's real estate business. "There is no indication that the subpoena is related to the investigation being conducted by Robert S. Mueller III," the Times allowed. Yeah, but wouldn't you want to be there when Mueller's team invites Bannon in to talk to him about the Vanity Fair article, and they ask him, "What did you mean about Jared taking meetings with Russians to get additional stuff? Like, what stuff?"

Although "people close to Kushner, who decline to be named" told the Times they don't think the Mueller investigation exposes him to legal jeopardy, the young prince isn't taking chances. The Washington Post reports that his lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has been shopping for a "crisis public relations firm" over the past two weeks. (Senator Robert Menendez, the recent beneficiary of a deadlocked corruption trial, is another Lowell client.)

Why hire super flacks now? Does Kushner sense disaster? Another Bannon offensive? The Flynn plea bargain exposed him -- according to the press -- as the "very senior member" of the Trump transition team described in court documents who told former national security adviser Michael Flynn to lobby the Russian ambassador about a U.N. resolution on Israeli settlements. Maybe he's just buying reputation insurance. Or maybe he's taken to heart Chris Christie's scathing comments. Christie was squeezed out of the Trump transition early on, some say by Kushner who is said to hold a grudge against Christie who, when he was federal prosecutor, put Kushner's father in jail . This week Christie said that Kushner "deserves the scrutiny" he's been getting. It was almost as if Christie and Bannon were operating a twin-handled grinder, cranking out an extra helping of Kushner's tainted reputation.

President Putin and President Trump occupied the same page about the scandal this week in what was either a matter of collusion or of great minds thinking alike. Speaking at a four-hour media event in Moscow, Putin blamed the scandal on the U.S. "deep state" and said, "This is all made up by people who oppose Trump to make his work look illegitimate." According to CNN , Trump took the opportunity this week to call the Russia investigation "bullshit" in private. In public, he told reporters, "There's absolutely no collusion. I didn't make a phone call to Russia. I have nothing to do with Russia. Everybody knows it."

Everybody, perhaps, except former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Appearing on CNN , Clapper used direct language to bind former KGB officer Putin to Trump tighter than a girdle to a paunch. "[Putin] knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said. "I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president."

Writing in Newsweek , Jeff Stein collected other tell-tale signs of Trump's cooptation: He refused to take Russian meddling in the election seriously. He responds favorably to Putin's praise and seems to crave more. He dismisses worries about his circle's connections to Kremlin agents before the election and during the transition -- and he tried to call off the Flynn investigation.

It's enough to make you wonder why Bannon thinks Kushner is the enemy, not Trump.

******

If you've read this far, you're probably disappointed that more didn't happen in the Trump Tower scandal this week. Sue me in small claims court via email to [email protected] . My email alerts never believed in collusion, my Twitter feed is set to cut a plea deal with Mueller, and my RSS feed has several crisis PR firms on retainer.

[Dec 27, 2017] The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left.

Dec 27, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Christian Chuba , 26 December 2017 at 10:36 AM

A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.

The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN, their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine, call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea, maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist attack.

Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too (picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.

BTW this link shows the flight pattern of U.S. surveillance aircraft as they take off from Bulgaria and fliesl along the coast of Sevastopol http://russia-insider.com/en/us-keeps-loitering-coast-russian-naval-base-sevastopol-russia-adds-second-s-400-air-defense-battery

Lyttenburgh , 26 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who "threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is true.

If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national security threats" as Iran and DPRK.

Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here a sort of détente is possible.

D , 26 December 2017 at 07:23 PM
@EE

"Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the rubes."

Exactly. And that condition seems to appertain to the formation of most domestic and foreign policies emanating from Washington these day. That's what you get in a country where folks like to gorge themselves on the swill of cable news and talk radio.

[Dec 27, 2017] Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt

Highly recommended!
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Rhett , Dec 26, 2017 2:18:30 PM | 20

I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.

Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian plan.

The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot. Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to end sanctions against Russia.

Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the world's favor in the long run.

Sid2 , Dec 26, 2017 3:17:40 PM | 27
@20

there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."

The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.

To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence. Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As with:

"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."

this is b's link in URL form here:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v40/n01/jackson-lears/what-we-dont-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-russian-hacking

Oriental Voice , Dec 26, 2017 3:56:16 PM | 35
@20:

I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and the ME. Credit to b.

On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than a witch hunt.

But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future.

USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.

[Dec 27, 2017] Russia hacked the election. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. Like a misstatement in Flynn s case

Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming "Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | moonofalabama.org

Ghost Ship | Dec 27, 2017 10:38:32 AM | 93

>>>> Sid2 | Dec 26, 2017 12:58:36 PM | 12

Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.

Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.

Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.

Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece" of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.

There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.

As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are doing so.

There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.

Red Ryder , Dec 27, 2017 12:29:58 PM | 102

@93, Ghost Ship, "Flynn clear did lie . . . "

What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's business.

Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:

It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.

Ghost Ship , Dec 27, 2017 1:01:00 PM | 106

>>>> Red Ryder | Dec 27, 2017 12:29:58 PM | 102

So why did Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI? If he was that accustomed to/experienced in lying he would have known what to do. Such as:

  1. Knowing that with the FBI involved you don't lie but that doesn't mean you have to help them;
  2. Making sure he had a criminal lawyer with him before answering any question;
  3. Pleading the fifth amendment.

[Dec 27, 2017] Trump's election was a chance for people to vent their anger and in this sense essential for the Neoliberal Establishment to blow off the steam

Notable quotes:
"... My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page. ..."
"... It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent." ..."
"... There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.) ..."
"... Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change. ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Bro Methylene , December 27, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT

In the "mainstream media" Mueller is always pictured as deep-thinking and contemplative. In fact he is a foaming-at-the-mouth, scheming, power-hungry, unscrupulous Boris Karloff lookalike who has been secretly working on the Clintons' behalf most of his adult life.

I hope this era of public credulity and secret government wickedness is coming to a close. But too many Americans still rely on TV for information. It is indeed tragic. One can only hope people aren't as stupid in other parts of the world.

anonymous , Disclaimer December 27, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

See my #5, above.

My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page.

It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent."

Flitcraft , December 27, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
Dear Sir,
How do explain Comey's second statement to congress two weeks before election then. I believe you but it doesn't fit.?
anonymous , Disclaimer December 27, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Flitcraft

There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.)

Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change.

Ludwig Watzal , Website December 27, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT
Mr. Buchanan demonstrated convincingly that a liberal war-prone conspiracy is going on against President Trump. Nobody understands why Trump hasn't drained the FBI swamp of the Obama and Clinton mafia. The whole Mueller so-called investigation into nothing sucks out loud. Mueller is not an honest man like the liberals claim. He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up. That's why Mueller could serve under Bush and Obama. He belongs to the crooked and criminal DC political establishment. The FBI is nothing than a criminal organization serving the corrupt power elite. I do feel bad for the ordinary FBI agents who face the music and to take the blame for their superior thugs. The crooked US political elites should stop teaching other peoples a lesson in democracy or ethical behavior. It makes me wanna puke.
George Weinbaum , December 27, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT
What bunk! The "investigation" has always been intended to remove Trump from office. There is nothing the FBI or DOJ could say to me I would believe concerning the results of the "investigation". The FBI has become Beria's NKVD. As Beria said, "You show me the man and I'll show you the crime". What do you think is going on here?

"Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?", you ask. Where have you been for 11 months?
Comey's "preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing", you write. What preemption? I am sure Obama himself told Comey to say that Hillary should not be indicted!

Wally , Website December 27, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT
@Rich

He is at least doing some "straying'.

Under Trump's new tax plan, those from leftist, very high tax states will no longer be able to get the previous federal tax break because of their high state tax.

Leftists wanted a neo-Marxist state, OK, they will now have to pay for all of it.

bluedog , December 27, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT
Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states so the welfare states will still continue to be a drain on the economy
Svigor , December 27, 2017 at 10:18 pm GMT

This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. The only thing I would take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be forthcoming.

This does seem likely, but it's not writ in stone.

Rather obvious Steele made it all up.

That, too. *Meets with Russian contact, holds out dossier* "Here, hand me this, so I can honestly say I got it from you."

He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up.

He got the job like a week before 9/11, but yeah, he did cover up the gov't's bumbling. 100% swamp creature.

Trump needs to find a real cop inside the FBI, one without a law degree, and put him in charge.

Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states, because negroes and mestizos, Democrat constituencies, so the negroes and mestizos in welfare states will continue to be a drain on the economy

FIFY.

[Dec 27, 2017] The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left.

Dec 27, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Christian Chuba , 26 December 2017 at 10:36 AM

A comment on Trump's national security doctrine, I read it as 'U.S. uber alles'.

The remarkable thing is to see the complete disappearance of the anti-war left. On CNN, their reaction was, Trump is talking the talk but not walking the walk. They were miffed that he had a polite phone conversation with Putin. It's not enough to send weapons to Ukraine, call the Russians and Chinese revisionist powers, have aggressive air patrols near Crimea, maintain sanctions in perpetuity, have a massive increase in Defense spending, and expand NATO, you have to be rude to Putin on every possible occasion, perhaps even allow a terrorist attack.

Some see this as a big fake out to satisfy the Neocons, he's got me eating grass too (picture Defensive End missing a Running Back in a football game). I guess we just have to wait to see what the next 3yrs bring.

BTW this link shows the flight pattern of U.S. surveillance aircraft as they take off from Bulgaria and fliesl along the coast of Sevastopol http://russia-insider.com/en/us-keeps-loitering-coast-russian-naval-base-sevastopol-russia-adds-second-s-400-air-defense-battery

Lyttenburgh , 26 December 2017 at 06:16 PM
On the new National Security Doctrine – excellent! The US does not mince words and states clearly, that both China and Russia are "resurgent" and "revisionist powers", who "threaten the world order". The US dominated unipolar world order that's it. Which, again, is true.

If Obama/Clinton had their way, Russia will be listed among the "threats to the national security" such as ISIL, Ebola and DPRK. Well – who remembers about Ebola's outbreak and ISIL is losing its memeticness by hour. The esteemed members of the establishment (the legislative branch) also would have liked to see Russia among such "top priority national security threats" as Iran and DPRK.

Instead we, Russia, are in China's company. Not bad, not bad at all. Cuz the US can't negotiate with Iran, North Korea and ISIL without losing a face. With China – now, here a sort of détente is possible.

D , 26 December 2017 at 07:23 PM
@EE

"Apparently they've collectively forgotten that it all started out as a con for the rubes."

Exactly. And that condition seems to appertain to the formation of most domestic and foreign policies emanating from Washington these day. That's what you get in a country where folks like to gorge themselves on the swill of cable news and talk radio.

[Dec 27, 2017] Trump's election was a chance for people to vent thier anger and in sense essentail for the Neoliberal Establishment to blow off the steam. In this sense the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump might eventually backfire

Notable quotes:
"... My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page. ..."
"... It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent." ..."
"... There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.) ..."
"... Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change. ..."
Dec 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Bro Methylene , December 27, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT

In the "mainstream media" Mueller is always pictured as deep-thinking and contemplative. In fact he is a foaming-at-the-mouth, scheming, power-hungry, unscrupulous Boris Karloff lookalike who has been secretly working on the Clintons' behalf most of his adult life.

I hope this era of public credulity and secret government wickedness is coming to a close. But too many Americans still rely on TV for information. It is indeed tragic. One can only hope people aren't as stupid in other parts of the world.

anonymous , Disclaimer December 27, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

See my #5, above.

My hypothesis is that pundits like Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Napolitano are still provided with mainstream platforms because they are willing to weave Russia into the scandal. Even a site among the dozen linked by our courageous publisher – "Who What Why" – is pumping "RussiaGate" with an ongoing chain of infoturds accessible at the foot of every page.

It's fast becoming a loyalty oath that one must take in order to be eligible for the privilege of public discourse, unless a publisher (e.g., RT) is willing to register as a "Kremlin agent."

Flitcraft , December 27, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
Dear Sir,
How do explain Comey's second statement to congress two weeks before election then. I believe you but it doesn't fit.?
anonymous , Disclaimer December 27, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT
@Flitcraft

There are some who see Mr. Trump's election as a chance for people to vent, and thus needful to the Establishment. (Linh Dinh, one of the best writers published here, called it well in advance.)

Of course, as with the fraudster Obama, very little of fundamental importance to those that own "our" government will change.

Ludwig Watzal , Website December 27, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT
Mr. Buchanan demonstrated convincingly that a liberal war-prone conspiracy is going on against President Trump. Nobody understands why Trump hasn't drained the FBI swamp of the Obama and Clinton mafia. The whole Mueller so-called investigation into nothing sucks out loud. Mueller is not an honest man like the liberals claim. He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up. That's why Mueller could serve under Bush and Obama. He belongs to the crooked and criminal DC political establishment. The FBI is nothing than a criminal organization serving the corrupt power elite. I do feel bad for the ordinary FBI agents who face the music and to take the blame for their superior thugs. The crooked US political elites should stop teaching other peoples a lesson in democracy or ethical behavior. It makes me wanna puke.
George Weinbaum , December 27, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT
What bunk! The "investigation" has always been intended to remove Trump from office. There is nothing the FBI or DOJ could say to me I would believe concerning the results of the "investigation". The FBI has become Beria's NKVD. As Beria said, "You show me the man and I'll show you the crime". What do you think is going on here?

"Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?", you ask. Where have you been for 11 months?
Comey's "preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing", you write. What preemption? I am sure Obama himself told Comey to say that Hillary should not be indicted!

Wally , Website December 27, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT
@Rich

He is at least doing some "straying'.

Under Trump's new tax plan, those from leftist, very high tax states will no longer be able to get the previous federal tax break because of their high state tax.

Leftists wanted a neo-Marxist state, OK, they will now have to pay for all of it.

bluedog , December 27, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT
Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states so the welfare states will still continue to be a drain on the economy
Svigor , December 27, 2017 at 10:18 pm GMT

This connects the dots in a reasonable fashion on most of the major issues brought out by what this is: the Clinton crowd/deep state effort to "get" Trump. The only thing I would take exception with is to call the phony allegations of the GPS Steele dossier to be "Kremlin" based. They might have talked to Russians, but they were not acting on behalf of the Putin government when they talked. These individuals were doing no more than telling the Clinton researchers what they thought they would want to hear so that generous payments would be forthcoming.

This does seem likely, but it's not writ in stone.

Rather obvious Steele made it all up.

That, too. *Meets with Russian contact, holds out dossier* "Here, hand me this, so I can honestly say I got it from you."

He was in charge when 9/11 happened, and he covered it up.

He got the job like a week before 9/11, but yeah, he did cover up the gov't's bumbling. 100% swamp creature.

Trump needs to find a real cop inside the FBI, one without a law degree, and put him in charge.

Perhaps not but we will still have to subsidize the poor red states, because negroes and mestizos, Democrat constituencies, so the negroes and mestizos in welfare states will continue to be a drain on the economy

FIFY.

[Dec 26, 2017] Trump administration accelerates a new arm race

Notable quotes:
"... "The prospect of maintaining global and regional stability has been considerably reduced as a result of deployment of elements of U.S. missile defense in Europe, the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East, as well as of practical implementation of the "global strike" concept and the deployment of strategic non-nuclear high-precision weapons, and also in the event of deployment of weapons in space." ..."
"... Now the United States shares the same concerns as Russia. This might be good news or bad news, depending on political decisions. ..."
"... The potential bad news is an arms race. If the two countries are unable to launch a dialogue, then the United States might seek to respond in kind. A hint at that option is contained in the NSS's requirement for creating an "overmatch" -- a force that is "capable of operating at sufficient scale and for ample duration to win across a range of scenarios." More troubling is the requirement that the future force must be able to "convince adversaries that we can and will defeat them -- not just punish them." This sounds like a prescription for an arms race -- a pursuit of superiority that some in the United States consistently sought (and equally consistently failed to achieve) during the Cold War. ..."
Dec 26, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

Extracted from The Russification of U.S. Deterrence Policy The National Interest

What is truly conspicuous, the language of the NSS closely matches relevant language in the latest Russian National Security Strategy (article 15):

"The prospect of maintaining global and regional stability has been considerably reduced as a result of deployment of elements of U.S. missile defense in Europe, the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East, as well as of practical implementation of the "global strike" concept and the deployment of strategic non-nuclear high-precision weapons, and also in the event of deployment of weapons in space."

Indeed, the United States' strategic conventional capability has been a nightmare for Russian military planners since at least 1999, when it was employed in the Balkans. The initial Russian response was to increase reliance on nuclear weapons, which were assigned a mission of limited nuclear strike in response to a large-scale conventional attack. Moscow stated, however, that this was a temporary fix and that reliance on nuclear weapons would again decrease when it acquired a conventional strategic capability. Last month, Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the general staff of the Russian Armed Forces, confirmed that Moscow planned to reassign some deterrence missions from nuclear to conventional assets at an undefined future time.

Now the United States shares the same concerns as Russia. This might be good news or bad news, depending on political decisions.

The potential good news is that being on the same page makes arms-control dialogue easier. For many years, the United States refused to discuss strategic conventional weapons at arms-control talks while Russia relied on the comfort of preserving a monopoly on these assets. That this position is outdated and counterproductive for U.S. interests became clear at least in 2013, if not earlier -- at least for the handful of analysts who took Russian intentions seriously. Washington seems to be catching up with reality, which helps establish a common agenda as well as opening prospects for an effort to regulate such weapons. Perhaps we can then stabilize the strategic landscape sufficiently to prevent not only nuclear war, but also a large-scale conventional conflict that might escalate to nuclear clashes.

The potential bad news is an arms race. If the two countries are unable to launch a dialogue, then the United States might seek to respond in kind. A hint at that option is contained in the NSS's requirement for creating an "overmatch" -- a force that is "capable of operating at sufficient scale and for ample duration to win across a range of scenarios." More troubling is the requirement that the future force must be able to "convince adversaries that we can and will defeat them -- not just punish them." This sounds like a prescription for an arms race -- a pursuit of superiority that some in the United States consistently sought (and equally consistently failed to achieve) during the Cold War.

Dr. Nikolai Sokov is a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

Nick • 7 hours ago

America can ill afford another "Arms race", to put it simply we're in debt up to our eyeballs. However there's many in DC who yearn for a new "cold war" but more specifically the "arms race" that would come with it, just the same.

[Dec 26, 2017] Are sanctions pushing Russians to rally around the flag Not exactly

Notable quotes:
"... There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it. ..."
"... The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass. ..."
"... The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine ..."
"... Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus. ..."
"... For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France. ..."
"... Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further. ..."
Dec 26, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

AMR56 6/18/2017 10:52 AM EDT

There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it.

The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass.

The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine.

The first round of sanctions has obviously failed to have its effect. That's why the US Senate is now attempting a new, harsher round of sanctions in an effort to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate. ... more See More Like Share

MyFreeAdvice 6/16/2017 9:08 AM EDT
The new sanctions on Russia is all about giving an advantage to US LNG producers. First shipment of LNG to Poland from US, ever, was done just last week. It is all a game for the benefit of the big business while emotionally victimizing the common person in the US.
Alex Bes 6/16/2017 7:31 AM EDT [Edited]
Timoty Frai made a lot of research and did a lot of conclusions. Unfortunately he did not understand the only fact: we Russians has a little bit different mentality. Sanctions could not make us gave up if we believe that we are on a right side )))

For example: Imagine if someone say to you: "If you will not let me hurt your baby I will reject you as a customer!" Will you let him hurt your baby??? Most of the Russians won't!

Christopher Perrien 6/15/2017 9:06 AM EDT [Edited]
Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus.

For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France.

Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further.

Manuel Angst 6/15/2017 9:49 AM EDT
"... punish Russia for being Syria's friend"

Propping up the biggest butcher of Syrian people is hardly "being Syria's friend".

... more See More Like Nedlog and Manuel Angst 2

Revealer 6/15/2017 6:42 PM EDT
Must I remind you that many thousands of Americans living in both Southern and Northern states of American considered Abraham Lincoln a butcher of American people and a tyrant doing the U.S. civil war. In fact he outraged so many who thought of him that way he was assassinated because of a belief that he was a tyrant and a butcher of American people. Many people at the time remembered Gen. Sherman's military march through the South that burned everything in sight and believe it or not killed many civilians. Be careful who you call a butcher. ... more See More Like
Don Brook 6/15/2017 8:47 AM EDT
Putin's disciple Trump may well decide to invade some small country as a way of shoring up his own declining approval. ... more See More Like Share
Tebteb27 6/15/2017 8:54 AM EDT
You are a type locality example of the slow digression into destructive ignorance that we currently face as a nation. God help us. ... more See More Like
Ed Chen 6/15/2017 9:10 AM EDT
That is the best vision of how the leftist (the same word "liberal") propaganda screw the minds of the people like Don Brook, to bring this nation to a dangerous situation of clash with each other over nothing, but the pain could be great. Are sanctions pushing Russians to 'rally around the flag'? Not exactly. - The Washington Post
Bob Twou 6/15/2017 8:37 AM EDT
The sanctions have strengthen Russia's domestic economy and has turn the corner
despite low energy prices. Sanctions are never an effective tool for international relations, look at Cuba. lol
Russian are an educated people, they are not stupid which the Establishment media wants us to believe. Time to talk, isn't that what diplomacy is all about? ... more See More Like Share Erugo 1
altR 6/15/2017 8:58 AM EDT
You are also correct, sanctions are the biggest waste of time. They are only for the political elite to fake resolve

[Dec 26, 2017] A "color revolution" is under way in the United States by the Saker

This article and discussion now is almost one year old, but some people predicted that Trump will betray all his election promises with ease and will just try to survive color regulation against him and pander to Wall Street, Israel and neocons. Which is what he is currently doing. He proved to be far below the intellectual level required for a good president of such country as the USA. Blunders that he already did are inexcusable. May be this is age.
Notable quotes:
"... The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system. ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). ..."
"... It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. ..."
"... My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?) ..."
"... He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system. ..."
"... Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words. ..."
"... Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen. ..."
"... Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. ..."
"... A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest. ..."
Jan 28, 2017 | thesaker.is

The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.

... ... ...

It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word "быдло", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble").

It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods.

And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again in 2017.

J on January 28, 2017 · at 5:40 am UTC

Trump is part of neocon. If anything, trump is part of color revolution, not against it. I do not see his administration turn out well with his action so far. Trump is also a idiot. Any one pitch a fight with a neighbor like he is doing is not suit to deal with relation.

Talk about relation, check out internet video clips and see how much respect he give to his wife.

blue on January 28, 2017 · at 6:26 am UTC

My current opinion is that he is not neocon or part of color revolution, but he is not a champion of the people either. He is one of the competitors among the elite. (An anti-hero as Crosstalk recently characterized him?)

So who is there to champion the people and oppose the monstrous elite? Us -- just us. Each and all of us, and we need to get our acts together. If there is no 'great leader' then we have to lead ourselves: distributed leadership with collective intelligence and power.

J on January 28, 2017 · at 7:07 am UTC

He is pandering to neocons. He is result of people who fed up with the establishment. So he is result of revolution, maybe the first one of many to purge the system.

We need to make sure we take out garbage in every election, we will win in the end.

we can not only see things in one perspective. But it seems not something come naturally out side of east Asia.

J.L.Seagull on January 28, 2017 · at 8:26 am UTC

I don't understand why everything has to be either controlled opposition or controlled support.

Of course there is a color revolution in the US right now -- because all the sources of neoliberal fake-revolutionary ideology are right here. It's a poisonous ideology which really is popular with smug media elites, boosted by "nudges" from the deep state. It's just a lot of very corrupt, bad people. The ultimate, long-term objective of the deep state may not be readily apparent, but at a fairly serious medium-term level, their interests are precisely the same as what people like Michael Weiss, Dick Cheney, and Van Jones are making clear to us with their own words.

Similarly, Trump found his support base from Wall Street/Masters of the Universe as outlined by Pepe Escobar. Of course he doesn't represent "the people" because "the people," whether left or right, are no longer interested in grassroots political organization for their own interests. Wall Street can do that, because they have a source of money independent from the gov't. The only question now is who gets more slices of a shrinking pie, and how radical either side is willing to go in overriding America's broken democratic process to make it happen.

The readers of this website should cheer Trump's willingness to trample on the neoliberal narrative, but their own livelihoods will not be guaranteed by Trump or anyone else in power.

J on January 29, 2017 · at 4:52 am UTC

J.L.S

Had Clinton won, she could done much worse than Trump, and get away with public opinion. Neoliberal infrastructure would be live and well. So I am fully for get rid of her, and do not let Trump getting away with anything. So far, trump's actions are pity, until he cause some real war somewhere. I love to see MSM got taken down.

Sir Humphrey Appleby on January 28, 2017 · at 10:26 am UTC

Khrushchev says to Zhou Enlai, "The difference between the Soviet Union and China is that I rose to power from the peasant class, whereas you came from the privileged Mandarin class." Zhou replies, "True. But there is this similarity. Each of us is a traitor to his class."

I don't know if this is a true story, but Trump may end up obliged to betray his class like others have done in the past if we assume all rich people belong to the same class with homogeneous interests.

Anonymous on January 28, 2017 · at 1:32 pm UTC

A curious aspect of Trump and which "class" he belongs to: As a "kid from Queens" Donald Trump has always been an outsider to the Manhattan social elites. Even after he became far wealthier than they, even after his buildings transformed the New York City skyline he was never admitted into the club. He was only ever allowed in as a guest.

He isn't a member of "the elite" – other than the one of his own making. It's an odd thing but true.

[Dec 26, 2017] National Security Searches for a Strategy by Philip Giraldi

Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
Dec 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be true.

On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.

The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:

"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength, confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty, and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."

One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents, particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the economy.

The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."

A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities."

Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.

And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute.

So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States.

[Dec 25, 2017] The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
Dec 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017

While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.

By Dennis J Bernstein

In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal to block the resolution).

I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .

Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.

Richard Silverstein:

The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements. Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.

One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.

In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0.

But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.

This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for that.

This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption of US foreign policy by people like this.

Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's investigation.

Silverstein:

That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if it is not mentioned explicitly.

Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to Israel.

Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.

Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.

Silverstein:

Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.

Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be problematic?

Silverstein:

It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.

We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.

My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the interests of the Palestinians.

Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears to be part of an ethnic cleansing.

Silverstein:

The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until now.

The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself. But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and acceptable as a mediator.

When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it, with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions there.

Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli government to try to intercede at the United Nations.

Silverstein:

I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.

Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that regard and what are the implications?

Silverstein:

Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will pass easily.

The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be many more.

As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.

By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.

Dennis J Bernstein is a host of "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom . You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net .

Drew Hunkins , December 23, 2017 at 5:37 pm

As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:

1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras

I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a progressive in direction.

Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm

Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."

Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm

Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm

If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more illuminating.

SocraticGadfly , December 23, 2017 at 6:10 pm

That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.

SocraticGadfly , December 23, 2017 at 6:05 pm

While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.

In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.

Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm

Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.

JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am

It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.

The leaked emails showed the corruption plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.

Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm

The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not defined as an enemy.

Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm

The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.

I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they should.

Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am

@Annie

"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."

You and me both .

From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well

The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.

Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case is correct.

People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.

Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation tries to prove hopelessly

Herman , December 24, 2017 at 10:54 am

"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one.

Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm

The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype seems to apply it selectively.

mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm

You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).

There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.

But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.

Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban (Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.

alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm

So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.

Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short stayovers for them at some CIA black site?

So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.

Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm

He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.

JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm

This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.

1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.

2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.

3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.

4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for all.

Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn "Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into "Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.

War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness to victimize millions of people.
"War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror"
http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid sale of souls.

And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".

For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists.
"Let's talk about Russian influence"
http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/

mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm

Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that, and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.

mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm

Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.

Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm

There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.

Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm

A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in the US.

backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm

A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.

Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.

Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would they?

Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want that, would they?

Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm

I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus, Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry, this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.

JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am

It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings. Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.

Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am

I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe

Jeff Blankfort , December 24, 2017 at 12:18 am

Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand, one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.

He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of Crimea.

Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.

This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which, due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state visits there in the last year and a half.

Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at having to abstain.

Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am

The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.

argos , December 24, 2017 at 7:00 am

He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government

JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am

"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US"

We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g.
"Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital

This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly controlled by the Israelis.

alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am

"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "

Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.

"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto."

Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.

For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.

Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am

Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection.

Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.

Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am

I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

argos , December 24, 2017 at 6:57 am

The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.

Herman , December 24, 2017 at 10:47 am

What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine control of its borders.

With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.

Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?

As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.

Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm

As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.

The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm

Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm

FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story.

$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia, public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm

Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its (Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a "moron" for some seeming contradiction.

I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war.

Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US politics. Just sayin'.

I wish it were otherwise.

Taras 77 , December 24, 2017 at 6:35 pm

https://www.therussophile.org/virus-found-inside-dnc-server-is-linked-to-a-company-based-in-pakistan.html/

This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW

Good site, BTW.

Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm

I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/us/06leak.html?hp

In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.

Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm

Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .

P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm

Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence.

[Dec 25, 2017] Napoleon , karl 12, Germans twice , etc all tried... no success Yes. Correct. But they all tried.

Dec 25, 2017 | russia-insider.com

alexwest11 Why , December 23, 2017 11:29 AM

UK/USA's onslaught.

-----

UK ??/ is some kind of joke?

-----------
#usa

the time USA amass 5+ mln army on western flank i will start worry!!!!!!!

napoleon , karl 12, Germans twice , etc all tried... no success !!!!!!!!

Trauma2000 alexwest11 , December 23, 2017 3:20 PM

re: "napoleon , karl 12, Germans twice , etc all tried... no success "

Yes. Correct. But they all 'tried.' One thing is for certain: You WILL get a HORRIFIC fight when you try and invade Russia. Just as sure as death and taxes, the sun will rise in the east and set in the west, you WILL get a fight if you 'try' to invade Russia.

I read an article a few years ago about 'how stupid it was' to attack Russia, and that the 'window to militarily invade Russia had now closed' because of Russia's re-armament program.

Some general or politician was talking about how 'Russia has no military aspirations against its neighbours; and said this about 'the West' "Just make sure your sons and daughters are in the front line... "we'll even let them fire the first shot."

I thought it was funny at the time, but in hindsight it is quite chilling. If the West is so confident about attacking Russia, put your children in the front line and tell them it's okay to shoot. I wonder how many war-monger politicians would step up the challenge.

You can call me Al alexwest11 , December 23, 2017 1:27 PM

The UK is leading the European nations away from the US. A fine example was this vote about Jerusalem being Israel's capital.

This is a fact, if you do not believe me; just watch.

Kenyan Lad You can call me Al , December 23, 2017 2:03 PM

However the Best Performance was by Yankz colony Ukraine .... whose delegates left for a "leak or something else " when the Vote took place

You can call me Al Kenyan Lad , December 23, 2017 8:30 PM

Oh OK. Cheers.

BMWA1 Kenyan Lad , December 23, 2017 7:58 PM

Drunk

Kenyan Lad BMWA1 , December 24, 2017 2:50 AM

Probably ... but "timing" was spot on ....

IllyaK , December 23, 2017 2:06 PM

Some time ago I erroneously wrote that Putin would nationalize the Central Bank of Russia on January 1st, 2018. I hadn't taken into account the legal hurdle of amending the Russian constitution - Russia IS an Actual democracy after-all - which obviously cannot happen until after Putin is re-elected on March 18, 2018. A few months after that I expect the Rothschilds to be evicted.

Over the years both Russia and China - and probably most of the world outside of the 'indispensable nation's most degenerate self-loathing "allies" - have come to the realization that the US has NO gold whatsoever, and can be easily taken out economically with some patience and pre-planning.

IF the USA has "8,000 tons" of gold then why is it taking them 6-10 years to 're-repatriate' a few hundred tons of German gold? Or why did the US go to such great lengths to steal Ukraine's paltry 20-40 tons, or Libya's relatively infinitesimal reserves? Or why did 100 tons of the Canadian Bank of Nova Scotia's gold "disappear" from the deep hardened vaults of World Trade Center 2 on 9/11? Why are paper-backed gold ETFs even LEGAL to be traded??? Obviously they are only worth the PAPER they are printed on, no?

The answer is blindingly obvious: there is not a single fucking solitary ounce of gold left in Fort Knucklehead or the NY Rothschild Federal Reserve building's vaults,or why Fort Knox god reserves have not been audited in almost SIXTY YEARS.

I am confident in stating that I PERSONALLY own more physical gold than the US government. If you own a gold watch, a wedding ring, a fucking EAR RING, then you probably do as well. The US dollar is Fiat...why the fuck would their gold not be just as phony?

I think both Russia and China are VASTLY understating their gold reserves. I believe they have over 10,000 tons each, at a bare minimum. THAT, at least, has some circumstantial ring of truth, judging by events - ESPECIALLY the fact that the world's FED-run Central Banks have been suppressing the value of gold for Decades. Why would they do that if they actually HAD the gold they claim to have???

Tommy Jensen IllyaK , December 23, 2017 5:23 PM

PROTOCOL No. 22
1. I have endeavoured to depict with care the secret of our relations to the GOYIM and of financial operations. On this subject there remains still a little for me to add.
2. IN OUR HANDS IS THE GREATEST POWER OF OUR DAY - GOLD:
IN TWO DAYS WE CAN PROCURE FROM OUR STOREHOUSES ANY QUANTITY WE MAY PLEASE.

Trauma2000 IllyaK , December 23, 2017 3:09 PM

re: "I think both Russia and China are VASTLY understating their gold reserves. I believe they have over 10,000 tons each, at a bare minimum."

Agreed! Russia is a gold 'producer.' And for a while Russia was 'buying gold on the open market,' until 'they started buying their own.' I appreciate there are privatised companies and business that need to be taken into consideration in this equation, but on a macro level it is a bit counter intuitive. Would a business man willing pay the 'market rate' for a product they can 'produce themselves for cheaper?' It doesn't make sense. I think Russia has been understating their gold reserves for quite some time and this is part of 'flying under the radar' until someone tries to put the pressure on them.

I'd love to know more on this subject.

[Dec 25, 2017] Trump-Russia inquiry- Why attacks on Robert Mueller are mounting by Anthony Zurcher

The interests and sympathies of British government are clear form this peace:they are definitely afraid about reopening Clinton investigation. If British government was behind Steele dossier that was a very dirty job.
Notable quotes:
"... All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe. ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | www.bbc.com

In recent weeks, conservative commentators and politicians have begun arguing, with growing intensity, that Robert Mueller's investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia is the result of an intentional effort by biased investigators to undermine the Trump presidency.

There are a number of components to the case they are presenting, from doubts about the impartiality of Mr Mueller and his team to questions about the integrity of the FBI and the Obama-era Justice Department.

All of it could be setting the ground for new investigations into the FBI or Democrat Hillary Clinton's actions while secretary of state - something Mr Trump himself has suggested - or perhaps even for the president to order the end of Mr Mueller's probe.

Such an action would provoke a major political crisis and could have unpredictable consequences. For Mr Trump's defenders, it may be enough simply to mire Mr Mueller's investigation in a partisan morass. Here are some are some of the ways they're trying to do that.

Tell-tale texts?

Peter Strzok, a senior counter-intelligence agent in the FBI and until this summer a top member of Mr Mueller's special counsel team, has become Exhibit A of anti-Trump bias in the Russia investigation.

A Justice Department inspector general review of the FBI's handling of its 2016 election investigations unearthed text messages between Mr Strzok and Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer who also temporarily worked on the Mueller investigation and with whom Mr Strzok was having an extramarital affair.

Some of the messages, which were provided to reporters, showed the two had a hostility toward then-candidate Trump in 2016. Ms Page called Mr Trump a "loathsome human" in March, as the candidate was cementing his lead in the Republican primary field. Three months later - after Mr Trump had secured the nomination - Mr Strzok wrote that he was an "idiot" who said "bigoted nonsense".

In an August text, Mr Strzok discussed a meeting with then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in which Ms Page apparently had mentioned there was "no way" Mr Trump could be elected.

"I'm afraid we can't take that risk," Mr Strzok wrote. "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."

Some have theorised that the "insurance policy" in question was an FBI plan to destroy Mr Trump if he were to win. Others have suggested that it was simply a reference to the need to continue working the Trump-Russia investigation even though his election seemed unlikely.

Media caption President Trump renews attack on 'disgraceful' FBI

"It is very sad when you look at those documents," Mr Trump said on Friday, apparently referring to the texts. "And how they've done that is really, really disgraceful, and you have a lot of very angry people that are seeing it." He said it was a shame what had happened to the FBI and that it would be "rebuilt".

Since the first coverage of the story, reporters have reviewed more of the Strzok-Page texts and found the two made disparaging comments about a wide range of public figures, including Chelsea Clinton, Democrat Bernie Sanders, then-Attorney General Eric Holder, Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and Mrs Clinton.

"I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected," Mr Strzok wrote, referring to Mrs Clinton by her initials.

Why it could matter: If Mr Strzok, a high-ranking member of the FBI who officially launched the initial investigation of ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, harboured anti-Trump animus, there is the possibility it could have motivated him to influence the investigation to the president's disadvantage.

Why it might not: Government employees are allowed to express political views as long as they don't influence their job performance. The breadth of the Strzok-Page texts could indicate they were just gossiping lovers. Without context, Mr Strzok's "insurance" line is vague. When Mr Mueller learned of the text this summer, Mr Strzok was removed from the independent counsel investigation and reassigned to a human resources job.

The Clinton case

Mr Strzok also figures prominently in Republican concerns about the FBI's handling of its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Mr Strzok took part in interviews with key Clinton aides and reportedly was involved in drafting the report that concluded Mrs Clinton's actions did not warrant criminal charges, including changing the description of her handling of classified material from "grossly negligent" - which might have suggested illegal behaviour - to "extremely careless".

During the campaign Mr Trump repeatedly insisted that the Justice Department should re-open its investigation into Mrs Clinton and, after backing away from the idea early in his presidency, has once again renewed those calls.

"High ranking FBI officials involved in the Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and clearly let their strong political opinions cloud their professional judgement," Republican Congressman Bob Goodlatte said during a House Judicial Committee hearing.

There's also the possibility that there were more communications between Ms Page and Mr Strzok about the Clinton investigation that have yet to come to light.

"We text on that phone when we talk about Hillary because it can't be traced, you were just venting [because] you feel bad that you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now," Ms Page wrote in one text.

Chuck Grassley, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he wants more information about the use of these "untraceable" phones.

Why it could matter: If FBI agents backed off their investigation of Mrs Clinton in 2016 it could be further evidence of bias within the bureau that could affect its ongoing investigation into Mr Trump. If public confidence in the FBI is eroded, the ultimate findings of Mr Mueller's probe may be cast in doubt.

Why it might not: Lest anyone forget, Mrs Clinton's candidacy was the one wounded by FBI actions in the final days of the 2016 campaign. Then-Director James Comey's announcement of new evidence in the inquiry into her private email server - perhaps prompted by anti-Clinton leaks from the bureau's New York office - dominated the headlines and renewed concerns about the former secretary of state. News of the ongoing Trump-Russia investigation, on the other hand, didn't emerge until well after the election.

Marital woes

When it comes to the ongoing investigations into the investigations, it's not just the actions of the principals involved that have come under the spotlight. Spouses have figured prominently, as well.

FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, the bureau's second-in-command, is married to Jill McCabe, a paediatrician who ran as a Democrat for a Virginia state senate seat in 2015 (before Mr McCabe was promoted to his current position). During the hotly contested race, Ms McCabe received $467,500 in campaign contributions from a political action committee controlled by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a close political ally of the Clinton family.

Conservatives contend that this donation should have disqualified Mr McCabe from involvement in the Clinton case - and was yet another example of possible anti-Trump bias in the FBI's Russia investigation.

"If Mr McCabe failed to avoid the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest in favour of Mrs Clinton during the presidential election, then any participation in [the Russia] inquiry creates the exact same appearance of a partisan conflict of interest against Mr Trump," Senator Grassley wrote in a letter to then-Director Comey in March.

Meanwhile, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce G Ohr was recently reported as being employed in 2016 by Fusion GPS, the political research firm that produced the dossier containing unconfirmed allegations of Mr Trump's Russia entanglements. Mr Ohr himself has been connected to Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence agent who collected the material for the dossier.

Fusion GPS's anti-Trump research efforts were originally funded by a Republican donor and later backed by groups associated with the Democratic Party and the Clinton presidential campaign.

Why it matters: "Power couples" - spouses with influential, complementary political jobs - are a Washington tradition, and the actions of one partner are often considered to reflect on the views and behaviour of the other. In Mr McCabe's case, his wife's Democratic activism and allegiances could shed light on his political sympathies. For Mr Ohr, his marriage could have served as a conduit to inject Democratic-funded opposition research into the Justice Department.

Why it might not: Having a political spouse is not evidence of official bias. The identity of the individuals or groups that funded and gathered anti-Trump research and how it ended up in government hands does not necessarily have a bearing on whether the information is valid or merits further investigation.

Follow the money

The individuals working on the Russia investigation have been billed as a "dream team" by Democrats and liberal commentators hoping the efforts will eventually topple the Trump presidency.

Many conservatives beg to differ.

In June, as details of the special counsel hires began to emerge, conservatives noted that some of the biggest names - Andrew Weissmann, James Quarles, Jeannie Rhee and Michael Dreeben - had given money to Democratic presidential candidates.

"Republicans are delusional if they think the special counsel is going to be fair," former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tweeted . "Look who he is hiring."

Ms Rhee's private law work included representing Democrats, such as Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes and the Clinton Foundation in a lawsuit brought by a conservative activist group.

Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz recently travelled to Florida with Mr Trump and said he told the president that the independent counsel investigation was "infected with bias" against him - a view echoed in the conservative press.

"What we've seen over the past seven months of the Mueller investigation reveals a lot about how big government can end up becoming a threat to representative democracy," Laura Ingraham said on her Fox News programme. "And the more we look at the web of Clinton and Obama loyalists who burrowed into Mueller's office, the more obvious it all becomes."

Why it could matter: Political donations and legal work may be evidence of the ideological tilt of Mr Mueller's investigative team. That he has assembled a group of lawyers that may lean to the left could mean the investigation itself is predisposed to findings damaging to Mr Trump.

Why it might not: Investigators are adversarial by nature, and as long as Mr Mueller's team builds its cases with hard evidence, personal political views should not matter. While political partisans may focus on staff-level appointments, the investigation will rise and fall based on perceptions of Mr Mueller himself.

Mr Mueller's waiver

Prior to accepting the position as special counsel investigating possible Trump campaign ties to Russia, Mr Mueller requested - and received - an "ethics waiver" for possible conflicts of interest from the US Department of Justice.

The government has confirmed the existence of the waiver but has not revealed any details, although speculation at the time was that it had to do with Mr Mueller's work at the law firm WilmerHale, which represented former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort - who Mr Mueller has since indicted on money-laundering charges - and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Why it could matter: Without further information about the nature of the waiver, some are speculating that there is more to this request than simply routine ethical paperwork. Given that Mr Mueller is a former director of the FBI, with ties to many of the bureau officials who are now coming under conservative scrutiny, Mr Mueller's own allegiances are being called into question.

Why it might not: Mr Mueller is a decorated war veteran who, prior to taking the special counsel role was widely praised for his independence and probity. He was appointed FBI head by Republican George W Bush in 2001. If Mr Mueller's waiver had explosive details indicating clear bias, it probably would have leaked by now.

[Dec 25, 2017] Let him do his job : Forty former government officials and attorneys pen letters telling President Trump that firing Robert Mueller would lead to severe repercussions

Notable quotes:
"... The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents, assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text messages during the campaign and election. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | dailymail.co.uk

More than 40 bipartisan former government officials and attorneys [Deep State globalists] are telling President Trump and Congress to leave Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller alone so he can do his 'job.'

In two letters, the former U.S. attorneys and Republican and conservative officials pushed back against efforts to discredit the special counsel investigating [alleged] Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The letters come a week after speculation that Trump wanted Mueller fired over recent revelations that two former FBI agents, assigned to investigate the alleged collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia, had sent each other hundreds of 'anti-Trump' text messages during the campaign and election.

[Dec 25, 2017] The Petro-Yuan Bombshell and Its Relation to the New US Security Doctrine

Notable quotes:
"... The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States. ..."
"... The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism." ..."
Dec 25, 2017 | russia-insider.com

"Russia and China ... have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds ... is an unsustainable proposition ..." Pepe Escobar 12,072 198

The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States.

The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism."

Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing geopolitical and geo-economic process of Eurasia integration.

The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on "the BRIC countries' concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies," and stressed the need to "overcome the excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies."

That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and strategic raw materials.

And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China "threat" to the US dollar.

The CIPS/SWIFT face-off

The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will also be in place in the near future.

Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone, bypassing the US dollar.

The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private, Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global transaction must transit.

What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets overseas as well as Tehran's potential to export oil. In the event that Washington might decide to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading mechanism.

Last March, Russia's central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching its first $1 billion yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade, moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.

Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS countries are bound to focus on trading physical gold .

Markets such as COMEX actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold. Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.

The ultimate politically charged dossier

Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as the top reserve currency have been discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.

The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year, what used to be a key, "secret" informal deal between the US and the House of Saud, is firmly in the public domain .

Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries. Through this mechanism, Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt – and counting.

Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened when Iraq's Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to issue a pan-African gold dinar.

But now it's China who's entering the fray, following through on plans set up way back in 2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.

The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were supposed to start at the end of 2017, but even if they start sometime in early 2018, the fundamentals are clear: this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The era of the petro-yuan is at hand.

Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark to Brent and WTI, or whether China's capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.

What's certain is that the BRICS countries supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times . Venezuela is also on board. It's crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world's Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China's economy, they may soon be joined by other producers.

Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point, remarking how "this contract has the potential to greatly help China's push for yuan internationalization."

The hidden riches of "belt" and "road"

An extensive report by DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan with the expansion of BRI.

In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway, the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.

HSBC estimates that BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of new trade a year.

It's important to keep in mind that the "belt" in BRI should be seen as a series of corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas-rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle East, while the "roads" soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with – what else - un-mined gold.

A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia's lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.

Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.

Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.

A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share: "They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade."

What's clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top customers; it's Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for Chinese participation in Aramco's IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.

An independent European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card: "an authorization to issue treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia," the creation of a Saudi investment fund, and the acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.

Nations under US sanctions, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will be among the first to embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling oil/gas to China in yuan.

And if you don't export oil but are part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently evaluating.

A key feature of the geoeconomic heart of the world moving from the West towards Asia is that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.

The NSS for its part promises to preserve "peace through strength." As Washington currently deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than 149 nations in 2017 alone, it's hard to argue the US is at "peace" – especially when the NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.

"Revisionist" Russia and China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition for the Global South. Their "threat" – under the framework of BRICS as well as the SCO, which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.

It ain't over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS counterpunch.

John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 10:11 AM

China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the market.

The Federal reserve, prints currency, "loans" it to USA corporation, at USURY rates, gives this currency to other "sovereign" puppet states such as Belgium, who then act like they are buying the bonds for themselves.

It is a scam. Those who trust the USA/British Empire, will wind up with worthless paper, while the Usury bankers, their bosses, China and Russia, will wind up with gold.
All you USA worshipers should understand something.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Guess the western sheep are going to be the bitc#s of China and Russia for the next century or so.

Tommy Jensen John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:26 AM

I believe America will win. Therefore I sold my gold and bought dollares. The bad guys always win.............LOL.

Cliff Aleksandar Tomić , December 23, 2017 6:20 PM

" Treason doth never prosper
What be the reason?
For when it prosper,
None dare call it treason" -William Shakespere

Mychal Arnold Tommy Jensen , December 24, 2017 4:49 AM

Hey Tim or whatever. Yep you always win huh? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, .ring any bells I could go on but you have been embarrassed enough with your msm drivel. Always the weak and defenseless you lily livered chicken's. You better avoid war with the two most powerful countries in the world. Can you guess? and neither are you pedos and babykillers. You make me sick and disgusted. Voted again the most threat to world peace. Ussa, ussa, ussa. Proud are ya all. The time is coming where you reap what you have sown and on that day I shall dance my happy dance that you feel what you and your evil countrymen have wrought in the world in the name of democracy and freedom hope it is on cable! You rotten to the core people!

Richard Burton Mychal Arnold , December 24, 2017 11:11 AM

Here here, the US Holocaust, countless millions killed all over the globe as the USA plunders, wars and props-up evil, despot regimes. Bin Laden, Taleban, just two of the US former best allies, how long can a 200 year old, degenerate country like the USA keep sponging-off/ using exploiting the worlds billions to enrich itself? USA... infested with drugs, crime, rust belts, slums, homeless, street bums VAST inequality.

zorbatheturk Richard Burton , December 25, 2017 2:11 AM

It's still a million miles better than a craphole like RuSSia!

Mychal Arnold Richard Burton , December 24, 2017 12:01 PM

Yep! As Rome burns and eaten from within!

Le Ruse Tommy Jensen , December 25, 2017 2:32 AM

Yes Tommy.. Good move !!
Buy US$ !! US$ is backed by US government !! Gold is not backed by anything !!

Peter Jennings John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:09 AM

Remember the Belgium Bulge a few years back? the process must also work in reverse.

wilmers13 John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 12:43 AM

You cannot buy gold from the Empire, have you not read the book Gold Warriors.

Security is a propaganda term now, stands for war preparations.

John C Carleton wilmers13 , December 24, 2017 8:39 AM

The Empire sells other peoples gold to China and Russia everyday, having stole and sold Americans gold long since.
Works like this.
The not Federal, and no Reserve(s) dollar, is worth about 1 cent, of a 1913, pre Usury criminal banker scam "dollar".
That 1 % is swiftly loosing it's value.
To keep the American people, from realizing, the USA, is using them for cattle, stealing their labor, through planned hyperinflation,:
Israhell/Washington crime cabal, dumps massive amounts of "paper gold and silver", on the market, each and every damn day the rigged market is open, in order to artificially keep the price of gold and silver way the hell below where it should be priced in federal reserve currency.
This hide s the true inflation rate of the not federal and no reserves private Usury Banker Currency, falsely identified as the "US Dollar".
Israhell/Washington DC, does not have the physical gold and silver to cover what they sell.
It is a criminal scam.
Those who buy this paper gold and silver, small guy, will never be given physical for the paper.
Small guy, traded green paper for white paper. Either will be worthless soon.
Sovereigns, can buy enough of it, to demand delivery of physical.
The day the British Anglo zionist Empire defaults delivering physical gold, to China and Russia, for the paper gold, is the day the curtain comes down on the illusion of the USA financial empire.
Washington DC knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this.
In order to buy time, Israhell/Washington DC, has stolen, sold at hugely discounted prices, to keep the dollar scam alive, just a while longer, all the gold they were supposably storing for safe keeping, of other sovereigns.
They have stolen privately held gold, which was stored in commercial banks and vaults for "safe keeping.
They stole the gold which went missing from the basement vaults in the world trade centers, before they set off the demolition charges.
Then they sold it.
They stole and sold Ukraines gold.
They stole and sold, Libya's gold.
They had intended to have already stole and sold Syria's gold.
They are fast running out of other peoples gold, to deliver to China and Russia at huge discounts, to prop up the scam, just a while longer.
The day there is no more stolen gold to deliver to China and Russia, the music stops, all the chairs are removed, this game of musical chars is over. Starving Americans will eat their pets, rats, and each other.
Thanks Israhell!
Thanks Washington DC/USA.

Trauma2000 John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 1:11 PM

I want more information on this. Isabella said a similar thing. I want to know more... So the U$T's that are in actual fact worthless, Russia is using to buy gold at a huge discount to what should be the true market rate; and then Russia is storing this. I understand the storing thing. I'm a straight forward kind-of-a-guy. But its the U.$.T.'s to Physical Gold I can't get my head around.

Why is the U.$. honouring what is a knife-to-its-throat deal that is very soon going to result in the collapse of the U.$. dollar? And according to this forum fully 20% of Russia's reserves are still held in fiat U.$.T's..?

Why would Russia hold such a large percentage if its reserves in what will be worthless U.$.T.'s when it knows that the U.$. is going to try and scam Russia and default..?

I want to know more.

John C Carleton Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 2:02 PM

Picture a crime family.
Some branches are pure evil.
Some not so evil.
Some are very open about their evil.
Some are sneaky hypocrites who use the news media to white wash their crimes, and vilify their victims.

BUT! And this is one huge BUT, they all know too much on each other to start talking too damn much.
Also, their criminal Empire, (shearing/raping/murdering the sheep for fun and profit) is all tied together. Common banks, common/interchangeable fiat currencies, Usury debt practices.
Take part of it down, the other part will suffer great losses, if not go down with them.
Russia, and China, has gotten tired of the British Anglo zionist Empire lording it over them and treating them like red headed step children.
Russia and China, have not seen the Light, are not operating for the sake of their people, but to keep themselves in power, by returning to the people, some of the wealth they stole from the people to begin with
British Anglo zionist pig fkers Empire, is too greedy to return any of the stolen loot.
The BAzE, have a let them eat grass like the animals they are elitist attitude.
China and Russia, are trying to position themselves to come out on top when the economic reset happens.
They both were FORCED, by Empire, to both buy and hold, huge stashes of both Federal reserve fiat currency, and bonds, to do business in the rest of the world.
The USA military is the enforcement arm for the BAzE.
USA military is corrupted, demoralized, veterans fked over royally, weapons do not work as their purpose, was to steal the labor of the American working man and women, not to produce weapons which worked as advertised.
Russia and China, will continue to buy gold, buy time, to get in a better position to give Uncle Sugar's pedophilic ass both middle fingers.
It is in their interest to do so.
The owners of the British Anglo zionist Empire, have their personal vaults filled with stolen gold.
The politicians you see, the Rothschild's even, are window dressing to hide the true owners, and to protect the true owners asses during slave revolts, by offering, kings, queens, politicians, bankers, heads to get chopped.
These owners have no loyalty to any other person, or country in the world. They see themselves as the chess players, humanity as the pieces, the earth as their personal chess board.
They do not give a FF about America, the American people, or the hand puppet political whore of DC/USA.
The hand puppet whores, are too stupid, and corrupt anyway, to understand whats coming, or to have the power, intelligence, or balls to stop it
There are all kinds of fun and wealth created, for deviant sick bastards, in creating, and tearing down empires.
Besides, all the death and destruction gets them sexually excited
Takes years of study, experience with, and intuition, to begin to understand their evil, and the way the world really works.
Whether someone started years back, educating themselves, preparing for whats coming, will determine if they will enter the kill zone as a sheep or not.
The only protection sheep have, is the hope, the jackals will rape and murder some other sheep, not them. That is why they will not stand up or speak up.
That is why they violently attack anyone wants to leave the herd mentality, everyone else forced to be in the same sheep state as them,
They are afraid the jackal will notice them individually.
Herd numbers and hiding in the herd, are the cowards only protection

Bd-prince Pramanik Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 8:28 PM

your answer is in your question!

Mychal Arnold John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 12:41 PM

John I firmly believe they will get what is coming to them just a matter of time nothing endures forever. But mostly not in our life time, though!

John C Carleton Mychal Arnold , December 24, 2017 12:46 PM

Any day now, any week, not very many months, can the scam go on.
In other words, Americans might want to bone up on delicious recipes for Rats, cats, and their neighbors.

Trauma2000 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 3:15 PM

re: "China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the market."

I have been reading this for a while. But I've yet to see it in practice. Rosneft is still accepting U.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..? https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...

I need to read more on this subject.

BobValdez Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 3:48 PM

Russia acceps dollars for oil, and uses them to buy physical gold. No need to hold useless dollars, just convert them to gold.

Paw Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 9:48 PM

What you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.

Richard Burton Paw , December 24, 2017 11:18 AM

But the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers. View Hide

Isabella Jones Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 11:54 AM

At the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble, Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international market for U$, [artificially inflated] and buying massive amounts of cheap gold with the huge profits she is making.
Russia is singing all the way to the bank right now. The US backed itself into a corner on this one it cannot get out from - short of waging war on Russia !!!

Mychal Arnold Isabella Jones , December 24, 2017 12:32 PM

10% of GDP goes out where is the ussa 100 as are many others in the west. All western country have huge debts funny how that is or is it?

Tony B. Isabella Jones , December 24, 2017 11:31 PM

Why should anyone who is in love with gold be upset if someone is holding the price down? It should be a wonderful time to buy.
Russia is MINING gold, its own gold.

Isabella Jones Tony B. , December 25, 2017 5:41 AM

It is a great time to buy, if you have some spare cash to store, I agree. It's just a poor time if you need to realise your gold - you wont get the price for it you should. But indeed, it's a buyers market. Yes, Russia has a fair bit of gold "reserves" just sitting in the ground.

John C Carleton Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 3:41 PM

There is the face the beast lets you see, and the real face of the beast.
You do not think the beast is stupid enough to show it's real face to all the sheep?
Really?
The sheep who are given personal attention in private places, see the real face of the beast, because it sexually excites the beast for the chosen sheep to die bleating in terror.

Nathan Dunning John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 4:36 PM

You're a tool for the left I bet you're American Liberal.

John C Carleton Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 9:44 AM

You are a sheep.
i Am a wolf.
You are lucky i lost my taste for mutton.
i prefer goat and jackal. View Hide

John C Carleton Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 9:49 AM

View Hide

Mychal Arnold Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 12:45 PM

Guess you just got here you friggin troll. You know nothing you shill. Go back to the basement mom has brought you dinner and cookies n milk and let the grown men talk, now that is a good boy bye. Sorry John I have disappointed my Mom said be nice but idiots bother me. Say hi to your lovely Mom for me and God bless. Merry Christmas everyone! Got your back as always.

alexwest11 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:25 AM

John C Carleton • an hour ago China and Russia been dumping US bond
-------
no they don't! Russians reserves are about 100+ bln in UST

and WHOLLY 20 % OF RUSSIAN assets in Russian banks are kept mostly $$$ and some euro

John C Carleton alexwest11 , December 23, 2017 12:18 PM

Glad you are so confident in the currency, which has lost 99% of it's buying power since 1913, when the not Federal and no Reserve(s) was forced on the American people by the Usury Banker ancestors of the owners of the 'Fed", buying USA politicians.

Where did that 99% value go?
To the I%ters. You know, the pedophile elite.
They want it all, they are coming for the other 1% of the "dollar's" value.
They are coming for Social security, government pensions, private pensions, checking accounts, any thing with any value.

Oh by the way, just cause you are ignorant of how things work, don't mean they don't work that way, just means you are ignorant.
Have a wonderful day now!
See mother, i was nice to the bad person who was trying to run interference for pedophile baby rapers.

oncefiredbrass John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 2:44 AM

Good to see someone else Awake! A good portion of the Sheep are still sleeping, they think the National Debt and Zero Interest Rates mean nothing (in the Eurozone Interest is Negative). The US Dollar is soon to be Toilet Paper! Our Military can only overthrow small countries that defy the PetroDollar system. Now with so many doing it, John Carleton is right, the National Debt and Retirements Accounts are basically equal. That is why Obutthead set the start of grabbing them by creating the MYRA, the Theory is the Sheep are to stupid to manage their own retirement accounts, so the Government would grab them and put them in a so called safe investment called "Treasury's". Unfortunately the SS Trust Fund has been raided and is broke, but they do have drawers full of Treasuries. Trump has to immediately open public lands for Mining & Drilling! A normalization of Interest Rates to 5-6% would consume Government Revenues just to pay Interest on the Debt!

John C Carleton oncefiredbrass , December 24, 2017 8:22 AM

Will work like this, they may already be doing it quietly.
Take private pensions.
They are already in trouble, having stocks, bonds, commercial real estate holdings.
All of these will become worthless, or close to it.
Anything with value, currency, decimal dollars, will be taken by the Washington thieves, and worthless US bonds which will probably never be redeemed, or redeemed for chump change, will be put in their place by Washington, as they "protect" the retirement accounts.
Old people will eat rats, each other, dog and cats, die without medical care and meds which they can not afford.
Some will eat their pistols.
Not going to be nice or orderly.

Ron John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:11 PM

Dude, your postings are good and has an element of humor, thanks.

alexwest11 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:25 PM

pedophile baby rapers.
------
people who associate everything w/ pedophile baby rapers.
USUALLY ARE pedophile baby rapers.!!!!!

YES, $ lost about 97 %, but rest of even worse

russian ruble of 1913 - worthless
german mark -worthless
japanese yen - worthless
etc!

John C Carleton alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 8:58 AM

Open mouth in ignorance, insert foot.
Don't worry about a foot in the other end, i will do that verbally with my Texas cowboy boot.

Dispora Pedophiles increasingly Use Israel as 'haven,' activist charge.'
https://www.timesofisrael.c...

'Advocacy group: Israel is a pedophiles paridise-Haaetz-Israel News'
https://www.haaretz.com/adv...

'Nachlaot, where pedophiles roam free,--the Times of Israel
https://www.haaretz.com/adv...

'Israel Found to be Safe For Pedophiles'
http://yournewswire.com/isr...

'Jewish Pedophiles Increasingly use Israel as a haven, activist charge'
https://freespeechtwentyfir...

'Power, Pedophilia and the US Government'
http://www.whale.to/c/power...

'Frankland Coverup Sex Scandal,
(pedophile prostitution ring being run out of Reagan's White House)
http://www.johnccarleton.or...

All pedo's, should be given a fair trial, and a fair hanging. A pedophile which was given a fair trial, and a fair hanging, never again, raped a child.
Amazing how that works.

How you like them Texas cowboy boots?

Aurora alexwest11 , December 23, 2017 1:19 PM

Correct and very easy at any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.Just follow dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market and everything will be clear to you

alexwest11 Aurora , December 24, 2017 12:43 AM

dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market
-----

btw . moron

Russia/ china don't buy gold on world market. they are 2 /3 gold producers in the world

WHAT IS YOU LEVEL OF FORMAL EDUCATION ??

it seems you are uneducated moron !

AM Hants alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 7:25 AM

Russian Gold Reserves 2014-2017 View Hide

Aurora alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 1:19 PM

While all eyes are on the oil price and the ruble to dollar rate, the Central Bank of Russia has quietly been buying huge volumes of gold over the past year. In January, 2016, the latest data available, the Russian Central Bank again bought 22 tons of gold, around $800 million at current exchange rates, that, amidst US and EU financial sanctions and low oil prices. It was the eleventh month in a row they bought large gold volumes. For 2015 Russia added a record 208 tons of gold to her reserves compared with 172 tons for 2014. Russia now has 1,437 tonnes of gold in reserve, the sixth largest of any nation according to the World Gold Council in London. Only USA, Germany, Italy, France and China central banks hold a larger tonnage of gold reserves.
Notably also, the Russian central bank has been selling its holdings of US Treasury debt to buy the gold, de facto de-dollarizing, a sensible move as the dollar is waging de facto currency war against the ruble. As of December, 2015, Russia held $92 billion in US Treasury Bonds down from $132 billion in January 2014.China bought another 17 tons of gold in January and will buy a total of another 215 tons this year, approximately equal to that of Russia. From August to January 2016 China added 101 tonnes of gold to its reserves. Annual purchases of more than 200 tons by the PBOC would exceed the entire gold holdings of all but about 20 countries, according to the World Gold Council. China's central bank reserves of gold have risen 57% since 2009 acording to data the PBOC revealed in July, 2015. Market watchers believe even that amount of gold in China's central bank vaults is being politically vastly understated so as not to cause alarm bells to ring too loud in Washington and London.

Mychal Arnold alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 12:50 PM

Dude stop your only making yourself look stupid by opening your gob and proving or in this case writing. Merry Christmas or is it happy Hanukkah? Troll boy.

Le Ruse Mychal Arnold , December 25, 2017 2:37 AM

Maybe Happy "Kwanza" whatever is that ??

alexwest11 Aurora , December 23, 2017 11:29 PM

any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.J
----------
???????? converted what ?

in Russia, in gold ? you are not Russian, don't live, know nothing

----------
most Russians are stupid and uneducated in finance, savings do not exist

average Russian rather buy car , or flat than save money for something.

it is USSR mentality plagued by memory of deficits

Bd-prince Pramanik alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 8:51 PM

alexwest11 You are stupid ! a flat or house is real money you know ! They are uneducated in Rothschild finance! are you a russlanddeutsche! or jew from holy ukraine like poroschenko ?

Tony B. Bd-prince Pramanik , December 24, 2017 11:36 PM

Rothschild finance can be described in a single word: THEFT.
The world's sole economic problem.

Le Ruse Tony B. , December 25, 2017 2:39 AM

Humm...
the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away ??

AM Hants alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 7:38 AM

You confuse me. If Russians are so stupid and uneducated in finance, then why is their President a Dr in Economics?

Why are they in control of their vast wealth of natural resources?

Why do they have virtually enough gold to back the ruble and decent currency reserves, that rise monthly?

Also, how come they have free healthcare and education, including university level, if they are so stupid and uneducated?

Why does the US require Russian engines to make it into space?

Like I said, you confuse me, as I assumed you were talking about another super-nation, that has seriously lost it's way.

PUTIN'S PHD THESIS ESSENTIAL READING FOR OFFICIALS
http://slavija.proboards.co...

Russia National Debt: $194,545,062,334
Interest per Year $12,805,556,000
Interest per Second $406
Debt per Citizen $1,330
Debt as % of GDP 19.32%
GDP $1,007,000,000,000
Population 146,300,000

Russia Foreign Exchange Reserves

View Hide
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 2:52 AM

Russia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.

alexwest11 oncefiredbrass , December 24, 2017 3:19 AM

oncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
--------
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!

during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$

during oil selloff of 2014*15 Russian ruble fall 250 %, from 33 to almost 90 per$

right now its about 60 per $ , still 100% devaluation from 2014
-------

i don't remember $ fall against euro or yen during 2000 or/and 2008 crises in USA

more than 20 %

oncefiredbrass alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 3:27 AM

The fall of the Ruble was an attack or sanction by the Obama Regime over Ukraine. Why not trying to look up the Debt to GDP ratio for Russia and then the US and then ask yourself what economy is actually in a better position to withstand a Depression. Russia almost has enough Gold to back all their currency. How much gold would it take to back all the Treasuries and Dollars that the US has spread all over the world?

alexwest11 JIMI JAMES , December 24, 2017 6:23 AM

because in the end only the strong will survive and russia just like china
-------
!!sure moron.

avg salary in Russia about 500 $
avg pension 200 $

that is why idiotic Russians twice in 20 century totally annihilated own country!!!!!! 1917 and 1991

-----
and for china!!!!!!! it just show how moronic you are
we will see how china is good in 100 or 200 years!!!

cause history showed china always being overrun by someone else;
mongols, Manchurians, etc

learn a history western moron!!!!!!!!

Mychal Arnold alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 12:59 PM

Hey let the grown men talk baby boy! You are spouting msm talking points you're trying to debate the choir about hymns. Your not going to make anyone here see the light because you have no truths behind or in front. Msm drivel. One simple question! Who took Berlin? In ww2 of course!

Why , December 23, 2017 9:42 AM

I hope Russia will survive UKUSA's onslaught.

Craig A. Mouldey Why , December 23, 2017 10:51 AM

Me too. The U.S. has become the evil empire. The bully on the world stage stealing everyone's lunch money. I know it will devastate us in Canada, but I would still rather see the U.S. economy crumble if it would cripple their war machine, than to see this situation go on. Ron Paul was right: Instead of war, why not pursue peaceful trade? But the U.S. controllers want everyone else under their thumb as obedient serfs. It is evil. And as Smedley Butler so bluntly put it "War is a Racket"! He said this because he was sent to war with Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita Brands International. This time, they are trying to steal the lunch money from those who can defend themselves. We aren't going to sit on our couch watching this war on TV, because we will watch it out our front windows.

[Dec 25, 2017] US Swindled Russia

Dec 19, 2017 | Washington's Blog

... ... ...

Until now, apologists for the U.S.-Government side have been able to get away with various lies about these lies, such as that there weren't any, and that Gorbachev didn't really think that the NATO issue was terribly important for Russia's future national security anyway, and that the only limitation upon NATO's future expansion that was discussed during the negotiations to end the Cold War concerned NATO not expanding itself eastward (i.e., closer to Russia) within Germany, not going beyond the then-existing dividing-line between West and East Germany -- that no restriction against other east-bloc (Soviet-allied) nations ever being admitted into NATO was discussed, at all. The now-standard U.S. excuse that the deal concerned only Germany and not all of Europe is now conclusively disproven by the biggest single data-dump ever released about those negotiations.

This release on December 10th, by the National Security Archives, of a treasure-trove of all the existing documentation -- 33 key documents -- that's been made available to them from numerous archives around the world, and brought together finally for the very first time complete and in chronological order, makes crystal clear that the American apologists' lies about the lies WERE lies, not accurate accounts of the history, at all.

The assemblers at the National Security Archives assume that the numerous and repeated false promises that were made by Bush's team were mistakes, instead of as what they so clearly were (but you'll judge it here for yourself): strategic lies that were essential to Bush's goal of America ultimately conquering a future isolated Russia that would then have little-to-no foreign allies, and all of whose then-existing-as-Soviet allied nations within the Soviet Union itself, and beyond, including all of its former Warsaw Pact allies, would have become ultimately swallowed up by the U.S.-NATO bloc, which then would be able to dictate, to a finally alone nation of Russia, terms of Russia's ultimate surrender to the U.S. That view (which the National Security Archives documents to be clearly true, even as it denies it and says that only Bill Clinton and subsequent Presidents were to blame) is now exposed irrefutably to have been the U.S. plan ever since GHW Bush's Presidency.

In other words: This release of documents about the turning-point, provides capstone evidence that the U.S. never really had been in the Cold War against communism; the U.S. was instead aiming ultimately to be the imperial nation, controlling the entire planet. For America's Deep State, or what President Eisenhower famously warned about as the "military-industrial complex," the Cold War was actually about empire, and about conquest, not really about ideology at all. This also had been shown, for example, by America's having assisted so many 'former' Nazis to escape and come to America and to be paid now by the U.S. Government. After World War II, the top level of the U.S. power-structure became increasingly taken over by the military-industrial complex, America's Deep State, so that increasingly the U.S. Government is in a condition of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" -- a warfare state and economy: fascism.

Here, then, are highlights from this historic data-dump, presented in chronological order, just as in the release itself, and with a minimum of added commentary from myself [placed in brackets], but all stripping away here the dross of accompanying inconsequentials, and leaving only the golden steady core of stunningly successful American deceit of Russia. These are those highlights, from the December 10th data-dump, which the National Security Archives headlined " NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard " and sub-headed "Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner," so that the swindlers (or as the National Security Archive view them as having instead been blunderers) can become immediately recognized and known.

All of these documents pertain to negotiations that occurred throughout the month of February 1990, and a few relate also to the immediate aftermath. That's the crucial period, when the geostrategic reality of today (which all the world now know to be a continuation of the Cold War, but this time against only Russia, and not against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact) was actually created.

At the negotiations' start, West Germany's Chancellor Helmut Kohl's agent, Germany's Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, stated publicly to the whole world, West Germany's initial offer to the Soviet Union's President Mikhail Gorbachev, and this offer did not include a simultaneous termination of both military alliances -- the Soviets' Warsaw Pact and America's NATO -- but instead only a promise that NATO would never absorb any additional territory, especially to the east of West Germany (and this publicly made promise was never kept). So: right from the get-go, there was no actual termination of the Cold War that was being proposed by the U.S. group, but only an arrangement that wouldn't threaten Russia more than the then-existing split Germany did (and yet even that promise turned out to have been a lie):

Document 01
U.S. Embassy Bonn Confidential Cable to Secretary of State on the speech of the German Foreign Minister: Genscher Outlines His Vision of a New European Architecture.
1990-02-01
Source: U.S. Department of State. FOIA Reading Room. Case F-2015 10829

"This U.S. Embassy Bonn cable reporting back to Washington details both of Hans-Dietrich Genscher's proposals – that NATO would not expand to the east, and that the former territory of the GDR in a unified Germany would be treated differently from other NATO territory."

Document 02
Mr. Hurd to Sir C. Mallaby (Bonn). Telegraphic N. 85: Secretary of State's Call on Herr Genscher: German Unification.
1990-02-06
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990.

"The U.S. State Department's subsequent view of the German unification negotiations, expressed in a 1996 cable sent to all posts, mistakenly asserts that the entire negotiation over the future of Germany limited its discussion of the future of NATO to the specific arrangements over the territory of the former GDR." [The National Security Archives' calling that Bill-Clinton-era State Department cable 'mistaken' is unsupported by, and even contradicted by, the evidence they actually present from the February 1990 negotiations.]

Document 03
Memorandum from Paul H. Nitze to George H.W. Bush about "Forum for Germany" meeting in Berlin.
1990-02-06
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library

"This concise note to President Bush from one of the Cold War's architects, Paul Nitze (based at his namesake Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies), captures the debate over the future of NATO in early 1990. Nitze relates that Central and Eastern European leaders attending the 'Forum for Germany' conference in Berlin were advocating the dissolution of both the superpower blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, until he (and a few western Europeans) turned around that view and instead emphasized the importance of NATO as the basis of stability and U.S. presence in Europe."

Document 04
Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)

"Baker tells the Soviet foreign minister, 'A neutral Germany would undoubtedly acquire its own independent nuclear capability. However, a Germany that is firmly anchored in a changed NATO, by that I mean a NATO that is far less of [a] military organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability. There would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.'"

Document 05
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)

"Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: 'The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process' of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, 'We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.'"

Document 06
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts)
1990-02-09
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.

"The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer 'a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO's jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.' Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that 'neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,' and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that 'not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.'"

Document 07
Memorandum of conversation between Robert Gates and Vladimir Kryuchkov in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder "Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive."

"This conversation is especially important because subsequent researchers have speculated that Secretary Baker may have been speaking beyond his brief in his 'not one inch eastward' conversation with Gorbachev. Robert Gates, the former top CIA intelligence analyst and a specialist on the USSR, here tells his kind-of-counterpart, the head of the KGB, in his office at the Lubyanka KGB headquarters, exactly what Baker told Gorbachev that day at the Kremlin: not one inch eastward. At that point, Gates was the top deputy to the president's national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, so this document speaks to a coordinated approach by the U.S. government to Gorbachev."

Document 08
Letter from James Baker to Helmut Kohl
1990-02-10
Source: Deutsche Enheit Sonderedition und den Akten des Budeskanzleramtes 1989/90

"Baker especially remarks on Gorbachev's noncommittal response to the question about a neutral Germany versus a NATO Germany with pledges against eastward expansion."

Document 09
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl
1990-02-10
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)

"Prepared by Baker's letter and his own foreign minister's Tutzing formula, Kohl early in the conversation assures Gorbachev, 'We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people.' Later the two leaders tussle about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with Gorbachev commenting, 'They say what is NATO without the FRG. But we could also ask: What is the WTO without the GDR?' When Kohl disagrees, Gorbachev calls merely for 'reasonable solutions that do not poison the atmosphere in our relations' and says this part of the conversation should not be made public."

Document 10-1
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze notes from Conference on Open Skies, Ottawa, Canada.
1990-02-12
Source: Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

"Notes from the first days of the conference are very brief, but they contain one important line that shows that Baker offered the same assurance formula in Ottawa as he did in Moscow: 'And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about nonexpansion of its jurisdiction to the East.'"

Document 10-2
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze diary, February 12, 1990.
1990-02-12
Source: Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

"This diary entry is evidence, from a critical perspective, that the United States and West Germany did give Moscow concrete assurances about keeping NATO to its current size and scope. In fact, the diary further indicates that at least in Shevardnadze's view those assurances amounted to a deal – which Gorbachev accepted."

Document 10-3
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze diary, February 13, 1990.
1990-02-13
Source: Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

"Stepanov-Mamaladze describes difficult negotiations about the exact wording on the joint statement. 'During the day, active games were taking place between all of them. E.A. [Shevardnadze] met with Baker five times, twice with Genscher, talked with Fischer [GDR foreign minister], Dumas [French foreign minister], and the ministers of the ATS countries,' and finally, the text of the settlement was settled."

Document 11
U.S. State Department, "Two Plus Four: Advantages, Possible Concerns and Rebuttal Points."
1990-02-21
Source: State Department FOIA release, National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38.

"The American fear was that the West Germans would make their own deal with Moscow for rapid unification, giving up some of the bottom lines for the U.S., mainly membership in NATO."

Document 12-1
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
1990-02-20
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ( https://bush41library.tamu.edu/ )

"Bush took the opportunity to lecture the Czech leader about the value of NATO and its essential role as the basis for the U.S. presence in Europe."

Document 12-2
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
1990-02-21
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ( https://bush41library.tamu.edu/ )

"Bush's request to Havel to pass the message to Gorbachev that the Americans support him personally, and that 'We will not conduct ourselves in the wrong way by saying "we win, you lose." Emphasizing the point, Bush says, 'tell Gorbachev that I asked you to tell Gorbachev that we will not conduct ourselves regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country in a way that would complicate the problems he has so frankly discussed with me.' The Czechoslovak leader adds his own caution to the Americans about how to proceed with the unification of Germany and address Soviet insecurities. Havel remarks to Bush, 'It is a question of prestige.'"

[I think that Havel was deceived to believe that "prestige" was the issue here. This is what the U.S. team wanted the Soviet team to think was the U.S. team's chief motivation for wanting NATO to continue. But subsequent historical events, especially the U.S. team's proceeding under President Bill Clinton and up through Donald Trump to expand NATO to include, by now, virtually all of the Warsaw Pact and of the Soviet Union itself except for Russia, in NATO, proves that U.S. aggression against Russia has been the U.S. aim from the start, and the U.S. Government has been working assiduously at this plan for ultimate conquest. I think that Havel's use there of the word "prestige" was very revealing of the total snookering of Gorbachev that Bush achieved. Gorbachev and his team trusted the U.S. side. Russia has paid dearly for that. If the U.S. side continues and NATO isn't voluntarily terminated by the U.S. Government, then WW III will be the inevitable result. NATO will end either after the 'conquest' of Russia or before that WW-III 'conquest' (likelier to be actually destruction of the entire world) even happens. The world, today, will decide which. NATO should have ended in 1991, when the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact did.]

Document 13
Memorandum of Conversation between Helmut Kohl and George Bush at Camp David.
1990-02-24
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ( https://bush41library.tamu.edu /)

"The Bush administration's main worry about German unification as the process accelerated in February 1990 was that the West Germans might make their own deal bilaterally with the Soviets (see Document 11) and might be willing to bargain away NATO membership. The German chancellor arrives at Camp David without [West German Foreign Minister] Genscher because the latter does not entirely share the Bush-Kohl position on full German membership in NATO, and he recently angered both leaders by speaking publicly about the CSCE as the future European security mechanism.[11] Bush's priority is to keep the U.S. presence, especially the nuclear umbrella, in Europe: 'if U.S. nuclear forces are withdrawn from Germany, I don't see how we can persuade any other ally on the continent to retain these weapons.' [Bush wanted Lockheed and other U.S. weapons-makers to continue booming after the Cold War 'ended' -- not for the nuclear-weapons market to end. Bush continued:] 'We have weird thinking in our Congress today, ideas like this peace dividend. We can't do that in these uncertain times.' [For the U.S. team, 'perpetual war for perpetual peace' would be the way forward; a 'peace dividend' was the last thing they wanted -- ever.] At one point in the conversation, Bush seems to view his Soviet counterpart not as a partner but as a defeated enemy. Referring to talk in some Soviet quarters against Germany staying in NATO, he says: 'To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat.'" [I earlier had placed that crucial secret statement from Bush into historical perspective, under the headline, " How America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed the West ".]

Document 14
Memorandum of conversation between George Bush and Eduard Shevardnadze in Washington.
1990-04-06
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ( https://bush41library.tamu.edu/ )

"Shevardnadze mentions the upcoming CSCE summit and the Soviet expectation that it will discuss the new European security structures. Bush does not contradict this but ties it to the issues of the U.S. presence in Europe and German unification in NATO. He declares that he wants to 'contribute to stability and to the creation of a Europe whole and free, or as you call it, a common European home. A[n] idea that is very close to our own.' The Soviets -- wrongly -- interpret this as a declaration that the U.S. administration shares Gorbachev's idea."

Document 15
Sir R. Braithwaite (Moscow). Telegraphic N. 667: "Secretary of State's Meeting with President Gorbachev."
1990-04-11
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

"Ambassador Braithwaite's telegram summarizes the meeting between Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Douglas Hurd and President Gorbachev, noting Gorbachev's 'expansive mood.' Gorbachev asks the secretary to pass his appreciation for Margaret Thatcher's letter to him after her summit with Kohl, at which, according to Gorbachev, she followed the lines of policy Gorbachev and Thatcher discussed in their recent phone call, on the basis of which the Soviet leader concluded that 'the British and Soviet positions were very close indeed.'"

Document 16
Valentin Falin Memorandum to Mikhail Gorbachev (Excerpts)
1990-04-18
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)

"This memorandum from the Central Committee's most senior expert on Germany sounds like a wake-up call for Gorbachev. Falin puts it in blunt terms: while Soviet European policy has fallen into inactivity and even 'depression after the March 18 elections in East Germany, and Gorbachev himself has let Kohl speed up the process of unification, his compromises on Germany in NATO can only lead to the slipping away of his main goal for Europe – the common European home. 'Summing up the past six months, one has to conclude that the "common European home," which used to be a concrete task the countries of the continent were starting to implement, is now turning into a mirage.' While the West is sweet-talking Gorbachev into accepting German unification in NATO, Falin notes (correctly) that 'the Western states are already violating the consensus principle by making preliminary agreements among themselves' regarding German unification and the future of Europe that do not include a 'long phase of constructive development.' He notes the West's 'intensive cultivation of not only NATO but also our Warsaw Pact allies' with the goal to isolate the USSR. He also suggests using arms control negotiations in Vienna and Geneva as leverage if the West keeps taking advantage of Soviet flexibility. The main idea of the memo is to warn Gorbachev not to be naive about the intentions of his American partners: 'The West is outplaying us, promising to respect the interests of the USSR, but in practice, step by step, separating us from "traditional Europe".'"

Document 17
James A. Baker III, Memorandum for the President, "My meeting with Shevardnadze."
1990-05-04
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91126, Folder "Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive 1989 – June 1990 [3]"

"Baker reports, 'I also used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.'"

Document 18
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
1990-05-18
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1

"When Gorbachev mentions the need to build new security structures to replace the blocs, Baker lets slip a personal reaction that reveals much about the real U.S. position on the subject: 'It's nice to talk about pan-European security structures, the role of the CSCE. It is a wonderful dream, but just a dream. In the meantime, NATO exists. ' Gorbachev suggests that if the U.S. side insists on Germany in NATO, then he would 'announce publicly that we want to join NATO too.' Shevardnadze goes further, offering a prophetic observation: 'if united Germany becomes a member of NATO, it will blow up perestroika. Our people will not forgive us. People will say that we ended up the losers, not the winners.'"

Document 19
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Francois Mitterrand (excerpts).
1990-05-25
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros

"[Miterrand] implies that NATO is not the key issue now and could be drowned out in further negotiations; rather, the important thing is to ensure Soviet participation in new European security system. He repeats that he is 'personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs.' Gorbachev expresses his wariness and suspicion about U.S. effort to 'perpetuate NATO'." [This was extraordinary documentation that the U.S. team had deceived Gorbachev to think that they were trying to suggest to him that both military alliances -- NATO and Warsaw Pact -- would be ended, but that Gorbachev was "wary" and "suspicious" that maybe they didn't really mean it. Stunning.]

Document 20
Letter from Francois Mitterrand to George Bush
1990-05-25
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files

True to his word, Mitterrand writes a letter to George Bush describing Gorbachev's predicament on the issue of German unification in NATO, calling it genuine, not 'fake or tactical.' He warns the American president against doing it as a fait accompli without Gorbachev's consent implying that Gorbachev might retaliate on arms control (exactly what Mitterrand himself – and Falin earlier – suggested in his conversation). Mitterrand argues in favor of a formal 'peace settlement in International law,' and informs Bush that in his conversation with Gorbachev he "'indicated that, on the Western side, we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country's security.'"

Document 21
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush. White House, Washington D.C.
1990-05-31
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Moscow, Fond 1, opis 1.[12]

"Baker repeats the nine assurances made previously by the administration, including that the United States now agrees to support the pan-European process and transformation of NATO in order to remove the Soviet perception of threat. Gorbachev's preferred position is Germany with one foot in both NATO and the Warsaw Pact -- the 'two anchors' -- creating a kind of associated membership. Baker intervenes, saying that 'the simultaneous obligations of one and the same country toward the WTO and NATO smack of schizophrenia.' After the U.S. president frames the issue in the context of the Helsinki agreement, Gorbachev proposes that the German people have the right to choose their alliance -- which he in essence already affirmed to Kohl during their meeting in February 1990. Here, Gorbachev significantly exceeds his brief, and incurs the ire of other members of his delegation, especially the official with the German portfolio, Valentin Falin, and Marshal Sergey Akhromeyev. Gorbachev issues a key warning about the future: 'If the Soviet people get an impression that we are disregarded in the German question, then all the positive processes in Europe, including the negotiations in Vienna [over conventional forces], would be in serious danger. This is not just bluffing. It is simply that the people will force us to stop and to look around.' It is a remarkable admission about domestic political pressures from the last Soviet leader."

Document 22
Letter from Mr. Powell (N. 10) to Mr. Wall: Thatcher-Gorbachev memorandum of conversation.
1990-06-08
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office

"Gorbachev says he wants to 'be completely frank with the Prime Minister' that if the processes were to become one-sided, 'there could be a very difficult situation [and the] Soviet Union would feel its security in jeopardy.' Thatcher responds firmly that it was in nobody's interest to put Soviet security in jeopardy: 'we must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured.'"

Document 23
Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, Moscow (Excerpts).
1990-07-15
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros

"This key conversation between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev sets the final parameters for German unification. Kohl talks repeatedly about the new era of relations between a united Germany and the Soviet Union, and how this relationship would contribute to European stability and security. Gorbachev demands assurances on non-expansion of NATO: 'We must talk about the nonproliferation of NATO military structures to the territory of the GDR, and maintaining Soviet troops there for a certain transition period.' The Soviet leader notes earlier in the conversation that NATO has already begun transforming itself. For him, the pledge of NATO non-expansion to the territory of the GDR in spirit means that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet willingness to compromise on Germany."

[Of course, Gorbachev never knew that Bush had instructed his agents, on the night of 24 February 1990, "To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat," indicating that for the U.S. aristocracy, conquest of an isolated Russia was the actual ultimate aim -- there would be no actual end of the Cold War until the U.S. would conquer Russia itself -- grab the whole thing. Gorbachev was, it is now absolutely undeniable, conned.]

Document 24
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush
1990-07-17
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (( https://bush41library.tamu.edu/ )

"In this phone call, Bush expands on Kohl's security assurances and reinforces the message from the London Declaration: 'So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.'"

Document 25
September 12 Two-Plus-Four Ministerial in Moscow: Detailed account [includes text of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany and Agreed Minute to the Treaty on the special military status of the GDR after unification]
1990-11-02
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Condoleezza Rice Files

"the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev – 'special military status' for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a 'minute' that left it up to the newly unified and sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word 'deployed' should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the 'minute' was meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the 'spirit' of this Final Settlement treaty."

[Obviously, now, it was no "Final Settlement" at all.]

Document 26
U.S. Department of State, European Bureau: Revised NATO Strategy Paper for Discussion at Sub-Ungroup Meeting
1990-10-22
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Heather Wilson Files,

"Joint Chiefs and other agencies, posits that '[a] potential Soviet threat remains and constitutes one basic justification for the continuance of NATO.' At the same time, in the discussion of potential East European membership in NATO, the review suggests that 'In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or of the U.S. that these states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees.' The United States does not 'wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border' – not least because of the negative impact this might have on reforms in the USSR. NATO liaison offices would do for the present time, the group concluded, but the relationship will develop in the future. In the absence of the Cold War confrontation, NATO 'out of area' functions will have to be redefined." [Clearly, they wanted the revolving door to land them in high-paid positions supported by U.S. weapons-making corporations, not just in retirements with only military pensions. Or else, they just loved war and, like Bush, didn't want there to be any "peace dividend."]

Document 27
James F. Dobbins, State Department European Bureau, Memorandum to National Security Council: NATO Strategy Review Paper for October 29 Discussion.
1990-10-25
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library: NSC Philip Zelikow Files

"This concise memorandum comes from the State Department's European Bureau as a cover note for briefing papers for a scheduled October 29, 1990 meeting on the issues of NATO expansion and European defense cooperation with NATO. Most important is the document's summary of the internal debate within the Bush administration, primarily between the Defense Department (specifically the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney) and the State Department. On the issue of NATO expansion, OSD 'wishes to leave the door ajar' while State 'prefers simply to note that discussion of expanding membership is not on the agenda .' The Bush administration effectively adopts State's view in its public statements, yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration."

[This allegation, by the National Security Archives, fundamentally misrepresents, by its underlying assumption that the Bush Administration's statements such as that NATO would move "not one inch to the east" weren't lies but instead reflected Bush's actual intention. They ignore altogether Bush's having secretly told his vassals on the crucial night of 24 February 1990, "To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat." Gorbachev believed that this was to be a win-win game; but, the U.S. side were now under secret instructions that it's to be purely more of the win-lose game, and that now a lone Russia would end up being its ultimate loser. The despicable statement by the National Security Archives, "yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration," presumes that it didn't actually already 'prevail' in the Bush Administration itself. It prevailed actually in George Herbert Walker Bush himself, and not only in his Defense Department. Bush brilliantly took advantage of Gorbachev's decency and expectation that Bush, like himself, was decent. Bush lied -- and his team and their successors ever since have been carrying out his vicious plan. The National Security Archives downplays to insignificance Bush's crucial instruction to his people, "To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat." That statement, at that crucial moment, is what enables us to understand what was actually going on throughout these negotiations. The Archives' blaming only Bill Clinton and the other Presidents after Bush is a despicable lie. And it wasn't just "the Defense view" -- Cheney -- who prevailed within the Bush Administration there. Cheney, like Baker, were doing what GHW Bush had hired them to do. Baker's job was to lie. If it weren't, then he'd have told Gorbachev the next day not to trust what the Bush team were saying, but instead to demand everything to be put in writing in the final document, and to assume the worst regarding anything that the Bush team were refusing to put in writing in the final document. Baker was a lawyer, and a very skilled liar, who was just doing his job for Bush. For some inexplicable reason, the National Security Archives simply assumes otherwise.]

Document 28
Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite diary, 05 March 1991
1991-03-05
Source: Rodric Braithwaite personal diary

"British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite was present for a number of the assurances given to Soviet leaders in 1990 and 1991 about NATO expansion. Here, Braithwaite in his diary describes a meeting between British Prime Minister John Major and Soviet military officials, led by Minister of Defense Marshal Dmitry Yazov. The meeting took place during Major's visit to Moscow and right after his one-on-one with President Gorbachev. During the meeting with Major, Gorbachev had raised his concerns about the new NATO dynamics: 'Against the background of favorable processes in Europe, I suddenly start receiving information that certain circles intend to go on further strengthening NATO as the main security instrument in Europe. Previously they talked about changing the nature of NATO, about transformation of the existing military-political blocs into pan-European structures and security mechanisms. And now suddenly again [they are talking about] a special peace-keeping role of NATO. They are talking again about NATO as the cornerstone. This does not sound complementary to the common European home that we have started to build.' Major responded: 'I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding. We are not talking about strengthening of NATO.'"

Document 29
Paul Wolfowitz Memoranda of Conversation with Vaclav Havel and Lubos Dobrovsky in Prague.
1991-04-27
Source: U.S. Department of Defense, FOIA release 2016

"These memcons from April 1991 provide the bookends for the 'education of Vaclav Havel' on NATO (see Documents 12-1 and 12-2 above). U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz included these memcons in his report to the NSC and the State Department about his attendance at a conference in Prague on 'The Future of European Security,' on April 24-27, 1991. During the conference Wolfowitz had separate meetings with Havel and Minister of Defense Dobrovsky. In the conversation with Havel, Wolfowitz thanks him for his statements about the importance of NATO and US troops in Europe. In conversation with Dobrovsky, Wolfowitz remarks that 'the very existence of NATO was in doubt a year ago.'"

Document 30
Memorandum to Boris Yeltsin from Russian Supreme Soviet delegation to NATO HQs
1991-07-01
Source: State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), Fond 10026, Opis 1

"This document is important for describing the clear message in 1991 from the highest levels of NATO – Secretary General Manfred Woerner – that NATO expansion was not happening . The audience was a Russian Supreme Soviet delegation, which in this memo was reporting back to Boris Yeltsin (who in June had been elected president of the Russian republic, largest in the Soviet Union), but no doubt Gorbachev and his aides were hearing the same assurance at that time. The emerging Russian security establishment was already worried about the possibility of NATO expansion, so in June 1991 this delegation visited Brussels to meet NATO's leadership, hear their views about the future of NATO, and share Russian concerns.

Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: 'The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union, which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.' Now in mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion -- '13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view' -- and that he will speak against Poland's and Romania's membership in NATO to those countries' leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia."

[Dec 24, 2017] Steve Bannon Asked to Testify Before House Intelligence Committee in January - Breitbart

Dec 24, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

The House Intelligence Committee has asked the former CEO of President Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, Stephen K. Bannon, to appear before them for an interview as part of their ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.
Bannon received a letter this week from the committee. In the letter, the committee requests that he appear in early January, according to Bloomberg:

"The invitation, which didn't come in the form of a subpoena compelling them to testify, was for a "voluntary interview" in the committee's offices, which means it would be held behind closed doors, the official said."

Former Trump presidential campaign manager Corey Lewandowski also received a letter requesting he speak with the committee in January.

The report further reveals that the letters to Bannon and Lewandowski don't specify reasons for the interview beyond relation to the committee's ongoing investigation into any Russian meddling in the 2016 election. At the time of the report, the committee had not received responses from either Bannon or Lewandowski.

[Dec 23, 2017] Slovenia is among the Coalition of the 128 NOT willing to be punked by USA. Melania better keep a low profile around Trump and Nikki

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , , December 21, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Uh Oh Slovenia is among the Coalition of the 128 NOT willing to be punked by USA..

Maybe some panic stricken late night 911 DV calls from the WH??

Melania better keep a low profile around Trump and Nikki !!!!!! LOL!!

Jen , December 21, 2017 at 2:48 pm
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
Cortes , December 21, 2017 at 4:27 pm
She's made herself untouchable.
Jen , December 21, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Ha ha!
Moscow Exile , December 21, 2017 at 8:41 pm
She makes me Sikh

[Dec 23, 2017] UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution Condemning Crimea Human Rights Violations

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , December 19, 2017 at 8:42 pm

UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution Condemning Crimea Human Rights Violations

The resolution was approved by 71 member states, including Canada, the United States and the EU. Twenty-five countries, including Russia, China, Iran, India and Syria, voted against the measure, while 77 delegations, mainly from Latin America and Africa, abstained from the vote.

"[The resolution] condemns violations, abuses, measures and practices of discrimination against the residents of the temporarily occupied Crimea, including Crimean Tatars, as well as Ukrainians and persons belonging to other ethnic and religious groups, by the Russian occupation authorities," the resolution said on Tuesday.

Moscow Exile , December 19, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Link: UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution Condemning Crimea Human Rights Violations
Jen , December 20, 2017 at 2:27 am
Well, er, guess whose teeth look a little discoloured?
Moscow Exile , December 20, 2017 at 5:31 am
Сенатор от Крыма дала оценку резолюции ГА ООН

The Senator from the Crimea has given an assessment of the UN General Assembly resolution

The Senator from the Crimean Peninsula, Olga Kovitide, has reacted to the UN General Assembly resolution, in which RF is called "an occupying power".

Earlier, the Press Secretary of the President of Russia, Dmitry Peskov, said the wording of the UN General Assembly resolution on the Crimea as wrong.

"We believe this language is incorrect and do not agree with them", the Kremlin representative told reporters whilst commenting on the document.

Kovitide said that the Russian Federation had clearly stated that the issue of the Crimea is closed. "The Crimea is not a problem: the Crimea is Russian territory, and any decisions and resolutions that are contrary to the legitimate will of the Crimean people shall never be accepted", the politician said in comments to the portal iz.ru .

They just don't seem to get it, do they?

The people have decided, not arseholes in Kiev or at the UN or EU.

Does not the term " We, the people ring a bell deep in the canyons of the collective historical memory of those Western "democrats"?

We the People of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do hereby recognize the Constitution of the Russian Federation and with sound mind and a clear conscience do declare that the aforementioned republic is now a member state within that Federation and that the citizens of that self-same republic shall henceforth be citizens of the Russian Federation.

Moscow Exile , December 19, 2017 at 9:22 pm
Turkey voted for the resolution -- dear friend Turkey that ambushed and shot down a Russian warplane that had allegedly infringed Turkish airspace.
Moscow Exile , December 19, 2017 at 9:37 pm
CIS states that voted against the UN resolution that the Crimea is "occupied": Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.

Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan did not to vote for this uncomfortable anti-Russian resolution (or could not?). They are not listed even among the abstentions.

The big ones that voted against were China and India.

Also against: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, The Philippines, Serbia, Syria, Venezuela, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, Eritrea, Myanmar, South Africa, The Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe.

So it is clear that Russia must face the facts and must immediately start moving out its occupation army from the Crimea in preparation for handing back the peninsula to the Ukraine -- or else!

So as long ago promised, there will soon be a Ukrainian victory parade in Simferopol!

What joy!

Source: Кто они – 25 друзей России, не признавших что Крым "оккупирован"

Who the 25 friends of Russia are that do recognize that the Crimea is "occupied"

yalensis , December 20, 2017 at 3:48 am
The Axis of Evil is getting bigger – up to 25 countries now – yay!
marknesop , December 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm
The Ukrainian politicians always reckon everything which goes in their favour is 'immensely powerful', and always make sure to publicly thank countries for even the slightest acquiescence, so as to make clear that they unquestioningly support Ukraine and its position. It's just their way of 'penciling in' friends and annoying Russia.

China voted against it rather than abstaining. Driving China and Russia into an alliance was the biggest mistake the USA ever made, because there is no way NATO could defeat both

[Dec 23, 2017] US President Donald Trump has outlined his new national security strategy, labelling China and Russia the primary threats to US economic dominance.

Notable quotes:
"... It explicitly states that "the United States will no longer turn a blind eye to violations, cheating or economic aggression" ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , December 18, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Trump: Russia and China 'rival powers' in new security plan

US President Donald Trump has outlined his new national security strategy, labelling China and Russia the primary threats to US economic dominance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42401170

marknesop , December 18, 2017 at 3:55 pm
That's it; get that useless waster Trump out of there, and get Obama back in the White House. When Obama left, Russia was friendless and alone, without allies, and its economy was in tatters. Trump has barely had the job five minutes, and already Russia is half of America's problems with achieving economic dominance! What the hell is going on??

It explicitly states that "the United States will no longer turn a blind eye to violations, cheating or economic aggression" .

Lucky for America that other nations and blocs turn a blind eye to economic aggression, or America would be dead a thousand times over – there is no more economically aggressive nation on the earth. What would you call sanctions imposed – supposedly for the benefit of Europe – which Washington will now not let Europe back away from, and stubborn efforts to block an advantageous energy pipeline to Europe so that the USA has a better market for its own product? I'd call that pretty aggressive.

[Dec 23, 2017] Exclusive: Russian oil firm Tatneft ran Crimea fuel station, despite sanctions risk

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , December 20, 2017 at 9:26 am

Neuters: Exclusive: Russian oil firm Tatneft ran Crimea fuel station, despite sanctions risk
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-crimea-tatneft-exclusi/exclusive-russian-oil-firm-tatneft-ran-crimea-fuel-station-despite-sanctions-risk-idUKKBN1EE1YI

Anton Zverev, Gleb Stolyarov

One of Russia's biggest oil companies, Tatneft, has been doing business in Crimea despite the risk of being placed on a U.S. sanctions blacklist, according to company documents and a source close to Tatneft.

Most big Russian oil firms pulled out of Crimea after Washington imposed sanctions over Moscow's annexation of the region from Ukraine in 2014 and threatened to put any company operating on the peninsula on its list of sanctioned entities.

Additional reporting by David Axelrod in SEVASTOPOL, Crimea, Agnieszka Barteczko in WARSAW, Wojciech Zurawski in KRAKOW, Joel Schectman in WASHINGTON and Alexei Yarkovoy and Olga Yagova in MOSCOW, Editing by Timothy Heritage
Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
####

Neuters, acting as an arm of the United States government, hunting high and hunting low for Russian subterfuge of United States imposed sanction, in this case a lonely Crimean fuel station. Such groundbreaking investigative reporting of the highest order! Prize nominations for Neuters on the way. Not a shred of shame. Standards & Principles my ass!

Moscow Exile , December 20, 2017 at 9:36 am
You do know Tatneft is Tatar oil, don't you?

Based in Tatarstan, autonomous republic within the Russian Federation.

et Al , December 20, 2017 at 11:47 am
Indeed I do! There was the fear in the early 1990s that it might have voted for 'independence' as Chechnya did (Tartarstan did not sign the initial Russian Federation
agreement in 1992 & their referendum on 'sovereignty' passed in 1993), but thought better of it and got quite a sweet deal with Moscow instead which was supposed to be up for renewal/renegotiation quite some years ago but I've not heard of since. Tartarstan is quite the performer in aerospace and engineering technologies, the Kazan Aviation Factory (Tupolev):

http://www.tupolev.ru/en/kaf_spgorbunov

marknesop , December 20, 2017 at 5:49 pm
On the one hand, the western press sermonizes, hands folded to convey pathos, on the terrible plight of the Crimeans – mistreated, misguided, struggling. On the other, it does everything in its power to ensure nobody can do business there, and says nothing when Ukraine attempts to starve and freeze them into submission.

[Dec 23, 2017] marknesop

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

December 18, 2017 at 10:43 pm

Oh, look; isn't that sweet? The IOC is going to hold a medals ceremony at Pyeongchang, at which athletes who were deemed to have been cheated out of medals by the doping dreaming-of-Stalin Russian athletes at Sochi will be recognized as the champions they would have been . Probably. So if you won bronze, you might get that upgraded to a gold like anti-doping crusader Beckie Scott did . You know, that's what makes me so proud of the west; they don't just accept it when they're beaten – the tough get going, baby, and they simply hold a new medal ceremony and award themselves medals. They'll want to get their upgrades quickly, before 'Curveball' Rodchenkov's latest database story falls apart and they have to admit once again that they have nothing. And hey; it's a Canadian tradition – if you don't win, just make a big stink until you are awarded a medal, too.

Anything to further provoke and humiliate the Russians. I can't imagine what measures will be taken to ensure Russian athletes do not win any medals at Pyeongchang – perhaps they will have to start 5 seconds after the rest of the field, as a further justified penalty for their cheating. Or wear one sneaker and one boot.

yalensis , December 19, 2017 at 3:15 am
Mark, you were right to link that 2002 Olympics when Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze were forced to share their gold medal with the Canadian pair. Who should have been satisifed with the Silver, but decided to throw a big tantrum, like two big babies.
When the Olympic Committee gave in to the Canadians (who were backed by Uncle Sam on skates), that was the moment when Pandora's Box was opened all the way. Prior to that, I think the rule was pretty much, that judges decisions are final. Unless you can prove that the judges were bribed, then their word should be final. Especially in this case, where the judges could prove with chapter and verse why Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze performed a superior program and earned more points.

By the way, I have met both Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze, they are wonderful people as well as brilliant skaters. And my taking their side against the Canadian pair is not because they are Russians, either. My conscience is clean in this regard.
Because when the opposite happened, and Russian skater Plushchenko tried to dispute his loss to the American Evan Lycasek, I took Lycasek's side.
Plushchenko's argument was, in essence, "Well, I had a quad in my program, and Evan didn't, so I should get the gold."
Lycasek didn't have a quad, but he compensated for it by racking up more points in other parts of his program. He won fair and square, and Plushchenko showed poor sportsmanship at the time, he should have simply walked up to Lycasek and shaked his hand.

Similarly, the two Canadian twats argued that their program was superior to Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze because they "skated cleanly", and the latter had one little bobble on one landing of one jump. It doesn't matter. Berezhnaya could have fallen on her ass and still won, they racked up more points with more difficult elements. Plus, their skating was superior in general, they had more flow and better edgework.

It's all about the points, which is why people should not second-guess the judges. The judges are the experts here, not the public, nor even the skaters themselves.

marknesop , December 19, 2017 at 9:47 am
I don't really want to blame the Americans, because it seems even to me that I am doing that a lot lately and I am trying conscientiously to be fair. But I believe that without American backing and encouragement – as well as that of other western nations – the Canadian pair would have stopped whining and accepted the decision. I wouldn't say Canada was particularly beloved of the USA; they were simply a means to an end, which was to prevent Russia from a clean win. I thought the Canadian pair skated a very clean and professional-looking program – flawless, even – but it was unquestionably a safer and less complicated one.

How sad is the world when even figure skating must be weighed in its political impact?

marknesop , December 18, 2017 at 11:06 pm
As the Pyeongchang Games kick off in February, it will also mark five years since American Olympian Kara Goucher alerted USADA to doping at The Oregon Project , Nike's program for training American distance runners for the Olympics. Five years since USADA was tipped off, two years since the scandal was publicly announced, and what? What do you think – the investigation is still ongoing. I'll tell you what – get Richard McLaren, Dickie Pound, Gunter Younger and the WADA road show in there – it only took them a couple of days to find the 'evidence' in the Moscow database, which it allegedly received 'from a whistleblower' according to the New York Times and from Rodchenkov himself according to other sources, conclusively proved at last that Russia had a state-sponsored doping program. But investigations of the Land Of The Free in The Land Of The Free well, they take much longer. It's a time zone thing, I think.
James lake , December 19, 2017 at 3:15 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/40438287 .

The controversial decision to award the 2021 World Athletics Championships to Eugene, Oregon, is being investigated by the FBI and the Criminal Division of America's Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the BBC has learned.

The US city was awarded the event in 2015 with athletics' governing body the IAAF bypassing the usual formal bidding process.

French prosecutors investigating corruption within the IAAF launched their own inquiry into the awarding of the event in 2015.

Former IAAF president Lamine Diack, who is now effectively under house arrest in France over corruption allegations, was at the centre of the decision.

Eugene was handed the event despite strong interest from the Swedish city of Gothenburg.

The Oregon city is closely associated with Nike, whose birthplace is only a few miles away.

Nike funds much of the University of Oregon's sports facilities, where many of Eugene 2021 events will be held.

A BBC story in November 2015 suggested the IAAF president Lord Coe may have lobbied his predecessor over the bid, and revealed he had discussed it with a senior Nike executive.

At that time Lord Coe was paid £100,000 a year as an ambassador for Nike. Lord Coe denied he had lobbied anyone on behalf of Eugene's bid.

However, he stepped down from his Nike role – which he had held for 38 years – later that month saying accusations of a conflict of interest were "a distraction" and "not good for Nike or the IAAF".

Bjorn Eriksson, who was the head of the Gothenburg team denied the opportunity to stage a rival bid, said it had been a 'violation of fair play.'

Now, the BBC understands, the American authorities – including tax investigators at the IRS – are seeking to investigate if there has been any wrongdoing committed in the US, bringing to total number of agencies investigating the awarding of the championships to three.

A spokeswoman for the IAAF and Lord Coe said she was unaware of any FBI and IRS probes.

"The IAAF team has not received notification from the FBI or IRS. However we are committed to working closely with any key investigation, as we do with the French investigation team, and will take action if proof is found of any wrong doing in an IAAF bidding process."

Both the FBI and IRS have yet to respond to the BBC.

The FBI famously investigated corruption in football's world governing body Fifa, resulting in guilty pleas from numerous high-ranking officials.

The background

The Eugene bid was led by Vin Lananna's TrackTown USA, another organisation with close links to Nike.

The 2015 BBC investigation uncovered emails which claim Coe – an ambassador for sports giant Nike and then vice-president of world athletics – "reached out" to Diack with his support for Eugene's bid.

After of losing out in a bid to host the 2019 championships to Doha, Lananna and TrackTown USA quickly turned their attention to 2021, and began lobbying the IAAF.

Coe had been on the IAAF evaluation commission which visited Doha, Eugene, and the other unsuccessful bidder for 2019, Barcelona.

An email sent by Nike executive Craig Masback to Lananna suggested that Coe lobbied on Eugene's behalf.

The email, titled '2021' and in which Coe is referred to as "Seb", reads: "I spoke with Seb this morning. We covered several topics but I asked specifically about 2021.

"He made clear his support for 2021 in Eugene but made equally clear he had reached out to Diack specifically on this topic and got a clear statement from Diack that 'I am not going to take any action at the April meeting (in Beijing) to choose a 2021 site'."

Yet it was at that April meeting of the IAAF's council that Diack announced the surprise vote on giving the championships directly to Eugene.

Coe told the BBC he "did not lobby anyone" over Eugene's bid, but "encouraged them to re-enter another bidding cycle as they had a strong bid".

Other emails seen by the BBC revealed that Lananna made at least one trip to Europe to visit Diack a few weeks after this email was written.

And by 15 April 2015, the campaign had paid off.

Several IAAF council members have told the BBC that Diack made clear his support for Eugene, and urged his fellow members to follow suit.

The secret vote was carried by 23-1, with one abstention.

//wonder if anything will come of this!

marknesop , December 19, 2017 at 9:38 am
I highly doubt it; if the investigation is taking place in America, that self-righteous persecution thing tends to disappear in favour of ass-covering. They may have been a ball of fire investigating FIFA, but FIFA is not headquartered in America.

[Dec 23, 2017] Russiagate as bait and switch maneuver

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Masha Gessen's Warning Ignored as Dreams of Trumpeachment Dance in Our Heads

Gessen felt that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient public interest, particularly among Republicans.

Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism, immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination -- you know, stuff like that.

Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the Washington political journal The Hill , last summer ,

Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare.

Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his epically low approval rating of 32 percent , the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress whose current approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to the U.S. Senate.

[Dec 23, 2017] The invasion of SU from the West (Germany, Romania, Italy and other less overt allies) left devastation and death on a scale unprecedented in human history.

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Ryan Ward , December 21, 2017 at 7:50 am

Just a bit related to the discussion of Eastern European revolutions above (I decided to write a new comment rather than replying because it's a general point, and also the comments are getting a little narrow on the screen).

This "advice" might seem a little suspect, given that it's coming from a social democrat/communitarian who's not sympathetic to the Soviet system, but I think there's a really important point of principle at play. People with socialist leanings/sympathy for the Soviet system often criticize Western countries, and most specifically America, for imposing its social system on other countries by violent means. The key point here is that this criticism is often framed not only on the basis of the type of system imposed, but because of the imposition itself. The idea is that neoliberal capitalism is bad in itself, so it's bad for any country to have that system, but it's even worse for a country to have that system because it was imposed by another country by force. The force itself is treated as an evil in addition to the ends to which that force is put.

This creates a huge problem for any attempt to defend the Communist governments of Eastern Europe. With the exception of the governments of Yugoslavia, Albania and (partially) Czechoslovakia, these governments were 100% foreign impositions, brought about by force of arms, violence, murder and compulsion. If the expression "puppet regime" has any meaning at all, it describes the governments of Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc. perfectly. The trouble here is that you can't have it both ways. You can go the Stalin route and say that every powerful country imposes its system "as far as its armies can reach. It cannot be otherwise." Then you can criticize America for imposing CAPITALISM, but you can't criticize American for IMPOSING capitalism. Alternatively, you can criticize America for both, but then you're not going to have any ground left to defend what the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe.

Looking forward, what's important for "leftists" of all stripes is to formulate a program that works for the future. But you're going in with one boot off if you shackle yourself to the worst aspects of the past. Even the most abysmal of neoliberal hacks can admit that America's record is far from flawless in Central America (for example). Why should it be so hard for people sympathetic to the Soviets to do the same?

Patient Observer , December 21, 2017 at 9:36 am
Just a quick lunch time reply. The Soviet Union pretty much left alone Eastern European countries prior to WW II – no attempt to impose their will on countries that were hostile to their very existence. (contrast with the US actions in Latin America).

The invasion of SU from the West (Germany, Romania, Italy and other less overt allies) left devastation and death on a scale unprecedented in human history. A major purpose of the invasion was the murder/enslavement of the Russian population. So, this was a rather unique situation facing SU leadership. How do handle neighbors who are psychopaths (Germany and its allies clearly fit that description)? What to do?

Any sane national leadership, having survived that murderous attack, would be expected to remove the root cause of that attack. Again, before WW II, the SU was comfortable with its neighbors, but after, the attempted genocide/enslavement, not so much.

Ryan, what would you recommend for the SU after WW II? Allow the same forces that sought their total destruction back in business at its borders? A nuclear armed adversary possibly allowed to set up military bases next door (actually pretty much what we have today)?

As far as I am concerned, Germany and eastern Europe got off easy. No reparations for the SU – just military confrontation with its former alleged allies. The SU did what it had do to. It can be rightfully argued that it could have been done better, but its general actions were generally justifiable in my opinion.

As an aside, Yugoslavia would have been much better off if the SU had "imposed" itself there. But we ended up with Tito, a monster who eagerly did the bidding to Britain which included hiding the Serbian holocaust and allowing its perpetrators to escape justice.

Ryan Ward , December 21, 2017 at 10:00 am
I'll deal with the rest later (including the absolutely absurd attack against Tito), but firstly, I want to address a factual error.

"As far as I am concerned, Germany and eastern Europe got off easy. No reparations for the SU – just military confrontation with its former alleged allies."

This is simply false. After WW2, the SU extracted reparations from East Germany, Hungary and Romania. These reparations were only canceled in the 1950's after Stalin died. Additionally, the Soviet Union set up the "SovRoms" in Romania, which systematically looted the country, forcing Romania to buy German equipment at inflated prices. Meanwhile the Soviet Union was directly taking over 90% plus of various important German industries. This was the definition of a Carthaginian peace.

Patient Observer , December 21, 2017 at 10:28 am
Bring it.
Ryan Ward , December 22, 2017 at 6:30 pm
Glad to do so 😉 The reason why I called the accusation against Tito "absurd" isn't because Tito is above criticism.It's because anything he can be criticized for doesn't hold a candle to what was going on at the same time in the Soviet Union. The differences are many, and all in Yugoslavia's favour. The Soviet Union completely disempowered the workers, forbade emigration, and left almost no room for dissent. On the other hand, if socialism means the control of real workers over the means of production, Yugoslavia is the only country in history that's made a real go at it. The experiment wasn't completely successful (for example, Yugoslavia struggled with unemployment more than its neighbours did), but as an economic model, it was both more humane and more successful than the model used in the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc (with the partial exception of Poland and Hungary, which were both somewhat ideosyncratic, and outshone their neighbours economically). The problem of unemployment was mitigated by the fact that workers were allowed to travel to find work, and most of them did so, rather than cutting off ties with Yugoslavia and just disappearing in the West. Yugoslavia bested the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc at the most basic test of providing for the people; it could trust them not to all rush for the exits the moment they were given the opportunity. Finally, contrast the Soviet response to even the slightest dissent to Tito's response to the student protests in 1968. Can anyone imagine Brezhnev or even Khrushchev saying "the students are right," and actually addressing their concerns? The question answers itself.
And the idea that Tito "eagerly did the bidding of Britain" is a malicious slander. Tito was one of the central figures in the non-aligned movement, which was by no means captive to Western interests (Kissinger actually complained of the exact opposite, that despite their claims of neutrality the non-aligned countries tended to tilt in the Soviet direction). As for the "Serbian holocaust", without denying that the activities of the Ustase in particular really were genocidal, the track record of WW2 in Yugoslavia is more complicated than that. While not as bloody as the Ustase, the Chetniks' hands were hardly clean either. Faced with trying to hold together a country with a history of bloody ethnic conflict, Tito decided to let sleeping dogs lie and try to move forward. It can certainly be questioned whether that decision was the best one. But it's overheated rhetoric to suggest that Tito acted the way he did out of some fundamentally sinister motive. He made a hard decision in difficult circumstances, and given what came before and after him, there's a good case to be made that he might have been onto something.
Patient Observer , December 22, 2017 at 8:08 pm
Frankly I do not know even where to begin in a response but I will touch on one statement: that, in my experience as a mature man, is simply the most absurd string of words I have had the misfortune of reading:

As for the "Serbian holocaust", without denying that the activities of the Ustase in particular really were genocidal, the track record of WW2 in Yugoslavia is more complicated than that. While not as bloody as the Ustase, the Chetniks' hands were hardly clean either.

Really, Mr. Ward? Per Widipedia:

The Jasenovac concentration camp (Serbo-Croatian: Logor Jasenovac/Логор Јасеновац, pronounced [lôːgor jasěnoʋat͡s]; Yiddish: יאסענאוואץ‎) was an extermination camp established in Slavonia by the authorities of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) during World War II. The camp was established by the governing Ustaše regime and not operated by Nazi Germany.[4] It was one of the largest concentration camps in Europe[5] and the camp has been referred to as "the Auschwitz of the Balkans" and "the Yugoslav Auschwitz".[6]

Croatian authorities and Western sympathizers, as to be expected sought to minimize the number of victims. However, the most plausible numbers is 750,000 victims, the great majority Serb men, women and children as well as significant numbers of Jews and Roma.

Your claim of implied equivalency of the resistance of General Mihailovich and the Chetniks against fascism to Croatia's genocide of the Serbs is breathtaking. Even the worst of Croatian apologists have never advanced such an argument to my knowledge.

Mr. Ward, you are a contemptuous hack of the worst sort sort in this matter and an apologist for genocide.

More to follow.

Patient Observer , December 21, 2017 at 10:46 am
28 million dead, the bulk of their economic base devastated. And what was the amount of these "reparations"? My wife, from Romania, did recount the story of her parents experience after WW II, so I do have so fairly direct information on this topics. There was some confiscation, some distributed to the poor and some likely taken back to the SU. But to claim that these "reparations:" came anywhere close to the damage done to the SU is simply absurd. To repeat, Germany and its allies got off easy.

Just a data point per Wikipedia:

Most heavy industry (constituting 20% of total production) was claimed by the Soviet Union as reparations, and Soviet joint stock companies

Presumably, this was in East Germany which makes it likely a tiny fraction of what was destroyed in the SU.

Per Wikipedia, the allies initially began to confiscate German industry and then switched to the Marshal Plan to restore German industrial power. Wonder what SU thought about that.

Pavlo Svolochenko , December 21, 2017 at 5:42 pm
We must be talking about a different Carthage.
Moscow Exile , December 21, 2017 at 10:06 am
No, no, no!

As Yatsenyuk (remember him?) once said on German TV, "all of us still clearly remember the Soviet invasion into Ukraine and Germany".

[Dec 23, 2017] The Berlin and Hungary incidents were similar to recent Syrian events, in that an actual popular rebellion (sparked by whatever causes) was utilized and exploited by Uncle Sam, as part of regime-change effort.

Notable quotes:
"... The Government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union." ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

yalensis , December 20, 2017 at 4:47 pm

I think I can find the so-called "middle ground" here.

The Berlin and Hungary incidents were similar to recent Syrian events, in that an actual popular rebellion (sparked by whatever causes) was utilized and exploited by Uncle Sam, as part of regime-change effort. And Uncle Sam being in cahoots with, and funding, Nazi remnants.

Hence, the rebellions, however "noble" their original purpose, were amplified and turned in a counter-revolutionary direction, with all kinds of unsavory players involved. Not unlike Banderite Ukraine.

See, it's not as complicated as people think.

Pavlo Svolochenko , December 20, 2017 at 6:08 pm
https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3883676.html

The CIA trace is hardly a secret, nor is the fact that the CIA relied heavily on repainted Nazis and eastern European chauvinists. Combine that with the Nazi-esque slogans of the Berlin rioters, and the tinfoil hats can confidently be set aside.

Why would you think otherwise? Did you think the Nazi populace of Germany or Hungary had undergone some metamorphosis? Hitler's regime fell from favour not because the people of Germany rejected the malignant nationalism it stood for, but because the regime was defeated. The Nazi mindset is abundantly obvious in almost every German alive today, regardless of ostensible political persuasion, and Hungary barely even bothers to feign contrition.

Eastern European potato-people don't have noble aspirations, and they generally understand 'democracy' and other such concepts as figleafs to wear and war totems to carry as they destroy their tribal enemies.

Ryan Ward , December 20, 2017 at 5:40 am
And it was clear that this "freedom uprising" was nothing more than former fascist elements organized by the CIA and MI6 trying to stage a coup.

That's a pretty bold claim. Any actual evidence for it?

kirill , December 20, 2017 at 2:55 pm
How about you put up or shut up with evidence in favour of the NATzO narrative.

Operation Paper Clip.

Now why would NATzO freedom lovers need Nazis?

Ryan Ward , December 20, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Firstly, there's no "NATzO" narrative (and, as an aside, if you want people to take you seriously, I would suggest you stop using the term "NATzO". It's childish, and makes you sound like a fucking mouth-breather). There are the public and undisputed facts of the case. There were riots in East Germany and an insurrection in Hungary. Both were put down by some mixture of local communist forces and Soviet troops (More of the first in Germany and more of the latter in Hungary). Those are the "bare bones" of the two cases. Now, you've added to this base of publicly visible facts the claims that

a) the rebellious elements in both countries were primarily composed of former fascists.
b) the rebellious elements in both countries were led and organized by the CIA and MI6.

These are both positive claims. Positive claims need evidence. And evidence means real evidence, as in statistical analyses of known insurgents, CIA or MI6 documents, etc. not "That's the sort of thing those evil bastards would have done, therefore they did it!" or, "Since people who ask me for evidence don't answer my demand that they (impossibly) prove a negative, that's as good as proving a positive!" You've made two clearly positive claims, and rather bold ones at that, so until you provide at least some evidence in favour of them, you're talking out of your ..hat.

yalensis , December 20, 2017 at 4:55 pm
Ryan: I believe the facts do show that the CIA was involved in these various rebellions in Eastern Europe. Maybe post-facto.

However, even though I disagree with your overall point here, I do sympathize with your frustration regarding debating with "Kirill". Who, when asked to produce facts, is only capable of violent ripostes such as "Put up or shut up."
He is a tool, that's true. And Operation Paperclip is an issue completely separate from the Hungarian uprising of 1956. So that point of his is irrelevant.
But this is Kirill, after all, so what can you do?? Consider yourself lucky, that he didn't threaten you with rapey anal sex or forced fellatio, that's his usual response to comments he doesn't agree with!

Patient Observer , December 20, 2017 at 6:46 pm
A simplistic analysis but I will offer it nevertheless. The Nazi deep state, as Pavlo powerfully described, was/is alive and well in Germany. The upper management shakeup in West Germany (i.e. the end of WW II) scarcely touched the financial, industrial or commercial elites. Denazification was sought by FDR but was not pursued IIRC from various articles on the subject.

The Nazi's nicely adjusted to life in West Germany; just needed to learn to be more deceitful as their British mentors no doubt taught them. In East Germany and Hungary, Nazi's were not welcomed at any level and it stands to reason considering the carnage that was orders of magnitude worse than in Western Europe not to mention that extermination thing about Slavs. Hence, some Hungarians, excluded from power due to a Nazi past, were ready to "rebel" after any degree of prodding and promises by the West.

As should be well known, the West had a strong desire to save Nazis regardless of their genocidal past (or perhaps because of it). Operation Ratlines comes to mind.

marknesop , December 20, 2017 at 7:13 pm
Well, I couldn't speak to CIA involvement. It is, however, a matter of record that Radio Free Europe did everything it could to imply that American forces would intervene to back up the Hungarians if they would only get the ball rolling. I suppose it's true they never actually said that in so many words, but it seems clear that is what Hungarian patriots inferred from its encouragement. And it was the State Department which transmitted to Tito, after the revolt was well underway, " The Government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union." Eisenhower sort of condemned the Soviet action, but only said the American people were very sad about it and would do all in their 'peaceful power' to help them. I think the message that there would be no military assistance was pretty clear. Moreover, when Franco decided to send weapons to Hungarians and secured an agreement with Adenauer to refuel the Spanish planes in Germany, Eisenhower pressured Adenauer and got the agreement canceled. The Hungarians certainly felt official America had betrayed them.
Northern Star , December 20, 2017 at 3:47 pm
Read the first comment the one by William Raymond Smith

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2007/04/26/the-hungarian-revolution-an-exchange/

Ryan Ward , December 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm
It's well-known that Radio Free Europe encouraged uprisings in Eastern Europe, and that they specifically gave Hungarians the idea that they would support them if they rose up. Everyone already knows that. That's also entirely unexceptional, being the kind of agitprop that both sides of the Cold War engaged in routinely. That's an entirely different matter from actually orchestrating the uprising, and it has (if possible) even less relevance to the question of whether the insurgents were former fascists.
yalensis , December 20, 2017 at 5:01 pm
Most of the insurgents were NOT former fascists, they were ordinary people who didn't like what the new government was doing.
The issue is about how all of this evolved, and the the amorphous "leaders" and their connections to the CIA.
The best comparison for the 1956 Hungary thing is the later thing in Poland, the "Solidarity" movement, and so on.
Real actual industrial workers, but, behind the scenes, CIA pulling all of the strings.
No kidding.
People really need to figure this out, because at some point in the future, there will be an actual Revolution, and we need to make sure it stays clean.
Northern Star , December 20, 2017 at 5:15 pm
"Most of the insurgents were NOT former fascists, they were ordinary people who didn't like what the new government was doing."
Really??
So EXACTLY what were they doing in WW2 (GPW)?
Northern Star , December 20, 2017 at 5:40 pm
Hungary's fascist past has deep roots ,extending to 2017.
http://hungarianfreepress.com/2017/07/06/orbans-explicit-praise-of-horthy-is-a-denial-of-hungarys-fascist-past/
It is not necessary to (foolishly) argue that every man, woman and child in 1956 Budapest was fascist.
However Hungarian **actions** post WW1 define an obvious embrace of fascism by the
overall society which certainly did not vanish by 1956.
Ryan Ward , December 21, 2017 at 6:53 am
"Real actual industrial workers, but, behind the scenes, CIA pulling all of the strings.
No kidding."

It's important to be clear what "pulling all of the strings" actually means in this context. As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence of CIA involvement in Hungary except for the RFE broadcasts, and no evidence of CIA involvement in East Germany at all in 1953. The trouble is that it's easy to use any scrap of CIA involvement as an excuse to avoid the uncomfortable implications that the "workers' states" of Eastern Europe never commanded the loyalty of the actual flesh-and-blood workers. But this is really easy to do, and can be done on all sides. This is the same kind of thing that people do from the ideological opposite side in saying that, because the Donbas rebels have received critical assistance from foreign Russian volunteers and Russian material support (as well as, in very limited quantities, Russian troops). This is a dodge, but the key point is that it's a dodge on both sides. Getting back to the Hungarian example, the CIA (through RFE) had one and only one impact on the events, to make the Hungarian people forget their fear. If there were real solid local support for the Communist government, rumours of American support for revolution would have mobilized both sides. The loyalists to the regime would have mobilized to protect their government from "Yankee imperialists". But no such thing happened, because the actual principled support for the Communist regime in Hungary was negligible. A real legitimate Hungarian government wouldn't have needed Soviet tanks to prop it up.

Northern Star , December 20, 2017 at 5:11 pm
"the question of whether the insurgents were former fascists."

Considering that the uprising took place in 1956 .and assuming that most of the participants were adult males in WW2 .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_Cross_Party
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=83355

Doing the math .Yeah I think we can safely infer that many were fascists and/or tolerated fascist rule in Hungary .which was an ally of the Reich.

As I think about it more than a few were not only fascists in some politically abstract sense but fought alongside the nazis in Barbarossa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_in_World_War_II#Invasion_of_the_Soviet_Union

yalensis , December 20, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Honestly, I don't know what proportion of the Hungarian rebels were fascists. I am sure there were a lot of fascists who joined up later and were egged on, etc.

But the matter is way more complicated than that. As in most Eastern European counter-revolutions, the matter began, not with the fascists, but with malcontents within the Communist Party itself.
Apparently Rákosi did the usual Stalinist thing of purging his own (Communist) Party of dissidents, etc. Estimates are, that around 7,000 Communist Party members were purged. Which doesn't necessarily mean executed, but at least arrested, lost their jobs, etc.
These types of rebellions in the Communist world, usually start as an inter-Party thing.
If people could cut a break and keep their jobs and Party membership, then they would remain a force for stability in society.
But the Stalinists often seem to have a problem maintaining employee satisfaction among their cadre. Party leaders have a habit of using their political position as a way to settle personal scores. Then things get out of hand. This is what happened in Hungary, and it could have all been prevented, I think.

Patient Observer , December 20, 2017 at 6:52 pm
We may be ignoring the religious element which may be ever more important than the fascist element. The Vatican was a key player in the anti-communist/anti-Soviet efforts in eastern Europe. I don't think anyone can dispute that. So, if the discussion is expanded to include the role of the Vatican, then Western influence in the Hungarian revolt can be better appreciated.
kirill , December 20, 2017 at 9:37 pm
The USA was also busy installing various juntas in Latin America during the 1950s. Let's not forget that. The US simply has no record of fostering democracy abroad. In the name of goodness it engineered dozens of bloody coups and uprisings around the world. Anyone with a functional brain can see that this was motivated by economic and power self-interest and not selfless sacrifice for the good of humanity.

BTW, the British were training Ukr Nazi collaborators after 1945 to stage insurrection in Ukraine (I knew one such Ukr). This was a full alliance with the worst sort of scum to engineer regime change. There is no credibility to stories that the Hungarian "uprising" was spontaneous and had nothing to do with Nazi elements boosted by the USA and the UK. The fact that the death toll was faked up by a factor of 25 is supporting evidence of this. A death toll of 2,400 is very small considering the intensity of the combat. This figure was not the result of machine gunning of peaceful protestors. If a true uprising happened in 1956, then the scale of public participation and deaths would be vastly higher. This is what the NATzO propaganda about "up to 60,000 deaths" was based on.

yalensis , December 21, 2017 at 3:41 am
Patient Observer, that's a very good point about Vatican involvement.
We see that on steroids during the Solidarity events in Poland.
Which also started small, as an actual strike of industrial workers, and then got out of hand.
There was a very healthy faction within the Polish Communist Party which did a lot to help preserve social stability, which were able to mollify the real workers with their real economic concerns, and could have been successful in the end; but the unhealthy elements overwhelmed them, egged on by external enemies.

And again, this is partly a problem of the Communist Parties themselves, the way they opened themselves up and became mass parties, allowing in all sorts of riffraff, careerists and class enemies, who were willing to switch sides on a dime.
We see this same phenomenon 10 years later, in Russia itself (Gorbachov-Yeltsin).

If Communist Parties want to be taken seriously ever again, then they need to be willing to make themselves smaller, and idea-driven. Not career- or money-driven.

Jen , December 21, 2017 at 4:01 am
Don't forget too that during the 1980s and 90s the Pope was the Polish priest formerly known as Karol Wojtyla. He very likely interfered in Polish politics more than he should have given his position as Pope. During his reign as Pope, the liberation theology movement in Latin America that developed among some Catholic priests and theologians and which had grassroots support among the poor was crushed by right-wing governments in that region. Pope John Paull II was known to have opposed liberation theology because it was partly based on Marxist beliefs.
Moscow Exile , December 21, 2017 at 4:41 am
I never really took to Lech Wałęsa, really.

Few did in my home town: he looked too much like Alex Murphy, aka "Murphy the Mouth", former local scrum-half rugby hero and Rugby League coach.

Ryan Ward , December 21, 2017 at 5:45 am
"So, if the discussion is expanded to include the role of the Vatican, then Western influence in the Hungarian revolt can be better appreciated."

This is a completely different matter. There's nothing meaningfully "Western" about the Catholic Church in the context of Eastern Europe. The Catholic Church is the indigenous religion of most of Eastern Europe. Ironically, in Poland and Hungary, it was the Communist governments, not the Catholic resistance, that was "imported" (at bayonet-point, for that matter).

Ryan Ward , December 21, 2017 at 5:53 am
*Sigh* I'm not sure why I'm bothering to still respond to this nonsense when there's actual intelligent conversation going on, but here's one last comment, not that I'll actually need to say anything really new .
The USA was also busy installing various juntas in Latin America during the 1950s .BTW, the British were training Ukr Nazi collaborators after 1945 to stage insurrection in Ukraine (I knew one such Ukr). This was a full alliance with the worst sort of scum to engineer regime change.
What in the universe does any of this have to do with Poland or Hungary? This is exactly the sort of dreck I identified before, "This is the kind of thing those evil bastards would do, therefore they did it!" It's a piss poor argument, and if you had any real evidence for your assertions about Poland and Hungary, you wouldn't resort to such rube goldberg devices.

There is no credibility to stories that the Hungarian "uprising" was spontaneous and had nothing to do with Nazi elements boosted by the USA and the UK.
And here we go again. That's not a "story". That's the legitimate null hypothesis. To claim that the US and UK were involved (beyond the RFE broadcasts that everyone already knows about) is a positive claim. Positive claims require direct evidence to be credible. And despite being asked three times now to provide the slightest scrap of direct evidence for your assertions, you've failed to do so.

The fact that the death toll was faked up by a factor of 25 is supporting evidence of this.

For anyone intelligent enough to tie their shoes in the morning, this isn't supporting evidence of anything. By this logic, the Stalinist purges and the Cultural Revolution in China were Western operations. What is the evidence you ask? Westerners exaggerated the death tolls involved! Doesn't that make it obvious?

Ryan Ward , December 21, 2017 at 6:11 am
There was a very healthy faction within the Polish Communist Party which did a lot to help preserve social stability, which were able to mollify the real workers with their real economic concerns, and could have been successful in the end; but the unhealthy elements overwhelmed them, egged on by external enemies.

A couple comments here. Firstly, to talk about "the real workers" is the purest "No true Scotsman"-ism. Workers are workers, whether they adopt political views you (or anyone else) find congenial or not. As to "mollifying" real economic concerns, another (and more accurate) way of putting it, is buying workers off. The Polish Communist Party held no real loyalty among the workers of Poland, and only kept them quiet by artificially suppressing prices using borrowed funds. The first major thrust of the Solidarity movement at the turn of the 80's took advantage of discontent among the workers when the government tried to raise prices (to stop bleeding money on loans). To the extent that the government managed to buy peace for a few years, it was only by lowering prices again, and paying for it with a credit card. This was not a principled response to the unrest, and those workers who were "mollified" by it were the most mercenary and least principled of workers. This is why the whole rotten edifice crumbled so easily in 1989. No one really cared about defending it if it would actually cost them anything to do so. Time-serving bureaucrats paid off time-serving workers, and as soon as the bill came, everyone had a sudden urge to head to the washroom.

Secondly, again, the Catholic Church was not an "external enemy", least of all in Poland. The Poles themselves were always much more loyal to the Church than they ever were to bureaucrats imposed from Moscow (again, it wasn't the church, but the government, that was really foreign). And the fact that the Pope at the time was a Pole made the Church more, not less, hostile, to the Communist governments of Eastern Europe.

Cortes ,

[Dec 23, 2017] "The First hundred thousand euros to Navalny came from Khodorkovsky"

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , December 21, 2017 at 11:32 am

Navalny a lawyer?

Тайны биографии Навального: "Первые сто тысяч евро получил от Ходорковского"
Secrets from his biography: "The First hundred thousand euros came from Khodorkovsky"

After school, Navalny entered the law faculty of the Russian University of Peoples' Friendship and, according to official figures, graduated in 1998. But could not have graduated, according to Lina Kandakzhi, a teacher of radio journalism at the PFUR, who wrote about this in her Twitter account. "This person Navalny did not graduate from the university: he was expelled from the first year. He is a liar." This Twitter entry was re-signed by Kandakzhi's attorney, Violetta Volkov, but the topic did not receive any resonance and the teacher herself has refused to comment on this story.

My official inquiry at the PFUR does not receive a reply for about a month: they say that they transferred it from one department to another; they ignore letters, promise to clarify the information later by phone What is this? Whether it is negligence of employees or deliberate reluctance to answer is unclear.

You cannot directly blame Navalny for lying, however: to buy a diploma for one university, and then enter another higher education course at another was a scheme typical for those years. Indeed, a year after the alleged graduation from the PFUR, Navalny became a student in the fee paying Finance and Credit Faculty of the Government of the Russian Federation Finance Academy, majoring in Securities and Exchange Business, and graduated in 2001.

[Dec 23, 2017] A Break Down Of The Top FBI And DOJ Players. Possible Deep State!

Some people think that it now time to look closely into Mueller team.
Dec 23, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Some nice graphics, almost useless interview.

[Dec 23, 2017] Mueller himself who far from being a stand-up fellow with a spotless record, and an unshakable commitment to the rule of law

Dec 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

The second point we want to make, relates to Mueller himself who–far from being a "stand-up fellow" with a spotless record, and an unshakable commitment to principle–is not the exemplar people seem to think he is. In fact, his personal integrity and credibility are greatly in doubt. Here's a little background on Mueller from former-FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley who was named Time's Person of the Year in 2002:

"Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."

Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities

Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11." ("Comey and Mueller: Russia-gate's Mythical Heroes", Colleen Rowley, Counterpunch)

Illegal spying on American citizens? Infiltration of nonviolent anti-war groups? Martial law? Torture??

This is NOT how Mueller is portrayed in the media, is it?

The fact is, Mueller is no elder statesman or paragon of virtue. He's a political assassin whose task is to take down Trump at all cost. Unfortunately for Mueller, the credibility of his investigation is beginning to wane as conflicts of interest mount and public confidence dwindles. After 18 months of relentless propaganda and political skullduggery, the Russia-gate fiction is beginning to unravel.

Anon , Disclaimer December 23, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT

Please, let Mueller stay to become a poster boy for borgistas. With each day, the incompetence of the CIA' and FBI' brass has been revealing with the greater and greater clarity. They have sold out the US citizenry for personal gains.
Rod Rosenstein' role in particular should be well investigated so that his name becomes tightly connected to the "dossier" and all its racy tales.
" there was never sufficient reason to appoint a Special Counsel. The threshold for making such an appointment should have been probable cause, that is, deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein should have shown why he thought there was 'reasonable basis to believe that a crime had been committed.' That's what's required under the Fourth Amendment, and that's the standard that should have been met. But Rosenstein ignored that rule because it improved the Special Counsel's chances of netting indictments. Even so, there's no evidence that a crime has been committed. None."
-- Anti-Consttutonal activity by Rod Rosenstein = Treason.
Anon , Disclaimer December 23, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT
@Corvinus

You mean, we should have better read the New Times and WaPo instead, in order to get the "gigantic scope of the investigation?" -- Thank you very much. But these ziocons' nests have not provided any hard facts related to the main goal of this particular investigation. However, a true and immense value of the investigation is the exposure of the incompetence of and political manipulations by the FBI deciders -- as well as the sausage making under Clinton leadership in the DNC kitchen.

Anon , Disclaimer December 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT
@Realist

"It should have never been started. Trump and his administration screwed themselves."
– Disagree.
The investigation is the best thing for the US. It has exposed traitors (leakers) in the US government, the corruption of the FBI (which provided the leaks and did not investigate the allegedly hacked DNC computers and white-washed Clinton's criminal negligence), and the spectacular incompetence of the DNC-FBI deciders (the cooperation with foreigners in order to derail the governance of the US by the elected POTUS). Cannot wait to hear more about Awan affair (the greatest breach of the US cybersecurity under the watch of the current FBI brass) and about the investigation of Seth Rich murder.

fnn , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm GMT
Relic Adlai Stevenson-type liberal law prof Jonathan Turley:

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/20/muellers-muscle-play-why-the-gsa-email-seizure-was-both-unprecedented-and-unnecessary/

For those familiar with Mueller, the blunt-force approach taken toward the GSA is something of a signature of Mueller and his heavy-handed associates like Andrew Weissmann. As I have previously written, Mueller has a controversial record in attacking attorney-client privilege as well as harsh tactics against targets. As a U.S. attorney, he was accused of bugging an attorney-client conversation, and as special counsel he forced (with the approval of a federal judge) the attorney of Paul Manafort to become a witness against her own client. Weissmann's record is even more controversial, including major reversals in past prosecutions for exceeding the scope of the criminal code or questionable ethical conduct.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 23, 2017 at 11:50 pm GMT
"There is no proof of hacking,"

Nor will any be produced either. If Trump were to drop dead tomorrow or, alternatively, decide to pack it in and go back to running hotels, Mueller's Star Chamber Committee would close down the day after. Mueller is a tool of The Powers That Be. And they want Trump OUT -- no matter what the cost.

[Dec 23, 2017] Debunking Mainstream Economists on Secular Stagnation and the Loanable Funds Fallacy by Servaas Storm

Notable quotes:
"... By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that. ..."
"... ceteris paribus ..."
"... simultaneously ..."
"... private households ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... This is the night of the expanding man I take one last drag as I approach the stand I cried when I wrote this song Sue me if I play too long This brother is free I'll be what I want to be ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a terrific takedown of the loanable funds theory, on which a ton of bad policy rests.

By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website

Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that.

Introduction

Nine years after the Great Financial Crisis, U.S. output growth has not returned to its pre-recession trend, even after interest rates hit the 'zero lower bound' (ZLB) and the unconventional monetary policy arsenal of the Federal Reserve has been all but exhausted. It is widely feared that this insipid recovery reflects a 'new normal', characterized by "secular stagnation" which set in already well before the global banking crisis of 2008 (Summers 2013, 2015).

This 'new normal' is characterized not just by this slowdown of aggregate economic growth, but also by greater income and wealth inequalities and a growing polarization of employment and earnings into high-skill, high-wage and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- at the expense of middle-class jobs (Temin 2017; Storm 2017). The slow recovery, heightened job insecurity and economic anxiety have fueled a groundswell of popular discontent with the political establishment and made voters captive to Donald Trump's siren song promising jobs and growth ( Ferguson and Page 2017 ).

What are the causes of secular stagnation? What are the solutions to revive growth and get the U.S. economy out of the doldrums?

If we go by four of the papers commissioned by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at its recent symposium to explore these questions, one headline conclusion stands out: the secular stagnation is caused by a heavy overdose of savings (relative to investment), which is caused by higher retirement savings due to declining population growth and an ageing labour force (Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Lu & Teulings 2017; Eggertson, Lancastre and Summers 2017), higher income inequality (Rachel & Smith 2017), and an inflow of precautionary Asian savings (Rachel & Smith 2017). All these savings end up as deposits, or 'loanable funds' (LF), in commercial banks. In earlier times, so the argument goes, banks would successfully channel these 'loanable funds' into productive firm investment -- by lowering the nominal interest rate and thus inducing additional demand for investment loans.

But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in order to invest. The result is inadequate investment and a shortage of aggregate demand in the short run, which lead to long-term stagnation as long as the savings-investment imbalance persists. Summers (2015) regards a "chronic excess of saving over investment" as "the essence of secular stagnation". Monetary policymakers at the Federal Reserve are in a fix, because they cannot lower the interest rate further as it is stuck at the ZLB. Hence, forces of demography and ageing, higher inequality and thrifty Chinese savers are putting the U.S. economy on a slow-moving turtle -- and not much can be done, it seems, to halt the resulting secular stagnation.

This is clearly a depressing conclusion, but it is also wrong.

To see this, we have to understand why there is a misplaced focus on the market for loanable funds that ignores the role of fiscal policy that is plainly in front of us. In other words, we need to step back from the trees of dated models and see the whole forest of our economy.

The Market for Loanable Funds

In the papers mentioned, commercial banks must first mobilise savings in order to have the loanable funds (LF) to originate new (investment) loans or credit. Banks are therefore intermediaries between "savers" (those who provide the LF-supply) and "investors" (firms which demand the LF). Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors.

We apparently live in a non-monetary (corn) economy -- one that just exchanges a real good that everybody uses, like corn. Savings (or LF-supply) are assumed to rise when the interest rate R goes up, whereas investment (or LF-demand) must decline when R increases. This is the stuff of textbooks, as is illustrated by Greg Mankiw's (1997, p. 63) explanation:

In fact, saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply an demand. In this case, the 'good' is loanable funds, and its 'price' is the interest rate. Saving is the supply of loans -- individuals lend their savings to investors, or they deposit their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. Investment is the demand for loanable funds -- investors borrow from the public directly by selling bonds or indirectly by borrowing from banks. [ .] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand.

But the loanable funds market also forms the heart of complicated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, beloved by 'freshwater' and 'saltwater' economists alike (Woodford 2010), as should be clear from the commissioned INET papers as well. Figure 1 illustrates the loanable funds market in this scheme. The upward-sloping curve tells us that savings (or LF-supply) goes up as the interest rate R increases. The downward-sloping curve shows us that investment (or LF-demand) declines if the cost of capital (R) goes up. In the initial situation, the LF-market clears at a positive interest rate R0 > 0. Savings equal investment, which implies that LF-supply matches LF-demand, and in this -- happy -- equilibrium outcome, the economy can grow along some steady-state path.

To see how we can get secular stagnation in such a loanable-funds world, we introduce a shock, say, an ageing population (a demographic imbalance), a rise in (extreme) inequality, or an Asian savings glut, due to which the savings schedule shifts down. Equilibrium in the new situation should occur at R1 which is negative. But this can't happen because of the ZLB: the nominal interest cannot decline below zero. Hence R is stuck at the ZLB and savings exceed investment, or LF-supply > LF-demand. This is a disequilibrium outcome which involves an over-supply of savings (relative to investment), in turn leading to depressed growth.

Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.

The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016 ). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create new money ex nihilo ), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with "loans" or "credit," wrong because the empirical evidence in support of a "chronic excess of savings over investment" is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some "market-clearing" price (the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption that the two schedules -- the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve -- are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes already pointed out).

Figure 1: The Loanable Funds Market: A Savings Glut Causing Secular Stagnation

I wish to briefly elaborate these six points. I understand that each of these criticisms is known and I entertain little hope that that any of this will make people reconsider their approach, analysis, diagnosis and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important that these criticisms are raised and not shoveled under the carpet. The problem of secular stagnation is simply too important to be left mis-diagnosed.

First Problem: Loanable Funds Supply and Demand Are Not Independent Functions

Let me start with the point that the LF-supply and LF-demand curve are not two independent schedules. Figure 1 presents savings and investment as functions of only the interest rate R, while keeping all other variables unchanged. The problem is that the ceteris paribus assumption does not hold in this case. The reason is that savings and investment are both affected by, and at the same time determined by, changes in income and (changes in) income distribution. To see how this works, let us assume that the average propensity to save rises in response to the demographic imbalance and ageing. As a result, consumption and aggregate demand go down. Rational firms, expecting future income to decline, will postpone or cancel planned investment projects and investment declines (due to the negative income effect and for a given interest rate R0). This means that LF-demand curve in Figure 1 must shift downward in response to the increased savings. The exact point was made by Keynes (1936, p. 179):

The classical theory of the rate of interest [the loanable funds theory] seems to suppose that, if the demand curve for capital shifts or if the curve relating the rate of interest to the amounts saved out of a given income shifts or if both these curves shift, the new rate of interest will be given by the point of intersection of the new positions of the two curves. But this is a nonsense theory. For the assumption that income is constant is inconsistent with the assumption that these two curves can shift independently of one another. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism based on the assumption of a given income breaks down In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes in the level of income or to the possibility of the level of income being actually a function of the rate of the investment.

Let me try to illustrate this using Figure 2. Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) rise in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down, but because (expected) income declines, the LF-demand schedule shifts downward as well. The outcome could well be that there is no change in equilibrium savings and equilibrium investment. The only change is that the 'natural' interest is now R1 and equal to the ZLB. Figure 2 is, in fact, consistent with the empirical analysis (and their Figure of global savings and investment) of Rachel & Smith. Let me be clear: Figure 2 is not intended to suggest that the loanable funds market is useful and theoretically correct. The point I am trying to make is that income changes and autonomous demand changes are much bigger drivers of both investment and saving decisions than the interest rate. Market clearing happens here -- as Keynes was arguing -- because the level of economic activity and income adjust, not because of interest-rate adjustment.

Figure 2: The Loanable Funds Market: Shifts in Both Schedules

Second Problem: Savings Do Not Fund Investment, Credit Does

The loanable funds doctrine wrongly assumes that commercial bank lending is constrained by the prior availability of loanable funds or savings. The simple point in response is that, in real life, modern banks are not just intermediaries between 'savers' and 'investors', pushing around already-existing money, but are money creating institutions. Banks create new money ex nihilo , i.e. without prior mobilisation of savings. This is illustrated by Werner's (2014) case study of the money creation process by one individual commercial bank. What this means is that banks do pre-finance investment, as was noted by Schumpeter early on and later by Keynes (1939), Kaldor (1989), Kalecki, and numerous other economists. It is for this reason that Joseph Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit ( ex nihilo ) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them." Nicholas Kaldor (1989, p. 179) hit the nail on its head when he wrote that "[C]redit money has no 'supply function' in the production sense (since its costs of production are insignificant if not actually zero); it comes into existence as a result of bank lending and is extinguished through the repayment of bank loans. At any one time the volume of bank lending or its rate of expansion is limited only by the availability of credit-worthy borrowers." Kaldor had earlier expressed his views on the endogeneity of money in his evidence to the Radcliffe Committee on the Workings of the Monetary System, whose report (1959) was strongly influenced by Kaldor's argumentation. Or take Lord Adair Turner (2016, pp. 57) to whom the loanable-funds approach is 98% fictional, as he writes:

Read an undergraduate textbook of economics, or advanced academic papers on financial intermediation, and if they describe banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional, and it fails to capture their essential role and implications. [ ] Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .

We therefore don't need savings to make possible investment -- or, in contrast to the Protestant Ethic, banks allow us to have 'gratification' even if we have not been 'thrifty' and austere, as long as there are slack resources in the economy.

It is by no means a secret that commercial banks create new money. As the Bank of England (2007) writes, "When bank make loans they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed" (Berry et al. 2007, p. 377). Or consider the following statement from the Deutsche Bundesbank (2009): "The commercial banks can create money themselves ." Across the board, central bank economists, including economists working at the Bank for International Settlements (Borio and Disyatat 2011), have rejected the loanable funds model as a wrong description of how the financial system actually works (see McLeay et al . 2014a, 2014b; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). And the Deutsche Bundesbank (2017) leaves no doubt as to how the banking system works and money is created in actually-existing capitalism, stating that the ability of banks to originate loans does not depend on the prior availability of saving deposits. Bank of England economists Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhoff (2015) reject the loanable-funds approach in favour of a model with money-creating banks. In their model (as in reality), banks pre-finance investment; investment creates incomes; people save out of their incomes; and at the end of the day, ex-post savings equal investment. This is what Jakab and Kumhoff (2015) conclude:

" . if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore, by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does. To argue otherwise confuses the respective macroeconomic roles of resources (saving) and debt-based money (financing)."

Savings are a consequence of credit-financed investment (rather than a prior condition) -- and we cannot draw a savings-investment cross as in Figure 1, as if the two curves are independent. They are not. There exists therefore no 'loanable funds market' in which scarce savings constrain (through interest rate adjustments) the demand for investment loans. Highlighting the loanable funds fallacy, Keynes wrote in "The Process of Capital Formation" (1939):

"Increased investment will always be accompanied by increased saving, but it can never be preceded by it. Dishoarding and credit expansion provides not an alternative to increased saving, but a necessary preparation for it. It is the parent, not the twin, of increased saving."

This makes it all the more remarkable that some of the authors of the commissioned conference papers continue to frame their analysis in terms of the discredited loanable funds market which wrongly assumes that savings have an existence of their own -- separate from investment, the level of economic activity and the distribution of incomes.

Third Problem: The Interest Rate Is a Monetary Policy Instrument, Not a Market-Clearing Price

In loanable funds theory, the interest rate is a market price, determined by LF-supply and LF-demand (as in Figure 1). In reality, central bankers use the interest rate as their principal policy instrument (Storm and Naastepad 2012). It takes effort and a considerable amount of sophistry to match the loanable funds theory and the usage of the interest rate as a policy instrument. However, once one acknowledges the empirical fact that commercial banks create money ex nihilo , which means money supply is endogenous, the model of an interest-rate clearing loanable funds market becomes untenable. Or as Bank of England economists Jakab and Kumhof (2015) argue:

modern central banks target interest rates, and are committed to supplying as many reserves (and cash) as banks demand at that rate, in order to safeguard financial stability. The quantity of reserves is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of lending and money creation. This view concerning central bank reserves [ ] has been repeatedly described in publications of the world's leading central banks.

What this means is that the interest rate may well be at the ZLB, but this is not caused by a savings glut in the loanable funds market, but the result of a deliberate policy decision by the Federal Reserve -- in an attempt to revive sluggish demand in a context of stagnation, subdued wage growth, weak or no inflation, substantial hidden un- and underemployment, and actual recorded unemployment being (much) higher than the NAIRU (see Storm and Naastepad 2012). Seen this way, the savings glut is the symptom (or consequence ) of an aggregate demand shortage which has its roots in the permanent suppression of wage growth (relative to labour productivity growth), the falling share of wages in income, the rising inequalities of income and wealth (Taylor 2017) as well as the financialization of corporations (Lazonick 2017) and the economy as a whole (Storm 2018). It is not the cause of the secular stagnation -- unlike in the loanable funds models.

Fourth Problem: The Manifest Absence of Finance and Financial Markets

What the various commissioned conference papers do not acknowledge is that the increase in savings (mostly due to heightened inequality and financialization) is not channeled into higher real-economy investment, but is actually channeled into more lucrative financial (derivative) markets. Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity and IMF economists have documented the growth of global institutional cash pools, now worth $5 to 6 trillion and managed by asset or money managers in the shadow banking system (Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011; Pozsar 2015). Today's global economy is suffering from an unprecedented "liquidity preference" -- with the cash safely "parked" in short-term (over-collateralized lending deals in the repo-market. The liquidity is used to earn a quick buck in all kinds of OTC derivatives trading, including forex swaps, options and interest rate swaps. The global savings glut is the same thing as the global overabundance of liquidity (partying around in financial markets) and also the same thing as the global demand shortage -- that is: the lack of investment in real economic activity, R&D and innovation.

The low interest rate is important in this context, because it has dramatically lowered the opportunity cost of holding cash -- thus encouraging (financial) firms, the rentiers and the super-rich to hold on to their liquidity and make (quick and relatively safe and high) returns in financial markets and exotic financial instruments. Added to this, we have to acknowledge the fact that highly-leveraged firms are paying out most of their profits to shareholders as dividends or using it to buy back shares (Lazonick 2017). This has turned out to be damaging to real investment and innovation, and it has added further fuel to financialization (Epstein 2018; Storm 2018). If anything, firms have stopped using their savings (or retained profits) to finance their investments which are now financed by bank loans and higher leverage. If we acknowledge these roles of finance and financial markets, then we can begin to understand why investment is depressed and why there is an aggregate demand shortage. More than two decades of financial deregulation have created a rentiers' delight, a capitalism without 'compulsions' on financial investors, banks, and the property-owning class which in practice has led to 'capitalism for the 99%' and 'socialism for the 1%' (Palma 2009; Epstein 2018) For authentic Keynesians, this financialized system is the exact opposite of Keynes' advice to go for the euthanasia of the rentiers ( i.e. design policies to reduce the excess liquidity).

Fifth Problem: Confusing Savings with "Loans," or Stocks with Flows

"I have found out what economics is,' Michał Kalecki once told Joan Robinson, "it is the science of confusing stocks with flows." If anything, Kalecki's comment applies to the loanable funds model. In the loanable fund universe, as Mankiw writes and as most commissioned conference papers argue, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand at some equilibrium interest rate. But savings and investment are flow variables, whereas the supply of loans and the demand for loans are stock variables. Simply equating these flows to the corresponding stocks is not considered good practice in stock-flow-consistent macro-economic modelling. It is incongruous, because even if we assume that the interest rate does clear "the stock of loan supply" and "the stock of loan demand", there is no reason why the same interest rate would simultaneously balance savings ( i.e. the increase in loan supply) and investment ( i.e. the increase in loan demand). So what is the theoretical rationale of assuming that some interest rate is clearing the loanable funds market (which is defined in terms of flows )?

To illustrate the difference between stocks and flows: the stock of U.S. loans equals around 350% of U.S. GDP (if one includes debts of financial firms), while gross savings amount to 17% of U.S. GDP. Lance Taylor (2016) presents the basic macroeconomic flows and stocks for the U.S. economy to show how and why loanable funds macro models do not fit the data -- by a big margin. No interest rate adjustment mechanism is strong enough to bring about this (ex-post) balance in terms of flows , because the interest rate determination is overwhelmed by changes in loan supply and demand stocks . What is more, and as stated before, we don't actually use 'savings' to fund 'investment'. Firms do not use retained profits (or corporate savings) to finance their investment, but in actual fact disgorge the cash to shareholders (Lazonick 2017). They finance their investment by bank loans (which is newly minted money). Households use their (accumulated) savings to buy bonds in the secondary market or any other existing asset. In that case, the savings do not go to funding new investment -- but are merely used to re-arrange the composition of the financial portfolio of the savers.

Final Problem: The Evidence of a Chronic Excess of Savings Over Investment is Missing

If Summers claims that there is a "chronic excess of savings over investment," what he means is that ex-ante savings are larger than ex-ante investment. This is a difficult proposition to empirically falsify, because we only have ex-post (national accounting) data on savings and investment which presume the two variables are equal. However, what we can do is consider data on (global) gross and net savings rates (as a proportion of GDP) to see if the propensity to save has increased. This is what Bofinger and Ries (2017) did and they find that global saving rates of private households have declined dramatically since the 1980s. This means, they write, that one can rule out 'excess savings' due to demographic factors (as per Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Eggertsson, Lancastre & Summers 2017; Rachel & Smith 2017; and Lu & Teulings 2017). While the average saving propensity of household has declined, the aggregate propensity to save has basically stayed the same during the period 1985-2014. This is shown in Figure 3 (reproduced from Bofinger and Reis 2017) which plots the ratio of global gross savings (or global gross investment) to GDP against the world real interest rate during 1985-2014. A similar figure can be found in the paper by Rachel and Smith (2017). What can be seen is that while there has been no secular rise in the average global propensity to save, there has been a secular decline in interest rates. This drop in interest rates to the ZLB is not caused by a savings glut, nor by a financing glut, but is the outcome of the deliberate decisions of central banks to lower the policy rate in the face of stagnating economies, put on a 'slow-moving turtle' by a structural lack of aggregate demand which -- as argued by Storm and Naastepad (2012) and Storm (2017) -- is largely due to misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation.

Saving/Investment Equilibria and World Real Interest Rate, 1985-2014 Source: Bofinger and Reis (2017), Figure 1(a).

To understand the mechanisms underlying Figure 3, let us consider Figure 4 which plots investment demand as a negative function of the interest rate. In the 'old situation', investment demand is high at a (relatively) high rate of interest (R0); this corresponds to the data points for the period 1985-1995 in Figure 3. But then misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation began to depress aggregate demand and investment -- and as a result, the investment demand schedule starts to shift down and to become more steeply downward-sloping at the same time. In response to the growth slowdown (and weakening inflationary pressure), central banks reduce R -- but without any success in raising the gross investment rate. This process continues until the interest rate hits the ZLB while investment has become practically interest-rate insensitive, as investment is now overwhelmingly determined by pessimistic profit expectations; this is indicated by the new investment schedule (in red). That the economy is now stuck at the ZLB is not caused by a "chronic excess of savings" but rather by a chronic shortage of aggregate demand -- a shortage created by decades of wage growth moderation, labour market flexibilization, and heightened job insecurity as well as the financialization of corporations and the economy at large (Storm 2018).

Figure 4: Secular Stagnation As a Crisis of Weak Investment Demand

Conclusions

The consensus in the literature and in the commissioned conference papers that the global decline in real interest rates is caused by a higher propensity to save, above all due to demographic reasons, is wrong in terms of underlying theory and evidence base. The decline in interest rates is the monetary policy response to stalling investment and growth, both caused by a shortage of global demand. However, the low interest rates are unable to revive growth and halt the secular stagnation, because there is little reason for firms to expand productive capacity in the face of the persistent aggregate demand shortage. Unless we revive demand, for example through debt-financed fiscal stimulus or a drastic and permanent progressive redistribution of income and wealth in favour of lower-income groups (Taylor 2017), there is no escape from secular stagnation. The narrow focus on the ZLB and powerless monetary policy within the framing of a loanable-funds financial system blocks out serious macroeconomic policy debate on how to revive aggregate demand in a sustainable manner. It will keep the U.S. economy on the slow-moving turtle -- not because policymakers cannot do anything about it, but we choose to do so. The economic, social and political damage, fully self-inflicted, is going to be of historic proportions.

It is not a secret that the loanable funds approach is fallacious (Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). While academic economists continue to refine their Ptolemaic model of a loanable-funds market, central bank economists have moved on -- and are now exploring the scope of and limitations to monetary policymaking in a monetary economy. Keynes famously wrote that "Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." In 2017, things seem to happen the other way around: academic economists who believe themselves to be free thinkers are caught in the stale theorizing of a century past. The puzzle is, as Lance Taylor (2016, p. 15) concludes "why [New Keynesian economists] revert to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes's innovations. Maybe, as [Keynes] said in the preface to the General Theory, "'The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones ..' (p. viii)"

Due to our inability to free ourselves from the discredited loanable funds doctrine, we have lost the forest for the trees. We cannot see that the solution to the real problem underlying secular stagnation (a structural shortage of aggregate demand) is by no means difficult: use fiscal policy -- a package of spending on infrastructure, green energy systems, public transportation and public services, and progressive income taxation -- and raise (median) wages. The stagnation will soon be over, relegating all the scholastic talk about the ZLB to the dustbin of a Christmas past.

See original post for references

gtggtg , December 22, 2017 at 10:08 am

"Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that."

But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"? Or is Keynes so out of favor that this is outre thinking?

gtggtg , December 22, 2017 at 10:10 am

I mean, I just have this image of economists going, "It's the chicken! It's the chicken, I say!" "No! It's the egg, dammit!"

MisterMr , December 22, 2017 at 11:58 am

I second this.

The point is that the "saving glut" is caused bi unequal distribution of income, so it's a good thing that the "shortage of aggregate demand" is stressed, but still it's just two names for the same thing.

In the end the "money creation" is needed because there is not a "money circulation", IMO.

jsn , December 22, 2017 at 4:45 pm

Putting money into the broadest possible distribution and circulation is the key. It could be done with existing money through taxation or with new money through the federal fiscal lever.

Given the "Tax Reform" just passed, odds on the first option look vanishingly long. The second option is what the elites do whenever they want something, normally a war or tax cut. If they want a robust economy, eventually they will pull the fiscal lever.

Feudalism, however, may look better to our depraved current elite crop than any kind of broadly robust economy.

TroyMcClure , December 22, 2017 at 11:49 am

There was a link to an article yesterday called "I write because I hate" that described how incorrect and even dangerous metaphors can be when it comes to understanding the world. Yours is a case in point.

Jamie , December 22, 2017 at 12:00 pm

But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"

I'm not sure I entirely understand your complaint, but at a first glance a savings glut is one kind of demand shortage, but not every kind of demand shortage can reasonably be called a savings glut. In one situation you have plenty of resource but no use for it other than possible future use (savings glut -- you have everything you need so cease purchasing) and in another situation you have insufficient resource (demand shortage -- you cease purchasing because you can't afford to purchase) but no savings glut. You don't even have the resources you need for today, never mind saving for tomorrow.

artiste-de-decrottage , December 22, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Aye, that's exactly how I understand it, so it is not exactly a chicken-or-the-egg conflation to try to distinguish a savings glut from a lack of demand.

James McFadden , December 22, 2017 at 3:25 pm

You seem to have missed the point. The problem is wealth distribution. Mainstream economists don't distinguish who has the savings in their simplistic models. When the rich already have a widget in every room of their mansion, they are not going to buy more widgets no matter how low the price of widgets sink. And when the poor have no money, they will not be able to buy the widgets no matter how much they want them. Demand is not just a function of price. To increase demand, we need a more equitable form of wealth distribution.

Skip Intro , December 23, 2017 at 9:30 am

One major difference, according to the author, is that the lack of aggregate demand exists, while the savings glut does not. The fact of companies sitting on liquidity, is detached from investment, for which they borrow. That investment is lacking because they do not see good investments, because of a lack of aggregate demand. if they did invest, it would not be constrained by their 'savings'.

Larry , December 22, 2017 at 12:58 pm

"But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in order to invest."

That needs some explanation. Banks are not offering US businesses free money (excerpt briefly during the Crash). BBB bonds yields are aprox 4.3% -- and most businesses cannot borrow at that rate (excerpt when posting collateral).

For comparison over long time horizons, the real (ex-CPI) BBB corporate bond rate is 2.5% to 3% -- in the middle of its range from 1952-1980.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAA

John Wright , December 22, 2017 at 1:45 pm

Banks are enjoying the privilege of loaning excess deposits to a risk free client, the Federal Reserve.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/EXCSRESNS

This is at 1.5% per https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/reqresbalances.htm as of 12-14-2017

Why should banks risk lending money to entities who might not pay it back?

Loan it to the Fed at 1.5%

Altandmain , December 22, 2017 at 1:17 pm

The real reason why the political system won't make any effort to address aggregate demand is because it would help the people.

I suspect that the elite know the truth. They just want to pretend to be ignorant to prevent the system from helping the people who need it.

Let's bring up Michal Kalecki again:
https://mronline.org/2010/05/22/political-aspects-of-full-employment/

We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending. But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders. Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.

In other words, one potential reason for business to oppose any efforts at addressing the problem is that the people would have more bargaining power. The elite are not after absolute wealth or power, but relative power over the rest of us.

Imagine for example if the alternative was passed say some form of social democracy with full employment and MMT policy.

This would undermine in their view their ability to dominate over the rest of us. Now they may arguably be richer (ex: we might see more money for productive parts of society like say, disease research), but they are willing to give that up for dominating us. That is what we are up against.

Mike , December 23, 2017 at 10:17 am

If what you say is true (re social democracy + MMT policies), how then to consider for even one second the further existence of a business cadre dedicated to upending such an agreement? We always theorize as if an actual resistance to "our" policies will melt away with the displacement of elite political control. I remember Chile and the "strikes" called to bring down Allende.

The innocence of our imaginations is not only disturbing, but dangerous. Once power is gained and capital has been put in its place, the fight begins right there, anew. Unless we wish to fall into Stalinist methods of "resolution", consideration for alternate methods of economic control, and an anticipation of backlash, are in demand if the "people" are to prevail.

Mark Anderlik , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 am

In my experience as a union organizer and negotiator the opposition by many employers to unions is not particularily because of money, but because of power and the erosion of the employer's grip of it by the collective action of workers. Many times in my experience employers have spent a boatload more money on fighting workers and hiring union-busting attorneys than whatever wage and benefit increase is being proposed. These employers are acting from their political self-interest rather than the narrow economic self-interest that is commonly assumed.

Cat Burglar , December 23, 2017 at 3:43 pm

Great comments -- the motivation behind the ideas is a need for power and control.

You can look at the first 20 years of the Cold War as a domestic experiment in social control: incomes were allowed to rise for most people, and inequality was moderated in the interest of politically consolidating the country to support arming and fighting the war.

By the early 70s our handlers -- as shown in the Powell Memo, say -- had tired of the experiment. With more income, free time, and education, women, students, non-white people, and the newly prosperous working class were entering into contention on every terrain imaginable -- and that had to reduced to a manageable level. So they "leaned-out the mix", reduced income for most people, and bumped up the level of indebtedness and indoctrination.

Now the fuel-air mix is so lean that the engine is starting to miss (for example, the Trump election and the Sanders challenge to the Dem elite). But it looks like they have no other idea but to double-down on austerity. I guess they assume they can maintain global financial and military hegemony on the backs of a sick, unfit, indebted, and politically fractious population -- an iffy proposition. No wonder they seem desperate.

paul , December 22, 2017 at 2:03 pm

unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.

That is both the long and short of it.

To engineer the scarcity of the ability to sustain is the the greatest sin

Paul Hirschman , December 22, 2017 at 2:46 pm

The Trump/Republican tax law tells us (if we needed another message) that the link between economic policy and economic theory is so weak as the bring into question the point of theorizing in the first place, apart, of course, from convincing (semi)-smart but fearful people to remain timid in the face of powerful lunacy. Government spending to replace worn out capital, to satisfy basic material needs of the population, and to underwrite investment in an environmental and educational future worth creating is, OBVIOUSLY, a no-no to Wall Street, war profiteers, and the large population of yes-men and women who promote fear among the middle class. We should spend less time contesting economic thinking that is nonsense. Instead why not spend time proposing and explaining fairly obvious fiscal strategies that will promote a better society, as well as the time that will be needed to defend these life-affirming proposals against the scholastic nonsense that our saltwater and freshwater scaredy-cat friends will put out every day to explain why what we propose will wreck Civilization. Let's go on the offense for a change.

redolent , December 22, 2017 at 8:14 pm

let's go on the offensive for a change

precisely, but for the forementioned scholastic nonsense of our salty and fresh feline friends, one would need a salient and orchestrated defense, as to why such meddling with traditional economic trajectories, will mean that: by foregoing my 'short sided 2018 increase in my personal deduction', will I actually allow myself to feel benign about the sagging state of civilization, that those 'cats of all breeds', have so eloquently perpetuated upon a 'generation of our peers'.

calling 'message central', the 'greater good awaits'. Yes

Jabawocky , December 22, 2017 at 2:50 pm

I still can't get my head around the fact that these models can persist in the economics literature whilst everyone knows they are based on flawed assumptions. In science these would quickly end up as part of some distant history. Someone would publish another model, and slowly everyone would start working with it if it had strong explanatory power. Imagine the grief that climate modellers would get if theirs models were so poorly grounded.

Left in Wisconsin , December 22, 2017 at 6:33 pm

You could almost think it was ideology trumping evidence.

Susan the other , December 22, 2017 at 2:57 pm

Thank you for this post. It was as good as Michael Hudson and all the clear thinkers you post for us. Since we got rid of Greenspan (who admitted that interest rates had no effect on the economy but still freaked out about inflaltion), Bernanke and then Yellen have had better instincts – not straightforward, but better. If central banks know the loanable funds theory to be nonsense, the battle is mostly won. MMT will be the logical next step. Public spending/infrastructure is just good grassroots policy that serve everyone. Even dithering goofballs like Larry Summers. And, as implied above, public spending takes care of the always ignored problem of private debt levels which suck productive spending and investment out of the economy, because unemployment. It's hard to believe that academics have been so wrong-headed for so long without any evidence for their claims. Steve Keen's premise, that these academics ignore both the existence of private debt and the importance of dwindling energy sources is also addressed above. Storm's point – also made by both old hands and new MMT – that there is not a problem with inflation (too much) if there are slack resources seems to have morphed into an ossified rule whereby some inflexible academics see slack resources as scarce resources. What is slack is always a political definition. What is slack today is a filthy environment; there is a great surplus of it. Enormously slack. That's the good news.

cnchal , December 22, 2017 at 3:07 pm

What are the causes of secular stagnation?

Globalization is a disaster wherever you care to look.

Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity . . .

A better example is Apple, with it's roughly 1/4 trillion dollar cash hoard, beaten out of their Chinese work force in collusion of the Chinese elite. With wages crushed here and there, because they don't want to pay anyone anything anywhere, where will demand come from? The Chinese peasant slaving away on an Apple farm has a few square feet of living space, like a broiler chicken in a Tyson cage so where is she going to put the new furniture she can't afford?

Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .

The banks are the MMT practicing intermediary between the federal government and the peasants.

Enquiring Mind , December 23, 2017 at 11:19 am

Was the Tax Cut a Hail Mary to get more aggregate demand? Perhaps the Administration is practicing anti-loanable funds on the sly.

knowbuddhau , December 22, 2017 at 3:22 pm

So much goodness, don't know where to start. It's a long post. It's my day (singular) off. I'm going long. Deacon Blues* applies.

This:

Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.

Now we're talking. This puts the doctrine in the context of its parent beliefs.

The way I see it, beliefs:economics as operating system:application as mythology:religion. So shorter Storm: The LFF is a BS application for a BS OS.

Been dawning on me lately how neoliberalism is the spawn of a degenerate parent belief system, too. I was even thinking of Weber just the other day.

By speaking in apparently objective, pragmatic, "realistic" terms, public figures are notorious for "dog-whistling" their occult beliefs in terms their congregations hear loud and clear. When Her Royal Clinton's even more notoriously damned to hell half the population as "deplorables," she tipped her hand. The obscure term, ephors, is very instructive here.

To refesh the readers memory, "Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit (ex nihilo) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them."

Not so fast, though. Who were the original ephors?

Herodotus claimed that the institution was created by Lycurgus, while Plutarch considers it a later institution. It may have arisen from the need for governors while the kings were leading armies in battle. The ephors were elected by the popular assembly, and all citizens were eligible for election. They were forbidden to be reelected. They provided a balance for the two kings, who rarely cooperated with each other. Plato called them tyrants who ran Sparta as despots, while the kings were little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history.[2]

According to Plutarch,[3] every autumn, at the crypteia, the ephors would pro forma declare war on the helot population so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt.[4] This was done to keep the large helot population in check.

The ephors did not have to kneel down before the Kings of Sparta and were held in high esteem by the citizens, because of the importance of their powers and because of the holy role they earned throughout their functions.

Ain't that something. We don't call it "class war" for nothing. More on the crypteia:

The Crypteia or Krypteia (Greek: κρυπτεία krupteía from κρυπτός kruptós, "hidden, secret things") was an ancient Spartan state institution involving young Spartan men. Its goal and nature are still a matter of discussion and debate among historians, but some scholars (Wallon) consider the Krypteia to be a kind of secret police and state security force organized by the ruling classes of Sparta, whose purpose was to terrorize the servile helot population. Others (Köchly, Wachsmuth) believe it to be a form of military training, similar to the Athenian ephebia.

So Schumpeter's metaphor is way too apt for comfort. Gets right under my skin.

For a modern equivalent of the pro forma declaration of civil war, I'm thinking "election cycle." Hippie-punching and all that goes a long way back, eh?

Let's cut to the chase: what's all this talk of econ as religion telling us? ISTM arguing with neoliberals as they frame the debate is like arguing with theologians in their terms. My learning psych professor, Robert Bolles, regarding the dismantling of ascendant BS models, always said, you don't take down an enormous tree leaf by leaf, you go where it meets the ground. Where does neoliberalism meet the ground? And its parent belief system?

Neoliberalism is so poorly grounded, it's shorting out all over the place. This could be easier than it looks. Storm's argument is compelling (at least to this newbie). What are its other weakest links? (Not being rhetorical here. I really don't know. A little help?)

Speaking of Weber, one of the major factors in the Reformation was the utter failure of the Catholic church to be able to produce a valid calendar . The trouble is of course, in their mythos, you have to perform the proper rituals at the proper time and often in the proper place, or you will fry in hell forever and ever amen.

Obviously, then, the calculation of the equinox assumed considerable and understandable importance. If the equinox was wrong, then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day and the placement of most of the other observances -- such as the starts of Lent and Pentecost -- would also be in error.

As the Julian calendar was far from perfect, errors did indeed begin to creep into the keeping of time. Because of the inherent imprecision of the calendar, the calculated year was too long by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. The problem only grew worse with each passing year as the equinox slipped backwards one full day on the calendar every 130 years. For example, at the time of its introduction, the Julian calendar placed the equinox on March 25. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the equinox had fallen back to March 21. By 1500, the equinox had shifted by 10 days.

The 10 days were of increasing importance also to navigation and agriculture, causing severe problems for sailors, merchants, and farmers whose livelihood depended upon precise measurements of time and the seasons. At the same time, throughout the Middle Ages, the use of the Julian calendar brought with it many local variations and peculiarities that are the constant source of frustration to historians. For example, many medieval ecclesiastical records, financial transactions, and the counting of dates from the feast days of saints did not adhere to the standard Julian calendar but reflected local adjustments. Not surprisingly, confusion was the result.

The Church Saves Time

[Doncha just love that succinct bit of myth-making? smh]

The Church was aware of the inaccuracy, and by the end of the 15th century there was widespread agreement among Church leaders that not celebrating Easter on the right day -- the most important and most solemn event on the calendar -- was a scandal.

A functioning mythology tells one how to be human right now. The Catholic church couldn't even tell people what date it was, putting not just ephemeral souls in peril should one die, even more of a daily dread in those days, but lives and property were increasingly at risk.

ISTM we're in an analogous situation. Our two high holies, Wall Street and Washington, DC, are increasingly irrelevant to us helots. They're of no use to us in ordering our daily lives. In fact, they've becoming openly hostile, dropping any pretense of governing for the common good, and I'm not referring only to Trump, eg, whatever happened to habeas corpus ? "If you like your health plan, you can keep it." The betrayals come fast and furious, too fast to keep up.

Others are rejecting science. A schism here, a schism there, pretty soon it all cracks up one day "outta nowhere." And I do mean "one day."

Moving right along, let's look at "the virtue of thrift."

Like the "virtues" of the LF fallacy, it arises from a parent belief system. This is from Some Call for Reclaiming the Virtue of Thrift (emphasis added).

In the formative years of United States history, prominent thinkers such as Ben Franklin promoted a "thrift ethic" that encouraged hard work, frugal spending on self and generous giving to charity, he asserted, maintaining "thrift" was simply the secular term for the religious stewardship principle . And institutions developed to support that ethic, he noted.

That's what I'm saying: secular institutions are the operationalizations, the applications, of belief systems, and further, we can study them instead of just saying "religion = bad = no further analysis required" and then dismissing it all out of hand.

As with LF-supply and LF-demand, secular and sectarian are not the independent variables they're made out to be, as argued so well by Cook & Ferguson right here on NC in The Real Economic Consequences of Martin Luther , eg, "[Henry VIII] did not abolish the papacy so much as take the pope's place." Same goes for today, IMNSHO: Our "secular" leaders are sectarian high priests in mufti.

The Baptist article also goes on to say what the flock people should do: ignore Wall St. and DC. Unsuprisingly, it's also chock full of punching downwards and victim-blaming. Payday lending and lotteries are to blame, they say. People just need to be more thrifty , which apparently means, impoverish yourself for the betterment of your betters. Or else.

When HRC damned half of us to Hell, she was dog-whistling loud and clear in a tradition going at least as far back as the wars of the ephors on the helots. When the high priests of our high holy temples of finance tell us we need more austerity, although they speak in terms apparently objective and especially dispassionate, it's nothing but the failed preachings of the failed priests of a failed church.

Looked at as comparative mythology, and speaking empirically as well (much obliged to the present author and our hosts, sincerely) neoliberalism is no way of being human.

Sure, us nerds get that. But wonky discussions don't move people. The execrable Mario Cuomo is credited with saying, "You campaign in poetry, you govern in prose," and I think it's profoundly true. Telling my friends we've debunked the Loanable Funds Fallacy will get me nowhere.

Oy vey. The immense satisfaction I had been feeling, of seeing through neoliberalism all the way to its core, sure was short lived. Now I need to know what MMT says about being human. This is what happens when you start thinking in words, you know. It never ends!

I've heard Steve Keen's writing won't be much help in popularizing MMT in time. Who's a witty MMTer? Who can express its way of being human in one-liners? Who's punchy?

(Administrivia: "Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) *rise* in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down ." Shouldn't that be "drop"?)

* This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag as I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be

knowbuddhau , December 22, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Oops left out two links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor

knowbuddhau , December 22, 2017 at 4:23 pm

And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypteia

susan the other , December 23, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Very interesting rant, Knowbuddhau. Imo all we have to do is get over gold. It made sense before the days of sovereign fiat that you saved your coins before you spent them. How else? But fiat is the essential spirit of money while gold was/is a craze. And the Neoliberals are unenlightened just like the Neocons against whom they pretend to react. But they are reactionaries regardless. That's their problem. All reaction, no action. When Storm refers to Kalecki above saying the original sin of economics was confusing stocks with flows, I take it to mean confusing fiat with gold in a sense. Once upon a time a store of value (a pouch full of gold coins) was the same thing as a medium of exchange. Not any more. Fiat is the only mechanism, spent in advance to promote social well being, that can create an "economy" in this world of zillions of people.

JustAnObserver , December 22, 2017 at 5:16 pm

Isn't a bit of an irony that the academic papers being debunked here were commissioned by the Institute for *New* Economic Thinking ? Sad to see its also been corrupted by the neoliberal virus (political Ebola).

ewmayer , December 22, 2017 at 8:11 pm

The author writes about the fuctional LF paradigm: "Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors." -- Note that that narrative doesn't even make sense *within* the loanable-funds model, because with fractional reserve banking, even if banks were required to loan against pre-existing deposits, they could amplify each dollar of same into multiple units of newly-created credit money. The fact that what really happens goes even further and entirely omits the need for pre-existing funds from the banks' monetary legerdemain is the reason for my pet term for the "loans create deposits" reality: "fictional reserve banking."

Dan , December 23, 2017 at 12:40 am

Aggregate demand increases investment only to the extant that it increases profitable opportunities. If costs remain constant, then obviously an increase in demand increases profitability. But an increase in wages doesn't merely increase aggregate demand, it also increases aggregate costs because that's what a wage is to a firm. If aggregate wages were boosted by $1 trillion, consumption will be boosted by less than 100% of that (workers will save some of their increased income) while firms will have to pay the full $1 trillion in increased wages if they are to employ the workers. So how is increasing wages supposed to increase profitability and investment? It seems like it would do the opposite.

We really need to look more at profit. The aggregate profit rate is determined by the cost of the total capital employed in relation to the output. If the costs rise faster than productivity growth, then profitability falls. How do aggregate costs rise? By capital accumulation, by an increase in savings and investment. Thus, it would seem that stagnation can only be reached if too much capital has been accumulated without a corresponding increase in productivity. This hypothesis doesn't rely on the loanable funds theory (it doesn't matter whether the money exists before it is spent), but it is more similar to the savings glut explanation because it is the accumulation of capital that leads to the fall in profitability. The suppression of wages is an effect, an attempt to create profitable opportunities when there are none.

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 11:29 am

Your model is correct when you limit yourself to the variables in your model. Real life economies are complex, dynamic interactions of many variables. At different times some variable become more important than others.

I think your variable, capital accumulation, is itself a complicated mix of many variables. Sometimes the cost of "capital accumulation" may be controlling, and sometimes not. It also depends on which variables within capital accumulation are having the most impact.

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 10:42 am

I think one of the major problems of the theory of supply and demand is that it may be true as a static model (all other things being equal), but the economy (and life) are not static. Unless you can take dynamic effects into account, then this static or even quasi-static model will just not represent what actually happens. This is just another way of saying what this article says. Over time, the supply curve and the demand curve interact. There is hardly, if any, point in time when all other things aren't changing.

In my world of simulating the behavior of integrated circuits, the problem involves non-linear differential equations, not just non-linear algebraic equations.

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 10:55 am

Here is another problem. " by the national accounts[,] identity of saving and investment (for closed economies),"

Accounting is also a static snapshot of a dynamic system. A bank creates a loan payable in let's say 30 years. The spending occurs immediately. In accounting terms these two items balance. However, on impact on the economy, they do not balance. Why else would capitalism have noticed the value of buy now, pay later?

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 11:02 am

This is no longer a chicken and egg problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In real life, there are lots of chickens and lots of eggs. Which came first is irrelevant. Chickens create eggs and eggs create chickens.

Steven Greenberg , December 23, 2017 at 11:23 am

Models are a simplification of reality. They apply best when the things that were simplified away don't matter much. They fail when the things that were simplified away become important. So, when does the loanable funds model apply?

IMHO, the loanable funds model applies when there is a run on the bank. When the fractional reserve banking system is running smoothly, the loanable funds model is irrelevant. That's why banks have reserves and monetary systems have central reserve banks. These reserve systems let us ignore loanable funds models.

Cat Burglar , December 23, 2017 at 3:56 pm

These are great comments! You put the whole process in time.

[Dec 23, 2017] Congress ordered the Trump administration to submit a roster of Russians tied closely to the Kremlin. Used wisely, it can be a powerful tool.

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , December 19, 2017 at 2:58 pm

The list that's freaking out everyone in Moscow

Congress ordered the Trump administration to submit a roster of Russians tied closely to the Kremlin. Used wisely, it can be a powerful tool.

By ANDERS ÅSLUND AND DANIEL FRIED 12/18/17, 12:51 PM CET Updated 12/19/17, 1:31 PM CET

Congress hit a nerve in Moscow last summer when it passed (and President Donald Trump signed) H.R. 3364, the "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act." Beyond the law's many sanctions, its Section 241 requires the administration to submit to Congress a detailed report identifying "the most significant senior foreign political figures and oligarchs in the Russian Federation, as determined by their closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth" within 180 days.

https://www.politico.eu/article/kremlin-russia-donald-trump-the-list-thats-freaking-out-everyone-in-moscow/

So much for due process. The US will once again demonstrate to the world how arbitrary and discriminatory its legal system is.

marknesop , December 19, 2017 at 3:56 pm
Ahhhhh .that was as satisfying as a thick chicken stew with floury dumplings. Speaking of cooking, if you wanted to make "Aaaagghhh!! How the fuck did this go so wrong ????", you would have to start with a double heaping measure of Anders Aslund. He probably puts on his wife's shoes in the morning, his getting absolutely everything wrong probably goes that far.

And the western 'analysis' community never says "Hey – you remember what happened the last time we listened to this dickhead?" Never. He gets a free pass for more of his drive-by derangement. And mark my words – this will end in tears. And not for Russia.

The United States, confronted by a brush fire, seems to think that pouring gasoline on will quench it. But you have to laugh with delight to see Uncle Sam thump his chest and scream like a gorilla. The USA is so caught up in its own self-importance that it seems to actually believe revoking Russia's club pass is going to make it collapse with grief. Big fucking deal.

What is most likely to happen is that wealthy Russian international businessmen will repatriate their wealth or reinvest it in countries where they are confident the US government cannot reach and freeze it. And the day is fast approaching when US allies, who see themselves ordered about like schoolchildren in a manner which puts them at maximum risk while serving exclusively American interests, will simply ignore US ultimatums. And what will they say then?

"Aaaagghhh!! How the fuck did this go so wrong ???"

Cortes , December 19, 2017 at 4:18 pm
Stop!!! Godammit.

My poor, aching sides.

[Dec 23, 2017] Churchill was stabbing Stalin in the back from day one, making any excuse not to open a second front in the West, delay supplying pledged materiel even so far as deliberately sabotaging the Arctic convoys, specifically Convoy PQ-17.

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Cortes , December 21, 2017 at 4:25 pm

What a crock of shit!

Have a look at the War Diaries of CIGS FM Lord Alanbrooke for a better assessment of the event. Naturally it is full of disparaging remarks but the reader is left in no doubt whatsoever about the impression JVS left (Matron!) on the British delegation.

The guy in the video is a clown.

Warren , December 21, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Churchill was stabbing Stalin in the back from day one, making any excuse not to open a second front in the West, delay supplying pledged materiel – even so far as deliberately sabotaging the Arctic convoys, specifically Convoy PQ-17.

Episode 18. How Britain assisted the Soviet Union's fight against Hitler (II)

https://orientalreview.org/2017/10/24/episode-18-how-britain-assisted-the-soviet-unions-fight-against-hitler-ii/

Patient Observer , December 21, 2017 at 8:47 pm
Yes, very much the case. Eisenhower called the British "effort" a betrayal of the allied war effort. The US Navy, after the PQ-17 British sabotage, vowed never to work with the British again. This BS about "fighting them on the beaches, streets, whatever" is just poop meant for the gullible.

[Dec 23, 2017] UK 'ready to retaliate' against Russian cyber attacks

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , December 21, 2017 at 9:33 pm

UK 'ready to retaliate' against Russian cyber attacks


Boris Johnson is the first UK foreign secretary to visit Russia in five years

Boris Johnson will warn Russia to stop cyber attacks which threaten Britain's national security or face retaliation of a similar kind from the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42450479

[Dec 23, 2017] Ex-CIA Director John Brennan Testified Before House Intelligence Committee About Election Meddling

Now we can view Brennan testimony throw the prism of Steele dossier scandal and Strzok-gate (with whom he who probably has direct contacts)
Please note that the interview was given directly after the appointment of the Special Prosecutor Mueller and at this time many though that Trump was "fully cooked" and that neocon and neoliberal swamp in Washington managed to consume him.
May 23, 2017 | www.npr.org

Former CIA Director John Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday that Russia "brazenly interfered in the 2016 election process," despite U.S. efforts to warn it off. Brennan testified in an open session of the committee, one of a handful of congressional committees now investigating Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Brennan said he told his Russian counterpart, the head of Russia's FSB, last August that if Russia pursued its efforts to interfere, "it would destroy any near-term prospect for improvement in relations" between the two countries. He said Russia denied any attempts to interfere.

In his opening statement, Brennan also recounted how he had briefed congressional leaders in August of last year, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees about the "full details" of what he knew of Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Brennan said he became convinced last summer that Russia was trying to interfere in the campaign, saying "they were very aggressive."

Brennan said he is "aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign." Brennan said that concerned him, "because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals," and that it raised questions about whether or not the Russians "were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals." Brennan added he didn't know if "collusion existed" between the Russians and those he identified as involved in the Trump campaign.

While Brennan would not specifically identify any individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had contacts with Russian officials and would not opine as to whether there was any collusion or collaboration, he did tell lawmakers why he was concerned about the contacts occurring against the general background of Russian efforts to meddle in the election. Brennan said he's studied Russian intelligence activities over the years, and how Russian intelligence services have been able to get people to betray their country. "Frequently, individuals on a treasonous path do not even realize they're on that path until it gets to be too late," he said.

Brennan said Russia was motivated to back Donald Trump in the presidential election because of a "traditional animus" between Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Russian President Vladimir Putin. He told committee members there had not been a good relationship between Putin and the Clintons over the years. What's more, Brennan said Putin blamed Hillary Clinton's actions as secretary of state during the Obama administration for domestic disturbances inside Russia. He said Putin was concerned Clinton would be more "rigid" on issues such as human rights if elected president.

But Brennan told the committee he believed that Russia anticipated that Clinton would be the likely winner of the presidential race, and that Russia tried to "damage and bloody" her before Election Day. Had she won, Brennan said, Russia would have continued to attempt to "denigrate her and hurt her" during her presidency. If Russia had collected more information about Clinton that they did not use against her during the campaign, Brennan said they were likely "husbanding it for another day."

On another question, Brennan criticized President Trump's reported sharing of classified intelligence with Russia officials. Brennan said if reports were accurate, Trump violated "protocols" by sharing the information with Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the U.S.

Brennan also said he was "very concerned" by the release of what he said appears to be classified information from the Trump administration. He said there appear to be "very, very damaging leaks, and I find them appalling and they need to be tracked down."

Reacting to Brennan's testimony, a White House spokesman said "This morning's hearings back up what we've been saying all along: that despite a year of investigation, there is still no evidence of any Russia-Trump campaign collusion, that the President never jeopardized intelligence sources or sharing, and that even Obama's CIA Director believes the leaks of classified information are 'appalling' and the culprits must be 'tracked down.'"

Under questioning from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., Brennan said the Russians have been trying to disrupt Western elections since the 1960s, and that they've quickly adapted to the times. Brennan pointed to the ease with which Russia was able to hack Democratic operatives' emails, which were then published on WikiLeaks.

"The cyber-environment now really provides so much more opportunity for troublemaking and the Russians take advantage of it," he said. Brennan said the use of spear phishing, and "whatever else so that they can then gain access to people's emails, computer systems networks," is something that the Russians are adept at.

He said Russia used WikiLeaks as a "cut-out," or go-between, and that protests by WikiLeaks that it is not working with Russia and Russia's claims it is not working with WikiLeaks are "disingenuous."

[Dec 23, 2017] What Did John Brennan and Anonymous Sources Really Say by Philip Giraldi

The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens, especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
May 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous

The Washington Post and a number of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post headlined a front page featured article with Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .

The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."

Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.

But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the Americans and British, do so aggressively.

At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.

It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things about today's CIA

Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal offense.

In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence.

Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.

The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers do?

It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result.

How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.

RobinG , May 30, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT

Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.

Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful, rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative speculation, who needs facts?

The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's taking the political line on the DNC emails!

https://www.c-span.org/video/?427995-3/whistleblower-cia

Melvin A. Goodman talked about his book, Whistleblower at the CIA: An Insider's Account of the Politics of Intelligence.

animalogic , May 30, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT

Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."

"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies .

Anon , May 30, 2017 at 5:51 am GMT

US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/

The Alarmist , May 30, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT

It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have been so convinced in their day.

exiled off mainstreet , May 30, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 8:00 am GMT

It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since 1932.

Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason.

Russ , May 30, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT

Lisa Frank has recently (5/18/2017) written beautifully on the topic of Comey in the FBI: http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788

Just as Ms. Frank dissects Comey's background and motivations, so a similar dissection is now in order for Mr. Brennan.

LauraMR , May 30, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT

@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the article

Renoman , May 30, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

I'll say it again "what has Russia ever done to the USA"? The answer is Nothing!

mp , May 30, 2017 at 10:30 am GMT

Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No. Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal offense".

Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war against Russia.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 10:53 am GMT

@Renoman "[W]hat has Russia ever done to the USA"?

Er, supported the US government during the American Civil War? Given it Alaska for a token payment? Won WW2 for it?

RealAmerican , May 30, 2017 at 11:23 am GMT

How many congressmen and other politicians in Washington are already suborned by AIPAC? Is that not AIPAC's raison d'etre ?

DanCT , May 30, 2017 at 11:33 am GMT

"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "

Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every federal agency such as the FBI, etc

Wizard of Oz , May 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT

The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .

Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of information, especially about people.

alexander , May 30, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh

I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.

The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American, anywhere, who feels this is okay.

Do you ?

Andrei Martyanov , Website May 30, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT

Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server

It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface.

"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/james-clapper-trump-russia-ties-my-dashboard-warning-light-was-n765601

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so not.

Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.

August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F. Tracy

Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis.

https://www.intellihub.com/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know-2/ 

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT

@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here – in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.

I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue explains very clearly how it works.

-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland. The trap worked.

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

This CIA director? May 19, 2010 Obama advisor John Brennan speaks about the beauty of Islam

jilles dykstra , May 30, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 2:43 pm GMT

Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter Database

While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government.

annamaria , May 30, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/

"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.

Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.

"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."

This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

alexander , May 30, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Excellent quote, Tom.

.And so true.

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government schooling* .

Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA

The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland. The trap worked.

What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.

As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.

Tom Welsh , May 30, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

@Agent76 "

"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal".

Agent76 , May 30, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin

Rurik , Website May 30, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT

@annamaria

Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence," Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014

I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a Zio-bankster-quisling.

PG:

the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.

getting to the crux of the matter

when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".

The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])

http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/03/John_Brennan.jpg

has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria and elsewhere too.

All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment..

The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,

what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!

So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the zio-media/AIPAC/etc..

His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.

In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.

And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else.

[Dec 23, 2017] Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt.

Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. ..."
"... And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. ..."
"... Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Liverpool , December 22, 2017 at 9:16 pm GMT

I was raised by Democrats, and used to vote for them. But these days, I think heck would freeze over before I'd vote Democrat again. From my point of view, Bernie tried to pull them back to sanity. But the hard core Clinton-corporate-corrupt Democrats have declared war on any movement for reform within the Democratic Party. And there is no way that I'm voting for any of these corrupt-corporate Democrats ever again.

Of course, the notion of 'reform' within the Democratic Party is an oxymoron. Its been around since Nader, when the corrupt-corporate Democrats tried to tell us that the way forward was to work within the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and change things that way. We saw the way the corrupt-corporate Democrats colluded and rigged the last Presidential Primaries so that Corrupt-Corporate-Clinton was guaranteed the corrupt-corporate Democrat nomination. That's a loud and clear message to anyone who thinks they can achieve change within the corrupt-corporate-colluding-rigged Democratic Party.

Since I've always been anti-war, I've been forced to follow what anti-war movement there is over to the Republicans. And I see Steve Bannon trying to wage the fight within the Republican party that the fake-reformers in the Democrats never even tried . ie, numerous primary challenges to corrupt-corporate Democrats. That never happened, and by 2012 I was convinced that even the fake-reformers within the corrupt-corporate Democrats were fakes who only wanted fund-raising but didn't really fight for reform.

Neither party represents any but the richest of the rich these days. Both parties lie to voters and try to pretend that they might actually give a damn about the rest of us. But the only sign of life that I see of anyone trying to fight back against this Bannon inside the Republicans. I'm not thrilled with Bannon, although he's not nearly as bad as the loony-lefties in the corrupt-corporate Democratic Party and their many satellites call him. But he's the only one putting up a fight. I just hope that maybe someone will run in primaries against the corrupt-corporate-Republicans who fake-represent the part of the map where I live.

Neither party is on our side. The establishment in both parties is crooked and corrupt. Someone needs to fight them. And I sure as heck won't vote for the corrupt and the crooked. Since the Democrats are doubling down on corrupt and crooked and telling such big lies that even Goebbels would blush, it doesn't look like I'll ever vote Dem0crat again.

[Dec 23, 2017] Seems that those cuddly White Helmets really ARE good guys in the parallel universe Guardian readers are thought to inhabit.

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Cortes , December 18, 2017 at 11:19 am

Quite the week of Ancient History here the last few days, what with Lesbians torn between the Spartans and the Athenians (!) and the daddy of Western lawgivers, Solon, has snuck in.

Witnesseth:

conspiracy-theories

Here's the article author's "bio":

https://muckrack.com/oliviasolon/bio

Seems (selon Solon as they'll be saying at Charlie Hebdo) that those cuddly White Helmets really ARE good guys in the parallel universe Guardian readers are thought to inhabit. The Russians done calumnify those latter day saints.

Cortes , December 18, 2017 at 11:25 am
Oops!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/18/syria-white-helmets-conspiracy-theories

And, yes, the Imp of the Perverse forced me to use THAT word.

marknesop , December 18, 2017 at 1:13 pm
What a pity, such upstanding citizens smeared. Perhaps next year for the Nobel, what?
Fern , December 19, 2017 at 5:29 am
Ah, the pain of these folk in the MSM as they experience losing control of the narrative ..we should be more understanding and compassionate. I also love the conjugation of the Guardian's irregular verbs we are independent, impartial journalists who are experts on Syria because we talk only to those people who share our views, you are a mere blogger, they, being courageous folk like Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett who've actually been to Syria and talked to people outside the western bubble are Assad and Putin stooges.

[Dec 23, 2017] Imperial arrogance and paranoia in full display

Notable quotes:
"... RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations? ..."
"... MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution. ..."
"... WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. ..."
"... Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a sembl ..."
"... At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks. ..."
"... MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year. ..."
"... MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day. ..."
"... MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time. ..."
"... Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge? ..."
"... COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made? ..."
"... MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas. ..."
"... LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward? ..."
"... MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely. ..."
"... LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey? ..."
"... MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs? ..."
"... STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks. ..."
"... HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources? ..."
"... MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced. ..."
"... MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that ..."
"... POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

what is interesting is that whuile answering "yes" about Russian interference in election is safe answer, the real quesion is whehther Russian intergfernce exceed in scope British (Stele dossier), Israel (via Kushner) and Saudi interference to name a few. If no this is a witch hunt. Russia is just another neoliberal state, so why it can be a threat to the US neoliberalm and empire is unlear. It does has its own interests in former USSR space. How would the US react if Russia halped to depose legitimate goverment in Mexico and started to supply arms in order to get back California, Texas and Florida which new government would consider were occupied by the the USA illegally? the fact that Russia does not want ot be Washington vassal is not illegal. And there is nothing criminal in attempts to resist the spread of the US neoliberal empire on xUSSR space.

May 11, 2016

Full transcript Acting FBI director McCabe and others testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee

SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA.: Intelligence community assessment accurately characterized the extent of Russian activities in the 2016 election and its conclusion that Russian intelligence agencies were responsible for the hacking and leaking of information and using misinformation to influence our elections? Simple yes or no would suffice.

ROBERT CARDILLO, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL-INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: I do. Yes, sir.

STEWART: Yes, Senator.

ROGERS: Yes I do.

DAN COATS, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE : Yes I do.

MIKE POMPEO, DIRECTOR, CIA: Yes.

MCCABE: Yes.

WARNER: And I guess the presumption there -- or the next presumption, I won't even ask this question is consequently that committee assess -- or that community assessment was unanimous and is not a piece of fake news or evidence of some other individual or nation state other than Russia. So I appreciate that again for the record.

I warned you Mr. McCabe I was going to have to get you on the record as well on this. Mr. McCabe for as long as you are Acting FBI Director do you commit to informing this committee of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign?

MCCABE: I absolutely do.

WARNER: Thank you so much for that. I think in light of what's happened in the last 48 hours it's critically important that we have that assurance and I hope you'll relay, at least from me to the extraordinary people that work at the FBI that this committee supports them, supports their efforts, support their professionalism and supports their independence.

MCCABE: I will sir, thank you.

WARNER: In light of the fact that we just saw French elections where it felt like deja vu all over again in terms of the release of a series of e-mails against Mr. Macron days before the election and the fact that this committee continues to investigate the type of tactics that Russia has used.

Where do we stand, as a country, of preparation to make sure this doesn't happen again in 2018 and 2020 -- where have we moved in terms of collaboration with state voting -- voter files, in terms of working more with the tech community, particularly the platform -- platform entities in terms of how we can better assure real news versus fake news, is there some general sense -- Director Coats I know you've only been in the job for a short period of time -- of how we're going to have a strategic effort? Because while it was Russia in 2016 other nation states could -- you know -- launch similar type assaults.

COATS: Well, we are -- we will continue to use all the assets that we have in terms of collection and analysis relative to what the influence has been and potentially could be in future. Russians have spread this across the globe -- interestingly enough I met with the Prime Minister of Montenegro the latest nation to join NATO, the number 29 nation, what was the main topic?

Russian interference in their political system. And so it does -- it sweeps across Europe and other places. It's clear though, the Russians have upped their game using social media and other opportunities that we -- in ways that we haven't seen before. So it's a great threat to our -- our democratic process and our job here is to provide the best intelligence we can to the policy makers to -- as they develop a strategy in terms of how to best reflect a response to this.

WARNER: Well one of the things I'm concerned about is, we've all expressed this concern but since this doesn't fall neatly into any particular agency's jurisdiction you know, who's -- who's taking the point on interacting with the platform companies like the Google, Facebook and Twitter, who's taking the point in terms of interacting DHS image in terms of state boards of election? How are we trying to ensure that our systems more secure, and if we can get a brief answer on that because I got one last question for Admiral Rogers.

COATS: Well, I think the -- the obviously, our office tasks and takes the point, but there's contribution from agencies across the I.C. We will -- I've asked Director Pompeo to address that and others that might want to address that also. But each of us -- each of the agencies to the extent that they can and have the capacity whether its NSA though SIGINT, whether it's NSA through human or other sources will provide information to us that we want to use as a basis to provide to our -- to our policymakers.

Relative to a grand strategy, I am not aware right now of any -- I think we're still assessing the impact. We have not put a grand strategy together, which would not be our purview, we would provide the basis of intelligence that would then be the foundation for what that strategy would be.

WARNER: My hope -- my hope would be that we need to be proactive in this. We don't want to be sitting here kind of looking back at it after 2018 election cycle. Last question, very briefly, Admiral Rogers do you have any doubt that the Russians were behind the intervention in the French elections?

ROGERS: I -- let me phrase it this way, we are aware of some Russian activity directed against the Russian -- excuse me, directed against the French election process. As I previously said before Congress earlier this week, we in fact reached out to our French counterparts to say, we have become aware of this activity, we want to make you aware, what are you seeing?

I'm not in a position to have looked at the breadth of the French infrastructure. So I'm -- I'm not really in a position to make a whole simple declaratory statement.

WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BURR: Senator Rubio?

RUBIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCabe, can you without going into the specific of any individual investigation, I think the American people want to know, has the dismissal of Mr. Comey in any way impeded, interrupted, stopped or negatively impacted any of the work, any investigation, or any ongoing projects at the Federal Bureau of Investigations?

MCCABE: As you know, Senator, the work of the men and women of the FBI continues despite any changes in circumstance, any decisions. So there has been no effort to impede our investigation today. Quite simply put sir, you cannot stop the men and women of the FBI from doing the right thing, protecting the American people, and upholding the Constitution.

RUBIO: And this is for all the members of the committee, as has been widely reported, and people know this, Kaspersky Lab software is used by not hundreds of thousands, millions of Americans. To each of our witnesses I would just ask, would any of you be comfortable with the Kaspersky Lab software on your computers?

COATS: A resounding no, from me.

POMPEO: No.

MCCABE: No, Senator.

ROGERS: No, sir.

STEWART: No, Senator.

CARDILLO: No, sir.

... ... ...

POMPEO: I'll -- I'll let Mr. McCabe make a comment as well, but yes, of course. Frankly, this is consistent with what -- right, this is the -- the -- the attempt to interfere in United States is not limited to Russia. The Cubans have deep ties, it is in their deepest tradition to take American visitors and do their best influence of the way that is in adverse to U.S. interests.

MCCABE: Yes, sir. Fully agree, we share your concerns about that issue.

RUBIO: And my final question is on -- all this focus on Russia and what's happened in the past is that the opinion of all of you -- or those of -- you certainly all have insight on this. That even as we focus on 2016 and the efforts leading up to that election, efforts to influence policy making here in the United States vis-a-vis the Russian interests are ongoing that the Russians continue to use active measures; even at this moment, even on this day.

To try, through the use of multiple different ways, to influence the political debate and the decisions made in American politics; particularly as they pertain to Russia's interests around the world. In essence, these active measures is an ongoing threat, not simply something that happened in the past.

MCCABE: Yes, sir, that's right.

POMPEO: Senator, it's right. In some sense, though, we've got to put it in context, this has been going on for a long time. There's -- there's nothing new. Only the cost has been lessened, the cost of doing it.

COATS: I -- I would just add that the use of cyber and social media has significantly increased the impact and the capabilities that -- obviously this has been done for years and years. Even decades. But the ability they have to -- to use the interconnectedness and -- and all the -- all that that provides, that didn't provide before I -- they literally upped their game to the point where it's having a significant impact.

ROGERS: From my perspective I would just highlight cyber is enabling them to access information in massive quantities that weren't quite obtainable to the same level previously and that's just another tool in their attempt to acquire information, misuse of that information, manipulation, outright lies, inaccuracies at time.

But other times, actually dumping raw data which is -- as we also saw during this last presidential election cycle for us.

... ... ...

COATS: I can't speak to how many agents of -- of the U.S. government are as cognizant as perhaps we should be but I certainly think that, given China's aggressive approach relative to information gathering and -- and all the things that you mentioned merits a -- a review of CFIUS in terms of whether or not it is -- needs to have some changes or innovations to -- to address the aggressive -- aggressive Chinese actions not just against or companies, but across the world.

They -- they clearly have a strategy through their investments, they've started a major investment bank -- you name a park of the world Chinese probably are -- are there looking to put investments in. We've seen the situation in Djibouti where they're also adding military capability to their investment, strategic area for -- on the Horn of Africa there that -- that you wouldn't necessarily expect. But they're active in Africa, Northern Africa, they're active across the world.

Their one belt, one road process opens -- opens their trade and -- and what other interest they have to the Indian Ocean in -- and a different way to address nations that they've had difficulty connecting with. So it's a -- it's clearly an issue that we ought to take a look at.

... ... ...

WYDEN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, it's fair to say I disagreed with Director Comey as much as anyone in this room but the timing of this firing is wrong to anyone with a semblance of ethics. Director Comey should be here this morning testifying to the American people about where the investigation he's been running stands.

At our public hearing in January where he refused to discuss his investigation into connections between Russia and Trump associates I stated my fear that if the information didn't come out before inauguration day it might never come out. With all the recent talk in recent weeks about whether there is evidence of collusion, I fear some colleagues have forgotten that Donald Trump urged the Russians to hack his opponents. He also said repeatedly that he loved WikiLeaks.

So the question is not whether Donald Trump actively encouraged the Russians and WikiLeaks to attack our democracy, he did; that is an established fact. The only question is whether he or someone associated with him coordinated with the Russians.

Now, Mr. McCabe, the president's letter to Director Comey asserted that on three separate occasions the director informed him that he was not under investigations. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigations? Yes or no?

MCCABE: Sir, I'm not going to comment on any conversations that the director may have had with the president...

(CROSSTALK)

WYDEN: I didn't ask that. Would it have been wrong for the director to inform him he was not under investigation? That's not about conversations, that's yes or no answer.

MCCABE: As you know, Senator. We typically do not answer that question. I will not comment on whether or not the director and the president of the United States had that conversation.

WYDEN: Will you refrain from these kinds of alleged updates to the president or anyone else in the White House on the status of the investigation?

MCCABE: I will.

WYDEN: Thank you.

Director Pompeo, one of the few key unanswered questions is why the president didn't fire Michael Flynn after Acting Attorney General Yates warned the White House that he could be blackmailed by the Russians. Director Pompeo, did you know about the acting attorney general's warnings to the White House or were you aware of the concerns behind the warning?

POMPEO: I -- I don't have any comment on that.

WYDEN: Well, were you aware of the concerns behind the warning? I mean, this is a global threat. This is a global threat question, this is a global threat hearing. Were you...

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: Tell me...

(CROSSTALK)

WYDEN: Were you aware?

POMPEO: Senator, tell me what global threat it is you're concerned with, please. I'm not sure I understand the question.

WYDEN: Well, the possibility of blackmail. I mean, blackmail by a influential military official, that has real ramifications for the global threat. So this is not about a policy implication, this is about the national security advisor being vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians. And the American people deserve to know whether in these extraordinary circumstances the CIA kept them safe.

POMPEO: Yes, sir, the CIA's kept America safe. And...

WYDEN: So...

POMPEO: And the people at the Central Intelligence Agency are committed to that and will remain committed to that. And we will...

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: ... do that in the face of...

WYDEN: You won't answer the question...

POMPEO: We will do that in the face of political challenges that come from any direction, Senator.

WYDEN: But, you will not answer the question of whether or not you were aware of the concerns behind the Yates warning.

POMPEO: Sir, I don't know exactly what you're referring to with the Yates warning, I -- I -- I wasn't part of any of those conversations. I -- I... (CROSSTALK)

WYDEN: The Yates warning was...

(CROSSTALK)

POMPEO: ... I have no first hand information with respect to the warning that was given.

WYDEN: OK.

POMPEO: She didn't make that warning to me. I -- I can't -- I can't answer that question, Senator...

WYDEN: OK.

POMPEO: ... as much as I would like to.

WYDEN: OK.

Director Coats, how concerned are you that a Russian government oil company, run by a Putin crony could end up owning a significant percentage of U.S. oil refining capacity and what are you advising the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States about this?

COATS: I don't have specific information relative to that. I think that's something that potentially, we could provide intelligence on in terms of what this -- what situation might be, but...

WYDEN: I'd like you to furnace that in writing. Let me see if I can get one other question in, there have been mountains of press stories with allegations about financial connections between Russia and Trump and his associates. The matters are directly relevant to the FBI and my question is, when it comes to illicit Russian money and in particular, it's potential to be laundered on its way to the United States, what should the committee be most concerned about?

We hear stories about Deutsche Bank, Bank of Cypress, Shell companies in Moldova, the British Virgin Islands. I'd like to get your sense because I'm over my time. Director McCabe, what you we most -- be most concerned about with respect to illicit Russian money and its potential to be laundered on its way the United States?

MCCABE: Certainly sir. So as you know, I am not in the position to be able to speak about specific investigations and certainly not in this setting. However, I will confirm for you that those are issues that concern us greatly.

They have traditionally and they do even more so today, as it becomes easier to conceal the origin and the -- and the track and the destination of purpose of illicit money flows, as the exchange of information becomes more clouded in encryption and then more obtuse, it becomes harder and harder to get to the bottom of those investigations. That would shed light on those issues.

WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. BURR: Senator Risch?

RISCH: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I -- the purpose of this hearing as the chairman expressed is to give the American people some insight into what we all do, which they don't see pretty much at all. And so I think what I want to do is I want to make an observation and then I want to get your take on it, anybody who wants to volunteer. And I'm going to start with you Director Coats, to volunteer.

My -- I have been -- I've been on this committee all the time I've been here in the Senate and all through the last administration. And I have been greatly impressed by the current administrations hitting the ground running during the first hundred days, as far as their engagement on intelligence matters and their engagement with foreign countries. The national media here is focused on domestic issues which is of great interest to the American people be it healthcare, be it personnel issues in the government.

And they don't -- the -- the media isn't as focused on this administrations fast, and in my judgment, robust engagement with the intelligence communities around the world and with other governments. And my impression is that it's good and it is aggressive. And I want -- I'd like you're -- I'd like your impression of where we're going. Almost all of you had real engagement in the last administration and all the administrations are different. So Director Coats, you want to take that on to start with?

COATS: I'd be happy to start with that, I think most presidents that come into office come with an agenda in mind in terms of what issues they'd like to pursue, many of them issues that effect -- domestic issues that affect infrastructure and education and a number of things only to find that this is dangerous world, that the United States -- that the threats that exist out there need to be -- be given attention to.

This president, who I think the perception was not interested in that, I think Director Pompeo and I can certify the fact that we have spent far more hours in the Oval Office than we anticipated. The president is a voracious consumer of information and asking questions and asking us to provide intelligence. I -- we are both part of a process run through the national security council, General McMaster, all through the deputy's committees and the principal's committees consuming hours and hours of time looking at the threats, how do we address those threats, what is the intelligence that tells us -- that informs the policy makers in terms of how they put a strategy in place.

And so what I initially thought would be a one or two time a week, 10 to 15 minute quick brief, has turned into an everyday, sometimes exceeding 45 minutes to an hour or more just in briefing the president. We have -- I have brought along several of our directors to come and show the president what their agencies do and how important it is the info -- that the information they provide how that -- for the basis of making policy decisions.

I'd like to turn to my CIA colleague to get -- let him give you, and others, to give you their impression.

RISCH: I appreciate that. We're almost out of time but I did -- Director Pompeo you kind of sit in the same spot we all sit in through the last several years and I kind of like your observations along the line of Director Coats, what you feel about the matter?

POMPEO: Yeah, I think Director Coats had it right. He and I spend time with the president everyday, briefing him with the most urgent intelligence matters that are presented to us as -- in our roles. He asks good, hard questions. Make us go make sure we're doing our work in the right way.

Second, you asked about engagement in the world. This administration has reentered the battle space in places the administration -- the previous administration was completely absent. You all travel some too...

RISCH: Yes.

POMPEO: ... you will hear that when you go travel. I've now taken two trips to places and they welcome American leadership. They're not looking for American soldiers, they're not looking for American boots on the ground, they're looking for American leadership around the globe and this president has reentered that space in a way that I think will serve America's interest very well.

RISCH: Yeah I -- I couldn't agree more and we -- we deal with them not only overseas but they come here, as you know, regularly.

POMPEO: Yes sir.

RISCH: And the fact that the president has pulled the trigger twice as he has in -- in the first 100 days and -- and done it in a fashion that didn't start a world war and -- and was watched by both our friends and our enemies has made a significant and a huge difference as far as our standing in the world. My time's up. Thank you very much Mr. Chair.

WARNER: Thank you Senator.

Senator Heinrich.

HEINRICH: Director McCabe you -- you obviously have several decades of law enforcement experience, is it -- is it your experience that people who are innocent of wrong doing typically need to be reassured that they're not the subject of an investigation?

MCCABE: No sir.

HEINRICH: And I ask that because I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the dismissal letter from -- earlier this week from the president where he writes, "While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation." And I'm still trying to figure out why that would even make it into a dismissal letter. But let me go to something a little more direct.

Director, has anyone in the White House spoken to you directly about the Russia investigation?

MCCABE: No, sir.

HEINRICH: Let me -- when -- when did you last meet with the president, Director McCabe?

MCCABE: I don't think I -- I'm in...

HEINRICH: Was it earlier this week?

MCCABE: ... the position to comment on that. I have met with the president this week, but I really don't want to go into the details of that.

HEINRICH: OK. But Russia did not come up?

MCCABE: That's correct, it did not.

HEINRICH: OK, thank you. We've heard in the news that -- that -- claims that Director Comey had -- had lost the confidence of rank and file FBI employees. You've been there for 21 years, in your opinion is it accurate that the rank and file no longer supported Director Comey?

MCCABE: No, sir, that is not accurate. I can tell you, sir, that I worked very, very closely with Director Comey. From the moment he started at the FBI I was his executive assistant director of national security at that time and I worked for him running the Washington field office. And of course I've served as deputy for the last year.

MCCABE: I can tell you that I hold Director Comey in the absolute highest regard. I have the highest respect for his considerable abilities and his integrity and it has been the greatest privilege and honor in my professional life to work with him. I can tell you also that Director Comey enjoyed broad support within the FBI and still does until this day.

We are a large organization, we are 36,500 people across this country, across this globe. We have a diversity of opinions about many things, but I can confidently tell you that the majority -- the vast majority of FBI employees enjoyed a deep and positive connection to Director Comey.

HEINRICH: Thank you for your candor. Do you feel like you have the adequate resources for the existing investigations that the -- that the bureau is invested in right now to -- to follow them wherever they may lead?

MCCABE: Sir, if you're referring to the Russia investigation, I do. I believe we have the adequate resources to do it and I know that we have resourced that investigation adequately. If you're referring to the many constantly multiplying counter-intelligence threats that we face across the spectrum, they get bigger and more challenging every day and resources become an issue over time.

HEINRICH: Sure.

MCCABE: But in terms of that investigation, sir, I can -- I can assure you we are covered.

HEINRICH: Thank you.

Director Coats, welcome back. Would you agree that it is a national security risk to provide classified information to an individual who has been compromised by a foreign government as a broad matter.

COATS: As a broad matter, yes.

HEINRICH: If the attorney general came to you and said one of your employees was compromised what -- what sort of action would you take?

COATS: I would take the action as prescribed in our procedures relative to how we report this ad how it's -- how it is processed. I mean, it's a serious -- serious issue Our -- our -- I would be consulting with our legal counsel and consulting with our inspector general and others as to how -- how best to proceed with this, but obviously we will take action.

HEINRICH: Would -- would one of the options be dismissal, obviously?

COATS: Very potentially could be dismissal, yes.

HEINRICH: OK, thank you Director.

BURR: Senator Collins?

COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Vice Chairman.

Mr. McCabe, is the agent who is in charge of this very important investigation into Russian attempts to influence our election last fall still in charge?

MCCABE: I mean we have many agents involved in the investigation at many levels so I'm not who you're referring to.

COLLINS: The lead agent overseeing the investigation.

MCCABE: Certainly, almost all of the agents involved in the investigation are still in their positions.

COLLINS: So has there been any curtailment of the FBI's activities in this important investigation since Director Comey was fired?

MCCABE: Ma'am, we don't curtail our activities. As you know, has the -- are people experiencing questions and are reacting to the developments this week? Absolutely.

COLLINS: Does that get in the way of our ability to pursue this or any other investigation?

MCCABE: No ma'am, we continue to focus on our mission and get that job done.

COLLINS: I want to follow up on a question of resources that Senator Heinrich asked your opinion on. Press reports yesterday indicated that Director Comey requested additional resources from the Justice Department for the bureau's ongoing investigation into Russian active measures. Are you aware that request? Can you confirm that that request was in fact made?

MCCABE: I cannot confirm that request was made. As you know ma'am, when we need resources, we make those requests here. So I -- I don't -- I'm not aware of that request and it's not consistent with my understanding of how we request additional resources.

That said, we don't typically request resources for an individual case. And as I mentioned, I strongly believe that the Russian investigation is adequately resourced. COLLINS: You've also been asked a question about target letters. Now, it's my understanding that when an individual is the target of an investigation, at some point, a letter is sent out notifying a individual that he is a target, is that correct?

MCCABE: No ma'am, I -- I don't believe that's correct.

COLLINS: OK. So before there is going to be an indictment, there is not a target letter sent out by the Justice Department?

MCCABE: Not that I'm aware of.

COLLINS: OK that's contrary to my -- my understanding, but let me ask you the reverse.

MCCABE: Again, I'm looking at it from the perspective of the investigators. So that's not part of our normal case investigative practice.

COLLINS: That would be the Justice Department, though. The Justice Department...

MCCABE: I see, I see...

COLLINS: I'm -- I'm asking you, isn't it standard practice when someone is the target of an investigation and is perhaps on the verge of being indicted that the Justice Department sends that individual what is known as a target letter?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am I'm going have to defer that question to the Department of Justice.

COLLINS: Well, let me ask you the -- the flip side of that and perhaps you don't know the answer to this question but is it standard practice for the FBI to inform someone that they are not a target of an investigation?

MCCABE: It is not.

COLLINS: So it would be unusual and not standard practice for there -- it -- for there to have been a notification from the FBI director to President Trump or anyone else involved in this investigation, informing him or her that that individual I not a target, is that correct?

MCCABE: Again ma'am, I'm not going to comment on what Director Comey may or may not have done.

COLLINS: I -- I'm not asking you to comment on the facts of the case, I'm just trying to figure out what's standard practice and what's not.

MCCABE: Yes ma'am. I'm not aware of that being a standard practice.

COLLINS: Admiral Rogers, I want to follow up on Senator Warner's question to you about the attempted interference in the French...

ROGERS: French.

COLLINS: ... election. Some researchers, including the cyber intelligence firm Flashpoint claim that APT28 is the group that was behind the stealing of the -- and the leaking of the information about the president elect of France, the FBI and DHS have publicly tied APT28 to Russian intelligence services in the joint analysis report last year after the group's involvement in stealing data that was leaked in the run up to the U.S. elections in November.

Is the I.C. in a position to attribute the stealing and the leaking that took place prior to the French election to be the result of activities by this group, which is linked to Russian cyber activity?

ROGERS: Again ma'am, right now I don't think I have a complete picture of all the activity associated with France but as I have said publicly, both today and previously, we are aware of specific Russian activity directed against the French election cycle in the course -- particularly in the last few weeks.

To the point where we felt it was important enough we actually reached out to our French counterparts to inform them and make sure they awareness of what we were aware of and also to ask them, is there something we are missing that you are seeing?

COLLINS: Thank you.

BURR: Senator King.

KING: Mr. McCabe, thank you for being here today under somewhat difficult circumstances, we appreciate your candor in your testimony.

On March 20th, Director Comey -- then Director Comey testified to the House of Representative, "I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russian efforts.

As with any counter intelligence investigation this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed." Is that statement still accurate?

MCCABE: Yes sir, it is.

KING: And how many agents are assigned to this project? How many -- or personnel generally with the FBI, roughly?

MCCABE: Yeah, sorry I can't really answer those sorts of questions in this forum.

KING: Well, yesterday a White House press spokesman said that this is one of the smallest things on the plate of the FBI, is that an accurate statement?

MCCABE: It is...

KING: Is this a small investigation in relation to all -- to all the other work that you're doing?

MCCABE: Sir, we consider it to be a highly significant investigation.

KING: So you would not characterize it as one of the smallest things you're engaged in?

MCCABE: I would not.

KING: Thank you.

Let me change the subject briefly. We're -- we've been talking about Russia and -- and their involvement in this election. One of the issues of concern to me, and perhaps I can direct this to -- well, I'll direct it to anybody in the panel. The allegation of Russian involvement in our electoral systems, is that an issue that is of concern and what do we know about that? And is that being up followed up on by this investigation.

Mr. McCabe, is that part of your investigation? No I'm -- I'm not talking about the presidential election, I'm talking about state level election infrastructure.

MCCABE: Yes, sir. So obviously not discussing any specific investigation in detail. The -- the issue of Russian interference in the U.S. democratic process is one that causes us great concern. And quite frankly, it's something we've spent a lot of time working on over the past several months. And to reflect comments that were made in response to an earlier question that Director Coats handled, I think part of that process is to understand the inclinations of our foreign adversaries to interfere in those areas.

So we've seen this once, we are better positioned to see it the next time. We're able to improve not only our coordination with -- primarily through the Department of Homeland -- through DHS, their -- their expansive network and to the state and local election infrastructure. But to interact with those folks to defend against ; whether it's cyber attacks or any sort of influence driven interactions.

KING: Thank you, I think that's a very important part of this issue.

Admiral Rogers, yesterday a camera crew from TAS (ph) was allowed into the Oval Office. There was not any American press allowed, was there any consultation with you with regard to that action in terms of the risk of some kind of cyber penetration or communications in that incident?

ROGERS: No.

KING: Were you -- you were -- your agency wasn't consulted in any way?

ROGERS: Not that I'm aware of. I wouldn't expect that to automatically be the case; but no, not that I'm aware of.

KING: Did it raise any concerns when you saw those pictures that those cameramen and crew were in the Oval Office without....

ROGERS: I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of where the imaged came from.

KING: All right, thank you.

Mr. Coats -- Director Coats, you're -- you're -- you lead the intelligence community. Were you consulted at all with regard to the firing of Director Comey?

COATS: I was not.

KING: So you had no -- there were no discussions with you even though the FBI's an important part of the intelligence community?

COATS: There were no discussions.

KING: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

BURR: Thank you Senator King.

Senator Lankford.

LANKFORD: Thank you, let me just run through some quick questions on this. Director McCabe, thanks for being here as well.

Let me hit some high points of some of the things I've heard already, just to be able to confirm. You have the resources you need for the Russia investigation, is that correct?

MCCABE: Sir, we believe it's adequately resourced...

LANKFORD: OK, so there's not limitations on resources, you have what you need? The -- the actions about Jim Comey and his release has not curtailed the investigation from the FBI, it's still moving forward?

MCCABE: The investigation will move forward, absolutely.

LANKFORD: No agents have been removed that are the ongoing career folks that are doing the investigation?

MCCABE: No, sir.

LANKFORD: Is it your impression at this point that the FBI is unable to complete the investigation in a fair and expeditious way because of the removal of Jim Comey?

MCCABE: It is my opinion and belief that the FBI will continue to pursue this investigation vigorously and completely.

LANKFORD: Do you need somebody to take this away from you and somebody else to do?

MCCABE: No sir.

L.. ... ...

MANCHIN: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank all of you for being here, I really appreciate it and I know that, Mr. McCabe, you seem to be of great interest of being here. And we're going to look forward to really from hearing from all of you all in a closed hearing this afternoon which I think that we'll able to get into more detail. So I appreciate that.

I just one question for Mr. McCabe it's basically the morale of the agency, the FBI agency and the morale basically starting back from July 5th to July 7th, October 28th, November 6th and election day -- did you all ever think you'd be embroiled in an election such as this and did -- what did it do to the morale?

MCCABE: Well, I -- I don't know that anyone envisioned exactly the way these things would develop. You know, as I said earlier Senator, we are a -- a large organization. We are -- we have a lot of diversity of opinions and -- and viewpoints on things. We are also a fiercely independent group.

MANCHIN: I'm just saying that basically, before July 5th, before the first testimony that basically Director Comey got involved in, prior to that, did you see a change in the morale? Just yes or no -- yes a change or more anxious, more concern?

MCCABE: I think morale has always been good, however we had -- there were folks within our agency who were frustrated with the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case and some of those folks were very vocal about that -- those concerns.

MANCHIN: I'm sure we'll have more questions in the closed hearing, sir but let me say to the rest of you all, we talked about Kaspersky, the lab, KL Lab. Do you all have -- has it risen to your level being the head of all of our intelligence agencies and people that mostly concerned about the security of our country of having a Russian connection in a lab as far outreaching as KL Labs?

Has it come with your IT people coming to you or have you gone directly to them making sure that you have no interaction with KL or any of the contractors you do business with? Just down the line there, Mr. Cardillo?

CARDILLO: Well, we count on the expertise of Admiral Rogers and the FBI to protect our systems and so I value...

MANCHIN: ...But you have I -- you have IT people, right?

CARDILLO: Absolutely.

MANCHIN: Have you talked to the IT people? Has it come to your concern that there might be a problem?

CARDILLO: I'm aware of the Kaspersky Lab challenge and/or threat.

MANCHIN: Let me tell you, it's more of a challenge -- more than a challenge, sir and I would hope that -- I'll go down the line but I hope that all of you -- we are very much concerned about this, very much concerned about security of our country watching (ph) their involvement.

CARDILLO: We share that.

MANCHIN: General?

STEWART: We are tracking Kaspersky and their software. There is as well as I know, and I've checked this recently, no Kaspersky software on our networks.

MANCHIN: Any contractors? STEWART: Now, the contractor piece might be a little bit harder to define but at this point we see no connection to Kaspersky and contractors supporting (ph)...

MANCHIN: ...Admiral Rogers?

ROGERS: I'm personally aware and involved with the director on the national security issues and the Kaspersky Lab issue, yes sir.

COATS: It wasn't that long ago I was sitting up there talking -- raising issues about Kaspersky and its position here. And that continues in this new job.

POMPEO: It has risen to the director of the CIA as well, Senator Manchin.

MANCHIN: Great.

(UNKNOWN): He's very concerned about it, sir, and we are focused on it closely.

MANCHIN: Only thing I would ask all of you, if you can give us a report back if you've swept all of your contractors to make sure they understand the certainty you have, concern that you have about this and making sure that they can verify to you all that they're not involved whatsoever with any Kaspersky's hardware. I'm going to switch to a couple different things because of national security.

But you know, the bottom gangs that we have in the United States, and I know -- we don't talk about them much. And when you talk about you have MS-13, the Crips, you've got Hells Angels, Aryan Brotherhood, it goes on and on and on, it's quite a few. What is -- what are we doing and what is it to your level -- has it been brought to your level the concern we have with these gangs within our country, really every part of our country?

Anybody on the gangland?

MCCABE: Yes sir. So we spend a lot of time talking about that at the FBI. It's one of our highest priorities...

MANCHIN: Did the resources go out to each one of these because they're interspersed over the country?

MCCABE: We do, sir. We have been focused on the gang threat for many years. It -- like -- much like the online pharmacy threat. It continues to change and develop harried we think it's likely a -- having an impact on elevated violent crime rates across the country, so we're spending a lot of time focused on that.

... ... ..

COTTON: Inmates are running the asylum.

(LAUGHTER)

COTTON: So, I think everyone in this room and most Americans have come to appreciate the aggressiveness with which would Russia uses active measures or covert influence operations, propaganda, call them what you will, as your agencies assess they did in 2016 and in hacking into those e-mails and releasing them as news reports suggest they did. In the French election last week -- that's one reason why I sought to revive the Russian active measures working group in the FY'17 Intelligence Authorization Act.

These activities that will go far beyond elections, I think, as most of our witnesses know. former director of the CIA, Bob Gates, in his memoir "From the Shadows," detailed soviet covert influence campaigns designed to slow or thwart the U.S. development of nuclear delivery systems and warheads, missile-defense systems and employment of intermediate nuclear range systems to Europe.

Specifically on page 260 of his memoir, he writes "during the period, the soviets mounted a massive covert action operation, aimed at thwarting INF deployments by NATO. We at CIA devoted tremendous resources to an effort at the time to uncovering the soviet covert campaign. Director Casey summarized this extraordinary effort in a paper he sent to Bush, Schultz, Weinberger and Clark on January 18, 1983. We later published it and circulated it widely within the government and to the allies, and finally, provided an unclassified version of the public to use," end quote.

I'd like to thank the CIA for digging up this unclassified version of the document and providing it to the committee, Soviet Strategy to derail U.S. INF deployment. Specifically, undermining NATO's solidarity in those deployments. I have asked unanimous consent that it be included in the hearing transcript and since the inmates are running the asylum, hearing no objection, we'll include it in the transcript.

(LAUGHTER)

Director Pompeo, earlier this year, Dr. Roy Godson testified that he believed that Russia was using active measures and covert influence efforts to undermine our nuclear modernization efforts, our missile defense deployments, and the INF Treaty, in keeping with these past practices.

To the best of your ability in this setting, would you agree with the assessment that Russia is likely using such active measures to undermine U.S. nuclear modernization efforts and missile defenses?

POMPEO: Yes.

COTTON: Thank you.

As I mentioned earlier, the F.Y. '17 Intelligence Authorization Act included two unclassified provisions that I authored. One would be re-starting that old (inaudible) Measures Working Group. A second would require additional scrutiny of Russian embassy officials who travel more than the prescribed distance from their duty station, whether it's their embassy or a consulate around the United States.

In late 2016, when that bill was on the verge of passing, I personally received calls from high-ranking Obama administration officials asking me to withdraw them from the bill. I declined. The bill did not pass. It passed last week as part of the F.Y. '17 spending bill.

I did not receive any objection from Trump administration officials to include from our intelligence community.

Director Coats, are you aware of any objection that the Trump administration had to my two provisions?

COATS: No, I'm not aware of any objection.

COTTON: Director Pompeo?

POMPEO: None.

COTTON: Do you know why the Obama administration objected to those two provisions in late 2016? I would add after the 2016 presidential election.

COATS: Well, it would be pure speculation. I don't -- I couldn't read -- I wasn't able to read the president's mind then and I don't think I can read it now.

COTTON: Thank you.

I'd like to turn my attention to a very important provision of law. I know that you've discussed earlier section 702.

Director Rogers, it's my understanding that your agency is undertaking an effort to try to release some kind of unclassified estimate of the number of U.S. persons who might have been incidentally collected using 702 techniques. Is that correct?

ROGERS: Sir, we're looking to see if we can quantify something that's of value to people outside the organization.

COTTON: Would -- would that require you going in and conducting searches of incidental collection that have been previously unexamined?

ROGERS: That's part of the challenge. How do I generate insight that doesn't in the process of generating the insight violate the actual tenets that...

(CROSSTALK)

COTTON: So -- so we're -- you're trying to produce an estimate that is designed to protect privacy rights, but to produce that estimate, you're going to have to violate privacy rights?

ROGERS: That is a potential part of all of this.

COTTON: It seems hard to do.

ROGERS: Yes, sir. That's why it has taken us a period of time and that's why we're in the midst of a dialogue.

COTTON: Is it going to be possible to produce that kind of estimate without some degree of inaccuracy or misleading information, or infringing upon the privacy rights of Americans?

ROGERS: Probably not.

COTTON: If anyone in your agency, or for that matter, Director McCabe, in yours, believes that there is misconduct or privacy rights are not being protected, they could, I believe under current law, come to your inspector general; come to your general counsel. I assume you have open door policies.

ROGERS: Whistleblower protections in addition, yes, sir, and they can come to you.

COTTON: They can come to this committee.

So four -- at least four different avenues. I'm probably missing some, if they believe there are any abuses in the section 702 (inaudible).

MCCABE (?): And anyone in their chain of command.

COTTON: I would ask that we proceed with caution before producing a report that might infringe on Americans' privacy rights needlessly, and that might make it even that much harder to reauthorize a critical program, something that, Director McCabe, your predecessor last week just characterized, if I can paraphrase, as a must-have program, not a nice-to-have program.

Thank you.

BURR: Thank you, Senator Cotton.

Senator Harris?

HARRIS: Thank you.

Acting Director McCabe, welcome. I know you've been in this position for only about 48 hours, and I appreciate your candor with this committee during the course of this open hearing.

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: Until this point, what was your role in the FBI's investigation into the Russian hacking of the 2016 election?

MCCABE: I've been the deputy director since February of 2016. So I've had an oversight role over all of our FBI operational activity, including that investigation.

HARRIS: And now that you're acting director, what will your role be in the investigation?

MCCABE: Very similar, senior oversight role to understand what our folks are doing and to make sure they have the resources they need and are getting the direction and the guidance they need to go forward.

HARRIS: Do you support the idea of a special prosecutor taking over the investigation in terms of oversight of the investigation, in addition to your role?

MCCABE: Ma'am, that is a question for the Department of Justice and it wouldn't be proper for me to comment on that.

HARRIS: From your understanding, who at the Department of Justice is in charge of the investigation?

MCCABE: The deputy attorney general, who serves as acting attorney general for that investigation. He is in charge.

HARRIS: And have you had conversations with him about the investigation since you've been in this role?

MCCABE: I have. Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: And when Director Comey was fired, my understanding is he was not present in his office. He was actually in California. So my question is: Who was in charge of securing his files and devices when that -- when that information came down that he had been fired?

MCCABE: That's our responsibility, ma'am.

HARRIS: And are you confident that his files and his devices have been secured in a way that we can maintain whatever information or evidence he has in connection with the investigation?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. I am.

HARRIS: It's been widely reported, and you've mentioned this, that Director Comey asked Rosenstein for additional resources. And I understand that you're saying that you don't believe that you need any additional resources?

MCCABE: For the Russia investigation, ma'am, I think we are adequately resourced.

HARRIS: And will you commit to this committee that if you do need resources, that you will come to us, understanding that we would make every effort to get you what you need?

MCCABE: I absolutely will.

HARRIS: Has -- I understand that you've said that the White House, that you have not talked with the White House about the Russia investigation. Is that correct?

MCCABE: That's correct.

HARRIS: Have you talked with Jeff Sessions about the investigation?

MCCABE: No, ma'am.

HARRIS: Have you talked with anyone other than Rod Rosenstein at the Department of Justice about the investigation?

MCCABE: I don't believe I have -- you know, not recently; obviously, not in that -- not in this position.

HARRIS: Not in the last 48 hours?

MCCABE: No, ma'am.

HARRIS: OK. What protections have been put in place to assure that the good men and women of the FBI understand that they will not be fired if they aggressively pursue this investigation?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am. So we have very active lines of communication with the team that's -- that's working on this issue. They are -- they have some exemplary and incredibly effective leaders that they work directly for. And I am confident that those -- that they understand and are confident in their position moving forward on this investigation, as my investigators, analysts and professionals staff are in everything we do every day.

HARRIS: And I agree with you. I have no question about the commitment that the men and women of the FBI have to pursue their mission. But will you commit to me that you will directly communicate in some way now that these occurrences have happened and Director Comey has been fired? Will you commit to me that given this changed circumstance, that you will find a way to directly communicate with those men and women to assure them that they will not be fired simply for aggressively pursuing this investigation?

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.

HARRIS: Thank you.

And how do you believe we need to handle, to the extent that it exists, any crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI, given the firing of Director Comey?

MCCABE: I don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the FBI. That's somewhat self-serving, and I apologize for that.

(LAUGHTER)

You know, it was completely within the president's authority to take the steps that he did. We all understand that. We expect that he and the Justice Department will work to find a suitable replacement and a permanent director, and we look forward to supporting whoever that person is, whether they begin as an interim director or a permanently selected director.

This -- organization in its entirety will be completely committed to helping that person get off to a great start and do what they need to do.

HARRIS: And do you believe that there will be any pause in the investigation during this interim period, where we have a number of people who are in acting positions of authority?

MCCABE: No, ma'am. That is my job right now to ensure that the men and women who work for the FBI stay focused on the threats; stay focused on the issues that are of so much importance to this country; continue to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. And I will ensure that that happens.

HARRIS: I appreciate that. Thank you.

MCCABE: Yes, ma'am.

BURR: Thank you.

Senator King?

Second round, five minutes each.

Senator Wyden?

WYDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to go back to the question I asked you, Director Pompeo. And I went out and reviewed the response that you gave to me. And of course, what I'm concerned about is the Sally Yates warning to the White House that Michael Flynn could be blackmailed by the Russians.

And you said you didn't have any first-hand indication of it. Did you have any indication -- second-hand, any sense at all that the national security adviser might be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians? That is a yes or no question.

POMPEO: It's actually not a yes-or-no question, Senator. I can't answer yes or no. I regret that I'm unable to do so. You have to remember this is a counterintelligence investigation that was largely being conducted by the FBI and not by the CIA. We're a foreign intelligence organization.

And I'll add only this, I was not intending to be clever by using the term "first-hand." I had no second-hand or third-hand knowledge of that conversation either.

WYDEN: So with respect to the CIA, were there any discussion with General Flynn at all?

POMPEO: With respect to what sir? He was for a period of time the national security advisor.

WYDEN: Topics that could have put at risk the security and the well being of the American people. I mean I'm just finding it very hard to swallow that you all had no discussions with the national security advisor.

POMPEO: I spoke with the national security advisor. He was the national security advisor. He was present for the daily brief on many occasions and we talked about all the topics we spoke to the President about.

WYDEN: But nothing relating to matters that could have compromised the security of the United States? POMPEO: Sir I can't recall every conversation with General Flynn during that time period.

WYDEN: We're going to ask some more about it in closed session this afternoon. Admiral Rogers, let me ask you about a technical question that I think is particularly troubling and that is the S.S. 7 question in the technology threat. Last week the Department of Homeland Security published a lengthy study about the impact on the U.S. government of mobile phone security flaws. The report confirmed what I have been warning about for quite some time, which is the significance of cyber security vulnerabilities associated with a signaling system seven report says the department believes, and I quote, that all U.S. carriers are vulnerable to these exploits, resulting in risks to national security, the economy and the federal governments ability to reliably execute national security functions. These vulnerabilities can be exploited by criminals, terrorists and nation state actors and foreign intelligence organizations.

Do you all share the concerns of the Department of Human -- the Homeland Security Department about the severity of these vulnerabilities and what ought to be done right now to get the government and the private sector to be working together more clearly and in a coherent plan to deal with these monumental risks. These are risks that we're going to face with terrorists and hackers and threats. And I think the federal communications commission has been treading water on this and I'd like to see what you want to do to really take charge of this to deal what is an enormous vulnerability to the security of this country?

ROGERS: Sure. I hear the concern. It's a widely deployed technology in the mobile segment. I share the concern the Department of Homeland security in their role kind of as the lead federal agency associated with cyber and support from the federal government to the private sector as overall responsibility here.

We are trying to provide at the national security agency our expertise to help generate insights about the nature of the vulnerability, the nature of the problem. Partnering with DHS, talking to the private sector. There's a couple of specific things from a technology stand point that we're looking at in multiple forms that the government has created partnering with the private sector.

I'm not smart, I apologize about all of the specifics of the DHS effort. I can take that for the record if you'd like.

WYDEN: All right. I just want to respond before we break to Senator Cotton's comments with respect to section 702. Mr. Director, glad to see my tax reform partner back in this role. You know Mr. Director that I think it's critical the American people know how many innocent law abiding Americans are being swept up in the program. The argument that producing an estimate of the number is in itself a violation of privacy, is I think a far fetched argue has been made for years. I and others who believe that we can have security and liberty, that they're not mutually exclusive have always believed that this argument that you're going to be invading peoples privacy doesn't add up. We have to have that number. Are we going to get it? Are we going to get it in time so we can have a debate that shows that those of us who understand there are threats coming from overseas, and we support the effort to deal with those threats as part of 702. That we are not going to have American's privacy rights indiscriminately swept up.

We need that number. When will we get it?

COATS: Senator as you recall, during my confirmation hearing, we had this discussion. I promised to you that I would -- if confirmed and I was, talk (ph) to NSA indeed with Admiral Rogers, try to understand -- better understand why it was so difficult to come to a specific number. I -- I did go out to NSA. I was hosted by Admiral Rogers. We spent significant time talking about that. And I learned of the complexity of reaching that number. I think the -- the statements that had been made by Senator Cotton are very relevant statements as to that.

Clearly, what I have learned is that a breach of privacy has to be made against American people have to be made in order to determine whether or not they breached privacy. So, it -- it -- there is a anomaly there. They're -- they're -- they're issues of duplication.

I know that a -- we're underway in terms of setting up a time with this committee I believe in June -- as early as June to address -- get into that issue and to address that, and talk through the complexity of why it's so difficult to say...

WYDEN: I'm...

COATS: ...this is specifically when we can get you the -- the number and what the number is. So, I -- I believe -- I believe -- we are committed -- we are committed to a special meeting with the committee to try to go through this -- this particular issue.

But I cannot give you a date because I -- I -- and -- and a number because the -- I understand the complexity of it now and why it's so difficult for Admiral Rogers to say this specific number is the number.

WYDEN: I'm -- I'm well over my time. The point really is privacy advocates and technologists say that it's possible to get the number. If they say it, and the government is not saying it, something is really out of synch.

You've got people who want to work with you. We must get on with this and to have a real debate about 702 that ensures that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We have to have that number.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

... ... ...

[Dec 23, 2017] Neither Robert Mueller's team nor the US Senate Intelligence Committee has bothered to contact WikiLeaks or me, in any manner, ever

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , December 18, 2017 at 12:07 pm

"Neither Robert Mueller's team nor the US Senate Intelligence Committee has bothered to contact WikiLeaks or me, in any manner, ever." -- @Julian Assange, Twitter, September 20, 2017

This one tweet completely invalidates the notion that Robert Mueller has been conducting a legitimate investigation into the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections. Regardless of the degree of suspicion in which Assange is held, there is absolutely no excuse for the people responsible for investigating Russia not to have had any interaction of any kind whatsoever with one of the central characters in the official narrative about what Russia is supposed to have done.

"Prosecutors have been avoiding Assange because he has said multiple times that the Russian government is not the source of the DNC leaks."

If his job was to find out what actually happened last year, Mueller would have spoken with Assange personally, and he would have done so long ago. But finding out what happened last year is not Mueller's job. Mueller's job is to enforce a pre-existing narrative. It is painfully obvious at this point that the Senate Intelligence Committee and Mueller's team have been avoiding Assange the way Hillary Clinton avoids personal responsibility because Assange has said multiple times that the Russian government is not the source of the DNC leaks or the Podesta emails released last year.

If this is an actual investigation into an actual alleged crime, then Assange is necessarily either (A) a source of useful information, (B) a person of interest, or (C) a suspect in the crime itself. None of those allows for any excuse for not speaking to him. If it's either (A) or (B), he's a potential goldmine of information for their investigation to make use of. If it's (C), they can grill him and try to get him to give something up. Even someone caught on video committing a murder eventually gets interviewed by the law enforcement officials responsible for investigating their case to establish the accused's side of the story; if they didn't, they'd be committing malpractice. Since they did not seek to question Assange early and extensively, this cannot possibly be an actual investigation into an actual allegation.

"If his job was to find out what actually happened last year, Mueller would have spoken with Assange personally long ago."

The fact of the matter is that Russia has been America's Public Enemy Number One since the end of World War Two, and for that reason there is a longstanding tradition in the United States of tarring political enemies with baseless accusations of Kremlin ties. Establishment loyalists have been accusing WikiLeaks of being in bed with Russia since long before any election meddling accusations surfaced, despite the organization's long and continued record of publishing critical documents related to the Russian Federation. They have been doing so not because there is any basis for such accusations, but because WikiLeaks is their political enemy. There is nothing more hostile to America's pernicious unelected power establishment than unauthorized truth-telling, and WikiLeaks is currently the world's leader in unauthorized truth-telling. It is that simple.

Mueller's investigation has no interest in finding the truth. Mueller's investigation is actively avoiding all potential sources of truth. The US intelligence community to which Mueller is loyal is the right arm of America's unelected power establishment, and due to conflicting economic and geopolitical interests things have been coming to a head with Russia for a long time. The neoconservative ideology which governs America's foreign policy is geared first and foremost toward preventing the rise of another rival superpower, and the former seat of the Soviet Union will always be first on the list of suspects.
"WikiLeaks is currently the world's leader in unauthorized truth-telling. It is that simple.
Mueller's investigation has no interest in finding the truth."

Things are not going as planned for America's true rulers. Not in Syria, not in North Korea, and certainly not in Russia.

***People's unprecedented ability to network and share information due to rising internet literacy and access has caused a severe breakdown in the propaganda machine which holds their entire prison together, and people are waking up to their manipulations***
.
(Hence the move to eliminate net neurtrality as I posted supra)

These creeps are on the back foot now. Keep fighting and wrest control of the world away from the plutocratic sociopaths who are trying to deceive and enslave us"

https://www.blackagendareport.com/entire-russian-hacking-narrative-invalidated-single-assange-tweet

[Dec 23, 2017] Can the FBI Get Away With Getting Trump Team Emails, by Andrew Napolitano - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... The practical effect of Mueller's acquisition of the transition emails could be devastating to White House staff who once worked for the transition. Many of them have been interviewed by the FBI while no doubt being ignorant of the fact that the FBI had read their emails. Stated differently, the FBI was in a position to lead Trump White House staff members into a lying trap -- just as it did with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- by asking them questions to which the FBI already had the answers. ..."
"... Lying traps are reprehensible, but they're lawful. And they are not unique to Mueller's practices; it is the way the feds work today. Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump team's emails? In a word: yes. This investigation is not going away soon. ..."
Dec 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Within hours of his victory in last year's presidential election, Donald Trump dispatched his lawyers to establish a nonprofit corporation to manage his transition from private life to the presidency. This was done pursuant to a federal statute that provides for taxpayer-funded assistance to the newly elected -- but not yet inaugurated -- president. The statutory term for the corporation is the presidential transition team, or PTT.

In addition to paying the PTT's bills, the General Services Administration, which manages all nonmilitary federal property, provided the PTT with government computers, software and a computer service provider. During the course of the PTT's existence, the folks who worked for it sent or received tens of thousands of emails. The PTT ceased to exist upon Trump's inauguration, and a receiver was hired to wind it down.

Last weekend, a lawyer for the receiver revealed a letter he sent to Congress complaining that special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating whether there was any agreement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election -- dispatched FBI agents to the GSA looking for copies of all the PTT's emails and that the GSA surrendered them.

How did this happen?

When the FBI is looking for documents or tangible things, it has several legal tools available. They range in their disruptive nature from a simple request to a grand jury subpoena to a judicially authorized search warrant.
The FBI request is the easiest for the government, and if FBI agents ask you for something and you give it to them, you cannot later be heard to complain that your privacy rights regarding the things you surrendered were violated. If they seize your documents pursuant to a subpoena or a warrant, they normally get to use what they have seized.

The issue becomes more complex when the FBI comes calling for documents of yours that are legally in the hands of a custodian -- such as your physician, lawyer, banker or accountant. In the case of Trump's PTT and Mueller's wish for all PTT emails, the sought-after data -- the electronic copies of all the PTT's emails -- were in custody of the GSA.

Anyone who has ever used a GSA computer is familiar with the warning that appears on the screen at the time of each use. It says that there is no right to privacy in the communications sent or received, as the electronic versions of those communications are the property of the federal government. This, no doubt, is the reason Hillary Clinton infamously used her husband's computer servers during her four years at the State Department rather than the government's.
We do not know whether Mueller's FBI agents merely requested the electronic data from the GSA or his prosecutors obtained a grand jury subpoena. If it was a simple FBI request and if the GSA simply complied, that was a lawful acquisition by the FBI of the PTT emails, yet in that case, the GSA violated its fiduciary duty to inform the PTT of the request before it complied with it.

If the FBI came calling on the GSA with a grand jury subpoena, that means Mueller's team must have presented evidence under oath to a grand jury and demonstrated that the sought-after items would more likely than not be helpful to the investigation. When a grand jury issues a subpoena to a custodian of records -- no matter who the custodian is -- it is the moral and fiduciary duty of the custodian, not the government, to inform the owner of the subpoenaed items that a subpoena has been received.

In some cases, it is also the legal duty of the custodian to inform the owner, but it apparently was not in this case. As far as we can tell, there was no written agreement between the GSA and the PTT requiring the GSA to inform the PTT of any document requests or subpoenas. Had such a request been revealed, the lawyer for the receiver of the PTT would have had an opportunity to challenge the government before a judge. Without that notice, there is no time for the challenge.

Until 1986, it was the duty of the government when seeking documents or tangible things from a custodian to inform the owner, as well as the custodian, of its intent. That fair procedure gave the owner of the records time to challenge the government before a judge. But the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (which has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting privacy), enacted at the dawn of the digital age, did away with that requirement.

Now if the custodian remains silent in the face of an FBI request or a grand jury subpoena, the owner of the documents loses his opportunity to keep them from the government. That is what happened here.

But there is more.

The practical effect of Mueller's acquisition of the transition emails could be devastating to White House staff who once worked for the transition. Many of them have been interviewed by the FBI while no doubt being ignorant of the fact that the FBI had read their emails. Stated differently, the FBI was in a position to lead Trump White House staff members into a lying trap -- just as it did with retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn -- by asking them questions to which the FBI already had the answers.

Lying traps are reprehensible, but they're lawful. And they are not unique to Mueller's practices; it is the way the feds work today. Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump team's emails? In a word: yes. This investigation is not going away soon.

Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

anonymous , Disclaimer December 21, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT

Judge Waterboy is back again this week, serving the Establishment by propagandizing against Russia while supposedly giving readers expert guidance on American governmental and legal processes.

" .. special counsel Robert Mueller -- who is investigating whether there was any agreement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election -- "

Where does one go to read any specification of and see any evidence for these "now-well-known efforts"? Has anyone who still watches TV seen that question put to Mr. Napolitano?

Notice, too, how the language has been massaged since Mr. Napolitano's column published here on December 7:

" .. the no-nonsense special counsel investigating whether any Americans aided the Russian government in its now well-known interference in the 2016 American presidential election .. "

Rather than copy/cut/paste, the author has taken the time to alter his words:

any Americans >>> the Trump campaign
Russian government >>> Russian intelligence
interference >>> affect the outcome

Mr. Napolitano may be giving himself room to navigate the evolving scandals in Washington, where we are invited to take sides in the intramural battle between Team Red and Team Blue or, for the relatively sophisticated, President Trump and Deep State. But no matter how that all turns out, the processes and this article about them serve to Otherize another people and state from which our rulers can keep us safe and free.

Realist , December 21, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT
"Can the FBI Get Away with Getting Trump Team Emails?"

They already have. We will hear more bluster from Representatives Gowdy and Jordan but as always in the past nothing will happen. I have lost count, but these two have been grandstanding for years on all manner of injustice .without one victory.

The Alarmist , December 21, 2017 at 10:11 am GMT

"Can the FBI get away with getting the Trump team's emails?"

Did Martha Stewart go to jail for changing her story to the FBI?

Clearly we are operating outside the rule of law, in the rule of men. Mueller and team are the law.

WorkingClass , December 21, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
Again with "now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election"?

The meme is well known. But approximately half of us know it is a lie. Judge Swamp Creature knows it's a lie but (repeatedly) repeats it anyway. What's in it for you Judge?

What is now well known is that Mueller is a political assassin, hired to lead a soft coup against an elected president.

polistra , December 21, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
Why bother to ask these silly questions? FBI gets away with anything and everything it wants to do. When a mob owns ALL the blackmail files, nobody can stop it. There is no such thing as "law". There is only bullets, bombs and blackmail.
Eric Rasmusen , December 21, 2017 at 9:40 pm GMT
Mr. Napolitano is taking a radical position when he confidently claims that it is legal for the FBI to secretly read transition emails without a warrant or subpoena, or, indeed, any official authority whatsover. It seems the FBI simply asked GSA for the emails, rather than getting a subpoena -- that's the big point here, since of course GSA has to hand them over if there is a subpoena, but a court has to authorize it then. So here, the FBI had no more authority than any other agency in the executive branch. Mr. Napolitano's position is that that's fine. If so, it would equally have been okay for the GSA to give the Secretary of Agriculture, the IRS Commissioner, or President Obama permission to secretly view the Trump transition team's emails during the transition. Indeed, the FBI was not acting with any authority in this case, just a request, so Napolitano's claim is that the GSA could have given the emails to Nancy Pelosi if she'd asked. Is that really the position you want to take? It's absurd. If that were the law, then no winning presidential candidate would ever want to make use of transition facilities and computer systems, since it would be to allow the opposition party open access to all of his plans.
Backwoods Bob , December 22, 2017 at 5:33 am GMT
Hey Andy, thanks.

It's sobering. So Mueller has more lying traps on Trump staffers. It's incredible.

It makes my stomach turn. But this is far from over.

Svigor , December 22, 2017 at 7:38 am GMT

who is investigating whether there was any agreement between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin that resulted in the now-well-known efforts by Russian intelligence to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election

For true? Great. Since they're so well-known, please describe them in detail.Oh, you mean nobody's got any idea WTF those efforts were? Yeah, thought so.

TV people. They live in the TV universe.

unit472 , December 22, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT
Even assuming a GSA computer warns its user ( everytime?) that data stored on it is government property how does that allow Mueller or anyone else to seize the emails of the party not using a GSA computer? No warning was given to the party receiving an e-mail or replying to an email sent from a government computer.

I recognize a wiretap records both ends of a telephone call or email but that requires a judge to issue the warrant ( and we can hope the judge has more respect for the Constitution than the creep writing this does).

[Dec 23, 2017] Slovenia is among the Coalition of the 128 NOT willing to be punked by USA. Melania better keep a low profile around Trump and Nikki

Dec 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , , December 21, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Uh Oh Slovenia is among the Coalition of the 128 NOT willing to be punked by USA..

Maybe some panic stricken late night 911 DV calls from the WH??

Melania better keep a low profile around Trump and Nikki !!!!!! LOL!!

Jen , December 21, 2017 at 2:48 pm
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
Cortes , December 21, 2017 at 4:27 pm
She's made herself untouchable.
Jen , December 21, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Ha ha!
Moscow Exile , December 21, 2017 at 8:41 pm
She makes me Sikh

[Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:

Example 1:

North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.

We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.

Example 2:

Commander's intent:

Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.

Execution:

Phase one:

Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.

Phase two:

Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course).

Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"

Phase four: Regime change.

There you go .

Example 3:

I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.

These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics:

First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence, when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain"). You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .

Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority, the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case, that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological, hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example #2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.

The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of " my country, right or wrong " but goes far beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility" to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".

A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.

A glorification of ignorance which is transformed into a sign of manliness and honesty. This is powerfully illustrated in the famous song " Where were you when the world stopped turning " whoso lyrics include the following words " I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God " (notice how the title of the song suggests that New York is the center of the world, when when get hit, the world stops turning; also, no connection is made between watching CNN and not being able to tell two completely different countries apart). If this were limited to singers, then it would not be a problem, but this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ".

As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.

A totally uncritical acceptance of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or the latest hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .

The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive, they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.

That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .

Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans" (example #2 is a prefect example of this).

There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:

Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.

As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans (political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:

One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).

Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.

Consequences:

There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion than on the actual ability to form one .

By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types") because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.

The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others. One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory and leave.

Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars . And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!

We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated (if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is not just a case of " Fools rush in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught me about it!).

If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of their own.

What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us

I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.

Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans, remember the previous war in Korea).

But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem

The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.

This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.

In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable scenario (see here if that topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly seeking solutions to our current predicament.

-- -- -

1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:

Paul b , December 22, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
Third world nationalist , December 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern degeneracy.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 22, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness

A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the warfare.

Sean , December 22, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech ( it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
VICB3 , December 22, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.

Don't think that would ever happen? Reference 'How Tyrannies Implode' by Richard Fernandez: https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/02/27/how-tyrannies-implode/?print=true&singlepage=true

There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*

Just a thought.

VicB3

*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.

His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.

Wish I didn't think that, but I do.

pyrrhus , December 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years .In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
anonymous , Disclaimer December 22, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice. It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre. Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes, look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
Randal , December 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
@VICB3

but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV.

All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.

Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.

I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies that came to a bad end.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
@pyrrhus

so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world

I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT

The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.

Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.

Dana Thompson , December 22, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless? Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake. But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
peterAUS , December 22, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
@Dana Thompson

Agree.

I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.

VICB3 , December 23, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
@Randal

Just be patient.

Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.

Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.

Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better. And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.

At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."

And then it's "Live on TV Time!"

Hope this helps.

Just a thought.

VicB3

Santoculto , December 23, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first

METWO#

Erebus , December 23, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT
@peterAUS

Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.

In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to you at some length elsewhere.

In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.

It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.

You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with. Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.

Simple, really.

[Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:

Example 1:

North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.

We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.

Example 2:

Commander's intent:

Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.

Execution:

Phase one:

Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.

Phase two:

Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course).

Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"

Phase four: Regime change.

There you go .

Example 3:

I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.

These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics:

First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence, when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain"). You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .

Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority, the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case, that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological, hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example #2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.

The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of " my country, right or wrong " but goes far beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility" to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".

A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.

A glorification of ignorance which is transformed into a sign of manliness and honesty. This is powerfully illustrated in the famous song " Where were you when the world stopped turning " whoso lyrics include the following words " I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God " (notice how the title of the song suggests that New York is the center of the world, when when get hit, the world stops turning; also, no connection is made between watching CNN and not being able to tell two completely different countries apart). If this were limited to singers, then it would not be a problem, but this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ".

As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.

A totally uncritical acceptance of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or the latest hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .

The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive, they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.

That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .

Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans" (example #2 is a prefect example of this).

There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:

Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.

As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans (political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:

One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).

Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.

Consequences:

There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion than on the actual ability to form one .

By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types") because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.

The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others. One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory and leave.

Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars . And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!

We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated (if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is not just a case of " Fools rush in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught me about it!).

If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of their own.

What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us

I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.

Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans, remember the previous war in Korea).

But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem

The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.

This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.

In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable scenario (see here if that topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly seeking solutions to our current predicament.

-- -- -

1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:

Paul b , December 22, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
Third world nationalist , December 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern degeneracy.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 22, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness

A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the warfare.

Sean , December 22, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech ( it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
VICB3 , December 22, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.

Don't think that would ever happen? Reference 'How Tyrannies Implode' by Richard Fernandez: https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/02/27/how-tyrannies-implode/?print=true&singlepage=true

There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*

Just a thought.

VicB3

*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.

His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.

Wish I didn't think that, but I do.

pyrrhus , December 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years .In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
anonymous , Disclaimer December 22, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice. It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre. Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes, look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
Randal , December 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
@VICB3

but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV.

All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.

Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.

I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies that came to a bad end.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
@pyrrhus

so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world

I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT

The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.

Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.

Dana Thompson , December 22, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless? Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake. But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
peterAUS , December 22, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
@Dana Thompson

Agree.

I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.

VICB3 , December 23, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
@Randal

Just be patient.

Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.

Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.

Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better. And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.

At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."

And then it's "Live on TV Time!"

Hope this helps.

Just a thought.

VicB3

Santoculto , December 23, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first

METWO#

Erebus , December 23, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT
@peterAUS

Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.

In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to you at some length elsewhere.

In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.

It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.

You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with. Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.

Simple, really.

[Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people. ..."
"... They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats. ..."
"... The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. ..."
"... Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43). ..."
"... This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer. ..."
"... The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth ! ..."
"... Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades. ..."
"... "Wow – is there ever negative!" ..."
"... You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'. ..."
"... My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece ..."
"... "Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor." ..."
"... Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\ ..."
"... It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's! ..."
"... E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop. ..."
"... The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.) ..."
Dec 12, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

On America's 'long emergency' of recession, globalization, and identity politics.

Can a people recover from an excursion into unreality? The USA's sojourn into an alternative universe of the mind accelerated sharply after Wall Street nearly detonated the global financial system in 2008. That debacle was only one manifestation of an array of accumulating threats to the postmodern order, which include the burdens of empire, onerous debt, population overshoot, fracturing globalism, worries about energy, disruptive technologies, ecological havoc, and the specter of climate change.

A sense of gathering crisis, which I call the long emergency , persists. It is systemic and existential. It calls into question our ability to carry on "normal" life much farther into this century, and all the anxiety that attends it is hard for the public to process. It manifested itself first in finance because that was the most abstract and fragile of all the major activities we depend on for daily life, and therefore the one most easily tampered with and shoved into criticality by a cadre of irresponsible opportunists on Wall Street. Indeed, a lot of households were permanently wrecked after the so-called Great Financial Crisis of 2008, despite official trumpet blasts heralding "recovery" and the dishonestly engineered pump-up of capital markets since then.

With the election of 2016, symptoms of the long emergency seeped into the political system. Disinformation rules. There is no coherent consensus about what is happening and no coherent proposals to do anything about it. The two parties are mired in paralysis and dysfunction and the public's trust in them is at epic lows. Donald Trump is viewed as a sort of pirate president, a freebooting freak elected by accident, "a disrupter" of the status quo at best and at worst a dangerous incompetent playing with nuclear fire. A state of war exists between the White House, the permanent D.C. bureaucracy, and the traditional news media. Authentic leadership is otherwise AWOL. Institutions falter. The FBI and the CIA behave like enemies of the people.

Bad ideas flourish in this nutrient medium of unresolved crisis. Lately, they actually dominate the scene on every side. A species of wishful thinking that resembles a primitive cargo cult grips the technocratic class, awaiting magical rescue remedies that promise to extend the regime of Happy Motoring, consumerism, and suburbia that makes up the armature of "normal" life in the USA. They chatter about electric driverless car fleets, home delivery drone services, and as-yet-undeveloped modes of energy production to replace problematic fossil fuels, while ignoring the self-evident resource and capital constraints now upon us and even the laws of physics -- especially entropy , the second law of thermodynamics. Their main mental block is their belief in infinite industrial growth on a finite planet, an idea so powerfully foolish that it obviates their standing as technocrats.

The non-technocratic cohort of the thinking class squanders its waking hours on a quixotic campaign to destroy the remnant of an American common culture and, by extension, a reviled Western civilization they blame for the failure in our time to establish a utopia on earth. By the logic of the day, "inclusion" and "diversity" are achieved by forbidding the transmission of ideas, shutting down debate, and creating new racially segregated college dorms. Sexuality is declared to not be biologically determined, yet so-called cis-gendered persons (whose gender identity corresponds with their sex as detected at birth) are vilified by dint of not being "other-gendered" -- thereby thwarting the pursuit of happiness of persons self-identified as other-gendered. Casuistry anyone?

The universities beget a class of what Nassim Taleb prankishly called "intellectuals-yet-idiots," hierophants trafficking in fads and falsehoods, conveyed in esoteric jargon larded with psychobabble in support of a therapeutic crypto-gnostic crusade bent on transforming human nature to fit the wished-for utopian template of a world where anything goes. In fact, they have only produced a new intellectual despotism worthy of Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot.

In case you haven't been paying attention to the hijinks on campus -- the attacks on reason, fairness, and common decency, the kangaroo courts, diversity tribunals, assaults on public speech and speakers themselves -- here is the key take-away: it's not about ideas or ideologies anymore; it's purely about the pleasures of coercion, of pushing other people around. Coercion is fun and exciting! In fact, it's intoxicating, and rewarded with brownie points and career advancement. It's rather perverse that this passion for tyranny is suddenly so popular on the liberal left.

Until fairly recently, the Democratic Party did not roll that way. It was right-wing Republicans who tried to ban books, censor pop music, and stifle free expression. If anything, Democrats strenuously defended the First Amendment, including the principle that unpopular and discomforting ideas had to be tolerated in order to protect all speech. Back in in 1977 the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march for their cause (National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43).

The new and false idea that something labeled "hate speech" -- labeled by whom? -- is equivalent to violence floated out of the graduate schools on a toxic cloud of intellectual hysteria concocted in the laboratory of so-called "post-structuralist" philosophy, where sundry body parts of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, and Gilles Deleuze were sewn onto a brain comprised of one-third each Thomas Hobbes, Saul Alinsky, and Tupac Shakur to create a perfect Frankenstein monster of thought. It all boiled down to the proposition that the will to power negated all other human drives and values, in particular the search for truth. Under this scheme, all human relations were reduced to a dramatis personae of the oppressed and their oppressors, the former generally "people of color" and women, all subjugated by whites, mostly males. Tactical moves in politics among these self-described "oppressed" and "marginalized" are based on the credo that the ends justify the means (the Alinsky model).

This is the recipe for what we call identity politics, the main thrust of which these days, the quest for "social justice," is to present a suit against white male privilege and, shall we say, the horse it rode in on: western civ. A peculiar feature of the social justice agenda is the wish to erect strict boundaries around racial identities while erasing behavioral boundaries, sexual boundaries, and ethical boundaries. Since so much of this thought-monster is actually promulgated by white college professors and administrators, and white political activists, against people like themselves, the motives in this concerted campaign might appear puzzling to the casual observer.

I would account for it as the psychological displacement among this political cohort of their shame, disappointment, and despair over the outcome of the civil rights campaign that started in the 1960s and formed the core of progressive ideology. It did not bring about the hoped-for utopia. The racial divide in America is starker now than ever, even after two terms of a black president. Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. The recent flash points of racial conflict -- Ferguson, the Dallas police ambush, the Charleston church massacre, et cetera -- don't have to be rehearsed in detail here to make the point that there is a great deal of ill feeling throughout the land, and quite a bit of acting out on both sides.

The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth, is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another. And that is exactly why a black separatism movement arose as an alternative at the time, led initially by such charismatic figures as Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael. Some of that was arguably a product of the same youthful energy that drove the rest of the Sixties counterculture: adolescent rebellion. But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies the concept of a national common culture.

What follows from these dynamics is the deflection of all ideas that don't feed a narrative of power relations between oppressors and victims, with the self-identified victims ever more eager to exercise their power to coerce, punish, and humiliate their self-identified oppressors, the "privileged," who condescend to be abused to a shockingly masochistic degree. Nobody stands up to this organized ceremonial nonsense. The punishments are too severe, including the loss of livelihood, status, and reputation, especially in the university. Once branded a "racist," you're done. And venturing to join the oft-called-for "honest conversation about race" is certain to invite that fate.

Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor. Hung out to dry economically, this class of whites fell into many of the same behaviors as the poor blacks before them: absent fathers, out-of-wedlock births, drug abuse. Then the Great Financial Crisis of 2008 wiped up the floor with the middle-middle class above them, foreclosing on their homes and futures, and in their desperation many of these people became Trump voters -- though I doubt that Trump himself truly understood how this all worked exactly. However, he did see that the white middle class had come to identify as yet another victim group, allowing him to pose as their champion.

The evolving matrix of rackets that prompted the 2008 debacle has only grown more elaborate and craven as the old economy of stuff dies and is replaced by a financialized economy of swindles and frauds . Almost nothing in America's financial life is on the level anymore, from the mendacious "guidance" statements of the Federal Reserve, to the official economic statistics of the federal agencies, to the manipulation of all markets, to the shenanigans on the fiscal side, to the pervasive accounting fraud that underlies it all. Ironically, the systematic chiseling of the foundering middle class is most visible in the rackets that medicine and education have become -- two activities that were formerly dedicated to doing no harm and seeking the truth !

Life in this milieu of immersive dishonesty drives citizens beyond cynicism to an even more desperate state of mind. The suffering public ends up having no idea what is really going on, what is actually happening. The toolkit of the Enlightenment -- reason, empiricism -- doesn't work very well in this socioeconomic hall of mirrors, so all that baggage is discarded for the idea that reality is just a social construct, just whatever story you feel like telling about it. On the right, Karl Rove expressed this point of view some years ago when he bragged, of the Bush II White House, that "we make our own reality." The left says nearly the same thing in the post-structuralist malarkey of academia: "you make your own reality." In the end, both sides are left with a lot of bad feelings and the belief that only raw power has meaning.

Erasing psychological boundaries is a dangerous thing. When the rackets finally come to grief -- as they must because their operations don't add up -- and the reckoning with true price discovery commences at the macro scale, the American people will find themselves in even more distress than they've endured so far. This will be the moment when either nobody has any money, or there is plenty of worthless money for everyone. Either way, the functional bankruptcy of the nation will be complete, and nothing will work anymore, including getting enough to eat. That is exactly the moment when Americans on all sides will beg someone to step up and push them around to get their world working again. And even that may not avail.

James Howard Kunstler's many books include The Geography of Nowhere, The Long Emergency, Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation , and the World Made by Hand novel series. He blogs on Mondays and Fridays at Kunstler.com .

Whine Merchant December 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm

Wow – is there ever negative!
Celery , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:33 pm
I think I need to go listen to an old-fashioned Christmas song now.

The ability to be financially, or at least resource, sustaining is the goal of many I know since we share a lack of confidence in any of our institutions. We can only hope that God might look down with compassion on us, but He's not in the practical plan of how to feed and sustain ourselves when things play out to their inevitable end. Having come from a better time, we joke about our dystopian preparations, self-conscious about our "overreaction," but preparing all the same.

Merry Christmas!

Fran Macadam , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:55 pm
Look at it this way: Germany had to be leveled and its citizens reduced to abject penury, before Volkswagen could become the world's biggest car company, and autobahns built throughout the world. It will be darkest before the dawn, and hopefully, that light that comes after, won't be the miniature sunrise of a nuclear conflagration.
KD , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:02 am
Eat, Drink, and be Merry, you can charge it on your credit card!
Rock Stehdy , says: December 21, 2017 at 6:38 am
Hard words, but true. Kunstler is always worth reading for his common-sense wisdom.
Helmut , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:04 am
An excellent summary and bleak reminder of what our so-called civilization has become. How do we extricate ourselves from this strange death spiral?
I have long suspected that we humans are creatures of our own personal/group/tribal/national/global fables and mythologies. We are compelled by our genes, marrow, and blood to tell ourselves stories of our purpose and who we are. It is time for new mythologies and stories of "who we are". This bizarre hyper-techno all-for-profit world needs a new story.
Liam , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:38 am
"The black underclass is larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated than it was in the 1960s. My theory, for what it's worth, is that the civil rights legislation of 1964 and '65, which removed legal barriers to full participation in national life, induced considerable anxiety among black citizens over the new disposition of things, for one reason or another."

Um, forgotten by Kunstler is the fact that 1965 was also the year when the USA reopened its doors to low-skilled immigrants from the Third World – who very quickly became competitors with black Americans. And then the Boom ended, and corporate American, influenced by thinking such as that displayed in Lewis Powell's (in)famous 1971 memorandum, decided to claw back the gains made by the working and middle classes in the previous 3 decades.

Peter , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:34 am
I have some faith that the American people can recover from an excursion into unreality. I base it on my own survival to the end of this silly rant.
SteveM , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:08 am
Re: Whine Merchant, "Wow – is there ever negative!"

Can't argue with the facts

P.S. Merry Christmas.

Dave Wright , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:22 am
Hey Jim, I know you love to blame Wall Street and the Republicans for the GFC. I remember back in '08 you were urging Democrats to blame it all on Republicans to help Obama win. But I have news for you. It wasn't Wall Street that caused the GFC. The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act to pressure banks to relax mortgage underwriting standards. This was done at the behest of left wing activists who claimed (without evidence, of course) that the standards discriminated against minorities. The result was an effective repeal of all underwriting standards and an explosion of real estate speculation with borrowed money. Speculation with borrowed money never ends well.

I have to laugh, too, when you say that it's perverse that the passion for tyranny is popular on the left. Have you ever heard of the French Revolution? How about the USSR? Communist China? North Korea? Et cetera.

Leftism is leftism. Call it Marxism, Communism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, or what have you. The ideology is the same. Only the tactics and methods change. Destroy the evil institutions of marriage, family, and religion, and Man's innate goodness will shine forth, and the glorious Godless utopia will naturally result.

Of course, the father of lies is ultimately behind it all. "He was a liar and a murderer from the beginning."

When man turns his back on God, nothing good happens. That's the most fundamental problem in Western society today. Not to say that there aren't other issues, but until we return to God, there's not much hope for improvement.

NoahK , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:15 am
It's like somebody just got a bunch of right-wing talking points and mashed them together into one incohesive whole. This is just lazy.
Andrew Imlay , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:36 am
Hmm. I just wandered over here by accident. Being a construction contractor, I don't know enough about globalization, academia, or finance to evaluate your assertions about those realms. But being in a biracial family, and having lived, worked, and worshiped equally in white and black communities, I can evaluate your statements about social justice, race, and civil rights. Long story short, you pick out fringe liberal ideas, misrepresent them as mainstream among liberals, and shoot them down. Casuistry, anyone?

You also misrepresent reality to your readers. No, the black underclass is not larger, more dysfunctional, and more alienated now than in the 1960's, when cities across the country burned and machine guns were stationed on the Capitol steps. The "racial divide" is not "starker now than ever"; that's just preposterous to anyone who was alive then. And nobody I've ever known felt "shame" over the "outcome of the civil rights campaign". I know nobody who seeks to "punish and humiliate" the 'privileged'.

I get that this column is a quick toss-off before the holiday, and that your strength is supposed to be in your presentation, not your ideas. For me, it's a helpful way to rehearse debunking common tropes that I'll encounter elsewhere.

But, really, your readers deserve better, and so do the people you misrepresent. We need bad liberal ideas to be critiqued while they're still on the fringe. But by calling fringe ideas mainstream, you discredit yourself, misinform your readers, and contribute to stereotypes both of liberals and of conservatives. I'm looking for serious conservative critiques that help me take a second look at familiar ideas. I won't be back.

peter in boston , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:48 am
Love Kunstler -- and love reading him here -- but he needs a strong editor to get him to turn a formless harangue into clear essay.
Someone in the crowd , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:07 am
I disagree, NoahK, that the whole is incohesive, and I also disagree that these are right-wing talking points.

The theme of this piece is the long crisis in the US, its nature and causes. At no point does this essay, despite it stream of consciousness style, veer away from that theme. Hence it is cohesive.

As for the right wing charge, though it is true, to be sure, that Kunstler's position is in many respects classically conservative -- he believes for example that there should be a national consensus on certain fundamentals, such as whether or not there are two sexes (for the most part), or, instead, an infinite variety of sexes chosen day by day at whim -- you must have noticed that he condemned both the voluntarism of Karl Rove AND the voluntarism of the post-structuralist crowd.

My impression is that what Kunstler is doing here is diagnosing the long crisis of a decadent liberal post-modernity, and his stance is not that of either of the warring sides within our divorced-from-reality political establishment, neither that of the 'right' or 'left.' Which is why, logically, he published it here. National Review would never have accepted this piece. QED.

Jon , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:10 am
This malaise is rooted in human consciousness that when reflecting on itself celebrating its capacity for apperception suffers from the tension that such an inquiry, such an inward glance produces. In a word, the capacity for the human being to be aware of his or herself as an intelligent being capable of reflecting on aspects of reality through the artful manipulation of symbols engenders this tension, this angst.

Some will attempt to extinguish this inner tension through intoxication while others through the thrill of war, and it has been played out since the dawn of man and well documented when the written word emerged.

The malaise which Mr. Kunstler addresses as the problem of our times is rooted in our existence from time immemorial. But the problem is not only existential but ontological. It is rooted in our being as self-aware creatures. Thus no solution avails itself as humanity in and of itself is the problem. Each side (both right and left) seeks its own anodyne whether through profligacy or intolerance, and each side mans the barricades to clash experiencing the adrenaline rush that arises from the perpetual call to arms.

Joe the Plutocrat , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:27 am
"Globalization has acted, meanwhile, as a great leveler. It destroyed what was left of the working class -- the lower-middle class -- which included a great many white Americans who used to be able to support a family with simple labor."

And to whom do we hand the tab for this? Globalization is a word. It is a concept, a talking point. Globalization is oligarchy by another name. Unfortunately, under-educated, deplorable, Americans; regardless of party affiliation/ideology have embraced. And the most ironic part?

Russia and China (the eventual surviving oligarchies) will eventually have to duke it out to decide which superpower gets to make the USA it's b*tch (excuse prison reference, but that's where we're headed folks).

And one more irony. Only in American, could Christianity, which was grew from concepts like compassion, generosity, humility, and benevolence; be re-branded and 'weaponized' to further greed, bigotry, misogyny, intolerance, and violence/war. Americans fiddled (over same sex marriage, abortion, who has to bake wedding cakes, and who gets to use which public restroom), while the oligarchs burned the last resources (natural, financial, and even legal).

The scientist 880 , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:48 am
"Today, there is more grievance and resentment, and less hope for a better future, than when Martin Luther King made the case for progress on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963."

Spoken like a white guy who has zero contact with black people. I mean, even a little bit of research and familiarity would give lie to the idea that blacks are more pessimistic about life today than in the 1960's.

Black millenials are the most optimistic group of Americans about the future. Anyone who has spent any significant time around older black people will notice that you don't hear the rose colored memories of the past. Black people don't miss the 1980's, much less the 1950's. Young black people are told by their elders how lucky they are to grow up today because things are much better than when grandpa was our age and we all know this history.\

It's clear that this part of the article was written from absolute ignorance of the actual black experience with no interest in even looking up some facts. Hell, Obama even gave a speech at Howard telling graduates how lucky they were to be young and black Today compared to even when he was their age in the 80's!

Here is the direct quote;

"In my inaugural address, I remarked that just 60 years earlier, my father might not have been served in a D.C. restaurant -- at least not certain of them. There were no black CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Very few black judges. Shoot, as Larry Wilmore pointed out last week, a lot of folks didn't even think blacks had the tools to be a quarterback. Today, former Bull Michael Jordan isn't just the greatest basketball player of all time -- he owns the team. (Laughter.) When I was graduating, the main black hero on TV was Mr. T. (Laughter.) Rap and hip hop were counterculture, underground. Now, Shonda Rhimes owns Thursday night, and Beyoncé runs the world. (Laughter.) We're no longer only entertainers, we're producers, studio executives. No longer small business owners -- we're CEOs, we're mayors, representatives, Presidents of the United States. (Applause.)

I am not saying gaps do not persist. Obviously, they do. Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don't worry -- I'm going to get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn't know ahead of time who you were going to be -- what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you'd be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into -- you wouldn't choose 100 years ago. You wouldn't choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You'd choose right now. If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, "young, gifted, and black" in America, you would choose right now. (Applause.)"

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obamas-howard-commencement-transcript-222931

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58cf1d9ae4b0ec9d29dcf283/amp

Adam , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:57 am
I love reading about how the Community Reinvestment Act was the catalyst of all that is wrong in the world. As someone in the industry the issue was actually twofold. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act turned the mortgage securities market into a casino with the underlying actual debt instruments multiplied through the use of additional debt instruments tied to the performance but with no actual underlying value. These securities were then sold around the world essentially infecting the entire market. In order that feed the beast, these NON GOVERNMENT loans had their underwriting standards lowered to rediculous levels. If you run out of qualified customers, just lower the qualifications. Government loans such as FHA, VA, and USDA were avoided because it was easier to qualify people with the new stuff. And get paid. The short version is all of the incentives that were in place at the time, starting with the Futures Act, directly led to the actions that culminated in the Crash. So yes, it was the government, just a different piece of legislation.
SteveM , says: December 21, 2017 at 12:29 pm
Kunstler itemizing the social and economic pathologies in the United States is not enough. Because there are other models that demonstrate it didn't have to be this way.

E.g. Germany. Germany is anything but perfect and its recent government has screwed up with its immigration policies. But Germany has a high standard of living, an educated work force (including unions and skilled crafts-people), a more rational distribution of wealth and high quality universal health care that costs 47% less per capita than in the U.S. and with no intrinsic need to maraud around the planet wasting gobs of taxpayer money playing Global Cop.

The larger subtext is that the U.S. house of cards was planned out and constructed as deliberately as the German model was. Only the objective was not to maximize the health and happiness of the citizenry, but to line the pockets of the parasitic Elites. (E.g., note that Mitch McConnell has been a government employee for 50 years but somehow acquired a net worth of over $10 Million.)

P.S. About the notionally high U.S. GDP. Factor out the TRILLIONS inexplicably hoovered up by the pathological health care system, the metastasized and sanctified National Security State (with its Global Cop shenanigans) and the cronied-up Ponzi scheme of electron-churn financialization ginned up by Goldman Sachs and the rest of the Banksters, and then see how much GDP that reflects the actual wealth of the middle class is left over.

One Guy , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Right-Wing Dittoheads and Fox Watchers love to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. It allows them to blame both poor black people AND the government. The truth is that many parties were to blame.
LouB , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:14 pm
One of the things I love about this rag is that almost all of the comments are included. You may be sure that similar commenting privilege doesn't exist most anywhere else.

Any disfavor regarding the supposed bleakness with the weak hearted souls aside, Mr K's broadside seems pretty spot on to me.

tzx4 , says: December 21, 2017 at 1:57 pm
I think the author overlooks the fact that government over the past 30 to 40 years has been tilting the playing field ever more towards the uppermost classes and against the middle class. The evisceration of the middle class is plain to see.

If the the common man had more money and security, lots of our current intrasocial conflicts would be far less intense.

Jeeves , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:09 pm
Andrew Imlay: You provide a thoughtful corrective to one of Kunstler's more hyperbolic claims. And you should know that his jeremiad doesn't represent usual fare at TAC. So do come back.

Whether or not every one of Kunstler's assertions can withstand a rigorous fact-check, he is a formidable rhetorician. A generous serving of Weltschmerz is just what the season calls for.

Wezz , says: December 21, 2017 at 2:44 pm
America is stupefied from propaganda on steroids for, largely from the right wing, 25? years of Limbaugh, Fox, etc etc etc Clinton hate x 10, "weapons of mass destruction", "they hate us because we are free", birtherism, death panels, Jade Helm, pedophile pizza, and more Clinton hate porn.

Americans have been taught to worship the wealthy regardless of how they got there. Americans have been taught they are "Exceptional" (better, smarter, more godly than every one else) in spite of outward appearances. Americans are under educated and encouraged to make decisions based on emotion from constant barrage of extra loud advertising from birth selling illusion.

Americans brain chemistry is most likely as messed up as the rest of their bodies from junk or molested food. Are they even capable of normal thought?

Donald Trump has convinced at least a third of Americans that only he, Fox, Breitbart and one or two other sources are telling the Truth, every one else is lying and that he is their friend.

Is it possible we are just plane doomed and there's no way out?

John Blade Wiederspan , says: December 21, 2017 at 4:26 pm
I loathe the cotton candy clown and his Quislings; however, I must admit, his presence as President of the United States has forced everyone (left, right, religious, non-religious) to look behind the curtain. He has done more to dis-spell the idealism of both liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, rich and poor, than any other elected official in history. The sheer amount of mind-numbing absurdity resulting from a publicity stunt that got out of control ..I am 70 and I have seen a lot. This is beyond anything I could ever imagine. America is not going to improve or even remain the same. It is in a 4 year march into worse, three years to go.
EarlyBird , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Sheesh. Should I shoot myself now, or wait until I get home?
dvxprime , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:46 pm
Mr. Kuntzler has an honest and fairly accurate assessment of the situation. And as usual, the liberal audience that TAC is trying so hard to reach, is tossing out their usual talking points whilst being in denial of the situation.

The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything.

Slooch , says: December 21, 2017 at 7:03 pm
Kunstler must have had a good time writing this, and I had a good time reading it. Skewed perspective, wild overstatement, and obsessive cherry-picking of the rare checkable facts are mixed with a little eye of newt and toe of frog and smothered in a oar and roll of rhetoric that was thrilling to be immersed in. Good work!
jp , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:09 pm
aah, same old Kunstler, slightly retailored for the Trump years.

for those of you familiar with him, remember his "peak oil" mania from the late 00s and early 2010s? every blog post was about it. every new year was going to be IT: the long emergency would start, people would be Mad Maxing over oil supplies cos prices at the pump would be $10 a gallon or somesuch.

in this new rant, i did a control-F for "peak oil" and hey, not a mention. I guess even cranks like Kunstler know when to give a tired horse a rest.

c.meyer , says: December 21, 2017 at 8:30 pm
So what else is new. Too 'clever', overwritten, no new ideas. Can't anyone move beyond clichés?
Active investor , says: December 22, 2017 at 12:35 am
Kunstler once again waxes eloquent on the American body politic. Every word rings true, except when it doesn't. At times poetic, at other times paranoid, Kunstler does us a great service by pointing a finger at the deepest pain points in America, any one of which could be the geyser that brings on catastrophic failure.

However, as has been pointed out, he definitely does not hang out with black people. For example, the statement:

But the residue of the "Black Power" movement is still present in the widespread ambivalence about making covenant with a common culture, and it has only been exacerbated by a now long-running "multiculturalism and diversity" crusade that effectively nullifies the concept of a national common culture.

The notion of a 'national common culture' is interesting but pretty much a fantasy that never existed, save colonial times.

Yet Kunstler's voice is one that must be heard, even if he is mostly tuning in to the widespread radicalism on both ends of the spectrum, albeit in relatively small numbers. Let's face it, people are in the streets marching, yelling, and hating and mass murders keep happening, with the regularity of Old Faithful. And he makes a good point about academia loosing touch with reality much of the time. He's spot on about the false expectations of what technology can do for the economy, which is inflated with fiat currency and God knows how many charlatans and hucksters. And yes, the white working class is feeling increasingly like a 'victim group.'

While Kunstler may be more a poet than a lawyer, more songwriter than historian, my gut feeling is that America had better take notice of him, as The American ship of state is being swept by a ferocious tide and the helmsman is high on Fentanyl (made in China).

JonF , says: December 22, 2017 at 9:52 am
Re: The crisis actually had its roots in the Clinton Administration's use of the Community Reinvestment Act

Here we go again with this rotting zombie which rises from its grave no matter how many times it has been debunked by statisticians and reputable economists (and no, not just those on the left– the ranks include Bruce Bartlett for example, a solid Reaganist). To reiterate again : the CRA played no role in the mortgage boom and bust. Among other facts in the way of that hypothesis is the fact that riskiest loans were being made by non-bank lenders (Countrywide) who were not covered by the CRA which only applied to actual banks– and the banks did not really get into the game full tilt, lowering their lending standards, until late in the game, c. 2005, in response to their loss of business to the non-bank lenders. Ditto for the GSEs, which did not lower their standards until 2005 and even then relied on wall Street to vet the subprime loans they were buying.

To be sure, blaming Wall Street for everything is also wrong-headed, though wall Street certainly did some stupid, greedy and shady things (No, I am not letting them off the hook!) But the cast of miscreants is numbered in the millions and it stretches around the planet. Everyone (for example) who got into the get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme of house flipping, especially if they lied about their income to do so. And everyone who took out a HELOC (Home Equity Line of Credit) and foolishly charged it up on a consumption binge. And shall we talk about the mortgage brokers who coached people into lying, the loan officers who steered customers into the riskiest (and highest earning) loans they could, the sellers who asked palace-prices for crackerbox hovels, the appraisers who rubber-stamped such prices, the regulators who turned a blind eye to all the fraud and malfeasance, the ratings agencies who handed out AAA ratings to securities full of junk, the politicians who rejoiced over the apparent "Bush Boom" well, I could continue, but you get the picture.

We have met the enemy and he was us.

kevin on the left , says: December 22, 2017 at 10:49 am
"The Holy Bible teaches us that repentance is the first crucial step on the path towards salvation. Until the progressives, from their alleged "elite" down the rank and file at Kos, HuffPo, whatever, take a good, long, hard look at the current national dumpster fire and start claiming some responsibility, America has no chance of solving problems or fixing anything."

Pretty sure that calling other people to repent of their sin of disagreeing with you is not quite what the Holy Bible intended.

[Dec 22, 2017] When Sanity Fails - The Mindset of the Ideological Drone by The Saker

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. ..."
"... We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT. ..."
"... Commander's intent: ..."
"... Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability. ..."
"... Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force. ..."
"... Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course). ..."
"... Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure" ..."
"... I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money. ..."
"... These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics: ..."
"... there has to be ..."
"... would undoubtedly ..."
"... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ..."
"... A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ..."
"... I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God ..."
"... this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ". ..."
"... As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit. ..."
"... That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence . ..."
"... The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear. ..."
"... This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint. ..."
"... they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ..."
"... If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy. ..."
"... Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough. ..."
"... I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions. There is one type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely dismissed my whole argument. The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:

Example 1:

North Korea's air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn't even know our aircraft were coming. This reminds me of the "fearsome" Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves.

We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It's a slaughter. Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA's sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don't forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well. This writer seems to always hype Russia's capabilities and denigrate the US's capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.

Example 2:

Commander's intent:

Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.

Execution:

Phase one:

Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.

Phase two:

Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course).

Phase three: "break the enemy's will to fight" and destroy the "regime support infrastructure"

Phase four: Regime change.

There you go .

Example 3:

I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.

These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called "Empire as a way of life" [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics:

First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence "arguments" . Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence, when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented. Where in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression "bird brain"). You will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type. A quasi-religious belief in one's superiority which is accepted as axiomatic .

Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority, the US Americans just "because" – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress). In the US case, that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial. This superiority is also technological, hence the " there has to be " or the " would undoubtedly " in the example #1 above. This is pure faith and not something which can be challenged by fact or logic. Contempt for all others . This really flows from #2 above. Example 3 basically declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless. This is where all the expressions like "sand niggers" "hadjis" and other "gooks" come from: the dehumanization of the "others" as a preparation for their for mass slaughter. Notice how in the example #2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.

The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classical recipe for military disaster, but more about that later). Contempt for rules, norms and laws . This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of " my country, right or wrong " but goes far beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA. In fact, in the logic of such imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a "mission" or a "responsibility" to rule the world. This is "might makes right" elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged. A very high reliance on doublethink . Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as " the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts ".

A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote " it became necessary to destroy the town to save it ". Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or "protected" countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan. Yet at the very same time, they continue to think that the USA should "defend" "allies", even if the latter can't wait for Uncle Sam's soldiers to pack and leave. Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.

A glorification of ignorance which is transformed into a sign of manliness and honesty. This is powerfully illustrated in the famous song " Where were you when the world stopped turning " whoso lyrics include the following words " I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God " (notice how the title of the song suggests that New York is the center of the world, when when get hit, the world stops turning; also, no connection is made between watching CNN and not being able to tell two completely different countries apart). If this were limited to singers, then it would not be a problem, but this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin's remark that " It's difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia ".

As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations. Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.

A totally uncritical acceptance of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis. An great example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or the latest hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia .

The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect example of that. Something repeated by the "respectable" Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid. A profound belief that everything is measured in dollars . From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as "US weapons are most expensive, they are therefore superior" or "everybody has his price" [aka "whom we can't kill we will simply buy"]. In my experience folks like these are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.

That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong. An anti-religious view par excellence .

Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus based . This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with the slogan "Ignorance is Strength". However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to "think in slogans" (example #2 is a prefect example of this).

There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect "ideological drone", but the ones above already paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over. What is crucial to understand about them is that even though they are far from being a majority, they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive. It might be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience folks like that have energy levels that many sane people would envy. This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot. Let me explain:

Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former. Indeed, while the educated and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent's arguments, he will always need far more "space" to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with one or several slogans. This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.

As a result, a fact-based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans (political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can't call an idiot and idiot any more). Falling education standards have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well-educated, well-read, well-traveled, to speak several languages and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated as superfluous and even useless characteristics. Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare. A most interesting kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:

One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of 'debating' is a Black issue. It is not. The three quotes given at the beginning of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).

Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.

Consequences:

There are a number of important consequences from the presence of such ideological drones in any society. The first one is that any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who willingly collaborate with it. Combined with a completely subservient media, such drones form the rontline force of any ideological debate. For instance, a journalist can always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech or debate. The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society that places much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion than on the actual ability to form one .

By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the "follower" (as opposed to "leader types") because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it. You will always see "stupid drones" backed by "coward drones". As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always provide a much bigger "bang for the buck" than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever "cause" is always dubious.

The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others. One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone's delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair. I have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way). It was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly gave way abject terror. This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality . As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory and leave.

Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars . And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones. I would even argue that each defeat even strengthens the Empire's desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be convincingly defeated. The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan's decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks bombing in Beirut. The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent the US government from handing out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!

We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated (if "not winning" is accepted as a euphemism for "losing"). And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter. This is not just a case of " Fools rush in where angels fear to tread " but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools. From the point of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats . Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught me about it!).

If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of their own.

What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us

I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree. While for an educated and intelligent person threatening the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK. Think of it: if you had to deter somebody with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately involve the entire region or simple say "them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!"? I think that the North Koreans might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.

Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much "argument proof" and that they cannot be swayed neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments. This is why I personally never directly engage them. But this is hardly an option for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans, remember the previous war in Korea).

But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem

The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude. The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation. This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade. Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.

This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam's cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint. That is not fair, but life rarely is. It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people. I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.

In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey. The only option is therefore to incapacitate the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention to his grenade. An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable scenario (see here if that topic is of interest to you). Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, " they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners ". All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought. It is by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly seeking solutions to our current predicament.

-- -- -

1. If you have not listened to his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:

Paul b , December 22, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

If the U.S. attacks North Korea or Iran we will become a pariah among nations (especially once the pictures start pouring in). We will be loathed. Countries may very well decide that we are not worthy of having the world's reserve currency. In that case the dollar will collapse as will our economy.
Third world nationalist , December 22, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
North Korea is a nationalistic country that traces their race back to antiquity. America on the other hand is a degenerated country that is ruled over by Jews. The flag waving American s may call the Koreans gooks but if we apply the American racial ideology on themselves, the Americans are the the 56percent Untermensch. While the north Koreans are superior for having rejected modern degeneracy.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 22, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness

A key point, which signifies a serious cultural degeneration from values of chivalry and honoring the opposite side to a very Asiatic MO which absolutely rules current US establishment. This, and, of course, complete detachment from the realities of the warfare.

Sean , December 22, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
It is all talk, because China makes them invulnerable to sanctions and NK has nukes. The US will have to go to China to deal with NK and China will want to continue economically raping the US in exchange. That is why China gave NK an H bomb and ICBM tech ( it's known to have gave those same things to Pakistan). The real action will be in the Middle East. The Saudi are counting on the US giving them CO2 fracking in the future, and Iran being toppled soon. William S. Lind says Iran will be hit by Trump and Israel will use the ensuing chaos to expel the West Bank Palestinians (back to the country whose passports they travel on).
VICB3 , December 22, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own. Therefore, the best thing you can do is simply to ignore it (thus denying the tyrant an external threat to rally the populace) and wait for the NK people to say enough is enough.

Don't think that would ever happen? Reference 'How Tyrannies Implode' by Richard Fernandez: https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/02/27/how-tyrannies-implode/?print=true&singlepage=true

There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV. All anyone has to do is be patient and not drink the Rah-Rah Kool-Aid.*

Just a thought.

VicB3

*Was talking with a 82nd Major at the Starbucks, and mentioned NK, Ceausecu, sitting tight, etc. (Mentioned we might help things along by blanketing the whole country with netbooks, wi-fi, and even small arms.) Got the careerist ladder- climber standard response of how advanced our weapons are, the people in charge know what they're doing, blah blah blah. Wouldn't even consider an alternative view (and didn't know or understand half of what I was talking about). It was the same response I got from an Air Force Colonel before the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq and I told him the whole thing was/would be insanely stupid.

His party-line team-player response was when I knew for certain that any action in NK would/will fail spectacularly for the U.S., possibly even resulting in and economic collapse and civil war/revolution on this end.

Wish I didn't think that, but I do.

pyrrhus , December 22, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT
Excellent post. But the US public education "system", while awful, is not the main reason that America is increasingly packed with drones and idiots. IQ is decreasing rapidly, as revealed in the College Board's data on SAT scores over the last 60 years .In addition, Dr. James Thompson has a Dec.15 post on Unz that shows a shocking decline in the ability of UK children to understand basic principles of physics, which are usually acquired on a developmental curve. Mike Judge's movie 'Idiocracy' appears to have been set unrealistically far in the future ..
In short, the current situation can and will get a lot worse in America. On the other hand, America's armed forces will be deteriorating apace, so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world.
anonymous , Disclaimer December 22, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT
The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. The bad thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion. I have to laugh at all the internet commandos and wannabe Napoleons that roost on the internet giving us their advice. It's easy to cherrypick opinions that range from uninformed to downright stupid and bizarre. Those people don't actually run anything though, fortunately. Keep in mind that half the population is mentally average or below average and that average is quite mediocre. Throw in a few degrees above mediocre and you've got a majority, a majority that can and is regularly bamboozled. The majority of the population is just there to pay taxes and provide cannon fodder, that's all, like a farmer's herd of cows provides for his support. Ideological drones are desired in this case. It's my suspicion that the educational system is geared towards producing such a product as well as all other aspects of popular culture also induce stupefying effects. Insofar as American policy goes, look at what it actually does rather than what it says, the latter being a form of show biz playing to a domestic audience. I just skip the more obnoxious commenters since they're just annoying and add nothing but confusion to any discussion.
Randal , December 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
@VICB3

but it seems that NK is just another tyranny in a long list of tyrannies throughout millennia, and like all of them it will just implode on its own
.
There's no doubt in my mind that Kim will end up like Nikolae Ceaușescu in Romania, put up against a wall by his own military and shot on TV.

All things come to an end eventually, and I agree with you that the best course of action for the US over NK would be to leave it alone (and stop poking it), but this idea that "tyrannies always collapse" seems pretty unsupported by reality.

Off the top of my head all of the following autocrats died more or less peacefully in office and handed their "tyranny" on intact to a successor, just in the past few decades: Mao, Castro, Franco, Stalin, Assad senior, two successive Kims (so much for the assumption that the latest Kim will necessarily end up like Ceausescu). In the past, if a tyrant and his tyranny lasted long enough and arranged a good succession, it often came to be remembered as a golden age, as with the Roman, Augustus.

I suspect it might be a matter of you having a rather selective idea of what counts as a tyranny (I wouldn't count Franco in that list, myself, but establishment opinion is against me there, I think). You might be selectively remembering only the tyrannies that came to a bad end.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
@pyrrhus

so they are becoming less dangerous to the rest of the world

I agree with the logic that as Americans become dumber the ability to have a powerful military also degrades, however an increasingly declining America also makes it more dangerous. As ever more ideologues rule the corridors of power and the generally stupid population that will consent to everything they are told, America will start involving itself in ever more reckless conflicts. This means they despite being a near idiocracy, the nuclear weapons and military bases all over world make America an ever greater threat for the world.

neutral , December 22, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT

The good thing about democracy is that anyone can express an opinion.

Not sure if this is a joke or not. In case you are serious, you clearly have not been following the news, from USA to Germany all these so called democracies have been undertaking massive censorship operations. From jailing people to shutting down online conversations to ordering news to not report on things that threaten their power.

Dana Thompson , December 22, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
A bizarre posting utterly detached from reality. Don't you understand that if a blustering lunatic presses a megaton-pistol against our collective foreheads and threatens to pull the trigger, it represents a very disquieting situation? And if we contemplate actions that would cause a million utterly harmless and innocent Koreans to be incinerated, to prevent a million of our own brains from being blown out, aren't we allowed to do so without being accused of being vile bigots that think yellow gook lives are worthless? Aren't we entitled to any instinct of self preservation at all?
What the Korean situation obviously entails is a high-stakes experiment in human psychology. All that attention-seeking little freak probably wants is to be treated with respect, and like somebody important. Trump started out in a sensible way, by treating Kim courteously, but for that he was pilloried by the insanely-partisan opposition within his own party – McCain I'm mainly thinking of. That's the true obstacle to a sane resolution of the problem. I say if the twerp would feel good if we gave him a tickertape parade down Fifth Avenue and a day pass to Disneyland, we should do so – it's small enough a concession in view of what's at stake. But if rabid congress-critters obstruct propitiation, then intimidation and even preemptive megadeath may be all that's left.
peterAUS , December 22, 2017 at 10:37 pm GMT
@Dana Thompson

Agree.

I suspect the true conversation about the topic will start when all that becomes really serious. I mean more serious than posting the latest selfie on a Facebook. Hangs around that warhead miniaturization/hardening timetable, IMHO. Maybe too late then.

VICB3 , December 23, 2017 at 12:07 am GMT
@Randal

Just be patient.

Also, one man's tyranny is another mans return to stability. For better or worse, Mao got rid of the Warlords. Franco got rid of the Communists and kept Spain out of WWII. The Assads are Baath Party and both secular and modernizers.

Stalin? Depends on who you talk to, but the Russians do like a strong hand.

Kim? His people only have to look West to China and Russia, or def. to the South, to know that things could be much better. And more and more he can't control the flow of information. That, and the rank and file of his army have roundworms. And guns.

At some point, the light comes on. And that same rank and file with guns tells itself "You know, we could be doing better."

And then it's "Live on TV Time!"

Hope this helps.

Just a thought.

VicB3

Santoculto , December 23, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT
Double think is not just a question of ignorance or self contradiction because often it's important to make people embrace COMPLEXITY instead CONFUSION believing the late it's basically the first

METWO#

Erebus , December 23, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT
@peterAUS

Saker and his legion of fanboys here didn't "attack" the text but the writer.

In the first place, there's nothing in the text to "attack". It's a laundry list of disconnected slogans and so is not a different point of view at all. Released from the confines of the author's gamer world, it evaporates into nothing. I pointed this out to you at some length elsewhere.

In the second, it appears you missed the point of the article. Hint: it's stated in the title. The article's about the mindsets of the authors of such "texts", and not about the texts themselves.

It appears that I am sort of a "dissident" here.

You flatter yourself. To be a dissident requires, at the very least, comprehension of the argument one is disagreeing with. Your "texts" are the equivalent of shouting slogans and waving placards. It may work for a street protest, but is totally out of place on a webzine discussion forum. Hence your screeds here do not constitute real dissension, but trolling.

Simple, really.

[Dec 22, 2017] FBI Reassigned Suspected Leaker And Comey Ally James Baker

Dec 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Just hours after FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe delivered private testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, his boss, FBI Director Christopher Wray, announced that the bureau's top lawyer would be leaving his post, an attempt to bring in "new blood" to an agency whose reputation has been hopelessly compromised by revelations that agents' partisan bias may have influenced two high-profile investigations involving President Donald Trump and his former campaign rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As the Washington Post reported, the FBI's top lawyer, James Baker, is being reassigned. WaPo says Baker's removal is part of Wray's effort to assemble his own team of senior advisers while he tries to defuse allegations of partisanship that have plagued the bureau in recent months.

James Baker

But reports published over the summer said Baker was "the top suspect" in an interagency leak investigation, as we reported back in July

Three sources, with knowledge of the investigation, told Circa that Baker is the top suspect in an ongoing leak investigation, but Circa has not been able to confirm the details of what national security information or material was allegedly leaked.

A federal law enforcement official with knowledge of ongoing internal investigations in the bureau told Circa, "the bureau is scouring for leakers and there's been a lot of investigations."

The revelation comes as the Trump administration has ramped up efforts to contain leaks both within the White House and within its own national security apparatus.

The news of the staff shakeup comes as Trump and his political allies have promised to "rebuild" the FBI to make it "bigger and better than ever" following its "disgraceful" conduct over the Trump probe . Baker played a key role in the agency's handling of major cases and policy debates in recent years, including the FBI's unsuccessful battle with Apple over the growing use of encryption in cellphones.

CuttingEdge -> wmbz , Dec 22, 2017 9:41 AM

Getting a bit tired of this "one of the most trusted, longest-serving et al" shite they troll out for every one of these vermin.

They said Comey was honourable...

Ditto Mueller

Ditto McCabe

Ditto Baker

Ditto Rosenstein

Ditto Ohrr

And so many more...

Joe Davola -> ne-tiger , Dec 22, 2017 10:11 AM

And the DOJ attorney who was in the meetings with Ohr needs to be looked at also. From my post a week ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/fashion/weddings/trisha-anderson-charl...

who's husband was on the NSC

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:C0rbx2ui4ZcJ:https...

and as the article states, the husband is going to be working again with a guy who just so happened to be:

Prior to assuming his role in the NSD, Mr. Carlin served as Chief of Staff and Senior Counsel to Robert S. Mueller, III, former

https://www.mofo.com/people/john-carlin.html

Wondering if Newmann's name would be found on some unmasking requests or he's gotten some texts from Strok/Page.

Abaco -> wmbz , Dec 22, 2017 2:02 PM

Just like Clapper admitting to perjuring himself before congress and he is brought on TV to comment as if he is a decent person instead of being thrown in prison like anyone else would be.

[Dec 22, 2017] When Washington Assured Russia NATO Would Not Expand by Andrew J. Bacevich

Notable quotes:
"... The problems now of USA in global politics in general, and with Russia in particular, was not the NATO expansion but the corrupted neoliberal economic model that the USA and the West imposed on themselves and Russia. Russia after Yeltsin and during the time V. Putin is in power limited the scope and the damage the neoliberal system was doing to the country, but the USA and the West continue on the same corrupted neoliberal path up until today. Another cause of the geopolitical problems the USA have now were and are the wars in the Middle East. ..."
"... If the US wants to ring Russia with bases why should't US taxpayers pay for it? DOD's budget is partly for imperial policing and partly a regional and corporate gravy train. It has some true "defense" functions but those are very limited. Why would Germans or the French want to pay extra taxes to protect themselves from a "threat" that if it even exists is because of aggressive American foreign policy? ..."
"... Bacevich nails it again. As a Cold War veteran I couldn't agree more. The United States didn't "win" the Cold War -- the USSR "lost" it, instead. Therein lays a huge difference. You don't kick a dog when he is down. The mindless expansion of NATO eastward following the demise of the USSR in 1991 was stupid–anyone who knows Russian history and geography is keenly aware of this fact. Putin, just like Trump, is trying to make his country great again. Surprise!!! ..."
"... Given Russia's history of being invaded from the West, with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union being the bloodiest conflict in human history, it is remarkable to me that our government cannot understand why expanding NATO eastward would be viewed as very alarming to the Russians. ..."
"... American elites spend American treasure for their imperium, so that American elite interests take precedence, as per Nuland's "F -- the E.U." Confoundedly, Andy omits the Ukraine putsch she midwived. He who pays the piper calls the tune – and if a Europe still occupied by American forces as the continuation of WWII were to pay its own money, that military occupation would shortly end, just as the withdrawal of Soviet support ended their European satrapies' support of the Warsaw Pact. ..."
"... I was thinking the same thing as Sal. Almost the entire Elite Nomenklatura in Washington and Wall Street can be considered a collective "nasty piece of work" given all of the social and economic wreckage that they have produced both at home and abroad. Putin/Russia's excesses don't hold a candle to the catastrophes ginned up by that crew of arrogant militarists and corrupted parasites. ..."
"... Colonel Gaddafi believed the United States and refused to develop nuclear weapons. But leader of North Korea does not want to believe the USA. What do you think, why is this? ..."
"... These satrapies are offering the US forward deployment for military assets, possibly including first strike and decapitation weapons again – as Germany did before the reunification – as well as basing for missile defense systems that will eventually -- if they ever work -- complement these destabilizing weapon systems. They also provide bases without which US operations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean would be much more costly, if not difficult. These "privileges" come at substantial cost, as South Korea is in the process of recognizing. ..."
"... It should also be noted that US activities in Georgia and Ukraine preceded Putin's "act of transgression". It should further be noted that the Georgia conflict is very much an example of the erosion of international norms that Clinton and Kohl initiated in the Balkan conflict – which Russia explicitly warned the US about. ..."
"... It is completely unbelievable that the Soviets (after two invasions by Germany that killed about 27 million Soviets) would have just shrugged at the idea of NATO expanding to Poland let alone the Ukraine. The real question is why didn't Gorbachev insist on a written treaty. There was nothing in US history that should have made him expect honesty so why nothing in writing? I have no doubt he was lied to or manipulated but was he really that naive or incompetent to trust the US? ..."
"... Right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I told my wife that, while the Soviets came in 'last' in the Cold War, the US came in second-to-last. I told her that Japan won the Cold War. The Soviets made tanks, the US made tanks and Japan made Nissans. My 1985 Nissan pickup truck still runs great and where are all the tanks today? Mind you, this was before the collapse of the Japanese stock market. ..."
"... Russia bought that land from Sweden, the same as the US bought Alaska. They gave them their independence after the revolution. All of these countries were dictatorships before the WWII and all of them voted and asked to join the USSR. ..."
"... On that note, I really think that my interview with Professor Richard Sakwa (Chatham House) titled "Between the Cold War and the Cold Peace: How the West betrayed Russia" may also be of your interest. ..."
"... Deep State's durable foreign policy, which is always the de facto policy, is remarkably resilient no matter which political party is elected to fill the chairs. Elections and the will of the voters have virtually no influence on it, except in the tenor of the propaganda. ..."
"... I am amazed at all of the commenters who think expanding NATO up to the borders of Russia is a great idea. How would you like for Russia to form a military alliance with Mexico and for the Russian military to be conducting exercises along our southern border with Mexico? ..."
Dec 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
President George H. W. Bush and President Mikhail Gorbachev sign United States/Soviet Union agreements to end chemical weapon production and begin destroying their respective stocks in the East Room of the White House, Washington, DC in June 1990. (White House photo) Statecraft is a complicated business, but the criteria by which we judge statesmen turn out to be less so. The central question reduces to whether those charged with formulating policy succeed in enhancing the power and security of the nation they lead.

Yet near-term advantage does not necessarily translate into long-term benefit. With the passage of time, a seemingly clever gambit can yield poisonous fruit. So it is with the way the George Herbert Walker Bush administration managed the end of the Cold War.

From a geopolitical perspective, the Cold War from the very outset had centered on the German question. Concluding that conflict necessarily required resolving Germany's anomalous division into two halves, with West Germany a key member of NATO and East Germany occupying a similar status in the opposing Warsaw Pact. Of course, no such resolution could be possible unless the victors of World War II, primarily the United States and the Soviet Union, but also Great Britain and France, all concurred.

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev provided the necessary catalyst to make agreement possible. Gorbachev's bold effort to reform and thereby save the USSR, launched in the mid-1980s, converted the belt of Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe from a source of strategic depth to a collection of liabilities. When Gorbachev signaled that unlike his predecessors he had no intention of using force to maintain the Soviet Empire, it almost immediately disintegrated. With that, momentum for German reunification became all but irresistible.

By the end of 1989, the issue facing policymakers on both sides of the rapidly vanishing Iron Curtain was not whether reunification should occur, but where a reunited Germany would fit in a radically transformed political landscape. Already possessing the biggest economy in all of Europe, Germany seemed certain to become even more of a powerhouse once it had absorbed its formerly communist eastern precincts. No one -- including German Chancellor Helmut Kohl -- thought it a good idea to allow this new Germany to become a free-floater, situated in the center of Europe but untethered from the sort of restraints that the Cold War had imposed.

For Washington, London, and Paris, the solution was obvious: keep the Germans in a warm but firm embrace. Ensuring that a united Germany remained part of NATO would reduce the likelihood of it choosing at some future date to strike an independent course.

The challenge facing the Western allies was to persuade Gorbachev to see the wisdom of this proposition. After all, twice within memory, Germany had invaded Russia, inflicting almost unimaginable damage and suffering. That the Soviets might view with trepidation the prospect of a resurgent Germany remaining part of an explicitly anti-Soviet military alliance was not paranoia. It was prudence.

To make that prospect palatable, the Bush administration assured the Soviets that they had nothing to fear from a Western alliance that included a united Germany. NATO no longer viewed the USSR as an adversary. Apart from incorporating the territory of the former East Germany, the alliance was going to stay put. Washington was sensitive to and would respect Russia's own security interests. So at least U.S. officials claimed.

Thanks to newly declassified documents published by the National Security Archive, we now have a clearer appreciation of just how explicit those assurances were. Among the documents is the transcript of an especially revealing conversation between Gorbachev and Secretary of State James Baker in Moscow on February 9, 1990.

The discussion touched on several topics, but centered on the German question. As Baker framed the issue, history was now handing the victorious allies an opportunity to correct the mistakes they had made in the wake of World War II. "We fought alongside with you; together we brought peace to Europe," Baker told Gorbachev. "Regrettably, we then managed this peace poorly, which led to the Cold War," he continued.

"We could not cooperate then," he said. "Now, as rapid and fundamental changes are taking place in Europe, we have a propitious opportunity to cooperate in the interests of preserving the peace. I very much want you to know: neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place."

Washington's intentions were friendly. Gorbachev could absolutely count on the Bush administration to support his perestroika and glasnost initiatives. "In a word, we want your efforts to be successful," Baker insisted. Indeed, he continued, "if somewhere in the course of events you feel that the United States is doing something undesirable to you, without hesitation call us and tell us about it."

By extension, there was no need for Gorbachev to trouble himself about NATO. The alliance provided "the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe," which, Baker implied, was good for everyone. Keeping G.I.s in Europe would prevent Germany from once more becoming a troublemaker, benefiting all parties to include the USSR.

"We understand," Baker continued, "that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction [emphasis added]." Indeed, the proposed U.S. approach to negotiating terms for ending Germany's division would "guarantee that Germany's unification will not lead to NATO's military organization spreading to the east."

The secretary of state then posed a hypothetical. "Supposing unification takes place," he asked Gorbachev, "what would you prefer: a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO's jurisprudence [jurisdiction?] or troops will not spread east of the present boundary?"

The issue was one he wished to discuss with his colleagues, Gorbachev replied, remarking only that "it goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable."

To which Baker responded: "We agree with that."

Later that very year German reunification became an accomplished fact. By the end of the following year, Gorbachev was out of a job and the Soviet Union had become defunct. Before another 12 months had passed, Baker's boss lost his bid for a second term as Americans elected their first post-Cold War president. By this time, countries of the former Warsaw Pact were already clamoring to join NATO. The administration of Bill Clinton proved more than receptive to such appeals. As a consequence, the assurances given to Gorbachev were rendered inoperative.

NATO's eastward march commenced, with the alliance eventually incorporating not only former Soviet satellites but even former Soviet republics. In effect, U.S. policymakers responded favorably to the aspirations of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians while disregarding Russian security interests, apparently assuming that Kremlin leaders had no recourse but to concede.

As long as Russia remained weak, that may well have been the case. As if to press home the point, Clinton's successors even toyed with the idea of inviting Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO -- more or less the equivalent of incorporating Cuba and Mexico into the Warsaw Pact back in the bad old days.

At that point, a Kremlin leader less trusting of the West than Gorbachev had been decided that enough was enough. Vladimir Putin, a very nasty piece of work but also arguably a Russian patriot, made it clear that NATO's eastward expansion had ended. Putin's 2008 armed intervention in Georgia, annexation of the Crimea in 2014, and multiple incursions into Ukraine beginning that same year elicited howls of protest from the Washington commentariat. Putin, they charged, was trampling on the "norms" of international conduct that were supposed to govern behavior in the post-Cold War world.

But Putin was not wrong to observe that the United States routinely exempted itself from any such norms when it perceived its own vital interests to be at stake. For roughly a quarter century, the United States had paid no price for picking Gorbachev's pocket back in 1990. Indeed, nations once unhappily lodged within the Soviet sphere had thereby benefited greatly. NATO became a club open to everyone but Russia. In Washington's favored formulation, Europe thereby became "whole and free." Now, however, the bills incurred by this feckless policy are coming due and Europeans are looking to the United States to pay them.

Today's NATO consists of 29 nations, nearly double what its membership was when Secretary Baker promised Gorbachev that the alliance would not advance a single inch eastward. When it comes to paying for the collective defense, few of those nations contribute their required share. In effect, America's allies expect it to do the heavy lifting. The United States has thereby incurred burdensome obligations without accruing any obvious benefit. Once more, over 70 years after World War II, the United States is sending its troops to defend Europeans fully capable of defending themselves. Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for suckers.

In today's Washington, where Russophobia runs rampant, it has become fashionable to speak of a New Cold War, provoked by Putin's aggressive actions. Yet if we are indeed embarking upon a new age of brinksmanship, we can trace its origins to 1990 when Putin was merely a disgruntled KGB colonel and we were playing the Soviets for suckers.

In his meeting with Gorbachev, Baker expressed regret about the victorious allies mismanaging the opportunity for peace created by the end of World War II. A similar judgment applies to the opportunity for peace created by the end of the Cold War. Upon reflection, the United States might have been better served had it honored its 1990 commitment to Gorbachev.

Andrew J. Bacevich is TAC's writer-at-large.

Cynthia McLean December 22, 2017 at 1:12 pm

Thank you for being such a truth-teller.

One point, not made, is the Profit -- in billions $$ -- that US armaments corporations have made by supplying weapons to all these ex-soviet states.

The US is not to be trusted on much of anything except its belief that Might is Right.

Xtof , says: December 22, 2017 at 1:56 pm
AB is partly correct in that both Baker and Genscher did make very bold proposals to Soviet leadership about the future of NATO – – Baker's 'not one inch into East Germany' conception being less extensive than Genscher's comprehensive non-expansion 'Tutzing formulation' – – but he should have put much greater emphasis on at least two points: 1) that these proposals were merely suggestions, and were designed to 'feel out' Soviet leadership on what it was willing to negotiate regarding German reunification; second, and arguably even more important, both of these conceptions did not have the support of either the West German Chancellor or the U.S. President – – points which also follow from the 'recently declassified diplomatic record' (so read the Bush-Kohl dialogue, and see that they were completely unified on German reunification without any conditions or restrictions to be placed on NATO) – – and thus both Foreign Minister Genscher and Secretary of State Baker were completely hamstrung at the time when each made his conception known.

We could add a third key point, and that is that, even if Gorbachev or Shevardnadze had decided to push for EITHER the Baker or Genscher Plan – – and we can easily appreciate why no Soviet official would be either willing or able to think in terms of post-Warsaw Pact, let alone post-Soviet, times and thus of their forthcoming Russian Federation's future relationship with NATO – – then they would have publicly met with the same unified American-West German refusal to put conditions on NATO that Bush & Kohl had previously agreed; so, in effect, with these two supporting an open-ended future of NATO, any Soviet leader would have been told 'nyet' if he had sought to codify Baker's or Genscher's conceptions into a formal agreement.

Last, on the subject of what NATO did finally agree with the Russian federation, review the text of the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, and you'll find two very nice surprises from early post-Cold War history: 1) that NATO was quite willing to codify its plans for membership expansion, principally to reassure Federation leadership that its planned expansion had no hostile intent whatsoever toward the Fdereation; and 2) that Yeltsin, as Federation President, did not feel threatened in the least by NATO expansion, and he said so publicly he didn't like that expansion, and also said so publicly, but it's very telling that he never felt threatened by it. Furthermore, NATO still avoided stationing its forces into the Eastern part of the reunified German state until well after the Soviet collapse.

Given the article at hand, that's all that AB should need to know about the stark differences between Yeltsin's Federation and Putin's, and the amazing continuity between NATO's late Cold War and its early post-Cold War position regarding its expansion plans and how this continuity fits nicely with the context of the only major treaty to be negotiated with the Federation.

jjc , says: December 22, 2017 at 3:54 pm
This article links to the National Security Archive's recent collection of documents which clearly demonstrates the assurances made to Gorbachev were sourced widely among NATO members, much more so than previously understood. The opinions expressed in, for example, the 2014 Brookings article – shared by a commentator – which downplays the matter, are now outdated.

Sphere of influence: the argument that Russia has no right to have opinions on regional politics, or security concerns, usually ignores major contextual information; i.e the NATO expansion has occurred during a transformation from defensive alliance to a more assertive posture, as seen in Serbia and Libya. It has occurred while the US has assumed a military posture based on world hegemony and clearly stated objectives of preventing other states from ever posing a challenge to this primacy. It occurred while arms treaties (ABM) were broken and while missile systems were introduced to the region. Important as well to acknowledge Russia as a major nuclear power, and this policy of poking the bear, so to speak, seems needlessly aggressive and unintelligent.

Further, the situation in Ukraine appears to have been a deliberate provocation sought by the Anglo bloc of the NATO alliance, in concert with the more paranoid political actors of the region. A negotiated political settlement had been reached concerning the Maidan. The subsequent coup was an expressly deliberate reaction to prevent this settlement from going into effect. The USA, UK, and Canada provocatively determined the coup as "legitimate", and in doing so chose to assist in the destabilization of the country. This Anglo bloc has promoted a false and incomplete narrative of events, and stepped up a dangerous militarization of the region justified by this false account.

LouisM , says: December 19, 2017 at 11:55 pm
This betrayal may actually get rectified but much of it is outside the hands of the EU and in the hands of Russia (my opinion).

Thanks to US support under Trump the VISEGRAD is front and center while western Europe takes a backseat. The neocons may want to use the VISEGRAD as a launching point for Russia but I do not think that is Trumps agenda. The fear in Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics is not from the US or its warmongering anti-Russian neocons. It comes from Russia's relationship with its former satellites since they were freed and joined EU and NATO.

All VISEGRAD nations have said they will take no more muslim or African migrants even if it means fines, loss of aid or an exit. The stance of the VISEGRAD is expanding to Lithuania, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia. This would effectively fence off much, if not all, of the land route to Europe.

Russia doesn't want African and muslim migrants either.

If Russia can create a detent with the VISEGRAD and allay their fears then Russia could diffuse much of the need for the NATO weaponry that Russia feels threatened. At the rate Europe and Russia are depopulating, even a small war would be lunacy.

The other thing Russia craves are goods, services, technology, etc which the VISEGRAD would gladly offer in exchange for Russian goods and services.

Further, we have seen common ground with VISEGRAD and Russia against migrants. The VISEGRAD is willing to stand apart from the EU if necessary. Russia may not get the VISEGRAD to leave NATO but Russia might get the VISEGRAD to operate more independently of the EU and NATO. The fundamental point here is a simple one. The VISEGRAD has the potential to either be a barrier to Russia or a buffer zone from the EU and NATO to Russia. Much of this is really up to Russia's ability to allay past fears and take a new approach.

Further I don't think Trump would object. My observation of Trump is that he has more contempt than respect for Sweden, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, etc. NATO nations that cannot control their borders and do not maintain their 2% commitment of GDP are parasites and freeloaders to Trump. However Trump shows great respect to the VISEGRAD for protecting its borders and NATO commitments.

Historically, its worth noting about the VISEGRAD countries. They suffered more than the mass murders and totalitarianism of being communist satellites of the Soviet Union. Prior to that these nations were destroyed when Russia invaded to the west and when Europe invaded to the east. The VISEGRAD does not want to be the battle field for a Russia defending itself against NATO or NATO defending itself against Russia. The VISEGRAD knows that they suffer and lose under either scenario. The VISEGRAD wants security guarantees from Russia and NATO. Knowing this, Russia could reframe the entire dynamic of the VISEGRAD. It wouldn't be a full win for Russia but if played well, then it might be just be enough for the US, VISEGRAD and Russia.

Don N , says: December 20, 2017 at 12:03 am
Poor Russia, a country that occupied, then annexed the Baltic States against their will.
Poor Russia, a country that banned Ukrainian language and culture, starved to depopulate it, then tried to replace its people with Russians.
Poor Russia, the country that occupied Eastern Europe and had no compunction about rolling tanks down the streets of Prauge when they had the audacity to want to determine their own destiny.
Poor Russia, a country that took "active measures" and annexed Crimea from Ukraine and set it's troops and media to foment rebellion in the Donbass.

There is a good reason all these countries sought protection from repeated, constant acts of Russian aggression against their sovereignty.

The US leads a coalition of free nations that don't want to be treated upon by the boot off Russian oppression. After the end of the Cold War the Russians were under no threat from NATO whatsoever. Their actions are the actions of a bully and it is a poor strategy to hide in a corner and cower. The Russians are free to take their place as one of the most powerful members of the coalition of free nations. Instead they have decided to embark on their current pathetic path.

Realist , says: December 20, 2017 at 2:53 am
The US government is untrustworthy and corrupt. This has been the case foe decades.
Mark Thomason , says: December 20, 2017 at 4:58 am
In light of this, what is China to make of its concerns for spread of US forces to its Yalu border, very close to Beijing? Assurances? Bah. They'd have to be nuts, and they are not that.
Terrence Moloney , says: December 20, 2017 at 5:11 am
Mr Bacevich seems to think that a backroom conversation between one cabinet member of the U.S. and the leader of the USSR constitutes some sort of binding treaty on the U.S. and NATO. This will be news to all the other NATO countries and to Congress who admitted the Baltic States and Poland some 15 years after this friendly chat. Indeed, news to Russia too who weren't overjoyed by NATO's expansion but recognized it as a legitimate decision that a sovereign country can make, as Russia's defense minister in 2002, Sergei Ivanov, stated in 2002. No mention of Baker's 'promise'. Indeed, Russia had, and has, little choice to respect these choices because they were at the time claiming the Baltic States freely joined the USSR in 41.
More broadly, this article and similar ones never explain precisely how NATO expansion has harmed or threatens Russia or precipitated any of the difficult events of the past decade. Does anyone really suppose that if NATO were not in Estonia the events in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea would have unfolded differently? Can Mr Bacevich explain what might have been different if NATO hadn't expanded? In all likelihood, if NATO hadn't expanded, we'd all be significantly more nervous about unimpeded Russia activity in Eastern Europe post-Crimea. The EU, already under strain from the Euro crisis, might not have survived. It's impossible to say, but it's equally true that none of the "NATO's eastern mistake" team can ever put their finger on the harm posed by NATO's expansion. It's always something vague, like 'Russia's legitimate zone of interest' or 'putting Russia in a corner'. But anyone can readily see that none of these countries pose the slightest threat to Russia. Latvia is not gearing up for an invasion of Russia despite its annexation of Abrene by the Soviets that the Russia's have held onto. Nor is Russia in a corner; it's the largest country on Earth with enormous potential as the only bona fide Eurasian country, with land borders on two of the largest economic zones -- the EU and China -- in the world. Its problems are almost entirely its own doing.
Lastly, this article makes some of the historic elisions common to its genre: Russia was not invaded in WW1 unless you call Poland, Belarus and the Baltic States "Russia". This will be news to the locals. Nor did anyone pick Gorbachev's "pocket", unless you suppose all those Eastern European peoples are nothing more than Russia's possessions. But, to slightly expand a quote of Latvia's former President, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, "The Lord did not put [Eastern Europeans] on Earth simply to please the Russians."
Janek , says: December 20, 2017 at 6:04 am
The logic of the article by A. J. Bacewich does not make any sense. What J.A.Bacewich is saying in this article is that United States of America in 1990 effectively committed Yalta 2 through president G. H. W. Bush and the secretary of state J. Baker. From what AJB writes in his piece it looks like the only purpose for the USA and NATO to fight the 'cold war' was to unite Germany. Where is the logic in that kind of thinking? If uniting Germany was the only purpose? What was the point in keeping the Germans in the framework of NATO, and NATO itself with the USA military presence probably at the same level as during the 'cold war' apparently, according to the logic of JAB, in perpetuity just to keep the Germans subdued and out of "troubles". The costs of that would be probably higher for the USA that they are now. Does JAB thinks that the USSR (Russia) and obviously Germany would stay at the same military and economic level as in 1980-90? Only very naive person could think like that. It does not matter how you call it, USSR or Russia, sooner or later that country would bounce back as she did with V. Putin.

It does not matter if NATO expanded or not, at this time (2017), USSR or Russia would be back with the vengeance as she is now. The problems now of USA in global politics in general, and with Russia in particular, was not the NATO expansion but the corrupted neoliberal economic model that the USA and the West imposed on themselves and Russia. Russia after Yeltsin and during the time V. Putin is in power limited the scope and the damage the neoliberal system was doing to the country, but the USA and the West continue on the same corrupted neoliberal path up until today. Another cause of the geopolitical problems the USA have now were and are the wars in the Middle East.

Does JAB thinks that if NATO would not expand and with Russia was left as she was in 1990 today the military expenses for the USA would be less than they are today? I do not think so. I think probably by now you would not have USA and NATO in Europe especially in Western Europe. What NATO expansion accomplished was prevention of war in Europe. The problem was not the expansion of NATO, but irresponsible and shortsighted imposition of the corrupted neoliberal economic order on the US, the West and on the Russia plus the wars in the Middle East. To blame the current USA political problems on the expansion of NATO is not based on reality and on what happened after 1990s, it is simply trying to stick head in the sand by those responsible for the current global problems. After all what was the point of fighting the cold war? Would it not be cheeper, and more acceptable for people like JAB, for the USA to cede the Europe to the USSR right after WW2 ?

Sal , says: December 20, 2017 at 8:04 am
Why in the world must you repeat the "nasty piece of work" mantra? Do you really believe it or is it to gain acceptance? Or do you preface every mention of US presidents, justifiably, with the same "nasty piece of work"?
J Harlan , says: December 20, 2017 at 8:23 am
"Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for suckers."

If the US wants to ring Russia with bases why should't US taxpayers pay for it? DOD's budget is partly for imperial policing and partly a regional and corporate gravy train. It has some true "defense" functions but those are very limited. Why would Germans or the French want to pay extra taxes to protect themselves from a "threat" that if it even exists is because of aggressive American foreign policy?

US taxpayers are being played for suckers but by their own defense department not Europeans.

anyname , says: December 20, 2017 at 8:46 am
First time see real Russians point of view here. It was so dump to lost good communication with our ally WW2
DanJ , says: December 20, 2017 at 8:51 am
Negotiating any agreement is a lengthy process, and parties cannot be bound by all offers and counter-offers floated during discussions. What is in the actual treaty counts. If there had been a mutual agreement that NATO would not expand, then it would have been put on paper. It was not.

Gorbachev asked for -- and got -- substantial financial help in repatriating his troops from East Germany, and did not demand checks to NATO expansion.

Mark Pando , says: December 20, 2017 at 9:33 am
Bacevich nails it again. As a Cold War veteran I couldn't agree more. The United States didn't "win" the Cold War -- the USSR "lost" it, instead. Therein lays a huge difference. You don't kick a dog when he is down. The mindless expansion of NATO eastward following the demise of the USSR in 1991 was stupid–anyone who knows Russian history and geography is keenly aware of this fact. Putin, just like Trump, is trying to make his country great again. Surprise!!!
Kent , says: December 20, 2017 at 10:47 am
Having the Europeans pay for their own security would end up destroying the American empire. They will want to purchase weapons manufactured in Europe, not America, to give their own people jobs. They will need to develop weapons that are on par with American weapons and so will commit to the necessary R&D. Their own MIC will develop, and they will need to find reasons to use these weapons, which will require constant replacement and upgrades.

And pretty soon Europe will return to its imperialist ways of old, with no need for America.

Should that be a goal of ours?

ScottA , says: December 20, 2017 at 10:54 am
Quite an outstanding article Mr. Bacevich.

Given Russia's history of being invaded from the West, with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union being the bloodiest conflict in human history, it is remarkable to me that our government cannot understand why expanding NATO eastward would be viewed as very alarming to the Russians.

In my opinion the best and most realistic movie about Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union is the German made movie "Stalingrad" made in 1992 by the production team that made "Das Boot" to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the bloodiest battle in human history. I think that watching this movie is helpful in understanding the Russian psyche and why the Russians view the West moving its military forces eastward as particularly alarming.

Ahdrey , says: December 20, 2017 at 11:19 am
20 years, Americans and Europeans lied that promises not. Putin said that we were deceived, but the Europeans smiled and continued to lie. So why now are you surprised of the rigidity of Russia's position? We tricked the Americans and the Europeans we'll be remembered for a thousand years and give to his descendants so they always kept the powder dry. NATO is a punitive organization and someday we will have to face. The fate you have created.
Viriato , says: December 20, 2017 at 12:28 pm
As usual, the U.S. won the war but lost the peace. One question, though: Why are the Russians so angry about NATO expansion? Yes, it's a broken promise on our part. Yet, that aspect of it aside, why the anger? Why are they so opposed to the expansion of a defensive alliance -- one which they could someday join? How, exactly, does the expansion of a defensive alliance threaten their security interests?
Michael Kenny , says: December 20, 2017 at 12:33 pm
The classic blinkered cold war distortion. Washington never assured "Russia" of anything in 1990. The country we now call "Russia", the Russian Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since 26 December 1991. Thus, by very definition, the US could not have "assured" Russia of anything before that date.

The picture quite correctly identifies Gorbachev as the president of the Soviet Union. He was never at any time president of Russia, which has had only two presidents since it became independent: Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. It is American cold war dinosaurs, who simply can't get their heads around the idea that the Soviet Union and communism are gone forever, who are the cause of the "new cold war".

If they would stop treating the Russian Federation as the if it were the Soviet Union and start treating as what it actually is, one of 15 successor states to the Soviet Union, on the same basis as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova etc., NATO expansion would be no problem. Indeed, if US cold warriors hadn't obstructed it, Russia, Ukraine and Georgia would have become members of the alliance at the same time. The fact that Putin is every bit as much a cold war dinosaur as his American counterparts doesn't change that. And none of that gives the Russian Federation the right to deny the sovereignty of any of the other successor states and, even less, to invade and annex their territory. American cold warriors caused the problem with Putin. It is up to them to clean up the mess their blinkered and outdated world view caused. Capitulating to Putin and arrogantly asserting the right to give away other people's countries does not achieve that purpose.

Fran Macadam , says: December 20, 2017 at 12:55 pm
American elites spend American treasure for their imperium, so that American elite interests take precedence, as per Nuland's "F -- the E.U." Confoundedly, Andy omits the Ukraine putsch she midwived. He who pays the piper calls the tune – and if a Europe still occupied by American forces as the continuation of WWII were to pay its own money, that military occupation would shortly end, just as the withdrawal of Soviet support ended their European satrapies' support of the Warsaw Pact.
Kuzmich Mar , says: December 20, 2017 at 1:09 pm
Guys, you first confess that you have deceived us for 20 years, and then wonder why we are against NATO enlargement? Guys, you're ohueli. Why should we trust you at all? Why should we believe that NATO is a defensive alliance?
SteveM , says: December 20, 2017 at 1:20 pm
Re: Sal, "Why in the world must you repeat the "nasty piece of work" mantra? Do you really believe it or is it to gain acceptance? Or do you preface every mention of US presidents, justifiably, with the same "nasty piece of work"?

I was thinking the same thing as Sal. Almost the entire Elite Nomenklatura in Washington and Wall Street can be considered a collective "nasty piece of work" given all of the social and economic wreckage that they have produced both at home and abroad. Putin/Russia's excesses don't hold a candle to the catastrophes ginned up by that crew of arrogant militarists and corrupted parasites.

Dr. Bacevich should either tone down his histrionic shibboleth's against Vladimir Putin or else expand his target set to include the larger universe of native political-crony trash.

harry colin , says: December 20, 2017 at 1:57 pm
I'm another Cold War veteran who agrees with Mr. Pando about the article. The same people who are clamoring about Russia denying the sovereignty of independent nations were very likely cheerleaders each time the US tried to remove Castro, when we invaded Panama, Iraq, and bombed the Serbs in the Balkans. As for Ukraine, the Crimea has always been mostly Russian until Khrushchev gave it away in the mid 50's to achieve some internal political aims.

Despite the explosive growth of NATO, the Baltic nations are really not "free" because of the guarantees of the alliance. If Putin wanted to invade them he could have them easily; stashing one brigade of US troops over there would have only the effect of daring an American president to risk a nuclear exchange with a country able to defend itself. If anyone thinks any of these C-in-C's would do any nuclear sabre-rattling because Russian tanks are rolling into Talinn, I have a deed to a wonderful NY bridge for you.

Kuzmich Mar , says: December 20, 2017 at 1:59 pm
Colonel Gaddafi believed the United States and refused to develop nuclear weapons. But leader of North Korea does not want to believe the USA. What do you think, why is this?
Tiktaalik , says: December 20, 2017 at 1:59 pm
DanJ, you don't honor even signed agreements, so who cares? In the end it was very dumb move that completely cured most of the Russian population from giving any trust to the West sirens. Good for the US (presumably) in the short run, very bad in the long
Tiktaalik , says: December 20, 2017 at 2:01 pm
For amateur lawyers here -- why should have Russia stuck to the Budapest memo? It haven't been ratified, guys
b. , says: December 20, 2017 at 2:08 pm
This links to a useful reference, but the article has its omissions and misrepresentations. "The United States has thereby incurred burdensome obligations without accruing any obvious benefit."

This is unadulterated BS. These satrapies are offering the US forward deployment for military assets, possibly including first strike and decapitation weapons again – as Germany did before the reunification – as well as basing for missile defense systems that will eventually -- if they ever work -- complement these destabilizing weapon systems. They also provide bases without which US operations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean would be much more costly, if not difficult. These "privileges" come at substantial cost, as South Korea is in the process of recognizing.

It might be customary for the hegemony to extract a tax from its satraps, but the incessant whining is beginning to wear.

It should also be noted that US activities in Georgia and Ukraine preceded Putin's "act of transgression". It should further be noted that the Georgia conflict is very much an example of the erosion of international norms that Clinton and Kohl initiated in the Balkan conflict – which Russia explicitly warned the US about.

The expansion of NATO, more often than not, did not exactly solicit full-throated endorsement from legacy members either.

But the really important omissions here concern the main actors – Gorbachev, Baker, Bush et.al. Is it really convincing to assume that Gorbachev was not aware of the US propensity to scrap treaties and agreements as soon as administrations change? Maybe my perspective is distorted by the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump "experience" of the modern US, and actors like Reagan – whose violations of international law and norms are well known – and Bush Sr. – who made his career by such acts – actually had a record of behaving honorably, and Gorbachev had reason to trust their word, instead of insisting on a ratified treaty.

How likely is it that Gorbachev knew very well that Germany might be re-unified with a claim to become "neutral" – as Stalin had once proposed – only to re-join NATO under some pretext within the decade? How exactly was any of these "commitments" to be guaranteed between nations that did not exactly have a record of upholding the international order and the peace at all cost?

More importantly, is there any reason to assume that Baker actually believed a single word of what he said, or that he expected Gorbachev to believe any of it? We have to remember that this is the man who "managed" Ronald Reagan's attempt to discuss abolition of nuclear weapons with Gorbachev. Whatever Gorbachev might have believed, might have had to believe, or might have had to pretend to believe, it does not appear reasonable to trust Baker's words then or later with respect to these gentlemen and their "agreements".

There is every reason to believe that Clinton did to the international order as he did to international banking and financial industries, and that his legacy is exceeded in impact and damage only by Bush and Obama in sins of commission (the former) and omission (the latter). There is every reason to believe that US – and especially Democratic Party – insistence on breaking and ultimately breaking apart Russia as a project of "national interest" is shortsighted and idiotic, and that within a context of power as described by Bismarck and Machiavelli, it was very much in European and US interest to offer Russia a place in balance to China, India and other emerging powers.

But this recognition does not really need an proof, claimed or real, that the US misled Gorbachev and Russia. This may well have been a criminally fraudulent move, but more importantly, it was a criminally stupid one, motivated by those two primal drivers of the American Prosperity gospel – shortsighted greed and willful ignorance.

b. , says: December 20, 2017 at 2:11 pm
"Washington never assured 'Russia' of anything in 1990. The country we now call 'Russia', the Russian Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since 26 December 1991."

As an added benefit, not resorting to the exegesis of the historical record of the various gambits performed by the great gamblers of their day would also spare us this level of armchair litigation.

J Harlan , says: December 20, 2017 at 3:13 pm
It is completely unbelievable that the Soviets (after two invasions by Germany that killed about 27 million Soviets) would have just shrugged at the idea of NATO expanding to Poland let alone the Ukraine. The real question is why didn't Gorbachev insist on a written treaty. There was nothing in US history that should have made him expect honesty so why nothing in writing? I have no doubt he was lied to or manipulated but was he really that naive or incompetent to trust the US?
Steve , says: December 20, 2017 at 3:35 pm
Right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I told my wife that, while the Soviets came in 'last' in the Cold War, the US came in second-to-last. I told her that Japan won the Cold War. The Soviets made tanks, the US made tanks and Japan made Nissans. My 1985 Nissan pickup truck still runs great and where are all the tanks today? Mind you, this was before the collapse of the Japanese stock market.
brylcream , says: December 20, 2017 at 3:55 pm
@ Don N
December 20, 2017 at 12:03 am

"Poor Russia, a country that occupied, then annexed the Baltic States against their will."

Russia bought that land from Sweden, the same as the US bought Alaska. They gave them their independence after the revolution. All of these countries were dictatorships before the WWII and all of them voted and asked to join the USSR.

"Poor Russia, a country that banned Ukrainian language and culture, starved to depopulate it, then tried to replace its people with Russians.
Poor Russia, the country that occupied Eastern Europe and had no compunction about rolling tanks down the streets of Prauge when they had the audacity to want to determine their own destiny.

Poor Russia, a country that took "active measures" and annexed Crimea from Ukraine and set it's troops and media to foment rebellion in the Donbass."

Actually, the Soviets made Ukraine, there was no any Ukraine or 'Ukrainians' before the 20th century. Also they imposed official Ukrainization through their political and educational system. The people were losing their jobs if they weren't using Ukrainian, there was a precise article in a criminal code.
The Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia after a violent armed coup in Kiev. That was a third referendum held in Crimea after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

oleg petrov , says: December 20, 2017 at 4:45 pm
Double standarts:

NATO troops in Baltic states, AMB system in Poland (western border of Ukraine) must not be Russia security concern, but Russia's troops on eastern border pf Ukraine & Kaliningrad anclave-certainly is NATO concern. Taking Kosovo from Serbia? annexation of east Jerusalem & Gollan Heights is right, returning Crimea by Russia is wrong, USA invasion in Iraq, US arming & financing anti-Asad rebels(some are real terrorists) in Syria is good, Russia support for separatists in East Ukraine is bad. Not keeping promoces about NATO non-expansion is right, not keeping promice of Budapest memorandum by Russia is wrong.

In other words:"US & NATO masturbation is so good for population, and only Russia masturbation is very bad for population".

someuaguy , says: December 20, 2017 at 6:47 pm
I saw the translation of this article on a Russian site, and it's amazing. Does the United States have people who understand that other countries also have their own national interests? Adopting this fact will eliminate many of the problems of misunderstanding Russian politics.

The commentator above said:

"Washington never assured" Russia "of anything in 1990. The country we now call" Russia ", the Russian Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since December 26, 1991."

So, the Russians do not know at all that Russia is then "did not exist." START 1 was also signed by Gorbachev, and he respected the Russian Federation.

Dennis , says: December 20, 2017 at 9:15 pm
NATO should have been disbanded along with the Warsaw Pact after 1990. What was supposed to be a defensive pact against the USSR became an offensive war-mongering machine in control of neo-cons making war on Serbia in the late 90s and manufacturing false-WMD claims against Iraq in the 2000s. Anyone and everyone involved in high-command positions at NATO, including Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, should be indicted for war crimes.
tz , says: December 20, 2017 at 9:28 pm
I'm more worried about when Turkey provokes Israel to attack it and invokes Article 5.
Mark Krvavica , says: December 20, 2017 at 9:50 pm
With the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, there was no need for NATO. The U.S. should have left this Cold War relic during the 1990s.
Stephen Reynolds , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:41 am
James Baker could give assurances about how the president was thinking. He could not make a formal commitment. Gorbachev knew that (or do you think he was an incompetent negotiator?). Nevertheless, the formal agreement contained no restrictions on NATO. There was no commitment.

Mr Bacevich is better on the topic nevertheless, because he recognizes that the driver in NATO expansion was not Bill Clinton or the Pentagon or NATO generals but Visegrad and the Baltic countries. About Visegrad, read Joanna Gorska's _Dealing with a Juggernaut_. The Baltic states were in fact already threatened by post-Soviet early on. TAC and the Progressives are apparently regretful that the West has been unwilling to throw these countries to the crocodile. I prefer the attitude expressed by Strobe Talbot, in _The Russia Hand_, for example.

NATO did not rush in admitting countries that were more than an inch east of Berlin. It practiced due diligence. It did some unfortunate things indirectly affecting Russia and the new NATO members, first by not limiting itself to stopping Serbian excesses in Bosnia-Hercegovina but attacking Serbia directly and sponsoring the transfer in Kossovo to an Albanian mafia. And it abandoned restraint and good sense in speaking of membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Russia's response was of the sort likely to make Ukrainians and Georgians want to join NATO, but for the time being at least the issue is not alive.

The responsibility borne by the West in these matters consists mostly of its embrace of neoliberalism and the neolib world order. "Shock therapy" gave Russia a miserable decade (the 1990s) and a distaste for Western democracy. It also made EU membership unattractive to Ukraine. But when Yanukovych moved to join Putin's Eurasian Union instead, the Ukrainians saw their country on the path to becoming a Russian satellite state. The future they wanted was exemplified by Poland, which had weathered the Great Recession better than most and was a free country in most respects. The future they saw looming was exemplified by Bielarus, ruled for a generation by a bloody-handed thug and economically almost where it had been in the Soviet period. Victoria Nuland and the CIA could not possibly have brought the numbers to the Maidan that actually appeared there. She should certainly have kept a lower profile, but Yanukovych was overthrown by the Ukrainians, not by outside agitators.

Oh, and then there is Harry Colin's assertion that "the Crimea has always been mostly Russian until Khrushchev gave it away in the mid 50's . . . ." Well, the population there has not been mostly Ukrainian ever, true. But always–apparently "always" now begins with the reign of Catharine II. Previously it was Greek, Armenian, Tatar, and so on, but not Russian. Catharine sent in Russian settlers just so Mr Colin could make his remark. What do the Tatars think of it?

Adriel Kasonta , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:55 am
Great article Professor! I really enjoyed it.

On that note, I really think that my interview with Professor Richard Sakwa (Chatham House) titled "Between the Cold War and the Cold Peace: How the West betrayed Russia" may also be of your interest.

KR

Dan Green , says: December 21, 2017 at 9:55 am
Three current world Powers. The US, Russia, and China. Both armed to the gills as they say. Each with a distinct model , which included starting wars if it serves their individual interest. The worrisome fact is both Russia and China have chosen the leaders and support their intentions. We change foreign policy as often as I change my underwear.
Mark VA , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:08 am
Not expanding NATO upon the demise of the USSR, would have been synonymous with the USA agreeing that Russia has a right to a permanent "sphere of influence". Also, it would have revived the discredited "Enlightenment" division of real Europe into "Europe" and "East of Europe";

At any rate, perhaps Mr. Bacevich can make his case in Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn, Prague, Bratislava, Bucharest, Sofia, and also Minsk, Tbilisi, Yerevan, and first and foremost, Kiev;

If the truth is on his side, then these peoples should see it as well, and accept their "permanent station in life". But seriously, here is a worthwhile history lesson:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/oIFfQqa32ic?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Joe Porreca , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:40 am
"Putin was not wrong to observe that the United States routinely exempted itself from any such [supposed post Cold War international] norms when it perceived its own vital interests to be at stake," states Dr. Bacevich, which suggests that there have been American foreign interventions since the end of the Cold War which have been in American vital interests. I don't know which interventions these might have been, but Putin has probably also observed that the U.S. feels free to intervene internationally even when its vital interests are not at stake.
stefan , says: December 21, 2017 at 11:04 am
I am in favor of American Empire, as it is probably the best thing going, compared to all other possible alternatives. However, in order to assert and enforce empire, Americans need to do the hard work of colonizing, of actually going there to instill their way of life, their values, their language, their know-how, their vision, their interests and control. The problem I see is that Americans are too unsure of themselves (too lazy, too decadent, too exhausted, too weak, and too unprepared) to make the sacrifices necessary to be really good colonizers, to be real leaders, and without this there can be no real Empire.
Hexexis , says: December 21, 2017 at 5:51 pm
"Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for suckers."

Appears we've all but begged them to do so. Even if those allies commence paying "their fair share,"it's not clear how the US of A benefits. We'll still do their fighting & jack up the defense funding accordingly.

& If the Trump biz career is any example, he'll happily shell out $5 of tax money for every $1 we get in return. The NATO comic opera will not end its run even if those allies ceased playing us for suckers seconds after this post.

Fran Macadam , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:23 pm
"Americans need to do the hard work of colonizing, of actually going there to instill their way of life"

A new Hard Core SJW Peace Corps! That's the ticket. Unpaid interns for corporate consumerist capitalism! It's gonna be a hard sell, so hardball will be required. The full faith and credit of the United States Armed Forces, or less overt, the CIA and regime change?

Fran Macadam , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:28 pm
"The worrisome fact is both Russia and China have chosen the leaders and support their intentions. We change foreign policy as often as I change my underwear."

Deep State's durable foreign policy, which is always the de facto policy, is remarkably resilient no matter which political party is elected to fill the chairs. Elections and the will of the voters have virtually no influence on it, except in the tenor of the propaganda.

The designated enemies remain designated, no matter what any politician promises to get votes.

Fran Macadam , says: December 21, 2017 at 10:34 pm
"I am in favor of American Empire, as it is probably the best thing going"

This sentiment is only vicarious, unless you are of the tiny minority of Americans who benefit from the conflicts and deaths necessary to try to establish rule of one country's economic elites by subjugating every other nation's people.

Even so, only those bribed in dollars in foreign satrapies to be puppet leaders, would agree that it is the best of all possible worlds to be dominated by a foreign nation.

Terry Washington , says: December 22, 2017 at 5:56 am
I tend to agree with the critics of this article. Firstly was a promise allegedly made to Gorbachev by the Administration of Bush Senior(Republican) somehow binding on that of Bill Clinton(Democrat) and their successors (Bush Junior, Obama and Trump)? I think NOT!

Secondly the issue should be WHAT DO the former Soviet Republics and peoples of Eastern Europe want? If they wish to join NATO, then surely that is their right as free and independent sovereign states. Whether the Kremlin likes or lumps it is neither here or there. Contrary to what the likes of Nigel Farage (in my own country) may think, Eastern Europe is NOT some kind of dependency of Muscovy's in perpetuity!

Dieter Heymann , says: December 22, 2017 at 8:35 am
This article is fully consistent with what my family in Germany holds. NATO is needed to control a revival of dangerous German nationalism and relationships with Russia must be peaceful.
Tom Maertens , says: December 22, 2017 at 9:28 am
Bacevich seems to have missed Gorbachev's denial that there were any promises made on NATO expansion, and second, such commitments would have been to a country that ceased to exist prior to NATO expansion. Or does he think Europe still has commitments to the Austro-Hungarian Empire?

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

ScottA , says: December 22, 2017 at 11:16 am
I am amazed at all of the commenters who think expanding NATO up to the borders of Russia is a great idea. How would you like for Russia to form a military alliance with Mexico and for the Russian military to be conducting exercises along our southern border with Mexico?

If Russia attacks a member of NATO along its border that means that the US is at war with Russia which means a draft. Would any of the people who think NATO expansion is a great idea be willing to fight the Russians over Eastern Europe or have a member of their family go and fight?

Fighting the Russians on their own turf didn't work out to well for Napoleon and Hitler and I don't think it would work out for us too well either. We haven't been in a major war since World War 2 and I don't think our general population is ready for a big war with Russia.

The "safe space" generation is going to have a hard time fighting in the Russian winter. To think otherwise is foolhardy.

Tom Maertens , says: December 22, 2017 at 11:26 am
It is clear that Bacevich started with a political conclusion -- that Russia's sphere of influence encompasses all of Eastern Europe -- and then tried to muster historical/legal arguments to support that conclusion.

In the process, he has distorted history and left out anything that damages his conclusion. Among them:

The Russo-Ukraine border treaty of November 1990, signed by Yeltsin, guaranteed the existing borders between Russia and Ukraine;

There were also obligations under the COE, the OSCE and the UN Charter. Russia ignored all of those in forcibly annexing Crimea.

Lavrov later lied about the Budapest Memorandum, claiming it contained only one obligation, not to use nuclear weapons.

Here is the real story: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2016/01/28/mr-lavrov-russia-and-the-budapest-memorandum/

Mark VA , says: December 22, 2017 at 12:35 pm
Fair points, ScottA, but let's clarify your position:

(a) Should NATO defend Western Europe, if it is ever attacked by Russia? Alternately, are the people of Eastern Europe intrinsically different from Western Europeans? Retreating to the position that such an attack is unlikely is an evasion – so, da or nyet?

(b) It is true that Russia was attacked by Napoleon, and the USSR, while an ally of Nazi Germany, was then betrayed and attacked by Hitler. Does this give Russia today a right to a permanent sphere of influence in Eastern Europe? Da or nyet?

(c) If da, how would a Westerner make that case to Eastern Europeans? Please give it a try;

In my opinion, both NATO in the west and China's New Silk Roads (One Belt and One Road Initiative) in the east and south, exert a calming influence on any imperial stirrings of the Rulers of Muscovy. I also believe that the majority of the Russian people would prefer a peaceful and prosperous Russia, over momentary euphorias over this or that conquest;

What I admire about Russia is her spiritual and cultural powerhouse: Orthodox Liturgy and architecture, icons, chants, Sugar Plum Fairies, Brothers Karamazov, fairy tales – to mention just a random fraction of the Russian treasure. Imperialism, nyet.

[Dec 22, 2017] The Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle by Pat Buchanan

Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

And the Russiagate investigation may have busted an axle. Though yet unproven, charges are being made that Robert Mueller's sleuths gained access to Trump transition emails illicitly.

This could imperil prosecutions by Mueller's team, already under a cloud for proven malice toward the president.

Recall: Daniel Ellsberg, who delivered the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times, walked free when it was learned that the White House "Plumbers" had burgled his psychiatrist's office.

[Dec 22, 2017] US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire" supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideas

Notable quotes:
"... The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media and in certain think tanks/pressure groups, even five minutes of googling produced this: ..."
Dec 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT

@Art Deco US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire" supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideast since you seem to put great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you?

Personally I think those fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's influence has increased a lot in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime facilitated that development?

Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias operate in Iraq, the Iraqi government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an active participant in the Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this before 2003?

German_reader , December 18, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT
@Art Deco

No, they aren't.

The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media and in certain think tanks/pressure groups, even five minutes of googling produced this:

https://nypost.com/2015/02/01/the-iranian-dream-of-a-reborn-persian-empire/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/15/fmr-nato-supreme-allied-commander-stavridis-iran-will-be-imperial-power-due-to-iran-deals-golden-shower-of-money/

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/iran-and-the-imperialism-hypocrisy/

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/30/what-to-do-about-an-imperial-iran-middle-east-persia-regional-dominance/

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/may-clifford-d-the-new-persian-empire/ (btw, the Foundation for defense of democracies agrees with me that the removal of Saddam's regime was to Iran's benefit).

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/henry-kissinger-isis-iranian-radical-empire-middle-east-a7881541.html

Obviously I don't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, though imo US policy in this regard has been rather counter-productive recently.

Regarding the Iraq war, it's probably pointless to continue the discussion, if you want to continue regarding it as a great idea, I won't argue with you.

Randal , December 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT
@German_reader

And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.

The common factor amongst you, reiner and myself here is that none of us come from a dogmatically anti-American background or personal world-view, nor from a dogmatically pacifist one.

As I've probably noted here previously, I grew up very pro-American and very pro-NATO in the late Cold War, and as a strong supporter of Thatcher and Reagan. I saw the fall of the Soviet Union as a glorious triumph and a vindication of all the endless arguments against anti-American lefties and CND numpties. I also strongly supported the Falklands War (the last genuinely justified and intelligent war fought by my country, imo) and also the war against Iraq in 1990/1, though I'm a little less certain on that one nowadays. I'm significantly older than you both, it seems, however, and it was watching US foreign policy in the 1990s, culminating in the Kosovo war, that convinced me that the US is now the problem and not the solution.

When the facts changed, I changed my opinion.

So I was a war or two ahead of you, chronologically, because I'm older, but we've travelled pretty much the same road. Our views on America have been created by US foreign policy choices.

[Dec 21, 2017] The RussiaGate Witch-Hunt Stockman Names Names In The Deep State's Insurance Policy by David Stockman

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Deep State's "Insurance Policy" Tyler Durden Dec 18, 2017 11:05 PM 0 SHARES Authored by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016 election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and Langley----of the Imperial City.

Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact, they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US government.

Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:

To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.

The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or government contractor jobs.

As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:

"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE congress....And F Trump."

You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is comprised of creatures of the state.

Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of officialdom in the Imperial City.

But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial City.

That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.

But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz, for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much different.

No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.

First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.

That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic, bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.

Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its continuation.

Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.

Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)

By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.

In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.

It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an "insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.

As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the meeting:

" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."

They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to do with any kind of national security investigation.

For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely untrue.

As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action recently:

The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS. Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general (later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....

Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......

Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."

This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian ambassador.

Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential campaign.

As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief, Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:

Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service] officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.

Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August 2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.

Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in a future Trump government.

Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy advisory committee out of sheer desperation.

That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise from watching TV!

The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor relations at Rosneft.

Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other officials in Trump Tower during September and October.

And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.

So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?

The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's all they had!

Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75 billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.

Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election campaign, that's all she wrote.

There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration lists that could be sold.

The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.

In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.

And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun control.

And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead, this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.

In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.

Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only via a local USB-connected thumb drive.

So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.

For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington intelligence agencies.

In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the president-elect's own national security advisor designate.

Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.

No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.

And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!

But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never before.

Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.

In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever imagined.

CuttingEdge -> The_Juggernaut , Dec 19, 2017 2:05 AM

Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy - kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the texting...

Clue yourself in, David.

A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).

Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).

Don't knock it

A Sentinel -> BennyBoy , Dec 19, 2017 2:23 AM

I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry- we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.

redmudhooch -> BennyBoy , Dec 19, 2017 1:14 PM

Hondurans accuse US of election meddling

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/hondurans-accuse-election-meddling...

The US embassy in Honduras has been surrounded by protesters infuriated by the three-week-wait for the definitive result of the presidential election.

Demonstrators accuse the US of meddling in last month's vote which both candidates say they won.

Wage Slave 927 -> shitshitshit , Dec 19, 2017 1:45 AM

When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.

enough of this , Dec 18, 2017 11:19 PM

The Comey - Strzok Duet satire:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-comey-strzok-duet-on-the-eve-of-the-c...

SheHunter , Dec 18, 2017 11:25 PM

For those of you who have not yet discovered it Mr. Stockman's Contra Corner is a hands-down great blog well worth a nightly read.

zagzigga -> Mini-Me , Dec 18, 2017 11:48 PM

Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber world.

Anunnaki , Dec 18, 2017 11:31 PM

Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a campaign

Tapeworm -> Anunnaki , Dec 19, 2017 8:25 AM

This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files

https://truepundit.com/comey-mueller-ignored-mccabes-ties-to-russian-cri...

I damned near insist that y'all read this one. Please???

Cardinal Fang , Dec 18, 2017 11:40 PM

Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...

I disagree about the economy though.

It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.

We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment bull in a China shop.

Surely Dave can see the potential.

It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.

For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck did you think was gonna happen?

Jeez

GoldHermit , Dec 18, 2017 11:58 PM

America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50 years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move where they want.

Not My Real Name -> GoldHermit , Dec 19, 2017 1:21 AM

"The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state more responsibility."

Oh, you mean follow the Constitution as it was written. Good one, Hermit!

bh2 , Dec 19, 2017 12:01 AM

Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping on a major party candidate for president.

MrSteve -> bh2 , Dec 19, 2017 12:29 AM

This makes FISA a totalitarian joke and that should be investigated.

RonBananas , Dec 19, 2017 4:51 AM

The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6 documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8 year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.

This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they would play at this level.

Pol Pot -> RonBananas , Dec 19, 2017 4:57 AM

Correct on all except it's the Mossad and not the CIA who ran flight Epstein.

shutterbug , Dec 19, 2017 5:47 AM

Trump is gone in a few months or the DoJ, FBI and all others connected to FBI-gate are prosecuted...

Session's (in-)action will be crucial to one of these paths...

Stud Duck , Dec 19, 2017 6:42 AM

As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?

David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!

Occams_Razor_Trader , Dec 19, 2017 7:25 AM

Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700 thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.

So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first then start building the gallows.

MATA HAIRY , Dec 19, 2017 7:34 AM

fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is saying here.

insanelysane , Dec 19, 2017 8:14 AM

One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:

If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to put her on the map.

I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.

unklemunky , Dec 19, 2017 8:20 AM

No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over, China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me persistent.

insanelysane , Dec 19, 2017 8:24 AM

It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking his thumb.

If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their "insurance policy."

However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.

MrBoompi , Dec 19, 2017 4:25 PM

How dare anyone contradict or go against the wishes of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC? Don't you know they understand what's best for us?

[Dec 21, 2017] In Unexpected Move, Trump Enacts Obama-era Law Opening US Arms Sales To Ukraine

Notable quotes:
"... the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". ..."
Dec 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Though WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset".

Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again "unexpectedly" in charge?

[Dec 21, 2017] Former Intel chief Putin is handling Trump like 'an asset' by Olivia Beavers

Notable quotes:
"... "I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively." ..."
"... Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture." ..."
"... He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible." ..."
"... The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory. ..."
"... Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads. ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | thehill.com

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling President Trump Donald John Trump House Democrat slams Donald Trump Jr. for 'serious case of amnesia' after testimony Skier Lindsey Vonn: I don't want to represent Trump at Olympics Poll: 4 in 10 Republicans think senior Trump advisers had improper dealings with Russia MORE like "an asset."

"I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively."

Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture."

He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible."

The former intelligence chief said Putin likely learned to recruit assets to help with his interests when he served as an officer in the KBG, which was the Soviet Union's main security agency.

"You have to remember Putin's background. He's a KGB officer, that's what they do. They recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our president," he continued.

The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory.

He also pointed to his previous experiences of trying to share intelligence with the Kremlin, stemming back to the early 1990s, describing the attempts as a "one-way street."

Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads.

"They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian operations and objectives," it continues.

[Dec 20, 2017] It seems like the intelligence agencies are spending more time monitoring politicians and public than Al Queda.

Notable quotes:
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
Mar 23, 2017 |
fresno dan March 22, 2017 at 6:56 pm

So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates? ?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance" and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of it – the supposed "safeguards".

I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.

And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news" – some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of winning tic tac toe .

Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)

craazyboy March 22, 2017 at 8:45 pm

If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement, he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.

Irredeemable Deplorable March 23, 2017 at 2:57 am

Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported in the fakenews MSM.

Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh yeah.

Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.

The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc.

You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.

AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.

Lambert Strether Post author March 23, 2017 at 4:08 am

> Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable

I think he knew about it. After fulminating about weedy technicalities, let me just say that Obama's EO12333 expansion made sure that whatever anti-Trump information got picked up by the intelligence community could be spread widely, and would be hard to trace back to an individual source .

[Dec 20, 2017] Using disinformation to promote an agenda of shifting more costs onto workers to enhance profit margins. Isnt this what Paul Ryan means by A Better Way

Mar 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Jerry Brown : March 12, 2017 at 10:26 PM , 2017 at 10:26 PM
Nice post at Econospeak. The Safeway Amendment Scam - EconoSpeak

Especially agree with the conclusion- "Using disinformation to promote an agenda of shifting more costs onto workers to enhance profit margins. Isn't this what Paul Ryan means by "A Better Way"?"

pgl -> Jerry Brown... , March 13, 2017 at 01:48 AM
Check out the latest from the disgusting Paul Ryan:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul-ryan-number-who-will-lose-coverage-up-to-people

He is gloating that we have more "choices" as he takes away any possible means for actually paying for our health care. This in a nutshell is the entire GOP approach. We are free to die.

Lee A. Arnold -> pgl... , March 13, 2017 at 04:41 AM
"Free to die, Pay to live!"
DrDick -> pgl... , March 13, 2017 at 07:33 AM
In my state, one company (BC/BS) controls 0ver 70% of the health insurance market and there are only two other even marginally significant players. Market based my ...

[Dec 19, 2017] Former FBI agent spreads deliberate disinformation about Russia actions during Presidential elections

Yet another "national security parasite". Watt intentionally lied about wiretapping
Notable quotes:
"... "When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans. ..."
"... In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump. ..."
"... One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies the message in the ecosystem," Watts says. ..."
"... The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory is a way to shift the blame for their election loss. ..."
Apr 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

im1dc , April 03, 2017 at 04:50 PM

Putin paid Millions of Rubles to get his puppet into office and keep Hillary Clinton out

Do you really believe he will sit back and do nothing now that he's been discovered

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/04/03/522503844/how-russian-twitter-bots-pumped-out-fake-news-during-the-2016-election

"How Russian Twitter Bots Pumped Out Fake News During The 2016 Election"

Listen 4:17

'Heard on All Things Considered' by Gabe O'Connor & Avie Schneider...April 3, 2017...4:53 PM ET

"When he testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee last week, former FBI agent Clint Watts described how Russians used armies of Twitter bots to spread fake news using accounts that seem to be Midwestern swing-voter Republicans.

"So that way whenever you're trying to socially engineer them and convince them that the information is true, it's much more simple because you see somebody and they look exactly like you, even down to the pictures," Watts told the panel, which is investigating Russia's role in interfering in the U.S. elections.

In an interview Monday with NPR's Kelly McEvers, Watts, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, says the Russian misinformation campaign didn't stop with the election of President Trump.

"If you went online today, you could see these accounts -- either bots or actual personas somewhere -- that are trying to connect with the administration. They might broadcast stories and then follow up with another tweet that tries to gain the president's attention, or they'll try and answer the tweets that the president puts out," Watts says.

Watts, a cybersecurity expert, says he's been tracking this sort of activity by the Russians for more than three years.

"It's a circular system. Sometimes the propaganda outlets themselves will put out false or manipulated stories. Other times, the president will go with a conspiracy."

One example, he says, is Trump's claim that he was wiretapped at Trump Tower by the Obama administration. "When they do that, they'll then respond to the wiretapping claim with further conspiracy theories about that claim and that just amplifies the message in the ecosystem," Watts says.

"Every time a conspiracy is floated from the administration, it provides every outlet around the world, in fact, an opportunity to amplify that conspiracy and to add more manipulated truths or falsehoods onto it."

Watts says the effort is being conducted by a "very diffuse network." It involves competing efforts "even amongst hackers between different parts of Russian intelligence and propagandists -- all with general guidelines about what to pursue, but doing it at different times and paces and rhythms."

The White House has blamed Democrats for the allegations of Russian interference in the U.S. election, saying the theory is a way to shift the blame for their election loss.

But Watts says "it's way bigger" than that. "What was being done by nation-states in the social media influence landscape was so much more significant than the other things that were being talked about," including the Islamic State's use of social media to recruit followers, he says."

[Dec 19, 2017] I won t be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism in countries on the borders of Russia/China. But this will never happen

The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out 2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
Dec 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

ben , Dec 19, 2017 10:10:35 PM | 53

"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.

Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering, and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following through on their threats."

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14

Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.

Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!

b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.

Alexander P , Dec 19, 2017 10:17:08 PM | 54
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.

Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out 2018.

But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.

dh , Dec 19, 2017 10:27:40 PM | 55
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."

Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.

psychohistorian , Dec 19, 2017 10:42:31 PM | 56
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
"
America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative ways of operating getting traction.
"

There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition in our world yet.

I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.

May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope

Daniel , Dec 19, 2017 10:51:15 PM | 57
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.

Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all.

I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they gave him $5 billion in free advertising.

Don Bacon , Dec 19, 2017 10:52:39 PM | 58
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations on the planet.

What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope and change again, damn.

[Dec 19, 2017] Mark Ames Kathy Lally Was Caught Trying To Censor Journalism In Russia and Now Deceitfully Claims She s a Victim naked capit

Notable quotes:
"... You see? Lally's gloating, smug colonialist triumphalism was the norm in expat circles. That was what we were fighting. And sometimes the outrage got out of control. But it's beyond grotesque that our outrage should be picked over for language crimes by a sloppy, inept, conscience-free writer like Lally. When the crimes of Western journalists during the Yeltsin era are chronicled, I kinda think it'll be the callous triumphalism with which she and her Clintonite buddies watched millions of Russians die that are condemned–not the tonal lapses of a low-budget dissident rag like eXile, shaking its puny fist at this corruption. ..."
"... "Each month thousands of Russians were dying prematurely. Such a drop in life expectancy, labeled 'excess deaths,' has always been a standard algorithm in demographers' calculations of the death toll of the great disasters -- whether Stalin's collectivization in the 1930s, Pol Pot's rule in Cambodia in the 1970s, or the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s. American demographer Nicholas Eberstadt estimated that the number of 'excess deaths' in Russia between 1992 and 1998 was as high as 3 million. By contrast, Eberstadt observed, Russia's losses in World War 1 were 1.7 million deaths." ..."
Dec 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Tom , December 19, 2017 at 7:48 am

I lived in Moscow in the Nineties as well. I hugely enjoyed the Exile and read it whenever I had a chance to pick it up in some restaurant or night club.
Let us put is like that: in 1992 CNN was so scared that they actually paid an East German female friend of mine with tolerable Russian and less English to travel the subway!!!! Maybe in the US the subway tends to get even more dangerous when it is getting dangerous above ground. Well possible. In Moscow though the metro was always the safest place you could be. That is because the subway in Moscow is not just an ordinary means of getting from place to place. It is the marvel of the city, the pride of every citizen (rightly so) and the very last thing that would turn chaotic.

CNN insanely decided to not let their US employees check out the metro. And their employees didn´t object !!! Not surprisingly US journalism was bullshit. They had no idea of how ordinary people lived.

The Exile was the exact opposite. They lived like ordinary Muscovites and they knew what was really going on.

Mark Ames was referring to the default of 1998. I was earning money then a travelling engineer for a German tool machine factory. . How anybody in his right mind could believe that the then merry go round of paying for maturing bonds by issuing ever higher interest bonds (insanely high interest) could go on forever is beyond me. Everybody and his granny knew that this baby would go bust. In the German paper of record – the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung – their Moscow economic correspondent openly wrote about the coming default.

Why didn´t their US colleagues? The exception being the exile? Because they believed their own propaganda. And the reason they could believe it is because they lived in a secure, insulated bubble and as a rule had no or atrocious Russian.

Same like today. Nothing has changed. If you want to know what goes on in Russia don´t read the US press.

The Rev Kev , December 19, 2017 at 9:04 am

And this is what those journos missed by not going into the Moscow metro-
http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-metro-stations-look-like-palaces-2016-1/?r=AU&IR=T/#other-stations-have-less-cultural-significance-but-are-still-beautiful-like-moscows-taganskaya-metro-station-which-opened-in-1950-5

JBird , December 19, 2017 at 3:50 pm

My God, those stations are just otherworldly. Thank you for the link.

Michael Olenick , December 19, 2017 at 8:55 am

Great piece, Mark! I wrote a comment on the Washington Post piece I suspect nobody read. Even from Lally's hit job, and a little background research, I picked up that Lally was working to call out the censors. You shouldn't be so modest about your prior paper: the eXile did great work now and, I'm told by friends in the Moscow expat community, you remain the talk of the town, even if the town has settled down a lot lately. The WaPo should feel ashamed running that piece but, after deciding to, they should have approached you and Matt for a fact-check if not a rebuttal. That seems to be the way with a lot of older media though; the quality control hasn't just gone in the tank – it's been long since flushed – and they don't admit they're wrong even when the mistakes are blatant. It's why I'm pleased to write for and read NC (and thank you, Yves, for publishing this).

On the "sexism" related to her original allegations she's ignoring the context of Russia, especially back then. Even today Russia is not a quiet, politically correct kind of place. The choices available to American expat reporters during the Yeltsin and early Putin era was either try to sterilize, treat it like a zoo with the Russians starring as the animals, or contextualize and explain. Choosing that last option produced the most accurate reporting while infuriating the highfalutin our-shit-don't-stink "professional" American press corps. The gall of you and Matt to suggest the Russians aren't any worse obviously still stings, a decade after you last drank vodka while watching the river in Moscow.

masson , December 19, 2017 at 11:20 am

Lally complains about Taibbi being mean to her after she wrote a report in 1999 unironically starting a paragraph with "The latest affirmation of the anarchy that lies deep in the Russian soul " This just after shock therapy has killed millions of Russians. In this new screed she has the audacity to link to it.

I think she deserved every bit of scorn.

rusti , December 19, 2017 at 2:46 pm

You see? Lally's gloating, smug colonialist triumphalism was the norm in expat circles. That was what we were fighting. And sometimes the outrage got out of control. But it's beyond grotesque that our outrage should be picked over for language crimes by a sloppy, inept, conscience-free writer like Lally. When the crimes of Western journalists during the Yeltsin era are chronicled, I kinda think it'll be the callous triumphalism with which she and her Clintonite buddies watched millions of Russians die that are condemned–not the tonal lapses of a low-budget dissident rag like eXile, shaking its puny fist at this corruption.

I'm a bit underwhelmed by the explanation that many of the outrageous antics of eXile's authors could be classified as "fighting smug colonialist triumphalism" or "shaking its puny fist", but I can agree with the fundamental point that it is absolutely shocking that someone who lived through this:

"Each month thousands of Russians were dying prematurely. Such a drop in life expectancy, labeled 'excess deaths,' has always been a standard algorithm in demographers' calculations of the death toll of the great disasters -- whether Stalin's collectivization in the 1930s, Pol Pot's rule in Cambodia in the 1970s, or the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s. American demographer Nicholas Eberstadt estimated that the number of 'excess deaths' in Russia between 1992 and 1998 was as high as 3 million. By contrast, Eberstadt observed, Russia's losses in World War 1 were 1.7 million deaths."

could walk away thinking that THEY were unfairly victimized. Ames and Brecher/Dolan are providing an extremely important service in highlighting similarly terrifying and shocking dynamics at work today with hacks like Michael Weiss broadcasting toxic garbage with a big megaphone that helps provide an intellectual veneer for the mass starvation of Yemeni children or sectarian death squads in Syria or a possible catastrophic war with Iran, so I hope people will continue to listen to them. The same goes for Taibbi in highlighting systematic racism and abuse of power by banks and lobbyists.

[Dec 19, 2017] 15 Russian metro stations that look like palaces - Business Insider

Jan 22, 2016 | www.businessinsider.com
For several months last year, Canadian photographer David Burdeny toured around the Russian cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg, snapping photos of the most beautiful and ornate train stations he found.

And he found a lot.

The metro stations were all built in the early- to mid-20th century, mostly as propagandist odes to Russian dictator Joseph Stalin.

As Burdeny tells Tech Insider, these stations are beloved by the people who travel through them.

We can see why.

[Dec 19, 2017] The US and Russia in a Trump Administration with Andrei Kozyrev - World Affairs Council World Affairs Council

This Yeltsin "mister Yes" type now lives in Miami. Proud member of Yeltsin gang. Or at least pretends to be.
Here is an interesting comment from fish 12 blog
"I said the same thing to Nixon as to others. The national interests of Russia, like other democracies, are in principle consistent with the universal. And we created the CIS, did not fight with brotherly Ukraine, made friends with the most developed countries of Europe and America, were not under sanctions. The Russians did not die, fighting on the dictator's side in Syria. "Tell me who your friend is, and I'll tell you who you are."
Look at that! It turns out that they did not destroy the USSR, but created the CIS. And they did not fight with Ukraine. Just a civil war was going on almost all the outskirts of the country. Hundreds of thousands died. And they did not lose the Warsaw bloc. Just gave it to the West for feee.
And the Russians did not die anywhere. Neither in Chechnya, nor in the former Soviet republics. And the "friendship" with the most developed countries of Europe and America was not at all to give them for free the national wealth of the country and carry out their "advice" on destroying the country in order to receive IMF loans.
And they did not ruin the industry of the country, and they did not arrange a hyperinflation of a million percent, they did destroy army and defense industries built with such sacrifices and sold national assets for pennies on a dollar, and the country's borders were not violated, and the population of the country was not plunged into poverty, and banditry and prostitution. And education with health care under them blossomed, and they did not arrange "Russian scissors" on people savings. Neoliberal scoundrels. Fifth column of neoliberalism in Russi. All of them.
And no shock therapy and not pushed to sell the last things they have to survive Russian retirees!
And there was no NATO on the borders of Russia. Apparently, this is the "universal values". And he told the truth!
The whole world lives so - Africa, Asia, Latin America, everywhere the same poverty, military conflicts, destroyed with the US bombs or not re-built industries. If somewhere more or less everything is in order, this means that the country's leadership is strangely reconciling its policy with the national interests of its country, and not with "universal". The US is guided by them? Or Germany, or France? All of them somehow observe their "national interests". Read the US budget. There, the word "national interests of the United States" is mentioned frequently word, especially in the chapters on politics outside the United States. They observe their national interests both in Europe, and in Asia, and in Africa. Even in Ukraine, they allocate funds in order to realize the "national interests of the United States." And because they observe them, carry "universal values" throughout the world in the form of the above bombing civilians and killing children. This is their "universal values"
And it does not matter how the former Minister of Foreign Affairs tries to justify himself and his colleagues. Their cases during his work from 1990 to 1996. speak for themselves.
Sometimes [for such immigrants] it's really better to be silent.
Feb 01, 2017 | www.world-affairs.org

On January 30th, 2017, the former Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Andrei Kozyrev, spoke to a sold out audience on 'The United States and Russia in a Trump Administration'. This timely conversation was moderated by Jill Dougherty, Russia expert and former CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent. The conversation primarily focused on predicting what Putin wants from a Trump administration, as well as discussing the areas in which Russia and the US can cooperate moving forward.

Before these larger questions were addressed, Kozyrev outlined the political and economic landscapes of both nations which shape US-Russian relations and their subsequent political postures. From a political standpoint, Kozyrev noted the striking similarity between Putin's base and Trump supporters. In both cases, their rise to power did not come from the major cities such as New York or Moscow, but from the rural areas struggling to compete in the global economy. Kozyrev stated that just as Trump supporters blame China for their economic woes, Putin's supporters point at European imports as the source of their weakening economy. Kozyrev seemed dismayed at the rise of the populist parties and protectionist backlash in both nations and stated, " You can't stop technological progress; you can't stop globalization. You can temporarily stall it, you can build a wall like an iron curtain fortified with propaganda, but it doesn't work."

Ms. Dougherty stated that Vladimir Putin has a gained himself a reputation for being a seasoned and strategic diplomat. She noted that Putin is portrayed as playing his cards extremely well on the world stage. Kozyrev felt the need to put the record straight, and to put the results of Putin's policies in perspective. According to Kozyrev, Russia has a plummeting economy and has extended itself into two wars (Syria and Ukraine) with no prospect of winning either. Russia's GDP is currently 14x smaller than the GDP of USA. Russia does have nuclear weapons, but in Kozyrev words, " who cares about nuclear weapons, you can't use nuclear weapons. Russians aren't suicidal."

Based on the aforementioned political, economic, and military realities, Kozyrev said that he would advise a Trump administration not to rush into meeting with Putin. Essentially, he alluded to the potential benefits of allowing Putin to sweat a bit, and let the enormous differences between the nations in terms of economy, morale, and democracy sink in. Kozyrev stated humorously: " In sum, Russia's economy and wars are in Trump's words 'a disaster'."

When Kozyrev was asked what Putin wants from a Trump administration, he answered plainly that Putin and the Kremlin want and expect "payback" from the Trump administration for their assistance during the election. While there has been no official government validation of Russian hacking during the US election, it is Kozyrev's personal opinion that Putin's government absolutely engaged in cyber hacking that assisted Trump's rise to power. However, he agreed with Dougherty that not many individuals within the Kremlin trust Trump, and that it is anyone's guess on Trump's position on NATO, Europe, Russia, or China. Kozyrev stated aptly that he doesn't think anyone in the world knows what Trump is up to; "we're all following the tweets, myself included."

After acknowledging the difficulty in predicting Trump policies, the conversation shifted gears to discuss the ways in which US and Russia might cooperate. Firstly, Kozyrev explained that it will be nearly impossible for the two nations to cooperate in the ongoing Syrian civil war. The US and Russia are on opposite sides of the conflict with Russia supporting the Assad Regime. While US-Russian cooperation in Syria seems fruitless, Kozyrev does believe there is potential for US and Russia to combat terrorism in other arenas, such as in resisting narco trafficking in Afghanistan. Other areas Kozyrev identified as opportunities for Russian-US cooperation range from nuclear non-proliferation – specifically in terms of curtailing Iran's nuclear weapons development – to continuing collaboration on the International Space Station.

Despite the challenges facing Russia, Kozyrev remains hopeful for the nation's future and believes in the Russian people. Kozyrev stood alongside then-President Boris Yeltsin on August 19, 1991 when tanks surrounded the Russian Parliament (also known as the White House), and watched as thousands of Muscovites surrounded the building as a human shield. This brave act curtailed the August coup, also known as the K.G.B. Bathhouse Plot, and gives Kozyrev confidence that Russians will ultimately win the democracy they deserve.

Kozyrev concluded by saying, "I believe in Russia, and I believe in the Russian people. I tend to believe that Russians will wake up and come back to democratic institutions."

[Dec 19, 2017] Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein Just Admitted Who Is Really Behind The Year's Biggest Scandal

If FBI paid money for Steele dossier that would be a big scandal that can bury Mueller and Comey...
Notable quotes:
"... Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are involved in it as well. ..."
Dec 19, 2017 | www.dcstatesman.com

­ Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein refused to say on Wednesday in front of the House Judiciary Committee, whether the FBI paid for the infamous Trump dossier, reports The Daily Caller . He would neither confirm nor deny the FBI's involvement in the now-disproved dossier that started the whole Russian collusion investigation against President Trump.

Rosenstein, who was grilled by the House Judiciary Committee, suggested that he knew the answer to the question, which was posed by Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis.

"Did the FBI pay for the dossier?" DeSantis asked.

"I'm not in a position to answer that question," Rosenstein responded.

"Do you know the answer to the question?" the Republican DeSantis followed up.

"I believe I know the answer, but the Intelligence Committee is the appropriate committee " Rosenstein began.

DeSantis interjected to assert that the Judiciary panel has "every right to the information" about payments for the dossier.

­ The Russian dossier, which was written by British spy Christopher Steele and commissioned to do so by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, has been the starting point to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian collusion in the 2016 election.

Congressional Republicans have long been suspicious of the dossier and now that it was discovered who funded, now Republicans are questioning whether the Justice Department and FBI are involved in it as well.

"'According to some reports published earlier this year, Steele and the FBI struck an informal agreement that he would be paid to continue his investigation into Trump's ties to Russia. It has been reported that Steele was never paid for his work, though the FBI and DOJ have not publicly disclosed those details,' reports The Daily Caller."

CNN had reported earlier this year that Steel was already compensated for some expenses from his work investigating Trump and trying to dig up any dirt he could on the president.

The Deputy Attorney General told the House Judiciary Committee that he saw no good cause to fire Mueller from conducting the investigation, but many Republicans believe the whole investigation is now wrapped up in too many overlapping conflicts of interest

[Dec 18, 2017] The Scary Void Inside Russia-gate by Stephen F. Cohen

Highly recommended!
"A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the US's parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems." Well said. National security parasites are so entrenched (and well fed by MIC) that any change of the US foreign policy is next to impossible. The only legitimate course is more wars and bombing.
Notable quotes:
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security. ..."
"... Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.) ..."
"... As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia. ..."
"... Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. ..."
"... Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen. ..."
"... I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda. ..."
"... The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control. ..."
"... Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems. ..."
"... Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Despite a lack of evidence at its core – and the risk of nuclear conflagration as its by-product – Russia-gate remains the go-to accusation for "getting" the Trump administration, explains Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen.

The foundational accusation of Russia-gate was, and remains, charges that Russian President Putin ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails and their public dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy."

As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half of media and government investigations, we are left with Russia-gate without Russia. (An apt formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.) Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against retired Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn.

Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have spread to "contacts with Russia" -- political, financial, social, etc. -- on the part of a growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or potentially so.

This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.

More to the point, advisers to U.S. policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. I myself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered my wide-ranging and longstanding "contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president whom I advised.

To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security.

Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.)

That said, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating, perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russia-gate as the real political crisis it has become, arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history. The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions.

(For inventories of recent examples, see Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews . Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist Robert Parry.)

Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and "proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism.

As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia.

Flynn and the FBI

Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving office.

Those sanctions were highly unusual -- last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified cyber-attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.

Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is commonly thought, but Russia-gate -- that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a personal rebuff, was eager to believe.)

But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador -- as well as other Trump representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow – were anything but a crime. As I pointed out in another commentary , there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the relationship.

When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President Pence and finding himself trapped -- or possibly entrapped -- between loyalty to his president and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russia-gate prior to the election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory.

In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to U.S. national security, not a crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way, it was with Israel, not Russia , having been asked by that government to dissuade countries from voting for an impending anti-Israel U.N. resolution.

Removing Tillerson

Finally, and similarly, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to drive Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon, anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable appointee by Trump -- widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and practical-minded man.

Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department, as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries, and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall a major diplomatic triumph by the State Department or a Secretary of State in recent years?

The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten, meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging of a president by his own State Department.

In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russia-gate compels him to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if left unencumbered, he might achieve.)

Evidently, Tillerson has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current crisis.

Tillerson's fate will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger American national security?

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation , where a version of this article first appeared.

Abe , December 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm

"Thanks to Flynn's indictment, we now know that the Israeli prime minister was able to transform the Trump administration into his own personal vehicle for undermining Obama's lone effort to hold Israel accountable at the UN. A clearer example of a foreign power colluding with an American political operation against a sitting president has seldom, if ever, been exposed in such glaring fashion.

"Kushner's deep ties to the Israeli right-wing and ethical breaches

"The day after Kushner was revealed as Flynn's taskmaster, a team of researchers from the Democratic Super PAC American Bridge found that the presidential son-in-law had failed to disclose his role as a co-director of his family's Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation during the years when his family's charity funded the Israeli enterprise of illegal settlements. The embarrassing omission barely scratched the surface of Kushner's decades long relationship with Israel's Likud-led government. [ ]

"A Clinton mega-donor defends Kushner's collusion

"So why isn't this angle of the Flynn indictment getting more attention? An easy explanation could be deduced from the stunning spectacle that unfolded this December 2 at the Brookings Institution, where the fresh-faced Kushner engaged in a 'keynote conversation' with Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban. [ ]

""The spectacle of a top Democratic Party money man defending one of the Trump administration's most influential figures was clearly intended to establish a patina of bipartisan normalcy around Kushner's collusion with the Netanyahu government. Saban's effort to protect the presidential son-in-law was supplemented by an op-ed in the Jewish Daily Forward headlined, 'Jared Kushner Was Right To 'Collude' With Russia -- Because He Did It For Israel.'

"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal anti-Trump "Resistance" minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel.

"There is simply too much at stake for too many to allow any disruption in the preset narrative. From the journalist pack that followed the trail of Russiagate down a conspiracy infested rabbit hole to the Clintonites seeking excuses for their mind-boggling campaign failures to the Cold Warriors exploiting the panic over Russian meddling to drive an unprecedented arms build-up, the narrative must go on, regardless of the facts."

Michael Flynn's Indictment Exposes Trump Team's Collusion With Israel, Not Russia
By Max Blumenthal
https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/flynn-indictment-exposes-collusion-israel

Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 2:19 pm

Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen.

One quick example -- a few months ago the otherwise execrable Hannity actually had on his show the great Dennis Kucinich who railed against the deep state for attacking Trump b/c of his overtures toward peace with Moscow and how the deep state was using Russiagate to do it, etc. Kucinich was sensational. I doubt Maddow would ever have given him such a platform to voice the truth like Hannity did on this particular occasion.

Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm

I may have to take a look at Fox again–I bet you are right. Hannity as an arbiter of truth–oh my god

Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm

On this one particular issue, Hannity gets things right.

Rob , December 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm

If Hannity ever reports a story correctly, it's only because it coincides with his deeply partisan interests. Being truthful is something about which he cares little, if at all.

Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 3:05 pm

Yeah Drew-

For years I railed against Fox, but nowadays they seem to be the relatively sensible ones. Tucker Carlson is exceptionally bright, and I have no idea what got into Hannity. I used to loathe him to no end. Him giving Dennis Kucinich a chance to speak his mind is something I never would have imagined.

Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm

Isn't it something Mr. Scott?

Dave P. , December 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm

Drew and Skip Scott – Yes, I agree with you. I watched Dennis Kucinich too. Hannity and Carlson have been doing some very good reporting on these issues. It is amazing how the things have changed. Fox News was "No" for progressives to go to.

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm

Prior to Trump's presidency I would never watch Fox News, but on this issue,, they are a more accurate source of information then any other broadcasting media. Rachel Maddow does nothing but rave, as if she had her own personal agenda, and maybe she does, ousting Trump, and that a woman didn't win the White House. I too saw the interview with Kucinich, and indeed it was a very good one.

RamboDave , December 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm

Tucker Carlson, on Fox (right before Hannity), has had Glenn Greenwald on several times.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:08 am

That basically maps directly onto the fact that Russia is the one issue Trump is right on.

Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm

Great article. Has America gone off the deep end? I just watched the first ten minutes of an anti-Putin and anti-Russian Frontline on television two nights ago. I have never seen more blatant or shameless propaganda. Because my mom watches tv all day and I am taking care of her, I see the same slop, drivel, and gibberish parroted all day long on the major news outlets. Perhaps I should state that more professionally: I see the same shameless propaganda parroted daily by the mainstream news media And it occurs to me–these young news commentators are not part of a conspiracy, willfully lying–they actually believe the propaganda. We are in trouble. I think as a group we act much more like bees in a hive or monkeys in a troop than we do as rational beings, and I mean no disrespect to bees or monkeys.

exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm

I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda.

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm

Personally I believe that many do know that there is nothing to the Russia-gate story, but go along to get along, and they are no different then politicians, who bow before the Israeli Lobby, or NRA, or corporate groups to get reelected, and maintain their standing in their party. Another way of putting it, is to say they are willing to prostitute themselves. I can't see myself doing that.

occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 12:36 am

I, too, saw this scurrilous 'documentary' – "Putin's Revenge" – and made a point of writing down the names of a good number of those commentators moving the narrative along. All of them are well-known active Zionists or children of American Zionists who've helped create and ardently protect the State of Israel. I wish I could remember now at least some of the commentors' names. I didn't see Frontline' "Putin's Revenge" on PBS. It was on a National Geographic channel that traditionally shows those anthropological 'documentaries' about "Ancient Alien Visitors," "Gods from Outer Space, etc .pleasant programs to fall to sleep by. 'Putin's Revenge', however, was grotesque in its downright lies – making me furiously wide awake until I could google info on those names.

alley cat , December 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm

"Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger American national security?"

The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control.

exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm

This is a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable commentators on Russia remaining active despite the ongoing dangerous propaganda storm. Those responsible for this storm are threatening our continued existence. Because of this depressing salient fact, the democratic party, which has been fully on board with this, has totally sacrificed its legitimacy and degenerated to a clear and present existential danger. Clear thinking people have to view it as such and take necessary action based upon that fact, which is serious in its implications, since it is difficult in the extreme to supplant an existing party in a two party system (which has degenerated into a two faction one party state some time ago) in light of the media propaganda, intelligence and police control exercised by this odious system.

Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Really glad, Mr, Cohen, to see your article in Consortium. Your voice is always a wise one. Weekly listener.

Very important and accurate information, for the most part, in my view, though I have a few caveats.

Unfortunately for our perception of the 'goodness' of those in power, I tend to think the level of knowledge and intention of those who spread Russiagate are more cynical than you imagine.

When we read certain articles from hardline think-tanks and serious political commentary from those publications and outlets which sustain the current 'scandal' we see a surprising awareness of Russia's true intentions and nature. Sober, and reasonable. The problem is that this commentary is not what is used to persuade any element of the public toward a certain view on Russia. You instead see it within the establishment essentially talking amongst themselves.

The problem, as I see it, is that these people are fully aware of the truth, as well as Russia's intentions. They are just quite simply spinning vast lies to the contrary whenever they speak to, or in front of, the public. For two main reasons:

The remainder of this piece refers to #2.

Russia is an 'enemy' now, more than anything else, because, for whatever it's self-interested motivations, it is a loud, prominent, powerful voice actively and methodically criticizing and opposing US imperial hypocrisy, double-standards, and deception.

Russia is a fake enemy, talked about in a fake way, by fake people in an increasingly fake democracy. Respectfully, Mr. Cohen, I don't think ideology is the problem. I don't think those at the helm of US foreign policy have had an ideology in a long, long time. I think they have, with few exceptions, a 'prime directive': The retention and expansion of Oligarchic corporate power.

Nowadays, fearmongering over immigrant crime, terrorists, non-state cyber-criminals, or whatever else conjured to make the extremely safe-from-foreign-threats (To this day no war on our soil since the Civil War. Itself a domestic threat) American people feel afraid, and thus controllable and ignorant, is no longer working. Only a big fish like Russia can even hope to do the job. Plus that big fish is one of the factors 'sowing chaos' by giving a voice to anti-imperialists in the West to spread the truth of the government we actually live under.

In short, Russiagate, and it's accompanying digital censorship efforts, are a desperate attempt to rest control back over the American people and away from honest, rational truth.

Even shorter, our rulers underestimated the power of the internet.

Kind regards,
Bill

Lois Gagnon , December 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Thank you. That is a really truthful post. It really is all about maintaining imperial hegemony at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost could be the end of life on Earth. These weasels controlling the machinery of state from the darkness must be exposed as the treacherous criminals they are.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:22 am

Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems.

Jessica K , December 15, 2017 at 3:27 pm

Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times.

And Twitter is helping because western media sources will not tell the truth and people are taking to it to push back. I agree that at this time Fox is more interested in the facts than MSNBC, and particularly Tucker Carlson. (The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society America has become. It is feminist McCarthyism, sadly, and I am glad Tavis Smiley is fighting back.)

Yesterday I had a conversation with a loud mouth believer of the "Putin did it" fable and told him some details, that outright it was a fabrication, and someone nearby in the coffee shop actually joined to support the pushback with other facts. So, I am hopeful that people are waking up. And Nikki Haley has just been called by people on Twitter for her lies about Iran provocation in Yemen. Plus documents on NATO expansion after Gorbachev was assured would not happen, have just been revealed. I do think people are waking up.

Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm

Jessica,

That's what it takes. The political battle of our times. Good on you. I think you're right. The beginnings of which seem to have motivated Russiagate in the first place. I did a longer post on this above. Please keep spreading sense. I'll do the same.

Best wishes,
Bill

RnM , December 15, 2017 at 9:25 pm

It's good to be optimistc, but let us not forget the long history (short by Old World standards) of the oligarchy of doing anything and everything to get what they want.

The present cock-up of Russia-gate (Geez, I hate using that MSM concocted jingo term) points, not to the oligarchs losing their groove, but to an incompetent but persistent bunch of Clinton/Obama synchophants. Their days in any kind of power are, thankfully, numbered. But the snakes are lurking in the bushes, as are the deeper parts of the deep state. It's the long game that they are in for.

Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:37 pm

Thanks, Jessica,
A hopeful comment! Here, too, I sense at least some more dissent among us citizens with the prevailing lies.
When the bubble bursts, the boy has cried and everyone "realises" the emperor is naked, I wonder, will our governments, politicians and media survive? Everyone, practically, is complicit.

Jessica K , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm

Thanks, Bill, and I think we're at a profound crossroads in world history. I saw an interview on YouTube with young Americans who did not even know who won the Civil War nor why it was fought! We all must speak out with conviction and without anger.

Realist , December 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm

My parents always used to use the old argument to keep my thinking on track and avoid conforming to dangerous groupthink: "if everyone else decided to jump off the cliff, in the river or out the 10th floor window, would you just follow the crowd?" Professor Cohen is one of the rare little boys who either learned that lesson well or has always had strong innate instincts to avoid following the crowd or jumping on self-destructive bandwagons. Most of the readers of this site seem to have similar predilections and are among the very few Americans not being led by the Pied Pipers of all-encompassing self-destructive Russophobia. (Is there some common childhood experience or shared gene in our personal biographies that compel our rigorous adherence to the principles we all uphold?) As other posters have noted here, those few media personalities with a seeming immunity to the pathological groupthink now infecting most of America are indeed a very curious lot, with little else in the way of ideological conformity, but thank heavens for them for any restoration of mass sanity will surely have to originate from within their ranks, examples and leadership. I, for one, am pulling for Professor Cohen to be among those leading this country out of the wilderness of lock-step madness.

Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm

We remember an era before 11/22/1963

Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm

Realist I'm glad you brought up the readers on consortiumnews, and their not falling for this Russia-Gate nonsense. People posting comments here in support of 'no Russian interference' have been accused of being Trump supporters, but that was never the case. No, instead many here just saw through the fog of propaganda, and certainly saw this Russia-Gate idiocy as it being nothing more than an instigated coup. This defense of Trump could have been for any newly elected president, but the division between Hillary supporters, and Trump backers, has been the biggest obstacle to overcome, while attempting to explain your thought. I truly think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, that the many posters of comments here on consortiumnews would have been on Hillary's side, if it had been the same kind of coup that had been put in place. It's time to tell John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, and Robert Mueller, to call Hillary and say, 'well at least we tried Madam Secretary', and then be done with it.

Dave P. , December 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm

Realist and Joe – I always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Those of us who have been reading professor Stephen Cohen's articles for more than four decades now , know that he is the foremost authority on Russia. Instead of being courted to give his valuable input into the relations with Russia, he and others like him are being vilified as Putin apologists. It is the sign of the times we live in now.

As many comments posters here on this site had noted, the Russia-Gate has been deliberately created to confront Russia at this time rather than later on. Russia is in the way for final push for World domination – the Neoliberal Globalization.

Nobody, in Washington or elsewhere in the Country seems to ask why and for whom they, The ruling Powers want to establish this World Empire at any cost – even at the risk of a nuclear war. This process of building an Empire has changed the country as I had seen it more than half a century ago.

NeoLiberal Globalization, building this World wide Empire during the last three or four decades had its real winners and losers. Lot of wealth has been created all over the World under neoliberal global economy.

The big time winners are top .01% and another about 10% are also in the winners category, and have accumulated lot of wealth. From all over the World; China, India . . . this top 10% class send their kids to the best universities in the West for professional education; Finance, High tech, Sciences, and other professions and they get the jobs all over in Silicon Valley, and big financial Institutions and other professional fields in U.S. , U.K., Australia Canada . . .

The losers are middle class in U.S. – whom Hillary called deplorables – especially in those once mighty Industrial States in the Midwest, and East. With my marriage here , I inherited lots of relatives more than forty five years ago, most of them in the Midwest. As somebody commented a few weeks ago on this site about these middle class people that their " Way of Life " has been destroyed. It is true. All these people voted for Trump. With the exception of two, all our relatives in the Midwest and elsewhere on my wife's side voted for Trump. They are good, hard working people. It is painful to look at those ruined and abandoned factories in those States and ruined lives of many of those Middle Class people. Globalization has been disastrous for the middle class people in U.S. It is a race to the bottom for those people.

Ask those relatives if they have ever read anything about Russia during 2016. Not one of them have ever read or listened to anything related to Russian media or other Russian source. They did not even know if anything like RT or Sputnik News ever existed. Most of them don't even know now. And it is true of the people we associate with here where we live. None of them have time to read anything let alone Russian Media. I came to know about RT during events in Ukraine in 2014, and about Sputnik News over a year ago when this Russia- Gate commotion began. And I had read lot of Russian literature in my young age.

As several articles on this website have pointed out those email leaks were an inside job. Russia-Gate is just a concocted scheme to bring down Trump. And to destabilize Russia – a hurdle to Globalization and West's domination.

Skip Scott , December 17, 2017 at 8:39 am

Dave P-

Yours is a very accurate portrayal of the heartland of America. I live in a very rural area of the southwest, and you describe reality there to a "T". They are much too busy trying to survive to dig too deeply into world affairs. Thank goodness at least they've got Tucker Carlson at Fox to contrast the propaganda spewers on the other networks. They know the latte sippers and their government has abandoned them, but they don't fully understand the PNAC empire's moves in pursuit of global domination, and many wind up in the military jousting at windmills.

Realist , December 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm

I totally concur, Dave. I'm 70 and well remember, as a little kid, as a teenager and as a young man, folks talking about a far-off ideal of world unity, wherein all people on earth would share in earth's bounty and have the same democratic rights. The UN was supposed to be one of the first steps in that general direction. However, nobody thought that the eventual outcome would be what the movement has transmogrified into today: neoliberal globalism in which a tiny fraction of the top 1% own and control everything, with the rest of us actually suffering a drastic drop in our standard of living and a blatant diminution of our political rights.

It's been fifty years since I lived in Chicago, and about 45 since I last lived in the Midwest, but I was born and raised there and well recognise everything you have said about the place and the people in your remark to be entirely correct. It's also true for most of the other regions of this country in which I have lived, but the "Rust Belt" has paid the price in spades to satiate the neoliberal globalist "free traders." (Remember when THAT catchphrase was first sold to the working classes by Slick Willie's DLC wing of the Democratic party? He and Al Gore basically ended up doubling the ranks of "Reagan Democrats" whether they intended to do so or not. And, Hillary was so delusional as to assume those people would be on her side!)

Dave P. , December 17, 2017 at 11:36 pm

Yes, Realist. That Slick Willie and Gore did the most damage to the working class than any other administration in the recent American history. And being progressive democrats, we worked hard for their election as volunteers registering voters. At that time Rolling Stone Magazine called them as Saviors after Reagan and Bush era of greed – as they called it. Clintons sold the Democratic Party to the Wall Street and to Neoliberal Globalization. Tony Blair did the same in U.K. to the Labor Party.

Then we put faith in Hopey changey Obama and worked for his election. And he turned out to be big fraud too. After his Libya intervention and then on to Syria, I finally got turned off from Democratic Party politics. My wife, and I had started with McGovern Campaign in 1972.

Talking about Chicago, I landed at O'Haire fifty two years ago during snowy Winter, with just a few hundred dollars in my pocket enough for one semester on my way to Graduate School. You can not do it these days. America was at it's best. Ann Arbor was a Republican town those days with very friendly people. Compared to Europe, and other cultures, I found Americans the least prejudiced people, very open to other cultures. The factories In Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana . . . were humming. Never on Earth, such a prosperous middle class on such a scale has ever been created; made of good, hard working people in those small and big towns. The workers were back bone of the Democratic Party. And every thing looked optimistic. I, and couple of my friends thought it can not get better than this on Earth.

And all this seems like a past history now. Life is still good but that stability and that optimism of 1960's is gone. I visited Wisconsin and Michigan last Spring and in Fall again this year. It is painful to look at those gigantic factories shut down and in ruins. I lived for a decade in Michigan. As I said in my comments above, the biggest loser in this NeoLiberal Globalization is American Middle Class.

Piotr Berman , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Jessica K: The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society America has become.

One could say that there is nothing bad about a witch hunt, provided that it genuinely goes after evil witches. Perhaps the worst hitch hunt in my memory was directed at preschool teachers accused of sexual molestation and sometimes satanism. Probably we are not in this Animal Kingdom story (yet):

Denizens of AK see a hare running very fast and they ask "what happen?" Mr. hare answers "They are castrating camels!" "But you are a hare, not a camel!" "Try to prove that you are not a camel!".

Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:02 pm

"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have agreed to testify [ ]

"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin on November 16 in an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking up on that report and speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more explosively, that the American Army was directly involved in the murders.

"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos and reap the fall of the democratically elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO powers, especially the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and their hegemonic drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion. In other words, it was about money and the making of money.

"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings during the Maidan demonstrations, but more evidence has become available indicating that the massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation of protests, leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working on orders of government opponents and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover for a coup.

"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had become common knowledge just a few days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to the EU head of Foreign Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that "someone from the new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders. In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that gained wide attention.

'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the Maidan killings setting out in extensive detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko himself were involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]

"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered to travel to Kiev from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to testify in Kiev."

The Maidan Massacre: US Army Orders: Sow Chaos
By Christopher Black
https://journal-neo.org/2017/12/15/the-maidan-massacre-us-army-orders-sow-chaos/

Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:12 pm

The pretext for the western-supported overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was the massacre of more than a hundred protestors in Kiev in February 2014, which Yanukovych allegedly ordered his forces to carry out. Doubts have been expressed about the evidence for this allegation, but they have been almost entirely ignored by the western media and politicians.

Ukrainian-Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski has carried out a detailed study of the evidence of those events, including videos and radio intercepts made publicly available by pro-Maidan sources, and eye witness accounts. His findings point to the involvement of far-right militias in the massacre and a cover-up afterwards:

– The trajectories of many of the shots indicate that they were fired from buildings that were then occupied by Maidan forces.
– Many warnings were given by announcers on the Maidan stage about snipers firing from those buildings.
– Several leaders of the then opposition felt secure enough to give speeches on the Maidan around the time that gunmen in nearby buildings were shooting protestors dead, and those leaders were not targeted by the gunmen .
– Many of the protesters were shot with an outdated type of firearm that was not used by professional snipers but was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon.
– Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by five different TV channels were either removed from their websites immediately after the massacre or not made publicly available.
– Official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence collected during the investigations have not been made public, while crucial evidence, including bullets and weapons, has disappeared.
– No evidence has been given that links the then security forces' weapons to the killings of the protesters.
– No evidence has been given of orders to shoot unarmed protestors even though the new government claimed that Yanukovych issued those orders personally.
– So far the only three people have been charged with the massacre, one of whom has disappeared from house arrest.

http://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the_Maidan_in_Ukraine

Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Thank you Abe that article could change everything

Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:54 pm

Abe,
Thanks for advocating Dr Katchanovski! I have been reading some of his papers since a year or two and his work seems very thorough! He uses physical facts like trajectories of bullets to determine where shots originated.

Another expert in the field who knows Mr Katchanovski fully endorsed his academic work without any hesitation when I asked him recently. He is being published by publishers with the highest demands. His work can be found in academia.com or is it .org, login is free of charge.
His work deserves the attention of real journalists.

Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm

Oh, sorry, I see u already mentioned academia.edu!
No harm repeating though.
And it is .edu. :)

Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm

Ditto with the airliner shootdown.
Russia is accused and evidence is destroyed/suppressed.
The pattern is quite clear. Russiagate is merely an extension of the same pattern.
Remember those intelligence tests that consist of presenting a series of numbers, and the test taker has to figure out what the next number in the pattern is . . .
So, the Russiagate thing is merely the next item that continues the pattern of Maidan, plane shootdown and cover-up, shootdown of plane in Sinai, etc. etc. etc.
I think the deep state REALLY went apoplectic when Snowden escaped to Russia.

They will have their revenged, at any price, to the USA, to Russia, to the world. These are madmen.

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:32 am

It's prove Abe that 'only if you live long enough' applies to learning these newly uncovered facts regarding the Maiden Square riots. Let's hold out hope that the truth to MH17 comes out soon. Another thing, how can these sanctions against Russia stay in place while everything known as a narrative to that event comes unraveled.

Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:31 pm

That's a good article , worth reading in its entirety. Thanks.

occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 1:23 am

Abe, thank you so much for this information. US fingerprints are all over Ukraine's sickening economic 'reforms', too! Have you read the House Ukraine Freedom Support Act – passed by both houses in the middle of the night Dec. 2014? I have. Wade through until nearly the end where it gives President Obama #1. the power to work toward US corporations exploring and developing Ukraine's natural resources (including fracking) once 'reforms' have been put in place (privatization); #2. the power to ask the World Bank to extend special loans for US corporations to develop those natural resources; #3. the power to install 'defensive' missile sites all along Russia's western borders; #4. the power to free US NGO's in Russia from their previously non-partisan restraints and allow them to work with anti-Putin political groups.

I urge you to google Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Ukraine Freedom Support Act -2014. You won't believe how that bill got through the House of Representatives and Senate. And you'll have to laugh when you hear the word "democracy" in any context with "the USA".

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 6:48 pm

I also see the sexual allegations made against Trump, as another opportunity to oust him from his presidency. I in no way condone such behavior, but it's disturbing to think the main motivation driving this is another means of trying to oust him from his presidency. I don't believe, as these women claim, that they felt "left out", in the recent outings of men who have misused their positions of power to exploit women sexually.

Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm

Yep, the Weinstein thing is being trumpeted and amplified to the extent that it synergizes wtih attempts to oust Trump. It is handy to the deep state. Trump qua political figure is being tarred with the Weinstein brush. That is the main reason we are seeing such a heavy dose of stories on male bad behavior. We would not be seeing this if Hillary were in power. Just a few stories but not full-court press. Because too many of these bad actors are actually in the Hillary camp. Like, most of Hollywood. The story wouldn't help her, politically, if she were in power. It only helps politically to drag down Trump. Before the Weinstein thing came along, we arleady had teh golden showers fairy tale. In fact it would not surprise me at all if Rose McGowan had some kind of political support and encouragement to "go public."
this is no way means that I think this kind of thing is OK. But, things are not straightforward in our world. It is a political as well as a "moral" or lifestyle story. One of the political targets is Trump. Notice that the heads of studios who knew all about this behavior and did nothing are not being forced to step down. Let's check out their political donations . . .

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:44 am

What if the 'Sexual Predator Purge' stories along with the 'Get Trump Out of Office' campaign were but two stories colliding into each other? I mean a reporter in our TMZ world we live in would need paid a handsome sum to continually stay quiet over a Harvey Weinstein kind of scoop, so eventually these scandals had to come out. And then there's hateable loud mouth the Donald, who must be stopped by any means. Put the two together, and hey with how all these big shot perv's are going down, why not corral Trump and force him to resign. It's even cheaper than impeachment.

So the conniving once again craft together a piece of fiction, mixed in with some reality, and take the American conscience off into another realm of fantasy. Hate can get anybody carted off to the guillotine, if the timings right.

Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:55 am

Andrew Bacevich mentions the Weinstein scandal, and then goes on to suggest what the conversation should be.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48429.htm

Litchfield , December 16, 2017 at 9:12 am

Bacevich is fine as far as he goes
But he never quite "turns the corner" himself in taking the story as far as it needs to be taken and laying out the conclusions that the public needs to grasp.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am

Yes! That! Thank you, Litchfield.

Bacevich is knowledgeable and worth reading. But he never, afaik, ventures to look deeply enough into the imperial heart of darkness – "turn the corner", as you say.

Leslie F. , December 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm

So the investigation isn't really about Russia. It is about corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, etc. All worthy of investigation. Not to mention the conspiracy to kidnap the Turkish cleric and collusion with Israel This investigation should not be shut down because the deep state and the press are in a conspiracy to blame it all on Russia. It is up to you guys in the press to convince your colleagues to call it what it really is, and expose those members who continue to misrepresent reality. The press, as a whole, has dropped the ball in a big way on this, but that is not Mueller's responsibility. The 4th estate is a mess and you should be trying to figure out how to clean it up without violating the constitution.

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 7:58 pm

This is one of the reasons I no longer support Democracy Now. As Mr. Cohen said, " worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for their journalistic standards, "

God, help us, everyone including mental health professionals have no sense of professionalism, but they sure know how to make a buck, and try to undo a presidency.

"There are Thousands of Us": Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump's Increasing Instability

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/12/8/there_are_thousands_of_us_mental

Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 10:00 pm

Ditto, The Nation. See my post.

Annie , December 15, 2017 at 11:22 pm

I read your post, and of course I agree. Some of the allegations are so minor, as he hugged me and gave me a kiss on my mouth. He touched my breast. I was in the dressing room when he came in unannounced, and my hair was in curlers, and I was only wearing a robe, but I was nude underneath. Of course some were more disconcerting then those I mentioned, but all claim to be traumatized. I have no doubt their agenda is to bring him down and the whole thing has been orchestrated to do just that. Where is all the concern, and coverage of rape in this country where the estimates go from 300,000 to over a million women raped each year? Where are the stories about sexual trafficking of children, or the children who are sexually abused in their own homes? I've never seen coverage on these issues like what is happening now. That is another reason I find this whole thing appalling. Not to mention using sexual harassment as a political tool to bring down a president.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:41 am

So many examples of this. There's an alternative newspaper comic I used to like, "Tom the Dancing Bug" – smart, subversive, and "progressive". But the writer has completely bought into Scary Putin/Puppet Trump. It's depressing.

BobH , December 15, 2017 at 8:33 pm

"unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous" sums it up nicely. It was also good to have Professor Cohen's endorsement of this website's courageous initiatives in combatting the Russia-gate farce.

Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

I'll happily second that thought BobH. And thanks

Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm

Thank god Consortium News keeps up the pressure on the Russia-gate scam.
And glad to see Stephen Cohen published here.
Readers of this site need to keep reminding themselve of the basic background on this -- at least, I do -- in case opportunities comes along to deflate others' credulousness.

One question for Stephen Cohen:
Your wife is the editor of The Nation.
What has The Nation done to stop the madness?
Not enough. What's the story?
In fact, during the campaign and post-election, The Nation shamefully lent itself to the craziness on the left that sought to devalidate not only the results of the election but Trump himself qua human being. Nothing has been too far below the belt for Nation editors and writers to strike. I have had the ongoing impression that The Nation's editorial board really cannot see below the surface on any of this and have driven a very superficial anti-Trump, "resist" narrative dangerous in its implications. I think I have seen just one story, by a Patrick someone, that seriously questioned the russia-gate narrative. The Nation has fallen right in to the trap of "I hate Trump so much and am so freaked out by his election that I will make common cause with any one and any forces in our polity that will get rid of him somehow." The nation seems too scared of facing head on the reality of deep state actors in the USA. Or is too wedded to its version of reality to see what has become incraseingly clear to growing numbers of Americans.
As many an intelligent and more knowledgeable than I person has said: There is plenty to decry about Trump. But worse is the actions taken in the name of ridding the country of him and his presidency.
Because of this consistent cluelessness I have canceled all gift subscriptions to The Nation. I'll pay for my own sub, to see where this magazine goes, but others will have to pay their own way with The Nation if they so choose.
So, please clean up at home and get the act together on what is left of the left.
First.

Herman , December 15, 2017 at 9:32 pm

Thought the acronym PEPs was clever, Progressives Except for Palestine. Now it has morphed into PEPIRs pronounced Peppers, Progressives Except for Palestine, Iran and Russia. Actually could be PEPIRS adding Syria. If we added Iraq it could be PIEPIRS or Peepers. Actually, I have little regard for such people whose aims include killing and maiming for land and money.

Professor Cohen's credentials are very impressive and his voice and pen are badly needed. People like him are precious resources for America and the world.

Herman , December 16, 2017 at 11:08 am

PIEPIRS is incorrect with the I before the E making Pipers. So we have PEPs, Peppers and Pipers. Please excuse the frivolous comments but it feels good to try to expose their hypocrisy in any way you can, that is of the Peps, Peppers and Pipers.

Gregory Herr , December 15, 2017 at 9:43 pm

What has really been astonishing to me -- beyond a lack of evidence for all the "Russia-gate" allegations–is the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative in the first place. Robert Parry has addressed this, but the voice of Stephen Cohen–with the perspective of specialized scholarship and experience vis-a-vis Russia–is a welcome voice indeed.

David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:55 am

The NY Times printed an allegedly explanatory graphic a couple of days ago showing the Trump/Russia "scandal" as a basically a proliferating root system descending from the central "collusion" premise, with the roots and rootlets branching down to encompass all the disjointed facts (and "facts") and allegations that have appeared in the media.

The graphic was unintentionally revealing of the phoniness of the whole business: instead of showing numerous observations leading to a deeper truth, it accurately depicted "Russia-gate" as a pre-existing (fact-free) conceit that has chaotically complexified to accommodate random developments. That's the definition of a weak and useless theory!

Gregory Herr , December 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm

It seems to that as a representative of the incoming Administration's foreign policy team Flynn was just doing his job speaking with the Russian ambassador about the sudden and striking maneuvers of Obama during the transition. And in trying to defuse potential fallout and escalation due to those sanctions he was doing his job well. Was it not perfectly legal and well within the parameters of his duties to establish some baselines of discussion with counterparts?
Flynn's expression of thoughts on policy to counterparts were, to my mind, subject to the approval of the head of the incoming Administration -- namely Trump, and Trump only.

By the time the FBI questioned Flynn, he surely must have had an idea his conversation with the Ambassador had been under surveillance. What was the "lie"? Was he forgetful of a detail and just caught in a nitpicking technicality? Or did he deliberately manufacture a falsehood? When he gets past his legal entanglement, I sure hope he sits down to a candid interview. I'd like him to demystify me about all this.

I like your phraseology David this nonsense has been chaotically complexified to accommodate random developments!

David G , December 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm

Thanks, Gregory Herr. In your earlier comment that I replied to, you reference "the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative". That's not bad phraseology either.

And it also gets to something I've been thinking all along: I'd like to hear a "Russia-gate" proponent, such as an MSNBC host, actually supply what they consider a plausible narrative that fits all these breathless Trump/Russia "scoops".

I'm not demanding they prove anything, but just want to hear a story that makes sense. Because it seems to me that all the little developments they rush toward with their hummingbird attention spans don't fit together, *even if you concede all the dubious and debatable "facts"*.

dhinds , December 16, 2017 at 7:28 am

An important interview, for anyone that wants to understand Russia, today.

https://youtu.be/E_WPk6Rxx00

Megyn Kelly Interview Vladimir Putin

June, 2017

Damn good Interview (on the part of Putin – He said what was needed to be said. including "well, this is just more nonsense Have you lost your mind over there, or something)? He then continued to wrap it up, in a reasonable and and diplomatic manner.

Effectively, the USA continues locked into denial, refusing to accept responsibility for it's own current state of affairs. (The mass delusion is so thick you could eat it with a spoon, if it wasn't so putrid).

Warmongering, terrorist and refugee creating Regime Change and mass assassinations (with neither congressional oversight nor due process), arms and influence peddling profiteering, the creation of a mass surveillance society and militarized police state that kills minorities, the homeless and poor with impunity, mass incarceration in private for profit prisons, increasingly gross inequality and the excessive cost of health care and education; show the USA to be a society adrift and devoid of fundamental values. (And that's me talking, not Vladimir Putin)

The Clintons, Bush's and their supporters are to blame and should be held accountable, but mainly a new course for society must be charted and neither of the two corrupt major political parties is capable of that at this time.

A new coalition is called for.

James , December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am

Thank you Mr. Cohen for your ever insightful and reasoned commentary on this disturbing trend.

Clif , December 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Yes, thank you Dr. Cohen.

The lack of scrutiny is alarming. I'd like to offer Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan as possible figures who are working the lines and should be drawn into the light.

rosemerry , December 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Professor Cohen is one of the few who really knows about Russia, so of course so any of the Fawning Corporate Media (to quote Ray McGovern) denigrate his work. Even in GWBush's time he often explained "the Cold War is over", and Obama's intemperate rush to expel diplomats and push ahead the Russophobia after Trump's election had no basis in fact and just encouraged the Hillary-Dems and neocons to continue the unjustified destruction of the one aspect of Trump's "plan" that would have benefited the USA and peace.

Bill , December 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm

Do you really think that Obama was misled by others? I don't believe it. Obama and Hillary are the origin of the fabrications. Will anyone hold their feet to the fire?

Jerry Alatalo , December 17, 2017 at 1:56 pm

"It's the state-sponsorship of terrorism, stupid." The largest-scale, ongoing, organized war criminal operation in the history of the world has murdered millions.

Jessica K , December 17, 2017 at 9:10 pm

Vox has an article "The Left Shouldn't Make Peace With Neocons -- Even to Defeat Trump", by Robert Wright. Bill Kristol of American Conservative and many other neocons including Robert Kagan have dual US-Israel citizenship, and they push the MICC toward war. They'll be pushing for war with Iran and maybe Russia.

Tim , December 18, 2017 at 10:13 am

Sadly, quite a concise, clear picture of the muddy waters called Russia-gate, Intel's baby, and the faint possibilities of Tillerson and Lavrov holding fast against sabotage. Let's hope against all hope.

[Dec 18, 2017] Gaius Publius: Explosive WikiLeaks Release Exposes Massive, Aggressive CIA Cyber Spying, Hacking Capability

Notable quotes:
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. ..."
"... Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." ..."
"... A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones." ..."
"... According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied." ..."
"... "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.] ..."
"... Do you still trust Windows Update? ..."
"... As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. ..."
"... "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here . ..."
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive. ..."
"... Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. ..."
"... By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified. ..."
"... I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail. ..."
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... 4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices. ..."
"... So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events." ..."
"... My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table. ..."
"... To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out? ..."
"... Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them ..."
"... The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options. ..."
"... "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me. ..."
"... It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours. ..."
"... "These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened." ..."
Mar 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves here. The first release of the Wikileaks Vault 7 trove has curiously gone from being a MSM lead story yesterday to a handwave today. On the one hand, anyone who was half awake during the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the NSA is in full spectrum surveillance and data storage mode, and members of the Five Eyes back-scratch each other to evade pesky domestic curbs on snooping. So the idea that the CIA (and presumably the NSA) found a way to circumvent encryption tools on smartphones, or are trying to figure out how to control cars remotely, should hardly come as a surprise.

However, at a minimum, reminding the generally complacent public that they are being spied on any time they use the Web, and increasingly the times in between, makes the officialdom Not Happy.

And if this Wikileaks claim is even halfway true, its Vault 7 publication is a big deal:

Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

This is an indictment of the model of having the intelligence services rely heavily on outside contractors. It is far more difficult to control information when you have multiple organizations involved. In addition, neolibearlism posits that workers are free agents who have no loyalties save to their own bottom lines (or for oddballs, their own sense of ethics). Let us not forget that Snowden planned his career job moves , which included a stint at NSA contractor Dell, before executing his information haul at a Booz Allen site that he had targeted.

Admittedly, there are no doubt many individuals who are very dedicated to the agencies for which they work and aspire to spend most it not all of their working lives there. But I would assume that they are a minority.

The reason outsiders can attempt to pooh-pooh the Wikileaks release is that the organization redacted sensitive information like the names of targets and attack machines. The CIA staffers who have access to the full versions of these documents as well as other major components in the hacking toolkit will be the ones who can judge how large and serious the breach really is. 1 And their incentives are to minimize it no matter what.

By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

CIA org chart from the WikiLeaks cache (click to enlarge). "The organizational chart corresponds to the material published by WikiLeaks so far. Since the organizational structure of the CIA below the level of Directorates is not public, the placement of the EDG [Engineering Development Group] and its branches is reconstructed from information contained in the documents released so far. It is intended to be used as a rough outline of the internal organization; please be aware that the reconstructed org chart is incomplete and that internal reorganizations occur frequently."
* * *
"O brave new world, that has such people in it."

Bottom line first. As you read what's below, consider:

Now the story.

WikiLeaks just dropped a huge cache of documents (the first of several promised releases), leaked from a person or people associated with the CIA in one or more capacities (examples, employee, contractor), which shows an agency out-of-control in its spying and hacking overreach. Read through to the end. If you're like me, you'll be stunned, not just about what they can do, but that they would want to do it, in some cases in direct violation of President Obama's orders. This story is bigger than anything you can imagine.

Consider this piece just an introduction, to make sure the story stays on your radar as it unfolds - and to help you identify those media figures who will try to minimize or bury it. (Unless I missed it, on MSNBC last night, for example, the first mention of this story was not Chris Hayes, not Maddow, but the Lawrence O'Donnell show, and then only to support his guest's "Russia gave us Trump" narrative. If anything, this leak suggests a much muddier picture, which I'll explore in a later piece.)

So I'll start with just a taste, a few of its many revelations, to give you, without too much time spent, the scope of the problem. Then I'll add some longer bullet-point detail, to indicate just how much of American life this revelation touches.

While the cache of documents has been vetted and redacted , it hasn't been fully explored for implications. I'll follow this story as bits and piece are added from the crowd sourced research done on the cache of information. If you wish to play along at home, the WikiLeaks torrent file is here . The torrent's passphrase is here . WikiLeaks press release is here (also reproduced below). Their FAQ is here .

Note that this release covers the years 2013–2016. As WikiLeaks says in its FAQ, "The series is the largest intelligence publication in history."

Preface - Trump and Our "Brave New World"

But first, this preface, consisting of one idea only. Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." Plus Vladimir Putin, whose relationship with Trump is just "business," an alliance of convenience, if you will.

I have zero sympathy for Donald Trump. But his world is now our world, and with both of his feet firmly planted in spook world, ours are too. He's in it to his neck, in fact, and what happens in that world will affect every one of us. He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office, that everyone on the list above wants to remove him. Many of them are allied, but if they are, it's also only for convenience.

How do spooks remove the inconvenient and unfit? I leave that to your imagination;they have their ways. Whatever method they choose, however, it must be one without fingerprints - or more accurately, without their fingerprints - on it.

Which suggests two more questions. One, who will help them do it, take him down? Clearly, anyone and everyone on the list. Second, how do you bring down the president, using extra-electoral, extra-constitutional means, without bringing down the Republic? I have no answer for that.

Here's a brief look at "spook world" (my phrase, not the author's) from " The Fox Hunt " by John Sevigny:

Several times in my life – as a journalist and rambling, independent photographer - I've ended up rubbing shoulders with spooks. Long before that was a racist term, it was a catch-all to describe intelligence community people, counter intel types, and everyone working for or against them. I don't have any special insight into the current situation with Donald Trump and his battle with the IC as the intelligence community calls itself, but I can offer a few first hand observations about the labyrinth of shadows, light, reflections, paranoia, perceptions and misperceptions through which he finds himself wandering, blindly. More baffling and scary is the thought he may have no idea his ankles are already bound together in a cluster of quadruple gordian knots, the likes of which very few people ever escape.

Criminal underworlds, of which the Trump administration is just one, are terrifying and confusing places. They become far more complicated once they've been penetrated by authorities and faux-authorities who often represent competing interests, but are nearly always in it for themselves.

One big complication - and I've written about this before - is that you never know who's working for whom . Another problem is that the hierarchy of handlers, informants, assets and sources is never defined. People who believe, for example, they are CIA assets are really just being used by people who are perhaps not in the CIA at all but depend on controlling the dupe in question. It is very simple - and I have seen this happen - for the subject of an international investigation to claim that he is part of that operation. [emphasis added]

Which leads Sevigny to this observation about Trump, which I partially quoted above: "Donald Trump may be crazy, stupid, evil or all three but he knows the knives are being sharpened and there are now too many blades for him to count. The intel people are against him, as are the counter intel people. His phone conversations were almost certainly recorded by one organization or another, legal or quasi legal. His enemies include Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul. Putin is not on his side - that's a business matter and not an alliance."

Again, this is not to defend Trump, or even to generate sympathy for him - I personally have none. It's to characterize where he is, and we are, at in this pivotal moment. Pivotal not for what they're doing, the broad intelligence community. But pivotal for what we're finding out, the extent and blatancy of the violations.

All of this creates an incredibly complex story, with only a tenth or less being covered by anything like the mainstream press. For example, the Trump-Putin tale is much more likely to be part of a much broader "international mobster" story, whose participants include not only Trump and Putin, but Wall Street (think HSBC) and major international banks, sovereign wealth funds, major hedge funds, venture capital (vulture capital) firms, international drug and other trafficking cartels, corrupt dictators and presidents around the world and much of the highest reaches of the "Davos crowd."

Much of the highest reaches of the .01 percent, in other words, all served, supported and "curated" by the various, often competing elements of the first-world military and intelligence communities. What a stew of competing and aligned interests, of marriages and divorces of convenience, all for the common currencies of money and power, all of them dealing in death .

What this new WikiLeaks revelation shows us is what just one arm of that community, the CIA, has been up to. Again, the breadth of the spying and hacking capability is beyond imagination. This is where we've come to as a nation.

What the CIA Is Up To - A Brief Sample

Now about those CIA spooks and their surprising capabilities. A number of other outlets have written up the story, but this from Zero Hedge has managed to capture the essence as well as the breadth in not too many words (emphasis mine throughout):

WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release of confidential documents on the CIA It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of 'Vault 7', a series of leaks on the agency, which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center For Cyber Intelligence in Langley , and which can be seen on the org chart below, which Wikileaks also released : [org chart reproduced above]

A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones."

WikiLeaks tweeted the leak, which it claims came from a network inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virginia.

Among the more notable disclosures which, if confirmed, " would rock the technology world ", the CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied."

With respect to hacked devices like you smart phone, smart TV and computer, consider the concept of putting these devices in "fake-off" mode:

Among the various techniques profiled by WikiLeaks is "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs , transforming them into covert microphones. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode , so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.

As Kim Dotcom chimed in on Twitter, "CIA turns Smart TVs, iPhones, gaming consoles and many other consumer gadgets into open microphones" and added "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.]

Do you still trust Windows Update?

About "Russia did it"

Adding to the "Russia did it" story, note this:

Another profound revelation is that the CIA can engage in "false flag" cyberattacks which portray Russia as the assailant . Discussing the CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group, Wikileaks' source notes that it "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.["]

As Kim Dotcom summarizes this finding, " CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy state ."

This doesn't prove that Russia didn't do it ("it" meaning actually hacking the presidency for Trump, as opposed to providing much influence in that direction), but again, we're in spook world, with all the phrase implies. The CIA can clearly put anyone's fingerprints on any weapon they wish, and I can't imagine they're alone in that capability.

Hacking Presidential Devices?

If I were a president, I'd be concerned about this, from the WikiLeaks " Analysis " portion of the Press Release (emphasis added):

"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments [that the intelligence community would reveal to device manufacturers whatever vulnerabilities it discovered]. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive [across devices and device types] and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.

As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" [that it] is able to penetrate, infest and control both the Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts . The CIA attacks this software by using undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA[,] but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.

Does or did the CIA do this (hack presidential devices), or is it just capable of it? The second paragraph implies the latter. That's a discussion for another day, but I can say now that both Lawrence Wilkerson, aide to Colin Powell and a non-partisan (though an admitted Republican) expert in these matters, and William Binney, one of the triumvirate of major pre-Snowden leakers, think emphatically yes. (See Wilkerson's comments here . See Binney's comments here .)

Whether or not you believe Wilkerson and Binney, do you doubt that if our intelligence people can do something, they would balk at the deed itself, in this world of "collect it all "? If nothing else, imagine the power this kind of bugging would confer on those who do it.

The Breadth of the CIA Cyber-Hacking Scheme

But there is so much more in this Wikileaks release than suggested by the brief summary above. Here's a bullet-point overview of what we've learned so far, again via Zero Hedge:

Key Highlights from the Vault 7 release so far:

Also this scary possibility:

Journalist Michael Hastings, who in 2010 destroyed the career of General Stanley McChrystal and was hated by the military for it, was killed in 2013 in an inexplicably out-of-control car. This isn't to suggest the CIA, specifically, caused his death. It's to ask that, if these capabilities existed in 2013, what would prevent their use by elements of the military, which is, after all a death-delivery organization?

And lest you consider this last speculation just crazy talk, Richard Clarke (that Richard Clarke ) agrees: "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here .

WiliLeaks Press Release

Here's what WikiLeaks itself says about this first document cache (again, emphasis mine):

Press Release

Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.

The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election .

Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.

Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.

By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.

In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public , including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency. The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.

Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that "There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of "Year Zero" goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."

Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.

Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one ("Year Zero") already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.

Be sure to click through for the Analysis, Examples and FAQ sections as well.

"O brave new world," someone once wrote . Indeed. Brave new world, that only the brave can live in.

____

1 Mind you, the leakers may have had a comprehensive enough view to be making an accurate call. But the real point is there are no actors who will be allowed to make an independent assessment.

That's all I needed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself.

The material, which has been seen by the Guardian, is a series of reports on Trump's relationship with Moscow. They were drawn up by a former western counter-intelligence official, now working as a private consultant. BuzzFeed on Tuesday published the documents, which it said were "unverified and potentially unverifiable".

The Guardian has not been able to confirm the veracity of the documents' contents,

Emphases mine. I had been sitting on this link trying to make sense of this part. Clearly, the Trump Whitehouse has some major leaks, which the MSM is exploiting. But the start of this article suggests that para-intelligence (is that a word? Eh, it is now) was the source of the allegedly damaging info.

This is no longer about the deep-state, but a rouge state, possibly guns for higher, each having fealty to specific political interests. The CIA arsenal wasn't leaked. It was delivered.

salvo , March 9, 2017 at 3:13 am

hmm.. as far as I can see, noone seems to care here in Germany anymore about being spied on by our US friends, apart from a few alternative sources which are being accused of spreading fake news, of being anti-american, russian trolls, the matter is widely ignored

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 3:40 am

I have read a few articles about the Vault 7 leak that typically raise a few alarms I would like to comment on.

1) The fact that the

CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services

does not mean that it has broken encryption, just that it has a way to install a program at a lower level, close to the operating system, that will read messages before they are encrypted and sent by the messaging app, or just after they have been decrypted by it.

As a side note: banks have now largely introduced two-factor authentication when accessing online services. One enters username (or account number) and password; the bank site returns a code; the user must then enter this code into a smartphone app or a tiny specialized device, which computes and returns a value out of it; the user enters this last value into the entry form as a throw-away additional password, and gains access to the bank website.

I have always refused to use such methods on a smartphone and insist on getting the specialized "single-use password computer", precisely because the smartphone platform can be subverted.

2) The fact that

"Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), [ ] infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones.

is possible largely because smart TVs are designed by their manufacturers to serve as spying devices. "Weeping Angel" is not some kind of virus that turns normal devices into zombies, but a tool to take control of existing zombie devices.

The fact that smart TVs from Vizio , Samsung or LG constitute an outrageous intrusion into the privacy of their owners has been a known topic for years already.

3) The

CIA [ ] also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks

is not a "scary possibility" either; various demonstrations of such feats on Tesla , Nissan , or Chrysler vehicles have been demonstrated in the past few years.

And the consequences have already been suggested (killing people by disabling their car controls on the highway for instance).

My take on this is that we should seriously look askance not just at the shenanigans of the CIA, but at the entire "innovative technology" that is imposed upon (computerized cars) or joyfully adopted by (smartphones) consumers. Of course, most NC readers are aware of the pitfalls already, but alas not the majority of the population.

4) Finally this:

He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office,

Trump is arguably unfit for office, does not have a clue about many things (such as foreign relations), but by taxing him of being "erratic" Gaius Publius shows that he still does not "get" the Donald.

Trump has a completely different modus operandi than career politicians, formed by his experience as a real-estate mogul and media star. His world has been one where one makes outrageous offers to try anchoring the negotiation before reducing one's claims - even significantly, or abruptly exiting just before an agreement to strike a deal with another party that has been lured to concessions through negotiations with the first one. NC once included a video of Trump doing an interactive A/B testing of his slogans during a campaign meeting; while changing one's slogans on the spot might seem "erratic", it is actually a very systematic market probing technique.

So stop asserting that Trump is "unpredictable" or "irrational"; this is underestimating him (a dangerous fault), as he is very consistent, though in an uncommon fashion amongst political pundits.

Yves Smith Post author , March 9, 2017 at 5:53 am

While I agree that it's worth pointing out that the CIA has not broken any of the major encryption tools, even Snowden regards being able to circumvent them as worse, since people using encryption are presumably those who feel particularly at risk and will get a false sense of security and say things or keep data on their devices that they never never would if they thought they were insecure.

Re Gaius on Trump, I agree the lady doth protest too much. But I said repeatedly that Trump would not want to be President if he understood the job. It is not like being the CEO of a private company. Trump has vastly more control over his smaller terrain in his past life than he does as President.

And Trump is no longer campaigning. No more a/b testing.

The fact is that he still does not have effective control of the Executive branch. He has lots of open positions in the political appointee slots (largely due to not having even submitted candidates!) plus has rebellion in some organizations (like folks in the EPA storing data outside the agency to prevent its destruction).

You cannot pretend that Trump's former MO is working at all well for him. And he isn't showing an ability to adapt or learn (not surprising at his age). For instance, he should have figured out by now that DC is run by lawyers, yet his team has hardly any on it. This is continuing to be a source of major self inflicted wounds.

His erraticness may be keeping his opponents off base, but it is also keeping him from advancing any of his goals.

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 6:59 am

I believe we are in agreement.

Yes, not breaking encryption is devious, as it gives a false sense of security - this is precisely why I refuse to use those supposedly secure e-banking login apps on smartphones whose system software can be subverted, and prefer those non-connected, non-reprogrammable, special-purpose password generating devices.

As for Trump being incompetent for his job, and his skills in wheeling-dealing do not carrying over usefully to conducting high political offices, that much is clear. But he is not "erratic", rather he is out of place and out of his depth.

RBHoughton , March 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

I am writing this in the shower with a paper bag over my head and my iPhone in the microwave.

I have for years had a password-protected document on computer with all my important numbers and passwords. I have today deleted that document and reverted to a paper record.

Ivy , March 9, 2017 at 10:09 am

Please tell readers more about the following for our benefit:

"single-use password computer"

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 11:34 am

That is an example of the sort of thing I am talking about.

PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 11:35 am

I think he means a machine dedicated to high-security operations like anything financial or bill-pay. Something that is not exposed to email or web-browsing operations that happen on a casual-use computer that can easily compromise. That's not a bad way to go; it's cheaper in terms of time than the labor-intensive approaches I use, but those are a hobby more than anything else. It depends on how much you have at stake if they get your bank account or brokerage service password.

I take a few basic security measures, which would not impress the IT crowd I hang out with elsewhere, but at least would not make me a laughingstock. I run Linux and use only open-source software; run ad-blockers and script blockers; confine risky operations, which means any non-corporate or non-mainstream website to a virtual machine that is reset after each use; use separate browsers with different cookie storage policies and different accounts for different purposes. I keep a well-maintained pfSense router with a proxy server and an intrusion detection system, allowing me to segregate my secure network, home servers, guest networks, audiovisual streaming and entertainment devices, and IoT devices each on their own VLANs with appropriate ACLs between them. No device on the more-secured network is allowed out to any port without permission, and similar rules are there for the IoT devices, and the VoIP tools.

The hardware to do all of that costs at least $700, but the real expense is in the time to learn the systems properly. Of course if you use Linux, you could save that on software in a year if you are too cheap to send a contribution to the developers.

It's not perfect, because I still have computers turned on :) , but I feel a bit safer this way.

That said, absolutely nothing that I have here would last 30 milliseconds against anything the "hats" could use, if they wanted in. It would be over before it began. If I had anything to hide, really, I would have something to fear; so guess I'm OK.

jrs , March 9, 2017 at 2:36 pm

open source software often has a lot of bugs to be exploioted. Wouldn't it be easier to just do banking in person?

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Banks discourage that by

a) charging extortionate fees for "in-person" operations at the counter;

b) closing subsidiaries, thus making it tedious and time-consuming to visit a branch to perform banking operations in person;

c) eliminating the possibility to perform some or even all usual operations in any other form than online (see the advent of "Internet only" banks).

In theoretical terms, all this is called "nudging".

cfraenkel , March 9, 2017 at 12:07 pm

They're key fobs handed to you by your IT dept. The code displayed changes every couple of minutes. The plus is there's nothing sent over the air. The minus is the fobs are subject to theft, and are only good for connecting to 'home'. And since they have a cost, and need to be physically handed to you, they're not good fit for most two factor login applications (ie logging into your bank account).

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_SecurID

meme , March 9, 2017 at 3:53 am

I watched (fast forwarded through, really) Morning Joe yesterday to see what they would have to say about Wikileaks. The show mostly revolved around the health care bill and Trump's lying and tweeting about Obama wiretapping him. They gave Tim Kaine plenty of time to discuss his recent trip to London talking to "some of our allies there" saying that they are concerned that "all the intelligence agencies" say the Rooskies "cyber hacked" our election, and since it looks like we aren't doing anything when we are attacked, they KNOW we won't do anything when they are attacked. (more red baiting)

The only two mentions I saw was about Wikileaks were, first, a question asked of David Cohen, ex Deputy Director of the CIA, who refused to confirm the Wikileaks were authentic, saying whatever tools and techniques the CIA had were used against foreign persons overseas, so there is no reason to worry that your TV is looking at you. And second, Senator Tom Cotton, who didn't want to comment on the contents of Wikileaks, only saying that the CIA is a foreign intelligence service, collecting evidence on foreign targets to keep our country safe, and it does not do intelligence work domestically.

So that appears to be their story, the CIA doesn't spy on us, and they are sticking with it, probably hoping the whole Wikileaks thing just cycles out of the news.

Direction , March 9, 2017 at 4:23 am

Thanks for mentioning Hastings. His death has always been more than suspicious.

skippy , March 9, 2017 at 5:46 am

Elite risk management reduction tool goes walkabout inverting its potential ..

disheveled . love it when a plan comes together ..

james wordsworth , March 9, 2017 at 5:50 am

The unwillingness of the main stream media (so far) to really cover the Wikileaks reveal is perhaps the bigger story. This should be ongoing front page stuff .. but it is not.

As for using ZeroHedge as a source for anything, can we give that a rest. That site has become a cesspool of insanity. It used to have some good stuff. Now it is just unreadable. SAD

And yes I know the hypocrisy of slamming ZH and the MSM at the same time we live in interesting times.

Yves Smith Post author , March 9, 2017 at 7:52 am

Your remarks on ZH are an ad hominem attack and therefore a violation of site policies. The onus is on you to say what ZH got wrong and not engage in an ungrounded smear. The mainstream media often cites ZH.

NC more than just about any other finance site is loath to link to ZH precisely because it is off base or hyperventilating a not acceptably high percent of the time, and is generally wrong about the Fed (as in governance and how money works). We don't want to encourage readers to see it as reliable. However, it is good on trader gossip and mining Bloomberg data.

And I read through its summary of the Wikileaks material as used by Gaius and there was nothing wrong with it. It was careful about attributing certain claims to Wikileaks as opposed to depicting them as true.

3urypteris , March 9, 2017 at 12:14 pm

My rules for reading ZH:
1- Skip every article with no picture
2- Skip every article where the picture is a graph
3- Skip every article where the picture is of a single person's face
4- Skip every afticle where the picture is a cartoon
5- Skip every article about gold, BitCoin, or high-frequency trading
6- Skip all the "Guest Posts"
7- ALWAYS click through to the source
8- NEVER read the comments

It is in my opinion a very high noise-to-signal source, but there is some there there.

sunny129 , March 9, 2017 at 7:20 pm

Finding the TRUTH is NOT that easy.

Discerning a 'news from noise' is NEVER that easy b/c it is an art, developed by years of shifting through ever increasing 'DATA information' load. This again has to be filtered and tested against one's own 'critical' thinking or reasoning! You have to give ZH, deserved credit, when they are right!

There is no longer a Black or white there, even at ZH! But it is one of the few, willing to challenge the main stream narrative 'kool aid'

TheCatSaid , March 9, 2017 at 6:14 am

In addition to the "para-intelligence" community (hat tip Code named D) there are multiple enterprises with unique areas of expertise that interface closely with the CIA The long-exposed operations, which include entrapment and blackmailing of key actors to guarantee complicity, "loyalty" and/or sealed lips, infect businesses, NGOs, law enforcement agencies, judges, politicians, and other government agencies. Equal opportunity employment for those with strong stomachs and a weak moral compass.

Romancing The Loan , March 9, 2017 at 8:43 am

Yes I can't remember where I read it but it was a tale passed around supposedly by an FBI guy that had, along with his colleagues, the job of vetting candidates for political office. They'd do their background research and pass on either a thick or thin folder full of all the compromising dirt on each potential appointee. Over time he said he was perturbed to notice a persistent pattern where the thickest folders were always the ones who got in.

nobody , March 9, 2017 at 10:10 am

Michael Hudson :

I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail.

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 8:20 am

I find the notion that my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones somewhat irritating, but my imagination quickly runs off to far worse scenarios. (although the popular phase, "You're tax dollars at work." keeps running thru my head like a earworm. And whenever I hear "conservatives" speak of their desire for "small government", usually when topics of health care, Medicare and social security come up, I can only manage a snort of incredulousness anymore)

One being malware penetrating our nuke power plants and shutting down the cooling system. Then the reactor slowly overheats over the next 3 days, goes critical, and blows the surrounding area to high heaven. We have plants all around the coast of the country and also around the Great Lakes Region – our largest fresh water store in a drought threatened future.

Then the same happening in our offensive nuke missile systems.

Some other inconvenient truths – the stuxnet virus has been redesigned. Kaspersky – premier anti malware software maker – had a variant on their corporate network for months before finally discovering it. What chance have we?

In China, hacking is becoming a consumer service industry. There are companies building high power data centers with a host of hacking tools. Anyone, including high school script kiddies, can rent time to use the sophisticated hacking tools, web search bots, and whatever, all hosted on powerful servers with high speed internet bandwidth.

Being a bit "spooked" by all this, I began to worry about my humble home computer and decided to research whatever products I could get to at least ward off annoying vandalism. Among other things, I did sign up for a VPN service. I'm looking at the control app for my VPN connection here and I see that with a simple checkbox mouse click I can make my IP address appear to be located in my choice of 40 some countries around the world. Romania is on the list!

flora , March 9, 2017 at 11:11 am

"my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones "

I haven't tested this, so can't confirm it works, but it sounds reasonable.
http://www.komando.com/tips/390304/secure-your-webcam-and-microphone-from-hackers

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 12:40 pm

Actually, I very much doubt that does work. The mic "pickup" would feed its analog output to a DAC (digital to analog converter) which would convert the signal to digital. This then goes to something similar to a virtual com port in the operating system. Here is where a malware program would pick it up and either create a audio file to be sent to an internet address, or stream it directly there.

The article is just plugging in a microphone at the output jack. The malware got the data long before it goes thru another DAC and analog amp to get to the speakers or output jack.

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 12:46 pm

s/b "plugging in a earbud at the output jack". They're confusing me too.

flora , March 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm

ah. thanks for vetting.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 2:53 pm

It's actually a input/output jack or, if you will, a mic/headphone jack.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 2:52 pm

It depends on how it is hooked up internally. Old fashioned amateur radio headphones would disable the speakers when plugged in because the physical insertion of the plug pushed open the connection to the speakers. The jack that you plug the ear buds into might do the same, disconnecting the path between the built-in microphone and the ADC (actually it is an ADC not a DAC). The only way to know is to take it apart and see how it is connected.

Pat , March 9, 2017 at 8:27 am

The CIA is not allowed to operate in the US is also the panacea for the public. And some are buying it. Along with everyone knows they can do this is fueling the NOTHING to see here keep walking weak practically non existent coverage.

Eureka Springs , March 9, 2017 at 8:31 am

At what point do people quit negotiating in terrorism and errorism? For this is what the police, the very State itself has long been. Far beyond being illegitimate, illegal, immoral, this is a clear and ever present danger to not just it's own people, but the rule of law itself. Blanket statements like we all know this just makes the dangerously absurd normal I'll never understand that part of human nature. But hey, the TSA literally just keeps probing further each and every year. Bend over!

Trump may not be the one for the task but we the people desperately need people 'unfit', for it is the many fit who brought us to this point. His unfit nature is as refreshing on these matters in its chaotic honest disbelief as Snowden and Wiki revelations. Refreshing because it's all we've got. One doesn't have to like Trump to still see missed opportunity so many should be telling him he could be the greatest pres ever if (for two examples) he fought tirelessly for single payer and to bring down this police state rather than the EPA or public education.

This cannot stand on so many levels. Not only is the fourth amendment rendered utterly void, but even if it weren't it falls far short of the protections we deserve.

No enemy could possibly be as bad as who we are and what we allow/do among ourselves. If an election can be hacked (not saying it was by Russia).. as these and other files prove anything can and will be hacked then our system is to blame, not someone else.

What amazes me is that the spooks haven't manufactured proof needed to take Trump out of office Bonfire of The Vanities style. I'd like to think the people have moved beyond the point they would believe manufactured evidence but the Russia thing proves otherwise.

These people foment world war while probing our every move and we do nothing!

If we wait for someone fit nothing will ever change because we wait for the police/media/oligarch state to tell us who is fit.

Anon , March 9, 2017 at 2:40 pm

being "unfit" does not automatically make someone a savior.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 3:05 pm

But being fit by the standards of our ruling class, the "real owners" as Carlin called them is, in my book, an automatic proof that they are up to no good. Trump is not my cup of tea as a president but no one we have had in a while wasn't clearly compromised by those who fund them. Did you ever wonder why we have never had a president or even a powerful member of congress that was not totally in the tank for that little country on the Eastern Mediterranean? Or the Gulf Monarchies? Do you think that is by accident? Do you think money isn't involved? Talk about hacked elections! We should be so lucky as to have ONLY Russians attempting to affect our elections. Money is what hacks US elections and never forget that. To me it is laughable to discuss hacking the elections without discussing the real way our "democracy" is subverted–money not document leaks or voting machine hacks. It's money.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia on Trump's list? Iran that has never been involved in a terrorist act on US soil is but not Saudi Arabia? How many 911 hijackers came from Iran? If anything saves Trump from destruction by the real owners of our democracy it is his devotion to the aforementioned countries.

Allegorio , March 9, 2017 at 4:00 pm

The point again is not to remove him from office but to control him. With Trump's past you better believe the surveillance state has more than enough to remove him from office. Notice the change in his rhetoric since inauguration? More and more he is towing the establishment Republican line. Of course this depends on whether you believe Trump is a break with the past or just the best liar out there. A very unpopular establishment would be clever in promoting their agent by pretending to be against him.

Anyone who still believes that the US is a democratic republic and not a mafia state needs to stick their heads deeper into the sands. When will the low information voters and police forces on whom a real revolution depends realize this is anyone's guess. The day is getting closer especially for the younger generation. The meme among the masses is that government has always been corrupt and that this is nothing new. I do believe the level of immorality among the credentialed classes is indeed very new and has become the new normal. Generations of every man for himself capitalist philosophy undermining any sense of morality or community has finally done its work.

HBE , March 9, 2017 at 8:47 am

Go take a jaunt over to huffpo, at the time of this post there was not a single mention of vault 7 on the front page. Just a long series of anti trump administration articles.

Glad to know for sure who the true warmongers were all along.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 8:50 am

We need another Church Commission.

Eureka Springs , March 9, 2017 at 8:59 am

No.. The Church commission was a sweep it under the rug operation. It got us FISA courts. More carte blanche secrecy, not less. The commission nor the rest of the system didn't even hold violators of the time accountable.

We have files like Vault 7. Commissions rarely get in secret what we have right here before our eyes.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Well, how about a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Foppe , March 9, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Cute but the ANC lost the war by acceding to WTO entry (which "forbade" distributive politics, land/resource redistribution, nationalizations, etc.).

River , March 9, 2017 at 10:59 am

Need Langley surrounded and fired upon by tanks at this point.

Err on the side of caution.

DJG , March 9, 2017 at 12:49 pm

River: Interesting historic parallel? I believe that the Ottomans got rid of the Janissaries that way, after the Janissaries had become a state within a state, by using cannons on their HQ

From Wiki entry, Janissaries:

The corps was abolished by Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 in the Auspicious Incident in which 6,000 or more were executed.[8]

polecat , March 9, 2017 at 12:53 pm

"Nuke it from orbit it's the only way to be sure . "

knowbuddhau , March 9, 2017 at 9:01 am

Took less than a minute to download the 513.33MB file. The passphrase is what JFK said he'd like to do to CIA: SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds.

"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger, 1975.

Stormcrow , March 9, 2017 at 9:35 am

Here is Raimondo's take:
Spygate
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/07/spygate-americas-political-police-vs-donald-j-trump/

The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.

The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed, Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.

And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.

We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.

What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.

This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.

Perhapps overstated but well worth pondering.

SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds. , March 9, 2017 at 10:06 am

Yeah I downloaded it the day it came out and spent an hour or so looking at it last night. First impressions – "heyyy this is like a Hackers Guide – the sort I used in the 80s, or DerEngel's Cable Modem Hacking" of the 00s.

2nd impressions – wow it really gives foundational stuff – like "Enable Debug on PolarSSL".

3rd impressions – "I could spend hours going thru this happily ".

4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK.

Its quite fascinating. But trying to find the "juicy stuff" is going to be tedious. One can spend hours and hours going thru it. To speed up going thru it, I'm going to need some tech sites to say "where to go".

flora , March 9, 2017 at 11:21 am

It seems clear that Wikileaks has not and will not release actual ongoing method "how-to" info or hacking scripts. They are releasing the "whats", not the tech level detailed "hows". This seems like a sane approach to releasing the data. The release appears to be for political discussion, not for spreading the hacking tools. So I wouldn't look for "juicy bits" about detailed methodology. Just my guess.

That said, love what you're doing digging into this stuff. I look forward to a more detailed report in future. Thanks.

Sam F , March 9, 2017 at 10:10 am

Yves, I think that you much underestimate the extremity of these exposed violations of the security of freedom of expression, and of the security of private records. The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices.

This goes far beyond the kind of snooping that required specialized devices installed near the target, which could be controlled by warrant process. There is no control over this extreme spying. It is totalitarianism now.

This is probably the most extreme violation of the rights of citizens by a government in all of history. It is far worse than the "turnkey tyranny" against which Snowden warned, on the interception of private messages. It is tyranny itself, the death of democracy.

Outis Philalithopoulos , March 9, 2017 at 10:58 am

Your first sentence is a bit difficult to understand. If you read Yves' remarks introducing the post, she says that the revelations are "a big deal" "if the Wikileaks claim is even halfway true," while coming down hard on the MSM and others for "pooh-pooh[ing]" the story. Did you want her to add more exclamation points?

susan the other , March 9, 2017 at 10:59 am

So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events."

It's easy to gather information; not so easy to analyze it, and somehow impossible to act on it in good faith. With all this ability to know stuff and surveil people the big question is, Why does everything seem so beyond our ability to control it?

We should know well in advance that banks will fail catastrophically; that we will indeed have sea level rise; that resources will run out; that water will be undrinkable; that people will be impossible to manipulate when panic hits – but what do we do? We play dirty tricks, spy on each other like voyeurs, and ignore the inevitable. Like the Stasi, we clearly know what happened, what is happening and what is going to happen. But we have no control.

NotTimothyGeithner , March 9, 2017 at 11:34 am

My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 1:33 pm

Do you mean to say that the CIA leaked like a sieve? That's my understanding of your post.

Old Jake , March 9, 2017 at 6:05 pm

AS, I would interpret it as saying that there was so much coming in it was like trying to classify snowflakes in a snowstorm. They could pick a few subject areas to look at closely but the rest just went into the files.

Leaking like a sieve is also likely, but perhaps not the main point.

Andrew , March 9, 2017 at 11:14 am

The archive appears to have been circulated among government hackers and contractors in a authorized manner

There, that looks the more likely framing considering CIA & DNI on behalf of the whole US IC seemingly fostered wide dissimilation of these tools, information. Demonstration of media control an added plus.

Cheers Yves

Stormcrow , March 9, 2017 at 11:20 am

The Empire Strikes Back

WikiLeaks Has Joined the Trump Administration
Max Boot
Foreign Policy magazine

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-has-joined-the-trump-administration/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+Campaign&utm_term=%2AEditors+Picks

I guess we can only expect more of this.

Todd Pierce , on the other hand, nails it. (From his Facebook page.)
The East German Stasi could only dream of the sort of surveillance the NSA and CIA do now, with just as nefarious of purposes.

lyman alpha blob , March 9, 2017 at 11:42 am

Perhaps the scare quotes around "international mobster" aren't really necessary.

In all this talk about the various factions aligned with and against Trump, that's one I haven't heard brought up by anybody. With all the cement poured in Trump's name over the years, it would be naive to think his businesses had not brushed up against organized crime at some point. Question is, whose side are they on?

JTMcPhee , March 9, 2017 at 3:02 pm

Like all the other players, the "side" they are on is them-effing-selves. And isn't that the whole problem with our misbegotten species, writ large?

Then there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Hzds9aGdA Maybe these people will be around and still eating after us urban insects and rodents are long gone? Or will our rulers decide no one should survive if they don't?

Skip Intro , March 9, 2017 at 12:55 pm

To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out?

tegnost , March 9, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Well we know chuckie won't speak out..

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community

FTA "Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them.""

Oregoncharles , March 9, 2017 at 2:17 pm

I've long thought that the reason Snowden was pursued so passionately was that he exposed the biggest, most embarrassing secret: that the National "Security" Agency's INTERNAL security was crap.

And here it is: "Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal "

The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 3:51 pm

Ah, that's the beauty of contracting it out. No one gets fired. Did anyone get fired because of Snowden? It was officially a contractor problem and since there are only a small number of contractors capable of doing the work, well you know. We can't get new ones.

tiebie66 , March 9, 2017 at 2:59 pm

What I find by far the most distressing is this: "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Republic is lost because we didn't stand guard for it. Blaming others don't cut it either – we let it happen. And like the Germans about the Nazi atrocities, we will say that we didn't know about it.

JTMcPhee , March 9, 2017 at 3:06 pm

Hey, I didn't let it happen. Stuff that spooks and sh!tes do behind the Lycra ™ curtain happens because it is, what is the big word again, "ineluctable." Is my neighbor to blame for having his house half eaten by both kinds of termites, where the construction is such that the infestation and damage are invisible until the vast damage is done?

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 4:08 pm

And just how were we supposed to stand guard against a secret and unaccountable organization that protected itself with a shield of lies? And every time some poor misfit complained about it they were told that they just didn't know the facts. If they only knew what our IC knows they would not complain.

It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours.

Studiously avoid any military celebrations. Worship of the military is part of the problem. Remember, the people you thank for "their service" are as much victims as you are. Sadly they don't realize that their service is to a rotten empire that is not worthy of their sacrifice but every time we perform the obligatory ritual of thankfulness we participate in the lie that the service is to a democratic country instead of an undemocratic empire.

It's clearly a case of Wilfred Owen's classic "Dulce et Decorum Est". Read the poem, google it and read it. It is instructive: " you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." Make no mistake. It is a lie and it can only be undone if we all cease to tell it.

nonsense factory , March 9, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Here's a pretty decent review of the various CIA programs revealed by Wikileaks:

http://www.libertyforjoe.com/2017/03/what-is-vault-7.html

"These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened."

[Dec 18, 2017] Kellyanne Conway Says Fix Was In Against Trump In Fox News Interview That Alleged FBI Texts Evidence Of Coup

Notable quotes:
"... Watters' World, ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

Conway appeared on Jesse Watters program, Watters' World, to talk about the newly revealed content of text messages sent between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.

When asked what she thought they meant when they said "they need to protect America from Trump and need to have an insurance policy against his presidency," Conway tore into the investigation's credibility.

Trending: Trump and Putin Keep Calling Each Other for Praise, Discuss North Korea and Terrorism

"The fix was in against Donald Trump from the beginning, and they were pro-Hillary. We understand that people have political views but they are expressing theirs with such animus and such venom towards the now president of the United States they can't possibly be seen as objective or transparent or even-handed or fair," she said.

As she spoke, the banner below Conway and Watters screamed "A COUP IN AMERICA?"

Watters proceeded to ask "how dangerous" Conway thought it was that people were "plotting what appears to be some sort of subversion campaign" against Trump.

"It's toxic, it's lethal, and it may be fatal to the continuation of people arguing that that matter is since behind us, he won he's the president, and the Mueller investigation is something separate," she answered.

Conway then slammed critics for defending the integrity of the probe by alleging that Trump is against the FBI, repeating the claim that he isn't under investigation, "we're told."

Released on Tuesday, Strzok and Page's messages referred to Trump as an "idiot" and "douche. At one point, Strzok told Page he was considering "an insurance policy" if Trump were elected. Page had also told Strzok that maybe he was meant to "protect the country from that menace," according to records reviewed by Politico.

Watters assessed the texts as evidence of a coup, or sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from the government, in America.

"The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America," he said.

[Dec 18, 2017] Russia-Gate Is State-Sponsored Paranoia by Gilbert Doctorow

It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
Dec 18, 2017 | russia-insider.com

"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."

"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"

- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in parliament.

The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large.

This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.

Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin.

Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical survival.

In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote 98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.

There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com .

The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.

Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.

The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."

The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted. Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American presidential election.

In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.

* * * *

Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9 time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel, they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free app.

I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking.

The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.

Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.

"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.

During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my participation in these talk shows are as follows:

For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content that I believe is important to this discussion.

My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in the guests' lounge before the program went on air.

Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.

As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's negativism.

To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.

In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary "World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank since.

Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the Kremlin to the USA at various times.

For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.

On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.

The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes' tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.

To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West European and American commentators.

As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office

The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day after the elections.

A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World, which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.

Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning. Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and off-the-cuff.

During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement, and suggesting seditious intent.

In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.

Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.

The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.

Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in full:

"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.

Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the conscience of the world.

Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It will end badly.

Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the world will be at the brink of a big war "

Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man" whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a great rupture in bilateral relations.

The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."

This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration for what the United States has achieved and represents.

The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require attribution to one or another participant:

"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."

"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application. After lunch you can open your business."

"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement."

"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."

How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur.

* * * *

Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.

However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.

And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.

It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in the territories under consideration.

As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war.

It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.

TONY LANE , December 17, 2017 9:59 AM

But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.

Kjell Hasthi -> TONY LANE , December 17, 2017 1:50 PM

JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the American president is enemy, you are not American

Jimmy Robertson , December 17, 2017 9:22 AM

As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items:

https://viableopposition.bl...

The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States.

tom -> Jimmy Robertson , December 17, 2017 9:23 AM

"Remember the Maine!"

GKW -> tom , December 17, 2017 2:13 PM

Don't forget the Turner Joy and the gulf of Tonkin.

John Tosh , December 17, 2017 9:47 AM

Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises....

It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle.

Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.

Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so please shut up once and for all.

You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise. Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That is what you need to practice.

Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your propaganda.

YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you feel better... Big fat cowards.!

Guy -> John Tosh , December 17, 2017 1:16 PM

I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .

All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed.

ALTERNATE HISTORY -> John Tosh , December 17, 2017 6:15 PM

They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.

tom , December 17, 2017 9:39 AM

"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".

Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".

Emmet Sweeney , December 17, 2017 4:31 PM

The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West - and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.

tom , December 17, 2017 9:20 AM

'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'

This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap.

But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.

It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".

CaperAsh -> tom , December 17, 2017 4:17 PM

Yes, but R's comment was delightfully witty, and a great 'high ground manoeuvre.'

John C Carleton , December 17, 2017 7:20 AM

Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".

That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of, not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!

Kjell Hasthi -> John C Carleton , December 17, 2017 1:43 PM

- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".

The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals. This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.

rosemerry , December 17, 2017 3:29 PM

What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.

thomas malthaus -> Nationalist Globalist Oligarch , December 17, 2017 4:08 PM

I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.

I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably blended into other terror groups.

rosewood11 , December 17, 2017 2:03 PM

The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."

These Deep State actors in the US have hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their mountains to fall on them when it does.

Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!

You can call me Al -> rosewood11 , December 17, 2017 5:59 PM

I think that is a great comment.

Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.

Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.

Stop Bush and Clinton , December 17, 2017 8:41 PM

After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.

Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.

Nationalist Globalist Oligarch , December 17, 2017 2:54 PM

No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in Russia.

Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.

Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.

Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.

Guy , December 17, 2017 1:07 PM

For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.

http://www.informationclear...

I would highly recommend his latest book also .I am approx half way already and well worth the read.

Superior Europe , December 17, 2017 11:12 AM

New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).

Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th places respectively.

Kjell Hasthi -> Superior Europe , December 17, 2017 1:37 PM

- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Sweden Netherlands and Denmark

When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring junk?

"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."

Superior Europe is employed by Zionist BND?

[Dec 18, 2017] Gaius Publius: Explosive WikiLeaks Release Exposes Massive, Aggressive CIA Cyber Spying, Hacking Capability

Notable quotes:
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. ..."
"... Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." ..."
"... A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones." ..."
"... According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied." ..."
"... "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.] ..."
"... Do you still trust Windows Update? ..."
"... As of October 2014 the CIA was also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks. ..."
"... "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here . ..."
"... Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive. ..."
"... Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities. ..."
"... By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified. ..."
"... I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail. ..."
"... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
"... 4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices. ..."
"... So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events." ..."
"... My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table. ..."
"... To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out? ..."
"... Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them ..."
"... The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options. ..."
"... "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me. ..."
"... It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours. ..."
"... "These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened." ..."
Mar 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Yves here. The first release of the Wikileaks Vault 7 trove has curiously gone from being a MSM lead story yesterday to a handwave today. On the one hand, anyone who was half awake during the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the NSA is in full spectrum surveillance and data storage mode, and members of the Five Eyes back-scratch each other to evade pesky domestic curbs on snooping. So the idea that the CIA (and presumably the NSA) found a way to circumvent encryption tools on smartphones, or are trying to figure out how to control cars remotely, should hardly come as a surprise.

However, at a minimum, reminding the generally complacent public that they are being spied on any time they use the Web, and increasingly the times in between, makes the officialdom Not Happy.

And if this Wikileaks claim is even halfway true, its Vault 7 publication is a big deal:

Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

This is an indictment of the model of having the intelligence services rely heavily on outside contractors. It is far more difficult to control information when you have multiple organizations involved. In addition, neolibearlism posits that workers are free agents who have no loyalties save to their own bottom lines (or for oddballs, their own sense of ethics). Let us not forget that Snowden planned his career job moves , which included a stint at NSA contractor Dell, before executing his information haul at a Booz Allen site that he had targeted.

Admittedly, there are no doubt many individuals who are very dedicated to the agencies for which they work and aspire to spend most it not all of their working lives there. But I would assume that they are a minority.

The reason outsiders can attempt to pooh-pooh the Wikileaks release is that the organization redacted sensitive information like the names of targets and attack machines. The CIA staffers who have access to the full versions of these documents as well as other major components in the hacking toolkit will be the ones who can judge how large and serious the breach really is. 1 And their incentives are to minimize it no matter what.

By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

CIA org chart from the WikiLeaks cache (click to enlarge). "The organizational chart corresponds to the material published by WikiLeaks so far. Since the organizational structure of the CIA below the level of Directorates is not public, the placement of the EDG [Engineering Development Group] and its branches is reconstructed from information contained in the documents released so far. It is intended to be used as a rough outline of the internal organization; please be aware that the reconstructed org chart is incomplete and that internal reorganizations occur frequently."
* * *
"O brave new world, that has such people in it."

Bottom line first. As you read what's below, consider:

Now the story.

WikiLeaks just dropped a huge cache of documents (the first of several promised releases), leaked from a person or people associated with the CIA in one or more capacities (examples, employee, contractor), which shows an agency out-of-control in its spying and hacking overreach. Read through to the end. If you're like me, you'll be stunned, not just about what they can do, but that they would want to do it, in some cases in direct violation of President Obama's orders. This story is bigger than anything you can imagine.

Consider this piece just an introduction, to make sure the story stays on your radar as it unfolds - and to help you identify those media figures who will try to minimize or bury it. (Unless I missed it, on MSNBC last night, for example, the first mention of this story was not Chris Hayes, not Maddow, but the Lawrence O'Donnell show, and then only to support his guest's "Russia gave us Trump" narrative. If anything, this leak suggests a much muddier picture, which I'll explore in a later piece.)

So I'll start with just a taste, a few of its many revelations, to give you, without too much time spent, the scope of the problem. Then I'll add some longer bullet-point detail, to indicate just how much of American life this revelation touches.

While the cache of documents has been vetted and redacted , it hasn't been fully explored for implications. I'll follow this story as bits and piece are added from the crowd sourced research done on the cache of information. If you wish to play along at home, the WikiLeaks torrent file is here . The torrent's passphrase is here . WikiLeaks press release is here (also reproduced below). Their FAQ is here .

Note that this release covers the years 2013–2016. As WikiLeaks says in its FAQ, "The series is the largest intelligence publication in history."

Preface - Trump and Our "Brave New World"

But first, this preface, consisting of one idea only. Donald Trump is deep in the world of spooks now, the world of spies, agents and operatives. He and his inner circle have a nest of friends, but an even larger, more varied nest of enemies. As John Sevigny writes below, his enemies include not only the intel and counter-intel people, but also "Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul." Plus Vladimir Putin, whose relationship with Trump is just "business," an alliance of convenience, if you will.

I have zero sympathy for Donald Trump. But his world is now our world, and with both of his feet firmly planted in spook world, ours are too. He's in it to his neck, in fact, and what happens in that world will affect every one of us. He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office, that everyone on the list above wants to remove him. Many of them are allied, but if they are, it's also only for convenience.

How do spooks remove the inconvenient and unfit? I leave that to your imagination;they have their ways. Whatever method they choose, however, it must be one without fingerprints - or more accurately, without their fingerprints - on it.

Which suggests two more questions. One, who will help them do it, take him down? Clearly, anyone and everyone on the list. Second, how do you bring down the president, using extra-electoral, extra-constitutional means, without bringing down the Republic? I have no answer for that.

Here's a brief look at "spook world" (my phrase, not the author's) from " The Fox Hunt " by John Sevigny:

Several times in my life – as a journalist and rambling, independent photographer - I've ended up rubbing shoulders with spooks. Long before that was a racist term, it was a catch-all to describe intelligence community people, counter intel types, and everyone working for or against them. I don't have any special insight into the current situation with Donald Trump and his battle with the IC as the intelligence community calls itself, but I can offer a few first hand observations about the labyrinth of shadows, light, reflections, paranoia, perceptions and misperceptions through which he finds himself wandering, blindly. More baffling and scary is the thought he may have no idea his ankles are already bound together in a cluster of quadruple gordian knots, the likes of which very few people ever escape.

Criminal underworlds, of which the Trump administration is just one, are terrifying and confusing places. They become far more complicated once they've been penetrated by authorities and faux-authorities who often represent competing interests, but are nearly always in it for themselves.

One big complication - and I've written about this before - is that you never know who's working for whom . Another problem is that the hierarchy of handlers, informants, assets and sources is never defined. People who believe, for example, they are CIA assets are really just being used by people who are perhaps not in the CIA at all but depend on controlling the dupe in question. It is very simple - and I have seen this happen - for the subject of an international investigation to claim that he is part of that operation. [emphasis added]

Which leads Sevigny to this observation about Trump, which I partially quoted above: "Donald Trump may be crazy, stupid, evil or all three but he knows the knives are being sharpened and there are now too many blades for him to count. The intel people are against him, as are the counter intel people. His phone conversations were almost certainly recorded by one organization or another, legal or quasi legal. His enemies include Republican lawmakers, journalists, the Clintons, the Bush family, Barack Obama, the ACLU, every living Democrat and even Rand Paul. Putin is not on his side - that's a business matter and not an alliance."

Again, this is not to defend Trump, or even to generate sympathy for him - I personally have none. It's to characterize where he is, and we are, at in this pivotal moment. Pivotal not for what they're doing, the broad intelligence community. But pivotal for what we're finding out, the extent and blatancy of the violations.

All of this creates an incredibly complex story, with only a tenth or less being covered by anything like the mainstream press. For example, the Trump-Putin tale is much more likely to be part of a much broader "international mobster" story, whose participants include not only Trump and Putin, but Wall Street (think HSBC) and major international banks, sovereign wealth funds, major hedge funds, venture capital (vulture capital) firms, international drug and other trafficking cartels, corrupt dictators and presidents around the world and much of the highest reaches of the "Davos crowd."

Much of the highest reaches of the .01 percent, in other words, all served, supported and "curated" by the various, often competing elements of the first-world military and intelligence communities. What a stew of competing and aligned interests, of marriages and divorces of convenience, all for the common currencies of money and power, all of them dealing in death .

What this new WikiLeaks revelation shows us is what just one arm of that community, the CIA, has been up to. Again, the breadth of the spying and hacking capability is beyond imagination. This is where we've come to as a nation.

What the CIA Is Up To - A Brief Sample

Now about those CIA spooks and their surprising capabilities. A number of other outlets have written up the story, but this from Zero Hedge has managed to capture the essence as well as the breadth in not too many words (emphasis mine throughout):

WikiLeaks has published what it claims is the largest ever release of confidential documents on the CIA It includes more than 8,000 documents as part of 'Vault 7', a series of leaks on the agency, which have allegedly emerged from the CIA's Center For Cyber Intelligence in Langley , and which can be seen on the org chart below, which Wikileaks also released : [org chart reproduced above]

A total of 8,761 documents have been published as part of 'Year Zero', the first in a series of leaks the whistleblower organization has dubbed 'Vault 7.' WikiLeaks said that 'Year Zero' revealed details of the CIA's "global covert hacking program," including "weaponized exploits" used against company products including " Apple's iPhone , Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs , which are turned into covert microphones."

WikiLeaks tweeted the leak, which it claims came from a network inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virginia.

Among the more notable disclosures which, if confirmed, " would rock the technology world ", the CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services such as Signal, WhatsApp and Telegram. According to the statement from WikiLeaks, government hackers can penetrate Android phones and collect "audio and message traffic before encryption is applied."

With respect to hacked devices like you smart phone, smart TV and computer, consider the concept of putting these devices in "fake-off" mode:

Among the various techniques profiled by WikiLeaks is "Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), which infests smart TVs , transforming them into covert microphones. After infestation, Weeping Angel places the target TV in a 'Fake-Off' mode , so that the owner falsely believes the TV is off when it is on. In 'Fake-Off' mode the TV operates as a bug, recording conversations in the room and sending them over the Internet to a covert CIA server.

As Kim Dotcom chimed in on Twitter, "CIA turns Smart TVs, iPhones, gaming consoles and many other consumer gadgets into open microphones" and added "CIA turned every Microsoft Windows PC in the world into spyware. Can activate backdoors on demand, including via Windows update "[.]

Do you still trust Windows Update?

About "Russia did it"

Adding to the "Russia did it" story, note this:

Another profound revelation is that the CIA can engage in "false flag" cyberattacks which portray Russia as the assailant . Discussing the CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group, Wikileaks' source notes that it "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.["]

As Kim Dotcom summarizes this finding, " CIA uses techniques to make cyber attacks look like they originated from enemy state ."

This doesn't prove that Russia didn't do it ("it" meaning actually hacking the presidency for Trump, as opposed to providing much influence in that direction), but again, we're in spook world, with all the phrase implies. The CIA can clearly put anyone's fingerprints on any weapon they wish, and I can't imagine they're alone in that capability.

Hacking Presidential Devices?

If I were a president, I'd be concerned about this, from the WikiLeaks " Analysis " portion of the Press Release (emphasis added):

"Year Zero" documents show that the CIA breached the Obama administration's commitments [that the intelligence community would reveal to device manufacturers whatever vulnerabilities it discovered]. Many of the vulnerabilities used in the CIA's cyber arsenal are pervasive [across devices and device types] and some may already have been found by rival intelligence agencies or cyber criminals.

As an example, specific CIA malware revealed in "Year Zero" [that it] is able to penetrate, infest and control both the Android phone and iPhone software that runs or has run presidential Twitter accounts . The CIA attacks this software by using undisclosed security vulnerabilities ("zero days") possessed by the CIA[,] but if the CIA can hack these phones then so can everyone else who has obtained or discovered the vulnerability. As long as the CIA keeps these vulnerabilities concealed from Apple and Google (who make the phones) they will not be fixed, and the phones will remain hackable.

Does or did the CIA do this (hack presidential devices), or is it just capable of it? The second paragraph implies the latter. That's a discussion for another day, but I can say now that both Lawrence Wilkerson, aide to Colin Powell and a non-partisan (though an admitted Republican) expert in these matters, and William Binney, one of the triumvirate of major pre-Snowden leakers, think emphatically yes. (See Wilkerson's comments here . See Binney's comments here .)

Whether or not you believe Wilkerson and Binney, do you doubt that if our intelligence people can do something, they would balk at the deed itself, in this world of "collect it all "? If nothing else, imagine the power this kind of bugging would confer on those who do it.

The Breadth of the CIA Cyber-Hacking Scheme

But there is so much more in this Wikileaks release than suggested by the brief summary above. Here's a bullet-point overview of what we've learned so far, again via Zero Hedge:

Key Highlights from the Vault 7 release so far:

Also this scary possibility:

Journalist Michael Hastings, who in 2010 destroyed the career of General Stanley McChrystal and was hated by the military for it, was killed in 2013 in an inexplicably out-of-control car. This isn't to suggest the CIA, specifically, caused his death. It's to ask that, if these capabilities existed in 2013, what would prevent their use by elements of the military, which is, after all a death-delivery organization?

And lest you consider this last speculation just crazy talk, Richard Clarke (that Richard Clarke ) agrees: "Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism chief under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, told the Huffington Post that Hastings's crash looked consistent with a car cyber attack.'" Full and fascinating article here .

WiliLeaks Press Release

Here's what WikiLeaks itself says about this first document cache (again, emphasis mine):

Press Release

Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.

The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election .

Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

"Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.

Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.

By the end of 2016, the CIA's hacking division, which formally falls under the agency's Center for Cyber Intelligence (CCI), had over 5000 registered users and had produced more than a thousand hacking systems, trojans, viruses, and other "weaponized" malware. Such is the scale of the CIA's undertaking that by 2016, its hackers had utilized more code than that used to run Facebook. The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability and without publicly answering the question as to whether such a massive budgetary spend on duplicating the capacities of a rival agency could be justified.

In a statement to WikiLeaks the source details policy questions that they say urgently need to be debated in public , including whether the CIA's hacking capabilities exceed its mandated powers and the problem of public oversight of the agency. The source wishes to initiate a public debate about the security, creation, use, proliferation and democratic control of cyberweapons.

Once a single cyber 'weapon' is 'loose' it can spread around the world in seconds, to be used by rival states, cyber mafia and teenage hackers alike.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor stated that "There is an extreme proliferation risk in the development of cyber 'weapons'. Comparisons can be drawn between the uncontrolled proliferation of such 'weapons', which results from the inability to contain them combined with their high market value, and the global arms trade. But the significance of "Year Zero" goes well beyond the choice between cyberwar and cyberpeace. The disclosure is also exceptional from a political, legal and forensic perspective."

Wikileaks has carefully reviewed the "Year Zero" disclosure and published substantive CIA documentation while avoiding the distribution of 'armed' cyberweapons until a consensus emerges on the technical and political nature of the CIA's program and how such 'weapons' should analyzed, disarmed and published.

Wikileaks has also decided to redact and anonymise some identifying information in "Year Zero" for in depth analysis. These redactions include ten of thousands of CIA targets and attack machines throughout Latin America, Europe and the United States. While we are aware of the imperfect results of any approach chosen, we remain committed to our publishing model and note that the quantity of published pages in "Vault 7" part one ("Year Zero") already eclipses the total number of pages published over the first three years of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks.

Be sure to click through for the Analysis, Examples and FAQ sections as well.

"O brave new world," someone once wrote . Indeed. Brave new world, that only the brave can live in.

____

1 Mind you, the leakers may have had a comprehensive enough view to be making an accurate call. But the real point is there are no actors who will be allowed to make an independent assessment.

That's all I needed.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself.

The material, which has been seen by the Guardian, is a series of reports on Trump's relationship with Moscow. They were drawn up by a former western counter-intelligence official, now working as a private consultant. BuzzFeed on Tuesday published the documents, which it said were "unverified and potentially unverifiable".

The Guardian has not been able to confirm the veracity of the documents' contents,

Emphases mine. I had been sitting on this link trying to make sense of this part. Clearly, the Trump Whitehouse has some major leaks, which the MSM is exploiting. But the start of this article suggests that para-intelligence (is that a word? Eh, it is now) was the source of the allegedly damaging info.

This is no longer about the deep-state, but a rouge state, possibly guns for higher, each having fealty to specific political interests. The CIA arsenal wasn't leaked. It was delivered.

salvo , March 9, 2017 at 3:13 am

hmm.. as far as I can see, noone seems to care here in Germany anymore about being spied on by our US friends, apart from a few alternative sources which are being accused of spreading fake news, of being anti-american, russian trolls, the matter is widely ignored

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 3:40 am

I have read a few articles about the Vault 7 leak that typically raise a few alarms I would like to comment on.

1) The fact that the

CIA had managed to bypass encryption on popular phone and messaging services

does not mean that it has broken encryption, just that it has a way to install a program at a lower level, close to the operating system, that will read messages before they are encrypted and sent by the messaging app, or just after they have been decrypted by it.

As a side note: banks have now largely introduced two-factor authentication when accessing online services. One enters username (or account number) and password; the bank site returns a code; the user must then enter this code into a smartphone app or a tiny specialized device, which computes and returns a value out of it; the user enters this last value into the entry form as a throw-away additional password, and gains access to the bank website.

I have always refused to use such methods on a smartphone and insist on getting the specialized "single-use password computer", precisely because the smartphone platform can be subverted.

2) The fact that

"Weeping Angel", developed by the CIA's Embedded Devices Branch (EDB), [ ] infests smart TVs, transforming them into covert microphones.

is possible largely because smart TVs are designed by their manufacturers to serve as spying devices. "Weeping Angel" is not some kind of virus that turns normal devices into zombies, but a tool to take control of existing zombie devices.

The fact that smart TVs from Vizio , Samsung or LG constitute an outrageous intrusion into the privacy of their owners has been a known topic for years already.

3) The

CIA [ ] also looking at infecting the vehicle control systems used by modern cars and trucks

is not a "scary possibility" either; various demonstrations of such feats on Tesla , Nissan , or Chrysler vehicles have been demonstrated in the past few years.

And the consequences have already been suggested (killing people by disabling their car controls on the highway for instance).

My take on this is that we should seriously look askance not just at the shenanigans of the CIA, but at the entire "innovative technology" that is imposed upon (computerized cars) or joyfully adopted by (smartphones) consumers. Of course, most NC readers are aware of the pitfalls already, but alas not the majority of the population.

4) Finally this:

He's so impossibly erratic, so impossibly unfit for his office,

Trump is arguably unfit for office, does not have a clue about many things (such as foreign relations), but by taxing him of being "erratic" Gaius Publius shows that he still does not "get" the Donald.

Trump has a completely different modus operandi than career politicians, formed by his experience as a real-estate mogul and media star. His world has been one where one makes outrageous offers to try anchoring the negotiation before reducing one's claims - even significantly, or abruptly exiting just before an agreement to strike a deal with another party that has been lured to concessions through negotiations with the first one. NC once included a video of Trump doing an interactive A/B testing of his slogans during a campaign meeting; while changing one's slogans on the spot might seem "erratic", it is actually a very systematic market probing technique.

So stop asserting that Trump is "unpredictable" or "irrational"; this is underestimating him (a dangerous fault), as he is very consistent, though in an uncommon fashion amongst political pundits.

Yves Smith Post author , March 9, 2017 at 5:53 am

While I agree that it's worth pointing out that the CIA has not broken any of the major encryption tools, even Snowden regards being able to circumvent them as worse, since people using encryption are presumably those who feel particularly at risk and will get a false sense of security and say things or keep data on their devices that they never never would if they thought they were insecure.

Re Gaius on Trump, I agree the lady doth protest too much. But I said repeatedly that Trump would not want to be President if he understood the job. It is not like being the CEO of a private company. Trump has vastly more control over his smaller terrain in his past life than he does as President.

And Trump is no longer campaigning. No more a/b testing.

The fact is that he still does not have effective control of the Executive branch. He has lots of open positions in the political appointee slots (largely due to not having even submitted candidates!) plus has rebellion in some organizations (like folks in the EPA storing data outside the agency to prevent its destruction).

You cannot pretend that Trump's former MO is working at all well for him. And he isn't showing an ability to adapt or learn (not surprising at his age). For instance, he should have figured out by now that DC is run by lawyers, yet his team has hardly any on it. This is continuing to be a source of major self inflicted wounds.

His erraticness may be keeping his opponents off base, but it is also keeping him from advancing any of his goals.

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 6:59 am

I believe we are in agreement.

Yes, not breaking encryption is devious, as it gives a false sense of security - this is precisely why I refuse to use those supposedly secure e-banking login apps on smartphones whose system software can be subverted, and prefer those non-connected, non-reprogrammable, special-purpose password generating devices.

As for Trump being incompetent for his job, and his skills in wheeling-dealing do not carrying over usefully to conducting high political offices, that much is clear. But he is not "erratic", rather he is out of place and out of his depth.

RBHoughton , March 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

I am writing this in the shower with a paper bag over my head and my iPhone in the microwave.

I have for years had a password-protected document on computer with all my important numbers and passwords. I have today deleted that document and reverted to a paper record.

Ivy , March 9, 2017 at 10:09 am

Please tell readers more about the following for our benefit:

"single-use password computer"

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 11:34 am

That is an example of the sort of thing I am talking about.

PhilM , March 9, 2017 at 11:35 am

I think he means a machine dedicated to high-security operations like anything financial or bill-pay. Something that is not exposed to email or web-browsing operations that happen on a casual-use computer that can easily compromise. That's not a bad way to go; it's cheaper in terms of time than the labor-intensive approaches I use, but those are a hobby more than anything else. It depends on how much you have at stake if they get your bank account or brokerage service password.

I take a few basic security measures, which would not impress the IT crowd I hang out with elsewhere, but at least would not make me a laughingstock. I run Linux and use only open-source software; run ad-blockers and script blockers; confine risky operations, which means any non-corporate or non-mainstream website to a virtual machine that is reset after each use; use separate browsers with different cookie storage policies and different accounts for different purposes. I keep a well-maintained pfSense router with a proxy server and an intrusion detection system, allowing me to segregate my secure network, home servers, guest networks, audiovisual streaming and entertainment devices, and IoT devices each on their own VLANs with appropriate ACLs between them. No device on the more-secured network is allowed out to any port without permission, and similar rules are there for the IoT devices, and the VoIP tools.

The hardware to do all of that costs at least $700, but the real expense is in the time to learn the systems properly. Of course if you use Linux, you could save that on software in a year if you are too cheap to send a contribution to the developers.

It's not perfect, because I still have computers turned on :) , but I feel a bit safer this way.

That said, absolutely nothing that I have here would last 30 milliseconds against anything the "hats" could use, if they wanted in. It would be over before it began. If I had anything to hide, really, I would have something to fear; so guess I'm OK.

jrs , March 9, 2017 at 2:36 pm

open source software often has a lot of bugs to be exploioted. Wouldn't it be easier to just do banking in person?

visitor , March 9, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Banks discourage that by

a) charging extortionate fees for "in-person" operations at the counter;

b) closing subsidiaries, thus making it tedious and time-consuming to visit a branch to perform banking operations in person;

c) eliminating the possibility to perform some or even all usual operations in any other form than online (see the advent of "Internet only" banks).

In theoretical terms, all this is called "nudging".

cfraenkel , March 9, 2017 at 12:07 pm

They're key fobs handed to you by your IT dept. The code displayed changes every couple of minutes. The plus is there's nothing sent over the air. The minus is the fobs are subject to theft, and are only good for connecting to 'home'. And since they have a cost, and need to be physically handed to you, they're not good fit for most two factor login applications (ie logging into your bank account).

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_SecurID

meme , March 9, 2017 at 3:53 am

I watched (fast forwarded through, really) Morning Joe yesterday to see what they would have to say about Wikileaks. The show mostly revolved around the health care bill and Trump's lying and tweeting about Obama wiretapping him. They gave Tim Kaine plenty of time to discuss his recent trip to London talking to "some of our allies there" saying that they are concerned that "all the intelligence agencies" say the Rooskies "cyber hacked" our election, and since it looks like we aren't doing anything when we are attacked, they KNOW we won't do anything when they are attacked. (more red baiting)

The only two mentions I saw was about Wikileaks were, first, a question asked of David Cohen, ex Deputy Director of the CIA, who refused to confirm the Wikileaks were authentic, saying whatever tools and techniques the CIA had were used against foreign persons overseas, so there is no reason to worry that your TV is looking at you. And second, Senator Tom Cotton, who didn't want to comment on the contents of Wikileaks, only saying that the CIA is a foreign intelligence service, collecting evidence on foreign targets to keep our country safe, and it does not do intelligence work domestically.

So that appears to be their story, the CIA doesn't spy on us, and they are sticking with it, probably hoping the whole Wikileaks thing just cycles out of the news.

Direction , March 9, 2017 at 4:23 am

Thanks for mentioning Hastings. His death has always been more than suspicious.

skippy , March 9, 2017 at 5:46 am

Elite risk management reduction tool goes walkabout inverting its potential ..

disheveled . love it when a plan comes together ..

james wordsworth , March 9, 2017 at 5:50 am

The unwillingness of the main stream media (so far) to really cover the Wikileaks reveal is perhaps the bigger story. This should be ongoing front page stuff .. but it is not.

As for using ZeroHedge as a source for anything, can we give that a rest. That site has become a cesspool of insanity. It used to have some good stuff. Now it is just unreadable. SAD

And yes I know the hypocrisy of slamming ZH and the MSM at the same time we live in interesting times.

Yves Smith Post author , March 9, 2017 at 7:52 am

Your remarks on ZH are an ad hominem attack and therefore a violation of site policies. The onus is on you to say what ZH got wrong and not engage in an ungrounded smear. The mainstream media often cites ZH.

NC more than just about any other finance site is loath to link to ZH precisely because it is off base or hyperventilating a not acceptably high percent of the time, and is generally wrong about the Fed (as in governance and how money works). We don't want to encourage readers to see it as reliable. However, it is good on trader gossip and mining Bloomberg data.

And I read through its summary of the Wikileaks material as used by Gaius and there was nothing wrong with it. It was careful about attributing certain claims to Wikileaks as opposed to depicting them as true.

3urypteris , March 9, 2017 at 12:14 pm

My rules for reading ZH:
1- Skip every article with no picture
2- Skip every article where the picture is a graph
3- Skip every article where the picture is of a single person's face
4- Skip every afticle where the picture is a cartoon
5- Skip every article about gold, BitCoin, or high-frequency trading
6- Skip all the "Guest Posts"
7- ALWAYS click through to the source
8- NEVER read the comments

It is in my opinion a very high noise-to-signal source, but there is some there there.

sunny129 , March 9, 2017 at 7:20 pm

Finding the TRUTH is NOT that easy.

Discerning a 'news from noise' is NEVER that easy b/c it is an art, developed by years of shifting through ever increasing 'DATA information' load. This again has to be filtered and tested against one's own 'critical' thinking or reasoning! You have to give ZH, deserved credit, when they are right!

There is no longer a Black or white there, even at ZH! But it is one of the few, willing to challenge the main stream narrative 'kool aid'

TheCatSaid , March 9, 2017 at 6:14 am

In addition to the "para-intelligence" community (hat tip Code named D) there are multiple enterprises with unique areas of expertise that interface closely with the CIA The long-exposed operations, which include entrapment and blackmailing of key actors to guarantee complicity, "loyalty" and/or sealed lips, infect businesses, NGOs, law enforcement agencies, judges, politicians, and other government agencies. Equal opportunity employment for those with strong stomachs and a weak moral compass.

Romancing The Loan , March 9, 2017 at 8:43 am

Yes I can't remember where I read it but it was a tale passed around supposedly by an FBI guy that had, along with his colleagues, the job of vetting candidates for political office. They'd do their background research and pass on either a thick or thin folder full of all the compromising dirt on each potential appointee. Over time he said he was perturbed to notice a persistent pattern where the thickest folders were always the ones who got in.

nobody , March 9, 2017 at 10:10 am

Michael Hudson :

I learned this when I was in my 20s. The Catholic Church was funding my early critique of American foreign aid as being imperialist. I asked whether they thought I should go into politics. They said, "No, you'd never make it". And I said, "Why?" and they said, "Well, nobody has a police record or any other dirt on you." I asked what they meant. They said, "Unless they have something over you to blackmail you with, you're not going to be able to get campaign funding. Because they believe that you might do something surprising," in other words, something they haven't asked you to do. So basically throughout politics, on both sides of the spectrum, voters have candidates who are funded by backers who have enough over them that they can always blackmail.

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 8:20 am

I find the notion that my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones somewhat irritating, but my imagination quickly runs off to far worse scenarios. (although the popular phase, "You're tax dollars at work." keeps running thru my head like a earworm. And whenever I hear "conservatives" speak of their desire for "small government", usually when topics of health care, Medicare and social security come up, I can only manage a snort of incredulousness anymore)

One being malware penetrating our nuke power plants and shutting down the cooling system. Then the reactor slowly overheats over the next 3 days, goes critical, and blows the surrounding area to high heaven. We have plants all around the coast of the country and also around the Great Lakes Region – our largest fresh water store in a drought threatened future.

Then the same happening in our offensive nuke missile systems.

Some other inconvenient truths – the stuxnet virus has been redesigned. Kaspersky – premier anti malware software maker – had a variant on their corporate network for months before finally discovering it. What chance have we?

In China, hacking is becoming a consumer service industry. There are companies building high power data centers with a host of hacking tools. Anyone, including high school script kiddies, can rent time to use the sophisticated hacking tools, web search bots, and whatever, all hosted on powerful servers with high speed internet bandwidth.

Being a bit "spooked" by all this, I began to worry about my humble home computer and decided to research whatever products I could get to at least ward off annoying vandalism. Among other things, I did sign up for a VPN service. I'm looking at the control app for my VPN connection here and I see that with a simple checkbox mouse click I can make my IP address appear to be located in my choice of 40 some countries around the world. Romania is on the list!

flora , March 9, 2017 at 11:11 am

"my consumer electronics may be CIA microphones "

I haven't tested this, so can't confirm it works, but it sounds reasonable.
http://www.komando.com/tips/390304/secure-your-webcam-and-microphone-from-hackers

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 12:40 pm

Actually, I very much doubt that does work. The mic "pickup" would feed its analog output to a DAC (digital to analog converter) which would convert the signal to digital. This then goes to something similar to a virtual com port in the operating system. Here is where a malware program would pick it up and either create a audio file to be sent to an internet address, or stream it directly there.

The article is just plugging in a microphone at the output jack. The malware got the data long before it goes thru another DAC and analog amp to get to the speakers or output jack.

craazyboy , March 9, 2017 at 12:46 pm

s/b "plugging in a earbud at the output jack". They're confusing me too.

flora , March 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm

ah. thanks for vetting.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 2:53 pm

It's actually a input/output jack or, if you will, a mic/headphone jack.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 2:52 pm

It depends on how it is hooked up internally. Old fashioned amateur radio headphones would disable the speakers when plugged in because the physical insertion of the plug pushed open the connection to the speakers. The jack that you plug the ear buds into might do the same, disconnecting the path between the built-in microphone and the ADC (actually it is an ADC not a DAC). The only way to know is to take it apart and see how it is connected.

Pat , March 9, 2017 at 8:27 am

The CIA is not allowed to operate in the US is also the panacea for the public. And some are buying it. Along with everyone knows they can do this is fueling the NOTHING to see here keep walking weak practically non existent coverage.

Eureka Springs , March 9, 2017 at 8:31 am

At what point do people quit negotiating in terrorism and errorism? For this is what the police, the very State itself has long been. Far beyond being illegitimate, illegal, immoral, this is a clear and ever present danger to not just it's own people, but the rule of law itself. Blanket statements like we all know this just makes the dangerously absurd normal I'll never understand that part of human nature. But hey, the TSA literally just keeps probing further each and every year. Bend over!

Trump may not be the one for the task but we the people desperately need people 'unfit', for it is the many fit who brought us to this point. His unfit nature is as refreshing on these matters in its chaotic honest disbelief as Snowden and Wiki revelations. Refreshing because it's all we've got. One doesn't have to like Trump to still see missed opportunity so many should be telling him he could be the greatest pres ever if (for two examples) he fought tirelessly for single payer and to bring down this police state rather than the EPA or public education.

This cannot stand on so many levels. Not only is the fourth amendment rendered utterly void, but even if it weren't it falls far short of the protections we deserve.

No enemy could possibly be as bad as who we are and what we allow/do among ourselves. If an election can be hacked (not saying it was by Russia).. as these and other files prove anything can and will be hacked then our system is to blame, not someone else.

What amazes me is that the spooks haven't manufactured proof needed to take Trump out of office Bonfire of The Vanities style. I'd like to think the people have moved beyond the point they would believe manufactured evidence but the Russia thing proves otherwise.

These people foment world war while probing our every move and we do nothing!

If we wait for someone fit nothing will ever change because we wait for the police/media/oligarch state to tell us who is fit.

Anon , March 9, 2017 at 2:40 pm

being "unfit" does not automatically make someone a savior.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 3:05 pm

But being fit by the standards of our ruling class, the "real owners" as Carlin called them is, in my book, an automatic proof that they are up to no good. Trump is not my cup of tea as a president but no one we have had in a while wasn't clearly compromised by those who fund them. Did you ever wonder why we have never had a president or even a powerful member of congress that was not totally in the tank for that little country on the Eastern Mediterranean? Or the Gulf Monarchies? Do you think that is by accident? Do you think money isn't involved? Talk about hacked elections! We should be so lucky as to have ONLY Russians attempting to affect our elections. Money is what hacks US elections and never forget that. To me it is laughable to discuss hacking the elections without discussing the real way our "democracy" is subverted–money not document leaks or voting machine hacks. It's money.

Why isn't Saudi Arabia on Trump's list? Iran that has never been involved in a terrorist act on US soil is but not Saudi Arabia? How many 911 hijackers came from Iran? If anything saves Trump from destruction by the real owners of our democracy it is his devotion to the aforementioned countries.

Allegorio , March 9, 2017 at 4:00 pm

The point again is not to remove him from office but to control him. With Trump's past you better believe the surveillance state has more than enough to remove him from office. Notice the change in his rhetoric since inauguration? More and more he is towing the establishment Republican line. Of course this depends on whether you believe Trump is a break with the past or just the best liar out there. A very unpopular establishment would be clever in promoting their agent by pretending to be against him.

Anyone who still believes that the US is a democratic republic and not a mafia state needs to stick their heads deeper into the sands. When will the low information voters and police forces on whom a real revolution depends realize this is anyone's guess. The day is getting closer especially for the younger generation. The meme among the masses is that government has always been corrupt and that this is nothing new. I do believe the level of immorality among the credentialed classes is indeed very new and has become the new normal. Generations of every man for himself capitalist philosophy undermining any sense of morality or community has finally done its work.

HBE , March 9, 2017 at 8:47 am

Go take a jaunt over to huffpo, at the time of this post there was not a single mention of vault 7 on the front page. Just a long series of anti trump administration articles.

Glad to know for sure who the true warmongers were all along.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 8:50 am

We need another Church Commission.

Eureka Springs , March 9, 2017 at 8:59 am

No.. The Church commission was a sweep it under the rug operation. It got us FISA courts. More carte blanche secrecy, not less. The commission nor the rest of the system didn't even hold violators of the time accountable.

We have files like Vault 7. Commissions rarely get in secret what we have right here before our eyes.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Well, how about a Truth and Reconciliation Commission?

Foppe , March 9, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Cute but the ANC lost the war by acceding to WTO entry (which "forbade" distributive politics, land/resource redistribution, nationalizations, etc.).

River , March 9, 2017 at 10:59 am

Need Langley surrounded and fired upon by tanks at this point.

Err on the side of caution.

DJG , March 9, 2017 at 12:49 pm

River: Interesting historic parallel? I believe that the Ottomans got rid of the Janissaries that way, after the Janissaries had become a state within a state, by using cannons on their HQ

From Wiki entry, Janissaries:

The corps was abolished by Sultan Mahmud II in 1826 in the Auspicious Incident in which 6,000 or more were executed.[8]

polecat , March 9, 2017 at 12:53 pm

"Nuke it from orbit it's the only way to be sure . "

knowbuddhau , March 9, 2017 at 9:01 am

Took less than a minute to download the 513.33MB file. The passphrase is what JFK said he'd like to do to CIA: SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds.

"The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger, 1975.

Stormcrow , March 9, 2017 at 9:35 am

Here is Raimondo's take:
Spygate
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/07/spygate-americas-political-police-vs-donald-j-trump/

The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.

The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed, Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.

And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.

We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.

What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.

This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.

Perhapps overstated but well worth pondering.

SplinterItIntoAThousandPiecesAndScatterItIntoTheWinds. , March 9, 2017 at 10:06 am

Yeah I downloaded it the day it came out and spent an hour or so looking at it last night. First impressions – "heyyy this is like a Hackers Guide – the sort I used in the 80s, or DerEngel's Cable Modem Hacking" of the 00s.

2nd impressions – wow it really gives foundational stuff – like "Enable Debug on PolarSSL".

3rd impressions – "I could spend hours going thru this happily ".

4th impressions – I went looking for the "juicy bits" of interest to me – SOHO routers, small routers – sadly its just a table documenting routers sold around the world, and whether these guys have put the firmware in their Stash Repository. Original firmware, not hacked one. But the repository isn't in the vault dump, AFAIK.

Its quite fascinating. But trying to find the "juicy stuff" is going to be tedious. One can spend hours and hours going thru it. To speed up going thru it, I'm going to need some tech sites to say "where to go".

flora , March 9, 2017 at 11:21 am

It seems clear that Wikileaks has not and will not release actual ongoing method "how-to" info or hacking scripts. They are releasing the "whats", not the tech level detailed "hows". This seems like a sane approach to releasing the data. The release appears to be for political discussion, not for spreading the hacking tools. So I wouldn't look for "juicy bits" about detailed methodology. Just my guess.

That said, love what you're doing digging into this stuff. I look forward to a more detailed report in future. Thanks.

Sam F , March 9, 2017 at 10:10 am

Yves, I think that you much underestimate the extremity of these exposed violations of the security of freedom of expression, and of the security of private records. The WikiLeaks docs show that CIA has developed means to use all personal digital device microphones and cameras even when they are "off," and to send all of your files and personal data to themselves, and to send your private messages to themselves before they are encrypted. They have installed these spyware in the released version of Windows 10, and can easily install them on all common systems and devices.

This goes far beyond the kind of snooping that required specialized devices installed near the target, which could be controlled by warrant process. There is no control over this extreme spying. It is totalitarianism now.

This is probably the most extreme violation of the rights of citizens by a government in all of history. It is far worse than the "turnkey tyranny" against which Snowden warned, on the interception of private messages. It is tyranny itself, the death of democracy.

Outis Philalithopoulos , March 9, 2017 at 10:58 am

Your first sentence is a bit difficult to understand. If you read Yves' remarks introducing the post, she says that the revelations are "a big deal" "if the Wikileaks claim is even halfway true," while coming down hard on the MSM and others for "pooh-pooh[ing]" the story. Did you want her to add more exclamation points?

susan the other , March 9, 2017 at 10:59 am

So we have a zillion ways to spy and hack and deceive and assassinate, but no control. I think this is what the military refers to as "being overtaken by events."

It's easy to gather information; not so easy to analyze it, and somehow impossible to act on it in good faith. With all this ability to know stuff and surveil people the big question is, Why does everything seem so beyond our ability to control it?

We should know well in advance that banks will fail catastrophically; that we will indeed have sea level rise; that resources will run out; that water will be undrinkable; that people will be impossible to manipulate when panic hits – but what do we do? We play dirty tricks, spy on each other like voyeurs, and ignore the inevitable. Like the Stasi, we clearly know what happened, what is happening and what is going to happen. But we have no control.

NotTimothyGeithner , March 9, 2017 at 11:34 am

My godfather was in the CIA in the late sixties and early seventies, and he said that outside of the President's pet projects there was no way to sift through and bring important information to decision makers before it made the Washington Post (he is aware of the irony) and hit the President's breakfast table.

Arizona Slim , March 9, 2017 at 1:33 pm

Do you mean to say that the CIA leaked like a sieve? That's my understanding of your post.

Old Jake , March 9, 2017 at 6:05 pm

AS, I would interpret it as saying that there was so much coming in it was like trying to classify snowflakes in a snowstorm. They could pick a few subject areas to look at closely but the rest just went into the files.

Leaking like a sieve is also likely, but perhaps not the main point.

Andrew , March 9, 2017 at 11:14 am

The archive appears to have been circulated among government hackers and contractors in a authorized manner

There, that looks the more likely framing considering CIA & DNI on behalf of the whole US IC seemingly fostered wide dissimilation of these tools, information. Demonstration of media control an added plus.

Cheers Yves

Stormcrow , March 9, 2017 at 11:20 am

The Empire Strikes Back

WikiLeaks Has Joined the Trump Administration
Max Boot
Foreign Policy magazine

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/08/wikileaks-has-joined-the-trump-administration/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+Campaign&utm_term=%2AEditors+Picks

I guess we can only expect more of this.

Todd Pierce , on the other hand, nails it. (From his Facebook page.)
The East German Stasi could only dream of the sort of surveillance the NSA and CIA do now, with just as nefarious of purposes.

lyman alpha blob , March 9, 2017 at 11:42 am

Perhaps the scare quotes around "international mobster" aren't really necessary.

In all this talk about the various factions aligned with and against Trump, that's one I haven't heard brought up by anybody. With all the cement poured in Trump's name over the years, it would be naive to think his businesses had not brushed up against organized crime at some point. Question is, whose side are they on?

JTMcPhee , March 9, 2017 at 3:02 pm

Like all the other players, the "side" they are on is them-effing-selves. And isn't that the whole problem with our misbegotten species, writ large?

Then there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1Hzds9aGdA Maybe these people will be around and still eating after us urban insects and rodents are long gone? Or will our rulers decide no one should survive if they don't?

Skip Intro , March 9, 2017 at 12:55 pm

To what extent do these hacks represent the CIA operating within the US? To what extent is that illegal? With the democrats worshipping the IC, will anyone in an official position dare to speak out?

tegnost , March 9, 2017 at 1:05 pm

Well we know chuckie won't speak out..

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/312605-schumer-trump-being-really-dumb-by-going-after-intelligence-community

FTA "Schumer said that as he understands, intelligence officials are "very upset with how [Trump] has treated them and talked about them.""

Oregoncharles , March 9, 2017 at 2:17 pm

I've long thought that the reason Snowden was pursued so passionately was that he exposed the biggest, most embarrassing secret: that the National "Security" Agency's INTERNAL security was crap.

And here it is: "Wikileaks claims that the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal "

The CIA's internal security is crap, too. Really a lot of people should be fired over that, as well as over Snowden's release. We didn't hear of it happening in the NSA, though I'm not sure we would have. Given Gaius's description of Trump's situation, it seems unlikely it will happen this time, either. One of my hopes for a Trump administration, as long as we're stuck with it, was a thorough cleanout of the upper echelons in the IC. It's obviously long overdue, and Obama wasn't up to it. But I used the past tense because I don't think it's going to happen. Trump seems more interested in sucking up to them, presumably so they won't kill him or his family. That being one of their options.

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 3:51 pm

Ah, that's the beauty of contracting it out. No one gets fired. Did anyone get fired because of Snowden? It was officially a contractor problem and since there are only a small number of contractors capable of doing the work, well you know. We can't get new ones.

tiebie66 , March 9, 2017 at 2:59 pm

What I find by far the most distressing is this: "The CIA had created, in effect, its "own NSA" with even less accountability ." [My emphasis]. It seems to characterize an organization that operates outside of any control and oversight – and one that is intentionally structuring itself that way. That worries me.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Republic is lost because we didn't stand guard for it. Blaming others don't cut it either – we let it happen. And like the Germans about the Nazi atrocities, we will say that we didn't know about it.

JTMcPhee , March 9, 2017 at 3:06 pm

Hey, I didn't let it happen. Stuff that spooks and sh!tes do behind the Lycra ™ curtain happens because it is, what is the big word again, "ineluctable." Is my neighbor to blame for having his house half eaten by both kinds of termites, where the construction is such that the infestation and damage are invisible until the vast damage is done?

Stephen Gardner , March 9, 2017 at 4:08 pm

And just how were we supposed to stand guard against a secret and unaccountable organization that protected itself with a shield of lies? And every time some poor misfit complained about it they were told that they just didn't know the facts. If they only knew what our IC knows they would not complain.

It's a dangerous world out there and only our brave IC can protect us from it. Come on. Stop blaming the victim and place the blame where it belongs–our IC and MIC. I say stop feeding the beast with your loyalty to a government that has ceased to be yours.

Studiously avoid any military celebrations. Worship of the military is part of the problem. Remember, the people you thank for "their service" are as much victims as you are. Sadly they don't realize that their service is to a rotten empire that is not worthy of their sacrifice but every time we perform the obligatory ritual of thankfulness we participate in the lie that the service is to a democratic country instead of an undemocratic empire.

It's clearly a case of Wilfred Owen's classic "Dulce et Decorum Est". Read the poem, google it and read it. It is instructive: " you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori." Make no mistake. It is a lie and it can only be undone if we all cease to tell it.

nonsense factory , March 9, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Here's a pretty decent review of the various CIA programs revealed by Wikileaks:

http://www.libertyforjoe.com/2017/03/what-is-vault-7.html

"These CIA revelations in conjunction with those of the NSA paints a pretty dark future for privacy and freedom. Edward Snowden made us aware of the NSA's program XKEYSCORE and PRISM which are utilized to monitor and bulk collect information from virtually any electronic device on the planet and put it into a searchable database. Now Wikileaks has published what appears to be additional Big Brother techniques used by a competing agency. Say what you want about the method of discovery, but Pandora's box has been opened."

[Dec 17, 2017] Dr. Stephen Cohen on Tucker Carlson: Empty Accusations of Russian Meddling Have Become Grave National Security Threat

Notable quotes:
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.

The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.

Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.

Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute a "grave American national security threat."

At the very end of the interview, Tucker's very un-furrowed eyebrows agreed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtwFEA4dM18

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

[Dec 17, 2017] Whither the Anti-war Movement by Daniel Martin

Notable quotes:
"... The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern. ..."
"... Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. ..."
"... The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The duopoly succumbed to the war machine, while organized resistance got pushed to the fringe

Veterans For Peace rally in Washington, less than a month after 9/11. Credit: Elvert Barnes/Flickr

"Imagine there's no heaven and no religion too."

A more useful line when it comes to our current wars may be "Imagine there's no duopoly." It's hard to fault John Lennon for his idealism, of course. In his day, many blamed religion on the wars of history. But a much bigger obstacle right now, at least in the U.S., is partisanship. The two major political parties, in power and out, have been so co-opted by the war machine that any modern anti-war movement has been completely subsumed and marginalized -- even as American troops and killer drones continue to operate in or near combat zones all over the world.

Aside from the very early days of the Iraq war, the anti-war movement has been a small, ineffectual pinprick on the post-9/11 landscape. A less generous assessment is that it's been a bust. After liberals helped elect the "anti-war" Barack Obama, the movement all but disappeared, even though the wars did not. By putting a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic face on his inherited wars, Obama expanded into new conflicts (Libya, Syria, Yemen) with little resistance, ultimately bombing seven different countries during his tenure. By 2013, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin lamented , "We've been protesting Obama's foreign policy for years now, but we can't get the same numbers because the people who would've been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama."

It's easy to blame the military-industrial complex, the corporate media, and the greed and malleability of politicians. But what about the anti-war movement itself? Why has it failed so miserably, and can it revive as President Donald Trump continues the wars of his predecessors and threatens new ones?

The rallies and protests in the early 2000s attracted significant numbers but they were weighed down by far-left organizations like the World Workers Party, which brought with them myriad other issues beyond war like global warming and poverty. There was also long-held and fairly broad skepticism about the intentions of United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which organized most of the big protests over the last 17 years. This was due to the "big tent" affiliations of some of their steering committee members, which critics say led to a dilution of the message and drove the anti-war movement further from the mainstream.

Perhaps the movement's biggest weakness was that it shied away from directly attacking its own -- the liberal Democrats who voted for the war in Congress.

In a sense, Democrats did emerge as the de facto anti-war party during the Iraq war, but that was only because a Republican -- George W. Bush -- was commander-in-chief. And what of the Democrats who voted for the war and continued to fund it? Out of 77 senators who supported the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002, 20 are still in office and roughly half are Democrats, while out of the 296 votes in favor in the House, 90 are still in office and 57 of them are Democrats. Some of them, like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, went on to become party leaders. Two others, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, went on to become secretaries of state and their party's nominees for president in 2004 and 2016 respectively. All went on to support new military interventions and regime changes, albeit under a new, liberal interventionist, Democratic banner.

Conversely, steadfast non-interventionist Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the resolution, failed badly in both his 2004 and 2008 attempts at his party's presidential nomination. Bottom line: Support for the war was hardly a deal-breaker for voters, any more than opposition to it was a dealmaker.

Reaction to war is just a microcosm of the political landscape, a manifestation of partisan-driven, short-term memory. Sure there might have been momentary disapproval, but when it came time to decide whether supporters of the war stayed or went, the sins of one's party leaders meant very little in the zero-sum game of electoral politics. Parties outside the duopoly be damned.

The same thing happened to the anti-war right, as the Ron Paul movement took off in 2008 with an immense level of grassroots energy. One of the singular successes of his movement was the ability to reach people on an intellectual and practical level about the folly of our foreign interventions and the waste, fraud, and abuse of tax dollars. Paul didn't shy from criticizing his own party's leaders and actions. He explained the Federal Reserve's relationship to the monetary costs of war.

Ultimately, media blackouts and distortion of Paul's message (for example, conflating his non-interventionist foreign policy views with "isolationism") helped kill his campaign. After Paul's 2008 defeat, conservative political activists seized upon the Texas congressman's libertarian-leaning revolutionary momentum and channeled it into the Tea Party -- while leaving the non-interventionist impulses behind. By 2011, national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin acknowledged , "On foreign policy probably the majority [of Tea Party Patriots] are more like [hawks] Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich."

And don't underestimate how the escalation of drone warfare during the Obama presidency muted the anti-war effort. Drone attacks made fewer headlines because they supposedly caused less collateral damage and kept U.S. troops out of harm's way, which was portrayed by administration officials and the war establishment in Washington as progress.

What the drone program did, in essence, was to create the illusion of "less war." Nevertheless, studies showing an increase of terrorism since the beginning of the "war on terror" indicate precisely the opposite: Civilian drone deaths (not always reported) create more enemies, meaning more of our troops will be put in harm's way eventually.

So where should the anti-war movement go from here? Perhaps it should begin by tempering its far-left impulses and embracing its allies on the right who have been made to feel unwelcome. They could take a lesson from right-leaning places like Antiwar.com and TAC that have long been open to writers and activists on the left.

Meanwhile, flying "Resist Trump" signs at rallies not only misses the mark by suggesting that our needless wars aren't a bipartisan, systemic problem, but creates a non-inclusive atmosphere for anti-war Trump voters. Ironically, not much "resistance" was heard when Democrats recently helped pass Trump's $700 billion 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and failed to repeal the original post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, as was advocated for by Senator Rand Paul this year.

In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution. Most people are willing to accept that there's a big difference between that and the terrible waste and tragedy that comes with waging unnecessary wars overseas.

They are also averse to their lawmakers doing favors for special interests. Focusing on the money and influence that giant defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have on Capitol Hill -- essentially making war a business -- makes the anti-war point by raising the issue of crony capitalism and the cozy relationship between politicians and big business, which increasingly leaves the American public out of the equation.

These corporations, along with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, have accounted for $42 million in contributions to congressional candidates since 2009, with $12 million in the 2016 cycle alone. The majority of these funds have targeted Armed Services Committee members, such as perennial war hawk John McCain. In addition, influential neoconservative think tanks have received millions in grants over the years from "philanthropic" organizations such as the Bradley Foundation and the Olin Foundation, which have corporate backgrounds in the defense industry. The conservative Heritage Foundation is reportedly considering the vice president of Lockheed as its new president.

Furthermore, mantras and slogans like, "you're either with us or against us" and "support our troops" have been used as powerful psy-ops to create a false dichotomy: you either support the war policy or you're not patriotic. Debunking this by pointing out how these wars profit the elite while serving as a pipeline that puts more American military servicemembers -- often from working-class backgrounds -- into harm's way should appeal to the current populist spirit on both sides of the political fence. In fact, it could begin to draw new, disenchanted voters into the movement.

Americans today are tired of war, which is good, for now. Unfortunately, without a strong anti-war movement, there won't be much resistance when the next "big threat" comes along. The two major parties have proven to be false friends when it comes to opposing war -- they only do it when it suits them politically. Moving beyond them and becoming stronger with allies and numbers -- imagine, there's no parties -- is the best way to build a real opposition.

Daniel Martin is an anti-war activist, musician, and rock journalist from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @MartysInvasion .

Youknowho December 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm

The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern.
Whine Merchant , says: December 14, 2017 at 10:47 pm
The so-called 'anti-war' or 'peace' movement is mostly a genuine grass roots phenomenon that relies upon volunteers and ordinary people taking time out of their busy lives to become active. The energy and drive are hard to sustain on a volunteer basis.

To a great extent, motivation for activism is a reaction to something egregious, not a planned and sustained response to an on-going situation. Despite the power of social media, reactively movements lead by well-intentioned amateurs cannot martial prolonged support.

Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. The activism that pulled the US out of SE Asia in the 70s took 10 years to build strength against a what was less organised and planned war machine than we see today. The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies.

Thank you –

Fran Macadam , says: December 14, 2017 at 11:19 pm
The tragedy yet to be is that the business of war and its boosterism only ends when the suffering of war comes upon the nation whose leaders make it. It might be different if the population were inclined against it, but there is a widespread belief in U.S. Exceptionalism and a belief that it is America's birthright to rule the world by military force if required. And ruling peoples against their wills does require force.

The consistency of human nature does not promise any respite from the propensity to make war, as has occurred throughout all known history. Those wars will be waged with ever greater and even world-ending technology – there never has been a weapon created that was not used, and every one of them has proliferated.

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:20 am
This makes sense to me. There has to be a coalition of anti interventionists across the political spectrum because the two parties are dominated by warmongers. On foreign policy I am closer to many of the conservatives here than to many or most liberals I know in real life or online. I have never heard a liberal in my real life mention Yemen or drones unless I bring it up. Syria was never seen as a place where our support for " moderate" rebels kept the killing going. A friend of mine has become outraged when I tell him our support for the Saudis in Yemen is much more important than Russiagate. So Russiagate matters more than our complicity in a crime against humanity.

Mainstream liberals simply don't care about our stupid wars unless there is a large American death toll and it can be blamed solely on a Republican. I am not saying conservatives are better. The ones here are better.

Zebesian , says: December 15, 2017 at 2:43 am
I hope that the anti-war movement grows again, and persists throughout the probable Democratic Presidency in 2020. There's such little a single person can do, though.

Maybe Trump will keep his anti-war promises?

collin , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:03 am
There is probably a multiple issues here but:

1) Most military is below the headlines and it is hard to protest here. There several thousands troops in Africa and hardly anybody knows it.
2) The last 7 Prez elections, 6 doves (2004 exception and yes Bush pretended to the dove in 2000.) won and yet the dovish winner is more hawkish in the White House. So it is hard not to use the military and it would wise to answer that question,
3) Anti-War conservatives only had modest support when Obama signed the nuclear deal or avoided bombing in Syria. Where were the 'Ron Paul' voters there to support the President making dovish choices? Sure Syria was handled poorly but if we heard more support it might change things.
4) And it is true the hard left is very-war but focused on other agenda. Witness Bernie Sanders was unable to beat HRC because he is dove complaining about Cold War battles that is past history. And watch out Matt Duss is writing his speeches and Bernie is taking them seriously.

Robert E. , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:25 am
I'm a liberal democrat and certainly would agree that President Obama was culpable for destroying our anti-war movement. It was one of my grievances with him from the very beginning, as nothing about his rhetoric was ever about peace. It was only till the very end of his last term that he ever learned any lessons on caution in intervention (But never about the folly of drone striking civilians), and by then, it was too late.

Neo-militarism, which is where the costs of war are separated from engagement with it in order to reduce civil unrest over military actions, wasn't something Obama created though. It was a reaction to the Vietnam War that was thoroughly ingrained in the conscience of both parties. The only lesson they learned from that war is that if Americans see and hear of the suffering of their soldiers, they won't be supportive of military pork and intervention.

And so we live in a really weird culture now where most people don't even know a soldier, where our soldiers are off to forever war and in the system they are in is so distant that they don't understand civilian society either, and where the costs of war are hidden. There is a political problem certainly, but the root of it is a cultural problem. We are fed patriotic myths of American invincibility and Spartanism, and militarism has become one of the only unifying threads in being an "American", even though most Americans have not even the faintest clue of how the military operates or what soldiers are like.

You can gather up all the anti-war activists across the political spectrum, and you still aren't going to find enough people for a successful movement. And I'm not entirely sure how you can change the culture on this issue, as it would require undoing a lifetime worth of programming and propaganda in every citizen.

It may take another cultural trauma from a war so disastrous that even the worst chicken hawks have to say, "Wow, we really ruined everything here" for Americans to finally learn a lesson beyond how to sweep the nasty parts of war under the rug so the public doesn't see them. I suppose North Korea is looking promising on that front.

EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:49 am
I dislike the term anti-war. It sounds too much akin to a pacifists pose. I don't have any issues with people who are sincerely pacifists. But there are times when war is required. And sometimes in my view, that includes the use of force for humanitarian purposes.

I rest on the views that push the "clear and present danger" as old as it may be. And I do so without being ignorant of my own concerns about the strategic threats that abound or potentially abound in the future, near and far.

Where's the anti-war movement -- they are in think tanks, congress, and CEO corporate positions seeking to atone for the mess they made of our communities, country and veterans since the the misguided anti-war slogans of the late '60's and early '70's.

The consequence of an all volunteer military separates the community from a national sense of risk. I will dare utter, the unspoken, Vietnam was not about some just cause or care about the Vietnamese or the national conscience. It was the basic fear of personal sacrifice – period.

Ohh it was nicely clothed in all kinds of rhetorical discourse about war, peace loving Vietnamese, peace-love and understanding, free speech, anti-colonialism . . . blah and blah.

As Dr. King would soon discover, lending his intellect to young white kids fears, sabotaged the real retrenchment of the consequence of the nation's hypocrisy.

It takes a moral courage that has been bled out because there is in my view essentially no risk individual national investment. If x hundred thousand are willing to sign-up for defense --

that is a choice of no account to citizens who don't.

There is a war going on and its right here at home.

Myles Hagar , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:21 pm
If we want the freedom to comfortably drive to the convenience store to buy more plastic products from China, we must have war to secure the oil, flow of foreign goods and exploitation of foreign labour necessary to maintain our predatory and non-productive way of life. Peace requires a transformation of consciousness with the resultant total rejection of consumerism. The personal sacrifice required for peace is the missing element.
Kent , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:53 pm
"a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution."

I take strong exception to this. The second amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Unlike what most people think, the "free State" mentioned here represents the 13 original states. Their "well regulated Militia"'s could not be disarmed because that would allow the federal military to take away their sovereign freedom. The federal government was never intended to be more powerful than the individual state's militias.

And Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution when describing Congress' responsibilities:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

The Constitution assumed that Congress would only raise an army when at war, and it would be dismantled almost immediately, hence the "two Years" limit on funding the military.

The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional thing we do. By a million miles.

john , says: December 15, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As long a there is a volunteer military there will not be a strong anti war movement. Remember, the sixties and that so called anti war movement which turned out to be nothing more that an anti draft movement. As soon as the military draft stopped those so called activists shaved their beards, got a haircut, took a bath, and along with those who came back from Canada went on to join daddy's business or law firm, with many migrating to wall street, eventually becoming the chicken hawks of the current era.There would never have been an invasion of Iraq or the perpetual war if every family shared the burden of sending one of their sons or daughters to act as cannon fodder. With the poverty draft only five percent of the younger generation are doing the fighting and dying. Americans will not even give up attending football games where disrespect for the military takes the form of disrespecting the flag, let alone join the military or put one of their children in harms way.
EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 3:19 pm
"The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional thing we do. By a million miles."

I guess if one skips the preamble one might come to that conclusion. But the Purpose of the Constitution establishing a nation spells out in very clear terms --

" . . . provide for the common defense . . ."

That is not a weak posture in any sense of the word. And no founder of government not those that followed understood that said union was to be weak. Avoiding unnecessary wars or conflicts does not mean a weak defense. What they pressed was a weak federal systems that would subvert internal freedoms for states and individuals.

It's hard to argue that no established international defense was sought -- when it states in very clear terms -- the nation is created for the very purpose of defending it's existence.

A strong defense does not require a an over aggressive posture, but existence requires an ability to defend it. And right now nothing more threatens our existence as much as weak immigration enforcement.

And I think the evidence for that is overwhelming. Most poignantly demonstrated by the events of 9/11. And there christians of many brands are a threat to the US by aiding and abetting the violations of that sovereignty and using Christ as the excuse to do so, even as that defense undermines their fellow citizens. That breed of christian ethos is certainly not new nor are its tentacles of hypocrisy.

What I object to among both interventionists is that they both don't mind giving people in the country illegally a pass despite their mutual claims of legal moral high bround.

David Swanson , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Biggest sign of how weak we are in this article is the assumption built into this: "In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution." I mean the assumption that one cannot oppose the whole institution for the overwhelming secular empirical reasons that it endangers us, destroys our environment, impoverishes us, erodes our liberties, militarizes our localities, degrades our culture, poisons our politics. See the case made at World Beyond War's website.
Glenn , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Superb article by Daniel Martin. The first step out of this mess is to fully acknowledge the scope of the mess: Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.
Honorable Shark , says: December 15, 2017 at 6:01 pm
The anti-war movement is not listened to. In SF during a bombardment of Gaza, there were hundreds of anti-war protesters at City Hall. The most liberal deliberative body in the US looked stone-faced and emotionless. When they finished, if on a cue, a Jewish member of the Board tabled the agenda item, and it was never heard from again. Not one of these eleven lawmakers even asked a question. Who said you cannot fight City Hall? They were right.
balconesfault , says: December 15, 2017 at 7:06 pm
A lot of Dems stepped forward to oppose the Iraq War and they got plowed over for it politically.

I fully expect the same to happen to any Dems who divert their attention from stopping the other budget busting, middle-class harming, anti-environmental, anti-women measures the GOP is currently pushing to make a futile attempt to stop whatever Trump decides to do with our military.

You guys elected Donald J. Trump. You own him.

cka2nd , says: December 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm
The argument that there can be no anti-war movement without a draft to drive it is belied by the fact that no war in our history generated more protests than the Bush Administration's build-up towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Where the mass base of any anti-war movement seems to draw the line is not specifically at their kids but at the possibility of significant American casualties, period. Hence, the absence of mass protest against drone warfare on the one hand, and the immediate and decisive push back by the public against Congress authorizing Obama to "put boots on the ground" in Syria on the other.

My friends in the International Bolshevik Tendency ( http://bolshevik.org/ ) argue for the classic united front in their anti-war organizing. Everyone opposed to War X should march together but retain their right to free speech at the march and on the podium. So the official call for the march is not a laundry list, but marchers and speakers are not subject to censorship or being shut down if they want to make connections that discomfit some Democratic politician or movement hack. It makes more sense to me than either the single-issue, "we must ALL stay ON point" model or the multi-issue, excessively intersectional and virtue-signaling one that arose in reaction to it.

MKBrussel , says: December 16, 2017 at 12:19 am
No one seems to mention the power and importance of the mainstream, corporatized, media, which has supported all our wars and associated aggressions in recent times, and which ignores and suppresses antiwar sentiments and opinion writers, as well as inconvenient facts. This holds for the NYT, the WP, the WSJ and client newspapers as well as the TV news channels. The internet is evidently not powerful enough to offset this national bias. Antiwar periodicals tend to be on the fringe in terms of mass circulation.
It also takes money in this society to get things done, and the anti-war "left"(or right) , in addition to having organizational problems, lacks those resources. An antiwar super billionaire, if that is not a contradiction in terms, might make a dent by creating/promoting TV and news channels.

A usefull discussion.

Fran Macadam , says: December 16, 2017 at 4:26 am
EliteCommInc., be assured you will get your wars. Also be assured that they won't accomplish the aims they will be sold to accomplish. Some of those who know the real reasons may well accomplish their private goals for a season. One day, the real cost to be paid will come due, and it may not be a rude awakening, but nuclear death. So by all means, continue not to be against war, against all the evidence. We are predisposed to war because our fallen nature leads us to dream of it.
balconesfault , says: December 16, 2017 at 6:02 am
@Glenn

Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.

That is because, sadly, American voters demand it.

As I've observed before – if you place a candidates militarism on a spectrum of 0 (Ghandi) to 100 (Hitler) American voters are conditioned to prefer a candidate with a score 20 points higher than theirs to a candidate 5 points lower.

Fear is a powerful tool.

Dieter Heymann , says: December 16, 2017 at 7:26 am
Kent makes a very good point. Yet this baby nation was somewhat torn between a Scylla and Charybdis of military readiness. The Scylla was the fear of a "European" track that is to say the evolution into a Monarchy anchored on a powerful national army. The Charybdis was the potential invasions by the powerful European states of Great Britain and Spain.
Dave Sullivan , says: December 16, 2017 at 8:14 am
The opinion that anti-war people, particularly from the Vietnam era, did so because they didn't want to sacrifice is ludicrous. It displays an ignorance of the sacrifices made, and the success of the war party to paint them in this manor. Veterans are appointed a myriad of benefits, a plethora of memorials,holidays, endless honorable mentions. For the war resistors, nothing, unless one could count the kind of scorn I see here, on an antiwar site ! It is not "selfish" to look both ways before crossing the street, and perhaps choosing not to if it appears the risk is not worth the reward. In fact, this behavior defines "conservative". Militant societies require centralization. The key to modern centralized militant power, is nuclear war. The existence of these weapons produces a huge secrecy, and internal security state. They produce an insane populace whom believe the state is protecting them from annihilation. Know this, our militant masters love that North Korea has the bomb. Sleep tight.

[Dec 17, 2017] Trump team claims Russia investigator unlawfully got emails

Notable quotes:
"... Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment. ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

Comey, for his part, wrote a memo alleging Trump had asked him to drop his investigation into Flynn, an act which some say could constitute obstruction of justice and thus grounds for seeking Trump's impeachment.

[Dec 17, 2017] Sorry Chump. You Didn't Have It In Writing by Eric Margolis

Notable quotes:
"... And even IF Gorbachev would have had it in writing, it would not have made a bit of difference. ..."
"... There is, actually, no excuse for Gorbachev's giving away the store without an iron-clad treaty, ratified in both the USSR and the USA. ..."
"... The US has threatened the USSR/Russia since 1918 when the UK, USA and their allies including Australia invaded from 7 different directions in a 3 year campaign. ..."
"... That combined with US subversion and no doubt bribes and false promises leads to only one conclusion. Russia has good reason to be afraid of America. ..."
"... Maybe capitalism is the foundation of the problem, but the framework is militarism, weapons production and sales, attacking people around the world, spying on everyone, and imprisoning the underclass to keep them from attacking the wealthy. Take away those structural elements and the US will collapse. ..."
"... Are we not aware that the US foreign policy is by and for the economic benefit of Wall Street? Lies are the norm to hide WS involvement. National security is a scam to hide lies. ..."
"... Handing the territories of the USSR over to the US on a handshake, that is what Gorbachev will be known for. It was no mistake. ..."
"... The present demonization of Putin has been mainly continuation of business as usual. But Putin has stood up to the interests behind the IMF, the FED, the BIS, etc., making him a hero to the entire educated world. Maybe one day soon America will join the educated world. One can only hope. ..."
"... How could any nation trust the USA who has broken every treaty they have agreed to! England all through history has coveted Russia for their vast natural resources. England has always been a wicked nation. ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | Information Clearing House "

At a time when the United States is convulsed by anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin, a trove of recently declassified Cold War documents reveals the astounding extent of the lies, duplicity and double-dealing engaged in by the western powers with the collapsing Soviet Union in 1990. I was covering Moscow in those days and met some of the key players in this sordid drama. Ever since, I've been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by 'one inch' if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered 'ironclad guarantees' there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies. Gorbachev was a humanist, a very decent, intelligent man who believed he could end the Cold War and nuclear arms race. He ordered the Red Army back from Eastern Europe.

I was in Wunsdorf, East Germany, HQ of the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany, and at Stasi secret police HQ in East Berlin right after the pullout order was given. The Soviets withdrew their 338,000 troops and 4,200 tanks and sent them home at lightening speed. Western promises made to Soviet leaders by President George W. H. Bush and Jim Baker quickly proved to be empty. They were honorable men but their successors were not. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush quickly began moving NATO into Eastern Europe, violating all the pledges made to Moscow. The Poles, Hungarians and Czechs were brought into NATO, then Romania and Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Albania, and Montenegro. Washington tried to get the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The Moscow-aligned government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-engineered coup. The road to Moscow was open.

All the bankrupt, confused Russians could do was denounce these eastward moves by the US and NATO. The best response NATO and Washington could come up with was, 'well, there was no official written promise.' This is worthy of a street peddler selling counterfeit watches. The leaders of the US, Britain, France, Belgium and Italy all lied. Germany was caught between its honor and imminent reunification. So even its Chancellor Helmut Kohl had to go along with the West's prevarications.

At the time, I wrote that the best solution would be for the demilitarization of formerly Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe. NATO had no need or business to expand eastward. Doing so would be a constant provocation to Russia, which regarded Eastern Europe as an essential defensive glacis against invasions from the West. Now, with NATO forces on its western borders, Russia's deepest fears have been realized. Today, US military aircraft based on the coasts of Romania and Bulgaria, former Warsaw Pact members, probe Russian airspace over the Black Sea and the vital strategic port of Sevastopol. Washington talks about arming chaotic Ukraine. US and NATO troops are in the Baltic, on Russia's northwestern borders. Polish right-wingers are beating the war drums against Russia. In 1990, KGB and CIA agreed to the principal of 'not one inch' eastward for NATO.

Former US ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, confirms the same agreement. Gorbachev, who is denounced as a foolish idealist by many Russians, trusted the Western powers. He should have had a battalion of New York City garment district shyster lawyers to document his agreements in 1990. He thought he was dealing with honest, honorable men, like himself. Is it any wonder after this bait and switch diplomacy that Russia has no trust in the Western powers? Moscow watches US-run NATO oozing ever eastwards. Today, Russia's leaders firmly believe Washington's ultimate plan is to tear apart Russia and reduce it to an impotent, pauper nation.

Two former Western leaders, Napoleon and Hitler, had similar plans. Instead of carrying on about Hitler's duplicity after Munich, we should look at our own shameless behavior after 1990. Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times, Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in Asia. https://ericmargolis.com

Mark A. Goldman · 7 hours ago

There are enough articles at this website in any one week or month for one to realize we do not live in a free country being led by people who intend to keep their oath of office.

... ... ...

Socrates pointed out that only honorable men can ever find true happiness. But that insight only points out what necessary for happiness to occur, but not what is sufficient. Freedom is also necessary, for in the absence of freedom people are prevented from living honorably.

Honor requires the courage to tell the truth and live in alignment with the truth. And without that, dignity too is lost. And what about compassion. And what about love. All of that will be lost to our posterity if we are unable to gain our freedom. And we will not gain our freedom without striving for it with every ounce of courage and intelligence we can find within us.

isabellainecuador 93p · 5 hours ago
Very well said. I have been saying as much for some time. Only President Putin actually lives by those aphorisms. I shall visit your website. Thank you
Vera Gottlieb · 6 hours ago
And even IF Gorbachev would have had it in writing, it would not have made a bit of difference.
guest · 6 hours ago
Exactly! And Gorbachev was clearly a fool to have taken up US/Nato on a gentleman's promise. It is equally probable he was bought off or was an absolute dunce.
LITCHFIELD · 2 hours ago
There is, actually, no excuse for Gorbachev's giving away the store without an iron-clad treaty, ratified in both the USSR and the USA.

It took years to get a treaty between Hungary and romania.
It took years to get a treaty between Ukraine and Romania.
It took years for Romania and other Eastern Bloc countries to be accedted into NATO. There were numerous contingencies to be satisfied.

And Gorbachev just says, "OK, Whatever you say, I believe you! It does not wash.

JGarbo · 1 hour ago
Gorbachev was no fool. He knew the West's promises were nothing, but he also knew his country was bankrupt. He gave Russia a breathing space, which after the pillage under Yeltsin, has proved beneficial.
bozhidar balkas · 6 hours ago
Vera,

That's fair an assumption

Fritz666 · 6 hours ago
LOLOLOL..this is about as bogus as it gets. Russian leadership is no more affraid of the U.S. than they are of a street thug.
Fitzhenrymac 127p · 5 hours ago
The US has threatened the USSR/Russia since 1918 when the UK, USA and their allies including Australia invaded from 7 different directions in a 3 year campaign.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention...

Then there was the 1945 dropping of the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima which were more to threaten the Soviets than Japan.

Immediately following that was the occupation of South Korea and the stationing of more atomic bombs there.

But the real clincher was the stationing of nuclear weapons in NATO countries right on the border of the Soviet Union. The huge, highly realistic and nuclear armed Abel Archer war games in 1983, not only nearly caused an actual nuclear war but also caused many in the Soviet leadership to believe that resistance beyond its own borders against America was a zero sum game.

That combined with US subversion and no doubt bribes and false promises leads to only one conclusion. Russia has good reason to be afraid of America.

participant2943 89p · 3 hours ago
Yes, Russia has good reason to be afraid of the US on two fronts -- 1 - US terrorism and 2 - imposition of depraved and destructive US political ideologies.
Cameron · 6 hours ago
The enemy here is capitalism -- Russia (and China) pose threats to the dominance of U.S. capital and therefore are demonized and lied to and for that matter treated in any manner conducive to the continued dominance of U.S. capital. This is the nature of capitalist relations between nations in its imperialist stage. It is a race to the death to crown the chief exploiter and manipulator of collective human labor and the commodities it produces. In this stage of capitalism if it isn't the U.S. who is scheming to rule it would be another. The only solution is to put an end to the rule of capital.
participant2943 89p · 3 hours ago
Maybe capitalism is the foundation of the problem, but the framework is militarism, weapons production and sales, attacking people around the world, spying on everyone, and imprisoning the underclass to keep them from attacking the wealthy. Take away those structural elements and the US will collapse.

Death and destruction are the only visible supports for the US as a "country". Other countries are busily caring for refugees, addressing fossil fuel and methane gas damage, providing health care, and advancing science and the arts. Not the US. The US today is weapons + carnage +threatening other countries + internal political collapse.

olde reb · 5 hours ago
Are we not aware that the US foreign policy is by and for the economic benefit of Wall Street? Lies are the norm to hide WS involvement. National security is a scam to hide lies.

John Stinnett used the FOIA to obtain government documents that established FDR developed a 17 month agenda with his Wall Street cronies to impose sanctions on Japan to force the attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese codes were easily broken. WW One was also another false flag operation to prevent default on huge loans WS had made to European nations.

You might also consult with John Perkin's CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN that details his (concealed) employment by Wall Street to set up international loans with sovereign nations designed to go into default using their control of the IMF and WB with enforcement by the CIA and the US military. cf. Michel Chossudovsky's GLOBALIZATION OF POVERTY and his GLOBALIZATION OF WAR.

For details on how one of the first arrangements with the CIA and Wall Street was arranged by Allen Dulles, even before he was appointed Director of the CIA, you might read DEVILS CHESSBOARD by Stephen Kinzer, THE BROTHERS by David Talbot, or CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME by Douglass Valentine. Writings by Fletcher Prouty, Antony Sutton, Nomi Prins, and many more are available. Let me know when you have finished these.

Even professor Michael Hudson has written that Wall Street's (Goldman Sachs) objective in Greece is to destroy the nation. http://farmwars.info/?p=12078 NEW WORLD ORDER DEAD AHEAD

Crosswinds · 5 hours ago
"H.W. BUSH AND JAMES BAKER" were "HONORABLE MEN?" (DECEIT/TREACHERY/DUPLICITY
is their common core nature.)
Edcdecedc · 4 hours ago
Handing the territories of the USSR over to the US on a handshake, that is what Gorbachev will be known for. It was no mistake. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin are pieces of the same $hit.
Chas · 3 hours ago
Not the sharpest knife in the draw are you! But then history is not taught extensively in US schools, is it! Stop embarrassing yourself, child!
Tobey Llop · 2 hours ago
It's hard for me to consider that the Russians didn't assume the Americans were lying. By withdrawing troops from a pointless deployment, they were saving resources. It was a spiritual step up for the Russians. Since then, the Russian economy has improved substantially.

The American government is, by my research, basically a puppet to the banking cabal that has been profiting from wars since the 1700's.

They were behind and profited from the Russian revolution, the American Civil War, both world wars, the Cold War, the annexation of Palestine for a Zionist state, and now present efforts to start a third world war, be it Syria, Iraq, Libya, or wherever trouble can be stirred.

The present demonization of Putin has been mainly continuation of business as usual. But Putin has stood up to the interests behind the IMF, the FED, the BIS, etc., making him a hero to the entire educated world. Maybe one day soon America will join the educated world. One can only hope.

vicenr · 3 hours ago
The part of the story missing is what happened next? Hungary, Czech Republic and now Poland are a bit miffed at the way things have gone. Other than turn their nations into a door mat that NATO and Russia fight upon what did they get?

They got a missile launching pad that if war breaks out will be targeted and most likely destroyed. They got an EU that if it resembles anything, it most closely represents the old Supreme Soviet. Naw. This story has just begun.

Jim · 3 hours ago
How could any nation trust the USA who has broken every treaty they have agreed to! England all through history has coveted Russia for their vast natural resources. England has always been a wicked nation.
Yury · 1 hour ago
Usually articles by Eric Margolis have more substance and are more objective. First, even today the US cooperates with Russia on several fronts. Today Putin called Trump to thank him for supplying to Russia by CIA of Info that led to the arrest of several Islamist terrorists who wanted to explode a bomb in St. Petersburg. Clear example of cooperation.

As far as the promise to Gorbachev of not expanding NATO eastward, it was made to the leader of the Soviet Union not the leader of Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, such promise simply had no longer any effect since the country to which it was made no longer existed.

Still the US and other western countries didn't want to expand NATO until Yeltsin agreed to its expansion to Poland in August 1993 as reported for example in NYT http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/26/world/yeltsin-u...

In that article, by the way, it is stated that even then there were big problems between Russia and Ukraine. So to repeat all the time that the "government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-engineered coup" is something I didn't expect from Margolis.

Barberry37 77p · 35 minutes ago
<<....the United States is convulsed...>>

I hardly think so Mr. Margolis. I would say that probably 98% of the population of Canada and the USA are totally comatose and probably won't even hear the Last Trumpet

[Dec 17, 2017] President Trump: I'm Not Considering Firing Robert Mueller, But It's Not Looking Good

This is a political battle between two faction of oligarchy. Mueller represents Clinton wing: neoliberal globalists and neocons.
Dec 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
rumors , denials, whistleblowers , backlash , demands, threats, lies , bias, and anti-bias surrounding Robert Mueller and his investigation, President Trump said Sunday that he is not considering firing the Special Counsel.

"No, I'm not," Trump told reporters, when asked if he intended to fire Mueller, according to Politico .

The president was returning to the White House from a weekend at the Camp David presidential retreat.

Trump's allies complained this weekend about the way Mueller's team went about obtaining from the presidential transition. Mueller's spokesman Peter Carr said Sunday that the office had followed appropriate steps to obtain the transition emails. Pro-Trump lawmakers and pundits also have accused the special counsel's office of bias after it was revealed that two FBI officials who previously served on Mueller's team had exchanged anti-Trump text messages.

And while Trump said "I'm not," Axios notes that he did criticize the fact that Mueller accessed "many tens of thousands" of emails from the presidential transition, saying it was "not looking good."

Son of Loki -> DingleBarryObummer , Dec 17, 2017 6:46 PM

Who is Seth Rich?

jeff montanye -> Son of Loki , Dec 17, 2017 8:45 PM

seth? he was the guy that stole the dnc and podesta emails (well at least the dnc emails) and got them to julian assange. after he was murdered (well at least shot twice) on the streets of d.c. (he actually died in a hospital; probably bears some looking into), julian offered a reward for info on it, making many believe he was wiki's source.

seymour hersh, who followed the case closely, thinks the same, but agrees with the d.c. police that he was just mugged, not shot by say hillary and podesta using imran awan or something. http://archive.is/lD4BV if so, for a lucky lady that hillary clinton has some real bad luck. but it is poetically fitting that someone who actually killed dozens of people as a private citizen (and maybe a million as a public servant), would be convicted in the public's eye of the one she didn't really do.

first as tragedy, then as farce.

azusgm -> shitshitshit , Dec 17, 2017 8:47 PM

YO!!! TYLERS!! OVER HERE.

Looks like Andrew McCabe may be a double agent!!!!!

https://truepundit.com/comey-mueller-ignored-mccabes-ties-to-russian-cri...

grunk , Dec 17, 2017 6:16 PM

Mueller WANTS Trump to fire him.

It's Mueller's only face-saving way out of this cluster fuck.

Kayman -> grunk , Dec 17, 2017 6:17 PM

Mueller has painted himself into a cesspool that is exploding. If he had an ounce of sense or honor he would get the eff out before he has to start covering his own tracks. But don't bet on Mueller doing the right thing. His pals in politics and the press have made him out to be some kind of saint when he really is all t'aint, no saint (don't ask me what t'aint is, ask someone else.)

Don't fire Mueller now- the cesspool is bursting at the seems and Mueller is standing right under it.

grunk , Dec 17, 2017 6:14 PM

Robert Mueller is D.C.'s Tomás de Torquemada.

Mzhen , Dec 17, 2017 8:04 PM

It makes little sense to me that if Seth Rich was an idealistic young man, standing on principle and conviction, who along with his brother contacted WikiLeaks and arranged to give it evidence of Hillary's and Debbie's treachery against Sanders, why he would then have been reported to be looking forward to joining the Hillary campaign staff in the Brooklyn headquarters.

CrowdStrike (run by Shawn Henry, who is a former FBI official, promoted by Mueller), which provided the narrative to the DNC that the "Russians did it," has never been independently verified in their conclusions by the FBI. Or Mueller. Pull that thread and the sweater starts to unravel.

Kelley , Dec 17, 2017 9:26 PM

Mueller doesn't have it in him to step aside. Therefore he needs to be indicted for prosecutorial abuse. Slap his ass down hard. Handcuffs would be a nice touch.

Mueller didn't oppose the raid of Paul Manafort at 5 a.m. in the morning with guns drawn. Sounds like a good law enforcement technique for the buzzard.

[Dec 17, 2017] The FBI Is Not Your Friend by Sheldon Richman

Notable quotes:
"... ask that Russia not escalate tensions ..."
"... Russia not vote to condemn Israel ..."
"... What about the Logan Act ? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both." ..."
"... Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations." ..."
"... I hold no brief for Flynn, whose conduct while working for Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, his dubious efforts on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case. ..."
"... Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they have evidence of real ..."
Dec 16, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
One of the unfortunate ironies of the manufactured "Russiagate" controversy is the perception of the FBI as a friend of liberty and justice. But the FBI has never been a friend of liberty and justice. Rather, as James Bovard writes , it "has a long record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that 'the FBI has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.' This has practically been the Bureau's motif since its creation in 1908 . The FBI has always used its 'good guy' image to keep a lid on its crimes."

Bovard has made a vocation of cataloging the FBI's many offenses against liberty and justice, for which we are forever in his debt.

Things are certainly not different today. Take the case of Michael Flynn, the retired lieutenant general who spent less than a month as Donald Trump's national-security adviser. Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in connection with conversations he had with Russia's then-ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, between Trump's election and inauguration. One need not be an admirer of Flynn – and for many reasons I certainly am not – to be disturbed by how the FBI has handled this case.

One ought to be immediately suspicious whenever someone is charged with or pleads guilty to lying to the FBI without any underlying crime being charged. Former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew C. McCarthy points out :

When a prosecutor has a cooperator who was an accomplice in a major criminal scheme, the cooperator is made to plead guilty to the scheme. This is critical because it proves the existence of the scheme. In his guilty-plea allocution (the part of a plea proceeding in which the defendant admits what he did that makes him guilty), the accomplice explains the scheme and the actions taken by himself and his co-conspirators to carry it out. This goes a long way toward proving the case against all of the subjects of the investigation.

That is not happening in Flynn's situation. Instead, like [former Trump foreign-policy "adviser" George] Papadopoulos, he is being permitted to plead guilty to a mere process crime.

When the FBI questioned Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, it already had the transcripts of those conversations – the government eavesdrops on the representatives of foreign governments, among others, and Flynn had been identified, or "unmasked," as the ambassador's conversation partner. The FBI could have simply told Flynn the transcripts contained evidence of a crime (assuming for the sake of argument they did) and charged him with violating the Logan Act or whatever else the FBI had in mind.

But that's not what happened. Instead, the FBI asked Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak, apparently to test him. If he lied (which would mean he's pretty stupid since he once ran the Defense Intelligence Agency and must have known about the transcripts!) or had a bad memory, he could have been charged with lying to the FBI.

As investigative reporter Robert Parry explains :

What is arguably most disturbing about this case is that then-National Security Adviser Flynn was pushed into a perjury trap by Obama administration holdovers at the Justice Department who concocted an unorthodox legal rationale for subjecting Flynn to an FBI interrogation four days after he took office, testing Flynn's recollection of the conversations while the FBI agents had transcripts of the calls intercepted by the National Security Agency.

In other words, the Justice Department wasn't seeking information about what Flynn said to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak – the intelligence agencies already had that information. Instead, Flynn was being quizzed on his precise recollection of the conversations and nailed for lying when his recollections deviated from the transcripts.

For Americans who worry about how the pervasive surveillance powers of the US government could be put to use criminalizing otherwise constitutionally protected speech and political associations, Flynn's prosecution represents a troubling precedent.

Why didn't the FBI charge Flynn with an underlying crime? It might be because his conversations with Kislyak were not criminal. McCarthy writes:

A breaking report from ABC News indicates that Flynn is prepared to testify that Trump directed him to make contact with the Russians – initially to lay the groundwork for mutual efforts against ISIS in Syria. That, however, is exactly the sort of thing the incoming national-security adviser is supposed to do in a transition phase between administrations. If it were part of the basis for a "collusion" case arising out of Russia's election meddling, then Flynn would not be pleading guilty to a process crime – he'd be pleading guilty to an espionage conspiracy.

David Stockman shows that the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller themselves indicate the Flynn-Kislyak conversations contained no evidence of criminal behavior.

Flynn spoke to Kislyak to ask that Russia not escalate tensions after President Obama imposed sanctions last December for the alleged election meddling and to ask that Russia not vote to condemn Israel , via a UN Security Council resolution, for its illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land. In other words, not only were Flynn's discussions with Kislyak unexceptional – presidential transition-team foreign-policy officials have spoken with representatives of other governments in the past – but the content of those discussions should have raised no suspicions. Would non-escalation of the sanctions controversy or a UN veto have undermined Obama's foreign policy? I don't see how. (True, the Obama administration abstained on the resolution, but would Obama have objected had Russia vetoed it? By the way, Russia voted for it, and the resolution passed, as it should have.)

The Flynn plea certainly does nothing to indicate "collusion" with the Russians. For one thing, the conversations were after the election. And perhaps more important, Kislyak was not looking for favors from Flynn; on the contrary, Flynn was lobbying the Russians (successfully on the sanctions – Vladimir Putin did not retaliate – and unsuccessfully on the UN resolution.) Where's the evidence of Russian influence on the Trump team? There was foreign influence, but it was from Israel, a regular meddler in the American political process . All indications are that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Trump son-in-law and special envoy to everywhere Jared Kushner to lobby the world to defeat the UN resolution. Kushner, who has helped finance illegal Israeli settlements , then directed Flynn to call every Security Council member, not just Russia.

What about the Logan Act ? The Act, enacted in 1799, around the time of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, prohibits private citizens from unauthorized "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

Right off the bat, the Act appears to violate freedom of speech. And as Parry writes, "That law was never intended to apply to incoming officials in the transition period between elected presidential administrations."

Note also that only two indictments have been brought in 218 years: in 1803 and 1852. Both cases were dropped. Far more serious contacts with foreign governments have occurred. In 1968 Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon (with help from Henry Kissinger who was working in the Johnson administration) had a representative persuade the president of South Vietnam to boycott the peace talks President Lyndon Johnson had been arranging with North Vietnam. That decision most likely prolonged the Vietnam war and resulted in combat deaths that would not have occurred. Unlike the Flynn case, Nixon's action undercut the sitting president's policy and, more important, the interests of the American people.

I hold no brief for Flynn, whose conduct while working for Gen. Stanley McChrystal in Afghanistan, his dubious efforts on behalf of Turkey's strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his apparent financial conflicts of interest are enough to make anyone cringe. But that cannot justify what the FBI did in this plea case.

Government law-enforcement agencies should not be allowed to administer credibility tests to Americans or others. If they have evidence of real offenses against persons and property, bring charges. Otherwise, leave us all alone.

Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute , senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies, former editor of The Freeman , published by the Foundation for Economic Education , and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation . His latest book is America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited .

[Dec 17, 2017] Mission Creep Mueller Grand Jury Fishing for Evidence Unrelated to Russian Interference Probe

As "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" does not have time frame they are not limited to election campaign and allow fishing expedition into Trump business dealings.
Notable quotes:
"... any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; ..."
"... any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; ..."
Aug 04, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

After this striking admission, in effect acknowledging the weakness of the "Russian collusion" narrative more than year into the investigation and media hysteria, CNN goes on to report that these claimed grand jury subpoenas extend completely outside the scope of the supposed "Russia" investigation. CNN describes some subpoenas as "unconnected to the 2016 elections" and gives examples, including the tenant lists of Trump Organization properties and documents related to the 2013 Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.

For the record, according to his order of appointment , Mueller's independent investigation was to be limited to:

(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a).

Regulation 28 C.F.R. §600.4(a) is part of the federal regulations authorizing special counsels. It expands a special counsel's jurisdiction to crimes, such as perjury or obstruction of justice, that interfere with his original named responsibility.

[Dec 17, 2017] Senator John Cornyn Questions Legitimacy of Robert Mueller Probe

Notable quotes:
"... Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) caused a stir late Friday when he questioned the legitimacy of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) caused a stir late Friday when he questioned the legitimacy of the investigation being conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

Cornyn spoke out via Twitter, in response to a tweet by former Attorney General Eric Holder, who defended Mueller against criticism and against efforts to urge the president to remove him from his post.

Speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the American people, Republicans in Congress be forewarned:any attempt to remove Bob Mueller will not be tolerated.These are BS attacks on him/his staff that are blatantly political-designed to hide the real wrongdoing. Country not party

-- Eric Holder (@EricHolder) December 14, 2017

In response, Cornyn tweeted to Holder, "You don't" (referring to Holder's claim to be speaking "on behalf of the vast majority of the American people."

He added later that "Mueller needs to clean house of partisans," referring to reports that FBI agent Peter Strzok had been removed from the investigation due to anti-Trump texts, and that other lawyers on the Mueller team have expressed strongly anti-Trump feelings or supported the campaign of his 2016 opponent, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Later, asked by the Washington Post 's in-house liberal columnist, Greg Sargent, whether he would accept the legitimacy of Mueller's investigation, Cornyn suggested that would depend on the outcome:

Makes sense to me to wait to see what they are first https://t.co/9lCqpYujKN

-- Senator JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) December 16, 2017

The left-wing HuffPost translated that remark as meaning that Cornyn would only consider the probe legitimate if "if Republicans like his findings."

However, a more generous interpretation would be that Cornyn would wait to see if Mueller remained within his mandate, or used his sweeping powers to investigated unrelated matters.

[Dec 17, 2017] Rosenstein watches as Mueller's witch hunt veers out of control by Sean Hannity

Dec 17, 2017 | www.foxnews.com

The Russia investigation being overseen by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is beyond corrupt, beyond political and has now turned into an open-ended fishing expedition.

Rosenstein, who like Special Counsel Robert Mueller, has glaring, inexcusable conflicts of interest in the case, insisted to Fox News' Chris Wallace that he will keep Mueller from expanding his s not on a witch hunt.

"If he finds evidence of a crime that's within in the scope of what Director Mueller and I have agreed is the appropriate scope of this investigation, then he can," Rosenstein said on "Fox News Sunday." "If it's something outside that scope, he needs to come to the acting attorney general, at this time me, for permission to expand his investigation."

Rosenstein says he won't let the special counsel turn into a fishing expedition? It already has. The whole investigation was supposed to be about President Trump's campaign supposedly colluding with the Russians. This has gone on 11 months, no smoking gun proving it ever surfaced.

Yet, instead of ending it there, Mueller is reportedly now looking into the finances of President Trump and the Trump Organization and associates of President Trump. He has impaneled a grand jury in Washington, D.C., where the president got a little over four percent of the vote.

What Rosenstein really said was that he has now given Mueller the green light to do whatever he wants. Even respected legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a Democrat, has said Rosenstein needs to recuse himself.

After all, Rosenstein is likely going to be a witness in the investigation that he himself caused because he took the lead in writing the letter to President Trump on why former FBI Director James Comey should be fired. Mueller reportedly regards that as possible obstruction of justice.

Rosenstein is also the guy who appointed Robert Mueller and apparently either didn't know or didn't care about the fact that the day before he was named special counsel, Mueller interviewed with President Trump for the FBI director's job. You can't make this up.

Rosenstein has sat by while Mueller, with an unlimited budget, has assembled a team of 16 lawyers. Half have made political donations, shockingly, all to Democrats. How is that OK? If the tables were turned, would a Democrat allow a special counsel to only appoint Republican donors?

It all comes down to this: Does Rod Rosenstein know what is going to happen if Mueller's mission creep continues to go unchecked? How does he think voters are going to feel? How many Trump supporters will feel robbed of their right and their vote in the free election of the president of the United States?

That would be bad for the country. It would be bad for the system of justice. And it would be bad for anyone who believes in a constitutional republic.

Adapted from Sean Hannity's monologue on "Hannity," Aug. 7, 2017

Sean Hannity currently serves as host of FOX News Channel's (FNC) Hannity (weekdays 9-10PM/ET) . He joined the network in 1996 and is based in New York. Click here for more information on Sean

[Dec 17, 2017] Fox News' Jesse Watters We May Have an Anti-Trump 'Coup on Our Hands in America'

Robert Mueller does have massive conflict of interest -- Strzok-gate proves his inability to run a dispassionate investigation
Notable quotes:
"... we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America." ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

Waters said, "The investigation into Donald Trump's campaign has been crooked from the jump. But the scary part is we may now have proof the investigation was weaponized to destroy his presidency for partisan political purposes and to disenfranchise millions of American voters. Now, if that's true, we have a coup on our hands in America."

[Dec 17, 2017] Unlike Nixon, Trump will not go quietly

Notable quotes:
"... Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama's expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This is what security advisers do. Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling. ..."
"... Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn. But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority. And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been "extremely careless" in transmitting security secrets over her private email server. We now know that the first draft of Comey's statement described Clinton as "grossly negligent," the precise statute language for an indictment. ..."
"... Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel -- to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey's predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller. Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump's travel ban. FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend. Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton's email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk. ..."
"... There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment. Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him. Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner's sword fall with dignity. If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly. ..."
"... I think the surprise is the degree and extent to which he is surrounded by hostile elements pretending to be disloyal and even when revealed like Comey and Sessions and Rosenstein they cannot be dislodged without great cost. ..."
"... The balance of evidence does not fall on Trump. The preponderance of evidence from Wasserman Schultz and her Pakistani technicians, from rigging the DNC against Sanders, from the McCain/FBI Dossier to justify wiretapping the RNC candidate, the pay for play Clinton Foundation and Clinton bankrolling the DNC in exchange for full control of the party, murdered members of the DNC like Seth Rich, the collusion between the CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS, State Department and White House, etc etc etc. ..."
"... Beyond the Mueller investigation is the character assassination which has also backfired proving there are far more democrats and democratic donors engaged in rape, pedophilia and sexual harassment which is more of the same type of character assassination Hillary used by calling Trump and his base deplorables. ..."
"... People in the DNC and the Federal Govt were scared of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama but I truly think the DNC is under-estimating the degree they should be afraid of Trump. ..."
"... Of course, in reality there was NO hack. The emails were LEAKED by someone within the DNC who was utterly disgusted with the corruption and the sabotaging of Sanders nomination campaign to prevent any threat to the coronation of Empress Shrillary. ..."
"... IMHO its very likely that the leaker was indeed Seth Rich. Does anyone really believe in a "botched robbery" were the thief didn't steal his wallet or phone or watch? ..."
"... At this point there is an ocean of evidence that says Russia did NOTHING at all. More and more the revelations are that the Clinton slime machine moved on from Bernie Sanders to Trump without breaking stride. ..."
"... The Mueller shenanigans have for months been laid out for all to see by Andrew C. McCarthy, who ironically is a confirmed Putin-hater. More recently Victor Davis Hanson weighed in at long last, and it was a doozy. ..."
"... The Muller team is loaded with rabid Trump haters, which implies he either biased and out to get Trump, or just dumb. It has been very obvious from the moment Trump won the election that a large contingent of the government establishment has been determined to find a way to force him from office. ..."
"... My primary complaint with Trump is that in foreign policy, he has done nothing but endorse and continue the murderous and shameful policies of his predecessors: back Israel unequivocally, in spite of their record of aggression, back Saudi Arabia, ignoring the absolute evil of their country, pretend that Russia and Iran are the greatest evil in the world, with no evidence to support it. If there is a behind the scenes deep state, it consists of those who manage to continue this pattern, no matter if the president is an Evangelical or a Marxist. Foreign policy aside, he does have the interests of the common man at heart, and a very enthusiastic backing from "Joe six-pack" America, the America the left loathes. ..."
"... Listen to the speakers at political rallies, if they are only demonizing the other side in an unfocussed and vague way, this is what they are doing. It is a strategy of "divide and conquer." ..."
"... Those, who vote for one party or the other above all else, no matter whom the party nominates or what the party does, lawful or not, are engaging in the same political factionalism, about which Washington warned. Both parties have to be made to protect the Constitution and respect the rule of law. That is much more important than which party wins. At this point, neither party gives much of a damn about the Constitution or the law. The only goal is to win at any cost, vying for the attention of their globalist string-pullers. ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Flynn asked Kislyak for help in blocking or postponing a Security Council resolution denouncing Israel, and to tell Vladimir Putin not to go ballistic over President Obama's expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats. This is what security advisers do. Why Flynn let himself be ensnared in a perjury trap, when he had to know his calls were recorded, is puzzling.

Second, it is said Trump obstructed justice when he fired FBI Director James Comey for refusing to cut slack for Flynn. But even Comey admits Trump acted within his authority. And Comey had usurped the authority of Justice Department prosecutors when he announced in July 2016 that Hillary Clinton ought not to be prosecuted for having been "extremely careless" in transmitting security secrets over her private email server. We now know that the first draft of Comey's statement described Clinton as "grossly negligent," the precise statute language for an indictment.

We also now know that helping to edit Comey's first draft to soften its impact was Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. His wife, Jill McCabe, a candidate for state senate in Virginia, received $467,000 in campaign contributions from the PAC of Clinton bundler Terry McAuliffe.

Comey has also admitted he leaked to The New York Times details of a one-on-one with Trump to trigger the naming of a special counsel -- to go after Trump. And that assignment somehow fell to Comey's predecessor, friend, and confidant Robert Mueller. Mueller swiftly hired half a dozen prosecutorial bulldogs who had been Clinton contributors, and Andrew Weinstein, a Trump hater who had congratulated Acting Attorney General Sally Yates for refusing to carry out Trump's travel ban. FBI official Peter Strzok had to be been removed from the Mueller probe for hatred of Trump manifest in emails to his FBI lady friend. Strzok was also involved in the investigation of Clinton's email server and is said to have been the one who persuaded Comey to tone down his language about her misconduct, and let Hillary walk.

In Mueller's tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found. But a connection between Hillary's campaign and Russian spies -- to find dirt to smear and destroy Trump and his campaign -- has been fairly well established.

By June 2016, the Clinton campaign and DNC had begun shoveling millions of dollars to the Perkins Coie law firm, which had hired the oppo research firm Fusion GPS, to go dirt-diving on Trump. Fusion contacted ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, who had ties to former KGB and FSB intelligence agents in Russia. They began to feed Steele, who fed Fusion, which fed the U.S. anti-Trump media with the alleged dirty deeds of Trump in Moscow hotels. While the truth of the dirty dossier has never been established, Comey's FBI rose like a hungry trout on learning of its contents. There are credible allegations Comey's FBI sought to hire Steele and used the dirt in his dossier to broaden the investigation of Trump -- and that its contents were also used to justify FISA warrants on Trump and his people.

This week, we learned that the Justice Department's Bruce Ohr had contacts with Fusion during the campaign, while his wife actually worked at Fusion investigating Trump. This thing is starting to stink.

Is the Trump investigation the rotten fruit of a poisoned tree? Is Mueller's Dump Trump team investigating the wrong campaign?

There are other reasons to believe Trump may survive the deep state-media conspiracy to break his presidency, overturn his mandate, and reinstate a discredited establishment. Trump has Fox News and fighting congressmen behind him and the mainstream media is deeply distrusted and widely detested. And there is no Democratic House to impeach him or Democratic Senate to convict him. Moreover, Trump is not Nixon, who, like Charles I, accepted his fate and let the executioner's sword fall with dignity. If Trump goes, one imagines, he will not go quietly.

In the words of the great Jerry Lee Lewis, there's gonna be a "whole lotta shakin' goin' on."

LouisM December 14, 2017 at 11:38 pm

Trump has had to work with corrupt officials in govt, overwhelming bureaucracy, unions, media and criminal elements. All present in anti-Trump DC.

I think the surprise is the degree and extent to which he is surrounded by hostile elements pretending to be disloyal and even when revealed like Comey and Sessions and Rosenstein they cannot be dislodged without great cost.

The balance of evidence does not fall on Trump. The preponderance of evidence from Wasserman Schultz and her Pakistani technicians, from rigging the DNC against Sanders, from the McCain/FBI Dossier to justify wiretapping the RNC candidate, the pay for play Clinton Foundation and Clinton bankrolling the DNC in exchange for full control of the party, murdered members of the DNC like Seth Rich, the collusion between the CIA, FBI, DOJ, IRS, State Department and White House, etc etc etc.

There is no equivalent trail of collusion, corruption, fraud, slander, sedition etc from Trump, the GOP or the Conservative Party while the DNC and the Mueller investigation reeks.

Beyond the Mueller investigation is the character assassination which has also backfired proving there are far more democrats and democratic donors engaged in rape, pedophilia and sexual harassment which is more of the same type of character assassination Hillary used by calling Trump and his base deplorables.

I think Trump is playing nice and being patient. He is fighting back but with great restraint. I don't think Trump has pulled out all guns. My guess, if and when this does not work, then Sessions and Rosenstein will be fired and replaced with people who will have special prosecutors investigate the Mueller investigation, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, the FBI and the DOJ. Imagine how devastating it would be to release information proving Bill Clintons rapes and murders. Hillary may be a master at deflection and obfuscation but Trump will scorch and burn. Of this I have no doubt. Infact, it would not surprise me if Trump has someone in the intelligence community reporting directly to him and covertly performing these investigations so Trump can either scorch and burn in the media, in the press room or to appoint special counsels for what I cited above.

People in the DNC and the Federal Govt were scared of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Obama but I truly think the DNC is under-estimating the degree they should be afraid of Trump.

Gazza , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:27 am
"In Mueller's tenure, still no Trump tie to the hacking of the DNC has been found."

Of course, in reality there was NO hack. The emails were LEAKED by someone within the DNC who was utterly disgusted with the corruption and the sabotaging of Sanders nomination campaign to prevent any threat to the coronation of Empress Shrillary.

IMHO its very likely that the leaker was indeed Seth Rich. Does anyone really believe in a "botched robbery" were the thief didn't steal his wallet or phone or watch?

Dan Green , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:18 am
The media tells us this administrations support is waning, so impeachment is a hot topic. I am not convinced the American people en mass will support the process.
SteveK9 , says: December 15, 2017 at 2:28 pm
Most of these comments are almost as ridiculous as 'RussiaGate' itself. One must have a very strong bias to believe any of this (I am a lifelong Democrat, but I'm still able to think).

At this point there is an ocean of evidence that says Russia did NOTHING at all. More and more the revelations are that the Clinton slime machine moved on from Bernie Sanders to Trump without breaking stride.

Ken Zaretzke , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:11 pm
"Unfortunately, your nay-sayers seem confined to calling you a "Do-Do Head" and other remarks more suited to a preschool classroom."

Amen to that. They might be willfully ignorant. The Mueller shenanigans have for months been laid out for all to see by Andrew C. McCarthy, who ironically is a confirmed Putin-hater. More recently Victor Davis Hanson weighed in at long last, and it was a doozy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/454543/mueller-investigation-too-many-anti-trump-coincidences

Saying Robert Mueller is a pillar of integrity is like saying George Will is a brilliant thinker–it's Beltway bushwa.

Honorable Shark , says: December 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm
The neocons forgot that Richard Nixon saved Israel in the 1973 war. He emptied the NATO reserves to replenish their lost weapons. Had he not done this, maybe a negotiated peace based on a fair fight would have negated many of the problems we face today? Then Ford came along and they realized Oops! A mistake has been made. Carter stopped drinking the neocon KoolAide when the facts became irrefutable. Comparing Nixon to Trump is a non-starter. Nixon had an incredibly high-IQ and he was pro-America first, second, .nth.
EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 11:10 pm
I remain a huge fan of Pres Nixon. I often think he should have fought it out. Having chosen not to do so – he did indeed go quietly. And he did so for reasons unrelated to Watergate.

He also remains one of the most astute and intelligent men we have ever had in the WH. Had he been an insider, he would not have had faced the storm that came by way a lot of hyperbolic nonsense. It easy to forget how much he and his admin accomplished despite the period.

I remain supportive of Pres. Trump and despite areas of disagreement, I have yet to see any evidence that would even hint that he should resign. I don't think there's any evidence that the country is uniquely on a path to destruction from Pres Trump admin.

-- -- -- -- -- --

"4 indictment and or guilt pleas. Nothing there you say?"

I don't think you grasp the breadth that a SP has. It is virtually limitless. That means one can indicted for something that is accused years before and totally unrelated to the original purposes of the appointment. It was that breadth that bothered Pres. Nixon. And as it turned out he was concerned with good reason.

-- -- -- -- -- -

"Middle East was causing a huge recession that led to Democratic wave in 1974."

The die were cast, despite all of the issues, Pres Nixon out maneuvered and outsmarted his critics on the issues and they bit one card, charges of misbehavior on the heels of a very contentious foreign policy. He could have only survived had he just chosen to readily give on the plotters and moved on. Pardoning them later.

His choice to protect his legacy in its entirety -- led to bad decisions, that fed the appearance of guilt -- when the tapes came out --

it was done, despite little of anything incriminating on them. He chose to depart quietly. And in the end, so nil was his accusations that he has had his tenure revived and I suspect with time, that will continue.

Molière , says: December 16, 2017 at 10:10 am
Here's a list of confirmed fake news concerning the "russiagate" (of course all going in the same direction):
  1. Trump team received access to DNC WikiLeaks files before they were released (CNN).
  2. Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post).
  3. An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post).
  4. WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian).
  5. A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate).
  6. RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune).
  7. Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike).
  8. Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security).
  9. Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN).

Glenn Greenwald made an article about it. When we dig deep into the Russiagate it's not trump that we find but Brzezinski doctrine.

Peace from France

Stephen , says: December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am
The Muller team is loaded with rabid Trump haters, which implies he either biased and out to get Trump, or just dumb. It has been very obvious from the moment Trump won the election that a large contingent of the government establishment has been determined to find a way to force him from office.

This is an obvious truth, whether you want to call it a deep state conspiracy or something else. Trump is an imperfect man, but he has good ideas and plans for improving the life of the ordinary citizen.

One of the ways I know he is essentially decent is the hysterical hatred the left has for him. The left is the true enemy of this country, not Russia or radical Islam. In the past 50 years they have done great harm to this country.

The Conservative establishment has been utterly ineffective at stopping the destructive onslaght of the left, and in matters of foreign policy, have proven to be thoroughly corrupt and dishonest.

My primary complaint with Trump is that in foreign policy, he has done nothing but endorse and continue the murderous and shameful policies of his predecessors: back Israel unequivocally, in spite of their record of aggression, back Saudi Arabia, ignoring the absolute evil of their country, pretend that Russia and Iran are the greatest evil in the world, with no evidence to support it. If there is a behind the scenes deep state, it consists of those who manage to continue this pattern, no matter if the president is an Evangelical or a Marxist. Foreign policy aside, he does have the interests of the common man at heart, and a very enthusiastic backing from "Joe six-pack" America, the America the left loathes.

If Trump is successfully removed from office, I predict a breakout of serious unrest from the people.

DB , says: December 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Mr. Buchanan,

Do you have multiple personalities? One moment you are defending true conservatism and the next you seem to be supporting somebody because they have an R next to their name. Trump is a serious danger to our country. Far more than ISIS or any Muslim terrorists.

George Washington wrote a letter of farewell to the American People in 1796, in which he warned against the corruption of self-interested political parties. He called them political factions, but he is referring to the corruption and treasonous tendencies of the Democrat and Republican Parties of today, who are much more interested in the advancement of their party than the well-being of the Country, the protection of the Constitution or the rule of law.

Both of these now treasonous parties are funded and controlled by much the same global financial interests and are currently more loyal to their foreign paymasters -- which includes many foreign despots -- than they are to our country. The corruption of each of the two major political parties feeds on that of the other. Both parties have grown into foreign-controlled monsters. Individual Congressmen take orders from the party leadership, the lapdogs of their party bosses, instead of serving the interests of the nation.

The extreme partisanship and generalized demonization of members of the other party is a form of brainwashing that keeps Democrats and Republicans voting for their respective parties, no matter how corrupt the politicians of their own party have become. Listen to the speakers at political rallies, if they are only demonizing the other side in an unfocussed and vague way, this is what they are doing. It is a strategy of "divide and conquer." People should concentrate on specific misdeeds of individuals and not just be the cheerleaders of their own party. Both parties are parasitical entities feeding on the rotting carcass of America, which they have created.

Those, who vote for one party or the other above all else, no matter whom the party nominates or what the party does, lawful or not, are engaging in the same political factionalism, about which Washington warned. Both parties have to be made to protect the Constitution and respect the rule of law. That is much more important than which party wins. At this point, neither party gives much of a damn about the Constitution or the law. The only goal is to win at any cost, vying for the attention of their globalist string-pullers.

https://stop-obama-now.net/washingtons-farewell/

[Dec 17, 2017] Dr. Stephen Cohen on Tucker Carlson: Empty Accusations of Russian Meddling Have Become Grave National Security Threat

Notable quotes:
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
Dec 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.

The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.

Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.

Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute a "grave American national security threat."

At the very end of the interview, Tucker's very un-furrowed eyebrows agreed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtwFEA4dM18

Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

[Dec 17, 2017] Whither the Anti-war Movement by Daniel Martin

Notable quotes:
"... The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern. ..."
"... Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. ..."
"... The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The duopoly succumbed to the war machine, while organized resistance got pushed to the fringe

Veterans For Peace rally in Washington, less than a month after 9/11. Credit: Elvert Barnes/Flickr

"Imagine there's no heaven and no religion too."

A more useful line when it comes to our current wars may be "Imagine there's no duopoly." It's hard to fault John Lennon for his idealism, of course. In his day, many blamed religion on the wars of history. But a much bigger obstacle right now, at least in the U.S., is partisanship. The two major political parties, in power and out, have been so co-opted by the war machine that any modern anti-war movement has been completely subsumed and marginalized -- even as American troops and killer drones continue to operate in or near combat zones all over the world.

Aside from the very early days of the Iraq war, the anti-war movement has been a small, ineffectual pinprick on the post-9/11 landscape. A less generous assessment is that it's been a bust. After liberals helped elect the "anti-war" Barack Obama, the movement all but disappeared, even though the wars did not. By putting a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Democratic face on his inherited wars, Obama expanded into new conflicts (Libya, Syria, Yemen) with little resistance, ultimately bombing seven different countries during his tenure. By 2013, Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin lamented , "We've been protesting Obama's foreign policy for years now, but we can't get the same numbers because the people who would've been yelling and screaming about this stuff under Bush are quiet under Obama."

It's easy to blame the military-industrial complex, the corporate media, and the greed and malleability of politicians. But what about the anti-war movement itself? Why has it failed so miserably, and can it revive as President Donald Trump continues the wars of his predecessors and threatens new ones?

The rallies and protests in the early 2000s attracted significant numbers but they were weighed down by far-left organizations like the World Workers Party, which brought with them myriad other issues beyond war like global warming and poverty. There was also long-held and fairly broad skepticism about the intentions of United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ) and the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which organized most of the big protests over the last 17 years. This was due to the "big tent" affiliations of some of their steering committee members, which critics say led to a dilution of the message and drove the anti-war movement further from the mainstream.

Perhaps the movement's biggest weakness was that it shied away from directly attacking its own -- the liberal Democrats who voted for the war in Congress.

In a sense, Democrats did emerge as the de facto anti-war party during the Iraq war, but that was only because a Republican -- George W. Bush -- was commander-in-chief. And what of the Democrats who voted for the war and continued to fund it? Out of 77 senators who supported the resolution authorizing military force against Iraq in 2002, 20 are still in office and roughly half are Democrats, while out of the 296 votes in favor in the House, 90 are still in office and 57 of them are Democrats. Some of them, like Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer, went on to become party leaders. Two others, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, went on to become secretaries of state and their party's nominees for president in 2004 and 2016 respectively. All went on to support new military interventions and regime changes, albeit under a new, liberal interventionist, Democratic banner.

Conversely, steadfast non-interventionist Democrat Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the resolution, failed badly in both his 2004 and 2008 attempts at his party's presidential nomination. Bottom line: Support for the war was hardly a deal-breaker for voters, any more than opposition to it was a dealmaker.

Reaction to war is just a microcosm of the political landscape, a manifestation of partisan-driven, short-term memory. Sure there might have been momentary disapproval, but when it came time to decide whether supporters of the war stayed or went, the sins of one's party leaders meant very little in the zero-sum game of electoral politics. Parties outside the duopoly be damned.

The same thing happened to the anti-war right, as the Ron Paul movement took off in 2008 with an immense level of grassroots energy. One of the singular successes of his movement was the ability to reach people on an intellectual and practical level about the folly of our foreign interventions and the waste, fraud, and abuse of tax dollars. Paul didn't shy from criticizing his own party's leaders and actions. He explained the Federal Reserve's relationship to the monetary costs of war.

Ultimately, media blackouts and distortion of Paul's message (for example, conflating his non-interventionist foreign policy views with "isolationism") helped kill his campaign. After Paul's 2008 defeat, conservative political activists seized upon the Texas congressman's libertarian-leaning revolutionary momentum and channeled it into the Tea Party -- while leaving the non-interventionist impulses behind. By 2011, national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin acknowledged , "On foreign policy probably the majority [of Tea Party Patriots] are more like [hawks] Michele Bachmann or Newt Gingrich."

And don't underestimate how the escalation of drone warfare during the Obama presidency muted the anti-war effort. Drone attacks made fewer headlines because they supposedly caused less collateral damage and kept U.S. troops out of harm's way, which was portrayed by administration officials and the war establishment in Washington as progress.

What the drone program did, in essence, was to create the illusion of "less war." Nevertheless, studies showing an increase of terrorism since the beginning of the "war on terror" indicate precisely the opposite: Civilian drone deaths (not always reported) create more enemies, meaning more of our troops will be put in harm's way eventually.

So where should the anti-war movement go from here? Perhaps it should begin by tempering its far-left impulses and embracing its allies on the right who have been made to feel unwelcome. They could take a lesson from right-leaning places like Antiwar.com and TAC that have long been open to writers and activists on the left.

Meanwhile, flying "Resist Trump" signs at rallies not only misses the mark by suggesting that our needless wars aren't a bipartisan, systemic problem, but creates a non-inclusive atmosphere for anti-war Trump voters. Ironically, not much "resistance" was heard when Democrats recently helped pass Trump's $700 billion 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and failed to repeal the original post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, as was advocated for by Senator Rand Paul this year.

In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution. Most people are willing to accept that there's a big difference between that and the terrible waste and tragedy that comes with waging unnecessary wars overseas.

They are also averse to their lawmakers doing favors for special interests. Focusing on the money and influence that giant defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing have on Capitol Hill -- essentially making war a business -- makes the anti-war point by raising the issue of crony capitalism and the cozy relationship between politicians and big business, which increasingly leaves the American public out of the equation.

These corporations, along with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, have accounted for $42 million in contributions to congressional candidates since 2009, with $12 million in the 2016 cycle alone. The majority of these funds have targeted Armed Services Committee members, such as perennial war hawk John McCain. In addition, influential neoconservative think tanks have received millions in grants over the years from "philanthropic" organizations such as the Bradley Foundation and the Olin Foundation, which have corporate backgrounds in the defense industry. The conservative Heritage Foundation is reportedly considering the vice president of Lockheed as its new president.

Furthermore, mantras and slogans like, "you're either with us or against us" and "support our troops" have been used as powerful psy-ops to create a false dichotomy: you either support the war policy or you're not patriotic. Debunking this by pointing out how these wars profit the elite while serving as a pipeline that puts more American military servicemembers -- often from working-class backgrounds -- into harm's way should appeal to the current populist spirit on both sides of the political fence. In fact, it could begin to draw new, disenchanted voters into the movement.

Americans today are tired of war, which is good, for now. Unfortunately, without a strong anti-war movement, there won't be much resistance when the next "big threat" comes along. The two major parties have proven to be false friends when it comes to opposing war -- they only do it when it suits them politically. Moving beyond them and becoming stronger with allies and numbers -- imagine, there's no parties -- is the best way to build a real opposition.

Daniel Martin is an anti-war activist, musician, and rock journalist from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @MartysInvasion .

Youknowho December 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm

The antiwar movement could not survive the end of the draft. One most Americans did not have to worry about their kids being sent in harm's way, when minorities became soldiers for the pay, the enthusiasm waned. It was other people's kids that did the fighting and the dying. None of your concern.
Whine Merchant , says: December 14, 2017 at 10:47 pm
The so-called 'anti-war' or 'peace' movement is mostly a genuine grass roots phenomenon that relies upon volunteers and ordinary people taking time out of their busy lives to become active. The energy and drive are hard to sustain on a volunteer basis.

To a great extent, motivation for activism is a reaction to something egregious, not a planned and sustained response to an on-going situation. Despite the power of social media, reactively movements lead by well-intentioned amateurs cannot martial prolonged support.

Initiatives of the Military-Industrial-Complex are well-planned, well-funded, and have paid staff to keep the interests of the corporate sector healthy and powerful. The activism that pulled the US out of SE Asia in the 70s took 10 years to build strength against a what was less organised and planned war machine than we see today. The Pentagon knows that as long as we have a volunteer army and outsource much of the nasty side of conflict to contractors, the volunteer peace activists don't stand a chance against their wealthy corporate allies.

Thank you –

Fran Macadam , says: December 14, 2017 at 11:19 pm
The tragedy yet to be is that the business of war and its boosterism only ends when the suffering of war comes upon the nation whose leaders make it. It might be different if the population were inclined against it, but there is a widespread belief in U.S. Exceptionalism and a belief that it is America's birthright to rule the world by military force if required. And ruling peoples against their wills does require force.

The consistency of human nature does not promise any respite from the propensity to make war, as has occurred throughout all known history. Those wars will be waged with ever greater and even world-ending technology – there never has been a weapon created that was not used, and every one of them has proliferated.

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:20 am
This makes sense to me. There has to be a coalition of anti interventionists across the political spectrum because the two parties are dominated by warmongers. On foreign policy I am closer to many of the conservatives here than to many or most liberals I know in real life or online. I have never heard a liberal in my real life mention Yemen or drones unless I bring it up. Syria was never seen as a place where our support for " moderate" rebels kept the killing going. A friend of mine has become outraged when I tell him our support for the Saudis in Yemen is much more important than Russiagate. So Russiagate matters more than our complicity in a crime against humanity.

Mainstream liberals simply don't care about our stupid wars unless there is a large American death toll and it can be blamed solely on a Republican. I am not saying conservatives are better. The ones here are better.

Zebesian , says: December 15, 2017 at 2:43 am
I hope that the anti-war movement grows again, and persists throughout the probable Democratic Presidency in 2020. There's such little a single person can do, though.

Maybe Trump will keep his anti-war promises?

collin , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:03 am
There is probably a multiple issues here but:

1) Most military is below the headlines and it is hard to protest here. There several thousands troops in Africa and hardly anybody knows it.
2) The last 7 Prez elections, 6 doves (2004 exception and yes Bush pretended to the dove in 2000.) won and yet the dovish winner is more hawkish in the White House. So it is hard not to use the military and it would wise to answer that question,
3) Anti-War conservatives only had modest support when Obama signed the nuclear deal or avoided bombing in Syria. Where were the 'Ron Paul' voters there to support the President making dovish choices? Sure Syria was handled poorly but if we heard more support it might change things.
4) And it is true the hard left is very-war but focused on other agenda. Witness Bernie Sanders was unable to beat HRC because he is dove complaining about Cold War battles that is past history. And watch out Matt Duss is writing his speeches and Bernie is taking them seriously.

Robert E. , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:25 am
I'm a liberal democrat and certainly would agree that President Obama was culpable for destroying our anti-war movement. It was one of my grievances with him from the very beginning, as nothing about his rhetoric was ever about peace. It was only till the very end of his last term that he ever learned any lessons on caution in intervention (But never about the folly of drone striking civilians), and by then, it was too late.

Neo-militarism, which is where the costs of war are separated from engagement with it in order to reduce civil unrest over military actions, wasn't something Obama created though. It was a reaction to the Vietnam War that was thoroughly ingrained in the conscience of both parties. The only lesson they learned from that war is that if Americans see and hear of the suffering of their soldiers, they won't be supportive of military pork and intervention.

And so we live in a really weird culture now where most people don't even know a soldier, where our soldiers are off to forever war and in the system they are in is so distant that they don't understand civilian society either, and where the costs of war are hidden. There is a political problem certainly, but the root of it is a cultural problem. We are fed patriotic myths of American invincibility and Spartanism, and militarism has become one of the only unifying threads in being an "American", even though most Americans have not even the faintest clue of how the military operates or what soldiers are like.

You can gather up all the anti-war activists across the political spectrum, and you still aren't going to find enough people for a successful movement. And I'm not entirely sure how you can change the culture on this issue, as it would require undoing a lifetime worth of programming and propaganda in every citizen.

It may take another cultural trauma from a war so disastrous that even the worst chicken hawks have to say, "Wow, we really ruined everything here" for Americans to finally learn a lesson beyond how to sweep the nasty parts of war under the rug so the public doesn't see them. I suppose North Korea is looking promising on that front.

EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 9:49 am
I dislike the term anti-war. It sounds too much akin to a pacifists pose. I don't have any issues with people who are sincerely pacifists. But there are times when war is required. And sometimes in my view, that includes the use of force for humanitarian purposes.

I rest on the views that push the "clear and present danger" as old as it may be. And I do so without being ignorant of my own concerns about the strategic threats that abound or potentially abound in the future, near and far.

Where's the anti-war movement -- they are in think tanks, congress, and CEO corporate positions seeking to atone for the mess they made of our communities, country and veterans since the the misguided anti-war slogans of the late '60's and early '70's.

The consequence of an all volunteer military separates the community from a national sense of risk. I will dare utter, the unspoken, Vietnam was not about some just cause or care about the Vietnamese or the national conscience. It was the basic fear of personal sacrifice – period.

Ohh it was nicely clothed in all kinds of rhetorical discourse about war, peace loving Vietnamese, peace-love and understanding, free speech, anti-colonialism . . . blah and blah.

As Dr. King would soon discover, lending his intellect to young white kids fears, sabotaged the real retrenchment of the consequence of the nation's hypocrisy.

It takes a moral courage that has been bled out because there is in my view essentially no risk individual national investment. If x hundred thousand are willing to sign-up for defense --

that is a choice of no account to citizens who don't.

There is a war going on and its right here at home.

Myles Hagar , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:21 pm
If we want the freedom to comfortably drive to the convenience store to buy more plastic products from China, we must have war to secure the oil, flow of foreign goods and exploitation of foreign labour necessary to maintain our predatory and non-productive way of life. Peace requires a transformation of consciousness with the resultant total rejection of consumerism. The personal sacrifice required for peace is the missing element.
Kent , says: December 15, 2017 at 12:53 pm
"a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution."

I take strong exception to this. The second amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Unlike what most people think, the "free State" mentioned here represents the 13 original states. Their "well regulated Militia"'s could not be disarmed because that would allow the federal military to take away their sovereign freedom. The federal government was never intended to be more powerful than the individual state's militias.

And Section 8 Clause 12 of the Constitution when describing Congress' responsibilities:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

The Constitution assumed that Congress would only raise an army when at war, and it would be dismantled almost immediately, hence the "two Years" limit on funding the military.

The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional thing we do. By a million miles.

john , says: December 15, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As long a there is a volunteer military there will not be a strong anti war movement. Remember, the sixties and that so called anti war movement which turned out to be nothing more that an anti draft movement. As soon as the military draft stopped those so called activists shaved their beards, got a haircut, took a bath, and along with those who came back from Canada went on to join daddy's business or law firm, with many migrating to wall street, eventually becoming the chicken hawks of the current era.There would never have been an invasion of Iraq or the perpetual war if every family shared the burden of sending one of their sons or daughters to act as cannon fodder. With the poverty draft only five percent of the younger generation are doing the fighting and dying. Americans will not even give up attending football games where disrespect for the military takes the form of disrespecting the flag, let alone join the military or put one of their children in harms way.
EliteCommInc. , says: December 15, 2017 at 3:19 pm
"The Constitution assumes a very weak defensive posture, and the continued massive military system of the USA is the most unconstitutional thing we do. By a million miles."

I guess if one skips the preamble one might come to that conclusion. But the Purpose of the Constitution establishing a nation spells out in very clear terms --

" . . . provide for the common defense . . ."

That is not a weak posture in any sense of the word. And no founder of government not those that followed understood that said union was to be weak. Avoiding unnecessary wars or conflicts does not mean a weak defense. What they pressed was a weak federal systems that would subvert internal freedoms for states and individuals.

It's hard to argue that no established international defense was sought -- when it states in very clear terms -- the nation is created for the very purpose of defending it's existence.

A strong defense does not require a an over aggressive posture, but existence requires an ability to defend it. And right now nothing more threatens our existence as much as weak immigration enforcement.

And I think the evidence for that is overwhelming. Most poignantly demonstrated by the events of 9/11. And there christians of many brands are a threat to the US by aiding and abetting the violations of that sovereignty and using Christ as the excuse to do so, even as that defense undermines their fellow citizens. That breed of christian ethos is certainly not new nor are its tentacles of hypocrisy.

What I object to among both interventionists is that they both don't mind giving people in the country illegally a pass despite their mutual claims of legal moral high bround.

David Swanson , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Biggest sign of how weak we are in this article is the assumption built into this: "In addition, the few on the anti-war left who oppose war based on pacifist or religious reasons need to acknowledge that the majority of Americans believe in a strong national defense as outlined in the Constitution." I mean the assumption that one cannot oppose the whole institution for the overwhelming secular empirical reasons that it endangers us, destroys our environment, impoverishes us, erodes our liberties, militarizes our localities, degrades our culture, poisons our politics. See the case made at World Beyond War's website.
Glenn , says: December 15, 2017 at 5:29 pm
Superb article by Daniel Martin. The first step out of this mess is to fully acknowledge the scope of the mess: Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.
Honorable Shark , says: December 15, 2017 at 6:01 pm
The anti-war movement is not listened to. In SF during a bombardment of Gaza, there were hundreds of anti-war protesters at City Hall. The most liberal deliberative body in the US looked stone-faced and emotionless. When they finished, if on a cue, a Jewish member of the Board tabled the agenda item, and it was never heard from again. Not one of these eleven lawmakers even asked a question. Who said you cannot fight City Hall? They were right.
balconesfault , says: December 15, 2017 at 7:06 pm
A lot of Dems stepped forward to oppose the Iraq War and they got plowed over for it politically.

I fully expect the same to happen to any Dems who divert their attention from stopping the other budget busting, middle-class harming, anti-environmental, anti-women measures the GOP is currently pushing to make a futile attempt to stop whatever Trump decides to do with our military.

You guys elected Donald J. Trump. You own him.

cka2nd , says: December 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm
The argument that there can be no anti-war movement without a draft to drive it is belied by the fact that no war in our history generated more protests than the Bush Administration's build-up towards the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Where the mass base of any anti-war movement seems to draw the line is not specifically at their kids but at the possibility of significant American casualties, period. Hence, the absence of mass protest against drone warfare on the one hand, and the immediate and decisive push back by the public against Congress authorizing Obama to "put boots on the ground" in Syria on the other.

My friends in the International Bolshevik Tendency ( http://bolshevik.org/ ) argue for the classic united front in their anti-war organizing. Everyone opposed to War X should march together but retain their right to free speech at the march and on the podium. So the official call for the march is not a laundry list, but marchers and speakers are not subject to censorship or being shut down if they want to make connections that discomfit some Democratic politician or movement hack. It makes more sense to me than either the single-issue, "we must ALL stay ON point" model or the multi-issue, excessively intersectional and virtue-signaling one that arose in reaction to it.

MKBrussel , says: December 16, 2017 at 12:19 am
No one seems to mention the power and importance of the mainstream, corporatized, media, which has supported all our wars and associated aggressions in recent times, and which ignores and suppresses antiwar sentiments and opinion writers, as well as inconvenient facts. This holds for the NYT, the WP, the WSJ and client newspapers as well as the TV news channels. The internet is evidently not powerful enough to offset this national bias. Antiwar periodicals tend to be on the fringe in terms of mass circulation.
It also takes money in this society to get things done, and the anti-war "left"(or right) , in addition to having organizational problems, lacks those resources. An antiwar super billionaire, if that is not a contradiction in terms, might make a dent by creating/promoting TV and news channels.

A usefull discussion.

Fran Macadam , says: December 16, 2017 at 4:26 am
EliteCommInc., be assured you will get your wars. Also be assured that they won't accomplish the aims they will be sold to accomplish. Some of those who know the real reasons may well accomplish their private goals for a season. One day, the real cost to be paid will come due, and it may not be a rude awakening, but nuclear death. So by all means, continue not to be against war, against all the evidence. We are predisposed to war because our fallen nature leads us to dream of it.
balconesfault , says: December 16, 2017 at 6:02 am
@Glenn

Democrats and Republicans -- who squabble about many things -- unite to give bipartisan support for American militarism.

That is because, sadly, American voters demand it.

As I've observed before – if you place a candidates militarism on a spectrum of 0 (Ghandi) to 100 (Hitler) American voters are conditioned to prefer a candidate with a score 20 points higher than theirs to a candidate 5 points lower.

Fear is a powerful tool.

Dieter Heymann , says: December 16, 2017 at 7:26 am
Kent makes a very good point. Yet this baby nation was somewhat torn between a Scylla and Charybdis of military readiness. The Scylla was the fear of a "European" track that is to say the evolution into a Monarchy anchored on a powerful national army. The Charybdis was the potential invasions by the powerful European states of Great Britain and Spain.
Dave Sullivan , says: December 16, 2017 at 8:14 am
The opinion that anti-war people, particularly from the Vietnam era, did so because they didn't want to sacrifice is ludicrous. It displays an ignorance of the sacrifices made, and the success of the war party to paint them in this manor. Veterans are appointed a myriad of benefits, a plethora of memorials,holidays, endless honorable mentions. For the war resistors, nothing, unless one could count the kind of scorn I see here, on an antiwar site ! It is not "selfish" to look both ways before crossing the street, and perhaps choosing not to if it appears the risk is not worth the reward. In fact, this behavior defines "conservative". Militant societies require centralization. The key to modern centralized militant power, is nuclear war. The existence of these weapons produces a huge secrecy, and internal security state. They produce an insane populace whom believe the state is protecting them from annihilation. Know this, our militant masters love that North Korea has the bomb. Sleep tight.

[Dec 17, 2017] Newly-Declassified Documents Show Western Leaders Promised Gorbachev that NATO Would Not Move One Inch Closer to Russia by George Washington

Notable quotes:
"... By George Washington. Originally published at Washington's Blog ..."
"... When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that "We should not allow [ ] the isolation of the USSR from the European community." According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, " Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view)." (See Document 30) ..."
"... Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO ..."
"... IIRC, the U.S. has, historically, not lived up to one treaty in its entire existence. Quite a remarkable accomplishment, no? Methinks the chickens are coming home to roost, yes? ..."
"... Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin. ..."
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
"... first draft of history ..."
"... Zero acknowledgement by any of the deep permastate types that the consent of the governed is even necessary. We the people are simply the bobbleheads to be manipulated by the lying sociopaths in power. ..."
"... Any thing like this pretty much ignores the fact that all of the Visegad four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) were pushing VERY strongly to get included in NATO, as for them at the time it was the one clear signal that they are not in the USSRs zone of dominion any more. Anything else would just not do ..."
"... The EU has been willing to say "no" to the much more geographically important Turkey for decades. Why does Poland have more clout? ..."
"... the whole treatment of Russia as a beaten country (when they very clearly didn't feel like that) was beyong stupid, it was , and the West should have learned from history (how it ended with Germany post WW1). ..."
"... My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture. Yes, ultimately it was US decision (because they could have just keep saying no, although polish minority in the US is large – it's larger than Jewish, although I suspect there is an overlap. Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia. ..."
"... I suspect one of the reasons they actually agreed to it in the end was because they thought Russia was done for (who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic), and NATO was just a fomality that would be gone in a decade. ..."
"... My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia. ..."
"... who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic ..."
"... "Russia is finished" ..."
"... WW2 was "won" by Russia defeating Germany, while losing 30 million people. The US "won" WW2 by bombing a quarter million citizens at Hiroshima/Nagasake, while losing maybe 250,000 soldiers in the total war effort.. ..."
"... Gentlemen prefer jackboots ? ..."
"... The U.S. and its allies made a set of commitments to Gorbachev, and then Bill Clinton broke those promises. Full stop. Bush then doubled down. Obama and Trump added Albania, Croatia and Montenegro because I guess it's now a required machismo ritual. (interestinng coincidence that accessions just happened to be scheduled for the first six months after open-seat Presidential elections, no?) The consequences of those decisions are the responsibility of the inhabitants of the White House, and no one else's. ..."
"... The recent history, with savage civil wars in Yugoslavia, Moldavia and Ukraine, shows that there are enough wacky people imbued with detestation for their neighbours to overwhelm the sane ones. Echoes of what some Ukrainian groups tell about e.g. Poles make me think we should be wary of those old grievances. ..."
"... A century ago, Russians had a positive image amongst Eastern Europeans (except Poles). The ones who were the target of contempt and detestation were the Austrians and the Turks. Perhaps the next generation will have entirely forgotten about the Russians of the Warsaw Pact, the COMECON and the "limited sovereignty". ..."
"... Lost in your one-sided account of the brave Hungarians is the fact that a non-trivial contingent of those invading the USSR during the Second World War were Hungarians. There were a lot of fascists in Hungary, and no joke about it, and they willingly participated in the invasion. ..."
"... Instead the western powers got greedy, expanded up the the Russian border, lined it with Special Forces formations and future nuclear first-strike-missiles and holds NATO tank parades literally blocks away from the Russian border. Epic fail that. ..."
"... Nice thought but the military industry can't have peace and harmony. NATO was very quick to start talking about Islam as the next threat after the fall of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The entrenched USG neocons will foster a demonization of Putin (and Russia) until they achieve WWIII; but an objective evaluation of Russian superiority in weapons suggests that theirs is a suicide mission. Peruse the saga of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea, and the US military fear of Soviet defense missile systems, to understand. ..."
"... except that it wasn't as bad as its immediate successor. ..."
"... the reneging of Baker's promise + regime change in Iraq + regime change in Libya + near regime change in Syria demonstrate to everyone outside of Nato that the US/the West can't be trusted to honor international law -- regardless of the administration (Dem or Rep). And other countries will act accordingly ..."
"... In the book "Who Lost Russia", the author, Peter Conradi, mentions a political lobby group funded by the defense contractors to promote NATO expansion to the East in the 1990s. Does anyone have information concerning this group and its influence? ..."
"... By the late 90s, with Yeltsin in charge, Russian opposition was less of an issue. In the end, NATO stumbled into enlargement, telling itself that it would be confined to the V3/4 and that would be it. But as a number of us pointed out at the time, once you start, there's no logical point at which you stop. And so Ukraine. ..."
"... tell it to the American Natives (Indians). The US lies to eveyone to gain land and leverage. ..."
"... Another problem, and much more significant one, was that Russia adopted capitalist at the very unfortunate moment of the domination of neoliberalism which led to many catastrophic decisions. ..."
"... I find it hard to believe that Gorbachev, or indeed anyone in international politics, would trust the US government or US ruling class absent some sort of material verification, guarantees, even hostages. That requires some explanation. ..."
"... The Warsaw Pact was USSR military colonialism. NATO was US military colonialism. What does an imperial power do when its "enemy" vacates a space, asking for neutrality? It takes over, demanding tribute. The tribute in this case was neoliberalism, to the benefit of US business, especially the MIC. ..."
Dec 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Posted on December 15, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a more purely geopolitical piece than we normally run. The reason for featuring it is that this bit of history is vital to understanding current US/Russian relations.

Even though experts have acknowledged that Secretary of State James Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the Western powers would not move NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries, they claimed that the Russians were naive to have taken this promise as meaningful. The argument went that the US regarded only obligations committed to writing as binding, while the Soviets regarded firm, unambiguous statement by parties authorized to negotiate as commitments.

As the post below describes in detail, the Russians have more basis for feeling abused by the US and its allies than the US defense above indicates. Not only did Baker repeat his "not one inch eastward" declaration on three separate occasions, many national leaders and top-level diplomats in NATO countries, such as Maggie Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and Francois Mitterand, both affirmed that they would respect the security interests of the former USSR and would also involve it in European "security structures."

And as we've said repeatedly, when the Clinton Administration broke these commitments by moving NATO eastward in 1997, cold warrior George Kennan predicted that it would be the worst geopolitical mistake the US ever made.

By George Washington. Originally published at Washington's Blog

The U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time it broke up and many other experts have said that the West promised Gorbachev that – if the USSR allowed German re-unification – NATO wouldn't move "one inch closer" to Russia.

While Western leaders have long denied the promise, newly-declassified documents now prove this.

The National Security Archive at George Washington University reported Tuesday:

U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch eastward" assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University ( http://nsarchive.gwu.edu ).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates's criticism of "pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn't happen."

***

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear "that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an 'impairment of Soviet security interests.' Therefore, NATO should rule out an 'expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.'" The Bonn cable also noted Genscher's proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO

This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about "closer to the Soviet borders" is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures . The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.

The "Tutzing formula" immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east

***

The conversations before Kohl's assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, "The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next ." (See Document 2)

Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the "not one inch eastward" formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev's statement in response to the assurances that "NATO expansion is unacceptable." Baker assured Gorbachev that "neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place," and that the Americans understood that "not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction." (See Document 6).

Here are two relevant excerpts from Document 6 :

***

The National Security Archive report continues:

Baker reported: "And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [ .] He then added, 'Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.'" Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl's benefit, "By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable." ( See Document 8)

Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity." (See Document 9).

Here is a related excerpt from Document 9 :

The National Security Archives report concludes:

All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990.

***

Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly "recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity." (See Document 15)

The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: "I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive." (See Document 17)

Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his "nine points," which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, "Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you." (See Document 18)

The French leader Francois Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must "create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole." (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a " cher George " letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that "we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country's security." (See Document 20)

At the Washington summit on May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev that Germany in NATO would never be directed at the USSR : "Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well." (See Document 21)

The "Iron Lady" also pitched in, after the Washington summit, in her meeting with Gorbachev in London on June 8, 1990. Thatcher anticipated the moves the Americans (with her support) would take in the early July NATO conference to support Gorbachev with descriptions of the transformation of NATO towards a more political, less militarily threatening, alliance . She said to Gorbachev: "We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured . CSCE could be an umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe." (See Document 22)

The NATO London Declaration on July 5, 1990 had quite a positive effect on deliberations in Moscow, according to most accounts, giving Gorbachev significant ammunition to counter his hardliners at the Party Congress which was taking place at that moment.

***

As Kohl said to Gorbachev in Moscow on July 15, 1990, as they worked out the final deal on German unification: "We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well," referring to the NATO London Declaration. (See Document 23)

In his phone call to Gorbachev on July 17, Bush meant to reinforce the success of the Kohl-Gorbachev talks and the message of the London Declaration. Bush explained: "So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO ; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe." (See Document 24)

The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances , and on the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued , a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave "the door ajar" for East European membership in NATO . (See Document 27)

***

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, "We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO ." Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders' interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, " Nothing of the sort will happen ." (See Document 28)

When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that "We should not allow [ ] the isolation of the USSR from the European community." According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, " Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view)." (See Document 30)

Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO

Anti-Schmoo , December 15, 2017 at 4:22 am

IIRC, the U.S. has, historically, not lived up to one treaty in its entire existence. Quite a remarkable accomplishment, no? Methinks the chickens are coming home to roost, yes?

Jim Haygood , December 15, 2017 at 7:26 am

Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo posted an article "based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials" titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian Threat Unchecked":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/

Axiomatic to the WaPo hacks authors is that NATO ranks right up there with the 1776 Declaration and the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.

Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days later, since they aren't "fitted to the narrative."

History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(

Sid Finster , December 15, 2017 at 11:16 am

Any time you hear or read a Russian conspiracy theory in the MSM or elsewhere, substitute the words "Jews" for "Russians" and the words "International Jewry" for "Russia". Then re-read the sentence.

See how ugly that sentence now looks?

So why should we rightfully decry such racism against Jews or others, but applaud the same sort of racism when it is directed against Russians?

Jfree , December 15, 2017 at 4:32 am

Interesting to see these first draft of history discussions come out. At roughly the same time, Jeanne Kirkpatrick wrote an article directed more to a public discussion that the end of the 40-year Cold War could lead to America once again becoming a normal country in normal times . With its implication that NATO's very existence might not even be necessary anymore.

Gotta say the thing that most disappoints me is that none of these conversations ever actually occurred in any public – anywhere. There was absolutely zero public discussion about what a post-Cold War world and its mutual obligations might look like.

Zero acknowledgement by any of the deep permastate types that the consent of the governed is even necessary. We the people are simply the bobbleheads to be manipulated by the lying sociopaths in power.

Sid Finster , December 15, 2017 at 11:18 am

Yeah, but then the Deep State might actually have to get *jobs*.

skippy , December 15, 2017 at 4:33 am

Ask the Afghani Mujaheddin

vlade , December 15, 2017 at 4:44 am

You cannot read this alone – I said so before, and will again.

Any thing like this pretty much ignores the fact that all of the Visegad four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) were pushing VERY strongly to get included in NATO, as for them at the time it was the one clear signal that they are not in the USSRs zone of dominion any more. Anything else would just not do.

It was a symbol, more than anything else. You need to remember that all of those countries had Soviet troops (and nuclear weapons), some since WW2, and ALL of them had their citizens killed by Soviet troops (Czechoslovakia 1968, Hungary 1956, Poland pre-and post WW2) within living memory.

Clinton resisted this (for a time, and I believe on advice of his security advisors), but in the end was won over. I have actually talked to a few people from V4 who were involved in this at a quite high level, so feel like I can comment.

Ignoring the above is to me just a sort of different American bubble that says "everything (for one group good, for another bad) that happens in the world is because America wishes so". It entirely ignores the history and the political situation in the area at the time.

That's not to say US couldn't have played it better – but it was not "America wake up and said "let's extend NATO for the kicks of it"" either.

Yves Smith Post author , December 15, 2017 at 5:20 am

Did you read the post? The commitments weren't just from the US. They were also from the leaders of Germany, France, and the UK.

The EU has been willing to say "no" to the much more geographically important Turkey for decades. Why does Poland have more clout?

Quentin , December 15, 2017 at 7:09 am

Maybe Poland has more clout because the rest of Europe and the US see Poland as part of their world. Not so much Turkey, which didn't get into any European 'game' plan until the end of the Ottoman empire, especially beginning with Ataturk. Before that, it was more an enemy if anything. And Russia then? Well Russia has always been seen as the big, bad freak who refuses to comply and conform, submit, to the West's deepest wishes.

Carolinian , December 15, 2017 at 9:10 am

I'm reading a book about the Crimean War and even in the middle of the 19th cent. there was widespread sentiment in England that the Russians were Slavic barbarians threatening the rest of Europe with their size, expansionist ambitions and different version of Christianity. So perhaps the current Russophobia has deeper roots than we realize and may center on Old Blightey with the cousins along for the ride. In this scenario Poland became the buffer zone against the Russians and was much quarreled over by the great powers.

vlade , December 15, 2017 at 7:13 am

I can't answer that – but the reality is, that US was giving V4 "No" answer when they were lobbying for it, and it took them years to get there.

If US was so keen to do it, it would have been done by Bush, not Clinton towards the end of hist first term. Clinton told Havel (and I have it from a person who was in the room at the time) that his military/security advisors were telling him "No".

Donald , December 15, 2017 at 7:30 am

What difference would it make to the Russians if Clinton was told not to do it and then did it anyway? You are arguing in effect that the US had good intentions and didn't want to break its word, but that is a secondary issue. The issue here is that not only did the US break its word, but we have been misled about it.

I was thinking about this in connection with a story about Yemen in the Intercept a couple of days ago. It seems that our ambassador to Yemen was more hawkish than some others in the Obama Administration. I think we should know as much as possible about how such decisions ar made and I thought the story was useful, but I can imagine how it would be spun if the mainstream press were ever pressured into covering our horrific role in Yemen with as much energy as they pour into Russiagate. They would look for a scapegoat like the ambassador and do everything they could to show that overall the US had good intentions.

vlade , December 15, 2017 at 8:22 am

My point is not the Russian grievance – that stands. I'd even agree with that it was a dumb move – but the whole treatment of Russia as a beaten country (when they very clearly didn't feel like that) was beyong stupid, it was , and the West should have learned from history (how it ended with Germany post WW1).

My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture. Yes, ultimately it was US decision (because they could have just keep saying no, although polish minority in the US is large – it's larger than Jewish, although I suspect there is an overlap. Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia.

I suspect one of the reasons they actually agreed to it in the end was because they thought Russia was done for (who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic), and NATO was just a fomality that would be gone in a decade.

TBH, I also suspect that the first expansion Russia could have lived with – but the second expansion, especially taking in Baltics, and any suggestion of having NATO expand more towards Russia's borders was, is and will be seen as a provocation and a direct threat by Russia. Russia feels safe only when it has a nice plump buffer, preferrably of aligned states.

hemeantwell , December 15, 2017 at 9:17 am

The "wider picture" is that the US was the preeminent military power at that time. That is a reality that could have been leveraged into a transition in the terms of competition between Russia and the West. Your suggestion that four small countries should bear any responsibility for US' failure to follow through on its assurances and to use this opening to put an end to militarized competition and brinksmanship is impossible to take seriously. It ignores major players, e.g. the good old military-industrial complex (which here needs to be thought of in international terms), that were seriously threatened by the possibility of a wind-down in tensions.

timbers , December 15, 2017 at 9:19 am

My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia.

Trump came into office promising better relations w/Russia and look how that turned out. It "wasn't that Trump was rushing into" worse relations w/Russia, but it still happened and in a very big hurry or "rush.".

I'd say the "Deep State" agenda was very much in a rush to start aggression against Russia.

Was Trump? Bill Clinton? Bush? Certainly Hillary was. But maybe they were/are just puppets of the Deep State.

visitor , December 15, 2017 at 11:11 am

who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic

The general view of Russia as a goner was actually a post-1998 phenomenon because of the financial crash, bank failures, currency depreciation, state bankruptcy -- and the realization of how corrupt, destitute and rotten the "new democratic Russia" was. The (in)famous article "Russia is finished" by Jeffrey Tayler was published in 2001 -- at a time when Putin had just started taking control of things.

Wukchumni , December 15, 2017 at 12:30 pm

My parents knew the Korbels in Denver in the 50's, as an interesting aside to the conversation.

I'm on the phone with my mom right now, and she relates that the idea that Madeleine didn't know she was Jewish until 1997 is a bit preposterous as her mother looked very much the part, but it was a different era way back when, and anti-semitism was such that you might have been turned away on a hotel room when they asked your surname, in some quarters.

MisterMr , December 15, 2017 at 9:52 am

"The EU has been willing to say "no" to the much more geographically important Turkey for decades. Why does Poland have more clout?"

In my opinion, there is some sort of European nationalism, by which I mean the idea that Europe should be a single big nation state, in most of Europe. This view is not as strong and obvious as single nation state nationalism, but it exists: for example Giuseppe Mazzini, one of the "founding fathers" of Italy, created two secret societies: the "giovine Italia" [young Italy] for the unification of Italy, and the "giovine Europa" [young Europe] for the unification of Europe, already in the 19th century before Italian unification.

The whole idea of a "united Europe" is part of the reason of the EU, so it's natural that Poland, which was already perceived as an European country, was welcome in the EU; Turkey on the other hand is not generally perceived as European so it's less welcome (you can see this as racism, or as sense of identity, the difference is quite blurry IMHO).

Russia too would have been welcome into the EU (in my opinion), but I don't think the Russians would have accepted the loss of sovereignity that this entail.

I think that this has to do with the fact that many (most) European countries were beaten quite hard in WW2, and even the two european "winners" of WW2 won only in the sense that the USA and the USSR won and they happened to be on the right side of the war at that time.

So nationalistic identity and pride in most of Europe is, IMHO, a more complex thing than it is in the USA, and Europeans mostly welcomed the idea of a United Europe.

Perhaps not coincidentally, the ones who appear to be the less attached to the idea of a "United Europe" are the British, who are the one who still may think they won WW2.

Anon , December 15, 2017 at 9:30 pm

WW2 was "won" by Russia defeating Germany, while losing 30 million people. The US "won" WW2 by bombing a quarter million citizens at Hiroshima/Nagasake, while losing maybe 250,000 soldiers in the total war effort..

Alex Morfesis , December 15, 2017 at 7:10 am

A bit confused on this viceguard suggestion of nostalgia for the wehrmacht and pure hate for Moscow

is it the food, the wine, or the women (kiss me muti) on the west side of the oder-neisse line ?

Gentlemen prefer jackboots ?

vlade , December 15, 2017 at 8:34 am

Where do you see nostalgia for Wehrmacht?

In 1990s, Soviets were the leaving occupants, who were there for 20+ years. They were thorougly despised – that's a fact. Soviets in 1950s were still often seen as liberators by a majority of the population, but managed to squander that away with bloody suppression of Hungarians in 50s, and less bloody, but not less jackbooted supression of Prague Spring in 68 (in a way more, since Hungarians actually fought, while in Prague Spring the killed were unarmed civilians)

whiteylockmandoubled , December 15, 2017 at 10:51 am

Yes, the Soviets were hated occupiers, but so what? The stakes on this are and were enormous, both in traditional Great Power terms, and with the added dimension of nuclear confrontation.

There were many steps that the US, UK, Germany and France could have taken to provide reassurances and security to the Eastern European states during the ensuing 20 years short of expanding NATO membership, beginning, of course, with economic integration. EU membership doesn't necessarily require NATO membership.

Yes, there were domestic "Captive Nations" political pressures in the U.S., but they could have been finessed with smart policy short of NATO expansion, and in fact, they were. I know it was a terrible strain, but US politicians heroically resisted that pressure for a full decade -- the first expansion didn't happen until 1999, more than half-way through Clinton's second term.

The U.S. and its allies made a set of commitments to Gorbachev, and then Bill Clinton broke those promises. Full stop. Bush then doubled down. Obama and Trump added Albania, Croatia and Montenegro because I guess it's now a required machismo ritual. (interestinng coincidence that accessions just happened to be scheduled for the first six months after open-seat Presidential elections, no?) The consequences of those decisions are the responsibility of the inhabitants of the White House, and no one else's.

America really did this one.

visitor , December 15, 2017 at 11:18 am

Interestingly, Eastern Europeans detest each other as well: Romanians vs. Hungarians, Poles vs. Ukrainians, Bulgarians vs. Serbs, etc. Their execration of the historically dominating and boorish Russians is what brings them together -- as well as their wariness of the overbearing and historically dominating Germany.

Olga , December 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Detest is a very strong word and not accurate in this case. There are historical grievances (such as Hungarians wanting to scrap the Trianon treaty), but most sane people have moved on Same goes for "boorish" Russians – have you ever met a Russian or read a bit of history about Eastern Europe? And yes, the struggle against German domination dates back to 800-900AD.

visitor , December 15, 2017 at 1:40 pm

The recent history, with savage civil wars in Yugoslavia, Moldavia and Ukraine, shows that there are enough wacky people imbued with detestation for their neighbours to overwhelm the sane ones. Echoes of what some Ukrainian groups tell about e.g. Poles make me think we should be wary of those old grievances.

Yes, I did meet Russians. Actually, I worked with them. In fact, I hired some. Very nice guys and fun lads, very intelligent, conscientious and imaginative (my branch is IT -- I view Russians as the elite there). Not boorish at all (but a bit cynical).

On the other hand, the anecdotes they kept telling about how things were going with police, "businessmen" and politicians back home made it very clear that those are extremely boorish -- and they were mostly the ones Eastern Europeans had to deal with. Those stories also explain why my Russian colleagues were so reserved initially, and opened up when they realized how different the interactions were in Western Europe.

I also had Hungarians and Romanians working with me and the Russians -- and there was absolutely no problem. All young generation though, they were schoolboys when the Eastern bloc collapsed. Time frame: early 2000s.

A century ago, Russians had a positive image amongst Eastern Europeans (except Poles). The ones who were the target of contempt and detestation were the Austrians and the Turks. Perhaps the next generation will have entirely forgotten about the Russians of the Warsaw Pact, the COMECON and the "limited sovereignty".

Sid Finster , December 15, 2017 at 11:22 am

Want to induce a spitting mad Donald Duck meltdown in a Polish person?

Simply remind them that the only reason that there are Polish people alive in Poland today is because of the Red Army. Anyone who thinks that the Germans were going to stop at Jews is not familiar with Mein Kampf or Generalplan Ost.

This is not to excuse anything else that the Soviets did in Eastern Europe, but at the same time, it is the only reason those Polish people are alive to nurse their russophobia.

Olga , December 15, 2017 at 11:56 am

For example, in some parts of Ukraine

JerseyJeffersonian , December 15, 2017 at 5:17 pm

Vlade,

Lost in your one-sided account of the brave Hungarians is the fact that a non-trivial contingent of those invading the USSR during the Second World War were Hungarians. There were a lot of fascists in Hungary, and no joke about it, and they willingly participated in the invasion. If you think that the losses in life and property caused directly by the invading Hungarian fascists to the Russian and Soviet peoples, both military and civilian, and the war crimes with which they were likely liberally festooned were not remembered, well, think again. And when the uprising began, those memories probably informed the severity of the Soviet response.

The Hungarians took up arms and participated in a brutal and genocidal attack against the USSR during the Third Reich's invasion. This was only slightly more than 10 years before the Hungarian uprising. Realistically, what did you expect the Soviets' reaction to be to the uprising? Soviet intelligence was surely aware of the Gladio program, and this would only be seen as part and parcel of this western-guided and sponsored program.

Were the deaths and repression that followed regrettable? Of course they were; I am not maintaining otherwise. But times were what they were largely due to what had gone before, and to elide that from the account is unbalanced.

The Rev Kev , December 15, 2017 at 8:16 am

I am wondering what would have happened if NATO had not only expanded east but had also let the Russian Federation itself become part of NATO. Of course countries like Estonia and Lithuania would have squawked about that but they could have been simply told to have a large cup of shut the **** up. Either that or they would have been neutral countries with NATO to the west as well as the east (Russia). Can you imagine?

Instead of NATO merely being the military wing of the western powers it would be one that stretched from Vladivostok right through to the Atlantic. Such an entity would have made it its job to stabilize all the Stans to the south of it as well as Afghanistan itself. There would never be the scenario, as is the case now, where China and Russia have been forced into a defensive alliance. Perhaps Russia would have become part of the EU. Imagine the trade possibilities.

Instead the western powers got greedy, expanded up the the Russian border, lined it with Special Forces formations and future nuclear first-strike-missiles and holds NATO tank parades literally blocks away from the Russian border. Epic fail that.

Chaos is the goal , December 15, 2017 at 9:12 am

Nice thought but the military industry can't have peace and harmony. NATO was very quick to start talking about Islam as the next threat after the fall of the Soviet Union.

UK even insisted that they needed their nuclear submarines to fight islam.

Olga , December 15, 2017 at 12:02 pm

There's be no need for MICC – can't have that, can we

andyb , December 15, 2017 at 8:32 am

The entrenched USG neocons will foster a demonization of Putin (and Russia) until they achieve WWIII; but an objective evaluation of Russian superiority in weapons suggests that theirs is a suicide mission. Peruse the saga of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea, and the US military fear of Soviet defense missile systems, to understand.

jfleni , December 15, 2017 at 9:28 am

Blowback: Kim Jong-Un, China, Russia, etc, etc, "We'll never believe you again, you lying Yankee [obscenities], a pox on you! And who can blame them?

Joel , December 15, 2017 at 10:34 am

When are historians going to start saying that the Clinton presidency was one of the most disastrous in American history?

The more we know, the more it seems much bad and little good came out of it, except that it wasn't as bad as its immediate successor.

visitor , December 15, 2017 at 11:02 am

except that it wasn't as bad as its immediate successor.

In so far as the major consequences of the policies and decisions taken by Clinton actually occurred during GWB's presidency, there is little to choose between them.

Extraordinary renditions? Clinton. Military interventions without UNO resolutions? Clinton. Complete dismantling of the financial sector leading to untrammeled speculation? Clinton. Bombing of foreign countries as a standard policy? Clinton (though with old-fashioned aeroplanes and long-range missiles, not drones, so there was innovation with Bush).

Amfortas the Hippie , December 15, 2017 at 11:19 am

At the time(clinton era), I was leery of Billary, but I couldn't put my finger on it I was too busy being young and wild and crazy, as well as keeping body and soul together.

and it was preinternet.

so one had to find alternative narratives regarding the shape of the world where one could people on street corners in the Montrose(Houston) handing out Lyndon Larouche newsletters, later street people on the Drag in Austin handing out Zines from Zendik Farms, still wet with ink, or the odd John Bircher at the aa meeting, the closet Klansman at the beer joint as well as more respectable outlets(William Greider comes to mind).

More to the point of this story, growing up listening to my Half Cherokee Grandad talk about perfidy on the part of the US, I guess I have always been immune to the usual flagwaving superpatriotism the US gov is not to be trusted. Ever.

It's only since I finally got on the Web, circa 1999, that I've been able to sift through all the chaff, and look at things like the foreign press and FOIA Docs, that that Feeling has hardened into Certainty.

The more I learn, the more I find that I loathe my country.(see: history of the CIA, for just one egregious crime spree in our name)
That sucks especially since expressing such dislike is the quickest way to getting lynched in the places I've spent my life(Texas and the South).

Olga , December 15, 2017 at 11:57 am

you're right, now it seems we shoulda kept papa bush for another term.

urdsama , December 15, 2017 at 12:36 pm

That is not what Joel said.

There has been a steady stream of articles and government disclosures that have shown the Clinton years were less than the rosy picture commonly painted.

This just adds to that narrative. Nothing is being said that we should have had more Bush the elder. But perhaps Clinton wasn't the answer either.

Louis Fyne , December 15, 2017 at 11:37 am

the reneging of Baker's promise + regime change in Iraq + regime change in Libya + near regime change in Syria demonstrate to everyone outside of Nato that the US/the West can't be trusted to honor international law -- regardless of the administration (Dem or Rep). And other countries will act accordingly

P Fitzsimon , December 15, 2017 at 11:58 am

In the book "Who Lost Russia", the author, Peter Conradi, mentions a political lobby group funded by the defense contractors to promote NATO expansion to the East in the 1990s. Does anyone have information concerning this group and its influence?

Olga , December 15, 2017 at 12:04 pm

I do remember reading about this group – someone wrote a lengthy article on this. Will look.

RWood , December 15, 2017 at 1:02 pm

Olga, you mention the MICC, while to others, it's the MIC. What discourse or determination leads you to that difference? I'm asking because I agree, and want further documentation, and the elimination of the last "C" is constant, and a great misperception.

David , December 15, 2017 at 1:34 pm

I was there. I've never believed that western leaders were being deliberately deceitful about NATO expansion – they were as much victims of events as anything else, and the situation was moving incredibly fast. Remember that the conversation with Gorbachev (Document 9) dates from February 1990, barely three months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when western capitals were in shock, and the priority was a peaceful reunification of Germany and the exit of Soviet forces stationed there. At that stage, as the situation changed almost daily, nobody much was thinking about NATO expansion. Indeed, many were wondering if NATO would go on at all.

Vlade is quite right that there was pressure from the V3 (later 4) for closer ties with the West, and this eventually turned into membership, but this was not being discussed in early 1990, when the V3 themselves did not want to move from one military bloc to another, and when it would have been seen as a gratuitous insult to the Soviet Union. On the other hand, there was a lot of worry about the stability of some of the ex Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet successor states.

The real issue was the future of NATO itself. NATO had all sorts of pragmatic political advantages for all sorts of nations, including many in Europe, and it was necessary to find something for it to do. In the absence of a threat, enlargement was more or less all it could do, and so that was what it spent a long time doing.

By the late 90s, with Yeltsin in charge, Russian opposition was less of an issue. In the end, NATO stumbled into enlargement, telling itself that it would be confined to the V3/4 and that would be it. But as a number of us pointed out at the time, once you start, there's no logical point at which you stop. And so Ukraine.

Anon , December 15, 2017 at 9:47 pm

tell it to the American Natives (Indians). The US lies to eveyone to gain land and leverage.

Alex , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm

I'm grinding my teeth when I think about that time when it was possible to effect a genuine reset of relations between Russia and the West.\

Another problem, and much more significant one, was that Russia adopted capitalist at the very unfortunate moment of the domination of neoliberalism which led to many catastrophic decisions.

Anarcissie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm

I find it hard to believe that Gorbachev, or indeed anyone in international politics, would trust the US government or US ruling class absent some sort of material verification, guarantees, even hostages. That requires some explanation.

RBHoughton , December 15, 2017 at 6:39 pm

The article notes dishonesty originated in the Department of Defense. Why am I not surprised?

One the most attractive features of NATO is that it emasculates all its members before the most powerful one. The strongman gets to know what the others can do militarily and adjusts for that. Its like a secret society – once in, you can't leave even if you want to. So joining the NATO gang for security actually brings submission. Should the strongest one withdraw into domestic contemplation the others will just wither away. Horror of horrors, peace might break out. Doubtful? What did we see in Serbia and Bosnia? Remind me.

wilroncanada , December 15, 2017 at 7:41 pm

The Warsaw Pact was USSR military colonialism. NATO was US military colonialism. What does an imperial power do when its "enemy" vacates a space, asking for neutrality? It takes over, demanding tribute. The tribute in this case was neoliberalism, to the benefit of US business, especially the MIC.

Olaf Lukk , December 15, 2017 at 10:20 pm

NATO was formed in 1948 response to the Soviet refusal to withdraw from the Eastern European nations it continued to occupy with Soviet troops and control with puppet governments after WWll. The Soviet response was to form the Warsaw Pact- consisting of those very same nations: (East) Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania. The only time Warsaw Pact troops were used militarily was to put down rebellions by its own members: Hungary in 1956; Czechoslavakia in 1968.

The collapse of the Soviet empire- its Eastern European "sphere of influence"- began with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and culminated in the collapse of the Soviet "union" in 1991. In subsequent years, all of the Warsaw Pact members, plus the illegally annexed and occupied Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, having reclaimed their sovereignty, also made a point of joining NATO- to ensure that a reawakened Russian bear did not return to do even more damage.

Western leaders in 1990, seeking to reassure Gorbachev regarding German unification, had no standing to negotiate away the future foreign policies of those nations which had endured half a century of the failed Soviet experiment and were still within the Soviet "sphere of influence". In any case, how do you keep a "promise" to a political entity- the USSR- which no longer exists?

The nations of Eastern Europe chose to join NATO; they were not coerced into doing so. Russian actions in Ukraine have validated their pragmatism in joining NATO. Although Putin described the demise of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th Century", Russia does not have some sort of divine right to rebuild the Soviet empire and it "sphere of influence". NATO is not a threat to Russia; it is only a threat to those who would seek to rebuild its lost empire.

Yves Smith Post author , December 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm

Sorry, NATO is a club, just like the EU, which has refused entry to Turkey. NATO decides who to let in. Outsiders don't have any rights, any more than Quebec could demand to join France.

Olaf Lukk , December 15, 2017 at 11:02 pm

"NATO decides who to let in". Precisely! All of the former Warsaw Pact members, plus the Baltic states, asked to join NATO, and were granted membership. Don't the nations of Eastern Europe- after fifty years of Soviet (Russian) domination, have the right to decide their own future, and to decide which alliances to join?

Considering the post WWll history of Eastern Europe -- the Soviet domination until the Soviet collapse -- Russia complaining about NATO expansion is tantamout to a burglar complaining that his victims have installed a burglar alarm.

[Dec 16, 2017] Mohammed bin Salman's ill-advised ventures have weakened Saudi Arabia, by Patrick Cockburn - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause. ..."
"... I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating the value of instability. ..."
Dec 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) of Saudi Arabia is the undoubted Middle East man of the year, but his great impact stems more from his failures than his successes. He is accused of being Machiavellian in clearing his way to the throne by the elimination of opponents inside and outside the royal family. But, when it comes to Saudi Arabia's position in the world, his miscalculations remind one less of the cunning manoeuvres of Machiavelli and more of the pratfalls of Inspector Clouseau.

Again and again, the impulsive and mercurial young prince has embarked on ventures abroad that achieve the exact opposite of what he intended. When his father became king in early 2015, he gave support to a rebel offensive in Syria that achieved some success but provoked full-scale Russian military intervention, which in turn led to the victory of President Bashar al-Assad. At about the same time, MbS launched Saudi armed intervention, mostly through airstrikes, in the civil war in Yemen. The action was code-named Operation Decisive Storm, but two and a half years later the war is still going on, has killed 10,000 people and brought at least seven million Yemenis close to starvation.

The Crown Prince is focusing Saudi foreign policy on aggressive opposition to Iran and its regional allies, but the effect of his policies has been to increase Iranian influence. The feud with Qatar, in which Saudi Arabia and the UAE play the leading role, led to a blockade being imposed five months ago which is still going on. The offence of the Qataris was to have given support to al-Qaeda type movements – an accusation that was true enough but could be levelled equally at Saudi Arabia – and to having links with Iran. The net result of the anti-Qatari campaign has been to drive the small but fabulously wealthy state further into the Iranian embrace.

Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often counterproductive: witness the bizarre episode in November when the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was summoned to Riyadh, not allowed to depart and forced to resign his position. The objective of this ill-considered action on the part of Saudi Arabia was apparently to weaken Hezbollah and Iran in Lebanon, but has in practice empowered both of them.

What all these Saudi actions have in common is that they are based on a naïve presumption that "a best-case scenario" will inevitably be achieved. There is no "Plan B" and not much of a "Plan A": Saudi Arabia is simply plugging into conflicts and confrontations it has no idea how to bring to an end.

MbS and his advisers may imagine that it does not matter what Yemenis, Qataris or Lebanese think because President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and chief Middle East adviser, are firmly in their corner. "I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing," tweeted Trump in early November after the round up and confinement of some 200 members of the Saudi elite. "Some of those they are harshly treating have been 'milking' their country for years!" Earlier he had tweeted support for the attempt to isolate Qatar as a supporter of "terrorism".

But Saudi Arabia is learning that support from the White House these days brings fewer advantages than in the past. The attention span of Donald Trump is notoriously short, and his preoccupation is with domestic US politics: his approval does not necessarily mean the approval of other parts of the US government. The State Department and the Pentagon may disapprove of the latest Trump tweet and seek to ignore or circumvent it. Despite his positive tweet, the US did not back the Saudi confrontation with Qatar or the attempt to get Mr Hariri to resign as prime minister of Lebanon.

For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little. The idea of a Saudi-Israeli covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some Washington think tanks, but does not make much sense on the ground. The assumption that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US embassy there, would have no long-term effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning to look shaky.

It is Saudi Arabia – and not its rivals – that is becoming isolated. The political balance of power in the region changed to its disadvantage over the last two years. Some of this predates the elevation of MbS: by 2015 it was becoming clear that a combination of Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey was failing to carry out regime change in Damascus. This powerful grouping has fragmented, with Turkey and Qatar moving closer to the Russian-backed Iranian-led axis, which is the dominant power in the northern tier of the Middle East between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean.

If the US and Saudi Arabia wanted to do anything about this new alignment, they have left it too late. Other states in the Middle East are coming to recognise that there are winners and losers, and have no wish to be on the losing side. When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called a meeting this week in Istanbul of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, to which 57 Muslim states belong, to reject and condemn the US decision on Jerusalem, Saudi Arabia only sent a junior representative to this normally moribund organisation. But other state leaders like Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, King Abdullah of Jordan and the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar, among many others, were present. They recognised East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and demanded the US reverse its decision.

MbS is in the tradition of leaders all over the world who show Machiavellian skills in securing power within their own countries. But their success domestically gives them an exaggerated sense of their own capacity in dealing with foreign affairs, and this can have calamitous consequences. Saddam Hussein was very acute in seizing power in Iraq but ruined his country by starting two wars he could not win.

Mistakes made by powerful leaders are often explained by their own egomania and ignorance, supplemented by flattering but misleading advice from their senior lieutenants. The first steps in foreign intervention are often alluring because a leader can present himself as a national standard bearer, justifying his monopoly of power at home. Such a patriotic posture is a shortcut to popularity, but there is always a political bill to pay if confrontations and wars end in frustration and defeat. MbS has unwisely decided that Saudi Arabia should play a more active and aggressive role at the very moment that its real political and economic strength is ebbing. He is overplaying his hand and making too many enemies.

Svigor , December 16, 2017 at 6:24 am GMT
The only hope someone as cloistered as a Saudi crown prince can have of being an effective ruler is either by being an extraordinary person (very curious, love learning for its own sake, etc), or be at least moderately intelligent, and listen to consensus.

For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little.

Lies and Jew-hatred. Everyone knows that despite their infamous sharpness in business dealings, the world's longest history of legalism, a completely self-centered and ethnocentric culture, and their longstanding abuse of the Palestinians, every single deal the Jews try to sign with the Palestinians heavily favors the Palestinians, and the only reason the Palestinians won't sign is because they're psychotic Jew-haters.

The idea of a Saudi-Israeli covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some Washington think tanks, but does not make much sense on the ground. The assumption that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US embassy there, would have no long-term effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning to look shaky.

Hey, you skipped the part where you did anything to support the idea that a Zionist-Saudi alliance doesn't make sense.

K, let's all wait for Art Deco to come in and spew some Hasbara then tell us he's not a Zhid.

Avery , December 16, 2017 at 6:28 am GMT
{Mohammed Bin Salman's Ill-Advised Ventures Have Weakened Saudi Arabia}

GREAT news. Hopefully the evil, cannibalistic terrorism spreading so-called 'kingdom' of desert nomads will continue on its path of self destruction, and disappear as a functioning state.

Tammy , December 16, 2017 at 9:51 am GMT
Once more a Saudi Firster was detained in KSA. This time the owner of Arab Bank, a Jordanian with dual Jordan and KSA citizenship. Saad Hariri a Lebanese was the first one who was dual Lebanon and KSA citizens and who lost his diplomatic immunity in KSA.

I wonder if the Israel Firster who are dual citizens are now sweating? Wonder, if Netanyahu is still an USA citizen? Happy days are coming back .

Jake , December 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT
"Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often counterproductive:"

Saudis allied with Israelis, backed by the wealth and might of the US? Guaranteed to bring out the worst in Saudis (which is bad enough at base) and Israelis and Americans.

cbrown , December 16, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT
Machiavellian skills really ? I'd see 6 months ahead if this was true. MBS just made a show that they are a de facto Mafia not a businessman to the whole world. I'd bet he just quashed a lot of efforts and money spent on raising the racing horses of the saud monarch and in turn destroyed some serious connection that were vital but aren't readily available to them. Just how potent money they thought it would be ? Sure all is businesses and it will work so long you can pay the right person. The problem is where to find the right person.
Joe Hide , December 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT
Come on Cockburn, look at the Big Picture, not the little one. This the old fallacy of looking at the trees and not seeing the forest. What is happening in Saudi Arabia is a piece of the much bigger puzzle being put together over years, decades, and maybe generations.

The psychopaths at the top of the power pyramid have been engaged in this hidden global game for generations, it's always been part of their longterm strategy.

Very recently Highly intelligent, realistic, morally and ethically centered, and practically oriented individuals, have also formed secret powerful groups to arrive at beneficial goals for humanity. These truly Good Guys have learned that the criminal, murderous, lecherous, degenerate, deviate, psychopaths in positions of great power are irredeemable and should be eliminated where possible. What you see in Saudi Arabia is merely a tree, not the forest. Just the same, to the author, keep writing but research the subject much much more before you put pen to paper, as you do have apersuasive and talented style.

EliteCommInc. , December 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT
I am going to come to the defence here.

1. We have been screaming about the unintended consequences of Saudi giving to charities since 2004.

2. We removed the buffer of Iraq from Iranian ambitions (as unclear as it may be debated) creating issues not only for Saudi Arabia, but others in the region as well.

3. We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause.

4. No one is escaping the negative consequences of our Iraq invasion.

5. We have been complaining about rogue and irresponsible wealthy Muslims ad naseum.

Now when someone steps up the plate to meet the challenges many caused by the US – our first complaint is not astute counsel but rather a series of articles highlighting failure. I would not contend that I support every choice. But I think we should at least take a wait and see perspective. He is operating in a region rife with intrigue and ambitions, not to mention -- Muslims bent on spreading Islam as one would expect a muslim to do. Frankly I am not sure how one governs in the arena of the middle east – especially now – it's a region in major shift.

I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating the value of instability.

DESERT FOX , December 16, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT
The Saudis are the U.S. and ISISRAELS puppet, they do what the Zionist neocons tell them to do, which is to be the Zionist agent provocateur in the Mideast.

The Saudis have helped the U.S. and ISISRAEL create and finance ISIS aka AL CIADA and for this the Saudis can rot in hell, and by the way the reason for the attack on Yemen is that the Saudis oil reserves are diminishing and so the Saudis figured they would take Yemens oil.

The main creators of ISIS aka AL CIADA are the U.S. and ISISRAEL and BRITAIN ie the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6.

Anon , Disclaimer December 16, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT
The irony is that Saudis, before MbS and during his dominance, are making exactly the same suicidal blunders as the US. No enemy could have damaged the US and its positions in the world more than its Presidents and the Congress in the last 17 years. The same is true for KSA, with the same mistakes being made: undermining the financial system of the country, global over-reach that forces all opposition to unite, crazy military expenses, etc.
Art , December 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT
Sorry, but these people dressed in 14 century robes and garb, cannot be taken seriously. They look like play-people feigning a furious grandeur. Without their petrochemicals – they would be laughed at by everyone – including their own kind. They should not be respected because they are religious – they are old world tribalist thugs hiding behind a religion. They use and abuse their people – holding them back from modernity.

Think Peace -- Art

Anon , Disclaimer December 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT
@Z-man

Thing is, Saudi regime was rotten through and through before MbS, remains rotten under his rule, and will remain rotten when some other jerk kicks him out and establishes himself at the helm.

neutral , December 16, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMT
It does not matter how smart Saudi Arabia is with their foreign policy now, they became allies with Israel, that means Saudi Arabia can never claim to be a power working for the interests of Islam. MBS is a marked man, no matter how many purges he undertakes in his army, or even if he just hires Pakistani soldiers, if he has Muslims fighting in his army he will always be carrying the risk of being assassinated by somebody who has seen him cross the red line and become pro jewish.
Svigor , December 16, 2017 at 6:51 pm GMT
I don't really understand the constant hopes that the Saudi regime will fall. How is that any different from cheering Bush's disastrous regime change in Iraq? How will the fallout be any better in Arabia than it was in Iraq, Libya, etc?
cbrown , December 16, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT
@Svigor

It's not that there's a constant hope it's just they'd fall in the near future and fortunately it will balance the geopolitical power in the future. Their fallout aren't going to be as bad unless the people pulling their string persistent in keeping them in power.

neutral , December 16, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMT
@Svigor

It will be better because it means Israel loses an ally, also with the Saudis gone Egypt will also be unable to keep their population in check. The fall of the Saudis means that Israel will be surrounded by regimes that oppose it...

someone , December 17, 2017 at 12:14 am GMT
Another Junior Gaddafi that is going to ruin his entire nation while intoxicated with NYT or other Western media coverage. He talks of corruption after spending 1.1 Billion dollars on a yacht and a painting.
Netenyahu is much the same. He has weakened Israel immensely by playing the scary wolf.
anon , Disclaimer December 17, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT
@neutral

South Africa was never in danger from their hostile neighbors . They committed suicide. Egypt cannot control its own territory let alone start wars , ditto for Syria and Lebanon. Jordan is a client state of Israel and lacks a functioning army. ...

[Dec 16, 2017] Sessions Balks At Second Special Counsel Says Recent FBI Bombshell May Have Innocent Explanation Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS. ..."
"... Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were released the same day . ..."
"... Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc. ..."
"... I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants. ..."
"... If by "insurance policy" Strzok meant the dossier, which was the basis for a FISA warrant, I'd say they were outside the law. ..."
"... Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain, Sessions....... ..."
Dec 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

In November. Sessions pushed back on the need for a special counsel to investigate a salacious anti-Trump dossier paid for in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, and whether or not the FBI used the largely unverified dossier to launch the Russia investigation. Sessions told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that it would take "a factual basis that meets the standard of a special counsel," adding "You can have your idea but sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate whether it meets the standards it requires. I would say, 'looks like' is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel "

http://players.brightcove.net/1077863425/HyenjoxZ3b_default/index.html?videoId=5646148989001

A flood of GOP lawmakers along with President Trump's outside counsel Jay Sekulow have renewed calls for a separate special counsel investigation of the Department of Justice and the FBI amid revelations that top FBI officials conspired to tone down former FBI Director James Comey's statement exonerating Hillary Clinton - altering or removing key language which effectively "decriminalized" Clinton's beahvior. The officials implicated are former FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Strzok's supervisor E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson .

Also under recent scrutiny are a trove of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page showing extreme bias against then-candidate Trump, while both of them were actively engaged in the Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia investigation. GOP lawmakers claim the FBI launched its investigation into Russian collusion based on the 34-page dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion GPS - which hired the CIA wife of a senior DOJ official to assist in digging up damaging information on 5then-candidate Trump .

A particularly disturbing text message between Strzok and Page was leaked to the press last week referencing an " insurance policy " in case Trump were to be elected President. Strzok wrote to Page: " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk ." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40.... "

House and Senate Committees are also trying to get to the bottom of a report last Monday by Fox News which revealed that recently demoted DOJ official Bruce Ohr's wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion GPS - the firm behind the Trump-Russia dossier. It was also later uncovered by internet sleuths that Nellie Ohr represented the CIA's "Open Source Works" group at a 2010 working group on organized crime, which she participated in along with her husband Bruce and Glenn Simpson, co-founder of Fusion GPS.

Bruce and Nellie Ohr

Last Tuesday, FBI Deputy Director McCabe unexpectedly cancelled a scheduled testimony in front of the House Intelligence Committee -- thought to be related to the Fox report on Bruce and Nellie Ohr. Text messages between Strzok and Page were released the same day .

So with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying things may have "more innocent explanations" here are some specific questions for the AG to answer:

18 U.S. Code ' 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary had broken the law.

The list goes on and on, but hey: sometimes things that might appear to be bad in the press have more innocent explanations...

So Close -> Automatic Choke , Dec 16, 2017 6:31 PM

No! The true explanation cuts across the grain of the existing miasma currently being perpetrated as truth by the senior management at the FBI. One being ignored and covered up by the mainstream media. We have senior management at the top federal law enforcement agency that has willfully chosen to elevate their personal political opinion and beliefs above their sworn duty to uphold constitutional law. And this "explanation" is just the latest attempt to reinforce a violently shaking house of cards. The question that presents itself is whether we have the moral backbone as a country to correct our course. The outcome is questionable. And yet there is room for hope.

SWRichmond -> So Close , Dec 16, 2017 6:43 PM

Is Sessions the insurance policy?

Buckaroo Banzai -> Muddy1 , Dec 16, 2017 7:06 PM

"Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake" Appointing a second Special Counsel could be interpreted as an interruption. I'm not defending Sessions here, he simply might be doing exactly what his boss is asking him to do.

LetThemEatRand -> chunga , Dec 16, 2017 7:05 PM

Of course he won't, yet those who still support Trump will continue to perform mental gymnastics to explain why. Trump picked Sessions, just like he picked Cohn, Munchkin, Pence, etc.

veritas semper ... -> fx , Dec 16, 2017 7:35 PM

"The AAZ Empire the Judiciary domain is like central banking and media a goy-free zone. All lawyers, attorneys, judges, etc. are members of the BAR association, a private, Zion controlled monopoly, whose internal rules and regulations, that all BAR members are sworn to, supersedes the constitutions and laws of all nation states."

This quote is not mine,but it reflects exactly what I think. If you do not believe this,do a search about BAR association.

Look at this judge : https://fair.org/home/judge-tells-jury-informing-public-may-be-criminal-...

Look at her picture. You know she's a "chosen",even without knowing her name

Sessions is a gatekeeper. Like the Donald.

The simple fact that Hillary Clinton is not in jail, with the OVERWHELMING evidence we have against her, that the Weiner lap top has disappeared with all 650 000 incriminating e-mails, that all the Clinton dead pool is OVERFLOWING, including with the recent death of Dr. Dean Lorich, who had knowledge about the Clinton Foundation doings in Haiti, Seth Rich's death, etc. ALL THESE are proofs that we do not have a DOJ, an AG(which are named by the EXECUTIVE branch) .

This leads to only one conclusion=there is one party, having two wings ,to create an illusion of "democracy" and that voting matters.

stocktivity -> Everybodys All American , Dec 16, 2017 6:36 PM

I can't stand Sessions but in this one instance, he is correct.

swmnguy -> stocktivity , Dec 16, 2017 6:59 PM

Yes, the full-court press is on to end the Special Prosecutor investigation, and maybe even the entire law authorizing it. There appear to be no legal grounds for any of this. This seems to be pure politics and PR manipulation attempts.

I've always been very uncomfortable with the nearly unlimited mandate afforded Special Prosecutors. Arguments that Mueller has exceeded his mandate and is now on a fishing expedition show a complete disregard for the law. Mueller is allowed to do that, just as Ken Starr was. That's the problem. Mueller hasn't done anything unlawful and nobody has seriously alleged that he has. The problem is that the law allows him to do whatever he wants.

And investigators are allowed to communicate with each other. They shouldn't have affairs with each other, but they do. Nobody serious, in a position to say or do anything that counts, alleges that they did anything unlawful, or anything that should be handled any other way than the way it was handled, which is a job reassignment and possible termination. Prosecutors are biased against the people they investigate. That's their job. I don't like that either, but that's the deal.

I'd have a lot more respect for Sessions if he didn't blather on about the Constitution and State's Rights and Freedom, and then cheerlead enthusiastically for a violent police state and suspension of the rule of law for profit. But as you say, in this situation, he is indeed correct.

And the fatuousness of the campaign to discredit Mueller, which assiduously avoids any legitimate political argument, is a very bad sign. President Trump's attorneys are in way over their head and they're panicking. Perhaps with good reason. But it would be better for America if Trump could have retained any competent representation. Clearly all the good lawyers decided they wanted no part of him as a client.

lew1024 -> swmnguy , Dec 16, 2017 7:07 PM

No, you are wrong about a full-court press to end the special prosecutor.

He is ending himself just fine. Also, the IG's work is not yet done, how dirty are the other lawyers working for Mueller?

Note that all of the Clinton's oppo research didn't find anything serious enough to use on Trump? No matter how much they paid?

Akzed -> swmnguy , Dec 16, 2017 7:20 PM

Nobody serious, in a position to say or do anything that counts, alleges that they did anything unlawful

If by "insurance policy" Strzok meant the dossier, which was the basis for a FISA warrant, I'd say they were outside the law.

wcole225 -> Everybodys All American , Dec 16, 2017 6:43 PM

Have you noticed that everyone with these impeccable, beyond reproach, do it by the book reputations are all really nothing more than reptilian scumbags? Comey, Mueller, McCain, Sessions.......

ZH Snob -> Everybodys All American , Dec 16, 2017 6:48 PM

all benefit of the doubt has been exhausted. they obviously have something on Sessions, or he's been a deep stater all along.

[Dec 16, 2017] Mueller Improperly Obtained Tens of Thousands Of Trump Transition Emails

And the coup attempt continues...
Notable quotes:
"... And the coup attempt continues... ..."
Dec 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

SILVERGEDDON , Dec 16, 2017 5:35 PM

Wake me up when Mueller starts working with Wiener's 600,000 strong kiddie porn email collection.

He might want to look at the Cankles erasure collection, as well as the Huma / Aswan Back Up Collection of dirty laundry as well.

just the tip -> SILVERGEDDON , Dec 16, 2017 5:39 PM

don't say that. we won't ever wake you.

Hal n back -> just the tip , Dec 16, 2017 6:44 PM

I have been Ill the last several weeks: who are the criminals?

toady -> Hal n back , Dec 16, 2017 7:32 PM

It's SO important to have all the supeanas in place before collecting any documents. I'm in the middle of a suit and people keep trying to rush... "I'm just gonna go over there and get a copy...."

"No, not until the lawyer says so!"

Apparently D.C. works by a different set of rules.... and they're blaming the idiots who gave up the documents, not the ones who are, and continue, to use them illegally. Alternate universe!

The Management -> toady , Dec 16, 2017 7:35 PM

At this point Jeff Sessions is going to go down as literally the biggest fucking douche bag in history if he doesnt do something - i mean ANYTHING - shuffle his feet / look busy ... get the group coffee & doughnuts - i'd settle for anything really...

Chuck Walla -> Hal n back , Dec 16, 2017 7:35 PM

"Cooperating"? I bet they were fucking gleeful in their wet dreams to remove Trump.

GUS100CORRINA -> SILVERGEDDON , Dec 16, 2017 5:43 PM

Observation: RULE OF LAW is under assault.

R USSIAN COLLUSION has been proven false. Therefore, Mueller's job is DONE!!!

END this charade and this witchhunt!!! Open all sealed indictments and proceed forward with arrests.

Chupacabra-322 -> GUS100CORRINA , Dec 16, 2017 5:48 PM

@ GUS,

"Rule of Law under assault?"

Check the scoreboard. Their currently isn't any rule of law among Criminals. We're

Tyrannically Lawless.

Chupacabra-322 -> kellys_eye , Dec 16, 2017 7:38 PM

Here's the short list of Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton's Crimes.

As a reminder, all the data to date suggests that Hillary broke the following 11 US CODES. I provided the links for your convenience. HRC needs to STAND DOWN.

CEO aka "President" TRUMP was indeed correct when he said: "FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton in that he gave her a free pass for many bad deeds!"

18 U.S. Code § 1905 - Disclosure of confidential information generally
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1905

18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071

26 U.S. Code § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7201

26 U.S. Code § 7212 - Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7212

18 U.S. Code § 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1343

18 U.S. Code § 1349 – Attempt and Conspiracy
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1349

18 U.S. Code § 1505 - Obstruction of Proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1505

18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally (including documents signed under penalty of perjury)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1621

18 USC Sec. 2384?TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?PART I - CRIMES?CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18/18USC02384.html

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381

The Preponderance of Evidence suggests that she broke these Laws, Knowingly, Willfully and Repeatedly. This pattern indicates a habitual/career Criminal, who belongs in Federal Prison.

If Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopath Hillary Clinton would have been elected. Many if not all of the High Crimes, Crimes & sexual perversion's we see coming to Light never would have been known off.

The Tyrannical Lawlessness we see before our eyes never would have seen the light of day.

And, here's the Dark Humor in this. I'm not an Agent / Esq. Attorney from The City of London. This is common knowledge anyone could Investigate for themselves.

Americans have always been fascinated with the Law. It's the reason some of the highest rated Tee Vee shows we're all based on Law or the presumption of it. Show such as "Law & Order" & CSI. Christ Sakes, look at the OJ Trail ratings.

We're now a Nation of Men, not Law. Thus, to my point.

We're now absolutely, completely, open in your Face

Tyrannically Lawless.

Everybodys All ... -> SILVERGEDDON , Dec 16, 2017 6:13 PM

Mueller is doing more harm to the fbis already terrible reputation every day this sham is extended another day. When Mueller is done with this he better watch his backside is all I can say because many people are pissed at what he has put this country through.

bh2 , Dec 16, 2017 5:43 PM

Curious. Whatever transpired during the transition about "contact" with "Russians" would have been within the authority of the president-elect or his staff.

Why then would emails during transition be subject to review by Congress (or anyone else) with respect to alleged "collusion" between the campaign and foreign government officials? And why did not Trump just assert privilege and tell Congress to pound sand?

This is beginning to look like a snipe hunt which is being extended to provide political eyewash to blind the public to the reality there was no "there" there.

Kayman , Dec 16, 2017 5:40 PM

Mueller is dirty. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not the dirt we see on the surface, it is the dirty hidden below the cesspool of the Washington Mob.

Stan Smith , Dec 16, 2017 5:41 PM

It really is a soft coup by the FBI, CIA, DNC, among others. What a disgrace. These are the same people who want to be taken seriously. We'll take them seriously once they become serious. Which is likely no time soon.

chunga -> Stan Smith , Dec 16, 2017 5:58 PM

All these agencies are wacked right out. What we need is one moar... the Bureau of Pissed Off Citizens With Pitchforks. The Imperial City is out of control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fyr0zbaFyE

MuffDiver69 , Dec 16, 2017 5:50 PM

Yep...Now the Fake News has all the Trump transition emails and gossip. This entire operation was a data mining expedition for the DNC and democrats. If you want to know a mans motives look at who he hires and Mueller has 3/4 partisan left wing hacks working for him. The fact they think this is ok and no big deal tells you all one needs to know and if it's proven they have been leaked, then shut this shit show down..This country is a disgrace.

RussianSniper , Dec 16, 2017 6:08 PM

The left and right establishment of DC, the Intelligence agencies, the fake news, and the Department of Justice have undertaken an overthrow of the constitutionally elected President of the United States.

This is treason.
This is sedition.

People need to answer for their crimes and should be punished severely.

Justice in the USA is not a thing of the past....

No matter what the previous criminal administrations wish you to believe.

Manaze , Dec 16, 2017 6:09 PM

This article never did say what the unlawful conduct was in obtaining the emails. GSA has no choice in cooperating with Mueller. He has been given broad authority.

I wish there was more objectivity on zerohedge. Mostly it is right extremist hate mongers who are besotted with one-sided cool aid. They just decide who to hate then lambast them without looking at all the facts. Nobody would call that smart.

Irish Yoga , Dec 16, 2017 6:12 PM

No mention of Bill, Hillary, Awans, Debbie, Seth, Huma, Carlos (perv husband of Huma the Hummer), Chelsea, and many other things too long to list. Hmmm... maybe the FBI should be chasing real criminals. But they are merely guardians of the old guard these days. Investigation was long ago deleted from their mandate.

"Rebellion to t... , Dec 16, 2017 6:20 PM

The sad fact of the matter is that all those involved in this overthrow, fully understand, their actions and behavior up to and including the spying on, the unmasking, the leaking of classified information, the slanderous and disinformation shit out by the fake news, etc., would eventually be exposed.

Those complicit did not care!

They'd rather destroy the nation than relinquish their unchecked power and ill gotten wealth.

We are on the verge of the fight of our lives.

US patriots will soon be in the field of battle with the deep state/shadow government/evil empire.

When the dust settles, no Bush, Clinton, or Obama family member or administration team should walk free.

The intelligence agencies need to be broken down.

Traitors need to answer for their crimes.

Those convicted must pay the ultimate price.

Pigeon -> "Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God."-ThomasJefferson , Dec 16, 2017 6:30 PM

"would eventually be exposed."

No, they did not. Because Hillary was rigged to win.

Honest John , Dec 16, 2017 7:05 PM

But they still can't get Hillary's e mails. Mueller is obviously a Clinton stooge.

ErostheDog , Dec 16, 2017 7:06 PM

And the coup attempt continues...

I Write Code , Dec 16, 2017 7:15 PM

Of course if anybody put anything sensitive in any email - without serious extra encryption - then they deserve whatever comes.

Neochrome , Dec 16, 2017 7:21 PM

This whole thing started out of nothing, or rather from a planted lie, as losers refused to accept the outcome of the election they thought they have sufficiently gamed. Meanwhile we have DNC testifying that they don't give a shit about democracy as they can do as they please as a "private" organization, including sabotaging their own candidates, but yawn to that. We have a testimony that connects DNC to the murder of Seth Rich, testimony obstructed from proper investigation by the highest law enforcement agency in the country itself. We have bureaucrat insurrection, from lowest clerks and judges to highest government officials, aimed at undermining the duly elected POTUS. This is a revolution in reverse, where ruling class is trying to overthrow the will of the people. And who is in the forefront of this fascist takeover and trampling of democracy: exactly the agencies that suppose to protect the country from that scenario - CIA and FBI. Finally the veil of "democracy has slipped and we can all see the ugly truth behind it...

[Dec 16, 2017] Strzok and Ohr as two new important players in Steele dossier saga

Notable quotes:
"... It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched. ..."
"... The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. ..."
"... Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier. ..."
"... It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump. ..."
"... Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to spy on Americans. ..."
"... There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas. ..."
"... As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier ..."
"... As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate. ..."
"... These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards. ..."
"... Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration at the start of the year. ..."
"... On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's opponent ..."
"... Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities. ..."
"... Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what I said nine months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair. ..."
"... Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel. ..."
"... There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier. ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | The Duran

... ... ...

Extracted from Strzok-Gate And The Mueller Cover-Up by Alexander Mercouris

It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign in July 2016, shortly before the Russiagate investigation was launched.

Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was in contact with the FBI throughout the election and after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.

Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only disclosed recently. The best account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner

The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016, Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.

Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.

Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.

It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of persons involved in the election campaign of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.

In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that the Trump Dossier cannot be verified.

However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.

The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following

Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.

In response Wray refused to say whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants, even though it was previously disclosed that it did. This is despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.

There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress because of the failure of the FBI and the Justice Department to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.

During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say

Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened, if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign, taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets

Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.

Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".

Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.

Fox News has reported that Strzok was also the person supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this covers to the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with Russian ambassador. However it is likely that it does.

If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's to the FBI during this interview which made up the case against him to which he has now pleaded guilty, and given the indications that Flynn's interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was a set-up intended to entrap him .

As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been provided with the Trump Dossier.

Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he was having an affair.

These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.

It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.

Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague Alex Christoforou has reported on some of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.

Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider reports one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said

It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.

This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics of Donald Trump, the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan

If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has to be more

Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.

Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI however only disclosed his sacking now five months later in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.

There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it and I am sure that it is the one Congressman Jordan was thinking during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.

Recently the FBI admitted to Congress that it has failed to verify the Trump Dossier.

I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it. If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.

We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the testimony to Congress of Carter Page that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.

We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of the year the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.

The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me here ) also all but confirms that it was the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 alleging that the Russians were interfering in the election.

As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the narrative frame narrative when questioning witnesses about their role in Russiagate.

These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain the surveillance warrants it obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.

Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was amongst those senior FBI and US intelligence officials who gave the Trump Dossier credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.

Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there has also to be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump administration at the start of the year.

This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.

On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton's opponent .

Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he almost certainly was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when the utter falsity of the Trump Dossier could no longer be denied.

It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages being spread about in order to explain it.

This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues to grind on.

Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive to draw attention away from their own activities.

Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what I said nine months ago in March . Congressman Jordan has again recently called for a second Special Counsel to be appointed . When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.

That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.

Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during the election as the focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.

In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation – ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.

There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance of US citizens during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.

I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright © 2017 DRN MEDIA PLC.

[Dec 16, 2017] Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.

Notable quotes:
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
Dec 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Jim Haygood , , December 15, 2017 at 7:26 am

Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo posted an article "based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials" titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian Threat Unchecked":

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/donald-trump-pursues-vladimir-putin-russian-election-hacking/

Axiomatic to the WaPo hacks authors is that NATO ranks right up there with the 1776 Declaration and the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.

Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days later, since they aren't "fitted to the narrative."

History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(

[Dec 16, 2017] Any time you hear or read a Russian conspiracy theory in the MSM or elsewhere, substitute the words "Jews" for "Russians" and the words "International Jewry" for "Russia". Then re-read the sentence.

Dec 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Sid Finster , , December 15, 2017 at 11:16 am

Any time you hear or read a Russian conspiracy theory in the MSM or elsewhere, substitute the words "Jews" for "Russians" and the words "International Jewry" for "Russia". Then re-read the sentence.

See how ugly that sentence now looks?

So why should we rightfully decry such racism against Jews or others, but applaud the same sort of racism when it is directed against Russians?

[Dec 16, 2017] The Real Crimes of Russiagate by Patrick J. Buchanan

In five month is is clear how wrong Pat Buchanan was. I expected from him a much better analysis with less prejudies. But he is absolutely right about leaks. Actually now it is clear that one of the requests from Trump team to Russian ambassador was about help Israel in UN, so this not a Russiagate. There is also suspection that Strzok was the person who had thrown Flynn under the bus and propagated Steele dossier within FBI. May be acting as Brennan agent inside FBI.
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1 ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted. ..."
"... Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out? ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck. ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps? ..."
"... No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians. ..."
"... There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics. ..."
"... If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular. ..."
"... If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country. ..."
Jul 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was "no."

As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."

Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full Pinocchio for four days.

And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they want it -- Russiagate.

This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.

Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.

Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S. government designed to damage this president.

Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn.

An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled Israeli intelligence sources and methods.

Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law.

Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek. First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.

The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly.

Consider the original Russiagate offense.

Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this "Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?

The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders.

If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they publish the fruits of that crime?

Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1?

Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality.

Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted.

Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.

And thus does democracy die in darkness.

Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?

Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?

Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.

People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Copyright 2017 Creators.com. ← Russia Baiters and Putin Haters Category: Ideology Tags: American Media , Donald Trump , Russia

NoseytheDuke , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 5:27 am GMT

Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it will sink in.
Priss Factor , Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT
There is nothing there. Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.

1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with it.

2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on nothing.

Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists. But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.

vinteuil , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT
Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. "Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks." What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps?
The Alarmist , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians.

Randal , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT
Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo.

There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics.

Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?

Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in hacking.

Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded zealots.

If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular.

If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.

That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about foreign influence.

Gg Mo , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT
@NoseytheDuke

Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)

Gg Mo , Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT
Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for Alzheimers ?

He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc

Andrei Martyanov , Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 18, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse. At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.

[Dec 16, 2017] The Trump team definitely colluded with a foreign power Just not the one you think by Aaron Maté

Notable quotes:
"... Published in The Nation on Dec 5, 2017 ..."
"... ccording to the charge sheet , Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel," ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... * Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network. ..."
"... Published in www.newcoldwar.org (New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond) ..."
Dec 14, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press
Published in The Nation on Dec 5, 2017

Why are the media paying scant attention to Michael Flynn's admissions about Israel?

The indictment of former national-security adviser Michael Flynn on December 1 has confirmed that Donald Trump's inner circle colluded with a foreign power before entering the White House -- just not the foreign power that has been the subject of our national fixation for the past year. To be sure, the jury is still out on Russia, though there are new grounds for questioning the case for a plot tying the Kremlin to Trump Tower. But with Flynn's plea, we can now say for certain that the Trump team did collude -- with Israel.

To recap, Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about his conversations with then–Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the period after Trump's November 2016 victory. As Foreign Policy previously reported , Flynn reached out to Kislyak as part of "a vigorous diplomatic bid" to undermine President Obama's decision to allow a December 2016 Security Council resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Territories. The indictment fills in some details.

According to the charge sheet , Flynn first made contact with Kislyak to discuss the Israel vote. We found out this weekend his reason for doing so. "[Special counsel Robert] Mueller's investigators have learned through witnesses and documents that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel asked the Trump transition team to lobby other countries to help Israel,"

The New York Times reported after Flynn's court appearance on Friday. "Investigators have learned that Mr. Flynn and [Trump son-in-law Jared] Kushner took the lead in those efforts" -- efforts which failed to change a single vote, including Russia's, which backed the measure in defiance of the Trump-Netanyahu subversion attempt.

In short, the first known contact between the Trump campaign and Russia after the election occurred in the service of a different foreign power, Israel, and was ultimately fruitless.

The next contact between Flynn and Kislyak was more productive. In late December, Obama imposed new sanctions on Russia for its alleged meddling in the 2016 election. A day later, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to request that the Kremlin, according to the plea document, "only respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner." Flynn's overture came after a Trump transition colleague told him that the incoming administration "did not want Russia to escalate the situation." By all accounts, Russia complied.

Read also: Turkish Fears

Whatever one thinks about this covert attempt to reduce tensions with a nuclear-armed power, it demonstrates an effort by the Trump transition, as with the Israel vote, to undermine the outgoing administration's policy. Trump critics have seized on that as a violation of the Logan Act, which bars citizens from having unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments in a dispute with the United States. But the Logan Act has seldom been used except as a partisan talking point , not a prosecutable offense. More importantly, there's the question as to whether Flynn's overture on sanctions prove a quid pro quo [a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something].

Notwithstanding the post-election contact with Flynn, not only has Russia failed to gain a reduction in sanctions but its relations with Washington have deteriorated. In early August, Trump signed new sanctions on Russia overwhelmingly approved by Congress. The administration recently presented lawmakers with a list of targets that "reads like a who's who of the Russian defense and intelligence sectors," The New York Times noted. In September, Trump shut down the Russian consulate in San Francisco and two annexes in New York City and Washington, DC. Just last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson denounced Russia's "malicious tactics" against the West and vowed that sanctions imposed over Russian's role in Ukraine "will remain in place until Russia reverses the actions that triggered them."

Meanwhile, Trump has enlarged NATO over Russia's objections, carried out the "biggest military exercise in Eastern Europe since the Cold War" on Russia's border, appointed several anti-Russia hawks to key posts, and continues to deliberate over whether to supply Ukraine with a weapons package that Obama himself rejected out of fear it would worsen the country's civil war.

In the latest flare-up, Russia has ordered international media outlets to register as foreign agents in retaliation for the Justice Department first doing so to Washington-based RT America .

It is, of course, possible that all of this is an elaborate ruse to mask the secret, as yet unproven, conspiracy that many insist will lead to Trump's downfall. The fact that Flynn is now a cooperating witness has refueled hopes that this day is finally approaching. After all, why would Flynn lie about his contacts with Russia if he did not have something to hide? And why would Mueller offer him a plea deal if Flynn wasn't offering him a bigger fish to fry? (One plausible motive, as Buzzfeed notes , is that Flynn may have lied to hide his potential Logan Act violation.)

Read also: Trump and the Terrorists Support Le Pen

Only time will tell whether Flynn has something to offer Mueller, or whether Mueller has gotten from him what he can. In the meantime, more than a year after the election, we still have exactly zero evidence of any cooperation between the Trump campaign and the Russian government -- nor, it must be repeated, any evidence to back up U.S. intelligence officials' claims that the Russian government meddled in the election. We do have instances of Trump campaign figures' -- namely, Donald Trump Jr. and low-level adviser George Papadopoulos -- making contact with people that they thought were Russian government intermediaries. But whatever they were told or believed, there is still no proof that their contacts led to an actual Kremlin connection.

What we do have is evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Israel to subvert the U.S. government's official position at the United Nations Security Council. Yet reaction to that news has been quite a departure from the standards of Russiagate when it comes to foreign meddling.

The contrast was put on stark display on Sunday, when Jared Kushner appeared with billionaire Israeli-American media tycoon Haim Saban at the latter's annual forum on U.S.-Israel relations. Saban took a moment to thank Kushner for his role in the subversion effort that Flynn admitted to have undertaken on Israel's behalf. "To be honest with you, as far as I know there's nothing illegal there," Saban told his stage companion. "But I think that this crowd and myself want to thank you for making that effort, so thank you very much."

For all of the fears of Russian oligarchs' having influence over Trump, the comment from this American oligarch reveals a great deal about who really influences practically everyone in Washington, Republican or Democrat. Saban was not a Trump donor. He is, in fact, Bill and Hillary Clinton's top all-time financial supporter, to the tune of more than $25 million ; a benefactor whose generosity has helped build not just the Clinton Library but also the Democratic National Committee's headquarters.

Read also: The real Marine Le Pen: Α Warrior against Islam, like the "Fake pacifist" Trump?

But there has been no outrage from democracy-defending #Resistance stalwarts over Saban's comments (and the Israeli subversion effort he endorsed). The same for news of Kushner's failure to disclose his leadership of a group that funded the illegal Israeli settlements that he tried to protect at the United Nations. And now we await to see how those who agonize over foreign influence on Trump will respond to his reported plans to move the American embassy to Jerusalem -- "a decision that would break with decades of U.S. policy and could fuel violence in the Middle East," as Haaretz notes .

It is unlikely that Trump will be challenged on Israel, because his approach is harmonic with a bipartisan consensus cemented in large part by the financial contributions of billionaires like Saban and his Republican pro-Israeli government counterpart, Sheldon Adelson. Hence, there are no editorials or opinion pieces denouncing Israel's ' Plot Against America ' or ' War on America ', or warnings that ' Odds Are, Israel Owns Trump ', or explorations of ' What Israel Did to Control the American Mind '. Likewise, there will be no new groups forming dubbed the ' Committee to Investigate Israel ' or the ' Tel Aviv Project '. In fact it is more than likely that, going forward, the media will give Israelgate the same treatment as cable's top Russiagate sleuth, MSNBC 's Rachel Maddow, gave during her exhaustive Flynn coverage so far, which is to not even mention it.

This weekend furnished us with another important contrast. Flynn's indictment was followed hours later by the passage of the Senate Republican tax bill, which stands to be one of the largest upward transfers of wealth in U.S. history. If protecting democracy is our goal, we may want to tune out the Russia-obsessed pundits and look closer to home.

* Aaron Maté is a host/producer for The Real News Network.

Published in www.newcoldwar.org
(New Cold War: Ukraine and Beyond)

[Dec 15, 2017] With US forces on the borders of North Korea, China, and Russia on a hair-trigger, the continuous assertion of ever greater war-making powers to the military brass massively increases the danger that a miscalculation, misunderstanding, or accident could quickly lead to full-scale nuclear war.

Notable quotes:
"... "Meanwhile, figures posted by the Pentagon last month -- with little media attention -- revealed that the number of US troops deployed in the Middle East as a whole had soared by 33 percent over the previous four months, with the sharpest increases taking place in a number of Persian Gulf countries, indicating advanced preparations for a new US war against Iran. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , December 14, 2017 at 8:01 am

The Russia-gate 'scandal' sideshow provided a very useful diversion while military preparations were advanced:

"While still on the books, the War Powers Act has long ago been turned into a dead letter by the quarter century of US wars of aggression that have followed the Stalinist bureaucracy's dissolution of the Soviet Union, all waged without a declaration of war by Congress.

"Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have willingly acquiesced in the de facto concentration of dictatorial power in the hands of the 'commander in chief' in the all-important matter of the waging of foreign wars.

"The latest letter from the Trump administration, however, represents another qualitative step in this protracted degeneration of American democracy and the elimination of the last pretenses of civilian control over the military. [ ]

"The Trump White House has removed caps imposed on troop levels under the Obama administration, leaving it up to the military commanders to escalate US deployments at will. Obama's caps themselves were routinely circumvented through so-called temporary deployments that saw far more troops sent into US wars than were officially on the books.

"The secrecy surrounding troop deployments has been highlighted in recent months [ ] the so-called slip of the tongue by the commander of US special operations forces in Iraq and Syria who told a Pentagon press conference that 4,000 US troops were on the ground in Syria. He quickly caught himself and repeated the official figure of 500. Subsequently, the Pentagon allowed that the real number was over 2,000.

"Meanwhile, figures posted by the Pentagon last month -- with little media attention -- revealed that the number of US troops deployed in the Middle East as a whole had soared by 33 percent over the previous four months, with the sharpest increases taking place in a number of Persian Gulf countries, indicating advanced preparations for a new US war against Iran.

"These deployments are kept secret or effectively concealed not out of any concern about 'tipping off the enemy,' which in virtually every case is well aware of the level of US military aggression against their countries. Rather, it is aimed at keeping the information from the American people, which has no interest in continuing the ongoing military interventions in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa, much less launching new and potentially world catastrophic wars against Iran, North Korea and even China and Russia.

"In terms of the waging of semi-secret wars abroad, as with attacks on democratic rights and the social conditions of the working class at home, Trump represents not an aberration, but rather the culmination of protracted processes that have unfolded under both Democratic and Republican administrations, which have ceded ever greater power over US foreign policy to US military commanders. This trend has only deepened under Trump, with an active duty general serving as national security advisor, and two recently retired Marine generals filling the posts of defense secretary and White House chief of staff.

"With US forces on the borders of North Korea, China, and Russia on a hair-trigger, the continuous assertion of ever greater war-making powers to the military brass massively increases the danger that a miscalculation, misunderstanding, or accident could quickly lead to full-scale nuclear war.

"Trump's further assault on the War Powers Act has elicited no protest from the Democrats in Congress. They are not opposed to the government's domination by the military or the drive to war. Their differences are merely of a tactical character, expressed in a campaign of anti-Russia hysteria waged in collaboration with sections of the US military and intelligence apparatus in preparation for a new and far more terrible conflagration."

Washington's secret wars
By Bill Van Auken
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/13/pers-d13.html

[Dec 15, 2017] Rise and Decline of the Welfare State, by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Petras did not mention that it was Carter who started neoliberalization of the USA. The subsequent election of Reagan signified the victory of neoliberalism in this country or "quite coup". The death of New Deal from this point was just a matter of time. Labor relations drastically changes and war on union and atomization of workforce are a norm.
Welfare state still exists but only for corporation and MIC. Otherwise the New Deal society is almost completely dismanted.
It is true that "The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class and the labor unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition while the capitalists retained their executive prerogatives." But the key factor in this compromise was the existence of the USSR as a threat to the power of capitalists in the USA. when the USSR disappeared cannibalistic instincts of the US elite prevailed over caution.
Notable quotes:
"... The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East. ..."
"... In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program – a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity and poor health. ..."
"... modern welfare state' ..."
"... Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections, collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility. ..."
"... Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions. ..."
"... World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number were also killed or wounded in the war. ..."
"... So-called ' right to work' ..."
"... Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses. Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay ..."
"... Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined ..."
"... With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation. ..."
"... Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based on politically fragile foundations. ..."
"... The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization, capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income. ..."
"... The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression, at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its control of the commanding heights of the economy ..."
"... Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home. The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers. Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas and turned their backs on labor at home. ..."
"... President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff. ..."
"... Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families ravaged the urban communities. ..."
"... President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven. ..."
"... Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued to moralize to black families about ' values' . ..."
"... Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of Africans flooding Europe. ..."
"... Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump ..."
"... Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block. ..."
"... The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave. ..."
"... Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush, ' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump. ..."
"... Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century. ..."
"... The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class polarized social system in history ..."
"... "The collaboration of liberals and unions in promoting endless wars opened the door to Trump's mirage of a stateless, tax-less, ruling class." ..."
"... Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up ..."
"... Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers. ..."
"... The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long as you are wealthy. ..."
"... Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it. ..."
Dec 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period, the capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.

Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies for affordable housing have been gutted. ' Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits to an astronomical degree.

What started as incremental reversals during the 1990's under Clinton has snowballed over the last two decades decimating welfare legislation and institutions.

The earlier welfare 'reforms' and the current anti-welfare legislation and austerity practices have been accompanied by a series of endless imperial wars, especially in the Middle East.

In the 1940's through the 1960's, world and regional wars (Korea and Indo-China) were combined with significant welfare program – a form of ' social imperialism' , which 'buy off' the working class while expanding the empire. However, recent decades are characterized by multiple regional wars and the reduction or elimination of welfare programs – and a massive growth in poverty, domestic insecurity and poor health.

New Deals and Big Wars

The 1930's witnessed the advent of social legislation and action, which laid the foundations of what is called the ' modern welfare state' .

Labor unions were organized as working class strikes and progressive legislation facilitated trade union organization, elections, collective bargaining rights and a steady increase in union membership. Improved work conditions, rising wages, pension plans and benefits, employer or union-provided health care and protective legislation improved the standard of living for the working class and provided for 2 generations of upward mobility.

Social Security legislation was approved along with workers' compensation and the forty-hour workweek. Jobs were created through federal programs (WPA, CCC, etc.). Protectionist legislation facilitated the growth of domestic markets for US manufacturers. Workplace shop steward councils organized 'on the spot' job action to protect safe working conditions.

World War II led to full employment and increases in union membership, as well as legislation restricting workers' collective bargaining rights and enforcing wage freezes. Hundreds of thousands of Americans found jobs in the war economy but a huge number were also killed or wounded in the war.

The post-war period witnessed a contradictory process: wages and salaries increased while legislation curtailed union rights via the Taft Hartley Act and the McCarthyist purge of leftwing trade union activists. So-called ' right to work' laws effectively outlawed unionization mostly in southern states, which drove industries to relocate to the anti-union states.

Welfare reforms, in the form of the GI bill, provided educational opportunities for working class and rural veterans, while federal-subsidized low interest mortgages encourage home-ownership, especially for veterans.

The New Deal created concrete improvements but did not consolidate labor influence at any level. Capitalists and management still retained control over capital, the workplace and plant location of production.

Trade union officials signed pacts with capital: higher pay for the workers and greater control of the workplace for the bosses. Trade union officials joined management in repressing rank and file movements seeking to control technological changes by reducing hours (" thirty hours work for forty hours pay "). Dissident local unions were seized and gutted by the trade union bosses – sometimes through violence.

Trade union activists, community organizers for rent control and other grassroots movements lost both the capacity and the will to advance toward large-scale structural changes of US capitalism. Living standards improved for a few decades but the capitalist class consolidated strategic control over labor relations. While unionized workers' incomes, increased, inequalities, especially in the non-union sectors began to grow. With the end of the GI bill, veterans' access to high-quality subsidized education declined.

While a new wave of social welfare legislation and programs began in the 1960's and early 1970's it was no longer a result of a mass trade union or workers' "class struggle". Moreover, trade union collaboration with the capitalist regional war policies led to the killing and maiming of hundreds of thousands of workers in two wars – the Korean and Vietnamese wars.

Much of social legislation resulted from the civil and welfare rights movements. While specific programs were helpful, none of them addressed structural racism and poverty.

The Last Wave of Social Welfarism

The 1960'a witnessed the greatest racial war in modern US history: Mass movements in the South and North rocked state and federal governments, while advancing the cause of civil, social and political rights. Millions of black citizens, joined by white activists and, in many cases, led by African American Viet Nam War veterans, confronted the state. At the same time, millions of students and young workers, threatened by military conscription, challenged the military and social order.

Energized by mass movements, a new wave of social welfare legislation was launched by the federal government to pacify mass opposition among blacks, students, community organizers and middle class Americans. Despite this mass popular movement, the union bosses at the AFL-CIO openly supported the war, police repression and the military, or at best, were passive impotent spectators of the drama unfolding in the nation's streets. Dissident union members and activists were the exception, as many had multiple identities to represent: African American, Hispanic, draft resisters, etc.

Under Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, Medicare, Medicaid, OSHA, the EPA and multiple poverty programs were implemented. A national health program, expanding Medicare for all Americans, was introduced by President Nixon and sabotaged by the Kennedy Democrats and the AFL-CIO. Overall, social and economic inequalities diminished during this period.

The Vietnam War ended in defeat for the American militarist empire. This coincided with the beginning of the end of social welfare as we knew it – as the bill for militarism placed even greater demands on the public treasury.

With the election of President Carter, social welfare in the US began its long decline. The next series of regional wars were accompanied by even greater attacks on welfare via the " Volker Plan " – freezing workers' wages as a means to combat inflation.

Guns without butter' became the legislative policy of the Carter and Reagan Administrations. The welfare programs were based on politically fragile foundations.

The Debacle of Welfarism

Private sector trade union membership declined from a post-world war peak of 30% falling to 12% in the 1990's. Today it has sunk to 7%. Capitalists embarked on a massive program of closing thousands of factories in the unionized North which were then relocated to the non-unionized low wage southern states and then overseas to Mexico and Asia. Millions of stable jobs disappeared.

Following the election of 'Jimmy Carter', neither Democratic nor Republican Presidents felt any need to support labor organizations. On the contrary, they facilitated contracts dictated by management, which reduced wages, job security, benefits and social welfare.

The anti-labor offensive from the ' Oval Office' intensified under President Reagan with his direct intervention firing tens of thousands of striking air controllers and arresting union leaders. Under Presidents Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush and William Clinton cost of living adjustments failed to keep up with prices of vital goods and services. Health care inflation was astronomical. Financial deregulation led to the subordination of American industry to finance and the Wall Street banks. De-industrialization, capital flight and massive tax evasion reduced labor's share of national income.

The capitalist class followed a trajectory of decline, recovery and ascendance. Moreover, during the earlier world depression, at the height of labor mobilization and organization, the capitalist class never faced any significant political threat over its control of the commanding heights of the economy.

The ' New Deal' was, at best, a de facto ' historical compromise' between the capitalist class and the labor unions, mediated by the Democratic Party elite. It was a temporary pact in which the unions secured legal recognition while the capitalists retained their executive prerogatives.

The Second World War secured the economic recovery for capital and subordinated labor through a federally mandated no strike production agreement. There were a few notable exceptions: The coal miners' union organized strikes in strategic sectors and some leftist leaders and organizers encouraged slow-downs, work to rule and other in-plant actions when employers ran roughshod with special brutality over the workers. The recovery of capital was the prelude to a post-war offensive against independent labor-based political organizations. The quality of labor organization declined even as the quantity of trade union membership increased.

Labor union officials consolidated internal control in collaboration with the capitalist elite. Capitalist class-labor official collaboration was extended overseas with strategic consequences.

The post-war corporate alliance between the state and capital led to a global offensive – the replacement of European-Japanese colonial control and exploitation by US business and bankers. Imperialism was later 're-branded' as ' globalization' . It pried open markets, secured cheap docile labor and pillaged resources for US manufacturers and importers.

US labor unions played a major role by sabotaging militant unions abroad in cooperation with the US security apparatus: They worked to coopt and bribe nationalist and leftist labor leaders and supported police-state regime repression and assassination of recalcitrant militants.

' Hand in bloody glove' with the US Empire, the American trade unions planted the seeds of their own destruction at home. The local capitalists in newly emerging independent nations established industries and supply chains in cooperation with US manufacturers. Attracted to these sources of low-wage, violently repressed workers, US capitalists subsequently relocated their factories overseas and turned their backs on labor at home.

Labor union officials had laid the groundwork for the demise of stable jobs and social benefits for American workers. Their collaboration increased the rate of capitalist profit and overall power in the political system. Their complicity in the brutal purges of militants, activists and leftist union members and leaders at home and abroad put an end to labor's capacity to sustain and expand the welfare state.

Trade unions in the US did not use their collaboration with empire in its bloody regional wars to win social benefits for the rank and file workers. The time of social-imperialism, where workers within the empire benefited from imperialism's pillage, was over. Gains in social welfare henceforth could result only from mass struggles led by the urban poor, especially Afro-Americans, community-based working poor and militant youth organizers.

The last significant social welfare reforms were implemented in the early 1970's – coinciding with the end of the Vietnam War (and victory for the Vietnamese people) and ended with the absorption of the urban and anti-war movements into the Democratic Party.

Henceforward the US corporate state advanced through the overseas expansion of the multi-national corporations and via large-scale, non-unionized production at home.

The technological changes of this period did not benefit labor. The belief, common in the 1950's, that science and technology would increase leisure, decrease work and improve living standards for the working class, was shattered. Instead technological changes displaced well-paid industrial labor while increasing the number of mind-numbing, poorly paid, and politically impotent jobs in the so-called 'service sector' – a rapidly growing section of unorganized and vulnerable workers – especially including women and minorities.

Labor union membership declined precipitously. The demise of the USSR and China's turn to capitalism had a dual effect: It eliminated collectivist (socialist) pressure for social welfare and opened their labor markets with cheap, disciplined workers for foreign manufacturers. Labor as a political force disappeared on every count. The US Federal Reserve and President 'Bill' Clinton deregulated financial capital leading to a frenzy of speculation. Congress wrote laws, which permitted overseas tax evasion – especially in Caribbean tax havens. Regional free-trade agreements, like NAFTA, spurred the relocation of jobs abroad. De-industrialization accompanied the decline of wages, living standards and social benefits for millions of American workers.

The New Abolitionists: Trillionaires

The New Deal, the Great Society, trade unions, and the anti-war and urban movements were in retreat and primed for abolition.

Wars without welfare (or guns without butter) replaced earlier 'social imperialism' with a huge growth of poverty and homelessness. Domestic labor was now exploited to finance overseas wars not vice versa. The fruits of imperial plunder were not shared.

As the working and middle classes drifted downward, they were used up, abandoned and deceived on all sides – especially by the Democratic Party. They elected militarists and demagogues as their new presidents.

President 'Bill' Clinton ravaged Russia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and Somalia and liberated Wall Street. His regime gave birth to the prototype billionaire swindlers: Michael Milken and Bernard 'Bernie' Madoff.

Clinton converted welfare into cheap labor 'workfare', exploiting the poorest and most vulnerable and condemning the next generations to grinding poverty. Under Clinton the prison population of mostly African Americans expanded and the breakup of families ravaged the urban communities.

Provoked by an act of terrorism (9/11) President G.W. Bush Jr. launched the 'endless' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and deepened the police state (Patriot Act). Wages for American workers and profits for American capitalist moved in opposite directions.

The Great Financial Crash of 2008-2011 shook the paper economy to its roots and led to the greatest shakedown of any national treasury in history directed by the First Black American President. Trillions of public wealth were funneled into the criminal banks on Wall Street – which were ' just too big to fail .' Millions of American workers and homeowners, however, were ' just too small to matter' .

The Age of Demagogues

President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street, and another trillion to the Pentagon to pursue the Democrats version of foreign policy: from Bush's two overseas wars to Obama's seven.

Obama's electoral 'donor-owners' stashed away two trillion dollars in overseas tax havens and looked forward to global free trade pacts – pushed by the eloquent African American President.

Obama was elected to two terms. His liberal Democratic Party supporters swooned over his peace and justice rhetoric while swallowing his militarist escalation into seven overseas wars as well as the foreclosure of two million American householders. Obama completely failed to honor his campaign promise to reduce wage inequality between black and white wage earners while he continued to moralize to black families about ' values' .

Obama's war against Libya led to the killing and displacement of millions of black Libyans and workers from Sub-Saharan Africa. The smiling Nobel Peace Prize President created more desperate refugees than any previous US head of state – including millions of Africans flooding Europe.

'Obamacare' , his imitation of an earlier Republican governor's health plan, was formulated by the private corporate health industry (private insurance, Big Pharma and the for-profit hospitals), to mandate enrollment and ensure triple digit profits with double digit increases in premiums. By the 2016 Presidential elections, ' Obama-care' was opposed by a 45%-43% margin of the American people. Obama's propagandists could not show any improvement of life expectancy or decrease in infant and maternal mortality as a result of his 'health care reform'. Indeed the opposite occurred among the marginalized working class in the old 'rust belt' and in the rural areas. This failure to show any significant health improvement for the masses of Americans is in stark contrast to LBJ's Medicare program of the 1960's, which continues to receive massive popular support.

Forty-years of anti welfare legislation and pro-business regimes paved the golden road for the election of Donald Trump

Trump and the Republicans are focusing on the tattered remnants of the social welfare system: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. The remains of FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society -- are on the chopping block.

The moribund (but well-paid) labor leadership has been notable by its absence in the ensuing collapse of the social welfare state. The liberal left Democrats embraced the platitudinous Obama/Clinton team as the 'Great Society's' gravediggers, while wailing at Trump's allies for shoving the corpse of welfare state into its grave.

Conclusion

Over the past forty years the working class and the rump of what was once referred to as the ' labor movement' has contributed to the dismantling of the social welfare state, voting for ' strike-breaker' Reagan, ' workfare' Clinton, ' Wall Street crash' Bush, ' Wall Street savior' Obama and ' Trickle-down' Trump.

Gone are the days when social welfare and profitable wars raised US living standards and transformed American trade unions into an appendage of the Democratic Party and a handmaiden of Empire. The Democratic Party rescued capitalism from its collapse in the Great Depression, incorporated labor into the war economy and the post- colonial global empire, and resurrected Wall Street from the 'Great Financial Meltdown' of the 21 st century.

The war economy no longer fuels social welfare. The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations. Profits rise while wages fall. Low paying compulsive labor (workfare) lopped off state transfers to the poor. Technology – IT, robotics, artificial intelligence and electronic gadgets – has created the most class polarized social system in history. The first trillionaire and multi-billionaire tax evaders rose on the backs of a miserable standing army of tens of millions of low-wage workers, stripped of rights and representation. State subsidies eliminate virtually all risk to capital. The end of social welfare coerced labor (including young mother with children) to seek insecure low-income employment while slashing education and health – cementing the feet of generations into poverty. Regional wars abroad have depleted the Treasury and robbed the country of productive investment. Economic imperialism exports profits, reversing the historic relation of the past.

Labor is left without compass or direction; it flails in all directions and falls deeper in the web of deception and demagogy. To escape from Reagan and the strike breakers, labor embraced the cheap-labor predator Clinton; black and white workers united to elect Obama who expelled millions of immigrant workers, pursued 7 wars, abandoned black workers and enriched the already filthy rich. Deception and demagogy of the labor-

Issac , December 11, 2017 at 11:01 pm GMT

"The military-industrial complex has found new partners on Wall Street and among the globalized multi-national corporations."

"The collaboration of liberals and unions in promoting endless wars opened the door to Trump's mirage of a stateless, tax-less, ruling class."

A mirage so real, it even has you convinced.

whyamihere , December 12, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT
If the welfare state in America was abolished, major American cities would burn to the ground. Anarchy would ensue, it would be magnitudes bigger than anything that happened in Ferguson or Baltimore. It would likely be simultaneous.

I think that's one of the only situations where preppers would actually live out what they've been prepping for (except for a natural disaster).

I've been thinking about this a little over the past few years after seeing the race riots. What exactly is the line between our society being civilized and breaking out into chaos. It's probably a lot thinner than most people think.

I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury." We are definitely in this situation today. I wonder how long it can last.

Disordered , December 13, 2017 at 8:41 am GMT
While I agree with Petras's intent (notwithstanding several exaggerations and unnecessary conflations with, for example, racism), I don't agree so much with the method he proposes. I don't mind welfare and unions to a certain extent, but they are not going to save us unless there is full employment and large corporations that can afford to pay an all-union workforce. That happened during WW2, as only wartime demand and those pesky wage freezes solved the Depression, regardless of all the public works programs; while the postwar era benefited from the US becoming the world's creditor, meaning that capital could expand while labor participation did as well.

From then on, it is quite hard to achieve the same success after outsourcing and mechanization have happened all over the world. Both of these phenomena not only create displaced workers, but also displaced industries, meaning that it makes more sense to develop individual workfare (and even then, do it well, not the shoddy way it is done now) rather than giving away checks that probably will not be cashed for entrepreneurial purposes, and rather than giving away money to corrupt unions who depend on trusts to be able to pay for their benefits, while raising the cost of hiring that only encourages more outsourcing.

The amount of welfare given is not necessarily the main problem, the problem is doing it right for the people who truly need it, and efficiently – that is, with the least amount of waste lost between the chain of distribution, which should reach intended targets and not moochers.

Which inevitably means a sound tax system that targets unearned wealth and (to a lesser degree) foreign competition instead of national production, coupled with strict, yet devolved and simple government processes that benefit both business and individuals tired of bureaucracy, while keeping budgets balanced. Best of both worlds, and no military-industrial complex needed to drive up demand.

Wally , Website December 13, 2017 at 8:57 am GMT
"President Obama transferred 2 trillion dollars to the ten biggest bankers and swindlers on Wall Street " That's twice the amount that Bush gave them.
jacques sheete , December 13, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

The American welfare state was created in 1935 and continued to develop through 1973. Since then, over a prolonged period, the capitalist class has been steadily dismantling the entire welfare state.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Corporations [now] are welfare recipients and the bigger they are, the more handouts they suck up, and welfare for them started before 1935. In fact, it started in America before there was a USA. I do not have time to elaborate, but what were the various companies such as the British East India Company and the Dutch West India Companies but state pampered, welfare based entities? ~200 years ago, Herbert Spencer, if memory serves, pointed out that the British East India Company couldn't make a profit even with all the special, government granted favors showered upon it.

Corporations not only continuously seek monopolies (with the aid and sanction of the state) but they steadily fine tune the welfare state for their benefit. In fact, in reality, welfare for prols and peasants wouldn't exist if it didn't act as a money conduit and ultimate profit center for the big money grubbers.

Den Lille Abe , December 13, 2017 at 11:09 am GMT
Well, the author kind of nails it. I remember from my childhood in the 50-60 ties in Scandinavia that the US was the ultimate goal in welfare. The country where you could make a good living with your two hands, get you kids to UNI, have a house, a telly ECT. It was not consumerism, it was the American dream, a chicken in every pot; we chewed imported American gum and dreamed.

In the 70-80 ties Scandinavia had a tremendous social and economic growth, EQUALLY distributed, an immense leap forward. In the middle of the 80 ties we were equal to the US in standards of living.

Since we have not looked at the US, unless in pity, as we have seen the decline of the general income, social wealth fall way behind our own.
The average US workers income has not increased since 90 figures adjusted for inflation. The Scandinavian workers income in the same period has almost quadrupled. And so has our societies.

The article is dismal reading, and evidence of the failings of the "unregulated" society, where the anything goes as long as you are wealthy.

wayfarer , December 13, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT

Between the mid 1970's to the present (2017) labor laws, welfare rights and benefits and the construction of and subsidies for affordable housing have been gutted. 'Workfare' (under President 'Bill' Clinton) ended welfare for the poor and displaced workers. Meanwhile the shift to regressive taxation and the steadily declining real wages have increased corporate profits to an astronomical degree.

source: http://www.unz.com/jpetras/rise-and-decline-of-the-welfare-state/

What does Hollywood "elite" JAP and wannabe hack-stand-up-comic Sarah Silverman think about the class struggle and problems facing destitute Americans? "Qu'ils mangent de la bagels!", source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

... ... ...

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 13, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT
@Greg Fraser

Like the Pentagon. Americans still don't readily call this welfare, but they will eventually. Defense profiteers are unions in a sense, you're either in their club Or you're in the service industry that surrounds it.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 13, 2017 at 2:43 pm GMT
As other commenters have pointed out, it's Petras curious choice of words that sometimes don't make too much sense. We can probably blame the maleable English language for that, but here it's too obvious. If you don't define a union, people might assume you're only talking about a bunch of meat cutters at Safeway.

The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and secrecy, you're either in the club or not.

The war on unions was successful first by co-option but mostly by the media. But what kind of analysis leaves out the role of the media in the American transformation? The success is mind blowing.

America has barely literate (white) middle aged males trained to spout incoherent Calvinistic weirdness: unabased hatred for the poor (or whoever they're told to hate) and a glorification of hedge fund managers as they get laid off, fired and foreclosed on, with a side of opiates.

There is hardly anything more tragic then seeing a web filled with progressives (management consultants) dedicated to disempowering, disabling and deligitimizing victims by claiming they are victims of biology, disease or a lack of an education rather than a system that issues violence while portending (with the best media money can buy) that they claim the higher ground.

animalogic , December 13, 2017 at 2:57 pm GMT
@Wally

""Democracy can only work until the people figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury." We are definitely in this situation today."

Quite right: the 0.01% have worked it out & US democracy is a Theatre for the masses.

Reg Cæsar , December 13, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

They elected militarists and demagogues as their new presidents.

Wilson and FDR were much more militarist and demagogic than those that followed.

Reg Cæsar , December 13, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT
@whyamihere

I don't know who said it but someone long ago said something along the lines of, "Democracy can only work until the people figure out they can vote for themselves generous benefits from the public treasury."

Some French aristocrat put it as, once the gates to the treasury have been breached, they can only be closed again with gunpowder. Anyone recognize the author?

phil , December 13, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
The author doesn't get it. What we have now IS the welfare state in an intensely diverse society. We have more transfer spending than ever before and Obamacare represents another huge entitlement.

Intellectuals continue to fantasize about the US becoming a Big Sweden, but Sweden has only been successful insofar as it has been a modest nation-state populated by ethnic Swedes. Intense diversity in a huge country with only the remnants of federalism results in massive non-consensual decision-making, fragmentation, increased inequality, and corruption.

HallParvey , December 13, 2017 at 4:57 pm GMT
@Anonymous

The welfare state is alive and well for corporate America. Unions are still here – but they are defined by access and secrecy, you're either in the club or not.

They are largely defined as Doctors, Lawyers, and University Professors who teach the first two. Of course they are not called unions. Access is via credentialing and licensing. Good Day

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 13, 2017 at 4:57 pm GMT
@Linda Green

Bernie Sanders, speaking on behalf of the MIC's welfare bird: "It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO."

Elizabeth Warren, referring to Mossad's Estes Rockets: "The Israeli military has the right to attack Palestinian hospitals and schools in self defense"

Barack Obama, yukking it up with pop stars: "Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming."

It's not the agitprop that confuses the sheep, it's whose blowhole it's coming out of (labled D or R for convenience) that gets them to bare their teeth and speak of poo.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 13, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT
@HallParvey

What came first, the credentialing or the idea that it is a necessary part of education? It certainly isn't an accurate indication of what people know or their general intelligence – although that myth has flourished. Good afternoon.

Logan , December 13, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT
@Realist

For an interesting projection of what might happen in total civilizational collapse, I recommend the Dies the Fire series of novels by SM Stirling.

It has a science-fictiony setup in that all high-energy system (gunpowder, electricity, explosives, internal combustion, even high-energy steam engines) suddenly stop working. But I think it does a good job of extrapolating what would happen if suddenly the cities did not have food, water, power, etc.

Spoiler alert: It ain't pretty. Those who dream of a world without guns have not really thought it through.

Logan , December 13, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
@phil

It has been pointed out repeatedly that Sweden does very well relative to the USA. It has also been noted that people of Swedish ancestry in the USA do pretty well also. In fact considerably better than Swedes in Sweden

[Dec 15, 2017] FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok Implicated Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information." ..."
"... It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...." ..."
"... One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 ) ..."
"... That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed. ..."
"... And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked. ..."
"... Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here. ..."
"... Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets. ..."
"... They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? ..."
"... Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did. ..."
"... And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

FBI Edits To Clinton Exoneration Go Far Beyond What Was Previously Known; Comey, McCabe, Strzok Implicated Tyler Durden Dec 15, 2017 10:10 AM 0 SHARES detailed in a Thursday letter from committee chairman Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) to FBI Director Christopher Wray.

James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok

The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials , including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor , E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.

Heather Samuelson and Heather Mills

Also mentioned in the letter are the immunity agreements granted by the FBI in June 2016 to top Obama advisor Cheryl Mills and aide Heather Samuelson - who helped decide which Clinton emails were destroyed before turning over the remaining 30,000 records to the State Department. Of note, the FBI agreed to destroy evidence on devices owned by Mills and Samuelson which were turned over in the investigation.

Sen. Johnson's letter reads:

According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an employee on the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise dates of the edits and identities of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey's statement in at least three respects .

It was already known that Strzok - who was demoted to the FBI's HR department after anti-Trump text messages to his mistress were uncovered by an internal FBI watchdog - was responsible for downgrading the language regarding Clinton's conduct from the criminal charge of "gross negligence" to "extremely careless."

"Gross negligence" is a legal term of art in criminal law often associated with recklessness. According to Black's Law Dictionary, gross negligence is " A severe degree of negligence taken as reckless disregard ," and " Blatant indifference to one's legal duty, other's safety, or their rights ." "Extremely careless," on the other hand, is not a legal term of art.

According to an Attorney briefed on the matter, "extremely careless" is in fact a defense to "gross negligence": "What my client did was 'careless', maybe even 'extremely careless,' but it was not 'gross negligence' your honor." The FBI would have no option but to recommend prosecution if the phrase "gross negligence" had been left in.

18 U.S. Code § 793 "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifically uses the phrase "gross negligence." Had Comey used the phrase, he would have essentially declared that Hillary had broken the law.

In addition to Strzok's "gross negligence" --> "extremely careless" edit, McCabe's damage control team removed a key justification for elevating Clinton's actions to the standard of "gross negligence" - that being the " sheer volume " of classified material on Clinton's server. In the original draft, the "sheer volume" of material "supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information."

Also removed from Comey's statement were all references to the Intelligence Community's involvement in investigating Clinton's private email server.

Director Comey's original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners in the Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server. The original statement read:

[W]e have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.

The edited version removed the references to the intelligence community:

[W]e have done extensive work [removed] to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors, changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase "Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above 50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.

It's also possible that the FBI, which was not allowed to inspect the DNC servers, was uncomfortable standing behind the conclusion of Russian hacking reached by cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike.

The original draft read:

Given the combination of factors, we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account."

The edited version from Director Comey's July 5 statement read:

Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail account.

Johnson's letter also questions an " insurance policy " referenced in a text message sent by demoted FBI investigator Peter Strzok to his mistress, FBI attorney Lisa Page, which read " I want to believe the path you threw out to consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40...."

One wonders if the "insurance policy" Strzok sent to Page on August 15, 2016 was in reference to the original counterintelligence operation launched against Trump of which Strzok became the lead investigator in "late July" 2016? Of note, Strzok reported directly to Bill Priestap - the director of Counterintelligence, who told James Comey not to inform congress that the FBI had launched a counterintelligence operation against then-candidate Trump, per Comey's March 20th testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. (h/t @TheLastRefuge2 )

Transcript , James Comey Testimony to House Intel Committee, March 20, 2016

The letter from the Senate Committee concludes; "the edits to Director Comey's public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI's public evaluation of the implications of her actions . This effort, seen in the light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's election, raise profound questions about the FBI's role and possible interference in the 2016y presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of President Trump ."

Johnson then asks the FBI to answer six questions:

  1. Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who comprised the "mid-year review team" during the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server.
  2. Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed Director Comey's July 5, 2016 statement . Please identify which individual made the marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
  3. Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the final draft statement that described Secretary Clinton's behavior as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " What evidence supported these changes?
  4. Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the reference to the Intelligence Community . On what basis was this change made?
  5. Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the FBI's assessment that it was "reasonably likely" that hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than [sic] intrusion was "possible." What evidence supported these changes?
  6. Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Comey's statement, including comment bubbles , and explain the basis for the redactions produced to date.

We are increasingly faced with the fact that the FBI's top ranks have been filled with political ideologues who helped Hillary Clinton while pursuing the Russian influence narrative against Trump (perhaps as the "insurance" Strzok spoke of). Meanwhile, "hands off" recused Attorney General Jeff Sessions and assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein don't seem very excited to explore the issues with a second Special Counsel. As such, we are now almost entirely reliant on the various Committees of congress to pursue justice in this matter. Perhaps when their investigations have concluded, President Trump will feel he has the political and legal ammunition to truly clean house at the nation's swampiest agencies.

swmnguy -> 11b40 , Dec 15, 2017 4:42 PM

All I see in this story is that the FBI edits their work to make sure the terminology is consistent throughout. This is not a smoking gun of anything, except bureaucratic procedure one would find anywhere any legal documents are prepared.

That's not to say Hillary shouldn't have been prosecuted. But what we're seeing here looks like perfectly normal behavior once the decision has been made not to prosecute; get the statements to be consistent with the conclusion. In a bureaucracy, that requires a number of people to be involved. And it would necessarily include people who work for Hillary Clinton, since that's whose information is being discussed.

Now, if Hillary hadn't been such an arrogant bitch, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If she had just take the locked-down Android of iOS phone they issued her, instead of having to forward everything to herself so she could use her stupid Blackberry (which can't be locked down to State Dep't. specs), everything would have been both hunky and dory.

And the stuff about how a foreign power might have, or might possibly have, accessed her emails is all BS too. We already know they weren't hacked, they were leaked.

Maybe people who don't understand complicated organizations see something nefarious here, but nobody who does will. Nothing will come of this but some staged-for-TV dramatic pronouncements in the House, and on FOX News, and affiliated websites. There's nothing here.

youarelost , Dec 15, 2017 8:59 AM

What did Obozo know and when did he know it

E.F. Mutton -> youarelost , Dec 15, 2017 9:04 AM

False Flag time - distraction needed ASAP

Bigly -> E.F. Mutton , Dec 15, 2017 9:14 AM

We need to look for this as there are a LOT of people who need to be indicted and boobus americanus needs distraction.

My concern is that there are not enough non-corrupts there to handle and process the swamp as Trump did not fire and replace them 10 months ago.

shitshitshit -> Bigly , Dec 15, 2017 9:16 AM

I wonder how high will this little game go...

That obongo of all crooks is involved is a sure fact, but I'd like to see how many remaining defenders of the cause are still motivated to lose everything for this thing...

In other terms, what are the defection rates in the dem party, because now this must be an avalanche.

cheka -> eclectic syncretist , Dec 15, 2017 9:45 AM

applied neo-bolshevism

macholatte -> cheka , Dec 15, 2017 10:23 AM

I am tired of this shit. Aren't you?

Please, EVERYONE with a Twitter account send this message Every Day (tell your friends on facebook):

Mr. President, the time to purge the Obama-Clinton holdovers has long passed. Please get rid of them at once. Make your base happy. Fire 100+ from DOJ - State - FBI. Hire William K. Black as Special Prosecutor

send it to:

@realDonaldTrump
@PressSec
@KellyannePolls
@WhiteHouse


Does anybody know how to start an online petition?
Let's make some NOISE!!

Bay of Pigs -> macholatte , Dec 15, 2017 12:02 PM

Sadly, I don't see this story being reported anywhere this morning. Only the biggest scandal in American history. WTF?

11b40 -> Bay of Pigs , Dec 15, 2017 1:22 PM

Debatable re. biggest story being kept quiet. The AWAN Brothers/Family is a Pakistani spy ring operating inside Congress for more than a decade, and we hear nothing. They had access to virtually everything in every important committee. They had access to the Congressional servers and all the emails. Biggest spy scandal in our nations hsitory, and........crickets.

Of course, they may all be related, since Debbie Wasserman-Shits brought them in and set them up, then intertwined their work in Congress with their work for the DNC.

grizfish -> Bay of Pigs , Dec 15, 2017 1:53 PM

They have had a year to destroy the evidence. Why should the CIA controlled MSM report the truth? It's just like slick willy. Deny. Deny. Deny.

ThePhantom -> grizfish , Dec 15, 2017 3:35 PM

The Media is "in on it" and just as culpabale.... everyone's fighting for their lives.

grizfish -> Bay of Pigs , Dec 15, 2017 4:29 PM

Just more theater. Throwing a bone to the few citizens who think for themselves. Giving us false hope the US legal system isn't corrupt. This will never be prosecuted, because the deep state remains in control. They've had a year to destroy the incriminating evidence.

Lanka -> macholatte , Dec 15, 2017 2:27 PM

Tillerson is extremely incompetent in housecleaning. He needs to be replaced by Fred Kruger, Esq.

TerminalDebt -> cheka , Dec 15, 2017 12:43 PM

I guess we know now who the leaker was at the FBI and on the Mule's team

Joe Davola -> TerminalDebt , Dec 15, 2017 1:27 PM

I'm guessing the number of leakers is bigger than 1

eclectic syncretist -> eclectic syncretist , Dec 15, 2017 10:01 AM

What's next? The FBI had Seth Rich killed? Is that why Sessions and everyone else appears paralyzed? How deep does this rabbit hole go?

Overfed -> eclectic syncretist , Dec 15, 2017 10:58 AM

I'm sure that Chaffets and Gowdy will hand down some very stern reprimands.

Mr. Universe -> Overfed , Dec 15, 2017 11:24 AM

Ryan and his buddies in Congress will make strained faces (as if taking a dump) and wring their hands saying they must hire a "Special" Investigator to cover up this mess.

Duane Norman -> Mr. Universe , Dec 15, 2017 11:31 AM

http://fmshooter.com/claiming-fbis-reputation-integrity-not-tatters-comp...

Yeah, but it won't make a difference.

Gardentoolnumber5 -> Overfed , Dec 15, 2017 3:12 PM

Chaffets left Congress because he couldn't get any more help from Trump's DOJ than he did from Obama's. Sad, as he was one of the good guys. imo

ThePhantom -> eclectic syncretist , Dec 15, 2017 3:38 PM

did you notice the story yesterday about "Russian hacker admits putin ordered him to steal dnc emials" ? someones worried about it....

grizfish -> ThePhantom , Dec 15, 2017 4:38 PM

They tweet that crap all the time. Usually just a repeat with different names, but always blaming a Ruskie. About every 6 months they hit on a twist in the wording that causes it to go viral.

Bush Baby -> eclectic syncretist , Dec 15, 2017 11:37 AM

Before Trump was elected , I thought the only way to get our country back was through a Military Coup, but it appears there may be some light at the end of the tunnel.

eclectic syncretist -> Bush Baby , Dec 15, 2017 11:57 AM

I wonder if that light is coming from the soon to be gaping hole in the FBI's asshole when the extent of this political activism by the agency eventually seeps into the public conciousness.

rccalhoun -> eclectic syncretist , Dec 15, 2017 12:43 PM

you can't clean up a mess of this magnitude. fire everyone in washington---senator, representative, fbi, cia, nsa ,etc and start over---has NO chance of happenning

the only hope for a non violent solution is that a true leader emerges that every decent person can rally behind and respect, honor and dignity become the norm. unfortunately, corruption has become a culture and i don't know if it can be eradicated

Lanka -> rccalhoun , Dec 15, 2017 2:31 PM

Just expose the Congress, McCabe, Lindsey, McCabe, Clinton, all Dem judges, Media, Hollywood, local government dems as pedos; that will half-drain the swamp.

shankster -> eclectic syncretist , Dec 15, 2017 4:11 PM

Does the US public have a consciousness?

lew1024 -> Bush Baby , Dec 15, 2017 2:54 PM

If Trump gets the swamp cleaned without a military coup, he will be one of our greatest Presidents. There will be people who hate that more than they hate being in jail.

checkessential -> BennyBoy , Dec 15, 2017 1:00 PM

And they say President Trump obstructed justice for simply asking Comey if he could drop the Michael Flynn matter. Wow.

TommyD88 -> checkessential , Dec 15, 2017 1:09 PM

Alinsky 101: Accuse your opponent of that which you yourself are doing.

Overfed -> redmudhooch , Dec 15, 2017 2:47 PM

Getting rid of the FBI (and all other FLEAs) would be a good thing for all of us.

A Sentinel -> TommyD88 , Dec 15, 2017 2:13 PM

Precisely. That's actually a very good tool for decoding the Clintons and Obama. "You collaborated with Russia." Means "I collaborated with Saudi Arabia." It takes a little while and I haven't fully mastered it yet, but you can reverse alinsky-engineer their statements to figure out what they did.

lurker since 2012 -> checkessential , Dec 15, 2017 4:09 PM

And get this, Flynn was set up! Yates had the transcript via the (illegal) FISA Court of warrant which relied on the Dirty Steele Dossier, when Flynn deviated from the transcript they charged him Lying to the FBI. Comey McCabe run around lying 24/7. Their is no fucking hope left! The swamp WINS ALWAYS.

Ramesees -> BaBaBouy , Dec 15, 2017 9:31 AM

I have - it's was NBC Nightly News - they spent time on the damning emails from Strozk. Maybe 2-3 minutes. Normal news segment time. Surprised the hell out of me.

A Sentinel -> Ramesees , Dec 15, 2017 2:14 PM

Someone probably got fired for that.

ThePhantom -> Ramesees , Dec 15, 2017 3:41 PM

the "MSM" needs to cover their own asses ...like "an insurance policy" just in case the truth comes out... best to be seen reporting on the REAL issue at least for a couple minutes..

[Dec 15, 2017] Sic Semper Tyrannis Watergate Deja Vu and Fake News by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan. ..."
"... How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona? ..."
"... DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT. ..."
"... I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer). ..."
"... You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once. ..."
"... And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please ..."
"... I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. ..."
"... The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated". ..."
"... He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long. ..."
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government. ..."
"... I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
"... Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations. ..."
"... Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though. ..."
"... I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. ..."
"... If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media". ..."
"... He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread. ..."
"... One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

That sure sounds a lot like the current state of the media. We have witnessed this type of hysteria ourselves in just the last two days. First there was the Brian Ross debacle, which entailed Ross peddling the lie that Trump ordered Flynn to contact the Russians. That "fake news" elicited an emotional orgasm from Joy Behar on The View. She was on the verge of writhing on the floor as she prematurely celebrated what she thought would seal the impeachment of Donald Trump. Whoops. Ross had to retract that story.

... ... ...

Watergate and "Russiagate" do share a common trope. During Watergate the Washington Post was mostly a lone voice covering the story. Washington Post publisher at the time, Kate Graham, reportedly remarked that she was worried that none of the other papers were covering the story. And it was an important story. It exposed political corruption and abuse of power and a threat to our democracy.

How is that in common with Russiagate? The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump. Hardly anyone in the media, mainstream or fringe, are writing about this fact and trying to rally public support for action. What is one to say when confronted with the fact that the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump that was initially commissioned by the Clinton campaign. And who is the FBI Agent paying for the dossier? Why a fellow now revealed as a Clinton partisan.

Publius Tacitus , 05 December 2017 at 11:52 PM
It is a shame you wanted to start the discussion with such a stupid comment. I have made no representation whatsoever about the intelligence or lack of intelligence of Trump. I have expressed nothing regarding "my expectations" for him or his policies. I get it. You don't like the man and want to grind a meaningless axe.
EEngineer said in reply to David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 01:12 AM

How much of what we see is the real DJT and how much is a projected public persona?

There's truth and lies, but then there's just plain old bullshit which has nothing to do with either. He seems to throw a ton of it around as a diversionary tactic. I understand the technique, but I can't see through the smoke screen to divine what he's up to or who he really is. So I continue to dispassionately observe.

walrus , 06 December 2017 at 01:49 AM
DJT's threat to "drain the swamp" has created fear, uncertainty and doubt amongst the swamp folk. They naturally fight back. By definition, all swamp critters must toe the neocon line else they would have been fired by previous incumbents. They are all therefore fair game for DJT.
sbjonez , 06 December 2017 at 02:36 AM
Maybe a citation could be offered here, but there does not appear to be any support for the assertion made by the author of this piece that "...the FBI paid money to a former British spy for alleged dirt on Donald Trump...".There were reports that the FBI 'considered' paying Steele to continue his work, ( a not altogether uncommon practice), yet within the more responsibly researched reports it was also clearly stated that in the end the FBI did not in fact pay Steele anything for any work at all.
Dr. George W. Oprisko , 06 December 2017 at 03:32 AM
As it happens the FBI and most probably the others were created by executive order.

Perhaps it's time to end them by executive order.......

INDY

Eric Newhill said in reply to Publius Tacitus ... , 06 December 2017 at 03:32 AM
PT,
I admire your persistence and agree with the points you make in this and your other posts on the topic of Trump. This is an extremely important subject matter. A President was elected, lawfully, and a bunch of stupid ninnies got their panties in a knot over that and are therefore more or less willing to support a Borgist ("deep state", if you prefer) coup d'état. Said ninnies are immune to the rational arguments you present because they are not intelligent, they are hyper emotional and many of them belong to a cult called "[neo]liberalism" (or the "progressive movement", if you prefer).

When you belong to a cult, you must suspend reason; make it subordinate to the hive mind. You lose all perspective. They believe all kids of ridiculous notions that fail to withstand the most basic rational scrutiny; like Islam and feminism can be allies, socialism would work if only it were applied correctly, if a man puts on a dress he has actually become a woman and that such a person would make a good 11 series in the military, low skill/low IQ immigrants - legal or otherwise - are actually good for the country......so of course they believe that a coup d'état is appropriate when the target is Trump. In their madness they have convinced themselves that Trump is uniquely dangerous. He is going to destroy the world via ignoring global warming, tax cuts, immigration reform, pushing the nuclear button just for fun; all of the above and maybe more. You know this, of course. You did mention "Trump Derangement Syndrome".

As for the rest of the subject matter, personally, I feel that what with all that has been revealed about the FBI, CIA and NSA, someone should be bringing the involved members of these agencies up on charges related to treason, sedition or whatever legal terms are correct. Actually, these people should have their doors kicked down and be brought out in hand cuffs. Death sentences should be on the table and should be applied when legally possible.

This is no more Watergate than a man in a dress is a woman.

The depths to which the govt, populace and values of this country have degenerated have never been more on display than in this witch hunt. We are in very bad shape. The media is thoroughly scurrilous. Officials in bureaucracies are treasonous and have no respect for the rule of law. Half of the citizens are insane and support the media and the traitors.

If someone doesn't at least just pull the plug on this "investigation", it's going to ruin what's left of this country. It may be too late. A lot of ninnies are going to wake up to a very harsh reality.

Peter Reichard , 06 December 2017 at 05:21 AM
From day one the Republicans were trying to impeach Bill Clinton by investigating every dark corner of the Clintons' past and present until they could find something that would stick. Same thing with Trump except this time it goes far beyond the opposition party to include elements of the government, most of the media and even leading members of his own party. Elections be damned, we have an empire to maintain and he is seen by the establishment as too impulsive, unstable and so far uncontrollable to be allowed to stay in power. While no threat to the sacred cows of Wall Street and Israel or even to drain the swamp they are terrified of his unpredictability, hence the full court press unprecedented in American history to remove him from office. My very low opinion of Trump doesn't blind me to the dangers inherent in this effort. \
English Outsider -> Publius Tacitus ... , 06 December 2017 at 05:45 AM
PT - Isn't the point you've just made central? The issues here are far more important than the personalities?

I like what I've seen of our PM, Mrs May. Nice person, to my outsider's way of thinking. Doesn't alter the fact that I consider her policies and philosophy to be hopeless. And since we're never going to meet her in the pub that's what counts. Would it not be possible to separate things out in the same way with Trump? Set on one side the partisan arguments about his personality - politics is not a TV show - and consider him on the basis of what he may or may not do or be able to do?

You mention briefly the Steele affair. I still find it difficult to believe that an ex-UK Intelligence Officer can get mixed up in American politics to this extent and scarcely an eyebrow raised. Surely someone's asking questions somewhere about this? The facts are clear enough, for once.

JMH said in reply to David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 07:29 AM
Actually, I think he shares many of Bismark's qualities: "a political genius of a very unusual kind [whose success] rested on several sets of conflicting characteristics among which brutal, disarming honesty mingled with the wiles and deceits of a confidence man. He played his parts with perfect self-confidence, yet mixed them with rage, anxiety, illness, hypochrondria, and irrationality. ... He used democracy when it suited him, negotiated with revolutionaries and the dangerous Ferdinand Lassalle, the socialist who might have contested his authority. He utterly dominated his cabinet ministers with a sovereign contempt and blackened their reputations as soon as he no longer needed them. He outwitted the parliamentary parties, even the strongest of them, and betrayed all those ... who had put him into power. By 1870 even his closest friends ... realized that they had helped put a demonic figure into power.[6]"-wiki

Bernie can be Lasalle.

Patrick Armstrong , 06 December 2017 at 07:55 AM
I think, I hope, I believe, I persuade myself that all is unfolding as it should. Mueller turns up nothing but further examples of officials pimping themselves out to foreign governments; meanwhile revelations of bias on his team; meanwhile chewing away at the Fusion GPS thing (one of the key pillars); meanwhile investigation of the FBI. And, off stage, a slow but powerful campaign exposing many of Trumnp's enemies as corrupt, perverted hypocrites. And, from time to time, unexpected presents like Brazile's book. But faster please
Martin Oline , 06 December 2017 at 08:02 AM
I agree about the Trump Derangement Syndrome that has afflicted the media. I think they are suffering from O.C.T.D.: Obsessive Compulsive Trump Disorder. There are some in the media who are of the opinion that this may not be working with most Americans. I saw two pieces this morning from BBC and The New York Times:

Perhaps this is the start of a change or a recognition that the MSM's habitual crying wolf behavior is not resonating with Main Street. I can only hope, but I stopped watching the national news long ago.

Ken Roberts , 06 December 2017 at 08:30 AM
The crucial point is not about respect for the man. It is respect for the office. All men are flawed, and high position exposes additional flaws. It is evident, to this outside observer, that Trump won "fair and square" according to the established procedures. The variety of "dirty tricks" used against him, both before the election and after, is astounding. There was a "back room" negotiation on election eve, visible in public as the long delay in final over-the-top results, and Trump's apology to his supporters for the delay, "it was complicated".

That truly is water under the bridge, and at least must be so, if you wish to preserve your republic. You all have the right to withhold consent and trash what you and your fathers and grandfathers have achieved. Most will not like the outcome. But I sincerely hope that you, each and collectively, instead will choose the positive aspects of this model:

"... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Best wishes,
kr

Greco , 06 December 2017 at 08:56 AM
The ABC story had to be "clarified" given they originally reported Flynn had contacted the Russians DURING the election when in fact it was AFTER the election. The story had consequences on the stock market: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4129355-cost-fake-news-s-and-p-500 This all happened on the eve of the passage of Trump's tax cuts and it seemed timed to hurt the stock market. It may even possibly have torpedoed the tax cuts by putting into question Trump's legal standing as president.
jdledell , 06 December 2017 at 10:04 AM
I detest Trump as a person but still acknowledge that he is our current President. I will continue to fight against the implementation of his policies and work hard to to try to insure he does not win a second term. Other than that in 3 more years the American people will have an opportunity to judge his performance and make a decision on his worthiness to continue as President. That is as it should be.

Trump has taken some hard shots, some deserved and some not. That is the nature of our current political system. When Trump traveled the nation proclaiming Obama was not American born and thus an illegitimate President is also an example of "all is fair in War and politics".

Fred -> David E. Solomon... , 06 December 2017 at 10:20 AM
David,

He was smart enough to get elected, defeating a dozen professional republicans and the Democratic machinery along with the MSM. "In the end you will see that he does not live up to your expectations." I thought he was a boor and a mediocre showman. In that regard he's exceeded mine by surviving this long.

Publius Tacitus -> sbjonez... , 06 December 2017 at 10:35 AM
You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that the information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.
rjj said in reply to JMH... , 06 December 2017 at 11:19 AM
is this doom-and-gloom or hope-assaulting-experience? Am guessing that the only thing he has shares with Old Otto is a preference for the classic method of donning trousers.

OOPS! there's this (was reminded of it by the hyperventilatory "breaking news" about Blackwater/Erik Prince):

Bismarck held von Holstein in high esteem, and when the latter went to him with his plan for establishing a vast organization of almost universal spying, the Chancellor of the new German Empire immediately grasped the advantages he could obtain from it. ....

Von Holstein ... had one great ambition; that of knowing everything about everybody and of ruling everybody through fear of the disclosures he could make were he at any time tempted to do so. ....

The German Foreign Office knew everything and made use of everything .... In the Prussian Intelligence Department as Holstein organized it there was hardly a person of note or consequence in Europe about whom everything was not known, including, of course, his weaknesses and cupboard skeletons. And this knowledge was used when necessary without any compunction or remorse. ....

His first care, whenever an individual capable at a given moment of playing a part, no matter how humble, in the great drama attracted his attention, was to ferret out all that could be learned about him or her. With few exceptions he contrived to lay his finger on a hidden secret. Once this preliminary step had been performed to his satisfaction, the rest was easy. The unfortunate victim was given to understand that he would be shamed publicly at any time, unless . . . unless . . .

https://archive.org/details/firebrandofbolsh00radz

As this has been the SOP of Karl Rove (presumably), of Jedgar, and before that [__fill in the blanks___], the only thing unprecedented about the Prince/Blackwater story is the disregard for omerta.

DISCLAIMER: The Princess Radziwill who published the passage on von Holstein was an opportunistic swashbucklereuse type and [guessing] would have been so even in less horrifically interesting times.

walter , 06 December 2017 at 12:06 PM
My humble opinion on what is going on. "The Borg" are individuals whose self-interest is tied to perpetuating "business as usual" in Washington DC. FBI agents, CIA, NSA need domestic and foreign conflict to aggrandize and justify their positions. They do not want our national problems solved...god forbid, budgets, salaries, bonuses, future contracting and consulting jobs might be reduced or eliminated.

Hillary, Bush, Obama and "the establishment" knew unconsciously not to "rock the boat". Trump was seen as too independent and uneducated in the ways of The Borg to be trusted. He had un-borg-like views like "..what the hell are we doing supporting Al Quida?" "...grab her in the pussy.." "..lets make Jerusalem the capital of Israel.." "lets get along with Russia.." "..the Media is fake and biased.." all very un-PC and un-borg-like positions. Too disruptive of the status quo. Might actually solve some problems and reduce the importance of government.

I think the Borg determined he was N.O.K. (Not Our Kind). And he has royally pissed off the Media and he is in a death fight with the Media.

Sid Finster , 06 December 2017 at 12:16 PM
I find the whole idea that "Deutsche Bank has branches in Russia and lends money to Russian borrowers, therefore Russians control Deutsche Bank" idea to be comical.

I have clients who also regularly borrow money from Deutsche Bank. Are they now Russians? Are they controlled now by Russians? Do Russians control them? What role does DB play in all this web of control?

If I have my mortgage at the same bank as a slum lord/toxic waste generator/adult bookstore owner/CIA operative, am I now his puppet?

Asking for a friend.

Does nobody understand how banking law works? (in Germany and the US, banks are forbidden to lend to any client or client group in an amount that would give the borrower de facto control over the operations of the bank). Of course the smarter conspiracy theorists understand this. Any stick to beat a dog.

Sid Finster said in reply to English Outsider ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:18 PM
The difference is that the establishment/Deep State/Borg/whatever you want to call it approves of Steele's activities.
Dr. Puck said in reply to Dr. George W. Oprisko ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:27 PM
FYI History of the FBI. www.fbi.gov/history/brief-history
Sylvia 1 , 06 December 2017 at 12:48 PM
This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.

What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.

Eric Newhill , 06 December 2017 at 12:51 PM
PT,

Are you aware that the Office of Inspector General has been investigating politicization of the FBI and DOJ for 11 months now? The investigation was brought about at the recommendation of certain members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe. Among the allegations being looked into is that DOJ/FBI have highly political agents that should have at least recused themselves from certain investigations and that their politics may have influenced the course of the investigations.

Given the revelations around Strzok, Rhee and Weissman, on Mueller's team, you'd think we'd be hearing more about OIG case. IMO, we are about to though.

Peter VE said in reply to Sylvia 1... , 06 December 2017 at 05:05 PM
I'm also stunned by the stupidity of the Democrats. Any liberal who believes the intelligence agencies is a fool. They've just shown us their true nature by blocking the release of several thousand pages of records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. If they can't allow the truth to come out after 54 years, they surely can't be trusted to be truthful about today's information.
Cvillereader said in reply to Eric Newhill... , 06 December 2017 at 06:54 PM
Fox News, which has been fairly reliable of late, reported last night that the FBI OIG report will be finalized and made public sometime in the next 4-5 weeks.
blue peacock , 07 December 2017 at 12:18 AM
Publius Tacitus
The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump.

How can this conspiracy be investigated? Who could do it? Clearly not anyone from the DoJ, FBI, CIA and NSA as they are fully compromised.

JamesT -> Cvillereader... , 07 December 2017 at 12:48 AM
If someone had told me 5 years ago that I would in 2017 consider Fox News to be the most reliable MSM news outlet, I would have rolled around on the ground laughing hysterically. Yet it is true. I am not quite sure what I should deduce from this but I think it is something along the lines of "one cannot be too cynical about the news media".
Imagine , 07 December 2017 at 12:50 AM
Real News: Outstanding official independent post-mortem of Charlottesville. Includes maneuver tactics, I think y'all will like it.

http://www.charlottesville.org/home/showdocument?id=59615

AK said in reply to English Outsider ... , 07 December 2017 at 04:06 AM
English Outsider,

"Any idea why?"

He certainly gives them plenty of ammunition. However, I believe a great deal of the vituperative outrage directed at him has much (possibly primarily) to do with exactly whom he bested in the general election. Not to pile on, but see David E. Solomon's comments on this thread.

One can't underestimate the cult of personality that was so carefully crafted around Hillary Clinton for the past two decades. Their chosen strategy of identity politics only kicked it into hyper-drive over the past eight years.

Still, this phenomenon existed long before Trump, The Politician, and even before Obama and his own cult. Many of these people were able to put their expectations on hold for eight long years. Obama was a result they could at least live with temporarily - " Just eight more years, and then they owe her. "

They had their very structures of reality built around a certain outcome, which didn't come to pass. So, the disappointment was all the more bitter when they realized that their waiting was in vain. That's a tidal wave of cognitive dissonance unleashed by that unimaginable (for some) occurrence of her defeat. He didn't put paid to Martin O'Malley or even Bernie Sanders. He vanquished The Queen. That sort of thing never goes down lightly.

AK said in reply to Richardstevenhack ... , 07 December 2017 at 04:23 AM
Richardstevenhack,

" As I've said before, I think Trump only ran for President for 1) ego, and 2) he knows he will have access to billions of dollars of business deals once he leaves office, with the cachet of having been President.

You might as well assert that lions only hang out around watering holes because 1) there's water there, and 2) gazelles and zebras have to drink water. Can you point me to one President from living memory who did not 1) run for the Office at least partially out of ego, and 2) take advantage in his subsequent "private life" of these exact perks of having held the Office? I ask seriously, because it seems you are pining for a nobility in presidential politics which to my recollection hasn't existed for at least three generations. Cincinnatus, they ain't. Maybe Ike, but anyone else is a real stretch.

[Dec 15, 2017] Andrew Weissmann, Mueller's Legal Pit Bull

Notable quotes:
"... But many defense lawyers have chafed at what they see as a scorched-earth approach, forged in Brooklyn while facing down Mafia members and refined on the government's unit of Enron superprosecutors, which left a mixed legacy of high-profile successes, overturned convictions and one unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court. ..."
"... Then came the shock-and-awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home - a Weissmann special, both admirers and critics recognized - the Zorro "Z" to announce his presence in the case. ..."
nytimes.com

top lieutenant to Robert S. Mueller III on the special counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links to the Trump campaign. Significantly, Mr. Weissmann is an expert in converting defendants into collaborators - with either tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one's perspective.

If Mr. Mueller is the stern-eyed public face of the investigation, Mr. Weissmann, 59, is its pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit bull with two Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and a list of past enemies that includes professional killers and white-collar criminals.

... ... ...

But many defense lawyers have chafed at what they see as a scorched-earth approach, forged in Brooklyn while facing down Mafia members and refined on the government's unit of Enron superprosecutors, which left a mixed legacy of high-profile successes, overturned convictions and one unanimous defeat at the Supreme Court.

... thousands of dollars in past donations from Mr. Weissmann to Democrats, including former President Barack Obama.

...Then came the shock-and-awe raid of Mr. Manafort's home - a Weissmann special, both admirers and critics recognized - the Zorro "Z" to announce his presence in the case.

"There's a name," the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh warned listeners last week, recapping the "intimidating technique" afoot. "Weissmann."

... ... ...

whose work has been taken up by Trump allies like Newt Gingrich. (In 2015, Ms. Powell criticized Mr. Weissmann in an article for The New York Observer - which was owned by Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law - after Mr. Weissmann was named to lead the Justice Department's criminal fraud section.)

[Dec 15, 2017] James Clapper Corrects Left's Narrative On Russia Election Interference 'Not All 17' Intel Agencies Affirmed

Notable quotes:
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
"... Aaron Klein Investigative Radio ..."
"... ." Follow him on ..."
"... Twitter @AaronKleinShow. ..."
"... Follow him on ..."
"... With research by Joshua Klein. ..."
May 09, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17 federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing."

Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations."

The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing Russian intentions during the presidential election.

While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA).

Referring to the assessments, Clapper stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my former office."

Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.

Here is a transcript of that exchange :

FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for – for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17 of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.

CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office

FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?

CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came out.

The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to 'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution."

The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.

The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies."

Following Clinton's presidential debate claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."

However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:

We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.

PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."

Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " Aaron Klein Investigative Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

With research by Joshua Klein.

[Dec 15, 2017] Republican Rep. Jim Jordan Get a special prosecutor for Hillary Clinton right now by Chris Pandolfo

Fusion GPs is an interesting part of the whole puzzle.
Notable quotes:
"... On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State Department during the Obama administration. ..."
"... "It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now. We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues." ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | www.conservativereview.com

On Wednesday morning, Congressman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to Attorney General Jeff Sessions' unclear position on appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's ties to Fusion GPS and Russia and the Uranium One deal orchestrated by the Clinton State Department during the Obama administration.

Jordan, appearing on "Fox & Friends," said the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the full breadth of Clinton's potentially illegal activities "needs to happen."

"It needs to be about everything, including Mr. Comey's handling of the Clinton investigation in 2016," Jordan said. "The inspector general is looking into that right now. We're going to look into it as a congressional committee, but it needs to be the full gambit because frankly it's all tied together, and we think in many ways Mr. Rosenstein and many ways Mr. Mueller is compromised; they're not going to look at some of these issues."

"But the biggest part, I do believe, is the dossier," Jordan stressed. "The fact, as I said yesterday, the fact that a major political party can finance this dossier at the same time it looks like Christopher Steele, the author of the dossier, was being paid by the FBI."

"So are they complicit in putting together this dossier, which was National Enquirer baloney, turning it into an intelligence document, getting a warrant, and spying on Americans? If that happened in this great country, that is just so wrong. That's why it warrants a special examination of this whole issue."

Asked by Ainsley Earhardt why the Department of Justice hasn't asked for a special counsel yet, Jordan said he thinks it's because "some of the career people at the Justice Department just don't want to go there." Jordan also said that Attorney General Sessions, who is "a good man," may feel compromised by his recusal from some aspects of the Russia investigation and therefore unwilling to push hard against those who don't want to go after Clinton.

On Tuesday, the attorney general testified before the House Judiciary Committee. When asked by Rep. Jordan if he would appoint a special counsel to investigate Clinton, Sessions demurred.

[Dec 15, 2017] Was Steele dossier the "insurance policy" to derail Trump the Strzok mentioned

Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for "an insurance policy" just in case he did.

A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want to know what these senior FBI officials had in mind.

[Dec 15, 2017] Protecting the Shaky Russia-gate Narrative by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative. ..."
"... The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!" ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry.

If Russia-gate is the massive scandal that we are told it is by so many Important People -- across the U.S. mainstream media and the political world -- why do its proponents have to resort to lies and exaggerations to maintain the pillars supporting the narrative?

A new example on Thursday was The New York Times' statement that a Russian agency "spent $100,000 on [Facebook's] platform to influence the United States presidential election last year" – when the Times knows that statement is not true.

According to Facebook, only 44 percent of that amount appeared before the U.S. presidential election in 2016 (i.e., $44,000) and few of those ads addressed the actual election. And, we know that the Times is aware of the truth because it was acknowledged in a Times article in early October.

As part of that article, Times correspondents Mike Isaac and Scott Shane reported that the ads also covered a wide range of other topics: "There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid ads."

As nefarious as the Times may think it is for Russians to promote a Facebook page about "adorable puppies," the absurdity of that concern – and the dishonesty of the Times then "forgetting" what it itself reported just two months ago about the timing and contents of these "Russian-linked ads" – tells you a great deal about Russia-gate.

On Thursday, the Times chose to distort what it already knew to be true presumably because it didn't want to make the $100,000 ad buy (which is not a particularly large sum) look even smaller and less significant by acknowledging the pre-election total was less than half that modest amount – and even that total had little to do with the election.

Why would the Times lie? Because to tell the truth would undercut the narrative of evil Russians defeating Hillary Clinton and putting Donald Trump in the White House – the core narrative of Russia-gate.

Another relevant fact is that Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches and only detected the $100,000 after a personal visit from Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on Internet regulation.

In other words, Facebook's corporate executives dredged up something to appease Warner. That way, Warner and the Democrats could blame Russia for the Trump presidency, sparing further criticism of Clinton's dreadful campaign (in which she labeled half of Trump's voters "deplorables") and her neo-liberal economic policies (and neo-conservative foreign policies) that have alienated much of America's working class as well as many progressives.

Leaving Out Context

The Times also might have put the $100,000 in "Russian-linked" ads over a two-year period in the context of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue, but the Times didn't do that – apparently because it would make even the full $100,000 look like a pittance.

Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative.

Ironically, the Times' latest false depiction of the $100,000 in ads as designed "to influence" the 2016 election appeared in an article about Facebook determining that other Russian-linked ads, which supposedly had a powerful effect on Great Britain's Brexit vote, totaled just three ads at the cost of 97 cents. (That is not a misprint.)

According to Facebook, the three ads, which focused on immigration, were viewed some 200 times by Britons over four days in May 2016. Of course, the response from British parliamentarians who wanted to blame the Brexit vote on Moscow was to assert that Facebook must have missed something. It couldn't be that many Britons had lost faith in the promise of the European Union for their own reasons.

We have seen a similar pattern with allegations about Russian interference in German and French elections, with the initial accusations being widely touted but not so much the later conclusions by serious investigations knocking down the claims. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's " German Intel Clears Russia on Interference. "]

The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!"

These days in Official Washington, it has become almost forbidden to ask for actual evidence that would prove the original claim that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails, even though the accusation came from what President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged were "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

These "hand-picked" analysts produced the evidence-lite Jan. 6 "assessment" about Russia "hacking" the emails and slipping them to WikiLeaks – a scenario denied by both WikiLeaks and Russia.

When that "assessment" was released almost a year ago, even the Times' Scott Shane noticed the lack of proof, writing : "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'"

But the Times soon "forgot" what Shane had inconveniently noted and began reporting the Russian "hacking" as accepted wisdom.

The 17-Agencies Canard

Whenever scattered expressions of skepticism arose from a few analysts or non-mainstream media, the doubts were beaten back by the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" concurred in the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking to hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. And what kind of nut would doubt the collective judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies!

Though the 17-agency canard was never true, it served an important purpose in establishing the Russia-gate groupthink. Wielding the "all 17 intelligence agencies" club, the U.S. mainstream media pounded politicians and policymakers into line, making any remaining skeptics seem more out of step and crazy.

So, in May 2017, when Clapper (along with former CIA Director John Brennan) admitted in congressional testimony that it wasn't true that all 17 agencies concurred in the Russian hacking conclusion, those statements received very little attention in the mainstream media.

The New York Times among other major news outlets just continued asserting the 17-agency falsehood until the Times was finally pressured to correct its lie in late June , but that only led to the Times shifting to slightly different but still misleading wording, citing a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies without mentioning a number or by simply stating the unproven hacking claim as flat fact.

Even efforts to test the Russian-hack claims through science were ignored or ridiculed. When former NSA technical director William Binney conducted experiments that showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet but matched what was possible for a USB-connected thumb drive -- an indication that a Democratic insider likely downloaded the emails and thus that there was no "hack" -- Binney was mocked as a "conspiracy theorist."

Even with the new disclosures about deep-seated anti-Trump bias in text messages exchanged between two senior FBI officials who played important early roles in the Russia-gate investigation, there is no indication that Official Washington is willing to go back to the beginning and see how the Russia-gate story might have been deceptively spun.

In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for "an insurance policy" just in case he did. A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want to know what these senior FBI officials had in mind.

But the Times and other big promoters of Russia-gate continue to dismiss doubters as delusional or as covering up for Russia and/or Trump. By this point – more than a year into this investigation – too many Important People have bought into the Russia-gate narrative to consider the possibility that there may be little or nothing there, or even worse, that it is the "insurance policy" that Strzok envisioned.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

WC , December 15, 2017 at 3:39 pm

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/taking-liberty/

Sally Snyder , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Here is an article that looks at how Google is proposing to "protect us" from all things Russian:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.lt/2017/11/how-google-manages-fake-news.html

George Orwell was right, he was just a few decades ahead of his time. Non-government actors in the United States, including Google, have learned an important lesson from the 2016 election and we can pretty much assure ourselves that the next election will see significant massaging when it comes to what we read and hear.

ranney , December 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm

Lately I've heard on PBS and other news shows that Russia "invaded Ukraine" and also attacked Crimea and essentially stole the island back to Russia. I forget the exact words used about Crimea but that was the gist. I have heard several times people on PBS using the the words Russia "invaded Ukraine" to describe what happened there. Like the N.Y.T. PBS is supposed to be the go to place for unbiased news and now they are blatantly lying to the public – and have been lying certainly as far back as 2014, if not before.

It's very discouraging to know that there are so few places where one can go to get actual facts. Consortium is one and, surprisingly RT is often another – at least RT tells us about stuff going on in other parts of the world that we never hear about in the MSM. Boy! talk about being an insular country! America is the most isolated country in the world when it comes to knowledge about other lands. We go on about how narcissistic Trump is, but the fact is that our whole government and our MSM is totally narcissistic and has been for quite a while – all we think about is us- and our government is willing to kill and lay waste anyone or any country that doesn't do exactly what we want, even when what we want is disasterous for not only other countries, but also disasterous for our own country. We are so narcissistic that we can't see it.

Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Well ranney, while I look at and read this site regularly, I gotta say that Trump is merely a doppelgänger for our country's collective psyche. This country is off the rails in every way possible. Yes, that includes those bad apples of the deep state AND compliant hamster citizens who vote and are currently scurrying about on the wheel of capitalism in pursuit of the Christmas Machine. All the hand wringing done on this web-site ain't gonna change any of it.

Mr. Parry would do everyone justice by taking his excellent skills and expanding his writing repertoire beyond Russia-gate. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what's up with him that he repeatedly beats the same old sorry drum- like the MSM- only on the opposite side. It's getting tiresome. How about proposing solutions to what ails us?

Sorry to ruin everyone's party.

Abe , December 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm

"major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump-Russia story, always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be corrected, walked back, or retracted -- often long after the initial false claims spread, and where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial false stories are lavished:

– Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter (Wash Post)
– An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin agents (Wash Post)
– WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
– A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
– RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
– Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
– Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets, echoing Homeland Security)
– Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment fund under investigation (CNN) [ ]

"But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can't mean hiding behind P.R. and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.

"At minimum, these networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and CBS -- have to either identify who purposely fed them this blatantly false information or explain how it's possible that 'multiple sources' all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries and protests the next time they're attacked as 'Fake News' should fall on deaf ears, since the real author of those attacks -- the reason those attacks resonate -- is themselves and their own conduct."

The U.S. Media Suffered Its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages and Now Refuses All Transparency Over What Happened
By Glenn Greenwald
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:49 pm

Hilary gave it away, as the (anti-democratic)"Democratic Party" gave it all away and has been doing it for decades.
Whereas the right has wisely (for it's purposes) built long term infrastructure of funded think tanks, media, fundamentalist ideologists, etc; the Democratic Establishment has dumped on it's base at practically ever turn, never really showing actual support for it's public community, and has joined with the right to destroy all attempt to build an actual peoples' political party.
I just turned 84 and have witnessed the ever-growing weakness and right-leaning of the Party" since I was a little kid and have seen it only become more disgustingly lame and disingenuous in all these years since, with extended travel, 20-year military service and work around the world, in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
And we are largely to blame, being humans and Americans, we sit back-busy with our lives, and neglect our responsibilities to our fellow man and community.
Get up off your ass, guys

JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:53 pm

I must add, the so-called Party has quite consistently ACTIVELY fought against labor, consumers, t's own loyal public.

Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 5:10 pm

Among the many great comments posted here I find in your resume Mr Opperman a ton of experienced words worth listening too. In fact, it is people such as yourself that I feel our younger generation should be learning from. Your traveling, and working for the government has given you an insight that many of us do not have, nor will get since we are all not like you John. So keep posting, and tell us what you think America should do next, as we go forward. Thank you for your remarks, they are respected for what you have earned. Joe

Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm

Thanks for this post John.

Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm

In the end, this whole RussiaGate scandal may actually have a positive impact if it can be proven that it was a conspiracy cooked up by the "Deep State" as insurance in case of a Trump victory. If this is proven and actually becomes common knowledge, people like Brennan and Clapper, and their MSM mouthpieces, will never be trusted again. Though heads didn't roll after the exposure of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie, this one might tip the balance. Their argument that the "intelligence was mistaken" won't fly, as RussiaGate is so obviously a purposely constructed lie. It would be even greater if this led to a counter-investigation where all the perps were exposed and publicly prosecuted, and the Intelligence Agencies were "broken into 1000 pieces." Maybe while they were at it, they could get around to auditing the Pentagon. I like to dream big.

My hope is that websites like this one can continue to build an audience and speak truth to power now that net neutrality appears dead.

Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm

Funny how the NYT will try and make hay with a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx out weights the 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage the MSM gave Trump through the whole 2016 presidential campaign, and nobody thinks nothing of it. If there was any type of collusion to help Trump win the White House then why not question this free media give away?

As a side note, should we investigate Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn for colluding with Israel?

Senator Mark Warner plays the part of the inquisitor well, and for that reason he has loss my respect, if he ever had it to begin with. Enough of covering up for Hillary's guilt complex to why she loss the election. Someone should just tell her, that even though she has done everything there is in her power to take Putin out of power, that her presidential loss is all on her. Putin didn't need to interfere, since by Hillary just being Hillary was enough to keep her out of reach of the Oval Office.

I hope that in the coming year, that by some stroke of luck, that William Binney will get the praise he deserves. We need more people like Binney working in our government, and without him we all are left vulnerable to the many who don't represent our citizen values. I thought the MSM's treatment of William Binney was disgraceful, to say the least.

Lastly, I would only hope that whoever it was that started this Russia-Gate nonsense would be revealed, but hope doesn't prosecute anyone, but knowledge at least allows you too see who and what is behind the curtain.

Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:46 pm

" a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx .."

Yes , it was amazing that Russia was able to control our election so cheaply , but really , that was nothing. They swung the UK Brexit vote with Facebook ads costing them only 97 cents ! :

http://russia-insider.com/en/brilliant-russians-engineered-brexit-97-cents-facebook-ads/ri21937

mike k , December 15, 2017 at 5:34 pm

This whole Russiagate fraud could serve to awake a lot of Americans, if they would only look into it. You are not going to find a more blatant example of fake news by every major media, and also those supposedly upstanding Senators and Representatives, FBI and Justice Icons. If the public ignores opportunities to wake up to this outrageous scam being perpetrated on them now, there is little hope that they ever will. I try to get my friends interested in researching Russiagate, and a few of them have become curious and started asking questions – that's how awakening begins .

Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm

Agreed. It's important to have just one or a few topics at most that you can suggest to your uninformed friends as being worthy of their own time to research , with the ultimate goal of " waking up ". Russia-gate is perfect. The Syrian War is another good one.

Pablo Diablo , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm

Also, a convenient excuse to discredit the "Special Counsel" Mueller investigation. "Witch hunt", "Fake News", which will come in handy if any real crimes are exposed. Reminds me of one criminal mob taking over territory from the current bunch of criminals.
Sad to see. The definition of "government" is that it represents "the people". Yet, I wonder if any government on Earth does represent "the people".

Brendan , December 15, 2017 at 6:02 pm

In spite of all the blatant lies that it publishes, the New York Times is still highly regarded by the political and media establishment, even in Europe.

In Hamburg on 3 December 2017, the NYT was awarded the Marion Dönhoff Prize for International Understanding and Reconciliation. In his presentation speech, the German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the NYT as an authority of enlightenment and a beacon of reason.

Steinmeier even managed to sneak in some fake news when he said "We are paying tribute to a flagship of freedom of the press in an age in which independent newspapers are branded as foreign agents in Russia".
http://www.bundespraesident.de/SharedDocs/Reden/EN/Frank-Walter-Steinmeier/Reden/2017/12/171203-Doenhoff-Prize.html

In fact, none of the media outlets that were recently declared foreign agents by Moscow is either independent or a newspaper. That list consists only of the US government financed VOA and RFE/RL and a number of websites and broadcasters that VOA and RFE/RL control.

Apart from that, the Russian "foreign agents" list is just a direct retaliation against Washington for doing exactly the same thing to RT and Sputnik, who were forced to register as foreign agents. Apparently the "freedom of the press" isn't so important when it applies to Russian media organisations working in the USA.

[Dec 15, 2017] Possible MI6 links to Strzokgate and Steele dossier

Notable quotes:
"... Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup). ..."
"... I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Dunno , December 14, 2017 at 1:16 pm

Lately, I have been reading Luke Harding's "Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win." Harding is a journalist who works as a foreign correspondent for the Guardian newspaper. His book draws heavily upon the "Steele Dossier." (q.v. Wikipedia: Donald Trump-Russian Dossier) Harding's Wikipedia page is also very interesting, as is some of the information that he generously supplies in "Collusion." For example, on pp.37-38, Harding describes a three-day event in November of 2016 that was sponsored by the Halifax International Security Forum in Halifax, N.S. Harding describes the objective of the gathered international group as making sense of the world in the aftermath of Trump's stunning victory. Interestingly, Senator John McCain was one of the delegates; however, the participation of Sir Andrew Wood, a former Ambassador to Russia from 1995-2000 is perhaps even more interesting. Wood and McCain were participants in the Ukraine panel.

Sir Andrew Wood is a close friend of Christopher Steele (of the Steele Dossier) and an associate of Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., which is Steele's private spy agency. [Does Steele still work for the British SIS, MI6?] "Before the election Steele had gone to Wood and shown him the dossier." (p.38). Wood is wired into the arch-NWO Chatham House, which is home to The Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the companion organization of which is the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). (q.v. "Tragedy and Hope" by Carrol Quigley; "The Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States foreign Policy" by Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter; "Wall Street's Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2104" by Laurence H. Shoup).

At this conference in Halifax, Harding reports that Wood briefed McCain about the contents of the Steele Dossier [rattle-tat-tattle-tale MI6's "ScuttleTrump" operation seems to proceeding swimmingly at this point]. The senile senator from Arizona evidently decided that " the implications [of the dossier] were sufficiently alarming to dispatch a former senior U.S. official to meet with Steele and find out more." The emissary, David Kramer, is currently a senior director at the McCain institute for International Leadership: Kramer was formerly the President of the highly questionable Freedom House, a nest of NWO neocons and neoliberals. (q.v. Wikipedia article, Freedom House, especially the section on Criticism/Relationship with the U.S. Government.) Please, recall McCain's role in the coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014.

I am starting to wonder if Luke Harding might be MI6 with journalism for a cover. Then there is the bizarre case of Carter Page, the former U.S. Marine intelligence officer and purported lover of all things Russian and of Putin. This obsessive enthusiast is beginning to remind me of another obsessive Russian enthusiast, U.S. Marine, and defector to the soviet Union; Patsy Oswald. I am starting to look at this Trump-Russia fraud as more than a takedown of the crooked Don. It seems to be an ingenious way of further demonizing Putin and the Russians, and, if so, it is working like a charm. The MSM echo chamber cannot get enough of it. and neither can the NWO.

[Dec 15, 2017] Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it masks their corruption and their collusion with Israel

Notable quotes:
"... Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel. It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New World Order. ..."
"... Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a national security threat." Objective reality? ..."
"... The "Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged" elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college, ranked voting and more. ..."
"... "Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner, and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel. ..."
"... "The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead, Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump administration." ..."
"... Mueller Names Trump's Foreign 'Colluding' Power: Israel By Wayne Madsen ..."
"... Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course. ..."
Dec 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Gregory Kruse , December 14, 2017 at 1:48 pm

Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel. It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New World Order.

China and Russia are only nominal adversaries in the world economy. They also want to impoverish the majority of the world's population even at the cost of enriching some individuals to the point of becoming gods. In a sense, this is what liberals have wanted, to level the field that the poor people of the world exist on.

jaycee , December 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm

Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a national security threat." Objective reality?

Colleen O'Brien , December 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm

All the layers of deceit, denial and distraction bode ill for the Democratic Party and MSM. Thank you Robert Parry for standing up to all this disinformation & propaganda. The "Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged" elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college, ranked voting and more.

Reforming our election process is the most important issue because what we have now and what came before is because of the money which owns the politicians and who no longer represent the American People! Nothing will change until we fix this!

Abe , December 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm

"Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner, and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel.

"There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump, Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from Israel on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US Espionage Act. Israel's 'Greek Chorus' of supporters in the US news media and Congress brought up the Logan Act to minimize the damage caused by collusion between Israel's skink-like ambassador to the UN Danny Danon, Netanyahu, Kushner, Flynn, Trump, and Haley to kill the resolution. If the Logan Act had any enforcement teeth, it would have been used a long time ago to indict George Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and other pro-Israeli billionaire influence-peddlers, who represent the interests of other nations and engage in their own foreign policies.

"The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead, Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump administration."

Mueller Names Trump's Foreign 'Colluding' Power: Israel By Wayne Madsen https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/04/mueller-names-trump-foreign-colluding-power-israel.html

mike k , December 14, 2017 at 4:51 pm

Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course.

Mild -ly - Facetious , December 14, 2017 at 5:29 pm

... The new Reunion of Ismael and Issac

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/13/trump-netanyahu-mohammad-bin-salman-destroyers-neoliberal-world-order.html

Mild -ly - Facetious , December 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm

To whom it may concern: Forgive me, this isn't meant to be Hasbara .

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/11/30/us-foreign-policy-another-trump-organization-inc-property.html

[Dec 14, 2017] Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan?

Highly recommended!
That question arise during recent senate session of Rosenstein
It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post paid any price for their promotion of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. They might not get off as easy this time. One can hope. ..."
"... I can add one more. It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan. At least this point was made explicitly in a recent LarouchePAC Live broadcast on Youtube (perhaps Will Wertz's presentation at last Saturday's Manhattan Project event) though I don't know what their evidence is. So we can ask: Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan? ..."
consortiumnews.com

Zachary Smith , December 13, 2017 at 11:00 pm

I've been seeing all sorts of places where this fellow Strzok's name pops up. Things like a FISA judge recusing himself. Things like him possibly arranging things so Hillary was able to continue her run for President. At a super-right-wing site I found these "questions".

  1. Did Peter Strzok receive the Steele Dossier from Hillary Clinton on July 4th when he interviewed her?
  2. If Hillary didn't give Strzok the dossier, who did?
  3. Did Peter Strzok put together the FISA Court material, which included the Steele Dossier?
  4. Did Peter Strzok go to the FISA Court and ask for the surveillance of the Trump team based on the Steele Dossier?
  5. Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Clinton email case?
  6. Did James Comey assign Peter Strzok to the Trump surveillance case?
  7. Did James Comey know that Peter Strzok was compromised when he sent him to interview Michael Flynn (where surveillance was used to interview him based on the Steele Dossier that was presented to the FISA Court that Strzok put together?)

Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post paid any price for their promotion of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. They might not get off as easy this time. One can hope.

Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:36 am

I can add one more. It's been suggested that Strzok's job as counterintelligence deputy would have made him the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director Brennan. At least this point was made explicitly in a recent LarouchePAC Live broadcast on Youtube (perhaps Will Wertz's presentation at last Saturday's Manhattan Project event) though I don't know what their evidence is. So we can ask: Was Peter Strzok the principal FBI liaison to CIA Director John Brennan?

[Dec 14, 2017] The Foundering Russia-gate 'Scandal' Consortiumnews

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency. ..."
"... As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state" exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump. ..."
"... In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here." ..."
"... Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk." ..."
"... The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President. ..."
"... After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with Russia. ..."
"... And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about "hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis. ..."
"... Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it. Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative. "] ..."
"... If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it could explain why claims from an unverified dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel, was added as a classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect Trump. ..."
"... That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate Trump. ..."
"... But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after ..."
"... Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated admissions that there was no "17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest. ..."
"... Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's curiosity. ..."
"... Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times. ..."
"... Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier. ..."
"... Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press would ask them, of course. ..."
"... That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi. ..."
"... "Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT question. ..."
"... Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries. ..."
"... Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology. ..."
"... the most dubious thing was, of course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory ..."
"... So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere. Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially investigated. ..."
"... It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either. ..."
"... Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting. That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1. ..."
"... There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think? ..."
"... "Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC. the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works department in a 2010 DOJ report." Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever. ..."
"... Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today. ..."
"... Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill since. ..."
"... Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on. ..."
"... Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"), perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort. ..."
"... Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/ ..."
"... It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under banner headlines long ago. ..."
"... Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker? ..."
"... The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of influence. That is unacceptable to the empire. ..."
"... RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist, but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate. And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort. ..."
"... Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations? ..."
Dec 14, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: Taking on water from revealed FBI conflicts of interest, the foundering Russia-gate probe – and its mainstream media promoters – are resorting to insults against people who note the listing ship, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency.

Peter Strzok, who served as a Deputy Assistant Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, second in command of counterintelligence.

As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American "deep state" exists and that it has maneuvered to remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump.

In one Aug. 6, 2016 text exchange, Page told Strzok: "Maybe you're meant to stay where you are because you're meant to protect the country from that menace." At the end of that text, she sent Strzok a link to a David Brooks column in The New York Times, which concludes with the clarion call: "There comes a time when neutrality and laying low become dishonorable. If you're not in revolt, you're in cahoots. When this period and your name are mentioned, decades hence, your grandkids will look away in shame."

Apparently after reading that stirring advice, Strzok replied, "And of course I'll try and approach it that way. I just know it will be tough at times. I can protect our country at many levels, not sure if that helps."

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, criticized Strzok's boast that "I can protect our country at many levels." Jordan said: "this guy thought he was super-agent James Bond at the FBI [deciding] there's no way we can let the American people make Donald Trump the next president."

In the text messages, Strzok also expressed visceral contempt for working-class Trump voters, for instance, writing on Aug. 26, 2016, "Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support. it's scary real down here."

Another text message suggested that other senior government officials – alarmed at the possibility of a Trump presidency – joined the discussion. In an apparent reference to an August 2016 meeting with FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok wrote to Page on Aug. 15, 2016, "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk."

Strzok added, "It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."

It's unclear what strategy these FBI officials were contemplating to ensure Trump's defeat, but the comments mesh with what an intelligence source told me after the 2016 election, that there was a plan among senior Obama administration officials to use the allegations about Russian meddling to block Trump's momentum with the voters and -- if elected -- to persuade members of the Electoral College to deny Trump a majority of votes and thus throw the selection of a new president into the House of Representatives under the rules of the Twelfth Amendment .

The scheme involved having some Democratic electors vote for former Secretary of State Colin Powell (which did happen), making him the third-place vote-getter in the Electoral College and thus eligible for selection by the House. But the plan fizzled when enough of Trump's electors stayed loyal to their candidate to officially make him President.

After that, Trump's opponents turned to the Russia-gate investigation as the vehicle to create the conditions for somehow nullifying the election, impeaching Trump, or at least weakening him sufficiently so he could not take steps to improve relations with Russia.

In one of her text messages to Strzok, Page made reference to a possible Watergate-style ouster of Trump, writing: "Bought all the president's men. Figure I needed to brush up on watergate."

As a key feature in this oust-Trump effort, Democrats have continued to lie by claiming that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred" in the assessment that Russia hacked the Democratic emails last year on orders from President Vladimir Putin and then slipped them to WikiLeaks to undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign.

That canard was used in the early months of the Russia-gate imbroglio to silence any skepticism about the "hacking" accusation, and the falsehood was repeated again by a Democratic congressman during Wednesday's hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

But the "consensus" claim was never true. In May 2017 testimony , President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper acknowledged that the Jan. 6 "Intelligence Community Assessment" was put together by "hand-picked" analysts from only three agencies: the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.

Biased at the Creation

And, the new revelations of high-level FBI bias puts Clapper's statement about "hand-picked" analysts in sharper perspective, since any intelligence veteran will tell you that if you hand-pick the analysts you are effectively hand-picking the analysis.

Although it has not yet been spelled out exactly what role Strzok and Page may have had in the Jan. 6 report, I was told by one source that Strzok had a direct hand in writing it. Whether that is indeed the case, Strzok, as a senior FBI counterintelligence official, would almost surely have had input into the selection of the FBI analysts and thus into the substance of the report itself. [For challenges from intelligence experts to the Jan. 6 report, see Consortiumnews.com's " More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative. "]

If the FBI contributors to the Jan. 6 report shared Strzok's contempt for Trump, it could explain why claims from an unverified dossier of Democratic-financed "dirt" on Trump, including salacious charges that Russian intelligence operatives videotaped Trump being urinated on by prostitutes in a five-star Moscow hotel, was added as a classified appendix to the report and presented personally to President-elect Trump.

Though Democrats and the Clinton campaign long denied financing the dossier – prepared by ex-British spy Christopher Steele who claimed to rely on second- and third-hand information from anonymous Russian contacts – it was revealed in October 2017 that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign shared in the costs, with the payments going to the "oppo" research firm, Fusion GPS, through the Democrats' law firm, Perkins Coie.

That discovery helped ensnare another senior Justice Department official, Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr, who talked with Steele during the campaign and had a post-election meeting with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson. Recently, Simpson has acknowledged that Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS last year to investigate Trump.

Bruce Ohr has since been demoted and Strzok was quietly removed from the Russia-gate investigation last July although the reasons for these moves were not publicly explained at the time.

Still, the drive for "another Watergate" to oust an unpopular – and to many insiders, unfit – President remains at the center of the thinking among the top mainstream news organizations as they have scrambled for Russia-gate "scoops" over the past year even at the cost of making serious reporting errors .

For instance, last Friday, CNN -- and then CBS News and MSNBC -- trumpeted an email supposedly sent from someone named Michael J. Erickson on Sept. 4, 2016, to Donald Trump Jr. that involved WikiLeaks offering the Trump campaign pre-publication access to purloined Democratic National Committee emails that WikiLeaks published on Sept. 13, nine days later.

Grasping for Confirmation

Since the Jan. 6 report alleged that WikiLeaks received the "hacked" emails from Russia -- a claim that WikiLeaks and Russia deny -- the story seemed to finally tie together the notion that the Trump campaign had at least indirectly colluded with Russia.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona. March 21, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)

This new "evidence" spread like wildfire across social media. As The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald wrote in an article critical of the media's performance, some Russia-gate enthusiasts heralded the revelation with graphics of cannons booming and nukes exploding.

But the story soon collapsed when it turned out that the date on the email was actually Sept. 14, 2016, i.e., the day after WikiLeaks released the batch of DNC emails, not Sept. 4. It appeared that "Erickson" – whoever he was – had simply alerted the Trump campaign to the public existence of the WikiLeaks disclosure.

Greenwald noted , "So numerous are the false stories about Russia and Trump over the last year that I literally cannot list them all."

Yet, despite the cascade of errors and grudging corrections, including some belated admissions that there was no "17-intelligence-agency consensus" on Russian "hacking" – The New York Times made a preemptive strike against the new documentary evidence that the Russia-gate investigation was riddled with conflicts of interest.

The Times' lead editorial on Wednesday mocked reporters at Fox News for living in an "alternate universe" where the Russia-gate "investigation is 'illegitimate and corrupt,' or so says Gregg Jarrett, a legal analyst who appears regularly on [Sean] Hannity's nightly exercise in presidential ego-stroking."

Though briefly mentioning the situation with Strzok's text messages, the Times offered no details or context for the concerns, instead just heaping ridicule on anyone who questions the Russia-gate narrative.

"To put it mildly, this is insane," the Times declared. "The primary purpose of Mr. Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to protect America's national security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether a presidential campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election – a proposition that grows more plausible every day."

The Times fumed that "roughly three-quarters of Republicans still refuse to accept that Russia interfered in the 2016 election – a fact that is glaringly obvious to everyone else, including the nation's intelligence community." (There we go again with the false suggestion of a consensus within the intelligence community.)

The Times also took to task Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, for seeking "a Special Counsel to investigate ALL THINGS 2016 – not just Trump and Russia." The Times insisted that "None of these attacks or insinuations are grounded in good faith."

But what are the Times editors so afraid of? As much as they try to insult and intimidate anyone who demands serious evidence about the Russia-gate allegations, why shouldn't the American people be informed about how Washington insiders manipulate elite opinion in pursuit of reversing "mistaken" judgments by the unwashed masses?

Do the Times editors really believe in democracy – a process that historically has had its share of warts and mistakes – or are they just elitists who think they know best and turn away their noses from the smell of working-class people at Walmart?

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

mike k , December 13, 2017 at 9:54 pm

The NYT is just another tool of the multi-billionaire oligarchs who rule this USA from the shadows. They fear nothing more than the light. When that investigative light gets strong enough, more and more ordinary folks will begin to awake to the massive fraud that has been perpetrated at their expense. And when that happens, we will finally see the Oligarchy begin to crumble under the pressure of the 99%. The truth will out, then heads will roll ..

mike k , December 13, 2017 at 10:00 pm

Keep up the pressure – get your friends interested, tell them about CN, Counterpunch, Strategic-Culture, Chris Hedges, etc. Pursuing the truth can be a fascinating hobby, that leads to a person awakening. Make it interesting, awaken your friend's curiosity.

incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:04 am

How about also including RT in your list? It's a news and commentary site with strong journalistic values and credibility, notwithstanding what the Administration or the MSM may say or imply.

T.J , December 14, 2017 at 8:45 am

If RT didn't have the qualities you describe, attempts by the Administration and the MSM to discredit it would have been successful. However they will attempt to silence it by other means.

Adam Kraft , December 14, 2017 at 11:59 am

Very true TJ. I found counterpunch when wapo / propornot blacklisted them. Gave 'em creds imo. I also like mint press, occupy, naked capitalism, **world socialist website**, disobedient media, truthout, some of Glenns work on the Intercept and my youtube subs include: wearechange, **anonymous Scandinavia**, **the jimmy dore show**, RT America, TeleSUR English*, Zoon Politikon, **democracy at work**, HA Goodman, theRealNews*, mintpressnews, watching the hawks, secular talk, laura kinhtlinger, judicial watch, empire files, redacted tonight, TBTV, a little from Julian Assange's twitter.

tina , December 14, 2017 at 11:06 pm

what about Al-Jazeera?

Erik G , December 14, 2017 at 8:03 am

Good suggestion; in such persuasion, one must respectfully suggest better sources and avoid any conflict.

Mr. Parry has well summarized for beginners these essential counterpoints to the mass media propaganda.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

Amyg , December 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm

I like this use of "awakened," in contrast to the establishment culture's fascination with "woke." People don't need to get woke. They need to become awakened. Thanks to Robert Parry.

Walter Devine , December 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm

I thought we were waiting to hear what the evidence is found. The lack of discussion about what they have uncovered seems to me to speak of a professional operation. Once they are done and present what they have found, then everyone can get on their soap boxes and let loose. As for Bias, that exists in everyone to some extent or another, where was the moral outrage from the Republicans charging this today when the Benghazi investigation was being conducted by folks with known axes to grind themselves? It is the Washington hypocrisy machine at its most obvious. As for the media, print or otherwise, they are just preaching to their choirs in order to sell whatever their particular consumers are buying. Frankly I have come to expect more from you than this article Mr. Parry, here's hoping

Robert Gardner , December 13, 2017 at 10:45 pm

I've been skeptical out the Russian conspiracy so far, but I agree with what Walter Devine wrote.

tina , December 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm

I am still waiting . Mr. Parry can ride on his story back in the 1980's. We are in 2017, The internet is good. What did those people in Washington do today? get rid of net neutrality? Love you all people on CN, Happy Hanukah Merry Christmas, and Kwanzaa, And the winter solstice. Peace to all. Love, tina everyone is going to believe that they want to believe.

incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:08 am

Are you kidding about Benghazi? Obviously you have still not informed yourself about the egregious security breakdown of the Administration or how the Benghazi facility factored into the CIA's proxy war in Syria. (And, btw, where was Hillary "Rod up her Hiney" Clinton when that '3AM call' came in at 4pm?

Larco Marco , December 14, 2017 at 4:32 am

Hillary Rodham Clinton AND William Hamrod Clinton

Anna , December 14, 2017 at 12:56 am

Thank you for bringing attention to the Benghazi scandal: "FBI Chief Instructed Agents To Lie About Benghazi To Protect Hillary" http://yournewswire.com/fbi-lie-benghazi-hillary/

"By placing the interests of the Obama administration over the public's interests, the order is yet another data point highlighting the politicization of the FBI: After the September 11, 2012 attack against U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, the Obama administration peddled a lie, telling the public that the attack was related to Muslims who had become enraged at an anti-Islam YouTube video, and not a planned act of terrorism – despite Hillary Clinton emailing Chelsea Clinton from her unsecure @clintonemail.com server the night of the attack to say exactly that."

-- On a topic of evidence: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-13/anti-trump-texts-between-fired-fbi-agents-having-extramarital-affair-leak-and-theyre "

In 2016, [the FBI] received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" The "dossier" was a compendium of allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within the dossier – which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials. (One more time for you, Walter Devine -- "if he [Steele] could verify the claims"). When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times.

Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team. Steele was ultimately paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.

-- More evidence" "FBI Texts Reveal "Insurance Policy" To Prevent Trump Presidency" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-13/we-cant-take-risk-fbi-texts-reveal-insurance-policy-prevent-trump-presidency

-- Have you noticed the numbers for payments? The bank records? The names? -- these are the evidence. Or you believe that there a Bias against the miserable Steele?

bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:06 pm

Of interest to me is why the Republicans did not hammer Hillary for placing an ambassador in what was essentially a CIA compound in the first place. My guess and I can only guess is that they no objection to its being a ratline to ship Libya's stolen armaments to head-chopping jihadists (with USA blessing) fighting Assad. So to raise the issue of why putting an ambassador there would have opened the door to sensitive questions -- if the press would ask them, of course.

Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 4:28 pm

That's the real Benghazi story the MSM won't talk about. Although I suspect the armaments were given to the head choppers by the CIA, and then they rebelled at having them transferred to the head choppers in Syria after they had succeeded in killing Ghaddafi.

Jon Adams , December 14, 2017 at 6:17 pm

"Madame Secretary, WHY was it necessary to destroy Libya?" No republican asked THAT question.

Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm

Hello Skip, nice to read your good comments again and to exchange info. Here is an article which talks about the weapons ratline in Syria. Within four days, the powerful anti-tank missiles that CIA bought in Bulgaria and (supposedly) delivered to "moderate" rebels, ended up in ISIS hands. The only problem with the article's narrative is that it is still drawing the official line that the lack of oversight is to blame for such, whilst it was clearly a deliberate action to supply weapons to ISIS wrapped up in plausible deniability of passing them through the hands of some poor inept souls serving as intermediaries.

Thus, the CIA kept being surprised that its powerful weapons kept ending up in ISIS hands but kept doing the same over and over: oops an oversight mistake, oops and another one, oops one more, and another one, . the two hundredth one

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/blowback-isis-got-a-powerful-missile-the-cia-secretly?utm_term=.joevpx9dG#.lxegj54A7

Adrian Engler , December 14, 2017 at 3:44 am

Starting a grand-scale investigation on the basis of allegations of conspiracy with another government and treason is rather dubious when these allegations from dirty campaign tactics are not based on any tangible facts. It is true that the Muller team does not leak as much to the press as the intelligence services did previously. This investigation still plays an important role for the media propaganda that still pushes the Russiagate conspiracy theory even though there had never been any factual basis for it and no evidence has been found in over a year. Since there is still this investigation is going on, they can use it for justifying their daily minutes of hate against Russia, their calls for censorship and denounciation of any political position that diverges from the neoconservative and neoliberal ideology.

I wonder how long this can go on. So far, the indictments of the Muller team have had nothing to do with the Russiagate conspiracy theory. Paul Manafort was indicted for tax evasion related to lobbying business with Ukraine, mostly years ago. Michael Flynn was indicted because when he reported a call from his holidays to the Russian ambassador to the FBI more than three weeks later, he left out two elements (the FBI had the recordings from the NSA, anyway, so they wouldn't have had to ask him about the telephone call). There was nothing illegal about the contents of the telephone call (the most dubious thing was, of course, the lobbying related to a UN security council resolution vote, but that might at best hint at colluding with Israel, it certainly does not fit the Russiagate conspiracy theory). It seems quite plausible that Flynn just forgot these two elements of a telephone call in which quite a large number of points was raised and that he pleaded guilty because of a plea deal (otherwise he might have been indicted in connection with his lobbying work for Turkey). Superficially, the closest to the idea of Russiagate is the indictment of Papadopoulos, someone who played a minor role in the Trump campaign and was looking for contacts with Russians, but, as it seems did not get very far (for some reasons he seemed to think a Russian woman he was talking with was a relative of Putin). His actions may have been naïve or misguided, but nothing about them was illegal, like in the case of Michael Flynn, he is only accused of lying to the FBI about normal, legal actions.

So, if we judge the Muller investigation by its results, it is not going anywhere. Obviously, that is what should be expected when a commission is set up for investigating a conspiracy theory for which there had never been any evidence to begin with. I suppose the result would be similar if the Illuminati, the Elders of Zion, or reptiloids were officially investigated.

The question is how they will wind down. If they just say that apart from things like Manafort's possible tax evation and Flynn's lobbying for Israel, they have not found anything – certainly nothing that confirms the Russiagate conspiracy theory -, that will be quite difficult, people will demand that it is investigated how it came about that such a conspiracy was spread and played such an influential role in political discourse for some time. It seems that the Muller team wants to delay that moment when they have to confess that the conspiracy theory has broken down, but that won't necessarily make it easier, either.

Antiwar7 , December 14, 2017 at 7:24 am

How long should we wait until we hear of ONE, that's right, ONE piece of evidence backing these claims up? Please answer: 2 years? 10 years? The only evidence so far amounts to "trust us".

And that's ignoring the monumental number of pieces of false evidence that have been put forward. That in itself makes the whole "investigation" suspicious. On top of the long, documented history of the CIA planting false stories in the press.

bobzz , December 14, 2017 at 3:09 pm

I don't know. How long did it take the Dutch to cook the evidence to condemn Russian partisans for the downing of the Malaysian airliner -- with Ukraine holding a gun to their heads.

Dunno , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

Dear Mr. 7, I have come to the grudging conclusion that Russia-gate is and has always been more about Russia and Putin than about the crooked Don. If we stop to think about it, Trump has succumbed to the deep control of the Deep-State colossus. Russia evil; Israel good! Got it? When the pathetic wiener & crotch-grabber isn't bitchin' for Bibi and doing little pooch tricks for Israel, he is being programmed by the pentagon and the Deep State, and making sure that the super-rich get super richer. His own SOS Tillerson called him an effin' moron. Enough said!

Therefore, 7, Russia-gate is all about keeping the pot boiling for the presidential election in Russia next year. Demonizing Putin and Russia is the new great game of our era. The NWO Nebula lusts after Russia's geostrategic location and its abundant resources. It's 1905-1925 all over again. Read the book, "Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1925" by Richard B. Spence and also take a gander at Trine Day books' website of suppressed books. The deep-state Plutocrats and their secret societies hatch their evil little plots, while trying to keep the rest of us in the dark. Right now, Trump is a convenient platform for anti-Russian propaganda.

Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:24 pm

Think you nailed it. The bankster regime changers already tried once to structurally adjust Russia into being a US puppet state in the 90s under Clinton. Russia was robbed blind while Yeltzin drank himself into a stupor. Putin is the one who put a stop to the looting. That is his crime against the western oligarchs and why he is enemy #1.

Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 8:10 am

Once more the standard troll line about being a prior supporter, which plainly "Devine" is not.
We are well over a year into this matter with nothing but speculation and manufactured claims.
It is clear that Russia-gate = Israel-gate, a diversion from zionist control of the DNC.
Where is the concern of "Devine" for the lack of investigation of control of elections and mass media by Israel?
Why does he seek to cover up the complete destruction of democracy by the foreign power Israel?

Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:43 pm

Oliver Stone had this to say on the matter on FaceBook. If you're on FB, here is the link.

https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=oliver%20stone

Adam Kraft , December 14, 2017 at 12:16 pm

facts don't show bias walt. yeah, media sells to the public, but they're also selling (or trading narratives for access) to the gov't. Wikileaks exposed the MSM – DNC collusion and we've witnessed the leaks and anonymous sources from the IC. Trust the CIA?

There's no 'lack of discussion about what they have uncovered' which has basically amounted to a pile of dirt. Have not read from the VIPS and William Binney? Uncovering shady business with oligarchs doesn't show collusion, but the dossier oppo does, but it's business as usual. Denying the FBI-DNC server subpoena was odd don't you think?

I personally believe that progressive hope dies at the DNC and exposing the party's lies (their private and public views) and undemocratic practices (preliminary process, fundraising) is the best thing for the country. It brings us one step closer to potentially building a third party that represents the proletariat and petty bourgeois classes.

Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 8:49 pm

I agree with your sentiment, but I'm finding it disturbing how many so called progressives are convinced beyond any doubt, despite the evidence I produce to instill doubt, that Russia interfered in "our democracy."

They have come unglued to the point of idiocy over Trump. They are firmly in the clutches of the CIA Deep State apparatus.

Anna , December 14, 2017 at 1:56 pm

Hey, Walter Devine, here is more for your whining about evidence: There are plenty of evidence when the disgusting clintonistas are concerned: http://theduran.com/fusion-gps-admits-that-it-hired-wife-of-doj-official-to-investigate-then-candidate-trump/

"Fusion GPS appears to be in the center of a web of corruption. Who hired Fusion GPS to ramp up its opposition research against Trump? Hillary Clinton and the DNC. the wife of Justice Department official Bruce G. Ohr worked for Fusion GPS during the 2016 presidential election. Nellie Ohr is listed as working for the CIA's Open Source Works department in a 2010 DOJ report." Look how the CIA, FBI, and DNC have found each other and made a friendship forever.

Also, do you personally have any concern about the murder of Seth Rich? -- Donna Brazil has become afraid of being Seth-Riched. How come? What kind of scum the Democratic apparatus has become? -- Guess Tony Podesta and Bill Clinton and madame "we came, we saw, he died ha, ha, ha " are the composite face of the Democratic Party today.

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , December 14, 2017 at 3:06 pm

@ Walter Devine: "Once they are done and present what they have found, then everyone can get on their soap boxes and let loose."

But overlook that the Democrats and mainstream media are doing the opposite? It seems to me that this is precisely the point that Mr. Parry's reporting has been aimed at, that the Democrats and mainstream media are jumping enormously to RussiaGate conclusions without disclosing any evidence to back up their incredibly dangerous claims and that there *is* very strong evidence of ulterior motives.

Gregory Herr , December 14, 2017 at 8:22 pm

Have at it Walter. What exactly have they uncovered? The "process" lost credibility long ago. The "intelligence" report of January 6th was garbage and it's been all downhill since.

Peter de Klerk , December 14, 2017 at 8:53 pm

I had great respect Parry's earlier writing which had a healthy dose of MSM skepticism (albeit largely for personal reasons). This whole business of jumping to conclusions on the Russia meddling has put me off him totally. All the reporting seems to be in service of defending a forgone conclusion. I wonder if this has anything to do with fundraising.

falcemartello , December 13, 2017 at 10:28 pm

This whole Russia ate my lunch has entered the realm of alternate truth. The MSM are now actually stating that the Russian hacking the 2016 election as fact. Just like all the other false and fabricated statements of world events in the last 20 years . Fro Yugoslavia, Milosovic exonerated for the falsely laid charges of genocide . How convenient after his death . Qadaffi murdering and slaughtering his own people hence RPL interventionist and voila the highest standard of living in the African continent is now reduced to takfiri heaven for the NATO proxy army recruiting centre. MH17 disaster is still being paroled as Russian deliberate murder. No facts no evidence that would stand even in a Stalinist show trial. Assad gassing his own people. More than debunked by multiple sources and US academics to boot no still being paroled as fact by western MSM.

The whole charade post 9/11 has gone into this Orwellian nightmare that just keep on growing and news and information has become pure Hollwoodian fantasy that the sheeple are sleep walking into this futuristic hell hole that these vile masters of the universe will not be able to back track without losing face and without causing the populace to stand up and be counted and kick tjhese vile players out for good.

john wilson , December 14, 2017 at 6:00 am

Take heart Falcemartello, its not all bad. Over here in the Britain RT has its own free to view TV channel which sits next to the BBC news and the parliament programme. It is now widely watched by the public and has millions of viewers with many using RT as their main news source. The fact that the American deep state criminals have made things difficult for RT America in the US, is a clear indication that the fake news masters otherwise known as the MSN, and their handlers in the deep state are rattled by the ever growing alternative voice. Its up to you, me and the rest of the posters on CN to tell our friends colleagues and others about CN, RT etc. If only one percent take a look then alternative opinion will start to filter through and more importantly, show the public what liars and criminals are in charge of their country.

Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:15 am

Thanks for the info John. I am really glad that at least Britain has a reasonable degree of freedom of the press. If it spreads across Europe, the USA may eventually find itself so isolated by its own propaganda that the whole evil empire scheme will implode, and we will have to learn to wage peace in a multi-polar world. That is my Christmas wish.

BobS , December 14, 2017 at 11:36 am

It's not difficult to get RT in the US- I watch it regularly on Dish Network. Youtube is another option- I'm guessing it's big and rich enough to survive any changes in net neutrality that will result from the Trump/Pai FCC (of course, Obama and Clinton were just as bad, DEEP STATE!!!!, etc.).
If you're going to tout conspiracies, get your facts straight.

rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:48 pm

John Pilger has an article in counterpunch explaining the importance of documentaries (not just his!). It is notable that his first one, on Cambodia, in 1970, was shown free to air on TV in the UK and thirity other countries, with huge audience impact, but refused by PBS as too disturbing!!

The free press in the USA is in tune with the ptb.

rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 5:06 pm

I see the Pilger article is here on consortiumnews. It is worth a read, like the rest here!

Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 7:58 pm

What you wrote john wilson is simply not the complete truth, although I wish it was. It is true that RT UK has its own terrestrial digital TV channel. It appears that Margarita Simonyan bid for such channel at an auction when Britain was converting from analogue to digital TV and got it. Thus, the British TV viewers can now see RT without any subscription or special equipment, "next to BBC" as you optimistically say.

What you did not mention john wilson is that the British Government regulator Ofcom is putting severe pressure on RT because their news offered an alternative view to the British propaganda. They rinse and repeat the same biased-news allegations almost every year, keeping RT UK under constant threat of the loss of its broadcasting licence due to "breach of truth standards" = "fake news". They even banned the lightbox, radio and other media advertising campaign of RT in Britain, the so called "RT is the second opinion", only because the campaign claimed that if RT existed before UK attack on Iraq in 2003, Tony Blair may have not been successful in passing the war resolutions through the parliament.

What most people do not appreciate is that the methods of suppression are not the same in all Western countries, and why should they be? Simonyan got a terrestrial TV channel and the broadcasting licence because of the British propaganda hubris – the British still believed that their post-imperial propaganda is the best in the World, just because it was the best in the world during the empire. They simply never expected the Russians to be so successful, just the same as US.

In summary:
US => force RT to register as a foreign agent to force reporting of every little detail of its operations; refuse journalistic credentials to Congress etc to disadvantage its reporting
UK => keep constant threat of the loss of broadcasting licence to skew the reporting towards the British Government version of the news

I post the links relevant to what I wrote here separately to avoid being put on hold.

Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 8:00 pm

https://secondopinion.rt.com/

https://www.rt.com/about-us/press-releases/rt-uk-second-opinion/

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/10/russia-today-ofcom-sanctions-impartiality-ukraine-coverage

https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/uk-media-regulator-threatens-rt-bias-airing-anti-western-views/

Joe Tedesky , December 13, 2017 at 10:32 pm

Philip Giraldi writes about a shift occurring over at the CIA in Trump's favor, Politico's interview with a somewhat repentant Trump hater Mike Morell now saying 'maybe our plan wasn't that well thought out' , and now these MSM Russia Gate screwups coupled with a discovery of FBI Trump haters, is a result of Trump's recognizing Jerusalem as it being Israel's capital? Just say'n.

rosemerry , December 14, 2017 at 4:52 pm

Obama's expulsion of the Russian diplomats after Trump's election, with no reason based on fact/danger to the USA gave a good start to the Russophobia encouraged by the Clinton losers and leading on to the ludicrous extreme situation still going on.

BobH , December 14, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Amen

Kiza , December 14, 2017 at 8:19 pm

Spot on Bob, the unfortunate and idealistic Mr Seth Rich became the DNC's bottom line, the shining example of its "anything goes as long as we have friends in the right places" (FBI, DOJ, CIA, etc etc).

Lois Gagnon , December 14, 2017 at 9:04 pm

Agreed. Let's not forget Process Server for the DNC Fraud Lawsuit Shawn Lucas who died mysteriously 2 weeks after serving the DNC either.

I never would have believed the rot in the Democratic Party establishment would rival the Republicans, but here we are.

Anon , December 14, 2017 at 8:23 am

"Tina" is a troll assigned to CN to claim extremism, and never presents evidence or argument.

Steven A , December 13, 2017 at 11:16 pm

This is another great review by Robert Parry. However, he again uses the formulation that "WikiLeaks published" and "WikiLeaks released" purloined DNC emails on September 13, 2016. Greenwald and the Washington Post have stated, more carefully, that WikiLeaks "promoted" the data source of these emails by means of a Tweet on that date.

Adam Carter noted in a comment under Parry's previous article that the DNC emails in question are the NGP/VAN files associated with Guccifer 2.0's pre-announced "hack" on July 5, 2016 and reportedly released by him on Sept 13, 2016.

In fact, they are certainly not part of WikiLeak's official archive. One can see from their website that they published nothing between the times of the DNC emails release of July 22, 2016 and the Podesta emails release of October 7. So "published" is clearly the wrong word.

Whether or in what sense it may fairly be stated that WikiLeaks "released", "promoted" or "uploaded" (as according to the Erickson email, which probably represents nothing more than an outsider's impression) the September 13 files needs to be cautiously assessed. Their Tweet did include an access key, as did the Erickson email, and the address for the file given in the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that this address is associated with Kim Dot Com, who also claims to have been involved with WikiLeaks.

Did Guccifer 2.0 himself upload the files to mega.nz? Did he play Kim Dot Com to use the latter's association with Wikileaks to get Wikileaks itself to put out the Sept 13 Tweet advertising the data release? I'm not sure how this all worked, but it seems that it is misleading to simply refer to this set of emails as having been "published" by Wikileaks.

incontinent reader , December 14, 2017 at 12:12 am

Didn't you read the VIPS analyses of the DNC leaks?

Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 8:21 am

Yes, I did, but not while writing my comment above. Do they say anything relevant to the question of whether it is accurate to correct the false media report that the Trump campaign was given access to the NGP/VAN DNC emails before WikiLeaks published them with a "corrected" statement that the Trump campaign was notified (but may never have noticed) of a link to those files by a random member of the public _after WikiLeaks had already published them_? As I recall, the original VIPS memo was itself somewhat confused about the distinction between the NGP/VAN material and the five DNC documents made public by "Guccifer 2.0" on June 15, 2016, so I'm not sure one will find anything relevant to my question there.

While it is true that the "correction" here is _much_ closer to the truth than the original misinformation, the underlined part at the end of my question still seems misleading in that the "publication" is attributed to WikiLeaks without qualification. And it seems Parry is not the only one to make this mistake. As Adam Carter pointed out two days ago, he was very surprised that almost no one has been noticing that the files in question came from "Guccifer 2.0" and not from WikiLeaks. While Parry's attribution misleading, I am still not clear in my own mind about precisely what did happen, i.e. how WikiLeaks came to "promote" the release of the files and whether in some loose or indirect sense WikiLeaks did "release" them.

mike k , December 14, 2017 at 11:08 am

Is there really any other purpose in your involved questioning but seeking to cloud and confuse the obvious issues in the "Russia hacked" affair?

Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 2:05 pm

How is it clouding the issue to suggest, as Adam Carter did, that one element in Parry's (and others') description of the facts in an otherwise excellent article seems to be misleading?

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , December 14, 2017 at 2:33 pm

@ "the address for the file given in the latter was a "mega.nz" address. I assume that this address is associated with Kim Dot Com, who also claims to have been involved with WikiLeaks."

Kim Dot Com's relationship with Mega was already extremely strained by the time of the Guccifer leaks and to the extent he ever had control of the company it had apparently ended. See e.g., https://torrentfreak.com/kim-dotcom-warns-mega-users-to-backup-their-files-160421/

Steven A , December 14, 2017 at 3:17 pm

These are the sort of details I haven't been familiar with and about which I was hoping to learn more – so thanks! I was relying on a vague impression from memory when I made the link between the "mega.nz" address seen in the email from Erickson and Kim Dot Com.

Since the whole Guccifer 2.0 operation appears to be an attempt to falsely smear WikiLeaks as a Russian agent (by publicly claiming to be a hacker associated with WikiLeaks and then being "caught" releasing documents (the ones of June 15, 2016) with "Russian fingerprints"), perhaps his uploading files (Sept 13, 2016) to a server with (past) ties to someone associated with WikiLeaks (Kim Dot Com) would have been part of the same effort.

A contemporary article says this about the release: "'Guccifer 2.0' released over 670 megabytes of documents at a cybersecurity conference in London Tuesday . The documents were released on a file storage system and not on WikiLeaks or on Guccifer 2.0's website." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hacker-guccifer-2-0-releases-more-dnc-docs-including-tim-n647921

Thus the statement that "WikiLeaks published" the files in question (repeated by Parry, Justin Raimondo and others) appears to be false. I share the surprise expressed by Adam Carter (under Parry's previous piece) that few appear to have noticed or bothered to correct this error – even though they were on target in exposing the main part of the latest MSM lie.

robjira , December 14, 2017 at 12:17 am

Great related reporting on BAR.
https://www.blackagendareport.com/entire-russian-hacking-narrative-invalidated-single-assange-tweet
https://www.blackagendareport.com/russsiagate-and-collapse-obamas-war-against-syria

Bob Van Noy , December 14, 2017 at 4:37 pm

Excellent links, robjira. Thanks.

Karl Sanchez , December 14, 2017 at 12:57 am

Those of us who live within the Outlaw US Empire have been seduced by lies Big and small since we could understand language. RussiaGate is an example of a Big Lie, just as the Outlaw US Empire being a democracy is a Big Lie–both are indoctrinational. Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Great Pumpkin, Sand Man, Cupid, et al are other excellent examples of indoctrinational Big Lies. One of the most severe is the maxim delivered from parents: You must share and play nice, when the real world acts in the exact opposite fashion. What's more, RussiaGate serves as a cover-up for several major crimes–some by Clinton, some by DNC, some by FBI, some by Justice Department, and some by CIA: None of them are being actively investigated despite there being lots of evidence existing in the public domain, which is why we know those crimes occurred.

I very highly suggest reading this article, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/13/the-u-s-is-not-a-democracy-it-never-was/

Marko , December 14, 2017 at 2:22 am

The last great hope for the Dems :

"A Russian hacker accused of stealing from Russian banks reportedly confessed in court that he hacked the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and stole Hillary Clinton's emails under the direction of agents from Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB)"

PUTIN ORDERED THEFT OF CLINTON'S EMAILS FROM DNC, RUSSIAN HACKER CONFESSES
BY CRISTINA MAZA ON 12/12/17

http://www.newsweek.com/russian-hacker-stealing-clintons-emailshacking-dnc-putinsfsb-745555

irina , December 14, 2017 at 4:03 am

And on PBS tonite the author of this Atlantic article got to put in her two cents about Putin:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/putins-game/546548/

in which she stated that not only did Putin 'annex Crimea' but also invaded Ukraine, among other things. None of her statements were backed up by any facts, which apparently are irrelevant anymore. Wikipedia has an interesting bio on her.

Bob Van Noy , December 14, 2017 at 9:57 am

Thank you irina for that "catch". I'm a long time reader of "The Atlantic Magazine" well aware of its long, liberal history and was surprised to find David Frum reporting there. David was a speech writer for W. Bush and apparently came up with the infamous "Axis of Evil" tag for President Bush's State Of The Union speech. I'll link the Wikipedia page below for those interested. I'm concerned that propaganda has spread far and wide

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_of_evil

Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 8:56 am

Despite its extremely conclusive title and substance, the Newsweek article later admits the extremely suspect nature of the accusation, and the lack of any evidence whatsoever:

"Andrei Soldatov an expert on Russian cybersecurity, said he believes Kozlovsky invented the story about his direction from the FSB for personal gain. 'I've been communicating with [Kozlovsky] for four months, and he has failed to give me any proof or answer my questions," Soldatov told Newsweek .'He was put in jail by these guys so it could be out of revenge, or he wanted to make a deal with the FSB,'"

Such a reversal of evidence and conclusion bespeaks deliberate deception. The motive is unclear, as the failed Newsweek is said to have been revived in 2013 by a Korean-American Christian fundamentalist David Jang formerly of Moon's Unification Church, whose followers consider him the Second Coming of JC, according to the linked source. http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/

Perhaps another quasi-religious CIA front like Fethullah Gulen's madrassas in Turkey and across central Asia.

exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:13 pm

They keep publishing the same horseshit just like Pravda did in the Soviet era and just like the Voelkischer Beobachter and Stuermer did during the Nazi era. I guess the uninformed hoi polloi get so used to it in these situations that they accept the situation, like ducks and frogs accept watery ponds as their environments.

Manfred Whimplebottem , December 14, 2017 at 9:20 pm

I think I heard a similar story from newsweek months ago, looks like someone took the deal(?).

FBI Probe Into Clinton Emails Prompted Offer of Cash, Citizenship for Confession, Russian Hacker Claims

"On October 5, 2016, days before U.S. intelligence publicly accused Russia of endorsing an infiltration of Democratic Party officials' emails, Nikulin was arrested in Prague at the request of the U.S. on separate hacking charges. Now, Nikulin claims U.S. authorities tried to pin the email scandal on him."

"ikulin's lawyer, Martin Sadilek, [claims] that the FBI visited him at least a couple of times, offering to drop the charges and grant him U.S. citizenship as well as cash and an apartment in the U.S. if the Russian national confessed to participating in the 2016 hacks of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta's emails in July."

"[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton's inbox for [U.S. President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin]," Nikulin wrote"

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-investigation-clinton-emails-russia-hack-607538

Wm. Boyce , December 14, 2017 at 2:33 am

I'm curious as to why this is still an issue. Here's a link to an article from last August:
http://www.businessinsider.com/top-fbi-investigator-peter-strzok-steps-away-from-russia-probe-2017-8

At that time, it wasn't known why Mr. Strzok was transferred/whatever from counter-intelligence, but since then it has been revealed that Mr. Mueller did so for his ( Strzok) political opinions. That would seem a fair thing to do. What's the problem? Might be right-wing fear.

Marko , December 14, 2017 at 4:43 am

" What's the problem? "

C'mon , man. Given Strzok's position and his influence on Russiagate AND the earlier Hillarygate investigations , the fact that he was transferred in July is of little comfort. Any damage he could do he'd already done by then. Jim Jordan will explain it to you , in six minutes :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=69&v=cShxjlUfmhk

exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:16 pm

The problem is that when that story first appeared, nothing else was disclosed. The damning material took months to emerge, as did Strzok's links to the Clinton coverups and the links to the fake dossier and the FBI's "anti-Trump" insurance policy. Those who want to believe the regime's falsehoods can always come up with rationales such as "I guess the government people know best" which was typical of the answers to sceptics against the Viet Nam war in the mid '60s.

Realist , December 14, 2017 at 2:43 am

It's been a year and a half since Hillary Clinton first accused Donald Trump of being a Putin puppet and in collusion with the Kremlin. Any fool should be able to understand that if there existed any real evidence to support this accusation the world would have seen it under banner headlines long ago. Instead, we get nothing but one set of sensational fake headlines unsupported by any actual facts time and again, all in an attempt to fool the mentally-challenged public. Yet the NYT and the rest of the yellow press continue to insist that the evidence continues to mount against Trump. What a laugh. Moreover, these deceivers are the people that want what they define as "fake news" to be systematically rooted out and stricken from the public record so no thinking person can ever see it. And, they tell us this is a free and democratic country. Got any more jokes?

Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:48 am

Totally agree. And it reminds me of some reality "quest" shows about finding Bigfoot or the Oak Island treasure, etc.

If those were actually found, it would be reported a day or two later, unless every single one of the producers, actors, workers, etc. were under an NDA enough to wait until some season finale a year or two later. Ridiculous. If Bigfoot exists that will come to us on news, and big news, international. It won't come on a 4th season of some Bigfoot-finding show.

So yeah, season two of the Trump-Russia whatever.

Maddow/MSNBC and the likes have gone utterly insane. Bigfoot behind every door. Scant or zero facts, who cares. This isn't like Benghazi or White Water or Bush's air service this is 24/7 inane terrible journalism from nearly every journalist publisher in the US.

exiled off mainstreet , December 14, 2017 at 3:30 am

I think that the new evidence discussed provides Trump the cover to pull the plug on the whole Mueller operation despite the Alabama debacle. Sure the media talkers would compare it to the Saturday Night Massacre, but the proven falsity of the whole absurd circus renders risible such comparisons. While I don't expect much out of Trump, the championing of this absurd theory by the mainstream democrats renders them an existential threat to civilization itself based on the fact that enmity with Russia seems to be their be-all and end-all. It is all not only criminal but profoundly stupid.

Homina , December 14, 2017 at 3:40 am

"The primary purpose of Mr. Mueller's investigation is not to take down Mr. Trump. It's to protect America's national security and the integrity of its elections by determining whether a presidential campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election – a proposition that grows more plausible every day."

1. How is Russia an "adversary"? And even if Russia is, that's weasel-words and subjective. Is Turkey a foreign adversary? Is Israel? China? Mexico?

2. Why wasn't there decades ago a special Election Panel looking into foreign influence? I guess it just started to happen in this last election though .Only with Putin!

3. "more plausible" .this fucking idiot. After a year of headlines of "this is what will finally take down Trump" and such, all with zero reasons, zero facts .Is naught more plausible than naught?

4. I detest Trump. I more detest hypocrites and idiots.

But sure, "blah blah more possible take trump down" says some idiot or collective NYT idiocy. Bore me more your next op-ed, you partisan morons.

Sam F , December 14, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Yes, the NYT is mere propaganda. We already know that "a presidential campaign conspired with a foreign adversary to influence the 2016 election" because Clinton's top ten donors were all Zionists, and she supported all wars for Israel.

Rich Monahan , December 14, 2017 at 3:57 am

Thank you for your spot-on analysis! The motives of the deep state – including FBI operatives, NY Times and WAPO – is crystal clear. They do not want Trump to be president, and are determined to either remove him or handcuff him indefinitely. But why? Why has the establishment gone crazy? Is it simply political, or something deeper and darker?

Skip Scott , December 14, 2017 at 8:59 am

The real "deep" reason is the PNAC plot to make sure that the USA remains the sole super power that can impose its will anywhere in the world. Trump's campaign position of seeking detente with Russia would have led us into a multi-polar world giving Russia a sphere of influence. That is unacceptable to the empire.

RussiaGate is an attempt to remove Trump from power, or at a minimum make it impossible for him to seek detente. I am no Trump apologist, but I do think our only hope for a future in this nuclear age is to seek peace and cooperation in a multi-polar world that respects national sovereignty and the rule of law. I suspect Trump will continue to be brought to heel, with or without the success of RussiaGate. And there is always the JFK solution as a last resort.

M C Martin , December 14, 2017 at 6:08 am

Where is William Binney's "Thin String" signals intelligence (SIGINT) software when it's needed? Wouldn't it be lovely to focus it on the communications of our own government? Binney says applying it after 9/11 to the pre-9/11 communications streams did successfully predict the 9/11 attacks. If only we had stored all communications of government officials dating back to . hey, let's say 1774 or so, what truths might we now know, and what proofs might we now have? What would FDR's communications prior to Pearl Harbor reveal? What about the JFK, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X assassinations?

While I can't endorse our government's illegal and immoral collection and storing of virtually all communications among people, if the store is there and is used against petty criminals, why couldn't or shouldn't it be used to detect and prove the illegal acts of our government power brokers?

What's good for the goose

[Dec 14, 2017] The 1970's was in many ways the watershed decade for the neoliberal transformation of the American economy and society

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... What I also remember well however, is how little support PATCO was able to garnish from other unionized workers (and in many cases from union leadership as well). It seemed to me at the time that some of the strongest hostility came from rank and file of trade and utilities unions. ..."
"... I recall too that it was in the 1970's that the threat of "relocation", at that time mainly from the more heavily unionized north and northeastern states to the union-hostile south began to play a major role in the destruction of the power of labor. ..."
"... And I remember the beginning of the financialization of the American corporation that I experienced on a "micro" scale, a kid lucky enough to have a summer job while in university at a large resource-extraction corporation's HQ in NYC. I recall white-collar conversations about compensation and about how salaries had steadily risen over the past decade (the company was said to be doing "really well"). And I remember how towards the end of my summer stints more and more conversation was about stock prices and Wall Street favor and about the new executive managerial style brought in by "those young MBA"s", and about (for the first time) worries of a "take-over" by "outsiders" (the company, although public, had had family leadership for many years). ..."
"... And most of all I remember how gradually the material-economic components to the identity of the blue-collar and middle class worker were written out of existence. The great narrative, the myth that explains to us what it means to be "an American," no longer included any hint of class solidarity, of the kind of work we did, the pay we earned, the common living conditions in the small towns and urban neighborhoods and "cookie-cutter" suburbs of America. ..."
"... Formerly the struggle of economic and material improvement was seen by most ordinary Americas as a struggle for certain necessary conditions to maintain, strengthen, and perpetuate a way-of-life in which the common core assumptions about the "good life" remained basically stable and unchallenged: family, stable job, residential security, public schools, public places -- neighborhood bars, coffee shops, civic clubs, parks and playgrounds -- where people could meet and interact as social equals. ..."
"... The financialization of the economy, indeed of social life itself to a great extent, meant the drive for the maximization of private profit and the pursuit of interests and 'efficiencies" conceived entirely apart from any impact of the common good of society as a whole, and should have been seen as a grave threat to the very conditions of material and economic security, only recently achieved, that were the foundation of these other civic and social institutions. ..."
"... Instead, through a grand and diabolical deceit cynically promulgated by a mostly Republican capitalist class of privilege, but also aided and abetted by a "new Left" that increasingly postured itself as the enemy of this older and more traditional way of life ..."
Dec 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

BigAl , December 13, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

The 1970's was in many ways the watershed decade for the radical transformation of the American economy and society, even more than the 1960's (I lived through both as a young man). I have yet to read the definitive social-critical analysis of these years to explain the changes that, looking back, seem to have taken the country of my childhood right out from under me, gone forever, increasingly difficult to remember through the fog of nostalgia that tends to distort as much as to reveal.

Some of the things I do remember about this time include the PATCO (air traffic controllers) strike, very well. What is often not mentioned is that PATCO was attempting to do something that had not been permitted under federal civil service law, that is, bargain for wages as well as working conditions. Wage bargaining, PATCO correctly assessed, was the issue that made or broke unions and had enabled state and local public employees to finally begin to earn a decent, living wage beginning in the 1960's (think the iconic Mike Quill and the NYC TWU).

Reagan correctly (from his point of view) saw that to fail to break PATCO on this issue was to open the floodgates and turn the U.S. civil services into something akin to its European counterpart, with the possibility of general strikes and the rest. And of course to encourage private sector unions in their drive to organize and to change federal and state labor laws to strengthen the right to picket strike and organize.

What I also remember well however, is how little support PATCO was able to garnish from other unionized workers (and in many cases from union leadership as well). It seemed to me at the time that some of the strongest hostility came from rank and file of trade and utilities unions. Of course Reagan, following the Nixon playbook, shrewdly played the patriot-nationalist card, painting PATCO as a threat to national security as well as composed of a bunch of ingrates who should have been happy to have jobs. But by then the segmentation of the American workforce, a tactic that played right into the hands of the corporate-capitalist class was in full swing. The American worker lucky enough to possess a decent paying skilled or semi-skilled union job was being taught to see their situation as morally "deserved" and to see newer aspirants to similar positions, whether recently arrived immigrants or members of racial-ethnic groups previously suppressed by law, custom and prejudice as threats/dangers/enemies of their own recently won status.

I recall too that it was in the 1970's that the threat of "relocation", at that time mainly from the more heavily unionized north and northeastern states to the union-hostile south began to play a major role in the destruction of the power of labor. This was the beginning of the "globalization" factor and of the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs that has been commented on extensively and that took off a decade or so later. What is often not recalled is that unions and other pro-labor groups attempted to lobby Congress to amend the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act) and to appoint labor-friendly members to the NLRB to ensure that plant relocation would be a mandatory subject of bargaining and thus prevent unilateral (by capital ownership) relocation or the threat of relocation as a means to destroy the power of labor. They were, of course, not successful, and factories and business continued to move away from traditional centers of labor power and worker-protections, first to so-called "right-to-work" states and eventually to Asia.

And I remember the beginning of the financialization of the American corporation that I experienced on a "micro" scale, a kid lucky enough to have a summer job while in university at a large resource-extraction corporation's HQ in NYC. I recall white-collar conversations about compensation and about how salaries had steadily risen over the past decade (the company was said to be doing "really well"). And I remember how towards the end of my summer stints more and more conversation was about stock prices and Wall Street favor and about the new executive managerial style brought in by "those young MBA"s", and about (for the first time) worries of a "take-over" by "outsiders" (the company, although public, had had family leadership for many years).

And most of all I remember how gradually the material-economic components to the identity of the blue-collar and middle class worker were written out of existence. The great narrative, the myth that explains to us what it means to be "an American," no longer included any hint of class solidarity, of the kind of work we did, the pay we earned, the common living conditions in the small towns and urban neighborhoods and "cookie-cutter" suburbs of America.

Formerly the struggle of economic and material improvement was seen by most ordinary Americas as a struggle for certain necessary conditions to maintain, strengthen, and perpetuate a way-of-life in which the common core assumptions about the "good life" remained basically stable and unchallenged: family, stable job, residential security, public schools, public places -- neighborhood bars, coffee shops, civic clubs, parks and playgrounds -- where people could meet and interact as social equals.

The financialization of the economy, indeed of social life itself to a great extent, meant the drive for the maximization of private profit and the pursuit of interests and 'efficiencies" conceived entirely apart from any impact of the common good of society as a whole, and should have been seen as a grave threat to the very conditions of material and economic security, only recently achieved, that were the foundation of these other civic and social institutions.

Instead, through a grand and diabolical deceit cynically promulgated by a mostly Republican capitalist class of privilege, but also aided and abetted by a "new Left" that increasingly postured itself as the enemy of this older and more traditional way of life, the enemy was reconceived as the new "elites", the young, urban, hipster "Leftist" who despised the old ways and represented a singular assault on everything good about America.

Meanwhile, steadily, relentlessly, the material conditions and hard-won economic improvements that had gradually made small town, urban-neighborhood, and inner-suburban life decent and livable were being destroyed by a class that paid lip-service to Capra's Bedford Falls while at the same time endlessly working to transform it into Pottersville.

[Dec 14, 2017] Trump Should Go F Himself - Texts Leak From FBI Agents On Russia Probe, Hillary Emails Investigation

Dec 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Fox reporter Shannon Brem tweeted that Fox News producer Jake Gibson has obtained 10k texts between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, one of which says "Trump should go f himself," and "F TRUMP."

... ... ...

In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"

Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."

... ... ...

In another tweet posted by Bream, Peter Strzok says "I am riled up. Trump is a f*cking idiot, is unable to provide a coherrent answer ," and "I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAY THE F*CK HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY (redacted)??!?!"

Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."

... ... ...

The messages between Strzok and Page make it abundantly clear that the agents investigating both candidates for President were extremely biased against then-candidate Trump, while going extremely easy on Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.

... ... ...

The messages sent between Strzok and Page, as well as Strzok's conduct in the Clinton investigation and several prior cases are now under review for political bias by the Justice Department . Furthermore, the fact that the reason behind Strzok's firing was kept a secret for months is of keen interest to House investigators. According to Fox News two weeks ago :

"While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators."

"Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray." -Fox News

Strzok also relied on the Trump-Russia dossier created by opposition research firm Fusion GPS. In August, 2016 - nine months before Robert Mueller's Special Counsel was launched, the New York Times reported that Strzok was hand picked by FBI brass to supervise an investigation into allegations of Trump-Russia collusion . The FBI investigation grew legs after they received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and decided to act on its salacious and largely unproven claims, According to Fox News

House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. - Fox News

Weeks before the 2016 election, Peter Strzok's FBI team agreed to pay former MI6 agent and Fusion GPS operative Christopher Steele $50,000 if he could verify the claims contained within the dossier - which relied on the cooperation of two senior Kremlin officials.

... ... ...

When Steele was unable to verify the claims in the dossier, the FBI wouldn't pay him according to the New York Times .

Mr. Steele met his F.B.I. contact in Rome in early October, bringing a stack of new intelligence reports. One, dated Sept. 14, said that Mr. Putin was facing "fallout" over his apparent involvement in the D.N.C. hack and was receiving "conflicting advice" on what to do.

The agent said that, if Mr. Steele could get solid corroboration of his reports, the F.B.I. would pay him $50,000 for his efforts, according to two people familiar with the offer. Ultimately, he was not paid . - NYT

Did you catch that? Despite the fact that Steele was not paid by the FBI for the dossier, Peter Strzok used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into President Trump's team . Steele was ultimately paid $168,000 by Fusion GPS to assemble the dossier.

There's more - according to journalist Sara Carter there are more anti-Trump messages exchanged between other members of Mueller's team

Sean Hannity: I'm hearing rumors all over the place Sara Carter that there are other anti-Trump text-emails out there. And we know about them.

Sara Carter: I think you're hearing correctly Sean and I think a lot more is going to come out. In fact, I know a lot more is going to come out based on the sources I've spoken to.

... ... ...

The text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are highly compromising , and prove that both FBI investigations into Clinton and Trump were headed by a man, aided by his mistress, who did not want to see Trump win the White House. Furthermnore, if anti-Trump text messages were exchanged between other members of Robert Mueller's special counsel, which are apparently on deck for later this month or January, it's hard to imagine anyone taking anything concluded by this dog-and-pony show seriously.

Mr. Universe -> Slack Jack , Dec 13, 2017 11:46 AM

So let's see here, I'm looking for the parts about the FBI?/special investigation, or even anything relevant to the subject matter in your post Jack. Nope nothing there except a speculation about something that has long since passed and with no real way to determine actual facts. But hey thanks for taking up all the unused space here on the forum.

Back to revelant speculation...

Melissa Hodgman is the wife of the FBI scum. Guess what she does? She is head of the SEC enforcement division. I guess that's where 'ol Pete learned how to turn "grossly negligent" into "extremely careless". I guess that's good enough for the SEC so it should be good enough for the Effing Bee Eye.

silverserfer -> Joe Davola , Dec 13, 2017 12:20 PM

funny how two libtards who are cheating on their partners, can have the audacity to believe theyre the intelligent ones. Lost, hollow, carcases of human beings they are.

Sherpa Bill -> Pandelis , Dec 13, 2017 9:24 AM

You can not be serious. A FBI investigator can't let any bias influence their investigations regardless of their personal feelings one way or the other. This Agent saying that he was in a position to protect the country from Trump puts his bias on full display. I expect FBI agents to be all Joe Friday all of the time.

Ex-Oligarch -> Theosebes Goodfellow , Dec 13, 2017 1:21 PM

Smoking gun:

"protect the country" = sabotage the election and transition processes to preserve establishment dominance

thepigman -> overbet , Dec 13, 2017 8:59 AM

Strzok smoking-gun text:

" I can protect our country at many levels ."

RumpleShitzkin -> thepigman , Dec 13, 2017 9:34 AM

Close 2nd place...
Page responds "I don't know, But we'll get it back. ..."

100% proof of Conspiracy to commit treason
And naked Sedition
Prosecute. Slam dunk.

Watch a million assholes across DC pucker.

eclectic syncretist -> RumpleShitzkin , Dec 13, 2017 11:31 AM

Yes......the personal explanation of those comments should provide a great popcorn moment in this sideshow of what was once a great country.

Thought Processor -> jcaz , Dec 13, 2017 8:30 AM

Who killed Seth Rich? ...

NumberNone -> Thought Processor , Dec 13, 2017 10:11 AM

When law enforcement is taking pro-active actions to protect Hillary and insure her presidency...should anyone be shocked that a 'rat' inside her campaign gets murdered and no one cares?

... ... ...

Thought Processor -> NumberNone , Dec 13, 2017 12:34 PM

Sexual Blackmail rings have been around forever. Every 1st world clandestine intel agency has long since perfected these types of traps. Starts with basic Honey Traps and goes to kids and much worse crimes than sexual misconduct (think the Godfather when the Senator was set up at the Brothel and you get a good idea).

Before someone becomes a dependable tool you need to have them by the balls. It has been estimated that 1 in 3 politicians in D.C. are comprimised this way at some point during their career. This is how the CIA controls politicians outside the US. It gets quid pro quo from other intel agencies for internal control (Mossad, MI6, or other). It's an old game. Epstein is Mossad. The island is a trap outside of U.S. Why would alan dershowitz go there? Simple he was lured and trapped. Think about it, if you are in this dirty business, how do get a good Lawyer? Good lawyers who are 'committed' to your cause always come in handy.

This is how real power is and has been aquired. With power comes control.

putaipan -> Thought Processor , Dec 13, 2017 1:29 PM

donald rumsfeld- "The only things that are lasting are conflict, blackmail, and killing."

number of blackmail cases revealed, ever? none. if you wanna clear the swamp, it sounds like a good place to start.

awakeRewe -> jcaz , Dec 13, 2017 9:01 AM

"Two more Walmart greeters......"

You must be missing the point - these are some of the most intelligent investigators the world has to offer /s

Even a deplorable like me knew more that 15 years ago to never use work emails for anything personal. These people are arrogant clowns.

Kayman -> awakeRewe , Dec 13, 2017 9:22 AM

Of course, at the FBI, 2 agents having a covert affair, wouldn't rise to a real issue like providing fodder for blackmail by a foreign government.

The head of the FBI snake needs to be chopped off.

Criminal and disgusting.

how_this_stuff_works -> bobdog54 , Dec 13, 2017 9:49 AM

"Somebody, anybody PLEASE tell me how someone who can earn a JD, AND an attorney for the FBI, such as Lisa Page, can be a Clinton supporter?"

Oh, easy. People like Strzok and Page feel they are "above" the law, like the Clintons. And as lawyers, it is THEY who interpret the law.

Problem is, we just don't know--nor appreciate--the good they do on our behalf. /s

Son of Loki -> lester1 , Dec 13, 2017 8:39 AM

Fuck "demoted."

Fire them and promptly arrest them!

Chupacabra-322 -> lester1 , Dec 13, 2017 8:42 AM

@ Lester,

They cannot. The Criminal Deep State & their Presstitute Criminal appendages will pull out the "Dictators" Scripted False Narrative / PsyOp.

They're eating their own. Trump is giving these Criminals just enough rope to hang themselves with under their own Hubris.

This is Death by one thousand paper cuts.

unplugged -> Chupacabra-322 , Dec 13, 2017 8:51 AM

dead-on bro

they are backing themselves into a corner for which there is no escape except confession and a lighter sentence

Trump is the chess master

the swamp truely is fucked

lovin' it !

Chupacabra-322 -> unplugged , Dec 13, 2017 9:29 AM

@ unplugged,

They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State & their cohorts have been dealt.

Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.

The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human beings. We're not. Far from it. What we are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram Temple of Set Scum literally making Hell on Earth.

What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking, Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child / Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.

Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication lines of Espionage spying & Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure.
Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence. Purely Evil & Highly Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign Pyramid Model of Authority.

That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now, they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:

Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.

It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.

This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient Babylonian mysticism/paganism and it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and sinister. They are all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.

It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be simply turned over by the Criminal Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite.
The Deep State will always exist.

However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized Rogue Levels of it are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.

Trogdor -> lester1 , Dec 13, 2017 1:17 PM

"President Trump needs to do mass firings at the corrupt FBI/DOJ"

Firings? Firings are for Starbucks employees who dip into the cash register. When people afforded this level of "trust" and responsibility show how deeply corrupt they are - in that they openly aid and abet horrific criminals (HRC et al) they need to go to JAIL. FOREVER. And their supervisors - who goddamn well knew what the fuck they were doing - need to be their cellmates.

The FBI and DOJ have lost ALL integrity, honor, and moral authority. At this point, if I saw an FBI agent on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out.

Disgusting.

[Dec 13, 2017] All the signs in the Russia probe point to Jared Kushner. Who next?

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Dec 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

polpont , 4 Dec 2017 08:32

Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the media which make the US look like a banana republic.

The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG, leaves one flabbergasted.

And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour, tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just inconceivable.

Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never been so low.

ID1456161 -> Canadiman , 4 Dec 2017 08:30

...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.

Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.

Anna Bramwell -> etrang , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
EduardStreltsovGhost -> JonShone , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.

Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?

pretzelattack -> Atticus_Finch , 4 Dec 2017 08:28
What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel?
oddballs -> Taf1980uk , 4 Dec 2017 08:26
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played.
Krautolivier , 4 Dec 2017 08:21
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
zerohoursuni -> damientrollope , 4 Dec 2017 08:19
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.

Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.

Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us".

cookcounty , 4 Dec 2017 08:15
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his first inauguration.

But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should she start making sense now?

It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing.

themandibleclaw -> SteveMilesworthy , 4 Dec 2017 08:12
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.

It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.

WallyWillage , 4 Dec 2017 08:05
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking office.

The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...

EduardStreltsovGhost -> CitizenOfTinyBlue , 4 Dec 2017 08:03

You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression

if that were the case, Clinton, Bush and Obama would be sitting in jail right now.
oddballs -> Taf1980uk , 4 Dec 2017 07:58
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community.

Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.

Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.

Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America. Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.

The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria based on conjecture and not proof.

EduardStreltsovGhost , 4 Dec 2017 07:52
Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders.
RelaxAndChill -> Silgen , 4 Dec 2017 07:46
Crimea was and is Russian. Your mask is slipping, Vlad .

Your ignorance is showing. I have no connection to Russia what so ever. Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the Great. Russia has never relinquished control. What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is irrelevant. And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.

StillAbstractImp , 4 Dec 2017 07:40
Decelerating Fascism - Is Kushner a Putin operative, too?
mikedow -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 07:35
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well. If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
themandibleclaw -> Toastface_Killah , 4 Dec 2017 07:34

You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.

I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill from a law professor at Washington University.

the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official .

http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/362813-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-flynn-indictment

backstop -> EdwardFatherby , 4 Dec 2017 07:31
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems"

It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome?

BustedBoom , 4 Dec 2017 07:31

He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council.

So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
CitizenOfTinyBlue , 4 Dec 2017 07:26
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on

Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.

Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia, if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools playing this stupid games.

ConCaruthers , 4 Dec 2017 07:25
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
moonsphere -> Hydro , 4 Dec 2017 07:24
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence.
etrang -> CraftyRabbi , 4 Dec 2017 07:14

Mueller could charge/indict Kushner or Trump Jr under New York state criminal statutes

But not for crimes relating to federal elections or conspiring with Russia.

John Edwin -> OlivesNightie , 4 Dec 2017 07:13
Clinton lied under oath
John Edwin -> SoAmerican , 4 Dec 2017 07:11
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
emiliofloris -> Sowester , 4 Dec 2017 07:08

I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters. They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact.

So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.

Billsykesdoggy -> reinhardpolley , 4 Dec 2017 06:55
<blockquoteSpecifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.>

So Trump authorized Obama's talks with Macron last week?

Don't think so.

braciole -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 06:55

Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the US.

And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.

BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed" supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to extend the number of terms he can serve.

emiliofloris -> Karantino , 4 Dec 2017 06:53

Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the US.

Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive?

The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?

technotherapy , 4 Dec 2017 06:46
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council.

And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.

themandibleclaw -> Simon Denham , 4 Dec 2017 06:44

Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.

In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.

moonsphere -> SoAmerican , 4 Dec 2017 06:44
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic. Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
reinhardpolley -> Simon Denham , 4 Dec 2017 06:33
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
themandibleclaw , 4 Dec 2017 06:22
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election.

So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.

damientrollope , 4 Dec 2017 06:15
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.

But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an IQ to match.

Boojay , 4 Dec 2017 06:15
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films, bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works.
formerathlete -> vacantspace , 4 Dec 2017 06:15

when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had.... decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to walk the streets?

Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of the three things that you mentioned???

If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.

Hugh Mad -> JonShone , 4 Dec 2017 06:10

The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.

That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad, while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.

JonShone -> Hugh Mad , 4 Dec 2017 06:06
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.

Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat.

It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.

The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.

RelaxAndChill , 4 Dec 2017 05:59
All the signs in the Russia probe point to ..

How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt. So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia. Crimea was and is Russian. Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him. He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other global problems.

variation31 -> Sowester , 4 Dec 2017 05:50

They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact

Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.

These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of evil.

[Dec 13, 2017] The U.S. Media Suffered Its Most Humiliating Debacle in Ages by Glenn Greenwald

Notable quotes:
"... publicly available ..."
"... Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment and dissonance. ..."
"... The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it, which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed, they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time. ..."
"... Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining 20% truth was twisted beyond recognition. ..."
"... There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN, with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation's largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.

The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11 a.m. EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign, even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an "arm of Russian intelligence," and therefore , so does the U.S. media.

This entire revelation was based on an email which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named "Michael J. Erickson" -- someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify -- to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had "uploaded." The email was a smoking gun, in CNN's extremely excited mind, because it was dated September 4 -- 10 days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online -- and thus proved that the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.

It's impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it's necessary to watch it for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering a near-fatal blow on the Trump/Russia collusion story:

There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after CNN broadcast its story -- and then hyped it over and over and over -- the Washington Post reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.

The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 -- which means it was sent after WikiLeaks had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, "Michael J. Erickson" was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available DNC emails that WikiLeaks -- as everyone by then already knew -- had publicly promoted . In other words, the email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.

Read the Entire Article at The Intercept

Jim Christian , December 11, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT

The real cartoon network if you ask me. Once people blow it, their public character becomes that of a cartoon character. Franken, Conyers, Hillary, Weinstein and the Weiners. Why is CNN and liberal media exempt? Oh. They aren't.
Almost Missouri , December 11, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT
Kudos to Greenwald for calling the US media out on this occasion, but in reality the US media humiliates itself weekly, if not daily, if not hourly, with its false reports, poorly concealed agenda and generally propagandistic approach to everything.

Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment and dissonance.

The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it, which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed, they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time.

anonymous , • Disclaimer December 11, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT
@Almost Missouri

Yes. Most of our fellows are willfully ignorant cowards. I also believe that many cope by turning on Confederate statues, getting worked up over bathrooms, etc.

Svigor , December 11, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT
Missouri, how the fuck anyone finds Big Media comforting is beyond me. Their contempt for America and Americans isn't hard to suss out.
Anon , • Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 1:31 am GMT
@Almost Missouri

Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining 20% truth was twisted beyond recognition.

anarchyst , December 12, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT
The mainstream media has always been dishonest...

... ... ...

The media has become a "fifth column" of the government and is not to be trusted.

To our advantage, we now have the internet, which gives the ability for ordinary citizens to be real "journalists", quite often getting and reporting the story TRUTHFULLY before the mainstream media.

In fact, there are calls by "mainstream media" to "license" journalists, in an attempt to keep these "citizen journalists" out twenty years ago, any journalist suggesting such a scheme would have been thrown out, but nowadays

Alden , December 12, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
@Achmed E. Newman

But do they really watch the TV? The news shows are terrible for getting a coherent message across.

There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news.

In an hour of a news show its probably 15 minutes, broken into 1 minute segments of actual news. The rest is just flashing lights and ads and what news will be next. Except for PBS and NPR of course which are just liberal propaganda. Democracy Now, Charlie Rose, Travis Smiley have fewer ads, but who can listen to them or look at them? I'd like to smash Charley Rose' sanctimonious face. And Amy Goodman, why women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold elected or appointed office.

It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure out what they are blathering about.

Some White Guy , December 13, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT
I'm sure everyone at CNN has completely forgotten about it by now.
jacques sheete , December 13, 2017 at 11:53 pm GMT
@Alden

It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure out what they are blathering about.

I agree but I'm not sure it would take patience so much as total lack of self respect as well as a hopeless amount of gullibility.

Speaking of ads

for I knew nothing of the facts. I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.

Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Nathaniel Macon
Monticello, January 12, 1819

[Dec 13, 2017] FBI agent removed from Russia investigation called Trump an 'idiot' by Associated Press

Associated Press tried to hide the fact that Peter Strzok was involved with Steele dossier
Dec 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
Two FBI officials who would later be assigned to the special counsel's investigation into Donald Trump's presidential campaign described him as an "idiot" and "loathsome human" in a series of text messages last year, according to copies released on Tuesday.

One said in an election night text that the prospect of a Trump victory was "terrifying".

Peter Strzok, an FBI counterintelligence agent, was removed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team earlier this year following the discovery of text messages exchanged with Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer.

[Dec 12, 2017] When a weaker neoliberal state fights the dominant neoliberal state, the center of neoliberal empire, it faces economic sanctions and can t retaliate using principle eye for eye

Highly recommended!
Three years later Russia is still standing... Still to a neoliberal state and not to be a USA vassal is a pipe dream. The system is Washington-centric by design. but what is the alternative in unclear. Russia is still a neoliberal state and Putin is not eternal.
Contrary to Putin's vision, a neoliberal state can't be sovereign, it can only be a vassal of Washington. As soon as a neoliberal state shows some independence it became a "rogue state" and punishment via financial system (and for smaller states via military actions) will follow. Dominance in finance sphere gives the USA the ability to punish Russia to almost any extent they wish without significant possibilities of retaliation, unless formal block of Russia and China is created.\
Russia can only retaliate in selected carefully chosen "weak spots". NGOs, media, the USA food companies (Coca-cola, junk food, chickens, etc), financial and consulting firms (and first of all Big Three, closely connected with the USA government). Not so far nine got under Russian government knife.
Notable quotes:
"... Yep, how dare the Russkies retaliate, when they ought to come begging on their knees to be allowed to do what the grand master in DC wants them to do ..."
"... Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable! ..."
"... And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths " ..."
"... "It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so". ..."
"... No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else. ..."
"... I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical for the US's own MIC. ..."
"... The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best ..."
Jul 30, 2014 | marknesop.wordpress.com

colliemum, July 30, 2014 at 10:05 am

Found at zerohedge, a US reaction on Russia's reaction to the sanctions:

"Assuming that they take this action, it would be blatant protectionism," Clayton Yeutter, a U.S. Trade Representative under President Ronald Reagan, said in a phone interview. "There is little or no legitimacy to their complaints."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-30/us-will-feel-tangible-losses-russia-prepares-unleash-retaliatory-trade-wars

Yep, how dare the Russkies retaliate, when they ought to come begging on their knees to be allowed to do what the grand master in DC wants them to do

yalensis, July 30, 2014 at 3:31 pm
Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable!

First Russkies pretend to find antibiotics in McDonalds "cheese" products. But everybody knows the cheese cannot possibly contain antibiotics, because it's not even real cheese! (it's a kind of edible plastic substance )

And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths "

That's a lie too.

Everybody knows that if you eat your Polish quinces with a runcible spoon, then they will not contain any measurable amounts of moth larvae.

ThatJ, July 30, 2014 at 3:39 pm
"Fedorov said consulting firms and audit firms will be the first to be targeted by the new bill. Next will be U.S. media, he said."

The US media helps in spreading liberasty. It should have been barred years ago.

colliemum, July 31, 2014 at 12:44 am
Above all else, Putin should throw out all Western NGOs – especially those with links to Soros.
marknesop, July 30, 2014 at 9:41 pm
"It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so".

No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else.

cartman, July 30, 2014 at 10:21 am
I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical for the US's own MIC. Put Kadyrov or someone on the board and force Congress to slit Boeing's throat.
cartman, July 30, 2014 at 10:26 am
Or hire him to the company that produces rolled titanium alloys for Boeing and Airbus. A shot across the bow to say that Western leaders will have to be standing in front of their populations as they crash their economies. Russia won't do it for them.
marknesop, July 30, 2014 at 9:51 pm
Excellent reasoning. The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best. This is a great plan for achieving leverage cheaply and easily, and the U.S. government would be left 'splaining to Boeing that they had to lay off a couple of thousand workers because a bad man was appointed to the board of their major supplier.

The west is locked into its lame sanctions groove, and too proud to back down. This might be the big shootout from which only one currency will walk away.

[Dec 12, 2017] Possible link beween CrowdStrike DNC hack investigation and Steele dossier

the fact that Steele dossier was published by Buzzfeed gave this story a new interesting light.
Notable quotes:
"... The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate. ..."
"... And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server. ..."
"... The Huffington Post published my piece on Nov. 5, 2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to blame Russia for her defeat. ..."
"... I published another piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive." I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed anyway." ..."
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
Dec 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe. I know because I was a victim of it.

At the end of October, I wrote an article for Consortium News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

  1. The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
  2. And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.

My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.

After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the article on the HuffPost, which was rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006, I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost editors retracted the article without any explanation.

This broke with the earlier principles of journalism that the Web site espoused. For instance, in 2008, Arianna Huffington told radio host Don Debar that, "We welcome all opinions, except conspiracy theories." She said: "Facts are sacred. That's part of our philosophy of journalism."

But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April, she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.

Before the management change, I had published several articles on the Huffington Post about Russia without controversy. For instance, The Huffington Post published my piece on Nov. 5, 2016, that predicted three days before the election that if Clinton lost she'd blame Russia. My point was confirmed by the campaign-insider book Shattered, which revealed that immediately after Clinton's loss, senior campaign advisers decided to blame Russia for her defeat.

On Dec. 12, 2016, I published another piece , which the Huffington Post editors promoted, called, "Blaming Russia To Overturn The Election Goes Into Overdrive." I argued that "Russia has been blamed in the U.S. for many things and though proof never seems to be supplied, it is widely believed anyway."

After I posted an updated version of the Consortium News piece -- renamed "On the Origins of Russia-gate" -- I was informed 23 hours later by a Facebook friend that the piece had been retracted by HuffPost editors. As a reporter for mainstream media for more than a quarter century, I know that a newsroom rule is that before the serious decision is made to retract an article the writer is contacted to be allowed to defend the piece. This never happened. There was no due process. A HuffPost editor ignored my email asking why it was taken down.

Watchdogs & Media Defending Censorship

Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.

In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it. I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.

One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that "Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for "any reason," including, apparently, censorship.

Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.

BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.

That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference, he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious accusations, he angrily cut off debate.

When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled. True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.

This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith challenged.

[Dec 12, 2017] The Acceleration of Censorship in America by Joe Lauria

Notable quotes:
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
"... A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests. ..."
"... Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners. ..."
"... Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing. ..."
"... Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia. ..."
"... The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party. ..."
"... According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy. ..."
"... The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect. ..."
"... There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin. ..."
"... But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines. ..."
"... the European Union is spending €3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media. ..."
"... Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik . ..."
"... At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak. ..."
"... Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails ..."
"... As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce." ..."
"... There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign. ..."
"... As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate. ..."
"... RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself. ..."
"... Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media. ..."
"... Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that. ..."
"... It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers. ..."
"... And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state? ..."
"... Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true". ..."
Dec 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe. I know because I was a victim of it.

At the end of October, I wrote an article for Consortium News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.

The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First was former British spy Christopher Steele's largely unverified dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.

And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used faulty software it was later forced to rewrite . The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.

My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.

After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the article on the HuffPost, which was rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006, I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost editors retracted the article without any explanation.

.... ... ...

Support from Independent Media

Like the word "fascism," "censorship" is an over-used and mis-used accusation, and I usually avoid using it. But without any explanation, I could only conclude that the decision to retract was political, not editorial.

I am non-partisan as I oppose both major parties for failing to represent millions of Americans' interests. I follow facts where they lead. In this case, the facts led to an understanding that the Jan. 6 FBI/NSA/CIA intelligence "assessment" on alleged Russian election interference, prepared by what then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts, was based substantially on unvetted opposition research and speculation, not serious intelligence work.

The assessment even made the point that the analysts were not asserting that the alleged Russian interference was a fact. The report contained this disclaimer: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

Under deadline pressure on Jan. 6, Scott Shane of The New York Times instinctively wrote what many readers of the report must have been thinking: "What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to 'trust us.'"

Yet, after the Jan. 6 report was published, leading Democrats asserted falsely that the "assessment" represented the consensus judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies – not just the views of "hand-picked" analysts from three – and much of the U.S. mainstream media began treating the allegations of Russian "hacking" as fact, not as an uncertain conclusion denied by both the Russian government and WikiLeaks, which insists that it did not get the two batches of Democratic emails from the Russian government.

Yet, because of the oft-repeated "17 intelligence agencies" canard and the mainstream media's over-hyped reporting, the public impression has built up that the accusations against Russia are indisputable. If you ask a Russia-gate believer today what their faith is based on, they will invariably point to the Jan. 6 assessment and mock anyone who still expresses any doubt.

For instance, an unnamed former CIA officer told The Intercept last month, "You've got all these intelligence agencies saying the Russians did the hack. To deny that is like coming out with the theory that the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor."

That the supposedly dissident Intercept would use this quote is instructive about how unbalanced the media's reporting on Russia-gate has been. We have film of Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor and American ships burning – and we have eyewitness accounts of thousands of U.S. soldiers and sailors. Yet, on Russia-gate, we have only the opinions of "hand-picked" intelligence officials who themselves admit their opinions aren't fact. No serious editor would allow a self-interested and unnamed source to equate Russia-gate and Pearl Harbor in print.

In this atmosphere, it was easy for HuffPost editors to hear complaints from readers and blithely ban my story. But before it was pulled, 125 people had shared it. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, then took up my cause, being the first to write about the HuffPost censorship on his blog. McGovern included a link to a .pdf file that I captured of the censored HuffPost story. It has since been republished on numerous other websites.

Journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted about it. British filmmaker and writer Tariq Ali posted it on his Facebook page. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams interviewed me at length about the censorship on their TV program. ZeroHedge wrote a widely shared piece and someone actually took the time, 27 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact, to read the entire article on YouTube. I began a petition to HuffPost 's Polgreen to either explain the retraction or restore the article. It has gained more than 2,000 signatures so far. If a serious fact-check analysis was made of my article, it must exist and can and should be produced.

Watchdogs & Media Defending Censorship

Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.

In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it. I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.

One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that "Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for "any reason," including, apparently, censorship.

Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.

BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.

That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference, he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious accusations, he angrily cut off debate.

When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled. True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.

This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith challenged.

Why Critical News is Suppressed

But the HuffPos t's action is hardly isolated. It is part of a rapidly growing landscape of censorship of news critical of American corporate and political leaders who are trying to defend themselves from an increasingly angry population. It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad.

A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests.

America's bipartisan rulers are threatened by popular discontent from both left and right. They were alarmed by the Bernie Sanders insurgency and by Donald Trump's victory, even if Trump is now betraying the discontented masses who voted for him by advancing tax and health insurance plans designed to further crush them and benefit the rich.

Trump's false campaign promises will only make the rulers' problem of controlling a restless population more difficult. Americans are subjected to economic inequality greater than in the first Gilded Age. They are also subjected today to more war than in the first Gilded Age, which led to the launch of American overseas empire. Today American rulers are engaged in multiple conflicts following decades of post-World War II invasions and coups to expand their global interests.

People with wealth and power always seem to be nervous about losing both. So plutocrats use the concentrated media they own to suppress news critical of their wars and domestic repression. For example, almost nothing was reported about militarized police forces until the story broke out into the open in the Ferguson protests and now the story has been buried again.

Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners.

To operate in this media structure, most journalists know to excise out the historical context of America's wars of domination. They know to uncritically accept American officials' bromides about spreading democracy, while hiding the real war aims.

Examples abound: America's role in the Ukraine coup was denied or downplayed; a British parliamentary report exposing American lies that led to the destruction of Libya was suppressed ; and most infamously, the media promoted the WMD hoax and the fable of "bringing democracy" to Iraq, leading to the illegal invasion and devastation of that country. A recent example from November is a 60 Minutes report on the Saudi destruction of Yemen, conspicuously failing to mention America's crucial role in the carnage.

I've pitched numerous news stories critical of U.S. foreign policy to a major American newspaper that were rejected or changed in the editorial process. One example is the declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document of August 2012 that accurately predicted the rise of the Islamic State two years later.

The document, which I confirmed with a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. and its Turkish, European and Gulf Arab allies, were supporting the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria to put pressure on the Syrian government, but the document warned that this Salafist base could turn into an "Islamic State."

But such a story would undermine the U.S. government's "war on terrorism" narrative by revealing that the U.S.-backed strategy actually was risking the expansion of jihadist-held territory in Syria. The story was twice rejected by my editors and to my knowledge has never appeared in corporate media.

Another story rejected in June 2012, just a year into the Syrian war, was about Russia's motives in Syria being guided by a desire to defeat the growing jihadist threat there. Corporate media wanted to keep the myth of Russia's "imperial" aims in Syria alive. I had to publish the article outside the U.S., in a South African daily newspaper.

In September 2015 at the U.N. General Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed my story about Russia's motives in Syria to stop jihadists from taking over. Putin invited the U.S. to join this effort as Moscow was about to launch its military intervention at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration, still insisting on "regime change" in Syria, refused. And the U.S. corporate media continued promoting the myth that Russia intervened to recapture its "imperial glory."

It was much easier to promote the "imperial" narrative than report Putin's clear explanation to French TV channel TF1, which was not picked up by American media.

"Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organizations were destroyed as states by our Western partners' forces?" Putin said. "These states showed no signs of terrorism. They were not a threat for Paris, for the Cote d'Azur, for Belgium, for Russia, or for the United States. Now, they are the source of terrorist threats. Our goal is to prevent the same from happening in Syria."

But don't take Putin's word for it. Then Secretary of State John Kerry knew why Russia intervened. In a leaked audio conversation with Syrian opposition figures in September 2016, Kerry said: "The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the pos­sibility of going to Damascus, and that's why Russia came in because they didn't want a Daesh government and they supported Assad."

Kerry admitted that rather than seriously fight the Islamic State in Syria, the U.S. was ready to use its growing strength to pressure Assad to resign, just as the DIA document that I was unable to report said it would. "We know that this was growing, we were watching, we saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, how­ever, we could probably manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him." Kerry's com­ment suggests that the U.S. was willing to risk the Islamic State and its jihadist allies gaining power in order to force out Assad.

Why Russia Is Targeted

Where are independent-minded Western journalists to turn if their stories critical of the U.S. government and corporations are suppressed? The imperative is to get these stories out – and Russian media has provided an opening. But this has presented a new problem for the plutocracy. The suppression of critical news in their corporate-owned media is no longer working if it's seeping out in Russian media and through dissident Western news sites.

Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing.

As a Russian-government-financed English-language news channel, RT also gives a Russian perspective on the news, the way CNN and The New York Times give an American perspective and the BBC a British one. American mainstream journalists, from my experience, arrogantly deny suppressing news and believe they present a universal perspective, rather than a narrow American view of the world.

The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view. It's impossible to do so without those voices included. Routinely or systematically shutting them out also dehumanizes people in those countries, making it easier to gain popular support to go to war against them.

Russia is scapegoated by charging that RT or Sputnik are sowing divisions in the U.S. by focusing on issues like homelessness, racism, or out-of-control militarized police forces, as if these divisive issues didn't already exist. The U.S. mainstream media also seems to forget that the U.S. government has engaged in at least 70 years of interference in other countries' elections, foreign invasions, coups, planting stories in foreign media and cyber-warfare, which Russian media crucially points out.

Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia.

The overriding point about the "Russian propaganda" complaint is that when America's democratic institutions, including the press and the electoral process, are crumbling under the weight of corruption that the American elites have created or maintained, someone else needs to be blamed.

The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party.

According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy.

The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect.

There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin.

Moscow sees an aggressive America expanding NATO and putting 30,000 NATO troops on its borders; trying to overthrow a secular ally in Syria with terrorists who threaten Russia itself; backing a coup in Ukraine as a possible prelude to moves against Russia; and using American NGOs to foment unrest inside Russia before they were forced to register as foreign agents.

Accelerated Censorship in the Private Sector

The Constitution prohibits government from prior-restraint, or censorship, though such tactics were imposed, largely unchallenged, during the two world wars. American newspapers voluntarily agreed to censor themselves in the Second World War before the government dictated it.

In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur said he didn't "desire to reestablish wartime censorship" and instead asked the press for self-censorship. He largely got it until the papers began reporting American battlefield losses. On July 25, 1950, "the army ordered that reporters were not allowed to publish 'unwarranted' criticism of command decisions, and that the army would be 'the sole judge and jury' on what 'unwarranted' criticism entailed," according to a Yale University study on military censorship.

After excellent on-the-ground reporting from Vietnam brought the war home to America, the military reacted by instituting, initially in the first Gulf War, serious control of the press by "embedding" reporters from private media companies. They accepted the arrangement, much as World War II newspapers censored themselves.

It is important to realize that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, including the media. It is not illegal for them to practice censorship. I never made a First Amendment argument against the HuffPost , for instance. However, under pressure from Washington, even in peacetime, media companies can do the government's dirty work to censor or limit free speech for the government.

In the past few weeks, we've seen an acceleration of attempts by corporations to inhibit Russian media in the U.S. Both Google and Facebook, which dominate the Web with more than 50 percent of ad revenue, were at first resistant to government pressure to censor "Russian propaganda." But they are coming around.

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company, said on Nov. 18 that Google would "derank" articles from RT and Sputnik in the Google searches, making the stories harder for readers to find. The billionaire Schmidt claimed Russian information can be "repetitive, exploitative, false, [or] likely to have been weaponized," he said. That is how factual news critical of U.S. corporate and political leadership is seen by them: as a weapon threatening their rule.

"My own view is that these patterns can be detected, and that they can be taken down or deprioritized," Schmidt said. Though Google would essentially be hiding news produced by RT and Sputnik , Schmidt is sensitive to the charge of censorship, even though there's nothing legally to stop him. "We don't want to ban the sites. That's not how we operate," Schmidt said cynically. "I am strongly not in favor of censorship. I am very strongly in favor of ranking. It's what we do."

But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines.

Responding to a deadline from Congress to act, Facebook on Nov. 22 announced that it would inform users if they have been "targeted" by Russian "propaganda." Facebook's help center will tell users if they liked or shared ads allegedly from the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency, which supposedly bought $100,000 in ads over a two-year period, with more than half these ads coming after the 2016 U.S. election and many not related to politics.

The $100,000 sum over two years compares to Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue. Plus, Facebook only says it "believes" or it's "likely" that the ads came from that firm, whose links to the Kremlin also have yet to be proved.

Facebook described the move as "part of our ongoing effort to protect our platforms and the people who use them from bad actors who try to undermine our democracy." Congress wants more from Facebook, so it will not be surprising if users will eventually be alerted to Russian media reports as "propaganda" in the future.

While the government can't openly shut down a news site, the Federal Communications Commission's upcoming vote on whether to deregulate the Internet by ending net neutrality will free private Internet companies in the U.S. to further marginalize Russian and dissident websites by slowing them down and thus discouraging readers from viewing them.

Likewise, as the U.S. government doesn't want to be openly seen shutting down RT operations, it is working around the edges to accomplish that.

After the Department of Justice forced, under threat of arrest, RT to register its employees as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , State Department spokeswoman Heather Nuaert said that "FARA does not police the content of information disseminated, does not limit the publication of information or advocacy materials, and does not restrict an organization's ability to operate." She'd earlier said that registering would not "impact or affect the ability of them to report news and information. We just have them register. It's as simple as that."

The day after Nuaert spoke the Congressional press office stripped RT correspondents of their Capitol Hill press passes, citing the FARA registration. "The rules of the Galleries state clearly that news credentials may not be issued to any applicant employed 'by any foreign government or representative thereof.' Upon its registration as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), RT Network became ineligible to hold news credentials," read the letter to RT.

But Russia-gate faithful ignore these aggressive moves and issue calls for even harsher action. After forcing RT to register, Keir Giles, a Chatham House senior consulting fellow, acted as though it never happened. He said in a Council on Foreign Relations Cyber Brief on Nov. 27: "Although the Trump administration seems unlikely to pursue action against Russian information operations, there are steps the U.S. Congress and other governments should consider."

I commented on this development on RT America. It would also have been good to have the State Department's Nuaert answer for this discrepancy about the claim that forced FARA registrations would not affect news gathering when it already has. My criticism of RT is that they should be interviewing U.S. decision-makers to hold them accountable, rather than mostly guests outside the power structure. The decision-makers could be called out on air if they refuse to appear.

Growing McCarthyite Attacks

Western rulers' wariness about popular unrest can be seen in the extraordinary and scurrilous attack on the Canadian website globalresearch.ca . It began with a chilling study by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into the relatively obscure website, followed by a vicious hit piece on Nov. 18 by the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest newspaper. The headline was: "How a Canadian website is being used to amplify the Kremlin's view of the world."

"What once appeared to be a relatively harmless online refuge for conspiracy theorists is now seen by NATO's information warfare specialists as a link in a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media – as well as the North American and European public's trust in government and public institutions," the Globe and Mail reported.

"Global Research is viewed by NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence – or StratCom – as playing a key accelerant role in helping popularize articles with little basis in fact that also happen to fit the narratives being pushed by the Kremlin, in particular, and the Assad regime." The website never knew it had such powers. I've not agreed with everything I've read on the site. But it is a useful clearinghouse for alternative media. Numerous Consortium News articles are republished there, including a handful of mine. But the site's typical sharing and reposting on the Internet is seen by NATO as a plot to undermine the Free World.

"It uses that reach to push not only its own opinion pieces, but 'news' reports from little-known websites that regularly carry dubious or false information," the he Globe and Mail reported. " At times, the site's regular variety of international-affairs stories is replaced with a flurry of items that bolster dubious reportage with a series of opinion pieces, promoted on social media and retweeted and shared by active bots."

The newspaper continued, "'That way, they increase the Google ranking of the story and create the illusion of multi-source verification,' said Donara Barojan, who does digital forensic research for [StratCom]. But she said she did not yet have proof that Global Research is connected to any government."

This sort of smear is nothing more than a blatant attack on free speech by the most powerful military alliance in the world, based on the unfounded conviction that Russia is a fundamental force for evil and that anyone who has contacts with Russia or shares even a part of its multilateral world view is suspect.

Such tactics are spreading to Europe. La Repubblica newspaper in Italy wrote a similar hit piece against L'Antidiplomatico, a dissident website. And the European Union is spending €3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media.

High-profile individuals in the U.S. are also now in the crosshairs of the neo-McCarthyite witch hunt. On Nov. 25 The Washington Post ran a nasty hit piece on Washington Capitals' hockey player Alex Ovechkin, one of the most revered sports figures in the Washington area, simply because he, like 86 percent of other Russians , supports his president.

"Alex Ovechkin is one of Putin's biggest fans. The question is, why?" ran the headline. The story insidiously implied that Ovechkin was a dupe of his own president, being used to set up a media campaign to support Putin, who is under fierce and relentless attack in the United States where Ovechkin plays professional ice hockey.

"He has given an unwavering endorsement to a man who U.S. intelligence agencies say sanctioned Russian meddling in last year's presidential election," write the Post reporters, once again showing their gullibility to U.S. intelligence agencies that have provided no proof for their assertions (and even admit that they are not asserting their opinion as fact).

Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik .

At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak.

But as a consequence the club director said its funding was slashed from the Swiss government.

Russia-gate's Hurdles

Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails.

There will likely be more indictments from Mueller, even perhaps a complaint about Trump committing obstruction of justice because he said on TV that he fired Comey, in part, because of the "Russia thing." But Trump's clumsy reaction to the "scandal," which he calls "fake news" and a "witch hunt," still is not proof that Putin and the Russians interfered in the U.S. election to achieve the unlikely outcome of Trump's victory.

The Russia-gate faithful assured us to wait for the indictment of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But again there was nothing about pre-election "collusion," only charges that Flynn had lied to the FBI about conversations with the Russian ambassador regarding policy matters during the presidential transition, i.e., after the election.

One of Flynn's conversations was about trying unsuccessfully to comply with an Israeli request to get Russia to block a United Nations resolution censuring Israel's settlements on Palestinian land.

As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce."

The media is becoming a victim of its own mania. In its zeal to push this story reporters are making a huge number of amateurish mistakes on stories that are later corrected. Brian Ross of ABC News was suspended for erroneously reporting that Trump had told Flynn to contact the Russians before the election, and not after.

There remain a number of key hurdles to prove the Russia-gate story. First, convincing evidence is needed that the Russian government indeed did "hack" the Democratic emails, both those of the DNC and Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta – and gave them to WikiLeaks. Then it must be linked somehow to the Trump campaign. If it were a Russian hack it would have been an intelligence operation on a need-to-know basis, and no one in the Trump team needed to know. It's not clear how any campaign member could have even helped with an overseas hack or could have been an intermediary to WikiLeaks.

There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign.

Clinton principally pinned her loss on FBI Director James Comey for closing and then reopening the investigation into her improper use of a private email server while Secretary of State. She also spread the blame to Russia (repeating the canard about "seventeen [U.S. intelligence] agencies, all in agreement"), Bernie Sanders, the inept DNC and other factors.

As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate.

That RT and Sputnik ran pieces critical of Hillary Clinton was their right, and they were hardly alone. RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server.

Another vague Russia-gate suspicion stemming largely from Steele's opposition research is that somehow Russia bribed or blackmailed Trump because of past business with Russians. But there are evidentiary and logical problems with these theories, since some lucrative deals fell through (and presumably wouldn't have if Trump was being paid off).

Some have questioned how Trump could have supported detente with Russia without being beholden to Moscow in some way. But Jeffrey Sommers, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, wrote a convincing essay explaining adviser Steve Bannon's influence on Trump's thinking about Russia and the need for cooperation between the two powers to solve international problems.

Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself.

An earlier version of this story appeared on Consortium News .

Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR Books in June 2017. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at @unjoe .

Carlton Meyer , Website December 11, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT

"Breaking News" – CNN's Fake News Exposed -- Again!

https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-most-humiliating-debacle-in-ages-now-refuses-all-transparency-over-what-happened/

AndrewR , December 11, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT
People believe what they want to. Evidence, or lack thereof, has little to do with it, so censorship, or lack thereof, is largely pointless.
El Dato , December 11, 2017 at 6:53 am GMT

But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is run by Lydia Polgreen, a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April, she completely redesigned the site and renamed it HuffPost.

Ah, so HuffPo is now a NYT vehicle.

jilles dykstra , December 11, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT
" It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad. "

This is exactly what Howard Zinn writes. Alas it is the same at this side of the Atlantic. The British newspaper Guardian was independent, Soros bought it. Dutch official 'news' is just government propaganda.

But also most Dutch dicussion sites are severely biased, criticism of Israel is next to impossible. And of course the words 'populist' and 'extreme right' are propaganda words, used for those who oppose mainstream politics: EU, euro, globalisation, unlimited immigration, etc.

Despite all these measures and censorship, including self censorship, dissident political parties grow stronger and stronger. One could see this in the French presidential elections, one sees it in Germany where AfD now is in parliament, the Reichstag, one sees it in Austria, where the nationalist party got about half the votes, one sees it in countries as Poland and Hungary, that want to keep their cultures. And of course there is Brexit 'we want our country back'.

In the Netherlands the in October 2016 founded party FvD, Forum for Democracy, got two seats in the last elections, but polls show that if now elections were held, it would have some fourteen seats in our parliament of 150. The present ruling coalition, led by Rutte, has very narrow margins, both in parliament and what here is called Eerste Kamer.
Parliament maybe can be seen as House, Eerste Kamer as Senate. There is a good chance that at the next Eerste Kamer elections FvD will be able to end the reign of Rutte, who is, in my opinion, just Chairman of the Advance Rutte Foundation, and of course a stiff supporter of Merkel and Brussels. Now that the end of Merkel is at the horizon, I'm curious how Rutte will manoevre.

Grandpa Charlie , December 11, 2017 at 7:42 am GMT

"The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view" -- Joe Lauria

Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media.

It"s true, of course, that the viewpoints of North Koreans go unreported in MSM, but that's hardly the "whole truth and nothing but the truth." The problems confronting any journalist who might endeavor to report on public opinion in North Korea are incomparably more difficult than the problems confronting attempts to report on public opinion in Iran, in Russia or in Palestine. These three "theaters" -- so to speak –each with its own challenges, no doubt, should never be conflated with the severe realities of censorship and even forceful thought policing in North Korea.

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 11, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT

Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.

I'm not even sure that they believe in Russia-gate. This could easily be cowardice or corruption. The globalists have poured untold millions into "fixing" the Internet wrongthink so it's only natural that we're seeing results. I'm seeing "grassroots" shilling everywhere, for instance.

This is not going to work for them. You can't force consent of the governed. The more you squeeze, the more sand slips through your fingers.

Vlad , December 11, 2017 at 10:12 am GMT
Thank you for your steadfastness, honesty, courage and determination.
cowardly troll , December 11, 2017 at 11:31 am GMT
It is worse than censorship. History, via web searches, are being deleted. Now, you have no hint what is missing. Example, in 1999 I read an article in a weekly tech newspaper – maybe Information Week – about university researchers who discovered that 64 bit encrypted phones were only using the first 56 bits and the last 8 were zeros. They suspected that the US government was responsible. Cannot find any reference to that online.
Jim Bob Lassiter , December 11, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
Joe Lauria may very well be a "victim", but certainly not one that I would parade around as some USDA table grade poster child victim of really egregious reprisals. He's a veteran in the establishment MSM milieu and certainly knew what kind of a shit bird operation it is that he chose to attempt to publish his piece in.

Oh, lest I forget to mention, he didn't lose his livelihood, get ejected from his gym, have his country club membership revoked, get banned from AirB&B ad nauseum.

Che Guava , December 11, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT
It is an interesting article. I am curious about the '17 intellience agencies' thing, CIA, FBI, NSA, army and navy intel units, well that is making five or so. The latter two would likely having no connection with checking the 'Russia was hacking the election', likewise, air force sigint (which they obviously need and have). So, a list from a poster who is expert on the topic, what are the seventeen agencies which were agreeing on vicious Vlad having 'hacked' poor Hillary's campaign?

Is anybody knowing? This is a very real, good, and serious question, from me, and have not seeing it before. Can anybody producing a list of the seventeen agencies? Parodic replies welcome, but it would be of interest to many if somebody could making a list of the seventeen lurching about in Hillary's addled mind.

jack ryan , Website December 11, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
We're witnessing a huge closing of the American Liberal secular mind. There used to be secular liberal hard copy magazines like the Atlantic Magazine that published intelligent well written articles and commentary about foreign affairs, immigration, Islam from a principled secular, Liberal perspective – especially in the early 1990s. That's pretty much gone now as The Atlantic is mostly just a blog that puts out the party line. There are still, thankfully a few exceptions like

Graeme Wood's "What ISIS Really Wants" https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

The Atlantic Magazine still allows a lot of free speech in the comment section, except in cases like articles written by the Ta-Nehisi Coates.

We try to use humor to deflate the humorless PC Lib Left thought police and the go alongs to get along in the Cuckservative, Conservative Inc.

Here's one of our/Farstar cartoons just noticing that too many people are just parroting CNN nonsense about Russian conspiracies.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2017/06/16/farstar-returns-parroting-the-tv-the-russians-are-behind-everything/jpg-parrot/

Ilyana_Rozumova , December 11, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT
Bias MSM. Censorship. These are affirmative sins of insecurity eventually leading to desperation, resulting in dictatorship.
Joe Hide , December 11, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT
Your article seemed otherwise good, but lacked any humor early on to keep me reading. After all, it is 6000 words! I have a job, family, obligations, other readings, and only so much thinking energy in a day. I think You might try shortening such articles to maybe 2000 – 3000 words? Like I said though, You did present some good ideas.
Julius n' Ethel , December 11, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT
Mark James' modified limited hangout shows us the true purpose of his ICCPR-illegal statist war propaganda. James candidly jettisons Hillary, acknowledging the obvious, that she was the more repulsive choice in this duel of the titans. But James is still hanging on to the crucial residual message of the CIA line: Putin tripleplus bad.

Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that.

James fantasizes that Putin is going to get ousted and murdered. However Putin has public approval that US politicians couldn't dream of. This is because Russia's government meets world human rights standards that the US fails to meet. The Russian government complies with the Paris Principles, world standard for institutionalized human rights protection under expert international review. The USA does not. The USA is simply not is Russia's league with respect to universally-acknowledged rights.

James can easily verify this by comparing the US human-rights deficiencies to corresponding Russian reviews, point-by-point, based on each article of the core human rights conventions.

https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Indicators/Pages/HRIndicatorsIndex.aspx

Comprehensive international human rights review shows that the USA is not in Russia's league. Look at the maps if you can't be bothered to read the particulars – they put the US in an underdeveloped backwater with headchopping Arab princelings and a couple African presidents-for-life. CIA's INGSOC fixation on Putin is intended to divert your attention from the objectively superior human-rights performance of the Russian government as a whole, and the USA's failure and disgrace in public in Geneva, front of the whole world.

How did this happen? Turns out, dismantling the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now we see it's time to take the USA apart and do the same for America. That's the origin of the panic you can smell on the CIA regime.

Don Bacon , December 11, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT
There is censorship on blogs.
> I have been banned from The Atlantic blog for correcting a noted anti-Iran blogger.
> I have been banned from the National Interest blog for highlighting Pentagon's acquisition problems.
> I have been banned by Facebook for declaring that females don't belong in the infantry. I "violated community standards" with my opinion which was based somewhat on my time in the infantry, which my PC critic probably lacked.
jilles dykstra , December 11, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT
@Don Bacon

In hindsight I wish I would have made a list of sites where I was banned, some of them several times. In the USA Washpost and Christian Science Monitor, both sites were abolished, I suppose because censorship and banning became too expensive.

In UK War Without End was was one of the very few sites where was no censorship, UK laws forced the owner to close down. The site was near impossible to hack, the owner had a hand built interface in Linux between incoming messages and the site itself. At present there is not one more or less serious Dutch site where I can write.

On top of that, most Dutch sites no longer exist, especially those operated by newspapers.

It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers.

Alden , December 11, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT
@Jim Bob Lassiter

Your post is exactly what I wanted to write. Saved me the effort. I figured out the MSM was nothing but lies around 1966. I have no sympathy for any MSM journalist.

Greg Bacon , Website December 11, 2017 at 6:12 pm GMT
Wouldn't it be scary if a nation's central bank was controlled and run by a group pretending to be loyal to their host nation, but was actually in league with a nation that was trying to gobble up huge chunks of ME land, doing this by controlling the host nation's media outlets, and forever posting psyop stories and actual lies to support the land thefts?

And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state?

Yes, it would be scary to live in a tyrant state like that.

Anon , Disclaimer December 12, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT

Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true".

[Dec 11, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

Highly recommended!
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Jul 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.

Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.

The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War.

According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.

Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.

However, the project took an unexpected turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.

So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.

Blocked Premiere

Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.

Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."

As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The Washington Post reported.

That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.

By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son.

But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.

There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past.

Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."

In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven forbid!

One-Time Showing

So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War.

Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.

After the Newseum presentation, a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder and the Magnitsky Act."

The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic. But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.

The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.

"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."

The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you might read in a totalitarian society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for saying something that almost no one heard.

New Paradigm

The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives on sensitive geopolitical issues.

Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."

First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.

In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.

From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.

But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the White House.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Joseph A. Haran, Jr. , July 13, 2017 at 2:13 pm

Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.

Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this problem before.

ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm

Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.

Any link?? I am willing to buy it.

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm

This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet, search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"

https://my.mail.ru/bk/n-osetrova/video/71/18682.html?time=155&from=videoplayer

I'll keep looking for the film with translation into some other language.

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:31 pm

Sorry, the Russian text did not appear. Try with latin alphabet: Film Andreia Nekrasova "Zakon Magnitskogo. Za kulisami"

Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:45 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8d1ylakLMNU

This is the same dubbed version, on youtube.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 5:21 pm

Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.

incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm

Well stated.

Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm

Mr. Parry,

Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.

Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?

I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant.

Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it.

Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.

Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life as we know it, is appalling.

Anna , July 13, 2017 at 5:54 pm

"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.

Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm

Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.

Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't like get elected

Anna , July 14, 2017 at 9:31 am

Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch, the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks, it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.

orwell , July 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational discussion here.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm

Dear orwell

re Anna

Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish Zionist crowd in the US.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am

orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?

Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm

I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker just went up for taking on these two wackos.

Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm

The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless I shell out some unknown amount of money.

If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.

Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm

I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information. Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?

orwell , July 14, 2017 at 3:48 pm

The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.

Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm

Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm

Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and strength.

BannanaBoat , July 13, 2017 at 6:12 pm

Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am

BannanaBoat – that too!

Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm

This is interesting:

"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank! for which he was paid $500,000.

"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.

Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder, a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance officials, among others, participated in the fraud."

The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia relations would suffer as a result."

More: http://observer.com/2017/07/natalia-veselnitskaya-hillary-clinton-magnitsky-act/

Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Very interesting, Zim.

Bart in Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm

"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?

Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl clutching.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 3:31 pm

WOW..excellent reporting.

BobH , July 13, 2017 at 3:35 pm

nice backgrounder for an ever evolving story censorship is censorship by any other name!

BobH , July 13, 2017 at 3:38 pm

afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am

Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view, as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm

"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.

Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.

"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.

'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of 'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'

'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.

'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process.

'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.

"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's statements appear factually sound."

Throwing a Curveball at 'Intelligence Community Consensus' on Russia By Scott Ritter http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:13 pm

Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC, as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders aren't going to listen them?

Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain historical events you've told us about.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am

Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.

John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.

I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.

Roger Annis , July 13, 2017 at 4:02 pm

A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in Parliament.

A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/when-it-comes-to-magnitsky-laws-its-clear-what-russia-is-looking-for/article35678618/

John-Albert Eadie , July 13, 2017 at 5:01 pm

Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm

Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger, with a link to this article.

Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm

Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm

"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.

ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm

Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not).

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm

ToivoS,

thank you for this background information.

My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented as socialist instead of social democratic ones.

backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm

Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.

I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them.

Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm

backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.

In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt, and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.

Bruce Walker , July 13, 2017 at 9:29 pm

I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.

I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You all have a nice Peacefull day

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am

Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."

No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized (sarc)!

But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online). Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that it was in the Russian language. LOL

Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."

Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here without going back in time for more fun!

I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up.

Keep smiling, Joe.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am

Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up. Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.

Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")

Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am

Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.

A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy, confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.

Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.

And now the disclaimer.

Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving , caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm

backwardsevolution,

thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading "Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.

The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.

With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.

On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne (Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.

Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am

Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others are the creative inventors.

Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks that way.

Thanks, Joe.

Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am

Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.

During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to his titles. The office became hereditary.

When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony. Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.

When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son, Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.

Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8 when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.

When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.

Anna , July 14, 2017 at 9:45 am

The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/

Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies (never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.

Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm

I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.

For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.

backwardsevolution,

in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.

Miranda Keefe,

I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.

Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz ). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants / money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm

History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nppst

History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal position of the church in the

Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable art work also.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am

Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings, gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with it?

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm

@ backwards

" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'

imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside some loot for themselves.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.

Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am

An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some such belief.

Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm

Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia, the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia and China.

mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know .. (Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table? Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your not, what compromise with you?

Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute, but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?

Always like reading your comments mike K Joe

Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm

Joe,

when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm

This is where the Two Joe's are alike.

mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm

I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now, those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:15 pm

Yep

BannanaBoat , July 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm

Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of the nightmare USA society has become.

ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm

Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!

John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm

If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be a top historian as well as a top journalist.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm

"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains a cherished value."

A Response to William Browder
By Rachel Bauman
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/response-william-browder-16654

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:16 pm

William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights activist".

Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs: themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.686922.1447865981!/image/78952068.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_625/78952068.jpg

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:19 pm

"never driven by the money"
https://www.thejc.com/culture/books/be-careful-of-putin-he-is-a-true-enemy-of-jews-1.61745

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:50 am

Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!

"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by lobbying it.

This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.

"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what the best constellation of players will be on this.

"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting options, but I'm not going to name any names."

What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am

Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case is the margin of error.

Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm

"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]

"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia. He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.

"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?

"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a mentor and friend.

"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising that none of it gets mentioned.

"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."

http://forward.com/news/376788/the-secret-jewish-history-of-donald-trump-jrs-russia-scandal/

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:15 am

Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As the article says, he leaves a lot out.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm

In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University – The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University – Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.

Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper

The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:

"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632989

In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts, Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes (mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud). Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am

What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.

It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel, almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.

Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.

Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am

" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "

The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Bill Browder with American-Israeli interviewer Natasha Mozgovaya, TV host for Voice of America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbgNeQ_xINM

In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".

The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.

Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.

Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.

HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls, that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am

Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay, enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.

Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm

Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?

I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya. My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.

The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.

Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?

F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am

I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election. Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under control.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am

It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.

I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.

When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger .she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.

I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.

Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.

Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.

Joe

Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am

"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."

Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am

The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm

JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm

I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm

You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.

Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm

Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.

My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:

"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."

This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives "play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever. The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am

Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.

Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm

yessir, love it

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am

Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm

BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers would still be most scary.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am

Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=6180

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW

United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE, LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,

HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,

THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.

Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification

Country: United States of America
Language: English

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm

Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."

A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there. That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.

Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has done a lot of good.

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 10:45 am

USA justice for Oilygarchs; Ignore capital crimes and mass destruction ; concentrate on entertaining shenanigans.

Cal , July 13, 2017 at 11:39 pm

If Trump wants to survive he better let go of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Lets start here:

Trump's personal attorneys are reportedly fed up with Jared Kushner
http://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-trump-lawyers-donald-jr-emails-2017-7

Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner "as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign

Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.

Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?

Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar

And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?

Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/03/sergei-gorkov-russian-banker-jared-kushner

The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals." Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.

Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before
http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his father-in-law's

The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.

At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8 billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start. On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall, a hotel and high-priced condominiums"

Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange for giving them something from the Trump WH.

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 10:52 am

The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has gone to the very very very DARK side.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm

Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol

Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am

What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today, and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.

Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election. Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information! They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures, not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.

So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative: that has been shown to be true over and over again.

This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism, but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.

Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am

Chris – good post. Thanks.

mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am

Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual post.

Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am

It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader". http://www.billbrowder.com/bio

HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am

One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S. politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.

Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am

With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate' I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions, that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making. Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story' and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed it appears

BannanaBoat , July 14, 2017 at 11:00 am

HEAR -- HEAR -- Excellent --

Zachary Smith , July 14, 2017 at 11:04 am

I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.

Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no alternative.

How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy? Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.

Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am

Spot on.

backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm

Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white), but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?

It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.

Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm

Nice comment.

None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of the people involved in a issue or story.

We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved

(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am

I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company, a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks, just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written off with the "no evidence" argument.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm

God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.

I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting the facts.

The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.

The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".

Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.

Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism. Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime and terrorism in Syria.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am

Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm

When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".

exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.

mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm

I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless. If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what we must counter to wake people up.

Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds to a rebuttal.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am

Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.

The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 3:41 pm

Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed blog post in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.

Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?

Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe

PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 5:14 pm

Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her to win.

Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm

Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:

"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr. said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting. Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."

Philippe Lemoine , July 14, 2017 at 10:27 pm

Thanks!

exiled off mainstreet , July 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.

Mike , July 14, 2017 at 9:36 pm

Pretty interesting:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jr-russia-bill-browder-testify-senate-links-natalia-veselnitskaya-steele-dossier-a7840061.html

Big Tim , July 15, 2017 at 12:31 am

"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"

Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am

Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.

Anna , July 15, 2017 at 10:25 am

"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.

P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm

When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist. Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity. As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold war.

Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm

Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!

MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS

Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA

Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 12:50 pm

CN article on 911 truthers:

https://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html

Finnish wonderer , July 15, 2017 at 1:19 pm

Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but still finished his documentary.

Mark Dankof , July 15, 2017 at 3:21 pm

The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American Republic is dead.

Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm

Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about the censorship. Sad.

Abe , July 15, 2017 at 5:41 pm

Note "allegations that are unsupported by facts".

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/19/a-reminder-about-comment-rules-2/

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:51 pm

Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:

From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia), and allegations that are unsupported by facts.

Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm

My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc). I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.

Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.

Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am

You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm

Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.

"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.

Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".

Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm

I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm

The cowardly claim of "censorship".

The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".

No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.

Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.

dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm

torrent for the film?

Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am

Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2017-04-04%20CEG%20to%20DHS%20(Akhmetshin%20Information)%20with%20attachment.pdf

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:16 pm

Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.

But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.

It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William Browder.

After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".

Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman, a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family, were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.

In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator, with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.

Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.

David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm

So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not. Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm

Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".

My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.

Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.

And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.

Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.

I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.

David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm

It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper" as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day if you just read it.

David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican) to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm

It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility" and "standing" of William Browder.

Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and slurs against RP.

Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.

Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.

But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.

David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm

I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.

Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am

We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during a Perplexing situation.

This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.

The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton, regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.

This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information is share with other People.

This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton Foundation.

We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that Crime.

The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.

There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.

We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.

This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.

We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.

There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump, then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans, because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.

There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.

We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.

There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.

These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime, or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.

There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District, then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.

There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.

There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President, and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,

There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.

MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm

I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.

http://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/07/10/trumps-inner-circle-met-with-no-ordinary-russian-lawyer/

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm

Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:

"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.

"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to flourish in Israel.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Why was Bharara fired?

Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.

Ain't gonna happen.

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm

Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case, days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors. Hmmmm.

David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm

By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.

Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm

The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic Party political consultant.

From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington, Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.

Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation, and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/

Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune. Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.

Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".

Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Very interesting.

[Dec 11, 2017] House committee grills FBI director: Did Trump–Russia dossier back a FISA warrant?

Notable quotes:
"... FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign. ..."
rt.com

FBI Director Christopher Wray has declined to tell the House Judiciary Committee if he was prohibited from sharing documents that would show whether the notorious Steele dossier was used to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.

[Dec 11, 2017] Mueller interviewed Steele Dossier on Trump comes into focus

What exactly MI6 put in Steele dossier is true and what is lie is unclear. What is clear that Steele himself cant; collect information of this type and at this level. He is just a low level intelligence patsy. Even to invent all this staff he definitely relied on his MI6 source(s) which may have a specific agenda and might be guided form Washington. Brennan was a well known Hillary sympathizer has had huge influence on Obama and definitely capable of playing dirty tricks with Trump. What is interesting that in FBI the dossier was handled by counterintelligence official who by his job description should have very close contacts with CIA
Dec 11, 2017 | www.businessinsider.com
explosive memos alleging ties between President Donald Trump's campaign team and Russia, CNN reported on Thursday.

The revelation came one day after the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr, told reporters that the committee had been working "backwards" to examine the memos as part of its separate but parallel investigation into Russia's election meddling.

The memos were compiled into a dossier by veteran British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by a Washington, DC-based opposition research firm in June 2016 to investigate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. The firm, Fusion GPS, was first hired by unspecified anti-Trump Republicans in late 2015. Democrats took over funding for the firm's work after Trump won the GOP nomination.

[Dec 11, 2017] WATCH LIVE FBI Director Wray VS. TREY GOWDY testifies before House Judiciary Committee on Russia

Some interesting notes from Gowdy on Strzok
Dec 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com

sharon shoop , 3 days ago

all talk and smoking guns. never one question answered. If we were on that stand we would have to answer not mumble and use legal jargon. sick of the whole mess.

[Dec 11, 2017] FINALLY! CONGRESS INITIATES LEGISLATION TO REMOVE BOB MUELLER OVER FBI BIAS TOWARDS TRUMP

Dec 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Published on Dec 8, 2017

FINALLY! CONGRESS INITIATES LEGISLATION TO REMOVE BOB MUELLER OVER FBI BIAS TOWARDS TRUMP

Thanks for watching, please subscribe here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFmY...

[Dec 11, 2017] Another Judge just stepped down from Mueller's team over Hillary Clinton connections

Dec 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74uCzQB2DX4

Patricia Crowell , 1 day ago

Fuentes is right about Comey and his cohorts, and this shows how biased and criminal the FBI was operating in very big cases that are all connected. These false investigation being run by Mueller are all connected with Comey, but Mueller is heavily connected with Comey. Mueller was also passed over by President Trump for director of the FBI. Mueller wanted that position and didn't get it. Think he might be pissed? And now he's investigating President Trump. This smells bad.

Sandra White , 20 hours ago

FBI-SIS Comey the leaker and the Agents that play the game. The DNC Russia dossier is the ball that Comey pushed down the hill. Swamp needs to be drained.

Gerard Waters , 15 hours ago

So it is the fault of the president that the FBI reputation is in tatters . NO. It is the fault of the FBI. Here in Europe we are laughing at the FBI and their reputation. Drain your swamp which includes the FBI and CIA

THESHOMROM , 16 hours ago

I realized the FBI is corrupt when Comey testified before Congress. It is time to put all FBI employees to be given lie detector tests. DITTO the CIA, NSA and all US intelligence agencies. It might not be a bad idea to do the same for Pentagon and White House employees. Extreme, maybe, but something isn't Kosher here.

Dave Kay , 1 hour ago (edited)

Politics has truly become a children's game. Both sides are playing extremely biased opposing enemy positions. Both sides scream nonsense at one another, neither side will listen, and talking is out of the question. Both sides are shooting, but nobody gets shot. Everybody is playing, but nobody is doing anything. Everybody has been caught out, but they all keep playing. This is the never ending game with no rules except "hate Russia" that we call "hate Russia." What do we need to do...ring the dinner bell? Come on Trump, you've won, put them all in jail, and let's have pizza! Merry Christmas!

Jim Man , 5 hours ago

this government has gone way beyond investigations, it is infested with ...globalist cockroaches and needs an exterminator. we need a military take down of this government with Trump in command to deal with the infestation. with a take over they could then look at everyone in government and bring charges for their attempted coups and subversion of our duly elected president not to mention all the criminal deals and actions that made them millions, then can charge and punish them as their charges imply ... this is serious, the government is FUBAR...semper-fi..

D Chase , 9 hours ago

Someone needs to get their hand on all the documents and other materials Obama had taken out of the White House before he even left office. It was done under the guise that these documents were for his Library and were going to be stored until the "library was built. This is unprecedented and requires further journalistic scrutiny!

craxd1 , 14 hours ago (edited)

I would like to ask Tom Fuentes, (who is a regular on CNN), what are his thoughts about COINTELPRO? What about Mark Felt during Nixon? After all, he claims that the FBI was squeaky clean up to Comey. He's a lying douche bag.

[Dec 11, 2017] Top Mueller investigator Andrew Weissman under intense scrutiny by Allan Smith

Notable quotes:
"... He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home. ..."
"... First came the email made public by Judicial Watch, where he wrote told Yates he was "so proud" and "in awe" of her decision not to defend Trump's initial travel ban. That was soon followed up by The Journal's revelation that he was in attendance at Clinton's election-night party. ..."
"... Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, asked , "How much more evidence do we need" that the Mueller team "has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans" after his group published Weissmann's email. ..."
"... Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has been leading the charge to have the Mueller investigation shut down, told Fox News that Trump was "being persecuted by Hillary Clinton's fan club." ..."
"... Democrats, however, said these latest attacks against the Mueller investigation, and individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come with the probe reaching closer to the president. ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.businessinsider.com


The investigator dubbed as special counsel Robert Mueller's "pit bull" by The New York Times has come under fire for perceived bias against President Donald Trump.

That investigator, Andrew Weissmann, was reportedly in attendance at former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's election night party last year at the Jacob K. Javits Center in New York City, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday. The revelation came days after the conservative group, Judicial Watch , published an email he sent to former acting Attorney General Sally Yates praising her for refusing to defend Trump's controversial travel ban in January.

"If it's true that Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary's victory party, this is getting out of hand," tweeted Ari Fleischer , who served as White House press secretary under President George W. Bush.

Weissmann is one of the most prominent investigators on Mueller's team. Considered to be an expert on flipping "defendants into collaborators -- with either tactical brilliance or overzealousness, depending on one's perspective," as The Times wrote in October, Weissmann is the investigation's "pounding heart, a bookish, legal pit bull with two Ivy League degrees, a weakness for gin martinis and classical music and a list of past enemies that includes professional killers and white-collar criminals."

The prosecutor made a name for himself in high-profile cases involving New York's mob bosses and at the turn of the century in the Enron scandal. He also oversaw the FBI's predawn raid in July of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's Virginia home.

"If there's something to find, he'll find it," Katya Jestin, who used to work with Weissmann in the US attorney's office for the Eastern District of New York, told The Times. "If there's nothing there, he's not going to cook something up."

Weissmann comes under fire

But following the revelation that one top investigator on Mueller's team, Peter Strzok, had been reassigned from the special counsel's team after he apparently sent anti-Trump text messages during the 2016 election, Republicans began taking aim at Weissmann as the latest example of an investigator biased against the president.

First came the email made public by Judicial Watch, where he wrote told Yates he was "so proud" and "in awe" of her decision not to defend Trump's initial travel ban. That was soon followed up by The Journal's revelation that he was in attendance at Clinton's election-night party.

In a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday, during which FBI Director Christopher Wray was testifying, Republican Rep. Steve Chabot called "the depths of this anti-Trump bias on" the special counsel's team "absolutely shocking."

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, asked , "How much more evidence do we need" that the Mueller team "has been irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump partisans" after his group published Weissmann's email.

"Shut it down," he said.

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who has been leading the charge to have the Mueller investigation shut down, told Fox News that Trump was "being persecuted by Hillary Clinton's fan club."

Democrats, however, said these latest attacks against the Mueller investigation, and individual investigators in particular, such as Weissmann, are just a sign of things to come with the probe reaching closer to the president.

Already, Manafort and former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two of the most prominent members of Trump's campaign, have been charged as part of the Russia investigation. Manafort's associate, Rick Gates, was also charged, as was early Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos.

Manafort and Gates pleaded not guilty to 12 counts including money laundering and conspiracy against the US, and Flynn pleaded guilty on December 1 to one count of making false statements to investigators about his contacts with Russians. Papadopoulos also pleaded guilty in July to lying to the FBI about his interactions with Russia-linked individuals.

"I predict that these attacks on the FBI will grow louder and more brazen as the special counsel does his work, and the walls close in around the president, and evidence of his obstruction and other misdeeds becomes more apparent," Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, recently promoted to ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said during Thursday's hearing.

[Dec 11, 2017] RUSSIA PROBE Another Judge just stepped down from Mueller's team over Hillary Clinton connections

Dec 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Patricia Crowell , 1 day ago

Fuentes is right about Comey and his cohorts, and this shows how biased and criminal the FBI was operating in very big cases that are all connected. These false investigation being run by Mueller are all connected with Comey, but Mueller is heavily connected with Comey. Mueller was also passed over by President Trump for director of the FBI. Mueller wanted that position and didn't get it. Think he might be pissed? And now he's investigating President Trump. This smells bad.

Ronnie D., Jr. D., Jr. , 1 day ago

Why do these guys continue to pretend that Rod Rosenstein is ever going to oppose anything involving Mueller or Comey, and why hasn't anyone removed that little criminal McCabe yet?

eric klekot , 1 day ago

No one is talking about the Regional offices of the FBI. I would imagine, 40-60 percent of ALL adult Americans, after watching James Comey lay out the crimes of Hillary Clinton, then say "OH, but we're not prosecuting her, because she didn't mean to do it". That is when Americans said "WTF!". Every Criminal says they didn't mean to do it. Think about it, next time you get ticketed for speeding, make sure to tell the Judge, there was no specific intent to speed, therefore you can't prosecute. Not only the above, but now you have Michael Flynn being bankrupted, and he pleads guilty because he ran out of money, and his family couldn't take it anymore. That's now a win in this country. Pleads to a lie during an ambush interview by an obviously bias'd white Knight FBI agent Peter Stroke. While Huma Abedin and Shirley Mills get immunity deals...

Nina Long , 1 day ago

These guys are so blind to their own bias and open only to their own ideology they can't see their own crimes. What a load of crap.

[Dec 11, 2017] BREAKING!! ROBERT MUELLER STEPS DOWN FOR DEVIN NUNES IN RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION PROBE

Dec 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Dec 9, 2017

Robert Mueller To Step Down For Devin Nunes in Russian investigation .thanks for watching. Please leave your comments below, like,share and comments

Ricky Pisano , 20 hours ago

LT. GEN. Flynn has his life ruined for being politically ambushed by the FBI and caught in a LIE. HILLARY lies to Congress, The FBI, The American People and is out signing books. A 5' 7" pile of dung!! Memo to President Trump.....Pardon GENERAL FLYNN.

Good Thing , 20 hours ago

There never was Russian collusion on the trump side, now we know the corruption of the FBI with the Obama and Clinton cabal. It's time to execute a lawful end to this mess. These people all thought Hillary was in and really messed up in trying to cover their tracks. It is all going to come out now. Some of these people will get executed and rightfully so.

Rose Garden , 9 hours ago

When you are up to arse in alligators, it's hard to remember your job is to DRAIN THE SWAMP. So many swamp creatures.

[Dec 11, 2017] Gregg Jarrett 'The Mueller Investigation Is Illegitimate and Corrupt'

Dec 11, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said Robert Mueller's probe into President Donald Trump is "illegitimate and corrupt."

Jarrett made the remarks citing revelations that FBI Agent Peter Strzok and attorney Andrew Weissmann may have demonstrated bias against Trump.

"Mueller has been using the FBI as a political weapon," he said. "The FBI has become America's secret police."

[Dec 10, 2017] blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag. Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

Highly recommended!
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | off-guardian.org

by VT

The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at this gem :

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" – the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.

But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.

As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and not by Putin at all.

The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.

What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.

When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.

In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't.

No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.

The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.

Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant .

A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:

"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.

By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.


michaelk says November 26, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/26/big-issue-who-will-step-in-after-bullies-have-silenced-dissenters

From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail on Sunday by Nick Robinson?

michaelk says November 26, 2017
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5117723/Nick-Robinson-Putin-using-fake-news-weaken-West.html

This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.

michaelk says November 23, 2017
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.

The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.

rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles from ever working again in the media.

Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..

michaelk says November 23, 2017
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.

The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.

I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality and real purpose.

The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore.

All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls. It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.

WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.

John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day.

rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
The Guardian is now owned by Neocon Americans, that is why it is demonising Russia. Simple as that.
WeatherEye says November 29, 2017
Evidence?
Harry Stotle says November 21, 2017
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they play a central role in 'the power of nightmares' https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
rtj1211 says November 21, 2017
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?

If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism?

In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave ..

I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..

michaelk says November 21, 2017
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.

What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies, or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth in a chaotic world.

This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine the social order and fundamental power relationships.

The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a 'crime.'

One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.

We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks represented.

WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".

Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public interest?

In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.

Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance. In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.

Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/mps-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt#comments

The fact that it's not shows clearly the fake Guardian/Observer claim and their real agenda.

WE ARE DEFINITELY LIVING IN DISORIENTATION TIMES and the Guardian/Observer are leading the charge.

tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
Correction: DISORIENTATING TIMES
Peter says November 21, 2017
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).
Jim says November 21, 2017
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
BigB says November 20, 2017
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.

A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison – she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones attention away from ones natural instinct.

[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment ) ]

So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.

jag37777 says November 20, 2017
Browder is a spook.
susannapanevin says November 20, 2017
Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin .
Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.

In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.

labrebisgalloise says November 20, 2017
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
Hey, MbS is also an "anti-corruption" campaigner! If the media says so it must be true!
Sav says November 20, 2017
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily people can be brainwashed.

The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.

A Petherbridge says November 20, 2017
Well said – interesting to know what the Guardian is paid to run these stories funded by this arm of US state propaganda.
bevin says November 20, 2017
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc.

Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..

This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.

Admin says November 21, 2017
The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia?

[Dec 10, 2017] When Washington Cheered the Jihadists Consortiumnews

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

When a Department of Defense intelligence report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.

Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in August 2014.

The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World Trade Center?

It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than hostile.

But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report, attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.

After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter C.J. Chivers wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."

Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while, not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.

"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."

And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington, which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."

Assessing the Damage

Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to reduce an entire nation to rubble.

First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.

William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.

A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .)

Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their own.

Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong. With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.

Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both unavoidable and far from entirely negative.

"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed regime."

So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs."

The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.

"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."

Deals with the Devil

The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that counts.

The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."

Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known as Deir ez-Zor).

Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."

Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and Shi'ite-ruled Iran.

As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people, any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."

With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.

Disastrous Thinking

Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.

U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy (left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250 billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria, the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.

So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.

It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for.

The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic terrorism.

Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.

Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).

Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm

I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.

The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.

john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am

Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.

Jerald Davidson , December 9, 2017 at 11:53 am

Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser, Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.) goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)

BannanaBoat , December 9, 2017 at 4:31 pm

Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting to create chaos, probably both. Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73 years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)

Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm

Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90% of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it wanted.

Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am

CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of them. One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads further.

Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am

Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."

It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people!

Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed; being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and end of an article.

Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm

What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of my head.

Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch hunt.

The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.

Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".

This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end.

How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC, Washington and Berlin.

Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm

Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes ever more despicably obvious.

The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.

"We love Israel. We will fight for Israel 100 percent, 1000 percent." VIDEO minutes 2:15-8:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiwBwBw7R-U

After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in June 2015.

Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace, calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.

Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support from the Trump regime.

Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm

If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).

I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the military-industrial-complex.

Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm

Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves.

Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the "mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve" jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.

Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to protect them.

Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some 400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.

Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.

WC , December 9, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Here's a good one from Hedges (for what little good it will do). https://www.truthdig.com/articles/zero-hour-palestine/

john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:34 am

Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the region, can they?

Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm

Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say: Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all. The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.

mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm

When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are destroying our world.

john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am

Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that Putin and Russia are the evil ones'

mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm

One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that "evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not like.

Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm

Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)

https://electronicintifada.net/content/oh-jerusalem-requiem-two-state-solution/22521

Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:24 pm

On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/24/syria-rebels-nsa-saudi-prince-assad/

Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March of 2013.

The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria.

Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities.

Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm

An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena."

The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime."

The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines.

The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime.

The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm

In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y274U7QIs

Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making:

Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?"

Flynn: "I think the administration."

Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"

Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision."

Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."

Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added that "the intelligence was very clear."

Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on the Syrian regime:

Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"

Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."

Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.

Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm

Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency

Full Transcript: http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2016/01/transcript-michael-flynn-160104174144334.html

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm

"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments, General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria.

"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as 'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple Assad.

"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact. Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani, himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."

Obama and the DIA 'Islamic State' Memo: What Trump Gets Right
By Brad Hoff
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/07/01/obama-and-the-dia-islamic-state-memo-what-trump-gets-right/

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 3:08 pm

"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).

"The plan involved the following steps:

"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.

"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain, are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.

"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites, turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.

"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities, especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the 'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.

"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic: initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]

"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."

The Likelihood of War with Iran By Petr Lvov https://journal-neo.org/2017/12/09/the-likelihood-of-war-with-iran/

BobH, December 8, 2017 at 7:13 pm

The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.

That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".

Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm

There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/17/us-generals-think-saudi-strikes-in-yemen-a-bad-idea.html

A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity, scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said, "is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad idea.

Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.

The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.

BobH , December 8, 2017 at 10:55 pm

Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?). However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet over Syria.

Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am

The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.

Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm

I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.

C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.

C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).

D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND ARE AS FOLLOWS:

–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY

https://geopolitics.co/2015/12/22/dempseys-pentagon-aided-assad-with-military-intelligence-hersh/
London Review of Books Vol. 38 No. 1 · 7 January 2016
Military to Military: US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war
Seymour M. Hersh

Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me. 'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'

j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am

Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.

Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm

I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran, in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.

jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm

The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.

One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali – the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet unknown.

turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.

Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.

j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm

The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything other than geopolitical objectives.

David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am

I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got going on Obama's watch.

Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am

The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without sufficient evidence.

Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am

Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking his cabinet.

Stephen , December 9, 2017 at 2:49 pm

Off topic but you can listen to some of Obama's banking handiwork here: https://sputniknews.com/radio_loud_and_clear/201712091059844562-looming-government-shutdown-will-democrats-fight-trumps-pro-rich-plan/ It starts at about minute 28:14. It explains the whole reaction by Obama and Holder to the banking fiasco in my mind. Sorry but I had to get it from the evil Rooski radio program.

Lois Gagnon , December 8, 2017 at 8:41 pm

All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth.

Stephen J. , December 8, 2017 at 8:42 pm

There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html

MarkU , December 8, 2017 at 10:00 pm

"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better, explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.

Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm

Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.

Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm

That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:

The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.

Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the consequences of this conspiracy of silence.

Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/The-accidental-Zionist-504221

Gerry , December 9, 2017 at 4:51 am

The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.

It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free thought.

Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am

Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal interest.

Josh Stern , December 9, 2017 at 6:49 am

The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292

triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am

This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions.

Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated

Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am

You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?

So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either.

Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?

Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am

Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass tacks.

The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold. First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in 1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà ..there she was.

So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.

Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment. Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me, that means hitting my knees.

Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm

Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.

Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm

Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population, not selling out to vultures.

It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.

BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am

From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm".

Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am

Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the federal budget. US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be professional competence. For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree.

Herman , December 9, 2017 at 10:47 am

"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better, explains Daniel Lazare."

Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where we supported extremists is evidence enough.

Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.

Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am

I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit.

There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host" dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized, established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes, allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.

I research this and gathered the evidence to support what I just asserted in a long study printed back in Dec. 2015 in Truthout. Here is the link: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34151-what-is-the-war-on-terror-and-how-to-fight-it

Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate any obstacles to its domination.

No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist, bourgeois industrial development on any level.

Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we are in the dark.

Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am

Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences.

Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any global ethical calculus. Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of Israel have their work cut out for them. This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.

Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm

A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.

A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from carrying out strikes against Islamic State.

"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two strike planes.

If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt. The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive stealth.

Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm

https://www.rt.com/news/412590-russia-us-syria-air-force/

Pablo Diablo , December 9, 2017 at 2:53 pm

Gotta keep the War Machine well fed and insure Corporate control of markets and taking of resources.

Abe , December 9, 2017 at 2:54 pm

In October 1973, a nuclear armed rogue state almost triggered a global thermonuclear war.

Yom Kippur: Israel's 1973 nuclear alert
By Richard Sale
https://www.upi.com/Yom-Kippur-Israels-1973-nuclear-alert/64941032228992/

Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.

Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to 400 nuclear weapons.

Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of 4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.

Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.

The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.

In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the installation.

The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen years imprisonment.

At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of the terms of his release.

Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding serious threats to health from living near the reactor.

According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.

In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from 1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.

mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm

The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are complicit in that enormous crime.

Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm

The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of "security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has trampled countless nations into piles of rubble. To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally hated in the third world. Rightly. Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then how?

Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago. The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality, ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.

A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for most Americans. In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries. So the monster will come down.

turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm

I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns

I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected. At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.

Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am

This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written here. We will find a way to put war out of business.

Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am

I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?

Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am

Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars.

Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am

Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy.

mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am

The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.

Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am

I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/12/76-years-pearl-harbor-lies.html

Brendan , December 10, 2017 at 12:09 pm

What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also cheered on the jihadists.

Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace?

[Dec 10, 2017] Russia-gate s Reach into Journalism by Dennis J Bernstein

Highly recommended!
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | www.facebook.com

The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.

The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.

The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.

Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.

In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.

I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)

Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York, making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.

I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.

Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?

Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling, I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because, in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].

Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?

Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life. The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth. I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this, you are also under the gun.

Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace it back as best we can.

Thomas Drake: In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.

From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.

The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth, they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."

Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?

Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?

I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.

Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders.

Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.

Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.

Thomas Drake: The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."

Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.

What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?

Dennis J Bernstein is a host of "Flashpoints" on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom . You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net .

orwell

"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.

exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag.

Jerry Alatalo , December 7, 2017 at 3:34 pm

It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!

jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm

The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html ).

This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.

mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm

How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in!

john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am

Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.

fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm

Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern. Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.

The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I submit the actions and intentions of those who govern that are revealed and discussed in this article https://consortiumnews.com/2017/12/07/russia-gates-reach-into-journalism/ should be among the list of impels that support the next declaration.

Al Pinto , December 7, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and further advance it by silencing the independent media.

Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.

https://usawatchdog.com/mother-of-all-bubbles-too-big-to-pop-peter-schiff/

mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.

john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am

Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief.

Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.

One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US.

Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am

In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.

Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight with Karma.

[Dec 10, 2017] #blamePutin continues to be the media s dominant hashtag

Notable quotes:
"... The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. ..."
"... Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant . ..."
"... By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another. ..."
"... I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. ..."
"... At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation. ..."
"... The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore. ..."
"... John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day. ..."
"... So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism? ..."
"... In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave. ..."
"... I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..."
"... Browder is a spook. ..."
"... This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media. ..."
"... In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes ..."
"... I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up. ..."
"... The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy. ..."
"... The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket.. ..."
"... The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia? ..."
off-guardian.org

Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time

The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at this gem :

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" – the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.

But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.

As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and not by Putin at all.

The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.

What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.

When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.

In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't.

No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.

The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.

Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant .

A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:

"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.

By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.


michaelk says November 26, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/26/big-issue-who-will-step-in-after-bullies-have-silenced-dissenters

From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail on Sunday by Nick Robinson?

michaelk says November 26, 2017
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5117723/Nick-Robinson-Putin-using-fake-news-weaken-West.html

This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.

michaelk says November 23, 2017
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember.

Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.

rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles from ever working again in the media. Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
michaelk says November 23, 2017
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.

The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.

I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality and real purpose.

The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore.

All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls. It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.

WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.

John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day.

rtj1211 says November 29, 2017
The Guardian is now owned by Neocon Americans, that is why it is demonising Russia.

Simple as that.

WeatherEye says November 29, 2017
Evidence?
Harry Stotle says November 21, 2017
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not underdstand' – in other words they play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'

https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

rtj1211 says November 21, 2017
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism?

In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave.

I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..

michaelk says November 21, 2017
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.

What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies, or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth in a chaotic world.

This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible and seperate the Truths it containedf from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine the social order and fundamental power relationships.

The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that pepeople were actually burned alive in England for smuggling the Bible in english translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a 'crime.'

One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.

We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks represented.

WeatherEye says November 21, 2017
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilising our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
pimatters says November 27, 2017
Yes, as the guy below says this is a great simile. Wikileaks is like the first English translations of the bible! Fantastic!
pimatters says November 27, 2017
above – not below
tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".

Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public interest?

In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled:
"MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel"
However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.

Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance. In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.

Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/18/mps-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt#comments

The fact that it's not shows clearly the fake Guardian/Observer claim and their real agenda.

WE ARE DEFINITELY LIVING IN DISORIENTATION TIMES and the Guardian/Observer are leading the charge.

tutisicecream says November 21, 2017
Correction: DISORIENTATING TIMES
Peter says November 21, 2017
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut.

RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told).

Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).

Jim says November 21, 2017
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares their view and that they are in the majority.
The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
BigB says November 20, 2017
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.

A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison – she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones attention away from ones natural instinct.

[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment ) ]

So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.

jag37777 says November 20, 2017
Browder is a spook.
susannapanevin says November 20, 2017
Reblogged this on Susanna Panevin .
Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.

In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.

labrebisgalloise says November 20, 2017
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Eric Blair says November 20, 2017
Hey, MbS is also an "anti-corruption" campaigner! If the media says so it must be true!
Sav says November 20, 2017
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily people can be brainwashed.

The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.

A Petherbridge says November 20, 2017
Well said – interesting to know what the Guardian is paid to run these stories funded by this arm of US state propaganda.
bevin says November 20, 2017
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..

This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.

Admin says November 21, 2017
The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia?

[Dec 10, 2017] Strzok is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn

Dec 05, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

WJ , 05 December 2017 at 08:16 PM

Sir,

What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles. He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.

[Dec 10, 2017] Peter Strzok Lisa Page 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Dec 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Just one day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I.in the Russia investigation, reports have surfaced accusing a veteran investigator in the special probe of sending disparaging text messages regarding President Donald Trump. The investigator was removed from the probe a few month .....
#5FastFacts #News #BreakingNews

[Dec 10, 2017] Bret Baier and Trey Gowdy speak about Strzok - YouTube

Dec 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Patricia Barkley , 1 day ago

That damn Comey is the biggest liar and most corrupt person in the Hillary email investigation. Actually there was no investigation, because he had already determined how she had done nothing wrong. Pathetic. Also Mueller has set up his group of lawyers, who have all been connected to contributing to Hillary Clinton's campaign. The damn democrats will do anything to try to find something corrupt about President Trump. All they need to do is look in the mirror, if they are looking for corrupt.

Thesaurus , 1 day ago (edited)

Obviously Rosenstein didn't think the DoJ could do the job since he scrambled to appoint a special counsel at the first opportunity after Comey leaked the memo. Trey Gowdy is one of the most honest Congressmen in the HoR but he's seemingly a little naive at times. He wants to believe the best about his colleagues and friends. The facts have to be in his face before he sees the truth. He's only now beginning to see the light about Mueller, I think.

[Dec 10, 2017] JUST IN Bob Mueller deliberately hired Hillary Clinton linked agents and lawyers for Russia probe

Notable quotes:
"... Purple ties = Globalists! Christopher Wray, your true colors are showing! ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Dawn Masters , 1 hour ago

Purple ties = Globalists! Christopher Wray, your true colors are showing!

M.D. , 21 minutes ago

the f.b.i. just like the i.r.s. the e.p.a. , homeland security and many more govt. organisations that at one time worked for the very citizens that pay them but now they are all politicized , even weaponized to be used as a tool against one's political rivals , thanks Obummer !! who did not start or do this all on his own but did carry the ball down the road further than any other before him

Eat em n Smile , 51 minutes ago

FBI your garbage thanks to the Clinton's. I hope to live for 30 more years and your shit to me. Now I understand why we need rights to guns . To fight you criminals in my government. I hate liberals but I know some conservatives are just as nasty . McCain is my top choice for Hillary bent .

fking deplorable , 1 hour ago

Mueller is discredited. He was Comey's mentor!!!! "WAKE UP IDIOTS"

Niki Ballou , 1 hour ago

I don't think there is an impartial person in the entire world... And I mean that literally... Everyone from England to Australia to Japan to South Africa is as passionate about this Trump issue as anyone here in the US.

Godavego gogo , 1 hour ago

If Casey and Muller are an example of NO FINER INSTITUTION AND NO FINER PEOPLE THAN THE FBI..." REALLY? so why are all the PROBER'S HILLARY DONATORS? -----> Wray is a deep state criminal just like Comey and Mueller

[Dec 10, 2017] TREASON! FIRED FBI AGENT COULD BE IN BIG TROUBLE...WATCH THIS

Dec 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Published on Dec 5, 2017

The FBI agent fired by Mueller for sending Anti-Trump text messages was IN charge of the Russia probe and even asked Micheal Flynn questions. So could it be that this was all a set up against Trump? More secrets keep unravelling in the Mueller probe, and we'll keep updating you on this story.

Thanks for watching, please subscribe here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFmY...

[Dec 10, 2017] FBI Agent Peter Strzok, Spun A Strange Web!

Dec 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Please open, and read the article attached in the link below. http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politic...

[Dec 10, 2017] TowerGate - Day 272 - Peter Strzok Exposed and Dumb-ass Of The Week

Dec 05, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Peter Strzok has been identified as one of the deep state rats that has been involved in great mischief at the FBI. Also, our dumb-ass of the week.

Mahat Mah jeebs , 4 days ago

Seeker, Mr. Strzok needs to have a prolonged interrogation done on him , until the lasi little tidbit of his machinations are wrung out of him until it is a sure bet that he has nothing left to give up. Stzrok has good friends who invented sure fire techniques that have guaranteed results. A Thousand Cuts comes to mind ! ! ! Of course that can not happen so let Hillary in on the scuttlebut that Stzrok is going to rat out everbody in order to save His behind. In no time flat Mr Stzrok will throw a JIMMY HOFFA ! ! ! ! ! That Hairy , Bull Dagger , Pussy Hat Wearin , P U S S Y P O S S E of Hillary's is Ruthless ! ! ! ! ! Thank You Seeker jeebs out

Oregon Outback , 5 days ago

Enjoyed you explanation of neocons. I realized, some years back, we need to change the Department of Defense to the Department of Offense. I suppose we could rename Homeland Security to Dept. of Defense, but they are actuating an offensive war on us and our freedoms. Maybe stop poking our noses in other peoples business and we could eliminate both departments. So ... what do we call a conservative that is hawkish on Peace? A normal, well balanced, human being? Haven't seen one of those hanging out around our capitol in a while.

[Dec 10, 2017] BREAKING Fox Exclusive - FBI official's role in Clinton email investigation under review - AR15.COM

Notable quotes:
"... The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server. ..."
"... As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan. ..."
"... The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories. ..."
"... In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13. ..."
"... A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?" ..."
"... Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season. ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | www.ar15.com

EXCLUSIVE – Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.

A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year."

The task will be exceedingly complex, given Strzok's consequential portfolio. He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.

As deputy FBI director for counterintelligence, Strzok also enjoyed liaison with various agencies in the intelligence community, including the CIA, then led by Director John Brennan.

House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Stzrok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, D-Calif., has sought documents and witnesses from the Department of Justice and FBI to determine what role, if any, the dossier played in the move to place a Trump campaign associate under foreign surveillance.

Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier.

In early October, Nunes personally asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who has overseen the Trump-Russia probe since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – to make Strzok available to the committee for questioning, sources said.

While Strzok's removal from the Mueller team had been publicly reported in August, the Justice Department never disclosed the anti-Trump texts to the House investigators. The denial of access to Strzok was instead predicated, sources said, on broad "personnel" grounds.

When a month had elapsed, House investigators – having issued three subpoenas for various witnesses and documents – formally recommended to Nunes that DOJ and FBI be held in contempt of Congress. Nunes continued pressing DOJ, including a conversation with Rosenstein as recently as last Wednesday.

That turned out to be 12 days after DOJ and FBI had made Strzok available to the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own parallel investigation into the allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.

Contempt citations?

Responding to the revelations about Strzok's texts on Saturday, Nunes said he has now directed his staff to draft contempt-of-Congress citations against Rosenstein and the new FBI director, Christopher Wray. Unless DOJ and FBI comply with all os his outstanding requests for documents and witnesses by the close of business on Monday, Nunes said, he would seek a resolution on the contempt citations before year's end.

"We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview," Nunes said in a statement.

Early Saturday afternoon, after Strzok's texts were cited in published reports by the New York Times and the Washington Post – and Fox News had followed up with inquiries about the department's refusal to make Strzok available to House investigators – the Justice Department contacted the office of House Speaker Paul Ryan to establish a date for Strzok's appearance before House Intelligence Committee staff, along with two other witnesses long sought by the Nunes team.

Those witnesses are FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and the FBI officer said to have handled Christopher Steele, the British spy who used Russian sources to compile the dossier for Fusion GPS. The official said to be Steele's FBI handler has also appeared already before the Senate panel.

The Justice Department maintained that the decision to clear Strzok for House interrogation had occurred a few hours prior to the appearance of the Times and Post stories.

In addition, Rosenstein is set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on Dec. 13.

The Justice Department maintains that it has been very responsive to the House intel panel's demands, including private briefings for panel staff by senior DOJ and FBI personnel and the production of several hundred pages of classified materials available in a secure reading room at DOJ headquarters on Oct. 31.

Sources said Speaker Ryan has worked quietly behind the scenes to try to resolve the clash over dossier-related evidence and witnesses between the House intel panel on the one hand and DOJ and FBI on the other. In October, however, the speaker took the unusual step of saying publicly that the two agencies were "stonewalling" Congress.

All parties agree that some records being sought by the Nunes team belong to categories of documents that have historically never been shared with the committees that conduct oversight of the intelligence community.

Federal officials told Fox News the requested records include "highly sensitive raw intelligence," so sensitive that officials from foreign governments have emphasized to the U.S. the "potential danger and chilling effect" it could place on foreign intelligence sources.

Justice Department officials noted that Nunes did not appear for a document-review session that his committee's ranking Democrat, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., attended, and once rejected a briefing by an FBI official if the panel's Democratic members were permitted to attend.

Sources close to the various investigations agreed the discovery of Strzok's texts raised important questions about his work on the Clinton email case, the Trump-Russia probe, and the dossier matter.

"That's why the IG is looking into all of those things," a Justice Department official told Fox News on Saturday.

A top House investigator asked: "If Mueller knew about the texts, what did he know about the dossier?"

Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel, said: "Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the Special Counsel's Office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation."

Carr declined to comment on the extent to which Mueller has examined the dossier and its relationship, if any, to the counterintelligence investigation that Strzok launched during the height of the campaign season.

[Dec 10, 2017] Trey Gowdy tears Mueller investigation a new one 'Really hard to defend' probe's integrity by Luis Miguel

Dec 10, 2017 | www.bizpacreview.com

The "Bull Dog" of the House has a grave warning for Robert Mueller.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), known for his tough "prosecutor" persona, sits on the House Intelligence Committee. The Committee on Saturday threatened to hold the FBI and Department of Justice in contempt of Congress for withholding information related to the removal of FBI agent Peter Strzok from Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.

Rep. Gowdy told Fox News that the Special Counsel faces "integrity" problems after the revelation that Strzok's removal was due to exchanging anti-Trump text messages with FBI lawyer Lisa Page–with whom Strzok was having an extramarital affair.

"We met with the department of justice and they have to go through the texts," Gowdy said.

He then explained the Intelligence Committee's interest in the Strzok text messages.

"We are not entitled to them, nor do we have an interest in purely personal texts. We are very interested in both anti-Trump and/or pro-Clinton texts . Because, as he made reference to, he was a very important agent in her investigation, also in the ongoing Russian related investigation, perhaps the decision for Comey to change the wording in a statement."

Gowdy's remark about "wording in a statement" referred to reports that Strzok encouraged former FBI director James Comey to describe Hillary Clinton's private email server actions as "extremely careless" rather than "grossly negligent." The latter term carries legal weight with potential criminal penalties while the former does not.

Gowdy continued: "He is super important and people have a right to know whether agents are biased one way or another. The department is going to go through the texts been going to make them available to us as soon as they can." Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum then asked Gowdy if he still has confidence in the Mueller probe, to which the South Carolina lawmaker replied.

"I do, but I got to confess to you, and I understand people who think I'm wrong. I got an email last night from a friend back home saying, 'Look, Gowdy, let go of the prosecutor stuff.' I still think that Mueller can produce a product that we all have confidence in, but things like this, make it really difficult -- the perception is, is every bit as important as the reality, and if the perception is, you're employing people who are biased, it makes us really difficult for those of us that would like to defend the integrity of former prosecutors."

Gowdy's comments echo the sentiments of many Americans, who question the integrity of agents that have investigated two presidential campaigns, but apparently favor one over the other.

[Dec 10, 2017] FBI Agent Fired From Mueller Probe is Key Figure in Fusion GPS Dossier

Notable quotes:
"... The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia. ..."
"... Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague. ..."
"... House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate. ..."
"... The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ] ..."
"... Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier. ..."
"... Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved forward with FISA surveillance anyways. ..."
Dec 05, 2017 | www.shiftfrequency.com

Strzok Worked Zealously To Undermine Trump

Joshua Caplan – In yet another blow to Mueller's investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, the special counsel was forced to fire a top FBI agent after possible anti-Trump text messages were discovered.

New York Times reports:

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia.

In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division," reported Mike Levine.

Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a review of Peter Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Fox News reports:

Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.

Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."

Strzok played a key role in analyzing the infamous 'Trump dossier,' supplied by shady research firm Fusion GPS. The now disgraced FBI agent used disproven elements of the dossier to spy on members of the Trump campaign.

Fox News report:

House investigators told Fox News they have long regarded Strzok as a key figure in the chain of events when the bureau, in 2016, received the infamous anti-Trump "dossier" and launched a counterintelligence investigation into Russian meddling in the election that ultimately came to encompass FISA surveillance of a Trump campaign associate.

The "dossier" was a compendium of salacious and largely unverified allegations about then-candidate Trump and others around him that was compiled by the opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The firm's bank records, obtained by House investigators, revealed that the project was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. [ ]
Strzok himself briefed the committee on Dec. 5, 2016, the sources said, but within months of that session House Intelligence Committee investigators were contacted by an informant suggesting that there was "documentary evidence" that Strzok was purportedly obstructing the House probe into the dossier.

Fox News' James Rosen also reveals Strzok played a key role in agreeing to pay ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele $50,000 to find evidence to further support the dossier's explosive claims. FBI officials were uncomfortable with the validity of Steele's findings, yet they moved forward with FISA surveillance anyways.

SF Source The Gateway Pundit Dec 2017

[Dec 10, 2017] Flightcrew on Twitter @mitchellvii Peter Strzok Carried On An Affair With Andrew McCabe's Lawyer, Lisa Paget

Dec 10, 2017 | twitter.com

Peter Strzok Carried On An Affair With Andrew McCabe's Lawyer, Lisa Page, While Plotting The Downfall Of President Donald Trump (Lisa Page Seen Walking Behind McCabe.) Andrew McCabe Is The Acting FBI Director Who Said "First We F*ck Flynn, Then We F*ck Trump."

[Dec 10, 2017] DOJ Launches Review of 'Anti-Trump' FBI Official's Role in Clinton Email Investigation

Dec 02, 2017 | thegatewaypundit.com

New York Times reports:

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department's inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter. The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators. He helped lead the investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email account, and then played a major role in the investigation into links between President Trump's campaign and Russia. But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller's investigation to the F.B.I.'s human resources department, where he has been stationed since. The people briefed on the case said the transfer followed the discovery of text messages in which Mr. Strzok and a colleague reacted to news events, like presidential debates, in ways that could appear critical of Mr. Trump.

In a statement to the New York Times, Strzok lawyer said"we are aware of the allegation and are taking any and all appropriate steps."

In August, ABC News reported that Strzok quit Team Mueller for unknown reasons. "It's unclear why Strzok stepped away from Mueller's team of nearly two dozen lawyers, investigators and administrative staff. Strzok, who has spent much of his law enforcement career working counterintelligence cases and has been unanimously praised by government officials who spoke with ABC News, is now working for the FBI's human resources division," reported Mike Levine.

Now this

After new details emerged about Strzok's firing, the Washington Post revealed the Justice Department launched an investigation into "communications between certain individuals." Details of the mystery probe will be revealed "promptly upon completion of the review of them,' said the Justice Department. Late Saturday night, we learn the Department of Justice has launched a review of Peter Stzrok's role in the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

Fox News reports:

Two senior Justice Department officials have confirmed to Fox News that the department's Office of Inspector General is reviewing the role played in the Hillary Clinton email investigation by Peter Stzrok, a former deputy director for counterintelligence at the FBI who was removed from the staff of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III earlier this year, after Mueller learned that Strzok had exchanged anti-Trump texts with a colleague.

A source close to the matter said the OIG probe, which will examine Strzok's roles in a number of other politically sensitive cases, should be completed by "very early next year." [ ] He participated in the FBI's fateful interview with Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016 – just days before then-FBI Director James Comey announced he was declining to recommend prosecution of Mrs. Clinton in connection with her use, as secretary of state, of a private email server.

Reacting to Strzok's 'anti-Trump,' texts, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) said , "We now know why Strzok was dismissed, why the FBI and DOJ refused to provide us this explanation, and at least one reason why they previously refused to make [FBI] Deputy Director [Andrew] McCabe available to the Committee for an interview."

Jim Smith , December 3, 2017 12:05 AM

This is huge. Read the thread below for the complete context. Peter Strzok was knee deep in the entire mess!
Hillary investigation, Hillary interview. Cheryl Mills interview and immunity deal. Weiner's laptop. Trump Dossier, and Russian collusion. All of these investigations are totally compromised.
https://www.citizenfreepres...

Texas Ranger Jim Smith , December 3, 2017 2:57 AM

All they did was their best to destroy evidence, bury evidence and deflect any kind of real investigation of Hilabeast and team....and everybody knows it on the Hill.
So what are you waiting for asleep at the wheel Sessionns.... ? and any other decent politician.....well....yeah, obviously those don't exist.....

Sim Jim Smith , December 3, 2017 8:19 AM

This is crazy how much more corrupt can this get WTF is Session & Wray doing. Then Mueller puts this guy on his team, as the Lead FBI , as if he didn't know he was a compromised dirtbag.

Like how Mueller hide it from everyone for 3 months why he was demoted, and they want to pretend they the honest brokers just looking for the truth and facts/s

Dirty cop Mueller and his team sycophants trying take down the President United States on some trumped up bull, turn this country into joke and do irreparable damage.

While he did nothing scratch his old balls while Hil & Obama sold out to the Russians.

RatkoUSA , December 3, 2017 12:17 AM

"'Review of' FBI Official's Role in Clinton Email Investigation"
Huh? The the entire thing "investigation" is and has been, from Day 1, nothing more than a no holds barred attack on not only the legally elected POTUS DJT, but equally against his supporters.

[Dec 10, 2017] Mueller, Comey, McCabe Peter Stroke ALL used abused female FBI agents for their own sexual gratification

Notable quotes:
"... Actually the CIA is well known among DC insiders to have a reputation for only hiring young, attractive interns. ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | www.reddit.com

royallypede 4 days ago (1 child)

If you recall the reason they went after Gen. Flynn in the first place was because he took the side of a woman who filed a complaint against McCabe.
Holmgeir 4 days ago (0 children)
https://www.circa.com/story/2017/06/27/nation/did-the-fbi-retaliate-against-michael-flynn-by-launching-russia-probe

Yup, great article by Circa. I'm not going to hold my breath for this True Pundit article though.

Sodors_Finest_Poster 4 days ago (1 child)
Cill Blinton here, how can I apply to the FBI?
Funqueybusiness 4 days ago (3 children)
Actually the CIA is well known among DC insiders to have a reputation for only hiring young, attractive interns.

Wouldn't be surprised if the FBI did it too.

Source : me. Used to work in Langley.

[Dec 10, 2017] Video How the U.S. Caused the Breakup of the Soviet Union Defend Democracy Press

Notable quotes:
"... Capitalism in the Web of Life ..."
"... An Inconvenient Truth ..."
"... Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death. ..."
"... New York Amsterdam News ..."
"... Le Monde Diplomatique ..."
"... Covert Action Information Bulletin ..."
"... Global Research ..."
"... Capitalism in the Web of Life ..."
"... An Inconvenient Truth ..."
"... Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death. ..."
"... New York Amsterdam News ..."
"... Le Monde Diplomatique ..."
"... Covert Action Information Bulletin ..."
"... Global Research ..."
Dec 10, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

Although the United States played a crucial role in WWII, it was slow to get involved and it let the Soviet Union do much of the heavy lifting and suffer the heaviest losses. The United States had a lot of help in achieving the victory Mr. Gore claims for America, and we could assume he knows this, so the way he chose to describe historical events is telling.

Perhaps acknowledging the reality would have detracted from his second point about "bringing down communism." Everyone knows that what he is referring to so proudly is the destabilization and destruction of the USSR, the Warsaw bloc nations, and Yugoslavia, not the abstract notion of communism. He is referring to a "victory" which precipitated civil wars and a disastrous collapse of the economy and social welfare systems in these countries, one that killed and impoverished millions. In China, Cuba and the DPRK, contrary to what he stated, these nations' versions of socialism haven't been brought down at all. [1992]

Explicitly describing the "bringing down of communism" as America's deliberate actions to dismantle the USSR might run the risk of reminding the audience about the illegality of interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, and it might have reminded people of what a betrayal this was of America's WWII ally and partner in the détente of the 1970s. The inconvenient truth is that the USSR was the WWII ally that played a crucial role in the victory that Mr. Gore claimed solely for America.

Nonetheless, the comment about "bringing down communism" is refreshingly, and maybe accidentally, very honest. Most descriptions of the Soviet collapse, even those done by historians specializing in this field, pay little attention to American efforts to undermine the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. The political class always denied that America had a plan to dismantle the USSR, and denied having any significant influence on events which they claim arose from domestic causes. If America's influence is addressed at all, it is considered as a matter of speculation, a mystery hardly worth thinking about when one can more easily look at the dramatic events that occurred on the surface within the Soviet Union in the last decade of its existence. The following transcript of the lecture by Sean Gervasi, delivered in 1992, shortly after the collapse, is unique and valuable for what it reveals about the significant, and perhaps decisive, American role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In his conclusion, Mr. Gervasi came to this judgment:

The Soviet Union today, in the absence of this extraordinarily crafty, well-thought-out, extremely costly strategy deployed by the Reagan administration, would be a society struggling through great difficulties. It would still be a socialist society, at least of the kind that it was. It would be far from perfect, but it would still be there, and I think, therefore, that Western intervention made a crucial difference in this situation."

The journey to how he came to this conclusion is well worth the reader's time.

A final comment about Mr. Gore's remarks: He is oblivious to the inconvenient solution that has been staring him in the face all these years: that the necessary reduction of carbon emissions will require severe constraints on capitalism, a thesis developed by Jason W. Moore in Capitalism in the Web of Life .[ii] Mr. Gore should know that a radical solution is needed. In his recent sequel to An Inconvenient Truth he complains about the undue influence of "money in politics" that has gotten so much worse over the last ten years, but that's as deep as the class analysis and ideological exploration can go in America. He evinces no awareness of the historical figures who developed answers to the problem of unaccountable private control of a nation's government, resources and productive capacities. Gore is still proud of having actively worked against a revolution in human affairs that aimed to curtail the savage capitalism that led to the present ecological catastrophe.

In spite of the flaws one might see in what the Soviet Union actually became, flaws that arose to a great extent because it had to fight against external threats throughout its existence, the goals of the revolution of 1917 are still relevant to the crises of the 21st century, and this is what makes Sean Gervasi's research so valuable now, after a quarter century in which America doubled down on its "winning ways" and worsened the crises that were evident long ago in 1992.

About Sean Gervasi

Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death.

Gervasi was an economist trained at the University of Geneva, Oxford and Cornell. His political career began when he took a post as an economic adviser in the Kennedy administration. He resigned in protest after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

After his resignation, Gervasi was never able to get work again in the United States as an economist, despite his impressive academic credentials. He became a lecturer at the London School of Economics after leaving Washington. Notwithstanding his great popularity, the school refused to renew his contract in 1965.

During the 1970s and 1980s he was an adviser to a number of governments in Africa and the Middle East, helping them navigate the hostile and predatory world of transnational corporations and megabanks. He also worked for the UN Committee on Apartheid and the UN Commission on Namibia.

In addition, Gervasi was a journalist, contributing to a wide range of publications, from the New York Amsterdam News to Le Monde Diplomatique . He was a frequent commentator on the listener-supported Pacifica radio station WBAI in New York. In 1976, Gervasi broke the story of how the U.S. government was secretly arming the apartheid regime in South Africa.

In the late 1980s, Gervasi began to focus on the Cold War and what he called the "full court press," a basketball term for a highly aggressive "all in" strategy. In an article published in the Covert Action Information Bulletin in early 1991[iii], when the breakup of the USSR was imminent, Gervasi showed how the Reagan administration's strategy of economic isolation, a gargantuan arms buildup with the threat of a nuclear attack, overt funding of internal dissent, and CIA-directed sabotage had been decisive in bringing down the USSR. Gervasi backed up his analysis with careful scholarship and documentation.

Gervasi was widely respected as a leading independent figure in the left, but his views were contrary to the fashionable dogma that attributed the USSR's collapse almost exclusively to such things as failures of leadership, centralization of the economy, the black market, Chernobyl, or independence movements, and not to external hostility. These are the subjects which he addressed in the following lecture given to a small audience in January 1992. The lecture can still be found on internet video sites, but the thesis of this lecture still remains marginal and obscure two decades later, even though it is highly pertinent to the Cold War replay that is underway in the second decade of the 21st century -- one in which Russia stands accused of turning the tables and doing a comparatively very tame version of the propaganda war waged on the USSR in the 1980s.

After 1992, Gervasi focused his attention on the breakup of Yugoslavia, which he discovered was a replay of the strategy used to break up the Soviet Union. He became active in exposing the role of external powers, particularly the U.S. and German governments, in fomenting the civil war in the Balkans. His view that the war in Bosnia was sparked by the aggressive machinations these nations, and not age-old ethnic rivalries, alienated Gervasi from much of the liberal and progressive movement. Journals to which he had once regularly contributed would no longer print his articles. He had great difficulty finding a publisher for his book on the Balkans, but some of his research on this topic can be found in the article "Why Is NATO In Yugoslavia?"[iv] published by Global Research in 2001.[v]

Dennis Riches, November 2017

***

VIDEO Although the United States played a crucial role in WWII, it was slow to get involved and it let the Soviet Union do much of the heavy lifting and suffer the heaviest losses. The United States had a lot of help in achieving the victory Mr. Gore claims for America, and we could assume he knows this, so the way he chose to describe historical events is telling.

Perhaps acknowledging the reality would have detracted from his second point about "bringing down communism." Everyone knows that what he is referring to so proudly is the destabilization and destruction of the USSR, the Warsaw bloc nations, and Yugoslavia, not the abstract notion of communism. He is referring to a "victory" which precipitated civil wars and a disastrous collapse of the economy and social welfare systems in these countries, one that killed and impoverished millions. In China, Cuba and the DPRK, contrary to what he stated, these nations' versions of socialism haven't been brought down at all. [1992]

Explicitly describing the "bringing down of communism" as America's deliberate actions to dismantle the USSR might run the risk of reminding the audience about the illegality of interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, and it might have reminded people of what a betrayal this was of America's WWII ally and partner in the détente of the 1970s. The inconvenient truth is that the USSR was the WWII ally that played a crucial role in the victory that Mr. Gore claimed solely for America.

Nonetheless, the comment about "bringing down communism" is refreshingly, and maybe accidentally, very honest. Most descriptions of the Soviet collapse, even those done by historians specializing in this field, pay little attention to American efforts to undermine the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. The political class always denied that America had a plan to dismantle the USSR, and denied having any significant influence on events which they claim arose from domestic causes. If America's influence is addressed at all, it is considered as a matter of speculation, a mystery hardly worth thinking about when one can more easily look at the dramatic events that occurred on the surface within the Soviet Union in the last decade of its existence. The following transcript of the lecture by Sean Gervasi, delivered in 1992, shortly after the collapse, is unique and valuable for what it reveals about the significant, and perhaps decisive, American role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In his conclusion, Mr. Gervasi came to this judgment:

The Soviet Union today, in the absence of this extraordinarily crafty, well-thought-out, extremely costly strategy deployed by the Reagan administration, would be a society struggling through great difficulties. It would still be a socialist society, at least of the kind that it was. It would be far from perfect, but it would still be there, and I think, therefore, that Western intervention made a crucial difference in this situation."

The journey to how he came to this conclusion is well worth the reader's time.

A final comment about Mr. Gore's remarks: He is oblivious to the inconvenient solution that has been staring him in the face all these years: that the necessary reduction of carbon emissions will require severe constraints on capitalism, a thesis developed by Jason W. Moore in Capitalism in the Web of Life .[ii] Mr. Gore should know that a radical solution is needed. In his recent sequel to An Inconvenient Truth he complains about the undue influence of "money in politics" that has gotten so much worse over the last ten years, but that's as deep as the class analysis and ideological exploration can go in America. He evinces no awareness of the historical figures who developed answers to the problem of unaccountable private control of a nation's government, resources and productive capacities. Gore is still proud of having actively worked against a revolution in human affairs that aimed to curtail the savage capitalism that led to the present ecological catastrophe.

In spite of the flaws one might see in what the Soviet Union actually became, flaws that arose to a great extent because it had to fight against external threats throughout its existence, the goals of the revolution of 1917 are still relevant to the crises of the 21st century, and this is what makes Sean Gervasi's research so valuable now, after a quarter century in which America doubled down on its "winning ways" and worsened the crises that were evident long ago in 1992.

About Sean Gervasi

Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death.

Gervasi was an economist trained at the University of Geneva, Oxford and Cornell. His political career began when he took a post as an economic adviser in the Kennedy administration. He resigned in protest after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

After his resignation, Gervasi was never able to get work again in the United States as an economist, despite his impressive academic credentials. He became a lecturer at the London School of Economics after leaving Washington. Notwithstanding his great popularity, the school refused to renew his contract in 1965.

During the 1970s and 1980s he was an adviser to a number of governments in Africa and the Middle East, helping them navigate the hostile and predatory world of transnational corporations and megabanks. He also worked for the UN Committee on Apartheid and the UN Commission on Namibia.

In addition, Gervasi was a journalist, contributing to a wide range of publications, from the New York Amsterdam News to Le Monde Diplomatique . He was a frequent commentator on the listener-supported Pacifica radio station WBAI in New York. In 1976, Gervasi broke the story of how the U.S. government was secretly arming the apartheid regime in South Africa.

In the late 1980s, Gervasi began to focus on the Cold War and what he called the "full court press," a basketball term for a highly aggressive "all in" strategy. In an article published in the Covert Action Information Bulletin in early 1991[iii], when the breakup of the USSR was imminent, Gervasi showed how the Reagan administration's strategy of economic isolation, a gargantuan arms buildup with the threat of a nuclear attack, overt funding of internal dissent, and CIA-directed sabotage had been decisive in bringing down the USSR. Gervasi backed up his analysis with careful scholarship and documentation.

Gervasi was widely respected as a leading independent figure in the left, but his views were contrary to the fashionable dogma that attributed the USSR's collapse almost exclusively to such things as failures of leadership, centralization of the economy, the black market, Chernobyl, or independence movements, and not to external hostility. These are the subjects which he addressed in the following lecture given to a small audience in January 1992. The lecture can still be found on internet video sites, but the thesis of this lecture still remains marginal and obscure two decades later, even though it is highly pertinent to the Cold War replay that is underway in the second decade of the 21st century -- one in which Russia stands accused of turning the tables and doing a comparatively very tame version of the propaganda war waged on the USSR in the 1980s.

After 1992, Gervasi focused his attention on the breakup of Yugoslavia, which he discovered was a replay of the strategy used to break up the Soviet Union. He became active in exposing the role of external powers, particularly the U.S. and German governments, in fomenting the civil war in the Balkans. His view that the war in Bosnia was sparked by the aggressive machinations these nations, and not age-old ethnic rivalries, alienated Gervasi from much of the liberal and progressive movement. Journals to which he had once regularly contributed would no longer print his articles. He had great difficulty finding a publisher for his book on the Balkans, but some of his research on this topic can be found in the article "Why Is NATO In Yugoslavia?"[iv] published by Global Research in 2001.[v]

Dennis Riches, November 2017

***

VIDEO

[Dec 09, 2017] Hyping the Russian Threat to Undermine Free Speech by Max Blumenthal

Highly recommended!
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente) with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of 'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nov 13, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black Americans by law enforcement."

In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.

"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."

Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will end."

The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.

Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms. But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to Facebook's data , 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not exactly a viral smash.

Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts targeted "animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed " Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According to its " deliberately broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part, documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.

However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping 82 percent of Democrats that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the attacks of 9/11 . And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.

As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities. Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.

So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?

Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship

A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."

Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force.

Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.

Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.

Before Congress, a String of Deceptions

Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate, helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.

In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."

Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.

The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda, the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was named by Spanish investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.

Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and a look at his single tweet promoting the article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political divisions."

Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast transcript of his testimony) was a single link to an RT article that factually documented a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets, from the Houston Chronicle to the Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual events.

Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.

In the articles cited by Watts during his testimony, neither RT nor Sputnik made any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually every major Turkish news organization ( here , here , here and here ). What's more, the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed the severity of the event, citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover." This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.

Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.

Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.

Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court

During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures" to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.

Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.

The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal.

The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.

In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record.

When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent.

When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression. He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for defamation and libel.

Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.

The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.

FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists

Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."

Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a similar characterization of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led the charge."

FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization described by journalists Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, " The Geography of Intellect ," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising." Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational thought."

While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda. By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."

Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy. Today, he is remembered fondly on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.

The Paranoid Style

This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling. Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been mysteriously scrubbed from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable claims about Russian influence.

While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said, claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."

"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or offer any examples.

"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."

It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues. He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."

According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely unexamined.

Domestic Agent of Influence

"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."

By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."

Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have triggered congressional hearings.

Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation, this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.

In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and consular raids to arbitrary crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.

It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.

In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.

Read part two here .

Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of " Goliath ," " Republican Gomorrah ," and " The 51 Day War ." He is the co-host of the podcast, Moderate Rebels . Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal .

Related Articles

[Dec 09, 2017] The Mueller Investigation Is in Mortal Danger by Jonathan Chait

His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too.
Notable quotes:
"... The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller. ..."
"... His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too. ..."
"... When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still for such a blatant cover-up ..."
"... In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | nymag.com

The newest pseudo-scandal fixates on the role of Peter Strzok, an FBI official who helped tweak the language Comey employed in his statement condemning Clinton's email carelessness and has also worked for Mueller.

His alleged crime is a series of text messages criticizing Trump. Mueller removed Strzok from his team , but that is not enough for Trump's supporters, who are seizing on Strzok's role as a pretext to discredit and remove Mueller, too.

The notion that a law-enforcement official should be disqualified for privately expressing partisan views is a novel one, and certainly did not trouble Republicans last year, when Rudy Giuliani was boasting on television about his network of friendly agents. Yet in the conservative media, Mueller and Comey have assumed fiendish personae of almost Clintonian proportions.

When Mueller was appointed, legal scholars debated whether Trump had the technical authority to fire him, but even the majority who believed he did assumed such a power existed only in theory. Republicans in Congress, everyone believed, would never sit still for such a blatant cover-up .

Josh Blackman, a conservative lawyer, argued that Trump could remove the special counsel, but "make no mistake: Mueller's firing would likely accelerate the end of the Trump administration." Texas representative Mike McCaul declared in July, "If he fired Bob Mueller, I think you'd see a tremendous backlash, response from both Democrats but also House Republicans." Such a rash move "could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," Senator Lindsey Graham proclaimed.

In August, members of both parties began drawing up legislation to prevent Trump from sacking Mueller. "The Mueller situation really gave rise to our thinking about how we can address the current situation," explained Republican senator Thom Tillis, a sponsor of one of the bills. By early autumn, the momentum behind the effort had slowed; by Thanksgiving, Republican interest had melted away. "I don't see any heightened kind of urgency, if you're talking about some of the reports around Flynn and others," Tillis said recently. "I don't see any great risk."

In fact, the risk has swelled. Trump has publicly declared any investigation into his finances would constitute a red line, and that he reserves the option to fire Mueller if he investigates them. Earlier this month, it was reported that Mueller has subpoenaed records at Deutsche Bank , an institution favored both by Trump and the Russian spy network.

John Dowd, a lawyer for Trump, recently floated the wildly expansive defense that a "president cannot obstruct justice, because he is the chief law-enforcement officer." Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett called the investigation "illegitimate and corrupt" and declared that "the FBI has become America's secret police." Graham is now calling for a special counsel to investigate "Clinton email scandal, Uranium One, role of Fusion GPS, and FBI and DOJ bias during 2016 campaign" -- i.e., every anti-Mueller conspiracy theory. And perhaps as ominously, Trump's allies have been surfacing fallback defenses. Yes, "some conspiratorial quid pro quo between somebody in the Trump campaign and somebody representing Vladimir Putin" is "possible," allowed Wall Street Journal columnist Holman Jenkins, but "we would be stupid not to understand that other countries have a stake in the outcome of our elections and, by omission or commission, try to advance their interests. This is reality." The notion of a criminal conspiracy by a hostile nation to intervene in the election in return for pliant foreign policy has gone from unthinkable to blasé, an offense only to naïve bourgeois morality.

It is almost a maxim of the Trump era that the bounds of the unthinkable continuously shrink. The capitulation to Moore was a dry run for the coming assault on the rule of law.

[Dec 09, 2017] The Year of the Headless [neo]Liberal Chicken by C.J. Hopkins

Notable quotes:
"... Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its professional journalism) led the charge with this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website and a think tank staffed by charlatans like this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before somebody has to go in there and shoot him? ..."
"... In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US "Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring that Trump " had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also around the time when liberals first learned of the Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which Obama had allegedly slept. ..."
"... This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in 1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers" video. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Dec 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

First came the overwhelming shock of Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump, a repulsive, word salad-babbling buffoon with absolutely no political experience who the media had been portraying to liberals as the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler. This was a candidate, let's recall, who jabbered about building a "beautiful wall" to protect us from the hordes of "Mexican rapists" and other "bad hombres" who were invading America, and who had boasted about grabbing women "by the pussy" like a prepubescent 6th grade boy. While he had served as a perfect foil for Clinton, and had provided hours of entertainment in a comic book villain kind of way, the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency was inconceivable in the minds of liberals. So, when it happened, it was like the Martians had invaded.

Mass hysteria gripped the nation. There was beaucoup wailing and gnashing of teeth. Liberals began exhibiting irrational and, in some cases, rather disturbing behaviors. Many degenerated into dissociative states and just sat there with their phones for hours obsessively reloading the popular vote count, which Clinton had won, on FiveThirtyEight. Others festooned themselves with safety pins and went out looking for defenseless minorities who they could "demonstrate solidarity" with. Owen Jones flew in from London to join his colleague Steven Thrasher, who was organizing a guerilla force to resist " the normalization of Trump " and the global race war he was about to launch, which "not all of us were going to get out of alive."

In the weeks immediately following the election, the mainstream media inundated liberals with pronouncements of the advent of an " Age of Darkness " and the " Triumph of White Supremacy " over the beneficent values of Globalism. Yes, it was pretty much the end of everything . America was facing nothing less than a descent into " racial Orwellianism ," " Zionist anti-Semitism ," and " the bottomless pit of Fascism " itself. Liberals, who by then had dispensed with the safety pins, immediately set about terrorizing their children with visions of the impending holocaust , which would be carried out by the genocidal, racist monsters who had voted for Trump.

At that point, the media had been hammering hard on the Trump-is-Hitler narrative for months, so they had to stick with that for a while. It had only been a few weeks, after all, since The Wall Street Journal , The New York Times , The Washington Post , The Guardian , and numerous other establishment publications , had explained how Trump was using special fascist code words like "global elites," "international banks," and "lobbyists" to signal his virulent hatred of the Jews to the millions of Americans who, according to the media, were secretly Hitler-loving fascists.

This initial post-election propaganda was understandably somewhat awkward, as the plan had been to be able to celebrate the "Triumph of Love over the Forces of Hate," and the demise of the latest Hitlerian bogeyman. But this was the risk the ruling classes took when they chose to go ahead and Hitlerize Trump, which they wouldn't have done if they'd thought for a moment that he had a chance of actually winning the election. That's the tricky thing about Hitlerizing people. You need to be able to kill them, eventually. If you don't, when they turn out not to be Hitler, your narrative kind of falls apart, and the people you've fear-mongered into a frenzy of frothing, self-righteous fake-Hitler-hatred end up feeling like a bunch of dupes who'll believe anything the government tells them. This is why, normally, you only Hitlerize foreign despots you can kill with impunity. This is Hitlerization 101 stuff, which the ruling classes ignored in this case, which the left poor liberals terrified that Trump was actually going to start building Trump-branded death camps and rounding up the Jews.

Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its professional journalism) led the charge with this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website and a think tank staffed by charlatans like this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before somebody has to go in there and shoot him?

In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US "Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring that Trump " had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also around the time when liberals first learned of the Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which Obama had allegedly slept.

This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in 1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers" video. Putin had presumably been "running" Trump since Trump's visit to Russia in 2013 to hobnob with "Russia-linked" Russian businessmen and attend the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. During the ensuing partying, Trump must have gotten loaded on Diet Coke and gotten carried away with those Russian hookers. Now, Putin had him by the short hairs and was forcing him to staff his Manchurian cabinet with corporate CEOs and Goldman Sachs guys, who probably had also been videotaped by the FSB in Moscow hotels paying hookers to pee on furniture, or performing whatever other type of seditious, perverted kink they were into.

Before the poor liberals had time to process this, the ruling classes launched "the Resistance." You remember the Pussyhat People , don't you? And the global corporate PR campaign which accompanied their historic "Womens' March" on Washington? Do you remember liberals like Michael Moore shrieking for the feds to arrest Donald Trump ? Or publications like The New York Times , Salon , and many others, and even State Satirist Stephen Colbert accusing Trump and anyone who supported him of treason a crime, let's recall, that is punishable by death? Do you remember folks like William Kristol and Rob "the Meathead" Reiner demanding that the "deep state" launch a coup against Trump to rescue America from the Russian infiltrators?

Ironically, the roll-out of this "Russiagate" hysteria was so successful that it peaked too soon, and prematurely backlashed all over itself. By March, when Trump had not been arrested, nor otherwise removed from office, liberals, who by that time the corporate media had teased into an incoherent, throbbing state of anticipation were well, rather disappointed. By April, they were exhibiting all the hallmark symptoms of clinical psychosis. This mental breakdown was due to the fact that the media pundits and government spooks who had been telling them that Trump was Hitler, and then a Russian sleeper agent, were now telling them that he wasn't so bad , because he'd pointlessly bombed a Syrian airstrip, and dropped a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb on some alleged "terrorist caves" in Afghanistan.

As if liberals' poor brains weren't rattled enough, the corporate media then switched back to, first, the Russian Propaganda narrative (which they expanded into a global threat), then, the Hitler stuff again, but this time Trump wasn't actually Hitler, because Putin was Hitler, or at least he was fomenting Hitlerism throughout the West with his legions of fascist hacker bots who were "influencing" unsuspecting consumers with their blitzkrieg of divisive "fake news" stories. Oh, yeah, and now Putin had also done Brexit , or Trump and Robert Mercer had, but they were working for Putin, who had also hacked the French election that he hadn't hacked , or whatever this was no time to worry about what had or hadn't actually happened. The peace and prosperity President Obama had reestablished throughout the West by incessantly bombing the Greater Middle East and bailing out his pals at the Wall Street banks was being torn asunder by Vladimir Putin, who at some point had apparently metamorphosized from a ruthless, former KGB autocrat into a white supremacist megalomaniac.

Right on cue, on the weekend of August 11-12 in Charlottesville, Virginia, where there had never been any history of racism , a "national gathering" of approximately five hundred tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan types, and other white supremacists, many of them barking Nazi slogans, marched into the pages of history. Never before have so few fascists owed so much to the mainstream media, which showered them with overwrought coverage, triggering a national Nazi panic. Liberals poured into the streets, tearing down Confederate monuments, and otherwise signaling their total intolerance of the racism they had tolerated until a few days earlier. People named after Robert E. Lee , and horses named after General Lee's horse , went into hiding to until the panic subsided. This was wise, as by then the so-called anti-fascists were showing up in force at anything resembling a right-wing rally and stomping the living Hitler out of Nazis, and Trump supporters, and journalists, and well, anyone they didn't think looked quite right. This totally preemptively self-defensive, non-violent type of violent behavior, naturally, shocked and horrified liberals, who are strongly opposed to all forms of violence that aren't carried out by the US military, or the police, or someone else wearing a uniform. Unsure as to whom they were supposed to condemn, the Nazis or the Antifa terrorists, they turned for guidance to the corporate ruling classes, who informed them it was time to censor the Internet .

This made about as much sense as any of the other nonsense they'd been spoonfed so far, so liberals decided to get behind it, or at least look the other way while it happened. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter (and all the other corporations that control the Internet, the media, Hollywood, the publishing industry, and every other means of representing "reality") surely have people's best interests at heart. Plus, they're only censoring the Nazis, and the terrorists, and the Russian "fake news" disseminators, and, OK, a lot of leftist publications, and award-winning journalists , and anyone else espousing "divisive," anti-American, or anti-corporate, "extremist" views.

Look, I know what you're probably thinking, but it isn't like liberals don't actually care about fundamental liberal values like freedom of the press and speech and all that. It's just that they desperately need the Democrats to take back the House and the Senate next year, so they can get on with impeaching Trump, and if they have to stand by while the corporations suppress a little leftist dissent, or, you know, transform the entire Internet into a massive, mind-numbing echo chamber of neo-McCarthyite corporate conformity well, sacrifices have to be made.

This can't go on forever, after all. This level of full-blown mass hysteria can only be sustained for so long. It's all fine and good to be able to whip people up into a frenzied mob, but at some point you need to have an endgame. The neoliberal ruling classes know this. Their endgame is actually fairly simple. Their plan is to (a) make an example of Trump to discourage any future billionaire idiots from screwing with their simulation of democracy, and (b) demonize anyone deviating from neoliberal ideology as a fascist, racist, or anti-Semite, or otherwise "abnormal" or "extremist." Their plan is not to incinerate the entire planet in a war with Russia. We're not on the brink of World War III, despite how many Twitter likes or Facebook shares it might get me to say that. Yes, eventually, they want to force Russia to return to the kind of "cooperation" it engaged in during the 1990s, when it was run by an incorrigible drunkard and the Goldman Sachs boys and their oligarch pals were looting the country for all it was worth but that has little to do with all this.

No, the corporate ruling classes' endgame here is to reestablish neoliberal "normality," so we can get back to the War on Terror (or whatever they'll be calling it by then), and put this neo-nationalist revolt against neoliberalism episode behind us. To do that, they will need to install some sort of hopey-changey, Obama-like messiah, or at least somebody who can play the part of POTUS like a normal person and not sit around the Oval Office gobbling McDonald's and retweeting racist memes by random British fascists.

The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not colluding with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes are surely about to fall. Once they all have, and Donald Trump's head has been mounted on a spike on the White House lawn as a warning to any other potential usurpers, all this Russia and Nazi hysteria that has the poor liberals running around like headless chickens will disappear. Russia will go back to being Russia. The North American Nazi Menace, deprived of daily media coverage, will go back to being a fringe phenomenon. Liberals will go back to ignoring politics (except identity politics, naturally) and obediently serving the global capitalist ruling elites that are destroying the planet, and the lives of millions of human beings, in order to increase their profit margins. Sure, there'll be a brief emotional hangover, once the adrenaline rush wears off and they look back at their tweets and Facebook posts, which in hindsight might convey the impression that they spent the better part of a year parroting whatever insane propaganda the corporate media pumped out at them, and otherwise behaving like Good Americans but then, that's what the "delete" key is for.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

anonymous , Disclaimer December 9, 2017 at 8:51 am GMT

"The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not colluding with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes are surely about to fall."

Thanks, now I understand where Judge Napolitano is coming from.

[Dec 09, 2017] On corruption in Russia - it seems to be very bad. Not as bad as Southern Europe maybe, but not pretty.

Dec 09, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

English Outsider

,

Thank you for your valuable summary. Another part of the Colonel's site that makes SST the place, I think the only place, where it's all put together.

On corruption in Russia - it seems to be very bad. Not as bad as Southern Europe maybe, but not pretty.

A difficult subject to examine. But I remember a while ago talking to a contractor who'd done work in Saudi. He said that working over there was a real breath of fresh air. You paid the money over - there seemed to be some sort of informal tariff - and that was it. You knew where you were.

Different here, he said. It was all back door and getting to know the right people to swap favours with. You could never tell whether you'd pressed the right buttons or not, not for certain. More work and no cheaper, when you looked at it in the round.

Corruption at the bottom level here is as far as I know non-existent, not for the man in the street. I've never heard of anyone getting off a motoring offence, for example, by making sure there is money for the policeman tucked into his documents before he sets off, though there are many places abroad where that's a sensible precaution. And bribing the professor to upgrade your degree would be unthinkable here, though not in Italy. I'd be very surprised too if there were suitcases full of cash floating around in more elevated circles. Not for us the breezy free-for-all in Ireland, where a businessman can give a Taoiseach a cheque for a million on the golf course and it's such an everyday transaction that the Taoiseach can say later that yes, it did happen, but he'd never really noticed.

\

It doesn't happen here because it doesn't need to happen. There are plenty of legal ways of getting money or favours across so a suitcase merchant would be regarded, I think, as a blundering amateur. The amateurs - the MP trying to cash in by taking money for asking questions in the House and such like - get regularly exposed in the press. The people who know what they're about, never. Nothing to expose. It's all legal.

In my view the fact that we've institutionalised our corruption doesn't entitle us to point the finger. It does seem that there is a deplorable amount of straight bribery and corruption in Russia. But we're not the pot that can call that kettle black.

Beige Barbaria said in reply to English Outsider ... , 01 December 2017 at 05:57 AM
Chirac had been for decades a very corrupt politician in France - in the illegal manner that you describe - but was completely acceptable to the Western Fortress.

The Olympians of the Western Fortress have taken excellent causes such as Human Rights, International Security, Representative Government, Rule-of-Law, and Good Government and turned them into wedges against their enemies; thus gutting them from all their moral purport.

None of that is any longer worth getting excited about except International Security as it touches upon continued existence of Human Life on this planet.

Patrick Armstrong , 01 December 2017 at 05:57 AM
I agree "institutionalised corruption" is what we have a lot of in the West -- it's not illegal, but it sure looks like passing money to get something from someone in power or transforming public money into private money. I don't see anything like that in Russia (although there was a great deal of it in the 1990s and the perpetrators have been allowed to keep their loot. As long as they keep out of politics).
Grazhdanochka said in reply to Patrick Armstrong ... , 01 December 2017 at 05:57 AM
In honesty I still try and get my Head around exacts of recent Police Reforms (Most Recent Forming of National Guard and removal of Paramilitary - OMON/SOBR-OMSN from MVD along with VV ) especially as I have lived abroad many Years. DPS or GAI of old has changed over the Years and it still exists as Part of Interior Ministry... I sometimes hang around some Interesting Characters but seldom do those come into Picture.

You would be amazed to see what they do Today if you were Impressed with Work you saw then! )) Admittedly some is by increased Social Media Presence but there was Case lately - avoid hitting a Cat.... Cat climbed into the Undercarriage of Police Car so they had to lift the whole thing to get it out... They are of course pushing this Naratives - but it is indication that they are increasingly considering Public Perception.

In general I see DPS working reasonably well (Mostly I am in Moscow but I am from the South). Of course though Russians will do as Russians will do, so most expensive S600 will still cover its Plates parking on the Footpath to avoid paying the most inoffensive of Fines...

[Dec 09, 2017] Mideast Peacemaking is No Longer Made-in-America

Dec 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

As 2017 comes to a close, the warring parties in Syria are moving towards reconciliation -- but the U.S. is not among them.

The Islamic State is all but defeated, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies are now closing in on the few remaining pockets occupied by other extremists, and Iranians, Russians, and Turks are mapping out the peace to come.

Then there's America. Donald Trump may have hinted at changes up his sleeve, but he's treading the same tired path as his predecessor on Syria.

Determined to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a means to weaken Iran and re-establish U.S. regional hegemony, Barack Obama's White House placed its bets on two pathways to this goal: 1) a military strategy to wrest control over Syria from the regime, and 2) a UN-sponsored and U.S.-backed mediation in Geneva to transition Assad out.

Washington lost its military gamble when the Russian air force entered the battle in September 2015, providing both game-changing air cover and international clout to Assad's efforts.

So the U.S. turned its hand to resuscitating a limp Geneva peace process that might have delivered a Syrian political settlement sans Assad.

Instead, two years on, the tables have turned in this sphere, too. Today, it is the Iranians, Turks, and Russians leading reconciliation efforts in Syria through a process established in Astana and continued last week in Sochi -- not Geneva. The three states have transformed the ground war by isolating key extremists, carving out ceasefire zones, and negotiating deals to keep the peace.

To nobody's surprise, the Americans are neither part of this new initiative, nor have they offered any constructive counters. Meanwhile, the UN's Geneva framework, after eight rounds of talks, has not once been able to bring the two Syrian sides face-to-face at the Big Table.

To illustrate, UN Special Envoy for Syria Staffan de Mistura, who leads these talks, now says things like this with a straight face: "We have started very close proximity parallel meetings. In fact, I have been shuttling between two rooms at a distance of five meters from each other."

In short, the U.S.'s Syrian efforts have hit a brick wall, while new regional and international power brokers have stepped in to pick up the slack.

Geneva: A process designed to fail

Just one week ago, with great media fanfare, we were promised a fresh start and new twists in Syria. For the first time since the Geneva I conference launched in June 2012, we were told the opposition was "unified" and there were no "pre-conditions" that might hold up talks.

Those expectations were shattered almost immediately when various Syrian opposition members went off-message and insisted that "Assad must go" at some point during a future transition period. Unified they were not. And the Syrian government didn't hide their disgust. They arrived a day late and scurried back to Damascus just as quickly.

And here is why Geneva negotiations will never, ever get off the ground.

Firstly, the "Syrian opposition" do not actually represent "the Syrian people." Most of these individuals have been selected by foreign governments -- until recently, mainly by U.S. allies in Riyadh, Doha, Ankara -- to do their bidding in Geneva, and have been "elected" by no more than a few dozen other Syrians in foreign capitals.

UN envoy de Mistura didn't bother to hide that fact last week when he thanked the Saudis for facilitating "the establishment of a unified opposition delegation."

The UN-led process -- like the U.S. administration -- has created conditions that exclude Syria's more independent and nationalistic domestic opposition from negotiations. These are people who have largely rejected foreign intervention and the militarization of the conflict, rail against Western-imposed sanctions, and signal actual readiness to talk to Assad's government about the reforms they desire.

The Russians and Iranians have kept open channels to these individuals and groups, and many of them have beaten a path to Moscow over the years to strike compromises and seek solutions. A few even made the cut, for the first time, at this eighth round of Geneva talks.

Secondly, the Syrian opposition have lost the war -- victors decide the peace, not the vanquished. The team sitting in Geneva seems oblivious to the fact that the Syrian government and its allies have now gained an almost-irreversible military advantage on the battlefield. These are not two parties on equal footing -- and no great-power mentors in the world can change that fact.

Assad's government has said on numerous occasions that it is willing to sit with any Syrian who comes without preconditions and negotiates in good faith. Years of "reconciliations" on the ground between the government, local citizens, NGOs, friendly foreign state-guarantors, and rebel fighters lend a proven track record to those claims. This is the format for future negotiations -- it is a tested, homegrown Syrian solution, not one made-in-America-or-Riyadh.

"Ceasefires" struck in Astana

The breakthrough came in late 2016. Turkey, the main adversary state through which weapons and jihadists flowed into Syria, made a U-turn on its Syria strategy, driven by U.S. military support for Kurdish fighters in northern Syria, which Ankara views as a national security threat. Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan began a tactical engagement with Russia and Iran, and pulled Qatar and its respective Syrian rebel allies along with him. These moves tipped the balance on the battlefield, allowing the SAA and its allies to liberate Aleppo (a turning point in the war) and launch their ultimately successful campaign against ISIS.

Shortly afterward, delegations consisting of the Syrian government and a dozen opposition rebel factions convened in Astana, Kazakhstan, for indirect talks sponsored by Turkey, Iran, and Russia.

By early May, the three countries had signed a memorandum to establish four "de-escalation zones" in rebel-occupied areas in Syria. The zones cover key hotspots in northern Homs, southern Syria, eastern Ghouta, and Idlib province, and are renewable at six-month intervals. While some armed groups have rejected the concept, the de-escalation zones have largely succeeded at halting hostilities and, importantly, have helped create separation between extremists and rebels willing to participate in ceasefires.

Furthermore, for the more than two million people believed to reside in these zones, the Astana process also guarantees humanitarian and medical access, the return of displaced persons to their towns and homes, the reconstruction of vital infrastructure, and other benefits.

In July, the U.S. and Jordan joined Russia to broker the details of the southern Syrian de-escalation zone, with a joint command established in Jordan. And in September, Iran, Russia, and Turkey agreed to implement the fourth and final de-escalation zone in Idlib, a stronghold of the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra terrorist group.

In short, within eight months, four key areas of Syria demilitarized under the watch of three countries: Turkey, a major supporter of Syrian opposition militants, and Iran and Russia, both close allies of the Syrian government.

A "political solution" in Sochi next?

Ceasefires are, incidentally, one of the two primary objectives of the Geneva process. They are the military part of a Syrian solution.

The other objective is the political settlement of the Syrian conflict, envisioned by Geneva's architects as the establishment of a transitional government that would generate a revised constitution, prepare elections, and the like.

Last week, on the eve of Geneva-8, the three Astana sponsors convened in Sochi after an unexpected meeting there between Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin that appeared to signal an official Syrian approval for what came next.

In a joint statement , the presidents of Iran, Russia, and Turkey called for a "Syrian National Dialogue Congress" to be held in Sochi in the near future, consisting of the Syrian government and "the opposition that are committed to the sovereignty, independence, unity, territorial integrity and non-fractional character of the Syrian state."

While they were careful to point out that the initiative is intended to "complement" Geneva, not act as an "alternative," the statement also made clear that "Iran, Russia and Turkey will consult and agree on participants of the Congress."

Will this be another rubber-stamped opposition directed by foreign mentors? An informed source says no, "any Syrian who does not exclude him or herself can participate."

It is highly likely that hardliners and extremists will exclude themselves from the Sochi talks -- they have consistently rejected direct interactions with the Syrian government and will never accept a future with Assad at the helm. Instead, Sochi is likely to draw interest from a larger cross-section of Syrian society closer to the views of Syria's traditional domestic opposition , who were never given a chance in Geneva.

In the end, it is altogether conceivable that a final Syrian political solution will look very similar to the reforms Assad offered up in 2011 and 2012. His proposals were never given the time or space to mature and were, at the time, rejected outright by foreign governments and their Syrian allies.

But most importantly, if Sochi can finish what Geneva could never start, we will be thrust into a genuine post-American era where alternative regional actors will be able to broker globally significant peace deals.

The resolution of a conflict of this magnitude largely outside the umbrella of a UN- or U.S.-led framework breaks with the assumption that major geopolitical solutions need be made-in-America.

The most common refrain in a disgruntled Middle East today is that "Americans don't solve conflicts, they manage them."

Trump this week forever dispelled the notion that America is an honest mediator in Middle East peace efforts when he unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It is not surprising that the Saudis , Jordanians Qataris Sudanese Egyptians, and others are now beating a path to Moscow for some fresh thinking.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Mideast geopolitics based in Beirut. 12 Responses to Mideast Peacemaking is No Longer Made-in-America

No Daylight Pariah December 7, 2017 at 11:04 pm

Yeah, especially after Trump's pointless, ridiculous Jerusalem move, more negotiations and multilateral deals will be struck without US involvement. Our hyper-militarized approach to diplomacy, and a Middle East obsessed foreign policy dictated by Israel, has shocked and disgusted the world, including our actual treaty allies, who are now moving on without us.
Our Shift Is Over (finally) , says: December 7, 2017 at 11:14 pm
"But most importantly, if Sochi can finish what Geneva could never start, we will be thrust into a genuine post-American era where alternative regional actors will be able to broker globally significant peace deals."

I pray that you're right. America must disentangle itself from the legacy of failure, futility, and colossal expense of the "peace process". Let others do it. It sounds like the Turks, Russians, Qataris, and Iranians have had some success at this. Fine. Let them take over Israel / Palestine. And let the US get the hell out and come home to do some of the "America First" stuff that Trump promised. Like withdrawing our troops from the Middle East and defending our own borders with them instead.

Whine Merchant , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:00 am
Well, Kim-il-Trump has eliminated the US as a participant in any settlement. Putin and Erdogan will get whatever they want while the US stands on the sidelines, a diminishing power. Maybe Jared can get his family permission to build a few more settlements in the occupied territories, sited on a Palestinian olive grove.

All the while, Xi Jinping grows stronger as he guides China to be the last remaining superpower.

Make America Great Again [pass he fries]

MEOW , says: December 8, 2017 at 3:22 am
Very interesting article. Thank you. Having worked in the Middle East the U.S. is regarded as nothing more than a pawn of Israel. Sad but true. This by people who often have relatives and friends living well in the U.S. who understand that the shackles on U.S. foreign policy are tight and well-controlled from Tel Aviv and now Jerusalem. These people cede the goodwill of the American people and love us for it, but know the reality of decision-making is made by neocons with dubious loyalties to the U.S. Trump's Jerusalem decision will put QED to these assumptions as to who is the boss. Many of us will have lived our mortal span under this most frustrating and counter-productive phenomenon. Will future generations throw off this heavy and unbearable yolk? It will take courage.
Mccormick47 , says: December 8, 2017 at 11:17 am
After invading Iraq twice, once at the behest of the House of Saud, the second time for no reason at all, why would anyone in the Mideast listen to us about peace?
Youknowho , says: December 8, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Considering that the US has become the bull in the China shop in the area, the sooner it is out of it, the better.
This Holy Land , says: December 8, 2017 at 1:11 pm
People cut us a lot of slack because they know we're hamstrung by the Israel Lobby buying, threatening, or blackmailing our politicians. But after a while it's like the Germans and Nazism: there's the question "why didn't you do anything? It's your country. How could you let this happen?"

Now that Trump has starkly, publicly dramatized the problem by putting America at further risk of terror attacks in order to please Israel and Israel's American agents, it becomes harder for others to believe that Americans don't really know what's going on. And it becomes likelier we'll be held responsible, likelier that the rest of the world will distance itself from us, likelier that Americans will be attacked and killed.

One thing's for sure. You don't make America great again by doing what Obama called "stupid s***" for Israel.

In fact, our relationship with the modern state of Israel has been a steadily worsening burden and curse. Which suggests (to this Christian American) that the modern state that calls itself "Israel" is not the Israel that the Bible says we should bless. He is punishing us, His people, Americans, and our land, America, with war and staggering costs for worshiping the false idol of "Israel".

midtown , says: December 8, 2017 at 1:41 pm
This is all good news for the United States and its citizens. Not so much for the war party of McCain and Romney.
Alex , says: December 8, 2017 at 1:43 pm
The US has never had any influence in Syria whereas Russia always had. So, I do not understand what all that noise is about.

BTW, it was not the US who started all that mess in Syria. It was a civil/religious war.

Michael Kenny , says: December 8, 2017 at 1:56 pm
The weakness in all this is that Putin has bogged himself down irreversibly in Syria, just as the Soviets did in Afghanistan and for exactly the same reason. Putin has made himself Assad's protector and must now prop him up for all time and against all comers. The US can lower the boom on him at any time by simply re-launching the war, for example, as a terrorist campaign which can penetrate all the way up to the Mediterranean coast and inflict casualties directly on the Russians.
Janwaar Bibi , says: December 8, 2017 at 4:17 pm
Trump this week forever dispelled the notion that America is an honest mediator in Middle East peace efforts when he unilaterally recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital. It is not surprising that the Saudis, Jordanians, Qataris, Sudanese, Egyptians, and others are now beating a path to Moscow for some fresh thinking.

This is excellent news. One reason why the US felt free to attack country after country at the behest of its Israeli and Saudi masters is that after the collapse of the USSR, there were no countries left to challenge its actions. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

If Russia and China can provide a counterweight to US power, the likelihood of the US behaving like a rogue nation goes down drastically, and that will be good for everyone, the US included.

PR Doucette , says: December 8, 2017 at 4:38 pm
While some reasonable long term level of peace in Syria would be a welcome outcome of these negotiations, it will be interesting to see how far Assad is willing to go in ceding power away from himself and the minority Alawites who have historically held many of the senior positions in the Syrian government and military if this is what is required to get a peace agreement. Whatever is agreed it seems likely the Syrian people will have to accept the presence of the Russian military for years to come.

[Dec 08, 2017] Did the FBI, CIA and NSA conspired to destroy Donald Trump?

Notable quotes:
"... You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous. ..."
"... This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Publius Tacitus -> sbjonez... , 06 December 2017 at 10:35 AM

You are correct that there is no public source yet confirming the FBI paid Steele. However, the FBI's refusal to turn over relevant documents regarding their relationship with Steele tells me there was money paid. What is indisputable is that th information in the dossier was used as a predicate to seek permission from a FISA court to go after Trump and his team. That is outrageous.

Sylvia 1 , 06 December 2017 at 12:48 PM

This is increasingly my take as well -- the FBI, CIA and NSA do seem to have "conspired" to destroy Donald Trump. I finger Brennan, Clapper, Susan Rice, Benjamin Rhodes, and maybe Samantha Power as being involved in the flood of illegal leaks earlier in the year that did so much to pave the way for Mueller's appointment.

What I fail to understand is why Democrats are sitting back and cheering as these agencies work together to destroy a duly elected President of the USA. Does anyone really believe that if these agencies get away with it this time they will stop with Trump?
All these agencies are out of control and are completely unaccountable.

blue peacock , 07 December 2017 at 12:18 AM
Publius Tacitus
The real story is that the FBI, the NSA and the CIA effectively conspired to try to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump.

How can this conspiracy be investigated? Who could do it? Clearly not anyone from the DoJ, FBI, CIA and NSA as they are fully compromised.

[Dec 08, 2017] What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.

Notable quotes:
"... What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China. ..."
"... He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen); ..."
"... he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well. ..."
"... He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

WJ , 05 December 2017 at 08:16 PM

Sir,

What is your take on this fellow Peter P. Strzok II? His back history is purportedly Georgetown, Army Intelligence (his father PP Strzok I is Army Corp of Engineers), and was until recently deputy director of counterintelligence at FBI with focus on Russia and China.

He is the fellow who altered Comey's draft to read "extremely careless" instead of "grossly negligent", he interviewed HRC, Mills, Abedin (and gave the latter two immunity); he pushed for the continued payment of Steele in the amount of $50,000 for further Dossier research in the face of some resistance (cf James Rosen);

he also interviewed Flynn, and for most of the first half of 2017 and for all of 2016 appears to have been the most important and influential agent working on the HRC-Trump-Russia nexus. James Rosen suggests he has CIA connections as well.

The dude has also no internet presence. There is not much information out there on a person who seems to be pretty influential in DC / FBI / Foreign Intel circles.

He screwed up, and a lawyer, sent texts, and now is gone. Does he strike you as fishy at all, or is this kind of stuff pretty common for people in his field and position.

turcopolier , 05 December 2017 at 09:36 PM
WJ

I know nothing of him other than what is in the press but his partisan interference in investigations appears to be a blot on the honor of the FBI but then I am old fashioned. pl

fanto said in reply to WJ... , 05 December 2017 at 10:51 PM
WJ,
I first learned about this man from a comment of David Habakkuk (in an earlier post) and was curious to learn more about him. As you point out, ´internet is not your friend´ in his case. Your comment gives so far the most information about his doings. Thank you. According to David Habakkuk that surname is polish, but it possibly be other slavic origin as well ( possibly Jidish ?)
The Twisted Genius -> WJ... , 05 December 2017 at 11:27 PM
WJ,

Given Strzok's career, I wouldn't expect to find much, if anything, about him on the internet. If he spent his career working "in the shadows," he rightly would have stayed off the internet. He certainly would have had CIA connections if he was involved in CI activities targeting Russian and China. Anyone actively working in a classified environment would be grossly negligent to allow himself to be plastered all over the internet. Why do you think I still use a light cover of TTG just to post here years after retiring? It's just force of habit.

I was glad to hear that Mueller banished him to HR as soon as his anti-Trump emails were discovered. If he stayed, he would have cast an ugly shadow over the Mueller investigation. It's much like the partisan shadow extending over much of the NY FBI office. Their pro-Trump/anti-Clinton stance was notorious. I also think the FBI should review the entire Clinton email server file in light of this.

rjj said in reply to The Twisted Genius ... , 06 December 2017 at 12:20 PM
Don't know how bureaucracies work in DC. Remembering how placement in HR was a goal for activists. HR is obscure and unglamorous - how is it banishment for someone with an agenda who works in the shadows?

[Dec 08, 2017] Trump Is Bashing The 'Salvator Saudi' - Why

Notable quotes:
"... Trump has just declared that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Did the administration expect the applause of the Saudis for its breaking of international law with regards to Jerusalem? Does it lash out to the Saudis to get their agreement? ..."
"... If so the miscalculation is clearly on the U.S. side. It is impossible for the Saudis to concede the Haram al-Sharif, the mosque on the so called temple mount, to the Zionists. The Saudi King would no longer be the "custodian of the two holy mosques" in Mecca and Medina but the "seller of the third holy mosque" of Islam in Jerusalem. The people would kill him and his whole family. ..."
"... My pet hypothesis is Trump's recognizing Jerusalem was the bone he was willing to throw the Israelis after his generals told him attacking Iran would be catastrophic for the US military and world economy. The Saudis, who are as rabid about bombing Iran as the Zionists, were pissed as they probably had been led to believe the attack was a matter of time. ..."
"... That sacked FM - Is that the little fellow that Col Lang calls "The Chihuahua"? ..."
"... Saudi in all likelihood were not part of the Jerusalem declaration. Israeli sources spread a plan they said was agreed to by Saudi, trying to embarrass them. ..."
"... Jerusalem: The reaction is deeper than expected. Not in the way of street, easily contained, violence, but by a gut reaction of the whole ME..The religious aspect seems to have been totally ignored by the US. Removing one of the major symbols of about 1.2 billion people - is not going to go down well. ..."
"... wahabbi is a tavistock british demented fiendish virus injected into islam for gang counter gang pseudogang hagel control ..."
"... I do wonder...knowing that real or false-flag violence could ensue against Israeli or US targets, it could be a useful pretext for the US waging war in the ME against Hezbullah or anyone else we accuse. With our intelligence agencies providing the "evidence" and a compliant media to sell it, as usual a majority of Americans would support it. ..."
"... This Jerusalem declaration has me genuinely scared. Violence (real or false flag) could be the expected Reaction to this Problem, resulting in the long-planned Solution of finishing off MENA. If Russia is sincere in its alliance with Syria and Iran, and interest in a multi-polar world with self-determination for sovereign nations, this war could easily escalate to the End Timer's dreamt of Final Battle of Armageddon. ..."
"... Most of the MSM coverage of Reactions I've seen name Muslim/Arab countries as opposing, and others as "concerned," even though almost all official state responses have denounced President Trump's® declaration. This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is not encouraging. ..."
"... something stinks in trumptoon. really small world what are the chances A. whenever Donald Trump has left the White House and ventured anywhere, Dmitry Rybolovlev (aka the "Russian King of Fertilizer") has tended to show up in the same city. The latter possibility has long been bolstered by the fact that Trump sold Rybolovlev a mansion a few years ago that neither of them lived in nor cared about, suggesting the sale was mere cover for shifting money from Russia to Trump. ..."
"... Western media called Putin unpredictable, but that was because he could see moves that others didn't see. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Just the day before the administration leaked to the WSJ about the art deal, President Trump had publicly scolded MbS about the situation in Yemen:

President Trump called on Saudi Arabia to lift its crushing blockade against its war-torn neighbor Yemen on Wednesday, hours after defying the kingdom and saying the U.S. would recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel .

In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Trump said he had directed members of his administration to reach out to the Saudi leadership "to request that they completely allow food, fuel, water, and medicine to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need it."

Today Secretary of State Tillerson again pushed that line :

Speaking in Paris on Friday, Rex Tillerson, US secretary of state, called on Saudi Arabia to be "measured" in its military operations in Yemen.
...
Tillerson urged Saudi restraint.

"With respect to Saudi Arabia's engagement with Qatar, how they're handling the Yemen war that they're engaged in, the Lebanon situation, we would encourage them to be a bit more measured and a bit more thoughtful in those actions to, I think, fully consider the consequences," he said.

He once again demanded a "complete end" to the Saudi-led blockade of Yemen so that humanitarian aid and commercial supplies could be delivered.

Embarrassing MbS about the art buy and publicly(!) scolding hm for the situation in Yemen, for which the U.S. is just as much responsible as the Saudis, is quite an assault. What has MbS done - or not done - to deserve such a punishment?

Trump has just declared that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Did the administration expect the applause of the Saudis for its breaking of international law with regards to Jerusalem? Does it lash out to the Saudis to get their agreement?

If so the miscalculation is clearly on the U.S. side. It is impossible for the Saudis to concede the Haram al-Sharif, the mosque on the so called temple mount, to the Zionists. The Saudi King would no longer be the "custodian of the two holy mosques" in Mecca and Medina but the "seller of the third holy mosque" of Islam in Jerusalem. The people would kill him and his whole family.

If the issue of this public hustle it is not Jerusalem, what else might it be that the Trump administration wants and the Saudis can not, or are not willing to concede?

A few hours ago the Saudi King fired his ankle biting Foreign Minster Adel al-Jubair. A relative of the king, Khaled bin Salman, will take the job. Is this related to the spat with Trump?

arbetet , Dec 8, 2017 3:02:14 PM | 1

This came up:
Breaking: Saudi FM allegedly sacked by regime

The Saudi Foreign Minister, 'Adel Al-Jubeir, has been allegedly sacked by the Kingdom's regime, several prominent political activists reported this evening.

According to the claims, Jubeir was fired and replaced by a close confidant of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman.

The confidant that is allegedly replacing Jubeir is none other than Prince Khaled bin Salman, the Crown Prince's brother.

The Saudi regime has yet to confirm or deny these rumors.

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-saudi-fm-allegedly-sacked-regime/

Madderhatter67 , Dec 8, 2017 3:14:21 PM | 2
It was Jerusalem. They were not willing to sacrifice Jerusalem.
Quentin , Dec 8, 2017 3:20:29 PM | 3
Where does MbS's interpretation of Salvator Mundi come from. The Saudi's have something with crystal orbs, like the one Trump so fondly stroked in Riyadh after giving a masterful interpretation of the sword dance.
BX , Dec 8, 2017 3:20:30 PM | 4
Yes. It is puzzling what is going on between MbS and the Trump administration. I was sure MbS, the reformer, secretly okayed the Jerusalem move. His negative statement might be just theater, I figured. But I am not so sure anymore. Yes, MbS wants a peace deal (any deal with "peace" written on it) between Palestinians and Israelis. But both he and Trump/Kushner are novices in politics and diplomacy (and that ain't the same as getting a deal for a new tower) and absolutely underestimated the effort. Totally.

Word is that Kushner made Trump delay delivering his campaign promise because he needed more time for his peace plan (and that would be 6 months???). This is the level they are at. And now, they placed an obvious obstacle in the path go their peace plan - out of folly. Complete folly. Because Trump wanted to deliver. I believe they are already backtracking as good as they can. But the damage is done. I think Palestinians were just waiting for a good opportunity/reason to get rid of the US in the process and found it now. Also, the single state solution is being talked about.

The source for the WSJ need not be the Trump administration in the narrow sense but some stray intelligence official ("U.S. intelligence reports") wanting to throw a wrench because that story is absolutely damaging. Absolutely, because it is embarrassing and I don't think MbS enjoys that. Note, the story began to become known around the time it became obvious Trump would not sign the waiver and reached its epitome (WSJ) just after that. Trump set himself up for this.

Don Wiscacho , Dec 8, 2017 3:38:33 PM | 5
My pet hypothesis is Trump's recognizing Jerusalem was the bone he was willing to throw the Israelis after his generals told him attacking Iran would be catastrophic for the US military and world economy. The Saudis, who are as rabid about bombing Iran as the Zionists, were pissed as they probably had been led to believe the attack was a matter of time. In order to remind them of their position and get them on board with the "peace" deal Tillerson has been hinting about, they've been turning the screws on MBS as a taste of what's to come if he puts up stink about the wonderful Kushner- concocted "plan".
fx , Dec 8, 2017 3:42:39 PM | 6
$450 mil... MbS's Egyptian torturer-in-chief must have just torn a few princely nails and whip a few feet for that, just a few days' worth of "anti-corruption" "campaigning".

Wait, wasn't the Saudi populace all behind MbS because he was going to spend the money on them? If there is no bread, let them non-royals eat paint.

somebody , Dec 8, 2017 3:56:36 PM | 7
About the picture - after the shake down of Saudi Arabia's rich princes MBS must have a lot of enemies. Some of these princes might have been close to the Trump administration.
Bart Hansen , Dec 8, 2017 4:01:43 PM | 8
That sacked FM - Is that the little fellow that Col Lang calls "The Chihuahua"?
somebody , Dec 8, 2017 4:09:19 PM | 9
Good Patrick Cockburn article on the mess .

Gazan military groups are warming up to a rocket competition. I am sure the real stuff is not involved yet. What were they thinking? That people did not take the chance to unite on the only issue they all agree on?

4
I agree, Saudi in all likelihood were not part of the Jerusalem declaration. Israeli sources spread a plan they said was agreed to by Saudi, trying to embarrass them.

stonebird , Dec 8, 2017 4:54:47 PM | 10
MbS is in it for himself, no one else. Leave him aside for the moment.

However, Trump probably thought he had a marvellous peace plan for Palestine which he would show the world.... errr... tomorrow. This was supposed to have the backing of the Saudis and the Israelis and all the other ME "actors" would be lined up behind MbS.

ie. Saudis would provide the backing, which included the "Arab" states as per the recent gathering of them all (excluding Iran and Iraq). Abbas would be blackmailed to go along in order to keep his position (Moneywise), and the Palestinians as well - but by the withholding of funds. (New vote in Congress).

Leaks of the plan (unverified) suggest that the PA's would be held in walled-in isolated camps, with all contact subject to the harassement and nightly raids of the IDF, the land still open to theft by settlers (this has been "legalised" in Israel !) and so on. ie they get nothing except a tissue-paper "treaty" . They seem not to have even been consulted by Kushner and the Israelis. ie who possibly expected to be able to impose whatever Netanyahu and the Israeli Generals might allow.

BUT, when have either the US or Israel kept to an agreement - never. and the PA's and the rest of the ME know it.

Jerusalem: The reaction is deeper than expected. Not in the way of street, easily contained, violence, but by a gut reaction of the whole ME..The religious aspect seems to have been totally ignored by the US. Removing one of the major symbols of about 1.2 billion people - is not going to go down well.

Those countries with a large Palestinian refugee population, either fear them, or may be outnumbered if there are more arriving (Jordan), or will find that they now have a potential source of militants at their disposal.. (Syria?, Lebanon?). The Syrians and Lebanese have not let the Palestinians get more arms - yet, as they might have become targets themselves. But, there have been PA's in the Syrian counter-terrorist forces, even when Yarmouk camp was held by Daesh (or one of the others).

So I think that the "bit" players have got cold feet. They cannot go along with the eradication of the Palestinians or their confinement to concentrated internement camps such as Gaza, whose conditions are WORSE that prisons. Otherwise the whole "Rulers-People and the power-structures that keep them in place" would be in jeopardy.
......
The Leonardo ? .... acquiring "class" by buying expensive "cultural" artifacts. You can buy a lot of "class" with $450.3 million.

psychohistorian , Dec 8, 2017 5:06:51 PM | 11
I think that answer to b's question has a lot to do with trying to incite war in the ME

I think that SA does not want to be the global elite's proxy in a war with Iran....especially to start/incite the war.

It really is becoming a public spectacle and that plays into the desire of the masses to see such incompetence writ large.

I entreat everyone's spirits to keep these kooks away from the nukes.

Jef , Dec 8, 2017 5:17:11 PM | 12
Yo b or any of the commentariat - Any speculation as to the connection to the Russian Oilagarck....you know, follow the money?
Scotch Bingeington , Dec 8, 2017 5:18:55 PM | 13
Maybe that canvas Jesus is meant to be a hostage one day, potentially.
terry tibbs , Dec 8, 2017 5:26:21 PM | 14
a simple question who gets the 100s of millions? who is the seller? the fake painting is cover for a payoff or tribute yes no maybe friends of kushner own the painting maybe it is to help kushner and his 666 moloch tower block mortgage. the bank of gorge soros must need some fund back quick for a new hungary regime change operation.

wahabbi is a tavistock british demented fiendish virus injected into islam for gang counter gang pseudogang hagel control

uae and the house of saud are donmeh jews
satanist hate jesus.
simply google talmud quotes about jesus and all will become clear.

Kabobyak , Dec 8, 2017 5:27:13 PM | 15
As to how the Jerusalem actions play out, the posting here (MOA) a couple of days ago was informative as to reasons and timing (including info about Sheldon Adelson's hundred million to Trump campaign). I do wonder...knowing that real or false-flag violence could ensue against Israeli or US targets, it could be a useful pretext for the US waging war in the ME against Hezbullah or anyone else we accuse. With our intelligence agencies providing the "evidence" and a compliant media to sell it, as usual a majority of Americans would support it.
Daniel , Dec 8, 2017 5:37:14 PM | 16
Great stuff, b et al. This Jerusalem declaration has me genuinely scared. Violence (real or false flag) could be the expected Reaction to this Problem, resulting in the long-planned Solution of finishing off MENA. If Russia is sincere in its alliance with Syria and Iran, and interest in a multi-polar world with self-determination for sovereign nations, this war could easily escalate to the End Timer's dreamt of Final Battle of Armageddon.

Most of the MSM coverage of Reactions I've seen name Muslim/Arab countries as opposing, and others as "concerned," even though almost all official state responses have denounced President Trump's® declaration. This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is not encouraging.

Flatulus , Dec 8, 2017 6:09:23 PM | 17
Terry Tibbs 14 - The family trust of Rybolovlev is the seller of the painting. Rybolovlev was also a buyer of Trump estate in Florida previously.
psychohistorian , Dec 8, 2017 6:22:05 PM | 18
@ Daniel ending with "This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is not encouraging." That is exactly what they want you to focus on as a narrative rather than the simple truth about the demise of private banking. On the previous thread about the Republican: Ryan deficit BS there was a commenter ex-SA with a John H. Hotson link that I want to see go viral because it simply explains the history of the Gordian Knot we face as a species

The link to a 1996 article: Understanding Money by John H. Hotson. The take away quote

"Banking came into existence as a fraud. The fraud was legalized and we've been living with the consequences, both good and bad, ever since. Even so it is also a great invention-right up there with fire, the wheel, and the steam engine."

Clash of Civilizations is as vapid a meme as the common understanding of the Capitalism myth as that article so clearly states. Spread his word far and wide to wake up the zombies. It is time!

terry tibbs , Dec 8, 2017 6:45:52 PM | 19

17
something stinks in trumptoon. really small world what are the chances A. whenever Donald Trump has left the White House and ventured anywhere, Dmitry Rybolovlev (aka the "Russian King of Fertilizer") has tended to show up in the same city. The latter possibility has long been bolstered by the fact that Trump sold Rybolovlev a mansion a few years ago that neither of them lived in nor cared about, suggesting the sale was mere cover for shifting money from Russia to Trump.

Deutsche Bank in Germany busted for laundering more than ten billion dollars out of Russia and into places like New York. This stood out because Deutsche has also loaned more than a billion dollars to Donald Trump, who just happens to be based out of New York.

james , Dec 8, 2017 6:56:26 PM | 20
thanks b.. fascinating.. i wait for the next shoe to drop.. it's coming... hopefully we get the back story on this sooner then later..

i would think the timing of Foreign Minster Adel al-Jubair being fired has something to do with all this.. he revealed something that he wasn't supposed to? i would also imagine those heavies still hanging at the saudi ritz carlton might be pulling some strings from behind the scenes? meanwhile mbz is doing a hell of a fine apprentice with mbs, lol..

nice pic in the post btw!! clown prince as savior of ksa, lol...

jezabeel , Dec 8, 2017 7:02:46 PM | 21
Belief in Jerusalem as the Jew capital is the same as belief in the intrinsic value of fiat currency, or the exceptionalism of the US. It's just mental illness. The Kingdom of God is within you, not in temples of stone and wood. We'd be better just cultivating our own personal relationship with our higher selves and leave the deluded to scrap it out over ash and sand. That said, if someone with a big nose came to my door and said my house was going to get knocked down because Shalom etc, that would be the day I would have to really figure out how to proceed without becoming the necessary victim in another's persecutor drama complex. I guess that's what Palestinians have to deal with every day. Horrible situation.

I heard a story once that when the British were throwing the Aborigines of Australia off cliffs en masse in their Australian version of the Middle East story of dispossession and demonization, the Aborigines would look up calmly at the officers as they fell and in their own language say: "You have a problem, bro". Sometimes death is better than becoming a victim. And as a worshiper of Lord Shiva the Destroyer, I wish you all completely liberating and renewing deaths from yourselves.

terry tibbs , Dec 8, 2017 7:08:16 PM | 22
probably nothing kosher burger. Russian Oligarch Rybolovlev Saved Trump Financially.
https://new.euro-med.dk/20170314-russian-oligarch-rybolovlev-saved-trump-financially-courier-of-the-tsar-putin-to-president-trump.php

Confirmed: Rybolovlev's Jet & Yacht were in Dubrovnik the same time as Ivanka and Jared Kushner

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/3/17/1644558/-Confirmed-Rybolovlev-s-Jet-Yacht-were-in-Dubrovnik-the-same-time-as-Ivanka-and-Jarred-Kushner

elsi , Dec 8, 2017 7:20:02 PM | 23
But, has not The Donald declared that this media NYT, Bloomberg , etc...were all "fake news"? Then why is anybody going to trust them when publishing whatever?
Sounds quite clumsy, or simply, demential ( as every move of this administration ) to try to leak something through those media you have widely discredited during all your election campaign and beyond....

I, by a norm, do not trust any move coming from Trump could be for any good. This is, simply, "smoke and mirrors" and an intent of whitewashing a bit the already deplorable image of this admnistration in front of the world wide reaction in rejection of his bold and clumsy declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the Zionist regime.
The same for the clearly hypocritical call for to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni people, just another intent of whitewashing when they are main puppet-masters in that war torn country, as it happens with every conflict in the world.

What it is beyond me is that the Russians, are always amongst those who swallow this theater plays....I wonder why....

In front of the demential way this administration makes fun of every event, people, country... in the world, in spite of the suffering they could inflict on them, I concur with Terry in that this just could be some esotheric issue more proper of unoccupied people with too much money to waste. Most probably something involving "Damian" Kushner, his 666,Madison Avenue penthouse and an occult message from The Messiah in the reverse of the canvas of that Jesus paint with a codified message on the results of the coming final battle of Armaggedon amongst the forces of evil and those of good, when Russia will be santified as the real Promised Land and The Saker will be ( finally! ) crowned as the saint he always claimed to be along with Saint Nicolas Romanov, and they will all eat sardinas together with the Trumps, the Kushners and the Netanyahus in Mar a Lago or in the super-yatch of Abramovich during the summer, but in winter they will go together to Sochi´s Putin dacha, since they love to meet super-intelligent, well educated, cool people....well, the elite of everything...

The surviving Arabs and the rest of us, plebeian ignorant clumsy sinners not so white as them, ( what they call "the sheeple", vaya )we will continue working from sunrise to sunset for crumbs, but, who cares? We will continue having good times with our peers and loved ones and laughing as usual with the little things of real life...Do not despair....

elsi , Dec 8, 2017 7:25:15 PM | 24
This is the real Christmas spirit of The Donald, alias Orange Agent Dotard : https://www.rebelion.org/imagenes/p_08_12_2017.jpg
elsi , Dec 8, 2017 7:44:26 PM | 25
The poster above was drawn by Basque artist Josetxo Ezcurra
Peter AU 1 , Dec 8, 2017 7:46:42 PM | 26
Western media called Putin unpredictable, but that was because he could see moves that others didn't see. Erdogan looked unpredictable and irrational while moving from the hedgemon to the multi-polar world. Trump? Like Erdogan, trying to move US to the multi polar world? Too many moves he makes puts sand in the hedgemon's gears.
elsi , Dec 8, 2017 8:15:30 PM | 27
For you to see that all this is not but theater, look what worries them most, meanwhile, in The Vatican: Pope Francis supports the idea of changing a phrase in the Lord's Prayer

[Dec 08, 2017] Mueller Charges Against Flynn Exonerate Trump of Russian Collusion by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The news of Mike Flynn's plea agreement with special prosecutor Robert Mueller was trumpeted on the media as if Flynn had admitted to killing Kennedy or had unprotected sex with Vladimir Putin. But once I took time to read the actual agreement I realized, not surprisingly, the the media lynch mob was blinded by hatred and unwilling to think objectively or fairly about the matter. The evidence exonerates Donald Trump of having colluded with the Russians but does expose Michael Flynn as a man of terrible judgment when it comes to talking to the FBI. There was nothing that Flynn did with the Russians that was wrong or improper.

Here are the key details for you to judge for yourself:

STATEMENT OF THE OFFENSE ( link )

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the United States of America and the defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, stipulate and agree that the following facts are true and accurate. These facts do not constitute all of the facts known to the parties concerning the charged offense; they are being submitted to demonstrate that sufficient facts exist that the defendant committed the offense to which he is pleading guilty.

1. The defendant, MICHAEL T. FLYNN, who served as a surrogate and national security advisor for the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump ("Campaign"), as a senior member of President-Elect Trump's Transition Team ("Presidential Transition Team"), and as the National Security Advisor to President Trump, made materially false statements and omissions during an interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") on January 24, 2017, in Washington, D.C. At the time of the interview, the FBI had an open investigation into the Government of Russia's ("Russia") efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia, and whether there was any coordination between the Campaign and Russia's efforts.

2. FLYNN's false statements and omissions impeded and otherwise had a material impact on the FBI's ongoing investigation into the existence of any links or coordination between individuals associated with the Campaign and Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

False Statements Regarding FLYNN's Request to the Russian Ambassador that Russia Refrain from Escalating the Situation in Response to U.S. Sanctions against Russia

[Dec 08, 2017] AMERICA-HYSTERICA

Notable quotes:
"... Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".) ..."
"... The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

AMERICA-HYSTERICA I. It's not working. 52% believe it's better to have Russia on "our side" than not ; 76% of Republicans and 51% of independents agree but only 29% of Democrats. (I presume Dems find it easier to believe that Trump won because Putindunnit than that he beat their candidate fair and square). It's not working in Europe either: another poll show large majorities in Germany, Poland, France and UK would like better relations with Russia . But the effluent is still pumped out: " weaponised information ". (As a readers' guide to this sort of thing, you won't go wrong assuming that whatever US/NATO accuse Russia of doing, they are actually doing. For example, the Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".)

AMERICA-HYSTERICA II. " FBI and Justice Department officials have told congressional investigators in recent days that they have not been able to verify or corroborate the substantive allegations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign outlined in the Trump dossier. " The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway.

[Dec 08, 2017] Flynn's Sin Was Lying To Liars, Not Colluding With Russians by Ilana Mercer

Notable quotes:
"... An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare them. ..."
"... This kind of entrapment -- the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in Flynn's case about a non-crime -- is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18, in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make " a materially false " statement to a federal official -- even when one is not under oath. ..."
"... He said, she said, he lied, she lied, dog barked, and cat miavd. Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki leaks, all investigation is only waste of time, and waste of money. Actually this investigation is a crime against US Government, because it impedes the normal functioning of US government ..."
"... A weird country, the USA. Do not know of any other country that has a law against contacts with a specified other country, a law making it impossible to interfere with price settinng in the pharmaceutical industry, and a law permitting an invasion of the Netherlands, in case a USA citizen is held in The Hague for trial by the International Court, to liberate the accused. ..."
"... Flynn's sin was to think he could engage in ME diplomacy for Israel and not get caught. When he did, he got tossed under the bus so that the corrupt and savage MSM could keep screaming Russiagate while forgetting to mention that this affair is now IsraeliGate. ..."
"... That the FBI is a rogue Deep State entity and Michael Flynn is a self-aggrandizing Beltway war-monger (i.e., not decent) are not disjoint. ..."
"... Flynn only wanted to make nice with Russia as a process tactic for fueling more war in the Middle East, paid for of course by American taxpayers. Whether the FBI or the cabal of war-monger militarists whispering in Trump's ear – there are no "good guys". ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Retired US Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn's sin was lying to liars , not colluding with Russians.

When he spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, following Donald Trump's 2016 election, former National Security Advisor Flynn was discharging a perfectly legal and patriotic duty to the electorate.

In a fit of pique, then-President Barack Obama had expelled Russian diplomats from the United States. K. T. McFarland, Flynn's deputy in the Trump transition team, worried that Obama's expulsion of the diplomats was aimed at " boxing Trump in diplomatically, " making it impossible for the president to "improve relations with Russia," a promise he ran on. For her perspicacity, McFarland has since been forced to lawyer-up in fear for her freedom.

To defuse President Obama's spiteful maneuver, Flynn spoke to Ambassador Kislyak, the upshot of which was that Russia "retaliated" by inviting US diplomats and their families to the Kremlin for a New Year's bash.

A jolly good diplomatic success, wouldn't you say?

Present at the Kislyak meeting was Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law. Kushner likely instructed Flynn to ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council's favorite pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements. Kushner, however, is protected by Daddy and the First Daughter, so getting anything on Jared will be like frisking a seal.

One clue as to the extent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's violations, here, is that Flynn had committed no crime. Laying the cornerstone for the president-elect's promised foreign policy -- diplomacy with Russia -- is not illegal.

Perversely, however, lying to the US Federal Government's KGB (the FBI), a liar in its own right, is illegal.

The US Government enjoys a territorial monopoly over justice. If you doubt this, pray tell to which higher judicial authority can Flynn appeal to have his state-designated "criminal" label reconsidered or rescinded? Where can he go to recover his standing?

Nowhere.

By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man and many like him into common criminals.

An easy way for the government to create criminality where there is none is to make it a crime to lie to its agents, in this case the FBI, which is Deep State Central. The object of creating bogus categories of crime, naturally, is to leverage power over adversaries; to scare them.

Likewise was Martha Stewart imprisoned -- not for the offense of insider trading, but for lying to her inquisitors. During interrogation, the poor woman had been so intimidated, so scared of conviction -- wouldn't you? -- that she fibbed. The lead federal prosecutor in her case was the now-notorious James B. Comey. (See "Insider Trading Or Information Socialism?" )

This kind of entrapment -- the criminalization of the act of lying to the government, in Flynn's case about a non-crime -- is facilitated under the unconstitutional Section 1001 of Title 18, in the United States Code. It makes it an offense to make " a materially false " statement to a federal official -- even when one is not under oath.

It's perfectly fine, however, for said official to bait and bully a private citizen into fibbing. By such tactics, The State has created a category of crime from which a select few are exempt.

Is this equality under the law or inequality under the law?

Section 1001 neatly accommodates a plethora of due-process violations.

Yet another tool in the Deep State toolbox is to lean on family members in order to extract a confession. To get Flynn senior to confess, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller is purported to have threatened Mike Flynn junior with a legal kneecapping.

Ultimately, The State has overwhelming power when compared to the limited resources and power of an accused. The power differential between The State and an accused means he or she, as the compromised party, will cop a plea. The Flynn guilty plea bargain, if you will, is nothing more than a negotiated deal which subverts the very goal of justice: the search for truth.

In the process of hammering out an agreement that pacified a bloodthirsty prosecutor, Flynn's punishment for doing nothing wrong has been reduced. President Trump's former national security adviser will still have to sell his home to defray the costs of a federal onslaught. Is this the rule of law, or the law of rule? The question is a rhetorical one.

Ilyana_Rozumova , December 8, 2017 at 1:13 am GMT

He said, she said, he lied, she lied, dog barked, and cat miavd. Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki leaks, all investigation is only waste of time, and waste of money. Actually this investigation is a crime against US Government, because it impedes the normal functioning of US government.
exiled off mainstreet , December 8, 2017 at 1:26 am GMT
I fully concur with the commentary. Once the Martha Stewart case went forward and this "law" was not challenged, my view, at that time and since, was that the yankee imperium had entered the post-rule of law era. This is amply shown by the use this "law" has been put to. In the end, it was creeping extra-legal fascism that destroyed the rule of law in the US, not creeping socialism as was feared by certain elements in the '60s. The existence and enforcement of this provision is an affront to basic decency and the rule of law, and the legitimacy of any state which upholds such an extra-legal provision is non-existent.
geokat62 , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

Flynn's Sin Was Lying to Liars, Not Colluding with Russians

Why not write an article with the title, Kushner's Sin Was Colluding with Israelis, Not Lying to Liars ?

neutral , December 8, 2017 at 8:08 am GMT
@Ilyana_Rozumova

Unless they prove that there was a money transfer from Russia or from Trump camp to Wiki leaks

Even if this is the case, why should this be a big deal? It's hardly a secret that US politicians take bribes, ahem I meant political donations, from Israel, Saudi Arabia, China and probably many others. Before one takes this farce of selectively law enforcement seriously there needs to be a massive cleanup of root and branch of the entire US regime before any of this can be seen as legitimate.

Mark James , December 8, 2017 at 8:47 am GMT
Was this Ilana's piece? I could have sworn I was reading Alan Dershowitz. Which is not a good thing. Many observers feel Zionist Alan has gone round-the-bend in his analysis.

Anyone feeling sorry for the wayward General is wasting their psychic energy. First he's got exposure in several areas. Second, it's likely he made a great deal with Mueller. Third, he'll probably get a pardon soon (he's a great guy you know).

So the nonsense falls on deaf ears. Flynn didn't have to lie. He did it for a specific reason which we don't know yet. And he didn't have to deal. He could have depended on Trump whilst not rating-out his colleagues (like Manafort). Flynn as his lawyer made clear , "has a story to tell" because he's guilty.

So when Flynn was texting during Trump's inaugural address he was probably just tying up lose ends in various deals, all of which were legit (sure)? Like a potential kidnapping for his client Turkey? Maybe the FBI was complicit in compelling him to do that too. We shall see?

jilles dykstra , December 8, 2017 at 8:48 am GMT
A weird country, the USA. Do not know of any other country that has a law against contacts with a specified other country, a law making it impossible to interfere with price settinng in the pharmaceutical industry, and a law permitting an invasion of the Netherlands, in case a USA citizen is held in The Hague for trial by the International Court, to liberate the accused.
Greg Bacon , Website December 8, 2017 at 10:20 am GMT
Flynn's sin was to think he could engage in ME diplomacy for Israel and not get caught. When he did, he got tossed under the bus so that the corrupt and savage MSM could keep screaming Russiagate while forgetting to mention that this affair is now IsraeliGate.

Flynn broke no laws establishing relations with Russia for the incoming president. But when he started lobbying UN members on behalf of Israel, that's when he crossed the legal line.

He's lucky he only got charged with lying.

But this is how politics play out in the former USA, which is nothing more than a colony of Apartheid Israel, doing the bidding of our Israeli Masters, whether it be fighting endless wars so that Israel can steal more land and water or continually helping Israel commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.

Next stop, Tehran.

Wizard of Oz , December 8, 2017 at 11:14 am GMT
I am no fan of American criminal law or its enforcement. They hardly seem to be the kind of adjunct to the "demovracy" the US seeks to export that it will find helpful in the sales pitch. However I am amazed that sophisticated people questioned by the FBI don't use an equivalent to the Fifth Amendment by saying "I don't intend to lie to you but refuse to answer any of your questions unless I am immune to prosecution under Section 1001 of Title 18 [maybe adding 'except for denying an act which is itself a crime that I have been told is being investigated']".

By the way is it entirely clear that the Logan Act didn't make what Flynn was doing criminal, ridiculous though that would be?

Che Guava , December 8, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT
Ilana,

I agree with much else you are saying here (though from memory, Martha Stewart's behaviour was clearly white-collar criminal, on top of the lie, unlike Flynn's stupid and inoccuous lie or simple misinterpretation).

ask Russia to disrupt or delay one of the UN Security Council's favorite pastimes: passing resolutions denouncing Israeli settlements.

That is wrong on so many levels.

i. Your bare-faced lie of saying 'Security Council' instead of 'General Assembly', when you are knowing very well that the U.S.A. is *always* vetoing anything critical of Israel in the SC, sole exception being when former Pres. Hopey-Changey Hussein was ordering an abstention on one late in his second term. One of his very few good acts as Pres.

ii. The implicit assumption that Israeli settlements are a good thing. I am sure that you would enjoying it if you were to live somewhere where maniacal strangers who hate you were trying to occupying all high positions, wandering about with automatic and semi-automatic rifles, destroying or seizing your neighbour's (and your) houses, destroying olive groves, and monopolising the water supply, etc.

Palestine used to have a proportionally large Christian population. In the early stages of their departure, Israeli jews were the main driver.

Disingenuous or what?

iii. Why should the main emphasis of any contact with Russia be illegal (under international law) jewish settlements! You cannot even say Israeli, because it is outside the borders of Israel.

SteveM , December 8, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT

By legislative fiat, the government has turned this decent man [Flynn] and many like him into common criminals.

Daniel Larison of The American Spectator outlined Michael Flynn's "warped worldview" back in 2016:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/flynns-warped-worldview/

That the FBI is a rogue Deep State entity and Michael Flynn is a self-aggrandizing Beltway war-monger (i.e., not decent) are not disjoint.

Flynn only wanted to make nice with Russia as a process tactic for fueling more war in the Middle East, paid for of course by American taxpayers. Whether the FBI or the cabal of war-monger militarists whispering in Trump's ear – there are no "good guys".

Michael Kenny , December 8, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT
The frantic tone of the article shows just how much damage Flynn's testimony has done to Trump. What Flynn tells us is that the initiative to contact the Russians came from Trump, not the Russians. That's absolutely damning for Trump. The evidence previously available suggested that the initiative had come from the Russians, pointing towards the possibility that the rather naive Trump team had been more or les set up by the Russians. Now we know that Trump solicited Russian intervention, which tends to prove that he is indeed Putin's stooge or, even worse, the stooge of the gangsters behind Putin. That may well be the deep, dark secret that Trump was afraid Putin would tell. The onus is now on Trump to prove that he isn't an agent of a foreign power and the only way he can do that is to get Putin out of Ukraine.
jacques sheete , December 8, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

A weird country, the USA.

It's actually beyond weird; it's absolutely mind boggling. Utterly twisted. Everything of value has been twisted and perverted beyond anyone's imagination. One huge plastic garbage dump.

It's a huge corrupt cesspool, yet most people here see nothing but El Dorado and think it's the Savior of the World all rolled into one.

Trump as prez narrowly beating Hillary in a scam democracy-esque "election" and congress bowing and scraping to Netanyahu pretty much sums it all up perfectly.

The place is as full of morons as ignorant as they are arrogant, just like the goofy looking, sounding and acting clowns who rule them. It's utterly beyond redemption.

On another note, can you comment on and/or suggest some good sources for studying the bankers of Amsterdam of the 16th and 17th centuries, including the Dutch West India Co??

Thanks in advance.

jacques sheete , December 8, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT
@Greg Bacon

But this is how politics play out in the former USA, which is nothing more than a colony of Apartheid Israel, doing the bidding of our Israeli Masters, whether it be fighting endless wars so that Israel can steal more land and water or continually helping Israel commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.

Yup. A nation of Zio-bankster cucks and that includes the vast majority of Jews as well as goyim.

Many warned us of it when they opposed the Federal Reserve and when the Zio-Bolshie banksters suckered the US into WW 1 & 2 on their behalf, but we never even know their names today, and we have next to nobody telling the truth today.

continually helping Israel commit crimes against humanity in Palestine.

And elsewhere. Wherever the banksters demand control, which is nearly everywhere.

Those damned cagaderos have turned the whole planet into one big one!!

jilles dykstra , December 8, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

What is the problem of having contacts with Russia ? As to the Ukraine, USA, EU and NATO should leave there. We in Europe do not want the war NATO, USA and EU are seeking. We want normal relations with the country we had a lot of trade with, much of which has disappeared because of sanctions, made possible by the deaths of over 300 passengers aboard MH17.

My country, the Netherlands, objected most to sanctions, we exported a lot to Russia, on the day after the disaster objections had vanished. So it was very lucky for those who wanted to impose sanctions that a plane from Schiphol Amsterdam was hit. Despite that Russia just has disadvantages of the disaster, and the west advantages, the continuing investigation, that will never end, Peyton Place, does anything possible to continue stating vague accusations against Putin.

Suspect Ukraine has been permitted to take part in the investigations.

Ben Frank , December 8, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT
Are we being asked to believe that China, with ten times Russia's economic strength, never tries to influence American politics?
Joe Hide , December 8, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
To Mercer,
Great great article. You've created a description of events that is so absorbing and brings up such deep anger in the reader towards the increasingly exposed psychopathic and psychotic, that we are collectively inspired to end the influence of these creeps. Thank You!
Anonymous , Disclaimer December 8, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT
Flynn is DIA. He's an actor in this psyop. It's not the crime that counts, it's making a crime understandable by the audience.

Consider that Petraeus fornicated with one of his gun runners. Oh the crime! The US Treasury is an open vault to these elite assassins – there's no law here, but that's not a problem as far as the public will ever know. Neither is the carnage, which is all carefully hidden from view. Deliberately destroying civilian populations is never made obvious.

Occassionally, the FBI and the press will shame one of the royals in a carefully crafted stage production (or tennis match) as competition naturally heats up amongst members of the owner-ruler class. Press mockingbirds will disagree back and forth with one another only adding necessary fuel to the drama.

The "crime" is usually an overwrought, completely specious claim of dishonesty and sometimes a bedroom indiscretion to titillate American prurience. Taken very seriously by at least part of the press, but ridiculed by another. The leading figure nevertheless emerges tarnished. The CIA's Andrea Mitchell will shed a tear on NBC (as she did for hero mass murderer Petraeus). This is an instruction for a simple minded population, including any number of rote evangelicals.

Now Flynn's resume includes a prominent role in the post 9/11 war of terror. An environment that doesn't have anything to do with the American sheep's warped delusions of what the law even means. However, enourmous efforts are always made to indemnify criminal violence through legal mechanism.

The guilded cage for American mafia member Flynn meant he killed as many people as possible in the two major strategic theaters, started his own privateering operation once some of the shooting quieted down, looted and cashed in as a international contractor into imaginable wealth and is now playin himself in his own wrist slappin' psyop.

What's next is predictable. Go on to Wall Street to join an investment firm, accept academic honors, visiting professorships, write a book and maybe even join a "peace" movement to reduce violence – writing an op-ed for Tom's Dispatch. God speed Ó Floinn!

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 8, 2017 at 4:38 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

This doesn't impede the normal function of Government, whatever the fuck that is. Bread and circuses are what the Government delivers daily in darkness. Look at it this way, this investigation is a new product off the assembly line. It's not production in a simple sense, but the externalities are large enough that crisis and drama are a tenuous key to economic growth.

Think of the noise as a large ignot being forged in a factory filed with fire and noise. The end product is probably something you don't really need, so the need is created. It's Friday, let's see what the press sluice gate intends to drown your mind with next. Here we all are – tapping away at our keyboards and iphones in a factory with no pay. You could say we're volunteers for the Government, something it needs to function normally.

[Dec 08, 2017] Mike Flynn s Guilty Plea Gave Robert Mueller Some Badly-Needed Cover

Via Wilkipedia, coup deata is an "illegal and overt attempts by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting executive."[1] ... In looser usage, as in "intelligence coup" or "boardroom coup", the term simply refers to gaining a sudden advantage on a rival.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, what if, instead of Flynn providing damning information against another member of Trump's inner circle, or against the president himself, Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is an insurance policy protecting him and his team from being dismissed by Trump? To wit, Bloomberg speculates that Flynn's guilty plea might just be the fodder the special counsel needed to protect his team from dismissal by the president. Given that calls for Trump to fire the hopelessly compromised special prosecutor have persisted since last spring, there's more than enough reason to believe that Flynn's prosecution is an end in itself. ..."
"... Equally as important, Flynn's prosecution, following so soon after the charges against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, also suggests that his investigation is making "progress" – though the logical end point of his crusade remains murky. ..."
"... "Any rational prosecutor would realize that in this political environment, laying down a few markers would be a good way of fending off criticism that the prosecutors are burning through money and not accomplishing anything," says Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor now at Duke Law School. ..."
"... The Flynn plea also makes it difficult for Trump to fire Mueller without inviting accusations of a cover-up and sparking a constitutional crisis, says Michael Weinstein, a former Department of Justice prosecutor now at the law firm Cole Schotz. "There would be a groundswell, it would look so objectionable, like the Saturday Night Massacre with Nixon," Weinstein says, referring to President Richard Nixon's attempt to derail the Watergate investigation in 1973 by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox. ..."
"... Flynn's testimony might eventually help Mueller bring down Kushner or another top Trump aide, but it's hard to imagine how Flynn's word would be enough at this point. ..."
"... Flynn alone may not be enough to advance an obstruction or collusion case. Prosecutors would likely need evidence against other high-ranking Trump associates, including perhaps Jared Kushner. "Unless you've got them on tape, you're going to need a lot better witnesses than Flynn," says Raymond Banoun, a former federal prosecutor. ..."
"... Which leaves one option: Flynn's prosecution is simply an insurance policy. Flynn's guilty plea helped mollify angry Democrats who are demanding Trump's head on a platter. ..."
"... Ultimately, Mueller will be able to persevere – and the atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust he has helped foster in the West Wing will continue to hobble the Trump administration. ..."
"... Larry Nichols was the architect who said the basis of the Clinton crime family's power model is to own the prosecution if not the entire justice chain in the jurisdiction. Then it was Arkansas later DC. ..."
"... This was an attempted coup d'état as the most ex excellent Matt Bracken points out. ..."
"... After the donors (corporate kelptocrats) get their tax "reform", the mainstream Republicans will jump on the Mueller band wagon and join the Democrats in dumping Trump. National politicians are all crooks, and they are scared shitless to have an unpredictable loose cannon in the Oval Office, willing to call them out at anytime. ..."
"... This guy Bruce Ohr was recently demoted from Deputy Director of DOJ, and is suspected of having contacts early in the year with Fusion GPS and personally with Chris Steele, author of the DNC disinformation golden shower dossier. If government officials were involved in manufacturing that, then we really do have an anti-Trump deep state conspiracy. ..."
"... It is hard to know if Mueller has any good cards or not. I don't think a guilty plea over lying to FBI makes for a good witness in court, so I say you got nothing Mueller, time to call. ..."
"... I think at best he is going to pull a stunt by making his investigation public to smear Trump with rumor and innuendo ..."
"... His son was given immunity in exchange. Little Flynn was taking money in a similar pay to play that we saw with Clinton; most likely from Turkey. Michael is protecting his son. Whether there is more to the story, we will know in due time; I am betting that some interesting info will come out in the coming weeks. ..."
"... Mueller was a liar from the very beginning.Mueller lies to congress, commits perjury; Weapons of Mass Destruction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF6WpWAxy8 ..."
"... I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article. Flynn's son is caught in the crosshairs and he's trying to save him. And if you lie and they have you on record then of course you should admit it. ..."
"... This non-recording enables the FBI to entrap any witneses, relative, non-related person with false claims about what they said. Become their witness, or be prosecuted by what their agents say you said. ..."
Dec 08, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

... ... ...

Well, what if, instead of Flynn providing damning information against another member of Trump's inner circle, or against the president himself, Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is an insurance policy protecting him and his team from being dismissed by Trump? To wit, Bloomberg speculates that Flynn's guilty plea might just be the fodder the special counsel needed to protect his team from dismissal by the president. Given that calls for Trump to fire the hopelessly compromised special prosecutor have persisted since last spring, there's more than enough reason to believe that Flynn's prosecution is an end in itself.

By securing a guilty plea from Flynn, Mueller has effectively bought his team precious time to uncover the "smoking gun" that has eluded them thus far. Mueller's prosecution of Flynn is insurance against a presidential firing. At this stage, firing Mueller would lend credence to Democrats' accusations that the president obstructed justice when he asked former FBI Director James Comey to go easy on Flynn. Of course, Trump didn't do himself any favors when he tweeted that Flynn was fired because he lied to Vice President Mike Pence and the FBI (though Trump lawyer John Dowd later copped to writing the tweet, it certainly didn't help Trump's case for firing Mueller).

Equally as important, Flynn's prosecution, following so soon after the charges against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, also suggests that his investigation is making "progress" – though the logical end point of his crusade remains murky.

As Mueller's probe has gotten closer to Trump's inner orbit, speculation has risen over whether Trump might find a way to shut it down. The Flynn deal may make that harder. For one thing, it shows that Mueller is making progress.

"Any rational prosecutor would realize that in this political environment, laying down a few markers would be a good way of fending off criticism that the prosecutors are burning through money and not accomplishing anything," says Samuel Buell, a former federal prosecutor now at Duke Law School.

The Flynn plea also makes it difficult for Trump to fire Mueller without inviting accusations of a cover-up and sparking a constitutional crisis, says Michael Weinstein, a former Department of Justice prosecutor now at the law firm Cole Schotz. "There would be a groundswell, it would look so objectionable, like the Saturday Night Massacre with Nixon," Weinstein says, referring to President Richard Nixon's attempt to derail the Watergate investigation in 1973 by firing special prosecutor Archibald Cox.

Furthermore, as one legal expert told Bloomberg, it's difficult to see how Flynn's testimony will be enough to incriminate another member of Trump's inner circle. While Flynn's many alleged misdeeds have been chronicled in the press (most notoriously his alleged plan to kidnap Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen), given what's been reported so far, it's hard to see how Flynn's prosecution ties in to some broader narrative.

Flynn's testimony might eventually help Mueller bring down Kushner or another top Trump aide, but it's hard to imagine how Flynn's word would be enough at this point.

Flynn alone may not be enough to advance an obstruction or collusion case. Prosecutors would likely need evidence against other high-ranking Trump associates, including perhaps Jared Kushner. "Unless you've got them on tape, you're going to need a lot better witnesses than Flynn," says Raymond Banoun, a former federal prosecutor.

Some experts believe that Mueller's probe is now almost certain to reach a step beyond that. "Before this is wrapped up, Mueller's going to request an interview with the president, and he may even request it under oath," says Amy Sabrin, a Washington lawyer who worked for Bill Clinton on the Paula Jones sexual harassment case. "And then what is Trump going to do?"

Which leaves one option: Flynn's prosecution is simply an insurance policy. Flynn's guilty plea helped mollify angry Democrats who are demanding Trump's head on a platter. At the same time, it will allow Mueller and his team of hopelessly compromised Hillary Clinton supporters to fend off their critics, who've recently been emboldened by reports that Peter Strzok , an FBI agent who played an important role in the early stages of what became the Mueller investigation - and who also helped supervise the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information – expressed anti-Trump sentiments in a series of text messages to his colleague/mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

Ultimately, Mueller will be able to persevere – and the atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust he has helped foster in the West Wing will continue to hobble the Trump administration.

It's a win-win.

TahoeBilly2012 -> wildbad , Dec 8, 2017 9:09 AM

Why are they looking for a fucking smoking gun, when there is no motive? What is the motive, illegal improved relations with Russia? Isn't that a Presidents job to use his mandate to change course?

Gimme some public hangings, come on, everyone wants it.

eclectic syncretist -> TahoeBilly2012 , Dec 8, 2017 9:11 AM

Kiss my fucking ass ZH and Bloomberg, who wrote the original article which is not credited here https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-07/mueller-is-making-sur...

Mueller is the running man in this little episode in history. He's the cowboy in the trail swishing the branches across the tracks, and then stomping down false trails before cutting off sharply into the woods.

As old as he is, he only needs to keep running a few more years at most so that he can die free and not in prison.

you_are_cleared_hot -> eclectic syncretist , Dec 8, 2017 9:25 AM

I was going to say the same thing. I read the bloomberg article (linked on Drudge) like 20min ago...Tyler used the same pics as well. Is this what "Journalism" has come to? C'mon Tyler! don't get sloppy here.

wildbad -> JRobby , Dec 8, 2017 9:24 AM

mueller, comey, holder, clinton crime syndicate is a round robin circle jerk that has been operating since Arkansas days. Larry Nichols was the architect who said the basis of the Clinton crime family's power model is to own the prosecution if not the entire justice chain in the jurisdiction. Then it was Arkansas later DC.

This was an attempted coup d'état as the most ex excellent Matt Bracken points out. He rightly compares this to the plot to kill hitler which failed. The plotters were sure they had succeeded until they were lined up against the wall and shot.

trump is rounding up the firing squad now.

Paul Kersey -> JRobby , Dec 8, 2017 9:20 AM

After the donors (corporate kelptocrats) get their tax "reform", the mainstream Republicans will jump on the Mueller band wagon and join the Democrats in dumping Trump. National politicians are all crooks, and they are scared shitless to have an unpredictable loose cannon in the Oval Office, willing to call them out at anytime.

What they don't understand is that Trump may become even more dangerous to them if he is no longer in office. A Trump-Bannon media machine could do a lot of damage with nothing to restrain it. Look for Muller to tie Bannon into all of this, because Bannon now has a national platform and is too dangerous left on his own to say and do whatever he wants.

chubbar -> wildbad , Dec 8, 2017 9:56 AM

Apparently Mueller and the douche bag who wrote this article are the only people in the world who still believe this is a viable investigation. Mueller has zero chance of convicting anyone after what has been revealed about his investigators as well as his personal involvement in Uranium One. Not to mention, btw, that he is required by law to recuse himself because of his close relationship to one of the key witnesses/actors in this investigation, Comey. It's not even up for debate, it's mandatory and with that being written quite clearly, Mueller still didn't do it. Now it is revealed that Mueller sat with Trump in a job interview for acting head of the FBI while knowing he could very possibly (and was) be selected as a special prosecutor for an investigation into Trump/Russia collusion and he never told Trump. Apparently this is also an act requiring recusal.

Mueller will be lucky to not be sitting in jail after this fiasco. He's crooked as hell and his cover has been blown. Just a matter of time at this point as we are witnessing almost daily revelations of misconduct by his investigators as well as other high level FBI/DOJ officials.

otschelnik -> JoeTurner , Dec 8, 2017 11:03 AM

If this little jewel turns out to be true,

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-07/house-to-subpoena-jus...

This guy Bruce Ohr was recently demoted from Deputy Director of DOJ, and is suspected of having contacts early in the year with Fusion GPS and personally with Chris Steele, author of the DNC disinformation golden shower dossier. If government officials were involved in manufacturing that, then we really do have an anti-Trump deep state conspiracy.

Vilfredo Pareto , Dec 8, 2017 9:10 AM

Yeah. It is hard to know if Mueller has any good cards or not. I don't think a guilty plea over lying to FBI makes for a good witness in court, so I say you got nothing Mueller, time to call.

I think at best he is going to pull a stunt by making his investigation public to smear Trump with rumor and innuendo , but a cold hard analysis of fact will show that it is a case no prosecutor would ever take to court.

NotApplicable , Dec 8, 2017 9:11 AM

I wonder if Flynn plead guilty to this to avoid being brought up on other unrelated charges?

Vageling -> NotApplicable , Dec 8, 2017 9:22 AM

That's the exact thing the puzzles me. Watching details unfold. They screwed him. Set him up on this specific one. Why plead guilty? Flynn doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't know what he's doing.

Collectivism Killz -> NotApplicable , Dec 8, 2017 10:13 AM

His son was given immunity in exchange. Little Flynn was taking money in a similar pay to play that we saw with Clinton; most likely from Turkey. Michael is protecting his son. Whether there is more to the story, we will know in due time; I am betting that some interesting info will come out in the coming weeks.

Miss Expectations -> lester1 , Dec 8, 2017 10:08 AM

Mueller was a liar from the very beginning.Mueller lies to congress, commits perjury; Weapons of Mass Destruction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkF6WpWAxy8

Cloud9.5 , Dec 8, 2017 9:12 AM

Flynn's only criminal act was a misstatement. That is what they would have called it if Hillary had been caught up in the sting. This is the best they have been able to produce after this tedious attempt to construct a criminal plot that would take down Trump. What they have managed to do is focus a national spot light onto their own misdeeds. The middle management of the FBI better start looking after their own interest. The Agency has a litany of misdeeds in its dossier. If it plans on surviving the ongoing fire storm, those infected members within the Agency must be triaged.

xzandrax , Dec 8, 2017 9:18 AM

Maybe Mueller will not survive, if compromising leaks start leaking. One email or conversation between Strzok, Comey and Hillary/Lynch how to exonerate Hillary and to eavesdrop Trump and bring down Trump or people around him and Mueller is finished.

RagaMuffin , Dec 8, 2017 9:27 AM

So the Republican controlled Congress can't defund Mueller directly or indirectly? If they can are the never Trump Republicans hedging their bets?

sparklinggrapes , Dec 8, 2017 9:36 AM

I couldn't disagree more with the premise of this article. Flynn's son is caught in the crosshairs and he's trying to save him. And if you lie and they have you on record then of course you should admit it.

Oh wait, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin lied but they didn't admit it. I wonder if that's because the person that interviewed them was a biased Hillary supporter????

Reaper , Dec 8, 2017 9:43 AM

Trump as Chief Executive needs require the FBI to record all interviews with witnesses and suspects. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-reverses-longstanding-interview... This non-recording enables the FBI to entrap any witneses, relative, non-related person with false claims about what they said. Become their witness, or be prosecuted by what their agents say you said.

[Dec 07, 2017] Russiagate Becomes Israelgate by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... "Israel Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," ..."
"... "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser." ..."
"... The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd . ..."
"... And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel, here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N. resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'" Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha. ..."
"... Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and email address is [email protected] . ..."
"... The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America. Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan Americans. ..."
Dec 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Reading the mainstream media headlines relating to the flipping of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to provide evidence relating to the allegations about Russian interference in America's last presidential election requires the suspension of one's cognitive processes. Ignoring completely what had actually occurred, the "Russian story" with its subset of "getting Trump" was on display all through the weekend, both in the print and on the live media.

Flynn's guilty plea is laconic, merely admitting that he had lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) about what was said during two telephone conversations with then Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak, but there is considerable back story that emerged after the plea became public.

The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre behind the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both took place more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans involved. I am increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will grind out interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else to go.

Based on the information revealed regarding the two conversations, and, unlike the highly nuance-sensitive editors working for the mainstream media, this is the headline that I would have written for a featured article based on what I consider to be important: "Israel Colluded with Incoming Trump Team to Subvert U.S. Foreign Policy," with a possible subheading "FBI Entraps National Security Adviser."

The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22 nd , was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administrating was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23 rd .

The second phone call, made by Flynn on December 29 th from a beach in the Dominican Republic, where he was on vacation, may have been ordered by Trump himself. It was a response to an Obama move to expel Russian diplomats and close two Embassy buildings over allegations of Moscow's interfering in the 2016 election. Flynn asked the Russians not to reciprocate, making the point that there would be a new administration in place in three weeks and the relationship between the two countries might change for the better. Kislyak apparently convinced Russian President Vladimir Putin not to go tit-for-tat.

In taking the phone calls from a soon-to-be senior American official who would within weeks be part of a new administration in Washington, the Russians did nothing wrong. It would not be inappropriate to have some conversations with an incoming government team. Apart from holding off on retaliatory sanctions, Kislyak also did nothing that might be regarded as particularly responsive to Team Trump overtures. If it was an attempt to interfere in American politics, it certainly was low-keyed, and one might well describe it positively as a willingness to give the new Trump Administration a chance to improve relations.

The first phone call about Israel was not as benign as the second one about sanctions. Son-in-law Jared Kushner is Trump's point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu's staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the incoming Trumpsters, look no further.

And it should be observed that the Israelis were not exactly shy about their disapproval of Obama and their willingness to express their views to the incoming Trump. Netanyahu said that he would do so and Trump even responded with a tweet of his own expressing disagreement with the Obama decision to abstain on the vote, but the White House knew that the comment would be coming and there was no indication from the president-elect that he was actively trying to derail or undo it.

Kushner, however, goes far beyond merely disagreeing over an aspect of foreign policy as he was trying to clandestinely reverse a decision made by his own legally constituted government. His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way. He is currently working on a new peace plan for the Middle East which starts out with permanently demilitarizing the Palestinians. It will no doubt continue in the tradition of former plans which aggrandized Jewish power while stiffing the Arabs. And not to worry about the team that will be allegedly representing American interests. It is already being reported that they consist of "good, observant Jews" and will not be a problem, even though Israeli-American mega-fundraiser Haim Saban apparently described them on Sunday as "With all due respect, it's a bunch of Orthodox Jews who have no idea about anything."

What exactly did Kushner seek from Flynn? He asked the soon-to-be National Security Adviser to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power American government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms this does not quite equate to the Constitution's definition of treason since Israel is not technically an enemy, but it most certainly would be covered by the Logan Act of 1799, which bars private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on behalf of the United States and also could be construed as a "conspiracy against the United States" that the Mueller investigation has exploited against former Trump associate Paul Manafort. As Kushner is Jewish and certainly could be accused of dual loyalty in extremis , this part of the story obviously makes many in the U.S. Establishment and media uncomfortable, so it is being ignored and expunged from the record as quickly as possible. And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything about the Israel connection. As an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full well that the Congressmen currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will turn 180 degrees against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.

And just to demonstrate exactly how the story is shaped to protect Israel, here is a piece from the generally reliable The Hill written by Morgan Chalfant on 5 take-aways from Flynn's guilty plea . Israel is not even identified and, if one reads the two mentions of the U.N. vote connected to the first call, it appears to be deliberately omitted. The first citation reads "He also lied when he said he did not ask Kislyak to delay or defeat a vote on a pending U.N. Security Council resolution " and the second is "Prosecutors also say that a senior member of the transition team on Dec. 22 directed Flynn to contact officials from Russia and other governments about their stance on the U.N. resolution 'and to influence those governments to delay the vote or defeat the resolution.'" Does omitting Israel and emphasizing the Russian aspect of the story throughout the rest of the piece change what it says and how it is perceived? You betcha.

For me, there was also a second take-away from the Flynn story apart from the collusion with Israel. It involves the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to set-up Flynn shortly after he had been installed as National Security Adviser. Insofar as I can determine, the FBI entrapment of Flynn has only been examined in a serious way in the media by Robert Parry at Consortium News.

Michael Flynn was actually interviewed by the FBI regarding his two phone conversations on January 24 th shortly after assumed office as National Security Adviser. During his interview, he was not made aware that the Bureau already had recordings and transcripts of his phone conversations, so, in a manner of speaking, he was being set-up to fail. Mis-remembering, forgetting or attempting to avoid implication of others in the administration would inevitably all be plausibly construed as lying since the FBI knew exactly what was said.

To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets, but the logic used to set-up the possible Flynn entrapment by the FBI, i.e. that there was unauthorized contact with a foreign official, is in itself curious as Flynn was a private citizen at the time and such contact is not in itself illegal. And it also opens the door to the Bureau's investigating other individuals who have committed no crime but who find that they cannot recall details of phone calls they were parties to that were being recorded by the government six months or a year before. That can easily be construed as "lying" or "perjury" with consequences that include possible prison time.

So there are two observations one might make about the Flynn saga as it currently stands. First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should surprise no one. And second, record all your phone conversations with foreign government officials. The NSA and FBI will have a copy in any event, but you might want to retain your own records to make sure their transcript is accurate.

Philip M. Giraldi, is a former CIA Operations officer who is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax exempt educational foundation that seeks a more interests based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address us P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville, VA 20132, and email address is [email protected] .

CanSpeccy , Website December 5, 2017 at 5:52 am GMT

How is it that the FBI interrogates an agent of the President Elect on secret negotiations conducted on behalf of the President Elect?

And isn't that agent of the President Elect obliged, as a matter of national security, to conceal the details of those secret negotiations from anyone who attempts to extract them from him, lying as necessary to do so?

And anyhow, what was the point? Why the interrogation? The negotiations were made over the telephone, so the US Government, and presumably, therefore, the FBI, could obtain a transcript if they needed to know what was said.

The whole story seems nonsensical. But if anyone comes out of this looking good, maybe it will be Flynn. while it is the FBI and Robert Mueller who get their come uppance.

Kiza , December 5, 2017 at 5:53 am GMT
Nothing new, but a very clear summary of the situation, as one would expect from Mr Giraldi – including the customary warping of reality by the TPTB (substitution of "Israel" with "Russia").

Perhaps, the article is too tepid only on the legal entrapment combined with NSA recording of communications. Who says that this will be applied only to conversations with foreign nationals? I am sure that other statutes exist or will be quickly created to entrap anyone who does not remember word-for-word what was said in his communications with anyone else: thus lying to the Police etc. This is a magnificent self-awarded gift to the US regime which will only keep giving. I am waiting for the vassals to follow closely behind – the five-eyes and EU countries to develop similar entrapment resources.

What is the point of recording someone's communications if you cannot also put him in jail at will?

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT
I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more pro-Israel than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.

Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in line. Or, if he is really angry, he could send a few Mossad agents to have a talk with the Jewish reporters about how they're hurting Israel, and if that happens, then too bad because the Mossad will have to do something about them.

Anyway, it looks like Mueller's investigation will halt at Flynn. If Mueller tries to go farther, something 'interesting' may happen to him. If he does, I expect to see a full smackdown of his investigation from every direction with accusations against his honesty and probity, followed by his firing once enough public rage has been ginned up against him so that all liberal protests in his favor are drowned out by the fury of the lynch mob.

Cloak And Dagger , December 5, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT
Phil, this makes me feel even worse than I did before. I knew that RussiaGate was nonsense from the Hillary camp, however, the fact that Trump would bring his son-in-law into the WH and allow him to collude with Israel against the national interests of this country, fills me with dismay.

While I supported Trump mostly as an anti-Hillary stance and not because I saw him as someone who would bring about great positive change to our country (e.g. draining the swamp), I had hoped that his pandering to Israel during the election campaign was mostly political SOP. Since last November, however, he has gradually lost me. I am happy that he has not started new wars, but with the accelerated donkey-felating of Israel, I am not confident that we won't soon embark on more wars for Israel and more funds to that shitty country from our taxes.

Not a very merry Christmas.

Hank Rearden , December 5, 2017 at 6:45 am GMT
Michael Flynn was actually interviewed because he was stupid enough to talk to the police. Never talk to the police. Don't believe me, this is a detective who says don't talk to the police:

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
An experienced police officer tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

Of course, nowadays if you assert your 5th Amendment right to not talk, street cops will construe that as mental illness, so it's acceptable to do as Kenny Suitter does. Remind them verbally that you're not talking to them by saying: "I don't answer questions."

How To Survive A Traffic Stop: "I Don't Answer Questions"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwYBshAScmE

Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA. Mostly.

Checkpoint: I REMAIN SILENT-NO SEARCHES-I WANT MY LAWYER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI8QiqH-R_I

Wally , Website December 5, 2017 at 7:29 am GMT
Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com is on this as well:

From 'Russia-Gate' to 'Israel-Gate'

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/12/03/russia-gate-israel-gate/

Jon Baptist , December 5, 2017 at 7:36 am GMT
Bravo to Phil Giraldi for calling out and writing about these treasonous bastards. Thanks to Unz for giving him the platform. Keep reporting and hopefully there will be enough people that will stand up and prevent this tyranny from developing further.
Mark James , December 5, 2017 at 7:43 am GMT
The Russian collusion story will flower eventually. I feel certain of that. But really, who among us did not feel that Kushner would be doing Israel's bidding, from back as far as the spring of 2016? Who thought that 'One President at a time' would apply to Jarad and the administration elect?

It has never been made clear why Flynn was the man as far as Jarad and Ivanka were concerned? Was it merely because they viewed him as a dupe for their plans?
Was Obama setting up the new administration with someone he knew was already criminally exposed–Flynn–and was the almost certain hire –because of Kushner– as well as because of the current president's strong objections?

Yes it seems like the term "duel loyalty" was almost made for Kushner. With Jarad's title of Ambassador without portfolio Israel didn't even have to effort a move of the US embassy to Jerusalem –it was a given– and as far as permission to attack Iran? I'm afraid that seems in the cards as well.
If Israel isn't mentioned–by US Media– it should be. While all calls are not recorded by NSA it is likely that those countries with the greatest presence in spy assets within the US (Rus/Isl) undoubtedly are. Yes Flynn lied to the FBI. I don't think there's much question Kushner will too.

jilles dykstra , December 5, 2017 at 8:13 am GMT
https://www.rt.com/news/411937-syria-intercepts-israeli-missiles/

I suppose here we have an important cause of Russiagate, Israel sees that Syria is not destabilised, just physically destroyed, thanks to Russian interference.
USA support is the only reason Israel still exists, good relations between USA and Russia may mean the end of Israel, in any case the end of Israeli power in the ME.
And if USA support ends, what about German support ?
Will Israel get another two billion submarine, for which the German taxpayer pays some 400 million ?
At the same time, I fear we see that no anti missile system is capable of destroying many missiles if they come at the same time.
When, I hope never, Russia fires most of its 1600 old fashioned ballistic missiles at the USA, some will het through, I suppose.

LondonBob , December 5, 2017 at 8:38 am GMT
Well I said if Mueller wants to make himself useful he could take down Kushner. Be interesting to see if we get any follow up on him, or if it quietly dies in the dark as you surmise, these things always seem to once they have the potential to impact negatively on Zionist interests. Will that kill the whole investigation, it certainly seems to be coming to a dead end anyway?
jacques sheete , December 5, 2017 at 12:12 pm GMT

First, Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal, which should surprise no one.

Well, it certainly doesn't surprise me and I'm (happily) a nobody. Anyway, at least the Ziocreeps are consistent.

Looks like Oncle Joey was right again.

"Blame others for your own sins."

J. V. Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism ? December, 1906 -- January, 1907

Why does "Israel" seem to be at, or very near, the center of most major issues of the day once the curtain is lifted a bit, and why are they nearly always suspected of doing something unjust and shady if not downright criminal?

And what about the eternal victim image we dumb goyim are supposed to imbibe with our mammy's milk?

Anonymous , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT
While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much more concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the Establishment and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so fucking Orwellian.

The FBI went into that interview with the plan to get Flynn. He never had a chance. Even if he had a transcript of his phone conversations, and provided answers from that, they would've manipulated him into a BS process crime.

I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when he worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and then make threats on what people didn't say. If you're a target of the FBI it makes no difference how honest you are and how precise and accurate your answers are to their questions.

Apart from all that, I trust people with last name Kushner over people with the last name of Mueller or Strzok

Michael Kenny , December 5, 2017 at 1:55 pm GMT
Smoke screen! The spooks are more spooked than ever! What exactly did the US intelligence services get up to that they're now so scared of Russiagate? Mr Giraldi is in such a panic that he totally fails to make the point in the title. He essentially admits Russian interference but does not establish, nor even, in fact, claim, that there is any connection between Israel and Russian interference. Israel has no need to engage in undercover interference to influence US politics. It does so quite openly and has the Israel Lobby to support it. It certainly has no need of Russian help! One might also ask what disadvantage there would have been for Israel if Hillary was elected. Why would they feel the need to manipulate the election in Trump's favour? Thus, it's not an "either or" situation, as Mr Giraldi tries to present it. Regardless of whether or not there was also Israeli interference, Russian interference, with the help of American "associates", is well established and confirmed by an almost identical pattern of interference in the French presidential election. More interestingly, though, what has emerged from Flynn's testimony so far is that the initiative came from the Trump campaign, not the Russians. The evidence available up to that point suggested that the Russians had taken the initiative and more or less set up the naïve "bunch of Orthodox Jews". It's little wonder therefore that both Putin's American supporters and Trump's personal lawyer are running around in panic!
Rurik , December 5, 2017 at 3:47 pm GMT

Israel, not Russia, was colluding with the Trump Administration prior to inauguration day to do something highly unethical and quite probably illegal,

And don't expect Special Counsel Mueller to do anything about the Israel connection. As an experienced operator in the Washington swamp he knows full well that the Congressmen currently calling for blood in an investigation involving Russia will turn 180 degrees against him if he tries to go after Netanyahu.

Mueller was head of the FBI during the 9/11 "investigation"

you don't get anymore 'swamp creature' than that

more here:

Trump succeeded in convincing Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to order his UN delegation to delay the vote. Egypt then withdrew its sponsorship of 2334. However, four members of the Security Council -- Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela – counteracted Sisi's abandonment and brought the resolution to a Council vote. It passed and was enacted due to the American abstention. It is quite certain that the Obama administration sought the assistance of its intelligence and military ally, New Zealand, in bolstering Malaysia, Senegal, and Venezuela against furious backroom opposition from Israel and the Trump transition team. Trump and Kushner decided that just prior to Flynn's indictment, they would demonstrate their fealty to Israel by announcing that the United States was going to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Such actions, far from showing "collusion" with a foreign power, point to conflicted loyalty, at the very least.

Netanyahu told New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully that New Zealand's support for the resolution would be tantamount to a declaration of war against Israel,

when I read the above quote, it seemed too explosive not to have a link, so I 'Binged' it

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Netanyahu+told+New+Zealand+Foreign+Minister+Murray+McCully+that+New+Zealand%E2%80%99s+support+for+the+resolution+would+be+tantamount+to+a+declaration+of+war+against+Israel%2C&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=netanyahu+told+new+zealand+foreign+minister+murray+mccully+that+new+zealand%E2%80%99s+support+for+the+resolution+would+be+tantamount+to+a+declaration+of+war+against+israel%2C&sc=0-164&sk=&cvid=A2DAF44977384BD69F64DB8790CDC672

from the first link:

Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly told New Zealand's foreign minister that support for a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlement-building in the occupied territories would be viewed as a "declaration of war".

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/28/netanyahu-told-new-zealand-backing-un-vote-would-be-declaration-of-war

anyways, more from the article

There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump, Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from Israel on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US Espionage Act .

too funny!

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/04/mueller-names-trump-foreign-colluding-power-israel.html

To be sure, many would agree that the sleazy Flynn deserves everything he gets,

if he was talking money from Turkey, to represent their interests- while masquerading as our National Security Advisor, then I wouldn't mind seeing him hanged by the neck until it snapped or until he stopped dancing.

but then that's how I feel about all acts of treason against my nation, and the scum who serve the interests of our deadliest enemy at the direct expense of this nation they swore a sacred oath to.

Svigor , December 5, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT
I wonder how clean the Democrats' hands are, vis-a-vis the Logan Act? Has every incoming Democrat administration really been so squeaky clean in its dealings with foreign agents?

The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d'etre behind the creation of Robert Mueller's Special Counsel office in the first place. Both took place more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans involved. I am increasingly convinced that Mueller ain't got nuthin' but this process will grind out interminably and the press will be hot on the trail until there is nowhere else to go.

IANAL; does the old "fruit of the poison tree" apply to investigations/prosecutions as a whole, or just to evidence found/used therein? Because the fact that one of the interviewers, (((Strzok))) (caveat: (((echoes))) based on personal Jewdar only (facial phrenology, name, occupation, politics, corruption); was unable to confirm via Gewgle) has been ejected from Mueller's team seems germane. Maybe he'll only impact the trial, the way Fuhrman impacted OJ's trial?

It's interesting how central the Logan Act has been in all this, considering how it's never been used to prosecute anyone in its over 217 years of existence. The Jews and their lackeys are now reduced to using blue Laws; to return to the "mobs Jews stirred up that turned on them" motif, what if we started prosecuting Jews with blue laws against, say, sodomy?

The NYT has a new piece up, titled "Why the Trump Team should fear the Logan Act."

Why the Trump team should fear the Swamp's use of blue laws? Because the Swamp is totally corrupt and they hate Trump, that's why.

The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel's illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country.

It would be interesting to know more about that; how much more worthy do the Kushners regard Israel as being of Conservative advocacy, compared to their ostensible homeland, the United States? Because they seem to be fairly leftist in their desires for the latter.

His closeness to Netanyahu makes him, in intelligence terms, a quite likely Israeli government agent of influence, even if he doesn't quite see himself that way.

How Jews see themselves is very often a study in rationalization and self-deception; eminently worthy of study, but never to be taken at face value.

I expect the Jewish media will get orders from Israel to back off if they try to target Kushner. He's a useful, pro-Israel link to Trump for Netanyahu, and too valuable to get rid of just because left-wing media Jews want to take down Trump. Trump is a lot more pro-Israel than the leftists, and Netanyahu knows it.

Trump may be marginally more pro-Zionist than the communist (AKA leftist) establishment, but it's not really possible for Trump to be "a lot more pro-Israel"; there isn't enough daylight available – the communists are too pro-Zionist for that.

And I doubt that margin is really worth the trouble; the Diaspora Wing of the Tribe hates Hates HATES Trump and wants him gone Gone GONE. It's harder to do business with the Swamp when it's mobilized to destroy the current administration; being seen as too cozy with the object of their hatred is counter-productive.

Over the years, Israel has paid Jewish-American reporters for writing pro-Israel puff pieces in US news, and Netanyahu could just threaten to cut off the lucre to bring them in line.

The money flow is very much in the opposite direction; from the Jewish diaspora to Israel, not the other way around.

Or better yet, shut your cakehole and hold a sign that says "I remain silent. No searches. I want my lawyer." Even works at Soviet no suspicion checkpoints in the USSA. Mostly.

It's also a good idea to keep asking cops if you can leave. They often have to wait on K-9 units, for which demand outstrips supply. And they have regulations as to how long they're allowed to keep you waiting before they conduct their search, and crucially don't have to volunteer the fact that they have limits on how long they're allowed to make you wait . But they do have to tell you if you're free to leave, if you're free to leave. So ask them every 5 minutes or so, "may I leave now?"

While I agree with Giraldi on Israel's outrageous influence on U.S. politics, I am much more concerned by how the FBI has become a thoroughly corrupt secret police for the Establishment and Deep State. And the Department of Just-Us is all part of it. It's so fucking Orwellian.

The upper ranks seem to be thick with Jews, too. Which should surprise no one who knows even a bit about Soviet history.

Corvinus , December 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
@Anonymous

"I'm a former investigator and worked with a former S/A (not FBI) who told me about when he worked cases with the FBI. They will lie and fabricate stuff in order to set people up and then make threats on what people didn't say."

Double Fake News Story.

You, as well as Girabaldi, really need to become educated as far as the Mueller investigation is concerned.

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Eagle Eye , December 5, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Who within the Administration allowed Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI on January 24, 2017?

It seems Flynn was intentionally set up by disloyal legal and other advisers on Trump's team, obviously to drive a wedge into the incoming administration.

No lawyer worth his salt would allow such an interview to proceed without serious preparation and safeguards. Having just assumed office, the White House had legitimate reasons to slow-walk any FBI requests. In particular, Team Trump should and could have waited until the FBI was cleansed of the worst hold-overs and swamp creatures (such as Deputy AG Rosenstein who later appointed Mueller).

Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have argued that he was entitled to executive privilege. Of course, the MSM were out to get Trump from the outset, and no doubt coordinated their story with Comey and Mueller.

SolontoCroesus , December 5, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT
@Jake

Buchanan's latest article, Is Flynn's Defection a Death Blow? , asks Why Why Why did Flynn lie to the FBI.

He committed the Martha Stewart offense. An ankle monitor is not that big a deal; Martha's still baking cupcakes in recycled soda cans and selling overpriced stuff.

So maybe Flynn is actually a patriot, and fell on a rubber sword on purpose, in order to expose the Israel connection that he perceived as getting out of hand??

One can dream.

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMT
Nothing new. Israel was meddling in the US political system even before it was created. But the deep state will summarily reject the truth and keep pushing its fairy tale about "evil Russia": after all, Israel is not a suitable bogeyman to justify totally insane "defense" budget, which now exceeds the sum total of defense budgets of the rest of the world. Russia, like the USSR before it, is used to justify shameless feeding frenzy of Pentagon contractors. They are destroying the US more effectively than any enemy could, but their greed blinds them to the fact.
CanSpeccy , Website December 5, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT
@Eagle Eye

Flynn was NOT obligated to allow an FBI interview at all, and could legitimately have argued that he was entitled to executive privilege.

So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers? For example, to demonstrate, in due course, that he was compelled to lie to protect national security from a lawless and out of control FBI.

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT
@LondonBob

The former US Secretary of Defense William J. Perry:
"When the Cold War ended, I believed that we no longer had to take that risk [nuclear annihilation] During my period as the Secretary of Defense in the 90s, I oversaw the dismantlement of 8,000 nuclear weapons evenly divided between the United States and the former Soviet Union. And I thought then that we were well on our way to putting behind us this deadly existential threat, But that was not to be. Today, inexplicably to me, we're recreating the geopolitical hostility of the Cold War, and we're rebuilding the nuclear dangers. We are doing this without any serious public discussion or any real understanding of the consequences of these actions. We are sleepwalking into a new Cold War, and there's very real danger that we will blunder into a nuclear war." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-03/former-us-defense-secretary-explains-why-nuclear-holocaust-now-likely

Paul Craig Roberts (the former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy): https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/12/05/walking-into-armageddon/
"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime war-mongers of the 21st century, have immobilized the President of the United States. The real reason that the military/security complex is after Gen. Flynn is that he is the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and he said on a TV news show that the decision by the Obama regime to send ISIS to overthrow Syria was a "willful decision" that went against his recommendation . In other words, Flynn let the cat out of the bag that ISIS was not an independently formed organization but a tool of US policy. Private interests and agendas have control over the US government. Washington works by selling legislation to the interest groups in exchange for campaign contributions. The private interests that provide the money that elects politiicans get the laws that they want."

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

"Panic." Yes – the panic is palpable in the Israelis'/Lobby' words and deeds in relation to Syria's sovereignty. The ziocon's mad irritation with the end of slaughter in Syria deprives them of reason. Thence the visceral, irrational, overwhelming hatred of Russians by the moral midgets that profess "Israel first." The supremacist fools would initiate a nuclear conflict to prevail in a fight with their Arab cousins. Could not you just leave the western civilization alone?

"The power of the military/security complex and the Israel Lobby, the two prime war-mongers of the 21st century" – so true! We are witnessing the end of your profitable "eternal victimhood."

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 7:06 pm GMT
@Sherman

And look where Kushner's "competence" has taken the investigation into Russiagate . Amazing, indeed.
Also, what could be more valuable for Israel (the only theocratic apartheid "democracy" in the Middle East) than the sweet and devoted friendship with the so upright and moral Saudis! And none other than the aspiring Jared has procured this special friendship. Jared is really good at clearing the fog of Israeli "democratic" morals.

Eagle Eye , December 5, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

So by agreeing to an FBI interview, was Flynn setting up the swamp dwellers?

Not impossible but this sounds like too much 4D chess. Also, the public exposure of Flynn is immediate and harmful, whereas any gain against the Deep State is deferred and speculative.

Beckow , December 5, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy

Let's imagine this story if it happened in a different country:

An opposition leader wins a close election after a government uses all its power and media control to elect a selected successor. During the transition, the state police investigates the members of the incoming administration and puts them under surveillance. Street mobs that support the previous government are unleashed on the streets to intimidate the elected president and his supporters. After the opposition is sworn in, the old-regime loyalists immediately start investigating them and threaten them with removal from office.

Media who supported the previous administration goes on a hysterical witch-hunt. A special committee is formed to investigate the incoming president and any people connected to him. Eventually people are charged with talking to ' foreigners ' and ' lying ' about it when interrogated by the state police. The losing candidate openly disparages the legitimacy of the elected president. Media cheers it on and constantly predicts how very soon the interloper who somehow managed to win the elections will be removed.

If this happened in a different country, Washington would now be talking sanctions or worse.

renfro , December 5, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT
@Rurik

Kennedy was the only president to go after Israel and the Jews US Fifth Column.
In addition to demanding Israel open their nuke facilities for inspection his adm and AG supported the 1963 Fulbright Senate hearings on the ZOA and its Jews in the US. The ZOA then became AIPAC under Johnson.

That's why they killed him.

DOJ orders the AZC to Register as a Foreign Agent

"Attached hereto is the entire file relating to the American Zionist Council and our efforts to obtain its registration under the terms of the Foreign Agents Registration Act "

Documents

In the early 1960′s Israel funneled $5 million (more than $35 million in today's dollars) into US propaganda and lobbying operations. The funds were channeled via the quasi governmental Jewish Agency's New York office into an Israel lobby umbrella group, the American Zionist Council. Senate Foreign Relations Committee investigations and hearings documented funding flows, propaganda, and public relations efforts and put them into the record. But the true fate of the American Zionist Council was never known, except that its major functions were visibly shut down and shifted over to a former AZC unit known as the "Kenen Committee," called the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or AIPAC) in the late 1960′s. The following chronology provides links to images of original Department of Justice case files released on June 10, 2008 under a Freedom of Information Act filing.

John F. Kennedy President, Robert F. Kennedy Attorney General

Document/File Date Contents
08/27/1962 AZC internal memo – Lenore Karp to Rabbi Jerome Unger about AZC Department of Public Information literature distribution.
Undated 1962-1963 AZC Public Relations Plan summary
10/31/1962 Assistant Attorney General and Director of the Internal Security Division J. Walter Yeagley notifies Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy " we are soliciting next week the registration of the American Zionist Council under the Foreign Agents Registration Act You may be aware that the American Zionist Council is composed of representatives of the various Zionist organizations in the United States including the Zionist Organization of America."
11/06/1962 Nathan B. Lenvin, head of the FARA section, memo to central files, about a meeting with Jewish Agency representative Maurice M. Boukstein who asks about FARA applicability to AZC. " in his view it was doubtful that any great protest would be made since in the discussions he has had with various officials connected both with the Zionist Council and the Jewish Agency he had made it clear in his view an agency relationship would result which may require registration.'"
11/14/1962 Edwin Guthman letter to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach about future AZC FARA registration order. "I doubt very much there will be any fuss. I don't think the American Zionist Council is in any position to do so the Council has compromised its position." OK'd by Robert F. Kennedy.
11/21/1962 DOJ orders AZC to register under FARA " receipt of such funds from the American Section of the Jewish Agency for Israel constitutes the Council an agent of a foreign principal the Council's registration is requested."
12/06/1962 AZC President Rabbi Irving Miller response to DOJ "The request for registration contained in your letter raises many questions of fact and of relationships which first must be resolved by us before compliance can be made. Therefore, it is requested that you be good enough to grant us a delay of 120 days "
01/02/1963
Archive Isaiah L. Kenen incorporates the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, DC
01/24/1963
DOJ draft file memo about 01/23/1963 DOJ meeting with AZC head legal counsel Simon H. Rifkind " he had advised his client to discontinue completely the agency relationship and cut off the receipt of any additional funds Mr. Lenvin pointed out specifically that the termination of the 'activities' on the part of AZC did not absolve it of its obligation to register "

01/25/1963 Article in the National Jewish Post, filed in FARA Section – "AZC Gives Up $ to Avoid Foreign Agent Registration"
02/01/1963 DOJ Executive Assistant Thomas Hall memo to Nathan Lenvin updating meeting notes "Mr. Hall emphasized that a contrary conclusion would not of course be reached during the course of this meeting and suggested that the subject submit a detailed argument as to why it was of the opinion it should not be required to register ."
02/08/1963 DOJ AZC January 23, 1963 meeting notes by Nathan Lenvin filed "discontinuance of receipt of such funds thus terminating the agency relationship did not absolve the Council of its obligation to register."
02/19/1963 American Council for Judaism (AJC) newsletter. "The American Zionist Council (coordinating political action arm of all U.S. Zionist organizations) was asked last month by the Justice Department to register as a 'foreign agent' of the State of Israel."
03/07/1963 New York Times reporter Tony Lewis calls FARA section to verify AZC foreign agent order state AJC press release.
3/23/1963 AZC Counsel "Memorandum of Law in support of our position that the American Zionist Council is not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938."
04/01/1963 Nathan Lenvin file memo of DOJ AZC meeting on April 1, 1963- AZC Memorandum of Law rejected. " if necessary I would be willing to recommend, if the representatives of the Council insisted upon these points, that the matter be litigated."

continued

http://www.israellobby.org/forrel/default.asp

Anon , Disclaimer December 5, 2017 at 8:37 pm GMT
@Talha

Okay, makes more sense.

As far as tech goes Google (Brin at least) and Facebook were significantly Jewish at starting; Amazon is heavily reliant on investment capital and probably a significant portion of the early developers were Jewish; they were well represented in the 90s tech scene. Also the relationship between computing and finance, plus the emigration of Soviet Jews, was probably a factor.

nickels , December 5, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

Honestly, impeachment would be a good thing, because it would throw the US into such chaos that it might be less able to wreak death and destruction around the world.
It also would finally lift the scales off the Trumpees eyes and make it clear that the whole thing is rotten to the core.

lavoisier , Website December 5, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT
"Russiagate Becomes Israelgate."

Correction: Russiagate was ALWAYS Israelgate.

Cyrano , December 5, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT
This site is full of Jewish conspiracy theorists. I am not one of them. The only Jewish "conspiracy" that I have ever been able to detect is that they "conspire" to be successful. As opposed to the rest of us, I guess – who conspire to be failures in life. Jews are opportunists, they take advantage of the rules that the stupid gentiles make. And good on them, they have shown remarkable skills doing that.

In the middle ages when the only way to be rich was to own a land, European countries forbade the Jews from owning land. Then when the center of economic activity switched to the cities – guess who was the best positioned to take full advantage of the situation – the Jews. They became merchants, lawyers, bankers and so on.

I guess the stupid Europeans should have foreseen this development and as soon as the cities became centers of wealth and economic activity – they should have gone Pol Pot on the Jews – banish them to the countryside to do some farming there. So stop bitching about the current situation in the US, it's not fault of the Jews, they are just taking advantage of the stupidity of the US gentile elites.

Anon , Disclaimer December 6, 2017 at 12:26 am GMT
Too many commenters cloud the issue by equating every Jew with a Zionist. This is just as wrong as counting every German as a Nazi. Many Jews are appalled by the aggressiveness of Israel and apartheid it practices.
CanSpeccy , Website December 6, 2017 at 12:44 am GMT
@Beckow

Agreed. The Lib-Dems and their corpo/media/Follywood allies are attempting to destroy the legitimacy of an elected president by means of fake news, fake indignation and fake charges of treason.

But Trump surely has deep state allies as well as opponents, and thus will have been aware before the inauguration of what he could expect, and would therefore likely have set traps for the opposition.

The fact that the Mueller probe is losing all credibility suggests that the opposition may yet come off worse than the President.

CanSpeccy , Website December 6, 2017 at 12:54 am GMT
@renfro

I suggest everyone who is fed up with Trump's Israel First betrayal of the US let him know .

Is Trump an Israel Firster, or simply a friend of Israel. Trump ran a nationalistic election campaign and appears to be following through on his commitment to restoring the border, restricting Muslim immigration, etc. Such policies are exactly in line with those of Israel. So why would Trump not be pro-Israel? And in fact, the stronger Israel becomes, the less the US need aid Israel or tolerate American Israeli firsters.

The real issue is not Zionist influence in America but globalist influence in America. Is Trump pursuing a globalist agenda that will destroy America as a coherent nation state, or does he reject the Obama/Clinton project for the submergence of the American nation by a flood of settlers with a contempt for Americans, especially white, Chrisitan Americans.

[Dec 07, 2017] Is Rapprochement with Russia Still Possible by Daniel Larison

It is not. And the reason that was not mentioned by Daniel Larison is neo-McCarthyism which is in full swing supported by both parties. It really poisoned the well for a long, long time. actually on both sides as the level of anti-Americanism in Russian is also on the upswing. Which make work of US diplomats and businessmen more difficult. The fear that at one point Russia will show the US companies the door are quite widespread. Especially with unpredictability about who will become President Putin successor: a neoliberal like Medvedev or a nationalist like Ragozin. .
Notable quotes:
"... Trump can't make a move without being seen as a bag man for Putin. ..."
"... If our government officials fail to recognize the U.S. role in creating bad relations between Washington and Moscow, they are bound to keep repeating the mistakes that their predecessors made. ..."
"... Given how US can and has undermined countries with its ability to control the flow of US dollars, China, Russia, etc are creating the mechanisms to move away from that. With the recent announcements by Trump, concerning Jerusalem and Yemen, Saudi Arabia might be persuaded to use other currencies when selling its oil, beside US dollar. ..."
Dec 07, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Trump can't make a move without being seen as a bag man for Putin.

Thanks to the many questionable contacts between some members of the Trump campaign and Russian officials, the administration has been unable to pursue any constructive engagement with Moscow without triggering accusations of doing Russia's bidding. The administration's response to this predicament has usually been to echo the most conventional hawkish views on disputed issues and make no concerted effort to repair frayed ties with the Russian government.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently delivered a speech at the Wilson Center in which he described Russia primarily in terms of the threat that it posed to Europe. Even as he stated that the U.S. desires a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, he framed previous breakdowns in relations as being purely the result of Russian "aggression." In Tillerson's oversimplified telling, "both attempts by the prior administration to reset the Russia and U.S.-Europe relationships have been followed by Russia invading its neighbor." But that is not quite how things unfolded.

The 2008 war to which Tillerson refers was a product of the Georgian government's recklessness, its overconfidence in Western promises, and the profoundly misguided allied pledge at the Bucharest NATO summit that Ukraine and Georgia would one day become members of the alliance. Whatever "reset" George W. Bush attempted early in his first term had long since given way to repeatedly antagonizing Moscow by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, launching the Iraq war, promoting missile defense in central Europe, NATO expansion in eastern Europe, and U.S. support for the so-called "color" revolutions in the former Soviet Union.

The Obama-era "reset" achieved some initial successes, but this soon stalled out and was replaced by resentment over the passage of the Magnitsky Act and the bait-and-switch intervention for regime change in Libya that Russia had been persuaded not to oppose. Confrontation over the civil war in Syria also contributed significantly to the souring of U.S.-Russian relations. By the time the political crisis in Ukraine erupted in 2014, the hopeful atmosphere created by the "reset" was long gone, and the U.S. and allied response to that crisis contributed to further deterioration. If our government officials fail to recognize the U.S. role in creating bad relations between Washington and Moscow, they are bound to keep repeating the mistakes that their predecessors made.

... ... ...

cornel lencar says: December 6, 2017 at 11:18 pm

Daniel,

I am a close follower of your blog and admire your analyses, but I always found that there is an important component that you never address that is core to the strategic interests of the U.S. and that for Russia, or other major powers, have lately recognized explicitly and acting against, explicitly. This is the issue of U.S. dollar, or how some people call it, the petrodollar.

Given how US can and has undermined countries with its ability to control the flow of US dollars, China, Russia, etc are creating the mechanisms to move away from that. With the recent announcements by Trump, concerning Jerusalem and Yemen, Saudi Arabia might be persuaded to use other currencies when selling its oil, beside US dollar.

Such issues are of extreme strategic significance, and you never seem to touch on them.

Likbez, December 7, 2017 at 02:58 pm

Another factor worth mentioning is neo-McCarthyism which is now in full swing. That "poisoned the well" probably for a long, long time.

And it did nothing or very little to unite the country against this new official enemy.

Russiagate mostly serves internal political kitchen, specifically a color revolution against Trump administration launched by globalists (for some unknown to me reasons, as Trump manage to betray a good part of his election promises in the first three months of his presidency).

Daniel Larison is senior editor at The American Conservative.

[Dec 06, 2017] Chuck Grassley Demands FBI Produce All Strzok Text Messages As Part Of Trump Anti-Bias Probe

Notable quotes:
"... an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent. ..."
"... The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request. ..."
"... All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges; ..."
"... I doubt that Strzok worked alone. ..."
"... This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did . ..."
Dec 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Following this weekend's shocking disclosure that Peter Strzok was removed from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of Russia-Trump election (having previously handled the Clinton email server probe and interviewing Michael Flynn) after allegedly having exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with his mistress (who was an FBI lawyer working for Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe), an angry Senator Senator Grassley - who was previously stonewalled by the FBI and DOJ from getting requested information about Strzok's unexpected removal - has issued a letter demanding FBI documents in advance of an upcoming Senatorial interview with the anti-Trump FBI agent.

In his letter to FBI director Christopher Wray, Grassley writes:

The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has received no letter in reply to that request.

In advance of Mr. Strzok's interview, please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no later than December 11, 2017:

  1. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then Director Comey's draft or final statement closing the Clinton investigation, including all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing Secretary Clinton's and her associates' conduct regarding classified information from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless";
  2. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges;
  3. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or authorized by Mr. Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
  4. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI's interactions with Christopher Steele relating to the investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any communications regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr. Steele;
  5. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any instance of the FBI relying on, or referring to, information in Mr. Steele's memoranda in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search warrants, or any other judicial process;
  6. All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as well as all related 1A documents (including any contemporaneous handwritten notes); and
  7. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or favorable statements about Hillary Clinton.

Since this will be the first - and so far only - glimpse inside the ideological motivations inside Mueller's prosecutorial team the public will be greatly interested in finding what they reveal, especially those which show any direct communication between Strzok and Comey.

Grassley's full letter below ( Link )

Whoa Dammit -> yaright , Dec 6, 2017 12:27 PM

Is it true that there is a statue of Saint Hillary Our Lady of the Van Toss in the foyer of the FBI's DC headquarters?

Chupacabra-322 -> Yes We Can. But Lets Not. , Dec 6, 2017 12:51 PM

@ yes,

"Whoa, and there's more on Peter Strzok. He exchanged anti-Trump texts with Lisa Page, another Mueller team member with whom he was having an affair. She's deputy to Andrew McCabe."

"Surprise – it was Hillary Clinton supporter Peter Strzok told Comey that there was no proof of "intent" – BEFORE he had interviewed HRC."

And of course, he was involved with the sketchy interview of Cheryl Mills

And Heather Samuelson

And voila, they were given immunity

He allowed Mills and Samuelson to attend the interview with Hillary

So Strzok exonerated Hillary, led the probe into Weiner's laptop that cleared Hillary, allowed major conflicts in the Clinton investigation, and then took control of the Steele dossier probe into Trump, all while being a rabid anti-Trump, pro-Clinton partisan in his personal life.

And when Mueller learned of this behavior he reassigned him instead of firing him, in order to prevent word getting out to the public.

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/breaking-boom-anti-trump-fbi-a...

Shitonya Serfs -> Whoa Dammit , Dec 6, 2017 12:35 PM

Grassy's demands won't be met, and nothing will happen to FUBI for not providing those communications.

chubbar -> Ghost of Porky , Dec 6, 2017 1:41 PM

Sessions is culpable in the obstruction of justice UNLESS there is something big going on behind the scenes. The FBI will not provide requested documentation. The choice is going to come down to reorganizing the FBI from outside that institution. I wouldn't have a clue about legality or process of doing that, but that is what it will come down to. You can't expect these criminals to do it on their own or to voluntarily place their heads in a noose with documentation.

buzzsaw99 , Dec 6, 2017 12:26 PM

it's ... sedition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_conspiracy

Badsamm , Dec 6, 2017 12:25 PM

Seriously, how retarded are the people at the FBI? Do any of them have real life experience? So bush league

Bastiat -> Badsamm , Dec 6, 2017 12:32 PM

They hire agents directly out of law school (at least it used to be that way). The idea was they NOT have any life experience (or independent judgment). It's no accident.

Chupacabra-322 , Dec 6, 2017 12:48 PM

They're "going all in." Doesn't matter what Hand the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the Deep State & their cohorts have been dealt.

Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.

The misconception is that individuals believe we are dealing with normal, sane human beings. We're not. Far from it. What we are dealing with are sick, twisted, Pure Evil Criminal, Psychopathic, Satanic / Lucerferian elements from the CIA / Pentagram Temple of Set Scum literally making Hell on Earth.

What's at Stake is the Deep State Global network of MultiNational Central Banking, Espionage, Murder, War, Torture, Destabilization Campaigns, BlackMail, Extortion, Child / Human Trafficking, Drug / Gun Running, Money Laundering, Corruption, NSA spying, Media control & control of the 17 Intelligence Agencies.

Most importantly, The Deep State controls all the distribution lines of the aforementioned. Especially the Coaxial Cable Communication lines of Espionage spying & Surveillance State Apparatus / Infrastructure. Agencies all built on the British Model of Intelligence. Purely Evil & Highly Compartmentalized Levels which function as a Step Pyramid Model of Authority / Monarch Reign Pyramid Model of Authority.

That's what's at Stake. How this plays out is anyone's guess. The Pure Evil Criminal Psychopath Rogue elements of the Deep State will not go quietly. If not dealt with now, they'll disappear only to resurface at a later date with one objective:

Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination they seek through Power & Control.

It's those Select Highly Compartmentalized Criminal Pure Evil Rogue Elements at the Deep State Top that have had control since the JFK Execution that have entrenched themselves for decades & refuse to relinquish Control.

This impure evil has been running the world since the time of the Pharoahs, it's ancient Babylonian mysticism/paganism and it is nothing more than the worship of Lucifer; it has never died out, it just re-emerges as something far more wicked, vile and sinister. They are all the sons and daughters of satan and do what he does - kill, steal and destroy.

It would be Nieve to think that hundreds of thousands of years of control over mankind be simply turned over by the Criminal Pure Evil Psychopathic Elite. The Deep State will always exist. However, the Pure Evil Criminal Psychopathic Highly Compartmentalized Rogue Levels of it are being delt with. Which is what the World is witnessing.

Yes We Can. But... , Dec 6, 2017 12:49 PM

I'd bet there is more to the Pete Strzok story. I don't think Mueller canned him, and tried to keep that on the down-low, based solely on Strzok's overt, naked partisanship. I'd bet that the content of Strzok's text messages, rather than the (partisan) tone , will be revealing. Things are heating up...

Consuelo -> NickPeeMe , Dec 6, 2017 1:09 PM

Ok, I'll bite...

How about a paragraph or 3 of detail, juxtaposing all of Trump's high crimes & misdemeanors against the Klinton machine? Keep in mind however, you must go back 30+ years, because there are documented incidents (not rumors, innuendo or hype) of criminality from the Klinton crime syndicate. Hopefully you have likewise documentation for Trump...

Freedom Lover -> NickPeeMe , Dec 6, 2017 1:50 PM

" Trumps Guilty" Guilty of what exactly? Mueller and the boys have been at it for almost a year now and coming up with a big nothing burger. The charges Flynn peaded guilty to have nothing to do with colusion with the Russians simply ommiting details of conversations with the Russian ambassador. Alan Dershowicz a prominate progressive and constitutional scholar and no friend of Trump has stated in an interview he sees no basis for an obstruction of justice charge.

Yes We Can. But... , Dec 6, 2017 1:05 PM

So satisfying to finally see the faces of a few goons attached to the notion of 'deep state'.

http://bit.ly/2AxQ6Q6

Sphincters tightening, and social media accounts being scrubbed, all across the DC metro region...

Miss Expectations , Dec 6, 2017 12:59 PM

I doubt that Strzok worked alone. He apparently headed up the Hillary Protection Team (HPT) at the FBI. How did he keep Hillary updated? Via Loretta Lynch?

This info request is limited...what about the Huma/Weiner computer?

johnwburns , Dec 6, 2017 1:12 PM

Why the "letter demanding" softball? Subpoena the wesals if you're serious.

gcjohns1971 , Dec 6, 2017 1:34 PM

The Senate smells blood in the water, but doesn't sense who will win, hence the cautious demand letter.

Pretty clear that FBI and much of DOJ have gone rogue, and no longer respond to the rest of the government.

This scandal will be so significant that it makes Watergate look like jaywalking.

You will know when the tide has turned when Democrat Senators go for DOJ blood (in order to distance themselves).

All of this will eventually be shown as something far more sinister than mere partisan agents. And those details will reveal a whole new pattern of illegal, immoral, and traitorous conduct.

Miss Expectations , Dec 6, 2017 1:44 PM

This is one of the best re-caps of this whole sordid FBI obstruction/coverup situation: Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it's a "crime to lie to us". Not for the Clintons and their associates.

Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn't received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn't carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did .

Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie. These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie. And that meant he was lying. Not only did Clinton's people lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.

The fix had been in all along.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE WAS COMING FROM INSIDE THE FBI

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268631/obstruction-justice-was-coming-in...

Miss Expectations , Dec 6, 2017 2:27 PM

please provide the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no later than December 11, 2017....

First few questions for Mr. Strzok:

If you wanted to have private, secure communication regarding your obstruction of justice activities, would you avoid using your office computer or cell phone?

Justapleb , Dec 6, 2017 2:30 PM

I remain skeptical. After 46% of Americans are informed of some wrongdoing, Trump discovers it too.

Silly me, thinking that Trump, as president and having every law enforcement/spy agency at his command, should be finding out long before me and I should be reading about what he DID, not what he is TWEETING.

Why isn't he personally confronting the principals? Remember "Your Fired"? I didn't and still don't watch TV, but I thought he was famous for calling the person directly accountable before him, not tweeting or writing a letter to the editor or a prayer request.

Trump didn't have this guy removed. His own people did, long ago. This is like the Mafia seeing a made man is so out of hand that the Mafia itself turns him in.

We should be keen on watching results, not the evidence of what abject morons we are as Americans to have a government so nakedly corrupt. I think the main problem is Americans, despite great genetics and being born into such wealthy conditions, are operating with effective IQ's below sub-saharan Africa. If you take in television news as information, that's all a critically thinking person needs to know about you. You're a three year old in terms of logic and reason.

I'm just too worn out with victory being right around the corner since at least as far back as Whitewater.

[Dec 05, 2017] 2014 was the yeat cold War 2 started in full force

Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine. On of distinct features of psychopaths is a lack of 'strategic empathy'. One one commenter noted: "for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with Putin, or only in so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i "
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of serious miscalculations. ..."
"... Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that. After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet would be if the two countries cooperated. ..."
"... for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i ..."
"... it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet ..."
"... 2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris. ..."
"... I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics, because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped. ..."
"... It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat of fascism. ..."
"... blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief. ..."
"... Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. ..."
"... The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over. Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the same paragraph, and literally nothing else. ..."
"... In the end they often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good as a win. ..."
"... It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya .... ..."
"... Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries, or their history. ..."
"... It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist, grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush Jr., can graduate with a B- average. ..."
"... Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons. ..."
"... It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of the "non-poodle" components of Europe. ..."
"... It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good and for ill, for better and for worse. ..."
"... I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell. ..."
"... "It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums even if he wishes to." ..."
Jan 05, 2015 | moonofalabama.org

The most moving event to me in 2014 was the closing ceremony (vid, best parts of opening start here) of the Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine.

That illegal regime change was itself part of a bigger plan to restart a cold war, which will allow the U.S. to assert even more control over Europe, and eventually for regime change in Russia.

I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves. As my Do Svidanya Sochi piece said:

The Russians will be very proud of these games. They will be grateful to their government and president for having delivered them. The internal and external message is understood: Russia has again found itself and it is stronger than ever.

The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of serious miscalculations.

My hope for 2015 is that any miscalculations will be avoided and that peace will mostly prevail.

My very best wishes to all of you for a happy year 2015.

Posted by b at 12:19 PM | Comments (56)

KMF | Dec 31, 2014 12:50:24 PM | 2

Happy new year to you too.

On what you say: 'Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine.' This strikes me as placing too much emphasis on design as opposed to miscalculation, or perhaps, as this blogpost suggests, a lack of 'strategic empathy': http://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/the-need-for-strategic-empathy/

GoraDiva | Dec 31, 2014 1:33:23 PM | 6

Best to you and thanks for running a great blog!

Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that. After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet would be if the two countries cooperated.

Combining Russian knowledge and creativity with American ingenuity and entrepreneurship... - yes, one can only dream. All we have now is an unstoppable desire to dominate and a complete failure of imagination. But nothing lasts forever... so let's hope for a brighter and more honest future.

Oui | Dec 31, 2014 3:19:45 PM | 7

Great stuff!

Oliver Stone on the narrative USA In Ukraine. Always love those comments, 2,473 and counting. Links to Pepe Escobar's analysis "The new European 'arc of instability,'" which indicates growing turbulence in 2015, as the US cannot tolerate the idea of any rival economic entity.

james | Dec 31, 2014 6:56:35 PM | 17

hey sloth.. for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i

live in canada and when i see the country being raped by corps that have only as much concern for the environment as our politicians will demand, i get discouraged. these same politicians don't represent me or ordinary canucks, but these same corps wanting to take the resources while giving few jobs in return..

it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet..

they will switch to another whore when the us$ is no more.. this isn't about hero worship.. it's about recognizing how we in the west are being conned and lied to by financial interests who own the press and have nothing to do with my best interests.. no hero worship on my part.

you saying folks put putin on a pedestal is your own wishful thinking bullshit.

okie farmer | Dec 31, 2014 7:05:26 PM | 18

BBC World Service this morning said Moscow's riot police had dispersed Navalny's demonstrators keeping them off the sidewalks etc. I watched a live feed of the demonstration for hours, I counted about 80 demonstrators and about 20 police. Actually the demonstration was in a small plaza and no one was "dispersed". The police, however, were on the sidewalks watching the demonstrators in the plaza, which BBC turned on it's head for propaganda purposes.

Copeland | Dec 31, 2014 8:43:40 PM | 23

2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris.

I go into the New Year cheering b, our host at this bar. And I feel so much respect for those among us who resist, who constantly refuse to capitulate to the Forces of Darkness; and so I believe the spirit that sustains us will be here in abundance, in 2015: solidarity, imagination and ingenuity, indignation and revolt, love and catharsis, all strength of character to encourage, and yes, an ample measure of good luck.

May we live to see a better year.

Demian | Dec 31, 2014 10:18:13 PM | 26

To address the matter of the Sochi Olympics. I had wondered about what the performances were like, and since I don't have a TV, b's linking to a video of the highlights was the first opportunity I had to see what the Russians had done in an apparent effort to represent Russia as a solid part of Europe. (This is what reports said was the purpose of putting so much effort into these Olympics. Warning: I am not into ballet.)

I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics, because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped.

This is some of the best film making I have ever seen. Every single scene in the Rammstein video is mind blowing. Particularly notable are the sequence with the girls swinging their arms in tandem and the women and men diving into water. As far as I know, there is nothing like that elsewhere in cinema. It is a war crime that with cinematography and editing like that, Riefenstahl wasn't permitted by the occupying powers to continue making films.

It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat of fascism.

Compared to Olympia, what the Russians did with the Sochi Olympics is nothing but Kitsch.

jfl | Jan 1, 2015 12:23:07 AM | 27

And in addition to Saker himself and Paul Craig, there is the WHITE PAPER posted by the former and alluded to by the latter : The DOUBLE HELIX: CHINA-RUSSIA. Seems very solid.

And towards the end, the Larchmonter makes some interesting observations on North Korea, and so, obliquely on the 'Lost U.S. Credibility On Cyber Claims'.

fairleft | Jan 1, 2015 6:29:10 AM | 29

slothrop | Dec 31, 2014 6:08:50 PM | 14

I don't see b or this blog in that way, but blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief.

But Putin's actions show he _is_ a real Russian nationalist, and he has a real-world, non-imperialist understanding of what Russian nationalism covers and doesn't cover.

Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. I just wish he (and China) had woken up sooner, in 2013, and maybe the rape of Libya could've been prevented. So, Putin is a major actor in world affairs, he's on the anti-imperial side of history, and as far as I can tell he is on the side of all who fight the Western financial borg's world dominance and austerity crusade.

However, the next twenty years is about China and what it decides to do and who it decides ultimately to ally with. Maybe Putin fever can be cured a bit if we imagine him checking his every major move with Xi Jinping. Quiet Xi is the real man going forward. Not as much fun at parties, not as animated facial expressions, not as direct or as artful in expression as Putin, but he (and what he represents) is the real power.

And, if Xi and Putin remain allied, this may really turn out to be the Chinese century. Hope no feelings are hurt but I don't guess it will be known as the Eurasian Century.

That said, the only thing I remember from Sochi are Yu Na and the other beautiful Asian figure skaters.

Happy New Year everyone!

guest77 | Jan 1, 2015 2:37:36 PM | 33

Looks like the US is already playing its games in Cuba.

Here is an event presented in the New York Times: a "sweeping roundup of dissidents":

[A performance artist] was detained at her mother's home hours before the event and released Wednesday afternoon, along with several others.

That's a "sweeping roundup of dissidents" - briefly questioning someone at their mother's home.

Of course the job of the New York Times is to blow things out of proportion. How else to can the NYTimes present the enforcement of mundane laws in Cuba (laws which all countries have) to the American people, who see their police forces daily murder people? The NYTimes has a job to do (as does any propagandist): they have to convince the home population that they are living under the best conditions possible while giving the impression that life anywhere else is a dystopian nightmare. Truth be told - for a significant sector of the US population, as events in NYC and Ferguson have recently shown - the reality is exactly reversed!

Consider too, what she was briefly detained for - seeking to assemble without a permit - and ask yourself: what happens in the United States when people attempt to assemble without a permit in some of the most heavily trafficked areas of the US largest cities? What would occur, should, say, the New Black Panther Party attempted to set up a rally in Times Square unannounced? What happened, indeed, when the Obama Administration had enough of the Occupy Movement? The tear gassing, the pepper spraying, the ejection of people from a park where they had a right to be.

Face the facts. The US allows no public displays of dissent without the approval of the authorities. Yet what is presented in the US as "public order" is, in Cuba, portrayed as some sort of totalitarian repression. This is sheer hypocrisy from those who have an interest in smashing an independent government in Cuba, and convincing the American people that we live in a "free" society.

It sort of says it all that she chose the location of the memorial to the sunken Maine Battleship - the incident that brought the most recent wave of US Imperialism to Cuba.

"She then announced a news conference and public gathering on the Malecón, ...at the memorial to the Maine, the American battleship that sank in Havana Harbor in 1898."
guest77 | Jan 1, 2015 2:53:39 PM | 34
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Matthew 7:5

There is no statement more appropriate to present to those sitting in the US, smug in their conviction that their country is the righteous one, and that Russia and "evil" Putin are the aggressors.

The fact is, there is little in Russian behavior - at home or internationally - which one can point at negatively in which the United States doesn't out do them by a long stretch. From the military sphere, to the way it treats its smaller partners and neighbors, to the way it provides for its people at home.

May 2015 be the year hypocrisy faces consequences.

nomas | Jan 1, 2015 4:02:32 PM | 37

@ Oui @ 7

Yes that's great stuff. Cant say I enjoy reading the comments but over and over it becomes clear that the pro-US, pro NATO, pro IMF rah rah fools have NOTHING.

The most they can manage is "Putin lover" or "why don't you marry Putin if you love him so much"...etc., some turn it around and say instead "why don't you move to Russia if you hate America so much"..LOL.

The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over. Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the same paragraph, and literally nothing else. When they do attempt to argue the extant facts they merely invert them and mimic the arguments of we anti imperialists, standing reality on its head. These are classic, textbook reactionary rhetorical "styles"...They cant argue facts because any facts they are willing to admit to almost never support their opinions. In the end they often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good as a win. The best way to deal with these trolls and shills ? Don't engage them directly at all, but address their nonsense obliquely and restate the true facts clearly and repeatedly .

Nana2007 | Jan 1, 2015 4:25:30 PM | 38

fairleft@29- Watching the 2008 Chinese Olympics opening ceremony I remember being bowled over by the precision and artistry. I remember thinking we in the US are truly screwed. With Sochi not so much -- kitschy as you would expect. However I think Russia's actions in 2014 were duly impressive. Your post made me think of Putin re Knut Rockne's quote: "One man practicing sportsmanship is far better than a hundred teaching it."

It 's funny I know next to nothing of Xi Jingping- I'll have to remedy that this year.

Happy new year everybody.

somebody | Jan 1, 2015 4:58:24 PM | 39

slothrop | Dec 31, 2014 6:08:50 PM | 14

I agree, it is not rational. But would you really say causing something like this is Putin's fault?

From the Washington Post

But now several of these units, especially those linked to oligarchs or the far right, are revealing a dark side. In recent months, they have threatened and kidnapped government officials, boasted that they will take power if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fails to defeat Russia, and they served as armed muscle in illegal attempts to take over businesses or seize local governments.

In August, members of the Dnepr-1 battalion kidnapped the head of Ukraine's state land fund to prevent him replacing an official deemed inimical to business interests. On Dec. 15, these volunteer units interdicted a humanitarian convoy destined for the Russia-controlled Donbas, where a major emergency is emerging.

On Dec. 23, the Azov brigade announced that it was taking control of order in the eastern port city of Mariupol, without official approval from local or national officials.

Government prosecutors have opened 38 criminal cases against members of the Aidar battalion alone.

A pattern of blatant disregard for the chain of command, lawlessness and racketeering is posing a growing threat to Ukraine's stability at a critical juncture. Concern about volunteer groupings is widely shared in the Poroshenko administration, which reportedly raised the question of dealing with these dangers at a meeting in November of his National Security and Defense Council.

Most alarming, however, is the role of Ukraine's interior minister, Arsen Avakov. Instead of reining in these fighters, conducting background checks on their records and reassigning those who pass muster, he instead has offered them new heavy weapons, including tanks and armored personnel carriers, and given them enhanced brigade status. Amazingly, in September he even named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region.

Equally worrying is the activity of Ihor Kolomoyskyy, the governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Kolomoyskyy, who played a crucial and widely respected role in stabilizing his East Ukrainian region, is now flouting central authority by interdicting aid convoys headed to the Donbas and permitting brigades he finances to engage in activities that contravene the law.

What can be done? Poroshenko clearly wants this problem resolved but has been reluctant or unable to act. For him to succeed will likely require coordination with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who has also been slow to address the threat, possibly because Avakov is one of his key political allies.

Now, we all know that Yatseniuk is Victoria Nuland's guy - so the US support war lordism in Ukraine?

It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya ....

Demian | Jan 1, 2015 5:33:31 PM | 40

@somebody #39:

haha, here is how the author is described in that op-ed:

Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he co-directs the "Ukraine in Europe" initiative.
The author complains about "warlordism" in Ukraine, but it is the "Ukraine in Europe" "initiative" which has produced the warlordism. You really have to wonder how these people can live with themselves and keep on producing such pieces which studiously ignore the obvious.

brian | Jan 1, 2015 5:45:35 PM | 42

Today in Kiev, a torchlight parade honoring Ukrainian Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZPV1MmrLo

MRW | Jan 1, 2015 8:27:59 PM | 44

GoraDiva | Dec 31, 2014 1:33:23 PM | @6

I couldn't agree with you more, GoraDiva. But you have to understand how badly educated we Americans are. Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries, or their history.

And, literally, no Americans know how well-educated Russians are who went to university under the USSR system; they have no idea of the rigor. None. No one. They think Putin is some KGB agent who studied at the equivalent of a Police Academy, and managed to get lucky and win a few elections, and view him as someone similar to a Brooklyn mafia don. They don't know about Putin's Master's and PhD degrees, or what they were in.

They don't know that Lavrov can run rings around Kerry intellectually, and speaks, what? Five or six languages fluently?

They regurgitate what the former house-painter Sean Hannity thinks of Putin, who regurgitates what he heard growing up on the streets of New York. These guys don't read.

MRW | Jan 1, 2015 11:43:57 PM | 45

slothrop | Dec 31, 2014 6:08:50 PM | @14

I really don't understand why this blog became a living monument to Putin. At times, I think that b's hatred of the US has something to do with the gutless murder of civilian Hamburgers by allied bombers. On the other hand, the Red Army raped and murdered countless thousands of German civilians. And rather unlike the Russians, the American occupation was colossally more favorable to Hamburgers that was to anyone living in the Soviet bloc.
Maybe reading some history will help.

A Serious Case of Mistaken Identity by Benjamin Schwarz, LA Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/22/local/me-43656

But the biggy is what Eisenhower did to German POWs just after the war. He killed a million, dumped lye on them, and ground them into the dirt. Story in Saturday Night, 1989. Make sure you scroll down to see the photos. Eisenhower made them live in hole in the ground.
Eisenhower's Death Camps-The Last Dirty Secret of World War Two by historian James Basque
http://www.whale.to/b/bacque1.html

fairleft | Jan 1, 2015 11:53:29 PM | 46

MRW | Jan 1, 2015 8:27:59 PM | 44

It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist, grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush Jr., can graduate with a B- average.

And then the magic of connections and just doing what you're told can push an unqualified, uninterested dolt all the way to the top or near top.

Looking at Obama/Biden, Bush/Cheney, the only one who seemed smart and who knew and cared about what he was doing was the sociopath Cheney.

Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons.

A Presidential candidate who is engaged, very smart and well-informed sticks out like a sore thumb and has a hard time earning the trust of the powers that be. Hillary Clinton in 2008 is a good example. (She's done a lot (of horrible things) since then to earn the PTB's trust, though.)

For the reason that being smart, engaged and well-read means you are potentially independent-minded in a sudden crisis. What if, for example, a sudden huge economic/mortgage crisis occurs and the extremely obvious thing to do is help homeowners directly, let the foolish banks who bankrupted themselves suffer the consequences, and pour money into public works and workers' pockets? In such a crisis, the PTB wants a bored, conformist, "don't give a shit" President who'll do exactly what Goldman Sachs tells him to do, not a smart, engaged, well-informed and potentially independent thinker/decider.

So the U.S. will continue to have an intellectual deficit at the top, and Russia will continue to win diplomatic and other battles with the U.S. even in situations where it's significantly 'outweighed'. Brains are too untrustworthy, they make the Wall Street boys nervous.

somebody | Jan 2, 2015 12:02:10 AM | 47

rufus magister | Jan 1, 2015 8:13:33 PM | 43

You have the same problem as b. The world is shades of grey not good and bad.

The "novorussian" side is fighting in the areas where Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs have interests who lost when Yanukovich was ousted. By withdrawing his own Russian nationalist fanatics Putin left the field to them. The non-destruction and shake down of Mariupol is a good case study of what is going on. Kolomoisky (Dnepopetrovsk) is in a take over fight with Akhmetov (Donbass).

There seems to be an agreement between Putin, Poroshenko and the EU (devolution and Donbass remaining part of Ukraine), just Poroshenko has not got the power (the security/military apparatus is in the hands of the Yatseniuk/Avakov/Kolomoisky faction backed by Victoria Nuland) to deal. Poroshenko's statements are devoid of any logic as he tries to cover the divide in his political coalition. At the same time obviously, he is in it for himself. On the other hand there is the issue of the funding of the Novorussian side. A lot of that will be a shake down of the oligarchs, too, and the genie probably has come out of the bottle there, too.

There is something intriguing about the Dniepopetrovsk private civilian and military airport run by Kolomoisky's airline. And there is a gap in the conspiracy theories of the usual Russian linked, Western left media outlets. Indian media is full of it, just google it.

According to reports in the media, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to take off at 1 PM from Frankfurt on his way back to India from Brazil where he had gone for a meeting of the leaders of the BRICS countries. His flight eventually took off at 1:22 PM. Had Modi's flight taken off at 1 PM as the earlier reports had indicated, it would have been in the vicinity of the shooting within six minutes of the Malaysian Airlines flight being shot down. ... What makes the claim that MH 17 was mistaken for an Ukrainian military plane a highly questionable one is that the plane was just 20 miles from the Russian border and the Ukrainian government would not dare provoke Russia by sending military planes to cross over into Russian airspace. It is unlikely that the anyone could have mistaken a plane headed for Russia as an Ukrainian military aircraft. ... Modi's election in May as the Indian Prime Minister caused a huge geopolitical earthquake, and any harm to him will have great ramifications around the world.

Actually, Modi was on his return from Brazil where BRICS had just voted on the founding of a BRICS development bank.

Now, this is a very good conspiracy theory with all the necessary ingredients. How come this has been restricted to India?

fairleft | Jan 2, 2015 12:46:21 AM | 49

Well happy bad new year, the Western media works harder to whitewash fascist/Nazi Bandera. An absolutely brilliant comment by 'Jack' below the AFP puff piece:

This US imperialist propaganda piece must be written by one of the staff comedians! Bandera is Che Guevara! Chocolate king Poroshenko fought on the barricades!

Notice the backhanded support to these n@zis? Our propaganda machine wants you to think that only "Moscow" says Bandera fought on the side of Hitler and the N@zis. Notice how the article tries to justify Bandera's fighting with the n@zis by blaming the 1930s famine -- but not mentioning the famine affected the whole USSR and was made worse by US economic embargo (just like today!)

These are the n@zis on whom our US government of hypocrites spent 5 billion of our tax dollars to bring to power and overthrow an elected government. These n@zis have attacked all media and parties in Ukraine that oppose the US puppet junta.

The people of the east are overwhelmingly Russian speaking working class people, miners and factory workers, who refused their appointed oligarch governors and declared their independence of the junta.

Our US government wants to turn Ukraine into a low wage colony and establish first-strike nuclear missile bases in Ukraine directed against Russia. The restoration of capitalism in Ukraine has brought disaster.

No surprise that some US politicians mingle with N@zis in Louisiana!

brian | Jan 2, 2015 2:08:01 AM | 52

the nonpoodle parts of europe will have to be aware of sedition from its own peoples as with the various Arab springs and Ukraine's Maidan, where locals serve to agitate for a foreign power while talking about 'freedom and democracy'

Mina | Jan 2, 2015 2:25:14 AM | 53

Fascism in Ukraine
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/119309/World/International/Thousands-of-Ukraine-nationalists-march-in-Kiev.aspx

And happy new year to all here!

Ghubar Shabih | Jan 2, 2015 3:20:03 PM | 54

Sergey Lavrov said on 15 Dec 2014: "We have overestimated the independence of the European Union [from the US]." http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/767282 . Lavrov made that comment in contemplation of the trade sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia last summer & autumn including particularly the manner in which the sanctions were discussed and not debated by EU political society.

It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of the "non-poodle" components of Europe. 'b' makes a bold declaration in his above post that "I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves."

It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good and for ill, for better and for worse.

I repeat, the "non-poodle parts of Europe" have no teeth in Europe. You've seen that consistently in recent years, and you've no intelligent basis for supposing you're not going to be seeing it in 2015.

rufus magister | Jan 2, 2015 9:12:58 PM | 56

s'body @ 47 --

I'm sorry that I did not make my intent clear. I've been posting about the dangers posed by the militias and the rivalry btw. Poroshenko and Kolomoisky for a bit (good to see the WaPo has caught up, as you advise in 39 -- NYT is my MSM paper-of-record of choice, so I don't see the Post, thanks). I offered it as evidence of growing discord amongst the junta, not praise for Poroshenko's virtue. I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell.

I see the junta as shades of black -- midnight, charcoal, jet, ebony, etc. The Opposition Bloc is grey.

More grist for the mill -- nice pc. from Fort Russ, Is Poroshenko Preparing for Peace or War?. The whole pc. is worth reading, thorough consideration of Poroshenko's position, but here's the bottom line.

"It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums even if he wishes to."

[Dec 05, 2017] Schizophrenic nonsense about Russia in Western MSM

So the anti-Russian campaign probably started after Sochi Olympics if nor earlier. Now we see just a new stage of it.
Notable quotes:
"... Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards. ..."
"... West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world! ..."
"... For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. ..."
"... So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]). ..."
"... I stopped reading the FT years ago . For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass * politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are). ..."
Jan 31, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren says:

Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards.

West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world!

Moscow Exile, February 3, 2015 at 11:02 am
From the above tweet kindly posted by Peter:

Extracts from the FT article: "Battle for Ukraine: How the west lost Putin"

It was past 10pm and the German chancellor was sitting in a Hilton hotel conference room in Brisbane, Australia. Her interlocutor was the implacable Vladimir Putin. For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

The chancellor steered the conversation back to eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists were engaged in a bloody struggle against the western-backed government in Kiev, according to a person familiar with the meeting [WHO? No names, no pack drill?]. Since the crisis began, Ms Merkel [Why Ms? She is "Frau" and she is married. Does the journalist not know that? Does he think that Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants to keep her marital status a secret? Fucking PC crap!] had worked hard to extract some sense from Mr Putin of what he wanted - something she could use to construct an agreement. When he finally offered a solution, she was shocked. Mr Putin declared Kiev should deal with the rebels the way he had dealt with Russia's breakaway Chechnya region: by buying them off with autonomy and money. A reasonable idea, perhaps, to an ex-KGB colonel. But for an East German pastor's daughter, with a deeply-ingrained sense of fairness, this was unacceptable.

Ms Merkel had asked her closest advisers to stay outside during the Brisbane meeting, on November 15 last year. "She wanted to be alone . . . to test whether she could get Putin to be more open about what he really wants",says someone briefed on the conversation [WHO?]. "But he wouldn't say what his strategy is, because he doesn't know".

For Moscow, too, something snapped. Weeks later, a Kremlin official [WHO?] dismissed the notion, often cited in diplomatic circles, that there had ever been a "special relationship" between the two leaders. "Putin and Merkel could never stand each other", he told the Financial Times. "Of course, they are professionals, so they tried to make the best of it for a long time. But that seems to have changed now."

The Merkel-Putin encounter in Australia marked a turning point. After a year of crisis, the west realised that it had been pursuing an illusion: for all its post-communist tribulations, Russia was always seen to be on an inexorable path of convergence with Europe and the west - what a senior German official [WHO?] calls the notion that "in the end, they'll all become like us".

So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]).

According to a senior Washington official [WHO?], Mr Poroshenko, the oligarch elected Ukraine's president in May, was anxious to hold face-to-face meetings with Mr Putin. But he wanted other leaders in the room capable of holding Mr Putin to commitments. Ms Merkel was the obvious choice. "The administration's view is that she's the best interlocutor that we have in the west with Putin," says an ex-US diplomat [WHO?].

US President Barack Obama has held his own share of calls with Mr Putin, but he has largely taken a back seat. US insiders [WHO?] say the president feels Mr Putin was unresponsive to efforts to build a relationship. "Obama sees the world in win-win terms, Putin sees it in zero-sum terms", says the ex-diplomat. The two have a visible lack of chemistry. In Mr Obama's words, Mr Putin has a "kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom".

Diplomats suspect [WHICH DIPLOMATS?] Mr Putin is surrounded by yes-men afraid to give him the unvarnished truth. They suggest, for example, that he has been surprised by the strength of EU unity over sanctions.

She prepares meticulously, studying maps of eastern Ukraine and poring over them in meetings and phone calls with Mr Putin. "There are maps and charts, with roads and checkpoints", says a European diplomat [WHO?]. "She has these details. She knows about them."

In public, Ms Merkel has not said Mr Putin has lied, but she has in private [TO WHOM?]. "'He's lying', that's what she says to all the other leaders," says the EU diplomat.

A partygoer [WHO?] close to Ms Merkel recalls her saying little about the disaster. "The chancellor doesn't like to speak about something until she is sure of her facts. But she was shaken. It was horrendous."

"The Russians just weren't credible. They got beaten", says a senior Washington official [WHO?].

Asked why Mr Putin did not turn MH17 into an opportunity for reconciliation, a former senior Kremlin official [WHO?] said: "Because he was insulted. He acted emotionally. Because your side came out before anything was clear, accusing him of all sorts of things".

and on and on and on.

I've just got fed up of noting the unsubstantiated statements. And to make all this even more annoying,each time I cut and pasted, I received the following notification off FT:

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article."

High quality global journalism???

et Al , February 3, 2015 at 12:59 pm
I stopped reading the FT years ago. For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass* politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are).

The thing is, none of this should surprise us as established journalism has only got worse. Alternative media fortunately has grown on the back of this atrophy of the circle jerk club. What this goes to show is that the discerning news consumer now looks elsewhere for its news because the Pork Pie News Networks are so transparently bullshit in the extreme and even more unapologetic when they are caught with their pants down pretending to be milking grandma's cow in the middle of the night.

Fern, February 3, 2015 at 5:09 pm
If Putin became 'emotional' every time he was insulted by the west, he wouldn't have gotten out of bed since about 2003. Jeez, the crap these guys write.

[Dec 05, 2017] Conspiracy Theorists, Bloggers Compared To ISIS During Congressional Hearing by Paul Joseph Watson

So neo McCarthyism witch hunt that is rampant now is just more of the same.
Notable quotes:
"... The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda. ..."
"... One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media outlet. ..."
"... Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl. ..."
"... Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified. ..."
"... Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer "fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions. ..."
"... All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find out where that truth is, just how bad that is." ..."
"... Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda. ..."
"... As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda system, is intolerable" to the US establishment. ..."
"... I love it when .gov shows their hand. ..."
"... Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. ..."
"... Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrativ ..."
"... Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for god sake. ..."
"... The US Propaganda Machine has just jumped the shark. ..."
"... It jumped the shark awhile ago. Like all corrupt governments, the government of the United States accuses others of behavior the US blatantly engages in itself. A few gems regarding our own "online troll army": http://www.wired.com/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaga... ..."
"... And let's not forget that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 included a provision to repeal the ban on government propaganda being directed at American citizens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fisc... ..."
"... Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time. ..."
"... The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time. ..."
"... So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for that one too? ..."
"... Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current psyop. ..."
"... US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech? ..."
Apr 16, 2015 | euobserver.com

Submitted by Paul Joseph Watson via PrisonPlanet.com,

Bloggers, conspiracy theorists and people who challenge establishment narratives on the Internet were all likened to ISIS terrorists during a chilling Congressional hearing which took place yesterday.

The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda.

One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media outlet.

Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl.

Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified.

"By using the Internet to mobilize people that feel displaced, that feel like they've been on the outskirts of society, and give them a place where they can find a sense of belonging, and maybe make a difference in their own way, and it's a problem," she said.

Wahl went on to bemoan the fact that conspiracy theorists were "shaping the discussion online, on message boards, on Twitter, on social media," before asserting that the web had become a beacon of "disinformation, false theories, people that are just trying to make a name for themselves, bloggers or whatever, that have absolutely no accountability for the truth, that are able to rile up a mass amount of people online."

Committee Chairman Ed Royce then proceeded to accuse people on YouTube of using "raw violence" to advance conspiracy theories.

Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer "fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions.

All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find out where that truth is, just how bad that is."

Beyond the inflammatory rhetoric, the real story revolves around the fact that Washington was caught off guard by the rapid growth of RT, with Hillary Clinton and others having acknowledged the fact that the U.S. is "losing the information war," which is why they are now desperately trying to denigrate the Russian broadcaster.

Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda.

There's no mystery behind why RT has become so big – telling the truth is popular – but because Washington finds it impossible to compete on that basis, it has been forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and ludicrous comparisons to ISIS in a desperate bid to level the playing field.

As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda system, is intolerable" to the US establishment.

_SILENCER

I love it when .gov shows their hand.

Fukushima Sam

You fucking bastards, you give me a version of events like "9/11" and the "Boston Marathon Bombing" that actually seem to jibe with reality and maybe then I'll stop being a "conspiracy theorist".

LetThemEatRand

Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government.

nmewn

It should also be pointed out that Bernanke is now "a blogger" at the Brookings Institute and one helluva "conspiracy theorist" in his own right...lol.

I guess some nutters are more equal than others ;-)

Supernova Born

Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrative)

clymer

Thanks RT for not thoroughly vetting that bitchy douche. Now if we could all go back to CNN like the nice little drones that we are... (Lauren Lyster ended up at CBS - WTF is with RT hand-picking these opportunists - reminds of ironically of Yuri Bezmenov speaking of hiring jouralists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc -- they didn't learn from their own program)

Captain Debtcrash

Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for god sake.

http://www.debtcrash.report/

Bumpo

The US Propaganda Machine has just jumped the shark.

McMolotov

It jumped the shark awhile ago. Like all corrupt governments, the government of the United States accuses others of behavior the US blatantly engages in itself. A few gems regarding our own "online troll army": http://www.wired.com/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaga...

http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/I2O/Programs/Social_Media_in_Strategic_Com...

And let's not forget that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 included a provision to repeal the ban on government propaganda being directed at American citizens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fisc...

Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time.

BLOTTO

I've post previously...but always a good read.

'What is a "conspiracy theorist?

The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time.

People who are not skeptics of "official stories" tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.'

http://www.naturalnews.com/045172_conspiracy_theories_rational_thought_c...

philipat

It's hilarious watching in the land of the free as they try to find a way around the First Amendment to ban RT.......

Gaius Frakkin

So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for that one too?

So who are the REAL paranoid, deranged, scared out of their wits about losing power, conspiracy theorists?

Element

Like glib acceptance of any flaky old crap that drifts into your transom, you mean?

oh ... that's completely different ...

Right?

--

If people buy into nonsense and BS stories of their own volition, this is hardly going to be changed at the stroke of a pen of a legislative chamber all agreeing on some policy of state action to ban or else accept some aspect of public discourse.

cro_maat

Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current psyop.

TheFourthStooge-ing

US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech?

Sorry, US citizens, your propaganda techniques are too old by now. Most people know them. Especially the Russians:

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/04/chronicles-of-collapse-info-battles...

The translator of this Russian article notes that America throwing more resources into the info war is a sign of Russia's victories and America's agony in this theater of operations.

[Dec 05, 2017] EU mulls response to Russia's information war

So the current anti RT campaign is not an aberration. It is continuation of long time efforts...
Jan 09, 2015 | https://euobserver.com/foreign/127135

EU Observer: EU mulls response to Russia's information war

The Netherlands is funding a study on how the EU can fight back against Russia's "information war", in one of several counter-propaganda initiatives.

The Dutch-sponsored study was launched in the New Year by the European Endowment for Democracy (EED), a Brussels-based foundation.

But little happened until the Netherlands stepped in with the EED grant after a passenger plane, flight MH17, was shot down over east Ukraine killing 193 Dutch nationals and 105 other people.

Evidence indicates Russia-controlled rebels caused the disaster using a Russia-supplied rocket system.

But Russian state media have tried to sow suspicion the Ukrainian air force did it in order to prompt Western intervention in the conflict

Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, and the UK are drafting an informal paper on how EU institutions and Nato can co-ordinate "strategic communications"

Its foreign ministry spokesman, Karlis Eihenbaums, told this website that around 15 EU states back the project and that the news broadcasts should be available in Russia if they can get past its "jamming system".

But Riga is trying to play down expectations of a quick result.

"I don't think we can come to an agreement among the 28 [EU leaders] to come up with a new TV station in Russian. Euronews is already doing news in Russian, so it'll be difficult to get an additional channel", Latvian PM Laimdota Straujuma told press in the Latvian capital on Wednesday (7 January).

Well-funded Russian broadcasters, such as RT, have hired big names, including former CNN anchor Larry King, and air programmes in English, French, German, and Spanish as well as Russian.

Their work is backed up by pseudo-NGOs.

Putting the Dutch grant in perspective, the British think-tank, Chatham House estimates the Russian "NGO" component alone is worth $100 million a year.

Western media have caught Russian media using fake pictures and fake witness accounts of alleged Ukrainian atrocities.

Eihenbaums noted that any EU news channel "must be attractive, but with accurate information it must not be a propaganda organ".

He cited RFE/RFL, a US-funded broadcaster, and the BBC as models because they do both Ukraine-critical and Russia-critical stories.
###

If you can't smell the excrement off that, then get thee to a medic!

Now, considering the piece above, try not to hold back a large guffaw for this one!

[Dec 05, 2017] One-Pager on Latest Developments in Russia (RF Sitrep 20150129)

Jan 31, 2015 | Russia Insider

HOW TO READ THE WESTERN MEDIA.

When they say Kiev forces have re-taken the airport, know that they have lost it.

When they say giving up South Stream was a defeat for Putin, know it was a brilliant counter-move.

When they say Russia is isolated (a stopped clock, here's The Economist in 1999!), know that it is expanding its influence and connections every day.

When they say Russians are turning against Putin, know that the opposite is true. When they speak of nation-building in the new Ukraine, know it's degenerating into armed thuggery (see video).

Know that when they speak of Kyrzbekistan, they're not just stenographers, they're incompetent stenographers.

Take what they say, turn it upside down, and you'll have a better take on reality.

THE MERKEL MYSTERY. I, like many, thought, when the Ukraine crisis began, that German Chancellor Merkel would prove to be key in settling it. This has not proved to be the case at all; in fact she often throws more fuel on the fire. I believe that Gilbert Doctorow may have the answer. In essence, he believes that Berlin dreams the "pre-WWI dream of Mitteleuropa" with cheap, docile workers in Poland, Ukraine and the others forever. Of course, it hasn't worked out very well, but that, he thinks, was the plan. There was no "End of History" after all; a rebirth of history it seems.

[Dec 04, 2017] Anti-Trump FBI Agent Changed Language Of Hillary Email Scandal From Grossly Negligent To Extremely Careless

Notable quotes:
"... the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation. ..."
Dec 04, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Over the weekend we noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's top FBI investigator into 'Russian meddling', agent Peter Strzok, was removed from the probe due to the discovery of anti-Trump text messages exchanged with a colleague (a colleague whom he also happened to be having an extra-marital affair with).

Not surprisingly, the discovery prompted a visceral response from Trump via Twitter:

Tainted (no, very dishonest?) FBI "agent's role in Clinton probe under review." Led Clinton Email probe. @foxandfriends Clinton money going to wife of another FBI agent in charge.

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

Report: "ANTI-TRUMP FBI AGENT LED CLINTON EMAIL PROBE" Now it all starts to make sense!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 3, 2017

Alas, as it turns out, Strzok, who was blatantly exposed as a political hack by his own wreckless text messages, also had a leading role in the Hillary email investigation. And wouldn't you know it, as CNN has apparently just discovered, Strzok not only held a leading role in that investigation but potentially single-handedly saved Hillary from prosecution by making the now-infamous change in Comey's final statement to describe her email abuses as "extremely careless" rather than the original language of "grossly negligent."

A former top counterintelligence expert at the FBI, now at the center of a political uproar for exchanging private messages that appeared to mock President Donald Trump, changed a key phrase in former FBI Director James Comey's description of how former secretary of state Hillary Clinton handled classified information, according to US officials familiar with the matter.

Electronic records show Peter Strzok, who led the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server as the No. 2 official in the counterintelligence division, changed Comey's earlier draft language describing Clinton's actions as "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless," the source said. The drafting process was a team effort, CNN is told, with a handful of people reviewing the language as edits were made, according to another US official familiar with the matter.

But the news of Strzok's direct role in the statement that ultimately cleared the former Democratic presidential candidate of criminal wrongdoing, now combined with the fact that he was dismissed from special counsel Robert Mueller's team after exchanging private messages with an FBI lawyer that could be seen as favoring Clinton politically, may give ammunition to those seeking ways to discredit Mueller's Russia investigation.

The FBI and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Of course, as we noted a month ago (see: First Comey Memo Concluded Hillary Was "Grossly Negligent," Punishable By Jail ), the change in language was significant since federal law states that "gross negligence" in handling the nation's intelligence can be punished criminally with prison time or fines whereas "extreme carelessness" has no such legal definition and/or ramifications.

In fact, Section 793 of federal law states that "gross negligence" with respect to the handling of national defense documents is punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison ...so you can see why that might present a problem for Hillary.

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -- shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

And just like that, the farce that has heretofore been referred to as the "Russian meddling probe" has been exposed for what it really is...an extremely compromised political "witch hunt".

As the phony Russian Witch Hunt continues, two groups are laughing at this excuse for a lost election taking hold, Democrats and Russians!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 23, 2017

Budnacho , Dec 4, 2017 5:32 PM

*sits down, makes popcorn*

junction -> Budnacho , Dec 4, 2017 5:34 PM

And from "extremely careless" to "good enough for government work."

The Alarmist -> junction , Dec 4, 2017 5:37 PM

Simple negligence on the part of the FBI agent ... nothing to see here.

Now, about that collusion with the Russians ....

shitshitshit -> The Alarmist , Dec 4, 2017 5:42 PM

dude looks like illegitimate offspring from alan greespan.

Is this the result of consanguinity at work?

chunga -> The Alarmist , Dec 4, 2017 5:41 PM

I think Lych wanted to call this a "matter", Comey said there was no intent, and the Phoenix tarmac talker needed to be "stemmed".

Russian fingerprints everywhere.

south40_dreams , Dec 4, 2017 5:44 PM

This is the Mueller-Comey FBI crime family at its finest. James Comey was an highly paid executive at Lockheed Martin just prior to being named FBI director, replacing his close buddy Mueller who was FBI director. LM was also a high contributor to the Clinton Foundation in its glory days, with suspicious ties to Comey's lawyer brother. Dickie Mueller seems to be the brains of the whole cabal.

Roots and tentacles in the swamp lead EVERYWHERE

Wilcox1 , Dec 4, 2017 5:47 PM

Where are the emails between this stork and the fbi page named kelly that he was having an interoffice affair with? Its been proved she hated OUR PRESIDENT TRUMP of US(A). This stork guy won't be getting the attention from this fbi page that he is in an interoffice relationship with unless he acts the way she wants. Seems like these emails should be easy to get by the lamestream wapo, failing nytimes, fakest of fake news cnn, etc.

enough of this , Dec 4, 2017 5:47 PM

When Strzok made the change, he provided incontrovertible proof of the FBI's obstruction of justice in the Clinton case, as this article clearly explains:

http://investmentwatchblog.com/extremely-careless-or-grossly-negligent-a...

MuffDiver69 , Dec 4, 2017 5:49 PM

Zero of this happens if the President hadn't been hammering in a public way for intelligence leaks to be plugged and calling out the FBI and Comey relentlessly.....I think it's a pretty good bet that one of the twenty seven leak investigations going on caught this idiot..No way an Inspector General just happened upon Storks texts...that takes some "wiretapping" or other counter measures..Now the dam has burst...Anyone defending the FBI and it's integrity at this point needs to be hung...

[Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

Highly recommended!
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
Mar 28, 2015 | Foreign Affairs
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.

The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.

Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand "if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin."

Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.

But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.

Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...

Jamil M Chaudri

Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".

There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.

One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).

This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.

Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE

Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia (and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.

Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.

If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed deep in BLOOD.

At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths in Pakia,

Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON

Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists, and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed. Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania. For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece! Go back to the shelf you have come off.

Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago

Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing each other to this day. Google it.

Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay

I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..

By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands!

My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.

On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what? About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.

There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.

Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri

Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target.

The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing.

As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?

And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the world .

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western meddling in Arab lands.

Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37

The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS: enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:

1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.

2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.

Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:

"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:

"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them. They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food." 3

Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.

First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.

Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering. See the figures in most authoritative publications.

Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.

jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri

Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the " impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.

But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation, band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.

Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37

First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.

You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of "deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument – but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling, bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.

Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes. This is western patronage.

Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the news buzz is created by American media.

The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way? When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?

I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing the Star-Spangled Banner.

jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri

We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference. However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred in other religions. ( Christianity for example )

Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.

Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri

Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.

Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro

I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.

Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE OF NATIONS.

Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri

I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations, it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........

"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.

In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.

Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands."

Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928

Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............

http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...

http://www.richardsilverstein....

http://www.btselem.org/downloa...

BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize throughout our world.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............

"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)

Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying the benefits of their game.

I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS. Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....

India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).

Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.

Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people who have programmed him/her.

From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual reality.

ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri

So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists! Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty, into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.

Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.

Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently, not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.

Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.

There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH" to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence, and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.

I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some. I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.

All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.

Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.

Ivan Night Terrible

Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers. But two points:

[Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

Highly recommended!
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
Mar 28, 2015 | Foreign Affairs
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.

The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.

Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand "if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin."

Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.

But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.

Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...

Jamil M Chaudri

Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".

There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.

One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).

This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.

Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE

Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia (and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.

Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.

If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed deep in BLOOD.

At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths in Pakia,

Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON

Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists, and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed. Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania. For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece! Go back to the shelf you have come off.

Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago

Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing each other to this day. Google it.

Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay

I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..

By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands!

My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.

On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what? About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.

There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.

Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri

Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target.

The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing.

As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?

And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the world .

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western meddling in Arab lands.

Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37

The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS: enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:

1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.

2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.

Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:

"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:

"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them. They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food." 3

Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.

First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.

Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering. See the figures in most authoritative publications.

Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.

jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri

Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the " impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.

But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation, band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.

Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37

First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.

You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of "deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument – but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling, bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.

Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes. This is western patronage.

Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the news buzz is created by American media.

The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way? When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?

I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing the Star-Spangled Banner.

jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri

We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference. However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred in other religions. ( Christianity for example )

Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.

Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri

Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.

Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro

I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.

Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE OF NATIONS.

Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri

I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations, it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........

"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.

In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.

Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands."

Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928

Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............

http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...

http://www.richardsilverstein....

http://www.btselem.org/downloa...

BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize throughout our world.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............

"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)

Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying the benefits of their game.

I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS. Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....

India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).

Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.

Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people who have programmed him/her.

From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual reality.

ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri

So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists! Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty, into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.

Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.

Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently, not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.

Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.

There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH" to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence, and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.

I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some. I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.

All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.

Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.

Ivan Night Terrible

Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers. But two points:

[Dec 03, 2017] Progress Report on the US-Russian war by The Saker

i think the Saker forgot that Russia is also a neoliberal country. The last time I checked Russia keeps its foreign reserves in US.
Notable quotes:
"... I am often asked if the US and Russia will go to war with each other. I always reply that they are already at war. Not a war like WWII, but a war nonetheless. This war is, at least for the time being, roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But in political terms the outcome for the loser of this war will be no less dramatic than the outcome of WWII was for Germany: the losing country will not survive it, at least not in its present shape: either Russia will become a US colony again or the AngloZionist Empire will collapse. ..."
"... First, led by Obama, all the leaders of the West declared urbi et orbi and with immense confidence that Assad had no future, that he had to go, that he was already a political corpse and that he would have no role whatsoever to play in the future of Syria. ..."
"... Second, the Empire created a "coalition" of 59 (!) countries, which failed to achieve anything, anything at all: a gigantic multi-billion dollar " gang that could not shoot straight " led by CENTCOM and NATO, which only proved its most abject incompetence. In contrast, Russia never had more than 35 combat aircraft in Syria at any time and turned the course of the war (with a lot of Iranian and Hezbollah help on the ground). ..."
"... Finally, when the US realized that putting Daesh in power in Damascus was not going to happen, they first tried to break up Syria (Plan B) and then tried to create a Kurdish statelet in Iraq and Syria (Plan C). All these plans failed, Assad is in Russia giving hugs to Putin , while Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp Quds Force Commander General Soleimani is taking a stroll through the last Syrian city to be liberated from Daesh . ..."
"... This is becoming comical. The US media, especially CNN, cannot let a day go by without mentioning the evil Russians, the US Congress is engaged in mass hysteria trying to figure out which of the Republicans and the Democrats have had more contacts with the Russians, NATO commanders are crapping their pants in abject terror (or so they say!) every time the Russian military organizes any exercise, the US Navy and Air Force representatives regularly whine about Russian pilots making "unprofessional intercepts", the British Navy goes into full combat mode when a single (and rather modest) Russian aircraft carrier transits through the English Channel – but Russia is, supposedly, the "weak" country here. ..."
"... The truth is that the Russians are laughing. From the Kremlin, to the media, to the social media – they are even make hilarious sketches about how almighty they are and how they control everything. But mostly the Russians are laughing their heads off wondering what in the world the folks in the West are smoking to be so totally terrified ( at least officially ) by a non-existing threat. ..."
"... That western political leaders are seeking safety in numbers. Hence the ridiculously bloated "coalitions" and all the resolutions coming out of various European and trans-Atlantic bodies. Western politicians are like schoolyard nerds who, fearing the tough kid, huddle together to look bigger. Every Russian kid knows that seeking safety in numbers is a surefire sign of a scared wimp. In contrast, the Russians also remember how a tiny nation of less than 2 million people had the courage to declare war on Russia and how they fought the Russians hard, really hard. I am talking about the Chechens of course. Yeah, love them or hate them – but there is no denying that Chechens are courageous. Ditto for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The Russians were impressed. And even though the Nazis inflicted an unspeakable amount of suffering on the Russian people, the Russians never deny that the German soldiers and officers were skilled and courageous. There is even a Russian saying "I love/respect the courageous man in the Tatar/Mongol" (л юблю молодца и в татарине). So Russians have no problem seeing courage in their enemies. ..."
"... US: the US strategy is equally simple: Use the Russian "threat" to give a meaning and a purpose to the Empire, especially NATO. Continue and expand the "petty harassment" against Russia on all levels. Subvert and weaken as much as possible any country or politician showing any signs of independence or disobedience (including New Silk Road countries) ..."
"... It is important to stress here that in this struggle Russia is at a major disadvantage: whereas the Russians want to build something, the Americans only want to destroy it (examples include Syria, of course, but also the Ukraine or, for that matter, a united Europe). Another major disadvantage for Russia is that most governments out there as still afraid of antagonizing the Empire in any way, thus the deafening silence and supine submissiveness of the "concert of nations" when Uncle Sam goes on one of his usual rampages in total violation of international law and the UN Charter. This is probably changing, but very, very slowly. Most world politicians are just like US Congressmen: prostitutes (and cheap ones at that). ..."
"... The biggest advantage for Russia is that the US are internally falling apart economically, socially, politically – you name it. With every passing year the once most prosperous United States are starting to look more and more like some backwater Third World country. Oh sure, the US economy is still huge (but rapidly shrinking!), but that is meaningless when financial wealth and social wealth are conflated into one completely misleading index of pseudo-prosperity. This is sad, really, a country that ought to be prosperous and happy is being bled to death by the, shall we say, "imperial parasite" feeding on it. ..."
"... Amount of idiocy of current American authorities and society as whole is amazing. Looking in the past I can't see such desperate clowns as those on the top: McCains, Clintons, Haleys at last Trump! and hundreds of powerful people who can not distinguish between Austria and Australia, all of those stupid askin to punish Russia! So, I'd like to be mistaken, but I'm not optimistic about the future of our planet and I believe it is the "West" who can change something, not Russia, we are staying near the last red line and not gonna retreat. ..."
"... The financial dynasties which have ruled the western world for the last few centuries are evidently in the final stages of degeneration. Their ancestors were at least intelligent people whatever one might think about their ethics. So far as I am able to tell we are now being ruled by people who only have one notable characteristic, arrogance. They are to the western world what Caligula and Nero were to Rome, poison and delusion. I doubt very much that there will be a happy outcome. ..."
"... Inherited wealth on a massive scale is the problem, when individuals are born with enough wealth to confer political influence even over the wealthiest countries, then democracy can only be a sham. Bill Gates (of all people) was on the right track a few years ago when he declared that he was only going to pass down to his descendants enough money to live comfortably for one lifetime. Until some sort of sane cap is placed on inherited wealth then we will continue to be ruled by people with mediocre ability advised by second-rate intellectuals who are prepared to tell them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Lavrov, like Putin, has made a practice of dropping such truth-bombs on the US regime. And who can blame them, if the US regime insists on handing them the ammunition, time after time? ..."
"... I hope too, but currenly a ball is on your side of a field. We (Russians) actually can't retreat any more. If US will keep its "soft harrasment" the result could be extremly bad. And I see no reason to expect sane behaviour from US establishment. They are insane, what about a majority of american people ? I don't know. But its must "come from below" of US society, not from us, we already did. ..."
"... At that time (early 1990s) this was almost a consensus among many professionals on Russian side that this was possible. By 1999 it became clear that situation degenerated to such a degree that no compromise was possible anymore. Part of it was rooted in the nature of re-emerging genuine Russian state, the lion share, however, was in neocons completely subverting US foreign policy. ..."
"... First, there is no war. The real/unreal "war" continues because it serves the powers that be on both sides. On the US side, it serves as an excuse for an enormous "defense" spending that now exceeds defense spending of the rest of the world combined. This massive flow of taxpayers' money into the pockets of the few who feed at the Pentagon trough needs some "justification", and "evil Russia" serves admirably. ..."
"... On the Russian side, Putin's generally anti-US foreign policy, which is supported by the great majority of Russians, "justifies" his grip on power despite the fact that the internal policies of his government, which also enrich very few at the expense of the rest, are very unpopular. ..."
"... The US never wages a real war on anyone who has WMDs. North Korea is the most up-to-date example of this. The very fact of the US invasion of Iraq or bombing of Syria showed that the US was 100% sure that neither Saddam nor Assad have WMDs. The US elites, dumb and shortsighted though they are, understand deep down that they need to stay alive to enjoy their loot. As Ukrainian saying puts it, "coffins have no pockets". ..."
"... But there is a stiff competition: the US Empire is going downhill, like the British Empire a century ago, and the Chinese are happy to have Russia spearhead the resistance (which they quietly support in many ways). I doubt that Chinese domination would be any more benign than shameless and brutal US domination, but we'll see soon enough: in 20-30 years the US will be relegated to the position of a second-tier power. I am not even sure that Chinese domination would be in Russia's interests any more than the US domination, but US elites in their incredible stupidity forced Russia to ally with China and all anti-American forces in the world, as diverse as Iran and North Korea. ..."
"... The US is losing so fast due to blind greed and overall degradation of its elites, who keep biting off a lot more than they can chew and behaving like it's 1990. But the ultimate win would be more China's than Russia's, unless Russia manages to create a tri-polar world with China and India, which would be certainly better than any unipolar world can possibly be. ..."
"... Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four 'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people, most of the time are better off left alone. ..."
"... Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years. ..."
"... I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity ..."
"... "The white knight in shining armor" actually turned out to be a cowardly greedy coyote who unsuccessfully tried to fit into a stolen somewhere sheep skin. ..."
Dec 01, 2017 | www.unz.com

Report on the US-Russian War

I am often asked if the US and Russia will go to war with each other. I always reply that they are already at war. Not a war like WWII, but a war nonetheless. This war is, at least for the time being, roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But in political terms the outcome for the loser of this war will be no less dramatic than the outcome of WWII was for Germany: the losing country will not survive it, at least not in its present shape: either Russia will become a US colony again or the AngloZionist Empire will collapse.

In my very first column for the Unz Review entitled " A Tale of Two World Orders " I described the kind of multipolar international system regulated by the rule of law that Russia, China and their allies and friends worldwide (whether overt or covert) are trying to build and how dramatically different it was from the single World Hegemony that the AngloZionists have attempted to establish (and almost successfully imposed upon our suffering planet!). In a way, the US imperial leaders are right , Russia does represent an existential threat, not for the United States as a country or for its people, but for the AngloZionist Empire, just as the latter represents an existential threat to Russia. Furthermore, Russia represents a fundamental civilizational challenge to what is normally called the "West" as she openly rejects its post-Christian (and, I would add, also viscerally anti-Islamic) values. This is why both sides are making an immense effort at prevailing in this struggle.

Last week the anti-imperial camp scored a major victory with the meeting between Presidents Putin, Rouhani and Erdogan in Sochi: they declared themselves the guarantors of a peace plan which will end the war against the Syrian people (the so-called "civil war", which this never was) and they did so without inviting the US to participate in the negotiations. Even worse, their final statement did not even mention the US, not once. The "indispensable nation" was seen as so irrelevant to even be mentioned.

To fully measure how offensive all this is we need to stress a number of points:

First, led by Obama, all the leaders of the West declared urbi et orbi and with immense confidence that Assad had no future, that he had to go, that he was already a political corpse and that he would have no role whatsoever to play in the future of Syria.

Second, the Empire created a "coalition" of 59 (!) countries, which failed to achieve anything, anything at all: a gigantic multi-billion dollar " gang that could not shoot straight " led by CENTCOM and NATO, which only proved its most abject incompetence. In contrast, Russia never had more than 35 combat aircraft in Syria at any time and turned the course of the war (with a lot of Iranian and Hezbollah help on the ground).

Next, the Empire decreed that Russia was "isolated" and her economy " in tatters " – all of which the Ziomedia parroted with total fidelity . Iran was, of course, part of the famous " Axis of Evil ," while Hezbollah was the " A-Team of terrorism ". As for Erdogan, the AngloZionists tried to overthrow and kill him. And now it is Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Turkey who defeated the terrorists and will call the shots in Syria.

Finally, when the US realized that putting Daesh in power in Damascus was not going to happen, they first tried to break up Syria (Plan B) and then tried to create a Kurdish statelet in Iraq and Syria (Plan C). All these plans failed, Assad is in Russia giving hugs to Putin , while Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp Quds Force Commander General Soleimani is taking a stroll through the last Syrian city to be liberated from Daesh .

Can you imagine how totally humiliated, ridiculed, and beaten the US leaders feel today? Being hated or resisted is one thing, but being totally ignored – now that hurts!

As for a strategy, the best they could come up with was what I would call a "petty harassment of Russia": making RT sign up as a foreign agent, stealing ancient art from Russia , stripping Russian athletes from medals en masse , trying to ban the Russian flag and anthem from the Olympics in Seoul or banning Russian military aircraft from the next Farnborough airshow. And all these efforts have achieved is making Putin even more popular, the West even more hated, and the Olympics even more boring (ditto for Farnborough – the MAKS and the Dubai Air Shows are so much 'sexier' anyway). Oh, I almost forgot, the "new Europeans" will continue their mini-war against old Soviet statues to their liberators. It's just like the US mini-war on the Russian representations in the US, a clear sign of weakness .

Speaking of weakness.

This is becoming comical. The US media, especially CNN, cannot let a day go by without mentioning the evil Russians, the US Congress is engaged in mass hysteria trying to figure out which of the Republicans and the Democrats have had more contacts with the Russians, NATO commanders are crapping their pants in abject terror (or so they say!) every time the Russian military organizes any exercise, the US Navy and Air Force representatives regularly whine about Russian pilots making "unprofessional intercepts", the British Navy goes into full combat mode when a single (and rather modest) Russian aircraft carrier transits through the English Channel – but Russia is, supposedly, the "weak" country here.

Does that make sense to you?

The truth is that the Russians are laughing. From the Kremlin, to the media, to the social media – they are even make hilarious sketches about how almighty they are and how they control everything. But mostly the Russians are laughing their heads off wondering what in the world the folks in the West are smoking to be so totally terrified ( at least officially ) by a non-existing threat.

You know what else they are seeing?

That western political leaders are seeking safety in numbers. Hence the ridiculously bloated "coalitions" and all the resolutions coming out of various European and trans-Atlantic bodies. Western politicians are like schoolyard nerds who, fearing the tough kid, huddle together to look bigger. Every Russian kid knows that seeking safety in numbers is a surefire sign of a scared wimp. In contrast, the Russians also remember how a tiny nation of less than 2 million people had the courage to declare war on Russia and how they fought the Russians hard, really hard. I am talking about the Chechens of course. Yeah, love them or hate them – but there is no denying that Chechens are courageous. Ditto for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The Russians were impressed. And even though the Nazis inflicted an unspeakable amount of suffering on the Russian people, the Russians never deny that the German soldiers and officers were skilled and courageous. There is even a Russian saying "I love/respect the courageous man in the Tatar/Mongol" (л юблю молодца и в татарине). So Russians have no problem seeing courage in their enemies.

... ... ...

Russia: the Russian strategy towards the Empire is simple:

Try to avoid as much as possible and for as long as possible any direct military confrontation with the US because Russia is still the weaker side (mostly in quantitative terms). That, and actively preparing for war under the ancient si vis pacem para bellum strategy. Try to cope as best can be with all the "petty harassment": the US still has infinitely more "soft power" than Russia and Russia simply does not have the means to strike back in kind. So she does the minimum to try to deter or weaken the effects of that kind of "petty harassment" but, in truth, there is not much she can do about it besides accepting it as a fact of life. Rather than trying to disengage from the AngloZionist controlled Empire (economically, financially, politically), Russia will very deliberately contribute to the gradual emergence of an alternative realm. A good example of that is the Chinese-promoted New Silk Road which is being built without any meaningful role for the Empire.

US: the US strategy is equally simple: Use the Russian "threat" to give a meaning and a purpose to the Empire, especially NATO. Continue and expand the "petty harassment" against Russia on all levels. Subvert and weaken as much as possible any country or politician showing any signs of independence or disobedience (including New Silk Road countries)

Both sides are using delaying tactics, but for diametrically opposite reasons: Russia, because time is on her side and the US, because they have run out of options.

It is important to stress here that in this struggle Russia is at a major disadvantage: whereas the Russians want to build something, the Americans only want to destroy it (examples include Syria, of course, but also the Ukraine or, for that matter, a united Europe). Another major disadvantage for Russia is that most governments out there as still afraid of antagonizing the Empire in any way, thus the deafening silence and supine submissiveness of the "concert of nations" when Uncle Sam goes on one of his usual rampages in total violation of international law and the UN Charter. This is probably changing, but very, very slowly. Most world politicians are just like US Congressmen: prostitutes (and cheap ones at that).

The biggest advantage for Russia is that the US are internally falling apart economically, socially, politically – you name it. With every passing year the once most prosperous United States are starting to look more and more like some backwater Third World country. Oh sure, the US economy is still huge (but rapidly shrinking!), but that is meaningless when financial wealth and social wealth are conflated into one completely misleading index of pseudo-prosperity. This is sad, really, a country that ought to be prosperous and happy is being bled to death by the, shall we say, "imperial parasite" feeding on it.

At the end of the day, political regimes can only survive by the consent of those they rule. In the United States this consent is clearly in the process of being withdrawn. In Russia it has never been stronger. This translates into a major fragility of the US and, therefore, the Empire (the US are by far the biggest host of the AngloZionist imperial parasite) and a major source of staying power for Russia.

All of the above applies only to political regimes, of course. The people of Russia and of the US have exactly the same interests: bringing down the Empire with the least amount of violence and suffering as possible. Like all Empires, the US Empire mostly abused others in its formative and peak years, but as any decaying Empire it is now mostly abusing its own people. It is therefore vital to always repeat that an "Empire-free US" would have no reason to see an enemy in Russia and vice-versa. In fact, Russia and the US could be ideal partners, but the "imperial parasites" will not allow that to happen. Thus we are all stuck in an absurd and dangerous situation which could result in a war which would completely destroy most of our planet.

For whatever it's worth, and in spite of the constant hysterical Russophobia in the US Ziomedia, I detect absolutely no sign whatsoever that this campaign is having any success with the people in the US. At most, some of them naively buy into the "the Russians tried to interfere in our elections" fairy tale, but even in this case this belief is mitigated by "no big deal, we also do that in other countries". I have yet to meet a American who would seriously believe that Russia is any kind of danger. I don't even detect superficial reactions of hostility when, for example, I speak Russian with my family in a public place. Typically, we are asked what language we are speaking and when we reply "Russian" the reaction normally is "cool!". Quite often I even hear "what do you think of Putin? I really like him". This is in severe contrast with the federal government whom the vast majority of Americans seem to hate with a passion.

To summarize it all, I would say that at this point in time of the US-Russian war, Russia is wining, the Empire is losing and the US is suffering. As for the EU it is "enjoying" a much deserved irrelevance while being mostly busy absorbing wave after wave of society-destroying refugees proving, yet again, the truth of the saying that if your head is in the sand, your ass is in the air.

This war is far from over, I don't even think that we have reach its peak yet and things are going to get worse before they get better again. But all in all, I am very optimistic that the Axis of Kindness will bite the dust in a relatively not too distant future.

yurivku , December 1, 2017 at 7:16 am GMT

Reading texts from Saker is a sip of fresh water in a rotten pool. His words "things are going to get worse before they get better again" could come true, but also could never happen cause current Cold War very likely may be converted to very hot one. And they will not get better. The common West doing everything for it.

Saker said "Russians laughing" – yes, we do sometimes, but when we hear last news from "soft harassment" like attacks on our sportsmen, diplomats or reporters we are clenching our fists. We do not feel bad on western people, but this is not the case when to talk about the country as whole, counry which being determinated by its tops. There is a limit to any patience.

Amount of idiocy of current American authorities and society as whole is amazing. Looking in the past I can't see such desperate clowns as those on the top: McCains, Clintons, Haleys at last Trump! and hundreds of powerful people who can not distinguish between Austria and Australia, all of those stupid askin to punish Russia!
So, I'd like to be mistaken, but I'm not optimistic about the future of our planet and I believe it is the "West" who can change something, not Russia, we are staying near the last red line and not gonna retreat.

MarkU , December 1, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT
The financial dynasties which have ruled the western world for the last few centuries are evidently in the final stages of degeneration. Their ancestors were at least intelligent people whatever one might think about their ethics. So far as I am able to tell we are now being ruled by people who only have one notable characteristic, arrogance. They are to the western world what Caligula and Nero were to Rome, poison and delusion. I doubt very much that there will be a happy outcome.

Inherited wealth on a massive scale is the problem, when individuals are born with enough wealth to confer political influence even over the wealthiest countries, then democracy can only be a sham. Bill Gates (of all people) was on the right track a few years ago when he declared that he was only going to pass down to his descendants enough money to live comfortably for one lifetime. Until some sort of sane cap is placed on inherited wealth then we will continue to be ruled by people with mediocre ability advised by second-rate intellectuals who are prepared to tell them what they want to hear.

The biggest threat to our continued existence is not the strength of the Russian federation but its weakness. Outspent and outnumbered hugely by the EU alone (whatever the paid liars in Washington say) their only credible defence in the event of open warfare is their nuclear arsenal, we can only hope they never need to use it.

Randal , December 1, 2017 at 10:53 am GMT

Can you imagine how totally humiliated, ridiculed, and beaten the US leaders feel today? Being hated or resisted is one thing, but being totally ignored – now that hurts!

Saker could have added to the list of self-inflicted defeats for the US regime and foreign policy elites their ongoing humiliation over North Korea, where they have endlessly tried to insist that the US has some kind of special right for its enemies not to be allowed even to possess weapons that could potentially attack them, and postured and menaced in response to the NK government's defiance, but have so far been forced to accept that they can do nothing about it, as Pat Buchanan discusses today . And as Pat points out, this is a situation entirely of the US regime's making – by operating a sustained policy of military aggressions, and especially of attacking those that foolishly rely upon submission to their demands (Gaddafi) and undermining any agreements they make (Iran), they created the situation in which going all out for a nuclear deterrent became the most rational course available for NK.

The US might yet choose to wage another war of aggression in order to avoid yet another self-inflicted humiliation, or an unintended war might start as a result of the US regime's irresponsible military buildup and provocations, but if either happens, the costs will be colossal and any gains trivial, "win" or lose.

But mostly the Russians are laughing their heads off wondering what in the world the folks in the West are smoking to be so totally terrified (at least officially) by a non-existing threat.

That's not the only gross absurdity in US sphere society that Russians are laughing at, apparently:

Russian TV defends men over sex pest claims

Nor is Russia resisting the opportunity to twist the knife on the US's Korean nightmare:

North Korea: Russia accuses US of goading Kim Jong-un

Lavrov, like Putin, has made a practice of dropping such truth-bombs on the US regime. And who can blame them, if the US regime insists on handing them the ammunition, time after time?

Over the past thirty years, at least, the US regime has ensured that the truth is anti-American.

The Scalpel , Website December 1, 2017 at 12:26 pm GMT
"US would have no reason to see an enemy in Russia and vice-versa. In fact, Russia and the US could be ideal partners"

This is the dream I had when the "wall" came down. But instead, I saw that my belief that the US government was a "white knight in shining armor" acting for "truth, justice, and the american way" and to "make the world safe for democracy" was only a dream, a foolish fantasy. I had been deceived. I had wanted to be an Army general and was a Distinguished Graduate of the USMA. Now I resigned my commission as an Army officer, took off my uniform, and extended my arm to stop the tanks.

I hope to live to see the day of a multipolar world in peace. It is possible, but it must come from below. An "American Spring" is essential. I hope my complacent countrymen will see this before it is too late.

yurivku , December 1, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

Now I resigned my commission as an Army officer, took off my uniform, and extended my arm to stop the tanks.

I took off the uniform of Soviet Army officer more than 30 years ago. Was an officer in anti aircraft division.

I hope to live to see the day of a multipolar world in peace. It is possible, but it must come from below.

I hope too, but currenly a ball is on your side of a field. We (Russians) actually can't retreat any more. If US will keep its "soft harrasment" the result could be extremly bad. And I see no reason to expect sane behaviour from US establishment. They are insane, what about a majority of american people ? I don't know. But its must "come from below" of US society, not from us, we already did.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 1, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT
@The Scalpel

This is the dream I had when the "wall" came down.

At that time (early 1990s) this was almost a consensus among many professionals on Russian side that this was possible. By 1999 it became clear that situation degenerated to such a degree that no compromise was possible anymore. Part of it was rooted in the nature of re-emerging genuine Russian state, the lion share, however, was in neocons completely subverting US foreign policy.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 1, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT
@MarkU

their only credible defence in the event of open warfare is their nuclear arsenal

Sir, don't repeat discredited propaganda memes. If you don't trust me, which is fine, read opinion on the man who has decades of working and serving with this very NATO, not to mention his deep knowledge on military-diplomatic terms of Russia.

https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2017/11/23/nato-a-dangerous-paper-tiger/

In fact, it is the United States who is the most likely user of its nuclear arsenal and it has nothing to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing.

TomSchmidt , December 1, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT
At the end of the day, political regimes can only survive by the consent of those they rule. In the United States this consent is clearly in the process of being withdrawn.

That really is the nub of the matter there. The elites are fumbling about, trying to save themselves in the USA and their unearned perquisites. As the Saker says, the imperial parasite is sucking dry what should be a wealthy and peaceful land.

nickels , December 1, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT
Too much depends on China, and I don't trust them. The godless money grubbers may chose to ally with the (((Anglos))) and stab Russia in the back just like Russia allied with the (((Brits))) to stab Germany in the back. The world pivots on the Yellow Peril.
Andrei Martyanov , Website December 1, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
@Hank Rearden

except for the reference to Conchita Wurst, of which I'm unfamiliar. I was curious enough to google it, and now I can't unsee that. Dear God, I need a brainwash.

LOL, tell me about that – same here. I heard of IT (This, that, creature etc.) but at some point of time I took a look. Boy, was I sorry:))

Curmudgeon , December 1, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
@Priss Factor

America's Founding was also marked by this great contradiction. It was, in one sense, a universal republic committed to principles that rose above tribe or nation.

..

Given that the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed for Whites only, the concept of a universal republic was, obviously, not entirely universal.

As for Anglo-Americans, their importation of large numbers of black Africans to toil as slaves and then huge numbers of 'ethnic' European immigrants -- especially the feisty and pushy Jews -- led to increasing pressure to transform America into a 'proposition'

There was already a steady supply of White slaves (indentured servants) coming from the UK. The importation of Africans was mainly in Jewish hands, as the (((reviled))) Tony Martin pointed out. This ramped up considerably after Anthony Johnson, a Black landowner who was a former indentured servant, sued and won the right to keep slaves for life. Ironically, his two white slaves were also included in the judgement. So much for White privilege.

Cyrano , December 1, 2017 at 8:06 pm GMT
At one point the US was so confident that they managed to "fix" the middle east, that they were talking about "pivot" to Asia, which was nothing more than a veiled threat to China that they are next on the list to be "fixed". So the pivot to Asia didn't really happen, as it turns out the middle east wasn't really "fixed", not the way the wanted it anyway. Then the fiasco in Ukraine happened where they had to turn their attention to Russia.

May I be so bold as to suggest few names for the new US policies towards Russia after 2014 – using "pivot to Asia" as a guidance? How about:

1. Somersault to Russia? Or,

2. Cartwheel to Russia? Or maybe,

3. Backflip to Russia?

Note that all 3 suggested choices try to point out to the acrobatic skills needed in order for the missions named after them to succeed.

Anon , Disclaimer December 1, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMT
First, there is no war. The real/unreal "war" continues because it serves the powers that be on both sides. On the US side, it serves as an excuse for an enormous "defense" spending that now exceeds defense spending of the rest of the world combined. This massive flow of taxpayers' money into the pockets of the few who feed at the Pentagon trough needs some "justification", and "evil Russia" serves admirably.

On the Russian side, Putin's generally anti-US foreign policy, which is supported by the great majority of Russians, "justifies" his grip on power despite the fact that the internal policies of his government, which also enrich very few at the expense of the rest, are very unpopular.

The US never wages a real war on anyone who has WMDs. North Korea is the most up-to-date example of this. The very fact of the US invasion of Iraq or bombing of Syria showed that the US was 100% sure that neither Saddam nor Assad have WMDs. The US elites, dumb and shortsighted though they are, understand deep down that they need to stay alive to enjoy their loot. As Ukrainian saying puts it, "coffins have no pockets".

But there is a stiff competition: the US Empire is going downhill, like the British Empire a century ago, and the Chinese are happy to have Russia spearhead the resistance (which they quietly support in many ways). I doubt that Chinese domination would be any more benign than shameless and brutal US domination, but we'll see soon enough: in 20-30 years the US will be relegated to the position of a second-tier power. I am not even sure that Chinese domination would be in Russia's interests any more than the US domination, but US elites in their incredible stupidity forced Russia to ally with China and all anti-American forces in the world, as diverse as Iran and North Korea.

The US is losing so fast due to blind greed and overall degradation of its elites, who keep biting off a lot more than they can chew and behaving like it's 1990. But the ultimate win would be more China's than Russia's, unless Russia manages to create a tri-polar world with China and India, which would be certainly better than any unipolar world can possibly be.

Andrei Martyanov , Website December 1, 2017 at 8:29 pm GMT

1. Somersault to Russia? Or,

2. Cartwheel to Russia? Or maybe,

3. Backflip to Russia?

Without jokes, but that is a perfect visual representation of a contemporary American foreign policy.

Erebus , December 2, 2017 at 2:51 am GMT
@Cyrano

1. Somersault to Russia? Or,
2. Cartwheel to Russia? Or maybe,
3. Backflip to Russia?

Note that all 3 suggested choices try to point out to the acrobatic skills needed in order for the missions named after them to succeed.

In the end, it will be a spastic lurch and a nosedive into the ditch on the road to Moscow.

Low Voltage , December 2, 2017 at 3:52 am GMT
Instead of AngloZionist Empire, I like just to call it the "Confederacy."

1. The Southern Generals strut around the globe like they own the place.
2. We're a resource-based economy with a free trade mantra.
3. Slave labor camps litter the Empire (though only in prisons in Confederate Homeland).
4. Hyper Police State.
5. Everyone defines themselves by their skin color.

Would anyone else care to add this list?

Beckow , December 2, 2017 at 4:19 am GMT
@peterAUS

"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in three"

Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four 'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people, most of the time are better off left alone.

Is that so hard to understand? Why should people in Washington (or Moscow, Beijing, Brussels, ) be intimately involved with how others live their lives, with their fights and alliances? Knowledge always dissipates with distance, and most of the 'masters of the universe' are not that smart to start with.

Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years.

I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity

Erebus , December 2, 2017 at 8:48 am GMT
@Beckow

"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in three"

Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four 'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people, most of the time are better off left alone.

Peter's is the apocalyptic view made famous by Orwell. He may be right, it may all unravel and Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia run a classic 3-power calculus of shifting alliances in a struggle for control of the "hinterlands". Not at all impossible, but certainly not what the proponents of the multipolar world want.

The idea is much more than the notion that most people want to "be left alone". The Multipolar world as it is actually being constructed by its proponents, from its monetary structures to its security, commercial and trade regimes, is precisely the attempt to prevent that Orwellian development in the face of Western decline. Their foundational tenet is that Globalization as a world-historical trend is here to stay (for at least the next few generations), and the "compartmentalization" of the world into alliances and hegemonies as historically occurred is no longer a viable option. The 3 Orwellian powers are all nuclear now, and the #1 priority is to mitigate the risk of war between them. Best to do that by dissolving them into a matrix of commercial and developmental programs that they'd be loathe to destroy.

EG: Though Russia considers both China and Iran "strategic partners", there is no formal alliance with either of them, and there won't be. Alliances cannot be "forbidden", but the countries that have signed onto the multipolar world program view alliances with suspicion.

As a introduction to the coming multipolar world, Kupchan's Western-centric analysis is a good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/No-Ones-World-Council-Relations/dp/0199325227

"Kupchan provides a detailed strategy for striking a bargain between the West and the rising rest by fashioning a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance."

Assuming he even knows the least thing about what the multipolar world is trying to do, Peter's view is that their attempt will fail. Maybe so.
To "fashion a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance" requires that the professional criminal class that grabbed the remains of Western power a decade and a half ago has been forced to let go. If not, the world indeed faces an abyss.

Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a "(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope for.

Brzez , December 2, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT
@The Scalpel

"The white knight in shining armor" actually turned out to be a cowardly greedy coyote who unsuccessfully tried to fit into a stolen somewhere sheep skin.

Beckow , December 2, 2017 at 9:32 pm GMT
@peterAUS

"Russians shouldn't have raped all those German women"

Yeah, that's the problem – WWII was all about Russians raping. Not about Germans attacking east and murdering tens of millions. How many Russian women do you think Germans 'raped'? Or maybe they just killed them, 'ubermensch', right. It doesn't seem to bother you and that is sick.

Or this vignette:

The regime in Moscow has one and only one goal: own hold on power"

While, of course the 'regimes' in Washington or Berlin spend all their time worrying about the well-being of their citizens. You really cannot be that dumb, or can you?

I made mistake responding to you, you are hopeless.

Beckow , December 2, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT
@Erebus

"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term.

I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way, the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West yet.

I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has 'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and blackmail.

The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary – US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?). What is really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems. So they scream 'Russians are coming' to distract, or to prolong the agony. Russians are not coming, they don't care in 2017, they can barely control their huge territory today. More you see squealing and lying in the Western media, more it shows that they have not much else to work with.

Beckow , December 2, 2017 at 10:49 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Is it possible to see BOTH as bad

You only mentioned one. You always only mention one, the same one.

To be fair, Germans started the war and killed a lot more people in the east. They deserved what they got.

how about ALL those regimes (Washington, Berlin, Moscow) first and foremost care about own survival and own success

You say that now because you got caught – again – with a one-sided biased view. If people have to remind you that rules should be applied equally, you are either too far gone or have issues with basic logic. Try to be objective to start with, not after you produce a biased rant and people point it out to you.

[Dec 03, 2017] Islamic Mindset Akin to Bolshevism by Srdja Trifkovic

Highly recommended!
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
Feb 01, 2016 | chroniclesmagazine.org
View all posts from this blog

On January 23 Freedom and Prosperity Radio , Virginia's only syndicated political talk radio show, broadcast an interview with Srdja Trifkovic on the subject of Islam and the ongoing Muslim invasion of Europe. Here is the full transcript of the interview. ( Audio )

FPR: Your book The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem. Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than their way . . .

ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam, Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.

In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality. Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung , world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.

FPR: . . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement, as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?

ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and "the World of War, Dar al-Harb .

It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination. In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to an end.

FPR: The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism" which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?

ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them, and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."

The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere. Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.

FPR: How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?

ST: I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.

But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught, in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.

So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries, it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise -- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that fact.

FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response . . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?

ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc, and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne. And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.

Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.

FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .

ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion" mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion. They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.

To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation, when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.

FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?

ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.

FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?

ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.

[Dec 03, 2017] West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems

The problem is that neoliberal ideology entered the state of the crisis in 2008 much like Bolshevik ideology entered the crisis after WWII. The USSR managed to survive for another 50 years after that.
Notable quotes:
"... Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years. ..."
"... I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity ..."
"... Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a "(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope for. ..."
"... I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has 'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and blackmail. ..."
"... The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary – US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it ..."
"... Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from "Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back. ..."
"... The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as possible while hell blazes elsewhere. ..."
Dec 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Beckow , December 2, 2017 at 4:19 am GMT

@peterAUS

"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in three"

Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four 'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people, most of the time are better off left alone.

Is that so hard to understand? Why should people in Washington (or Moscow, Beijing, Brussels, ) be intimately involved with how others live their lives, with their fights and alliances? Knowledge always dissipates with distance, and most of the 'masters of the universe' are not that smart to start with.

Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years.

I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity

Erebus , December 2, 2017 at 8:48 am GMT
@Beckow

"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in three"

Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four 'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people, most of the time are better off left alone.

Peter's is the apocalyptic view made famous by Orwell. He may be right, it may all unravel and Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia run a classic 3-power calculus of shifting alliances in a struggle for control of the "hinterlands". Not at all impossible, but certainly not what the proponents of the multipolar world want.

The idea is much more than the notion that most people want to "be left alone". The Multipolar world as it is actually being constructed by its proponents, from its monetary structures to its security, commercial and trade regimes, is precisely the attempt to prevent that Orwellian development in the face of Western decline. Their foundational tenet is that Globalization as a world-historical trend is here to stay (for at least the next few generations), and the "compartmentalization" of the world into alliances and hegemonies as historically occurred is no longer a viable option. The 3 Orwellian powers are all nuclear now, and the #1 priority is to mitigate the risk of war between them. Best to do that by dissolving them into a matrix of commercial and developmental programs that they'd be loathe to destroy.

EG: Though Russia considers both China and Iran "strategic partners", there is no formal alliance with either of them, and there won't be. Alliances cannot be "forbidden", but the countries that have signed onto the multipolar world program view alliances with suspicion.

As a introduction to the coming multipolar world, Kupchan's Western-centric analysis is a good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/No-Ones-World-Council-Relations/dp/0199325227
"Kupchan provides a detailed strategy for striking a bargain between the West and the rising rest by fashioning a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance."

Assuming he even knows the least thing about what the multipolar world is trying to do, Peter's view is that their attempt will fail. Maybe so.
To "fashion a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance" requires that the professional criminal class that grabbed the remains of Western power a decade and a half ago has been forced to let go. If not, the world indeed faces an abyss.

Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a "(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope for.

Beckow , December 2, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT
@Erebus

"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term.

I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way, the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West yet.

I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has 'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and blackmail.

The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary – US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?). What is really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems. So they scream 'Russians are coming' to distract, or to prolong the agony. Russians are not coming, they don't care in 2017, they can barely control their huge territory today. More you see squealing and lying in the Western media, more it shows that they have not much else to work with.

Erebus , Next New Comment December 3, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT
@Beckow

"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term.

I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way, the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West yet.

Well, exogenous events aside, "decline and fall" is necessarily a process. A series of steps and plateaus is typical. A major step occurred in 2007/8, when the money failed. The bankers, in a frankly heroic display of coordination, propped up the $$$ and the West got a decade long plateau. Things are going wobbly again, financially speaking and I suspect the next step function to occur rather soon. Stays of execution have been exhausted, so it'll be interesting how the West handles it, and how the RoW reacts.

Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from "Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back. The USA has also been invited, but its dreams remain much more virile. That is, until Trump who's backers seem to read the writing on the wall better than the Straussians.

I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world' .
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations US seems to be obsessed with it.

The fact is that the rise of the West to global dominance is due to a historical anomaly. It was fuelled (literally) by the discovery and harnessing of the chemical energy embedded in coal (late 18thC) and then oil (late 19thC). The first doubled the population, and as first movers gave the West a running start. The second turned on the afterburners, and population grew >3.5 fold. Again the West led the way. To fuel that ahistorical step-function growth curve, control of resources on a global scale became its civilizational imperative.

That growth curve has plateaued, and the rest of the world has caught/is catching up developmentally. The resources the West needs aren't going to be available to it in the way they were 100 years ago. Them days is over, for everybody really, but especially for the West because it has depleted its own hi-ROI resources, and both of its means of control (IMF$ System & U$M) of what's left of everybody else's are failing simultaneously. So its plateau will not be flat, or not flat for long between increasingly violent steps.

The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as possible while hell blazes elsewhere.

What is really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems.

IMHO, what's really going on is that the West's problems are simply symptomatic of what "decline and fall", if not "collapse" looks like from within a failing system. A long time ago I read the diary of a Roman nobleman who in the most matter-of-fact style wrote of exactly the same things Westerners complain about today. How this, that or the other thing no longer works the way it did. For all of his 60+ years, every day was infinitesimally worse than the day before, until finally he decides to pack up his Roman households and move to his estates in Spain. It took 170(iirc) more years of continuous decline until Alaric finally arrived at the Gates of Rome. If wholly due to internal causes, collapse is almost always a slow motion train wreck.

'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?).

Actually, it's just stupid. Cold Warrior or not, the view betrays a deep and abiding ignorance of both history and a large part of what drove the West's hegemonic successes. That both militate against anyone else ever even trying such a thing on a global scale can't be seen if you look at historical developments and the rest of the world through 10′ of 1″ pipe.

The idea that Russia wants/needs the Baltics is even more laughable than that it wants/needs the Ukraine or Poland. None of these tarbabies have anything to offer but trouble. Noisome flies on an elephant, it is only if they make themselves more troublesome as outsiders than they would be as vassals would Russia move.

Beckow , Next New Comment December 3, 2017 at 10:13 pm GMT
@Erebus

"Things are going wobbly again"

Why do you think so? I think we are about to enter an occasional plateau and things will be stable or even improve for a while. The Rome analogies are instructive, but they only take you so far. E.g. Rome was collapsing for about two centuries, on and off. Rome was also infinitely more brutal than today's West and the 'barbarians' were real barbarians, not aspiring migrants led by well-paid NGO comprador class. Why do you think it is getting wobbly?

[Dec 03, 2017] Is Washington the Most Corrupt Government in History by Paul Craig Roberts

Looks like the credibility of the US establishment might collapse under weight of all lies that it perpetuated.
Americans and Russians should be natural partners in a multipolar world to widespread benefit. The current situation dominated by neo-McCarthyism witch hunt is tragic. Looks like the current neoliberal elite is truly evil, so there is not much hope for a change there. The American people are overall decent and generous, but their abysmal lack of (or even interest) in history and ignorance of the current events might be their undoing, I'm afraid.
Notable quotes:
"... The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head. ..."
Dec 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor "investigating" a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So where is the evidence?

It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump's Russiagate. The real scandal is Hillary Clinton's uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous evidence for Hillary's scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html

Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the "New Hitler" is not a threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump's aim of normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the "enemy" it requires to justify its massive budget and power.

Why hasn't President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn't the Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump's government is allied with his enemies?

How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn't Trump have Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United States?

Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee's investigation into "Russian active measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?" There were no such active measures, but the uranium sale was real.

Why haven't the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can't make a pass at a woman?

Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.

The failure of the US and European media is extreme.

The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head.

Consider, for example, the Obama regime's claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his "compound" in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs' helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to have watched the killing became a "miscommunication." The staged photo of the top government officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html

The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife, was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the "terrorist mastermind" from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American superpower?

Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama's body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?

Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no media interested that the ship's crew wrote home that no such burial took place?

Why was there no presstitute interest in the fact that the SEAL unit, from which the SEALs on the alleged raid on bin Laden's compound were drawn, was loaded against regulations in one 50-year old Vietnam era helicopter and shot down in Afghanistan, with all lives lost? Why was there no presstitute interest in the parents of the SEALs complaints about inappropriate procedures that cost their sons' lives and about fears expressed to them by sons that something was wrong and they felt endangered? http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/navy-seals-father-obama-sent-my-son-to-his-death/
and https://www.military1.com/navy/article/403494-navy-seals-parents-sue-biden-panetta-over-sons-deaths/ and http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/families-of-seal-team-6-to-reveal-why-they-think-the-govt-is-as-much-responsible-for-the-death-of-their-sons-as-the-taliban

Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, "who was on that raid?" "Were you on the bin Laden raid?" When in fact no one was on the raid.

Why wasn't Congress interested?

Why was the live Pakistani TV interview with an eye witness of the alleged raid on bin Laden's compound not reported in the US media? The witness contradicted every aspect of the official story. And this was immediately after the event. There was no time for anyone to concoct an elaborate counter-story or motive to do so. Here is the interview: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/15/pakistan-samaa-tv-interview-eyewitness-alleged-osama-bin-laden-killing/ and here is a verified translation that confirms the accuracy of the English subscripts: https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Pakistan-TV-Report-Contrad-by-paul-craig-roberts-110806-879.html

Osama bin Laden had been dead for a decade prior to the false claim that Navy SEALs murdered him in Pakistan in May 2011. Here are the obituraries from December 2001: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/11/20/bin-ladens-obituary-notice/ and this one from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2001/12/26/report-bin-laden-already-dead.html

Here is bin Laden's last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating "the world's only superpower" fail to boost his movement by claiming credit?
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/

See also:

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/11/07/another-fake-bin-laden-story-paul-craig-roberts/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-orders-purge-of-osama-bin-ladens-death-files-from-data-bank/5342055

http://themindrenewed.com/interviews/2013/334-int-32

https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Creating-Evidence-Where-Th-by-paul-craig-roberts-110805-618.html

https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Pakistan-TV-Report-Contrad

Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public's consciousness.

And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington's self-serving control over explanations has removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.

So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?

Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?

[Dec 03, 2017] Stephen Kotkin How Vladimir Putin Rules

Highly recommended!
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
Mar 28, 2015 | Foreign Affairs
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.

The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.

Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand "if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin."

Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.

But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.

Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...

Jamil M Chaudri

Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".

There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.

One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).

This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.

Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE

Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia (and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.

Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.

If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed deep in BLOOD.

At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths in Pakia,

Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON

Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists, and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed. Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania. For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece! Go back to the shelf you have come off.

Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago

Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing each other to this day. Google it.

Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay

I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..

By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands!

My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.

On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what? About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.

There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.

Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri

Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target.

The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing.

As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?

And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the world .

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference.

jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins

Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.

Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37

Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western meddling in Arab lands.

Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37

The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS: enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:

1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.

2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.

Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:

"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:

"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them. They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food." 3

Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.

First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.

Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering. See the figures in most authoritative publications.

Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.

jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri

Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the " impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.

But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation, band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.

Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37

First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.

You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of "deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument – but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling, bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.

Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes. This is western patronage.

Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the news buzz is created by American media.

The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way? When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?

I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing the Star-Spangled Banner.

jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri

We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference. However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred in other religions. ( Christianity for example )

Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.

Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri

Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.

Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro

I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.

Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE OF NATIONS.

Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri

I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations, it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........

"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.

In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.

Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands."

Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928

Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............

http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...

http://www.richardsilverstein....

http://www.btselem.org/downloa...

BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize throughout our world.

Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON

The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............

"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)

Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying the benefits of their game.

I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS. Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....

India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).

Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.

Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people who have programmed him/her.

From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual reality.

ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri

So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists! Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty, into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.

Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.

Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently, not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.

Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.

There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH" to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence, and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.

I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some. I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.

All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.

Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP

And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.

Ivan Night Terrible

Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers. But two points:

[Dec 02, 2017] The New Cold War and the Death of the Discourse by Justin Raimondo

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... So the Ukrainian government is admitting that their previous narrative is false – and that the ultra-rghtist Svoboda and Right Sector, who were the military arm of the Maidan protesters, provoked the incident that led to Yanukovich's overthrow. ..."
"... are opposed to the Minsk agreement, brokered by the EU, which makes concessions to the east Ukrainians. ..."
Oct 19, 2015 | Antiwar.com

Russophobia compromises the media and academia

The truth is often ignored, at first, and when that becomes impossible, truth-tellers are often punished. As two incidents starkly reveal, this is certainly the case when it comes to the civil war in Ukraine and Washington's unfolding cold war with Russia.

The first illustration of our truth-telling principle occurred after the "Maidan revolution" had already captured the imagination of the Western media, which was busy promulgating the official view as given expression by US government officials. According to this narrative, the "protesters" were heroes, the government of "Russian-backed' Viktor Yanukovich was a coven of devils, and the catalyzing incident that led to Yanukovich's ouster, the shooting of protesters in the Maidan, was the work of the Berkut, the Ukrainian government's militarized police.

There's just one problem with this story: it isn't true. A leaked phone call between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton, revealed that the protesters were shot by their own leaders – the radical nationalists who had military control of the Maiden.

... ... ...

Ashton's main concern seemed to be that this would get out and discredit the new government "from the very beginning."

Oh, but not to worry: it didn't get out, at least not in the United States. There were oblique mentions of the recording in the mainstream media, but only weeks afterward and then without any specifics: two months after the fact, the Los Angeles Times referred to it in the vaguest terms, only to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory." The New York Times didn't cover it: neither did the War Street Journal, Time magazine, or any of the other usual suspects. The Daily Beast, typically, served as a mouthpiece for the official Washington-Kiev account, citing Dr. Bogomolets as claiming her conversation with Paet was a "misunderstanding." Yet Paet didn't cite her as his sole source: he said "all the evidence." No doubt the Estonians have their own sources in the country, and it's improbable the Foreign Minister would have made such an assertion based on a single person's testimony.

In any case, the story was pretty much buried here in the US, with the exception of this space and a few other alternative news sources.

But in Europe, it was a different story: the German public television station ARD carried a report which threw the identity of the Maidan shooters into serious question. And more recently the BBC produced a documentary, "The Untold Story of the Maidan Massacre," in which eyewitnesses assert that the Berkut were fired on from positions controlled by the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party, which, along with the neo-Nazi "Right Sector" organization, ran Maidan security.

Still, the story was ignored in the US, but that may not be possible much longer, and the reason springs from an unlikely source: the current Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko.

Last week Ukrainian police raided the homes of Svoboda Party leaders Oleksandr Sych, who served as Deputy Prime Minister in the post-Maidan government, and Ole Pankevich, whose 2013 appearance at a neo-Nazi memorial event provoked the ire of the World Jewish Congress. The Ukrainian prosecutor's office confirmed that the raid was conducted as part of an investigation into the Maidan shootings:

"The court warrant for the raid on the apartment of Pankevich, a former MP and the ex-head of Lviv regional council, explicitly referred to a BBC documentary on the subject, according to a copy of the warrant In the documentary, journalist Gabriel Gatehouse spoke to an opposition nationalist rifleman who had acknowledged having fired on riot police in the morning of February 20."

The warrant, posted online,

"[A]lso refers to video footage that showed a rifleman firing out of the Hotel Ukraina, situated on Maidan. The room from which he fired was occupied at the time by Pankevich, according to the court warrant.

"Police also raided the apartment of Sich, vice-prime minister in the immediate post-Maidan government in 2014, also in connection with shots fired from the same hotel, where he was also staying on February 20.

"An assistant to Ukraine's prosecutor general, Vladislav Kutsenko, confirmed to the Ukrainian TV channel 112 that searches of the Svoboda leaders' apartments were linked to an investigation of the February 20 events."

So the Ukrainian government is admitting that their previous narrative is false – and that the ultra-rghtist Svoboda and Right Sector, who were the military arm of the Maidan protesters, provoked the incident that led to Yanukovich's overthrow.

Why this stunning turnaround?

Both Svoboda and Right Sector have declared war on the Poroshenko regime and are calling for a "national revolution" – one that would install them in power. The ultra-nationalists are opposed to the Minsk agreement, brokered by the EU, which makes concessions to the east Ukrainians.

The far right is accusing Poroshenko of "betraying the revolution." They scoff at the ceasefire as a "sellout" because they want the civil war to continue: and as Poroshenko makes draconian cuts in the government budget in order to mollify Ukraine's creditors, and to ensure the flow of Western funding, the rightists are gaining ground politically. And they are getting increasingly violent, staging a riot in front of the parliament building in which three officers were killed by a grenade hurled at policemen: 130 cops were injured. The rightists were protesting the decision by the parliament to grant the eastern rebels some small degree of autonomy. This incident followed a series of shoot-outs with the armed rightist gang known as Right Sector, which played a key role in the Maidan protest movement.

That the Poroshenko government, which had previously stonewalled any serious effort to investigate the shooting deaths that sent Yanukovich packing, is playing this card now is an indication of the regime's desperation in the face of a challenge from the ultra-right. For to upend the official narrative – one that is fully supported by their Western sponsors, and their amen corner in the media – is to subvert the very foundations of the post-Maidan order. If the truth comes out, the ultra-nationalists may be finished – but so may the government that exposes their murderous role.

... ... ...

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud. I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and ISI Books, 2008). You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here.

[Dec 01, 2017] Neocon Chaos Promotion in the Mideast

Highly recommended!
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Apr 15, 2015 | antiwar.com
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."

As I recently reviewed a YouTube eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.

While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.

This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.

But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."

That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?

The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies" are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."

Putin's Comment

The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.

But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.

If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.

I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.

Visiting Wolfowitz

In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991. President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.

According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."

It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."

True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done in the past.

An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.

A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.

Israeli/Neocon Preferences

But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments, like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]

The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.

In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013, we called attention to an uncommonly candid report about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.

Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naïve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear in what Rudoren wrote.

In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ½-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:

"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"

Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement – overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.

Favoring Jihadis

But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.

"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.

Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the nations" of the Middle East.

That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.

As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.

Corker Uncorked

Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.

Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without the United States jumping into another Middle East war.

It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.

At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.

Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.

Reprinted with permission from Consortium News.

[Dec 01, 2017] JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy by L. Fletcher Prouty, Oliver Stone, Jesse Ventura

Highly recommended!
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite. If you look at the role of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.amazon.com

True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser counterparts around the world.

Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.

This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers."

The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt has done so for many, many centuries.

... ... ...

From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of the government or private life they were connected.

This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.

Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?

... ... ...

Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out, go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject defeat for the other.

Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the Gulf War in Iraq.

... ... ...

This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment.

One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.

This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders.

The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.

It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.

Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.

The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist.

Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3

[Dec 01, 2017] Mueller investigation is patterned after the investigation of Bill Clinton

The idea is to create the crime -- if they pressure Trump long enough, then Trump may well make a mistake such as lying. Or they can dig out something really embarrassing. As the scope is deliberately very open and the pretext is fake, this is essentially Lavrentiy Beria method: shown me the man and I will find a crime
Notable quotes:
"... They're trying to manufacture an obstruction of justice charge. Without the independent prosecutor's investigation, there would be no opportunity for someone to lie, mislead, or inadvertently omit facts. ..."
"... The warrant's timing may also shed light on the FBI's relationship to the infamous " Steele dossier." That widely discredited dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and developed by former British spy Christopher Steele -- who relied on Russian sources. ..."
"... But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency about his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research. ..."
"... But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don't cooperate in contempt. ..."
"... No investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr. Comey's wiretaps. ..."
"... And beyond delving into Comey's machinations, I think it high time to get former AG, Loretta Lynch under oath in front of a Congressional Committee to inquire after the real substance of her supposedly impromptu meeting with Slick Willy on the airport tarmac. ..."
"... If she needs to be compelled to answer through an offer of immunity, this would be a very clarifying moment, indeed. And if she still refuses, preferring being cited for contempt of Congress, well, that might be pretty interesting in its own right. And if she left any trail of evidence behind her like, say for instance, relating this information to one of her staff, the staffer could be questioned under similar terms. ..."
"... Also a good time to have a little chat with the guy from Crowdstrike, too. And on a related note, maybe a wee bit of inquiry with Mr. Comey on the logic of the FBI in not demanding access to the server ? ..."
"... Working my way through Gibbons' Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. There are ominous parallels to be observed between some of the events he recounts, and events of the present day. The Praetorian Guards and the legions more generally actively manipulated events to attain self-serving outcomes. Elements of our intelligence community seem to be treading a similar path; harrassing, crippling, and if felt necessary working toward the eviction of a legitimately chosen President are rather obviously in play. Not, as in the case of the Roman military, killing him, but effectively overturning the government seems to be the tactic, and all to serve their own ends, and the Constitutional order be damned. History, as has been said, may not repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes. ..."
"... Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal. ..."
"... In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that. ..."
"... I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics have revealed dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel agency. The intruders deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in on my conversations by activating the computer's microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files. ..."
"... I was also curious to see what kind of crime would be committed under US law since anything the Russians did was just normal state-to-state competition. ..."
"... Manafort should sue the Federal Gov for violation of his rights against unlawful search and seizure. FISA is unconstitutional and should challenge the entire case on the basis that anything obtained was based on a FISA warrant. Force the courts and above all else the Supreme Court to address the issue finally. Manafort is by no means an angel, but he has rights and deserves a fair shake instead of the train ride he's on. ..."
"... With the world's 7th largest economy, what sane businessman would NOT want to cultivate relationships and develop the Russian market, particularly since it is virtually untapped by Western companies? ..."
"... According to Martha Stewart, a false statement to a federal officer need not be sworn. ..."
"... on't understand any of this. Unless Mr Steele was entirely off the leash, which is difficult to believe, there's evidence of our complicity in covert interference with the US Presidential elections. Then there's evidence of Israeli interference, and that overt. Also, although it's not directly relevant here, there's sufficient evidence that the US itself pulls strings in other countries' elections. ..."
"... The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and far-reaching that an aggressive prosecutor can find a reason to imprison almost anyone, especially if the target is engaged in political or business matters of any sophistication. ..."
"... This is intentional. The laws are designed such that the people that the establishment wants to imprison are imprisoned when they do the things the establishment doesn't want, and those people that the establishment does not want imprisoned are not. ..."
"... This is why HRC can blatantly violate the Espionage Act and then spoliate evidence with no fear of prosecution. In fact, law enforcement twist themselves into knots to avoid conducting a serious investigation, as that might force them to act. After that farce, Comey publicly justified conduct that (as he admitted) would send a normie on a one-way trip to a SuperMax. ..."
"... Mueller will get some scalps. Guaranteed. ..."
Sep 21, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

It appears to me that the current dream/hope in the "resistance" is that Mueller will fish around enough to come up with "evidence" that DJT and some of the people in his campaign and administration have been witting or unwitting cultivated assets of the Russian state for some years. I do not really understand how that would be crime under US law unless espionage against US official secrets were involved but the political effect would be ruinous. pl

James , 20 September 2017 at 07:35 PM

Personally, I think this investigation is patterned after the independent prosecutor's investigation of Bill Clinton. Bill was brought down by a dalliance with an intern. If they pressure Trump long enough then Trump may well make a mistake such as lying. Or they can use their investigative powers to find something embarrassing (they get to question everyone they want under oath and those questioned have to answer the questions). Otherwise the investigation can just drag on forever.

I wish more people understood that this is not about Democats vs Republicans.

Les -> James ... , 21 September 2017 at 09:50 AM
They're trying to manufacture an obstruction of justice charge. Without the independent prosecutor's investigation, there would be no opportunity for someone to lie, mislead, or inadvertently omit facts.

I'm getting tired of seeing the same events trumpeted by the media and the independent prosecutor as if there was something new. How many times can you disclose you were wiretapping one of the persons of interest or that you raided their home for documents?

turcopolier , 20 September 2017 at 07:37 PM
All

I suppose that there could be a FARA violation if the person involved was involved in US foreign policy or if a false statement were made in something official and sworn. pl

Sam Peralta , 20 September 2017 at 07:37 PM
Col. Lang

In light of what you wrote about the FISA wiretaps, the WSJ has an editorial requesting Congress to investigate "Comey's wiretaps".

https://www.wsj.com/articles/all-mr-comeys-wiretaps-1505862793

The warrant's timing may also shed light on the FBI's relationship to the infamous " Steele dossier." That widely discredited dossier claiming ties between Russians and the Trump campaign was commissioned by left-leaning research firm Fusion GPS and developed by former British spy Christopher Steele -- who relied on Russian sources.

But the Washington Post and others have reported that Mr. Steele was familiar to the FBI, had reached out to the agency about his work, and had even arranged a deal in 2016 to get paid by the FBI to continue his research.

The FISA court sets a high bar for warrants on U.S. citizens, and presumably even higher for wiretapping a presidential campaign. Did Mr. Comey's FBI marshal the Steele dossier to persuade the court?

Russian meddling is a threat to democracy but so was the FBI if it relied on Russian disinformation to eavesdrop on a presidential campaign. The Justice Department and FBI have stonewalled Congressional requests for documents and interviews, citing the "integrity" of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

But Mr. Mueller is not investigating the FBI, and in any event his ties to the bureau and Mr. Comey make him too conflicted for such a job. Congress is charged with providing oversight of law enforcement and the FISA courts, and it has an obligation to investigate their role in 2016. The intelligence committees have subpoena authority and the ability to hold those who don't cooperate in contempt.

Mr. Comey investigated both leading presidential campaigns in an election year, playing the role of supposedly impartial legal authority. But his maneuvering to get Mr. Mueller appointed, and his leaks to the press, have shown that Mr. Comey is as political and self-serving as anyone in Washington.

No investigation into Russia's role in the 2016 campaign will be credible or complete without the facts about all Mr. Comey's wiretaps.

JerseyJeffersonian -> Sam Peralta... , 20 September 2017 at 10:30 PM
Sam Peralta,

Amen to that.

And beyond delving into Comey's machinations, I think it high time to get former AG, Loretta Lynch under oath in front of a Congressional Committee to inquire after the real substance of her supposedly impromptu meeting with Slick Willy on the airport tarmac.

If she needs to be compelled to answer through an offer of immunity, this would be a very clarifying moment, indeed. And if she still refuses, preferring being cited for contempt of Congress, well, that might be pretty interesting in its own right. And if she left any trail of evidence behind her like, say for instance, relating this information to one of her staff, the staffer could be questioned under similar terms.

I rather think no staffer would be operating under the delusion that they could survive thumbing their nose at Congress like their boss doubtless would. But then again, maybe Seth Rich's still unexplained death may serve as an incentive to them to clam up and weather whatever consequences might flow from that decision.

Also a good time to have a little chat with the guy from Crowdstrike, too. And on a related note, maybe a wee bit of inquiry with Mr. Comey on the logic of the FBI in not demanding access to the server ?

Probably none of this will happen however, this being arguably what we can expect from Imperial Politics; no longer are we to recognize this as the functioning of a Constitutional Republic, sad to say.

JerseyJeffersonian -> JerseyJeffersonian... , 21 September 2017 at 10:17 AM
Working my way through Gibbons' Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. There are ominous parallels to be observed between some of the events he recounts, and events of the present day. The Praetorian Guards and the legions more generally actively manipulated events to attain self-serving outcomes. Elements of our intelligence community seem to be treading a similar path; harrassing, crippling, and if felt necessary working toward the eviction of a legitimately chosen President are rather obviously in play. Not, as in the case of the Roman military, killing him, but effectively overturning the government seems to be the tactic, and all to serve their own ends, and the Constitutional order be damned. History, as has been said, may not repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes.

Oh, and in a not entirely dissimilar development, in Philadelphia, and in PA, it has emerged that legal immigrants, despite being ineligible, have registered and voted. The hend wavers at the Philadelphia Inquirer are trying to minimize this, of course. The thought arises, if it happened in PA, what about in CA? So maybe yet again, one of President Trump's charges is true? Cue our own crew of handwavers here at SST. Over to you, ladies and gentlemen...

Sam Peralta , 20 September 2017 at 08:05 PM
All

Have we crossed the rubicon to a totalitarian state?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-20/sharyl-attkisson-rages-looks-obama-spied-trump-just-he-did-me

Nobody wants our intel agencies to be used like the Stasi in East Germany; the secret police spying on its own citizens for political purposes. The prospect of our own NSA, CIA and FBI becoming politically weaponized has been shrouded by untruths, accusations and justifications.

You'll recall DNI Clapper falsely assured Congress in 2013 that the NSA was not collecting "any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans."

Intel agencies secretly monitored conversations of members of Congress while the Obama administration negotiated the Iran nuclear deal.

In 2014, the CIA got caught spying on Senate Intelligence committee staffers, though CIA Director John Brennan had explicitly denied that.

There were also wiretaps on then-Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in 2011 under Obama.

The same happened under President George W. Bush to former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-Calif.).

Journalists have been targeted, too. This internal email exposed by WikiLeaks should give everyone chills. It did me.

.....

I have spent more than two years litigating against the Department of Justice for the computer intrusions. Forensics have revealed dates, times and methods of some of the illegal activities. The software used was proprietary to a federal intel agency. The intruders deployed a keystroke monitoring program, accessed the CBS News corporate computer system, listened in on my conversations by activating the computer's microphone and used Skype to exfiltrate files.

We survived the government's latest attempt to dismiss my lawsuit. There's another hearing Friday. To date, the Trump Department of Justice -- like the Obama Department of Justice -- is fighting me in court and working to keep hidden the identities of those who accessed a government internet protocol address found in my computers.

Lars , 20 September 2017 at 08:19 PM
It is too early to say where this investigation is going, but there are indications that money laundering and shady real estate transactions are scrutinized. How far up that goes, nobody knows. If close associates of Donald Trump get indicted, he will have both legal and political problems.

Of course that is only one aspect. There may also be some serious conflict of interest problems. All of it is about to face a burst of sunshine and that will illuminate every thing, good or bad. It appears that Donald Trump is seriously bothered by all this activity and that in itself is interesting.

The Twisted Genius , 20 September 2017 at 09:01 PM
I was also curious to see what kind of crime would be committed under US law since anything the Russians did was just normal state-to-state competition.

That happens all the time and will continue to happen all the time. Seems that if anyone on the Trump team can be found soliciting help from a foreign source, it would be a violation of campaign finance laws. If anyone can be tied to the hacking and theft of data or the use of that hacked data (there was a lot of voter data taken in addition to the DNC and Podesta data), the crime would be engaging in a criminal conspiracy. Then, of course, there are the targets of opportunity associated with any cover up like witness intimidation, perjury, obstruction of justice, and the like.

Then there is the NYAG's investigation into Trump and his associates under NY RICO laws. That investigation is still very much alive.

All this makes me wonder who is concentrating on the Russian IO itself. There's no crime here, besides the hacks and theft of data, but that should be the crux of the investigation in my opinion. Perhaps Mueller is doing this. I would think he'd have to understand exactly what was done, how it was coordinated and how it was financed before he could look for any crimes related to this whole Russia thing.

LeaNder -> The Twisted Genius ... , 21 September 2017 at 05:31 AM
TTG, I am not following this closely enough but for whatever reason Manafort popped up on my mind. Maybe due to earlier curiosity concerning the Ukraine. Were would he fit in? And how?

Checking spelling of his name, I realized it made headlines again.

MGS , 20 September 2017 at 09:28 PM
Manafort should sue the Federal Gov for violation of his rights against unlawful search and seizure. FISA is unconstitutional and should challenge the entire case on the basis that anything obtained was based on a FISA warrant. Force the courts and above all else the Supreme Court to address the issue finally. Manafort is by no means an angel, but he has rights and deserves a fair shake instead of the train ride he's on.
JohnH , 20 September 2017 at 10:21 PM
With the world's 7th largest economy, what sane businessman would NOT want to cultivate relationships and develop the Russian market, particularly since it is virtually untapped by Western companies?

Exxon-Mobil certainly wanted to do that. And they don't strike me as unpatriotic dummies --

Will.2718 , 20 September 2017 at 10:21 PM
According to Martha Stewart, a false statement to a federal officer need not be sworn. The best response to an FBI agent or any federal officer is "Have a good day Sir/Maam -- " or Buenos Dias, I prefer to have counsel with me when answering questions.
English Outsider , 21 September 2017 at 05:29 AM
Don't understand any of this. Unless Mr Steele was entirely off the leash, which is difficult to believe, there's evidence of our complicity in covert interference with the US Presidential elections. Then there's evidence of Israeli interference, and that overt. Also, although it's not directly relevant here, there's sufficient evidence that the US itself pulls strings in other countries' elections.

So whatever the Russians did or didn't do messing around with another country's elections, they're pretty far back in the queue. I'm all for the greater readiness to investigate such matters that we see in the US; but why is the spotlight directed only into this little corner?

Sid Finster , 21 September 2017 at 11:14 AM
Google "three felonies a day" or contemplate the words attributed to Richelieu - "Give me but six words written by the most honorable of men, and I will find something therein to hang him with."

The criminal laws in this country are sufficiently broad and far-reaching that an aggressive prosecutor can find a reason to imprison almost anyone, especially if the target is engaged in political or business matters of any sophistication.

This is intentional. The laws are designed such that the people that the establishment wants to imprison are imprisoned when they do the things the establishment doesn't want, and those people that the establishment does not want imprisoned are not.

This is why HRC can blatantly violate the Espionage Act and then spoliate evidence with no fear of prosecution. In fact, law enforcement twist themselves into knots to avoid conducting a serious investigation, as that might force them to act. After that farce, Comey publicly justified conduct that (as he admitted) would send a normie on a one-way trip to a SuperMax.

Mueller will get some scalps. Guaranteed.

[Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

Highly recommended!
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
According to recent reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established, naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.

If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends on the whims and interests of particular donors.

And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which already operates with an annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.

A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano wrote " Five Steps to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon" for buying new weaponry. In 2016, Heritage made the case for several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an encouraging start."

These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.

Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than the latter. In May 2013, Heritage sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered "conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that take 17 years to get off the ground.

Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."

In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct. It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if the price is right.

Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.

[Nov 30, 2017] Money Imperialism by Michael Hudson

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia. ..."
"... The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' ..."
"... At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity. ..."
"... The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe to absorb the refugees. ..."
"... The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain. ..."
"... The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization? ..."
"... Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable. ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21 st century. ..."
"... wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company "In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received £20,000 (£2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore. ..."
"... The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence? ..."
"... Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity. ..."
"... US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.: ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21st century. ..."
"... It's important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception, and the anti-federalists knew it. ..."
"... "After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler. ..."
"... But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs. ..."
"... The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI. ..."
"... Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either. ..."
"... This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve ..."
"... In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies, which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists. ..."
"... The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on, as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out. ..."
"... " Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself." ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Money Imperialism Introduction to the German Edition Michael Hudson November 29, 2017 3,500 Words 1 Comment Reply

In theory, the global financial system is supposed to help every country gain. Mainstream teaching of international finance, trade and "foreign aid" (defined simply as any government credit) depicts an almost utopian system uplifting all countries, not stripping their assets and imposing austerity. The reality since World War I is that the United States has taken the lead in shaping the international financial system to promote gains for its own bankers, farm exporters, its oil and gas sector, and buyers of foreign resources – and most of all, to collect on debts owed to it.

Each time this global system has broken down over the past century, the major destabilizing force has been American over-reach and the drive by its bankers and bondholders for short-term gains. The dollar-centered financial system is leaving more industrial as well as Third World countries debt-strapped. Its three institutional pillars – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization – have imposed monetary, fiscal and financial dependency, most recently by the post-Soviet Baltics, Greece and the rest of southern Europe. The resulting strains are now reaching the point where they are breaking apart the arrangements put in place after World War II.

The most destructive fiction of international finance is that all debts can be paid, and indeed should be paid, even when this tears economies apart by forcing them into austerity – to save bondholders, not labor and industry. Yet European countries, and especially Germany, have shied from pressing for a more balanced global economy that would foster growth for all countries and avoid the current economic slowdown and debt deflation.

Imposing austerity on Germany after World War I

After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts. Headed by John Maynard Keynes, British diplomats sought to clean their hands of responsibility for the consequences by promising that all the money they received from Germany would simply be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury.

The sums were so unpayably high that Germany was driven into austerity and collapse. The nation suffered hyperinflation as the Reichsbank printed marks to throw onto the foreign exchange also were pushed into financial collapse. The debt deflation was much like that of Third World debtors a generation ago, and today's southern European PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain).

In a pretense that the reparations and Inter-Ally debt tangle could be made solvent, a triangular flow of payments was facilitated by a convoluted U.S. easy-money policy. American investors sought high returns by buying German local bonds; German municipalities turned over the dollars they received to the Reichsbank for domestic currency; and the Reichsbank used this foreign exchange to pay reparations to Britain and other Allies, enabling these countries to pay the United States what it demanded.

But solutions based on attempts to keep debts of such magnitude in place by lending debtors the money to pay can only be temporary. The U.S. Federal Reserve sustained this triangular flow by holding down U.S. interest rates. This made it attractive for American investors to buy German municipal bonds and other high-yielding debts. It also deterred Wall Street from drawing funds away from Britain, which would have driven its economy deeper into austerity after the General Strike of 1926. But domestically, low U.S. interest rates and easy credit spurred a real estate bubble, followed by a stock market bubble that burst in 1929. The triangular flow of payments broke down in 1931, leaving a legacy of debt deflation burdening the U.S. and European economies. The Great Depression lasted until outbreak of World War II in 1939.

Planning for the postwar period took shape as the war neared its end. U.S. diplomats had learned an important lesson. This time there would be no arms debts or reparations. The global financial system would be stabilized – on the basis of gold, and on creditor-oriented rules. By the end of the 1940s the United States held some 75 percent of the world's monetary gold stock. That established the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency, freely convertible into gold at the 1933 parity of $35 an ounce.

It also implied that once again, as in the 1920s, European balance-of-payments deficits would have to be financed mainly by the United States. Recycling of official government credit was to be filtered via the IMF and World Bank, in which U.S. diplomats alone had veto power to reject policies they found not to be in their national interest. International financial "stability" thus became a global control mechanism – to maintain creditor-oriented rules centered in the United States.

To obtain gold or dollars as backing for their own domestic monetary systems, other countries had to follow the trade and investment rules laid down by the United States. These rules called for relinquishing control over capital movements or restrictions on foreign takeovers of natural resources and the public domain as well as local industry and banking systems.

By 1950 the dollar-based global economic system had become increasingly untenable. Gold continued flowing to the United States, strengthening the dollar – until the Korean War reversed matters. From 1951 through 1971 the United States ran a deepening balance-of-payments deficit, which stemmed entirely from overseas military spending. (Private-sector trade and investment was steadily in balance.)

U.S. Treasury debt replaces the gold exchange standard

The foreign military spending that helped return American gold to Europe became a flood as the Vietnam War spread across Asia after 1962. The Treasury kept the dollar's exchange rate stable by selling gold via the London Gold Pool at $35 an ounce. Finally, in August 1971, President Nixon stopped the drain by closing the Gold Pool and halting gold convertibility of the dollar.

There was no plan for what would happen next. Most observers viewed cutting the dollar's link to gold as a defeat for the United States. It certainly ended the postwar financial order as designed in 1944. But what happened next was just the reverse of a defeat. No longer able to buy gold after 1971 (without inciting strong U.S. disapproval), central banks found only one asset in which to hold their balance-of-payments surpluses: U.S. Treasury debt. These securities no longer were "as good as gold." The United States issued them at will to finance soaring domestic budget deficits.

By shifting from gold to the dollars thrown off by the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, the foundation of global monetary reserves came to be dominated by the U.S. military spending that continued to flood foreign central banks with surplus dollars. America's balance-of-payments deficit thus supplied the dollars that financed its domestic budget deficits and bank credit creation – via foreign central banks recycling U.S. foreign spending back to the U.S. Treasury.

In effect, foreign countries have been taxed without representation over how their loans to the U.S. Government are employed. European central banks were not yet prepared to create their own sovereign wealth funds to invest their dollar inflows in foreign stocks or direct ownership of businesses. They simply used their trade and payments surpluses to finance the U.S. budget deficit. This enabled the Treasury to cut domestic tax rates, above all on the highest income brackets.

U.S. monetary imperialism confronted European and Asian central banks with a dilemma that remains today: If they do not turn around and buy dollar assets, their currencies will rise against the dollar. Buying U.S. Treasury securities is the only practical way to stabilize their exchange rates – and in so doing, to prevent their exports from rising in dollar terms and being priced out of dollar-area markets.

The system may have developed without foresight, but quickly became deliberate. My book Super Imperialism sold best in the Washington DC area, and I was given a large contract through the Hudson Institute to explain to the Defense Department exactly how this extractive financial system worked. I was brought to the White House to explain it, and U.S. geostrategists used my book as a how-to-do-it manual (not my original intention).

Attention soon focused on the oil-exporting countries. After the U.S. quadrupled its grain export prices shortly after the 1971 gold suspension, the oil-exporting countries quadrupled their oil prices. I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United States would treat it as an act of war not to keep their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets.

This was the point at which the international financial system became explicitly extractive. But it took until 2009, for the first attempt to withdraw from this system to occur. A conference was convened at Yekaterinburg, Russia, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The alliance comprised Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan, with observer status for Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia. U.S. officials asked to attend as observers, but their request was rejected.

The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking to break free from America's financial free ride.

The IMF changes its rules to isolate Russia and China

Aiming to isolate Russia and China, the Obama Administration's confrontational diplomacy has drawn the Bretton Woods institutions more tightly under US/NATO control. In so doing, it is disrupting the linkages put in place after World War II.

The U.S. plan was to hurt Russia's economy so much that it would be ripe for regime change ("color revolution"). But the effect was to drive it eastward, away from Western Europe to consolidate its long-term relations with China and Central Asia. Pressing Europe to shift its oil and gas purchases to U.S. allies, U.S. sanctions have disrupted German and other European trade and investment with Russia and China. It also has meant lost opportunities for European farmers, other exporters and investors – and a flood of refugees from failed post-Soviet states drawn into the NATO orbit, most recently Ukraine.

To U.S. strategists, what made changing IMF rules urgent was Ukraine's $3 billion debt falling due to Russia's National Wealth Fund in December 2015. The IMF had long withheld credit to countries refusing to pay other governments. This policy aimed primarily at protecting the financial claims of the U.S. Government, which usually played a lead role in consortia with other governments and U.S. banks. But under American pressure the IMF changed its rules in January 2015. Henceforth, it announced, it would indeed be willing to provide credit to countries in arrears other governments – implicitly headed by China (which U.S. geostrategists consider to be their main long-term adversary), Russia and others that U.S. financial warriors might want to isolate in order to force neoliberal privatization policies. [1] I provide the full background in "The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked Capitalism , Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .

Article I of the IMF's 1944-45 founding charter prohibits it from lending to a member engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes generally. An obvious reason for this rule is that such a country is unlikely to earn the foreign exchange to pay its debt. Bombing Ukraine's own Donbass region in the East after its February 2014 coup d'état destroyed its export industry, mainly to Russia.

Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force adherence to the Minsk peace agreements, but U.S. diplomacy rejected that opportunity. When IMF head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal hope for peace. Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step up his civil war against the Russian-speaking population in eastern Ukraine. One and a half-billion dollars of the IMF loan were given to banker Ihor Kolomoiski and disappeared offshore, while the oligarch used his domestic money to finance an anti-Donbass army. A million refugees were driven east into Russia; others fled west via Poland as the economy and Ukraine's currency plunged.

The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the loan (the "No More Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend to a country that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3) Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan. Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities." Ukraine did agree to override democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.

U.S. neoliberalism promotes privatization carve-ups of debtor countries

Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia.

At stake is much more than just which nations will get the contracting and banking business. At issue is whether the philosophy of development will follow the classical path based on public infrastructure investment, or whether public sectors will be privatized and planning turned over to rent-seeking corporations.

What made the United States and Germany the leading industrial nations of the 20 th century – and more recently, China – has been public investment in economic infrastructure. The aim was to lower the price of living and doing business by providing basic services on a subsidized basis or freely. By contrast, U.S. privatizers have brought debt leverage to bear on Third World countries, post-Soviet economies and most recently on southern Europe to force selloffs. Current plans to cap neoliberal policy with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) go so far as to disable government planning power to the financial and corporate sector.

American strategists evidently hoped that the threat of isolating Russia, China and other countries would bring them to heel if they tried to denominate trade and investment in their own national currencies. Their choice would be either to suffer sanctions like those imposed on Cuba and Iran, or to avoid exclusion by acquiescing in the dollarized financial and trade system and its drives to financialize their economies under U.S. control.

The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' "

[2] Lori M. Wallach, "The corporation invasion," La Monde Diplomatique , December 2, 2013, http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta . She adds: "Some investors have a very broad conception of their rights. European companies have recently launched legal actions against the raising of the minimum wage in Egypt; Renco has fought anti-toxic emissions policy in Peru, using a free trade agreement between that country and the US to defend its right to pollute (6). US tobacco giant Philip Morris has launched cases against Uruguay and Australia over their anti-smoking legislation." See also Yves Smith, "Germany Bucking Toxic, Nation-State Eroding Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership," Naked Capitalism , July 17, 2014, and "Germany Turning Sour on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership," Naked Capitalism, October 30, 2014.

This policy threat is splitting the world into pro-U.S. satellites and economies maintaining public infrastructure investment and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism supporting its own financial and corporate interests has driven Russia, China and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into an alliance to protect their economic self-sufficiency rather than becoming dependent on dollarized credit enmeshing them in foreign-currency debt.

At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity.

The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe to absorb the refugees.

Germany's choice

This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve. The industrial takeoff of Germany and other European nations involved a long fight to free markets from the land rents and financial charges siphoned off by their landed aristocracies and bankers. That was the essence of classical 19 th -century political economy and 20 th -century social democracy. Most economists a century ago expected industrial capitalism to produce an economy of abundance, and democratic reforms to endorse public infrastructure investment and regulation to hold down the cost of living and doing business. But U.S. economic diplomacy now threatens to radically reverse this economic ideology by aiming to dismantle public regulatory power and impose a radical privatization agenda under the TTIP and TAFTA.

Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by becoming more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North American industrial economies. Instead, the world is polarizing, not converging. The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain.

The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization?

Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.

The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21 st century.

Endnotes

[1] I provide the full background in "The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked Capitalism , Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .

[2] Lori M. Wallach, "The corporation invasion," La Monde Diplomatique , December 2, 2013, http://mondediplo.com/2013/12/02tafta . She adds: "Some investors have a very broad conception of their rights. European companies have recently launched legal actions against the raising of the minimum wage in Egypt; Renco has fought anti-toxic emissions policy in Peru, using a free trade agreement between that country and the US to defend its right to pollute ( 6 ). US tobacco giant Philip Morris has launched cases against Uruguay and Australia over their anti-smoking legislation." See also Yves Smith , " Germany Bucking Toxic, Nation-State Eroding Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ," Naked Capitalism , July 17, 2014 , and " Germany Turning Sour on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership ," Naked Capitalism, October 30, 2014 .

Priss Factor , Website November 30, 2017 at 5:28 am GMT

More like Dollar Supremacism

The Alarmist , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 8:02 am GMT

"Austerity" is such a misused word these days. What the Allies did to Germany after Versailles was austerity, and everyone paid dearly for it.

What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.

The Austerity everyone complains about in the developed world these days is a joke, hardly austerity, for it has never meant more than doing a little less deficit-spending than in prior periods, e.g. UK Labour whining about "Austerity" is a joke, as the UK debt has done nothing but grow, which in terms understandable to simple folk like me means they are spending more than they can afford to carry.

jilles dykstra , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 8:15 am GMT
" The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions "

In the whole article not a word about the euro, also an instrument of imperialism, that mainly benefits Germany, the country that has to maintain a high level of exports, in order to feed the Germans, and import raw materials for Germany's industries.

Isolating China and Russia, with the other BRICS countries, S Africa, Brazil, India, dangerous game.
This effort forced China and Russia to close cooperation, the economic expression of this is the Peking Petersburg railway, with a hub in Khazakstan, where the containers are lifted from the Chinese to the Russian system, the width differs.
Four days for the trip.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Let us hope that history does not repeat itself in the nuclear era.

Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., 'Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism', 1923, 1924, New York

jacques sheete , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 11:29 am GMT
Another excellent article.

The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking t o break free from America's financial free ride .

Nah, the NY banksters wouldn't dream of doing such a thing; would they?

skrik , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 11:29 am GMT

This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve

What I said, and beautifully put, the whole article.

World War I may well have been an important way-point, but the miserable mercantile modus operandi was well established long before.

An interesting A/B case:

a) wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company "In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received £20,000 (£2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore.

b) The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence?

Then see what happened when the erstwhile APOC was nationalized; the US/UK perpetrated a coup against the democratically elected Mossadegh, eventual blow-back resulting in the 1979 revolution, basically taking Iran out of 'the West.'

Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity.

We the people are powerless passengers, and to add insult to injury, the taxpayer-funded AusBC lies to us continually. Ho, hum; just like the mainly US/Z MSM and the BBC do – all corrupt and venal. Bah!

Now, cue the trolls: "But Russia/China are worse!"

jacques sheete , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 12:04 pm GMT

The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions.

US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.:

Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath.

Excellent.:

The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.

This is a gem of a summary.:

The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21st century.

Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. It's important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception, and the anti-federalists knew it.

Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.

You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies [ ed comment: the money grubbers ]

Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the Virginia Convention of 1788

The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali.

- Albert Jay Nock [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson, published in 1926]

Biff , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT
The golden rule is one thing. The paper rule is something else. May you live in interesting times.
Jake , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 2:09 pm GMT
"After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler.

But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs.

Joe Hide , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT
To Michael Hudson,
Great article. Evidence based, factually argued, enjoyably readable.
Replacements for the dollar dominated financial system are well into development. Digital dollars, credit cards, paypal, stock and currency exchange online platforms, and perhaps most intriguing The exponential rise of Bitcoin and similar crypto-currencies.

The internet is also exponentially exposing the screwing we peasants have been getting by the psychopath, narcissistic, hedonistic, predatory lenders and controllers. Next comes the widespread, easily usable, and inexpensive cell phone apps, social media exposures, alternative websites (like Unz.com), and other technologies that will quickly identify every lying, evil, jerk so they can be neutrilized / avoided

The Alarmist , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT

"Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by becoming more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North American industrial economies."

I must be old; the economic textbooks I had did explain the benefits of freer trade among nations using Ricardo and Trade Indifference Curves, but didn't prescribe any one political system being fostered by or even necessary for the benefits of international trade to be reaped.

Astuteobservor II , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT
to be honest, this way of running things only need to last for 10-20 more years before automation will replace 800 million jobs. then we will have a few trillionaire overlords unless true AI comes online. by that point nothing matters as we will become zoo animals.
jacques sheete , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.

That's true and the criminals do similar asset stripping to their own as well, through various means.

It's always the big criminals against the rest of us.

jacques sheete , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.

Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either.

The wars were also instigated to prevent either Germany or Russia having control of, and free access to warm water ports and the wars also were an excuse to steal vast amounts of wealth from both Germany and Russia through various means.

All pious and pompous pretexts aside, economics was the motive for (the) war (s), and the issues are not settled to this day. I.e., it's the same class of monstrously insatiable criminals who want everything for themselves who're causing the major troubles of the day.

Unfortunately, as long as we have SoB's who're eager to sacrifice our blood and treasure for their benfit, things will never change.

jacques sheete , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

The golden rule is one thing. The paper rule is something else.

May you live in interesting times.

The golden rule is for dreamers, unfortunately. Those who control paper money rule, and your wish has been granted; we live in times that are both interesting and fascinating, but are nevertheless the same old thing. Only the particular particulars have changed.

Michael Kenny , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT
Essentially, the anti-EU and anti-euro line that Professor Hudson has being pushing for years, which has now morphed into a pro-Putin line as the anti-EU faction in the US have sought to use Putin as a "useful idiot" to destroy the EU. Since nobody in Europe reads these articles, Ii doesn't really matter and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice of someone who has never concealed his hostility to the EU's very existence: note the use of the racist slur "PIIGS" to refer to certain EU Member States. Thus, Professor Hudson is simply pushing the "let Putin win in Ukraine" line dressed up in fine-sounding economic jargon.
jacques sheete , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

Since nobody in Europe reads these articles, Ii doesn't really matter

None of it rally matters anyway, no matter how valid. To paraphrase Thucydides, the money grubbers do what they want and the rest of us are forced to suck it up and limp along.

and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice

I doubt that that's Hudson's intent in writing the article. I see it as his attempt to explain the situation to those of us who care about them even though our concern is pretty much useless.

I do thank him for taking the time to pen this stuff which I consider worthwhile and high quality.

Anonymous , Disclaimer Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
That sounds good but social media is the weapon of choice in the EU too. Lot's of kids know and love Hudson. Any half capable writer who empathetically explains why you're getting fucked is going to have some followers. Watering, nutrition, weeding. Before too long you'll be on the Eurail to your destination.
Wally , Website Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 4:23 pm GMT
@Jake

said: "The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler." If true, so what? That's a classic example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. http://www.codoh.com

nickels , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT

This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve

In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies, which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists.

William McAdoo , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT
The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on, as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out.

The proper use by the US of its controlled system thus should be a defensive one -- mainly to act so fairly to all players that it, not someone else, remains in control of the dominant worldwide exchange system. This sensible course of conduct, unfortunately, is not being pursued by the US.

joe webb , Next New Comment November 30, 2017 at 10:11 pm GMT
there is fuzzy, and then there is very fuzzy, and then there is the fuzziness compounded many-fold. The latter is this article.

Here from wiki: "

" Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself."

Wiki goes on to identify "rentier" as used by Marx, to be the same thing as "capitalists." What the above quotation says is that capitalism CAN rid itself of genuine rent capital. First, the feudal rents that were extracted by landowners were NOT part of a free market system. Serfdom was only one part of unfree conditions. A general condition of anarchy in rules and laws by petty principalities characteristic of feudalism, both contained commerce and human beings. There was no freedom, political or economic.

The conflation (collapsing) of rents and interest is a Marxist error which expands into complete nonsense when a competitive economy has replaced feudal conditions. ON top of that, profits from a business, firm, or industrial enterprise are NOT rents.

Any marxist is a fool to pretend otherwise, and is just another ideological (False consciousness ) fanatic.

... ... ...

Wally, Next New Comment December 1, 2017 at 1:49 am GMT
@Michael Kenny

Indeed, Putin should be praised & supported. But where is the proof that 'Russia & Trump colluded to get Trump elected'? You also ignore the overwhelming Crimean support for returning to Russia. And you won't like this at all: Trump Declares "National Day for the Victims of Communism." https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/11/07/national-day-victims-communism Hence, the Liars of the scamming "Holocau$t Industry" go crazy: https://www.salon.com/2017/11/07/trumps-national-day-for-the-victims-of-communism-is-opposite-of-holocaust-statement/

ThreeCranes , December 1, 2017 at 3:34 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

Germany loans money back to the poorer nations who buy her exports just as China loans money to the United States (they purchase roughly a third of our Treasury bonds) so that Americans can continue to buy Chinese manufactured goods.

The role to be played by the USA in the "new world order" is that of being the farmer to the world. The meticulous Asians will make stuff.

The problem with this is that it is based on 19th century notions of manufacturing. Technique today is vastly more complicated than it was in the 1820′s and a nation must do everything in its power to protect and nurture its manufacturing and scientific excellence. In the United States we have been giving this away to our competitors. We educate their children at our taxpayer's expense and they take the knowledge gained back to their native countries where, with state subsidies, they build factories that put Americans out of work. We fall further and further behind.

[Nov 30, 2017] The people who worked in int l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness of these institutions when pushing austerity or reform policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise– are ruthless and very hard to resist.

Notable quotes:
"... "The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty, painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since. ..."
"... According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia. ..."
"... For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel. ..."
"... And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience. ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anon , Disclaimer November 29, 2017 at 3:02 am GMT

The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise– are ruthless and very hard to resist.

Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.

anon , Disclaimer November 29, 2017 at 4:51 am GMT
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa, etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.

The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.

peterAUS , November 29, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT
@anon

he's not a fellow slaveholder like them .

Quick Google:
Inequality in Russia

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/apr/25/unequal-russia-is-anger-stirring-in-the-global-capital-of-inequality

" With the richest 10% owning 87% of all the country's wealth, Russia is rated the most unequal of the world's major economies. ."

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/wealth-inequality-in-russia-in-photos-2017-7?r=US&IR=T#/#li-mi-yan-photographed-this-series-in-moscow-1

" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..

"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty, painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.

The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.

This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.

From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World Wealth and Income Database]"

Etc

Cyrano , November 29, 2017 at 8:25 am GMT
@anon

People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China, Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality? It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile and delicate thing that it is.

I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there, they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all is so afraid of.

Kiza , November 29, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that Russia was next.

But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.

For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.

And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.

yeah , November 29, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?

And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet. The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect, statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western leaders for the clowns that they are.

A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.

Avery , November 29, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}

Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .

[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons. Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]

_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23547/russias-new-icbm-could-wipe-out-texas/

disturbed_robot , November 29, 2017 at 4:20 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.

Anonymous , Disclaimer November 29, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Inequality in Russia

The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside the country appear to be.

L.K , November 29, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT
Very interesting interview with Professor McCoy:

On Contact: Decline of the American empire with Alfred McCoy

WorkingClass , November 29, 2017 at 7:03 pm GMT
@disturbed_robot

Thanks for the kind words.

Aedib , November 29, 2017 at 7:08 pm GMT
@James N. Kennett

It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely fear – fear of Russia's military strength.

Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".

This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;

Agreed.

gwynedd1 , November 29, 2017 at 7:22 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against of chaos for a hostile order.

gwynedd1 , November 29, 2017 at 7:30 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"Why should the west try to destroy Russia? They're doing a great job of it all by themselves"

How many times have you visited Russia?

Cyrano , November 29, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT
@Philip Owen

Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism, as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery, pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated. My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.

AB_Anonymous , November 29, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?

[Nov 30, 2017] Heritage Foundation + the War Industry What a Pair by Paul Gottfried

Highly recommended!
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
According to recent reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established, naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.

If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends on the whims and interests of particular donors.

And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which already operates with an annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.

A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano wrote " Five Steps to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon" for buying new weaponry. In 2016, Heritage made the case for several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an encouraging start."

These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.

Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than the latter. In May 2013, Heritage sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered "conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that take 17 years to get off the ground.

Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."

In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct. It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if the price is right.

Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.

[Nov 30, 2017] The US Aristocracy's Smear-Russia Campaign Big Brother At Work

The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Notable quotes:
"... These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire. ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news') media.

They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left) are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being "fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD' (but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically that blatant lie to the public).

Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003) been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting' (passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media. That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies including the European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all, will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?

Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.

One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as "potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America" (as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially, treason.'"

These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.

The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine) was:

"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these societies protect themselves?"

The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"

The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing -- and doing it even worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)

Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts" were "using Facebook to incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" , and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC" nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?

Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by 'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump, alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .

And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main 'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper, was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February 2011, even Politico was reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W. Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998; but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply lied about the entire matter .

The other main source for the allegation that 'Russia hacked the election' is the Obama Administration's John Brennan, whom Glenn Greenwald exposed as a fraud back on 7 January 2013, headlining "John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination" .

Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real 'public servants' at all.

This isn't to say that Trump isn't also a liar -- just that the 'news' in America is full of conflicting lies -- and that they constantly are coming from the fake 'news'media that are the mainstream ones who are now trying to censor out, and ultimately to obliterate, the few small news-operations (some of which, unlike any of the mainstream ones, actually are good, and authentic journalistic operations, no mere PR hackery) that are constantly exposing the fraudulence of the mainstream ones, which want to impose their dictatorship -- the mainstream lies -- even more rigorously than they already do. After all, the mainstream Western media still haven't yet reported US President Obama's bloody racist-fascist coup that in February 2014 replaced the democratically elected President of Ukraine (and his supporters in the legislature) by a racist-fascist or ideologically nazi regime that's rabidly hostile toward its neighboring nation of Russia . Even now -- nearly four years after the event. It's already solidly documented history , but the mainstream US-and-allied press still hasn't reported it.

The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .

VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:07 AM

The lies just keep getting bigger.

Skateboarder -> VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:17 AM

"Us vs. them," the tune for the culling.

Slippery Slope -> Skateboarder , Nov 30, 2017 12:55 AM

Many of the Jewish Oligarchs in Russia and throughout the World, really hate Russia, I think it has to do with the Slavs conquest of the Khazars.

In that Putin rebuilt Russia and stopped them from thieving, irks them all the more.

jeff montanye -> Skateboarder , Nov 30, 2017 1:28 AM

if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.

why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?

how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).

i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=chris+bollyn+war+on...

07564111 -> jeff montanye , Nov 30, 2017 1:38 AM

US Aristocracy = Joos In Charge

Kassandra -> jeff montanye , Nov 30, 2017 3:55 AM

Good on you.

In these days of internet, where we can actually know (or suspect) what is going on, why do the lies continue? When we all KNOW IT IS ALL A LIE!

Blue Steel 309 -> VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:57 AM

The Soviets collapsed under the weight of their own lies, not the economy or cold war arms race.

We are next. Is this being orchestrated or just part of the sinusoidal process of this civilization?

[Nov 30, 2017] WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day. ..."
"... Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"... ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of Trump-Russia Collusion Tyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES CNN and New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.

Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."

PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"

Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."

"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion, would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."

"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."

Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot" and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA

-- James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 29, 2017

Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day.

Like this one...

Or this one if you prefer...

Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...

...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.

MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing, we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIII pic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6

-- Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) November 29, 2017

Finally, here is the latest Project Veritas video for your viewing pleasure:

greenskeeper carl -> Bernie Madolf , Nov 29, 2017 9:12 PM

Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an indictment.

nope-1004 -> greenskeeper carl , Nov 29, 2017 9:14 PM

Honest on hidden camera, full of shit in the MSM.

So it is with all .gov media outlets.

[Nov 30, 2017] State Department Condemns Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (only applies to Russia)

State Department is actually has dual function -- one is to be an intelligence agency. And as such it is fully responsible for the current anti-Russian witch hunt. So the level of hypocrisy is simply staggering. But not surprising: way too many neocons infiltrated the agency under Hillary Clinton and her predecessor.
The problem with responding to this move is that the USA is still the global superpower and technological leader in many areas, including semiconductors. So Russians need to be very careful not to overstep the boundaries and slip into tip for tat mode.
The huge advantage of the USA is that it conducts its propaganda campaign against Russia mostly via private newspapers that have foreign correspondents in Russia as well as fifth column of Russian neoliberals and their news outlets. Which are closely working with the US sponsored NGO. Same is true for GB. Actually after reading Guardian correspondents coverage from Russia it is unclear whether Guardian is a branch on MI6 or not ;-). I don not remember the name of a person who was expelled from Russia for collecting information from the transmitter masked as a "stone" in Moscow park.
Some minor measures directly against "foreign financed" domestic new outlets actually could be more effective that sweeping registration of (mostly ineffective and unpopular) US government channels as "foreign agents".
Notable quotes:
"... Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation". ..."
"... The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT ..."
"... The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT ..."
"... "We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..."
"... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network. ..."
"... Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center ..."
"... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. ..."
"... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. ..."
"... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. ..."
"... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government. ..."
"... It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'. ..."
"... "And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills." ..."
"... After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet. ..."
"... The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'. ..."
"... Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it. ..."
"... Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future. ..."
"... Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. ..."
"... RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc. ..."
"... Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters. ..."
"... Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity. ..."
"... To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh ..."
"... To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer. ..."
"... Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/ ..."
"... US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian. ..."
"... Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message ..."
"... It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West. ..."
"... I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt. ..."
"... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire... ..."
"... 1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc. ..."
"... 2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. ..."
"... An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours. ..."
"... Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts. ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
State Department Condemns* Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (*only applies to Russia)

UPDATED below
---

Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation".

The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a 'foreign agent' under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.

But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT . The State Department reacted to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT . The new Russian law is a mirror to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as 'foreign agents'. The EU poodles followed the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)

With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.

The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.

Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT .

The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian move.

Here is timeline of the relevant events:

Clapper calls for U.S. Information Agency 'on steroids' to counter Russian propaganda - Washington Times, Jan 5 2017

"We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
...
"[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network.

Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking - Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center

RT America TV , a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties
...
RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
...
RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use.
...
RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt.
...
RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government.

Cicilline Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Close Russia Today Loophole - Congress, June 7 2017

U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC), and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year's presidential election.

Justice Dept Asks Russia's RT to Register as Foreign Agent - Newsmax, September 13 2017

RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing foreign political interests.

...

FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT might be a way around that stipulation.

Russia to amend law to classify U.S. media 'foreign agents' - Reuters, Nov 10 2017

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared "foreign agents" and obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
...
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station RT register in the United States as a "foreign agent", something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.

Russia's RT America registers as 'foreign agent' in U.S. - Reuters, Nov 13 2017

MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice as a "foreign agent" in the United States, the outlet's editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in the day.

Russia warns U.S. media of possible foreign agent status - AP, Nov 16 2017

MOSCOW – Russia's Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.

The bill , endorsed by Russia's lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.

Russian president Putin signs foreign agent media law to match U.S. action - USA Today, Nov 25 2017

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television

EU Criticizes Russia's 'Foreign Agents' Media Law - RFLRF, Nov 26 2017

BRUSSELS -- The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia's government to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as "foreign agents" and impose sanctions against them.

...

Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in a November 26 statement that the "legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments."

Russia's Restrictive Media-Focused Legislation - U.S. State Department - Nov 28 2017

New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as "foreign agents" and to monitor or block certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression -- including speech and media which a government may find inconvenient -- is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.


link

With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense. See here for a corrected version:


bigger

Unfortunately the State Department's spokesperson added some verbose lamenting about one specific country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.

---
UPDATE - Nov 30 0:50am

As consequence of the FARA designation of RT 's U.S. production company RT is now losing access to the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely to lose those too.

Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as 'foreign agent'. It also wants all staff of XINHUA to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with their XINHUA gigs.

Posted by b on November 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM | Permalink

NewYorker | Nov 29, 2017 1:44:58 PM | 1

Yeah. Whatever. This is how Russia is supposed to respond. If the US does something, Russia is should respond immediately. Not several months or a year down the road. Stop waiting for the spoiled brat to get it. They never will.
ken | Nov 29, 2017 2:30:17 PM | 2
It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'.
james | Nov 29, 2017 2:32:14 PM | 3
thanks b... well, once again american hypocrisy is on public display... i guess someone is hoping that ignorance and a short memory will rule the day..
karlof1 | Nov 29, 2017 2:42:13 PM | 4
Ditto ken @2.

Speaking of hypocrisy, on 20 Nov 2017, one day after the Arab League Confab--which now ought to become known as the Zionist-Arab League -- Nasrallah gave a speech calling out all those nations that supported Daesh, particularly the Outlaw US Empire. Video of the speech in French with English subs and a very partial transcript are here, http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com/ with a longer partial transcript available at The Saker's blog.

Excerpt:

"Of course, we will also need real festivities to celebrate the victory because it will be a great victory, a victory against the organization representing the greatest danger (for all) that soiled more than anyone the religion of Muhammad b. Abdillah, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, since 1,400 years. This will be the victory of humanistic and moral values against horrific bestiality, cruelty and violence. A victory that will have a huge impact on the cultural, religious, humanitarian, military, security, political levels, as well as on the very image (of Islam and Muslims) and at all levels.

"And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills."

notheonly1 | Nov 29, 2017 3:08:39 PM | 5
Once again, how much longer will people deny that what was formerly know as US government has turned into a Fascist regime - with the dictating done by Plutocrats whose names are not even known, in spite of everybody being surveilled. Just not the owners of the Nazi Sicherheits Agentur.

After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet.

Please let me know if anybody else has the same experience with their hardware. Also, I can no longer send emails on all accounts, but I do receive junk.

------

The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'.

The paymasters don't even bother any longer that the public is waking up based on their Fascist activities and actions. They don't give the proverbial F about people finding out and understanding what is actually happening in the Nazi High Five regimes. What are people going to do? Demonstrate against Fascism? Concerting a total consumer boycott - the antonym of 'go shopping'? Writing letters to misrepresentatives?

It certainly looks like the shit has piled up behind the fan like never before and the so called "happy holidays" seem to be the perfect time to flip the switch to "ON".

Sad, that through the incessant propaganda and Nationalism force fed to the lesser mentally gifted part of the population for centuries now, the people are no longer capable to do what the Declaration of Independence provides them to do (theoretically):

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The authors of these 'goddamn pieces of papers' must have already used Orwellian lingo, since it appears that this paragraph only refers to regime change in other Nations, just not in the US.

Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it.

Maybe one can call in at the regime department and tell them about psychological projection? The number is 1-800-FUC-KYOU. Yes, it's almost the same number Obama had chosen for criticism of the ACA - 1-800-381-2596. That is what these parasites think about "the people".

Now what? Following the advice of some people to not only see the negative shit on Earth? Sure, the genocide on the Palestinians and the Yemenis (plus countless other 'obstacles') is actually a good thing, correct? Because those who are exterminated now, won't have to experience worse down the line.

Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is getting out of public hands faster than the Ludicrous Speed of the "We Brake For Nobody"-Imperial Starship.

karlof1 | Nov 29, 2017 3:13:20 PM | 6
Trump's as naked as the ape he actually is. Weird way to go about cultivating better relations with Russia. As with Obama previously, much of what Trump campaigned on is being reversed, the opposite of his orated intent being implemented instead. A commentator at Sputnik was shocked that I lumped Trump together with the criminals Clinton and Obama, wanting an explanation why I did so. Obviously, that person isn't paying attention, and I told him so.

Even supposedly impartial international organizations continue to abet the Outlaw US Empire's Big Lies: "A press freedom watchdog, Reporters Without Borders, has asked the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the 'true agenda' of the controversial White Helmets group. But the club's director won't budge, noting that such demands are typically made by oppressive regimes." Kudos for foreign agent RT for providing the report, https://www.rt.com/news/411116-reporters-white-helmets-censorship/ Activist Post tells us that the presentation's by Vanessa Beeley, with Bradon Turbeville adding this observation: "Rather than attend the event to ask questions and present its side of the argument, RWB responded with insults and hid away under the guise of boycotting the panel. Pouting in the corner and refusing to take part in the discussion, however, did not stop the discussion from taking place." Lots of additional info and many links here, https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/despite-western-funded-ngos-boycott-vanessa-beeley-exposes-white-helmets-at-swiss-press-club.html

Peter AU 1 | Nov 29, 2017 3:56:48 PM | 7
karlof1 @6

Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future.

Tony B. | Nov 29, 2017 4:19:07 PM | 8
The state dept. is in its usual snit because Russia has just exposed the major CIA spy and pot stirring organs in Russia.
Perimetr | Nov 29, 2017 4:30:48 PM | 10
I don't give a damn what the Federal government wants me to see or hear, but obviously this is being done for the "benefit" of the majority of the public who will not look very far to get "informed" about current/world events. I don't see any end to this fascist process here in the "land of the free"; how long before they just shut down the net or limit it to approved websites?

Obviously this won't be one of them.

CarlD | Nov 29, 2017 4:39:12 PM | 11
@7

Beyond the personae and the relative intelligence of Clinton vs Obama vs Trump, one must admit that times are different. Both China and Russia are on the rise. China is now a formidable rival in economic terms and is rising militarily. And fast. Russia is recuperating from Gorbachev's treason and getting stronger by the day and is nowa World player to be reckoned with.

There is one thing that must be solved and that is the money exchange system through which gates most countries must pass to obtain their dues. China and Russia are working on it. Once this is complete, US sanctions will work no more. Even new internets are being created that will bypass the US controlled one.

There is not much anybody can do against the realignment of the globe. The Unipolar model is gone because the US could not manage it. Greed, U.S. greed, and exceptionalism killed it.

North Korea just proves that the US power and influence have limits. I presume, I may be wrong, that once KJU has a good enough number of warheads and rockets, he will want the US to vacate South Korea. Both the Russians and Chinese will love that. He will want sanctions lifted and see normal relations resume between NOKO and China and Russia.

There is no point for him to rock the boat if he does not pursue greater aims.

Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. But I guess deep down we would like the outcome to be better than the circumstances would lead us to expect. The US will remain a Zionist puppet for as long as Israel exists. If it is down to Israel's will, America will pass, but Zion will prevail. Jared is now the transmission belt in the Saudi, Israel, US triad. Which means that Israel has a personal ambassador to Trump. Because of the internal opposition to Trump, he must look for an external happening that will remove him from public scrutiny. He wont tackle Kim but he might believe Iran is gamer as he has allies in the endeavor.

Nobody will win this war but Israel may lose more than expected.

Ort | Nov 29, 2017 4:43:37 PM | 12
Another line just got crossed. I dislike the phrase "breaking news"-- it's a fraternal twin to "breaking wind"-- but RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc.

Sorry to not provide a link, but this is so recent it isn't even on YouTube yet. It will be interesting to see whether the Western civil-liberties and "media-watchdog" organizations, including the ACLU, react to this draconian development, much less vociferously protest it. In any case, I doubt if we'll see the rest of the Congressional press corps stage a walkout in sympathy and solidarity with their silenced and censored RT colleagues.

Peter AU 1 | Nov 29, 2017 5:01:38 PM | 13
CarlD 11

Agree on China Russia ect, though I am starting to believe Trump is not impulsive, rather, he runs very well thought out stratagies. The impulsiveness is part of the persona. I run onto an analysis of how Trump opertes the persona within a narrow band, and he uses it to gain attention and then direct attention to where he wants it.
I think this video is worth watching - the first half deals mainly with Trump's persona. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ

Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters.

james | Nov 29, 2017 5:11:42 PM | 17
rt reporting it now - https://www.rt.com/usa/411361-rt-congress-credentials-withdrawal/ the usa apparatus must be really freaking out that their is an alternative view on all of their bullshit~!
SlapHappy | Nov 29, 2017 5:19:49 PM | 18
Perimetr: Censoring the Internet is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. If they repeal Net Neutrality, we can expect sites like Moon of Alabama to just spool and spool but never load, whereas CNN and Fox will load immediately.
Perimetr | Nov 29, 2017 5:59:24 PM | 19
RE SlapHappy. That makes sense. I already see that happening with RT on my iPhone. So now we will need Radio Free Russia to be set up in where, Mexico?
SPYRIDON POLITIS | Nov 29, 2017 6:29:44 PM | 20
There is not much new in the heavy-handed methods employed by the Empire - they have always employed intimidation, false flags, fake news, bribery and corruption, even assassination -but up till now went to some pains to cloak their actions in a mantle of morality. They usually attempted to swing public opinion behind their endeavours. What is frightening lately, is their brashness and total disregard for the public's opinion. Because they know that short of armed revolt, they have little to fear. The presstitute media shall whitewash their hypocrisy and all their crimes, and at election time they will once more own all the candidates.
notheonly1 | Nov 29, 2017 7:37:23 PM | 22
SlapHappy | Nov 29, 2017 5:19:49 PM | 18

Happening on google/youtube excessively. Stuff like the Jimmy Dore show, or any other critical outlet does not load, or takes forever respectively. Doggie videos and those showing stupid people doing stupid stuff - load instantly. It will be interesting to see, whence net neutrality is neutered, how the owners of the country will deal with the backlash of billions in lost revenue from online commerce.

Because people that can't get what they want when they don't shop, are unlikely to shop online any longer. The stench of censorship will keep those online consumers away - if not alone for endless loading times due to not being able to pay $ 800 per month for high speed internet.

khudre | Nov 29, 2017 7:47:01 PM | 24
First time US legalized targeting of media as "terrorists" thanks to neocon John Bolton and his zionist cohorts. Being labeled foreign agent is getting off easy http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/168921.html
ritzl | Nov 29, 2017 8:16:26 PM | 26
Are shortwave radios going to make a comeback? RT World Service?

It's tough to make out what the US endgame is in all this. It's probably even tougher to make out if the PTB in the US know what the endgame is. Open-ended, freestyle, ante-upping (by the US) devolution of any and all rational forms of coexistence, imo, with zero good outcomes.

Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity.

Aw hell...

psychohistorian | Nov 29, 2017 8:48:23 PM | 29
@ b for his opening line

Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. After the park come the state/region/nation/world/universe. See how far yet they have to expand their hypocrisy.....why they are just getting warmed up......is China news next? To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh

Yeah, Right | Nov 29, 2017 9:08:25 PM | 31
Would be interesting to read the transcript of the next State Department Press Briefing, which the State spokesmodel must be dreading - talk about being handed an impossible brief......

Those briefings normally start with Matt Lee from Associated Press asking the first question, but I suspect that this time he'll start by turning to the RT reporter who is sitting in the back of the room and saying something along the lines of "No, please, you go first.....".

Ghost Ship | Nov 29, 2017 9:47:59 PM | 32
OT

While people are distracted by what is happening between Washington and Moscow, an election is being stolen and Clintonists will do nothing about it because Clinton and Obama made the thief, Juan Orlando Hernández, president of Honduras.

Back in 2009:

a cadre of military officers, businessmen, and right-wing politicians, including Hernández, overthrew the leftist President Manuel Zelaya
with encouragement and assistance from Hillary Clinton and the State Department.

Contrary to what the New Yorker goes on to say " after he vowed to run for re-election" Zelaya tried to organise a referendum to change the constitution to allow him to run a second time which many Clintonists attacked as being anti-democratic. Juan Orlando Hernández then packed the Supreme Court with his own supporters and had the constitution changed without a word of complaint from the State Department under Obama or any of the Clintonists who'd accused Zelaya of being anti-democratic.

Over the next few days I expect to see those same Clintonists accusing Trump of being anti-democratic for failing to object to Juan Orlando Hernández stealing the election but ignoring or excusing the responsibility Hillary Clinton has for what has happened just like they claim that Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for restoring slavery to Libya.

To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer.

mauisurfer | Nov 29, 2017 10:49:48 PM | 39
Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/
Pft | Nov 29, 2017 10:53:32 PM | 40
US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian.

Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message

It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West.

failure of imagination | Nov 29, 2017 11:03:32 PM | 42
Full Spectrum Quicksand. Grasping for national interests and not looking too confident. When I watch it on TV at other's places ( I just don't get TV...) I noticed it next to PornPerPay in the guide for a reason , tho not a fair one. They've had a CFR member on staff, so my Mockingbird tinfoil strainer gets going finer. I don't hear them being accused of wrong stories so, it's sour gripes. The couple of times RT came into a conversation was about Redacted Tonite.

I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt.

james | Nov 29, 2017 11:15:00 PM | 44
@41 forest.. thanks.. if that is what toivo thinks, then all i got to say to that is fascinating! i see it exactly the opposite.. it is the usa that is constantly lying... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire...
james | Nov 29, 2017 11:28:27 PM | 45
cluborlov - always fun! - why kremlin trolls always win!
http://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2017/11/why-kremlin-trolls-always-win.html
b | Nov 30, 2017 1:01:45 AM | 51
@all - I updated the post with RT's loss of Congress Gallery credentials because it has now been put under FARA. Following from that RT will also lose White House credentials. Additionally a congress commission now wants to put The Chinese Xinhua agency under FARA and also all individually staff that works for Xinhua.
Anon | Nov 30, 2017 3:00:47 AM | 60
The hypocrisy is disgusting, meanwhhile the real censorship against media in Russia gets attacked in a campaing in the US. Russia Hysteria: US Congress Revokes RT's Capitol Hill Press Credentials https://www.reddit.com/r/TheNewsFeed/comments/7gh9eu/russia_hysteria_us_congress_revokes_rts_capitol/
Harry | Nov 30, 2017 3:37:25 AM | 62
Interesting times of the media war. US removed RT credentials to access Congress, I'm sure they will follow up with banning RT from the White House too. Russia will probably ban US media from Kremlin and other institutions in the mirror law. Whats next? US ban on Russian-linked media from US networks/satellites like they did with Iran? Will they dare to apply similar treatment to China? Interesting times indeed.

@ ToivoS | 34

why ban US propagated bullshit

Two reasons:

1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc.

2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. How they will affect Russia's presidential elections, etc. if they are as confined as RT, but are losing even more because they have many more channels? They shot one bullet at Russia and got a ricochet of 10 bullets :)

Peter AU 1 | Nov 30, 2017 4:29:35 AM | 65
Harry | Nov 30, 2017 3:37:25 AM | 62

An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours.

Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts.

[Nov 30, 2017] WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion Zero Hedge

Nov 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of Trump-Russia Collusion Tyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES CNN and New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.

Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."

PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"

Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."

"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion, would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."

"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."

Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot" and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA

-- James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) November 29, 2017

Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day.

Like this one...

Or this one if you prefer...

Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...

...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.

MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing, we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIII pic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6

-- Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) November 29, 2017

Finally, here is the latest Project Veritas video for your viewing pleasure:

greenskeeper carl -> Bernie Madolf , Nov 29, 2017 9:12 PM

Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an indictment.

nope-1004 -> greenskeeper carl , Nov 29, 2017 9:14 PM

Honest on hidden camera, full of shit in the MSM.

So it is with all .gov media outlets.

[Nov 30, 2017] The US Aristocracy's Smear-Russia Campaign Big Brother At Work

The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Nov 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news') media.

They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left) are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being "fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD' (but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically that blatant lie to the public).

Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003) been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting' (passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media. That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies including the European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all, will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?

Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.

One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as "potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America" (as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially, treason.'"

These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.

The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine) was:

"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these societies protect themselves?"

The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"

The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing -- and doing it even worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)

Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages and accounts" were "using Facebook to incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" , and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC" nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?

Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by 'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump, alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .

And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main 'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper, was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February 2011, even Politico was reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W. Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998; but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply lied about the entire matter .

The other main source for the allegation that 'Russia hacked the election' is the Obama Administration's John Brennan, whom Glenn Greenwald exposed as a fraud back on 7 January 2013, headlining "John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination" .

Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real 'public servants' at all.

This isn't to say that Trump isn't also a liar -- just that the 'news' in America is full of conflicting lies -- and that they constantly are coming from the fake 'news'media that are the mainstream ones who are now trying to censor out, and ultimately to obliterate, the few small news-operations (some of which, unlike any of the mainstream ones, actually are good, and authentic journalistic operations, no mere PR hackery) that are constantly exposing the fraudulence of the mainstream ones, which want to impose their dictatorship -- the mainstream lies -- even more rigorously than they already do. After all, the mainstream Western media still haven't yet reported US President Obama's bloody racist-fascist coup that in February 2014 replaced the democratically elected President of Ukraine (and his supporters in the legislature) by a racist-fascist or ideologically nazi regime that's rabidly hostile toward its neighboring nation of Russia . Even now -- nearly four years after the event. It's already solidly documented history , but the mainstream US-and-allied press still hasn't reported it.

The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .

VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:07 AM

The lies just keep getting bigger.

Skateboarder -> VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:17 AM

"Us vs. them," the tune for the culling.

Slippery Slope -> Skateboarder , Nov 30, 2017 12:55 AM

Many of the Jewish Oligarchs in Russia and throughout the World, really hate Russia, I think it has to do with the Slavs conquest of the Khazars.

In that Putin rebuilt Russia and stopped them from thieving, irks them all the more.

jeff montanye -> Skateboarder , Nov 30, 2017 1:28 AM

if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.

why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?

how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).

i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=chris+bollyn+war+on...

07564111 -> jeff montanye , Nov 30, 2017 1:38 AM

US Aristocracy = Joos In Charge

Kassandra -> jeff montanye , Nov 30, 2017 3:55 AM

Good on you.

In these days of internet, where we can actually know (or suspect) what is going on, why do the lies continue? When we all KNOW IT IS ALL A LIE!

Blue Steel 309 -> VWAndy , Nov 30, 2017 12:57 AM

The Soviets collapsed under the weight of their own lies, not the economy or cold war arms race.

We are next. Is this being orchestrated or just part of the sinusoidal process of this civilization?

[Nov 30, 2017] The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise– are ruthless and very hard to resist.

Nov 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anon , Disclaimer November 29, 2017 at 3:02 am GMT

The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise– are ruthless and very hard to resist.

Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.

anon , Disclaimer November 29, 2017 at 4:51 am GMT
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa, etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.

The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.

peterAUS , November 29, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT
@anon

he's not a fellow slaveholder like them .

Quick Google:
Inequality in Russia

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/apr/25/unequal-russia-is-anger-stirring-in-the-global-capital-of-inequality

" With the richest 10% owning 87% of all the country's wealth, Russia is rated the most unequal of the world's major economies. ."

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/wealth-inequality-in-russia-in-photos-2017-7?r=US&IR=T#/#li-mi-yan-photographed-this-series-in-moscow-1

" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..

"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty, painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.

The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.

This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.

From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World Wealth and Income Database]"

Etc

Cyrano , November 29, 2017 at 8:25 am GMT
@anon

People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China, Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality? It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile and delicate thing that it is.

I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there, they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all is so afraid of.

Kiza , November 29, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that Russia was next.

But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.

For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.

And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.

yeah , November 29, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?

And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet. The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect, statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western leaders for the clowns that they are.

A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.

Avery , November 29, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}

Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .

[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons. Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]

_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a23547/russias-new-icbm-could-wipe-out-texas/

disturbed_robot , November 29, 2017 at 4:20 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.

Anonymous , Disclaimer November 29, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT
@peterAUS

Inequality in Russia

The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside the country appear to be.

L.K , November 29, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT
Very interesting interview with Professor McCoy:

On Contact: Decline of the American empire with Alfred McCoy

WorkingClass , November 29, 2017 at 7:03 pm GMT
@disturbed_robot

Thanks for the kind words.

Aedib , November 29, 2017 at 7:08 pm GMT
@James N. Kennett

It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely fear – fear of Russia's military strength.

Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".

This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;

Agreed.

gwynedd1 , November 29, 2017 at 7:22 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against of chaos for a hostile order.

gwynedd1 , November 29, 2017 at 7:30 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"Why should the west try to destroy Russia? They're doing a great job of it all by themselves"

How many times have you visited Russia?

Cyrano , November 29, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT
@Philip Owen

Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism, as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery, pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated. My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.

AB_Anonymous , November 29, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?

[Nov 30, 2017] Declassifying the Syrian Jihad CIA vs. the Pentagon

Notable quotes:
"... Brad Hoff is an independent journalist and served as a Marine computer programmer for a headquarters unit at MCB Quantico. He lived in Syria on and off from 2004-2009 as a civilian and currently teaches in Texas. ..."
Nov 30, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

by Brad Hoff Posted on June 28, 2016 June 27, 2016 On a Monday morning in September of 2014 White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stepped out in front of cameras to respond to questions of "intelligence failure" and explained that both the administration and intelligence community were caught completely "surprised" over the shocking and "rapid advance" of ISIS into Iraq over the course of that summer. However, two years prior in August 2012, an intelligence official with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stationed in Iraq had written an incredibly prescient classified report predicting that out of the Syrian war could emerge "a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime "

It seems the analyst's chief concern, from his or her vantage point in Iraq, was that the international coalition fueling the rebel insurgency across the border in Syria to effect regime change in Damascus could produce a monster capable to devouring large territory. The intelligence report forecast that "ISI [Islamic State in Iraq] could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory."

The memo specifically names Ramadi and Mosul as among the first Iraqi cities to potentially fall victim to what it calls "unifying the jihad" under the banner of an Islamic State . The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) would capture Mosul in June 2014, and in a seemingly unprecedented blitz across Anbar, seize Ramadi on Sunday, May 17, 2015. Ironically, the intelligence report itself would hit public view in heavily redacted form on Monday, May 18, 2015 – just as the world was receiving news of the fall of Ramadi.

Soon after it was written, the 2012 IIR (Intelligence Information Report) landed on the desks of Congressional Intelligence Committee members, but more importantly it would be used to argue policy at the White House – this according to the DoD's chief of military intelligence at the time the memo was produced.

Director of the DIA at the time of the memo's drafting and former Sr. Intelligence Officer for JSOC, Michael Flynn, has repeatedly affirmed the report's accuracy in public statements. But now for the first time a CIA perspective has been offered: former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell recently took to Politico to weigh in on controversy surrounding the now declassified 2012 memo which further warned that "the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria" and that "the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition."

Ex-CIA #2 Morell contradicts Flynn's account of the intelligence report, writing that "it was simply wrong in its facts when it indicated that the West was supporting extremists in Syria." Morell wants you to take his word for it: "The administration went to great lengths to ensure that any aid provided by the United States to the opposition would not fall into the hands of extremists, including the Islamic State and Al Qaeda." Morell adds his voice and insider credentials to a chorus of others assuring the public that Trump is spouting debunked conspiracy theories in claiming the memo points to Obama and Hillary "support" for ISIS and Al-Qaeda in Syria.

While Trump mustered this document to back his usually bizarre and hyper-sensationalized rhetoric on President Obama's supposed ideological sympathies with Islamic extremism, the DIA document itself is quite substantive and worthy of public scrutiny and debate. Middle East analysts and academics have been discussing the document for the past year since its court-ordered declassification through FOIA , though it has remained largely outside of US media's notice until recently.

The Washington Post's commentary, apparently uninformed of the history of reporting and analysis of the 2012 memo, refers to it as "relatively unimportant" and as mere "routine headquarters analysis" in spite of the publicly available confirmation that the terms by which it was obtained through FOIA reflect that it was used to brief Congressional Intelligence Committee leaders.

But Morell has paid closer attention and knows the more significant context the Post left out, which is perhaps why he takes the unusual step in writing an entire editorial to ensure the public stays away from the "conspiracy" reading of the text. He is well aware that within three months of the document's declassification, Lieutenant General Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, appeared on Al Jazeera and confirmed not only that the report had risen to his agency's highest office, but that he used it to argue policy at the White House. According to Morell:

"The conspiracy theory got another boost when several news outlets reported on an interview that Mike Flynn, the director of the DIA from 2012 to 2014, gave to Al Jazeera in August 2015. The media reported that Flynn said it was a 'willful decision' by the administration to support extremists in Syria. Flynn's seniority and his interview as reported by the media gave the conspiracy theory credibility."

Morell elsewhere references "national security-related blogs," which may be an indirect reference to my own August 2015 article , which could have caught his eye after WikiLeaks posted it on its media accounts , or after Glenn Greenwald cited it in an article defending Edward Snowden against intelligence officials' charge that his leaks had aided ISIS (Morell in particular had been very vocal on this charge after the Paris attacks).

Flynn appeared on Mehdi Hasan's Head to Head to tackle of topic of "Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL?" soon after the DIA memo was featured in an explosive article in The Guardian (UK) which went viral, and immediately on the heels of a lengthy London Review of Books history of the Syrian conflict authored by the world's foremost expert in modern Algeria and its Islamist movements, Hugh Roberts.

While Middle East pundit Juan Cole previously downplayed the document's importance, Roberts gave it lengthy commentary and affirmed that "The document not only anticipates the rise of IS but seems to suggest it would be a desirable development from the point of view of the international 'coalition' seeking regime change in Damascus."

Roberts seemed to anticipate the two extreme poles around which the intelligence report would be interpreted: on one side are the conspiracists who see evidence of the West's direct and ongoing support of ISIS to sow chaos in Syria, and on the other are those who say it's a low-level IIR (Intelligence Information Report) which is of no importance.

This is precisely the false dichotomy which Morell and the Washington Post present no doubt the inevitable result of a somewhat complex intelligence report entering partisan presidential politics (and of course just old fashion CIA lying and obfuscation).

Hugh Roberts, however, accurately places the memo in its nuanced historical context:

"In the middle, showing more respect for the DIA, we could imagine something else: the possibility that, in 2012, American and other Western intelligence services saw Isis much as they saw Jabhat al-Nusra and other jihadi groups, as useful auxiliaries in the anti-Assad drive, and could envisage its takeover of northeastern Syria as a helpful development with no worrying implications."

This is precisely both what Flynn confirms in his interview and what actually happened on the ground in Syria. The former CIA Deputy Director is certainly correct when he says, "It is actually worth watching the interview," but the wealth of context given in the five minute segment on the DIA memo should allow any observer to see that Morell is wrong in his interpretation: "When I watched it, I did not see Flynn agree with the interviewer's assertion that the United States was deliberately supporting extremists."

Though a tough interview segment , Flynn did not object to Hasan, who held up a physical copy of the report as the two spoke, but instead confirmed Hasan's reading of the intelligence document:

Hasan: In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups [Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?

Flynn: I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be.

Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in particular was seen at the White House where it was "disregarded" because it "didn't meet the narrative" on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that DOD officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria – warnings which were met with "enormous pushback." Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments, General Flynn explained to Hersh that "If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic." Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria.

In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis , legendary DOD intelligence officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained to me that the DIA memo was used as a "warning shot across the [administration's] bow." Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA Director Flynn had "tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide assistance to the Nusra group." It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually emerge as distinct "ISIS" and "Nusra" (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity desiring a unified "Islamic State." The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as 'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple Assad.

In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham .

Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact. Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani, himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation. Al Jazeera and rebel video footage with translations authenticated by the top Syria expert in the US, Joshua Landis, can be viewed here .

The Washington Post's interpretation of the DIA memo which includes the assertion that the "Obama administration, in fact, drew sharp distinctions between the rebel groups" naively glosses over the messier realities on the ground in Syria. Abstractions of the Situation Room are one thing, but as Brookings Institution scholar Charles Lister confirms in his latest book, The Syrian Jihad , ISIS largely made its military debut in Syria in 2013 in the context of a US backed operation: "And despite some contentious debate over whether the FSA or jihadists had been responsible for the victory, the then head of Aleppo's opposition Military Council, Colonel 'Abd al-Jabbar al-Okaidi, confirmed that '[ISIS] took the lead in taking over the airport. This group [is] a reality on the ground.'" (Charles Lister has elsewhere revealed that US advisors assisted the Al-Qaeda linked "Army of Conquest" in its 2015 takeover of Idlib from an "operations room" in Turkey.)

In spite of what Flynn calls a steady stream of accurate intelligence detailing the Al-Qaeda aligned nature of the opposition and its aim of establishing a "Salafist principality" or "an Islamic State" (DIA memo), a CIA program to arm the Syrian opposition moved forward anyway (the New York Times reports that the CIA program began in early 2012).

Michael Morell himself recently acknowledged to NPR that "all of the weapons that were available led to the rise of ISIS." But contrary to the guiding assumption of the NPR segment (that the intelligence community had failed to predict the rise of IS), the DIA memo and related testimony proves the IC knew exactly what would emerge, and that the White House was given this knowledge far in advance, yet proceeded in weapons delivery anyway.

Vice President Joe Biden, in extraordinarily candid remarks about internal White House deliberations given in front of a Harvard audience, explained in October 2014 that while the external powers supporting the opposition (Biden specifically identified US allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others) were claiming to support moderates, in actuality "the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements coming from other parts of the world." This was indeed, as Michael Flynn says, a "willful decision" as the intelligence "was very clear" and yet the White House proceeded in partnering with its "allies" in covert support of these groups anyway.

No responsible commentary on the DIA memo suggests that this means administration advisors were sitting around openly talking about how to empower ISIS, but this was certainly the end result of a CIA program born of calculation that a militarized Sunni movement could prove useful in rolling back both the Assad government and what the DIA memo calls "Shia expansion." Even the US's closest Middle East ally, Israel, routinely reflects in the policy statements of some current and former officials a strategic vision that sees ISIS as the lesser evil when compared to Assad and Iran.

Michael Morell himself confirmed in a 2015 Jerusalem Post interview that Israel cooperates with Syrian Al-Qaeda (Nusra) along the Golan border and took the opportunity to warn Israel with the following unambiguous words: "don't make deals with them." Most recently in Washington it's been former CIA Director David Petraeus strongly advocating for the direct arming and training of Al-Qaeda in Syria to effect the West's policies in the region.

No doubt Morell would likely emphasize that ISIS and other terror groups got their hands on US weapons primarily left behind in Iraq. Administration officials have consistently downplayed what the Washington Post reported in 2015 (based on Snowden documents) to be a secret weapons shipment program that is "one the agency's largest covert operations, with a budget approaching $1 billion a year" (1/15 th of the CIA's total budget according to the leaked documents). For Morell and others such a covert program signifies restraint and dovishness in a beltway environment where the prevailing culture is oriented towards overt war as always being "on the table."

For ISIS and others these US and coalition supplied weapons became, in the words of former MI6 spy and British diplomat Alastair Crooke, the basis of a "jihadi Wal-Mart" of sorts. The CIA had never been in the dark as to this reality, but officials like Michael Morell can hide behind plausible deniability as Crooke notes, "The West does not actually hand the weapons to al-Qaida – let alone to ISIS , but the system they've constructed leads precisely to that end." Indeed, independent weapons research organizations like the UK-based Conflict Armament Research have gone so far as to trace the origins of Croatian antitank rockets recovered from ISIS fighters back to the joint CIA/Saudi covert program via identifiable serial numbers.

It must be remembered that low level and less well connected American citizens have been arrested and put into solitary confinement under US anti-terror laws for entering Syria to fight with FSA and al-Qaeda factions. Yet Michael Morell and others were the very overseers of a covert program which resulted in the arming and equipping of these very groups.

Trump is surely right about one thing: this administration, including the CIA and Michael Morell himself, has a lot to answer for concerning covert action in Syria.

Brad Hoff is an independent journalist and served as a Marine computer programmer for a headquarters unit at MCB Quantico. He lived in Syria on and off from 2004-2009 as a civilian and currently teaches in Texas.

Reprinted with permission from Levantreport.com .

[Nov 29, 2017] The Russian Question by Niall Ferguson

Highly recommended!
This year old article written at the beginning of anti-Russian witch hunt makes it easier to understand the tribe of "national security parasites" to which Ferguson firmly belongs. Like many other members of the national security parasites tribe, he made a brilliant career pandering to right-wing think tanks.
The very simple message of this tribe is "Carnage should be destroyed" and argumentation is selectively produced to support this very idea. This is a dangerous level of political paranoia, or imperial sense of inferiority, if you wish. He is so incoherent and selective in his rendering of Russian history that he looks like a charlatan, not historian.
Note that the term "neoliberalism" and "US neoliberal empire" are not even mentioned by this "historian". The tribe prohibits using those terms.
Also not mentioned was an attempt by Clinton administration to subjugate Russia and convert it into vassal state which was instrumental in bringing Putin to power.
As for Ukraine he conveniently forgot the role of Victoria Nuland in Maydan events (aka Nulandgate). The idea to break China-Russia cooperation by dangling different carrots at both, the carrots the move then apart, is the replay of British strategy to prevent any possible alliance between Germany and and Russia. Nothing new here. It is a standard imperial policy to destroy any alliance that threaten the empire global domination.
Notable quotes:
"... Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears. ..."
"... If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians. ..."
"... Though notionally intended to detect and counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The subsequent deployment of Iskander short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation. ..."
"... The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. ..."
"... This was despite an explicit warning from Putin's aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest," a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos." ..."
"... "I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama told the New Yorker ..."
"... It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard ..."
"... One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement might have made the Minsk agreements effective. ..."
"... President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to exploit that American advantage. ..."
"... After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite. Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too. ..."
foreignpolicy.com

Moscow may no longer be a superpower, but its revanchist politics are unsettling the international order. How should Donald Trump deal with Vladimir Putin?

... ... ...

It did not have to be this way. Twenty-five years ago, the dissolution of the Soviet Union marked not only the end of the Cold War but also the beginning of what should have been a golden era of friendly relations between Russia and the West. With enthusiasm, it seemed, Russians embraced both capitalism and democracy. To an extent that was startling, Russian cities became Westernized. Empty shelves and po-faced propaganda gave way to abundance and dazzling advertisements.

Contrary to the fears of some, there was a new world order after 1991. The world became a markedly more peaceful place as the flows of money and arms that had turned so many regional disputes into proxy wars dried up. American economists rushed to advise Russian politicians. American multinationals hurried to invest.

Go back a quarter century to 1991 and imagine three more or less equally plausible futures. First, imagine that the coup by hard-liners in August of that year had been more competently executed and that the Soviet Union had been preserved. Second, imagine a much more violent dissolution of the Soviet system in which ethnic and regional tensions escalated much further, producing the kind of "super-Yugoslavia" Kissinger has occasionally warned about. Finally, imagine a happily-ever-after history, in which Russia's economy thrived on the basis of capitalism and globalization, growing at Asian rates.

Russia could have been deep-frozen. It could have disintegrated. It could have boomed. No one in 1991 knew which of these futures we would get. In fact, we got none of them. Russia has retained the democratic institutions that were established after 1991, but the rule of law has not taken root, and, under Vladimir Putin, an authoritarian nationalist form of government has established itself that is notably ruthless in its suppression of opposition and criticism. Despite centrifugal forces, most obviously in the Caucasus, the Russian Federation has held together. However, the economy has performed much less well than might have been hoped. Between 1992 and 2016, the real compound annual growth rate of Russian per capita GDP has been 1.5 percent. Compare that with equivalent figures for India (5.1 percent) and China (8.9 percent).

Today, the Russian economy accounts for just over 3 percent of global output, according to the International Monetary Fund's estimates based on purchasing power parity. The U.S. share is 16 percent. The Chinese share is 18 percent. Calculated on a current dollar basis, Russia's GDP is less than 7 percent of America's. The British economy is twice the size of Russia's.

Moreover, the reliance of the Russian economy on exported fossil fuels - as well as other primary products - is shocking. Nearly two-thirds of Russian exports are petroleum (63 percent), according the Observatory of Economic Complexity.

... ... ...

Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears.

Nearly 10 years later, even Putin's most splenetic critics would be well-advised to reflect for a moment on our own part in the deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow. The Russian view that the fault lies partly with Western overreach deserves to be taken more seriously than it generally is.

Is the West to blame?

If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians.

Certain decisions still seem to me defensible. Given their experiences in the middle of the 20th century, the Poles and the Czechs deserved both the security afforded by NATO membership (from 1999, when they joined along with Hungary) and the economic opportunities offered by EU membership (from 2004). Yet the U.S. decision in March 2007 to build an anti-ballistic missile defense site in Poland along with a radar station in the Czech Republic seems, with hindsight, more questionable, as does the subsequent decision to deploy 10 two-stage missile interceptors and a battery of MIM-104 Patriot missiles in Poland. Though notionally intended to detect and counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The subsequent deployment of Iskander short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation.

A similar act of retaliation followed in 2008 when, with encouragement from some EU states, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia. In response, Russia recognized rebels in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and invaded those parts of Georgia. From a Russian perspective, this was no different from what the West had done in Kosovo.

The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. I well remember the giddy mood at a pro-European conference in Yalta in September 2013, when Western representatives almost unanimously exhorted Ukraine to follow the Polish path. Not nearly enough consideration was given to the very different way Russia regards Ukraine nor to the obvious West-East divisions within Ukraine itself. This was despite an explicit warning from Putin's aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest," a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos."

This is not in any way to legitimize the Russian actions of 2014, which were in clear violation of international law and agreements. It is to criticize successive administrations for paying too little heed to Russia's sensitivities and likely reactions.

"I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama told the New Yorker's David Remnick in early 2014. The very opposite was true. He and his predecessor badly needed advisors who understood Russia as well as Kennan did. As Kissinger has often remarked, history is to nations what character is to people. In recent years, American policymakers have tended to forget that and then to wax indignant when other states act in ways that a knowledge of history might have enabled them to anticipate. No country, it might be said, has had its character more conditioned by its history than Russia. It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard, the crime scene of Joseph Stalin's man-made famine, and the main target of Adolf Hitler's Operation Barbarossa.

One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement might have made the Minsk agreements effective. It was certainly a disastrous blunder to give Putin an admission ticket into the Syrian conflict by leaving to him the (partial) removal of Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. One of Kissinger's lasting achievements in the early 1970s was to squeeze the Soviets out of the Middle East. The Obama administration has undone that, with dire consequences. We see in Aleppo the Russian military for what it is: a master of the mid-20th-century tactic of winning victories through the indiscriminate bombing of cities.

Left: Free Syrian Army fighters fire an anti-aircraft weapon in Aleppo on Dec. 12. (Photo by AFP/Getty Images); Right: Far-right Ukrainian activists attack the office of the pro-Russian movement "Ukrainian Choice" in Kiev on Nov. 21. (Photo by SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP/Getty Images)

What price peace?

Yet I remain to be convinced that the correct response to these errors of American policy is to swing from underestimating Russia to overestimating it. Such an approach has the potential to be just another variation on the theme of misunderstanding.

It is not difficult to infer what Putin would like to get in any "great deal" between himself and Trump. Item No. 1 would be a lifting of sanctions. Item No. 2 would be an end to the war in Syria on Russia's terms - which would include the preservation of Assad in power for at least some "decent interval." Item No. 3 would be a de facto recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea and some constitutional change designed to render the government in Kiev impotent by giving the country's eastern Donbass region a permanent pro-Russian veto power.

What is hard to understand is why the United States would want give Russia even a fraction of all this. What exactly would Russia be giving the United States in return for such concessions? That is the question that Trump's national security team needs to ask itself before he so much as takes a courtesy call from the Kremlin.

There is no question that the war in Syria needs to end, just as the frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine needs resolution. But the terms of peace can and must be very different from those that Putin has in mind. Any deal that pacified Syria by sacrificing Ukraine would be a grave mistake.

President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to exploit that American advantage.

... ... ...

The Russian Question itself can be settled another day. But by reframing the international order on the basis of cooperation rather than deadlock in the Security Council, the United States at least poses the question in a new way. Will Russia learn to cooperate with the other great powers? Or will it continue to be the opponent of international order? Perhaps the latter is the option it will choose. After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian Gulf.

However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite. Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too.

... ... ...

[Nov 29, 2017] Brennan and Clapper Elder Statesmen or Serial Fabricators by Mike Whitney

Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
Nov 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Mike Whitney November 17, 2017

On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."

Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.

There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:

I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.

In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign.

The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:

Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.

So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?

Here's Brennan again on Sunday:

I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid lead let alone any compelling evidence.

We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.

These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.

Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:

Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.

In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .

Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)

So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?

He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?

And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:

"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program

Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .

Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)

So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA

These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?

Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.

As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.

Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Curmudgeon , November 23, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

What!!!! Someone from the management of an intelligence agency lying? I'm shocked!
Dan Hayes , November 25, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
m___ , November 25, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT
Fake news, and stale news. By when an algorithm of Goolag to "clean" the internet of current house-hold garbage?
Carroll Price , November 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen.
Che Guava , November 25, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
@WorkingClass

What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.

Chris Bridges , November 25, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.

He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.

Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.

Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.

Michael Kenny , November 25, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
The umpteenth version of a now standard article.

We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors' claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.

What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.

We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line is suddenly back on the table.

Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.

Beefcake the Mighty , November 25, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT
Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this?
DESERT FOX , November 25, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.

Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and sent to prison for life.

jacques sheete , November 25, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.

And since when are the three not related?

It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.

Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?

Clyde , November 25, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT
@Chris Bridges

Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.

Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective. One ugly customer!

Colleen Pater , November 25, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT
@Curmudgeon

Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.

jilles dykstra , November 25, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio, 848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
jilles dykstra , November 25, 2017 at 6:34 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.

Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.

That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth, they are still waiting for the jobs.

Roger n Me , November 25, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that every sports tabloid wants to know.
Cyrano , November 25, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next US president wisely.

There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers, but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.

I.F. Stoned , November 25, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..

Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?

versus

A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?

I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.

We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.

And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories to convince voters to vote against Trump.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.

But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote their website.

Vikki , November 25, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.

Bottom , November 25, 2017 at 7:55 pm GMT
@Colleen Pater

Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.

Adrian E. , November 25, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries), logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".

Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.

Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make sense to speculate about the reasons.

We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).

What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"? After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would that make it nefarious?

I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense. If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social media election campaign hardly makes sense.

The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics. Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate basic principles of common sense.

Fred D , November 26, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT
Mind controlled Moron
WHAT , November 26, 2017 at 2:19 am GMT
@Michael Kenny

"Let him win in Syria"?

Dude, it`s like the first legit amusing line from you. Now bring another!

robt , November 26, 2017 at 3:11 am GMT
@Cyrano

Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly, many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"

Cyrano , November 26, 2017 at 3:54 am GMT
@robt

I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.

exiled off mainstreet , November 26, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
@DESERT FOX

The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or criminal themselves.

Sarah Toga , November 26, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT
Does Brennan have that dark calloused spot on his forehead yet from use of his "prayer rug" ?
DESERT FOX , November 26, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
@exiled off mainstreet

The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.

The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.

Anon , Disclaimer November 26, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

The US, Russian Federation, and the Nuland-Kagan revolution in Kiev in 2014:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international mainstream media.

The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.

The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."

Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."

Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported "government" in Kiev came about naturally.

Anon , Disclaimer November 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@Carroll Price

An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:

"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99

"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!" http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml

"A leader of Ukrainian Jewry condemned the hosting in Lviv of a festival celebrating a Nazi collaborator on the anniversary of a major pogrom against the city's Jews." http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Ukraine-city-to-hold-festival-in-honor-of-Nazi-collaborator-498159

The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Kraków became the target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood Ukrainians." https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/

"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."

http://antisemitism.org.il/article/58386/ukraine-8211-desecration-jewish-cemetery-kiev

[Nov 29, 2017] Rajan Menon How Trump Will Betray His Base, by Tom Engelhardt - The Unz Review

Nov 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

[Nov 29, 2017] Americas Dangerous Putin Panic Politics, Society, 2016 Elections

That's good: "What is disturbing with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent. "
Notable quotes:
"... The real problem is where the paranoia takes you. Western politicians and commentators are disturbingly eager to blame the impact of Russian propaganda or the manipulations of the Federal Security Service for the problems of our democracies. Mr. Putin obviously will benefit from Brexit, and may even have put a finger on the scale, but is that really the problem? And do we really believe that Mr. Trump's xenophobic appeal would collapse overnight if the Kremlin put its power behind Hillary Clinton? ..."
"... What is disturbing with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent. ..."
Dec 06, 2016 | brutalist.press

Brutalist

The real problem is where the paranoia takes you. Western politicians and commentators are disturbingly eager to blame the impact of Russian propaganda or the manipulations of the Federal Security Service for the problems of our democracies. Mr. Putin obviously will benefit from Brexit, and may even have put a finger on the scale, but is that really the problem? And do we really believe that Mr. Trump's xenophobic appeal would collapse overnight if the Kremlin put its power behind Hillary Clinton?

What is disturbing with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent.

Casting blame in Moscow's direction prevents us from productively discussing the grave problems we face as societies, and simplistically reduces the uncertainties and risks of an increasingly interdependent world to the great powers rivalry.

[Nov 29, 2017] A brief overview of health care in Russia

www.unz.com

Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 4:44 am

Dear Moscow Exile – Could you provide a brief overview of health care in Russia and how it may have changed over recent years? Thanks.
Lyttenburgh , November 28, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Here and here you can read the firsthand account from an American, who relocated with his family to a small-ish Russian town near St.Pete. His blog in general also full of very interesting trivia on comparing the life "here" and "over there", including schools, roads and bureaucracy.
Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 5:03 pm
Quite different from my expectation of spartan if not rudimentary medical care and overworked staff in a small Russian town. The blog on schools was interesting as well. Given where Russia was in the 90's compared to now, it is easy to understand the strong popular support for the government and Putin in particular.

Off topic but just saw a 2-3 minute piece on CBS news (a very long story for an American national news show) about a Russian woman (former Playboy "model') who is challenging Putin. The reporter assured us the if she became too popular, Putin would never allow her to win. The last time Russia was allowed to protest, according to the reported was back in 2011 where the masses were demanding change. The implication being that a subsequent crackdown has suppressed further protest.

The piece showed her speaking to a group (the camera view was such that is was impossible to determine the audience size but it had to be at least 10 and possibly up to 30 people). The reporter also speculated that the woman coud be a Kremlin plant to create a fake opposition. Just a mishmash of a story all in all.

Moscow Exile , November 28, 2017 at 5:18 am
re: Health Care in Russia

Speaking as someone who has been hospitalized 3 times in Russia and still live to talk about, I have no complaints.

In the twilight years of the USSR everything was deficit, including medicine, and the hospitals were often dilapidated, understaffed and lacking modern equipment. It was socialized medicine, of course, but you only got the basics for "free". They would not let you die, but if you wanted any "extras", you had to pay or provide "gifts" to the staff. The doctors were and still are good, but were grossly underpaid.

I was first in hospital here, in isolation because I had diphtheria, in 1993. They saved me. I thought my number was up. When I was recovering, a nurse asked me when my wife would visit me.

"I have no wife."

"Your friends, then?"

"No friends. I only arrived here 3 weeks ago."

"You're going to be hungry!"

Our first child was born in 1999. The maternity wing of Moscow Hospital №1, opened 1837, was nightmarish. I paid the anaesthetist so that he could ensure that my wife did not suffer during her labour: it was a long, slow painful birth.

Our last child was born in 2008: brand new hospital; my wife had her own room; everything state-of the-art. I paid nothing. My wife came out healthy with a healthy baby. I gave the obstetrician a "present" after delivery.

A bribe? Not in my opinion: just a token of gratitude for a job well done.

I broke my left collarbone at the dacha that same year. I was in a village/small town (Ruza) hospital. It was only 2-years old. There were problems because I have broken both collarbones before. Anyway, the orthopaedic surgeon did a good job, and I didn't pay anything: emergency treatment is free for British citizens, likewise Russians in the UK. A remnant of when the UK and the USSR were glorious allies against the Beast.

I have also had varicose veins removed. Only 2 days in hospital. A job well done. I gave the surgeon a present. He didn't ask me for one, but I thought it was right that I do so.

There have been great improvements in treatment and medical technology here. And the doctors and nursing staff are well trained and competent.

Not perfect -- nothing is -- but more than satisfactory.

Yes, you do hear horror stories, as you do about the British National health Service, but all in all, satisfactory.

And there is a private health system now financed by private insurance.

And I have had dental treatment here "on the state": no complaints -- and "free", paid by taxation.

An old Russian colleague of mine has lived in Germany many years now, but he comes back to Moscow to see an orthodontist.

"They are just as good as in Germany, sometimes have even trained there, and much, much cheaper", he says.

Moscow Exile , November 28, 2017 at 9:49 am
PS I paid the anaesthetist so he could get the best stuff to help a woman in labour and was unavailable on the state health service. I forget what it was called now: some German manufactured stuff, I suppose.
Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 3:56 pm
My wife said it was the norm in Romania to provide small gifts to bureaucrats – too small to be considered a bribe but a necessary gesture of appreciation. Its not entirely different from the custom of bringing a small gift when visiting friends (bottle of wine, flowers, box of chocolate, etc.).
marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Very much so; I'm sure I mentioned before the controversy surrounding my marriage in Russia; the waiting period that must follow an application to marry is 30 days (I guess this is a period during which anyone opposing the marriage may make their case), while a tourist visa is also for a maximum of 30 days. Therefore, I could not legally remain in Russia long enough to get married. Sveta was very matter-of-fact about it; we would just, she said, announce that she was pregnant, which is one of the exceptional conditions which will override the waiting period.

I said she would never get a doctor to sign a certificate that she was pregnant if she was not. Within a week she had her choice of three. We gave the doctor who furnished the certificate some flowers and a box of chocolates. I never considered it a bribe, and still do not, and the gift followed the act. We would have gotten the certificate anyway.

I notice that Russians typically take such a gift with them whenever they visit friends; Ukrainians do, too. They never arrive empty-handed, and it seems much more a ritualized courtesy.

Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 5:10 pm
It seem odds to me how Russia or Romania can be stifling bureaucratic (as ME can attest) yet rules will often be bent with hardly a blink to facilitate a reasonable request.
Ryan Ward , November 28, 2017 at 5:48 pm
I had a somewhat similar experience getting married in Vietnam, but we didn't need to be so creative. The rule there is that they'll take between 15 and 25 business days to process the marriage certificate (no guarantee whether it will be at the low end or the high end), and once it's ready, you have 3 days to come get it or they'll tear it up and you have to start over again, so you can't really plan to leave and come back. I could only stay for two weeks, so this was a problem for us. Fortunately, my wife has a friend who works at the People's Committee office, so she took her boss out for drinks, got him drunk, then talked to him about our situation. We had our certificate in two days ;-)
marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 6:29 pm
That's very interesting. I loved Vietnam, although I only got to visit Saigon; I imagine the less-populated regions to be very beautiful. It was fascinating to me to see the way they just continually add more and more power lines over the existing ones, until you have a bundle suspended from the poles that must be two feet in diameter or more. And the terror you feel crossing the street for the first time, where you just have to step out and keep moving, and let the traffic flow around you. I did find the begging a little aggressive, though. The food is, I think, my favourite cuisine in the world, although I like Asian in general. Where and how did you meet your wife?
Ryan Ward , November 28, 2017 at 7:23 pm
One thing I try not to think about is what they do if there's a problem with one of the wires and they have to figure out which one it is to fix it 😉 I lived in Saigon for 3 years, so I know it pretty well. For visiting, I preferred the centre and north, because there's more history there, but Saigon seems to be the most comfortable place in the country for a Westerner to live long-term. It's also the best party town in the country 😉 When I was there, I was working as an English teacher for adult classes (or, to be a little more honest, procrastinating on going to grad school). My now-wife worked part-time at the corner store near where I lived. I went there to buy snacks almost every day after teaching, so that's how we met. That was about 4 years ago now
Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 7:42 pm
Excellent! I think marriage involving different cultures can be a truly wonderful growth experience although I will be the first to admit there are challenges as well:)
marknesop , November 28, 2017 at 8:04 pm
What a lovely story. I'm afraid I was only there for 5 days, so I didn't have too much time to form more than fleeting impressions. I ate all my meals in restaurants, and never had a bad one, the food was outstanding. I can't think of too many cultures whose food is more healthy than Asian, with its habitual ratio of a small amount of meat or seafood with a lot of vegetables. I also had a lot of these wonderful orange fruit drinks (non-alcoholic), very refreshing, but I forget what they were called; I think they are quite famous, a bit like a mango lassie.

The women were very lovely, everyone (well, every man) says that about Vietnam. I don't remember there being an obtrusive police or military presence, and the people were friendly and helpful. I was there in 2008 with HMCS REGINA.

The wire problem is an easy fix – they just string a new one.

Patient Observer , November 28, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks for the recounting your experiences. They seem to pretty much mirror Russia's climb fro the abyss. I recall that Putin was blamed for not placing health care as a priority in the early 2000's. Russia certainly had a multitude of urgent problems so perhaps there were simply no resources (or the need to first rebuild medical infrastructure) to address health care. But, it sure looks like the resources have not only be allocated but successfully applied. Having the medical services you described provided free of charge is remarkable. My family has an exceptional health insurance plan (and very costly) but it does not provide that level of coverage.

A number of years ago I took my wife to the emergency room as she became very faint; nearly blacking out. The emergency room response was OK but then they said a CAT scan is needed to make sure that it was nothing more than the flu combined with dehydration. They did the test and nothing was found. Good. Well, we received a bill for $1,200 with $1,000 for the CAT scan. The insurance company refused to pay for the CAT scan claiming it was not medically necessary. Well, it was what the doctor ordered so who is in a better position to determine what is medically necessary – the doctor or a clerk in an office in Florida or whatever.

Doctors are mindful of malpractice suits so would tend to be overly caution at times which was likely the case but the second guessing by the insurance company was uncalled for.

[Nov 28, 2017] The Duplicitous Superpower by Ted Galen Carpenter

Highly recommended!
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Español's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
Nov 28, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.

For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S. administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.

The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump urged Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.

Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.

North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement with Pyongyang nearly impossible.

The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes. Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.

Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:

The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had cynically misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly matters of intense controversy . But invoking a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.

There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.

The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya.

Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own.

Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.

It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue through diplomacy are so bleak.

Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.

Magdi , says: November 28, 2017 at 5:46 am

you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Herbert Heebert , says: November 28, 2017 at 7:47 am
A few points:

1. I think North Korea might also be looking at the example of Ukraine, and Russia's clear violation of the Budapest Memorandum.

2. It's silly to put so much weight on Baker's verbal assurance re: NATO expansion.

3. I would suggest Mr. Carpenter make a list of Russia's betrayals. But I have the impression he is not interested.

Viriato , says: November 28, 2017 at 9:25 am
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.

This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent years.

One point in particular jumped out at me:

"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."

This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Español's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine.

This

craigsummers , says: November 28, 2017 at 10:09 am
Mr. Carpenter

You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.

The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?

DOD , says: November 28, 2017 at 10:23 am
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
Michael Kenny , says: November 28, 2017 at 12:12 pm
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!

Most seriously of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong, even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.

And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin, is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing, isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?

Will Harrington , says: November 28, 2017 at 12:58 pm
Herbert Heevert

The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government, supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.

Will Harrington , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:15 pm
Craig Summers

Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."

I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this, I don't know.

"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "

If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.

NoldorElf , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:31 pm
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.

At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.

One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what it wants.

Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.

Jeeves , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:42 pm
What Craigsummers said.

And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym for "oral."

SteveM , says: November 28, 2017 at 1:49 pm
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."

Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large percentage of the bill.

Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.

Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely, after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well done.)

b. , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:33 pm
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan 's precedent.

The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.

Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about "projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.

We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.

Janek , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:45 pm
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter, as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".

The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.

SteveM , says: November 28, 2017 at 2:45 pm
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35 million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?

Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it.

In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.

U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill.

Mark , says: November 28, 2017 at 3:00 pm
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym for "oral."

I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."

Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.

As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?

When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.

[Nov 28, 2017] Trump Wants Peace With Erdogan - The Military Wants To Sabotage It

Notable quotes:
"... "President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call. ..."
"... The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment. ..."
"... The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made. The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the National Security Council." ..."
"... The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change": ..."
"... When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa. ..."
"... A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham. ..."
"... Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once! ..."
"... Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support ..."
"... But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State Dept failed. ..."
"... Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear. ..."
"... Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .) ..."
Nov 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

President Trump is attempting to calm down the U.S. conflict with Turkey . The military junta in the White House has different plans. It now attempts to circumvent the decision the president communicated to his Turkish counterpart. The result will be more Turkish-U.S. acrimony.

Yesterday the Turkish foreign minister surprisingly announced a phone call President Trump had held with President Erdogan of Turkey.

United States President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke on the phone on Nov. 24 only days after a Russia-Turkey-Iran summit on Syria, with Ankara saying that Washington has pledged not to send weapons to the People's Protection Units (YPG) any more .

"President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call.

Trump had announced the call:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!
12:04 PM - 24 Nov 2017

During the phone call Trump must have escaped his minders for a moment and promptly tried to make, as announced, peace with Erdogan. The issue of arming the YPG is really difficult for Turkey to swallow. Ending that would probably make up for the recent NATO blunder of presenting the founder of modern Turkey Kemal Atatürk and Erdogan himself as enemies.

The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment.

The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made. The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the National Security Council."

The White House finally released what the Associated Press called :

a cryptic statement about the phone call that said Trump had informed the Turk of "pending adjustments to the military support provided to our partners on the ground in Syria."

Neither a read-out of the call nor the statement AP refers to are currently available on the White House website.

The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change":

U.S. officials have said they plan to keep American troops in northern Syria -- and continue working with Kurdish fighters -- to pressure Assad to make concessions during peace talks brokered by the United Nations in Geneva, stalemated for three years now. "We're not going to just walk away right now," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week.

To solidify its position the U.S. needs to further build up and strengthen its YPG mercenary forces.

When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa.

The YPG had been unwilling to fight for the Arab city unless the U.S. would provide it with more money, military supplies and support. All were provided. The U.S. special forces, who control the YPG fighters, directed an immense amount of aerial and artillery ammunition against the city. Any potential enemy position was destroyed by large ammunition and intense bombing before the YPG infantry proceeded. In the end few YPG fighters died in the fight. The Islamic State was let go or eliminated from the city but so was the city of Raqqa . The intensity of the bombardment of the medium size city was at times ten times greater than the bombing in all of Afghanistan. Airwars reported :

Since June, an estimated 20,000 munitions were fired in support of Coalition operations at Raqqa . Images captured by journalists in the final days of the assault show a city in ruins

Several thousand civilians were killed in the indiscriminate onslaught.

The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is defeated. It no longer holds any ground. There is no longer any justification to further arm and supply the YPG or the dummy organization SDF.

But the generals want to continue to do so to further their larger plans. They are laying grounds to circumvent their president's promise. The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only outlet to pick up on the subterfuge:

President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to stop sending weapons directly to Kurdish militants battling Islamic State in Syria, dealing a political blow to the U.S.'s most reliable ally in the civil war, officials said Friday.

...

The Turkish announcement came as a surprise in Washington, where military and political officials in Mr. Trump's administration appeared to be caught off-guard. U.S. military officials said they had received no new guidance about supplying weapons to the Kurdish forces. But they said there were no immediate plans to deliver any new weapons to the group. And the U.S. can continue to provide the Kurdish forces with arms via the umbrella Syrian militant coalition

The "military officials" talking to the WSJ have found a way to negate Trump's promise. A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham.

But the U.S. needs the YPG to keep control of north-east Syria. It has to continue to provide whatever the YPG demands, or it will have to give up its larger scheme against Syria.

The Turkish government will soon find out that the U.S. again tried to pull wool over its eyes. Erdogan will be furious when he discovers that the U.S. continues to supply war material to the YPG, even when those deliveries are covered up as supplies for the SDF.

The Turkish government released a photograph showing Erdogan and five of his aids taking Trump's phonecall. Such a release and the announcement of the call by the Turkish foreign minister are very unusual. Erdogan is taking prestige from the call and the public announcement is to make sure that Trump sticks to his promise.

This wide publication will also increase Erdogan's wrath when he finds out that he was again deceived.

Posted by b on November 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM | Permalink

WorldBLee | Nov 25, 2017 12:48:12 PM | 1

Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once!
Red Ryder | Nov 25, 2017 12:49:33 PM | 2
Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support

Some interpret this act on Election eve as a pecuniary fulfillment by Flynn of a lobbying contract (which existed).

But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State Dept failed.

Flynn understood the crucial need for US and NATO to hold Turkey and prevent the Russians from getting Erdogan as an ally for Syria and the Black Sea, the Balkans and Mediterranean as well as Iran, Qatar and Eurasia. Look at what has transpired between Turkey and Russia since. Gas will be flowing through the Turkish Stream and Erdogan conforms to Putin's wishes.

Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear.

Flynn was on it for Trump. And the IC and State want him prosecuted for defying their efforts to replace Erdogan with a stooge like Gulen. It looks like Mueller is pursuing that against the General.

Harry | Nov 25, 2017 1:18:07 PM | 3
Its not a problem for US to drop Kurds if they are no longer needed, BUT for now they are essential for US/Israel/Saudi goals, therefore you can bet 100% Kurds support will continue. Trump's order (he hasn't made it official either) will be easily circumvented.

The real question is, what Resistance will do with the backstabbing Kurds? It wont be easy to make a deal while Kurds maintain absurd demands and as long as they have full Axis of Terror support.

Go Iraq's way like they reclaimed Kirkuk? US might have sitten out that one, I doubt they'll allow this to happen in Syria as well, unless they get something in return.

alabaster | Nov 25, 2017 1:19:42 PM | 4
While America's standard duplicity of saying one thing while doing the opposite has been known for decades, they have been able to play games mainly because of the weakness of the other actors in the region.
The tables have turned now, but America still thinks it holds top dog position.
Wordplay, semantics and legal loopholes wont be tolerated for very long, and when hundreds of US boots return home in body bags a choice will have to be made - escalate, or run away.
Previous behavior dictates run away, but times have changed.
A cornered enemy is the most dangerous, and the USA has painted itself into a very small corner...
Jean | Nov 25, 2017 1:35:55 PM | 5
Gee. While reading B's article what got to my mind is: "Turkey is testing the ground". Whatever Trump said to Erdogan on the phone, it seems to me that the Turks are playing a card to see how the different actors in the US that seems to follow different agendas will react. If Turkey concludes that the US will continue to back YPG, it's split from the US and will be definitive.

Erdogan is shifting away from US/NATO. He even hinted today that he might talk to Assad. That's huge! I wouldn't be surprised if Turkey leaves NATO sooner than later. And if it's the case, it will be a major move of a tectonic amplitude.

Peter AU 1 | Nov 25, 2017 1:36:09 PM | 6
Trump.. "Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!"

General Wesley Clark - seven countries in five years with Iran last on the list = "Get it all done"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

Jen | Nov 25, 2017 2:36:10 PM | 7
Surely by now Erdogan must realise that whatever the US President says and promises will be circumvented by the State Department, the Pentagon, the 17 US intel agencies (including the CIA and the NSA) and rogue individuals in these and other US government departments and agencies, and in Congress as well (Insane McCain comes to mind)? Not to mention the fact that the Israeli government and the pro-Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill exercise huge influence over sections of the US government.

If Erdogan hasn't figured out the schizoid behaviour of the US from past Turkish experience and the recent experience of Turkey's neighbours (and the Ukraine is one such neighbour), he must not be receiving good information.

Though as Jean says, perhaps Erdogan is giving the US one last chance to demonstrate that it has a coherent and reliable policy towards the Middle East.

Hausmeister | Nov 25, 2017 3:37:06 PM | 8
Jen | Nov 25, 2017 2:36:10 PM | 6

Well, the US policy has been coherent and reliable in the last years. It enhanced local conflicts, supported both sides at the same time but with different intensities. Whoever wins would be "our man". Old stuff since the Byzantine period. It always takes a lot of time to prove the single actions that were done. In most cases we learn about it years later. The delay is so big and unpleasant that quite a number of folks escapes to stupid narratives that explain everything in one step, and therefore nothing. By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?

stonebird | Nov 25, 2017 3:44:32 PM | 9
How can Trump have his cake and eat it?

The Kurds (PKK basically) are only necessary to give a "face" to the force the US is trying to align in E. Syria. The "fighting" against ISIS (if there really was any) is coming to a close. The Chiefs of ISIS have been airlifted to somewhere nearby, and the foreign mercenary forces sent elsewhere by convoy. ALL the valuable personnel have now become "HTS2" with reversible vests. These, plus the US special forces are the basis of a new armed anti-Syrian force. (Note that one general let slip that there are 5'000 US forces in E-Syria - not the 500 spoken of in the MSM).
So Trump may well be correct in saying that the Kurds (specifically) will not get any more arms - because they have other demands and might make peace with the Syrian Government, to keep at least some part of their territorial gains. The ISIS "bretheren" and foreign mercenaries do not want any peaceful solution because it would mean their elimination.. So The CIA and Pentagon will probably continue arms supplies to "HTS2" - but not the Kurds.

(ex-ISIS members; Some are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar - the EU and the US, as well as parts of Russia and China. They are not farming types but will find themselves with some of the best arable land in Syria. Which belonged to Syrian-arabs-christians-Druzes-Yadzis etc. Who wil want their properties back.)

Note that the US forces at Tanf are deliberately not letting humanitarian help reach the nearby refugee camp. Starvation and deprivation will force many of the younger members to become US paid terrorists.

james | Nov 25, 2017 4:00:51 PM | 10
thanks b.. i tend to agree with @4 jean and @5 jen... the way i see it, there is either a real disconnect inside the usa where the president gets to say one thing, but another part of the establishment can do another, or trump has made his last lie to turkey here and turkey is going to say good bye to it's involvement with the usa in any way that can be trusted.. seems like some kind of internal usa conflict to me at this point, but maybe it is all smoke and mirrors to continue on with the same charade.. i mostly think internal usa conflict at this point..
A P | Nov 25, 2017 4:34:19 PM | 11
Odd that no one has mentioned the fact the US was behind the attempted coup, where Erdogan was on a plane with two rogue Syrian jets that stood down rather than execute the kill shot. I have read opinion that the fighter pilots were "lit up" by Russian missile batteries and informed by radio they would not survive unless they shut down their weapons targeting immediately. This is probably a favour Putin reminds Erdogan of on a regular basis, whenever Erdo tries to play Sultan. The attempted coup/asassination also shows Erdogan exactly how much he can trust the US/Zionists at any level.

And Edrogan must also know Syria was once at least partly in the US-orbit, as Syria was the destination for many well-documented US-ordered rendition/torture cases. It is probable Mossad (or their proxy thugs) killed Assad's father and older brother, so Erdo knows he's better relying on Putin than Trumpty Dumbdy.

Virgile | Nov 25, 2017 5:09:38 PM | 12
Erdogan is about to make a u-turn toward Syria. He is furious at Saudi Arabia for boycotting its ally Qatar, for talking about owning Sunni Islam and by the continuous support of Islamists and Sunni Kurds in Syria.
Erdogan is preparing the turkish public opinion to a shift away from the USA-Israeli axis. This may get him many points in the 2019 election if the war in Syria is stopped, most Syrian refugees are back, Turkish companies are involved in the reconstruction and the YPG neutralized. Erdogan has 1 year and half to make this to happen. For that he badly needs Bashar al Assad and his army on his side.

Therefore he is evaluating what is the next move and he needs to know where the USA is standing about Turkey and Syria. Until now the messages from the USA are contradictory yet Erdogan keeps telling his supporters that the USA is plotting against Turkey and against Islam. Erdogan's reputation also is been threatened by the outcome of Reza Zarrab's trial in the US where the corruption of his party may be exposed.

That is why Erdogan is making another check about the US intentions before Erdogan he starts the irreversible shift toward the Iran-Russia (+Qatar and Syria) axis.

dirtyoilandgas | Nov 25, 2017 6:13:37 PM | 13
missing in this analysis is oil gas ... producers, refiners, slavers, middle crooks, and the LNG crowd :Israel, Fracking, LNG and wall street... these are the underlying directing forces that will ultimately dictate when the outsiders have had enough fight against Assad over Assad's oil and Assad's refusal to allow outsiders to install their pipelines. Until then, gangland intelligence agencies will continue the divide, destroy and conquer strategies sufficient to keep the profits flowing. The politicians cannot move until the underlying corruptions resolve..
les7 | Nov 25, 2017 6:59:27 PM | 14
The word 'byzantine' has been used for centuries to describe the intricate and multi-leveled forms of agreement, betrayal, treachery and achievement among the shifting power brokers in the region. The US alone has three major and another three minor players at work - often fighting each other. If however, it thinks it can outplay people whose lives are steeped in such a living tradition, it is sadly deluded and will one day be in for a very rude surprise. Even the Russians have had difficulty navigating that maze.

When confronted with such a 'Gordian knot' of treachery and shifting alliances, Alexander the Great drew his sword and cut through it with a vision informed by the sage Socrates as taught by Aristotle.

Despite claiming to represent such a western heritage, the US has no such Socratic wisdom, no Aristotelian logic, and no visionary leadership that could enable it to do what Alexander did. Lacking this, it is destined to get lost in its' own hubris, and be consumed by our current version of that region's gordian knot.

flankerbandit | Nov 25, 2017 7:53:29 PM | 15
'Hausmaus' @7 says...
'...By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?..'

...showing that he either knows only the crap spouted by wikipedia...or nothing at all about the Baath party...

...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism...[an obvious oxymoron to be pan-national and 'nationalist' at the same time...]

Of course there is always a 'better way'...right Hausmaus...?

The Baath socialism under Saddam in Iraq was no good for anyone we recall...especially women, students, sick people etc...

A 'better way' has since been installed and it is working beautifully...all can agree...

Same thing in Libya...where the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was no good for anyone...

Of course everyone wanted the 'Better Way'...all those doctoral graduates with free education and guaranteed jobs...a standard of living better than some European countries...etc...

Again...removing the 'socialist' Kadafi has worked out wonderfully...

We now have black African slaves sold in open air markets...where before they did all the broom pushing that was beneath the dignity of the Libyan Arabs...

...and were quite happy to stay there and have a job and paycheck...instead of now flooding the shores of Italy in anything that can float...

Oh yes...why would anyone in Syria want to be governed by the socialist Baath party...?

...especially the Kurds...who just over the border in Turkey are not even recognized as humans...never mind speaking their own language...

Oh yes yes yes...we all want the 'Better Way'...

It's a question of legitimacy you see...

Daniel | Nov 25, 2017 7:55:00 PM | 16
I'd really hoped that Donald Trump® would be the "outsider" that both the MSM and he have been insisting he is for the past couple of years. Other than the Reality TV Show faux conflicts with which the MSM entertains us nightly, I see no such "rogue" Administration.

This say one thing, and do the other has been US foreign policy forever.

Recall, for instance that on February 21, 2014, Obama's State Department issued a statement hailing Ukrainian President Yanukovych for signing an agreement with the "pro-democracy Maidan Protest" leaders in which he acquiesced to all of their demands.

Then, on February 22, 2014, the US State Department cheered the "peaceful and Constitutional" coup after neo-nazis stormed the Parliament.

A few months later, Secretary of State Kerry hailed the Minsk Treaty to end the war in Ukraine. Later that day, Vickie Nuland said there was no way her Ukies would stop shelling civilians, and sure enough they didn't (until they'd been on the retreat for weeks, and came whimpering back to the negotiations table).

A couple years later, Kerry announced that the US and Russia would coordinate aerial assaults in Syria. The next day, "Defense" Secretary Carter said, "no way," and within a week or so, we "accidentally" bombed Syrian forces at Deir ez Zoir for over an hour.

From my perspective, they keep us chasing the next squirrel, while bickering amongst each other about each squirrel. But the wolves are still devouring the lambs, with only the Bear preventing a complete extinction.

flankerbandit | Nov 25, 2017 8:16:50 PM | 17
Some good comments here with food for thought...

What we know with at least some level of confidence...

Dump is not the 'decider'...the junta is...he's just a cardboard cutout sitting behind the oval office desk...

And he's got no one to blame but himself...he came in talking a big game about cleaning house and got himself cleaned out of being an actual president...

This was inevitable from the moment he caved on Flynn...the only person he didn't need to vet with the senate...and a position that wields a lot of power...

This was his undoing on many levels...not only because he faced a hostile deep state and even his own party in congress with no one by his side [other than Flynn]...

...but because it showed that he had no balls and would not stand by his man...

This is not the stuff leaders are made of...

The same BS we see with Turkey is playing out with Russia on the Ukraine issue...

Now the junta and their enablers in congress want to start sending offensive arms to Ukraine...Dump and his platitudes to Putin...no matter how much he may mean it...mean nothing...he's not in charge...

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/410942-trump-putin-friendly-words/

Yeah, Right | Nov 25, 2017 9:44:37 PM | 18
I think that Jean @4 has the best take on this: Erdoğan went very public on Trump's "promise" in a classic put-up-or-shut-up challenge to the USA.

Either the word of a POTUS means something or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then Turkey is going to join Russia in concluding that the USA as simply not-agreement-capable.

Erdoğan will then say "enough!!!", give the USA the two-finger-salute, and then take Turkey out of NATO.

And the best thing about it will be that McMaster, Kelly and Mathis will be so obsessed with playing their petty little games that they won't see it coming.

ritzl | Nov 25, 2017 11:08:38 PM | 19
It's hard to tell what Erdoğan is doing or intending other than that he is navigating something - objective TBD. It'll be interesting to see if he constrains the use of Incirlik airbase should the US keep arming the YPG/PKK forces. Airpower is the enabler (sole enabler, IMO) of the/any Kurdish overreach inside Syria. Seems like Erdoğan holds the ace card in this muddle but has yet to play it.
Grieved | Nov 25, 2017 11:32:17 PM | 20
@18 ritzl

Seems like Turkey has more than one card to play. A commenter on another site mentioned recently that the US really doesn't want Erdogan to have that S-400 system from Russia. Got me thinking, could Russia have deliberately loaded Erdogan's hand with that additional card to help him negotiate with the US?

Turkey may well leave NATO and as others have pointed out, this would be a game changer far beyond the matter of the US's illegal presence in NE Syria. This possibility brings immense existential gravitas to Erdogan's position right now. He could ask for many concessions at this point, not to leave. And from the Eurasian point of view, it doesn't matter if he leaves or stays, while from the western view, it matters greatly.

Would the US give up Syria, in order to keep Turkey in NATO? It's a western dichotomy, not one that affects Asia. It would be simple to throw S-400 at that dynamic to watch it squirm.

Jackrabbit | Nov 25, 2017 11:42:26 PM | 21
The plays the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.

- Hamlet

As the endgame plays out, Erdogan's conscience may be revealed.

b has made the point that the partition that US-led proxy forces have carved out is unsustainable. But it would be sustainable if Erdogan can be convinced to allow trade via Turkey.

For that reason, I thought Trump's ceasing direct military aid to the Kurds made sense as it provided Erdogan with an excuse to allow land routes for trade/supply. Erdogan can argue that he wants to encourage such good behavior and doesn't want to make US an enemy (Turkey is still a NATO country).

Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .)

Hasn't Erdogan's vehement anti-Kurdish stance done R+6 a disservice? It seems to me that it has helped USA to convince Kurds to fight for them and has also been a convenient excuse for Erdogan to hold onto Idlib where al Queda forces have refuge. If Erdogan was really soooo angry with Washington, and soooo dependent on Moscow, then why not relax his anti-Kurdish stance so as to bring Kurds back into the Syrian orbit?

Seby | Nov 26, 2017 12:25:05 AM | 22
tRump just wants to hide the truth that he is castrated and with a tiny penis, like his hands.

Also just cares about money and soothing his narcissism. So f***'in American, in the worst sense!

Ian | Nov 26, 2017 12:29:05 AM | 23
Jackrabbit @20:
Erdogan may feel that if he relaxed his stance against the Syrian Kurds, it could embolden Turkish Kurds to further pursue their agenda. It would also make him appear weak towards his supporters.
Fernando Arauxo | Nov 26, 2017 1:45:51 AM | 24
Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he? It would be the stupidest chess move ever? He's in the club and they can't kick him out. He can cause all the trouble he wants and hobble that huge machine that is the western alliance. He will not get EU membership, but he has his NATO ID CARD and that ain't bad. Erdo now knows that the poor bastard Trumps is WORTHLESS that he is a toothless executive in name only. This is a wake up call, if I were Erdo, I would be very afraid of the USA and it's Syria, MENA policy. It is being run by LUNATICS and is a slow moving train wreak. So for now, Erdo must be looking at Moscow, admiring Putin for this is a man who has his shit together and truly knows how to run a country. Maybe even a sense of admiration and more respect for Putin is even present. If I were Erdo, I'd double down in my support for Russia's Syria policy.
Hausmeister | Nov 26, 2017 3:46:55 AM | 25
@ flankerbandit | Nov 25, 2017 7:53:29 PM | 14

You do not get it:
„...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism..."
According to this ideology the coherence of a society comes from where? And who is excluded if one applies it?
So your contribution is just a rant using rancidic rhetoric tools. But I will not call you „flunkerbandit". My advice is to move to this area and have a look into such a society from a more close position. Armchair type of vocal leadership does not help.

Anon | Nov 26, 2017 5:11:53 AM | 26
In the Obama years there was a:
  • Whitehouse policy
  • Army Policy
  • CIA policy
  • State department policy.

Which policy is Trump really up against?

Jen | Nov 26, 2017 6:38:32 AM | 27
Anon @ 25: Tempted to say Trump is up against all of them plus NSA policy, FBI policy, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) policy and the policies of, what, 12 other intel agencies?
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/17-agencies-of-the-us-intelligence-community-2013-5?r=US&IR=T
Yeah, Right | Nov 26, 2017 7:27:43 AM | 28
@23 "Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he?"

I guess one possible reason would be this: as long as Turkey remains in NATO then he is obliged to allow a US military presence in his country, and that's just asking for another attempt at a military coup.

After all, wasn't Incirlik airbase a hotbed of coup-plotters during the last coup attempt?

arbetet | Nov 26, 2017 10:14:56 AM | 29
This came up:

SDF official: Kurds will join the Syrian Arab Army ranks!

Harry | Nov 26, 2017 10:33:01 AM | 30
@ arbetet | 29

"when the Syrian settlement is achieved, Syria's democratic forces will join the Syrian army."
"When the Syrian state stabilizes, we can say that the Americans did what they said, then withdraw as they did in Iraq and set a date for their departure and leave."

Nothing new here, nothing good either. Kurds so far are keeping up their demands of de-facto independence under fig-leaf of "we are part of federalised Syria" with weak central government and autonomous Kurds. Thats how US plan to castrate Syria. Russia offered cultural autonomy, Kurds rejected.

As for Americans "withdrawing" willfully, it never happened. Iraq had to kick them out, and then US used ISIS and Kurds to get back in.

As for Syria's stabilization part, US is doing everything in its power to prevent it.

dan of steele | Nov 26, 2017 11:00:06 AM | 31
@Yeah Right #26
Turkey is not obliged to keep foreign troops in their country to remain in NATO. De Gaulle invited the US to leave France in 1967 but is still a member of NATO
Yeah, Right | Nov 26, 2017 5:18:37 PM | 32
@31 France actually withdrew from NATO in 1966. It remained "committed" to the collective defence of western Europe, without being, you know, "committed" to it.

So, yeah, France kicked all the foreign troops out of France in 1967, precisely because its withdrawal from NATO's Integrated Military Command meant that the French were no longer under any obligation to allow NATO troops on its soil.

But France had to formally withdraw from that Command first, and the reason that de Gaulle gave for withdrawing were exactly that: remaining meant ceding sovereignty to a supra-national organization i.e. NATO Integrated Military Command.

That France retained "membership" of NATO's political organizations even after that withdrawal was little more than a fig-leaf.

After all, NATO's purpose isn't "political", it is "military".

fast freddy | Nov 26, 2017 6:21:33 PM | 33
"The Decider" is Trump's apparent self image. He can't be enjoying the Presidency and the controls exerted upon him by others among the "Deep State" (whom I suppose have effectively cowed him into behaving via serious threats).

If he already had money and power, as it appears that he had, he gained little by taking the crown. He has less power because he is now controlled by a number of forces (CIA, NSA, Media, MIC and etc.) as he remains under constant assault by his natural opposition.

Big mistake dumping Flynn.

Now you take another kind of asshole in the person of Obama - a guy that had nothing - you have a malleable character who enjoys the pomp and circumstance. Really didn't need any persuading to do anything required of him.

psychohistorian | Nov 26, 2017 11:30:16 PM | 34
Here is a recent report from the Turkish Prime Minister supporting Trump's "lie" about ending support for the Kurds....what will history show occured?

ISTANBUL, Nov. 26 (Xinhua) -- Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said on Sunday that his country is expecting the United States to end its partnership with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People's Protection Units (YPG).

"Since the very beginning, we have said that it is wrong for the U.S. to partner with PKK's cousin PYD and YPG in the fight against Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group," Yildirim told the press in Istanbul prior to his departure for Britain.

Ankara sees the Kurdish groups as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighting against the Turkish government for over 30 years, while Washington regards them as a reliable ground force against the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday spoke to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, pledging not to provide weapons to the YPG any more, an irritant that has hurt bilateral ties, according to the Turkish side.

Yildirim noted that Washington has described it as an obligation rather than an option to support the Kurdish groups on the ground. "But since Daesh (IS) is now eliminated then this obligation has disappeared," he added.

Julian | Nov 27, 2017 12:47:45 AM | 35
It would be nice if Erdogan when withdrawing from NATO (Assuming he does this in the next 12-18 months) would say something like.
"We really like President Trump - and we trust his word implicitly. The problem is, although we trust his word, we know he is not in control so his word is useless and best ignored. Though of course - we still trust he means well."

That would be a nice backhander to hear from Erdopig.

Quentin | Nov 27, 2017 8:48:51 AM | 36
Speculation about Turkey leaving NATO seems farfetched. Turkey has NATO over a barrel. It has been a member for decades and what would it gain by leaving? Nothing. By staying it continues to influence and needle at the same time. Turkey will only leave when NATO throws it out, which isn't going to happen.
Willy2 | Nov 27, 2017 11:53:09 AM | 37
- According to Sibel Edmonds there're 2 coups being prepared. One against Trump and one against Erdogan.

[Nov 28, 2017] Israeli Defense Minister Contradicts Netanyahu There Is No Iranian Military Force On Syrian Land

Nov 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

But on Tuesday Israel's own Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman flatly contradicted the prime minister's jingoistic alarmism by saying that there are no Iranian military forces in Syria, but instead merely stuck to acknowledging "experts and advisers". In comments to Israel's Ynet news, Lieberman admitted , "We must preserve our security interests. It is true that there are a number of Iranian experts and advisers, but there is no Iranian military force on Syrian land."

The comments came on the same day that the IDF Spokesperson made provocative and controversial statements , announcing that in the next Israel-Hezbollah War, "Nasrallah is a target" for assassination and that Israel is currently conducting psychological and media warfare against Hezbollah. But Defense Minister Lieberman's statement flies in the face of claims made by Netanyahu in his speech before the UN General Assembly this year when he said, "We will act to prevent Iran from establishing permanent military bases in Syria for its air, sea and ground forces. We will act to prevent Iran from producing deadly weapons in Syria... And we will act to prevent Iran from opening new terror fronts against Israel along our northern border."

According to a BBC report dubiously sourced to "a Western intelligence source" from earlier this month, Syria stands accused of hosting a sizable Iranian military base south of Damascus, a story which Israel utilized to ratchet up rhetoric in preparing its case before the international community for further attacks on supposed Iranian targets inside Syria. Israel has long justified its attacks inside Syria by claiming to be acting against Hezbollah and Iranian targets.

But Lieberman's surprising comments represent a significant potential backing away from what appeared to be Israel's long running official stance on the issue. According to Tel Aviv based Haaretz newspaper, Lieberman responded as follows when presented with the contradiction :

Netanyahu has said Iran is working to build military bases in Syria, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and its leader there, Qassem Soleimani, have been photographed in the war-torn country neighboring Israel to the north. When asked about this discrepancy, Lieberman said that "all the regional forces know we are the strongest power in the area. Israel is a regional power."

"Iran has a strategy to creating proxies everywhere. Obviously, they are not physically in Lebanon, that's what's Hezbollah is for. In Yemen, they're not physically present, they created the Houthi rebels. They have the same plan in Syria: creating different kinds of militias."

It could be that this new emphasis on acknowledging Iranian "proxies" while stopping short of claiming direct Iranian military presence - a clear lessening of Israel's intensifying rhetoric of late - is connected to a potential Syria-Israeli back channel deal to demilitarize the Golan region. We reported yesterday that unconfirmed Israeli sources are claiming that Putin is personally mediating demands issued between Assad and Netanyahu after both leaders traveled to meet with Putin within the past months.

The Jerusalem Post published a story early this week based on a well placed Israeli source privy to diplomatic maneuvering between Moscow, Tel Aviv, and Damascus. The report said, "the source, who remains unnamed, said that during Syrian President Bashar Assad's surprise visit to Russia last week, Assad gave Russian Premier Vladimir Putin a message for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Damascus will agree to a demilitarized zone of up to 40 kilometers from the border in the Golan Heights as part of a comprehensive agreement between the two countries, but only if Israel does not work to remove Assad's regime from power."

Meanwhile, both Israel and Saudi Arabia have increasingly gone public with their covert relationship based on intelligence sharing against what both sides perceive to be a strong and expansionist Iran.

Earlier this month Israel Defense Force (IDF) chief-of-staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot gave an unprecedented interview to a prominent Saudi newspaper in which he said that, "Israel is ready to share intelligence with Riyadh on their shared arch-foe Iran." Eizenkot explained further, according to Tel Aviv based i24NEWS , that "Israel and Riyadh - which he noted have never fought one another - are in complete agreement about Iran's intentions to dominate the Middle East."

And like Israel, Saudi Arabia has long scapegoated Iran and the region's Shia for all of it's problems , especially as it wages its brutal war on Yemen.

But on Tuesday Iranian President Hassan Rouhani hit back. In comments picked up by Reuters , he said that Saudi Arabia presents Iran as an enemy because it wants to cover up its defeats in the region. Rouhani said in the midst of a live interview on state television, "Saudi Arabia was unsuccessful in Qatar, was unsuccessful in Iraq, in Syria and recently in Lebanon. In all of these areas, they were unsuccessful," and added further, "So they want to cover up their defeats."

These words of course could just as well be aimed at Israel too. And with today's surprise admission by Israel's defense minister - that there is "no Iranian military force on Syrian land" - it could be that Israel's bluff has finally been called.

[Nov 28, 2017] Blowback CNN Pushes Plan To Ban The Term 'Fake News' by Paul Joseph Watson

Notable quotes:
"... In a CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it as a way to "undermine" the media establishment. ..."
"... The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles "fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for "anyone in the world" to have a platform. ..."
"... Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely backfired. ..."
"... This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most inaccurate reporting. ..."
"... The Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication. ..."
"... The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most consistently dishonest entity of all. ..."
"... Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term altogether? ..."
Nov 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via InfoWars.com

CNN is now pushing an effort to "ban the term fake news" after the slogan became synonymous with CNN itself thanks to President Donald Trump.

In a CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it as a way to "undermine" the media establishment.

The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles "fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for "anyone in the world" to have a platform.

Remember when the mainstream media & the Hillary campaign invented the term "fake news" in an effort to discredit alternative & right of center media outlets?

Yeah, that went well. pic.twitter.com/HJPpIQEr4j

-- Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 27, 2017

Complaining that "less powerful agents can harm large institutions or established individuals," Derakhshan and Wardle warn that trust in institutions is declining and that only through intervention at the level of "public education" (ie indoctrination) can this be reversed.

Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely backfired.

This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most inaccurate reporting.

We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President (me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2017

"Fake news" was one of many excuses trotted out after November last year to push the narrative that President Trump's election was somehow illegitimate.

In reality, a major Stanford University study found that "even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of Americans," and that the most widely believed fake news stories were those that benefited Hillary Clinton.

Fake news had virtually no impact on the election, but the establishment media weaponized the term as part of an agenda to silence and censor voices of dissent, including media platforms, that had opposed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

In addition, mainstream media news coverage in the weeks leading up to the election was 91% negative towards Trump, according to a study by the Media Research Center.

The Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication.

The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most consistently dishonest entity of all.

Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term altogether?

[Nov 23, 2017] How Did 1917 Change the West naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... By Samuel A. Greene, Reader in Russian Politics and Director of the Russia Institute at King's College London. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... Failed utopias lead to the death of idealism, and the likes of Putin and Trump are symbols of this process. As we watch Russia struggle with history, the US and UK cannot afford to pretend that this history doesn't affect us too. ..."
"... This text is adapted from a keynote address delivered at the British International Studies Association Conference on "1917 in 2017: Russia's Unfinished Revolution" on 17 November 2017, in London. ..."
"... The three 'big' revolutions of the Twentieth Century provided some concrete, material benefits to the 'masses' of their regions. ..."
"... "the three 'big' revolutions" ..."
"... Only this fear was enough to persuade elites to set up welfare states and planned economies, and so guarantee full employment. ..."
Nov 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Samuel A. Greene, Reader in Russian Politics and Director of the Russia Institute at King's College London. Originally published at openDemocracy

Failed utopias lead to the death of idealism, and the likes of Putin and Trump are symbols of this process. As we watch Russia struggle with history, the US and UK cannot afford to pretend that this history doesn't affect us too.

Revolutions – and their centenaries – are best dealt with in the first person. That, of course, creates a certain awkwardness for an academic, whose stock in trade is meant to be distance from the subject of study. But nothing forces a reckoning with one's place in the order of things quite like a revolution, and that is true of academics even 100 years after the fact. Witness, for example, the never-ending debates about what a revolution even is.

Slipping into the first person – reckoning with my place in the order of things – allows me to admit another awkwardness that has arisen in this centenary season: That of an American, living in the UK, who is expected by virtue of his profession to pronounce on the "Russian" revolution. If any combination of subject, audience and personal heritage could make me feel like more of an imposter, I don't know what it is.

To lessen that awkwardness, I have told myself – and a handful of audiences – that October 1917 was not just a Russian revolution. February had already done away with monarchical absolutism and the doorway to modernity – at least in the Euro-centric conception that dominated the age – was open. But Bolshevism, as the name would suggest, was meant to be about more than that: about more than Russia, perhaps about more than modernity.

The Bolsheviks looked at western modernity and found it lacking – in need of transformation. However misbegotten, and without regard to its eventual mutations, the communist ideal – what Yuri Slezkine has described as a millenarian, utopian vision for the fall of Babylon and the establishment of Justice – was to its adherents a universalist idea. It was a pathway to universal justice, to global justice, and it emerged onto the scene just as its brother, the Wilsonian democratic ideal, strode forth from America. Both of these universalist projects shared a progenitor, in the Scottish Enlightenment of Hume, Ferguson and Smith.

Russia and America: Mirroring Ambition, Mirroring Failure

Each vision of Utopia presented an insurmountable challenge to the other.

Woodrow Wilson's conceit was that paradise on Earth was already extant, in the New World and pockets of the Old, and, provided that the passions of humanity could be tamed, this paradise would eventually bathe the world in a gently rising tide of democracy. Lenin's conceit was a hotter one, an understanding of the world so structurally unjust that only the fire of revolutionary uprising – the passions of humanity unleashed – could clear away the suffocating underbrush and allow for new growth. Russia and America have spent the last 100 years as mirrors held up to one another, revealing in excruciating detail both the loftiness of our ambitions and our frequent failures to live up to them. Indeed, our almost ubiquitous failures to live up to them. Russia and America – and perhaps the west more broadly – have constructed their contemporary selves with clear and abiding reference to one another: the American way was American because it was the rejection of the Soviet way, and vice versa.

A Works Progress Administration poster. Source: Public domain.

That reflexive, reflective modernity continues today. It outlasted the death of ideological fervour in both Moscow and Washington. It was the New Deal and the rise of the western welfare state – propelled by the example of state socialism and the fear of contagious ideology – that fueled Khrushchev's Thaw. It was Yuri Gagarin who put Neil Armstrong on the moon. It was in the hall of mirrors that we call the Cold War that Martin Luther King Jr and Andrei Sakharov came into focus.

Utopia, of course, died long before the Soviet Union, but it is threatening to drown idealism in its wake. It is easy to forget, but in 1991 – in that moment of genuine euphoria – many Americans and Russians alike believed in a common future.

It took Americans longer than Russians to realize that this dream – that Russians would somehow become "like us" (whatever that might mean), the dream of the end of history – would not come true. Russians began to see in their American mirror something unattainable, but also something undesirable, and retreated from universalism into particularism, an insistence on a special path, a uniquely Russian civilization.

And Americans have come to see in the Russian mirror an image of everything we so desperately fear becoming – and that image is getting sharper by the day. We fear, in truth, not that Trump was installed by Putin, but that in electing Trump we ourselves have elected our own Putin – a leader who allows us to be our basest self and absolves us of guilt. If poet Fyodor Tyutchev (of "You cannot understand Russia with your mind " fame) has replaced Lenin in the Russian discourse, Sarah Palin has replaced Wilson in the American.

As Russia Grapples With Its History, Are We Doing Any Better?

It has become commonplace to note how few conversations are happening in the Russian public space about 1917. The current masters of the Kremlin have hewn to a story of uninterrupted Russian power, from the princes of Kyiv, through Ivan the Terrible's Muscovy and the Romanovs, into the Soviet era and beyond, with Putin the rightful heir of all of these disparate lineages. It is a neat trick, made possible only by the replacement of universalism with particularism. The only legitimating idea that connects the 19th, 20th and 21st-Century constructions of Russian power into a single arc is that of Russia itself.

Having noted that, it's worth turning the same question back on ourselves: If Russia is struggling to come to grips with the transformation caused by 1917, are we doing any better?

Rally marking the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in St Petersburg. (c) NurPhoto/SIPA USA/PA Images. All rights reserved.

We call it the Russian revolution – or the Bolshevik revolution, which, if anything, makes it sound even more foreign – and we hold lectures and exhibitions. Excellent lectures and engrossing exhibitions. The Royal Academy. The Tate Modern. The British Library. Even King's College London. John Reed is serialised on BBC Radio 4, with Russian workers speaking in cockney and Stalin sporting a spectacular Scottish brogue. We have dozens and dozens of opportunities to reflect – on Russia. And they're fascinating. And we're fascinated. But they miss the point.

How did 1917 change us? I don't mean the fate of capitalism and socialism in the west, though that matters, too. I mean the west itself. To a very great extent, the west as we know it was born in 1917 in Petrograd. And 100 years later, it is still in Russia's mirror that we see ourselves most clearly. If we care to look.

Revolutions generally begin with a mixture of concrete grievance and an abstract sense of justice – while the most powerful revolutions seem to involve an appeal to a transcendent, universal justice, to values that accrue to us all. Revolution in its purest sense thus might be thought of as the negation of identity and the rejection of particularism.

Revolutions are also about imagination – a simultaneous re-imagination of the future and the past, transforming our past into an abstraction of injustice to be rejected, and transforming the future into its opposite. In the process, we universalize our particularism – we ascribe to all of humanity our own grievances and our own imaginations.

But revolutions are also mobilisational processes, and sociology tells us that mobilisational processes seek solidarity by reinforcing dichotomies – between just and unjust, past and future, us and them.

The first thing we need to understand, then, was that 1917 threw all of us into a process of self-definition by reference to different imagined utopias. Competing and incompatible claims to universality – stalemated first by accidents of history and then by the design of Mutually Assured Destruction – decay into competitive claims of exceptional particularism, with the caveat that each particular exceptionalism is grounded in an exclusive universality.

Let me repeat that. Over the course of the 20th Century, Russia's and America's competing and incompatible claims to represent a universal vision decayed into competitive claims of exceptional particularism. And each of these particularistic formulations of exceptionalism was grounded in a mutually exclusive vision of universality.

An Impossible Future, and a Past That Never Existed

Because we "won" the Cold War – because our system of political and economic governance survived and the Soviet Union's did not – we might forget that we have walked the same path and arrived at the same destination.

The Soviet Union began by attempting to build a future that could not exist: universal prosperity could not be planned. As the idea of that shining future faded, Russia sought shelter in a past that never existed, a myth of pan-Slavic virtue, harmony and plenty. The argument that justifies Crimea, that justifies Donbas, is not an argument – it is the absence of an argument. It is the argument that arguments do not matter. That ideas do not matter. That what matters, is where we are, and right now, we are here.

But the America of the NRA and Black Lives Matter – or the Britain of UKIP and Grenfell Tower – are not the lands we told the Soviets we were building. They are not the lands we told ourselves we were building. And we, too, retreat from future into past. We elect governments on the basis that government is the problem, not the solution. We cleave to leaders who base their politics in the absence of policy. And we, too, fight wars because we can.

I'm in danger of sounding like an activist, rather than an academic -- but I have tried, briefly, to make two arguments. One is that the process that has led to the politics we observe and dislike in Russia is not distinct from the process that has led to the politics we observe and dislike in the west. But the second is that we need to have arguments. As social scientists, what we want from this is to be provoked into finding our own new universalities, our generalizable conclusions drawn from methodical observation and rigorous analysis.

For those of us who study politics, these past few years have also been a time of retreat into particularism – into methodological exceptionalism, if you will. Rational choice. Realism. Constructivism. As a discipline, whatever your preferences, your foundations have been shaken. The politicians tell us our nations have had enough of experts, and we are duly, maybe ritually indignant – but in our quieter moments, we, too, wonder about our usefulness. The evisceration of idealism that enables both Putin and Trump afflicts us, too.

Maybe the time for quiet moments has passed. Maybe we can raise the volume a bit. Maybe we can turn the tide back towards the universal, towards understanding something about the other in ourselves and the self in our others. Wouldn't that be revolutionary?

This text is adapted from a keynote address delivered at the British International Studies Association Conference on "1917 in 2017: Russia's Unfinished Revolution" on 17 November 2017, in London.

Patrick Donnelly , November 23, 2017 at 2:21 am

WWII!

Germany was tempted to attack USSR, by Western investments to that end. Once it was obvious that their attack was failing, Japan was squeezed into war, allowing Germany to call for rescue by declaring war on USA!

Russia won. USA won. Japan was taught to obey .. except they kept Plutonium.

nonclassical , November 23, 2017 at 3:47 am

.."western investments" (and more) documented here: David talbot, "The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government"

"Dulles' decade as the director of the CIA (and prior, WWII OSS) – which he used to further his public and private agendas – were dark times in American politics. Calling himself "the secretary of state of unfriendly countries", Dulles saw himself as above the elected law, manipulating and subverting American presidents in the pursuit of his personal interests and those of the wealthy elite he counted as his friends and clients – colluding with Nazi-controlled cartels, German war criminals, and Mafiosi in the process. Targeting foreign leaders for assassination and overthrowing nationalist governments not in line with his political aims, Dulles employed those same tactics to further his goals at home.."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORapPwla7fs

WobblyTelomeres , November 23, 2017 at 7:59 am

A very good book, that. Dulles' involvement in the Warren Commission is something everyone should be aware of.

Vatch , November 23, 2017 at 11:22 am

Patrick Donnelly said:

Germany was tempted to attack USSR, by Western investments to that end.

Does the book about Allen Dulles explain what those Western investments were prior to 1941? Dulles's period in the OSS and the CIA could not have influenced Germany's past actions. I apologize if this is answered in the Youtube video; I didn't have time to watch it.

nonclassical , November 23, 2017 at 11:45 am

Sir-excellent detailed perceptions; you will need read Talbot's book, wherein you will find Dulles working with Wall Street banks – investors – investments, Germany, over decades. (and so much more):

"The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government"

The video is only one of Talbot, but perhaps best summation he is also available on youtube on "Concord book club" discussion with readers of his book.

jsn , November 23, 2017 at 12:02 pm

As Sullivan & Cromwell private attorneys, the Dulles brothers saw to it that parent cross holding companies of their foreign clients all shared copy rights, patents and intellectual property prior to hostilities including particularly Italian and German corporations. It was the individuals controlling these international share holdings the brothers most identified with, Nazis and Facists specifically. Krupp and IGFarben were two of JF Dulles top prewar clients.

When Truman found out, much latter, he considered it treason.

jsn , November 23, 2017 at 12:39 pm

Allen Dulles was similarly involved with Italian utilities.

By the time Truman found out, though, the Cold War was already on and the brothers were nothing if not anti communists!

ambrit , November 23, 2017 at 4:15 am

I would add to this by mentioning Lamberts' Mantra; concrete and material benefits for all.
The three 'big' revolutions of the Twentieth Century provided some concrete, material benefits to the 'masses' of their regions. Russia in 1917 promised and produced an economy, no matter how shaky, that was seen to be for the betterment of the people. Until Stalin reverted to Oriental Despotism as a working plan, the USSR built roads, waterworks, sewers etc. The people saw their revolution at work for them. Likewise, in Germany, Hitler put the people to work, building autobahns etc. Harnessing the humiliation of the nation to the building of a German ideal State was Hitlers genius. If he had stopped there, he would be remembered today as a 'great leader.' In America, Franklin Roosevelt used the power of the State to put people to work, building roads, dams, forests etc. There are still remnants of the New Deal projects around. I know of two WPA Federal Art Project murals in ex Post Office facilities here Down South. Roosevelt arguably saved Capitalism from itself, a revolutionary outcome in and of itself.
No one of sane mind denies that history can run backward. However, the people have tasted the forbidden fruit of material security. Nothing gets people more riled up than realizing that something that they have enjoyed as a 'usual thing' is being taken away.
An anecdote from work to the point. Our regional manager is an ambitious person. Fair enough that, but the workers are viewed as expendable 'things' to be used. People are not as stupid as the average "overlord" class functionary seems to think. We know the 'game,' so, when this manager came through the store a few weeks ago, with a gaggle of 'friends' and assorted sycophants en train, she was heard by several floor workers to be bragging to her group about her recent vacation to the Virgin Islands. This did not go down well with the workforce. Indirectly, this manager has reduced enthusiasm for the work, and depressed efficiency in the store. All to make herself look good to her perceived peers. Despite the starvation wages, is it any wonder turnover is so high here?
Rant In Peace.
Just a thought for Thanksgiving: instead of pardoning a turkey, why not pardon school debts? That would be revolutionary thinking.

vlade , November 23, 2017 at 4:53 am

er.. Re Russian revolution for betterment of the people – well, some.

Ukrainians died in their millions in the enforced famine (which is still a source of much angst and anger between Ukraine and Russia, and some of the real roots of the east-Ukraine separatist movement).

In fact, the Russian economy was going downhill after the revolution until Lenin (yes, Lenin. If he was anything, he was a pragmatist, which is interesting trait he shared with Stalin, and I think FDR too) moved in 1921 (at which time the USSR's economy was in horrendous state with large anti party demonstrations in Moscow, famine, Kronstand rebellion etc.) to the "New Economic Policy" – which was classified as "state capitalism", and include a form of "free market", and even was looking to attract foreign investment!

Sort of not dissimilar to the current China experiment (Deng Xiaoping acknowledged it as "the most correct model of socialism"). It even had it's own noveau riche similarly to the NR in China these days (which was one of its political problems with the hardcore party)

The interesting bit is that Stalin supported this vs Trotsky, but once he took power and got rid of him, he actually reverted to what Trotsky was advocating and thus NEP ended in 1929.

skippy , November 23, 2017 at 5:34 am

Agricultural Lamarckism has roots outside the USSR.

vlade , November 23, 2017 at 6:32 am

makes no difference to the dead and their families.

Katsue , November 23, 2017 at 8:44 am

As I understand it, Stalin didn't quite go in for full-on Trotskyism. For one thing, he left the trade unions intact. And the collective farms once implemented were part of a quasi-market system, rather than just straightforwardly requisitioning grain at gunpoint.

Thuto , November 23, 2017 at 6:16 am

Russia/USSR looking to attract FDI pre-91?? Are you sure? Wasn't it the perpetually inebriated Boris Yeltsin that opened up Russia to free market capitalism on the advice of US economic reform consultants? And, as Michael Hudson has alluded to here, as a sovereign currency issuer, Russia funded its domestic expenditure obligations without ever needing to tap international financial markets pre-91 (and only the arms race put a strain on this capability). I'm struggling to see why they would seek to attract FDI (which, in all likelihood would have had to come from the adversarial west). Maybe you can provide some clarity??

vlade , November 23, 2017 at 6:32 am

Last concession was rolled back in 1930. The concessions were specific to the NEP (1921-1929), and were one of the four pillars of NEP.

See for example:
Кунин В. "Концессионная политика в Советской России (1923 -- 1929 гг.) Вестник Московского ун-та. Сер. 6. Экономика. 1993
Translation of the title is "Concessions politics in Soviet Russia (1923-1929) .

If you want it from the horse's mouth (report written by Lenin in 1921):
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm

which includes para like (bolding mine):
"The New Economic Policy means substituting a tax for the requisitioning of food; it means reverting to capitalism to a considerable extent -- to what extent we do not know. Concessions to foreign capitalists (true, only very few have been accepted, especially when compared with the number we have offered) and leasing enterprises to private capitalists definitely mean restoring capitalism, and this is part and parcel of the New Economic Policy ; for the abolition of the surplus-food appropriation system means allowing the peasants to trade freely in their surplus agricultural produce, in whatever is left over after the tax is collected -- and the tax~ takes only a small share of that produce. The peasants constitute a huge section of our population and of our entire economy, and that is why capitalism must grow out of this soil of free trading."

vlade , November 23, 2017 at 6:45 am

and here's some more
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/cccp-history-nep.htm

Thuto , November 23, 2017 at 6:46 am

I see, so although capitalism was at odds with their ideology, the demographics of the population made partially reverting to it somewhat unavoidable. And, as an aside, I suppose a tax made sense in place of surplus food appropriation (one can imagine this becoming a logistical and enforcement nightmare in the long run). Thanks for your clarification.

vlade , November 23, 2017 at 7:06 am

The appropriations were really hated – it wasn't a tax (percentage of what you grow/get), it was really appropriation – all taken, and then redistributed. Which was of course rife with corruption, special interests etc. etc.

There were literally hundreds of peasants uprising in 1920/1921 in Soviet Russia because of that, and it got as far that peasants just simply refused to plant anything as a form of protest.

vlade , November 23, 2017 at 7:25 am

As in it wasn't "surplus food" – it was all of production taken, and if you tried to hide anything, you run a (very high) risk of being shot as a saboteur.

Thuto , November 23, 2017 at 7:13 am

This is even more interesting now that I think of it. If the last concessions hadn't been rolled back, the next 6 decades (1930-91) of the Soviet communist project might have looked very different to how things actually played out (possibly weakened and dismantled from within by this state sanctioned infiltration by foreign capitalists, kinda like how NGOs do it nowadays). I suppose the radical and increasingly isolationist outlook that underpinned the rolling back of the concessions "saved" the Soviet project, allowing it survive for the next 60 years.

Vatch , November 23, 2017 at 11:25 am

Saving the Soviet project was not a good thing. Many millions of people died during the 1930s thanks to the Soviet project.

Sid_finster , November 23, 2017 at 1:02 pm

The Ford factories built in the 1920's at Magnitogorsk come first to mind.

hemeantwell , November 23, 2017 at 7:57 am

(at which time the USSR's economy was in horrendous state with large anti party demonstrations in Moscow, famine, Kronstand rebellion etc.) to the "New Economic Policy" – which was classified as "state capitalism", and include a form of "free market", and even was looking to attract foreign investment!

You make it sound as though what the USSR was experiencing up until the NEP was a freely contrived "experiment" in communism that was failing and had to be replaced with "what works." You leave out the impact of Russia's disastrous involvement in WWI, which had already produced severe dislocations and shortages in the economy, and then the following disaster of the civil war, with millions more dead, the flight of many of the technicians of the capitalist economy and their replacement by untrained workers, forced grain requisitions that contributed to a breakdown of the worker-peasant alliance, and the distorting effects of the eventually necessary Red Terror. And then, of course there was foreign intervention. These trials surrounding an attempt to establish a novel economic order were something capitalism, lurching from symbiosis with feudal society to rampant expropriations once it got in the saddle, never faced. They shouldn't be treated as a kind of background noise that we can screen out as we assess the workings of an economic model. They directly impacted on its constituent parts.

vlade , November 23, 2017 at 8:36 am

Sorry, but I believe you're showing your biases.

I said that the economy in 1921 was in shambles, which is fact (and you acknowledge it).

I did not say, or imply, what was the reason – because there were multitude, and it's very hard if not impossible to separate them. I could say that a large number of people in the Soviet Russia then felt the party WAS the reason, and that was the reason Lenin adopted NEP. Without it, I believe it's likely that there would be another revolution, this time against the party (see Kronstadt). But that still does not start to explain how it got there, and to an extent it confirms the good old time-inconsistency bias (people blaming those who are in power, not necessarily those responsible). But that was NOT the point of my response.

The point was that the claim of the previous poster that "Russia in 1917 promised and produced an economy, no matter how shaky, that was seen to be for the betterment of the people" is wrong.

Soviet Russia did improve situation of some people over time (the groups most affected were children and women, especially younger women, and with these groups the improvement was extremely dramatic), but at the same time brought extreme suffering and death to millions (of its own citizens). It would be even silly to start comparing suffering of Americans under their own government in 20th century vs. USSR citizens (because it wasn't just Russians) during the same time.

It was only from mid sixties (two generations and tens of millions dead, internally and from WW2, after the revolution) when the situation started to improve, but that was against the background of hugely improved situation of people in the USA in 1950s/60s (which was arguably a golden age for the US in the 20th century).

Ironically, it was later in the century when the two systems started do converge..

nonclassical , November 23, 2017 at 11:03 am

Adam Curtis BBC documentaries deal with "the reasons":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3gwyHNo7MI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34T8s0D-Fxo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBZCdNsXbQg

nonclassical , November 23, 2017 at 11:20 am

but if we want see western involvement in "the reasons", need view Truman evisceration of FDR – his VP Henry Wallace warnings of what would happen (cold or hot war) if not for FDR promises to Stalin of $10 billion war reparations for 20-30 million dead defeating germans, bringing Russia into world trade-equal status.

Rather, said "war reparations" constructed "Marshall Plan" = rebuilding Europe.

Importantly British – Churchill involvement – triangulation of U.S. vs. Russia further persuaded vehemently anti-communist Truman (backed by James Byrnes-MIC enabler, as Eisenhower-MIC- warned, next administration) to void FDR – Russian war reparations. Truman was "chosen" and manipulated to replace Wallace (who appeared win re-nomination first night) at dem convention 1944, as malleable neophyte, knowing FDR would not survive 4th administration

larry , November 23, 2017 at 9:29 am

What is really unfortunate is that Lenin died when he did, before his time, as he appears to have been thinking less autocratically. Unfortunately, neither Trotsky nor Stalin were. After all, Trotsky was the creator of the NKVD, so don't expect too much.

Vatch , November 23, 2017 at 11:33 am

Trotsky may have helped Lenin create the Cheka, which was a precursor to the NKVD (but not the direct precursor: the GPU and the OGPU came between then). But wasn't Trotsky more involved with the creation of and organization of the Red Army? The NKVD itself originated in 1934, after Trotsky was out of the government and in exile.

Sid_finster , November 23, 2017 at 1:00 pm

It wasn't just Ukrainians. Even speaking of the Ukrainian SSR, the famines of the 1930's hit largely Russified oblasts and villages at least as hard as the more ukrainianized.

BTW, this gets Ukrainian nationalists seriously butthurt, even though the most nationalist parts of Ukraine were not affected, and the future Nazi collaborators were none too bothered by the famine at the time.

The nation was something too important to let people get in the way.

cnchal , November 23, 2017 at 7:35 am

. . . so, when this manager came through the store a few weeks ago, with a gaggle of 'friends' and assorted sycophants en train, she was heard by several floor workers to be bragging to her group about her recent vacation to the Virgin Islands.

Classic behavior from a narcissist. The point was to be overheard bragging. Whether the extra attention garnered is good or bad, makes no difference.

Arizona Slim , November 23, 2017 at 10:40 am

I can't help thinking about something that one of my former bosses liked to say:

"She'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes."

visitor , November 23, 2017 at 9:03 am

The three 'big' revolutions of the Twentieth Century provided some concrete, material benefits to the 'masses' of their regions.

Upon reading "the three 'big' revolutions" I thought you would discuss the Russian, Mexican and Chinese revolutions -- but except for the first one, you delved on the Nazi coup (its qualification as a revolution is debatable) and FDR (which was in no way a revolution as it never overthrew or intended to upend the existing socio-political order).

I should read more about the Mexican revolution, since it is a bit nebulous to me what concrete material benefits were brought to Mexicans in its immediate aftermath.

The Rev Kev , November 23, 2017 at 5:44 am

The Russians have not completely forgotten the 1917 Revolution. One way they are covering it is a twitter account that presupposes that people back then had twitter and would post their thoughts ( https://www.rt.com/news/410100-rt-twitter-project-1917-revolution/ ).
Perhaps that revolution had a greater effect than is normally attributed to it. I had never thought about it before but would FDR have been able to push through his New Deal if there had been no revolution? What if, and I am just saying, if FDR had told his fellow American elites that they could try to stop his reforms to the capitalist system but that if there were no reforms, that they could meet the same fate as their Russian counterparts.
That revolution was only about 16 years before remember, so perhaps FDR pointed out to them that if there was no reform that they too could end up as smears along a brick wall. Has any historian assessed what would have happened to America if all reforms had been killed and it was 'business as usual'? One of these big "what-ifs" which would make a great story.

Arizona Slim , November 23, 2017 at 10:43 am

I am sure that quite a few of the American elites were aware of what happened to the Romanovs in the basement of the Ipatiev House.

Thuto , November 23, 2017 at 5:55 am

Re: "winning" the cold war.

Triumphalism begets exceptionalism begets the "spreading of democracy" in the form of cluster bombs raining down from the sky.

Disturbed Voter , November 23, 2017 at 6:20 am

Russia went from a pre-modern despotism to a modern despotism. An attempt was made to scientifically accelerate the industrialization that was already underway. This is more parallel to Japan, than to the US. The US has always been the junior partner of the British Empire. Under Soviet Communism, pseudo-science flourished, because it was top-down, not bottom-up, and agendas were driven by political opportunism, not by pragmatism. Russia remains somewhat of a despotism, though more beneficent than that of Stalin.

nonclassical , November 23, 2017 at 11:33 am

"Disturned Voter" describes dynamics, Adam Curtis' BBC documentary, "Pandora's Box":

"PANDORA S BOX is another groundbreaking documentary from British Documentary maker Adam Curtis. Subtitled A fable from the age of science, this six part series examines the consequences of political and technocratic rationalism.

The episodes deal in order with communism in the Soviet Union, systems analysis and game theory during the Cold War, economy in the United Kingdom during the 1970 s, the insecticide DDT, Kwame Nkrumah s leadership in Ghana during the 1950-60 s and the history of nuclear power."

(available youtube, and amazon)

Eustache De Saint Pierre , November 23, 2017 at 7:47 am

Stalin & Mao very obviously largely killed their own, the British Empire primarily through the East India company killed countless Indians through policies which caused famines, & goodness, or perhaps badness knows how many Chinese due to the forced importation of opium.

In the case of the the current empire. I have read estimates of around 20 million since WW2 which in itself led to the death of around 60 million, following the previous dust up largely limited to military deaths.

The above perhaps being the top of the hit parade for us natural born killers, but the means & systems vary. & as with that so far ultimate badass killer the " Black Death " for the majority it seems, we have to sustain a great many cracked eggs in order to occasionally make a half digestible omelette – although for most of history, the result of butchery has only been the production of various sized piles of runny broken shells.

Sid_finster , November 23, 2017 at 1:05 pm

How many died in the Bengal Famine of 1943-44?

However many, all those deaths were entirely preventable.

And that is just the first western Allied atrocity in WWII to come to mind.

jsn , November 23, 2017 at 1:08 pm

Beginning this essay with Wilsons Amerikkka as the counterpoint to Russian Bolshevism as competing heirs to Western Enlightenment really does frame away most of what was most destructive in the era being described.

While Russia's dead in the period were mostly Russians, an epic internal tragedy, the larger West mostly exported its systematic mayhem, enslaving colonials and killing them through wealth extraction rather than famin or civil war, though engaging increasingly with the latter up to the present in the colonies.

The Western capitalist system has at least been better to its internal constituency, with a number of glaring exceptions, and less so as time passes.

David , November 23, 2017 at 8:05 am

The main effect on the West of the Russian Revolution (or on elites, anyway) was fear. At the beginning this was fear of a similar popular uprising elsewhere, leading to repression and the growing influence of both traditional and radical parties of the extreme right. Later, it was fear of social change – the modernist, scientific society with modern art, atonal music, secularism and emancipation of women – the end of Christian civilization as it had always been known. After WW2 it was fear that the role played by the Communist parties in the resistance in occupied Europe, as well as the unimaginable sacrifices of the Russian people, would bring Communist governments to power in France and Italy. Only this fear was enough to persuade elites to set up welfare states and planned economies, and so guarantee full employment. After the end of Communism, of course, such concessions were not necessary.
The counterfactual speculation about how the Soviet Union might have turned out if it had not spent much of its existence rebuilding after two apocalyptic wars, and arming itself to death for fear of a third, is interesting, but in the end secondary. As AJP Taylor correctly noted, it was not the practice of Communism which terrified western elites, but the theory.

Sluggeaux , November 23, 2017 at 12:25 pm

This is also my take-away from the discussion. The American "worker's paradise" of 1950-1980 was the byproduct of elite fears of Eastern European freighters off-loading Kalashnikovs for distribution by the AFL-CIO.

After Nixon's opening to China, it became clear that Communism was the paper tiger, and that worker-whippings could resume. American elites had no more fear -- until the rise of Black Lives Matter. It remains to be seen whether the current counter-revolution against wage-earners will succeed. The GOP tax plan and the surveillance state appear to have been designed to smack down those who did not inherit their income.

Craig H. , November 23, 2017 at 12:49 pm

> Only this fear was enough to persuade elites to set up welfare states and planned economies, and so guarantee full employment.

The part that most interests me about the gobs of government benefits is that after the war the place was packed with young men who were experienced soldiers. Not many slack video game types.

financial matters , November 23, 2017 at 8:19 am

To me this article seems to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the forces at work and seeks to continue the popular neocon/neolib mantra that Putin/Russia and Trump are bad.

""The evisceration of idealism that enables both Putin and Trump afflicts us, too.

Maybe the time for quiet moments has passed. Maybe we can raise the volume a bit. Maybe we can turn the tide back towards the universal, towards understanding something about the other in ourselves and the self in our others. Wouldn't that be revolutionary?""

A few points that I think are more pertinent.

In Syria Russia has pushed back successfully against another US sponsored regime change and has helped unite the Arab world. It is also working with China to promote useful economic projects rather than trying to undermine these projects.

Trump was a reaction against a strong neocon/neolib alternative. He was elected because of a growing movement against the formation of an increasing precariat.

financial matters , November 23, 2017 at 8:58 am

Russian-Chinese Eurasian development

""Moreover China has gained permission from Russia to offer settlement services in RMB in Moscow through the China ICBC bank. Thereby China and Russia have effectively bypassed dollar risk in their mutual economic investments.

All of this development, building up a new economic geography across the countries of Eurasia is a stark contrast to what Washington has done since September 2001. According to a new study by the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, Washington has spent a staggering $5.6 trillion on wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan since 2001, more than three times what the Pentagon has claimed in official estimates.

Imagine the United States instead had spent $5.6 trillion on rebuilding America's rotted $8 trillion infrastructure deficit in roads, rails, water, electric grids– what a boost for the American people and for the world it would be. They might even imagine peaceful cooperation in the emerging Russian-Chinese Eurasian development, a true win-win for the world.""

Sid_finster , November 23, 2017 at 1:09 pm

But how would we build an empire? How would our oligarchs enforce their will on other countries at gunpoint if we go around wasting money on healthcare, infrastructure, education and jobs?

knowbuddhau , November 23, 2017 at 1:17 pm

I'm glad you mentioned that study, thanks.

That $5.6T sum is something I think about all the time. I look around and imagine how enriched daily life would be by fabulous parks, schools, roads, and a genuinely sustainable energy system, among so many others. How much less needless suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, maybe, or COPD (the two diseases killing my parents slowly).

As ambrit said, us mopes ain't so stupid that we don't know what's up when we see $5.6T spent on wars that only make necessary more wars for comic-book insane schemes for perpetual global dominance, but then are told we can't have nice things here at home. Well, at least present company.

Reminds me of a recent Counterpunch article: Looking for a Glass of Water and a Place to Shit . (Huh. That article leads off with a quote from Ramzy Baroud (a tweet?) that puts the BU study number at $3.6T. So I went to the WI site to find the article. No luck. Followed your link, found the link – Firefox says it's unsecure:

watson.brown.edu uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because it is self-signed. The certificate is not valid for the name watson.brown.edu. The certificate expired on Friday, October 06, 2017, 2:58 PM. The current time is Thursday, November 23, 2017, 8:51 AM.

So I'm adding a temporary exception. Just fyi.)

The WI study's title is: "United States Budgetary Costs of Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2018: A Summary of the $5.6 Trillion in Costs for the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Post-9/11 Veterans Care and Homeland Security."

And how much have we spent just since '08 on Wall Street's little indiscretion? A December, 2011 CNBC article cites a UMKC study:

Recently, a pair of PhD students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City tried to assess the total size of the Fed's commitments -- not just loans made, but asset purchases as well. The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29 trillion.

That figure has, in turn, been criticized by economist James Hamilton who argued, incredibly, that the Fed's bailout commitment under one facility was zero because all the money was paid back.

The same CNBC article goes on to give Randall Wray a long rebuttal to that absurd claim. Didn't expect that.

Six years later, the total is at least 34.6 trillion dollars. But we can't afford real health care, free lifelong education, or a genuine, sustainable economy built on world-class infrastructure?

From the Counterpunch article:

Imagine if you will that the U.S. had instead put $3.6 trillion into measures to improve infrastructure around the world. It has been estimated by the UNDP that to give the entire world fresh water and sanitation would cost half a trillion. That leaves $3.1 trillion for further projects. Now what would the U.S. have gained by being the country known for giving the entire world a glass a water and a place to shit? Think on it.

Even if we'd gone "all in," $3.6T would be about 10% of what we've spent on criminal wars abroad and legalized looting at home. I see in these numbers political elite madness of mythic proportions.

And in ambrit's bragging manager we see a person living a life outside-in. It doesn't matter that her passage through a space draws so much energy that people are literally impoverished in her wake. She's sounding all the right notes. In another age, she'd be bragging about the preparations for her pyramid.

(BTW, that age didn't end well for Egypt's elite. A pharaoh whose name escapes me broke with tradition and had the oral rites of passage that assured his entry into heaven carved in stone instead, so there'd be absolutely no risk of failing to achieve immortality. His queen wanted the same. But only the pharaoh was divine. Well, he relented, and that lead to every elite demanding the same privilege. Pretty soon, even commoners (the horror!) demanded it. The democratization of divinity led to the collapse of that order.)

It's not a novel observation, just more evidence that elites of every age get used to the noblesse part, to the exclusion of any sense of oblige . They blithely saw away at the very branch they stand on, but do it with the latest technology, so it's all good. Not too long ago, I was offered time in a seaside condo in Mexico in lieu of pay for part-time work as a vacation rental caretaker – in NW Washington state. The absurdity! It burns!

[Nov 22, 2017] Israel, Saudi Arabia Setting Preconditions for War With Hezbollah, by The Saker - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... The continuity of US policy persists no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll have to see what happens ..."
"... All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity. ..."
Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

anonymous , Disclaimer November 17, 2017 at 11:53 pm GMT

But their plan is, I think, much cruder: to trigger a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene.

It could be the reverse, that it's the US that is orchestrating them to create a situation that the US can then claim a necessity to intervene. The continuity of US policy persists no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll have to see what happens . The internal politics of Saudi Arabia are rather opaque so what this internal power struggle is really about is hard to guess at particularly with the sort of media we have. It's interesting how the Saudi Arabian-Israeli alliance has become less covert these days and is now quite open.

Virgile , November 18, 2017 at 12:00 am GMT
Saudis are not used to receive missiles on their head. They panicked when the Yemeni missile fell on their airport. I doubt that the crazy kinglet will start a war with Iran. What he could do is a false flag that kills a few saudis ( chemical weapons) to call the USA to retaliate
Yet they are so stupid that they would need Israeli expertise to setup the false flag. Israel wont take the chance to be exposed.. so nothing will happen.
If they can't trigger US intervention they would just shut up and swallow their humilition, while Israel would be continue its attacks on Syria under the sacred principle of self protection.

Lots of noise for nothing..

Kiza , November 18, 2017 at 1:54 am GMT
@Mikel

Did this "penetration" make any military difference? The whole "civil war" in Syria has been started by Israel and its US and KSA proxies, by organising and supporting terrorists. Direct Israeli military action is nothing compared with unleashing terrorism crazies on the nearby country, and even that big one lost. If the Israeli military was so mighty why did it need the terrorists to fight on its behalf? Therefore, the Israeli bombing of Syria is insignificant and out of pure frustration at a loss.

But a question for you – how does the Israeli bombing of Syria stack up against Israel being presented as the ethereal victim in the US Ziomedia?

The ultimate irony of the situation is that Israeli effort to dominate and own the ME, by getting US to attack Iraq and by fomenting sectarianism and terrorism in Syria, has bounced back to make the situation much worse for Israel than before. My personal expectation was a little different, I must admit. I expected that the terrorists of The Coalition of the Lovers of Terrorism would win in Syria,but that the Takfiri crazies would then turn around and bite the Israeli hand that fed them. Then Israel would get US to occupy Syria on its behalf, to control the crazies that Israel unleashed. But Russia got involved unexpectedly and now the last Israeli resort is to get its puppets to bleed in an attack on Iran. Attacking and occupying Syria, just like Iraq, would have been cheaper for US than attacking Iran.

The almost suicidal US attack on Iran will be the ultimate test of Zionist control over US, and it could change the things in US quite a lot.

Kiza , November 18, 2017 at 3:33 am GMT
The Saker is really good when he stays away from the weapon systems and mine is bigger than yours. This strategic analysis of his is quite reasonable. Unlike what the trolls claim, Saker is not predicting an attack on Iran and neither am I. Simply, there is a struggle going on in US and EU, between the Zionist influence and the my-country-first resistance. The Zionists have been winning so far at a huge cost to the countries which were tools of their plans, they got away with the destruction of all five of the six countries targeted. But this "success" has solidified the resistance in the tool countries, united some Sunnis (Turkey) with the Shiites and, even worse, it has considerably strengthened the single remaining target country – Iran. In other words, the destruction of five out of six countries has been a very Pyrric victory of the Zionists.

My best guess are two possible outcomes – if the Zionists manage to get US to attack Iran through some false-flag or otherwise, this will probably lead to the final dismounting of US from the global stage and US will turn inward to political instability and even possible civil war. In other words, the Zionists will spend up and sacrifice their main source of blood and treasure.

The second possible outcome is a status quo with a lot of Israeli barking and strong resistance in the US to being dragged into an attack on Iran. The Zionists have already used up most of the credit that their Ziomedia had and no reasonably intelligent person in US trusts a single word coming out of those media. I just cannot imagine another successful 911 type event which could mobilise US dummies into a war on Iran. Yes, I feel that the Zionists have already used up all their aces and I just cannot imagine them inventing another original and powerful new war ace. I do not underestimate people's gullibility but US has been truly economically too depleted to march into another war. In other words, if internal resistance prevented attack on Iran in 2007, such attack is even less likely to pass in 2017 or later, regardless of how much President Swamp is an Israeli puppet or not.

Anon , Disclaimer November 18, 2017 at 5:19 am GMT
I'm not so certain that Trump intends to let the US get involved. The guy's a deal-maker and businessman, not a soldier. Trump is simply not a bloodthirsty guy, or he would have sicced every prosecutor he could get his hands on after the left for the way they're treating him. He trolls his opponents a lot on twitter, but he does nothing to them except toss snide words in their direction.

I think Trump sees his role in the Mideast as someone who sells the Israelis and Saudis lots of expensive weapons systems, shakes their hand and wishes them Godspeed, but he's going to let them get into trouble on their own. I don't see Trump as someone willing to go adventuring in the Mideast because he doesn't have to prove his masculinity to himself. He's already climbed to the top of the heap. He's president of the US. What else does he need to prove? Nothing, really. I also think he wants to avoid making stupid mistakes. Throwing money away into expensive quagmires is not his thing.

Cloak And Dagger , November 19, 2017 at 5:51 am GMT
@Mulegino1

Israeli military prowess and invincibility is a 100% Hollywood fable

I agree with your assessment. Armies are hardened in combat under battle conditions against equal or more powerful adversaries. In recent years, Hezbollah and the Syrian army have become hardened and formidable as an unintended consequence of US/Israeli mischief in Syria under the auspices of CIA/Mossad-created ISIS, and CIA-created Al Qaeda with its many facets and pseudonyms. Iran has been training continuously for the imminent attack by US and Zionist forces, and prevailed in the Iraq-Iran war of 1988, instigated by the US. Today, Iraq and Iran are on their way to becoming a unified alliance against zionist and imperialistic forces. The "Shia Crescent" is now a force worthy of awe and admiration.

Meanwhile, the much vaunted IDF has been battle-hardened (ha!) in combat with stone-throwing children and unarmed Palestinian farmers, with hi-tech expensive anti-missile defenses being used to bring down home made firecrackers from Hamas. As you point out, in 2006, just Hezbollah alone, without the aid of todays new found allies in Syria and Iraq (and of course, Iran), was able to rout both aerial and ground attacks by Israel and beat them back to run with their tails between their legs. 49 of Israel's Merkava tanks (self-declared God's Chariot) were left as smoldering metal in that action, demolished by hand-held anti-tank missiles.

Israel probably wants the Saudis to attack Hezbollah, certain to be defeated, and use that to draw the US into a war against Lebanon. I doubt that they will succeed this time. I think Netanyahu's precarious position with criminal indictments forthcoming will cause him to do something stupid like attacking Lebanon. This will prove to be a bridge too far.

We may be seeing the early stages of the destruction of Israel. They may not have 5 years left, certainly not 10. An unverified CIA memo informed former US President Bill Clinton that Israel would not exist beyond the year 2022. That is just 5 years away, and the ducks seem to be lining up in a row, regardless of whether such a memo was ever sent.

animalogic , November 19, 2017 at 10:11 am GMT
@Kiza

I hope you are right Kiza. However:
"I just cannot imagine another successful 911 type event which could mobilise US dummies into a war on Iran. " Sorry, I can. When anyone says "Ziomedia" they basically mean the MSM in its entirety. The US Executive & Legislature are also – still – in thrall to the Zionists. Does anyone (switched on ) actually think it isn't so ?
The only rays of hope i have – & they are not insignificant – is that the notion of actually attacking a State such as Iran, given its important, if no where near absolute – advantages should give (the Sane) pause to seriously reconsider. I hope that the US military still contains such sane individuals.
Short of direct US military intervention it becomes easier to imagine some barely plausible (but completely "spinable" , provocation by the Israelis: a series of escalating bombing raids on Iran for Israel's "security" ? A chemical warfare "site" ? A concentration of Republican guards threatening Israel ?
Poor Israel ! There-was-no-alternative !
And should Iran DARE defend itself ? well it would be all bets off.
So, like the Saker, its all specualtion & worth – whatever but, things tend to go along Ok -- until they don't.

Sergey Krieger , November 19, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT
@whyamihere

I remember watching 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. On Israel part failure was multilevel from top of the military to the bottom. General staff led by air man. Concentration of almost all of land forces effort on small value prepared in advance target making fool of oneself wasting time and energy on this target, while bombing civilian targets. Inability to plan and take decisive deep moves to confront Hezbollah main forces defeating which would make far more military sense . Obviously IDF did not feel they could take losses associated with such course of actions and keep going and frankly I feel they knew they could not considering what we know now about performance of Israeli army at all levels. All in all israeli army got into the trap carefully prepared for them and got stuck there. Hezbollah pinned it there along the border and processed with hitting Israel proper showing complete failure of Israeli army and air force to achieve there goals. This is not performance of one if the best. Strategic and tactical failures were glaring and fighting spirit was poor as Israel could not do what was necessary to reverse the situation due to internal wariness and inability to take losses.

Anonymous , Disclaimer November 19, 2017 at 12:25 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

The cruise-missile strike in Syria seemed more symbolic to get his detractors off his back.

It "seemed" like he was caving in to the will of the swamp. Luckily, someone was kind enough to inform him afterwards that only the swamp was applauding the event while his base, and many independents, felt betrayed. That "symbolic" strike, based on transparently false justifications, cost him a lot of domestic and international support.

Trump was at his strongest during the election. Every time WaPo or NYT tried to box him in he'd laugh in their faces and pushed in the opposite direction. His popularity among the voters surged whenever he refused to comply (or "get his detractors off his back").

Sergey Krieger , November 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
Regarding Israel. I am not holocaust denier but the course choosen by Israeli and jewish elites achieving own security and prosperity by denying it all to those who live next to them is nausetic. By causing directly or indirectly all that suffering in the region Israel completely forfeited what little justification it used to have to constantly cite Israeli security concerns.
Sergey Krieger , November 19, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT
@Kiza

I would stay away from weapons system as I am not qualified. But when Sacker is not writing about Soviet past but concentrates on such strategic issues like in his previous article he produces very good pieces. While I do think his current piece is speculative on nature, I would never dismiss predictability of stupidity. They did it in Lebanon in 2006. They can do it again. Until those crazies from basement are completely removed along with their backers influence there is no relaxing. Strange world. It all reminds of chimps throwing feces at each other rather than intelligent species. We are wasting resources and brain power to kill each other instead of going beyond our planet limits and investing in This what we invest in war.

Anonymous , Disclaimer November 19, 2017 at 3:14 pm GMT
@MEexpert

"Tell that to your hysterical Prime Minster, Benjamin "Jack Ass" Netanyahu. He has been crying wolf about Iran's nuclear weapons for a decade."

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/US-joins-the-warnings-1992-97

1995: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

Michael Kenny , November 19, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT
The latest version of the "Putin has won in Syria" argument, which is now being repeated so often that the "merchandise" obviously isn't selling! If Putin makes himself the protector of Iran as he has made himself the protector of Syria, so much the better! He irreversibly bogged in Syria (as in Ukraine) and if he now goes and bogs himself down in Iran as well then that's yet another nail in his coffin. We'll have to call him Vladimir Boggedownovitch!
Point 5 of the "Israeli" point of view is interesting. Israel and the US do indeed look like total idiots and have indeed no credibility left. Who caused that? Putin! Obvious solution: take out Putin! At that point, the problems in Ukraine, Syria, Iran and North Korea are solved in one swoop and the Russian Federation returns to the peaceful place at the European table that it was taking until somebody (American?) filled the little policeman's head with pipedreams of "Eurasian" glory.
By the way, I never trust people who conceal their identity: Southfront, Moon of Alabama. It usually means that the site is a front of some sort. Credibility zero, therefore.
War for Blair Mountain , November 19, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT
@Kiza

Kiza

A bloody Civil War in the 2017 version of America will be a bloody Race War What could be more obvious?

Sergey Krieger , November 19, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

You understanding of what it means to get bogged down is obviously confused and misplaced. If you want real definition of getting bogged down look no further than USA in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ilyana_Rozumova , November 19, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility left.

Yes that is obviously true.

But they were successful in Libya. The progress they have achieved there is amazing!!!!

Finally there is flourishing slave trade there.

(But then!
Who is buying the slaves?)

Andrei Martyanov , Website November 19, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
@Mikel

However, this is not preventing the Israelis from violating those air defenses on a constant basis and attacking from the air the very capital of Syria, as admitted by the Syrians themselves.

1. Stop obvious BS. Israeli DO NOT "violate" those air defense, since they do not attack (and they can't) ANY Russian targets which those air defenses are there to protect. Israel attacks SAA's targets. See the difference? Russia is not, at this stage, in the state of war with Israel, which would open legal and operational framework for shooting down Israel's AF assets.

2. Should Israel have had such an intention and attack Russian targets–we would be living in a very different world today. Russians do not take lightly attacks on their targets and the case of USS Liberty is impossible. The "argument" of Su-24 shot down by Turkish AF is not applicable here. Why, is a separate issue. Israel knows it and is also in a full hysteria mode as I type it and it is precisely because should the push comes to shove IDF's "plans" on Syria will not work anymore. Especially, since Russian VKS MAY at some point of time get the order to impose real no-fly zone. This is not to speak of the fact that Israelis DO inform Russian forces in Syria on their plans.

3. Do not conflate two very different issues. This is exactly what you did.

The facts that I never get an answer to this question

Did you get the answer now or do you need this issue to be explained even more in depth?

Look, I'm a simple civilian just trying to learn how these defenders of the Russian military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I exposed.

You "exposed" absolutely nothing and there are many "simple civilians" even in this threat who have absolutely no difficulty in grasping key political, diplomatic and operational issues re: Russian forces in Syria.

L.K , November 19, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT
@Mikel

" I don't believe that the Syrian civil war and the rest of the Arab uprisings were organized by any anglo-zionist conspiration.."

What you believe or don't ain't worthwhile but the Syrian war is not really a 'civil war' at all and the fact that it originates with a zionist-ZUSA-Saudi conspiracy is well established:

WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
[...]Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims

The United States and its allies in the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel, have been frequently accused of contributing to the ongoing destabilization of Syria in the wake of the uprising and subsequent civil war which began in 2011. But according to cables from the WikiLeaks archive, discussed in the Syria chapter of Assange's book, plans to deliberately destabilize the region go back at least five years further.[...]
WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and Hezbollah.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-us-israel-and-saudi-arabia-planned-overthrow-of-syrian-govt-in-2006/221784/

L.K , November 19, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Mikel

" the Russian military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I exposed."

You have exposed nothing, you are just a silly person.
Whether or not the Russian A.A systems are as good as advertised is another matter, but the reason that Syria is not trying to shoot down the israelis is mainly because it does not need further escalation at this time Syria has been fighting a very difficult war since 2011 and engaging the israelis now would not be a smart move, even more so as it could provide additional BS 'motives' for ZUSA to increase its illegal military footprint in the country.

The job is to eliminate the main threat which are the various Salafi/mercenary groups backed by the ZUSA coalition that have been plaguing the country since 2011.
That goal is getting closer & closer by the day. Isis nearly gone in Syria, after that; the Nusra coalition in Idlib.

patrick kwinten , November 19, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
smart of russia to extend us warfrontline by taking ukraine when iran is under attack?
James Speaks , November 19, 2017 at 6:53 pm GMT
@L.K

Calling the covert invasion of Syria a civil war is easy b/c we are conditioned to think of Arabs and Muslims as incapable of living peacefully.

Very often, a complaint or set of complaints against one individual or group is really aimed at another.

All the the anti-Muslim rhetoric is nothing more than a device to neuter the one group,
Arabs, who would be capable of disarming the mindless, pro-Israel lobby.

SolontoCroesus , November 19, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
Another piece of outstanding journalism by Gareth Porter

Israel's Ploy Selling a Syrian Nuke Strike
November 18, 2017

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/18/israels-ploy-selling-a-syrian-nuke-strike/

In September 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a building in eastern Syria that the Israelis claimed held a covert nuclear reactor that had been built with North Korean assistance. . . .

But nothing about that alleged reactor in the Syrian desert turns out to be what it appeared at the time. The evidence now available shows that there was no such nuclear reactor, and that the Israelis had misled George W. Bush's administration into believing that it was in order to draw the United States into bombing missile storage sites in Syria . Other evidence now suggests, moreover, that the Syrian government had led the Israelis to believe wrongly that it was a key storage site for Hezbollah missiles and rockets

Ram , November 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@L.K

All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity.

Art , November 20, 2017 at 3:29 am GMT
@utu

The bottom line is that Russia can't impose its will on Israel. If Israel decides to bomb Russia's allies like Syria or Hezbollah Russia looks the other way.

utu,

With Israel, war is all about air defense – can Russia build up Syrian air defenses – would it take a year or more – can it even be done?

On the other hand, Israel cannot change the situation on the ground with only air power.

The bad guys are Wahhabist Saudi and Zionist Israel – they want war. The first is incompetent, the second wants others to do it.

We the world, must tell them both to go to hell.

We can do that!

Think Peace -- - Art

Anon , Disclaimer November 20, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Agree.
Americans in Syria: https://www.globalresearch.ca/secretary-mattis-is-off-base-us-military-presence-in-syria-has-no-legal-grounds/5618997
"The establishment of the US base near the Syria-Jordan border [in the area of the Syrian town of al-Tanf] was publicly justified by the need to conduct operations against Islamic State. However, no information has been received about any US operations against the group conducted from this area. To the contrary, IS has been reported to operate freely in an area abutting the [US] base . On and off, militant groups supposedly trained by Americans in the area strike Syria government forces. The more US forces are in-theater in Syria, the greater the chance of conflict between them and Syrian troops."

[Nov 22, 2017] The news for F-35 are horrible (they are horrible one way or another, anyway)

Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov , Website November 20, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

@Mikel

Essentially, what you are saying is that Saker is wrong in claiming that the Russian and Syrian air defenses are integrated "in one single network" but he is still right in claiming the technological air superiority of Russia over the West.

Syria has at its disposal some number of Pantsyr AD systems. Those systems are equipped with necessary links (what would be called in the West CEC–cooperative engagement capability) to receive Targeting Data (Bearing (Azimuth), Range, Elevation and target's maneuvering elements) from other sources. In this sense they are integrated. Saker is not wrong here. In the end, if to assume the situation with Israeli F-35 and ancient Soviet S-220 Vega even partially true, it merely adds to a well known fact of ability to track and develop firing solution by Soviet/Russian complexes against any so called "Stealth" targets. In terms of Air Defense complexes, which, in the end, is the ability to generate random multi-diapason signal and ability to process large arrays of data (you know–a shitload of Fourier Transformations and all that naughty signal processing crap) Russians are global leaders. Recall that Zaslon on first MiG-31s was the world's first phased electronically scanned radar, as a simple example out of very many.

All modern Russian detection systems (and some older ones) "see" those targets just fine. "Stealth", which is euphemism for reduction of the physical field of aircraft in radio-diapason is a marketing meme designed for the consumption of people far removed from military. The time is up for all this boastful BS. Once radiophotonics comes on-line (and it is coming soon) all this talk about "Stealth" will be relegated to forums of military fanboys.

Perhaps a convincing answer could go along the lines of saying that the Russian and Syrian air defenses are independent and not integrated, that the Russians have only provided such and such air defense systems to the Syrians due to such and such reasons and this allows the Israelis to defeat them taking such and such measures.

Again, we don't know HOW Syrian S-200 received targeting data, it might have been through own system or, turn your own imagination on. If it was through OWN systems–the news for F-35 are horrible (they are horrible one way or another, anyway) and merely confirm what is already known in professional environment–American military technologies are, simply, not that good.

if the Russians really wanted to prevent their allies from being constantly attacked from the air, they could do such an such. As far as I'm concerned, all the rest is, as you say, BS.

No, it is you who talks a complete BS and ignorant nonsense and I sense a lot of butt-hurt, which is not unusual on these discussion boards.

utu , November 20, 2017 at 11:30 pm GMT
@Sam J.

However I bet that if there was an all on war the Russians could shoot down a large number of the Israelis aircraft.

Let's try to estimate the number of planes they can shoot down. How many S-XXX batteries Russia has in Syria. Say N batteries. Each battery has K tubes. How much time does it take to reload K tubes? Say ∆T minutes.

N*K<40

How many F-15 and F-16 Israel has? About 400.

Israel can swarm and overwhelm Russia's defense. N*K is no more than 40. Out of 40 missiles at best 20 will hit their targets. This leaves 380 Israel planes. Each battery that launches one missile will be destroyed in less than ∆T time.

However Israel would not use F-15 and F-16 in the first attack. Some planes would be sacrificed to provoke Russians to fire first. But then S-XXX batteries would be attacked with missile, decoys and drones.

The total operation would last less than 60 minutes to wipe out everything Russia has in Syria that can shoot down a plane and everything they have that can fly.

[Nov 22, 2017] Israel, Saudi Arabia Setting Preconditions for War With Hezbollah, by The Saker - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... The continuity of US policy persists no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll have to see what happens ..."
"... All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity. ..."
Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

anonymous , Disclaimer November 17, 2017 at 11:53 pm GMT

But their plan is, I think, much cruder: to trigger a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene.

It could be the reverse, that it's the US that is orchestrating them to create a situation that the US can then claim a necessity to intervene. The continuity of US policy persists no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll have to see what happens . The internal politics of Saudi Arabia are rather opaque so what this internal power struggle is really about is hard to guess at particularly with the sort of media we have. It's interesting how the Saudi Arabian-Israeli alliance has become less covert these days and is now quite open.

Virgile , November 18, 2017 at 12:00 am GMT
Saudis are not used to receive missiles on their head. They panicked when the Yemeni missile fell on their airport. I doubt that the crazy kinglet will start a war with Iran. What he could do is a false flag that kills a few saudis ( chemical weapons) to call the USA to retaliate
Yet they are so stupid that they would need Israeli expertise to setup the false flag. Israel wont take the chance to be exposed.. so nothing will happen.
If they can't trigger US intervention they would just shut up and swallow their humilition, while Israel would be continue its attacks on Syria under the sacred principle of self protection.

Lots of noise for nothing..

Kiza , November 18, 2017 at 1:54 am GMT
@Mikel

Did this "penetration" make any military difference? The whole "civil war" in Syria has been started by Israel and its US and KSA proxies, by organising and supporting terrorists. Direct Israeli military action is nothing compared with unleashing terrorism crazies on the nearby country, and even that big one lost. If the Israeli military was so mighty why did it need the terrorists to fight on its behalf? Therefore, the Israeli bombing of Syria is insignificant and out of pure frustration at a loss.

But a question for you – how does the Israeli bombing of Syria stack up against Israel being presented as the ethereal victim in the US Ziomedia?

The ultimate irony of the situation is that Israeli effort to dominate and own the ME, by getting US to attack Iraq and by fomenting sectarianism and terrorism in Syria, has bounced back to make the situation much worse for Israel than before. My personal expectation was a little different, I must admit. I expected that the terrorists of The Coalition of the Lovers of Terrorism would win in Syria,but that the Takfiri crazies would then turn around and bite the Israeli hand that fed them. Then Israel would get US to occupy Syria on its behalf, to control the crazies that Israel unleashed. But Russia got involved unexpectedly and now the last Israeli resort is to get its puppets to bleed in an attack on Iran. Attacking and occupying Syria, just like Iraq, would have been cheaper for US than attacking Iran.

The almost suicidal US attack on Iran will be the ultimate test of Zionist control over US, and it could change the things in US quite a lot.

Kiza , November 18, 2017 at 3:33 am GMT
The Saker is really good when he stays away from the weapon systems and mine is bigger than yours. This strategic analysis of his is quite reasonable. Unlike what the trolls claim, Saker is not predicting an attack on Iran and neither am I. Simply, there is a struggle going on in US and EU, between the Zionist influence and the my-country-first resistance. The Zionists have been winning so far at a huge cost to the countries which were tools of their plans, they got away with the destruction of all five of the six countries targeted. But this "success" has solidified the resistance in the tool countries, united some Sunnis (Turkey) with the Shiites and, even worse, it has considerably strengthened the single remaining target country – Iran. In other words, the destruction of five out of six countries has been a very Pyrric victory of the Zionists.

My best guess are two possible outcomes – if the Zionists manage to get US to attack Iran through some false-flag or otherwise, this will probably lead to the final dismounting of US from the global stage and US will turn inward to political instability and even possible civil war. In other words, the Zionists will spend up and sacrifice their main source of blood and treasure.

The second possible outcome is a status quo with a lot of Israeli barking and strong resistance in the US to being dragged into an attack on Iran. The Zionists have already used up most of the credit that their Ziomedia had and no reasonably intelligent person in US trusts a single word coming out of those media. I just cannot imagine another successful 911 type event which could mobilise US dummies into a war on Iran. Yes, I feel that the Zionists have already used up all their aces and I just cannot imagine them inventing another original and powerful new war ace. I do not underestimate people's gullibility but US has been truly economically too depleted to march into another war. In other words, if internal resistance prevented attack on Iran in 2007, such attack is even less likely to pass in 2017 or later, regardless of how much President Swamp is an Israeli puppet or not.

Anon , Disclaimer November 18, 2017 at 5:19 am GMT
I'm not so certain that Trump intends to let the US get involved. The guy's a deal-maker and businessman, not a soldier. Trump is simply not a bloodthirsty guy, or he would have sicced every prosecutor he could get his hands on after the left for the way they're treating him. He trolls his opponents a lot on twitter, but he does nothing to them except toss snide words in their direction.

I think Trump sees his role in the Mideast as someone who sells the Israelis and Saudis lots of expensive weapons systems, shakes their hand and wishes them Godspeed, but he's going to let them get into trouble on their own. I don't see Trump as someone willing to go adventuring in the Mideast because he doesn't have to prove his masculinity to himself. He's already climbed to the top of the heap. He's president of the US. What else does he need to prove? Nothing, really. I also think he wants to avoid making stupid mistakes. Throwing money away into expensive quagmires is not his thing.

Cloak And Dagger , November 19, 2017 at 5:51 am GMT
@Mulegino1

Israeli military prowess and invincibility is a 100% Hollywood fable

I agree with your assessment. Armies are hardened in combat under battle conditions against equal or more powerful adversaries. In recent years, Hezbollah and the Syrian army have become hardened and formidable as an unintended consequence of US/Israeli mischief in Syria under the auspices of CIA/Mossad-created ISIS, and CIA-created Al Qaeda with its many facets and pseudonyms. Iran has been training continuously for the imminent attack by US and Zionist forces, and prevailed in the Iraq-Iran war of 1988, instigated by the US. Today, Iraq and Iran are on their way to becoming a unified alliance against zionist and imperialistic forces. The "Shia Crescent" is now a force worthy of awe and admiration.

Meanwhile, the much vaunted IDF has been battle-hardened (ha!) in combat with stone-throwing children and unarmed Palestinian farmers, with hi-tech expensive anti-missile defenses being used to bring down home made firecrackers from Hamas. As you point out, in 2006, just Hezbollah alone, without the aid of todays new found allies in Syria and Iraq (and of course, Iran), was able to rout both aerial and ground attacks by Israel and beat them back to run with their tails between their legs. 49 of Israel's Merkava tanks (self-declared God's Chariot) were left as smoldering metal in that action, demolished by hand-held anti-tank missiles.

Israel probably wants the Saudis to attack Hezbollah, certain to be defeated, and use that to draw the US into a war against Lebanon. I doubt that they will succeed this time. I think Netanyahu's precarious position with criminal indictments forthcoming will cause him to do something stupid like attacking Lebanon. This will prove to be a bridge too far.

We may be seeing the early stages of the destruction of Israel. They may not have 5 years left, certainly not 10. An unverified CIA memo informed former US President Bill Clinton that Israel would not exist beyond the year 2022. That is just 5 years away, and the ducks seem to be lining up in a row, regardless of whether such a memo was ever sent.

animalogic , November 19, 2017 at 10:11 am GMT
@Kiza

I hope you are right Kiza. However:
"I just cannot imagine another successful 911 type event which could mobilise US dummies into a war on Iran. " Sorry, I can. When anyone says "Ziomedia" they basically mean the MSM in its entirety. The US Executive & Legislature are also – still – in thrall to the Zionists. Does anyone (switched on ) actually think it isn't so ?
The only rays of hope i have – & they are not insignificant – is that the notion of actually attacking a State such as Iran, given its important, if no where near absolute – advantages should give (the Sane) pause to seriously reconsider. I hope that the US military still contains such sane individuals.
Short of direct US military intervention it becomes easier to imagine some barely plausible (but completely "spinable" , provocation by the Israelis: a series of escalating bombing raids on Iran for Israel's "security" ? A chemical warfare "site" ? A concentration of Republican guards threatening Israel ?
Poor Israel ! There-was-no-alternative !
And should Iran DARE defend itself ? well it would be all bets off.
So, like the Saker, its all specualtion & worth – whatever but, things tend to go along Ok -- until they don't.

Sergey Krieger , November 19, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT
@whyamihere

I remember watching 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. On Israel part failure was multilevel from top of the military to the bottom. General staff led by air man. Concentration of almost all of land forces effort on small value prepared in advance target making fool of oneself wasting time and energy on this target, while bombing civilian targets. Inability to plan and take decisive deep moves to confront Hezbollah main forces defeating which would make far more military sense . Obviously IDF did not feel they could take losses associated with such course of actions and keep going and frankly I feel they knew they could not considering what we know now about performance of Israeli army at all levels. All in all israeli army got into the trap carefully prepared for them and got stuck there. Hezbollah pinned it there along the border and processed with hitting Israel proper showing complete failure of Israeli army and air force to achieve there goals. This is not performance of one if the best. Strategic and tactical failures were glaring and fighting spirit was poor as Israel could not do what was necessary to reverse the situation due to internal wariness and inability to take losses.

Anonymous , Disclaimer November 19, 2017 at 12:25 pm GMT
@Johnny Rico

The cruise-missile strike in Syria seemed more symbolic to get his detractors off his back.

It "seemed" like he was caving in to the will of the swamp. Luckily, someone was kind enough to inform him afterwards that only the swamp was applauding the event while his base, and many independents, felt betrayed. That "symbolic" strike, based on transparently false justifications, cost him a lot of domestic and international support.

Trump was at his strongest during the election. Every time WaPo or NYT tried to box him in he'd laugh in their faces and pushed in the opposite direction. His popularity among the voters surged whenever he refused to comply (or "get his detractors off his back").

Sergey Krieger , November 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
Regarding Israel. I am not holocaust denier but the course choosen by Israeli and jewish elites achieving own security and prosperity by denying it all to those who live next to them is nausetic. By causing directly or indirectly all that suffering in the region Israel completely forfeited what little justification it used to have to constantly cite Israeli security concerns.
Sergey Krieger , November 19, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT
@Kiza

I would stay away from weapons system as I am not qualified. But when Sacker is not writing about Soviet past but concentrates on such strategic issues like in his previous article he produces very good pieces. While I do think his current piece is speculative on nature, I would never dismiss predictability of stupidity. They did it in Lebanon in 2006. They can do it again. Until those crazies from basement are completely removed along with their backers influence there is no relaxing. Strange world. It all reminds of chimps throwing feces at each other rather than intelligent species. We are wasting resources and brain power to kill each other instead of going beyond our planet limits and investing in This what we invest in war.

Anonymous , Disclaimer November 19, 2017 at 3:14 pm GMT
@MEexpert

"Tell that to your hysterical Prime Minster, Benjamin "Jack Ass" Netanyahu. He has been crying wolf about Iran's nuclear weapons for a decade."

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/US-joins-the-warnings-1992-97

1995: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."

Michael Kenny , November 19, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT
The latest version of the "Putin has won in Syria" argument, which is now being repeated so often that the "merchandise" obviously isn't selling! If Putin makes himself the protector of Iran as he has made himself the protector of Syria, so much the better! He irreversibly bogged in Syria (as in Ukraine) and if he now goes and bogs himself down in Iran as well then that's yet another nail in his coffin. We'll have to call him Vladimir Boggedownovitch!
Point 5 of the "Israeli" point of view is interesting. Israel and the US do indeed look like total idiots and have indeed no credibility left. Who caused that? Putin! Obvious solution: take out Putin! At that point, the problems in Ukraine, Syria, Iran and North Korea are solved in one swoop and the Russian Federation returns to the peaceful place at the European table that it was taking until somebody (American?) filled the little policeman's head with pipedreams of "Eurasian" glory.
By the way, I never trust people who conceal their identity: Southfront, Moon of Alabama. It usually means that the site is a front of some sort. Credibility zero, therefore.
War for Blair Mountain , November 19, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT
@Kiza

Kiza

A bloody Civil War in the 2017 version of America will be a bloody Race War What could be more obvious?

Sergey Krieger , November 19, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

You understanding of what it means to get bogged down is obviously confused and misplaced. If you want real definition of getting bogged down look no further than USA in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ilyana_Rozumova , November 19, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility left.

Yes that is obviously true.

But they were successful in Libya. The progress they have achieved there is amazing!!!!

Finally there is flourishing slave trade there.

(But then!
Who is buying the slaves?)

Andrei Martyanov , Website November 19, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
@Mikel

However, this is not preventing the Israelis from violating those air defenses on a constant basis and attacking from the air the very capital of Syria, as admitted by the Syrians themselves.

1. Stop obvious BS. Israeli DO NOT "violate" those air defense, since they do not attack (and they can't) ANY Russian targets which those air defenses are there to protect. Israel attacks SAA's targets. See the difference? Russia is not, at this stage, in the state of war with Israel, which would open legal and operational framework for shooting down Israel's AF assets.

2. Should Israel have had such an intention and attack Russian targets–we would be living in a very different world today. Russians do not take lightly attacks on their targets and the case of USS Liberty is impossible. The "argument" of Su-24 shot down by Turkish AF is not applicable here. Why, is a separate issue. Israel knows it and is also in a full hysteria mode as I type it and it is precisely because should the push comes to shove IDF's "plans" on Syria will not work anymore. Especially, since Russian VKS MAY at some point of time get the order to impose real no-fly zone. This is not to speak of the fact that Israelis DO inform Russian forces in Syria on their plans.

3. Do not conflate two very different issues. This is exactly what you did.

The facts that I never get an answer to this question

Did you get the answer now or do you need this issue to be explained even more in depth?

Look, I'm a simple civilian just trying to learn how these defenders of the Russian military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I exposed.

You "exposed" absolutely nothing and there are many "simple civilians" even in this threat who have absolutely no difficulty in grasping key political, diplomatic and operational issues re: Russian forces in Syria.

L.K , November 19, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT
@Mikel

" I don't believe that the Syrian civil war and the rest of the Arab uprisings were organized by any anglo-zionist conspiration.."

What you believe or don't ain't worthwhile but the Syrian war is not really a 'civil war' at all and the fact that it originates with a zionist-ZUSA-Saudi conspiracy is well established:

WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
[...]Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United States hoped to overthrow Assad and create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims

The United States and its allies in the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel, have been frequently accused of contributing to the ongoing destabilization of Syria in the wake of the uprising and subsequent civil war which began in 2011. But according to cables from the WikiLeaks archive, discussed in the Syria chapter of Assange's book, plans to deliberately destabilize the region go back at least five years further.[...]
WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and Hezbollah.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikileaks-us-israel-and-saudi-arabia-planned-overthrow-of-syrian-govt-in-2006/221784/

L.K , November 19, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT
@Mikel

" the Russian military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I exposed."

You have exposed nothing, you are just a silly person.
Whether or not the Russian A.A systems are as good as advertised is another matter, but the reason that Syria is not trying to shoot down the israelis is mainly because it does not need further escalation at this time Syria has been fighting a very difficult war since 2011 and engaging the israelis now would not be a smart move, even more so as it could provide additional BS 'motives' for ZUSA to increase its illegal military footprint in the country.

The job is to eliminate the main threat which are the various Salafi/mercenary groups backed by the ZUSA coalition that have been plaguing the country since 2011.
That goal is getting closer & closer by the day. Isis nearly gone in Syria, after that; the Nusra coalition in Idlib.

patrick kwinten , November 19, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT
smart of russia to extend us warfrontline by taking ukraine when iran is under attack?
James Speaks , November 19, 2017 at 6:53 pm GMT
@L.K

Calling the covert invasion of Syria a civil war is easy b/c we are conditioned to think of Arabs and Muslims as incapable of living peacefully.

Very often, a complaint or set of complaints against one individual or group is really aimed at another.

All the the anti-Muslim rhetoric is nothing more than a device to neuter the one group,
Arabs, who would be capable of disarming the mindless, pro-Israel lobby.

SolontoCroesus , November 19, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
Another piece of outstanding journalism by Gareth Porter

Israel's Ploy Selling a Syrian Nuke Strike
November 18, 2017

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/18/israels-ploy-selling-a-syrian-nuke-strike/

In September 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a building in eastern Syria that the Israelis claimed held a covert nuclear reactor that had been built with North Korean assistance. . . .

But nothing about that alleged reactor in the Syrian desert turns out to be what it appeared at the time. The evidence now available shows that there was no such nuclear reactor, and that the Israelis had misled George W. Bush's administration into believing that it was in order to draw the United States into bombing missile storage sites in Syria . Other evidence now suggests, moreover, that the Syrian government had led the Israelis to believe wrongly that it was a key storage site for Hezbollah missiles and rockets

Ram , November 19, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
@L.K

All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity.

Art , November 20, 2017 at 3:29 am GMT
@utu

The bottom line is that Russia can't impose its will on Israel. If Israel decides to bomb Russia's allies like Syria or Hezbollah Russia looks the other way.

utu,

With Israel, war is all about air defense – can Russia build up Syrian air defenses – would it take a year or more – can it even be done?

On the other hand, Israel cannot change the situation on the ground with only air power.

The bad guys are Wahhabist Saudi and Zionist Israel – they want war. The first is incompetent, the second wants others to do it.

We the world, must tell them both to go to hell.

We can do that!

Think Peace -- - Art

Anon , Disclaimer November 20, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Anonymous

Agree.
Americans in Syria: https://www.globalresearch.ca/secretary-mattis-is-off-base-us-military-presence-in-syria-has-no-legal-grounds/5618997
"The establishment of the US base near the Syria-Jordan border [in the area of the Syrian town of al-Tanf] was publicly justified by the need to conduct operations against Islamic State. However, no information has been received about any US operations against the group conducted from this area. To the contrary, IS has been reported to operate freely in an area abutting the [US] base . On and off, militant groups supposedly trained by Americans in the area strike Syria government forces. The more US forces are in-theater in Syria, the greater the chance of conflict between them and Syrian troops."

[Nov 22, 2017] Drums Along the Euphrates

Notable quotes:
"... "USA protects SDF and ISIS east of the Euphrates and agreed that Russia won't fly over the area occupied by the US Forces in north-east Syria. USA is officially an occupation force in the Levant." ..."
"... "The United States is prepared to explore the possibility of establishing with Russia joint mechanisms for ensuring stability, including no-fly zones, on the ground ceasefire observers, and coordinated delivery of humanitarian assistance" ..."
Nov 22, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Earlier today this tweet by Elijiah Magnier caught my eye.

"USA protects SDF and ISIS east of the Euphrates and agreed that Russia won't fly over the area occupied by the US Forces in north-east Syria. USA is officially an occupation force in the Levant."

Seems the US and Russia have agreed to using the Euphrates as a de facto border between the SAA and its allies and the US-supported YPG/SDF at least for a while. This is in line with statements made by Tillerson prior to the G20 summit held on 7 July in Hamburg.

"The United States is prepared to explore the possibility of establishing with Russia joint mechanisms for ensuring stability, including no-fly zones, on the ground ceasefire observers, and coordinated delivery of humanitarian assistance"

This temporary arrangement makes sense for Damascus. There are still plenty of fires to extinguish on Syrian territory west of the Euphrates. Why spread their forces thin again just when they are now able to concentrate their forces to address those fires. Besides, there is still plenty of time for the negotiation and reconciliation process to achieve victory without further bloodshed. I have no doubt. Syria will be whole once again.

I'm sure CENTCOM sees this differently. I think the grand scheme was to establish an enduring US-controlled enclave encompassing all of Iraqi Kurdistan, Rojava and the Arab lands of eastern Syria. I bet there was a plan for establishing a new CENTCOM forward headquarters in Erbil to oversee this vast enclave. The premature Kurdish bid for independence blew a gaping hole in that plan. Iraqi Kurdistan lost its border with Syria. With that loss went CENTCOM's secure land route from Kirkuk and Erbil to its growing bases in northeast Syria.

Another purpose of this "CENTCOM Caliphate" was to prevent the establishment of a land route from Teheran to Damascus and on to Beirut. With the liberation of Abu Kamal by a combined force of SAA, IRGC, Hezbollah and allied militias, that part of the CENTCOM plan also floundered on the rocks. The presence of Qassem Soleimani at this victory must have been a bitter pill to swallow at CJTF -- OIR headquarters.

Another disappointment CENTCOM must face is their now useless base at Al Tanf and the Rukban refugee camp. This base was meant to support our "moderate jihadis" and to help prevent the establishment of the Shia Crescent. Another dream dashed. We are now faced with a near abandoned base and a dire and embarrassing humanitarian crisis at Rubkan.

CENTCOM has always wanted a major physical presence in their AOR. They've had that for a long time now, ever since Desert Storm. Prior to that, they were bitterly jealous of EUCOM and PACOM. They would be much smarter to forgo their dreams of forward-based grandeur and return to being a CONUS-based command headquarters controlling training, exercise and limited operational deployments in their AOR. And for God's sake, get out of Syria. Between the Astana meetings and the upcoming Sochi National Dialogue Conference, Russia has this covered.

TTG

[Nov 22, 2017] DECAMERON And Now, Calling to Start US War in Syria All Over Again

Notable quotes:
"... "Consistent with the Trump Administration's stated intention of pushing back against Iran's increasingly malign behavior throughout the Middle East, American policymakers urgently need to rebuild credibility and positions of strength by contesting Iran's rising influence across the region. Most urgently, the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria. Time is of the essence, as Iranian-backed forces recently have retaken nearly all the country, save lands liberated from Islamic State (IS) by the U.S.-led coalition. These, and any further, strategic gains threaten to entrench Tehran as the arbiter of postwar Syria and consolidate its control of a "land bridge" connecting Iran directly to Lebanon and Hezbollah." ..."
"... "The annual Generals and Admirals Program to the Middle East, in which recently retired American generals and admirals are invited to visit Israel with JINSA to meet the top echelon of the Israeli military and political leadership, ensures that the American delegation is well briefed on the security concerns of Israel, as well as the key role Israel plays as a friend and ally of the U.S. To date, JINSA has taken more than 400 retired officers to Israel, many of whom serve on JINSA's Board of Advisors." ..."
"... first -- JINSA." ..."
Nov 22, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

There are only a couple of dozen hardcore BORG-ists (to use Col Lang's useful description) trolling for war against Iran, but they are irrationally consistent. The names are familiar: Ledeen, Richard Perle, Woolsey, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), etc. Now, enter JINSA.

This week, another piece of the drive for war against Iran has manifested itself on the pages of the Jewish Institute for National Security for America (JINSA) www.jinsa.org , with a November 20, 2017 report, Countering Iranian Expansion in Syria. It says:

"Consistent with the Trump Administration's stated intention of pushing back against Iran's increasingly malign behavior throughout the Middle East, American policymakers urgently need to rebuild credibility and positions of strength by contesting Iran's rising influence across the region. Most urgently, the United States must impose real obstacles to Tehran's pursuit of total victory by the Assad regime in Syria. Time is of the essence, as Iranian-backed forces recently have retaken nearly all the country, save lands liberated from Islamic State (IS) by the U.S.-led coalition. These, and any further, strategic gains threaten to entrench Tehran as the arbiter of postwar Syria and consolidate its control of a "land bridge" connecting Iran directly to Lebanon and Hezbollah."

The heart of Israeli penetration of the U.S. national security sector has long been JINSA -- Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA). JINSA was founded in 1973, immediately following the outbreak of the Arab-Israeli War, to assure U.S. military support for all future Israeli wars. JINSA 's mission was to recruit large numbers of recently retired U.S. military officers to the Israeli cause, by, among other techniques, sponsoring all-expenses-paid junkets to Israel, or exchange programs at Israeli military academies. It is long term. It is steady. It keeps the same core directors. It is not distracted. It is a mostly-overlooked component of the Israel Lobby.

Today, the JINSA website boasts:

"The annual Generals and Admirals Program to the Middle East, in which recently retired American generals and admirals are invited to visit Israel with JINSA to meet the top echelon of the Israeli military and political leadership, ensures that the American delegation is well briefed on the security concerns of Israel, as well as the key role Israel plays as a friend and ally of the U.S. To date, JINSA has taken more than 400 retired officers to Israel, many of whom serve on JINSA's Board of Advisors."

JINSA's board is a hotbed of neo-cons, some of whom have been investigated for spying for the Israeli state. Board members include former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Steven D. Bryen, former National Security consultant Michael Ledeen, Bush-Cheney's director of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, Kenneth Timmerman, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. Steven Bryen's wife, Shoshanna Bryen was long time executive director of JINSA, involved in profiling likely military officers to be recruited to the junkets to Israel.

In 2001, after the 9/11 attack, JINSA's own website boasted of its dedication to the primacy of the US-Israeli relationship above all else. "Only one think tank puts the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship first -- JINSA."

On Sept. 12, 2001 JINSA issued a call for precisely the kind of U.S. war against the Arab world that has embroiled the U.S. in endless wars in the region. At that time, JINSA said the response to the 911 attack had to be larger than an attack on Al Qaeda's bases in Afghanistan: "The countries harboring and training [terrorists] include not just Afghanistan -- but Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, the Palestinian Authority, Libya, Algeria, friends Saudi Arabia and Egypt."

Get a score card, and see whether JINSA's interests have taken hold: Invasion of Iraq (2003), Regime change in Iran (still trying and 2017, the Number One priority), Syria (ongoing war to unseat Assad), Sudan (country divided), Libya (2011 overthrow of Qadaffi and failed state), Palestinian Authority (chaos and Jewish settlement expansion especially since the 2006 Hamas election victory), Egypt (two revolutions in two years, absolute economic desperation). Not targeted so far: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria (kind of).

No wonder Saudi Arabia's Salman team is salivating over making alliances with Netanyahu.

Posted at 01:07 PM in Decameron , Middle East Permalink Comments (1)

jjc said...

Israel hosted the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism way back in the summer of 1979 where the foundations of the War On Terror were set, although in that day the ultimate sponsor of international terrorism was said to be the Soviet Union. "The mortal danger to Western security and democracy posed by the worldwide scope of this international terrorist movement required an appropriate worldwide anti-terrorism offensive, consisting of the mutual coordination of Western military intelligence services."

This conference was hosted by Netanyahu and featured numerous high level Israeli politicians and military figures, as well as Americans such as Henry Jackson, George HW Bush, Richard Pipes, Ray Cline, and right-leaning officials from Britain and France. "US, Israeli and British elites were actively constructing 'international terrorism' as an ideology..." (see Nafeez Ahmed, War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism, pp 3-6)

[Nov 22, 2017] I think global alignments are changing fast, with MENA as the focal point. Every player has a different deck of cards than just 3 years ago. The over-riding trajectory of course is the ongoing fall of Pax Americana, and its replacement by a Pax Multiplicita.

Notable quotes:
"... The over-riding trajectory of course is the ongoing fall of Pax Americana, and its replacement by a Pax Multiplicita. Nobody really knows what the latter will look like, and so nations and their elite factions will be trying everything to jockey themselves into an advantageous position both internally and externally. We see this process everywhere, including in the USA itself as well as Europe and Asia. ..."
"... The resurrection of Syria and Iraq, under the wings of Russia and Iran, has shocked MENA. Things ain't what they used to be, and there's no going back. ..."
Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

@Erebus

Israel, Saudi Arabia Setting Preconditions for War with Hezbollah

I think something completely different is going on. Global alignments are changing fast, and MENA is currently at the focal point. Every player there is looking at a radically different deck of cards than the one in play just 3 years ago, and radically different players. Confusions reign, both internal and between nations. Events will move along a sum vector which is itself a sum of the various vectors their respective internal elite factions are pulling. Internal policy and power struggles will surface, and there will be lots of false signals. I think war with Iran/Hezbollah is one of them.

In such conditions, we can expect a lot of noise and very little signal, but the trajectories are coming clear. The over-riding trajectory of course is the ongoing fall of Pax Americana, and its replacement by a Pax Multiplicita. Nobody really knows what the latter will look like, and so nations and their elite factions will be trying everything to jockey themselves into an advantageous position both internally and externally. We see this process everywhere, including in the USA itself as well as Europe and Asia.

The resurrection of Syria and Iraq, under the wings of Russia and Iran, has shocked MENA. Things ain't what they used to be, and there's no going back. The KSA, as both the linchpin of Pax Americana's dollar system, and as the least socially developed country in MENA faces the greatest challenges in adapting itself to whatever is coming next. Its demographics are a powder keg, with more than 50% of the disenfranchised population <25 yrs of age and chaffing under a medieval death cult that has ruled for a century. It is now or never for the KSA. Change now, or societal chaos and a bloody collapse will be the KSA's contribution to Pax Multiplicita.

I think the new Crown Prince understands that, and while still wet-behind-the-ears is determined to change it Now! He's no Wahhabi, and he recognizes Wahhabism for the dead end it is. Last month, in a speech to an investment forum in Riyadh he declared:

"We will return to the former state of affairs, to moderate Islam, which is open to the world, and all other religions. We will not wait for 30 years, we will swiftly deal a blow to extremist ideologies,"
Let those words sink in. No Saudi, royal or otherwise, has dared to utter their equal. In the event, swift he was. He drained the Saudi swamp in a (fort)night of the long knives, reportedly incarcerating 2400+ elites, including some of the wealthiest and most powerful, 1000 Imams and 30+ Generals. That alone is a remarkable fact, showing he has shrewdly developed a like-thinking power base under the noses of the KSA's Pax Americana sycophants and fanatical Wahhabis. This is not a man to be trifled with.

By way of international support, the old King made what amounted to pilgrimages to Beijing and then to Moscow to seek their blessing (inter alia). In Beijing he got $120B+ in commitments for development projects, in Moscow he got cooperation in oil markets and (crucially) S-400 Air Defense systems. After his "palace coup" he got words of support, with Xi Jingping being particularly warmly supportive.

Yes he's young, inexperienced, and has had to fight internal battles we'll never know about which no doubt contributed to some of his apparent international blunders, but to think that he will now willingly opt for war with a Moscow ally is to think him either mad, or an imbecile. I don't think he's either. He's delivering Trumpian campaign promises to the KSA (to the wild approval of the country's youth) and quite probably suckering the Israelis into a stupid move while at it.

Watch that space. It's cooking.

Thirdeye

The term "Pax Americana" seems ironic because of the lack of Pax in the post Cold War era of America pushing the limits of its power projection. Maybe a better term would be "Bellus Americana."

[Nov 22, 2017] Boy, Is This Stupid or What, by Philip Giraldi

Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

Boy, Is This Stupid or What? Did the US allow ISIS to escape to keep the fighting going? Philip Giraldi November 21, 2017 1,600 Words

Americans have been living in a country that has not known peace since 9/11, when President George W. Bush and his posse of neoconservatives delivered the message to the world that "you are either with us or against us." The threat was coupled with flurry of hastily conceived legislation that opened the door to the unconstitutional "war on terror" carried out at the whim of the Chief Executive, a conflict which was from the start conceived of as a global military engagement without end.

Bush and his handlers might not have realized it at the time but they were initiating a completely new type of warfare. To be sure, there would be fighting on the ground worldwide against an ideologically driven enemy somewhat reminiscent of communism, but there would also be included "regime change" of governments in countries that were not completely on board with the direction coming out of Washington. Instead of invading and occupying a country in the old-fashioned way, so the thinking went, far better to just knock off the top levels and let the natives sort things out while acting under direction from the pros in Washington.

Even though "regime change" in Iraq and Afghanistan did not work out very well, Bush saw himself as a triumphant war leader with his vainglorious "Mission Accomplished," and he later dubbed himself the "decider." He insisted that his reelection in 2004 when running against a weak John Kerry was a validation of his policies by the American people, but one has to wonder how many voters really understood that they were signing on for perpetual war that would of necessity also diminish their most cherished liberties.

Nobel Peace Prize winner and U.S. President Barack Obama followed Bush and made it clear that there would be no stepping back from a policy of proactively "protecting" the American people. Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton destroyed Libya, a disaster that is still playing out, increased involvement in Syria, and introduced death by drone for both American citizens who have transgressed and random foreigners who fit a profile. And to eliminate any pushback to what he was doing, Obama relied on invoking the state secrets privilege to block legal challenges more times than all his predecessors in office combined.

And now we have President Donald Trump, whose foreign policy is particularly unarticulated, though in many ways similar to that of his predecessors. The United States is increasing its involvement in Afghanistan, where it has been engaged for longer than in any previous war, is threatening both Iran and North Korea with annihilation, and is hopelessly entangled in Trump's pledge to completely eliminate ISIS. Indeed, destroying ISIS (and al-Qaeda) has been the one clearly articulated part of the Trump foreign policy, though there are also occasional assertions that it should be accompanied by yet one more try at regime change in Damascus.

And the grand tradition of using military might to back up diplomacy has certainly found little favor, so much so that it is certainly clear even to the supine American public and a risk averse congress that there is something wrong in Foggy Bottom. It is astonishing to note the mainstream media, which reviled George W. Bush when he was in office, describing him currently as a voice of moderation and restraint due to his recent criticism of the White House. You can't go wrong if you pile on Trump.

Even the U.S. media has been reluctantly reporting that ISIS has been rolled back in Syria by the joint efforts of the Syrian Army and the Russian air force with the United States and its allies playing very much secondary roles in the conflict. The Russians have, in fact, complained that Washington seemed just a tad disinterested in actually cooperating to destroy the last remnants of ISIS in the few areas that the group still controls, citing most recently an alleged incident during the Syrian government liberation of the town of Abu Kamal in which U.S. air assets on site appear to have allowed ISIS fighters to escape.

The shambles of American policy as it applies to the Middle East was highlighted by yet another similar and particularly bizarre episode that was revealed initially by the BBC on Monday of last week. In early October, when the Syrians and Russians were closing in from the west on Raqqa, the "capital" of the ISIS caliphate while the U.S supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which predominantly consists of the Kurdish militias, was closing in from the east, a deal was reportedly struck to permit an evacuation of the remaining ISIS fighters and their families.

According to the BBC investigative report , the SDF and Kurds were wary of clearing out the remaining fighters from the ruins of the city and so negotiated an agreement whereby the ISIS fighters from Syria and Iraq and their families would be able to leave and be allowed to either go home and face the consequences or proceed to ISIS controlled areas about one hundred miles away. The objective was to avoid a final assault from the air and using artillery that would have produced a bloodbath killing thousands, including large numbers of civilians. The agreement stipulated that only ISIS fighters who were local would be allowed to leave. Others, referred to as "foreigners," from Europe, Africa or Asia would have to surrender in order to avoid their going free and getting involved in new terrorist activity after returning home.

U.S. and British military advisers who were with the SDF and Kurds reported, somewhat improbably, that they had not been party to the negotiations, that it was "all-locals," though they later admitted that there had been some involvement on their part. In the event, trucks and busses were assembled on October 14 th , formed into a convoy, and were loaded with more than 4,000 fighters and families. More than 100 ISIS-owned vehicles also were allowed to leave and there were ten trucks filled with weapons. The convoy stretched for more than four miles and film footage shows trucks pulling trailers filled with militants brandishing their weapons. The fighters were not allowed to display flags or banners but they were not forced to disarm and in fact loaded all the vehicles with as many weapons as they could carry, so much so that one truck broke its axle from the weight. The BBC reported that "This wasn't so much an evacuation – it was the exodus of so-called Islamic State."

The drivers reported that they were abused by the ISIS fighters, many of whom were wearing explosive belts, and they also claimed that there was a large percentage of foreigners among those escaping. Various drivers told the BBC that there were French, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Pakistani, Yemeni, Saudi, Chinese, Tunisian and Egyptian nationals among their passengers. The evacuees made it safely to ISIS controlled territory and presumably will be ready, willing and able to fight again.

The escape of the Islamic State from Raqqa is, to put it mildly, bizarre. One might accept that avoiding the carnage that would have been part and parcel of an assault on the shattered city should have weighed heavily on the decision making by the attacking forces, but allowing hardened fighters to escape with their weapons would hardly seem a good way to end the conflict. In May, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis said on television that the war against ISIS was one of " annihilation. Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to north Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa. We are not going to allow them to do so."

Well, Mattis was possibly lying back then, or at least saying what he thought would play well on television and in the newspapers. On November 14 th , the day after the BBC story about Raqqa broke, he lied again, saying that the United States is in Syria under a U.N. authorization to fight ISIS, which is not true. The Russians have been invited into the country by its legitimate government but the U.S. is not there legally. The Turks are claiming that there are 13 U.S. military bases already in Syria, some of which are permanent.

Mattis added to his bit of fiction by stating , somewhat ominously, that while the first phase of the ISIS war is coming to an end "Basically we can go after ISIS. And we're there to take them out. But that doesn't mean we just walk away and let ISIS 2.0 pop back around. The enemy hasn't declared they're done with the war yet. So, we'll keep fighting them as long as they want to fight."

A waggish friend of mine suggested that Mattis might be deliberately selectively releasing ISIS fighters so the U.S. will never have to leave Syria, but my own theory is somewhat different. I think that Washington, which has done so little to defeat ISIS, wants some threat to continue so it can keep its own "resistance forces" in place and active to give it a seat at the table and a voice at the upcoming Geneva discussions for a political settlement in Syria. Otherwise Washington will be outside looking in. The unspeakable Nikki Haley at the U.N. appears to endorse that line of thinking by asserting that Washington will continue "to fight for justice" in Syria no matter what the rest of the world decides to do.

Does this mean that we can expect considerable fumbling and a game with no exit strategy, something like a replay of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? You betcha.

Cloak And Dagger , November 21, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT

Another great article, Phil! I hope those jerks at TAC with their rapidly declining readership are realizing how idiotic it was to fire you.

Your waggish friend may have a point, but there are several parties that would benefit from the continuing conflict in that region:

– Arms manufacturers lose money in times of peace, so the MIC is clearly an important beneficiary.
- Israel benefits as long as there is chaos in the Middle East and no unification of its enemies. It also benefits by keeping the boogeyman alive so that it can continue to siphon off our largesse in terms of military aid "to defend itself".
- The US government benefits by continuing to have a reason to be there in order to thwart Russia's growing influence in the region.
- The Russians benefit by continuing to demonstrate their military prowess and gaining both allies in the region as well as customers for their advanced weaponry.

Who doesn't benefit?

- We and our fellow citizens don't, as our taxes continue to fund this mayhem while our own economy and our standard of living plummets (except for the elite).
- The people of that region continue to live their lives in hell without any normalcy, and so see no benefits.
- The European countries become hosts to the tide of refugees escaping from the region, mixed with enough mischief makers to increase social tension in major European cities, so the Europeans don't benefit.

Wouldn't it be great if we could get rid of our war-mongering interventionists, fueled by Israel-firsters, and gain influence in the world as China does, by focusing on trade instead of wars? Couldn't we just buy the resources we need as China does, rather than stealing them by force from others?

Couldn't we, once more, become manufacturers and traders, rather than mercenaries for Israel? That would Make America Great Again .

If wishes were horses

chris , November 21, 2017 at 6:12 am GMT

"The enemy hasn't declared they're done with the war yet. So, we'll keep fighting them as long as they want [us] to fight."

I think, maybe 'Mad Dog' was talking about Israel here.

MEexpert , November 21, 2017 at 6:49 am GMT
As long the axis of evil consisting of "the most moral and exceptional nation," "the nation with the best and moral army," and "the nation of corruption fighters" continues to dominate the world scene the Muslim blood will continue to be spilt. I could have never imagined that the United States will lose every fiber of decency and morality for the sake of few AIPAC dollars.

The American public is brain dead. If you repeat lies enough times they become the truth and the American public will swallow it hook-line and sinker.

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

Syrian President Assad gassed his people

US is in Syria by UN consent

US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia/UAE are fighting terrorism

Iran has nuclear weapons

These are few of the lies that have been told by our politicians and the MSM. Just ask any average American and he will tell you that yes these are true statements. As long as the present state of affairs continues the mayhem in the Middle East will continue.

I am not at all surprised that the US and her allies helped escape ISIS fighters. Remember that ISIS, AL-Qaeda and all the other alphabet fighters were created by the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. These three have to protect their investment of man-power and weapons to be used some other place. In Fourteen years, ISIS or Al-Qaeda has never attacked Israel. Coincidence? Hmmmm.

How do we stop it? The only way to end this slaughter of innocent Muslims is by eliminating every zionist/neocon from the face of this earth. As long as even one zionist/neocon remains he will sprout up evereywhere and continue this corruption. And, please spare me the indignation at my calling Muslims "innocent." Before the Palestinian issue there were no hijackings, kidnappings, or killings of non-Muslim by Muslims. This started when the benevolent Western nations got rid of the Jews from the Europe and put them in the Middle east.

Does this mean that we can expect considerable fumbling and a game with no exit strategy, something like a replay of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya?

Yes, indeed.

jilles dykstra , November 21, 2017 at 7:58 am GMT
IS in my opinion is an idea, the idea that western neocolonialism cannot be accepted.
One cannot contain ideas, moreover, as Keynes already understood, 'ideas are the most powerful forces in the world'.
There is a british expression, what confirms this, I think, 'one can do a lot with bayonets, except sit on them'.
So indeed, the USA industrial military complex, against which Eisenhower in his farewell speech already warned, may welcome an ongoing war.
The USA taxpayer pays with money, low income USA citizens also pay with blood and disabilities.
Alfred , November 21, 2017 at 8:51 am GMT
This article is based on a false premise – that the USA is an enemy of ISIS and al-Qaeda etc. That is nonsense.

Here is the ex-prime minister of Qatar – an ally of the USA – and one of the richest men in the world admitting that the USA and its allies (including Qatar) created, trained, equipped and financed the terrorists in Syria.

A few days ago, former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Qatar Hamad Bin Jassim in an interview with the BBC announced that his country had been providing all sorts of assistance to the armed opposition groups in Syria through Turkey for years. At the same time, Doha wasn't alone to show its supports to anti-Assad forces, as it was joined by the United States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE and Turkey itself. All this began back in 2007 after Israel suffered a humiliating defeat in South Lebanon, while being unable to overcome Hezbollah's resistance in 2006. According to the former Qatari Prime Minister, Qatar was in charge of the so-called "Syrian Dossier" on behalf of the US and Saudi Arabia, adding that he had access to both American and Saudi paperwork on the staging of a so-called "Syrian civil war."

"Revelations of a High-Profile Qatari Official Reveal a Wider anti-Syria Conspiracy"

https://journal-neo.org/2017/11/18/revelations-of-a-high-profile-qatari-officials-reveal-a-wider-anti-syria-conspiracy/

Greg Bacon , Website November 21, 2017 at 9:33 am GMT
300 ISIS thugs moved by the USAF and the CIA into Europe, maybe even the USA, where they can be counted on to be used as patsy's for a decades worth of False Flags, or maybe even let them do the killing and terrorizing, since they have experience in murdering women and children in Syria and Iraq.

This is the USG at work, setting up terrorist networks in Syria and Iraq and paying the Taliban off in Afghanistan so they can have an excuse to keep that phony war going, in order to keep US troops there guarding those poppy fields which those TBTF Wall Street banks need so they can launder the illegal drug profits and stay afloat.
Now that the Zionists Yinon Project in Syria has failed, looks like Israel will have to use other intrigues to keep its theft of Syrian and Lebanese land vital and ongoing.

The real terrorist isn't some guy shouting Allahu Akbar™ and detonating his suicide vest or driving his truck into people, it's the scuzzy POS USG that has become nothing more than a vicious gangster outfit that is using terrorism to scare the hell out of Americans so we'll keep cowering in fear, while the thieves rob us blind and wreck our economy and nation and get us ever so closer to a state of complete tyranny.

Z-man , November 21, 2017 at 9:49 am GMT
Yeah I noticed that story and I wonder why the BBC didn't follow up with some pointed questions to the US Defense Department, 'slurpy dog' Mattis et al. Are they all in cahoots??

The unspeakable Nikki Haley

LOL and so true. She is Trump's Hillary Rotten Clinton that Obama disappointedly put in at 'State' 9 years ago. Wow, 9 years time flies!
On a side note Charlie Rose is the latest 'celebrity' to get the 'sexual abuse' ax. I had written a post on The Myth of American Meritocracy article by Ron Unz just a few days ago pointing out Charlie Rose's connections to CBS, so double LOL!! Charlie being a crypto Zionist makes his predicament extra special. (Very wide grin)

LondonBob , November 21, 2017 at 10:01 am GMT
I wonder if Cheney and Rumsfeld are pleased Bush junior has claimed full credit for all his foreign policy disasters. It would be nice if Obama gave up his ludicrous Nobel peace prize and instead offered it to Admiral Fallon.

Lets hope those US troops don't go home in body bags, but I am not sure whether there is anyone there to remind Trump of his commitment that US troops were just there to fight IS.

Biff , November 21, 2017 at 10:17 am GMT

Nobel Peace Prize winner and U.S. Corporate house negro Barack Obama followed Bush and made it clear that there would be no stepping back from a policy of proactively "protecting" the American people.

There I fixed it for ya. Do you really think that the owners are going to give what they consider a ni ** er from Chicago any real power?

Frontmen stooges – all of them.

Twodees Partain , November 21, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT
It seems that the American "intelligence community" is trying to protect its ISIS forces in order to avoid future problems with recruitment. If they allowed these ISIS soldiers to be captured or killed, they'd have a hard time putting together another such army in the future. Even muslim fanatics would have sense enough to know that they were being set up for abandonment and betrayal should they join the next CIA army in a regime change project..
Jake , November 21, 2017 at 12:23 pm GMT
The Saudis would ally with Satan himself, signing in their own blood, agreeing to give tens of thousands of their poorest children to Satan for direct use, as well as promising all the Shia and Christian children they could round up, in order to take out the Assad family and use Syria as Base Camp for the destruction of Iran and Shiite Mohammedanism.

The Israelis want the Assads ousted as much as do the Saudis and are as happy as the Saudis to pervert everything they touch in order to get the job done.

The Americans look on with parental delight at the two main products of WASP hegemony over the Middle East, handed from the English to the Yanks.

jacques sheete , November 21, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT
Sorry to nitpick , PG ,and sorry to be so redundant, but I must once again appeal to authors to quit calling the presstitutes and cesspool media "mainstream."

It is the voice of plutoligarchs and is in no rational way, mainstream. The term lends an air of credibility to utter trash when it deserves, instead, to be discredited at every opportunity.

jacques sheete , November 21, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT
@Twodees Partain

Even muslim fanatics would have sense enough to know that they were being set up for abandonment and betrayal should they join the next CIA army in a regime change project..

This is the first time I've ever seen that concept in print, but it is as valid as it is obvious. I've often wondered what motivated people to sign on with the world's most corrupt entities when it's obvious that they are not and probably never have been reliable or trustworthy partners.

The US betrays its allies, the Arab peoples, just as it betrayed the Philippine freedom fighters (against the Spanish Empire) 20 years previously.:

CAIRO, Egypt, May 27, -- The last hope of 30,000,000 Arabs to win freedom for their race without further bloodshed vanished when cables from Washington announced that the United States had concluded an agreement with Great Britain The Arabs came into the war on the side of the allies against their Turkish co-religionists in- response to the allies' promise of freedom The Arab support" was determined and effective."

Newspaper article by Junius B. Wood on the American recognition of Britain's mandate in Palestine, Chicago Daily News,27 May 1922 (also The Sunday Star, Washington)

http://dcollections.oberlin.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/kingcrane/id/1686/rec/18

Incredulous Phil , November 21, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT
this site is an odd mix of excellent analysis and obvious nonsense for angry dullards.

this article is the latter.

"all war is deception" -some Asian fella

keep howling at the moon!

(((they're))) coming for your guns!

hahahahahaaaaa

Erebus , November 21, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT
@Alfred

You beat me to it.

I was going to post this Zerohedge version, which includes parts of the interview in translation, and other juicy tidbits.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-28/shocking-viral-interview-qatar-confesses-secrets-behind-syrian-war

Here's another, that dates back to the time when Qatar was isolated by the GCC (probably not a coincidence).

https://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/us-and-gulf-allies-supported-islamist-extremists-syria-qatars-ex-prime-minister

All 3 links are worth reading to get a picture of the resources and organization a rather sordid coalition of govts applied to regime change in Syria, and what their failure may come to mean. Assad stood up against a formidable force, and eventually outsmarted them by putting together an even smarter coalition.

One hopes Syria sues them all for reparations.

n230099 , November 21, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT
This piece hits on something some friends and I spoke of years ago. We said then, this ISIS is the neocolonialists new 'moneymaker'. When ISIS started holding up severed heads they knew they'd found gold or struck oil as they say.
Wizard of Oz , November 21, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT
"diminish their most precious liberties". Would you care, PG, to spell out what you mean and why you nominate the particular liberties you identify as "their most precious".

How many Americans do you think have been materially affected, and care, and how many care even if not affected personally?

neprof , November 21, 2017 at 2:00 pm GMT
Interesting article about Putin's meeting with Bashar al-Assad at a Sochi resort:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-21/putin-holds-surprise-meeting-assad-will-call-trump-phone-later-tuesday

Putin to talk to Trump via phone today.

Michael Kenny , November 21, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT
Logically, the US would want to keep on good terms with ISIS so as to be able to use it later against Putin in Syria (or Chechnya!). As always, Putin is the centrepiece of the problem. Ukraine? Syria? Iran? North Korea? No Putin, no problem.
DESERT FOX , November 21, 2017 at 2:15 pm GMT
The fact is that ISIS aka AL CIADA was created by the U.S. and Israel and Britain ie the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI 6 to be their proxy mercenaries to do regime change and this is what they did at a cost of thousands of American servicemen and millions of civilians dead and over 6 TRILLION dollars pissed away for the benefit of ISRAEL and the Zionist bankers and the Zionist controlled MIC.

The Zionists control the U.S. and this was proven by the coverup of the attack on the USS LIBERTY and the coverup of ISRAELS attack on the WORLD TRADE CENTER on 911, there is no end to the hell that Zionist Israel will inflict on America.

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT
@chris

The Coalition of Dishonest, US & Israel, are trying to protect their investment, ISIS:
"The Russians have, in fact, complained that Washington seemed just a tad disinterested in actually cooperating to destroy the last remnants of ISIS in the few areas that the group still controls, citing most recently an alleged incident during the Syrian government liberation of the town of Abu Kamal in which U.S. air assets on site appear to have allowed ISIS fighters to escape."

The US brass has been exposed as a bunch of liars:
"In May, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis said on television that the war against ISIS was one of " annihilation. Our intention is that the foreign fighters do not survive the fight to return home to north Africa, to Europe, to America, to Asia, to Africa. We are not going to allow them to do so." Well, Mattis was possibly lying back then, or at least saying what he thought would play well on television and in the newspapers. On November 14th, the day after the BBC story about Raqqa broke, he lied again, saying that the United States is in Syria under a U.N. authorization to fight ISIS, which is not true."

The US has become an internationally recognize liar and aggressor. Thanks, Israel.

Meanwhile, in Russia: "I'd like to introduce you to the people who played a key part in saving Syria," Putin told Assad as he introduced the men in green uniforms. "Of course, Mr. Assad knows some of you personally. He told me during our talks today that thanks to the Russian Army, Syria has been saved as a state." Assad used the opportunity to relay the gratitude of his government and the Syrian people to those involved in the two-year operation in the war-torn nation. "I would like to underline the effort made by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, the sacrifices they have made," he said." https://www.rt.com/news/410467-putin-assad-meet-syria/

Avery , November 21, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

{ to use it later against Putin in Syria}

You just woke up from hibernation?
US has been using ISIS in Syria for 4-5 years against Assad, and Putin's AF has been chopping the head-choppers to little of chunks of burnt swine.
Unfortunately the number of ISIS cannibals available for pulverizing by RuAF has greatly diminished lately: just when Russian AF was getting warmed up, they ran out of juicy ISIS targets.

{(or Chechnya!)}

Wow (!).
Are you delusional or what (!!).

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT
Whom does the US military really fight against in Syria? – Not the ISIS, for sure. https://southfront.org/syrian-war-al-bukamal-is-liberated-what-now/
"The at-Tanf area on the Syrian-Iraqi border is controlled by the US-led coalition and a few US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) groups. FSA units are concentrated around the US garrison at at-Tanf and in the nearby refugee camp. The US says that it needs this garrison to fight ISIS while in fact it is just preventing Syria and Iraq from using the Damascus-Baghdad highway as a supply line. US forces respond with airstrikes and shelling to any Syrian Arab Army (SAA) attempts to reach at-Tanf."
Anonymous , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
This is a great article, although it would be easier to understand with ✡proper✡ punctuation, e.g., (((posse of neo-cohens))), (((ISIS))), (((US media))).
Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT
@Erebus

Agree.
The Nuremberg Protocols have set the precedent for reparations for the Jews.
Syria has been a victim of the US/Israel/Saudis aggression. Time to pay for the destruction and slaughtered civilians of all ages. .

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

It is not so much the US that "want to keep on good terms with ISIS" in Syria. It is the Jewish state that wants Syria to disintegrate. Have not you heard the Israelis' squealing about "bad Iran?" – Here we are. Israelis/Israel-firsters want to keep the US fighting for Jewish Lebensraum in the Middle East.

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT
@Avery

He is just a regular Israel-firster. For Mr. Kenny, the humanity be sacrificed in the name of the apartheid Jewish State.

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 3:06 pm GMT
More on the situation in Syria and the phony "war on terror:" https://www.globalresearch.ca/saudi-israeli-friendship-is-driving-the-rest-of-the-middle-east-together/5619176
"Mohammed bin Salman, son of King Salman, began his internal purge of the Kingdom's elite by removing from the line of succession Bin Nayef, a great friend of the US intelligence establishment (Brennan and Clapper). Bin Nayef was a firm partner of the US deep state. Saudi Arabia has for years worked for the CIA, advancing US strategic goals in the region and beyond. Thanks to the cooperation between Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, Bin Nayef, and US intelligence agencies, Washington has for years given the impression of fighting against Islamist terrorist while actually weaponizing jihadism since the 1980s by deploying it against rival countries like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the Iraqi government in 2014, the Syrian state in 2012, and Libya's Gaddafi in 2011 ."
Zumbuddi , November 21, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT
I meant to AGREE to #27, not 28.

Israel's evil schemes and malign influence of Izzie lovers are real enough, but the American people have got to grow up & grow a pair -- realize that their representatives are themselves corrupt & warmongering for evil, unlawful motives.

bliss_porsena , November 21, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT
A four-mile long convoy and who stood down the Russkies?
Chu , November 21, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT
It Never ends
JoaoAlfaiate , November 21, 2017 at 4:26 pm GMT
Simply the continuation of the US policy of Obama/Clinton under a new administration designed to weaken or remove the Syrian Gov't for Israel's benefit. The Israelis routinely treat ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters and return them to the battlefield while shelling the Syrian Arab Army whenever they have an excuse. Same stuff, different day.
TruthtellerAryan , November 21, 2017 at 4:37 pm GMT
Hi PG, great observation. They can't kill all their "hitman thugs", the mass bombing was not done to destroy ISIS, a group that was created by ZIA, Mossad, and Wahabi thugs to destroy the ME, kill as many Muslim civilians and others, and send the rest packing to Europe, while keeping the "fake war on terror " alive and kicking. Russia and Iran have put their noses in a " well thought plan", spoilers that have to be dealt with. But their hands can only reach Iran , except it might burn.
Letting ISIS go unmolested is one proof they are in cahoots
Anyone announcing, "ISIS is our greatest threat " and calling those helping get rid of this threat as a "threat ", that's a definite suspect.
ISIS is only continuing the 9/11 narrative. Iran and Russia have to be stopped at any cost, the Zionists have to fulfill their dreams .
anonymous , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT
@Zumbuddi

An idea that the Christian West will exorcise itself from Judenevil, is simply not rooted in reality. See what happened with Christian Italy's opposition to BDS, a moral cause, clearly a Juden vs Muslim cause.

The Christian West fears Islam the most, not as a nations conquering power, but as a spiritual mind conquering power, given Islam's undeniable focus on true monotheism an ideological power which Christendom finds itself impotent against, given it own foundations in pagan polytheism.

Even if we agree that Europeans for the most part will never accept true monotheism, but would rather wallow in the godlessness of Atheism, Gnosticism, or whatever, as is happening now, the fact that by numbers alone Christianity would play second fiddle to Islam, would be psychologically crushing to the supremacist West, a culture which prides its glory on its Christian faith.

The Christian West has no such fear of Judenism, the exclusive membership cult , even if Juden faithful clearly revile their "deity," and his holy mother, herself a perceived "deity," no less. Your nations will always keep Judens close (sure, preferably not inside), because that cult will always remain the implacable enemies of Islam (you know, enemy of my enemy, and all).

So, why does the Christian West fear Islam's consistent message of True Monotheism? Because, I believe most Christians know that at its core, their faith is simply, Polytheism.

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/db0_onegod.htm

http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/m01_religion.htm

renfro , November 21, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT
" I think that Washington, which has done so little to defeat ISIS, wants some threat to continue so it can keep its own "resistance forces" in place and active to give it a seat at the table and a voice at the upcoming Geneva discussions for a political settlement in Syria.">>

You are 100% Philip.
And Isr'merica has to keep terriers alive and well to continue 'the threat' to civilization.

TruthtellerAryan , November 21, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

Right on. And all the espionage that have been going on and covered up for decades.

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT
Jews or Jewish "converts" in the thousands from France and other European countries have joined ISIS, which should tell you all there is to know about ISIS. Only reason for a Muslim to join ISIS is if they are a government agent of a Western or West-supported puppet country . any other type of Muslim joining this CIA created bullshit called "isis" is just plain a hopeless fool
Sane Left Libertarian , November 21, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT
We're probably now in a permanent state of war, until we go the way of the USSR. With fewer and fewer civilian peacetime jobs that actually pay the rent available, the MIMC (Military-Industrial-Media Complex) is the only thing keeping the economy from flatlining. As others have pointed out, cui bono? Read Kevin Phillips' House of Bush, House of Saud for some background. You can bet the Bush family is making money off of it.
Talha , November 21, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT
@anonymous

The Christian West fears Islam the most

I think you are making this far too intellectual. I don't think many people operate at this level.

The reason why most people in the West fear Islam is likely because too many Muslims have done a piss-poor job in becoming boons for their host countries and too many act like jack-asses (and dangerous ones at that).

Our community needs to do some serious self-reflection and reign in some of the idiot youth we have running around before we start taking it up to the level of debate about theological points. Nobody's going to listen to you debate Trinitarianism if they are afraid you're looking to steal their lunch money.

Read up on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

You are trying to punch way above where we are at right now. Trust me, people who are dissatisfied with Trinitariansim don't need advertising.

Wa salaam.

TruthtellerAryan , November 21, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Troll!!!!

Astuteobservor II , November 21, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT
the goal is to mess syria up, just like libya, iraq and all the other countries in the ME. for the 17 years of continuous wars waged by the us, the ME will take at least a few decades just to recover to pre 2003 lvls. and the 17 years isn't the end. this will continue. turkey almost got taken over in a us backed insurrection. when russia got involved in syria, that wasn't just a wrench in the american planning cogs, that was like a wrecking ball.

when I look at pictures and videos of the devastation, I get the feeling we are evil as fuck as a country.

ps: look at yemen. that is a proxi war too by using SA. all the deaths in that country is also on us.

Cloak And Dagger , November 21, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Were you born an idiot or did you go to college?

Cloak And Dagger , November 21, 2017 at 5:43 pm GMT
@Chu

Something tells me that the end is approaching. It won't be pleasant for us, though.

Flavius , November 21, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT
It's not or what, Phil. It's incorrigible stupidity.
When the US Government playmaker is an amalgam of the Quiet and the Ugly American and has charged himself with 'doing something about' changing political and social conditions in a country he knows nothing about, considers himself too superior to learn anything about, and knows that he personally will be immune from the consequences of failure, decapitation as a policy comes readily and easily to his mind: Ngo Dinh Diem; Saddam Hussein; Muammar Qaddafi. Sometimes when decapitation seems to be not immediately practicable, he takes out an option on the future with mere demonization: Assad; of course Putin; countless others.
But this has to be on Trump. Russia, China and the far east, the Middle East are now policy realities that are unfolding on his watch. He entered office without political friends and surrounded himself with generals and family whose only favorable qualification is that they are not generals: the very predictable results have not been impressive. I can only surmise that the execrable Nikki Haley holds a chip against her firing. The woman cannot open her mouth without causing real fear that there is literally no reasonable person in our entire foreign policy apparatus who is holding the reins.
The trajectory does not look good. If there is someone out there who could point to a calamity averting firewall in this Administration, a George Schultz, a Jim Baker, just somebody who is recognizably adult, stable and sane and is not a general, I would very much like to know who it is. I would sleep better.
Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 6:30 pm GMT
@Michael Kenny

Israeli parasite: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/11/httpssouthfrontorgisraels-military-expenditures-and-military-industrial-complex-overview-and-dynamics.html
"The biggest element of US-Israeli military-technical cooperation is military aid. Israel is the main recipient of US military aid in the form of grants and direct deliveries of equipment on advantageous terms. Since 1976, Israel has been the biggest recipient of annual US aid, and since 1987 of US military aid. In addition, by some estimates Israel receives $1 billion a year in the form of charity contributions, and a similar sum through short- and long-term funds. US provide aid to Israel in various forms: Foreign Military Sales, Direct Commercial Sales, Excess Defense Articles, and also funds to support research and development. Moreover, the Foreign Military Financing program implemented by the US Department of State has become, over the years, the largest of all such programs implemented by the US. One should note that, for example, out of $5.7 billion budgeted for this program in 2014, $3.1 went to Israel, In other words, Israel obtains more military assistance through this program than the rest of the world combined. This sum does not include the financing for Israel's ABM programs, which are estimated at another $500 million. Unlike other programs, FMF allows Israel to spend up to 25% of US-provided funding on own military programs. All other countries receiving military aid must spend it only on US weapons and equipment."

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

From Sic Semper Tyrannis: http://turcopolier.typepad.com
" what's theirs [Israelis] is theirs, and what's yours is theirs as well. I don't doubt that US government gifts to Israel benefit American defense industry, but these gifts come right out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and what do we get for it? Israeli forces are in no way at the disposition of the US. They are not assets of American policy. Israel sees itself as an self-defining island in the world and the only real home for Jews. As such it thinks it cannot afford to be sentimental about any predominately gentile state, in other words, all others. And then, there is the repeated phenomenon of Israel either skirting the provisions of proprietary agreements about equipment sales or shared R&D or simply outright violations of these agreements in sales to third parties."
– In short, Israelis are cheaters and thieves and no friends to the US; they are just parasites.

phil , November 21, 2017 at 7:13 pm GMT
@Incredulous Phil

Please improve the site by making constructive comments.

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT
I guess the Iranian president's statement is premature then.

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2017/11/21/iran-declares-the-end-of-islamic-state-in-live-state-tv-broadcast/?utm

Zumbuddi , November 21, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT
@anonymous

Agree with Talha that you are over thinking the situation. Wouldn't have used the Maslow thing, but no matter --

imo religion-theology-sectarian conflict are at the bottom of barrel in explaining the wars.
Muslims are pissed at USA/West because USA/WEST INVADED them & killed their people. It's not much more complicated then that.
It is hideous that Islam is demonized and Muslims made the fall guy -- that is a specialty of Jews–drumming up gut-level hate. Other cultures use propaganda in war -- Romans did,Napoleon was a master propagandist.
But Jews (no, not Nazis/ Goebbels but Jews)own the franchise on ginning up hate.

In the '60s and '70s US universities overflowed with Iranian Paki Indian grad students. It was a dynamic time. Now Jews are all over our best universities & it"s ugly.

But my original point was, American citizens have to take responsibility for the CRIMES of their leaders.

Art , November 21, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

Couldn't we, once more, become manufacturers and traders, rather than mercenaries for Israel? That would Make America Great Again .

Sorry – but Trump has one giant chink in his armor – he is Netanyahu's fluffer – he supports the Jew's hardon for humanity.

Think Peace -- Art

Delinquent Snail , November 21, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT
@MEexpert

Pretty sure the people of spain would disagree with "Before the Palestinian issue there were no hijackings, kidnappings, or killings of non-Muslim by Muslims. This started when the benevolent Western nations got rid of the Jews from the Europe and put them in the Middle east." the crusades werent just Christians fighting Muslims, muslims pushed back and did more damage then the european Christians did.

Delinquent Snail , November 21, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMT
@Anon

" US/Israel/Saudis aggression. Time to pay for the destruction .."

As long as payment is put up by our "leaders" and not the average american, i agree. Start building the gallows!

Delinquent Snail , November 21, 2017 at 8:27 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

It is the mainstream tho. We know it is bullshit, but its still the main "news" outlet. They controll the narrative, and they have the majority of listeners/watchers. That makes them mainstream.

Mainstream doesn't have to mean "good", "honest" or "accurate", just popular and widely consumed.

c matt , November 21, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT
@MEexpert

I could have never imagined that the United States will lose every fiber of decency and morality for the sake of few AIPAC dollars.

Imagination has nothing to do with it – it is simple observation.

Delinquent Snail , November 21, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT
@anonymous

You have a high opinion of westerners. Most are too dumb or busy to even look at the differences between islam and whatever the west believes.

If all peoples would just abandon the religions of their grandfathers and take responsibility for their actions in life (instead of taking a back seat and allowing a mythical "judge" to have a say after death), this planet would be a better place.

Most people agree that kindness, decency and respect are the cornerstones of all the moral principles that religions impose on their followers. So why do we need the mythical stories and outdated traditions to be good?

Grandpa Charlie , November 21, 2017 at 9:01 pm GMT
@MEexpert

"Iran has nuclear weapons" etc.

"These are few of the lies that have been told by our politicians and the MSM. Just ask any average American and he will tell you that yes these are true statements."

-- MEexpert

MEexpert must not live in USA. If you ask "any average American" who lives in this country about such things, he will probably mutter a perfunctory "yeah, right," and then walk away from you, thinking to himself, "ay-ho", meaning "AH".

Percentage of Americans with any confidence in Congress? Maybe just barely in double digits, and maybe not. Same for MSM oh, sure, some people still have their favorite TV news channel, but that's only because talking heads can't say often enough that it's all BS, present company excepted and anyway very few people watch any TV news. Those that do are partisan and get told by their favorite talking head exactly what they think they want to hear.

So if you ask a guy if Iran has nukes, he'll likely say, "Yeah, sure" but he will actually be remembering that it came out a few years ago that Iran had no WMDs. And then if you ask, "Iran and Iraq: they're the same country, aren't they?" he'll likely say, "Yeah, sure." And now with Iraq having a Shiite government, that'll be pretty much true see how that works .. like a stopped clock just give it some time and it will be accurate, at least for a while. But if you would wind up the clock, it would still work, it's just that nobody winds anything up any more . it's all battery powered .or maybe solar

"Braindead"? It's more like parts of the brain have been put to sleep. Those parts can be woke in an election year to temporarily take some interest, but now that the election is old news, we return to the basic truth: "nobody cares."

Politics? Don't ask, don't tell -- that's the policy of Joe Sixpack. Sally Sixpack? "Trump is a serial groper, it's disgusting." To which, Joe says, "Yeah sure."

Americans are practical people. A lot of guys, if you get to where you are exposing the whole rotten system, they'll say, "Well, let me know where we're going to form up, and I'll grab a couple of my guns and meet you there."

"Yeah, sure."

Anon , Disclaimer November 21, 2017 at 9:20 pm GMT
@Delinquent Snail

First, we should redirect the hefty allowance for Israel to the restoration of Syria.
Meanwhile, Israel continues protecting ISIS and invading Syria: http://thesaker.is/syrian-war-report-november-20-2017-government-troops-liberated-al-bukamal-from-isis/
"In southern Syria, the SAA entered into the villages of Kafr Hawar, Bayt Sabir, Baytima and established control over them. HTS militants had withdrawn from the area thanks to the SAA actions and protests of the locals. Israel responded to the SAA operations with two shelling incidents from its battle tanks. The first took place on November 18. The second was reported on November 20. The SAA suffered no casualties. Tel Aviv is upset that the Syrian government is restoring control over the areas previously seized by militants."

ChuckOrloski , November 21, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT
Hey Phil,

Must assert what the American-Israeli military did with ISIS is far from "stupid."

Such action was practical.

Copying the genius of Henry Ford, the leftover ISIS remnant is become interchangeable parts which can get readily reactivated within the next popularized wave of "Radical Islam" which will likely appear in order to wage merciless war , uh on Lebanon.

I am figuring (brand name) al-Qaeda will soon get a curtain call.

Thank you very much.

Jake , November 21, 2017 at 9:29 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

The US betrays its allies because that is what the English did. Palmerston may have expressed it best: "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."

It's a WASP imperial thing.

Jake , November 21, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT
@Delinquent Snail

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Fanon, Marcuse, and Soros agree with your Deep Thoughts 100%.

One Tribe , November 21, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT
Delinquent understanding of history:

"Pretty sure the people of spain would disagree with "Before the Palestinian issue there were no hijackings, kidnappings, or killings of non-Muslim by Muslims."

You should carefully validate your historical ' facts ', especially when describing "hijackings, kidnappings, or killings of non-Muslim", in Spain after the Islamic 'Moorish' conquest; try Douglas Reed "The Controversy of Zion" p.89 ish at: https://archive.org/details/TheControversyOfZion

You will see how events of our current era from 1800, follow a pattern traceable for 25 centuries.

Jake , November 21, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT
@anonymous

Christianity is Trinitarianism. Mohammedanism is a Gnostic heresy of both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism, mixed together with some nicely disguised aspects of Arabic paganism.

jjc , November 21, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT
The purpose of ISIS was to provide a rationale for the reestablishment of US/NATO permanent military bases in Iraq and also Syria. Statements made during the year or so after ISIS appeared and before Russia's intervention in 2015 consistently referred to a "30 year" time period required by US/NATO forces to ultimately defeat ISIS. During that year, US/NATO never attempted to disrupt ISIS' supply lines or interdict the Gulf States' funding of the group, all the while the Western media was constantly publishing ISIS atrocity videos and politicians were claiming the fight against ISIS was the most important struggle of all.

In my opinion, the sudden release of Syrian refugees into Europe in September 2015, after they had been warehoused in Turkey until that moment, was meant to serve as a manufactured crisis which would lead to the insertion of a large US/NATO force into Iraq and Syria with both a "humanitarian" pretext and the fight against ISIS, leading to military bases,Syrian regime change, and probably from there the targeting of Hezbollah and later Iran. Russia's sudden intervention prevented this scenario from playing out.

Art , November 21, 2017 at 10:49 pm GMT
@MEexpert

I could have never imagined that the United States will lose every fiber of decency and morality for the sake of few AIPAC dollars.

MEexpert,

The AIPAC stick is much mightier then the AIPAC carrot. It is amazing for how little these politicians sell out America.

The Jew MSM has the hammer. (All the media types live in fear of the Jew – just like the politicians.)

Think Peace -- Art

Twodees Partain , November 21, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

Yes, there's a long history of this kind of betrayal by the US government. I can only guess that Saudi agents ran the front end of the recruitment of ISIS. Otherwise it's a little hard to feature so many of these foot soldiers coming to join the mission.

Thanks for the excerpt and the link.

RJJCDA , November 21, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT
The game (and perceived necessity) is to block China.

Draw a horizontal line from the Chinese population centers below Beijing westward and you go through the "stans," Iran, under the Caspian Sea, and finally to Syria. This will be the the One Belt, One Road, the new Silk Road, etc., with rails, pipelines and what not.

It is no accident that the action is near the western terminus of that line. If implemented, future world dominance could be achieved.

Renoman , November 21, 2017 at 11:50 pm GMT
USA, what an embarrassing Country.
Cygnus , November 21, 2017 at 11:58 pm GMT
Thanks for this article; it seems to show the activities of the war profiteers; those who own shares in the armament industries, and those who loan money to countries to pay these armament indusries. They are probably the same group of people. Perpetual war as a business model.
LauraMR , November 21, 2017 at 11:59 pm GMT
@Fran Macadam

No, it isn't accurate.

Consider this:

Americans have been living in a country that has not known peace since 9/11,

Now, tell me. When was the last decade our country was not at war? The 20′s?

Ivy Mike , November 22, 2017 at 12:01 am GMT
The early photos of Isis on the move showed them in shiny new white Toyota pickups. Looks like they've learned to camouflage them. Sinister and brilliant.
ChuckOrloski , November 22, 2017 at 12:49 am GMT
@Twodees Partain

Hey Twodees Partain,

Uh , practical "Muslim fanatics" need to find work too!

Does the official 9/11 report claim that the hijackers got help from the Saud royals?

(Zigh) Who the hell really knows who were Mohammed Atta's alleged handlers in Hamburg, Germany?

At the time, Germany was host to five-star military bases under leftover WW II treaties. Hm. Where were CIA and Mossad HQ' s located in Hamburg.

(Zigh) Even lookalike Mohammed Atta' s must had difficulty in figuring out exactly who wanted to employ them.

Can one imagine a washed-up ISIS warrior somehow gaining entry into uh, say Scranton, and undergoing a "dream" terror-job search? (Zigh) Joining up would depend upon (up front) receipt of a "sign-on" bonus check that did not bounce. (Zigh)

Pardon my cynicism, and thanks Twodees Partain for the solid thinking!

Anon , Disclaimer November 22, 2017 at 1:30 am GMT
@ChuckOrloski

Here is a nice outline on training American Fifth column by Israel-firsters -- "The U.S. Military as a Zionist Organization," by Shoshana Bryen: https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2017/11/20/u-s-military-zionist-organization/

"I have taken more than 400 American security professionals – primarily retired American Admirals and Generals – to Israel in more than 30 trips. And at the other end of their careers, I have sent more than 500 cadets and midshipmen of our service academies to Israel before they received their commissions. I never found one that didn't believe in the relationship between Jews and the land of Israel. The United States military, then, is a Zionist institution ."
Rejoyce, Americans -- Israel-firsters are satisfied with your brass.

Anon , Disclaimer November 22, 2017 at 1:37 am GMT
@Jake

He does not profess zionism – what's your problem?

ChuckOrloski , November 22, 2017 at 1:40 am GMT
@jjc

jjc,

The V.T. article linked below goes deep into what scary war is about to be launched perhaps prior to the New Year.

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/11/21/hezbollah-forces-are-on-high-combat-readiness-to-counter-israeli-threats/

Thanks very much for your logical thought process which is appreciated here.

Rurik , November 22, 2017 at 1:59 am GMT
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-21/putin-holds-surprise-meeting-assad-will-call-trump-phone-later-tuesday
SolontoCroesus , November 22, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT
@RJJCDA

Is the Yemen war to do with the Bridge of the Horns project that bin Laden family is spearheading?

DESERT FOX , November 22, 2017 at 2:26 am GMT
@Anon

Israel will destroy America, just as a parasite eventually kills its host, so shall Israel kill America.

jacques sheete , November 22, 2017 at 2:37 am GMT
@Delinquent Snail

It is the mainstream tho.

Still, using the term legitimizes it somewhat more than it deserves. And it supports the agendas of the plutoligarchs and they are not mainstream by any means.

jacques sheete , November 22, 2017 at 2:41 am GMT
@Jake

It's a WASP imperial thing.

I do not disagree, but I would add that it's a Zionist (not necessarily Jewish) imperial thing as well.

anon , Disclaimer November 22, 2017 at 2:45 am GMT
The surviving jihadists are pretty much stateless; there's no going back to their home countries now. The promised caliphate they expected to live in didn't materialize. They are now totally dependent on whoever is willing to shelter them which makes them a useful commodity for the US. They can be held on the back burner until the next project comes along. There's all sorts of countries that could become the next target should they refuse to capitulate to US demands. They're all probably being secreted in various places awaiting a call.
It's a mistaken notion that the US is against radical Islam. On the contrary it not only wants it but tries to create it. Look at it's assembling of zealots to fight in Afghanistan against the Russians and the use of them against secular nationalist in Islamic areas. ISIS fanatics are deluded cannon-fodder, not realizing they're just furthering US aims, the US working through various fronts so as to hide the actual authorship of what's taking place.
Joe Wong , November 22, 2017 at 3:57 am GMT

Americans have been living in a country that has not known peace since 9/11,

This is simply not true. War has not happened in the USA since the American Civil War 160 years ago. All wars the American military fought since then are fought in somebody else homeland, those wars to the Americans are just some kind of odd news competing eyeballs with pro sport news, celebrity gossips, gun violence or commercials, if they did not read it, those wars never happen, never heard of it, and it is out of sight and out of mind, the wars have nothing to do with them. The USA itself is all peaceful other than occasional gun violence.

Anon , Disclaimer November 22, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/translated-doc-debunks-narrative-of-al-qaeda-iran-alliance/

[Nov 22, 2017] Syria, 'Experts,' and George Monbiot by Jonathan Cook

Notable quotes:
"... Porter's research indicates very strongly that the building that was bombed could not have been a nuclear reactor – and that was clear to experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even as the story was being promoted uncritically across the western media. ..."
"... But Porter helps shine a light on how even the most reputable international agencies can end up similarly following a script written in Washington and one that rides roughshod over evidence, especially when the interests of the world's only superpower are at stake. In this case, the deceptions were perpetuated by one of the world's leading scientific organizations: the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors states' nuclear activities. ..."
"... The Syrian "nuclear plant", he noted, could not have been built using North Korean know-how, as was claimed by the US. It lacked all the main features of a North Korean gas-cooled reactor. The photos produced by the Israelis showed a building that, among other things, covered too small an area and was not anywhere near high enough, it had none of the necessary supporting structures, and there was no cooling tower. ..."
"... Abushady's assessment was buried by the IAEA, which preferred to let the CIA and the Israelis promote their narrative unchallenged. ..."
"... This was not a one-off failure. In summer 2008, the IAEA visited the area to collect samples. Had the site been a nuclear plant, they could have expected to find nuclear-grade graphite particles everywhere. They found none. Nonetheless, the IAEA again perpetrated a deception to try to prop up the fictitious US-Israeli narrative. ..."
Nov 22, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Investigative journalist Gareth Porter has published two exclusives whose import is far greater than may be immediately apparent. They concern Israel's bombing in 2007 of a supposed nuclear plant secretly built, according to a self-serving US and Israeli narrative, by Syrian leader Bashar Assad.

Although the attack on the "nuclear reactor" occurred a decade ago, there are pressing lessons to be learnt for those analyzing current events in Syria.

Porter's research indicates very strongly that the building that was bombed could not have been a nuclear reactor – and that was clear to experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) even as the story was being promoted uncritically across the western media.

But – and this is the critical information Porter conveys – the IAEA failed to disclose the fact that it was certain the building was not a nuclear plant, allowing the fabricated narrative to be spread unchallenged. It abandoned science to bow instead to political expediency.

The promotion of the bogus story of a nuclear reactor by Israel and key figures in the Bush administration was designed to provide the pretext for an attack on Assad. That, it was hoped, would bring an end to his presidency and drag into the fray the main target – Iran. The Syrian "nuclear reactor" was supposed to be a rerun of the WMD deception, used in 2003 to oust another enemy of the US and Israel's – Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

It is noteworthy that the fabricated evidence for a nuclear reactor occurred in 2007, a year after Israel's failure to defeat Hizbullah in Lebanon. The 2006 Lebanon war was itself intended to spread to Syria and lead to Assad's overthrow, as I explained in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations .

It is important to remember that this Israeli-neocon plot against Syria long predated – in fact, in many ways prefigured – the civil war in 2011 that quickly morphed into a proxy war in which the US became a key, if mostly covert, actor.

The left's Witchfinder General

The relevance of the nuclear reactor deception can be understood in relation to the latest efforts by Guardian columnist George Monbiot (and many others) to discredit prominent figures on the left, including Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, for their caution in making assessments of much more recent events in Syria. Monbiot has attacked them for not joining him in simply assuming that Assad was responsible for a sarin gas attack last April on Khan Sheikhoun, an al-Qaeda stronghold in Idlib province.

Understandably, many on the left have been instinctively wary of rushing to judgment about individual incidents in the Syrian war, and the narratives presented in the western media. The claim that Assad's government used chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun, and earlier in Ghouta, was an obvious boon to those who have spent more than a decade trying to achieve regime change in Syria.

In what has become an ugly habit with Monbiot, and one I have noted before, he has enthusiastically adopted the role of Witchfinder General. Any questioning of evidence, skepticism or simply signs of open-mindedness are enough apparently to justify accusations that one is an Assadist or conspiracy theorist. Giving house room to the doubts of a ballistics expert like Ted Postol of MIT, or an experienced international arms expert like Scott Ritter, or a famous investigative journalist like Seymour Hersh, or a former CIA analyst like Ray McGovern, is apparently proof that one is an atrocity denier or worse.

Inconvenient facts buried

Monbiot's latest attack was launched at a moment when he obviously felt he was on solid ground. A UN agency, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), issued a report last month concluding that the 100 people killed and 200 injured in Khan Sheikhoun last April were exposed to sarin. Monbiot argues that the proof is now incontrovertible that Assad was responsible – a position that he, of course, adopted at the outset – and that all other theories have now been decisively discounted by the OPCW .

There are reasons to think that Monbiot is seriously misrepresenting the strength of the OPCW's findings, as several commentators have observed. Most notably, Robert Parry, another leading investigative journalist, points out that evidence in the report's annex – the place where inconvenient facts are often buried – appears to blow a large hole in the official story.

Parry notes that the time recorded by the UN of the photo of the chemical weapons attack is more than half an hour after some 100 victims had already been admitted to five different hospitals, some of them lengthy drives from the alleged impact site.

But potentially more significant than such troubling inconsistencies are the conclusions of Gareth Porter's separate investigation into Israel's bombing of the nonexistent Syrian nuclear reactor. That gets to the heart of where Monbiot and many others have gone badly wrong in their certainty about events in Syria.

Extreme naivety

Monbiot has been only too willing to promote as indisputable fact claims made both by highly compromised and unreliable western sources and by supposedly reputable and independent organizations, such as international human rights groups and UN agencies. He, like many others, assumes that the latter can always be relied upon to stand apart from western interests and can therefore be implicitly trusted.

That indicates an extreme naivety or possibly the lack of any experience covering on the ground highly charged conflicts in which western interests are paramount.

I have been based in Israel for nearly two decades and have on several occasions taken to task Human Rights Watch (HRW), one of the world's most esteemed human rights organizations. I have shown that assessments it has made were patently not rooted in evidence or even credible interpretations of international law but in geopolitical considerations. That was especially true in the case of the month-long fighting between Israel and Hizbullah in 2006. (See here and here .) My concerns about HRW's work, I later learnt from insiders, were shared in its New York head office, but were silenced by the organization's most senior staff.

Nuclear plant deception

But Porter helps shine a light on how even the most reputable international agencies can end up similarly following a script written in Washington and one that rides roughshod over evidence, especially when the interests of the world's only superpower are at stake. In this case, the deceptions were perpetuated by one of the world's leading scientific organizations: the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors states' nuclear activities.

Porter reveals that Yousry Abushady, the IAEA's foremost expert on North Korean nuclear reactors, was able immediately to discount the aerial photographic evidence that the building Israel bombed in 2007 was a nuclear reactor. (Most likely it was a disused missile storage depot.)

The Syrian "nuclear plant", he noted, could not have been built using North Korean know-how, as was claimed by the US. It lacked all the main features of a North Korean gas-cooled reactor. The photos produced by the Israelis showed a building that, among other things, covered too small an area and was not anywhere near high enough, it had none of the necessary supporting structures, and there was no cooling tower.

Abushady's assessment was buried by the IAEA, which preferred to let the CIA and the Israelis promote their narrative unchallenged.

Atomic agency's silence

This was not a one-off failure. In summer 2008, the IAEA visited the area to collect samples. Had the site been a nuclear plant, they could have expected to find nuclear-grade graphite particles everywhere. They found none. Nonetheless, the IAEA again perpetrated a deception to try to prop up the fictitious US-Israeli narrative.

As was routine, they sent the samples to a variety of laboratories for analysis. None found evidence of any nuclear contamination – apart from one. It identified particles of man-made uranium. The IAEA issued a report giving prominence to this anomalous sample, even though in doing so it violated its own protocols, reports Parry . It could draw such a conclusion only if the results of all the samples matched.

In fact, as one of the three IAEA inspectors who had been present at the site later reported, the sample of uranium did not come from the plant itself, which was clean, but from a changing room nearby. A former IAEA senior inspector, Robert Kelley, told Parry that a "very likely explanation" was that the uranium particles derived from "cross contamination" from clothing worn by the inspectors. This is a problem that had been previously noted by the IAEA in other contexts.

Meanwhile, the IAEA remained silent about its failure to find nuclear-grade graphite in a further nine reports over two years. It referred to this critical issue for the first time in 2011.

Chance for war with Iran

In other words, the IAEA knowingly conspired in a fictitious, entirely nonscientific assessment of the Syrian "nuclear reactor" story, one that neatly served US-Israeli geopolitical interests.

Porter notes that vice-president Dick Cheney "hoped to use the alleged reactor to get President George W Bush to initiate US airstrikes in Syria in the hope of shaking the Syrian-Iranian alliance".

In fact, Cheney wanted far more sites in Syria hit than the bogus nuclear plant. In his memoirs, the then-secretary of defense, Robert Gates, observed that Cheney was "looking for an opportunity to provoke a war with Iran".

The Bush administration wanted to find a way to unseat Assad, crush Hizbullah in Lebanon, and isolate and weaken Iran as a way to destroy the so-called "Shia crescent".

That goal is being actively pursued again by the US today, with Israel and Saudi Arabia leading the way. A former US ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, recently warned that , after their failure to bring down Assad, the Saudis have been trying to switch battlefields to Lebanon, hoping to foment a confrontation between Israel and Hizbullah that would drag in Iran.

Abandoning science

Back in 2007, the IAEA, an agency of scientists, did its bit to assist – or at least not obstruct – US efforts to foster a political case, an entirely unjustified one, for military action against Syria and, very possibly by extension, Iran.

If the IAEA could so abandon its remit and the cause of science to help play politics on behalf of the US, what leads Monbiot to assume that the OPCW, an even more politicized body, is doing any better today?

That is not to say Assad, or at least sections of the Syrian government, could not have carried out the attack on Khan Sheikhoun. But it is to argue that in a matter like this one, where so much is at stake, the evidence must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, and that critics, especially experts who offer counter-evidence, must be given a fair hearing by the left. It is to argue that, when the case against Assad fits so neatly a long-standing and self-serving western narrative, a default position of skepticism is fully justified. It is to argue that facts, strong as they may seem, can be manipulated even by expert bodies, and therefore due weight needs also to be given to context – including an assessment of motives.

This is not "denialism", as Monbiot claims. It is a rational strategy adopted by those who object to being railroaded once again – as they were in Iraq and Libya – into catastrophic regime change operations.

Meanwhile, the decision by Monbiot and others to bury their heads in the sands of an official narrative, all the while denouncing anyone who seeks to lift theirs out for a better view, should be understood for what it is: an abnegation of intellectual and moral responsibility for those around the globe who continue to be the victims of western military supremacism.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .

Read more by Jonathan Cook Israel Lobby Is Slowly Being Dragged Into the Light – November 13th, 2017 Why Israel Supports Kurdish Independence – October 4th, 2017 Clinton's Defeat and the 'Fake News' Conspiracy – December 18th, 2016 Adam Curtis: Another Manager of Perceptions – October 20th, 2016 In the US, Money Talks When It Comes to Israel – July 20th, 2016

[Nov 22, 2017] Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in the Ritz these days

Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
survey-of-disinfo , November 20, 2017 at 1:50 pm GMT
@Erebus

Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in "the Ritz" these days. Want to sue Saudi Arabia for money because of 9/11? No problem, judge. Here are the names, here are the numbers, and here are the facts.

Disagree regarding multipolar order. The super structures for Globalism are untouched in all this theatrical displays. All parties seem to participate actively in key Globalist institutions.

Petrodollar is not and was never a component of NWO. It was an instrument of American supremacy. There are no planned superpowers in the NWO vision. Only Super-Institutions .

[Nov 18, 2017] State Department's New Victoria Nuland...is Just Like the Old Victoria Nuland

Notable quotes:
"... American Interest ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Yesterday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson swore into office a new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Dr. A. Wess Mitchell became the Trump Administration's top diplomat for Europe , "responsible for diplomatic relations with 50 countries in Europe and Eurasia, and with NATO, the EU and the OSCE."

Readers will recall that the position was most recently held during the Obama Administration by Kagan family neocon, Victoria Nuland, who was key catalyst and cookie provider for the US-backed coup overthrowing the elected government in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland's virulently anti-Russia position was a trademark of the neocon persuasion and she put ideology into action by " midwifing ," in her own words, an illegal change of government in Ukraine.

It was Nuland's coup that laid the groundwork for a precipitous decay in US/Russia relations, as Washington's neocons peddled the false line that "Russia invaded Ukraine" to cover up for the fact that it was the US government that had meddled in Ukrainian affairs. The coup was bloody and divisive , resulting in a de-facto split in the country that continues to the day. Ukraine did not flourish as a result of this neocon scheme, but has in fact been in economic free-fall since the US government installed its preferred politicians into positions of power.

You don't hear much about Ukraine these days because the neocons hate to talk about their failures. But the corruption of the US-installed government has crippled the country, extreme nationalist elements that make up the core of the post-coup elites have imposed a new education law so vicious toward an age-old Hungarian population stuck inside arbitrarily re-drawn post-WWI borders that the Hungarian government has blocked Ukraine's further integration into NATO, and a new "Maidan" protest has steadily gathered steam in Kiev despite Western cameras being uninterested this time.

Fortunately Donald Trump campaigned on and was elected to improve relations with Russia and end the Obama Administration's neocon-fueled launch of a new Cold War. He raised eyebrows when he directly challenged the neocon shibboleth -- amplified by the mainstream media -- that Russia was invading Ukraine. But candidate Trump really blew neocon minds -- and delighted voters -- when he said he was looking into ending US sanctions on Russia imposed by Obama and may recognize Crimea as Russian territory.

Which brings us back to Wess Mitchell. Certainly President Trump, seeing the destruction of Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Victoria Nuland's anti-Russia interventionism, would he finally restore a sane diplomat to the position vacated by the unmourned former Assistant Secretary. Would appoint someone in line with the rhetoric that landed him the Oval Office. Right?

Wrong!

If anything, Wess Mitchell may well prove to be Victoria Nuland on steroids. He was co-founder and CEO of the neocon-dominated Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). Mitchell's CEPA is funded largely by the US government, NATO, neocon grant-making mega-foundations, and the military-industrial complex. The "think tank" does the bidding of its funders, finding a Russian threat under every rock that requires a NATO and defense industry response -- or we're doomed!

Mitchell's CEPA's recent greatest hits? " The Kremlin's 20 toxic tactics ," " Russian disinformation and anti-Western narratives in Romania: How to fight back? ," " Winning the Information War ," " Alliances and American greatness ," " Russia's historical distortions ," " What the Kremlin Fears Most ," and so on. You get the idea. The raison d'etre of the organization founded by the new Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia is to foment a new (and very profitable) Cold War (and more?) with Russia.

Last month, CEPA put on its big conference, the " CEPA Forum 2017 ." Speakers included central European heavy hitter politicos like the president of Latvia and also Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe, who gave a talk on how "the unity of the NATO Alliance" is "what Russia fears the most." The grand event was funded, as might be expected, by war contractors Raytheon and Lockheed-Martin. But also, surprisingly, significant funding came from the Hungarian government of Viktor Orban, who is seen as somewhat of a maverick in central Europe for refusing to sign on to the intense Russia-hate seen in the Baltics and in Poland.

The no-doubt extraordinarily expensive conference was funded by no less than three Hungarian government entities: the Embassy of Hungary in Washington, DC, the Hungarian Institute for Foreign Affairs and Trade , and the Hungarian Presidency of the Visegrad Group . Again, given Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's reputation for bucking neocon positions vis-a-vis Russia it is surprised to see the virulently anti-Russia CEPA conference so awash in Hungarian taxpayer money. Perhaps there is something to explore in the fact that the recently-fired Hungarian Ambassador to Washington,Réka Szemerkényi, was recently named executive vice president of CEPA. Hmmm. Makes you wonder.

But back to Mitchell. So he founded a neocon think tank funded by a NATO desperate for new missions and a military-industrial complex desperate for new wars. What about his own views? Surely he can't be as bad as Nuland. Right? Wrong! Fortunately Assistant Secretary Mitchell is a prolific writer, so it's easy to track his thinking. In a recent piece for neocon Francis Fukuyama's American Interest , titled "Predators on the Frontiers," Mitchell warns that, "From eastern Ukraine and the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, large rivals of the United States are modernizing their military forces, grabbing strategic real estate, and threatening vulnerable US allies."

Mitchell continues, in a voice right out of the neocon canon, that:

By degrees, the world is entering the path to war. Not since the 1980s have the conditions been riper for a major international military crisis. Not since the 1930s has the world witnessed the emergence of multiple large, predatory states determined to revise the global order to their advantage -- if necessary by force.
We are on a path to war not seen since the 1930s! And why are our "enemies" so hell-bent on destroying us? Because we are just so isolationist!

Writes Mitchell: "Over the past few years, Russia, China, and, to a degree, Iran have sensed that the United States is retreating in their respective regions..."

We are "retreating"?

So what can we do? Mitchell again does the bidding of his paymasters in advising that the only thing we can do to save ourselves is...spend more on militarism:

The United States should therefore enhance its nuclear arsenal by maintaining and modernizing it. It needs to sustain a credible nuclear extended deterrent at a time when revisionist states are gradually pushing their spheres of influence and control closer to, if not against, U.S. allies. Moreover, it should use the limited tactical nuclear weapons at its disposal and seed them in a few of the most vulnerable and capable frontline states (Poland and Japan, for instance) under "nuclear sharing" agreements.
There is our new Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia. Our top diplomat for Europe. The only solution is a military solution. President Trump. Elected to end the endless wars, to forge better relations with Russia, to roll-back an "outdated" NATO. President Trump has replaced Victoria Nuland with something far more dangerous and frightening. Heckuva job, there, Mr. President!
Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Nov 18, 2017] MoA - NATO Adds To Turkeys Chagrin

See also Blood Borders A Proposal To Redraw A New Middle East - Brilliant Maps
Notable quotes:
"... Armed Forces Journal ..."
"... Daily Sabah ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

NATO Adds To Turkey's Chagrin

There has long been speculation about a Turkish good-bye to NATO .

The U.S. and its military proxy organization in Europe are doing their best to further such a move:

The image of Atatürk was displayed as a target during the drill at NATO's Joint Warfare Center in Stavanger, Norway held between Nov. 8 and Nov. 17, while a NATO soldier posted defamatory words about Erdoğan on the social media.

Atatürk is the founder of the secular Turkey. He was designated as "target" during a desk-top drill. NATO's Joint Warfare Center is not a low level school but an elite officer training institution led by a Major-General. The 40 Turkish soldiers who attended the training course were immediately ordered back home.

Secularists in Turkey have long suspected NATO as promoting "moderate Islamists". That believe is not without factual ground. U.S. President Obama allied with the Muslim Brotherhood during the so called "Arab Spring". But the second incident at the very same NATO institution points to a more comprehensive anti-Turkish position:

A Kurdish-origin Norwegian officer signed up to a social networking website within NATO, using a fake account in the name of President Erdoğan and sharing posts against the organization.

To vilify the Turkish secularist hero Atatürk and its Islamist President Erdogan in related occasions is a comprehensive move against the whole country.

NATO's political spokesperson Jens Stoltenberg, a Norwegian politician, apologized for the incidents. It will soothe no one.

A comparable incident happened in 2006. U.S. Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters published a map with redrawn borders of Middle East in the Armed Forces Journal . The map showed a "Free Kurdistan" and Turkey cut to half its size.

The map was then presented by an American colonel at the NATO's Defense College in Rome while Turkish officers were attending. An uproar ensued and the U.S. had to apologize.

In July 2016 parts of the Turkish military attempted a coup against Erdogan. Turkish jets which attacked the capitol Ankara had launched from the U.S. and NATO base in Incirlik. When the attempt failed several NATO countries granted asylum to Turkish officers who did not want to return to their home country.

After the failed coup Turkey decided to buy Russian air defense systems. The move makes sense. The alternative U.S. systems are suspected to be ineffective against attacking U.S. planes and missiles. The Russian S-400 systems is designed to counter threats from U.S. weapons.

Turkey is a partner in the U.S. F-35 fighter jet program. It has plans to purchase one hundred of them. Now the U.S. Air Force suggests that the deal could be restricted:

If Turkey moves forward with its buy of a Russian air defense system, it will not be permitted to plug into NATO technology, and further action may be forthcoming that could affect the country's acquisition or operation of the F-35, a top Air Force official said Wednesday.
...
Analysts worry that Turkey operating both the S-400 and F-35 together could compromise the jet's security, as any data collected by the air defense system and obtained by Russia could help expose the joint strike fighter's vulnerabilities. For a platform like the F-35, whose major strengths are its stealth and data fusion capabilities, that would be a disaster.

[The deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs, Heidi] Grant, agreed that a S-400 acquisition creates issues for Turkey's use of the F-35.
...
Her comments echoed those of Gen. Petr Pavel, chairman of NATO's military committee. In October, Pavel said that Turkey is free, as a sovereign nation, to make its own decisions in regards to military procurement, but will face "consequences" if a S-400 buy goes through.

Buying a Russian air defense system is not unprecedented for a NATO state. In 1997 Cyprus bought Russian S-300 systems, ironically to defend against Turkish jets. The Cyprus Missile Crisis ensued and the weapons ended up in Greece where they also serve to keep the Turks away. Greece also flies U.S. made jets.

In Syria the U.S. is arming, training and fighting together with the YPK, a sister organization of the Kurdish PKK which is pursuing a guerilla campaign against the Turkish army and state.

The personal disparaging of Turkish politicians by NATO, U.S. involvement in a coup attempt, restrictions on weapon buys and U.S. cooperation with Turkey's enemy are amounting to an open affront.

It is obvious that NATO is no longer a reliable ally for Turkey. This view is independent of who holds the Turkish presidency. The strategic situation would not change if Erdogan would be replaced by some secular nationalist figure.

Turkey fields NATO's second biggest army. With more than 80 million people it is a large emerging military and economic power. It controls the Bosporus and thereby access to the Black Sea. It has influence in the Balkans as well as in the Central Asian "Stans". It is a crossing point for major energy pathways including the new Russian TurkStream pipeline which will deliver Russian gas to south-Europe.

The is little that hinders Turkey from leaving NATO and from joining a tacit alliance with Russia. Russian fighter jets are as good as the U.S. designed F-35. Even Turkey's economic interests seem to be better aligned with Russia's than with north-Europe or the United States. The voices in Turkey that demand a realignment are gaining ground. The editors of the Erdogan friendly Daily Sabah write :

The U.S. is not the enemy, but neither is it acting like a friend. Its actions are against Turkey's interests as well as its own. Now is the right time for Turkey to formulate its own independent regional policy.

Russia and Iran with their sounder anti-Daesh and counterterrorism policies need to be at the center of measures Turkey will implement from now on. After all that's happened, one thing is certain: The U.S. should definitely be kept out of Turkey's regional policy concerns.

The Zionist lobby in the U.S. has long argued to kick Turkey out of NATO. Such a separation may indeed come true. But it would be Turkey that would leave NATO and not the other way around. The effects would be quote different than those expected a decade ago.

Posted by b on November 17, 2017 at 02:22 PM | Permalink

shaw | Nov 17, 2017 2:49:14 PM | 1

More you Piss Off Turkey, more it goes East !!(Is this the Policy of US?) No Issues, Turkey and Erdogan have thumbed it's Nose to USA and is in Secret block of Russia, China & Pakistan. It will Seek it's Ottoman Glory with the "Stans" of Central Asia. Just gave Pakistan $1.45 million Line of Credit & full "Technology Transfer" of A129 Attack Helicopters to Pakistan. Russian M400 Missiles, etc etc. US keeps eyes closed, World is closing in Fast. And Mr Trump is losing faster. Disaster trip to Asia. China spun a great spell. US is going down.
Virgile | Nov 17, 2017 2:50:49 PM | 2
The US admnistration hates Erdogan and he hates them in return.
After it failed to kick Erdogan out with the 'amateurish' coup, opponents to Erdogan who are in NATO and in the US administration are doing all they can to undermine Erdogan, to put him in the defensive, to isolate him and to weaken him even more. They are working so he won't be elected president in 2019 and Turkey would be ripe for compromises on Palestine.

It is part of Trump's strategy to force an Israel-Palestinian peace plan worked out by Zionists advisors to Trump. The opponents to this plan, Syria,Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Hamas are been subjected to all sorts of assaults to destabilize them and make weaker so they have no choice than to bow.
Parallely Trump is also weakening Israel as he wants serious compromise that the jewish State is not ready to give. Therefore a campaign against Netanyahu is going on to weaken him or replace him.

We will therefore not see large attacks but relentless small attacks on these countries..
In the hands of Trump, Jared, MBS and Netanyahu, the 'plan' risks to make Iran Greater and Saudi Arabia and the USA Smaller!

somebody | Nov 17, 2017 3:10:58 PM | 3
Nato/coalition/US will have to decide if they are with the YPG in Syria or with Turkey.
somebody | Nov 17, 2017 3:13:34 PM | 4
add to 3

Looks like a campaign Time to kick Turkey out of NATO

frances | Nov 17, 2017 3:49:17 PM | 5
"The purchase...could help expose the joint strike fighter's vulnerabilities."
Hahahahah, good joke, the F-35 is a billion dollar deathtrap. To be prevented from purchasing them would be a godsend for Turkey.
C1ue | Nov 17, 2017 4:21:05 PM | 6
Turkey has long played the fan dance between East (Russia) and West (Western European powers). This time is no different. It was just a few years ago that Turkey was such a friend to the US and European interests. The failed coup, however, has changed that but still only time will tell if this is a structural change or just the latest flip flop.
Piotr Berman | Nov 17, 2017 4:22:29 PM | 7
The structural problem of "macro NATO" concept is that it puts together countries that have very little in common, or more precisely, with many seething mutual conflicts. That would matter little if there was a unifying threat, but nothing like that exists.

Supporting Turkey and "free Kurdistan" is an obvious hard case, but Turkey has checkered relationship with KSA+UAE -- while being close to Qatar, and with Greece. Greece and Bulgaria have no enmity toward Russia, although the current government seems to follow anti-Russian line.

Then there is an issue why countries far from Russia and lacking alternative "enemies" or post-colonial clients should strive to keep defense spending at NATO agreed level of 2% of GDP. And huge prices of NATO approved weapon systems. Lithuania increased military spending to the "required 2%" and it still cannot afford tanks (I did not check other Baltic states). Clearly, arms race is cheaper for Russia that has complete domestic military industry, lower costs and more cost aware process of weapon design, so the scheme to beggar Russia with arms race is good only for the overfed western arms producers.

Turkey has decent economy and good strategic position: key straits under control and complicated mountain ranges along problematic borders, so it should survive leaving NATO without loosing quiet sleep. At worst, they should improve relationship with neighbors and their own Kurds, and NATO is more hindrance than help in that respect.

Hausmeister | Nov 17, 2017 4:44:05 PM | 8
C1ue | Nov 17, 2017 4:21:05 PM | 6

„The failed coup, however, has changed that but still only time will tell if this is a structural change or just the latest flip flop."
Please be not that much sure about this coup. People who are better informed do not share the estimation that it was a Western-plotted thing, at least not in its final execution. Some people in Turkey call it a controlled coup. True is that this „moderate Islam" thing was supported by the West, including Saudi-Arabia, but Erdogan/AKP knew this, used its benefits until the very last moment and Erdogan himself welcomed the dirty tricks that his (Gülen-) police people used against his Kemalist opposition.

lysander | Nov 17, 2017 5:39:14 PM | 11
I can't help but notice that Turkey would have avoided all these problems entirely if they had refused to allow terrorists to attack Syria from its territory from the very beginning. Without Turkey, the war against Syria would have collapsed before it even started, saving everyone enormous heartache and pain.
fast freddy | Nov 17, 2017 7:18:08 PM | 15
NATO is a multi-purpose US/UK/Israel Proxy Force and a Figleaf for offensive Full Spectrum Dominance. Other member states are there because there are pictures of their leaders with their pants down.
Jackrabbit | Nov 17, 2017 7:26:58 PM | 16
Unbelievable. Why antagonize Turkey/Erdogan so directly?

No, really ... it's unbelievable. Such 'social proof' of a NATO-Turkish rift will no doubt cause Vlad to allow Erdogan certain liberties ... like remaining in Idlib and standing in the way of improved Kurdish-Syria relations.

karlof1 | Nov 17, 2017 7:34:45 PM | 17
Lysander @11--

An unavoidable truth being swept under the rug, most certainly! Erdogan is every bit as responsible for the deaths, mayhem and destruction as Obama and other facilitators. A trial followed by the gallows is what their fate ought to be. Erdogan may have changed his direction due to external factors, but his initial direction and the crimes he ordered to occur cannot be forgotten or forgiven.

Jackrabbit | Nov 17, 2017 7:44:52 PM | 18
@10 somebody's jewish paranoia has been triggered (again)

"Russia supported US Evangelical right wing" is almost as laughable as "Russia hacked the election" with $100k in facebook ads.

The evidence-free allegation in the first link ...

Russia's masters, whether political or ecclesiastical, have generally been skilled at cultivating friendships and tactical alliances ...
... is promptly contradicted by:
... there will always be limits to the relationship between the Russian Orthodox and America's evangelicals. Theologically, they are a long way apart.... [and US] Evangelicals tend to be philo-Semitic and pro-Israel [and] tend to be uncompromisingly anti-Islam, but conservative Russian Christians ... get along quite well with traditionalist Muslims ... And it is hard to argue that Russian society has anything to teach America about "family values"; rates of divorce and abortion are much higher in Russia than in America.

Then there is the issue of religious freedom in Russia. The meeting on Christian persecution that recently convened in Washington, DC, was originally scheduled to take place in Moscow; but the venue was changed after Russia passed a law that curbed evangelical missionary work, upsetting American Protestants.

terry thomas | Nov 17, 2017 8:02:26 PM | 19
the dog erdogan and his donmeh jewish corleone family have stripped syria bare. taken a billion dollars of plant based machinary helped destroy a world heritage site aleppo.
helped israel ant it's year zero oded yinon projects. turkey and israel are the nexus of one of the world largest live organ human shipping industries only out done by china.
without turkey and jordan the satanick warcrimes in syria could not of happened. as someone called billy hayes said above never trust a turk.

when you speak to the average turk they have zero knowledge of erdogans crimes and blame everyone else but themselves.

dog erdo gets upset at a photoshop image of himself as target, and does not blink at his israeli arts projects in syria for the zionist history erasures. the rape and destruction of an ancient place theft of billions of dollars of oil sold onto tel aviv.

this fella is a donmeh satanist a mason a tool who and should be kept at arms length assad and syria should never forgive the crimes of this pimp.

psychohistorian | Nov 17, 2017 10:08:57 PM | 21
...To the posting matter....Turkey is just part of the realignment of nations that is occurring before our eyes. I keep wanting to see a chart of the evolving multipolar world but the game is still in play so one must practice patience....
<

[Nov 18, 2017] Why is communism considered as evil (like fascism and nazism) in the United States - Politics Stack Exchange

Notable quotes:
"... approximately 100 million people in contrast to the approximately 25 million victims of the Nazis ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | politics.stackexchange.com

Why is communism considered as evil (like fascism and nazism) in the United States? up vote 33 down vote favorite 10

,yesterday

In this question, a person asks why it's so easy to ban Nazi symbols and so hard to ban communist symbols: Why is banning communism symbols so hard to achieve as opposed to banning of Nazi symbols?

The implication being that communism and Nazism is pretty much the same.

What is the reason for this idea that communism is evil or like Nazism and fascism and aims to kill people?

Is it merely due to the propaganda during the Cold War? I find that doubtful as that was quite a while ago. So why do Americans still commonly have this opinion?

Wes Sayeed ,yesterday

This question is more of a philosophical one than about any specific policy, but it strikes at the very heart of political thought and policymaking in general. I think it should be left open. – Wes Sayeed yesterday

Erik ,yesterday

Do you have any stats about how communism is viewed throughout the Western world? I always get the feeling the hatred of communism isn't a "Western" thing, it's a "United States" thing. – Erik yesterday

Sam I am ♦ ,14 hours ago

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat . – Sam I am ♦ 14 hours ago

Pakk ,11 hours ago

The current most popular answers don't answer this question, but are explanations why the answerer thinks that communism is evil. Even if everything in those answers is true, it only shows that mass murders are an originally unintended consequence of communism, while the mass murders of Nazism are part of the ideology. For me, Nazism is an evil idea, and Communism is a bad idea because it leads to evil things. This is a big difference. I think this is a great question, and I hope there will be a true answer to this question, because I don't know the answer. – Pakk 11 hours ago

user4012 ,1 hour ago

@Pakk - there's two competing philosophies (and no, they aren't communism and capitalism :). One posits that things ought to be judged on the basis of intent. The other posits that things ought to be judged on the basis of outcome (aka the road to hell is paved with good intentions). – user4012 1 hour ago

Wes Sayeed ,yesterday

Fundamental to communist ideology is the common ownership of the means of production and abolishment of social classes and social hierarchy. In practice, that means no (or very few) private property rights, and forced redistribution of wealth from those who are most able to produce to those who are less able or unwilling to do so.

Private property and the exclusive access to the fruits of one's own labor are fundamental human rights under natural law. In order for communism to be moral, it requires everyone to voluntarily cooperate with each other towards a common goal. Unfortunately, people do not work this way. They are different in their ambitions, in their capabilities, and in their values. These differences cause different outcomes, cause some to be more successful than others, and even cause differences by which success is measured in the first place. But communism requires collectivism in order to work. Communism must eliminate those variations of the individual in order to harmonize with the collective good. This is absolutely counterintuitive to everything about human nature.

In order to realize communist goals, private property and the individual's right to their own labor must be seized from them for the sake of the collective. And because this is antithetical to individual freedom, communist governments must also work to eliminate dissent. Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

In light of the authoritarian oppression of every communist regime in the history of ever, there are those who still make the argument that the idea of communism is good; it's just been "done wrong" by every communist state that has attempted it. However, this is not true. Communism is a fundamentally flawed ideology at its core. Its goals are attractive in principle, but completely unworkable in practice.

Communist governments must necessarily use coercion to achieve the social harmony they promise, depriving the individual of the right to choose their own destiny -- especially if those choices lead to better outcomes for them than for others. This is why every communist state has been a totalitarian nightmare replete with rampant and gross human rights violations. That is the inevitable destiny of any communist regime because it is utterly and completely incompatible with individual freedom and conscience.

tim ,yesterday

Communists would argue that people already do not have full access to the result of their labor (because capitalists own the means of production and thus collect a surplus value from that labor). I also think that you make a pretty big jump from "right to their labor must be seized" (which is already a reach) to "terror" and living in fear. If you make that jump, and would agree that workers currently do not have full access to the result of their labor (which is fair to say), you could also say that people in capitalist societies must live in terror and fear (which is not generally the case). – tim yesterday

IllusiveBrian ,yesterday

@tim People living in capitalist societies who do not own 100% of their labor (per your definition) give up the percentage to their employer so that they do not have to own the risk of investing in equipment/office space/etc to be able to perform their labor and the risk of having to actually turn the labor into something someone else is willing to buy. Additionally, everyone is free to try to own 100% of their labor by investing in it and selling it themselves. If anything, the only thing laborers have to fear is that they must sell their labor to someone in order to pay taxes. – IllusiveBrian yesterday

tim ,yesterday

@IllusiveBrian Even if you calculate "risk" into the equation, there is still a surplus; it's why large companies end up with billions in revenue. I don't see how say a coal miner could bypass that by "selling it themselves"; it's not a realistic possibility. But my point was that capitalist exploitation is comparable to the "no right to their labor" argument by OP. Both have to be enforced, but saying that it has to be enforced with terror is a reach (anti-communists might argue that it needs to be in communism, and anti-capitalists might argue that the same is true for capitalism). – tim yesterday

wizzwizz4 ,10 hours ago

This answer is focussing more on why communism is bad (and is an opinion piece regardless of the validity or not of said opinion). Perhaps focussing on why it is viewed in this way instead of stating said view would make this a less controversial answer. – wizzwizz4 10 hours ago

Azor-Ahai ,9 hours ago

What is "natural law"? – Azor-Ahai 9 hours ago

user4012 ,yesterday

TL;DR: because communism did, in fact, kill people. Between 23 million (low estimate) and 100 million (high estimate) of them killed by regimes that collectively self-branded themselves as led by "communist" parties.

The question contains two premises, both 100% false:

  1. That the only reason Communism is seen as evil is "because propaganda" and "because the people with that view are uneducated/stupid".

    Contrary to that, as the answer below shows, there's objective evidence leading people to consider Communism evil.

  2. That Communism is universally unpopular in the West, especially USA.

Let's expand on both points:


Is it merely due to the propaganda during the Cold War? I find that doubtful. That was so long ago, and the people who were subject to that propaganda are all old or dead now. So why have Americans and other westerners not smartened up by now and understood what Communism is?

It's a nice theory that is fully contradicted by the fact that among the most anti-communist segments of population are those who know best - immigrants from "communist" (well, socialist) states. People from former USSR, refugees from Castro's Cuba, Venezuelans who escaped Chavez's regime - they are all far more anti-Communist than the average Westerner. Because:

  1. They know exactly what the reality of living in your "communist" dream entails.
  2. They know their history. My grandmother was almost repressed because she happened to study genetics when Lysenko was in power. Many members of my extended family were repressed during Stalin's times. She also remembers "Doctor's Plot" (and the fact that Stalin missed out on getting rid most Soviet Jews by a few weeks when he died unexpectedly). Or, for less personalized history lessons:

So yes, people who "understood what Communism is" are actually the ones most anti-Communist.


Secondly, Communism is actually pretty popular in the US/West, especially among millennials - who have been shown to not even know basic facts about history of communism.

Part of the reason for that is that this is the generation who have been subjected to and influenced by left wing biased views by educators for the last 40 years (As of 2007, 18 percent of social scientists in the United States, self-identify as Marxists , and an overwhelming majority of college professors is progressive/left wing at 12/1 ratio )

Or, for those who do understand and know the facts, they simply refuse to judge Communism by its actual record instead of some theoretical imaginary goals .

Sam I am ♦ ,14 hours ago

Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat . – Sam I am ♦ 14 hours ago

ruakh ,6 hours ago

Re: "My grandmother was almost repressed [...] Many members of my extended family were repressed during Stalin's times": I think you may be using the wrong word here; Stalin's regime was definitely repressive, but "repress" is very vague, to the point that "almost repressed" is meaningless. Did you mean something more specific? – ruakh 6 hours ago

Tony Ennis ,4 hours ago

My Russian teachers had nothing nice to say about the Socialist state from which they fled. – Tony Ennis 4 hours ago

canadianer ,3 hours ago

The poll says 7% prefer a communist country while 44% prefer a socialist country. The same poll also says that most people don't know or misidentify what socialism or communism really are. Is it not, then, misleading to say "51%... prefer to live in socialist or communist country..." in support of the premise that "Communism is actually pretty popular..." ? – canadianer 3 hours ago

user4012 ,2 hours ago

@ruakh - I'm not sure what the correct technical English term is for the russian word "repressirovan (репрессирован)". But it has a very un-ambiguous meaning in context . – user4012 2 hours ago

not store bought dirt ,yesterday

Marx wrote about the inevitability of a paradise of post scarcity once communism is achieved, but very strongly implied that we need to climb over some well dressed corpses to get there. It seems pretty expected that the people currently wearing those clothes aren't going to want that.

Negative news reports weren't that long ago. Whether this is propaganda or not is increasingly hard to say, but:

Two of the countries Americans are most concerned about are still aligned with communism. There are still reports of humans rights violations. Some fairly brutal suppressions happened in the last 40 years, which is withing living memory (not everyone is a millennial no matter what the internet says).

I remember watching The Wall being smashed and a man stopping a tank on TV. And they will live on in the internet, forever counterrevolutionary, with commentary about why they are important. These are events that stick with some people as strongly as One Small Step, I Have A Dream, or a man burning as he falls.

Some of the none governmental propaganda against communism is still regularly used. 1984 and Animal Farm are fairly hard to avoid in American school and Ayn Rand is surprisingly often mentioned.

user4012 ,yesterday

+1 but I am rather surprised where you found a single American school mentioning Ayn Rand. – user4012 yesterday

blip ,yesterday

@user4012 it's often required or suggested reading. Less so today, fortunately :) – blip yesterday

blip ,yesterday

@user4012 it's in many school libraries...or at least was. I had it as part of coursework in college. My son had it as a book he could read (suggested, not required) in high school. – blip yesterday

blip ,yesterday

@seeReality23 rather, she was a complete nutcase, a bad writer, and ultimately a hypocrite of her own philosophy. 6/half-dozen. – blip yesterday

Shautieh ,3 hours ago

Looked up Ayn Rand rom wikipedia: "In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral,[3] and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, and instead supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights". What's so controversial about disliking oppressive regimes and supporting individual rights? – Shautieh 3 hours ago

Chloe ,yesterday

Communism has committed atrocities far greater than the Holocaust.

Holodomor : up to 12 million dead

Khmer Rouge : up to 3 million dead

The Great Leap Forward : up to 55 million dead

Tanzania Experiment : no deaths, only near famine

Death, famine, and genocide are usually considered evil.

user41281 ,yesterday

I don't particularly see how these reflect negatively on communism as an ideology. Rather, they are examples of failed/inefficient policies by specific authoritarian governments, and in some of the above might have even been politically motivated. If one were to ascribe these failings to any particular form of government, I would personally attribute them to the authoritarian underpinnings of the states in question, not their goals of communism. Moreover, states like the USSR weren't communist in any form (they were socialist, both in the constitution and in practice). – user41281 yesterday

Dan Walmsley ,yesterday

user41281 The parent question asked "why it's so easy to ban Nazi symbols and so hard to ban communist symbols" I thinks it's fair to say many evils have been done under those symbols, it is strange they are seen in a positive light. The symbols represent specific implementations of Communism. I personally think communism as an ideology is destined to lead to tyranny but even if you don't think that's the case they symbols were used by some horrific tyrannies. – Dan Walmsley yesterday

Chloe ,yesterday

@MoziburUllah Colonialism isn't required by capitalism. Communal farming is required by communism. Also, tu quoque is a logical fallacy. – Chloe yesterday

Mozibur Ullah ,yesterday

Colonialism and slavery is historically linked with Capitalism in the same way that Communism is historically linked with the atrocities you've mentioned; its part of a even-handed critique to look at both sides of an argument, as opposed to criticism which is just one-sided. – Mozibur Ullah yesterday

jamesqf ,yesterday

@Mozibur Ullah: Linked by whom? Usually as propaganda by the left, no? Certainly we can find colonialism and slavery in cultures that pre-date modern capitalism: Rome and Islam to pick just two well-known instances. – jamesqf yesterday

Twelfth ,yesterday

Why is communism considered as evil (like fascism and nazism) in western countries?

Simple answer is them vs us. This was previously nationality, but cold-war era saw this them vs us line drawn more on economic lines as alliances spanned multiple nations. I'll try to ignore the actuals behind why communism is evil and try to focus more on the perception of why it's remained the big evil within western society.

It should be noted that if you include deaths from sweatshops, activities outlined in 'confessions of an economic hitman', and a handful of wars...capitalism likely has quite the death toll behind it as well, but where do you draw the line between imperial ambitions and capitalism...and if we're willing to draw that line for capitalism, where does that line lay for the communists death toll? Ideal theory vs less than ideal implementation is always a factor in this discussion, usually people have to wear pretty heavy blinders to declare why our system is good and just while their system is corrupt and evil.

Much longer answer, a lot of this is generational. Younger generations are more and more embracing a 'help your neighbor' viewpoint associating capitalism with a 'Individual at the expense of everyone else' ala Martin Shkreli vs a communism 'collective looking out for the good of one another', which seems to have caused a bit of a leftist tilt in the younger generation (probably a bit to do with people get screwed over by capitalism as well and the much greener grass of communism is a dream to address that). Of course, this is entirely a dream world and has little to do with what communism actually is, yet a large number of youths in capitalist nations have somehow come to the conclusion that communism is preferable. Teaching this younger generation what the implementation of communism actually looks like is often done in the 'communism is evil' standpoint, perpetuating the 'communism is evil' viewpoint.

This is greatly exacerbated in the US, which shows a weird mix of misunderstanding and political posturing...we've already got an answer claiming all socialism is communism (same people that use 'liberal' as a curseword), which makes a pretty good example for this. Very much an exercise of reductio ad absurdum in action, suggesting some social support is countered by all social support is communism and therefore evil. Much of the wealthy within the US is generally against using their money to finance social constructs (healthcare is a big one here, but it's used against a pretty wide array of social programs) and a consistent tactic to whip up support is to use the lines "this is socialism, all socialism is communism, communism is evil, therefore "insert hot topic like universal healthcare" is evil. This political posturing is a heavy reason this 'communism is evil!' argument continues in America.

But with all that said...the key reason why Communism is regarded as evil can be reduced to freedom. "communism = someone else/collective telling us what to do and how to behave" vs "capitalism is the individual choosing what to do and how to behave". People who have had their freedom denied will heavily resist what appears to be taking freedom away.

blip ,yesterday

The catch with capitalism is that it can equally end up being someone else telling us what to do and how to behave. It's not a simple contrast in that regard. – blip yesterday

Twelfth ,yesterday

@blip - Agreed entirely, I'm tried to keep my talking points to perception and not the reality...more often than not, perceptions are reduced down to the simplest form. – Twelfth yesterday

blip ,yesterday

Good point re: perception. – blip yesterday

J Doe ,yesterday

Of course under capitalism you still have people telling you how to behave. – J Doe yesterday

J Doe ,yesterday

Indeed, the whole point of communism is that it is supposed to free us from the yoke of capitalism. Here's an example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons-based_peer_productionJ Doe yesterday

libeako ,yesterday

The base of socialism is higher tax and more control over the economy in order to "help the poor". If one amplifies this to total [everything is taken away by tax, every economical decision is controlled], then one gets exactly in a situation that is equivalent with communism.

So "communism" is just the extreme of socialism. To be general, i will speak about socialism mostly, but it applies to communism too.

Socialism, as any other social order : has a basic categorization : voluntary or enforced. By the word "socialism" most people mean the one enforced by state, which is of course violent, as laws of the state are mandatory, and enforced by violence. Such socialism is really bad, even if not by intention, but at least by results.

In the enforced socialism : the state [hence, and more precisely the rulers] gain power to take away the private property of the people and control economical activity. This has 2 notable results :

In short time : exploitation of the economy and distribution of the stolen assets to the poor is popular. This also strengthens the political power of the socialist ruler. But in the long time : the effect on the economy is felt by the people, who then start to want political change. In this stage the ruler, who has by now established a tyranny : has 2 choices :

What makes socialism especially dangerous idea is that it gives high power to the ruler, hence is prone to tyranny. I said "prone". Socialism does not necessarily leads to tyranny. In fact : most democratic countries today are socialist for decades. If socialism is applied in a sufficiently small dose then the negative consequences are small too and the country can survive it, even prosper.

Socialism and hitlerism are the same in their core principle, which is : "I have an idea about how people should live. It is so good that we should gain power and attack people to force them to live that way."

It is very important to see where the problem is. It is not in the social ideology itself.

The problem is the idea that people should be violently attacked to enforce an idea.

Violence itself may be even a good thing. For example it is good to kill a person who is committing mass shooting. Not only because it saves more lives than it takes, but because it saves innocent life and takes guilty life. Even it is good to shoot a group of criminals who are killing a single innocent person. What is then really bad about violence? It is the initiation of it ["attack", "aggression"].

More precisely we should condemn not only initiation of violence, but more generally : initiation of harm. Harm also contains theft.

Economic freedom [voluntary exchange of goods and services] does not need violence at all, but restricting economic freedom does. Defending property right does need violence, but robbery needs more. Theft is initiation of harm, while using force against theft is violence and therefore harm too, but not initiation of harm.

Twelfth ,yesterday

You've done a great job of illustrating how communism is erroneously conflated with socialism. Not exactly the point of the question, unless you were going with irony. – Twelfth yesterday

Twelfth ,yesterday

"help the poor" - it's to help the people regardless of wealth, middle class still use the social structures. But you are badly mixing the two topics up, communism is political while socialism is economical and you seem to have this driving point to say that socialism cannot be achieved without a dictator which is completely false. Democratic socialism already exists proving your answer to be complete paranoia and a perfect example of the 'communism is evil, flee while you can' mantra. Hence my +1 for ironic answer award – Twelfth yesterday

Obie 2.0 ,yesterday

@Andy - Can one have a capitalist economy without the use of force? ;) Private property rights don't enforce themselves, you know. – Obie 2.0 yesterday

Twelfth ,yesterday

@Andy - movement in the US seems to be growing in popularity without force. thenation.com/article/ Scandinavian nations being classified as such, and the socialist related death count in Norway is low. dissentmagazine.org/article/ Social dems in Germany are doing decent. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany socialism and communism are not the same, democratic socialism is alive and distant from communism – Twelfth yesterday

owjburnham ,9 hours ago

@Andy The Internet is not in America. There is no "they". The European socialists are already here, in the comments with you. Hello! – owjburnham 9 hours ago

[Nov 18, 2017] MoA - NATO Adds To Turkeys Chagrin

See also Blood Borders A Proposal To Redraw A New Middle East - Brilliant Maps
Notable quotes:
"... Armed Forces Journal ..."
"... Daily Sabah ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

NATO Adds To Turkey's Chagrin

There has long been speculation about a Turkish good-bye to NATO .

The U.S. and its military proxy organization in Europe are doing their best to further such a move:

The image of Atatürk was displayed as a target during the drill at NATO's Joint Warfare Center in Stavanger, Norway held between Nov. 8 and Nov. 17, while a NATO soldier posted defamatory words about Erdoğan on the social media.

Atatürk is the founder of the secular Turkey. He was designated as "target" during a desk-top drill. NATO's Joint Warfare Center is not a low level school but an elite officer training institution led by a Major-General. The 40 Turkish soldiers who attended the training course were immediately ordered back home.

Secularists in Turkey have long suspected NATO as promoting "moderate Islamists". That believe is not without factual ground. U.S. President Obama allied with the Muslim Brotherhood during the so called "Arab Spring". But the second incident at the very same NATO institution points to a more comprehensive anti-Turkish position:

A Kurdish-origin Norwegian officer signed up to a social networking website within NATO, using a fake account in the name of President Erdoğan and sharing posts against the organization.

To vilify the Turkish secularist hero Atatürk and its Islamist President Erdogan in related occasions is a comprehensive move against the whole country.

NATO's political spokesperson Jens Stoltenberg, a Norwegian politician, apologized for the incidents. It will soothe no one.

A comparable incident happened in 2006. U.S. Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters published a map with redrawn borders of Middle East in the Armed Forces Journal . The map showed a "Free Kurdistan" and Turkey cut to half its size.

The map was then presented by an American colonel at the NATO's Defense College in Rome while Turkish officers were attending. An uproar ensued and the U.S. had to apologize.

In July 2016 parts of the Turkish military attempted a coup against Erdogan. Turkish jets which attacked the capitol Ankara had launched from the U.S. and NATO base in Incirlik. When the attempt failed several NATO countries granted asylum to Turkish officers who did not want to return to their home country.

After the failed coup Turkey decided to buy Russian air defense systems. The move makes sense. The alternative U.S. systems are suspected to be ineffective against attacking U.S. planes and missiles. The Russian S-400 systems is designed to counter threats from U.S. weapons.

Turkey is a partner in the U.S. F-35 fighter jet program. It has plans to purchase one hundred of them. Now the U.S. Air Force suggests that the deal could be restricted:

If Turkey moves forward with its buy of a Russian air defense system, it will not be permitted to plug into NATO technology, and further action may be forthcoming that could affect the country's acquisition or operation of the F-35, a top Air Force official said Wednesday.
...
Analysts worry that Turkey operating both the S-400 and F-35 together could compromise the jet's security, as any data collected by the air defense system and obtained by Russia could help expose the joint strike fighter's vulnerabilities. For a platform like the F-35, whose major strengths are its stealth and data fusion capabilities, that would be a disaster.

[The deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs, Heidi] Grant, agreed that a S-400 acquisition creates issues for Turkey's use of the F-35.
...
Her comments echoed those of Gen. Petr Pavel, chairman of NATO's military committee. In October, Pavel said that Turkey is free, as a sovereign nation, to make its own decisions in regards to military procurement, but will face "consequences" if a S-400 buy goes through.

Buying a Russian air defense system is not unprecedented for a NATO state. In 1997 Cyprus bought Russian S-300 systems, ironically to defend against Turkish jets. The Cyprus Missile Crisis ensued and the weapons ended up in Greece where they also serve to keep the Turks away. Greece also flies U.S. made jets.

In Syria the U.S. is arming, training and fighting together with the YPK, a sister organization of the Kurdish PKK which is pursuing a guerilla campaign against the Turkish army and state.

The personal disparaging of Turkish politicians by NATO, U.S. involvement in a coup attempt, restrictions on weapon buys and U.S. cooperation with Turkey's enemy are amounting to an open affront.

It is obvious that NATO is no longer a reliable ally for Turkey. This view is independent of who holds the Turkish presidency. The strategic situation would not change if Erdogan would be replaced by some secular nationalist figure.

Turkey fields NATO's second biggest army. With more than 80 million people it is a large emerging military and economic power. It controls the Bosporus and thereby access to the Black Sea. It has influence in the Balkans as well as in the Central Asian "Stans". It is a crossing point for major energy pathways including the new Russian TurkStream pipeline which will deliver Russian gas to south-Europe.

The is little that hinders Turkey from leaving NATO and from joining a tacit alliance with Russia. Russian fighter jets are as good as the U.S. designed F-35. Even Turkey's economic interests seem to be better aligned with Russia's than with north-Europe or the United States. The voices in Turkey that demand a realignment are gaining ground. The editors of the Erdogan friendly Daily Sabah write :

The U.S. is not the enemy, but neither is it acting like a friend. Its actions are against Turkey's interests as well as its own. Now is the right time for Turkey to formulate its own independent regional policy.

Russia and Iran with their sounder anti-Daesh and counterterrorism policies need to be at the center of measures Turkey will implement from now on. After all that's happened, one thing is certain: The U.S. should definitely be kept out of Turkey's regional policy concerns.

The Zionist lobby in the U.S. has long argued to kick Turkey out of NATO. Such a separation may indeed come true. But it would be Turkey that would leave NATO and not the other way around. The effects would be quote different than those expected a decade ago.

Posted by b on November 17, 2017 at 02:22 PM | Permalink

shaw | Nov 17, 2017 2:49:14 PM | 1

More you Piss Off Turkey, more it goes East !!(Is this the Policy of US?) No Issues, Turkey and Erdogan have thumbed it's Nose to USA and is in Secret block of Russia, China & Pakistan. It will Seek it's Ottoman Glory with the "Stans" of Central Asia. Just gave Pakistan $1.45 million Line of Credit & full "Technology Transfer" of A129 Attack Helicopters to Pakistan. Russian M400 Missiles, etc etc. US keeps eyes closed, World is closing in Fast. And Mr Trump is losing faster. Disaster trip to Asia. China spun a great spell. US is going down.
Virgile | Nov 17, 2017 2:50:49 PM | 2
The US admnistration hates Erdogan and he hates them in return.
After it failed to kick Erdogan out with the 'amateurish' coup, opponents to Erdogan who are in NATO and in the US administration are doing all they can to undermine Erdogan, to put him in the defensive, to isolate him and to weaken him even more. They are working so he won't be elected president in 2019 and Turkey would be ripe for compromises on Palestine.

It is part of Trump's strategy to force an Israel-Palestinian peace plan worked out by Zionists advisors to Trump. The opponents to this plan, Syria,Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Hamas are been subjected to all sorts of assaults to destabilize them and make weaker so they have no choice than to bow.
Parallely Trump is also weakening Israel as he wants serious compromise that the jewish State is not ready to give. Therefore a campaign against Netanyahu is going on to weaken him or replace him.

We will therefore not see large attacks but relentless small attacks on these countries..
In the hands of Trump, Jared, MBS and Netanyahu, the 'plan' risks to make Iran Greater and Saudi Arabia and the USA Smaller!

somebody | Nov 17, 2017 3:10:58 PM | 3
Nato/coalition/US will have to decide if they are with the YPG in Syria or with Turkey.
somebody | Nov 17, 2017 3:13:34 PM | 4
add to 3

Looks like a campaign Time to kick Turkey out of NATO

frances | Nov 17, 2017 3:49:17 PM | 5
"The purchase...could help expose the joint strike fighter's vulnerabilities."
Hahahahah, good joke, the F-35 is a billion dollar deathtrap. To be prevented from purchasing them would be a godsend for Turkey.
C1ue | Nov 17, 2017 4:21:05 PM | 6
Turkey has long played the fan dance between East (Russia) and West (Western European powers). This time is no different. It was just a few years ago that Turkey was such a friend to the US and European interests. The failed coup, however, has changed that but still only time will tell if this is a structural change or just the latest flip flop.
Piotr Berman | Nov 17, 2017 4:22:29 PM | 7
The structural problem of "macro NATO" concept is that it puts together countries that have very little in common, or more precisely, with many seething mutual conflicts. That would matter little if there was a unifying threat, but nothing like that exists.

Supporting Turkey and "free Kurdistan" is an obvious hard case, but Turkey has checkered relationship with KSA+UAE -- while being close to Qatar, and with Greece. Greece and Bulgaria have no enmity toward Russia, although the current government seems to follow anti-Russian line.

Then there is an issue why countries far from Russia and lacking alternative "enemies" or post-colonial clients should strive to keep defense spending at NATO agreed level of 2% of GDP. And huge prices of NATO approved weapon systems. Lithuania increased military spending to the "required 2%" and it still cannot afford tanks (I did not check other Baltic states). Clearly, arms race is cheaper for Russia that has complete domestic military industry, lower costs and more cost aware process of weapon design, so the scheme to beggar Russia with arms race is good only for the overfed western arms producers.

Turkey has decent economy and good strategic position: key straits under control and complicated mountain ranges along problematic borders, so it should survive leaving NATO without loosing quiet sleep. At worst, they should improve relationship with neighbors and their own Kurds, and NATO is more hindrance than help in that respect.

Hausmeister | Nov 17, 2017 4:44:05 PM | 8
C1ue | Nov 17, 2017 4:21:05 PM | 6

„The failed coup, however, has changed that but still only time will tell if this is a structural change or just the latest flip flop."
Please be not that much sure about this coup. People who are better informed do not share the estimation that it was a Western-plotted thing, at least not in its final execution. Some people in Turkey call it a controlled coup. True is that this „moderate Islam" thing was supported by the West, including Saudi-Arabia, but Erdogan/AKP knew this, used its benefits until the very last moment and Erdogan himself welcomed the dirty tricks that his (Gülen-) police people used against his Kemalist opposition.

lysander | Nov 17, 2017 5:39:14 PM | 11
I can't help but notice that Turkey would have avoided all these problems entirely if they had refused to allow terrorists to attack Syria from its territory from the very beginning. Without Turkey, the war against Syria would have collapsed before it even started, saving everyone enormous heartache and pain.
fast freddy | Nov 17, 2017 7:18:08 PM | 15
NATO is a multi-purpose US/UK/Israel Proxy Force and a Figleaf for offensive Full Spectrum Dominance. Other member states are there because there are pictures of their leaders with their pants down.
Jackrabbit | Nov 17, 2017 7:26:58 PM | 16
Unbelievable. Why antagonize Turkey/Erdogan so directly?

No, really ... it's unbelievable. Such 'social proof' of a NATO-Turkish rift will no doubt cause Vlad to allow Erdogan certain liberties ... like remaining in Idlib and standing in the way of improved Kurdish-Syria relations.

karlof1 | Nov 17, 2017 7:34:45 PM | 17
Lysander @11--

An unavoidable truth being swept under the rug, most certainly! Erdogan is every bit as responsible for the deaths, mayhem and destruction as Obama and other facilitators. A trial followed by the gallows is what their fate ought to be. Erdogan may have changed his direction due to external factors, but his initial direction and the crimes he ordered to occur cannot be forgotten or forgiven.

Jackrabbit | Nov 17, 2017 7:44:52 PM | 18
@10 somebody's jewish paranoia has been triggered (again)

"Russia supported US Evangelical right wing" is almost as laughable as "Russia hacked the election" with $100k in facebook ads.

The evidence-free allegation in the first link ...

Russia's masters, whether political or ecclesiastical, have generally been skilled at cultivating friendships and tactical alliances ...
... is promptly contradicted by:
... there will always be limits to the relationship between the Russian Orthodox and America's evangelicals. Theologically, they are a long way apart.... [and US] Evangelicals tend to be philo-Semitic and pro-Israel [and] tend to be uncompromisingly anti-Islam, but conservative Russian Christians ... get along quite well with traditionalist Muslims ... And it is hard to argue that Russian society has anything to teach America about "family values"; rates of divorce and abortion are much higher in Russia than in America.

Then there is the issue of religious freedom in Russia. The meeting on Christian persecution that recently convened in Washington, DC, was originally scheduled to take place in Moscow; but the venue was changed after Russia passed a law that curbed evangelical missionary work, upsetting American Protestants.

terry thomas | Nov 17, 2017 8:02:26 PM | 19
the dog erdogan and his donmeh jewish corleone family have stripped syria bare. taken a billion dollars of plant based machinary helped destroy a world heritage site aleppo.
helped israel ant it's year zero oded yinon projects. turkey and israel are the nexus of one of the world largest live organ human shipping industries only out done by china.
without turkey and jordan the satanick warcrimes in syria could not of happened. as someone called billy hayes said above never trust a turk.

when you speak to the average turk they have zero knowledge of erdogans crimes and blame everyone else but themselves.

dog erdo gets upset at a photoshop image of himself as target, and does not blink at his israeli arts projects in syria for the zionist history erasures. the rape and destruction of an ancient place theft of billions of dollars of oil sold onto tel aviv.

this fella is a donmeh satanist a mason a tool who and should be kept at arms length assad and syria should never forgive the crimes of this pimp.

psychohistorian | Nov 17, 2017 10:08:57 PM | 21
...To the posting matter....Turkey is just part of the realignment of nations that is occurring before our eyes. I keep wanting to see a chart of the evolving multipolar world but the game is still in play so one must practice patience....
<

[Nov 18, 2017] Is America Up for a Second Cold War

Notable quotes:
"... the precise matter of the Sino-Russian border has been conclusively settled in terms of international law. China no longer has territorial quarrels with Russia. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I would argue that one reason why China is strengthening is great Chinese prudence in terms of picking its fights. China did, in contrast to the west, not seek to gobble up Central Asia during the period of Russian weakness in the 90s. ..."
"... China has invested in infrastructure, manufacturing, and education all those things the US spent decades building in the 40's and 50's, while we have spend decades investing in bombs, bullets, and barely functioning combat aircraft. ..."
"... Sure we have a $4 trillion trade deficit with China over the last 25 years. But we have spent $16.2 Trillion over the same period on our military. We are slowly but surely spending ourselves into the poorhouse to prop up a defense industry that at this point is simply a self perpetuating waste. ..."
"... Okay, let's look at overall foreign policies of Washington, D.C. Washington wants Russia to cooperate, but Washington imposes and sustains economic sanctions on Russia and conducts NATO military exercises at Russia's border-regions! ..."
"... Soviet Union collapsed from unsustainable socialist economic system, but Washington claimed "America defeated Soviet Union and America won the Cold War!" while perpetuating perennial American military hostility towards both Russia and the People's Republic of China even to this moment. ..."
"... Chinese domination of the world is a great blessing for the EU. The Chinese show no sign of wanting to dominate Europe (the "secessionism" and fear of immigration that Mr Buchanan refers to appear to have been largely CIA-sponsored scams intended to destroy the EU and I can see no sign of "depopulation"). ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

November 17, 2017 at 7:42 am The anti-trade, anti immigration, anti-Muslim, pro-plutocrat policy and rhetoric of the Trump administration systematically undermines the power of the US to contain China as we successfully did the USSR.

Kent , says: November 17, 2017 at 8:16 am

China is not a military threat. China's threat is far more insidious. China wants to be the global economic hegemon. With China becoming the world's center for advanced manufacturing, technology, green energy, and finance.

In a globalized economy there is no need for empire. As long as everyone is willing to trade their raw materials, China could care less about imposing its will on other nations. The US can build whatever fancy weapons systems it wants, but China isn't going to play that game. While American engineers work to make the F-35 actually do something, Chinese engineers will be designing better batteries and solar panels. While America graduates millions of Women's Studies majors, China will be graduating millions of civil and electronic engineers.

The US cannot win this game. Our CEOs are only capable of looking at the next quarter. They are finance people who will happily give their technology to China in exchange for some short-term market access and profits. Our technologists are focused on creating apps for taxi service and food delivery. Chinese technologists are building the world's top supercomputers.

China is the future. Our best hope is to figure out how to position ourselves to minimize the associated risks to our economy and children.

Mightypeon , says: November 17, 2017 at 9:15 am
Dear Mr. Buchanan,

the precise matter of the Sino-Russian border has been conclusively settled in terms of international law. China no longer has territorial quarrels with Russia.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that one reason why China is strengthening is great Chinese prudence in terms of picking its fights. China did, in contrast to the west, not seek to gobble up Central Asia during the period of Russian weakness in the 90s.

It did not force remaining Russian influence out of Mongolia or North Korea (2 states where Russia and China are jockeying for influence) and was not a part of the failed western effort to prevent Russia from becoming a great power again.

They can now reap the benefits, as their strongest neighbor, the Russian federation, is now also effectively Chinas ally.

collin , says: November 17, 2017 at 10:02 am
Again, are we Americans up for a Second Cold War, and, if so, why?

Is there really a coming Second Cold War with China? While we need to verify China moves, I rather think of them as a mistrusted Ally versus a Possible Cold War and these issues are negotiating with the Chinese government, they are not deal breakers by any means.

1) The biggest issue of course is NK and I rather us give the China government concessions with South Korea to gain concessions on North Korea.

2) I figure if the Chinese want to invest billions (trillions?) in the New Silk Road, I say more power to them. Either one of two realities occur (actually both are likely and they muddle):

2a) It is a successful in lowering trade cost to Europe and integrates the Central Muslim economies into the global system. Or/And:

2b) China gets mired in the Central Asian Muslim economies with Terrorist Target One in Pakistan who is notorious at turning against Allies.

3) The trade deficit is concern but it is incredible leverage over their economy.

4) I still see the Chinese economy as 1980s Japan Inc. 2: The Revenge of the Mainland so there will be a financial crisis, as it happens to all successful economies, and there will be a decline of manufacturing jobs at some point. (Actually I would not be surprised it already happening.)

5) Most of the concerns of their neighboring nations are their concerns and it seems like a lot of political internet tit for tat with Vietnam and Japan.

6) I am not sure why their style government should be a sticking point here. Their government seems very rationally run and it makes sense to work with them not against them for our interest

7) Of course, is their leader that better knows how to play our current President? OK maybe Saudia Arabia.

Christian Chuba , says: November 17, 2017 at 10:05 am
Simply put, we are going to lose this Cold War the same way the Soviets did, economically because we are still using the same playbook.

We insist on having local superiority to both the Russians and Chinese in their backyard forcing us to spend 10x relative to them on Defense. The Russians learned their lesson and are keeping their military spending in control. The Chinese are now a much stronger economy and growing.

The only 'hope' we have is in convincing their immediate neighbors that they have to commit most of their resources in joining us in containing them. So far they ain't biting.

We are singing the song that 'our military has been gutted'. Congratulations Russia / China, as long as we don't nuke the place, you will eventually see your eccentric, crazy, neighbor implode.

GregR , says: November 17, 2017 at 10:38 am
China has invested in infrastructure, manufacturing, and education all those things the US spent decades building in the 40's and 50's, while we have spend decades investing in bombs, bullets, and barely functioning combat aircraft.

Sure we have a $4 trillion trade deficit with China over the last 25 years. But we have spent $16.2 Trillion over the same period on our military. We are slowly but surely spending ourselves into the poorhouse to prop up a defense industry that at this point is simply a self perpetuating waste.

Dee , says: November 17, 2017 at 12:09 pm
I agree with others here, there will be no new cold war.. The whole world must laugh at the amount of money our govt wastes on conventional weapons that have no enemy to fight.. Until some two-bit client state goads us into some debacle against thier two-bit enemy which of course will even dwarf the cost of the weapons themselves.. Meanwhile this congress is hell-bent on getting the rich richer and of course everyone else can argue about bathroom politics.. We are trying to become china and russia..
ukm1 , says: November 17, 2017 at 12:21 pm
Okay, let's look at overall foreign policies of Washington, D.C. Washington wants Russia to cooperate, but Washington imposes and sustains economic sanctions on Russia and conducts NATO military exercises at Russia's border-regions!

Washington wants India to cooperate while Washington continues military and economic aiding to nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Washington wants North Korea to give up nuclear weapons, but Washington provides nuclear umbrella to Japan and South Korea and conducts bilateral or trilateral military exercises in the water near North Korea every year, if not every now and then!

Washington wants the People's Republic of China to help America destroy North Korea both financially with economic sanctions and militarily with American pre-emptive strikes!

While at the very same time, Washington militarily wants to go after the People's Republic of China for Taiwan as well as for the tiny artificial Chinese islands in the South China Sea.

Washington now wants European-American economic sanctions fully restored on the Islamic Republic of Iran for existing or non-existing Iranian nuclear weapons program, but Washington does not say a thing about hundreds of Israeli nuclear warheads pointing towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Both Russia and the People's Republic of China must be utter fools to believe in any American president's words and cooperate with Washington to sustain harmful American military hegemony over both Middle East and the Far East at this juncture.

Washington killed millions of Vietnamese people and Washington killed millions of Koreans in the 20th century A.D., but -- history is witness -- Washington did not win either the Vietnam War or the Korean War.

Soviet Union collapsed from unsustainable socialist economic system, but Washington claimed "America defeated Soviet Union and America won the Cold War!" while perpetuating perennial American military hostility towards both Russia and the People's Republic of China even to this moment.

Michael Kenny , says: November 17, 2017 at 12:35 pm
Chinese domination of the world is a great blessing for the EU. The Chinese show no sign of wanting to dominate Europe (the "secessionism" and fear of immigration that Mr Buchanan refers to appear to have been largely CIA-sponsored scams intended to destroy the EU and I can see no sign of "depopulation"). In addition, the "One Belt, One Road" strategy, by building railways to link the Central Asian republics to ports in China and Iran, is disenclaving them and thereby undermining Putin's attempts to exhume the Soviet Union. That sounds rather good to European ears.
Paul Clayton , says: November 17, 2017 at 2:03 pm
I'm not so sure about this, "For while China seeks to dominate Eurasia, she appears to have no desire to threaten the vital interests of the United States." I think of the scene in Empire of the Sun, about Japan's takeover of China. An English family, along with thousands of foreigners, is run out of their houses and neighborhoods as the Japanese invade. The boy is separated from his parents, on his own. He makes his way back to his abandoned house and hides there. Then the servants that waited on him and his parents, the nanny that wiped his ass, fed him, break in and start stealing the furniture. When he confronts them, she slaps him in the face. That's it. The nation of China has a bad memory of their relationship with America and the foreign powers. There's a lot of bad blood there. A muscled China is not going to let America go its own way. There's going to be a price to pay. Whether it's war or some form of political enslavement, only time will tell.
fabian , says: November 17, 2017 at 3:02 pm
China has no potential without an alliance with Russia. It has no natural resources and no water (that's why, they will never let Tibet go). The mistake the numbskulls in DC are doing is that they throw Russia in the arms of China. Together they can displace the US and gulp Europe in the process. No problems.

[Nov 18, 2017] How Americas Deep State Operates To Control The Message by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message. ..."
"... Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were "guilty" of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be "useful idiots" for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be required to register as foreign agents. ..."
"... Hegemonic Empire always attacks those nations who are perceived to be weaker than the Empire. ..."
"... Never in my long life have I ever seen such twistedness in the mainstream media. In the days of Nixon and Watergate, there was a media agenda. But it was based in truth. This crap we get now is complete Deep State party line. ..."
"... I wonder if there ever was a time in history where the media in a country was so full of fabrication and propaganda. If there was, I would be interested in hearing how they had a downfall. It seems the media in this country can be so completely covered in deceit and lies and false claims, yet somehow not be accountable for it. ..."
"... The whole Russiagate bullshite has once again destroyed the credibility of the intel agencies and the media. Really old idiots are in charge of these things. ..."
Nov 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Philip Giraldi via The Strategic Culture Foundation

It is not possible to overstate the power of certain constituencies and corporate lobbies in the United States.

These pressure groups, joined by powerful government agencies, many of which have secret agendas that focus on national security, constitute what is increasingly being recognized as "Deep State America." Deep State is the widespread belief that there exists in many countries an entrenched and largely hidden infrastructure that really controls the national narrative and runs things. It explains why, for example, a country like the United States is perpetually at war even though the wars have been disastrous failures ever since Korea and have not made the nation more secure.

To be sure, certain constituencies have benefitted from global instability and conflict, to include defense industries, big government in general, and the national security state . They all work together and hand-in-hand with the corporate media to sustain the narrative that the United States is perpetually under threat, even though it is not.

The recent exchanges over the Russia-US relationship exhibit perfectly how the Deep State operates to control the message. American President Donald Trump briefly met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. Putin reportedly told Trump that Russia "absolutely had not meddled" in the 2016 US election and Trump then told reporters that he believed the Russian leader meant what he said, "which is good." As détente with Russia is not considered desirable by the Deep State, there was an immediate explosion of a contrary narrative, namely that Trump believes a Russian "enemy" and does not trust what his own intelligence agencies have told him about 2016 because he is being "played" by Putin.

This story was repeated both on television news and in all the mainstream newspapers without exception, eventually forcing Trump to recant and say that he does believe in US intelligence.

Not a single major media outlet in the US reported that it just might be possible that Putin was telling the truth and that the intelligence community, which has been wrong many times over the past twenty years, might have to look again at what it considers to be evidence. No journalist had the courage to point out that the claims of the Washington national security team have been remarkably devoid of anything credible to support the conclusions about what the Russian government might or might not have been up to. That is what a good journalist is supposed to do and it has nothing to do with whether or not one admires or loathes either Putin or Trump.

That the relationship between Moscow and Washington should be regarded as important given the capability of either country to incinerate the planet would appear to be a given, but the Washington-New York Establishment, which is euphemism for Deep State, is actually more concerned with maintaining its own power by marginalizing Donald Trump and maintaining the perception that Vladimir Putin is the enemy head of state of a Russia that is out to cripple American democracy.

Beyond twisting narratives, Russiagate is also producing potentially dangerous collateral damage to free speech, as one of the objectives of those in the Deep State is to rein in the current internet driven relatively free access to information. In its most recent manifestations, an anonymous group produced a phony list of 200 websites that were "guilty" of serving up Russian propaganda, a George Soros funded think tank identified thousands of individuals who are alleged to be "useful idiots" for Moscow, and legitimate Russian media outlets will be required to register as foreign agents.

Driven by Russophobia over the 2016 election, a group of leading social media corporations including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter have been experimenting with ways to self-censor their product to keep out foreign generated or "hate" content.

They even have a label for it: "cyberhate" . Congress is also toying with legislation that will make certain viewpoints unacceptable or even illegal, including a so-called Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that would potentially penalize anyone who criticizes Israel and could serve as a model for banning other undesirable speech. "Defamatory speech" could even eventually include any criticism of the government or political leaders, as is now the case in Turkey, which is the country where the "Deep State" was invented.

serotonindumptruck , Nov 17, 2017 8:14 PM

Fear is the order of the day. Be very, very afraid of that militarily-weak nation on the other side of the world, who poses no legitimate and imminent threat to the US. Hegemonic Empire always attacks those nations who are perceived to be weaker than the Empire. It represents the death knell of Empire, and is typically the final stage of economic and political collapse.

Publicus_Reanimated , Nov 17, 2017 9:07 PM

Howard Beale: "We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true! But you people sit there day after day, night after night, all ages, colors, creeds. We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you. You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube. You even think like the tube. This is mass madness. You maniacs. In God's name, you people are the real thing. We are the illusion. So turn off your television sets. Turn them off now. Turn them off right now. Turn them off and leave them off. Turn them off right in the middle of this sentence I am speaking to you now. Turn them off!"

-- Network

If you are too young to have heard of this movie, now you know.

Cherubim , Nov 17, 2017 9:53 PM

Never in my long life have I ever seen such twistedness in the mainstream media. In the days of Nixon and Watergate, there was a media agenda. But it was based in truth. This crap we get now is complete Deep State party line.

I wonder if there ever was a time in history where the media in a country was so full of fabrication and propaganda. If there was, I would be interested in hearing how they had a downfall. It seems the media in this country can be so completely covered in deceit and lies and false claims, yet somehow not be accountable for it.

The only thing in history that I know that would compare to this is the Pravda in the old Soviet days of Brezhnev. And I'm not sure how that came finally tumbling down.

wide angle tree , Nov 17, 2017 9:55 PM

The whole Russiagate bullshite has once again destroyed the credibility of the intel agencies and the media. Really old idiots are in charge of these things.

[Nov 16, 2017] Is Donald Trump the New Mikhail Gorbachev

Perestroika and Trump_vs_deep_state has one important thing in common -- they arose out of deep crisis of the Soviet Society and the US neoliberal society, correspondingly
Notable quotes:
"... The reasoning of Gorbachev's program of perestroika -- as an attempt to both transcend tired Soviet orthodoxies while remaining loyal to the underlying assumptions of the regime -- also explains the attraction of Trump_vs_deep_state to many conservative intellectuals, voters, and activists. Trump_vs_deep_state gives its followers the allure of reckoning with the conservative movement's inadequacies while remaining faithful to its underlying assumptions about economics and the role of the state. ..."
"... For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich institutional fabric ..."
"... When Bannon calls for Americans to understand themselves as citizens with "certain responsibilities and obligations," it's a subtle -- if incomplete and disingenuous -- recognition that the vocabulary of "liquid modernity" cannot rescue us from the very fruits it created. ..."
"... The Hayekian claim that any language of social justice commences a perilous journey towards serfdom was perhaps necessary to combat midcentury sirens of collectivism. But today it is more often representative of an age fearful of placing demanding claims upon our lives ..."
"... Someone else at TAC asked a similar question, and the answer is, no: Trump is no Gorbachev. If anything he is our Boris Yeltsin. And no, that is not intended as a compliment. MEOW , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:07 am Good points. Gorby was a realist like the Chinese. They could not depress a people's living standards with an inferior system of exchange, production, and distribution. The word was out about living standard differences. The one-world movement is very different. It means to disable all our traditions and differences (Happy Holidays for Merry Christmas – rewriting history etc) in order to allow a different cabal to prevail in this artificially created vacuum. Mac61 , says: November 15, 2017 at 6:46 am Gorbachev said we must set aside all ideology and look at all things through the light of morality. Trump is not capable of that. Bannon tried to ally Trump_vs_deep_state with Judeo-Christian morality. That project seems incomplete at the moment. Egypt Steve , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:26 am I suppose if you compare any two things, you can find some points of similarity somewhere. M1798 , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:32 am You ask for a more expansive welfare state, but didn't Make the case that our current welfare state does any public good. Food stamps and disability payments subsidize mothers to not keep the father around and fathers to not work to provide for their families. We have job training programs, yet you fail to make the case that they serve any long term good. And even our most popular welfare programs, social security and Medicare, are financially unsustainable. You wrote this article as if the GOP has legislated in the same way as their rhetoric, yet the we saw the failure to repeal Obamacare as proof that this isn't true. Dan Green , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:39 am I subscribe to what Hayek coined, the road to serfdom. Once The Social Democratic Welfare State is fully implemented , as we witness today, the state cannot make it work. Currently the model is subsidized with debt. John , says: November 15, 2017 at 10:49 am If there were an award in journalism for the hottest of takes, this might be a strong finalist for this year's. Otherwise LOL. vern , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:38 am Trump is none of the above. His only purpose in government was for his own ego gratification and to increase his wealth. He is a puppet for whoever is close enough for him to pull his strings. His favorite world leaders all happen to be autocrats who care little about civil liberties or human rights. He cares about wins and losses (ego) He is not religious, it is just a smoke screen he has put up so he can hide his worse tendencies and use it to block criticism. spite , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:57 am People that write these kind of articles just never get it (actually they probably do but cannot say these things openly). It has to do with race, whether you like this reason or not – this is the underlying fundamental issue at play here. Being replaced by another people is not going to sit well with some, one would think this is stating the obvious but it seems that the fear to broach this topic makes people come up with all kinds of reasonings that simply do not admit the truth of this. I know that anything to do with race causes so called conservatives to have abject fear (even this comment has a high chance of being censored), but you simply cannot ignore this anymore. Alex , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:59 am Oh, please. I am from the former Soviet Union. I know who Gorbachev was. He was a democrat, Trump is a dictator. Gorbachev was able to talk and listen to people, Trump is very good in insulting and blaming people. I can continue forever. They have nothing in common as human beings. connecticut farmer , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm " in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things." This phrase unfortunately constitutes a blemish on an otherwise fine and thoughtful article. Exactly what does the phrase "limited but essential expression of our shared life together" mean? "Limited" by what? What "great common enterprise"? What "solidarity"? Ours is a country where commonality of purpose–to the extent that it has ever existed in the first place– appears to be vanishing at an exponential level. Lots of questions. No answers. polistra , says: November 15, 2017 at 1:10 pm Obama is more like Gorbachev. The last attempt to rebrand the old system, hoping to make it more palatable. Trump may turn out to be more like Yeltsin if he starts doing SOMETHING. So far the fake image of "Trump" is causing all sorts of reactions and changes, but the actual Trump has done nothing at all. He just emits meaningless noises, handing his enemies free ammunition. ..."
Nov 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
TAC' s own Rod Dreher recently highlighted an American professor's exchange with an African diplomat, who compared Donald Trump to Mikhail Gorbachev. Just as the last Soviet premier unwittingly became "the man who destroyed a superpower," Trump in this view is recklessly squandering the United States' global position. But upon reflection, the analogy holds for another reason: Whatever Trump's own mixture of "irritable mental gestures," Trump_vs_deep_state -- as articulated by Steve Bannon, Laura Ingraham, Michael Anton & Company -- can be read as a sort of perestroika for the American Right.

A reader may naturally look warily at the comparison. Can one discern a link between the rhetoric of Breitbart and Gorbachev's exhortation, "to reject obedience to any dogma, to think independently, to submit one's thoughts and plans of action to the test of morality"? However reaching, the comparison may allow us to discern why debates over immigration and trade now capture the conservative imagination in a way not reducible to "white identity politics" or reflexive loyalty to the president.

The reasoning of Gorbachev's program of perestroika -- as an attempt to both transcend tired Soviet orthodoxies while remaining loyal to the underlying assumptions of the regime -- also explains the attraction of Trump_vs_deep_state to many conservative intellectuals, voters, and activists. Trump_vs_deep_state gives its followers the allure of reckoning with the conservative movement's inadequacies while remaining faithful to its underlying assumptions about economics and the role of the state. The appeal of nationalist rhetoric is not reducible to nativism, though it might be for some. Instead, Bannon's program offers conservatives a safe exit ramp from self-critical thinking, allowing them to both grapple with an erosion of work and community among America's economic losers, while maintaining most of an existing right-wing economic program.

In a 1987 message to the Communist Party's Central Committee, Gorbachev flaunted the Soviet order for its "conservative inclinations, inertia, and desire to brush aside everything that didn't fit into habitual patterns." This is the same critique offered by the Jacksonian Right of the conservative establishment. "The whole enterprise of Conservative Inc.," wrote Michael Anton in his famous "Flight 93 Election" essay, "reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success is its own self-preservation."

For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich institutional fabric Laura Ingraham's description of "a working class hammered by globalization" would not seem foreign to readers of Our Kids, Hillbilly Elegy, or Janesville . At its most tone-deaf, the Right responds with incantations to "rekindle the rugged individualism of America's founding, frontiers, and Constitution." But even those on the center-right with sincere empathy frequently offer only small-ball politics. For all their merits , a modest increase of the Child Tax Credit, repeal of occupational licensing, vouchers for improved geographic mobility, and moral exhortations for coastal elites to escape their bubble do not match the gravity of the moment. In a certain way, the Bannonite call for the wall and ripping up trade agreements is a rebellion against a purely technocratic politics without boldness of purpose. When Bannon calls for Americans to understand themselves as citizens with "certain responsibilities and obligations," it's a subtle -- if incomplete and disingenuous -- recognition that the vocabulary of "liquid modernity" cannot rescue us from the very fruits it created.

Trade and immigration are becoming the signature benchmarks for this new movement. Yet the Jacksonian shift allows conservatives to still maintain their aversion to a strong, active welfare state, an institution all other Western center-right parties have come to terms with. Limiting the fluid movement of goods and people, in this view, will accomplish the same goals as a state modeled on social or Christian-democratic purposes: We do not need to expand child tax credits or pursue ambitious investments of retraining and vocational education. All our struggling labor markets demand is "stopping the importation of cheap labor." At the same time, we can press ahead to repeal Obamacare and the tentacles of the administrative state, for economic nationalism can ameliorate our social problems far better than any program arising out of the Washington cesspool. Perhaps this strategy explains why, according to Pew Research , the president maintains far more support among "Core Conservatives" than "Country First" and "Market Skeptic" Republicans. The Trump revolution is ultimately not a decisive schism from old-time William F. Buckley-style fusionism, no matter what both supporters and Never Trumpers allege.

Systematic free-marketers may point out accurately how Trump_vs_deep_state can be just as economically redistributive as any welfare program. This is all true, but to most conservative activists, all this subtle redistribution and subsidizing looks far more hidden than paid-family leave or public investments in early childhood or prenatal care. In other words, Trump_vs_deep_state's attraction derives not from its wholesale rejection of traditional American conservatism, but its potential to keep its core tenets of the right alive -- even as neoliberalism's inadequacies suggest what is needed is a more vigorous discussion of what conservatism means in the public sphere.

If Trump_vs_deep_state's fundamental attraction to most conservative writers and activists derives from its ability to revise but sustain their movement, it is difficult to see how it will be to evolve into a credible governing program. This is not because a more hawkish line on immigration and trade is a fundamental betrayal of the "liberal world order." Indeed, one need only read Paul Collier George Borjas Michael Lind , Peter Skerry , or Dani Rodrik to find sustained, reasonable critiques of the establishment consensus on these matters.

But none of these authors would present their heterodox dissents as singular solutions for restoring the American (or Western) social contract. Just as Gorbachev's ambition was not to revitalize Russia but the Soviet Union, so is Trump_vs_deep_state not a program to save the Republic, or even a more narrow "Middle America." Despite the Jacobin rhetoric, the Trump_vs_deep_state of Bannon, Anton, and Ingraham is ultimately a rearguard maneuver to preserve a conservative movement whose even devoted partisans recognize has not aged gracefully since 1989. To keep it alive, wrecking the "globalist" consensus on immigration and trade must be pursued, regardless of the absence of any discernible benefit for the white working class.

What would a true revolution for American conservatism look like? It should start with the (early) thought of George Will, who wrote in the New Republic that, "if conservatism is to engage itself with the way we live now, it must address government's graver purposes with an affirmative doctrine of the welfare state." Conservatives must "come to terms with a social reality more complex than their slogans," where equality of opportunity is assumed as given. The Hayekian claim that any language of social justice commences a perilous journey towards serfdom was perhaps necessary to combat midcentury sirens of collectivism. But today it is more often representative of an age fearful of placing demanding claims upon our lives .

The Right must again recover the wisdom held by Disraeli, Churchill, and the (early) domestic neoconservatives, in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things. Accepting this truth will be a harder project than tightening the border and combating Chinese mercantilism, worthy though such things may be. But it will be far more revolutionary, even historic, than anything the present Trumpian revolution offers.

David Jimenez, a recent graduate of Bowdoin College and a Fulbright Scholar in Romania, works on campus outreach at a Washington think-tank.

EngineerScotty , says: November 14, 2017 at 11:22 pm

Someone else at TAC asked a similar question, and the answer is, no: Trump is no Gorbachev. If anything he is our Boris Yeltsin.

And no, that is not intended as a compliment.

MEOW , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:07 am
Good points. Gorby was a realist like the Chinese. They could not depress a people's living standards with an inferior system of exchange, production, and distribution. The word was out about living standard differences. The one-world movement is very different. It means to disable all our traditions and differences (Happy Holidays for Merry Christmas – rewriting history etc) in order to allow a different cabal to prevail in this artificially created vacuum.
Mac61 , says: November 15, 2017 at 6:46 am
Gorbachev said we must set aside all ideology and look at all things through the light of morality. Trump is not capable of that. Bannon tried to ally Trump_vs_deep_state with Judeo-Christian morality. That project seems incomplete at the moment.
Egypt Steve , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:26 am
I suppose if you compare any two things, you can find some points of similarity somewhere.
M1798 , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:32 am
You ask for a more expansive welfare state, but didn't Make the case that our current welfare state does any public good. Food stamps and disability payments subsidize mothers to not keep the father around and fathers to not work to provide for their families. We have job training programs, yet you fail to make the case that they serve any long term good. And even our most popular welfare programs, social security and Medicare, are financially unsustainable. You wrote this article as if the GOP has legislated in the same way as their rhetoric, yet the we saw the failure to repeal Obamacare as proof that this isn't true.
Dan Green , says: November 15, 2017 at 9:39 am
I subscribe to what Hayek coined, the road to serfdom. Once The Social Democratic Welfare State is fully implemented , as we witness today, the state cannot make it work. Currently the model is subsidized with debt.
John , says: November 15, 2017 at 10:49 am
If there were an award in journalism for the hottest of takes, this might be a strong finalist for this year's. Otherwise LOL.
vern , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:38 am
Trump is none of the above. His only purpose in government was for his own ego gratification and to increase his wealth.

He is a puppet for whoever is close enough for him to pull his strings. His favorite world leaders all happen to be autocrats who care little about civil liberties or human rights.

He cares about wins and losses (ego) He is not religious, it is just a smoke screen he has put up so he can hide his worse tendencies and use it to block criticism.

spite , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:57 am
People that write these kind of articles just never get it (actually they probably do but cannot say these things openly). It has to do with race, whether you like this reason or not – this is the underlying fundamental issue at play here. Being replaced by another people is not going to sit well with some, one would think this is stating the obvious but it seems that the fear to broach this topic makes people come up with all kinds of reasonings that simply do not admit the truth of this. I know that anything to do with race causes so called conservatives to have abject fear (even this comment has a high chance of being censored), but you simply cannot ignore this anymore.
Alex , says: November 15, 2017 at 11:59 am
Oh, please. I am from the former Soviet Union. I know who Gorbachev was. He was a democrat, Trump is a dictator. Gorbachev was able to talk and listen to people, Trump is very good in insulting and blaming people. I can continue forever. They have nothing in common as human beings.
connecticut farmer , says: November 15, 2017 at 12:34 pm
" in which the state is again recognized as a limited but essential expression of our shared life together, where we are members not just of a market but a "great common enterprise" in which solidarity and justice are indeed tangible things."

This phrase unfortunately constitutes a blemish on an otherwise fine and thoughtful article. Exactly what does the phrase "limited but essential expression of our shared life together" mean? "Limited" by what? What "great common enterprise"? What "solidarity"? Ours is a country where commonality of purpose–to the extent that it has ever existed in the first place– appears to be vanishing at an exponential level.

Lots of questions. No answers.

polistra , says: November 15, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Obama is more like Gorbachev. The last attempt to rebrand the old system, hoping to make it more palatable. Trump may turn out to be more like Yeltsin if he starts doing SOMETHING. So far the fake image of "Trump" is causing all sorts of reactions and changes, but the actual Trump has done nothing at all. He just emits meaningless noises, handing his enemies free ammunition.
grumpy realist , says: November 15, 2017 at 2:30 pm
Gorbachev had brains. Trump has none, and is very easily manipulated by anyone who points a camera at him and tells him how great he is.

If you don't believe me, look at how the Chinese manipulated Trump on this last trip to Asia.

Ken Zaretzke , says: November 15, 2017 at 6:22 pm
"For all its recklessness, it is this faction of Right that has indeed grappled with a nation whose poor- and lower-middle class face the erosion of both wages and a formerly rich institutional fabric."

But Trump might already be betraying it, as this article on banking (de)regulation suggests. It doesn't bode will for what the tax reform bill would mean for the 80% in the bottom quintiles of the population.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/business/bank-regulation.html

S T Lakshmikumar , says: November 15, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Unfortunately the entrenched social democratic welfare state will not lead to serfdom but to a dysfunctional society. This is the lesson from independent india which has no political party representing individualistic policies. The current Hindu nationalist party in power caters to Hindu sentiments but a redistributive economic policy. As an outsider i see USA following the same path with islands of functionality sustaining barely, the rest. Hopefully the author would join in a length discussion with me on this

[Nov 16, 2017] MoA - Syria Summary The Idlib Battle Comes Into Sight

Nov 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

xor | Nov 16, 2017 1:48:29 PM | 5

There is also the successful information attack conducted by US intelligence. The Russian Ministry of Defense published a report where it was showing clear evidence that the US is letting Daesh enter SDF territories unhindered near Abukamal. While the Russian Ministry of Defense evidently has a massive amount of pictures at their disposal, the photos that were attached to the report showing US complicity were easily debunkable fakes. Hours later it became clear something went wrong (computer hack, Facebook hack, officer selling out, ... ) and the Russian Ministry of Defense replaced the pictures by the authentic ones but by then the damage had been done. This successful information attack was then used by presstitute media over the globe to bash Russia, even though they would never have taken to effort to print the obvious truth, that the US is one of driving forces behind Daesh... globally.
frances | Nov 16, 2017 2:26:08 PM | 6
re:..the Russian Ministry of Defense replaced the pictures by the authentic ones but by then the damage had been done.Posted by: xor | Nov 16, 2017 1:48:29 PM | 5
Thank you, this is the only mention of what happened and how that I have seen. I'd assumed the fake photos were a joke, I didn't realize they were posted initially by Russia.
Laguerre | Nov 16, 2017 2:31:25 PM | 7
Abu Kamal is now well defended with the most ferocious ISIS troops inside. They have nowhere to go.
Actually, I didn't agree with that bit. There will be another Jihadi transport, as before, when the time is right. The idea being, I think, to move them from place to place, into weaker and weaker situations, until finally they're pushed over the border (into Turkey), where they'll be finally dispersed. I suppose it would be ideal for the Syrians to move them to Idlib, where they could disrupt al-Nusra, but I doubt that that would be accepted. A good number from Raqqa went over the border.
james | Nov 16, 2017 2:49:09 PM | 9
@5xor... yes, i was following that too.. it was unfortunate, but to be expected... turning usa support for isis into hate russia fodder seems like a full time job for these folks..
jayc | Nov 16, 2017 2:54:53 PM | 10
The complicity of the western mainstream media in information warfare/propaganda (and adjuncts such as Bellingcat, who weighed in on the issue as well) were highlighted yet again by the widely dispersed story that "proof" of ISIS/USA coordination boiled down to a few photos borrowed from a video game. These deceptive reports ignored two widely corroborated issues: the movement of ISIS fighters out of Raqqa to the border town, and use of US air forces to support ISIS in holding the town until, presumably, the SDF arrive. Both of these issues were covered matter-of-factly (if downplayed) in the western press as they occurred, then assigned to the memory-hole when opportunity was presented to score a few cheap points. The utter contempt for their readers by these institutions is thus underscored again.
xor | Nov 16, 2017 3:06:19 PM | 11
Here are the 2 articles on USIS cooroperation. South Front was a bit more elaborate but then my comment will be blocked so not posting any links.

US directly supports IS terrorists in Syria -- Russian Defense Ministry

"The Abu Kamal liberation operation conducted by the Syrian government army with air cover by the Russian Aerospace Force at the end of the last week revealed facts of direct cooperation and support for ISIS terrorists by the US-led 'international coalition,'" the Russian Defense Ministry said.
...
The ministry showed photo shoots made by Russian unmanned aircraft on November 9 which show kilometers-long convoys of IS armed groups leaving Abu Kamal
...
The US refused to conduct airstrikes over the leaving IS convoy.
...
The ministry also said that the coalition's aviation tried to disturb Russia's Aerospace Forces near Abu Kamal to ensure safe exit of terrorists.

"The coalition's aviation tried to create obstacles for the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces in this area to safely shield militants of the Islamic State , who are leaving Abu Kamal,
...
To this aim, the coalition's attack aircraft entered the airspace over the 15-km zone around the city to hamper the Russian aircraft' mission, it said.
...
"There is indisputable evidence that the United States pretends it is waging irreconcilable struggle against international terrorism in front of the international community, while in reality it provides cover for the combat-ready Islamic State groups to let them regain strength, regroup themselves and advance US interests in the Middle East," the ministry said.

Defense Ministry provides explanation on wrong photos attached to Abu Kamal statement (Tass)

"The Russian Defense Ministry is investigating its civil service employee who erroneously attached wrong photo illustrations to its statement on interaction between the US-led international coalition and Islamic State militants near Abu Kamal, Syria," the ministry said.

"The United States' refusal to carry out strikes against ISIL (former name of Islamic State - TASS) terrorist convoys retreating from Abu Kamal is a fact recorded in the transcripts of the talks and, therefore, well known to the American side, just as the active counteraction by US aircraft to the Russian Aerospace Forces, which were ready to destroy ISIL terrorists who were regrouping for new attacks against government troops near Abu Kamal," the Defense Ministry said.

The Russian Defense Ministry also provided authentic photos of an IS militant convoy heading for the Syrian-Iraqi border.

stonebird | Nov 16, 2017 3:31:18 PM | 12
As well as the US escorting ISIS terrorists to AlBukamel, there was a report that US troops (special forces?) had travelled south across nominally ISIS held territory, during a "sandstorm" (and without firing a shot). They are now apparently, setting up a base about 20 miles from Al Quaim, on the Irakian side of the border. (No details, but obviously to cut the road to Bagdad).

Coincides with the 120 new military vehicles that were sent recently to Syria - the inadvertant admission that there are 5'000 US troops in SA (not counting mercenaries?) - and the discovery that ISIS snipers are using the latest thermal sights, supplied by the US.

Q? When is a semi-war, a real war? With US aircraft stopping the Syrian's bombing ISIS, this is the closest to a real US/Rus fire-fight that we ahve seen. Note also that Israel has just killed four Syrian soldiers without any pretext. Ie. Open aggression.

flankerbandit | Nov 16, 2017 4:28:23 PM | 13
US is toast in Syria...

Even the Syrian Kurds know this...and are gravitating slowly but surely into Moscow's orbit...

Russia has been meeting with Kurdish YPG both at Hmeimim and elsewhere recently...

These talks are moving ahead and there will be closer cooperation...including Kurdish presence at the planned Syria conference this month in Sochi...

'...We are studying the issue and our stance has been positive so far," Badran Jia Kurd, an adviser to the administration that governs Kurdish-led autonomous regions of Syria, told Reuters.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-10-31/kurdish-led-authorities-in-north-syria-invited-to-moscow-backed-congress-official-says

That was Oct 31...much has happened since then... The only real obstacle is Turkey...which is a 'partner' now in Syria...but views the PKK-allied YPG with distrust... But the writing is on the wall...the Kurds are about to ditch Washington at the first opportunity...

What possible motive would they have for choosing the obvious loser as a their partner...? Nobody views the US as an honest broker...that has been proved thoroughly over the ages...starting with the Plains Indians... Another reason is that many Syrian Kurds do consider themselves Syrians first...and do in fact want a whole Syria... They must be quite aware that the US is using them as pawns and nothing more...

Mattis is clown who is way out of his depth... This was described in some detail to journo Pepe Escobar...by highly placed US intel sources...

'...Mattis has no strategic sense at all and should be no more than a minor Marine functionary as his ability is very limited...

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/06/how-the-dprk-riddle-is-freaking-out-the-us-establishment/

john | Nov 16, 2017 4:29:02 PM | 14
Ahmed is back and reopened his shop

what a beautiful and haunting photograph...Edward Hopper nightmarelike...like...

The bad captain madman had ordered their fate

CarlD | Nov 16, 2017 4:46:05 PM | 16
It is to be expected that the US will simply hunker down and make things as difficult as possible for SAA and allies. Remember Obama said it in 2016: "we'll make sure they suffer for it". They are still aiming for regime change and only numerous body bags will force them to reconsider.

The US gambles on the notion that Russia will not push back vigorously, and will only protest but not shoot down the interfering aircraft.

As long as this is the case, the US will bully Syria and the Syrians.

Asking them to leave will produce no tangible results. They will keep entrenching themselves. Israel will not allow them to accept that they cannot achieve their aim: to replace Assad with their puppet/s.

plantman | Nov 16, 2017 4:57:34 PM | 17
The battle for abu Kamal might be more difficult that you think.

General Dunford had been communicating with the Russian military up to this point, but now, it doesn't look like it. Which is understandable since the US and Syria want to control the same city. I thought that Deir Ezzor would be the place where Russia finally faced off with the US. But it could be abu kamal.

just sayin'....

Laguerre | Nov 16, 2017 5:02:14 PM | 18
re CarlD 16. The US 'hunkering down' is not going to work. Sooner or later, the Syrian Kurds are going to operate on their vision of the future, which is make a deal with Asad. The US forces will be left isolated.
CarlD | Nov 16, 2017 5:07:11 PM | 19
Re 18

They can still count on the various Al Sham and whatever is left of ISIS they have been saving all this time. I agree that the Kurds will probably not stay in US's orbit. But ISIS an Al Sham have no choice.

Laguerre | Nov 16, 2017 5:27:39 PM | 20
re 19. So the US will be left with un-winning fragments. Sounds like withdrawal time to me, at some point in the future.
/div
/div
The situation in Iraq is parallel. By a stunning agreement with the Talebanis of Sulaimaniyya, Baghdad has been able to recover Kirkuk, and all the territory occupied by the Kurds. Now there's an agreement to abandon independence. The US is not involved. The US is left without allies. Staying in Iraq is going to be difficult.

Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 16, 2017 5:40:44 PM | 25

The situation in Iraq is parallel. By a stunning agreement with the Talebanis of Sulaimaniyya, Baghdad has been able to recover Kirkuk, and all the territory occupied by the Kurds. Now there's an agreement to abandon independence. The US is not involved. The US is left without allies. Staying in Iraq is going to be difficult.

Posted by: Laguerre | Nov 16, 2017 5:40:44 PM | 25 /div

jfb | Nov 16, 2017 5:45:46 PM | 26
@Laguerre: Thanks, you surpass me largely in both knowledge and pedantry now, ouch! I feel more humble master.
james | Nov 16, 2017 5:47:27 PM | 27
i think the problem for many of us here is the close and ongoing connection that usa/uk/israel have with saudi arabia.. however the west wants to rationalize any of it, the headchoppers are a wahabbi death cult and yes - saudi arabia continues to refuse entry into the critical ports of yemen that will prevent what saudi arabia seems quite happy to inflict on the overall people of yemen... so, i think for myself anyway - this ugly trio - usa/uk/israel, can propagandize all they want.. it doesn't change what many can clearly see at this moment..
Bobby | Nov 16, 2017 7:25:30 PM | 29
Mr Matis and his military clowns are violating the international laws and committing war crimes against the human Syrian nationals and should be prosecuted as such. The USA think they have the right to occupy any land they wish without consequences simply because they own the U.N. , the cowardly united nation who basically serve the interest of the western nations and Israel and the Zionism around the world should be ashamed for not keeping with charter of the U.N. .
Laguerre | Nov 16, 2017 7:56:44 PM | 31
Over the next six month Idelb governate will be at the center of the war. Al-Qaeda, which rules the area, is not willing to give up without a fight. They are Takfiri terrorists. There is nothing to negotiate with them.
Evidently
John Merryman | Nov 16, 2017 9:15:16 PM | 33
Interesting theory. Wondering if any corroboration;
http://americandigitalnews.com/index.php/2017/11/07/las-vegas-saudi-crown-prince-salman-assassination-attempt/

[Nov 16, 2017] Russian Interference Now Being Blamed For Swaying Vote In Favor Of Brexit

Nov 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Was Brexit also Putin's fault?

The simmering anti-Russia hysteria that has emerged in the UK recently has finally boiled over, and it appears last night's story in the Times of London claiming that a swarm of Twitter bots reportedly created by a troll farm possibly linked to Russian intelligene (sound familiar?) posted more than 45,000 messages about Brexit in 48 hours during last year's referendum to try and "so discord" among the public was the grain of rice that tipped the scale.

Details that will sound familiar to anybody who's been following the ongoing hysteria surrounding the multiple investigations into Russian influence in the US election, the suspicious twitter accounts shared messages that promoted both the 'Remain' and 'Leave' campaigns, purportedly a "sophisticated" ploy to confuse and bewilder voters.

Most of the tweets seen by this newspaper encouraged people to vote for Brexit, an outcome which Russia would have regarded as destabilising for the European Union. A number were pro-Remain, however, suggesting that the Russian goal may have been simply to sow division.

"This is the most significant evidence yet of interference by Russian-backed social media accounts around the Brexit referendum," said Damian Collins, the Tory MP who chairs the digital, culture, media and sport select committee.

"The content published and promoted by these accounts is clearly designed to increase tensions throughout the country and undermine our democratic process. I fear that this may well be just the tip of the iceberg."

According to the Times, more than 150,000 accounts based in Russia, which had previously confined their posts to subjects such as the Ukrainian conflict, switched attention to Brexit in the days leading up to last year's vote, according to research for an upcoming paper by data scientists at Swansea University and the University of California, Berkeley.

In other words, after months of tweeting about pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, these bots started firing off messages amplifying the voice of the 'Leave' campaign into the void.

The researchers said Russian activity spiked on June 23, the day of the referendum, and on June 24 when the result was announced. From posting fewer than 1,000 tweets a day before June 13, the suspicious accounts posted 39,000 tweets on June 24 before dropping off almost entirely.

The Swansea and Berkeley paper says that a "massive number of Russian-related tweets was created a few days before the voting day, reached its peak during the voting and the result and then dropped immediately afterwards". Tho Pham, one of the paper's authors, said that "the main conclusion is that bots were used on purpose and had influence".

Of course, the Times report neglected to explain the Swansea researchers methodology. Facebook, Twitter and Google used the inadequate standard of having one's browser language set to Russian. It's unclear whether these researchers something that, like browser language, can be easily changed or mimicked by other groups.

On Monday, Theresa May accused Moscow of using fake news to "sow discord" and of meddling directly in elections. Her remarks followed a brief, impromptu meeting between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at an Asian economic summit in Vietnam.

In what appeared to be an attempt to deflect attention away from a challenge to her leadership, UK Prime Minister Theresa May blasted Russia Monday evening, using her speech at the Lord Mayor's Banquet to accuse them of interfering in foreign elections.

May accused Moscow of attempting to "weaponize information" as part of a "sustained campaign of cyberespionage and disruption." Russia's actions were "threatening the international order," she said.

"We know what you are doing. And you will not succeed. Because you underestimate the resilience of our democracies, the enduring attraction of free and open societies, and the commitment of Western nations to the alliances that bind us," May said.

May listed off a litany of ills she ascribed to Russia since its annexation of Crimea, including fomenting conflict in eastern Ukraine, violating the airspace of European countries, and hacking the Danish ministry of defense and the German Parliament. Russia has also been accused of interfering in elections in the US, the Brexit referendum in the UK, and the independence vote in Catalonia.

Following May's speech, reports emerged that individuals working on behalf of the Kremlin tried to set up meetings with conservative MPs, including Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

Last night, one of the UK's cyber-defense chiefs adding to the anti-Russia sentiment by accusing Russian intelligence of attacking Britain's media, telecommunications and energy sectors over the past year.

Ciaran Martin, chief executive of GCHQ's National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), echoed May's claim that Russia was "seeking to undermine the international system."

Of course, there were at least two prominent British polls who decided to question the dubious accusations of interference.

Jeremy Corbyn wants to "see more evidence" that Russia is trying to undermine Western democracy, his spokesman said Wednesday.

And of course, as we noted yesterday, Nigel Farage pointed out during a speech at the European Parliament that financier George Soros has spent billions of dollars to push his political agenda across Europe, the US and the UK.

"How many of you have taken money from Open Society?" He asked his peers, referring to Soros's Open Society foundation.

While the Russian hysteria has been raging for a year in the US now, in the UK, it's only just beginning. In time, we will see of May's government will continue to use Vladimir Putin as a boogeyman on which they can blame their failure to successfully negotiate amenable Brexit terms for the UK.

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

MusicIsYou , Nov 16, 2017 3:34 AM

Britain never was part of the EU. But most people are too concerned about Iphones and big dicks to think about much else.

Billy the Poet -> MusicIsYou , Nov 16, 2017 3:36 AM

If the premise is that Putin is the greatest living proponent of national sovereignty and individual liberty then what's the problem?

Shemp 4 Victory -> Billy the Poet , Nov 16, 2017 3:56 AM

"Russian Interference" Now Being Blamed For Democracy

Dank fur Kopf , Nov 16, 2017 3:35 AM

They might as well come out with alfoil hats while claiming 'Russia did it'.

That's how we're all seeing it.

Billy the Poet -> Dank fur Kopf , Nov 16, 2017 3:39 AM

They say "Putin ate my homework," with all the earnestness of a recalcitrant second grade scholar.

Lore , Nov 16, 2017 3:38 AM

This is bloody ridiculous. FOR GOD'S SAKE, GROW UP.

MusicIsYou , Nov 16, 2017 3:38 AM

The only Brits really care about is tea time, big dicks, and making sure their socialist buddies don't one up them.

JDLLDJ -> MusicIsYou , Nov 16, 2017 3:48 AM

I can see you are not English... You need to add orderly queue to that list haha

JDLLDJ , Nov 16, 2017 3:42 AM

I wondered when this would get to our shores... I think that governments are totally undermining themselves with the Russian hacking lies.. They are essentially saying that a few bots can control a country entirely.. Its totally stupid to think they could.

I dont have twitter, facebook or any of the other false realities some people choose to live in.. But yet i voted out.. So who influenced me? Nobody, we are an island culture, we will always lean towards independence.

Oh well, let them blame who they want, it changes little. Just makes politicians seem uneeded, lets replace them with bots!!

OutaTime43 , Nov 16, 2017 3:48 AM

Putin is the master spy. He controls the world. Really getting sick of this crap. They can't admit that their people are turning to nationalism and sovereignty over globalism.

JPMorgan , Nov 16, 2017 3:50 AM

Total BS.

The city areas like London voted to stay, and a good number of rural Britain and pensioners voted to leave.

No Russian conspiracy.

Bondosaurus Rex , Nov 16, 2017 3:52 AM

Brexit was about protecting the City Of London tax haven. Nothing more.

Britain is still turning into a third world shithole just like Europe is.

The Square Mile did not want Eurocretins encroaching. Putin is merely a distraction.

Volaille de Bresse , Nov 16, 2017 3:53 AM

I couldn't get a hard-on last night... Must be THE RUSSIANS!!

[Nov 16, 2017] McCarthyism Redux: Attacks on the Russian Media by John Wight

Notable quotes:
"... In 2017 we are witnessing the rebirth of McCarthyism across the West in response to Russia's recovery from the demise of the Soviet Union and the failed attempt to turn the country into a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington via the imposition of free market economic shock treatment thereafter. ..."
Nov 16, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

In 2017 we are witnessing the rebirth of McCarthyism across the West in response to Russia's recovery from the demise of the Soviet Union and the failed attempt to turn the country into a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington via the imposition of free market economic shock treatment thereafter.

In the process critical thinking and reason has been sacrificed on the altar of Pavlovian conditioning and unreason, resulting in the embrace of hysterical Russophobic nostrums by a liberal political and media class for whom Russia can only ever exist as a vanquished foe or a foe that needs to be vanquished. More

[Nov 16, 2017] Russia Names The 9 US News Outlets It Will Retaliate Against Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... When America's elite decided to takeover America at the end of the 90's, they took full controll of the media and started dumbing down America. ..."
Nov 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

After hinting that retaliation was imminent, Russian lawmakers in the Duma - Russia's lower house of Parliament - have approved a law that would require nine US news outlets to be labeled "foreign agents" in response to Washington's decision to require Russia Today to register as a foreign agent last week, a decision that Moscow has slammed as hypocritical and infringing on free speech.

Reuters reports that Russia's lower house of Parliament has approved the law - which allows Moscow to force foreign media to brand news they provide to Russians as the work of "foreign agents" and to disclose the source of their funding.

The law must now pass the upper house, which is likely to happen next week. Once President Vladimir Putin signs it, it will become law. The path to passage looks relatively straightforward, and it's likely the bill will become a law. The Russian Justice Ministry on Thursday published a list of the news outlets that it said could be affected by the law.

Meanwhile, the outlets are the US-government-sponsored Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe (RFE), otherwise known as Radio Liberty, radio channels, along with seven separate Russian or local-language news outlets run by Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.

One of the seven outlets provides news on Crimea, which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014, one on Siberia, and one on the predominantly Muslim North Caucasus region. Another covers provincial Russia, one is an online TV station, another covers the mostly Muslim region of Tatarstan, and the other is a news portal that fact-checks the statements of Russian officials.

Gaius Frakkin' ... -> Raffie , Nov 16, 2017 6:43 PM

Voice of America is pure distilled CIA propaganda last time I knew.

Mustafa Kemal -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar , Nov 16, 2017 6:56 PM

"Voice of America is pure distilled CIA propaganda last time I knew."

Radio Free Europe, Stars and Stripes -been CIA for a long, long time.

HRClinton -> Robert Trip , Nov 16, 2017 6:42 PM

VOA and Radio Free Europe is 100% CIA + State Dept.

That's "porn" of a different sort: Oral porn.

johngaltfla -> Proctologist , Nov 16, 2017 7:04 PM

LOL, Putin wimps out. He should have added the AP and CNN to the list. What a pussy.

44magnum , Nov 16, 2017 6:36 PM

"the station remains committed to providing independent news to global audiences." Hmm like RT if independent includes government financing

RumpleShitzkin -> 44magnum , Nov 16, 2017 6:41 PM

All ours get funding. Both white and black budget.

Dickweed Wang -> 44magnum , Nov 16, 2017 7:08 PM

I've been watching RT for years and as far as providing somewhat of a balanced take on things they are far superior to any "news" outlet in the USA or the UK. Everyone watching RT knows going in they are funded by the Russian government. On the other hand we have so-called "news" organizations in the USA that are really nothing more than propaganda arms of the US government and they continually lie about that issue.

Is RT's coverage slanted towards a Russian view of things? Of course they are but the fact is they will talk about issues on RT you will NEVER see mentioned on any US media outlet. There are several things I have a beef with RT on including; their anti-2nd amendment stance, their promoting some really leftist views on things ("Redacted Tonight" is a prime example) and their going along with the "deep state" take on things like the authority's versions of events like Vegas and the Orlando shootings. In the end though you are much better off watching RT than anything produced in the US.

Sudden Debt Nov 16, 2017 6:46 PM

When America's elite decided to takeover America at the end of the 90's, they took full controll of the media and started dumbing down America.

25 years later and overall IQ's have drop to the low 80's is people would still be tested like they where in the 70's

and now they've even leveled EQ's since they took over the internet.

Free media has always been the weapons of freedom and the weapons of mass destruction of tyrants

untill they just ban it all together.

Dickweed Wang -> Yes We Can. But Lets Not. •Nov 16, 2017 7:20 PM

I've been watching RT for years and never once has it been on a regular TV. Their news program is streamed online 24/7. Go to:

https://www.rt.com/on-air/

PressTV out of Iran also has some good stuff you never see on American "news" networks. Go to:

http://www.presstv.com/Default/Live

Moribundus Nov 16, 2017 7:20 PM

This is 2nd towel in ring by USA. 1st was pull out ambasador who specialize on color revolutions. With RT USA expected that Russia will retaliate, but they calculate that while RT is popular, American propaganda is seen as crap and Putin will get 80% votes anyway so there was nothing to lose anyway

Nobodys Home -> JoeTurner Nov 16, 2017 7:27 PM

Was it Iceland that threw out all dual citizens in government? We should too! Declare your allegiance! So The Pledge of Allegiance is wrong huh?

[Nov 16, 2017] 'I'm not a Russian troll I'm a security guard from Glasgow'

Nov 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , November 15, 2017 at 11:28 am

Cortes rumbled?

'I'm not a Russian troll – I'm a security guard from Glasgow'

"The whole issue of anonymous trolls, false personas and automated Twitter accounts is fraught with difficulty, but thanks to the work of James Patrick (among a few others) the public is now becoming aware of the problem of online propaganda, some of it clearly directed (via payments) by Putin's government " -- Peter Jukes, CEO of ByLine, told The Scotsman

"Byline" claims to be the most visited crowdfunded journalism website in the UK.

Moscow Exile , November 15, 2017 at 11:34 am
See: Scot to be kidding: 'Russian troll' turns out to be Glasgow security guard

Reminds me of when years back some smart-arse on the laughable "Comment Is Free" in the Grauniad, having repeatedly stated that I was a Russian troll, congratulated me on my use of English, saying it was quite good for a Russian.

Jen , November 15, 2017 at 3:56 pm
Apparently not the firsht time a Scot was convincing in the role of a Rooshian:

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/tomclancy/images/c/cc/Sean_Connery_The_Hunt_for_Red_October.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150714000007

[Nov 16, 2017] McCarthyism Inc: Introducing the Counter-Terror 'Experts' Hyping Russian Threats and Undermining Our Civil Liberties

Nov 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , November 15, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Alernet via Antiwar.com: McCarthyism Inc: Introducing the Counter-Terror 'Experts' Hyping Russian Threats and Undermining Our Civil Liberties

Revelations about Russia's use of social media in the 2016 elections are being used as a pretext for suppressing dissent by some dubious characters.

By Max Blumenthal / AlterNet

November 10, 2017, 2:26 PM GMT

However, an investigation by AlterNet's Grayzone Project has yielded a series of disturbing findings at odds with the established depiction. The researchers behind the ASD's "dashboard" are no Russia experts, but rather a collection of cranks, counterterror retreads, online harassers and paranoiacs operating with support from some of the most prominent figures operating within the American national security apparatus .
####

Plenty more at the link.

Northern Star , November 15, 2017 at 3:54 pm
So why does this fuckin' cnt not have to register as an agent of a Foreign government???

"II. What, Exactly, Does FARA Require / Prohibit?
It's complicated. But in a nutshell, FARA requires individuals acting within the United States as agents of "foreign principals" to, in plain English, "register with the Department of Justice and file forms outlining its agreements with, income from, and expenditures on behalf of the foreign principal. These forms are public records and must be supplemented every six months." An "agent of a foreign principal," in turn, is defined as

any person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control, of a foreign principal or of a person any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized in whole or in major part by a foreign principal, and who directly or through any other person -- (i) engages within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (ii) acts within the United States as a public relations counsel, publicity agent, information-service employee or political consultant for or in the interests of such foreign principal; (iii) within the United States solicits, collects, disburses, or dispenses contributions, loans, money, or other things of value for or in the interest of such foreign principal; or (iv) within the United States represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States. . . .
Moreover, the statute defines "foreign principal" not just to include a foreign government itself, but also foreign political parties, a person or organization outside the United States (except U.S. citizens), and any entity organized under the laws of a foreign country or having its principal place of business in a foreign country. So, in a world in which individuals were receiving financial or other enticements from Russian corporations, oligarchs, or the Russian government itself, in order to "engage[] within the United States in political activities for or in the interests of such foreign principal," that seems to fall within the heartland of what FARA covers."

Indeed, a separate statute, 18 U.S.C. § 219, goes one important step further, making it a crime for any individual who is an "officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency, or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function," to be or to act as an agent of a foreign principal under FARA.

******In other words, for a private citizen, FARA's entire impact is in requiring disclosure. But for public officials, § 219 actually prohibits such individuals from acting as foreign agents." *****

Thus, whereas a private citizen need only apprise the Justice Department if they are receiving funds from foreign principals to influence U.S. policy, public officials may not receive such funds, period–and face felony charges if they do. (N.B.: There's an interesting question about whether transition officials might qualify as "public officials" for purposes of § 219. I'm skeptical, but at least in Flynn's case, there's still the issue of whether he was continuing to serve as an agent of a foreign power on and after January 20, when he became the National Security Advisor.)

https://www.justsecurity.org/39493/primer-foreign-agents-registration-act/

Northern Star , November 15, 2017 at 3:59 pm
As for AIPAC itself..in case you are wondering:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/should-aipac-register-as-a-foreign-agent/5601653

[Nov 15, 2017] China Is Using the Russia-America Standoff to Win Big in Europe by Mark Pfeifle

Notable quotes:
"... What's happening here is that China is exploiting the geopolitical standoff between Russia and the United States to obtain ownership and management of critical parts of energy infrastructure. The tactic has already given China an "energy belt" that extends from the Baltic to the Black Sea: China has effectively taken management of critical parts of infrastructure in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. ..."
"... Our approach needs to be more nuanced: we must move away from an indiscriminate containment policy toward a strategy that allows Russian projects, so long as they are not detrimental to European energy security and U.S. security concerns. ..."
"... To sum it up, Westinghouse & GE are in trouble, we must do something. ..."
"... Well, tell me how China is out maneuvering the US? And how is the US helpless to stop China from out maneuvering the US? Trump himself, during the campaign, said, "We hold all the cards". Well, while most probably believe it is mostly bluster, there is some degree of truth, meaning the US still has greater influence in the world. ..."
"... China isn't out maneuvering the US, but instead, looking for ways to acquire technology under the current global rules. And to become a developed nation. Period, that's it. Nothing more. China is a nation that is four times larger than the US, i.e., 400% of the US population. However, yet despite advances in many fields, China has not yet caught up with the US and the rest of the West in technology. In some areas China may have caught up and in still other areas, maybe even ahead of the West, but in general, China still has some holes to fill. ..."
"... There is not clandestine effort on China's part to undermine the US or the West, but instead to simply become a developed nation. ..."
"... "What's happening here is that China is exploiting the geopolitical standoff between Russia and the United States to obtain ownership and management of critical parts of energy infrastructure" Russia will help you, China will help you, American will obstruct you. It's the old 'good cop, good cop, bad cop' routine, in which we're the perennial bad cop. ..."
"... Blame Russia...why...it is all USA fault as the country is run by people who do not represent interests of wider USA population.. Zionist Jews, namely. ..."
"... Oh, what a tangled web we weave when taking our orders from Tel Aviv. ;-) ..."
"... China, Russia and a number of other nations are profiting from the US decision to 'give away' its industrial base. Trying to compete via debt finance and cost arbitrage has hollowed out the US economy. ..."
Nov 15, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
While the nation has been laser focused on the president's tweets and the first lady's footwear, a geopolitical shift has been taking place in Europe that ought to scare us to our marrow. Without anybody paying much attention, China has vastly expanded its military and economic power in Eastern Europe. At stake is a critical region that the United States depends upon for trade and geopolitical support and as a buffer from both Russia and China.

The Chinese, on top of doing little to stop North Korea's march toward a nuclear-armed missile, have already acquired a significant equity stake in the Greek Port of Piraeus. As you read this, they are also working diligently to obtain assets in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, including contracts for construction of nuclear power stations.

In Bulgaria, meanwhile, the erstwhile efforts of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to force the Bulgarians to breach their contract with the Russian state-owned uranium enrichment company Rosatom have backfired, giving China a toe-hold to replace the Russians in constructing the new Belene nuclear project.

Russian-owned Rosatom successfully sued Bulgaria over the breach -- and won. Bulgaria was ordered to pay $660 million, a big bounty for a small country. To recoup losses, the Bulgarians opted to privatize the project. According to media reports, China is aggressively bidding and is among the frontrunners. If China's bid succeeds, its state-owned nuclear companies would use Russian-made equipment, but would otherwise have full control over the new nuclear facility.

Unlike the Russians, whose nuclear development programs usually rely on a relatively benign scheme of intergovernmental loans to finance construction but leave management to the local governments, China insists on both equity and operational control. As a result, China is left with full control of critical infrastructure -- in this case, a major nuclear facility in a key former Soviet state. This gives China leverage in the region that is comparable only to that which Moscow enjoyed during the Cold War.

A similar situation is already in play in Poland, where the Chinese have scooped up contracts for a nuclear plant that was supposed to be built by the United States. The American nuclear industry is in tatters, however, with Westinghouse in bankruptcy and General Electric unable to raise capital even for its advanced boiling water reactors in more advanced countries. The Chinese, by contrast, are flush with cash -- much of it from trade with the United States.

What's happening here is that China is exploiting the geopolitical standoff between Russia and the United States to obtain ownership and management of critical parts of energy infrastructure. The tactic has already given China an "energy belt" that extends from the Baltic to the Black Sea: China has effectively taken management of critical parts of infrastructure in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.

It mustn't be allowed to continue and foreign policy voices on both sides of the partisan aisle seem to be taking notice. CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor to President Barack Obama, both named Beijing a greater threat than Moscow.

The White House must immediately fill empty State Department slots with Europe and Asia experts and internally promote talented Foreign Service Officers, instead of sidelining them. These specialists must take into consideration the growing Chinese influence in the region.

Our approach needs to be more nuanced: we must move away from an indiscriminate containment policy toward a strategy that allows Russian projects, so long as they are not detrimental to European energy security and U.S. security concerns.

For example, we must resist Lithuanian entreaties to cease construction of a nuclear plant being built by Russia in Belarus. The Russian reactor is using state-of-the-art technology. The design has been approved by independent regulators in over a dozen countries, including Finland, known for its highest safety standards. Lithuania's safety concerns are no match for the geopolitical risk of extending Chinese infrastructure controls even further.

The game of geopolitical chess requires players to plan not just one move, but to envision two, three or more moves ahead. Players must consider multiple dimensions of economics, geopolitics and military strategy, and -- in this case -- there are multiple adversaries.

Competition in the construction and management of nuclear plants is just one example of geopolitical chess, and the United States needs to up its game.

Mark Pfeifle served as Deputy National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush

rippled , September 25, 2017 1:11 AM

Champions of free market again revert to what US as a state ought to and ought not "allow" happen on the market when non US companies are more successful.

deliaruhe , September 29, 2017 12:39 PM

The more the occupants of Official Washington get replaced with morons, lunatics, know-nothings, and know-too-littles. the steeper the slope to irrelevance. The only advantage to waking up from denial at this late date is the possibility of saving what little is left of the republic. As things stand, China has the easy task of quickly surpassing the US economically and geopolitically -- and is doing an excellent job of it.

Zsari Maxim , September 25, 2017 4:05 PM

To sum it up, Westinghouse & GE are in trouble, we must do something.

Taishanese , September 26, 2017 2:00 AM

Well, first of all, economic ownership is not the same as an occupation. Keep in mind, when one country own assets in another country, they are trusting that other country to honor the deeds. And for the most part, countries do. However, occasionally, a country does not honor those deeds as in the case of Venezuela when they nationalized foreign ownership of all oil assets in Venezuela.

So how much control did foreigners have in Venezuela's case? None, short of invading the country or reducing business ties. When a country doesn't honor the ownership of foreign investors, there is little that foreign country can do except to withhold business ties. Or invade.

Perspectives about China like the one the author is espousing is nothing more than alarmist in nature. If China were to do something harmful to the interests of Eastern Europe, the European Union could find a way to fend off the harm. Because why? Ownership is not the same as occupation.

While the former USSR didn't exactly occupy Eastern Europe during the Cold War, they did leave a million troops in Eastern Europe from the end of WWII to the end of the Cold War. Does China have a million troops in Eastern Europe? No. So I don't see how this author can compare China's involvement in Eastern Europe with the former USSR.

It baffles me that people use inaccurate moral equivalence to portray an alarmist view of China.

Nexusfast123 Taishanese , September 27, 2017 12:14 AM

You need to understand how China is out maneuvering the US. This has been done via a series of plans going back a couple of decades via 'Centralised Technology-Based Planning'. The only way to challenge China's rise is to do what China is doing but better and faster.

Taishanese Nexusfast123 , September 27, 2017 5:15 AM

Well, tell me how China is out maneuvering the US? And how is the US helpless to stop China from out maneuvering the US? Trump himself, during the campaign, said, "We hold all the cards". Well, while most probably believe it is mostly bluster, there is some degree of truth, meaning the US still has greater influence in the world.

China isn't out maneuvering the US, but instead, looking for ways to acquire technology under the current global rules. And to become a developed nation. Period, that's it. Nothing more. China is a nation that is four times larger than the US, i.e., 400% of the US population. However, yet despite advances in many fields, China has not yet caught up with the US and the rest of the West in technology. In some areas China may have caught up and in still other areas, maybe even ahead of the West, but in general, China still has some holes to fill.

Not only that, China, while 400% of the US in population, does not have 400% of the US economy, 400% of the US overseas assets, 400% of the US military, 400% of the reach of US multinationals, etc.

I'm not saying China is setting out to have 400% of the US influence, but what I am saying is that for China to develop as a nation, it has to have technology, overseas assets, etc. This is how a nation increases its' standard of living for itself.

Unfortunately, all this economic activity appears to many in the West as some clandestine effort on the part of China.

China is not likely to ever get to 400% of the US in overall asset and wealth, etc., however, would it be wrong if she achieved 150%? 200%?

There is not clandestine effort on China's part to undermine the US or the West, but instead to simply become a developed nation.

Godfree Roberts , September 26, 2017 8:00 PM

"What's happening here is that China is exploiting the geopolitical standoff between Russia and the United States to obtain ownership and management of critical parts of energy infrastructure" Russia will help you, China will help you, American will obstruct you. It's the old 'good cop, good cop, bad cop' routine, in which we're the perennial bad cop.

Nexusfast123 Godfree Roberts , September 27, 2017 12:17 AM

Bad cop because of the policies that have been promoted over the last few decades.

Schlesinger's Zenith ElPrimero , September 25, 2017 4:07 AM

I guess if China is playing geopolitical chess with energy, Australia is eating crayons as it runs around with a fully packed diaper. Philistines!

R. Arandas , September 24, 2017 11:04 PM

Well, whose fault is that? The U.S. and Russia can only blame themselves for this situation.

Petar Petrovic R. Arandas , September 25, 2017 4:23 AM

Blame Russia...why...it is all USA fault as the country is run by people who do not represent interests of wider USA population.. Zionist Jews, namely.

Michael DeStefano Petar Petrovic , October 3, 2017 5:11 PM

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when taking our orders from Tel Aviv. ;-)

Nexusfast123 R. Arandas , September 27, 2017 12:16 AM

China, Russia and a number of other nations are profiting from the US decision to 'give away' its industrial base. Trying to compete via debt finance and cost arbitrage has hollowed out the US economy.

Michael DeStefano , October 3, 2017 5:07 PM

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when rational folks are absent without leave.

Anyway, I strongly suspect that American agents are once again posing as Russian agents infiltrating the N.I., with their subtle subliminal propaganda designed to drive a wedge between Russia and China by suggesting Russia is better off cooperating with the US than with China and to give up this silly silk road idea. How's that for 5 dimensional chess, or maybe just a bout of Facebook vertigo that CNN, NYT et. al. like to call 'motivational analysis as proof of the pudding'. ;-)

And all you Facebook dog lovers out there. Be very wary of friendly Russian wolfhounds. According to the NYT, they're out there solely to sow discord, division and chaos with all of America's cat lovers. Be scared, y'all. Be very very scared. :-(

Nexusfast123 , September 27, 2017 12:09 AM

This article is clueless and like many other there is no idea how to counter China's 'Centralised Technology-Based Planning'. China operates at foundation - the technology layer to secure technology to sustain national 'competitiveness'. They have over 4 million STEM graduates flowing into new industries. The thinking in the article is mired in debt finance and economics which is useless as a counter to the Chinese. This malaise will spread further into the military as the Chinese are rapidly applying new technologies via an asymmetrical strategy in the military sphere.

RAGE , September 24, 2017 10:28 PM

Hmmm so China can switch off nuke plants in Eastern Europe should they feel the need to do so during some future crisis? That sounds... super... safe

Nexusfast123 RAGE , September 27, 2017 12:19 AM

Why would they? There is more to be had through commercial collaboration in terms of mutual benefit. Russia supplies gas and even in the face of provocation has not cut gas to its customers in Europe.

Michael DeStefano RAGE , October 3, 2017 5:14 PM

Of course they couldn't and wouldn't do that. The China Syndrome would have all the contamination landing smack dab in their laps. Anyway, he who has the money makes the rules. We're bankrupt.

[Nov 15, 2017] >How We Can Be Certain That Mueller Won't Prove Trump-Russia Collusion Zero Hedge

Nov 15, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

How We Can Be Certain That Mueller Won't Prove Trump-Russia Collusion? Tyler Durden Nov 15, 2017 7:30 PM 0 SHARES Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

Dear America. Stop trying to make Russiagate happen. It's not going to happen. Deus ex Mueller isn't coming. You're going to have to solve your country's problems yourselves, America. He may dig up evidence of corruption, but Robert Mueller's investigation will never – ever – find proof that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election using hackers and propaganda. If you attribute all your problems to Trump, you're guaranteeing more Trumps after him, because you're not addressing the disease which created him, you're just addressing the symptom.

A while back I figured out a trick for using Twitter as a tool to find out what sorts of things establishment loyalists really don't want me saying. Once I discover a really hot button, I write an article that bangs on that button as hard as possible. One of those buttons is expressing my certainty that Robert Mueller's investigation will never, ever find any proof that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election using hackers and propaganda.

We are not allowed to say such things. If you debate a Russiagater for any length of time and you know how to debunk their assertions, they always, always, always wind up resorting to a "just you wait until Mueller finishes his investigation" declaration, which from my point of view is the same as debating a fundamentalist Christian whose argument boils down to "Well I'll be proven right when you die and God sends you to Hell!"

You can always feel right if you kick the can around some corner in the future that can't be seen and analyzed critically. Luckily for us, we've got information that we can look at right now which does not require any religious faith ...

Anonymous Leaks to the WashPost About the CIA's Russia Beliefs Are No Substitute for Evidence https://t.co/OB33Xbb49V

-- Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 10, 2016

U.S. Officials: Putin Personally Involved in U.S. Election Hack https://t.co/339F3GnbRQ

-- AM Joy w/Joy Reid (@amjoyshow) December 15, 2016

NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers. Think it takes a warrant? Nope, just somebody willing to do it. https://t.co/AW2UYitHzb

-- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 9, 2017

How to tell if the CIA is listening to your Samsung Smart TV: The blue light on the back of the TV is still on. https://t.co/NRlye8j4c2

-- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) March 22, 2017

RELEASE: CIA 'ELSA' malware can geolocate your Windows laptop or desktop by listening to surrounding WiFi signals https://t.co/XjyyXIqXAz pic.twitter.com/WCw6dgF9ql

-- WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 28, 2017

We know from the Snowden leaks on the NSA, the CIA files released by WikiLeaks, and the ongoing controversies regarding FBI surveillance that the US intelligence community has the most expansive, most sophisticated and most intrusive surveillance network in the history of human civilization

Following the presidential election last year, anonymous sources from within the intelligence community were hemorrhaging leaks to the press on a regular basis that were damaging to the incoming administration.

If there was any evidence to be found that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 election using hackers and propaganda, the US intelligence community would have found it and leaked it to the New York Times or the Washington Post last year.

Mueller isn't going to find anything in 2017 that these vast, sprawling networks wouldn't have found in 2016. He's not going to find anything by "following the money" that couldn't be found infinitely more efficaciously via Orwellian espionage. The factions within the intelligence community that were working to sabotage the incoming administration last year would have leaked proof of collusion if they'd had it. They did not have it then, and they do not have it now. Mueller will continue finding evidence of corruption throughout his investigation, since corruption is to DC insiders as water is to fish, but he will not find evidence of collusion to win the 2016 election that will lead to Trump's impeachment. It will not happen.

This sits on top of all the many , many , many reasons to be extremely suspicious of the Russiagate narrative in the first place

Russia-gate's Shaky Doundation - The Russia-gate hysteria now routinely includes rhetoric about the U.S. being at "war" with nuclear-armed Russia, but the shaky factual foundation continues to show more cracks, as historian Daniel Herman describes.

Russigate Is More Fiction Than Fact - From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has substituted hype for evidence.

The Big Fat Compendium Of Russiagate Debunkery - Russiagate is like a mirage: from a distance it looks like something, but once you move in for a closer look, there's nothing there. Nothing. Nothing solid, nothing substantial, nothing you can point at and say, "Here it is."

Humans are storytelling creatures.

The most significant and most underappreciated facet of our existence is how much of our interface with the world consists not of our direct experience of it, but of our mental stories about it. Combine that fact with the century of research and development that has gone into refining propaganda tactics and the US plutocracy's stranglehold on mainstream media , and you get a nation lost in establishment narratives. People forming their worldviews based on phantasms of the mind instead of concrete facts.

I've noticed a strange uptick in establishment loyalists speaking to me as though Trump-Russia collusion is already an established fact, and that I'm simply not well-informed. There is still the same amount of publicly available evidence for this collusion as there ever was (zero), so this tells me that the only thing which has changed is the narrative. Pundits/propagandists are increasingly speaking as though this is something that has already been established, and the people who consume that propaganda go out and circulate it as though it's an established fact. When you're not plugged into that echo chamber , though, it looks very weird.

This is why Russiagaters find my certainty that collusion will never be proven so intensely abrasive. Their entire worldview consists of pure narrative? -- ?literally nothing other than authoritative assertions from pundits who speak in a confident tone of voice? -- ?so when they encounter someone doing the same thing but with hard facts, it causes psychological discomfort. This discomfort is called cognitive dissonance. It's what being wrong feels like.

The Only People Who Still Believe In Russiagate Are Those Who Desperately Need To...

I mean, I get it. Really, I do. When I stop listening to the narratives of both his supporters and his detractors and just look at the hard facts, from my point of view Trump is doing some really shitty things and doesn't seem much different from his neoliberal neocon predecessors. Republicans are horrible, and he seems pretty much like a garden variety Republican who says rude things on Twitter. If I look at those hard facts, then add in two years of psychological brutalization by the corporate media telling Americans that Trump is an evil Nazi who will turn the country into a smouldering crater, I can understand why people would be in a hurry to get him out of office.

And when I converse with Russiagaters, that's generally what this boils down to. "Impeach Trump" is a punishment in search of a crime. They've been whipped into a frenzied state of fear by establishment psyops, and they want Mueller to pull a deus ex machina and save them from the evil orange monster. They believe Mueller will get Trump impeached for Russian collusion because they badly want to.

It's not going to happen, though. Deus ex Mueller isn't coming. You're going to have to solve your country's problems yourselves, America.

And this is actually a good thing, because Trump is not the source of your country's problems. Believing that a Trump impeachment will fix any of America's major ills is like believing cough suppressants cure pneumonia. What do you get when you have pneumonia and you take cough suppressants instead of antibiotics? You get wrong-sounding Muppets, that's what.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/4JFkHuIUwF0

[Nov 13, 2017] Arab League To Hold Urgent Meeting On Iran As Saudis Reportedly Mobilize Fighter Jets

Nov 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
0 SHARES according to Reuters and various regional sources, at a moment when Saudi fighter jets may be mobilizing for war in an attempted show of force. Egypt-based Ahram Online also reports further that the meeting will discuss "Iranian interference" in the region at League headquarters in Cairo, and other early unconfirmed reports indicate the meeting could come as early as next Sunday.

News of the Arab League extraordinary session comes as tensions are at breaking point as regional powers - especially Saudi Arabia and Israel - talk war against perceived Iranian expansion and domination in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, The Daily Star , citing the Baghdad Post , claims that Saudi Arabia has scrambled its air force for strikes in Lebanon: "Reports now state the Royal Saudi Air Force has placed its warplanes on alert to launch strikes as the region sits on a knife edge." The report accompanies undated footage of Saudi F-15's in aerial maneuvers over what is presumably a Saudi airfield.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eZoyGajSfq0

The Daily Star adds the following accompanying the video :

The kingdom has mobilized its F-15 fighter jet fleet to launch a military operation against the Iranian-backed terrorist militia of Hezbollah in Lebanon, regional news website The Baghdad Post reports.

Saudi Arabia previously accused both Lebanon and Iran of committing an act of wars against it after rebels fired a missile at the King Khalid International Airport in the kingdom's capital of Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly placed its air force on alert

However unlikely it is that the Saudis would take direct military action against Lebanon , the report reveals the legitimate fears of Lebanese citizens who are increasingly aware that their country has fallen in the cross hairs of an unusual alliance between Saudi Arabia, Israel, and anti-Iranian interests which see Hezbollah and pro-Iranian proxies as the number one threat and scapegoat for all of the region's problems.

Iran is currently being scapegoated for just about all tensions which have exploded in the gulf over the past week, including the following:

[Nov 13, 2017] Why Robert Mueller Was Selected To Be The Special Prosecutor

It might well be that Chrystal night in KSA can be a serious blow to fouces which want to depose President Trump. People arrested, especally prince Bandar know way too much. I wonder what will happen if Trump manage to get from Mohammed bin Salman protocols of interrogation of Price Bandarr on interesting to him topics.
Notable quotes:
"... The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful. ..."
"... Both Mueller and Comey were high enough "at the top" so as to know what the people below them needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers ..."
"... William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing happened, said in an interview in June 2007 that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."[25] ..."
"... Although they'd been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening days of the Bush administration. As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft's deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case to Comey. ..."
"... So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn't go along with that torture-extracted 'testimony' as 'evidence', then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller are a team - a team that serves the Bushes and the Sauds . But not the American public. ..."
"... CLOSING NOTE: This article had been submitted to, and rejected by, the 39 publications listed here at the bottom, sent to each as an exclusive, but since they all rejected it without comment, I now am sending it not just to them but to the entire U.S. newsmedia, on a non-exclusive and free-of-charge basis to publish. ..."
Nov 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

It all began with the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers apartment complex in the Saudi city of Khobar, which killed 19 U.S. military, who worked at the Dharan air base three miles away.

That incident became the lynchpin of the accusation by the Saudi royal family, the U.S. State Department , and the CIA , that Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism .

Both Robert Mueller and his longtime ally James Comey (the latter of whose firing as the FBI chief, by U.S. President Trump, had sparked the appointment of Mueller to become the Special Counsel investigating the U.S. President) performed crucial roles in establishing that the Khobar Towers bombing had been a Hezbollah operation run by the Iranian Government - and, starting upon this basis, in helping to develop the case that Iran "is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism."

However, as has been made clear by several great independent investigative journalists, on the basis of far more-solid documentation than the official account, the Khobar Towers bombing was instead entirely a fundamentalist-Sunni operation, specifically perpetrated by Al Qaeda, which hates Shia and which also hates America's military presence in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden's claim of the bombing's having been done by Al Qaeda, was, in fact, entirely honest and accurate.

America's "Deep State," which extends to Saudi Arabia and to a number of other Governments - it's an international network - is deeply committed to supporting the fundamentalist-Sunni war to conquer and destroy Shia Islam, and not merely to conquer the leading Shia nation, which is Iran. The U.S. Government has intensely taken a side in the Sunni-Shia religious war. That war is comparable in some respects to the 30 Years' War (1618-1648) between Catholics and Protestants , which killed an estimated eight million Europeans; and, both the United States and Israel have clearly joined with the fundamentalist-Sunni leaders, against Iran, and against Shia generally.

The reasons behind the prevailing lies about this matter will also be documented here. Discrepancies between the official story and the solidly documented facts, need to be explained, in order for a reader to be able to understand truthfully why Mueller (who cooperated with Comey in order to rig the official account of the bombing, so as to condemn Iran and Hezbollah instead of Al Qaeda) received his appointment. This is also important in order to understand why Trump, though rabidly anti-Iranian himself, is nonetheless insufficiently anti-Iranian to satisfy the Sauds, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or the rest of the U.S.-and-allied Deep State.

Before proceeding further here, however, the statistical falseness of the allegation that Iran is the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism has to be clearly recognized as being the ultimate fact ; because, if this entire question - to which Mueller and Comey contributed so importantly to answering by their identifying Iran (and Shia generally) as being precisely that ('the foremost state sponsor of terrorism') -- can be assessed at all objectively, then the statistical answer to it would certainly be the objective one.

Wikipedia's article on "Iran and state-sponsored terrorism" says: "According to the Global Terrorism Database , the majority of deaths, more than 94% attributed to Islamic terrorism since 2001, were perpetrated by Sunni jihadists of the Islamic State , al-Qaeda and others. [3] [4] ." Only 6% were Shiites, at all -- from any country. Similarly, my own independent study of 54 especially prominent global instances of Islamic terrorism was headlined (and reported that) "All Islamic Terrorism Is Perpetrated by Fundamentalist Sunnis, Except Terrorism Against Israel." (The anti-Israel terrorist instances might constitute the "6%" which was referred to in the Wikipedia article, but that article provided no good link to its source for the "6%" figure.)

So: the basic allegation is false, that Iran is the foremost state-sponsor of terrorism; the general allegation isn't anywhere near to being true. It's a lie.

More specifically, now, regarding the Khobar Towers incident, which triggered the start of this fraudulent generalization:

The Saudi royal family asserted, immediately after the bombing, that the attack had been perpetrated by jihadists who had returned from Afghanistan and who were now fighting to overthrow Saudi Arabia's Government (the royal Saud family).

For example, on 15 August 1996, the New York Times headlined "Saudi Rebels Are Main Suspects In June Bombing of a U.S. Base" , and reported that, "The Government of Saudi Arabia now believes that native Saudi Islamic militants, including many veterans of the Afghan war, carried out the June 25 bombing that killed 19 American servicemen at a base in Dhahran, Saudi officials said today." However, the "mujahideen" who had fought in Afghanistan were paid and backed both by the Sauds and by the U.S. Government, For example, as early as 1979, Zbigniew Brzezinski flew into Pakistan and exhorted the Taliban there to become mujahideen in Afghanistan because "That land over there is yours; you'll go back to it one day, because your fight will prevail, and you will have your homes and your mosques back again, because your cause is right and God is on your side."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/A9RCFZnWGE0

Then, starting in 1980, "From the Pakistani border, bin Laden raises funds and provides the mujahedeen with logistical and humanitarian aid." So, the Sauds' allegation that the Khobar bombers had been "veterans of the Afghan war" would have meant that they had been foot-soldiers for the U.S.-Saudi operation in Afghanistan. Both the U.S. Government and the Saud family (who own the Saudi Government) hate Shia and especially hate Iran. Hezbollah are Shia, and they are extremely pro-Iran. How likely is it that Hezbollah, anywhere, would have been fighting under the command of Al Qaeda, or of any other fundamentalist-Sunni jihadist organization that calls all Shia "infidels"? So, the Sauds' account of the Khobar Towers bombing is fishy, at best.

Furthermore, a Google-search for the phrase "Hezbollah in Afghanistan" turns up only "6 results," and all of them say nothing about any "Hezbollah in Afghanistan." No report comes up about such a thing, for any year, or any period. The only countries where Hezbollah was reported to exist were Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. One of the links in that Google search was globally comprehensive for the year 2007, the Center on International Cooperation's "Annual Review of Global Peace Operations -- 2007" . It included reports on wars during that year, in 26 countries, and the chapter for Afghanistan (pages 52-58) doesn't mention Hezbollah even once. However, a search for the phrase "Hezbollah Afghanistan" does bring up "Syria's Other Foreign Fighters: Iran's Afghan and Pakistani Mercenaries" , at the neoconservative (and thus favoring not only the American aristocracy but its allied aristocracies -- especially in Saudi Arabia and Israel) The National Interest, dated 20 November 2015. That article says, "The liwa' fatimiyun (Fatimiyun Brigade) is composed exclusively of Afghans and fights under the auspices of Hezbollah Afghanistan," based in Syria. Other supposed foreign Shiites trying to overthrow Syria's Government are mentioned, as being supposedly "Pakistanis fighting in Syria under the Hezbollah flag." However, if these allegations are true, then those men would be opponents of Syria's secular government, which is headed by the secular Shiite Bashar al-Assad, who is being attacked by fundamentalist Sunnis -- including both ISIS and Al Qaeda there -- who are trying to kill Hezbollah in Syria, who are, in fact, defending Assad. (Such illogical 'historical' accounts as that, are normal in neoconservative publications -- counterfactuality is entirely acceptable to them.) Either that, or else the alleged Shiite Pakistanis who are fighting in Syria to overthrow the Shiite Assad and replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni regime, would be -- not actually members of Hezbollah, but instead -- Shiites from Pakistan who came to Syria in order to help actually not to overthrow the Government but to defend it against its rabidly anti-Shia attackers. That's the opposite of the assumption that The National Interest made, but it conceivably could be the case. A Pew survey scientifically randomly sampled 1,512 Pakistanis, and found that 1,450 of them declared themselves to be "Muslim," which is 96%. It also found that 94% of Pakistanis (of any or no faith) say that religion is "very important" in their lives, and found that 81% of the Muslims said they were "Sunni," 6% said they were "Shiite," and 12% said they were "Just a Muslim." So, only 6% of Pakistanis identify themselves specifically as "Shia." That is such a small percentage of Shiites in Pakistan, as to make unlikely any significant contribution that Pakistanis would be providing to the defense of Syria, which is at least 1,800 miles or 2,900 kilometers, away -- not even in the same general region. But, in any case, that neoconservative magazine's assumptions regarding the entire matter are clearly false.

Clearly, then, the logical feasibility of the U.S. Government's case against Iran is so tiny as to constitute almost an absolute impossibility of that case being true.

Now, then, let's consider the specifics of the case

The great investigative journalist Greg Palast, in his 2003 The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (pages 101-102), wrote:

True-blue Democrats may want to skip the next paragraphs. If President Bush put the kibosh on investigations of Saudi funding of terror and nuclear bomb programs, this was merely taking a policy of Bill Clinton one step further.

Following the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, Clinton hunted Osama with a passion -- but a passion circumscribed by the desire to protect the sheikdom sitting atop our oil lifeline. In 1994, a Saudi diplomat defected to the United States with 14,000 pages of documents from the kingdom's sealed file cabinets. This mother lode of intelligence included evidence of plans for the assassination of Saudi opponents living in the West and, tantalizingly, details of the $7 billion the Saudis gave to Saddam Hussein for his nuclear program -- the first attempt to build an Islamic bomb. The Saudi government, according to the defector, Mohammed Al Khilewi, slipped Saddam the nuclear loot during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years when our government still thought Saddam too marvelous for words [because he was trying to slaughter Shiite Iran]. The thought was that he would only use the bomb to vaporize Iranians [which the rulers of both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia -- and of Israel -- would love].

Clinton granted the Saudi defector asylum, but barred the FBI from looking at the documents. Al Khilewi's New York lawyer, Michael Wildes, told me he was stunned. Wildes handles some of America's most security-sensitive asylum cases. "We said (to the FBI), 'Here, take the documents! Go get some bad guys with them! We'll even pay for the photocopying!" But the agents who came to his office had been ordered not to accept evidence of Saudi criminal activity, even on U.S. soil.

In 1997, the Canadians caught and extradited to America one of the [Saudi-Government-alleged] Khobar Towers attackers. In 1999, Vernon Jordan's law firm stepped in and -- poof! -- the [Saudi-alleged] killer was shipped back to Saudi Arabia before he could reveal all he knew about Al Qaeda (valuable) and the Saudis (embarrassing). I reviewed but was not permitted to take notes on, the alleged [finally, Palast is getting that right] terrorist's debriefing by the FBI. To my admittedly inexpert eyes, there was enough on Al Qaeda to make him a source on terrorists worth holding on to. Not that he was set free -- he's in one of the kingdom's dungeons [likelier dead soon after arriving back in Saudi Arabia] -- but his info is sealed up with him. The terrorist's extradition was "Clinton's." "Clinton's parting kiss to the Saudis," as one insider put it.

Another great investigative journalist is Seymour Hersh, who in the 22 October 2001 issue of the New Yorker, headlined "King's Ransom" and he opened:

Since 1994 or earlier, the National Security Agency has been collecting electronic intercepts of conversations between members of the Saudi Arabian royal family, which is headed by King Fahd. The intercepts depict a regime increasingly corrupt, alienated from the country's religious rank and file, and so weakened and frightened that it has brokered its future by channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in what amounts to protection money to fundamentalist groups that wish to overthrow it.

The intercepts have demonstrated to analysts that by 1996 Saudi money was supporting Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda and other extremist groups in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Yemen, and Central Asia, and throughout the Persian Gulf region. "Ninety-six is the key year," one American intelligence official told me. "Bin Laden hooked up to all the bad guys -- it's like the Grand Alliance -- and had a capability for conducting large-scale operations." The Saudi regime, he said, had "gone to the dark side."

Subsequently, he noted:

In 1994, Mohammed al-Khilewi, the first secretary at the Saudi Mission to the United Nations, defected and sought political asylum in the United States. He brought with him, according to his New York lawyer, Michael J. Wildes, some fourteen thousand internal government documents depicting the Saudi royal family's corruption, human-rights abuses, and financial support for terrorists.

He claimed to have evidence that the Saudis had given financial and technical support to Hamas, the extremist Islamic group whose target is Israel. There was a meeting at the lawyer's office with two F.B.I. agents and an Assistant United States Attorney. "We gave them a sampling of the documents and put them on the table," Wildes told me last week. "But the agents refused to accept them." He and his client heard nothing further from federal authorities. Al-Khilewi, who was granted asylum, is now living under cover.

The Saudis were also shielded from Washington's foreign-policy bureaucracy. A government expert on Saudi affairs told me that Prince Bandar dealt exclusively with the men at the top, and never met with desk officers and the like. "Only a tiny handful of people inside the government are familiar with U.S.-Saudi relations," he explained. "And that is purposeful."

Both Mueller and Comey were high enough "at the top" so as to know what the people below them needed to hide in order to succeed in their careers.

The New York Times's report , on 15 August 1996, quoted a leading Saudi dissident in London as asserting that, "As far as I know, Prince Nayef is keeping the Americans away from all the details at this point." This report went on: "In a statement responding to the earlier reports of confessions, Prince Nayef said Saudi Arabia would make an announcement as soon as the investigation is completed. His comments were also viewed as refuting earlier suggestions by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, who had said that Saudi investigations might point to an Iranian connection." In other words, at that time (as of August 15th), the U.S. official was suggesting "an Iranian connection" but the Saudi official wasn't -- at least, not yet -- and the expectation was that "confessions" would be providing the decisive 'evidence'. However, these 'confessions', in Saudi cases are typically 'information' extracted under torture, and, where that fails to obtain the 'information' that's desired by the Government, then threats to destroy the person's immediate family are applied; so, the Sauds famously usually do get exactly the 'information' that they want (regardless of whether it's true).

The Wikipedia article "Khobar Towers bombing" summarizes the 'findings' by the U.S. FBI and courts, and ignores the Sauds' 'investigation(s)', because nothing was ever made public from the Sauds' Government or officials or anyone there, about what they 'found' (other than 'found' by torture). Wikipedia's article, which is based entirely upon the U.S. Government (the first party to broach publicly the possibility of "an Iranian connection") states flatly, right up front, "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)." In common parlance, that's Hezbollah, an "Iranian connection" -- exactly what the U.S. Government wanted.

Here's what that article asserts regarding the operations of the alleged mastermind:

In June 2001, an indictment was issued in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia charging the following people with murder, conspiracy, and other charges related to the bombing:[18]

Ahmed Ibrahim Al-Mughassil

Al-Mughassil disappeared from the 'news' after the Sauds announced his capture in 2015, but Wikipedia on 6 November 2017 closed its bizarre article about him by saying, without comment, "Al-Mughassil was believed to be living in Iran.[1][2]" That footnote [1] linked to Front Page mag. in 2005, which actually said nothing of the sort ; footnote [2] linked to FDD in 2006, which actually said nothing of the sort . The obvious likeliest explanation for Wikipedia's blatant falsehoods there is Wikipedia's being edited by the CIA , which serves the Sauds, just like the rest of America's federal Government does.

The Wikipedia article then continued by listing the other alleged defendants:

In July 2001, Saudi Arabia said that eleven of the people indicted in the US were in custody in Saudi prisons, and were to be tried in Saudi court, as the country refused to extradite any of them to the United States to stand trial.[19] The government has not since made public the outcome of the trial or the whereabouts of the prisoners.

All six of the named persons there were Shiites in Saudi Arabia. The respective Wikipedia articles on each provide no evidence that any of them was at all involved in the bombing. However, the article on Hani al-Sayegh , who was living in Canada, is extraordinarily honest: it indicates that he said he had had nothing whatsoever to do with any bombings, nor any terrorism at all, and that the U.S. Government tried to get him to confess to something on the basis of which he could be tried and convicted in the U.S., but that he continued to resist all plea-offers, and to maintain that they were seeking to get him to lie, which he would not do. So, since the U.S. would not torture him on U.S. soil, the U.S. deported him "to Saudi Arabia on October 10, 1999 where it was assumed he would be executed upon arrival.[3][12]." But the Saudi regime never announced anything about any of the men they were charging in the Khobar Towers bombing.

The FBI issued charges against al-Sayegh and 12 others (all allegedly Hezbollah) on 21 June 2001 , for the bombing; and, since that time, the only publication of their names has been in regards to the mere presumption that they were guilty. Their indictments in the U.S. (without evidence), and (since the Saudi Government wouldn't say anything about them -- not even whether they were in prison or free there) the charge in U.S. courts that Iran had helped them to do it, were 100% based upon that 'evidence'. Therefore, Iran was declared guilty in U.S. courts, and fined, again , and again , over $500 million in all, without any reliable evidence, at all, that Iran had anything to do with the Khobar Towers bombing. And, not a cent of those fines was paid; but the U.S. Government's purpose was served nonetheless: getting Iran's 'guilt' onto the official record, such that Wikipedia, for example could say "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)."

The Wikipedia article on the Khobar Towers bombing closed, however, by saying:

William Perry, who was the United States Secretary of Defense at the time that this bombing happened, said in an interview in June 2007 that "he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base."[25]

On December 22, 2006, federal judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled that Iran and Hezbollah were responsible for the attack, stating that the leading experts on Hezbollah presented "overwhelming" evidence of the group's involvement and that six captured Hezbollah members detailed the role of Iranian officials in providing money, plans, and maps.[4] This decision was reached as a default judgment, however, in which the Iranian government was not represented in court, and had no opportunity to challenge the allegations.

People who trust the U.S. Government's honesty will interpret the outcome as displaying legal and judicial incompetency, not as displaying political and propagandistic competency.

William Perry announced his opinion only after the 2006 court 'finding' of Iran's 'guilt' in the case. The UPI article on this opened and closed as follows:

Perry: U.S. eyed Iran attack after bombing

Published: June 6, 2007 at 4:25 PM

WASHINGTON, June 6 (UPI) -- A former U.S. defense secretary says he now believes al-Qaida rather than Iran was behind a 1996 truck bombing at an American military base.

Former Defense Secretary William Perry said he had a contingency plan to attack Iran if the link had been proven, but evidence was not to either his nor President Bill Clinton's satisfaction.

The attack would have struck "at a number of their military facilities that would have weakened -- substantially weakened ... the Iranian navy and air force," he said in New York Tuesday during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

"I believe that the Khobar Tower bombing was probably masterminded by Osama bin Laden," Perry said. "I can't be sure of that, but in retrospect, that's what I believe. At the time, he was not a suspect. At the time ... all of the evidence was pointing to Iran."

He said al-Qaida did not emerge as a major threat until Clinton's second term.

"We probably should have been more concerned about it at the time than we were but in the first term we did not see Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida as a major factor, or one that we were concerned with," he said.

In 2001, the U.S. Justice Department announced a 46-count indictment against 13 Saudis and one Lebanese man in the bombing. All were allegedly connected to Hezbollah, a terrorist group the United States believes is linked to Iran.

Perry said the FBI strongly believed at the time the bombing was ordered by Iran, but Saudi officials tried to discourage that theory.

"They feared what action we would take. They rightly feared it. In fact, I had a contingency plan for a strike on Iran, if it had been if it had been clearly established. But it was never clearly established, and so we never did that," Perry said.

So, although Wikipedia started by alleging "Perpetrators: Hezbollah Al-Hejaz (English: Party of God in the Hijaz)" -- and in plain language, that's Hezbollah -- it ended by kaboshing that very theory of the case, which the Wikipedia article had been 'documenting' (with bad logic and some false 'facts').

Subsequently, the fine investigative journalist Gareth Porter explained how Perry had come to think that Iran and Hezbollah had been the culprit. Perry had trusted the head of the FBI, Louis Freeh. Perry didn't know that, behind the scenes, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud (who was his family's U.S. Ambassador) had told Freeh that Iran and Hezbollah did it. Furthermore, the Sauds had actually blocked the FBI's own investigators from having access to the site or to any of the evidence (other than by providing Freeh himself access to the torture-extracted 'confessions'). Initially, in fact, the Sauds even started bulldozing the site.

The first part of Porter's five-part report was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 1: Al Qaeda Excluded from the Suspects List" . It said: "The Saudi bulldozing stopped only after Scott Erskine, the supervisory FBI special agent for international terrorism investigations, threatened that Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who happened to be in Saudi Arabia when the bomb exploded, would intervene personally on the matter." It said there was: "a systematic effort by the Saudis to obstruct any U.S. investigation of the bombing and to deceive the United States about who was responsible for the bombing. The Saudi regime steered the FBI investigation toward Iran and its Saudi Shi'a allies with the apparent intention of keeping U.S. officials away from a trail of evidence that would have led to Osama bin Laden and a complex set of ties between the regime and the Saudi terrorist organiser."

The second part was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 2: Saudi Account of Khobar Bore Telltale Signs of Fraud" .

The third part was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 3: U.S. Officials Leaked a False Story Blaming Iran" .

The fourth part was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 4: FBI Ignored Compelling Evidence of bin Laden Role" . It noted that, " In October 1996, after having issued yet another fatwa calling on Muslims to drive U.S. soldiers out of the Kingdom, bin Laden was quoted in al Quds al Arabi, the Palestinian daily published in London, as saying, 'The crusader army was shattered when we bombed Khobar.'"

The fifth part was titled "EXCLUSIVE -- PART 5: Freeh Became "Defence Lawyer" for Saudis on Khobar" . This part had the most hair-raising details:

The key to the success of the Saudi deception was FBI director Louis Freeh, who took personal charge of the FBI investigation, letting it be known within the Bureau that he was the "case officer" for the probe, according to former FBI officials. Freeh allowed Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to convince him that Iran was involved in the bombing, and that President Bill Clinton, for whom he had formed a visceral dislike, "had no interest in confronting the fact that Iran had blown up the towers," as Freeh wrote in his memoirs.

The Khobar Towers investigation soon became Freeh's vendetta against Clinton. "Freeh was pursuing this for his own personal agenda," says former FBI agent Jack Cloonan.

A former high-ranking FBI official recalls that Freeh "was always meeting with Bandar". And many of the meetings were not in Freeh's office but at Bandar's 38-room home in McLean, Virginia. Meanwhile, the Saudis were refusing the most basic FBI requests for cooperation. Freeh quickly made Iranian and Saudi Shi'a responsibility for the bombing the official premise of the investigation, excluding from the inquiry the hypothesis that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda organisation had carried out the Khobar Towers bombing.

The CIA's bin Laden unit, which had only been established in early 1996, was also excluded by CIA leadership from that Agency's work on the bombing.

Finally, in order to bring his exhaustive investigation up-to-date, Porter headlined on 1 September 2015, "Who Bombed Khobar Towers? Anatomy of a Crooked Terrorism Investigation" . Here's one particularly forceful portion of it:

In order to build a legal case against Iran and Shi'a Saudis, Freeh had to get access to the Shi'a detainees who had confessed. But the Saudis never agreed to allow FBI officials to interview them. In early November 1998, Freeh sent an FBI team to observe Saudi secret police officials asking eight Shi'a detainees the FBI's questions from behind a one-way mirror at the Riyadh detention center.

By then Saudi secret police had already had two and half years to coach the detainees on what to say, under the threat of more torture. But Freeh didn't care. "For Louis, if they would let us in the room, that was the important thing," a senior FBI official involved in the Khobar investigation told me. "We would have gone over there and gotten the answers even if they had been propped up."

But the Justice Department refused to go ahead with an indictment based on the information the FBI team brought back. Department lawyers knew the Shi'a detainees had been subject to torture, so they have ruled that the confessions were not valid.

In other words: the head of the FBI believed torture-extracted 'confessions' as if such would meet U.S. rules of evidence -- which they don't. And coaching of witnesses is likewise prohibited -- under U.S. laws.

On 30 May 2013, The Washingtonian headlined "Forged Under Fire -- Bob Mueller and Jim Comey's Unusual Friendship" and Garrett M. Graff reported:

Although they'd been aware of each other for years, sharing their similar orbits, Comey and Mueller were first brought together professionally by then-FBI director Louis Freeh in the opening days of the Bush administration. As the Bush administration took office in 2001, Freeh asked Bob Mueller, who was acting as John Ashcroft's deputy attorney general, to transfer the [Khobar] case to Comey.

When he finally did so, Mueller called Comey with a warning: "Wilma Lewis is going to be so pissed." Indeed, Lewis blasted the decision, as well as both Freeh and Mueller personally, in a press release, saying the move was "ill-conceived and ill-considered." But Freeh's gambit paid off.

Within weeks, Comey had pulled together the indictment. During a National Security Council briefing at the White House, under the watchful gaze of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Comey presented overwhelming evidence of Iran's involvement.

On the eve of the expiration of the statute of limitations, fourteen individuals were indicted for the attack. Freeh, who stepped down the next day, said the indictment was "a major step."

So, Comey and Mueller were brought in by Freeh because Freeh was about to retire and he wanted successors who would be committed to the theory of the case, that Freeh had gotten from Prince Bandar. If Comey and Mueller wouldn't go along with that torture-extracted 'testimony' as 'evidence', then their ability to become appointed head the FBI would have been zero. Freeh, Comey, and Mueller are a team - a team that serves the Bushes and the Sauds . But not the American public.

Our continuing war against Iran is due entirely to their crucial assistance. The Deep State appoints such individuals.

* * *

CLOSING NOTE: This article had been submitted to, and rejected by, the 39 publications listed here at the bottom, sent to each as an exclusive, but since they all rejected it without comment, I now am sending it not just to them but to the entire U.S. newsmedia, on a non-exclusive and free-of-charge basis to publish. Since none of them will pay me for publishing it, I shall be happy if any publish it without charge, even small 'alternative news' sites online, because - and especially if a mainstream newsmedium relents and decides to publish it - then perhaps the embargo against the truth of such important matters being published in the United States and its vassal nations, will come to be broken , and the 'news'media in America and in those other countries, might then terminate being actually the U.S-regime's propaganda-media, and might finally begin to pay penance for their all having helped the U.S. Government to deceive the American (and allied-nations') public into supporting the regime's entirely lie-based invasions of Afghanistan in 2001, of Iraq in 2003, of Libya in 2012, of Syria since 2012, of U.S. coups elsewhere (such as in Ukraine ), and, now, potentially repeating it yet again with invasions or coups against Iran or other countries that the U.S. elite want to grab and add to their growing U.S. empire.

If Iran becomes invaded, or another U.S. coup becomes perpetrated there (such as in 1953 ), then perhaps Russia's only realistic response -- as being the ultimate U.S. target -- will be a blitz nuclear attack to destroy the United States, in recognition of the U.S. Government's fanatical reach to control a total global empire -- total global strangulation of freedom and of peace, everywhere. After all, if Russia waits till after a U.S. lie-based invasion of Iran, then it will be simply waiting for a blitz nuclear attack by the U.S. and its NATO alliance against Russia itself, which would be even worse for the world than Russia's striking first -- though the world would end, either way. The U.S. Government now seems to be an out-of-control spreading cancer, a terminal threat to the world in every regard. It's already recognized throughout the world as being "the greatest threat to peace in the world today" . And its 'news'media have helped to keep it that way.

Here is the list of 39 publications that this article had been submitted to as an exclusive (and, of course, it's now being submitted to them, too, yet again, but this time on a non-exclusive, non-fee, basis, along with being submitted to all the rest of the regime's press, including broadcast media):

McClatchy newspapers, New York Times, Washington Post, The Atlantic, Harper's, TIME, The New Republic, Foreign Policy, Mother Jones, The Nation, Progressive, National Review, New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Business Week, Forbes, Politico, thedailybeast, huffingtonpost, slate, bloomberg, businessinsider, newsweek, theintercept, breitbart, alternet, newsbud, spiked-online, vice, mintpressnews, truthdig, truth-out, Independent, Guardian, Daily Mail, Spectator, London Review of Books, New Statesman, Spiegel.

* * *

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

[Nov 12, 2017] Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies.

There is some important to note "cognitive dissonance" here: if Trump is as stupid as appears from his current policies why in the past he was insightful enough to understand important events in proper light? Something here does not compute...
Notable quotes:
"... Trump was bright enough to build up a billion dollar business empire, to win the Republican nomination against the wishes of most the the Republican establishment, and to win the election over the Clinton/Establishment machine. ..."
"... He was bright enough to note immediately after the 9/11 false flag the absurdity of aspects of what became the official narrative; ..."
"... And his anti-NWO strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and upon taking office his immediate repudiation of the nation-state disempowering and democracy-defeating TPP, are imo evidence of combining bright and gutsy. ..."
"... And he has been bright and gutsy enough to directly take on mass media bs and to call out, as no other promenent person has, the 'fake news', the mass media propaganda system; and playfully, and rather brightly, offers his direct line to the public via twitter. ..."
"... And along with Putin, Trump has earned more mass media and establishment invective, attacks, and condemnation than just about anyone in my living memory. So he must be doing something right. ..."
"... When someone is referred to as "not the brightest bulb", this is a cliché way of denoting stupidity in someone else, but it is a often a somewhat perilous joust, suggesting a suspect self-inflation. As far as not being well informed, that of course depends on what specific matters are being referred to. It has been said that a bunch of highly intelligent people with access to all sorts of information bombed Indochina mercilessly for years; for. as the highly intelligent and overflowing with information Dr. Kissinger noted, basically nothing. ..."
"... I listened to Trump carefully during his campaign speeches. He'd deliver a long "stream of consciousness" sentence that seemed to go all over the place. But when he'd finished the sentence you realised he'd in fact covered all the points he needed to make. And had done so while at the same time picking up and factoring in the audience response. I think he may be very bright indeed and quick on his feet. ..."
"... His policies? I think we have to accept one unpalatable fact. An American politician who doesn't ostentatiously support Israel doesn't get to be an American politician, if that's not a circular way of saying it. Since that to a lesser extent is the case in England as well - you saw the trouble Corbyn got into recently - one either has to isolate oneself from political discussion or just accept that most politicians of any importance here or in the States will be defective in that respect. That sounds heartless, given what the Palestinians are going through, and given what Israel's neighbours are going through; but ceasing to strive for a little because we cannot have more is even less acceptable. ..."
"... One final point. You've seen the re-election in Germany of Mrs Merkel - no idea how since none of the people I meet in Germany would have dreamed of voting for her, but she's still there. You've seen a dead-beat government elected in the UK as well. And in France you've seen the election of Macron! In America that pattern was broken. I think it might have been a fluke - I have relatives in the States who are dyed in the wool Democrats but who just couldn't stomach the candidate they put up, and it seems there were many like them. But fluke or not they now have a President who, judging by the way they attack him, is an opponent of the type of policies that have led us to our present pass. He seems to have pretty well the entire American establishment and the media against him so he may not get that far. But surely a slim chance of getting out of the hopeless mess that is our politics in the West at present is better that the certainly of sinking further into it? ..."
Nov 12, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump was bright enough to build up a billion dollar business empire, to win the Republican nomination against the wishes of most the the Republican establishment, and to win the election over the Clinton/Establishment machine.

He was bright enough to note immediately after the 9/11 false flag the absurdity of aspects of what became the official narrative; and for example to question the safety of the deluge of vaccines that kids especially are being subjected to, while simultaneously there is an unprecedented 'epidemic' of autism and asthma in children.

And his anti-NWO strong emphasis on national sovereignty, and upon taking office his immediate repudiation of the nation-state disempowering and democracy-defeating TPP, are imo evidence of combining bright and gutsy.

And he has been bright and gutsy enough to directly take on mass media bs and to call out, as no other promenent person has, the 'fake news', the mass media propaganda system; and playfully, and rather brightly, offers his direct line to the public via twitter.

And along with Putin, Trump has earned more mass media and establishment invective, attacks, and condemnation than just about anyone in my living memory. So he must be doing something right.

When someone is referred to as "not the brightest bulb", this is a cliché way of denoting stupidity in someone else, but it is a often a somewhat perilous joust, suggesting a suspect self-inflation. As far as not being well informed, that of course depends on what specific matters are being referred to. It has been said that a bunch of highly intelligent people with access to all sorts of information bombed Indochina mercilessly for years; for. as the highly intelligent and overflowing with information Dr. Kissinger noted, basically nothing.

EnglishOutsider | Nov 11, 2017 7:15:21 PM | 26
"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies."

"b" - I listened to Trump carefully during his campaign speeches. He'd deliver a long "stream of consciousness" sentence that seemed to go all over the place. But when he'd finished the sentence you realised he'd in fact covered all the points he needed to make. And had done so while at the same time picking up and factoring in the audience response. I think he may be very bright indeed and quick on his feet.

Not well informed? I can't argue with that, not after Khan Shaykhun, but the same blanket of misinformation that covers almost all of us in Europe or the States will presumably cover New York property developers. In the echo chamber that is Washington DC I doubt there's much chance of remedying that. I speak to responsible well-educated people regularly whose knowledge of what is happening abroad you would condemn as pitifully inadequate. Rightfully so. Those of you who have a more accurate idea of the facts are few, and those of us who hear you are also in a tiny minority. That's a fact of life and we can no more condemn Trump for being ill-informed than we can the most of your and my neighbours.

I pin my hopes on the fact that he does have a good intuition and is, as I say, quick on his feet. With such a person reality has a better chance of getting through than it would with the usual tunnel vision politician.

His policies? I think we have to accept one unpalatable fact. An American politician who doesn't ostentatiously support Israel doesn't get to be an American politician, if that's not a circular way of saying it. Since that to a lesser extent is the case in England as well - you saw the trouble Corbyn got into recently - one either has to isolate oneself from political discussion or just accept that most politicians of any importance here or in the States will be defective in that respect. That sounds heartless, given what the Palestinians are going through, and given what Israel's neighbours are going through; but ceasing to strive for a little because we cannot have more is even less acceptable.

His other policies? You do not write on the economy on your site. The European economies, that of the UK in particular, and the American economy, are in a bad way. Urgently so. I can therefore only put forward as a view that the solutions proposed by Trump in 2016 offered the only chance, if a slim one, of turning that round.

One final point. You've seen the re-election in Germany of Mrs Merkel - no idea how since none of the people I meet in Germany would have dreamed of voting for her, but she's still there. You've seen a dead-beat government elected in the UK as well. And in France you've seen the election of Macron! In America that pattern was broken. I think it might have been a fluke - I have relatives in the States who are dyed in the wool Democrats but who just couldn't stomach the candidate they put up, and it seems there were many like them. But fluke or not they now have a President who, judging by the way they attack him, is an opponent of the type of policies that have led us to our present pass. He seems to have pretty well the entire American establishment and the media against him so he may not get that far. But surely a slim chance of getting out of the hopeless mess that is our politics in the West at present is better that the certainly of sinking further into it?

Peter AU 1 | Nov 11, 2017 6:37:08 PM | 23
karlof1 20

If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues.

They would have to leave the machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.

[Nov 12, 2017] The Russia hoax might not survive

When a particular MSN outlet call Intelligence assessment the work of "intelligence community" and not a handful of analysis picked by Brannan and Clapper from just three agencies (NSA, CIA and FBI) it ia fair to say it spreads propaganda in best Josef Gebbels tradition: "The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
"Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." ― Joseph Goebbels
"That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success." ― Joseph Goebbels
Notable quotes:
"... CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to multiple intelligence sources. ..."
"... The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election ..."
Nov 12, 2017 | www.wsj.com

This here is The Wall Street Journal on the Steele Dossier .

This is utterly untrue. In British court documents Mr. Steele has acknowledged he briefed U.S. reporters about the dossier in September 2016. Those briefed included journalists from the New York Times , the Washington Post, Yahoo News and others. Mr. Steele, by his own admission (in an interview with Mother Jones), also gave his dossier in July 2016 to the FBI.

... ... ...

To that point, it is fair to ask if the entire Trump-Russia narrative -- which has played a central role in our political discourse for a year, and is now resulting in a special counsel issuing unrelated indictments -- is based on nothing more than a political smear document. Is there any reason to believe the FBI was probing a Trump-Russia angle before the dossier? Is there any collusion allegation that doesn't come in some form from the dossier?

The idea that the federal government and a special counsel were mobilized -- that American citizens were monitored and continue to be investigated -- based on a campaign-funded hit document is extraordinary. Especially given that to this day no one has publicly produced a single piece of evidence to support any of the dossier's substantive allegations about Trump team members.

And CNN CIA director met with DNC hack conspiracy theorist at Trump's urging - CNNPolitics

CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently met -- at the urging of President Donald Trump -- with one of the principal deniers of Russian interference in the US election, according to multiple intelligence sources. Trump apparently made the highly unusual request that Pompeo meet with the former National Security Agency employee and look into a theory that the leak of Democratic Party emails last year was an inside job rather than a cyberattack by Russian hackers.

William Binney, the former NSA employee-turned-whistleblower who circulated the conspiracy theory, confirmed to CNN that he met with Pompeo for about an hour on October 24 -- despite the fact the intelligence community concluded early this year that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. The meeting was first reported by The Intercept.

The CIA responded to CNN's inquiry about the meeting by saying that Pompeo "stands by and has always stood by the January 2017 intelligence community assessment" that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

[Nov 12, 2017] Hillary Clinton, DNC - and One Republican - Paid for Russia Dossier Report - Breitbart

Notable quotes:
"... Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research. ..."
"... Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary ..."
"... The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates. ..."
"... Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company. ..."
Nov 12, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to compile the "Russian dossier" that triggered an FBI investigation into possible collusion between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and the Russian government, according to a report Tuesday by the Washington Post .

A Republican had contracted first with Fusion GPS, and Clinton and the DNC continued to fund Fusion GPS's work, the report says.

According to the Post :

Mark Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community

Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by a still unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

The "Russian dossier," whose contents Trump has denied and which has been widely discredited, is believed to have led the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign and several Trump associates.

Until now, Fusion GPS has continued to refuse to cooperate with congressional panels investigating Russian attempts to intervene in the election, and how the Obama administration probed those efforts. Democrats have also protected the company.

The revelation that the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee were involved in procuring the salacious accusations against Trump that fed their own later accusations of Russian interference in the election lends credence to those who, like Trump himself, have regarded the Russia accusations as conspiracy theories.

Last week, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal observed :

The Washington narrative is focused on special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. But the ferocious pushback and unseemly tactics from Democrats suggest they are growing worried. Maybe the real story is that Democrats worked with an opposition-research firm that has some alarming ties to Russia and potentially facilitated a disinformation campaign during a presidential election.

On the heels of revelations that the FBI was investigating Russian attempts to influence Hillary Clinton to approve a controversial uranium deal, Democrats will have more questions to answer about possible collusion with Russia. The FBI, too, will face additional scrutiny from Congress -- especially as it agreed to pay Steele after the election for additional research into Trump's potential Russia ties.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the " most influential " people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution , is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .

[Nov 12, 2017] A hundred years after the Russian revolution we are in Paradise

Notable quotes:
"... Coddenham, Suffolk ..."
Nov 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Letter to editor:

John Pelling, Coddenham, Suffolk

It seems appropriate for the release of the Paradise Papers to coincide with the centenary of the Russian revolution.

[Nov 12, 2017] The Islamic Emirate of Iraq (future Daesh) was created during the term of George W. Bush, under the control of General Petraeus who commanded the troops in Iraq, to deflect the wrath of the Iraqis against the troops of occupation and turn it into a civil war; a device that Leon Panetta took on and supported

Notable quotes:
"... The Islamic Emirate of Iraq (future Daesh) was created during the term of George W. Bush, under the control of General Petraeus who commanded the troops in Iraq, to ​​deflect the wrath of the Iraqis against the troops of occupation and turn it into a civil war; a device that Leon Panetta took on and supported [1]. John McCain met with Daesh leaders and has long maintained close ties with them in the name of the "Vietnamese" strategy against Syria [2]. ..."
"... Bannon then ran into a criticism of the policies of George W. Bush and John McCain when the chairperson cut him off and ended the "debate" by saying, "Well, the elite of politics A foreigner here in Washington who asked me to give you the floor today also asked me to close this debate if you were dealing with other topics than the one we have planned. That's why we finish. Thank you for coming. ..."
Nov 12, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

PeacefulProsperity | Oct 25, 2017 10:42:28 PM | 86

@Lozion Are you that blind to not see Augustine's post as a War Party propaganda piece?

@all This in quite interesting: Bannon sows trouble in Washington

The Hudson Institute held a debate in Washington on October 23, 2017 titled "Countering Violent Extremism: Qatar, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood".

The Hudson Institute is a forecasting agency created by the futurologist Herman Kahn. It brings together many followers of the philosopher Leo Strauss.

The audience was high-ranking members of Congress and Administration, ambassadors and journalists.

Former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and his successor at the head of the CIA, David Petraeus, were to point to Iran while supporting Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood.

To make a good impression, the Institute also invited Steve Bannon, former special adviser to President Trump. In introducing his guests, the director of the Hudson Institute, Ambassador Hussain Haqqani, declared that the first two were "enlightened", while their opponent embodied the "Forces of Darkness" (sic).

Speaking last, Steve Bannon described the New York Times as an "opposition party", refuted the "isolationist" term the newspaper used to describe President Trump's foreign policy, and recalled his action against Daesh.

The Islamic Emirate of Iraq (future Daesh) was created during the term of George W. Bush, under the control of General Petraeus who commanded the troops in Iraq, to ​​deflect the wrath of the Iraqis against the troops of occupation and turn it into a civil war; a device that Leon Panetta took on and supported [1]. John McCain met with Daesh leaders and has long maintained close ties with them in the name of the "Vietnamese" strategy against Syria [2].

In the Saudi Arabia / Qatar conflict, Bannon welcomed Saudi Arabia's change of attitude towards the jihadists and condemned Qatar, while officially the Trump administration took no position. The audience listened attentively in silence.

Bannon then ran into a criticism of the policies of George W. Bush and John McCain when the chairperson cut him off and ended the "debate" by saying, "Well, the elite of politics A foreigner here in Washington who asked me to give you the floor today also asked me to close this debate if you were dealing with other topics than the one we have planned. That's why we finish. Thank you for coming.

[Nov 11, 2017] Brennan was a strong-arm facilitator for the foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers

Notable quotes:
"... as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the manipulation of the 2016 election. ..."
"... The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU ..."
"... As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr. D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee? Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court. ..."
"... Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters. Kudos to Whitney for getting it right. ..."
Nov 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Michael Kenny, November 11, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT • 300 Words

Russiagate still scaring the daylights out of some people! The distinction between "Hillary paid for it" and "Hillary fabricated it" has already been made umpteen times. The reason, I think, why this author is trying to tie Hillary to the intelligence agencies and the millionaires is because, as Russiagate widens, it's becoming clear that some part of the US intelligence community and part of the US financial elite were involved in the manipulation of the 2016 election.

A part of the US financial elite have invested heavily (and for the most part, legally) in Russia but have thereby done business with some very dubious characters, some probably linked to the Russian Mafia. Having installed their stooge in the Kremlin, the gangsters took the logical next step and tried to install a stooge in the White House. The US elite was happy to let the Russians have a slice of the cake but by manipulating the election, the gangsters were in practice making a grab for the whole cake. The US elite wasn't willing to accept that. Hence the current fight.

The spooks have been trying (and failing!) for years to break up the EU and what both the US elite and the Russian gangsters had in mind was to carve up Europe between them ("spheres of influence"). The two projects came together in Ukraine. In other words, all of this has very little to do with politics or international relations and a great deal to do with dirty money.

Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert attention away from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's entourage.

Anon , Disclaimer November 11, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

"Trying to pin that on Hillary is a rather flat-footed attempt to divert attention away from the links between the Russian gangsters, the spooks and the Trump's entourage."

We understand your frustration with the events in Syria. The ziocons' vicious hatred towards Russians for the "loss" of Syria to the Syrian citizens (instead the US/Israel/SA-sponsored ISIS) is evident.

As for the gangsters, nobody could compete with the thug (felon) Avigdor Lieberman in the Knesset and the neo-Nazi activists in Kevan government. Don't forget that Mr. Kolomojsky, an Israeli citizen and big-time criminal and financier of the neo-Nazi battalion Azov, is also a pillar of Jewish Community in Ukraine (and a darling of the Wall Street Journal) and that Mr. D. Alperovitch, the Russophobe who conducted the fraudulent analysis of the data with his fraudulent CrowdStrike, is from a ziocon company of Atlantic Council. The Tokyo Rose has been, of course, documented in a company of neo-Nazis.

Mike Whitney' paper has a hall mark of a courageous and principled person, whereas your Russophobic insinuations have been Russophobic insinuations and nothing more.

You do protest too much.

DaveE , November 11, 2017 at 5:27 pm GMT
Yeah, yeah. Poor, prosecuted Hillary is just a victim. Like all the rest of the poor, prosecuted leftist sore losers. Or rather, losers, sore or otherwise.

Hillary has a long, long career playing in the sandbox with Murder Inc, Political Division.

DaveE , November 11, 2017 at 5:39 pm GMT
@DaveE

Of course, she will take the fall for failure. Mobsters whack other mobsters quite frequently if they "fail"or are disloyal. And of course, glory-seekers like Hillary set themselves up for complete humiliation, at minimum, when things don't go so well.

Seamus Padraig , November 11, 2017 at 5:45 pm GMT
@Dr. Crow

And yet and yet there is evidence that the Trump campaign was in contact with various Russians all during the campaign.

Oh? And what evidence would that be? The CrowdStrike report? The Steele dossier? James Comey's say-so? Or perhaps that of some other DNC contractor or Obama administration flunkee? Do come back and enlighten us when they find some real evidence–i.e., something that might actually stand an outside chance of winning a conviction in court.

And they too were looking for "dirt" -on Clinton.

Well that isn't too hard to find, is it! No need to go to the black market for that.

The question now is: to what extent was the Trump campaign conspiring with Russia to subvert our election process? If they were involved in such a conspiracy, then the Trump organization has violated Federal laws and should be held to account, each and every one who so conspired.

Opposition research is not a crime. Nor is talking about US politics with foreign nationals; if it were, I'd be guilty of treason on a weekly basis, since I now live in Europe.

Although you may not like the source of the information nor its underlying purposes, if it exposes criminal actions by anyone than it served a good cause.

This is hilarious! I can remember using almost exactly those same words with Hillbots every time one of her corrupt schemes came to light. For example, isn't interceding with the Attorney General on your wife's behalf to head off an investigation in to her before an election a crime known as 'obstruction of justice'? Riddle me that, Batman.

RobinG , November 11, 2017 at 6:59 pm GMT
@Anon

Precisely. Thanks for highlighting this succinct explanation. Those who point to intel agencies or career bureaucrats as Deep State are identifying the puppets, not the masters. Kudos to Whitney for getting it right.

[Nov 11, 2017] There are some indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier

This is from July, 2017, before the most recent revelations...
Notable quotes:
"... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
"... the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine ...) ..."
"... the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies ..."
"... offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the loads ..."
"... With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries. ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"... there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media. ..."
"... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump. ..."
"... Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s. ..."
"... Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump? ..."
Jul 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Murder, Spies And Weapons - Three Fascinating 'Deep State' Stories

350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for terrorists - Trud

Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo

With lots of details from obtained emails. Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries.

---

With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of the issue deserves more scrutiny:

McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 12:56:46 PM | 5
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier. The third time is the Charm. I am reminded. McCain can do no wrong:

His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy); The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong) The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring the words of Reagan). McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due to illness – the most aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?

james | Jul 21, 2017 1:00:13 PM | 8
@5 likklemore ... in an exceptional country, there is no accountability... according to obama, you have to move on and not dwell on the past, lol...
ben | Jul 21, 2017 1:07:44 PM | 9
Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy, is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses we're all just treading water here.
WorldBLee | Jul 21, 2017 1:11:43 PM | 10
@2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
Oui | Jul 21, 2017 2:29:43 PM | 12
Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump.
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

  • there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier.
  • there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
  • the issue is now in front of a British court.

Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s.

  • Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump?
  • 'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow
  • Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Rubio Donor

    Peter W. Smith Tapped Alt-Right to Access Dark Net for Clinton emails – linked to Charles C. Johnson – Stephen Bannon - Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev', "exiled" to the Ukraine

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 21, 2017 3:02:30 PM | 13
Thanks, b. Love the lede...
350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud

What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".

I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said (of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."

This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over. Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.

likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 4:52:05 PM | 18
@james 8
[Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed the dossier to Comey."

NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"

Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself

New York Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/john-mccain-i-gave-russia-blackmail-dossier-on-trump-to-fbi/

Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case to answer.


@kpax 17

Did I mis-read? McCain's cerebral?

fast freddy | Jul 21, 2017 8:20:34 PM | 29
Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody that can damage him.
Yeah, Right | Jul 22, 2017 6:40:44 AM | 45
@2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding McCain's mental state.

So, yeah, brain tumour.

[Nov 11, 2017] Trump Points To Falsehoods In Russian Hacking Claims - Media Still Ignore Them

Possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats. If for a moment one could remove the often justified hatred many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been devised by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims. In other words this is a sophisticated false flag operation.
Even more alarmingly (what really smells like a part on intelligence agencies coup d'état against Trump ) is the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies - the CIA, the FBI and the NSA - not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved. (Obama's intelligence chiefs, DNI Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, publicly admitted that only three agencies took part and The New York Times printed a correction saving so.)
Notable quotes:
"... Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. ..."
"... Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative. ..."
"... But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that. ..."
"... Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else. ..."
"... I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking... ..."
"... This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11 ..."
"... If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails... ..."
"... Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues. ..."
"... Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive. ..."
"... well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason... ..."
"... Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat. ..."
"... Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm ..."
"... These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap. ..."
"... Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!? ..."
"... The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia. ..."
"... CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html ..."
Nov 11, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump Points To Falsehoods In "Russian Hacking" Claims - Media Still Ignore Them

During the flight of his recent Asia tour U.S. President Donal Trump held a press gaggle on board of the plane. Part of it were questions and answers about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. election.

There is no public transcript available yet but the Washington Post's Mark Berman provided a screenshot of some relevant parts:

Mark Berman @markberman - 6:20 AM - 11 Nov 2017

Full comment from @realDonaldTrump again questioning the US intel community conclusion that Russia meddled last year

In the attached transcript Trump talks about his very short encounter with the Russian President Putin in Hanoi:

Q: When did you bring up the issue of election meddling? Did you ask him a question?

A: Every time he sees me he says he didn't do that and I really believe that when he tells me that, he means it. But he says, I didn't do that. I think he is very insulted by it, ...
...
He says that very strongly and he really seems to be insulted by it he says he didn't do it.

Q: Even if he didn't bring it up one-on-one, do you believe him?

A: I think that he is very, very strong on the fact that didn't do it. And then you look and you look what's going on with Podesta , and you look at what's going on with the server from the DNC and why didn't the FBI take it ? Why did they leave it? Why did a third party look at the server and not the FBI ? You look at all of this stuff, and you say, what's going on here? And you hear it's 17 agencies. Well its three . And one is Brennan . And one is whatever. I mean, give me a break. They're political hacks . So you look at it, and then you have Brennan, you have Clapper and you have Comey . Comey's proven now to be a liar and he's proven to be a leaker. So you look at that. And you have President Putin very strongly, vehemently say he has nothing to do with that. Now, you are not going to get into an argument, you are going to start talking about Syria and the Ukraine.

Trump gets it. He knows the weak points of the propaganda claims of "Russian hacking": Podesta and the fake Steele dossier, the DNC server, the lack of any FBI investigation of the alleged hack, the NYT's long false insistence on the '17 agencies' assessment, the "political hacks" who fitted their claims to the Obama/Clinton narrative.

But neither the Washington Post nor the NY Times or others mention the crucial points Trump spelled out in their write-ups of the gaggle. There is no word on the DNC servers in them. Instead they create a claim of "Putin says and Trump just believes him". The do not name the facts and questions Trump listed to support his position. Taking up the valid questions Trump asked would of course require the news outlets to finally delve into them. We can't have that.

Instead we get more "Russian influence" claptrap. Like this from the once honorable Wired which headlines:

Here's the first evidence Russia used Twitter to influence Brexit

Russian interference in Brexit through targeted social media propaganda can be revealed for the first time. A cache of posts from 2016, seen by WIRED, shows how a coordinated network of Russian-based Twitter accounts spread racial hatred in an attempt to disrupt politics in the UK and Europe.

Interesting, enthralling, complicate and sensational ...
... until you get down to paragraph 14(!):

Surprisingly, all the posts around Brexit in this small snapshot were posted after the June vote

"Russian agents" influenced the U.S. election by buying mostly irrelevant Facebook ads - 25% of which were never seen by anyone and 56% of which were posted AFTER the election

"Russian-based Twitter accounts" influenced the Brexit vote in the UK by tweeting affirmative AFTER the vote happened

Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else.

Tannenhouser | Nov 11, 2017 2:15:01 PM | 1

"Trump is not the brightest bulb and he is not well informed. I dislike nearly all of his policies. But he understands that the "Russian hacking" narrative is false and is carried by lunatic political hacks who want to push the U.S. back into a cold, or maybe even hot war with Russia, China, Iran and probably everyone else."

I couldn't agree more B. The distraction to cover up the DNC crimes and the 'pay to play' antics during HRC's tenure at SECState are part of this nonsense as well.

james | Nov 11, 2017 2:21:31 PM | 2
thanks b.. i 2nd @1 tannenhousers comment above..
wadosy | Nov 11, 2017 2:31:10 PM | 3
the term "hacked" implies that someone came in on the internet, right?

I guess it could be that the DNC really was hacked, but maybe they faked the hack story, fed the story to Crowdstrike, then paid Crowdstrike a lot of money to fabricate a fairytale about Russian hacking...

This Russian fairytale would be the bedrock of Hillary's campaign, and it gave her a reason to badmouth trump who intended to get along with Putin, which deeply offended the neocon Bolsheviks who've been running things since 9/11

If the hacking really happened, it's maybe more likely to have been the US NSA that did the hacking... that might explain why the DNC and Hillary were not alarmed by the hacking --if it happened-- and did nothing about it, and continued to write incriminating emails...

...they assumed the hackers were on their side

OK, then, if the hacking was a fairytale, made up by Debbie and Hillary, and reinforced by Crowdstrike, then what? Maybe it doesn't make any difference in the long run, if the DNC was hacked or not

Whatever happened, the emails got out, Assange strongly hints that Seth Rich was the leak, Seth Rich was murdered, and his murder was intended to be a warning to people like Donna Brazile, who, after Seth was murdered, started drawing her office blinds because she didn't want to be sniped... presumably by the people who murdered Seth Rich

broders | Nov 11, 2017 2:33:17 PM | 4
the real question is : what is j.sessions doing ? and if nothing , why trump doesn't fire him ?
Brad | Nov 11, 2017 2:55:42 PM | 5
Russia gate is Really Hillary Gate... And that's just the beginning as we consider the DNC lid coming off via Donna Brazile and the Uranium scandal. Mueller has been gatekeeper for the Deep State for OKC bombing, 911,...other False Flag...and now today's Intrigues.

Will Podesta and Hillary escape?...or get Prison? John McCain with ISIS and photo opp,.. Evil in your face 24. If certain people are not in Prison....Mueller could wear the label Satan's guardian. ..and it wouldn't be exaggeration

Peter AU 1 | Nov 11, 2017 3:00:44 PM | 6
Back when Trump looked like he was in the running in the US presidential election, I wondered how one man, even if he was genuine, could without the backing of US intelligence, take down the deepstate/borg/whatever. Putin pulled Russia out of the nineties with key backing from patriotic intelligence and military leadership, but Trump even if genuine would be on his own. Just ordered 'Art of the deal' to try and understand Trump a bit more. Looks like he has just destroyed a big chunk of deep state financing so will be interesting to see how long he can stay alive.
wadosy | Nov 11, 2017 3:05:39 PM | 7

well, Mueller declined to find 9/11 evidence against bin laden... or maybe we should say, "he declined to manufacture evidence"... for some unkown reason...

whatever, if seth rich's murder was an attempt to terrorize politicians and the media into parroting the party line --like the anthrax letters did after 9/11-- it worked

donna is still saying, "the Russians dun it".

NemesisCalling | Nov 11, 2017 3:07:36 PM | 8
b, it is so funny that everytime you allude to Trump being in the right against the teeming hordes or globalist, anti-Russia elites, you always offer the caveat: "but...he's a bastard and I hate him."

Can we just face the facts here that there is a coordinated effort by these elite to get Trump dethroned? What reason for this? Simple...he's a threat.

Enemy of my enemy anyone?

P.s. I view him as an opportunist. a chameleon. At the very least, perhaps he realizes the absolute absurdity of trying to keep the house of cards aloft in the ME. So far, no wars, and a de-escalation in Syria. Pundits are talking about 3+% growth in US for first time in decade. I dont't know...perhaps Donald can cut and run in time to salvage some of the US prosperity.

PavewayIV | Nov 11, 2017 3:22:45 PM | 9
I'm almost inclined to think Trump is letting this Russian hack thing play out on purpose despite his Tweets to the contrary. Preventing the feds from 'investigating' it wouldn't make it go away, it would just cement the notion of guilt and a cover-up into the anti-Trump, anti-Russian segment of the public. More importantly, the similarly-inclined political/government leaders (pro-Hillary, DNC, politicized FBI and intel, neocons, deep state, whatever...) and MSM slowly expose themselves for what they are. They get too confident in the big lie actually working and go into a feeding frenzy. Trump trolls them on Twitter and they go insane.

When you want to catch sharks, you don't chase them around the ocean to hunt them. You chum the waters and wait for them to come to you. Trump isn't the one chumming the waters here - he's letting the sharks do that themselves.

I scratched my head like everyone else trying to figure out Trump's earlier incomprehensible hiring/firing volley his first few months. Maybe that was just a bit of theatre. Trump might not understand the 'little people' too much, but he does understand his opponent psychopaths (corporate, banking or government/intel) and how to use their basic flaws against them. 'Draining the swamp' sells well, but letting his opponents stick their necks out far enough before Trump's own Night of the Long Knives would (to me) be a far more effective strategy towards his ends. And probably much safer for him than Kennedy's approach.

Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well?

Laguerre | Nov 11, 2017 3:30:12 PM | 10
Was anything Trump did really illegal? It hasn't been demonstrated yet. The US does much the same in Russia.
h | Nov 11, 2017 3:31:16 PM | 11
Only the most strident partisans hold tightly to the Russian interference nonsense.

Those who simply want to deal in facts bother ourselves to self inform using multiple sources who have been trying to make sense of the dastardly twists and turns in this muh Russia whodunit scandal. The DNC emails, dossier, collusion the whole escapade, from the beginning, could be seen as being built on nothing more than quicksand.

Mike Whitney posted a great piece this week suggesting Brennan, Obama's political 'hack', is behind this mess - "Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?" - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48172.htm

Then you have Joe Lauria's outstanding piece which lived less than 24 hours at HuffPo before being disappeared - http://raymcgovern.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CLEANOn-The-Origins-of-Russia-gate-_-HuffPost.pdf

And then you have the Intercept's piece on Binney's meeting with CIA's Pompeo with Ray McGovern providing a lot more detail and an interview with his favorite news outlet RT - http://raymcgovern.com/

Oh, and about Binney's meeting with Pompeo? Trump requested Pompeo meet with him. He did. But Pompeo, as of today, remains steadfast in supporting the ICA crap report Obama's political intel hacks put out.

These are but a few sources digging and reporting on these bogus charges against Putin. I'd like to believe the majority of the U.S. electorate isn't being fooled by the nonsense. I can't speak for those who choose to remain inside the brainwashing corporate media bubble, but for those of us who divorced ourselves from their propaganda long ago ain't buying nor ever did buy into the muh Russia crap.

wadosy | Nov 11, 2017 3:36:47 PM | 12
we got to wonder why donna brazile made such a fuss about Seth Rich. She's being way too cagey for comfort but even if we leave seth rich out of it, none of it make any sense

... ... ...

Muslim Dude | Nov 11, 2017 3:42:36 PM | 13
According to journalist, Liz Crokin and others online, Trump is pulling the biggest sting operation in history.

https://www.lizcrokin.com/hillaryclinton/mueller-president-trump-pulling-biggest-sting-history/

Also from a Youtube video I saw earlier there are claims this is what is happening.

1. Obama regime was chronically corrupt including sell of Uranium to Russia for bribes. Elements of the US military and intelligence were disgusted by this and approached Trump BEFORE the elections as a figure who could help them.

2. Trump decided to work with them and during his election campaign he deliberately made constant exaggerated claims of his supposed friendship with Putin, this was bait for the Democrats to smear him as a Putin-lover, Putin puppet.

3. Once elected, the whole "Trump is a Putin puppet" was allowed to run so that a huge demand for some sort of investigation in to Trump and his Russia links could be built. Only this investigation would in fact be used to target the Democrats and Clinton including for their corruption over the Uranium sales with the Russians.

4. This was apparently (according to these claims) the game plan from the beginning and Mueller is apparently going to work to convict Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats.

I don't know how true this is, but it does answer a lot of questions and anomalies and also ties in with B's thesis that we are essentially seeing a quasi-military government in D.C. under Trump.

psychohistorian | Nov 11, 2017 3:49:19 PM | 14
@ PavewayIV who ended his comment with: "Kind of worrying that one has to rely on outsider psychopaths to cull other psychopath's well-entrenched herds within the US government. Does that ever turn out well? "

Yep! And we add our textual white noise to the rearranging of the deck chairs on the top deck of the good ship Humanity as it careens over the falls/into the shoals/pick-your-metaphor

PavewayIV | Nov 11, 2017 4:30:10 PM | 15
psychohistorian@14 - Captain to crew: "I will not have this ship go down looking like a garbage scow. Deck chairs will be arranged in a neat and orderly manner at all times!"
Augustin L | Nov 11, 2017 4:32:46 PM | 16
The orange Chump is using diversionary tactics. Will the mafia Front goy thief disclose his extensive exposure/links to Russian and foreign banks ?

The same media you're decrying here is also ignoring this week's paradise papers revelations about Wilbur Ross, Trump's commerce secretary and business links with Russian Israeli mobsters and oligarchs like Mogilevich. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMhzkvWuXEM

There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true. The other is to refuse to believe what is true. Can't fix stupid sociopathy. I pity deplorable goyims, They deserve their plight...

renfro | Nov 11, 2017 5:10:26 PM | 17
Please someone end this idiot circus! Russia hacked THE ELECTION ...hacked THE ELECTION ??? For the love of gawd..the ELECTION, meaning the voting was hacked.....it was NOT. Nothing has focused on Russian 'hacking' of VOTES. Russia 'if' they hacked, at best hacked some emails and info used to expose Hillary. And posted negative info on the net. So, so what? How many leakers weren't doing that?

I have had it with the Dems, they have IQs somewhere below that of cabbages. But I guess there are a certain number of citizens that will believe anything if it is repeated enough by their herd leaders.

notheonly1 | Nov 11, 2017 5:31:12 PM | 18
All this pathetic, lousy street theater resembling staging can only serve one important reason: Distraction. What is it that people need to be distracted from? That the US has turned openly into a military dictatorship? That the extermination proceedings are speeding up?

Hitler used gas chambers, as did the US after the war. While the first was a psychopathic dictator, the latter is a psychopathic society. It has spend trillions in research and design of lethal weapons and systems to exterminate any 'enemy'.

With all the technological progress, people do no longer need to be dragged to a gas chamber. The gas chamber will come to them. Sprayed into the atmosphere and making its way into earth's life systems.

Trump, Dump, Busch, Koch, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon - plutocratic hand puppets. It is not the people who decide where and when the ship sinks. It will be sunken for them - with all the useless eaters on board.

Jack Oliver | Nov 11, 2017 6:03:23 PM | 19
Trump is too stupid to realize that the very reason the election was rigged in his favour was - the derailment of ANY ZIO/US/Russia relations !! Their top priority ( as always) has been to keep Russia and Germany apart ! Russia's 'resources' and German 'innovation' is a match made in heaven - would spell the end of the US economy !
karlof1 | Nov 11, 2017 6:27:43 PM | 20
Not only did the Propaganda System refuse to correctly report as b details, but nowhere has it mentioned the defeat of Daesh, as Pepe Escobar discloses: "This is History in the making.

"And right on cue, VIRTUALLY NOTHING about this REAL ON THE GROUND VICTORY OF A REAL WAR ON TERROR is being covered by Western corporate media.

"No wonder. Because this was the work of Damascus, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran advisers, Baghdad and the PMUs – actually the "4+1" - and not the US-led "coalition" that includes Wahhabi mongrels House of Saud and UAE - that totally smashes to bits the monochord Washington narrative.

"So History in the making must be silenced." [Emphasis in original.] http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48186.htm

Meanwhile, USG declares RT and Sputnik to be foreign agents and must register as such -- and Trump had nothing to do with that?!?

Temporarily Sane | Nov 11, 2017 6:30:23 PM | 21
The war on Syria and the Russian "hacking" debacle has corrupted the entire western media. Not that it was ever squeaky clean - far from it - but it was at least somewhat independent from the dominant establishment. There were pauses between the outrageous lies and blatant fact twisting and it did not overtly shill for neoliberal political parties and work overtime pushing massive amounts of propaganda on the public 24/7/365 and relentlessly demonize, in the most crude fashion imaginable, the leaders of some of the the world's most powerful countries and any sovereign nation that values its independence and freedom from Western exploitation.

The media is now now in permanent psy op mode, colonizing the public's mind and jamming people's ability to reason, think critically and even tell fact from fiction. It is only a matter of time before overt repression becomes widespread (to protect our freedoms of course) and the last remnants of democracy give way to an Orwellian/Huxleyite dystopia.

jayc | Nov 11, 2017 6:32:58 PM | 22
CNN covers the Binney/Pompeo meeting, and describes Binney in the headline as a "conspiracy theorist": http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/mike-pompeo-william-binney-meeting/index.html
Peter AU 1 | Nov 11, 2017 6:37:08 PM | 23
karlof1 20

If by chance Trump or anyone is genuine about taking down the deep state, they cannot do it by running around in a pathetic attempt trying to fix small issues. They would have to leave the machine to carry on as normal and go for its foundations. I thought about this months ago, and now looking at the latest events, this could be what is happening.

gut bugs galore | Nov 11, 2017 6:52:35 PM | 24
Meanwhile a revolution threatening the federation of Australia is taking place in Canberra utilizing a formless and compliant press corps and a fake issue of dual citizenship. Chaos is a disease agent which has jumped out of the Middle Eastern laboratory into all western nations.
Krollchem | Nov 11, 2017 7:13:34 PM | 25
Educational Youtube videos on how the world works at "Rules for rulers"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig_qpNfXHIU

[Nov 11, 2017] Saudi Crown Prince Consolidates Power With Anti-Corruption Arrests

Charge in corruption is a standard instrument in regime change effort. Most widely used in in color revolutions. So this is a pretty old way tested in xUSSR republics.
Nov 10, 2017 | angrybearblog.com

Everybody is against corruption, so it has become the new cool way to concentrate power in dictatorial societies to engage in an anti-corruption drive, as Putin and Xi Jinping have done. Actually corrupt people may well be arrested, but somehow included in the set of those arrested are rivals of the leader who are conveniently disposed of.

likbez , November 10, 2017 8:53 pm

Barkley,

You should probably think in a wider framework of color revolution, not in the narrow framework of (possibly inflated) corruption charges. This is about de-legitimization, not about the corruption per se.

BTW the charge in corruption is a standard tool used in color revolutions. So it is far from only "the new cool way to concentrate power in dictatorial societies". It is more of an old way to induce "regime change".

It is perfectly applicable to political struggle in neoliberal societies as well as we see now with Trump. Probably even more, as "greed is good" morale imperative implies. Also provides opponents of Trump high moral ground to attach him and his entourage.

We can start analysis from Trump campaign against Hillary. If it would be more interesting to analyze the current anti-Trump campaign from this angle. Especially recent Robert Mueller's indictments. We can view then as a kind of attempt to "import" color revolution methods of "regime change" into the USA in order to depose Trump.

In other words boomerang eventually returns.

Several listed in from https://www.sott.net/article/334026-SOTT-Exclusive-A-Purple-Color-revolution-in-the-US-Learn-the-signs-of-color-revolutions ) tell-tell signs of regime change is probably applicable to anti-Trump campaign.

== quote ==

The Chinese pastor Leung has outlined the 12 steps of regime change.

The key difference is that this time it is not the U.S. making regime change overseas, but in America itself to serve the powers that be. The 12 steps are:

1.Dispatch CIA, MI6 and other intelligence officers as students, tourists, volunteers, businessmen, reporters to the target country

2.Set up Non Governmental Organizations (NGO's) under the guise of humanitarianism to fight for "democracy" and "human rights" in order to attract advocates of freedom and ideals

3.Attract local traitors, especially academics, politicians, reporters, soldiers etc. through bribery or threaten those who have some stain in their life

4.If the target country has unions, bribe them

5.Pick a catchy theme or color for the revolution. Examples include the Praque spring (1968), Velvet Revolution (Eastern Europe, 1989), Rose Revolution (Georgia, 2003), Cedar Revolution (Lebanon, 2005), Orange Revolution (Ukraine 2004), Green Revolution (Iran), Jasmine Revolution, Arab Spring and even Hong Kong's Umbrella Revolution

6.Start protests for whatever reasons to kick off the revolution. It could be human rights, democracy, government corruption or electoral fraud. Evidence isn't necessary; an excuse will do.

7.Write protest signs and banners in English to let Americans see and get Americans politicians and civilians involved

8.Let those corrupted politicians, intellectuals and union leaders join the protests and call upon all people with grievances to join

9.The US and European mainstream media help by continuously emphasizing that the revolution is caused by injustice and thereby gaining the support of the majority

10.When the whole world is watching stage a false-flag action. The target government will soon be destabilized and lose support among its people

11.Add in violent agent provocateurs to provoke the police to use force. This will cause the target government to lose the support of other countries and become "delegitimized" by the international community

12.Send politicians to the US, EU, the UN to petition so that the target government will face the threat of economic sanctions, no-fly zones and even airstrikes and an armed rebel uprising.

Barkley Rosser , November 10, 2017 11:34 pm

Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished regimes. So in China Xi Joinping has arrested about 1.4 million people in the CPC on anti-corruption charges since he took power. No wonder nobody was voting against him at the recent party congress.

Then we have Erdogan in Turkkey, who has arrested something like 70,000. Now a lot of those have been busted for supposedly being part of the Gulenist copu attempt, but many have been buseed for couurption. Yeah, color places do it, but these are the places with the reallyi big numbers.

Oh, and the numbers arrested in Saudi Arabia apparently now exceed 200, and that is not coloar revolution, nor is what has gone on in the US.

likbez , November 11, 2017 9:32 pm

"Oh, I don't think so, Likbez. The really big numbers of arrests for corruption as part of a power grab have not been in color revolution nations, but in long estabilished regimes."

Not true. After Ukrainian Maidan color revolution (2014) there were wide purges on corruption charges of supporters of ousted President Yanukovich.

The current "Russiagate" color revolution against Trump recently started to concentrate on corruption charges too (Mueller's first indictments). They are definitely not wide. But they send a message to Trump and serve classic for color revolution de-legitimization purpose. In the context of the USA they probably do not actually need them to be wide as they can be amplified 100 or 1000 times by anti-Trump MSM.

See https://www.amazon.com/Power-Struggle-Politics-Nonviolent-Action/dp/087558070X/

In both cases there is a strong support within the intelligence agencies of the actions that can help to depose elected President (Brennan, Clapper, possibly Comey in case of the USA). Along with the goal to froze the possibility of détente with Russia. Which was achieved to the delight of all neocons.

There are also some discussions about the possibility that DNC hack was a false flag operation in classic color revolutions fashion. See

[Nov 11, 2017] Is Hillary Just the "Fall Guy" for the Intel Agencies and their Moneybags Bosses by Mike Whitney

See Wikipedia article CIA influence on public opinion . The role on Brennan probably deserves a special prosecutor and/or a Congressional commettee similar to Church Committee
The question arise: "Was hacking DNC another CIA false flag operation with the specific goal to poison US-Russian relations and using Hillary Clinton as a patsy?"
According fo church committee report: "Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are "accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover. [7] "
"Journalist Carl Bernstein , writing in an October 1977 article in the magazine Rolling Stone , claims that the Church Committee report "covered up" CIA relations with news media, and names a number of journalists whom he says worked with the CIA [10] Like the Church Committee report, however, Bernstein does not refer to any Operation Mockingbird."
Notable quotes:
"... "Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow. ..."
"... Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. ..."
"... the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign. ..."
"... More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved ..."
"... The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process. ..."
"... The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente. ..."
"... Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian." ..."
"... Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale. ..."
"... Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain. ..."
"... This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true. ..."
"... On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA. ..."
"... It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? ..."
"... It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America. ..."
"... So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state. ..."
Nov 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

For nearly a year, Hillary Clinton failed to admit that her campaign and the Democratic National Committee had provided funding for the notorious dossier that alleged Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. Then, two weeks ago, the Washington Post published a blockbuster article that proved that Clinton had been misleading the public about her Campaign's role in producing the report.

Following the article's publication, Clinton went into hiding for more than a week during which time she huddled with her political advisors to settle on a strategy for dealing with the crisis.

"Russian meddling" became the perfect rallying cry for the CIA's broader information operation (IO) that was designed to poison public opinion against "Russian aggression" and to reign in Trump's plans to normalize relations with Moscow.

The fact that the CIA had essentially extracted a credible narrative from sections of the notorious dossier, left Hillary with no other option except to play-along even after the votes had been counted. As a result, Clinton became the "fall guy" in a darker, deep-state propaganda campaign for which she is only partially responsible. Here's a little background from Joe Lauria's "must read" article "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate":

" the Steele dossier was shared with the FBI at some point in the summer of 2016 and apparently became the basis for the FBI to seek Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against members of Trump's campaign.

More alarmingly, it may have formed the basis for much of the Jan. 6 intelligence "assessment" by those "hand-picked" analysts from three U.S. intelligence agencies -- the CIA, the FBI and the NSA -- not all 17 agencies that Hillary Clinton continues to insist were involved .

If in fact the Steele memos were a primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump, then there may be no credible evidence at all." (Consortium News)

So, were "the Steele memos the primary basis for the Russia collusion allegations against Trump"? This is the pivotal question that still remains largely unanswered. As Lauria notes, the FBI did in fact use the "salacious and unverified" dossier to obtain at least one FISA warrant. This is from The Hill:

"The FBI used the dossier alleging Russian ties to President Trump's campaign associates to help convince a judge to grant a warrant to secretly monitor former campaign aide Carter Page, CNN reports.

FBI Director James Comey has cited the dossier in some of his briefings with lawmakers in recent weeks as one of the information sources used by his bureau to bolster its probe, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation told CNN." ("FBI used Trump dossier to help get warrant to monitor ex-aide: report", The Hill)

The article proves that the nation's premier law enforcement agency was using parts of a discredited "raw intelligence" report that was paid for by the DNC and was clearly commissioned as a part of a smear campaign -- to spy on members of the opposition party. Clearly, one could easily make the case that the FBI was abusing its extraordinary police-state powers to subvert the democratic process.

The FBI, under James Comey, also attempted to use agent Steele for future research but abandoned the idea after parts of the dossier began to surface in the media making it politically impossible to maintain the relationship. This is from a February article in the Washington Post:

"The former British spy who authored a controversial dossier on behalf of Donald Trump's political opponents alleging ties between Trump and Russia reached an agreement with the FBI a few weeks before the election for the bureau to pay him to continue his work, according to several people familiar with the arrangement. The agreement to compensate former MI6 agent Christopher Steele came as U.S. intelligence agencies reached a consensus that the Russians had interfered in the presidential election by orchestrating hacks of Democratic Party email accounts ..

Ultimately, the FBI did not pay Steele. Communications between the bureau and the former spy were interrupted as Steele's now-famous dossier became the subject of news stories, congressional inquiries and presidential denials, according to the people familiar with the arrangement, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter." ("FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier", Washington Post)

The fact that the FBI was willing to build its investigation on the sensational and unverified claims in the DNC-bought-and-paid-for dossier, suggests that the real motive was not to reveal collusion between Trump and Moscow or even to uncover evidence related to the hacking claims. The real goal was to vilify Russia and derail Trump's efforts at détente.

It's also worth noting , that Steele's earliest report implausibly alleges that the "Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US presidential candidate Trump for at least 5 years." (No one had any idea that Trump would run for president 5 years ago.) The report also details perverted sexual acts involving Trump and urinating prostitutes in a hotel in Moscow. (All fake, of course) The point we are trying to make, is that Steele's first report focused on corruption, perversion and blackmail, whereas, his second installment completely changed direction to cyber-espionage operations on foreign targets.

Why?

It was because, on July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention, WikiLeaks published 20,000 emails hacked from DNC computers revealing the corrupt inner-workings of the Democratic establishment. In response, Steele decided to craft a story that would support the Dems plan to blame the Russians for the moral cesspit they-alone had created. In other words, his report was a way of "passing the buck".

Steele's July report helped to prop up the threadbare "hacking" storyline that was further reinforced by the dubious cyber-forensic analysis of DNC servers performed by CrowdStrike, "a private company co-founded by a virulently anti-Putin Russian."

The hacking theme was also aided by the deluge of unsourced, evidence-lite articles cropping up in the media, like this gem in the Washington Post:

"Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security experts who responded to the breach.

The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said DNC officials and the security experts.

The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies " ("Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump", Washington Post)

What's remarkable about the above excerpt is that it follows the same basic approach to propaganda as nearly all the other pieces on the topic. Unlike the lead-up to the Iraq War, where journalists at the New York Times made every effort to create a believable storyline that included references to aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, mobile weapons labs, etc. The media no longer tries to support their narrative with evidence or eyewitnesses. The major media now simply tells people what they want them to think and leave it at that. Even so, it doesn't require much critical thinking to see the holes in the Russia hacking story. One merely needs to suspend judgment long enough to see that main claims all emerge from (Democratic) sources who have every reason to mislead the public. Here's an excerpt from Joe Lauria's article that sums it up perfectly:

"The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled in the 2016 election were both paid for by the Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.

Think about that for a minute .

In other words, possibly all of the Russia-gate allegations, which have been taken on faith by Democratic partisans and members of the anti-Trump Resistance, trace back to claims paid for or generated by Democrats.

If for a moment one could remove the sometimes justified hatred that many people feel toward Trump, it would be impossible to avoid the impression that the scandal may have been cooked up by the DNC and the Clinton camp in league with Obama's intelligence chiefs to serve political and geopolitical aims." ("The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate", Consortium News)

Russia-gate is entirely a Democratic Party invention. Both sources of information (Crowdstrike and Steele) were chosen by members of the Democratic hierarchy (through their intermediaries) to create stories that coincided with their political objectives. Due to the obvious bias of the people who funded the operations, neither the methods nor the information can be trusted. But that's just part of the story. The bigger story relates to the role played by the nation's premier intelligence and law enforcement agencies. And that's where we see signs of institutional corruption on a truly colossal scale.

As we noted earlier, the Clinton smear campaign would probably have ended after the votes were counted had not the intel agencies, particularly the CIA, decided the hacking story could be used to inflict more damage on Russia. It wasn't Clinton's decision to gather more information for the dossier, but others whose motives have remained largely concealed. Who are they?

According to a timeline in the Daily Caller:

November: The contract between the Democrats, Fusion and Steele ends along with the presidential campaign.

Nov. 18: Arizona Sen. John McCain and a former assistant, David Kramer, are told about the existence of the dossier by an associate of Steele's, former British diplomat Sir Andrew Wood. Kramer travels to London later that month to meet with Steele and find out more about the dossier. Steele forwards a copy of the dossier to Fusion, Kramer and McCain.

Dec. 9: McCain provides a copy of the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey during a meeting at the latter's office.

Dec. 13: Steele writes the final memo of the dossier. It alleges that a Russian tech executive used his companies to hack into the DNC's email systems. The executive, Aleksej Gubarev, denied the allegations after the dossier was published by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10, 2017. He is suing both BuzzFeed and Steele.

Jan. 6: Comey and other intelligence community officials brief then-President-elect Trump on some of the allegations made in the dossier.

Jan. 10: CNN reports that the briefing of Trump took place four days earlier. Citing that reporting as justification, BuzzFeed publishes the dossier. (The Daily Mail)

John McCain? Is that who we're talking about? Was it McCain who paid former M16 agent Christopher Steele to add another report to the dossier? Why?

Is it that hard to imagine that a Russophobic foreign policy wonk like McCain -- who has expressed his vehement hatred for Vladimir Putin on the floor of the senate -- would hire a mud-slinging free agent like Steele to craft a story that would further demonize Russia, discourage Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, and reinforce the theory that the Kremlin meddled in the 2016 elections?

Does that mean that McCain may have told Steele (or his intermediaries) precisely what he wanted the final draft to say? It certainly seems probable. And here's something else to mull over. This is from the Business Insider:

Steele gave the dossier to Republican Sen. John McCain. McCain then gave it to the FBI director at the time, James Comey. Comey, along with the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan, briefed both President Barack Obama and then-President elect Trump on the dossier's allegations in January.

Intelligence officials purposefully omitted the dossier from the public intelligence report they released in January about Russia's election interference because they didn't want to reveal which details they had corroborated, according to CNN." ("Mueller reportedly interviewed the author of the Trump-Russia dossier -- here's what it alleges, and how it aligned with reality", Business Insider)

This is a damning admission that the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) that was released on January 6, and was supposed to provide rock-solid proof of Russia hacking and collusion, was built (at least, in part) on the thin gruel and specious allegations found in the sketchy "Trump dossier". Former CIA Director John Brennan has refuted this claim, but there's significant circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is true.

On December 9, 2016, The Washington Post reported that the CIA determined that Russian hacking was conducted to boost Trump and hurt Clinton during the presidential campaign. This same theory that was propounded in the ICA report just a month later. It appears that Brennan and his "hand-picked" intelligence analysts decided to carefully comb the dossier cherry-picking the most credible allegations to weave into their dubious intelligence Assessment. So even though large sections of the dossier were scrapped, the report itself was used as the foundation for the ICA.

Brennan spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign from the get-go. As early as August 2016, Brennan was providing classified briefings to ranking members of Congress expressing his conviction that Moscow was helping Trump to win the election. The former Director offered no proof to back up his claims nor has he since then. It was also Brennan who gradually persuaded Clapper, Comey and Morrell to join his anti-Russia jihad, although all were reluctant participants at first. Were they won over by compelling secret evidence that has been been withheld from the public?

Not likely. It's more probable that Brennan was merely able to convince them that the powerful foreign policy establishment required their cooperation on an issue that would have grave impact on Washington's imperial plan for Syria, Ukraine, Central Asia and beyond?

Some readers might remember when Brennan testified before Congress way-back on May 23 and boldly stated:

BRENNAN: "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals and it raised questions in my mind, again, whether or not the Russians were able to gain the cooperation of those individuals."

It's clear that Brennan had no "information or intelligence" that would lead a reasonable man to think that anyone in Trump's entourage was colluding with Russian officials or agents. The whole story is spun from whole cloth. The disturbing implication however is that Brennan, who was an outspoken supporter of Hillary and equally harsh critic of Trump, was using the CIA's intrusive surveillance powers to spy on a rival political party in the heat of a presidential campaign. If that is not a flagrant example of subverting democracy, then what is? Here's a clip from the Washington Times:

"It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer .Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians

But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from then-FBI director James B. Comey." (The Washington Times)

It all started with Brennan, he's the ringleader in this dodgy caper. But Brennan was not operating as a free agent pursuing his own malign political agenda, but as a strong-arm facilitator for the powerful foreign policy establishment which includes leaders from Big Oil, Wall Street, and the giant weapons manufacturers. These are the corporate mandarins who pull Brennan's chain and give Brennan his marching orders. This is how power trickles down in America.

So while the moneytrail may lead back to the DNC and Hillary's Campaign, the roots of Russia-gate extend far beyond the politicians to the highest-ranking members of the permanent state.

[Nov 10, 2017] Saudi Arabia's Desperate Gamble

More wars... more victims... More destruction...
Nov 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , November 10, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.

On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.

On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".

Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.

With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria.

War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis "project".

Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming Israeli military adventure.

South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in southern Lebanon.

Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.

Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.

"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War

Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.

"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.

"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.

"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.

"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.

"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.

"Conclusions

"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.

"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.

"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."

Israeli Defense Forces: Military Capabilities, Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
https://southfront.org/israeli-defense-forces-military-capabilities-scenarios-for-the-third-lebanon-war/

Sally Snyder , November 10, 2017 at 10:05 pm

Here are some cables that Wikileaks released showing us how the Saudi royal family tries to control the world's media:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/01/how-saudi-arabia-controls-its-own-media.html

The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press coverage.

Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm

And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not forfeit.

At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads" or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.

But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.

At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama blogger has a low opinion of the young man.

Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant

h**p://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/11/saudi-arabia-the-liberal-reformer-reveals-himself-as-an-impulsive-tyrant-.html

David G , November 10, 2017 at 10:59 pm

The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.

[Nov 10, 2017] Moon of Alabama

Notable quotes:
"... internal purge seem too impulsive to be part of a greater plan. ..."
"... Zio-Jazeera TV are reproducing tweets which focus on the 'irony' of MbS detaining and blackmailing Lebanon's Hariri and then expressing a desire to punish Iran for 'interfering' in the affairs of other countries. ..."
"... I wondered what could have persuaded Macron to jump ship on the Iran agreement . The Emirates made him an offer that he was only to willing to accept. It was wise of the Emirates to make it two now, two later 'cos he's a two-faced c**t. ..."
"... The success of " MBS ", who has just overturned the oligarchy in order to install his autocracy, does not, however, guarantee his capacity to govern. Aged only 32, this entitled rich kid from a super-wealthy family has hardly had the time to get to know his people, and only entered politics two year ago. His first decisions were catastrophic - decapitation of the leader of the opposition and the war against Yemen. ..."
"... "On Lebanon Tillerson warns Israel of any intervention" It sounds like Tillerson is intent on committing political hara-kiri. Unless he has the backing of the generals in Trump's inner sanctum, his days are numbered. By stating a position not fully in compliance with Netanyahoo's agenda he is challenging the power of the Israeli/jewish lobby as represented by boy wonder Kushner. Good luck with that. ..."
"... We have, in effect, another instance of official state policy (as represented by Tillerson) being undermined by someone (Kushner) with a pro-Israeli agenda. Where have we seen this picture before? ..."
"... Trump/MbS, a match made. What a duo, with Trump wishing he could be MbS. Strangely enough Tillerson seems to be the adult in the room. ..."
"... As Carl Rove would say the empire weaves new realities for you to choke upon and while you are analyzing it, the Empire is weaving a new reality to keep you wondering and awed. ..."
"... I completely agree re your description of the situation Tillerson finds himself in. "It sounds like Tillerson is intent on committing political hara-kiri", this however makes it seem like you think Tillerson is not aware of where he's at. But maybe he is? Maybe he just doesn't give a flying F? After all, there's no need for him to watch his career, and he probably has some money in the bank, too. Anyway, what's he supposed to do, fall in line with the lunatics, crooks and climbers who conduct US foreign policy these days? Maybe he just can't help but act like a decent SoS should, carefully worded statements and all. I have to say, I really like the guy. He seems smart, sober-minded. ..."
"... It turns out that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Clinton Foundation Donor and anti-Trump Hillary Supporter... ..."
"... ... and Trump tweeting support to MBS... It would be very interesting to know how many sponsors of this faction now have their assets frozen. Trump undermining their foundations? ..."
"... @ Paveway. The other option is that Lebanon may be a minor sideshow, and that domestic politics in US and KSA is the main but largely unseen play. ..."
"... Aerial campaign is possible but it wont achieve anything positive for the attacker, regardless if its Israel, US or Saudis. And "destruction of Hezbollah" is a physical impossibility, while Nasrallah and similar high profile targets are ready for anything ..."
"... As if they sleeping and have no prepared missiles or anything :) It would take them an hour or two (max) to launch a barrage of ballistic missiles towards attacker. In case of Saudis, it would mean destruction of their oil production, ..."
"... Hezbollah would be idiots if they weren't already prepared for a sudden massive air attack by the IAF (316 attack aircraft) from just across the border, and they certainly aren't idiots. ..."
"... What many USA Americans believe: Most here at moa are well aware. that the average American idiot is under the impression that Obama-Muslim-Brotherhood was friendly with "Muslims" which conflate with "Al Qaida". And now, Trump ! The tough guy is kicking Al Qaida's ass over there (somewhere). Totally unaware of USA/CIA/UK/IS/NATO/AQ Nexus. Therefore: They believe whatever they are told. ..."
"... The more likely case is all of this is smoke as the Prince needed some distraction to draw attention away from his Game of Thrones Redux at home. ..."
Nov 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The similarities with the idiotic Saudi campaign against Qatar is obvious. The Saudi made an impulsive hostile move without having thought through the second or third step. He soon found himself out of ammunition but had left no way out to solve the issue without losing face.

Clueless Joe | Nov 10, 2017 11:01:56 AM | 1

"Meanwhile the Saudi tyrant's purge of all potential internal competition continues. Some 500 people have been arrested.
One important aspect of the purge is the open robbery that is part of it. Everyone arrested is accused of "corruption". This in a country where taking a share of every state contract is seen as an inherited right of the ruling class. The Wall Street Journal reports that the people around MbS expect to steal up to $800 billion in assets from the ultra rich businessmen and princes they have now under their control. They will probably need the money to keep the country afloat."
I get it now! Salman has been reading Suetonius' Life of Caligula and has taken it as his blueprint for ruling.

B's conclusion seems to confirm this - or makes me think he shares my suspicion:
"But his country is unlikely to survive another five years of such impulsive and tyrannic behavior. Chances are that one his guards will be merciful enough to solve the problem with a single bullet."

likklemore | Nov 10, 2017 11:03:50 AM | 2
Well b, glad you went there.

You asked who will invest a penny in Saudi Arabia after such a shakedown?

Ask Theresa May who thinks weapons sales will continue and the oil reserves are there. Never mind that the IPO prospectus on KSA oil reserves mis-states.

The bidding to list the Aramco IPO has begun:

UK hands world's largest oil company Saudi Aramco $2bn loan to secure IPO
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/11/09/uk-hands-saudi-aramco-2bn-loan-listing-battle-drags/


The UK Government has offered the world's largest oil company a $2bn (£1.5bn) loan guarantee as the battle to host the Saudi oil giant's market debut drags on.
The Treasury has admitted to finalising the details of the deal which comes amid a fierce battle between the world's largest exchanges to secure what could prove to be the world's largest initial public offering.

The timing of the significant loan has raised eyebrows because Saudi Aramco, the kingdom's state-back oil giant, is yet to decide where to list 5pc of the oil behemoth in its market debut expected next year.

The float is a central piece within Saudi Arabia's plans to overhaul its economic future in the wake of the global oil crisis which could leave prices depressed indefinitely.
The listing could raise up to $100m through a joint listing on the Saudi exchange and a foreign partner, but complex rules around transparency has thrown into question which exchange will be able to offer the Saudis the best terms.

The Saudis are considering a listing on the London Stock Exchange but ministers in Japan, China and the US are also pushing for their own exchanges to be considered.[.]

You know, it always is about money. It's a Big Club and we likkle people ain't in it and never will be invited to join.

norman wisdom | Nov 10, 2017 11:06:45 AM | 3
internal purge seem too impulsive to be part of a greater plan.

mr moon ever heard of oded yinon. i believe it is a plan.

... ... ...

Sid2 | Nov 10, 2017 11:09:10 AM | 4
This is interesting: on MbS possibly miscalculating re national guard forces in SA

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/will-backlash-to-crusading-prince-begin-within-saudi-military-salman-mbs/

Don Bacon | Nov 10, 2017 11:15:57 AM | 5
The decline of the US, and its obvious reluctance to deal with it despotic "strong partner" Saudi Arabia, was obvious at State's Daily Press Briefing yesterday. (excerpts)

QUESTION: On the various situations that we have going on – the domestic situation in Saudi, the Yemen situation, and the Lebanon situation.

MS NAUERT: Understood. Let me start here. Secretary Tillerson spoke with Foreign Minister al-Jubeir yesterday. Let's see – wait, no, I'm sorry. It was Tuesday. He spoke with him on Tuesday. I'm not going to be able to provide a whole lot about that conversation for you. I know that'll be to the frustration of a lot of you in the room.

I can tell you part of the conversation included our recognition that Saudi Arabia is a strong partner of the United States. We continue to encourage the Government of Saudi Arabia to pursue prosecution of corruption in a fair and transparent manner. That's something that we stress not only with Saudis but with other governments as well. In terms of whether – how these prosecutions may be going in the future, the Government of Saudi Arabia would have to address that.
As you know, Secretary Mattis spoke with his counterpart, the President spoke with the King of Saudi Arabia a few days ago, so we're in constant communication with the government.

QUESTION: On Yemen?

MS NAUERT: In terms of Yemen, one of the issues that the Secretary has followed closely is the humanitarian situation in Yemen. We've seen tremendous food shortages in Yemen. We've talked about how this is really a man-made situation there. We've seen the cholera problem as well. The announcement that the ports were being closed down or limited in terms of some of the supplies is an area that's of concern to us, because the Yemeni people are not the ones at fault for their situation. We would like to see food aid, medical equipment, and all of that be able to be brought into the ports. That is a key area where that – the supplies and the food aid are able to get in. We would like to see that open so that people are not suffering any more.

QUESTION: Well, is it fair to say that you have made that – or that the Secretary or others have made that clear to the Saudis?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think this is something – that's a part of a series of ongoing conversations. We have often had conversations with people in the region in addition with the Saudis about our concerns about the humanitarian situation. The United States has contributed a lot of money to the humanitarian situation there, so we'd like to see that opened up so people can get their supplies.

QUESTION: I mean, it's not only the ports but also the airspace, the borders – the complete closure.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: So we can understand what you said clearly --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I don't know the percentages of what comes through in terms of the ports versus --

QUESTION: Okay. But you are calling on the Saudis to open the borders and open the ports so the Yemeni people can receive these humanitarian aid and so on?
MS NAUERT: We believe that there should be unimpeded access.
QUESTION: Yes.
MS NAUERT: Unimpeded access for commercial and humanitarian goods to get into Yemen.
QUESTION: And you'd like to see this happen immediately?
MS NAUERT: That hasn't changed. I mean, we called for that months ago, and we would call for that again today.
QUESTION: Hi there. So do you support the call by the UN yesterday to open the borders immediately for humanitarian aid?
MS NAUERT: I don't have the UN comments in front of me, so I'm not going to comment on those.
QUESTION: They called for the airspace and the ports to be opened immediately; otherwise there would be a famine greater than seen in many decades.
MS NAUERT: Look, that has been a concern of ours, that this could --
QUESTION: I'm just – do you support the call?
MS NAUERT: -- hold on – that this could develop into a famine. It's close. There is tremendous food insecurity in Yemen right now. Some have said that this could be the top humanitarian disaster in the world. I don't know that we've assessed that personally and can actually make that designation, but I have certainly heard that.
I think what you're saying, that has come out of the UN, is consistent with our overall concerns, our overall concerns about getting humanitarian aid and also medical supplies into the people of Yemen.
Okay. Anybody else on Yemen? . .. here

Shakesvshav | Nov 10, 2017 11:33:47 AM | 6
Tillerson might well be concerned: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-senior-figures-tortured-and-beaten-saudi-purge-1489501498
Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 10, 2017 11:44:04 AM | 7
Zio-Jazeera TV are reproducing tweets which focus on the 'irony' of MbS detaining and blackmailing Lebanon's Hariri and then expressing a desire to punish Iran for 'interfering' in the affairs of other countries.

Considering the silliness of such prattle, I'm expecting the jaded tyrant to capitalise on the Free Publicity and launch his Standup Comedy Career debut at Hammersmith in a Super Special episode of Live At The Apollo with his good friend QEII (aka The Mad Hatter) if we're lucky. You can never have too much silliness - especially in the UK...

Ghostship | Nov 10, 2017 11:52:33 AM | 8
I wondered what could have persuaded Macron to jump ship on the Iran agreement . The Emirates made him an offer that he was only to willing to accept. It was wise of the Emirates to make it two now, two later 'cos he's a two-faced c**t.
PeacefulProsperity | Nov 10, 2017 12:11:19 PM | 9
I like this POV Palace Coup in Riyadh, by Thierry Meyssan
While the war against Daesh is drawing to a close in Iraq and Syria, and the war against the pseudo-Kurdistan seems to have been avoided, several States of the Greater Middle East are regaining the initiative. Profiting from the fluidity of the moment, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has brutally eliminated the members of the royal family who may be in a position to contest his Power. So not only has the regional balance of power been modified by war, but one of the region's main actors has just changed its objectives.

Although no nominative list of the suspects has been published, we know that Prince Walid Ben Talal is on it. Considered to be one of the wealthiest men in the world, he was the kingdom's secret ambassador to Israël. His company, the Kingdom Holding Company, a share-holder notably of Citygroup, Apple, Twitter and Euro-Disney, fell by 10 % at the opening of the Riyadh Stock Exchange on Sunday morning, before its credit rating was suspended.

Contrary to appearances, it seems that the victims of the purge were not chosen because of their functions or their ideas, which seems to confirm the official anti-corruption story.

On Sunday evening, a helicopter crashed near Abha. We learned that several dignitaries died in the accident, including a certain Prince Mansour.

The success of " MBS ", who has just overturned the oligarchy in order to install his autocracy, does not, however, guarantee his capacity to govern. Aged only 32, this entitled rich kid from a super-wealthy family has hardly had the time to get to know his people, and only entered politics two year ago. His first decisions were catastrophic - decapitation of the leader of the opposition and the war against Yemen.

Having neutralised all those who could have stood against him within the royal family, " MBS " has no choice but to ensure himself of popular support in order to be able to exercise Power. He has already taken various measures in favour of the young (70 % of the population) and women (51 % of the population). For example, he has opened cinemas and organised concerts – which until now had been forbidden. As from 2018, women will be allowed to drive. He will soon have to abolish the sinister religious police on one hand and the tutelage system on the other – both to satisfy women and also free men from this charge – making it possible to kick-start the economy.

Above all, " MBS " has announced that he wants to transform Islam in his country and make it a " normal " religion. He has declared that he not only wants to modernise Wahhabism, but also to cleanse the Hadîths - the golden legend of Mohammed – of their violent or contradictory passages. This is a secular project which goes against the practice of the whole of the Muslim community over the last few centuries.

This strategy prevents " MBS " from waging a war against Iran and Hezbollah, and gives the lie to the current official story – it is impossible to imagine a war against Teheran because ever since the Revolutionary Guard came to help the Houthis, Saudi Arabia has suffered defeat after defeat in Yemen. And it is also impossible to rally the Saudis to the flag while " MBS " is radically reforming society.

pantaraxia | Nov 10, 2017 12:28:03 PM | 10
"On Lebanon Tillerson warns Israel of any intervention" It sounds like Tillerson is intent on committing political hara-kiri. Unless he has the backing of the generals in Trump's inner sanctum, his days are numbered. By stating a position not fully in compliance with Netanyahoo's agenda he is challenging the power of the Israeli/jewish lobby as represented by boy wonder Kushner. Good luck with that.

We have, in effect, another instance of official state policy (as represented by Tillerson) being undermined by someone (Kushner) with a pro-Israeli agenda. Where have we seen this picture before?

The front-runners to replace Tillerson as S.O.S are rumoured to be John Bolton, a fanatical neocon, and Nikki Haley, America's version of Priti Patel (see previous post). In either case expect to see a State Department more closely aligned to Netanyahoo's agenda (if that is even possible).

PeacefulProsperity | Nov 10, 2017 12:57:47 PM | 12
How about this?

EXCLUSIVE: Saudi crown prince wants out of Yemen war, email leak reveals

Jackrabbit | Nov 10, 2017 1:17:29 PM | 13
@pantaraxia

1. You mention Tillerson vs. Kushner but fail to mention that Trump's position (as tweeted) is that MbS is doing EXACTLY the right thing.

2. If PavewayIV is right, then maybe Tillerson is providing cover for what is actually a covert op?

... ... ...

Jackrabbit | Nov 10, 2017 1:25:14 PM | 14
PeacefulProsperity 12:
How about this?
Yeah, they "want out" on their terms - which is to say after they have won and subdued the population.

IMO Their lame protesting is a response to the bad publicity that their genocidal tactics have engendered.

"But we want to get out!" is almost as transparently bullsh*t as the US position (that the famine is due to the poor logistics of the Yemenis) .

stonebird | Nov 10, 2017 1:55:42 PM | 15
b's title is correct ; .... An impulsive tyrant.

However, there has been a lot of comment about what "Saudi Arabia" will do or want. SA is a Monarchy, - the King is the "state" and the State is the King. Only. What I think he wants is absolute power, where all the decisions and all the rest of the official system (power), goes through him alone. (The cash is his as well.)
He will become "King" very soon, in which case all the country will be expected to swear allegiance to him.

The "Corruption" play could enable him to use other courts (US, UK or EU) to reclaim assets now held "off-Arabia".

The "women driving ploys..." etc. are to assure favour with the US and the other countries of the West (PR stunt). They also set the ordinary Saudi's against their Clerics. (At least in theory).

.....

I must agree with PavewayIV that this is a set-up by Israel and the US, but you have to also note that massive air "drills" are being held in southern Israel by planes from a large number of countries (NATO?). These could be used a "bait" or "sacrifices" to involve NATO or the EU on the "side" of Israel. Saudi has sent planes to Cyprus on what is nominally a UK base. (So does the US.) (ie a missile - immediately claimed by the MSM as fired by Herzbollh - downs a F-15 of a NATO country? Particularly if it overflies Lebanon)

PavewayIV | Nov 10, 2017 1:56:39 PM | 16
Jackrabbit@13 - If the fake air campaign lasted 12 hours and took out key Hezbollah leaders, supposed Hezbollah 'missile warehouses', Aoun and Assad then that's plenty long enough. Diminishing returns over time after that for striking individual Hezbollah HQ/units in Syria. There's nothing else to be accomplished.

They will be the same targets Israel would choose to strike if they could get away with it. Israel can't do this themselves though, without expecting missiles raining down on their infrastructure, military installations and possibly civilian population centers. If Hezbollah is convinced its a purely-Saudi op, then they'll be gunning for Saudi Arabia, not Israel. By time they figure out they've been duped (if they ever do), it will be too late.

These are the targets that Israel/US would certainly want to destroy first before they can invade with troops/armor to continue seizing Syrian and Lebanese land. They don't want a toe-to-toe battle on the ground with Hezbollah or Iranian-backed militias for obvious reasons. The air campaign will not totally destroy them, but it will weaken them and add enough other chaos into the mix to make the invasion far easier than it otherwise would have been.

b's scenario is still valid, but that comes after the however brief US/Israeli false-flag aerial campaign.

ben | Nov 10, 2017 2:14:04 PM | 17
Trump/MbS, a match made. What a duo, with Trump wishing he could be MbS. Strangely enough Tillerson seems to be the adult in the room.

Thanks b....

PavewayIV | Nov 10, 2017 2:20:02 PM | 18
stonebird@15 - Good point, stonebird. Plenty of opportunities for additional false flags to justify a massive, combined response.

US buzzes around the boarders in a remotely-piloted F-16 and 'lets' Hezbollah shoot it down in plain sight, with plenty of shakey cellphone videos of the aircraft's destruction. Followed immediately by a MSM campaign showing plenty of tear-jerking fake family photos of the non-existent hero. Oh yeah, his imaginary wife will be six month's pregnant. The type of aircraft or flag it's painted under really doesn't matter - maybe the UK will step in this time to be the victim.

Alternatively, a supposed Hezbollah missile or two could strike an Israeli air base, taking out several nation's aircraft participating in the exercise. Toss in a couple dozen allied casualties. Heck, make it a couple hundred - how's anyone ever going to know?

For that matter, a false-flag missile attack could target some sacrificial lambs like a Druze city. Maybe even one of those remote kibbutz that Israel uses to warehouse those 'undesirable' black Jewish immigrants that keep showing up. Good God, the MSM would have a field day with that one. If that happened, how could we NOT invade Syria and Lebanon to kill Hezbollah?

I better stop now, or the CIA will start banging on my door. Not to kill me, but to recruit me. "We read some of your work on MoA and were impressed by the sheer evil of your schemes. Ever consider working for the CIA?"

likklemore | Nov 10, 2017 2:32:34 PM | 19
I think we should re-read Pepe Escobar's analysis of the purge – mirrors b's. MbS will soon find his. You can't confiscate assets of princes and expect they'll be sending Christmas gifts. You will be kicked off santa's good boys' list. Escobar's The Inside Story --watch -- the KSA army is said to be in an uproar.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-07/pepe-escobar-inside-story-saudi-night-long-knives
[.]
Nayef – who replaced Bandar – is close to Washington and extremely popular in Langley due to his counter-terrorism activities. His arrest earlier this year angered the CIA and quite a few factions of the House of Saud – as it was interpreted as MBS forcing his hand in the power struggle.

According to the source, "he might have gotten away with the arrest of CIA favorite Mohammed bin Nayef if he smoothed it over but MBS has now crossed the Rubicon though he is no Caesar. The CIA regards him as totally worthless."

Some sort of stability could eventually be found in a return to the previous power sharing between the Sudairis (without MBS) and the Chamars (the tribe of deceased King Abdullah). After the death of King Salman, the source would see it as "MBS isolated from power, which would be entrusted to the other Prince Mohammed (the son of Nayef). And Prince Miteb would conserve his position."

MBS acted exactly to prevent this outcome. The source, though, is adamant; "There will be regime change in the near future, and the only reason that it has not happened already is because the old King is liked among his family. It is possible that there may be a struggle emanating from the military as during the days of King Farouk, and we may have a ruler arise that is not friendly to the United States."

'Moderate' Salafi-jihadis, anyone?

Before the purge, the House of Saud's incessant spin centered on a $500 billion zone straddling Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, on the Red Sea coast, a sort of Dubai replica to be theoretically completed by 2025, powered by wind and solar energy, and financed by its sovereign wealth fund and proceeds from the Aramco IPO.

In parallel, MBS pulled another rabbit from his hat swearing the future of Saudi Arabia is a matter of "simply reverting to what we followed – a moderate Islam open to the world and all religions."

In a nutshell: a state that happens to be the private property of a royal family inimical to all principles of freedom of expression and religion, as well as the ideological matrix of all forms of Salafi-jihadism simply cannot metastasize into a "moderate" state just because MBS says so.

Meanwhile, a pile-up of purges, coups and countercoups shall be the norm.

@Paveway 16

I respect your opinion. But, Russia's and China's combined interests are at stake and they will not sit this one out. Israel and its sidekick MbS will not be given a free hand. Israel will be destroyed if in the next few days or weeks the Israeli police do not move to charge and arrest Bibi.

Bibi's chief-of-staff and close confidant has turned state's witness in the two cases of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

Lochearn | Nov 10, 2017 2:39:21 PM | 20

With "drills" going on in Israel and Saudi threats, Hezbollah will be on high alert meaning leaders will be impossible to locate and all valuable weapons and material will be stored below ground. Any "missile warehouses" visible above ground will be decoys. So limited air strikes ain't gonna do it. All they can do is bomb civilians and infrastructure like the Israelis did in 2006. Then what?

Posted by: Lochearn | Nov 10, 2017 2:39:21 PM | 20 /div

stonebird | Nov 10, 2017 2:42:06 PM | 21
Paveway@18
Lovely, How about writing for Hollywood, although that seems to be NOT the place to be associated with at the moment?

.....

Has this SA and Isr/US activity all been timed to coincide with the Herzbollah, Iranians, Russian airforce and the Syrians having a large force tied up at AlBukamal? In which case we are seeing a plan - not a reaction to a situation.

ie. is a distraction from US/KSA activity in East Syria, to consolidate the areas held and forestall any advance by the Syrians on the east bank of the Euphrates?

CarlD | Nov 10, 2017 2:46:32 PM | 22
@PavewayIV

As Carl Rove would say the empire weaves new realities for you to choke upon and while you are analyzing it, the Empire is weaving a new reality to keep you wondering and awed.

Your theory is utterly realistic and possible and would be the pride of Niccolo Machiavelli himself. And I fear it is exactly the montage a fertile mind made. So supposedly, Iran and Nasrallah will not see through this and will concentrate on the Saudis? Rouhani has been appealing to MBS to discern between his handlers and his possible real friends. To them, any action against Lebanon and Syria will be construed to stem from the Israeli no matter who mans the planes.

Also, it will be difficult to conceal a multi planes intrusion over the Lebanese skies without raising automatic commensurate retaliation by the hezbollah.

The Lebanese and Iranians know that the sole instigator of all this can only be the Israeli. So plan A will be put into action certainly but the reply might be not what is expected.

Laguerre | Nov 10, 2017 2:49:41 PM | 23
Yeah, I agree. Some kind of strikeback from the rest of the family is to be expected. I doubt that MbS has been able to decapitate all the potential opposition. There are so bloody many of them. But it might affect the success of the assassination attempt. When such serious money is in question, people don't give up easily.
psychohistorian | Nov 10, 2017 2:51:11 PM | 24
It certainly reads like many believe that there is something imminent in the works as the precipitator of a more global conflict. In some ways we have been preparing for just such an event. What will be interesting to watch is what sides form....it is not about ISIS anymore......bigger prey are at stake now. As wars go, I hope this one is a wimp.....a fitting end to the social cancer of private finance. Thanks to b and all for the "good for me" online community.
stonebird | Nov 10, 2017 2:55:52 PM | 25
Me@22
That should be FSA (Kurds) not KSA troops on the East of the Euphrates. As an aside the US army is now claiming that THEY took Al Quaim in Iraq (which blocks the Syrian Iraq-Iran road route. To follow)

https://www.armytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/11/10/as-isis-caliphate-crumbles-us-builds-outposts-in-western-iraq/

Scotch Bingeington | Nov 10, 2017 2:56:31 PM | 26
pantaraxia | 10

I completely agree re your description of the situation Tillerson finds himself in. "It sounds like Tillerson is intent on committing political hara-kiri", this however makes it seem like you think Tillerson is not aware of where he's at. But maybe he is? Maybe he just doesn't give a flying F? After all, there's no need for him to watch his career, and he probably has some money in the bank, too. Anyway, what's he supposed to do, fall in line with the lunatics, crooks and climbers who conduct US foreign policy these days? Maybe he just can't help but act like a decent SoS should, carefully worded statements and all. I have to say, I really like the guy. He seems smart, sober-minded.

---

MBS and Saudi Arabia... So the whole world is basically left to wonder, trying very, very hard to read the mind of a - well, psychopath. That's what MBS is to me. His actions as far as they can be ascertained speak volumes, but there's also that mischievous glint in his eyes. He's got it on every picture I see. It's the kind of facial expression that I'd expect to see in a psychiatric ward or on shows like "Forensic Files", when they present the perpetrator who managed to completely dupe his/her surroundings. And just like I see that guy as someone with a dangerous personality disorder, Saudi Arabia as a country, to me, is the equivalent of a psychopath. Good luck trying to ever come to terms with it.

The irony of it all is: no matter how much politicians are sucking up to the Saudis, we still have to pay for the oil that we're sacrificing decency, soundness and independence for.

somebody | Nov 10, 2017 3:14:52 PM | 28
add to 4

From August - Qatar plans to destabilize Saudi

The Saudi government is mistakenly thought of as a tribal kingdom. In fact, it marginalised all tribal groups and eliminated their troublesome leadership. It incorporated the tribes in the National Guard but failed to incorporate them in government and leadership. In this part of the world, history matters.

Many tribal groups have no serious affinity to al-Saud and can easily switch allegiance as they used to do in the past. Tribal leaders, and there are many aspiring ones, are pragmatic political actors who pursue their own interests. They switch allegiance depending on their specific needs and follow the one who promises to fulfil their aspirations.

Although their rhetoric emphasises a rigid tribal code, any historian can trace their oscillating loyalties and their shrewd manoeuvres. Only an Orientalist can still hold the view that Arabian tribal allegiances follow rigid codes like fossils from the past.

They are, above all, shrewd political actors who have survived the colonial past and the onslaught of the nation states. They may express themselves in archaic poetry and celebrate camels, coffee pots and chivalry of a bygone era but they remain a dormant force that governments can mobilise should they need them.

They are now educated and willing to switch from old rhetoric about tribal solidarity and glory to new political ideas. Kuwait's famous lawmaker and activist Mussalam al-Barak, who had been in and out of prison for defying the Al-Sabah ruling family, is a stark example of the "tribal modern", who can mobilise across tribal divides. Qatar can easily find a Saudi version who will no doubt trouble Riyadh.

Did they find someone or did Saudi think they found someone so there was a preemptive coup?

Lozion | Nov 10, 2017 3:22:48 PM | 29
If Paveway IV, our resident anon-type whistleblower has figured out (leaked?) the plan, you can bet your life Hezb/IRGC has contingencies in place for such scenarios. Also, Russia has stated many times the Syrian state's sovereignty is not negociable and with both air defense assets fully integrated and unified, I just dont see how an KSA/UAE air campaign can happen while the targets sit idly, sipping maté..
NemesisCalling | Nov 10, 2017 3:28:29 PM | 30
@13 jackrabbit

Syria was a large territory with pockets of sympathetic populations to Sunni jihadism. My understanding of Lebanon is that it is held together much firmly and is a smaller geographical area. Notwithstanding a tunnel rat invasion or a cell emergence, I think Lebanon security forces and Hezbollah are ready for any kind of insurgency. A move into Lebanon would probably relieve the grip over Idleb in Syria, too. In effect, an operation over there will be suicide for Nusra and the Turkmen, even though they might be able to pinch Hezbollah between themselves and an Israeli airforce for a little while.

Debisdead is right with their analogy of a drowning victim thrashing about looking for something to grab onto.

Fitting that Putin practices Judo and that it's main tenet is using the energy of your enemy against them.

Which begs the question: is NATO and America really that stupid, or was there an agreement to let the tyrants in the MENA perish through theater?

Tobin Paz | Nov 10, 2017 3:39:38 PM | 32
Slightly off topic, but I couldn't stop laughing when I found this out (yes, I have a sick sense of humor, but I do believe that all human beings, regardless of race, gender, class, or disabilities should be treated with the utmost respect). It turns out that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Clinton Foundation Donor and anti-Trump Hillary Supporter...

Alwaleed Tweet @realDonaldTrump: You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from U.S. presidential race as you will never win.

...had an entourage of little people whom he had no problems tossing:

The Stockholder in the Sand

The prince's defenders hastened to put it all into context: dwarves are outcasts in Saudi Arabia; when they come begging, Alwaleed, in his great beneficence, hires them to be a roving band of court jesters, thus instilling in them "a work ethic, and you really can't fault that." In Saudi Arabia the wealthy think it is lucky to have dwarves around, and the dwarves enjoy it, "kind of like a circus situation." When they are pressed into service as human projectiles, there are pillows to catch them. Pillows are obviously moot, however, when Alwaleed has the dwarves dive for $100 bills in bonfires, as the Business Insider story also alleged.
Jen | Nov 10, 2017 3:41:58 PM | 33
PavewayIV's scenario as delineated @ 11 could succeed on the assumption that Hezbollah does not call on Iran, Russia and China for assistance both military and non-military (as in withdrawing any investments they have in Saudi infrastructure projects).

How would Egypt also react to a Saudi invasion of Lebanon? If Saudi Arabia were to call on Egypt, Pakistan and other Sunni Muslim countries to participate as its allies and supply pilots to engage in aerial bombing of Beirut and other cities, what would these nations say?

Does the Israeli air force also have sufficient motivation to engage in air strikes against Lebanon on behalf of the KSA? Is the Israeli military "moral" enough to support Satanyahu's government?

james | Nov 10, 2017 4:25:45 PM | 34
thanks b... great piece!!! i liked these quotes -
  • ..."he is as free to leave his current residence as Julian Assange in free to leave the Ecuadorian embassy.." exactly, but the chicken shit leaders of the west, just can't figure out what to say about it all.. go figure.. this is why people refer to nasrallah as an actual leader!!!!
  • "The Saudi made an impulsive hostile move without having thought through the second or third step." clearly!
  • "There is no rule of law and there are no reliable courts. Everything depends on the whim of one man." - usa/uk etc.like this set up!! can't get any better!
  • "Aimless campaigns in which the second and third order effects eventually turn against the aggressor." - indeed.. i give him 2-3 years - probably a lot less..

... ... ...

john | Nov 10, 2017 4:29:16 PM | 35
PavewayIV says_

By time they figure out they've been duped (if they ever do), it will be too late. your implication is that Hezbollah's a bunch of clueless twits. not very prescient of you.

Peter AU 1 | Nov 10, 2017 4:35:29 PM | 36
From comment 32 "Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, Clinton Foundation Donor and anti-Trump Hillary Supporter..."

... and Trump tweeting support to MBS... It would be very interesting to know how many sponsors of this faction now have their assets frozen. Trump undermining their foundations?

I see the Whitehouse blocked... "conflicting schedules"... Trump from having an official meeting with Putin at ASEAN.

Peter AU 1 | Nov 10, 2017 4:40:03 PM | 38
@ Paveway. The other option is that Lebanon may be a minor sideshow, and that domestic politics in US and KSA is the main but largely unseen play.
Alfred | Nov 10, 2017 5:07:14 PM | 41
Hariri is the bastard son of Abdullah. He is a Saudi royal. His mother was always treated as a princess when she went to Saudi Arabia. He is family. However, his branch of the family is now being persecuted.

As for MbS, his mother is Syrian. That is why he was so keen to become king of Syria. He won't last long. All of Israel's plans for the Middle East are being rubbished by events. I cannot wait for the real story of 9/11 to come out and the role of Israel and Bush/Cheney in it. These Saudis being rounded up know all the details and it is only a matter of time before the truth leaks out. They got double-crossed by the Isarelis and must be livid and thirsting for revenge.

I never thought I would live to see the day. :)

Ghostship | Nov 10, 2017 5:08:41 PM | 42
It should be pointed out that Cyprus is not a member of NATO and only the British have unrestricted access to Akrotiri, other countries are at the mercy of the Cyprus government. So while Saudi or Emirati planes might be allowed to land there, I very much doubt that they would be allowed to attack Lebanon or Syria from there because the British following international law probably wouldn't allow it without a UNSC resolution which Russia and/or China would veto anyway. Article 1 of the Washington Treaty which governs NATO makes it quite clear:
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

So that would be Article 5 collective defence out the window even if a few cruise missiles hit RAF Akrotiri after Saudi or Emirati warplanes were allowed to start attacking Lebanon or Syria from there.

Saudi Arabia or the UAE even with mercenary pilots couldn't attack Lebanon or Syria without overflying Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Iraq or even Iran and I doubt that any of those countries except perhaps Israel would want to be seen as complicit in the attack by allowing Saudi or Emirati aircraft to pass through their air space. And as soon as the aircraft fly through Israeli air space, probably the most heavily defended in the Middle East any pretence of deniability by the Israelis also goes out the window.

Harry | Nov 10, 2017 5:18:57 PM | 43
@ PavewayIV | 40

Aerial campaign is possible but it wont achieve anything positive for the attacker, regardless if its Israel, US or Saudis. And "destruction of Hezbollah" is a physical impossibility, while Nasrallah and similar high profile targets are ready for anything, and no bunker busters will reach them.

If this only lasted a day or two, then Hezbollah and Iran will only have time to express outrage.

As if they sleeping and have no prepared missiles or anything :) It would take them an hour or two (max) to launch a barrage of ballistic missiles towards attacker. In case of Saudis, it would mean destruction of their oil production, with 'n' months to rebuild. Lightning retaliation - fully legal too. There wouldn't be any UNSC condemnation due to Russia's veto, and many countries would see it as "MBS got what he deserved." Temporary shortages would be covered by Russia, Iran and others.

Again, I don't see any win for the attacker in the end, regardless who it is.

somebody | Nov 10, 2017 5:22:12 PM | 44
Le Figaro: Saudi Arabia wants to replace Hariri by one of his brothers
Petra | Nov 10, 2017 5:28:42 PM | 45
One great urgency to effect the Paveway Plan is the upcoming Sochi deal, which is to be no mere tete a tete but something groundbreaking. Washington will want to make sure it literally is.

Jen, since Washington has failed in its sunni-shia false antagonising, the forthcoming season's antagonism is Arab v. Other Muslim. By that token, Egypt should be in on that side. To counteract, Moscow, Beijing have been doing sterling work on Sisi (and Haftar). Let's see how the wind blows.

somebody | Nov 10, 2017 5:35:19 PM | 46
Tillerson: US still calling Hariri Prime Minister
Ghostship | Nov 10, 2017 5:44:29 PM | 47
Hezbollah would be idiots if they weren't already prepared for a sudden massive air attack by the IAF (316 attack aircraft) from just across the border, and they certainly aren't idiots.

But could the Saudis (264 attack aircraft) and Emiratis (104 attack aircraft) manage a similarly ferocious attack when the nearest Saudi air base (Tabuk) is 340 miles away and the nearest Emirati air base (Al Dhafra) is 1,800 miles way? I doubt it. Hezbollah could probably survive anything the Saudis and Emiratis could throw at them over a couple of days and if the United States blocked any UNSC action, Russia might start shooting back because it needs the SAA and Hezbollah to complete the destruction of Al Qaeda. If it's only Saudi and Emiratis aircraft over Lebanese territory that are being shot down, will the United States act in their defence? I doubt it because Trump will be having wet dreams thinking about all the billions more dollars the United States will earn for the replacement aircraft.

fast freddy | Nov 10, 2017 5:45:07 PM | 48
What many USA Americans believe: Most here at moa are well aware. that the average American idiot is under the impression that Obama-Muslim-Brotherhood was friendly with "Muslims" which conflate with "Al Qaida". And now, Trump ! The tough guy is kicking Al Qaida's ass over there (somewhere). Totally unaware of USA/CIA/UK/IS/NATO/AQ Nexus. Therefore: They believe whatever they are told.

(And further, they love police brutality as long as it is not themselves or a loved one on the receiving end of it).

norman wisdom | Nov 10, 2017 5:48:53 PM | 50

... ... ...

  • Jeddah Refinery (78,000 bbl/d (12,400 m3/d))
  • Ras Tanura Refinery (550,000 bbl/d (87,000 m3/d)) (includes a Crude Distillation Unit, a Gas Condensate Unit, a hydrocracker, and catalytic reforming)
  • Riyadh Refinery (126,000 bbl/d (20,000 m3/d))
  • Yanbu Refinery (245,000 bbl/d (39,000 m3/d))
  • The Saudi Aramco Mobil Refinery Co. Ltd. (SAMREF), Yanbu (400,000 bbl/d (64,000 m3/d))
  • The Saudi Aramco Shell Refinery Co. (SASREF), Jubail (300,000 bbl/d (48,000 m3/d))
  • Petro Rabigh, Rabigh (400,000 bbl/d (64,000 m3/d))
  • Saudi Aramco Base Oil Co. (Luberef)
  • Saudi Aramco Total Refining and Petrochemical Co. (SATORP), Jubail[31] (400,000 bbl/d (64,000 m3/d))
  • Yanbu Aramco Sinopec Refinery (YASREF), Yanbu (400,000 bbl/d (64,000 m3/d)
  • Fujian Refining and Petrochemical Co. (FRPC), People's Republic of China
  • Sinopec SenMei (Fujian) Petroleum Co. Ltd. (SSPC), People's Republic of China
  • Motiva Enterprises LLC, United States
  • Showa Shell, Japan
  • S-Oil, Republic of Korea
  • Saudi Refining Inc
Virgile | Nov 10, 2017 7:04:23 PM | 52
Erdogan accuses MBS ( "the person") of claiming ownership of Islam. "Recently the concept of 'moderate Islam' has received attention. But the patent of this concept originated in the West," Erdoğan said. "Perhaps the person voicing this concept thinks it belongs to him. No, it does not belong to you," he added, noting that he was "asked about 'moderate Islam' at meetings in the European Parliament many years ago.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-criticizes-saudi-crown-princes-moderate-islam-pledge-122262

france

@PavewayIV | Nov 10, 2017 5:47:26 PM | 49

You are assuming SA/Israel can attack Lebanon and Syria without anyone stopping them and will be able to do so without consequences. I disagree. Russia's defense systems will block them from entering Syria. And there is no way Russia/Iran will allow Lebanon to suffer given Hezbollah's value to them both. The moment SA jets were in the air they would be told to turn back or be shot down. As for Israel, its goal is to seize control of Lebanese land/water, they can't accomplish that unless they enter on foot in which case they will be chased out faster than you can say, Bob's your uncle.

The more likely case is all of this is smoke as the Prince needed some distraction to draw attention away from his Game of Thrones Redux at home.

PavewayIV | Nov 10, 2017 9:12:25 PM | 54
frances@53 - You might be right. Part of my reckoning is that Russia will NOT get involved, regardless how valuable Hezbollah has been in the fight against ISIS. Russia keeps saying it is in the fight to destroy the head-choppers and Syria must defend itself against anyone else. It never lifted a finger against the Israeli attacks that they were watching unfold on their very capable surveillance radars. I don't recall Russia even acknowledging most of the Israeli air strikes.

Russia will not be happy about a Saudi air attack because it's destabilizing, but they have no intention of starting WWIII over Hezbollah, Lebanon or Syria. Same with an Iranian response - but I have far less conviction about that one. The US is really pissing them off lately. This might be the provocation that broke the camel's back. Saudi Arabia and GCC military installations near the Persian Gulf could be smoked pretty easily. Of course, the Pentagon chickenhawks would explode with glee - casus belli to start destroying Iran.

Virgile | Nov 10, 2017 9:29:43 PM | 55
The enigmatic Mohamed Bin Salman by Ghassan Kadi

Love him or hate him, Saudi Crown Prince Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS) is like no other prince that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has seen since its inception under the rule of his founding grandfather King Abdul Aziz in 1932 and the establishment of the Al-Saud dynasty that changed Arabia; including its name. Some argue that even the worst of humans can do a bit of good. The question is this; is MBS capable of doing any?

Krollchem | Nov 10, 2017 10:37:32 PM | 57
Long analysis of Hezbollah capabilities at: https://southfront.org/hezbollah-capabilities-and-role-in-the-middle-east/

[Nov 10, 2017] Saudi Arabia's Desperate Gamble

More wars... more victims... More destruction...
Nov 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Abe , November 10, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Israel's next desperate gamble is direct military attack on Lebanon and Syria.

On 5 November, the ever more delusional Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu complained to the BBC about an "Iranian takeover" of Lebanon.

On 9 November, the equally delusional Israeli Intelligence Minister Israel Katz complained to the Associated Press that "Lebanon is Hezbollah and Hezbollah is Iran".

Israel is by no means content to merely "contemplate" a war.

With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria.

War against Lebanon and Syria is the next stage of the Israeli-Saudi-US Axis "project".

Saudi Arabia and the United States are very much available to "assist" the upcoming Israeli military adventure.

South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in southern Lebanon.

Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.

Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.

"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War

Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.

"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.

"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.

"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.

"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.

"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.

"Conclusions

"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.

"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.

"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."

Israeli Defense Forces: Military Capabilities, Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
https://southfront.org/israeli-defense-forces-military-capabilities-scenarios-for-the-third-lebanon-war/

Sally Snyder , November 10, 2017 at 10:05 pm

Here are some cables that Wikileaks released showing us how the Saudi royal family tries to control the world's media:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/01/how-saudi-arabia-controls-its-own-media.html

The Saudi Royal Family has bottomless pockets when it comes to controlling negative press coverage.

Zachary Smith , November 10, 2017 at 10:28 pm

And in the shadows, at the back of the gaming room, stands Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The idea of going to the casino was his, in the first place. If the hero lands on black, he will share in the joy, but if it is red never mind: Bibi's home is not forfeit.

At first glance it looks to me as if Netanyahu wins any coin flip, whether it is "heads" or "tails". No matter what happens, Saudi Arabia is going to be severely shaken up, and chaos in surrounding Muslim nations is almost always a "plus" for Israel.

But at second glance I imagine I can also see a downside. The Arabian Peninsula has a hefty population, and if the Kingdom here does shatter, there is a possibility that an Arabic Napoleon could emerge. During the time of Muhammad there was an outward-moving crusade, and might it not happen again? Saudi Arabia may not have much of an army at the moment, but that could change quickly. A glance at a world globe shows Israel to be very close by. This sort of thing would cause me to lose sleep if I were an Israeli strategist.

At the moment the KSA is being taken over by a young numbskull, if all the accounts I've read are even remotely true. Perhaps Israel is providing the brains. The Moon of Alabama blogger has a low opinion of the young man.

Saudi Arabia – This "Liberal Reformer" Is An Impulsive Tyrant

h**p://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/11/saudi-arabia-the-liberal-reformer-reveals-himself-as-an-impulsive-tyrant-.html

David G , November 10, 2017 at 10:59 pm

The singular fact that the planned next royal succession from Salman to MbS will be the first from father to son since the death of Abdulaziz seems to me to add a whole other level of uncertainty to what is already a difficult time for the kingdom.

[Nov 10, 2017] We don't use private lawyers to cooperate with US -- Russian Prosecutor General's Office to RT

Nov 10, 2017 | www.rt.com

The Russian Prosecutor General's Office has explained to RT how an "efficient mechanism" of information sharing with the US works.

No private lawyers are involved in the process, the agency official said, denying allegations that it has played a part in any meeting between Donald Trump Jr. with lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya.

[Nov 10, 2017] Steve Keen How I Sold Out To The Putin-Soros-Murdoch Conspiracy To Destroy Western Civilization Zero Hedge

Nov 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Nov 9, 2017 6:36 PM 0 SHARES Authored by Steve Keen via RT.com,

I was delighted to find myself in the Top Ten (alright; top 15) of the European Values list of 2,326 "Useful Idiots" appearing regularly on RT shows, and thus legitimizing Vladimir Putin's attempt to destroy Western civilization as we know it.

Why delighted? Because it completes the set of conspiracies to which I can now be accused of belonging. They include:

[Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II." ..."
"... Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'" ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Review " A powerful contradiction to the present US narrative of the world . . . As shown here, fake news is thriving in Washington, DC."-- Oliver Stone , Academy Award winning director and screenwriter

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia is a beautifully written, uncommonly coherent, and very compelling treatise on the issues facing America today... a troubling indictment of where we've been and where we're headed. Moreover, this book is profoundly important , and a timely retrospective review of American foreign policy misadventures since the advent of the Cold War." -- Phillip F. Nelson , author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination and LBJ: From Mastermind to "The Colossus"

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia underscores how the CIA's infiltration and shaping of the media, which began in the 1950s, successfully continues today. A very worthwhile account for anyone who wants to understand how 'reality' is manufactured, while 'real truth' is murdered and buried." -- Peter Janney , author of Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace

"At a time when the U.S. military budget is again soaring to enrich the oligarchs, this timely and thought-provoking book turns Orwellian 'double-think' on its head in a cogent analysis of what's really behind all the saber-rattling against Russia. In a scholarly but also deeply personal and fluidly written work , Dan Kovalik pulls no punches in dissecting the history of how America has justified its own imperialistic aims through the Cold War era and right up to the current anti-Putin hysteria." -- Dick Russell , New York Times bestselling author of Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth and What It Means to Our Children

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia confronts the timeliest of subjects, the effort to resuscitate the Cold War by blaming Russian president Vladimir Putin for interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump, an effort pursued by CIA and the Democratic Party working in tandem. Kovalik establishes... that not a scintilla of evidence has emerged to grant credibility to this self-serving fantasy... [and he] deftly eviscerates the mainstream press . Reading [this book] will be salutary, illuminating and more than instructive ." -- Joan Mellen , author of Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture of Texas

William T. Whitney Jr on May 28, 2017

Review of "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia"

Beating up on Russia; history tells why
By William T. Whitney Jr. .

Lawyer and human rights activist Dan Kovalik has written a valuable book. He looked at a recent U. S. political development in terms of history and then skewered it. His new book, "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia," looks at mounting assaults against Russia that increased during the Obama administration and that spokespersons for the Democratic Party, among others, are promoting.

The CIA, he claims, without going into specifics, is engaged in anti-Russian activities. For Kovalik, "the CIA is a nefarious, criminal organization which often misleads the American public and government into wars and misadventures."

Kovalik devotes much of his book to what he regards as precedents for the current dark turn in U.S. – Russian relations. Toward that end, he surveys the history of U.S. foreign interventions since World War II. He confirms that the United States government is indeed habituated to aggressive adventurism abroad. That's something many readers already know, but Kovalik contributes significantly by establishing that U.S. hostility against Russia ranks as a chapter in that long story.

But what's the motivation for military assaults and destabilizing projects? And, generally, why all the wars? The author's historical survey provides answers. He finds that the scenarios he describes are connected. Treating them as a whole, he gives them weight and thus provides an intellectual weapon for the anti-imperialist cause. Kovalik, putting history to work, moves from the issue of U.S.-Russian antagonism to the more over-arching problem of threats to human survival. That's his major contribution.

His highly-recommended book offers facts and analyses so encompassing as to belie its small size. The writing is clear, evocative, and eminently readable; his narrative is that of a story – teller. Along the way, as a side benefit, Kovalik recalls the causes and outrage that fired up activists who were his contemporaries.

He testifies to a new Cold War. Doing so, he argues that the anti-communist rational for the earlier Cold War was a cover for something else, a pretext. In his words: "the Cold War, at least from the vantage point of the US, had little to do with fighting 'Communism,' and more to do with making the world safe for corporate plunder." Once more Russia is an enemy of the United States, but now it's a capitalist country.

That's mysterious; explanation is in order. Readers, however, may be hungry to know about the "plot" advertised in the book's title. We recommend patience. History and its recurring patterns come first for this author. They enable him to account for U. S. – Russian relations that are contradictory and, most importantly, for the U.S. propensity for war-making. After that he tells about a plot.

Kovalik describes how, very early, reports of CIA machinations from former agents of the spy organization expanded his political awareness, as did a trip to Nicaragua. There he gained first-hand knowledge of CIA atrocities, of deaths and destruction at the hands of the Contras, anti- Sandinista paramilitaries backed by the CIA His book goes on fully and dramatically to describe murders and chaos orchestrated by the United States and/or the CIA in El Salvador, Colombia, and in the South America of Operation Condor. Kovalic discusses the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupation and war in Korea, nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear testing and dying in the Marshall Islands, and the CIA's recruitment of the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen in Afghan¬istan. He recounts U. S. - instigated coups in Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; and Chile, 1973.

These projects were about keeping "the world safe from the threat of Soviet totalitarianism" – in other words, anti-communism. But then the USSR disappeared, and the search was on for a new pretext. The Clinton administration evoked "humanitarian intervention," and continued the intrusions: in Ruanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo (on behalf of "US mining interests"), Yugoslavia, and Libya.

In Kovalik's telling, the U. S. government eventually settled upon the notion of "American exceptionalism," that is to say, "the belief that the US is a uniquely benign actor in the world, spreading peace and democracy." Thus armed, the U. S. military exported terror to Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen (via its Saudi Arabian proxy), and Honduras, through a U. S. facilitated military coup. The book catalogues other episodes, other places. Along the way on his excursion, Kovalik contrasts U. S. pretensions and brutal deeds with the relatively benign nature of alleged Russian outrages.

Good relations with Russia, he says, would be "simply bad for business, in particular the business of war which so profoundly undergirds the US economy As of 2015, the US had at least 800 military bases in over 70 nations, while Britain, France and Russia had only 30 military bases combined." And, "under Obama alone, the US had Special Forces deployed in about 138 countries." Further, "The US's outsized military exists not only to ensure the US's quite unjust share of the world's riches, but also to ensure that those riches are not shared with the poor huddled masses in this country."

Kovalik highlights the disaster that overwhelmed Russia as a fledgling capitalist nation: life expectancy plummeted, the poverty rate was 75 percent, and investments fell by 80 percent. National pride was in the cellar, the more so after the United States backed away from Secretary of State Baker's 1991 promise that NATO would never move east, after the United States attacked Russia's ally Serbia, and after the United States, rejecting Russian priorities, attacked Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011.

The author rebuts U. S. claims that Russian democracy has failed and that Putin over-reached in Ukraine. He praises Putin's attempts to cooperate with the United States in Syria. The United States has abused peoples the world over, he insists, and suffers from a "severe democracy deficit."

By the time he is discussing current U. S. – Russian relations, readers have been primed never to expect U.S. imperialism to give Russia a break. The author's instructional course has taken effect, or should have done so. If readers aren't aware of what the U. S. government has been up to, the author is not to blame.

Kovalik condemns the Obama administration and particularly Secretary of State Hilary Clinton for intensifying the U. S. campaign against Russia. He extends his criticism to the Democratic Party and the media. The theme of anti – Russian scheming by the CIA comes up briefly in the book in connection with hacking attributed to Russia and with WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic Party. Nothing is said about possible interaction between personnel of the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II."

Kovalik acknowledges "periods of great repression." He adds, however, that "the Russian Revolution and the USSR delivered on many of their promises, and against great odds. . In any case, the goals of the Russian Revolution-equality, worker control of the economy, universal health care and social security- were laudable ones." And, "One of the reasons that the West continues to dance on the grave of the Soviet Union, and to emphasize the worst parts of that society and downplay its achievements, is to make sure that, as the world-wide economy worsens, and as the suffering of work¬ing people around the world deepens, they don't get any notions in their head to organize some new socialist revolution with such ideals."

Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'"

Drew Hunkins on May 30, 2017

Dissects the dangerous nonsense

The most important non-fiction work thus far of 2017 is upon us. Finally the book has arrived that cuts through all the hype, deceit, misinformation and disconcerting groupthink.

Kovalik structures TPTSR by starting at the most logical place -- the history of unilateral Washington aggression across the globe, from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran through the Washington intell agencies' orchestrated coups and proxy wars in Latin America.

This exposition of historical Washington empire building provides a solid foundation when he ultimately addresses why the predatory military-industrial-media-complex is incessantly fomenting this dangerous contemporary Russophobic campaign. The book nails it by presenting in a crystal clear manner the two exact reasons why the demonization of Moscow never seems to subside: 1.) The corporate and Washington military empire builders are deeply threatened by the potential loss of certain markets and a sovereign Russia that desires a say over the diplomatic and military maneuvers on its borders, especially its Western region. 2.) Most importantly, the MIC/national-security state absolutely MUST HAVE a villain (real or imagined, it doesn't matter) in order to justify the trillion dollar budget and careerism that seeps into every pore of the U.S. politico-economic system. This Pentagon system of pseudo economic Keynesianism could potentially lead to nuclear war. The giant house of cards could doom us all.

D. Gordon on June 1, 2017

This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U

This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U.S. foreign policy, this book is part memoir, part history, and part analysis of current events. Kovalik makes a compelling case that U.S. policies--not Russia--are the biggest danger to world peace and human rights. The book traces Kovalik's own awakening and transformation from his conservative religious-minded youth to one of our most trenchant critics of U.S. foreign policy writing today. And he does it in his own inimitable, witty, readable, and humane style.

[Nov 08, 2017] Learning to Love McCarthyism by Robert Parry

Highly recommended!
Russiagate witch hunt is destroying CIA franchise in Facebook and Twitter, which were used by many Russians and Eastern Europeans in general.
One telling sign of the national security state is "demonizing enemies of the state" including using neo-McCarthyism methods, typically for Russiagate.
In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more).
Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, as the new Undermensch. If these people and US MSM recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States
Notable quotes:
"... Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians." ..."
"... The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health. ..."
"... In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT. ..."
"... The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications." ..."
"... Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians. ..."
"... The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran. ..."
"... After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed. ..."
"... Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet. ..."
"... The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin. ..."
"... The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities. ..."
"... Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution. ..."
"... Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. ..."
"... Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago. ..."
"... The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda. ..."
"... I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate. ..."
"... Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all. ..."
"... Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against. ..."
"... Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary. ..."
"... It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine. ..."
"... At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order. ..."
"... The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" ..."
"... Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake. ..."
"... In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more) ..."
"... Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States ..."
"... The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching. ..."
"... It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it. ..."
"... In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53) ..."
"... Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55) ..."
"... Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame. ..."
Nov 08, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Special Report: Many American liberals who once denounced McCarthyism as evil are now learning to love the ugly tactic when it can be used to advance the Russia-gate "scandal" and silence dissent, reports Robert Parry.

The New York Times has finally detected some modern-day McCarthyism, but not in the anti-Russia hysteria that the newspaper has fueled for several years amid the smearing of American skeptics as "useful idiots" and the like. No, the Times editors are accusing a Long Island Republican of McCarthyism for linking his Democratic rival to "New York City special interest groups." As the Times laments, "It's the old guilt by association."

Yet, the Times sees no McCarthyism in the frenzy of Russia-bashing and guilt by association for any American who can be linked even indirectly to any Russian who might have some ill-defined links to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

On Monday, in the same edition that expressed editorial outrage over that Long Island political ad's McCarthyism, the Times ran two front-page articles under the headline: "A Complex Paper Trail: Blurring Kremlin's Ties to Key U.S. Businesses."

The two subheads read: " Shipping Firm Links Commerce Chief to Putin 'Cronies' " and " Millions in Facebook Shares Rooted in Russian Cash ." The latter story, which meshes nicely with the current U.S. political pressure on Facebook and Twitter to get in line behind the New Cold War against Russia, cites investments by Russian Yuri Milner that date back to the start of the decade.

Buried in the story's "jump" is the acknowledgement that Milner's "companies sold those holdings several years ago." But such is the anti-Russia madness gripping the Establishment of Washington and New York that any contact with any Russian constitutes a scandal worthy of front-page coverage. On Monday, The Washington Post published a page-one article entitled, "9 in Trump's orbit had contacts with Russians."

The anti-Russian madness has reached such extremes that even when you say something that's obviously true – but that RT, the Russian television network, also reported – you are attacked for spreading "Russian propaganda."

We saw that when former Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile disclosed in her new book that she considered the possibility of replacing Hillary Clinton on the Democratic ticket after Clinton's public fainting spell and worries about her health.

Though there was a video of Clinton's collapse on Sept. 11, 2016, followed by her departure from the campaign trail to fight pneumonia – not to mention her earlier scare with blood clots – the response from a group of 100 Clinton supporters was to question Brazile's patriotism: "It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponents about our candidate's health."

In other words, the go-to excuse for everything these days is to blame the Russians and smear anyone who says anything – no matter how true – if it also was reported on RT.

Pressing the Tech Companies

Just as Sen. Joe McCarthy liked to haul suspected "communists" and "fellow-travelers" before his committee in the 1950s, the New McCarthyism has its own witch-hunt hearings, such as last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google for supposedly allowing Russians to have input into the Internet's social networks. Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google hauled before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism on Oct. 31, 2017. Trying to appease Congress and fend off threats of government regulation, the rich tech companies displayed their eagerness to eradicate any Russian taint.

Twitter's general counsel Sean J. Edgett told the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on crime and terrorism that Twitter adopted an "expansive approach to defining what qualifies as a Russian-linked account."

Edgett said the criteria included "whether the account was created in Russia, whether the user registered the account with a Russian phone carrier or a Russian email address, whether the user's display name contains Cyrillic characters, whether the user frequently Tweets in Russian, and whether the user has logged in from any Russian IP address, even a single time. We considered an account to be Russian-linked if it had even one of the relevant criteria."

The trouble with Twitter's methodology was that none of those criteria would connect an account to the Russian government, let alone Russian intelligence or some Kremlin-controlled "troll farm." But the criteria could capture individual Russians with no link to the Kremlin as well as people who weren't Russian at all, including, say, American or European visitors to Russia who logged onto Twitter through a Moscow hotel.

Also left unsaid is that Russians are not the only national group that uses the Cyrillic alphabet. It is considered a standard script for writing in Belarus, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbo-Croatia and Ukraine. So, for instance, a Ukrainian using the Cyrillic alphabet could end up falling into the category of "Russian-linked" even if he or she hated Putin.

Twitter's attorney also said the company conducted a separate analysis from information provided by unidentified "third party sources" who pointed toward accounts supposedly controlled by the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA), totaling 2,752 accounts. The IRA is typically described in the U.S. press as a "troll farm" which employs tech-savvy employees who combat news and opinions that are hostile to Russia and the Russian government. But exactly how those specific accounts were traced back to this organization was not made clear.

And, to put that number in some perspective, Twitter claims 330 million active monthly users, which makes the 2,752 accounts less than 0.001 percent of the total.

The Trouble with 'Trolling'

While the Russia-gate investigation has sought to portray the IRA effort as exotic and somehow unique to Russia, the strategy is followed by any number of governments, political movements and corporations – sometimes using enthusiastic volunteers but often employing professionals skilled at challenging critical information or at least muddying the waters.

Those of us who operate on the Internet are familiar with harassment from "trolls" who may use access to "comment" sections to inject propaganda and disinformation to sow confusion, to cause disruption, or to discredit the site by promoting ugly opinions and nutty conspiracy theories.

As annoying as this "trolling" is, it's just a modern version of more traditional strategies used by powerful entities for generations – hiring public-relations specialists, lobbyists, lawyers and supposedly impartial "activists" to burnish images, fend off negative news and intimidate nosy investigators. In this competition, modern Russia is both a late-comer and a piker.

The U.S. government fields legions of publicists, propagandists, paid journalists, psy-ops specialists , contractors and non-governmental organizations to promote Washington's positions and undermine rivals through information warfare.

The CIA has an entire bureaucracy dedicated to propaganda and disinformation, with some of those efforts farmed out to newer entities such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) or paid for by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NATO has a special command in Latvia that undertakes "strategic communications."

Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project. Indeed, since the 1980s, Israel has pioneered many of the tactics of computer spying and sabotage that were adopted and expanded by America's National Security Agency, explaining why the Obama administration teamed up with Israel in a scheme to plant malicious code into Iranian centrifuges to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.

It's also ironic that the U.S. government touted social media as a great benefit in advancing so-called "color revolutions" aimed at "regime change" in troublesome countries. For instance, when the "green revolution" was underway in Iran in 2009 after the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Obama administration asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance so the street protesters could continue using the platform to organize against Ahmadinejad and to distribute their side of the story to the outside world.

During the so-called Arab Spring in 2011, Facebook, Twitter and Skype won praise as a means of organizing mass demonstrations to destabilize governments in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Back then, the U.S. government denounced any attempts to throttle these social media platforms and the free flow of information that they permitted as proof of dictatorship.

Social media also was a favorite of the U.S. government in Ukraine in 2013-14 when the Maidan protests exploited these platforms to help destabilize and ultimately overthrow the elected government of Ukraine, the key event that launched the New Cold War with Russia.

Swinging the Social Media Club

The truth is that, in those instances, the U.S. governments and its agencies were eagerly exploiting the platforms to advance Washington's geopolitical agenda by disseminating American propaganda and deploying U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, which taught activists how to use social media to advance "regime change" scenarios.

A White Helmets volunteer pointing to the aftermath of a military attack.

While these uprisings were sold to Western audiences as genuine outpourings of public anger – and there surely was some of that – the protests also benefited from U.S. funding and expertise. In particular, NED and USAID provided money, equipment and training for anti-government operatives challenging regimes in U.S. disfavor.

One of the most successful of these propaganda operations occurred in Syria where anti-government rebels operating in areas controlled by Al Qaeda and its fellow Islamic militants used social media to get their messaging to Western mainstream journalists who couldn't enter those sectors without fear of beheading.

Since the rebels' goal of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad meshed with the objectives of the U.S. government and its allies in Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, Western journalists uncritically accepted the words and images provided by Al Qaeda's collaborators.

The success of this propaganda was so extraordinary that the White Helmets, a "civil defense" group that worked in Al Qaeda territory, became the go-to source for dramatic video and even was awarded the short-documentary Oscar for an info-mercial produced for Netflix – despite evidence that the White Helmets were staging some of the scenes for propaganda purposes.

Indeed, one argument for believing that Putin and the Kremlin might have "meddled" in last year's U.S. election is that they could have felt it was time to give the United States a taste of its own medicine.

After all, the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin. And there were the U.S.-backed street protests in Moscow against the 2011 and 2012 elections in which Putin strengthened his political mandate. Those protests earned the "color" designation the "snow revolution."

However, whatever Russia may or may not have done before last year's U.S. election, the Russia-gate investigations have always sought to exaggerate the impact of that alleged "meddling" and molded the narrative to whatever weak evidence was available.

The original storyline was that Putin authorized the "hacking" of Democratic emails as part of a "disinformation" operation to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy and to help elect Donald Trump – although no hard evidence has been presented to establish that Putin gave such an order or that Russia "hacked" the emails. WikiLeaks has repeatedly denied getting the emails from Russia, which also denies any meddling.

Further, the emails were not "disinformation"; they were both real and, in many cases, newsworthy. The DNC emails provided evidence that the DNC unethically tilted the playing field in favor of Clinton and against Sen. Bernie Sanders, a point that Brazile also discovered in reviewing staffing and financing relationships that Clinton had with the DNC under the prior chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The purloined emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta revealed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street (information that she was trying to hide from voters) and pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

A Manchurian Candidate?

Still, the original narrative was that Putin wanted his Manchurian Candidate (Trump) in the White House and took the extraordinary risk of infuriating the odds-on favorite (Clinton) by releasing the emails even though they appeared unlikely to prevent Clinton's victory. So, there was always that logical gap in the Russia-gate theory.

Since then, however, the U.S. mainstream narrative has shifted, in part, because the evidence of Russian election "meddling" was so shaky. Under intense congressional pressure to find something, Facebook reported $100,000 in allegedly "Russian-linked" ads purchased in 2015-17, but noted that only 44 percent were bought before the election. So, not only was the "Russian-linked" pebble tiny – compared to Facebook's annual revenue of $27 billion – but more than half of the pebble was tossed into this very large lake after Clinton had already lost.

So, the storyline was transformed into some vague Russian scheme to exacerbate social tensions in the United States by taking different sides of hot-button issues, such as police brutality against blacks. The New York Times reported that one of these "Russian-linked" pages featured photos of cute puppies , which the Times speculated must have had some evil purpose although it was hard to fathom. (Oh, those devious Russians!).

The estimate of how many Americans may have seen one of these "Russian-linked" ads also keeps growing, now up to as many as 126 million or about one-third of the U.S. population. Of course, the way the Internet works – with any item possibly going viral – you might as well say the ads could have reached billions of people.

Whenever I write an article or send out a Tweet, I too could be reaching 126 million or even billions of people, but the reality is that I'd be lucky if the number were in the thousands. But amid the Russia-gate frenzy, no exaggeration is too outlandish or too extreme.

Another odd element of Russia-gate is that the intensity of this investigation is disproportionate to the lack of interest shown toward far better documented cases of actual foreign-government interference in American elections and policymaking.

For instance, the major U.S. media long ignored the extremely well-documented case of Richard Nixon colluding with South Vietnamese officials to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam War peace talks to gain an advantage for Nixon in the 1968 election. That important chapter of history only gained The New York Times' seal of approval earlier this year after the Times had dismissed the earlier volumes of evidence as "rumors."

In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan's team – especially his campaign director William Casey in collaboration with Israel and Iran – appeared to have gone behind President Jimmy Carter's back to undercut Carter's negotiations to free 52 American hostages then held in Iran and essentially doom Carter's reelection hopes.

There were a couple of dozen witnesses to that scheme who spoke with me and other investigative journalists – as well as documentary evidence showing that President Reagan did authorize secret arms shipments to Iran via Israel shortly after the hostages were freed during Reagan's inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981.

However, since Vice President (later President) George H.W. Bush, who was implicated in the scheme, was well-liked on both sides of the aisle and because Reagan had become a Republican icon, the October Surprise case of 1980 was pooh-poohed by the major media and dismissed by a congressional investigation in the early 1990s. Despite the extraordinary number of witnesses and supporting documents, Wikipedia listed the scandal as a "conspiracy theory."

Israeli Influence

And, if you're really concerned about foreign interference in U.S. elections and policies, there's the remarkable influence of Israel and its perceived ability to effect the defeat of almost any politician who deviates from what the Israeli government wants, going back at least to the 1980s when Sen. Chuck Percy and Rep. Paul Findley were among the political casualties after pursuing contacts with the Palestinians.

If anyone doubts how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continued to pull the strings of U.S. politicians, just watch one of his record-tying three addresses to joint sessions of Congress and count how often Republicans and Democrats jump to their feet in enthusiastic applause. (The only other foreign leader to get the joint-session honor three times was Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

So, what makes Russia-gate different from the other cases? Did Putin conspire with Trump to extend a bloody war as Nixon did with the South Vietnamese leaders? Did Putin lengthen the captivity of U.S. hostages to give Trump a political edge? Did Putin manipulate U.S. policy in the Middle East to entice President George W. Bush to invade Iraq and set the region ablaze, as Israel's Netanyahu did? Is Putin even now pushing for wider Mideast wars, as Netanyahu is?

Indeed, one point that's never addressed in any serious way is why is the U.S. so angry with Russia while these other cases, in which U.S. interests were clearly damaged and American democracy compromised, were treated largely as non-stories.

Why is Russia-gate a big deal while the other cases weren't? Why are opposite rules in play now – with Democrats, many Republicans and the major news media flogging fragile "links," needling what little evidence there is, and assuming the worst rather than insisting that only perfect evidence and perfect witnesses be accepted as in the earlier cases?

The answer seems to be the widespread hatred for President Trump combined with vested interests in favor of whipping up the New Cold War. That is a goal valued by both the Military-Industrial Complex, which sees trillions of dollars in strategic weapons systems in the future, and the neoconservatives, who view Russia as a threat to their "regime change" agendas for Syria and Iran.

After all, if Russia and its independent-minded President Putin can be beaten back and beaten down, then a big obstacle to the neocon/Israeli goal of expanding the Mideast wars will be removed.

Right now, the neocons are openly lusting for a "regime change" in Moscow despite the obvious risks that such turmoil in a nuclear-armed country might create, including the possibility that Putin would be succeeded not by some compliant Western client like the late Boris Yeltsin but by an extreme nationalist who might consider launching a nuclear strike to protect the honor of Mother Russia.

The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons.

A Smokescreen for Repression

There also seems to be little or no concern that the Establishment is using Russia-gate as a smokescreen for clamping down on independent media sites on the Internet. Traditional supporters of civil liberties have looked the other way as the rights of people associated with the Trump campaign have been trampled and journalists who simply question the State Department's narratives on, say, Syria and Ukraine are denounced as "Moscow stooges" and "useful idiots."

The likely outcome from the anti-Russian show trials on Capitol Hill is that technology giants will bow to the bipartisan demand for new algorithms and other methods for stigmatizing, marginalizing and eliminating information that challenges the mainstream storylines in the cause of fighting "Russian propaganda."

The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."

As this authoritarian if not totalitarian future looms and as the dangers of nuclear annihilation from an intentional or unintentional nuclear war with Russia grow, many people who should know better are caught up in the Russia-gate frenzy.

I used to think that liberals and progressives opposed McCarthyism because they regarded it as a grave threat to freedom of thought and to genuine democracy, but now it appears that they have learned to love McCarthyism except, of course, when it rears its ugly head in some Long Island political ad criticizing New York City.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Joe Tedesky , November 6, 2017 at 3:12 pm

I watched the C-Span 'Russian/2016 Election Investigation Hearings' in horror, as each congressperson grilled the Hi-Tech executives in a way to suggest that our First Amendment Rights are now on life support, and our Congress is ready to pull the plug at any moment. I thought, of how this wasn't the America I was brought up to believe in. So as I have reached the age in life where nothing should surprise me, I realize now how fragile our Rights are, in this warring nation that calls itself America.

When it comes to Israel I have two names, Jonathan Pollard & the USS Liberty, and with that, that is enough said.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:33 pm

This week's congressional hearings on "extremist content" on the Internet mark a new stage in the McCarthyite witch hunt by congressional Democrats, working with the intelligence agencies and leading media outlets, to legitimize censorship and attack free speech on the Internet.

One after another, congressmen and senators goaded representatives of Google, Twitter and Facebook to admit that their platforms were used to sow "social divisions" and "extremist" political opinions. The aim of this campaign is to claim that social conflict within the United States arises not from the scale of social inequality in America, greater than in any other country in the developed world, but rather from the actions of "outside agitators" working in the service of the Kremlin.

The hearings revolved around claims that Russia sought to "weaponize" the Internet by harnessing social anger within the United States. "Russia," said Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, promoted "discord in the US by inflaming passions on a range of divisive issues." It sought to "mobilize real Americans to sign online petitions and join rallies and protests."

The McCarthyite witch hunts of the 1950s sought to suppress left-wing thought and label all forms of dissent as illegitimate and treasonous. Those who led them worked to purge left-wing opinion from Hollywood, the trade unions and the universities.

Likewise, the new McCarthyism is aimed at creating a political climate in which left-wing organizations and figures are demonized as agents of the Kremlin who are essentially engaged in treasonous activity deserving of criminal prosecution.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/03/pers-n03.html

Joe Tedesky , November 7, 2017 at 12:32 am

Thanks for the informative link Danny.

Watching this Orwellian tragedy play out in our American society, where our Congress is insisting that disclaimers and restrictions be placed upon suspicious adbuys and editorial essays, is counterintuitive to what we Americans were brought up to belief. Why, all my life teachers, and adults, would warn us students of reading the news to not to believe everything we read as pure fact, but to research a subject before coming to a conclusion toward your accepting an opinion to wit. And with these warnings of avoiding us being suckered into a wrong belief, we were told that this was the price we were required to pay for having a free press society. This freedom of speech was, and has always been the bedrock of our hopes and wishes for our belief in the American Dream.

Danny there was a time not to long ago, I would have said of how we are 'moving towards' to us becoming a police state, well instead replace that prediction of 'moving towards' to the stark reality to be described as 'that now we are', and there you will have it that we have finally arrived to becoming a full blown 'police state'. Little by little, and especially since 911 one by one our civil liberties were taken away. Here again our freedom of speech is being destroyed, and with this America is now where Germany had been in the mid-thirties. America's own guilty conscience is rapidly doing some physiological projections onto their imaginary villain Russia.

All I keep hearing is my dear sweet mother lecturing me on how one lie always leads to another lie until the truth will finally jump up and bite you in the ass, and think to myself of how wise my mother had been with her young girl Southside philosophy. May you Rest In Peace Mum.

Martin , November 7, 2017 at 3:21 pm

Yankees chicks are coming home to roost. So many peoples rights and lives had to be extinguished for Americans to have the illusion of pursuing their happiness, well, what goes around comes around.

Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm

Gee wiz Adam Schiff you make it sound as if signing petitions and rallying to causes and civil protests are unamerican or something. And Russians on the internet are harnessing social anger! Pathetic. These jerks who would have us believe they are interested in "saving" democracy or stopping fascism have sure got it backward.

Geoffrey de Galles , November 8, 2017 at 12:33 pm

Joe, Allow me please, respectfully, to add Mordecai Vanunu -- Israel's own Daniel Ellsberg -- to your two names.

Erik G , November 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm

Thanks to Mr. Parry for this very fair and complete review of the latest attempts to generate a fake foreign enemy. The tyrant over a democracy must generate fake foreign enemies to pose falsely as a protector, so as to demand domestic power and accuse his opponents of disloyalty, as Aristotle and Plato warned thousands of years ago.

It is especially significant that the zionists are the sole beneficiaries of this scam as well as the primary sponsors of the DNC, hoping to attack Russia and Iran to support Israeli land thefts in the Mideast. It is well established that zionists control US mass media, which never examine the central issue of our times, the corruption of democracy by the zionist/MIC/WallSt influence upon the US government and mass media. Russia-gate is in fact a coverup for Israel-gate.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

mike k , November 6, 2017 at 4:10 pm

Why did we ever believe that the democrat party was a defender of free speech? These bought and paid for tools of the economic elites are only interested in serving their masters with slavish devotion. Selfishness and immorality are their stock in trade; betraying the public their real intention.

Cratylus , November 6, 2017 at 4:11 pm

Great essay.

But one disagreement. I may agree with Trump on very, very few things, among them getting rid of the horrible TPP, one cornerstone of Hillary's pivot; meeting with Putin in Hamburg; the Lavrov-Tillerson arranged cease-fire in SE Syria; the termination of the CIA's support for anti-Assad jihadis in Syria; a second meeting with Putin at the ASEAN conference this week; and in general the idea of "getting along with Russia" (a biggie) which Russia-gate is slowing to a crawl as designed by the neocons.

But Trump as an "incompetent buffoon" is a stretch albeit de rigueur on the pages of the NYT, the programs of NPR and in all "respectable" precincts. Trump won the presidency for god's sake – something that eluded the 17 other GOP primary candidates, some of them considered very"smart" and Bernie and Jill, and in the past, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul – and the supposedly "very smart" Hillary for which we should be eternally grateful. "Incompetent" hardly seems accurate. The respectable commentariat has continually underestimated Trump. We should heed Putin who marveled at Trump's seemingly impossible victory.

Bill Cash , November 6, 2017 at 4:13 pm

How do you explain all the connections between Trump acolytes and Russia and their lying about it. I think they've all lied about their contacts. Why would they do that?I lived through the real McCarthyism and, so far, this isn't close to what happened then.

Bill , November 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm

Probably because they are corruptly involved. Thing is, the higher priority is to avoid another decades-long cold war risking nuclear war. Do you remember how many close calls we had in the last one?

I'm more suspicious of Trump than most here, but even I think we need some priorities. Far more extensive corruption of a similar variety keeps occurring and no one cares, as Mr. Parry points out here yet again.

As for McCarthyism, whatever the current severity, the result is unfolding as a new campaign against dissenting voices on the internet. That's supremely not-okay with me.

Gregory Herr , November 7, 2017 at 8:46 pm

Right. Just because we don't yet have another fulll-fledged HUAC happening doesn't mean severe perils aren't attached to this new McCarthyism. Censorship of dissent is supremely not-okay with me as well.

Elizabeth Burton , November 6, 2017 at 4:58 pm

That class of people lie as a matter of course; it's standard procedure. If you exacerbate it by adding on the anti-Russia hysteria that was spewed out by the Democrats before the ink was dry on the ballots, what possible reason would they have for being truthful?

The insanity of the entire "Russian hacking" narrative has been revealed over and over, including this past weekend when +/-100 Clinton loyalists published a screed on Medium saying Donna Brazile had been taken in by Russian propaganda.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 7:10 pm

I have come to expect just about anything when it comes to Russia-Gate, but I was taken aback by the Hillary bots' accusation that videos of Hillary stumbling and others showing her apparently having a fit of some kind and also needing to be helped up the steps to someone's house -- which were taken by Americans and shown by Americans and seen by millions of shocked Americans -- were driven by Russia-Gate.

Obviously, Brazile, like millions of voters, saw these films and made appropriate inferences: that Hillary's basic health and stamina were a question mark. Of course, Hillary also offered Americans nothing in her campaign rhetoric. She came across as the mother-in-law from hell.

Was it also a Russia-Gate initiative when Hillary hid from her supporters on election night and let Podesta face the screaming sobbing supporters? Too much spiked vodka or something? Our political stage in the USA is a madhouse.

Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:20 pm

These people probably have "connections" with a relatively large number of people, and only very small fraction of the people they have contact with are probably Russians. Now, since the extremist xenophobic idea that contact with *any* Russians is a scandal has taken hold in the United States, people are probably not too eager to mention these contacts in these atmosphere of extreme xenophobic anti-Russian hatred in today's United States. Furthermore, people who have contact with large numbers of people probably really have difficulties remembering and listing these all.

Today's political atmosphere in the United States probably has a lot in common with the Soviet Union. There, people got in trouble if they had contacts with people from Western, capitalist countries – and if they were asked and did not mention these contacts in order to avoid problems, they could get in trouble even more.

I think it is absolutely clear that no one who takes part in this hateful anti-Russian campaign can pretend to be liberal or progressive. The kind of society these xenophobes who detest pluralism and accuse everyone who has opinions outside the mainstream of being a foreign agent is absolutely abhorrent, in my view.

Leslie F , November 6, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Their contacts are with Russian business and maybe the Russian mob, not the Russian state. There is really not question that Trump and his cronies are crooks, but they are crooks in the US and in all the other countries where they do business, not just Russia. I'm sure Mueller will be able to tie Trump directly to some of the sleeze. But there is no evidence that the Russian government is involved in any of it. "Russia-gate" implies Russian government involvement, not just random Russians. There is no evidence of that and moreover the logic is against.

occupy on , November 7, 2017 at 12:47 am

Mr. Cash . I think George Papadopoulis, Trump's young Aide, was an inside mole for neocon pro-Israel interests. Those interests needed to knock the unreliable President Trump out of the way to get the "system" back where it belonged – in their pocket. Papadopoulis, on his own, was rummaging around making Trump/Russian connections that finally ended with the the William (Richard?) Browder (well-known Washington DC neocon)/Natalia Veselnitskaya/Donald Trump, Jr. fiasco. The Trumps knew nothing of those negotiations, and young Trump left when he realized Natalia was only interested in Americans being allowed to adopt Russian children again and had no dirt on Hillary.

In the meantime, Trump Jr. was connected with an evil Russian (Natalia), William Browder was able to link the neocon-hated Trump Sr with neocon-hated, evil Russians (who currently have a warrant out for Browder's arrest on a 15 [or 50?] million dollar tax evasion charge), and neocons have a good chance of claiming victory out of chaos (as is their style and was their intent for the Middle East [not Washington DC!] in the neocon Project For a New American Century – 1998). Clinton may have lost power in Washington DC, but Clinton-supporting neocons may not have – thanks to George Papadopoulis. We shall see. Something tells me the best is yet to come out of the Mueller Investigations.

Roy G Biv , November 7, 2017 at 2:03 pm

You are seeing it clearly Bill. This site was once a go-to-source for investigative journalism. Now it is a place for opinion screeds, mostly with head buried in the sand about the blatant Russian manipulation of the 2016 election. The dominant gang of posters here squash any dissent and dissenting comments usually get deleted within a day. I don't understand why and how it came to be so, but the hysterical labeling of Comey/Mueller investigations as McCarthyism by Parry has ruined his sterling reputation for me.

Stygg , November 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm

If this "Russian manipulation" was as blatant as everyone keeps telling me, how come it's all based on ridiculous BS instead of evidence? Where's the beef?

anon , November 7, 2017 at 3:22 pm

Unable to substantiate anything you say nor argue against anything said here, you disgrace yourself. Do you think anyone is fooled by your repeated lie that you are a disaffected former supporter of this site? And you made the "Stygg" reply above.

Tom Hall , November 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm

It was never my impression that Cold War liberals opposed McCarthy or the anti-Communist witch hunt. Where they didn't gleefully join in, they watched quietly from the sidelines while the American left was eviscerated, jailed, driven from public life. Then the liberals stepped in when it was clear things were going a little too far and just as the steam had run out of McCarthy's slander machine.

At that point figures like Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy found the path clear for their brand of political stagecraft. They were imperialists to a man, something they proved abundantly when given the chance. Liberals supplanted the left in U.S. life- in the unions, the teaching profession, publishing and every other field where criticism of the Cold War and the enduring prevalence of worker solidarity across international lines threatened the new order.

So it's no surprise that liberalism is the rallying point for a new wave of repression. The dangerous buffoon currently occupying the White House stands as a perfect foil to the phony indignation of the liberal leadership- Schumer, Pelosi et al.. The jerk was made to order, and they mean to dump him as their ideological forebears unloaded old Tail Gunner Joe. In fact, Trump is so odious, the Democrats, their media colleagues and major elements of the national security state believe that bringing down the bozo can be made to look like a triumph of democracy. Of course, by then dissent will have been stamped out far more efficiently than Trump and his half-assed cohorts could have achieved. And it will be done in the name of restoring sanity, honoring the constitution, and protecting everyone from the Russians. I was born in the fifties, and it looks like I'm going to die in the fifties.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm

Truman started it. And he used it very well.

THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND ORIGINS OF ""McCARTHYISM
By Richard M. Freeland

This book argues that Truman used anti-Communist scare tactics to force Congress to implement his plans for multilateral free trade and specifically to pass the Marshall Plan. This is a sound emphasis, but other elements of postwar anti-Communist campaigns are neglected, especially anti-labor legislation; and Freeland attributes to Truman a ""go-soft"" attitude toward the Soviets, which is certainly not proven by the fact that he restrained the ultras Forrestal, Kennan, and Byrnes -- indeed, some of Freeland's own citations confirm Truman's violent anti-Soviet spirit.

The book concludes that by equating dissent with disloyalty, promoting guilt by association, and personally commanding loyalty programs, ""Truman and his advisors employed all the political and programmatic techniques that in later years were to become associated with the broad phenomenon of McCarthyism."" Freeland's revisionism is confined and conservative: he deems the Soviets most responsible for the Cold War and implies that ""subversion"" was in fact a menace.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/richard-m-freeland/the-truman-doctrine-and-origins-of-mccarthyism/

Howard Mettee , November 6, 2017 at 4:50 pm

Bob,

You are one of the very few critical journalists today willing to print objective measures of the truth, while the MSM spins out of control under the guise of "protecting America" (and their vital sources), while at the same time actually undermining the very principles of a working democracy they sanctimoniously pretend to defend. It makes me nostalgic for the McCarthy era, when we could safely satirize the Army-McCarthy Hearings (unless you were a witness!). I offer the following as a retrospective of a lost era.:

Top-Ten Criteria for being a Putin Stooge, and a Chance at Winning A One Way Lottery Ticket:to the Gala Gitmo Hotel:
:
(1) Reading Consortium News, Truth Dig, The Real News Network, RT and Al Jeziera
(2) Drinking Starbucks and vodka at the Russian Tea Room with Russian tourists (with an embedded FSS agent) in NYC.
(3) Meeting suspicious tour guides in Red Square who accept dollars for their historical jokes.
(4) Claiming to catch a cell phone photo of the Putin limousine passing through the Kremlin Tower gate.
(4) Starting a joint venture with a Russian trading partner who sells grain to feed Putin's stable of stallions. .
(5) Catching the flu while being sneezed upon in Niagara Falls by a Russian violinist.
(6) Finding the hidden jewels in the Twelfth Chair were nothing but cut glass.
(7) Reading War and Peace on the Brighton Beach ferry.
(8) Playing the iPod version of Rachmaninoff's "Vespers" through ear buds while attending mass in Dallas, TX..
(9) Water skiing on the Potomac flying a pennant saying "Wasn't Boris Good Enough?"
(10) Having audibly chuckled even once at items (1) – (9). Thanks Bob, Please don't let up!

Lisa , November 6, 2017 at 7:47 pm

Howard,

I chuckled loudly more than once – but luckily, no one heard me! No witnesses! So you are acquainted with the masterpiece "12 chairs"? Very suspicious.

David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:42 pm

I've heard that's Mel Brooks favorite among his own movies.

David G , November 6, 2017 at 8:48 pm

I always find it exasperating when I have to remind the waiter at the diner to bring Russian dressing along with the reuben sandwich, but these days I wonder if my loyalty is being tested.

Dave P. , November 6, 2017 at 10:27 pm

David G –

They will change the name of dressing very soon. Remember 2003 when French refused to endorse the invasion of Iraq. I think they unofficially changed the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries".

It is just the start. The whole History is being rewritten – in compliance with Zionist Ideology. Those evil Russkies will be shown as they are!

Elizabeth Burton , November 6, 2017 at 4:53 pm

Clearly, since I've published one book by a Russian, one by a now-deceased US ex-pat living in Russia, and have our catalog made available in Russia via our international distributor, I am a traitor to the US. If you add in my staunch resistance to the whole Russiagate narrative AND the fact I post links to stories in RT America, I'm doomed.

I wish I could think I'm being wholly sarcastic.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:38 pm

You are not alone. Many of us live outside the open air prison and feel the same way

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:29 pm

Robert Parry has described "the New McCarthyism" having "its own witch-hunt hearings". In fact "last week's Senate grilling of executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google" was merely an exercise in political theatre because all three entities already belong to the "First Draft" coalition:

http://fortune.com/2016/09/13/facebook-twitter-join-first-draft-coalition/

Formed by Google in June 2015 with Eliot Higgins of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat as a founding member, the "First Draft" coalition includes all the usual mainstream media "partners" in "regime change" war propaganda: the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, the UK Guardian and Telegraph, BBC News, the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab and Kiev-based Stopfake.

In a remarkable post-truth declaration, the "First Draft" coalition insists that members will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

In the "post-truth" regime of US and NATO hybrid warfare, the deliberate distortion of truth and facts is called "verification".

The Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio, and "First Draft" coalition "partner" organizations' zeal to "verify" US intelligence-backed fake news claims about Russian hacking of the US presidential election, reveal the "post-truth" mission of this new Google-backed hybrid war propaganda alliance.

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 5:45 pm

The Russia-gate "witch-hunt" has graduated from McCarthyism to full Monty Pythonism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw

Dan Kuhn , November 6, 2017 at 6:41 pm

You get the gold star for best comment today.

Abe , November 7, 2017 at 1:57 pm

Hysterical demonization of Russia escalated dramatically after Russia thwarted the Israeli-Saudi-US plan to dismember the Syrian state.

With the rollback of ISIS and Al Qaeda terrorist proxy forces in Syria, and the failure of Kurdish separatist efforts in Iraq, Israel plans to launch military attacks against southern Lebanon and Syria.

South Front has presented a cogent and fairly detailed analysis of Israel's upcoming war in southern Lebanon.

Conspicuously absent from the South Front analysis is any discussion of the Israeli planned assault on Syria, or possible responses to the conflict from the United States or Russia.

Israeli propaganda preparations for attack are already in high gear. Unfortunately, sober heads are in perilously short supply in Israel and the U.S., so the prognosis can hardly be optimistic.

"Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War

Over time, IDF's military effectiveness had declined. [ ] In the Second Lebanon War of 2006 due to the overwhelming numerical superiority in men and equipment the IDF managed to occupy key strong points but failed to inflict a decisive defeat on Hezbollah. The frequency of attacks in Israeli territory was not reduced; the units of the IDF became bogged down in the fighting in the settlements and suffered significant losses. There now exists considerable political pressure to reassert IDF's lost military dominance and, despite the complexity and unpredictability of the situation we may assume the future conflict will feature only two sides, IDF and Hezbollah. Based on the bellicose statements of the leadership of the Jewish state, the fighting will be initiated by Israel.

"The operation will begin with a massive evacuation of residents from the settlements in the north and centre of Israel. Since Hezbollah has agents within the IDF, it will not be possible to keep secret the concentration of troops on the border and a mass evacuation of civilians. Hezbollah units will will be ordered to occupy a prepared defensive position and simultaneously open fire on places were IDF units are concentrated. The civilian population of southern Lebanon will most likely be evacuated. IDF will launch massive bombing causing great damage to the social infrastructure and some damage to Hezbollah's military infrastructure, but without destroying the carefully protected and camouflaged rocket launchers and launch sites.

"Hezbollah control and communications systems have elements of redundancy. Consequently, regardless of the use of specialized precision-guided munitions, the command posts and electronic warfare systems will not be paralysed, maintaining communications including through the use of fibre-optic communications means. IDF discovered that the movement has such equipment during the 2006 war. Smaller units will operate independently, working with open communication channels, using the pre-defined call signs and codes.

"Israeli troops will then cross the border of Lebanon, despite the presence of the UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, beginning a ground operation with the involvement of a greater number of units than in the 2006 war. The IDF troops will occupy commanding heights and begin to prepare for assaults on settlements and actions in the tunnels. The Israelis do not score a quick victory as they suffer heavy losses in built-up areas. The need to secure occupied territory with patrols and checkpoints will cause further losses.

"The fact that Israel itself started the war and caused damage to the civilian infrastructure, allows the leadership of the movement to use its missile arsenal on Israeli cities. While Israel's missile defence systems can successfully intercept the launched missiles, there are not enough of them to blunt the bombardment. The civilian evacuation paralyzes life in the country. As soon IDF's Iron Dome and other medium-range systems are spent on short-range Hezbollah rockets, the bombardment of Israel with long-range missiles may commence. Hezbollah's Iranian solid-fuel rockets do not require much time to prepare for launch and may target the entire territory of Israel, causing further losses.

"It is difficult to assess the duration of actions of this war. One thing that seems certain is that Israel shouldn't count on its rapid conclusion, similar to last September's exercises. Hezbollah units are stronger and more capable than during the 2006 war, despite the fact that they are fighting in Syria and suffered losses there.

"Conclusions

"The combination of large-scale exercises and bellicose rhetoric is intended to muster Israeli public support for the aggression against Hezbollah by convincing the public the victory would be swift and bloodless. Instead of restraint based on a sober assessment of relative capabilities, Israeli leaders appear to be in a state of blood lust. In contrast, the Hezbollah has thus far demonstrated restraint and diplomacy.

"Underestimating the adversary is always the first step towards a defeat. Such mistakes are paid for with soldiers' blood and commanders' careers. The latest IDF exercises suggest Israeli leaders underestimate the opponent and, more importantly, consider them to be quite dumb. In reality, Hezbollah units will not cross the border. There is no need to provoke the already too nervous neighbor and to suffer losses solely to plant a flag and photograph it for their leader. For Hezbollah, it is easier and safer when the Israeli soldiers come to them. According to the IDF soldiers who served in Gaza and southern Lebanon, it is easier to operate on the plains of Gaza than the mountainous terrain of southern Lebanon. This is a problem for armoured vehicles fighting for control of heights, tunnels, and settlements, where they are exposed to anti-armor weapons.

"While the Israeli establishment is in a state of patriotic frenzy, it would be a good time for them to turn to the wisdom of their ancestors. After all, as the old Jewish proverb says: 'War is a big swamp, easy to go into but hard to get out'."

Israeli Defense Forces: Military Capabilities, Scenarios for the Third Lebanon War
https://southfront.org/israeli-defense-forces-military-capabilities-scenarios-for-the-third-lebanon-war/

Realist , November 6, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Yes, the latest "big fish" outed yesterday as an agent of the Kremlin was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (Wilbur Ross) who was discovered to hold stock in a shipping company that does business with a Russian petrochemical company (Sibur) whose owners include Vladimir Putin's son-in-law (Kirill Shamalov). Obviously the orders flow directly from Putin to Shamalov to Sibur to the shipping company to Ross to Trump, all to the detriment of American citizens.

From RT (another tainted source!): "US Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross Jr. has a stake in a shipping firm that receives millions of dollars a year in revenue from a company whose key owners include Russian President Vladimir Putin's son-in-law and a Russian tycoon sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department as a member of Putin's inner circle," says the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the main publisher of the Paradise Papers. After the report was published, some US lawmakers accused Ross of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings." Don't go mistaking the "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists for "Consortium News." These guys are dedicated witch hunters, searching for anyone with six degrees of separation to Vladimir Putin and his grand plan to thwart the United States and effect regime change within its borders.

In a clear attempt to weasel out of his traitorous transgression, Ross stated "In a separate interview with CNBC, that Sibur [which is NOT the company he owned stock in] was not subject to US sanctions." 'A company not under sanction is just like any other company, period. It was a normal commercial relationship and one that I had nothing to do with the creation of, and do not know the shareholders who were apparently sanctioned at some later point in time,' he said." Since when can we start allowing excuses like that? Not knowing that someone holds stock in a company that does business with a company in which you own stock may at some later point in time become sanctioned by the all-wise and all-good American federal government?

I can't wait till they make the first Ben Stiller comedy based on this fiasco twenty years from now. It will be hilarious slap-stick, maybe titled "Can You Believe these Mother Fockers?" President Chelea Clinton of our great and noble idiocracy will throw out the first witch on opening day of the movie.

Danny Weil , November 6, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Let's be honest. Most Americans think McCarthy is a retail store. No education. And they think Russia is the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan to start war with N. Korea to hide the blemishes or the canker on his ass. America is rapidly collapsing.

Adrian Engler , November 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm

In the beginning, "Russiagate" was about alleged actions by Russian secret services. Evidence for these allegations has never emerged, and it seems that the Russiagate conspiracy theorists largely gave up on this part (they still sometimes write about it as if it was an established fact, but since the only thing in support of it they can adduce is the canard about the 17 intelligence services, it probably is not that interesting any more).

Now, they have dropped the mask, and the object of their hatred are openly all Russian people, anyone who is "Russian linked" by ever having logged in to social networks from Russia or using Cyrillic letters. If these people and their media at least recognized the reality that they are now a particularly rabid part of the xenophobic far right in the United States

But when people daily spew hate against anything and anyone "Russia linked" and still don't recognize that they have gone over to the far right and even claim they are liberal or progressive, this is completely absurd.

McCarthyism, as terrible as it was, at least originally was motivated by hatred against a certain political ideology that also had its bad sides. But today's Russiagate peddlers clearly are motivated by hatred against a certain ethnicity, a certain country, and a certain language. I don't think there is any way to avoid the conclusion that with their hatred against anyone who is "Russia linked", they have become right-wing extremists.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:46 pm

"Israel is another skilled player in this field, tapping into its supporters around the world to harass people who criticize the Zionist project."

Yes, very well organized.
In fact virtually every synagogue is a center for organizing people to harass others who are exercising their First Amendment rights to diseminate information about Israel's occupation of Palestine. The link below is to a protest and really, personal attack, against a Unitarian minister in Marblehead, Mass., for daring to screen the film ""The Occupation of the American Mind, Israel's Public Relations War in the United States." In other words, for daring to provide an dissenting opinion and, simply, to tell the truth. Ironic is that the protesters' comment actually reinforce the basic message of the film.
No other views on Israel will be allowed to enter the public for a good airing and discussion and debate. The truth about the illegal Israeli occupation will be shouted down, and those who try to provide information to the public on this subject will be vilified as "anti-semites." Kudos to this minister for screening the film.

http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/screening-of-film-sparks-protest-in-marblehead/article_0b075cbc-c2ae-5d46-916a-24eed79d30cd.html

http://cdn.field59.com/SALEMNEWS/ebb60114f782c4213f068bf0a39a4a46451ed871_fl9-360p.mp4

Abe , November 7, 2017 at 1:03 am

The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel's Public Relations War in the United States (2016) examines pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda efforts within the U.S.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD7mOyfclIk

This important documentary, narrated by Roger waters, exposes how the Israeli government, the U.S. government, and the pro-Israel Lobby join forces to shape American media coverage in Israel's favor.

Documentary producer Sut Jhally is professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts, and a leading scholar on advertising, public relations, and political propaganda. He is also the founder and Executive Director of the Media Education Foundation, a documentary film company that looks at issues related to U.S. media and public attitudes.

Jhally is the producer and director of dozens of documentaries about U.S. politics and media culture, including Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land: U.S. Media & the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict.

The Occupation of the American Mind provides a sweeping analysis of Israel's decades-long battle for the hearts, minds, and tax dollars of the American people – a battle that has only intensified over the past few years in the face of widening international condemnation of Israel's increasingly right-wing policies.

Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 2:45 am

Abe –

The interview of Roger Waters on RT is one of the best I have seen in a long while. I wish some other artists get the courage to raise their voices. The link to the Roger Waters interview is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jcvfbLoIA This Roger Waters interview is worth watching.

Dan Kuhn , November 6, 2017 at 6:57 pm

It would seem that everyone on the US telivision , newspaper and internet news has mastered the art of hand over mouth , gasp and looking horrified every time Russia is mentioned. It looks to me that the US is in the middle of another of it´s mid life crises. Panic reigns supreme every where. If it was not so sad it would be funny. i was born in the 1940s and remember the McCarthy witch hunts and the daily shower of people jumping out of windows as a result of it.

As a Canadian I could not get over, even though I was just a teenager back then, just how a people in a supposedly advanced country could be so collectively paniced. I think back then it was just a scam to get rid of unions and any kind of collective action against the owners of the country, and this time around I think it is just a continuation of that scam, to frighten people into subservience to the police state. I heard a women on TV today commenting on the Texas masscre, she said " The devil never sleeps", well in the USA the 1/10 of 1% never sleeps when it comes to more control, more pwoer and more wealth, in fact I think they are after the very last shekle still left in the pockets of the bottom 99.9 % of the population. Those evil Russians are just a ploy in the scam.

Litchfield , November 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm

"The Democrats, the liberals and even many progressives justify their collusion with the neocons by the need to remove Trump by any means necessary and "stop fascism." But their contempt for Trump and their exaggeration of the "Hitler" threat that this incompetent buffoon supposedly poses have blinded them to the extraordinary risks attendant to their course of action and how they are playing into the hands of the war-hungry neocons."

And they are driving more and more actual and potential Dem Party members away in droves, further weakening the party and depriving it of its most intelligent members. Any non-senile person knows that this is all BS and these people are not only turning their backs on the Dem Party but I think many of them are being driven to the right by their disgust with this circus and the exposure of the party's critical weaknesses and derangement.

Paolo , November 6, 2017 at 6:59 pm

You correctly write that "the United States intervened in the 1996 Russian election to ensure the continued rule of the corrupt and pliable Boris Yeltsin". The irony is that a few years later Yeltsin chose Putin as his successor, and presumably the 'mericans gave him a hand to win his first term.
How extremely sad it is to see the USA going totally nuts.

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:00 pm

In The Fifties (1993), American journalist and historian David Halberstam addressed the noxious effect of McCarthyism: "McCarthy's carnival like four year spree of accusation charges, and threats touched something deep in the American body politic, something that lasted long after his own recklessness, carelessness and boozing ended his career in shame." (page 53)

Halberstam specifically discussed how readily the so-called "free" press acquiesced to McCarthy's masquerading: "The real scandal in all this was the behavior of the members of the Washington press corps, who, more often than not, knew better. They were delighted to be a part of his traveling road show, chronicling each charge and then moving on to the next town, instead of bothering to stay behind and follow up. They had little interest in reporting how careless McCarthy was or how little it all meant to him." (page 55)

Abe , November 6, 2017 at 9:15 pm

On March 9, 1954, Edward R. Murrow and a news team at CBS produced a half-hour See It Now special titled "A Report on Senator Joseph McCarthy".

Murrow interspersed his own comments and clarifications into a damaging series of film clips from McCarthy's speeches. He ended the broadcast with a warning:

"As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves–as indeed we are–the defenders of freedom, what's left of it, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies, and whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn't create the situation of fear; he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right: 'The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.'"

CBS reported that of the 12,000 phone calls received within 24 hours of the broadcast, positive responses to the program outnumbered negative 15 to 1. McCarthy's favorable rating in the Gallup Poll dropped and was never to rise again.

Gary , November 6, 2017 at 11:34 pm

Sad to see so many hypocrites here espousing freedom from McCarthyism while they continue to vote for capitalist candidates year in year out. Think about the fact that in 2010 when Citizens United managed to get the Supreme Court to certify corporations as people the fear among many was that this would open US company subsidiaries to be infiltrated by foreign money. I guess it is happening in spades with collusion between Russian money & Trump's organization along with Facebook, Twitter & many others. How Mr. Parry can maintain that this parallels the 1950s anti-communist crusade is quite ingenuous. When libertarians, the likes of Bannon, Mercer, Trump et al, with their "destruction of the administrative state" credo are compared to the US communists of the 50s we know progressives have become about as disoriented as can be.

geeyp , November 7, 2017 at 3:30 am

I guess these "Paradise Papers" were released just yesterday, i.e., Sunday the 5th. Somehow I didn't get to it.

john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 6:01 am

So it looks like Hillary will be crossing Putin off her Xmas card list this year! I sometimes wonder if all we posters on here and other similar sites are on a list somewhere and when the day of reckoning comes, the list will be produced and we will have to account for our treasonous behaviour? Of course, one man's treason is another man's truth. I suppose in the end it boils down to the power thing. If you have a perceived enemy you can claim the need for an army. If you have an army you have power and with that power you can dispose of anyone who disagrees with you simply by calling them the enemy.

Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 9:38 am

John, your post made me wonder whether I would be on a list of traitors. I've written three posts, starting yesterday, and tried to explain something about the background of Yuri Milner, mentioned in the article. After "your comment has been posted, thank you" nothing has appeared on this thread.
Well, once more: Milner is known to me as a well-educated physicist from Moscow State University, and the co-founder and financier of The Breakthrough Prize, handing out yearly awards to promising scientists, with a much larger sum than the humble Nobel Prize. The awarding ceremony is held in December in Silicon Valley.

john wilson , November 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm

Hi Lisa, I have just looked up Milner on Wiki and he appears to be into everything including investment in internet companies. He is the co-founder of the "break through prize" that you mention and seems to have backed face book and twitter in their start up. I don't see why you posts haven't appeared as anyone can look Milner up on Wiki and elsewhere in great detail. You don't say where you have tried to post, but I would have thought on this site you would have no trouble whatever. If you have watched the last episode of 'cross talk' on RT you will see that anyone who as ever mentioned Russia in a public place is regarded as some kind of traitor. I guess you and me are due for rendition anytime now!! LOL

Lisa , November 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm

Hi John,
Naturally I had been trying to post on this site. First I tried three times in the comment space below all other posts, and they never went through. Only when I posted a reply to someone else's comment, my reply appeared. Maybe some technical problem on the site.

My motive was to show that Milner is doing worthwhile things with his millions, even if he is an "evil Russian oligarch". The mentioned prize has its own website: breakthroughprize.org. Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) is a board member.

The prize is certainly a "Putin conspiracy", as it has links to Russia. (sarc)

Zachary Smith , November 7, 2017 at 8:05 pm

Maybe some technical problem on the site.

Possibly that's the case. Disappearing-forever posts happen to me from time to time. For at least a while afterwards I cut/paste what I'm about to attempt to "post" to a WORD file before hitting the "post comment" button.

In any event, avoid links whenever possible. By cut/pasting the exact title of the piece you're using as a reference, others can quickly locate it themselves without a link.

K , November 7, 2017 at 9:44 am

I'm a lifelong Democrat. I was a Bernie supporter. But logic dictates my thinking. The Russia nonsense is cover for Hillary's loss and a convenient hammer with which to attack Trump. Not biting. Bill Maher is fixated on this. The Rob Reiner crowd is an embarrassment. The whole thing is embarrassing. The media is inept. Very bizarre times.

Patricia Schaefer , November 7, 2017 at 10:14 am

Excellent article which should shed light on the misunderstandings manifested to manipulate and censor Americans. Personally, it's ludicrous to imply that Russia was the primary reason I could not vote for Hillary. My interest in Twitter peaked when Sidney Blumenthal's name popped up selling arms in Libya. He was on The Clinton Foundation's Payroll for $120K, while the Obama Administration specifically told HRC Sidney Blumenthal was not to work for the State Department.

Further research showed Chris Stevens had no knowledge of Sidney Blumenthal selling arms in Libya. Hillary NEVER even gave Chris Stevens, a candidate with an outstanding background for diplomatic relations in the Middle East, her email. Chris Stevens possessed a Law Degree in International Trade, and had previously worked for Senator Lugar (R). Senator Lugar had warned HRC not to co-mingle State Department business with The Clinton Foundation.

To add salt to the wound Hillary choose to put a third rate security firm in Libya, changing firms a couple of short weeks before the bombing. I think she anticipated the bombing, remarking "What difference does it make? " at the congressional hearings.

If you remember Guccifer (that hacker) he said he'd hacked both Hillary and Sidney Blumenthal. He also said he found Sidney Blumenthal's account more interesting.

That's just one reason why I started surfing the internet. Sidney Blumenthal was a name that hung in the cobwebs of my memory, and I wanted to know what this scum-job of a journalist was doing!

Then there was Clinton Cash, BoysonTheTracks, Clinton Chronicles, the outrageous audacity of the Democrats Superdelegates voting before a single primary ballot had been cast, MSM bias to Hillary, Kathy Shelton's video "I thought you should know." and maybe around September 2016, wondering what dirty things Hillary had done with Russia since 1993?

So I guess it's true. In the end after witnessing what has transpired since the election I would not vote for Hillary because she'd rather risk WWIII, than have the TRUTH come out why she lost.

Gary , November 7, 2017 at 3:16 pm

After living in Europe much of the last three years we've recently returned to the U.S. I must say that life here feels very much like I'm living within a strange Absurdist theatre play of some sort (not that Europe is vastly better). Truth, meaning, rationality, mean absolutely nothing at this juncture here in the United States. Reality has been turned on its head. The only difference between our political parties runs along identity politics lines: "do you prefer your drone strikes, illegal invasions, regime change black-ops, economic warfare and massive government spying 'with' or 'without' gender specific bathrooms?" MSM refer to this situation as "democracy" while of course any thinking person knows we are actually living within a totalitarian nightmare. Theatre of the Absurd as a way of life. I must admit it feels pretty creepy being home again.

Realist , November 7, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Should this give us hope? https://sputniknews.com/us/201711071058899018-trump-cia-meet-whistleblower-russian-hacking/ Trump ordered Pompeo to meet with Binney of VIPS re "Russian hacking." Is it time for the absurd Russia-gate narrative to finally be publicly deconstructed? Or is that asking too much?

Skip Scott , November 8, 2017 at 9:04 am

I wish it wasn't asking too much, but I suspect it is. If the NYT was reporting it, I'd feel better about our chances. But the Deep State controls the narrative, and thus controls Pompeo, Trump's order notwithstanding. I hope I'm wrong.

Dave P. , November 7, 2017 at 4:17 pm

Yes Joe. It is rather painful to watch as you said this Orwellian Tragedy playing out in the Country which has just about become a police state. For those of us who grew up admiring the Western Civilization starting with the Greeks and Romans, and then for its institutions enshrining Individual Rights; and its scientific, literary, and cultural achievements, it is as if it still happening in some dream, though it has been coming for some time now – more than two decades now at least. The System was not perfect but I think that it was good as it could get. The system had been in decline for four decades or so now.

From Robert Parry's article:

"The warning from powerful senators was crystal clear. "I don't think you get it," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned social media executives last week. "You bear this responsibility. You created these platforms, and now they are being misused. And you have to be the ones who do something about it. Or we will."

Diane Feinstein's multi-billionaire husband was implicated in those Loan and Savings scandals of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush Era and in many other financial scandals later on but Law did not touch him. He has a dual residency in Israel. These are very corrupt people.

Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Perle, Nulad-Kagan clan, Kristol, Gaffney . . . the list goes on; add Netanyahu to it. In the Hollywood Harvey Weinstein, Rob Reiner. and the rest . . . In Finance and wall Street characters like Sandy Weiss and the gang. The Media and TV is directly or indirectly owned and controlled by "The Chosen People". So, where would you put the blame for all what is going on in this country, and all this chaos, death, and destruction going on in ME and many countries in Africa.

Any body who points out their role in it or utters a word of criticism of Israel is immediately called an anti-semite. Just to tell my own connections, my wife youngest sister is married to person who is Jewish (non-practicing). In all the relatives we have, they are closest to us for more than thirty five years now. They are those transgender common restroom liberals, but we have many common views and interests. In life, I have never differentiated people based on their ethnic or racial backgrounds; you look at the principles they stand for.

As I see it, this era of Russia-Gate and witch hunt is hundred times worse than McCarthy era. It seems irreversible. There is no one in the political establishment or elsewhere in Media or academia left for regeneration of the "Body Politic". In fact, what we are witnessing here is much worse than it was in the Soviet Union. It is complete degeneration of political leadership in this country. It extends to Media and other institutions as well. People in Soviet Union did not believe the lies they were told by the government there. And there arose writers like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in Soviet Union. What is left here now except are these few websites?

Maedhros , November 7, 2017 at 4:27 pm

If there is evidence, you should be able to provide some so that readers can analyze and discuss it. Exactly what evidence has been provided that the Russian government manipulated the 2016 election?

CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 10:42 pm

Robert Parry You Nailed It!!!

I need to do a little research to see how far back you used the term "New McCarthyism" to describe the next cold war with Russia. It was about the same time the first allegations of a Trump-Russia conspiracy was floated by the MSM. I do not pretend to know how much airtime they spent covering their coverup for all that the MSM did to profit from SuperPacs. They have webed a weave that conspires to conceive to the tunes of billions of dollars spent to reprieve their intent to deceive us and distract us away from their investment in Donald Trump which was the real influence in the public spaces to gain mega profits from extorting the SuperPacs into spending their dollars to defeat the trumped up candidate they created and boosted. One has to look no further than the Main Stream Press (MSM) to find the guilty party with motive and opportunity to cash in on a candidacy which if not for the money motive would not pass any test of journalistic integrity but would make money for the Media.

The Russian Boogeyman was created shortly after the election and is an obvious attempt to shield and defend the actions of the MSM which was the real fake news covered in the nightly news leading up to the election which sought to get money rather than present the facts.

This is an example of how much power and influence the MSM has on us all to be able to upend a National election and turn around and blame some foreign Devil for the results of an election.

The Russians had little to do with Trumps election. The MSM had everything to do with it. They cast blame on the Russians and in so doing create a new Cold War which suits the power establishment and suitably diverts all of our attention away from their machinations to influence the last presidential election.

Win Win. More Nuclear Weapons and more money for the MIC and more money for all of the corporations who would profit from a new Cold War.

Profit in times of deceit make more money from those who cheat.

CitizenOne , November 7, 2017 at 11:25 pm

Things not talked about:

1. James Comey and his very real influence on the election has never entered the media space for an instant. It has gone down the collective memory hole. That silence has been deafening because he was the person who against DOJ advice reopened the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the Servergate investigation after it had been closed by the FBI just days before the election.

The silence of the media on the influence on the election by the reopening of James Comey's Servergate investigation and how the mass media press coverage implicating Hillary Clinton (again) in supposed crimes (which never resulted in an indictment) influenced the National Election in ways that have never been examined by the MSM is a nail in the coffin of media impartiality.

Why have they not investigated James Comey? Why has the MSM instead created a Russian Boogeyman? Why was he invited to testify about the Russian connection but never cross examined about his own influence? Why is the clearest reason for election meddling by James Comey not even spoken of by the MSM? This is because the MSM does not want to cover events as they happened but wants to recreate a alternate reality suitable to themselves which serves their interests and convinces us that the MSM has no part at all in downplaying the involvement of themselves in the election but wants to create a foreign enemy to blame.

It serves many interests. The MSM lies to all of us for the benefit of the MIC. It serves to support White House which will deliver maximum investments in the Defense Industry. It does this by creating a foreign enemy which they create for us to fear and be afraid of.

It is obvious to everyone with a clear eyed history of how the last election went down and how the MSM and the government later played upon our fears to grab more cash have cashed in under the present administration.

It is up to us to elect leaders who will reject this manipulation by the media and who will not be cowed by the establishment. We have the power enshrined in our Constitution to elect leaders who will pave the path forward to a better future.

Those future leaders will have to do battle with a media infrastructure that serves the power structure and conspires to deceive us all.

Jessica K , November 8, 2017 at 9:43 am

Clear critical thinking must accompany free speech, however, and irrationality seems to have beset Americans, too stuck in the mud of identity politics. Can they get out? I have hopes that a push is coming from the new multipolar world Xi and Putin are advocating, as well as others (but not the George Soros NWO variety). The big bully American government, actually ruled by oligarchy, has not been serving its regular folks well, so things are falling apart. Seems like the sex scandals, political scandals especially of the Democrat brand, money scandals are unraveling to expose underlying societal sickness in the Disunited States of America.

It is interesting that this purge shakeup in Saudi Arabia is happening in 2017, one hundred years since the shakeup in Russia, the Bolshevik Revolution. So shake-ups are happening everywhere. I think a pattern is emerging of major changes in world events. Just yesterday I read that because "Russia-gate" isn't working well, senators are looking to start a "China-gate", for evidence of Trump collusion with Chinese oligarchs. Ludicrous. As Seer once said, "The Empire in panic mode".

Patricia, thanks for the info on Sid Blumenthal, HRC and the selling of arms from Libya to ME jihadists, which seems to exonerate Chris Stevens from those dirty deeds and lays blame squarely at Blumenthal's and Clinton's doorstep; changes my thinking. And thanks to Robert Parry for continuing to push back at the participation of MSM and government players in the Orwellian masquerade being pulled on the sheeple.

Truther , November 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm

Just the facts for those of you who have minds still open. suggest you bookmark it quickly as the moderator will delete it within the hour.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/a-timeline-of-the-trump-russia-scandal-w511067

[Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II." ..."
"... Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'" ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Review " A powerful contradiction to the present US narrative of the world . . . As shown here, fake news is thriving in Washington, DC."-- Oliver Stone , Academy Award winning director and screenwriter

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia is a beautifully written, uncommonly coherent, and very compelling treatise on the issues facing America today... a troubling indictment of where we've been and where we're headed. Moreover, this book is profoundly important , and a timely retrospective review of American foreign policy misadventures since the advent of the Cold War." -- Phillip F. Nelson , author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination and LBJ: From Mastermind to "The Colossus"

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia underscores how the CIA's infiltration and shaping of the media, which began in the 1950s, successfully continues today. A very worthwhile account for anyone who wants to understand how 'reality' is manufactured, while 'real truth' is murdered and buried." -- Peter Janney , author of Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace

"At a time when the U.S. military budget is again soaring to enrich the oligarchs, this timely and thought-provoking book turns Orwellian 'double-think' on its head in a cogent analysis of what's really behind all the saber-rattling against Russia. In a scholarly but also deeply personal and fluidly written work , Dan Kovalik pulls no punches in dissecting the history of how America has justified its own imperialistic aims through the Cold War era and right up to the current anti-Putin hysteria." -- Dick Russell , New York Times bestselling author of Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth and What It Means to Our Children

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia confronts the timeliest of subjects, the effort to resuscitate the Cold War by blaming Russian president Vladimir Putin for interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump, an effort pursued by CIA and the Democratic Party working in tandem. Kovalik establishes... that not a scintilla of evidence has emerged to grant credibility to this self-serving fantasy... [and he] deftly eviscerates the mainstream press . Reading [this book] will be salutary, illuminating and more than instructive ." -- Joan Mellen , author of Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture of Texas

William T. Whitney Jr on May 28, 2017

Review of "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia"

Beating up on Russia; history tells why
By William T. Whitney Jr. .

Lawyer and human rights activist Dan Kovalik has written a valuable book. He looked at a recent U. S. political development in terms of history and then skewered it. His new book, "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia," looks at mounting assaults against Russia that increased during the Obama administration and that spokespersons for the Democratic Party, among others, are promoting.

The CIA, he claims, without going into specifics, is engaged in anti-Russian activities. For Kovalik, "the CIA is a nefarious, criminal organization which often misleads the American public and government into wars and misadventures."

Kovalik devotes much of his book to what he regards as precedents for the current dark turn in U.S. – Russian relations. Toward that end, he surveys the history of U.S. foreign interventions since World War II. He confirms that the United States government is indeed habituated to aggressive adventurism abroad. That's something many readers already know, but Kovalik contributes significantly by establishing that U.S. hostility against Russia ranks as a chapter in that long story.

But what's the motivation for military assaults and destabilizing projects? And, generally, why all the wars? The author's historical survey provides answers. He finds that the scenarios he describes are connected. Treating them as a whole, he gives them weight and thus provides an intellectual weapon for the anti-imperialist cause. Kovalik, putting history to work, moves from the issue of U.S.-Russian antagonism to the more over-arching problem of threats to human survival. That's his major contribution.

His highly-recommended book offers facts and analyses so encompassing as to belie its small size. The writing is clear, evocative, and eminently readable; his narrative is that of a story – teller. Along the way, as a side benefit, Kovalik recalls the causes and outrage that fired up activists who were his contemporaries.

He testifies to a new Cold War. Doing so, he argues that the anti-communist rational for the earlier Cold War was a cover for something else, a pretext. In his words: "the Cold War, at least from the vantage point of the US, had little to do with fighting 'Communism,' and more to do with making the world safe for corporate plunder." Once more Russia is an enemy of the United States, but now it's a capitalist country.

That's mysterious; explanation is in order. Readers, however, may be hungry to know about the "plot" advertised in the book's title. We recommend patience. History and its recurring patterns come first for this author. They enable him to account for U. S. – Russian relations that are contradictory and, most importantly, for the U.S. propensity for war-making. After that he tells about a plot.

Kovalik describes how, very early, reports of CIA machinations from former agents of the spy organization expanded his political awareness, as did a trip to Nicaragua. There he gained first-hand knowledge of CIA atrocities, of deaths and destruction at the hands of the Contras, anti- Sandinista paramilitaries backed by the CIA His book goes on fully and dramatically to describe murders and chaos orchestrated by the United States and/or the CIA in El Salvador, Colombia, and in the South America of Operation Condor. Kovalic discusses the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupation and war in Korea, nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear testing and dying in the Marshall Islands, and the CIA's recruitment of the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen in Afghan¬istan. He recounts U. S. - instigated coups in Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; and Chile, 1973.

These projects were about keeping "the world safe from the threat of Soviet totalitarianism" – in other words, anti-communism. But then the USSR disappeared, and the search was on for a new pretext. The Clinton administration evoked "humanitarian intervention," and continued the intrusions: in Ruanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo (on behalf of "US mining interests"), Yugoslavia, and Libya.

In Kovalik's telling, the U. S. government eventually settled upon the notion of "American exceptionalism," that is to say, "the belief that the US is a uniquely benign actor in the world, spreading peace and democracy." Thus armed, the U. S. military exported terror to Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen (via its Saudi Arabian proxy), and Honduras, through a U. S. facilitated military coup. The book catalogues other episodes, other places. Along the way on his excursion, Kovalik contrasts U. S. pretensions and brutal deeds with the relatively benign nature of alleged Russian outrages.

Good relations with Russia, he says, would be "simply bad for business, in particular the business of war which so profoundly undergirds the US economy As of 2015, the US had at least 800 military bases in over 70 nations, while Britain, France and Russia had only 30 military bases combined." And, "under Obama alone, the US had Special Forces deployed in about 138 countries." Further, "The US's outsized military exists not only to ensure the US's quite unjust share of the world's riches, but also to ensure that those riches are not shared with the poor huddled masses in this country."

Kovalik highlights the disaster that overwhelmed Russia as a fledgling capitalist nation: life expectancy plummeted, the poverty rate was 75 percent, and investments fell by 80 percent. National pride was in the cellar, the more so after the United States backed away from Secretary of State Baker's 1991 promise that NATO would never move east, after the United States attacked Russia's ally Serbia, and after the United States, rejecting Russian priorities, attacked Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011.

The author rebuts U. S. claims that Russian democracy has failed and that Putin over-reached in Ukraine. He praises Putin's attempts to cooperate with the United States in Syria. The United States has abused peoples the world over, he insists, and suffers from a "severe democracy deficit."

By the time he is discussing current U. S. – Russian relations, readers have been primed never to expect U.S. imperialism to give Russia a break. The author's instructional course has taken effect, or should have done so. If readers aren't aware of what the U. S. government has been up to, the author is not to blame.

Kovalik condemns the Obama administration and particularly Secretary of State Hilary Clinton for intensifying the U. S. campaign against Russia. He extends his criticism to the Democratic Party and the media. The theme of anti – Russian scheming by the CIA comes up briefly in the book in connection with hacking attributed to Russia and with WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic Party. Nothing is said about possible interaction between personnel of the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II."

Kovalik acknowledges "periods of great repression." He adds, however, that "the Russian Revolution and the USSR delivered on many of their promises, and against great odds. . In any case, the goals of the Russian Revolution-equality, worker control of the economy, universal health care and social security- were laudable ones." And, "One of the reasons that the West continues to dance on the grave of the Soviet Union, and to emphasize the worst parts of that society and downplay its achievements, is to make sure that, as the world-wide economy worsens, and as the suffering of work¬ing people around the world deepens, they don't get any notions in their head to organize some new socialist revolution with such ideals."

Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'"

Drew Hunkins on May 30, 2017

Dissects the dangerous nonsense

The most important non-fiction work thus far of 2017 is upon us. Finally the book has arrived that cuts through all the hype, deceit, misinformation and disconcerting groupthink.

Kovalik structures TPTSR by starting at the most logical place -- the history of unilateral Washington aggression across the globe, from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran through the Washington intell agencies' orchestrated coups and proxy wars in Latin America.

This exposition of historical Washington empire building provides a solid foundation when he ultimately addresses why the predatory military-industrial-media-complex is incessantly fomenting this dangerous contemporary Russophobic campaign. The book nails it by presenting in a crystal clear manner the two exact reasons why the demonization of Moscow never seems to subside: 1.) The corporate and Washington military empire builders are deeply threatened by the potential loss of certain markets and a sovereign Russia that desires a say over the diplomatic and military maneuvers on its borders, especially its Western region. 2.) Most importantly, the MIC/national-security state absolutely MUST HAVE a villain (real or imagined, it doesn't matter) in order to justify the trillion dollar budget and careerism that seeps into every pore of the U.S. politico-economic system. This Pentagon system of pseudo economic Keynesianism could potentially lead to nuclear war. The giant house of cards could doom us all.

D. Gordon on June 1, 2017

This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U

This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U.S. foreign policy, this book is part memoir, part history, and part analysis of current events. Kovalik makes a compelling case that U.S. policies--not Russia--are the biggest danger to world peace and human rights. The book traces Kovalik's own awakening and transformation from his conservative religious-minded youth to one of our most trenchant critics of U.S. foreign policy writing today. And he does it in his own inimitable, witty, readable, and humane style.

[Nov 08, 2017] More 'Fake News,' Alas, From the New York Times The American Conservative by Andrew J. Bacevich

Notable quotes:
"... Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own borders. ..."
"... In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that continues to this day." ..."
"... To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere prevail ..."
"... Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.) ..."
"... That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine to that sorry list. ..."
"... Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's? After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's sake. ..."
"... This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately ruinous. ..."
"... Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping voters in the dark. ..."
"... Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable. ..."
"... Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what direction they want to face in the future. ..."
"... So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters. ..."
"... Do not buy any major newspaper. Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year: fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news think what I said over and you will see ..."
"... All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of deregulations etc. ..."
"... Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well. ..."
"... If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors." So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized them) is wrong. Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more suitable answer than scapegoating. Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact. ..."
Nov 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates "fake news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New York Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.

I cherish the First Amendment. Mark me down as favoring journalism that is loud, lively, and confrontational. When members of the media snooze -- falling for fictitious claims about Saddam's WMD program or Gaddafi's genocidal intentions, for example -- we all lose.

So the recent decision by Times editors to publish an op-ed regarding Paul Manafort's involvement in Ukraine is disturbing. That the Times is keen to bring down Donald Trump is no doubt the case. Yet if efforts to do so entail grotesque distortions of U.S. policy before Trump, then we are courting real trouble. Put simply, ousting Trump should not come at the cost of whitewashing the follies that contributed to Trump's rise in the first place.

The offending Times op-ed, the handiwork of Evelyn N. Farkas, appears under the title "With Manafort, It Really Is About Russia, Not Ukraine." During the Obama administration, Farkas served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia, and Mess Kit Repair. Okay, I added that last bit, but it does seem like quite an expansive charter for a mere deputy assistant secretary.

The story Farkas tells goes like this.

First, from the moment it achieved independence in 1991, Ukraine was a divided nation, "torn between Western Europe and Russia." Ukrainians in the country's western precincts wanted to join the European Union and NATO. Those further to east "oriented themselves toward Russia, which exerted maximum influence to keep Ukraine closely aligned." In one camp were enlightened Ukrainians. In the other camp, the unenlightened.

Second, Manafort's involvement in this intra-Ukrainian dispute was -- shockingly -- never about "advanc[ing] the interests of democracy, Western Europe or the United States." Manafort's motives were strictly venal. In what Farkas describes as a "standoff between democracy and autocracy," he threw in with the autocrats, thereby raking in millions.

Third, Manafort's efforts mattered bigly. In 2010, he helped Victor F. Yanukovych become president of Ukraine. An unquestionably nasty piece of work, Yanukovych was, according to Farkas, "Putin's man in Kiev." Yet like it or not, he came to power as the result of democratic election. In 2013, Yanukovych opted against joining the EU, which along with NATO, had, in Farkas's words, "experienced a burst of membership expansion" right up to Russia's own borders.

In response to Yanukovych's action, "the Ukrainian people," that is, the enlightened ones, "took to the streets," forcing him to flee the country. Rather than bowing to the expressed will of the people, however, Russia's Vladimir Putin "instigated a separatist movement" in eastern Ukraine, thereby triggering "a war between Russia and Ukraine that continues to this day."

To accept Farkas's account as truthful, one would necessarily conclude that as Manafort was hijacking history, the United States remained quietly on the sidelines, an innocent bystander sending prayers heavenward in hopes that freedom and democracy might everywhere prevail .

Such was hardly the case, however. One need not be a Putin apologist to note that the United States was itself engaged in a program of instigation, one that ultimately induced a hostile -- but arguably defensive -- Russian response.

In the wake of the Cold War, the EU and NATO did not experience a "burst" of expansion, a formulation suggesting joyous spontaneity. Rather, with Washington's enthusiastic support, the West embarked upon a deliberate eastward march at the Kremlin's expense, an undertaking made possible by (and intended to exploit) Russia's weakened state. In football, it's called piling on.

That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic Republics, and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded.

That at some point a resentful Russia would push back was all but certain. Indeed, more than a few Western observers had warned against such a response.

The proposed incorporation of Ukraine into NATO brought matters to a head. For Putin, this was an unacceptable prospect. He acted as would any U.S. president contemplating the absorption of a near neighbor into hostile bloc of nations. Indeed, he acted much as had Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy when they assessed the implications of Cuba joining the Soviet bloc.

That doesn't justify or excuse Putin's meddling in Ukraine. Yet it suggests an explanation for Russian behavior other than the bitterness of an ex-KGB colonel still with his shorts in a knot over losing the Cold War. Russia has an obvious and compelling interest in who controls Ukraine, even if few in Washington or in the editorial offices of the New York Times will acknowledge that reality.

Furthermore, Russia was not alone in its meddling. The United States has been equally guilty. When "the Ukrainian people took to the streets," as Farkas puts it, the State Department and CIA were behind the scenes vigorously pulling strings. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland believed it was incumbent upon the United States to decide who should govern Ukraine. ("Yats is the guy," she said on a leaked call). Nuland would brook no interference from allies slow to follow Washington's lead. ("F–k the EU," she told the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.)

That Ukraine is, as Farkas correctly states, a torn country, did not give Nuland pause. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. policymakers have assigned to themselves a magical ability to repair such tears and to make broken countries whole. The results of their labors are amply on display everywhere from Somalia and Haiti to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Now add Ukraine to that sorry list.

Even so, can't we at least assume Nuland's motives were morally superior to Putin's? After all, President Putin is clearly a thug whereas Nuland is an estimable product of the American foreign policy establishment. She's married to Robert Kagan, for heaven's sake.

Persuade yourself that the United States is all about democracy promotion, as Farkas appears to believe, and the answer to that question is clearly yes. Alas, the record of American statecraft stretching over decades provides an abundance of contrary evidence. In practice, the United States supports democracy only when it finds it convenient to do so. Should circumstances require, it unhesitatingly befriends despots, especially rich ones that pay cash while purchasing American weaponry.

Yanukovych was Putin's man, "and therefore, indirectly, so was Mr. Manafort," Farkas concludes. All that now remains is to determine "the extent to which Mr. Manafort was Putin's man in Washington." For Farkas, the self-evident answer to that question cannot come too soon.

As to whether Russia -- or any other great power -- might have legitimate security interests that the United States would do well to respect, that's not a matter worth bothering about. Thus does the imperative of ousting Trump eclipse the need to confront the pretensions and the hubris that helped make Trump possible.

Andrew Bacevich is writer-at-large at The American Conservative

John Fargo , says: November 7, 2017 at 11:17 pm

This is why the term "fake news" is so harmful and should not be used by media outlets. The use of "bad journalism" would be much more useful as it forces the claimants to justify their reasons for doing so.
"Fake news" is just a dog whistle.
William Dalton , says: November 8, 2017 at 12:02 am
Has it not occurred to the foreign policy establishment in Washington that it is more in America's national interests for Ukraine to remain in Moscow's orbit, so as to strengthen U.S.-Russian relations, not exacerbate tensions, rather than to pull them into the EU, or, God forbid, NATO? Isn't this what any of the seasoned experts at Foggy Bottom would tell you? Why aren't they doing so?
Tiktaalik , says: November 8, 2017 at 2:49 am
Two comments in order

1) Yanukovich won in 2004 as well and the election results were hijacked by 'Maidan'

2) Yanukovich wasn't Putin man back in 2010. As a matter of fact, he and his party actively promoted EU integration deal, until they read its actual conditions. After that they backtracked and rushed to Putin for a support.

So it was classical case of sitting on two chairs simultaneously.

JonB , says: November 8, 2017 at 5:39 am
Completely agree with John Fargo. "Fake News" should be reserved for deliberate falsehoods published knowingly. This NYT op-ed amounts to "an interpretation of history Bacevich doesn't agree with." I may not agree with it either – but it's not like claiming that the Vegas shooter was anti-Trump, or creating a Facebook account for a non-existent person or organization.
Nolan , says: November 8, 2017 at 6:42 am
Mr Fargo: Disagree. "Bad journalism" implies the author is lazy yet innocent in their way. "Fake news" is more about narrative control and manipulation of the reader through reinvention or exaggeration, et cetera. Calling articles and outlets fake news is more accurate and levies much more weight against the lies and deceit than simply accusing someone or thing of bad journalism.
Christian Chuba , says: November 8, 2017 at 6:54 am
This is why we should disband politically oriented NGO's. In essence, a country is only a democracy if it is pro-U.S. Resistance is futile. Meddling at this level will only bring about more conflict, instability and military obligations will follow. It is good to be king but it is also quite expensive and ultimately ruinous.
Fran Macadam , says: November 8, 2017 at 7:30 am
If it were all about democracy promotion, they wouldn't also be so anxious to negate an election here at home. Imperialism rules other peoples against their will, necessitating for its survival the lessening of democratic accountability at home, too, since it lessens the importance of citizens' own concerns, also requiring for its warmaking security keeping voters in the dark.
SteveM , says: November 8, 2017 at 7:36 am
Re: "More 'Fake News,' Alas, From the New York Times"

Make that, More 'Fake News,' Of Course From the New York Times. Saturated with Fake News of various manifestations, the NY Times and its rancid analog Washington Post on the other end of the Crony-Elite NY-DC axis are unreadable.

Re: "That this project worked to the benefit of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, the Baltic Republics, and others is very much the case. On that score, it is to be applauded."

Given a ham-fisted EU run by Elite hacks in Brussels that is white washing Europe's Christian legacy, mandating overbearing economic and social controls and absorbing millions of net negative migrants, the Czechs, Poles, Hungarians and Balts seem to be having second thoughts. BTW, The Russians will not and do not want to invade those countries. As the EU spins out of control and the One Belt One Road initiative develops, Russia only needs to ask them what direction they want to face in the future.

Dee , says: November 8, 2017 at 8:08 am
How is it someone's "opinion" constitutes "fake News"? Trump did not win by policy issues, he rode the right-wing outrage at all things clinton/libtard better than anyone else. His policy positions were mostly promise everything to everyone, but his campaign was about Lock her up/ build the wall! After bashing Goldman Sachs during the election, once he won he promptly filled his cabinet with them and other mega donor types.
Mario Diana , says: November 8, 2017 at 9:30 am
@John Fargo – I'm in almost complete sympathy with Mr. Bacevich's essay, but you make an excellent point. "Bad journalism" is the better term. In fact, the only criticism I can make of your statement is that "dog whistle" is the wrong term. Everyone associates the term "fake news" with Donald Trump. (If it were possible, he no doubt would have trademarked it.) Using the term alienates the very people who need to hear criticisms like those in Mr. Bacevich's essay. They hear it, too; and upon hearing it, they stop listening.
Egypt Steve , says: November 8, 2017 at 11:34 am
Look, elite and non-elite self-delusion about the purity of U.S. motives abroad dates back to the Roosevelt administration at least -- and I mean the Teddy Roosevelt administration. I don't see how any of this amounts to a defense of charges of money-laundering against Manafort.
Janek , says: November 8, 2017 at 11:37 am
I disagree with John Fargo. The news that NYT, Washington Post, and other media outlets (not only liberal ) "produce" is the "Fake News". "Bad journalism" should be reserved and used in the sense Nolan explains. Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American politics in general is the problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues". American "right" is the camp of the white flag.
Tom , says: November 8, 2017 at 12:20 pm
The op-ed page is for opinion pieces of writing and that is what this was an opinion. It isn't fake news because it isn't news.
SteveM , says: November 8, 2017 at 12:43 pm
Re: Janek:

Besides the "Fake News" on the so called "left" in American politics in general is the problem of "double speak" and speaking with the "forked tongues". American "right" is the camp of the white flag.

I've mentioned the various "flavors" of Fake News before. There is (1) the obvious – what is claimed as true is actually false. But also (2), what is claimed as important, actually isn't. And (3) what is important, is weakly or not reported at all.

An example of Type 2 is the WaPost reporting on its front page before the 2016 that Jared Kushner may have been greased into the Harvard MBA program. As if Ivy League greasing by monied Elites is unheard of. How was that front page news? And how about the acceptances of Chelsea Clinton (Stanford) and Malia Obama (Harvard)?

The cases of Type 3 Fake News are much more egregious. For example, the reasoned arguments and analysis by retired American intelligence officers and academics that the Syrian forces "chemical weapon attack" in April was almost certainly a false flag with staged recovery activity.

The NY Times and WaPost have consistently refused to acknowledge that those arguments and analysis even exist.

The linking of Russia to the DNC email leaks as factual by the Times, Post and NPR without a scintilla of published hard evidence is another example.

There are many more examples of Type 3 Fake News that could be demonstrated. Much of what claims to be journalism by the MSM is now Fake News trash.

Siarlys Jenkins , says: November 8, 2017 at 1:09 pm
Disregarding President Trump's insistent claim that the establishment press propagates "fake news" requires a constant effort -- especially when a prestigious outlet like the New York Times allows itself to be used for blatantly fraudulent purposes.

I agree in principal, although I note that President Trump and his team are as guilty of fake news as anyone, and the president himself appears to be positively delusional. I might at times disagree with Bacevich as to which news is fake.

I would also agree that there has been a great deal of "fake news" out of Ukraine, and what is really going on their is a former SSR with a bitterly divided population that each has about equal numbers, proponderance in some territories compared to others, and equally opportunistic leadership showing no great commitment to anything recognizable as "democracy."

Fayez Abedaziz , says: November 8, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Say, can we refrain from using the word 'journalism' when we refer to the American media? We should.

The internet and sources overseas, such as the Independent News paper/site out of Britain, have news that is not purposely spun as is by the neo-con American news papers and magazines. Not as much, anyway. Several points here, for example of what bad news (pun intended) the joke of American media is:

1- quit calling the main stream media liberal or left. They are liberal in a 'social issues sense,' that is, to be politically correct.

2- So, having said that, on foreign policy they, all newspapers and the vast majority of magazines, are war-peddling neo-con supporters.

3-They have agendas. Do we not remember how they, at the new york times, peddled the war against Iraq and how, when you look at the editorial page you feel that these people and the guests opinion writers are soulless people that have no concern for America's 'flyover' country?

4- Yeah, isn't that ironic that these people look down on America's middle class, blue collar workers and yes, it's troops, by that constant bashing of nations here and there and pushing for aggressive stands or even military attacks? Let the people at the major newspapers like this n.y.times rag tell us when they served in the U.S. military or their when their offspring did or when they're gonna join and volunteer for combat duty. Never mind, I've got the answer-none of 'em.

Do not buy any major newspaper. Let them wither away and, it wasn't fake spun 'news' we have been getting only this year: fake agenda driven bull has been going on for decades. Go to the internet and overseas for news think what I said over and you will see

Janek , says: November 8, 2017 at 3:39 pm
@SteveM

Not everybody has the time to analyze the deluge of all the "Fake News" and categorize it into classes and/or sub-classes you or somebody else proposes. Where all that leads? Soon we will have new sociopolitical discipline and experts on "fake-newsology" that will introduce another layer of pseudo-information that will have to be translated to the uninitiated and unwashed.

All this social, economic and political mess is the result of deregulation in the economic, social, political spheres. The effects of those deregulations are now quite obvious in: economy, society, morality and politics that are already corrupted to the core, but the corruption is not stopping there, it is consuming everything else on its way. There is no end to it, and what is even more surprising is that people want even more of all kinds of deregulations etc.

Wouldn't it be more logical to bring back responsibility, moral standards and decency to politics, society and economy etc? What I now see in media is the total lack of any ideas on how to correct the obvious, but instead everybody is spinning his/her lies to make them more believable to the yet unconverted. This is pure relativism and sophistry and it destroys not only the USA, but the West as well.

nikbez

If an opinion piece in NYT or other MSM blatantly distorts the facts, then it belongs to the category of "fake news." Which should probably be called "malicious rumors."

So the defense of some commenters that you can blatantly lie in opinion pieces (the right NYT exercised to the full extent in this particular example and for which Bacevich criticized them) is wrong.

Anti-Russian witch hunt in NYT and other MSM destroys the credibility of the USA version of neoliberalism as well as the USA foreign policy. Along with Trump election, I view it as a symptom of the crisis of neoliberalism for which the US elite is unable to find a more suitable answer than scapegoating.

Also the fact that Nuland is married to neocon warmonger Kagan is a material fact.

[Nov 08, 2017] Can Putin Survive by George Friedman

It is interesting to access George Friedman after two and half years since it was made. Looks like he is a bad forcaster.
The Us plot to move Ukraine to the "Baltic states model" was the major geopolitical victory of the Obama administration. and the EU has similar goals, so we can talk about joint invasion into traditional Russian geopolitical space by the USA and EU.
Notable quotes:
"... This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent temporary absence from public view . While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing act persist. ..."
"... Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy. ..."
"... Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in 2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo. But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to the insult. ..."
"... Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. ..."
"... The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly, this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation, sending it the way of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The Ukrainian crisis has made things worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100 per barrel. ..."
"... The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him. ..."
"... Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be replaced. ..."
Mar 24, 2015 | Stratfor
Editor's Note: This week, we revisit a Geopolitical Weekly first published in July 2014 that explored whether Russian President Vladimir Putin could hold on to power despite his miscalculations in Ukraine, a topic that returned to prominence with his recent temporary absence from public view. While Putin has since reappeared, the issues highlighted by his disappearing act persist.

There is a general view that Vladimir Putin governs the Russian Federation as a dictator, that he has defeated and intimidated his opponents and that he has marshaled a powerful threat to surrounding countries. This is a reasonable view, but perhaps it should be re-evaluated in the context of recent events.

Ukraine and the Bid to Reverse Russia's Decline

Ukraine is, of course, the place to start. The country is vital to Russia as a buffer against the West and as a route for delivering energy to Europe, which is the foundation of the Russian economy. On Jan. 1, Ukraine's president was Viktor Yanukovich, generally regarded as favorably inclined to Russia. Given the complexity of Ukrainian society and politics, it would be unreasonable to say Ukraine under him was merely a Russian puppet. But it is fair to say that under Yanukovich and his supporters, fundamental Russian interests in Ukraine were secure.

This was extremely important to Putin. Part of the reason Putin had replaced Boris Yeltsin in 2000 was Yeltsin's performance during the Kosovo war. Russia was allied with the Serbs and had not wanted NATO to launch a war against Serbia. Russian wishes were disregarded. The Russian views simply didn't matter to the West. Still, when the air war failed to force Belgrade's capitulation, the Russians negotiated a settlement that allowed U.S. and other NATO troops to enter and administer Kosovo. As part of that settlement, Russian troops were promised a significant part in peacekeeping in Kosovo. But the Russians were never allowed to take up that role, and Yeltsin proved unable to respond to the insult.

Putin also replaced Yeltsin because of the disastrous state of the Russian economy. Though Russia had always been poor, there was a pervasive sense that it been a force to be reckoned with in international affairs. Under Yeltsin, however, Russia had become even poorer and was now held in contempt in international affairs. Putin had to deal with both issues. He took a long time before moving to recreate Russian power, though he said early on that the fall of the Soviet Union had been the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. This did not mean he wanted to resurrect the Soviet Union in its failed form, but rather that he wanted Russian power to be taken seriously again, and he wanted to protect and enhance Russian national interests.

The breaking point came in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution of 2004. Yanukovich was elected president that year under dubious circumstances, but demonstrators forced him to submit to a second election. He lost, and a pro-Western government took office. At that time, Putin accused the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies of having organized the demonstrations. Fairly publicly, this was the point when Putin became convinced that the West intended to destroy the Russian Federation, sending it the way of the Soviet Union. For him, Ukraine's importance to Russia was self-evident. He therefore believed that the CIA organized the demonstration to put Russia in a dangerous position, and that the only reason for this was the overarching desire to cripple or destroy Russia. Following the Kosovo affair, Putin publicly moved from suspicion to hostility to the West.

The Russians worked from 2004 to 2010 to undo the Orange Revolution. They worked to rebuild the Russian military, focus their intelligence apparatus and use whatever economic influence they had to reshape their relationship with Ukraine. If they couldn't control Ukraine, they did not want it to be controlled by the United States and Europe. This was, of course, not their only international interest, but it was the pivotal one.

Russia's invasion of Georgia had more to do with Ukraine than it had to do with the Caucasus. At the time, the United States was still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Washington had no formal obligation to Georgia, there were close ties and implicit guarantees. The invasion of Georgia was designed to do two things. The first was to show the region that the Russian military, which had been in shambles in 2000, was able to act decisively in 2008. The second was to demonstrate to the region, and particularly to Kiev, that American guarantees, explicit or implicit, had no value. In 2010, Yanukovich was elected president of Ukraine, reversing the Orange Revolution and limiting Western influence in the country.

Recognizing the rift that was developing with Russia and the general trend against the United States in the region, the Obama administration tried to recreate older models of relationships when Hillary Clinton presented Putin with a "reset" button in 2009. But Washington wanted to restore the relationship in place during what Putin regarded as the "bad old days." He naturally had no interest in such a reset. Instead, he saw the United States as having adopted a defensive posture, and he intended to exploit his advantage.

One place he did so was in Europe, using EU dependence on Russian energy to grow closer to the Continent, particularly Germany. But his high point came during the Syrian affair, when the Obama administration threatened airstrikes after Damascus used chemical weapons only to back off from its threat. The Russians aggressively opposed Obama's move, proposing a process of negotiations instead. The Russians emerged from the crisis appearing decisive and capable, the United States indecisive and feckless. Russian power accordingly appeared on the rise, and in spite of a weakening economy, this boosted Putin's standing.

The Tide Turns Against Putin

Events in Ukraine this year, by contrast, have proved devastating to Putin. In January, Russia dominated Ukraine. By February, Yanukovich had fled the country and a pro-Western government had taken power. The general uprising against Kiev that Putin had been expecting in eastern Ukraine after Yanukovich's ouster never happened. Meanwhile, the Kiev government, with Western advisers, implanted itself more firmly. By July, the Russians controlled only small parts of Ukraine. These included Crimea, where the Russians had always held overwhelming military force by virtue of treaty, and a triangle of territory from Donetsk to Luhansk to Severodonetsk, where a small number of insurgents apparently supported by Russian special operations forces controlled a dozen or so towns.

If no Ukrainian uprising occurred, Putin's strategy was to allow the government in Kiev to unravel of its own accord and to split the United States from Europe by exploiting Russia's strong trade and energy ties with the Continent. And this is where the crash of the Malaysia Airlines jet is crucial. If it turns out - as appears to be the case - that Russia supplied air defense systems to the separatists and sent crews to man them (since operating those systems requires extensive training), Russia could be held responsible for shooting down the plane. And this means Moscow's ability to divide the Europeans from the Americans would decline. Putin then moves from being an effective, sophisticated ruler who ruthlessly uses power to being a dangerous incompetent supporting a hopeless insurrection with wholly inappropriate weapons. And the West, no matter how opposed some countries might be to a split with Putin, must come to grips with how effective and rational he really is.

Meanwhile, Putin must consider the fate of his predecessors. Nikita Khrushchev returned from vacation in October 1964 to find himself replaced by his protege, Leonid Brezhnev, and facing charges of, among other things, "harebrained scheming." Khrushchev had recently been humiliated in the Cuban missile crisis. This plus his failure to move the economy forward after about a decade in power saw his closest colleagues "retire" him. A massive setback in foreign affairs and economic failures had resulted in an apparently unassailable figure being deposed.

Russia's economic situation is nowhere near as catastrophic as it was under Khrushchev or Yeltsin, but it has deteriorated substantially recently, and perhaps more important, has failed to meet expectations. After recovering from the 2008 crisis, Russia has seen several years of declining gross domestic product growth rates, and its central bank is forecasting zero growth this year. Given current pressures, we would guess the Russian economy will slide into recession sometime in 2014. The debt levels of regional governments have doubled in the past four years, and several regions are close to bankruptcy. Moreover, some metals and mining firms are facing bankruptcy. The Ukrainian crisis has made things worse. Capital flight from Russia in the first six months stood at $76 billion, compared to $63 billion for all of 2013. Foreign direct investment fell 50 percent in the first half of 2014 compared to the same period in 2013. And all this happened in spite of oil prices remaining higher than $100 per barrel.

Putin's popularity at home soared after the successful Sochi Winter Olympics and after the Western media made him look like the aggressor in Crimea. He has, after all, built his reputation on being tough and aggressive. But as the reality of the situation in Ukraine becomes more obvious, the great victory will be seen as covering a retreat coming at a time of serious economic problems. For many leaders, the events in Ukraine would not represent such an immense challenge. But Putin has built his image on a tough foreign policy, and the economy meant his ratings were not very high before Ukraine.

Imagining Russia After Putin

In the sort of regime that Putin has helped craft, the democratic process may not be the key to understanding what will happen next. Putin has restored Soviet elements to the structure of the government, even using the term "Politburo" for his inner Cabinets. These are all men of his choosing, of course, and so one might assume they would be loyal to him. But in the Soviet-style Politburo, close colleagues were frequently the most feared.

The Politburo model is designed for a leader to build coalitions among factions. Putin has been very good at doing that, but then he has been very successful at all the things he has done until now. His ability to hold things together declines as trust in his abilities declines and various factions concerned about the consequences of remaining closely tied to a failing leader start to maneuver. Like Khrushchev, who was failing in economic and foreign policy, Putin could have his colleagues remove him.

It is difficult to know how a succession crisis would play out, given that the constitutional process of succession exists alongside the informal government Putin has created. From a democratic standpoint, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin are as popular as Putin is, and I suspect they both will become more popular in time. In a Soviet-style struggle, Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov and Security Council Chief Nicolai Patryushev would be possible contenders. But there are others. Who, after all, expected the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev?

Ultimately, politicians who miscalculate and mismanage tend not to survive. Putin miscalculated in Ukraine, failing to anticipate the fall of an ally, failing to respond effectively and then stumbling badly in trying to recoup. His management of the economy has not been exemplary of late either, to say the least. He has colleagues who believe they could do a better job, and now there are important people in Europe who would be glad to see him go. He must reverse this tide rapidly, or he may be replaced.

Putin is far from finished. But he has governed for 14 years counting the time Dmitri Medvedev was officially in charge, and that is a long time. He may well regain his footing, but as things stand at the moment, I would expect quiet thoughts to be stirring in his colleagues' minds. Putin himself must be re-examining his options daily. Retreating in the face of the West and accepting the status quo in Ukraine would be difficult, given that the Kosovo issue that helped propel him to power and given what he has said about Ukraine over the years. But the current situation cannot sustain itself. The wild card in this situation is that if Putin finds himself in serious political trouble, he might become more rather than less aggressive. Whether Putin is in real trouble is not something I can be certain of, but too many things have gone wrong for him lately for me not to consider the possibility. And as in any political crisis, more and more extreme options are contemplated if the situation deteriorates.

Those who think that Putin is both the most repressive and aggressive Russian leader imaginable should bear in mind that this is far from the case. Lenin, for example, was fearsome. But Stalin was much worse. There may similarly come a time when the world looks at the Putin era as a time of liberality. For if the struggle by Putin to survive, and by his challengers to displace him, becomes more intense, the willingness of all to become more brutal might well increase.

[Nov 08, 2017] Russias Line in the Sand on Syria by Dmitri Trenin

This is from 2012 -- fives year from now.
Notable quotes:
"... That cannot be further from the truth, the western public is unsure and ambivalent about the situation in Syria, The West has no choice but to give lip service to the Syrian opposition, that too is a sure bet -- the lip service that is -- the Arab street is divided over the issue, and the conservative Gulf regimes for their own reasons -- are tacitly working and hoping for calm to return to Syria soon. They are very aware of the ramifications of any escalation or a protracted conflict there on their own national interests. ..."
"... While the existence of sectarian sentiments, even passions is undeniable in the Middle East, their characterization however is often overblown and misleading. For example, during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's a substantial segment of Iraqi Shiites- especially the educated, influential and affluent strata of society -- sided with the perceived Sunni dominated Saddam regime against Shiite Iran; that support for the regime even increased during the first Iraq war, it started waning -- like support among other Iraqis -- in the aftermath of that war. ..."
"... Secular Sunni power within the regime and within the country has been steadily on the rise for over a generation, and the majority of Sunnis does not see the need to fix what is not broken and what time will take care of in a peaceful and evolutionary manner. "A Sunni majority that feels oppressed" is not a true statement and is a gross mis-characterization of the situation in Syria. That is where the author and I disagree. ..."
"... Conditions and expectations in Syria now are NOT unlike conditions and expectations in the USSR during the Second World WAR! ..."
"... US might is depending on oil being traded in US$. ..."
"... The article starts from the strange assumption that Russia's foreign policy is motivated by cold Machiavellian motives while the US is motivated by sublime humanitarian motives. I believe the opposite could be argued with better arguments. ..."
"... Only a psychopath would argue that a mandate to protect Libyan civilians means a license to murder as much Gadaffi soldiers a you like. Yet that is how the West de facto explained its mandate. As if these soldiers didn't have civilian parents, wives and children... In the end we left Libya with 30,000 dead: much more than even the most pessimist had expected Gadaffi to kill. ..."
"... It is not true that the opposition in Syria does not want to negotiate with Assad. The fact is that just as in Libya we have composed our own opposition whereby we have selected those who don't want to negotiate. In fact the SNC has hardly any support among the protesters inside Syria and it is dominated by revengeful Brotherhood exiles who fled Syria after Assad sr. had squashed their murder campaign against his regime in the 1980s. In fact there was an attempt to negotiate between Assad and the internal opposition in Damascus. The reaction of the US ambassador was to sabotage it by going to Hama shortly before the talks and making there some radical statements. ..."
"... In a few years hence we all will be reading about the failure of a Syrian uprising with a valid cause that enjoyed considerable public support. ..."
"... One major reason will stand out: American open support that intuitively deprived it of many potential Syrian and Arab supporters and unveiled it as the conscious or unconscious open door to Syria for the USA &Co i.e. the EU and Israel and politically brought back Russia as an active major regional player to counter American presence and influence . ..."
"... I think that there is a huge danger of creating a new nuclear superpower in the middle east lead by an Iran-Turkey-Egypt-Pakistan axis, which will replace the States and finally cut them off from Eurasia. ..."
"... If the rest of the regimes were brought down, who can be sure that a similar thing could not happen in Saudi Arabia, even if the states never supported such a thing, because of similar reasons like the Russians still support Assad, neighbor countries' intelligence could efficiently support such an effort. ..."
"... My opinion in short way USA and Israel want attack Iran but because Syria is so close Jewish is a real dangers that they take revenge as Iran will be in a trouble. So is typical dirty game American and Israel politics? They not look after people from Syria because a moral principles. ..."
"... Events in SYRIA are NOT part of the Arab Spring as earlier conceived , conceptualized and supported by the Arab masses. Though clearly an intifada with considerable public support against an indisputably despotic sectarian and corrupt regime they are, never the less, part of an attempted come back by the USA to the crux of the Middle East in Syria. ..."
"... As a USA inspired, Saudi financed and Israel supported the Syrian intifada does not qualify being substantially an America conceived design and coordinated, Saudi financed and Qatar fronted effort targeting the Iran/Syria/Hizb Allah and Palestinian armed resistance common front against Israel and the USA. ..."
Feb 05, 2012 | Foreign Affairs

Nick C. (Feb. 15, 2011)

The author is certainly an expert on Russia, and he writes a brilliant article illustrating the history of the Soviet-Russian Syrian ties, and the reasons for the current Russian support for the regime in Syria; and I agree with him on all what he writes on these subjects; it is on his assessments on the situation in other spots where we disagree.

He writes: " Russia is not blameless: It lost too much time watching others and then criticizing them without shaping an active role for itself. Late last month, Moscow invited the Syrian government and the opposition for talks. This move came much too late. The opposition wants to hang Assad, not negotiate with him. Perhaps last year the response might have been different."

Well, I am glad he used the word "might" towards the end. Let me assure him the Syrian opposition would not have accepted Russia's invitation for negotiations with the regime then, just as it rejects it now; but the timing of the proposal was- to the contrary of what the author writes- actually perfect, because though the opposition would not in the past negotiate with the regime, and will not do it now; they might be inclined to do so in the future, under either Russian or Arab auspices; once they realize it is the only option left for them after they exhaust whatever remaining illusions they have about toppling the regime through a combination of protests and armed insurgency, plus whatever naive drum beating tactics and fabrications- that have become so obvious- they are using through the media . So, I would say the move was actually a master stroke for Russian diplomacy.

Then he writes: "And now it (meaning Russia) has maneuvered itself into a position in which it must bet on Assad's survival to protect its interests. Moscow needs to learn that saying no is not good enough and that in global politics timing is everything."

He and his country are both right, true, Russia has maneuvered itself into a position in which it must bet on Assad's survival to protect its interests, and that is a sure bet; and Moscow knows very well that saying no is not good enough, that is why she is doing much more. It was so necessary for Russia to say no, it also behooves us in the West as well as Turkey and Arab players to help the opposition by making sure they understand international realities. The West, Turkey and the Arabs, in addition to what they are doing -- which is politically understandable -- must help guide the opposition towards negotiations and compromise. The veto presents a reality check to the opposition and offers an opportunity for the West, Turkey and the Arabs to help coax the opposition into a pragmatic and responsible attitude. Russia also understands that in global politics timing is everything, and she is playing this card perfectly.

Then the author writes: "Over the last year, Russia has faced the simultaneous opprobrium of the Western public, the Arab street, and the conservative Gulf regimes"

That cannot be further from the truth, the western public is unsure and ambivalent about the situation in Syria, The West has no choice but to give lip service to the Syrian opposition, that too is a sure bet -- the lip service that is -- the Arab street is divided over the issue, and the conservative Gulf regimes for their own reasons -- are tacitly working and hoping for calm to return to Syria soon. They are very aware of the ramifications of any escalation or a protracted conflict there on their own national interests.

Let me add that I also believe the Syrian revolt is not a conspiracy. It started and continues by Syrian decisions; it however would not have been this intense had it not been for the interference of others. I just wish the Syrian protesters as well as the armed groups including defectors realize they are misguided and they lack political horizon, and the world knows that, and the world is waiting for them to understand they stand alone, and they are predestined to lose until they become pragmatic, and they need to comprehend that you do not get what you want by simply asking for it, or by blindly pursuing it. You need to make sure not to be reckless and not to jeopardize so much.

Now let me list some additional points on which the author and I disagree, Russia understands these points very well.

While the existence of sectarian sentiments, even passions is undeniable in the Middle East, their characterization however is often overblown and misleading. For example, during the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's a substantial segment of Iraqi Shiites- especially the educated, influential and affluent strata of society -- sided with the perceived Sunni dominated Saddam regime against Shiite Iran; that support for the regime even increased during the first Iraq war, it started waning -- like support among other Iraqis -- in the aftermath of that war. It must also be noted that Iraqi Shiites were split over the Shiite revolt that ensued that war, and many Iraqi Shiites then strongly urged Saddam to put a quick and decisive end to it. During the second Iraq war the regime still had respectable support in the Shiite community in Iraq; some even fought coalition forces as volunteers during their advance into the country. It was in the environment after the regime fell, that sectarian divisions and passions started intensifying in Iraq and the region.

Now before I delve into the current Syrian situation, I would like to say the author chose his words very carefully when describing the situation there, he writes: "Iran, Syria's ally, is already being drawn into the fray, with the Assad regime's Alawite core coming under attack from mainly Sunni opposition. Syria is Bahrain in reverse -- a Sunni majority that feels oppressed by a relatively small sect that many believe is closer to the Shiites."

While it is true that some Alawites are a powerful component of the core of the Syrian regime, elements of other minorities, as well as Sunnis compliment the rest of the powerful core components of the regime. Also, Iran's entry into the fray is not predicated on sectarian lines; add to that the fact that while the opposition is mainly Sunni, the majority of Sunnis still, support the regime over the mainly Sunni opposition. So far, there is no contradiction in what the author and I write on the issue, he simply chooses his words carefully and leaves out some important details, while I bring these details back to the picture. Also while there is no disagreement the majority in Syria is Sunni and true many Sunnis are apprehensive about the perceived inordinate power of the Alawites in the country, the majority of Sunnis, let alone the whole Sunni majority, does not feel oppressed. Secular Sunni power within the regime and within the country has been steadily on the rise for over a generation, and the majority of Sunnis does not see the need to fix what is not broken and what time will take care of in a peaceful and evolutionary manner. "A Sunni majority that feels oppressed" is not a true statement and is a gross mis-characterization of the situation in Syria. That is where the author and I disagree.

It must be noted that - regardless of recent events -- secularism runs deep both in Iraq and in Syria, and both countries will become more secular in the future; same applies to Jordan, the Palestinians and Lebanon -- despite its current confessional political system. Add to the list the obvious secular nations of Israel and Turkey, it then becomes clear that betting on an Islamist movement in Syria- especially one that is so extremist and so different from other Islamist movements- is a losing proposition.

On a different subject, the author recounts the events of the1973 war between Israel on the one side and Egypt and Syria on the other. He writes: "Beginning in 1973, after Egypt's disastrous defeat in the war against Israel and Sadat's embrace of U.S. mediation"

Well, it is for certain that Egypt did not lose that war, let alone disastrously. By most expert accounts, including by Egyptian and Israeli generals in that war, it was militarily a close draw and politically a victory for Egypt, some even saw it as a narrow military victory for Egypt- let us not forget that the Camp David Accords came afterwards where Israel ceded the Sinai peninsula to Egypt though with Egypt signing a peace treaty with Israel.

He then writes: "In 1972, preparing for his political break with Moscow, Sadat sent home 20,000 Soviet military advisers and their dependents" True, he did, in part to exhibit self-confidence at military capability for his country, and in part to pressure the Soviets into helping him build the military he used to mount the war -- the soviets did not believe he could mount a war, let alone win one against Israel; especially only six years after the truly disastrous -- for Egypt -- six day war.

It was not until the last days of the 1973 war that Sadat -- watching the massive American military support for Israel in terms of Armament, munitions, and logistics; and after talking to both the Americans and the Soviets -- decided to break with Moscow.

Gerry Tighe

Once you understand that 9/11 was an inside job, suddenly all the USA actions make sense. Just give it a try and suppose it is true, you will see what I mean.

Gerry Tighe

What a joke -- You pretend to understand the in depth world politics, but you are either disengenguous or pushing the usual western media mind control propaganda. Do you really believe this? Surely you are intelligent enough to work out the real game for the world.

Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009)

Conditions and expectations in Syria now are NOT unlike conditions and expectations in the USSR during the Second World WAR!

Each was/is living under the horrible yoke of a certain regime BUT faced with a much uglier prospect in case of change: the Nazi alternative for the Soviet Union and the USA/Gulf petroldom for Syria!

It is not only that the Syrian people intuitively and consciously rejects USA neo imperialist cum USA-Israeli alliance "New Middle East" vision of a new Syria but that events and outpourings of the Iraqi change, achieved through a similar alignment of external, regional and internal forces , are still too fresh in every body's mind to ignore.
Which throws everything and all back to the USA perennial regional dilemma of attempting to influence events and gain friends in the Middle while maintaining its strategic relations with and all out support of Israel.

The recent collapse of the Sadat/Mubarak regime in Egypt underscored the impossibility of that vision and the utter non feasibility of such a dual USA role in the region.

Valdi V. (Feb. 12, 2012)

Since Iraq war in 2003 the US has lost credibility. US might is depending on oil being traded in US$. Without it, the demand for the US currency would correspond only to the products it can manufacture.

It could not afford an army bigger than the rest of the world, thousands military bases worldwide, and its population being just 6% of the world population couldn't afford to consume 40% of world production.

For many years the West kept the dictators in oil producing countries in ruling positions to get the oil cheap and without resistance. It is fully responsible for the underdevelopment of the middle east.

When finally the Arabs in Tunesia have woken up, it was a surprise for the US, who was scared to death to loose its main provider for power - Saudi Arabia. As explained, without the connection of oil versus US$, US will become to a normal country, which will struggle as everybody else.

Thats why the Iraq war started, since Saddam Hussein started to trade oil for Euro. The very first administrative order after occupying Iraq was to change the trade to US$. Russia and China are the only powers who can stop US from becoming an unchallenged dictator of the world.

That's why the thief Chodorkovsky was more important in Russia, than millions of oppressed in Middle East, in Saudia Arabia, or in Bahrain. That's why US went 10000 miles to war to free the Kuwait dictator in the first Iraq war in 1991. In order to prevent the Tunesian revolt to jump over to Saudi Arabia, US scarified Mubarak, Libya, now Syria, and simultaneously violently silenced the protests in Bahrein,

Russua wouldn't mind, but since the US administration is pushing forward with it's rocket defense in Europe in encircling Russia, it has woken up the Russian bear. The Russians see the real threat of the shield, which is not defensive, but aggressive! It would allow to neutralize the nuclear response in case of a surpise attack from USA. Will not happen with Russia - US will chop of it's teeth on Russia, as Hitler did.

And yes, Russians drink vodka, are corrupt, and have not the nicest products - and still, they have rescued the world from Hitler and freed the whole Europe, which allowed Hitler to rape its population, with help of US corporations under full knowledge of US government. The West civilization is blinded by US media, and if it doesn't learn the lessons of history, there will be WWIII. It will come sudden, on a nice day, one like June 22 1941. Best.

Wim R. (Oct. 20, 2011)

The article starts from the strange assumption that Russia's foreign policy is motivated by cold Machiavellian motives while the US is motivated by sublime humanitarian motives. I believe the opposite could be argued with better arguments.

The basic principle of international law is non-interference in each other's affairs. Recently this principle has been nuanced by the "Responsibility to protect" argument but it stays the basic principle.

So when the UN gave a mandate for the protection of civilians in Libya this was with the implicit assumption that it would be done in a way that restricted the violation of the principle of non-interference to a minimum. The road was clear: make just enough pressure on Gadaffi that he doesn't conquer Benghazi and get instead a negotiated surrender where the rebels get amnesty. One might also aim for some political reform with more freedom and representation but that certainly was the limit. Instead the US refused all negotiations and went for a military conquest with one goal: total victory.

Only a psychopath would argue that a mandate to protect Libyan civilians means a license to murder as much Gadaffi soldiers a you like. Yet that is how the West de facto explained its mandate. As if these soldiers didn't have civilian parents, wives and children... In the end we left Libya with 30,000 dead: much more than even the most pessimist had expected Gadaffi to kill.

Russia was not alone in condemning this reasoning. China vetoed the Syria resolution too. India supported it only after all language aimed at facilitating a foreign intervention had been removed. Most of the rest of the world supports this line of reasoning. So the "West" is rather isolated in this. We still get a lot of votes from the South for our resolutions in this but that is more thanks to diplomatic pressure - sometimes open blackmail - than to them sharing our convictions.

With the present anarchy the faults of the Western approach in Libya become clearer and clearer. Yet Obama and the other Western leaders refuse to learn from their mistakes and pursue the same strategy in Syria.

It is not true that the opposition in Syria does not want to negotiate with Assad. The fact is that just as in Libya we have composed our own opposition whereby we have selected those who don't want to negotiate. In fact the SNC has hardly any support among the protesters inside Syria and it is dominated by revengeful Brotherhood exiles who fled Syria after Assad sr. had squashed their murder campaign against his regime in the 1980s. In fact there was an attempt to negotiate between Assad and the internal opposition in Damascus. The reaction of the US ambassador was to sabotage it by going to Hama shortly before the talks and making there some radical statements.

It is strange that hardly a Western newspaper pays attention to the reasons why the Russians vetoed the Syria resolution. Their wish to put more effort in negotiations and to ask the armed opposition too to stop with violence are far from outrageous. In fact every textbook on conflict resolution recommends such actions.

Aly-Khan S. (Mar. 28, 2009)

Given the Historical Relationship and the fact that Tartus represents the only Russian Asset in the Meditarranean, the Russian Veto is completely understood as a cold blooded Realpolitik Calculation.

Furthermore, it is now clear that it is the Counter Revolution which is in charge and therefore, Realpolitik Calculations surely trump any shattered Dreams about Greater Democracy and an Arab Spring.

Both China and Russia must be looking at the numbers and thinking that there but for the Grace of God, we too might find ourselves and we would not want held to this Threshold Level.

Aly-Khan Satchu
http://www.rich.co.ke
Nairobi

Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009)

In a few years hence we all will be reading about the failure of a Syrian uprising with a valid cause that enjoyed considerable public support.

One major reason will stand out: American open support that intuitively deprived it of many potential Syrian and Arab supporters and unveiled it as the conscious or unconscious open door to Syria for the USA &Co i.e. the EU and Israel and politically brought back Russia as an active major regional player to counter American presence and influence .

ALEXANDROS S. (Jan. 9, 2012)

The article is pretty much correct in my opinion, Syria seems to be the last Russian outpost in the middle east. Well it is obvious that the Americans don't want Assad any more and they are doing anything to bring him down, is there a plan though? I mean does the US government have actually a plan of replacing this government or do they just leave this work to the Turks and Muslim brotherhood?

It seems like the US trusts these two players blindly. The past has shown that this kind of blind trust to other similar movements was wrong, Hamas is the best example. I am not quite sure if the US government has foreseen the emerging player of the middle east and this is no-one else than the middle east itself, under the guidance of the master mason, Turkey. I think that there is a huge danger of creating a new nuclear superpower in the middle east lead by an Iran-Turkey-Egypt-Pakistan axis, which will replace the States and finally cut them off from Eurasia.

People might think that i am exaggerating, that Egypt does not have a stable government that is difficult for these countries to agree, that there is Israel, Saudi Arabia and the emirates. Well these countries have a very strong bond, religion, and in Muslim countries this is a huge factor. If the rest of the regimes were brought down, who can be sure that a similar thing could not happen in Saudi Arabia, even if the states never supported such a thing, because of similar reasons like the Russians still support Assad, neighbor countries' intelligence could efficiently support such an effort.

Then it would be very difficult for Israel to stand on its own, even if in the past managed to do show, this kind of conflict would be very hard. Assad is a dictator and is hostile towards Israel and US, but perhaps he is the least bad thing right now. Of course the civil war is a curse to any nation, but if there is a change to happen, then it should be in a really democratic way and not in a way similar to the existing "democracies" of the Middle East. I know that my point of view might sound cynic or even a bit of difficult to happen, but i honestly believe that there are no humanitarian motives in current politics, unfortunately, and that my scenario is very possible.

Guest (Jan. 11, 2012)

My opinion in short way USA and Israel want attack Iran but because Syria is so close Jewish is a real dangers that they take revenge as Iran will be in a trouble. So is typical dirty game American and Israel politics? They not look after people from Syria because a moral principles.

Omar N. (Mar. 20, 2009) • 3 years ago

Events in SYRIA are NOT part of the Arab Spring as earlier conceived , conceptualized and supported by the Arab masses. Though clearly an intifada with considerable public support against an indisputably despotic sectarian and corrupt regime they are, never the less, part of an attempted come back by the USA to the crux of the Middle East in Syria.

As a USA inspired, Saudi financed and Israel supported the Syrian intifada does not qualify being substantially an America conceived design and coordinated, Saudi financed and Qatar fronted effort targeting the Iran/Syria/Hizb Allah and Palestinian armed resistance common front against Israel and the USA.

The Arab Spring had at inception a fundamental common platform that brought together the hitherto wary movements and uneasy relations of the Islamists, the Nationalists and the Progressives together in a joint anti despotism, anti corruption, anti Israel and anti USA alliance.

Events in Syria seem to have removed the Islamist corner stone of the said alliance!

An interesting development it had given birth to is the inescapable tacit alliance it has forged and brought to the forefront of the USA &Co and the Islamist major movement: the Moslem Brotherhood.

Its implications for the rank and file of the Islamist movements, hitherto die hard anti Israel and anti USA ,remains to be seen and may well lead to public disenchantment with the Moslem Brotherhood in particular and Islamist movements in general.

[Nov 08, 2017] The Trump Administration's Contempt for Diplomacy

Nov 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

SteveM , says: November 8, 2017 at 11:21 am

When you have a Global Cop War Machine hammer and surround yourself with a Pentagon/Security State steering committee advising you to use it, everything else is a nail. I have to admit, Trump is even a much smaller man than I imagined him to be at his worst.

Belligerent global power projection is currently unaffordable and quickly becoming obsolete. While China is eating America's lunch with it's productive foreign aid and investments that do not involve killing, destroying and intimidation.

Neither of which Trump comprehends. And of his in-house Neocon minions ("my generals"), it goes without saying

SDS , says: November 8, 2017 at 11:53 am
"and the American diplomatic core is down to Nikki Haley screaming into a phone in some basement office of the Pentagon"

That would be hilarious if it weren't so prophetic

rayray , says: November 8, 2017 at 1:13 pm
Every time a diplomat works to reduce tensions, build relationships, avoid conflict, this is literally taking money and opportunity out of the pockets of the Military/Industrial complex.

Trump, being ironically a terrible negotiator and, as @SDS notes above, has never had the temperament, intelligence, or empathy to be much more than a bully, is the perfect tool for the military/industrial complex.

[Nov 08, 2017] Fidel Castro understood that, but his error was thinking he could inculcate community and ethics by decree (and if necessary force)

Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps men and women who enter into service in a national military or intelligence agency should be required to sign a life-time oath NOT to accept employment in any investigative or paramilitary outfit in the private sector, enforceable by a life prison sentence? ..."
"... The two are by and large antithetical. Now the weakness of socialism, to date, is that without a sense of community and ethics, it looks an awful lot like monopoly capitalism. Fidel Castro understood that, but his error was thinking he could inculcate community and ethics by decree (and if necessary force). ..."
"... It seems that Castro, the revolution, the history of colonialism, the unremitting hostility of American imperialism and the violence, greed and hatred of the Old Guard of the Cuban exile community has in fact succeeded in inculcating community and ethics in the people of Cuba. And on that happy note, here's another one: ..."
"... Happy 100th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, comrades and friends! October 25, 1917 (Julian calendar) to November 7, 2017 (Gregorian calendar). ..."
Nov 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Siarlys Jenkins , , November 7, 2017 at 10:43 am

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

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

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

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

cka2nd , , November 7, 2017 at 4:25 pm
Siarlys Jenkins "Fidel Castro understood that, but his error was thinking he could inculcate community and ethics by decree (and if necessary force)."

And yet, Siarlys, to paraphrase one dissident who recently ran in a Cuban election and lost, "The election was free and fair, but the people are still with the revolution."

It seems that Castro, the revolution, the history of colonialism, the unremitting hostility of American imperialism and the violence, greed and hatred of the Old Guard of the Cuban exile community has in fact succeeded in inculcating community and ethics in the people of Cuba. And on that happy note, here's another one:

Happy 100th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution, comrades and friends! October 25, 1917 (Julian calendar) to November 7, 2017 (Gregorian calendar).

[Nov 08, 2017] On the Centenary of the October Revolution

Wile weakness of Provisional government was evident, still it was a coup d'état by a small number of "professional revolutionaries", kind of prototype of subsequent color revolutions. German military partially financed the coupe and shipped organizers from Germany.
Notable quotes:
"... Lenin's return to Russia on April 16 led to a dramatic change in the orientation of the Bolshevik Party. In opposition to the allies of the Provisional Government in the Petrograd Soviet, as well as a substantial faction of the Bolshevik leadership, Lenin called for the transfer of power to the soviets. The basis of this revolutionary demand, which stunned not only the Mensheviks but also most of Lenin's comrades in the Bolshevik leadership, was a profoundly different conception of the historical significance of the Russian Revolution. ..."
Nov 08, 2017 | www.wsws.org

Lenin's return to Russia on April 16 led to a dramatic change in the orientation of the Bolshevik Party. In opposition to the allies of the Provisional Government in the Petrograd Soviet, as well as a substantial faction of the Bolshevik leadership, Lenin called for the transfer of power to the soviets. The basis of this revolutionary demand, which stunned not only the Mensheviks but also most of Lenin's comrades in the Bolshevik leadership, was a profoundly different conception of the historical significance of the Russian Revolution. Prior to Lenin's return from exile in April 1917, the main Bolshevik leaders in Petrograd -- Lev Kamenev and Joseph Stalin -- had accepted the Menshevik subordination of the working-class soviet (council) to the Provisional Government. Flowing from this, Kamenev and Stalin accepted the Menshevik argument that, with the overthrow of the tsarist regime, Russia's participation in the imperialist war had been transformed into a democratic struggle against autocratic Germany, which should be supported by the working class. The blatantly imperialist interests of the Russian bourgeoisie were sugarcoated with hypocritical phrases about a "democratic peace."

Lenin's return to Russia on April 16 led to a dramatic change in the orientation of the Bolshevik Party. In opposition to the allies of the Provisional Government in the Petrograd Soviet, as well as a substantial faction of the Bolshevik leadership, Lenin called for the transfer of power to the soviets. The basis of this revolutionary demand, which stunned not only the Mensheviks but also most of Lenin's comrades in the Bolshevik leadership, was a profoundly different conception of the historical significance of the Russian Revolution.

[Nov 08, 2017] The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin by Dan Kovalik

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II." ..."
"... Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'" ..."
Jun 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com

Review " A powerful contradiction to the present US narrative of the world . . . As shown here, fake news is thriving in Washington, DC."-- Oliver Stone , Academy Award winning director and screenwriter

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia is a beautifully written, uncommonly coherent, and very compelling treatise on the issues facing America today... a troubling indictment of where we've been and where we're headed. Moreover, this book is profoundly important , and a timely retrospective review of American foreign policy misadventures since the advent of the Cold War." -- Phillip F. Nelson , author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination and LBJ: From Mastermind to "The Colossus"

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia underscores how the CIA's infiltration and shaping of the media, which began in the 1950s, successfully continues today. A very worthwhile account for anyone who wants to understand how 'reality' is manufactured, while 'real truth' is murdered and buried." -- Peter Janney , author of Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace

"At a time when the U.S. military budget is again soaring to enrich the oligarchs, this timely and thought-provoking book turns Orwellian 'double-think' on its head in a cogent analysis of what's really behind all the saber-rattling against Russia. In a scholarly but also deeply personal and fluidly written work , Dan Kovalik pulls no punches in dissecting the history of how America has justified its own imperialistic aims through the Cold War era and right up to the current anti-Putin hysteria." -- Dick Russell , New York Times bestselling author of Horsemen of the Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth and What It Means to Our Children

" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia confronts the timeliest of subjects, the effort to resuscitate the Cold War by blaming Russian president Vladimir Putin for interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump, an effort pursued by CIA and the Democratic Party working in tandem. Kovalik establishes... that not a scintilla of evidence has emerged to grant credibility to this self-serving fantasy... [and he] deftly eviscerates the mainstream press . Reading [this book] will be salutary, illuminating and more than instructive ." -- Joan Mellen , author of Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture of Texas

William T. Whitney Jr on May 28, 2017

Review of "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia"

Beating up on Russia; history tells why
By William T. Whitney Jr. .

Lawyer and human rights activist Dan Kovalik has written a valuable book. He looked at a recent U. S. political development in terms of history and then skewered it. His new book, "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia," looks at mounting assaults against Russia that increased during the Obama administration and that spokespersons for the Democratic Party, among others, are promoting.

The CIA, he claims, without going into specifics, is engaged in anti-Russian activities. For Kovalik, "the CIA is a nefarious, criminal organization which often misleads the American public and government into wars and misadventures."

Kovalik devotes much of his book to what he regards as precedents for the current dark turn in U.S. – Russian relations. Toward that end, he surveys the history of U.S. foreign interventions since World War II. He confirms that the United States government is indeed habituated to aggressive adventurism abroad. That's something many readers already know, but Kovalik contributes significantly by establishing that U.S. hostility against Russia ranks as a chapter in that long story.

But what's the motivation for military assaults and destabilizing projects? And, generally, why all the wars? The author's historical survey provides answers. He finds that the scenarios he describes are connected. Treating them as a whole, he gives them weight and thus provides an intellectual weapon for the anti-imperialist cause. Kovalik, putting history to work, moves from the issue of U.S.-Russian antagonism to the more over-arching problem of threats to human survival. That's his major contribution.

His highly-recommended book offers facts and analyses so encompassing as to belie its small size. The writing is clear, evocative, and eminently readable; his narrative is that of a story – teller. Along the way, as a side benefit, Kovalik recalls the causes and outrage that fired up activists who were his contemporaries.

He testifies to a new Cold War. Doing so, he argues that the anti-communist rational for the earlier Cold War was a cover for something else, a pretext. In his words: "the Cold War, at least from the vantage point of the US, had little to do with fighting 'Communism,' and more to do with making the world safe for corporate plunder." Once more Russia is an enemy of the United States, but now it's a capitalist country.

That's mysterious; explanation is in order. Readers, however, may be hungry to know about the "plot" advertised in the book's title. We recommend patience. History and its recurring patterns come first for this author. They enable him to account for U. S. – Russian relations that are contradictory and, most importantly, for the U.S. propensity for war-making. After that he tells about a plot.

Kovalik describes how, very early, reports of CIA machinations from former agents of the spy organization expanded his political awareness, as did a trip to Nicaragua. There he gained first-hand knowledge of CIA atrocities, of deaths and destruction at the hands of the Contras, anti- Sandinista paramilitaries backed by the CIA His book goes on fully and dramatically to describe murders and chaos orchestrated by the United States and/or the CIA in El Salvador, Colombia, and in the South America of Operation Condor. Kovalic discusses the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupation and war in Korea, nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear testing and dying in the Marshall Islands, and the CIA's recruitment of the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen in Afghan¬istan. He recounts U. S. - instigated coups in Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; and Chile, 1973.

These projects were about keeping "the world safe from the threat of Soviet totalitarianism" – in other words, anti-communism. But then the USSR disappeared, and the search was on for a new pretext. The Clinton administration evoked "humanitarian intervention," and continued the intrusions: in Ruanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo (on behalf of "US mining interests"), Yugoslavia, and Libya.

In Kovalik's telling, the U. S. government eventually settled upon the notion of "American exceptionalism," that is to say, "the belief that the US is a uniquely benign actor in the world, spreading peace and democracy." Thus armed, the U. S. military exported terror to Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen (via its Saudi Arabian proxy), and Honduras, through a U. S. facilitated military coup. The book catalogues other episodes, other places. Along the way on his excursion, Kovalik contrasts U. S. pretensions and brutal deeds with the relatively benign nature of alleged Russian outrages.

Good relations with Russia, he says, would be "simply bad for business, in particular the business of war which so profoundly undergirds the US economy As of 2015, the US had at least 800 military bases in over 70 nations, while Britain, France and Russia had only 30 military bases combined." And, "under Obama alone, the US had Special Forces deployed in about 138 countries." Further, "The US's outsized military exists not only to ensure the US's quite unjust share of the world's riches, but also to ensure that those riches are not shared with the poor huddled masses in this country."

Kovalik highlights the disaster that overwhelmed Russia as a fledgling capitalist nation: life expectancy plummeted, the poverty rate was 75 percent, and investments fell by 80 percent. National pride was in the cellar, the more so after the United States backed away from Secretary of State Baker's 1991 promise that NATO would never move east, after the United States attacked Russia's ally Serbia, and after the United States, rejecting Russian priorities, attacked Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011.

The author rebuts U. S. claims that Russian democracy has failed and that Putin over-reached in Ukraine. He praises Putin's attempts to cooperate with the United States in Syria. The United States has abused peoples the world over, he insists, and suffers from a "severe democracy deficit."

By the time he is discussing current U. S. – Russian relations, readers have been primed never to expect U.S. imperialism to give Russia a break. The author's instructional course has taken effect, or should have done so. If readers aren't aware of what the U. S. government has been up to, the author is not to blame.

Kovalik condemns the Obama administration and particularly Secretary of State Hilary Clinton for intensifying the U. S. campaign against Russia. He extends his criticism to the Democratic Party and the media. The theme of anti – Russian scheming by the CIA comes up briefly in the book in connection with hacking attributed to Russia and with WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic Party. Nothing is said about possible interaction between personnel of the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II."

Kovalik acknowledges "periods of great repression." He adds, however, that "the Russian Revolution and the USSR delivered on many of their promises, and against great odds. . In any case, the goals of the Russian Revolution-equality, worker control of the economy, universal health care and social security- were laudable ones." And, "One of the reasons that the West continues to dance on the grave of the Soviet Union, and to emphasize the worst parts of that society and downplay its achievements, is to make sure that, as the world-wide economy worsens, and as the suffering of work¬ing people around the world deepens, they don't get any notions in their head to organize some new socialist revolution with such ideals."

Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'"

Drew Hunkins on May 30, 2017

Dissects the dangerous nonsense

The most important non-fiction work thus far of 2017 is upon us. Finally the book has arrived that cuts through all the hype, deceit, misinformation and disconcerting groupthink.

Kovalik structures TPTSR by starting at the most logical place -- the history of unilateral Washington aggression across the globe, from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran through the Washington intell agencies' orchestrated coups and proxy wars in Latin America.

This exposition of historical Washington empire building provides a solid foundation when he ultimately addresses why the predatory military-industrial-media-complex is incessantly fomenting this dangerous contemporary Russophobic campaign. The book nails it by presenting in a crystal clear manner the two exact reasons why the demonization of Moscow never seems to subside: 1.) The corporate and Washington military empire builders are deeply threatened by the potential loss of certain markets and a sovereign Russia that desires a say over the diplomatic and military maneuvers on its borders, especially its Western region. 2.) Most importantly, the MIC/national-security state absolutely MUST HAVE a villain (real or imagined, it doesn't matter) in order to justify the trillion dollar budget and careerism that seeps into every pore of the U.S. politico-economic system. This Pentagon system of pseudo economic Keynesianism could potentially lead to nuclear war. The giant house of cards could doom us all.

D. Gordon on June 1, 2017

This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U

This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U.S. foreign policy, this book is part memoir, part history, and part analysis of current events. Kovalik makes a compelling case that U.S. policies--not Russia--are the biggest danger to world peace and human rights. The book traces Kovalik's own awakening and transformation from his conservative religious-minded youth to one of our most trenchant critics of U.S. foreign policy writing today. And he does it in his own inimitable, witty, readable, and humane style.

[Nov 07, 2017] The brilliantly written book shows the reader the path of Baurdzhan Momysh Uluy as he commanded a Soviet Battalion in Panfilov's Division during the Battle of Moscow.

Nov 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

ucgsblog , November 7, 2017 at 12:43 pm

Relevant: http://www.lib.ru/PROZA/BEK/volokola.txt

The brilliantly written book shows the reader the path of Baurdzhan Momysh Uluy as he commanded a Soviet Battalion in Panfilov's Division during the Battle of Moscow. Superb reading. I think we all know what I'm celebrating today!

[Nov 07, 2017] As it turns out, neoliberal capitalism kills. Russia and all other post Soviet republics (especially Ukraine) experienced neoliberal rape by Clinton gang in early nineties and should remember the lesson.

Nov 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

rkka , November 7, 2017 at 5:52 pm

Its quite simple. Imperial Russia was sclerotic and ineffective, and no longer really belonged among the Great Powers, just like the Imperial & Royals, or The Sublime Porte.

Oh, and in 1913, Imperial Russia's last year of peace, life expectancy at birth was 32 years. By 1926 in the Soviet Union it was 44 years.

Conversely, in 1991, the last year of the RSFSR, male life expectancy was 65 years. In 1999, after 8 years of FreeMarketDemocraticReforms, male life expectancy was 57 years. Within 5 years of the end of the Soviet Union, the number of deaths per year in the Russian Federation had risen 40%, and the number of births per year had been cut in half.

That's not at all what Rand, or Rothbard, or Hayek, or Mises would have predicted, is it.

As it turns out, Capitalism kills.

[Nov 07, 2017] Moon of Alabama: Saudi Arabia This 'Night Of The Long Knives' Is A Panic-Fueled Move

Nov 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , November 6, 2017 at 8:04 am

Moon of Alabama: Saudi Arabia – This 'Night Of The Long Knives' Is A Panic-Fueled Move
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/11/saudi-purge.html

Yesterday the ruling Salman clan in Saudi Arabia executed a Night of the Long Knives cleansing the state of all potential competition. The Saudi King Salman and his son Clown Prince Mohammad bin Salman initiated a large arrest wave and purge of high ranking princes and officials. Part of this internal coup was the confiscation of huge financial estates to the advantage of the Salman clan.

The earlier forced resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri is probably related to the last night's events. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahoo endorsed the resignation. This guarantees that Hariri will never again be accepted in a leading role in Lebanon .
####

Plenty more at the link and don't forget to check the comments, of which PaveWay IV & guidoamm are enlightening, the latter: I know from someone that, till last month, managed a fleet of personal jets for the great and the good in Saudi Arabia, that there is an exodus under way. The great and the good are literally taking the cuckoo clocks onboard their 380s and relocating to their foreign residences. Owners of the fleets have not been paying their bills for months neither to the crews, nor to the management nor, indeed, to the facilities.
####

Just what Europe needs, a bunch of Saudi princes permanently flaunting themselves away from home in various capitals.

saskydisc , November 6, 2017 at 1:56 pm
Saudi declares war on Lebanon, by claiming that Lebanon declares war on Saudi Arabia . Given that the Saudis have made their alliance with Israel open, this is a threat to the Lebanese government and society, and a dare to the Russian government regarding its anti-ISIS and anti-Al Qaeda policy.
marknesop , November 7, 2017 at 8:28 am
Not to mention the S-400 sale.

[Nov 07, 2017] Consortium News: Israeli-Saudi Tandem Adjusts to Syria Loss

Nov 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , November 6, 2017 at 8:31 am

Consortium News: Israeli-Saudi Tandem Adjusts to Syria Loss
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/11/04/israeli-saudi-tandem-adjusts-to-syria-loss/

Facing defeat in the proxy war in Syria, the Israeli-Saudi tandem is planning a new front against Hezbollah, presaged by Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri's sudden resignation, as ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke explains.

By Alastair Crooke
####

All at the link.

I don't think Israel will start to face any kind of reality as long as Nut & Yahoo and his clique remain in power, even then In other news, the US has just ordered 186 more cruise missiles (that we know about). War with I-ran is the goal, but how to get there? More weapons is the easy bit but the earth beneath the war parties' feet has long since shifted. I-ran is prepared and expects it too.

[Nov 07, 2017] Mueller is going after money laundering, which unsurprisingly leads to Ukraine. It's one of the oldest known tricks in the book keep in mind, Al Capone fell due to tax evasion.

Manafort can expose Nulandgate dirty kitchen. That's a danger for Mueller and for all Russiagate sponsors (including Podesta) ... So this possibility needs to be neutralized.
Notable quotes:
"... I suspect most here would find little to disagree with in the premise that Washington loves the elegance of 'the deal', in which it pressures an individual or organization or nation into caving in against his/its best interests, knowing it is getting the shitty end of the stick but unable to resist the relentless pressure. The USA calls it 'soft power', and it used to mean something quite different. Now it's like the difference between pulled pork and fast food. Both are satisfying, but one takes a long time to achieve. Instant gratification is all the rage these days, and Washington would much rather bring about an overnight coup than a decade-long transformation. ..."
"... But Yanukovych is still very much alive, and that was not likely in the script. I daresay he has a tale or two to tell about the terms he was offered and the deals he was encouraged to make, which is likely why no western journalists have ever sought permission to interview him in Russia. It's still surprising, because western analysts could have chimed in that he's pro-Russian, what did you expect but lies, if they didn't like what he said. ..."
"... I think what Washington wants is to strike a deal with Manafort which will avoid a trial and testimony which might introduce uncomfortable facts and avenues which might prove uncomfortable to explore. Consider; Manafort was right at the heart of the regime-change effort, and he must have seen and heard quite a few things that Washington would not like made public. It is just crazy to get at Russia and will absorb considerable risk to reach that goal, but a public trial of Manafort might be more of a liability than a show of western jurisprudence. ..."
"... Hence the hilarity. Those who wanted this probe have two bad option: defend Manafort, and thus be part of the corruption that Trump denounces; allow Manafort to fall and take Podesta with him. And to think that it all started in Ukraine. Every Zrada turns into Peremoga, even in DC. ..."
"... History will one day review this period as a mass hysteria equaled only by the Dreyfus Affair. Critical thinking is dead, and a significant group – if not a majority – simply accepts whatever pap it is fed by the popular media. ..."
"... Alexander makes an excellent point – what kind of incredible leverage must Russia possess, that a covert campaign of which no evidence exists to this day to sway public opinion in favour of leaving the EU prevailed over a very public and extremely overt effort by the United States and some European leaders to influence the vote for "Stay"? Further, how could such a feat be accomplished by an international pariah which is friendless and isolated? ..."
Nov 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

ucgsblog , November 6, 2017 at 11:36 am

Mueller is going after money laundering, which unsurprisingly leads to Ukraine. It's one of the oldest known tricks in the book – keep in mind, Al Capone fell due to tax evasion. In this case, money laundering can replace tax evasion. Also, anyone surprised that there have been links to Ukraine and the UK, but no links to Russia?
marknesop , November 6, 2017 at 12:06 pm
I suspect most here would find little to disagree with in the premise that Washington loves the elegance of 'the deal', in which it pressures an individual or organization or nation into caving in against his/its best interests, knowing it is getting the shitty end of the stick but unable to resist the relentless pressure. The USA calls it 'soft power', and it used to mean something quite different. Now it's like the difference between pulled pork and fast food. Both are satisfying, but one takes a long time to achieve. Instant gratification is all the rage these days, and Washington would much rather bring about an overnight coup than a decade-long transformation.

I imagine the pressure is on Manafort to agree to this sort of 'deal' to escape prison. And the narrative is shaping up to be that he was a lobbyist for the PRO-RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, Viktor Yanukovych. There's your Russian connection. Even though Putin did not care for Yanukovych, and Yanukovych only went to Moscow when he had come up against a stone wall with the EU, which obviously wanted Ukraine for free and could not have cared less for the economic damage forcing it to change its loyalties wholesale would have brought about. Still, according to the narrative, Yanukovych was pro-Russian.

But Yanukovych is still very much alive, and that was not likely in the script. I daresay he has a tale or two to tell about the terms he was offered and the deals he was encouraged to make, which is likely why no western journalists have ever sought permission to interview him in Russia. It's still surprising, because western analysts could have chimed in that he's pro-Russian, what did you expect but lies, if they didn't like what he said.

I think what Washington wants is to strike a deal with Manafort which will avoid a trial and testimony which might introduce uncomfortable facts and avenues which might prove uncomfortable to explore. Consider; Manafort was right at the heart of the regime-change effort, and he must have seen and heard quite a few things that Washington would not like made public. It is just crazy to get at Russia and will absorb considerable risk to reach that goal, but a public trial of Manafort might be more of a liability than a show of western jurisprudence.

ucgsblog , November 6, 2017 at 2:30 pm
There are several issues with that. First, the Judicial System is supposed to be beyond reproach. The DNC played that Russia Card, and have suffered as a result, because Americans responded with the "I Don't Give a Shit" card, and the RNC quickly pounced on that. I doubt that Mueller would sacrifice his career for political gains.

The problem that politicians face with the probe, is that he's leading a bipartisan effort. Yanukovich being pro-Russian isn't going to be enough, considering that most Americans know that the FSA was pro-American, and most don't support the FSA. So Mueller won't mind if Manafort spills the beans.

The problem is with the system. While Mueller might not mind, quite a few lobbyists will. The Russia bashing has given Mueller the chance to clean house from the major lobbyists. This means that the pro-Clinton people will be forced to defend Manafort, in an irony of ironies, because when it comes to money laundering, they're probably in on it. Instead of hitting Russia, they hit the "Drain the Swamp" button, which coincidentally happened to be Trump's slogan, which he is sure to take credit for.

Hence the hilarity. Those who wanted this probe have two bad option: defend Manafort, and thus be part of the corruption that Trump denounces; allow Manafort to fall and take Podesta with him. And to think that it all started in Ukraine. Every Zrada turns into Peremoga, even in DC.

ucgsblog , November 6, 2017 at 2:31 pm
It's neither chickenshit nor drunk; I was talking about the campaign managers for Trump and Clinton.
Cortes , November 5, 2017 at 4:55 am
The unseen [¿?] Kremlin hand:

http://theduran.com/putin-behind-brexit-russiagate-hysteria-spreads-britain/

The comment by "Ancient Briton" is priceless.

marknesop , November 5, 2017 at 9:43 am
History will one day review this period as a mass hysteria equaled only by the Dreyfus Affair. Critical thinking is dead, and a significant group – if not a majority – simply accepts whatever pap it is fed by the popular media.

Alexander makes an excellent point – what kind of incredible leverage must Russia possess, that a covert campaign of which no evidence exists to this day to sway public opinion in favour of leaving the EU prevailed over a very public and extremely overt effort by the United States and some European leaders to influence the vote for "Stay"? Further, how could such a feat be accomplished by an international pariah which is friendless and isolated?

The west would be wise to give over before its spiteful efforts do it irreparable damage. It will not, of course, wisdom being in short supply while idiocy is going spare.

kirill , November 5, 2017 at 7:01 am
http://russia-insider.com/en/nato-blogger-takes-sarin-bucket-challenge-raise-awareness-about-harmless-nerve-agent/ri21488

When you snooker them with facts, they just make shit up to wiggle their way out. Galeotti, Higgins and the rest of the NATzO bootlick slime.

[Nov 07, 2017] Washington's Wonderful World of Corruption - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work. ..."
"... Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not have been produced, and a November op-ed in The Hill ..."
"... But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. ..."
"... Just think. Casino king, lord of vice industry, is the #1 donor to the GOP. Politics was always about money, but now it's totally shameless. ..."
"... So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen? The Gereral's pardon awaits. ..."
"... What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ? The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is poor. The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich. I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost. In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead. ..."
"... Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses, and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved. ..."
"... 'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'. ..."
"... Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence. Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld ..."
Nov 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Enter former General Michael Flynn and former Bill Clinton CIA Director James Woolsey, both of whom were national security advisers to candidate Donald Trump during his campaign when they competed for contracts with Turkish businessmen linked to the Erdogan government to discredit Gülen and possibly even enable his abduction and illegal transfer to Turkey. If, as a consequence of their labors, Gülen were to be somehow returned home he would potentially be tried on treason charges, which might in the near future carry the death penalty in Turkey.

Both Flynn and Woolsey are highly controversial figures. Woolsey, in spite of having no intelligence experience, was notoriously appointed CIA Director by Bill Clinton to reward the neoconservatives for their support of his candidacy. But Woolsey never met privately with the president during his two years in office. He is regarded as an ardent neocon and Islamophobe affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) and the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). I once debated him on NPR where he asserted that Israel does not spy on the United States, a delusional viewpoint to be sure. Former CIA Senior analyst Mel Goodman, recalling Woolsey's tenure at the Agency, commented in 2003 that "[he] was a disaster as CIA director in the 90s and is now running around this country calling for a World War IV to deal with the Islamic problem. This is a dangerous individual "

Flynn, is, of course, better known, and not for any good qualities that he might possess. He is, like Woolsey, an ardent hawk on Iran and other related issues but is also ready to make a buck through his company The Flynn Intel Group, where Woolsey served as an unpaid adviser. In the summer of 2016 Flynn had obtained a three-month contract for $530,000 to "research" Gülen and produce a short documentary film discrediting him, an arrangement that should have been reported under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, but the big prize was a possible contract in the millions of dollars to create a negative narrative on the Hizmet founder and put pressure on the U.S. government to bring about his extradition.

Woolsey and Flynn, both Trump advisers at the time, found themselves in competition for the money. Flynn had a New York meeting at the Essex House with the businessmen accompanied by the Turkish Foreign and Energy Ministers as well as Erdogan's son-in-law on September 19 th 2016 where, inter alia, the possibility of kidnapping Gülen and flying him to Turkey was discussed. Flynn has denied that the possibility of kidnapping was ever raised, but Woolsey, who was at the meeting for a brief time, insists that "whisking away" Gülen in the dead of night was on the agenda, though he concedes that the discussion was "hypothetical."

On the next day, Woolsey and his wife met separately with the same two Turkish businessmen at the Peninsula Hotel in New York City and discussed with them a more general but broadly based $10 million plan of their own that would combine lobbying with public relations to discredit Gülen both in the press and in congress. Woolsey stressed that he had the kind of contacts in government and the media to make the plan work.

Woolsey did not get the $10 million contract that he sought and Flynn's well-remunerated work for Turkey reportedly consisted of some research, a short documentary that may or may not have been produced, and a November op-ed in The Hill by Flynn that denounced Gülen as a "radical Islamist who portrays himself as a moderate."

But the real story about Flynn and Woolsey is the fashion in which senior ex-government employees shamelessly exploit their status to turn money from any and all comers without any regard for either the long- or short- term consequences of what they are doing. The guilt or innocence of Fetullah Gülen was never an issue for them, nor the reputation of the United States judiciary in a case which has all the hallmarks of a political witch hunt. And if a kidnapping actually was contemplated, it begs one to pause and consider what kind of people are in power in this country.

Neither Flynn nor Woolsey ever considered that their working as presidential campaign advisers while simultaneously getting embroiled in an acrimonious political dispute involving a major ally just might be seen as a serious conflict of interest, even if it was technically not-illegal. All that motivated them was the desire to exploit a situation that they cared not at all about for profit to themselves.

No one expects top rank ex-officials to retire from the world, but out of respect for their former positions, they should retain at least a modicum of decency. This is lacking across the board from the Clintons on down to the Flynns and Woolseys as Americans apparently now expect less and less from their elected officials and have even ceased to demand minimal ethical standards.

Issac , November 7, 2017 at 2:32 am GMT

I've heard it said that Gülen was stateside precisely because of his potential leverage over Ankara. One could be forgiven thinking, therefor, that he had outlived his usefulness after the failed/faked coup. One might even consider sending him home would be a diplomatic gift to such a "major ally," as Turkey. Apparently Langley does not want this bargaining chip off the table just yet. Or do they? Who would even know?

Do you expect Americans to trust current national security state employees more than ex-, if indeed ex- even has the connotation one expects? On what basis would they make this judgement? Are most of the people in either camp not appointments from various neocon-influenced administrations? What would popular resentment of this corruption even look like? Would they demand the passing of legislation that could be ignored?

What ethical standards can be applied to an organization that can lie, under oath, without repercussion? In a world in which sixth generation American citizens are equated in every way with aggressive third-world refugees, the words "loyalty," and "corruption," have lost any foundation upon which they might have meaning.

Carlton Meyer , Website November 7, 2017 at 5:29 am GMT
And in the news today:

By CRAIG WHITLOCK | The Washington Post | Published: November 5, 2017

The "Fat Leonard" corruption investigation has expanded to include more than 60 admirals and hundreds of other U.S. Navy officers under scrutiny for their contacts with a defense contractor in Asia who systematically bribed sailors with sex, liquor and other temptations [like cash], according to the Navy.

Most of the admirals are suspected of attending extravagant feasts at Asia's best restaurants paid for by Leonard Glenn Francis, a Singapore-based maritime tycoon who made an illicit fortune supplying Navy vessels in ports from Vladivostok, Russia, to Brisbane, Australia. Francis also was renowned for hosting alcohol-soaked, after-dinner parties, which often featured imported prostitutes and sometimes lasted for days, according to federal court records.

RobinG , November 7, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

the sell-out.. disease.. afflicting officials in national security.

corruption from the top down a combination of greed and dishonesty

Amen, Phil, and Americans are collateral damage.

General Michael Hayden abandoned an NSA cyber program –that could have prevented the 9/11 attack– in favor of a less effective plan that was more profitable for corporate security firms, and generated greater funding for the intelligence agency.

"A Good American" tells the story of former Technical director of NSA, Bill Binney, and a program called ThinThread. He and a small team within NSA created a surveillance tool that could pick up any electronic signal on earth, filter it for targets and render results in real-time. NSA leadership dumped it – three weeks prior to 9/11.

Watch it free, before it's taken down. https://youtu.be/FlkAxAc7EjI

Priss Factor , Website November 7, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT
Just think. Casino king, lord of vice industry, is the #1 donor to the GOP. Politics was always about money, but now it's totally shameless.
Mark James , November 7, 2017 at 7:06 am GMT
So did Flynn take the considerable risks of nondisclosure because he was an ideologue or was it primarily for the money? And was it pathological or just stupidly brazen? The Gereral's pardon awaits.
jilles dykstra , November 7, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT
What does one expect in a country where money dominates all ? The USA is a great country to live in when one is rich, anything goes, and horror when one is poor. The only way to escape horror is to get rich, and stay rich. I am severely ill, the Dutch health care system keeps me alive, at great cost. In the USA I would either be broke and dead, or simply dead.
The Alarmist , November 7, 2017 at 9:23 am GMT
Oddly enough, I thought that Gülen was a Company asset, and that that was the reason they took Flynn down. Not that I know anything, just speculation.

Meanwhile, in the private sector, for anybody below the C-Suite there is an ever increasing pressure for compliance policies that outlaw all but the most trivial gifts or meals and entertainment in order to prevent corruption and abuse of position.

Just a couple observations here, but the world economy went into the toilet around the time the big Western economies started pushing all this anti-corruption stuff for businesses, and one cannot help but notice that political corruption in the West has become far more sophisticated in the past twenty years, with payoffs arriving after the fact to provide some degree of plausible deniability for the politicos and apparatchiks involved.

JackOH , November 7, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT
Phil, thanks. Every sentence tells here of an America off the rails.

A onetime local mayor in my area may offer an idea of the type of person we need. Pat U. has balls of steel. The Mob was against him. City hall bureaucrats were against him. The unions were against him. The police were against him. Corrupt cops threatened to frame him. The priest who'd married him and his wife was enlisted as an errand boy to deliver bribe money. Pat once publicly described our area as a "banana republic". He had a remote car starter installed to guard against assassination by car bombing. He was elected for multiple terms, and survived all attempts to crush him.

What did Pat have going for him? Personal anatomy. A wife who'd been a very young Polish WWII refugee, and who knew a thing or two about government gone bad and people gone bad. A strong, incorruptible law director, and a strong, incorruptible budget and finance guy. Charisma, and, of course, votes. He kept a local Mr. Big, a zillionaire briber of politicians, at a distance and worked warily with him. Pat met the challenges of an economically collapsing area pretty well.

How many politicians could weather the permanent storm of American corruption as well as Pat? Not a whole lot.

Greg Bacon , Website November 7, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT
The corruption in DC must be setting a record unmatched in history. It doesn't help that our craven, corrupt Congress sets its own rules regarding pay and benefits, but has also passed laws saying its 'OK' for those elite to engage in insider trading. Each Rep and Senator knows that kissing up to the Fortune 500 guarantees them a job after they leave Congress, with a fat paycheck, bennies and sexy secretaries more than happy to take DICKtation, all provided by the company's they took care of while in Congress.

Compounding the situation is the equally rotten DOJ, who has no problem going after blue-collar crime, but won't touch the real problem, those TBTF Wall Street banks acting like out-of-control casinos who then dump their losses on the backs on the American taxpayer. The latest USAG head Sessions is more confirmation that the Senate is a 'good ol' boys' and girls club that will not go after current and former members, as Sessions will NOT go after the thieving, lying, traitorous Hillary for her many crimes.

Its impossible to Drain the Swamp when it has so many creatures that snack on Americans and protect each other.

Short of a revolution, this can only end badly for Americans.

EliteCommInc. , November 7, 2017 at 10:29 am GMT
I would love to have seen that debate. I am not a fan of the contention that Iran embodies all things evil about Islam. But it is disappointing that Gen Flynn's advocacy is mired in a competition for financial contract.
Tom Welsh , November 7, 2017 at 10:41 am GMT
"We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for a combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed government officials".

One thing about you Americans that often surprises foreigners is your readiness to believe that all this corruption is something new or different. It has been going on ever since well before 1776.

My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards. There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any way.

Well, human nature abhors a lack of hierarchy: we need it almost as much as water, air, food, security. If you try to abolish all forms of hierarchy, all that happens is that it goes underground. What do Americans respect – what, indeed, have they respected most since (at least) the 1850s? Money. That's it. Cold hard cash. Wealth is next to godliness. The more money you have, the better a person you are thought to be – absolutely regardless of whether you got it by grinding the faces of the workers, murder, torture, drug dealing, or anything else.

But money is not, cannot be a value. Marx explained this in fairly simple terms, but the following is my favorite way of putting it.

'As the sociologist Georg Simmel wrote over a century ago, if you make money the center of your value system, then finally you have no value system, because money is not a value'.

– Morris Berman, "The Moral Order", Counterpunch 8-10 February 2013. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/08/the-moral-order/

another fred , November 7, 2017 at 11:31 am GMT

We Americans appear to have done it all to ourselves through inexplicable tolerance for a combination of greed and fundamental dishonesty on the part of our elected and appointed government officials.

One might call it stupid to believe that a nation could invest its government with the power to handle and disburse vast sums of money without becoming corrupt. Then again one might call that belief insane. One thing is clear, giving the government that much power and money is sure to corrupt it. Anyone who expects anything else of human beings does not know much about human beings.

Z-man , November 7, 2017 at 11:54 am GMT
Flynn was the worst associate that Trump fell in love with. That's a flaw of Trump. He did get rid of Gorka and one or two other NeoCons, unfortunately he has an 'influential' son in law that he can't get rid of that easily whose connected by blood to Joo land. And then again he has a Zionist speech writer Steven Miller, who's very good pushing back the anti Trump press, but still a Zionist Joo . 'Second Coming' anyone? (Grin)
Moi , November 7, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT
What's PG griping about? Our elected leaders, senior officials and corporate captains pretty accurately reflect what our country has devolved into.
jacques sheete , November 7, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT
@JackOH

Thanks for that great story.

How many politicians could weather the permanent storm of American corruption as well as Pat? Not a whole lot.

I'd guess almost zero.

Hotzenplotz , November 7, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

„I know of no other country where love of money has such a grip on men's hearts or where stronger scorn is expressed for the theory of permanent equality of property." Tocqueville

Dishonesty and greed – the American way from the beginning.

jacques sheete , November 7, 2017 at 1:06 pm GMT
@Tom Welsh

My own opinion is that systematic corruption is a more or less inevitable consequence of Americans' attempts to cut themselves off from all previous history and moral standards. There were to be no royalty, nobility, gentry – no one exceptional at all in any way.

Well, the royalty, nobility, gentry as well as the chief priests and rabbis and and almost everyone in a position of power have historically been pretty corrupt, I'd say. In fact it's probably accurate to say that all of them have been based on violence, treachery and bullshit or some varying mixture of those things has been the rule since rule began.

As far as worshipping money, you are correct, but the systemic corruption is baked into the cake by the way most political systems generally arise, and it's not only an American phenomenon since a person reading Aristophanes, Plutarch, Juvenal, Herbert Spencer and tons more could as well be writing of current events. The concepts are unchanged; only the names, dates and minor particular issues have changed.

Upon arriving at Messene Philip proceeded to devastate the country like an enemy acting from passion rather than from reason. For he expected, apparently, that while he continued to inflict injuries, the sufferers would never feel any resentment or hatred towards him.

-The Histories of Polybius , Book VIII, pg 465, Section III. Affairs of Greece, Philip, and Messenia. published in Vol. III
of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1922 thru 1927

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/8*.html

The concept is not only ancient, but cross-cultural too.

" The Master said, 'Why do you not leave this place?' The answer was, 'There is no oppressive government here.' The Master then said to his disciples: 'Remember this, my little children. Oppressive government is more terrible than tigers.'"

-Confucius as quoted in The Ethics of Confucius, by Miles Menander Dawson, [1915]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/eoc/eoc10.htm

jacques sheete , November 7, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT

What's PG griping about? Our elected leaders, senior officials and corporate captains pretty accurately reflect what our country has devolved into.

Sorry good sir, but no devolution needed. It was baked in the cake from inception. The "anti-federalists" warned us but the warnings fell on deaf (and powerless and preoccupied) ears.

Rich , November 7, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I'm not trolling you, Jilles, you just keep showing up on this site bashing America with factually wrong statements. I'm aware that the Netherlands is a pleasant nation, both my wife and I have some Dutch ancestry, but the Netherlands, like the US, isn't perfect. The fact is that every country, from Venezuela to Monaco, is a great country when one is rich, I'd bet even Holland is nice if you've got a few bucks.

To your point about your health issues. Here in the US there are two primary medical insurance programs run by the government, Medicare and Medicaid. If you're over 65 you are automatically covered by Medicare, there are some low costs associated with it, but if you're too poor to pay them, you don't have to. Medicaid is a government run health insurance program for the poor and uninsured in the US. In most cases all medical conditions are covered for free in this program. No hospital emergency room in the US is allowed to refuse treatment, either. Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in the streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.

Carroll Price , November 7, 2017 at 1:54 pm GMT
Contrary to the proverb, fish DO NOT rot from the head down but from the gut. The rampant corruption practiced by elected and unelected US officials alike, simply mirrors that of the nation as a whole.

http://www.brainstormwarning.org/2008/10/30/the-fish-rots-from-the-head

DESERT FOX , November 7, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT
Our government is not our government anymore , it is a criminal cabal ran for and by criminals and as such is not legitimate anymore and this has led to perpetual war for perpetual profit and perpetual corruption, we are Rome and the end is near.
Joe Hide , November 7, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT
Amazing changes for the Good are taking place at an ever more rapid rate. The exposure of the shenanigans of Flynn and Woolsey are literal examples of the figurative "The darkness hates the Light because the Light exposes the darkness for it's evil deeds". The internet and authors like this allow the Light (Truth) into Humanities Consciousness. Keep it up Giraldi!
SolontoCroesus , November 7, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT
@Rich

Could the system be better? Of course, but people aren't really dying in the streets, desperate for medical attention, as the leftists you read are telling you.

That may or may not be so, I'd have to see some statistics. The evidence of my lyon' eyes tells me plenty of people are living on the streets. My gentrified neighborhood insisted that police remove the men who slept under dumpsters in the alleys -- they moved them to bridge abutments and abandoned industrial sites.

Public libraries are ersatz day-care-for-hoboes; libraries now have police patrolling to ensure that the mentally ill regulars do not act out too loudly or stink too badly. Washington, DC libraries post extensive rules on the bathroom doors: NO shaving, NO showering, NO sex in the bathrooms.

Hu Mi Yu , November 7, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT
@DESERT FOX

we are Rome and the end is near.

I think of Athens in 415 BC just before the battle of Syracuse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition

Old Ben , November 7, 2017 at 3:12 pm GMT
@another fred

Ben Franklin's famous quote while voting to adopt the US Constitution.

"Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
And that was back when the Fed Govt was designed to be much smaller and much less powerful than today. Today's great power concentrated in the US govt, including the power to destroy entire countries or businesses and of course people, as well as a great deal of money which can then thus make people fabulously wealthy, means that this govt is far more susceptable to corruption than the one old Ben Franklin was referring to.

In a country where money means anything and can buy anything, then one must assume that everything is corrupt.

Old and in the way , November 7, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Academics, working from CDC statistics, estimated in 2009 that 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of medical care.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/09/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/

As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or perhaps a thousand deaths from illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of thousands die in order to make people rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.

Rich , November 7, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

Who are these hobos living in the street? Here in NYC they are drug addicts or mentally unstable people. Why are they allowed to live in the street? Because leftist judges and politicians have made it illegal to force them into mental hospitals or drug addiction facilities. Leftists believe this is a sign of their benevolence. I don't know of anyone who is actually homeless because of poverty in the US. There's just too many programs, from section 8, to welfare, to public housing available.

jacques sheete , November 7, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Old Ben

as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."

I could be classified as a big fan of BF, but I think today he'd change that to as other forms have done before it, when the leaders shall become so corrupted as to benefit even more from despotic Government, being incapable of any other. It seems to me that the fish is always on the verge of rotting, and I on't know if it starts at the head or not, but the thing still stinks, and the head, at least, has always been pretty rotten.

Emidio Borg , November 7, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
There is more honour in a lake full of crocodiles than there is in the American heart.
anonymous , Disclaimer November 7, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT
A couple references to "2017" should be corrected to 2016. Thank you for using this wonderfully bipartisan example. One has to be pretty naive to think that R and D mean much in Washington. Flush twice!
Jake , November 7, 2017 at 5:43 pm GMT
Of course, top officials sell out to anyone for anything. It is always that way in any Empire, save the ones ruled by very bright and brutal men who make it clear that so doing will cost in the biggest ways.

And then there is the fact of WASP culture being one in which everything is for sale. You can see the issue in all kinds of works of literature, from Jonson's The Alchemist to Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles and beyond. That is what underlay the English rotating between fury and amusement that the Irish and Highlanders were to too stupid about pence and pounds to know when to sell, including their freedom and family heritage. The same dynamic was highlighted in Yankee WASPs versus Southerners, whose sense of honor was both hated furiously and laughed ay endlessly by pure-blood Anglo-Saxon Yankees.

Ron Unz , November 7, 2017 at 6:22 pm GMT
@Old and in the way

Academics, working from CDC statistics, estimated in 2009 that 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of medical care As a nation, we want to go nuts over a few hundred or perhaps a thousand deaths from illegal aliens, but we look the other way as tens of thousands die in order to make people rich(er) from a for-profit medical system.

Actually, I think the former figure is a *gigantic* over-estimate. Offhand, I'd say there are something like 100 million middle-class white Americans and maybe 11 million or so illegal immigrants. And there were also over 17,000 total homicides during 2016.

Now if we're talking about ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals, I doubt the figure is even remotely close to 1-in-a-million per year, which would be a total of 100. In fact, I'm quite skeptical about whether the total is above 10/year, which would be one-in-10-million. That's the reason that neither VDare nor any of the other anti-immigrant webzines can almost ever find any real-life cases to talk about.

In my opinion, the notion that anything more than an infinitesimal number of American whites are murdered by illegals is just a total Internet hoax that's been endlessly propagated by silly activists.

If anyone on this thread thinks I'm wrong then I challenge them to locate at least 10 cases of ordinary middle-class whites murdered by illegals in 2016 (I'm not talking about Aryan Brotherhood gang members shivved in prison brawls or wives killing husbands/husbands killing wives). If you can't find ten cases in all of America during an entire year, then I'm probably right.

anonymous , Disclaimer November 7, 2017 at 6:27 pm GMT
@EliteCommInc.

I am not a fan of the contention that Iran embodies all things evil about Islam.

On the other hand, I am a fan of the contention that the white race embodies all things evil about Christianity.

MBlanc46 , November 7, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT
"Modicum of decency"? By former elected officials and functionaries? Maybe in some other possible world.
Art , November 7, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
Did Flynn get crossways with the Mossad – is that why he is in trouble today? Clearly Gülen has protection in America – that has to mean Mossad/CIA backing. I have seen writing that says that Gülen has ties to Israel. That explains a lot. Think Peace -- Art
SolontoCroesus , November 7, 2017 at 8:13 pm GMT
Is corruption uniquely part of the US system of government (beyond the obvious propensity for all systems to become corrupted);
or does the US system of governance have unique loopholes, or systemic weaknesses, that make corruption more likely;
or is/has the US system of governance been corrupted by the machinations of a group or of some 'bad apples,'

Are Woolsey/Flynn examples of the "bad apple" notion: their lack of character has spread rot to the larger system? Their rot has normalized corruption?

Just watched two interviews, a conversation with Robert McNamara and Errol Morris, who directed the documentary, Fog of War, about McNamara's controversial career and decisions about war.

McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.

McNamara also tries to articulate the complexities -- and restraint -- with which past political leaders such as himself must approach their post-employment situation: while they do have knowledge, from experience, about situations, McNamara argues that it was his belief that he had to tread very lightly in making public opinions or prescriptions.

Then, Errol Morris was interviewed about his documentary film on Donald Rumfseld. Morris was scathing: Rumsfeld was all about his career, his voluminous "snowflake" memos were meandering BS, self-aggrandizing; Morris was especially outraged with Rumsfeld's reaction to a seriously wounded soldier -- it was a photo op; no measure of humanity was in evidence. Interesting contrast between McNamara and Rumsfeld

"Cometh the hour, cometh the man." Or Cometh the man, rot-eth the barrel."

Andrei Martyanov , Website November 7, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT
@SolontoCroesus

McNamara is widely described as an SOB of dubious moral fiber. In this conversation, he does not hide from his complicity in enormously harmful decisions, but does spell out the forces involved, not only the venal, career-protecting influences but also the realization that decisions involve the lives of large numbers of US men in uniform.

Interesting that you mentioned it. I remember years ago watching McNamara's Q&A session after his lecture in one of the US "liberal" universities. I found myself surprised (in a good sense) with his into your face readiness to face anything thrown at him. He went ballistic when some student shouted "murderer" from back seats of the auditorium but McNamara spoke to this student passionately and personally. He was absolutely human and vulnerable, yet honest. In some sense it was very touching and you could see how it also tormented him.

As per neocons, from what I observed so far, I never encountered any indication of any of them being simply decent humans–they are human sewer.

[Nov 06, 2017] The USA were the major beneficiary of Russian revolution. Lacking the Russian Revolution America might never have reacted to its Great Economic Depression in any way that actually benefited workers, instead Wall St would have created an American serfdom under flag and cross that the Tsars might have admired

That's an important point: the USSR existence have had great stabilizing influence on the USA and allow it to prosper as it inhibited the most vicious instincts of the US elite for fear of communist takeover. After 1991 see what happens if the US elite allowed to run unrestrained.
Notable quotes:
"... A resurrection of the great man theory of history, as if it all depended on personalities, especially the man on horseback, rather than long-term historical forces. Like the Bourbons, this author has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. What retrograde nonsense ..."
"... In the end as that happens we get example of Georg Christoph Lichtenberg's dictum, "The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth." ..."
"... Thankfully for the progress of accurate history, well read people know better that to blame Adolf on Lenin just because the vile associations inherently move sheep to nod. Hitler was born at the Peace Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1, in which the Russians had no part. If they had had a part we'd have never seen Hitler. Anti Slav German sentiment was brought to Germany, ironically, by Baltic Jewish immigrants (see Dominic Leiven, "The End of Tsarist Russia"). ..."
"... Lacking the Russian Revolution America might never have reacted to it's Great Economic Depression in any way that actually benefited workers, instead Wall St would have created an American serfdom under flag and cross that the Tsars might have admired, except that the Tsars actually loved their peasants. ..."
"... I am currently reading Dominic Lieven's superb and highly detailed 2015 book on the circumstances that launched the complex events in Europe at the turn of the 20th Century involving the British, German, French, American, Ottoman and nascent Russian Empires plus the Slavs and Italian nations; "The End of Tsarist Russia." ..."
"... "What If" histories are, as the philosopher Benedetto Croce once said, nice parlor games. The Russian Revolution was, indeed, a formative force of twentieth-century history. But it is hard not to feel that Montefiore stacks the deck far too heavily on the negative. ..."
"... Perhaps without the Russian Revolution, we would not have gotten the social welfare state in western Europe and North America, because that was introduced with an awareness that the alternative to enacting modest social support might be outright revolution. ..."
"... The implication that Jeremy Corbyn is some sort of Leninist sounds like a right-wing paranoid fantasy. ..."
"... There were huge objective reasons for Russian Revolution. Demographic explosion of population (mostly agrarian) during 50 years before revolution and huge amount of latifundia. Actual duration of Russian revolution is about 15 years. In fact it began in 1905. Role of Lenin is important one, but objective reasons are most important. Also, a for millions Russian Revolution was dramatic example of a huge social lift during many years. Unfortunately, author underestimate objective reason. ..."
"... The Domino Theory never really explains anything, as is the case here. It's a simplistic device used to explain a complex type of event, such as social upheaval from the left or right. It provides comfort to some by identifying the cause of distasteful domestic events to an external entity. It was used to absolve Western governments from the effects of colonialism. It was used to absolve the Allies from the impact of the Treaty of Versailles. Only in this oversimplified view of history can the game of "what if" be played with such slight regard for accuracy. Pin the tail on the donkey of Lenin if you wish, but don't close one's eyes to the ample internal factors that produced upheaval and untold misery in each of the cases referenced herein. ..."
"... The west should have supported Kerensky and the Whites. But they did only superficially to keep them in the war which the people did not want. Would that the people of the US would rise up against the Military -Industrial-Neocon-Caabal that has kept us fight and wasting trillions in the Mideast for decades past and in the future if they have their way. ..."
"... This presentation of history is absurd. The rise of Hitler was guaranteed by (1) the Treaty of Versailles, most of which was a punishment of Germany, a great blow to German pride, and most fundamentally, a transfer of wealth from Germany to other countries through payment of reparations; and (2) the Depression, after a few years of which the German people were willing to try anyone, however unusual, who would bring them out of poverty. ..."
"... I'll tell you what else wouldn't have happened if not for Bolsheviks taking power. No workers rights, no paid holiday, no free healthcare, no social mobility in most western countries. Having Soviet alternative made capitalists fear that their workers will rise up as Russians did and made them share some of their profits with the general population. ..."
"... The West did everything to dismantle USSR and recreate it in the wild capitalism image in the shortest time possible. ..."
"... In old anti-Catholic books, you will find the same "ends justifies the means" slogan supposedly being the byword of, not Lenin and the Communists, but Iqnatius Loyola and the Jesuits! Of course neither Loyola or Lenin ever said such a thing. Yet you will find this error repeated over and over, even in non tabloids such as the TIMES, who routinely drop their normal journalistic standards in the service of anti-Communism. ..."
Nov 06, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
manfred m Bolivia 3 hours ago

Hypotheticals, mental garbage sometimes, masturbatory to others. There is a saying: "If my grandma had had four wheels, she would/could have been a bus". The facts are there, and the best we can do, or ought to, is learn from them, avoid it's outrages and far too often our dehumanizing, sacrificing the individual in favor of 'society at large'.

Paul Milwaukee 3 hours ago

Maybe, if the german conservatives would have tried to ameliorate the economic condition of the populace instead of supporting a murderous, scapegoating populist rabble raiser would have stop the spread of Lenin's revolution.

SDG brooklyn 3 hours ago

Alt-Facts has morphed into Alt-History. So many suppositions and so little to back them up. The red menace that did stoke fears was not primarily a result of the Russian revolution. There were millions of communists in the U.S., Germany, the rest of Europe and elsewhere. The Bolsheviks were far too involved with the White rebels to be involved with communist activity in the U.S., Western Europe or elsewhere. To claim No Lenin No Hitler makes no sense, as the humiliation of losing World War I and the sanctions imposed on Germany had far more to do with Hitler's rise that Russian communists.
One could argue if no Hitler no Trump, but again it's wild speculation lacking facts to back it up.

elowenkron New york, ny 3 hours ago

A resurrection of the great man theory of history, as if it all depended on personalities, especially the man on horseback, rather than long-term historical forces. Like the Bourbons, this author has forgotten nothing and learned nothing. What retrograde nonsense

CK Rye 3 hours ago

Most historians can review a time period as we see here, the tough thing to do is keep your searing political biases out of the conclusions, which we do not see here. In the end as that happens we get example of Georg Christoph Lichtenberg's dictum, "The most dangerous of all falsehoods is a slightly distorted truth."

Thankfully for the progress of accurate history, well read people know better that to blame Adolf on Lenin just because the vile associations inherently move sheep to nod. Hitler was born at the Peace Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1, in which the Russians had no part. If they had had a part we'd have never seen Hitler. Anti Slav German sentiment was brought to Germany, ironically, by Baltic Jewish immigrants (see Dominic Leiven, "The End of Tsarist Russia").

Lacking the Russian Revolution America might never have reacted to it's Great Economic Depression in any way that actually benefited workers, instead Wall St would have created an American serfdom under flag and cross that the Tsars might have admired, except that the Tsars actually loved their peasants.

Tossing Trump into the mix is a dead ringer sign of having caved to pop culture, add Putin and today's anti-Russia misinformation campaign and you have descended to some place where you're gone Tabloid, perhaps jealous of Dan Brown's weekly income. Readers here will love this, which is probably it's only point.

Chris Martin Alameds 3 hours ago

At once we condemn Lenin's dictatorship and talk about how Russia might been saved by "The White Armies", those leaders in the cause of democracy and reform. The revolution won because it offered land to the peasants and peace to the soldiers. Lenin rode this wave and tried to control it with mixed success. Only with the First Five Year Plan was the actual dictatorial communist regime established.

But thanks a lot for the rote rerun of what might have been. Can we have a column on If the South won the Civil War next week?

APO JC NJ 3 hours ago

very interesting - the Germans actually sowed the seeds for WW II - by shipping Lenin to Russia - by brutalizing populations of civilians - by using chemical weapons - after WW I - the let bygones be bygones approach was not possible - and the German economy was already destroyed by WW I. What does a soft approach look like after a brutal conflict - look no further than this country - allowing the confederate - red states -with limited consequence - back into the union was the biggest mistake in US history.

CK Rye 3 hours ago

I am currently reading Dominic Lieven's superb and highly detailed 2015 book on the circumstances that launched the complex events in Europe at the turn of the 20th Century involving the British, German, French, American, Ottoman and nascent Russian Empires plus the Slavs and Italian nations; "The End of Tsarist Russia."

Lieven's thorough analysis is a tentacled web of national interactions and interests that belies the very idea that Russian transition from Empire to Centrally run communism can be so simply explained as we have here, making this oversimple essay by Montefiore seem like run of the mill output from the John Birch Society.

I had and still have planned for my next work for a study of early 20th Century Europe Montefiore's own 2004, "Stalin- The Court of the Red Tsar" which is a look at the dictator's personal life. This short essay on the October Revolution is fair warning that this author may be biased to the point of worthlessness. It's pretty clear I would have noticed without this red flag, but thanks anyway.

Penn Towers Wausau 3 hours ago

It is an amazing story of how Lenin got to Russia and the British got to question him in Finland before the train left to enter Russia. All that is interesting, but Montfiore barely touches on the question raised by the title of the article. One model might be to look at the labor movement in USA?

Dennis Maher Lake Luzerne NY 3 hours ago

We can imagine that any number of lesser revolutions bringing about some measures of change for the oppressed in many places would have occurred in the 20th century without Lenin. I do think Russia would be a vastly different place. In 1914 the economy was "taking off," stalled if not destroyed by the Great War. The education system had become progressive and was growing. Russia was facing west. There certainly was a Lenin, even if Russians today deny it.

I think Lenin and his revolution were so violent in reaction against the terrible repression of socialist ideas everywhere else. Lenin's body was draped with a flag from the Paris Commune because the French old guard had executed as many as 17,000 Parisians in 3 days. Mostly their crime was organizing themselves for their survival after the government had abandoned Paris when the Germans approached in 1870. Lenin was determined that the Paris failure not be repeated. What Lenin did not see was that many reforms the Parisians wanted in 1870 had become real in the 3rd Republic by 1914.

Warren Philadelphia 6 hours ago

"What If" histories are, as the philosopher Benedetto Croce once said, nice parlor games. The Russian Revolution was, indeed, a formative force of twentieth-century history. But it is hard not to feel that Montefiore stacks the deck far too heavily on the negative.

Perhaps without the Russian Revolution, we would not have gotten the social welfare state in western Europe and North America, because that was introduced with an awareness that the alternative to enacting modest social support might be outright revolution. Beyond that, I'm struck that Montefiore doesn't really deal with the First World War. The brutality and global scale of that war produced all sorts of effects, including the Bolshevik Revolution. Had there not been a Russian Revolution or had it been successfully crushed, I am convinced that the First World War would have spawned other demons. One sees how correct Croce was. Counter-factual history is a parlor game, and its pieces can be moved at random. What if there had not been a First World War? What if there had not been European Imperialism raping much of the world? What if there had been no capitalism in the first place?

C.L.S. MA 3 hours ago

Agree, what if there had been no Hitler? What if the Persians defeated the Greeks? What if the Dodgers beat the Astros? What if we lived on Mars?

Tom Sofos HONOLULU 3 hours ago

Agreed. The writer underestimates the "other demons "as a result of the war one them the blaming the Jews for Germany's loss of the war created or fostered by the German General Staff. And forgetting the depression's cause of the rise of Hitler. And forgetting that Mussolini's creation of fascism who was also the inspiration of Hitler. And forgetting the Russia after the war was preoccupied with its domestic problems.

Leftist would have grabbed on to Marx with our without then Russian revolution.

Pdxtrann Minneapolis 6 hours ago

The implication that Jeremy Corbyn is some sort of Leninist sounds like a right-wing paranoid fantasy. There is nothing in his platform that was not found in the Britain of the late 1940s through 1970s. He is the true conservative on the political scene, and the Conservative Party, with their Dickensian "punish the poor" policies are the radicals.

And anyone who thinks that Cuba and Venezuela have anything in common except the Spanish language and racial diversity doesn't know enough to comment.

Bedwyr Cleveland 3 hours ago

Thank you. Corbyn's "extremism" mainly lies in supporting policies on the left that the economism of the 80s placed beyond the pale but that have wide support of [gasp] voters. Not demogogery, just plain democracy.

Bruno New Yprk 3 hours ago

Unfortunately Cuba and Venezuela do have a lot in common. The Cuban revolution has and continue to be major force shaping the thinking of most of the world left including Venezuela. Venezuela when was swimming in oil money during the Chavez supported Cuba economically. In exchange Cuba provided the Chavez regime with intelligence to keep them in power. Today, several instance of the Venezuelan regime are run or supervised by the Cubans. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/05/maduro-venezue...

sergey fisenko minsk, Belarus 6 hours ago

There were huge objective reasons for Russian Revolution. Demographic explosion of population (mostly agrarian) during 50 years before revolution and huge amount of latifundia. Actual duration of Russian revolution is about 15 years. In fact it began in 1905. Role of Lenin is important one, but objective reasons are most important. Also, a for millions Russian Revolution was dramatic example of a huge social lift during many years. Unfortunately, author underestimate objective reason.

ThomHouse Maryland 6 hours ago

The Domino Theory never really explains anything, as is the case here. It's a simplistic device used to explain a complex type of event, such as social upheaval from the left or right. It provides comfort to some by identifying the cause of distasteful domestic events to an external entity. It was used to absolve Western governments from the effects of colonialism. It was used to absolve the Allies from the impact of the Treaty of Versailles. Only in this oversimplified view of history can the game of "what if" be played with such slight regard for accuracy. Pin the tail on the donkey of Lenin if you wish, but don't close one's eyes to the ample internal factors that produced upheaval and untold misery in each of the cases referenced herein.

Typical Ohio Liberal Columbus, Ohio 6 hours ago

What is amazing about all of this, is that Russia was a European backwater. While geographically Russia was a monster in 1917, economically and geopolitically it was insignificant. Militarily they entered World War I lacking any ability to fight a modern war; as can be seen by their embarrassing loss to the Japanese in 1905.

The last time Russia had been significant on the world stage was 105 years earlier when they pushed Napoléon and is troops back to Versailles. It is incredible that the twentieth century became a century that was defined by Russians and the world's reaction to them.

In 1917, you would have been insane to think that Russia was going to be anything more than what it had been, a second rate power.

Donald Ambrose Florida 6 hours ago

The west should have supported Kerensky and the Whites. But they did only superficially to keep them in the war which the people did not want. Would that the people of the US would rise up against the Military -Industrial-Neocon-Caabal that has kept us fight and wasting trillions in the Mideast for decades past and in the future if they have their way.

Guy Cabell Bettendorf, IA 6 hours ago

This presentation of history is absurd. The rise of Hitler was guaranteed by (1) the Treaty of Versailles, most of which was a punishment of Germany, a great blow to German pride, and most fundamentally, a transfer of wealth from Germany to other countries through payment of reparations; and (2) the Depression, after a few years of which the German people were willing to try anyone, however unusual, who would bring them out of poverty.

Little, if any, of Hitler's rise was due to Lenin or Bolshevism. A revolution was bound to happen someplace - ever-growing numbers in the working class would require an uprising if they continued to be exploited and treated as just another piece of equipment. as frequently happened in industrialized companies. The USA and European countries precluded revolution by adopting some aspects of social democracy to improve the lives of ordinary people. Finally, it needs to be remembered that the Western powers did intervene in the Russian Civil War. Winston Churchill even directed the use of a chemical weapon against the Red Army. The agent was diphenylchloroarsine, which mostly causes vomiting but did also kill a small percentage of Russians who were attacked. Alas, Churchill started his chemical weapons campaign too late in the year - the weather turned cooler after the first attack, too cool for the diphenylchloroarsine to be in a gaseous form.

APO JC NJ 3 hours ago

disagree - the people with money snf power in Germany supported Hitler - without out that support he never rises to power -

RST Seattle 3 hours ago

Nothing is ever "guaranteed". The use of the word "inevitable" is a fallacious ex-post facto argument, often but always inappropriately applied to historical events. Certainly it is wildly inaccurate to describe Hitler's rise as the only thing that could have happened.

Vicki Doronina Manchester, UK 6 hours ago

So if not for Bolsheviks, none of the 20th-century atrocities would have happened. No Cold War, no Second World War, no First World War. Oh, wait, that war to redistribute colonies had happened before the Bolsheviks and was the reason they were able to take power. As well as all other capitalist wars that happened in the 19th century. I'll tell you what else wouldn't have happened if not for Bolsheviks taking power. No workers rights, no paid holiday, no free healthcare, no social mobility in most western countries. Having Soviet alternative made capitalists fear that their workers will rise up as Russians did and made them share some of their profits with the general population. The USSR is no more and the gap between rich and poor is widening to the pre-First World War levels. You cannot blame Putin's Russia on USSR either. The West did everything to dismantle USSR and recreate it in the wild capitalism image in the shortest time possible. This is what you get when you resurrect robber barons - an aggressive empire straight out of 19th century.

Martin London 3 hours ago

Those workers' rights in large part pre-dated the Russian revolutions. The rise of the Independent Labour Party and the unions from the 1880s led to a range of improvements for the British people such as pensions, workman's compensation for injury, extended franchise etc. The direction of travel was clear well before 1905 and 1917.

toom germany 6 hours ago

The author started 4 years too late. The "Great War" was started by the Kiaser. What if Wilhelm II had told the Austrians that he would not support them invading Serbia? Instead Wilhelm just said, in effect, "Whatever you do is OK with me."

Pat Somewhere 6 hours ago

"...a new Bolshevism of the right where the ends justify the means and acceptable tactics include lies and smears, and the exploitation of what Lenin called useful idiots."

The right-wing in this country has been using and perfecting this "new Bolshevism" for the last 40 years or so. Trump may be its most extreme practitioner to date, but it's hardly new.

Red Allover New York, NY 3 hours ago

In old anti-Catholic books, you will find the same "ends justifies the means" slogan supposedly being the byword of, not Lenin and the Communists, but Iqnatius Loyola and the Jesuits! Of course neither Loyola or Lenin ever said such a thing. Yet you will find this error repeated over and over, even in non tabloids such as the TIMES, who routinely drop their normal journalistic standards in the service of anti-Communism.

John Balch Canada 6 hours ago

Lenin has proved an easy person to vilify..."a revolution without firing squads is meaningless." In the same breath, this author bemoans the fact that the Russian government didn't find Lenin and kill him. Hmm. Fantasizing a world without V.I. Lenin, would still have left a very capable Leon Trotsky on the scene. So many accounts neglect to mention the importance of WW1 on the Russian people. The war was criminal, and they were sick of it. The Bolsheviks were resolutely opposed to it. There was a connection.

wide awake Clinton, NY 6 hours ago

Without the Bolshevik Revolution, the world would certainly have been different. But how? Hitler's rise to power was caused by complex reasons -- yes, fear of Communist revolution was among them.

But the desire for vengeance following German defeat in 1918 would have been just as strong, as would anti-Semitism, anti-Socialism, the legend of the "stab in the back," and so on.

So the outcome of this particular counter-factual may not be no Hitler and no Nazi Germany, but Hitler victorious in 1939-1945, because there was no Red Army to oppose him at Stalingrad and all the way to Berlin. Not a justification for the crimes of Lenin and his successors -- but a caution against assuming that the removal of one evil would have translated into blocking another.

[Nov 05, 2017] US sent troops to Lebanon in 1958

Notable quotes:
"... The United States spends $600 billion, not counting veteran's benefits, on war every year. This expense is approved unanimously by the Congress, elected representatives of the people. The "Defense" budget is not even mentioned in the national political debate raging over taxes, health care, etc. ..."
"... Obviously, this expense is intended to create an American Empire. To put it extremely mildly, it has and will fail. The death throes are going to threaten the existence of mankind. All because some religious, slave-holding lunatics were expelled from England, England forsooth, in the 17th century. OMG. ..."
"... Do these moves in Lebanon stem from US & Israeli demands that Iranian forces leave Syria? Or is that an excuse? When US & Israel refer to "Iranian forces" is that meant to include Hezbollah? Should we see these developments in Lebanon as primarily anti-Iranian (degrade Hezbollah forces) or anti-Assad (i.e. a second front)? ..."
"... Best comment above: that the Hegemon is merciless. It looks like the plan is to draw Hezbollah out of Syria. This will force Iran to commit more to Syria. That, in turn, will justify stronger measures by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US, etc.. Syria's worst sufferings, as it seems, have yet to begin. ..."
Nov 05, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

xxx

US sent troops to Lebanon in 1958 - 59 years ago.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

I wrote about tit-for-tat Cold War symbolism earlier this year .

Trump fired 59 missiles into Syria. Trump's missile volley came 7 months after Russia's first volley of 26 Kalibr cruise missiles (Putin's candles") on Putin's birthday in October 2015.

26 years before (November 1989) was the fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the Cold War. Russians were told that NATO would not advance "one inch" eastward.

Also: when US-led Coalition attacked Deir Ezzor in September 2016 the Russians were put on hold for 27 minutes - possibly also referring back to 1989 (an 'answer' to the Russian reference) .

In November 1958, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev issued the Western powers an ultimatum to withdraw from Berlin within six months and make it a free, demilitarised city. This ultimately led to the Berlin Crisis of 1961. The term "strategic patience" comes from this period.

If 59 missiles was a reference to 1958, what could be the import?

- foreshadowing an intervention in Lebanon?

- warning Putin not to demand that US leave Syria?

- a signal that US would be resolute? or stand by allies?

- a symbolic request for Russian to practice strategic patience because Trump's missile volley was forced by Saudi Arabia?

dapoopa | Nov 4, 2017 12:16:21 PM | 7
Given the signs of at least a modicum of detente between Saudi and Russia following the King's visit to Moscow last month, the threatening statements by Thamer and the resignation of Hariri are indeed alarming. My understanding is that Russia generally has a 'hands off' stance vis a vis Hezbullah so as not to antagonize Israel, but this also necessitates a delicate balancing act with regard to relations with Syria and Iran. Which raises the question: was the Saudi delegation's visit to Moscow really just a diversion tactic?
WorldBLee | Nov 4, 2017 12:17:41 PM | 8
There is no mercy from the US/Saudi/Israeli axis, unfortunately. After all Lebanon has been through, the last thing it needs is Wahhabist terrorists invading its territory to cause more misery.
psychohistorian | Nov 4, 2017 12:33:24 PM | 11 Burt | Nov 4, 2017 12:35:05 PM | 12
The United States spends $600 billion, not counting veteran's benefits, on war every year. This expense is approved unanimously by the Congress, elected representatives of the people. The "Defense" budget is not even mentioned in the national political debate raging over taxes, health care, etc.

Obviously, this expense is intended to create an American Empire. To put it extremely mildly, it has and will fail. The death throes are going to threaten the existence of mankind. All because some religious, slave-holding lunatics were expelled from England, England forsooth, in the 17th century. OMG.

Jackrabbit | Nov 4, 2017 1:10:23 PM | 16
Questions

Do these moves in Lebanon stem from US & Israeli demands that Iranian forces leave Syria? Or is that an excuse? When US & Israel refer to "Iranian forces" is that meant to include Hezbollah? Should we see these developments in Lebanon as primarily anti-Iranian (degrade Hezbollah forces) or anti-Assad (i.e. a second front)?

AriusArmenian | Nov 4, 2017 1:19:50 PM | 17
As if the people of Lebanon have not suffered enough.

To hell with the moronic warmongering of the US/Saudi/Israeli Axis.

paul | Nov 4, 2017 2:42:01 PM | 32
Best comment above: that the Hegemon is merciless. It looks like the plan is to draw Hezbollah out of Syria. This will force Iran to commit more to Syria. That, in turn, will justify stronger measures by Israel, Saudi Arabia, the US, etc.. Syria's worst sufferings, as it seems, have yet to begin.

[Nov 05, 2017] Trump, Papadopoulous and the Russia Connection by Daniel McCarthy

Nov 02, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
Evidence that goes far beyond Manafort's general shadiness will be needed to fulfill the dreams of those who imagine President Trump to be some sort of Manchurian Candidate.

The first charges to be filed in Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian involvement in last year's election fit a typical pattern: a federal prosecutor in a big political case goes after small fry and easy targets, slamming them for lying to investigators, even as evidence for the grand conspiracy he's meant to be investigating remains virtually nonexistent.

The easy target in this instance is Paul Manafort , who was briefly and rather unsuccessfully Donald Trump's campaign manager in the stretch between his sealing the nomination and the Republican convention. Manafort's extensive ties to disreputable foreign governments were already the subject of headlines over eighteen months ago. In April 2016, when Manafort was a "newly installed senior campaign adviser," the Guardian noted that his clients amounted to "a who's who of authoritarian leaders and scandal-plagued businessmen in Ukraine , Russia, the Philippines and more." The whiff of corruption that swirls around Manafort was already with him long before he hooked up with the Trump campaign. (Even so, it's highly unusual for a someone to be charged, as Manafort has been, with failing to register as a foreign agent: strict enforcement of the law would send a great many richly compensated D.C. operators to jail.)

Manafort would be the most brazen spy in the history of humanity if his purpose in the Trump campaign had been to coordinate with the Kremlin. We do live in extraordinary times, but evidence that goes far beyond Manafort's general shadiness will be needed to fulfill the dreams of those who imagine President Trump to be some sort of Manchurian Candidate. Hiring Manafort was certainly reckless on the part of the Trump campaign, and in a normal political season that would have been scandal enough. But neither Manafort's obvious vices nor his questionable competence (the GOP convention came close to succumbing to revolt) proved to be enough to derail Trump's locomotive to the White House.

The indictments against Manafort and his associate Rick Gates are fodder for partisan sensationalism, but they do not appear to pose great peril to Trump. Pundits who looked more closely at Mueller's first moves were more intrigued, however, by what they saw in the case of the small fry: that is, the case of George Papadopoulous, a low-level foreign-policy adviser to Trump's campaign. According to documents that Mueller had made public, Papadopoulous has already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with a certain "professor" who claimed to have access through Russian sources to "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. (The professor has been identified in the press as the Maltese academic Josef Mifsud, based in Scotland at the University of Sterling.)

Papadopoulos, just twenty-eight years old at the time, came to the Trump campaign after a stint as an adviser to the Ben Carson campaign during the early contests last year. Trump was in desperate need of staff -- indeed, people close to the campaign told me even months later, in July 2016, that it was barely an organized campaign at all -- so Papadopoulos was taken on and soon named among the campaign's foreign-policy advisers by Trump himself in a March 2016 interview with the Washington Post . Papadopoulos appeared in photos next to important campaign figures such as Jeff Sessions, and he could have been an influential part of the campaign himself. But he probably wasn't: the fact that he might appear in a photo with Jeff Sessions says at least as much about the then Alabama senator's standing as it does about Papadopoulos. The campaign was not a conventional campaign, and it had only the most shambolic organizational chart.

Did Mifsud in fact have "dirt" on Hillary Clinton, in the form of pilfered emails obtained by the Russians? This was the impression he apparently gave Papadopoulos, who passed the tale to more senior campaign staff and was given permission to continue his contacts with Mifsud. There was nothing illegal about this: what Papadopoulos has been charged with is not looking into whether a Maltese academic and his Russian friends -- in particular a young woman introduced to Papadopoulos as "Putin's niece" -- had Clinton or DNC email; rather, he has been charged with lying to investigators. Watergate lore would have it that "it's not the crime, it's the coverup" that brings down high officials implicated in wrongdoing. But in fact, federal prosecutors and investigators routinely pounce on misstatements and minor falsehoods to make cases that otherwise would go nowhere. That's standard operating procedure for special counsels and special prosecutors. Going after the small fry and hitting them with harsh charges for misstatements that may not otherwise seem terribly serious serves at least two purposes. Yes, such charges put pressure on what may be the weakest links in a chain leading to proof of corruption in high office. But they also keep a fishing expedition going by suggesting that if you can catch a few minnows, maybe you can land Moby-Dick, too. Prosecutors are unavoidably political figures, and high-stakes investigations of public officials, above all the president, inevitably have the character of PR campaigns as much as legal proceedings.

Everything we know so far suggests not a passionate love affair between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin but a series of awkward first dates between amateurs whose espionage credentials would make Boris and Natasha look like James Jesus Angleton. The Russians did not lack for motive to screw with America's election and to vex Hillary Clinton in particular. But nothing indicates that they had effective lines of communication (let alone control) into the upper echelons of the Trump campaign, to the extent that the Trump campaign was even organized enough to have echelons. There's something paradoxical in the same pundits who bemoan Donald Trump's absolute unpredictability and incorrigibility as president also believing that the Trump campaign and the Kremlin could work together smoothly to subvert American democracy. The Trump campaign couldn't even work together smoothly with itself, which is one thing Paul Manafort can prove. Daniel McCarthy is editor at large of The American Conservative

[Nov 05, 2017] Does Russia Now Have Superior Military Technology

Nov 05, 2017 | www.unz.com

Randal , November 2, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT

To speak with any authority on this topic I would have to have access to a lot of classified data both on the US armed forces and on the Russian ones. Alas, I don't.

And the reality is that anybody who has access to the former has only limited access to the latter, and vice versa. So all claims of certainty in this kind of assessment should be viewed with great scepticism. That's not all that important when we're just debating whose speculative analysis is the more convincing, but it becomes vital when people are trying to insist that a particular war can safely be fought – such as the likes of Bannon and the parts of the US military establishment who insist that a "limited war" with China can safely be fought now, and supposedly must be fought in the next few years because after that it will be too late for it to be safely fought. The latter is true, but the greatest and best experts on the planet can't say with any confidence what the outcome of even a "limited war" with China would be, nor give any plausible guarantee that their limits would be observed.

Such men – which evidently by his own words includes Bannon, should absolutely be kept out of government as a matter of the highest priority.

Typically, when presented with evidence that the USAF, USN and NATO could not even defeat the Serbian Army Corps in Kosovo .If we accept Clausewitz's thesis that "war is the continuation of politics by other means" then it becomes clear that the US has not won a real war in a long, long time

Seem to be a double standard here. If the Serbians were "not defeated" when they fought the NATO air forces to a standstill but lost Kosovo, which was what they were fighting over, then the US was not defeated in Iraq when it destroyed the Iraqi military and occupied the county but failed subsequently to impose a fully subordinate government on the country, or when it successfully engineered the overthrow of the Taliban and gained free access to Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda there but failed to make the country safe for feminists and American-style gays afterwards.

The bottom line: US nukes are only useful as a deterrent against other nuclear powers; for all other roles they are basically useless. And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA, you could say that they are almost totally useless

An argument against any need for nuclear weapons best put forward, in my experience (and I don't except the British CND, who included Bertrand Russell amongst their ranks), by Iran's Ahmadinejad. Personally I'm with Saker on this and I'd still want my country to have a nuclear deterrent, but it's quite plausible that Iran's elite does not agree.

anony-mouse , November 2, 2017 at 11:32 pm GMT
The original Cassandra of Greek mythology was young, female and beautiful. Not quite PCR.

As for seeing the future next year we can all celebrate the 10th anniversary of his Apocalypsism.:

http://endoftheworldsurvivalguide.com/DrPaulCraigRoberts.html

Of course if the end is near there's only one truly American thing to sing:

Randal , November 2, 2017 at 11:48 pm GMT

Let's just say that the biggest advantage the US had over everybody else during WWII was a completely untouched industrial base which made it possible to produce fantastic numbers of weapon systems and equipment in close to ideal conditions. Some, shall we kindly say, "patriotic" US Americans have interpreted that as a sign of the "vigor" and "superiority" of the Capitalist economic organization while, in reality, this simply was a direct result of the fact that the US was protected by two huge oceans

This is the underlying story of the entirety of the US rise to global dominance by the late C20th – the ability, having once established continental security (by the late C19th certainly, arguably much earlier for practicable purposes) to develop in peace at home whilst avoiding or, when thought profitable, dabbling in rivals' wars, from a safe distance. That situation, combined with the seizure of an almost completely unexploited continent from relatively primitive occupants and its efficient exploitation, is arguably enough to explain everything about the US's success relative to the nations of the old world.

So what does all this tell us about the US armed forces: (in no special order)
1.They are big, way bigger than any other
2.They have unmatched (worldwide) power projection (mobility) capabilities
3.They are high-tech heavy which gives them a big advantage in some type of conflicts
4.They have the means (nukes) to wipe any country off the face of the earth
5.They control the oceans and strategic choke points

Is that enough to win a war?

Actually, no, it is not. All it takes to nullify these advantages is an enemy who is aware of them and who refuses to fight what I call the "American type of war" (on this concept, see here). The recent wars in Lebanon, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have clearly shown that well-adapted tactics mostly deny the US armed forces the advantages listed above or, at the very least, make them irrelevant.

Actually, it is, given the political motivation to do what is necessary, against any country that does not have a nuclear deterrent, as Japan found out (and Germany in WW1).

There is a real question as to whether and to what degree the Russians (and soon the Chinese) have now nullified points 2 & 3 and the implicit US dominance in stand-off weaponry and suppression of air defences. To the extent that they might have done so, then they might have achieved a situation in which they could not be defeated by a US prepared to bear the cost of doing so even including the kind of total mobilisation of society enacted to defeat the Japanese and Germans in WW2, even imagining the disappearance of nuclear weapons.

As I noted above if you are applying what you call the "Clausewitzian" broad definition of victory in war, then the US defeated the Yugoslav and the Afghan states (the original justification for attacking Afghanistan was not to build a feminist social democracy, but to get at Al Qaeda). Whether the US "won" in Iraq in that sense depends on what you view as the motivation for the attack on Iraq, but for certain the Iraqi state was defeated comprehensively. Whether any of those victories was worthwhile for the American people is obviously highly dubious, but first the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is a well established one and second, the America people weren't the ones in whose interests the decisions were being made.

For sure, those countries were not peer or even near peer opponents, but the examples of Germany (twice) and Japan in the C20th show that much more formidable opponents can be defeated, given the motivation, based upon exactly the advantages you enumerate here. Motivation, however, is key.

ThreeCranes , November 3, 2017 at 2:00 am GMT
I think, Saker, that you mistake the role of "war" in America today. The point is not to win. If we wanted to do that we would mount an army of 20,000,000 men and let 'er rip.

As in so many things, the progressive Germans showed the way. We learned from Hitler that the only way to avoid depressions, maintain full employment while giving bankers a free hand, stimulate research and development while creating steady demand to prop up domestic industry is through ever increasing military expenditures. As was demonstrated during the Roosevelt administration and in Japan today government spending on infrastructure just won't provide enough demand to keep things ticking along smoothly. The only ism American economists and politicians believe in is military Keynesianism.

Americans have long had a reputation for being overoptimistic; some say, naively so. They consistently overestimate the power of positive thinking. This pragmatism works until one day, it doesn't.

But don't underestimate America, Saker. When the dross has burned off, when today's Washington D.C. posers are ground to dust, there is a core of very hard steel in tough-minded men whose presence is not obvious to the outsider simply because there is no place for them in the phony veneer that America projects today. But under the right conditions they will emerge. America, like Russia, was a wild frontier country not too long ago. Those were some hard-bitten men who swept the Indians off the plains, cleared timber, plowed soil with mules, hewed logs and fished offshore in small boats. Their grandsons live today.

Cyrano , November 3, 2017 at 3:17 am GMT
I think that Pierre de Coubertin would be proud of US for living according to the Olympic principle: It's not important to win, but to participate. And then let someone else win the wars and then take credit for it.

Like in WW2 when USSR did all the fighting and then after the war they discovered that communism is not "democratic". The shock there, good think that they found out that in time to start the Cold war and prevent their former undemocratic allies from "taking over the world".

Then in the 80's they decided to start harnessing the power of Islam in order to fight their wars on the cheap (without too many losses of US lives) I guess you can say the peaceful country met the peaceful religion and of course great things can happen when 2 such great pacifistic entities join forces.

Of course soon after they started using Islam to fight their wars for them, they also conveniently discovered that they too are not democratic, so the war on terror started in order to make sure that their "allies" don't make too many gains at the expense of democracy.

Lemurmaniac , November 3, 2017 at 5:22 am GMT
@Randal

I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

It would be interesting to play around with a counter-factual 'Pact of Steel' between Germany and Russia in WWII rather than Germany and Italy. The enormous strategic depth and resources of Russia would equalize the American advantages you enumerated. US strategic thinkers still fret about a union of German technical and industrial might with the military power and resources of the modern Russian state (plus Russia's technical capital). That's why, contrary to MSM propaganda, Russia doesn't really care either way about the EU (which is run by Germany anyway). It cares about NATO and American influence, since this is what undermines Putin's vision of a Lisbon to Vladivostok Europe (which really means a Berlin-Moscow axis that would confine Washington's European presence to the British Isles).

Erebus , November 3, 2017 at 8:46 am GMT
A "war" between great powers today is probably impossible. Nobody is going to march on Moscow, or send gunboats up the Yangtze. What there may well be are short, ferociously paced and destructive encounters in limited, off-shore theatres. Here, Russia has the advantage.

Taking Syria as the test case, the Russian contingent is microscopic compared to in-theatre USM forces and prima facie could be overwhelmed pretty quickly. Their size means they can't win, per se, but it also means that Russia doesn't lose much should they be attacked.
Meanwhile, compare that to USM assets that would be destroyed in that hypothetical exchange. CENTCOM Doha and the 5th Fleet in Manama would be gone, along with any other participating/supporting asset. The Russians could probably be back pounding ISIS within a month, while the USM's M.E. presence would probably end. Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies' confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

As Andrei Martyanov pointed out in his 800lb Gorilla post here on UNZ, Russia's superiority in stand-off, high precision weapons means it doesn't have to leave its own territory to launch devastating attacks against USM M.E. theatre assets. For the US to retaliate, they would have to attack Russian territory, and that instantly turns it into a very, very different war as the US homeland suddenly becomes fair game. Even if restricted to conventional weapons, the results could be devastating to any Imperial, or even National, ambitions the US could still be entertaining. Short of nuclear, the Russians win walking away.

animalogic , November 3, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT
@thomasgregory

Absolutely right thomas: should the US lose its reserve currency status & should the world grow weary of funding its various self indulgent deficits it will be interesting to see whether its defense budget & its Imperial pretensions can be maintained.

Randal , November 3, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT
@Lemurmaniac

I largely agree except france and Britain did the bulk of the work in WWI, and the USSR shouldered the main war effort in WWII. But that is part of American military strength, because its geo-strategic position means it can fight wars of choice.

Indeed. And to some extent the US inherited some of the advantages Saker sets out from the British Empire, which had used them to leverage its global empire against the military and industrial superiority of Germany (over Britain).

Randal , November 3, 2017 at 11:35 am GMT
@Priss Factor

US has more depth.

It's like before Pearl Harbor, US military wasn't all that more impressive than the Japanese. But US had great depth in manpower and resource. So, once it went into war-footing, it could create a war machine 100x that of Japan.

That's seriously open to question these days. In the C20th the US was the workshop of the world. When the initial stocks of war-fighting material were exhausted or committed, the US could create more and better, faster than any other state in the world. Is that still true now that China is the world's workshop?

If and when there were a "limited war" with China of the kind Bannon and his ilk have suggested, after the existing stocks of missiles have been burned up and replacements for losses of ships and aircraft and anti-air and anti-missile systems begin to be needed, could the US replace them faster and better than its opponent?

Does modern technology mean that most factories are no longer needed? Can an economy configured for just in time delivery of consumer goods be retooled to produce high tech war material quickly and effectively?

Quartermaster , November 3, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

The bottom line was this: US forces were better equipped (quantitatively and, sometimes, even qualitatively) than the others and they could muster firepower in amounts difficult to achieve for their enemies.

The US had numbers, but the US was not qualitatively superior to the Germans in WW2. The Sherman tank, as just one example, was a track laying coffin against the run of the mill German Panzer. The P-51D had the advantage of numbers and range, but the Germans were fighting in their own skies and both the Bf-109 and FW-190 were the equal of the Mustang. The US had an advantage of a large rear area to train a bunch of pilots and the German pilot was required to fly until he died, and the shear numbers finally overwhelmed them.

Such things is what led Stalin to say that quantity has its own quality.

After WWII the US was the only major industrialized country on the planet whose industry had not been blown to smithereens and for the next couple of decades the US enjoyed a situation close to quasi total monopoly.

British Industry was not blown to smithereens either. Same with Canadian Industry. Both did quite well after the war.

And since neither Russia or China would ever contemplate a first-strike against the USA,

You didn't keep up. The Soviets predicated much of their planning on initiating nuclear war. The Stavka firmly believed that nuke war could be won.

Suffice to say that the Americans could not even begin to contemplate executing the number of sorties the tiny Russian Aerospace task force in Syria has achieved.

In their deteriorated state, the US Air Forces would have serious problems maintaining any sort of reasonable sortie rate. The fact that not much is being asked of the Russian units in Syria really doesn't give much to work with when it comes to an argument of this sort.

but the fact is that most of them know nothing about Hegelian dialectics. They. therefore, view things in a static way, not as processes.

Hegelian dialectics are not needed to avoid static thinking. Hegelian philosophy is simply one way of think of things. It's truly buffoonish to think it requires Hegelian dialectics. Hegelian dialectics is one of the factors that sunk the Soviet Union.

Paul Craig Roberts will remain a lone voice crying in the desert.

Perhaps Roberts is right about some things. He's been far to shrill and silly and it has affected his credibility, so few people listen to him. Is the curse of a man that he can't discipline himself and so husband his credibility so people will listen to him when it really counts.

Andrei Martyanov , Website November 3, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT
@Erebus

Everything about the USM, from its doctrines, to its training, leadership, weapons and materiel require countless layers of redundancy to operate at all. Replacing that would be all but politically/economically/technically impossible without seriously degrading their presence somewhere else (Japan? Germany?), and so America would cease to be a force to be reckoned with in the M.E. The USM knows it, and so have let a tiny Russian force have its way while it loses credibility, allies' confidence and strategic advantage every day it continues to stand down.

Bravo! I think the discussion thread after that could be simply closed. Succinct and concise statement of the essence of this huge issue.

Ron Unz , November 3, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

As a non-military expert, one thing that strikes me is the near-perfect fit between the existing strengths of Russia and China, which are currently in a loose quasi-alliance against the general bullying of The American Empire.

Obviously, Russia has vast natural resources, including energy, while China has the world's largest industrial base, which requires such resources and energy supplies. But this ideal meshing also seems particularly strong in military matters.

Based on this article and a few previous ones, it sounds like Russia has achieved considerable superiority to America in various aspects of advanced military technology, much more so than China. But Russia's industrial base is probably insufficient to match America (plus its European allies/vassals) in the sort of quantitative production that obviously matters in military conflicts, just like Japan and Germany couldn't hope to match America in the production side of World War II.

However, China's industrial production base is considerably larger than America's, and if it were geared up in producing Russian military-designs (which obviously Russia would be loathe to provide) it would easily beat America in the War of Production.

So the interesting thing is that if Russia and China were actually a single, politically-unified country (which obviously they can't be), the combined total would probably be far stronger economically and militarily than any combination of the American Empire and its allies.

Does this sound correct from a military perspective?

Carlos5432 , November 3, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT
The US position is more of a paradox. Its targeting Russia to weaken China to maintain its global hedgemony, but any war would see both countries destroyed leaving China the worlds dominant power.

The US is much more developed than Russia so has more to loose. It has numerous bases within 1000km of Russia that would be targeted and destroyed, by comparison Russia has vertually none. As someone on here already stated they could hit Russia back directly but then your into MAD territory.

The most logical choice for the US is to make peace with Russia which its people have alot in common with. Just like ironically far sighted Trump tried to initially do before he was stopped by his arogant stupid party and the democrats.

[Nov 04, 2017] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Leads US President Trump to War with Iran by Prof. James Petras

Highly recommended!
I am not sure the tail is wagging the dog in Middle East. The USA has Carter doctrine in place which means that they need to dominate all petro states. That might explain high level of animosity toward Iran, which is not a puppet regime as Carter doctrine requires. In this sense Israel interests are probably highly congruent with the USA interests. Otherwise Netanyahu would not be a prime minister. He proved to be greedy and reckless. The US intelligence agencies probably have enough material to remove him without much noise.
Notable quotes:
"... Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations are leading President Trump , like a puppy on a leash, into a major war with Iran. The hysterical '52 Presidents' and 'Bibi' Netanyahu are busy manufacturing Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to 'vaporize' Israel, , The buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. We will cite ten recent examples of Israeli-authored policies, implemented by Trump in his march to war (there are scores of others). ..."
"... Trump's total reliance on his pro-Israel advisers, embedded in his regime, at the expense of US military intelligence, has led to the construction of a parallel government, pitting the President and his Zionist-advisers against his generals . This certainly exposes the total hypocrisy of Trump's presidential campaign promise to ' Make America Great Again' . His practice and policy of promoting war with Iran for the sake of Israel are placing US national interest and the advice of the US generals last and will never restore American prestige. ..."
Oct 26, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

Can Generals James Mattis (US Secretary of Defense) and John Hyten (Head of US Strategic Command) Prevent a Disaster?

Introduction

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations are leading President Trump , like a puppy on a leash, into a major war with Iran. The hysterical '52 Presidents' and 'Bibi' Netanyahu are busy manufacturing Holocaust-level predictions that a non-nuclear Iran is preparing to 'vaporize' Israel, , The buffoonish US President Trump has swallowed this fantasy wholesale and is pushing our nation toward war for the sake of Israel and its US-based supporters and agents. We will cite ten recent examples of Israeli-authored policies, implemented by Trump in his march to war (there are scores of others).

  1. After many years, Israel and 'the 52 President' finally made the US withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) because of its detailed documentation of Israeli crimes against Palestinian people. Trump complied with their demands.
  2. Tel Aviv demanded a Zionist fanatic and backer of the illegal Jewish settler occupation of Palestinian lands, the bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman , be appointed US Ambassador to Israel. Trump complied, despite the ambassador's overt conflict of interest.
  3. Israel launched waves of savage bombings against Syrian government troops and facilities engaged in a war against ISIS-mercenary terrorists. Israel, which had backed the terrorists in its ambition to break-up of the secular Syrian state, demanded US support. Trump complied, and sent more US arms to the anti-government terrorists.
  4. Israel denounced the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal Framework and Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action , signed by 6 major states and UN Security Council Members, (US, France, UK, Germany, China and Russia). A furious Netanyahu demanded that President Trump follow Tel Aviv and abrogate the multiparty agreement signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama . Trump complied and the US is at risk of openly violating its international agreement.

    Trump parrots Netanyahu's falsehoods to the letter: He raves that Iran, while technically in compliance, has violated ' the spirit of the agreement' without citing a single instance of actual violation. The 5 other signers of the ' Framework', the US military and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency have repeatedly certified Iran's strict compliance with the accord. Trump rejects the evidence of countless experts among US allies and 'his own generals' while embracing the hysterical lies from Israel and the ' 52' . Who would have thought the 'hard-nosed' businessman Trump would be so ' spiritual' when it came to honoring and breaking treaties and agreements!

  5. Israel and the ' 52' have demanded that Washington imprison and fine US citizens who have exercised their constitutional First Amendment Right of free speech by supporting the international boycott, divest and sanctions (BDS) campaign, which is designed to end the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and crimes against Palestinians. Trump complied. Americans may soon face over a decade in prison and complete economic ruin for supporting a peaceful economic boycott of Israeli settler products. This will represent an unprecedented violation of the US Constitution. At present, US public employees, like teachers in certain US states, are facing job loss for refusing to sign a 'loyalty oath' not to boycott products from Israel's illegal settlements. Desperate American victims of the floods and natural disasters in Texas are being denied access to public US taxpayer relief funds unless they sign similar loyalty oaths in support of Israel.
  6. Israel demanded that the US appoint Zionist fanatic real estate attorney, Jason Greenblatt and real estate speculator, Jared Kushner as Middle East peace negotiators. Trump appointed South Carolina businesswoman Nikki Haley as US Ambassador to the United Nations. Israel pushed for Ms. Haley, the first US governor to criminalize support for the peaceful BDS movement.
  7. Trump went against the advice of ' his Generals' in his own cabinet regarding Iran's compliance with the nuclear agreement, and chose to comply with Netanyahu's demands.
  8. Trump supports the long-standing Israeli project to maneuver a Kurdish takeover of Northern Iraq, grabbing the oil-rich Kirkuk province and permanently divide the once secular, nationalist Iraqi nation. Trump has sent arms and military advisers to the Kurds in war-torn Syria as they attempt to grab territory for a separate 'Kurdistan'. This is part of an Israeli plan to subdivide the Middle East into impotent tribal 'statelets'.
  9. Trump rejected the Turkish government's demand to extradite CIA-Israeli-backed Fethullah Gulen , self-exiled in the US since 1999, for his leadership role in the failed 2016 military coup d'etat.
  10. Like all his predecessors, Trump is completely submissive to Israeli-directed ' lobbies' (like AIPAC), which operate on behalf of a foreign power, in violation of the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act. Trump chose his Orthodox Zionist son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a callow real estate investor and prominent supporter for war against Iran, as his chief foreign policy adviser.

President Trump's irresponsible pandering to Israel and its American-Jewish agents has caused deep unease among the Generals in his cabinet, as well as among active duty and retired US military officers, who are skeptical about Tel Aviv's push for open-ended US wars in the Middle East.

Ten Reasons Why Military Officers support America's Nuclear Accord with Iran

The Netanyahu-Israel First power configuration in Washington succeeded in convincing Trump to tear-up the nuclear accord with Iran. This went against the advice and wishes of the top US generals in the White House and active duty officers in the field who support the agreement and recognize Iran's cooperation.

The Generals have ten solid reasons for rejecting the Netanyahu-Trump push to shred the accord:

  1. The agreement is working. By all reliable, independent and official observers, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, the US intelligence community and the US Secretary of State – Iran is complying with its side of the agreement.
  2. If Trump violates the agreement, co-signed by the 6 members of the UN Security Council, in order to truckle to the whims of Israel and its gang of ' 52', the US government will lose all credibility among its allies. The US military will be equally tainted in its current and future dealings with NATO and other military 'partners'.
  3. Violation of the agreement will force the Iranians to restart their nuclear, as well as advanced defensive, weapons programs, increasing the risk of an Israeli-Trump instigated military confrontation. Any US war with Iran will be prolonged, costing the lives of tens of thousands of US troops, its land bases in the Gulf States, and warships in the Persian Gulf. Full-scale war with Iran, a large and well-armed country, would be a disaster for the entire region.
  4. US generals know from their earlier experiences under the George W. Bush Administration that Zionist officials in Washington, in close collaboration with Israeli handlers, worked tirelessly to engineer the US invasion of Iraq and the prolonged war in Afghanistan. This led to the death and injury of hundreds of thousands of US military personnel as well as millions of civilian casualties in the invaded countries. The ensuing chaos created the huge refugee crises now threatening the stability of Europe. The Generals view the Israel-Firsters as irresponsible armchair warmongers and media propagandists, who have no 'skin in the game' through any service in the US Armed Forces. They are correctly seen as agents for a foreign entity.
  5. US generals learned the lesson of the wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Somalia – where disastrous interventions led to defeats and loss of potential important regional allies.
  6. US generals, who are working with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to negotiate an agreement with North Korea, know that Trump's breaking a negotiated agreement with Iran, only reinforces North Korea's distrust of the US and will harden its opposition to a diplomatic settlement on the Korean Peninsula. It is clear that a full-scale war with nuclear-armed North Korea could wipe out tens of thousands of US troops and allies throughout the region and kill or displace hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians.
  7. US generals are deeply disturbed by the notion that their Commander in Chief, the elected President of the United States, is taking his orders from Israel and its US proxies. They dislike committing American blood and treasure for a foreign power whose policies have only degraded US influence in the Middle East. The generals want to act for and in defense of US national interests – and not Tel Aviv's.
  8. US military officials resent the fact that Israel receives the most advanced US military weapons and technology, which have been subsidized by the US taxpayers. In some cases, Israelis receive advanced US weapons before US troops even have them. They also are aware that Israeli intelligence agents (and American citizens) have spied on the US and received confidential military information in order to preempt US policy. Israel operates within the United States with total impunity!
  9. US generals are concerned about negotiating accords with China over strategic military issues of global importance. The constant catering and groveling to Israel, an insignificant global economic entity, has reduced US prestige and status, as well as China's trust in the validity of any military agreements with the Americans.
  10. Trump's total reliance on his pro-Israel advisers, embedded in his regime, at the expense of US military intelligence, has led to the construction of a parallel government, pitting the President and his Zionist-advisers against his generals . This certainly exposes the total hypocrisy of Trump's presidential campaign promise to ' Make America Great Again' . His practice and policy of promoting war with Iran for the sake of Israel are placing US national interest and the advice of the US generals last and will never restore American prestige.

Trump's decision not to certify Iran's compliance with the accord and his handing the ultimate decision on an international agreement signed by the six members of the UN Security Council over to the US Congress is ominous: He has effectively given potential war making powers to a corrupt legislature, often derided as 'Israeli occupied territory', which has always sided with Israeli and US Zionist war mongers. Trump is snubbing ' his' State Department, the Pentagon and the various US Intelligence agencies while giving into the demands of such Zionist zealots as New York Senator Charles Schumer , Netanyahu's alter ego in the US Senate and a huge booster for war with Iran.

Conclusion

Trump's refusal to certify Iran's compliance with nuclear accord reflects the overwhelming power of Israel within the US Presidency. Trump's rebuke of his generals and Secretary of State Tillerson, the UN Security Council and the 5 major cosigners of the 2015 accord with Iran, exposes the advanced degradation of the US Presidency and the US role in global politics.

All previous US Presidents have been influenced by the billionaire and millionaire die-hard Israel-Firsters, who funded their electoral campaigns. But occasionally, some ' Commanders in Chief' have decided to pursue policies favoring US national interest over Israel's bellicose ambitions. Avoiding a catastrophic war in the Middle East is such a case: Obama chose to negotiate and sign a nuclear accord with Iran. Tel Aviv's useful fool, Donald Trump, intends to break the agreement and drag this nation further into the hell of regional war.

In this regard, international opinion has sided with America's generals. Only Israel and its US acolytes on Wall Street and Hollywood applaud the blustering, bellicose Trump!

* James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York.He is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, TempsModerne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. In 1973-76 he was a member of the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America

Read also: They prepare new Iraq in Syria - Danger of Nuclear War

[Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level.
Notable quotes:
"... I am using the Orwellian verb "unperson" playfully, but I'm also trying to be precise. What's happening isn't censorship, technically, at least not in the majority of cases. While there are examples of classic censorship (e.g., in the UK, France, and Germany), apart from so-called "terrorist content," most governments aren't formally banning expressions of anti-corporatist dissent. This isn't Czechoslovakia, after all. This is global capitalism, where the repression of dissent is a little more subtle. The point of Google unpersoning CounterPunch (and probably many other publications) and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists like Hedges is not to prevent them from publishing their work or otherwise render them invisible to readers. The goal is to delegitmize them, and thus decrease traffic to their websites and articles, and ultimately drive them out of business, if possible. ..."
"... Another objective of this non-censorship censorship is discouraging writers like myself from contributing to publications like CounterPunch, Truthdig, Alternet, Global Research, and any other publications the corporatocracy deems "illegitimate." Google unpersoning a writer like Hedges is a message to other non-ball-playing writers. The message is, "this could happen to you." This message is meant for other journalists, primarily, but it's also aimed at writers like myself who are making a living (to whatever degree) writing and selling what we think of as "literature." ..."
"... These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level. ..."
"... Chomsky explains how this system operates in What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream . It isn't a question of censorship the system operates on rewards and punishments, financial and emotional coercion, and subtler forms of intimidation. Making examples of non-cooperators is a particularly effective tactic. Ask any one of the countless women whose careers have been destroyed by Harvey Weinstein, or anyone who's been to graduate school, or worked at a major corporation. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
Nov 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

On November 30, 2016, presumably right at the stroke of midnight, Google Inc. unpersoned CounterPunch. They didn't send out a press release or anything. They just quietly removed it from the Google News aggregator. Not very many people noticed. This happened just as the "fake news" hysteria was being unleashed by the corporate media, right around the time The Washington Post ran this neo-McCarthyite smear piece vicariously accusing CounterPunch, and a number of other publications, of being "peddlers of Russian propaganda." As I'm sure you'll recall, that astounding piece of "journalism" (which The Post was promptly forced to disavow with an absurd disclaimer but has refused to retract) was based on the claims of an anonymous website apparently staffed by a couple of teenagers and a formerly rabidly anti-Communist, now rabidly anti-Putin think tank. Little did most people know at the time that these were just the opening salvos in what has turned out to be an all-out crackdown on any and all forms of vocal opposition to the global corporate ruling classes and their attempts to quash the ongoing nationalist backlash against their neoliberal agenda.

Almost a year later, things are much clearer. If you haven't been following this story closely, and you care at all about freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and that kind of stuff, you may want to take an hour or two and catch up a bit on what's been happening. I offered a few examples of some of the measures governments and corporations have been taking to stifle expressions of dissent in my latest piece in CounterPunch , and there are many more detailed articles online, like this one by Andre Damon from July, and this follow-up he published last week (which reports that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Chris Hedges has also been unpersoned). Or, if you're the type of soul who only believes what corporations tell you, and who automatically dismisses anything published by a Trotskyist website, here's one from last December in The Guardian , and an op-ed in The New York Times , both of which at least report what Google, Twitter, and Facebook are up to. Or you could read this piece by Robert Parry , who also has "legitimate" (i.e., corporate) credentials, and who hasn't been unpersoned just yet, although I'm sure they'll get around to him eventually.

I am using the Orwellian verb "unperson" playfully, but I'm also trying to be precise. What's happening isn't censorship, technically, at least not in the majority of cases. While there are examples of classic censorship (e.g., in the UK, France, and Germany), apart from so-called "terrorist content," most governments aren't formally banning expressions of anti-corporatist dissent. This isn't Czechoslovakia, after all. This is global capitalism, where the repression of dissent is a little more subtle. The point of Google unpersoning CounterPunch (and probably many other publications) and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists like Hedges is not to prevent them from publishing their work or otherwise render them invisible to readers. The goal is to delegitmize them, and thus decrease traffic to their websites and articles, and ultimately drive them out of business, if possible.

Another objective of this non-censorship censorship is discouraging writers like myself from contributing to publications like CounterPunch, Truthdig, Alternet, Global Research, and any other publications the corporatocracy deems "illegitimate." Google unpersoning a writer like Hedges is a message to other non-ball-playing writers. The message is, "this could happen to you." This message is meant for other journalists, primarily, but it's also aimed at writers like myself who are making a living (to whatever degree) writing and selling what we think of as "literature."

Yes, as you've probably guessed by now, in addition to writing political satire, I am, as rogue journalist Caitlin Johnstone so aptly put it once, an "elitist wanker." I've spent the majority of my adult life writing stage plays and working in the theater, and it doesn't get any more elitist than that. My plays are published by "establishment" publishers, have won a few awards, and have been produced internationally. I recently published my "debut novel" (which is what you call it if you're an elitist wanker) and am currently trying to promote and sell it. I mention this, not to blow my little horn, but to the set the stage to try to illustrate how these post-Orwellian intimidation tactics (i.e., unpersoning people from the Internet) work. These tactics do not just suppress information. They enforce conformity at much deeper level.

The depressing fact of the matter is, in our brave new Internet-dominated world, corporations like Google, Twitter, and Facebook (not to mention Amazon), are, for elitist wankers like me, in the immortal words of Colonel Kurz, "either friends or they are truly enemies to be feared." If you are in the elitist wanker business, regardless of whether you're Jonathan Franzen, Garth Risk Hallberg, Margaret Atwood, or some "mid-list" or "emerging" author, there is no getting around these corporations. So it's kind of foolish, professionally speaking, to write a bunch of essays that will piss them off, and then publish these essays in CounterPunch. Literary agents advise against this. Other elitist literary wankers, once they discover what you've been doing, will avoid you like the bubonic plague. Although it's perfectly fine to write books and movies about fictional evil corporations, writing about how real corporations are using their power to mold societies into self-policing virtual prisons of politically-correct, authoritarian consumers is well, it's something that is just not done in professional elitist wanker circles.

Normally, all this goes without saying, as these days most elitist wankers are trained how to write, and read, and think, in MFA conformity factories, where they screen out any unstable weirdos with unhealthy interests in political matters. This is to avoid embarrassing episodes like Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize lecture (which, if you haven't read it, you probably should), and is why so much of contemporary literature is so well-behaved and instantly forgettable. This institutionalized screening system is also why the majority of journalists employed by mainstream media outlets understand, without having to be told, what they are, and are not, allowed to report. Chomsky explains how this system operates in What Makes Mainstream Media Mainstream . It isn't a question of censorship the system operates on rewards and punishments, financial and emotional coercion, and subtler forms of intimidation. Making examples of non-cooperators is a particularly effective tactic. Ask any one of the countless women whose careers have been destroyed by Harvey Weinstein, or anyone who's been to graduate school, or worked at a major corporation.

Or let me provide you with a personal example.

A couple weeks ago, I googled myself (which we elitist wankers are wont to do), and noticed that two of my published books had disappeared from the "Knowledge Panel" that appears in the upper right of the search results. I also noticed that the people "People Also Search For" in the panel had changed. For years, consistently, the people you saw there had been a variety of other elitist literary wankers and leftist types. Suddenly, they were all rather right-wing types, people like Ilana Mercer and John Derbyshire, and other VDARE writers. So that was a little disconcerting.

I set out to contact the Google Search specialists to inquire about this mysterious development, and was directed to a series of unhelpful web pages directing me to other unhelpful pages with little boxes where you can write and submit a complaint to Google, which they will completely ignore. Being an elitist literary wanker, I also wrote to Google Books, and exchanged a number of cordial emails with an entity (let's call her Ms. O'Brien) who explained that, for "a variety of reasons," the "visibility" of my books (which had been consistently visible for many years) was subject to change from day to day, and that, regrettably, she couldn't assist me further, and that sending her additional cordial emails was probably a pointless waste of time. Ms. O'Brien was also pleased to report that my books had been restored to "visibility," which, of course, when I checked, they hadn't.

"Whatever," I told myself, "this is silly. It's probably just some IT thing, maybe Google Books updating its records, or something." However, I was still perplexed by the "People Also Search For" switcheroo, because it's kind of misleading to link my writing to that of a bunch of serious right-wingers. Imagine, if you were a dystopian sci-fi fan, and you googled me to check out my book and see what else I had written, and so on, and my Google "Knowledge Panel" popped up and displayed all these far-right VDARE folks. Unless you're a far-right VDARE type yourself, that might be a little bit of a turn-off.

At that point, I wondered if I was getting paranoid. Because Google Search runs on algorithms, right? And my political satire and commentary is published, not only in CounterPunch, but also in The Unz Review, where these far-right-wing types are also published. Moreover, my pieces are often reposted by what appear to be "Russia-linked" websites, and everyone knows that the Russians are all a bunch of white supremacists, right? On top of which, it's not like I'm Stephen King here. I am hardly famous enough to warrant the attention of any post-Orwellian corporate conspiracy to stigmatize anti-establishment dissent by manipulating how authors are displayed on Google (i.e., subtly linking them to white supremacists, anti-Semites, and others of that ilk).

So, okay, I reasoned, what probably happened was over the course of twenty-four hours, for no logical reason whatsoever, all the folks who had been googling me (along with other leftist and literary figures) suddenly stopped googling me, all at once, while, more or less at the exact same time, hundreds of right-wingers started googling me (along with those white supremacist types they had, theoretically, already been googling). That kind of makes sense when you think about it, right? I mean, Google couldn't be doing this intentionally. It must have been some sort of algorithm that detected this sudden, seismic shift in the demographic of people googling me.

Or, I don't know, does that possibly sound like a desperate attempt to rationalize the malicious behavior of an unaccountable, more or less god-like, global corporation that wields the power of life and death over my book sales and profile on the Internet (a more or less god-like global corporation that could do a lot of additional damage to my sales and reputation with complete impunity once the piece you're reading is published)? Or am I simply getting paranoid, and, in fact, I've developed a secret white supremacist fan base without my knowledge? Only Google knows for sure.

Such are the conundrums elitist literary wankers have to face these days that is, those of us wankers who haven't learned to keep our fucking mouths shut yet. Probably the safest course of action, regardless of whether I'm being paranoid or Google does have me on some kind of list, is to lay off the anti-corporatist essays, and definitely stop contributing to CounterPunch, not to mention The Unz Review, and probably also give up the whole dystopian satire novel thing, and ensure that my second novel conforms to the "normal" elitist wanker rules (which every literary wanker knows, but which, technically, do not exist). Who knows, if I play my cards right, maybe I can even sell the rights to Miramax, or okay, some other corporation.

Once that happens, I assume that Google will want to restore me to normal personhood, and return my books to visibility, and I will ride off into the Hollywood sunset with the Clintons, Clooneys, and Pichais, and maybe even Barack Obama himself, if he isn't off jet skiing with Richard Branson, or having dinner with Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, who just happen to live right down the street, or hawking the TPP on television. By that time, CounterPunch and all those other "illegitimate" publications will have been forced onto the dark web anyway, so I won't be giving up all that much. I know, that sounds pretty cold and cynical, but my liberal friends will understand I just hope all my new white supremacist fans will find it in their hearts to forgive me.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

anonymous , • Disclaimer November 3, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

Thank you for mustering the courage and then taking the time to spell out these outrages in a straightforward, unemotional way. I've appreciated the humor that centers your other essays, but there's not a damned thing funny about this.

But why are things as they are? With billions aplenty, our rulers must be driven by their libido dominandi. We're left to wonder only whether they get off more on ostracizing the Hopkinses, on buying the politicians, or on herding the sheep from bathrooms to statues to flags.

[Nov 04, 2017] 13 Shocking Facts About Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller by George Washington

Mueller is the member of ruling neoliberal elite... That's for sure.
Nov 02, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Talking heads act like Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is fair, impartial and unbiased. But the facts are a wee bit different ... Failure to Aggressively Prosecute the BCCI Scandal

The BBC noted :

[Mueller] is also known for leading the probe into the 1991 collapse of the Luxembourg-registered Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

Williams Safire wrote in the New York Times:

The B.C.C.I. scandal involves the laundering of drug money, the illicit financing of terrorism and of arms to Iraq, the easy purchase of respectability and the corruption of the world banking system.

For more than a decade, the biggest banking swindle in history worked beautifully. Between $5 billion and $15 billion was bilked from governments and individual depositors to be put to the most evil of purposes -- while lawmen and regulators slept.

Now the fight among investigators is coming out into the open. Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who gave impetus to long-contained probes, told a Senate subcommittee headed by Senator John Kerry that he is getting no cooperation from the Thornburgh Justice Department.

Justice's Criminal Division chief, Robert Mueller, tells me he will have a hatchet-burying session with the independent-minded D.A. next week, and vehemently denies having told British intelligence to stop cooperating with the Manhattan grand jury.

Mueller's handling of the BCCI scandal as the point man for the Justice Department was widely criticized. As noted by a Senate report written by Senators Kerry and Brown:

Over the past two years, the Justice Department's handling of BCCI has been criticized in numerous editorials in major newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, reflecting similar criticism on the part of several Congressmen, including the chairman of the Subcommittee, Senator Kerry; the chief Customs undercover officer who handled the BCCI drug-money laundering sting, Robert Mazur; his superior at Customs, Commissioner William von Raab; New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau; former Senate investigator Jack Blum, and, within the Justice Department itself, the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Dexter Lehtinen.

Typical editorials criticized Justice's prosecution of BCCI as "sluggish," "conspicuously slow," "inattentive," and "lethargic." Several editorials noted that there had been "poor cooperation" by Justice with other agencies. One stated that "the Justice Department seems to have been holding up information that should have been passed on" to regulators and others. Another that "the Justice Department's secretive conduct in dealing with BCCI requires a better explanation than any so far offered.

***

Under Assistant Attorney General Mueller, the Department assigned nearly three dozen attorneys to the case. During 1992, the Department brought several indictments, which remained narrower, less detailed and, at times, seemingly in response to the efforts of District Attorney Robert Morgenthau of New York, the Federal Reserve, or both

***

Suddenly, on August 22, Dennis Saylor, chief assistant to Assistant Attorney General Mueller, called Lehtinen and, according to the US Attorney, "indicated to me that I was directed not to return the indictment."

The Senate Report also noted :

While the Justice Department's handling of BCCI has received substantial criticism, the office of Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York, has generally received credit for breaking open the BCCI investigation.

***

In going after BCCI, Morgenthau's office quickly found that in addition to fighting off the bank, it would receive resistance from almost every other institution or entity connected to BCCI , including at various times, BCCI's multitude of prominent and politically well-connected lawyers, BCCI's accountants, BCCI's shareholders, the Bank of England, the British Serious Fraud Office, and the U.S. Department of Justice

Squashing Warning Signs that May Have Stopped 9/11

Larry Klayman writes :

Robert Mueller first hit my radar ... just months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

***

I came to meet and later represent FBI Special Agents Robert Wright and John Vincent, of the agency's Chicago Counter-Terrorism Field Office. During our meeting, both Special Agents Wright and Vincent revealed to me that they had been conducting a counterterrorism investigation of Saudi money laundering into and in the United States, and they both believed that a massive terrorist attack was imminent.

In the course of this investigation, both special agents had asked a fellow FBI agent who was undercover, one of Muslim descent, to be wired to turn up further evidence of this terrorist operation. The Muslim agent refused, indignantly telling both Wright and Vincent that Muslims don't spy and rat on other Muslims. In shock, my soon-to-be clients reported this to their supervisors at the FBI, but no action was taken. To make matters worse, Wright's and Vincent's FBI supervisors quashed their investigation. They both believed that the order to kill the investigation came from the highest reaches of the FBI, and, upset it not outraged by this cover-up, Wright then decided to write a book detailing this breach of FBI honor.

The only way I could explain this cover-up was that then-FBI Director Robert Mueller was sensitive to the ties between the family of President George W. Bush and the Saudi royal family.

***

Director Mueller, along with his "yes men" supervisors at the agency, not only quashed my clients' investigation and ignored the disloyalty of the Muslim undercover agent, but then missed the warning signs leading up to September 11 – the biggest intelligence failure in American history, even surpassing Pearl Harbor.

But shamelessly, despite this historic intelligence failure and the World Trade Center terrorist attacks that ensued, Mueller later led an effort to drum both Special Agents Wright and Vincent out of the FBI, in part by attempting to remove their security clearances, as a "reward" for their candor.

FBI special agent – and a 2002 Time Person of the Year – Colleen Rowley points out :

The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in.

But overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable . Indeed, Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable . Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable .

Mueller was one of the people who dropped the ball and let 9/11 happen.

Allowing Escape of Saudi Persons Connected to Bin Laden

Right after 9/11, American airspace was closed down. Yet Mueller was one of the people who allowed relatives of Bin Laden and other persons of interest fly back to Saudi Arabia.

Entrapping Innocent People for P.R. Purposes

After dropping the ball, Mueller then went on to entrap innocent people for P.R. purposes.

And Rowley notes :

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists .

9/11 Cover Up

Rowley says :

TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11.

In addition, Rowley says that the FBI sent Soviet-style "minders" to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation of 9/11, to make sure that she didn't say anything the FBI didn't like. The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 confirmed that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this ).

Mueller's FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location. See this and this .

Harper's notes :

Bob Graham, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told me recently that Robert Mueller, then the FBI director (and now the special counsel investigating connections between Russia and the Trump campaign) made "the strongest objections" to Jacobson and his colleagues visiting San Diego.

Graham and his team defied Mueller's efforts, and Jacobson flew west. There he discovered that his hunch was correct. The FBI files in California were replete with extraordinary and damning details

***

Nevertheless, Mueller adamantly refused their demands to interview him, even when backed by a congressional subpoena, and removed Shaikh to an undisclosed location 'for his own safety.'

Graham also wrote that the FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the American people that an FBI informant had a relationship with two of the hijackers."

And Kristen Breitweiser - one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks - points out :

Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.

Iraq War

Rowley notes :

When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey.

Torture

Rowley also points out :

Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

Anthrax Frame-Up

Mueller also presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI's investigation was "flawed and inaccurate" . The investigation was so bogus that a senator called for an "independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case."

The head of the FBI's anthrax investigation says the whole thing was a sham . He says that the FBI higher-ups "greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation", that there were "politically motivated communication embargoes from FBI Headquarters".

The FBI's anthrax investigation head said that the FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, he filed a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI's Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:

(j) the FBI's fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer ; and, (k) the FBI's subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence

Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins' guilt . These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions

In other words, Mueller presided over the attempt to frame an innocent man (and see this ).

Unsure If Government Can Assassinate U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil

Rather than saying "of course not!", Mueller said that he wasn't sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil .

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commented at the time:

One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.

***

He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."

Crippled Investigations of Financial Fraud ... Helping to Allow the Great Recession

In a 2013 piece entitled " Mueller: I Crippled FBI Effort v. White-Collar Crime ", the country's top white collar crime expert, William Black – who put over 1,000 top S&L executives in jail for fraud, and is a professor of law and economics at the University of Missouri - wrote :

The FBI never developed "an intelligence operation" "to analyze threats" of even epidemic fraud.

***

White-collar crime investigations and prosecutions are massive money makers that reduce the deficit, but Mueller , Holder, and Obama refuse to make these points and refuse to prosecute the elite bank fraudsters. On substantive and political grounds their actions are either inexplicable or all too explicable and support my readers' belief that the FBI leadership no longer wants to investigate and prosecute the elite bank frauds.

This is important because:

  • Fraud CAUSED the Great Depression and the 2008 financial crisis
  • Numerous Nobel prize winning economists say that we need to prosecute fraud, or else the economy will never truly stabilize
  • After the Great Depression, the government cracked down on Wall Street fraud . But Mueller and other Bush and Obama administration officials let it slide
  • (There are a lot of people more responsible for the Great Recession - and for lack of reform afterwards - than Mueller. For example, Mueller's boss (the FBI is a part of the Department of Justice) made it more or less official policy not to prosecute financial fraud. But this is another example of Mueller dropping the ball.

    Spying on Americans

    Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history.

    As we noted in 2013:

    NBC News reports :

    NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting records on every phone call made in the U.S.

    On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee:

    We have put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search

    Remember, the FBI - unlike the CIA - deals with internal matters within the borders of the United States.

    On May 1st of this year, former FBI agent Tim Clemente told CNN's Erin Burnett that all present and past phone calls were recorded :

    BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone fcompanies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

    CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation . It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

    BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

    CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not ."

    The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored

    NSA whistleblowers say that this means that the NSA collects "word for word" all of our communications .

    Colleen Rowley writes :

    Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

    Covering Up for Turkish Terrorists

    Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who has been deemed credible by the Department of Justice's Inspector General, several senators (free subscription required), and a coalition of prominent conservative and liberal groups , who the ACLU described as "The most gagged person in the history of the United States of America", and who famed Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg says possesses information " far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers ", says that Mueller covered up a Turkish terror network .

    Gagging Whistleblowers

    Edmonds also said that Mueller gagged her and other whistleblowers .

    Conclusion

    Rather than being "above the fray", Mueller is an authoritarian and water-carrier for the status quo and the powers-that-be.

    As Coleen Rowley puts it :

    Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

    Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."

    And :

    It's sad that political partisanship is so blinding and that so few people remember the actual sordid history.

    bardot63 , Nov 4, 2017 11:34 AM

    I'm still pissed at how Sessions has handled this since taking the AG spot. What this all comes to is Jeff Sessions is either

    1) a fucking idiot or

    2) joined the Trump train initially to sabatoge Trump, or

    3) was bought off or blackmailed after Trump named him AG.

    Sessions did not serve this country by recusing himself and paving the way for Mueller to run a black ops on the Trump administration. Plus, Sessions just looks like a fucking wimp.

    Maybe Trump has skeletons, but Russia is not one of them. Trump would do well to fire Sessions and the next 50 ranking FBI/Justice people and start over.

    CorneliuCodreanu , Nov 4, 2017 2:07 AM

    Robert Mueller: Crime Syndicate Operative Extraordinaire

    SmittyinLA , Nov 3, 2017 4:30 PM

    Wait until congress looks at the Bridgewater fee schedule

    seataka , Nov 3, 2017 4:15 PM

    The only crime is being broke

    SmittyinLA , Nov 3, 2017 3:42 PM

    You forgot Jamie Gorelick treason coverup, Jamie was on the SLB board.

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/schlumberger-oilfield-holdings-ltd-agrees...

    Six years of treason ADMITTED to by her own company in a deal crafted by her own minions, and the USDOJ omitted Jamie.

    Jamie's own corruption hung herself out to dry.

    Upside with Berghdahl off treason now gets a pass.

    Expat , Nov 3, 2017 7:43 AM

    Wow. I hear he also invented cancer and ebola, personally raped all the Sabine women, and tipped Atlantis into the sea. He personally invaded Iraq, tortured civilians, and flew the Ben Laden family home from the States after 9-11 on his private jet (which he stole from an orphanage for abused white christians).

    Poor Bush Jr., Obama, and Trump. Powerless against such an evil man as Mueller. I guess this was all secret information up until now or Trump would have raised these points when Mueller was appointed special counsel.

    francis scott f... -> Expat , Nov 3, 2017 2:22 PM

    Wow. Pulitzer Prize winning sarcasm. +0.5

    Mueller is the quintessential team player. And when that team is the 'deep state', we don't

    know whether to commit suicide or grease our butt holes. Bush gave him Hoover's job and

    Obama asked him to stay on until the entrapment issue of the Boston Marathon was settled

    and Ibragim Todashev was dead after having attacked 4 armed FBI agents and 2 Mass State

    Troopers with a table or a stick or some other imaginary WMD. His body had 6 or 7 bullet

    holes in it one for each of the force who were there. "All for one; one for all."

    Looking at Mueller from the deep state perspective, he's just a guy who believes in the 'team'

    more than he believes in the (majority) greedy, selfish, ignorant citizens who now populate the US.

    The only Americans who respect the 'deep state' are the members of the 'inner party' and you

    won't find too many writing comments at ZH. Or, if they are, they're probably full of rumors

    and false news. And sarcasm.

    messystateofaffairs , Nov 3, 2017 7:07 AM

    #14 you could slay 1000 Philistines with his jawbone.

    Redneck Makin-tosh , Nov 3, 2017 4:07 AM

    Before judging the man too harshly, does anyone know what he get his purple heart for?

    StarGate -> Redneck Makin-tosh , Nov 3, 2017 6:59 AM

    Mueller was a soldier in Vietnam Nam in combat for a few months only though fighting bravely for those few months; however he was soon removed from combat and given a desk job as personal aide to a General Jones, a brother of the later Obama national security advisor.

    Note that Mueller was FBI Director for both Obama and Bush. Comey took over FBI AFTER the Benghazi scandal.

    Redneck Makin-tosh -> StarGate , Nov 3, 2017 8:29 AM

    Cheers, thats pretty much what I gleaned from Wiki. Its a rare honour indicating exceptional courage so I wondered if there was a good story behind it.

    Wiki also mentions him presiding over the (ultimately controversial) conviction of Abdelbaset al Megrahi for the Lockerbie bombing - not sure if that can be blamed on the FBI or the all too easily led Scotch though.

    Chupacabra-322 -> GreatUncle , Nov 3, 2017 2:01 PM

    The agencies that are supposed to represent the people and enforce the law have morphed into political tools for the Democrats. How are you going to get an agency like the FBI to investigate the Clintons when they are in on the scam?

    A score of senior and rank and file agents should have gone to prison for burning all those women and children to death in Waco. The Clinton Administration gave those agents a pass, and in the process the Clintons purchased the undying support of the agency. When the very tool you would use to bring down a criminal enterprise has been coopted by that enterprise, you better tread softly.

    I am beginning to understand that we are at a tipping point. People are beginning to grasp the import of agency lies about the assassination of President Kennedy. It is clear now that the lies were not told to protect the public.

    They were told so that the coconspirators could perfect their coup. Once the coup was completed successive generations of politicians were given the message. That message was simple. We the shadow government can kill anybody we choose. Look what we did to Kennedy. You either toe the line or you will send in the cleaners. Those that would not kao tau to shadow rulers got to meet their John Hinckley or died under suspicious circumstances in some West Texas ranch.

    ( Doesn't matter the Criminal alphabet Agencies, the Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious Psychopaths at the CIA have decades & Trillions invested over the decades planting "Agent Smiths" in all of them Pentagram MIC included.)

    People are beginning to understand that they have been herded by acts of terrorism conducted by their own state. The scenario of the lone shooter with spectacular marksmanship and fantastic kill rates has lost its credibility. Just another in a lone, long line of "book depository"False Flags.

    Trump full well understands that he is in mortal combat with a sinister and entrenched oligarchy. This is not their first rodeo and they are extremely dangerous. He has to be sure of his footing before he takes his next step. By the grace of God, he may just very well be able to pull back the curtain and expose these monsters.

    If they manage to kill him, buckle up because any agency with federal in its title will have lost any claim to legitimacy. The oligarchs tried to steal the election and that failed. If they steal the election by killing the President, what follows next is a turkey shoot.

    Tyrannical Lawlessness.

    DjangoCat , Nov 2, 2017 8:18 PM

    "Mueller covered up a Turkish terror network ..."

    This is the key to Mike Flynn being ousted from the White House. He was onto the Gulen network and Mueller had to take him out.

    resistedliving -> DjangoCat , Nov 3, 2017 1:35 PM

    right. He should Head Homeland Security

    Paid to represent that POS Ergogan

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/10/us/politics/michael-flynn-turkey.html

    took Russian Money and hid disclosure

    Dec. 10, 2015: Flynn dines with Vladimir Putin at RT gala in Moscow

    Flynn accepts $33,750 to speak about U.S. foreign policy at a conference in Moscow, where he also sat beside Russian President Vladimir Putin at a gala for the Kremlin-influenced RT (formerly Russia Today). ( Politico , Wall Street Journal

    https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/25/michael-flynn-turkey-russia-23...

    sgt_doom -> DjangoCat , Nov 2, 2017 8:28 PM

    Great post, GW!

    But don't forget the collusion with the Whitey Bulger Gang, allowing Bulger to get away with his crimes, while prosecuting four innocent men instead, who were later exonerated and court awarded $105 million from the Feds! (When Mueller was acting US Attorney in Boston.)

    Also, there's that background on Mueller regarding his being the grandnephew of Richard Bissell (by marriage), fired deputy director of the CIA under JFK. And his family fortune is connected to the Rockefellers (family name: Truesdale).

    Lotsa stuff about Mueller, lotsa stuff . . .

    (And when they were involved in exonerating those four innocent males sent to the penitentiary, Mueller wrote letters urging them to continue to keep them incarcerated!)

    George Washington -> sgt_doom , Nov 2, 2017 9:41 PM

    Thanks ... would be grateful for a link to his role in the Bulger Gang.

    chunga , Nov 2, 2017 7:46 PM

    Request for you GW. Give this outfit Redoubt News a hand. The Bundy trial is going on now and it's hardly getting any coverage at all.

    Is the Bunkerville Prosecution Afraid of Redoubt News?

    https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/prosecution-afraid-redoubt-news/

    Well, that proved to be more of the government's deceit towards the people today, when Redoubt News was the only credential-carrying news source that was denied entry as media. Redoubt News was barred from the official priority media seating, however, all other alternative media outlets were allowed entry.

    ~~~~

    They can refuse to recognize Redoubt News, but we are going to keep reporting what happens in the courtroom.

    NoPension , Nov 2, 2017 7:40 PM

    30-40 years ago, and beyond....to live past 70 was an event. Modern medicine is keeping these fucks alive into their 80s+ 90s...and it's too much. Look at the Supreme Court...Congress, the Fed... These fucks are way, way too entrenched. There seriously needs to be term limits or an expiration date. Everywhere I look...it's senile old, entrenched fucks running the cabal.

    Am I wrong?

    Quite literally...what is keeping Hillary, McCain, Pelosi, Ginsberg, et al..alive?

    mrdenis , Nov 2, 2017 6:19 PM

    Mueller has steadfastly tried to ignore or downplay (through carefully worded leaks) the 2010 bribery investigation surrounding the Uranium One deal which Mueller oversaw as the then FBI Director with Rod Rosenstein as the US Attorney supervising the investigation. Then in 2017 Rosenstein, now the Deputy Attorney General and acting Attorney General for the Russia investigations, appoints Mueller as Special Counsel over the investigation. ( Recall that Attorney General Jeff Session recused himself from the Russian investigation over having had conversations at a dinner reception and in a Senate office meeting with the Russian ambassador when he was a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.) Also curious is that Mueller's appointment by Rosenstein came on the heels of Mueller's failed attempt to be rehired as the FBI chief following Rosenstein's review of Comey's employment and Rosenstein's recommendation that Comey be fired.

    roadhazard , Nov 2, 2017 6:14 PM

    Now that Muller is handing out indictments it's time to try and trash him. If he had nothing you would just be laughing at him. It's all starting to come down for Trump now. Bitch on little Trumpsters.

    truthseeker47 -> roadhazard , Nov 2, 2017 6:24 PM

    Dream on, DNC troll. Donny let Mueller investigate because he knows there is nothing to find, and nothing has been found. But investigate hundreds of political operatives and some dirt can always be found on a few of them. The dems are more pathetic than I realized if they think there is any meat on the bare bones Mueller tossed them.

    Zorba's idea , Nov 2, 2017 5:24 PM

    With all due respect George Washington, Aren't you supposed to be the American Standard for Truth telling. The 911 BS in your article is a bold face lie. The Chicago agents were on a classic "Agency/Company" diversionary trail which was intentionally used as part of the 911 Commission's head fake to explain how the official version accounted for the lost opportunities to prevent the licensed goat herders from hijacking 4 commercial jets and flying them far beyond the limits they were engineered, let alone all the Laws of Physic's that were suspended on 911. Stay out of our cherry orchid. All the same...Fuck Mueller..he is as Anti-American as our first Alien/Muslim President.

    KrazyMax -> Zorba's idea , Nov 3, 2017 12:02 AM

    Got any sources to back up these assertions?

    George Washington -> Zorba's idea , Nov 3, 2017 1:59 AM

    I always enjoy when someone criticizes me for not hitting the truth regarding 9/11 hard enough!

    As I've explained for 10 years, I know 9/11 was an inside job. I write some posts saying that, and others for different audiences criticizing the government's negligence in letting 9/11 happen.

    They are not inconsistent positions ... because there are multiple layers to the onion. Some responsible only knew one little part, not the big picture. Others really were just negligent. Some knew exactly what was going down.

    It's not either or ... it's both.

    Does that make sense?

    Moreover, it's not inside job by rogue elements of US gov/intelligence/defense contractors versus Saudis and/or perhaps Israelis.

    I've said for 10 years that one might have subcontracted parts to the other.

    Can you see how that might be possible?

    imho ... just my opinion.

    nmewn -> USA USA , Nov 2, 2017 6:28 PM

    And believe it or not, he was around when Fast & Furious got cranked up, before the reins of the Bureau of Matters (lol) got handed over to Comey.

    "In a lengthy letter directed to FBI Director Robert Mueller , Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) pointed to inconsistencies in reports of how many weapons and suspects were involved, as well as their current whereabouts. The letter refers to evidence indicating there may have been five suspects in the group that shot Brian Terry, and as many as five rifles ."

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/atf-fast-and-furious-investigation-congress...

    Kayman -> nmewn , Nov 3, 2017 10:05 AM

    Mueller has always been a Washington Mob fixer -- brazen and dirty.

    Paul Kersey -> nmewn , Nov 2, 2017 9:50 PM

    George missed the Mueller/Iraq War money shot. Here's a 24 second video that tells us a lot about how poorly Mueller has "investigated" in the past. He wasn't interested in the truth back then:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-kuOGTQ

[Nov 02, 2017] The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative by Scott Ritter

The real question is so much Russian influence as the US intelligence agencies influence on 2016 presidential elections. Brennan in particular. He bet of Hillary Clinton and lost. After that he was instrumental in launching "color revolution" against Trump. In which the the critical step was to appoint "special prosecutor".
Notable quotes:
"... But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele. ..."
"... An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA. ..."
"... Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream media primetime. ..."
"... The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats' go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator, as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia. ..."
"... When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an exclusive to the Washington Pos t ..."
"... According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump." ..."
"... The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery? If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. ..."
"... My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych. ..."
"... But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us. ..."
"... Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard? ..."
"... We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients. ..."
"... What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration. ..."
"... I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't. The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election. It is really that simple of a story. ..."
"... Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied on collaboration with Russian officials. ..."
"... In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration. ..."
"... Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration covering up lawlessness. ..."
"... Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right. ..."
"... I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis. ..."
"... The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other. They have them both in their pocket. ..."
"... As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Democratic Law Firm Behind the Russian Collusion Narrative How a high-powered practice contracted oppo-research on Trump -- and then pushed a hack story.

Credit: Shutterstock/ Mark Van Scyoc The ongoing investigation headed by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller into alleged collusion between the campaign of then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government has moved into a new phase, with a focus on purported money laundering. On Monday, indictments were filed against former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his longtime associate Rick Gates.

But even more is emerging that could take the Russia story in a totally new direction -- namely that the infamous dossier compiled by former British Secret Intelligence Service officer Christopher Steele was bought and paid for by a law firm , Perkins Coie, working on behalf of both the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The current controversy isn't so much over the contents of the dossier -- despite some of the reporting, none of the relevant claims contained within have been verified. Rather, the issue in question is how opposition research derived from foreign intelligence sources and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC ended up influencing the decision to prepare the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, the contents of that assessment, and the subsequent investigations by the U.S. Congress and a special prosecutor.

The extent to which the Steele Dossier influenced the intelligence underpinning Mueller's probe has yet to be determined with any certainty. In January, the U.S. intelligence community published the unclassified ICA, which was derived from a compilation of intelligence reports and assessments conducted by the FBI, CIA, and NSA. Many of the allegations made in the ICA mirror reporting contained in the Steele Dossier. So striking are the similarities that there are real concerns among some senior Republican lawmakers that the ICA merely reflects "echoes" of the Steele Dossier reported back via liaison with foreign intelligence services who had access to it (namely the British Secret Intelligence Service) or whose own sources were also utilized by Steele.

According to Robert Litt , who served as general counsel to former Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper, this mirroring was nothing more than coincidence. "The dossier itself," Litt wrote in a recent Lawfare blog , "played absolutely no role in the coordinated intelligence assessment that Russia interfered in our election. That assessment, which was released in unclassified form in January but which contained much more detail in the classified version that has been briefed to Congress, was based entirely on other sources and analysis."

Moreover, Litt noted, the decision in December 2016 to brief President-elect Trump on the existence of the Steele Dossier and provide him with a two-page summary of that document, was not a reflection that "the Intelligence Community had relied on it in any way, or even made any determination that the information it contained was reliable and accurate." It was rather, Litt said, a need to share with Trump the fact that the document existed and was being passed around Congress and the media.

An examination of the nexus between the dossier and the publication of the Russian ICA, however, shows that Litt was less than truthful in his denials. Material from the Steele Dossier was, in fact, shared with the FBI and U.S. intelligence community in July of 2016, and seems to have been the driving force behind the intelligence briefings provided to the so-called Gang of Eight who served as the initial impetus for an investigation into Russian meddling that eventually morphed into the 2017 Russian ICA.

Moreover, while Perkins Coie had its hands all over the dossier, it was also massaging the Russian hack narrative for mainstream media primetime.

The political law practice of Perkins Coie was started in 1981 under the leadership of Bob Bauer , who went on to become the White House Counsel to President Barack Obama. Today, the practice is headed by Marc Elias , who has been described as "the Democrats' go-to attorney an indispensable figure in the party." Elias oversees the work of 18 attorneys representing nearly every Democratic senator, as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and Hillary for America, which oversaw the Clinton campaign.

It was in the latter two roles that Elias, acting on behalf of his clients, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington, D.C.-based company that, according to its website , "provides premium research, strategic intelligence, and due diligence services." Fusion GPS had previously been contracted by the Washington Free Beacon "to provide research on multiple candidates in the Republican presidential primary." However, when it became clear that Trump was going to secure the Republican Party nomination, the contract with Fusion GPS was terminated. According to a letter sent by Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS sometime in March 2016, Glenn Simpson, the co-founder of Fusion GPS, met with Elias and lobbied for the job of conducting opposition research on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In April 2016, Simpson's company was retained by the firm through the end of the election cycle.

Perkins Coie is also home to Michael Sussman , a partner in the firm's Privacy and Data Security Practice, who was retained by the DNC to respond to the cyber-penetration of their server in the spring of 2016. When, in late April 2016, the DNC discovered that its servers had been breached, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, then chairwoman of the DNC, turned to Perkins Coie and Sussman for help. Sussman chaired the meetings at the DNC regarding the breach, and, on May 4, 2016, he reached out to Shawn Henry , a former FBI agent who headed the incident response unit for the private cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, for assistance in mitigating the fallout from the breach. According to CrowdStrike, it was immediately able to detect the presence of hostile malware that it identified as Russian in origin. Sussman, after coordinating with Wasserman-Schultz, approached the FBI and tried to get them to publicly attribute the intrusion to Russia.

When the FBI refused, citing a need to gain access to the DNC servers before it could make that call, Sussman balked and, again with the full support of the DNC, instead coordinated a massive publicity effort intended to link Russia to the DNC breach through an exclusive to the Washington Pos t , which was published in concert with a dramatic CrowdStrike technical report detailing the intrusion, ominously named "Bears in the Midst."

This public relations campaign started the media frenzy over the alleged Russian hacking of the DNC server, enabling every facet of the story that followed to be painted with a Russian brush -- normally with a spokesperson from either the DNC or Hillary for America taking the lead in promulgating the story.

It was about this same time that Elias decided to expand the scope of Fusion GPS's opposition research against Trump, going beyond the simple mining of open-source information that had been the hallmark of the firm's work up until that time, and instead delving into the active collection of information using methodologies more akin to the work of spy agencies. The person Fusion GPS turned to for this task was Steele

Key persons within the Clinton campaign and the DNC denied any knowledge of either the decision by Perkins Coie to hire Fusion GPS for the purpose of gathering opposition research, or to tap Steele to conduct this task. Elias reportedly made use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the part of his clients. This decision meant that Perkins Coie, as a firm, had ownership of the Steele Dossier; expenditures of firm assets require the approval of either the management or executive committee of the firm (Elias sits on the executive committee).

But as far as intelligence products go, the Steele Dossier is as sketchy as it gets. It's an amalgam of poorly written "reports" cobbled together from what Vanity Fair called "angry émigrés," "wheeling and dealing oligarchs," and "political dissidents with well-honed axes to grind." These are precisely the kind of sources intelligence professionals operating in Russia in the early 1990s -- Steele was assigned to Moscow from 1990 to 1993 -- would have had access to. Such sources also produce information that professional analysts normally treat with more than a modicum of skepticism when preparing national-level intelligence products.

The very first report produced by Steele, dated June 20, 2016, was chock full of the kind of salacious details justifying its explosive title, "Republican Candidate Donald Trump's Activities in Russia and Compromising Relationship with the Kremlin." The substantive charges leveled in the report centered on three unnamed sources -- a senior Foreign Ministry official, a former top-level Russian intelligence officer, and a senior Russian financial official -- whom Steele accessed through a "trusted compatriot." The report alleged that Russia had been feeding the Trump campaign "valuable intelligence" on Clinton, and that this effort was supported and directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. A second report, dated June 26, 2016, focused exclusively on "Russian State Sponsored and Other Cyber Offensive (Criminal) Operations."

These reports were delivered to Elias at a critical time -- on July 22, when Wikileaks released thousands of emails believed to have been sources from the DNC hack . These emails detailed the internal deliberations of the DNC that proved to be embarrassing to both Clinton and the DNC leadership -- Wasserman-Schultz was compelled to resign due to the revelations set forth in these emails. This leak took place on the eve of the Democratic National Convention when Clinton was to be selected as the Democrats' candidate for president. The Clinton campaign blamed Russia. "Russian state actors," Robby Mook, the Clinton campaign manager told the press , "were feeding the email to hackers for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."

If Elias thought the publication of the DNC emails would spur the U.S. intelligence community to join both the DNC and the Clinton campaign in pointing an accusatory finger at Russia, he would be disappointed. When questioned by CNN's Jim Sciutto at the 2016 Aspen Security Forum as to whether or not the DNI shared the White House's view that there was no doubt Russia was behind the hack of the DNC emails, Clapper responded, "I don't think we are quite ready to make a call on attribution I don't think we are ready to make a public call on that yet." Noting that there was still some uncertainty about exactly who was behind the DNC cyber-penetration, Clapper stated that he was taken aback by the media's "hyperventilation" over the DNC email issue, pointing out that the intelligence community did not "know enough to ascribe motivation" at that time.

According to the Washington Post , in early August 2016, the CIA director John Brennan came into possession of "sourcing deep inside the Russian government that detailed Russian President Vladimir Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race." This intelligence was briefed to the Gang of Eight. Almost immediately, information derived from this briefing began to leak to the media. "Russia's hacking appeared aimed at helping Mr. Trump win the November election," officials with knowledge of Brennan's intelligence told the New York Times . The intelligence, referred to as "bombshell," allegedly "captured Putin's specific instructions on the operation's audacious objectives -- defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump."

This intelligence, allegedly from a "human source" linked to a foreign intelligence service, is at the center of the current spate of Russian meddling investigations. Was this source a product of the CIA's own efforts, as DNI General Counsel Litt contends, or was this an "echo" of the work done by Steele? The answer may lie in the actions of both Elias and Steele, who in the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, and on the heels of the statement by DNI Clapper that he wasn't ready to commit to Russian attribution, shared the first two reports with both the FBI and members of the intelligence community. Steele also sat down with U.S. officials to discuss the details of these reports , which presumably included the sourcing that was used.

The parallels between the information contained in the initial report filed by Steele and the "bombshell" intelligence that prompted Brennan's decision to brief the Gang of Eight are too close to be casually dismissed. Of particular note is Steele's "Source C," a senior Russian "financial official" who had "overheard Putin talking" on at least two occasions. Was this the source that Brennan cited when it came to Putin's "specific instructions"? The cause and effect relationship between the decision by Marc Elias to brief U.S. intelligence officials on the aspects of the Steele Dossier, and Brennan's coming into possession of intelligence that virtually mirrors the reporting by Steele, cannot be dismissed out of hand.

The future of the Trump presidency will be determined by the various investigations currently underway. Those efforts have been influenced, in one way or another, by reporting sourced to Perkins Coie, including the designation of Russia as the responsible party behind the DNC cyber-breach and the Steele Dossier. These investigations are linked in their unquestioning embrace of the conclusions set forth in the 2017 Russia Intelligence Community Assessment that Russia was, in fact, meddling in the election. However, the genesis of that finding, both in terms of Russian involvement in the DNC hack and the "bombshell" intelligence introduced by Brennan in August 2016, has gone largely unquestioned by the investigators.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War (Clarity Press, 2017). MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Youknowho , says: October 30, 2017 at 11:09 pm

The question is was the investigation supposed to uncover whatever it uncovere, or was it supposed to fabricate the discovery? If it was fabrication, yes, they should be condemned. But if it was a question of "tell us what you find, good, bad, or indifferent" then uncovering what might be treasonable activity would be called a patriotic act.
SpecialAgentA , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:00 am
Was it a 'leak' or a 'hack'? Both terms are used here, almost interchangeably, but isn't that an essential issue to explain and clarify?
balconesfault , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:35 am
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Donald Trump could defuse by simply releasing his tax returns and allowing more transparency into his financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
Bob Salsa , says: October 31, 2017 at 10:48 am
Ritter's underlying 'logic' here extended would have us believe Alan Turin's breaking of the Enigma Machine was done in collusion with Nazi U-boat commanders.
Michael Kenny , says: October 31, 2017 at 11:28 am
The spooks are still scared silly of Russiagate. "Hillary paid" doesn't mean "Hillary fabricated". That Mr Ritter is reduced to such a manifestly silly argument shows just how spooked the spooks are. My best guess is that some part of the US intelligence community is involved in the election manipulation. Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. Note, by the way, the absence of any reference to George Papadopulous or Viktor Yanukovych.
David G. , says: October 31, 2017 at 12:26 pm
Given that Russia's insiders (not to mention former-officials) are no more lined up with Putin than US counterparts and political actors are behind any current US administration or opponent, within and without the party in power, there are presumably Russian actors who would like to undermine Putin.

To the extent "the Russians" may be behind particular efforts – including information/disinformation – related to the 2016 US election, might they not have sought to undermine foreign and (Russian) domestic proponents of US-Russian detente?

Donald (the left leaning one) , says: October 31, 2017 at 12:42 pm
" Overthrowing foreign governments or undermining the EU is one thing, colluding with a foreign power to manipulate the US election is quite another. "

This is a joke. I have no concern one way or the other about whether Trump colluded with Russia – if laws were broken, prosecute the lot of them. But it is obvious that most of the Beltway including the spook world badly wants a proxy war with Russia, Iran, and Syria. As usual we are killing people overseas under Presidents of both parties and as usual the United States of narcissism can only complain about what dastardly foreigners allegedly did to us.

In DC we have a vicious fight between the McCain-Clinton forces and the Trump forces. It's a choice between warmongers.

m , says: October 31, 2017 at 1:16 pm
Donald (the left leaning one), I agree with your concluding comment that we are left with a choice between two warmongers, no question about that. However if you look at the corruption in the deep state in the Uranium One deal, how it was approved and now nobody, I mean nobody knows anything about FBI informant and gag order on him for the last 8 years it is just mind boggling. Oh well after all these years I think the African dictators have more integrity than our elected officials.
a person who once spoke to a Russian but regrets it now , says: October 31, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Someone help me out here. If Clinton (or her very close associates) pay huge bucks to Russians to get dirt (even if it is made up dirt) on Trump, that is good, because it hurts Trump. But if Trump associates simply have conversations with Russians, full stop (cf. Michael Flynn, or anyone else who spoke with the Russian ambassador), that is criminal. Is this not sort of a double standard?
Laramie , says: October 31, 2017 at 3:12 pm
I've worked at large law firms, been a partner at several and litigated against Perkins Coie, so I know a bit about them. Knowing the industry and this firm in particular, I can say without reservation that this statement is ridiculous: "Elias reportedly made use of money already paid to the firm by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to fund the work of Fusion GPS, creating the conditions for deniability on the part of his clients." That does not and would not happen with a $12 million expense.

Mr. Ritter does not come out and say it, but there's a plausible explanation for all of this Russia nonsense we've been hearing about for the past year. Until the day after the election, 99.9% of Democrats were convinced that Hillary Clinton would win. Once enshrined in office, all of the misdeeds that they'd been getting away with for the past decade -- the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, the Pay-to-Play politics, etc. -- would be swept under the rug.

November came, and that didn't happen. Democrats were both floored and caught with their pants down. Now, all of their dirty laundry was going to come out into the open. It was only a matter of time.

So, what did they do? The same thing Democrats always do. The best defense is an offense. 'Always accuse your opponents of doing whatever wrong you've committed.' All of the sudden, it wasn't just that 'Russians hacked the election.' It became, 'the Trump campaign secretly colluded with the Russians.' The Steele dossier was leaked, the FBI was briefed which in turn briefed Obama, the Gang of Eight and Trump. Next, a Special Prosecutor had to be appointed to investigate.

But, where does it all lead? Back to Hillary, through Perkins Coie, and through many of the same Deep State players who were complicit in the misdeeds.

We now learn that Comey, Mueller and Rosenstein all knew about Russians attempting to buy influence through donations to the Clinton "charity," but they turned a blind eye when Uranium One was up for approval.

We now learn that Clinton and the DNC paid for the Steele dossier then fed it to Comey, who leaked it.

We're expected to believe Crowdstrike's report on Russian hacking but we can't examine the evidence. We're expected to believe that Perkins Coie went rogue and decided to spend $12 million without informing any of its clients.

What a bunch of hogwash. There's a cover up here, but it's not what the complicit media is portraying. The cover up is of the past 8 years of misdeeds by the Deep State, the Clintons and the Obama Administration.

Carolinatarheel , says: October 31, 2017 at 3:35 pm
I find it curious that Crooked Mueller charged two republicans just as Crooked Hillary and the DNC were identified for paying Russians for smear documents! America First!
Nick , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:06 pm
I love how the origins of the project (Free Beacon/Paul Singer) are merely a footnote in this terribly written piece.
Jake , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:14 pm
How is it not true? Reports indicate that Mr. Steele did indeed use paid sources within Russia to compile the "dossier" on Trump. Steele used money paid by the Clinton campaign labeled as "legal fees". There is a reason Hillary, DWS, Podesta and the others have all lied.
Quek , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:40 pm
I think the story is even more obvious than this. They wanted to spy on aspects of the Trump campaign but they legally couldn't. The FBI told them they needed a reason to tap the phones and read the mail. They paid a guy to put together a dossier that would allow them to get FISA warrants to do the spying they wanted to do illegally. They just needed the dossier to say certain things to get it past a FISA judge. They did this and tapped his phones and read his emails and texts for the purpose of beating him in the election. It is really that simple of a story.
Cjones1 , says: October 31, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Did Obama's White House Counsel Bauer and Perkins Coie's Elias engage in a conspiracy to smear Trump and benefit the Clinton campaign?

Did they orchestrate a campaign trick, using the Fusion GPS dossier and an insider leaking DNC emails to Wikileaks,that falsely smeared the Trump team?

Hillary and Fusion GPS both lobbied against business restrictions proposed and imposed by the Magnitsky legislation and both received bonuses and payments from Russian entities with ties to the Putin gang.

Given Hillary's past pay to play lobbying and her disregard for national security, it would seem appropriate to have investigate if members of the Clinton campaign had contacts with the Russian Ambassador or Russian "operatives. We now know that the dossier relied on collaboration with Russian officials.

Given that several levels under the 17 intelligence heads of the Obama administration, including former FBI Director Mueller, participated in suppressing known Russian bribery, obfuscated and obstructed the investigation into Hillary's national security violations & pay to play schemes, and apparently conspired using a dossier, containing Russian supplied information, to throw the last Presidential election, it is time to bring the Obama political appointees and Clinton campaign officials to justice and stop the interference affecting the Trump administration.

In my opinion, Mueller has disgraced his former and present positions by collaborating in this conjured affair that obfuscates the real crimes occurring during the Obama administration.

Zardoz , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:13 pm
The Russian SVR RF was no doubt inside the DNC's server, just as it was no doubt inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email server on which she did all of her State Department business.

But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the damning evidence about the corruption of the DNC & its machinations to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that damning evidence.

Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.

But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests there is something seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.

Don Juan , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Crooked Hillary and her klan never thought for a second they wouldn't be able to cover up democrat crimes. The Clinton Crime Family is in full panic mode. No one seems to remember why Mueller quit as director of the FBI. He was disgusted by the Obama administration covering up lawlessness.
CapitalistRoader , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:49 pm
All of this and not one mention of how much of the controversy Hillary Clinton could defuse by simply releasing all of the government emails she kept on a private server in order to keep them away from FOIA requests and allowing more transparency into her financial relationships with the Russian oligarchy.
swb , says: October 31, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Nice try at deflection, but it is not likely to stop Muller because he has an actual brain. On the other hand, the comments indicate that the conspiracy types are on board. Now I have it on good authority that there are ties between Steele and Benghazi as well so it is time to wrap this all up together into a unified story.
Virginia Farmer , says: October 31, 2017 at 6:08 pm
Since most of the posters here seem to be partisan I'm sure that no one will like my preference: Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile.
MM , says: October 31, 2017 at 6:38 pm
Karen Finney, formerly of the Clinton 2016 campaign, on October 29th:

"I think what's important, though, is less who funded it than what was in the dossier."

In the same interview:

"We also learned this week that Cambridge Analytica, the company that was basically the data company for the [Trump] campaign, reached out to Julian Assange of Wikileaks."

Did everybody catch that?

In today's Democratic Party, it is perfectly acceptable to pay foreign sources for dirt, fabricated or not, on your domestic political opponent.

But it is totally unacceptable to reach out to Wikileaks, with no money involved, for dirt on your domestic political opponent. I'll note that Wikileaks has relied on whistle-blower sources and has not been shown to have published any false information in its entire 10-year existence.

Absolutely gorgeous

Zardoz , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:01 pm
The Russian SVR RF was likely inside the DNC's server, just as it was likely inside of Hillary Clinton's private unsecured email server on which she did all of her State Department business.

But that does not necessarily mean that the SVR RF released the evidence about the rotten corruption of the DNC & its machinations to influence the outcome of the Election to Wikileaks. I believe Seth Rich was the source of that evidence.

Since there was allegedly some evidence of the Russian hacking, the DNC conveniently blamed the Wikileaks story on them.

But the fact the Democrats refused to turn over the supposedly hacked DNC server to the FBI suggests that there is something seriously wrong with the Democ"rats" story.

Lenny , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:10 pm
To all of those who think that paying a foreign informant money to give you info is the same thing as accepting help from a foreign government, you have some screws lose.

Furthermore, the help that Trump received was in the form of emails that have been stolen from an American citizen, a federal offence.

The whole Uranium one non story is based on a book that his own author admitted he has no evidence of malfeasance by HRC , and who was paid for his effort by the Mercers.

Also, the Uranium cannot be exported outside the USA anyway, because the law prevents it, no matter who owns the company

JR , says: October 31, 2017 at 7:31 pm
To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think that Hillary is in Putin's pocket? I don't think so. The issue, if you're being honest, is that a lot of people on the other side can easily see Trump being in Putin's pocket. And so far he (Trump) has done nothing to disprove that. Remember the Glee that the neocons had when Trump ordered a few missiles at Syria..guess what nothing came off it and Assad is still very much in power and no one cares anymore (an outcome that I am fine with). You think things would have been the same if Hillary was in power?

But at the end of the day, we're left to wonder whether Trump is doing Putin's bidding Just because so far he has done nothing that has been antagonistic towards Russian interests (Iran notwithstanding because nothing is going to come off it, all it is going to do is make US look impotent, which will be fine by Putin).

jlee67 , says: October 31, 2017 at 8:46 pm
Why didn't the FBI insist on examining the DNC servers? Something's not right.
b. , says: October 31, 2017 at 9:21 pm
If only Sanders had ever exclaimed something like "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn Russians!"

If there is any kind of actual evidence of state actors in the various efforts to force transparency on the Clinton campaign and the DNC, it is now tainted by the association with Steele, Simpson, Elias, which appear to have repeatedly acted against client privileges and privacy – peddling results paid for by one client to another, leaking information paid for by clients to the press, Congress, the FBI – or have acted with client permission, while a former "spy" is accessing and potentially endangering networks maintained by his former employer, a foreign intelligence service known for its ability to find yellowcake.

Only the Democrats can show such staggering ineptitude.

The plot needs some new, exciting turn at this point. Let us speculate that the Steele Dossier was in fact a false flag operation, allowing "Russians" to discredit not one, but two presidential campaigns, not one, but two presidential candidates, a twofer that makes whomever becomes President look like an idiot. One of the most ridiculous propositions of this whole affair has been the claim that Putin would seriously care which incompetent and corrupt American gets to prosecute the self-inflicted ruin of this blighted nation for the next four years.

It's morons all the way down.

Central Virginia Cantor Ejector! , October 31, 2017 at 11:16 pm
@Virginia Farmer : "Lock both Trump and HRC up and put them in the same cell to save us money. They are both crooked and any attempt to accuse one and defend the other is futile."

Right on! "Virginia Farmer" for President!

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: November 1, 2017 at 12:09 am
"To all those who think what Hillary campaign did is the same thing as what Trump campaign did: Can you with a straight face think that Hillary is in Putin's pocket?"

I'm not very partisan. I voted for Clinton, but as the lesser evil on various issues, chiefly domestic and environmental. Clinton is not in Putin's pocket. She is in the pocket of Netanyahu, and the Saudis. Trump doesn't really seem to be in Putin's pocket -- he has neocons and others working hard to ensure that he gets into a confrontation with Iran. Basically he too is in the pocket of the Israelis and the Saudis.

The mainstream ignores this. The countries with real influence on our policies don't have to favor one party over the other. They have them both in their pocket.

Donald ( the left leaning one) , says: November 1, 2017 at 12:14 am
M --

Yeah, I can't keep up with all the twists and turns. I read just enough to see both sides ( the partisan ones) live in closed cognitive universes. I suspect there is plenty of corruption and dishonesty to go around, even if we restricted ourselves to real or alleged Russian ties. But I wonder what would turn up if we really looked into how our foreign policy sausage is made?

VikingLS , says: November 1, 2017 at 1:14 pm
@Donald ( the left leaning one)

In my annoyance I overstated it a little, but this thread is a good example of what I was saying about a lot of the liberal commenters on TAC. I don't read a lot of these comments and see people who are giving the article much thought.

BTW I was about to write the exact same thing to JR you did regarding the Saudis and the Israelis.

Cynthia McLean , says: November 1, 2017 at 1:17 pm
As time goes on, I don't think Russia "meddled" in US elections as much as US politicians of both parties corruptly attempted to rig the elections. Seems to me that the demonization of Russia is bi-partisan because the US military industrial complex needs a "bogey man" to justify its billions$$$$ and just about ALL politicians need that money to stay in power.

[Nov 01, 2017] NATO Criticism of Russias Ukraine Policy Is Answered by Putin by Eric ZUESSE

Notable quotes:
"... What about Ukraine? From the European point of view, the ball is firmly in the court of Russia. It has turned into a semi-frozen conflict; the sanctions that were meant to be dynamic have become semi-permanent. What does Russia intend to do about this? ..."
"... Well, we think the ball is in Europe's court, because due to the completely unconstructive – I am choosing my words so as not to appear rude – position of the former members of the European Commission, the situation went as far as a coup. ..."
"... There were riots backed by the United States – both financially, politically and in the media – and all of Europe. ..."
"... They supported the unconstitutional seizure of power, a bloody one at that, with casualties, and took things as far as a war in southeastern Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence and its reunification with Russia, and now you think that we are to blame for that? Was it us who brought about the anti-constitutional coup? The current situation is the result of the unconstitutional armed seizure of power in Ukraine, and Europe is to blame, because it backed it. ..."
"... What could have been easier than to say back then: "You staged a coup, and after all, we are the guarantors." As guarantors, the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany signed a document, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. Three days later, it was trampled upon, and where were the guarantors? Ask them where these guarantors were? Why did they not say, "Please, put things as they were. Get Yanukovych back in office and hold constitutional democratic elections." They had every chance of winning, 100 percent, no doubt. No, they had to do it through an armed coup instead. Well, we were confronted with this fact, accepted it and signed the Minsk agreements. ..."
"... However, the current Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging every paragraph of these agreements, and everyone can see it perfectly well. Those who are involved in the negotiation process are fully aware of it, I assure you. Not a single step has been made towards implementing the Minsk agreements. Still everyone is saying, "Sanctions will not be lifted until Russia complies with the Minsk agreements." ..."
"... Everyone has long since realised that the current leadership of Ukraine is not in a position to comply with them. Now that the situation in that country has hit rock bottom both in terms of the economy and domestic policy, and the police are using gas against protesters, expecting the President of Ukraine to take at least a small step towards implementing the Minsk agreements is an exercise in futility. I am not sure how he can accomplish this. But there is no alternative to it, unfortunately. Therefore, we will keep the Normandy format in place as long as our colleagues like, and we will strive to implement these Minsk agreements that you mentioned. ..."
"... It is not enough only to appeal to Russia; it is also necessary to influence Kiev's position. Now they have made a decision on the language, essentially prohibiting the use of ethnic minority languages in school. Hungary and Romania raised objections. Poland also made some comments in this regard. However, the European Union as a whole is silent. Why are they not condemning this? There is silence. ..."
"... Now they have erected a monument to Petlyura. He was a man with Nazi views, an anti-Semite who killed Jews during the war. Except for the Zionist Jewish Congress, everyone else is silent. Are you afraid of hurting your clients in Kiev, is that it? This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent? ..."
"... I hope that this realisation will eventually come. I can see our partners' interest, primarily our European partners' interest in resolving this conflict. I can see real interest. Angela Merkel is doing a great deal, putting the time in, becoming deeply involved in these matters. Both the former president of France and President Macron are also paying attention. They are really working on this. However, it is necessary to work not just technically and technologically but politically. It is essential to exert some influence on the Kiev authorities, get them to do at least something. Ultimately, Ukraine itself has a stake in normalising our relations. ..."
"... Now they went and imposed sanctions on us, as the EU did. We responded in kind. The president asks me, "Why did you do this?" I say, "Listen, you introduced sanctions against us." This is just amazing! ..."
"... I believe that it is becoming obvious and most importantly, it is becoming obvious to the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. We like Ukraine and I really regard the Ukrainian people as a brotherly nation if not just one nation, part of the Russian nation. ..."
"... Even though Russian nationalists do not like this and Ukrainian nationalists do not like this either, this is my position, my point of view. Sooner or later, it will happen – reunification, not on an interstate level but in terms of restoring our relations. ..."
"... On Ukraine and the conflict phase there, I was, uh, it was during my last years of government when this crisis emerged in Ukraine. I and my close colleagues in my government and foreign policy and security issues convened, and we met. I told them that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the independent states, Ukraine was one of the closest countries to Russia, in ethnic relations and economic relations, and in cultural relations, and in terms of the value that Ukraine holds for Russia. So my approach was one of sentiment and sensitivity, but, keeping the Russian sentiment in mind, keeping the Russian sensitivity in this region in mind. Look at it this way: if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do? They would act more aggressively than what Russia did. On Crimea: to the extent that I understand, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1957, is that true? 1954. So it was part of Russian territory. ..."
"... You have just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine. But we did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power, although it could be done quite differently. Former President Yanukovych signed all the requirements and was ready to hold early elections. Instead, they contributed to a coup d'état. What for? ..."
"... And when we are forced to emphasize this, we were compelled to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbass, were compelled to respond to the aspirations of people living in the Crimea, to return to the Russian Federation, and immediately began to untwist a new flywheel of anti-Russian policy and the imposition of sanctions. ..."
"... You have just said about the Minsk agreements. But we are not sabotaging them, the implementation of the Minsk agreements. ..."
"... President Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing and hold additional talks. What came next? A coup d'état. No matter what you choose to call it, a revolution or something else. It's a coup d'état with the use of violence and militant forces. Who′s on whose side now? Who is using which tools from the past or the future? ..."
"... It′s imperative to be very careful with regard to public institutions of emerging nations because if you are not things may slide into chaos, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The civil war and chaos are there already. Who benefits from it? Why would they do it, if Yanukovych agreed to everything? They had to go to the voting stations instead, and the same people would be in power now, only legally. We, like idiots, would be paying them the $15 billion that we promised, keeping gas prices low for them and continuing to subsidise their economy ..."
"... Let's face it. We are all adults here, right? Intelligent and educated people. The West supported the unconstitutional coup d'état. It did in fact, didn′t it? Not only by way of the infamous cakes, but through informational and political support and what not. Why did it do so? ..."
"... All right. And now you think that it′s all our fault? We proposed a dialogue and were denied it. What's next? The last time I was in Brussels we agreed to keep this dialogue alive. That was before the coup. Mr Ulyukayev (he is sitting there across from me), a man of respect, speaks decent English, has absolutely market-driven brains, one of our top specialists in the economy, went for consultations. Ask him about it after the session is over. I won′t dwell on it now. But there were no consultations. Nothing but slogans. ..."
"... What's next? They made a coup and don′t want to speak with us. What are we supposed to think? The next step will take Ukraine into NATO. They never ask us about our opinion, and we have found out over the past two decades that there′s never any dialogue on this issue. All that they ever tell us is, ″It′s none of your business, none of your concern.″ We tell them, ″A military infrastructure is approaching our borders.″ ″Don′t worry, it's not aimed against you.″ So, tomorrow Ukraine may end up being a NATO member, and the next thing you know, it will have a US missile defence complex stationed on its territory. No one ever talks to us on this subject, either. They just tell us, ″It′s not against you, and it′s none of your concern.″ ..."
"... if we did not do what we did in Crimea, Crimea would have it much worse than Odessa where people were burned alive. And there are no explanations, no real condemnations by anyone. It′s still not even clear who did it, I mean the tragedy in Odessa. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org

A NATO supporter criticized Russia's President Vladimir Putin for Russia's Ukraine policy, on October 19th, at the Valdai Discussion Club's annual meeting in Sochi, and Putin fired back with his most detailed statement to-date, describing the overthrow in February 2014 of Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, as having been a "coup" by the West, especially by the EU (which he blamed for it, rather than blame the US).

Asle Toje, a Norwegian supporter of the NATO anti-Russian military alliance, had raised this subject when he asked Putin :

What about Ukraine? From the European point of view, the ball is firmly in the court of Russia. It has turned into a semi-frozen conflict; the sanctions that were meant to be dynamic have become semi-permanent. What does Russia intend to do about this?

Putin replied:

Well, we think the ball is in Europe's court, because due to the completely unconstructive – I am choosing my words so as not to appear rude – position of the former members of the European Commission, the situation went as far as a coup.

On 4 February 2014 the agent whom US President Barack Obama had tasked to plan the coup, Hillary Clinton's longtime friend Victoria Nuland, instructed the US Ambassador in Ukraine whom to appoint to run Ukraine as soon as the coup would be culminated, which occurred 23 days later, on 27 February: "Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience the governing experience he's the" person to appoint , she told the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

And "Yats" Yatsenyuk got the post, which was the appointment as Prime Minister, because Obama wanted the rabidly anti-Russian Yulia Tymoshenko to win Ukraine's Presidency in an election, so as to be able to describe the change-of-government as being 'democratic' i.e., 'elected', not imposed (as was the appointment of "Yats"). However, Tymoshenko had too much of a public reputation as being a US agent (and grifter ), for her to win; and, so, Petro Poroshenko won the 'election' instead.

It was an 'election' in all of the majority Ukrainian-speaking areas of Ukraine, but without allowing to vote the populations in many of the majority Russian-speaking regions, where the man whom Obama overthrew, Yanukovych, had won by over 75% of the votes, in the last democratic election in Ukraine, which was the Presidential election in 2010 -- the final election in which Ukrainians in all parts of the country voted. Although Poroshenko was anti-Russian, he wasn't nearly as anti-Russian as was Tymoshenko. Yatsenyuk was Tymoshenko's subordinate, and he had been selected by Nuland because the Obama Administration were thinking that after the Presidential election, Yats would hand off the government to Tymoshenko, who led Yats's Party.

Putin blamed the EU for the coup, though (in fact) when the EU's Foreign Minister, Catherine Ashton, learned, on February 26th of 2014, that this overthrow had been a coup instead of a democratic revolution, she expressed shock and disappointment but went right on carrying out the Obama Administration's plan for the integration of the formerly Russia-allied Ukraine into the EU, and, ultimately, as was expected, into NATO, so that US nuclear missiles will be able to be installed there, on Russia's border, as close to Moscow as possible, for a blitz-attack against Russia, to conquer Russia .

Furthermore, in Nuland's instruction to the Ambassador in Kiev, she said "F -- k the EU" , because the EU aristocracies weren't nearly as eager to conquer Russia as the US aristocracy are; the EU aristocracies had wanted Vitaly Klitschko to head Ukraine; Klitschko wasn't rabidly anti-Russian , like Tymoshenko and Yatsenyuk were. Putin knew this -- he knew that the coup was done by the US, not by the EU.

Putin then described the coup as follows:

There were riots backed by the United States – both financially, politically and in the media – and all of Europe.

They supported the unconstitutional seizure of power, a bloody one at that, with casualties, and took things as far as a war in southeastern Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence and its reunification with Russia, and now you think that we are to blame for that? Was it us who brought about the anti-constitutional coup? The current situation is the result of the unconstitutional armed seizure of power in Ukraine, and Europe is to blame, because it backed it.

What could have been easier than to say back then: "You staged a coup, and after all, we are the guarantors." As guarantors, the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany signed a document, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. Three days later, it was trampled upon, and where were the guarantors? Ask them where these guarantors were? Why did they not say, "Please, put things as they were. Get Yanukovych back in office and hold constitutional democratic elections." They had every chance of winning, 100 percent, no doubt. No, they had to do it through an armed coup instead. Well, we were confronted with this fact, accepted it and signed the Minsk agreements.

However, the current Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging every paragraph of these agreements, and everyone can see it perfectly well. Those who are involved in the negotiation process are fully aware of it, I assure you. Not a single step has been made towards implementing the Minsk agreements. Still everyone is saying, "Sanctions will not be lifted until Russia complies with the Minsk agreements."

Everyone has long since realised that the current leadership of Ukraine is not in a position to comply with them. Now that the situation in that country has hit rock bottom both in terms of the economy and domestic policy, and the police are using gas against protesters, expecting the President of Ukraine to take at least a small step towards implementing the Minsk agreements is an exercise in futility. I am not sure how he can accomplish this. But there is no alternative to it, unfortunately. Therefore, we will keep the Normandy format in place as long as our colleagues like, and we will strive to implement these Minsk agreements that you mentioned.

Nowhere has Putin ever blamed the US Government for that coup, but he knows at least as much about it as did the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor when Stratfor's head described it as "the most blatant coup in history" because it had been so well documented via leaked phone-conversations and other solid evidences. There was no doubt that the US State Department had run it, and, ultimately, evidence became public that Google and the US State Department were already preparing the operation as early as in 2011 .

Putin continued his response:

It is not enough only to appeal to Russia; it is also necessary to influence Kiev's position. Now they have made a decision on the language, essentially prohibiting the use of ethnic minority languages in school. Hungary and Romania raised objections. Poland also made some comments in this regard. However, the European Union as a whole is silent. Why are they not condemning this? There is silence.

Now they have erected a monument to Petlyura. He was a man with Nazi views, an anti-Semite who killed Jews during the war. Except for the Zionist Jewish Congress, everyone else is silent. Are you afraid of hurting your clients in Kiev, is that it? This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent?

Putin was appealing for the EU to become neutral on the Ukrainian matter, not for the US Government to do so, because Putin recognized that the US Government wants to conquer Russia and took Ukraine in order to advance that goal, whereas many in the EU want instead to have peace and trade with Russia and aren't so eager to invade. Putin has given up on America, whose Government is -- along with Ukraine and Canada -- the only defender of nazism (i.e., of racist fascism), at the U.N. But he knows that if he blames the coup on the US Government, this would make more difficult any possible efforts by the EU to move away from the US toward neutrality, because such an accusation against the US Government would only unify NATO, not break it up. He might be able to pick off a few EU members, to move toward neutrality and away from the NATO goal of ultimately invading Russia, but this can work only if he plays down the real power-contest, the contest between the US Government, whose goal is to conquer Russia , versus the Russian Government, whose goal is to remain a free and independent nation -- to protect its national sovereignty. The reason Putin blames the EU instead of the US is thus tactical. Especially interesting is that he says "This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent?" He is there making his appeal to anti-nazi Europeans, for them to break away from today's pro-nazi US regime. He is saying: Speak out against it; publicly separate yourselves from it. Then, he said:

I hope that this realisation will eventually come. I can see our partners' interest, primarily our European partners' interest in resolving this conflict. I can see real interest. Angela Merkel is doing a great deal, putting the time in, becoming deeply involved in these matters. Both the former president of France and President Macron are also paying attention. They are really working on this. However, it is necessary to work not just technically and technologically but politically. It is essential to exert some influence on the Kiev authorities, get them to do at least something. Ultimately, Ukraine itself has a stake in normalising our relations.

Now they went and imposed sanctions on us, as the EU did. We responded in kind. The president asks me, "Why did you do this?" I say, "Listen, you introduced sanctions against us." This is just amazing!

He refers there to "the Kiev authorities," instead of to the Washington authorities, because he knows that the Europeans he's addressing are aware that Ukraine is now a vassal-nation of the US He knows that they know what he knows, on this. Then, he really does address, not the rulers of Ukraine, but instead the people of Ukraine, when he says:

I believe that it is becoming obvious and most importantly, it is becoming obvious to the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. We like Ukraine and I really regard the Ukrainian people as a brotherly nation if not just one nation, part of the Russian nation.

Even though Russian nationalists do not like this and Ukrainian nationalists do not like this either, this is my position, my point of view. Sooner or later, it will happen – reunification, not on an interstate level but in terms of restoring our relations.

Numerous polls have shown that many Ukrainians do feel "brotherly" toward Russians; he is trying to appeal to these people, to seek a restoration of that previous alliance: Russia with Ukraine's anti -nazis, instead of America with Ukraine's pro -nazis.

The pro-NATO Asle Toje could have interjected a retort to what Putin was saying, but kept entirely quiet, perhaps because he knew that if he objected to any of what Putin said there, then Putin would have had a terrific opportunity to respond by hinting at the real role that NATO (i.e., the US) was playing in Ukraine, the nazi role there, such as by perhaps alluding to the nazi American Victoria Nuland's famous "F -- k the EU!" statement, which she said when she gave the instruction, on 4 February 2014, for the next Government of Ukraine to be led by Ukraine's rabidly anti-Russian nazis .

Hamid Karzai, the former ruler of Afghanistan (or at least of Kabul), was also one of the participants at this conference, and he spoke about his country's long history of being a pawn in the ancient aristocratic "Great Game" of aristocracies waging wars of conquest in order to establish international empires and grab lands from each other. Then, he commented specifically about the role that America's seizure of Ukraine in 2014 had played in the latest stage of the Great Game:

On Ukraine and the conflict phase there, I was, uh, it was during my last years of government when this crisis emerged in Ukraine. I and my close colleagues in my government and foreign policy and security issues convened, and we met. I told them that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the independent states, Ukraine was one of the closest countries to Russia, in ethnic relations and economic relations, and in cultural relations, and in terms of the value that Ukraine holds for Russia. So my approach was one of sentiment and sensitivity, but, keeping the Russian sentiment in mind, keeping the Russian sensitivity in this region in mind. Look at it this way: if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do? They would act more aggressively than what Russia did. On Crimea: to the extent that I understand, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1957, is that true? 1954. So it was part of Russian territory.

His point about "if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do?" was merely rhetorical, because in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the US already had shown what the US would do if Russia were to place missiles on or near America's borders: the US would launch a nuclear war against Russia. For some reason, Americans felt that that response -- threatening World War III -- was justified, by America, then, in 1962, but somehow don't feel that it would be a justified response, by Russia, now, when the shoe is on the other foot and even more so than it had been back in 1962 (because Ukraine is right on Russia's border). But, of course, it would be justified even more in the present instance, because conquest of Russia became, in 2006, America's all-but-official strategic-policy goal, replacing the former reliance (by both sides) upon the strategic-policy peace-maintenance goal, "Mutually Assured Destruction" (or "MAD") , which was nuclear weapons being maintained in order to avoid a WW III, instead of to 'win' a WW III (such as it has been for the US ever since 2006). Russia still believes in MAD, but America is now 'going for the gold', of 'victory'. This was implicitly the US and NATO policy ever since 24 February 1990 , but it became, since 2006, overtly the US and NATO objective, called "Nuclear Primacy," meaning the ability of the US to win a nuclear conflict against Russia -- to conquer Russia.

The recent (October 19th) statement by Putin was the most extensive that he has yet presented on the Ukrainian matter, but it's not the only statement he has made on this subject:

A year earlier than this latest Valdi discussion, Putin had said, on 12 October 2016 , at the 8th annual investment forum VTB Capital "Russia is Calling!" seeking foreign investments in Russia:

You have just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine. But we did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power, although it could be done quite differently. Former President Yanukovych signed all the requirements and was ready to hold early elections. Instead, they contributed to a coup d'état. What for?

And when we are forced to emphasize this, we were compelled to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbass, were compelled to respond to the aspirations of people living in the Crimea, to return to the Russian Federation, and immediately began to untwist a new flywheel of anti-Russian policy and the imposition of sanctions.

You have just said about the Minsk agreements. But we are not sabotaging them, the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

On that occasion, because he was responding then to a question which had been raised by Rick Boucher, a former member of the US Congress, and now a partner in a law firm, Putin had been more direct, by his saying, "We did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power." But he was ambiguous as regards whether America simply "stood behind this," or instead actually "brought [the situation in Ukraine] to an unconstitutional way of changing power [i.e., to a coup there]." In any case, Boucher, too, had no response recorded there, to Putin's statement.

Vagueness in political speech is the norm; it's seen everywhere; and wherever it is encountered, tactical reasons are commonly being exemplified.

Still earlier, on 23 May 2014, just a few months after America's coup, Putin took part in the plenary session of the 18th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, and said in response to a question from CNBC's Geoff Cutmore:

President Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing and hold additional talks. What came next? A coup d'état. No matter what you choose to call it, a revolution or something else. It's a coup d'état with the use of violence and militant forces. Who′s on whose side now? Who is using which tools from the past or the future?

It′s imperative to be very careful with regard to public institutions of emerging nations because if you are not things may slide into chaos, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The civil war and chaos are there already. Who benefits from it? Why would they do it, if Yanukovych agreed to everything? They had to go to the voting stations instead, and the same people would be in power now, only legally. We, like idiots, would be paying them the $15 billion that we promised, keeping gas prices low for them and continuing to subsidise their economy

Let's face it. We are all adults here, right? Intelligent and educated people. The West supported the unconstitutional coup d'état. It did in fact, didn′t it? Not only by way of the infamous cakes, but through informational and political support and what not. Why did it do so?

All right. And now you think that it′s all our fault? We proposed a dialogue and were denied it. What's next? The last time I was in Brussels we agreed to keep this dialogue alive. That was before the coup. Mr Ulyukayev (he is sitting there across from me), a man of respect, speaks decent English, has absolutely market-driven brains, one of our top specialists in the economy, went for consultations. Ask him about it after the session is over. I won′t dwell on it now. But there were no consultations. Nothing but slogans.

What's next? They made a coup and don′t want to speak with us. What are we supposed to think? The next step will take Ukraine into NATO. They never ask us about our opinion, and we have found out over the past two decades that there′s never any dialogue on this issue. All that they ever tell us is, ″It′s none of your business, none of your concern.″ We tell them, ″A military infrastructure is approaching our borders.″ ″Don′t worry, it's not aimed against you.″ So, tomorrow Ukraine may end up being a NATO member, and the next thing you know, it will have a US missile defence complex stationed on its territory. No one ever talks to us on this subject, either. They just tell us, ″It′s not against you, and it′s none of your concern.″

if we did not do what we did in Crimea, Crimea would have it much worse than Odessa where people were burned alive. And there are no explanations, no real condemnations by anyone. It′s still not even clear who did it, I mean the tragedy in Odessa.

He said this, against "The West," after the clear evidence that it had actually been the US regime that did the coup, and that had hired local Ukrainian nazis to carry it out, was already public knowledge, outside "The West."

On the front page of the New York Times on 23 October 2017 was a news-report about the efforts by Republicans in the US Congress to focus on something else than the alleged Russiagate manipulation of the 2016 US election, and about the efforts by congressional Democrats to focus only on those allegations, and this front-page NYT story casually employed the phrase "the extraordinary efforts of a hostile power to disrupt American democracy", as if that were already a proven fact, instead of being the Democratic Party's incessant propaganda-line in order to 'explain' Hillary Clinton's electoral defeat.

The US propaganda-media do things such as that, in order to whip up, to the maximum, their audience's hatred of Russians, and especially of the Russian Government, and so to promote the 'case' for war against Russia. Putin knows what the source of this march toward World War III is, and that it's not in Europe.

He knows that they've had more than their fills of wars, but that Americans are more malleable on this matter, more controlled by the aristocracy who own the nation's "military-industrial complex."

Tags: Ukraine Putin

[Nov 01, 2017] Over the course of four hours, senators argued that "foreign infiltration" is the root of social opposition within the United States, in order to justify the censorship of oppositional viewpoints

Can those senatord spell "the crisis of neoliberalism?" I believe they can, but the need a smoke screen to obscure this from public.
Facebook can influence the US politics. but is is controlled and systematically mined/monitored by intelligence agencies, not by Russians. It is actually a great source of intelligence as many foreigners uses it (I think number of foreign users of Facebook exceeds the number of US users, so number of exhibitionists, narcissists (which actually might perefer Twitter ;-) and clueless in security people oversees is much higher the in the USA.
There are probably some "very serious people" standing behind boyish face of Mark Zuckerberg ( Onion has a great satire playing this theme , 2011) . Facebook is such a great intelligence resource... No person with even cursory of understanding of computer security would use it. It's like installing spy camera in your dining room and enjoying it.
Notable quotes:
"... Following concerns over 'Russian meddling' in the 2016 US election through the use of social media platforms, John Sweeney looks at the role of Facebook and other tech firms as a means of influencing politics. ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star ,

November 1, 2017 at 9:23 am
"Over the course of four hours, senators argued that "foreign infiltration" is the root of social opposition within the United States, in order to justify the censorship of oppositional viewpoints."
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/01/goog-n01.html

In other words these zipperhead dumbfucks think that all Americans are subject to be manipulated and programmed by TPTB.

Throughout the entirety of the 'Cold war' (1945-1990), no one claimed that the profound societal upheavals in the wake of the race based Civil Rights followed by the Women's Rights movements were a result of "foreign infiltration".

Warren , November 1, 2017 at 11:31 am

BBC Newsnight
Published on 31 Oct 2017
SUBSCRIBE 159K
Following concerns over 'Russian meddling' in the 2016 US election through the use of social media platforms, John Sweeney looks at the role of Facebook and other tech firms as a means of influencing politics.

Newsnight is the BBC's flagship news and current affairs TV programme – with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.

[Nov 01, 2017] Guardians of the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

It would be interesting to explore possible connection of Browder and MI6. Why he changed his citizenship to British as the scandal unfolded?
Notable quotes:
"... For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth. ..."
"... The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie. ..."
"... However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary. ..."
"... This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term. ..."
"... Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud. ..."
"... While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme. ..."
"... The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims? ..."
"... In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No." ..."
"... Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower. ..."
"... From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked): ..."
"... Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license? Browder: I'm sorry. I Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?" Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200? Browder: I don't know. Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right? Browder: Yes Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree? Browder: No. ..."
"... The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work. ..."
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Oct 28, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Guardians of the Magnitsky Myth

Exclusive: In pursuit of Russia-gate, the U.S. mainstream media embraces any attack on Russia and works to ensure that Americans don't hear the other side of the story, as with the Magnitsky myth, reports Robert Parry.

As Russia-gate becomes the go-to excuse to marginalize and suppress independent and dissident media in the United States, a warning of what the future holds is the blacklisting of a documentary that debunks the so-called Magnitsky case.

The emerging outlines of the broader suppression are now apparent in moves by major technology companies – under intense political pressure – to unleash algorithms that will hunt down what major media outlets and mainstream "fact-checkers" (with their own checkered histories of getting facts wrong) deem to be "false" and then stigmatize that information with pop-up "warnings" or simply make finding it difficult for readers using major search engines.

For those who believe in a meaningful democracy, those tactics may be troubling enough, but the Magnitsky case, an opening shot in the New Cold War with Russia, has demonstrated how aggressively the Western powers-that-be behave toward even well-reported investigative projects that unearth inconvenient truth.

Throughout the U.S. and Europe, there has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.

The documentary – "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – was produced by filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, who is known as a fierce critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin but who in this instance found the West's widely accepted, anti-Russian Magnitsky storyline to be a lie.

However, instead of welcoming Nekrasov's discoveries as an important part of the debate over the West's policies toward Russia, the European Parliament pulled the plug on a premiere in Brussels and – except for a one-time showing at the Newseum in Washington – very few Americans have been allowed to see the documentary.

Instead, we're fed a steady diet of the frothy myth whipped up by hedge-fund investor William Browder and sold to the U.S. and European governments as the basis for sanctioning Russian officials. For years now, Browder has been given a free hand to spin his dog-ate-my-homework explanation about how some of his firms got involved a $230 million tax fraud in Russia.

Browder insists that some "corrupt" Russian police officers stole his companies' corporate seals and masterminded a convoluted conspiracy. But why anyone would trust a hedge-fund operator who got rich exploiting Russia's loose business standards is hard to comprehend.

The answer is that Browder has used his money and political influence to scare off and silence anyone who dares point to the glaring contradictions and logical gaps in his elaborate confection.

So, the hedge-fund guy who renounced his U.S. citizenship in favor of a British passport gets the royal treatment whenever he runs to Congress. His narrative just fits so neatly into the demonization of Russia and the frenzy over stopping "Russian propaganda and disinformation" by whatever means necessary.

This summer, Browder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and argued that people involved in arranging the one-time showing of Nekrasov's documentary should be prosecuted for violating the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA), which carries a five-year prison term.

Meanwhile, the U.S. mainstream media helps reinforce Browder's dubious tale by smearing anyone who dares question it as a "Moscow stooge" or a "useful idiot."

Magnitsky and Russia-gate

The Magnitsky controversy now has merged with the Russia-gate affair because Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who traveled to America to challenge Browder's account, arranged a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump campaign advisers in June 2016 to present this other side of the story.

Though nothing apparently came from that meeting, The New York Times, which always treats Browder's account as flat fact, led its Saturday editions with a breathless story entitled, " A Kremlin Link to a Memo Taken to Trump Tower ," citing similarities between Veselnitskaya's memo on the Magnitsky case and an account prepared by "one of Russia's most powerful officials, the prosecutor general Yuri Y. Chaika." Cue the spooky music as the Times challenges Veselnitskaya's honesty.

Yet, the Times article bows to Browder as the ultimate truth-teller, including repetition of his assertion that Sergei Magnitsky was a whistleblowing "tax lawyer," rather than one of Browder's accountants implicated in the tax fraud.

While Magnitsky's profession may seem like a small detail, it gets to the heart of the mainstream media's acceptance of Browder's depiction of Magnitsky – as a crusading lawyer who died of medical neglect in a Russian prison – despite overwhelming evidence that Magnitsky was really a clever accountant caught up in the scheme.

The "lawyer" falsehood – so eagerly swallowed by the Times and other mainstream outlets – also bears on Browder's overall credibility: If he is lying about Magnitsky's profession, why should anyone believe his other self-serving claims?

As investigative reporter Lucy Komisar noted in a recent article on the case, Browder offered a different description when he testified under oath in a New York court deposition in a related criminal case.

In that adversarial setting, when Browder was asked if Magnitsky had a law degree, Browder said, "I'm not aware that he did." When asked if Magnitsky had gone to law school, Browder answered: "No."

Yet, the Times and the rest of the mainstream media accept that Magnitsky was a "lawyer," all the better to mislead the American public regarding his alleged role as a whistleblower.

The rest of Browder's story stretches credulity even more as he offers a convoluted explanation of how he wasn't responsible for bogus claims made by his companies to fraudulently sneak away with $230 million in refunded taxes.

Rather than show any skepticism toward this smarmy hedge-fund operator and his claims of victimhood, the U.S. Congress and mainstream media just take him at his word because, of course, his story fits the ever-present "Russia bad" narrative.Plus, these influential people have repeated the falsehoods so often and suppressed contrary evidence with such arrogance that they apparently feel that they get to define reality, which – in many ways – is what they want to do in the future by exploiting the Russia-gate hysteria to restore their undisputed role as the "gatekeepers" on "approved" information.

Which is why Americans and Europeans should demand the right to see the Nekrasov documentary and make their own judgments, possibly with Browder given a chance after the show to rebut the overwhelming evidence of his deceptions.

Instead, Browder has used his wealth and connections to make sure that almost no one gets to see the deconstruction of his fable. And The New York Times is okay with that.

[For details on the Nekrasov documentary, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Blacklisted Film and the New Cold War. "]

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

BobH , October 28, 2017 at 9:48 pm

It seems the neo-liberal establishment in the West is ready to take in any Russian dissident seeking refuge while the victims of Western aggression are denied asylum.
http://en.rfi.fr/culture/20171019-russian-artist-detained-over-paris-bank-blaze

Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 9:10 am

Yes, Congress measures human worth in bribes: more from rich immigrants than from poor refugees. We are fortunate to have Mr. Parry expose the corruption of oligarchy and its control of mass media and elections.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 11:54 am

Yes, Sam F, I signed on to that one some time ago I'm sure the NYT has a waste basket somewhere that is full of "Russian trolls".

orayates5454 , October 28, 2017 at 11:01 pm

Commence your Home Business right now. Hang out with your Family and Earn. Start bringing $75/hr just over a computer. Very easy way to choose your Life Happy and Earning continuously. Begin here

. http://bit.do/online-Job-today44

Sendero Santos , October 30, 2017 at 3:25 am

Spam a lot.

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:07 pm

"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill Browder [ ]

"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia. He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.

"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel, to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?

"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum, though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a partner but also a mentor and friend.

"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party, the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University, the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising that none of it gets mentioned.

"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."

http://forward.com/news/376788/the-secret-jewish-history-of-donald-trump-jrs-russia-scandal/

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:09 pm

Bill Browder with American-Israeli interviewer Natasha Mozgovaya, TV host for Voice of America.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbgNeQ_xINM

In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".

The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.

Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various publications in Russia.

Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America.

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:11 pm

Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options, have been allowed to flourish here.

A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."

The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."

In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust.

The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.

Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.

When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.

Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.

According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed the personal information of more than 100 million people.

Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs, criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"

Abe , October 28, 2017 at 11:19 pm

William Browder is a "shareholder activist" the way Mikhail Khodorkovsky is a "human rights activist".

Both loudly bleat the "story" of their heroic "fight for justice" for billionaire Jewish oligarchs: themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.686922.1447865981!/image/78952068.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_625/78952068.jpg

Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 7:58 am

Thank you. Who would expect all these crimes and lies from a progeny of a Jewish communist Browder!

This is priceless: "The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings." In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not suffered in the Holocaust."

Lois Gagnon , October 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Good info, but not surprising. Covering up the syndicate's global crime spree is priority #1. If we view all events through this lens, it all makes perfect sense.

MrK , October 29, 2017 at 12:06 am

More on Beny and Danny Steinmetz and Dany Gertler here:

Chloe's Blood Diamonds
http://www.globalresearch.ca/chloe-s-blood-diamond/7423

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Interesting link, thanks, MrK

BobH , October 29, 2017 at 12:05 pm

Abe, thanks for the informative backgrounder. The Goldberg link is also interesting, although I note he signs on to the Russian Hacking myth and the "Magnitsky murder" theory.

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 12:20 pm

"First they went after "

In video interview featured on Mikhail Khodorkovsky's website, Browder compared Khodorkovsky and himself to victims of the Nazi regime
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=21&v=0KvFQHLIvWI [minutes 4:10-4:50

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 12:50 pm

Leading pro-Israel senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman were key promoters of the Magnitsky Act, which was signed into law in 2012.

Browder then published a book, Red Notice, leading to a string of TV appearances.

Outside the Daily Show's studios in New York on 3 February 2015, Browder was served a subpoena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Browder tried to refuse to accept the subpoena and fled.

United States Federal Judge, Thomas Griesa of the Southern District of New York issued a ruling that compels Browder to travel to New York for a deposition.

Browder's lawyer, Randy Mastro, a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP said Browder "does not have to consent to a deposition." He claimed that Browder is living and working in England and is currently carrying a British passport. Browder is a former U.S. citizen.

In his ruling, Judge Griesa emphasized that Browder must comply with the subpoena in New York because he conducts his business in the city on a "reasonably regular basis."

Browder's lawyer argued that the hedge fund manager was unable to attend in a deposition because there are "credible threats" to his personal safety. In response, the judge pointed out that the threats did not prevent Browder from going to different cable news networks to promote his book.

The federal court's order for Browder was connected to the civil case filed by federal prosecutors in Manhattan against Russian businessman Denis Katsyv.

Browder had urged prosecutors to file lawsuits against Katsyv, who denied the allegations against him. The lawyer representing Katsyv repeatedly tried to serve subpoenas to Browder as the primary source of information in the complaint against the Russian businessman.

Browder opted to run away instead of complying with the subpoena.

Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:23 pm

Carden, the senator from AIPAC was and is a key supporter!

Thanks, Abe, for your informative posts. The stench on this one takes the Israeli lapdogs in congress to new lows. Congress is either willfully uninformed or totally ignorant on the facts in this case, maybe a distinction without a difference.

Abe , October 30, 2017 at 5:19 pm

Congress is either willfully uninformed nor totally ignorant

They're bought and paid for by the pro-Israel Lobby.

falcemartello , October 30, 2017 at 11:40 pm

@Abe its called the Kosher Nostra. Exceeds anything the Neapolitans or Sicilians have managed. Most people relate syndicated crime to Southern Italians . We can thank Hollywood for that and that says it all . Lansky and Co have been running the mob for years but it's we southern Italians that get the label of mobster. Russian jewish mobsters are behind most of the crimes of graft ,drugs and prostitution ,human trafficking, organ trafficking . You name it. They came to the forefront starting from the deliberate Balkanising of the FDRY Yugoslavia and the implosion of the USSR under Yeltsin they grew exponentially. The Godfather of this international Ashkenazi judaic crime organisation is Semion Mogilevich born in the Ukraine in the 40's. This guy makes Capone and Lucky Luciano look like choir boys., but everybody relates mobsters to these southern Italians how bizarre that the truth is always something else.

Zachary Smith , October 29, 2017 at 12:29 am

Held for 11 months without trial,[4] he was, as reported by The Telegraph, "denied visits from his family" and "forced into increasingly squalid cells." He developed gall stones, pancreatitis and calculous cholecystitis, for which he was given inadequate medical treatment during his incarceration. Surgery was ordered in June, but never performed; detention center chief Ivan P. Prokopenko later said that he " did not consider Magnitsky sick Prisoners often try to pass themselves off as sick, in order to get better conditions."

In prison without a trial. Worsening medical condition ignored. As the year time-limit approached, Magnitsky was badly beaten – probably in a last ditch attempt to force the State's wishes on him.

Whether guilty or innocent, this shouldn't happen to a dog. But it happened with him, and is happening this very moment all over the fine nation we call wonderful, Exceptional, and all that. Privatized prisons who won't waste more than an aspirin tablet on an inmate. Low paid goons who get away with darned near anything they want, even if THEY beat a prisoner to death. Or kill him by choking him. Or by denying him water.

Nobody cares what goes on overseas – unless they can turn an individual gross miscarriage of justice into another attack on Russia. Nobody cares here, either. I still recall my shock and disgust at people who posed as "liberals" daydreaming about Carl Rove being put in the same cell with the sex-starved pervert "Big Bubba".

Exceptional my ***!

tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:20 am

and meanwhile, in Milwaukee , Wisconsin, USA another innocent person died in the county jail. Count that on five fingers, 5 people
dead in Milwaukee County Jail is as many months. GO USA MAGA

Lex , October 29, 2017 at 4:37 am

There is actually no credible evidence the accused accountant was beaten, this is just part of Browder's big story to avoid paying taxes – like he has done his entire life. Even so, the people working at the prison were all punished in Russia, yet somehow Russia is still the villain – when was the last time you heard of US prison staff being punished for negligence or abuse? I've read a book (also censored) about this whole affair, and it includes a lengthy section about the financial crimes visited on Russia in the 90s by people like Browder, and it amounts to crimes against humanity. Browder should be in a Russian prison, but instead his lies have caused both the US and Canada to pass punitive sanctions against an entire nation – and lead the world down a path towards war between the two largest nuclear powers. Spread the word – Browder is a charlatan and a crook, and Magnitsky was likely thrown to the wolves by him.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 11:24 am

"Browder is a charlatan and a crook" – True. And here is a documentary to read, "The Killing of William Browder:"
https://archive.org/stream/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowder_PrintLayout_6x9-1#page/n3/mode/1up

And, by the way, here is a real persecution, in the US: "The Persecution of Norman Finkelstein"
https://www.change.org/p/janet-difiore-chief-judge-of-the-state-of-new-york-norman-g-finkelstein-must-walk-free

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:02 am

You really believe in each word of the well-known Jewish fraudster Browder?

Sam F , October 29, 2017 at 8:57 am

It does seem most likely that Magnitsky simply lied about medical conditions; I have known zionists to do that all their lives in yet another fake plea for special privileges. If the prison manager really did not believe him, it is poetic justice in action.

US prisoners are in general the poor. Magnitsky was imprisoned for robbing the poor, a different matter altogether. The Magnitsky Act proves that the US Congress cares for no one, but will take bribes to pretend to care for the rich. Tell them that he was cheating zionists and they will repeal the act.

Putin Apologist , October 29, 2017 at 1:47 am

Alex Krainer's book "The Killing of William Browder: Bill Browder's Dangerous Deception" does a good job of exposing William Browder's fraud. It's a quick read about 200 pages. Amazon has banned the book but eBay has it, for now.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/The-Killing-of-William-Browder-Deconstructing-Bill-Browders-Dangerous-Deceptio/311966014830?hash=item48a29f9d6e:g:GNMAAOSwE9RZxce5

Here's Browder running, in an attempt to avoid being served with a subpoena outside the Daily Show's studios in New York. What a f***ing coward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 2:18 am

Why does it even matter what we Americans think of Browder's dealings with said Russian officials? Not to sound uncaring of human strive or anything like that, but shouldn't we Americans allow the Russians the right of their own laws and sovereignty to settle their own affairs? Shouldn't we Americans be more concerned with how many to a few had died in our own American prisons last year, and why does our land of the free America have such a huge prison population?

This Browder Road is Road we Americans should not go down. There is no reason we should, and Browder's story is too controversial by the poor credibility of his own accusations. There is a oligarchical fist fight going on over there in Russia, and it's former satellites, and America should let that region iron out their own differences. Read Phil Butler over at New Eastern Onion, and the Saker, these guys like Robert Parry are on to this Zionist intrusion.

tina , October 29, 2017 at 4:15 am

Hi joe,
I know you guys are a bit older than I , but growing up in Munich, Germany in the 70's and 80's , was a lot different from you guys in the 60's. Afghanistan 1977, Tehran, Iran 1979, The usa did so much damage, 1953 the brits and usa overthrew a democratically elected leader in Iran. Why should anyone like or welcome American troops? Since ww2, they have done nothing but wreak hatred in the world. I wish I could like this country, but I just can't

Joe Tedesky , October 29, 2017 at 5:45 am

Well let me tell ya my young friend tina, the best of America isn't being portrayed at this moment by our media to well these days. In the land of the free, are a lot of nice people tina, but they like you are in the midst these days of being pulled apart from the top down. Most of this tearing apart has been accomplished by the politicians misuse of holding up identity civil rights issues as cover for their own selfish gains. This identity issue is used, since returning to the days of the FDR New Deal is an improbable campaign promise, all because both political parties have done a fine job of destroying that very political uplifting program set in place some eighty years ago.

So tina you don't need to love the current government in the U.S., but to be patient a little while longer and then you may try and learn to like, or love if you will, the American individual, whoever that individual is you are fortunate enough to meet. On the other hand you could just go to Holland. Joe

Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Tina-

I am wondering why anyone anywhere would ever welcome any foreign troops in their own country. I am certain that one thing that would be a bi-partisan agreement for US citizens is that no foreign troops are welcome here, especially to "show" us how to run our country. I find it very strange that so few Americans seem to be able to make the logical jump to assume the same of other countries' citizens.

Jessica K , October 29, 2017 at 7:15 am

Browder is a sleaze, and the fact that he can be called a "human rights activist" in the US shows how low oligarchy and its congressional minions can go. He can't stand that Putin and the Duma went after him, among other oligarchs and big money crooks, when the US tried to scavenge Russia (which they still want to do).

Thank you for that information, Abe, on Browder's past and present shady connections. And Lex, please tell me what is the book you read on the case? And who can we get to show this film in this age of suppressed truth?

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 11:27 am

The book about Browder: https://archive.org/stream/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowder_PrintLayout_6x9-1#page/n3/mode/1up

Herman , October 29, 2017 at 7:21 am

When you read articles in CN and those of the commentators the evidence against their targets seems so one sided, that the truth must be somewhere in between. But then, for example, you read works by people like Pappe' on Israel and recently Stephen Cohen on our distortions of events and so many others and you come to understand that what these folks are saying is true and then you wonder how can it change for the better when all the usual avenues of expression are guarded by the deciders. Perhaps why we have become so tortured by this reality is that we better understand it because of the information revolution, that what is always was. And perhaps we will all be saved by those who have decided we are not getting the right information. Perhaps if their algorythyms(sp?) succeed, we will all feel better, less conflicted. We will all come to understand that shock and awe in Iraq was not a human tragedy but wonderful entertainment.

anon , October 29, 2017 at 8:42 am

algorithms. Yes, the truth of control of US mass media and elections by oligarchy is unpleasant but essential medicine.

GMC , October 29, 2017 at 7:26 am

In the interview of Magnitsky's mother, she was asked when her son graduated from Law school. She stated that he never went to Law school – he's an accountant . Even his Mother knew he was not honest – LOL So, what can we expect from a US government when they will kill Our President , cover it up, and hide it from those that believe in them ? Nothing ! And for the record – Putin claimed that 80% of those in control before the break-up of the Soviet Union – were Zionists and jewish oligarchs. Guess who is running the US government and has already stolen most of the public funds as Soc. Sec. etc. ? oo dah chee !

Realist , October 29, 2017 at 8:00 am

Yeah, apparently Congress and two presidents can't handle the truth, and figure that you can't either.

The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible.

Anna , October 29, 2017 at 8:23 am

"Their" "journalists:"
"The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad. Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice of America."

Is Mozgovaya so naive and pure that she has no idea that Browder was and is a Malicious Fraud? The tribal solidarity makes Mozgovaya an eager coolaborator with the Jewish moneyed filth, the journalistic integrity is of no concern for her. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/boss-of-slain-russian-whistleblower-to-haaretz-obama-administration-trying-to-appease-putin-1.440511
"The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans:" https://www.veteranstodaynews.com/2013/05/19/223756-the-staggering-cost-of-israel-to-americans/

Realist , October 29, 2017 at 5:55 pm

I am impressed with the knowledge many readers of CN have of these events. You almost qualify as bone fide "Putin Puppets" under federal statute. I, myself, am only aware of the basic outline of the story, but most Americans, I am sure, have never even heard of Magnitsky or Browder. To them, "Browder" probably means an American actor. Most of Congress probably believes Magnitsky was one Putin's many "political enemies" he had "assassinated" by exotic means. Can you imagine how deep this would all be buried, and yet exploited to the hilt to punish Russia, if Hillary now sat in the White House? Facts and narratives, entirely two different things. One you are denied, the other you are force fed in Amerika.

David G , October 29, 2017 at 9:22 am

"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible."

It's been tried.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

mike k , October 29, 2017 at 10:54 am

"The folks in Washington would classify the laws of physics if that were possible." Wonderful comment – that sums it all up exactly. Those who are the master criminals in our society seek to operate in complete secrecy, so that they can do whatever they wish to their unsuspecting victims, and cloak themselves in an aura of righteousness. Those who seek to expose the truth of their machinations become their most feared and hated enemies.

Gary , October 29, 2017 at 9:58 am

We Americans didn't want to hear the truth when our own government assassinated the Kennedys and MLK in the 1960, or when we were "secretly" saturation bombing Cambodia, or overthrowing democracy in Chile, or creating Islamic terrorists and funding them with drugs in Afghanistan, or running drugs for gun in Iran-Contra, or training our deaths squads in Guatemala and El Salvador, or killing a half million Iraqi children, because, well, "Saddam is a dictator" – the list is virtually endless of truths we Americans simply didn't and/or don't want to know. Collectively we're like some grotesque ugly monster that looks into our very special magic mirror (corporate media) which rather then tell us the truth, instead tells us we are so beautiful and so exceptional and so indispensable to the world, and above all the laws that apply to mere mortals. And now more and more any attempts to remove the mirror and let the truth seep through must be endlessly suppressed by the power structure. Another example of this is the recent suppression of the English language version of the German book "Bought Journalists," which looks at the corruption and manipulation of media in Europe by the CIA

https://www.globalresearch.ca/english-translation-of-udo-ulfkottes-bought-journalists-suppressed/5601857

This level of censorship suggests a rather fragile system trying desperately to maintain control.

Stefan , October 29, 2017 at 10:07 am

Jessica K. I think the book you are looking for is "The Killing of william browder" (Lower case intentional) by Alex Krainer . Do not waste your time going to amazon.

Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:29 am

This book can be downloaded free. Search for the book name and you should get the website among the first hits on google. (archive org.)

I'll give the complete link below (as the links may delay the comment publication).

Lisa , October 29, 2017 at 11:31 am

Here is the link: https://archive.org/details/TheKillingOfWilliamBrowderPrintLayout6x91

I've downloaded it but haven't gotten very far. There is so much to read and investigate every day – and a life needs to be lived at the same time

Riva Enteen , October 29, 2017 at 12:09 pm

I recently asked an anti-Putin Ukrainian how she would define oligarch. She said somebody with lots of money who uses it for political influence. What you call lobbyists.

Skip Scott , October 29, 2017 at 12:15 pm

Browder is such an obvious scumbag. How anyone could watch this youtube of him attempting to dodge a subpoena in NYC, and not see him for what he is is beyond me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryVavTF6hR0

Jerry Alatalo , October 29, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Can men and women who read this able to arrange interviews (via print, radio or video) of Sergei Nekrasov for the purpose of fully informing the American people on the hugely important Magnitsky controversy please do so quickly? Thank you. Peace.

Abe , October 29, 2017 at 4:47 pm

For the purpose of fully informing the American people, it's important to interview Andrei Nekrasov.

Not so important to interview retired Russian athlete Sergei N.

Jerry Alatalo , October 29, 2017 at 10:26 pm

Abe,

Thank you very much for the correction, in that our comment mis-named the film's director as "Sergei" instead of correctly as Andrei. Thank you as well for the many insightful comments you make here, alongside the many other men and women followers who've been contributing through excellent comments at Consortium News. Thank you, again. Peace.

Elizabeth Burton , October 29, 2017 at 2:31 pm

From the NYT piece cited: "The matching messages point to a synchronized information campaign."

I've come to the conclusion that one of the best indicators of a propaganda campaign is when the participants are completely void of any sense of irony.

ranney , October 29, 2017 at 5:57 pm

Robert, as always, you provide a clear presentation of the subject. I would indeed like to protest the censorship of this film as I'm sure lots of others would after reading your articles on the subject – but how does one do that???
Who should we protest to? Is there a petition going 'round? Or is there any other way to protest? Is there a person or government agency we can protest to who has the power to get the film shown? Is there a film agency to write to? Is the film seriously banned – or is it just that people in the film industry are scared to death of some payback? If that is the case, what sort of threat is held over them?
In any case, you can understand that those of us who would like to protest have no idea where to start. Have you any suggestions?

Alex Krainer , October 30, 2017 at 6:04 am

There's a serious problem somewhere in the legal framework, possibly in most western countries. A lawyer petitions a publisher to suppress some materials and threatens lawsuits and the publishers oblige. In my book's case they claimed defamatory content but have no obligation to prove anything. The claim is sufficient. Then Amazon instructed me to work it out with Browder and his lawyers. The really scary implication of thsi is that if you ar lawyered-up elite you can effectively control what may be said and written about you and censor any content that challenges your own narrative. For most people by far fighting for their right of freedom of expression in court is prohibitive and impossible. As author, I'm forced to wrangle this right throught the legal system against far more powerful player. In effect, freedom of expression has been voided in the west, sadly.

Skip Folden , October 29, 2017 at 7:36 pm

"The killing of William Crowder", Alex Krainer, 2017, (a critique of Crowder's Red Notice, was also almost immediately de-listed by Amazon due to Crowder Attorneys

Taras 77 , October 29, 2017 at 9:41 pm

This is a link to an article summarizing Browder's criminal activities:

https://100r.org/2017/10/master-of-reinvention/

(I know next to nothing about the org "100 Reporters )

Summary might even be a tad understated but that is fine-we get enough of the clutch pearls hysteria from "the other sources."

Alex Krainer , October 30, 2017 at 5:58 am

From my book, "The Killing of William Browder," suppressed by Amazon courtesy of Browder's lawyer Jonathan Winer (Amazon obliged, no questions asked):

Browder's deposition in the Prevezon case in Dec. 2015:

Mr. Cymrot: When you told people Mr. Magnitsky's a lawyer, did you also tell them he never went to law school and never had a law license?
Browder: I'm sorry. I
Mr. Cymrot: When you tell – how many times have you said, "Mr. Magnitsky is a lawyer?"
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: 50? 100? 200?
Browder: I don't know.
Mr. Cymrot: Many, many times, right?
Browder: Yes
Mr. Cymrot: Have you ever told anybody that he didn't go to law school and didn't have a law degree?
Browder: No.

There's so much more. Scratch the surface and Browder's hoax is hysterically childish like a high school punk contrived it.

Skip Scott , October 31, 2017 at 12:41 pm

The fact that anyone who does scratch the surface, like yourself, is immediately attacked shows that Browder is serving the oligarchy. They wish very much to return to the rape, pillage, and plunder of Russia that they enjoyed under Yeltsin. Just like Russia-gate, they seek to control the narrative. The MSM carries their water, and people have to go to sites like this one to find the truth. Thank you very much for your work.

j. D. D. , October 30, 2017 at 7:06 pm

Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign,

GoMovies , October 30, 2017 at 10:44 pm

There has been determined effort to prevent the American and European publics from seeing this detailed documentary that dissects the fraudulent claims at the heart of the Magnitsky story.

[Nov 01, 2017] Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI

Notable quotes:
"... Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign, ..."
Nov 01, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

j. D. D. , October 30, 2017 at 7:06 pm

Natalia Veselnitskaya herself has ties to Fusion GPS, and was given visas with the knowledge of the FBI. The whole affair smells of an FBI sting against the Trump campaign,

[Nov 01, 2017] Apparently Manifort and Gates have been denied Attorney Client Privilege (not entirely unprecedented, but shall we say in this case dubious, scary) in a financial crimes case

In 1985, Judge Sol Wachtler told a reporter that prosecutors had such influence over grand juries they could convince them to "indict a ham sandwich."
Nov 01, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Susan Sunflower October 31, 2017 at 8:48 pm

be scared .. from Slate/Dahlia Litwick apparently Manifort and Gates have been denied Attorney Client Privilege (not entirely unprecedented, but shall we say in this case dubious, scary) -- this is a financial crimes case no exigent circumstances, not "criminal" as in "violent criminality" or imminent danger to anyone (I suspect they are "afraid" of being out-lawyered, out-maneuvered)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_a_judge_ruled_paul_manafort_isn_t_entitled_to_attorney_client_privilege.html

[Nov 01, 2017] NATO Criticism of Russias Ukraine Policy Is Answered by Putin by Eric ZUESSE

Notable quotes:
"... What about Ukraine? From the European point of view, the ball is firmly in the court of Russia. It has turned into a semi-frozen conflict; the sanctions that were meant to be dynamic have become semi-permanent. What does Russia intend to do about this? ..."
"... Well, we think the ball is in Europe's court, because due to the completely unconstructive – I am choosing my words so as not to appear rude – position of the former members of the European Commission, the situation went as far as a coup. ..."
"... There were riots backed by the United States – both financially, politically and in the media – and all of Europe. ..."
"... They supported the unconstitutional seizure of power, a bloody one at that, with casualties, and took things as far as a war in southeastern Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence and its reunification with Russia, and now you think that we are to blame for that? Was it us who brought about the anti-constitutional coup? The current situation is the result of the unconstitutional armed seizure of power in Ukraine, and Europe is to blame, because it backed it. ..."
"... What could have been easier than to say back then: "You staged a coup, and after all, we are the guarantors." As guarantors, the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany signed a document, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. Three days later, it was trampled upon, and where were the guarantors? Ask them where these guarantors were? Why did they not say, "Please, put things as they were. Get Yanukovych back in office and hold constitutional democratic elections." They had every chance of winning, 100 percent, no doubt. No, they had to do it through an armed coup instead. Well, we were confronted with this fact, accepted it and signed the Minsk agreements. ..."
"... However, the current Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging every paragraph of these agreements, and everyone can see it perfectly well. Those who are involved in the negotiation process are fully aware of it, I assure you. Not a single step has been made towards implementing the Minsk agreements. Still everyone is saying, "Sanctions will not be lifted until Russia complies with the Minsk agreements." ..."
"... Everyone has long since realised that the current leadership of Ukraine is not in a position to comply with them. Now that the situation in that country has hit rock bottom both in terms of the economy and domestic policy, and the police are using gas against protesters, expecting the President of Ukraine to take at least a small step towards implementing the Minsk agreements is an exercise in futility. I am not sure how he can accomplish this. But there is no alternative to it, unfortunately. Therefore, we will keep the Normandy format in place as long as our colleagues like, and we will strive to implement these Minsk agreements that you mentioned. ..."
"... It is not enough only to appeal to Russia; it is also necessary to influence Kiev's position. Now they have made a decision on the language, essentially prohibiting the use of ethnic minority languages in school. Hungary and Romania raised objections. Poland also made some comments in this regard. However, the European Union as a whole is silent. Why are they not condemning this? There is silence. ..."
"... Now they have erected a monument to Petlyura. He was a man with Nazi views, an anti-Semite who killed Jews during the war. Except for the Zionist Jewish Congress, everyone else is silent. Are you afraid of hurting your clients in Kiev, is that it? This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent? ..."
"... I hope that this realisation will eventually come. I can see our partners' interest, primarily our European partners' interest in resolving this conflict. I can see real interest. Angela Merkel is doing a great deal, putting the time in, becoming deeply involved in these matters. Both the former president of France and President Macron are also paying attention. They are really working on this. However, it is necessary to work not just technically and technologically but politically. It is essential to exert some influence on the Kiev authorities, get them to do at least something. Ultimately, Ukraine itself has a stake in normalising our relations. ..."
"... Now they went and imposed sanctions on us, as the EU did. We responded in kind. The president asks me, "Why did you do this?" I say, "Listen, you introduced sanctions against us." This is just amazing! ..."
"... I believe that it is becoming obvious and most importantly, it is becoming obvious to the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. We like Ukraine and I really regard the Ukrainian people as a brotherly nation if not just one nation, part of the Russian nation. ..."
"... Even though Russian nationalists do not like this and Ukrainian nationalists do not like this either, this is my position, my point of view. Sooner or later, it will happen – reunification, not on an interstate level but in terms of restoring our relations. ..."
"... On Ukraine and the conflict phase there, I was, uh, it was during my last years of government when this crisis emerged in Ukraine. I and my close colleagues in my government and foreign policy and security issues convened, and we met. I told them that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the independent states, Ukraine was one of the closest countries to Russia, in ethnic relations and economic relations, and in cultural relations, and in terms of the value that Ukraine holds for Russia. So my approach was one of sentiment and sensitivity, but, keeping the Russian sentiment in mind, keeping the Russian sensitivity in this region in mind. Look at it this way: if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do? They would act more aggressively than what Russia did. On Crimea: to the extent that I understand, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1957, is that true? 1954. So it was part of Russian territory. ..."
"... You have just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine. But we did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power, although it could be done quite differently. Former President Yanukovych signed all the requirements and was ready to hold early elections. Instead, they contributed to a coup d'état. What for? ..."
"... And when we are forced to emphasize this, we were compelled to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbass, were compelled to respond to the aspirations of people living in the Crimea, to return to the Russian Federation, and immediately began to untwist a new flywheel of anti-Russian policy and the imposition of sanctions. ..."
"... You have just said about the Minsk agreements. But we are not sabotaging them, the implementation of the Minsk agreements. ..."
"... President Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing and hold additional talks. What came next? A coup d'état. No matter what you choose to call it, a revolution or something else. It's a coup d'état with the use of violence and militant forces. Who′s on whose side now? Who is using which tools from the past or the future? ..."
"... It′s imperative to be very careful with regard to public institutions of emerging nations because if you are not things may slide into chaos, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The civil war and chaos are there already. Who benefits from it? Why would they do it, if Yanukovych agreed to everything? They had to go to the voting stations instead, and the same people would be in power now, only legally. We, like idiots, would be paying them the $15 billion that we promised, keeping gas prices low for them and continuing to subsidise their economy ..."
"... Let's face it. We are all adults here, right? Intelligent and educated people. The West supported the unconstitutional coup d'état. It did in fact, didn′t it? Not only by way of the infamous cakes, but through informational and political support and what not. Why did it do so? ..."
"... All right. And now you think that it′s all our fault? We proposed a dialogue and were denied it. What's next? The last time I was in Brussels we agreed to keep this dialogue alive. That was before the coup. Mr Ulyukayev (he is sitting there across from me), a man of respect, speaks decent English, has absolutely market-driven brains, one of our top specialists in the economy, went for consultations. Ask him about it after the session is over. I won′t dwell on it now. But there were no consultations. Nothing but slogans. ..."
"... What's next? They made a coup and don′t want to speak with us. What are we supposed to think? The next step will take Ukraine into NATO. They never ask us about our opinion, and we have found out over the past two decades that there′s never any dialogue on this issue. All that they ever tell us is, ″It′s none of your business, none of your concern.″ We tell them, ″A military infrastructure is approaching our borders.″ ″Don′t worry, it's not aimed against you.″ So, tomorrow Ukraine may end up being a NATO member, and the next thing you know, it will have a US missile defence complex stationed on its territory. No one ever talks to us on this subject, either. They just tell us, ″It′s not against you, and it′s none of your concern.″ ..."
"... if we did not do what we did in Crimea, Crimea would have it much worse than Odessa where people were burned alive. And there are no explanations, no real condemnations by anyone. It′s still not even clear who did it, I mean the tragedy in Odessa. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org

A NATO supporter criticized Russia's President Vladimir Putin for Russia's Ukraine policy, on October 19th, at the Valdai Discussion Club's annual meeting in Sochi, and Putin fired back with his most detailed statement to-date, describing the overthrow in February 2014 of Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, as having been a "coup" by the West, especially by the EU (which he blamed for it, rather than blame the US).

Asle Toje, a Norwegian supporter of the NATO anti-Russian military alliance, had raised this subject when he asked Putin :

What about Ukraine? From the European point of view, the ball is firmly in the court of Russia. It has turned into a semi-frozen conflict; the sanctions that were meant to be dynamic have become semi-permanent. What does Russia intend to do about this?

Putin replied:

Well, we think the ball is in Europe's court, because due to the completely unconstructive – I am choosing my words so as not to appear rude – position of the former members of the European Commission, the situation went as far as a coup.

On 4 February 2014 the agent whom US President Barack Obama had tasked to plan the coup, Hillary Clinton's longtime friend Victoria Nuland, instructed the US Ambassador in Ukraine whom to appoint to run Ukraine as soon as the coup would be culminated, which occurred 23 days later, on 27 February: "Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience the governing experience he's the" person to appoint , she told the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.

And "Yats" Yatsenyuk got the post, which was the appointment as Prime Minister, because Obama wanted the rabidly anti-Russian Yulia Tymoshenko to win Ukraine's Presidency in an election, so as to be able to describe the change-of-government as being 'democratic' i.e., 'elected', not imposed (as was the appointment of "Yats"). However, Tymoshenko had too much of a public reputation as being a US agent (and grifter ), for her to win; and, so, Petro Poroshenko won the 'election' instead.

It was an 'election' in all of the majority Ukrainian-speaking areas of Ukraine, but without allowing to vote the populations in many of the majority Russian-speaking regions, where the man whom Obama overthrew, Yanukovych, had won by over 75% of the votes, in the last democratic election in Ukraine, which was the Presidential election in 2010 -- the final election in which Ukrainians in all parts of the country voted. Although Poroshenko was anti-Russian, he wasn't nearly as anti-Russian as was Tymoshenko. Yatsenyuk was Tymoshenko's subordinate, and he had been selected by Nuland because the Obama Administration were thinking that after the Presidential election, Yats would hand off the government to Tymoshenko, who led Yats's Party.

Putin blamed the EU for the coup, though (in fact) when the EU's Foreign Minister, Catherine Ashton, learned, on February 26th of 2014, that this overthrow had been a coup instead of a democratic revolution, she expressed shock and disappointment but went right on carrying out the Obama Administration's plan for the integration of the formerly Russia-allied Ukraine into the EU, and, ultimately, as was expected, into NATO, so that US nuclear missiles will be able to be installed there, on Russia's border, as close to Moscow as possible, for a blitz-attack against Russia, to conquer Russia .

Furthermore, in Nuland's instruction to the Ambassador in Kiev, she said "F -- k the EU" , because the EU aristocracies weren't nearly as eager to conquer Russia as the US aristocracy are; the EU aristocracies had wanted Vitaly Klitschko to head Ukraine; Klitschko wasn't rabidly anti-Russian , like Tymoshenko and Yatsenyuk were. Putin knew this -- he knew that the coup was done by the US, not by the EU.

Putin then described the coup as follows:

There were riots backed by the United States – both financially, politically and in the media – and all of Europe.

They supported the unconstitutional seizure of power, a bloody one at that, with casualties, and took things as far as a war in southeastern Ukraine. Crimea declared its independence and its reunification with Russia, and now you think that we are to blame for that? Was it us who brought about the anti-constitutional coup? The current situation is the result of the unconstitutional armed seizure of power in Ukraine, and Europe is to blame, because it backed it.

What could have been easier than to say back then: "You staged a coup, and after all, we are the guarantors." As guarantors, the foreign ministers of Poland, France and Germany signed a document, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition. Three days later, it was trampled upon, and where were the guarantors? Ask them where these guarantors were? Why did they not say, "Please, put things as they were. Get Yanukovych back in office and hold constitutional democratic elections." They had every chance of winning, 100 percent, no doubt. No, they had to do it through an armed coup instead. Well, we were confronted with this fact, accepted it and signed the Minsk agreements.

However, the current Ukrainian leadership is sabotaging every paragraph of these agreements, and everyone can see it perfectly well. Those who are involved in the negotiation process are fully aware of it, I assure you. Not a single step has been made towards implementing the Minsk agreements. Still everyone is saying, "Sanctions will not be lifted until Russia complies with the Minsk agreements."

Everyone has long since realised that the current leadership of Ukraine is not in a position to comply with them. Now that the situation in that country has hit rock bottom both in terms of the economy and domestic policy, and the police are using gas against protesters, expecting the President of Ukraine to take at least a small step towards implementing the Minsk agreements is an exercise in futility. I am not sure how he can accomplish this. But there is no alternative to it, unfortunately. Therefore, we will keep the Normandy format in place as long as our colleagues like, and we will strive to implement these Minsk agreements that you mentioned.

Nowhere has Putin ever blamed the US Government for that coup, but he knows at least as much about it as did the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor when Stratfor's head described it as "the most blatant coup in history" because it had been so well documented via leaked phone-conversations and other solid evidences. There was no doubt that the US State Department had run it, and, ultimately, evidence became public that Google and the US State Department were already preparing the operation as early as in 2011 .

Putin continued his response:

It is not enough only to appeal to Russia; it is also necessary to influence Kiev's position. Now they have made a decision on the language, essentially prohibiting the use of ethnic minority languages in school. Hungary and Romania raised objections. Poland also made some comments in this regard. However, the European Union as a whole is silent. Why are they not condemning this? There is silence.

Now they have erected a monument to Petlyura. He was a man with Nazi views, an anti-Semite who killed Jews during the war. Except for the Zionist Jewish Congress, everyone else is silent. Are you afraid of hurting your clients in Kiev, is that it? This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent?

Putin was appealing for the EU to become neutral on the Ukrainian matter, not for the US Government to do so, because Putin recognized that the US Government wants to conquer Russia and took Ukraine in order to advance that goal, whereas many in the EU want instead to have peace and trade with Russia and aren't so eager to invade. Putin has given up on America, whose Government is -- along with Ukraine and Canada -- the only defender of nazism (i.e., of racist fascism), at the U.N. But he knows that if he blames the coup on the US Government, this would make more difficult any possible efforts by the EU to move away from the US toward neutrality, because such an accusation against the US Government would only unify NATO, not break it up. He might be able to pick off a few EU members, to move toward neutrality and away from the NATO goal of ultimately invading Russia, but this can work only if he plays down the real power-contest, the contest between the US Government, whose goal is to conquer Russia , versus the Russian Government, whose goal is to remain a free and independent nation -- to protect its national sovereignty. The reason Putin blames the EU instead of the US is thus tactical. Especially interesting is that he says "This is not being done by the Ukrainian people; this is being done at the prompting of the relevant ruling authorities. But why are you keeping silent?" He is there making his appeal to anti-nazi Europeans, for them to break away from today's pro-nazi US regime. He is saying: Speak out against it; publicly separate yourselves from it. Then, he said:

I hope that this realisation will eventually come. I can see our partners' interest, primarily our European partners' interest in resolving this conflict. I can see real interest. Angela Merkel is doing a great deal, putting the time in, becoming deeply involved in these matters. Both the former president of France and President Macron are also paying attention. They are really working on this. However, it is necessary to work not just technically and technologically but politically. It is essential to exert some influence on the Kiev authorities, get them to do at least something. Ultimately, Ukraine itself has a stake in normalising our relations.

Now they went and imposed sanctions on us, as the EU did. We responded in kind. The president asks me, "Why did you do this?" I say, "Listen, you introduced sanctions against us." This is just amazing!

He refers there to "the Kiev authorities," instead of to the Washington authorities, because he knows that the Europeans he's addressing are aware that Ukraine is now a vassal-nation of the US He knows that they know what he knows, on this. Then, he really does address, not the rulers of Ukraine, but instead the people of Ukraine, when he says:

I believe that it is becoming obvious and most importantly, it is becoming obvious to the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens. We like Ukraine and I really regard the Ukrainian people as a brotherly nation if not just one nation, part of the Russian nation.

Even though Russian nationalists do not like this and Ukrainian nationalists do not like this either, this is my position, my point of view. Sooner or later, it will happen – reunification, not on an interstate level but in terms of restoring our relations.

Numerous polls have shown that many Ukrainians do feel "brotherly" toward Russians; he is trying to appeal to these people, to seek a restoration of that previous alliance: Russia with Ukraine's anti -nazis, instead of America with Ukraine's pro -nazis.

The pro-NATO Asle Toje could have interjected a retort to what Putin was saying, but kept entirely quiet, perhaps because he knew that if he objected to any of what Putin said there, then Putin would have had a terrific opportunity to respond by hinting at the real role that NATO (i.e., the US) was playing in Ukraine, the nazi role there, such as by perhaps alluding to the nazi American Victoria Nuland's famous "F -- k the EU!" statement, which she said when she gave the instruction, on 4 February 2014, for the next Government of Ukraine to be led by Ukraine's rabidly anti-Russian nazis .

Hamid Karzai, the former ruler of Afghanistan (or at least of Kabul), was also one of the participants at this conference, and he spoke about his country's long history of being a pawn in the ancient aristocratic "Great Game" of aristocracies waging wars of conquest in order to establish international empires and grab lands from each other. Then, he commented specifically about the role that America's seizure of Ukraine in 2014 had played in the latest stage of the Great Game:

On Ukraine and the conflict phase there, I was, uh, it was during my last years of government when this crisis emerged in Ukraine. I and my close colleagues in my government and foreign policy and security issues convened, and we met. I told them that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the independent states, Ukraine was one of the closest countries to Russia, in ethnic relations and economic relations, and in cultural relations, and in terms of the value that Ukraine holds for Russia. So my approach was one of sentiment and sensitivity, but, keeping the Russian sentiment in mind, keeping the Russian sensitivity in this region in mind. Look at it this way: if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do? They would act more aggressively than what Russia did. On Crimea: to the extent that I understand, Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1957, is that true? 1954. So it was part of Russian territory.

His point about "if Russia went and tried to turn Canada into an ally of the Warsaw Pact against America, what would America do?" was merely rhetorical, because in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the US already had shown what the US would do if Russia were to place missiles on or near America's borders: the US would launch a nuclear war against Russia. For some reason, Americans felt that that response -- threatening World War III -- was justified, by America, then, in 1962, but somehow don't feel that it would be a justified response, by Russia, now, when the shoe is on the other foot and even more so than it had been back in 1962 (because Ukraine is right on Russia's border). But, of course, it would be justified even more in the present instance, because conquest of Russia became, in 2006, America's all-but-official strategic-policy goal, replacing the former reliance (by both sides) upon the strategic-policy peace-maintenance goal, "Mutually Assured Destruction" (or "MAD") , which was nuclear weapons being maintained in order to avoid a WW III, instead of to 'win' a WW III (such as it has been for the US ever since 2006). Russia still believes in MAD, but America is now 'going for the gold', of 'victory'. This was implicitly the US and NATO policy ever since 24 February 1990 , but it became, since 2006, overtly the US and NATO objective, called "Nuclear Primacy," meaning the ability of the US to win a nuclear conflict against Russia -- to conquer Russia.

The recent (October 19th) statement by Putin was the most extensive that he has yet presented on the Ukrainian matter, but it's not the only statement he has made on this subject:

A year earlier than this latest Valdi discussion, Putin had said, on 12 October 2016 , at the 8th annual investment forum VTB Capital "Russia is Calling!" seeking foreign investments in Russia:

You have just mentioned the crisis in Ukraine. But we did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power, although it could be done quite differently. Former President Yanukovych signed all the requirements and was ready to hold early elections. Instead, they contributed to a coup d'état. What for?

And when we are forced to emphasize this, we were compelled to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbass, were compelled to respond to the aspirations of people living in the Crimea, to return to the Russian Federation, and immediately began to untwist a new flywheel of anti-Russian policy and the imposition of sanctions.

You have just said about the Minsk agreements. But we are not sabotaging them, the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

On that occasion, because he was responding then to a question which had been raised by Rick Boucher, a former member of the US Congress, and now a partner in a law firm, Putin had been more direct, by his saying, "We did not bring this to a coup in Ukraine. Have we done this? No. Especially our American partners do not hide that to a large extent they stood behind this, funded a radical opposition, brought to an unconstitutional way of changing power." But he was ambiguous as regards whether America simply "stood behind this," or instead actually "brought [the situation in Ukraine] to an unconstitutional way of changing power [i.e., to a coup there]." In any case, Boucher, too, had no response recorded there, to Putin's statement.

Vagueness in political speech is the norm; it's seen everywhere; and wherever it is encountered, tactical reasons are commonly being exemplified.

Still earlier, on 23 May 2014, just a few months after America's coup, Putin took part in the plenary session of the 18th St Petersburg International Economic Forum, and said in response to a question from CNBC's Geoff Cutmore:

President Yanukovych decided to postpone the signing and hold additional talks. What came next? A coup d'état. No matter what you choose to call it, a revolution or something else. It's a coup d'état with the use of violence and militant forces. Who′s on whose side now? Who is using which tools from the past or the future?

It′s imperative to be very careful with regard to public institutions of emerging nations because if you are not things may slide into chaos, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine. The civil war and chaos are there already. Who benefits from it? Why would they do it, if Yanukovych agreed to everything? They had to go to the voting stations instead, and the same people would be in power now, only legally. We, like idiots, would be paying them the $15 billion that we promised, keeping gas prices low for them and continuing to subsidise their economy

Let's face it. We are all adults here, right? Intelligent and educated people. The West supported the unconstitutional coup d'état. It did in fact, didn′t it? Not only by way of the infamous cakes, but through informational and political support and what not. Why did it do so?

All right. And now you think that it′s all our fault? We proposed a dialogue and were denied it. What's next? The last time I was in Brussels we agreed to keep this dialogue alive. That was before the coup. Mr Ulyukayev (he is sitting there across from me), a man of respect, speaks decent English, has absolutely market-driven brains, one of our top specialists in the economy, went for consultations. Ask him about it after the session is over. I won′t dwell on it now. But there were no consultations. Nothing but slogans.

What's next? They made a coup and don′t want to speak with us. What are we supposed to think? The next step will take Ukraine into NATO. They never ask us about our opinion, and we have found out over the past two decades that there′s never any dialogue on this issue. All that they ever tell us is, ″It′s none of your business, none of your concern.″ We tell them, ″A military infrastructure is approaching our borders.″ ″Don′t worry, it's not aimed against you.″ So, tomorrow Ukraine may end up being a NATO member, and the next thing you know, it will have a US missile defence complex stationed on its territory. No one ever talks to us on this subject, either. They just tell us, ″It′s not against you, and it′s none of your concern.″

if we did not do what we did in Crimea, Crimea would have it much worse than Odessa where people were burned alive. And there are no explanations, no real condemnations by anyone. It′s still not even clear who did it, I mean the tragedy in Odessa.

He said this, against "The West," after the clear evidence that it had actually been the US regime that did the coup, and that had hired local Ukrainian nazis to carry it out, was already public knowledge, outside "The West."

On the front page of the New York Times on 23 October 2017 was a news-report about the efforts by Republicans in the US Congress to focus on something else than the alleged Russiagate manipulation of the 2016 US election, and about the efforts by congressional Democrats to focus only on those allegations, and this front-page NYT story casually employed the phrase "the extraordinary efforts of a hostile power to disrupt American democracy", as if that were already a proven fact, instead of being the Democratic Party's incessant propaganda-line in order to 'explain' Hillary Clinton's electoral defeat.

The US propaganda-media do things such as that, in order to whip up, to the maximum, their audience's hatred of Russians, and especially of the Russian Government, and so to promote the 'case' for war against Russia. Putin knows what the source of this march toward World War III is, and that it's not in Europe.

He knows that they've had more than their fills of wars, but that Americans are more malleable on this matter, more controlled by the aristocracy who own the nation's "military-industrial complex."

Tags: Ukraine Putin

[Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Putin made a strong statement on the need for the United States to observe existing nuclear disarmament agreements. ..."
"... One particularly interesting discussion centered around the impact of automation and computerization on jobs, and what measures -- if any -- could be taken to limit the impact or to ameliorate the immense growth of unemployment and inequality that will likely result from that automation. Another discussion took a hard look at migration from the Muslim world and Africa to Europe. The conversation revealed the complete witlessness of the existing Brussels elites when it comes to meeting -- or even thinking -- about the migration challenge ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

The conference contained no important developments or revelations, but it did raise some very interesting questions. One of those questions centered around the quality of leadership in Western democracies -- specifically in a state that does not hold up well in comparison with the leadership of Russia or China. The West has maintained its leadership role through the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. In both the United States and Europe, however, those institutions appear to be crumbling as a result of deepening -- and perhaps irreconcilable -- cultural, racial and class differences, and a failure to address the issue of migration.

... ... ...

When one participant remarked that European leaders see the "ball in Russia's court" when it comes to seeking a resolution of the Ukraine conflict under the terms of the Minsk agreement, Putin remarked that Russia sees the situation differently. Russia believes the ball is in the West's court when it comes to bringing the government in Kiev to negotiate an agreement on autonomy with the Donbas, he said. Putin expressed no optimism about the situation and he noted that the Ukrainian government was probably too weak and internally threatened to make a deal.

... ... ...

On North Korea, Putin said that "we should not drive North Korea into a corner, threaten force, stoop to unabashed rudeness or invective. Whether someone likes or dislikes the North Korean regime, we must not forget that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a sovereign state."

Putin made a strong statement on the need for the United States to observe existing nuclear disarmament agreements. He went into considerable detail when accusing successive U.S. administrations of violating the terms of both the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement and the U.S.-Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement of 1993. He also noted that the United States, unlike Russia, had yet to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty. It was clear from his remarks that the Russian leadership is determined to maintain rough nuclear parity with the United States and respond to whatever it sees as violations of those agreements by the U.S. side.

In some ways, the most interesting thing about the conference regarding Russian-Western relations was that most of the discussion was not about Russian-Western relations. Instead, conference attendees focused on climate change, social inequality, technological change, genetic engineering, globalization, migration and national identity. One particularly interesting discussion centered around the impact of automation and computerization on jobs, and what measures -- if any -- could be taken to limit the impact or to ameliorate the immense growth of unemployment and inequality that will likely result from that automation. Another discussion took a hard look at migration from the Muslim world and Africa to Europe. The conversation revealed the complete witlessness of the existing Brussels elites when it comes to meeting -- or even thinking -- about the migration challenge

As a number of participants (including myself) pointed out, compared with these existential threats to existing states, the issues currently dividing Russia and the West are likely to seem to the historians of the future (if there are any) so minor as to be almost insignificant. One hundred years from now, our descendants are likely to look back on disputes over Crimea, the Donbas and Syria with the same combination of incomprehension and contempt with which we regard the European elites who went to war over geopolitical issues in 1914. They, too, failed to see that the real threats to their comfortable, civilized world came from within their own societies.

Anatol Lieven is a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is author among other books of Ukraine and Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry .

[Oct 31, 2017] The Battle of Stalingrad

Notable quotes:
"... Voenno-Vozdushnye Sily ..."
"... Aviatsiya Dalnego Destviya ..."
"... Operation Winter Storm ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

The Battle of Stalingrad took place between July 17, 1942 and February 2, 1943, during the Second World War .

- Background
- Planning an Offensive
- Importance of Stalingrad
- Operation Blue
- Begining of the Battle
- Soviet Counter-Offensives
- Operation Uranus
- Stalingrad Pocket
- Operation Saturn
- Soviet Victory
- The Aftermath

On June 22, 1941, Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa ( Unternehmen Barbarossa ). The armed forces of Germany and its allies invaded the Soviet Union , quickly advancing deep into Soviet territory. In December, having suffered multiple defeats during the summer and autumn, Soviet forces counter-attacked during the Battle of Moscow and successfully drove the German Army ( Wehrmacht Heer ) from the environs of Moscow.

By spring 1942, the Germans had stabilized their front in a line running roughly from Leningrad in the north to Rostov in the south. There were a number of salients in the line where Soviet offensives had pushed the Germans back, notably to the northwest of Moscow and south of Kharkov, but neither was particularly threatening. In the far south the Germans were in control of most of the Ukraine and much of the Crimean, although Sevastapol remained in Soviet hands along with a small portion of the Kerch peninsula.

The Germans were confident they could master the Red Army when winter weather no longer impeded their mobility. There was some substance to this belief: while Army Group Center ( Heeresgruppe Mitte ) had suffered heavy punishment, 65 percent of its infantry had not been engaged during the winter fighting, and had been rested and reequipped. Army Groups North and South had not been particularly hard pressed over the winter.

Confusing matters considerably was the recent entry of the United States following Germany's declaration of war in support of its Japanese ally. To everyone's surprise, the new Anglo-American Allies stated that their first priority was Germany. Hitler wanted to end the fighting on the Eastern Front, or at least minimize it, before the Americans had a chance to get deeply involved in the war in Europe.

Moscow was thus an obvious target. Capturing Moscow could conceivably force the Soviets to surrender, or at least so upset their command, control and manufacturing to remove them as a major force. However, an important part of the German "Blitzkrieg" style of warfare was to attack at the least obvious point, in order to concentrate the offensive against the weakest defense, punching through, and then maintaining a highly mobile offensive in order to keep the enemy off balance. Moscow was just as obvious a target to the Soviets as the Germans, and was heavily defended as a result. Although a successful offensive was certainly possible, it would likely be a costly victory.

Another possibility was to upset the strategic balance by cutting off the Soviet supplies. The basic theory behind total war was that if the industrial output of a country could be disrupted, their military forces would be unable to fight and be defeated as a matter of course. Hitler himself had always claimed to favor this style of warfare, and had personally intervened during Barbarossa to capture areas he felt were of prime industrial importance (much to the chagrin of his generals). In this case there was an obvious target, the oil fields of the Caucasus area, which supplied the Soviets with the vast majority of their fuel. An offensive in this area would also complete the takeover of the Ukraine . If the Volga could be reached, grain supplies from much of the Soviet "breadbasket" would be cut off completely, as it traveled either by barge on the Volga, or trains on lines further west that would also be overrun.

The capture of Stalingrad was important to Hitler for two primary reasons. Firstly, it was a major industrial city on the Volga River -- a vital transport route between the Caspian Sea and Northern Russia. Secondly, its capture would secure the left flank of the German armies as they advanced into the oil-rich Caucasus region -- with a goal of cutting off fuel to Stalin's war machine. The fact that the city bore the name of Hitler's nemesis, Joseph Stalin , would make its capture an ideological and propaganda coup. Stalin realized this, also, and despite being under tremendous constraints of time and resources, ordered anyone who was strong enough to hold a rifle be sent out to defend the city. The Red Army, at this stage of the war, was less capable of highly mobile operations than the German Army; however, the prospect of combat inside a large urban area, which would be dominated by short-range firearms rather than armored and mechanized tactics, minimized the Red Army's disadvantages against the Germans.

Army Group South was selected for a sprint forward through the southern Russian steppes into the Caucasus to capture the vital Soviet oil fields there. Instead of focusing his attention on the Soviet Capital of Moscow as his general staff advised, Hitler continued to send forces and supplies to the eastern Ukraine. The planned summer offensive was code-named Fall Blau (trans.: "Case Blue"). It was to include the German Sixth Army, Seventeenth Army, Fourth Panzer Army and First Panzer Army. Army Group South had overrun the Ukrainian SSR in 1941. Poised in the Eastern Ukraine, it was to spearhead the offensive.

Hitler intervened, however, ordering the Army Group to be split in two. Army Group South (A), under the command of Wilhelm List , was to continue advancing south towards the Caucasus as planned with the Seventeenth Army and First Panzer Army. Army Group South (B), including Friedrich Paulus 's Sixth Army and Hermann Hoth's Fourth Panzer Army, was to move east towards the Volga and the city of Stalingrad. Army Group B was commanded initially by Field Marshal Fedor von Bock and later by General Maximilian von Weichs.

The start of Operation Blau had been planned for late May 1942. However, a number of German and Romanian units that were involved in Blau were then in the process of besieging Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula. Delays in ending the siege pushed back the start date for Blau several times, and the city did not fall until the end of June. A smaller action was taken in the meantime, pinching off a Soviet salient in the Second Battle of Kharkov, which resulted in the pocketing of a large Soviet force on 22 May.

Blau finally opened as Army Group South began its attack into southern Russia on June 28, 1942. The German offensive started well. Soviet forces offered little resistance in the vast empty steppes and started streaming eastward in disarray. Several attempts to re-establish a defensive line failed when German units outflanked them. Two major pockets were formed and destroyed: the first northeast of Kharkov on July 2 and a second, around Millerovo, Rostov Oblast, a week later.

Meanwhile, the Hungarian Second Army and the German 4th Panzer Army had launched an assault on Voronezh, capturing the city on the 5th of July.

The initial advance of the Sixth Army was so successful that Hitler intervened and ordered the Fourth Panzer Army to join Army Group South (A) to the south. A massive traffic jam resulted when the Fourth Panzer and the Sixth both required the few roads in the area. Both armies were stopped dead while they attempted to clear the resulting mess of thousands of vehicles. The delay was long, and it is thought that it cost the advance at least one week. With the advance now slowed, Hitler changed his mind and re-assigned the Fourth Panzer Army back to the attack on Stalingrad.

By the end of July, the Germans had pushed the Soviets across the Don River. At this point, the Germans began using the armies of their Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian allies to guard their left (northern) flank. The German Sixth Army was only a few dozen kilometers from Stalingrad, and Fourth Panzer Army, now to their south, turned northwards to help take the city. To the south, Army Group A was pushing far into the Caucasus, but their advance slowed as supply lines grew overextended. The two German army groups were not positioned to support one another due to the great distances involved.

After German intentions became clear in July, Stalin appointed Marshall Andrei Yeremenko as commander of the Southeastern Front on August 1, 1942. Yeremenko and Commissar Nikita Krushchev were tasked with planning the defense of Stalingrad. The eastern border of Stalingrad was the wide Volga River, and over the river additional Soviet units were deployed. This combination of units became the newly formed 62nd Army, which Yeremenko placed under the command of Lt. Gen. Vasiliy Chuikov on September 11, 1942. The 62nd Army's mission was to defend Stalingrad at all costs.

Before the Wehrmacht reached the city itself, the Luftwaffe had rendered the Volga River, vital for bringing supplies into the city, virtually unusable to Soviet shipping. Between 25 July and 31 July, 32 Soviet ships were sunk with another nine crippled. The battle began with the heavy bombing of the city by the Generaloberst von Richthofen's Luftflotte 4 , which in the summer and autumn of 1942 was the mightiest single air command in the world. Some 1,000 tons were dropped. The city was quickly turned to rubble, although some factories survived and continued production whilst workers joined in the fighting. The Croatian 369th Reinforced Infantry Regiment was the only non-German unit selected by the Wehrmacht to enter Stalingrad city during assault operations.

Stalin prevented civilians from leaving the city on the premise that their presence would encourage greater resistance from the city's defenders. Civilians, including women and children, were put to work building trenchworks and protective fortifications. A massive German air bombardment on August 23 caused a firestorm, killing thousands and turning Stalingrad into a vast landscape of rubble and burnt ruins. Ninety percent of the living space in the Voroshilovskiy area was destroyed.

The Soviet Air Force, the Voenno-Vozdushnye Sily (VVS), was swept aside by the Luftwaffe. The VVS unit in the immediate area lost 201 aircraft from 23-31 August, and despite meager reinforcements of some 100 aircraft in August, it was with just 192 servicable aircraft which included just 57 fighters. The Soviets poured aerial reinforcements into the Stalingrad area in late September but continued to suffer appalling losses. The Luftwaffe had complete control of the skies.

The burden of the initial defense of the city fell on the 1077th Anti-Aircraft (AA) Regiment, a unit made up mainly of young women volunteers who had no training on engaging ground targets. Despite this, and with no support available from other Soviet units, the AA gunners stayed at their posts and took on the advancing Panzers. The German 16th Panzer Division reportedly had to fight the 1077th's gunners "shot for shot" until all 37 AA batteries were destroyed or overrun. In the beginning, the Soviets relied extensively on "Workers' militias" composed of workers not directly involved in war production. For a short time, tanks continued to be produced and then manned by volunteer crews of factory workers. They were driven directly from the factory floor to the front line, often without paint or even gunsights.

By the end of August, Army Group South (B) had finally reached the Volga, north of Stalingrad. Another advance to the river south of the city followed. By September 1, the Soviets could only reinforce and supply their forces in Stalingrad by perilous crossings of the Volga, under constant bombardment by German artillery and aircraft.

On September 5, the Soviet 24th and 66th Armies organised a massive attack against XIV Panzerkorps . The Luftwaffe helped the German forces repulse the offensive by subjecting Soviet artillery positions and defensive lines to heavy attack. The Soviets were forced to withdraw at midday after only a few hours. Of the 120 tanks the Soviets committed, 30 were lost to air attack. Soviet operations were constantly hampered by the Luftwaffe. On 18 September, the Soviet 1st Guards and 24th Army launched an offensive against VIII Armeekorps at Kotluban. VIII Fliegerkorps dispatched wave after wave of Stuka dive-bombers to prevent a breakthrough. The offensive was repulsed, and the Stukas claimed 41 of the 106 Soviet tanks knocked out that morning while escorting Bf 109s destroyed 77 Soviet aircraft, shattering their remaining strength. Amid the debris of the wrecked city, the Soviet 62nd and 64th Armies, which included the Soviet 13th Guards Rifle Division, anchored their defense lines with strongpoints in houses and factories. Fighting was fierce and desperate. The life expectancy of a newly-arrived Soviet private in the city dropped to less than 24 hours, while that of a Soviet officer was about 3 days. Stalin's Order No. 227 of July 27, 1942, decreed that all commanders who order unauthorized retreat should be subjects of a military tribunal. "Not a step back!" was the slogan. The Germans pushing forward into Stalingrad suffered heavy casualties.

German military doctrine was based on the principle of combined-arms teams and close cooperation by tanks, infantry, engineers, artillery, and ground-attack aircraft. To counter this, Soviet commanders adopted the simple expedient of always keeping the front lines as close together as physically possible. Chuikov called this tactic "hugging" the Germans. This forced the German infantry to either fight on their own or risk taking casualties from their own supporting fire; it neutralized German close air support and weakened artillery support. Bitter fighting raged for every street, every factory, every house, basement and staircase. There were fire-fights in the sewers. The Germans, calling this unseen urban warfare Rattenkrieg ("Rat War"), bitterly joked about capturing the kitchen but still fighting for the living-room.

Fighting on Mamayev Kurgan, a prominent, blood-soaked hill above the city, was particularly merciless. The position changed hands many times. This division was the 13th Guards Rifle Division, assigned to retake Mamayev Kurgan and Railway Station No. 1, on September 13. Both objectives were successful, only to temporary degrees. The railway station changed hands 14 times in 6 hours. By the following evening, the 13th Guards Rifle Division did not exist, but its men had killed an approximately equal number of Germans. According to Antony Beevor, two bodies were exhumed atop Mamayev Kurgan in 1944 during restoration, one German, one Soviet, who had apparently killed each other by simultaneous bayonet impalement through the chests, and who had at that moment been buried by an exploding artillery shell. At the Grain Silo, a huge grain-processing complex dominated by a single enormous silo, combat was so close that at times Soviet and German soldiers could hear each other breathe. Combat raged there for weeks. When German soldiers finally took the position, only forty Soviet bodies were found, though the Germans had thought there to be many more Soviet soldiers present due to the ferocity of Soviet resistance. The Soviets burned the heaps of grain as they retreated. In another part of the city, a Soviet platoon under the command of Yakov Pavlov turned an apartment building into an impenetrable fortress. The building, later called "Pavlov's House," oversaw a square in the city center. The soldiers surrounded it with minefields, set up machine-gun positions at the windows, and breached the walls in the basement for better communications. They were not relieved, and not significantly reinforced, for two months. Well after the Battle, Chuikov liked to joke, perhaps accurately, that more Germans died trying to capture Pavlov's House than died capturing Paris. According to Beevor, after each wave, throughout the second month, of the Germans' repeated, persistent assaults against the building, the Soviets had to run out and kick down the piles of German corpses in order for the machine and anti-tank gunners in the building to have clear firing lines across the square. Sgt. Pavlov was awarded the "Hero of the Soviet Union" for his actions.

With no end in sight, the Germans started transferring heavy artillery to the city, including the gigantic 800 mm railroad gun nicknamed Dora. The Germans made no effort to send a force across the Volga, allowing the Soviets to build up a large number of artillery batteries there. Soviet artillery on the eastern bank continued to bombard the German positions. The Soviet defenders used the resulting ruins as defensive positions. German tanks became useless amid heaps of rubble up to 8 meters high. When they were able to move forward, they came under Soviet antitank fire from wrecked buildings.

Soviet snipers also successfully used the ruins to inflict heavy casualties on the Germans. The most successful sniper was Vasily Zaytsev who is also the most famous. Zaytsev was credited with 242 confirmed kills during the battle and a grand total of more than 300; he was also credited with killing a specially-sent, though potentially fictional German sniper known by the names Erwin König and Heinz Thorvald. Zaytsev fixed a standard Moisin-Nagant rifle scope to a Soviet 20mm anti-tank rifle for use against Germans hiding behind walls under window sills. The 20mm rounds easily penetrated the brick and the soldier behind it.

For both Stalin and Hitler, the battle of Stalingrad became a prestige issue in addition to the actual strategic significance of the battle. The Soviet command moved the Red Army's strategic reserves from the Moscow area to the lower Volga, and transferred aircraft from the entire country to the Stalingrad region.

The strain on both military commanders was immense: Paulus developed an uncontrollable tic in his eye, which eventually afflicted the left side of his face, while Chuikov experienced an outbreak of eczema that required him to bandage his hands completely. Troops on both sides faced the constant strain of close-range combat.

Determined to crush Soviet resistance, Luftflotte 4s Stukawaffe flew 700 individual sorties against Soviet positions at the Dzherzhinskiy Tractor Factory on 5 October. Several Soviet regiments were wiped out; the entire staff of the Soviet 339th Infantry Regiment were killed the following morning during an air raid.

By mid-October, the Luftwaffe intensified its efforts against remaining Red Army positions holding the west bank. By now, Soviet aerial resistance had ceased to be effective. Luftflotte 4 flew 2,000 sorties on 14 October and 600 tons of bombs were dropped while German infantry surrounded the three factories. Stukageschwader 1, 2, and 77 had silenced Soviet artillery on the eastern bank of the Volga to a large degree before turning their attention to the shipping that was once again trying to reinforce the narrowing Soviet pockets of resistance. The 62nd Army had been cut in two, and, due to intensive air attack against its supply ferries, were now being paralyzed.

With the Soviets forced into a 1,000-yard (910 m) strip of land on the western bank of the Volga, over 1,208 Stuka missions were flown in an effort to eliminate them. Despite the heavy air bombardment (Stalingrad suffered heavier bombardment than that inflicted on Sedan and Sevastopol), the Soviet 62 Army, with just 47,000 men and 19 tanks, prevented the VI Armee and IV Panzerarmee from wrestling the west bank out of Soviet control.

The Luftwaffe remained in command of the sky into early November, and Soviet aerial resistance during the day was nonexistent, but after flying 20,000 individual sorties, its original strength of 1,600 serviceable aircraft had fallen 40% to 950. The Kampfwaffe (bomber force) had been hardest hit, having only 232 out of a force of 480 left. Despite enjoying qualitative superiority against the VVS and possessing eighty percent of the Luftwaffe's resources on the Eastern Front, Luftflotte 4 could not prevent Soviet aerial power from growing. By the time of the counter-offensive, the Soviets were superior numerically.

The Soviet bomber force, the Aviatsiya Dalnego Destviya (ADD), having taken crippling losses over the past 18 months, was restricted to flying at night. The Soviets flew 11,317 sorties in this manner, from 17 July to 19 November over Stalingrad and the Don-bend sector. These raids caused little damage and were of nuisance value only. The situation for the Luftwaffe was now becoming increasingly difficult. On 8 November substantial units from Luftflotte 4 were removed to combat the American landings in North Africa. The German air-arm found itself spread thin across Europe, and struggling to maintain its strength in the other southern sectors of the Soviet-German front.

After three months of carnage and slow and costly advance, the Germans finally reached the river banks, capturing 90% of the ruined city and splitting the remaining Soviet forces into two narrow pockets. In addition, ice-floes on the Volga now prevented boats and tugs from supplying the Soviet defenders across the river. Nevertheless, the fighting, especially on the slopes of Mamayev Kurgan and inside the factory area in the northern part of the city, continued as fiercely as ever. The battles for the Red October Steel Factory, the Dzerzhinsky tractor factory, and the Barrikady gun factory became world famous. While Soviet soldiers defended their positions and took the Germans under fire, factory workers repaired damaged Soviet tanks and other weapons close to the battlefield, sometimes on the battlefield itself. These civilians also volunteered as tank crews to replace the dead and wounded, though they had no experience or training in operating tanks during combat.

Recognizing that German troops were ill prepared for offensive operations during the winter, the Stavka decided to conduct a number of offensive operations of its own to exploit this weakness, with the recognition that most of the German troops were redeployed elsewhere on the southern sector of the Eastern Front.

Seen in post-war history as a pivotal strategic period of war that began the Second Period of the Great Patriotic War (19 November 1942 - 31 December 1943), these operations would open the Winter Campaign of 1942-1943 (19 November 1942 - 3 March 1943) taking on the strategic and operational planning structure below, employing several Fronts, and some 15 Armies.

Stalingrad Strategic Offensive Operation 19 November 1942 - 2 February 1943 Southwestern, Don, Stalingrad Fronts

  • Operation Uranus 19 November 1942 - 30 November 1942
    • Southwestern Front 1st Guards, 21st, 5th Tank, 17th Air Armies, and the 25th Tank Corps
    • Don Front 24th, 65th, 66th, 16th Air Armies
    • Stalingrad Front 28th, 51st, 57th, 62nd, 64th, 8th Air Armies
  • Kotelnikovo Offensive Operation 12 December 1942 - 31 December 1942
    • Stalingrad Front 2nd Guards, 5th Shock, 51st, 8th Air Armies
  • Middle Don Offensive Operation (Operation Little Saturn) 16 December 1942 - 30 December 1942
    • Southwestern Front
    • Don Front
  • Operation Koltso (English: Operation Ring) 10 January 1943 - 2 February 1943
    • Don Front 21st, 24th, 57th, 62nd, 64th, 65th, 66th, 16th Air Armies

The German offensive to take Stalingrad had been halted by a combination of stubborn Red Army resistance inside the city and local weather conditions. The Soviet counter-offensive planning used deceptive measures that eventually trapped and destroyed the 6th Army and other Axis forces around the city, becoming the second large scale defeat of the German Army during Second World War. During the siege, the German, Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian armies protecting Army Group B's flanks had pressed their headquarters for support. The Hungarian Second Army, consisting of mainly ill-equipped and ill-trained units, was given the task of defending a 200 km section of the front north of Stalingrad between the Italian Army and Voronezh. This resulted in a very thin line, with some sectors where 1–2 km stretches were being defended by a single platoon. Soviet forces held several bridgeheads on the western bank of the river and presented a potentially serious threat to Army Group B.

Similarly, on the southern flank of the Stalingrad sector the front south-west of Katelnikovo was held only by the Romanian VII Corps, and beyond it a single German 16th Motorized Infantry Division.

However, Hitler was so focused on the city itself, that requests from the flanks for support were refused. The chief of the Army General Staff, Franz Halder , expressed concerns about Hitler's preoccupation with the city, pointing at the Germans' weak flanks, claiming that if the situation on the flanks was not rectified then "there would be a disaster". Hitler had claimed to Halder that Stalingrad would be captured and the weakened flanks would be held with "national socialist ardour, clearly I cannot expect this of you (Halder)". Halder was then replaced in mid October with General Kurt Zeitzler .

In autumn the Soviet generals Aleksandr Vasilyevskiy and Georgy Zhukov, responsible for strategic planning in the Stalingrad area, concentrated massive Soviet forces in the steppes to the north and south of the city. The German northern flank was particularly vulnerable, since it was defended by Italian, Hungarian, and Romanian units that suffered from inferior training, equipment, and morale when compared with their German counterparts. This weakness was known and exploited by the Soviets, who preferred to face off against non-German troops whenever it was possible, just as the British preferred attacking Italian troops, instead of German ones, whenever possible, in North Africa. The plan was to keep pinning the Germans down in the city, then punch through the overstretched and weakly defended German flanks and surround the Germans inside Stalingrad. During the preparations for the attack, Marshal Zhukov personally visited the front, which was rare for such a high-ranking general. The operation was code-named "Uranus" and launched in conjunction with Operation Mars, which was directed at Army Group Center. The plan was similar to Zhukov's victory at Khalkin Gol three years before, where he had sprung a double envelopment and destroyed the 23rd Division of the Japanese army.

On November 19, the Red Army unleashed Uranus. The attacking Soviet units under the command of Gen. Nikolay Vatutin consisted of three complete armies, the 1st Guards Army, 5th Tank Army, and 21st Army, including a total of 18 infantry divisions, eight tank brigades, two motorized brigades, six cavalry divisions and one anti-tank brigade. The preparations for the attack could be heard by the Romanians, who continued to push for reinforcements, only to be refused again. Thinly spread, outnumbered and poorly equipped, the Romanian Third Army, which held the northern flank of German Sixth Army, was shattered. On November 20, a second Soviet offensive (two armies) was launched to the south of Stalingrad, against points held by the Romanian IV Corps. The Romanian forces, made up primarily of infantry, collapsed almost immediately. Soviet forces raced west in a pincer movement, and met two days later near the town of Kalach, sealing the ring around Stalingrad. The Russians later reconstructed the link up for use as propaganda, and the piece of footage achieved worldwide fame.

Because of the Soviet pincer attack, about 230,000 German and Romanian soldiers, as well as the Croatian 369th Reinforced Infantry Regiment and other volunteer subsidiary troops, found themselves trapped inside the resulting pocket. Inside the pocket (German: kessel ) there also were the surviving Soviet civilians -- around 10,000, and several thousand Soviet soldiers the Germans had taken captive during the battle. Not all German soldiers from Sixth Army were trapped; 50,000 were brushed aside outside the pocket. The encircling Red Army units immediately formed two defensive fronts: a circumvallation facing inward, to defend against any breakout attempt, and a contravallation facing outward, to defend against any relief attempt.

Adolf Hitler had declared in a public speech (in the Berlin Sportpalast) on September 30 that the German army would never leave the city. At a meeting shortly after the Soviet encirclement, German army chiefs pushed for an immediate breakout to a new line on the west of the Don. But Hitler was at his Bavarian retreat of Obersalzberg in Berchtesgaden with the head of the Luftwaffe, Göring . When asked by Hitler, Göring replied, after being convinced by Hans Jeschonnek, that the Luftwaffe could supply the Sixth Army with an "air bridge". This would allow the Germans in the city to fight on while a relief force was assembled.

A similar plan had been used successfully a year earlier at the Demyansk Pocket, albeit on a much smaller scale: it had been only an army corps at Demyansk as opposed to an entire army. Also, Soviet fighter forces had improved considerably in both quality and quantity in the intervening year. But the mention of the successful Demyansk air supply operation reinforced Hitler's own views, and was endorsed by Hermann Göring several days later.

The head of the Fourth Air Fleet ( Luftflotte 4 ), Wolfram von Richthofen, tried to have this decision overturned without success. The Sixth Army would be supplied by air. The Sixth Army was the largest unit of this type in the world, almost twice as large as a regular German army. Also trapped in the pocket was a corps of the Fourth Panzer Army. It should have been clear that supplying the pocket by air was impossible -- the maximum 117.5 tons they could deliver a day was less than the 800 tons/day needed by the pocket. To supplement the limited number of Junkers Ju 52 transports, the Germans equipped aircraft wholly inadequate for the role, such as the bomber He-177 (some bombers performed adequately -- the Heinkel He-111 proved to be quite capable and was a lot faster than the Ju 52). But Hitler backed Göring's plan and reiterated his order of "no surrender" to his trapped armies.

The air supply mission failed. Appalling weather conditions, technical failures, heavy Soviet anti-aircraft fire and fighter interceptions led to the loss of 488 German aircraft. The Luftwaffe failed to achieve even the maximum supply capacity of 117 tons that it was capable of. An average of 94 tons of supplies per day was delivered to the trapped German Army. Even then, it was often inadequate or unnecessary; one aircraft arrived with 20 tonnes of Vodka and summer uniforms, completely useless in their current situation. The transport aircraft that did land safely were used to evacuate technical specialists and sick or wounded men from the besieged enclave (some 42,000 were evacuated in all). The Sixth Army slowly starved. Pilots were shocked to find the troops assigned to offloading the planes too exhausted and hungry to unload food. General Zeitzler, moved by the troops' plight at Stalingrad, began to limit himself to their slim rations at meal times. After a few weeks of such a diet he'd grown so emaciated that Hitler, annoyed, personally ordered him to start eating regular meals again.

The expense to the Transportgruppen was heavy. Some 266 Junkers Ju 52s were destroyed, one-third of the fleets strength on the Soviet-German front. The He 111 gruppen lost 165 aircraft in transport operations. Other losses included 42 Junkers Ju 86s, nine Fw 200 "Condors", five He 177 bombers and a single Ju 290. The Luftwaffe also lost close to 1,000 highly experienced bomber crew personnel.

So heavy were the Luftwaffe's losses that four of Luftflotte 4s transport units (KGrzbV 700, KGrzbV 900, I./KGrzbV 1 and II./KGzbV 1) were "formally dissolved".

Soviet forces consolidated their positions around Stalingrad, and fierce fighting to shrink the pocket began. Operation Wintergewitter ( Operation Winter Storm ), a German attempt to relieve the trapped army from the South, was successfully fended off by the Soviets in December. The full impact of the harsh Russian winter set in. The Volga froze solid, allowing the Soviets to supply their forces more easily. The trapped Germans rapidly ran out of heating fuel and medical supplies, and thousands started to die of frostbite, malnutrition, and disease.

On December 16, the Soviets launched a second offensive, Operation Saturn, which attempted to punch through the Axis army on the Don and take Rostov. If successful, this offensive would have trapped the remainder of Army Group South, one third of the entire German Army in Russia, in the Caucasus. The Germans set up a "mobile defense" in which small units would hold towns until supporting armor could arrive. The Soviets never got close to Rostov, but the fighting forced von Manstein to extract Army Group A from the Caucasus and re-establish the frontline some 250 km away from the city. The Tatsinskaya Raid also caused significant losses to Luftwaffe's transport fleet. The Sixth Army now was beyond all hope of German reinforcement. The German troops in Stalingrad were not told this however, and continued to believe that reinforcements were on their way. Some German officers requested that Paulus defy Hitler's orders to stand fast and instead attempt to break out of the Stalingrad pocket. Paulus refused, as he abhorred the thought of disobeying orders. Also, whereas a breakout may have been possible in the first few weeks, at this late stage, Sixth Army was short of the fuel required for such a breakout. The German soldiers would have faced great difficulty breaking through the Soviet lines on foot in harsh winter conditions.

German POWs: Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus (center) with his general staff.

The Germans inside the pocket retreated from the suburbs of Stalingrad to the city itself. The loss of the two airfields at Pitomnik on 16 January and Gumrak on the 25 January meant an end to air supplies and to the evacuation of the wounded. Other sources indicate Luftwaffe's last flight from Gumrak was night 21st to 22nd of January 1943. Third and last serviceable runway was Stalingradskaja flight school which reportedly had last Luftwaffe landings and takeoff night 22nd to 23rd of January 1943. After daytime 23rd of January 1943 there were no more reported landings except for continuous air drops of ammunition and food until the end. The Germans were now not only starving, but running out of ammunition. Nevertheless they continued to resist stubbornly, partly because they believed the Soviets would execute those who surrendered. In particular, the so-called "HiWis", Soviet citizens fighting for the Germans, had no illusions about their fate if captured.

The Soviets, in turn, were initially surprised by the large number of German forces they had trapped, and had to reinforce their encircling forces. Bloody urban warfare began again in Stalingrad, but this time it was the Germans who were pushed back to the banks of the Volga. They fortified their positions in the factory districts and the Soviets encountered almost the same tooth-and-nail ferocity that they themselves displayed a month earlier. The Germans adapted a simple defense of fixing wire nets over all windows to protect themselves from grenades. The Soviets responded by fixing fish hooks to the grenades so they stuck to the nets when thrown. The Germans now had no usable tanks in the city. Those tanks which still functioned could at best be used as stationary cannons. The Soviets did not bother employing tanks in areas where the urban destruction ruined their mobility. A Soviet envoy made Paulus a generous surrender offer -- that if he surrendered within 24 hours, the Germans would receive a guarantee of safety for all prisoners, medical care for the German sick and wounded, a promise that prisoners would be allowed to keep their personal belongings, "normal" food rations, and repatriation to whatever country they wished to go to after the war -- but Paulus, ordered not to surrender by Adolf Hitler, did not reply, ensuring the destruction of the 6th Army.

Hitler promoted Friedrich Paulus to Generalfeldmarschall on January 30, 1943, (the 10th anniversary of Hitler coming to power). Since no German Field Marshal had ever been taken prisoner, Hitler assumed that Paulus would fight on or take his own life. Nevertheless, when Soviet forces closed in on Paulus' headquarters in the ruined GUM department store the next day, Paulus surrendered. The remnants of the German forces in Stalingrad surrendered on February 2; 91,000 tired, ill, and starving Germans were taken captive. To the delight of the Soviet forces and the dismay of the Third Reich, the prisoners included 22 generals. Hitler was furious at the Field Marshal's surrender and confided that "Paulus stood at the doorstep of eternal glory but made an about-face". According to the German documentary film Stalingrad , over 11,000 German and Axis soldiers refused to lay down their arms at the official surrender, seemingly believing that fighting to the death was better than what seemed like a slow end in Soviet camps. These forces continued to resist until early March 1943, hiding in cellars and sewers of the city with their numbers being diminished at the same time by Soviet forces clearing the city of remaining enemy resistance. By March, what remained of these forces were small and isolated pockets of resistance that surrendered. According to Soviet intelligence documents shown in the documentary, 2,418 of the men were killed, and 8,646 were captured.

Only 5,000 of the 91,000 German prisoners of war survived their captivity and returned home. Already weakened by disease, starvation and lack of medical care during the encirclement, they were sent to labour camps all over the Soviet Union, where most of them died of overwork and malnutrition. A handful of senior officers were taken to Moscow and used for propaganda purposes and some of them joined National Committee for a Free Germany. Some, including Paulus, signed anti-Hitler statements which were broadcast to German troops. General Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach offered to raise an anti-Hitler army from the Stalingrad survivors, but the Soviets did not accept this offer. It was not until 1955 that the last of the handful of survivors were repatriated.

The German public was not officially told of the disaster until the end of January 1943, though positive reports in the German propaganda media about the battle had stopped in the weeks before the announcement. It was not the first major setback of the German military, but the crushing defeat at Stalingrad was unmatched in scale. On February 18, the minister of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels , gave his famous Sportpalast speech in Berlin , encouraging the Germans to accept a total war which would claim all resources and efforts from the entire population.

The battle of Stalingrad was one of the largest battles in human history. It raged for 199 days. Numbers of casualties are difficult to compile due to the vast scope of the battle and the fact that the Soviet government did not allow estimates to be made, for fear the cost would be shown to be too high. In its initial phases, the Germans inflicted heavy casualties on Soviet formations; but the Soviet encirclement by punching through the German flank, mainly held by Romanian troops, effectively besieged the remainder of German Sixth Army, which had taken heavy casualties in street fighting prior to this. At different times the Germans had held up to 90% of the city, yet the Soviet soldiers and officers fought on fiercely. Some elements of the German Fourth Panzer Army also suffered casualties in operations around Stalingrad during the Soviet counter offensive.


The aftermath of the Battle of Stalingrad.

Various scholars have estimated the Axis suffered 850,000 casualties of all types (wounded, killed, captured...etc) among all branches of the German armed forces and its allies, many of which were POWs who died in Soviet captivity between 1943 and 1955. 400,000 Germans, 200,000 Romanians, 130,000 Italians, and 120,000 Hungarians were killed, wounded or captured. Of the 91,000 German POWs taken at Stalingrad 27,000 died within weeks and only 5,000 returned to Germany in 1955. The remainder of the POWs died in Soviet captivity. In the whole Stalingrad area the Axis lost 1.5 million killed, wounded or captured. 50,000 ex-Soviets Hiwis (local volunteers incorporated into the German forces in supporting capacities) were killed or captured by the Red Army. According to archival figures, the Red Army suffered a total of 1,129,619 total casualties; 478,741 men killed and captured and 650,878 wounded. These numbers are for the whole Stalingrad Area; in the city itself 750,000 were killed, captured, or wounded. Also, more than 40,000 Soviet civilians died in Stalingrad and its suburbs during a single week of aerial bombing as the German Fourth Panzer and Sixth armies approached the city; the total number of civilians killed in the regions outside the city is unknown. In all, the battle resulted in an estimated total of 1.7 million to 2 million Axis and Soviet casualties.

Besides being a turning point in the war, Stalingrad was also revealing of the discipline and determination of both the German Wehrmacht and the Soviet Red Army. The Soviets first defended Stalingrad against a fierce German onslaught. So great were Soviet losses that at times, the life expectancy of a newly arrived soldier was less than a day, and the life expectancy of a Soviet officer was three days. Their sacrifice is immortalized by a soldier of General Rodimtsev, about to die, who scratched on the wall of the main railway station (which changed hands 15 times during the battle) "Rodimtsev's Guardsmen fought and died here for their Motherland."

For the heroism of the Soviet defenders of Stalingrad, the city was awarded the title Hero City in 1945. After the war, in the 1960s, a colossal monument, Mother Motherland was erected on Mamayev Kurgan, the hill overlooking the city. The statue forms part of a War memorial complex which includes ruined walls deliberately left the way they were after the battle. The Grain Silo, as well as Pavlov's House, the apartment building whose defenders eventually held out for two months until they were relieved, can still be visited. Even today, one may find bones and rusty metal splinters on Mamayev Kurgan, symbols of both the human suffering during the battle and the successful yet costly resistance against the German invasion.

On the other side, the German Army showed remarkable discipline after being surrounded. It was the first time that it had operated under adverse conditions on such a scale.

Hitler, acting on Göring's advice, ordered that the German 6th Army be supplied by air; the Luftwaffe had successfully accomplished an aerial resupply in January 1942, as a German garrison had been surrounded in Demyansk for four months. In this case, however, there were obvious differences. The encircled forces at Demyansk were a much smaller garrison, while an entire army was trapped in Stalingrad.

During the latter part of the siege, short of food and clothing, many German soldiers starved or froze to death. Yet, discipline was maintained until the very end, when resistance no longer served any useful purpose. Friedrich Paulus obeyed Hitler's orders, against many of Hitler's top generals' counsel and advice including that of von Manstein, and did not attempt to break out of the city. German ammunition, supplies, and food became all too scarce.

Paulus knew that the airlift had failed and that Stalingrad was lost. He asked for permission to surrender to save the life of his troops but Hitler refused and instead promoted him to the rank of Generalfeldmarschall . No German officer of this rank had ever surrendered, and the implication was clear. If Paulus surrendered, he would shame himself and would become the highest ranking German officer ever to be captured. Hitler believed that Paulus would either fight to the last man or commit suicide. Choosing to live, Paulus surrendered, commenting that: "I have no intention of shooting myself for that Bavarian corporal".

[Oct 31, 2017] Adolf Hitler Declaration of War on the Soviet Union (June 1941)

Oct 31, 2017 | www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

GERMAN PEOPLE!

NATIONAL SOCIALISTS

Weighted down with heavy cares, condemned to months-long silence, the hour has now come when at last I can speak frankly.

When on Sept. 3, 1939, the German Reich received the English declaration of war there was repeated anew a British attempt to render impossible every beginning of a consolidation and thereby of Europe's rise, by fighting whatever power on the Continent was strongest at any given time.

That is how of yore England ruined Spain in many wars. That is how she conducted her wars against Holland. That is how later she fought France with the aid of all Europe and that is how at the turn of the century she began the encirclement of the then German Reich and in 1914 the World War. Only on account of its internal dissension was Germany defeated in 1918. The consequences were terrible.

After hypocritical declarations that the fight was solely against the Kaiser and his regime, the annihilation of the German Reich began according to plan after the German Army had laid down its arms.

While the prophecies of the French statement, that there were 20,000,000 Germans too many-in other words, that this number would have to be exterminated by hunger, disease or emigration-were apparently being fulfilled to the letter, the National Socialist movement began its work of unifying the German people and thereby initiating resurgence of the Reich. This rise of our people from distress, misery and shameful disregard bore all the signs of a purely internal renaissance. Britain especially was not in any way affected or threatened thereby.

Nevertheless, a new policy of encirclement against Germany, born as it was of hatred, recommenced immediately. Internally and externally there resulted that plot familiar to us all between Jews and democrats, Bolshevists and reactionaries, with the sole aim of inhibiting the establishment of the new German people's State, and of plunging the Reich anew into impotence and misery.

Apart from us the hatred of this international world conspiracy was directed against those people which like ourselves were neglected by fortune and were obliged to earn their daily bread in the hardest struggle for existence.

Above all the right of Italy and Japan to share in the goods of this world was contested just as much as that of Germany and in fact was formally denied.

The coalition of these nations was, therefore, only an act of self-protection in the face of the egoistic world combination of wealth and power threatening them.

As early as 1936 Prime Minister Churchill, according to statements by the American General Wood before a committee of the American House of Representatives, declared Germany was once again becoming too powerful and must therefore be destroyed.

In the Summer of 1939 the time seemed to have come for England to begin to realize its intended annihilation by repetition of a comprehensive policy of encirclement of Germany.

The plan of the campaign of lies staged for this purpose consisted in declaring that other people were threatened, in tricking them with British promises of guarantees and assistance, and of making them march against Germany just as it did preceding the great war.

Thus Britain from May to August, 1939, succeeded in broadcasting to the world that Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Bessarabia as well as the Ukraine were being directly threatened by Germany.

A number of these States allowed themselves to be misled into accepting the promise of guarantee proffered with these assertions, thus joining the new encirclement front against Germany. Under these circumstances I consider myself entitled to assume responsibility before my own conscience and before the history of the German people not only of assuring these countries or their governments of the falseness of British assertions, but also of setting the strongest power in the east, by especially solemn declarations, at rest concerning the limits of our interests.

National Socialists! At that time you probably all felt that this step was bitter and difficult for me. Never did the German people harbor hostile feeling against the peoples of Russia. However, for over ten years Jewish Bolshevist rulers had been endeavoring from Moscow to set not only Germany but all Europe aflame. At no time ever did Germany attempt to carry her National Socialist Weltanschauung into Russia, but on the contrary Jewish Bolshevist rulers in Moscow unswervingly endeavored to foist their domination upon us and other European peoples, not only by ideological means but above all with military force.

The consequences of the activity of this regime were nothing but chaos, misery and starvation in all countries. I, on the other hand, have been striving for twenty years with a minimum of intervention and without destroying our production, to arrive at a new Socialist order in Germany which not only eliminates unemployment but also permits the worker to receive an ever greater share of the fruits of his labor.

The success of this policy of economic and social reconstruction of our people, which by systematically eliminating differences of rank and class, has a true peoples' community as the final aim of the world.

It was therefore only with extreme difficulty that I brought myself in August, 1939, to send my Foreign Minister to Moscow in an endeavor there to oppose the British encirclement policy against Germany.

I did this only from a sense of all responsibility toward the German people, but above all in the hope after all of achieving permanent relief of tension and of being able to reduce sacrifices which might otherwise have been demanded of us.

While Germany solemnly affirmed in Moscow that the territories and countries enumerated-with the exception of Lithuania-lay outside all German political interests, a special agreement was concluded in case Britain were to succeed in inciting Poland actually into war with Germany.

In this case, too, German claims were subject to limitations entirely out of proportion to the achievement of German forces.

National Socialists! The consequences of this treaty which I myself desired and which was concluded in the interests of the German nation were very severe, particularly for Germans living in the countries concerned.

Far more than 500,000 German men and women, all small farmers, artisans and workmen, were forced to leave their former homeland practically overnight in order to escape from a new regime which at first threatened them with boundless misery and sooner or later with complete extermination.

Nevertheless, thousands of Germans disappeared. It was impossible ever to determine their fate, let alone their whereabouts.

Among them were no fewer than 160 men of German citizenship. To all this I remained silent because I had to. For, after all, it was my one desire to achieve final relief of tension and, if possible, a permanent settlement with this State.

However, already during our advance in Poland, Soviet rulers suddenly, contrary to the treaty, also claimed Lithuania.

The German Reich never had any intention of occupying Lithuania and not only failed to present any such demand to the Lithuanian Government, but on the contrary refused the request of the then Lithuania to send German troops to Lithuania for that purpose as inconsistent with the aims of German policy.

Despite all this I complied also with this fresh Russian demand. However, this was only the beginning of continually renewed extortions which kept on repeating ever since.

Victory in Poland which was won by German troops exclusively caused me to address yet another peace offer to the Western Powers. It was refused owing to efforts of international and Jewish warmongers.

At that time already the reason for such refusal lay in the fact that Britain still had hopes of being able to mobilize a European coalition against Germany which was to include the Balkans and Soviet Russia.

It was therefore decided in London to send Mr. Cripps [Sir Stafford Cripps] as Ambassador to Moscow. He received clear instructions under all circumstances to resume relations between the English and Soviet Russia and develop them in a pro-British direction. The British press reported on the progress of this mission as long as tactical reasons did not impose silence.

In the Autumn of 1939 and Spring of 1940 the first results actually made themselves felt. As Russia undertook to subjugate by armed force not only Finland but also the Baltic States she suddenly motivated this action by the assertion, as ridiculous as it was false, that she must protect these countries from an outside menace or forestall it.

This could only be meant to apply to Germany, for no other power could even gain entrance into the Baltic area, let alone go to war there. Still I had to be silent. However, those in power in the Kremlin immediately went further.

Whereas in the Spring of 1940 Germany, in accordance with the so-called pact of friendship, withdrew her forces from the Far Eastern frontier and, in fact, for the most part cleared these areas entirely of German troops, a concentration of Russian forces at that time was already beginning in a measure which could only be regarded as a deliberate threat to Germany.

According to a statement that Molotoff [Soviet Foreign Minister and then Premier Vyachesiaff Molotoff] personally made at that time, there were twenty-two Russian divisions in the Baltic States alone already in the Spring of 1940.

Since the Russian Government itself always claimed it was called in by the local population, the purpose of their presence there could only be a demonstration against Germany.

While our soldiers from May 5, 1940, on had been breaking Franco British power in the west, Russian military deployment on our eastern frontier was being continued to a more and more menacing extent.

From August, 1940, on I therefore considered it to be in the interest of the Reich no longer to permit our eastern provinces, which moreover had already been laid waste so often, to remain unprotected in the face of this tremendous concentration of Bolshevist divisions.

Thus there resulted British-Soviet Russian cooperation intended mainly at the tying up of such powerful forces in the east that radical conclusion of the war in the west, particularly as regards aircraft, could no longer be vouched for by the German High Command.

This, however, was in line with the objects not only of the British but also of the Soviet Russian policy, for both England and Soviet Russia intend to let this war go on for as long as possible in order to weaken all Europe and render it progressively more impotent.

Russia's threatened attack on Rumania was in the last analysis equally intended to gain possession of an important base, not only of Germany's but also of Europe's economic life, or at least destroy it. The Reich, especially since 1933, sought with unending patience to gain States in Southeast Europe as trading partners. We therefore also had the greatest interest in their internal constitutional consolidation and organization. Russia's advance into Rumania and Greece's tie-up with England threatened to turn these regions, too, within a short time into a general theatre of war.

Contrary to our principles and customs, and at the urgent request of the then Rumanian Government, which was itself responsible for this development, I advised acquiescence to the Soviet Russian demands for the sake of peace and the cession of Bessarabia.

The Rumanian Government believed, however, that it could answer for this before its own people only if Germany and Italy in compensation would at least guarantee the integrity of what still remained of Rumania.

I did so with heavy heart, principally because when the German Reich gives a guarantee that means it also abides by it. We are neither Englishmen nor Jews.

I still believe at this late hour to have served the cause of peace in that region, albeit by assuming serious personal obligation. In order, however, finally to solve these problems and achieve clarity concerning the Russian attitude toward Germany, as well as under pressure of continually increasing mobilization on our Eastern frontier, I invited Mr. Molotoff to come to Berlin.

The Soviet Minister for Foreign Affairs then demanded Germany's clarification of an agreement to the following four questions:

Point One was Molotoff's question: Was the German guarantee for Rumania also directed against Soviet Russia in case of attack by Soviet Russia on Rumania?

My answer: The German guarantee is a general one and is unconditionally binding upon us. Russia, however, never declared to us that she had other interests in Rumania beyond Bessarabia. The occupation of Northern Bukovina had already been a violation of this assurance. I did not therefore think that Russia could now suddenly have more far-reaching intentions against Rumania.

Molotoff's second question: That Russia again felt menaced by Finland. Russia was determined not to tolerate this. Was Germany ready not to give any aid to Finland and above all immediately to withdraw German relief troops marching through to Kirkenes?

My answer: Germany continued to have absolutely no political interests in Finland. A fresh war by Russia against the small Finnish people could not, however, be regarded any longer by the German Government as tolerable, all the more so as we could never believe Russia to be threatened by Finland. Under no circumstances did we want another theatre of war to arise in the Baltic.

Molotoff's third question: Was Germany prepared to agree that Russia give a guarantee to Bulgaria and send Soviet Russian troops to Bulgaria for this purpose in connection with which he-Molotoff-was prepared to state that the Soviets did not intend on that account, for example, to depose the King?

My answer: Bulgaria was a sovereign State and I had no knowledge that Bulgaria had ever asked Soviet Russia for any kind of guarantee such as Rumania had requested from Germany. Moreover, I would have to discuss the matter with my allies.

Molotoff's fourth question: Soviet Russia required free passage through the Dardenelles under all circumstances and for her protection also demanded occupation of a number of important bases on the Dardenelles and Bosphorus. Was Germany in agreement with this or not?

My answer: Germany was prepared at all times to agree to alteration of the Statute of Montreux in favor of the Black Sea States. Germany was not prepared to agree to Russia's taking possession of bases on the Straits.

National Socialists! Here I adopted the only attitude that I could adopt as the responsible leader of the German Reich but also as the representative of European culture and civilization and conscious of my responsibility.

The consequence was to increase in Soviet Russia the activity directed against the Reich, above all, however, the immediate commencement of undermining the new Rumanian State from within and an attempt to remove the Bulgarian Government by propaganda.

With the help of the confused and immature leaders of the Rumanian Legion (Iron Guard) a coup d'etat was staged in Rumania whose aim was to overthrow Chief of State General Antonescu and produce chaos in the country so as to remove all legal power of the government and thus the precondition for an implement of the German guarantee.

I nevertheless still believed it best to remain silent.

Immediately after the failure of this undertaking, renewed reinforcement of concentrations of Russian troops on Germany's eastern frontier took place. Panzer detachments and parachutists were transferred in continually increasing numbers to dangerous proximity to the German frontier. German fighting forces and the German nation know that until a few weeks ago not a single tank or mechanized division was stationed on our eastern frontier.

If any final proof was required for the coalition meanwhile formed between England and Soviet Russia despite all diversion and camouflage, the Yugoslav conflict provided it.

While I made every effort to undertake a final attempt to pacify the Balkans and in sympathetic cooperation with Il Duce invited Yugoslavia to join the Tripartite Pact, England and Soviet Russia in a joint conspiracy organized that coup d'etat which in one night removed the then government which had been ready to come to agreement.

For we can today inform the German nation that the Serb Putsch against Germany did not take place merely under the British, but primarily under Soviet Russian auspices. As we remained silent on this matter also, the Soviet leaders now went still one step further. They not only organized the Putsch, but a few days later also concluded that well-known friendship pact with the Serbs in their will to resist pacification of the Balkans and incite them against Germany.

And this was no platonic intention: Moscow demanded mobilization of the Serb Army.

Since even now I still believe it better not to speak, those in power in the Kremlin went still further: The Government of the German Reich today possesses documentary evidence which proves that Russia, in order finally to bring Serbia into the war, gave her a promise to supply her via Salonika with arms, aircraft, munitions and other war materials against Germany.

And this happened almost at the very moment when I myself advised Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka that eased tension with Russia always was in hope, thereby to serve the cause of peace.

Only the rapid advance of our incomparable divisions to Skoplie as well as the capture of Salonika itself frustrated the aims of this Soviet Russian-Anglo-Saxon plot. Officers of the Serb air force, however, fled to Russia and were there immediately received as allies.

The victory of the Axis Powers in the Balkans in the first instance thwarted the plan to involve Germany this Summer in months-long battles in Southeastern Europe while meantime steadily completing the alignment of Soviet Russian armies and increasing their readiness for war in order, finally, together with England and supported by American supplies anticipated, to crush the German Reich and Italy.

Thus Moscow not only broke but miserably betrayed the stipulations of our friendly agreement. All this was done while the rulers in the Kremlin, exactly as in the case of Finland and Rumania, up to the last moment pretended peace and friendship and drew up an ostensibly innocent démenti.

Although until now I was forced by circumstances to keep silent again and again, the moment has now come when to continue as a mere observer would not only be a sin of omission but a crime against the German people-yes, even against the whole of Europe.

Today something like 160 Russian divisions are standing at our frontiers. For weeks constant violations of this frontier have taken place, not only affecting us but from the far north down to Rumania.

Russian airmen consider it sport nonchalantly to overlook these frontiers, presumably to prove to us that they already feel themselves masters of these territories.

During the night of June 17 to June 18 Russian patrols again penetrated into the Reich's territory and could only be driven back after prolonged firing. This has brought us to the hour when it is necessary for us to take steps against this plot devised by the Jewish Anglo-Saxon warmongers and equally the Jewish rulers of the Bolshevist center in Moscow.

German people! At this moment a march is taking place that, as regards extent, compares with the greatest the world hitherto has seen. United with their Finnish comrades, the fighters of the victory of Narvik are standing in the Northern Arctic. German divisions commanded by the conqueror of Norway, in cooperation with the heroes of Finnish freedom, under their marshal, are protecting Finnish soil.

Formations of the German Eastern Front extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. German and Rumanian soldiers are united under Chief of State Antonescu from the banks of the Pruth along the lower reaches of the Danube to the shores of the Black Sea. The task of this front, therefore, no longer is the protection of single countries, but the safeguarding of Europe and thereby the salvation of all.

I therefore decided today again to lay the fate and future of the German Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers.

May God help us especially in this fight!

[ New York Times , June 23, 1941]

[Oct 31, 2017] "Conspiracies don't happen .here."

Oct 31, 2017 | off-guardian.org

The US alphabet agencies recently released some formerly classified files on JFK. There's nothing much in them, because well why would there be? Supposing the CIA were complicit, who's going to release, 50 years after the event, the evidence of their own coup? We haven't covered it here, at OffG, because it doesn't really need any attention. It's a charity dump, a distraction. It allows Trump to look like he's combating the Deep State, when in fact he's firmly on the leash. That the CIA or FBI didn't suddenly produce proof of their complicity in JFK's assassination is not evidence of anything.

Jonathan Freedland, writing one of his toxic editorials in The Guardian, begs to differ. The fact that CIA didn't release any evidence they did it is evidence they didn't do it, according to Freedland. His column, long on mockery and self-righteous smears but short on evidence (as usual), does nothing but demonstrate three things:

1. He is only just barely acquainted with the facts of the JFK case.
2. He has no faculty for basic logical thinking.
3. He is not averse to practicing intellectual dishonesty.

If you've been paying even the slightest bit of attention, none of these will come as a surprise.

But this article isn't about JFK – we've written about that before , and will do again. But not today. This article isn't about Freedland's aggressively uninformed opinions, his cloying prose or his ill-deserved sense of moral superiority. It's about the world-view he's trying to market between banner ads begging for money. It's about his smug insistence that conspiracy theories just don't happen.

Or, to be more specific, conspiracy theories don't happen here .

Because, despite his deep-held belief that Conspiracy Theories are dangerous, he certainly believes in a lot of them. He thinks the Russian Government poisoned Alexander Litvinenko. He thinks Vladimir Putin had Boris Nemstov shot. He thinks Russian banks have been backing the far-right in Europe and supported Brexit. And he thinks the FSB "hacked" the American presidential election in order to get their Manchurian candidate elected.

Buzz in when you spot the connection.

These are all, by definition, conspiracy theories – but they are also all things done by the other . Conspiracies happen over there . They are done by the bad guys . We don't do them..except of course, when we do.

Two years ago, the idea that the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel and others had created ISIS as front for a proxy war on Syria was dismissed as a "conspiracy theory". It has since been proven, many times over, to be completely true. That ISIS are US proxies is not a "conspiracy theory", but a conspiracy fact.

Five years ago, anybody claiming that the NSA were secretly surveilling most of the world, including the governments of allied countries, would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist and told to don their "tin-foil hat". Edward Snowden's revelations on the NSA internet and communications surveillance programme, of course, prove the accusation true. Freedland should remember this one, the story broke in his paper, his colleagues won awards for it, and their computers were destroyed on the orders of GCHQ. Why this constantly escapes the man's memory is anyone's guess. Regardless, NSA mass surveillance is a not a "conspiracy theory", but a conspiracy fact.

Fifteen years ago, anybody claiming that wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were being pushed under false pretences, in order to make money for the private sector and encircle Iran would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist. Now we know that the WMD dossier was "sexed up". It is not a conspiracy theory, but a conspiracy fact.

Twenty-seven years ago, anybody claiming that "Nayirah" – the Kuwaiti nurse who famously testified that Iraqi soldiers had thrown Kuwaiti babies out of incubators – was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and had never been a nurse would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist. This information became public knowledge in 1991, just months after her testimony had been used to stoke public support for the first Iraq war. Nayirah being a fake witness to push war propaganda is not a "conspiracy theory", but a conspiracy fact.

Thirty-two years ago, anybody claiming that Reagan's government were trading with Iran in order to fund and arm a proxy army in Nicaragua to overthrow the democratic government of Daniel Ortega would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist. However, the whole affair came to light in 1986. Iran-Contra is not a "conspiracy theory", but a conspiracy fact.

Fifty-three years ago, anyone claiming that Gulf of Tonkin incident had been almost entirely fabricated as an excuse to launch a full-scale war against North Vietnam .would have been dismissed as a crazy conspiracy theorist. There is a mountain of evidence has been compiled since then, that proves the "incident" never really happened. The faking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident is not a "conspiracy theory", but a conspiracy fact.

These are just six famous, high-profile examples. There are dozens of others. Conspiracies happen. All the time. Freedland's piece is an attack on this truth, an effort to distort reality by blurring clear definitions. He claims that:

[conspiracy theorists] perennially cast the FBI and the CIA as the key tools of dark, unseen forces.

without making any reference to decades of state-sanctioned murder, torture and destruction that earned these agencies their well-deserved reputation.

You don't need to be deluded to think the CIA a tool of "dark forces", you just need to study the history of Iran. Or Chile. Or Indonesia. Or Afghanistan. Or Honduras. The list of democratic governments overthrown by the US is very long . A lot those plots were considered "conspiracy theories", until the facts of the case eventually came out.

Operation Northwoods was a Pentagon plan to shoot-down an American passenger plane and blame it on Cuba. Operation Paperclip was a CIA plan to smuggle Nazi scientists out of Germany and employ them in covert research for the American government. Operation Mockingbird was a CIA plan to recruit members into of the media into intelligence work, and use them to seed propaganda.

All of these would have, at some point, been dismissed as "conspiracy theory". They are all, now, accepted historical facts. Freedland mentions none of them. A remarkable act of hypocrisy for a man so adamantly against what he calls the "post truth age".

Freedland would have us believe that none of these conspiracies, however well documented, actually happened. But there is another kind – the kind that definitely did happen regardless of the lack evidence.

Now, we turn our eyes to Russia.

Russia, you see, is place where "conspiracy theories" are no longer dangerous. They are always appropriate and universally true. Nothing that happens in Russia is explicable by any means other than "the Kremlin".

In the media and state-backed push to create a great enemy for our age, there is no crime so petty it cannot be linked to Moscow, no evidence of "Russian interference" so pathetically small it won't be splashed across the headlines.

On the same pages where Jonathan Freedland espouses the dangers of "conspiracism", Luke Harding blames the FSB for opening his windows .

Just a few months ago, when a metro station in St Petersburg was bombed, the BBC suggested it was a Putin-backed false-flag within hours. No such assertion was ever made about Las Vegas. Or Westminster. Or Sandy Hook. Or Paris. Or Berlin. Or Orlando.

That the FSB poisoned Litvinenko is treated as an unquestioned fact. That MI5 murdered Princess Diana? Nothing but a laughable absurdity. It is the shallowest, almost childlike propaganda, that beatifies its own side whilst projecting all the ills of the world into the other.

This demonisation of Russia are then segued into demonisation of democracy. The Russians are currently accused of having meddled in every major election for years. The Scottish Independence Referendum, the Brexit vote, the American and French Presidential elections, the general elections in the UK and Germany, and the Dutch referendum on Ukraine. All were subject to phantom "interference", yet to be substantiated by any real evidence. This groundless accusation is then used as an argument to overturn or ignore the results of democratic votes. Not all of them, you understand, only the ones where the wrong side won. Trump must be "removed" according to Freedland, and we must ignore the Brexit results.

Even Catalonia's vote for independence , just the latest move in a struggle hundreds of years long, has already been linked to Putin.

Further, Russia is accused of "bankrolling the far-right in Europe". The evidence for this? Marine Le Pen got a loan from a Russian bank "with links to the Kremlin" (whatever that means) over ten years ago.

There is FAR more evidence of NATO and EU supporting REAL fascists and extremists – namely Right Sector in Ukraine, and ISIS et al all over the Middle East. But, while the former is an accepted media "fact", the latter is the subject of nothing but derision.

Even our homegrown problems, through complex absurdities of "conspiracism", are laid at the Kremlin's door. In 2015, CNN and others accused Russia of "weaponising the refugee crisis", as if they had caused it. As if Russia had forced us into the destruction of Libya, and then ordered Merkel to throw open Germany's borders. Those in Eastern Europe who blamed Germany or the EU, notably Hungarian's President Viktor Orban, were said to be "friends of Putin". As if the epithet is an argument in and of itself.

Putin and Russia have become Snowball from Orwell's Animal Farm . An invisible but ever-present creation of the state, responsible for all our ills. And if Putin is Snowball, then Freedland, and all the media-types like him, are Squealer . Oily charlatans who twist language to suit their needs, and the needs of their employers.

If "conspiracy theories are dangerous", then how dangerous is it to use ridiculous allegations to undermine democracy? If Conspiracy Theories damage society, why clamp-down on honest debate by dismissing all those who disagree as "Putin-bots"? If Conspiracy Theories are so offensive, why use them to vilify Russia, and stoke up public hatred of a nuclear armed superpower?

The author's real point is quite clear – it's not all conspiracy theories which are "dangerous". Only Conspiracy Theories that investigate, undermine, or otherwise question the governments, institutions or agendas of Western countries are "dangerous".

Our governments do no wrong, are benign and honest. To question that is dangerous. Their governments are malign and dishonest. To question them is a duty.

It is nothing but a long, drawn-out, argument for conformity of opinion and deadness of mind. An attack on independent thought, peppered with abuse.

First he describes "Conspiracy Theorists" as:

harmless potting-shed eccentrics, green-ink cranks whose tightly spaced letters could once safely be filed in the dustbin.

before adding:

you might have dismissed such talk as the derangement of the bug-eyed, irrelevant fringe,

And then finally playing the anti-Semitism card:

so many conspiracy theorists end up reaching the terminus of antisemitism. For antisemitism is itself often rooted in conspiracy theory: the belief that the secret hand behind world events, manipulating each and every development, belongs to the Rothschilds or George Soros or, when no euphemism is required, the Jews.

A baseless, childish ad hominem, that makes so little sense it contradicts his own last paragraph, and shows up his quasi-delusional mindset:

On Thursday we learned that 1,500 billionaires have now amassed $6tn of wealth, a level of inequality not seen since the Gilded Age. That's not come about because of a secret meeting in an underground boardroom, but because of a system that is fatally flawed.

I don't follow his argument, "don't talk about conspiracies when we've got all these billionaires to worry about" doesn't make any sense to me. It seems he's created some new kind of logical fallacy, the argument to inequality, a derivation of "think of the children" . It's an odd chord for Freedland to strike, and is probably a rather desperate attempt to seem "hip" to the current issues. He certainly never wrote about the perils of inequality before Corbyn-mania swept the country.

Regardless of the source of Freedland's sudden Bolshevik leanings, he contradicts himself – and in so doing paints a picture of an insane world. He doesn't acknowledge that two of these billionaires – Soros and the Rothschilds – he has already named as nothing but a "euphemism" for anti-Semitism.

So which is it, Jonathan? Are wealthy people the problem? Or is criticising the super-rich merely a mask for racism? Why is it acceptable to cite "inequality" as a threat to the world, but crazy to blame the main beneficiaries of said inequality?

Freedland wants us to believe we live in a world where a tiny percentage of the population control vast fortunes, but wield no political power. He decries the "flawed system", but refuses to acknowledge that corruption or conspiracy has played any part in creating it. That is insane at best, and dishonest at worst.

He doesn't acknowledge the unavoidable truth that super-wealthy people will wield influence over government policy. From arms-sales, to tax loop-holes, to the push to privatise the NHS, to the war in Iraq there are dozens of examples of political power being used to further the agenda of the rich.

Hyper-wealthy individuals exerting influence over elected officials and using military and intelligence apparatus to further undeclared political agendas, is the very definitions of a conspiracy theory. And it happens every single day.

If we are indeed living in the "post-truth age", then it is not because of Donald Trump. Or Facebook. Or Russia Today.

It is because of dishonest journalism such as you'll find in the Guardian, or the New York Times, or Buzzfeed. Because Jonathan Freedland, and his ilk, have stopped trying to hold power to account, and instead act as spokespeople for authority. Official heralds, handing down to the proles a pre-approved consensus and an a la carte menu of opinion. Labelling as "dangerous" aNY questioning of a government organisation with a proven track-record of illegal operations, whilst constantly stoking public fear of the mythic "Russian influence". Conjuring an entirely fictional enemy from smoke and gossip, whilst throwing real crimes against humanity down the memory hole.

Freedland's article, and all others like it, are an attack on reason itself. Denying our ability, and even our right, to question the motives and actions of the powerful, whilst asserting the moral rectitude of blind obedience. The Guardian is engaging in cultural policing, enforcing the unquestioned morality of the state and the system, at the expense of critical thinking and truth.

The Reichstag Fire was a conspiracy too. The state that rose from its ashes was only able to cover up its crimes thanks to rigid programmes of state-sponsored propaganda faithfully carried out by a compliant and controlled media.

flaxgirl says October 31, 2017

Another conspiracy fact being proved! Tony Podesta, key Democratic lobbyist, resigns from firm amid Mueller inquiry
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/30/tony-podesta-democrats-trump-russia-mueller
kevin morris says October 30, 2017
I have supported the Soviet Union ad latterly Russia for most of my life, having been brought up to believe the WW2 story that they were our allies. It is not difficult to see that the US is dangerous and that its allies including the UK are craven. That said, it would be naieve in the extreme to assume that Russia isn't involved in the various nefarious activities that all modern nations seem intent upon, or that Russia's ally China doesn't cling to the selfsame concept of manifest destiny as the Americans do. Just as many of us see through the increasingly desperate machinations of the United States, I really have no need for Freedland's partial tales of the enemy's duplicity for it seems that willingness to behave duplicitously is a requirement of statecraft and always was.
Edwige says October 30, 2017
Good article although MKUltra (in its various guises) was a strange omission.

Freedland (and his ilk) could just be this dumb, but there are other explanations that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand –

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BF96CJxNwzc?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Joerg says October 30, 2017
Good article!
Let me emphasize that conspiracy-theories are specifically used by our rulers to reign us. And these governments conspiracy-theories are typically pushed forward with fake optical material (photos, videos , films, CGIs).

1.) "Gleiwitz Incident" – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident . When the Nazi-rulers wanted to make war against Poland, they forced some inmates of their concentration camps to put on Polish uniforms and enter the Gleiwitz radio station. This was filmed then and shown in all cinema halls in Germany. The Nazi conspiracy-theory was then, that Polish soldiers had crossed the boarder to Germany and attacked the Gleiwitz radio station. So the Nazis started their war against Poland – and with this started World War II..
By the way: Those concentration camp inmates were all killed after the filming. This reminds me of all those "Terrorists"/witnesses which are – also: nowadays – always killed after the staged attack (the one only survivor I remember is one of the Tsarnaev-brothers of the "Boston Bombing Incident").

2.) "911": When George W. Bush wanted to make war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Iran and so on, he proclaimed the official 911-conspiracy-theory: 'A few Arabs went into a cave in Afghanistan and conspired to hijack aeroplanes in order to attack the USA with them'.
Those who oppose this George-W-Bush-conspiracy-theory are NOT conspiracy-theorists themselves but only "debunkers" of the 'GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY THEORY'!

And of course also here (like with Gleiwitz) there is faked optical material. And TONS of it!.
Let's only take that airplane (175) that is supposed to have hit the South tower (WTC 2). There are not less then three(!) different versions of the plane that is supposed to have hit the South tower.: Here you have the "dive plane" and the horizontal flying plane: http://www.septclues.com/ANIMATED%20GIF%20FILES%20sept%20clues%20research/7lastsecondsAlQuaedaDivebomber2.gif .the . The horizontal flying plane of course nears with an angle of 0°. The "dive plane" nears with an angle of 42 °.
Then there is a third version called the "orb" – called so because the image of this supposed plane is so fades that you can make out only something like an orb. This orb nears with an angle of 21°. The "orb" and it's angle is calculated on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TebhJYFGHSY (although that absurd thesis there of "anti-gravitation" is total rubbish).
So we must(!) logically conclude, that at least two third of the "films" or "videos" showing the plane hitting the South tower are FAKES (I believe that all of those "videos" – 100% -are fakes).
Instead of going on and on with citing those fakes I just point to "South Tower Anomalies III" – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s and to the manipulated still pictures/photos that the great Jack White so splendidly uncovered (sadly Jack White died some years ago): http://www.jackwhites911studies.org/ .

Now unlike today, in those days of 2001 you needed A LOT of experienced specialists to produce this amount of faked (CGI) videos and photos. And you needed an enormous source of capable hardware. So this was not just one joker or bragger who produced that – but a mighty crowd of well organised and technologically well furnished people.

And now my point: To produce fake evidence is a crime in every country of this planet. Remember that Sheriff of the "Sandy Hook Incident"? When he proclaimed before the cameras of all TV-stations that everyone who spread (what he called) "lies" (especially in the internet) would find himself before a court. That Sheriff went too far, of course. but he was right insofar as everyone who photoshoppes false pictures or false videos (CGI) commits a crime according to US Union or State law.
So the fact that those producers of fake optical material to the "911" incident have never been followed up and identified by police inspectors and accused by Union and New York State (and Washington D. C. State) attorneys general PROVES that only the US-Government is responsible for "911".
And those inspectors and state attorneys that – to this very day! – refuse to identify and prosecute those FAKERS (remember the Nazi-film of Gleiwitz) are not only guilty of being 'accomplice of 'producing false evidence', but they are guilty of being 'accomplice of multiple HOMICIDE'.

Ross Hendry says October 30, 2017
Thank you – an excellent article.

There are always concerted efforts by those behind false-flag terror attacks and assassinations to obscure the truth after the event (one obvious tactic being to disseminate a multiplicity of alternative theories, to heighten confusion and lead people back towards accepting the official explanation – out of sheer exhaustion.) In addition, attempts at uncovering the truth are necessarily always going to be impeded by the fact that we are all, to a greater or lesser extent, indoctrinated from the cradle to accept and trust authority. The perpetrators know this of course generally we will always want to keep a-hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse.

Somehow humanity has to learn to grow up faster and wiser, and individuals become more self-actualising – which will inevitably include the rejection of bourgeois, neurotic aspirations and the hive-mind. Otherwise we are always going to be very easy prey for those who want to exploit our existential insecurities.

Harry Stotle says October 30, 2017
Isn't it interesting how Freedlands rage is directed toward the wrong target?

Murderous neocons are regularly given a platform in his newspapers while BTL comments that do not show due deference are furiously deleted by the mods, yet according to Freedland's world view conspiracy theorists are 'the bug-eyed, irrelevant fringe'.

We can only speculate as to why Freedland is so docile when it comes to the endless atrocities perpetuated by war mongers (or the 'perfectly nice' Hilary Clinton if you are Zoe Williams) yet starts throwing his toys out of the pram when it comes to those who challenge some of their ugly handiwork.
One can almost picture a dutiful lapdog like Freedland being tickled on the belly while one of the hawks says to him, 'who's been a good boy, Jonathan, who's been a good boy' tickle, tickle, tickle.

At the same time the near complete absence of any counter arguments by Freedland to conspiracy facts (already highlighted by Kit) demonstrates how feeble his intellectual position is – so is it any wonder he has to resort to censorship and name calling while stretching his credibility to breaking point by claiming that censorship is not censorship but rather the shifting sands of community standards?

Greg Bacon says October 30, 2017
Jonathan Freedland's Trump Assassination Fantasy

Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian, while making little original contribution to the intellectual debate over the progress of the Trump administration, have instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland, the Left, and elements of the organized Jewish community.

Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. ..

To Kill The President, Freedland/Bourne's very recently published 'thriller,' has taken matters to a new extreme, blending the author's history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the Trump administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no attempt to disguise his meaning.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/07/25/jonathan-freedlands-trump-assassination-fantasy/

His writing pseudonym is Sam Bourne? Trying to hitch your wagon to the excellent Robert Ludlum 'Jason Bourne' spy novels, eh Johnny?

Maybe Freeloader, uh, Freedland has heard of another writer, Upton Sinclair, who has been quoted as saying, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

Jonathan old boy, we've got enough home-grown nuts–many who pose as news anchors–here in the States, we don't need any self-absorbed Limey nuts to spread hateful lies.

Harry Stotle says October 30, 2017
I heard Sam Bourne wrote another political thriller, provisionally entitled '9/11'.

The plot centered on a terrorist attack on New York and the Pentagon while the entire US defence system was on its lunch break – unfortunately the premise was considered too far fetched by his publisher who told him to go away and concentrate on more believable revenge fantasies like the deep state putting out a hit on yet another president.

From what I heard the publishers were with Bourne on 9/11 right up to the point an intractable mathematical conundrum arose between the number of towers that fell, and the number of aeroplanes that hit them – for all his skills as a pulp writer Bourne, it seems, had virtually no grasp of basic science, or even a kindergarten level numeracy.

tutisicecream says October 30, 2017
The Guardian, a joke of a news paper for years, has now developed it's own pernicious world view of pre-crime.

Thanks for this tour de force Kit, exposing the hypocrisy of its hack-in-chief.

The incessant "fake news" narrative demonstrates the Guardian's own weak intellectual position, because merely other points of view do not amount to fake news. To make fake news you have to fabricate the story, such as Luke Harding's Panama Papers "it was Putin wot dun it" humdinger of a pork pie.

Of course at the centre of this is the claim that free or alternative thinkers are, useful idiots, trolls, conspiracy theorists etc. etc. So when you can't sustain an argument you resort to name calling, which is exactly where we are now with the level of journalism at the Guardian.

Remember the revelations of CrowdStrike in the Guardian, well no connection now being made to the corruption scandal and Clinton, not being reported on at all, as it doesn't fit the narrative. More fake news/ conspiracy theories come home to roost for the Guardian Hacks.

My personal favourite is this recent piece of "faked news blow back" for the champions of free speech and Russian repression at the Guardian. Remember Pyotr Pavlensky and his "artistic performances? His famous one nailing his scrotum to Red Square and the other, setting the entrance to the Russian security service FSB ablaze. Much admired in the Guardian and WMSM along with Luke Harding's favourites Pussy Riot.

You've probably forgotten about him but he sought political asylum in France. On 16 October he set fire to the Banque de France. French and American television only reported on the arson, the Guardian not at all. When in Russia there were vociferous calls for the protection of his artistic freedom, whilst in France he's been quietly placed in an asylum, no doubt for his own good. True conspiracy theorists forget their friends so very quickly it seems
https://sputniknews.com/viral/201710191058379213-petr-pavlensky-charges-france/

Peter says October 30, 2017
So true. Nothing on French TV about who set the Banque de France's doors on fire. I learned about it on RT.
Norma Parfitt says October 30, 2017
It is a sisyphean task to persuade someone that they've been misled unless they already want to doubt the official explanation. The death of Diana is one example where talking to 'ordinary' people has revealed a strong change in attitude. The early acceptance of her death being accidentally caused by Paparazzi has morphed into murder by the Royal Family because that reinforces our belief that her life was a tragedy on the grand scale.
The Freedlands of the media are sensitive to public feeling. They tell us what we want to hear.
Deposited says October 30, 2017
Great article. A case that Kit perhaps ought to add to the compendium is that of Libya – mentioned only in passing here. We were all told by our respective Western governments (and Ban Ki Moon) and media that Ghaddafi was attacking civilians and therefore needed to be eliminated. Then – after the country had been destroyed – a British Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee report said that it was "based on erroneous assumptions".

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/foreign-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/libya-report-published-16-17/

I now start from the viewpoint that on reporting anything but the sports results Western media are lying.

flaxgirl says October 30, 2017
To get away from the term "conspiracy" and its usual connotations one can use the term State Crime Against Democracy (SCAD) coined by Lance deHaven-Smith, Professor Emeritus, Public Administration and Policy
Florida State University

"I coined the term "State Crimes Against Democracy" in a peer-reviewed article published by Administrative Theory & Praxis, the journal of the Public Administration Theory Network. SCADs are defined as "concerted actions or inactions by government insiders intended to manipulate democratic processes and undermine popular sovereignty." Until recently, scholarly research on political criminality has given little attention to antidemocratic conspiracies in high office, focusing instead on graft, bribery, embezzlement, and other forms of government corruption where the aim is personal enrichment rather than social control, partisan advantage, or political power. However, SCADs are far more dangerous to democracy than these other, more mundane forms of political criminality because of their potential to subvert political institutions and entire governments or branches of government."

Article in Global Research
https://www.globalresearch.ca/state-crimes-against-democracy/17922

flaxgirl says October 30, 2017
Excellent article.

One line of questioning to those who think that conspiracies only happen "over there" is, "Do you accept the "Nayirah" event in 1990 as a false-flag conspiracy and do you think that's the last one that has occurred on Western soil [assuming "Nayirah" is the last "agreed upon" conspiracy on Western soil]? None has occurred since and never will again?"

What gets me the most is that as, staged event analyst, Ole Dammegard, has stated from an insider leak, the power elite justify what they do by TELLING us in clues, lackadaisical attempts at realism and utterly ridiculous and unbelievable things – so OTT ridiculous you can hardly believe their audacity. Yet even when you point these out to people they still won't believe you. They just keep pushing you away as a "conspiracy theorist". It really makes you wonder about people.

I don't know whether this one should get an award for false-flag OTT ridiculous but it's up there: a nurse in Las Vegas claims that a bullet hit her in the stomach and ricocheted to slice her leg.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD1DZj17M9U

In this article reposted on Dammegard's site, How the Mass Media Controls Consensus Reality, is a quote from Dresden James which I completely relate to:
"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."
https://www.lightonconspiracies.com/mass-media-controls-consensus-reality ,

I have emailed a number of self-identified skeptics with a $5,000 challenge to produce a 10-point Occam's Razor exercise that favours the "official story" hypothesis over the "independent researcher" hypothesis on any one of 3 events: Collapse of WTC-7 on 9/11, Sandy Hook massacre and the Manchester Bombing. I have done the exercises with the favouring of hypotheses swapped. Not a single "skeptic" has even attempted to claim the prize – I mean, really, how hard can it be to produce a 10-point exercise favouring the hypothesis you so vociferously support?
http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html

A prominent Australian skeptic, Richard Saunders, replied to my email with this:
"Thank you for your email however I think you have us confused with a conspiracy theory podcast."
His reply has two hallmarks of a gatekeeper response: belittlement and zero (or fallacious) argument.

flaxgirl says October 30, 2017
Actually, obviously there have been conspiracies since Nayirah (they're mentioned in the article) but I think of Nayirah as the last "agreed upon" false flag but perhaps she isn't a false flag as such any more than the others. Perhaps the bombing of Bologna Station in 1980 is the last "agreed upon" false flag. I'm not exactly sure how one defines a false flag.
Big B says October 29, 2017
"Thoughts: you are not allowed them! Not independent, creative, truly perceptive ones. You have to learn think uncritically within the parameters we set for you!!!"

It seems to me that Freedland is unconsciously setting a meta-narrative: not to question – but to accept in blind faith the narrative we authoritatively interpret and set for you. Non-conspiratorial narratives carry the weight of socially approved consensus; and thus offer a reassuring, unchallenging space to brainpark for (his) Guardian readers. Non-challenging narratives collectively create the kernel or shared mythos of liberal left-leaning social conformity. Over which his esteemed colleagues can daily liberally douse with bile and slime; to further obfuscate any hope of rational analysis. He also seems to be calling for a suspension of disbelief: whereby all that choose freely (before they put up a paywall) – can enter into a state of self-reverent somnolence. The heady euphoria of this state can be further enhanced by a virtue-signalling contribution to charity NGO – such as Avaaz, the White Helmets, Hope not Hate or the biggy – the Open Society Foundation (although this is relatively over-subscribed to the tune of $18.9bn at the moment.) Perhaps Jonathan could use his pseudo-shamanic skills to ask for a donation for "free, open, and independent journalism"??? After all, they all work for the same people.

Harry Stotle says October 29, 2017
The Guardian has come to resemble one of those old western film-sets were the frontier town is actually a facade made out of cardboard – in other words a substantial part of the paper's output is just surface, and quite a tacky one at that, with very little of substance behind it.

So censorship has become an essential devices to maintain the illusion (that the Guardian is a fearless bastion of liberalism) not because phony 'community standards' are being breached, but because so many of their articles are exposed by those BTL who are far more insightful than corporate hacks like Freedland who seems terrified of ever deviating from his sponors bidding.

This fantastic aricle by Kit is the entire Guardian problem writ large and I daresay if the Guardian had the bottle to publish it there would be many knowing nods from community members equally sick of the Guardians myopic, and self-serving culture.

Schlüter says October 29, 2017
See also „Assassination of JFK: Half a Century of Lies", http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2013/11/22/assassination-of-jfk-half-a-century-of-lies/ & "Mary´s Mosaic", Looking into an Abyss, Part II: http://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/marys-mosaic-looking-into-an-abyss-part-ii/
Regards
StAug says October 29, 2017
"There's nothing much in them, because well why would there be?"

Which nails it. Had Germany won (well, they did, technically, but ignore that for now) WW2, I can imagine Anglo-Germanian "conspiracy theorists" of that alternate reality making "wild claims" about a place called "Auschwitz". And Hitler's son's government releasing a report to the effect that *"While some Jews did, regrettably, die during the conflict " *

Janus Jg says October 29, 2017
so grateful to have this piece share with nay-sayers and deniers.
i'm posting the cartoon pic on my front door.

thanks so much for this helpful and informative piece!

Rhisiart Gwilym says October 29, 2017
I hope you'll make sure, Kit, that Freedland gets sent a copy of this piece. It skewers the useless hack's hopeless intellectual dishonesty masterfully.
M says October 29, 2017
Thank you, Kit. There is a huge campaign to undermine critical thinking.

Many of my friends or acquaintances keep posting these increasingly daft videos and articles on social media which tell us about how dangerous conspiracy theories are. The strategy seems to be to conflate those that believe that there are, at the very least, holes in the official theory of JFK´s murder or 911 with those that believe that the earth is flat, those that believe that there are plenty of problems with GMO´s being produced by monopolies without any kind of transparency or accountability, with those that rant about reptilians using magic powders to poison our foods, etc.

And I am sad to say that it is working for many people which I thought to be much more critical and more circumspect: when I confront them with similar ideas to the ones in this article, I am only able to make them concede that "the truth is there somewhere in the middle", that "it is practically impossible to have all the different media and governments lying like that".

Is that because of the fear of being labeled as a conspiracy theorist? or, worst, have we passed the threshold of sanity and people will welcome "anti-conspiracy theories (aka fake news) regulations" because they blindly believe in those that control information?

Sometimes I believe that we might lose perspective by sharing ideas in sites like this. What are your thoughts on this, people?

StAug says October 29, 2017
I think a much more complex (and darker?) possibility is that many more people, than are willing to admit it, sense, on a fundamental level, that The State is up to these wicked games and they don't care , they have immediate and personal goals and worries to concern themselves with. It's the "wisdom of the herd" to shut up, keep one's head down, worry about ploughing one's furrow and side-eye "trouble makers". Think of the phrase "trouble makers", in fact. What does it really mean? It means, largely, us . Perhaps Normulz prefer things as they are, as long as they aren't the ones being targeted (explicitly) for ruin. They don't want the boat rocked because it appears to be sailing their way.

Many of us, here, are driven by unusually-developed senses of Justice we care inordinately about wrongs that aren't directly our concern. We are probably a peculiar subset of behavioral traits that finds it difficult to understand the "normal" POV. Like people who actually enjoy Gregorian chants trying to "get through" to Justin Bieber fans. We keep thinking, "If they only listened to five minutes of this exquisite 11th-century chant "

M says October 31, 2017
I agree with the notion that people would prefer to keep their head down and I tend to distinguish those that simply don´t care because the boat seems to be sailing their way. But what I am seeing is well beyond that. There is something like a trend of ridiculing "conspiracies" and sharing videos and opinion pieces about the dangers of fake news (to be fair nothing as idiotic as the Freedland), etc. It is as if they were, willingly, in the frontline, trying themselves to burn those "infidels" and crazies (us) that are suggesting that there are different versions of reality, of history, of politics, etc. I am speaking of reasonable people with more less a sense of justice. I wouldn´t call them brainwashed but in fact it seems to me like if they do these things because of a sense of duty to the world, trying to "make a difference". They could very well question the heroic history of the British Empire but that refuse to acknowledge that today there are basically the same forces at play, doing the same kind of things. They somehow feel that they are educating the rest.

I remember that just few years ago, around five, when I just arrived to England, there was much more openess to alternative versions of history or politics or whatever. Nowadays I feel that many, by default, do the same kind of conflation and see people like you and me like crazies that could be looking for reptilian features in everyone they speak to. I am afraid we are diving into a very dangerous self inflicted kind of censorship and restrain.

And I like very much your last paragraph. Asides from my rants here I am a musician, and I do believe that the state of the world is very much reflected as a metaphor in the pitiful state of the mainstream music and art worlds of today. It makes me wonder if perhaps the peacefulness of that music, the bonds and sensitivity that art builds, could help many to develop that "unusually-developed senses of Justice". But first we would need to take it back, like the rest.

If you feel like converting someone from a Bieber fan into someone in love with XII-XVIII century chants try this one, and make sure they do at least 15 min.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5RE3hy6PJaQ?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&start=1577&wmode=transparent

Cheers.

flaxgirl says October 31, 2017
Totally agree. As I said in another comment, in response to an email to prominent Australian skeptic, Richard Saunders on staged terror, he wrote "Thank you for your email however I think you have us confused with a conspiracy theory podcast." This is in no way an acceptable response from a serious skeptic. Really, how much do we blame the evildoers and how much do we blame the gatekeepers? Perhaps we should blame them even more? It seems to me that people are just so very, very insistent on not believing the very clear evidence pushed into their faces – as I also said in that comment – the power elite justify what they do by TELLING us in their symbolic clues, their lackadaisical attempts at realism and simply OTT ridiculousness. There is NO GETTING AWAY from the truth if you will only allow yourself to look. There is really no excuse. It's not as if you have to do any serious investigation to work it out. It's all "hidden in plain sight" as they say and all you have to do is shed the shackles of propaganda to see it. But people seemed to be hellbent on not doing that. I mean, they have such a low opinion of government and media anyway – why resist dropping their opinion just that little bit further? To me, it's a liberating prospect rather than a fearful one – although admittedly it didn't initially feel that way.
StAug says October 31, 2017
"Asides from my rants here I am a musician "

I've been earning my living with it (and related industries) since 2002! Not rich (or even solidly middle class) but I make my own schedule, so: happy

M says October 31, 2017
Nothing like having the freedom to spend your life however you want to spend it. Cheers!
StAug says October 29, 2017
"The strategy seems to be to conflate those that believe that there are, at the very least, holes in the official theory of JFK´s murder or 911 with those that believe that the earth is flat "

And THAT was a brilliant and very deliberate meme, obviously. TFIC have very effectively turned YouTube against us. The Smith-Mundt Act was repealed in 2013. "Flat Earth" began seeping into the greater "conspiracy" eco-system how soon after that ?

"In 2004, Daniel Shenton (not related to Samuel)[26] resurrected the Flat Earth Society, basing it around a web-based discussion forum. This eventually led to the official relaunch of the society in October 2009, and the creation of a new Web site, featuring a public collection of Flat Earth literature and a wiki.Moreover, the society began accepting new members for the first time since 2001, with musician Thomas Dolby becoming the first member to join the newly reconvened society. As of July 2014, over 500 people from all around the world have become members.

In 2013, part of this society broke away to form a new web-based group also featuring a forum and wiki. "

M says October 31, 2017
Indeed. I am sure that there is a good deal of promotion for those idiocies. How else would such ideas, from a club with 500 members, would receive such attention?
Brutally Remastered says October 29, 2017
My thoughts, and I share your frustration, are that one should counter with the Gore Vidal quote pertaining to himself: it stops them dead in their tracks.
vexarb says October 30, 2017
My thoughts on this come straight from Prof.WJ Perry's book Gods and Men: The Attainment of Immortality (1927).
In those days the Leaders of city-states were all gods, and every year the People would gather in their town square to celebrate their great festival in which the entire population witnessed their local Leader ascending into the sky.
M says October 31, 2017
I fear that there are similar pagan psychological forces at play indeed.

[Oct 31, 2017] Sorting Out the Russia Mess by Robert Parry

Muller just sinks credibility of the US government to a new low exposing the internal fight between CIA/FBI and Pentagon for the control of the government. All this dirt digging is so highly selective, that the whole purpose if his investigation can be defined as "Discrediting of the US government and its institutions". The role of FBI now (notwisting nik in twitter is very similar to the role of CIA in JFK assassination: suspected kingmaker, which tried to control Trump campaign and was ready top pay Steele. Excluding DNC officiels form probe mean selective search for truth, which is a search for lies.
There are also serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility. So far he emerges as a young, reckless and clueless political huckster. And where was General Flynt with his experience intelligence operations. He should understand that all Trump operation is under the microaope of Obmam-fireldly officiels in the administration including such a powerful figure as Brennan.
Also why the heck we have Papadopoulos as a source, when we have NSA and clear evidence that key Trump officials were all wiretapped.
Notable quotes:
"... However, Mifsud told The Washington Post in an email last August that he had "absolutely no contact with the Russian government" and described his ties to Russia as strictly in academic fields. ..."
"... In an interview with the U.K. Daily Telegraph after Monday's disclosures, Mifsud acknowledged meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed the contents of the conversations as cited in the court papers. Specifically, he denied knowing anything about emails containing "dirt" on Clinton and called the claim that he introduced Papadopoulos to a "female Russian national" as a "laughingstock." ..."
"... The absence of supporting evidence that Papadopoulos conveyed his hot news on the emails to campaign officials and Mifsud's insistence that he knew nothing about the emails would normally raise serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility on this most crucial point. ..."
"... At least for now, those gaps represent major holes in the storyline. But Official Washington has been so desperate for "proof" about the alleged Russian "election meddling" for so long, that professional skepticism has been unwelcome in most media outlets. ..."
"... But the source said the more perplexing question was whether the Kremlin then ordered release of the data, something that Russian intelligence is usually loath to do and something that in this case would have risked retaliation from the expected winner of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... But such questions and doubts are clearly not welcome in the U.S. mainstream media, most of which has embraced Mueller's acceptance of Papadopoulos's story as the long-awaited "smoking gun" of Russia-gate. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... Where are Podesta brothers? http://theduran.com/category/latest/ They both are extremely relevant and, unlike the petty story on the hapless chap Papadopolous, Podesta brothers' involvement into lobbying for Russia and Ukraine is well documented. The involvement had been substantial. Also, why no news about Awan-Wasserman affai, the greatest breach in national cybersecurity ever? ..."
"... Where is Mueller on the death of Seth Rich? The Dems have never provided any reward for finding the murderers of Seth (Assange did), but the Dems found money & legal help to protect Awan & Debbie Wasseman. As you wrote, "once again," the deciders are on a side of murderers, perverts, and thieves (see Clinton foundation and the $6 trillion "lost" by the Pentagon). ..."
"... No, I believe the whole Russiagate brouhaha is a sham, and if Russia did meddle in our politics, it is hypocritical of us who are far worse. I think the article I read recently by Stephen Cohen that we have meddled in over a hundred countries and continue to do so while appearing shocked that someone would do that to us, in the event that is what happened. ..."
"... In October 2016, Wikileaks released emails that revealed Donna Brazile tipped off the Clinton Campaign to debate questions and forwarded a plan she obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign to the Clinton Campaign. CNN fired Brazile after the revelation, but the DNC has continued employing Brazile as a consultant." You see, DNC continues employing Brazile as a consultant in crime. ..."
"... There are no good players in any of this. I don't even think this quarrel has anything to do with the average American. This is a fight going on inside of a declining American government. The Empire is collapsing all around these greedy fools who call themselves leaders, and when the dollar does become just another piece of worthless paper, it won't be the fault of anyone other than the current leaders who now run the USofA. ..."
"... The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to allegation that the DNC hack was an inside job by a disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporter. However, the revelations about Seth Rich provide damning (if hearsay) evidence that the DNC ordered his execution. ..."
"... Murder of Seth Rich? Podesta brothers popping up at each step of the investigation as the lobbyists "colluding" with both Russia and Ukraine? Clinton Foundation and the lethal weaponry sales to Saudis? The CIA-arranged delivery of weapons to ISIS on Clinton's watch? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/ https://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726 The Uranium deal with Russia? – Including the $500.000 "speech fee" for the promiscuous Bill – remember Lolita Island, Dershowitz, and Epstein? ..."
"... The U.S. has been openly invading and destroying countries, involved in overthrowing elected leaders – sometimes have them murdered – engaged in destabilizing the countries for regime changes, interfering in their elections, for seven decades now. Have they forgotten what they did in 1996 Russia election and to Russia during 1990's. And here we are discussing a thirty year old Papadopoulos meeting some obscure professor discussing Russia or whatever; and we are endlessly discussing Hillary- Podesta and DNC emails – who leaked it? How low this country has come down to? Can't we see it? ..."
"... It is a shameful spectacle we are witnessing in this Country. One feels feels sick reading and hearing about about this whole trivial nonsense. Yet the whole Political Establishment and Media are drenched in this sewage for over a year now. No words can describe the complete moral collapse of the Country; collapse of integrity of institutions of law and justice – whatever was left of it. There is no honesty, truth or dignity left – in Journalists and others in Media, Politicians, and other high government functionaries. ..."
"... We are beginning to see the disgust for the people running the US government by many citizens like yourself. ..."
"... George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources. ..."
"... The "online investigations" propaganda operation at Bellingcat site very much includes the comments section of the site. Don't expect Bellingcat to perform any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The function of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for "fake news" and "alternative facts". ..."
"... Paul Manafort was indicted for supposedly establishing a relationship with a foreign government that was not covered by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). ..."
"... Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA? And then: When will investigations begin into some of the truly treasonous acts and legislation shepherded by this foreign agent called AIPAC: -- like its interference with Free Speech protections in the US Bill of Rights, and this latest: Something about residents of some town in Texas forced to sign a loyalty pledge in support of Israel in order to receive funds to rebuild their stricken landscape ??? Is Israel putting up the money for disaster relief projects in America? If so, how did this come about? ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: The U.S. mainstream media finally has its "smoking gun" on Russia-gate -- incriminating information from a junior Trump campaign adviser -- but a closer look reveals serious problems with the "evidence," writes Robert Parry.

Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller has turned up the heat on President Trump with the indictment of Trump's former campaign manager for unrelated financial crimes and the disclosure of a guilty plea from a low-level foreign policy adviser for lying to the FBI.

While longtime Republican fixer Paul Manafort, who helped guide Trump's campaign to the GOP nomination in summer 2016, was the big name in the news on Monday, the mainstream media focused more on court documents related to George Papadopoulos, a 30-year-old campaign aide who claims to have heard about Russia possessing Hillary Clinton's emails before they became public on the Internet, mostly via WikiLeaks.

While that would seem to bolster the Russia-gate narrative – that Russian intelligence "hacked" Democratic emails and President Vladimir Putin ordered the emails be made public to undermine Clinton's campaign – the evidentiary thread that runs through Papadopoulos's account remains tenuous.

That's in part because his credibility has already been undermined by his guilty plea for lying to the FBI and by the fact that he now has a motive to provide something the prosecutors might want in exchange for leniency. Plus, there is the hearsay and contested quality of Papadopoulos's supposed information, some of which already has turned out to be false.

According to the court documents, Papadopoulos got to know a professor of international relations who claimed to have "substantial connections with Russian government officials," with the professor identified in press reports as Joseph Mifsud, a little-known academic associated with the University of Stirling in Scotland.

The first contact supposedly occurred in mid-March 2016 in Italy, with a second meeting in London on March 24 when the professor purportedly introduced Papadopoulos to a Russian woman whom the young campaign aide believed to be Putin's niece, an assertion that Mueller's investigators determined wasn't true.

Trump, who then was under pressure for not having a foreign policy team, included Papadopoulos as part of a list drawn up to fill that gap, and Papadopoulos participated in a campaign meeting on March 31 in Washington at which he suggested a meeting between Trump and Putin, a prospect that other senior aides reportedly slapped down.

The 'Email' Breakfast

But Papadopoulos continued his outreach to Russia , according to the court documents, which depict the most explosive meeting as an April 26 breakfast in London with the professor (Mifsud) supposedly saying he had been in Moscow and "learned that the Russians had obtained 'dirt' on then-candidate Clinton" and possessed "thousands of emails." Mainstream press accounts concluded that Mifsud must have been referring to the later-released emails.

However, Mifsud told The Washington Post in an email last August that he had "absolutely no contact with the Russian government" and described his ties to Russia as strictly in academic fields.

In an interview with the U.K. Daily Telegraph after Monday's disclosures, Mifsud acknowledged meeting with Papadopoulos but disputed the contents of the conversations as cited in the court papers. Specifically, he denied knowing anything about emails containing "dirt" on Clinton and called the claim that he introduced Papadopoulos to a "female Russian national" as a "laughingstock."

According to the Telegraph interview , Mifsud said he tried to put Papadopoulos in touch with experts on the European Union and introduced him to the director of a Russian think tank, the Russian International Affairs Council.

It was the latter contact that the court papers presumably referred to in saying that on May 4, the Russian contact with ties to the foreign ministry wrote to Papadopoulos and Mifsud, reporting that ministry officials were "open for cooperation," a message that Papadopoulos forwarded to a senior campaign official, asking whether the contacts were "something we want to move forward with."

However, even an article in The New York Times, which has aggressively pushed the Russia-gate "scandal" from the beginning, noted the evidentiary holes that followed from that point.

The Times' Scott Shane wrote : "A crucial detail is still missing: Whether and when Mr. Papadopoulos told senior Trump campaign officials about Russia's possession of hacked emails. And it appears that the young aide's quest for a deeper connection with Russian officials, while he aggressively pursued it, led nowhere."

Shane added, "the court documents describe in detail how Mr. Papadopoulos continued to report to senior campaign officials on his efforts to arrange meetings with Russian officials, the documents do not say explicitly whether, and to whom, he passed on his most explosive discovery – that the Russians had what they considered compromising emails on Mr. Trump's opponent.

"J.D. Gordon, a former Pentagon official who worked for the Trump campaign as a national security adviser and helped arrange the March 31 foreign policy meeting, said he had known nothing about Mr. Papadopoulos' discovery that Russia had obtained Democratic emails or of his prolonged pursuit of meetings with Russians."

Reasons to Doubt

If prosecutor Mueller had direct evidence that Papadopoulos had informed the Trump campaign about the Clinton emails, you would assume that the proof would have been included in Monday's disclosures. Further, since Papadopoulos was flooding the campaign with news about his Russian outreach, you might have expected that he would say something about how helpful the Russians had been in publicizing the Democratic emails.

The absence of supporting evidence that Papadopoulos conveyed his hot news on the emails to campaign officials and Mifsud's insistence that he knew nothing about the emails would normally raise serious questions about Papadopoulos's credibility on this most crucial point.

At least for now, those gaps represent major holes in the storyline. But Official Washington has been so desperate for "proof" about the alleged Russian "election meddling" for so long, that professional skepticism has been unwelcome in most media outlets.

There is also another side of the story that rarely gets mentioned in the U.S. mainstream media: that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that he received the two batches of purloined Democratic emails – one about the Democratic National Committee and one about Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta – from the Russians. While it is surely possible that the Russians might have used cutouts to pass on the emails, Assange and associates have suggested that at least the DNC emails came from a disgruntled insider.

Also, former U.S. intelligence experts have questioned whether at least one batch of disclosed emails could have come from an overseas "hack" because the rapid download speed is more typical of copying files locally onto a memory stick or thumb drive.

What I was told by an intelligence source several months ago was that Russian intelligence did engage in hacking efforts to uncover sensitive information, much as U.S. and other nations' intelligence services do, and that Democratic targets were included in the Russian effort.

But the source said the more perplexing question was whether the Kremlin then ordered release of the data, something that Russian intelligence is usually loath to do and something that in this case would have risked retaliation from the expected winner of the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton.

But such questions and doubts are clearly not welcome in the U.S. mainstream media, most of which has embraced Mueller's acceptance of Papadopoulos's story as the long-awaited "smoking gun" of Russia-gate.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Herman , October 31, 2017 at 12:57 pm

Once again. Trump voluntarily jumps into the hot seat by trying to discredit or dismiss the importance of someone who worked for him. This tactic may appeal to his committed supporters but only sets himself up since his claims and statements about the irrelevance of Papadopolous can be disproved. What he should be after is the truth about the emails

It is amazing how often people get charged with lying by being made to believe that not doing so would get them in trouble. The thing they lie about is very often not his crime but the lying. , .

Anna , October 31, 2017 at 1:21 pm

Where are Podesta brothers? http://theduran.com/category/latest/ They both are extremely relevant and, unlike the petty story on the hapless chap Papadopolous, Podesta brothers' involvement into lobbying for Russia and Ukraine is well documented. The involvement had been substantial.
Also, why no news about Awan-Wasserman affai, the greatest breach in national cybersecurity ever?

Where is Mueller on the death of Seth Rich? The Dems have never provided any reward for finding the murderers of Seth (Assange did), but the Dems found money & legal help to protect Awan & Debbie Wasseman. As you wrote, "once again," the deciders are on a side of murderers, perverts, and thieves (see Clinton foundation and the $6 trillion "lost" by the Pentagon).

What we see currently in DC is an attack of the Dulles' CIA against whatever has left of a rule of law in this country. The RussiaGate is a dangerous play (not even a game) by the spoiled and incompetent "deciders" who found Trump unpalatable.

Back in the USSR , October 31, 2017 at 1:33 pm

Herman If the Clinton Campaign and the DNC can claim that they have no memory of how the Fusion GPS opposition research was funded, for millions of dollars, then why isn't it just as plausible that Trump had little or no contact or interaction with a low level staffer like Papadopoulos? Last week we heard that it does not matter who funded Fusion GPS because it is normal for campaigns to do opposition research even if it was from Russia. Yet, when Trump Jr. took a meeting to do the same, it was labeled Treason. I imagine these idiosyncrasies don't phase the average liberal MSM consumer, but they are a problem for Trump supporters and a good reason why they voted him into the White House.

Herman , October 31, 2017 at 5:52 pm

I agree with you, it's just that I think Trump is wrong in attacking members of his staff or cabinet. Let someone else do that. Discrediting people has worked but with Trump the immediate response is focus on him and it doesn't help by attacking your own.

No, I believe the whole Russiagate brouhaha is a sham, and if Russia did meddle in our politics, it is hypocritical of us who are far worse. I think the article I read recently by Stephen Cohen that we have meddled in over a hundred countries and continue to do so while appearing shocked that someone would do that to us, in the event that is what happened.

BobH , October 31, 2017 at 1:34 pm

Herman,
"It is amazing how often people get charged with lying by being made to believe that not doing so would get them in trouble. The thing they lie about is very often not his crime but the lying. ",,,very true, Bill Clinton's meaning of the word "is" comes to mind. As far as the source of "Russian hacking" is concerned it appears that it may come down to academic gossip.

Anna , October 31, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Embracing criminality to minute details: http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20340
"Despite calls for unity from DNC Chair Tom Perez, his DNC appointments heavily favored lobbyists and Clinton supporters. No Sanders supporter was appointed to the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee

In October 2016, Wikileaks released emails that revealed Donna Brazile tipped off the Clinton Campaign to debate questions and forwarded a plan she obtained from the Bernie Sanders campaign to the Clinton Campaign. CNN fired Brazile after the revelation, but the DNC has continued employing Brazile as a consultant." You see, DNC continues employing Brazile as a consultant in crime.

Anna , October 31, 2017 at 1:38 pm

To take your attention away from the small fish: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-31/pat-buchanan-exposes-other-plot-bring-down-trump
Enjoy:
"The narrative begins in October 2015.

Then it was that the Washington Free Beacon, a neocon website, engaged a firm of researchers called Fusion GPS to do deep dirt-diving into Trump's personal and professional life -- and take him out. A spinoff of Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard, the Beacon is run by his son-in-law. And its Daddy Warbucks is the GOP oligarch and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.

From October 2015 to May 2016, Fusion GPS dug up dirt for the neocons and never-Trumpers. By May, however, Trump had routed all rivals and was the certain Republican nominee. So the Beacon bailed, and Fusion GPS found two new cash cows to finance its dirt-diving -- the DNC and the Clinton campaign. To keep the sordid business at arm's length, both engaged the party's law firm of Perkins Coie. Paid $12.4 million by the DNC and Clinton campaign, Perkins used part of this cash hoard to pay Fusion GPS.

Here is where it begins to get interesting.

In June 2016, Fusion GPS engaged a British spy, Christopher Steele, who had headed up the Russia desk at MI6, to ferret out any connections between Trump and Russia. Steele began contacting old acquaintances in the FSB, the Russian intelligence service. And the Russians began to feed him astonishing dirt on Trump that could, if substantiated, kill his candidacy. Among the allegations was that Trump had consorted with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel, that the Kremlin was blackmailing him, that there was provable collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In memos from June to October 2016, Steele passed this on to Fusion GPS, which passed it on to major U.S. newspapers. But as the press was unable to verify it, they declined to publish it. Steele's final product, a 35-page dossier, has been described as full of "unsubstantiated and salacious allegations." Steele's research, however, had also made its way to James Comey's FBI, which was apparently so taken with it that the bureau considered paying Steele to continue his work.

About this "astonishing" development, columnist Byron York of the Washington Examiner quotes Sen. Chuck Grassley:

"The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends."

The questions begin to pile up. What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who was so wired into Russian intelligence?

Did the FBI use the information Steele dug up to expand its own investigation of Russia-Trump "collusion"? Did the FBI pass what Steele unearthed to the White House and the National Security Council?

Did the Obama administration use the information from the Steele dossier to justify unmasking the names of Trump officials that had been picked up on legitimate electronic intercepts?

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had enlisted Fusion GPS or the British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified, the lawyer sitting beside him in the committee room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had engaged Fusion GPS and received the fruits of Steele's undercover work."

One more time: "Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had enlisted Fusion GPS or the British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified, the lawyer sitting beside him in the committee room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had engaged Fusion GPS and received the fruits of Steele's undercover work."

Is not this look much more compromising than an alleged involvement something the clueless Papadopolous?

Podesta brothers and H. Clinton are criminals; there are mounds of evidence -- not "alleged" and "perhaps" and "with high degree of confidence" -- but the hard evidence of their criminal activities.

Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:06 pm

Anna – Excellent comments. Very accurate conclusions.

BobH , October 31, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Anna, all your points are well taken,,,nice job of connecting the dots!

Joe Tedesky , October 31, 2017 at 4:18 pm

Anna you write it better than most reporters do, and yes it is amazing to how these allegations in the Russia-Gate affair trumps the hard evidence found in the Hillary and Bill pay for play kick back collusion with the Russians. Although, if you keep the channel dial on CNN or MSNBC you may be put under the spell that Trump is a traitor, and guilty as charged of treason in the court of public opinion which holds court on the 45th president nightly if you care to watch. On the other hand if you watch FOX you will certainly start screaming 'lock her up'. I personally find Hillary and Bill guilty of bribery in regard to their Uranium One dealings, and I find her security breach inexcusable for what she did with her private computer servers. I also can't get over how Crowd Strike took preference over the FBI to examine Hillary's bleached hard drives in her illegally used computers. Then we have the Trump people looking like a celebrity autograph hound standing at the wrong stage door exit waiting to get their play program signed, only to miss their favorite celebrity, because of course they were waiting at the wrong door. In fact the more that comes out about how Trump's people tried to get something on Hillary from the Russians, the more foolish they look for even trying.

There are no good players in any of this. I don't even think this quarrel has anything to do with the average American. This is a fight going on inside of a declining American government. The Empire is collapsing all around these greedy fools who call themselves leaders, and when the dollar does become just another piece of worthless paper, it won't be the fault of anyone other than the current leaders who now run the USofA.

Skip Edwards , October 31, 2017 at 8:29 pm

Yes, the goods are in and you called it like it is; our government is, and has been, corrupt over many many Presidential Administrations and Congresses. The UNITED STATES is a failed experiment in democracy and we have but ourselves to blame. A citizenry who takes no interest or responsibility for Tha actions of its government deserves to die. The funeral is not far off if anyone is remaining to attend, and this time learn from history. In the meantime let's put all these people in jail; starting with the Clinton's.

Kalen , October 31, 2017 at 5:02 pm

Also and most importantly he should be after what was in those emails which describe criminal acts, collusion, coercion and overall corruption in DNC for which many heads already rolled after they were politically guillotined. Selective search for truth is a search for lies.

John Kirsch , October 31, 2017 at 1:12 pm

Excellent article.

Danny Weil , October 31, 2017 at 1:23 pm

This gets dirtier and dirtier everyday.

As an attorney, I can tell you that eyewitness testimony is the worst testimony you can have, for various reasons:

1. People often mistake what they see (Watch 12 Angry Men from 1959, this is a good example)

2. People lie for their own self interests

Without corroborating evidence, in the form of either circumstantial or direct, it is hard to believe what is being put out.

But it is important to note that all good critical thinking requires an openness to new evidence.

This being said, flipping the young aide is not enough.

irina , October 31, 2017 at 5:14 pm

Critical thinking is in short supply these days. I just dropped a class (supposedly) on Circumpolar Social Issues,
because the professor told me that 'the class was geared to young adults' and she did not expect them to engage
in critical thinking, what she was actually looking for was 'condensed regurgitation of the text'. (She used those
exact words, which I had used previously to call her out on her abysmally awful exam). Yikes ! I had no idea there
was an age requirement for critical thinking ! (I found my young kids to be quite good at it, and kept them out of
school so they wouldn't lose that capacity.)

When people end up in social media bubbles, they are engaging with a 'mirror-feedback effect', which disallows
the openness to new evidence required for critical thinking. What we used to call a Catch-22 of sorts . . .

Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 8:12 pm

Danny Weil –

Yes. We watched 12 Angry Men starring Henry Fonda just two weeks ago. Both, one and two of your comments, very true and relevant in this case.

irina , October 31, 2017 at 9:38 pm

We performed that play in high school in about 1970 (the 12 Angry Women version, as there were lots more
females than males interested in being in it). With simple staging, we were able to take it to other area high
schools for performance. Would be a good play to resurrect ! (With a name change to 12 Angry Citizens).

Michael , October 31, 2017 at 1:29 pm

Robert, you have done so much excellent reporting. And you are of course right to be skeptical -- and you raise good questions. But man, doubt should be a screen not a hammer. You write like a defense attorney rather than pursuer of the truth.

Might the Russia/Trump case be overstated? Yes. But it is getting harder and harder to dismiss it.

with respect,

mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:02 pm

It wasn't hard for any truthful person to refute the shabby russiagate lies. Why at you having a problem doing that Michael?

Jonathan Marshall , October 31, 2017 at 1:30 pm

The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. However, the revelations about Papadopolous provide damning (if hearsay) evidence that Russia was behind the email hacking.

Back in the USSR , October 31, 2017 at 1:41 pm

/The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. However, the revelations about Papadopolous provide damning (if hearsay) evidence that Russia was behind the email hacking./

Er, hmm, okay

The "crucial gap" in evidence relates to allegation that the DNC hack was an inside job by a disillusioned Bernie Sanders supporter. However, the revelations about Seth Rich provide damning (if hearsay) evidence that the DNC ordered his execution.

lol

Anna , October 31, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Murder of Seth Rich? Podesta brothers popping up at each step of the investigation as the lobbyists "colluding" with both Russia and Ukraine? Clinton Foundation and the lethal weaponry sales to Saudis? The CIA-arranged delivery of weapons to ISIS on Clinton's watch? http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/ https://www.globalresearch.ca/logistics-101-where-does-isis-get-its-guns/5454726 The Uranium deal with Russia? – Including the $500.000 "speech fee" for the promiscuous Bill – remember Lolita Island, Dershowitz, and Epstein?

mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:07 pm

Please take your "damning (hearsay) evidence somewhere else. There is NO evidence whatever of Russia hacking anything that has been presented – just slurs and innuendos. This site puts a premium on real EVIDENCE.

Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm

Jonathan Marshall –

The U.S. has been openly invading and destroying countries, involved in overthrowing elected leaders – sometimes have them murdered – engaged in destabilizing the countries for regime changes, interfering in their elections, for seven decades now. Have they forgotten what they did in 1996 Russia election and to Russia during 1990's. And here we are discussing a thirty year old Papadopoulos meeting some obscure professor discussing Russia or whatever; and we are endlessly discussing Hillary- Podesta and DNC emails – who leaked it? How low this country has come down to? Can't we see it?

It is a shameful spectacle we are witnessing in this Country. One feels feels sick reading and hearing about about this whole trivial nonsense. Yet the whole Political Establishment and Media are drenched in this sewage for over a year now. No words can describe the complete moral collapse of the Country; collapse of integrity of institutions of law and justice – whatever was left of it. There is no honesty, truth or dignity left – in Journalists and others in Media, Politicians, and other high government functionaries.

Andrew M , October 31, 2017 at 5:15 pm

Dave P, I like and share this big picture view. I do value sites like this (and quality of comment like this) to show it up. The hollowness of the mainstream shell game is being seen by more and more people. The good news is that if we see that the shell game is a losing game we're outside of it. Those "outsiders" are free, if the can grasp hold of it.

irina , October 31, 2017 at 5:16 pm

Judy Woodruff is among the worst offenders. I can't stand to watch/listen to her anymore. Is it true that she is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations ? I read that somewhere.

Skip Edwards , October 31, 2017 at 8:40 pm

We are beginning to see the disgust for the people running the US government by many citizens like yourself. Can "we" salvage enough to keep "our" country whole; or, does this have to be an end but with a new beginning. Maybe a court of law prosecuting the entire bunch, Democrats and Republicans, for crimes against humanity, aka war crimes, and crimes against its citizenry, aka embezzlement, can save "us." The other two branches have certainly failed"us."

Abe , October 31, 2017 at 1:49 pm

George Papadopoulos is directly connected to the pro-Israel Lobby, right wing Israeli political interests, and Israeli government efforts to control regional energy resources.

Papadopoulos' LinkedIn page lists his association with the right wing Hudson Institute. The Washington, D.C.-based think tank part of pro-Israel Lobby web of militaristic security policy institutes that promote Israel-centric U.S. foreign policy.

The Hudson Institute confirmed that Papadopoulos was an intern who left the neoconservative think tank in 2014. In 2014, Papadopoulos authored op-ed pieces in Israeli publications. In an op-ed published in Arutz Sheva, media organ of the right wing Religionist Zionist movement embraced by the Israeli "settler" movement, Papadopoulos argued that the U.S. should focus on its "stalwart allies" Israel, Greece, and Cyprus to "contain the newly emergent Russian fleet".

In another op-ed published in Ha'aretz, Papadopoulos contended that Israel should exploit its natural gas resources in partnership with Cyprus and Greece rather than Turkey.

In November 2015, Papadapalous participated in a conference in Tel Aviv, discussing the export of natural gas from Israel with a panel of current and past Israeli government officials including Ron Adam, a representative of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Eran Lerman, a former Israeli Deputy National Security Adviser.

Israel's coming planned military assault on Lebanon and Syria has a lot to do with natural gas resources, both offshore from Gaza and on land in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights region.

Among its numerous violations of United Nations Resolution 242, Israel annexed the Syrian Golan Heights in 1981.

Geopolitical researcher F. William Engdahl has discussed the energy resources in the Golan Heights, Israel, and Trump
http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO30Mar2017.php

Engdahl notes "we might find ourselves in another war for oil in of all places the Golan Heights, this one a war involving Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah on one side and Israel and Rex Tillerson's 68 nation 'anti-ISIS coalition' on the other side, another senseless war over control of oil."

Abe , October 31, 2017 at 2:06 pm

"US policymakers have stated multiple times that before war with Iran can be pursued directly, both Syria and Hezbollah must be weakened first. A war with Lebanon thus could be a means to either directly lead into direct conflict with Tehran, or as a means of preparing for one in the near or intermediate future.

"Immediate Peace and Stability vs. Constant and Perpetual War

"What is clear is that the 2015 Russian intervention in Syria along with Iran's growing influence in the region has rolled back attempts by the US and its partners to reassert control over the Middle East they have sought since the Cold War. With a new multipolar coalition of emerging regional and global powers, US dreams of hegemony will be increasingly more difficult to achieve [ ]

"Lebanon has been a battlefield in the past the US has used as a vector toward greater regional conflict. Its ability or inability to create conflict there again, directly or through Israel, and that conflict's ability or inability to drag Iran, Syria and other players in directly, will determine the outlook for America's wider agenda in the region."

Lebanon Next in US War on Middle East
By Ulson Gunnar
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/10/lebanon-next-in-us-war-on-middle-east.html

Abe , October 31, 2017 at 4:28 pm

The fake "citizen investigative journalists" team at Bellingcat are busy on the case with more of their signature "creative Googling".

This time it's a photograph of Papadopoulos in London
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2017/10/31/new-george-papadopoulos-photograph-actually-years-old/

The "online investigations" propaganda operation at Bellingcat site very much includes the comments section of the site. Don't expect Bellingcat to perform any actual journalism or substantive investigation. The function of the Atlantic Council's Bellingcat site is to serve as a propaganda channel for "fake news" and "alternative facts".

Knomore , October 31, 2017 at 2:20 pm

A sardine is hauled in and the big fish swim away. This story seems to suggest either massive chutzpah on the part of the Clinton campaign or stupidity fueled by desperation. That they would allow Mueller's investigation to go forward when they were sitting on a mountain of graft, collusion and other malfeasance (i.e., uranium sold to Russia for among other things half a million straight into Billl's pocket) all of it, really quite amazing.

We got two uniformly bad candidates in the 2016 elections, both of whom were/are ardent supporters of Israel. How did that happen? And Paul Manafort was indicted for supposedly establishing a relationship with a foreign government that was not covered by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA? And then: When will investigations begin into some of the truly treasonous acts and legislation shepherded by this foreign agent called AIPAC: -- like its interference with Free Speech protections in the US Bill of Rights, and this latest: Something about residents of some town in Texas forced to sign a loyalty pledge in support of Israel in order to receive funds to rebuild their stricken landscape ??? Is Israel putting up the money for disaster relief projects in America? If so, how did this come about?

BobH , October 31, 2017 at 3:58 pm

Knomore, "A sardine is hauled in and the big fish swim away" I think you are anticipating what's likely to happen if/when it does Wikileaks could well drop the other shoe, but Mueller needs to finish his investigation even if it's headed in a bogus direction.

"Speaking of FARA, when is someone in the US government or the totally corrupted and bought-off US Congress going to demand that Israel and AIPAC be registered under FARA?" excellent point and Saudi Arabia should register under FARA as well, for its sinister funding of American think tanks.

Danny Weil , October 31, 2017 at 2:23 pm

From the World Socialist Web Site:"

31 October 2017
Three months ago, the World Socialist Web Site published its first exposé documenting Google's blacklisting of the WSWS and other left-wing websites. It warned that Google's actions were part of a sweeping campaign, coordinated with the US government, media and intelligence agencies, to censor the Internet.

The period since this initial exposure has seen this campaign develop with extraordinary speed, as the Democratic Party, working with major media outlets, uses unsubstantiated allegations of Russian "hacking" of the 2016 election to mount a drive to criminalize political opposition within the United States. What is involved is nothing less than the greatest attack on the First Amendment since the Second World War

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/10/31/pers-o31.html

mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:12 pm

Yes, Our freedom of speech is under serious attack by the oligarchic fascist oppressors within America. They fear truth more than anything.

Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 2:24 pm

It's mind blowing to see my liberal friends fall for all the Russophobic nonsense. Mueller's indeed on a witch hunt. Try telling that to your Maddow brainwashed liberal colleagues, sheesh.

Go after Trump for the right reasons! Not for phony baloney that puts the world on nuclear brinkmanship!

Dmitri , October 31, 2017 at 3:10 pm

Trump provided them a very good reason to impeach him when last April he ordered an attack on Syria in violation of both international law (an attack on a sovereign country that posed no threat to the US) and the US law (a use of military force without Congress authorization). But no, they all approved this illegal action!

mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:13 pm

Exactly right Drew.

Stephen , October 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm

It appears that this whole thing is the Democrats version of the "birther" claims some Republicans hung onto for years. I suppose I could be wrong but if they had solid evidence you would see it thirty times a day like when they showed the twin towers falling thirty times a day.
The Puerto Rico disaster is good enough reason to go after Trump but I suppose the lily white Democratic elites don't care about Puerto Ricans anymore than does Trump.

Dave P. , October 31, 2017 at 3:55 pm

Drew Hunkins – Yes. Very true.

Andrew , October 31, 2017 at 2:43 pm

I think there is a clear evidence that Trump's camp reached out to Russia. Whether the Russians did anything to help Trump (e.g., DNC hack) is a different story. More than likely not.

mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:15 pm

Since when was "reaching out to Russia" a crime? This is just Orwellian word demonizing BS.

Andrew , October 31, 2017 at 3:32 pm

Lying to federal investigator is. Contrary to a popular belief, stupid is a crime.

witters , October 31, 2017 at 9:29 pm

Andrew, how long did you get?

Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 4:37 pm

Exactly mike k. Right now we need doves in Washington (if there are any left) trying their damnedest to have a dialogue with Moscow. Just very recently the imbecilic Pence was at a nuclear launch site in Minot ND pontificating to media and personnel who were present about how they should be fully prepared to launch! This is preposterous and dangerous lunacy.

Washington has been virtually taken over by a militaristic-Zionist cabal and its currently dead set on destabilizing relationships among nuclear powers. The demonization towards the Kremlin at a time when the major media are fomenting a witch hunt atmosphere is breathtaking to behold.

That liberals -- in their hatred of the big bad Trumpenstein -- are going along with this terrifying group think is one of the more irrational and incredible dynamics I've ever witnessed in my decades of following the politico-economic scene.

Hate Trump for the right reasons. Don't fall for a Paul Singer, Bill Kristol, et. al., orchestrated propaganda campaign.

Fitzgerald said the mark of a true intellectual is to hold two opposing views in one's mind at the simultaneously and maintain the ability to function.

Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 4:49 pm

Whoops garbled my last paragraph:

hold two opposing views in one's mind simultaneously and maintain the ability to function.

The editor regrets the error.

Mark Thomason , October 31, 2017 at 2:48 pm

The statement of charge does not set out meetings of the sort that need to be proved.

It does suggest that the guy has been cooperating against others, "proactive" about it too as in wearing a wire.

It tells us to expect more, of a particular sort. That is the real importance, not what it spells out.

fudmier , October 31, 2017 at 3:00 pm

Russia gate: another Divide and Conquer (D&C) staged propaganda bit. Here we go again! Good report.
Look @ well researched https://isgp-studies.com/ explains how massively embedded criminal networks use the awesome powers and resources of salaried government to deprive the non salaried governed 99% (basically the video entranced barnyard hosted citizens) of their quality of life and peace of mind. Suggest to study the ISGP site carefully; refer to it often as it reveals a wealth of organized criminal activities and demonstrates just how difficult it promises to be to maintain a human rights oriented integrity in government. Unless the government is audited by the governed, and state secrets of any kind for any reason are eliminated progress will never happen.

____Abe's citation of Engdahl => "we might find ourselves in another war for oil in of all places the Golan Heights, this one a war involving Syria, Russia, Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah on one side and Israel and Rex Tillerson's 68 nation 'anti-ISIS coalition' on the other side, another senseless war over control of oil."" suggest Tillerson s\b taken seriously, as should the looming anticipation that the anti-Assad (Syrian belligerent invaders) still plan to use false flag poison gas ops to bring down Assad, and to destroy Syria, this time it seems to be in USA backed occupied Allepo, Syria ( see. https://friendsofsyria.wordpress.com/ ). Its all about oil and gas; take a look at the LNG oil and gas seaports' in America. then ask yourselves .. who, where, why and when and what happens to 100 trillion private dollar investment if the LNG business plan fails? ). Nothing will change until the video entranced barnyard humanity is allowed to see the facts outside of false narrative propaganda. Could the solution to better government and the elimination of war be as simple as being sure everyone in the world has easy, accurately translated, access to unbiased, reliable news and information? probably not, some means to get the barnyard critters to understand it would be needed.

michael lacey , October 31, 2017 at 3:02 pm

How long is this BS going to continue! Maybe we could produce a narrative on how the United States interfere in elections globally; we do not have to dig that deep!
As usual good article

mike k , October 31, 2017 at 3:17 pm

The BS will continue until we find enough ways to stop it. This site is one way. Truth is the antidote to lies.

Jay , October 31, 2017 at 3:21 pm

"George Papadopoulos, a 30-year-old campaign aide who claims to have heard about Russia possessing Hillary Clinton's emails before they became public on the Internet, mostly via WikiLeaks."

Respectfully: No one but Benghazi "gate" pushers care about Hillary Clinton's emails.

The leaked DNC emails and the very likely leaked Podesta emails on the other hand are of grave concern, since they show the DNC conspiring against the Sanders nomination.

In short: Who cares what Papadopoulos has to say about Hillary emails, they're not really the subject the "Russian hacking" claims.

Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Since "they" (Papadopoulos) never saw the e-mails (or any e-mails) it's impossible to know which tranche of e-mails was (allegedly) offered and there are several known collections/leaks/hacks, as well as possibly still unknown collections . making it even more murky.

As needs to be remembered, even if an "insider" downloaded and leaked e-mails, that does not preclude a hack and a hack does not preclude a leak (or multiple leaks or hacks).

Caitlin Johnson does some nice unpacking of the -- often faulty -- assumptions about meeting dates as they relate to published e-mails https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/why-george-papadopoulos-is-as-insignificant-as-paul-manafort-b964ff3d3d37

She also reminds us that the first big WikiLeaks "Clinton e-mails" dump was the result of FOIA request

the mind reels a bit (given the apparent insignificance of these dumps/leaks on public opinion) but:

But there's no reason to believe that the emails in question, if they existed at all, would have been the documents WikiLeaks ended up releasing in October of 2016. Firstly, they could have been not emails from Podesta, but from Hillary Clinton herself. Remember, there were numerous indications that Clinton's server was insecure and may have been hacked by multiple foreign governments, any of which could have gotten them to the Kremlin for use as blackmail following what was at the time believed to be Hillary's inevitable election. Maybe it was the infamous 30,000 emails she deleted, who knows, or any number of possible ways incriminating information can appear in email format. None of these fit into the official Russia/WikiLeaks narrative, however, so Litman made it about Podesta emails.

It would be interesting if the phantom e-mails allegedly offered by "Russians" in February/March were the same "dirt" allegedly offered in that August meeting

The stupidity of those still beating-a-dead-horse wrt Trump's "joke" about the Russians maybe locating / hacking to find the 35,000 Clinton e-mails is beyond all endurance and yet it persists.

Stephen J. , October 31, 2017 at 3:28 pm

I believe if there really was "law and order" in America, there would be massive arrests of those in power and their allies, (Past and present) for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Unfortunately what we are seeing is: The "Posturing of Evil"
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
September 24, 2017
The Posturing of Evil

The posturing of evil is a sight to behold
Purveyors of war crimes that need to be told
Clad in expensive suits, are these well dressed war criminals
Men and women without any morals or principles

So called "leaders" of the human race
They really are a bloody disgrace
Invaders of countries in illegal wars
They are yesterday and today's warmongering whores

Millions are dead because of their atrocious war crimes
Millions are refugees because of their dirty pastime
Creating wars is what these war perverts do
Paid for by compulsory taxes from me and you

Financiers and supporters of terrorists as well
These treasonous villains create more hell
They are hypocrites that talk of, 'the rule of law"
Their lying words should stick in your craw

Countries are destroyed and civil wars rage
This is how the corporate cannibals get paid
Supplying the weapons of death and disaster
Killing innocent victims very much faster

Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and other countries too
Are hell holes of destruction caused by this unholy crew
They parade on the world stage and give unctuous talks
When really most of these criminals should be in the dock

On trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity
Instead they are free and spreading their insanity
They have caused death and destruction and massive upheaval
How much more will people take of this posturing of evil?

[more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/09/the-posturing-of-evil.html

mike k , October 31, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Your poems pack a punch Stephen. They are a treat for truth lovers.

Drew Hunkins , October 31, 2017 at 5:21 pm

The careerism of the "respected" mass media commentators, journalists and talking heads could lead the world to nuclear war. Many of these whores know exactly what they're doing. Many of them know there was no attempt by the Kremlin to "hack" the election or otherwise interfere in the election but they feed the public repetitive nonsense over and over and over again.

That otherwise liberal minded, intelligent people are buying into this dangerous group think is one of the more incredible things I've ever witnessed.

People's critical thinking faculties have left them. Otherwise intelligent people are bereft of critical thinking skills when it comes to the big bad Trumpenstein and it's horrifying to see this all play out.

Attack Trump for the right reasons, NOT because he desire rapprochement with Moscow and dared to suggest the Washington empire should be reined in a bit.

Bill , October 31, 2017 at 5:29 pm

*Trump gets caught on tape discussing the hacking of the DNC with Putin himself, and laughing about how they were going to get Trump the presidency together.*

Robert Parry, probably: "While this would seem to bolster the Russiagate narrative, the media's blowing it out of proportion, and what if it's a fake tape? And what about Hillary!?"

You're truly a stand up guy dude, and I appreciate your journalism, but I think you're kinda biased on this one.

That's not to say you're not correct about MSM intolerance of debate and skepticism. That's absolutely true. Still, I think it's pretty clear what happened here, and that the DNC was indeed hacked. Might not ever get legally proven, but let's be real. That's exactly what this looks like.

Leslie F , October 31, 2017 at 5:42 pm

"Russia-gate special prosecutor Robert Mueller has turned up the heat on President Trump with the indictment of Trump's former campaign manager for unrelated financial crimes and the disclosure of a guilty plea from a low-level foreign policy adviser for lying to the FBI."

Well, there is a conspiracy against the United States charge against Manafort which could mean almost anything like conspiracy to evade taxes which would fit with the money laundering or it could be an attempt to tie him to the dubious Papadapoulos narrative. Papadapoulas has only with charged with lying to the FBI, not with anything that could be called "collusion". Maybe that was the plea agreement or maybe they know the case isn't really there.

ADL , October 31, 2017 at 6:02 pm

Ahh yes Parry's weekly comical defense of the 'man with a plan'. Kinda disappointed tho – I mean usually his columns are headlined with COUP COUP COUP.
Let's see now. Robert Mueller is a hack, won't let poor Parry into his inner circle, and amazingly does not leak or publicize exactly who and what he is investigating. And everything he has learned during such. And Parry takes his weekly shots. Pretty pathetic.

"credibility has already been undermined by his guilty plea' ??????? That is pretty comical yes?

Parry's defense of Papa is incredibly amateurish – he should start screenwriting TV Drama's. According to Parry Mueller should lay out every piece of evidence he has, should try his whole case in his indictment and in the public theater. And have all the evidence within 30 days of investigation or give up. Or better yet just include Parry on his Prosecutor team. But that would not work – from day one Parry has been Trump's #1 defender. Hell, it took Trump praising the KKK in Charlottesville to even get a whimper of outrage out of Parry.

This continual drivel plays out like a desperate person who is completely out of the loop, or better yet a man with a pathological grudge – almost always against NYT and WAPO.
I have no issues with calling out any person, and media. But Parry reads like Hannity or Trump himself. It's embarrassing and not worth the paper written on.

Anon , October 31, 2017 at 7:38 pm

Zionist alert – ADL is the only truth in the comment.

Realist , October 31, 2017 at 6:06 pm

This whole special investigation is like something out of Kafka. It starts with unsubstantiated politically-driven accusations by the opposition party, progresses to a witch hunt to desperately find any evidence against the prime target (Trump), and when that hole proves dry it slouches toward trying to trick and trap peripheral witnesses (Papadopoulos) into making contradictory statements for which they can be indicted for "lying" to federal agents. Or else political or business associates of the target (Manafort) can be pressured and indicted on unrelated offenses. That indictment can then be used as leverage to get the indicted person to turn evidence (whether any exists or not) against the primary target in return for reduced sentences or even pardons. If this useful tool lies further in trying to please his new masters, who cares? Mission accomplished. Before this is over, there will be more kangaroos at large in American courts than on the Australian continent. America is truly a beacon of freedom, democracy and, above all, JUSTICE for the entire world to admire. How utterly exceptional! A country where even its elected president can be railroaded like a common street criminal if it suits those ruling from the shadows. Behold the coup d'etat thrown together with nothing more than smoke and mirrors, vague accusations and strong-arm tactics against witnesses. Sure, Trump is a dumb arrogant jerk, but the characters after his hide are trying to steal the remnant shards we still possess of our constitutional "democracy," republic or whatever you might have called it.

Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 6:08 pm

This has now moved beyond questions of "the hack" and Russia-gate to the meta issues of who will be indicted next and for what they're moving quickly into "it's not the alleged crime (conspiracy**), it's the cover-up" territory which would suggest Flynn is next which would/could be a game changer.

As Clintoni was not impeached because he had sex with Lewinsky, but that he lied during a deposition . Trump could be brought down if multiple aides are willing to testify that he "participated" in the "alleged conspiracy"

** Mentioned recently was that the word/term "collusion" is not a legal one Collusion is not a crime, almost any communication "might" be collusions -- a conspiracy to commit a crime can be/is (though usually it is the crime that is prosecuted, rather than the conspiracy -- see also terrorism prosecutions based on, for example, a person's preparations to travel to X country to fight for jihad, or various "material support" convictions for piddling "support" , waterproof socks anyone?)

Remember also that it's been floated that the FBI's investigation is winding down in advance of being closed -- and that the congressional investigations will likely be hampered by indictments and the legal advice that will be brought to bear.

I'm rather doubtful that Manafort (savvy businessman) would have involved / intermingled his business dealings with reckless and sleazy Donald Trump even if he did buy a condo in Trump tower.

Manafort was brought in to handle the delegates at the convention, to prevent a revolt or other embarrassment from the Never Trump faction(s). He did that, with his long-standing top echelon GOP ties and god knows what else. I'm relatively doubtful he has any smoking gun to trade in a plea bargain and I suspect he has elite friends and backers who will ensure that he (and family) will be taken care of if he's convicted, and -- given the nature of elite prosecutions -- he may have a conviction reversed on appeal and/or be allowed -- once he has solidly refused to be "turned -- to pay massive fines in exchange for a guilty plea.

Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 6:32 pm

note also that as outlined so far, Team Trump never solicited dirt from the Russians -- rather it was either volunteered or dangled wrt the August meeting, possibly as bait in order to "win" a meeting and the offered "gift" of dirt was never either accepted or received

I'm unsure if there is any reality to the implication of some legal responsibility to report such an "offer" of dirt . and yes, the "hypocrisy" of Steele solicitiing and paying for Kremlin dirt may result in another "investigation" again of "collusion"

Anonymot , October 31, 2017 at 6:19 pm

The the U.S. mainstream media opposes Trump, which is very understandable, but it is hard to comprehend why they are so totally unbalanced and unquestioning. Of course, there is a minute number like Fox, but sources that rest on their laurels as center and center left (by US definition) have abandoned any objectivity. Realists are reduced to you and Intercept are all that are left. Even Truthout and RSN, Buzzfeed, and most others act as though Hillary will still be President – or maybe is. I read the Guardia daily, but it just mirrors the NYT. Also Le Monde that is more European centered, but one sees Clintonian America in much of its coverage.

I'm at a loss to understand the why & how the MSM turned to propaganda machines.

Realist , October 31, 2017 at 6:53 pm

I was watching the BBC world news on cable tonight. They are completely in the bag on this rubbish that Putin's Troll factory or somebody (the last of the Bolsheviks, perhaps) posting a piddling number of ads on facebook from allegedly Russian IP addresses (possibly CIA, if you ask me) poisoned the minds of well over a hundred million Americans–probably convincing every one of them to vote for Trump putatively against their self-interests and good judgement. Formerly respectable journalists, IT experts and academics are lending their images and reputations to this idiotic narrative. Apparently, the whole nation got schooled in Putin's treachery before the Congress this afternoon. So, sayeth the expert witnesses. This is Group Think like I've never seen before in my 70 years on this planet. Very distressing that 90+% of Americans can be so mind-controlled and deluded, even those with relevant expertise and an inside track to the facts.

D.H. Fabian , October 31, 2017 at 6:24 pm

Yes, and from the very start, the Clintonites began spinning this situation into the anti-Russian Tale. Most likely, it will be years before the excessive propaganda and counter-propaganda of 2017 is sorted out.

Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 7:03 pm

I have to wonder about a Nuland/Kagan Ukranian foundation as I began to wonder in the last few days if the existing (quite likely partisan) investigations of Manafort going back years, were used to piggyback the sliming of Trump last summer the rejoicing when Manafort resigned was rather disproportionate (given he'd only been in the job for 3 months), possibly vindictive (but wrt what?) particularly given the varied Biden and McCain and Podesta interests in that same small Ukrainian pond (Crimea, Crimea, Crimea!!!!!)

Doubt Clinton wrote all those Russian/Trump talking points by herself and the mythos of Putin as militarily aggressive/existential threat also arises and is referred back to the Ukraine (because Syria really isn't some credible base of power/sphere of influence, while the treat to nato countries is "golden" and "evergreen").

Seriously impressive how the wishes of the people of Crimea (and Eastern Ukraine) are discounted, erased ..

Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 7:19 pm

Fwiw, my thought at the time, was that Clinton was "priming the pump" (manufacturing consent) for an extremely assertive out-of-the gate foreign policy assault on Russia/Putin (now that pokey cowardly Obama was out of the way)

In any event, yes, Clinton's anti-Putin/Russia campaign and Trump/Russian money ties -- iirc -- began long before the alleged DNC hack piggybacking reweaving the "narrative"?

Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 8:01 pm

seriously .honest I have zero Russian "connection" but just discovered Lavrov, per RT, is suggesting that Mueller probe Manifort's Ukraine connections

https://www.rt.com/news/408371-lavrov-ukrainian-trace-us-investigation/

It's always been curious how many of Manifort's "Russian connections" weren't "Russian" Ukraine, Khazikstan, other ex-USSR satellites with oligarchs of their own

It should be noted the Manifort is a despicable human being who (very successfully and for a lot of money) does PR work for "bad people" while the USA officially, successfully, compellingly, does the same for financial and other favors (KSA, Duerte, even Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran)

Jessejean , October 31, 2017 at 8:24 pm

Susan–I totally agree with you. I thought the same thing last Nov. and was sure the effing First Woman President would have us in a shooting war with Russia before Christmas if she were elected. I'd love to see Robert The Great do a complete analysis of Russia gate, starting with Lybia, Syria, Ukraine (and Nuland), including the Sons Podesta just to see what the web looks like objectively. Put Killery and Saudi Arabia in the middle of that web and hey presto, we could fire Mueller with no loss of the truth.

Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 9:46 pm

Not so funny -- but -- I largely accepted that Hilary Clinton would be the next president that the failure of some upsurge of resistance to Obama suggested that "Democrats" were going to ratify Obama (as devastatingly disappointing as he was) and kick-it-up-a-notch being more interventionalist, more in-your-face aggressive.

Never occurred to me that Sanders was anything more than a sheepdog, keeping those adorably idealistic Obama army "kids" in their blue shirts, keeping them from defecting from the Blue Team.

The lack of polling is becoming conspicuous, imho. Slavoj Zizek has become a punchline (at least in the USA/UK universe) because (imho) he raises uncomfortable issues wrt to reconciling long-standing ideals with realities (political and physical) While "we" have our differences, I am appalled by the wide-spread de-platforming that (unlike Facebook and Twitter demographics) is un-graphed and ignored . that censorship by neglect, indifference, silent lack of regard .. erosion of even the intellectual pretence of curiosity and/or open mindedness.

Lois Gagnon , October 31, 2017 at 7:48 pm

Don't ask me why, but I suspect this insanity is going to drag on for another 3 years. If we live that long. I wouldn't mind if I thought it would keep the insiders from doing their worst damage to us and everyone else on the planet, but I'm sure they'll use the distraction to get away with as much criminal behavior as they can. Collapsing Empire is not a pretty sight.

Susan Sunflower , October 31, 2017 at 8:48 pm

be scared .. from Slate/Dahlia Litwick apparently Manifort and Gates have been denied Attorney Client Privilege (not entirely unprecedented, but shall we say in this case dubious, scary) -- this is a financial crimes case no exigent circumstances, not "criminal" as in "violent criminality" or imminent danger to anyone (I suspect they are "afraid" of being out-lawyered, out-maneuvered)

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/10/why_a_judge_ruled_paul_manafort_isn_t_entitled_to_attorney_client_privilege.html

[Oct 31, 2017] DemocRAT Ezra Klain celebrates Mueller achievements

Notable quotes:
"... At the very least, it seems that they would have to prove that Russia committed some sort of crime, and Trump was somehow complicit in that. Based on what has been publicly revealed, I have doubts that they would be prove anything related to what has been alleged. The more likely outcome, if they're going to get Trump, is that some other unrelated crimes surface during the course of the investigation. Given the scope of his business enterprises, that wouldn't be all that surprising. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

lyman alpha blob , October 31, 2017 at 6:10 pm

Fun new game created by Ezra Klein –

Two things are true about the indictments unsealed by special counsel Bob Mueller Monday:

-They don't provide a "smoking gun" proving collusion between Donald Trump's operation and Russia.
-They make it almost impossible to believe that there wasn't collusion between Trump's operation and Russia.

The trick is you can replace the first bullet point with anything and it still works if you're a DemocRAT.

Let's try –

They don't provide a smoking gun proving that aliens built the pyramids out of gorgonzola cheese, but they make it almost impossible to believe there wasn't collusion between Trump's operation and Russia.

Fun for the whole family! And way to go Ezra Klein – it's like a new 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

voteforno6 , October 31, 2017 at 6:31 pm

I've been wondering – what do they think that they can actually prove in court? What crime(s) do they believe Trump committed? At the very least, it seems that they would have to prove that Russia committed some sort of crime, and Trump was somehow complicit in that. Based on what has been publicly revealed, I have doubts that they would be prove anything related to what has been alleged. The more likely outcome, if they're going to get Trump, is that some other unrelated crimes surface during the course of the investigation. Given the scope of his business enterprises, that wouldn't be all that surprising.

[Oct 31, 2017] That Other Plot -- to Bring Down Trump by Patrick Buchanan

Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free election.
Notable quotes:
"... What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who was so wired into Russian intelligence? ..."
"... Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free election. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.realclearpolitics.com

Well over a year after the FBI began investigating "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin, Special Counsel Robert Mueller has brought in his first major indictment.

Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort has been charged with a series of crimes dating back years, though none is tied directly to President Donald Trump or 2016.

With a leak to CNN that indictments were coming, Mueller's office stole the weekend headlines. This blanketed the explosive news on a separate front, as the dots began to be connected on a bipartisan plot to bring down Trump that began two years ago.

And like "Murder of the Orient Express," it seems almost everyone on the train had a hand in the plot.

The narrative begins in October 2015.

Then it was that the Washington Free Beacon, a neocon website, engaged a firm of researchers called Fusion GPS to do deep dirt-diving into Trump's personal and professional life -- and take him out.

A spinoff of Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard, the Beacon is run by his son-in-law. And its Daddy Warbucks is the GOP oligarch and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.

From October 2015 to May 2016, Fusion GPS dug up dirt for the neocons and never-Trumpers. By May, however, Trump had routed all rivals and was the certain Republican nominee.

So the Beacon bailed, and Fusion GPS found two new cash cows to finance its dirt-diving -- the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

To keep the sordid business at arm's length, both engaged the party's law firm of Perkins Coie. Paid $12.4 million by the DNC and Clinton campaign, Perkins used part of this cash hoard to pay Fusion GPS.

Here is where it begins to get interesting.

In June 2016, Fusion GPS engaged a British spy, Christopher Steele, who had headed up the Russia desk at MI6, to ferret out any connections between Trump and Russia.

Steele began contacting old acquaintances in the FSB, the Russian intelligence service. And the Russians began to feed him astonishing dirt on Trump that could, if substantiated, kill his candidacy.

Among the allegations was that Trump had consorted with prostitutes at a Moscow hotel, that the Kremlin was blackmailing him, that there was provable collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In memos from June to October 2016, Steele passed this on to Fusion GPS, which passed it on to major U.S. newspapers. But as the press was unable to verify it, they declined to publish it.

Steele's final product, a 35-page dossier, has been described as full of "unsubstantiated and salacious allegations."

Steele's research, however, had also made its way to James Comey's FBI, which was apparently so taken with it that the bureau considered paying Steele to continue his work. About this "astonishing" development, columnist Byron York of the Washington Examiner quotes Sen. Chuck Grassley:

"The idea that the FBI and associates of the Clinton campaign would pay Mr. Steele to investigate the Republican nominee for president in the run-up to the election raises ... questions about the FBI's independence from politics, as well as the Obama administration's use of law enforcement and intelligence agencies for political ends."

The questions begin to pile up. What was the FBI's relationship with the British spy who was so wired into Russian intelligence?

Did the FBI use the information Steele dug up to expand its own investigation of Russia-Trump "collusion"? Did the FBI pass what Steele unearthed to the White House and the National Security Council?

Did the Obama administration use the information from the Steele dossier to justify unmasking the names of Trump officials that had been picked up on legitimate electronic intercepts?

In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed they did not know that Perkins Coie had enlisted Fusion GPA or the British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. Yet, when Podesta testified, the lawyer sitting beside him in the committee room was Marc Elias of Perkins Coie, who had engaged Fusion GPS and received the fruits of Steele's undercover work. Here one is tempted to cite Bismarck that, if you wish to enjoy politics or sausages, you should not inquire too closely how they are made.

Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free election.

If future revelations demonstrate that this is what went down, it is not only the White House that has major problems.

If you wish to know why Americans detest politics and hate the "swamp" that has been made of their capital city, follow this story all the way to its inevitable end. It will be months of unfolding.

The real indictment here is of the American political system, and the true tragedy is the decline of the Old Republic.

[Oct 31, 2017] Tony Podesta stepping down from lobbying giant amid Mueller probe. The threat of serving hard time for failing to disclose foreign lobbying work is rattling Washingtons multi-billion dollar influence industry

Oct 31, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

New Cold War

A sampler of punditry:

"Thus we have Free Beacon neocons, never-Trump Republicans, the Hillary Clinton campaign, the DNC, a British spy and comrades in Russian intelligence, and perhaps the FBI, all working with secret money and seedy individuals to destroy a candidate they could not defeat in a free election" [Patrick Buchanan, Real Clear Politics ].

"It sure looks like there was collusion between the Trump operation and Russia" [Ezra Klein, Vox ]. "Two things are true about the indictments unsealed by special counsel Bob Mueller Monday: They don't provide a "smoking gun" proving collusion between Donald Trump's operation and Russia. They make it almost impossible to believe that there wasn't collusion between Trump's operation and Russia."

"Hillary Clinton Shouldn't Go Away. She Should Embrace Her Role as Trump's Nemesis." [Jeet Heer, The New Republic ]. "With the Mueller investigation now besieging Trump, there's no better time for Clinton to deploy her special gift of enraging Trump. More than any other politician, she can speak to the legitimacy crisis in his government, and the success of her bestselling memoir What Happened proves that there is a vast audience eager to listen." Please kill me now.

"It is surely a scandal, and not just in the political sense, when the former chairman of a presidential campaign is indicted for work related to a corrupt foreign government. At the same time, it's important to remember that Paul Manafort's indictment is not evidence that President Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election" [Editorial Board, Bloomberg ].

* * *

"How Manafort lost $600,000 in a shell company the government now says was used for money laundering" [Francine McKenna, MarketWatch ]. The shell company was Lilred. "Lilred is an investment vehicle that was set up by Manafort to invest in a strategy that involved stripping the interest payments from a group of high-yield Ginnie Mae insured mortgages to create a collateralized mortgage obligation. Investors could buy those CMO securities, on margin, and use the high-yield interest payments to service the debt and capture a positive difference between the interest rates, or spread." They call it an investment vehicle because it's designed to drive off with your money

"Tony Podesta stepping down from lobbying giant amid Mueller probe" [ Politico ] Whoopsie. That was fast.

"Washington's Legions Of Lobbyists See Danger In Special Counsel's Indictment Of Manafort" [ Buzzfeed ]. "The threat of serving hard time for failing to disclose foreign lobbying work is rattling Washington's multi-billion dollar influence industry following Monday's 12-count indictment against Donald Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates. And although the charges have largely been seen as a blow to the White House, Monday's actions by special prosecutor Robert Mueller also sent shivers down the spines of Washington's lobbyists, both Democrats and Repulicans."

The mysterious (and 30-year-old) Papadopoulos: "[C]ourt documents unsealed by the special counsel's office on Monday show that he was in communication with the highest-ranking officials on the campaign" [ RealClearPolitics ]. "Papadopoulos came to the Trump campaign in March of 2016 with little experience in the foreign policy realm compared to advisers on more traditional campaigns. Trump's unconventional campaign did not attract the high-level foreign policy experts typically drawn to presidential contenders . [T[he lack of a substantial foreign policy team created risks, some that might be coming back to bite him." And: "[I]t's the final footnote of the special counsel's now-unsealed document on Papadopoulos that has all sides interested, and likely concerned: 'Following his arrest, defendant PAPADOPOULOS met with the Government on numerous occasions to provide information and answer questions.'"

Realignment and Legitimacy

"Autopsy: The​ ​Democratic​ ​Party​ ​in​ ​Crisis" (PDF) [ Karen Bernal, Pia Gallegos, Sam McCann, Norman Solomon ]. Fun stuff, especially since the DCCC buried theirs . (This comes from a Nation article , but you might as well just read the real thing.)

[Oct 31, 2017] What Do Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Dick Cheney, Oprah Winfrey, Erin Brockovich, Stephen Hawking, Harrison Ford, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Jon Krakauer, Michelle Obama, Dan Rathers, Malcolm Gladwell, and Yours Truly Have in Common? Smeared by a Soros-Funded Think Tank for Appearing on RT

Acute case of projection
Notable quotes:
"... But the point of the McCarthyism more than anything has been to scare respectable people away from so much as appearing on RT. It's worked, because our spooks know that Americans with media ambitions are easily frightened by anything that can hurt their social capital. ..."
"... Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now? ..."
"... So that leaves Russia only entity in the world (that can) can justify the supercarriers at $10B a pop . that white elephant called the F35 revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list goes on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab ..."
"... There is a Russian joke that goes something like this: "We learned that everything Pravda told us about the Soviet Union was a lie. And that everything they told us about the West was true." ..."
"... The world is awash with petty tyrants and compromised magicians. The hordes of invented organizations, reliably do the opposite (contrary) of what their name says. Thus "European Values" really means "North Korean Police State Hellhole". ..."
"... The biggest thing that struck me though, was an assumption that was so pervasive throughout that it was never explicitly stated: Criticism of an entity makes that entity weaker. This strikes me as both profoundly unscientific and undemocratic. Any think tank advancing arguments on this basis is advertising itself as an instrument of propaganda over critical thinking and rigorous analysis. ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The New McCarthyite program of demonizing anyone and anything associated with Russia continues apace. A Soros-funded think tank called European Values has put out a screed (no exaggeration, read the hyperventilating tone of the "report") which has as its major aim chilling the participation of guest speakers on RT, per its title, The Kremlin's Platform for 'Useful Idiots' in the West .

This self-styled think tank posted a list of people who had appeared on RT on a series of its shows since 2013. Despite its claims of being comprehensive, the former producer of the RT show Boom Bust, Ed Harrison, quickly identified some names that were missing, and I am sure if he thought further, he could come up with more.

The list is so lengthy and includes so many highly respected people that I doubt including will hurt them in any way. But some were mighty annoyed anyhow:

I didn't read the list as carefully as I could (see this spreadsheet , and notice it has lots of categories), plus my selection was admittedly personal. These names caught my eye:

  • Anat Admati
  • Dan Alpert
  • Kofi Annan
  • John Authers
  • James Baker
  • Bruce Bartlett
  • Bill Black
  • Hans Blix
  • Russell Brand
  • Sherrod Brown
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Richard Borosage
  • Erin Brockovich
  • Pierce Brosnan
  • Helen Clark
  • Dick Cheney
  • Andrew Cockburn
  • William D. Cohan
  • Jeremy Corbyn
  • Russell Crowe
  • Ann Coulter
  • Satyajit Das
  • David Davies
  • Richard Dawkins
  • John Dean
  • Alan Dershowitz
  • Barry Eichengreen
  • Jesse Eisenger
  • Keith Ellison
  • Nigel Farage
  • Harrison Ford
  • Morgan Freeman
  • Malcolm Gladwell
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Mikhail Gorbachev
  • Bob Graham
  • Amy Goodman
  • Germaine Greer
  • Tulsi Gabbard
  • Stephen Hawking
  • Seymour Hersh
  • Katrina vanden Heuvel
  • Mark Halperin
  • David Igantius
  • Laura Ingram
  • Jeremy Irons
  • Gary Johnson
  • Neil Kinnock
  • Naomi Klein
  • Jon (they spelled it John) Krakauer
  • Jesse Jackson
  • Kerry Kennedy
  • Les Leopold
  • Michael Lind
  • Chris Matthews
  • John Mauldin
  • Ralph Nader
  • Michelle Obama
  • Nomi Prins
  • Yasmin Qureshi
  • Barry Ritholtz
  • Dan Rather
  • Jacob Rees-Mogg
  • Robert Reich
  • Jim Rogers
  • Kevin Rudd
  • Donald Rumsfeld
  • Paul Ryan
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Lee Sheppard
  • Ben Stein
  • Jill Stein
  • Gloria Steinem
  • Matt Taibbi
  • Nassim Nicholas Taleb
  • Jean-Claude Trichet
  • Mike Tyson
  • Cenk Uygur
  • Dick Van Dyke
  • Yanis Varoufakis
  • Evangelos Venizelos
  • Denzel Washington
  • Marcy Wheeler
  • Oprah Winfrey
  • Bob Woodward

The irony here is that I appear to have been picked up for what were my last appearances on RT, mainly on Ed Harrison's Boom Bust show. As much as I like Ed and enjoyed that the interviews were six to ten minutes (leisurely by TV standards), I quit doing pretty much all TV (save Bill Moyers' show) because it was a lot of work for little payoff. First, they tend to ask you to appear the same day and spout off, which never works for me (I am too time stressed to drop everything and fit an appearance into my schedule). Second, you have to do some research perp. Third, for the level of TV I was invited to do, I would have to go to a remote studio. That means you do your own hair and makeup. Women have to use specialized makeup for high def camera (different foundations, more like paint primer, requires use of bronzers and blush, and hooker level eye liner). It takes 20 minutes to do it if you don't screw up the liner. Even in studios (where the makeup artists do it and they know the lighting, so they know were they can do less v. more), it's a bare minimum of ten minutes for them, more like 15-20. Fourth, you have to transit time to and from the studio and you need to get there at least 15 minutes before the "hit time".

So it's a minimum of a three hour time sink all in, which is longer than it takes to do a post. And while readers liked seeing me on TV, I didn't get new readers this way. The audiences for the shows to which I'd be invited were not all that large and overlapped heavily with my existing audience.

And as for the productiveness of this attack on RT, which no matter what you think of RT, is an attack on the First Amendment. On one level, it won't dent any of the reputations of the individuals named, since with so many prestigious names across such a wide range of positions, being on this list is in practice meaningless. But it will still have a chilling effect on RT's ability to attract guests, at least in the US. As Ed Harrison pointed out:

Even if we expose this move for the McCarthyism it is, the blacklist will still have its intended impact by putting a chill on RT's ability to get guests. EVERYONE will think twice before appearing on the network. The damage has been done.

And as Mark Ames confirmed:

But the point of the McCarthyism more than anything has been to scare respectable people away from so much as appearing on RT. It's worked, because our spooks know that Americans with media ambitions are easily frightened by anything that can hurt their social capital.

But the perverse bit is, that as John Helmer pointed out in previous reporting, and the the think tank study confirmed, RT's audience in puny. So why should anyone care if it has no real reach? From Helmer via e-mail, who has been blacklisted by RT for reporting on how it exaggerated the size of its audience:

Rag picking is a sorry task, but occasionally there are gems to be salvaged [the screenshots are from the think tank report]:

In short, this is evidence, again, of the self-sucking icecream. RT is an audience failure. In order to earn its budget from the Kremlin, it used to rely on trickery in Nielsen and other survey manipulation, fabricated data, bots, etc. For example, Nielsen told me in 2009, when I investigated, that because RT places its service on hotel room televisions, the audience count includes every guest who turns on the TV set in the hotel room. It apparently didn't occur this moron to speak to Nielsen.

When I ran this story in Asia Times – http://johnhelmer.net/black-hole-television-how-the-little-pigs-lie-to-the-big-bad-wolf/ – [RT editor-in-chief Margarita] Simonyan issued a lawfirm libel threat until AT agreed to give her a large interview space in which to damn everything I had done. Peter Lavelle, now the "anchor" for RT's John McLaughlin-mimic show, telephoned because he was terrified Simonyan would realize I had been talking to him by telephone and by email.

Nowadays, no trickery is needed. The USG, the US media, Pomerantz, Edward Lucas et al., all do the job of promotion for RT – so Putin is convinced, and [Press Secretary Dmitry] Peskov grows rich. Simonyan too.

So while this little hit piece on potential RT guests will probably be effective, at least in the US, in hurting RT's ability to produce credible content, it will increase its appearance of effectiveness and hence its funding. So this may not net out to be a negative and could still over time be a net plus for RT.

And that's before we get to the fact that some individuals who don't like intimidation campaigns, such as Russell Brand and Nicholas Nassim Taleb, having some sport with this, particularly since many of the people on this list have much bigger megaphones than the think tank shooting at them.

Put it another way: this sort of report is not the product of a confident ruling class. It's far too easy to blame a legitimacy crisis on outside agents when the fault lies in decades of neglecting the most fundamental responsibility of leadership: that of making a serious effort to assure the welfare of ordinary people. Even if one were to believe the barmy thesis that RT has damaged the US body politic, it's because the the rot is so widespread that takes only a minuscule dose of PR to further weaken the foundations.

Wukchumni , October 31, 2017 at 7:22 am

Then: Useful Idiots

Now: Useful Vidiots

I grew up in the era of Pravda/Tass, and you got used to the Soviet Premier winning with 99.43% of the vote, and it was certainly news to me that the Russians had invented baseball, as they claimed.

But that was the game then-the communists lied all the time, stupid fabrications not for the audience beyond it's borders, it was strictly for domestic consumption. Hitting people over the head with the same tales enough so it sunk in, so as to be truth.

Here in the west, we were by no means saintly, but by mostly being open about things, we were leagues more truthful, in yet another aspect of the Bizarro World existence capitalism & communism had with one another.

But that was then and this is now, and Fox seems to have taken the Pravda angle and gussied it up so as to appeal to the masses, and despite so many other media outlets available to the public (unlike in the USSR) their model worked to a charm, and now our Premier gets his news from them and often repeats it verbatim.

We're in obviously an odd time, and a which hunt atmosphere is taking hold, witness the all of the sudden issue with sexual harassment that's gone as far as including a President in his 90's in a wheelchair as the perps, along with the usual Hollywood types. Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now?

Arizona Slim , October 31, 2017 at 9:29 am

Why expose them now? Because it distracts the rubes from the root cause of the elites' legitimacy crisis.

Thank you, Yves, for identifying that root cause.

Wukchumni , October 31, 2017 at 10:14 am

In the Soviet Union, the 'tell' when something happened they wanted to squelch news of, was a steady diet of classical music on the radio airwaves.

urdsama , October 31, 2017 at 1:38 pm

I'm confused; how does the Weinstein matter have anything to do with Yves' post?

I'd like to think that reports of women being assaulted and raped by a powerful Hollywood figure, (and now male teenagers with the Spacey revelations) would be an important matter to report on and bring to light.

To imply that such actions are being taken "Because it distracts the rubes from the root cause of the elites' legitimacy crisis" seems flawed when the person being called out is considered one of those elites.

Should those women continue to suffer in silence because the timing is inconvenient?

flora , October 31, 2017 at 2:43 pm

Just my opinion, but I think the point is to get everyone panic running, by whatever interest point/shocking story might get them running. Once everyone is panic running, for whatever reason, they can all be "herded" into the preferred corral/poltical conclusion by careful MSM media manipulation – which has been used to get them running in the first place. imo.
Sexual harrasment/abuse is a serious issue, but it's not a new issue.

djrichard , October 31, 2017 at 10:35 am

Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now?

I'm assuming it's because one can't throw rocks in glass houses. Or flip that around. Rather they are throwing rocks in glass houses and to show their even handedness, they're taking aim at themselves as well. I guess it establishes their bonafides when it comes to throwing rocks.

More importantly, I think it re-enforces their bonafides for being the arbiter of what's "normal". See CJ Hopkins on this theme: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/10/20/tomorrow-belongs-to-the-corporatocracy/ .

This also manifests itself when language is invoked about various parties being irredeemable: see Clinton's comments on deplorables. Or various parties not being repentant: see media comments on John Kelly regarding his comments on Wilson.

urdsama , October 31, 2017 at 1:31 pm

"Apparently everybody seemed to know about Harvey's perversion proclivities for decades, why expose him and others of their preying ilk now?"

This would be the reason:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/10/jodi_kantor_on_how_she_broke_the_harvey_weinstein_story.html

That and social media.

While long overdue, I'm not sure why this being exposed now is an issue.

wellclosed , October 31, 2017 at 7:44 am

Geezis F.C. Guantanamo is going to have to be updated and expanded to the whole state of North Dakota to accommodate the quarantine of those thusly infected – while the crack PropOrNot Medical Unit develops its GetYourMindRight vaccine.

dearieme , October 31, 2017 at 7:56 am

I must say that I wouldn't care to be associated with a Cheney or a Kennedy. But I wouldn't mind being associated with Tulsi Gabbard (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

But seriously, this hysterical anti-Russian stuff reminds me that many Americans must be completely indifferent to the rest of the world thinking them crooks and fools.

The Rev Kev , October 31, 2017 at 8:04 am

Boris Johnson must be part of this mob as he too has attacked people that appeared on RT. He attacked Labour MPs for appearing on this program recently ( https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4709175/boris-johnson-slams-rt-then-finds-out-his-dad-went-on-air/ ) only to discover too late that not only were several Tory MPs also on this program but also recently his dad as well – do'h!
For those unaware of who Boris Johnson is and what he looks like, imagine Donald Trump but with unkempt hair instead of styled hair.

Nervous, north of 49th. , October 31, 2017 at 8:26 am

The corporate funded Democrats and Republicans are playing a two-man con game against the American people. One runs up the deficits with tax cuts to the rich, the other cuts social spending to balance the books, and both are in favour of endless war.

When people start to take notice – "Look! Over there! A Russian conspiracy!!"

divadab , October 31, 2017 at 9:01 am

My approach is simple – look at who is ginning up this anti-Russia hysteria, and know that they are the enemy. Corrupt scum who lie as a matter of habit.

flora , October 31, 2017 at 9:28 am

Soros has a list, right there in his pocket .

But what I heard is that Soros is trying to distract everyone while he prepares to short the Euro.* /s

On a more serious note I think Harrison and Ames are right.

-- -- -- –
*This is a snark based on history.
https://priceonomics.com/the-trade-of-the-century-when-george-soros-broke/

Arizona Slim , October 31, 2017 at 9:31 am

At long last, Mr. Soros, have you no sense of decency?

annenigma , October 31, 2017 at 10:05 am

I use a cheap digital antenna to get free, over-the-air television broadcasts which includes RT along with about 40 other channels. No one is counting us as viewers. But shhh, don't tell the Gov't many of us are enjoying these RT programs, I mean Russian propaganda, or they'll shut it down.

RT may have a small audience, but however small, that audience is still bigger for people like Ralph Nader, Chris Hedges, et. al. than what corporate media provides them. Many have been blacked out and blackballed.

The above list includes people who, for the most part, have not been blacked out and have other avenues besides RT to reach the masses on tv. Sadly, for many of our most outspoken patriots who dare speak truth to power, RT is the last refuge for those scoundrels.

Arizona Slim , October 31, 2017 at 11:57 am

I watch Lee Camp's Redacted Tonight show on YouTube. It's an RT show.

I also enjoy Al Jazeera.

ex-PFC Chuck , October 31, 2017 at 2:46 pm

If you have a Kodi video streaming system you can get an RT app for it. The software is downloadable for free and can run on an older computer if the latter is capable of handling it. Or you can get a Raspberry Pi 3 for less than a Franklin and run it on that with the also free LibreELEC operating system, which is a stripped down Linux for Kodi.

diptherio , October 31, 2017 at 10:39 am

I always knew there was something off about Jeremy Irons

HotFlash , October 31, 2017 at 11:30 am

He killed Simba's father!

sinbad66 , October 31, 2017 at 10:48 am

This whole Russia goes to the fact that only 4 countries on this Earth can give 'murica the middle finger and get away with it: China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.

Now, of these, only China and Russia are a real threat. However, you can scratch China off the list because they are our "frenemy with benefits". They are the spouse that, if you divorce them, you will pay dearly (make a lot of our stuff, holds a lot of our debt). So, as Johnnie Taylor had sung "its cheaper to keep her".

So that leaves Russia. They are they only entity in the world where you can justify the Gerald Ford supercarriers at $10B a pop. Justify that white elephant called the F35 (with $180 billion in cost overruns and counting). Spend billions revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list goes on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab. But you can with Russia

Yes, Virginia, this is why you can't have nice things because of those darn Rooskies!

polecat , October 31, 2017 at 11:38 am

Anyone notice how the billionairgasbags (on BOTH sides of the libricon aisle) are suddenly dialing the Trump blame-cannons to 11+

"He's CRAZYYY !!" "Has LAUNCH-CODES !!" "Must IMPEACH, NOWWW !!!" "Oh, and would you please you sign this petition ??"

I should've grown popcorn this season ..

Mark P. , October 31, 2017 at 2:38 pm

So that leaves Russia only entity in the world (that can) can justify the supercarriers at $10B a pop . that white elephant called the F35 revamping the nuclear arsenal (and the list goes on). Can't justify those things because of al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram or al-Shabaab

Exactly so.

Presidential candidates who were recipients of defense industry money, and how much they received --

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=D&recipdetail=P&sortorder=U&mem=N&cycle=2016

Oregoncharles , October 31, 2017 at 3:11 pm

you forgot Bolivia. I used to think Venezuela was another, but that was before Chavez died and the price of oil plummeted.

FiddlerHill , October 31, 2017 at 11:23 am

I teach journalism as an adjunct professor, and one of my former students is now an on-camera newscaster at RT. When she was first offered the job, she phoned me with some vague concern about RT being funded by the Russian government. I told her not to hesitate, to take the job. I said simply judge the organization by its content -- and the content then as now is entirely in-line with the power-confronting material seen on this website, The Intercept, the Jimmy Dore Show and dozens of other progressive news sources in the US.

Now Neo–McCarthyism has set in. She emailed me a few weeks ago -- horrified that the State Department was now insisting that she and all RT reporters register as foreign lobbyists. I couldn't get over the hypocrisy and irony of it: the US government -- beneficiary of a massive sycophantic domestic corporate media empire -- going after one small voice in the wilderness, hammer and tong, because of its source of funding, not because of the nature of its reporting. I know from regular contact with my former student that RT's "agenda" isn't dictated from the Kremlin. There's no need whatever for that. A vast corrupt and self-serving American political class provides any semi-conscious journalist with more than enough stories to pursue every day of the week.

Arizona Slim , October 31, 2017 at 11:59 am

She should register as a foreign agent, but do all sorts of stupid things on the registration form.

Y'know, like leaving things blank, entering contradictory information, and misspelling words. Call it being a cheerful saboteur.

sd , October 31, 2017 at 12:38 pm

Does the same apply to any of the other state funded foreign media in the United States? For instance, BBC. Anyone know?

Elizabeth Burton , October 31, 2017 at 2:50 pm

So far as I know, the BBC hasn't been officially designated a foreign propaganda mouthpiece, which (albeit in more "legal" phrasing) RT America has. The truly scary part is the same piece of "legalness" is so vaguely worded with regard to what defines a foreign propaganda mouthpiece any alternative medium could acquire the same label.

It's like the FBI now labeling any African American who dares protest a "Black identity extremist."

Mel , October 31, 2017 at 1:43 pm

the State Department was now insisting that she and all RT reporters register as foreign lobbyists

To be way too blunt, this kind of pushing local interests in restraint of foreign trade is just the reason ISDS courts are required. When local sovereignty is being applied unfairly, even local courts can't be trusted.
It's also why Canadians can be so antsy about foreign content in media.

Chauncey Gardiner , October 31, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Do you know whether the State Department will require past guests on RT from the list above to register as foreign lobbyists, as well? That possibility brings a smile to my face.

Alex Morfesis , October 31, 2017 at 12:12 pm

The browder plague grandson tells us the Russians are bad, grandpa helped crazy joe McCarthy make the argument that talking to Russia was bad, by his wondrous service as mister communist party usa

Gottlacht

Carolinian , October 31, 2017 at 12:28 pm

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/28/guardians-of-the-magnitsky-myth/

As for RT and censorship, Gilbert Doctorow has been talking about how Russia's neocon and other opponents are frequent guests on Russian television because their outlandish claims are considered good entertainment. Maybe Russians, those snowbound chess masters, are just smarter than Americans. Next to Trump Putin seems like some sort of Einstein.

Kim Kaufman , October 31, 2017 at 12:59 pm

Thanks, Yves, for this important post. Last night a friend emailed me this discussion on RNN between Aaron Mate and Max Blumenthal about it
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20309
but I didn't take it very seriously. Seeing the George Soros connection in your post, now I do take this very seriously.

Joel , October 31, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Is the RT hostility payback for Russian resistance to American media such as VoA?

Mel , October 31, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Maybe. Twenty-six years late.

Erelis , October 31, 2017 at 1:44 pm

There is a Russian joke that goes something like this: "We learned that everything Pravda told us about the Soviet Union was a lie. And that everything they told us about the West was true."

What the Soviets said about the Civil Rights movement.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/07/09/civil_rights_coverage_how_the_soviets_used_evidence_of_racial_strife_against.html

Dikaios Logos , October 31, 2017 at 2:23 pm

re: RT audience size

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I had a run-in with Ed Harrison a few years ago that shows how small RT's audience likely is. During a time I was spending too much time on finance twitter, I noticed a very familiar face from a twitter avatar walking down a very quiet residential street early one morning. As I got closer I felt the need to confirm this, since I was worried I was seeing things (happens when you're a neurotic insomniac!). Turns it out it was Ed and he was, it seemed to me, very unaccustomed to being recognized on the street and almost certainly took my curiosity to be hostile. People who are recognized on the street have ways of dealing with it, Ed really seemed to not have figured those out, suggesting to me that being on RT didn't interfere with his being anonymous! So much for 'Russian propaganda'!

clarky90 , October 31, 2017 at 3:15 pm

"A Soros-funded think tank called European Values. This is what we are up against; Ass-backwards, widderschynnes, black magic. Harvey Weinstein at the January 2017 Women's March in Park City, Utah.

"At least he went with a gray beanie instead of the de rigeur head wear."

The world is awash with petty tyrants and compromised magicians. The hordes of invented organizations, reliably do the opposite (contrary) of what their name says. Thus "European Values" really means "North Korean Police State Hellhole".

I learned this simple rule of thumb from the NC Commentariat. The "truth" is often merely the diametric opposite; hiding in plain sight. Turn upside down and inside out, and the pig-Latin code is easily deciphered! Voilà!

ChrisPacific , October 31, 2017 at 5:21 pm

I had a skim through the article. Overall it strikes me as a particularly acute case of projection. There also seems to be a significant lack of good faith (as you'd expect).

The biggest thing that struck me though, was an assumption that was so pervasive throughout that it was never explicitly stated: Criticism of an entity makes that entity weaker. This strikes me as both profoundly unscientific and undemocratic. Any think tank advancing arguments on this basis is advertising itself as an instrument of propaganda over critical thinking and rigorous analysis.

[Oct 31, 2017] Obama Quietly Signs The Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act Into Law

Oct 31, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Late on Friday, with the US population embracing the upcoming holidays and oblivious of most news emerging from the administration, Obama quietly signed into law the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorizes $611 billion for the military in 2017.

In a statement, Obama said that :

Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017." This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe. It continues many critical authorizations necessary to ensure that we are able to sustain our momentum in countering the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to reassure our European allies, as well as many new authorizations that, among other things, provide the Departments of Defense and Energy more flexibility in countering cyber-attacks and our adversaries' use of unmanned aerial vehicles."

Much of the balance of Obama's statement blamed the GOP for Guantanamo's continued operation and warned that "unless the Congress changes course, it will be judged harshly by history," Obama said. Obama also said Congress failed to use the bill to reduce wasteful overhead (like perhaps massive F-35 cost overruns?) or modernize military health care, which he said would exacerbate budget pressures facing the military in the years ahead.

But while the passage of the NDAA - and the funding of the US military - was hardly a surprise, the biggest news is what was buried deep inside the provisions of the Defense Authortization Act.

Recall that as we reported in early June , "a bill to implement the U.S.' very own de facto Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress . As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a "whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability."

Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to Cold War-era government propaganda battles. "These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations," Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.

"Surprisingly," Portman continued, "there is currently no single U.S. governmental agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation."

Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to "establish a Center for Information Analysis and Response," which will pinpoint sources of disinformation, analyze data, and -- in true dystopic manner -- 'develop and disseminate' " fact-based narratives " to counter effrontery propaganda.

In short, long before "fake news" became a major media topic, the US government was already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label "fake news."

* * *

Fast forward to December 8, when the " Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act " passed in the Senate, quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.

And now, following Friday's Obama signing of the NDAA on Friday evening, the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is now law.

* * *

Here is the full statement issued by the generously funded Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the singing into law of a bill that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for future which hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda" and is shut down by the government.

President Signs Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill into Law

Portman-Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others

U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act – legislation designed to help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other nations has been signed into law as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was introduced by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise and empower our allies overseas to defend themselves from foreign manipulation. It will also help foster a free and vibrant press and civil society overseas, which is critical to ensuring our allies have access to truthful information and inoculating people against foreign propaganda campaigns.

"Our enemies are using foreign propaganda and disinformation against us and our allies, and so far the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel," Portman said. "But today, the United States has taken a critical step towards confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us by our enemies overseas. With this bill now law, we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on. I am confident that, with the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against us, our allies, and our interests will fail."

" The use of propaganda to undermine democracy has hit a new low. But now we are finally in a position to confront this threat head on and get out the truth. By building up independent, objective journalism in places like eastern Europe, we can start to fight back by exposing these fake narratives and empowering local communities to protect themselves," said Murphy. "I'm proud that our bill was signed into law, and I look forward to working with Senator Portman to make sure these tools and new resources are effectively used to get out the truth."

NOTE: The bipartisan Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act is organized around two main priorities to help achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation from our enemies:

  • The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for countering THE foreign propaganda and disinformation being wages against us and our allies by our enemies . The bill would increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China as well as non-state actors. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations by our enemies and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.
  • Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center's role by integrating capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.
  • * * *

    And so, with the likes of WaPo having already primed the general public to equate "Russian Propaganda" with "fake news" (despite admitting after the fact their own report was essentially "fake "), while the US media has indoctrinated the public to assume that any information which is not in compliance with the official government narrative, or dares to criticize the establishment, is also "fake news" and thus falls under the "Russian propaganda" umbrella, the scene is now set for the US government to legally crack down on every media outlet that the government deems to be "foreign propaganda."

    Just like that, the US Ministry of Truth is officially born.

    Citxmech -> Greyhat , Dec 24, 2016 4:38 PM

    So, the purpose of this shit law is to "develop[ ] a whole-of-government strategy for countering. . . propaganda and disinformation by building up independent, objective journalism. . .

    Yeah, right.

    MEFOBILLS -> Citxmech , Dec 24, 2016 7:35 PM

    The disinformation and lying in this article starts early with this comment:

    "These countries spend vast sums of money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and populations," Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news organization, RT.

    Below is a more balanced article that actually defines the "vast sums of money." It turns out that RT spends only a fraction of what is spent by the U.S. BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors) system.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/24/us-congress-reforms-for...

    "The BBG currently oversees the VOA and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, taxpayer-funded federal broadcasting entities, as well as three grantee organizations: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN). The networks under the BBG control reach a weekly global audience of 226 million people, broadcasting in 100 countries and 61 languages."

    and

    But unlike the BBG's outlets, RT operates in compliance with the laws of the countries it broadcasts to.

    and

    It should be noted that an annual BBG budget is roughly $780 million a year ($778 in for fiscal year 2017). For comparison, the Russian government allocated just over $300 million to RT ((including its English, Spanish, Arabic television channels, as well as French and German web-based projects) in the 2016 federal budget. MIA Rossiya Segodnya, the parent company of Sputnik News, operates on a budget of $75 million, including both domestic and foreign media -- 10 times less than the BBG.

    and

    Perhaps, the gist of the problem is not the laws regulating the effort or agencies in place and their budgets but rather the quality of information and its truthfulness to earn the trust of the audience. So far, the US has been definitely losing the fight for people's hearts and minds.

    __________________

    The U.S. media was co-opted, especially after Bill Clinton's Tellecommunication act of 1996. This act allowed the major media to combine with cross-directorates. Today's U.S. media is controlled by six large corporations.

    And yes, Zion owns or controls this media complex. Even Reuters, which tends to be the main feed, is Jewish owned.

    Oligarchy in U.S. wants to own the money power and control the narrative (by owning the press), to then take rents - for perptual Oligarchy. It is a feedback loop.

    Facts are pesky little things that don't go away.

[Oct 31, 2017] The Donald's Pathetic Afghan Flip-Flop

Oct 31, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

To justify the 180 degree shift on an anti-Afghan policy position that he had tweeted about vociferously for six years running (see below), the Donald's teleprompter scripters offered an explanation that was beyond lame:

"My original instinct was to pull out – and, historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you're President of the United States."'

Actually, we are relived to hear Trump finally recognizes that he actually is President and wish he would start doing something presidential. For instance, he could declassify all the NSA intercepts about purported Russian meddling in the US election, and prove that it's all a hoax generated by Obama's despicable national security advisor, John Brennan, and a handful of deep state operatives who properly feared the Donald's solid anti-interventionist instincts.

So doing, Trump could crush the anti-Russian hysteria and the Deep State/Dem/mainstream media campaign to hound him from office and get on with the desperately important business of effectuating a rapprochement with Russia. World peace depends on it; the failing American Empire can't be dismantled without it; and the nation's fast growing fiscal calamity can't be stemmed unless there is a drastic, multi-hundred billion reduction in defense spending.

But it's not to be. The Donald has been hoodwinked by three discredited, failed generals – Kelly, McMasters, and Mattis – who have been dissembling, spinning and lying to civilian officials about Afghanistan for most of the past 17 years. Any generals worth their salt would have told their civilian superiors years ago that Afghanistan is mission impossible and irrelevant to the security of the American homeland. That's because there never was more than a few hundred al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and when bin-Laden hightailed to his hideaway in Pakistan in 2003 that should have been the end of Washington's pointless but incredibly destructive invasion and occupation.

By contrast, there was never any US national security interest whatsoever in cleansing the godforsaken lands of the Hindu Kush of the 12th century Taliban fanatics who took over this hapless country during the 1990s. And largely with weapons that had been supplied by the CIA during the 1980s in a pointless mission to drive the Soviets out.

[Oct 31, 2017] Here is What I Saw at the Valdai Club Conference by Anatol Lieven

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Putin made a strong statement on the need for the United States to observe existing nuclear disarmament agreements. ..."
"... One particularly interesting discussion centered around the impact of automation and computerization on jobs, and what measures -- if any -- could be taken to limit the impact or to ameliorate the immense growth of unemployment and inequality that will likely result from that automation. Another discussion took a hard look at migration from the Muslim world and Africa to Europe. The conversation revealed the complete witlessness of the existing Brussels elites when it comes to meeting -- or even thinking -- about the migration challenge ..."
Oct 31, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

The conference contained no important developments or revelations, but it did raise some very interesting questions. One of those questions centered around the quality of leadership in Western democracies -- specifically in a state that does not hold up well in comparison with the leadership of Russia or China. The West has maintained its leadership role through the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. In both the United States and Europe, however, those institutions appear to be crumbling as a result of deepening -- and perhaps irreconcilable -- cultural, racial and class differences, and a failure to address the issue of migration.

... ... ...

When one participant remarked that European leaders see the "ball in Russia's court" when it comes to seeking a resolution of the Ukraine conflict under the terms of the Minsk agreement, Putin remarked that Russia sees the situation differently. Russia believes the ball is in the West's court when it comes to bringing the government in Kiev to negotiate an agreement on autonomy with the Donbas, he said. Putin expressed no optimism about the situation and he noted that the Ukrainian government was probably too weak and internally threatened to make a deal.

... ... ...

On North Korea, Putin said that "we should not drive North Korea into a corner, threaten force, stoop to unabashed rudeness or invective. Whether someone likes or dislikes the North Korean regime, we must not forget that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a sovereign state."

Putin made a strong statement on the need for the United States to observe existing nuclear disarmament agreements. He went into considerable detail when accusing successive U.S. administrations of violating the terms of both the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement and the U.S.-Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Purchase Agreement of 1993. He also noted that the United States, unlike Russia, had yet to ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty. It was clear from his remarks that the Russian leadership is determined to maintain rough nuclear parity with the United States and respond to whatever it sees as violations of those agreements by the U.S. side.

In some ways, the most interesting thing about the conference regarding Russian-Western relations was that most of the discussion was not about Russian-Western relations. Instead, conference attendees focused on climate change, social inequality, technological change, genetic engineering, globalization, migration and national identity. One particularly interesting discussion centered around the impact of automation and computerization on jobs, and what measures -- if any -- could be taken to limit the impact or to ameliorate the immense growth of unemployment and inequality that will likely result from that automation. Another discussion took a hard look at migration from the Muslim world and Africa to Europe. The conversation revealed the complete witlessness of the existing Brussels elites when it comes to meeting -- or even thinking -- about the migration challenge

As a number of participants (including myself) pointed out, compared with these existential threats to existing states, the issues currently dividing Russia and the West are likely to seem to the historians of the future (if there are any) so minor as to be almost insignificant. One hundred years from now, our descendants are likely to look back on disputes over Crimea, the Donbas and Syria with the same combination of incomprehension and contempt with which we regard the European elites who went to war over geopolitical issues in 1914. They, too, failed to see that the real threats to their comfortable, civilized world came from within their own societies.

Anatol Lieven is a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is author among other books of Ukraine and Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry .

[Oct 31, 2017] Neocons Hijack Trump's Syria Policy - Ron Paul Asks Haven't We Done Enough Damage

Oct 31, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

- Europe has basically been conquered using the same strategy used by the Bolsheviks after 1945.

HRClinton -> chumbawamba , Oct 30, 2017 11:28 PM

It's not about "Assad". It's ALL about...

1. Greater Jizrael. Have failed puppet states in Jordan and Syria, to plunder their water, gas and land.

2. Stop OBOR, because OBOR leads to escalating De-Dollarization. Which leads to the dethroning of King Dollar. Which leads to...

3. Boot Russian bases out of Syria, to bottle them into the Black Sea.

Iskiab -> HRClinton , Oct 30, 2017 11:46 PM

I disagree. The biggest problem I see with Americans is whenever there's a problem the finger gets pointed outside the country. The rot is within, not outside.

People are making a lot of money from foreign wars and they back politicians who help them keep making money, that's the problem. After the Cold War a new enemy was needed, and that's terrorism. The problem is there weren't enough, so now foreign policy is to create as many as possible.

American politics is about keeping the US coffers open so the pigs can keep eating at the trough, it doesn't even matter that there's no money left. Look at trump pandering to neocons and republicans that just want a tax cut, forgetting about the debt, at all costs. He's trying to stay in power at this point and is playing the political game.

JSBach1 -> Iskiab , Oct 31, 2017 12:10 AM

When stripped naked to the core the elements at-hand come into the fore-front : Cui bono?

"To the preceding pieces of advice, one more should be added: always make a sketch or plan of whatever presents itself to your mind, so as to see what sort of thing it is when stripped down to its essence, as a whole and in its separate parts; and tell yourself its proper name, and the names of the elements from which it has been put together and into which it will finally be resolved. For nothing is as effective in creating greatness of mind as being able to examine methodically and truthfully everything that presents itself in life, and always viewing things in such a way as to consider what kind of use each thing serves in what kind of a universe, and what value it has to human beings as citizens of that highest of cities of which all other cities are, as it were, mere households, and what this object is that presently makes an impression on me, and what it is composed of, and how long it will naturally persist, and what virtue is needed in the face of it, such as gentleness, courage, truthfulness, good faith, simplicity, self-sufficiency, and so forth. So, as each case presents itself, you should say: this has come from god, this from the co-ordination and interweaving of the threads of fate and similar kinds of coincidence and chance, this from one of my own kind, a relation and companion, who is however ignorant of what is natural for him. But I am not ignorant of that, and thus I will therefore treat him kindly and justly, according to the natural law of companionship, though aiming at the same time at what he deserves with regard to things that are morally indifferent."

---Marcus Aurelius : Meditation 3.11

http://modernstoicism.com/perspectives-core-ideas-of-stoic-ethics-in-mar...

totenkopf88 , Oct 30, 2017 11:08 PM

Fuck you, Rex- and your Zionist flunky boss, too

Cabreado , Oct 30, 2017 11:10 PM

Lots of people will rue the day when they mocked Ron Paul...

bigger problem is,

it will be chaos by then.

Ignatius -> Cabreado , Oct 31, 2017 12:09 AM

Looking at it another way, the neocons want the same control in Syria that they currently have here.

johnnycanuck , Oct 30, 2017 11:17 PM

By Josh Rogin

February 17, 2012,

"Fifty-six leading conservative foreign-policy experts wrote an open letter Friday to U.S. President Barack Obama calling on him to directly aid the Syrian opposition and protect the lives of Syrian civilians."

The usual suspects

"The letter was organized jointly by the Foreign Policy Initiative and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, both conservative policy organizations in Washington, D.C. Signees included Max Boot Paul Bremer Elizabeth Cheney Eric Edelman , Jamie Fly John Hannah William Inboden William Kristol Michael Ledeen , Clifford May Robert McFarlane Martin Peretz Danielle Pletka John Podhoretz Stephen Rademaker Karl Rove Randy Scheunemann Dan Senor James Woolsey , Dov Zakheim and Radwan Ziadeh , a member of the Syrian National Council."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/17/conservatives-call-for-obama-to-inte...

[Oct 30, 2017] Nick Turse A Red Scare in the Gray Zone by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... Memo to Senator John McCain: ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, you threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the timely fashion that we need."

How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this very website, TomDispatch . Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way U.S. Africa Command and American Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has covered this story and the secret bases , widespread " training missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:

"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S. global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."

By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we read of ISIS-allied militants on the lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting that

"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."

Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S. military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse), even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).

[Oct 30, 2017] U.S. Commandos are a Persistent Presence on Russias Doorstep by Nick Turse

Notable quotes:
"... Military-Industrial Courier ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Over the last two decades, relations between the United States and Russia have increasingly soured, with Moscow casting blame on the United States for encouraging the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine a year later. Washington has, in turn, expressed its anger over the occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia following the Russo-Georgian War of 2008; the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine after pro-Moscow president Viktor Yanukovych was chased from power; and interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. There have been recriminations on both sides over the other nation's military adventurism in Syria, the sanctions Washington imposed on Moscow in reaction to Crimea, Ukraine, and human rights issues, and tit-for-tat diplomatic penalties that have repeatedly ramped up tensions.

... ... ...

In a seminal 2013 article in the Russian Academy of Military Science's journal Military-Industrial Courier , Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov explained the nature of modern hybrid warfare, including the use of elite troops, this way :

"In the twenty-first century we have seen a tendency toward blurring the lines between the states of war and peace. Wars are no longer declared and, having begun, proceed according to an unfamiliar template The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness [t]he broad use of political, economic, informational, humanitarian, and other nonmilitary measures is supplemented by military means of a concealed character, including carrying out actions of informational conflict and the actions of special operations forces."

... ... ...

The experts at NDU called for a comprehensive campaign to undermine Russia through sanctions, by courting "disenfranchised personnel" and "alienated persons" within that country, by developing enhanced cyber-capabilities, by utilizing psychological operations and "strategic messaging" to enhance "tactical actions," and by conducting a special ops shadow war -- which General Charles Cleveland seems to suggest might be already underway. "[T]he United States should learn from the Chechnya rebels' reaction. The rebels used decentralized operations and started building pockets of resistance (to include solo jihadists)," reads a synopsis of the symposium.

This essay originally appeared on TomDispatch .

[Oct 30, 2017] New York Times Acknowledges US Global Empire by Sheldon Richman

Notable quotes:
"... The UN has 193 member states -- and the U.S. government has a military presence in at least 89 percent of them! The Times ..."
"... Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute. ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

One big advantage the war party has is the public's ignorance about the activities of the far-flung American empire. Athough frustrating, that ignorance is easy to understand and has been explained countless times by writers in the public choice tradition. Most people are too busy with their lives, families, and communities to pay the close attention required to know that the empire exists and what it is up to. The opportunity cost of paying attention is huge, considering that the payoff is so small: even a well-informed individual could not take decisive action to rein in the out-of-control national security state. One vote means nothing, and being knowledgeable about the U.S. government's nefarious foreign policy is more likely to alienate friends and other people than influence them. Why give up time with family and friends just so one can be accused of "hating America"?

In light of this systemic rational ignorance, we must be grateful when a prominent institution acknowledges how much the government intervenes around the world. Such an acknowledgment came from the New York Times editorial board this week. The editorial drips with irony since the Times has done so much to gin up public support for America's imperial wars. (See, for example, its 2001-02 coverage of Iraq and its phantom WMD.) Stlll, the piece is noteworthy.

The Oct. 22 editorial began:

The United States has been at war continuously since the attacks of 9/11 and now has just over 240,000 active-duty and reserve troops in at least 172 countries and territories.

That alone ought to come as a shock to nearly all Americans. The UN has 193 member states -- and the U.S. government has a military presence in at least 89 percent of them! The Times does not mention that the government also maintains at least 800 military bases and installations around the world. That's a big government we're talking about. And empires are bloody expensive.

Sheldon Richman , author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited , keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is also the Executive Editor of The Libertarian Institute.

[Oct 30, 2017] Nick Turse A Red Scare in the Gray Zone by Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... Memo to Senator John McCain: ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

Memo to Senator John McCain: Senator, the other day I noticed that, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, you threatened to subpoena the Trump administration for information about the recent attack in Niger that killed four American soldiers. "There's a mindset over there that they're a unicameral government," you said. "It was easier under Obama We are coequal branches of government; we should be informed at all times. We're just not getting the information in the timely fashion that we need."

How true! But let me make one small suggestion. If you really want to know what led to those deaths in Niger, the first place you might consider looking -- no subpoena needed -- is this very website, TomDispatch . Or, to be more specific, Nick Turse's coverage of the way U.S. Africa Command and American Special Operations forces have, with a certain stealth but also without significant coverage in the mainstream media, extended the war on terror deep into Africa. He alone has covered this story and the secret bases , widespread " training missions " (like the one in Niger), and barely noticed wars being fought there since at least 2012, when I was already writing this of his work:

"So here's another question: Who decided in 2007 that a U.S. Africa Command should be set up to begin a process of turning that continent into a web of U.S. bases and other operations? Who decided that every Islamist rebel group in Africa, no matter how local or locally focused, was a threat to the U.S., calling for a military response? Certainly not the American people, who know nothing about this, who were never asked if expanding the U.S. global military mission to Africa was something they favored, who never heard the slightest debate, or even a single peep from Washington on the subject."

By 2013, in a passage that sounds eerily up to date as we read of ISIS-allied militants on the lawless Niger-Mali border, he was already reporting that

"while correlation doesn't equal causation, there is ample evidence to suggest the United States has facilitated a terror diaspora, imperiling nations and endangering peoples across Africa. In the wake of 9/11, Pentagon officials were hard-pressed to show evidence of a major African terror threat. Today, the continent is thick with militant groups that are increasingly crossing borders, sowing insecurity, and throwing the limits of U.S. power into broad relief. After 10 years of U.S. operations to promote stability by military means, the results have been the opposite. Africa has become blowback central."

Four years later, when the Niger events occurred, nothing had changed, except that the U.S. military had moved, again with little attention (except from Turse), even deeper into the heart of Africa, setting up a remarkable array of bases and outposts of every sort (including two drone bases in Niger).

[Oct 30, 2017] Reuters try to sow "anti-war" sentiment in Russia by emphasizing the number of casualties

Oct 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

karl1haushofer , October 29, 2017 at 2:18 am

Reuters: at least 131 Russian citizens have died in Syria this year: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-casualtie/exclusive-death-certificate-offers-clues-on-russian-casualties-in-syria-idUSKBN1CW1LP
Moscow Exile , October 29, 2017 at 3:12 am
Thanks for informing the remainder of the visitors to this site that people, and even Russian subhumans, die in wars.
Moscow Exile , October 29, 2017 at 3:14 am
And how many thousands of dead Russian soldiers' bodies have been secretly shipped out of the Ukraine, I wonder?

Or even cremated secretly in mobile incinerators?

Please enlighten us.

Moscow Exile , October 29, 2017 at 3:16 am
Achieving Pyrrhic victories certainly seems to be a Russian forte, doesn't it?

That's because they are incompetents and hold little value for human life.

yalensis , October 29, 2017 at 8:22 am
I believe that Reuters is (dishonestly) including jihadists (who happen to be Russian citizens fighting on the other side) in the count.
Technically, some of the jihadists are Russian citizens too, but Reuters making it seem like it's all Russian regular soldiers and contractors dying out there in the desert.
In the hopes of
karl1haushofer , October 29, 2017 at 2:18 am
Reuters: at least 131 Russian citizens have died in Syria this year: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-casualtie/exclusive-death-certificate-offers-clues-on-russian-casualties-in-syria-idUSKBN1CW1LP
Moscow Exile , October 29, 2017 at 3:12 am
Thanks for informing the remainder of the visitors to this site that people, and even Russian subhumans, die in wars.
Moscow Exile , October 29, 2017 at 3:14 am
And how many thousands of dead Russian soldiers' bodies have been secretly shipped out of the Ukraine, I wonder?

Or even cremated secretly in mobile incinerators?

Please enlighten us.

Moscow Exile , October 29, 2017 at 3:16 am
Achieving Pyrrhic victories certainly seems to be a Russian forte, doesn't it?

That's because they are incompetents and hold little value for human life.

yalensis , October 29, 2017 at 8:22 am
I believe that Reuters is (dishonestly) including jihadists (who happen to be Russian citizens fighting on the other side) in the count.
Technically, some of the jihadists are Russian citizens too, but Reuters making it seem like it's all Russian regular soldiers and contractors dying out there in the desert.
In the hopes of sowing "anti-war" sentiment in Russia.
This body-count thing is an old game.
karl1haushofer , October 29, 2017 at 2:46 pm
Hope you are correct.
karl1haushofer , October 29, 2017 at 2:46 pm
Hope you are correct.

[Oct 30, 2017] Ex-Qatari premier: US coordinated foreign support for terrorists in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... Former US Ambassador in Libya Stevens, was in Libya with $250 Million Wahhabi petrodollars to buy back the arms and send them to Syria for this purpose. in one of the deals with Al Qaeda in Libya things got out of hand & he was killed. ..."
"... How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012- ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

saskydisc , October 28, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Courtesy of الزياد الدقيق:

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2017/10/28/540168/Qatari-premier-Hamad-Syria

The US bit its ally Qatar in the hopes of securing Saudi moneys, so Qatar bit back. Rather bemusing Though it is more bemusing and telling that the former official is allowed to say such things. I presume that they have little hope of reentering the US's good graces, at least in terms that would be worth pursuing.

saskydisc , October 28, 2017 at 6:33 pm
I forgot to add the title of the article:

Ex-Qatari premier: US coordinated foreign support for terrorists in Syria

yalensis , October 29, 2017 at 8:17 am
This is a good comment from "Piere Ha", along with associated link:

Former US Ambassador in Libya Stevens, was in Libya with $250 Million Wahhabi petrodollars to buy back the arms and send them to Syria for this purpose. in one of the deals with Al Qaeda in Libya things got out of hand & he was killed.

How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-

[Oct 30, 2017] Shouldn't these people be prosecuted?

Oct 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Payman , October 27, 2017 at 10:41 pm

Shouldn't these people be prosecuted?

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/24/syria-rebels-nsa-saudi-prince-assad/

marknesop , October 28, 2017 at 10:04 am
Why, yes; they should. Do you think it will ever happen? I'm afraid I don't, because western appreciation for criminality is often dependent upon whether the behavior served western foreign-policy objectives or not.
rkka , October 28, 2017 at 1:13 pm
It is truly amusing to see that some think organizing the combat and terrorist operations of Wahabi headchoppers against a secular society, whose Sunnis interpret Sunni jurisprudence differently from Wahabis, is the same as the operations of riot police facing a a violent mob armed with small arms and firebombs.

[Oct 30, 2017] Honeypot Was The Trump Camp's Meeting With Russian Lawyer All A Clinton Set-Up

Oct 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Oct 30, 2017 9:40 PM 0 SHARES Authored by Tyler O'Neil via PJMedia.ocom,

This week's bombshell - that the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign financed former British spy Christopher Steele's salacious dossier allegedly connecting Donald Trump and Russia - may suggest something even more devious. The dossier was compiled by the notorious firm Fusion GPS, which also worked for Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, the very woman who met with Donald Trump Jr. in a meeting deemed pivotal to the case for Trump-Russia "collusion."

The Fusion GPS connection raises a supremely interesting question: Did the Clinton campaign actually orchestrate the meeting between Trump campaign officials and Veselnitskaya? Is the entire Trump-Russia collusion narrative the result of a Clinton set-up?

After PJ Media's Liz Sheld suggested the idea to this reporter, it seemed increasingly plausible. Not only does the timeline work out, but Clinton attacked Trump as Putin's puppet and Clinton's connections to Russia had been powerfully reported in 2015. What better way to distract from Clinton's ties to Russia than proving "collusion" on Trump's part?

When Veselnitskaya met with Donald Trump Jr. and Paul Manafort on June 9, 2016, she pressed them on the adoption issue, part of the Russian efforts to undermine the Magnitsky Act . The act - signed by President Barack Obama in December 2012 - imposed sanctions on individuals and entities responsible for the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who unearthed massive fraud within the Russian government and was imprisoned, tortured, and killed for it in 2009. Hermitage Capital Management CEO Bill Browder testified that the sanctions "personally" affect Russian President Vladimir Putin's wealth.

Putin retaliated by banning the adoption of Russian orphans by American families. Previously, Russia had allowed Americans to adopt sick Russian children, and they adopted kids suffering with HIV, Down Syndrome, and other ailments. Due to this retaliation for the Magnitsky Act, Browder testified, these sick children now languish in Russian orphanages and many will die before their 18th birthdays.

As it turns out, Veselnitskaya hired Fusion GPS to lobby the U.S. government on this very issue, one extremely pivotal to Putin's monetary interests.

In July, Browder testified that "Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act." This alleged smear campaign took place in 2014, two years before the presidential election. Through this business, Veselnitskaya made friends with Fusion GPS.

In April 2016, two months before Veselnitskaya's meeting with Trump campaign officials, the law firm Perkins Coie, as part of its representation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, hired Fusion GPS for research into Trump, The Washington Post revealed this past week. In a letter to Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie general counsel Matthew Gehringer noted that his law firm revealed its role in hiring Fusion GPS in order to help keep Fusion GPS's list of clients confidential. What is the opposition research firm trying to hide?

In March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie to see if it its clients would be interested in paying the firm "to continue research regarding then-presidential candidate Donald Trump." Through Perkins Coie, the DNC and the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to perform research that led to the infamous dossier written by former British spy Christopher Steele.

On Friday, it was revealed that the Washington Free Beacon was the original source paying Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The conservative news outlet insisted that none of the research it paid for was included in the infamous Steele dossier, however. The Post reported that Fusion GPS hired Steele after the Democratic funding began, supporting the Free Beacon's version of events.

To recap: Veselnitskaya hired Fusion GPS to undermine Magnitsky's reputation in 2014. The Clinton campaign and the DNC hired Fusion GPS to compile the Trump dossier in April 2016. Two months later, Donald Trump Jr. received an email inviting him to meet with Veselnitskaya ostensibly to gather opposition research on Clinton -- but at the meeting Veselnitskaya tried to push the Trump campaign to oppose the Magnitsky Act.

Then, as the DNC and the Clinton campaign pinned the DNC hack to Russia and Trump cited emails leaked by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton began attacking Trump as "Putin's puppet." At the third presidential debate, Clinton argued that Putin supported Trump because he "would rather have a puppet as president of the United States."

Clinton never brought up the Trump campaign's meeting with Veselniskaya during the election, but she certainly suggested Trump was in bed with the Russians.

It is plausible that the Clinton campaign and the DNC, working through Fusion GPS, suggested to Veselnitskaya that she should meet with the Trump campaign. This would have given the Democrats a clear link between Trump and the Russians, and it would have given Veselnitskaya an opportunity to further her work on Putin's behalf, with one of the two leading presidential campaigns. Furthermore, Fusion GPS's role as an intermediary would have given both plausible deniability.

According to a recent FEC complaint , the Clinton campaign and the DNC obfuscated their hiring of Fusion GPS by listing payments to the law firm Perkins Coie as being for "legal services." This violated the law, as the money really went to opposition research. The decision to work through Perkins Coie -- and to mislead the FEC about the nature of services -- suggests the Clinton campaign and the DNC were hiding something.

Clinton also would have had an incentive to try and manufacture connections between Trump and Russia. Throughout 2015 and into early 2016, Trump was the Republican frontrunner, and he had praised Putin many times , suggesting he would "get along well" with the Russian president. The Russia angle made sense for Clinton to develop, and it would have been a perfect way to distract from her own troubling Russia connections.

If Clinton wanted to convince Americans that Trump is Putin's real puppet, her campaign would need more evidence than a few positive comments. After all, Trump was not the candidate who helped approve a 2010 deal giving Russian company Rosatom 20 percent of U.S. uranium -- right at the time when that very Russian company was under FBI investigation . The FBI kept the investigation secret, just when it would have been most important.

In 2015, Peter Schweitzer had published the blistering story in The New York Times uncovering Clinton's connections to and benefits from the 2010 Uranium One purchase. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had been paid $500,000 for a speech -- at a Russian bank promoting Uranium One stock.

According to an anonymous witness threatened by the Obama administration, the FBI investigation into Rosatom also uncovered documents and an eyewitness account rather inconvenient for the Clintons. This evidence corroborated earlier reports that Russian officials had routed millions of dollars into the U.S. to benefit the Clinton Foundation just as Hillary Clinton served on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which endorsed the Uranium One deal. This past Wednesday night, the Department of Justice finally authorized the informant to disclose his information and documents.

At the same time as the FBI kept its Rosatom investigation secret, the agency acted fast to bust a Russian spy ring because it got too close to Hillary Clinton

All that makes sense, but why try to manufacture connections between Russia and the Trump campaign -- when Trump's campaign chairman Paul Manafort had worked for Ukraine's Party of Regions , a group backed by Putin?

This past week, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that his investigation into Manafort had extended to cover Tony Podesta -- a Clinton campaign bundler who co-founded the Podesta Group with his brother, Clinton's campaign manager John Podesta. Both Manafort and Podesta may have violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), an allegation PJ Media reported last April . Emphasizing Manafort might have revealed Podesta and his connections to Clinton.

If Clinton secretly orchestrated the meeting between Veselnitskaya and the Trump campaign, why did that news not come up in the campaign?

First, the meeting only lasted about 20 minutes, according to Donald Trump Jr. If the Clinton campaign orchestrated the meeting -- hoping for either proof of Trump-Russia collusion or to start a long-term relationship between Veselnitskaya and the Trump campaign to use as a weapon later -- they would have been disappointed to hear the meeting went nowhere.

Expecting to triumph on November 8, Hillary Clinton might have decided not to release the news of this event, deeming it unnecessary for her victory.

Even so, there is no evidence that the Clinton campaign did actually orchestrate the Veselnitskaya meeting. Questions like this make it very important for the list of Fusion GPS clients to become public. If Fusion GPS was still working for Veselnitskaya, or was in contact with her in the lead-up to the meeting with Trump Jr., that might suggest the entire Trump-Russia "collusion" narrative was created by Democrats or the Clinton campaign.

It is already ironic enough that Robert Mueller, the man leading the investigation into Trump-Russia connections, is the same man who led the FBI when it covered up the investigation into Rosatom right when it was convenient for Hillary Clinton. Unless some very damning evidence finally comes out against Trump, this investigation seems likely to get worse and worse for Clinton and the Democrats.

Bes -> TeethVillage88s , Oct 30, 2017 9:56 PM

the global power structure (USA too) is an orgy of:

honeypots

patsies

smoke

mirrors

crosses

double crosses

double agents

deep throats

and kabuki

-------

proceed with caution

enjoy

J S Bach -> TeethVillage88s , Oct 30, 2017 10:07 PM

Hollywood, with all of its depravity can't write a script with characters more sinister and immoral than the Clintons and their minions.

May this horror movie end soon.

overbet -> J S Bach , Oct 30, 2017 10:09 PM

this sure smells

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b53883210c395d5d8fd751b216845d208ac...

Manthong -> overbet , Oct 30, 2017 10:15 PM

"Honeypot: Was The Trump Camp's Meeting With Russian Lawyer All A Clinton Set-Up?"

Omigosh .

How could anyone think such deviousness would emanate from the Saint Hillary Congregation and the Democrats?

Bernie will attest to their purity.

Paul Kersey -> TeethVillage88s , Oct 30, 2017 10:00 PM

"Was The Trump Camp's Meeting With Russian Lawyer All A Clinton Set-Up?"

If that empty plus-size pants suit wasn't smart enough to pass the bar exam, she wasn't nearly smart enough to pull something like that off. Podesta is so fucking dumb, that he got nailed by a high school phishing scam, and his brother was already up to his nostrils in Viktor Yanukovych shit, just like Manafort. As for Billy Bob, late stage syphilis has finally taken it's toll his lizard brain. But let's face it, the Trump sons won't be shattering any IQ test records, either. Those idiots set themselves up.

nmewn , Oct 30, 2017 9:50 PM

Why was a DNC operative meeting with Ukrainians, in the Ukrainian embassy , in Washington DC?

Is this "collusion" with a foreign power during an election? ;-)

Sizzurp , Oct 30, 2017 9:58 PM

It almost certainly was all a set-up. Trump's campaign, and later his transition team, was under surveillance by the Obama administration and they needed justification to continue the spying. This whole thing was orchestrated dirty tricks by corrupt Obama and his paid enforcers. Now Mueller is continuing the abuse of power as the media circus laughs and applauds. We have serious problems.

I am a Man I am... , Oct 30, 2017 9:57 PM

Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS AND Crowdstrike, cyber security firm that claimed Russia hacked DNC servers that FBI didn't give enough of a fuck to look at.

TeethVillage88s , Oct 30, 2017 9:57 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypots_in_espionage_fiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeypot_ (computing) https://listverse.com/2016/03/08/10-real-honeypot-operations-that-played... http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/03/12/the-history-of-the-honey-trap/ https://sofrep.com/51201/avoiding-the-honey-pot/ http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/feature/Honeypot-technology-How-hon... https://www.sans.edu/cyber-research/security-laboratory/article/honeypot... https://www.wired.com/2012/04/anna-chapman-cabinet/ https://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2016/09/11/israeli-black-operations-in-t... https://trapx.com/dynamic-deception-operations-its-not-your-daddys-honey... https://www.computerworld.com/article/2573345/security0/honeypots--the-s... http://berlinstartupjobs.com/operations/coo-honeypot/ https://www.first.org/resources/papers/tc-oct2005/barlow-james-slides.pdf http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Analysis-Hamas-honeypot-opera...

oops wiki shows no results for operation honeymoon... censored!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Jewels_ (Central_Intelligence_Agency)

Chupacabra-322 , Oct 30, 2017 10:02 PM

What people don't understand is, that the Russian PsyOp / False Narrative Script by the Deep State & Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath Hillary Clinton Globalist was the game plan all long.

Win, stolen or lost. They were going & are going "all in" with the PsyOp, Scripted False Narrative of Russia hacking the Elections / Russia / Putin / Trump Propaganda gone full retard via the Deep States Opeatives in the Presstitute Media.

Plausible Deniability is the name of the game. If the Deep State could of pulled off the False Narrative PsyOp of Russia influencing our Elections the Deep State could & will hack into Russia's National Elections next March. Call it pay back.

The Deep State's destabilization campaign in Ukraine especially Crimea was part of the ZioNeoConFascist Agenda to destabilize Russia during their upcoming elections.

Putin countered by expelling all Geroge Sorros NGO's from Russia. However, rest assured those destabilization cells are in place to ready to be activated come Russia's next election cycle.

dwboston , Oct 30, 2017 10:16 PM

I don't think "ironic" is the right word to use for Mueller's involvement in both brooming any investigation of Hillary and Uranium One then and now leading the fake collusion witch humt. I might choose "convenient", "suspicious", or "planned".

beijing expat , Oct 30, 2017 10:17 PM

Clearly there was a criminal conspiracy.

Another point, the last pages of the Pissgate dossier were added after the election. They said Cohen went to Prague to meet with Russian agents about payment to the hackers. This was used as cause for a FISA warrant to spy on Trump. What was McCains involvement, and the FBIs.

[Oct 30, 2017] Could Papadopoulos case be an entrapment ? This "Russian professor" looks exactly like the heroes of Nigerian spam letters

Entrapment is as old as civilization. "In criminal law, entrapment is a practice whereby a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit a criminal offence that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit. [1] It "is the conception and planning of an offence by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer." [2] "
Previously I thought that members of Hillary entourage were complete idiots both as for computer security and generally security wise. Now it looks like Trump entourage have has the same problem: many of they were idiots.
In "After Snowden" world anybody who wants to communicate with a unknown foreign person via Facebook of Twitter on issues of any political significance is an idiot. Because chances of hoax, provocation of in case of Trump team "false flag operation" are nearly 100%. This way you can implicate anybody in Russian ties: hire a hoaxer and ask him to pretend that he is Russian. To simp0lify the matter ask him to use Skype to communicate with the target. Send a couple of incriminating emails. Any of Nigerian spammers can be used for this purpose. They are already trained. Rinse and repeat.
So how we can be sure that this idiot Papadopoulos was not set up? BTW he ws born in 1987 -- so he just out of the college (graduated in 2009). What does he know about foreign policy?He never has been an ambassador to an important country, words in State Depertment, or servers as a senior fellow in some research institution which study those issues. (he was "unpaid intern" in Hudson institute" in 2011) What foreign policy advisor role for such a guy ? He looks like a huckster to me.
Of cause Kieren McCarth in her joy over the development is unable to contemplate this question.
Notable quotes:
"... Papadopoulos has been assisting Mueller's special inquiry for several months, but word of this cooperation only emerged today when his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI was unsealed. ..."
"... he used Facebook Messenger and Skype to communicate with a Russian government agent, called "the Professor," who promised to provide damaging information on the Clinton campaign. Emails, no less. ..."
"... the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role." ..."
"... And then there is extensive evidence -- confirmed by Papadopoulos -- that he acted as a go-between for the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including being supplied with damaging information on the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... There are also emails from other Trump campaign staff -- so far unnamed -- that show explicit efforts to work with Russians in gathering damaging information on the real-estate tycoon's political rival. In other words, efforts to engage a foreign power to swing a US presidential election. ..."
"... For one, using Facebook to carry out highly dubious and potentially illegal activity is not a good idea. This is a social network that periodically changes account settings to keep up the pretense that it's not gathering and selling every snippet of information it can get out of you. Anything you say on Facebook may go straight down a pipe to the NSA and a database searchable by the FBI. It's called Section 702 . ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.theregister.co.uk
Originally from: Manafort, Stone, Trump, Papadopoulos, Kushner, Mueller, Russia All the tech angles in one place • The Register By Kieren McCarthy

Former Trump foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos -- no, not that one -- has been turned by ex-FBI director Robert Mueller as part of the latter's investigation into Trump campaign team members. Mueller is probing allegations of obstruction of justice, money laundering and other financial crimes, and collusion with Russian government agents seeking to meddle with last year's US presidential election.

Papadopoulos has been assisting Mueller's special inquiry for several months, but word of this cooperation only emerged today when his guilty plea to making false statements to the FBI was unsealed.

Coincidentally, Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort surrendered himself this morning to Mueller at his nearest FBI office, as requested, to answer allegations ranging from making false statements to acting as a foreign agent.

Ex-Trump campaign official Rick Gates, also accused of conspiracy and money laundering, handed himself in today, too. The indictment against the pair is here , and both deny any wrongdoing.

Among the wealth of details in Papadopoulos' 14-page statement [PDF] is the fact that he used Facebook Messenger and Skype to communicate with a Russian government agent, called "the Professor," who promised to provide damaging information on the Clinton campaign. Emails, no less.

"This isn't like he [the Professor]'s messaging me while I'm in April with Trump," Papadopoulos told the FBI. "I wasn't even on the Trump team." Except he was on the team in April 2016. The Feds noted in their court paperwork: "Defendant PAPADOPOULOS met the Professor for the first time on or about March 14, 2016, after defendant PAPADOPOULOS had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign; the Professor showed interest in defendant PAPADOPOULOS only after learning of his role."

And then there is extensive evidence -- confirmed by Papadopoulos -- that he acted as a go-between for the Trump campaign and the Russian government, including being supplied with damaging information on the Clinton campaign.

There are also emails from other Trump campaign staff -- so far unnamed -- that show explicit efforts to work with Russians in gathering damaging information on the real-estate tycoon's political rival. In other words, efforts to engage a foreign power to swing a US presidential election.

But let's take a quick look at Facebook.

For one, using Facebook to carry out highly dubious and potentially illegal activity is not a good idea. This is a social network that periodically changes account settings to keep up the pretense that it's not gathering and selling every snippet of information it can get out of you. Anything you say on Facebook may go straight down a pipe to the NSA and a database searchable by the FBI. It's called Section 702 .

Papadopoulos is obviously not a man well versed in spy craft. Something that becomes more apparent when it's revealed the day after he was pulled in for questioning, he deleted his entire Facebook account and started a new one. He also tried changing his phone number to sidestep the Feds.

You can just imagine Mueller's team at their morning meeting: so how did the Papadopoulos interview go yesterday? Well, this morning he deleted his Facebook account. Great, now we know where to look.
... ... ...

[Oct 30, 2017] Indicting Manafort for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government (in this case, Ukraine) probably can be used to a half the Beltway, but never mind by Lambert Strether

Notable quotes:
"... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
Oct 30, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Originally from: 200PM Water Cooler 10-30-2017 naked capitalism By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

Politics

2017

"Virginia Governor – Gillespie vs. Northam" [ RealClearPolitics ]. The average of all polls: Northam 3.3% (Yesterday: 2.8%). Quinnipiac weighs in, with Northam +17 (!!).

"Sanders, who gained his national following by running for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, has refused to endorse the Democratic candidate, Ralph Northam, a mainstream progressive. This signals the left-winger's determination to set ideological litmus tests for Democrats" [ Bloomberg ]. "Bannon, the former top strategist for President Donald Trump, is on a mission to destroy the Republican Party establishment. In Virginia, he's helped pressure Republican Ed Gillespie, a quintessential establishment figure, to embrace immigrant-bashing and race-baiting."

New Cold War

It's Manafort. And Papadopoulos. Two (2) documents were unsealed: Manafort's indictment, and Papadopoulos's plea deal. Here they are:

1) Manafort: United States of America v. Paul J. Manafort and Richard W. Gates, III ( PDF ). (The PDF, via DK, is a searchable PDF as opposed to a scan.)

2) Papadopoulos: United States of American v. George Papadoplous ( PDF ).

As readers know, I haven't been following the ins and outs of all this with complete attention, but as best I can tell, the Manafort indictment is designed to get Manafort to flip, and the Papadopoulos plea signals the inducement for him to do so.

Taking Manafort first, the indictment looks like an especially florid scheme to evade Federal taxes on consulting fees paid to entities controlled by Manafort by Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions , by laundering it through nominees in Cyprus into real estate (and rugs). There's nothing in the indictment about election "meddling," and the Russians appear only at a second remove (as the ultimate backers of the Party of Regions). The Feds are also indicting Manafort for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government (in this case, Ukraine) which would probably apply to half the Beltway, but never mind that.

Papadopoulos is juicier, from the Russki standpoint. Here is the salient paragraph, in which Papadopoulos is charged with making false statements (rather a warning shot to the rest of the players in this affair):

Now, the details of the Papadopoulos story are almost clownishly stupid -- a Russian "professor," Putin's "niece," Papadopoulos communicating with his Russki interlocutor via Skype (!) -- so it's hard to know how serious an attempt this was. And if what the Russian professor says is true (we don't know that), we don't know which email is at issue. Still, some Russians could have been doing some "meddling," and some person in the Trump campaign knew about it. Who else knew? Manafort? During the four months he headed Trump's campaign? Presumably, Mueller can follow up the food chain. All this is, of course, very far from Clinton's original claim that Trump is a Russian "puppet," a claim which moreover had and has the ultimate goal of treating as treason advocacy for a policy that is surely not prima facie crazed: That is, the idea that a Clintonite cold war with Russia, or a hot proxy war in the Ukraine, might not be the best idea in the world. Nevertheless, this was not a good day for the Trump administration.

"How to Interpret Robert Mueller's Charges Against Paul Manafort in the Russia Investigation" [ WIRED ]. This is excellent (and recommended by emptywheel , who I would link to except I'm getting CloudFlare errors from her site). This:

For all the talk of Russian collusion, there isn't really a federal crime that matches what the press, critics, and Capitol Hill lawmakers have been calling collusion, a word that refers legally to a narrow segment of antitrust law. And there's almost zero chance anyone will be charged with treason, a charge that's only available to use against enemies in a declared war.

In other words, we can forget about the frothing and stamping of the parties which I can say relieves me no end. And if readers with experience in complex Federal criminal prosecutions want to chime in, great! Musical interlude .

UPDATE Reading the Manafort indictment again, I noticed several mentions of the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, for whom Manafort was a lobbyist. It turns out they gave the Podesta Group $900,000 over two years (including 2012?). "However, the source of the funding remains unclear since ECFMU listed its budget for the financial year ending in November 2012 as only 10,000 euros." Here's a handy chart of the ECMU's connections, from Muckety .

Always good to see bipartisanship!

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , October 30, 2017 at 4:40 pm

From Corey Lewandowski, via the Guardian:

If the public reports are true, and there was a time where Paul Manafort was under a FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978] warrant before coming to the Trump campaign, why is it the FBI never reached out to me as the campaign manager, never reached out to Donald Trump and said "look, you might want to pause for a second and take a look before you bring this guy on board as a volunteer to hunt delegates for you."

They never did that. He was under a FISA warrant, supposedly, both before and after his tenure at the campaign and the FBI never notified the leading presidential candidate for a major Republican Party race? Never notified him of a potential problem? This is a problem with the FBI if you ask me.

I don't know if the FBI was required to do so.

Should they have informed a presidential candidate?

IowanX , October 30, 2017 at 7:53 pm

Hoping Tony Podesta loses a shoe close to whenever Midnight hits as this goes forward. I'm told John is "ok". Tony, not so much. But the Podesta firm has always been thought of as a Democratic shop, so the "both sides do it meme" may actually be proven out We'll see how this rolls. That fact that this is all Ukraine right now makes me think we'll *never* figure out what really happened. Which I guess (JFK ongoing redactions) goes without saying.

Byron the Light Bulb , October 30, 2017 at 2:54 pm

So, the question, begs, "Does Manafort as a bag man earn his fees?"
Because the reviews from his previous clients seem mixed, at best. Asking for a friend.

George Phillies , October 30, 2017 at 3:46 pm

" treason, a charge that's only available to use against enemies in a declared war " Ummh, no. Contemplate the Jefferson Administration.

With respect to the alleged thousands of emails, several choices here

Some people will believe anything. Papadopolous was hoaxed.
DNC emails, some to be obtained later
The Podesta emails

Emails lifted from the Clinton server, raising that issue from the dead.

other

Vatch , October 30, 2017 at 4:05 pm

From Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution:

1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Giving aid and comfort to the nation's enemies does not require a declaration of war. It's also disturbingly vague.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , October 30, 2017 at 4:33 pm

From US Code:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

What are their enemies?

North Koreans?

todde , October 30, 2017 at 5:09 pm

there hasn't been a case that I am aware of that didn't involve taking arms up against the United States (Brown or the Whiskey Rebellion) or aiding a country we were at war with (Tokyo rose).

No one is going to get convicted of treason, conspiracy against the United States is not treason, and probably stems from his tax evasion charge.

Vatch , October 30, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Oddly, there are also state laws against treason. Either the Illinois or the Missouri law was used against Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon denomination.

todde , October 30, 2017 at 6:43 pm

I believe that was Missouri.

The good people of Illinois just ran him out of the state if my class field trip memory serves me still.

DJG , October 30, 2017 at 4:11 pm

The McGuffin in the Papadopolous indictment is the Clinton e-mail messages. And what if they emerge?

The article from Wired is enlightening because it takes a broad view of the FBI's goals and the slowness of the U.S. criminal process. Emptywheel seems to think that it is all over, although she admits that Papadopolous is a plain idiot. I fear that she is moving too fast. But then the Watergate burglars were idiots, too.

All in all, I'd say let the indictments fall down like rain.

But I also recall that the Nixon saga was saved by clever old foxes like Sam Ervin and Judge John Sirica, both of whom were highly underestimated by those in the know, you know. Yet I don't see a Sam Ervin on the horizon. Enjoy the continuing constitutional crisis.

Byron the Light Bulb , October 30, 2017 at 5:40 pm

Mueller: Y'all know me. Know how I earn a livin'. I'll catch this bird for you, but it ain't gonna be easy. Bad fish! Not like going down to the pond and chasing bluegills and tommycods. This shark, swallow ya whole. Little shakin', little tenderizin', down you go. And we gotta do it quick, that'll bring back the tourists, that'll put all your businesses on a payin' basis.
–The campaign doorkeeper is next. The son-in-law with no power. Just for being mishpokhe, poor sob.

John D , October 30, 2017 at 8:25 pm

"All over"?

So there's no hope that, just like a scene from the Old Republic of Livy's first decade, Mueller will round things up with the case for his own indictment ?

allan , October 30, 2017 at 6:50 pm

Fair and balanced:

The veteran judge former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his associate Rick Gates will appear in front of Monday afternoon has presided over a list of big-name defendants and has experienced the criminal justice system firsthand -- when her son was convicted of dealing heroin.

The case will then be handed over to an Obama-appointed judge who donated $1,000 to former President Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign.

Find it yourself. Just Google "Roger Ailes casting couch News Corp phone hacking".

Heliopause , October 30, 2017 at 7:11 pm

"we don't know which email is at issue."

The logical inference is that "the Professor" was claiming to have the lost private server emails, since that's what was on everybody's minds at the time. Unfortunately, the internet is abuzz with wild speculation at the moment that this somehow proves foreknowledge of the DNC leaks, but as the quoted passage shows there is nothing in the language of the plea to support that conclusion. Nevertheless, expect it to be somberly reported across mainstream platforms as the "smoking gun" that it isn't.

Papadopoulos does not currently stand accused of doing anything wrong other than lying to the FBI. He might have a more interesting story to tell but it's just speculation at this point. Reading through the plea it looks like this may be nothing more than a dumbass who got taken in by a couple of charlatans and then lied about it, Sure, he may have some deeper dirt, or not, I guess we'll find out.

Dave's Not Here , October 30, 2017 at 8:12 pm

Isn't it ironic that the Ukraine pops up here, aka the USGOV's favorite Ukronazis and erstwhile cat's paw vs Russia? It's as stupid as blaming Iran (Shia) for Al Qaeda and ISIS (Sunni). I look forward to seeing the convolutions that the MSM will go through to prove Ukraine = Russia. Hmmm, what other US politicians are known for their ties to the Ukraine?

Watt4Bob , October 30, 2017 at 8:15 pm

So, fill in the blank with any one of 'our' elected representatives in D.C.

"_____________ faces a long list of charges that includes conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, false statements, acting as an unregistered agent as a foreign principal, making misleading statements in violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Act, and seven counts of failing to file reports of foreign bank and financial accounts. That's a dozen in all.

Name one, come on, name a member of the House, or Senate who hasn't made them selves relatively rich off lying and laundering, and influence peddling?

The total number of our elected 'leaders' that pass the smell test could fit in your average mini van.

My Mom used to ask, "If everyone jumped off the bridge, would you do it?"

Anyone who knows me even the least bit knows I'm not making excuses for Trump Inc., I'm just emphasizing how truly f*cked we are as concerns the mean level of ethics extant in our capital city.

[Oct 30, 2017] Lavrentiy Beria principle in "show me a man and I will find you a crime" in action

Finally reports about three successes in Mueller fishing expedition. If charges are proved, Manafort is yet another corrupt player in Washington DC. Who milked the best friend of Joe Biden. But the problem is that probably half of Washington lobbyists can be indicted on similar charges.
Oct 30, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

After the indictment of Manafort and Gates was revealed on Monday morning, Trump tweeted : "Sorry, but this is years ago, before Paul Manafort was part of the Trump campaign. But why aren't Crooked Hillary & the Dems the focus?????"

The president added: "...Also, there is NO COLLUSION!"

Later, the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, played down the connection between the three men and the Trump campaign. She said of Manafort and Gates's indictment: "Today's announcement has nothing to do with the president, presidential campaigns or any campaign activity."

Sanders played down the role of Manafort, who joined the Trump campaign in March 2017 as convention manager, focusing on winning delegates at the 2016 Republican convention, and was promoted to campaign manager in June 2016 before resigning in August over his links to Ukraine. She said: "Paul Manafort was brought in to lead the delegate process, which he did, and was dismissed not too long after that."

She also insisted Papadopoulos's lies to the FBI about his contacts with Russia on behalf of the Trump campaign had "nothing to do with the activities of the campaign", and repeatedly dismissed Papadopoulos as "a volunteer member on an advisory council".

... ... ...

The charges allege the two men worked extensively for political figures and parties in Ukraine and laundered millions of dollars in payment for that work by channelling it through a web of companies, mostly in the US and Cyprus. They are accused of constructing elaborate schemes to hide their earnings from the US government, and failing to register the foreign interests for which they were lobbying.

The indictment alleges $75m in payments flowed through offshore accounts, of which Manafort laundered more than $18m to buy property, goods and services in the US, hiding the income from the government. It says Gates transferred $3m from the offshore accounts to other accounts he controlled.
... ... ...

Yanukovych, whose rule was marked by rampant corruption in his inner circle, fled to Russia during the Maidan revolution in February 2014. In August last year, an alleged "black ledger" surfaced in Kiev that appeared to show millions of dollars of under-the-table payments to numerous Yanukovych allies, including Manafort.

Ukraine's National Anticorruption Bureau posted 22 payments to Manafort between 2007 and 2012 with various vague descriptions such as "sociology" or "services". The payments totalled $12.7m. Manafort said he never received any illegal payments but the scandal prompted him to resign from Trump's campaign.

... ... ...

Although Manafort did not formally assume control of the Trump campaign until 20 June, when campaign manager Corey Lewandowski was fired, Lewandowski said after his ejection: "Paul Manafort has been in operational control of the campaign since 7 April. That's a fact."

Manafort also played the decisive role in ensuring that Trump picked the Indiana governor, Mike Pence, to be his running mate.

[Oct 30, 2017] The decision to press charges against Manafort and one of his aides might be intended to distract attention from the revelations and to regain control of the Russiagate narrative, which has been increasingly falling apart. What reinforces this suspicion is that news of the indictment was leaked disgracefully to the media over the weekend even though the indictment had been sealed by a Federal Judge

Oct 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Oct 30, 2017 3:23:15 PM | 17

Anon @6--

Mercouris weighs in on the Manafort indictment, wherein I agree with his initial assessment:

"It comes after what was in all other respects a disastrous two weeks for the true believers in the Russiagate conspiracy with the revelation that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign financed the 'research' which resulted in the Trump Dossier, and with mounting claims that (as I had previously suspected) the now notorious meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was indeed a sting set up by Fusion GPS, the intermediary company used by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign to fund the Trump Dossier.

"In light of this there has to be some suspicion that the decision to press charges against Manafort and one of his aides now was intended at least in part to distract attention from the revelations and to regain control of the Russiagate narrative, which has been increasingly falling apart.

"What reinforces this suspicion is that news of the indictment was leaked – disgracefully – to the media over the weekend even though the indictment had been sealed by a Federal Judge." http://theduran.com/manafort-indictment-muellers-first-last-shot/

All the while Mueller spins his wheels, the really big criminals in this fiasco remain the Clintons, Obamas, and staff that worked abetting their crimes.

[Oct 30, 2017] Paul Manafort Indicted On 12 Counts In Mueller Probe, Surrenders To FBI Zero Hedge

Might be a wwya put swipe under the table Steele dociier. Also what is interesting is that Bill and Hillary Clinton, The Bonnie and Clyde of US polit , walk free, Manafort, being a small fish in a large pond of international corruption, was caught in the net and is under arrest... They want him to talk. Manafort will be under a lot of pressure to produce evidence of any Trump/Putin connection.
Oct 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

The special counsel's office considers Manafort a flight risk, and lawyers in Mueller's office argued before Judge Deborah Robinson on Monday afternoon, citing the seriousness of the charges and the extent of Manafort's ties abroad. The FBI took possession of Manafort's passport yesterday. In a statement to reporters following the hearing, Manafort's lawyer, Kevin Downing, called the charges against his client "ridiculous."

"There is no evidence that Mr. Manafort or the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government," Downing told reporters after Manafort's court appearance.

"Mr. Manafort represented pro-European Union campaigns for the Ukrainians. And in that, he was seeking to further democracy, and to help the Ukraine come closer to the United States and the EU."

"The claim that maintaining offshore accounts to bring all your funds into the United States as a scheme to conceal from the United States government is ridiculous," he continued.

Downing called Mueller's prosecution of Manafort using the Foreign Agents Registration Act "a very novel theory," point out that the government has only brought charges under the law six times since 1966.

According to the Hill , Manafort retained Downing, a former Department of Justice official, in August. Downing is known for his work representing clients facing complex financial investigations.

* * *

Update: Democrat Adam Schiff, the ranking member on the House Intelligence committee, said the indictments open up "new lines of inquiry" in the Russia probe, even after reports surfaced earlier this week that many Republican members of Schiff's committee are trying to wind it down.

Today's indictments of Manafort and Gates, and Papadopoulos' guilty plea are key developments in Russia probe. Here's why: pic.twitter.com/ELNg3LPoe3

-- Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) October 30, 2017

Update: Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has confirmed that the White House has no intention of firing Special Counsel Robert Mueller. She added that the role of George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser during the campaign who pleaded guilty to obstruction earlier this month, was "extremely limited."

Sanders reiterated that the Manafort indictment has "nothing to do with us," noting that his alleged criminal activities took place before he joined the campaign. When asked if the president now regrets hiring Manafort, she said she hadn't asked him about his feelings on the matter. She also played down Papadopoulos's involvement with the campaign was minimal, saying he met with a group of foreign policy advisers one time, and had his named included on a list of advisers given to the Washington Post.

Sanders added that Manafort was hired to lead the campaign's delegate push ahead of the convention, and was let go shortly after.

IH8OBAMA -> CuttingEdge , Oct 30, 2017 12:29 PM

Did the FBI screw up in their search of Manafort's home?

"...we were immediately drawn to the revelation that evidence was collected that may not have been covered by the warrant. That's a serious development, and one that Manafort's attorneys will no doubt seize upon. But, is it necessarily illegal? Did the agents do anything wrong? It's not clear. It certainly could raise some serious constitutional issues that could taint the investigation."

https://lawnewz.com/high-profile/mueller-teams-apparent-mistake-could-re...

IH8OBAMA -> 3LockBox , Oct 30, 2017 10:09 AM

Manafort was told not too long ago that he was going to be indicted. This is really nothing new and has zero involvement with Trump.

Let's get to the bottom of the Hillary, Obama, Lynch, Holder, IRS and other illegalities. Bring those indictments.

boattrash -> chunga , Oct 30, 2017 10:29 AM

Keep this fucker in mind too...Neil Kornze. Below is an excerpt from his Bio...

Before coming the Bureau of Land Management, Kornze worked as a Senior Advisor to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In his work for Senator Reid, which spanned from early 2003 to early 2011, he worked on a variety of public lands issues, including renewable energy development, mining, water, outdoor recreation, rural development, and wildlife. Kornze has also served as an international election observer in Macedonia, the Ukraine, and Georgia and is co-author of an article in The Oxford Companion to American Law.

Tangled webs and pieces of shit. Ya think Mueller will be charging this bastard? No, me either..

chunga -> boattrash , Oct 30, 2017 10:44 AM

Mueller won't, my opinion on him is he's nothing more than a hatchet man to chop Trump. Sessions should though. Some people still like the guy but I just don't trust him with the shit he's done so far, like coming out and praising this Myhre. I know you read Redoubt News but I wish more people did because they're doing a good job.

US Attorney Myhre Sinks Deep in the Swamp

https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/us-attorney-myhre-sinks-deep-swamp/

In a surprising ruling, Judge Navarro allowed disgraced BLM agent Dan Love to be questioned for a full day on Monday. Love was obviously upset at the officials in the * DOJ overriding his authority as the Incident Commander.

*bold emphasis mine

Lumberjack -> chunga , Oct 30, 2017 11:10 AM

"The primary responsibility of the special counsel" is " to investigate Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election "

Furthermore, Mannafort and even Trump himself had no idea he would be running for president 5 years ago.

Um, the Special Council is way off target...by miles and years. Mannafort et.al. should get what they deserve but the collusion is all Podesta/Hillary/Fusion GPS/Crowdstrike et.al..

The Special Council needs to get crackin...and back on track

Cloud9.5 -> 3LockBox , Oct 30, 2017 11:46 AM

A pardon shuts down Mueller's investigation. This is a witch hunt and like all witch hunts guilt is ascribed to the suspect by simply being named. So there is no justice here. This is all partisan politics. The simple fact is that there are so many laws on the books that honest people unwittingly break the law every day. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/10/you-break-the-law-every-day-without-even-knowing-it.html

This is a labyrinth that has no end. This is a fishing expedition and Muller is casting a net far and wide and he will find a number of people who inadvertently broke the law. People like Martha Stewart come to mind. James B. Comey burned Martha Stewart at the stake of self-righteousness for lying to the FBI, but this same moral crusader found no wrong doing in Hillary Clinton's email scandal. Clearly as far as the FBI is concerned, Martha was a real paragon of evil while Hillary is the most altruistic person on the planet. Either the Republicans get behind Trump and pull the trigger on the Clinton crime syndicate or they lose the next election.

Creative_Destruct -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar , Oct 30, 2017 10:13 AM

" In August 2016, Manafort's connections to former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of Regions drew national attention in the USA, where it was reported that Manafort may have illegally received $12.7 million in off-the-books funds from the Party of Regions. [29] On August 17, 2016, Donald Trump received his first security briefing. [30] Also, on August 17, 2016, the New York Times reported on an internal staff memorandum from Manafort stating that Manafort would "remain the campaign chairman and chief strategist, providing the big-picture, long-range campaign vision". [31] However, two days later, Trump announced his acceptance of Manafort's resignation from the campaign after Stephen Bannon and Kellyanne Conway took on senior leadership roles within that campaign. [32] [33] "

So a scumbag lobbyist got caught laundering money over many years BEFORE (and continuing during and apparently unrelated to) Trump's campaign... and then exited the campaign. Unless there is direct evidence of the Trump campaign using Manafort as a conduit for collusion with the Russians (and I know of no evidence for that) this is irrelevant to charges of Trump campaign Russian collusion.

But those facts will NOT be emphasized by the MSM.

AND speculation will persist that Mueller will use his Manafort leverage to drop more shoes...for YEARS.

chestergimli -> Creative_Destruct , Oct 30, 2017 10:26 AM

I just wonder if this little charade of Mueller's isn't revenge for the fact that Yanukovich turned on the US and sided with Russia. Boy the deep state and the Pentagon sure must have wanted Crimea really bad. Manafort seems to be the point guy.

L Bean -> chestergimli , Oct 30, 2017 10:40 AM

BINGO.

CONCEPTPOLITICO -> chestergimli , Oct 30, 2017 1:32 PM

Less the point guy and more the scapegoat. TPTB are pissed off at Lil Yanu for turning coat on them and siding with Putin and they are pissed at Trump for getting elected. So they figure they can try to ameliorate their frustration at these two disses with one scapegoat. Ala Manafort. Look up Manaforts history. He has been doing this slimly kind of lobbyist for 3rd world and former Soviet satellite state strong men for three decades and for that same period of time he has not been paying his taxes on there earnings (i.e. money laundering). But so has the likes of the Podesta Brothers, Clinton, Pat Robertson and the like. Unfortunetely for Manafort he step into the scapegoat pit for as the TPTB was eager to display its anger throgh a ritual cutting of a political head sacrifice when he stepped in to help Trump's campaign gather delegates.

Giant Meteor -> Creative_Destruct , Oct 30, 2017 10:54 AM

Manafort is a string, to be pulled ..

However, what is evident, or what should become evident, there are king makers, and there are bag men, and they are employed by ALL swamp creatures with equal zeal. The point here is, this shit goes way beyond what is stated, as always. These snakes slither in the same swamp, and not one among them has clean hands ...

Not one ..

Manafort, Podesta, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Trump ...

So for all these dirty little charades, these stage props of "justice", the "collusion" has been a collusion, and direct assault against the very interests of the American people, for many, many moons ..

Teja -> Creative_Destruct , Oct 30, 2017 12:51 PM

Yanukovych was democratically elected. He would be deeply shocked that he worked together with a "scumbag lobbyist". Same for Trump, who would never have assumed Manaford had a shady history. Never. Who could have known this? Not Nobody! Not No How!

/s

No Time for Fishing -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar , Oct 30, 2017 10:29 AM

The answer here is not everyone else does it why single out him, but instead time for partisan Mueller's team to start investigating all the Republican Swamp rats and hold them all to the same standards, except for those members of Mueller's team starting with Mueller who are guilty themselves. Appoint a second equally viscous Republican Partison to investigate and prosecute Hillary, Bill, Obama, Holder, DWS, Pelosi and the rest of the Democrat Swamp Rats. We will probably need to appoint some additonal Federal Judges because the courts are going to be very busy and swift justice is the best justice.

WillyGroper -> Gaius Frakkin' Baltar , Oct 30, 2017 11:18 AM

absolutely!

and speaking of looting Ukraine...nooodullman?

dopey me, doesn't apply to duals.

Michigander -> CuttingEdge , Oct 30, 2017 9:48 AM

I listen to the opposition (PBS) in the morning for an hour while showering and getting to work. Still talking Trump Russia collusion every other story and not a fucking word about Hildebeasts and Muellers Uranium dealings.

L Bean -> Haus-Targaryen , Oct 30, 2017 10:51 AM

All of that is just red meat for the plebs. It's not hard to spend that much on fine rugs. And every fine home in Georgetown and the UES is stuffed to the gills with them.

They also get quite a laugh getting Joe Schmoe worked up about how much someone's haircut cost. Nearly a million in clothes? A vintage Patek Phillipe watch and 2 tailored suits and you're there. Or for the woman, a fews enormous pearl necklaces and a Chanel suit.

CuttingEdge -> Michigander , Oct 30, 2017 10:09 AM

The collusion by the MSM to keep this story from the public conscious is truly stunning. Any MSM source other than Fox on this issue in the USA and you are a mushroom.

And international. Nothing in the UK in the past ten days since the dossier funding and the Uranium-1 informant (who is going to personally buttfuck Mueller from every angle) stories broke. The Telegraph's* last Hillary story was a fucking HRC through the ages fashion piece.

And all the usual insidious cunts like Podesta, HRC and DWS sharing a houseboat on a river in Egypt.

*I would personally like to inform any journo working for the DT that you are a spineless worm. A piece of morally corrupted parasitic shit. Every single motherfucking one of you. Scum assisting in making 1984 a reality.

Kayman -> CuttingEdge , Oct 30, 2017 10:11 AM

No Grand Jury to look at the Clintons ! No Grand Jury indictment for the Podestas ! Mueller is doing his job- destroying evidence.

Endgame Napoleon -> El Vaquero , Oct 30, 2017 11:34 AM

Taxpayers need to cover the cost of security for Swampians in an era of increased publicity and fast-paced communications. But Swampians of all types need to be banned from lobbying and other money-making activities in foreign countries related to their time in office, such as profitable not for profits with political donors in foreign countries, sales of bomb-making material to foreign countries and accepting six-figure-to-multi-million-dollar speechmaking fees from foreign interests that are interwoven with governments. These are opportunities spawned by their time in office. All they have to do to make it legal is to disclose it; it is just fine for government officials and their associates to make enormous amounts of money off of catering to foreign interests unless they fail to disclose.

Short of a sea change in the way money is made due to automation, globalism is going to keep sinking The Republic, with elite working families saying they are doing all of it for average working families in America. Sell it with a fake-feminist, mommy-baby-concern theme, and you can do any nefarious thing you want, whether in high or low places. Visit a local, $10-per-hour, crony-mom call center or a momma-gang corporate back office for the rougher, downscale version.

I am beginning to root for the robots. It is probably the only way we will see any real change. Advances in technology in the pre-automation age let these elites operate businesses and other institutions more easily around the globe to the detriment of The Republic and their own country's widespread prosperity.

Maybe, a global, robotic workforce will return us to elected governments, where the voters' interests are actually represented, rather than lobbyist-fed, elected representatives representing the interests of American and foreign elites who are invested in near-slave production around the globe, so-called emerging markets, war clean-up or lucrative NGOs.

Maybe, we we will see less lucrative-for-elites intervention in foreign countries under the brand of helping mommies and babies around the globe that is government/corporate-financed, with many of the financiers being global dictators.

Maybe, further advances in technology will nullify these globalist pathways to riches for political elites, making it easier for the Founders' values to resurface. When robots are doing most of the work, these near-slave labor and consumer markets abroad will be less tantalizing, leaving only things like land, uranium deposits, oil and other geographic gems to attract elite attention away from building up the USA.

pods -> Sean7k , Oct 30, 2017 10:19 AM

Wells Fargo was opening up accounts for people without knowledge. Punishment? A fine, and state we won't do it again.

This indictment was top story on the radio on the way into work. I was hoping to hear about the actual shocking story (Uranium one deal) but crickets.

There is no hope for actual justice. Just more vendettas by warring sides.

I say fuck it, burn the whole thing to the ground. It would be cheaper.

pods

two hoots -> Sean7k , Oct 30, 2017 10:50 AM

Where was I? I plead dementia.

I'm generic and any corruption that gets weeded out is fine by me. Yes, there is plenty more but I will take whatever, from wherever as long as it is rooted out.

It must be autumn harverst time for sexual perverts and corrupt assholes. They seem to be all coming out/forced out? Put them all in the same cells.

Chupacabra-322 -> gmrpeabody , Oct 30, 2017 9:14 AM

ATTN: Forward the following everyone & their mothers.

Published on Oct 24, 2017FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds exposes Special Counsel Robert Mueller's conflict of interest in pursuing General Michael Flynn's case due to his direct involvement as former FBI Director and his role in covering up and protecting Gulen Networks' criminal operations within the United States, and demands that he steps down.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DvFCAIRkvWU&sns=tw

xavi1951 -> JRobby , Oct 30, 2017 9:48 AM

Mueller was supposed to investigate Russian Collusion. Instead, he and his team of Hillary supporters, looked at everything that everyone on the Trump team did at any time, even before they were connected to Trump. The whole thing has set a new precident for Special Counsels. Don't investigate a crime, find a crime, any crime.

I think they should be turned loose on Congress. There would have to be special elections across the country to fill the vacant seats.

xavi1951 -> JRobby , Oct 30, 2017 9:48 AM

Mueller was supposed to investigate Russian Collusion. Instead, he and his team of Hillary supporters, looked at everything that everyone on the Trump team did at any time, even before they were connected to Trump. The whole thing has set a new precident for Special Counsels. Don't investigate a crime, find a crime, any crime.

I think they should be turned loose on Congress. There would have to be special elections across the country to fill the vacant seats.

lester1 , Oct 30, 2017 8:20 AM

It's Manafort for not filing his taxes properly. But no charges related to "Russia election meddling". 6 months into this fake investigation Mueller has got nothing related to that..

Mueller is a deep state swamp creature and dishonest. He will now push Manafort to roll on the President and manufacture a bogus crime. Watch.

Meanwhile, Hillary skates despite an mountain of evidence of actual crimes!

justin423 -> lester1 , Oct 30, 2017 8:30 AM

They are using the other crimes to get Manafort to flip.

duh.

Gates is the real prize here. Look at his biography. He is the collusion link. I'll bet he has an intreresting story to tell.

66Mustanggirl , Oct 30, 2017 8:18 AM

This is priceless. So the Buzzfeed scoop was actually legit? Manafort and thirteen "suspicious" wire transfers? That were already looked at by the F.B.I.?? Five YEARS ago??? THIS is the BOMBSHELL BREAKING NEWS coming from the great Russian Collusion investigation??? I thought for sure the story was either a diversion or a bad joke. Dear lord. To call this farce of an investigation a dog and pony show would be to cast dispersions upon all the legitimate dog and pony shows throughout history. This is like a bad SNL skit. From the 90's. With Jim Breuer as Goat Boy.

Dems.....you have been soooooo played! L.O.L. But PLEASE....please, please PLEASE.....keep waiting for that silver bullet that will take down Trump to magically appear. That will ensure you are COMPLETELY irrelevant in 2018.

Hammer of Light , Oct 30, 2017 8:19 AM

How about we pin the execution on the Mueller for his cover up role in 9/11? He was acting director of the inside deep state attack on the US that the FBI was clearly involved with as well as the CIA and co.

Mueller belongs with his Bush and Cheney cohorts and all who were absolutely involved in the 3 towers demolition destruction and mass murder of Americans.

The US no longer exists people, the government is completely over run and if you think you still have a country... find yourself laughing at yourself in the mirror!

It's all a circus of madness now! Babylon will laughably fall, it's already begun.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsxgLjGXGI&ytbChannel=Thrifty032781

This 16 second clip says it all about our US Special Prosecutors and those in control of all of DC.

Hundreds of millions to have a 9/11 actor serve justice in finding a Russian collusion where NONE exists. I hope Manafort shoves their noses in a big steaming pile of Dick Cheney's steaming shit.

Everybodys All ... , Oct 30, 2017 8:22 AM

The real action is just beginning because they (Mueller and his party) think Manafort will "flip" on Trump in order to get out of his problem with this indictment. Of course every little retard liberal will think this is about Russian influence on the election even though it clearly will not be. Half of this country is living in an alternate reality and that will not end well for all of us.

jamesmmu , Oct 30, 2017 8:25 AM

According to the left, Trump is about to go to prison. According to the right, Hillary is about to go to prison. I feel like very few are aware of both possibilities.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/according-to-the-left-trump-is-about-to-g...

Smilygladhands , Oct 30, 2017 8:26 AM

I see news networks saying Manafort could turn on others to implicate them. However it seems to me, if that was the case, wouldnt they have already offered that deal to him before charging him?

[Oct 29, 2017] Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan.The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.

Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.

Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.

Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.

Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.

These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth.

Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org .

[Oct 29, 2017] In Shocking, Viral Interview, Qatar Confesses Secrets Behind Syrian War

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... According to Zero Hedge's translation, al-Thani said while acknowledging Gulf nations were arming jihadists in Syria with the approval and support of US and Turkey: "I don't want to go into details but we have full documents about us taking charge [in Syria]." He claimed that both Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah (who reigned until his death in 2015) and the United States placed Qatar in a lead role concerning covert operations to execute the proxy war. ..."
"... The former prime minister's comments, while very revealing, were intended as a defense and excuse of Qatar's support for terrorism, and as a critique of the US and Saudi Arabia for essentially leaving Qatar "holding the bag" in terms of the war against Assad. Al-Thani explained that Qatar continued its financing of armed insurgents in Syria while other countries eventually wound down large-scale support, which is why he lashed out at the US and the Saudis, who initially "were with us in the same trench." ..."
"... In a previous US television interview which was vastly underreported, al-Thani told Charlie Rose when asked about allegations of Qatar's support for terrorism that, "in Syria, everybody did mistakes, including your country." And said that when the war began in Syria, "all of us worked through two operation rooms: one in Jordan and one in Turkey." ..."
"... Furthermore, one day before Prime Minister Thani's interview, The Intercept released a new top-secret NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which show in stunning clarity that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The newly released NSA document confirms that a 2013 insurgent attack with advanced surface-to-surface rockets upon civilian areas of Damascus, including Damascus International Airport, was directly supplied and commanded by Saudi Arabia with full prior awareness of US intelligence. As the former Qatari prime minister now also confirms, both the Saudis and US government staffed "operations rooms" overseeing such heinous attacks during the time period of the 2013 Damascus airport attack. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge . ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

A television interview of a top Qatari official confessing the truth behind the origins of the war in Syria is going viral across Arabic social media during the same week a leaked top secret NSA document was published which confirms that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the conflict.

And according to a well-known Syria analyst and economic adviser with close contacts in the Syrian government, the explosive interview constitutes a high level "public admission to collusion and coordination between four countries to destabilize an independent state, [including] possible support for Nusra/al-Qaeda." Importantly, "this admission will help build case for what Damascus sees as an attack on its security & sovereignty. It will form basis for compensation claims."

A 2013 London press conference: Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. A 2014 Hillary Clinton email confirmed Qatar as a state-sponsor of ISIS during that same time period.

As the war in Syria continues slowly winding down, it seems new source material comes out on an almost a weekly basis in the form of testimonials of top officials involved in destabilizing Syria, and even occasional leaked emails and documents which further detail covert regime change operations against the Assad government. Though much of this content serves to confirm what has already long been known by those who have never accepted the simplistic propaganda which has dominated mainstream media, details continue to fall in place, providing future historians with a clearer picture of the true nature of the war.

This process of clarity has been aided - as predicted - by the continued infighting among Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) former allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with each side accusing the other of funding Islamic State and al-Qaeda terrorists (ironically, both true). Increasingly, the world watches as more dirty laundry is aired and the GCC implodes after years of nearly all the gulf monarchies funding jihadist movements in places like Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

The top Qatari official is no less than former Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, who oversaw Syria operations on behalf of Qatar until 2013 (also as foreign minister), and is seen below with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in this Jan. 2010 photo (as a reminder, Qatar's 2022 World Cup Committee donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2014 ).

In an interview with Qatari TV Wednesday, bin Jaber al-Thani revealed that his country, alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States, began shipping weapons to jihadists from the very moment events "first started" (in 2011).

Al-Thani even likened the covert operation to "hunting prey" - the prey being President Assad and his supporters - "prey" which he admits got away (as Assad is still in power; he used a Gulf Arabic dialect word, "al-sayda", which implies hunting animals or prey for sport). Though Thani denied credible allegations of support for ISIS, the former prime minister's words implied direct Gulf and US support for al-Qaeda in Syria (al-Nusra Front) from the earliest years of the war, and even said Qatar has "full documents" and records proving that the war was planned to effect regime change.

According to Zero Hedge's translation, al-Thani said while acknowledging Gulf nations were arming jihadists in Syria with the approval and support of US and Turkey: "I don't want to go into details but we have full documents about us taking charge [in Syria]." He claimed that both Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah (who reigned until his death in 2015) and the United States placed Qatar in a lead role concerning covert operations to execute the proxy war.

The former prime minister's comments, while very revealing, were intended as a defense and excuse of Qatar's support for terrorism, and as a critique of the US and Saudi Arabia for essentially leaving Qatar "holding the bag" in terms of the war against Assad. Al-Thani explained that Qatar continued its financing of armed insurgents in Syria while other countries eventually wound down large-scale support, which is why he lashed out at the US and the Saudis, who initially "were with us in the same trench."

In a previous US television interview which was vastly underreported, al-Thani told Charlie Rose when asked about allegations of Qatar's support for terrorism that, "in Syria, everybody did mistakes, including your country." And said that when the war began in Syria, "all of us worked through two operation rooms: one in Jordan and one in Turkey."

Here is the key section of Wednesday's interview , translated and subtitled by @Walid970721. Zero Hedge has reviewed and confirmed the translation, however, as the original rush translator has acknowledged , al-Thani doesn't say "lady" but "prey" ["al-sayda"]- as in both Assad and Syrians were being hunted by the outside countries.

The partial English transcript is as follows:

When the events first started in Syria I went to Saudi Arabia and met with King Abdullah. I did that on the instructions of his highness the prince, my father. He [Abdullah] said we are behind you. You go ahead with this plan and we will coordinate but you should be in charge. I won't get into details but we have full documents and anything that was sent [to Syria] would go to Turkey and was in coordination with the US forces and everything was distributed via the Turks and the US forces. And us and everyone else was involved, the military people. There may have been mistakes and support was given to the wrong faction... Maybe there was a relationship with Nusra, its possible but I myself don't know about this we were fighting over the prey ["al-sayda"] and now the prey is gone and we are still fighting... and now Bashar is still there. You [US and Saudi Arabia] were with us in the same trench... I have no objection to one changing if he finds that he was wrong, but at least inform your partner for example leave Bashar [al-Assad] or do this or that, but the situation that has been created now will never allow any progress in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council], or any progress on anything if we continue to openly fight.
As is now well-known, the CIA was directly involved in leading regime change efforts in Syria with allied gulf partners, as leaked and declassified US intelligence memos confirm . The US government understood in real time that Gulf and West-supplied advanced weaponry was going to al-Qaeda and ISIS, despite official claims of arming so-called "moderate" rebels. For example, a leaked 2014 intelligence memo sent to Hillary Clinton acknowledged Qatari and Saudi support for ISIS.

The email stated in direct and unambiguous language that:

the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Furthermore, one day before Prime Minister Thani's interview, The Intercept released a new top-secret NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which show in stunning clarity that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.

The newly released NSA document confirms that a 2013 insurgent attack with advanced surface-to-surface rockets upon civilian areas of Damascus, including Damascus International Airport, was directly supplied and commanded by Saudi Arabia with full prior awareness of US intelligence. As the former Qatari prime minister now also confirms, both the Saudis and US government staffed "operations rooms" overseeing such heinous attacks during the time period of the 2013 Damascus airport attack.

No doubt there remains a massive trove of damning documentary evidence which will continue to trickle out in the coming months and years. At the very least, the continuing Qatari-Saudi diplomatic war will bear more fruit as each side builds a case against the other with charges of supporting terrorism. And as we can see from this latest Qatari TV interview, the United States itself will not be spared in this new open season of airing dirty laundry as old allies turn on each other.

Reprinted with permission from ZeroHedge .


Related

[Oct 29, 2017] US senator wants former DNC head, Clinton campaign manager to testify on Trump-Russia dossier

Notable quotes:
"... "absolutely need to be recalled." ..."
"... "It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses," ..."
"... "more than anyone." ..."
"... On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week, citing sources familiar with the matter. ..."
"... The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign. ..."
"... It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). ..."
"... The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the expenditures as "legal services," ..."
"... "legal and compliance consulting" ..."
"... "fake dossier," ..."
"... "Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," ..."
"... "so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out." ..."
"... "commonly agreed" ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.rt.com

Several top Democrats should be summoned to testify before the US Senate Intelligence Committee on the infamous Trump-Russia dossier, US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) has said. Her remarks were prompted by new revelations linking the file to the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, Collins, who is a member of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, was emphatic that Hillary Clinton's election campaign manager, John Podesta, and the former head of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "absolutely need to be recalled."

She added that they were most likely aware of the Democrats role in the preparation of this document.

"It's difficult to imagine that a campaign chairman, that the head of the DNC would not know of an expenditure of this magnitude and significance. But perhaps there's something more going on here. But certainly it's worth additional questioning of those two witnesses," she told CBS' Face the Nation.

Read more © Alex Edelman / Global Look Press Senate to examine financial records of firm behind notorious Trump-Russia dossier

She said further that Marc Elias, a lawyer representing Hillary for America and the DNC, should be questioned "more than anyone." On Tuesday, the Washington Post alleged that Elias retained research firm Fusion GPS in April 2016 to continue research into Trump's alleged coordination with Russia; and which later became known as the Steele dossier.

On the same day, Elias' law firm, Perkins Coie, which represented the Clinton campaign and the DNC, confirmed it had hired Fusion GPS in April 2016. The funding arrangement brokered in the spring of 2016 lasted until right before the election, AP reported earlier this week, citing sources familiar with the matter.

The document, compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, alleged a compromising relationship between Trump and the Kremlin. It was finalized in December 2016, and published online by BuzzFeed in January. It contained unsubstantiated claims of links and allegations of deals between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

It was funded initially by a Republican-funded journalism website, The Washington Free Beacon. However, the website insisted the enquiry had no Russian angle at that time. The alleged collusion between Trump and Russia became the focal point of the research after it was taken over by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The Clinton campaign paid more than $5.6 million to Perkins Coie, recording the expenditures as "legal services," according to the Federal Election Commission. The DNC paid the law firm more than $2.9 million for "legal and compliance consulting" and reported $66,500 for research consulting.

Clinton/DNC paid for the Trump-Russia dossier - DETAILS https://t.co/dPBsSDfOIf

-- RT (@RT_com) October 25, 2017

Taking note of the recent revelations concerning the dossier, the US House Intelligence Committee has been granted access to Fusion GPS bank account records as part of its investigation into the alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

On Sunday, Donald Trump lashed out in a series of tweets at the dossier and said something should be done about Hillary Clinton's links to the "fake dossier," as the US president put it.

"Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier," he wrote, later adding, that there is "so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out."

Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?),....

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 29, 2017

Earlier this week, Trump said it is "commonly agreed" that there was no collusion between his presidential bid and the Russian government, and accused Clinton of being the one who really colluded with Russia.

[Oct 29, 2017] John Feffer The Real Disuniting of America by Tom Engelhardt

Wars eventually deeply affect on the nation which launches them....
Notable quotes:
"... Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's true , too) but this planet. Though hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief. ..."
"... Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated ." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city ( almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. ..."
"... In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced, their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the planet was leveled in World War II. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

Stop thinking of this country as the sole superpower or the indispensable nation on Earth and start reimagining it as the great fracturer, the exceptional smasher, the indispensable fragmenter. Its wars of the twenty-first century are starting to come home big time -- home being not just this particular country (though that's true , too) but this planet. Though hardly alone , the U.S. is, for the moment, the most exceptional home-destroyer around and its president is now not just the commander-in-chief but the home-smasher-in-chief.

Just this week, for instance, home smashing was in the headlines. After all, the Islamic State's "capital," the city of Raqqa, was " liberated ." We won! The U.S. and the forces it backed in Syria were finally victorious and the brutal Islamic State (a home-smashing movement that emerged from an American military prison in Iraq) was finally driven from that city ( almost !). And oh yes, according to witnesses , the former city of 300,000 lies abandoned with hardly a building left undamaged, unbroken, unsmashed. Over these last months, the American bombing campaign against Raqqa and the artillery support that went with it reportedly killed more than 1,000 civilians and turned significant parts of the city into rubble -- and what that didn't do, ISIS bombs and other munitions did. (According to estimates , they could take years to find and remove.) And Raqqa is just the latest Middle Eastern city to be smashed more or less to bits.

And since the splintering of the planet is the TomDispatch subject of the day, what about the recent Austrian election, fought out and won by right-wing "populists" on the basis of anti-refugee sentiments and Islamophobia? Where exactly did such sentiments come from? You know perfectly well: from America's war on terror and the much-vaunted " precision warfare " (smart bombs and the rest) that continues to fracture a vast swath of the planet from Afghanistan to Libya and beyond.

In the Greater Middle East and Africa, people by the tens of millions , including staggering numbers of children , have been uprooted and displaced, their homes destroyed, their cities and towns devastated, sending survivors fleeing across national borders as refugees in numbers that haven't been seen since a significant part of the planet was leveled in World War II. In this way, America's 16-year-old war on terror has been a genuine force for terror, and so for the kind of resentment and fear that's now helping to crack open a recently united Europe (and in the United States helped elect well, you know just who).

And that's only a small introduction to the largely unexplored American role in the fracturing of this planet. Don't even get me started on our president and climate change!

As it happens, the fellow who brought the nature of this splintering home to me was TomDispatch regular John Feffer, who in early 2015 began writing for this website what became his remarkable dystopian novel Splinterlands . In it, he imagined our shattered planet in 2050 so vividly that it's stayed with me ever since -- and evidently with him, too, because today he considers just how quickly the splintering process he imagined has been occurring not in his fictional version of our world, but in the all-too-real one.

Robert Magill , October 25, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT

If we lose the state in a fourth great shattering, we will lose an important part of ourselves as well: our very humanity.

In many respects the "state", USA that is, is already lost. What we had until the 1950s was an ongoing mythology known as America; an agreed upon, ongoing concern known abroad for its popular music, for Hollywood, for a thriving middle class, a healthy working-class and a supplier of goods and services to the world, envy of all. Well, we shot a few holes in Myth America!

First to go was the music: replaced by Bubblegum; downhill from there. Tin Pan Alley is now dumpster heaven. The middle class now resides in Beijing with largess delivered to our Dollar emporiums (not seen here since the Great Depression). Noticeable gaps in the starving malls once housed record stores and book shops; remember them?

The final blow has landed on the movie houses across the land. Near empty, struggling. Even in the depths of the 30′s, movie house were full. But then, "No myth:No nation". No more.

https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/10/14/mankind-a-bogus-species/

[Oct 29, 2017] UN On Khan Sheikhoun - Victims Hospitalized BEFORE Claimed Incident Happened

Notable quotes:
"... There was a story (sorry, lost any references) that stated that at least one of the US warships that launched the Tomahawks after this incident, was still in Spain on April 2nd. So that ship had to travel across the Mediterranean at full speed (and not at cruise speed) to be on time for the attack. ..."
"... And that implies the attack was know by the US forces beforehand, and their riposte was also planned and decided before the attack took place. ..."
"... I have come to the point of 100% initially assuming that reports by the MSM in the West are fabrications and then work back to find the few percent of truth, if any. Lying is normal in the West. Honestly is getting very rare, and is abnormal. ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Many of the reports findings are based on open source videos and photographs published by the opposition. It acquired witnesses statements from the area which is under control of al-Qaeda. It also examined forensic evidence for which no chain of custody existed. Some findings are strange .

In annex II, on page 36 (of 39) of the pdf, it notes:

Certain irregularities were observed in elements of information analysed. For example, several hospitals appeared to start admitting casualties of the attack between 0640 and 0645 hours. The Mechanism received the medical records of 247 patients from Khan Shaykhun who were admitted to various health-care facilities, including those of survivors and a number of victims who died from exposure to chemical agent. The admission times of the records range between 0600 and 1600 hours. Analysis of the aforementioned medical records revealed that in 57 cases, patients were admitted in five hospitals before the incident in Khan Shaykhun (at 0600, 0620 and 0640 hours). In 10 such cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours while another 42 patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 30 km away at 0700 hours. The Mechanism did not investigate these discrepancies and cannot determine whether they are linked to any possible staging scenario , or to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions.

At least 23% of the alleged casualties of the incident WERE ADMITTED TO HOSPITALS BEFORE THE INCIDENT HAPPENED

Cont. reading: UN On Khan Sheikhoun - Victims Hospitalized BEFORE Claimed Incident Happened

b | Oct 29, 2017 2:19:17 PM | 2

Another example of fakery of the incident. The report (linked above) notes this, but draws no conclusion:
... In particular, the Mechanism noted that fully equipped hazmat teams appeared at the scene later that afternoon and reported early detection of the presence of sarin, seemingly using a Dräger X-am 7000 ambient air monitor, which was not known to be able to detect sarin.
and
Of further concern to the Mechanism was the relative unprofessionalism by which certain environmental samples appear to have been taken, e.g. sampling from a muddy puddle.
and
The Mechanism also noted scenes recorded just after the incident at the medical point to the east of Khan Shaykhun, where rescue and decontamination activities filmed shortly after 0700 hours showed rescue personnel hosing down patients with water indiscriminately for extended periods of time. Such video footage also depicted a number of patients not being attended to, and some para-medical interventions that did not seem to make medical sense, such as performing heart compression on a patient facing the ground.

But based on all of that, and on the patients that arrived in hospital before the incident happened, the report concludes that Syria dropped Sarin at a moment and place that made zero military or political sense...

Jeff | Oct 29, 2017 2:26:25 PM | 3

There was a story (sorry, lost any references) that stated that at least one of the US warships that launched the Tomahawks after this incident, was still in Spain on April 2nd. So that ship had to travel across the Mediterranean at full speed (and not at cruise speed) to be on time for the attack.

And that implies the attack was know by the US forces beforehand, and their riposte was also planned and decided before the attack took place.

AriusArmenian | Oct 29, 2017 4:23:54 PM | 4
I have come to the point of 100% initially assuming that reports by the MSM in the West are fabrications and then work back to find the few percent of truth, if any. Lying is normal in the West. Honestly is getting very rare, and is abnormal.
Peter AU 1 | Oct 29, 2017 4:28:35 PM | 5
With Trump and T Rex now saying the right things, the hegemon is back up to speed. The US crossed there Rubicon when Obama made his speech at the UNGA a couple of years back. No way China/Russia will be able to give the US a soft landing. Hard times when the bubble bursts for the US.
psychohistorian | Oct 29, 2017 4:29:45 PM | 6
All those who rule the Western world through control of finance have bankrupt morals because of their fealty to the God of Mammon. War and treachery are the tools that fit their mental condition and if they can't BS you into being cowed by their existence they will bomb you into submission.

Negotiation for God of Mammon acolytes is for losers and they will keep the carousel spinning furiously until they are neutered or they take us with them in a blaze of what they consider nuclear glory......I have never seen any of the assholes that my life has presented me with show a smidge of contrition for glaring facts about their societal perfidy.....they double down like Trump does regularly and I suspect it is likely we will see such grandstanding with this situation as well.

War is a cover for anti-humanistic leadership which is the best that can be bought in Amerika.

Mark | Oct 29, 2017 4:35:02 PM | 7
It's irksome that 6:55 is the time Hersh gave for the bombing he was told about. If it were an hour or two earlier, it would make sense of what I take to be his idea - that some bomb-induced chemical disaster was 'converted' into a sarin episode after the fact.
Peter AU 1 | Oct 29, 2017 5:03:27 PM | 8
The bombed building was most likely part of the prep. Possibly chemicals or perhaps simply somthing that woukd give oiff yellow smoke placed into the building then its co-ords slipped into inteligence somehow as an AQ headquarters or whatever so it would become a target for the bombing. The US were notified that the building would be hit and at what time, so AQ/whitehelmets would have been alerted and ready to go into logie award winning action at the allotted time.
Robert Wilhite | Oct 29, 2017 5:24:34 PM | 9
b, thank you again for your analyses.
Robert | Oct 29, 2017 5:26:10 PM | 10
Oops. b, can you take that last post down? Thanks
charles de drake | Oct 29, 2017 5:57:45 PM | 11

victims-hospitalized-before-the-incident-happened.html#comments stop

before the incident happened hmmmm let me thinks


"We Were There to Document The Event
before the incident happened
happened


november 22nd 1963
a gentlemen of the press at the cambridge gazette received a gpo telephonic marconi bakerlite call suggesting he should pronto ring
whitehall 772005 and the us embassy kensington 091101 urgently sharpish fashion for some scoop dum dum head busting historical cia news.
the call related to the assasination of a mr john fitzgerald oflaherty otool kennedy, know relation to the fully oirish john heinz kerrys of killarney we should note.

after the calls where done the cambridge gentlemen of the press was shocked to find that jfk was still alive by several bbc minutes.
he later went to his local police house to report the queer time looper affair indeed.
it later transperspired that the call from the americas had arrived 25mins before the grassy gnome texas kilshot back and to the left don't you know.
25mins before to go what what.
jane stanley bbc on 9 and 11 talmud event building 7 25mins to soon spoke out as well time looping very queer affairs
i really do believe in the future hospitals will have a better success rate if we can get the cadavers into surgery before these events happen
certainly for turkey and israel live organ dealings the living syriana organs from pre incident not happened are prefential
indeeds


victims-hospitalized-before-the-incident-happened.

Ort | Oct 29, 2017 6:12:35 PM | 12
Thanks for deconstructing this latest bogus report.

We are now living in "Reality TV", sad to say.

Not to be naïve or sentimental about it, but government and civic institutions used to maintain at least a modicum of integrity, probity, and objectivity.

Now, official investigations are routinely compromised by nefarious political and social interests. Bad enough that law enforcement and state-security agencies habitually distort or fabricate information to serve their own ends, and their masters' ends.

But it's somehow more insidious when nominally independent investigative bodies become channels of authoritarian governments' infoganda.

This series of slanderous, manufactured, trumped-up (no pun intended) accusations that the Syrian government/military used chemical weapons is practically a "sub-genre" by now.

But it also brings to mind NIST's fraudulent analysis of the destructive events in New York City on 9/11/01, and the equally fraudulent findings of the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team tasked to investigate the downing of the MH-17 aircraft.

I thought of "reality TV" because all of these tendentious reports from ostensibly prestigious organizations are merely props-- items to wave around in front of the camera, and allude to sanctimoniously in support of some reprehensible official policy or narrative.

Thus, I fully concur with AriusArmenian | 4.

[Oct 29, 2017] Trump Heralds GOP Anger, Unity As WSJ Warns Dems The Russian Dossier Dam Is Breaking

Notable quotes:
"... May the example catch on. Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their Democratic sources lied to them. That's already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying. ..."
"... The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid's "October surprise," his attempt 10 days before Election Day to lever the dossier's allegations into the press with a public letter to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding "explosive information." ..."
"... This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role. ..."
"... He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. "research" firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown, unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the stories were true. ..."
"... Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the sidewalk, they'd be in a better ethical position now. Let's hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when he knew it. ..."
"... In closed hearings, he reportedly acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo. ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
In a series if tweets this morning , President Trump has exposed some of the narratives that much of the mainstream media seems loathed to touch...

Never seen such Republican ANGER & UNITY as I have concerning the lack of investigation on Clinton made Fake Dossier (now $12,000,000?), the Uranium to Russia deal, the 33,000 plus deleted Emails, the Comey fix and so much more.

  • Instead they look at phony Trump/Russia "collusion," which doesn't exist.
  • The Dems are using this terrible (and bad for our country) Witch Hunt for evil politics, but the R's are now fighting back like never before.
  • There is so much GUILT by Democrats/Clinton, and now the facts are pouring out. DO SOMETHING!

And while Democrats and their mouthpieces continues to try and focus attention on the unverified frivolous claims within the dossier - as opposed to the illegalities of the dossier's production, collusion, and exhibition - The Wall Street Journal's Holman Jenkins warns then that the Trump Dossier dam is breaking ...

A U.S. political party applied to a hostile power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent.

'Tis the season of tossing out nondisclosure agreements. Victims and employees of Harvey Weinstein clamor to be released from their NDAs so they can talk about his abuse. Perkins Coie, the Washington law firm for the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign, showed the way by voluntarily releasing Fusion GPS from its duty to remain mum on Democrats who funded the notorious Trump dossier.

May the example catch on. Journalists who investigated the Trump dossier now say their Democratic sources lied to them. That's already a start. Please, Democrats, release journalists from their confidentiality agreements so they can tell us more about your lying.

The revelations provide new context for Harry Reid's "October surprise," his attempt 10 days before Election Day to lever the dossier's allegations into the press with a public letter to then-FBI Director James Comey accusing him of withholding "explosive information."

Mr. Reid knows how the responsible press works. Implausible, scurrilous and unsupported allegations are not reportable, but a government official making public reference to such allegations is reportable.

Mr. Reid, though, failed to mention his party's role in concocting the allegations, much less that the manner of its doing so left him no reason to suppose the charges were anything but tall tales spun by Russian intelligence officials in response to danglings of Democratic money.

This is a completely novel tactic in U.S. politics, applying to a hostile foreign power for lurid stories about a domestic opponent. Mr. Reid, please tell us more about your role.

Let's also hear from Adam Schiff, top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He claimed on TV to have "circumstantial" and "more than circumstantial" evidence of Trump collusion with Russia. In the event, what he delivered in a committee hearing was a litany of routine, innocuous business and diplomatic contacts between Trump associates and Russian citizens, interspersed with claims from the Trump dossier.

He failed to mention, though, that the Trump dossier was manufactured by Democrats paying a D.C. law firm to pay a D.C. "research" firm to pay a retired British spook to pay unknown, unidentified Russians to tell stories about Mr. Trump, in reckless disregard for whether the stories were true.

Mr. Schiff, a Harvard Law graduate, will know the phrase is not our coinage. "Reckless disregard" is the standard by which the Supreme Court says, even in a country that bends over backward to protect the press at the expense of public figures, the press can be held liable for defamatory untruths about a public figure.

Even so, journalists are presumed to know their sources, not to have paid a long chain of surrogates to elicit sensational claims from perfect strangers, let alone anonymous agents of a foreign regime with a known habit of disinformation. It is impossible to exaggerate how reckless Democrats have been under this standard. If they found the Trump dossier on the sidewalk, they'd be in a better ethical position now. Let's hear what Mr. Schiff knew and when he knew it.

Finally, let us hear from James Comey.

The Trump dossier was reckless and irresponsible in the extreme, but only consequential after Election Day. It didn't prevent Mr. Trump from becoming president.

In the new spirit of non-non-disclosure, it's time for Mr. Comey to tell us about the Russian intelligence scam that may really have changed the election outcome.

In closed hearings, he reportedly acknowledged that his intervention in the Hillary Clinton email case was prompted by what is now understood to have been planted, fake Russian intelligence. The fake Russian intelligence purported to discuss a nonexistent email between then-DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz and George Soros-employed activist Leonard Benardo.

This led directly to Mr. Comey's second intervention, reopening the case 11 days before Election Day, a shocking development that appears now to have moved enough votes into Mr. Trump's column to account for his win.

At the time, the press was all too happy to blame Bill Clinton for his wife's loss when Mr. Comey, for nonclassified consumption, cited Mr. Clinton's tarmac meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch as the reason for his intervention.

The press is silent now.

The new story satisfies nobody's agenda, and only makes the FBI look foolish. Mr. Trump is not eager to hear his victory portrayed as an FBI-precipitated accident. Democrats cling to their increasingly washed-out theory of Trump-Russia collusion.

And yet, if Mr. Comey's antic intervention in response to Russian disinformation inadvertently led to Mr. Trump becoming president, this was the most consequential outcome by far.

* * *

President Trump has the final word however, asking (and answering a key question) - All of this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic Tax Cuts & Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!

All of this "Russia" talk right when the Republicans are making their big push for historic Tax Cuts & Reform. Is this coincidental? NOT!

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 29, 2017

[Oct 29, 2017] Details Of Suspicious Manafort Wire Transfers Leaked From FBI Probe

Manafort dealing with Yanukovich were long before 2016 elections. So this is king of "overextension" of Muller mandate (which was never completely defined anyway to allow digging durt)
Notable quotes:
"... Just in case there's someone here who's relatively new to the party, please be advised that Viktor Yanukovych was an American lackey whose campaign was orchestrated and staffed by ex-Clinton staffers. ..."
"... Obviously Manafort failed to establish a charitable foundation to launder funds or label these funds "speaking fees" before receiving them. It is good to know that 23 attorneys and millions of dollars in a tax-payer-funded investigation have discovered potential tax violations that may have shorted the U.S. Treasury of a few hundred thousand dollars. ..."
Oct 29, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
As speculation mounts that Paul Manafort might be the target of the sealed indictments reportedly approved by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury, Buzzfeed is reporting new details of Mueller's probe into Manafort, seemingly a hint that he will in fact be one of, if not the only, target taken into custody tomorrow.

The FBI's investigation of Donald Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, includes a keen focus on a series of suspicious wire transfers in which offshore companies linked to Manafort moved more than $3 million all over the globe between 2012 and 2013.Much of the money came into the United States.

HockeyFool -> Theta_Burn , Oct 29, 2017 3:51 PM

So back in 2012 Manafort was working for the Podesta group. Not Trump. And that assclown Robert Muller has spent far more than $3 million on this political witch hunt. What a fucking joke. Is that the best they got?

MisterMousePotato -> HockeyFool , Oct 29, 2017 5:16 PM

" ... notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, who was supported by the Kremlin ... ."

Just in case there's someone here who's relatively new to the party, please be advised that Viktor Yanukovych was an American lackey whose campaign was orchestrated and staffed by ex-Clinton staffers.

Unfortunately for Messr. Yanukovych and the people of Ukaraine, he decided not to do America's bidding after all, but instead to sensibly seek trade relations with Russia, which made sense financially, geographically, and socially.

At which point (need I say?), he fell out of favor with his American backers and was replaced in an American-funded coup by American backed Nazis.

nachochan -> MisterMousePotato , Oct 29, 2017 6:23 PM

Good point. Also please be advised that Manafort was likely a Clinton plant in the Trump camp for reasons yet to be seen.

AlexCharting -> HockeyFool , Oct 29, 2017 5:55 PM

Just watch "Get me Roger Stone". Manafort was a major swamp monster

Thomas Paine -> HockeyFool , Oct 29, 2017 7:12 PM

Manafort is too close to the Podesta Group. Mueller is despicable and desperate...now to bait a trap for the President. Kushner, a couple of russian flunkirs...and daddy's girl are the best cheese.

nmewn -> Thomas Paine , Oct 29, 2017 8:23 PM

Yeah, same ole shit, bring an indictment against someone for something that happened YEARS BEFORE the 2016 election (which is not within the scope of Grand Inquisitor Muellers purview) in the hopes he can get Manafort to lie/impugn or otherwise implicate Trump on "Russian collusion". So, they got nuffin and this proves it.

Time for Mueller to be fired.

Or better yet , put the hapless Mueller's sorry ass on the stand and question him about why he stopped investigating the Uranium One deal after getting some low-grade actors and what exactly were the circumstances of him being used as "a bagman" for stolen uranium ;-)

AlaricBalth -> Theta_Burn , Oct 29, 2017 4:14 PM

Tony Podesta and Paul Manefort had close ties. This rabbit hole runs deep and wide, and will prove that the concept of an American bilateral political system is a false narrative designed to divide and rule.

"The Podesta Group was one of several firms that worked on a Manafort-led campaign for a nonprofit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). The campaign promoted Ukraine's image in the West and was reportedly backed by the Party of Regions, a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine that was previously led by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych"

Creative_Destruct -> AlaricBalth , Oct 29, 2017 6:12 PM

BLOW BACK onto the Dems and Clintonistas.... let's hope. AND the entirety of Congress, and ALL the Ukranian meddlers if all the suspicious transfers are investigated.

land_of_the_few -> Creative_Destruct , Oct 29, 2017 7:10 PM

Absolutely, if they are interested in 2016 US election meddling by Ukrainians, then there is no point looking at Yanukovych or the formerly ruling Party of Regions. Long gone by then, banned from Parliament by their political opponents.

dead hobo -> So Close , Oct 29, 2017 2:44 PM

If after 5 months this is all they have ... a 4 year old wire transfer for something ... thw WSJ will print on Tuesday "IS THAT ALL YOU HAVE???" Expect Mueller crucifiction shortly afterward.

BlindMonkey -> dead hobo , Oct 29, 2017 3:05 PM

If you gave Vickie "Cookie" Nuland a dollar for every transfer looting the Ukrainian treasury, she would be a rich woman.

espirit -> TahoeBilly2012 , Oct 29, 2017 3:48 PM

Manafort is the poptop on the can of suspicious transfer worms about to be opened. 3 mil is chicken feed, but the precedence is priceless. Lots of loose bowels tomorrow. lol

Paul Kersey -> dead hobo , Oct 29, 2017 3:16 PM

It hardly makes sense to investigate incidents between 2012 and 2013, in an investigation focusing on the year 2016. However, there are some other possibilities. If they know they have Manafort nailed for these charges, this could give Muelller leverage to make a deal with Manafort for dirty info he may have on Trump.

Trump, of course, could pardon Manafort, but, as the article stated, the State of NY is also going after Manafort. Trump can't pardon a state case. Additionally, NY State is also in discovery for the Trump emoluments case with Judge George Daniels (Obama appointee), and Trump will be unable to pardon any possible witnesses or alleged co-defendants (friends and family).

No question about it, this is a fishing expedition, and the Special Prosecutor is sending his fleet of fishing trawlers from sea to shining sea.

Bay of Pigs -> Kayman , Oct 29, 2017 3:13 PM

Yes. Manafort is the distraction and the fall guy for those two whether he committed a money laundering crime or not.

This is all to hide the treasonous crimes of HRC, Podesta, Lynch, Comey, etc...because they all lead back to the DOJ and FBI.

Bay of Pigs -> Kayman , Oct 29, 2017 3:13 PM

Yes. Manafort is the distraction and the fall guy for those two whether he committed a money laundering crime or not.

This is all to hide the treasonous crimes of HRC, Podesta, Lynch, Comey, etc...because they all lead back to the DOJ and FBI.

RumpleShitzkin -> curbjob , Oct 29, 2017 4:01 PM

The same fuckers sitting on a copy of Anthony's laptop? NY AG's are chickenshit. This is all pure chickenshit.

AurorusBorealus , Oct 29, 2017 4:10 PM

Obviously Manafort failed to establish a charitable foundation to launder funds or label these funds "speaking fees" before receiving them. It is good to know that 23 attorneys and millions of dollars in a tax-payer-funded investigation have discovered potential tax violations that may have shorted the U.S. Treasury of a few hundred thousand dollars.

Anunnaki , Oct 29, 2017 7:14 PM

Manafort, Flynn, Don Jr, Jared Kushner. All going to be indicted

[Oct 29, 2017] The Russiagate Scandal Descends into Total Absurdity by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... Since then there has been nothing, a clear sign that the search of Manafort's house has come up with nothing, and that the pressure to get Manafort to talk by dangling threats of indictment in front of him have resulted in nothing. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
Even as the Trump administration disintegrates – with the President publicly quarrelling with his Secretary of State, and his Chief of Staff forced to deny he is about to resign – the scandal which more than anything else has defined this Presidency has disintegrated into total lunacy.

Consider these facts:

1) The Mueller investigation

Just a few weeks ago the media was full of reports of how Special Counsel Mueller's investigation was "closing in" on the President and his campaign team. The focus of media interest was on an early morning search in July of the house of Paul Manafort, the campaign professional who at one time acted as the Trump campaign's chairman, with lurid headlines that he was about to be indicted, though it was never made clear for what.

Since then there has been nothing, a clear sign that the search of Manafort's house has come up with nothing, and that the pressure to get Manafort to talk by dangling threats of indictment in front of him have resulted in nothing.

In all other respects a curtain of silence has fallen on Mueller's investigation, a strong sign that after its failure to "break" Manafort it no longer has a clear strategy of what to do.

... ... ...

Reprinted with permission from The Duran .

[Oct 28, 2017] Former CIA Officer 'Russiagate' Was Manufactured By The Clinton Campaign by Philip Giraldi

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to FBI head James Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received." ..."
"... The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC, but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election. ..."
"... As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides ..."
"... The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies. ..."
"... Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller. ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | dailycaller.com

The central mystery involving what has become known as Russiagate is the lack of any real understanding of what exactly took place. It is alleged in some circles that Moscow somehow interfered in the 2016 Presidential election and might even have tilted the result in favor of candidate Donald Trump. Others suspect that the tale is politically motivated in an attempt to exonerate Hillary Clinton and find Donald Trump or his associates guilty of collusion with an unfriendly foreign government.

Caught in between are those who are not completely convinced by either narrative and are demanding evidence to confirm that there was a sequence of events involving Russia and various American individuals that demonstrates both intent and actual steps taken which would lend credibility to such a hypothesis. So far, in spite of a year and a half of highly intrusive investigation, there has been remarkably little evidence of anything apart from the unchallengeable fact that someone took files from John Podesta as well as the Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers and the stolen information wound up at WikiLeaks.

One of the most damaging revelations made regarding Donald Trump consisted of the so-called "Dossier," which had been compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. Initial reports suggested that Steele's investigation was commissioned initially by a Republican opponent of Trump, possibly Jeb Bush, and later it was possibly continued by someone connected to the Democratic Party. This genesis of the document was widely reported at the time but no "names" were attached to the claims even though the identities of those who had commissioned the work were known to some journalists who had uncovered additional details relating to the investigation.

The drafts of some parts of the document itself began to make the rounds in Washington during the summer of 2016, though the entire text was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was reportedly still being worked on in June by Steele and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by him in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for verification, which he agreed to do.

The Steele Dossier contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to the Vladimir Putin regime as a businessman who sought and obtained significant, and possibly illegal, favors on real estate transactions from the Russian government. On a more personal level, it also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades with prostitutes at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow. Few of the allegations could be verified as the report relied on mostly unnamed, unidentifiable sources. On a more serious note, the dossier concluded with an assessment that Donald Trump was compromised by the Russian intelligence services and could be blackmailed.

At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of her own campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to FBI head James Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."

The linkage between the dossier and the timing of the Democratic Party attempt to tie Trump to Moscow is significant given what has been revealed over the past several days. As it turns out, it has been confirmed that Steele's firm Fusion GPS was indeed paid not only by the DNC, but also by the Clinton Campaign itself. A Washington lawyer named Marc Elias, whose firm Perkins Coie worked for both the DNC and Hillary, was the go-between on the arrangement, which began in April 2016 and continued until the election.

As a former intelligence officer who has seen numerous overseas investigations done for clients, I can say with some confidence that the Steele Dossier is a composite of some fact, a lot of speculation, and even occasional fiction. Some indisputable and confirmable information is inevitably used to provide credibility for a lot of speculation and false stories that were intended to sow doubt and confusion. Gossip and rumors are reported as fact, with the whole product being put together in such a fashion as to appear credible to satisfy a client interested in exploitable information rather than the truth. Including some proper names, which the dossier does occasionally, provides credibility and the FBI's ability to confirm some of the dates and places regarding travel and meetings provided bona fides for the entire document and resulted in the launching of a top-level law enforcement investigation.

The dossier was designed to dig up "dirt" on Trump and his associates, but, more to the point, it was clearly intended from the start to do so by manufacturing and nurturing a Russian angle. It sought to discredit Donald Trump and to deceive the public, which suggests that Trump has been right all along regarding something like a conspiracy against him which included the active participation of the FBI and possibly other national security agencies.

The president also comes across as credible vis-à-vis his critics because of what has become evident since the dossier was surfaced. The clearly politically motivated multiple investigations carried out so far in which no rock has been unturned have come up with absolutely nothing, either in the form of criminal charges or in terms of actual collusion with a foreign government. And, one might add, there has been little in the way of evidence to sustain the charge that Russia sought to influence the election and might even have succeeded in doing so. But there is one thing new that we do know now: Russiagate began within the Clinton Campaign headquarters.

Phil Giraldi is a former CIA Case Officer and Army Intelligence Officer who spent 20 years overseas in Europe and the Middle East working terrorism cases.


Perspectives expressed in op-eds are not those of The Daily Caller.

[Oct 28, 2017] Analysis 5 Possible Outcomes of First Mueller Indictments by John T. Bennett

BTW this is yet another leak. Now about grand jury deliberations. And of cause it comes from CNN
What is interesting is that in view of troubles for Hillary with DNC financing of Steele dossier it looks like the deep state switched to the counterattack mode. And Mueller task was and is to dig dirt, that's why 2013 events are now coming to the focus. How they are related to Presidential elections is unclear.
But fishing expeditions against officials are typically successful. As Lavrentiy Beria used to say "Show Me The Man, And I'll Show You The Crime"
Notable quotes:
"... "I'd like to see it end. Look, the whole Russian thing was an excuse (by the Democrats)," he said. "So that was just an excuse for the Democrats losing an election that, frankly, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. ... So there has been absolutely no collusion. ... They ought to get to the end of it because I think the American public is sick of it." ..."
"... (Note: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her top two deputies were asked to respond to the CNN report. None of the senior White House officials responded by time of publication.) ..."
Oct 28, 2017 | www.rollcall.com

The uncharacteristically quiet day at the White House was upended Friday evening by a report that the first indictments in the Justice Department's Russia probe are imminent.

A Washington, D.C., federal grand jury has approved a set of initial charges stemming from the Robert S. Mueller III-led investigation into Russia's meddling into the 2016 U.S. presidential election. CNN was the first to report that the former FBI director turned special counsel could take the first individuals into custody as soon as Monday.

While all indications are that President Donald Trump has yet to be interviewed by Mueller, there's a list of his top 2016 campaign aides, current and former White House aides and longtime confidants who could be rounded up by Mueller's team early next week.

Here are five [possible] indictments and related outcomes that are possible then:

Paul Manafort is indicted. We know that the former Trump campaign chairman has plenty of ties to Russia and other former clients in the region, including former senior Ukrainian leaders.

Most recently, reports surfaced of alleged business dealings totaling $60 million over the past decade between Manafort and Oleg Deripaska, a Russian billionaire with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Manafort worked for Deripaska from 2005 to 2009, The Associated Press reported.

Mueller has reportedly warned Manafort -- who is said to have supplied the Putin-connected Deripaska with briefings on the 2016 campaign -- that he likely would be indicted.

Michael Flynn is indicted. The retired Army three-star general was once a well-respected military intelligence officer. He rose through the ranks to lead the Pentagon's top espionage entity, the Defense Intelligence Agency. Then, former aides and confidants have told NPR and other outlets, something changed.

Flynn became enamored with the kind of conservative conspiracy theories that helped power Trump to the White House. The longtime soldier, who had gone into the consulting world after being fired from the DIA by President Barack Obama , became a leading national security and foreign policy adviser to candidate Trump.

But Flynn brought to the campaign a list of questionable decisions, many involving his ties to Russian officials, as a general turned consultant. Flynn served just 24 days as Trump's first White House national security adviser before being fired for misleading Vice President Mike Pence .

House Democrats have pressed for their Republican counterparts to subpoena the White House for documents they allege will show Flynn's "egregious conflicts of interest" due to his business dealings with foreign governments. One is Turkey. Another is Russia.

"We believe this paper trail must be pursued to answer the gravest question of all: Did Gen. Flynn seek to change the course of our country's national security to benefit the same private interests he previously promoted, whether by advising President Trump, interacting with foreign officials, or influencing other members of the Trump administration?" House Oversight ranking member Elijah E. Cummings wrote in a recent letter to panel Chairman Trey Gowdy that featured nearly 20 other Democratic signatures.

Carter Page is indicted. The Trump-connected energy consultant came under scrutiny in 2016 for alleged questionable ties to Putin's government while he was part of the Trump campaign.

Though Page has denied any nefarious links to Russian officials, he has informed the Senate Intelligence Committee that he plans to plead the Fifth if called to testify in that panel's Russia probe. He is slated to appear before the House Intelligence Committee next week but has given no indication if he will be cooperative in that investigation.

The long shots

Jared Kushner or Donald Trump Jr. is indicted. The latter is the president's eldest son and the former is his son-in-law and a senior White House adviser. Both were present during a June 2016 Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer who allegedly came with dirt on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton .

After nearly three hours of testimony before Senate Intelligence staffers on July 24, Kushner stood outside the White House and denied colluding with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign, saying all of his actions were both legal and proper.

Trump's son-in-law defended himself during rare public remarks, saying: " I did not collude with Russia, nor do I know of anyone else in the campaign who did so ."

"I had no improper contacts" during the campaign and transition period, Kushner said, adding, "I have not relied on Russian funds for my business."

He has said he left the Trump Tower meeting with the Kremlin-linked lawyer after concluding she had nothing of value for his father-in-law's campaign.

Steven Hall, the CIA's former chief of Russia operations, on Friday took to Twitter to summarize what might have Trump Jr. in legal hot water when it comes to that June 2016 meeting: "Don Jr took a mtg to get info Russians wanted to give."

But an email exchange surfaced this summer with a former Russian business partner of his father that shows Trump Jr. enthusiastically accepting the man's offer to pass the alleged Kremlin-provided dirt on Clinton to the Trump campaign.

"If it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer," Trump Jr. wrote during the email exchange with Rob Goldstone, a British-born entertainment publicist who met his father when he was trying to do business in Russia. Their email exchange began on June 3, 2016, about a month and a half before Trump accepted the Republican presidential nomination.

If Mueller is targeting the commander in chief, going after his son or son-in-law this early would be a way of getting Trump's attention.

Trump fires Mueller. Remember, Trump already ousted FBI Director James B. Comey , who has said the president asked him to drop the investigation into Flynn.

"No, not at all," Trump told reporters during an impromptu Oct. 16 Rose Garden press conference when asked if he was considering firing Mueller from the special counsel post.

But that was before the president, who values and rewards loyalty, was facing the first wave of indictments in the Russia probe. And Trump made his disgust clear that day about the ongoing DOJ investigation.

"I'd like to see it end. Look, the whole Russian thing was an excuse (by the Democrats)," he said. "So that was just an excuse for the Democrats losing an election that, frankly, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. ... So there has been absolutely no collusion. ... They ought to get to the end of it because I think the American public is sick of it."

There is a modern precedent, though controversial and presidency-ending, for such a move.

The modern standard bearer is Richard Nixon, the president whom Trump's critics often cite when pointing to his rhetoric and missteps. The so-called Saturday Night Massacre in 1973 went down after Nixon's insistence that the special prosecutor investigating the Watergate cover-up be fired and ended with the top two Justice Department officials quitting. Nixon eventually resigned in 1974 after the House Judiciary Committee reported articles of impeachment but before the full House could vote.

(Note: White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her top two deputies were asked to respond to the CNN report. None of the senior White House officials responded by time of publication.)

[Oct 28, 2017] After revelation on Steele dossier Clinton clan decided to couterattack

Notable quotes:
"... Mueller is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to Rosenstein's order. ..."
"... The special counsel's investigation has focused on potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as obstruction of justice by the President, who might have tried to impede the investigation. CNN reported that investigators are scrutinizing Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia. ..."
Oct 28, 2017 | www.cnn.com

Original title Exclusive First charges filed in Mueller investigation - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN) A federal grand jury in Washington on Friday approved the first charges in the investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources briefed on the matter.

The charges are still sealed under orders from a federal judge. Plans were prepared Friday for anyone charged to be taken into custody as soon as Monday, the sources said. It is unclear what the charges are. A spokesman for the special counsel's office declined to comment. The White House also had no comment, a senior administration official said Saturday morning. Mueller was appointed in May to lead the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Under the regulations governing special counsel investigations, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has oversight over the Russia investigation, would have been made aware of any charges before they were taken before the grand jury for approval, according to people familiar with the matter. Little chance Congress can kill Mueller's funding On Friday, top lawyers who are helping to lead the Mueller probe, including veteran prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, were seen entering the court room at the DC federal court where the grand jury meets to hear testimony in the Russia investigation. Reporters present saw a flurry of activity at the grand jury room, but officials made no announcements. Shortly after President Donald Trump abruptly fired then-FBI Director James Comey, Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel. Mueller took the reins of a federal investigation that Comey first opened in July 2016 in the middle of the presidential campaign. Mueller is authorized to investigate "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation," according to Rosenstein's order. The special counsel's investigation has focused on potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as obstruction of justice by the President, who might have tried to impede the investigation. CNN reported that investigators are scrutinizing Trump and his associates' financial ties to Russia. Mueller's team has also examined foreign lobbying conducted by former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, former national security adviser Michael Flynn and others. His team has issued subpoenas for documents and testimony to a handful of figures, including some people close to Manafort, and others involved in the Trump Tower meeting between Russians and campaign officials. Last year, the Comey-led investigation secured approval from the secret court that oversees the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to monitor the communications of Manafort, as well as former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, as part of the investigation into Russian meddling. In addition to Mueller's probe, three committees on Capitol Hill are conducting their own investigations.

CNN's Marshall Cohen, Mary Kay Mallonee, Laura Robinson and Ryan Nobles contributed to this report.

[Oct 28, 2017] All the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition.

Notable quotes:
"... all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working ..."
"... The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide. ..."
Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
ilsm : February 19, 2017 at 04:06 AM
all the faux media wind about Russians hacking the crooked DNC, nothing about the deep states surveillance of Hillary's opposition. First the NKVD came for GOPsters........ Stop whining about fascist threats. DNC neoliberal gestapo is working
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs..., February 19, 2017 at 07:23 AM
The dems' failed coup the demise of their partisan deep state surveillance. The US cannot afford to allow the crooked democrat party to abide.

[Oct 28, 2017] MSM beat impeachment drum again

Notable quotes:
"... Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . " ..."
"... Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result. ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | progressive.org

karlof1 | Jul 27, 2017 3:40:40 PM | 117

Nutbag "journalist" John Nichols is writing for The Progressive and pushing "The Case For Impeachment" by citing Congressman Brad Sherman: ""But we must move forward as quickly as possible to ensure a competent government that respects the Constitution and the rule of law . . . "

Pardon me, but I could say the same thing about every presidential administration since Truman, but most particularly about Clinton, Bush, and Obama--the trend going ever more incompetent, unlawful and unconstitutional, with millions of innocents dead as a result.

Yes, Trump's following that same road, although Trump's very far from "the most irresponsible and lawless President in American history," as Nichols alleges--his three immediate predecessors though certainly rate that condemnation. http://progressive.org/magazine/the-case-for-impeachment/

I wish I could just laugh like crazy at the absurdity of our current dilemma, but far too many people are dying as a result for it to be anything but humorous.

[Oct 28, 2017] Mueller Files First Charges Over Russia The Daily Caller

Oct 28, 2017 | dailycaller.com

CNN reported Friday night that Mueller has filed charges in sealed indictments. It is currently not known what the charges are or who they have been filed against, but CNN reported that multiple people could be facing charges.

Those affected by the indictments reportedly may be taken into custody by as early as Monday.

The news comes as a number of Republicans have been skeptical of Mueller's ability to be impartial in the investigation. Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona told Fox News Friday that "the federal code could not be clearer – Mueller is compromised by his apparent conflict of interest in being close with James Comey."

The indictments could affect former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. In September, a report from the New York Times alleged that Mueller told Manafort that he would be indicted. However, there is no indication Manafort is involved yet.

[Oct 27, 2017] Hillary Clinton's campaign accused of election law violation - Washington Times

Oct 27, 2017 | www.washingtontimes.com

Hillary Clinton 's presidential campaign was accused of breaking election rules Wednesday as she and fellow Democrats faced fallout from the disclosure that her campaign and party operatives paid for research used in a salacious anti- Trump dossier.

President Trump called the revelation "a disgrace," and the head of the House investigative committee said he wants to know whether the FBI relied on the dossier in its counterintelligence work.

"It's very sad what they've done with this fake dossier," Mr. Trump told reporters at the White House. "The Democrats always denied it. Hillary Clinton always denied it. I think it's a disgrace. It's a very sad commentary on politics in this country."


SEE ALSO: Trump says Clinton, Democrats were 'disgrace' to pay for dossier


The dossier, first reported on late in the presidential campaign and eventually published in its entirety by BuzzFeed after the election, contained a series of unsubstantiated and often salacious accusations against Mr. Trump , including supposed contacts between his associates and Russian officials.

The 35-page document was compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, who was hired by research firm Fusion GPS.

Law firm Perkins Coie, which handled legal work for the Clinton campaign, admitted Tuesday that it paid Fusion "to perform a variety of research services" as part of its work for Mrs. Clinton .

... ... ...

Operatives for Mr. Trump 's chief opponents during the Republican primary have denied involvement in the dossier, but Mr. Trump said it was a possibility.

"Yes, it might have started with the Republicans early on in the primaries. I think I would know, but let's find out who it is," he told reporters. "If I were to guess, I have one name in mind."

But given the revelations about Democrats' involvement and fresh investigations into a uranium deal with a Russian firm approved by the Obama administration, Mr. Trump said the Russia controversy has "turned around" on the Democrats.

"This was the Democrats coming up with an excuse for losing an election. They lost it very badly," he said. "They didn't know what to say, so they made up the whole Russia hoax. Now it's turning out that the whole hoax is turned around."

... ... ...

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, accused the executive branch of stonewalling Congress from obtaining documents related to the Trump dossier. He said the FBI and Justice Department have not complied with requests from congressional members for documents related to the dossier.

[Oct 27, 2017] British Involvement In Trump Dossier Needs Further Investigation

Notable quotes:
"... Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats, hired the Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of the leak. ..."
"... The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC mafia. Most of its content was obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives. ..."
"... We noted in January that the dossier was additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes): ..."
"... Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at the highest level of the British government ..."
"... When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British ambassador to Moscow arranged the hand over ..."
"... The MI6 is well known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government. ..."
"... After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears. The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations ..."
"... After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high gear. McCain had already been involved in distributing the report and it was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered: ..."
"... What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?" ..."
"... In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government, not the other way around. ..."
"... Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot. ..."
"... When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name of "security". ..."
"... For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not. ..."
"... When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit". ..... ;) ..."
"... Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation awaits. ..."
"... I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164 ..."
"... Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did they fear Trump so much? ..."
"... Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump? ..."
"... I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on the way out. ..."
"... IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys and no treats. War is a money racket. ..."
"... Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was unwrapped. See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really, do you think he selected his cabinet people? ..."
"... I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it. ..."
"... The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it hated to see it in the Brits. ..."
"... The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful analysis will flow from this. ..."
Oct 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

We noted back in July that the only relevant "collusion with the Russians" during the 2016 election cycle was the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton smear campaign against Donald Trump:

Hillary Clinton campaign cut-out hires the (former?) British intelligence agent Steele to pay money to (former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt about Donald Trump. They deliver some fairy tales. The resulting dossier is peddled far and wide throughout Washington DC with the intent of damaging Trump.

There was never evidence that Steele indeed talked to any Russian, or really had contact with his claimed sources. He has been for years persona non grata in Moscow and could not visit the country.

Yesterday, our assertion that Clinton campaign cut-outs paid for the dossier, was finally confirmed: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
..,
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Told ya so ...

Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats, hired the Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of the leak.

The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC mafia. Most of its content was obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives.

We noted in January that the dossier was additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for better relations with Russia (see original for source quotes):

The "former" desk officer for Russia in the British MI6 Christopher Steele was the one who prepared the 35 pages of obviously false claims about Russian connections with and kompromat against Trump. There are so many inconsistencies in these pages that anyone knowledgeable about the workings in Moscow could immediately identify it as fake .
...
Steele spread the fakes throughout the press corps in Washington DC but no media published them because these were obviously false accusations.

Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at the highest level of the British government :
...
When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British ambassador to Moscow arranged the hand over :
...
The MI6 is well known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government.

Even the second, more official handover to the FBI still did not result in the hoped for publication of the allegations. But by that time Clinton was widely expect to win the election anyway so no further steps were taken.

After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears. The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations.

It was this decision that made sure that the papers would eventually be published. As the NYT noted :
...
Only after Clapper or others leaked to CNN about the briefing of Obama, Trump and Congress, did CNN publish about the 35 pages :
...
The attack was a deep state attempt to stage a coup against Trump :

After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high gear. McCain had already been involved in distributing the report and it was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered:

Let me remind you of the basic facts about the Dossier--It consists of 13 separate reports. The first is dated 20 June 2016. That date is important because it shows that it took a little more than two months [after the Democrats started paying] for Fusion GPS to generate its first report on Trump's alleged Russian activities. If Fusion GPS already had something in the can then I would expect them to have put something out in early May. Eleven more reports were generated between 26 July and 19 October 2016. That tracks with the letter from Perkins Coie that the engagement by the Clinton Campaign ended at the end of October.

But there is a big problem and unanswered question--The Dossier includes a final report that is dated 13 December 2016. Who paid for this? Was it John McCain?

The purpose of the final fake report Steele added to the dossier was to provide "evidence" that Trump was involved in the "Russian hacking" of the DNC:

Cont. reading: British Involvement In "Trump Dossier" Needs Further Investigation

03:26 AM | Comments (62)

johnf | Oct 26, 2017 3:36:08 AM | 1

What I want to know is why the Washington Post has switched sides and is publishing something approaching the truth. Do they know a whole lot more malfeasance by the Clintons is about to be uncovered and are doing their best to protect their "journalistic" "reputation?"
same as it ever was | Oct 26, 2017 3:37:37 AM | 2
Wake me when someone actually goes to gaol for any of this... yawn...
The protected class has been the protected class for centuries, and shall, without drastic beyond planetary intervention, remain the protected class for centuries more.
Mina | Oct 26, 2017 3:43:12 AM | 3
The "special relation" at its best! Will Trump take it personally and let the Brits down in their latest going solo adventure?
x | Oct 26, 2017 4:15:28 AM | 5
Seems HMSS Agent '.007' didn't quite deliver to "Q" this time... sad state of affairs that the former once somewhat 'great' Britain has fallen so low in the IQ stakes that they would even think such contrived rubbish would work. Hubris or desperation? What a laugh! Judging by the MSM emissions I'd suggest we have a whole generation of policy cretins in 'da service'. Pure Putin Envy, I suspect: gone blind with geopolitical onanism.

And, can we now assume, as this DC delicacy boils in the cauldron for a few weeks, that we will soon see Julian Assange make his prison break? He must have enough material in encrypted dead-man locks on the Clinton Gang et al to get a free pass from diplomatic 'jail' AND gift his kind South American hosts some diplomatic credits to cash-in down London Town.

Anon | Oct 26, 2017 4:44:31 AM | 6
....and instantly the anti trump msm leak that a person close to Trump have once contacted Wikileaks. Sigh.
The clinton paid for dossier is so implacting, or should be, because the media wont cover it as they should, they will bury it.

The western msm is done, its so corrupt and propagandistic its amazing that not more people take note of this.

falcemartello | Oct 26, 2017 6:25:33 AM | 7
The sad thing is just like you said you brought this up last year. This was being said throughout last year prior to the POTUS election and had all good investigative reporting behind it. Now that the court case comes out the msm along with all their pupp[ets are spouting out this stuff. Everybody with a scintilla of grey matter since mid 2016 new full well that the whole xenophobic narrative was total BS.Just like the Syrian civil war narrative was all BS or Benghazi /Qadaffi slaughtering his people. To this day the sheeple are in this Orwellian stupor. It is dangerous and troubling. We are living like zombies with no critical thinking or capacity to cal out BS and lies . For heavens sake will the people wake up and stop supporting this BS and start voting with our brains. Political system is dead the economy is dead society is sick so we being the 99 percent by shear numbers should be able to demand and garner change.
Stryker | Oct 26, 2017 7:08:32 AM | 8
You ever notice how everybody can deny it all except for the few unfortunate souls who have to go into hiding?

My thought is the intelligence community includes the US, UK and Russia, and that's just a short list. They're all collaborating, and they are the immortal institutions we identify as "corporations" and "think tanks" regulating government. The idea "the people" have influence is absurd until one considers all those institutions consist of communities of people.

In the WaPo link, it was pretty specific. The political lobbies hire law firms to subcontract intelligence in order to maintain "confidentiality agreements". If the confidentiality agreement legitimizes defying the laws and orders of not only the legislative branch, but the collective government, it becomes clear the corporations regulate government, not the other way around.

Babarian | Oct 26, 2017 7:37:26 AM | 9
Stryker, you might need to elaborate your claim that Russia is in some way in cahoots with the CIA I find it preposterous to make that link.
Ghostship | Oct 26, 2017 7:42:09 AM | 10
What is it about Prague that non-existant meetings are held there:
Michael Cohen[, President Donald Trump's longtime personal lawyer,] held a secret meeting in Prague
Back in 2001 :
The alleged Prague connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda came through an alleged meeting between September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta and Iraqi consulate Ahmad Samir al-Ani in April 2001.

Has someone been watching too many "Cold War" spy movies or is the Czech counterintelligence service's head stuck so far up Washington's arse they can't see anything. If they'd said it was Prague, OK perhaps it would have had a bit more credibility.

Christian Chuba | Oct 26, 2017 8:00:22 AM | 12
Russians behind dossier: Anyone else notice that as this story is being reported that Russia (the victim) is being blamed for the Dossier? In its most blatant form it goes like this ... 'HRC colluded with the Kremlin against Trump'. The way they connect the dots; HRC -> DNC -> Steele -> 'alleged Russian contacts' = Kremlin.

Yikes. I recall reading that Steele's contacts were 'Eastern Europeans', this doesn't rule out Ukrainians. Okay, maybe there really are some Russians looking for a quick buck. The point is that we are not even close to establishing ties to 'the Kremlin' but this doesn't stop MSM commentators from going there, a lot.

somebody | Oct 26, 2017 9:48:32 AM | 14
If you google Britain and Russia you find the whole - recent - campaign. This here is targeted at the labour party .
This government is not spending enough to meet the risks, threats, nor the opportunities identified in its own National Defence and Security Strategy.

Politicians go where the power - the money - is. Clinton/Democrats decided to ride the wave they did not start it. It does get very silly with Boris Johnson as the top clown .

str8arrow62 | Oct 26, 2017 10:06:58 AM | 15
"If that bastard gets elected. we'll all hang from nooses"...Hildabeast

Who's up for a public hanging?

SlapHappy | Oct 26, 2017 10:26:34 AM | 16
Anyone who threatens to challenge the status quo of the ruling establishment with a move to the left will be discredited, and in the event they can't have their character assassinated, their person will be assassinated instead. See Paul Wellstone, Dr. David Kelly, Pat Tillman, John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, etc, almost ad infinitum.

When considered in conjunction with the increasing awareness of the close relationship between Western intelligence agencies and terrorism, a big part of why Russia is the bogeyman du juor in both the US and UK is revealed. The continued rapacious plunder of Western societies for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many requires an external threat to justify eternal war, police state tactics such as surveillance and militarization of police forces, the reduction of civil liberties, and expanded austerity measures in the name of "security".

Both Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party and what should have been Bernie Sanders' Democratic Party were threatening to turn back the clock on the Neoliberal/Neoconservative (see: Zionist) strategy of consolidating both capital and power through divisive politics, unfettered predatory capitalism, and war; all enabled by a well-orchestrated campaign of fear, xenophobia, and state-sponsored terror.

Until we root out the Zionist menace from our governments, industries, media, and - in a hat-tip to psychohistorian - our treasuries, we will continue to toil in an artificially divided society wherein we work for the benefit of a self-proclaimed chosen few, all the while being tricked into fighting their wars which are of no benefit to us and then being given the bill for those wars.

Don Bacon | Oct 26, 2017 10:43:43 AM | 17
I haven't owned a teevee in years, but I happened to be in a motel room the night that Obama gave his farewell speech a year or so ago.
After the conclusion of the speech, FoxNews thoroughly critiqued the speech. Switching over to CNN, Trump's "fake news" network, the speech wasn't covered at all. Instead they covered the dossier in depth, with several "journalists" droning on and on about all the collusion evidence.
Which just goes to prove that Trump was correct (again). For the Dem lackeys at CNN attacking Trump with false charges was "news," their hero Obama's farewell speech was not.
Piotr Berman | Oct 26, 2017 10:56:33 AM | 20
Posted by: somebody | Oct 26, 2017 9:48:32 AM | 14

The link in that post requires utmost caution, and should not be opened if your mental health can be compromised by an excessive dollop of nonsense. Finding two consecutive sentences with a consistent thread of though is pretty hard. Look at this:

We should consider renewing attempts to expand the UN Security Council to include India, Brazil, Germany and Japan, and to promote the idea of a rapid reaction force under its control, however difficult this might prove to be. Our two new aircraft carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales along with the French carrier in production could play a leading role in a naval version.

So, "we need" to expand UNSC and the navy. What is the connection? New council members do not seem useful for the naval expansion (why do not postulate a Brazilian aircraft carrier?!), and vice versa. And where those aircraft carriers are supposed to go? A new Crimean war? If you seriously want to address threats to democracy and everything we find good and dear, we should target Tuvalu, but for that it suffices to have a ship that has, say, 20 berths for marine infantry, and, most importantly, resolve -- sadly lacking.

This belongs to a genre of political analysis that is boldly nonsensical. Typically, there is a call for clarity followed by mental spaghetti. And/or a call for boldness followed by verbiage that is offensive only in its lack of content. But what makes this article somewhat unique is the sheer number of sentences that come without explanation and go absolutely nowhere. Why suddenly UNSC expansion? What would improve with two new aircraft carriers owned by European powers? The threats that have to be addressed are cyber attacks, Islamic terrorism and Russia undermining the growth of democracy in Ukraine.

The author also mentions his childhood in Nigerian countryside together with the British need to prevent any single power dominating over continental Europe. The latter would suggest the need to reduce American influence, the former ????

Noirette | Oct 26, 2017 11:24:05 AM | 21
C. Steele. Guardian, Jan 2017:

When the agency //MI6// was plunged into panic over the poisoning of its agent Alexander Litvinenko in 2006, the then chief, Sir John Scarlett, needed a trusted senior officer to plot a way through the minefield ahead – so he turned to Steele. It was Steele, sources say, who correctly and quickly realised that Litvinenko's death was a Russian state "hit". ..... ;)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/12/intelligence-sources-vouch-credibility-donald-trump-russia-dossier-author

Steele quit MI6 (wiki) in 2009 and tried to monetize his 'knowledge' and 'subservience' in private cos., > hack to the highest bidder type.

The relations between Fusion GPS and Orbis https://orbisbi.com - see the symbolic images (Steele a co-founder) remain murky imho but there you go, such private cos. can make money off paying hubris-deluded clients who require! this or that.

Reading a large part of the Podesta e-mails showed how completely terminally incompetent and out of touch the whole Dem. apparatus is. One usually likes to think that crooks and Mafia types are wily beasts who figure the angles and have several pots boiling and are good at juggling different scenarios and disculpating themselves. Your dem leader can be dumb as a brick, corrupt to the bone, a high-level sadist, all no problem - even adulation awaits.

WorldBLee | Oct 26, 2017 11:40:16 AM | 22
The media have to keep running Russia stories--so much so that it seems they ultimately come round to the point where they're biting the hand that fed them.
dh | Oct 26, 2017 12:03:41 PM | 23
@22 From KGB agent to new-Stalin to Tsar. The man is unstoppable. We definitely need more aircraft carriers.
dh | Oct 26, 2017 12:04:14 PM | 24
@23 Link https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21730645-world-marks-centenary-october-revolution-russia-once-again-under-rule?hl=1&noRedirect=1
Anon | Oct 26, 2017 12:05:14 PM | 25
Twitter just banned RT and Sputnik from having ads! Freedom of speech folks, its not worth anything these days. Twitter is nothing but a deep state empire tool.
karlof1 | Oct 26, 2017 12:28:48 PM | 27
Anon @25--

And there's absolutely zero evidence for them to use as a basis for the bans.

james | Oct 26, 2017 1:06:36 PM | 28
@27 karlof1.. but the optics look good for the continued smear of russia... man, this endless msm story gets very boring.. all it tells me is how decrepit the western msm is at this point groveling in the ditch 24/7...
Virgile | Oct 26, 2017 1:36:09 PM | 29
Movie Producers are fighting to get another blockbuster "based a true story"
Who will publish the script first of " A Kink in Moscow"? the UK or the USA?
Anon | Oct 26, 2017 1:52:31 PM | 30
karlof1

"And there's absolutely zero evidence for them to use as a basis for the bans."

Indeed, will Twitter now ban western msm on their respective reporting of Russia? No of course not, what a friggin joke. In fact its not a joke its pretty damn scary this censorship and masshysteria against Russia and these days clearly tells us who spread propaganda in our soceity and who enable it (Twitter). Its nothing but a tool of CIA/FBI now. No doubt about that.

Sick McCarthyism is alive 2017, who would have thought? Apparently the western establishment thought that he was more than right.

Ghostship | Oct 26, 2017 1:54:28 PM | 31
>>>> Ian | Oct 26, 2017 12:28:48 PM | 26
To be clear on my part, my opinion is that all major turmoil, wars and financial crises lead to the Rothchilds.

Do you do PR for Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan? I only ask 'cos Rothschilds ain't what they used to be by a few million miles and if anyone is responsible for all major turmoil, wars and financial crises, it's Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Stop with the dumb conspiracy theories, there is enough real shit in the world to be bothered about for many, many lifetimes.

james | Oct 26, 2017 2:15:17 PM | 34
@30 anon.. fully agree.. twitter is nothing more then a tool of the cia/fbi - deep state at this point.. same deal facebook and google.. pathetic...
Ort | Oct 26, 2017 2:24:42 PM | 35
When a Big Lie is exposed, or simply goes flat like an automobile tire with multiple pinhole-prick slow leaks, the Big Liars have a damage control strategy: Go Bigger!

This may be a semantic quibble, but to me even blithely characterizing the Steele dossier as "opposition research" is a mendacious euphemism.

There's a well-known, and perhaps apocryphal, story that Lyndon Johnson once directed his aides to spread the rumor that his opponent in a Texas election enjoyed physical relations with barnyard animals. When his staffers allegedly objected that this assertion could never be proved, Johnson supposedly replied "I know that. I just want to hear him deny it."

By present-day standards, LBJ's ploy would be characterized as perfectly legitimate "opposition research".

Judging from preliminary indications, the deluded or desperate anti-Trump resistance and Democratic Party Establishment may double down and, incredibly, "own" the scurrilous smear. Not just by dignifying the dirty trick as "normal", i.e. nominally routine, "ethical" opposition research, but by implying that the fabrications it contains are indeed a "smoking gun" that ought to be sufficient to fatally undermine Trump's presidency after all.

As I've been remarking more and more lately, a literary committee composed of Jonathan Swift, Lewis Carroll, Mark Twain, Joseph Heller, Mikhail Bulgakov, and Kurt Vonnegut couldn't create a more surrealistic and bizarre political landscape.

c1ue | Oct 26, 2017 2:34:20 PM | 36
@Christian Chuba #12
"Eastern Europeans" -> think Ukraine, or more specifically the SBU (Ukraine CIA). The link with McCain and the Democratic party becomes more clear then (Nuland).
Ian | Oct 26, 2017 2:39:36 PM | 37
to Ghostship: Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by Joyce Helson. The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference is "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.

When you start researching the issue of the crippling financial debts that characterize western countries then it comes evident the primary cause is a predatory private banking system. Private money manufactures financial crises and wars to coerce governments to impose local and foreign policies that promote only the interests of private money and which only has destructive and negative consequences for the 99%. You may not like it hear it and but all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net worth reported to be several hundred TRILLION!

nottheonly1 | Oct 26, 2017 3:15:56 PM | 38
@same as it ever was #2

An undeniable truth. But what do we know about those?

The so called "Democratic Party" is the equivalent of the grand old NSDAP. As with the original, its followers are as die hard Fascists, as were the good Germans looking the other way when the truth became obvious.

While I don't believe it will go on for centuries, the callousness and gullibility of the American people makes them perfect Fascists.

Sieg Heil is the only greeting missing when addressing The Führer. Well, actually the person's soaking wet dream has always been to be the first Führerin of all times. Thatcher sucked at it, so the position is still vacant.
The question is, when will we hear the equivalent of "Sieg Heil meine Führerin"?

karlof1 | Oct 26, 2017 3:24:34 PM | 39
I recall the strenuous effort put forth to sell the "Magic Bullet" verdict of the Warren Commission, which allows me to repeat what Russia's Foreign Ministry said about the USA's trustworthiness: "They lie without shame," lying that began in earnest in 1945, escalating ever since. http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2920164

Given what Congress just approved of, the mid-term elections ought to be very entertaining, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/26/216-gop-house-members-just-voted-destroy-safety-net-and-deliver-trillion-dollar-tax

Trump declares opioid epidemic a National Emergency. Guess he needs to sanction the CIA's opium growing project in Afghanistan along with that organization's top officers. After all, that's what he did to Venezuela for far lesser offences.

Anon | Oct 26, 2017 3:40:01 PM | 40
Also funny how quickly western msm buried this:

Ukraine's collusion with Hillary Clinton to meddle in US elections
http://theduran.com/ukraines-collusion-with-hillary-clinton-to-meddle-in-us-elections-now-exposed/

somebody | Oct 26, 2017 4:25:36 PM | 41
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 26, 2017 10:56:33 AM | 20

Of course. I suppose it is empire phantom pain. Which presumably is what Brexit was about.

dh | Oct 26, 2017 4:47:35 PM | 42
@41 There may be some in the UK who yearn for the days of empire. I think most would just settle for some kind of guaranteed nationality.
Don Bacon | Oct 26, 2017 5:31:41 PM | 43
I'll try this again w/o link
--from The Saker:
Re-visiting Russian counter-propaganda methods
What I propose to do today is to share with you a few recent examples of what Russian households are regularly exposed to.
By now, you must have heard about the CNN report about how the evil Russkies used Pokemon to destabilize and subvert the USA. If not, here it is: (video)

In Russia this report was in instant mega-success: the video was translated and rebroadcasted on every single TV channel. Margarita Simonian, the brilliant director of Russia Today, was asked during a live show "be truthful and confess – what is your relationship with Pokemon, do they work for you?" to which she replied "I feed them" – the audience burst in laughter.

The Russian Pokemon was just the latest in a long series of absolutely insane, terminally paranoid and rabidly russophobic reports released by the western Ziomedia, all of which were instantly translated into Russian and rebroadcasted by the Russian media.

One of the techniques regularly used on Russian talkshows is to show a short report about the latest crazy nonsense coming out of the United States or Europe and then ask a pro-US guests to react to it. The "liberals" (in the Russian political meaning of this word, that is a hopelessly naïve pro-western person who loves to trash everything Russian and who hates Putin and those who support him) are intensely embarrassed and usually either simply admit that this is crazy nonsense or try to find some crazy nonsense in the Russian media (and there is plenty of that too) to show that "we are just as bad". Needless to say, no matter what escape route is chosen, the "liberal" ends up looking like a total idiot or a traitor.

ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51
Why did Clapper and Brennan peddle so hard the Russians colluded with Trump meme? Why did they fear Trump so much?

The FISA warrant to intercept Trump campaign officials was issued on the basis of the fake Steele dossier smear. And then Susan Rice used her position to unmask all the participants in those intercepts.

Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump?

wendy davis | Oct 26, 2017 8:04:06 PM | 52
as far as i've been able to tell, no one has linked to this TRNN interview w/ marcy wheeler, a.k.a. "emptywheel" on the subject. if the transcript was close to correct, her rant was totally illogical, even w/ aaron maté pushing back pretty hard.

'Democrats Funded the Steele Dossier that Fueled Russiagate'; After months of obfuscation, the Washington Post reveals that the Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the infamous Steele dossier at the heart of Russiagate. Empty Wheel's Marcy Wheeler and TRNN's Aaron Mate discuss

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20304:Democrats-Funded-the-Steele-Dossier-that-Fueled-Russiagate

while understanding that TRNN is a 'progressive' (whatever that means any more: librul?) site in general, at least the comments below reflected how anti-roosian, anti-putin emptywheel is. and illogical.

Stryker | Oct 26, 2017 8:29:51 PM | 53
In reply to ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51

I think it's because Donald Trump fired them. Nothing like dropping a deuce in the room on the way out.

"...why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump?"

Russia too I say. It may not have been a take down so much as an (failed)attempt to become his handlers. The "dossier" became useless once it was opened to the public. Who are Donald Trump's handlers? Do we have a puppet, or do we have a puppeteer in Donald Trump?

ben | Oct 26, 2017 8:30:23 PM | 54
Oh boy, the superfluous BS continues(yawn), meanwhile, the rape and plundering of the workers wealth continues here in the U$A.
likklemore | Oct 26, 2017 8:33:30 PM | 55
ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51

IMO, the cash flow to MIC on both sides of the Atlantic. No bogeyman, no wars, no new toys and no treats. War is a money racket.

Trump campaigned on America First; rebuild factories and infrastructure, less foreign wars, detente with Russia. These promises were taken seriously and Russiagate was unwrapped. See how quickly, after his taking the oath of office, he fell in line with the junta? Really, do you think he selected his cabinet people?

A day of reckoning abides HRC, CF, Mueller, Clapper, Brennan and cohorts. When you dig a hole for your enemy make sure you also dig one for yourself.

In 2010, Uranium One was labelled a conspiracy theory. Interesting times ahead. Now WSJ, Wapo, are all over it. At least NYT wrote on the deal and money flow in April 2015 noting HRC's wish to be president, Very detailed article but who would believe? Read up on details: timelines, the Canadian connection and the money flow..

NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

LINK

ben | Oct 26, 2017 8:44:31 PM | 56
Apologies for OT, but a case in point about my 54 post.. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-arbitration-rule-senate-20171024-story.html
Ghostship | Oct 26, 2017 8:46:00 PM | 57
>>>> Ian | Oct 26, 2017 2:39:36 PM | 37
Have a read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Hodgson Brown and "Beyond Banksters" by Joyce Helson. The references they provide will get you started. Another excellent reference is "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins.

I don't need to as I previously worked for a number of financial institutions in the City of London and I'm well aware of all the shit that banks and bankers get up to.

You may not like it hear it and but all money leads to the House of Rothschild and it's net worth reported to be several hundred TRILLION!

Go on believing that crap if you want to but I'd be interested to know exactly what you mean by the "House of Rothschild" other than a 1934 film. Also exactly who is reporting that it's worth several hundred trillion although I notice you don't say what currency their fortune is in but if it's Zimbabwean dollars that'd mean they're worth less than five dollars bearing in mind that all Zimbabweans were almost certainly undecillionaires back in 2009.

Peter AU 1 | Oct 26, 2017 8:52:28 PM | 58
ab initio | Oct 26, 2017 7:46:15 PM | 51 "Yes, the big question why did the top officials in the intelligence agencies in the US and UK try so hard to take down Trump?"

I take it to mean Trump was a threat to the establishment, or at least a majority of the establishment that controls MSM and CIA (then again it is more likely the CIA control the establiushment and media). The threat has now passed and the Trump Putin meme is being wound back. A few scapegoats from the swamp may lose their heads but thats about it.

Tillerson now treading the straight and narrow and fully on board for regime change ...

No role for Assad in Syria's future: Tillerson
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-tillerson/no-role-for-assad-in-syrias-
future-tillerson-idUSKBN1CV2GY

Debsisdead | Oct 26, 2017 9:09:54 PM | 59
Since by all indications it took Romans a coupla centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire to accept they were no longer top dog, eg the so-called 'dark ages' when the rule of roman law disintegrated took a few hundred years to really kick off, we shouldn't be surprised that many englanders struggle to accept their role of just being another beta in the pack. However what interests me more is the group so well described by recently dubbed Aotearoan deputy PM Winston Peters, as 'waka jumpers'. (a waka being the te reo name for a canoe).

Peters coined the term back in 1999 when the coalition government between the conservative National Party and the Peters' formed New Zealand First Party, broke down and the government lacked the numbers to guarantee supply etc. Some NZF MP's jumped ship over to the Natz ignoring the policies under which the public gave them their electoral mandate.

Instead they took up bullshit cabinet positions which gave them increased salaries, all sorts of travel perks for them and their families as well as the title 'Right Honourable' etc. Needless to say there was no power attached to these new roles - nobody is gonna trust a traitor - apart from which the Natz Party would have been deep in the doo-doo if they gave actual power to outsiders while so many hacks 'n whores queued up dutifully in the National Party waiting for their turn at copping a decent earner. That government limped along for about 18 months before Helen Clark's Labour mob arseholed them.

Now the term waka jumpers shouldn't just be hung around the necks of the obvious target, politicians - not when there are low lifes such as Rupert Murdoch, who swap nationalities about as often as some change their underwear.

Murdoch kicked off existence as an australian then became an englander when he wanted to dominate english TV and print media - that got him through quite a few british parliamentary inquiries into media ownership. By the time he was ready to set up Fox and still enjoy his print media ownership in amerika, Murdoch became an amerikan citizens. That didn't affect his brit holdings cos once his buyouts had been approved there was no mechanism for taking ownership back again.

The amerikan citizenship wasn't intended to be permanent, I have no doubt his marriage to a NewsCorp executive based in Hongkong who 'just by chance' had PRC citizenship was the beginning of a switch to a Chinese passport for old Rupe. However it rapidly became obvious that such a move would cost fox big with its looney toons audience, so instead he set about solving the expansion into China another way.
Murdoch got Star TV, plus China based web portals up and running without having to swap nationality again - presumably by way of the 'three B's - bullying, blackmailing and bribing.
That allowed him to give the Chinese missus the flick, so then he decided to do some PR damage limitation in england & amerika by hooking up with Jaggers seconds, the Anglo Amerikan Jerry Hall.

Many waka jumpers don't have to swap passports they follow the money eschewing any regard for their compatriots in the process, and are the biggest obstacle to the notion of one world that there is.

I reckon there would be nothing better than getting rid of borders and the associated tyranny over individuals, except there are just too many arsehats out there who would twist everything up, squirm thru loopholes and screw the rest of us over, so before that happens more power must be devolved downwards and equality of education, opportunity etc must be much more robustly organised. Then it makes sense, but any shift before that point and the usual arseholes are gonna pull their usual strokes.

In this case most brits would be appalled that their establishment got so heavily involved in another nation's electoral process, but no one asked them. Typically just as happens in amerika, the call to take a side was made by a self-interested shadow state which has entirely too much, too poorly defined power.

Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.

psychohistorian | Oct 26, 2017 9:37:25 PM | 60
@ Debsisdead who wrote:
Issues of nationalism should be put to one side where that is possible, while all of us ordinary human beings work together to flush the parasites outta their hidey holes.

I agree! The cry for nationalism is a cry for further control by playing countries off each other.....divide and conquer.

I would hope we can evolve to working terms for anthropological groupings of our species that transcends nationalism but can be agreed upon as representing cultural significance and cohesive regional identity.

Or maybe Trump will evolve the world to be a proper empire with galactic uniforms and badges and stuff for all the MIC....to fit with the game show meme....

Grieved | Oct 26, 2017 9:44:14 PM | 61
Interesting thread. Rich with turmoil. But very real, I think, and exploring ground that is not that firm.

We know the Brits have been the "Step'n Fetchit" guy for the US spooks for a long time. We gather that several decades ago, Langley used to be impressed by the English insouciance, until the moles that tore holes in the UK fabric - Burgess, MacLean, Blunt etc. - destroyed that old colonial myth of "effortless superiority", and revealed the worst quality of all, incompetence.

The secret world has always shielded incompetence. The Wilderness of Mirrors is the only place where you can generate the myth of quality through withholding the facts of your actions. One suspects that the CIA is saturated with incompetence. Part of the reason that it hated to see it in the Brits.

But the SAS could do things for the CIA that didn't need to get reported to the legislatures of either country. So Britain could do a few hit jobs and earn a few points, a few shekels. And MI6 must surely have been yearning to crawl back under the US intel umbrella for a long, long time, until it regained trust somehow - probably from actions of unspeakable subservience. So it's apparent that the relationship - at this point in history - between the two spook enterprises is master and servant, US > UK.

A Le Carre fan could tell you all this, and plenty of analyses in the public sphere could confirm it. So, in sum, there's absolutely no mystery why, or in what hierarchy of relationship, the UK spooks would work for the US spooks.

The dossier is a US fabrication, merely using the lackeys du jour . All useful analysis will flow from this.

[Oct 27, 2017] Deep State Gone Wild Comey Asserts Unprecedented FBI Supremacy

Comey is actually a politician. And he definitely wanted to keep Russiagate hot, and probably was instrumental in creating it ... As this situation suits him political desire for higher autonomy from Justice Department
Notable quotes:
"... James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials. ..."
"... The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior. ..."
"... Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein. ..."
"... "The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . ..."
"... Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official. ..."
"... "Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote . ..."
"... A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. " ..."
Jun 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

James Comey asserted in his extraordinary testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to override Justice Department oversight procedures, a questionable claim which if true would raise serious questions about long-standing rules aimed at preventing abuses by federal law enforcement officials.

The former head of the FBI told the Senate panel that he believed he had received a direction from the president in February that the FBI end its investigation of Michael Flynn's alleged involvement with Russia -- a direction with which he and his kitchen-cabinet of "FBI senior leadership" unilaterally decided not to comply. The Comey cabinet then decided that it would not report the receipt of this direction to Attorney General Jeff Sessions or any other Justice Department superior.

The group decided that it could override standard FBI protocol and possibly legal obligations to report the incident because of its expectations that Sessions would recuse himself from the Russia matter, although that recusal would not come until weeks later. The Comey cabinet also decided that it wasn't obligated to approach the acting Deputy Attorney General because he would likely be replaced soon.

"We concluded it made little sense to report it to Attorney General Sessions, who we expected would likely recuse himself from involvement in Russia-related investigations. (He did so two weeks later.) The Deputy Attorney General's role was then filled in an acting capacity by a United States Attorney, who would also not be long in the role," Comey said. "After discussing the matter, we decided to keep it very closely held, resolving to figure out what to do with it down the road as our investigation progressed."

According to three different former federal law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, there is no precedent for the director of the FBI to refuse to inform a Deputy Attorney General of a matter because of his or her "acting" status nor to use the expectation of a recusal as a basis for withholding information.

"This is an extraordinary usurpation of power. Not something you'd expect from the supposedly by-the-books guys at the top of the FBI," one of those officials told Breitbart News.

The closest precedent to the Comey cabinet's decision to conceal information from Justice Department superiors is likely Comey's widely criticized earlier decision to go public about the investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails. That decision received a sharp rebuke in the May 9 memo by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that formed the basis for Comey's firing by Trump.

Rosenstein criticized Comey's decision to act without consultation from the Department of Justice as usurping the Attorney General's authority and an attempt to "supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. Comey had violated a "well-established process" for how to deal with situations where to Attorney General faces a conflict of interest, according to Rosenstein.

"The Director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016," Rosenstein wrote. "The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department . There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders."

Comey's testimony on Thursday seemed to double-down on this defense, which amounts to a claim that the FBI's top agents can act outside of the ordinary processes intended to establish oversight and accountability at the nation's top law enforcement agency.

The FBI's adherence to Department of Justice guidelines and instructions from Attorneys General has been a centerpiece of its ongoing independence, often cited by officials as a reason why the FBI does not need a general legislative charter that would restrict or control by statute its authority. Comey's assertion that the FBI can override standard protocols could endanger that independence, according to a former high-ranking federal law enforcement official.

"He's not only put the credibility of the bureau in doubt, he's now putting the entire basis for our independence in jeopardy," the official said.

The official pointed to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal as explaining the dangers of an FBI that decides not to inform the Department of Justice of its activities.

"Mr. Comey is describing an FBI director who essentially answers to no one. But the police powers of the government are awesome and often abused, and the only way to prevent or correct abuses is to report to elected officials who are accountable to voters. A director must resist intervention to obstruct an investigation, but he and the agency must be politically accountable or risk becoming the FBI of J. Edgar Hoover," the Wall Street Journal wrote .

A 2005 report from the FBI's Office of Inspector General on the Department of Justice's guidelines for FBI investigations stated, "Attorneys General and FBI leadership have uniformly agreed that the Attorney General Guidelines are necessary and desirable, and they have referred to the FBI's adherence to the Attorney General Guidelines as the reason why the FBI should not be subjected to a general legislative charter or to statutory control over the exercise of some of its most intrusive authorities. "

[Oct 27, 2017] Donald Trumps truce with spy agencies breaks down over Russia dossier US news by Spencer Ackerman

This is an interesting old article by guardian which suggest that Trump thought the Steele memo was a blatant attempt to blackmail him launched against him by intelligence agencies. He proved to be half-right. FBI was involved with Steele dossier and probably paid some money. It is unclear if MI6 was involved but Steele would be really reckless if he did his job without consulting the agency. This is not a regular report -- that was a direct interference into US election. The paper hint that Steele source might be Ukrainians, not Russians.
Unverified and blighted with factual errors damaging rumor/insinuation was picked up by media to damage Trump. This is so "color regulation style" that it hurts.
Notable quotes:
"... Shift from measured tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump likened to Nazi Germany ..."
"... Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated". ..."
"... Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier, acquired by the FBI in December from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain, ..."
"... Trump had previously referred to an intelligence " as the witch-hunt " and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face. ..."
"... You know what? It could be others also. ..."
Jan 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump's truce with spy agencies breaks down over Russia dossier Shift from measured tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump likened to Nazi Germany, experts say -> Trump attacks media and intelligence community, and addresses Russia's alleged involvement in election hacking -> Donald Trump Donald Trump's truce with spy agencies breaks down over Russia dossier

Shift from measured tone to 'hysterical hostility' at press conference could destroy relationship with agencies Trump likened to Nazi Germany , experts say

A shaky detente between Donald Trump and the intelligence agencies he will soon control has broken down, as Trump wrongly accused US intelligence of leaking an unverified, salacious document to damage his nascent presidency.

At a press conference on Wednesday, Trump said that "who knows, but maybe the intelligence agencies" were responsible for the document, which he said would be "a tremendous blot on their record".

Earlier, Trump likened the intelligence agencies to " Nazi Germany", in a tweet, saying they "never should have allowed this fake news to 'leak' to the public. One last shot at me".

... ... ...

James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, said he told Trump on Wednesday evening that the [US] intelligence community had not been responsible for the leaking of the documents.

"I emphasized that this document is not a US intelligence community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said in a statement. Trump referred to the call in a tweet first thing on Thursday morning, which said Clapper had denounced "the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated".

Before CNN reported that aspects of the dossier, acquired by the FBI in December from the Arizona Republican senator John McCain, were briefed to Barack Obama and Trump, no news organization had published the accusations, which purport to reveal compromising information Russia possesses on Trump. Trump has denied them, and NBC later reported that the material was prepared for the Trump briefing, but not discussed.

Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee and a consistent critic of spycraft excesses, told the Guardian it was "profoundly dangerous" for Trump to continue his feud with the agencies.

"The president is responsible for vital decisions about national security, including decisions about whether to go to war, which depend on the broad collection activities and reasoned analysis of the intelligence community. A scenario in which the president dismisses the intelligence community, or worse, accuses it of treachery, is profoundly dangerous," Wyden said.

... ... ...

Trump's outburst was a departure from the moderated tone he had taken on the intelligence agencies since Friday, when he met with the director of national intelligence, James Clapper; FBI director James Comey; NSA director Mike Rogers and CIA director John Brennan to discuss their joint conclusion that Russia had intervened extensively in the 2016 election to benefit Trump.

Trump had previously referred to an intelligence " as the witch-hunt " and threw the CIA's fatefully erroneous 2002 assessment that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction back in the agency's face. Clapper and Rogers had warned of plummeting morale within the intelligence community ahead of Trump's presidency. After the meeting, Trump spoke of his "tremendous respect for the work and service done by the men and women of this community".

At his press conference on Wednesday, Trump simultaneously accepted and diminished the intelligence assessment that Russia was responsible for the Democratic National Committee hack, saying "I think it was Russia" and later adding the caveat: " You know what? It could be others also. "...

... ... ...

See also:

[Oct 26, 2017] BuzzFeed's Golden Showers debacle is classic yellow press fake

Notable quotes:
"... When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible. The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false. ..."
washingtonbabylon.com

From: BuzzFeed's Golden Showers Washington Babylon

... think it was wrong for BuzzFeed to publish it and the media company bears responsibility for this debacle, which has made the entire profession look even worse and generated sympathy for, of all people, Donald Trump.

Simpson's firm is being berated at the moment but there are a lot of companies in Washington who do the same thing - namely produce political and business intelligence for paying clients - and they operate openly and everyone, including journalists, know who they are. In terms of political intelligence, there are firms who work for Democrats and firms that work for Republicans, and some who work for both. The Democrats don't have a monopoly on these firms as one might imagine from the current hysteria.

... ... ...

As has been widely reported, the Trump dossier had circulated for many months - at least as far back as August - and even though there was a fever on the part of the media to get anti-Trump stories into print, everyone with the exception of David Corn of Mother Jones declined to write about the "dossier," and even he only referred to parts of it. The fact that dozens of journalists reviewed these documents and declined to use them, on the grounds that their allegations could not be verified shows that the information contained within them was very shaky.

I read the documents online and it's clear that they are thinly sourced and there were apparently serious errors in them, for example the bit about Trump's attorney's trip to Prague...

... ... ...

Whatever you think of Trump, he won this embarrassing election under the rules of the game. (And yes, Hillary won the popular vote and in a serious democracy she would have been declared the winner, but we are stuck for the time being with the Electoral College.) The Golden Showers story is quite a sensational accusation to make given that he was about 10 days out from inauguration. If Hillary had won the election would Buzzfeed have posted an unproven dossier on her that alleged she had hired prostitutes during an overseas trip to Ukraine? I seriously doubt it, especially given Buzzfeed's notable pro-Hillary tilt during the campaign.

... ... ...

When Chuck Todd accused Smith of publishing "fake news," he suggested that BuzzFeed was just being a good Internet news organization and not letting the media and political elite keep information from the public. This would be easier to take more seriously if BuzzFeed is not so obviously a part of the media elite and doesn't fraternize so comfortably with the political elite like most other news outlets. BuzzFeed was chasing clicks and that's fine, but dressing this up as public service doesn't cut it and especially given the political calculations involved.

BuzzFeed's other excuse was that the documents were already being talked about and were referred to in the Intelligence Community's very dubious report on Trump. But the documents appear to have been given to various agencies by political figures seeking to burn Trump, which BuzzFeed was only too happy to help out with. So it appears that Trump's political enemies and media enemies were working together to get this information out before the inauguration.

I'd also note here one peculiar, and possibly unethical, thing about the New York Times' behavior here. The Times, like everyone but BuzzFeed, didn't publish the report but they wrote quite a bit about it. In an early story it said that they would not identify the research firm behind the leaked memos because of "a confidential source agreement with The New York Times." Then it revealed the firm's name in a later story and edited the earlier one to take out the line about their confidential source agreement.

So it looks like the Times violated a confidentiality agreement, which is pretty troubling...

... ... ...

Note: I'd strongly urge anyone following this story to friend long-time investigative journalist and researcher Craig Pyes on Facebook. ....

Here is an excerpt:

When I first read the memos, I knew none of the backstory, and looked forward to the salacious content to bring this clown down, particularly any facts showing that the Trump people had prior knowledge of the Russian hacks - a Watergate-sized story, if true, even if the effects of the hacks on the election are being overblown. But with nearly 40 years of investigative experience, mostly on international issues, the wording of the memos quickly caused me to slam on the breaks, because they were worded in such a way as to make confirmation of the charges impossible. The rule involved in making professional judgments on these kinds of things is simple: you look for information that can be proven either true or false, and from that factual template, you then build out one incontrovertible fact at a time. These memoranda had no such facts, with the possible exception of Cohen's trip to Prague, which the FBI told the WSJ was false.

[Oct 26, 2017] Putin Warns Of Soft Coup Against Trump; Calls Golden Shower Dossier Creators Worse Than Prostitutes

Notable quotes:
"... Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations. ..."
"... Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire." ..."
Jan 17, 2017 | www.thedailysheeple.com
Warning that a "soft coup" is being waged against Donald Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he sees attempts in the United States to "delegitimize" US President-elect Donald Trump using "Maidan-style" methods previously used in Ukraine, where readers will recall president Yanukovich was ousted in 2014 following a violent coup, which many suspect was conducted under the auspices of the US State Department and assorted US intelligence operations.

Putin said he doesn't believe that Donald Trump met with prostitutes in Russia, calling the accusations part of a campaign to undermine the election result, and suggested that an internal political struggle is underway in the United States despite the fact that the presidential election is over, and added that reports of alleged Russian dossier on Trump are fake as "our security services do not chase every US billionaire."

Unsubstantiated allegations made against Trump are "obvious fabrications," Putin told reporters in the Kremlin on Tuesday. "People who order fakes of the type now circulating against the U.S. president-elect, who concoct them and use them in a political battle, are worse than prostitutes because they don't have any moral boundaries at all," he said.

The Russian president, cited by BBG, said that Trump wasn't a politician when he visited Moscow in the past and Russian officials weren't aware that he held any political ambitions.

[Oct 26, 2017] Co-Founder Of Trump-Russia Dossier Firm Cancels Testimony While Lynch Claims Ignorance

Notable quotes:
"... After it was revealed that Rob Goldstone - the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. " setup " with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to Politico . ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Co-Founder Of Trump-Russia Dossier Firm Cancels Testimony While Lynch Claims Ignorance

The ongoing efforts to bring down Donald Trump are unraveling at an accelerating pace...

Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS Co-Founder

After it was revealed that Rob Goldstone - the man who arranged the now infamous Trump Jr. " setup " with a shady Russian attorney, is associated with Fusion GPS - the firm behind the largely discredited 35 page Trump-Russia dossier, the co-founder of Fusion GPS abruptly canceled his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to testify in the ongoing probe into Russian influence in the 2016 election, according to Politico .

The committee announced Wednesday that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS was scheduled to voluntarily appear on July 19.

During the 2016 US election, Simpson's firm hired former British spy Christopher Steele to produce the 35 page dossier, accusing then-candidate Donald Trump of all sorts of salacious dealings with Russians. When Steele couldn't verify it's claims, the FBI refused to pay him $50,000 for the report - which didn't stop John McCain from hand-delivering it to former FBI director James Comey, or the Obama Administration from using it to start spying on Trump associate Carter Page .

That's two attempts to take down President Trump involving Fusion GPS.

As the Independent reported on Monday:

A spokesman for the President's legal team told The Independent they now believed Ms Veselnitskaya and her colleagues had misrepresented who they were and who they worked for.

"Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier ." -Mark Corallo

Perhaps sensing he's totally screwed and now a huge liability to the deep state, Simpson canceled his testimony next week.

Loretta Lynch Knows Nothing

After it The Hill at a press conference during his visit to France, stating "She [Veselnitskaya] was here because of Lynch, following up with "Nothing happened from the meeting... Zero happened from the meeting, and honestly I think the press made a big deal over something that many people would do."

Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's travel."

The spokesperson did not go into detail about Veselnitskaya's case, but followed up by saying "The State Department issues visas, and the Department of Homeland Security oversees entry to the United States at airports."

After Lynch's DOJ allowed Veselnitskaya into the country to participate in a lawsuit and nothing more , she had the now infamous meeting at Trump tower, met with current and former lawmakers from both parties, and was spotted in primo front-row seating at a House Foreign Affairs committee hearing on Russia.

What an interesting trip for Ms. Veselnitskaya...

cheech_wizard , Jul 14, 2017 8:34 PM

Lynch claims ignorance?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russ...

The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York City.

During a court hearing in early January 2016, as Veselnitskaya's permission to stay in the country was about to expire, federal prosecutors described how rare the grant of parole immigration was as Veselnitskaya pleaded for more time to remain in the United States.

"In October the government bypassed ?the normal visa process and gave a type of extraordinary ?permission to enter the country called immigration parole," Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Monteleoni explained to the judge during a hearing on Jan. 6, 2016.

Standard Disclaimer: Lynch should be in jail...

AntiMatter , Jul 14, 2017 3:03 PM

VT had it right all along – ISIS weapons supplied by the West

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/07/12/western-states-largest-suppliers...

theprofromdover , Jul 14, 2017 2:57 PM

".. Lynch distanced herself in a Thursday statement, with a spokesperson claiming that the former Attorney General "does not have any personal knowledge of Ms. Veselnitskaya's travel."...

I suspect Loretta got some coachin' from Slippery Bill on the tarmac, how to say something that only a fool would believe means anything.

" I do not have any personal knowledge of Ms Veselnitskaya's .... breakfast plans" what does that mean?

rwe2late , Jul 14, 2017 2:56 PM

Lynch claims ignorance.

Well, who can dispute that?

pparalegal , Jul 14, 2017 2:40 PM

The drunk on DNC propaganda religious MSNBC ultra left watchers are going to get very agitated screaming "show trials" when their heroes start doing the orange jumpsuit frog march. That is when it will get ugly in the streets and on the DC mall. Cheer up comrades, it is going to get a lot worse.

Harry Paranockus , Jul 14, 2017 12:02 PM

This whole shit storm will be over soon, because if they peel back the final layer to this story, they will find that the entire apparatus of Washington, DC is on the take.

Sandmann , Jul 14, 2017 11:07 AM

and Veselnitskaya is linked to the Bill Browder/Edmund Safra Hermitage Capital Hedge Fund through her work for people affected by Magnitsky Act........this swamp is certainly deep but it is hard to know who is a swamp monster and who is being dragged in

alg0rhythm -> VideoEng_NC , Jul 14, 2017 10:48 AM

Sessions settles Magnitsky case for 6 million- pennies on the dollar.... no, nothing to see here..... lawyer- this same lady

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-was-russian-money-laundering-case-dis...

PeterLong -> alg0rhythm , Jul 14, 2017 2:36 PM

How is $ 6 million "pennies on the dollar"? If the U.S. was at one time seeking $ 12 million, is a settlement for half that amount unusual as pre-trial settlements go?

Jim in MN -> moneybots , Jul 14, 2017 10:00 AM

Also how she now insists that it's State and DHS that handle this stuff, while in filed court briefs in January, DOJ was all breathless about what an extraordinary, rare exemption Ms. V received, direct from the AG.

Someone is lying. But then, lawyers are involved so I guess it's inevitable.

[Oct 26, 2017] John Helmer Parsing the Dossier on Trumps Alleged Russian Bedroom Antics naked capitalism

Notable quotes:
"... As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite. ..."
"... Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another: "I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. " ..."
"... The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13, 2016. The published form can be read here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days. ..."
"... A London newspaper claims Steele was paid £200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele "who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (£12,300) a time every three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended to mislead. That's not all. ..."
"... Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on Steele's fake rock operation here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story. ..."
Jan 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on January 18, 2017 by Yves Smith ... ... ...

As Lambert has remarked, this is not the behavior of a confident elite.

By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

Almost everyone goes to bed at night. Some get up to urinate. The older, less continent ones can't get up easily, so they urinate on themselves. If properly cared for, they do so in what is known in the geriatric product market as roll-ups.

A small minority arrange to be urinated upon by others, though not usually on the bed they aim to sleep in. This may be an erotic pleasure for you, a perversion to the next man. The name for it is Golden Showers. If conducted between consenting adults, it's not a crime. Paying for it may be a crime, depending on the local law on procuring. In the Russian criminal code it's not a felony but a misdemeanour with a fine so small it usually isn't enforced by the police; certainly not in expensive big-city hotels.

A claim is being widely reported in the US media which supported Hillary Clinton for president that President-elect Donald Trump paid for at least two ladies to urinate on the bed in the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel of Moscow. A former British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) agent named Christopher Steele has reported the episode in a memorandum dated June 20, 2016, because he was paid by a US client to do it; and also because he was paid to speculate that the Russian Security Service (FSB) filmed it, and has been blackmailing Trump ever since.

Trump has responded that Steele is a "failed spy". That is not an impetuous tweet. It's the assessment of both US and British intelligence agencies, including MI6, for which Steele worked undercover in Moscow between 1994 and 1996. His cover was blown; he was evacuated; and as British intelligence sources report this week, Steele has been unable to enter Russia for a decade. "No Russian with official links and knowledge would risk communicating with Steele for fear of being detected by Russian counter-intelligence," said an intelligence source in London, Said another: "I met [Steele] a couple of times and thought that for a relatively undistinguished man who never made very senior rank he was a smug, arrogant s.o.b. So I don't work with him. The description of his being the top expert on Russia in MI6 is bollocks. "

The story of the Obama-Trump bed, according to Steele, comes from 2013. Another story, the one of the Putin bed on which Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had sex with a prostitute in Rome, dates from 2009. The true part has been verified with a tape the lady made of Berlusconi boasting about the source of the bed as he exercised himself on it. Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Putin then and now, says the Trump-Obama bed story is "a complete fake. It's total nonsense." But about the Putin-Berlusconi bed, he said at the time: "We reject this information. I am not in a position to explain." In short, that bedtime story may be true .

The Steele dossier contains 35 pages, commencing on June 20, 2016, and ending on December 13, 2016. The published form can be read here . It comprises 17 reports. But the file numbering from 2016/ 080 to 2016/166 implies there were 86 such reports altogether, so only one in five has become public. What was in the remaining 67 reports is unknown. Unknown, too, is whether it's possible that over six months Steele was producing reports on Russia at the rate of 11 per month, 3 per week, one every two days.

A London newspaper claims Steele was paid £200,000 for his job. The newspaper also claims that a friend of Steele "who does not want to be named, says he sold them in instalments at $15,000 (£12,300) a time every three weeks to anti-Trump Republicans looking for dirt on the tycoon in the run-up to the presidential nomination." This means there were no other reports in the series; the numbering was intended to mislead. That's not all.

The Guardian newspaper, the Financial Times and US newspapers claim the dossier has been circulating "for months and acquired a kind of legendary status among journalists, lawmakers, and intelligence officials who have seen them", according to one reporter. According to Financial Times reporter Courtney Weaver, she "investigated some of the allegations contained in the report but was unable to confirm them." She has published them, nonetheless. For more on Weaver's record for veracity in Moscow, read this .

A source at a London due diligence firm which is larger and better known than Steele's Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd. says "standard due diligence means getting to the truth. It's confidential to the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black means the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for publishing in the press. White means the client wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing which he's being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it's also leaked to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a journalist to find out what he knows and what he's likely to publish, in order to bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too obvious."

Steele's career in Russian intelligence at MI6 had hit the rocks in 2006, and never recovered. That was the year in which the Russian Security Service (FSB) publicly exposed an MI6 operation in Moscow. Russian informants recruited by the British were passed messages and money, and dropped their information in containers fabricated to look like fake rocks in a public park. Steele was on the MI6 desk in London when the operation was blown. Although the FSB announcement was denied in London at the time, the British prime ministry confirmed its veracity in 2012. Read more on Steele's fake rock operation here , and the attempt by the Financial Times to cover it up by blaming Putin for fabricating the story.

The wet bed story, as Steele reported it to his client who then leaked it to the media, looks like this:

The bedroom, the bed and a piece of 19 th century soft porn on the wall look like this:
Source: http://www.ritzcarlton.com/en/hotels/europe/moscow/rooms-suites/the-ritz-carlton-suite

The June 20, 2016, memo, which started the wet bed story, reports seven sources, identified as Source A through G. No other report in the dossier has as many sources; some of the original seven reappear in the series. Look carefully to detect what the Clinton media have missed.

Source D isn't Russian at all. He is American; Steele reports him as a "close associate of Trump who organized and managed his trips to Moscow". D claims to have been "present"; there is a bedside armchair in the Ritz Carlton photograph, so "present" is possible.

Source E's identity has been blacked out in the first memo, but he is identified elsewhere in the series as another American – a "Russian émigré figure close to Trump's campaign team" – not to Trump himself. Within the space of a paragraph, however, he turns into an "émigré associate of Trump". Several memos and weeks later, on August 10, this source has become "the ethnic Russian associate of Trump".

The others reported by Steele to have been in on the wet bed story include Source F, "a female staffer at the hotel when Trump stayed there". From the dossier it appears she told her story to an American who was an "ethnic Russian operative" of the company run by Source E, the émigré. So Source F isn't a direct or independent source at all. If this is beginning to bewilder you, it should. The only sources for the wet bed story turn out to be Americans, not Russians at all.

Just how difficult it was for Steele to pinpoint Trump's sexual activities in Russia, as well as his business, is indicated by the September 14 memo in the file. This claims to report Trump's visits to St. Petersburg. No dates have been given. One source, termed as a Russian from the "local services and tourist industry", reportedly told "a trusted Russian compatriot", three years after the event, that Trump had "participated in sex parties in the city". How many people make a sex party isn't reported; two may have sufficed. The memo reports no trace because "all direct witnesses had recently been 'silenced', i.e., bribed or coerced to disappear".

Trump posed for this photograph during the Miss Universe pageant, one of his business affairs in Moscow in November 2013. Source: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-russia-moscow-miss-universe-223173 In a European newspaper published on January 15, Trump confirmed this was the occasion for the wet bed story. Trump said: "I just got a letter from people that went to Russia with me - did you see that letter - very rich people, they went with me, they said you were with us, I was with them, I wasn't even here when they said such false stuff. I left, I wasn't even there . . . I was there for the Miss Universe contest, got up, got my stuff and I left - I wasn't even there - it's all." .

The same report by Steele admits it was "hard to prove" what business, if any, Trump had done in St. Petersburg. The allegation that, in order to make no reportable real estate transactions, Trump had "paid bribes to further his interests through affiliated companies", is presented in the dossier as evidence of Trump's corruption. Steele was taking £12,000 to portray the businessman as someone so inexperienced as to pay bribes before he had a deal, not during or after completion.

Steele's only Russian sources have no reported knowledge of Trump's sexual conduct. They include two people reported as serving government officials – Source A, a "senior Foreign Ministry figure"; and Source G, a "senior Kremlin official". One is a retiree – a "former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin"; and one is "an official close to the Presidential Administration head [Sergei] Ivanov". That makes four who British intelligence sources are certain had no contact at all with Steele, his company, or foreigners. A source with direct knowledge of operations says: "Basic rule [of MI6] is that you are probably identified after a couple of jobs. Then in any other visit you might infect anyone you associate with." Second rule, according to this source, is that by the time his cover was blown in 1996 Steele had "infected everyone he had been associated with in Moscow." Since then all he has been able to collect is hearsay three or four times removed from its origin.

Among Steele's kibitzers, he names a businessman, a "senior Russian financial officer"; "two well-placed and established Kremlin sources", a "Kremlin insider", a "well-placed Russian figure", and a "close associate of Rosneft President and Putin ally Igor Sechin". The duo claims that Peskov, the presidential spokesman, had "botched" his role in the military coup in Turkey on July 15, 2016, and was in trouble with chief of staff Ivanov, the Russian intelligence agencies and Putin. Steele's sources provided "no further details" so they didn't know what Peskov had done.

Steele failed to check the record. Had he done so, he would have discovered that Peskov made a public denial of Middle East press reports claiming Russian military intelligence had warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the plot against him, enabling him to survive. ""I don't have such information and I don't know the sources, to which the news agency Fars is referring," Peskov declared . This was either a less than convincing denial of the truth, or an incredulous falsehood. Either way, no Russian source, civilian or military, has suggested Peskov had done anything remarkable. "If Peskov botched that one," said a source in a position to know, "he does the same all the time. What's news about that?"

The "Kremlin insider" – not an official, not a retiree, possibly a journalist – is presented by Steele in a memo of October 19, 2016, as his only source for reporting that Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, had met secretly with Kremlin officials "in the attempt to prevent the full details of Trump's relationship with Russia being exposed." The "insider" had revealed what he knew "speaking in confidence to a longstanding compatriot friend". However, between the two of them they didn't know which Kremlin officials Cohen had met; where; when; or what had been discussed. The "insider" did confide that Ivanov's replacement as chief of the presidential staff by his deputy, Anton Vaino, on August 12, 2016, and Sergei Kirienko's transfer from the state nuclear power holding Rosatom to deputy chief of the staff at the Kremlin on October 5 were both connected to the same thing – the "need to cover up Kremlin's Trump support operation".


Ivanov, extreme left, has remained an active member of the National Security Council, as this council session of January 13 shows . Russian gossip and speculation on the reasons for Ivanov's exit from the chief of staff post were voluminous at the time, including as many personal as policy and political reasons. Steele selected the story his client asked for with a blind attribution in a crowd; added the adjective "Kremlin"; and submitted a fresh invoice for £12,000.

The source "close" to Sechin was reported as saying that during a visit to Moscow in July 2016, Carter Page, a sometime advisor to Trump, had met Sechin, and been told that Sechin "continued to believe that Trump could win the US presidency". Sechin reportedly also told Page that if Trump lifted US sanctions on Rosneft, he would offer "Page/Trump's associates the brokerage [sic] of up to a 19 per cent (privatised) stake in Rosneft in return." This was reported on October 18. On December 12 Carter, back in Moscow, told Russian reporters he had revisited Rosneft: "I had the opportunity to meet with some of the top managers of the company Rosneft. The recent Rosneft deal, in which the Qatar Fund and Glencore could take part is unfortunately a good example of how American private companies are limited to a great degree due to the influence of sanctions." Page added : "The most classic example [of fake news] was of course the claims of my contacts with Igor Ivanovich [Sechin] which would have been a great honor but nevertheless did not take place."

That Sechin and his associates at Rosneft had been scouring the global markets for a formula to privatize a 19.5% stake in Rosneft had been well-known for months. No news either was Page's personal interest in Russian deal-making to support his one-man business, Global Energy Capital LLC . Steele has run the two stories together for a client who knew neither, and for reporters at the Clinton media who didn't check. Page's comments in Moscow reveal he has failed to understand the "privatization" Sechin was intending. For details, read this .

If Steele's operations were as well-known to the Russian services as the fake rock caper, the Russians were capable of planting disinformation intended to confuse or mislead Steele and his clientele, as well as the long line of Americans arriving in Moscow to advertise themselves as Trump advisors. "Intelligence is not evidence, and Steele would have known, better than anyone, that the information he was gathering was not fact and could be wrong", the Guardian has reported . In Moscow Russian sources say Page has made a record of wishful thinking and hustling for a job in the new administration; in Washington Trump's announcement of one has yet to be made.

Russian and western intelligence sources say there is one point the Steele dossier reports more accurately than the report issued on January 6 by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence. That's entitled "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections". Although Air Force Lieutenant-General James Clapper, the departing Director of National Intelligence (below, left), and his subordinates, who authored this paper, refer to "Russia's intelligence services" – plural – they claim the operations against civilian targets were conducted by just one, the military intelligence organization, GRU.

Watch carefully as the Clapper group slips from what it knows about military cyber warfare (signals interception, weapons jamming) into civilian email hacking. "We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and Wikileaks to release victim data obtained in cyber operations We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and senior Democratic officials to Wikileaks."

Steele's dossier reports that the Russian information campaign was run very differently, and from several different sources. In overall command, next to Putin, was his chief of staff until August, Ivanov. Surveillance of Americans in Russia, including electronic and photographic, was the responsibility of the FSB. The Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) was in charge of "targeting foreign, especially western governments, penetrating leading foreign business corporations, especially banks."

Peskov's role was to arrange for media publication of kompromat on Clinton and "black PR", collected by the FSB and SVR. According to a "former intelligence officer, the FSB was the lead organization within the Russian state apparatus for cyber operations." Not a word about the GRU.

The FSB, according to Steele, was reportedly in charge of "using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data, and conduct 'altering operations' against the Democratic party leadership. There is no mention of GRU. In Clapper's version, "Romanian hackers" were GRU agents. In Steele's version they were "paid by both Trump's team and the Kremlin, though their orders and ultimate loyalty lay with Ivanov as Head of the PA [Presidential Administration]."

The Steele memo No. 095 of July 2016 even admits there were "Trump moles" and "agents/facilitators within the Democratic Party structure itself" who leaked internal Clinton campaign emails. The Trump team, it is also reported, provided the Russians with the information that was their highest priority – "the activities of [Russian] business oligarchs and their families' activities and assets in the US." Memo no. 097 of July 30 repeats that "Putin's priority requirement had been for intelligence on the activities, business and otherwise, in the US of leading Russian oligarchs and their families." This didn't come from a Russian source. According to Steele, the source was an American, who was also a Russian émigré, and who was "speaking in confidence to a trusted [American] associate."

Both the Clapper and Steele dossiers depend on a great deal of speaking in confidence to trusted associates, but they can't both be right about which Russian agency was in charge of which US operation. A London associate of Steele's, who doesn't trust him, comments: "I am sure in this case he left no stone unturned in his search for the truth. Steele and his associates became so fixated on the import of what he had on his hands, he lost track of the fact that these are compelling STORIES. Being plausible is vitally important, but that doesn't make the stories true. And if not true, well they are dust. "

"There may have been only one Trump bed, but there are so many fleas."

ambrit , January 18, 2017 at 6:38 am

As I commented about Mr. Steele several days ago, he must be a relative of the famous Remington Steele. In true family tradition, both Steeles are products of falsehood. They bring a "little joy into (peoples) humdrum lives," and "feel (their) hard work ain't been in vain for nuthin," to paraphrase that shining star in the firmament, Lina Lamont. All that's missing here is the obligatory disclaimer; "This product sold for entertainment purposes only." That the "product" is being bruited about as "real" and of consequence is the basic deception intended.
What should be of worry here is the fact that what passes for journalism today is actually "disinfotainment." The Paris Revue it ain't.

tegnost , January 18, 2017 at 9:48 am

I'm thinking maxwelll smart or austin powers

Carolinian , January 18, 2017 at 8:21 am

Thanks for the debunking although Golden Showers Gate is so last week. Perhaps come Friday the looney sitzkrieg period will finally be over and our famously free press can start reporting some real stuff.

Yves Smith Post author , January 18, 2017 at 9:55 am

I know but I thought readers would still appreciate the fine detail, particularly regarding Steele, since the later efforts to prop up the story revolved around finding some folks to vouch for him.

Ancient1 , January 18, 2017 at 11:53 am

Yes, thank you. It might be last week's hot news, but the detail in this artticle is most revelant.

olga , January 18, 2017 at 11:58 am

Plus – if a patently fake (although plausible) story is not completely debunked, the problem is that its after-effects linger on in people's consciousness for a long time

craazyboy , January 18, 2017 at 3:12 pm

I put the odds at 99% that in 2020 we are still seeing polls indicating 50% of Americans believe Russia hacks or influences America. 75% of Ds and 25% of Rs. In 2021, depending on election outcome, the ratios may switch, or stay the same. Assuming we didn't have WW3 before then.

DarkMatters , January 18, 2017 at 3:13 pm

By all means, thank you. Helmer always shines light from unusual directions, and the perspective shown by looking in formerly unexamined nooks and crannies is always, well, illuminating.

RenoDino , January 18, 2017 at 9:52 am

It can't be hacking because Pedestal gave whomever his password. And it can't be espionage because the DNC is a private organization. It can't be subversion because all the information that was released was true, unlike the top secret smear campaign on Trump. Can't wait for Trump's summary of hacking.

RUKidding , January 18, 2017 at 10:21 am

I only skimmed through this but thanks. Have had a couple of conversations with people about this, uh, situation. People who despise Trump really really want to believe it from the bottom of their hearts, and the fact that Mr. Steele is former MI6 just adds to their fervent belief in this legend.

A buncha hooey, if ya ask me. From the get-go, Steele seemed desparate to me. He hasn't been in Russia in quite a long time. I fail to see him as a credible source.

As "b" at Moon of Alabama has said, there's plenty of concerns about Trump, and we should all be vigilent in witnessing what he does and responding accordingly. This crap is just more distraction from actually paying attention to Trump's cabinet picks and their vetting process. How much time has been wasted hyperventilating about golden showers, while some of these cabinet weasels slip through the congressional vetting process without even having their ethics reviews completed? Where's the outrage over that? As usual: crickets.

I'm so DONE with the Democratic party and their antics. They're appear to me to be signalling that they're not intending to really play hard ball with Trump and, you know, actually do the job that we are paying them to do. Rather they'd prefer to waste time, money and other resources by trying to play "gotcha" with Trump overy stupid stuff.

FluffytheObeseCat , January 18, 2017 at 12:12 pm

This. Is the real point. The media is splashing around noisily like swimmers in a bidet while some very nasty pieces of work are being installed in the highest office in the federal bureaucracy. And then there's the new congress. You've got to be scouring the news every day to catch word of the bills they are writing. As if nothing has changed, and the impact on our lives will remain small and distant.

jrs , January 18, 2017 at 2:50 pm

+1 yes and also the new Congress Maybe Trump is just a big fat DISTRACTION (although that remains to be seen of course, I have no absolute certainty on what he will do after Jan 20, but perhaps it really is all distraction even if unplanned).

And maybe Congress (and the appointees) hold the real power (and they are a piece of work!!! And people bother protesting Trump and yet by the lack of such go around normalizing these horrible, possibly even worse than Trump, Republicans that aren't Trump – people like Paul Ryan).

Ivy , January 18, 2017 at 10:35 am

Steele reminds me of a character in The Tailor of Panama , by John Le Carré. That book also could be used relative to Curveball , who featured in our recent Iraq adventures.

There is an obvious demand for more books that allow us to predict the future.

Vatch , January 18, 2017 at 11:50 am

I still think Trump has gold plated bathroom plumbing fixtures. So when he takes a shower,

craazyboy , January 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm

.his shower mates wet the shower bed?

This is a step backwards from The Jacuzzi.

Scott , January 18, 2017 at 1:34 pm

I did want to find a true fact. Didn't ever believe the Golden Shower story. We know that the Trump organization sold real estate in NYC to Russian Oligarchs. We can believe that Putin would have motives to discover who of his orbits bought what & for how much.
Black, White, Red categories of jobs is of use to a fiction spy story writer.

Yves Smith Post author , January 18, 2017 at 6:19 pm

Every big residential real estate developer in NYC sells condos to Russians. Selling real estate to someone does not give them a hold over you. Let us not forget that the Chinese are yuuge real estate buyers too but Trump has been rattling China's cage.

Barry Egan , January 18, 2017 at 1:52 pm

The link to the fake rock story, and apparently all the other links to Helmer's website. Appear to be broken. Or his site is down. I was interested in that, seems like some real Spy vs. Spy type stuff.

Yves Smith Post author , January 18, 2017 at 6:20 pm

I clicked just now and it opened for me: http://johnhelmer.net/?p=6622

[Oct 26, 2017] Trump Denounces Phony Spies, Sleazebag Political Operatives

Notable quotes:
"... "It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning, adding , "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans – FAKE NEWS!" ..."
"... According to the New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters, and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump. ..."
Jan 14, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
President-elect Donald Trump continued excoriating the forces behind the published document of unsubstantiated accusations of compromising behavior, accusing his political rivals for leaking the document prepared by a private investigator.

"It now turns out that the phony allegations against me were put together by my political opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued," Trump wrote on Twitter Friday morning, adding , "Totally made up facts by sleazebag political operatives, both Democrats and Republicans – FAKE NEWS!"

The Wall Street Journal reported that former British spy Christopher Steele, now the director of a private investigation firm, prepared the document.

According to the New York Times , a wealthy Republican donor funded political opposition group Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. The investigation was continued by Hillary Clinton's Democratic supporters, and the group hired Steele to investigate Trump.

Trump again pointed to Russian denials of possessing information on him and suggested "intelligence" sources released it.

[Oct 26, 2017] The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer by Glenn Greenwald

Notable quotes:
"... This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News." ..."
"... Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing - eager ..."
"... What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families. ..."
"... Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1% . ..."
"... The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link ..."
"... It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated President-elect. ..."
"... Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like losing a presidential election get in the way. ..."
Jan 11, 2017 | www.unz.com
Glenn Greenwald • The Intercept • January 11, 2017 • 20 Comments Reply

IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even further.

This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."

Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.

The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.

But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

Verymuchalive , January 12, 2017 at 8:38 pm GMT

All very vague. No mention of Neocons, Zionists, AIPAC, the ADL, Jews
I wonder why?

@Kyle a
He knew you would fill in the blanks. This is The Unz Review comment section after all.
Agent76 , January 12, 2017 at 9:03 pm GMT • 100 Words

January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background for understanding "USIC v Trump"

What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/11/falsify/

@KA
Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1% .
Ivy , January 12, 2017 at 9:27 pm GMT • 100 Words

Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:

The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link

http://newobserveronline.com/trump-memo-media-technique-revealed/

Randal , January 12, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT • 100 Words

If any of the significant claims in this "dossier" turn out to be provably false - such as Cohen's trip to Prague - many people will conclude, with Trump's encouragement, that large media outlets (CNN and BuzzFeed) and anti-Trump factions inside the government (CIA) are deploying "Fake News" to destroy him. In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit - render impotent - future journalistic exposés

LOL! The horse is long gone from that stable, I think.

Plenty to dislike about Greenwald, but he is certainly very intelligent and competent, and almost always makes good points well, in his writings. In some ways, he clearly is more genuinely principled than most on the left who make loud noises about supposed principles that they never adhere to when it's inconvenient to do so.

anon , Show Comment Next New Comment January 12, 2017 at 9:54 pm GMT

If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/12/509493584/ex-spy-who-reportedly-assembled-trump-dossier-appears-to-be-in-hiding

@Anonymous Nephew
"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."

If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.

@Ivy
Here is an article outlining a journalistic technique getting some more notoriety these days:

The "Trump Memo" furor is an example of how the controlled media manufactures fake news by using a devious technique known as "leading with rebuttal"- whereby defamatory, unproved, and unprovable allegations can be publicized without fear of legal action, a former journalist with one of the large media corporations has revealed. read the rest at the link

http://newobserveronline.com/trump-memo-media-technique-revealed/

NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:

TODAY's HEADLINES:

How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele, are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."

http://tinyurl.com/ztkodcj

– one question, tho: I thought public figures could not initiate libel suits ???

@Eustace Tilley (not)
Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic sleight-of-hand.

It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated President-elect.

@Anonymous
NYTimes follows the script word for word, doubles down:


TODAY's HEADLINES:


How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump
By SCOTT SHANE, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
"The consequences of the dossier, put together by a former British spy named Christopher Steele, are incalculable and will play out long past Inauguration Day."

http://tinyurl.com/ztkodcj

-- one question, tho: I thought public figures could not initiate libel suits ???

Carlos Slim's Blog (CSB = the NYT) calls Steele "respected". By whom? Typical journalistic sleight-of-hand.

It's interesting that this "#SteeleGate" scandal hit the MSM just after the announcement of the appointment of RFK, Jr. to a new commission on vaccines and scientific rigor in Big Pharma (it's not that rigorous). "I'm a germophobe", said the teetotalling never-vaccinated President-elect.

Andrew Nichols , Show Comment Next New Comment January 13, 2017 at 12:15 am GMT

Totally outstanding piece. Greenwald Fisk, Cockburn, Cook and Pilger. So few against so much BS.

Kyle McKenna , Show Comment Next New Comment January 13, 2017 at 1:40 am GMT

open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect

Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like losing a presidential election get in the way.

It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give up. Never give up.

@in the middle
Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!
@Agent76
January 11, 2017 "Their ability to falsify is unlimited": Douglas Valentine provides background for understanding "USIC v Trump"

What's with the USIC vs. Trump infowar? One way to look at it: The United States Intelligence community on the one hand, and Trump, Inc. on the other, are two feuding organized crime families.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/01/11/falsify/

Are the elites fighting for the pieces of the shrinking pie? We trapped in the valley are the Greek peasant watching the frivolities and the infighting of the Olympian Gods and Goddesses atop the mountain permanently occupied by those heavenly celebrities reincarnated as the 1% .

WorkingClass , Show Comment Next New Comment January 13, 2017 at 5:09 am GMT

The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest.

It would be helpful if you could be more specific. What is it that Trump is going to do that has people so upset?

@Kyle McKenna
open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect
Widely-disliked by MSM victims, which I admit is most everyone. The MSM and their owners declared war against Donald Trump a long time ago, and they're not going to let a little thing like losing a presidential election get in the way.

It's going to be like this for a while, I daresay. Dig in for a long fight. But don't give up. Never give up.

Lets support our soon to be President! To hell with the rubbish from the MSM. I don't watch them, don't have cable,(I give a better use to the savings, take the family out at least once a month), and my window to the world is the Internet!

Auntie Analogue , Show Comment Next New Comment January 13, 2017 at 10:03 am GMT • 100 Words

This "dossier" is what Steve Sailer calls, of social justice warrior bully tactics, a "hate hoax."

And we all know how irresistible hate hoaxes are and how valuable as propaganda hate hoaxes are to the Invade The World / Invite The World E$tabli$hment $ellout schmucks who hold the Megaphone – the same schmucks who bury their follow-up reports that admit that they were wrong about the "truth" of such "incidents" that are, of course, the usual series of hate hoaxes.

The same schmucks whose Megaphone told us that Saddam's nonexistent WMD's and yellowcake formed a genuine casus belli , that Trayvon Martin was a cute innocent juvenile murdered deliberately by a "White Hispanic," that "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" were all gospel truth.

@Verymuchalive
All very vague. No mention of Neocons, Zionists, AIPAC, the ADL, Jews......
I wonder why?

He knew you would fill in the blanks. This is The Unz Review comment section after all.

Old fogey , January 13, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

What is actually going on that we are not supposed to be noticing because of all this nonsense? That's what really scares me. . .

@anon
If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/12/509493584/ex-spy-who-reportedly-assembled-trump-dossier-appears-to-be-in-hiding

"If Christopher Steele's body is found in mysterious circumstances, say with a ricin pellet or polonium poisoning, then I think we have to worry something is afoot."

If the CIA have indeed declared war on DJT, Steele's in more danger from them than from the FSB. After all , a death like that would 'prove' Steele correct.

Renoman , January 13, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT

The Deeps State better mind their manners lest DT send a busload of Hillbilly's over to get midevil on their skinny asses. Don't think they won't know where to look or how to get er done. Heads will be on pikes if they don't watch themselves.

Intertiller , January 13, 2017 at 7:20 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The deep state was responsible for Trump" – remember how convincing that sounded a month ago? What happened? Not much at all. The 'show', as it were, goes on. Now we're to suspect the "deep state was for Trump before they were again' Trump." Entertained yet? They hope so. A great fear of the dictorial oligarchy is that the average rube will doubt the presentation of team sports via the courtesans in elected office and their whore/megaphones in the ministry of truth. The show must go on. Alternatively, Americans can decide they're no longer interested. Look out!

Peripatetic commenter , January 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT

In the eyes of many people, that will forever discredit - render impotent - future journalistic exposés

What about past journalistic exposes?

Robert Magill , January 13, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT • 100 Words

I would hesitate to credit the 1% as lead instigators in this orgy of chaos; they are mainly above the fray. I would look to their minions who appear terrified the boat may leave and their tickets canceled. But it is a splendid display of puerility; we are truly shameless. Imagine this country faced with a real crisis; no don't. We still must pretend we are sane and nobody around the world is listening and watching the show. Altogether now: WE'RE NUMBER ONE!

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

[Oct 25, 2017] Tomorrow Belongs to the Corporatocracy by C.J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. ..."
"... my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick. ..."
"... What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment). ..."
"... Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary. ..."
"... Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural). ..."
"... Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media. ..."
"... Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
"... That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening. ..."
"... Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried. ..."
"... This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power. ..."
Oct 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

Back in October of 2016, I wrote a somewhat divisive essay in which I suggested that political dissent is being systematically pathologized. In fact, this process has been ongoing for decades, but it has been significantly accelerated since the Brexit referendum and the Rise of Trump (or, rather, the Fall of Hillary Clinton, as it was Americans' lack of enthusiasm for eight more years of corporatocracy with a sugar coating of identity politics, and not their enthusiasm for Trump, that mostly put the clown in office.)

In the twelve months since I wrote that piece, we have been subjected to a concerted campaign of corporate media propaganda for which there is no historical precedent. Virtually every major organ of the Western media apparatus (the most powerful propaganda machine in the annals of powerful propaganda machines) has been relentlessly churning out variations on a new official ideological narrative designed to generate and enforce conformity. The gist of this propaganda campaign is that "Western democracy" is under attack by a confederacy of Russians and white supremacists, as well as "the terrorists" and other "extremists" it's been under attack by for the last sixteen years.

I've been writing about this campaign for a year now, so I'm not going to rehash all the details. Suffice to say we've gone from Russian operatives hacking the American elections to "Russia-linked" persons "apparently" setting up "illegitimate" Facebook accounts, "likely operated out of Russia," and publishing ads that are "indistinguishable from legitimate political speech" on the Internet. This is what the corporate media is presenting as evidence of "an unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy," a handful of political ads on Facebook. In addition to the Russian hacker propaganda, since August, we have also been treated to relentless white supremacist hysteria and daily reminders from the corporate media that "white nationalism is destroying the West." The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.

At the same time, government and corporate entities have been aggressively restricting (and in many cases eliminating) fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of expression, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to due process under the law. The justification for this curtailment of rights (which started in earnest in 2001, following the September 11 attacks) is protecting the public from the threat of "terrorism," which apparently shows no signs of abating. As of now, the United States has been in a State of Emergency for over sixteen years. The UK is in a virtual State of Emergency . France is now in the process of enshrining its permanent State of Emergency into law. Draconian counter-terrorism measures have been implemented throughout the EU . Not just the notorious American police but police throughout the West have been militarized . Every other day we learn of some new emergency security measure designed to keep us safe from "the terrorists," the "lone wolf shooters," and other "extremists."

Conveniently, since the Brexit referendum and unexpected election of Trump (which is when the capitalist ruling classes first recognized that they had a widespread nationalist backlash on their hands), the definition of "terrorism" (or, more broadly, "extremism") has been expanded to include not just Al Qaeda, or ISIS, or whoever we're calling "the terrorists" these days, but anyone else the ruling classes decide they need to label "extremists." The FBI has designated Black Lives Matter "Black Identity Extremists." The FBI and the DHS have designated Antifa "domestic terrorists."

Hosting corporations have shut down several white supremacist and neo-Nazi websites , along with their access to online fundraising. Google is algorithmically burying leftist news and opinion sources such as Alternet, Counterpunch, Global Research, Consortium News, and Truthout, among others. Twitter, Facebook, and Google have teamed up to cleanse the Internet of "extremist content," "hate speech," and whatever else they arbitrarily decide is inappropriate. YouTube, with assistance from the ADL (which deems pro-Palestinian activists and other critics of Israel "extremists") is censoring "extremist" and "controversial" videos , in an effort to "fight terrorist content online." Facebook is also collaborating with Israel to thwart "extremism," "incitement of violence," and whatever else Israel decides is "inflammatory."

In the UK, simply reading "terrorist content" is punishable by fifteen years in prison. Over three thousand people were arrested last year for publishing "offensive" and "menacing" material.

Whatever your opinion of these organizations and "extremist" persons is beside the point. I'm not a big fan of neo-Nazis, personally, but neither am I a fan of Antifa. I don't have much use for conspiracy theories, or a lot of the nonsense one finds on the Internet, but I consume a fair amount of alternative media, and I publish in CounterPunch, The Unz Review, ColdType, and other non-corporate journals.

I consider myself a leftist, basically, but my political essays are often reposted by right-wing and, yes, even pro-Russia blogs. I get mail from former Sanders supporters, Trump supporters, anarchists, socialists, former 1960s radicals, anti-Semites, and other human beings, some of whom I passionately agree with, others of whom I passionately disagree with. As far as I can tell from the emails, none of these readers voted for Clinton, or Macron, or supported the TPP, or the debt-enslavement and looting of Greece, or the ongoing restructuring of the Greater Middle East (and all the lovely knock-on effects that has brought us), or believe that Trump is a Russian operative, or that Obama is Martin Luther Jesus-on-a-stick.

What they share, despite their opposing views, is a general awareness that the locus of power in our post-Cold War age is primarily corporate, or global capitalist, and neoliberal in nature. They also recognize that they are being subjected to a massive propaganda campaign designed to lump them all together (again, despite their opposing views) into an intentionally vague and undefinable category comprising anyone and everyone, everywhere, opposing the hegemony of global capitalism, and its non-ideological ideology (the nature of which I'll get into in a moment).

As I wrote in that essay a year ago, "a line is being drawn in the ideological sand." This line cuts across both Left and Right, dividing what the capitalist ruling classes designate "normal" from what they label "extremist." The traditional ideological paradigm, Left versus Right, is disappearing (except as a kind of minstrel show), and is being replaced, or overwritten, by a pathological paradigm based upon the concept of "extremism."

* * *

Although the term has been around since the Fifth Century BC, the concept of "extremism" as we know it today developed in the late Twentieth Century and has come into vogue in the last three decades. During the Cold War, the preferred exonymics were "subversive," "radical," or just plain old "communist," all of which terms referred to an actual ideological adversary.

In the early 1990s, as the U.S.S.R. disintegrated, and globalized Western capitalism became the unrivaled global-hegemonic ideological system that it is today, a new concept was needed to represent the official enemy and its ideology. The concept of "extremism" does that perfectly, as it connotes, not an external enemy with a definable ideological goal, but rather, a deviation from the norm. The nature of the deviation (e.g., right-wing, left-wing, faith-based, and so on) is secondary, almost incidental. The deviation itself is the point. The "terrorist," the "extremist," the "white supremacist," the "religious fanatic," the "violent anarchist" these figures are not rational actors whose ideas we need to intellectually engage with in order to debate or debunk. They are pathological deviations, mutant cells within the body of "normality," which we need to identify and eliminate, not for ideological reasons, but purely in order to maintain "security."

A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in human history), technically, has no ideology. "Normality" is its ideology an ideology which erases itself and substitutes the concept of what's "normal," or, in other words, "just the way it is." The specific characteristics of "normality," although not quite arbitrary, are ever-changing. In the West, for example, thirty years ago, smoking was normal. Now, it's abnormal. Being gay was abnormal. Now, it's normal. Being transgender is becoming normal, although we're still in the early stages of the process. Racism has become abnormal. Body hair is currently abnormal. Walking down the street in a semi-fugue state robotically thumbing the screen of a smartphone that you just finished thumbing a minute ago is "normal." Capitalism has no qualms with these constant revisions to what is considered normal, because none of them are threats to capitalism. On the contrary, as far as values are concerned, the more flexible and commodifiable the better.

See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.

Yes, we all want there to be other values, and we pretend there are, but there aren't, not really. Although we're free to enjoy parochial subcultures based on alternative values (i.e., religious bodies, the arts, and so on), these subcultures operate within capitalist society, and ultimately conform to its rules. In the arts, for example, works are either commercial products, like any other commodity, or they are subsidized by what could be called "the simulated aristocracy," the ivy league-educated leisure classes (and lower class artists aspiring thereto) who need to pretend that they still have "culture" in order to feel superior to the masses. In the latter case, this feeling of superiority is the upscale product being sold. In the former, it is entertainment, distraction from the depressing realities of living, not in a society at all, but in a marketplace with no real human values. (In the absence of any real cultural values, there is no qualitative difference between Gerhard Richter and Adam Sandler, for example. They're both successful capitalist artists. They're just selling their products in different markets.)

The fact that it has no human values is the evil genius of global capitalist society. Unlike the despotic societies it replaced, it has no allegiance to any cultural identities, or traditions, or anything other than money. It can accommodate any form of government, as long as it plays ball with global capitalism. Thus, the window dressing of "normality" is markedly different from country to country, but the essence of "normality" remains the same. Even in countries with state religions (like Iran) or state ideologies (like China), the governments play by the rules of global capitalism like everyone else. If they don't, they can expect to receive a visit from global capitalism's Regime Change Department (i.e., the US military and its assorted partners).

Which is why, despite the "Russiagate" hysteria the media have been barraging us with, the West is not going to war with Russia. Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony (which I like to prefer "the Corporatocracy," as it sounds more poetic and less post-structural).

We haven't really got our minds around it yet, because we're still in the early stages of it, but we have entered an epoch in which historical events are primarily being driven, and societies reshaped, not by sovereign nation states acting in their national interests but by supranational corporations acting in their corporate interests. Paramount among these corporate interests is the maintenance and expansion of global capitalism, and the elimination of any impediments thereto. Forget about the United States (i.e., the actual nation state) for a moment, and look at what's been happening since the early 1990s. The US military's "disastrous misadventures" in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria, and the former Yugoslavia, among other exotic places (which have obviously had nothing to do with the welfare or security of any actual Americans), begin to make a lot more sense.

Global capitalism, since the end of the Cold War (i.e, immediately after the end of the Cold War), has been conducting a global clean-up operation, eliminating actual and potential insurgencies, mostly in the Middle East, but also in its Western markets. Having won the last ideological war, like any other victorious force, it has been "clear-and-holding" the conquered territory, which in this case happens to be the whole planet. Just for fun, get out a map, and look at the history of invasions, bombings, and other "interventions" conducted by the West and its assorted client states since 1990. Also, once you're done with that, consider how, over the last fifteen years, most Western societies have been militarized, their citizens placed under constant surveillance, and an overall atmosphere of "emergency" fostered, and paranoia about "the threat of extremism" propagated by the corporate media.

I'm not suggesting there's a bunch of capitalists sitting around in a room somewhere in their shiny black top hats planning all of this. I'm talking about systemic development, which is a little more complex than that, and much more difficult to intelligently discuss because we're used to perceiving historico-political events in the context of competing nation states, rather than competing ideological systems or non-competing ideological systems, for capitalism has no competition . What it has, instead, is a variety of insurgencies, the faith-based Islamic fundamentalist insurgency and the neo-nationalist insurgency chief among them. There will certainly be others throughout the near future as global capitalism consolidates control and restructures societies according to its values. None of these insurgencies will be successful.

Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests. The world will become increasingly "normal." The scourge of "extremism" and "terrorism" will persist, as will the general atmosphere of "emergency." There will be no more Trumps, Brexit referendums, revolts against the banks, and so on. Identity politics will continue to flourish, providing a forum for leftist activist types (and others with an unhealthy interest in politics), who otherwise might become a nuisance, but any and all forms of actual dissent from global capitalist ideology will be systematically marginalized and pathologized.

This won't happen right away, of course. Things are liable to get ugly first (as if they weren't ugly enough already), but probably not in the way we're expecting, or being trained to expect by the corporate media. Look, I'll give you a dollar if it turns out I'm wrong, and the Russians, terrorists, white supremacists, and other "extremists" do bring down "democracy" and launch their Islamic, white supremacist, Russo-Nazi Reich, or whatever, but from where I sit it looks pretty clear tomorrow belongs to the Corporatocracy.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

Malla , October 20, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT

Brilliant Article. But this has been going on for nearly a century or more. New York Jewish bankers fund the Bolshevik revolution which gets rid of the Romanov dynasty and many of the revolutionaries are not even Russian. What many people do not know is that many Western companies invested money in Bolshevik Russia as the Bolsheviks were speeding up the modernising of the country. What many do not know is that Feminism, destruction of families and traditional societies, homoerotic art etc . was forced on the new Soviet population in a shock therapy sort of way. The same process has been implemented in the West by the elites using a much slower 'boiling the frog' method using Cultural Marxism. The aim of the Soviet Union was to spread Communism around the World and hence bring about the One World Government as wished by the globalists. Their national anthem was the 'Internationale'. The globalists were funding revolutionary movements throughout Europe and other parts of the world. One such attempt went extremely wrong and that was in Germany where instead of the Communists coming in power, the National Socialists come in power which was the most dangerous challenge faced by the Zio/globalists/elite gang. The Globalists force a war using false flag events like Pearl Harbour etc and crushed the powers which challenged their rule i.e. Germany, Japan and Italy. That is why Capitalist USA funded Communist Soviet Union using the land lease program, which on the surface never makes any sense.

However in Soviet Russia, a power struggle leads to Stalin destroying the old Communist order of Lenin Trotsky. Trotsky and his supporters leave the Soviet Union. Many of the present Neo Cons are ex Trotskyites and hence the crazy hatred for Russia even today in American politics. These Neocons do not have any principles, they will use any ideology such as Communism, Islam, twisted Western Conservatism anything to attain their global goals.

Now with Stalin coming to power, things actually improved and the war with Hitler's Third Reich gave Stalin the chance to purge many old school globalist commies and then the Soviet Union went towards a more nationalist road. Jews slowly started losing their hold on power with Russians and eventually other Soviets gaining more powerful positions. These folks found the ugly modern art culture of the early Soviet period revolting and started a new movement where the messages of Socialism can be delivered with more healthy beautiful art and culture. This process was called 'Social Realism'. So strangely what happened was that the Capitalist Christian West was becoming more and more less traditional with time (Cultural Marxism/Fabien Socialism via media, education, Hollywood) while the Eastern block was slowly moving in an opposite direction. The CIA (which is basically the intelligence agency arm of Wall Street Bankers) was working to stop this 'Social Realism' movement.

These same globalists also funded Mao and pulled the rug under Chiang Kai Shek who they were supporting earlier. Yes, Mao was funded by the Rockerfeller/ Rothschild Cabal. Now, even if the Globalists were not happy with Stalin gaining power in the Soviet Union (they preferred the internationalist Trotskyites), they still found that they could work out with the Soviet Union. That is why during the 2nd World war, the USA supports the USSR with money and material, Stalin gets a facelift as 'friendly Uncle Joe' for the Western audience. Many Cossack families who had escaped the Soviet Union to the West were sent to their deaths after the War to the Soviet Union. Why? Mr. Eden of Britain who could not stand Hitler wanted a New World Order where they could work with the more murderous Soviet Union.

Now we have the cold war. What is not known is that behind the scenes at a higher level, the Americans and the Soviets cooperated with each other exchanging technology, basically the cold war was quite fake. But the Cold war gave the American government (basically the Globalists) to take American Tax payers hard earned money to fund many projects such as Star Wars programme etc All this was not needed, as a gentleman named Keenan had shown in his book that all the Americans needed to do was to make sure Japan, Germany and Britain did not fall to the Soviets, that's it. Thus trillions of American tax payer money would be saved. But obviously the Military Industrial Complex did not like that idea. Both the Soviet and the American governments got the excuse spend their people's hard money on weapons research as well as exchanging some of that technology in the back ground. It is during this period that the precursor to the Internet was already developed. Many of the technology we use today was already invented much earlier by government agencies but released to the people later.

Then we have the Vietnam war. Now you must realise that the Globalist government of America uses wars not only to change enemy societies but also the domestic society in the West. So during the Vietnam War, the US government using the alphabet agencies such as the CIA kick start the fake opposition hippie movements. The CIA not only drugged the Vietnamese population using drugs from the Golden Triangle but later released them on the home population in the USA and the West. This was all part of the Cultural Marxist plan to change or social engineer American/ Western society. Many institutes like the Travestock Institute were part of this process. For example one of the main hochos of the Cultural Marxism, a Mr. Aderno was closely related to the Beatles movement.

Several experiments was done on mind control such as MK Ultra, monarch programming, Edward Bernay's works etc Their aim was to destroy traditional Western society and the long term goal is a New World Order. Blacks for example were used as weapons against Whites at the same time the black social order was destroyed further via the media etc

Now, Nixon going to China was to start a long term (long planned) process to bring about Corporate Communism. Yes that is going to be economic system in the coming New World Order. China is the test tube, where the Worst of Communism and the Worst of Crony Capitalism be brought together as an experiment. As the Soviet Union was going in a direction, the globalist was not happy about (it was becoming more nationalist), they worked to bring the Soviet Union down and thus the Soviet experiment ended only to be continued in China.

NATO today is the core military arm of the globalists, a precursor to a One World Military Force. That explains why after the Warsaw pact was dismantled, NATO was not or why NATO would interfere in the Middle East which is far away from the Atlantic Ocean.

The coming Cashless society will finally lead to a moneyless or distribution society, in other words Communism, that is the long term plan.

My point is, many of the geo political events as well as social movements of the last century (feminism for example) were all planned for a long time and are not accidents. The coming technologies like the internet of things, 5G technology, Cashless society, biometric identification everywhere etc are all designed to help bring about the final aim of the globalists. The final aim is a one world government with Corporate ruled Communism where we, the worker bees will be living in our shitty inner city like ghetto homes eating GM plastic foods and listening to crappy music. That is the future they have planned for us. A inner city ghetto like place under Communism ruled by greedy evil corporates.

Seamus Padraig , October 20, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT
Once again, C.J. nails it!
Issac , October 21, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT
"Short some sort of cataclysm, like an asteroid strike or the zombie apocalypse, or, you know, violent revolution, global capitalism will continue to restructure the planet to conform to its ruthless interests."

That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles. They've painted themselves into a corner with non-white identity politics combined with mass immigration. The logical conclusion of where they're going is pogroms and none of the kleptocracy seem bold enough to try and stop this from happening.

peterAUS , October 21, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT
@Issac

That is certainly what the geopolitical establishment is hoping for, but I remain skeptical of their ability to contain what forces they've used to balance the various camps of dissenting proles.

Agree.

Wizard of Oz , October 25, 2017 at 4:32 am GMT
@Malla

There must be some evidence for your assertions about the long term plans and aims of globalists and others if there is truth in them. The sort of people you are referring to would often have kept private diaries and certainly written many hundreds or thousands of letters. Can you give any references to such evidence of say 80 to 130 years ago?

edNels , October 25, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT
Finally an article that tells as it is! and the first comment is a great one too. It is right there to see for anybody with eyes screwed in right.
wayfarer , October 25, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT
"Three Things Cannot Be Long Hidden: the Sun, the Moon, and the Truth." – Buddha
ThereisaGod , October 25, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT
Regarding Trump being "a clown" the jury is out:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article198481.html

.. puzzling that the writer feels the need to virtue-signal by saying he "doesn't have much time for conspiracy theories" while condemning an absolutely massive conspiracy to present establishment lies as truth.

That is one of the most depressing demonstrations of the success of the ruling creeps that I have yet come across.

jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT
Germany is the last EU member state where an anti EU party entered parliament. In the last French elections four out of every ten voters voted on anti EU parties. In Austria the anti EU parties now have a majority. So if I were leading a big corporation, thriving by globalism, what also the EU is, I would be worried.
animalogic , October 25, 2017 at 7:36 am GMT
"See, despite what intersectionalists will tell you, capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value."

This is a great article. The author's identification of "normality" & "extremism" as Capitalism's go-to concepts for social control is spot on accurate. That these terms can mean anything or nothing & are infinitely flexible is central to their power.

Mr Hopkins is also correct when he points out that Capitalism has essentially NO values (exchange value is a value, but also a mechanism). Again, Capitalism stands for nothing: any form of government is acceptable as long as it bows to neoliberal markets.

However, the author probably goes to far:

"Nor are we going to war with China. Russia and China are developed countries, whose economies are entirely dependent on global capitalism, as are Western economies. The economies of every developed nation on the planet are inextricably linked. This is the nature of the global hegemony I've been referring to throughout this essay. Not American hegemony, but global capitalist hegemony. Systemic, supranational hegemony".

Capitalism has no values: however the Masters of the capitalist system most certainly do: Capitalism is a means, the most thorough, profound means yet invented, for the attainment of that value which has NO exchange value: POWER.

Capitalism is a supranational hegemony – yet the Elites which control it, who will act as one when presented with any external threats to Capitalism itself, are not unified internally. Indeed, they will engage in cut throat competition, whether considered as individuals or nations or as particular industries.

US Imperialism is not imaginary, it is not a mere appearance or mirage of Capitalism, supranational or not. US Imperialism in essence empowers certain sets of Capitalists over other sets. No, they may not purposely endanger the System as a whole, however, that still leaves plenty of space for aggressive competition, up to & including war.

Imperialism is the political corollary to the ultimate economic goal of the individual Capitalist: Monopoly.

jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 7:36 am GMT
@Malla

Read Howard Zinn, and discover that the USA always was the same since Columbus began.

m___ , October 25, 2017 at 9:00 am GMT
Psychologically daring (being no minstrel to corporatocracy nor irrelevant activism and other "religions" that endorse the current world global system as the overhead), rationally correct, relevant, core definition of the larger geo-world and deeper "ideological" grounding( in the case of capitalism the quite shallow brute forcing of greed as an incentive, as sterile a society as possible), and adhering to longer timelines of reality of planet earth. Perfectly captures the "essence" of the dynamics of our times.

The few come to the authors' through-sites by many venue-ways, that's where some of the corporocratic world, by sheer statistics wind up also. Why do they not get the overhand into molding the shallow into anything better in the long haul. No world leader, no intellectual within power circles, even within confined quarters, speaks to the absurdity of the ongoing slugging and maltering of global human?

The elites of now are too dumb to consider the planet exo-human as a limited resource. Immigration, migration, is the de facto path to "normalization" in the terms of the author. Reducing the world population is not "in" the capitalist ideology. A major weakness, or if one prefers the stake that pinches the concept of capitalism: more instead of quality principles.

The game changers, the possible game changers: eugenics and how they play out as to the elites ( understanding the genome and manipulating it), artificial intelligence ( defining it first, not the "Elon Musk" definition), and as a far outlier exo-planetary arguments.

Confront the above with the "unexpected", the not-human engineered possible events (astroids and the like, secondary effects of human induced toxicity, others), and the chances to get to the author's "dollar" and what it by then might mean is indeed tiny.

As to the content, one of the utmost relevant articles, it is "art" to condense such broad a world view into a few words, it requires a deep understanding foremost, left to wonder what can be grasped by most reading above. Some-one try the numbers?, "big data" anyone, they might turn out in favor of what the author undoubtedly absorbed as the nucleus of twenty-first thinking, strategy and engineering.

This kind of thinking and "Harvard" conventionality, what a distance.

Hans Vogel , October 25, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT
Great article, spot on. Indeed we are all at the mercy now of a relatively small clique of ruthless criminals who are served by armies of desensitized, stupid mercenaries: MBAs, politicians, thugs, college professors, "whorenalists", etc. I am afraid that the best answer to the current and future dystopia is what the Germans call "innere Emigration," to psychologically detach oneself from the contemporary world.

Thus, the only way out of this hellhole is through reading and thinking, which every self-respecting individual should engage in. Shun most contemporary "literature" and instead turn to the classics of European culture: there you will find all you need.

For an earlier and ever so pertinent analysis of the contemporary desert, I can heartily recommend Umberto Galimberti's I vizi capitali e i nuovi vizi (Milan, 2003).

m___ , October 25, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT
@Malla

And yes, another verbally strong expression of the in your face truth, though for so few to grasp. The author again has a deep understanding, if one prefers, it points to the venueway of coming to terms, the empirical pathway as to the understanding.

"Plasticky" society is my preferred term for designating the aberrance that most (within the elites), the rest who cares (as an historical truth), do not seem to identify as proper cluelessness in the light of longer timelines. The current global ideology, religion of capitalism-democracy is the equivalent of opportunistic naval staring of the elites. They are not aware that suffocation will irreversibly affect oneself. Not enough air is the equivalent of no air in the end.

jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 11:12 am GMT

The negligible American neo-Nazi subculture has been blown up into a biblical Behemoth inexorably slouching its way towards the White House to officially launch the Trumpian Reich.

While the above is true, I hope most folks understand that the basic concept of controlling people through fear is nothing new. The much vaunted constitution was crammed down our collective throats by the rich scoundrels of the time in the words of more than one anti-federalist through the conjuring of quite a set of threats, all bogus.

I address my most fervent prayer to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty We are told there are dangers, but those dangers are ideal; they cannot be demonstrated.

- Patrick Henry, Foreign Wars, Civil Wars, and Indian Wars -- Three Bugbears, June 5, 7, and 9, 1788

https://www.infoplease.com/homework-help/united-states-documents/patrick-henry-foreign-wars-civil-wars-and-indian-wars-three

Bottom line: Concentrated wealth and power suck.The USA was ruled by a plutoligarchy from its inception, and the material benefits we still enjoy have occurred not because of it but despite it.

Jake , October 25, 2017 at 11:28 am GMT
It is the nightmare world of Network come to life.
jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT
For today's goofy "right wing" big business "conservatives" who think the US won WW2, I got news for you. Monopoly capitalism, complete with increasing centralization of the economy and political forces were given boosts by both world wars.

It was precisely in reaction to their impending defeat at the hands of the competitive storms of the market tha t business turned, increasingly after the 1900′s, to the federal government for aid and protection. In short, the intervention by the federal government was designed, not to curb big business monopoly for the sake of the public weal, but to create monopolies that big business (as well as trade associations smaller business) had not been able to establish amidst the competitive gales of the free market. Both Left and Right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and anti-business. Hence the mythology of the New-Fair Deal-as-Red that is endemic on the Right. Both the big businessmen, led by the Morgan interests, and Professor Kolko almost uniquely in the academic world, have realized that monopoly privilege can only be created by the State and not as a result of free market operations.

-Murray N. Rothbard, Rothbard Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, [Originally appeared in Left and Right, Spring 1965, pp. 4-22.]

https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-prospects-liberty

jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT

A truly global-hegemonic system like contemporary global capitalism (the first of this kind in human history), technically, has no ideology.

Please change that to" contemporary state-sponsored global capitalism

Malla , October 25, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

It was all about connecting the dots really. Connecting the dots of too many books I have gobe through and videos I have seen. Too many to list here.

You can get a lot of info from the book 'Tragedy and Hope' by Carroll Quigley though he avoids mantioning Jews and calls it the Anglo American establishment, Anthony Sutton however I completely disagree about funding of the Third Reich but he does talk a lot about the secret relationship between the USA and the USSR, Revilo Oliver etc.. etc Well you could read the Protocols. Now if you think that the protocols was a forgery, you gotta see this, especially the last part.

Also check this out

Also check out what this Wall Street guy realised in his career.

Also this 911 firefighter, what he found out after some research

Miro23 , October 25, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system. It only has one fundamental value, exchange value, which isn't much of a value, at least not in terms of organizing society or maintaining any sort of human culture or reverence for the natural world it exists in. In capitalist society, everything, everyone, every object and sentient being, every concept and human emotion, is worth exactly what the market will bear no more, no less, than its market price. There is no other measure of value.

This looks like the "financialization" of society with Citizens morphing into Consumers.

And it's worth saying that Citizenship and Consumership are completely different concepts:

Citizenship – Dictionary.com

1. – the state of being vested with the rights, privileges, and duties of a citizen.

2. – the character of an individual viewed as a member of society;behavior in terms of the duties, obligations, and functions of a citizen:

an award for good citizenship.

The Consumer – Dictionary.com

1. a person or thing that consumes.

2. Economics. a person or organization that uses a commodity or service.

A good citizen can then define themselves in a rather non-selfish, non-financial way as for example, someone who respects others, contributes to local decisions (politically active), gains respect through work and ethical standards etc.

A good consumer on the other hand, seems to be more a self-idea, essentially someone who buys and consumes a lot (financial idea), has little political interest – and probably defines themselves (and others) by how they spend money and what they own.

It's clear that US, and global capitalism, prefers active consumers over active citizens, and maybe it explains why the US has such a worthless and dysfunctional political process.

jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT

It was all about connecting the dots really.

Some folks are completely unable to connect the dots even when spoon fed the evidence. You'll note that some, in risible displays of quasi-intellectual arrogance, make virtually impossible demands for proof, none of which they'll ever accept. Rather, they flock to self aggrandizing mythology like flies to fresh sewage which the plutoligarchy produces nearly infinitely.

Your observations appear pretty accurate and self justifying I'd say.

daniel le mouche , October 25, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

I can, Wiz.

Look up the film director Aaron Russo (recently deceased), discussing how David Rockefeller tried to bring him over to the dark side. Rockefeller discussed for example the women's movement, its engineering. Also, there's Aldous Huxley's speech The Ultimate Revolution, on how drugs are the final solution to rabble troubles–we will think we're happy even in the most appalling societal conditions.

daniel le mouche , October 25, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

I can only say Beware of Zinn, best friend of Chomsky, endlessly tauted by shysters like Amy Goodman and Counterpunch. Like all liberal gatekeepers, he wouldn't touch 911. I saw him speak not long before he died, and when questioned on this he said, 'That was a long time ago, let's talk about now.'

This from a professed historian, and it was only 7 years after 911. He seemed to have the same old Jewish agenda, make Europeans look really bad at all times. He was always on message, like the shyster Chomsky. Sincerely probing for the truth was not part of his agenda; his truths were highly selective, and such a colossal event as 911 concerned him not at all, with the ensuing wars, Patriot Acts, bullshit war on Terror, etc etc

joe webb , October 25, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT
Say what???

" capitalism has no interest in racism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other despotic values (though it has no problem working with these values when they serve its broader strategic purposes). Capitalism is an economic system, which we have elevated to a social system."

This is a typical Left Lie. Capitalism in its present internationalist phase absolutely requires Anti-Racism to lubricate sales uh, internationally and domestically. We are all Equal.

Then, the ticking-off of the rest of the bad isms, and labeling them 'despotic' is another Leftwing and poetic attack on more or less all of us white folks, who have largely invented Capitalism, from a racialist point of view.

"Poetic" because it is an emotional appeal, not a rational argument. The other 'despotisms' are not despotic, unless you claim, like I do that racial personalities are more, or less despotic, with Whites being the least despotic. The Left totalitarian thinks emotional despotism's source is political or statist. It are not. However, Capitalism has been far less despotic than communism, etc.

Emotional Despotism is part of who Homo Sapiens is, and this emotional despotism is not racially equal. Whites are the least despotic, and have organized law and rules to contain such despotism.

Systems arise naturally from the Human Condition, like it or not. The attempt here is to sully the Capitalist system, and that is all it is. This article itself is despotic propaganda.

Arguably, human nature is despotic, and White civilization has attempted to limit our despotic nature.

This is another story.

As for elevating capitalism into a 'social system' .this is somewhat true. However, that is not totally bad, as capitalism delivers the goods, which is the first thing, after getting out of bed.

The second thing, is having a conformable social environment, and that is where racial accord enters.

People want familiar and trustworthy people around them and that is just the way human nature is genetic similarity, etc.

Beyond that, the various Leftie complaints-without-end, are also just the way it is. And yes they can be addressed and ameliorated to some degree, but human nature is not a System to be manipulated, even thought the current crop of scientistic lefties talk a good storyline about epigenetics and other Hopes, false of course, like communist planning which makes its first priority, Social Change which is always despotic. Society takes care of itself, especially racial society.

As Senator Vail said about the 1924 Immigration Act which held the line against Immigration, "if there is going to be any changing being done, we will do it and nobody else." That 'we' was a White we.

Capitalism must be national. International capital is tyranny.

Joe Webb

Wally , Website October 25, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

Bingo.

Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.

Wally , Website October 25, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT
@Malla

"How Big Oil Conquered the World"?

That's called 'taking the bait.'

US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US Big Government taxes on a single gallon are around seventy-one cents for US states & rising, the tax is now $1.00 per gallon for CA.

IOW, greedy US governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make, and it is the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.

And that is just in the US. Have a look at Europe's taxes. My, my.

It's Big Government, not Big Oil.

jacques sheete , October 25, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
@Wally

Some agendas require the "state sponsored" part to be hidden.

That is part of the reason why the constitutional convention was held in secret as well.

The cunning connivers who ram government down our throats don't like their designs exposed, and it's an old trick which nearly always works.

Here's Aristophanes on the subject. His play is worth a read. Short and great satire on the politicians of the day.

SAUSAGE-SELLER

No, Cleon, little you care for his reigning in Arcadia, it's to pillage and impose on the allies at will that you reckon; y ou wish the war to conceal your rogueries as in a mist, that Demos may see nothing of them, and harassed by cares, may only depend on yourself for his bread. But if ever peace is restored to him, if ever he returns to his lands to comfort himself once more with good cakes, to greet his cherished olives, he will know the blessings you have kept him out of, even though paying him a salary; and, filled with hatred and rage, he will rise, burning with desire to vote against you. You know this only too well; it is for this you rock him to sleep with your lies.

- Aristophanes, The Knights, 424 BC

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/knights.html

jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT
@daniel le mouche

The first loyalty of jews is supposed to be to jews.

Norman Finkelstein is called a traitor by jews, the Dutch jew Hamburger is called a traitor by Dutch jews, he's the chairman of 'Een ander joodse geluid', best translated by 'another jewish opinion', the organisation criticises Israel.

Jewish involvement in Sept 11 seems probable, the 'dancing Israelis', the assertion that most jews working in the Twin Towers at the time were either sick or took a day off, the fact that the Towers were jewish property, ready for a costly demolition, much abestos in the buildings, thus the 'terrorist' act brought a great profit.

Can one expect a jew to expose things like this ?

On his book, I did not find inconsistencies with literature I already knew.

The merit of the book is listing many events that affected common people in the USA, and destroying the myth that 'in the USA who is poor has only himself to blame'.

This nonsense becomes clear even from the diaries of Harold L Ickes, or from Jonathan Raban Bad Land, 1997.

As for Zinn's criticism of the adored USA constitution, I read that Charles A Beard already in 1919 resigned because he also criticised this constitution.

jilles dykstra , October 25, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT
@Wally

Indeed, in our countries about half the national income goes to the governments by taxes, this is the reason a country like Denmark is the best country to live in.

[Oct 25, 2017] Did John McCain Launder Dodgy Trump Intel Dossier

Looks like the US Senate is a real can of worms...
Notable quotes:
"... One involved the media, which in October were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors), purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company ..."
"... Remember, we have a dubious report constructed for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. ..."
"... Enter John McCain. According to media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source, a former British intelligence officer). ..."
"... Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government. McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered. ..."
"... So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the FBI Director to hand over this report that he released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit. ..."
Jan 11, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

We all know what money laundering is. When you need to hide the fact that the money in your possession comes by way of nefarious sources, you transfer it through legitimate sources and it appears clean on the other end. It's standard practice among thieves, extortionists, drug dealers, and the like.

The same practice can even be used to "clean" intelligence that comes by dubious sources, and sometimes even US Senators may involve themselves in such dark activities. Case in point US Senator John McCain (R-AZ), whose virulent opposition to Donald Trump is outmatched only by his total dedication to fomenting a new cold (or hot?) war with Russia.

While the world was caught up in the more salacious passages from a purported opposition research report on Donald Trump showing all manner of collusion with Putin's Russia -- and Russia's possession of blackmail-able kompromat on Trump -- something very interesting was revealed about the custody of the information. The "dossier" on Trump seemed to follow two chains of custody. One involved the media, which in October were given and encouraged to publish the "report" by the authors of the report (or their sponsors), purportedly a former British intelligence officer working for a private intelligence company. Only David Corn of Mother Jones bit, and his resulting story picked over the report to construct a mess of innuendo on Trump's relation to Russia that was short on any evidence.

The other chain of custody is what interests us. Remember, we have a dubious report constructed for the purpose of discrediting Donald Trump, which was first commissioned by one of his Republican primary rivals and later completed under the patronage of someone in Hillary's camp. It was created for a specific political purpose, which may have tainted its reception among more objective governmental sources had that been known.

Enter John McCain. According to media reports, the dossier was handed to Sen. McCain -- again, a strong Trump opponent and proponent of conflict with Russia -- by a former UK ambassador (who presumably received it from the source, a former British intelligence officer).

Senator McCain then felt duty-bound to bring this "intelligence report" directly (and privately) to the personal attention of FBI Director James Comey. From this hand-off to Comey, the report then became part of the Intelligence Community's assessment of Russian interference in the US presidential election.

Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, one of the most powerful members of the US Senate. Consider the impact of being handed a strange report by some private intelligence-firm-for-hire or a media outlet versus being handed a report by one of the most powerful men in the US government. McCain's involving himself in the case gave the report a sense of legitimacy that it would not otherwise have had. Was this "laundering" intentional on his part? We do not know, but given his position on Trump and Russia that possibility must be considered.

So great was the pressure on McCain to come clean on his decision to meet privately with the FBI Director to hand over this report that he released a statement earlier today portraying himself as nothing more than a good citizen, passing information to the proper authorities for them to act on if they see fit.

Do you believe the Senator from Arizona?


Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Oct 25, 2017] The Definitive Demise of the Debunked Dodgy Dossier on The Donald

Notable quotes:
"... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
"... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
"... puts his name on stuff ..."
"... (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy ..."
"... Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons". ..."
"... Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele? ..."
"... But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange. ..."
"... Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and ..."
"... Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties. ..."
"... transition ..."
"... And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days. ..."
"... Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. ..."
Jan 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
by Lambert Strether of Corrente .

In the midst of the hysteria about Russian interference in the 2016 election - 52% of Democrat voters believe it's definitely or probably true that "Russia tampered with vote tallies" , a view for which there is no evidence whatever, and which is a depressing testimony to the power of propaganda to produce epistemic closure in liberals as well as conservatives - came Buzzfeed's 35-page "dodgy dossier" on Donald Trump, oppo that the researcher, Christopher Steele , peddled during the election proper, but was unable to sell, not even to an easy mark like Jebbie. (There's a useful debunking of Steele's report in the New York Review of Books , of all places.) Remember the piss jokes? So two-weeks ago Amazingly, or not, a two-page summary to Steele's product had been included in a briefing given to Trump (and Obama). A weary Obama was no doubt well accustomed to the intelligence community's little ways, but the briefing must have been quite a revelation to Trump. I mean, Trump is a man who knows shoddy when he sees it, right?

In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came over the transom: So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter is Alexej Kowaljow , a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian !", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.

I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.

(1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery

Here's the section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.

Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map

Russia

"For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump tweeted in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S. election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter Page worked in Russia and maintains ties there.

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser, has been a regular guest on Russia's English-language propaganda network, RT , and even dined with Putin at a banquet.

During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate Jack Kingston told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.

According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." Back to map .

Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?] make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."

Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):

For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.

Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued.

Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos, golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture? No? Case closed, then.

(2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy

From The Hill's summary of Russian "interference" in the 2016 election:

Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election

The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns

The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.

Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy," said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.

Now Kowaljow:

The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections, published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.

Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons".

If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.

The American equivalent would be. Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin? Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.

And now to the two questions.

(3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?

Kowaljow:

But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange.

Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it up, but that's another narrative.)

(4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?

Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:

But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.

This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person. The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two prostitutes.

Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.

Conclusion

It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:

  1. The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.
  2. Ditto, regulations.
  3. Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?
  4. Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them. Charters, for example.
  5. Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.
  6. The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.
  7. Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation

And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.

Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.

[Oct 25, 2017] Ex-MI6 officer Christopher Steele in hiding after Trump dossier

Notable quotes:
"... BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer. ..."
"... Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week. ..."
"... But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned. ..."
"... Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier. ..."
Jan 12, 2017 | www.bbc.com

An ex-MI6 officer who is believed to have prepared memos claiming Russia has compromising material on US President-elect Donald Trump is now in hiding, the BBC understands.

Christopher Steele, who runs a London-based intelligence firm, is believed to have left his home this week.

The memos contain unsubstantiated claims that Russian security officials have compromising material on Mr Trump.

The US president-elect said the claims were "fake news" and "phoney stuff".

Mr Steele has been widely named as the author of a series of memos - which have been published as a dossier in some US media - containing extensive allegations about Mr Trump's personal life and his campaign's relationship with the Russian state.

... ... ...

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said Mr Steele had previously been an intelligence officer - rather than agent - in MI6, who would have run a team of agents as an intelligence gatherer.

However, as Mr Steele was now working in the private sector, our correspondent said, there was "probably a fair bit of money involved" in the commissioning of the reports.

He said there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and it was still possible the dossier had been based on what "people had said" about Mr Trump "without any proof".

Donald J. Tump Twit

@realDonaldTrump

James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!

... ... ...

Obama briefing

The 35-page dossier on Mr Trump - which is believed to have been commissioned initially by Republicans opposed to Mr Trump - has been circulating in Washington for some time.

Media organisations, uncertain of its credibility, initially held back from publication. However, the entire series of reports has now been posted online, with Mr Steele named as the author.

Intelligence agencies considered the claims relevant enough to brief both Mr Trump and President Obama last week.

But the allegations have not been independently substantiated or verified and some details have been challenged as incorrect by those who are mentioned.

Mr Trump himself was briefed about the existence of the allegations by the US intelligence community last week but has since described them as fake news, accusing the US intelligence services of leaking the dossier.

[Oct 25, 2017] Former MI6 agent behind Trump dossier returns to work by Luke Harding and Nick Hopkins

So guardian clearly supports Steele dossier. Nice... So the guy clearly tried to influence the US election and Guardian neoliberal honchos and their Russophobic presstitutes (like Luke Harding) are OK with it. They just complain about Russian influence. British elite hypocrisy in action...
Notable quotes:
"... Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013. ..."
"... Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else. ..."
"... As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said. ..."
Mar 07, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Christopher Steele speaks publicly for first time since the file was revealed and thanks supporters for 'kind messages'

The former MI6 agent behind the controversial Trump dossier has returned to work, nearly two months after its publication caused an international scandal and furious denials from Washington and Moscow.

Christopher Steele posed for a photograph outside the office of his business intelligence company Orbis in Victoria, London on Tuesday. Speaking for the first time since his dossier was revealed , Steele said he had received messages of support.

"I'm now going to be focusing my efforts on supporting the broader interests of our company here," he told the Press Association. "I'd like to say a warm thank you to everyone who sent me kind messages and support over the last few weeks."

Steele, who left British intelligence in 2009 and co-founded Orbis with an MI6 colleague, said he would not comment substantively on the contents of the dossier: "Just to add, I won't be making any further statements or comments at this time."

Published in January by BuzzFeed , the dossier suggested that Donald Trump's team had colluded with Russian intelligence before the US election to sabotage Hillary Clinton's campaign. Citing unidentified sources, it said Trump had been "compromised" by Russia's FSB spy agency during a trip to Moscow in 2013.

It alleged that Trump was secretly videoed with Russian prostitutes in a suite in the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Moscow. The prostitutes allegedly urinated on the bed used by Barack Obama during a presidential visit.

Trump dismissed the dossier as fake news and said Steele was a "failed spy". Vladimir Putin also rejected the dossier. His spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed Russia did not collect kompromat – compromising material – on Trump or anyone else.

Steele's friends say he has been keen to go back to work for some weeks. They insist he has not been in hiding but has been keeping a low profile to avoid paparazzi who have been camped outside his family home in Surrey.

Several of the lurid stories about him that have appeared in the press have been wrong, said friends. The stories include claims that Steele met Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident who was murdered in 2006 with a radioactive cup of tea, probably on Putin's orders .

As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.

[Oct 25, 2017] Why the FBI wiretap on former Donald Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort is a big deal by Randall D. Eliason

Neocons still dream of Trump impeachment. Neutering him is not enough... the number of potentially illegal wiretaps of Trump associates suggests that threr was a plan to derail plan in three letter agencies headquarters (with blessing of Obama). Plan of interfere with the US election to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. ..."
"... A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate. ..."
"... Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | washingtonpost.com

Then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort at the Republican National Convention. (Matt Rourke/Associated Press)

Reports that the FBI wiretapped former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort are a further sign of the seriousness of special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's investigation. But there's still a great deal we don't know about the implications, if any, for the broader inquiry into possible Russian ties to the Trump campaign.

CNN reported Monday night that the FBI obtained a warrant to listen in on Manafort's phone calls back in 2014. The warrant was part of an investigation into U.S. firms that may have performed undisclosed work for the Ukrainian government. The surveillance reportedly lapsed for a time but was begun again last year when the FBI learned about possible ties between Russian operatives and Trump associates.

This news is a big deal primarily because of what it takes to obtain such a wiretap order. The warrant reportedly was issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A FISA warrant requires investigators to demonstrate to the FISA court that there is probable cause to believe the target may be acting as an unlawful foreign agent.

When news broke last month that Mueller was using a grand jury to conduct his investigation, many reported it with unnecessary breathlessness. Although a grand jury investigation is certainly significant, a prosecutor does not need court approval or a finding of probable cause to issue a grand jury subpoena, and Mueller's use of a grand jury was not unexpected .

A FISA warrant is another matter. It means investigators have demonstrated probable cause to an independent judicial authority. Obtaining a warrant actually says much more about the strength of the underlying allegations than issuing a grand jury subpoena.

That's also why the search warrant executed at Manafort's home in July was such a significant step in the investigation. Unlike a grand jury subpoena, the search warrant required Mueller's team to demonstrate to a judge that a crime probably had been committed.

But it's important not to get too far in front of the story. The FBI surveillance of Manafort reportedly began in 2014, long before he was working as Trump's campaign manager. So the initial allegations, at least, appear to have involved potential crimes having nothing to do with the Trump campaign. And most or all of the surveillance apparently took place before Mueller was even appointed and was not at his direction.

Mueller's involvement now does suggest that the current focus relates to Manafort's role in the Trump campaign. But we don't know exactly how, if at all, any alleged crimes by Manafort relate to his work in that role. And we don't know whether any other individuals involved in the campaign are potentially implicated.

We also don't know what evidence was obtained as a result of the surveillance. The fact that warrants were issued does not mean any evidence of criminal conduct was actually found.

The other import of this news involves the possible implications if Manafort is charged. The New York Times reported Monday that when Manafort's home was searched in July, investigators told him he should expect to be indicted. Even if Mueller were to indict Manafort for crimes not directly related to the Trump campaign, it would be a significant development. A typical white-collar investigation often proceeds by building cases against lower-level participants in a scheme -- the little fish -- and then persuading them to cooperate in the investigation of the bigger fish. Trump and his associates therefore may have reason to be concerned about what Manafort could tell investigators, if he were indicted and chose to cooperate.

Again, much of this is speculation. Due to grand jury secrecy and the secrecy surrounding the FISA process, we don't know many of the details. And given the typical pace of these investigations, whatever happens likely will not happen quickly.

But news of the FISA surveillance is the latest evidence that Mueller's investigation is serious, aggressive and will be with us for some time.

Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at George Washington University Law School.

[Oct 25, 2017] FEC Complaint Alleges Hillary, DNC Broke Election Law By Not Disclosing Trump-Russia Dossier Funding

Oct 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Today the Campaign Legal Center (CLC) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign committee violated campaign finance law by failing to accurately disclose the purpose and recipient of payments for the dossier of research alleging connections between then-candidate Donald Trump and Russia. The CLC's complaint asserts that by effectively hiding these payments from public scrutiny the DNC and Clinton "undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures."

On October 24, The Washington Post revealed that the DNC and Hillary for America paid opposition research firm Fusion GPS to dig into Trump's Russia ties, but routed the money through the law firm Perkins Coie and described the purpose as "legal services" on their FEC reports rather than research. By law, campaign and party committees must disclose the reason money is spent and its recipient.

"By filing misleading reports, the DNC and Clinton campaign undermined the vital public information role of campaign disclosures," said Adav Noti, senior director, trial litigation and strategy at CLC, who previously served as the FEC's Associate General Counsel for Policy. "Voters need campaign disclosure laws to be enforced so they can hold candidates accountable for how they raise and spend money. The FEC must investigate this apparent violation and take appropriate action."

"Questions about who paid for this dossier are the subject of intense public interest, and this is precisely the information that FEC reports are supposed to provide," said Brendan Fischer, director, federal and FEC reform at CLC. "Payments by a campaign or party committee to an opposition research firm are legal, as long as those payments are accurately disclosed. But describing payments for opposition research as 'legal services' is entirely misleading and subverts the reporting requirements."

While details of the payment arrangements remain scarce, FEC records indicate that the Hillary campaign and the DNC paid a total of $12 million to Perkins Coie for "legal services." Marc Elias, a Perkins partner and general counsel for Hillary's campaign, then used some portion of those funds to turn around and hire Fusion GPS who then contracted with a former British spy, Christopher Steele, to compile the now-infamous dossier. Per the Daily Caller :

It was revealed on Tuesday that the Clinton campaign and DNC began paying Fusion GPS, the research firm that commissioned the dossier, last April to continue research it was conducting on Trump. The Washington Post reported that Fusion approached lawyers at Perkins Coie, the firm that represented the campaign and DNC, offering to sell its investigative services.

Marc Elias, a Perkins Coie partner, and the general counsel for the campaign and DNC, oversaw the operation, according to The Post.

It is not clear how much Democrats, through Perkins Coie, paid Fusion for the project, which lasted until early November. Federal Election Commission records show that the campaign and DNC paid the law firm $12 million during the election cycle.

Ironically, most of the sources listed in the dossier were based in Russia and include a "senior Kremlin official" as well as other "close associates of Vladimir Putin." Moreover, as CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell notes, it's h ighly likely that some portion of the $12 million paid to Perkins Coie by the DNC and Hillary campaign made it's way into the pockets of those "senior Kremlin officials" as compensation for the services.

In the dossier, Steele cites numerous anonymous sources, many of which work in the upper echelons of the Russian government.

The first two sources cited in the dossier's first memo, dated June 20, 2016, are "a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure" and "a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin."

A third source is referred to as "a senior Russian financial official." Other sources in the dossier are described as "a senior Kremlin official" and sources close to Igor Sechin, the head of Russian oil giant Rosneft and a close associate of Vladimir Putin's.

To summarize, after a full year of mainstream media hysteria over alleged Trump-Russia collusion, it now appears as though the Hillary campaign may have been the only one to funnel cash to "Kremlin operatives" in return for political dirt...

Of course, we have no doubt that Hillary was in the dark about all of these arrangements.

Here is the full complaint filed by CLC :

NugginFuts -> ejmoosa , Oct 25, 2017 5:04 PM

Is she still "Good people" or can we lock her up now?

aelfheld -> NugginFuts , Oct 25, 2017 5:06 PM

Was she ever, really, 'good people'?

NugginFuts -> aelfheld , Oct 25, 2017 5:09 PM

Ask The Donald.

earleflorida -> NugginFuts , Oct 25, 2017 5:44 PM

hillery self-destruct wanting war with russia...

trump will closely (hillery's undoing) follow suit as a 'Protest far greater than the final days of the Vietnam Era' sweep the country....--- wanting war with NK (China & Russia).

sad!

JSBach1 -> secretargentman , Oct 25, 2017 6:01 PM

The long-help suspicions that Andrew McCabe is intimately involved in this dossier procurement are gaining traction:

"...FBI insiders say fired FBI Director James Comey and Andrew McCabe , deputy FBI director, used Bureau funds to underwrite the controversial dossier on President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election, sources confirm.

And the deal to dig dirt on a presidential candidate was put together with the help of Sen. John McCain, sources said.

These new revelations in fact might be the worst kept secrets in Washington, D.C. but now rank-and-file FBI agents want the Bureau to come clean on its relationship with the author of the problematic Trump dossier, former British spy Christopher Steele..."

https://truepundit.com/fbi-paid-100k-for-concocted-trump-dossier-during-...

"...Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe , who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democratic activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele..."

"...Steele hadn't worked in Moscow since the 1990s and didn't actually travel there to gather intelligence on Trump firsthand. He relied on third-hand "friend of friend" sourcing. In fact, most of his claimed Russian sources spoke not directly to him but "in confidence to a trusted compatriot" who, in turn, spoke to Steele -- and always anonymously.

But his main source may have been Google. Most of the information branded as "intelligence" was merely rehashed from news headlines or cut and pasted -- replete with errors -- from Wikipedia.

In fact, much of the seemingly cloak-and-dagger information connecting Trump and his campaign advisers to Russia had already been reported in the media at the time Steele wrote his monthly reports..."

http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind...

"... Mr. McCabe's appearance of a partisan conflict of interest relating to Clinton associates only magnifies the importance of those questions. That is particularly true if Mr. McCabe was involved in approving or establishing the FBI's reported arrangement with Mr. Steele, or if Mr. McCabe vouched for or otherwise relied on the politically-funded dossier in the course of the investigation. Simply put, the American people should know if the FBI's second-in-command relied on Democrat-funded opposition research to justify an investigation of the Republican presidential campaign...."

https://founderscode.com/2nd-charge-fbi-mccabe-investigation/

[Oct 25, 2017] Why Did BuzzFeed Publish the Trump Dossier

Now it is clear that Steele dossier was clearly a British intelligence services fake ordered and paid by DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign... And now we know who paid for it. and we know who tried to "spread the news". Atlantic tried to embellish actions of DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign but there were clearly against the law.
Not that different from Iraq WMD and uranium purchase story
Notable quotes:
"... Other reporting, including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate. ..."
"... Lawfare ..."
"... That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure -- Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous; the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. ..."
Jan 11, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

Late Tuesday afternoon, CNN published a story reporting that intelligence officials had given Trump, President Obama, and eight top members of Congress a two-page memo, summarizing allegations that Russian agents claimed they had compromising information on Trump. (If you're finding this chain difficult to follow, you're not alone; I tried to parse the story in some detail here .) CNN said officials had given no indication that they believed the material in the memo to be accurate. That memo, in turn, was based on 35 pages of materials gathered by a former British intelligence operative who had gathered them while conducting opposition research for various Trump opponents, both Republicans and Democrats.

The story left many questions unanswered -- most importantly, whether the claims were accurate, but also just what the claims were; CNN said it was withholding the contents of the memo because it could not independently verify the allegations.

The second question was answered in short order, when BuzzFeed posted a PDF of the 35-page dossier a little after 6 p.m. Even in their posting, BuzzFeed acknowledged some misgivings about the document, admitting that it was full of unverified claims. "It is not just unconfirmed: It includes some clear errors," the story noted. Verified or not, the claims were highly explosive, and in some cases quite graphic. Because they are not verified, I will not summarize them here, though they can be read at BuzzFeed or in any other number of places.

Other reporting, including from my colleague Rosie Gray , has already begun to poke holes in the assertions contained in the dossier. Trump denied the report on Twitter, writing, "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!" Now that the documents are in the public domain, the work under way within some news organizations to suss out what is true in the report will likely accelerate.

Sensing that the decision to publish would be controversial, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith wrote a memo to staff explaining the thinking, and then posted it on Twitter .

"Our presumption is to be transparent in our journalism and to share what we have with our readers. We have always erred on the side of publishing. In this case, the document was in wide circulation at the highest levels of American government and media," Smith wrote. "Publishing this document was not an easy or simple call, and people of good will may disagree with our choice. But publishing the dossier reflects how we see the job of reporters in 2017."

Smith alluded to the document's wide circulation, a nod to the fact that many outlets have either acquired or been offered the chance to view it -- a group that includes CNN, Politico ( whose Ken Vogel said he'd chased the story ), and Lawfare . David Corn of Mother Jones also published a story based on information collected by the British intelligence operative in October.

Smith's reasoning is sincere and considered, but the conclusion is highly dubious. Even more perturbing was the reasoning in the published story. "Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government," the story stated.

That raises a range of potential objections. First, it unfairly forces a public figure -- Trump, in this case -- to respond to a set of allegations that might or might not be entirely scurrilous; the reporters, by their own admission, do not know. Second, the appeal to "transparency" notwithstanding, this represents an abdication of the basic responsibility of journalism. The reporter's job is not to simply dump as much information as possible into the public domain, though that can at times be useful too, as some of WikiLeaks' revelations have shown. It is to gather information, sift through it, and determine what is true and what is not. The point of a professional journalist corps is to have people whose job it is to do that work on behalf of society, and who can cultivate sources and expertise to help them adjudicate it. A pluralistic press corps is necessary to avoid monolithic thinking among reporters, but transparent transmission of misinformation is no more helpful or clarifying than no information at all.

[Oct 25, 2017] There is a Coup Underway Against President Trump by Harley Schlanger

Notable quotes:
"... Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against the President. ..."
"... Brennan set up a task force to look into the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John McCain. ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | steemit.com

, LaRouchePac, SGTreport.com:

In a desperate attempt to defend its collapsing "Russiagate" narrative, the Washington Post launched an attack on The Nation magazine for its August 9 article by Patrick Lawrence, "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack." Lawrence's article, in the most prestigious left/progressive magazine in the U.S., broke the attempted media blackout of the memo sent by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) on July 24 to President Trump, which effectively refutes the claims of Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election, allegedly through "hacking" Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails and releasing them to Wikileaks.

Despite more than twelve months of non-stop charges against the Russians, and claims of Trump's collusion with Russia, not a shred of hard evidence has yet been presented to back these allegations, which are at the heart of the coup plot being run against the President.

The Nation article was followed by a prominent story in Bloomberg News and one in Salon magazine, which both reported on the Nation article, and the VIPS memo, and how it challenges the narrative that Trump owes his election victory to Putin and Russia. That story was concocted by leading figures in British intelligence, and leaked to the U.S. media by corrupt elements of Obama's intelligence team, led by the trio of Brennan, Clapper and Comey, as part of the "regime change" against Trump they launched after his November 2016 election victory.

Brennan set up a task force to look into the Russian meddling charges after a former British Ambassador to Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, delivered a fraudulent dossier, prepared by an "ex"-MI6 operative, to Brennan, through anti-Trump Senator John McCain.

The attack on The Nation was posted on the Post's "Eric Wemple Blog" on August 15, and is a blatant attempt to force The Nation's editors to not merely repudiate the Lawrence article, but to join the campaign against Trump's desire for cooperation with Russia. Wemple's attempt to dismiss the authoritative report of the VIPS has no substance, and is written to bludgeon the magazine's editors to adopt the talking points of the coup plotters. As such, it presents the same weak, sophistical argument presented by the DNC, which released a statement on the VIPS memo which simply reasserted the conclusion reached by "U.S. intelligence agencies" of Russian interference, adding, "Any suggestion otherwise is false, and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration."

Such dangerous silliness was countered by Salon's Danielle Ryan, who wrote on August 15,

"For the media and mainstream liberals to dismiss information presented in The Nation as lacking in evidence would be breathtakingly ironic, given how little evidence they required to build a narrative" against Trump and Putin. She concluded that if the VIPS memo is right, "those who pushed the Russia hacking narrative with little evidence have a lot to answer for."

[Oct 25, 2017] The Final Truth about the Trump Dossier, Part Three by Accuracy In Media

May 03, 2017 | www.aim.org
A Special Report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism; Cliff Kincaid, Director

The Role of the CIA's John Brennan

In its lengthy feature article on FBI Director James Comey, The New York Times disingenuously evades the new evidence from the British press that nails former President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan for using the "Trump dossier" as weaponized fake intelligence, which he wielded to spearhead an interagency task force to investigate Trump during and after the election campaign. The Times article's sole mention of Brennan suppresses any mention of its own reporting by three of the same reporters on January 19 about the six-agency, anti-Trump task force or working group (and naturally there is no investigative reporting to dig into the task force's scandalous operations).

But, of course, that was the same New York Times article, in its January 20 print edition, that headlined the " Wiretapped Trump Aides ." The Times wants to forget all about that, now that President Trump has made the Obama "wire tapping" an issue.

The timing and use of the "Trump dossier" suggests that Hillary's agents during the campaign panicked when Julian Assange announced on June 12 , 2016, that he would soon release emails from within the Hillary campaign -- unauthorized and uncensored -- not official State Department releases redacted to protect Hillary.

It seems as if Hillary's backers hired someone to throw together any sleazy garbage that they could use to blunt the impact, or even nullify the potentially disastrous effects of the Hillary/DNC emails, which as far as they knew could come out any day or any minute from WikiLeaks. The first Christopher Steele report in the "dossier," with the vilest allegations of all, was rushed out in record time, dated barely a week later, on June 20 .

From their perspective of defending Hillary, it had to be something on Trump so foul, so disgusting, that no one would pay any attention to what the WikiLeaks emails from Hillary said or disclosed. Hence, the first "Trump dossier" report concocted on or before June 20 tried to claim Trump hired prostitutes to "golden shower" (urinate on) the former Obama bed in the Moscow hotel (or as we have seen, "someone" said "someone else" said Trump "may" have done so, and it "may" have been taped, maybe in "some year" or other, etc. Our words in quotes). The Hillary funders evidently did not count on the "Trump dossier" being so repulsive that even the most hate-filled major media, such as The New York Times and CNN, could not stomach publishing it or risking lawsuits from a billionaire like Trump. So they simply drew attention to the document without reproducing it, at first only by veiled allusion.

As the election approached, the increasingly frantic media began leaking out more and more from the sickening "dossier." ( NYT , July 29; Yahoo News September 23; Mother Jones October 31; Washington Post November 1, Newsweek November 4, Salon November 4, etc.)

In addition to Comey, who took the bait, we have evidence that Obama's CIA director John Brennan was involved in spreading the allegations, briefing Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) (who turned around and lambasted Comey), and using it and illegal NSA-GCHQ wiretap data to set up an interagency task force to investigate Trump. Such CIA-led actions were in violation of the CIA charter forbidding them from carrying out any law enforcement, police or internal security functions (50 U.S. Code 3036(d)(1)). (AIM Special Report , April 17)

Trying to make something out of nothing, the illegal intelligence agency leaks suggest that the CIA has found some minor "aspects" in the "dossier" that are " corroborated " by intercepted wiretap communications. But these turned out to be pseudo-corroborations of long-known matters of public knowledge (such as alleged Trump adviser Carter Page's "secret" visit to Moscow, actually openly reported in the press on July 7).

In fact, essentially the same story indicating that a few business meetings in the "dossier" were "confirmed" by intercepted communications -- but not important facts -- ran in Yahoo News on September 23, 2016.

So this is old fake news, designed to magnify and exaggerate trivia to suggest the opposite of what was actually known, which was that nothing incriminating or wrongful about Trump associate's business activities with Russia had been found -- no "smoking gun." ( AIM , Febrary 20 and April 17 , 2017; cf. Washington Post November 1, 2016; and CNN )

[Oct 25, 2017] Susan Rice admits that she spied on Donald Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him, which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated. ..."
"... President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction" that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up. ..."
"... In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles, between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos). ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | www.voltairenet.org

Susan Rice, the former National Security Advisor, has admitted before the House of Representatives' Intelligence Committee that during the transition period, she had spied on Donald Trump and his team when they were in Trump Tower, New York. She also admitted that she had had the names of Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn and Steve Bannon deleted from summaries of the tappings.

Mrs Rice has guaranteed that her intention was not to find out the secret plans of the Team Trump. She just was trying to figure out what the United Arab Emirates was up to, and was hoping to gather relevant information from the content of an interview that the President Elect was supposed to have given to the Prince and heir to the throne of Abu Dhabi.

Until now, Susan Rice had always denied spying on Donald Trump and his team both in the transition period and also in the run up to the presidential elections. There have been several times when President Trump has denounced the illegal tappings that the Obama Administration had authorized against him, which the Press in the United States had qualified as completely fabricated.

President Richard Nixon had been forced to resign for spying on the Democratic Party's electoral headquarters. However, in the case of Susan Rice, the Congressmen have not "acquired a conviction" that she had committed a federal crime and that she had tried to cover it up.

In contrast, President Obama's team is presenting the tappings ordered by Susan Rice as wholly legitimate in the context of an investigation into possible Russian interferences. Furthermore, it is a fact that the United Arab Emirates has organized at the same time, a meeting in the Seychelles, between someone close to President Putin and Erik Prince (former director of Blackwater, military advisor to the Emirates and brother of the current Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos).

https://www.youtube.com/embed/b6edWWMlbWQ

[Oct 25, 2017] EXCLUSIVE Six U.S. Agencies Conspired to Illegally Wiretap Trump; British Intel Used as Front to Spy on Campaign for NSA

Notable quotes:
"... Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said. ..."
"... Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was well underway. ..."
"... Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance. ..."
"... Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August 2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016, federal sources confirm. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com
And none of it was very legal. In fact, most of it was very illegal, according to federal law enforcement sources who are blowing the whistle on a sweeping scheme to undermine the Executive branch and the electorate's choice for president of the United States. And according to high ranking FBI sources, the Bureau played a definitive role in plotting this sweeping privacy breach. But the FBI had much help from the NSA, CIA, the Office of of the Director of National Intelligence, Treasury financial crimes division under DHS, and the Justice Department, federal law enforcement sources confirmed. The Deep State caretakers involved are familiar names: James Comey (FBI), John Brennan (CIA), James Clapper (ODNI), Loretta Lynch (DOJ), Jeh Johnson (DHS), Admiral Michael Rogers (NSA). And then-director of GCHQ Robert Hannigan who has since resigned from the esteemed British spy agency.

President Barack Obama's White House too could be implicated, sources said. But while evidence certainly points to involvement of the Obama administration, sources said they did not have access to definitive intelligence proving such a link.

Here is what we now know, per intelligence gleaned form federal law enforcement sources with insider knowledge of what amounts to a plot by U.S. intelligence agencies to secure back door and illegal wiretaps of President Trump's associates:

  • Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA's Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and possibly Trump himself.
  • To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ.
  • The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates.
  • GCHQ did not work from London or the UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping surveillance on Trump associates.
  • The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele.
  • The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump's associates appear compromised.
  • Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner.
  • After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into the United States or the UK, federal sources said.
  • By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil at Fort Meade.
  • The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe of alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered "poisoned fruit."
Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who spearheaded the Trump Tower meeting with the Trump campaign trio, was previously barred from entering the United Sates due to her alleged connections to the Russian FSB (the modern replacement of the cold-war-era KGB).

Yet mere days before the June meeting, Veselnitskaya was granted a rare visa to enter the United States from Preet Bharara, the then U.S. Attorney for the southern district of New York. Bharara could not be reached for comment and did not respond the a Twitter inquiry on the Russian's visa by True Pundit.

Federal law enforcement sources said Bharara was simply following the orders of Attorney General Lynch, who lobbied the State Department to issue the disavowed Russian a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. This permitted Veselnitskaya entry into the United States for the sole purpose of entrapping Trump associates to use as fuel to commission wiretaps, federal sources said.

Veselnitskaya may have been paid as well by the U.S. government, FBI sources said. It was reported last week that Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier was paid at least $100,000 from FBI funds as well. But that came later, after the wiretapping was well underway.

The illegal eavesdropping started long before Steele's dossier. Federal sources said the wiretaps on Trump insiders began in late 2015, almost a year before the 2016 election. The targets then were Flynn and Page, sources confirmed. When no smoking gun was recovered from those initial taps, U.S. intelligence agencies moved to broaden the scope through their newly-formed alliance.

Intelligence garnered from the British eavesdropping, which again was merely a front for the NSA, was then used in August 2016 to secure a legitimate FISA warrant on Manafort, Trump Jr. and Kushner. That warrant was issued on or about September, 2016, federal sources confirm.

It was the third time the cabal of U.S. intelligence agencies sought a FISA warrant for the Trump associates and this time it was approved.

FBI sources said finally obtaining the FISA warrant was important because it provided the agencies cover for previous illegal wiretapping which they believed would never be discovered.

"This would make for an incredible string of Senate hearings," one federal law enforcement source said. "I don't think they ever thought he (Trump) would win and information would come out about how they manipulated evidence."

~~~♥♥Baby Doll♥♥~~~ 6 hours ago

The level of corruption is too deep and people in the FBI/DOJ are complicit, they are covering up the Elite crimes, they won't do their job, nothing is going to happen, no one is going to jail.

Trickster ~~~Baby Doll~~~ 18 minutes ago

And Trump can fire everyone of them who won't to their jobs. Those so called elites no longer have cover now that Trump is President see more

Elizabeth Raynor Short oh god an hour ago

Yeah. This is who the Russian economist close to Putin was talking about when he sid they aren't worried about Nazis in the Ukraine, that they are worried about the Nazis in Washington.

S. Juliette 4 hours ago

Trump knew about this because Mike Rogers tipped him off Nov. 17 in an unannounced meeting at Trump Towers. The next day campaign operations moved to New Jersey and Clapper sent a letter to Obama demanding Rogers be fired.

Baharra was fired...Comey was fired...Harrington resigned Jan 23...Rogers still has his job. see more

Trickster S. Juliette 18 minutes ago

Can't wait till Clapper is in jail for lying to Congress.

[Oct 25, 2017] The McCain globalist-American Exceptionalism narrative is the steady injection of lies and half-truths so that the public accepts the unending demands for increased defense spending, accepting that the world outside is a dangerous place that must be kept in line by force majeur of US policeman.

Notable quotes:
"... This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism." ..."
"... And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain, Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents fall by the wayside from their evil. ..."
"... I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up. ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners, requiring only that the U.S. step in on occasion and bail things out, or screw things up depending on one's point of view. This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism."

McCain's completely fatuous account of recent world history befits a Navy pilot who was adept at crashing his planes and almost sank his own aircraft carrier. He also made propaganda radio broadcasts for the North Vietnamese after he was captured. The McCain globalist-American Exceptionalism narrative is also, unfortunately, echoed by the media. The steady ingestion of lies and half-truths is why the public puts up with unending demands for increased defense spending, accepting that the world outside is a dangerous place that must be kept in line by force majeure . Yes, we are the good guys.

But underlying the citizenry's willingness to accept that the military establishment should encircle the globe with foreign bases to keep the world "safe" is the assumption that the 48 States are invulnerable, isolated by broad oceans and friendly nations to the north and south. And protected from far distant threats by technology, interceptor systems developed and maintained at enormous expense to intercept and shoot down incoming ballistic missiles launched by enemies overseas.

Cloak And Dagger, October 24, 2017 at 5:22 am GMT

Phil, two topics so dear to my heart!

This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a "Liberty" award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world's policeman. He describes them as fearful of "the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism."

And this is why we are where we are -- our government is infested by the likes of McCain, Lindsay Graham, and hundreds of others of their ilk. There is no milk of human kindness that flows in my veins when I look at these despicable creatures who have done so much harm to so many people and continue to exist, cancer and all, like Darth Cheney with his nuclear heart, while the innocents fall by the wayside from their evil.

I had wished him dead, but as a friend reminded me, it is better for him to live, suffering from excruciating agony as cancer demolishes him one cell at a time, jabbing his brain every second of every day -- to the brink of madness and just a step behind the precipice that would end his life, living for decades more, tortured and despised.

Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee; For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

-- Herman Melville

Even the federal government watchdog agencies have concluded that the missile interception system seldom performs.

I can't find that citation at the moment, but I recall a report from US military experts that placed the accuracy of interceptor missiles at about 10% in real-world conditions. I vaguely recall that during the Gulf war, we had placed Patriot interceptors in Israel to protect the chosen from Saddam's Scud missiles, and apparently only a few of those decrepit scuds were successfully intercepted. I believe the lack of accuracy of these Patriot missiles was hushed up.

Meanwhile, the Russian S-300, S-400, and the soon-to-appear S-500 missile batteries have demonstrated very impressive results. Now our "allies" are all scampering over to Moscow to acquire these instead of our duds, following the utter failure of our $0.5 Trillion F-35 embarrassment.

It is high time for us to ask how we got here and who is responsible. I will give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

[Oct 25, 2017] N Korea simply wants to be left alone. Sending a message of 'will and capability' is not how they think. They are sending a message of 'if you corner me, I will hurt you, even if we both die'.

Oct 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Greg Bacon , Website October 24, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

If our missile defense systems are so hot, why haven't the interceptors, stationed in Alaska, Japan, S. Korea and on US Navy ships in the area, shot down any of Kim's missiles that go flying over Japan?

We're being sold a bill of goods, or BS for short. Those missile defense systems make for fat Pentagon contracts, but will do no more to protect Americans than the old 'Duck and Cover' propaganda we were taught back in the 1950′s and 1960′s. Just duck and cover under your school desk, then after the nukes pops off, get back to living.

With all the colleges and university's the USA has, how can Americans be so stupid?

Smoler , October 24, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT

To me, the biggest threat that a North Korean attack could pose would be EMP. All they'd have to do is get a nuclear warhead into the atmosphere somewhere above or off the west coast of the US. Setting off that would destroy much of the electronics upon which our 'Communications Age' relies upon with an EMP wave.

And that seems hard, or at least harder to stop. It does not require accuracy on the part of the North Korean missile(s). And it only requires that one such warhead get through the missile defenses. With a bit of subterfuge, it could possibly be disquised as yet another missile test, one that would obviously not be aimed at the US mainland, but falling short, before it explodes high in the atmosphere over the Pacific Ocean, but close enough that the EMP wave has a direct path to much of the US. I suspect that many military electronics are hardened against this, as the effect has been known for quite some time. But the consumer electronics upon which our society relies would not be. Picture for instance every cell-phone/smart-phone going dead. And that's just one effect.

And it seems to be a big ask to ask missile defense to stop that. Especially when in controlled test after controlled test, when the 'defenders' know exactly what missiles will be launched, when they will be launched, and all the information about their trajectory, the missile defense still seems to be a 'hit-or-miss' proposition.

Which is why we should be negotiating. Although, the main problem with that is why the North Koreans would negotiate considering the US didn't keep its word in the 2005 agreement and is currently in the process of teaching Iran that the word of the US isn't worth the toilet paper an agreement is written upon.

Chris Mallory , October 24, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT
@Smoler

To me, the biggest threat that a North Korean attack could pose would be EMP. All they'd have to do is get a nuclear warhead into the atmosphere somewhere above or off the west coast of the US.

Actually it is harder than that. They would have to have a warhead large enough to produce the EMP pulse strong enough to damage the electronics. Then they have to hit the right spot to target the area they want to damage. Too high and the EMP pulse won't be strong enough too low and it won't have the range needed to do the damage.

Plus any equipment not under load will probably be unaffected by the EMP. The EMP threat is greatly overblown.

headrick , October 24, 2017 at 10:55 pm GMT
If we nuked NK, I think we would become a world pariah. I am not sure though. NK says what they want is to be accepted as a nuclear power but not have to actually fight a nuclear war to achieve that. I don't know who to believe about that. It seems that the US is more belligerent than SK so maybe we should get in line behind and not ahead of SK about this. Jeeze, what a mess.
Chris Mallory , October 24, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
@RadicalCenter

If the US government hits Pyongyang with even "small" tactical nuclear weapons, how will we avoid irradiating South Korea and China, which are very nearby?

Depending on how long the radioactive debris stays aloft, how do we keep from irradiating Japan? If you look at a prevailing winds map, the winds blow west to east across the Korean peninsula and encircle Japan.

anonymous , Disclaimer October 25, 2017 at 12:05 am GMT

Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners,

That's pretty much it in a nutshell, isn't it? Americans usually don't give a hoot about dead furriners, they all look alike anyway. Notice that in all this sharpening of tension and debate regarding the DPRK no American has brought up the issue of what do the people of the ROK think about the prospect of hostilities over there. They're on the front line and would bear the cost of any outbreak of war yet no American cares about that even though they're supposed to be our close ally. Our 'ally' apparently would just be collateral damage of little interest to anyone on these shores. It's worrying because now it appears that the DPRK is emerging as another nuclear power and wants to develop the capability to hit the US; it's no longer a one-way street. The US never asked anyone for permission to build it's nuclear weapons and it's ability to act as a gatekeeper is eroding before it's eyes, hence the hysterical rhetoric. DPRK is becoming a member of the world's nuclear club regardless of who likes it so deal with it. There's always Venezuela to invade. Or Niger. Oh wait, we're already there.

Grandpa Charlie , October 25, 2017 at 12:22 am GMT
@Chris Mallory

"

So you would have no issue with the North Koreans, China, Russia or Outer Bumfreakistan running military exercises with Mexico just south of the Rio Grande?" Chris Mallory, to Grandpa

Chris, you manage to pack quite a few false equivalencies into your 25 words! Here's an example: Mexico is a much larger country than South Korea -- anywhere in South Korea could be taken as "just south of the Rio Grande". The area of Mexico is about 20 times that of South Korea! Plus, if you think about it, the only realistic exercises would have to be at the DMZ or at some kind of mock-up of the DMZ and where would you like UN/USA/ROK to construct that mock-up?

But of course, Chris, you don't think about anything at all you don't have to, being absolutely certain of your righteousness and the evil of all those who oppose your stupid POV. Very "liberal" of you!

nsa , October 25, 2017 at 1:49 am GMT
Not the slightest chance of a war with the Koreans ..nuke or otherwise. The reason is as plain as the hook nose on your face ..nothing in it for the jooies who run Jerusalem on the Potomac. Iran is the target. We here in Ft. Meade get paid to know these things .
Cloak And Dagger , October 25, 2017 at 2:03 am GMT
@renfro

There is a lot of hot air about South Korea being willing to destroy North Korea. I have spent a fair amount of time in Seoul over the years, and one thing that people may not realize is that many South Koreans have families and relatives in North Korea. They are not about to bomb them.

Beckow , October 25, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT
@peterAUS

N Korea simply wants to be left alone. Sending a message of 'will and capability' is not how they think. They are sending a message of 'if you corner me, I will hurt you, even if we both die'. They are also not going to start anything. If they are pre-emptively attacked, what happens next is anyone's guess. But it could be catastrophic.

My point is that apart from the likely catastrophe, if we survive, there would also be a long-term negative consequence for Washington in terms of very bad vibes for generations in that part of the world. Actually, probably all over the world. That is a risk even more unhinged warmongers in Washington might not want to take. But, hey if their rationality is as low as you think, they just might. They might as well nuke Soul for all the emotional anger that would release among the Koreans.

Beckow , October 24, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

@peterAUS

There is also South Korea. Try to imagine the fallout among Koreans (and Japanese, Chinese, other Asians) if their cousins are nuked. In the short run it might even work -- if it would be an extremely targeted attack. But there is also longer run and for decades US would not be able to live this down. Generations of Koreans would grow up bitter that it was deemed ok to nuke people like them. War propaganda tends to wear off and only angry emotional memories remain.

And the Europeans, they would be apoplectic, probably the end of their American infatuation.

So the downside is potentially enormous. My guess is that fat Kim and his crew just want to be left alone. And they are scared. What's the point is stirring up a wasp nest? Now just imagine Chinese reaction if somebody drops a nuke on their border. It wouldn't be pretty.

Greg the American , October 24, 2017 at 5:24 pm GMT

Am I the only one having trouble seeing through the propaganda to understand the situation in North Korea? If they are wacko bird and horrible bad guys, then Trump may be right and Tillerson is wasting his time.

On the other hand, my suspicion is that this is our creation, we're still fighting a decades old proxy war for some reason, and all we really need to do is get our boot off their throat. If this is the case, and it costs us Seattle, then we need to call the American experiment done.

Let's pretend the author is wrong, star wars works (reagan sits up in his grave and gives a fist pump) and we successfully kill a couple million North Koreans. Problem solved, right? Aside from the sin of it (hard to put aside), I think the aftermath will call in a lot of accounts Americans will be ashamed to pay.

Or maybe not, all these wars are started by the lies of the powerful.

Beckow , October 24, 2017 at 8:28 pm GMT

@peterAUS

"Kim regime does not appear reasonable"

Appearances are created for you, I am not sure these 'appearances' reflect reality in N Korea. They might, but we are also being manipulated. Since I am not familiar with N Korea, my sanity check is to compare 'media appearances' of things I know well to actual reality. And there one can see huge media created gaps.

I agree that US government is capable of seeing the longterm impact on Koreans as 'nothing'. That's a problem, some core sanity principles have been discarded in Washington. My point is that any nuclear usage would have huge long-term consequences, it could start unraveling the magical spell that 'America' has had for about 100 years on the rest of mankind. But they still might do it. Remember that these actions are never clear-cut -- there would be endless doubts about whether N Korea was actually going to -- or was capable -- of attacking Hawaii. There is no way you can win that in the long run. Koreans are after all a very-tightly related and very ethnically aware nation. And the difference between North and South Koreans is largely political -- they are the same people.

renfro , October 24, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT

" Far better to take the North Korean threat seriously and admit that a west coast city like Seattle could well become the target of a successful nuclear weapon attack.>>>>>>

Isn't that what Trump and Co. and the Walking Dead Neocons have been doing all along fear mongering? I think so.

The myth of missile defense aside I don't know that I even buy that this N Korea hysteria is even about their nukes.
Reading reports in international papers it may be more about the fact that Russia has been actively investing in North Korea to secure a key strategic economic outlet to the Pacific Ocean. And on top of that Russia is acting as the political and business intermediary between China. Japan and the loud mouth in N Korea in this 3 sided squabble.

So all this crap about N Korea actually lobbing a nuke on the US reminds me of the WMD propaganda to justify invading Iraq.
It may be and probably is more about the US foiling Russian expansion of influence and commerce in that part of Asia.

L.K , October 24, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
@peterAUS

As usual, you are completely full of shit but then, anyone with, er, half a brain, can see you are merely a virulent little war mongering Internet troll, always asking for some more war, from the comfort of whatever little insect hole you type your garbage. It reminds me of what another poster wrote around here: 'Amerikastan, Amerikastan, Wants to fight Russia and China, Iran and North Korea, Can't even beat, The Taliban*.' * that is a militia, btw.

hypewaders , October 24, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT
International shipping provides convenient delivery to the world's ports. Of WMDs. Who are we really kidding?
L.K , October 24, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
Why North Korea Needs Nukes -- And How To End That

Now consider what the U.S. media don't tell you about Korea:

BEIJING, March 8 (Xinhua) -- China proposed "double suspension" to defuse the looming crisis on the Korean Peninsula, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Wednesday. "As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises, " FM Wang, 'the lips', undoubtedly transmitted an authorized message from North Korea: "The offer is (still) on the table and China supports it."

North Korea has made the very same offer in January 2015. The Obama administration rejected it. North Korea repeated the offer in April 2016 and the Obama administration rejected it again. This March the Chinese government conveyed and supported the long-standing North Korean offer. The U.S. government, now under the Trump administration, immediately rejected it again. The offer, made and rejected three years in a row, is sensible. Its rejection only led to a bigger nuclear arsenal and to more missiles with longer reach that will eventually be able to reach the United States.

North Korea is understandably nervous each and every time the U.S. and South Korea launch their very large yearly maneuvers and openly train for invading North Korea and for killing its government and people. The maneuvers have large negative impacts on North Korea's economy.

North Korea justifies its nuclear program as the economically optimal way to respond to these maneuvers.[...]

Each time the U.S. and South Korea launch their very large maneuvers, the North Korean conscription army (1.2 million strong) has to go into a high state of defense readiness. Large maneuvers are a classic starting point for military attacks. The U.S.-South Korean maneuvers are (intentionally) held during the planting (April/May) or harvesting (August) season for rice when North Korea needs each and every hand in its few arable areas .

To understand why North Korea fears U.S. aggressiveness consider the utter devastation caused mostly by the U.S. during the Korea War:

Read it all at

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/the-reason-behind-north-koreas-nuclear-program-and-its-offer-to-end-it.html

Joe Stalin , October 25, 2017 at 3:13 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

You raise an interesting point. During the UN retreat under PRC attack in the Korean War, US merchant marine were requested, not ordered, to evacuate North Korean civilians to safety from Hungnam. They evacuated 90,000+ North Korean civilians to South Korea. Those NKs have supposedly contributed 1 million citizens to South Korea. "The evacuation included 14,000 refugees who were transported on one ship, the SS Meredith Victory -- the largest evacuation from land by a single ship."

https://www.marad.dot.gov/about-us/maritime-administration-history-program/usdot-maritime-gallant-ship-award/ss-meredith-victory-2/

Beckow , October 25, 2017 at 5:38 am GMT
@peterAUS

You are right that leaders don't like to risk a surprise attack. So they have a tendency to over-insure (most people in quiet, settled circumstances over-insure, because, well, what else is there to do?). This might be one of those cases where the circumstances lead us to a disaster. I hope not.

I don't "virtue signal". Virtues , like charity, only make sense in a narrow sense, in one's private life. But we need this planet for selfish reasons. Neo-cons are just the latest reincarnation of nutty, out-of-control busybodies obsessed with their own ideas and power. People like that have a cul-de-sac way of thinking. They tend to overdo it at the end and push things too far, go for that ultimate victory. Their thinking lacks boundaries. That makes them very dangerous. We are gain at one of those really dangerous moments in mankind's history, we could absent-mindedly cause a catastrophe. In a way a smaller catastrophe (like N Korea) could help us avoid a much bigger one.

Erebus , October 25, 2017 at 6:58 am GMT
@Grandpa Charlie

Actually, lots has been going on between the Russian-Chinese tag team and the two Koreas. Westerners wouldn't necessarily have heard much about it, but developments are afoot.

Largely unreported by Western corporate media, what happened in Vladivostok is really ground-breaking. Moscow and Seoul agreed on a trilateral trade platform, crucially involving Pyongyang, to ultimately invest in connectivity between the whole Korean peninsula and the Russian Far East. The rest is at http://www.atimes.com/article/russia-china-plan-north-korea-stability-connectivity/

According to reports, the N. Koreans didn't participate in the meeting, but "aren't against" the idea. Railways, ports, roads, and IT is how one draws the hermit kingdom out from its defensive shell. The US will have a hard time with this idea, so Moon will be under a lot of pressure to abandon these thoughts. Without the N. Korean bugaboo, the US has one less reason to be there, and they need all the reasons they can get. The Japanese have been eyeing this as well. They will not want to be left out.

Do Putin or Lavrov ever sleep?

KenH , October 25, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

The tests themselves are carefully scripted to guarantee success.

And no doubt use that "success" to keep taxpayer money flowing for anti-ICBM defense systems.

Even if the success rate is an honest 50% that means five ICBM's will still reach their targets if say, Kim Jong Un fired ten at the west coast. Sacremento, LA and San Fransicko would go up in mushroom clouds. Governor Moonbeam would be no more, so there's a silver lining to everything.

Carroll Price , October 25, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

If the US could keep their hooked nose out of it, South and North Korea would have resolved their differences long ago.

[Oct 25, 2017] Raqqa Destroyed to Liberate It by

Notable quotes:
"... IS appears to have been shaped by western intelligence in an effort to duplicate its success with the Afghan mujahidin in the mid 1980's that helped defeat the Soviet Union. CIA, Pakistani and Saudi intelligence, and Britain's MI-6 recruited some 100,000 volunteers from across the Muslim world to wage jihad in Afghanistan. I observed this brilliant success first hand from the ranks of the mujahidin. ..."
"... The western powers, led by the US, sought to emulate this success in Syria by unleashing armies of mercenaries, disaffected, unemployed youth, and religious primitives against the independent-minded regime of President Bashar Assad. The plan nearly worked – at least until Russia, Iran, and Lebanon's Hezbollah movement intervened and reversed the tide of battle. ..."
"... The CIA cobbled together two small armies, one of Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and the other of Iraqi mercenaries. Both were directed, armed, equipped and financed by Washington. Shades of the British Empire's native troops under white officers. The Kurds and Iraqi Arabs are now in a major confrontation over the Kirkuk oil-rich region. ..."
"... Raqqa and Mosul were so close to western forces that they were merely a taxi ride away. But it took three years and much token bombing of the desert before a decisive move was made against IS. Once the US-led campaign against Damascus failed, the crazies of IS were no longer of any use so they were marked for death. ..."
"... The Islamic State bogeyman was very useful for the western powers. It justified deeper military involvement in the Mideast, higher arms budgets, scared people into voting for rightwing parties, and gave police more powers. By contrast, these faux Muslims brought misery, fear and shame on the Islamic world. We are very well rid of them. And it's about time. ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

The so-called Islamic State organization was primarily a bogeyman encouraged by the western powers. I've been saying this for the last four years.

I asserted, as a former soldier and war correspondent, that IS would collapse like a wet paper bag if proper western ground forces attacked their strongholds in Syria and Iraq. This week, the western powers and their local satraps finally took action and stormed the last IS stronghold at Raqqa. To no surprise, IS put up almost no resistance and ran for its miserable life.

The much-dreaded IS was never more than a bunch of young hooligans and religious fanatics who were as militarily effective as the medieval Children's Crusade.

In the west, IS was blown up by media and governments into a giant monster that was coming to cut the throats of honest folk in the suburbs.

IS did stage some very bloody and grisly attacks – that's what put it on the map. But none of them posed any mortal threat or really endangered our national security. In fact, the primary target of IS attacks has been Shia Muslims in the Mideast.

Many of the IS attacks in North America and Europe were done by mentally deranged individuals or were initiated by under-cover government provocateurs, such as the 1993 bombing of New York's World Trade Center. IS was notorious for falsely taking credit for attacks it did not commit.

Other 'lone wolf' attacks were made by Mideasterners driven to revenge after watching the destruction by the US and its allies of substantial parts of their region. Think Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan, and the murderous brutality of Egypt's-US backed regime.

IS appears to have been shaped by western intelligence in an effort to duplicate its success with the Afghan mujahidin in the mid 1980's that helped defeat the Soviet Union. CIA, Pakistani and Saudi intelligence, and Britain's MI-6 recruited some 100,000 volunteers from across the Muslim world to wage jihad in Afghanistan. I observed this brilliant success first hand from the ranks of the mujahidin.

The western powers, led by the US, sought to emulate this success in Syria by unleashing armies of mercenaries, disaffected, unemployed youth, and religious primitives against the independent-minded regime of President Bashar Assad. The plan nearly worked – at least until Russia, Iran, and Lebanon's Hezbollah movement intervened and reversed the tide of battle.

The canard promoted in the west that IS was a dire military threat was always a big joke. I said so on one TV program and was promptly banned from the station. I'm also the miscreant who insisted that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction and was consequently blacklisted by a major cable TV news network.

The CIA cobbled together two small armies, one of Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, and the other of Iraqi mercenaries. Both were directed, armed, equipped and financed by Washington. Shades of the British Empire's native troops under white officers. The Kurds and Iraqi Arabs are now in a major confrontation over the Kirkuk oil-rich region.

Raqqa and Mosul were so close to western forces that they were merely a taxi ride away. But it took three years and much token bombing of the desert before a decisive move was made against IS. Once the US-led campaign against Damascus failed, the crazies of IS were no longer of any use so they were marked for death.

Like Fallujah in Iraq and Mosul, Raqqa was flattened by US air power, a stark message to those who would defy the American Raj. The ruins of Raqqa, the IS capital, were occupied by US-led forces. This historic déjà vu recalled the dramatic defeat by British Imperial forces at Omdurman in September 1898 of Sudan's Khalifa and his Islamic dervish army.

The remnants of IS had melted into the Euphrates Valley and the desert. They will now return to being an irksome guerilla group with very little combat power. Anti-western IS supporters still cluster in Europe's urban ghettos and will cause occasional mayhem. A few high-profile attacks on civilians may be expected to show that IS is still alive. But none of this is likely to influence the course of events. IS's rival, al-Qaida, is likely to resurface and lead attacks to drive the west out of the Mideast.

The Islamic State bogeyman was very useful for the western powers. It justified deeper military involvement in the Mideast, higher arms budgets, scared people into voting for rightwing parties, and gave police more powers. By contrast, these faux Muslims brought misery, fear and shame on the Islamic world. We are very well rid of them. And it's about time. (Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)

Virgile , October 22, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT

Whahhabi IS lost because Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi stopped financing them for fear of been exposed by Qatar that has been financing Al Nusra and its moslem brotherhood ideology.
Without sponsors ISIS cannot survive as a military entity.
L.K , October 24, 2017 at 3:38 am GMT
E. Margolis: "The so-called Islamic State organization was primarily a bogeyman encouraged by the western powers. I've been saying this for the last four years."

True. The same for the Nusra front & other mercenary/Salafi groups.

E. Margolis: "I asserted, as a former soldier and war correspondent, that IS would collapse like a wet paper bag if proper western ground forces attacked their strongholds in Syria and Iraq. This week, the western powers and their local satraps finally took action and stormed the last IS stronghold at Raqqa. To no surprise, IS put up almost no resistance and ran for its miserable life."

This part is nonsense. IS was quite stronger than the insurgents the ZUSA faced in post 2003 Iraq, yet it took it several years, tens of thousands of casualties, gazillions of dollars, including the $ to bribe the insurgents and 'win' the war, sort of

In Iraq, IS woulda advanced much further, possibly even taking the capital, if it were not for IRAN.
MoA: " Iran with its Revolutionary Guards jumped in and hastily trained and equipped volunteers into Popular Mobilization Units."

It was the PMUs that pushed IS back, preventing a collapse, not the ZUSA trained Iraqi army nor the kurds. The Peshmerga suffered defeats too, this was even in some major msm outlets
The PMUs helped them as well.
Nor was anything 'easy'. The battle of Mosul lasted for over 9 months & ISIS inflicted heavy casualties.

In Syria, the people who have been doing the heavy lifting against ISIS, Nusra and others have been the Syrian military backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

The US Kurd proxy forces had no easy time in Raqqa, the battle lasted for over 4 months, so ISIS did not run. It would have been much worse if ISIS had not kept diverting troops and heavy weapons to fight the Syrian army in other fronts, notably but not exclusively, at Deir Ezzor, which they were still trying to capture despite their so called capital being under attack.

In other areas , enough evidence has surfaced showing US-Kurd-Isis collusion, as in ISIS allowing US-kurdish proxy forces to take Syrian oil fields while always putting up a fight against the SAA.

ZUSA is trying to steal credit for victory over ISIS when it deserves NONE.

MEexpert , October 24, 2017 at 5:45 am GMT
@L.K

It was Grand Ayatullah Syed Ali AL-Sistani's fatwa that mobilized the volunteer army, (PMU) as you call it. Once they were trained by the Iran's Revolutionary Guards they were a formidable force. Reminds me of the Viet Cong. Just like the VCs these volunteers were fighting for a cause, to defend their country against the foreign invaders. ISIS was fighting for the money. That is why the US wants those volunteers to "leave Iraq" as Tillerson put it. He doesn't know that all those volunteers were mostly Iraqis.

ZUSA is trying to steal credit for victory over ISIS when it deserves NONE.

Couldn't agree more except that the collusion was between US-Kurds-Israel and ISIS, just as it is in Syria.

ZUSA's goal now is to have a Kurdish mini state in Syria after failing to get the same in Iraq. They want a base near Iran to launch any possible future attack on that country.

Ernie , October 25, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT
Great article .. but ISIS became an actual threat to western imperialism when they went off script and declared a caliphate. Their seizing of the Sunni triangle was not trivial.
mr meener , October 25, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT
@whyamihere

you are an idiot and puking out Israeli propaganda. ISIS is israels private army who ONLY attacked talmudias enemies NEVER attacked israel even verbally

[Oct 25, 2017] Origins of the Korean war are quite complex.

Oct 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

Horace J , October 21, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie

Origins of the Korean war are quite complex. There is no simple answer. You may wan to consult the article at this link:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/07/28/who-really-started-the-korean-war/

And consult the links within. A rich and fascinating history awaits. See this for why the North Korean invasion, though alarming in D.C. was considered a god-send by many in Washington:

https://www.shmoop.com/korean-war/politics.html

[Oct 25, 2017] >We gave you uranium, you repaid us by bombing Belgrade Putin slams US over nuclear treaties

Notable quotes:
"... "one of the most effective disarmament efforts in history," ..."
"... "set up permanent workplaces in them adorned with American flags." ..."
"... "From the Russian side unprecedented openness and trust were demonstrated," ..."
"... "What we got in return is well-known – a complete disregard for our national interests, support for separatism in the Caucasus, a circumvention of the UN Security Council, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, and so on. The US must have seen the state of our nuclear weapons and economy and decided to do away with international law ..."
"... "Countries' readiness to talk about getting rid of nuclear weapons is in direct proportion to their advances in other weapons systems," ..."
"... "offer almost as much damage, with far superior accuracy." ..."
"... "We are carefully monitoring what is happening around the world, just as our own country is acquiring these non-nuclear weapons system," ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | www.rt.com

Vladimir Putin has criticized the US for failing to keep their end of the bargain in a host of international disarmament agreements. He says Moscow will not exit any existing treaties, but promised an "instant, symmetrical response" if Washington decides to quit first. 'US decided to do away with international law'

Speaking during a Q & A session at the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi, an annual meeting with international journalists and Russia experts, Putin began by recalling the Megatons to Megawatts program, which ran between 1993 and 2013, and saw Russia downblend enriched uranium from the equivalent of about 20,000 of its nuclear warheads into low-enriched uranium to be used as fuel by US power stations. Putin said that as part of what he called "one of the most effective disarmament efforts in history," US officials made 170 visits to top secret Russian facilities, and "set up permanent workplaces in them adorned with American flags."

"From the Russian side unprecedented openness and trust were demonstrated," said Putin, saying that through the 1990s, about 100 US officials were entitled to carry out surprise inspections of Russian nuclear facilities, as part of Gorbachev and Yeltsin-era agreements.

"What we got in return is well-known – a complete disregard for our national interests, support for separatism in the Caucasus, a circumvention of the UN Security Council, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the invasion of Iraq, and so on. The US must have seen the state of our nuclear weapons and economy and decided to do away with international law ."

... ... ...

"Countries' readiness to talk about getting rid of nuclear weapons is in direct proportion to their advances in other weapons systems," said Putin, noting that both conventional and high-tech weapons delivered with modern targeting systems "offer almost as much damage, with far superior accuracy."

"We are carefully monitoring what is happening around the world, just as our own country is acquiring these non-nuclear weapons system," Putin said.

READ MORE: Putin on Catalonia: EU triggered rise of separatism by supporting Kosovo independence

[Oct 25, 2017] The Situation in Puerto Rico The Roads

Notable quotes:
"... although I haven't heard of private equity pushing Puerto Rican toll roads they would own ..."
"... My dear Lambert, were I a vulture capitalist (which I am not!), I would not put one plugged nickel into infrastructure in PR. Not toll roads, not resorts, not power grid, not rebuilding the pharma factories, nada. Because another Maria will just happen again and trash it all before sufficient ROI, and who's gonna insure it now? Insurance companies believe in climate change, whether they will admit it or not. ..."
"... But I would put a few $$$ into PR debt, and gamble that the US govt will bail *me*and my fellow vultures (not PR) out. Am I cynical enough? ..."
"... This is just incompetence. Load up cargo ships (which are the most enormous transportation devices on the planet) and bring an aircraft carrier or two with cargo helicopters to bring the goods inland: ..."
"... "The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens.". It wasn't always this way. Read http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/thirty-eight-new-england-lumber-storm . ..."
"... When I read what the FDR Administration was able to accomplish amidst the devastation of New England's forests wrought by the hurricane of 1938, it brought tears to my eyes. ..."
"... "The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens." ..."
"... most convenient/fast/cost effective ..."
"... If the U.S. is not an empire, Puerto Rico would not be a protectorate or whatever. If the U.S. is an empire in decline, Puerto Rico being abandoned would be a signal to the world that the U.S. dollar is in serious trouble. ..."
"... What with PR's situation and the apparent U.S. tendency to retreat from simple truths, could a collapse in preference falsification* be in progress? ..."
Oct 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Synoia , October 23, 2017 at 2:21 pm

[4] Too bad we don't have a Jobs Guarantee .

The most important things are guaranteed:

Funding the military, enforcing payment of debts, Profit, promises made to campaign contributors, and of course death and taxes.

Glen , October 23, 2017 at 2:31 pm

Somehow, I think our government's response to PR/Maria will be the new norm unless there are a bunch of billionaire's calling the gov reps they bought to complain. And even they may be frustrated by the current boob in the WH.

HotFlash , October 23, 2017 at 3:06 pm

although I haven't heard of private equity pushing Puerto Rican toll roads they would own

My dear Lambert, were I a vulture capitalist (which I am not!), I would not put one plugged nickel into infrastructure in PR. Not toll roads, not resorts, not power grid, not rebuilding the pharma factories, nada. Because another Maria will just happen again and trash it all before sufficient ROI, and who's gonna insure it now? Insurance companies believe in climate change, whether they will admit it or not.

But I would put a few $$$ into PR debt, and gamble that the US govt will bail *me*and my fellow vultures (not PR) out. Am I cynical enough?

PKMKII , October 23, 2017 at 3:27 pm

The Intercept has a good article on a Puerto Rican recovery for Puerto Ricans and not outside interests.

Code Name D , October 23, 2017 at 3:32 pm

What about the cars? I would imagine that many cars were destroyed, heavely damaged, or simply lost. Getting cars repaired and replaced will also be a major challenge. And this I bet would fall on the backs of the individual owners who will already be strapped for cash to begin with.

HotFlash , October 23, 2017 at 4:23 pm

Pretty well, yup. Insurance companies gonna pay pennies on the dollar, assuming you actually have insurance for stuff like this. Poor people tend to get the very minimum needed to get their vehicle on the road, which is usually liability. If you do have bountiful; coverage for Acts O'God, where are you going to get your car repaired or replaced anyway? This may sound super-cynical, even for me, but looking at those washed out and blown-away roads, getting cargo into remote places in PR is a job for sure-footed critters like mules and horses. Dirt bikes can move people over difficult terrain. So can bicycles , and they have been preparing for such a thing.

cocomaan , October 23, 2017 at 3:41 pm

The crisis in PR compared to the crises in FL and TX really opened my eyes to how dangerous and precarious it must be to live on an island, even one ostensibly connected to a powerful country. The logistical nightmare of getting things there is compounded so much by that sea barrier. At least in TX, you can call in the cajun navy who can drive their boats to the location, then launch.

So now one thing is even clearer to me: the first losers of rising sea levels and climate change disasters will be islanders. Places like the Maldives and the Leewards will have a really hard time in the next few decades.

a different chris , October 23, 2017 at 5:21 pm

>is compounded so much by that sea barrier.

??? The sea is how people got things everywhere long, long before the first steam engine (and I'm talking those Roman toy ones) was even conceived?

This is just incompetence. Load up cargo ships (which are the most enormous transportation devices on the planet) and bring an aircraft carrier or two with cargo helicopters to bring the goods inland:

"The CH-53E heavylift transport helicopter can carry cargo with a maximum weight of 13.6 t internally or 14.5 t externally."

But yes, agree on the precarity of island life.

cocomaan , October 23, 2017 at 6:39 pm

I get what both of you are saying vis a vis sea travel, Jones Act and all, but even in the best of all possible human organizations, it's still a major factor in any relief effort. It's just not nearly as easy to get people from point A to point B by boat. If your car breaks down, you're stranded, if your boat breaks down, you could easily die.

rd , October 23, 2017 at 6:01 pm

Much of the sea barrier is man-made, namely the Jones Act. As a result, it is more expensive for Puerto Rico to get supplies form the US than from non-American sources because of shipping costs.

Joel , October 23, 2017 at 11:50 pm

Could NC do a post on the Jones Act?

Do we allow foreign-flagged vessels to transport goods between, say, California and Hawaii? What about Guam and the US Virgin Islands?

Thor's Hammer , October 24, 2017 at 5:27 pm

We do live on a global island. Soot from Chinese coal burning lands on the few remaining glaciers in Glacier National Park and hastens their demise. Methane from melting permafrost in the Northwest Territories acts as a blanket to increase solar heating of the ocean surface. Increased ocean temperatures help hurricanes to explode from Category 1 to 5 almost overnight and stall over Houston as a Biblical deluge.

Three well-placed air-burst EMP nuclear bombs can disable communication and transport over most of the country. And a week without water and food being transported into New York would turn it into San Juan with no rescue boats on the horizon and frozen corpses piling up in the alleys in mid-winter.

We all live on an island -- one held together by a thin spider web of technology and resting upon an biosphere that we are waging war against with our insatiable imperative of growth.

Mark K , October 23, 2017 at 3:46 pm

"The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens.". It wasn't always this way. Read http://northernwoodlands.org/articles/article/thirty-eight-new-england-lumber-storm .

When I read what the FDR Administration was able to accomplish amidst the devastation of New England's forests wrought by the hurricane of 1938, it brought tears to my eyes.

HotFlash , October 23, 2017 at 4:30 pm

"The political class seems to have lost the ability to mobilize on behalf of its citizens."

My momma used to say, "Where there's a will, there's a way." I have observed that if there's 'no way', it's because there is no will. I think this is the case in PR, as it was in NOLA, and as it seems to be in Houston (except for the *nice* neighbourhoods, of course). Cali fire victims, prepare to be On Your Own(tm).

JohnS , October 23, 2017 at 4:05 pm

Great job, Lambert .insight and solid research into a topic overlooked by the MSM and the politicals .

If your interest and time permits, I would love a report on what FEMA will/has provided for LONG TERM HOUSING for PR, Northern CA, and the areas hit hard by hurricanes on the USA mainland ..

I have not been able to locate much on this topic

Last I heard was that FEMA had Zero trailers on hand and had let out a contract to some company(s) to build new trailers.

In the interim, there was a report that FEMA would be distributing TENTS to some people in need of shelter. I believe this article was a report from Florida after the fist Hurricane hit there.

A look at Puerto Rico shows that there at lots of homes without roofs ..and they are probably not accessible for a trailer delivery up in the hills. In Santa Rosa, CA, there is very little affordable and available housing close to Santa Rosa. The rains will arrive and then the Mud will Turn the Sand into YUCK and MUCK.

I remember, after Katrina and her friends beat up New Orleans, a lot of folks were flown away from New Orleans (Barbara Bush opined it was probably a good deal for a lot of 'em) and many did not return. Others were put in FEMA trailers. (TREME on HBO covered the KATRINA aftermath as only David Simon can!)

Anyone else, who can provide me with links or information, is most welcome to respond.

Happy Trails,

JohnS

Bruce , October 24, 2017 at 1:16 pm

FEMA's mission is emergency/first response mobilization. It is not their job or within its functionality or budget to provide long-term rebuilding solutions. That falls on the island's government, with congressional financial assistance if congress allocates money for it.

Mel , October 23, 2017 at 4:08 pm

The Army Corps of Engineers are one thing, the other things are the Combat Engineers, organized perhaps as regiments and assigned to combat brigades. These are the people who do roads, airfields, etc., and the ones you would have wanted on the spot in Puerto Rico from maybe day two.

a different chris , October 23, 2017 at 5:29 pm

I strongly believe the problem is the deployment to the Middle East. Bullies strongly believe they must never, ever show weakness. So they believe that they can't pull Combat Engineers out of Whateveristan without looking weak.

So they don't – and they bless their lucky stars that Puerto Rico isn't a state and Puerto Ricans aren't considered Americans by most Americans. However – how many of those deployed to the ME are from Puerto Rico, and how are they reacting? I gotta wonder.

rd , October 23, 2017 at 6:06 pm

USGS has started mapping the landslide impacts:

https://landslides.usgs.gov/research/featured/2017-maria-pr/

http://blogs.agu.org/landslideblog/2017/10/05/hurricane-maria-1/

To get a road open, you need to clear the trees and debris, repair bridges, and repair landslides. In rugged terrain, this is a serious effort as just one break makes the road unusable for deliveries beyond the break.

SerenityNow , October 23, 2017 at 7:43 pm

The Bloomberg piece explains:

Puerto Rico has one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world, thanks to urban sprawl and the government's failure to build public transportation that commuters might actually use . Puerto Ricans are isolated without cars About 931,000 Puerto Ricans drive or carpool to work out of 3.4 million total residents, according to U.S. Census data. [T]he island has the fifth-highest number of vehicles per capita in the world.

The only thing I would like to mention is that people don't drive because there soley because there is no public transportation, they drive because it is the most convenient/fast/cost effective mode of travel available. You could build all the lightrail in the world, but if it wasn't more convenient/cheaper/cost effective than driving, people wouldn't take it. Disincentives for driving are much more powerful than incentives for transit.

How much road do they have per inhabitant there? Maybe disasters like these could be a wakeup call for how we lay out our development and where we spend our infrastructure dollars? Unfortunately probably not.

Vatch , October 23, 2017 at 9:28 pm

I haven't read the book or seen the movie, so maybe my comment is off base, but I'll proceed anyway. This article makes me think of the post-apocalyptic drama "The Road", by Cormac McCarthy.

AbateMagicThinking but Not money , October 23, 2017 at 11:40 pm

If the U.S. is not an empire, Puerto Rico would not be a protectorate or whatever. If the U.S. is an empire in decline, Puerto Rico being abandoned would be a signal to the world that the U.S. dollar is in serious trouble.

What with PR's situation and the apparent U.S. tendency to retreat from simple truths, could a collapse in preference falsification* be in progress?

From my side of the world, the U.S. is becoming more than ever a busted flush of apparent and unsustainable inconsistencies which might take us all down with it.

Here's hoping that there is a bounty of brilliant minds and and excellent administrators in the U.S. military leadership who are ready to step up.

Pip Pip!

*see Timur Kuran's 1995 work.

George Phillies , October 24, 2017 at 12:23 am

By report Puerto Rico is making a deal with a Washington (state) power company on power line repair, the issues involved in running power lines through PR and through inland Washington being rather similar. the last Saffir 3, 4, or 5 hurricanes ot hit the island did so in 1928 and 1932, or so I have read, so on one hand there is plenty of time to get a return on investment, and on the other hand, there was no rationale for building power lines that could survive a force 4 or 5 hurricane.

Felix_47 , October 24, 2017 at 1:18 am

Puerto Rico is third world lite. They could rebuild and become a model for the third world. There are only 3 million people on the island. They dont have to pay Fed income tax. It could be a great retirement location for elderly whites. It just requires investment. Currently the single largest employer is the US govt. They need leadership from within.

Vatch , October 24, 2017 at 10:28 am

Here's what the IRS says about Puerto Rico and income taxes (quoted from Wikipedia ):

In general, United States citizens and resident aliens who are bona fide residents of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, which for most individuals is January 1 to December 31, are only required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if they have income sources outside of Puerto Rico or if they are employees of the U.S. government. Bona fide residents of Puerto Rico generally do not report income received from sources within Puerto Rico on their U.S. income tax return.

So they pay income tax, but only on income from outside Puerto Rico. Also from Wikipedia:

In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury.[10] Residents of Puerto Rico pay into Social Security, and are thus eligible for Social Security benefits upon retirement. However, they are excluded from the Supplemental Security Income.

The federal taxes paid by Puerto Rico residents include import/export taxes,[11] federal commodity taxes,[12] and others. Residents also pay federal payroll taxes, such as Social Security[13] and Medicare taxes.[14]

[Oct 25, 2017] Shocking the Shock Doctrine What Recovery in Puerto Rico Could Look Like

Oct 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

If neoliberalism is the belief that the proper role of government is to enrich the rich -- in Democratic circles they call it "wealth creation" to hide the recipients; Republicans are much more blatant -- then the " shock doctrine " is its action plan.

Click the link above for more information (or read the book ), but in essence the idea is to use any form of disaster, whether earthquake or economic/political crisis, to remake a society in the neoliberal image. To reconstruct the destroyed world, in other words, to the liking of holders of great wealth -- by privatizing everything of value held by the public (think water rights, public roads); by forcing austerity on cash-strapped governments as the price for "aid" (think loans, not grants, repaid by unwritten social insurance checks); by putting "managers," or simply loan officers, in charge of democratic decision-making.

In simple, a "shock doctrine" solution always takes this form: "Yes, we'll help you, but we now own your farm and what it produces. Also, your family must work on it for the next 50 years."

This is what happened in Chile after Pinochet and his coup murdered the democratically elected socialist Salvador Allende and took over the government. It's what's happening to Greece, victim of collusion between greedy international bankers and the corrupt Greek politicians they cultivated. And it's what happened in the U.S. during the 2008 bailout of bankers, by which government money was sent in buckets to companies like AIG so they could pay their debts in full to companies like Goldman Sachs. While millions of mortgaged homeowners crashed and burned to the ground.

The populist reaction to neoliberal "reform" is usually social revolt, often or usually ineffective, since creditors are, almost by definition, people with money, and people with money, almost by definition, control most governments. In Greece, the revolt sparked the election of an (ineffective) "socialist" government -- plus the rise of the Greek neo-Nazi party, Golden Dawn. In the U.S. the revolt still still sparks universal (and ineffective) hatred of the 2008 bank bailout -- plus the rise of the failed Sanders candidacy and the successful Trump presidency.

The form this same revolt will take in 2018 and 2020 is still to be determined.

The Shock Doctrine and Puerto Rico

The "shock doctrine" -- the stripping of wealth from the devastated by the already-way-too-wealthy -- is now being applied to Puerto Rico. Even before the hurricanes hit it, Puerto Rico was a second-class citizen relative to states of the U.S., even among its non-state territories. In contrast to Puerto Rico, for example, the American Virgin Islands were instantly much better treated when it came to relief from the Jones Act , a sign of already-established prejudice.

The reason should be obvious. In Puerto Rico , English is the primary language of less than 10% of the people, while Spanish is the dominant language of the school system and daily life. In the American Virgin Islands , English is the dominant language, and Spanish is spoken by less than 20% of the population. The fact that two-thirds of the population of the U.S. Virgin Islands is black seems to be lost on most Americans, a fact that likely benefits those inhabitants greatly in times like these.

Thus, to most Americans the citizens of Puerto Rico are conveniently (for neoliberals) easy to paint as "them," the undeserving, which changes what atrocities can be committed in the name of "aid" -- much like it did after Hurricane Katrina devastated "them"-inhabited New Orleans.

Synoia , October 24, 2017 at 6:41 am

Puerto Rico is not Sovereign. Are its debts valid? Could they be repudiated?

Huey Long , October 24, 2017 at 8:09 am

Congress passed a law back in the 80's prohibiting PR from defaulting. Repudiation of PR debt would entail getting our current congress and prez to pass legislation to repudiate it, so in other words divine intervention ;-).

rd , October 24, 2017 at 10:56 am

The one place in the US that did get hammered by NAFTA was Puerto Rico. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/03/us/trade-pact-threatens-puerto-rico-s-economic-rise.html?pagewanted=all

When NAFTA was passed, Congress also stripped companies of tax benefits for having operations in Puerto Rico. In addition, the Jones Act makes shipping to and from Puerto Rico more expensive than shipping to and from Mexico. Oddly enough, many companies moved operations from Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico has been in recession/depression ever since.

Norb , October 24, 2017 at 9:28 am

I think Puerto Rico will be interesting to watch to see if anti neoliberal sentiment can take hold and survive. In one sense, every individual abandoned or ensnared in debt is in the same boat. Once put in a situation of debt servitude, the only recourse to extricate oneself is to become self reliant and attempt to build supporting networks. The trouble is, once those networks start to form, the traditional game plan is to bring in force and break them up.

If strong, self-supporting communities can form in PR, it will provide inspiration for communities on the mainland.

It will be also interesting to see if self-funded initiatives can make headway against the banking and financial interests.

This situation in PR is important in that it can change the focus of community building away form personal self-interest as now exists in America, and towards the common good, as it should be. The same is happening all across the mainland in economically devastated communities, but successfully blacked out in the media.

This truly is a long term endeavor, but tragically, climate change will increase the opportunities for proper action. The proper long term investment is in people and life skills. Lets roll up our sleeves.

flora , October 24, 2017 at 10:43 am

an aside:
" Once put in a situation of debt servitude, the only recourse to extricate oneself is to become self reliant and attempt to build supporting networks. "

US people born 1880 – 1900 were adults/young adults with families when the Great Depression hit. Their children, sometimes referred to as The Greatest Generation, were children or teens during the depression and saw how debt destroyed families. When those children grew up they were debt averse. The Depression/Greatest Gen's children, the Baby Boomers, would often joke their parents, who were Depression kids, could squeeze a nickel until it screamed. Boomers, having no memory of systemic economic bad times, took on large debts for school and housing on the theory their income would always increase as it had for their parents. Now the Boomers children are facing a wholly different economy, more like the Great Depression than the Booming 50's and 60's.

I expect today's younger generation will become debt averse. That would hurt the FIRE sector's reliance on ever increasing debt payment rents. Reducing the FIRE sectors influence would be good for both the Main Street economy and individuals, imo.

diptherio , October 24, 2017 at 11:52 am

It will be also interesting to see if self-funded initiatives can make headway against the banking and financial interests.

See my comment below. Puerto Rico already has a thriving, self-funded co-op movement, so I think they've got a better chance than most.

Jim Haygood , October 24, 2017 at 9:57 am

"What's killing the modern world is the world-wide overhang of personal debt -- not government deficits, which are entirely different."

This is an odd claim to make in an article about Puerto Rico, whose troubled debt is entirely governmental. Pie chart:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_government-debt_crisis#/media/File:Distribution-puerto-rico-outstanding-debt.png

In turn, Puerto Rico's govt debt crisis led to the imposition of a crushing 11.5% sales tax, making retail prices already jacked up by the Jones Act even more unaffordable.

Puerto Rico's recovery will depend almost entirely on how much of a haircut is imposed on bondholders versus restructuring and extending in the Greek fashion, which would doom PR forevahhhh.

Thor's Hammer , October 24, 2017 at 10:22 am

It would be interesting to compare the pace of recovery in Cuba with that of Puerto Rico. Both were hit by category 5 hurricanes within days of each other. In the case of Cuba, Havana was every much at the center of the bulls eye as San Juan Puerto Rico if I am correct. But I've not been able to uncover a single scrap of reporting that draws the comparison. Perhaps it would be embarrassing to the defenders of "free market" capitalism and social organization?

But hurricanes are last month's news. We've moved on to the startling revelations that fat pig movie directors are pussy grabbers just like our President.

Rakesh , October 24, 2017 at 12:18 pm

http://www.frontline.in/world-affairs/a-tale-of-two-islands/article9892265.ece

GlobalMisanthrope , October 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm

Thank you posting this!

I have always believed that one of the primary aims of the Cuba travel ban was to keep us Puerto Ricans from traveling there to see what isolation and poverty -- the constant threats leveled at those who support PR independence -- could look like.

Thor's Hammer , October 24, 2017 at 6:28 pm

Thanks for posting this journalism from an Indian source. While it may be accurate, the writing style reads like it was copied straight from the Ideologe's Bible. So I'll file it along most commentary from outlets like the Washington Post– assume it is fraudulent propaganda until proven otherwise.

Jeremy Grimm , October 24, 2017 at 11:48 am

It's very nice to talk about how to rebuild Puerto Rico but how long will it be before Puerto Rico is hit by another major hurricane? And while we're thinking of Puerto Rico what about Houston, and Florida? What about the North Carolina sea coast -- or New Jersey -- NYC? I don't expect anything reasonable will be done in rebuilding any of these places or beginning an orderly retreat to higher ground.

Some parts of these areas may remain habitable -- at least long enough to make it worthwhile to build infrastructure but I believe it will be a mistake to simply "rebuild". Replacement infrastructure should be built to better withstand the future storms and rising seas. I am aware that not "rebuilding" is neither socially nor politically viable. It just seems a shame to waste what time and resources remain.

diptherio , October 24, 2017 at 11:50 am

I was fortunate enough to get to meet a number of Puerto Rican cooperators at this year's Assoc. of Cooperative Educators Institute in Denver. Puerto Rico has a very strong cooperative sector/movement. Co-ops in Puerto Rico don't pay tax to the gov't. Instead, each co-op provides (iirc) 2% of net revenues to Liga de Cooperativas de Puerto Rico , the apex co-op organization for the island. This provides an internally funded support mechanism for co-ops and has helped create a thriving co-op ecosystem.

So I've got some optimism that my Puerto Rican friends will be able to replace at least some of the failed systems that have been afflicting them with cooperative, sustainable, alternative solutions.

Watt4Bob , October 24, 2017 at 11:58 am

Things are moving fast, from MSN ;

Puerto Rico has agreed to pay a reported $300 million for the restoration of its power grid to a tiny utility company which is primarily financed by a private equity firm founded and run by a man who contributed large sums of money to President Trump, an investigation conducted by The Daily Beast has found.

Whitefish Energy Holdings, which had a reported staff of only two full-time employees when Hurricane Maria touched down, appears ill-equipped to handle the daunting task of restoring electricity to Puerto Rico's over 3 million residents.

As usual, donate a few thousand, reap millions.

FEC data compiled by The Daily Beast shows that Colonnetta contributed $20,000 to the "Trump Victory" PAC during the general election, $27,000 to Trump's primary election campaign (then the maximum amount permitted), $27,000 to Trump's general election campaign (also the maximum), and a total of $30,700 to the Republican National Committee in 2016 alone.

Colonnetta's wife, Kimberly, is no stranger to Republican politics either; shortly after Trump's victory she gave $33,400 to the Republican National Committee, the maximum contribution permitted for party committees in 2016.

Bears repeating, we're not only 'ruled' by whores, we're ruled by cheap whores.

Of course I make apologies to all ladies of negotiable affection.

[Oct 24, 2017] Western competitors are doing their best to disrupt the Russia-Slovakia deal on Tigr supplies in order to sell Slovaks their own military equipment

Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 21, 2017 at 10:26 am

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201710211058428894-russia-slovakia-talks-tigr-vehicle/

He{Suvorov, Russian press secretary) pointed out that when picking the right car for their country's Interior Ministry, Slovaks are "reasonably guided by its characteristics and advantages over other analogues in the market."

"And it turns out that the Russian-made Tigr is safer, more reliable and cheaper than American, German, French and Swiss armored cars," he said.

Suvorov added that Western competitors are doing their best to disrupt the Russia-Slovakia deal on Tigr supplies in order to sell Slovaks their own military equipment. They refer to various arguments, including "the factor of [anti-Russian] sanctions," according to Suvorov.

A major purpose of the sanctions appears to be an effort to protect Western markets and not just "punishment" of Russia. With the availability of highly competitive Russian civil aircraft, it would be easy to surmise that the sanctions have an overt commercial goal.

kirill , October 22, 2017 at 6:28 am
The west is all about free trade as long as they have the advantage. When faced with a serious competitor making superior products it throws a tantrum and puts up trade barriers. I guess the WTO does nothing to protect Russia's interests.
marknesop , October 22, 2017 at 11:27 am
The west is great with free trade so long as it gets to make the rules but not follow them. Trump's current hard line at the NAFTA talks is exemplary – he wants to increase American content in everything and create more opportunity for American business without any quid pro quo whatever. Really he figures he is in a no-lose situation; he is opposed to NAFTA anyway, as a businessman, and so he figures he will drive such a hard bargain that if Mexico and Canada walk away in disgust, he got what he wanted. If they capitulate, there will still be NAFTA but the deck will be so stacked in America's favour that the other two parties will basically just be draining their resources into the USA.

[Oct 24, 2017] Hillary Clinton Lied, Paid For Trump Dossier

Is this CIA against Hillary Clinton. Did she cross some red line ? Why this revelation happened now? What changed in deep state to allow such a revelation to surface.
Notable quotes:
"... Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election ..."
"... Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices. ..."
"... While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier. ..."
"... Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records. ..."
"... The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign jointly financed the creation of the infamous "Trump dossier," which helped inspire the launch of the floundering investigations into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians.

Though neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign worked directly with former British spy Christopher Steele as he compiled the document, the fact that Democrats funded the dossier – which includes information primarily gleaned from sources in Russia – ironically suggests the Democrats indirectly leveraged Russian sources to try and spread information of dubious veracity about a political opponent to try and sway an election.

Sound familiar?

Even though the scandalous accusations contained within the dossier weren't made public until after the vote, presumably waiting to see what foot the shoe would end up on, this would've provided serious grist for the collusion narrative, which we imagine would've been stretched to include the entire Republican establishment as accomplices.

While it's impossible to determine exactly how much money was spent on the dossier, the Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie – the law firm of Clinton superattorney Marc Elias - $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since Nov. 2015. Some of that money was presumably used to pay for the dossier.

Fusion GPS's work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries when an unidentified GOP donor reportedly hired the firm to dig into Trump's background. The Republicans who were involved in the early stages of Fusion's efforts have not yet been identified. Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump's Russia ties, but quickly realized that those relationships would be a fruitful place to start, WaPo reported.

Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier, which was primarily compiled in Moscow, is a compilation of reports Steele prepared for Fusion. Allegations contained in the dossier included claims the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and the Kremlin was engaged in an active effort to assist his campaign for president.

Fusion turned over Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, and it's unclear how much of it he shared with the campaign.

The revelation about who funded the dossier comes just days after Trump tweeted that the FBI and DOJ should publicly reveal who hired Fusion GPS. And lo and behold, that information has now been made public.

Officials behind the now discredited "Dossier" plead the Fifth. Justice Department and/or FBI should immediately release who paid for it.

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 21, 2017

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Dunes has tried to compel Fusion's founders to disclose who paid for the dossier, but all three of them pled the fifth during public testimony last week. Nunes has also tried subpoenaing the firm's bank records.

The most salacious accusations contained in the dossier have not been verified, and may never be. Still, after the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports. Officials also decided to withhold information from the dossier in an intelligence community report published in January alleging that Russian entities had tried to sway the US election on behalf of the Russian government.

Of course, we still don't know who leaked the dossier to Buzzfeed and CNN back in January. John McCain – one of the primary suspects – has repeatedly denied it, and Fusion GPS has said in court documents that it didn't share the document with Buzzfeed. However, we do known that in early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump.

It therefore strongly suggests that it was the FBI that was instrumental in spreading the dossier to the media, most of which was too embarrassed to publish it until Buzzfeed came along and did it... for the clicks.

So to summarize:

  • Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid to uncover and package dirt, whether factual or not, on Trump which eventually found its way in the Trump dossier
  • In doing so, the Clintons and the DNC were effectively collaborating with "deep" sources, both among the UK spy apparatus and inside Russia
  • Once Trump won, the FBI was instrumental in "leaking" the dossier to the mainstream media and select still unknown recipients (the same way Comey "leaked" his personal notebooks just a few months later, following his termination, to launch a probe of Trump).
  • The former head of the FBI who was supposed to probe Clinton's State Department - and the Clinton Foundation - for a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear business, is now investigating Trump for Russia collusion instead
  • But wait, it gets better: as Ken Vogel, formerly the chief investigative reporter at Politico and currently at the NY Times just reported, " When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong."

    When I tried to report this story, Clinton campaign lawyer @marceelias pushed back vigorously, saying "You (or your sources) are wrong." https://t.co/B5BZwoaNhI

    -- Kenneth P. Vogel (@kenvogel) October 24, 2017

    Another NYT reporter, Maggie Haberman, confirmed as much saying " Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year ", and by folks she ultimately means Hillary Clinton herself.

    Folks involved in funding this lied about it, and with sanctimony, for a year https://t.co/vXKRV1wRJc

    -- Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 24, 2017

    Which in light of the latest news suggests that Clinton was lying, which is not surprising, especially when considering the recent "revelations" that the Clintons may themselves have been involved in collusion with Russia over the infamous uranium deal.

    Which brings us to the questionable role played by the FBI in all of this, and ultimately, the role still being played by Robert Mueller. Here is the WSJ ,

    Let's give plausible accounts of the known facts, then explain why demands that Robert Mueller recuse himself from the Russia investigation may not be the fanciful partisan grandstanding you imagine.

    Here's a story consistent with what has been reported in the press -- how reliably reported is uncertain. Democratic political opponents of Donald Trump financed a British former spook who spread money among contacts in Russia, who in turn over drinks solicited stories from their supposedly "connected" sources in Moscow. If these people were really connected in any meaningful sense, then they made sure the stories they spun were consistent with the interests of the regime, if not actually scripted by the regime. The resulting Trump dossier then became a factor in Obama administration decisions to launch an FBI counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign , and after the election to trumpet suspicions of Trump collusion with Russia.

    We know of a second, possibly even more consequential way the FBI was effectively a vehicle for Russian meddling in U.S. politics. Authoritative news reports say FBI chief James Comey's intervention in the Hillary Clinton email matter was prompted by a Russian intelligence document that his colleagues suspected was a Russian plant.

    OK, Mr. Mueller was a former close colleague and leader but no longer part of the FBI when these events occurred. This may or may not make him a questionable person to lead a Russia-meddling investigation in which the FBI's own actions are necessarily a concern. But now we come to the Rosatom disclosures last week in The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress.

    Here's another story as plausible as we can make it based on credible reporting. After the Cold War, in its own interest, the U.S. wanted to build bridges to the Russian nuclear establishment. The Putin government, for national or commercial purposes, agreed and sought to expand its nuclear business in the U.S.

    Ah yes, the Clinton's own Russia collusion narrative which recently emerged to the surface and which as of today is being investigated by the House :

    The purchase and consolidation of certain assets were facilitated by Canadian entrepreneurs who gave large sums to the Clinton Foundation, and perhaps arranged a Bill Clinton speech in Moscow for $500,000. A key transaction had to be approved by Hillary Clinton's State Department.

    Now we learn that, before and during these transactions, the FBI had uncovered a bribery and kickback scheme involving Russia's U.S. nuclear business, and also received reports of Russian officials seeking to curry favor through donations to the Clinton Foundation

    This criminal activity was apparently not disclosed to agencies vetting the 2010 transfer of U.S. commercial nuclear assets to Russia . The FBI made no move to break up the scheme until long after the transaction closed. Only five years later, the Justice Department, in 2015, disclosed a plea deal with the Russian perpetrator so quietly that its significance was missed until The Hill reported on the FBI investigation last week.

    As the WSJ correctly notes, " for anyone who cares to look, the real problem here is that the FBI itself is so thoroughly implicated in the Russia meddling story ."

    Which then shifts the focus to the person who was, and again is, in charge of it all: former FBI director, and current special prosecutor Robert Mueller:

    The agency, when Mr. Mueller headed it, soft-pedaled an investigation highly embarrassing to Mrs. Clinton as well as the Obama Russia reset policy . More recently, if just one of two things is true -- Russia sponsored the Trump Dossier, or Russian fake intelligence prompted Mr. Comey's email intervention -- then Russian operations, via their impact on the FBI, influenced and continue to influence our politics in a way far more consequential than any Facebook ad, the preoccupation of John McCain, who apparently cannot behold a mountain if there's a molehill anywhere nearby.

    Which means that Mr. Mueller has the means, motive and opportunity to obfuscate and distract from matters embarrassing to the FBI, while pleasing a large part of the political spectrum. He need only confine his focus to the flimsy, disingenuous but popular (with the media) accusation that the shambolic Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin.

    Mr. Mueller's tenure may not have bridged the two investigations, but James Comey's, Rod Rosenstein's , Andrew Weissmann's , and Andrew McCabe's did. Mr. Rosenstein appointed Mr. Mueller as special counsel. Mr. Weissmann now serves on Mr. Mueller's team. Mr. McCabe remains deputy FBI director. All were involved in the nuclear racketeering matter and the Russia meddling matter.

    The punchline: it's not the Clintons that should be looked at, at least not at first - their time will come. It's the FBI:

    By any normal evidentiary, probative or journalistic measure, the big story here is the FBI -- its politicized handling of Russian matters, and not competently so. To put it bluntly, whatever its hip-pocket rationales along the way, the FBI would not have so much to cover up now if it had not helped give us Mrs. Clinton as Democratic nominee and then, in all likelihood, inadvertently helped Mr. Trump to the presidency

    We eagerly look forward to Trump's furious tweetstorm once he learns of all of this... and how long before he fires Mueller, in this case with cause.

[Oct 24, 2017] Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Another day, another scandal in Washington, DC. Simultaneous opening of inquires that are designed to hurt Hillary and Bill were complete surprise.
Why now? There was some change on deep state level that is now reflected in this news. Suddenly Uranium 1 scandal comes into the forfront. And along with Steele dossier it is damaging to Clinton. Were Clintons "Weinsteinalized"? Should be expect "50 women" phenomena to be replayed.
There is some storm hitting the US "deep state". The reasons for this storm remains hidden. But attempt of Clintons to preserve their leadership in Democratic Party after Hillary fiasco in 2016 now are again became questionable.>
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. ..."
"... After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier - The Washington Post The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said.

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.

After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day.

Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the dossier on President Trump's alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria Jones/AP)

Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS's role.

[Oct 24, 2017] Republican-led House committees to investigate Clintons emails again by Associated Press

Why they decided to resume investigation now ? What new facts were uncovered? What hidden storm hit "deep state" so the for stability they need to sacrifice Hillary Clinton
How this correlates with the discovery that DNC paid for Steele dossier? Judging from John Sipher a is a former member of the CIA's Senior Intelligence Service attempt to defend Steele dossier in his Slate article (Sept, 2017), just a month before current revelations. As retied CIA agents usually avoid public spotlight it might well be that he was "adviced" to write his evaluation and, if this is the case, then CIA and may be personally Brennan were also involved in "Steele dossier" fiasco.
Notable quotes:
"... The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general. ..."
"... Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

The Republican leaders of the House judiciary and oversight panels said in a statement they were opening investigations into the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation and the decision not to prosecute her – the subject of hours-long congressional hearings last year.

The Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee, Devin Nunes, also announced a separate investigation into a uranium deal brokered during Barack Obama's tenure as president.

The House judiciary committee chairman, Robert Goodlatte of Virginia, and the oversight committee chairman, Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said the inquiry would be aimed at the FBI and its decisions in the Clinton investigation . The ousted FBI director James Comey and the former attorney general Loretta Lynch spoke at length to Congress about that investigation last year, and it is the subject of a continuing review by the justice department's inspector general.

The two panels have declined to investigate Russia's interference in the 2016 elections, leaving those inquiries to Senate committees and the House intelligence committee.

Nunes has separately signed off on subpoenas that sought the banking records of Fusion GPS, the political research company behind a dossier of allegations about Trump's connections to Russia. A lawyer for the company said in a statement Tuesday the subpoena was "overly broad" and without any legitimate purposes.

[Oct 24, 2017] Pompeo ominously stated that the CIA is "going to become a much more vicious agency".

Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 22, 2017 at 8:18 am

Speaking of Pompeo:

http://theduran.com/mike-pompeos-latest-rant-shows-cia-far-unreasonable-dprk/

In a recent statement, Pompeo talked brazenly about assassinating Kim Jong-un. The CIA director stated,

"With respect to if Kim Jong-un should vanish, given the history of the CIA, I'm just not going to talk about it.
Someone might think there was a coincidence. 'You know, there was an accident.' It's just not fruitful".

Pompeo then ominously stated that the CIA is "going to become a much more vicious agency".

Reasons for the efforts to regime-change NK may include preventing the eventual integration of NK's economy with China and Russia. Once such an integration is achieved SK would have little choice but to join in and be part of the Eurasian one belt-one road economy. Japan would be left twisting in the wind unless it could overcome its US masters and also set aside its racial prejudices. As for Australia, who cares (no disrespect to Jen)?

[Oct 24, 2017] I found the following article to be reasonable and consistent with my admittedly imperfect understanding of pre-WW II Russian/Soviet history

Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 22, 2017 at 7:25 pm

I found the following article to be reasonable and consistent with my admittedly imperfect understanding of pre-WW II Russian/Soviet history. The consistency for me was was in finding a balance with the typically hyper-exaggerated claims of Western historians (evident to this day) and the demonstrated behavior of Slavic Orthodox who tend be be far less excessive than the West when it comes to war and genocide.

Regarding Jews in Russia, the article maintains that many were associated with betrayal of Russia and many fought valiantly against the Western invaders so its a mixed bag in that regard.

http://russia-insider.com/en/revisionist-look-soviet-history-1930-1955/ri21209

The article suggests that the Soviet Union concluded that it had 10 years to prepare for the Western invasion that was meant to murder them all. They had to collectivize to release labor for rapid industrialization and had to eliminate the anti-Russian 5th column. Only the foregoing allowed the Soviet Union to survive and then defeat the Western invasion. It seems quite plausible.

The article also debunks (sorry) claims of multi-million deaths from the famine and more from the purges although this seems to still be a point of contention even among Russian historians not slavishly following the Western party line.

I do recall that Gorbechev himself caused ire in the West when he stated that the numbers killed by the purges were in the tens of thousands and not millions.

I think that it is time for Russia to write its own history without the slightest regard of what the West will think. That holds even more so for Serbia.

[Oct 24, 2017] US and Western propaganda against Russia is inconsistent and contradictory

Notable quotes:
"... Russia cannot be a poor, weak, regional power at best, that doesn't make anything, a gas station masquerading as a country and simultaneously pose an existential threat to the United States, and has the wherewithal and guile to decide US presidential elections. ..."
"... US and Western propaganda fails miserably, because it is so inconsistent and anyone with a modicum basic knowledge of history and has an attention span longer than that of a goldfish is immune to it. ..."
Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , October 24, 2017 at 4:38 pm

The US and their European Atlanticist minions are trapped by their own propaganda and ideological prejudices.

Russia cannot be a poor, weak, regional power at best, that doesn't make anything, a gas station masquerading as a country and simultaneously pose an existential threat to the United States, and has the wherewithal and guile to decide US presidential elections.

US and Western propaganda is so inconsistent and contradictory. However, Americans and their European Atlanticist minions are so myopic – they don't notice it!

It's hilarious, US and Western propaganda fails miserably, because it is so inconsistent and anyone with a modicum basic knowledge of history and has an attention span longer than that of a goldfish is immune to it.

[Oct 24, 2017] US authorities have revoked financier William Browder's visa

Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , October 22, 2017 at 9:12 pm

Власти США аннулировали визу финансиста Уильяма Браудера

23.10.2017, 06:46
US authorities have revoked financier William Browder's visa

Hear the little piggies squeal on Twitter:

marknesop , October 23, 2017 at 10:55 am
I loved the first comment on the Twitter feed: "They're not even trying to hide their involvement with Russia. They don't care if we know. Why is that?" Yes indeed; the USA which is digging in its heels to stop Europe from sliding away from it, while maintaining unified western sanctions against Russia for something it didn't do and threatening to fine Europe for violating the policy, is in bed with Putin. You just have to shake your head in amazement. It's as if Russia never had a better best friend than the USA.
marknesop , October 23, 2017 at 11:05 am
Hilariously hilarious. All that's missing is a Tweet from Bana: "Dear World, it's better to start #World War Three than let Putin have his way".
Warren , October 23, 2017 at 11:13 am
Mouthy and greedy idiot shouldn't have renounced his US citizenship! lol
Jen , October 23, 2017 at 2:41 pm
Seen on Michael McFaul's Twitter feed some way down:

Julia Ioffe‏
– It could be because Browder rescinded US citizenship for tax reasons,

saskydisc , October 23, 2017 at 4:09 pm
CBC , BBC, Reuters and Bloomberg had the story today; the Guardian was pushing it two days ago. It is fake news, as befits Browder.

[Oct 24, 2017] Western competitors are doing their best to disrupt the Russia-Slovakia deal on Tigr supplies in order to sell Slovaks their own military equipment

Oct 24, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , October 21, 2017 at 10:26 am

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201710211058428894-russia-slovakia-talks-tigr-vehicle/

He{Suvorov, Russian press secretary) pointed out that when picking the right car for their country's Interior Ministry, Slovaks are "reasonably guided by its characteristics and advantages over other analogues in the market."

"And it turns out that the Russian-made Tigr is safer, more reliable and cheaper than American, German, French and Swiss armored cars," he said.

Suvorov added that Western competitors are doing their best to disrupt the Russia-Slovakia deal on Tigr supplies in order to sell Slovaks their own military equipment. They refer to various arguments, including "the factor of [anti-Russian] sanctions," according to Suvorov.

A major purpose of the sanctions appears to be an effort to protect Western markets and not just "punishment" of Russia. With the availability of highly competitive Russian civil aircraft, it would be easy to surmise that the sanctions have an overt commercial goal.

kirill , October 22, 2017 at 6:28 am
The west is all about free trade as long as they have the advantage. When faced with a serious competitor making superior products it throws a tantrum and puts up trade barriers. I guess the WTO does nothing to protect Russia's interests.
marknesop , October 22, 2017 at 11:27 am
The west is great with free trade so long as it gets to make the rules but not follow them. Trump's current hard line at the NAFTA talks is exemplary – he wants to increase American content in everything and create more opportunity for American business without any quid pro quo whatever. Really he figures he is in a no-lose situation; he is opposed to NAFTA anyway, as a businessman, and so he figures he will drive such a hard bargain that if Mexico and Canada walk away in disgust, he got what he wanted. If they capitulate, there will still be NAFTA but the deck will be so stacked in America's favour that the other two parties will basically just be draining their resources into the USA.

[Oct 24, 2017] Sic Semper Tyrannis US policy in Islamdom is a chaos. Part 1

Notable quotes:
"... The Israelis follow a consistent pattern of policy of disrupting surrounding states with a view to reducing them to pastoral rug bazaars. ..."
"... DJT's decision to stop certifying Iranian compliance with JCPOA is merely a reflection of Zionist influence over the president and the hyper-belligerent attitudes of Mattis, and McMaster. ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The accompanying map does not include India as a country deeply affected by Islam and Islamicate civilization. IMO that is a defect. The terms "Islam," Islamdom," and "Islamicate Civilization." were clarified by the great historian of Islam, Marshell Hodgson.

This is my editorial opinion.

------------

  1. Syria. The US persists in its nonsensical policy of regime change in Syria. McGurk, the State Department lead in Syrian affairs is evidently one of the leaders of this foolishness. The Syrian Government's forces have regained control of most of the country with the help of their Russian, Iranian, Hizbullah, Palestinian and Christian militia allies. In spite of this the US MSM studiously ignores the efforts of the SAA and allies (R+6). They are simply never mentioned. They have been edited out of the US narrative. Whether DJT has a side agreement with Putin over Syria seems not to affect the MSM narrative at all. McGurk's statement that the Syrian government would not be allowed into Raqqa City is an announcement of an extra-legal interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign UN member state. Do we intend to hold Raqqa forever and to what purpose?
  2. Iraq. In Iraq we have for the moment abandoned the interests of the KRG in its evident desire for independence from Baghdad. We have done this in spite of outrage expressed by our foreign policy mentors in Israel. The Israelis are, of course, the chief sponsors of Kurdish statehood. The Israelis follow a consistent pattern of policy of disrupting surrounding states with a view to reducing them to pastoral rug bazaars. Our loyalty to the Baghdad government is amusing because it is virtually inevitable that the Shia run government of Iraq will eventually align itself with Iran and ask the US to withdraw from the country.
  3. Iran . DJT's decision to stop certifying Iranian compliance with JCPOA is merely a reflection of Zionist influence over the president and the hyper-belligerent attitudes of Mattis, and McMaster. They are revealed as more neocon than the organizational neocons and largely in league with them. US abandonment of JCPOA will lead to direct policy conflicts with major European allies and the loss of business for American companies like Boeing. In the end this direction may lead to a US-Iran War as a culmination of Israeli machinations in Washington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Hodgson

[Oct 24, 2017] The Strange World of Russian Trolls by William Blum

There are some data that Facebook is strategically important, as it can capable of influences election by influencing younger, more stupid and more democratic-leaning part of electorate (older people usually hate Fecebook with it voyeurism and exhibitionism tendencies and culture) . The question is how many operative are imbedded in this company by intelligence services of, say, the USA, GB, Russia and China. If we assume that Fecebook was partially US intelligence services project, or at least widely used by NSA and may be other intelligence agencies (Snowden revelations) then the answer is clear. And as it's really tremendously more convent to work with Facebook accounts then to catch transmission at ISP level then discovering Russian trolls was done long ago and BTW not by Facebook security department.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia "causing divisiveness" is a common theme of American politicians and media. Never explained is WHY? What does Russia have to gain by Americans being divided? Do they think the Russians are so juvenile? Or are the Americans the childish ones? ..."
"... CNN on Oct. 12 claimed that Russia uses YouTube, Tumblr and the Pokemon Go mobile game "to exploit racial tensions and sow discord among Americans," while the Washington Post ..."
"... At one point the Post ..."
"... However, at other times the Post ..."
"... We've been told, moreover, that Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos's team "had searched extensively for evidence of foreign purchases of political advertising but had come up short." ..."
"... Politico, a Democratic-Party-leaning journal, reports that Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Democrat Bernie Sanders, and Republican Donald Trump. ..."
"... More fun and games: the Department of Homeland Security in September notified Virginia and 20 other states about Russian efforts to hack their election systems in 2016. ..."
"... Earlier this year, U.K. Foreign Minister Boris Johnson declared, apparently without embarrassment: "We have no evidence the Russians are actually involved in trying to undermine our democratic processes at the moment. We don't actually have that evidence. But what we do have is plenty of evidence that the Russians are capable of doing that." ..."
"... Perhaps the main reason for questioning charges of Russian interference in the 2016 US election is that Russian President Putin would have been risking that the expected winner, Hillary Clinton, would have been handed a personal reason to take revenge on him and his country. But that's just being logical and rational, two qualities Cold War II has no more use for than Cold War I did. ..."
"... "Moscow seeks to promote a multi-polar world predicated on the principles of respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in other states' internal affairs, the primacy of the United Nations, and a careful balance of power preventing one state or group of states from dominating the international order. To support these great power ambitions, Moscow has sought to build a robust military able to project power, add credibility to Russian diplomacy, and ensure that Russian interests can no longer be summarily dismissed without consequence. Russia also has a deep and abiding distrust of U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world and what it perceives as a U.S. campaign to impose a single set of global values." ..."
"... Great power aspirations, indeed. How dare those Russkis promote a multi-polar world, respect for state sovereignty, non-interference, the United Nations, and balance of power? It's all straight out of Lenin's playbook, 100th anniversary edition. ..."
"... As to the U.S. promoting democracy around the world Oh right, that's what the Pentagon calls Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the Philippines, Honduras, Turkey, et al. ..."
Oct 22, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
A big part of the Russia-gate hysteria is to accuse Russia of spreading U.S. dissension via Internet "trolling," but that's just one more wild exaggeration among many, as William Blum describes at Anti-Empire Report.

Webster's dictionary: troll – verb: To fish by running a baited line behind a moving boat; noun: A supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore.

Russian Internet trolls are trying to stir up even more controversy over National Football League players crouching on one knee ("taking a "knee") during the national anthem, said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), warning that the United States should expect such divisive efforts to escalate in the next election.

"We watched even this weekend," Lankford said, "the Russians and their troll farms, and their Internet folks, start hash-tagging out 'take a knee' and also hash-tagging out 'Boycott NFL'." The Russians' goal, he said, was "to try to raise the noise level in America to try to make a big issue, an even bigger issue as they're trying to just push divisiveness in the country. We've continued to be able to see that. We will see that again in our election time."

Russia "causing divisiveness" is a common theme of American politicians and media. Never explained is WHY? What does Russia have to gain by Americans being divided? Do they think the Russians are so juvenile? Or are the Americans the childish ones?

CNN on Oct. 12 claimed that Russia uses YouTube, Tumblr and the Pokemon Go mobile game "to exploit racial tensions and sow discord among Americans," while the Washington Post (Oct. 12) reported that "content generated by Russian operatives was not aimed only at influencing the election. Many of the posts and ads intended to divide Americans over hot-button issues such as immigration or race."

Russia! Russia! Russia!

Imagine the American public being divided over immigration and race How could that be possible without Russian trolls?

The Post (Oct. 9) reported that the Russian trolling operation resides "in a large gray building north of the St. Petersburg city center There, young people work 12-hour shifts and make between $800 and $1,000 a month, "an attractive wage for former students and young people. It is impossible to get inside the building, and there are multiple entrances, making it hard to tell who is a troll and who is not."

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest are amongst the many Internet sites that we are told have been overrun by Russian trolls. The last named is a site that specializes in home decor, fashion and recipes. Have the Russians gone mad? Or are the American accusations the kind of stuff that is usually called – dare I say it? – "propaganda"?

"How much the trolls affected the outcome of the U.S. election is unclear," the Post had to admit. "But their omnipresence is evident on Twitter and in the comments section of publications like the Washington Post , where trolls can be found criticizing news stories, lambasting other posters and accusing one another of being trolls." Are you starting to chuckle?

At one point the Post reported that Facebook "identified more than 3000 advertisements purchased in a Russian-orchestrated campaign to influence the American public's views and exploit divisions around contentious issues." And Congressional investigators said that some of the Facebook ad purchases had "obvious Russian fingerprints, including Russian addresses and payments made in rubles," and that "accounts traced to a shadowy Russian Internet company had purchased at least $100,000 in ads during the 2016 election season."

However, at other times the Post told us that Facebook had pointed out that "most of the ads made no explicit reference in favor of Trump or Clinton," and that some ads were purchased after the election.

We've been told, moreover, that Facebook Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos's team "had searched extensively for evidence of foreign purchases of political advertising but had come up short."

In any event, we have to wonder: What political savvy concerning American elections and voters do the Russians have that the Democratic and Republican parties don't have?

I have read numerous references to these ads but have yet to come across a single one that quotes the exact wording of even one advertisement. Is that not odd?

To add to the oddness, in yet another Washington Post article (Sept. 28) we are informed that "some of the ads promoted African American rights groups, including Black Lives Matter, while others suggested those same groups posed a growing political threat, according to people familiar with the material."

Politico, a Democratic-Party-leaning journal, reports that Russian-funded Facebook ads backed Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Democrat Bernie Sanders, and Republican Donald Trump.

Who and what is behind these peculiar goings-on?

More fun and games: the Department of Homeland Security in September notified Virginia and 20 other states about Russian efforts to hack their election systems in 2016.

Earlier this year, U.K. Foreign Minister Boris Johnson declared, apparently without embarrassment: "We have no evidence the Russians are actually involved in trying to undermine our democratic processes at the moment. We don't actually have that evidence. But what we do have is plenty of evidence that the Russians are capable of doing that."

At a Sept. 27 Congressional hearing, FBI Director Christopher Wray joined this proud chorus, testifying: "One of the things we know is that the Russians and Russian state actors are trying to influence other elections in other countries." Mr. Wray forgot to name any of the other countries and the assembled Congressmembers forgot to ask him for any names.

Perhaps the main reason for questioning charges of Russian interference in the 2016 US election is that Russian President Putin would have been risking that the expected winner, Hillary Clinton, would have been handed a personal reason to take revenge on him and his country. But that's just being logical and rational, two qualities Cold War II has no more use for than Cold War I did.

Know Thine Enemy

The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency issued a report in June entitled "Russia: Military Power: Building a military to support great power aspirations." Here's an excerpt:

"Moscow seeks to promote a multi-polar world predicated on the principles of respect for state sovereignty and non-interference in other states' internal affairs, the primacy of the United Nations, and a careful balance of power preventing one state or group of states from dominating the international order. To support these great power ambitions, Moscow has sought to build a robust military able to project power, add credibility to Russian diplomacy, and ensure that Russian interests can no longer be summarily dismissed without consequence. Russia also has a deep and abiding distrust of U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world and what it perceives as a U.S. campaign to impose a single set of global values."

Great power aspirations, indeed. How dare those Russkis promote a multi-polar world, respect for state sovereignty, non-interference, the United Nations, and balance of power? It's all straight out of Lenin's playbook, 100th anniversary edition.

As to the U.S. promoting democracy around the world Oh right, that's what the Pentagon calls Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the Philippines, Honduras, Turkey, et al.

William Blum is an author, historian, and renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower , among others. [This article originally appeared at the Anti-Empire Report, https://williamblum.org/ .]

[Oct 22, 2017] The Political Theory of Trump_vs_deep_state by Corey Robin

This is great comment: " One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down. "
Notable quotes:
"... The Reactionary Mind ..."
"... The Art of the Deal ..."
"... TRUMP IS BY NO MEANS the first man of the right to reach that conclusion about capitalism, though he may be the first President to do so, at least since Teddy Roosevelt. A great many neoconservatives found themselves stranded on the same beach after the end of the cold war, as had many conservatives before that. But they always found a redeeming vision in the state. Not the welfare state or the "nanny state," but the State of high politics, national greatness, imperial leadership, and war; the state of Churchill and Bismarck. Given the menace of Trump's rhetoric, his fetish for pomp and love of grandeur, this state, too, would seem the natural terminus of his predilections. As his adviser Steve Bannon has said, "A country's more than an economy. We're a civic society." Yet on closer inspection, Trump's vision of the state looks less like the State than the deals he's not sure add up to much. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state's inconsistency, lack of coherence and cult of personality brings to mind Juan Peron and Evita. ..."
"... The desire to make Trump anti-Semitic, and a fascist is a lot easier than recognizing he's a talented media manipulator devoid and any real convictions. The idea that 60 million Americans voted to elect a man who secretly wants to end elections is absurd on every level. He doesn't need to end elections, because elections are the ultimate ratings game. He brags endlessly that he beat all the professional politicians as a neophyte. ..."
"... When folks assert that Trump is all about surfaces, they say that as if it's a bad thing. The republican base supporting Trump, we have clearly learned, maintains no fidelity to the theologies expounded at the NRO and the AEI. Trump's inability to think about challenges in ways approved of by his critics confounds experts precisely because he's so effective. I can't believe he has less heft and gravitas than the light-bulb salesman Americans elected twice. He is simply the right guy with the right message for a specific time and place. He may morph into evil personified and I get the sense at times that some of his critics are keen to see just that. ..."
"... That Trump lacks much knowledge of public policy was clear during the campaign, and since being inaugurated he has remained uninterested in and ignorant of (sometimes amazingly so) the details of policy. One wonders if he even reads the exec orders he has been signing. Your support of someone so manifestly unsuited to be president, by virtue of his vast ignorance if nothing else, was puzzling during the campaign and remains so. Btw, what "great society experiments" are you talking about? Have you heard of the '96 welfare 'reform' law? ..."
"... Trump has defended an isolationist foreign policy, attacking Nafta, Nato, the WTO etc. Given his erratic behavior, he has not followed through on this (yet?) but the departure with the previous mainstream consensus is radical. The mainstream left and right, at least since two decades, had been very much internationalist. ..."
"... During the campaign Trump has defended some form of social welfare state and more government intervention in the economy: e.g. his defense of Social Security, or even maternity leave, and his support for infrastructure. I do not think he really cares about this stuff and so he is probably not going to follow through. ..."
"... It's also very anti-historical. Inasmuch as conservatism is, among other things, a defense of hierarchy , it can (and did, at one time) appeal to millennia of precedent. ..."
"... Something can be deeply wrong, i.e. immoral, without being the product of a cognitive abnormality, and people can commit evil acts and hold evil beliefs without being mentally or psychologically impaired. To attribute all retrograde political acts and beliefs to an individual's deficient "theory of mind" (whatever that means exactly) is sociologically naive, psychologically untenable, and historically invalid. ..."
"... One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down. ..."
"... Trump is a right-wing bullshitter, Clinton is a liberal bullshitter; there's nothing really new about that (much the same sort of thing happened with those who continued to support the consensus during the Great Depression). ..."
"... When Obama failed to embody the forward-looking ideals he campaigned on, some people checked out, but you can trace clear lines of mass disillusionment and radicalization from 2008 to Occupy and BLM to the Sanders campaign. ..."
"... The question was never if there was an appetite for real leftism in the American electorate (Clinton and Trump's unconvincing plagiarism of Sanders talking points are telling here, I think), but whether the Democratic party, mired as it's been in institutional rot and complacency, would ever tolerate true economic leftism when the "social liberalism" of identity and representation seemed to work well enough and was so much less threatening to the moneyed interests that financed the party's rightward swing. ..."
"... For decades, the left wing of the Democratic party has been cajoled into voting for "liberal" candidates that resemble nothing so much as the old aristocratic Whigs who used to discuss ways to help the less fortunate over claret and cigars down at the gentlemen's club. ..."
"... I don't think there's any going back to the neocon/neolib era and I think even a lot of moderate Republicans (who used to rely on friendly financiers like Romney to keep the rabid right on-leash) are beginning to realize it. After all, what's the point of selling out if it doesn't buy you anything? ..."
"... The neo-cons are out: Bill Kristol, Max Boot and company are sworn enemies of the administration. Democratic party neocons like HRC can longer launch democracy-building projects in the middle east. Long may this continue. ..."
"... Calling 60 million Trump voters racist and/or fascist might feel good, but as Mark Lilla sensibly observes, identity politics is Reagan's trickle-down economics for liberals, self-delusion for folks out of answers. The 'solutions' for poor, black families in crisis on this thread illustrate clearly why so many black voters in Michigan and elsewhere stayed home. Folks without work, safe schools, and much hope want solutions – not 'this study says' or 'but, Republicans.'' ..."
"... Donald Trump is president because the Democratic party abandoned the poorest, white and black, not because 60 million Americans are actually fascists. ..."
"... It's the sort of completely insane projection that falls apart at the most cursory examination, to wit: the entire notion of destroying a public, universal service like secondary (and post-secondary, in many cases) education in order to hand the system over to unscrupulous profiteers is [extremely Zizek voice]PURE NEOLIBERALISM[/extremely Zizek voice]. ..."
"... What we have, and what Trump_vs_deep_state is merely one symptom of, is a massive crisis in public governance. In large part, the people who are responsible for said governance brought it on themselves. ..."
"... Race is one the primary axes of American politics, and our reluctance to fund basic public goods cannot be understood without acknowledging this basic fact. ..."
"... there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between "mainstream" Republicans and Trump when it comes to the lust for war: ..."
"... Having discovered this fact which so many slogans obscure, we might well wonder whether it is quite correct to look upon capitalism as a social form sui generis or, in fact, as anything else but the last stage of the decomposition of what we have called feudalism. ..."
"... The thing is, Trump is an owner who's there because he's finished with that political crap. At this point, we probably have to hope that some general has the spine to tell Trump no, the US army really is not a very good military force for anything that involves taking casualties, which means it is fairly useless for actually conquering anything, as opposed to laying waste in endless campaigns. But the spirit of West Point, the school of treason that produced many, many, many more fighters against America than the CPUSA ever did, still rules. I'm not very hopeful. ..."
"... This is a legitimacy crisis. It is not as if Clinton partisans did not call Trump's electoral legitimacy into question. Half the country think Russian "meddling" determined the result, when it is not clear any "meddling" happened. ..."
"... Yes, Americans have lost their collective mind, politically. I know several elderly people (not much more elderly than me, truth to tell) who consume anti-Trump screeds from Seth Meyers or Rachel Maddow on a daily basis. It is entertainment I suppose, but it does not inform them or improve their critical thinking skills. One, a transplanted Englishman, described Maddow to me the other day as "erudite". ..."
"... The relentless flood tide of propaganda in American politics makes it exceedingly hard to talk with any American realistically about what is going on, because so much of what is going is exists not as objective and verified facts, but as shared, tendentious narratives. The actual Trump seems to me to be a bit of a personal mess and an authoritarian in the same mode as the blowhards who hang out at the barbershop; the Trump constructed by, say, Maddow's televised narratives is something else, something more imagined than real. The imagined Trump has to be bigger, to be fitted with cheap hyperbole. ..."
"... An essential element of the propaganda narrative is the "distance" to the other. The "base of Trump supporters" is a prop. Wondering what "they" could be thinking but not waiting for an answer before launching scorn and ridicule on the way to slander is a method. ..."
"... No Layman, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Clinton is a militarist who strongly believes in force and the threat of force, especially when it comes to the ME – and this plays just fine with the Democratic party establishment, actually it's a necessity considering the donor base. Clinton's stance towards Iran and the nuclear deal is a matter of record. Next time don't nominate a warmonger who voted for the Iraq war if you want to prevent someone like Trump – and hey, maybe young people will trust you again. ..."
"... There is no "real" Trump narrative; narratives are imagined stories, constructed according to principles of dramatic art to create meaning and morality. With effort, it is possible to anchor a narrative to facts, and to do so by methods that limit violence to the objectivity of facts. Whether a well-anchored narrative is persuasive may be important to such enterprises as the operation of law or even the progress of science. ..."
"... Our famously free press (spoken sarcastically) is thought to provide a check; fact-check columns proliferate at times, but mostly prove how weak an instrument of the public interest, a Media run by massive corporations and financially dependent on corporate business advertising is. ..."
"... A common practice now is to lead with counterfactuals: narratives in which the place of facts is taken by theory and theory's constructions. "Because the whole thing is basically a fantasy, nothing will disprove it." ..."
"... My political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state is that this is what conservative politics unchecked, unopposed and not responsible to any mass constituency produces. Trump says anything. But, it has been twenty years since anyone in politics has been held to account for anything said, except for "gotcha" moments of mostly fake outrage. Not that we would have a gotcha moment for Bush's war crimes. But that is my point. Holding Clinton up as a standard of normalcy in politics runs into exactly this same problem: she talks in the political code words, takes no responsibility for policy consequences and shows every sign of greed and irresponsibility, but the counterfactual of her normalcy is still set forward, with no awareness that it is a groundless narrative. This is not a point about Clinton or Trump, but it is a point about a political process that produces a lot of stupid and Trump is a bonus. ..."
"... Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the 'personalization' of media might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to? 'The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.' " ..."
"... I stand by my belief that Trump built a public persona as a race-baiting, loudmouth buffoon that carried him straight into the WH despite a fervent, well-funded bi-partisan effort to unseat him from the time he declared up right to the present. Studying the buffoon tells us practically nothing about the individual. He's ordinary, capable, ambitious, avaricious, and mired in the world of the senses rather than the mind. There are worse traits and places to be. ..."
"... what I always find grotesque about the accusations of Russian meddling is the full ticket obliviousness to all the meddling the US used to perform in Russian elections, and in fact in many other elections worldwide. It's quite a sorry sight to see people like you make a fuss about very minor activities (if there's even evidence of any), without as much as a shred of self awareness. ..."
"... If people want a sane non- militaristic foreign policy it's going to take more than just opposition to Trump. You are also going to have to oppose some of Trump's opponents in both parties. The one time Trump received positive feedback and praise from many in the Beltway was when he bombed Syria. ..."
"... Why are people talking about Hillary here, on a thread about Trump and conservatism? Because a plausible argument can be made that Hillary is more of conservative than Trump, at least in terms of neo-conservative politics. She has, after all, two neo-con wars under her belt already and enjoys good relations with all the really wrong people. Her avarice and willingness to tell tales are at least comparable to Trump's. But perhaps the best reason Hillary belongs here is because many believe that had a less conservative Democrat than Hillary run (Bernie, for example), Dems would have won and Donald Trump would be yesterday's news. ..."
Oct 22, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

October 12, 2017 The magazine n+1 is running an excerpt from the second edition of The Reactionary Mind , which comes out next week but is available for purchase now . The n+1 piece is titled "The Triumph of the Shill: The political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state." It's my most considered reflection on what Trump_vs_deep_state represents, based on a close reading of The Art of the Deal (yes, I know he didn't write it, but it's far more revelatory of the man and what he thinks than even its ghostwriter realized) and some of his other writings and speeches, as well as the record of Trump's first six months in office.

Here are some excerpts from the excerpt, but I hope you'll buy the book, too. It's got a lot of new material, particularly about the economic ideas of the right. And a long, long chapter on Trump and Trump_vs_deep_state.

... ... ...

This is what makes Trump's economic philosophy, such as it is, so peculiar and of its moment. An older generation of economic Darwinists, from William Graham Sumner to Ayn Rand, believed without reservation in the secular miracle of the market. It wasn't just the contest that was glorious; the outcome was, too. That conviction burned in them like a holy fire. Trump, by contrast, subscribes and unsubscribes to that vision. The market is a moment of truth  --  and an eternity of lies. It reveals; it hides. It is everything; it is nothing. Rand grounded her vision of capitalism in A is A; Trump grounds his in A is not A.

TRUMP IS BY NO MEANS the first man of the right to reach that conclusion about capitalism, though he may be the first President to do so, at least since Teddy Roosevelt. A great many neoconservatives found themselves stranded on the same beach after the end of the cold war, as had many conservatives before that. But they always found a redeeming vision in the state. Not the welfare state or the "nanny state," but the State of high politics, national greatness, imperial leadership, and war; the state of Churchill and Bismarck. Given the menace of Trump's rhetoric, his fetish for pomp and love of grandeur, this state, too, would seem the natural terminus of his predilections. As his adviser Steve Bannon has said, "A country's more than an economy. We're a civic society." Yet on closer inspection, Trump's vision of the state looks less like the State than the deals he's not sure add up to much.

Again, read the whole excerpt here , and then buy the book !

I'll be doing a bunch of interviews about the book, including one with our very own Henry, so keep an eye out at my blog for more information on that.

Dr. Hilarius 10.12.17 at 4:54 am (no link)

Trump_vs_deep_state's inconsistency, lack of coherence and cult of personality brings to mind Juan Peron and Evita.
kidneystones 10.12.17 at 2:19 pm (no link)
@12 The desire to make Trump anti-Semitic, and a fascist is a lot easier than recognizing he's a talented media manipulator devoid and any real convictions. The idea that 60 million Americans voted to elect a man who secretly wants to end elections is absurd on every level. He doesn't need to end elections, because elections are the ultimate ratings game. He brags endlessly that he beat all the professional politicians as a neophyte.

He looks certain at this point to thread the needle for 2020 at the expense of both Republicans and Democrats. He may very well simplify the tax code and get rather more done in his second year in office. His first year has and will be devoted to pure survival – defending his corner and maintaining his base. Trump supporters, myself included, are anti-politician, and unsympathetic to faction and ideology, which is part of the reason I really do question Corey's efforts to make Trump part of a conservative movement.

When folks assert that Trump is all about surfaces, they say that as if it's a bad thing. The republican base supporting Trump, we have clearly learned, maintains no fidelity to the theologies expounded at the NRO and the AEI. Trump's inability to think about challenges in ways approved of by his critics confounds experts precisely because he's so effective. I can't believe he has less heft and gravitas than the light-bulb salesman Americans elected twice. He is simply the right guy with the right message for a specific time and place. He may morph into evil personified and I get the sense at times that some of his critics are keen to see just that.

Every time Hillary Clinton opens her mouth to utter another blatant falsehood, I feel better about the results of 2016. There is, as Corey notes, an emptiness at the heart of the conservative movement. The same can be said of liberals who are, if anything, in even greater disarray than conservatives. The great society experiments yield, in 2016, appalling failure rates among America's African-American youth to follow decades of failure as the African-American family unit dis-integrates. Liberals are all out of answers, as are theological conservatives. Perhaps the reality is that ordinary Americans, and others across the globe, are actually far less polarized than the pundits tell us.

We might very well go down some ugly path to war and disaster, but is seems to me just as likely that life will actually go on much as it has, only with fewer wars and slightly more charity towards each other. Cause just yammering about the blah-blah-blah is getting mighty old.

LFC 10.12.17 at 5:03 pm (no link)
kidneystones @15
That Trump lacks much knowledge of public policy was clear during the campaign, and since being inaugurated he has remained uninterested in and ignorant of (sometimes amazingly so) the details of policy. One wonders if he even reads the exec orders he has been signing. Your support of someone so manifestly unsuited to be president, by virtue of his vast ignorance if nothing else, was puzzling during the campaign and remains so. Btw, what "great society experiments" are you talking about? Have you heard of the '96 welfare 'reform' law?
LFC 10.12.17 at 5:10 pm (no link)
p.s. In terms of ignorant presidents in recent memory, Reagan and G.W. Bush come close to Trump, but Trump outdoes them. (Though in a competition on that score between Reagan and Trump, it might be close to a tie.)
Tom 10.13.17 at 1:41 am ( 32 )
As far as I can tell, your claim so far (in this and other posts) is that Trump should be seen first of all as a conservative: those who see him as a radical break from US conservatism have an idealized version of what the GOP and the right have actually been throughout their history.* I tend to agree with this (e.g. the GOP has been very racist since many decades) but with two important qualifications that I have never seen you make:

a) Trump has defended an isolationist foreign policy, attacking Nafta, Nato, the WTO etc. Given his erratic behavior, he has not followed through on this (yet?) but the departure with the previous mainstream consensus is radical. The mainstream left and right, at least since two decades, had been very much internationalist.

b) During the campaign Trump has defended some form of social welfare state and more government intervention in the economy: e.g. his defense of Social Security, or even maternity leave, and his support for infrastructure. I do not think he really cares about this stuff and so he is probably not going to follow through. Given his general cluelessness, he is also captured by the various randians who populate the GOP ranks. But, differently from many politicians on the right, in primis the randians, Trump has some sense for what people want. And in the campaign he said it, possibly opening up the field for future Keynesians republicans.

*You hedge this view a bit in this post, by considering Trump's view of the market.

LFC 10.13.17 at 2:22 am ( 34 )
Collin Street thinks that conservatism is some kind of organic affliction, that conservatives all have something wrong with their brain chemistry or biology, that they are all cognitively abnormal. This is absurd.

It's also very anti-historical. Inasmuch as conservatism is, among other things, a defense of hierarchy , it can (and did, at one time) appeal to millennia of precedent. Were the believers in the divine right of monarchs mentally abnormal? Were those who believed (and continue to believe) that employers have a right to exploit their workers mentally ill? Were, to take an even starker example, proponents of slavery psychologically impaired? If so, how to account for the fact that slavery was close to universal among human societies until fairly recently in the history of the species? Were the vast majority of humans all psychologically impaired until some date of enlightenment (pick your date or century)?

Something can be deeply wrong, i.e. immoral, without being the product of a cognitive abnormality, and people can commit evil acts and hold evil beliefs without being mentally or psychologically impaired. To attribute all retrograde political acts and beliefs to an individual's deficient "theory of mind" (whatever that means exactly) is sociologically naive, psychologically untenable, and historically invalid.

MFB 10.13.17 at 6:50 am ( 42 )
One fairly obvious point -- in response to your original post, not the article itself -- is surely that the general consensus which united conservatives and liberals, that neoliberal economics works, that war against weak countries can be waged on the cheap, and that the local working class will always eat whatever excrement is put on their plates, has started to break down.

The alternatives seem to be to change the consensus, or spread bullshit that the consensus is OK but just needs to be tweaked a bit. Trump is a right-wing bullshitter, Clinton is a liberal bullshitter; there's nothing really new about that (much the same sort of thing happened with those who continued to support the consensus during the Great Depression).

Fake Dave 10.13.17 at 10:31 am ( 47 )
This excerpt seems to take a fairly dim view of the left and what it's had to offer in recent years, and I can't say I really disagree, but I think Corey is underestimating the extent to which a leftist resurgence is already underway. I still think 2008 was a turning point, not because Obama himself really represented a new view of American liberalism (frankly, I think a hypothetical Gore or Kerry administration would have been extremely similar to what we got from Obama), but because the energy people invested in Obama's vision of America has never really dissipated. I think liberals are liberals in large part because they prefer futurism to nostalgia, so it shouldn't have been surprising that the candidate of "hope and change" beat a candidate whose political persona is frozen in the mid-90s.

When Obama failed to embody the forward-looking ideals he campaigned on, some people checked out, but you can trace clear lines of mass disillusionment and radicalization from 2008 to Occupy and BLM to the Sanders campaign.

The question was never if there was an appetite for real leftism in the American electorate (Clinton and Trump's unconvincing plagiarism of Sanders talking points are telling here, I think), but whether the Democratic party, mired as it's been in institutional rot and complacency, would ever tolerate true economic leftism when the "social liberalism" of identity and representation seemed to work well enough and was so much less threatening to the moneyed interests that financed the party's rightward swing.

For decades, the left wing of the Democratic party has been cajoled into voting for "liberal" candidates that resemble nothing so much as the old aristocratic Whigs who used to discuss ways to help the less fortunate over claret and cigars down at the gentlemen's club. We put up with it because we were told that was the only way to keep Republican robber barons from reinstating white male supremacy, criminalizing poverty, and declaring war on human decency. Trump was the embodiment of that venal reactionary bogeyman and Clinton was supposed to be the bullwark of reason and common sense -- the "electable" candidate -- that kept the far right at bay. George W. Bush was a decent-seeming guy whose dad was president. Losing to him was tolerable if frustrating, but Clinton losing feels like a broken promise, like the deal with the devil we made back in '92 is now null and void and it's time for something new.

I don't think there's any going back to the neocon/neolib era and I think even a lot of moderate Republicans (who used to rely on friendly financiers like Romney to keep the rabid right on-leash) are beginning to realize it. After all, what's the point of selling out if it doesn't buy you anything?

kidneystones 10.13.17 at 11:33 am ( 51 )

... ... ...

"We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" is not president, and African-Americans are no longer chained to the ineffective policies of the Democratic party and teachers unions. The neo-cons are out: Bill Kristol, Max Boot and company are sworn enemies of the administration. Democratic party neocons like HRC can longer launch democracy-building projects in the middle east. Long may this continue.

And let the dogs bark.

Collin Street 10.13.17 at 12:15 pm ( 52 )
@b9n10nt 10.12.17 at 11:57 pm

A sociopath can be very good at reading and manipulating others. Having a theory of mind is quite distinct from having empathy, and having empathy is quite distinct from using it pervasively to guide personal/social/political life.

There's a few simple tricks, is the only word that works, I think, that you can do without needing any insight into how people work. Stuff like being silent and letting people run their mouth out, or being vague so that you can redefine what you meant post-facto and claiming success, or the gish-gallop technique or a few other rhetorical tricks that can be used to confuse/blindside people in various ways.

Power-sales techniques and what-have-you.

"Tricks", because if they work they work by mechanical rule-following and if people know enough to recognise them they don't work at all. You don't need particular insight to use any of these, you just need an audience that doesn't recognise them and isn't told about them. A lot of the communication ones, in particular, rely on abuse of normal discourse structures/pragmatics, which means that they're actually things that people with autism-spectrum conditions -- that severely disrupt normal pragmatic structures -- might stumble into by, literally, accident.

With a drive to succeed and a handful of these tricks you can -- with luck, and we only hear about the successes: there's an old technique for building a reputation that starts by sending out 1024 letters that A will happen, and another 1024 saying the exact opposite -- build a small fortune. But if you run into more-experienced players who can recognise the tricks you're using, then you're not going to succeed against them, and it might go badly for you. Or they might give you a half-million in fuck-off money just to get you out of their way, and you'd probably think yourself awesome for getting it.

Collin Street 10.13.17 at 1:21 pm ( 55 )
But since I haven't read a lot of Burke I need to decide, provisionally, whether to go with the view that e.g. Reflections on the Revolution in France is a manifestation of "autism" or whether to go with the view that it's a statement and elaboration of the author's political convictions.

I can't exactly see how the two descriptions you've provided are incompatible; can you explain why you feel you need to decide, why do you feel that they can't both be true?

kidneystones 10.13.17 at 1:22 pm ( 56 )

... ... ...

Calling 60 million Trump voters racist and/or fascist might feel good, but as Mark Lilla sensibly observes, identity politics is Reagan's trickle-down economics for liberals, self-delusion for folks out of answers. The 'solutions' for poor, black families in crisis on this thread illustrate clearly why so many black voters in Michigan and elsewhere stayed home. Folks without work, safe schools, and much hope want solutions – not 'this study says' or 'but, Republicans.''

America's cities are under Democratic control, for the most part, and the studies, the plans, and the programs, and the teachers' unions haven't got the job done, unless creating a cycle of failure and illiteracy qualifies as some form of progress, or success.

Donald Trump is president because the Democratic party abandoned the poorest, white and black, not because 60 million Americans are actually fascists.

If Democrats can't provide solutions for ordinary people at the state, local and national level the party is going to continue to keep losing elections.

JRLRC 10.13.17 at 4:15 pm ( 61 )
"Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism". Orwell in his review of "Mein Kampf".
Jerry Vinokurov 10.13.17 at 4:36 pm ( 65 )
Ah, there it is, the good shit, the barely-warmed-over Manhattan Institute talking points that the conservative lie machine has been pushing for ages.

It's the sort of completely insane projection that falls apart at the most cursory examination, to wit: the entire notion of destroying a public, universal service like secondary (and post-secondary, in many cases) education in order to hand the system over to unscrupulous profiteers is [extremely Zizek voice]PURE NEOLIBERALISM[/extremely Zizek voice].

It is exactly the kind of short-sighted maneuver that Democrats have been pulling for decades now, trying to get "moderate" Republicans in the suburbs to vote for them, and its only effect has been to undermine the concept of public education entirely. Some of the most vigorous advocates of charter schools and union-busting have been Democrats, for fuck's sake! A nonexhaustive list: Joel Klein, Arne Duncan, Rahm Emmanuel, and these are just the first three I could think of off the top of my head; I guarantee that I could find you an list as long as your arm if I tried. Top Democratic donors such as those from Silicon Valley and Wall Street are gung-ho about charter schools and other similar scams like "online education." In the meantime, the actual research shows that at best, charter schools are a wash in terms of performance and at worst they are basically a fraud perpetrated upon both taxpayers and students in order to shovel money to people like DeVos.

What we have, and what Trump_vs_deep_state is merely one symptom of, is a massive crisis in public governance. In large part, the people who are responsible for said governance brought it on themselves. On the right-wing side, a propaganda machine has existed since the 1950s to sell people various poisonous ideas (regulation is bad! the "free market" is good!) dressed up, in the best of times, in quasi-academic language, and in the worst of times as just plain racism. The retreat from public services that took place in the South once those services would have to be integrated is a great tell; wealthy Virginians literally closed the entire state's public school system rather than have to attend school with black children. On the center-left, the entire New Democrat generation drank the idiot Kool-Aid that demanded we turn over anything and everything to market forces but! with a slightly more advanced degree of wokeness. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the CTU, under a predominantly black and Latino leadership, has been at the forefront (PDF) of fighting privatization and the attendant segregation that follows it, demanding resources from the austerity-mad Emmanuel administration so they can actually do their jobs. Said fight, I should add, taking place with the support of the predominantly African-American communities that are currently being brutalized by Rahm, so maybe if you care about black agency as much as you claim you do (hahahaha) you might take that into account.

The Democratic party has not been nearly as good to the African-American community as the latter's loyalty to the former (or, really, as basic justice) would seem to require, but the failure has not been "too much Great Society programs" or "too many unionized teachers." That's tendentious, ahistorical horseshit. The real failure has been the Democratic willingness to cast its most solid coalition partner again and again into a racist market system in which they have to fight uphill battles every step of the way. That Democrats are still a preferable alternative to the open eliminationism of Trump supporters is not particularly to their credit, not when entire Democratic administrations have failed to protect African-Americans from predatory lending or housing and workplace discrimination or being killed by police officers or even do so much as keep them from being forced to drink lead-tainted water.

Race is one the primary axes of American politics, and our reluctance to fund basic public goods cannot be understood without acknowledging this basic fact. Lots of white people, but especially the petit bourgeoisie that constitutes the core of Republican voters (who are, shock of shocks, also the core of Trump voters), would rather eat dirt if it means that a black person somewhere will have to eat shit, and unfortunately for all of us, the idiotic electoral system we inherited from the slavers played to their advantage in this electoral cycle. Now Trump is going to decertify the Iran deal so go take your "hurrrr neocons out" nonsense and shove it up your ass, because all the same fucking lunatics who want to turn the Middle East into glass are still in charge everywhere and a literally demented person holds the nuclear codes because showing the libs whatfor is the only ideal that white middle America is even capable of processing anymore.

TM 10.13.17 at 6:29 pm ( 67 )
JRLRC 61 Thanks for some historical perspective. Reading this thread makes me give up hope for the American Republic. Your leader misses no opportunity to exhibit contempt for democracy, contempt for the rule of law, contempt for international treaty obligations, contempt for the UN world order, contempt for diplomacy, contempt for truth, contempt for science, a guy who in real time threatens to start a nuclear world war (remember CR wrote a whole post dismissing the idea that Trump was reckless), and you people explain him away as just another conservative? Have you really no sense of history? Frankly you must be out of your minds.
Jerry Vinokurov 10.13.17 at 6:51 pm ( 71 )
Since the link was disemvoweled along with my admittedly petty insult, please allow me to relink it again, if for no other purpose than to demonstrate that there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between "mainstream" Republicans and Trump when it comes to the lust for war: https://www.buzzfeed.com/johnhudson/trumps-boldest-move-today-wasnt-decertifying-the-iran-deal?utm_term=.pb5YARWbz#.svmyK02Lz
Lee A. Arnold 10.13.17 at 7:00 pm ( 72 )
"We have seen that the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on This social function is already losing importance and is bound to lose it at an accelerating rate in the future even if the economic process itself of which entrepreneurship was the prime mover went on unabated. economic progress tends to become depersonalized and automatized. (p.132)

"Of old, roughly up to and including the Napoleonic Wars, generalship meant leadership and success meant the personal success of the man in command who earned corresponding "profits" in terms of social prestige This is no longer so. Rationalized and specialized office work will eventually blot out personality, the calculable result, the "vision." The leading man no longer has the opportunity to fling himself into the fray. He is becoming just another office worker -- and one who is not always difficult to replace. in the last analysis the same social process -- undermines the role and, along with the role, the social position of the capitalist entrepreneur. His role, though less glamorous than that of medieval warlords, great or small, also is or was just another form of individual leadership acting by virtue of personal force and personal responsibility for success (p.133)

" contrasting the figure of the industrialist or merchant with that of the medieval lord. The latter's "profession" not only qualified him admirably for the defense of his own class interest -- he was not only able to fight for it physically -- but it also cast a halo around him and made of him a ruler of men Of the industrialist and merchant the opposite is true. There is surely no trace of any mystic glamour about him which is what counts in the ruling of men. The stock exchange is a poor substitute for the Holy Grail. We have seen that the industrialist and merchant, as far as they are entrepreneurs, also fill a function of leadership. But economic leadership of this type does not readily expand, like the medieval lord's military leadership, into the leadership of nations. On the contrary, the ledger and the cost calculation absorb and confine He can only use rationalist and unheroic means to defend his position or to bend a nation to his will. He can impress by what people may expect from his economic performance, he can argue his case, he can promise to pay out money or threaten to withhold it, he can hire the treacherous services of a condottiere or politician or journalist. But that is all and all of it is greatly overrated as to its political value the bourgeois class is ill equipped to face the problems, both domestic and international, that have normally to be faced by a country of any importance. (pp.137-8)

" capitalist policies wrought destruction much beyond what was unavoidable. They attacked the artisan in reservations in which he could have survived for an indefinite time. They forced upon the peasant all the blessings of early liberalism -- the free and unsheltered holding and all the individualist rope he needed in order to hang himself In breaking down the pre-capitalist framework of society, capitalism thus broke not only barriers that impeded its progress but also flying buttresses that prevented its collapse. That process, impressive in its relentless necessity, was not merely a matter of removing institutional deadwood, but of removing partners of the capitalist stratum, symbiosis with whom was an essential element of the capitalist schema. Having discovered this fact which so many slogans obscure, we might well wonder whether it is quite correct to look upon capitalism as a social form sui generis or, in fact, as anything else but the last stage of the decomposition of what we have called feudalism." (p.139)

Schumpeter, from Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, ch. 7

Ben 10.13.17 at 8:05 pm ( 75 )
The terrorist designation linked by Jerry Vinokurov really is a big deal that'll take awhile to play out along multiple economic, military and diplomatic fronts https://www.law360.com/articles/908829/how-terror-group-label-for-irgc-could-impact-iran-deal
steven t johnson 10.13.17 at 8:50 pm ( 77 )
Jerry Vinokurov@71 writes "there's absolutely no daylight whatsoever between 'mainstream' Republicans and Trump when it comes to the lust for war "

This is overly optimistic in a way, yet overly pessimistic in another. For the first, there's no daylight between Trump and "mainstream" Democrats when it comes to a lust for war.

For the second? It's clear both parties would support Trump if he ordered a decapitation strike on North Korea, and it's likely both parties would support Trump if it failed and turned into an all-out conflagration, no matter the fallout. But, the last president apt to such unilateral war-making was Richard Nixon, and he was impeached for also discarding the two-party deal (a no no on par with a Mexican President taking a second term.) Before the fact, however, there are straws in the wind about impeachment, from the Washington Post op-ed, columnists Rubin and Waldman, and "rumors" reported in Vanity Fair. Not a bright prospect, to be sure, no daylight at all?

The thing is, Trump is an owner who's there because he's finished with that political crap. At this point, we probably have to hope that some general has the spine to tell Trump no, the US army really is not a very good military force for anything that involves taking casualties, which means it is fairly useless for actually conquering anything, as opposed to laying waste in endless campaigns. But the spirit of West Point, the school of treason that produced many, many, many more fighters against America than the CPUSA ever did, still rules. I'm not very hopeful.

I recall a story that Nixon boasted that after he was finished, they'd never make things like they were again. That's the political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state. Today, when people will seriously argue that Nixon was a liberal president, there is no ruling class appetite for democracy, old style or bourgeois or what have you.

b9n10nt @68 links to Ta-Nehisi Coates. Coates knows perfectly well that if the black voters had turned out in larger numbers, Clinton would have won the Electoral College as well. People trying to normalize Trump are not alone, Every single black voter who didn't see any difference between Clinton and Trump agrees. Clinton tried to make the campaign about a symbolic endorsement of anti-racism and anti-sexism, as opposed to the deplorables. Millions of black voters proved they were having none of it. They stayed home.

Stephen 10.13.17 at 9:04 pm ( 78 )
OP: "conservatives have breached norms, flouted decorum, assailed elites, and shattered orthodoxy throughout the ages." But is that not also exactly what anti-conservatives – progressives, revolutionaries – have done? Or is it the wrong sort of breaching, flouting, assailing, shattering when conservatives, not your friends, do it; but SOP when your friends do it?

Or are you maintaining that respectable norm-adhering, decorum-maintaining, elite-sustaining, deeply orthodox left-wingers have always been the vast majority of anti-conservatives?

On further thought: elite-sustaining, yes, maybe, if you regard the nomenklatura as elite. Orthodox also, for their own kind of orthodoxy.

None of this is intended to imply support for the remarkable Trump.

bruce wilder 10.14.17 at 2:36 pm ( 97 )
JQ @60, J-D @ 79

I wonder if that qualifies as push-polling? Is asking the question propaganda? This is a legitimacy crisis. It is not as if Clinton partisans did not call Trump's electoral legitimacy into question. Half the country think Russian "meddling" determined the result, when it is not clear any "meddling" happened.

nastywoman

Yes, Americans have lost their collective mind, politically. I know several elderly people (not much more elderly than me, truth to tell) who consume anti-Trump screeds from Seth Meyers or Rachel Maddow on a daily basis. It is entertainment I suppose, but it does not inform them or improve their critical thinking skills. One, a transplanted Englishman, described Maddow to me the other day as "erudite".

The relentless flood tide of propaganda in American politics makes it exceedingly hard to talk with any American realistically about what is going on, because so much of what is going is exists not as objective and verified facts, but as shared, tendentious narratives. The actual Trump seems to me to be a bit of a personal mess and an authoritarian in the same mode as the blowhards who hang out at the barbershop; the Trump constructed by, say, Maddow's televised narratives is something else, something more imagined than real. The imagined Trump has to be bigger, to be fitted with cheap hyperbole.

An essential element of the propaganda narrative is the "distance" to the other. The "base of Trump supporters" is a prop. Wondering what "they" could be thinking but not waiting for an answer before launching scorn and ridicule on the way to slander is a method.

novakant 10.14.17 at 3:24 pm ( 99 )
No Layman, there is plenty of irrefutable evidence that Clinton is a militarist who strongly believes in force and the threat of force, especially when it comes to the ME – and this plays just fine with the Democratic party establishment, actually it's a necessity considering the donor base. Clinton's stance towards Iran and the nuclear deal is a matter of record. Next time don't nominate a warmonger who voted for the Iraq war if you want to prevent someone like Trump – and hey, maybe young people will trust you again.
bruce wilder 10.14.17 at 5:50 pm ( 102 )
There is no "real" Trump narrative; narratives are imagined stories, constructed according to principles of dramatic art to create meaning and morality. With effort, it is possible to anchor a narrative to facts, and to do so by methods that limit violence to the objectivity of facts. Whether a well-anchored narrative is persuasive may be important to such enterprises as the operation of law or even the progress of science.

In politics, the absence of the restraints imposed by institutions of law or science (which often fail their purposes even in those domains) invite the practice of dark arts of propaganda and mass manipulation. Our famously free press (spoken sarcastically) is thought to provide a check; fact-check columns proliferate at times, but mostly prove how weak an instrument of the public interest, a Media run by massive corporations and financially dependent on corporate business advertising is.

A common practice now is to lead with counterfactuals: narratives in which the place of facts is taken by theory and theory's constructions. "Because the whole thing is basically a fantasy, nothing will disprove it."

Last week's New Yorker has a profile of Rachel Maddow.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/rachel-maddow-trumps-tv-nemesis
Janet Malcolm is full of praise for Maddow. For what she identifies, correctly, as entertainment. She does not comment on whether political comment as entertainment makes for a healthy politics. I think not.

My political theory of Trump_vs_deep_state is that this is what conservative politics unchecked, unopposed and not responsible to any mass constituency produces. Trump says anything. But, it has been twenty years since anyone in politics has been held to account for anything said, except for "gotcha" moments of mostly fake outrage. Not that we would have a gotcha moment for Bush's war crimes. But that is my point. Holding Clinton up as a standard of normalcy in politics runs into exactly this same problem: she talks in the political code words, takes no responsibility for policy consequences and shows every sign of greed and irresponsibility, but the counterfactual of her normalcy is still set forward, with no awareness that it is a groundless narrative. This is not a point about Clinton or Trump, but it is a point about a political process that produces a lot of stupid and Trump is a bonus.

bruce wilder 10.15.17 at 2:49 am ( 111 )
J-D @ 110

I was not intending to distinguish actual from real, if that was a question. I was intending to distinguish objectively factual statements or descriptive observation from arguments taking the form of narratives, particularly projective or counterfactual narratives that seem distant from or untethered in the main from verifiable fact.

I think it is possible to make value judgments closely related to factual observation, without projecting a narrative into the future or into an alternate reality.

Whether my statements characterizing Trump constitute a narrative or rely on narrative to justify value judgments is a fine point I do not see the point in arguing at this time. I would not defend my observations and judgment as constituting the one "true story".

kidneystones 10.15.17 at 6:17 am ( 113 )
@97 This is very good. For those interested in how we're learning less about each other and the world we share, here's a timely piece by informed sources from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/

"Eli Pariser's The Filter Bubble became the most widely cited distillation of the effects Facebook and other internet platforms could have on public discourse. Pariser began the book research when he noticed conservative people, whom he'd befriended on the platform despite his left-leaning politics, had disappeared from his News Feed. "I was still clicking my progressive friends' links more than my conservative friends' -- and links to the latest Lady Gaga videos more than either," he wrote. 'So no conservative links for me.'

Through the book, he traces the many potential problems that the 'personalization' of media might bring. Most germane to this discussion, he raised the point that if every one of the billion News Feeds is different, how can anyone understand what other people are seeing and responding to? 'The most serious political problem posed by filter bubbles is that they make it increasingly difficult to have a public argument.' "

I think everyone here agrees we have problems to address. If the solutions I supported most of my life were working in places such as California, I wouldn't feel the need for radical change. Had the Democratic candidate not supported the Iraq war, alongside Biden, McCain et al, and then 'learned' her lesson by violent regime-change in Libya (described by Obama as a 'shit-show'), and then embarked upon program of cash collection from the powerful and secrecy towards her coronation, I might have wavered back towards the Dems. Bernie would have drawn me like a magnet. But given the choice between the devil I know and the one I don't I choose the latter. Trump may yet screw things up and people are free to disagree about his skills and solutions.

It's pretty easy today to forget that both Bill and Hillary attended Trump's (most recent) wedding. Their daughter Chelsea is/was a good friend of Ivanka Trump (a convert to Judaism) and her husband. The criticism of bedrock conservatives repeatedly loudly and publicly even today, is that Trump is more of a Democrat than a conservative.

I stand by my belief that Trump built a public persona as a race-baiting, loudmouth buffoon that carried him straight into the WH despite a fervent, well-funded bi-partisan effort to unseat him from the time he declared up right to the present. Studying the buffoon tells us practically nothing about the individual. He's ordinary, capable, ambitious, avaricious, and mired in the world of the senses rather than the mind. There are worse traits and places to be.

kidneystones 10.15.17 at 6:31 am ( 114 )
Just re-read the longish article linked above.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/

Corey, it's a must read, especially for those in your field and for anyone interested in how information is being manufactured, filtered, distributed, and internalized.

Hint: we don't know whattf others are reading and thinking, and won't be finding out anytime soon.

Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 1:07 pm ( 125 )
I don't think Clinton would have cancelled the Iran agreement because it leaves the US exposed as the one clearly breaking its word, annoying its allies. I think she would have found cleverer ways to be bellicose. For instance, her supporter Michael Morell told Charlie Rose we should be covertly killing Iranians and Russians in Syria so that they would know we did it. He didn't spell it out, but by saying "covert" he meant we would deny it publicly. Clinton also wanted protected zones for refugees, which in practice would mean massive air strikes and ground forces and in a sanctuary for rebels to use as they strike at the Syrians and Russians and Iranians and Hezbollah.
Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 1:11 pm ( 126 )
Before someone objects to irrelevant Clinton bashing, there is a larger point. Trump is awful and I favor removing him via the 25th Amendment because I think he might start a war with N Korea. But a great many of Trump's opponents are opposed to him because he is an incompetent boob and not because they oppose American warmongering. They favor it, but don't trust Trump to do it correctly.
kidneystones 10.15.17 at 1:29 pm ( 127 )
@122 I'm going to respectfully leave that for you to figure out on your own. I'll close all further communication with you by suggesting that your aggressive and uniformly uncharitable reading of the remarks of others may complicate your understanding of relatively simple statements.

@123 I enjoy your comments very much, generally. And 123 is entirely fair.

I find very little in Trump's first term that is remarkable, or revolutionary. He seems to understand that he can't go to war with a Republican party he's ostensibly supposed to lead. Corey and others are correct, I believe, in asserting that Trump is fundamentally uninterested in governing, and entirely wrapped up in frequent external validations. I'll add that he thrives on conflict and perhaps instinctively knows how and when to rally his base. I've certainly seen him switch gears/targets during rallies when he senses he's losing the crowd.

Unlike you, and probably many others, I don't take anything any politician says seriously, especially Trump. Actions, rather than words, matter far more. Trump might like to get credit for a decapitation strike on NK and I think you nailed it when you noted that such a strike would win him bi-partisan support. He's more interested, imho, in getting credit for a golden economic age however fanciful that notion may be.

Overall, I still defer to Scott Adams and look forward to his new book (any day)
"Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter." By all means buy Corey's Book, but keep Adams in the back of your mind for light reading.

Trump may well blow us all up, but I've been told that could happen pretty much every day since I can recall. What I can say, re: Kim, is that I was here in Japan when Bill Clinton started looking seriously at removing Kim and all the Americans I knew here were crapping themselves. Can't see it happening simply because nobody wants to see downtown Seoul and Tokyo vaporized, one of which is a near-certainty, and that's if the conflict remains contained. The 1 percent in China, the US, Korea, Russia, and Japan aren't about to let anybody risk a regional conflagration.

And that really is it for me.

Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 4:03 pm ( 131 )
Michael Morell is a former CI A director and I saw speculation that he was a likely member of a Clinton Administration. About the same time that he appeared on Charlie Rose he had also published an op ed endorsing Clinton for President.

But you also ignored my other points. Clinton favored a safe zone in Syria, which is tantamount to an invasion of Syria and armed conflict with their government and its allies. And Clinton herself was and is representative of a large number of Very Serious People who thought Obama had botched Syria by not intervening on a large enough scale. There is a big constituency for more vigorous action against Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. ( There is also a constituency for more intervention in the Ukraine.). Clinton was clearly part of that. She also told AIPAC that we needed to take our relationship with Israel to the next level, and the only comment I recall reading about her regarding Yemen was about Iranian intervention, but to be honest I would need to look that up to be sure.

Clinton pushed for the Libyan intervention.

Again, she is irrelevant now, but she was part of the group who wanted yet more American military intervention in the Middle East. That group is still around. Your response was to avoid all my points and to pretend Morrell is just some random supporter.

Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 4:06 pm ( 132 )
I keep misspelling his name. Morell. Forgot to mention he was working for a Clinton aide.

http://gawker.com/i-ran-the-c-i-a-now-i-work-for-a-longtime-clinton-ally-1784871887

Donald Johnson 10.15.17 at 4:12 pm ( 133 )
Last comment of the day. But I googled and found something I didn't know. Morell was one of her advisors last fall and said we should be stopping and boarding Iranian ships to prevent them from sending weapons to the Houthis.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/clinton-adviser-lets-attack-iran-to-aid-saudis-in-yemen.html

Jake Sullivan is also portrayed as something of an anti Iran militarist.

And again, Clinton is irrelevant now, I think. But these other people are still around.

bruce wilder 10.16.17 at 7:40 am ( 149 )
J-D 'Can you explain how the construction of Trump in an (illustrative example) imagined narrative differs from an objective description of Trump?'

Here is a quote from a Vox article dated Oct 13: ". . . obviously, there's Donald Trump, who has dispensed with one democratic norm after another. He's fired an FBI director in order to undercut an investigation into his campaign's possible collusion with Moscow . . ."

The article is not about Trump. Sean Illing, the author, is using Trump as an illustration. Or, rather he is using a narrative about Trump where Trump colluded with the Russian state to win election by foul means. If you accept the donnée of Trump's collusion with Russia, then it follows that Trump fired Comey in what practically amounts to obstruction of justice. And, a considerable volume of reporting has supported that narrative. One set of reports had Comey fired right after he made a budget request to fund an expanded investigation. A dossier put together by a British spy implied that Trump was being blackmailed by Russians. A meeting of arranged by one of Trump's sons with a Russian lawyer was supposedly baited with an offer of dirt on Clinton and this meeting has been interpreted as confirming the Trump campaign's willingness to collude. There has been a lot of speculation in the Media in support of this narrative is my point. At the time Comey was fired, there was a great volume of speculation centered on what Trump said in his letter dismissing Comey, calling into question the claim by Trump that Comey had assured Trump on three occasions that Trump himself was not under investigation. In support of the narrative that Trump had obstructed justice, Comey's character and positive reputation were touted by some journalists.

But, despite the tremendous volume of journalistic speculation structured around this narrative of collusion, there are no confirmed and unambiguous facts to support it. So, Illing must qualify his use of the narrative as an example of bad behavior with the insertion of the weasel words, "possible collusion".

In a better world than the one we are living in, responsible journalists are careful and judicious in both verifying facts and grounding the narratives they use with facts. The facts that can be ascertained and verified become constraints on the story, on the choice of narrative. That does not necessarily happen. Sometimes, journalists go with a "good story" that resonates with readers and attracts clicks or viewers. And, they construe such facts as there are in ways that support the chosen narrative without exercising judgment or attempting verification. The story -- the choice of narrative script -- becomes a constraint on the facts and their interpretation.

I think the balance of available factual evidence suggests pretty strongly that Trump did not collude with the Russian state to defeat Clinton. An honest and balanced "objective" description of factors affecting the electoral outcome and Trump's conduct do not support the idea that there was collusion or even that the Russians did much of anything to affect the election beyond openly funding a cable news channel. The dossier peddled by the British ex-spy was pretty ridiculous on its face. The Comey budget request was a pure invention. Responsible journalists would have attempted to verify details in the dossier or reported on how absurd many parts of it were. Journalists assessing Comey's character might have taken a more critical perspective.

If the factual basis for "possible collusion" is taken away, the obstruction of justice charge evaporates. Trump becomes a President who does not want to be dogged by a groundless investigation, fishing for a blue dress until it finds one. Trump the President finds he does not want to have the hack, Comey hanging out. Useful when he was tripping up his opponent, not so attractive as a companion.

Trump viewed plainly is still a fairly alarming figure to have in a powerful office, but a narrative of traitorous collusion with a national enemy, titillating as it may be as news entertainment, is not descriptively accurate given the available evidence and appropriately balanced methods of evaluating that evidence. (During the campaign, Trump called on Russia to disclose the emails Clinton claimed to have deleted. I suppose one could take that as a joke or a call for collusion with Boris and Natasha. I think joke is the better, more natural interpretation.)

Donald Johnson 10.16.17 at 12:01 pm ( 157 )
You did it again, layman. I refuted what you said to me even if you take it in the narrowest possible way. You objected to my reference to Morell's statement, implying that he was just some random Clinton supporter using some silly argument about. " Donald Johnson supporter" who drowns kittens. I showed that this argument was wrong and Morell was one of Clinton's advisors. If you want to stick to issues, then stick to them and don't make silly arguments and get them wrong.

The larger point is that in Washington the fight between Trump and many ( obviously not all) of his critics is a fight between two groups of militarists.. It would be good if people acknowledged this. In a way it is three groups of militarists,, since Trump's personal incoherence makes him a group unto himself. But on Iran there is an important disagreement between those who want to dump the nuclear agreement and those who want to adhere to it, but are otherwise hardliners who badly want more confrontation.

On your main point, when you aren't trivializing mine, yes, Trump is worse than Clinton because he is not only an arrogant militarist (a trait he shares with Clinton and many others), but ignorant and irrational.

bruce wilder 10.16.17 at 4:59 pm ( 166 )
Layman, small differences between Clinton and Trump do not dominate Clinton's very large political defects. You had an argument for relentlessly focusing on differences to the exclusion of appreciating the whole reality, maybe, when there was a choice on an upcoming ballot. Now, we live in the shadow of Clinton's defects: her defects gave us Trump. And, those defects are not so much the qualities of an individual person -- Clinton or Trump -- as they are the persistent institutional personalities of large political factions and institutional actors: the Democratic Party establishment, the Deep State intelligence agencies and military-industrial complex, the Foreign Policy Blob, the corporate Media, et cetera.

Bullying others in comments over such fine points as whether Clinton would have respected certain forms of the Iran nuclear deal is not contributing much to the discussion. We can see that Trump is hostile to that agreement and is cynically manipulating the forms in ways likely to make the agreement come apart. What relevance a counterfactual projection of Clinton's behavior might have is not clear; asserting that acceptance of such a counterfactual as "true" should be a dispositive criteria for rationality borders on the bizarre.

The relevant fact is not some putative small differences between Trump and Clinton (and the factions and interests and institutionalized views she sought to represent as a fully paid-up member of the Foreign Policy Blob), but the near-absence in American politics of a countervailing force to the consensus of views and interests promoting a palsied, nearly mindless imperial aggression. Morell's views are relevant to showing just how extreme and reckless is this "center" that Clinton represented, and understanding how and why the "center" is not doing much to restrain the Trump. Some powerful forces cultivated by the Democratic establishment have always been hostile to Iran, supportive of Saudi Arabia and so on.

TM, the idea that CR is minimizing Trump seems bizarre to me. If anyone understands the incoherent viciousness of conservatism as the impulse to dominate in a hierarchical polity, it is our gracious host. Trump is expressing conservative ideas and impulses that have always been there. He is not new. That bit of narrative hyperbole -- that Trump is different from all those nice responsible conservatives of the past -- is a dangerous deception. What is different in our political moment is the collapse of effective opposition from the left and centre-left. Trump is so scary because so little stands in his way, so little compels him (or the various factions enjoying the power associated with the authority of office under his aegis, including the practical military junta at the core of his Administration) to moderate his policies, let alone his rhetoric.

Mario 10.16.17 at 9:15 pm ( 174 )
@Layman

what I always find grotesque about the accusations of Russian meddling is the full ticket obliviousness to all the meddling the US used to perform in Russian elections, and in fact in many other elections worldwide. It's quite a sorry sight to see people like you make a fuss about very minor activities (if there's even evidence of any), without as much as a shred of self awareness.

Also, too: I've said I think she's bad on militarism. I'm not interested in, and don't, defend the other side of that argument. I just don't have any patience for the sort of nonsense that wants to paint her as an eater of babies. She's a bog-standard, mainstream adherent of the global diplomatic, economic and military order. That's not good, but it ain't Satan either.

The global diplomatic, economic and military order is downright evil and full-scale babyeating. Ask around in Yemen, Syria, Lybia, etc. So yes, she has that Satan streak. That that's bog-standard and mainstream is horrific, but I grant you that's the world we live in.

Note, BTW, that she was directly involved in at least some of these actions. She has, even now, more blood on her hands than Trump.

Donald Johnson 10.16.17 at 11:50 pm ( 176 )
Faustusnotes --

The evidence that Morell was one of Clinton's advisors was in the link I provided, where it says Morell was one of Clinton's advisors.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/clinton-adviser-lets-attack-iran-to-aid-saudis-in-yemen.html

This is tiresome. I provide links and people demand the evidence that is in the links.

Donald Johnson 10.17.17 at 12:13 am ( 177 )
Layman, this is the third time your response is frustratingly beside the point and after this I am giving up, because you are just going to continue doing it. I didn't just quote other people. I said Clinton supported intervention in Syria, that she supported the Libyan intervention and of course she voted for the Iraq War. She is also a standard AIPAC panderer. Do your own googling if you actually care about this rather than try to save face in some internet thread. It's well known Clinton is a hawk.

My point was that yes, she is a bog standard militarist and one of the points I was making is that even if she is no longer relevant, the people who are militaristic in their attitudes still are. You are the one between the two of us who wants to make it mainly about Clinton, but since you brought up baby eating, that is you once again trivializing the consequences of bog standard US militarism.

Here is a link specifically on Clinton

http://fpif.org/hillary-clintons-support-iraq-war-no-fluke/

There are others, easily found, and I am not wasting further time on this.

Suzanne 10.17.17 at 12:35 am ( 178 )
@174: Trump has lifted the Obama Administration's restraints on the military, resulting in a rapid rise in civilian casualties:

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-already-killed-more-civilians-obama-us-fight-against-isis-653564

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/us/politics/trump-drone-strikes-commando-raids-rules.html

As the Amnesty International spokesman points out in the NYT piece, the Obama Administration's constraints fell far short of what is needed.

On the home front, Trump is rescinding the Obama-era limits imposed on Pentagon handouts to cops:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-police-military-surplus-equipment.html

'Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare, including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday, describing it as "lifesaving gear."'

All of the foregoing actions could have been predicted during the campaign.

It is quite true that the U.S. has interfered in the elections of other nations, with disastrous consequences for many of those nations. Why this should tie hands now is not clear to me. Highly unlikely the Russians were engaged in righteous retribution for Mossadegh. I suspect some would be taking a less dismissive tone had, say, the Chinese interfered on behalf of Clinton the bloodthirsty.

Orange Watch 10.17.17 at 1:39 am ( 179 )
Layman@159 :
Based on this and your prior comment, you're asking for counterfactuals, because of course Clinton-the-non-President is not capable of being even as bad as let alone worse than Trump-the-President. However, based on your comments elsewhere in the thread, you're dismissing any counterfactuals out of hand. Taken together, this is not a tack taken by someone who is interested in a serious dialogue, or really, any dialogue. Can we dispense with that sort of horseshit?

Either Clinton has no relevance at all, in which case you can forgo with the pedantic lectures about how she's vastly superior in all ways to Trump ( @95 ) and we can hopefully resume forgetting that she exists, or the comparison of a hypothetical Clinton presidency to the current administration has some value in the conversation even when someone other than you is making it ( @96 ). Until and unless you're willing and able to unravel the fundamental contradiction between these perfectly incompatible stances – which have infected every exchange you've made downthread of the them – there's no point at all in trying to discuss this with you in any detail, and there's certainly no reason for us to run and fetch answers for you in response to your ever-changing standards.

Donald Johnson 10.17.17 at 4:13 am ( 182 )
I didn't go back to see who first mentioned Clinton, but the point made by at least a few of us is that Clinton is only important at this point as a representative of a broad segment of the Beltway crowd that is constantly pushing for more military intervention, either directly or by proxy, and that some of the opposition to Trump doesn't come from antiwar types, but from people who don't trust him to warmonger in a competent way.

If people want a sane non- militaristic foreign policy it's going to take more than just opposition to Trump. You are also going to have to oppose some of Trump's opponents in both parties. The one time Trump received positive feedback and praise from many in the Beltway was when he bombed Syria.

bruce wilder 10.17.17 at 6:19 am ( 186 )
Lee A. Arnold @ 166

If XYZ does not exist, it doesn't exist. If it does exist, it exists. I agree that in our present state of political disorganization among the broad mass, most people do not know much about constitutes a political issue. And, they don't know what they want politically.

nastywoman @ 175

"Such "thinking" is as "Alien" as blaming the kid who was mauled by a Pit Bull the other day – "because so little stood in the Pit Bulls way and so little did "compel him".

"What type of person – what type of people can think like that?!"

The kind of person who thinks dogs should be kept on a leash. The type of person who can think like that is highly intelligent, suave and debonair.

kidneystones 10.17.17 at 11:30 am ( 194 )
Why are people still talking about Clinton? In general, because Clinton won't shut up. She's as hungry for a microphone and the spotlight as the conservative in question. Which is ironic considering that her aversion to the press and the public as a candidate helped cost her the election. Now, she can't stop talking. Bannon would willingly bankroll the book tour and undoubtedly wants her to remain in the spotlight through 2018. Indeed, Bannon is banking on making Hillary a key part of Trump's re-election in 2020, as role she looks all too eager to fill. Chew on that as you gaze into the future.

Why are people talking about Hillary here, on a thread about Trump and conservatism? Because a plausible argument can be made that Hillary is more of conservative than Trump, at least in terms of neo-conservative politics. She has, after all, two neo-con wars under her belt already and enjoys good relations with all the really wrong people. Her avarice and willingness to tell tales are at least comparable to Trump's. But perhaps the best reason Hillary belongs here is because many believe that had a less conservative Democrat than Hillary run (Bernie, for example), Dems would have won and Donald Trump would be yesterday's news.

To get a sense of what the Democratic future looks like, here's a very recent interview with Hillary which I think is illustrative of the level of disconnect between supporters (like me) who felt strongly enough about her candidacy in 2008 to endure accusations of racism from Obama supporters, yet turned from her to Trump by 2015, and those who still support her for reasons that make a great deal of sense (to them).

The interview with Hillary about Hillary runs 45 minutes on Australian TV with a transcript. Take away – Trump figures bigly and in the most unflattering terms, so much for graciousness in defeat. The Access Hollywood tape is discussed in great detail, as is Comey, and the Russians. The words Wall St; Goldman Sachs, Libya, and Syria are never mentioned. In Hillary-world Michigan, Wisconsin, and Bernie Sanders merit a mention each and only in a very specific context. We get David Duke, the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and white supremacists; pizzas – and pure deflection when the discussion turns to Bill, Chelsea, gifts; and cash. In short, she hasn't much of a good word to say about anyone.

Here's a sampling for the still faithful.

" Russians actually paid in rubles for running ads in ah Facebook and on Twitter making all kinds of accusations against me, working to suppress voters which is a really important part of the equation " (suppress voters, or decrease turnout? The latter fits better, imho.)

Interviewer: "Is it, is it the case that you missed the fundamentally angry sentiment in the US last year against globalisation?

HILLARY CLINTON: I didn't miss it "

Interviewer: "Was it in some ways your links to big money politics that made it difficult for you to be the representative of that anger ?

HILLARY CLINTON: No, not at all! You know, when I was in the primary, Bernie Sanders couldn't explain his programs. I was the one who was saying here's what we're going to do to the banks "

One mere mention of Wisconsin: "we know is that the false information was aimed at Wisconsin and Michigan and parts of Pennsylvania "

And folks wonder how she lost.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/hillary-clinton:-the-interview/9055256

[Oct 22, 2017] Trump and His 'Beautiful' Weapons by William Blum

Notable quotes:
"... It's easy to understand why some of President Trump's senior advisers privately consider him a "moron," with a limited vocabulary and stunning lack of normal human empathy, as William Blum explains at Anti-Empire Report. ..."
"... Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping from his charming mouth: "Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far." [Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017] ..."
"... And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just imagine! ..."
"... Lucky for the man his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment. He's twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush. ..."
"... Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II ..."
"... Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

It's easy to understand why some of President Trump's senior advisers privately consider him a "moron," with a limited vocabulary and stunning lack of normal human empathy, as William Blum explains at Anti-Empire Report.

Capturing the wisdom and the beauty of Donald J. Trump in just one statement escaping from his charming mouth: "Our military has never been stronger. Each day, new equipment is delivered; new and beautiful equipment, the best in the world – the best anywhere in the world, by far." [Washington Post, Sept. 8, 2017]

Here the man thinks that everyone will be impressed that the American military has never been stronger. And that those who, for some unimaginable reason, are not impressed with that will at least be impressed that military equipment is being added EACH DAY. Ah yes, it's long been a sore point with most Americans that new military equipment was being added only once a week.

And if that isn't impressive enough, then surely the fact that the equipment is NEW will win people over. Indeed, the newness is important enough to mention twice. After all, no one likes USED military equipment. And if newness doesn't win everyone's heart, then BEAUTIFUL will definitely do it. Who likes UGLY military equipment? Even the people we slaughter all over the world insist upon good-looking guns and bombs.

And the best in the world. Of course. That's what makes us all proud to be Americans. And what makes the rest of humanity just aching with jealousy. And in case you don't fully appreciate that, notice that he adds that it's the best ANYWHERE in the world.

And in case you still don't fully appreciate that, notice that he specifies that our equipment is the best in the world BY FAR! That means that no other country is even close! Just imagine! Makes me choke up.

Lucky for the man his seeming incapacity for moral or intellectual embarrassment. He's twice blessed. His fans like the idea that their president is no smarter than they are. This may well serve to get the man re-elected, as it did with George W. Bush.

William Blum is an author, historian, and renowned critic of U.S. foreign policy. He is the author of Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II and Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower , among others. [This article originally appeared at the Anti-Empire Report, https://williamblum.org/ .]

[Oct 22, 2017] CNN EXPOSED IN UNDERCOVER STING - Russia-Trump Story Admitted FAKE NEWS - Driving to Bohemian Grove

Oct 22, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Five Star Productions , 3 months ago

CNN is toast. Everyone (anyone) with a brain knows this. I feel badly for the professional reporters there that can't get out to a new location ..... they will be ruined also.

[Oct 22, 2017] Clinton, Assange and the War on Truth by John Pilger

Notable quotes:
"... This high-profile journalist made no mention of Clinton's own "clear and present danger" to the people of Iran whom she once threatened to "obliterate totally," and the 40,000 Libyans who died in the attack on Libya in 2011 that Clinton orchestrated. Flushed with excitement, the Secretary of State rejoiced at the gruesome murder of the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi. ..."
"... "Libya was Hillary Clinton's war," Julian Assange said in a filmed interview with me last year. "Barack Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it? Hillary Clinton. That's documented throughout her emails there's more than 1,700 emails out of the 33,000 Hillary Clinton emails that we've published, just about Libya. It's not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state -- something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President. ..."
"... "Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilization of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself was no longer able to control the movement of people through it." ..."
"... In a tweet from London, Assange cited the ABC's own Code of Practice, which states: "Where allegations are made about a person or organisation, make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond." ..."
"... Following the ABC broadcast, Ferguson's executive producer, Sally Neighbour, re-tweeted the following: "Assange is Putin's bitch. We all know it!" The slander, since deleted, was even used as a link to the ABC interview captioned 'Assange is Putins (sic) b****. We all know it!' ..."
"... Today, Assange remains a political refugee from the war-making dark state of which Donald Trump is a caricature and Hillary Clinton the embodiment. His resilience and courage are astonishing. Unlike him, his tormentors are cowards. ..."
Oct 22, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Drivel such as this, trivializing women's struggles, marks the media hagiographies of Hillary Clinton. Her political extremism and warmongering are of no consequence. Her problem, wrote Trainster, was a "damaging infatuation with the email story." The truth, in other words.

The leaked emails of Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, revealed a direct connection between Clinton and the foundation and funding of organized jihadism in the Middle East and Islamic State (known as ISIS, ISIL or Daesh). The ultimate source of most Islamic terrorism, Saudi Arabia, was central to her career.

One email, in 2014, sent by Clinton to Podesta soon after she stepped down as U.S. Secretary of State, discloses that Islamic State is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Clinton accepted huge donations from both governments for the Clinton Foundation.

As Secretary of State, she approved the world's biggest ever arms sale to her benefactors in Saudi Arabia, worth more than $80 billion. Thanks to her, U.S. arms sales to the world – for use in stricken countries like Yemen – doubled.

This was revealed by WikiLeaks and published by The New York Times. No one doubts the emails are authentic. The subsequent campaign to smear WikiLeaks and its editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, as "agents of Russia," has grown into a spectacular fantasy known as "Russiagate." The "plot" is said to have been signed off on by Vladimir Putin himself. There is not a shred of public evidence.

Smear and Omission

The ABC Australia interview with Clinton is an outstanding example of smear and censorship by omission. I would say it is a model.

"No one," the interviewer, Sarah Ferguson, says to Clinton, "could fail to be moved by the pain on your face at that moment [of the inauguration of Trump] Do you remember how visceral it was for you?"

Having established Clinton's visceral suffering, Ferguson asks about "Russia's role."

CLINTON: I think Russia affected the perceptions and views of millions of voters, we now know. I think that their intention coming from the very top with Putin was to hurt me and to help Trump.

FERGUSON: How much of that was a personal vendetta by Vladimir Putin against you?

CLINTON: I mean he wants to destabilize democracy. He wants to undermine America, he wants to go after the Atlantic Alliance and we consider Australia kind of a an extension of that

(The opposite is true. It is a combination of Western armies massing on Russia's border for the first time since the Russian Revolution 100 years ago.)

FERGUSON: How much damage did [Julian Assange] do personally to you?

CLINTON: Well, I had a lot of history with him because I was Secretary of State when, ah, WikiLeaks published a lot of very sensitive, ah, information from our State Department and our Defense Department.

(What Clinton fails to say – and her interviewer fails to remind her – is that in 2010, WikiLeaks revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the United Nations leadership, including the Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon and the permanent Security Council representatives from China, Russia, France and the U.K. A classified directive, signed by Clinton, was issued to U.S. diplomats in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top U.N. officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks. This was known as Cablegate. It was lawless spying.)

CLINTON: He [Assange] is very clearly a tool of Russian intelligence. And, ah, he has done their bidding.

(Clinton offered no evidence to back up this serious accusation, nor did Ferguson challenge her.)

CLINTON: You don't see damaging negative information coming out about the Kremlin on WikiLeaks. You didn't see any of that published.

(This was false. WikiLeaks has published a massive number of documents on Russia – more than 800,000, most of them critical, many of them used in books and as evidence in court cases.)

A 'Nihilistic Opportunist'

CLINTON: So I think Assange has become a kind of nihilistic opportunist who does the bidding of a dictator.

FERGUSON: Lots of people, including in Australia, think that Assange is a martyr for free speech and freedom of information. How would you describe him? Well, you've just described him as a nihilist.

CLINTON: Yeah, well, and a tool. I mean he's a tool of Russian intelligence. And if he's such, ah, you know, martyr of free speech, why doesn't WikiLeaks ever publish anything coming out of Russia?

(Again, Ferguson said nothing to challenge this or correct her.)

CLINTON: There was a concerted operation between WikiLeaks and Russia and most likely people in the United States to weaponize that information, to make up stories to help Trump.

FERGUSON: Now, along with some of those outlandish stories, there was information that was revealed about the Clinton Foundation that at least in some of the voters' minds seemed to associate you .

CLINTON: Yeah, but it was false!

FERGUSON: with the peddling of information

CLINTON: It was false! It was totally false! ..

FERGUSON: Do you understand how difficult it was for some voters to understand the amounts of money that the [Clinton] Foundation is raising, the confusion with the consultancy that was also raising money, getting gifts and travel and so on for Bill Clinton that even Chelsea had some issues with?

CLINTON: Well you know, I'm sorry, Sarah, I mean I, I know the facts .

Generational 'Icon'

The ABC interviewer lauded Clinton as "the icon of your generation." She asked her nothing about the enormous sums she creamed off from Wall Street, such as the $675,000 for speaking to Goldman Sachs, one of the banks at the center of the 2008 crash. Clinton's greed deeply upset the kind of voters she abused as "deplorables."

Clearly looking for a cheap headline in the Australian press, Ferguson asked her if Trump was "a clear and present danger to Australia" and got her predictable response.

This high-profile journalist made no mention of Clinton's own "clear and present danger" to the people of Iran whom she once threatened to "obliterate totally," and the 40,000 Libyans who died in the attack on Libya in 2011 that Clinton orchestrated. Flushed with excitement, the Secretary of State rejoiced at the gruesome murder of the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi.

"Libya was Hillary Clinton's war," Julian Assange said in a filmed interview with me last year. "Barack Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it? Hillary Clinton. That's documented throughout her emails there's more than 1,700 emails out of the 33,000 Hillary Clinton emails that we've published, just about Libya. It's not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state -- something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.

"So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it's the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.

"Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilization of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself was no longer able to control the movement of people through it."

This – not Clinton's "visceral" pain in losing to Trump nor the rest of the self-serving scuttlebutt in her ABC interview – was the story. Clinton shared responsibility for massively de-stabilizing the Middle East, which led to the death, suffering and flight of thousands of women, men and children.

Ferguson raised not a word of it. Clinton repeatedly defamed Assange, who was neither defended nor offered a right of reply on his own country's state broadcaster.

In a tweet from London, Assange cited the ABC's own Code of Practice, which states: "Where allegations are made about a person or organisation, make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond."

'Putin's Bitch'

Following the ABC broadcast, Ferguson's executive producer, Sally Neighbour, re-tweeted the following: "Assange is Putin's bitch. We all know it!" The slander, since deleted, was even used as a link to the ABC interview captioned 'Assange is Putins (sic) b****. We all know it!'

In the years I have known Julian Assange, I have watched a vituperative personal campaign try to stop him and WikiLeaks. It has been a frontal assault on whistleblowing, on free speech and free journalism, all of which are now under sustained attack from governments and corporate Internet controllers.

The first serious attacks on Assange came from the Guardian, which, like a spurned lover, turned on its besieged former source, having hugely profited from WikiLeaks' disclosures. With not a penny going to Assange or WikiLeaks, a Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood movie deal. Assange was portrayed as "callous" and a "damaged personality."

It was as if a rampant jealousy could not accept that his remarkable achievements stood in marked contrast to that of his detractors in the "mainstream" media. It is like watching the guardians of the status quo, regardless of age, struggling to silence real dissent and prevent the emergence of the new and hopeful.

Today, Assange remains a political refugee from the war-making dark state of which Donald Trump is a caricature and Hillary Clinton the embodiment. His resilience and courage are astonishing. Unlike him, his tormentors are cowards.

John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist based in London. Pilger's Web site is: www.johnpilger.com . His new film, "The Coming War on China," is available in the U.S. from www.bullfrogfilms.com

[Oct 21, 2017] Washington Funds Foreign Think Tanks That Blacklist Opponents of Neocon Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

I just finished an interview on RT.

Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.

In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech " think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian government-funded RT television network.

Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank? Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.

I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"

It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials, when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.

So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights."

Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political "enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech "European Values" think tank.

Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?

"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.

This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."

That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny?

The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.

[Oct 21, 2017] Dying for the Empire Is Not Heroic by Sheldon Richman

Oct 21, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Posted on October 20, 2017 October 20, 2017 Predictably, the news media spent most of the week examining words Donald Trump may or may not have spoken to the widow of an American Green Beret killed in Niger, in northwest Africa, in early October. Not only was this coverage tedious, it was largely pointless. We know Trump is a clumsy boor, and we also know that lots of people are ready to pounce on him for any sort of gaffe, real or imagined. Who cares? It's not news. But it was useful to those who wish to distract Americans from what really needs attention: the U.S. government's perpetual war.

The media's efforts should have been devoted to exploring – really exploring – why Green Berets (and drones) are in Niger at all. ( This is typical of the establishment media's explanation.)

That subject is apparently of little interest to media companies that see themselves merely as cheerleaders for the American Empire. For them, it's all so simple: a US president (even one they despise) has put or left military forces in a foreign country – no justification required; therefore, those forces are serving their country; and that in turn means that if they die, they die as heroes who were protecting our way of life. End of story.

Thus the establishment media see no need to present a dissenting view, say, from an analyst who would question the dogma that inserting American warriors into faraway conflicts whenever a warlord proclaims his allegiance to ISIS is in the "national interest." Patriotic media companies have no wish to expose their audiences to the idea that jihadists would be no threat to Americans who were left to mind their own business.

Apparently the American people also must be shielded from anyone who might point out that the jihadist activity in Niger and neighboring Mali is directly related to the US and NATO bombing of Libya, which enabled al-Qaeda and other Muslim militants to overthrow the secular regime of Col. Muammar Qaddafi. That Obama-Clinton operation in 2011, besides producing Qaddafi's grisly murder and turning Libya into a nightmare, facilitated the transfer of weapons and fanatical guerrillas from Libya to nearby countries in the Sahel – as well as Syria. Since then the US government has been helping the French to "stabilize" its former colony Mali with surveillance drones and Green Berets based in Niger. Nice work, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. (Citizen Trump was an early advocate of US intervention in Libya.) Need I remind you that the US/NATO regime-change operation in Libya was based on a lie ? Obama later said his failure to foresee the consequences of the Libya intervention was the biggest mistake of his presidency. (For more on the unintended consequences for the Sahel, see articles here , here , and here .)

So the media, which pretends to play a role in keeping Americans informed, have decided the people need not hear the truth behind the events in Niger. Instead, "reporters" and "analysts" perform their role as cheerleaders for the American Empire by declaring the dead men "heroes" and focusing on the tragedy that has befallen their families. Public scrutiny of the military operation is discouraged because it thought to detract from the Green Berets' heroism.

What makes them heroes? They were killed by non-Americans in a foreign land while wearing military uniforms. That's all it takes, according to the gospel of what Andrew Bacevich calls the Church of America the Redeemer and its media choir.

But are they really heroes? We can question this while feeling sorrow for the people who will never see their husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers again. Reporters and analysts who emote over alleged heroism base their claim on the dubious proposition that the men were "serving their country" and "protecting our freedom." A brief examination, however, is enough to show this is not so, although the troops, their families, and many others believe it.

First, their "country," if by this term we mean the American people, did not call them to "service," which itself a question-begging word. The source of the call was a collection of politicians and bureaucrats (including generals) who wouldn't know the public interest from a hole in the ground.

Second, US intervention in the Muslim world, which predates 9/11 and the creation of al-Qaeda and ISIS, has not made Americans safe. On the contrary, it has put them at risk, as the attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrated. Is it hard to believe that people will seek vengeance against those whose government bombs them and starves their children, as the US government did in Iraq all through the 1990s (to take just one example)?

Dying (and killing) for the Empire is not heroic. Allowing yourself to be ordered to intervene in distant conflicts you surely don't understand is not worthy of admiration. What's heroic is resisting the Empire.

Anyone who thought Trump would bring the troops back should now know better. He, of all people, is not about to give up imperial power. The Guardian quotes a former military officer saying, "Since [President] Trump took power, US forces deployed around the world have had a lot more room to maneuver. Decisions about when and what to engage have been devolved right down to unit level. Any soldier knows that if you give guys on the ground more independence, then they will be that much more aggressive and will take more risks."

At this point we can't expect the corporate media to quit propagandizing on behalf of the war state and start informing the public of the harm "their" government has inflicted abroad and at home. Fortunately, we have virtually costless access to alternative sources of information about the politicians' and military's mischief. The conundrum is that most people, having been fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda, won't turn to those sources until they become suspicious of power.

Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute , senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies, former editor of The Freeman , published by the Foundation for Economic Education , and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation . His latest book is America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited . Reprinted with permission from The Libertarian Institute .

Read more by Sheldon Richman Flags, Football, and Begged Questions – October 3rd, 2017 Operation CYA – Afghanistan – August 25th, 2017 Trump's 'Fire and Fury' Wouldn't Be the First for North Korea – August 11th, 2017 Truman, A-Bombs, and the Killing of Innocents – August 6th, 2017 The American Way of War – July 2nd, 2017

[Oct 21, 2017] Dying for the Empire Is Not Heroic by Sheldon Richman

Oct 21, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Posted on October 20, 2017 October 20, 2017 Predictably, the news media spent most of the week examining words Donald Trump may or may not have spoken to the widow of an American Green Beret killed in Niger, in northwest Africa, in early October. Not only was this coverage tedious, it was largely pointless. We know Trump is a clumsy boor, and we also know that lots of people are ready to pounce on him for any sort of gaffe, real or imagined. Who cares? It's not news. But it was useful to those who wish to distract Americans from what really needs attention: the U.S. government's perpetual war.

The media's efforts should have been devoted to exploring – really exploring – why Green Berets (and drones) are in Niger at all. ( This is typical of the establishment media's explanation.)

That subject is apparently of little interest to media companies that see themselves merely as cheerleaders for the American Empire. For them, it's all so simple: a US president (even one they despise) has put or left military forces in a foreign country – no justification required; therefore, those forces are serving their country; and that in turn means that if they die, they die as heroes who were protecting our way of life. End of story.

Thus the establishment media see no need to present a dissenting view, say, from an analyst who would question the dogma that inserting American warriors into faraway conflicts whenever a warlord proclaims his allegiance to ISIS is in the "national interest." Patriotic media companies have no wish to expose their audiences to the idea that jihadists would be no threat to Americans who were left to mind their own business.

Apparently the American people also must be shielded from anyone who might point out that the jihadist activity in Niger and neighboring Mali is directly related to the US and NATO bombing of Libya, which enabled al-Qaeda and other Muslim militants to overthrow the secular regime of Col. Muammar Qaddafi. That Obama-Clinton operation in 2011, besides producing Qaddafi's grisly murder and turning Libya into a nightmare, facilitated the transfer of weapons and fanatical guerrillas from Libya to nearby countries in the Sahel – as well as Syria. Since then the US government has been helping the French to "stabilize" its former colony Mali with surveillance drones and Green Berets based in Niger. Nice work, Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama and Secretary of State Clinton. (Citizen Trump was an early advocate of US intervention in Libya.) Need I remind you that the US/NATO regime-change operation in Libya was based on a lie ? Obama later said his failure to foresee the consequences of the Libya intervention was the biggest mistake of his presidency. (For more on the unintended consequences for the Sahel, see articles here , here , and here .)

So the media, which pretends to play a role in keeping Americans informed, have decided the people need not hear the truth behind the events in Niger. Instead, "reporters" and "analysts" perform their role as cheerleaders for the American Empire by declaring the dead men "heroes" and focusing on the tragedy that has befallen their families. Public scrutiny of the military operation is discouraged because it thought to detract from the Green Berets' heroism.

What makes them heroes? They were killed by non-Americans in a foreign land while wearing military uniforms. That's all it takes, according to the gospel of what Andrew Bacevich calls the Church of America the Redeemer and its media choir.

But are they really heroes? We can question this while feeling sorrow for the people who will never see their husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers again. Reporters and analysts who emote over alleged heroism base their claim on the dubious proposition that the men were "serving their country" and "protecting our freedom." A brief examination, however, is enough to show this is not so, although the troops, their families, and many others believe it.

First, their "country," if by this term we mean the American people, did not call them to "service," which itself a question-begging word. The source of the call was a collection of politicians and bureaucrats (including generals) who wouldn't know the public interest from a hole in the ground.

Second, US intervention in the Muslim world, which predates 9/11 and the creation of al-Qaeda and ISIS, has not made Americans safe. On the contrary, it has put them at risk, as the attacks on the World Trade Center demonstrated. Is it hard to believe that people will seek vengeance against those whose government bombs them and starves their children, as the US government did in Iraq all through the 1990s (to take just one example)?

Dying (and killing) for the Empire is not heroic. Allowing yourself to be ordered to intervene in distant conflicts you surely don't understand is not worthy of admiration. What's heroic is resisting the Empire.

Anyone who thought Trump would bring the troops back should now know better. He, of all people, is not about to give up imperial power. The Guardian quotes a former military officer saying, "Since [President] Trump took power, US forces deployed around the world have had a lot more room to maneuver. Decisions about when and what to engage have been devolved right down to unit level. Any soldier knows that if you give guys on the ground more independence, then they will be that much more aggressive and will take more risks."

At this point we can't expect the corporate media to quit propagandizing on behalf of the war state and start informing the public of the harm "their" government has inflicted abroad and at home. Fortunately, we have virtually costless access to alternative sources of information about the politicians' and military's mischief. The conundrum is that most people, having been fed a steady diet of pro-war propaganda, won't turn to those sources until they become suspicious of power.

Sheldon Richman is the executive editor of The Libertarian Institute , senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society , and a contributing editor at Antiwar.com . He is the former senior editor at the Cato Institute and Institute for Humane Studies, former editor of The Freeman , published by the Foundation for Economic Education , and former vice president at the Future of Freedom Foundation . His latest book is America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited . Reprinted with permission from The Libertarian Institute .

Read more by Sheldon Richman Flags, Football, and Begged Questions – October 3rd, 2017 Operation CYA – Afghanistan – August 25th, 2017 Trump's 'Fire and Fury' Wouldn't Be the First for North Korea – August 11th, 2017 Truman, A-Bombs, and the Killing of Innocents – August 6th, 2017 The American Way of War – July 2nd, 2017

[Oct 21, 2017] Socialism, Land and Banking 2017 compared to 1917 by Michael Hudson

Notable quotes:
"... Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized. ..."
"... Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism. ..."
"... Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor. ..."
"... Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges. ..."
"... Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. ..."
"... When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers. ..."
"... It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation." ..."
"... The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96. ..."
"... The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism. ..."
"... Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States! ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not ..."
"... By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008. ..."
"... The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier ..."
"... Theories of Surplus Value ..."
"... American Journal of Economics and Sociology ..."
"... Super-Imperialism ..."
"... The Great Credit Crash ..."
"... The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model ..."
"... Journal of Economic Issues ..."
Oct 20, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
Socialism a century ago seemed to be the wave of the future. There were various schools of socialism, but the common ideal was to guarantee support for basic needs, and for state ownership to free society from landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. In the West these hopes are now much further away than they seemed in 1917. Land and natural resources, basic infrastructure monopolies, health care and pensions have been increasingly privatized and financialized.

Instead of Germany and other advanced industrial nations leading the way as expected, Russia's October 1917 Revolution made the greatest leap. But the failures of Stalinism became an argument against Marxism – guilt-by-association with Soviet bureaucracy. European parties calling themselves socialist or "labour" since the 1980s have supported neoliberal policies that are the opposite of socialist policy. Russia itself has chosen neoliberalism.

Few socialist parties or theorists have dealt with the rise of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector that now accounts for most increase in wealth. Instead of evolving into socialism, Western capitalism is being overcome by predatory finance and rent extraction imposing debt deflation and austerity on industry as well as on labor.

Failure of Western economies to recover from the 2008 crisis is leading to a revival of Marxist advocacy. The alternative to socialist reform is stagnation and a relapse into neofeudal financial and monopoly privileges.

Socialism flowered in the 19 th century as a program to reform capitalism by raising labor's status and living standards, with a widening range of public services and subsidies to make economies more efficient. Reformers hoped to promote this evolution by extending voting rights to the working population at large.

Ricardo's discussion of land rent led early industrial capitalists to oppose Europe's hereditary landlord class. But despite democratic political reform, the world has un-taxed land rent and is still grappling with the problem of how to keep housing affordable instead of siphoning off rent to a landlord class – more recently transmuted into mortgage interest paid to banks by owners who pledge the rental value for loans. Most bank lending today is for real estate mortgages. The effect is to bid up land prices toward the point where the entire rental value is paid as interest. This threatens to be a problem for socialist China as well as for capitalist economies.

Landlords, banks and the cost of living

The classical economists sought to make their nations more competitive by keeping down the price of labor so as to undersell competitors. The main cost of living was food; today it is housing. Housing and food prices are determined not by the material costs of production, but by land rent – the rising market price for land.

In the era of the French Physiocrats, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, this land rent accrued to Europe's hereditary landlord class. Today, the land's rent is paid mainly to bankers – because families need credit to buy a home. Or, if they rent, their landlords use the property rent to pay interest to the banks.

The land issue was central to Russia's October Revolution, as it was for European politics. But the discussion of land rent and taxation has lost much of the clarity (and passion) that guided the 19 th century when it dominated classical political economy, liberal reform, and indeed most early socialist politics.

In 1909/10 Britain experienced a constitutional crisis when the democratically elected House of Commons passed a land tax, only to be overridden by the House of Lords, governed by the old aristocracy. The ensuing political crisis was settled by a rule that the Lords never again could overrule a revenue bill passed by the House of Commons. But that was Britain's last real opportunity to tax away the economic rents of landlords and natural resource owners. The liberal drive to tax the land faltered, and never again would gain serious chance of passage.

The democratization of home ownership during the 20 th century led middle-class voters to oppose property taxes – including taxes on commercial sites and natural resources. Tax policy in general has become pro- rentier and anti-labor – the regressive opposite of 19 th -century liberalism as developed by "Ricardian socialists" such as John Stuart Mill and Henry George. Today's economic individualism has lost the early class consciousness that sought to tax economic rent and socialize banking.

The United States enacted an income tax in 1913, falling mainly on rentier income, not on the working population. Capital gains (the main source of rising wealth today) were taxed at the same rate as other income. But the vested interests campaigned to reverse this spirit, slashing capital gains taxes and making tax policy much more regressive. The result is that today, most wealth is not gained by capital investment for profits. Instead, asset-price gains have been financed by a debt-leveraged inflation of real estate, stock and bond prices.

Many middle-class families owe most of their net worth to rising prices for their homes. But by far the lion's share of the real estate and stock market gains have accrued to just One Percent of the population. And while bank credit has enabled buyers to bid up housing prices, the price has been to siphon off more and more of labor's income to pay mortgage loans or rents. As a result, finance today is what is has been throughout history: the main force polarizing economies between debtors and creditors.

Global oil and mining companies created flags of convenience to make themselves tax-exempt, by pretending to make all their production and distribution profits in tax-free trans-shipping havens such as Liberia and Panama (which use U.S. dollars instead of being real countries with their own currency and tax systems).

The fact that absentee-owned real estate and natural resource extraction are practically free of income taxation shows that democratic political reform has not been a sufficient guarantee of socialist success. Tax rules and public regulation have been captured by the rentiers , dashing the hopes of 19 th -century classical reformers that progressive tax policy would produce the same effect as direct public ownership of the means of production, while leaving "the market" as an individualistic alternative to government regulation or planning.

In practice, planning and resource allocation has passed to the banking and financial sector. Many observers hoped that this would evolve into state planning, or at least work in conjunction with it as in Germany. But liberal "Ricardian socialist" failed, as did German-style "state socialism" publicly financing transportation and other basic infrastructure, pensions and similar "external" costs of living and doing business that industrial employers otherwise would have to bear. Attempts at "half-way" socialism via tax and regulatory policy against monopolies and banking have faltered repeatedly. As long as major economic or political choke points are left in private hands, they will serve s springboards to subvert real reform policies. That is why Marxist policy went beyond these would-be socialist reforms.

To Marx, the historical task of capitalism was to prepare the way for socializing the means of production by clearing away feudalism's legacy: a hereditary landlord class, predatory banking, and the monopolies that financial interests had pried away from governments. The path of least resistance was to start by socializing land and basic infrastructure. This drive to free society from economic overhead in the form of hereditary privilege and unearned income by the "idle rich" was a step toward socialist management, by minimizing rentier costs (" faux frais of production").

Proto-socialist reform in the leading industrial nations

Marx was by no means alone in expecting a widening range of economic activity to be shifted away from the market to the public sector. State socialism (basically, state-sponsored capitalism) subsidized pensions and public health, education and other basic needs so as to save industrial enterprise from having to bear these charges.

In the United States, Simon Patten – the first economics professor at the new Wharton business school at the University of Pennsylvania – defined public infrastructure as a "fourth factor of production" alongside labor, capital and land. The aim of public investment was not to make a profit, but to lower the cost of living and doing business so as to minimize industry's wage and infrastructure bill. Public health, pensions, roads and other transportation, education, research and development were subsidized or provided freely. [1]

The most advanced industrial economies seemed to be evolving toward some kind of socialism. Marx shared a Progressive Era optimism that expected industrial capitalism to evolve in the most logical way, by freeing economies from the landlordship and predatory banking inherited from Europe's feudal era. That was above all the classical reform program of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and the intellectual mainstream.

But the aftermath of World War I saw the vested interests mount a Counter-Enlightenment. Banking throughout the Western world find its major market in real estate mortgage lending, natural resource extraction and monopolies – the Anglo-American model, not that of German industrial banking that had seemed to be capitalism's financial future in the late 19 th century.

Since 1980 the Western nations have reversed early optimistic hopes to reform market economies. Instead of the classical dream of taxing away the land rent that had supported Europe's hereditary landed aristocracies, commercial real estate has been made virtually exempt from income taxation. Absentee owners avoid tax by a combination of tax-deductibility for interest payments (as if it is a necessary business expense) and fictitious over-depreciation tax credits that pretend that buildings and properties are losing value even when market prices for their land are soaring.

These tax breaks have made real estate the largest bank customers. The effect has been to financialize property rents into interest payments. Likewise in the industrial sphere, regulatory capture by lobbyists for the major monopolies has disabled public attempts to keep prices in line with the cost of production and prevent fraud by breaking up or regulating monopolies. These too have become major bank clients.

The beginning and end of Russian socialism

Most Marxists expected socialism to emerge first in Germany as the most advanced capitalist economy. After its October 1917 Revolution, Russia seemed to jump ahead, the first nation to free itself from rent and interest charges inherited from feudalism. By taking land, industry and finance into state control, Soviet Russia's October Revolution created an economy without private landlords and bankers. Russian urban planning did not take account of the natural rent-of-location, nor did it charge for the use of money created by the state bank. The state bank created money and credit, so there was no need to rely on a wealthy financial class. And as property owner, the state did not seek to charge land rent or monopoly rent.

By freeing society from the post-feudal rentier class of landlords, bankers and predatory finance, the Soviet regime was much more than a bourgeois revolution. The Revolution's early leaders sought to free wage labor from exploitation by taking industry into the public domain. State companies provided labor with free lunches, education, sports and leisure activity, and modest housing.

Agricultural land tenure was a problem. Given its centralized marketing role, the state could have reallocated land to build up a rural peasantry and helped it invest in modernization. The state could have manipulated crop prices to siphon off agricultural gains, much like Cargill does in the United States. Instead, Stalin's collectivization program waged a war against the kulaks. This political shock led to famine. It was a steep price to pay for avoiding rent was paid to a landlord class or peasantry.

Marx had said nothing about the military dimension of the transition from progressive industrial capitalism to socialism. But Russia's Revolution – like that of China three decades later – showed that the attempt to create a socialist economy had a military dimension that absorbed the lion's share of the economic surplus. Military aggression by a half dozen leading capitalist nations seeking to overthrow the Bolshevik government obliged Russia to adopt War Communism. For over half a century the Soviet Union devoted most of capital to military investment, not provide sufficient housing or consumer goods for its population beyond spreading literacy, education and public health.

Despite this military overhead, the fact that the Soviet Union was free of a rentier class of financiers and absentee landlords should have made the Soviet Union the world's most competitive low-cost economy in theory. In 1945 the United States certainly feared the efficiency of socialist planning. Its diplomats opposed Soviet membership on the ground that state enterprise and pricing would enable such economies to undersell capitalist countries. [2] So socialist countries were kept out of the IMF, World Bank and the planned World Trade Organization, explicitly on the ground that they were free of land rent, natural resource rent, monopoly rent and financial charges.

Capitalist economies are now privatizing and financializing their basic needs and infrastructure. Every activity is being forced into "the market," at prices that need to cover not only the technological costs of production but also interest, ancillary financial fees and pension set-asides. The cost of living and doing business is further privatized as financial interests pry roads, health care, water, communications and other public utilities away from the public sector, while driving housing and commercial real estate deeply into debt.

The Cold War has shown that capitalist countries plan to continue fighting socialist economies, forcing them to militarize in self-defense. The resulting oppressive military overhead is then blamed on socialist bureaucracy and inefficiency.

The collapse of Russian Stalinism

Russia's Revolution ended after 74 years, leaving the Soviet Union so dispirited that it ended in collapse. The contrast between the low living standards of Russian consumers and what seemed to be Western success became increasingly pronounced. In contrast to China's housing construction policy, the Soviet regime insisted that families double up. Clothing and other consumer goods had only drab designs, needlessly suppressing variety. To cap matters, public opposition to Russia's military personnel losses in Afghanistan caused popular resentment.

When the Soviet Union dissolved itself in 1991, its leaders took neoliberal advice from its major adversary, the United States, in hope that this would set it on a capitalist road to prosperity. But turning its economies into viable industrial powers was the last thing U.S. advisors wanted to teach Russia. [3] Their aim was to turn it and its former satellites into raw-materials colonies of Wall Street, the City of London and Frankfurt – victims of capitalism, not rival producers.

Russia has gone to the furthest anti-socialist extreme by adopting a flat tax that fails to distinguish wages and profits of labor and capital from unearned rental income. By also having to pay a value-added tax (VAT) on consumer goods (with no tax on trading in financial assets), labor is taxed much higher than the wealthy.

Most Western "wealth creation" is achieved by debt-leveraged price increases for real estate, stocks and bonds, and by privatizing the public domain. The latter process has gained momentum since the early 1980s in Margaret Thatcher's Britain and Ronald Reagan's America, followed by Third World countries acting under World Bank tutelage. The pretense is that privatization will maximize technological efficiency and prosperity for the economy as a whole.

Following this advice, Russian leaders agreed that the major sources of economic rent – natural resource wealth, real estate and state companies – should be transferred to private owners (often to themselves and associated insiders). The "magic of the marketplace" was supposed to lead the new owners to make the economy more efficient as a byproduct of making money in the quickest way possible.

Each Russian worker got a "voucher" worth about $25. Most were sold off simply to obtain money to buy food and other needs as many companies stopped paying wages. Russia had wiped out domestic savings with hyperinflation after 1991.

It should not be surprising that banks became the economy's main control centers, as in the West's bubble economies. Instead of the promised prosperity, a new class of billionaires was endowed, headed by the notorious Seven Bankers who appropriated the formerly state-owned oil and gas, nickel and platinum, electricity and aluminum production, as well as real estate, electric utilities and other public enterprises. It was the largest giveaway in modern history. The Soviet nomenklatura became the new lords in outright seizure that Marx would have characterized as "primitive accumulation."

The American advisors knew the obvious: Russian savings had been wiped out by the polst-1991 hyperinflation, so the new owners could only cash out by selling shares to Western buyers. The kleptocrats cashed out as expected, by dumping their shares to foreign investors so quickly at such giveaway prices that Russia's stock market became the world's top performer for Western investors in 1994-96.

The Russian oligarchs kept most of their sales proceeds abroad in British and other banks, beyond the reach of Russian authorities to recapture. Much was spent on London real estate, sports teams and luxury estates in the world's flight-capital havens. Almost none was invested in Russian industry. Wage arrears often mounted up half a year behind. Living standards shrank, along with the population as birth rates plunged throughout the former Soviet economies. Skilled labor emigrated.

The basic neoliberal idea of prosperity is financial gain based on turning rent extraction into a flow of interest payments by buyers-on-credit. This policy favors financial engineering over industrial investment, reversing the Progressive Era's industrial capitalism that Marx anticipated would be a transition stage leading to socialism. Russia adopted the West's anti-socialist rollback toward neofeudalism.

Russian officials failed to understand the State Theory of money that is the basis of Modern Monetary Theory: States can create their own money, giving it value by accepting it in payment of taxes. The Soviet government financed its economy for seventy years without any need to back the ruble with foreign exchange. But Russia's central bank was persuaded that "sound money" required it to back its domestic ruble currency with U.S. Treasury bonds in order to prevent inflation. Russian leaders did not realize that dollars or other foreign currencies were only needed to finance balance-of-payments deficits, not domestic spending except as this money was spent on imports.

Russia joined the dollar standard. Buying Treasury bonds meant lending to the U.S. Government. The central bank bought U.S. Treasury securities to back its domestic currency. These purchases helped finance Cold War escalation in countries around Russia. Russia paid 100% annual interest in the mid-1990s, creating a bonanza for U.S. investors. On balance, this neoliberal policy lay Russia's economy open to looting by financial institutions seeking natural resource rent, land rent and monopoly rent for themselves. Instead of targeting such rents, Russia imposed taxes mainly on labor via a regressive flat tax – too right wing to be adopted even in the United States!

When the Soviet Union dissolved itself, its officials showed no apprehension of how quickly their economies would be de-industrialized as a result of accepting U.S. advice to privatize state enterprises, natural resources and basic infrastructure. Whatever knowledge of Marx's analysis of capitalism had existed (perhaps in Nicolai Bukharin's time) was long gone. It is as if no Russian official had read Volumes II and III of Marx's Capital (or Theories of Surplus Value ) where he reviewed the laws of economic rent and interest-bearing debt.

The inability of Russia, the Baltics and other post-Soviet countries to understand the FIRE sector and its financial dynamics provides an object lesson for other countries as to what to avoid. Reversing the principles of Russia's October 1917 Revolution, the post-Soviet kleptocracy was akin to the feudal epoch's "primitive accumulation" of the land and commons. They adopted the neoliberal business plan: to establish monopolies, first and most easily by privatizing the public infrastructure that had been built up, extracting economic rents and them paying out the resulting as interest and dividends.

This Western financial advice became a textbook example of how not to organize an economy. [4] Having rejoined the global economy free of debt in 1991, Russia's population, companies and government quickly ran up debts as a result of its man-made disaster. Families could have been given their homes freely, just as corporate managers were given their entire companies virtually for free. But Russian managers were as anti-labor as they were greedy to grab their own assets from the public domain. Soaring housing prices quickly plagued Russian's economy with one of the world's highest-priced living and business costs. That prevented any thought of industrial competitiveness with the United States or Europe. What passed for Soviet Marxism lacked an understanding of how economic rents and the ensuing high labor costs affected international prices, or how debt service and capital flight affected the currency's exchange rate.

Adversaries of socialism pronounced Marxist theory dead, as if the Soviet dissolution meant the end of Marxism. But today, less than three decades later, the leading Western economies are themselves succumbing to an overgrowth of debt and shrinking prosperity. Russia failed to recognize that just as its own economy was expiring, so was the West's. Industrial capitalism is succumbing to a predatory finance capitalism that is leaving Western economies debt-ridden. [5] The underlying causes were clear already a century ago: unchecked financial rentiers , absentee ownership and monopolies.

The post-Soviet collapse in the 1990s was not a failure of Marxism, but of the anti-socialist ideology that is plunging Western economies under domination by the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector's symbiosis of the three forms of rent extraction: land and natural resource rent, monopoly rent, and interest (financial rent). This is precisely the fate from which 19 th -century socialism, Marxism and even state capitalism sought to save the industrial economies.

A silver lining to the Soviet "final" stage has been to free Marxist analysis from Russian Marxology. Its focus of Soviet Marxology was not an analysis of how the capitalist nations were becoming financialized neo- rentier economies, but was mainly propagandistic, ossifying into a stereotyped identity politics appealing to labor and oppressed minorities. Today's revival of Marxist scholarship has begun to show how the U.S.-centered global economy is entering a period of chronic austerity, debt deflation, and polarization between creditors and debtors.

Financialization and privatization are submerging capitalism in debt deflation

By 1991, when the Soviet Union's leaders decided to take the "Western" path, the Western economies themselves were reaching a terminus. Appearances were saved by a wave of unproductive credit and debt creation to sustain the bubble economy that finally crashed in 2008.

The pitfalls of this financial dynamic were not apparent in the early years after World War II, largely because economies emerged with their private sectors free of debt. The ensuing boom endowed the middle class in the United States and other countries, but was debt financed, first for home ownership and commercial real estate, then by consumer credit to purchase of automobiles and appliances, and finally by credit-card debt just to meet living expenses.

The same debt overgrowth occurred in the industrial sector, where bank and bondholder credit since the 1980s has been increasingly for corporate takeovers and raiding, stock buybacks and even to pay dividends. Industry has become a vehicle for financial engineering to increase stock prices and strip assets, not to increase the means of production. The result is that capitalism has fallen prey to resurgent rentier interests instead of liberating economies from absentee landlords, predatory banking and monopolies. Banks and bondholders have found their most lucrative market not in the manufacturing sector but in real estate and natural resource extraction.

These vested interests have translated their takings into the political power to shed taxes and dismantle regulations on wealth. The resulting political Counter-Reformation has inverted the idea of "free market" to mean an economy free for rent extractors, not free from landlords, monopolists and financial exploitation as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and other classical economists had envisioned. The word "reform" as used by today's neoliberal media means undoing Progressive Era reforms, dismantling public regulation and government power – except for control by finance and its allied vested interests.

All this is the opposite of socialism, which has now sunk to its nadir through the Western World. The past four decades have seen most of the European and North American parties calling themselves "socialist" make an about-face to follow Tony Blair's New Labour, the French socialists-in-name and the Clinton's New Democrats. They support privatization, financialization and a shift away from progressive taxation to a value-added tax (VAT) falling on consumers, not on finance or real estate.

China's socialist diplomacy in today's hostile world

Now that Western finance capitalism is stagnating, it is fighting even harder to prevent the post-2008 crisis from leading to socialist reforms that would re-socialize infrastructure that has been privatized and put a public banking system in place. Depicting the contrast between socialist and finance-capitalist economies as a clash of civilizations, U.S.-centered "Western" diplomacy is using military and political subversion to prevent a transition from capitalism into socialism.

China is the leading example of socialist success in a mixed economy. Unlike the Soviet Union, it has not proselytized its economic system or sought to promote revolution abroad to emulate its economic doctrine. Just the opposite: To avert attack, China has given foreign investors a stake in its economic growth. The aim has been to mobilize U.S. and other foreign interests as allies, willing customers for China's exports, and suppliers of modern production facilities in China.

This is the opposite of the antagonism that confronted Russia. The risk is that it involves financial investment. But China has protected its autonomy by requiring majority Chinese ownership in most sectors. The main danger is domestic, in the form of financial dynamics and private rent extraction. The great economic choice facing China today concerns the degree to which land and natural resources should be taxed.

The state owns the land, but does fully tax its rising valuation or rent-of-location that has made many families rich. Letting the resulting real-estate and financialized wealth dominate its economic growth poses two dangers: First, it increases the price that new buyers must pay for their home. Second, rising housing prices force these families to borrow – at interest. This turns the rental value of land – value created by society and public infrastructure investment – into a flow of interest to the banks. They end up receiving more over time than the sellers, while increasing the cost of living and doing business. That is a fate which a socialist economy must avoid at all costs.

At issue is how China can best manage credit and natural resource rent in a way that best meets the needs of its population. Now that China has built up a prosperous industry and real estate, its main challenge is to avoid the financial dynamics that are subjecting the West to debt deflation and burying Western economies. To avoid these dynamics, China must curtail the proliferation of unproductive debt created merely to transfer property on credit, inflating asset prices in the process.

Socialism is incompatible with a rentier class of landlords, natural resource owners and monopolists – the preferred clients of banks hoping to turn economic rent into interest charges. As a vehicle to allocate resources "the market" reflects the status quo of property ownership and credit-creation privileges at any given moment of time, without consideration for what is fair and efficient or predatory. Vested interests claim that such a market is an immutable force of nature, whose course cannot be altered by government "interference." This rhetoric of political passivity aims to deter politicians and voters from regulating economies, leaving the wealthy free to extract as much economic rent and interest as markets can bear by privatizing real estate, natural resources, banking and other monopolies.

Such rent seeking is antithetical to socialism's aim to take these assets into the public domain. That is why the financial sector, oil and mineral extractors and monopolists fight so passionately to dismantle state regulatory power and public banking. That is the diplomacy of finance capital, aiming to consolidate American hegemony over a unipolar world. It backs this strategy with a neoliberal academic curriculum that depicts predatory financial and rentier gains as if they add to national income, not simply transfer it into the hands of the rentier classes. This misleading picture of economic reality poses a danger for China sending its students to study economics at American and European universities.

The century that has elapsed since Russia's October 1917 Revolution has produced a substantial Marxist literature describing how finance capitalism has overpowered industrial capitalism. Its dynamics occupied Marx in Volumes II and III of Capital (and also his Theories of Surplus Value ). Like most observers of his era, Marx expected capitalism to make a substantial step toward socialism by overcoming the dynamics of parasitic capital, above all the tendency for debt to keep on expanding at compound interest until it produces a financial crash.

The only way to control banks and their allied rentier sectors is outright socialization. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and financial sector, they will control society. Their strategy is to block government money creation so that economies will be forced to rely on banks and bondholders. Regulatory authority to limit such financial aggression and the monopoly pricing and rent extraction it supports has been crippled in the West by "regulatory capture" by the rentier oligarchy.

Attempts to tax away rental income (the liberal alternative to taking real estate and natural resources directly into the public domain) is prone to lobbying for loopholes and evasion, most notoriously via offshore banking centers in tax-avoidance enclaves and the "flags of convenience" sponsored by the global oil and mining companies. This leaves the only way to save society from the financial power to convert rent into interest to be a policy of nationalizing natural resources, fully taxing land rent (where land and minerals are not taken directly into the public domain), and de-privatizing infrastructure and other key sectors.

Conclusion

Markets have not recovered for the products of American industry and labor since 2008. Industrial capitalism has been sacrificed to a form of finance capitalism that is looking more pre-capitalist (or simply oligarchic and neofeudal) with each passing year. The resulting polarization forces every economy – including China – to choose between saving its bankers and other creditors or freeing debtors and lowering the economy's cost structure. Will the government enforce bank and bondholder claims, or will it give priority to the economy and its people? That is an eternal political question spanning pre-capitalist, capitalist and post-capitalist economies.

Marx described the mathematics of compound interest expanding to absorb the entire economy as age-old, long predating industrial capitalism. He characterized the ancient mode of production as dominated by slavery and usury, and medieval banking as predatory. These financial dynamics exist in socialist economies just as they did in medieval and ancient economies. The way in which governments manage the dynamics of credit and debt thus are the dominant force in every era, and should receive the most pressing attention today as China shapes its socialist future.

Notes.

[1] I give the details in "Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent Capture," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 70 (October 2011):873-903.

[2] My book Super-Imperialism (1972; new ed. 2002) reviews this discussion during 1944-46.

[3] I discuss the IMF and World Bank plan to wipe out Russian savings with hyperinflation and make manufacturing investment uneconomic in "How Neoliberal Tax and Financial Policy Impoverishes Russia – Needlessly," Mir Peremen (The World of Transformations), 2012 (3):49-64 (in Russian). МИР ПЕРЕМЕН 3/2012 (ISSN 2073-3038) Mir peremen М. ХАДСОН, Неолиберальная налоговая и финансовая политика приводит к обнищанию России, 49-64.

[4] I give details in "How Neoliberals Bankrupted 'New Europe': Latvia in the Global Credit Crisis," (with Jeffrey Sommers), in Martijn Konings, ed., The Great Credit Crash (Verso: London and New York, 2010), pp. 244-63, and "Stockholm Syndrome in the Baltics: Latvia's neoliberal war against labor and industry," in Jeffrey Sommers and Charles Woolfson , eds., The Contradictions of Austerity: The Socio-Economic Costs of the Neoliberal Baltic Model (Routledge 2014), pp. 44-63.

[5] For more analysis see Dirk Bezemer and Michael Hudson, " Finance is Not the Economy: Reviving the Conceptual Distinction ," Journal of Economic Issues , 50 (2016: #3), pp. 745-768.

[Oct 21, 2017] Re-Visiting Russian Counter-Propaganda Methods by Saker

Notable quotes:
"... "You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men". Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie. ..."
"... The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth. ..."
"... I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation, a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict. ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

Cyrano , October 20, 2017 at 6:29 am GMT

"You can't handle the truth" – was the famous line from the movie "A few good men". Many people believe that this is the main purpose of propaganda – to tell people something that they can "handle" – which usually is a sugar coated lie.

The real purpose of propaganda in the US actually is slightly different. The reason why the US government prefers to tell their subjects lies – i.e. propaganda is not because the people can't handle the truth, it's because the US government wouldn't be able to handle its citizens if they dared to tell them the truth.

Thus the purpose of propaganda in the US is to make their population more manageable. I think that there is also a cultural difference between US and Russia in how they see the purpose of propaganda.

The Americans see propaganda as useful tool, which when applied skillfully on the domestic population removes the need to oppress them – which they would have to do to their population if they tell them the truth and don't like the reaction of the population after they've been told the truth.

This is called "democracy" – avoid telling them the truth and remove the need to oppress them, which you will have to do if you tell your people a truth that they can't "handle".

The Russians have different approach – which is deeply rooted in their history and culture. The Russian government is less uncomfortable with their population knowing the truth, because if the Russian people don't like the truth, and react to that, the Russian government is more inclined to resort to some kind of oppression on their population – if they think it's in the interest of the Russian state.

Me personally – I like the Russian approach better, I hate lies even if they are told in the name of "democracy". It's better to tell the truth and face the music than be deceitful.

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 9:14 am GMT
Good piece.

Clearly important truths, for anyone wanting to understand both the recent past and the present that developed out of it:

As for the Soviet propaganda in the West, it did have a measurable effect (just look at the influence of various Communist Parties in Europe during the Cold War), but never enough to beat the base appeal to hedonism and consumerism promoted by the best and most effective branch of the western propaganda apparatus: Hollywood.

and:

Third, outrageous, over the top and disgusting as some of the clown shown on Russian TV are, they do not misrepresent the reality of the AngloZionist Empire. Yes, sure, true Russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people are concerned (especially in southern Europe and the US), but practically the regimes in power in the West controlled by Russophobes or by their puppets. As for the western Ziomedia, it is wall-to-wall russophobic to such a degree that I would call it unambiguously racist.

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT

For one thing, the European elites are very very slowly, by tiny steps, waking up to the reality that their abject and total subservience to the US has put them in an extremely uncomfortable situation.

This is one reason why, as I have noted before, the current drive by many of the usual suspects and the rest of the war lobbies in the US to overturn the Iran deal is not necessarily something to be feared. Indeed for those recognising the problems of US interventionism as among the most urgent facing the world, it's probably a win-win situation. Fail, and the US/Israeli/Saudi warmongers have suffered a defeat. Succeed, and they have probably set themselves up for an even more costly defeat.

The Iran deal is widely popular in Europe, even amongst business and other elites, as having halted the necessity for complying with and paying lip-service to the transparently irrational and/or dishonest US nonsense about Iran, and the economically costly and intellectually insupportable sanctions used by the US to wage economic war on that country in the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

If the deal is breached by the US regime, the said regime will massively lose credibility worldwide. There will then be a struggle wherein the US tries to coerce its European and British client states to return to waging economic war against Iran. That risks an open refusal, which will seriously damage US control and quite possibly bring it to an end. Russia and China have already started to develop economic and financial structures beyond the reach of Washington. The door will be open for European businesses and governments to walk through it, to the new world beyond.

If it doesn't itself trigger such final breaks, the process of imposing Washington's will will create huge resentment and set the scene for such breaks in the near future.

The Alarmist , October 20, 2017 at 11:01 am GMT
The average US American's experience with Russians in the past forty years has come from Rambo films and Red Dawn (the first one). Long gone are the days when films like The Russians are Coming exposed Americans to Russians as human beings rather than as killing machines of an evil state. When Putin or Lavrov appear on American TV, which is not very often, it is only in very tightly scripted sound bites that fit the narrative blathering from the talking head telling the viewer what to think about the Russians and their "misdeeds." Perhaps the only friend the Russians have in American media these days is Rush Limbaugh mull that over.

You can get RT on a few cable providers in the US. In my hometown, you have to pay for the "Russian Package" to get it, though I found RT America once on basic cable in Dallas. I doubt many Americans even know RT exists, much less seek it out. I get the European version via U.K. FTA satellite, and wonder how long it will be before it is knocked off the air by Ofcom.

If I want the truth about the US and U.K., I generally can count on getting it, albeit a bit spun, from RT. If I want the truth about Russia, I generally have to ask one of my Russian friends, though RT, to its credit, does occasionally take a pole at the best. If I want to hear what Putin and Lavrov are actually saying, I rarely get that in any Western Media, but RT will let them go on without significant editorial.

What I find amusing is that during the Cold War, American media elites were falling all over one another to kiss Soviet A ** , but even though many of these same elites accuse Putin of being a closeted commie, they portray him as evil personified; I guess he isn't Communist enough for them.

German_reader , October 20, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT
@Randal

Yes, sure, true russophobes are a tiny minority in the West at least where the people are concerned (especially in southern Europe and the US )

I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our election" hysteria in the US?
More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the problem with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential lobbies etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans do support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters (one need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the Iran deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed interventions – "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I don't think the kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that representative on the whole.

The Alarmist , October 20, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT
@The Alarmist

Gotta love auto-correct "pole at the best" should be "poke at the bear."

Randal , October 20, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT
@German_reader

I don't know, does that really sound plausible to you given the "Russia stole our election" hysteria in the US?

I think Saker is probably not including the general mass of ignorant propaganda victims as "true Russophobes".

US popular opinion on Russia seems pretty mixed, albeit there are certainly plenty of gormless victims of the wall to wall Russophobic propaganda (that's – in its recent guise – mostly partisan anti-Trump in motivation, in truth) in the US. Here's a recent poll (July);

But on the broader issue of relations with Russia, Americans don't appear to be in a bellicose mood. Asked whether it's better for the U.S. to build relationships with Russia or treat Russia as a threat, 59 percent said they want to build relationships, compared to 31 percent who want to treat Russia as a threat.

Registered Democrats were more interested in treating Russia as a threat than Republicans, but 46 percent of them preferred building relationships, 2 percent more than those who favored taking a more aggressive stance. Republicans were far more interested in building relationships, with 67 percent in support.

The poll also asked Americans whether Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia was good or bad for the U.S. While a five percent plurality favored the goal, there was again a sharp partisan divide. 70 percent of Democrats said Trump's goal of improving relations with Russia was bad for the U.S., and 75 percent of Republicans consider it good.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/americans-mixed-feelings-trump-russia-new-poll-shows

More generally, I think people outside of the US need to get beyond the idea that the problem with America is just its government, the military-industrial complex, influential lobbies etc., and that the average American is totally blameless. An awful lot of Americans do support aggressive interventionism abroad, and this includes many, many Trump supporters (one need only look at the readers' comments on a Breitbart piece about North Korea or the Iran deal these people's ideas of national greatness have militarism and armed interventions – "showing who's boss, who's Number one" – as key ingredients). I don't think the kind of anti-interventionists commenting here at Unz review are that representative on the whole.

Yes, I agree with this, for sure.

It's true that ordinary Americans are deluged in interventionist and militarist propaganda from the cradle to the grave, and that is perhaps some explanation if not excuse, but the fact does remain that Americans re-elected Clinton, Bush II and Obama (though admittedly they were hardly provided with decent alternatives, but that again shows how they are prepared to vote for warmongers in primaries), and elect and re-elect warmongering interventionist scum like John McCain to Congress time after time after time.

There is clearly a problem in American culture and their political structure that makes them particularly open to manipulation in this area (which is not to say the same isn't true of other countries, mind you).

Arioch , October 20, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT
> There is no Russian equivalent of the Pokemon story

Half true.

When Pokemon Go was announced, it was widely speculated that this technology may be used to both hoard unexpecting game addicts into some places (like, moving nazi and antifa crowds together, where their firght would be imminent; or nazi and aggressive ethnic minority; or competing sport teams fans, etc) or background surveillance and spying (by placing pokemons in the places, game operator wants to see in photo).

This was quite a hot topic, and i think those potential dangers are real. Just looking how pseudo-private companies like Facebook engage in swept political censorship makes one ask "how Pokemon company is different?".

There indeed was no allegation that US Gov't actually utilizes this already, but there definitely was a lot of debate about laying frameworks and public habits to start doing it.

Not only Russia but many other states and companies limited Pokemon Go at their premises.

Now, what we see is CNN merely combining the real fears about Po-Go embedded capabilities (which, i repeat, were shared by many Russians) with the typical "Putin is under your bed because all the patriots say so" fundamentalists claim.

Arioch , October 20, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT
@Cyrano

You have also account for Russia being here an underdog. Russia's information outlets are much weaker than USA's and globalists' ones. Russia has only RT and Sputnik against CNN/Fox/WaPo/MSNBC/PB/BBC/DW/AFP and what not

Russia just can not engage in symmetric warfare and win by overwhelming force, Russia only has overwhelming weakness here.

So, Russia has to take truth into allies, not because it likes it that much more, but because it does not have a chance to fight symmetrically, lies with lies and fires with fires.

German_reader , October 20, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT
@Randal

which is not to say the same isn't true of other countries, mind you

I don't know, tbh I can't really think of any other country whose political culture is as bizarrely warped as that of the US. I personally don't really approve of Russia's actions in Ukraine (though I can understand the reasons for them), and certainly there is quite a bit of jingoistic sentiment in Russia as well – but at least its goals are limited, and its underlying perception of reality (Russia confronted by a hostile West) isn't totally irrational. Many Americans have this weird view of their country as a global redeemer nation, a force for good against a world of darkness ("the last best hope of humanity" etc.). And then there's the bizarre paranoia constantly cultivated in American culture (both in popular culture like television series, but also in serious political statements) there's always some foreign evil-doer supposedly plotting against virtuous America. I find this immensely irritating given how the US has one of the most secure geopolitical positions on earth and suffered minimal trauma (compared to all other combatants) even during the catastrophes of the world wars. According to that logic the US apparently can't ever be secure unless there is permanent American global hegemony. Which of course will inevitably lead to conflict.

Anatoly Karlin , Website October 20, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT
This is a good, accurate article.

Another great example of this is the entire Inosmi phenomenon, which translates Western MSM texts into Russian. As one my acquaintances pointed out, it was a "machine that turned naive, simple-minded, West-loving normies into hardcore ultranationalists."

Sergey Krieger , October 20, 2017 at 10:15 pm GMT
Truth is the best weapon. By trying to close Soviet union to western news Soviet leadership made things worse. Soviet people than refused to believe even truth about the West believing everything transmitted by those voices. And that despite USSR being in most areas in far better shape than modern Russia. Current Russian propaganda and international policy is head and shoulders above what was passing for those back then managing to achieve excellent results for little expense. Way to go.
Issac , October 21, 2017 at 1:17 am GMT
Much of Europe is presently jailing its citizenry over reactionary tweets and facebook posts. I wouldn't think it accurate to describe them as unwilling to use oppression. In point of fact, I think they're far more willing to directly undermine political reactionaries than the Americans. The American Establishment seems content to stick with propaganda, bureaucratic scheming, and judicial subterfuge.
NoseytheDuke , October 21, 2017 at 2:47 am GMT
@Arioch

I have access to almost all of the sources that you mentioned and a few more. All have their faults but some are so bad that I cannot watch them. RT is definitely one of the best.

Only today I watched RT showing Hillary Clinton being interviewed with RT simultaneously showing screenshots from other media exposing and refuting Clinton's blatant lies. The same technique is used with others such as government (US and EU) spokespersons and officials. It is very effective, in my opinion.

Mathias , October 21, 2017 at 4:07 am GMT
Average Finnish experience about Russia is sadly still from era of Leonid Breznev, cheap vodka and real socialist bar girls of late 1970′s and 1980′s. However hundreds of thousands of people who have visited in Sankt Petersburg and Vyborg during the last 10 years have noticed huge gap between western propaganda and real progress and development in real life Russia.
anonymous , Disclaimer October 21, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT
@German_reader

the average American is totally blameless.

It's something of a top-down situation. After all, America is where the art of PR was refined and is a large industry, pushing everything from consumer goodies to whatever cultural/political ideas are being sponsored at the moment. American is a big island and most in it grow up in something of a bubble. They are tone-deaf in understanding other countries. Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving their opinions on anything foreign. Another thing to keep in mind is that half of the population is mentally average or below average and so what they think about anything beyond their range of experience is pretty much worthless. Of the various commenters giving their opinion on different websites about the Iran nuclear deal how many have actually read it? Mostly they know zero about it. That's pretty much it, Americans know very little so when dealing with them one has to act as one does with a simple-minded neighbor and humor them: yes, you're the fairest one of them all!

Issac , October 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT
"Middle-class people I know with decent educational track records seem competent at carrying out the functions of their job but transform into embarrassing babbling fools when giving their opinions on anything foreign."

In fairness to the American proles, their country is equivalent in approximate size the European continent. Few proles know anything of politics outside their continental bubble on either side of the Atlantic. Jingoism on either continent is equivalent and opposite from my experience as a third party to both. Americans prefer their jingoism to be patriotic and feign ignorance about Europe as unimportant. Europeans prefer their jingoism to be passive-aggressive and feign understanding about American politics that they do not have. Israelis tend to split the difference by taking a great deal of interest in both and claiming their largely uninformed opinions are unimportant.

Anon , Disclaimer October 21, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT
To conclude, from the analysis of 1 program, that Russia's whole political communication strategy is super professional and way more sophisticated than "the West's" seems a clear overstretch. The conclusion may be true, but it does not follow from the evidence presented.

In fact, the program's general recipe (use of opponent's egregious examples, a bit of humor, giving air time to 'extreme' spokespersons and basic knowledge of audience nature) is what Sailer does.

Putin does have going for him, however, the fact that he is governing with Russia's best interests at heart. Or can credibly hold that position. For propaganda purposes, half the battle (legitimacy and support of the governed) is won right there.

Another good chunk can be won by claiming the defensive: " we are attacked by anti-Russian forces". The use of a common threat (real or perceived) to rally the people is well known in politics, whether campaigning or governing. What does not strike me as Putinesque is to underestimate the adversary, as the author does.

Philip Owen , October 21, 2017 at 8:53 pm GMT
Russia Today was a worthy channel that put the Russian point of view and posted positive stories about Russia. Decades of positive stories are what Russia needs. But it is boring work to do.

RT has become a ridiculous parody that barely comments on Russia (perhaps another channel is needed). It is designed to attract conspiracy theorists and obsessives. It uses editing tricks at two levels. Some obvious heady handed edit to distract analytical attention from a deeper level. That's very good production to be sure.

RT is anti US. THERE IS NO STATION OUT THERE PUTTING A POSITIVE VIEW OF RUSSIA. THIS IS A HUGE LONG TERM ERROR.

[Oct 21, 2017] John Brennan's Police State USA - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Keep in mind that everything you do will be manipulated by the media which will cancel out the real (positive) effects of your work ..."
"... They promised that we'd "come home in body bags" not only diplomatic representatives but also the Secretary of Defense ..."
"... The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result, that is, persuading the American people that "evil" Putin is trying to sabotage our pristine democracy and that Donald Trump is not only the country's lousiest president ever, but also a Russian agent. ..."
"... That's not to say, that Brennan's psyops has not been successful. It has been, amazingly successful. According to a recent CBS Poll, a majority of Americans (57%) now believe that "Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 presidential election." In contrast, only 34 percent of Americans don't believe there was any Russian interference in the 2016 elections. ..."
"... What the numbers don't explain, however, is how one's own political ideology shapes the results. For example, 71 percent of Democrats believe that Russia interfered, while a mere 18 percent of Republicans agree. In other words, one's own prejudices (about Trump and Russia) have a much greater impact on one's opinion than either facts or evidence. Propaganda campaigns try to exploit public bias to effectively manipulate perceptions. The CBS polling data shows that they have succeeded in that regard. ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

Did the United States warn Russia to stay out of Syria?

Yes, they did.

Did they tell the Russians that if they joined the war against ISIS and helped Bashar al Assad the US would make them pay a heavy price?

Yes.

Did US agents and diplomats warn their Russian counterparts that Russian troops would "come home in body bags" and that the western media would launch a propaganda campaign against them?

Yes, again.

Did US officials say the western media would concoct a phony story about "Russian hacking" that would be used to persuade the American people that Russia was a dangerous enemy that had to be reigned in with harsh economic sanctions, provocative military maneuvers, and threats of violence?

No, but it's not hard to imagine a scenario in which the CIA would pursue such a strategy. After all, the Intel agencies, the media and the entire political establishment have been hammering on Russia for over two years now. Isn't it possible that elements of these three factions decided to pool their resources in order to poison the public's perception Russia? Hasn't the US government dabbled in these type of psychological operations (PSYOPS) many time before?

Of course, they have. And in prior incidents, the facts were fixed to fit the policy just as they have been in this case. For example, the Bush administration had already decided to topple Saddam long-before they cooked up their fake stories about mobile weapons labs, Niger uranium, aluminum tubes and "Curveball". Doesn't the same rule apply here? Haven't the "facts" about collusion, Pokémon Go and Facebook all been concocted after-the-fact to support the original thesis, that Russia meddled in the election?

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. What we know is that high-ranking members of the US State Department and Pentagon threatened Moscow prior to Russia's military intervention in October, 2015. US diplomats made it clear that if Russia helped the Syrian government, Washington would use the media and its other assets to retaliate. According to Russia's Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, Maria Zakharova:

We were asked to pass on to you the most serious warnings that Russia will be hurt by its actions.. We will make sure that Russia really knows what pain is Keep in mind that everything you do will be manipulated by the media which will cancel out the real (positive) effects of your work . ..You are going to fight terrorists, but you will be made to look like the bad guy.

These threats were delivered to us many times in 2015 as part of the discussions with the Russia's Representative of Foreign Affairs and his international counterparts. (During Kerry-Lavrov meetings)

We're talking about the world's elite who told us these things.

When we told them exactly what targets we planned to strike, they launched a disinformation media campaign against us. Officials from the White House and State Department directly threatened to hurt us. They promised that we'd "come home in body bags" not only diplomatic representatives but also the Secretary of Defense ..The US showed us that the strongest military has unlimited rights to create evil in the world."

(See the whole interview on YouTube .

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

Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. When Zakharova says, "everything you do will be manipulated by the media", she is tacitly acknowledging that the MSM works in concert with the US government shaping a message that best achieves US imperial objectives. In this case, the obvious goal is the removal of Bashar al Assad and the partitioning of the state consistent with US plans to redraw the map of the Middle East. Russian intervention derailed that plan which is why Russia is despised.

Third, Zakharova's comments suggest a motive for the Russia hacking campaign. Russia has become an insurmountable obstacle to Washington's plans for global hegemony. It has blocked US progress in Ukraine and rolled backed US proxy-forces in Syria. Additionally, Russia has united the countries in Central Asia (EEU) and threatens to economically integrate Europe and Asia into the world's biggest free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Here's a quote from Putin that explains what's going on:

"Russia is an inalienable and organic part of Greater Europe and European civilization. Our citizens think of themselves as Europeans That's why Russia proposes moving towards the creation of a common economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, a community referred to by Russian experts as 'the Union of Europe' which will strengthen Russia's potential in its economic pivot toward the 'new Asia.'"

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

The US wants to retaliate for the defeat of its proxy army in Syria but it's not prepared for a military clash. Not yet, at least. And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and CIA-trained. The defeat is not a loss for the US Military, but a blot on the record of CIA Director John Brennan, the architect and main proponent of the failed project to remove Assad. Brennan's whole scheme has gone down in flames.

Why is that important?

Because it suggests that Brennan had a strong motive to strike back at Moscow. He had "a dog in the fight", and his dog lost. And since he couldn't win on the battlefield, his only choice was to launch an asymmetrical attack via the media. Isn't this where the Russia hacking idea originated?

If it did, then there should be footprints that lead back to Brennan himself, the primary source of the psyops. Check out this excerpt from The Washington Times:

What caused the Barack Obama administration to begin investigating the Donald Trump campaign last summer has come into clearer focus following a string of congressional hearings on Russian interference in the presidential election.

It was then-CIA Director John O. Brennan, a close confidant of Mr. Obama's, who provided the information -- what he termed the "basis" -- for the FBI to start the counterintelligence investigation last summer. Mr. Brennan served on the former president's 2008 presidential campaign and in his White House.

Mr. Brennan told the House Intelligence Committee on May 23 that the intelligence community was picking up tidbits on Trump associates making contacts with Russians. Mr. Brennan did not name either the Russians or the Trump people. He indicated he did not know what was said.

But he said he believed the contacts were numerous enough to alert the FBI, which began its probe into Trump associates that same July, according to previous congressional testimony from then-FBI director James B. Comey.

("Obama loyalist Brennan drove FBI to begin investigating Trump associates last summer", The Washington Times)

So it all started with Brennan, the resentful Intel chief who got his nose bloodied by Putin in Syria and decided to seek his revenge. But then Brennan needed to conceal his lead-role in the drama by drawing other agencies into the loop, so he included the FBI, the NSA and DIA. The strategy helped to obfuscate the real braintrust in the hacking affair, John Brennan.

According to Mother Jones, it was not the FBI that initiated the "Trump-Russia connection".. but .."Former CIA Director John Brennan says he was the one who got the ball rolling."

Indeed. Brennan appears to be the central figure in this political fiasco, the source from which many of the spurious accusations originated. It was Brennan who first intimated that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russian agents prior to the 2016 elections.

"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred," Brennan stated in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee in May.

This is a deliberate mischaracterization of what Brennan was actually doing. He was spying on the members of the rival party to gain a political advantage. This is how police state operates. How is it that no one in the media or on Capital Hill has condemned this egregious attack on the democratic process?

So far, none of the four investigations on Capital Hill have produced even a shred of evidence supporting Brennan's claims. Just last week, during a press conference with the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard Burr bluntly stated,

"The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."

There's no proof of collusion at all. So what's Brennan's real motive here? What's driving this silly propaganda campaign that has failed to produce any verifiable evidence after a massive 10-month, no-holds-barred investigation involving both Houses of Congress, the establishment media, four intelligence agencies and an Independent Counsel?

The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result, that is, persuading the American people that "evil" Putin is trying to sabotage our pristine democracy and that Donald Trump is not only the country's lousiest president ever, but also a Russian agent.

That's not to say, that Brennan's psyops has not been successful. It has been, amazingly successful. According to a recent CBS Poll, a majority of Americans (57%) now believe that "Russia tried to interfere in the 2016 presidential election." In contrast, only 34 percent of Americans don't believe there was any Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

What the numbers don't explain, however, is how one's own political ideology shapes the results. For example, 71 percent of Democrats believe that Russia interfered, while a mere 18 percent of Republicans agree. In other words, one's own prejudices (about Trump and Russia) have a much greater impact on one's opinion than either facts or evidence. Propaganda campaigns try to exploit public bias to effectively manipulate perceptions. The CBS polling data shows that they have succeeded in that regard.

The US government has a long history of (as Robert Parry says) "cherry-picking or manufacturing evidence to undermine adversaries and to solidify U.S. public support for Washington's policies." That is certainly the case here. Most of the so-called 'evidence' is nothing more than baseless accusations that appear momentarily in the headlines only to vanish a week or so later. Brennan and Co. appear to be exploring new frontiers in state propaganda, propaganda that relies less on semi-credible events or evidence than on incessant repetition of far-fetched allegations (Facebook, Google, Pokémon Go) that reiterate the same underlying claim of Russian meddling. The difference between the fabrications that led up to the war in Iraq (mobile weapons labs, Niger uranium, shadowy connections to al Qaida and aluminum tubes) and those of Russian hacking suggests that the perpetrators of this charade are convinced that frequency trumps credibility. The American people are being carpet-bombed with dodgy, almost-comical disinformation to see if it has the intended effect. Recent surveys indicate the plan is working.

The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda (In 2013, Obama gutted the Smith Mundt Act "unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts." (Foreign Policy Magazine) In 2016, Obama paved the way for more domestic propaganda by passing the Orwellian-named "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" as part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Ostensibly, the bill lays the groundwork for responding to "fake news" overseas, but in reality, it marks "a further curtailment of press freedom" and an ambitious attempt to suppress accurate, independent information.) The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people. That can only lead to trouble.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . (Republished by permission of author or representative)

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

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

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

[Oct 21, 2017] Washington Funds Foreign Think Tanks That Blacklist Opponents of Neocon Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

I admired Ron Paul foright policy views for a along time. and this time he also did not disappointed his reader.
Soviet labeled anybody who dissented from communist propaganda line or did not believe in Communist dogma as "agents of imperialism". Neocons similarly bland and-war activists and people who question this war mongering as peddlers of "Russian propaganda". This is what often happen with victors in wars: they acquired worst features of their defeated enemies. for example to defeat the USSR the USA create powerful network of intelligence agencies. Which promptly went out of civil control in 1963, much like KGB in the USSR and became state within the state. In a way now it in now now unfeasible that the Soviet Union posthumously have won the Cold War, as it is more and more difficult to distinguish Soviet propaganda and the US government propaganda.
So the fact that the US government allocate large sums of money for the propaganda against another neoliberal state -- Russia, which represent regional threat to the US hegemonic ambitions -- tells a lot about neoliberalism as a social system. Hostilities among neoliberal states, much like hostilities between communist states are not only possible, they are the reality.
Notable quotes:
"... So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights." ..."
"... How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- ..."
"... "I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government. ..."
"... This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda." ..."
"... That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny? ..."
Oct 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

Dear Friends of the Ron Paul Institute:

I just finished an interview on RT.

Someday soon, perhaps, anyone writing the above sentence will land in some sort of gulag, as once did East Europeans found to have appeared on a foreign broadcast questioning the historical inevitability of the worldwide communist revolution.

In my case, I was asked to comment on a new report (see above pic) from a Czech " think tank " exposing 2,327 American "useful idiots" who dared appear on the Russian government-funded RT television network.

Among the "Kremlin stooges" listed in the report of the "European Values" think tank? Alongside critics of US foreign policy like Ron Paul, the Czech "European Values" think tank listed Sen. Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman, Dick Cheney, US Rep. Adam Schiff, former acting CIA director Michael Morrell, former CIA director Michael Hayden, and hundreds more prominent Americans who have been notably hostile to Russia and its government.

I said: "Wow! this conspiracy is even deeper than we thought! Even the virulently anti-Russian neocons and Russia-hating CIA bigwigs are in fact Putin's poodles!"

It's funny but it's not. This is when the neo-McCarthyism lately in fashion across the ideological divide descends into the absurd. This is when the mask slips from the witch trials, when the naked emperor can no longer expect to not be noticed.

So what is the "European Values" think tank? A bunch of kooks? Well perhaps, but they are well-funded kooks. In fact they are funded by American taxpayers to defame other Americans who appear on media outlets that are out of favor with Washington's elites. Among the top donors to the "European Values" think tank is the United States Embassy in Prague. Other top funders include George Soros' "Open Society Foundation," the European Commission, and the European Parliament. They are also funded by other US government funded think tanks such as the Prague-based "League of Human Rights."

Since when did "European values" come to be defined as government-funded lists of political "enemies" who dare question US foreign policy on television networks despised by neocons and Washington interventionists? How ironic that such a Soviet-style attack on political dissent in the United States was launched from Prague, which for decades suffered under the Štátna bezpečnosť -- the communist secret police -- that took exactly the same view of those who deviated from the Soviet party line as does the modern Czech "European Values" think tank.

Anyone questioning our one trillion dollar global military empire is automatically considered to be in the pay of hostile foreign governments. How patriotic is that?

"I am not here to defend RT," I said on the program tonight. I am here to defend the marketplace of ideas that is critical to a free society. I am here to defend the right of US citizens to dissent from the foreign policy of their government without being attacked by their own government -- or by foreign think tanks funded by their government.

This should infuriate us: The US government defines anyone who dissents from its foreign policy of endless wars and a global military empire as peddlers of "Russian propaganda" and then Congress appropriates tens of million dollars to "counter Russian propaganda."

That means the US Congress is appropriating tens of millions of our dollars to silence our objection to Washington's trillion dollar global military empire. What a scam! How anti-American! Is that not a declaration of war on the rest of us? Is that not an act of tyranny?

The noose is tightening around us. Yet we must continue to fight for what we believe in! We must continue to fight for the prosperity that comes from a peaceful foreign policy. Your generous support for the Ron Paul Institute helps us continue to be your voice in the fight for free expression and a peaceful foreign policy.

[Oct 20, 2017] Blaming Russia for the Internet 'Sewer' by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer." ..."
"... I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet. ..."
"... Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500." ..."
"... In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate." ..."
"... Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not. ..."
"... The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection. ..."
"... But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised. ..."
"... This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true. ..."
"... And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." ..."
"... That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic. ..."
"... Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence . ..."
"... In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Oct 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: As the Russia-gate hysteria spirals down from the implausible to the absurd, almost every bad thing is blamed on the Russians, even how they turned the previously pristine Internet into a "sewer," reports Robert Parry.

With the U.S. government offering tens of millions of dollars to combat Russian "propaganda and disinformation," it's perhaps not surprising that we see "researchers" such as Jonathan Albright of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University making the absurd accusation that the Russians have "basically turned [the Internet] into a sewer."

I've been operating on the Internet since 1995 and I can assure you that the Internet has always been "a sewer" -- in that it has been home to crazy conspiracy theories, ugly personal insults, click-bait tabloid "news," and pretty much every vile prejudice you can think of. Whatever some Russians may or may not have done in buying $100,000 in ads on Facebook (compared to its $27 billion in annual revenue) or opening 201 Twitter accounts (out of Twitter's 328 million monthly users), the Russians are not responsible for the sewage coursing through the Internet.

Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans and pretty much every other segment of the world's population didn't need Russian help to turn the Internet into an informational "sewer." But, of course, fairness and proportionality have no place in today's Russia-gate frenzy.

After all, your "non-governmental organization" or your scholarly "think tank" is not likely to get a piece of the $160 million that the U.S. government authorized last December to counter primarily Russian "propaganda and disinformation" if you explain that the Russians are at most responsible for a tiny trickle of "sewage" compared to the vast rivers of "sewage" coming from many other sources.

If you put the Russia-gate controversy in context, you also are not likely to have your "research" cited by The Washington Post as Albright did on Thursday because he supposedly found some links at the home-décor/fashion site Pinterest to a few articles that derived from a few of the 470 Facebook accounts and pages that Facebook suspects of having a link to Russia and shut them down. (To put that 470 number into perspective, Facebook has about two billion monthly users.)

Albright's full quote about the Russians allegedly exploiting various social media platforms on the Internet was: "They've gone to every possible medium and basically turned it into a sewer."

But let's look at the facts. According to Facebook, the suspected "Russian-linked" accounts purchased $100,000 in ads from 2015 to 2017 (compared to Facebook's annual revenue of about $27 billion), with only 44 percent of those ads appearing before the 2016 election and many having little or nothing to do with politics, which is curious if the Kremlin's goal was to help elect Donald Trump and defeat Hillary Clinton.

Even former Clinton political strategist Mark Penn has acknowledged the absurdity of thinking that such piddling amounts could have any impact on a $2.4 billion presidential campaign, plus all the billions of dollars worth of free-media attention to the conventions, debates, etc. Based on what's known about the Facebook ads, Penn calculated that "the actual electioneering [in battleground states] amounts to about $6,500."

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Monday, Penn added, "I have 40 years of experience in politics, and this Russian ad buy mostly after the election anyway, simply does not add up to a carefully targeted campaign to move voters. It takes tens of millions of dollars to deliver meaningful messages to the contested portion of the electorate."

Puppies and Pokemon

And, then there is the curious content. According to The New York Times, one of these "Russian-linked" Facebook groups was dedicated to photos of "adorable puppies." Of course, the Times tried hard to detect some sinister motive behind the "puppies" page.

Similarly, CNN went wild over its own "discovery" that one of the "Russian-linked" pages offered Amazon gift cards to people who found "Pokémon Go" sites near scenes where police shot unarmed black men -- if you would name the Pokémon after the victims.

"It's unclear what the people behind the contest hoped to accomplish, though it may have been to remind people living near places where these incidents had taken place of what had happened and to upset or anger them," CNN mused, adding:

"CNN has not found any evidence that any Pokémon Go users attempted to enter the contest, or whether any of the Amazon Gift Cards that were promised were ever awarded -- or, indeed, whether the people who designed the contest ever had any intention of awarding the prizes."

So, these dastardly Russians are exploiting "adorable puppies" and want to "remind people" about unarmed victims of police violence, clearly a masterful strategy to undermine American democracy or – according to the original Russia-gate narrative – to elect Donald Trump.

A New York Times article on Wednesday acknowledged another inconvenient truth that unintentionally added more perspective to the Russia-gate hysteria.

It turns out that some of the mainstream media's favorite "fact-checking" organizations are home to Google ads that look like news items and lead readers to phony sites dressed up to resemble People, Vogue or other legitimate content providers.

"None of the stories were true," the Times reported. "Yet as recently as late last week, they were being promoted with prominent ads served by Google on PolitiFact and Snopes, fact-checking sites created precisely to dispel such falsehoods."

There is obvious irony in PolitiFact and Snopes profiting off "fake news" by taking money for these Google ads. But this reality also underscores the larger reality that fabricated news articles – whether peddling lies about Melania Trump or a hot new celebrity or outlandish Russian plots – are driven principally by the profit motive.

The Truth About Fake News

Occasionally, the U.S. mainstream media even acknowledges that fact. For instance, last November, The New York Times, which was then flogging the Russia-linked "fake news" theme , ran a relatively responsible article about a leading "fake news" Web site that the Times tracked down. It turned out to be an entrepreneurial effort by an unemployed Georgian student using a Web site in Tbilisi to make some money by promoting pro-Trump stories, whether true or not.

The owner of the Web site, 22-year-old Beqa Latsabidse, said he had initially tried to push stories favorable to Hillary Clinton but that proved unprofitable so he switched to publishing anti-Clinton and pro-Trump articles, including made-up stories. In other words, the Times found no Russian connection.

The Times article on Wednesday revealed the additional problem of Google ads placed on mainstream Internet sites leading readers to bogus news sites to get clicks and thus advertising dollars. And, it turns out that PolitiFact and Snopes were at least unwittingly profiting off these entrepreneurial ventures by running their ads. Again, there was no claim here of Russian "links." It was all about good ole American greed.

But the even larger Internet problem is that many "reputable" news sites, such as AOL, lure readers into clicking on some sensationalistic or misleading headline, which takes readers to a story that is often tabloid trash or an extreme exaggeration of what the headline promised.

This reality about the Internet should be the larger context in which the Russia-gate story plays out, the miniscule nature of this Russian "meddling" even if these "suspected links to Russia" – as the Times initially described the 470 Facebook pages – turn out to be true.

But there are no lucrative grants going to "researchers" who would put the trickle of alleged Russian "sewage" into the context of the vast flow of Internet "sewage" that is even flowing through the esteemed "fact-checking" sites of PolitiFact and Snopes.

There are also higher newspaper sales and better TV ratings if the mainstream media keeps turning up new angles on Russia-gate, even as some of the old ones fall away as inconsequential or meaningless (such as the Senate Intelligence Committee dismissing earlier controversies over Sen. Jeff Sessions's brief meeting with the Russian ambassador at the Mayflower Hotel and minor changes in the Republican platform).

Saying 'False' Is 'True'

And, there is the issue of who decides what's true. PolitiFact continues to defend its false claim that Hillary Clinton was speaking the truth when – in referencing leaked Democratic emails last October – she claimed that the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies "have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

That claim was always untrue because a reference to a consensus of the 17 intelligence agencies suggests a National Intelligence Estimate or similar product that seeks the judgments of the entire intelligence community. No NIE or community-wide study was ever done on this topic.

Only later – in January 2017 – did a small subset of the intelligence community, what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described as "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies – the Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation – issue an "assessment" blaming the Russians while acknowledging a lack of actual evidence .

In other words, the Jan. 6 "assessment" was comparable to the "stovepiped" intelligence that influenced many of the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration. In "stovepiped" intelligence, a selected group of analysts is closeted away and develops judgments without the benefit of other experts who might offer contradictory evidence or question the groupthink.

So, in many ways, Clinton's statement was the opposite of true both when she said it in 2016 and later in 2017 when she repeated it in direct reference to the Jan. 6 assessment. If PolitiFact really cared about facts, it would have corrected its earlier claim that Clinton was telling the truth, but the fact-checking organization wouldn't budge -- even after The New York Times and The Associated Press ran corrections.

In this context, PolitiFact showed its contempt even for conclusive evidence – testimony from former DNI Clapper (corroborated by former CIA Director John Brennan) that the 17-agency claim was false. Instead, PolitiFact was determined to protect Clinton's false statement from being described for what it was: false.

Of course, maybe PolitiFact is suffering from the arrogance of its elite status as an arbiter of truth with its position on Google's First Draft coalition, a collection of mainstream news outlets and fact-checkers which gets to decide what information is true and what is not true -- for algorithms that then will exclude or downplay what's deemed "false."

So, if PolitiFact says something is true – even if it's false – it becomes "true." Thus, it's perhaps not entirely ironic that PolitiFact would collect money from Google ads placed on its site by advertisers of fake news.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

David G , October 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm

I bet the Russians are responsible for all the naked lady internet pictures as well. Damn you, Vladimir Vladimirovich, for polluting our purity.

TS , October 19, 2017 at 5:43 am

Two-thirds of a century ago, Arthur C. Clarke, who besides being a famous SF author, conceived the concept of the communications satellite, published a short story in which the Chinese use satellite broadcasting to flood the USA with porn in order spread moral degeneracy. Wadya think?

Mr. Mueller! Mr. Mueller! Investigate who the owners of YouPorn are!
It's all a Chinese plot, not a Russian one!

Broompilot , October 19, 2017 at 1:55 pm

I second the motion!

Antiwar7 , October 19, 2017 at 7:48 pm

"Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water, or rainwater, and only pure-grain alcohol?"

richard vajs , October 20, 2017 at 7:50 am

And Vladimir keeps tempting me with offers of money that he found abandoned in Nigerian banks and mysteriously bequeathed to me.

Paul Fretheim , October 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm

This sounds eerily similar to newspeak described by George Orwell "1984" in

Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm

The failure of Russia bashers to rank all nations on FB ads and accounts, proves that they know they are lying. Random Russians (about 2% of the world population) may have spent 100K on mostly apolitical ads on FB (about 0.0004%) and may have 470 accounts on FB (about 0.000025%). So Russians have far fewer FB ads and accounts per capita than the average nation. Probably most developed nations have a higher per capita usage of FB, and many individuals and companies may have a higher total usage of FB.

The fact that 160 million is spent to dig up phony evidence of Russian influence (totaling about 0.13% of the investigation cost), proves that such "researchers" are paid liars; they are the ones who should be prosecuted for subversion of democracy for personal gain.

The fact that all views may be found on internet does not make it a "sewer" because one can view only what is useful. The Dems and Repubs regard the People as a sewer, because they believe that power=virtue=money no matter how unethically they get it, to rationalize oligarchy. They keep the most abusive and implausible ads out of mass media only because no advertiser wants them, but of course they don't want the truth either.

JWalters , October 18, 2017 at 9:03 pm

Add MSNBC to the sources of sewage on the internet. I checked out MSNBC today, and they are full-throttle on any kind of Russia-phobia. For those who read somewhat widely, it is obvious they are not even trying to present a balanced picture of the actual evidence. It is completely one-sided, and includes the trashiest trash of that one side. Their absolute lack of integrity matches Fox on its worst days.

As someone who formerly watched MSNBC regularly, I am sickened at the obvious capituation to the criminal Zionists who own the network. Have these people no decency? Apparently not. Historians will judge them harshly.

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 11:28 am

JWalters –

Yes. I completely agree with you. I am beginning to wonder if these people who are spitting out this trashiest trash at MSNBC from their mouths every day for over a year now are really sane people. I believe that along with politicians like Adam Schiff, these talk show hosts have slid into complete madness. The way it is going now, I am afraid that If these people are not removed, there is a danger of the whole country sliding into some form of madness.

anonymous , October 20, 2017 at 2:12 pm

"Historians will judge them harshly."

The western civilisation galloped to worldly success on the twin horses of Greed and Psychopathy. This also provided them the opportunity to write history as they wished.

Are historians judging them harshly now? They are themselves whores to whichever society they belong to.

Anna , October 19, 2017 at 5:32 pm

Jonathan Albright, the Research Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, [email protected] . https://towcenter.org/about/who-we-are/
Mr. Albright is preparing for himself a feathered nest among other presstitutes swarming the many ziocons' "think tanks," like the viciously russophobic (and unprofessional) Atlantic Council that employs the ignoramus Eliot Higgins (a former salesman of ladies' underwear and college dropout) and Dmitry Alperovitch of CrowdStrike fame, a Russophobe and threat to the US national security
One can be sure that Jonathan Albright knows already all the answers (similar to Judy Miller) and he is not interested in any proven expertise like the one provided by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/
.

Dan Kuhn , October 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

Can anyone out there please supply me with a couple of Russian hit pieces that crippled Hillary´s campaigne. Just askin, because I have never seen one.

Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm

You obviously haven't looked hard enough. I just finished the book "Shattered" and she had no problem blaming the Russians when the emails of Podesta came out in the summer. It took her a day or 2 to figure out that she couldn't blame the Arabs so the Russians were next up. How could you have missed it?

Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm

He is likely asking for ads from Russia that actually could have served as "hit pieces" against Clinton, versus her accusations.

Elizabeth Burton , October 18, 2017 at 6:21 pm

I fear we must set aside our sarcasm and understand that this entire Russian narrative has the ultimate goal of silencing any oppositional news sources to the corporate media. When we hear that Facebook is seeking to hire people with national security clearances, which is made to sound as if it's a good, responsible reaction to the "Russian ads" and is cheered on by people who should know better, we need to get our tongues out of our cheeks and stay alert.

A good friend, who is an activist battling the fracking industry in Colorado and blogging about it, was urging people this week to sign petitions demanding more censorship on Facebook to "prevent Russian propaganda." When I pointed out that, based on the Jan. 6 "report," which condemned RT America for "criticizing the fracking industry" as proof it was a propaganda organ, her blog is Russian propaganda. Did that change her mind? Nope. Her response was in the category of "Better safe."

So, it appears Russia is not replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the "great danger" our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat. And people who can't seem to get it through their heads the government is NOT their friend are marching in lock-step to agree because it never occurs to them they, too, are a target.

Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm

Yes, the purpose of Russia bashing is to distract from the revelations of DNC corruption by oligarchy (top ten Clinton donors all zionists), attack leakers as opponents of oligarchy, and attack Russia in hope of benefits to the zionists in the Mideast.

Perhaps you meant to say that "Russia is [not] replacing "Muslim terrorists" as the 'great danger' our beloved and benevolent government must ask us to hand over our rights to combat." Or perhaps you meant that the Russia-gate gambit is not working.

Abe , October 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm

American psychologist Gustave Gilbert interviewed high-ranking Nazi leaders during the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In 1947, Gilbert published part of his diary, consisting of observations taken during interviews, interrogations, "eavesdropping" and conversations with German prisoners, under the title Nuremberg Diary.

Hermann Goering, one of the most powerful figures in the Nazi Party, was founder of the Gestapo and Head of the Luftwaffe.

From an 18 April 1946 interview with Gilbert in Goering's jail cell:

Hermann Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

Hermann Goering: "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 12:44 am

Abe –

Good post. Yes, from all the wars initiated during the last half century what Hermann Goring said is very true of U.S. The opposition to the Vietnam War later on was largely because of the draft.

Bertrand Russell in his autobiography describes in length how they prepared the U.K. public with outrageously false propaganda for War – World War I – against Germany in 1914. Bertrand Russell was vehemently against the War with Germany and spent some time in Jail for his activities to oppose the war.

Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 3:58 am

Based on what I have read about him, in his own words,on EIR, he was probably opposed to war with Germany because he was already looking ahead to a revival of the "Imperial Rome" situation we have in the Trans-Atlantic Community today, with its near-global Empire (enforced by America), working on breaking up the last holdout:the Eurasian Quarter with Russia, China, India, Iran, etc.

Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:21 am

Yes Brad, Bertrand Russell did love England and was very proud of English Civilization and it's contributions to the World. Considering his very aristocratic background, his contributions to mathematics and Philosophy are laudable. And he was very much involved in World peace and nuclear disarmament movements.

BobH , October 19, 2017 at 9:47 am

(Goering quote) ahh yes, sometimes it takes a cynical scoundrel to tell the truth!

T.Walsh , October 20, 2017 at 11:09 am

the major war criminals' trial ended in 1946, with the execution of the 10 major war criminals taking place on October 16, 1946.

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:48 pm

Elizabeth for the mere fact you are on this site may possibly be your reason for your escape from the MSM as it is a propaganda tool, to be used by the Shadow Government to guide your thought processes. (See YouTube Kevin Shipp for explanation for Shadow Government and Deep State) other than that I think it safe to say we are living in an Orwellian predicted state of mass communications, and for sure we are now living in a police state to accompany our censored news. Joe

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:02 pm

Here is something I feel may ring your bell when it comes to our maintaining a free press. Read this .

"From the PR perspective, releasing one anti-Russia story after another helps cement a narrative far better than an all-at-once approach to controlling the news cycle. The public is now getting maximum effect from what I believe is a singular and cohesive effort to lay the groundwork for global legislation to eradicate any dissent and particular dissent that is pro-Russia or pro-Putin. The way the news cycle works, a campaign is best leveled across two weeks, a month, or more, so that the desired audience is thoroughly indoctrinated with an idea or a product. In this case, the product is an Orwellian eradication of freedom of speech across the swath of the world's most used social media platforms. This is a direct result of traditional media and the deep state having failed to defeat independents across these platforms. People unwilling to bow to the CNN, BBC and the controlled media message, more or less beat the globalist scheme online. So, the only choice and chance for the anti-Russia message to succeed is with the complete takeover of ALL channels. As further proof of a collective effort, listen to this Bloomberg interview the other day with Microsoft CEO Brad Smith on the same "legislation" issues. Smith's rhetoric, syntax, and the flow of his narrative mirror almost precisely the other social CEOs, the US legislators, and especially the UK Government dialogue. All these technocrats feign concern over privacy protection and free speech/free press issues, but their real agenda is the main story."

Here is the link for the rest of the essay to Phil Butler's important news story ..

https://journal-neo.org/2017/10/18/globalist-counterpunch-going-for-the-media-knockout/

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:20 pm

Here is a great example of American politicians colluding with the Russians.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-18/fbi-informant-says-he-was-threatened-after-offering-details-linking-clinton-foundati

When you read this keep in mind that the Russians weren't doing any backroom illegal deals, because the Russians thought that they were dealing on the upside with the Obama White House State Department. Where you may question this, is where our Obama State Department side stepped the law to make money for those couple of Americans who fronted this deal. This is the epitome of hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Disclaimer; please Clinton and Trump supporters try and attempt to see this scandal for what it is. This fudging of the law to make a path for questionable donations is not a party platform issue. It is an issue of integrity and honesty. Yes Trump is the worst, but after you dig into the above link I provided, please don't come back at me screaming partisan politics. This scandal doesn't deserve a two sided political debate, as much as it deserves our attention, and what we do all should do about it.

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Joe Tedesky –

Reading about this Russian Bribery case in buying interest in "Uranium One" reminds me that Russians came a century or two late into this Capitalist Game. And they must be novices and rather crude in this business of bribing. This Russia bribery case is just a puddle in this vast Sea of Corruption to sell weapons, fighter jets, commercial airplanes, and other things by U.S., U.K., French, Swedes or other Western Nations to the Third World countries like India, Egypt, Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria etc. To make a sale of three or four billion dollars they would bribe the ministers and other officials in those countries probably with a 100 million dollars easily. Those of us who belong to the two worlds know it much better. The Indian Newspapers used to be always full of it, whenever I visited.

And the bribe money stays in the Western banks with which those ministers and officials sons and daughters buy extensive properties in these countries. In fact, these kind of issues are the topic of conversation at these Ethnic parties of rather prosperous people to which we do get invited once in a year or so – which minister or official bought what property and where with this kind or other type of corruption money. There used to be stories about Egyptian Presidents Sadat and Mubarak's sons playing around in U.S. having bought extensive properties with the bribe money. For Indian Ministers and Officials U.S., Canada, Australia, U.K., and New Zealand are the preferred destinations to buy the properties.

And as we know with the corruption money, rich Russians are buying all these homes and other properties in Spain, U.S., U.K. and other Western Countries. It seems like Putin and his team have stopped most of big time corruption but it is very hard to stop the other corruption in this globalized free market economy, especially in countries where corruption is the norm.

Same is true of these IMF loans to those Third World Countries. Most of the money ends up in these Western Countries. The working class of those countries end up in paying back the high interest loans.

This is the World we are trying to defend with these endless wars and Russia-Gate.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:20 pm

Dave I concur that even the Russians are not beyond corruption, but we are not talking about the bad habits of the Russians, no we are talking about U.S. officials possibly breaking the law. I'll bet Dave if I had taken you on a vandalizing spree when we were young bad ass little hoodlums, and we got caught, that your father wouldn't have come after me, as much as he would come after you, as he would have given you a well deserved good spanking for your bad actions. So with that frame of mind I am keeping my focus with this Clinton escapade right here at home.

I like that you did point out to how the Russians maybe new to this capitalistic new world they suddenly find themselves in, but I would not doubt that even an old Soviet Commissar would have reached under the table for a kickback of somekind to enrich himself, if the occasion had arisen to do so. You know this Dave, that bribery has no political philosophy, nor does it have a democratic or communist ideology to prevent the corrupted from being corrupt.

I am not getting my hopes up that justice will be served with this FBI investigation into Hillary and Bill's uranium finagling. Although I'm surmising this whole thing will get turned around as a Sessions Trump attack upon the Clintons, and with that this episode of selling off American assets for personal wealth benefits, will instead fade away from our news cycles altogether. Just like the torture stuff went missing, and where did that go?

Dave I always look forward to hearing from you, because I think that you and I often have many a good conversation. Joe

Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:07 am

Yes Joe. I agree with you. The reason I wrote my comments was to make a point that Russian businessmen are not the only one who are in the bribery business, the businessmen of other Western Nations are doing the same thing. Yesterday on the Fox News the "Uranium One" bribery case was the main News. Shawn Hannity was twisting his words to make it look like that it is Putin who did it, and that it is Putin who gave all this 140 million as bribery to Clinton Foundation. Actually , I think the 140 millions was given to the Clinton Foundation by the trustees of the Company in Canada. And Russian officials probably greased the hands of a few of them too.

Of course Clintons are directly involved in this case. Considering how Hillary Clinton has been perpetuating this Russia-Gate hysteria, I hope some truth comes out to show that she may be the real center of this Russia-Gate affair. But way the things in Washington are now, probably they are going to whitewash the Hillary Clinton's role in this bribery scandal.

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 10:55 pm

While my one comment i wanted for you to read is being moderated, and it is an important comment, read how the Israeli's handle unwanted news broadcasting. When you read this think of the Kristallnacht episode, and then wonder why the Israeli's would do such a terrible thing similar to what they had encountered under Hitler's reign.

http://theduran.com/rt-provider-off-air-palestine-israeli-regime-takes-palestinian-broadcasters/

Be sure to see my comment I left above, which is being moderated. In the meantime go to NEO New Eastern Outlook and read Phil Butler's shocking story, 'Globalist Counterpunch: Going for the Media Knockout'.

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 3:41 am

Joe Tedesky – the Zionists had been working (long before Hitler) on getting the Jews into Palestine. Read up on the Balfour Declaration. Hitler was helping them get out to Palestine. During World War II, one of the top German officials (can't remember which one right now) went to Palestine to have discussions with the Zionists. The Zionists basically said to him: "Look, you're sending us lazy Jews. These guys aren't interested in construction. Can't you raise more hell so that the harder-working Jews will want to leave Germany and come to Palestine?"

I think if we ever find out the truth about what happened, we will be shocked.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:11 am

Edmund de Rothschild who was a big financier of Zionism in 1934 on the subject of Palestine had said, "the struggle to put an end to the Wandering Jew, could not have as its result, the creation of the Wandering Arab."

I personally can't see the legality of the 'Balfour Declaration', but before Zionist trolls attack me, I must admit I'm no legal scholar.

I'll need to research that episode you speak of about the Germans meeting the Zionist. It's not an easy part of the Zionist history to study. Unless, you backwardsevolution can provide some references that would help to learn more about this fuzzy history.

Good to see you posting, for awhile your absence gave me concern that you are doing okay. Joe

Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:38 am

Thanks for the links Joe. Both great articles.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:14 am

Your welcome Skip I'll apologize for my posting all these links, but I kind of went nuts getting into the subject we are all talking about here, and more. Joe

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 11:21 pm

Although this article by the Saker talks about the U.S. being prepared for war against Iran it speaks to the bigger problem of who is America's puppet master.

http://thesaker.is/trump-goes-full-shabbos-goy/

Tannenhouser , October 19, 2017 at 9:40 pm

Joe start with a book called The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 11:25 pm

I put it on my next book to read. Thanks Tannerhouser appreciate your recommendation. Joe

dfc , October 18, 2017 at 8:55 pm

Elizabeth: Tell your good friend that once they get rid of the Russian propaganda on Facebook they will coming after those that oppose the Fracking Industry next:

How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World

h**p://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/hillary-clinton-fracking-shale-state-department-chevron/

Why Obama's top scientist just called keeping fossil fuels in the ground 'unrealistic'

h**ps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/12/why-obamas-top-scientist-just-called-keeping-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground-unrealistic/

Protesting the Dakota pipeline is not cut and dried

h**ps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/protesting-the-dakota-pipeline-is-not-cut-and-dried/2016/11/06/2872e228-a207-11e6-8832-23a007c77bb4_story.html

Sorry, but how naive or deeply in the bubble can one be? lol :(

Beverly Voelkelt , October 19, 2017 at 2:50 am

I agree Elizabeth. The ultimate objective is censorship and control, using the pretext of keeping America safe from external meddling just like they enacted the Patroit Act to protect us from the terrists they created.

Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:04 am

Thank you Elizabeth. Shutting down alternative voices is clearly the end game here.

David G , October 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm

I'm not crazy about Robert Parry's phrase, "the mistaken judgments of President George W. Bush's administration".

The lying, murdering bastards were lying. It's their parents that made the mistake.

But I'll let it slide.

Tayo , October 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm

I've said this before and I'll say it again: I suggest Mueller focuses on Tinder too. I'm betting there's something on there. Russians have been known to use honey pot plots.

D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Ah, but who is better at it -- Russia or the US? (And dare we even consider the power of China to infiltrate political powers and the media?)

anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm

So do Martians and every other national, religious, and ethnic group on the planet, with the US out in front. You will not trick more careful thinkers by attacking the target du jour.

D.H. Fabian , October 18, 2017 at 6:38 pm

Yes, and over the past week or two, it appears that work is being redirected into holding the vast military behemoth (?), Israel, accountable for our own political/policy choices. Either way, the US is clearly in its post-reality era.

anon , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm

zio-alert

Abe , October 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm

The naked gun of post-reality Hasbara propaganda:

When Israeli influence on US foreign policy choices may be discussed, Hasbara troll "D.H. Fabian" pops up to insist:

"Please disperse! There's nothing for you to see here. Keep moving!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

WC , October 19, 2017 at 12:05 am

And what do you want to discuss Abe? That there is undue influence from Israel on the US government? Maybe, but you could say the same thing about the pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers, just to begin the list.

If you and others wish to focus in on a single culprit (defined as anyone fighting for their own self interests), fine. But there are opposing views that believe the picture is bigger than the one you would like to paint.

Curious , October 19, 2017 at 1:26 am

WC, I don't want to speak for Abe, but I am wondering about your use of the word "maybe". Since the last count of US politicians was 13 Senators, and 27 House Reps who are dual citizens of Israel, does that not imply a conflict of interest just in those stats alone? Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system as it is a security risk, so why do we? I will wait for your reply.

WC , October 19, 2017 at 4:23 am

Curious.

I can't speak for the legalities that led to allowing dual citizenship in the House and Senate, nor why Israel doesn't allow dual citizenship in their political system. Like a lot of laws it is probably serving someone's best interests. ;)

As for the word "maybe" and how it relates to your overall question. Just because there are dual citizen reps in government, does that automatically say they all vote in the interests of Israel exclusively? And even if that were the case what makes them any different from the rep sold out to the MIC, big oil, pharmaceuticals, bankers, etc., or combination of? We'd then need to do a study of all of the sold-out politicians and chart the percentage of each to the various interests they sold out to. At what percentage does Israel come into the big picture?

No one is denying Israel has a certain influence on the US government, but given all of the vested interests involved, the US also has a big stake in what happens in the region. I also don't know what the overall game plan is, not just for the middle east but all of the sordid shit going on everywhere. If old George is right about "The Big Club", I'm assuming some group or combination of groups have some master plan for us all, so I am not ready to label any group, country or entity good or bad at this stage of the game. If this somehow leaves out the moral question, I am not idealistic enough to believe morality and Geo-politics often work hand in hand. :)

Brad Owen , October 19, 2017 at 4:41 am

WCs point is valid and correct. The picture is MUCH bigger than a tiny desert country of a few million Semites ruling the World. The actual picture is the outgrowth of the several, world-wide, European Empires having united into one, gigantic "Roman Empire" (under Synarchist directorship) and CAPTURED America, post WWII, to be its enforcer, working to break the last holdout: the Eurasian Quarter including Iran, into a truly global Empire. Israel was a strategy of the British Empire to preclude any revival of a Muslim Empire, threatening its MENA holdings. The enemy is still the British Empire of the 1%er oligarchs in City-of-London and Wall Street. The fact that NOBODY pays attention to this situation, and obsesses over Israel, guarantees the success of the Plan.

anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:29 am

No, the problem of Mideast policy and oligarchy control of mass media is entirely due to zionist influence, including all top ten donors to Clinton 2016. Ukraine and the entire problem of surrounding and opposing Russia is due primarily to zionist influence, due to their intervention in the Mideast, although the MIC is happy to join the corruption for war anywhere. The others on your list "pharmaceuticals, big oil and the bankers" are involved in other problems.

WC seeks to divert discussion from zionist influence by changing the subject.

anon , October 19, 2017 at 7:33 am

Brad, you will have a hard time explaining why US wars in the Mideast and surrounding Russia are always for the benefit of Israel, if you think that ancient Venetians and British aristocracy are running the show. Looks like a diversionary attack to me.

Abe , October 20, 2017 at 2:05 am

The naked solo of "D.H. Fabian" has surged into a Hasbara chorus. Where to begin.

Let's start with "Curious", who definitely does not speak for me.

The "dual citizens" canard is a stellar example of Inverted Hasbara (false flag "anti-Israel", "anti-Zionist", frequently "anti-Jewish" or "anti-Semitic") propaganda that gets ramped up whenever needed, but particularly Israel rains bombs on the neighborhood.

Like Conventional Hasbara (overtly pro-Israel or pro-Zionist) propaganda, the primary purpose of Inverted Hasbara false flag propaganda is to divert attention from Israeli military and government actions, and to provide cover for Israel Lobby activities

The Inverted Hasbara canard inserted by "Curious" came into prominence after the Israel-initiated war Lebanon in 2006. Israel's shaky military performance, flooding of south Lebanon cluster munitions, use of white phosphorus in civilian areas brought censure. Further Israeli attacks on Gaza brought increasing pressure on the neocon-infested Bush administration for its backing of Israel.

A Facebook post titled, "List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship," started circulating. The post mentioned "U.S. government appointees who hold powerful positions and who are dual American-Israeli citizens."

With the change of US administration in 2008, new versions of the post appeared with headlines such as "Israeli Dual Citizens in the U.S. Congress and the Obama Administration." Common versions included 22 officials currently or previously with the Obama administration, 27 House members and 13 senators.

The posts were false for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the misrepresentation of Israeli nationality law. Israel does allow its citizens to hold dual (or multiple) citizenship. A dual national is considered an Israeli citizen for all purposes, and is entitled to enter Israel without a visa, stay in Israel according to his own desire, engage in any profession and work with any employer according to Israeli law. An exception is that under an additional law added to the Basic Law: the Knesset (Article 16A) according to which Knesset members cannot pledge allegiance unless their foreign citizenship has been revoked, if possible, under the laws of that country.

The Law of Return grants all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic Israeli citizenship upon arrival in Israel. In the 1970s the Law of Return was expanded to grant the same rights to the spouse of a Jew, the children of a Jew and their spouses, and the grandchildren of a Jew and their spouses, provided that the Jew did not practice a religion other than Judaism willingly. In 1999, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that Jews or the descendants of Jews that actively practice a religion other than Judaism are not entitled to immigrate to Israel as they would no longer be considered Jews under the Law of Return, irrespective of their status under halacha (Jewish religious law).

Israeli law distinguishes between the Law of Return, which allows for Jews and their descendants to immigrate to Israel, and Israel's nationality law, which formally grants Israeli citizenship. In other words, the Law of Return does not itself determine Israeli citizenship; it merely allows for Jews and their eligible descendants to permanently live in Israel. Israel does, however, grant citizenship to those who immigrated under the Law of Return if the applicant so desires.

A non-Israeli Jew or an eligible descendant of a non-Israeli Jew needs to request approval to immigrate to Israel, a request which can be denied for a variety of reasons including (but not limited to) possession of a criminal record, currently infected with a contagious disease, or otherwise viewed as a threat to Israeli society. Within three months of arriving in Israel under the Law of Return, immigrants automatically receive Israeli citizenship unless they explicitly request not to.

In short, knowingly or not, "Curious" is spouting Inverted Hasbara propaganda.

Conventional Hasbara (pro-Israel, pro-Zionist) propagandists constantly attempt to portray Israeli military threats against its neighbors, Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, Zionist claims of an "unconditional land grant covenant" for Israel, or the manipulations of the Israel Lobby, as somehow all based on "the way the world really works".

"WC" slithered into the CN comments srael's land grab "solution" was under scrutiny here:
Israel's Stall-Forever 'Peace' Plan (September 23, 2017)
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/23/israels-stall-forever-peace-plan/

"WC" has repeatedly promoted a loony "realism" in the CN comments, claiming for example that "The Jews aren't doing anything different than the rest have done since the beginning of time."

The Conventional Hasbara troll refrain is that whatever Israel does "ain't no big thing".

"D.H. Fabian", "WC" and others are not Hasbara trolls because we somehow "disagree". They are Hasbara trolls because they promote propaganda for Israel.

Fellow travellers round out the Hasbara chorus.

Commenter anon discourses in absolutes such as "entirely due to zionist influence" and "always for the benefit of Israel".

Commenter Brad Owen just can't understand why everyone "obsesses" over that "tiny desert country" when "the Plan" outlined by LaRouche is sooo much more interesting.

Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 11:55 am

Abe – An excellent analysis – very penetrating. Yes, I understand it very clearly.

I am one of those who does not have the background in this area. However, reading the largely British view oriented newspapers since I was fourteen , in a different land where at that time during 1950's and early 60's, all viewpoints were discussed including the communist Russian/Soviet side, and the Communist Chinese side too, one develops a balanced outlook on the World events.

Reading your comments on Israel's citizenship laws, is very eye opening for me. Israel is a very Racist State, which is kind of the opposite of what Jewish Writers write books in this country about America being the melting pot. Some of us have already melted here. I sometimes wonder, Jewish writers are writing all these books, but why don't they melt! Are they special chosen people?

WC , October 20, 2017 at 4:59 pm

Let me first dispel the notion that I am trying to change the subject, as "anon" would like to imply. What I am after is a proper perspective as opposed to something blown out of proportion.

When it comes to the subject of Israel, Jews and Zionism, Abe would appear to be well versed on the subject. He certainly cleared up "Curious"s question on dual citizenship!

With Abe and others on this site, Zionism is the big daddy culprit in the world today. I, on the other hand, see it as simply one part of a bigger picture, which I am still trying to get my head around, but I am quite certain it goes far beyond just a regional issue. In reading what Abe has to say on this subject over the past few months, he may very well be right about Zionist influence and a take no prisoners-type of resolve in pursuing their aims (whatever that may be). But none of this has yet to convince me they are entirely wrong either.

Which brings us to the subject of morality. Take a second look at what Abe has chosen to cherry pick from what he sees as the "Hasbara chorus" – all pointing to "trolls" who (he thinks) are in support of an all powerful and heartless sect. This is what is known as being overly dramatic and speaks volumes about what Abe (and others on this site) view as the most objectionable of all – the moral wrongs being committed. For the sake of clarification "morality" is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior". Most of us who are not suffering from a mental disorder can agree on what constitutes right and wrong at its purist level, but thrown into a world filled with crime, corruption, greed, graft, hate, lust, sociopaths and psychopaths vying for power, sectarian violence, a collapsing economy, inner city decay, and all of the vested special interests jockeying to save their piece of the pie, what is right and wrong becomes far more convoluted and mired in mud. Simply throwing perfect world idealism at the problem will not fix it. In fact, it will get you as far as the miles of crucified Christians that lined the road to Rome. Which is a hell of a way to prove you are so right in a world filled with so much wrong.

Since the day I "slithered in" here, I have asked the same question over and over – what are your REAL world solutions to REAL world problems? So far, the chorus of the Church Of The Perfect World has offered up nothing. :)

Abe , October 20, 2017 at 6:07 pm

Making the same statements over and over again, "WC" is clearly "after" a Hasbara "proper perspective" on Israel.

For example, in the CN comments on How Syria's Victory Reshapes Mideast (September 30, 2017), "WC" advanced three key Hasbara propaganda talking points concerning the illegal 50-year military occupation of Palestinian territory seized by Israel during the 1967 War:
– Spurious claims about "what realistically (not idealistically) can be done"
– Insistence that "Israel is not going to go back to the 1948 borders"
– Claims that the US "depends on a strong Israeli presence"

A leading canard of Hasbara propaganda and the Israeli right wing Neo-Zionist settlement movement is the notion of an "unconditional land grant covenant" entitlement for Israel.

Land ownership was far more widespread than depicted in the fictions of Israeli propaganda. In reality, the Israeli government knowingly confiscated privately owned Palestinian land and construct a network of outposts and settlements.

Israel's many illegal activities in occupied Palestinian territory encompass Neo-Zionist settlements, so-called "outposts" and declared "state land".

The United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (which provides humanitarian protections for civilians in a war zone).
The 1967 "border" of Israel refers to the Green Line or 1949 Armistice demarcation line set out in the Armistice Agreements between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

The Green Line was intended as a demarcation line rather than a permanent border. The 1949 Armistice Agreements were clear (at Arab insistence) that they were not creating permanent borders. The Egyptian–Israeli agreement, for example, stated that "the Armistice Demarcation Line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary, and is delineated without prejudice to rights, claims and positions of either Party to the Armistice as regards ultimate settlement of the Palestine question."

Similar provisions are contained in the Armistice Agreements with Jordan and Syria. The Agreement with Lebanon contained no such provisions, and was treated as the international border between Israel and Lebanon, stipulating only that forces would be withdrawn to the Israel–Lebanon border.

United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and statements by many international bodies refer to the "pre-1967 borders" or the "1967 borders" of Israel and neighboring countries.

According to international humanitarian law, the establishment of Israeli communities inside the occupied Palestinian territories – settlements and outposts alike – is forbidden. Despite this prohibition, Israel began building settlements in the West Bank almost immediately following its occupation of the area in 1967.

Defenders of Israel's settlement policies, like David Friedman, the current United States Ambassador to Israel, argue that the controversy over Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory is overblown.

The Israeli government and Israel Lobby advocates like Ambassador Friedman claim the built-up area of settlements comprises only around 2% of the West Bank.

This Hasbara "2%" argument is at best ignorant, and at worst deliberately disingenuous.

The "2%" figure is misleading because it refers restrictively to the amount of land Israeli settlers have built on, but does not account for the multiple ways these settlements create a massive, paralytic footprint in the illegally occupied Palestinian territory of the West Bank.

Since 1967, Israel has taken control of around 50% of the land of the West Bank. And almost all of that land has been given to the settlers or used for their benefit. Israel has given almost 10% of the West Bank to settlers – by including it in the "municipal area" of settlements. And it has given almost 34% of the West Bank to settlers – by placing it under the jurisdiction of the Settlement "Regional Councils."

In addition, Israel has taken hundreds of kilometers of the West Bank to build infrastructure to serve the settlements, including a network of roads that crisscross the entire West Bank, dividing Palestinian cities and towns from each other, and imposing various barriers to Palestinian movement and access, all for the benefit of the settlements.

Israel has used various means to do this, included by declaring much of the West Bank to be "state land," taking over additional land for security purposes, and making it nearly impossible for Palestinians to register claims of ownership to their own land.

The Israeli Supreme Court has repeatedly used the term "belligerent occupation" to describe Israel's rule over the West Bank and Gaza. Indeed, Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the question of a previous sovereign claim to the West Bank and Gaza is irrelevant to whether international laws relating to occupied territories should apply there.

Rather, the proper question – according to Israel's highest court – is one of effective military control. In the words of the Supreme Court decision, "as long as the military force exercises control over the territory, the laws of war will apply to it." (see: HCJ 785/87, Afo v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank).

The Palestinian territories were conquered by Israeli armed forces in the 1967 war. Whether Israel claims that the war was forced upon it is irrelevant. The Palestinian territory has been controlled and governed by the Israeli military ever since.

Who claimed the territories before they were occupied is immaterial. What is material is that before 1967, Israel did not claim the territories.

Ariel Sharon, one of the principal architects of Israel's settlement building policy in the West Bank and Gaza, recognized this reality. On May 26, 2003, then Israeli Prime Minister Sharon told fellow Likud Party members: "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation [using the Hebrew word "kibush," which is only used to mean "occupation"]. Holding 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation is a bad thing for Israel, for the Palestinians and for the Israeli economy."

Whether one believes that these territories are legally occupied or not does not change the basic facts: Israel is ruling over a population of millions of Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens. Demographic projections indicate that Jews will soon be a minority in the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.

Real world solutions:

An end to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

An end to apartheid government and the beginning of real democracy in Israel.

What can be done now?

United States government sanctions against Israel for its 50-year military occupation of Palestine, its apartheid social regime, and its arsenal of nuclear weapons.

The United States can require Israel to withdraw its forces to the 1967 line, and honor the right of return to Palestinians who fled their homeland as a result of Israel's multiple ethnic cleansing operations.

In addition, the United States can demand that immediately surrender its destabilizing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons arsenal or face severe U.S. action.

Hasbara trolls will keep trying to change the subject, continue muttering about "opposing views" and some "bigger picture" picture", and repeatedly insist that an Israel armed with weapons of mass destruction routinely attacking its neighbors "ain't no big thing".

Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 10:30 am

Most of the ones in control of "pharmaceuticals, the MIC, big oil and the bankers" are Israel firsters as well. Round and round we go eh?

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. , October 19, 2017 at 4:31 am

This is probably as good a place as any to point out that it isn't just Russophobia at work; Congress is hard at work to protect Israel's abominable human rights record from public criticism as well. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act is squarely aimed at criminalizing advocates of the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement and has 50 co-sponsors in the Senate. See https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22israel+anti-boycott+act%22%5D%7D&r=2

The Act is squarely aimed at our First Amendment right to boycott and to advocate for boycotts. See https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/first-amendment-protects-right-boycott-israel?redirect=blog/speak-freely/first-amendment-protects-right-boycott-israel

dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:33 pm

wapo says Hamas disarm because us and israel want them to.israel won't disarm though.Boy.

Curious , October 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm

Thank you Mr Parry for actually taking the time to read the NYT or WaPo for your readers, so we don't have to. There is only so much disinformation one can cram into our 'cranium soft drives' regarding journalists with no ethics nor moral rudders.
It reminds me of watching Jon Stewarts Daily Show to check out the perverse drivel on Fox News since to watch Fox myself would have damaged me beyond repair. Many of my friends are already Humpty-Dumptied by the volume of fragmented info leeching into their bloodstreams by 140 character news.
Thank you for your fortitude in trying to debunk the news and 'outing' those editors who feel they are insulated from critical analysis.

dahoit , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm

jon stewart?WTF?

Curious , October 19, 2017 at 8:56 pm

Well dahoit,
Just chalk it up to a historical reference as that is around the time I stopped watching TV, having worked in the biz for some 30 years. I don't miss it either. Jon gave us a lot of humor and a lot of clever, surreptitious info, and the way they captured the talking points of the politicians by the use of their fast cuts was remarkable. There was a lot of political content in a show meant to just be humorous. Sorry you feel otherwise.

fudmier , October 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm

EITHER OR, INC. (EOI) a secret subsidiary of Deep Sewer Election Manipulators, Inc (DSEMI), a fraudulent make believe Russia company, that changes election outcomes, in foreign countries, to conform the leadership of the foreign country with Russia foreign policy, studied the most recent USA candidates and concluded Russia could not have found persons more suited to Russian foreign policy than the candidates the USA had selected for its American governed, to vote on. The case is not yet closed, EOI is still trying to decide if there is or was a difference between the candidates..

Charles Misfeldt , October 18, 2017 at 7:44 pm

Our election process is so completely corrupted I doubt that a few thousand dollars of Facebook ads that no one pays any attention to could sway the vote, I am much more concerned about bribery, Israel, American Zionists, racists, corporations, evangelicals, dominionists, white nationalists, anarchist's, conservatives, war profiteers, gerrymanders, vote purges, vote repressors, voting machine hackers, seems like Russian's are pretty far down the list.

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm

Now you talking, let's get to the real stuff. Good one Charles. Joe

Peter Loeb , October 19, 2017 at 6:08 am

I don't have "FACEBOOK". Or any other "social media (whatever that may be.)
I don't "tweet" and the technology which we were once told would save
the world, has left me behind. I don't text. I have no smart phone
or cell.

I no longer have a TV of any description. Or cable with millions of things
you don't want to see anyway.

Only my mind is left. For some more years.

(J.M. Keynes: " in the long run we will all be dead."

Perhaps one has to have "social media" to be born in
this generation. Do you need it to exit?

Please accept my thoughts with my "asocial" [media]
appologies.

-- -Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

My "tweet"/message is only my fear that the NY Yankees
will be in the World Series where I can hate them with complete
impunity. (I was created a fan of the Washington Senators,
morphed into a Brooklyn Dodgers fan so the usually failing
Boston Red Sox fits me well. Being for that so-called "dodgers"
team on the west coast is a forced marriage at best.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:27 am

Peter screw Facebook and all the rest of that High Tech Big Brother Inc industry, and the garbage they are promoting.

Also Peter do you have a little Walter Francis O'Malley voodoo doll to stick pins in it? I also haven't followed baseball since Roberto Clemente died.

We kids use to skip school to go watch Clemente play. In fact in 1957 a young ball player who the Pirates had acquired in somekind of trade with the Brooklyn Dodgers chased my seven year old little butt out of right field when I wandered all confused onto the field. That young rookie who chased my loss little being off the field, was none other than the great number 21 Roberto Clemente.

Actually the only thing you left out Peter was the Braves moving to Atlanta. Take care Peter, and let's play more ball in the daylight, and let's make it more affordable game to watch again. Play ball & BDS. Joe

Thomas Phillips , October 19, 2017 at 12:30 pm

I'm envious now Joe. Roberto Clemente was one of my favorite baseball players. My no. 1 favorite, though, was Willie Mays. And speaking of the Braves moving to Atlanta, my father took my brother and I there the first year the team was in Atlanta. The Giants were there for a series with the Braves, and I got to see Mays play (my first and only time). I would have loved to have been able to skip school and watch Clemente play.

On the subject of concern here, The Hill has a couple of stories on the zerohedge.com story you referenced above. From what I read, it appears to me that if this is still an open case with the FBI, Ms. Clinton (and Obama?) could possibly face criminal charges in this matter. We can only hope. To Peter – I do have an old 1992 console TV, but no cable; so I have no television to speak of. I have a VHS and DVD player though and watch old movies and such on the old TV.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 2:42 pm

Thomas how cool. My buddies and I would purchase the left field bleacher seats for I think fifty cents or maybe it was a dollar. Then around the third inning we would boogie on over into the right field stands overlooking the great Roberto, and yell 'hey Roberto'. From right field we kids would eye up the empty box seats off of third base. Somewhere about the sixth or seventh inning we would sneakily slide into those empty box seats along third base side, where you could see into the Pirate dugout along first. Now the Pirate dugout is along third. The box seat ushers would back then justbsimply tell us kids to be good, and that they got a pat on the back from management for filling up those empty box seats, because the television cameras would pick that up. The best part was, we little hooky players did all of this on our school lunch money.

About that FBI thing with Hillary I'm hoping this doesn't get written off as just another Trump attack, and that this doesn't turn into another entertaining Benghazi hearing for Hillary to elevate her status among her identity groupies. Joe

mark , October 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm

All this nonsense will soon die an evidence-free natural death, but rather than admit to the lies the MSM will divert the Deplorables with some convenient scandal like the Weinstein affair.

The effect of all this will be to hammer the final nails in the coffin of the political establishment and its servile MSM. This process began with the Iraqi WMD lies, and now 6% of the population believes what it sees in the MSM.

Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 8:47 am

mark-

I wish you were right, but with all the money being thrown around, and scumbag Mueller in the mix, how this will end is anybody's guess. I'm also curious where you got the 6% figure. Sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Stephen J. , October 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm

We have sewer rats in our depraved "democracy."
More info at link below:
October 18, 2017
Is This The "Democracy" of the Depraved?
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/10/is-this-democracy-of-depraved.html

falcemartello , October 18, 2017 at 7:54 pm

Great take Mr Parry
Smoke and mirrors to distract we the sheeple of this dying paradigm. Fascism alive and well in the land of the free. The sheeple r now entering the critical stage, they have hit 20 percent. Dangerous times for the western masters of the universe. Get ready for more false flags to keep the sheeple blinded from reality. The recent events globally with regards to Iran, Syria and the DPRK are all their for distractions add the Russians ate my homework and viola distraction heaven. But like I said more and more people in the US and the west are turning off 1/5 to be exact and that spells trouble for the masters. They want war at all costs 600 percent debt is not a sustainable economic system . IMF warning just the other day that all it will take is one major European bank to crash and viola. So dangerous and interesting times we r living. Is it by design in order to get their way.?I would say yes to that.

Sam F , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Good notes. Incidentally you may intend the French "voila" rather than the musical instrument "viola."

Skip Scott , October 20, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Voila, viola. Didn't Curly of the three stooges do a bit on that?

Michael K Rohde , October 18, 2017 at 8:27 pm

Should I say it? Shocker. NYT and HIllary are a potent team. Add on Google and CNN and you have a formidable propaganda organization that is going to influence millions of American. Plus Face Book and you have most of America covered without a dissenting voice. I used to be one of their customers, reading and believing everything they put out until Judith Miller was exposed with W and Scooter. I confess to a jaundiced eye since then. Unfortunately there isn't a whole lot out there if you like to read good writers of relevant material. We have a problem, Houston.

Joe Tedesky , October 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm

If it is possible to consider Russia helped throw the 2016 presidential election with 100k spent over a three year period, then why not suspect and investigate the American MSM, who gave Donald Trump 4.9 billion dollars worth of free media coverage? Surely you all may recall the wall to wall commercial free cable network coverage Trump used to receive during the way too long of a presidential campaign? Now we are being led to believe that a few haphazard placed Russian adbuys on FB stool the election from 'it's my turn now boys' Hillary. Here I must admit that as much as I would love to have a woman President, I would choose almost any qualified women other than Hillary. But yeah, this Russia-gate nonsense is a creation of the Shadow Government, who wants so badly to see Putin get thrown out of office, that they would risk starting WWIII doing it.

Larry Gates , October 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm

A single person started all this nonsense: Hillary Clinton.

Jessica K , October 18, 2017 at 9:46 pm

No need for America to be influenced to turn the internet into a sewer, America is doing just fine on that with no help at all. The Russians are just mocking us over there, which is perfectly understandable. In fact, from what I read, Russians are actually more religious and concerned about immorality than Americans.

This whole thing is a joke, we know it, it's an attempt to control people, and I for one am pretty sick of it and don't mind telling anyone just that. Let them sputter, stomp their feet, or whatever. Keep it up, United States, and you'll be playing in the schoolyard all by yourself!

Stephen J. , October 18, 2017 at 10:04 pm

Was the article below in corporate media? Link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
Thousands of govt docs found on laptop of sex offender married to top Clinton adviser
Published time: 18 Oct, 2017 16:45Edited time: 18 Oct, 2017 18:37
https://www.rt.com/usa/407120-fbi-found-3k-docs-weiner/

Sam , October 19, 2017 at 12:10 am

It's amazing how the "mainstream media" has pushed this Russian collusion nonsense. What's more amazing is how every time an article is published my these outlets claiming some new evidence of Russian collusion, within 24 hours there's evidence to the contrary. I think the whole Pokemon and Facebook claims are the lowest point in this Russian collusion nonsense. The worst part is we won't see it end anytime soon

Sam F , October 19, 2017 at 7:38 am

Good points, Sam. There are many named "Sam" so please distinguish your pen name from mine, perhaps with an initial. Thanks!

Drew Hunkins , October 19, 2017 at 12:46 am

Absolutely crucial and outstanding piece by Mr. Parry. His well thought out dissection of Politifact is invigorating.

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 12:52 am

Peter Schweizer, author of "Clinton Cash", has been talking about the biggest Russian bribe of all, the one no one wants to talk about – Uranium One. This deal may have been the reason why $145 million ended up in Clinton Foundation coffers, all while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Here is Peter Schweizer today on Tucker Carlson's program talking about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNTdlyx7EMQ

Daniel , October 19, 2017 at 5:21 am

Her emails showed that HRC's internal polling proved her greatest vulnerability with her supporters was when they were told the details of her uranium deal.

Skip Scott , October 19, 2017 at 9:03 am

Thanks for the link. Great interview. The real Russia-gate!

flip diving , October 19, 2017 at 12:54 am

Your site has a lot of useful information for myself. I visit regularly. Hope to have more quality items.

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 1:33 am

Joe – I never had interest in conspiracy type stories and narratives like that. However, after reading the zerohedge article in the link in your post, I am beginning to seriously doubt the Seth Rich murder investigation findings by the Washington DC police – I had some misgivings before about it too. I think there was not any significant involvement by FBI in the case. And the Justice department under Loretta Lynch did not pursue the investigation.

Knowing all kind of stories in the news about Clintons friend Vince Foster's death during 1990's , and many other episodes in Bill and Hillary Clinton's political life, I wonder about the power and reach of this couple. And now this article and no investigation of this bribery and corruption scandal during Obama's presidency. It all smells fishy.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 1:58 am

Dave not only as what you had mentioned, but the Seth Rich story seems to have become taboo in our news. I realize what the Rich family requested, but when did ever a request from the family ever get honored by the big media ever before? I'm not suggesting anything more, than why is the Seth Rich murder appearing to be off limits, and further more with Seth's death being in question and implicated to the Wikileaks 'Hillary Exposures' being Seth one of those 'leakers', then take responsibility DNC and ask the same questions, or at least answer the questions asked. I hope that made sense, because somehow it made sense to me.

The suggestion of any alternative to the establish narrative gets tossed to the wind. I think this drip, drip, flood, of Russia collusion into the gears of American Government is a way of America's Establishment, who is now in charge, way of going out with a bang. The world is starting to realize it doesn't need the U.S., and the U.S. is doing everything in it's power to help further that multi-polar world's growing realization that it doesn't.

Okay Dave. Joe

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 2:57 am

Joe, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has the power to initiate investigations into these cases. However, it seems to me that the Ruling Elite/Deep State does not want to wash the dirty linen in front of the whole World. It would be very embarrassing; it will show the true picture of this whole sewage/swamp it is. Jeff Sessions or others in high places, have no independence at all, even if they want to pursue their own course – which they rarely do.

It seems like that all these investigations are a kind of smoke screen to hide the real issues. During 1950's or 60's , people in this country mostly trusted the leaders and elected officials. And majority of the leaders, whatever their policies or sides they took on issues, had some integrity, depth, solidity and dignity about them. But it seems to me that these days politicians do not have any of it. The same is true of the Media. This constant mindless Russia-Gate hysteria being perpetuated by the elected leaders, Media, and pundits without any thought or decorum is not worthy of a civilized country. Also, it is not good for the Country or the World.

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am

Yes Dave the quality of accountability and responsibility in DC is sorely lacking of concern to be honest, and do the right thing by its citizens. This is another reason why it's good to talk these things over with you, and many of the others who post comments here. Joe

BobH , October 19, 2017 at 10:08 am

Joe,Dave, glad you bring it up Russiagate seems to be providing a full eclipse of any investigation into the Seth Rich murder and just whatever happened to his laptop?

Joe Tedesky , October 19, 2017 at 10:45 am

I think Bob the Rich investigation got filed under 'conspiracy theory do not touch' file. Joe

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 1:39 am

Hours ago:

"Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley asked the attorney of a former FBI informant Wednesday to allow her client to testify before his committee regarding the FBI's investigation regarding kickbacks and bribery by the Russian state controlled nuclear company that was approved to purchase twenty percent of United States uranium supply in 2010, Circa has learned.

In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014. [ ]

FBI officials told Circa the investigation could have prevented the sale of Uranium One, which controlled 20 percent of U.S. uranium supply under U.S. law. The deal which required approval by CFIUS, an inter-agency committee who reviews transactions that leads to a change of control of a U.S. business to a foreign person or entity that may have an impact on the national security of the United States. At the time of the Uranium One deal the panel was chaired by then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and included then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Attorney General Eric Holder."

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/10/18/judiciary-committee-calls-on-former-fbi-informant-to-testify-about-uranium-one

This FBI informant was apparently gagged from speaking to Congress by either Loretta Lynch or Eric Holder (I've heard both names). Why would they have done this?

Sven , October 19, 2017 at 1:44 am

Very well written article

Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 2:41 am

The whole Russia-Gate brouhaha has become a monumental bore. How anyone with a modicum of intelligence and moral integrity can believe this garbage is beyond me. I salute Mr Parry for his fortitude in clearing the Augean stables of this filth; it reminds of the old Bonnie Raitt song, to wit – 'It's a dirty job but someone's got to do it." personally I can't be bothered reading it anymore.

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 2:51 am

Stefan Molyneux does a great job in this 25-minute video where he outlines the absolute corruption going on in the Banana Republic of Americastan on both the left and right.

He ends up by saying that all of the same actors (Rosenstein, McCabe, Mueller, Comey, Lynch, Clinton) who were part of covering up Hillary's unsecured servers and Uranium One are the very same people who are involved with going after Trump and his supposed collusion with Russia. Same people. And the media seem to find no end of things to say about the latter, while virtually ignoring the former.

https://www.sgtreport.com/articles/2017/10/18/shocking-fbi-corruption-exposed-true-news

Dave P. , October 19, 2017 at 3:39 am

backwardsevolution –

Yes, Media ignores the other scandal while beating up 24/7 on Russian inference/collusion in the Presidential Election. It is the same with the Foreign News. There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday. The pictures in the Sputnik News of these neo-Nazis in the march were very threatening. I think that most of the Russians have probably left West Ukraine. There was not even a mention of this March in the Los Angeles Times.

However, a week before Alexander Navalny had this protest – 500 figure as given the Western media – in Moscow. The picture was splashed across the entire page of Los Angeles Times with a half page article, mostly beating up on Putin.

I rarely watch TV shows. However, this Tuesday, because of the some work going on our house, I was home most of the day. My wife was watching TV starting in the afternoon well into the evening – MSNBC, CNN, PBS newshour; Wolg Blitzer, Lawrence O'Donnell, Don Lemon, Rachel Maddow, and others with all these so called experts invited to the shows. Just about most of it was about beating up on Trump and Russia as if it is the only news in the Country and in the World to report. It was really pathetic to hear all these nonsensical lies and garbage coming out the mouths of these talk show hosts and experts. It is becoming Banana Republic of Americanistan as you wrote.

backwardsevolution , October 19, 2017 at 4:04 am

Hi, Dave P. Yeah, I swear they have things on the shelf that are ready-to-go stories whenever there's a lull in the Trump/Russia collusion nonsense. This last week they pulled Harvey Weinstein off the shelf and crucified the guy (not that he shouldn't have been). If this Uranium One deal gets legs, watch for some huge false flag to coincidentally appear to take our minds off of it.

The biggest thing separating a "first world" country from a "third world" country is the rule of law. Without it, you might as well hoist up a flag with a big yellow banana on it and call it a day. Bananastan has a nice ring to it.

Cheers, Dave.

Lee Francis , October 19, 2017 at 8:10 am

"There was this more than 10,000 strong torchlit Neo-Nazi March in Kiev last Saturday." It never happened, well according to the Washington Post (aka Pravda on the Potomac) or New York Times (aka The Manhattan Beobachter) who, like the rest of the establishment media lie by omission. Other things that didn't happen – the Odessa fire where 42 anti-Maidan demonstrators were incinerated by the Banderist mob who actually applauded as the Union Building went up like a torch with those unfortunate people not only trapped inside with the entrances barricaded, but those who jumped out of windows to escape the flames (a bit like 9/11 in New York) were clubbed to death as they lie injured on the ground. The film is on youtube if you can bear to watch it, I could only bear to watch it once. According to the website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was "another bright day in our national history." A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, "Bravo, Odessa . Let the Devils burn in hell." These people are our allies, along of course with Jihadis in the middle east.

In his the British playwright Harold Pinter's last valediction nailed the propaganda methodology of the western media with the phrase, 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.'

Dave P. , October 20, 2017 at 2:31 am

Lee Francis –

yes. The words : 'even while it was happening it wasn't happening.' It is from his Nobel lecture. I read the text of Nobel Lecture by Harold Pinter at that time – very passionate lecture. Pinter had terminal throat cancer, he could not go to Sweden. I think he sent his video of the Nobel lecture to be played.

Jessica K , October 19, 2017 at 7:14 am

It will be interesting to see how the so-called left leaning media like MSNBC and CNN spin the Uranium One/Obama-Clinton State Department story. The right, especially Hannity on Fox, are on it, also Tucker Carlson who is moderate mostly. When these pundits say "Russia", they seem to imply "Putin" but that may not be the case. And they always want to imply the US is beyond corrupt business deals, which is a joke. It's about time the Clinton case is cracked, but with corruption rampant, who knows?

JeffS , October 19, 2017 at 9:34 am

The targeting of Pokemon Go users was especially nefarious because aren't about half of those people below voting age? But when they finally are old enough to vote we can say that they were influenced by Russia! And this is always reported in a serious tone and with a straight face. I find the aftermath of the 2016 election to be 'Hillary'ous. The obviously phony from the get-go Russia story was invented out of whole cloth to allow stunned Democrat voters to engage in some sort extended online group therapy session. After a year many are still working through the various stages of the grieving process, and some may actually reach the final stage -- Acceptance (of the 2016 Election results)

mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:07 pm

Good one!

Jamila Malluf , October 19, 2017 at 12:36 pm

Excellent Report! Consortium needs a video outlet somebody to give these reports. There are many places other than YouTube you could use and I could become one of your Amateur video editor :)

mike k , October 19, 2017 at 1:10 pm

The Rulers fear the internet.

Liam , October 19, 2017 at 3:01 pm

#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/10/19/metoo-a-course-in-deductive-reasoning-separating-fact-from-fiction-through-the-child-exploitation-of-8-year-old-bana-alabed/

rosemerry , October 19, 2017 at 4:17 pm

I was glad to see that when H Clinton was in England, the RT ads all around were making fun of the blame game. Someone needs to lighten up and stop the ludicrous nonsensical year-long concentration on blaming Russia for the deep defects in almost all aspects of US presence in our world. Observe Pres. Putin and nearly every other real leader getting on with negotiations, agreements, constructive trade deals, ignoring the sinking ship led by the Trumpet and the Republican Party, while the Dems slide down with them.

Realist , October 19, 2017 at 7:20 pm

I think the "Powers that be" in America actually believed it when Karl Rove announced to the world that the U.S. government had the godlike power to create any reality of its own choosing, the facts be damned, and the entire world would come to accept it and live by it, like it or not. They've been incessantly trying to pound this square peg of a governing philosophy into holes of a wide spectrum of geometric shapes ever since, believing that mere proclamation made it so. Russia, China, Iran and any other country that does business with this troika are evil. Moreover, any country that does not kowtow to Israel, or objects to its extermination campaign against the Palestinian people, is evil. Even simply pursuing an independent foreign policy not approved by Washington, as Iraq, Libya and Syria felt entitled to do, is evil. Why? Because we say so. That should suffice for a reason. Disagree with us at your peril. We have slaughtered millions of "evil-doers" in Middle Eastern Islamic states who dared to disagree, and we have economically strapped our own "allies" in Europe to put the screws to Russia. The key to escape from this predicament is how much more blowback, in terms of displaced peoples, violated human rights, abridged sovereignty and shattered economies, is Europe willing to tolerate in the wake of Washington's megalomaniacal dictates before it stands up to the bully and stops supporting the madness. When does Macron, Merkel and May (assuming they are the leaders whom others will follow in Europe) say "enough" and start making demands on Washington, and not just on Washington's declared "enemies?"

And, if the internet has indeed become the world's "cloaca maxima," I'd say first look to its inventors, founders, chief administrators and major users of the service, all of which reside in the United States. In terms of volume, Russia is but a small-time user of the service. If the object is to re-create a society such as described in the novel "1984," it is certainly possible to censor the damned thing to the point where its just a tool of tyranny. The "distinguished" men and corporations basically running the internet planetwide have already conferred such authority to the Chinese government. Anything they don't want their people to see is filtered out, compliments of Microsoft, Google, Facebook and the other heavy hitters. Just looking at trends, rhetoric and the fact that the infrastructure is mostly privately-owned, I can see the same thing coming to the West, unless the users demand otherwise, vociferously and en masse.

Tannenhouser , October 20, 2017 at 4:19 pm

Trump is running point on the distraction op currently being run, to distract from the actual crimes committed by the Blue section of the ruling political party. So far he played his part brilliantly, knowingly or unknowingly, matters not.

Jerry Alatalo , October 19, 2017 at 4:29 pm

Readers of Consortium News come from around the world, from very small towns with populations in the few 1,000's to major cities with populations in the millions, and everything size category in between. In each of those categories of population size, the power is controlled by those possessing the greatest wealth inside that particular population, whether small town, medium, semi-large or major city. One can describe each category of population center as pyramidal in power structure, with those at the top of the pyramid the wealthiest few who "pull the strings" of societies, and, as relates to war and peace, the people who literally fire the first shots.

Identify those at the top of the world category pyramid, call them out for their war crimes, and then humanity has a fighting chance for peace.

Curious , October 19, 2017 at 7:56 pm

For WC,
Thank you for your answer to my question. The 'reply' tab is gone on the thread so I will reply here.
I believe I was trying to figure out the difference between "lawmakers" and the corporate entities you mentioned. Obviously the lawmakers are heavily influenced by the money and the lobbyists from the large corps which muddies the waters and makes it even more difficult to find clarity between politicians and the big money players. When the US sends our military into sovereign countries against international law, it's fair to ask whether it is at the behest of corporate interests, or even Israels' geopolitical agenda, especially in the Middle East.
The large corps you mentioned don't have the legal authority to send our military to foreign lands and perform duties that have nothing to do with US defense (or do they?) and that is why I try to understand the distinction between 40 dual citizens of Israel within the 'lawmakers' of our country and large corporations. When Israels 'allowance' from US tax payers goes remarkably up in value, one has to wonder how and why that occurs when our own country is suffering. That's all I wonder about. I won't distract any more from Mr. Parrys' article.

GM , October 19, 2017 at 9:31 pm

If I recall correctly, Politifact is owned by the majority owners of the St Petersburg times, which family is a major big Clinton donor.

Kevin Beck , October 20, 2017 at 9:01 am

I am curious whether Russia is really able to employ all these "marketing geniuses" to affect elections throughout the world. If so, then America's greatest ad agencies need to look to Moscow for new recruits, instead of within our business schools.

Riikka Söyring , October 20, 2017 at 6:00 pm

Maybe Politifact declares it? stance is based on an alternative fact?

But greetings from Finland. In here is in full swing a MSM war against so called fake media, never mind the fact that many are the stories in fake media that have turned out to be the truth -- or that we are supposed to be a civilized country with free speech.

Our government with the support of the MSM is using a term hatespeech to silence all tongues telling a different tale; some convictions have been given even though our law does not recognise hatespeech as a crime. The police nor the courts can not define exactly what hatespeech is -- so it is what they want it to be.

[Oct 19, 2017] The U.S. Military - Pampered, Safe And Very Scared

Oct 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The U.S. military is a socialist paradise :

Service members and their families live for free on base. People living off base are given a stipend to cover their housing costs. They shop in commissaries and post exchanges where prices for food and basic goods are considerably lower than at civilian stores. Troops and their families count on high-quality education and responsive universal health care. They expect to be safe at home, as bases, on average, have less violence than American cities of comparable size. And residents enjoy a wide range of amenities -- not just restaurants and movie theaters but fishing ponds, camp sites, and golf courses built for their use.

Of course, some bases are better than others. But even the most austere provides a comprehensive network of social welfare provisions and a safety net that does not differentiate between a junior employee and an executive.

For those who stay on, the military provides a generous retirement pay .

"But life in the military is dangerous!"

Not so.

According to a 2012 study by the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) the risk to ones life is lower for soldiers than for civilians:

In the past two decades ( which include two periods of intense combat operations ), the crude overall mortality rate among U.S. service members was 71.5 per 100,000 [person-years] . In 2005, in the general U.S. population, the crude overall mortality rate among 15-44 year olds was 127.5 per 100,000 p-yrs

The huge difference is quite astonishing. The death rate for soldiers would still have been lower than for civilians if the U.S. had started another medium size war:

If the age-specific mortality rates that affected the U.S. general population in 2005 had affected the respective age-groups of active component military members throughout the period of interest for this report, there would have been approximately 13,198 (53%) more deaths among military members overall.

Those working in the U.S. military, even when the U.S. is at war, have a quite pampered life with lots of benefits. They have less risk to their lives than their civilian peers. But when some soldier dies by chance, the announcements speak of "sacrifice". The fishermen, transport and construction workers, who have the highest occupational death rates , don't get solemn obituaries and pompous burials .

There may be occasions where soldiers behave heroic and die for some good cause. But those are rather rare incidents. The reports thereof are at times manipulated for propaganda purposes.

The U.S. military spends more than a billion per year on advertisement. It spends many uncounted millions on hidden information operations. These are not designed to influence an enemy but the people of the United States. In recent years the U.S. military and intelligence services have scripted or actively influenced 1,800 Hollywood and TV productions. Many of the top-rated movie scripts pass through a military censorship office which decides how much 'production assistance' the Department of Defense will provide for the flick.

A rather schizophrenic aspect of its safe life is the military's fear. Despite being cared for and secure, the soldiers seem to be a bunch of scaredy-cats. The military's angst is very ambiguous. It meanders from issue to issue. This at least to various headlines:

Members of the U.S. military live quite well. They are safe. Their propaganda depicts them as heroes. At the same time we are told that they are a bunch of woosies who fear about anything one can think of.

I find that a strange contradiction.

/snark

Posted by b on October 19, 2017 at 12:32 PM | Permalink

Don Bacon | Oct 19, 2017 12:40:38 PM | 1

remember--
"October 13 - 8 Out Of 10 Will Only Read This Headline"
not pampered, but I assume that's a tongue in cheek argument. Live under the rules of a tyrant and call yourself pampered.

Posted by: Stryker | Oct 19, 2017 1:01:21 PM | 2

not pampered, but I assume that's a tongue in cheek argument.
Live under the rules of a tyrant and call yourself pampered.

Posted by: Stryker | Oct 19, 2017 1:01:21 PM | 2 /div

StephenLaudig | Oct 19, 2017 1:15:57 PM | 3
The US military.... losing wars since 1946 [unless you count Panama and/or Grenada]... But in fairness it was tasked with wars that were, by their nature, unwinnable wars. One of the 'grand lessons' of the 20th and 21st centuries is that empires will [almost] always lose wars. The American Empire will lose wars until it runs out of money and then it will quit. All the US needs is a border patrol and a coast guard. All the rest is imperial impedimenta.
la Cariatide | Oct 19, 2017 1:19:49 PM | 4
where do i sign to join american socialist dream?
john | Oct 19, 2017 1:21:01 PM | 5
Their propaganda depicts them as heroes

their suicide rate depicts them as conflicted.

Stryker | Oct 19, 2017 1:23:00 PM | 6
try Venezuela, the United States is of America, it's not America. The "dreamers" all trying to get here.
Ian | Oct 19, 2017 1:23:48 PM | 7
The amenities are good but the pay is low, and health care for veterans is below par.
mischi | Oct 19, 2017 1:26:29 PM | 8
the best soldiers the world has ever seen, like they like to call themselves. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Joe | Oct 19, 2017 1:39:26 PM | 9
Please don't confuse the fears of a lowly enlisted guy, like I used to be, with the published "fears" intended only to extract moar taxpayer dollars....
Burt | Oct 19, 2017 1:43:26 PM | 10
I thought North Korea had a pampered army treated better than the civilian population. Isn't that an Axis of Evil thing?
mena | Oct 19, 2017 1:43:48 PM | 11
Well, and except for the whole Bill of Rights thing. But I guess that's a different conversation.
Of course, the Free Market ideal is to replace as many soldiers with private mercenaries as possible, as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 19, 2017 2:03:05 PM | 12

Of course, the Free Market ideal is to replace as many soldiers with private mercenaries as possible, as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Oct 19, 2017 2:03:05 PM | 12 /div

Piotr Berman | Oct 19, 2017 2:15:40 PM | 13
Honestly, the military exists to respond to "threats", and that entails identifying those threats. The impact of volcano eruptions on jet planes is very real, to give one example, so it is rational to develop options when you cannot use such planes. And so on. I should read "The Airforce 4 biggest fears", just beforehand, I would guess budget cuts are number one. But expenditures imposed by morons in Congress should also be considered. That makes me curious what is number 3 and number 4.
ben | Oct 19, 2017 2:17:18 PM | 14
"Members of the U.S. military live quite well. They are safe. Their propaganda depicts them as heroes."

Not quite as good as depicted b, but, none the less, quite better than the average workers in the U$A today.

IMO, the true heroes in the U$A today are the many workers who struggle daily on minimum wage, to provide for their family's welfare with no job security, and no health care..

james | Oct 19, 2017 2:29:40 PM | 15
b, did you get some kick back for this promotional ad for the us armed forces? i hope so!

@6 stryker. i always get a kick out of when it is referred to as 'america' as if the usa is as big as many in the country think it is! meanwhile us lowly others who inhabit the 'americas' don't get much of a mention...

NemesisCalling | Oct 19, 2017 2:46:06 PM | 16
Even though I have a brother in the Navy who joined because of the shit economy, let me play on the devil's side here, even though I gemerally agree with you.

Ideally, these types of benefits would be welcomed by any country who were legitimately proud of their military. It just so happens that the military we are talking about here is the empire's world police. It really ISN'T the US military any longer, although it takes our cash this way and that for "defense" spending. Although down the list when it comes to defense spending as a per centage of GDP, the US still spends wayyyyyyyy too much. So we are altogether looking at a weird-ass example, b, and although you may be right when it comes to the pussification of our military, I look at it differently for two reasons: 1) as stated above, the US military is unique in their role for the empire; this has created the immense problem of explaining or warranting their existence in faraway lands for almost no discernible reasons. A scattered and bungling approach, meanwhile being stretched way too far, means certain morale and training issues; and 2) it is also a generational thing which ties into the shit economy run by technocratic elites who don't give one iota of a care for the lesser classes which they have massacred through globalization.

So while I think you are in the right to help deconstruct the myth of American military might, I would argue that it is a moot point really and the table is already set for the whole MIC pertaining to US spending to come crashing down once the economy goes tits up. After that, god only knows if militaries will even be useful. In the end, it is difficult for an American like myself to really see the purpose of a military adventure force due to our geographical location. OTOH, a soldier in India looking out from his post over Kashmir might know exactly his worth now and for the future.

Just Sayin' | Oct 19, 2017 2:50:56 PM | 17
The fears of the US Military are the best fears that money can buy.

USA! USA! USA!
Number 1!!!!!!!

notlurking | Oct 19, 2017 2:51:46 PM | 18
I stopped watching most of the war movies dealing with ME conflicts.....a lot of propaganda bullshit.....
Liam | Oct 19, 2017 2:59:43 PM | 19
#MeToo – A Course In Deductive Reasoning: Separating Fact From Fiction Through The Child Exploitation Of 8 Year Old Bana Alabed

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/10/19/metoo-a-course-in-deductive-reasoning-separating-fact-from-fiction-through-the-child-exploitation-of-8-year-old-bana-alabed/

b | Oct 19, 2017 3:07:51 PM | 20
I now added the /snark tag to the post. Seems necessary ...
S Brennan | Oct 19, 2017 3:09:51 PM | 21
"the crude overall mortality rate among U.S. service members was 71.5 per 100,000 [person-years]. In 2005, in the general U.S. population, the crude overall mortality rate among 15-44 year olds was 127.5 per 100,000 p-yrs"

Roughly two-thirds of all DOD active-duty military personnel were ages 30 or younger in 2015. Only about one-in-ten (9%) were older than 40.*

Compared to**:

15 to 19 years 20,219,890 7.2
20 to 24 years 18,964,001 6.7
25 to 34 years 39,891,724 14.2
35 to 44 years 45,148,527 16.0

So, the disproportionality of the age groups in the cited example would more than account for mortality.

Additionally, massive injuries including dismemberment, permanent brain damage and paralysis are not accounted for. That misrepresentation goes further than the general reader is aware, battlefield casualties that were once fatal are now, though initial response, being treated and the Soldier/Marine returned to society.***

* http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/13/6-facts-about-the-u-s-military-and-its-changing-demographics/

** https://www.infoplease.com/us/comprehensive-census-data-state/demographic-statistics-342

*** http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2004/12/iraq_2004_looks_like_vietnam_1966.html

WorldBLee | Oct 19, 2017 3:17:22 PM | 22
#7 - I agree, the pay for enlisted soldiers is low and VA healthcare doesn't want to treat many chemical issues soldiers get from being around depleted uranium, toxic burn pits, etc. Still, it's a much better life than those bombed by them experience!
Stryker | Oct 19, 2017 3:37:58 PM | 23
@15 James, thanks for the feedback, not too many picking up on that yet.
karlof1 | Oct 19, 2017 3:38:54 PM | 24
The intellectual quality of the Outlaw US Empire's military serfs is reflected in their inability to see that the government they're in service to is the #1 Domestic threat to the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect, with the so-called Deep State tied to it like a shadow.
ken | Oct 19, 2017 3:57:56 PM | 25
A 1st Lieutenant over 3 years makes $4,682 base pay. Thats $30 per hour on average. That is well above most civilian pay. Then many businesses hand them a 10-15% discount.

A Sergeant over 3 5 years makes $2,725 base pay. That's about $17.50 per hour... Not so bad.

Then the get BAS (Meals) $246 for Officers and $347 for enlisted. BAH (Housing) $1291 per month Enlisted. They're hiding the Officers amount.

Then kick in free medical. No Obamacare for them!

And God only know the pension they get after 20 or 30 years. I knew a person receiving a military pension and a Post Office pension. The Post Office is very partial to military and dependents. Almost impossible to work for them full time as a civilian. My wife went to take the 'test' and was told she didn't stand a chance as there were too many military retirees vying for the job.

When I went in the Military in 1967 I made $78 per month. When I got out in 1978 I made $700 per month.

All government workers including military on average make more then civilian counterparts.

What's maddening is when I hear them poor boy everyone. Calling, wanting money for the military or cops.

Debsisdead | Oct 19, 2017 4:24:54 PM | 26
Aha! A hint of how the pampered rapists were left exposed in Niger. According to that bastion of oppression, truth and the amerikan way, Foreign Policy DOT com, the government of Chad is somewhat discomfited by the inclusion of Chad on the most recent iteration of Trump's 'Muslim Ban' list. Hah, Chad is pissed at the latest moronity from Agent Orange eh, at least they have a coupla followers of Islam there, imagine how the population of Venezuela feel since last time anyone looked those Venezuelans who still bought into old wives' tales were prostrating themselves in front of two chunks of wood attached in two dimensional perpendicularity I.E. a cruciform.

Still Chad is pissed and you can hardly blame 'em as for more than 60 years the Chad army has performed vital step & fetchit roles for advancing amerikan and french imperial interests - raping and looting villages from Maghreb to the Sahel, from Nigeria through to Mali whenever it seemed the innate right of amerika to plunder whatever pleases them was being questioned.

From assorted tidbits on offer from the usual corrupt sources, we are told that the band of butchers were visiting a village in Niger to provide a 'pep talk' on anti-terror. when they were attacked by as yet unnamed terrorists; apart from the notion that any group of indigenous persons who attack a gang of armed foreign invaders could ever be called terrorists there is a further irony - the pentagon also asserts that there was no indication of prior 'terrorist activity' in the area where the village was located. If that is correct WTF were amerikan troops going there to provide 'anti-terrorist' information for?

This previously pristine region suddenly filled with alleged 'terrorists' who then proceeded to lay waste to the squad of imperial invaders. Since we know now that this was right after Chad's government, pissed at their inclusion on 'The List' , pulled its mercenary forces out of Niger, it would be fair to surmise that it was they, the Chad gang, who had been keeping the world safe for global exploitation in Niger, but that DC, not wishing to acknowledge the 'muslim ban' had caused such a major screw up, chose to ignore that reality and continued to send it's thugs out to 'disseminate information'.

"This wasn't in the brochure" whined one enabler of empire as he choked out his final words.

Fernando Arauxo | Oct 19, 2017 4:34:32 PM | 27
The USA's armed forces are deadly. We may mock them and while it is true, they don't "win" wars. However the damage they wreak is horrendous, the Armed Forces when unleashed will cause more damage than the mongols. People seem to forget the wars the USA did "win". It's wiped it's ass with the Dominican Republic and Haiti many times. Africa, Asia and Europe suffers under the boot of the G.I.
They don't win, but they don't really "lose" either.
Jagger | Oct 19, 2017 4:43:46 PM | 28
I was trying to figure out the purpose of this article. Since the author didn't list the downsides of serving in the military, I will assume the author has never actually served in the military. My suggestion would be for the author to join as soon as possible to gain access to that great military life and all those fantasic benefits. And since the author believes they are a force of wussies and scaredy-cats, the author should not have any problems getting in. Of course, after the author has spent his third tour humping the boonies in Afghanistan, survived his umpteenth road-side bomb or small arms ambush, should be interesting to see if he turns into a 20 year man so he can fully enjoy the good life.

The article was too one-sided, shallow and exaggerated to be written by anyone but a troll. Waste of time to read it.

Anonymous | Oct 19, 2017 4:57:18 PM | 29
Game over in Syria. After tripartite talks (Syria, Kurds, Russia) at al Qamishli over the Kurdish issue and the US bases in Syria, the Kurds have transferred control of the large Conoco oil facility to Russian ground forces. The Kurds now have no control of oil for financing the so-called 'state'. It looks like they have seen the US casting the Iragi Kurds aside and wondered - 'will the same happen to us?' and gone for the negotiated solution. No wonder Shoigu and Putin have gone on record as saying the Syria issue is nearly over.

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/10/syrians-russians-and-kurds-discuss.html

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-russian-troops-take-control-key-gas-field-kurdish-forces-deir-ezzor/

gepay | Oct 19, 2017 5:01:41 PM | 30
I wonder if you included suicides or disability post service. WWI the military introduced metal helmets and mortality went down but brain injuries increased. My understanding is that brain injuries due to IED are very common. I would imagine the majority of soldiers returning from a war zone come home maimed in body/and or mind.

As the son of a 20+ year Army vet, I know these perks have been there for a long time. They were necessary to attract anybody before WW2. I imagine they have increased with the volunteer military. Mostly the Army is populated with the more competent people from the lower strata of American society. They have a choice of working at a fast food, convenience store, or motel along the interstate - or the Army - oh yeah being a prison guard is also an option as the burgeoning American prison population is housed in low income rural areas.

I imagine there is bloat in the officer corps - most of those golf courses you mentioned are for officers only. These officers are mainly not coming from low income families. The real bloat though, is in the military contractors - Eisenhower's military-industrial complex with an added national security complex. Amazing how the US has gone from being basically isolationist before WW2 to the militaristic society of today. The US military is the bitch enforcer for global elite. The police are being increasingly militarized. Many of them trained by those human rights paragons - the Israelis.

Just Sayin' | Oct 19, 2017 5:17:18 PM | 31
Amazing how the US has gone from being basically isolationist before WW2 to the militaristic society of today.

Posted by: gepay | Oct 19, 2017 5:01:41 PM | 30

LOL Seriously?

This is only a partial list of US military actions in foreign countries. This list only covers the 50 years from 1890 to WW2

---------------


ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914.
HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
MEXICO 1923 Bombing
HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops
PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.

-------------
You know, I hear they have this new-fangled thing call "The Internet" now.
The hipster kids tell me you can actually connect to it and do things like research a statement before you go and say something stupid.
Can't make head nor tail of it myself, but the local hipster voung 'uns swear by it

ToivoS | Oct 19, 2017 5:28:30 PM | 32
In terms of the most dangerous occupations b seemed to have omitted loggers. From life insurance data published about 30 years ago the most dangerous occupations are (number of deaths per 100,000):

commercial fishermen (about 100)
loggers (70-80)
construction workers (20+)
taxi drivers and 24 hour store clerks (~10)
fire fighters (5)
policemen (4)

With policemen the leading cause of occupational fatalities are from traffic accidents. Every time, any where in the US if a cop is shot by a criminal it becomes front page news across the entire country and their funerals are attended by hundreds of uniformed cops to great press fanfare. This is followed by outpouring of press discussion about the horrible dangers our policemen are exposed to.

Edward | Oct 19, 2017 5:41:16 PM | 33
If you look at battlefield injuries, the picture is not so good; in the Iraq occupation, injuries were often debilitating but not fatal. One also has to worry about being poisoned by burn pits or uranium. The military people who are truly pampered, with a royal lifestyle, are the generals.

Another American group that receives special privileges is the police. Have you heard of the law enforcement bill of rights?

This military socialism resembles Israeli socialism. A technique the Israeli state uses to grant benefits to Israeli Jews and deny them to Palestinians is to tie the benefits to military service which is denied to Palestinians. As a result, Israeli Palestinians pay more taxes but receive less benefits then Israeli Jews.

Just Sayin' | Oct 19, 2017 6:21:27 PM | 34
One of the many "Socialist" benefits on offer to members of the USMilitary

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/19/genital-injuries-taliban-ieds

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/health/genital-injuries-among-us-troops.html


-------------

This military socialism resembles Israeli socialism. A technique the Israeli state uses to grant benefits to Israeli Jews and deny them to Palestinians is to tie the benefits to military service which is denied to Palestinians. As a result, Israeli Palestinians pay more taxes but receive less benefits then Israeli Jews.

Posted by: Edward | Oct 19, 2017 5:41:16 PM | 33

Nationalist and Socialist?

A bit of a mouthful, maybe someone should come up with a snappy acronym for it. . . .

wonder what they'd call it?

ERing46Z | Oct 19, 2017 6:23:14 PM | 35
"b" You just way out of your way to beat up the military. SO. The reason the "mortality rate" is so much lower is because better than 98% of us are not only armed, but are private fire arms owners at our homes and the criminal world knows that BUT YOU WENT OUT OF YOUR WAY TO IGNORE THAT! YOU "b" just took your credibility off the cliff, complete with a "snark" all the way to the rocks below. Yes, I served on SECARMY Staff in the E Ring at the Pentagon. So, "been there" all the way to the end. Deployments, sand, live fire convoys and all.
blues | Oct 19, 2017 6:26:34 PM | 36
Every dozen or whatever months I get this spam phone call from this big booming American voice asking me if I would be good enough to contribute to a charity for medical care and/or support of the loved ones of police officers slain or injured while on duty. It's pretty much sort of a shake down, since they do have my number.

This pisses me way off!

So I politely explain to them that my cat, Curly, has severe epilepsy and I must spend $2,000 a month for this Vimpat medicine to keep Curly from having dreadful seizures. So of course I have no leftover money for charity.

Screw them!

<== Jagger | Oct 19, 2017 4:43:46 PM | 28
Yup. Don't waste any more time reading this. (You didn't read the fine print on your auto insurance either, did you?)

Boyo | Oct 19, 2017 6:36:56 PM | 37
One day when the dollar fails and is no longer the petro dollar, then the military cuts will happen like the old USSR. This may be sooner than later after how Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Hezbollah and others stuck together in Syria and now Iraq.

This has scared the shit out of the Saudis. The Saudi king ran to Russia to meet with Putin. The petrodollars days are numbered.

Just Sayin' | Oct 19, 2017 6:38:08 PM | 38
Deployments, sand, live fire convoys and all.

Posted by: ERing46Z | Oct 19, 2017 6:23:14 PM | 35

Balls too?

Peter AU 1 | Oct 19, 2017 6:41:45 PM | 39
Good post b.
Looks like the yanks are out in force justifying/finding excuses for the numbers.
james | Oct 19, 2017 7:06:57 PM | 40
all those innocent people, not to mentioned the armed forces people being exposed to depleted uranium, and none of them are a statistic.. thank you barbaric usa..anyone who thinks the usa looks after their vets- i don't think so...
karlof1 | Oct 19, 2017 7:19:56 PM | 41
james @40--

One only need view the film Born on the Fourth of July to learn how vets were treated then and now. My partner's dad has a host of ailments, PTSD amongst them, and ought to be in a VA Nursing Home, but they are almost nonexistent nowadays--they were once called Old Soldiers Homes.

Jackrabbit | Oct 19, 2017 7:48:22 PM | 42
b, your post raises many good questions.

At what point does a military become mercenaries, out for their own good? Who has incentive to make them mercenaries? How can we tell when a military has been compromised? How can society guard against the slippery slope? Etc.

Peter AU 1 | Oct 19, 2017 8:17:07 PM | 43
United States of America = Americans?
In Europe, none of the countries are called Europe and the people collectivly are called Eropeans.
In Asia, no country has the name Asia, but collectivly the people are called Asians.
In Africa, South Africa has Africa in its name, and the people of South Africa a called South africans. Easy to say and people who live in Africa a collectively Africans.
The Americas. Only one country has America in its name, but who the fuck is going to say "United States of Americans" when refering to the arseholes that inhabit the place. Much easier to just say Americans, Canadians, Venezuelans - whatever.
Josh Stern | Oct 19, 2017 8:32:18 PM | 44
How do the life expectancies of adult an adult 'A', 'B', or 'C' compare? Who is most likely to be murdered soonest by Heine gang? Hard to know...most A's are off the map, shut off from any large scale publicity or commerce or media coverage. While the status of 'B' and 'C' is secret. Heine gang shortens the life expectancy of all in a significant way, but I don't know how the current stats would play out.
Edward | Oct 19, 2017 8:53:54 PM | 45
@34 Just Sayin,

That comparison gets made more often these days. In some ways the Israelis are worse then the Nazis.

peter | Oct 19, 2017 9:07:46 PM | 46
I guess if it's a country you like the soldiers are patriotic and morally upright.

If you don't like the country then they're all low-life scum looking for a free ride.

Debsisdead | Oct 19, 2017 10:17:22 PM | 47
The nonsense has started again. I have posted the same epistle twice and both times the missive has disappeared into the black hole, I shan't do it again until I'm certain the original has gone forever -in the meantime no one should be surprised if they both suddenly reappear.
barrisj | Oct 19, 2017 10:53:46 PM | 48
OK. give the reprobate Donald credit (maybe)...he was quoted in saying to the dead soldier's mum: "It's what he signed up for...",blah,blah. But, the Donald called it: Special Forces are nothing but trained assassination teams...they go in, off their target, fly out, end of story. Only this time, the buggers got caught with their shorts down, and...casualties...oh, boo-hoo. All these young bodies that sign up for the US military some time in their enlistment will be posted to "bases" that they didn't even realise existed. And so they get educated, really fast. Then those who go further in their military careers decide to go for the "elite" units: hard-core training, propaganda, "know your enemy",how to murder stealthily, etc. Then, after many "kills", they themselves get capped...it's how the game is played, yo. So, bottom-line - Trump let out the BIG secret: "We" kill, and should expect to be killed in return...who can cavil with that?
J Swift | Oct 19, 2017 11:07:32 PM | 49
@34 Just Sayin,
I'm still chuckling....

@42 Jackrabbit,
This is hugely important. Ditching the draft in the '70's wasn't for any altruistic reason, nor to make the US military "more professional." In draft days, even though most wealthy families could buy their way out of being impacted, a significant cross section of the citizenry could expect to find themselves contributing their pride and joy to some crazy war effort in some far off place. There had better be a damn good reason for it. One of the big lessons the Establishment learned from Vietnam was that even the terminally passive American people could become violently anti-war when it was a life or death situation for them personally. So the move was made to an "all volunteer" force, which would generally draw from a less politically powerful cross section, and there would automatically be less bitching because "those guys wanted to go fight--that's what they signed up for." And as Jackrabbit points out, haven't indeed you at least started down the road to mercenary when your current army must admit they're there for the money, and maybe the promise of adventure, not because they were drafted and just fulfilling their duty as a citizen and eager to get home to the plow?

This is doubly troubling, because now your soldiers are vastly more mercenary than before (and of course will be recruited as true mercenaries upon ETS to meet the growing demand for true mercs), but are fewer and more socially isolated, so they are getting 3, 4, MORE tours in some sand pit where they are basically a walking target and are rightly hated as foreign occupiers, so even the best of them cannot help but become resentful and sociopathic. But at the same time, the Deep State has divorced the military from the citizenry at large, so citizens care less and less how many wars the US is engaged in, how many destroyed young men come home, and not only does protest of wars evaporate, warfare is mythically transformed into something heroic and to be desired, not feared. All empires have gradually been forced to employ more and more mercenaries (or slaves) to maintain their wars, but it never ends well.

[Oct 17, 2017] The Lobby British Style by Philip M. Giraldi

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
Oct 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists. It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate a catastrophic war with Iran.

To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.

There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends. The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel is a liability to the United States and always has been.

And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.

That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate.

A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates, to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers and reputations.

Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe. The four-part documentary released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly filmed meetings and discussions.

The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.

The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom. When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal" to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.

On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias" prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,

Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented "With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate."

Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel, he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so. The charges against the two men were, unfortunately, eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose classified information."

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Rurik , October 17, 2017 at 4:29 am GMT

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
googlecensors , October 17, 2017 at 5:00 am GMT
One is unable to open the documentary – all 4 parts – on YouTube suggesting that google/YouTube are censoring it and have caved into the Jewish Lobby
Malla , October 17, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?

Frankie P , October 17, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT
@Rurik

He has been set free by the truth, proving the old maxim.

wayfarer , October 17, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT
Understand a Spoiled Child, and You Will Understand Israel. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiled_child

Discipline the Spoiled Child, and Boycott Israel. source: https://bdsmovement.net/

Israel Anti-Boycott Act – An Attack on Free Speech?

Dan Hayes , October 17, 2017 at 5:48 am GMT
Philip,

My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.

Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence of its patron, Ron!

Uebersetzer , October 17, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed so far.
JackOH , October 17, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).

That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.

I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah.

Cloak And Dagger , October 17, 2017 at 7:43 am GMT
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability to arrest its fall.

Mark James , October 17, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy

I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).

Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.

Kevin , October 17, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!

Tyrion , October 17, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open.

London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the Muslim world, only more so.

The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier. Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.

All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.

Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so that they can further their specious arguments.

Randal , October 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT

"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did"

Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government, did.

The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.

But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are an anti-Semite and a hater.

The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.

geokat62 , October 17, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT
@Rurik

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure.

Rare, indeed, Rurik.

And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.

Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran :

Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/october/16/president-trump-beats-war-drums-for-iran/

animalogic , October 17, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
The Alarmist , October 17, 2017 at 11:01 am GMT
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is only there to harass little people like you and me.
Bardon Kaldian , October 17, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT
@googlecensors

Not true.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:15 am GMT
@Malla

Abby Martin is amazingly sharp. Many of the things she says can be confirmed by Uri Avnery, both his books and articles.

Here's a link to his weekly columns.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery

Incredible stuff there; thanks for posting it.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT
@Malla

Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

According to the first vid, those drones will be built by the goyim.

Maybe there's a message there for us.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles

We are long past that point.

I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core from its inception.

For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist" are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.

Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.

The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.

*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans will finally wake up.
jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

I have news for that twister of words.

In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.

In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than the rest of us.

It's called accountability.

BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft of nuclear triggers from the US?

"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S. in the 80s and 90s."

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-nuclear-smuggling-from-u-s-big-story-in-israel.html

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT
Thank you Mr Giraldi. You covered an amazing number of issues in such a well written and compact article.

Thanks also to Mr Unz for publishing these sorts of things.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

What she really meant by that was HOLOCAUST ALERT HOLOCAUST ALERT!!

Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Malla

When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.

iffen , October 17, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
NPR Morning Edition 10/17/17

Rachel Martin talks to Vahil Ali, the communications director for the Kurdish president.

In which she tries to steer him into calling for armed American intervention in Kurdistan to resist the Iranian sponsored militia.

LondonBob , October 17, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference. We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
Sherman , October 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.

Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.

Thanks for update Phil!

ChuckOrloski , October 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT
@geokat62

Hey geokat62,

Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.

http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/congress/defaultZAC .

Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"

(Sigh)

History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.

At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on the table" & ready for a war with Iran.

Jake , October 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.

WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British Isles natives were not WASPs.

WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs. You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'

By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish. It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.

The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.

Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group of Semites.

And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.

The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man.

It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.

Michael Kenny , October 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.

Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.

Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection, could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"

Fran Macadam , Website October 17, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .)
Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT
@wayfarer

Daphne Caruana Galizia exposed both local thieves and the CIA-Azerbaijan cooperation in supplying ISIS with arms:

https://www.rt.com/news/406963-assange-reward-caruana-galizia-death/ https://www.newsbud.com/2017/10/16/breaking-gladio-b-assassinates-journalist-with-car-bomb/

"Azerbaijan considers Malta to be "one of its provinces": https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2017/09/azerbaijan-considers-malta-one-provinces/
The Middle Eastern wars have repercussion .

[Oct 17, 2017] The Lobby British Style by Philip M. Giraldi

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
Oct 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists. It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate a catastrophic war with Iran.

To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.

There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends. The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel is a liability to the United States and always has been.

And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.

That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate.

A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates, to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers and reputations.

Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe. The four-part documentary released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly filmed meetings and discussions.

The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.

The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom. When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal" to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.

On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias" prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,

Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented "With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate."

Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel, he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so. The charges against the two men were, unfortunately, eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose classified information."

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Rurik , October 17, 2017 at 4:29 am GMT

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
googlecensors , October 17, 2017 at 5:00 am GMT
One is unable to open the documentary – all 4 parts – on YouTube suggesting that google/YouTube are censoring it and have caved into the Jewish Lobby
Malla , October 17, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?

Frankie P , October 17, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT
@Rurik

He has been set free by the truth, proving the old maxim.

wayfarer , October 17, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT
Understand a Spoiled Child, and You Will Understand Israel. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiled_child

Discipline the Spoiled Child, and Boycott Israel. source: https://bdsmovement.net/

Israel Anti-Boycott Act – An Attack on Free Speech?

Dan Hayes , October 17, 2017 at 5:48 am GMT
Philip,

My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.

Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence of its patron, Ron!

Uebersetzer , October 17, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed so far.
JackOH , October 17, 2017 at 6:59 am GMT
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).

That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.

I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah.

Cloak And Dagger , October 17, 2017 at 7:43 am GMT
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability to arrest its fall.

Mark James , October 17, 2017 at 9:32 am GMT
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy

I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).

Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.

Kevin , October 17, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.

Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!

Tyrion , October 17, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT

And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open.

London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the Muslim world, only more so.

The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier. Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.

All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.

Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so that they can further their specious arguments.

Randal , October 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT

"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did"

Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government, did.

The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.

But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are an anti-Semite and a hater.

The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.

geokat62 , October 17, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT
@Rurik

Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure.

Rare, indeed, Rurik.

And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.

Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran :

Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/october/16/president-trump-beats-war-drums-for-iran/

animalogic , October 17, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
The Alarmist , October 17, 2017 at 11:01 am GMT
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is only there to harass little people like you and me.
Bardon Kaldian , October 17, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT
@googlecensors

Not true.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:15 am GMT
@Malla

Abby Martin is amazingly sharp. Many of the things she says can be confirmed by Uri Avnery, both his books and articles.

Here's a link to his weekly columns.

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery

Incredible stuff there; thanks for posting it.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT
@Malla

Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.

According to the first vid, those drones will be built by the goyim.

Maybe there's a message there for us.

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT
@Cloak And Dagger

I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with sorrow as this great nation crumbles

We are long past that point.

I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core from its inception.

For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist" are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.

Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.

The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.

*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans will finally wake up.
jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any Jewish person involved in public life."

I have news for that twister of words.

In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.

In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than the rest of us.

It's called accountability.

BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft of nuclear triggers from the US?

"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S. in the 80s and 90s."

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/netanyahu-implicated-in-nuclear-smuggling-from-u-s-big-story-in-israel.html

jacques sheete , October 17, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT
Thank you Mr Giraldi. You covered an amazing number of issues in such a well written and compact article.

Thanks also to Mr Unz for publishing these sorts of things.

ISmellBagels , October 17, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT
@jacques sheete

What she really meant by that was HOLOCAUST ALERT HOLOCAUST ALERT!!

Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
@Malla

When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.

iffen , October 17, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
NPR Morning Edition 10/17/17

Rachel Martin talks to Vahil Ali, the communications director for the Kurdish president.

In which she tries to steer him into calling for armed American intervention in Kurdistan to resist the Iranian sponsored militia.

LondonBob , October 17, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference. We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
Sherman , October 17, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.

Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.

Thanks for update Phil!

ChuckOrloski , October 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT
@geokat62

Hey geokat62,

Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.

http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/congress/defaultZAC .

Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"

(Sigh)

History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.

At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on the table" & ready for a war with Iran.

Jake , October 17, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.

WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British Isles natives were not WASPs.

WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs. You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'

By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish. It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.

The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.

Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group of Semites.

And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.

The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man.

It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.

Michael Kenny , October 17, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.

Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.

Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection, could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"

Fran Macadam , Website October 17, 2017 at 1:32 pm GMT
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .)
Anon , Disclaimer October 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT
@wayfarer

Daphne Caruana Galizia exposed both local thieves and the CIA-Azerbaijan cooperation in supplying ISIS with arms:

https://www.rt.com/news/406963-assange-reward-caruana-galizia-death/ https://www.newsbud.com/2017/10/16/breaking-gladio-b-assassinates-journalist-with-car-bomb/

"Azerbaijan considers Malta to be "one of its provinces": https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2017/09/azerbaijan-considers-malta-one-provinces/
The Middle Eastern wars have repercussion .

[Oct 17, 2017] For War Hawks, Iran Deal Dump Is Music to the Ears

As one commenter aptly said: " 'Moron', as Tillerson would say." and as another noted "Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al Qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory."
Notable quotes:
"... the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies? ..."
"... This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter. ..."
"... Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements. ..."
"... Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really? ..."
"... Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say. ..."
"... "Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore." ..."
"... It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us. ..."
"... And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years? ..."
"... We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support. ..."
"... it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants. ..."
"... Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic. Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country. Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Fran Macadam , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:48 am

Making war in other people's countries is what an American government captured by globalist financial elites is all about. For elites, such wars, paid for by the deplorable ordinary Americans they loathe, have no downside and carry no risk to them. Lose-lose for the American public is win-win for them, they cannot lose, especially since wars that can't be won will never end, perfect profit streams.
80 Percent Polyester , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:39 am
"Cotton was among the fiercest and loudest opponents of the agreement before it was made, and he has continued to look for ways to sabotage it."

Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore.

He's more like a member of the Netanyahu government who somehow ended up in one of Arkansas's US Senate seats.

Early To Rise , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:58 am
Does anyone here know any real Americans who are pushing for this policy against Iran? My family and friends are nearly all real Americans, and not one of them has any interest in ending the deal with Iran. Most of them wish we would get out of the Middle East altogether.

So the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies?

Christian Chuba , says: October 13, 2017 at 7:16 am
This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter.

We are doing this while condemning other countries for not following a 'liberal, rules based world order' (whatever that is, oh, wait, it is following Caesar's decrees). Our Hubris will catch up to us, whether it will be by the Almighty that the Haley's and Cotton's claim to serve or just the law of reciprocity, I don't know. No one is more blind than those corrupted by power.

John Quincy Adams, "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

He was able to see this because we were not yet intoxicated by power.

Everything Must Go , says: October 13, 2017 at 8:01 am
Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements.

Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really?

Frederick Martin , says: October 13, 2017 at 9:38 am
Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say.
Fred Bowman , says: October 13, 2017 at 10:14 am
What seem to be missing here is anybody talking about Israel nuclear capability. That's the "dirty little secret" that nobody talks about. Imho, as long as Iran is in compliance the deal should. Of course Trump and the Hawks in Congress are going to do everything to scuttle it and bring about a war with Iran which will end up being a World War and will necessitate the US returning to a military draft to fight this war. It will be a sad way to "wake up" America to what is being done militarily in their name. But perhaps when they see their little "Johnny and Jill" marched off to war, they'll see what has been done in these endless, unwinnable wars in the Middle East.
AR complaint , says: October 13, 2017 at 10:31 am
[Tom Cotton gets] "Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified."

He got a $700,000 check from a single Israel donor in 2014. You think anybody in Arkansas not named "Walton" can match that? No sir. Tom Cotton does what Israel tells him to do. Scuttle the Iran deal? No problem.

It's time that my fellow Arkansans did for Tom Cotton what those upstanding Virginians did for Eric Cantor back in 2014, and for the same reason: we want our government back from corrupt politicians working for foreign interests.

SDS , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:53 am
I second EVERYTHING said above by all –
Steve Waclo , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:53 am
" the president made clear over the summer, he didn't "believe" Iran was in compliance and would not certify again."

Wait, what?! What does Trump know that the IAEA has been unable to learn and at the risk of compromising intelligence sources, why has he not shared that knowledge? As with many of the man's "beliefs", such attitudes do not make issues remotely true. We don't need to stir the Iran pot, for goodness sake. Has not this man kicked enough hornets nests around the world?

Stephen J. , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:58 am
I believe the "War Hawks"are leading Trump into another war. Therefore, I asked on: February 4, 2017 Will There Be War With Iran?
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-there-be-war-with-iran.html
Steve in Ohio , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:35 pm
"Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore."

Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is a must in GOP primaries.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, like his dad, is good on foreign policy, but doesn't get the immigration issue. People like me who want a non interventionist FP and low immigration seldom have candidates that believe in both to support. I had high hopes for Trump, but he seems to have too many generals around him telling him the wrong things.

the times they are a'changing , says: October 13, 2017 at 1:23 pm
"Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is a must in GOP primaries. "

No it's not. It was a litmus test for the old neocon Establishment GOP, and it's gone the way of Eric Cantor. You have to go to New York, DC, or some left coastal city to find anyone who gives a goddamn about it, and those places don't vote Republican anyway.

Politicians who take the Israel dollar care about it a lot, naturally. And Cotton's near the top of the list.

jk , says: October 13, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory.

"NO KIN IN THE GAME": STUDY FINDS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITHOUT DRAFT-AGE SONS WERE MORE HAWKISH"

https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/congress-war-hawkish-policies-study/

That explains "lifetime bachelor" Graham's behavior!

Kent , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:09 pm
To our neocon friends:

1. Even though Iran and Iraq are 4 letter words and share the first 3, they are very, very different animals. Iran is an industrial state of 85 million capable of designing and building effective rockets. It is highly unlikely the US can defeat Iran in a conventional war on its own turf.

2. Even if we did defeat them, there is nobody there yearning for American style pseudo-democracy. While they are not perfectly happy with their own government, they'll be dammed if they're going to accept one from us. So you'd have to put millions of American troops in harms way against the civilian population essentially forever.

And a note on the President. I don't believe he knows or cares a thing about Iran or their capabilities. What he does know, after watching Fox News for the last 8 years is: Obama bad. So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative.

Robert Charron , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:34 pm
It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us.

And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years?

As I recall we made a regime change in the Iranian government when we had the CIA along with the English intelligence by replacing the elected Prime Minister of Iran with the despotic, tyrannical Shah.

As an American, Trump has desecrated our flag with his flat out lies, not the NFL athletes who simps knelt during the National Anthem.

simon94022 , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support.

Let them be counted!

Ollie , says: October 13, 2017 at 4:26 pm
No president in history has been more feckless and reckless than Trump. The danger demands that the 25th amendment be asserted.
Why Does The Heathen Rage? , says: October 13, 2017 at 4:49 pm
"So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative."

I've heard this before, but if it were true than why is Trump helping the Saudis wreck and starve Yemen? That was an Obama initiative too. That's why I now think that it's not really the Obama connection so much as the Netanyahu connection that drives Trump. In other words, it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants.

Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:05 pm
Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic.

Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country.

Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm
One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald
Liam , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Regarding the 25th amendment option: how far down the line of succession must one go to find someone who has solid, bona fide cred to stop this inanity?
picture window , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:45 pm
The Economist today opines that Xi Jinping has more clout than Donald Trump.

And I read on TAC that Trump is p***ing away our wealth and power doing favors for Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, like scuttling the Iran deal and picking fights with the Iranian government. And I conclude that the reason that the Economist may be right about Xi Jinping is because Trump is doing what I read about in TAC, wasting our time, blood, money, and focus on appeasing a bunch of goddamn foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.

Pretty damn grim.

[Oct 17, 2017] Trump Decertifies Iran Deal, Vows New Sanctions by Jason Ditz

The immediate costs of decertification for the USl include the loss of the trust of allies, increased tensions with Iran, and much greater skepticism from all other governments. It also create additional difficulties the next time America wants to negotiate a major international agreement as some countries will view the USA as a rogue nation which is unable to keep its word. If decertification leads to the U.S. breaching its obligations under the nuclear deal, as seems likely, that the costs will increase even more, and so will the chances of war with Iran.
It might well be that Trump made a step increasing the probability of his removal from the current position by cabinet members.
Looks like Trump focus on appeasing a bunch of foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.
Pretty damn grim.
Oct 13, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

President Trump started his long-anticipated anti-Iran speech by complaining about the 1979 hostage situation. What followed was an increasingly fantastical and absurd accounting of Iran's history, before finally announcing he is decertifying the nuclear deal for "violations," and announcing new sanctions.

The allegations against Iran went from things that happened a generation ago to treating things like the specious "Iranian plot" to attack a DC restaurant as not only the government's fault, but absolute established fact. Beyond that, he blamed Iran for the ISIS wars in Iraq and Syria, repeatedly accused them of supporting al-Qaeda, and claimed Iran was supporting the 9/11 attackers.

The allegations were so far-fetched by the end, that even President Trump appeared cognizant that many won't be taken seriously. Later in his speech, he insisted that the claims were "factual."

When addressing "violations" of the P5+1 nuclear deal, Trump similarly played fast and loose with the facts, citing heavy water claims that are really more the international community's violation than Iran's (Iran was guaranteed an international market for the water, but after Congress got mad the US has refused to buy any more, meaning Iran's totally non-dangerous stock grew), and accusing them of "intimidating" inspectors, insinuating that was the reason there aren't investigations at Iranian military sites.

In reality, Iranian military sites are only subject to investigation in the case of a substantiated suspicion of nuclear activities, and there simply are none. The IAEA has in recent days clarified multiple times that they don't need or want to visit any military sites right now. The only allegations about the sites are from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has been the source of repeated false accusations in the past.

And while this was supposed to be a speech about the nuclear deal, Trump closed it off with comments that very much sound like his goal is regime change, saying Iran's people want to be able to interact with their neighbors (despite Iran being on very good terms with most of its neighbors already), and suggesting that whatever he's going to do will lead to "peace and stability" across the Middle East.

[Oct 17, 2017] The Deep Unfairness of America's All-Volunteer Force by Dennis Laich and Lawrence Wilkerson

Notable quotes:
"... Fiscally, the AVF is going to break the bank. The land forces in particular are still having difficulties fielding adequate numbers -- even with lowered standards, substituting women for men (from 1.6 percent of the AVF in 1973 to more than 16 percent today), recruitment and reenlistment bonuses totaling tens of millions of dollars, advertising campaigns costing billions, massive recruitment of non-citizens, use of psychotropic drugs to recycle unfit soldiers and Marines to combat zones, and overall pay and allowances that include free world-class health care and excellent retirement plans that are, for the first time in the military's history, comparable to or even exceeding civilian rates and offerings. ..."
"... A glaring case in point is the recent recruitment by the Army of 62,000 men and women, its target for fiscal year 2016. To arrive at that objective, the Army needed 9,000 recruiting staff (equivalent to three combat brigades) working full-time. If one does the math, that equates to each of these recruiters gaining one-point-something recruits every two months -- an utterly astounding statistic. Additionally, the Army had to resort to taking a small percentage of recruits in Mental Category IV -- the lowest category and one that, post-Vietnam, the Army made a silent promise never to resort to again. ..."
"... Moreover, the recruiting and retention process and rich pay and allowances are consuming one half of the Army's entire annual budget slice, precluding any sort of affordable increase in its end strength. This end strength constraint creates the need for more and more private contractors on the nation's battlefields in order to compensate. The employment of private contractors is politically seductive and strategically dangerous. To those enemies we fight they are the enemy and to most reasonable people they are mercenaries. Mercenaries are motivated by profit not patriotism -- despite their CEOs' protestations to the contrary -- and place America on the slippery slope towards compromising the right of sovereign nations to the monopoly of violence for state purposes. In short, Congress and the Pentagon make the Army bigger than the American people believe that it is and the American people allow themselves to be convinced; thus it is a shared delusion that comforts both parties. ..."
"... There is yet another dimension to the AVF that is truly an "unmentionable." As President Barack Obama said to one of us in the Roosevelt Room in November 2015 -- referring to Washington, D.C. -- "There is a bias in this town toward war." ..."
"... What the president meant was quite clear: powerful forces such as the military-industrial complex, a less-than-courageous Congress that has abandoned its constitutional duty with respect to the war power, extreme ideologies, and a nation with no skin in the game, work together to persuade all presidents to consider war as the first instrument of national power rather than the last. ..."
"... Is there anyone among us who would not believe that having an all-volunteer (or, more to the point, an all-recruited) military coming only from the 1 percent does not contribute to the facility with which presidents call upon that instrument? In a rational world, we would be declared insane to believe otherwise. ..."
"... Said more explicitly, if the sons and daughters of members of Congress, of the corporate leadership, of the billionaire class, of the Ivy Leagues, of the elite in general, were exposed to the possibility of combat, would we have less war? From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair. ..."
"... "From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair." ..."
"... "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." ..."
"... Now, I, and maybe you, read the 13th amendment to the constitution as clearly banning conscription, but the courts don't think so. Their reasoning actually being, that since conscription was in place at the time of the 13th amendment's passage, the words written and printed couldn't possibly mean what they clearly mean as common English usage. ..."
"... I realize how unpopular this statement will be, but that 1 percent who are bleeding and dying are generally doing so in foreign wars that are not truly defending the 99 percent. They are doing it for the pro-war, pro-intervention subsets of various elite populations, popularly supported by misinformed people of the lower/middle classes. ..."
"... Perhaps the shortage of volunteer soldiers indicates war-weariness? ..."
"... In the late 60s -- early 70s we used to chide Pat Buchanan and his mates with "War is good business -- invest your sons". Of course, even then, he was investing other people's sons. His good mate Trump has already bragged about his "contribution" to the war effort, dodging STIs rather than bullets. ..."
"... The only ethical course of action when faced with an insufficient number of volunteers for a war is, of course, to cancel the war. ..."
"... Simple solution: Constitutional amendment stating, In order to vote in Federal Elections or to hold Federal office, appointed or elected, you must: ..."
"... a DD214 showing honorable discharge ..."
"... Nothing the US Army does "protects America". On the contrary it's a bigger threat than anything it can protect the US from. They fight for combinations of cash, training, education, travel, to carry on the family tradition , travel and adventure. The people who send them to fight do so for power and ego. Not "national interests" There are none only the interests of people who want power. ..."
"... What the old saying about war "Rich man's game with the poor man paying the price." ..."
"... Smedley Butler saw this happening in his time, too. The wars were smaller and less expensive, but they had the same root cause. Wherever our companies go and are thwarted by locals in any way, we find an excuse to deploy and make that area safe for commercial activity. Libya is a shambles now after Gaddafi's removal, but it's out of the news because organized, government-led resistance to oil companies benefiting from one-sided leases is impossible. This year, Libya hit a four-year high for oil production, in the middle of a six-cornered civil war. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

As far as we know, the phrase "all-recruited force" was coined by Karl Marlantes, author of Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War , a book that provides vivid insight into the U.S. Marines who fought in that conflict. Mr. Marlantes used the expression to describe what's happened to today's allegedly "volunteer" force, to say in effect that it is no such thing. Instead it is composed in large part of people recruited so powerfully and out of such receptive circumstances that it requires a new way of being described. We agree with Mr. Marlantes. So do others.

In The Economist back in 2015 , an article about the U.S. All-Volunteer Force (AVF) posed the question: "Who will fight the next war?" and went on to describe how the AVF is becoming more and more difficult to field as well as growing ever more distant from the people from whom it comes and for whom it fights. The piece painted a disturbing scene. That the scene was painted by a British magazine of such solid reputation in the field of economics is ironic in a sense but not inexplicable. After all, it is the fiscal aspect of the AVF that is most immediate and pressing. Recruiting and retaining the force has become far too costly and is ultimately unsustainable.

When the Gates Commission set up the rationale for the AVF in 1970, it did so at the behest of a president, Richard Nixon, who had come to see the conscript military as a political dagger aimed at his own heart. One could argue that the decision to abolish conscription was a foregone conclusion; the Commission simply provided a rationale for doing it and for volunteerism to replace it.

But whatever we might think of the Commission's work and Nixon's motivation, what has happened in the last 16 years -- interminable war -- was never on the Commission's radar screen. Like most crises, as Colin Powell used to lament when he was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this one was unexpected, not planned for, and begs denial as a first reaction.

That said, after 16 years of war it is plain to all but the most recalcitrant that the U.S. cannot afford the AVF -- ethically, morally, or fiscally.

Fiscally, the AVF is going to break the bank. The land forces in particular are still having difficulties fielding adequate numbers -- even with lowered standards, substituting women for men (from 1.6 percent of the AVF in 1973 to more than 16 percent today), recruitment and reenlistment bonuses totaling tens of millions of dollars, advertising campaigns costing billions, massive recruitment of non-citizens, use of psychotropic drugs to recycle unfit soldiers and Marines to combat zones, and overall pay and allowances that include free world-class health care and excellent retirement plans that are, for the first time in the military's history, comparable to or even exceeding civilian rates and offerings.

A glaring case in point is the recent recruitment by the Army of 62,000 men and women, its target for fiscal year 2016. To arrive at that objective, the Army needed 9,000 recruiting staff (equivalent to three combat brigades) working full-time. If one does the math, that equates to each of these recruiters gaining one-point-something recruits every two months -- an utterly astounding statistic. Additionally, the Army had to resort to taking a small percentage of recruits in Mental Category IV -- the lowest category and one that, post-Vietnam, the Army made a silent promise never to resort to again.

Moreover, the recruiting and retention process and rich pay and allowances are consuming one half of the Army's entire annual budget slice, precluding any sort of affordable increase in its end strength. This end strength constraint creates the need for more and more private contractors on the nation's battlefields in order to compensate. The employment of private contractors is politically seductive and strategically dangerous. To those enemies we fight they are the enemy and to most reasonable people they are mercenaries. Mercenaries are motivated by profit not patriotism -- despite their CEOs' protestations to the contrary -- and place America on the slippery slope towards compromising the right of sovereign nations to the monopoly of violence for state purposes. In short, Congress and the Pentagon make the Army bigger than the American people believe that it is and the American people allow themselves to be convinced; thus it is a shared delusion that comforts both parties.

A more serious challenge for the democracy that is America, however, is the ethical one. Today, more than 300 million Americans lay claim to rights, liberties, and security that not a single one of them is obligated to protect and defend. Apparently, only 1 percent of the population feels that obligation. That 1 percent is bleeding and dying for the other 99 percent.

Further, that 1 percent does not come primarily or even secondarily from the families of the Ivy Leagues, of Wall Street, of corporate leadership, from the Congress, or from affluent America; it comes from less well-to-do areas: West Virginia, Maine, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and elsewhere. For example, the Army now gets more soldiers from the state of Alabama, population 4.8 million, than it gets from New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles combined, aggregate metropolitan population more than 25 million. Similarly, 40 percent of the Army comes from seven states of the Old South. As one of us has documented in his book, Skin in the Game: Poor Kids and Patriots , this is an ethically poisonous situation. And as the article in The Economist concludes, it's dangerous as well.

The last 16 years have also generated, as wars tend to do, hundreds of thousands of veterans. The costs of taking care of these men and women are astronomical today and will only rise over the next decades, which is one reason our veterans are already being inadequately cared for. Without the political will to shift funds, there simply is not enough money to provide the necessary care. And given the awesome debt America now shoulders -- approaching 20 trillion dollars and certain to increase -- it is difficult to see this situation changing for the better.

In fact, when one calculates today's U.S. national security budget -- not simply the well-advertised Pentagon budget -- the total expenditure of taxpayer dollars approaches $1.2 trillion annually, or more than twice what most Americans believe they are paying for national security. This total figure includes the costs of nuclear weapons (Energy Department), homeland security (Homeland Security Department), veteran care (Veterans Administration), intelligence needs (CIA and Defense Department), international relations (State Department), and the military and its operations (the Pentagon and its slush fund, the Overseas Contingency Operations account). The Pentagon budget alone is larger than that of the next 14 nations in the world combined. Only recently (September 2016), the Pentagon leadership confessed that as much as 50 percent of its slush fund (OCO) is not used for war operations -- the fund's statutory purpose -- but for other expenses, including "military readiness." We suspect this includes recruiting and associated costs.

There is still another dimension of the AVF that goes basically unmentioned and unreported. The AVF has compelled the nation to transition its reserve component forces from what they have been since colonial times -- a strategic reserve -- into being an operational reserve. That's military-speak for our having used the reserve components to make up for deeply felt shortages in the active force. Nowhere is this more dramatically reflected than in the rate of deployment-to-overseas duty of the average reservist, now about once every 3.8 years.

Such an operational tempo causes extreme problems for both civilian employers and for National Guard and reserve units. What employer, for example, wants to hire a young man or woman who will be gone for a year every four years on average, when that employer can reach out and hire someone from the 99 percent who will likely not be absent? And how do the reserve units keep up recruiting numbers when faced with such a situation?

Moreover, when we look at the reserve component deployment statistics over a decade or so of what now seems like interminable war, we discover how badly skewed such deployments are. For example, as of 2011, North Dakota, Mississippi, and South Dakota had Guard/Reserve deployment rates of over 40 per 10,000, and Iowa had a rate of over 30 per 10,000. In contrast, the Guard/Reserve deployment burdens for New York, California, and Texas were all less than 15 per 10,000. Perhaps surprisingly, Massachusetts had a higher Guard/Reserve deployment burden per 10,000 than Texas did (these numbers cover the 9/30/01 -- 12/31/10 timeframe).

A deeper look at the county levels within each state demonstrates that the Guard/Reserve deployment burden really is an urban/suburban vs. rural divide. New York is a case study. Niagara County (Niagara Falls and Lockport) had a deployment rate of over 30 per 10,000, while Jefferson County (Watertown) and Clinton County (Plattsburgh) had rates over 25 per 10,000. In contrast, New York State overall had a Guard/Reserve deployment rate a bit higher than 10 per 10,000, with Kings County (Brooklyn) and New York County (Manhattan) having rates well below 10 per 10,000.

Most Americans are completely ignorant of the facts outlined above, or understand only partial truths about them. In fact, the majority view the military in general and the way we man the force in particular through a lens of fear, apathy, ignorance, and guilt. The media is unhelpful in this regard because in the main journalists and TV personalities are as unknowing as the people. Few in the military leadership have the courage to speak up about these realities, or are themselves so brainwashed that they are incapable of doing so. But if the country does not wake up soon and demand action, we will be looking at another crisis and asking the question posed by The Economist : "Who will fight the next war?"

Worse, we might be asking the question that Skin in the Game poses: "What if we had a war and nobody came?"

When we put that question to a U.S. senator recently, he replied that "If the enemy were 'on the shore,' Americans would respond."

"Would they?" we asked. "And tell us how you know that, please."

"They just would, I know they would," the senator replied.

There is yet another dimension to the AVF that is truly an "unmentionable." As President Barack Obama said to one of us in the Roosevelt Room in November 2015 -- referring to Washington, D.C. -- "There is a bias in this town toward war."

What the president meant was quite clear: powerful forces such as the military-industrial complex, a less-than-courageous Congress that has abandoned its constitutional duty with respect to the war power, extreme ideologies, and a nation with no skin in the game, work together to persuade all presidents to consider war as the first instrument of national power rather than the last.

Is there anyone among us who would not believe that having an all-volunteer (or, more to the point, an all-recruited) military coming only from the 1 percent does not contribute to the facility with which presidents call upon that instrument? In a rational world, we would be declared insane to believe otherwise.

Said more explicitly, if the sons and daughters of members of Congress, of the corporate leadership, of the billionaire class, of the Ivy Leagues, of the elite in general, were exposed to the possibility of combat, would we have less war? From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair.

Major General (Ret) Dennis Laich served 35 years in the U.S. Army Reserve. Col. (Ret.) Lawrence Wilkerson is visiting professor of government and public policy at the College of William and Mary. He was chief of staff to secretary of state Colin Powell from 2002-05, special assistant to Powell when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), and deputy director and director of the USMC War College (1993-97).

KevinS , , October 15, 2017 at 11:16 pm

"From a socio-economic class perspective, the AVF is inherently unfair."

The same can be said of American society more generally, which is fast becoming a plutocracy.

b , , October 16, 2017 at 12:22 am
These topics are widely discussed within the military. Not in staff meetings mind you. But the civilians wouldn't realize it regardless. So what is to be done? Is there an organization we can join that will speak up and get lobbyists to have the concerns heard? This is our national defense and we all have an interest in knowing that we leave something better behind for the next generation. Otherwise all our efforts truly are in vain.
theMann , , October 16, 2017 at 2:48 am
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Now, I, and maybe you, read the 13th amendment to the constitution as clearly banning conscription, but the courts don't think so. Their reasoning actually being, that since conscription was in place at the time of the 13th amendment's passage, the words written and printed couldn't possibly mean what they clearly mean as common English usage.

Well, leaving aside for the moment that every (so far at least) man who ever got drafted felt it was pretty effing involuntary, we can proceed to the greater question:

Why do we perpetually need a million men\women\hesheit qwerty's under arms? By all means, let us draft every 18 year old in the entire United States into our SJW Social Science\Daycare center joke of a military, it would at least be a far greater education than college. And having so infused our armed forces with so much fresh human material, we could spend EVEN MORE on Contracts, currently about 50% of the near trillion dollar war making budget.

Yea, that'll fix everything.

Zebesian , , October 16, 2017 at 4:25 am
I realize how unpopular this statement will be, but that 1 percent who are bleeding and dying are generally doing so in foreign wars that are not truly defending the 99 percent. They are doing it for the pro-war, pro-intervention subsets of various elite populations, popularly supported by misinformed people of the lower/middle classes.

Perhaps the shortage of volunteer soldiers indicates war-weariness? Less war would solve the problems of cost, volunteer shortages AND the burgeoning veteran population.

Chris Harris , , October 16, 2017 at 6:24 am
I served in six units during six years with the army military police. I can remember only one guy I knew whose father was a educated white collar professional (university professor).
mrscracker , , October 16, 2017 at 6:40 am
One of my children is about as far to the left as I am to the right politically,but we both agree that the draft should be brought back with a choice of military or community service. No exceptions made. Everyone serves at 18 for a year or two and can enlist longer if they choose to. Offers of college or vocational scholorships could apply.

We've had a couple or more generations of self centered, self absorbed young people who often become self destructive. They could benefit from the discipline, direction, and service to others.

Whine Merchant , , October 16, 2017 at 6:54 am
In the late 60s -- early 70s we used to chide Pat Buchanan and his mates with "War is good business -- invest your sons". Of course, even then, he was investing other people's sons. His good mate Trump has already bragged about his "contribution" to the war effort, dodging STIs rather than bullets.
William Murphy , , October 16, 2017 at 7:03 am
Wonderful article. The very serious concerns it raises were discussed some years ago by the philosopher Michael Sandel. He asked how can it be just for the wealthy to risk the lives of the children of the poor in an AVF when their own children are guaranteed far safer lifestyles.

From a British perspective, the same issues apply in an even more distorted form. In my two years working in Michigan (1998-2000), I met far more current and former servicemen than in the other 62 years of my life living in England. The British military is invisible to much of the middle and upper classes, except in emergencies, despite the fact that you are never far from a military base in such a small country.

At a recent dinner, I found myself, for the first time in my life, sitting at a table with three ex-British Army officers. I discussed the near-invisible profile of the Army. My very smart companion explained that for years Army personnel tried to avoid even wearing uniform in the street because of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The Troubles ended, but now, since the beheading of a soldier in London by an Islamist nutter, the Army has gone back to civvies for off duty wear.

And the class division is as scandalous as the American class divisions which this excellent article describes. As at least one scathing observer commented, would Tony Blair have been so ready to go to war in Iraq if any one of his four children been liable for military service? And, of course, Blair and his political contemporaries were the first generation not to be involved in a shooting war or to be liable for National Service (abolished around 1960). The only place they would see the horrible face of war was in a movie theatre.

Reinstate National Service in the UK and USA? It might be as politically popular as sending little children up chimneys or could some courageous politician air a desperately important issue which might find unexpected support in a dangerous world?

Rup. G , , October 16, 2017 at 7:41 am
The only ethical course of action when faced with an insufficient number of volunteers for a war is, of course, to cancel the war.
Mike Ford , , October 16, 2017 at 7:49 am
Simple solution: Constitutional amendment stating, In order to vote in Federal Elections or to hold Federal office, appointed or elected, you must:

A) Proof of citizenship

B) Current year 1040 showing net positive Income Tax paid and finally,

C) a DD214 showing honorable discharge

Problem solved

J Harlan , , October 16, 2017 at 9:10 am
"That 1 percent is bleeding and dying for the other 99 percent."

They are not. Nothing the US Army does "protects America". On the contrary it's a bigger threat than anything it can protect the US from. They fight for combinations of cash, training, education, travel, to carry on the family tradition , travel and adventure. The people who send them to fight do so for power and ego. Not "national interests" There are none only the interests of people who want power.

Fred Bowman , , October 16, 2017 at 9:21 am
What the old saying about war "Rich man's game with the poor man paying the price." Definely bring the Draft back if for no other reason to make those in Power think long and hard about what military misadventures they're committing America's young men and women to. Imho America would have been out of these Middle East wars of choice long ago if the draft was still in effect as the American public would be demanding hard answers to "Why are we still there?"
David Walters , , October 16, 2017 at 9:28 am
I served. I was young and stupid and got a draft lottery number that gave me a 50 / 50 chance of being drafted into the Army. I joined the Marines, instead. 1973 -- 1979, active and reserve included.

Went on with my life afterwards. I never wanted and never want my kids to serve. The USA is not the place I thought it was when I did. Heck, it wasn't the place I thought it was even then.

John , , October 16, 2017 at 10:15 am
Leave aside the ethical and moral implications, because America has told the world over and over again that they don't matter. We will support the second-worst regimes in the world in their struggles with the worst regimes, we will bomb weddings full of innocents if it gets us the one man we want, and we do not care how many of our fellow citizens enrolled in the military jobs programs are killed or maimed.

Smedley Butler saw this happening in his time, too. The wars were smaller and less expensive, but they had the same root cause. Wherever our companies go and are thwarted by locals in any way, we find an excuse to deploy and make that area safe for commercial activity. Libya is a shambles now after Gaddafi's removal, but it's out of the news because organized, government-led resistance to oil companies benefiting from one-sided leases is impossible. This year, Libya hit a four-year high for oil production, in the middle of a six-cornered civil war.

The only way any of this changes is if the public sees military activity as a threat to benefits on which it depends, or if the price of fielding regular units to deal with these problems becomes so large that companies will have to employ mercenaries to achieve their ends abroad.

Stephen J. , , October 16, 2017 at 10:44 am
I believe it is time "our leaders" show what they are made of. Therefore I ask:

Should We Have War Games for the World's Leaders?

Yesterday's enemies are today's friends and today's friends are tomorrow's enemies, such is the way of the world, and wars of the world. All these wars cause enormous bloodshed, destruction and suffering to those affected. Therefore, would it not be much simpler to have war games for all of the world's leaders and elites every few years? We have Olympic Games every four years where the world's athletes from different countries compete. And many of these countries are hostile to each other, yet they participate in the Olympics. So if enemies can participate for sport, why not for war games? All the leaders and elites of the world would have to lead by example, instead of leading from their political platforms, palaces and offshore tax havens, while the ordinary people have to do the dirty work in wars. The world's leaders and elites would all be in the front lines first. A venue could be arranged in a deserted area and the people of the world could watch via satellite TV their courageous leaders and other elites leading the charge in the war games .

[read much more at link below] http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2009/03/should-we-have-war-games-for-worlds.html

Anna , , October 16, 2017 at 11:01 am
Okay, probably true as far as it goes, but aren't you ignoring an important issue? Say the U.S. re-established conscription to catch those elite kids -- what kind of military would you have? I suspect not one that would be an effective military in any sense.

I'm reminded of a conversation with a friend from Germany, who believed in his country's policy of universal service (that is, sort of universal -- they can do other volunteer work instead), but he readily admitted that he and his fellow-conscripts -- i.e., mostly spoiled children of the middle class -- were not real soldiers. He said it was totally normal in the barracks to hear 18 and 19-year-olds weeping on the phone to mama about how homesick they were, and that standards were very low for physical fitness and ability.

According to him, the real career soldiers saw the young conscripts as a completely useless drag on the military, that merely had to be endured for political reasons rather than for any actual military or strategic purposes.

Potato , , October 16, 2017 at 11:02 am
the draft should be brought back with a choice of military or community service. No exceptions made. Everyone serves at 18 for a year or two and can enlist longer if they choose to. Offers of college or vocational scholorships could apply.

I don't often agree with mrscracker, but this one is right on. Male and female, gay and straight, no exceptions but for people on life support. (There could be essential work available for all but the most severely disabled.)

For one thing I think this would bring the practice of getting involved in useless wars to a screeching halt. If the children of Congresspersons were in danger of being issued rifles and told to wade into a rice paddy or a desert to be shot at, the people in charge would suddenly be much more conservative about going to war.

James Korman , , October 16, 2017 at 11:18 am
Elimination of the draft is a stain, every adult mail should be available to serve his nation. This has been true throughout history.

[Oct 17, 2017] Latin-Americanization of the xUSSR space is what essentially State Department tried to accomplish. They were successful in Ukraine. by Robert Parry

While the USA pursued their geopolitical goals in supporting the coup d'état against corrupt Yanukovich government by less corrupt western-Ukrainian nationalists (and a difficult clan on oligarch, as Yanukovich was a puppet of Donetsk oligarch clan) , this is actually disaster capitalism in action... There is very little Ukrainians can do now to improve their standard of living which dropped at least two times since 2014. Civil war remains a drain on economy and selling assets to western companies does not improve the standard fo living iether. For 20K grivna (less then $740 a month) you can hire top level specialist in Ukraine (regular salary is less then $150 a month). Economy is still supported by the housing boom, but we know how such things might end.
The neocons are now as important factor in America's foreign policy today as they were during the darkest days of the Bush administration. And like on old time the Ukrainian coup has all traces of globalist bankers allied with local compradors operating under fig leaf of Western-Ukrainian nationalism (which were simply puppets in a much bigger financial and geopolitical game). It is the same aggressive push by the United States to topple governments and politicians in Latin America to advance the USA geopolitical or economic interests.
See also Empire's Workshop Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism " Latin America once again became a school where the United States studied how to execute imperial violence through proxies. After World War II, in the name of containing Communism, the United States, mostly through the actions of local allies, executed or encouraged coups in, among other places, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina and patronized a brutal mercenary war in Nicaragua. Latin America became a laboratory tor counter-insurgency, as military officials and covert operators applied insights learned in the region to Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. By the end of the Cold War, Latin American security forces trained, funded, equipped, and incited by Washington had executed a reign of bloody terror - hundreds of thousands killed, an equal number tortured, millions driven into exile - from which the region has yet to fully recover."
Parry provides an interesting perspective on neoconservative intellectuals who now are driving the expansion of the US-led neoliberal empire into xUSSR space. In this sense Ukrainian nationalists serve as a proxies of an American imperialism which is driven by a combination of neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and the euphoria from the victory Cold War, of which Ukraine civil war is the tragic endgame.
Parry does not addresses the controversial role of Russia, which actually helped to start the Donbass civil war as initially Putin promised that the Ukraine territories who will vote "yes" in referendums to join Russia will be accepted to Russia but soon changed his mind. And later supplied arms to the insurgents.
Notable quotes:
"... Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America. ..."
"... During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. ..."
"... These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative. ..."
"... The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year. ..."
"... Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "] ..."
"... Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force. ..."
"... According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife. ..."
Dec 28, 2014 | consortiumnews.com

Thus, you have the current hysteria over Russia's supposed "aggression" in Ukraine when the crisis was actually provoked by the West, including by U.S. neocons who helped create today's humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine that they now cynically blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Yet, many of these same U.S. foreign policy operatives outraged over Russia's limited intervention to protect ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are demanding that President Obama launch an air war against the Syrian military as a "humanitarian" intervention there.

In other words, if the Russians act to shield ethnic Russians on their border who are being bombarded by a coup regime in Kiev that was installed with U.S. support, the Russians are the villains blamed for the thousands of civilian deaths, even though the vast majority of the casualties have been inflicted by the Kiev regime from indiscriminate bombing and from dispatching neo-Nazi militias to do the street fighting.

In Ukraine, the exigent circumstances don't matter, including the violent overthrow of the constitutionally elected president last February. It's all about white hats for the current Kiev regime and black hats for the ethnic Russians and especially for Putin.

... ... ...

For this project, Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey sent his top propaganda specialist Walter Raymond Jr. to the National Security Council staff to manage the inter-agency task forces that would brainstorm and coordinate this "public diplomacy" strategy.

Many of the old intelligence operatives, including Casey and Raymond, are now dead, but other influential Washington figures who were deeply involved by these strategies remain, such as neocon stalwart Robert Kagan, whose first major job in Washington was as chief of Reagan's State Department Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America.

Now a fellow at the Brookings Institution and a columnist at the Washington Post, Kagan remains an expert in presenting foreign policy initiatives within the "good guy/bad guy" frames that he learned in the 1980s. He is also the husband of Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who oversaw the overthrow of Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February amid a very effective U.S. propaganda strategy.

During the Reagan years, Kagan worked closely on propaganda schemes with Elliott Abrams, then the Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America. After getting convicted and then pardoned in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams reemerged on President George W. Bush's National Security Council handling Middle East issues, including the Iraq War, and later "global democracy strategy." Abrams is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

These and other neocons were among the most diligent students learning the art of "perception management" from the likes of Raymond and Casey, but those propaganda skills have spread much more widely as "public diplomacy" and "information warfare" have now become an integral part of every U.S. foreign policy initiative.

... ... ...

Though Reagan's creation of a domestic propaganda bureaucracy began more than three decades ago and Bush's vanquishing of the Vietnam Syndrome was more than two decades ago the legacy of those actions continue to reverberate today in how the perceptions of the American people are now routinely managed. That was true during last decade's Iraq War and this decade's conflicts in Libya, Syria and Ukraine as well as the economic sanctions against Iran and Russia.

Indeed, while the older generation that pioneered these domestic propaganda techniques has passed from the scene, many of their protégés are still around along with some of the same organizations. The National Endowment for Democracy, which was formed in 1983 at the urging of CIA Director Casey and under the supervision of Walter Raymond's NSC operation, is still run by the same neocon, Carl Gershman, and has an even bigger budget, now exceeding $100 million a year.

Gershman and his NED played important behind-the-scenes roles in instigating the Ukraine crisis by financing activists, journalists and other operatives who supported the coup against elected President Yanukovych. The NED-backed Freedom House also beat the propaganda drums. [See Consortiumnews.com's " A Shadow Foreign Policy. "]

Two other Reagan-era veterans, Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan, have both provided important intellectual support for continuing U.S. interventionism around the world. Earlier this year, Kagan's article for The New Republic, entitled " Superpowers Don't Get to Retire ," touched such a raw nerve with President Obama that he hosted Kagan at a White House lunch and crafted the presidential commencement speech at West Point to deflect some of Kagan's criticism of Obama's hesitancy to use military force.

A New York Times article about Kagan's influence over Obama reported that Kagan's wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, apparently had a hand in crafting the attack on her ostensible boss, President Obama.

According to the Times article, the husband-and-wife team share both a common world view and professional ambitions, Nuland editing Kagan's articles and Kagan "not permitted to use any official information he overhears or picks up around the house" a suggestion that Kagan's thinking at least may be informed by foreign policy secrets passed on by his wife.

Though Nuland wouldn't comment specifically on Kagan's attack on President Obama, she indicated that she holds similar views. "But suffice to say," Nuland said, "that nothing goes out of the house that I don't think is worthy of his talents. Let's put it that way."

[Oct 16, 2017] Don't Be Afraid of Steve Bannon by David Atkins

Economic nationalism in key ideas is close to Mussolini version of corporatism. It is about the alliance of state with large corporation but of less favorable to large corporations terms then under neoliberalism, which is a flavor of corporatism as well, but extremely favorable to the interests of transactionals.
So grossly simplifying, this is Mussolini version of corporatism (Make Italy Great Again), minus foreign wars, minus ethnic component (replacing it with more modern "cultural nationalism" agenda).
Bannon is definitely overrated. It is jobs that matter and he has no real plan. Relying on tax cutting and deregulation is not a plan. In this sense, yes, he is a paper tiger. And not a real nationalist, but some kind of castrated variety.
One thing that plays into Bannon hands in the DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats led by Hillary Clinton) were completely discredited during the last elections.
Notable quotes:
"... But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist. ..."
"... Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | washingtonmonthly.com

There is a tendency on the left to overestimate the abilities of conservative campaign gurus and spinmeisters after a bitter defeat. In the aughts, Karl Rove was seen as the Svengali mastermind of Republican politics, a nefarious force smarter and more cunning than all the left's braintrust put together. It turned out not to be true. Karl Rove didn't have "the math" and never really did: Rove mostly got lucky by a combination of butterfly ballots in Florida, and happening to hold power during a terrorist attack that saw Democrats cowed into submission rather than holding the president and his team accountable for their failure to protect the country.

Steve Bannon is taking on a similar mystique for some. But Bannon is no more special than Rove...

... ... ...

Bannon is going to war " with the GOP establishment, even going so far as to countermand Trump's own endorsement in the Alabama Senate race and force the president to back a loser.

But his statements show that it's all bluster and no real strategy. Democrats seem poised to take back Congress precisely because of Republican extremism, not because institutional Republicans are inadequately racist and nationalist.

And his prediction to the Values Voter Summit that Trump will win 400 electoral votes in 2020 is simply preposterous on its face. It's no better than even odds that Trump will even finish out his term, much less sweep to a Reaganesque landslide in three years. During the same speech, Bannon quipped a line destined to be fodder for the inevitable 2018 campaign commercials accusing Trump of actively blowing up the ACA exchanges and driving up premiums in a bid to kill the program.

Like Karl Rove before him, Steven Bannon is a paper tiger. Democrats need only muster courage, conviction and hard work to teach him the same lesson they taught Rove in 2006.

David Atkins is a writer, activist and research professional living in Santa Barbara. He is a contributor to the Washington Monthly's Political Animal and president of The Pollux Group, a qualitative research firm.

[Oct 16, 2017] Trump Looks Set to Start Blowing Up the Iran Deal by Eli Clifton

Notable quotes:
"... Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading." ..."
"... The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak." ..."
"... Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling. ..."
"... Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran. ..."
"... But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump. ..."
"... Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton." ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | fpif.org

The Post credits Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) with this "fix it or nix it" approach to U.S. compliance with the JCPOA. Indeed, Cotton laid out essentially this very strategy in a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in which he proposed that the president should decertify Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal based on Iran's actions in unrelated areas and toughen key components of the agreement, arguing that the deal fails to serve U.S. national security interests.

This plan has a low likelihood of success because Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif says that the JCPOA will not be renegotiated and European governments have urged Trump to stick with the pact.

Despite the potential pitfalls of Cotton and Netanyahu's plan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley embraced the approach. Haley, a possible replacement for embattled Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, tweeted yesterday, "[Sen. Tom Cotton] has clear understanding of the Iranian regime & flaws in the nuclear deal. His [CFR] speech is worth reading."

But Cotton has been clear that renegotiating the nuclear deal isn't his actual intention. In 2015, he made no secret of his desire to blow up diplomacy with Iran, saying :

The United States must cease all appeasement, conciliation, and concessions towards Iran, starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. Certain voices call for congressional restraint, urging Congress not to act now lest Iran walk away from the negotiating table, undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in Iran. But, the end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence. A feature, not a bug, so to speak."

Later that same year, Cotton explained his terms for any agreement with Iran, qualities that more closely resemble a surrender document than anything the Iranians would agree to in a negotiation. Cotton said :

Any agreement that advances our interests must by necessity compromise Iran's -- doubly so since they are a third-rate power, far from an equal to the United States. The ayatollahs shouldn't be happy with any deal; they should've felt compelled to accept a deal of our choosing lest they face economic devastation and military destruction of their nuclear infrastructure. That Iran welcomes this agreement is both troubling and telling.

Indeed, Cotton and his fellow proponents of the president de-certifying Iranian compliance, despite all indications that Iran is complying with the JCPOA, have a not-so-thinly-veiled goal of regime change in Tehran, a position in which the JCPOA and any negotiations with Iran pose a serious threat. Ben Armbruster, writing for LobeLog last week, detailed the ways in which Mark Dubowitz , CEO of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies , pushes for a so-called "better deal" while explicitly calling for regime change in Tehran.

But perhaps a bigger pressure on Trump to de-certify comes from three of his biggest political donors : Sheldon Adelson , Paul Singer , and Bernard Marcus . All three have funded groups that sought to thwart the negotiations leading to the JCPOA, including Dubowitz's FDD, and have given generously to Trump.

"I think that Iran is the devil," said Marcus in a 2015 Fox Business interview . Adelson told a Yeshiva University audience in 2013 that U.S. negotiators should launch a nuclear weapon at Iran as a negotiating tactic. Adelson may hold radical views about the prudence of a nuclear attack on Iran, but he appears to enjoy easy access to Trump. Adelson and his wife, Miriam, who were Trump's biggest financial supporters by far during his presidential run, met with the president at Adelson's headquarters in Las Vegas recently, ostensibly to discuss the recent mass shooting there.

But Andy Abboud, senior vice president Government Relations for Adelson's Sands Corporation, told the Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review Journal that the meeting was "pre-arranged and set to discuss policy," according to the paper .

Adelson has also financed Israel's largest circulation daily newspaper, whose support for Netanyahu and his right-wing government earned it the nickname "Bibiton."

Eli Clifton reports on money in politics and U.S. foreign policy. He's previously reported for the American Independent News Network, ThinkProgress, and Inter Press Service.

[Oct 16, 2017] Intelligence Assessment of Russian Hacking or Collusion by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

Greg Bacon, Website October 14, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT

If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.

liveload , October 13, 2017 7:07 PM

It just occurred to me that the perfect Halloween decoration this year would be a Russian flag. That is, unless someone comes out with a Zombie Putin, or Dracula Putin...

[Oct 16, 2017] President Trump Beats War Drums For Iran by Ron Paul

Notable quotes:
"... Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention. ..."
"... Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Trump has been notoriously inconsistent in his foreign policy. He campaigned on and won the presidency with promises to repair relations with Russia, pull out of no-win wars like Afghanistan, and end the failed US policy of nation-building overseas. Once in office he pursued policies exactly the opposite of what he campaigned on. Unfortunately Iran is one of the few areas where the president has been very consistent. And consistently wrong.

In the president's speech last week he expressed his view that Iran was not "living up to the spirit" of the 2015 nuclear agreement and that he would turn to Congress to apply new sanctions to Iran and to, he hopes, take the US out of the deal entirely.

Nearly every assertion in the president's speech was embarrassingly incorrect. Iran is not allied with al-Qaeda, as the president stated. The money President Obama sent to Iran was their own money. Much of it was a down-payment made to the US for fighter planes that were never delivered when Iran changed from being friend to foe in 1979. The president also falsely claims that Iran targets the United States with terrorism. He claims that Iran has "fueled sectarian violence in Iraq," when it was Iranian militias who prevented Baghdad from being overtaken by ISIS in 2014. There are too many other false statements in the president's speech to mention.

How could he be so wrong on so many basic facts about Iran? Here's a clue: the media reports that his number one advisor on Iran is his Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. Ambassador Haley is a "diplomat" who believes war is the best, first option rather than the last, worst option. She has no prior foreign policy experience, but her closest mentor is John Bolton – the neocon who lied us into the Iraq war. How do these people live with themselves when they look around at the death and destruction their policies have caused?

Unfortunately the American people are being neoconned into another war. Just as with the disastrous 2003 US attack on Iraq, the media builds up the fear and does the bidding of the warmongers without checking facts or applying the necessary skepticism to neocon claims.

Like most Americans, I do not endorse Iran's style of government. I prefer religion and the state to be separate and even though our liberties have been under attack by our government, I prefer our much freer system in the US. But I wonder how many Americans know that Iran has not attacked or "regime-changed" another country in its modern history. Iran's actions in Syria are at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government. And why won't President Trump tell us the truth about Iranian troops in Syria – that they are fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda, both of which are Sunni extremist groups that are Iran's (and our) mortal enemies?

How many Americans know that Iran is one of the few countries in the region that actually holds elections that are contested by candidates with very different philosophies? Do any Americans wonder why the Saudis are considered one of our greatest allies in the Middle East even though they hold no elections and have one of the world's worst human rights records?

Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?

Jim Christian , October 16, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

"Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle East war?"

The die was cast the minute they ended the draft and mandatory service. What the hell does anyone in this country care about the next war? Maybe some realize it's a theft, a looting, but as long as it isn't THEIR blood being spilt, nothing goes nuclear, they don't care. Few outside our little venue here even understand, they think it's still Rah! Rah! And then, I suppose if I were in Congress, I might demand votes on these deals. Civilian control of the military, funding the wars, etc. Of course, if I pushed the point, they'd put a bullet in my HEAD . Just because. And headline me, my Mistress and my wife on the front page of the Post. Because NSA just KNOWS shit. Probably set me up with my Mistress to begin with so they'd have something on me, heh. This is the dilemma the Hill has on a personal level. We don't vote on wars, we gave em a blank check after 9/11 and that's that. Keeping it all going? That's all private. None-ya.

No one can talk about it, they just do it.

[Oct 16, 2017] matveychev-oleg.livejournal.com

Oct 16, 2017 | matveychev-oleg.livejournal.com

-- Согласно внешнеполитической доктрине США само существование Советского Союза было несовместимо с американской безопасностью. Изменилось ли, на Ваш взгляд, отношение США к России после официальной констатации окончания "холодной войны" и распада СССР?

-- К 1991 году, если судить по документам МВФ и ряду документов внутри самих США, американцами было проведено глубокое изучение нашей экономики и морально-политического состояния и настроения советского народа. Конгресс США рассмотрел эти материалы и в результате был принят закон 102 от 1992 года под оскорбительным для России названием "Закон о свободе для России и новых независимых государств". Одновременно, осенью 1992 года, Объединённый комитет начальников штабов США доложил президенту и Конгрессу оценку состояния Вооружённых Сил США, где в первом же абзаце 11-й главы "Специальные операции" говорится, что, не смотря на то, что руководители России взяли на себя обязательства реформировать свои Вооружённые Силы и правоохранительные органы, Россия всё равно будет оставаться нашим главным противником, требующим самого пристального внимания.

( Читать дальше... Свернуть )
-- Но можно ведь и сказать, что это были только первые постсоветские годы, и США, быть может, ещё находились под впечатлением недавнего милитаристского с их точки зрения прошлого нашей страны? Просто-напросто не спешили нам доверять.

-- Можно сказать, что тогда ещё было горячее время, "лихие 1990-е", но Несколько лет тому назад Норвежский институт стратегических исследований опубликовал работу, написанную бывшим советским офицером, который, вероятно, когда-то "ушёл" на Запад (я специально не исследовал это обстоятельство) под названием "Может ли территория бывшей сверхдержавы стать полем боя". В ней он, исходя из собственного опыта и на основании анализа многих документов, даёт заключение, какое сопротивление на территории России могут встретить военные подразделения стран НАТО: в каком месте их будут встречать камнями, в каком месте будут стрелять, а в каком будут приветствовать.

Насколько нам удалось понять, в дальнейшем наблюдая за судьбой этой работы, она прошла большой круг исследования в странах НАТО и была очень серьёзно принята в США. Они, конечно, никогда в этом не признаются, но это так. Так что я полностью уверен, что со времён крушения Советского Союза отношение США к нам не изменилось. Сегодняшнее внимание США к России -- это внимание к не поверженному окончательно в 1991 году противнику. И США руководствуются этим принципом в осуществлении своей внешней политики.

-- Если США, по-прежнему нам не доверяют и, мягко говоря, не способствуют нашему развитию, то почему они не боялись возрождения послевоенной Германии, своего реального врага на поле боя?

-- Возрождения послевоенной Германии американцы не боялись, как не боятся её усиления сейчас, потому что в 1949 году, прежде чем окончательно сформировалась ФРГ, которой разрешили иметь Бундесвер, Германию по рукам и ногам связали соглашениями с США и другими странами НАТО. Бывший начальник военной контрразведки Бундесвера генерал Камоса опубликовал книгу "Секретные игры тайных служб", где прямо пишет, что согласно послевоенным германо-американским соглашениям каждый новый канцлер Германии, приходящий к управлению страной, должен сразу после выборов приехать в США и подписаться под документом под названием "Канцлер-акт". Срок окончания "Канцлер-акта" -- 2099 год.

Процитирую вам выдержку из "Секретных игр тайных служб":

"21 мая 1949 года Федеральная разведка опубликовала под грифом "Совершенно секретно" тайный государственный договор, в котором были изложены основные принципы подходов победителей к суверенитету Федеральной республики до 2099 года "

Останется ли к этому времени немец немцем? Останется ли к этому времени Бундесвер способным воевать так, как он воевал во Второй Мировой войне? Каково вообще конечное назначение "Канцлер-акта"? Вот какие вопросы возникают при чтении этой книги.

Кстати, генерал Камоса был очень осторожен, поэтому не осмелился издать "Секретные игры тайных служб" в Германии, а вынужден был выпустить книгу в Австрии. Был небольшой шум. Наши корреспонденты, которые прочитали "Секретные игры тайных служб" в Австрии, опубликовали маленькую заметку: отдаёт ли себе отчёт генерал Камоса какую "бомбу" он выдал? Вместе с тем они задались вопросом: а что подписали в 1991 году наши руководители? Политический обозреватель "Независимой газеты" Фаенко полгода назад в одной из своих статей выложил свою "бомбу" Он пишет, что в США очень многие видные политические деятели и крупные бизнесмены недовольны тем, что Россия не придерживается негласных соглашений, которые были подписаны её руководителями.

-- Была ли, на Ваш взгляд, у СССР вообще хоть когда-нибудь пусть теоретическая возможность стать полноценным партнёром США? Ну, хотя бы на пике советско-американского сотрудничества во Второй Мировой войне.

-- Нет, потому что вина за то, что немцы в 1941 году напали на СССР, в том числе лежит и на США. Об этом почему-то сейчас не вспоминают, но ведь в 1940-м году советник английского премьер-министра Черчилля -- Монтгомери Хайд, который помогал Уильяму Доновану (один из руководителей американских спецслужб -- авт.) создавать Управление стратегических служб, передал ему для вручения президенту США Рузвельту письмо Черчилля, где тот писал: поскольку США не находятся в состоянии войны с Германией, то не могли бы вы побудить Гитлера оставить в покое Балканы и ускорить мероприятия в отношении России. С той поры прошло уже много лет и многим на Западе кажется, что про это письмо все забыли. Но забыть можно лишь тогда, когда ты не хочешь помнить о чём-то.

Сегодня никто не вспоминает так же, что на самом деле подготовка ко Второй Мировой войне началась в 1929 году со встречи американского президента Герберта Гувера с виднейшими предпринимателями США из центра Рассела; есть у них такое тайное общество. Оно заявило Гуверу:

"Приближается кризис, попытаться избежать трудного положения, в котором могут оказаться США, можно лишь изменив расстановку сил в мире. Для этого надо оказать помощь России, чтобы она окончательно избавилась от разрухи -- последствий гражданской войны, и помочь Германии избавиться от тисков Версальского договора". "Но на это нужны деньги, -- возразил Гувер, -- несколько миллиардов. Да и для чего нам это нужно, что будет потом?". "А потом надо столкнуть Россию и Германию лбами для того, чтобы, воспрянув после кризиса, США оказались только один на один с оставшимся из этих противников".

Такие деньги в результате были выделены. И те же самые американские концерны, которые помогали России восстанавливать хозяйство -- строили заводы, участвовали в создании Днепрогэса -- восстанавливали и оснащали Германию. Не зря же дед президента США Буша -- Прескотт Буш, который в 1930-е годы помогал немцам, сразу после начала войны был лишён права управлять своим имуществом, исходя из того, что США в данный момент находятся в состоянии войны с Германией. Всё это документально зафиксировано, в том числе и в пятитомнике американского экономиста и историка Энтони Саттона. А что было после войны известно: американцы на протяжении всего 20 века вели очень серьёзную, продуманную работу по уничтожению оставшегося у них одного сильного противника в лице СССР.

Кстати, наглядно принцип выборочной памяти в отношении истории демонстрировал сегодня, например, Сванидзе в своей передаче "Суд времени", где регулярно нарочно умалчивает о важных фактах, ну, а если собеседник ему о них напоминает, то он его быстро обрывает. Смотреть эту передачу, конечно, было противно, но интересно, потому что она показывает глубину работы американцев по осуществлению операции влияния на противную сторону. В Америке же разработана очень интересная система влияния на большие людские массивы, для того, чтобы убедить их принять американскую точку зрения по тому или иному поводу.

-- С 1979 по 1991 год Вы возглавляли Управление нелегальной разведки КГБ СССР, поэтому наверняка лучше всех знаете, каковы, кроме чисто гуманитарного навязывания американского взгляда на прошлое и настоящее той или иной страны, ещё цели деятельности "системы влияния на большие людские массивы"?

-- Например, чтобы получить во взаимоотношениях с тем или иным государством какое-либо дипломатическое преимущество. Именно поэтому политическая линия США по разрушению внутреннего спокойного содержания той или иной страны глубоко продумана, а не локальна и спонтанна, как иногда кажется. Для этого во многих странах создаются прослойки людей, распространяющих те идеи, которые им диктуют на Западе, чтобы облегчить ему овладение конкретной территорией. Ведь ещё Сунь Цзы говорил, что лучше покорить страну, не сражаясь. США, начав серьезно изучать нас в 1917-м году, больше никогда не оставляли вне поля своего зрения, занимались не просто аналитической или научной работой, а вели и очень серьёзную разведывательную деятельность.

Кстати, интересный факт. После взрыва башен-близнецов в Нью-Йорке американцы провели большую работу по изучению опыта борьбы советской власти с басмачеством. Между прочим, и развитие терроризма в странах Ближнего Востока, Юго-Восточной Азии, и на нашей территории -- явление отнюдь не случайное. Если внимательно посмотреть, кто учился в специальных школах на территории США и Великобритании, то становится понятно, что именно там готовили моджахедов и ваххабитов, скажем, для подрывной деятельности в Уфе или на Северном Кавказе.

А то, что происходило в Татарстане в районе Зеленодольска -- было, видимо, подготовлено англичанами, я имею в виду волнения среди мусульман, спровоцированные ваххабитами, которых, к счастью, сами татары быстро подавили; люди, организовавшие эти волнения, ведь ездили на подготовку в Англию, и очень много было таких людей. Или взять сложности, которые сейчас переживает Башкирия. Они тоже имеют западные корни. И удивляться тут нечему, потому что американцы создали специальное учреждение -- Объединённый университет по подготовке лидеров антитеррористических организаций, под эгидой которого и готовятся кадры для организации волнений в различных регионах мира, а не только для реальной борьбы с террором.

Тут надо ещё сказать вот что Запад использует территорию Афганистана и территории наших Среднеазиатских республик для проникновения в Россию. В Афганистане готовят людей, которые создают очаги напряжённости в Киргизии, Таджикистане, Узбекистане В данном случае американцы осуществляют план, который изложен в работе "Задачи ВВС США на Северном Кавказе и в Средней Азии" -- разделять бывшие республики СССР на куски, чтобы тут же подбирать то, что отвалится.

-- Вы несколько лет работали резидентом советской разведки в Нью-Йорке и знаете Америку и её политическое устройство, что называется, изнутри. Скажите, может ли политика США в отношении России колебаться в зависимости от личностных особенностей тех или иных персон американского правящего истаблишмента? Насколько независимы, по Вашему мнению, в принятии решений высшие государственные деятели США?

-- Несколько лет назад Конгресс США возложил на президента в качестве одной из приоритетных его задач работу с общественными организациями, а руководитель Госдепартамента США Кондолиза Райс незадолго до своего ухода с этого поста утвердила специальную директиву "О задачах Госдепартамента при осуществлении специальных операций политического влияния", где расписаны функции каждого дипломатического сотрудника: от посла до самого маленького драгомана.

В контексте ответа на ваш вопрос большой интерес представляет работа, подготовленная Rand Corporation (неофициальный мозговой центр правительства США -- авт.) "Внешняя политика США до и после Буша", где дана оценка целому комплексу политических мероприятий правительства США и выработана национальная стратегия в отношении стран, которые представляют для США большой интерес. Так что политика США по отношению к России и к другим интересным им странам -- это тщательно продуманный подход при подготовке любых официальных или неофициальных мероприятий. Другое дело, что выводы, которые делают те или иные американские аналитики из того же Rand Corporation, не всегда воспринимаются администрацией США при разработке конкретных мероприятий -- и это святое право любого государственного деятеля -- но то, что к ним внимательно прислушиваются, это точно.

-- Декларировали когда-нибудь вслух США свои интересы к недрам СССР или идея освоить природные богатства нашей страны стала витать в воздухе только в постсоветское время?

-- В отношении экономических богатств нашей страны у США аппетиты были большими всегда. Мало кто знает, что в конце Великой Отечественной войны, когда странами-участницами антигитлеровской коалиции обсуждалось будущее мира, были приняты два решения, цитирую:

"создать Организацию объединённых наций с Советом безопасности -- как прообраз мирового правительства" и -- на нём особенно настаивали американские миллиардеры -- "создать трёхстороннюю комиссию для осуществления постепенных попыток слияния экономик США и СССР".

И такая комиссия была создана. Она существовала. Она действовала. Когда я работал в Америке, мне приходилось принимать участие в некоторых встречах с Рокфеллером, и по его вопросам мне становилось понятно, что в результате хотят от СССР американцы.

Для них главной политической целью работы в этой комиссии было, конечно, полное поглощение нашей экономики, о чём некоторые люди из ЦК КПСС, стоявшие тогда у руля нашей экономической политики, знали или догадывались, но участвовали в этой игре, надеясь в свою очередь перехитрить противника и посредством этой комиссии усовершенствовать торговые контакты между СССР и Западом. В некоторых случаях им это удавалось, в некоторых нет, а вот Западу, чтобы полностью реализовать свои замыслы понадобилось, как мы видим, около 50-ти лет.

-- Судя по тому, что Вы пишите в своей книге "Операция "Президент". От "холодной войны" до перезагрузки", всё ужасное для России только начинается:

"Мир вступил в фазу наиболее опасного противостояния -- цивилизованного. Цена поражения в этом противостоянии -- полное исчезновение с лица Земли одной из цивилизаций".

-В данном случае под словом "цивилизация" понимается система или системы ценностей, объединяющих людей разных национальностей, живущих в разных государствах и исповедующих разные религии. Могущественные транснациональные олигархические кланы уже определили будущее всего человечества, а академические круги Запада даже придали ему для большей убедительности научно-теоретическую форму. Практический процесс глобализации уже идет, и с каждым годом мир неуклонно приближается к торжеству нового мирового порядка.

При этом история Запада не дает никаких оснований для надежды на то, что его правящие круги предоставят незападным странам и народам необходимые ресурсы и материальные блага, которые западные государства целеустремленно отбирали у них на протяжении столетий. Вся мировая история убедительно свидетельствует, что они никогда и ни при каких обстоятельствах не пойдут на уменьшение своего потребления ради выживания незападных народов. В этих условиях России уготована участь тельца, который должен быть принесен в жертву "для блага всего человечества", как и предлагал почти сто лет назад личный советник президента США Вильсона полковник Хауз.

-- Каково в этой ситуации будет значение органов госбезопасности, призванных охранять суверенитет страны?

-- Голландский ученый, лауреат Нобелевской премии Ян Тинберген прямо говорил:

"Обеспечение безопасности нельзя отдать на усмотрение суверенных национальных государств. < > Мы должны стремиться к созданию децентрализованного планетарного суверенитета и сети сильных международных институтов, которые будут его осуществлять ".

Вот так. Глобальная структуризация и иерархизация мира при одновременном упразднении суверенитета национальных государств откроет олигархии свободный доступ ко всем природным ресурсам планеты.

-- Давая оценку советскому политическому наступлению периода разрядки, администрация США делала вывод, что активность советских разведывательных операций в пять раз превышает размеры деятельности ЦРУ и союзников. Но если иметь в виду, что могильщиком СССР всё-таки стали США, то возникает резонный вопрос: а почему же мы проиграли?

-- Американский разведчик, бывший резидент США в Индии Гарри Розицки в своей книге написал, что если бы в США была такая нелегальная разведывательная служба, как в Советском Союзе, численностью хотя бы человек в 100, то Америка могла бы чувствовать себя спокойно. Так что, разведка не проиграла. Проиграла страна в целом. А проиграла, потому что у нас не было времени. Ведь практически весь период первых пятилеток, когда нам удалось кое-что создать, и то происходил в условиях борьбы. Причём борьбы, как извне, так и в результате очень серьёзных споров и разногласий в политическом руководстве СССР. Причём эти разногласия были и в последние годы существования СССР.

В частности на примере взаимодействия разведки и политической власти СССР могу сказать, что работа наших руководителей по использованию установленных нами связей в политических интересах государства в какой-то мере была ослаблена. Каждый из руководителей считал свою точку зрения истинной в последней инстанции, у них были серьёзные споры друг с другом. Скажем, по делу Шевченко (в 1970-е годы зам представителя СССР в ООН, сбежавший на Запад ) мне Юрий Владимирович (Андропов) прямо сказал:

"Я прочитал всё, что ты писал. Ты был прав, и никто тебя наказывать не будет".

Дело в том, что заподозрив Шевченко в измене, я, как резидент нашей разведки в США, стал сигнализировать об этом в Москву. А в результате получил запрет на наблюдение за Шевченко! Тем не менее, я сам себе сказал: "Нет, так дело не пойдёт!" и продолжал отправлять компрометирующие Шевченко материалы в центр.

-- Запрет трогать Шевченко был внутриведомственным конфликтом и нежеланием бросать тень на МИД или в Москве его берегли агенты влияния во властных структурах?

-- Мне сложно сейчас сказать, почему мне не разрешали трогать Шевченко, но я знаю, что влияние самого Шевченко на наших руководителей было достаточно высоким. Он и его семья были в очень близких отношениях с Громыко. Кроме этого у Шевченко была ещё группа хороших знакомых на разных должностях и в разных позициях, которые могли ему подыгрывать, оказывая влияние на наших руководителей, которые рассматривали мои материалы по Шевченко. Поскольку Шевченко проработал в Нью-Йорке большой промежуток времени, мои предшественники, которые там с ним общались, тоже чувствовали себя немного связанными, боялись получить выговор, если что-то всплывёт, и не поехать потом заграницу. Это естественные вещи Бывают в жизни, к сожалению, такие истории. (Вздыхает). Трояновский (советский дипломат, следующий, после Шевченко, представитель СССР в ООН -- авт.) тогда меня прямо спросил:

"А что, разве не может советский человек выбрать себе новую родину?"

Я ему ответил:

"Родина -- одна, можно сменить место жительства".

И нажил ещё одного недруга.

-- Тогда, быть может, одной из внутренних причин гибели Советского Союза было то, что, как Вы выразились "работа наших руководителей по использованию установленных нами связей в политических интересах государства в какой-то мере была ослаблена", что, говоря простым языком означает: информацию разведчиков принимали к сведению, но использовать не спешили. Вы ощущали политический или дипломатический эффект от своей работы?

-- В принципе, ощущал, и даже бывал на приёмах у наших руководителей, которые знакомились с результатами работы нелегальной разведки и принимали на её основании решения, но, с другой стороны, скажем, в моём личном деле, как мне говорили, есть резолюция ещё самого Никиты Сергеевича Хрущёва, которого в 1960-х годах я, как резидент советской разведки в Китае, предупреждал о готовящихся столкновениях на Даманском, а Хрущёв на материале с этой моей информацией написал:

"Не верю".

А ведь мы тогда специально отправили людей в район сосредоточения китайских подразделений напротив Даманского, где тогда жили бывшие белогвардейцы; эти люди встретились там с нашим древним "источником", который рассказал, что китайцы прогнали его с собственной пасеки, построили на её месте гигантский ящик с песком, в котором воссоздали всю территорию по ту сторону границы, которая принадлежала СССР, и проводят там военные учения.

После этой информации мы изучили положение дел на китайских железных дорогах -- какие и куда осуществляются перевозки, поговорили с иностранцами, а окончательный вывод, к сожалению, оказавшийся верным, нам помогло сделать одно обстоятельство. У меня была встреча с представителями концерна "Крупп", которым мы поставляли водку и которых по целому ряду вопросов обхаживали китайцы, и один из этих представителей мне прямо сказал:

"Вы что -- слепые? Не видите, что китайцы делают? А я вижу, потому что я -- "Крупп", я -- сталь, а сталь -- это война!".

Вот и весь разговор, который тем не менее переполнил чашу наших догадок. Мы обобщили информацию и сделали вывод: следует ожидать вооружённой провокации в районе Даманского. Но Хрущёв нам не поверил.

Заместитель покойного Александра Михайловича Сахаровского (в то время руководитель ПГУ КГБ СССР) генерал-лейтенант Мортин, который в это время сидел на его месте, когда я приехал в отпуск и с ним встретился, сказал мне: "Слушай, ты меня в инфаркт вгонишь своими телеграммами!" (Смеётся). Его можно понять, была ведь трудная обстановка. В Китае шла культурная революция, всё больше и больше приобретающая антисоветский и антирусский характер, в которой, кстати, активно участвовали бывшие троцкисты, которых выкинули из США и почему-то бросили в Китай; это произошло в разгар маккартизма в конце 1940-х годов. Я с некоторыми из них был знаком. Хорошо знал Анну Луизу Стронг, Ванштейна. Все они хорошо говорили по-русски.

- Слушаю и не понимаю, за что же Вас тогда было поздравлять с днём рождения самому Мао Цзэдуну?

-- Мао Цзэдун не мог меня поздравить. Это была шутка моих коллег. Когда я справлял в Китае один из своих дней рождения, ребята, которые входили в состав нашей резидентуры, изготовили "сообщение" сводки "Синьхуа" (китайское информационное агентство -- авт.) по этому событию. (Смеётся). Спустя много лет после этого случая, когда я приехал на работу в Нью-Йорк, где встречал своё 50-летие, то застал там несколько моих бывших сотрудников, которые хорошо помнили тот наш китайский период. Они-то и принесли и положили передо мной рулон телетайпной ленты, где сообщалось, что Юрия Дроздова с юбилеем поздравил Мао Цзэдун. Я говорю:

"Опять сотворили провокацию?"

Тут надо понять, что "американцы" и "китайцы" были в разведке двумя внутренне доброжелательно соперничающими структурами, а эта шутка дала мне понять, что большая легальная резидентура в США приняла меня за своего.

-- Возвращаясь к Китаю Как я понимаю, в 1960-е годы разглядеть истоки китайского экономического чуда было ещё нельзя? Разведке не из чего было делать такие далеко идущие выводы?

-- Когда в 1968 году я заканчивал свою работу на посту резидента советской разведки в Китае, мне из центра прислали телеграмму:

"Не смотря на то, что ваша работа в Китае завершена, Юрий Владимирович просит вас задержаться на месяц и написать свои соображения относительно положения в Китае и перспектив советско-китайских отношений".

В течении этого месяца я написал 103 страницы, где среди прочего было сказано, что ситуация, которая складывается в настоящее время в Китае изменчива, китайцы решают вопрос создания новой общественной формации, но в этом нет ничего удивительного, к этому надо относится терпимо и исходить из того, что китайцы будут использовать в интересах своей страны передовые элементы как социалистической, так и капиталистической систем.

После моего возвращения из Китая прошло больше года, когда мне однажды позвонил Андропов: "Возвращаю тебе твой отчёт по Китаю" и отдал мне мой материал. И добавил: "На нём есть пометки. Знаешь, чьи?" Пожимаю плечами:

"Нет, не знаю". "Эта пометка такого-то, эта такого-то, а вот эта такого-то -- называет Андропов фамилии высоких политических деятелей. -- А вообще-то смело написано!"

-- Правда, что в кабинете одного из американских контрразведчиков висел портрет Андропова?

-- Да, правда. Это был начальник отделения ФБР в штате Нью-Джерси. Это было в середине 1970-х. Лично я этого портрета не видел, его видел наш сотрудник, который поддерживал контакты с ФБР по обмену наших товарищей, которые тогда сидели в центральной нью-йоркской тюрьме. Энгера и Черняева. Кстати, фактически их выдал как раз Шевченко, хотя, в принципе, их не должны были поймать, однако, во время одной из операций Черняева и Энгера задержали, потому что мы не учли, что американцы пустят в воздух небольшой спортивный самолётик, с которого и будут вести наблюдение за нашими разведчиками. Так вот. Когда наш сотрудник был в кабинете у начальника отделения ФБР, он поднял глаза, увидел на стене портрет Андропова и страшно удивился. Был ответ:

"А чего ты удивляешься? Я что, не могу повесить портрет руководителя лучшей разведки мира?"

-- Было ли с Андроповым у СССР перспектив выжить больше, чем с любым другим советским лидером? Каковы Ваши впечатления об Андропове?

-- Помню, Семичастный (в начале 1960-х руководитель КГБ СССР -- авт.) впервые отправил меня на доклад к Андропову, как к заведующему отделом социалистических стран ЦК. Я не ожидал, что встречу в ЦК абсолютно другого, нежели остальные партийные руководители человека, с которым можно разговаривать, интересного; мы просидели с Андроповым тогда больше 4-х часов, он расспрашивал о Китае, а в это время к нему в кабинет заходили и выходили люди, некоторых Андропов оставлял:

"Сиди, слушай, тебе это нужно".

Андропов, например, читал всё: и приятное, и неприятное, а ведь были и такие руководители, которые читали только приятную информацию.

Андропов никогда никому не мстил. Если видел, что у человека что-то не получается, то просто переводил его на другую работу, а если, к примеру, он убирал чекиста совершившего какую-то ошибку в другое подразделение, то, получив дополнительное объяснение, почему человек ошибся, мог и изменить свою точку зрения. Помню, как-то во время нашего доклада Андропову, Юрий Владимирович сказал, что у него есть другая, отличная от нашей, информация. Я возразил: "Это не так". Андропов говорит:

"Сколько надо дней, чтобы проверить, кто прав: я или ты?" "Дней 40-50. Сложные условия".

Крючков меня потом упрекал, зачем я среагировал так грубо, но я сказал, что Андропов с давних пор просил меня говорить только правду. Спустя срок меня встречает тот же Крючков:

"Ну как?" "К сожалению, прав оказался я". (Смеётся).

Сейчас ФСБ готовит к выходу книгу "Команда Андропова", куда я написал свои впечатления об отношениях с Юрием Владимировичем, которые озаглавил "Ю.В.Андропов (на партучёте в нелегальной разведке)". (Улыбается). Он ведь действительно был членом нашей партийной организации. Приходил. Но не каждый раз, человек он всё-таки был очень занятый.

-- Каковы были максимальные сроки пребывания разведчиков на нелегальном положении? И, кстати, когда нелегала было подготовить проще: в Ваше время или сейчас?

-- В те годы, когда приходилось работать нам, будущий нелегал зачастую не имел тех качеств, которые имеют сегодня самые обычные люди; у наших сотрудников, к примеру, изначально не было зубастой хватки людей, занимающихся бизнесом. Поэтому нередко приходилось смотреть, какие личностные качества присущи конкретному человеку и фактически давать ему второе образование, от средней школы -- до высшего. У нас не было нелегалов, которые знали бы только один иностранный язык, минимум 2-3. То есть мы проделывали огромную работу.

В одном случае, самый короткий срок подготовки нелегала для конкретной цели у нас составил 7 лет, после чего человек 3 года отработал за рубежом и украсил свою грудь 2-мя орденами и знаком "Почётный чекист". Естественно, что срок подготовки нелегала зависит от поставленной перед ним цели. А цель бывает разная: от хорошего места, где он может спокойно жить и работать, до сейфа какого-нибудь зарубежного руководителя. В этом смысле самый длинный период от начала работы в нелегальных условиях до выполнения поставленного задания составил 17 лет; человек этот, к слову, вернулся Героем Советского Союза.

Продолжение будет обязательно.

Продолжение будет обязательно.

Источник

[Oct 16, 2017] The Unraveling of American-Russian Relations by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... The military/security complex has an annual budget of one thousand billion dollars. This sum is larger than the Gross Domestic Products of all but a handful of countries on earth. Such an immense budget conveying such power desperately needs a dangerous enemy for its justification. Russia has been assigned this role. Given the power of the military/security complex, the role assigned to Russia cannot be mitigated by Russian diplomacy. Moreover, the interests of the military/security complex and the Neoconservatives are in agreement. ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

Last March, General Viktor Poznikhir, the deputy commander of the Russian military's Operation Command expressed concern that Washington could be preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. See https://dninews.com/article/moscow-us-missile-systems-europe-may-lead-sudden-nuclear-attack-russia and http://www.newsweek.com/russia-us-global-missile-defense-lead-nuclear-war-europe-591244 and https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-officials-u-global-missile-192829855.html

Had any such statement from the Russian high command been issued anytime during the 20th century Cold War era, the President of the United States would have immediately contacted the Soviet leader and given every assurance that no such plan or intentions toward Russia existed. As far as I can tell, the Trump White House let this ominous announcement pass unremarked. If this is the case, it must have provided confirmation to the Russians' conclusion.

For some time I have pointed out that the entirety of the West, both the US and its vassal states, continue to ignore very clear Russian warnings. Gilbert Doctorow has made the same point. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/10/10/deaf-ear-dire-russian-warnings.html

Perhaps the most clear of all was Putin's public statement that "Russia will never again fight a war on its own territory." If Washington's EU vassals did not hear this clear warning that they are courting their nuclear destruction -- especially the Poles and Romanians who have mindlessly hosted US missile bases -- they are as deaf as they are stupid.

One Russian official told the idiot British government to its face that if the British threat to first use nuclear weapons is directed at Russia, if such an attempt is made, Great Britain will disappear from the face of the earth.

There is no doubt that that would be the case.

So why do Washington's impotent vassals talk tough to Russia, a government that only desires peace and has threatened Britain in no way. Nor has the Russian government threatened France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, or any of the former Eastern European vassals of the Soviet Union that exchanged their captivity to the Soviet Union for captivity to Washington. Russia has not even threatened Ukraine, which Russia could wipe out in a couple of minutes. Why are all of these countries, apparently led by mindless, gutless two-bit politicians, aligned with Washington's false propaganda against Russia?

The answer is money. The vassals are paid to go along with the lies. As Alain of Lille said as long ago as the 12th century, "not God, not Caesar, but money is all."

What are the forces driving Washington's provocation of Russia? There are three, and they comprise a vast conspiracy against life on earth.

One is the Neoconservatives. The Neoconservatives were convinced by the Soviet Collapse that History has chosen not the proletariat but American "democratic capitalism" as the socio-politico-economic system for the world, and that this choice by History conveys on America the status of the "indispensable, exceptional" country, a status that places America above all other countries and above international law and, indeed, America's own laws.

America is so exceptional that it can torture people in total violation of both US law and international law. The government in Washington can, on suspicion alone without presentation to a court of evidence and conviction, confine US citizens indefinitely, torturing them the entire time, and can assassinate them at will without due process of law. This is the definition of a total police state tyranny. Yet Washington represents America as a "great democracy," whose endless wars against humanity are "bringing democracy to the world."

America is so exceptional that it can bomb other countries indiscriminately without officially being at war with those countries.

America is so exceptional that the separation of powers prescribed in the American Constitution can be totally ignored by the executive branch as, the Neoconservatives claim, the President has "unique powers" not limited by the Constitution, which, of course, is just another lie.

Russia, China, and Iran are targets of the Neoconservatives, as were Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and provinces of Pakistan, because these countries have/had independent foreign policies and are/were not Washington's vassals.

The Neoconservative doctrine states that it is the "principal goal" of US foreign policy "to prevent the rise of Russia or any other state" that can serve as a constraint on Washington's unilateralism.

The New York Times under this headline on March 8, 1992, explains the Wolfowitz doctrine:

U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop
A One-Superpower World http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 7 In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union.

A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states that part of the American mission will be convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.

The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.

Every state with an independent foreign policy is a constraint on Washington, especially states with nuclear capabilities such as Russia and China.

A second interest with incentive to provoke Russia is the US military/security complex. President Eisenhower, a five-star general, warned Americans in 1961 that the "military-industrial complex" was a threat to American democracy. Today the military/security complex is much more than a mere threat to American democracy. It has already taken over the US government and the Trump administration, which is run by generals, and it now threatens all life on earth.

The military/security complex has an annual budget of one thousand billion dollars. This sum is larger than the Gross Domestic Products of all but a handful of countries on earth. Such an immense budget conveying such power desperately needs a dangerous enemy for its justification. Russia has been assigned this role. Given the power of the military/security complex, the role assigned to Russia cannot be mitigated by Russian diplomacy. Moreover, the interests of the military/security complex and the Neoconservatives are in agreement.

The third powerful interest group leading to conflict with Russia is the Israel Lobby. In Washington the Israel Lobby is extremely powerful. If the Israel Lobby puts legislation or a resolution before Congress, it usually passes almost unanimously, as anyone who votes against it is likely to be eliminated in the next election.

... ... ...

[Oct 16, 2017] Instead of blaming herself for selling herself to Wall Street and converting into yet another warmonger Hillary is still acusing the Kremlin. What a pathetic loser

It is so convenient to blame Russians ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... "We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress." ..."
"... She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times. ..."
"... Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said. ..."
"... "In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting." ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Originally from: Cyber cold war is just getting started, claims Hillary Clinton

This power hungry woman are just plain vanilla incompetent: "The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said."

Democrats had urged her to be silent after her defeat to Trump but she was not going to go away, said Clinton. She vowed to play her part in an attempt to win back Democratic seats in the forthcoming midterm elections. She admitted she "just collapsed with real grief and disappointment" after her election defeat.

Clinton, who is touring the country to promote What Happened – her memoir reflecting on the election defeat, told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "Looking at the Brexit vote now, it was a precursor to some extent of what happened to us in the United States."

She decried the amount of fabricated information voters were given: "You know, the big lie is a very potent tool and we've somewhat kept it at bay in western democracies, partly because of the freedom of the press. There has to be some basic level of fact and evidence in all parts of our society."

She urged Britain to be cautious about striking a trade deal with Trump, saying he did not believe in free trade.

In other comments during the Cheltenham literary festival, she accused the Kremlin of waging an information war throughout the 2016 US election process. The tactics "were a clear and present danger to western democracy and it is right out of the Putin playbook", she said.

"We know Russian agents used Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and even Pinterest to place targeted attack ads and negative stories intended not to hurt just me but to fan the flames of division in our society. Russians posed as Americans pretending to be LGBT and gun rights activists, even Muslims, saying things they knew would cause distress."

She said some of the basics of the Russian interference in the 2016 election had been known, but "we were in the dark about the weaponisation of social media". She cited new research from Columbia University showing that attack ads on Facebook paid for in roubles were seen by 10 million people in crucial swing states and had been shared up to 340m times.

Clinton said the matter of whether Trump's campaign cooperated with Russian interference was a subject for congressional investigation. But she called for anyone found guilty of such cooperation with Moscow to be subject to civil and criminal law. "The Russians are still playing on anything and everything they can to turn Americans against each other," she said.

"In addition to hacking our elections, they are hacking our discourse and our unity. We are in the middle of a global struggle between liberal democracy and a rising tide of illiberalism and authoritarianism. This is a kind of new cold war and it is just getting starting."

The Russian campaign was leading to nationalism in Europe, democratic backsliding in Hungary and Poland, and a loss of faith in democracy, she said.

[Oct 16, 2017] Assange: It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen

Lady Makbeth of the USA?
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
In an interview with the ABC's Four Corners program, to air on Monday night, Clinton alleges that Assange cooperated with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin , to disrupt the US election and damage her campaign for president.

"WikiLeaks is unfortunately now practically a fully owned subsidiary of Russian intelligence," Clinton told the ABC's Sarah Ferguson .

Describing Putin as a "dictator", Clinton said the damaging email leaks that crippled her 2016 candidacy were part of a coordinated operation against her, directed by the Russian government.

Our intelligence community and other observers of Russia and Putin have said he held a grudge against me because as secretary of state, I stood up against some of his actions, his authoritarianism," Clinton told the ABC.

"But it's much bigger than that. He wants to destabilise democracy, he wants to undermine America, he wants to go after the Atlantic alliance, and we consider Australia an extension of that."

WikiLeaks received thousands of hacked emails from accounts connected to the Democratic campaign allegedly stolen by Russian operatives. The emails were released during a four-month period in the lead-up to the US election.

Emails from the Clinton campaign chairman, John Podesta, were leaked on the same day – 7 October 2016 – the director of national intelligence and the secretary of homeland security released a statement concluding the Russian government had been attempting to interfere in the election.

It was also the day the Washington Post published the 2005 Access Hollywood recording of Donald Trump's lewd comments about sexually harassing women .

Clinton told the ABC she believed the email leak was coordinated to disrupt the influence of the Access Hollywood tape.

"WikiLeaks, which in the world in which we find ourselves promised hidden information, promised some kind of secret that might be of influence, was a very clever, diabolical response to the Hollywood Access tape," she said. "And I've no doubt in my mind that there was some communication if not coordination to drop those the first time in response to the Hollywood Access tape."

Clinton is promoting her election memoir, What Happened, in which she details her thoughts on her unsuccessful campaign for president .

In September she told David Remnick from the New Yorker that she believed the Australian founder of WikiLeaks may be "on the payroll of the Kremlin" .

"I think he is part nihilist, part anarchist, part exhibitionist, part opportunist, who is either actually on the payroll of the Kremlin or in some way supporting their propaganda objectives, because of his resentment toward the United States, toward Europe," she said.

"He's like a lot of the voices that we're hearing now, which are expressing appreciation for the macho authoritarianism of a Putin. And they claim to be acting in furtherance of transparency, except they never go after the Kremlin or people on that side of the political ledger."

Assange has denied the emails came from the Russian government or any other "state parties".

In response to Clinton's comments, Assange said on Twitter there was "something wrong with Hillary Clinton".

"It is not just her constant lying," he wrote. "It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement.

"Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen."

Julian Assange 🔹 (@JulianAssange)

There's something wrong with Hillary Clinton. It is not just her constant lying. It is not just that she throws off menacing glares and seethes thwarted entitlement. Watch closely. Something much darker rides along with it. A cold creepiness rarely seen. https://t.co/JNw2dkXgdu

October 15, 2017

[Oct 16, 2017] Trump acts like the proverbial bull in a china shop. Which might be the symptom of floundering, weakened, posturing US Empire -- decending into empty threats (Iran, NK) which are often rightly dismissed by others. Which make this historical period very dangerous indeed.

Notable quotes:
"... The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. ..."
"... "Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar." ..."
"... I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation. ..."
"... Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action. ..."
"... US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation. ..."
"... Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :) ..."
Oct 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:22:59 PM | 12

In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the interview Kerry did with Reuters, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when weighing the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:

"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that argument on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that are working that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our friends to do what we want them to.'

"Well, look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses because we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to do even though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?

"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many cases to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We – it was Obama who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By – I went to China. We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and other countries to step back.

"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the table but they made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going to have to obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?

"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out there .." (Bold italics in original.)

The reality is that the above situation outlined by Kerry two years ago has only worsened with Trump's inability to understand that reality leading to the current irrationality in policy-- unless --Trump is actually trying to further the Neocon policy of Full Spectrum Dominance. If that is indeed the case, then Trump's behavior is rational in that the only alternative facing the Outlaw US Empire in its drive to enslave the planet is to launch a non-proxy hot war to achieve its goals.

Or... Trump's smarter than any of us as he expects the neocons to fold when faced with the possibility of escalating the ongoing Hybrid Third World War into one that's no longer Hybrid and promises to bring horrendous amounts of death and destruction to The Homeland.

karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:23:58 PM | 13
Oops, forgot link to Mercouris article, http://theduran.com/donald-trump-decertifies-iran-us-foreign-policy-becomes-irrational/
Grieved | Oct 15, 2017 6:10:34 PM | 18
@12 karlof1

yes, I just read that Mercouris piece and I was excited to read about that Kerry interview, that everyone seems to have missed. So here's what seems to be the authoritative background on the the Iran deal.

b said in his last piece - October 14 , linked in his article above:

Obama pushed sanctions onto sanctions to make Iran scream. But the country did not fold. Each new U.S. sanction step was responded to with an expansion of Iran's nuclear program. In the end Obama had to offer talks to Iran to get out of the hole he had dug himself.

For me this was the first time I'd seen an explanation of why the Iran deal happened, and I really wanted to know more. Now this retrospective by Mercouris shows exactly how accurate b's assessment was, but fills in the detail to show that the EU was already on the verge of a major split from the dollar. Only the deal, which allowed EU to grow its trade with the huge market of Iran, saved this potential run from the dollar by Europe.

I read the full Reuters interview , and I find it debatable how much of Kerry's statement was applied to Russia and China and how much to Britain, France and Germany. I'll parse it as, Asia will say it out loud, Europe will think it silently - the unthinkable, that is. Mercouris seems sure it was Europe:

In other words the US was pushed into the JCPOA somewhat against its will at the insistence of its European allies, who were considering lifting sanctions on Iran unilaterally if the US rejected the deal which was on offer. The US submitted to their demands because it feared that the alternative – threatening economic war on its European allies by imposing sanctions on them – would have hastened the ending of the reserve currency status of the US dollar.

It is rare to say the least for US officials to so much as contemplate in public the possibility of the US dollar losing its reserve currency status. The fact that in August 2015 Secretary of State Kerry actually did so shows the pressure that the US was under.

Astonishing. Here we are two years later trying to think that if Trump does whatever nonsense he does with the Iran deal, it will encourage a rift between the US and the EU - but actually this has already come to be the situation, and two years ago at that.

This is some serious shit, that we all seem to have missed. EU leaders may be craven, but European business wants to trade with Iran, and it's simmering around the point of breaking away from the dollar in order to do it. Surely this calls for a large re-calculation of the situation.

What happens if Iran starts to negotiate payments settled in Yuan? Hezbollah can take down Israel militarily. But perhaps Iran can take down the US financially?

ben | Oct 15, 2017 7:27:42 PM | 19
karlof1 @ 13: Thanks for the link. Good read. Actually gives a little hope that the adults in the world can reign in the morons now running the U$A.
ben | Oct 15, 2017 7:32:32 PM | 20
From TRNN: "Decertifying Iran Deal, Trump Escalates His War"

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:20220:Decertifying-Iran-Deal%2C-Trump-Escalates-His-War

Peter AU 1 | Oct 15, 2017 8:19:51 PM | 21
Part of Obama speech.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_term=.aac92dd70db9
..."Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn't based on a desire for regime change in Iran.

As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress' rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.

If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world's largest banks. We'd have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. That's part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived."...


Another time when Obama was covincing US to pass the Iran deal, he stated bluntly that not passing the deal would put the US dollar at risk. Have not been able to find it as yet.

Perimetr | Oct 15, 2017 10:44:48 PM | 26
RE: karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:22:59 PM | 12 You write: "Or... Trump's smarter than any of us . . ."

Probably not

see: Donald Trump bodyslams, beats and shaves Vince McMahon at Wrestlemania XXIII
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I

psychohistorian | Oct 15, 2017 11:38:03 PM | 28
I just read this comment by Oh Homer at another site and felt motivated to share it here.

"Have you met America? That's the country that needs "lives matter" movements because of its prevailing culture of utter indifference to human welfare, but which trips over itself in its eagerness to wage war in defense of the petrodollar."

karlof1 | Oct 16, 2017 11:30:57 AM | 38
Grieved @18-

Good questions! The extremely rare candor shown by Kerry, as Mercouris notes, isn't being shared by the Trumpsters and is likely responsible for their outward state of high anxiety and knee-jerk reactions to just about anything.

Iran says it has a plan: "Speaker of Iran's parliament Ali Larijani said that Iran 'had a developed plan and a certain law,' should the United States withdraw from the agreement on Tehran's nuclear program, adding that Washington would 'regret it.'" https://sputniknews.com/world/201710161058275364-iran-plan-us-nuclear-deal/

RT reports Larijani thusly: "' We have a plan We've recently approved in parliament what we should do given the Americans undertake certain steps, ' Larijani told reporters Monday on the sidelines of the Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting in St. Petersburg.

' We will take steps so that the Americans will regret it. '" (Emphasis in original.) https://www.rt.com/news/406851-iran-has-plan-if-us-withdraws-nuclear/ If that is so, then what Iran plans to do ought to be discerned by looking at its parliamentary actions on the subject by those able to read Farsi. I rather doubt it's bluff and bluster.

And the EU won't support Trump's decertification: "After a closed-door meeting [of EU Foreign Ministers at Luxembourg] chaired by EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on how best to proceed on the Iran issue, ministers issued a joint statement saying that the 2015 deal was key to preventing the global spread of nuclear weapons." https://www.rt.com/newsline/406844-iran-eu-us-mogherini/

I can easily envision a joint announcement by Russia, China and Iran that all trade conducted with them must be transacted in Yuan, Ruble, Rial, or Euro--that the dollar is no longer welcomed. And given the utter stupidity of the Republican controlled US Congress, more sanctions will be applied to Iran thus sealing the onset of the Outlaw US Empire's international isolation.

Noirette | Oct 16, 2017 1:21:55 PM | 40
Imho, the US political establishment, as publically projected, is moving closer to a realm where words, be they snide remarks, lofty pronouncements, declarations of intent, or vile accusations, become substitutes for action.

Likewise, minor symbolic moves like withdrawing, "quitting" which is ambiguous, from e.g. UNESCO - *US didn't pay dues in any case.*

Trump is not alone, all the Dem. Russia-bashing/blaming leads nowhere, the Trump denigration as well, Trump threatening NK is similar.

The word is sufficient to itself! As are incantatory spells, religious appeals, etc. All one clumsy step beyond the Rovian "when we act, we create our own reality.." which rests on the power to act and transform reality (sometimes with sleight of hand, mirages..) transferring that power to symbols with hope and 'belief'... That's the comforting take.

US overt behavior is hapless unless entered into with cold calculation, a specific hidden aim in mind, and levers of control somewhere. Not the case imho, but dismissing Trump as a fool is not useful. We see symptoms of floundering, weakened, posturing Empire -- imho empty sorts o' threats (Iran, NK) are often dismissed by others, rightly so, but that is dangerous too: the US has to play the military domination position combined with the unpredictability card. Extremely volatile situation.

Remember when Trump said he would never do a first nuke strike? :)

[Oct 15, 2017] Russiagate And The Decline Of Journalism – Ron Paul interviews Robert Parry

Oct 15, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

Nathan abu Nevada , October 12, 2017 11:00 PM

500 People shot in Las Vegas and 500 People missing in California fires at the same time all seems pretty bland compared to Stephanie Leigh Ruhle American combat journalist, and her highly captivating conspiracy theories that those Russian Thugs could possibly have had some how colluded with that Man Trump to defeat the First Woman US President in history Hillary.

This is not the death of the media, just the US media. RT is fantastic and does not make me yell violent obscenities at the TV like the CFR programming.

Watosh Nathan abu Nevada , October 14, 2017 8:45 AM

I watch RTon the internet every day and used to watch it on TV before Time warner dropped it, and I found it very reliable and objective. I recall when one of the top journalists there abby Martin severely criticized and denounced the Russian government for accepting Crimea back into Russia, yet she was not fired even though she often criticized that action.

Many programs had American journalists. And news involving Russia, while generally non-critical, usually was confined to presenting the Russian view on something, which is a legitimate thing to do if you are informing people.

I never heard anyone on RT who spread rumors or made unfounded accusations like I hear on MSNBC every day. and no one on RT denied that they were founded by the Russian government, they did not hide this from their listeners. Americans I believe are the most propagandized people on the earth because they believe the news they get is factually reported by an independent "free" press.

My fellow Americans while they brag about their independence nevertheless are easily stampeded into becoming a lynch mob.

Dennis Boylon Watosh , October 14, 2017 9:16 AM

Modern propaganda was invented in the US by Edward Bernays. It was copied by the Nazi's Joseph Goebbels who had every book Bernays ever wrote in his library.

liveload , October 13, 2017 7:07 PM

It just occurred to me that the perfect Halloween decoration this year would be a Russian flag. That is, unless someone comes out with a Zombie Putin, or Dracula Putin...

[Oct 15, 2017] Fake News and the New McCarthyism by John Buell

Dec 22, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

One of the most potent worries about the coming Trump presidency is concern about free speech. Trump's willingness to tolerate or even encourage violence against nonviolent critics of his agenda and personnel choices is alarming. The Washington Post recently carried a chilling cautionary tale about the fate of a young woman who challenged Trump's record on women's issues. Parallels with banana republic dictators tacitly encouraging or at least tolerating paramilitary forces seem not far- fetched. Though it is easy for the Washington Post to call attention to and criticize Trump's incitement to violence, the Post now practices its own more subtle efforts to police speech.

Behind the façade of a concern about fake news, the Post featured an article by Craig Timberg that cited -- without challenge -- an anonymous website, PropOrNot, listing numerous other sites purported to be purveyors of fake news. As Max Blumenthal reported for AlterNet , "the anonymous website argued that all of the named sites should be investigated by the federal government and potentially prosecuted under the Espionage Act as Russian spies. They were accused for wittingly or unwittingly spreading Russian propaganda."

This story especially caught my attention because one of the fingered websites -- Naked Capitalism -- has long been one of my favorite sources. In addition to meticulous coverage of finance, the site provides in depth analysis of both mainstream economics and contemporary and historic alternatives. All those upon whom economics 101 is being inflicted should consult entries by Philip Mirowski and Philip Pilkingotn. You will never think the same about simple supply and demand. Designating this site as a purveyor of fake -- even Russian supplied-- news while providing no evidence for the claim is surely libelous. Charges of Russian interference in our election -- thus far without any specific evidence beyond agency assertions -- should be investigated but ought not to become an occasion to harass domestic critics of US policy.

In any case, as numerous contributors to some of these libeled sites point out, the Post 's action is the digital equivalent of a McCarthyite blacklist. The Washington Post, which has "apologized" only by saying that it takes no responsibility for the factual accuracy of the claims made in Timberg's piece, is owned by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, who also does contractual work for the CIA

At the same time as this was happening, Congressional Democrats were getting involved in the blame Russia game. Norman Solomon reports:

A week ago, when the House approved by a 390-30 margin and sent to the Senate the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2017, Schiff praised "important provisions aimed at countering Russia's destabilizing efforts -- including those targeting our elections." One of those "important provisions," Section 501 , sets up in the executive branch "an interagency committee to counter active measures by the Russian Federation to exert covert influence.

While lacking public accountability, the committee is mandated to ferret out such ambiguous phenomena as Russian "media manipulation" and "disinformation." Along the way, the committee could target an array of activists, political opponents or irksome journalists. In any event, its power to fulfill "such other duties as the president may designate" would be ready-made for abuse.

What seems to be a common thread among many of the blacklisted groups is antagonism toward those critics of neoliberalism or of Obama/Clinton foreign policy who are seen as derailing the Clinton campaign. Solomon rightly makes a Cold War analogy, citing Democratic President Truman's issuing a loyalty act in order to toss a bone to the emerging Cold Warriors only to have it blow up into the full fledged fury of McCarthyism. I would, however, add another historical angle. As such International Relations scholars as David Campbell and James DerDerian have argued, the rhetoric of foreign affairs serves to discipline and support domestic identity as much as to fend off actual military threat. The Cold War was born as much of domestic anxiety as of Soviet military threat. The end of World War II saw contentious efforts by unions and liberals to establish a full employment politics coupled with a wave of strikes almost unprecedented in our history. Even key national security documents at the height of the Cold War indicated more worry about the political appeal of communism than its military might. That a cadre of Democratic centrists would strive to establish a top-secret surveillance committee targeting Russian links to dissident movements is an effort to escape blame for a failed campaign. Seen in broader perspective, however, it is also an effort to validate a badly wounded neoliberal agenda by tying left opponents of that agenda to a reviled foreign power.

Fake news is a real problem as is the violence it can incite. At the very least such violence should be identified and its perpetrators punished. Libel laws should be enforced with regard to innocents targeted by such mega giants as Bezos and his journalistic toy. The problems of fake news are not going to be resolved by establishing a private corporate cop or censor for the internet nor by establishing one more secretive watchdog. The Washington Post and the CIA are both propagators of fake news. This is one more argument for both net neutrality and a more robust anti-trust enforcement. The best answer to fake news is a more diverse media. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License John Buell lives in Southwest Harbor, Maine and writes on labor and environmental issues. His most recent book, published by Palgrave in August 2011, is "Politics, Religion, and Culture in an Anxious Age" . He may be reached at [email protected] .

[Oct 15, 2017] New McCarthyism Targets Trump by John V. Walsh

I thought the same way as John in January 2017. We both were definitely wrong. As were many people who voted for Trump in a hope to block ascendance of neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton to power. Now it is unclear whether Hillary Clinton would be so disastrous in foreign policy as Trump or slightly less so.
The period when Trump was at least formally ant-war is firmly in the past now and probably ended with inauguration. In April Trump folded to neocons and destroyed his anti-war credentials with Tomahawk salvo in Syria. Instead of fighting "the Washington swap" as he promised to his voters, he became a part of the swamp. In August Trump himself emerged as a bona-fide warmonger stoking the tension with North Korea. And in October he decertified Iran deal.
Notable quotes:
"... The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of Washington as his adversaries, not his allies -- a move that makes perfect sense if Trump's desire is to rein in the War Party's New Cold War and to strive for a New Détente with Russia. ..."
"... If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded "non-governmental organizations," virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of Official Washington's power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet! ..."
"... As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking on a wide range of attackers. ..."
Jan 04, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

... ... ...

When President Obama expelled Russian diplomats over the hysterical and unproven accusation of Russia "hacking the election," Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to be drawn into a petty squabble, saying he would delay any response until Donald Trump assumed office. Instead Putin invited American diplomats and their families in Moscow to join the official holiday celebrations in the Kremlin.

Then came the shock that shook Official Washington: President-elect Trump, in the form of a tweet heard round the world, wrote: "Great move on delay (by V. Putin) -- I always knew he was very smart!"

And just to be sure that everyone saw it, Trump "pinned" the tweet which means it is the first thing seen by viewers of his account. This was a first use of "pinning" for Trump. And to be doubly sure, he posted it on Instagram as well. This was no spontaneous midnight outburst but a very deliberate action taken on Friday noon, Dec. 30, the day after Obama had issued his retaliation order.

The implications of this move are, arguably, breathtaking. Trump treated Putin as his ally, not as a hated adversary. And he treated Obama and the bipartisan foreign policy elite of Washington as his adversaries, not his allies -- a move that makes perfect sense if Trump's desire is to rein in the War Party's New Cold War and to strive for a New Détente with Russia.

If the main enemy is those who are stoking the New Cold War and risking worse, then Trump has placed himself squarely against these war hawks. And stop to consider for a moment who these folks are. Besides President Obama and Hillary Clinton, they represent a full-blown armchair army: neocons, liberal interventionists, the mainstream media, various Soros-funded "non-governmental organizations," virtually all the important think tanks, the leadership of both major parties, and the CIA and the other U.S. intelligence agencies. This array of Official Washington's power elite has been working 24/7 at demonizing Putin and stoking tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. Trump took on all of them on with his tweet!

Putin as Ally Against the War Party

As Trump looks for new allies in pursuit of a New Détente and a relaxation of U.S.-Russian tensions, Putin is foremost among them. Thus, in the struggle for peace, Trump has drawn new lines, and they cross national borders. Not since Ronald Reagan embraced Mikhail Gorbachev or Richard Nixon went to China have we seen a development like this. In this new battle to reduce tensions between nuclear powers, Trump has shown considerable courage, taking on a wide range of attackers.

Later that afternoon, Maya Kosoff writing for Vanity Fair put out an article entitled "Twitter Melts Down over 'Treason' After Trump Praises Putin." The first batch of such tweets came from "journalists and other foreign policy experts," the next from Evan McMullin, the former CIA officer who tried to draw off Republican votes from Trump in the general election, who tweeted: "To be clear, @realDonaldTrump is siding with America's greatest adversary even as it attacks our democracy. Never grow desensitized to this."

Finally came the predictable rash of tweets calling Trump's words "treasonous" or "seditious." In response, Team Trump refused to issue a "clarification," saying instead that Trump's words spoke for themselves.

As stunning as Trump's tweet was in many ways, it was in other ways entirely predictable. Despite the mainstream media's scorn and Hillary Clinton's mocking him as Putin's "puppet," Trump has held firm to his promise that he will seek peace with Russia and look for areas of cooperation such as fighting terrorism.

So, even when Trump's Russia comments appeared to cost him politically, he stuck with them, suggesting that he believes that this détente is important. The rule of thumb is that if a politician says something that will win votes, you do not know whether it is conviction or opportunism. But if a politician says something that should lose her or him votes, then you can bet it is heartfelt.

Trump was bashed over his resistance to the New Cold War both during the Republican primaries when many GOP leaders were extremely hawkish on Russia and during the general election when the Clinton campaign sought to paint him as some sort of Manchurian Candidate. Even his vice presidential candidate Mike Pence staked out a more hawkish position than Trump.

Trump stood by his more dovish attitude though it presented few electoral advantages and many negatives. By that test, he appears to be sincere. So, his latest opening to Putin was entirely predictable.

A Choice of Peace or War

What is troubling, however, is that some Americans who favor peace hate Trump so much that they recoil from speaking out in his defense over his "treasonous" tweet though they may privately agree with it. Some progressives are uncomfortable with the mainstream's descent into crude McCarthyism but don't want to say anything favorable about Trump.

After all, a vote for President is either thumbs up or thumbs down -- nothing in between -- though voters may like or dislike some policy prescriptions of one candidate and other positions of another candidate. And progressives could list many reasons to not vote for Trump.

But a presidential administration is multi-issued -- not all or none. One can disagree with a president on some issues and agree on others. For instance, many progressives are outraged over Trump's harsh immigration policies but agree with him on scrapping the TPP trade deal.

In other words, there is no reason why those who claim to be for peace should not back Trump on his more peaceful approach toward Putin and Russia, even if they disdain his tough talk about fighting terrorism. That is the reality of politics.

What I've discovered is that many progressives -- as well as many on the Right -- who oppose endless war and disdain empire will tell you in whispers that they do support Trump's attempt at Détente 2.0, though they doubt he will succeed. In the meantime, they are keeping their heads down and staying quiet.

But clearly Trump's success depends on how much support he gets -- as weighed against how much grief he gets. By lacking the courage to defend Trump's "treasonous tweet," those who want to rein in the warmongers may be missing a rare opportunity. If those who agree with Trump on this issue stay silent, it may be a lost opportunity as well.

John V. Walsh, an anti-war activist, can be reached at [email protected]

[Oct 15, 2017] A New McCarthyism in Hollywood by Stephen Galloway

Notable quotes:
"... Seventy years ago this week -- on March 21, 1947, to be exact -- President Truman issued an executive order that caught some of his most die-hard supporters by surprise. ..."
"... The order, wrote Robert Justin Goldstein in Prologue ..."
"... their summons sent waves of fear coursing through the industry, enough to paralyze even liberal supporters such as Humphrey Bogart, and certainly more conservative ones such as Gary Cooper. ..."
"... By the end of the hearings, 10 of the witnesses had been cited for contempt of court, and soon some of the top movie executives issued what became known as the Waldorf Statement, a two-page press release vowing that "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist." ..."
"... The Hollywood Ten would serve time in prison and emerge to find themselves banished from the studios, forced to scrimp and scrape and use "fronts" just to survive. More than a decade would pass before they were able to work freely again. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether McCarthyism could ever find a foothold in Hollywood or America again. I didn't think so, until now. That possibility was always present in the minds of the blacklisted, some of whom I came to know when I arrived in Los Angeles in the 1980s, among them Martin Ritt, the director of such pictures as Hud, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold and Norma Rae. ..."
"... Marty was blacklisted for several years and later made a movie about the experience, 1976's comedy-drama The Front ..."
"... Edge of the City ..."
"... Tom, Dick and Harry ..."
"... More than careers were hurt: friendships were sundered, relationships broken, families destroyed, lives ruined. Even those who weren't victims of the blacklist lived in constant fear that they might become victims, too. ..."
"... Because fear is the most contagious of diseases. It spreads with a will of its own, infecting innocent and guilty alike, poisoning the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Those who instill fear are often afraid. And the more they inflict fear on others, the more likely they are to feel it themselves. ..."
Mar 20, 2017 | www.hollywoodreporter.com
It's been 70 years since President Truman ordered his loyalty tests. Now Hollywood has a loyalty test of its own.

Seventy years ago this week -- on March 21, 1947, to be exact -- President Truman issued an executive order that caught some of his most die-hard supporters by surprise.

The order, wrote Robert Justin Goldstein in Prologue magazine, "required that all federal civil service employees be screened for 'loyalty.' [It] specified that one criterion would be a finding of 'membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association' with any organization determined by the attorney general to be 'totalitarian, Fascist, Communist or subversive' or advocating or approving the forceful denial of constitutional rights to other persons or seeking 'to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means.'"

Two and a half years before Sen. Joseph McCarthy raised his ugly head and alleged massive Communist infiltration of the government, the "red scare" was underway. It would have a devastating impact on Hollywood.

Months after Truman's order, several dozen members of the film industry were summoned to appear as witnesses before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Nineteen of them, known as the "Unfriendly Nineteen" -- a term coined by the then-red-baiting Hollywood Reporter -- were left-wingers, hostile to the committee. Billy Wilder mordantly quipped that "only two of them have talent. The rest are just unfriendly." But their summons sent waves of fear coursing through the industry, enough to paralyze even liberal supporters such as Humphrey Bogart, and certainly more conservative ones such as Gary Cooper.

By the end of the hearings, 10 of the witnesses had been cited for contempt of court, and soon some of the top movie executives issued what became known as the Waldorf Statement, a two-page press release vowing that "We will forthwith discharge or suspend without compensation those in our employ, and we will not re-employ any of the ten until such time as he is acquitted or has purged himself of contempt and declares under oath that he is not a Communist."

The Hollywood Ten would serve time in prison and emerge to find themselves banished from the studios, forced to scrimp and scrape and use "fronts" just to survive. More than a decade would pass before they were able to work freely again.

***

I've often wondered whether McCarthyism could ever find a foothold in Hollywood or America again. I didn't think so, until now. That possibility was always present in the minds of the blacklisted, some of whom I came to know when I arrived in Los Angeles in the 1980s, among them Martin Ritt, the director of such pictures as Hud, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold and Norma Rae.

Marty was blacklisted for several years and later made a movie about the experience, 1976's comedy-drama The Front , starring Woody Allen and Zero Mostel. He was a man of enormous integrity, who was blackballed without explanation, though he insisted he had never been a member of the Communist Party. Overnight, his work dried up and he was forced to return to his roots in the theater -- along with the racetrack, where he made his real money. He could have named names to get himself off the hook, but he didn't, in contrast to his close friend Elia Kazan, whose betrayal stung him to the quick.

Ritt was relatively lucky; he was allowed back into the Hollywood fold sooner than most, when he got to direct the low-budget feature Edge of the City (1957), the first of the 20-plus films he would make over the following three decades. Others were less fortunate. Paul Jarrico, a writer whom I also was privileged to meet and who'd been Oscar-nominated in his mid-20s for Tom, Dick and Harry (1941), fled to Paris, his career never to bounce back to the heights it had reached before.

More than careers were hurt: friendships were sundered, relationships broken, families destroyed, lives ruined. Even those who weren't victims of the blacklist lived in constant fear that they might become victims, too.

Because fear is the most contagious of diseases. It spreads with a will of its own, infecting innocent and guilty alike, poisoning the oppressor as well as the oppressed. Those who instill fear are often afraid. And the more they inflict fear on others, the more likely they are to feel it themselves.

[Oct 15, 2017] The New McCarthyism by Michael Rivero

Notable quotes:
"... in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war. ..."
"... However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a "Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the "Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so afraid of the communists. ..."
"... In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the FBI. ..."
"... While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how they were told to make them. ..."
"... Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957. ..."
"... Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers' wallets. ..."
"... But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one, "Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a career for them. ..."
"... Charles Lindbergh the famous aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941... ..."
"... Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak. ..."
"... If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are far less ruinous than in times past. ..."
"... While people like Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage, history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.whatreallyhappened.com

Back in the year 1947, the House Select Committee began an investigation into the Motion Picture Industry. Ostensibly the goal was to ferret out communists working in the film industry. But in actuality the US Government was concerned that Hollywood was no longer as blindly supportive of government policy as it had been only a few years earlier at the height of WW2. In particular, J. Edgar Hoover had long held the opinion that the entertainment industry should be the propaganda arm for the government in peace time as well as war.

However, as WW2 had ended, the defense establishment had lobbied for the creation of a "Cold" war against the Soviet Union, a war not actually to be fought, but constantly to be prepared for at huge cost to the taxpayers. This cost was the visible manifestation of the "Military Industrial Complex" President Eisenhower referred to in his farewell address, and many in Hollywood openly wondered just why so much more money had to be thrown into the war machine during a time of peace, and more to the point, just why we were supposed to be so afraid of the communists.

Hoover's desire to remake Hollywood into a gigantic propaganda machine had started at the end of WW1 when Hoover tried to persuade Charlie Chaplin to cease making films that portrayed authority figures as oafish buffoons. Chaplin refused, laughed at Hoover. Years later, as head of the FBI, Hoover was instrumental in having Charlie Chaplin's citizenship revoked in retaliation.

Hoover's mania with Hollywood was a seldom reported but constant factor in show business. The 1959 film, "The FBI Story" starring Air Force General Jimmy Stewart was reportedly directed by Mervyn LeRoy, but in actuality J. Edgar Hoover was personally supervising the film (and briefly appears in it, shown only from the back) to make certain the "correct" image of the FBI was shown.

In later years, FBI informants became permanent fixtures at movie studios, and spied for the FBI. When Disney Studios made "That Darned Cat", a pre-production copy of the screenplay "somehow" made its way to the FBI, which promptly sent Disney a memo expressing concern at how the FBI was to be portrayed.

[That Darned Cat]Click for full sized page. [That Darned Cat]Click for full sized page.

Likewise, when Paramount Pictures produced, "Skidoo", starring Jackie Gleason, it featured a single scene in which Gleason's character is seen fleeing a building marked, "FBI" carrying a file cabinet on his back. That one single scene prompted the following four page memo.

[Skidoo page 1]Click for full sized page. [Skidoo page 2]Click for full sized page.
[Skidoo page 3]Click for full sized page. [Skidoo page 4]Click for full sized page.

Along with "nudging" the film studios to portray certain things certain ways, the FBI did not hesitate to wreck the careers of those people it felt posed a dangerous threat to the government's public image. During the height of the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the FBI destroyed the career of actress Jean Seberg

Jean Seberg was considered a threat to the US Government because of her public support for civil rights at a time when the Civil Rights movement was starting to point out the racial bias in the draft system that placed a disproportionate percentage of black kids on the front lines of Vietnam. Seberg was also a supporter of the Black Panthers in their pre-militant days when their agenda was breakfasts for the ghetto kids, local control of school curriculum, and ending the draft.

Jean Seberg, a well known actress in the 60s, became pregnant and the FBI sent out letters to the gossip columnists identifying the baby's father as a Black Panther, in order to cheapen Seberg's image. Keep in mind that the 60s was an era in which sexual relations between blacks and whites was still considered taboo by most Americans.

The scans below are of the official FBI letter from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. asking permission for the scam.

[Seberg Letter Page 1]letter requesting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.

[Seberg Letter Page 2]page two of request for permission to smear of Jean Seberg

The text of the letter:

"Bureau permission is requested to publicize the pregnancy of Jean Seberg, well-known movie actress by (name deleted) Black Panther (BPP) (deleted) by advising Hollywood "Gossip-Columnists" in the Los Angeles area of the situation. It is felt that the possible publication of Seberg's plight could cause her embarrassment and serve to cheapen her image with the general public.

" 'It is proposed that the following letter from a fictitious person be sent to local columnists:

"I was just thinking about you and remembered I still owe you a favor. So ---- I was in Paris last week and ran into Jean Seberg, who was heavy with baby. I thought she and Romaine [sic] had gotten together again, but she confided the child belonged to (deleted) of the Black Panthers, one (deleted). The dear girl is getting around!

" 'Anyway, I thought you might get a scoop on the others. Be good and I'll see you soon.

'Love,
" 'Sol.,

"Usual precautions would be taken by the Los Angeles Division to preclude identification of the Bureau as the source of the letter if approval is granted."

Permission to use the fake letter was granted, but with the suggestion that the smear be delayed until Jean Seberg's pregnancy was in a very obvious condition.

[Seberg Letter Page 1] letter granting permission for the smearing of Jean Seberg.

The story was then run by Los Angeles Times propagandist Joyce Haber.

[Seberg Letter Page 2]Click for full size picture of the Haber Article that launched the smear.

The story was picked up by Newsweek and the international press. The shock of the story was so severe that Jean Seberg suffered a miscarriage. The funeral for the child was held with an open casket, so that the lie stood revealed in its most tragic form. Jean Seberg, her baby dead and her career shattered by this outright lie, attempted suicide several times, finally succeeding in a French Hotel.

[Seberg Letter Page 1] memo that accompanied copy of the Haber story sent to FBI files.

(The name which was redacted from the memo during the FOIA process is thought by many to have been Raymond Hewit, a Black Panther leader. His "outright lie" was far more direct. The FBI typed up a letter on official FBI stationary identifying Hewit as an informant and planted it where other Black Panthers would find it in the hopes that Hewit would then be killed.)

Following Seberg's death, the Los Angeles Times, the key instrument of her torment, issued a statement by the FBI.

"The days when the FBI used derogatory information to combat advocates of unpopular causes have long since passed. We are out of that business forever."

The Senate committee that looked into COINTELPRO disagreed, however.

"Cointelpro activities may continue today under the rubric of 'investigation.'

Finally, no single celebrity filled the government with more fear than did ex-Beatle John Lennon. Lennon's popularity, and hence his ability to influence popular opinion, coupled with his strong anti-war stance, made him a real threat in the event the United States decided it had to go to war. For this reason, Lennon was one of the most watched celebrities, and according to Lennon's youngest son, the victim of a government assassination plot.

[Lennon 1]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 2]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 3]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 4]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 5]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 6]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 7]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 8]Click for full sized page.
[Lennon 9]Click for full sized page. [Lennon 10]Click for full sized page.

Having documented the FBI's willingness to destroy anyone they feel represents a threat to the government, let us return to the days of the House Select Committee on UnAmerican Activities.

While Senator Joseph McCarthy grabbed headlines with his shouts of "Communist", Hoover set about his self-appointed task of purging Hollywood of any he viewed as "disloyal" to the United States, which meant anyone unwilling to make the movies they were told to make, when and how they were told to make them. Senator McCarthy's screed of "Communist" provided Hoover with a bludgeon he could and did use with impunity on Hollywood's creative talents. Careers were ruined. Some 400 people, mostly innocent of any actual wrongdoing, were destroyed. Some, like Jean Seberg would later do, committed suicide. Ten men (the famous Hollywood Ten), Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Ring Lardner jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, Dalton Trumbo, and eminent director Edward Dmytryk were jailed for contempt of Congress.

Others punished for refusing to cooperate included Larry Adler, Stella Adler, Leonard Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Joseph Bromberg, Charlie Chaplin, Aaron Copland, Hanns Eisler, Carl Foreman, John Garfield, Howard Da Silva, Dashiell Hammett, E. Y. Harburg, Lillian Hellman, Burl Ives, Arthur Miller, Dorothy Parker, Philip Loeb, Joseph Losey, Anne Revere, Pete Seeger, Gale Sondergaard, Louis Untermeyer, Josh White, Clifford Odets, Michael Wilson, Paul Jarrico, Jeff Corey, John Randolph, Canada Lee, Orson Welles, Paul Green, Sidney Kingsley, Paul Robeson, Richard Wright and Abraham Polonsky. Lee Grant was registered on the black list because she refused to give evidence against her husband Arnold Manoff.

Stars such as Larry Parks were destroyed because they refused to "name names" of other actors who were party members. Actor Philip Loeb committed suicide. Edward G. Robinson, never a communist, was put on a "grey list," and spent the rest of his life making B movies (except for his final role opposite Charlton Heston in "Soylent Green"). Sam Jaffe, formerly a well-known actor and Oscar winner in 1950 was registered on the black list because he refused to cooperate with the committee. He spent the next 6 years working as a math teacher and living at his sister's until he was able to return to films in 1957.

Of course, what was really involved was money. War is good for business. Business had been great during WW2 and the newly created "Cold War" was just a way to keep business good. The Military Industrial Complex NEEDED Hollywood to demonize the Soviets. Otherwise, too many people were going to ask why we were being told to be so afraid of them, and few in the government had a really convincing answer for that question. So, in order to perpetuate the Cold War, those in Hollywood who might sympathize with the designated villains had to be removed; their ruined lives a small price to pay for unending access to the taxpayers' wallets.

But that was then and this is now.

Once again vast sums of money are being spent on a war, this time a hot one and getting hotter. Once again parties with a vested interest are out to smear and destroy anyone who dares ask if the wars are worth the sacrifice of our young people (not to mention the money), indeed if there really is any point at all to the wars aside from justifying the flow of money to defense contractors.

But the Soviet Union has gone out of business. The word "communist" doesn't carry the same psychological impact it used to, so the war hawk smear squad has come up with a new one, "Anti-Semite." Like "Communist", "Anti-Semite" is used to ruin the lives of people who have not actually done anything wrong other than to challenge the war profiteers. It is a new word for an old trick, and I am amazed that they are still playing the same old game, but I guess the FBI can always find some dumb-assed idiot to fall for it and do their dirty work of wrecking a career for them.

Of course, it really isn't that new a word. Oddly enough, Charles Lindbergh the famous aviator commented in a speech in Des Moines in 1941...

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Today we are seeing once again the heavy hand of the war profiteers trying to reshape the film industry into a tool to propagandize the public into a high war-fever such that they will gladly trade their own blood for gold to line the pockets of the defense establishment. And those individuals who have the courage to speak out are attacked, and once again they are smeared to silence them. In the 1940s it was "Communist", today it is "Anti-Semite", but aside from the particular label used, the methods, goals, and morality are little changed from the days of Joseph McCarthy.

If there is a difference today it is that the American people are better educated. No longer dependent on the state schools, or controlled media, the public understands the tactics used to silence those who speak out. As a result, those who speak out are more and more not only accorded the sympathetic ear that their message deserves, but the effects of the smearing are far less ruinous than in times past.

Thus, when we see people like Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard speak out and survive, or when people like Tom Shadyac (or myself) voluntarily walk away from Hollywood because speaking the truth matters more to them, it sends a message that it is now permissible, indeed imperative to speak out. This is not to say that there are not risks. Rosie O'Donnell lost her spot on "The View", but the majority of Americans understand exactly why, and understand that Rosie sacrificed a great deal trying to get the truth out. Rosie is and will be remembered as a hero for truth long after her co-hosts on "The View" are properly forgotten.

In contrast, of course, we look back at those who aided the "Commie" witch-hunts of the 1940s with deserved contempt. No doubt many aided Hoover purely to rid themselves of competition, and then tried to lull themselves to sleep with the idea that in some way they had actually done something good for the nation by wrecking their neighbors' careers. I have no doubt strong liquor played a role in this grossest of self-deception. But if the informants and smear artists of the 1940s are remembered in a poor light, that should serve as a reminder to the informants and smear artists of today. It does not matter what you do with the rest of your life, aiding the new version of McCarthyism is how history will remember you. While people like Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, and Marion Cotillard (and to step out of entertainment, former President Jimmy Carter) will be remembered and honored for their courage, history will lump the smear artists together with Stalin's "Useful idiots", little more than no-talent opportunists for whom ratting out someone was the fastest path to advancement.

They say that history repeats itself, and indeed that is the major thing wrong with history. We are seeing history repeat itself again. We have been down this path before, in the 1940s. Whether the word is "Communist" or "Anti-Semite", Hollywood is making the same mistake all over again. And Hollywood will have to live with that image in the coming decades.

[Oct 15, 2017] Could we reverse a hacked presidential election by Vinay Nayak and Samuel Breidbart

Those two "propaganda solders" from Yale release outright lies about "stealing information from 90,000 voting records in the state of Illinois alone. " as it this is a fact. Looks like those students learned quickly from their Yale "color revolution" teachers ;-)
The USA perfected election interference technique in dozen of color revolution in xUSSR republics and other areas of the globe. Actually the first color revolution was organized in 1974.
Now DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) and elements of intelligence agencies and MS who support them simply can not quit... Now quitting involved potential significant PR damage... McCarthyism has its own internal dynamics. The danger for DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats of Clinton wing of the party) now is that if Russian were investigated why Israelis and Saudies (along with other Gulf monarchies) were not.
Please note that Yale is the main US educational institution that teaches foreign students color revolution theory and practice... See, for example Sott.net and Kerry Re-writes History of U.S. Support for Color Revolutions
Notable quotes:
"... Setting Trump aside, what if a foreign government succeeds in the future in electing an American president through active vote manipulation? ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.msn.com

In the past few weeks, we have learned that the Russian government reached more than 10 million Americans with a misinformation campaign on Facebook, and that hackers targeted 21 state election systems , stealing information from 90,000 voting records in the state of Illinois alone. These are just the latest of many revelations about Russia's unprecedented interference in the election.

It is cold comfort that we have no evidence so far that Moscow actually manipulated vote tallies to change the election's outcome.

But what if it emerges that Russian operatives were successful on that front as well? Setting Trump aside, what if a foreign government succeeds in the future in electing an American president through active vote manipulation?

The Constitution offers no clear way to remedy such a disaster.

Any evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia raises its own set of important issues -- now being assiduously investigated by special counsel Robert Mueller. But the disturbing scenario in which hackers manipulate election results, conceivably rendering the true vote tally unrecoverable, would pose a unique threat to a foundational principle of our democracy: rule by the consent of the governed. We would in no sense have a government "by the people."

Although such a constitutional crisis now seems all too plausible, we have yet to seriously consider provisions that might protect our democracy -- measures that could allow us to reverse such a result.

... ... ...

Vinay Nayak and Samuel Breidbart are students at Yale Law School.

[Oct 15, 2017] The Mysterious World of Social Media Manipulation by Samuel Earle

When people stop to trust MSM, rumor mill emerges as a substitute. Neoliberal MSM lost people trust. Now what ?
Notable quotes:
"... But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the US government hired a public relations firm to develop a " persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political purposes. ..."
"... The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The Washington Post ..."
"... There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger -- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.msn.com

Now the focus is less on Trump's extensive personal social media following and more on the roles that Facebook and Twitter may have played in alleged Russian interference in the election. Congress is calling on Facebook and Twitter to disclose details about how they may have been used by Russia-linked entities to try to influence the election in favor of Trump.

But despite the much-publicized case in the U.S., the pervasiveness of these political strategies on social media, from the distribution of disinformation to organized attacks on opponents, the tactics remain largely unknown to the public, as invisible as they are invasive. Citizens are exposed to them the world over, often without ever realizing it.

Drawing on two recent reports by the Oxford Internet Institute (OII) and independent research, Newsweek has outlined the covert ways in which states and other political actors use social media to manipulate public opinion around the world, focusing on six illustrative examples: the U.S., Azerbaijan, Israel, China, Russia and the U.K.

It reveals how "Cyber-troops" -- the name given to this new political force by the OII -- are enlisted by states, militaries and parties to secure power and undermine opponents, through a combination of public funding, private contracts and volunteers, and how bots -- fake accounts that purport to be real people -- can produce as many as 1,000 social media posts a day.

By generating an illusion of support for an idea or candidate in this way, bots drive up actual support by sparking a bandwagon effect -- making something or someone seem normal and like a palatable, common-sense option. As the director of the OII, Philip Howard, argues : "If you use enough of them, of bots and people, and cleverly link them together, you are what's legitimate. You are creating truth."

On social media, the consensus goes to whoever has the strongest set of resources to make it.

The U.S.: Rise of the bots

America sees a wider range of actors attempting to shape and manipulate public opinion online than any country -- with governments, political parties, and individual organizations all involved.

In its report, the OII describes 2016's Trump vs. Hillary Clinton presidential contest as a " watershed moment " when social media manipulation was "at an all-time high."

Many of the forces at play have been well-reported: whether the hundreds of thousands of bots or the right-wing sites like Breitbart distributing divisive stories. In Michigan, in the days before the election, fake news was shared as widely as professional journalism . Meanwhile firms like Cambridge Analytica, self-described specialists in "election management," worked for Trump to target swing voters, mainly on Facebook.

While Hillary Clinton's campaign also engaged in such tactics, with big-data and pro-Clinton bots multiplying in number as her campaign progressed, Trump's team proved the most effective. Overall, pro-Trump bots generated five times as much activity at key moments of the campaign as pro-Clinton ones. These Twitter bots -- which often had zero followers -- copied each other's messages and sent out advertisements alongside political content. They regularly retweeted Dan Scavino, Trump's social media director.

One high-ranking Republican Party figure told OII that campaigning on social media was like "the Wild West." "Anything goes as long as your candidate is getting the most attention," he said. And it worked: A Harvard study concluded that overall Trump received 15 percent more media coverage than Clinton.

Targeted advertising to specific demographics was also central to Trump's strategy. Clinton spent two and a half times more than Trump on television adverts and had a 73% share of nationally focused digital ads.

But Trump's team, led by Cambridge Analytica for the final months, focused on sub-groups. In one famous example, an anti-Clinton ad that repeated her notorious speech from 1996 describing so-called "super-predators" was shown exclusively to African-American voters on Facebook in areas where the Republicans hoped to suppress the Democrat vote -- and again, it worked.

"It's well known that President Obama's campaign pioneered the use of microtargeting in 2012," a spokesperson for Cambridge Analytica tells Newsweek . "But big data and new ad tech are now revolutionizing communications and marketing, and Cambridge Analytica is at the forefront of this paradigm shift."

"Communication enhances democracy, not endangers it. We enable voters to have their concerns heard, and we help political candidates communicate their policy positions."

The firm argues that its partnership with American right-wing candidates -- first Ted Cruz and then Trump -- is purely circumstantial. "We work in politics, but we're not political," the spokesperson said.

The company is part-owned by the family of Robert Mercer, which was one of Trump's major donors, while Stephen K. Bannon sat on the company's board until he was appointed White House chief strategist (he was dismissed from his post seven months later). According to Bannon's March federal financial disclosure, he held shares worth as much as $5 million in the company . On October 11, it was also revealed that the House Intelligence Committee has asked the company to provide information for its ongoing probe into Russian interference.

But social media manipulation did not begin or end with the election. As early as 2011, the US government hired a public relations firm to develop a " persona management tool " that would develop and control fake profiles on social media for political purposes.

The British parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL), has been a client of the government for years, working with the Department of Defense, and The Washington Post reports that it recently secured work with the State Department.

There is also growing awareness of hundreds of thousands of so-called "sleeper" bots: Accounts that have tweeted only once or twice for Trump, and which now sit silently, waiting for a trigger -- a key political moment -- to spread disinformation and drown out opposing views.

Emilio Ferrara, an Assistant Research Professor at the University of Southern California Computer Science department, even suggests the possibility of "a black-market for reusable political disinformation bots," ready to be utilitized wherever they are needed, the world over. These fears appeared to be confirmed by reports that the same bots used to back Trump were then deployed against eventual winner Emmanuel Macron in this year's French presidential election.

[Oct 15, 2017] Is Trump the Heir to Reagan? by Patrick J. Buchanan

Bastard neoliberalism by Trump (and Bannon) are inconsistent. You can't be half pregnant -- to be a neoliberal (promote deregulation, regressive taxes) and be anti-immigration and anti-globalist. In this sense words Trump is doomed: neoliberal are determined to get rid of him.
Reagan was a former governor of California before becoming the President. hardly a complete outsider. Trump was an outsider more similar to Barak Obama in a sense that he has no political record and can ride on backlash against neoliberal globalization, especially outsourcing and offshoring and unlimited immigration, as well as ride anti-globalism sentiments and popular protest against foreign wars. Only quickly betraying those promised afterward. Much like king of "bait and switch" Obama .
Notable quotes:
"... Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first. ..."
"... Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot. ..."
"... He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more. ..."
"... Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military. ..."
"... Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security. ..."
"... Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time. ..."
"... As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s. ..."
"... Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill. ..."
"... And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics." ..."
"... It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class. ..."
"... Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment. ..."
"... There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive. ..."
"... Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently. ..."
"... As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves. ..."
"... Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup. ..."
"... Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. ..."
"... you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process. ..."
Oct 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

Both men were outsiders, and neither a career politician. Raised Democratic, Reagan had been a Hollywood actor, union leader and voice of GE, before running for governor of California.

Trump is out of Queens, a builder-businessman in a Democratic city whose Republican credentials were suspect at best when he rode down that elevator at Trump Tower. Both took on the Republican establishment of their day, and humiliated it.

Among the signature issues of Trumpian populism is economic nationalism, a new trade policy designed to prosper Americans first.

Reagan preached free trade, but when Harley-Davidson was in danger of going under because of Japanese dumping of big bikes, he slammed a 50 percent tariff on Japanese motorcycles. Though a free trader by philosophy, Reagan was at heart an economic patriot.

He accepted an amnesty written by Congress for 3 million people in the country illegally, but Reagan also warned prophetically that a country that can't control its borders isn't really a country any more.

Reagan and Trump both embraced the Eisenhower doctrine of "peace through strength." And, like Ike, both built up the military.

Both also believed in cutting tax rates to stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget through rising revenues rather than cutting programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.

And both were regarded in this capital city with a cosmopolitan condescension bordering on contempt. "An amiable dunce" said a Great Society Democrat of Reagan.

The awesome victories Reagan rolled up, a 44-state landslide in 1980 and a 49-state landslide in 1984, induced some second thoughts among Beltway elites about whether they truly spoke for America. Trump's sweep of the primaries and startling triumph in the Electoral College caused the same consternation.

However, as the Great Depression, New Deal and World War II represented a continental divide in history between what came before and what came after, so, too, did the end of the Cold War and the Reagan era.

As Ingraham writes, Trump_vs_deep_state is rooted as much in the populist-nationalist campaigns of the 1990s, and post-Cold War issues as economic patriotism, border security, immigration control and "America First," as it is in the Reaganite issues of the 1980s.

Which bring us to the present, with our billionaire president, indeed, at the barricades.

The differences between Trump in his first year and Reagan in 1981 are stark. Reagan had won a landslide. The attempt on his life in April and the grace with which he conducted himself had earned him a place in the hearts of his countrymen. He not only showed spine in giving the air traffic controllers 48 hours to get back to work, and then discharging them when they defied him, he enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history with the aid of boll weevil Democrats in the House.

Coming up on one year since his election, Trump is besieged by a hostile press and united Democratic Party. This city hates him. While his executive actions are impressive, his legislative accomplishments are not. His approval ratings have lingered in the mid-30s. He has lost half a dozen senior members of his original White House staff, clashed openly with his own Cabinet and is at war with GOP leaders on the Hill.

Greg Bacon , Website October 13, 2017 at 10:24 am GMT

And both are fans of the tinkle-down theory of economics, where the govt cuts taxes on the rich and increases them on the poor and middle class, since the rich will do a better job of spreading around the extra money they get to keep, thereby stoking the economy, supposedly. Or as 'Poppy' Bush called it, "voodoo economics."

It's a failed regressive tax program that only creates more billionaires while the number of poor swells, due to an influx of the steadily declining middle-class.

The only parts of the economy it helps are the builders of luxury mansions, antique and pricey art dealers, and the makers of luxury autos and private jets.

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT
@Mark James

when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process

Bizarrely, comically ignorant of reality. Though the really bizarre thing is the degree to which the same obtusely ignorant world-view permeates the establishment media and the political establishment.

Two pieces here at Unz you ought to read, and fully take on board the implications of, if you want to even begin the process of grasping reality, rather than living in the manufactured fantasy you appear to inhabit at the moment:

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

Both believed in engaging with the superpower rival of the day -- the Soviet Union in Reagan's day, Russia and China in Trump's time.

There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism. Reagan's opposition to the Soviet Union was very much bound up in resistance to that ideology, even if that resistance was often as much a pretext as a real motive.

Today neither Russia nor China subscribes to any such universalist ideology. It is the US, today, that seeks to impose its liberal democratic political correctness ideologies and its manufactured taboos upon the world and which harasses and menaces any country that tries to live differently.

As for Trump supposedly being wrapped up in "America First", that's particularly comical this week as he demonstrates that his idea of "America First" is acting as Israel's bitch, and as he makes ever louder noises about undermining the Iran deal – a policy as clearly counterproductive to any interest plausibly attributable to the American nation (as opposed to the identity lobbies that run the US government politics and media) as it is self-evidently in the self-perceived interests of the Israel Lobby and the foreign country that lobby serves.

Here's the German government being unusually blunt yesterday about the stupidity of the Trump regime's seeming plans in this regard:

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel on Thursday said that any move by US President Donald Trump's administration to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal would drive a wedge between Europe and the US.

"It's imperative that Europe sticks together on this issue," Gabriel told Germany's RND newspaper group. "We also have to tell the Americans that their behavior on the Iran issue will drive us Europeans into a common position with Russia and China against the USA."

http://www.dw.com/en/germany-warns-donald-trump-against-decertifying-iran-deal/a-40933703

It's difficult to know whether the likes of Gabriel actually believe all the boilerplate nonsense they talk about a supposed Iranian nuclear program – the real reason the European nations want the deal to continue is that it stopped them having to pretend to believe all the outright lies the US told about Iran, and having to kowtow t0 costly and counterproductive sanctions against Iran that did immense general harm for the benefit only of Israel and Saudi Arabia and their US stooges.

The US pulling out of the deal would at least bring that issue of US dishonesty on Iran and past European appeasement of it to a head, I suppose.

John Jeremiah Smith , October 13, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
Trump is an egotistical jackass, nothing else. A liar from the git-go, and a completely ineffective leader, ideologue and President. He's not going to last much longer. I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety. But, he has molted into a complete fuckup.

Goodbye, good riddance. Let's get ready to deal with the next wacko -- Pence. Assuming they won't kill Pence with the same bomb.

YetAnotherAnon , October 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT
@Mark James

"As for Trump I think it's crystal clear his campaign involved the Russians in our election. "

It's crystal clear that some people will believe any crap that The Media Formerly Known As Hillary's broadcast.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

I will take note that he did, temporarily, save us from the madness of the Hillary moiety.

Often I feel like it'd be better if Hillary did the same insane policies. It's always worse when our guy does something wrong, and better when the hated enemy does it.

Hillary was a danger that she would start WW3 in Syria, but I don't think we can be certain she'd have started it. Given how risk-averse women are in general, I think the only issue was whether the Russians could've made it clear that shooting at Russian soldiers would mean war with Russia. And I think even Hillary's advisers would've blinked.

On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran. As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in the world.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT
@Randal

Unfortunately I can see Orbán and the Poles torpedoing a common EU stance. I'm sure that will be the price for Netanyahu's meeting with the V4 leaders a few months ago.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT
I think one good thing would be if US conservatives stopped their Reagan worship. He was certainly not a bad person, but he allowed the amnesty to happen, couldn't stop the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa, didn't (or couldn't?) do anything against the MLK cult becoming a state religion, and started the free trade and tax cuts cults, he's also responsible for promoting the neocons to positions of power. So overall he was a mixed bag from a nationalist conservative viewpoint.
Chris Mallory , October 13, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT
@Mark James

Private citizens are forbidden to ask for help from a foreign country, when the US Government is trying to prevent alien forces from interfering in our electoral process.

You forgot the Clintons, Bush, McCain, Romney, and Obama. China and Israel worked on behalf of all five of them, even though three of them lost

Randal , October 13, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Yes, that's quite possible, but a common EU stance is not really all that important. What really matters is how far the Germans, and to a lesser extent the less relevant but still big European nations such as France and Italy and the more subservient US tool, the UK, are prepared to continue to kowtow to US and Israeli dishonesty on Iran.

All the signs seem to be that repudiating the deal and trying to return to the days of the aggressive and counter-productive US-imposed sanctions will be a step too far for many of those players.

As a bonus, she would be accelerating the demise of the US, by introducing ever more insane domestic policies, things like gay, transsexual and female quotas in US Special Forces. This would ultimately be a good thing, destroying or weakening US power which is currently only used to evil ends in the world.

Actually I suspect that repudiating the JCPOA, whether openly or by de facto breach, will go immensely farther, and much faster, towards destroying practical US influence and therefore power globally than any of those domestic policies, at least in the short run.

You can see that Trump is at least dimly aware of that likelihood from the way he keeps bottling and postponing the decision, despite his clearly evident and desperate desire to please his pro-Israeli and anti-Iranian advisers and instincts.

John Jeremiah Smith , October 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

On the other hand, I don't think Hillary would be nearly as insane on North Korea or Iran.

An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.

reiner Tor , October 13, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

1) There's a chance foreign policy insanity starts a nuclear war, in which case all domestic policy issues will pale before such horror.

2) The US already has de facto open borders. Why does it matter if it becomes majority nonwhite in 30 or just 20 years?

3) For non-American whites, it's better the earlier the US sphere disintegrates. I bet you it's better for American whites as well. As long as this political/cultural center holds, the rot cannot be stopped.

The Alarmist , October 13, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT
I watched the movie Independence Day last night: Can we have that guy for President after Trump, or do we have to have an obligatory Democrat (Chelsea Clinton?) President for the next 8 years?
German_reader , October 13, 2017 at 6:57 pm GMT
@John Jeremiah Smith

An election of Hillary meant open borders. That is official, rapid and deliberate national suicide. All foreign policy issues pale before such a horror.

That's understandable, but obviously the calculation must be somewhat different from a non-US perspective. Given how strongly many white Americans are in favor of pro-war policies and mindless Israel worship (how many US blacks or Hispanics care about Israel or confronting Iran?), I'm not even sure nationalists in Europe should really lament the Hispanicization of the US. It might at least have a positive effect in restricting US interventionism and eroding US power. The sooner the US is unable to continue with its self-appointed role as a global redeemer nation, the better.

RadicalCenter , October 13, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT
@Mark James

Glad you think it's "crystal clear." How about evidence?

nsa , October 13, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT
History repeats first as tragedy (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly white air traffic controllers), then as farce (crushing the spoiled unionized mostly afro NFL jocks). Reagan was at least an American Firster. Trumpenstein is an obvious traitorous Izzie Firster, with little concern for the so-called deplorables except to convert them into deployables at the service of his jooie sponsors. Maybe Paddy should have titled his screed "Heir to Begin, not Reagan"?
Aren Haich , October 13, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT
Pat Buchanan points out that " it is far more likely that a major war would do for the Trump presidency and his place in history what it did for Presidents Wilson, Truman, LBJ and George W. Bush."

As for President Trump; Let us hope that war DOES NOT BECOME "The Last Refuge Of This Scoundrel"!

John Gruskos , October 13, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Orban has been critical of regime change wars.

John Gruskos , October 13, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT
@German_reader

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

If only non-White votes were counted, Hillary Clinton would have been elected unanimously by the electoral college, and Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.

The few reliable voices for foreign policy sanity in congress, such as Senator Rand Paul and Congressmen Walter Jones, John Duncan, Thomas Massie, and Justin Amash, represent overwhelmingly White, Protestant, old-stock American districts.

German_reader , October 13, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT
@John Gruskos

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

Maybe, but is there any data indicating many blacks in Washington DC actually voted in the Republican primaries? Why would they when most of them are a solid Democrat voting block? I'd guess Rubio got his votes from white elites in DC.
As for Puerto Rico, I didn't know they actually have primaries, seems odd given they don't vote in US presidential elections.

Hillary is more of a war-monger than Trump is.

Hillary was horrible all around, and I agree she might well have been disastrous as president given her dangerous proposals for no-fly zones in Syria, and the potential of conflict with Russia this entailed. But I'm no longer sure Trump is really better regarding foreign policy. His behaviour on the North Korea issue is irresponsible imo, and his willingness to wreck the nuclear deal with Iran at the behest of neoconservatives and Zionist donors like Sheldon Adelson is a big fat minus in my view. Sorry, but I think you guys who hoped for something different have all been (neo-)conned.

Jonathan Mason , October 13, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT
Reagan said: My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.

Trump said: We will totally destroy North Korea if the United States is forced to defend itself or its allies.

Reagan was a joker, Trump is a wildcard.

Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 1:51 am GMT
The only similarities I see between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is that both live (lived) in a sort of la-la land, totally out of touch with reality. The only difference between them is that Reagan had sensible people around him (like Pat Buchannan) who wrote good speeches and make good decisions which he took full credit for. Trump, on the other hand delivers abbreviated, one-sentence speeches via Twitter while surrounded by mental midgets with military minds.
Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT
@Randal

There is arguably a fundamental difference here, that in Reagan's day there was a clear ideological threat from the Soviet Union, which was still (albeit increasingly nominally) in the grip of an aggressively destabilising universalist ideology, communism

Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.

Carroll Price , October 14, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
@John Gruskos

Rubio was far more of a war-monger than Trump, and he won the primaries in the majority non-White jurisdictions (Washington DC, Puerto Rico).

but you're forgetting that Trump wasn't a war monger while on the campaign trail, far from it. Which is the only reason he won the election. In other words he fooled just enough people (like you and me) long enough to get elected. Same thing happened with peace candidate, and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Hussein Obama. It's clearly a rigged process.

Randal , October 14, 2017 at 7:48 am GMT
@Carroll Price

Not really Randal. The Cold War was an invented war like the War on Terror that replaced just in the nick of time, and for the same purpose, which is to justify unlimited defense budgets necessary to sustain a bloated MIC that would not otherwise exist.

Well, yes and no. In both cases. It really is more complicated than that.

KA , October 14, 2017 at 11:18 am GMT
Reagan didn't undo Arab Israel Camp David Peace Treaty He didn't keep the Israeli side and undo the Egyptian side of the American obligation . He kept both.

Trump is dangerous malevolent anti-American and anti- anything that hurts his ego or pocket . He has malcontent displaced sycophants as inner circle supporters who want a piece in the pie denied to them by the establishment .

Here is a quote from antiwar -"In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state."

Also, Trump and Bannon aren't really interested in draining the foreign policy swamp in DC. They simply want to install their own cronies who will ensure that war and globalization benefit them rather than Kissinger and his ilk. It's a shell game designed to fool Trump's base, but the rest of the world has kept its eye on the ball." http://original.antiwar.com/feffer/2017/10/13/trump-signaling-unprecedented-right-turn-foreign-policy/

This war between elites have been predicted by a CT professor in an article in 2016 , to get more serious and dangerous by 2020 . The fights among elites are not new but another pathway an empire takes additionally to the final fate of the destruction from within

KA , October 14, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT
@KA

"A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions."

Another visible sign of increasing intra-elite competition and political polarization is the fragmentation of political parties

cliodynamic research on past societies demonstrates that elite overproduction is by far the most important of the three main historical drivers of social instability and political violence (see Secular Cycles for this analysis).

But the other two factors in the model, popular immiseration (the stagnation and decline of living standards) and declining fiscal health of the state (resulting from falling state revenues and rising expenses) are also important contributors.

: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-social-instability-lies.html#jCp

polskijoe , October 14, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Ideally Europe would be strong together, without US and more sane policies on morals and immigration.

Yes v4 is connected to CC, Neocon, Zios.

While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is depending on US too much, and being stuck between Russia and Germany which would isolate it from Europe in some ways. Obviously Poles are not uniform, views on US, Russia, Germany, Ukraine are all over the place. I wish Poland was just European (in politics) but the US-EU connection is still strong.

polskijoe , October 14, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT
Commenting on US presidents. Presidents are puppets. All of them. Modern leaders in Western world are unlikable. Reagan at least had some balance, had some Catholic and Paleocon involvement. It wasnt all Neocons and Zios. Im quite sure Reagan (and his dad), people like Buchanan had connections to groups like Knights Malta or Knights Colombus. Cant prove it though. Kennedy was KC.

Today Neocon/Zionist influence is even stronger. Trump policies on NK and Iran are nuts. At best a war is avoided.

On the other side you have Clintons, Obamas. They would destroy the US, and have similar policies because again they are puppets. Clinton would likely be involved in Syria, just like Obama was.

German_reader , October 14, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
@polskijoe

While Polands stance on immigration, and trying to hold on to old values is good, problem is depending on US too much

Yes, that's a problem, and I think Polish national conservatives are somewhat in denial about what the modern US stands for the "values" pushed by the US establishment today are incompatible with the Polish right's vision for Poland (e.g. conservative values in sexual morality – no homo-lobbyism and transgender nonsense -, strong public role of Catholicism, restrictive and selective immigration policies that keep out Muslims).

I can understand to some degree why the Polish right is so pro-US, given history and apprehensions about Germany and Russia, but they should at least be aware that alliance with the US could have a rather pernicious influence on Poland itself.

[Oct 14, 2017] Republican senator blasts Donald Trump for 'castrating' Rex Tillerson

Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no interest in dialogue. Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. ..."
"... "The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North Korea. ..."
"... "When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker said. ..."
"... If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective. Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He doesn't need the job. ..."
"... It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam, assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.) I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, etc. ..."
"... Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly, divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a primarily Christian country. ..."
"... And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is strongest in small, rural communities ..."
"... Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic lies the GOP's been peddling for decades. ..."
"... I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his bullshit. ..."
"... Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased. That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'. ..."
"... Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent and irrational. ..."
"... Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no empathy. ..."
"... Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery from worldwide recession. ..."
"... I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will happen. ..."
"... It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes on Donald Trump's statements. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Bob Corker accuses the president of undercutting the secretary of state's efforts to rein in North Korea's nuclear program

US Republican senator Bob Corker stepped up his public feud with Donald Trump on Friday, saying the president's undermining of his secretary of state was like castrating him in public.

Corker told the Washington Post in an interview that Trump had undercut Rex Tillerson's efforts to enlist China in reining in North Korea's nuclear program by denigrating the diplomat.

"You cannot publicly castrate your own secretary of state" without limiting the options for dealing with North Korea, Corker, the chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, told the Post.

Tillerson told a news conference in Beijing two weeks ago that the US was directly communicating with North Korea on its nuclear and missile programs, but it had shown no interest in dialogue. Trump took to Twitter the next day, saying Tillerson was "wasting his time" trying to negotiate with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un.

"The greatest diplomatic activities we have are with China, and the most important, and they have come a long, long way," Corker said. "Some of the things we are talking about are phenomenal. "When you jack the legs out from under your chief diplomat, you cause all that to fall apart." He added that working with China was the key to reaching a peaceful settlement with North Korea.

"When you publicly castrate your secretary of state, you take that off the table," Corker said.

Artgoddess 14 Oct 2017 17:05

Tillerson gets A LOT of $ if he lasts a year. Mnuchin, too.

humdum 14 Oct 2017 14:55

If Tillerson is undermined by Trump, why is he hanging around. He can't be effective. Honorable thing to do is to hand over his resignation. He doesn't need the job.

LibtardMangina -> imipak 14 Oct 2017 13:06

Like Sadam had no WMDs yet George and Tony pretended they cared whether they were there or not and went in guns blazing. We're still trying to pick up the pieces. Thanks guys. Dozza's adventures in NK is the next instalment of this shit show.

willyjack -> lochinverboy 14 Oct 2017 12:54

"This is the low point in America's political history"

It's bad, but having experienced the 60s and early 70s (Nixon, Watergate, Vietnam, assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Kent State, 1960 Dem Convention, Weather Underground, etc.) I think it's safe to say that we are nowhere near that level. And then there's the Civil War, Andrew Johnson, etc.

ConBrio -> CorvidRegina 14 Oct 2017 12:16

She came, she manipulated the nomination process, she lost! Get over it the precipitous canonization of damaged goods and try to elect someone competent. She ain't risin again.

CorvidRegina -> Abusedbythestate 14 Oct 2017 11:30

politicians playing on people's fears and telling them what they want to hear

That is the true culprit here. The role of politicians has always been to protect the country, including from its own citizens. Every politician makes use of some fear as a rhetorical tool, but the American conservatives really took this to a whole new level; they found an easy and lazy way to keep their support bolstered, by conflating the very worst traits of the ignorant and gullible with moral, even religious, superiority.

Of course they now consider themselves superior to even the politicians that fed them. It's hard to feel much pity.

john ayres -> colacj 14 Oct 2017 11:18

[Edited for clarity] Anyone other then primate chosen for this position would outshine him. Leave at the Russia BS. It is the result of $2B of propaganda from US agencies.

DAW188 14 Oct 2017 11:02

On an international scale what should probably be concerning American voters more than it is, are the US allies that appear to be pivoting away from them and towards each other. With an incompetent ninny of a POTUS and absolutely no clear military or diplomatic direction it is unsurprising that other global players are looking to each other for some security. The latest fallout over the Iran deal will only exasperate it.

I imagine it has caused some of the diplomats and bureaucrats in Washington to sit up and feel concerned. But as most US news reporting (even from internationally regarded publications like the NYT) seems to look no further than the end of its nose, I doubt its getting much, if any, play amongst US voters.

A fine example of this would be the machinations of the recent meetings between Theresa May and Shinzo Abe. They represent two of the closest political, economic and military allies of the US and are arguably key to the US' Atlantic and Pacific spheres of influence. Both countries find themselves in a bit of a bind. May turns up with a big empty bag labelled trade deals and Abe greets her with a tin-helmet on fearing a NK missile might drop on his head at any moment and that the US administration is not reliable enough to step in and diffuse the tension as it has in the past.

Abe conveniently has a country full of investors who would quite like to get access to the UK to buy up business on the cheap. May had a few hundred nuclear warheads in her back pocket that are all transferable anywhere in the world undetected and underwater (say for example in the South China Sea or the Sea of Japan), as well as a large intelligence agency and a UN security council seat. Not hard to see how tempting it would be for the two to cut a deal. The speech that the two leaders gave at the end of their little summit spelt it out. Abe bigged up Brexit, the opportunities it would afford and the strength of the Anglo-Nippon economic partnership, whilst May reaffirmed British commitments to defend its ally Japan's interests in a big two fingers up to Beijing and Pyongyang. Suddenly the US has two powerful allies turning away from it and towards each other, providing support that the US was once a bridge for.

This isn't restricted to the UK or Japan. Look at Macron in France and Merkel in Germany. Trudeau in Canada and Pena Nieto in Mexico. Even loyal old Bibi is getting in on the act when he recently invited India's Modi around for tea in Jerusalem.

Then you have theoretical allies, that have questionable intentions. Qatar and the Saudis remain at each others throats. The Emir of Qatar (or should that be his mother, the former Queen Moza, the power behind the curtain) certainly seems increasingly enamored with the Iranian's. Whilst the tensions in the Gulf are the way they are, it may not be the time to try and up-end again the relationship with Iran.

mbidding -> JEM5260 14 Oct 2017 11:00

Fifty years of the GOP putting party before country is how too many voters have been duped and misinformed.

Fifty years of Nixon's Southern Strategy and subsequent dog whistle politics aimed at convincing "real" Americans that people of color, liberals, intellectuals, and secular humanists are out to destroy their way of life and are the causes of all their woes.

Forty years of Reagan's mantra that government, taxes, and unions are evil and business is the way, the truth, and the power. Forty years of his trickle down economics which has led to stagnating/declining wages, crumbling infrastructure and, importantly, divestment in k-16 education. Ongoing dog whistles to now include Christian persecution in a primarily Christian country.

Thirty five years of repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by which "news" has become nothing more than politically propagandized infotainment.

And remember, we're a big ass country with small, far flung towns. Trump's support is strongest in small, rural communities -- communities with no experience with diversity of any type (political, economic, and social). These folks have been groomed by the GOP for fifty years to believe that liberal policies and non whites are out to get them and only the GOP and business have their backs.

Trump picked up the GOP ball and ran with it to its natural conclusion -- a know nothing incompetent, narcissistic president who won on the back of the bigotry, fear, and economic lies the GOP's been peddling for decades.

LibtardMangina 14 Oct 2017 10:44

I think many people have been secretly hoping that the good cop/bad cop act was part of an agreed strategy for dealing with Kim and the DRK. It's not though is it? Dozza really is as pathetic as he looks. Absolutely out of his depth and endangering everybody with his bullshit.

Abusedbythestate -> Conradsagent 14 Oct 2017 08:23

It will still end in tears for the yanks - a powerful military will not save the dollar - change is the one constant in the universe - where is the roman empire, the British empire, the Portuguese and Spanish empires, the Venetian empire now???? No one state stays the top dog for ever.

The rest of the world will see to that - the British and Europe are starting to look East and Trump is helping them do that to become so isolated, the US will become a backwater as quick as the USSR collapsed almost overnight. It only takes one extra straw to break the camel's back

Abusedbythestate -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 08:19

Indeed - I have many German friends and we talk about how any group of people in a nation can vote a nutter into power - Hitler being one of the most in(famous). At the end of the day, in all of the world in every nation state, there are a lot of very dumb people - the majority of the electorate to a greater or lesser degree - it's not their fault - we are all born entirely ignorant and our culture forms our opinions and our ability to question - do you remember how often at school, you were encouraged to question anything? or were facts, facts?

Pile on top of that a very powerful media, politicians playing on people's fears and telling them what they want to hear, and people's general gullibility and it's no great surprise that the Germans voted for Hitler, the Yanks voted for Trump and our dumb country voted .... well, vote the way they do - the fact that people seem happy with our so called democracies around the world that are far from democratic, depending on definition, and where we're often given a choice of just one or two options that seem incredibly similar in policy compared to the vast possible alternatives on how to run a country/economy - heaven forbid we might attempt an "extreme" alternative!!!

3melvinudall 14 Oct 2017 08:18

It seems some Republicans have decided now is the time to take down Trump. From what the country has seen of how Trump does "business" better to take him on now than deal with the disastrous consequences of his failures. Captain Trump is taking the ship down with his incompetence...problem is: we are all on that ship.

Gytaff -> Mordicant 14 Oct 2017 07:48

Sadly the typical American has very little to no awareness of the world outside of the US. Their world view and knowledge of the rest of the world is extremely limited and biased. That is why 'America First' is the perfect strap-line for this 'president'.

The Trump base doesn't give a toss about 'worldwide economic momentum', they only see what is happening in their own back yards. This is why Trump is doing well with his base, they see his posturing against North Korea, Iran and Syria as strength, they see his threats to trade deals as protectionist and have absolutely no problem with it, it's perfectly aligned with their views and mindset.

The Democrats are going to have a serious battle in the mid-terms, they need to find a way to appeal to the common man and give them what Trump keeps promising to deliver (but not, so far!). They need to show that they, as elitists can empathize with the common man's position, needs and beliefs, sadly the democrats have a long way to go! The Republicans are also screwed as Trump_vs_deep_state is anathema to their candidates too.

The next 12 months are going to be 'interesting times'!

Conradsagent -> ConBrio 14 Oct 2017 07:34

The US is one of the most fundamentalist, extreme religious whack job countries on the planet.

As for addiction to US protection...it is also one of the most (if not, the most) dangerously confused countries on earth. The world needs protecting 'from' it...not by it

corneilius -> pruneau 14 Oct 2017 07:24

Exactly the same can be said of the Tory party in the UK, especially the belief that you run a national economy on the same principles of a household budget.

saintkiwi -> Prumtic 14 Oct 2017 07:23

I think half the cabinet and half of Congress may actually go along with it; we know from whispers around the White House and Washington that many, if not most, Republicans think Trump is temperamentally/psychologically unfit for the post. Maybe Corker is the crack in the dam that eventually leads to catastrophic failure and flood; maybe not.

Pence is a total stiff, though. No way such a conservative guy would implement such an historic and radical action as forcibly* removing a sitting president, no matter how nuts that C-in-C was.

*(and yes, I can envisage Tump literally having to be dragged from the Oval Office)

UB__DK 14 Oct 2017 07:02

I hope the 25th amendment is on the agenda behind the scenes. It is clear to everyone that the president is unqualified. He is steadily eroding the credibility of the office he holds and of the entire West on the international political scene. And the longer his removal is delayed the worse it will get.

BeenThereDunThat -> ClearlyNow 14 Oct 2017 06:39

Oh dear, another Trumpkin. I am no fan of Merkel - a neoliberal to her boots. But at least she has some humanity and actually cares for other members of the human race outside of her immediate family - and to be honest, I doubt the Tango Tyrant cares for his family other than their being a projection of his own narcissistic ego.

As for Germany, its economy still marches along with it being the number 4 economy in the world and the top of the G5 group. It's standard of living remains high while social inequality is far lower than in countries such as the US or the UK.

So sorry, but another pathetically failed straw-man - or in this case, straw-woman - attempt to deflect attention from the discussion at hand.

Ramas100 14 Oct 2017 05:49

It's the military generals who are stroking Trump's ego by telling him there is a military solution to N Korea and Iran.

RichWoods -> blairsnemesis 14 Oct 2017 05:47

but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold the post, ever.

Trump isn't evil. He's thin-skinned, easily goaded, petty and vindictive, and lacks foresight and self-awareness. His attempts to dismantle Obamacare will kill people, but that's not his aim and he doesn't think of it in those terms. He's not evil, just incompetent and irrational.

All those things were apparent during the election campaign, so whatever your politics you have no excuse if you voted for someone who is so patently unfit to hold public office.

blairsnemesis -> FrankRoberts 14 Oct 2017 05:23

I suspect he realised before he even took up the post that he was far too thick for the job. Reagan was an appalling bag of shit but Trump is the most evil and worst person to hold the post, ever. I only hope that if someone doesn't kill him (and they'd have my full backing because he is an immense threat to the world), he gets put behind bars, along with the rest of his thick-as-pigshit family, for life.

Prumtic -> HelpAmerica 14 Oct 2017 05:14

Trump doesn't understand the word "negotiation" anyway. That's why he previously said that any negotiations with NK would be very short. It's because his definition of the word is, "we tell you what we demand, and you do it, regardless of your viewpoint." That's why he makes enemies of everyone he has contact with, a total lack of understanding that a Win-Win approach is better for all (what does it matter what the outcome for "all" is, as long as Trump appears to be the winner). Boils down to his mental condition meaning he has no empathy.

MortimerSnerd 14 Oct 2017 05:11

Just trying to keep the faith here until the mid terms. Trump is more bluster than balls, and he is not The Emperor. There are checks and balances in the system and the system has thwarted him on many occasions.

peterxpto -> LondonFog 14 Oct 2017 05:03

Trump is "riding" the surge in jobs that is related entirely to a cyclical recovery from worldwide recession.

Kevin Cox -> WhigInterpretation 14 Oct 2017 04:46

Well said. Regarding Congress, people do not understand the way the US is hobbled by a constitution that facilitates the lobbying of special interests - so long as it is not the labor movement - and which is very, very hard to change. So much for the Founding Fathers and what they accomplished and made difficult to alter.

tippisheadrun -> simba72 14 Oct 2017 04:29

Absolutely.
President Ted Cruz, President Mike Huckabee, President Ben Carson, President Chris Christie, President Rick Santorum, President Marco Rubio - take your prick - none of them would promote any sense of security in the populace. With the exception of John Kasich, the GOP nominee was destined to be a dangerous character- either through lack of scruples or a misguided sense of their own righteousness.

daWOID -> digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:53

Fun fact: "the lifestyle of the good citizens of Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Wisconsin, West Virginia and Texas etc., etc" collapsed a long time ago.

juster digamey 14 Oct 2017 02:50

The dollar is not going to stay the reserve currency forever. Its just math. If an average chinese can reach 25% productivity of an average amreican, and there is no reason they cant, they will have by all metrics the largest economy. At that stage USD keeping its present day status is impossible even if Abraham Lincoln gets revived an re elected.

charles47 -> RealityCheck2016 14 Oct 2017 02:22

I am involved in negotiations every day of my working life, with staff, with Trustees (directors), with local authorities, with suppliers.

I have good working relationships with most of them. Must be doing something right, while doing a job that matters to me personally. I've met Trump types. They wouldn't last five minutes in the world I live and work in. Too "entitled" and far too full of themselves. Generally, if I come across someone like that, they don't get our business because they are long on promise, short on delivery, and more interested in getting the "deal" than considering our needs as an organisation - which is the selling point I look for, as with most people. One-sided deals don't work and don't last.

As for affording to go to a Trump hotel...if I could, I wouldn't. I have my favourites, and my personal standards that don't involve glitter without substance.

jon donahue -> BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 01:57

Iran. At about 10,000 dead, it could go on for about three years with beaucoup contracts to be had. Perfect for all the flag-wavers.

Korea? No. Too many dead too fast, could run up to 25,000 in a hurry. Plus, Seoul smoked. Bad optics, no money in it...

jon donahue 14 Oct 2017 01:52

Trump is a train wreck. Incompetent. Unable to manage, unable to negotiate, unable to govern.

The good news is that we don't actually need a functioning President, with the world pretty much at peace and the economy doing well enough.
Everybody in the government and military can just work around the jerk.

digamey 14 Oct 2017 01:38

Republicans are experts at protecting their own butts. While Trump's numbers hold, they will bitch about him in private and suck up to him in public. Once his numbers start to tank, as inevitably they will, they will turn upon him and savage him in a manner with which even the most voracious hyenas could not compete.

BhoGhanPryde 14 Oct 2017 00:38

I think everyone knows the keys the North Korea crisis are China and dialog. But who says the Corporate States and their military-industrial complex want peace? War drives profits. And as anyone who has travelled the US - outside of Vegas, 5th Ave and Hollywood and Vine - knows war is essential to the American identity and needed to maintain cohesion in that fracturing society. Pride in the US military is a foundation stone of the modern US. War is needed to distract the peasants from the rising poverty virtually nil opportunities at home. War on the Korean peninsula may be needed by the Corporate State and if it is it will happen.

Mike Bray 13 Oct 2017 23:37

It is almost as if Donald Trump thinks the Secretary of State's job is to take notes on Donald Trump's statements.

[Oct 14, 2017] The Russiagate Scandal Descends Into Total Absurdity

Oct 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
A reasonable person would also conclude that the tiny number of these advertisements and comments – unearthed after frantic and relentless searches by the social media platforms after they were put under intense pressure from the politicians to come up with something – their vague and contradictory material, and their nebulous connection to Russia, in fact proves that there was NO sinister Russian plot to swing last year's election to Donald Trump by using social media, or even a Russian plot via social media to create doubts about it.

There is however nothing remotely reasonable about the true believers of the Russiagate scandal. On the contrary they have latched onto this material – whose lack of substance in fact proves the absurdity of their claims – not as disproving their claims but rather as vindication that what they have been saying all along about "Russian meddling in the election" has now been proved to be true. A whole stream of strange articles (see for example this one in the Financial Times) has appeared in the establishment media which all but say this.

To which one can only say that when evidence of the non-existence of a conspiracy is taken as proof of its existence it becomes clear that all connection to reality and indeed to sanity has been lost.

(4) Attempted Russian hacking of state voting systems

In some ways this was the most bizarre recent claim of all. It has been thoroughly discussed by Glenn Greenwald and to his commentary I have little to add.

What makes this episode bizarre is that the claim that the Russians hacked or attempted to hack the voting systems of US states is one which has been made repeatedly over the course of the scandal, only to be invariably and repeatedly proved to be false.

The latest iteration of this claim was in an article in USA Today sourced from the Department of Homeland Security which claimed that the Russians had attempted to hack the voting systems of 21 states.

Needless to say the claim was immediately picked up and repeated with enthusiasm by all sorts of people until two of the states involved – Wisconsin and California – categorically denied it, upon which the Department of Homeland Security was forced to issue a retraction.

To which one can only ask: how often does this story have to be refuted before it is accepted as false?

* * *

Overall one senses a scandalous story of nefarious collusion and double-dealing between the Trump campaign and Russia which now rests on nothing but hot air as all attempts to prove it true fail one by one.

In the meantime the American public and even parts of the media are losing interest, as shown by the fact that the scandal hardly comes up in White House news conferences any more.

Serious damage however continues to be done.

The scandal has paralysed the foreign policy of the US government as Donald Trump's signature policy upon which he was elected – rapprochement with Russia – has been blocked because of a concocted scandal with no substance behind it.

The result unsurprisingly is an angry President, resentful at how his signature policy has been blocked, who having no clear idea what to do, is hitting out in all directions, sometimes by behaving spitefully towards his own staff.

Moreover, as the disintegration of the scandal makes it all but impossible for the President to be removed from office through his impeachment (the original intention of those who concocted it), this chaotic and unhappy state of affairs looks likely to continue indefinitely.

* * *

But then - Just when you thought the Hillary Clinton concocted 'Russia election meddling' story could not get any more stupid, CNN outdoes itself.

(5) CNN Claims Russia Used 'Pokemon Go' To Meddle In US Election

via Alex Christoforou ,

Putin has weaponized Pokemon to subvert US democracy.

Never mind Russia dismantling America's democratic system with only $100,000 in Facebook ads , which did not even discuss the US election, Russia has now weaponized Pokemon.

We can now expect to see Pokemon characters subpoenaed to testify in front of Congress.

Exclusive: Russian-linked meddling effort extended to YouTube, Tumblr and even Pokémon Go https://t.co/Tw6WATNizC pic.twitter.com/bCvVYPKIki

-- CNN (@CNN) October 12, 2017

Via The Gateway Pundit

CNN broke an 'exclusive' story on Thursday in their desperate attempt to publish anything with the word 'Russians' in the title. CNN is now claiming the Russians meddled in the 2016 presidential election through Pokemon Go.

How did we go from Trump colluded with the Kremlin to Pokemon ads?

your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

vortmax , Oct 13, 2017 6:58 PM

"The scandal which more than anything else has defined his Presidency"

Stopped reading there.

GUS100CORRINA -> vortmax , Oct 13, 2017 7:00 PM

The Russiagate Scandal Descends Into Total Absurdity

My response : So is Mueller fired???? Inquiring minds want to know.

TGDavis -> GUS100CORRINA , Oct 13, 2017 7:05 PM

No, Mueller will continue until someone commits a crime.

Rapunzal -> TGDavis , Oct 13, 2017 7:13 PM

It was from day 1 absurd. But they keep the story running because the goal of the parasitic elites is to control the narrative on the news channels. They will get even more aggressive the closer we will get to the final economic collapse. They need to overload us with any BS they can find to completely kill our senses for what is real and what not. They don't even care we find out about all the false flags and hoaxes because tomorrow will be a new one. It's called information overload.

MozartIII -> Rapunzal , Oct 13, 2017 7:42 PM

They got nothing. Fucking Maroons!!!

loebster -> MozartIII , Oct 13, 2017 8:05 PM

Russiagate is the Joowitch elite's way of keeping Trump on track with WW3.

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

JohnG -> loebster , Oct 13, 2017 8:51 PM

" Even as the Trump administration disintegrates – with the President publicly quarrelling with his Secretary of State......"

Here we go with anti-Trump Tyler again. Trump is doing JUST FUCKING FINE, and sez you, MF'er.

Kelly was clearly fucking with the press when he "denied" he was about to resign.

Fuck You fella, gal, whatever xe you tend to be today.......

SafelyGraze -> JohnG , Oct 14, 2017 12:28 AM

cnn has jumped the covfefe

Manthong -> SafelyGraze , Oct 14, 2017 10:05 AM

The Russians hacking Pac-Man to influence a Trump win has to be the looniest story.

Oh, it wasn't Pac-Man?

Well, that one is next.

[Oct 14, 2017] The Deep State's Bogus 'Iranian Threat' by David Stockman

Notable quotes:
"... The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter. ..."
"... The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so. ..."
"... That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every war until 1945. ..."
"... So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it (including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region). ..."
"... Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is permitted to have. ..."
"... Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon (Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help, which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic State. ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

... ... ...

He was right. Russia today is a shadow of what Ronald Reagan called the Evil Empire. Its GDP of $1.3 trillion is smaller than that of the New York metro area ($1.6 trillion) and only 7 percent of total US GDP.

Moreover, unlike the militarized Soviet economy which devoted upwards of 40 percent of output to defense, the current Russian defense budget of $60 billion is just 4.5 percent of its vastly shrunken GDP.

So how in the world did the national security apparatus convince the Donald that we need the $700 billion defense program for FY 2018 – 12X bigger than Russia's – that he just signed into law?

What we mean, of course, is how do you explain that – beyond the fact that the Donald knows virtually nothing about national security policy and history; and, to boot, is surrounded by generals who have spent a lifetime scouring the earth for enemies and threats to repel and reasons for more weapons and bigger forces.

The real answer, however, is both simple and consequential. To wit, the entire prosperity and modus operandi of the Imperial City is based on a panoply of "threats" that are vastly exaggerated or even purely invented; they retain their currency by virtue of endless repetition in the groupthink that passes for analysis. We'd actually put it in the category of cocktail party chatter.

... ... ...

The truth is, the US defense budget is hideously oversized for a reason so obvious that it constitutes the ultimate elephant in the room. No matter how you slice it, there just are no real big industrialized, high tech countries in the world which can threaten the American homeland or even have the slightest intention of doing so.

Indeed, to continue with our historical benchmarks, the American homeland has not been so immune to foreign military threat since WW II. Yet during all those years of true peril, it never spent close too the Donald's $700 billion boondoggle.

For instance, during the height of LBJs Vietnam folly (1968) defense spending in today's dollars was about $400 billion. And even at the top of Reagan's utterly unnecessary military building up (by the 1980s the Soviet Union was collapsing under the weight of its own socialist dystopia), total US defense spending was just $550 billion.

That gets us to the bogus Iranian threat. It originated in the early 1990s when the neocon's in the George HW Bush Administration realized that with the cold war's end, the Warfare State was in grave danger of massive demobilization like the US had done after every war until 1945.

So among many other invented two-bit threats, the Iranian regime was demonized in order to keep the Imperial City in thrall to its purported national security threat and in support of the vast global armada of military forces, bases and occupations needed to contain it (including the Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf and US bases throughout the region).

The truth, however, is that according to the 2008 NIE ( National Intelligence Estimates) of the nation's 17 intelligence agency, the Iranian's never had a serious nuclear weapons program, and the small research effort that they did have was disbanded by orders of the Ayatollah Khamenei in 2003.

Likewise, what the Imperial City claims to be state sponsored terror is actually nothing more than Iran's foreign policy – something that every sovereign state on the planet is permitted to have.

Thus, as the leader of the minority Shiite schism of the Islamic world, Iran has made political and confessional alliances with various Shiite regimes in the region. These include the one that Washington actually installed in Baghdad; the Alawite/Shiite regime in Syria; the largest political party and representative of 40 percent of the population in Lebanon (Hezbollah); and the Houthi/Shiite of Yemen, who historically occupied the northern parts of the country and are now under savage attack by American weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia.

In the case of both Syria and Iraq, their respective governments invited Iranian help, which is also their prerogative as sovereign nations. Ironically, it was the Shiite Crescent alliance of Iran/Assad/Hezbollah that bears much of the credit for defeating ISIS on the ground in Mosul, Aleppo, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor and elsewhere in the now largely defunct Islamic State.

In tomorrow's installment we will address the details of the Iran nuke agreement and why the Donald is making a horrible mistake in proposing to decertify it. But there should be no doubt about the consequence: It will reinforce the neocon dominance of the Republican party and insure that the nation's $1 trillion Warfare State remains fully entrenched.

Needless to say, that will also insure that the America's gathering fiscal crisis will turn into an outright Fiscal Calamity in the years just ahead.

David Stockman has agreed to send every Antiwar.com reader a free copy of his newest book, Trumped! when you take his special Contra Corner offer. Click here now for the details.

David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Back . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader .

Read more by David Stockman

[Oct 14, 2017] The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished by Mike Whitney

Anybody who subscript of NYT, or WaPo after this fiasco is simply paying money for state propaganda.
Notable quotes:
"... Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. " ..."
"... Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. ..."
"... This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. ..."
"... The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. ..."
"... How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any." ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
"... If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact. ..."
"... This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome. ..."
"... In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves. ..."
"... But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us. ..."
"... Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater. ..."
"... The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished. ..."
"... The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years. ..."
"... Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying. ..."
"... So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London ..."
"... Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff. ..."
"... If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco? ..."
Oct 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

Originally from: The Senate Intelligence Committee Finds No Evidence of Russian Hacking or Collusion

The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said: "We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee. "

Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:

Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.

It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions, then what's the point? Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy. From the Intelligence Community Assessment:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts -- who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security -- would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be taken seriously.

Here's more from the ICA:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.

To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:

"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)

That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: "There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."

Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story?

Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they decided to scrub the story altogether?

But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.

So here's a question for critical minded readers:

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?

Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?

Don't bet on it.

What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.

Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?

How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the ICA.

Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the DNC email scandal.

Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?

Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.

So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?

It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.

Beckow > , October 13, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

Where is this going? At some point in the next few years there will be a 'damning' report that will regurgitate what has already been endlessly publicised: VIP's meet each other (the horror!), somehow DNC emails got published, Facebook sold ads to 'Russia-linked' users, and Pokemon Go, whatever. That will be described in sinister terms and RT will be thrown in. How dare RT not to have the same views as CNN?

But what then? Let's even say that Trump is removed – he is at this point so emasculated that keeping him in the White House is the most stabilising thing the establishment could do. Is Congress going to declare a war on Russia? Or more sanctions? Are they going to ban RT? Break diplomatic relations? None of that makes sense because any of those moves would be more costly than beneficial, some dramatically so. Therefore nothing will happen.

All that will remain is permanent bitterness towards Russia, and vice-versa. And much reduced ability to do what the West has done for 75 years: heavy interference and media campaigns inside foreign countries to influence elections. If 'meddling' is so bad, the biggest meddlers – by far – will be less able to meddle. So how is this hysteria helping?

Sanity in public life is a precious thing. Once abandoned, all kinds of strange things start happening. Yeah, Pokemon GO – Putin was personally naming the characters to 'sow division'. It sounds like something Stalin would accuse his 'cosmopolitan' enemies of doing. This is really embarrassing.

utu > , October 14, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT

Incorrect parsing of reality. It was not about getting Trump but it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama administration.

Greg Bacon > , Website October 14, 2017 at 9:59 am GMT

If the Senate can 'assess,' so can I! I assess that Hollywood hottie Jenifer Lawrence is secretly in love with me! Although I can't prove this, all of my assessments point to this as being fact.

jacques sheete > , October 14, 2017 at 11:45 am GMT

@Johnny Rico

I have been convinced of the ridiculousness of the Russian-hacking/collusion narrative/scandal since it was created in 2016.

I, too, smelled a rat and figured that it was all BS right from the get go. So much so that I haven't followed it a bit. In fact it's so ridiculous on its face, that I have not and probably will not, waste time reading the article even though MW is a good guy, an unimpeachable source, a true journalist, and a fine writer.

Bless you, Mr Whitney, for having the energy to document what is no doubt a pack of lies from the usual suspects.

I stumbled on this yesterday, and it suggests, to no one's surprise, that it's always deja vu all over again. You'd think our "high IQ" masters would show a little originality once in a while, and that we, "Low IQ" as we are, would finally learn that it's all BS from the get-go.

Note the date.:

THESE books all belong to that literature of Katzenjammer which now flourishes so amazingly in the United States t hey all embody attempts to find out what is the matter with the Republic. I wish I could add that one or another of them solves the problem, or at least contributes something to its illumination , but that would be going somewhat beyond the facts.

-H.L. Mencken, Autopsy (4 Reviews), , September 1927 , pp. 123-125 – PDF

http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1927sep-00123

jacques sheete > , October 14, 2017 at 12:21 pm GMT

@Thorfinnsson

This makes me suspect that Mike Whitney is a censorious coward on the model of Razib Khan (thankfully expelled from unz.com) or even worse Paul Craig Roberts (who prohibits comments entirely).

While I agree with you about the latter two, and have written them off accordingly, along with Mercer, who I suspect "edits" (really, "purges" ) her comments too, I highly doubt that MW falls into the same categories as those mentioned. At least MW doesn't use the word, "insouciant" 3 or 4 times in every article!

If I am wrong and this article is simply strangely unpopular please let me know and I will apologize.

The article isn't so much unpopular as the subject is wearying. It's the same crud all over again,obviously false, and I suspect virtually everyone knows it. It's utterly boring and I give MW a lot of credit for having the persistence to even face the mindless mess, let alone think and write about it. He really is to be admired for that.

I've always thought it was a distraction as usual from other much more more important things but utu has a better take on it.

it was about making Trump administration to severe relations with Russia. It began with having Gen. Flynn fired. This mission was accomplished. We have now worse relations with Russia than at the end of Obama administration. [ed note:And Flynn is gone too.]

I think that's a "Bingo!" and I also think you better formulate an apology and plan on getting on yer knees to deliver it!

PS: I'm curious as to why you think this is of much interest at all. (Aside from utu's take.)

Michael Kenny > , October 14, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT

We don't know who this author really is but, once again, what's interesting is that so many people are still so scared of an investigation which is supposedly producing "no evidence" (leaving aside Trump Junior's evidence, of course). If all this was a load of nonsense, why make such a fuss about it? If there's nothing to this, an "effort to support a theory", however "determined" will come up with nothing. The frantic attempts to kill off Russiagate suggest that those who are making such attempts know, or believe, that there actually is something to it which has not yet come to light. Probably something pretty dirty by the sound of it. What if some part of the US intelligence services took part in the manipulation of the election, either in collusion with the Russians or posing as Russians, and Putin can prove it? That would certainly explain the plethora of retired intelligence agents who are so assiduously defending a foreign government. If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course.

Captain Nemo > , October 14, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia.

Really? Only "now"?! I thought it was pretty much clear from the beginning.

Ludwig Watzal > , Website October 14, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT

This report is as bogus as the "9/11 Commission Report". Both commissions members were hand-picked by those guys that have a vested interest in the right outcome.

In the end, Robert Mueller, an Obama/Clinton/Comey/Brennan stooge, will produce some "evidence" about so-called Russian meddling as far-fetched this may be. And the fawning media will go for it. The American public will get the report, which it deserves.

TG > , October 14, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

Indeed, well said. But what is missing is that this "Russian Hacking" story was not nonsense, it worked. After Trump was elected, the establishment panicked and went into full attack mode. The headlines were screaming, thought went out the window, it looked like Trump was going to be hounded out of office by force majeure. Then Trump buckled, and shot those missiles at the Syrian air base, and we are back on track throwing away trillions of dollars on endless pointless winless foreign wars in places of zero strategic interest to us.

Having served its purpose, the Russian 'hacking' stories are tapering off, being continued more out of momentum and habit than true focused intent. Oh sure, the corporate press still publicly despises Trump, but the intensity is gone. They are just going through the motions, it is no longer important, just political theater.

The people who came up with the Russian hacking story were not stupid. The logical weakness of the claim was never relevant. Unlike Dubya in Iraq, they got what they wanted. Mission accomplished.

Flavius > , October 14, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

Mike – good article. The inaptly named Intelligence Community just never busts out. However much it has gotten flat out wrong and however much it has flat out missed over the years, however much its blunders and mistakes have cost us and our victims in treasure and blood, it just never busts out. There is always an excuse. The closest the Borg ever came to any gesture towards accountability was the Church committee post Watergate, ancient history, lessons purposefully buried and lost to the legions of bureaucrats blundering their way through the last 40 years.

If it can be gotten wrong, the Borg will get it wrong; it will be gotten wrong at the worst possible time; it will move on to get it wrong again. These are three things that you can absolutely count on.

Joe Hide > , October 14, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

Good article on something everyone who is well researched and truth seeking already knows; the Russian Collusion story is a hatchet job by incompetent political hacks. The only power they USED to have is an obsessive never give up faith in the power of lying.

jilles dykstra > , October 14, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

So what ? Truth is no longer an issue in USA politics: Christopher Lasch, 'The Culture of Narcissism, American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations', 1979, 1980, London

Pericles > , October 14, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

@Mike Whitney Russia collusion does lack credibility, but you're still doing us a great service by following the twists and turns of this beheaded snake. The details are worth reading about, even if there isn't much to argue about regarding the conclusion. So thanks for that.

Biff > , October 14, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

Even today there was another AP hit piece about those 201 Russian Twitter handles, and zero perspective about the kind of math that renders 201 out of 24 billion a speck of dust. You really have to depend on a dumbed down population to get them to buy this stuff.

Beckow > , October 14, 2017 at 7:49 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

"If Putin really is innocent, the common sense way to prove it is to let Russiagate take its natural course."

Innocent of what? What is it exactly that Russia supposedly did? Let me list a few things that are still perfectly legal in our world (that would include US, I hope):

  • having an opinion, even if that opinion is not the same as NY Times/CNN/US State Dept
  • expressing this opinion publicly, even spending money to spread that opinion
  • supporting the side in an election that you prefer – even in other countries (everybody does this all the time, Obama flew to UK to campaign against Brexit)
  • publishing negative stuff about those you dislike (or who dislike you), e.g. their emails, accounts, etc
  • spending money to spread your views – even on 'US-owned' platforms that are otherwise operating all over the world, e.g. Facebook has 700 million active users, they cannot all be in US
  • laughing or celebrating if what you preferred won (champagne for Trump)
  • meeting with foreigners from a country not in a state of war with you, or – God forbid! – meeting with their ambassador.

None of the above is either unusual or illegal. It might not look good to some people, but it is what international life has consisted for at least 200 years. If you call that 'meddling', you just might be too naive for the world as it is.

What is the 'natural course' for the investigation? If all we hear are endless allusions to what are just opinions, meetings, plans, criticism, etc what is being investigated? This is literally suggesting that some in Washington and US media are not mature enough, smart enough, or sane enough to be taken seriously. How are they planning to recover the basic level of rationality after this fiasco?

Putin named Pokemon GO characters after BLM victims to stir up racial hatreds in US. How does one answer that? Where would you even start dealing with people who are capable of this level of nonsense?

[Oct 13, 2017] The Middle East Pivot by James Petras

Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Multiple wars ravage the Middle East. Turkey has inserted itself into the middle of most of these regional conflicts and ended up a loser.

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has intervened and formed alliances with a rogue's gallery of imperial warlords, terrorists-mercenaries, Zionist expansionists, feudal potentates and obscure tribal chiefs, with disastrous economic, political and military consequences for the Turkish nation.

In this paper we will discuss Turkey's domestic and foreign policies and behavior over the past decade. We will conclude with lessons for middle range powers, which might help in future decisions

President Erdogan's Domestic Disasters

Throughout the early decade of the 21st century, Erdoğan made a strategic alliance with an influential semi-clandestine organization led by a cult-leading cleric, Fethullah Gülen, who was conveniently self-exiled in the US and under the protection of the US intelligence apparatus. This marriage of convenience was formed in order to weaken the leftist, secular and Ataturk nationalist influenced opposition. Armed with the Gülenists' treasure trove of forged documents, Erdoğan purged the military of its Ataturk nationalist leadership. He proceeded to marginalize the secular Republican Party and repressed leftist trade union, social movements and prominent academics, journalists, writers and student activists. With support from the Gülenists movement, 'Hizmet' , Erdoğan celebrated his successes and won multiple election and re-election victories!

Initially, Erdoğan failed to recognize that the Gülenists/Hizmet operated as a subversive political organization, which permeated the state apparatus through a dense network of bureaucratic, military, judicial, police, and civil society organizations, with ties to the US military/CIA and friendly relations with Israeli policy makers.

By 2013, Erdoğan felt intense pressure from the Gülenists/Hizmet which sought to discredit and oust his regime by revealing multi-million dollar corrupt practices involving him and his family in a 'Turquoise Color Revolution' – remake of other 'regime changes'.

Having discovered his internal vulnerability, Erdoğan moved to curtail the power and reach of the Gülenists/Hizmet controlled media. He was not yet prepared to deal with the immense scope and depth of the elite links to Gülenists/Hizmet. A Gülenists-led military coup was launched in July 2016, with the tacit support of the US military stationed in Turkey. This was foiled by a major popular mobilization with the support of the armed forces.

Erdoğan then moved to thoroughly purge the followers of Hizmet from the military, public administration, schools, business, the press and public and private institutions. He extended his purge to include secular and nationalist political leaders who had always opposed the Gülenists and their attempted coup d'état.

As a result of the coup attempt and the subsequent purge, Erdoğan weakened and fractured every aspect of the state and civil society. Erdoğan ended up securing control of a weakened state with a degraded business, educational and cultural world.

The Gülenists coup was authored and led by its supremo Fethullah Gülen, ensconced in his 'secret' private estate in the United States. Clearly the US was implicated in the coup and they rejected Erdoğan's demands to extradite him.

Erdoğan's subservience to the US/NATO leadership have undermined his attempts to strike at the roots of the coup and its internal and external power structure. The US/NATO military bases still operate in Turkey and retain influence over its military.

In the aftermath of the coup, the decline of Gülenist influence in the economy contributed to economic reversals in investments and growth. The purge of the military and civil society reduced Turkey's military preparedness and alienated the democratic electorate. Erdoğan had already nearly lost his bid to the presidency after his earlier purges in 2014.

Erdoğan's Foreign Policy Disasters

Perversity is when a ruler weakens its military and represses its citizens and launches a series of risky foreign adventures: This is exactly what Erdoğan has done over the past several years.

First Erdoğan backed a terrorist uprising in Syria, providing arms, recruiting overseas 'volunteers' and providing them with unrestricted passage across the Turkish border. Many of the terrorists proceeded to join forces with Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds in establishing military bases on Ankara's borders.

Secondly, Erdoğan ran a scurrilous electoral campaign among the millions of ethnic Turks living in Germany – violating that powerful nation's sovereignty. As a result, Erdoğan increased tensions and animosity with what had been its closest ally in its quest for EU membership – effectively terminating the process.

Thirdly, Erdoğan backed NATO's invasion and bombing of Libya, killing President Gadhafi, who had been an independent voice, capable of serving as a possible ally against imperial intervention in North Africa.

Fourthly, Erdoğan backed the brief government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood after its electoral victory in 2012 following the 'Arab Spring' uprising in Egypt of 2011. He backed a formula similar to his own Turkish policy of excluding the secular, democratic opposition. This led to a bloody US-backed military coup led by General Abdel Sisi in July 2013 – a lesson not lost on Erdoğan.

Fifth, Erdoğan's de facto friendly relations with Israel – despite verbal criticism – in the face of Tel Aviv's assassination of nine non-violent Turkish protestors trying to break the starvation blockade of Gaza – undermined relations with the pro-Palestine Arab world and nationalists in Turkey.

Sixth, Erdoğan developed lucrative ties with Iraqi Kurd dictator-warlord, Masoud Barzani, facilitating the flow of oil to Israel. Erdoğan's own illicit oil deals with Barzani strengthened the cause of Kurdish separatism and exposed the widespread corruption of Erdoğan's family dealings.

Seventh, Erdoğan provoked military tensions with Russia by shooting down a warplane in Syria. This led to an economic boycott, which reduced export earnings, devastated the tourism sector and added Moscow to his list of adversaries, (Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, US, Germany, Hezbollah and Iran).

Eighth, Erdoğan backed the tiny oil-state of Qatar, sending supplies and soldiers to oppose a threat from Saudi Arabia, the other royal oil statelets and Egypt, US allies and followers.

Despite his many disastrous domestic and foreign policies, Erdoğan learned nothing and forgot nothing. When the Israelis backed the Iraqi Kurds in organizing an independence 'referendum' aiming to ultimately annex the rich oil fields of Northern Iraq, Erdoğan took no action despite this threat to Turkish national security. He merely made verbal threats to cut off the Kurd's access to Ankara's oil pipelines. He took no concrete steps. Erdoğan preferred to pocket transit taxes from the oil, antagonizing Iraq and Syria and strengthening the links between Kurdish Iraq and its secessionist counterparts in Syria and Turkey.

Because of Erdoğan failure to close down the US military base following its support of the Gülenist-led coup, the Turkish army is still heavily under US influence, opening the possibility of another uprising.

Erdoğan's lip-service to 'nationalism' has served mainly as a political tool to repress domestic democratic political parties and trade unions and the Kurdish and Alevi communities. Erdoğan's initial support and subsequent opposition to the jihadi terrorist groups seeking to oust the secular-nationalist government in Damascus has caused 'blowback' – with ISIS terrorist cells bombing civilian targets Istanbul and Ankara with mass casualties.

Conclusion

Erdoğan's unprincipled, opportunistic and pro-imperialist NATO alliance demonstrates the inability of an aspiring regional power to find a niche in the US Empire. Erdoğan believed that being a loyal 'ally' of the US would protect Turkey from a coup d'état. He failed to realize that he had become a disposable pawn in US plans to instill more servile rulers (like the Gülenist) in the Middle East.

Erdoğan's belief that Turkey's collaboration with the US to overthrow Syria's President Bashar Assad would lead to a successful territorial grab of Northern Syria: instead Erdoğan ended up serving the US-backed Syrian Kurds tied to the Turkish Kurds .By working to break up Syria and destroy its state and government, Erdoğan strengthened Kurdish cross border expansionism.

Erdoğan failed to recognize the most basic rule of imperial policy: There are no permanent allies there are only permanent interests. Erdoğan thought Turkey would be 'rewarded' by acting as a US surrogate with a share of power, wealth and territory in the Middle East. Instead, as a 'normal' imperial power, the US used Turkey when it was convenient and would then dispose of Erdoğan – like a used condom.

Anti-imperialism is not just an ideal and moral/ethical principle – it is a realistic approach to safeguarding sovereignty, democratic politics and meaningful alliances. (Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

[Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
Biting satire...
Notable quotes:
"... The Tonight Show ..."
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the "Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.

Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced by the lone wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was already clear that Donald Trump was literally the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic primaries, mostly because of his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst. Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President, because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).

Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.

No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.

This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without , and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis, it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs. neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.

Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in The European Financial Review , or this report by Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate power.

So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia, or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

jilles dykstra, October 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the box'.

They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.

Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.

How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.

Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of Brussels.

You can fool all people .

Che Guava, October 13, 2017 at 4:22 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Jilles,

I am thinking you take the article too literally.

jacques sheete, October 13, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.

No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.

A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. (And everything else.)

"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories.

Does anyone else smell a rat or two?

Anon-og , October 13, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook."

Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is now changing!

[Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

Highly recommended!
Biting satire...
Notable quotes:
"... The Tonight Show ..."
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the "Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.

Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced by the lone wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was already clear that Donald Trump was literally the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic primaries, mostly because of his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President, and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst. Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President, because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).

Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.

No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.

This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without , and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis, it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs. neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.

Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in The European Financial Review , or this report by Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate power.

So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia, or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

jilles dykstra, October 13, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the box'.

They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.

Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.

How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.

Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of Brussels.

You can fool all people .

Che Guava, October 13, 2017 at 4:22 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Jilles,

I am thinking you take the article too literally.

jacques sheete, October 13, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.

No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.

A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. (And everything else.)

"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories.

Does anyone else smell a rat or two?

Anon-og , October 13, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook."

Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is now changing!

[Oct 13, 2017] The Middle East Pivot by James Petras

Oct 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Multiple wars ravage the Middle East. Turkey has inserted itself into the middle of most of these regional conflicts and ended up a loser.

Under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey has intervened and formed alliances with a rogue's gallery of imperial warlords, terrorists-mercenaries, Zionist expansionists, feudal potentates and obscure tribal chiefs, with disastrous economic, political and military consequences for the Turkish nation.

In this paper we will discuss Turkey's domestic and foreign policies and behavior over the past decade. We will conclude with lessons for middle range powers, which might help in future decisions

President Erdogan's Domestic Disasters

Throughout the early decade of the 21st century, Erdoğan made a strategic alliance with an influential semi-clandestine organization led by a cult-leading cleric, Fethullah Gülen, who was conveniently self-exiled in the US and under the protection of the US intelligence apparatus. This marriage of convenience was formed in order to weaken the leftist, secular and Ataturk nationalist influenced opposition. Armed with the Gülenists' treasure trove of forged documents, Erdoğan purged the military of its Ataturk nationalist leadership. He proceeded to marginalize the secular Republican Party and repressed leftist trade union, social movements and prominent academics, journalists, writers and student activists. With support from the Gülenists movement, 'Hizmet' , Erdoğan celebrated his successes and won multiple election and re-election victories!

Initially, Erdoğan failed to recognize that the Gülenists/Hizmet operated as a subversive political organization, which permeated the state apparatus through a dense network of bureaucratic, military, judicial, police, and civil society organizations, with ties to the US military/CIA and friendly relations with Israeli policy makers.

By 2013, Erdoğan felt intense pressure from the Gülenists/Hizmet which sought to discredit and oust his regime by revealing multi-million dollar corrupt practices involving him and his family in a 'Turquoise Color Revolution' – remake of other 'regime changes'.

Having discovered his internal vulnerability, Erdoğan moved to curtail the power and reach of the Gülenists/Hizmet controlled media. He was not yet prepared to deal with the immense scope and depth of the elite links to Gülenists/Hizmet. A Gülenists-led military coup was launched in July 2016, with the tacit support of the US military stationed in Turkey. This was foiled by a major popular mobilization with the support of the armed forces.

Erdoğan then moved to thoroughly purge the followers of Hizmet from the military, public administration, schools, business, the press and public and private institutions. He extended his purge to include secular and nationalist political leaders who had always opposed the Gülenists and their attempted coup d'état.

As a result of the coup attempt and the subsequent purge, Erdoğan weakened and fractured every aspect of the state and civil society. Erdoğan ended up securing control of a weakened state with a degraded business, educational and cultural world.

The Gülenists coup was authored and led by its supremo Fethullah Gülen, ensconced in his 'secret' private estate in the United States. Clearly the US was implicated in the coup and they rejected Erdoğan's demands to extradite him.

Erdoğan's subservience to the US/NATO leadership have undermined his attempts to strike at the roots of the coup and its internal and external power structure. The US/NATO military bases still operate in Turkey and retain influence over its military.

In the aftermath of the coup, the decline of Gülenist influence in the economy contributed to economic reversals in investments and growth. The purge of the military and civil society reduced Turkey's military preparedness and alienated the democratic electorate. Erdoğan had already nearly lost his bid to the presidency after his earlier purges in 2014.

Erdoğan's Foreign Policy Disasters

Perversity is when a ruler weakens its military and represses its citizens and launches a series of risky foreign adventures: This is exactly what Erdoğan has done over the past several years.

First Erdoğan backed a terrorist uprising in Syria, providing arms, recruiting overseas 'volunteers' and providing them with unrestricted passage across the Turkish border. Many of the terrorists proceeded to join forces with Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds in establishing military bases on Ankara's borders.

Secondly, Erdoğan ran a scurrilous electoral campaign among the millions of ethnic Turks living in Germany – violating that powerful nation's sovereignty. As a result, Erdoğan increased tensions and animosity with what had been its closest ally in its quest for EU membership – effectively terminating the process.

Thirdly, Erdoğan backed NATO's invasion and bombing of Libya, killing President Gadhafi, who had been an independent voice, capable of serving as a possible ally against imperial intervention in North Africa.

Fourthly, Erdoğan backed the brief government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood after its electoral victory in 2012 following the 'Arab Spring' uprising in Egypt of 2011. He backed a formula similar to his own Turkish policy of excluding the secular, democratic opposition. This led to a bloody US-backed military coup led by General Abdel Sisi in July 2013 – a lesson not lost on Erdoğan.

Fifth, Erdoğan's de facto friendly relations with Israel – despite verbal criticism – in the face of Tel Aviv's assassination of nine non-violent Turkish protestors trying to break the starvation blockade of Gaza – undermined relations with the pro-Palestine Arab world and nationalists in Turkey.

Sixth, Erdoğan developed lucrative ties with Iraqi Kurd dictator-warlord, Masoud Barzani, facilitating the flow of oil to Israel. Erdoğan's own illicit oil deals with Barzani strengthened the cause of Kurdish separatism and exposed the widespread corruption of Erdoğan's family dealings.

Seventh, Erdoğan provoked military tensions with Russia by shooting down a warplane in Syria. This led to an economic boycott, which reduced export earnings, devastated the tourism sector and added Moscow to his list of adversaries, (Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, US, Germany, Hezbollah and Iran).

Eighth, Erdoğan backed the tiny oil-state of Qatar, sending supplies and soldiers to oppose a threat from Saudi Arabia, the other royal oil statelets and Egypt, US allies and followers.

Despite his many disastrous domestic and foreign policies, Erdoğan learned nothing and forgot nothing. When the Israelis backed the Iraqi Kurds in organizing an independence 'referendum' aiming to ultimately annex the rich oil fields of Northern Iraq, Erdoğan took no action despite this threat to Turkish national security. He merely made verbal threats to cut off the Kurd's access to Ankara's oil pipelines. He took no concrete steps. Erdoğan preferred to pocket transit taxes from the oil, antagonizing Iraq and Syria and strengthening the links between Kurdish Iraq and its secessionist counterparts in Syria and Turkey.

Because of Erdoğan failure to close down the US military base following its support of the Gülenist-led coup, the Turkish army is still heavily under US influence, opening the possibility of another uprising.

Erdoğan's lip-service to 'nationalism' has served mainly as a political tool to repress domestic democratic political parties and trade unions and the Kurdish and Alevi communities. Erdoğan's initial support and subsequent opposition to the jihadi terrorist groups seeking to oust the secular-nationalist government in Damascus has caused 'blowback' – with ISIS terrorist cells bombing civilian targets Istanbul and Ankara with mass casualties.

Conclusion

Erdoğan's unprincipled, opportunistic and pro-imperialist NATO alliance demonstrates the inability of an aspiring regional power to find a niche in the US Empire. Erdoğan believed that being a loyal 'ally' of the US would protect Turkey from a coup d'état. He failed to realize that he had become a disposable pawn in US plans to instill more servile rulers (like the Gülenist) in the Middle East.

Erdoğan's belief that Turkey's collaboration with the US to overthrow Syria's President Bashar Assad would lead to a successful territorial grab of Northern Syria: instead Erdoğan ended up serving the US-backed Syrian Kurds tied to the Turkish Kurds .By working to break up Syria and destroy its state and government, Erdoğan strengthened Kurdish cross border expansionism.

Erdoğan failed to recognize the most basic rule of imperial policy: There are no permanent allies there are only permanent interests. Erdoğan thought Turkey would be 'rewarded' by acting as a US surrogate with a share of power, wealth and territory in the Middle East. Instead, as a 'normal' imperial power, the US used Turkey when it was convenient and would then dispose of Erdoğan – like a used condom.

Anti-imperialism is not just an ideal and moral/ethical principle – it is a realistic approach to safeguarding sovereignty, democratic politics and meaningful alliances. (Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

[Oct 13, 2017] Lunatic Russia-Hating in Washington Is 70 Years Old by John Helmer

Why he calls its lunatic. It's pretty rations. Russia now represent an obstacle for global neoliberal empire and being the weakest link in Russia-China alliance it is only logical to attack it first
Notable quotes:
"... Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices, cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the enemy. ..."
"... McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class bow-tie. ..."
"... In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in the declassified original . Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's 1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of judgment, and pleas for help. ..."
"... "Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 -- 1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia. ..."
"... Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic France in 1812-13. ..."
"... "British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as 1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de Lacy Evans, 1787-1870." ..."
Oct 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Joseph Alsop (lead image, centre) and George Kennan (right) started the kind of Russia-hating in Washington which, today, President Vladimir Putin, like the businessmen around him, think of as a novelty that cannot last for long.

Alsop was a fake news fabricator, and such a narcissist as to give the bow-ties he wore a bad name. Kennan was a psychopath who alternated bouts of aggression to prove himself with bouts of depression over his cowardice. For them, Russia was a suitable target. The Washington Post was the newspaper which gave their lunacy public asylum. This, according to a fresh history by a university professor from California, started in 1947, long before the arrival in Washington of the anti-communist phobia known after the name of Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Russia-hating was an American upper-class phenomenon, cultivated in the offices, cocktail parties, clubs, and mansions of the deep state, as it emerged out of World War II. It needed a new enemy to thrive; it fastened on Russia (aka the Soviet Union) as the enemy.

McCarthyism was an American lower-class phenomenon. It focused on the loyalty or disloyalty of the upper-class deep-staters. That wasn't the same thing as Russia-hating; Wall Street bankers, Boston lawyers, homosexuals, Jews, communists, were all the enemy. As the Senator from Wisconsin characterized it himself in 1952, "McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled." He implied – without a middle-class tie; certainly not an upper-class bow-tie.

Russia was not an enemy which united the two American lunacies, for they hated each other much more than they hated the Russians. The Soviet Politburo understood this better then than the Kremlin does now.

Gregg Herken's The Georgetown Set , is so named because it records the activities of Alsop, Kennan and several other State Department, Central Intelligence Agency and White House officials who lived as neighbours in the Georgetown district of the capital city, together with Katharine (Kay) and Philip Graham, proprietor managers of the Washington Post. The district – once a chartered city of Maryland and river port, which was absorbed into the federal District of Columbia in 1871 -- was expensive, relatively speaking then; more so now. The richest of the set, including Alsop, had town houses in Georgetown, and rural retreats in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.

They were a set because because, as Herken said succinctly to an interviewer , "they got together every Sunday for supper and, basically, they ran the country from those meetings." As the book elaborates, they thought they were running the world. With a longer time lapse in which to view the evidence, they were also losing it.

Newspapers exposed in the book for collaborating in all the deceits, failures and war crimes of the history have reacted by calling Herken's effort a "provincial corner". The New Yorker opined that the Russia-hating and Russia war-making which Herken retells are dead and gone. "The guests at the Sunday soirées no doubt felt that they were in the cockpit of history. But the United States is a democracy, not a Wasp Ascendancy There was once an atmosphere of willingness that made a system of bribes and information exchanges seem, to the people involved, simply a way of working together for a common cause in a climate of public opinion that, unfortunately, required secrecy. No one got rich from the arrangement. People just lost track of what was inside their bubble and what was outside, as people tend to do. Vietnam was the reality check. 'I've Seen the Best of It' was the title Alsop gave to his memoirs. Things hadn't been the same since, he felt. He was right about that, and we should be thankful." In the New York media business these days it's possible to publish a selfie of pulling your own leg.

The Washington Post has deflected the indictment against itself by describing Herken's work as "a very strange book (A) a rehash of the history of the Cold War as experienced in certain Washington circles and (B) an almost obsessive recapitulation of the life and journalism of Joseph Alsop." Alsop is dismissed as unworthy of a history at all because he was "utterly repellent: arrogant, patronizing, imperious, uninterested in anyone except himself."

That's the truth about Alsop. The truth about the Washington Post is buried in this line by the Post's books editor about the hand that fed him: "it must be very hard for people who did not live through the '50s and '60s to understand how obsessed the American people were with the threat from Moscow." That line appeared in print on November 7, 2014. It was already history, that's to say, a misjudgment. How monumentally mistaken is obvious now.

In covering the period from 1946 to 1975, Herken's research does repeat much of the history of the Cold War which has been told elsewhere. It starts on February 22, 1946, the date of the "Long Telegram", No. 511 -- Kennan's despatch from the US Embassy in Moscow to the State Department, setting out his strategy of so-called containment and much more besides. Read it in the declassified original . Most of the war-fighting and other war crimes which the telegram set in motion under Kennan's 1948 rubrics, "organized political warfare" and "preventive direct action", are reported in Herken's book; so too are Kennan's frequent funks, failures of conviction, reversals of judgment, and pleas for help.

The book ends on December 30, 1974, the date of Alsop's last column. Alsop concluded with the line: "I have never known the American people to be really badly wrong, if only they were correctly and fully informed."

Herken shows how self-deluded and professionally delusional that was -- not because of Alsop's character but because of his sources. Herken documents that they ran upwards from foot-soldiers (also lubricious sailors) to presidents and cabinet secretaries. Herken doesn't think the same of Kennan, who gets to walk off stage, aged 101, sounding more sceptical of overthrowing Saddam Hussein than he ever was in his prime and in power to direct schemes of what we call state terrorism today.


Left to right: Kennan died in 2005, aged 101; Alsop died in 1989 aged 78; Frank Wisner died in 1965 aged 56. The deeper Herken gets into the private papers, the more he refers to his subjects by their diminutives and nicknames – Joe, Oppie, Beetle, Dickie, the Crocodile, Wig, Jack, Wiz, Soozle, Vangie, et al.

What is fresh about the sources is that Herken has had access to the private notes, letters and diaries of the Alsop family; the Kennan diaries and letters; and the private papers of Frank Wisner, the first director of covert operations against Russia. Wisner went mad and killed himself, as did Graham. There's no doubt about the suicide outcome of their madness.

In the case of the mad ex-Defence Secretary James Forrestal his fatal jump from the window of the Navy hospital in Bethesda, Maryland, in May 1949 might have been a homicidal push. Herken concludes that Forrestal's death was "the first senior-ranking American casualty of the Cold War." Herken thinks of their madness as anomalies. The history shows they were normalities.

Missing from this history is any reference to official documents, now declassified; press reporting of the time; or interviews with veterans of the same events but on other sides – Russian and Soviet; British; German; French; Polish; Vietnamese; Chinese. This isn't so much a fatal flaw in Herken's (right) book as the reason why his history is repeating itself today. Call this a variation on Karl's Marx's apothegm that history starts as tragedy and repeats itself as farce. Herken's blindness to this is as revealing as the Washington Post's madness, not yet as suicidal as its former proprietor's, today.

So mesmerized is Herken by the moneyed backgrounds of his subjects and sources, and by the amount of black cash from the US Government they spent on operations, he forgets to report what they did to fill their own pockets. The claim by the New Yorker that "no one got rich from the arrangement" – Alsop's fake news fabrications – is false, but Herken touches only in passing on how they made (or kept) their money. Alsop's column, for example, was sold to 200 newspapers, and at one time claimed a readership of 25 million. His family inheritance is recorded, but not its annual revenue value. Alsop's payola included silk shirts from Alfred Kohlberg, a textile importer from China who backed Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Tse-tung, as did Alsop. Alsop's patrons included Convair (General Dynamics), the company building the US Air Force Atlas missile for procurement of which Alsop reported fictions about Soviet missile strength.

In the US power which Alsop, Kennan and Wisner believed without hesitation, Herken is not less a believer. "Anything could be achieved", Herken quotes a New York Times reporter quoting Wisner. When the US force multiple changed, however, and US allies or agents were outgunned, outspent, outnumbered, or outwitted, they were unable to acknowledge miscalculation, attributing defeat instead to the superior force or guile of their adversaries, especially the Russians.

This is madness, and there is good reason for recognizing the symptoms again. In 1958, when Herken says Wisner's paranoid manias were becoming obvious to his friends and colleagues, "Frank put forward a theory that the careless comment which had gotten George Kennan kicked out of the Soviet Union was evidence the Soviets had succeeded in an area where the CIA's own scientists had failed: mind control. Some agency hands alleged that Wisner attributed his own increasingly bizarre behaviour to the Kremlin's sly manipulation."

A cell from the comic "Is This Tomorrow? America Under Communism"(1947). Test your mind, read more: https://archive.org/details/IsThisTomorrowAmericaUnderCommunismCatecheticalGuild

From Washington in 1958, fast forward to Washington in 2017; for mind control and sly manipulation, read Russian hacking and cyber warfare. From Wisner's and Kennan's balloon drops of leaflets and broadcasts by Radio Free Europe, fast forward to Russia Today Television and Russian infiltrations of Twitter, Google, the Democratic National Committee, and the Trump organization.

It stands to reason (ahem!) that if you think what the US Government and its journalists were doing then was mad, you are might conclude that what they is doing now is just as mad – and not very different. When the incumbent president and his Secretary of State publicly call for IQ tests on each other, all reason has failed. "The nation," as Alsop had written, "had simply taken leave of all sense of proportion." That was in March 1954.

If you fast forward to now, there's one difference. Today the lunatic Russia warfighters don't retire. They also don't fade away. Today's sleek successors to mad Wisner and mad Graham sleep easily in their beds a-nights. For what they've done and do, they wouldn't dream of taking shotguns to their heads.

Herken retells the story of the campaign Alsop waged against McCarthyism at the State Department, against McCarthy himself, and the vulnerability Alsop himself presented until the Boston lawyer Joseph Welch put an end to McCarthy on June 9, 1954 : "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" Welch famously said. "Have you left no sense of decency?" The recurring history reveals why, even if there are plenty of people to say the same thing today to the Washington Post, New York Times, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the madness will continue repeating itself.

Source: Dances With Bears

Tommy Jensen , October 12, 2017 8:47 AM

..and what happened exactly 70 years ago? You said it, not me.....you said Israel!

Slick Tommy Jensen , October 12, 2017 6:52 PM

Wisner has a son named Frank, who is a pro-Kosovo Albanian/anti-Serb/anti-Russian fiend. Kennan later became a responsibly more calming voice on Russia. Concerning the Capitol Hill establishment -

https://www.strategic-cultu...

Be hard pressed to find a better article on the subject.

Carlo - , October 12, 2017 11:18 AM

Nonetheless, I remember that Kennan was a strong opponent against NATO expansion in the 90's, after the collapse of the USSR. I think there were good reasons to make an alliance against the spread of communism, but after this ended in Europe, of course, NATO should have dissolved just like the Warsaw Pact.

Kjell Hasthi Edward Mercer , October 13, 2017 2:35 PM

Wages are low in Estonia compared to Sweden. So the Swedish corporations will move some factories to Estonia to make more money. That is the "powerhouse". The Estonians will not see much to the money. But they get what is wages in Estonia of course.

Koroviev,Behemoth&Woland LLP , October 13, 2017 8:39 AM

Why did the Warburg Brothers and Jacob Schiff finance the Bolsheviks when the rest of America was instructed to hate the Russians?

Just another one of those unexplained oddities of history.

Gonzogal , October 12, 2017 4:25 PM

It is MUCH older than 70 years!

"The Cold War, I would remind readers, started in November 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power in Russia Undiscouraged and terrified of a socialist revolution in Russia, the so-called Entente [Great Britain and France] tossed fat rolls of banknotes to anyone who said he would fight the Soviets. The Entente sent its own forces to the four distant corners of Russia to do the job themselves. This was the 'Allied' intervention which continued until the beginning of 1921 in the west and until 1922 in Eastern Siberia," ~ Professor Michael Jabara Carley of the University of Montreal

"Interestingly enough, the term "Russophobia" was first used by Fyodor Tyutchev (1803 -- 1873), famous Russian poet, diplomat and politician in reference to growing Western hostilities against Russia on the "eve" of the Crimean War (1854-56) between the Russian Empire and an alliance of France, Britain, the Ottoman Empire, and Sardinia.

Historians elaborate that the so-called "Russophobia campaign" actually started as early as the 1820s -- instigated by Britain -- following Russia's glorious victory over Napoleonic France in 1812-13.

"British hostility towards Russia had recurred periodically ever since the late eighteenth century. In had become increasingly apparent, albeit in a gradual and evolutionary fashion, in the years after Waterloo Fear of Russia's aims in Europe and Asia surfaced as early as 1817," American historian Edward M. Spiers wrote in his book "Radical General: Sir George de Lacy Evans, 1787-1870."

"Britons were especially concerned about their dominance in Central Asia and the "Russian threat" to their hegemonic ambitions in the region. According British diplomat Sir Martin Ewans, in the 1820s-30s London deemed that it would be "unwise" to allow the Russian Empire to extend its influence over Caucasus, Persia and Afghanistan. "That Russophobia existed is undeniable," Sir Ewans remarked in his book "Conflict in Afghanistan: Studies in Asymmetric Warfare."

"Remarkably, in the 1860s, Russian ethnologist, philosopher and historian Nikolai Danilevsky slammed the Western propaganda machine for spreading distorted information and blatant lies about the "Russian threat" and imaginary "expansionist ambitions" of the Russian Empire in his book "Russia and Europe." https://sputniknews.com/pol...

Tommy Jensen Gonzogal , October 13, 2017 5:05 AM

Its incredible one country can sit half the planet away "not allowing" another country "to spread its influence" to its neighbours. When this is the case, this country´s culture is pervercy and sick.

[Oct 12, 2017] The House of Saud Bows to the House of Putin by Pepe Escobar

Oct 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

The deal may certainly be seen as a purely strategic/economic measure to stabilize the oil market – with no geopolitical overtones. And yet OPEC is geared to become a brand new animal – with Russia and Saudi Arabia de facto deciding where the global oil markets go, and then telling the other OPEC players. It's open to question what Iran, Algeria, Nigeria, Venezuela, among others, will have to say about this. The barely disguised aim is to bring oil prices up to a band of $60-75 a barrel by the middle of next year. Certainly a good deal for the Aramco IPO.

There were a rash of other deals clinched in Moscow – such as Aramco and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) $1 billion fund for oil-services projects in Russia, plus another $1 billion for a technology fund.

[Oct 12, 2017] Wheres the Beef The Senate Intel Committee and Russia by Mike Whitney

Neocons already poisoned the well of US-Russian cooperation. They already unleashes witch hunt in best McCarthyism traditions. What else do they want ? Why they continue to waive this dead chicken?
Notable quotes:
"... people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem: ..."
"... Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story? ..."
"... Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple. ..."
"... That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype? ..."
"... It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok. ..."
"... Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war. ..."
Oct 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The Senate Intelligence Committee has made it clear that it is not conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russian hacking, but making a determined effort to support a theory that was presented in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Committee Chairman Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) admitted as much in a press conference last Wednesday when he said:

We feel very confident that the ICA's accuracy is going to be supported by our committee.

Burr's statement is an example of "confirmation bias" which is the tendency to interpret information in a way that confirms one's own preexisting beliefs. In this case, Burr and his co-chair, Senator Mark Warner have already accepted the findings of a hastily slapped-together Intelligence report that was the work of "hand-picked" analysts who were likely chosen to produce conclusions that jibed with a particular political agenda. In other words, the intelligence was fixed to fit the policy. Burr of course has tried to conceal his prejudice by pointing to the number of witnesses the Committee has interviewed and the volume of work that's been produced. This is from an article at The Nation:

Since January 23, the committee and its staff have conducted more than 100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed more than 100,000 documents relevant to Russiagate. The staff, said Warner, has collectively spent a total of 57 hours per day, seven days a week, since the committee opened its inquiry, going through documents and transcripts, interviewing witnesses, and analyzing both classified and unclassified material.

It all sounds very impressive, but if the goal is merely to lend credibility to unverified assumptions, then what's the point?

Let's take a look at a few excerpts from the report and see whether Burr and Warner are justified in "feeling confident" in the ICA's accuracy.

From the Intelligence Community Assessment:

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments.

This is the basic claim of Russia meddling that has yet to be proved. As you can see, the charge is mixed with liberal doses of mind-reading mumbo-jumbo that reveal the authors' lack of objectivity. There's a considerable amount of speculation about Putin's motives and preferences which are based on pure conjecture. It's a bit shocking that professional analysts– who are charged with providing our leaders with rock-solid intelligence related to matters of national security– would indulge in this type of opinionated blather and psycho-babble. It's also shocking that Burr and Warner think this gibberish should be taken seriously.

Here's more from the ICA:

Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him.

More mind-reading, more groundless speculation, more guessing what Putin thinks or doesn't think. The ICA reads more like the text from a morning talk show than an Intelligence report. And what is it about this report that Burr finds so persuasive? It's beyond me. The report's greatest strength seems to be that no one has ever read it. If they had, they'd realize that it's nonsense. Also, it would have been better if the ICA's authors had avoided the amateur psychoanalysis and stuck to the point, Russia hacking. Dabbling in the former seriously impacts the report's credibility.

To their credit, however, Burr and Warner have questioned all of the analysts who contributed to the report. Check out this excerpt from The Nation:

"We have interviewed everybody who had a hand or a voice in the creation of the ICA," said Burr. "We've spent nine times the amount of time that the IC [intelligence community] spent putting the ICA together. We have reviewed all the supporting evidence that went into it and, in addition to that, the things that went on the cutting-room floor that they may not have found appropriate for the ICA, but we may have found relevant to our investigation." Burr added that the committee's review included "highly classified intelligence reporting," and they've interviewed every official in the Obama administration who had anything to do with putting it together. ("Democrats and Republicans in Congress Agree: Russia Did It", The Nation)

That's great, but where' the beef? How can the committee conduct "100 interviews, comprising 250 hours of testimony and resulting in 4,000 pages of transcripts" without producing a shred of evidence that Russia meddled in the elections? How is that possible? The Committee's job is to prove its case not to merely pour over the minutia related to the investigation. No one really cares how many people testified or how much paperwork was involved. What people want is proof that Russia interfered with the elections or that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Moscow. That's the whole point of this exercise. And, on the collusion matter, at least we have something new to report. In a rare moment of candor, Burr blurted out this gem:

"There are concerns that we continue to pursue. Collusion? The committee continues to look into all evidence to see if there was any hint of collusion. Now, I'm not going to even discuss any initial findings because we haven't any."

Think about that. After "100 interviews, 250 hours of testimony, and 4000 transcript pages" there's not the slightest hint of collusion. It's mindboggling. Why isn't this front page news? Why haven't the New York Times or Washington Post run this in their headlines, after all, they've hyped every other part of this story?

Could it be that Burr's admission doesn't mesh with the media's "Russia did it" narrative so they decided to scrub the story altogether?

But it's not just collusion we're talking about here, there's also the broader issue of Russia meddling. And what was striking about the press conference is that –after all the interviews, all the testimony, and all the stacks of transcripts– the Committee has come up with nothing; no eyewitness testimony supporting the original claims, no smoking gun, no proof of domestic espionage, no evidence of Russian complicity, nothing. One big goose egg.

So here's a question for critical minded readers:

If the Senate Intelligence Committee has not found any proof that Russia hacked the 2016 elections, then why do senators' Burr and Warner still believe the ICA is reliable? It doesn't really make sense, does it? Don't they require evidence to draw their conclusions? And doesn't the burden of truth fall on the prosecution (or the investigators in this case)? Isn't a man innocent until proven guilty or doesn't that rule apply to Russia?

Let's cut to the chase: The committee is not getting to the bottom of the Russia hacking matter, because they don't want to get to the bottom of it. It's that simple.

That's why they have excluded any witnesses that may upset their preconceived theory of what happened. Why, for example, would the committee chose to interview former CIA Director John Brennan rather than WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange? Brennan not only helped select the hand-picked analysts who authored the ICA, he also clearly has an animus towards Russia due to his frustrated attempt to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad which was thwarted by Putin. In other words, Brennan has a motive to mislead the Committee. He's biased. He has an ax to grind. In contrast, Assange has firsthand knowledge of what actually transpired with the DNC emails because he was the recipient of those emails. Has Assange been contacted by the Committee or asked to testify via Skype?

Don't bet on it.

What about former UK ambassador Craig Murray, a WikiLeaks colleague, who has repeatedly admitted that he knows the source of the DNC emails. Murray hasn't been asked to testify nor has he even been contacted by the FBI on the matter. Apparently, the FBI has no interest in a credible witness who can disprove the politically-motivated theory expounded in the ICA.

Then there's 30-year CIA analyst Ray McGovern and his group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern has done extensive research on the topic and has produced solid evidence that the DNC emails were "leaked" by an insider, not "hacked" by a foreign government. McGovern's work squares with Assange and Murray's claim that Russia did not hack the 2016 elections. Has McGovern been invited to testify?

How about Skip Folden, retired IBM Program Manager and Information Technology expert, whose excellent report titled "Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge" also disproves the hacking theory, as does The Nation's Patrick Lawrence whose riveting article at The Nation titled "A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack" which thoroughly obliterates the central claims of the ICA.

Finally, there's California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who met with Assange in August at the Ecuadorian embassy in London and who was assured that Assange would provide hard evidence (in the form of "a computer drive or other data-storage device") that the Russians were not involved in the DNC email scandal.

Wouldn't you think that senate investigators would want to talk to a trusted colleague and credible witness like Rohrabacher who said he could produce solid proof that the scandal, that has dominated the headlines and roiled Washington for the better part of a year, was bogus?

Apparently not. Apparently Burr and his colleagues would rather avoid any witness or evidence that conflicts with their increasingly-threadbare thesis.

So what conclusions can we draw from the Committee's behavior? Are Burr and Warner really conducting an open and independent investigation of alleged Russia hacking or is this just a witch hunt?

It should be obvious by now that the real intention of the briefing was not to provide the public with more information, facts or evidence of Russian hacking, but to use the prestigious setting as a platform for disseminating more disinformation aimed at vilifying an emerging rival (Russia) that has blocked Washington's aggression in Ukraine and Syria, and threatens to unite the most populous and prosperous region in the world (Eurasia) into one massive free trade zone spanning from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

Reasonable people must now consider the possibility that the Russia hacking narrative is an Information Operation (IO) devoid of any real substance which is designed to poison the publics perception of Russia. It is a domestic propaganda campaign that fits perfectly with the "Full Spectrum Dominance" theory of weaponizing media in a way that best achieves one's geopolitical objectives. The American people are again being manipulated so that powerful elites can lead the country to war.

[Oct 11, 2017] The Myths of Interventionists by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Dakota Wood makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out for how wrong it is:

Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities, and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.

A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].

Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.

Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats, but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo, Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our government's actions.

The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya, but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies. Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen, as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could be "reassured."

It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes.

Posted in foreign policy , politics .

Tagged Syria , Rick Santorum , Yemen , Iraq war , Panama , Libyan war , Saudi Arabia , Haiti , Winston Churchill , Dakota Wood .

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Democracy Vs. Hegemonism? In Defense Of Mary Grabar

Christian Chuba , says: October 11, 2017 at 4:22 pm

'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.

At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'.

It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our best friends the Saudis).

[Oct 11, 2017] US pseudo left does not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

polistra, Website October 11, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT

Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working FOR Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly stated in every poster and shout and beating.

[Oct 11, 2017] Russia may demand U.S. cut diplomatic staff in Russia to 300 or below RIA by Maria Kiselyova

Oct 11, 2017 | www.msn.com

Russia's Foreign Ministry does not rule out ordering the United States to cut its diplomatic staff in Russia to 300 people or below, the RIA news agency cited Georgy Borisenko, the head of the ministry's North America Department, as saying on Wednesday.

In July, Moscow ordered the United States to cut the number of its diplomatic and technical staff working in Russia by around 60 percent, to 455, part of a diplomatic row.

The figure of 455 was meant to mirror the total number of Russian diplomats working in the United States, but also included Russian nationals working at the United Nations in New York, Borisenko told the agency.

"The fact that in the summer we took into account the people working for Russia's mission at the UN, this was good will," Borisenko told RIA.

"If they haven't appreciated this, we have the full right to reduce ... the number of U.S. diplomats," he said, saying Moscow could stop taking Russian U.N. staff into account when calculating what parity between the two countries meant.

"In this case, the number of American personnel in Russia should decline to a level of 300 or below."

(Reporting ; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

[Oct 11, 2017] Russia witch hunt is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working class

Highly recommended!
Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
Notable quotes:
"... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
"... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
"... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
"... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
"... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
"... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
"... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
"... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
"... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
"... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Originally from: The elites "have no credibility left" by Chris Hedges

But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.

This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour. It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the 1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country.

Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities, where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control. They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population that becomes restive.

The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions.

Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater.

These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.

... ... ...

DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation of this?

CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on "Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity, meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying, racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.

I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.

The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced.

DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who pitch it to them.

CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.

DN: It goes the other way too?

CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.

DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left."

CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.

If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this cartoonish vision of politics.

The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch.

I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis. We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.

So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with people who consider themselves part of the left.

The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!

Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors.

[Oct 11, 2017] The Infantilization of President Trump by David A. Graham

Atlantic used to have a strong pro-Hillary bias and stooges are prominent among its correspondents, so all information should be take with huge grain of salt. may be this is just a "color revolution" style campaign to provoke the President of some outburst that hurts him politically.
But Trump behaviour in case of North Korea speaks for itself so this is not pure insinuations...
Notable quotes:
"... On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation, more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger. ..."
"... Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015 deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to eliminating it. ..."
"... Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

... Or, for that matter, whether the U.S. might go to war soon with either North Korea or Iran, as I wrote yesterday . On the North Korean front, the president has repeatedly made bellicose remarks for months, even as aides try to slow-walk the slide toward war, warning of the catastrophic destruction that would result, insisting that all options remain on the table, and trying to keep diplomatic channels open -- only to see Trump repeatedly undercut them. Even as the president seems eager for confrontation, more prudent members of the team have sought to redirect his anger.

Bargaining is another technique, as recent news about Iran shows. While many of Trump's aides had their gripes about the 2015 deal with Tehran to prevent nuclear proliferation, most of them seem to agree that keeping the deal in place is far preferable to eliminating it. But now the administration seems likely to punt the issue, decertifying the deal but leaving it to Congress to either let it stand or fall. (So much for Harry S. Truman's "the buck stops here.") Why take this halfway step? Part of it is that, just as on DACA, Trump wants to keep a campaign promise to end the deal without suffering the consequences, but another part is childish petulance: Olivier Knox reports Trump simply hates being confronted with the need to recertify the deal every 90 days.

And then, as every parent knows, sometimes you just have to give in -- let the kid have a victory on something less significant. Aides can try to prevent war with North Korea, and they can seek compromise on the Iran deal, and they can quietly kill the demand for more nukes, but they've got to let the president have his way on occasion. When Trump demands "goddamned steam" to power catapults on aircraft carriers, aides shrug and let it go.

Trump's childish behavior was worrying when it involved belittling his opponents, discussing his genitalia, or taking swipes at former Miss Universe Alicia Machado, but it takes on a new level of danger when it affects U.S. military policy, from Iran to North Korea to the nuclear arsenal.

There's a powerful, perhaps too powerful, urge to seek historical analogues for Trump , but seldom has there been a president whose own loyalists and insiders were so dismissive of his maturity, judgment, and prudence. So how does the presidency work when the president's aides treat him like a child? The immediate answer is, not very well. The longer-term answers are murkier and scarier.

[Oct 11, 2017] The Myths of Interventionists by Daniel Larison

Notable quotes:
"... There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars. ..."
"... The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. ..."
"... It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes. ..."
"... At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Dakota Wood makes the usual alarmist case for throwing more money at the military. This passage stood out for how wrong it is:

Churchill repeatedly warned his countrymen of the dangers of complacency, misguided priorities, and weakness of will, of the foolishness to see the world and major competitors as being anything other than what they truly are. While praising the virtues and spirit of moderation that defined the English-speaking peoples of his day, he also urged them to recognize the necessity of having the courage to take timely action when dangers threatened and clearly visible trends in an eroding ability to provide for their common defense were leading toward disaster.

A similar state of affairs afflicts the United States today. To the extent America intervenes in the affairs of others, it is because the United States has been attacked first, an ally is in dire need of assistance, or an enemy threatens broader regional stability [bold mine-DL].

Over ten years ago, Rick Santorum talked incessantly about "the gathering storm" in a very conscious echo of Churchill, and subsequent events have proven his alarmism to have been just as unfounded and ridiculous as it seemed to be at the time. Hawks are often eager to invoke the 1930s to try to scare their audience into accepting more aggressive policies and more military spending than our security actually requires. Some of this may come from believing their own propaganda about the threats that they exaggerate, and some of it may just be a reflex, but as analysis of the contemporary scene it is always wrong. There are dangers and threats in the world, but all of the threats from state actors are manageable and deterrable without spending more on the military, and these threats are much less severe than anything the U.S. faced between the 1940s and the end of the Cold War. The U.S. can and should get by safely with a much lower level of military spending, and our government should also adopt a strategy of restraint that keeps us out of unnecessary wars.

Churchill-quoting alarmists aren't just bad at assessing the scale and nature of foreign threats, but they are usually also oblivious to the shoddy justifications for intervening and the damage that our interventionist policies do. The section quoted above reflects an almost touchingly naive belief that U.S. interventions are always justified and never cause more harm than they prevent. Very few U.S. interventions over the last thirty years fit the description Wood gives. The only time that the U.S. has intervened militarily abroad in response to an attack during this period was in Afghanistan as part of the immediate response to the 9/11 attacks. Every other intervention has been a choice to attack another country or to take sides in an ongoing conflict, and these interventions have usually had nothing to do with coming to the defense of an ally or preventing regional instability. Our interference in the affairs of others is often illegal under both domestic and/or international law (e.g., Kosovo, Libya, Iraq), it is very rarely related to U.S. or allied security, and it tends to cause a great deal of harm to the country and the surrounding region that are supposedly being "helped" by our government's actions.

The Iraq war is just the most obvious example of how the U.S. forcibly intervenes in other parts of the world over the objections of allies, in flagrant disregard for international law, and with no thought for the destabilizing effects that military action will have on the surrounding region. The U.S. didn't invade Panama in 1989 to help an ally or because we were attacked, but simply to topple the government there. Intervention in Haiti in 1994 didn't come in response to an attack or to assist an ally, but because Washington wanted to restore a deposed leader. Bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 was an attack on a country that posed no threat to us or our allies. The Libyan war was a war for regime change and a war of choice. A few allies did urge the U.S. to intervene in Libya, but not because they were in "dire need of assistance." The only thing that Britain and France needed in 2011 was the means to launch an attack on another country whose government posed no threat to them. Meddling in Syria since at least 2012 had nothing to do with defending the U.S. and our allies. Wood's description certainly doesn't apply to our support for the shameful Saudi-led war on Yemen, as the U.S. chose to take part in an attack on another country so that our despotic clients could be "reassured."

It would be much more accurate to say that the U.S. intervenes often in the affairs of weaker countries because it can, because our leaders leaders want to, and because there is usually no other power willing or able to stop it from happening. Exorbitant military spending far beyond what is needed to provide for our defense makes it possible to take military action on a regular basis, and the constant inflation of foreign threats makes a large part of the public believe that our government's frequent use of force overseas has something to do with self-defense. This frenetic meddling in the affairs of other nations hasn't made and won't make America any safer, it makes far more enemies than it eliminates, and it imposes significant fiscal and human costs on our country and the countries where our government interferes.

Posted in foreign policy , politics .

Tagged Syria , Rick Santorum , Yemen , Iraq war , Panama , Libyan war , Saudi Arabia , Haiti , Winston Churchill , Dakota Wood .

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Democracy Vs. Hegemonism? In Defense Of Mary Grabar

Christian Chuba , says: October 11, 2017 at 4:22 pm

'The gathering storm' I read that and I was dying to know which storm he was referring too.

At least Churchill had a focus. Neocons claim that any country that doesn't yield to our every desire is an existential threat. One article says, 'Iran', another 'China', yet another 'Russia' or 'N. Korea'.

It's surprising how low on the list N. Korea typically ranks as the hawks try to turn attention quickly back to Iran. 'Iran is funding and developing their nuclear program, Iran is going to buy their nuclear weapons'. At least in the case of N. Korea we do have a country that obviously does possess WMD and is developing ICBM's and is likely to sell them in the future (even to our best friends the Saudis).

[Oct 11, 2017] Russia may demand U.S. cut diplomatic staff in Russia to 300 or below RIA by Maria Kiselyova

Oct 11, 2017 | www.msn.com

Russia's Foreign Ministry does not rule out ordering the United States to cut its diplomatic staff in Russia to 300 people or below, the RIA news agency cited Georgy Borisenko, the head of the ministry's North America Department, as saying on Wednesday.

In July, Moscow ordered the United States to cut the number of its diplomatic and technical staff working in Russia by around 60 percent, to 455, part of a diplomatic row.

The figure of 455 was meant to mirror the total number of Russian diplomats working in the United States, but also included Russian nationals working at the United Nations in New York, Borisenko told the agency.

"The fact that in the summer we took into account the people working for Russia's mission at the UN, this was good will," Borisenko told RIA.

"If they haven't appreciated this, we have the full right to reduce ... the number of U.S. diplomats," he said, saying Moscow could stop taking Russian U.N. staff into account when calculating what parity between the two countries meant.

"In this case, the number of American personnel in Russia should decline to a level of 300 or below."

(Reporting ; Writing by Dmitry Solovyov; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

[Oct 11, 2017] Donald Trump is exposing the contradictions of the elite by David Callahan

That's neoliberal elite after all. Why the author expects them to be ashamed is unclear
Notable quotes:
"... Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street. ..."
"... History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Since January, though, we've also seen a new level of rapaciousness by corporate interests in Washington DC that seem intent on extracting as much wealth as they can from wherever they can: consumers, investors, public lands, student borrowers, the tax code and even the war in Afghanistan.

Longtime watchers of the .01% won't be surprised by this bifurcated picture. For over two decades, an ever more educated wealthy elite has trumpeted its belief in tolerance, diversity, and meritocracy – even as it's also helped usher in record levels of inequality that have left many Americans feeling economically excluded and increasingly angry.

Trump's retrograde presidency has revealed the profound contradictions at the top of the US income ladder.

... ... ...

Corporate leaders have already been supportive of Trump's sweeping push to gut regulations in ways that would tilt the rules governing the economy more in favor of business and the wealthy. Social inclusion may be a growing public mantra of the far upper class. But economic extraction remains among its core operating principles.

... ... ...

Social inclusion is a public mantra of the upper class. But economic extraction remains a core operating principle

The answer is that many corporate and financial leaders were, and still are, a big part of the problem. These leaders have fostered the economic conditions that have thrown the values of tolerance and diversity on the defensive in America.

Business practices aimed at boosting shareholder value – like outsourcing, offshoring, automation, union-busting, predatory lending, and a range of anti-competitive abuses – have undermined the security of large swaths of the country. In turn, a flood of business dollars for campaign donations and lobbying over decades has helped thwart effective government responses to rising pain on Main Street.

... ... ...

History tells us that societies with extractive and self-serving upper classes tend to fall into decline – whereas societies with inclusive elites are more likely to thrive. With the rise of Trump, we're seeing what an unraveling of the social fabric looks like after decades in which nearly all the nation's income gains have flowed upwards to a tiny sliver of households.

Rarely has the American experiment – the notion of a country united by ideas rather than shared heritage – felt more fragile than it does right now. It's an ugly picture of division and resentment, but a predictable one given the economic trauma inflicted on millions of people over recent decades.

... ... ...

David Callahan is the author of The Givers: Wealth, Power, and Philanthropy in a New Gilded Age. He is the founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy

[Oct 11, 2017] US pseudo left does not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

polistra, Website October 11, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT

Hedges doesn't seem to understand that the "Resistance" is openly and obviously working FOR Deepstate. They do not resist wars and globalism and monopolistic corporations. They resist everyone who questions the war. They resist nationalism and localism.

Nothing mysterious or hidden about this, no ulterior motive or bankshot. It's explicitly stated in every poster and shout and beating.

[Oct 11, 2017] The Sordid Double Life of Washingtons Most Powerful Ambassador

Something about real foreign influence in Washington corridors of power ... Bankrolling think tanks is pretty slick idea.
Notable quotes:
"... Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba has bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington. ..."
"... The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE operates torture warehouses and funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions. ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | theintercept.com

Otaiba has become one of the most powerful and well-connected men in Washington, reportedly in touch with Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump's son-in-law and adviser, on a weekly basis. His spending on galas, hospital wings, dinner parties, and birthday bashes has become legendary. Close with CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top national security officials, Otaiba has bankrolled nearly every major think tank in Washington.

The Emirati envoy's cachet stems in part from his close relationship with Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who is widely considered to be the effective ruler of the UAE. The crown prince of Abu Dhabi, he is known in the region and in Washington by his initials MBZ. Since 2000, Otaiba has reported directly to MBZ as his head of international affairs, and then as the ambassador in Washington. "Before I was introduced to him, the way he was described to me was the guy MBZ trusts most on foreign issues and one of the smartest people in the UAE," said Kristofer Harrison, a former Bush administration official who worked closely with Otaiba.

The diplomat has worked tirelessly for nearly two decades to push Washington's defense and foreign policy establishment to adopt MBZ's hawkish ideas on Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other contentious policy areas. Otaiba has been a leading voice in Washington for the war in Yemen, where the UAE operates torture warehouses and funds death squads. The conflict has left more than 10,000 dead and countless more starving and stricken with a cholera epidemic of historic proportions.

A fixture among Washington society, Otaiba spent much of the last decade carefully constructing the image of an enlightened Persian Gulf diplomat -- forward-thinking on women's rights, secularism, and embracing the modern world. On International Women's Day this year, he published an open letter to his young daughter to drive the point home.

Otaiba's homeland, meanwhile, does not often live up to such values. The UAE has some of the most draconian sex crime laws of any place in the world. Just last week, a man and a woman were arrested for having a conversation in a car while being unrelated and unmarried. This week, two defendants were spared prison time for the crime of " indecent attire ," but fined and deported nonetheless.

[Oct 11, 2017] An Al Jazeera Reporter Went Undercover with the Pro-Israel Lobby In Washington

Oct 11, 2017 | theintercept.com

Swisher wouldn't confirm or deny the identity of the American operative, but he said that with the American political class focused on foreign intervention in the affairs of the United States, now is an appropriate time to run the follow-up investigation. "I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that debate," he said.

[Oct 11, 2017] A documentary focused on Israeli influence in the US, the existence of which has previously been suspected but had yet to be made public.

Notable quotes:
"... Is not all this noise about Rooskies has one and only one goal – to divert attention from the "gorilla" and her "struggle for survival" in the Middle East and in the US Congress? https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an-al-jazeera-reporter-went-undercover-with-the-pro-israel-lobby-in-washington/ ..."
Oct 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anon , Disclaimer October 11, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

@Johnny F. Ive

They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to use the US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign agents of influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest from think tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners and their domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.

Is not all this noise about Rooskies has one and only one goal – to divert attention from the "gorilla" and her "struggle for survival" in the Middle East and in the US Congress? https://theintercept.com/2017/10/09/an-al-jazeera-reporter-went-undercover-with-the-pro-israel-lobby-in-washington/

" a documentary focused on Israeli influence in the U.S., the existence of which has previously been suspected but had yet to be made public. The four-part series, "The Lobby," dug into the Israeli embassy in London, as well as several other pro-Israel lobby groups, and their campaign to "take down" British Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.

The investigation led to the resignation of a top Israeli official in London, as well as a high-profile complaint that Al Jazeera had broken broadcasting regulations in the United Kingdom. One of the complaints charged the investigation with anti-Semitism, but the government board ruled that imputing such a motive to a film critical of Israel would be akin to calling a series on gang violence racist.

Ofcom received complaints about the series from pro-Israel British activists and a former Israel embassy employee. It dismissed all charges, which included anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing, and the infringement of privacy. It ruled that as per the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's guidance: "It did not consider that such a critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted anti-Semitism, particularly as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations."

[Oct 10, 2017] OKeefe Strikes Again, Catches NYT Editors On Hidden Camera Targeting Trumps Businesses, His Dumb Fk Of A Son

See also Project Veritas Video On New York Times The Daily Caller
Notable quotes:
"... "I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric... ..."
"... "Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to." ..."
"... When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do." ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

In the latest of a series of undercover operations targeting mainstream media bias, James O'Keefe has just dropped a new undercover video which takes direct aim at the New York Times' Audience Strategy Editor, Nick Dudich, who admits repeatedly to promoting content that intentionally seeks to, among other things, damage President Trump's businesses as a means towards forcing his resignation.

Here is a brief intro from Project Veritas :

While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, "No I'm not, that's why I'm here."

Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas Journalist "my voice is on... my imprint is on every video we do."

Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:

"I'd target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric...

"Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott... So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they're hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he'd lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to."

When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, "Oh, we always do."

Is @nicholasdudich an isolated incident, or does the #NYTimes employ a culture of bias, in direct conflict with their ethical handbook? pic.twitter.com/oxAenS7aob

-- Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) October 10, 2017

To our complete 'shock', O'Keefe also learned the Dudich worked for Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign and Obama's campaign in both 2008 and 2012...

In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:

"So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016... they needed a volunteer strategist to do video ... well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton."

He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: "I had to leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn't deemed a journalist anymore to be able to work for the Clinton campaign."

Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: "Like, after the Clinton campaign, I'm like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like, this isn't going to change."

Exactly what kind of people does @nytimes allow to be a video gatekeeper? #AmericanPravda #NYTimes #NYT pic.twitter.com/6uGVsRFpc7

-- James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 10, 2017

Bizarrely, Dudich also claims to have joined the Antifa movement as an undercover agent for the FBI...a request which he originally said came from his godfather, James Comey, even though he subsequently retracted that statement.

Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa. "Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."

He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not." "How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time." "Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I'm not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don't know if they can keep me on."

tmosley -> Blank Reg , Oct 10, 2017 12:41 PM

One wonders if this qualifies as sedition. Imagine if someone had done something like this to a previous president. If some group was on record trying to bankrupt Washington's Mt Vernon, or Teddy Roosevelt's family members, with the full intent of subverting the government.

JimmyJones -> TheDude1224 , Oct 10, 2017 12:50 PM

So he said he was working as an informant for the FBI and joined ANTIFA, was that a lie? What type of a small minded fool lies about being a "special agent" working for the Gov't? Well this type. Fox news "fair and balanced" , NY Times "Fairly Biased". But don't worry the Liberals will still view the NY Times as the Paper of Record. Looney

hedgeless_horseman -> JimmyJones , Oct 10, 2017 12:52 PM Omen IV -> hedgeless_horseman , Oct 10, 2017 1:51 PM

so is Comey the GodFather of the guy in the 32nd floor of the Mandalay and did he have him planted? I would easily easily believe that

Chupacabra-322 -> hedgeless_horseman , Oct 10, 2017 1:59 PM

Smith Mundt Act. The Presstitute appendage's of the Criminal Deep State can Propagandandize / Gas Light the masses with Impunity. And, in their sick, twisted, perverted minds, it's all Legal.

JRobby -> JimmyJones , Oct 10, 2017 1:24 PM

Yes, this is pretty much "bombshell" category considering Dudich's position, his title, a fancy word play on Propagandist. MSM will never mention it. Not one aspect of it.

Oldwood -> Cognitive Dissonance , Oct 10, 2017 1:39 PM

But would be worrying if it were the French rather than the Russians "interfering" with our sainted elections?

AS is seen, it is not corruption that is perceived as the problem, it is WHO's corruption that is the problem.

Who owns the NYTs and does anyone care? Carlos Slim? Why would we care if the owner is the resident of one of the most violent and corrupt countries in the world, one emmersed in a socialist bankrupt ideology for a hundred years?

I do find it strange that we started the last century so aware and afraid of the socialist/communist virus, but as was predicted, we have embraced every last tenet of it's ideology under the mantle of "progressivism". Note that communism is no longer a threat, just another alternative increasingly openly embraced by the media and colleges....just like they said they would.

And it is TRUMP who is now the threat, not communist collectivist dependency. Interesting.

Snípéir_Ag_Obair -> tmosley , Oct 10, 2017 2:42 PM

if it is sedition it looks like we can all count on Sessioms to not do a fucking thing about it. Why haven't Comey, Lynch, Clinton, Rice and Obama been indicted? Or lying-under-oath master Clapper?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sedition

I think you can certainly argue that the Dem/Spook/Media effort to create the Russiahoax stuff, all as the feds never even examined the dnc server, or interviewed Assange, is quite literally conspiracy and sedition.

Sessions isn't indicting, nor being directed to, nor fired. It's a big club...

Endgame Napoleon -> SILVERGEDDON , Oct 10, 2017 1:06 PM

What about the lack of professional decorum and a paper that regards itself as a premier publication? All of these connected-up people at the top expect us to regard them as -- unquestionably -- deserving of high positions, but they feel free to let loose with unprofessional behavior any time they want if it serves 1) their own careerist means or 2) the careerist goals of their cronies.

Doom Porn Star , Oct 10, 2017 12:22 PM

"Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.

"Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time." he told the undercover journalist. "So, I had fun. They'd start s**t, I'm like, I get to hit you. I'm so excited."

He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: "I joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset... So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they're a threat or not."

"How'd you meet Comey?" asked the Project Veritas journalist. "He's my godfather," Dudich explained. "My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time." "

Doesn't he make it sound a lot like he's just another 'made' chucklehead in the Mob?

That's because he is.

Felix da Kat , Oct 10, 2017 1:26 PM

Dudich is a poster child for the new millenial way of thinking. In their view lying is perfectly okay so long as it serves one's arch-purpose. In this case it is to prevent Trump's agenda and his 2020 bid (yet to be announced) for re-election. The tactic has been adopted by many of the NYTimes reporters. It is the same with the other major media outlets (not Fox/WSJ so much). For instance, if you write a comment in the WaPo online, if it does not conform to their liberal agenda, it gets deleted and that is dishonest (mine were deleted several times. I have since banished them). The media is very devious in how it is attempting to take over political contol of America. They are a shameless and crooked bunch, making it very difficult to fight back. The real revolution in America begins when the true conservative soul of America says, "No more". Until that happens, further social decay will be the norm.

Aireannpure , Oct 10, 2017 2:31 PM

Too damn many English majors with serious emotional problems. Get Science and Engineering background folks in there and all this non sense would end. This kid is a punk and worthy of a good daddy belt beat down. Who raised this crap?

[Oct 10, 2017] Sputnik and RT are too small, especially Sputnik. They are forced to be on the defensive all the time and have no ability to created successful memes or "fake news" that would put the western MSM on the defensive

Notable quotes:
"... According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this. ..."
"... What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down. ..."
"... It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game. ..."
"... Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, ..."
"... the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge budget. ..."
"... The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying your nation: look in the mirror first. ..."
"... I think the big issue is that money runs the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses. ..."
"... "Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting. ..."
"... Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda? Don't make me laugh! The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of advantage. ..."
"... This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their American vassal state. ..."
"... Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or 'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc.. ..."
"... So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord, undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anatoly Karlin , Website October 10, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

To be quite frank I hope that the US declares RT/Sputnik foreign agents (or bans them outright).

1. They are more interested in Putin hagiography and idiotic conspiracy theories than intelligent propaganda anyway.

2. They are ineffective, especially Sputnik. According to SimilarWeb, it only gets a total of 2.5 million monthly visitors from the US. That's almost an Unz.com like level of visitorship even though Ron's budget and attention of social media/advertising crap is many orders of magnitude lower than Sputniks. Russian taxpayers don't deserve this.

3. Gives Russia a great excuse to kick out dishonest Western journalists (about 75% of them).

Andrei Martyanov , Website October 10, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

@Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften

The Europeans don't want to have American military bases there.

Not true. Some Europeans may not want that, but many others are perfectly content with the state of the affairs. As per Eastern Europe–majority of them want US military bases.

Jake , October 10, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT

What was made clear by Mr. Lincoln and his Civil War was that the WASP Elites, the Yankee rich and powerful, saw the 1st Amendment as meaning all speech they supported would be actively promoted by Government while all speech they opposed would be shut down.

That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted Free Speech all day and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the Revolution, you paid dearly.

Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.

Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best land and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply the contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic culture.

iffen , October 10, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.

It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game.

Almost! Almost made it!

Jake , October 10, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT

@Anonymous

I don't trust Russia any more than you do. I have even less, much less, trust, for the UK, Germany, France, the EU, as well as America's Democrats and Neocons.

JoaoAlfaiate , October 10, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT

Russia: White and Christian, sounds like an ideal ally for the United States.

John Fitzgerald , October 10, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT

If the Feds are going to make RT register as a foreign agent due to foreign funding, where does it stop? On the same basis, all nationally owned news outlets must be forced to register, e.g., BBC, Al Jezeera, etc. And what about nominally non-government owned news entities that a home government renders financial assistance, eg, the London Times, if it needed government loans to survive? Would it be a British foreign agent?

And what about the New York Times, which in its perilous financial state appears to be substantially supported by loans from a Mexican National, Carlos Slim who in turn must be assumed to work hand-in-hand with the Mexican government, since most of his wealth comes from Mexican government-granted franchises.

Should the New York Times be registered as a Mexican foreign agent (its news coverage and editorials regarding immigration certainly would be evidence it is acting in that capacity)?

Wade , October 10, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT

OT If anyone wants to catch a nice laid back interview with Phil Geraldi they can do so here:

A lengthy discussion about his sacking at TAC and AIPAC is had with Ryan Dawson. Both put in nice plugs for unz.com. I was really happy to see Phil being interviewed by Ryan. I hope they do this again sometime.

I came to Unz for Steve Sailer but Geraldi is slowly becoming my favorite author here. Thanks for sticking with things Phil. You're doing great work.

Sam Shama , October 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Priss, your comments are really funny. "Clown Streicher is a 'gypsy nazi'" Is Anglin a violent fruitboy like Streicher?

SolontoCroesus , October 10, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

@Jake

That was in keeping with the culture's source: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. Puritans spouted Free Speech all dan and all of the night, and if you dared speak against Cromwell or the Revolution, you paid dearly.

Hypocrisy about free speech is deep in the WASP DNA.

Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes. WASP culture is Germanic. Germanics have always seen Slavs as inferior peoples they should war against perpetually, to steal their best land and make serfs of the survivors. This obsession with screwing with Russia is simply the contemporary manifestation of that part of the problem of unrestrained Germanic culture.

What of King Arthur? How did Britain go from Arthur to Cromwell? What role Henry VIII, and Dutch banking/ Bank of England?

How did Russia go from Tolstoy to Trotsky? What role Jacob Schiff and atheist Bolshevism/Communism?

How did Germany go from Wagner to Merkel( after a brief Hitler Interruptus )? What role Rothschild, Marx/Zinoviev and Zionism?

FDR and Churchill were determined to keep organizationally strong Germany and resource-rich Russia -- Christian Russia -- from uniting; Cromwell's England and Morgenthau's USA wanted to control German skill and Russian resources; their heirs want the same today.

Arthur's Britain and Wagner's Germany are natural allies of Tolstoy's Russia (and also of Virgil's Italy and Ferdowsi's Persia, btw).

Toss over this White nonsense, it tells no story, moves no souls.

... ... ...

RobinG , October 10, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT

"Sputnik ..has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg."

The amazing thing is that Feinberg ever had the job. In this painful interview, he readily admits to little knowledge and less interest in the particulars of Ukrainian/Crimean/Russian history, politics and recent events. Despite this inadequacy, he's managed to use his dismissal for self-promotion.

Talking to ex-Sputnik employee Andrew Feinberg about "Russian propaganda"

anon , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT

And on the flip side maybe all the Jewish/Israeli news organizations will register too, maybe even AIPAC. Foreign is foreign and fighting wars for foreign interests is no virtue.

It's no wonder we are able to make so many new frands and they just moving into the west everywhere. Spending taxpayer money in foreign countries is helping the US taxpayer. I guess moving a quarter of the population that said foreign country can't take care of and dumping them on the US taxpayer and their children is our gift. Then give them jobs here too.

This lovely idea was signed initially during the Clinton admin with the UN, and put into place during the Bush admin. Dems just hate corps except when they are their own. (Hegelian Dialectic at play everywhere) 20 Rillion in Debt. Millennium Challenge Corporation

  • "MCC is a prime example of smart U.S. Government assistance in action, benefiting both developing countries and U.S. taxpayers through:
  • Competitive selection: Before a country can become eligible to receive assistance, MCC's Board examines its performance on independent and transparent policy indicators and selects compact-eligible countries based on policy performance.
  • Country-led solutions: MCC requires selected countries to identify their priorities for achieving sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. Countries develop their MCC proposals in broad consultation within their society. MCC teams then work in close partnership to help countries refine a program.
  • Country-led implementation: MCC administers the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). When a country is awarded a compact, it sets up its own local MCA accountable entity to manage and oversee all aspects of implementation. Monitoring of funds is rigorous and transparent, often through independent fiscal agents.

MCC forms partnerships with some of the world's poorest countries, but only those committed to: good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizens."

https://www.mcc.gov/about

Anon , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT

@Wade Interesting interview. Kind of disappointed not to see any evidence of Christianity in Giraldi's home, or at least not in that camera shot. Maybe his naïveté in approaching the issue, which brought on the artillary barrage, is due to his being oblivious to the larger spiritual, civilizational, battle going on. Forest/trees.

"Accumulating knowledge is a form of avarice and lends itself to another version of the Midas story man is so avid for knowledge that everything that he touches turns to facts; his faith becomes theology; his love becomes lechery; his wisdom becomes science; pursuing meaning, he ignores truth." -Malcolm Muggeridge

Don Bacon , October 10, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT

@Johnny F. Ive

Without Russia the US Army would have no real reason to exist, Canada and Mexico being benign, because we all know that the US taxpayers are on the hook to defend Europe against the nasty powerful Russians which (mainly) defeated Germany in the last big one, and the US Army is a large political force with many bases, half a million people, and a huge budget.

Talha , October 10, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

As per Eastern Europe–majority of them want US military bases.

"Let's you and him fight!" Peace.

Fran Macadam , October 10, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

The big corps are using their bought government to eliminate competition to their concentrated domestic media oligarchy. They can buy up all the domestic outlets, those outside have to be banned. It is ludicrous to blame foreigners for all your ills, when the vast majority of your country is itself made up of foreigners and their descendants, except for the tiny remainder of American Indians. Which identifies properly another way to identify the enemy destroying your nation: look in the mirror first.

RobinG , October 10, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT

@Wade Thank you for posting. Not only is this a great interview with Phil, it's (for me) a much appreciated introduction to Ryan Dawson.

Fran Macadam , Website October 10, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin What you hope for is not in the interest of those of us who believe in free and unfettered discourse, which principle is one of the core reasons to believe in ideals that are supposed to define America.

It's fine to question foreign funded media, but it's against everything we are supposed to stand for to ban them.

As the famous jurist wrote, the answer to bad speech is more speech.

Let's debate what's said by foreigners, and their advocates, whether Russian, British, Israeli or any other. Our own government is not famous for truthfulness to the public, either. Let our own government answer them, if they question it, and let us determine where the truth lies, instead of being lied to.

John Jeremiah Smith , October 10, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

I watch programs on RT fairly frequently, and moreso with the arrival of the current crop of sitcoms, mindlessly insane 'dramas', firemen and cops shows, etc. Lotsa good stuff on RT. If you read the credits, you will find that most of the specials and magazines are not Russian productions. It's a good place to learn that much of the rest of world journalism bears no resemblance to the propaganda machines of the US networks.

US TV and radio production is a vast web of fabrications designed for social control, to manipulate public opinion, and to reinforce the will of the wealthy and powerful. The US government is corrupt throughout; the purpose of US media is to turn the public eye away from that corruption.

The Alarmist , October 10, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT

@Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften A decade or so ago, when we still had a number of US bases in Germany, my German colleagues and neighbors used to ask why most of the GIs never left the base and only used Dollars for most of their commerce, again mostly on base, though a few merchants took Dollars on a rather good exchange basis that a local could arbitrage if he was paying attention. I experienced some of that a few decades ago myself when on TDY in Europe. The US might want bases there, but a non-trivial number of the troops can't be bothered to wander outside the gates very often, and may as well be in Nebraska or South Dakota for all their interest in being there.

As for the Europeans, a lot of the local merchants did want the bases there, and a lot of the locals welcomed the Amis. There were also places where the Amis represented a big payoff for the smallest things; you would be surprised how productive egg-layers Portuguese chickens were after you ran over one and found yourself compensating the farmer for all the eggs it would have laid in its life.

Anon , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 3:55 pm GMT

I'm not sure why it is but we always seem to be on the Muslims side, everywhere to the detriment of our own societies.

"Russia may be tightening its grip on Crimea, with little resistance to date, but they have yet to face the Crimean Tatar factor.

There are 266,000 Crimean Tatars in Crimea, over 13% of the local population. They are Sunni Muslim, traditionally pro-Ukrainian, and much better organized than the local Ukrainians, who make up 23% of the population."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/tartar-ukraine-sunni-muslims-threat-russian-rule-crimea

"For more than a year, Chechens, Muslims from southwestern Russia, have been fighting on both sides of Ukraine's struggle against Russian occupation.

The undeniably frank reason one anti-Russia militiaman recently gave The New York Times? "We always fight the Russians."

The Chechens have had a long and tense relationship with Russia's central government, alternatively fighting for independence and courting special favor from the rulers in Moscow. When Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in March 2014, it once again gave Chechens a reason to push back against Russian overreach"

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/22/russian-muslims-traveling-to-fight-against-russias-ukraine-invasion/

We have plenty of Muslims in Congress to represent their people. I'm sure our alphabet agencies have plenty too. According to Wikipedia almost no one likes Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Russian_sentiment

"Widespread ethnic cleansing accompanied the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992–95), as large numbers of Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) and Bosnian Croats were forced to flee their homes and were expelled by Bosnian Serbs;[1] and some Bosnian Croats also carried out similar campaign against Bosniaks and Serbs. Also, Bosnian Muslims conducted similar acts against Croats, especially in Central Bosnia.[2]"

https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=ethnic+cleansing+in+bosnia

Fought for these in Afghanistan. Ex president made a home at the UN.
"The Afghan Northern Alliance, officially known as the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (Persian: جبهه متحد اسلامی ملی برای نجات افغانستان‎‎ Jabha-yi Muttahid-i Islāmi-yi Millī barāyi Nijāt-i Afghānistān), was a military front that came to formation in late 1996 after the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (Taliban) took over Kabul. The United Front was assembled by key leaders of the Islamic State of Afghanistan, particularly president Burhanuddin Rabbani and former Defense Minister Ahmad Shah Massoud. Initially it included mostly Tajiks but by 2000, leaders of other ethnic groups had joined the Northern Alliance. This included Abdul Rashid Dostum, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Abdul Qadir, Asif Mohseni and others."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Alliance

"The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe By Evan F. Kohlman" http://www.aina.org/reports/tabmnie.pdf Wow it just goes on.

Talha , October 10, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT

@Fran Macadam

Hey Fran,

I like what you're bringing to the table here. I think the big issue is that money runs the show. Big media, which is where many people still get their information is just rotten at the core. How to fix it? I don't know – maybe the internet (which is still relatively young) will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses.

But that is also a big IF – since there is so much on the internet which is just trash and lacks any sort of serious vetting. Peace.

Paranam Kid , October 10, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT

@animalogic

The huge lumbering predator, as it's strength slowly, slowly fades lashes out at the flies & mozzies that encircle it .

That is a nice succinct way of describing the failing Empire

anonymous , Disclaimer October 10, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

"Russiagate" has been a farce from the very beginning, an attempt by that fat-ass witch to divert attention from the 30K emails–which is where the REAL scandal lies!! And where do we stand on that issue anyway? I won't hold my breath waiting.

iffen , October 10, 2017 at 4:23 pm GMT

@Talha will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses

Whose truth?

Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda.

The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not carried 24/7 by every available outlet.

RobinG , October 10, 2017 at 4:37 pm GMT

@Talha Hi Talha,

Here's an articulate source. Until the web gets outright censored, beyond the select eliminating and demonetizing that's happening now. See also Ryan Dawson's interview of Phil at comment #28.

War for Oil? (((Whose oil?)))

RobinG , October 10, 2017 at 4:42 pm GMT

@iffen Thanks for volunteering to give us a review. I just watched a minute. (((Don't know how I missed this.)))

Decades of Deception

Reality Checker , October 10, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@Anonymous I don't trust Russia one bit . . .

And why is that? Because your government and their MSM sycophants have brainwashed you to think that way? It's time people like you that have this inherent distrust of Russia get a grip and start using some critical thinking skills. I know that's really hard but give it a try, o.k.?

Talha , October 10, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT

@iffen will be the new frontier for bring truth to the masses

Whose truth? Plus, there is a difference between discourse and propaganda. The 88s here are not confounded so much by not being allowed free discourse as they are whinging about the fact that their propaganda and motivated opinion pieces are not carried 24/7 by every available outlet.

Whose truth?

I'll just be happy to get facts at this point. Most can't be bothered to get that part straight. The MSM dropped the baton big time. Now people all over the internet are picking it up – the problem I see is information glut. How does one sift through the incredible amount of information.

Peace.

Sloopyjoe , October 10, 2017 at 5:58 pm GMT

Sputnik and RT are targeted in order to keep the "Boogey Man" alive by the following parties:

1) Globalist Banksters – They desperately need continued wars to distract the global peasants from the banker-caused multi-hundred trillion $ coming derivatives time-bomb and to keep their drug wash flow going. Also, its getting more and more difficult to keep under wraps the Dual-Financing of the "Official" Govts and "Deep State (SSP)" Govts. "Gotta keep those Kabbalistic Blood Sacrifices going or our Invisible Sky Daddy will be mad at us and won't let us on the Space Ship".

2) Big Pharma Slime (Vaccines/Viruses), GMO Sickos, Trans-Humanist Psychos, and Fascist Neo-Cons – "Just trying to get that Agenda21 Borg World going". 500 million micro-chipped global population is the goal.

3) The MIC – "We need more wars so we can keep force feeding our over-priced pieces of crap to our satellite colonies" and multi-trillion $ financial redirect to the SSP.

4) Israel – Russia and Iran (Persia) are the perennial enemies of the Talmudic Terrorists for kicking the Fake Jewish Khazarians/AshkeNAZIs out of their Western Asian homelands around 1250 AD. The psychotic and retarded (613 Talmudic Commandments, REALLY?) Clan Circumcision has a thing for blood feuds. Did you lose another Dolphin-Class Submarine?

5) The dying USSA Empire of Tampons and associated prostitute Politicos – Former colonies are fleeing East faster than Barry from his wife Michael er, I meant Michelle. Petro-Dollar going poof. USSA economy heading for the big flush regardless of the jiggered Plunge Protection Team numbers. "Must keep distracting our willfully-gullible peasant masses with more False Flags and Wars else they wise up and HANG US ALL".

And lastly

6) Hillawi Bin-Gazi Dykehar – Former candidate with continued delusional desires for Puppet Pres. of the USSA and current Jihadi commandante of Al-Shiksa. Al-Shiksa was last seen campaigning at Costco. This terrorist group is populated by fat ill-tempered donut-bumping Psycho Wenches and Cucked Eunuchs. Their battle cry is rumored to be "We love chocolate cake!!!" or "Damn those Weiner Tapes!!!". Sorry, my Shiksanese is not up to speed.

Did I miss anybody? Thanks for viewing.

polskijoe , October 10, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT

RT talks about mass immigration problems, shows more inside of Israel including their nasty policies, questions neocons and liberals. For an English speaking forum that is rare. The comment section.. sometimes its okay, sometimes bad.

You will find conservative/traditional posters majority. Go to BBC, CNN, etc its liberal/"progressive" dominated. In the West Neocons and Liberals dominate the media. RT obviously has an agenda, probably divide. Sometimes comments get deleted.

nsa , October 10, 2017 at 6:22 pm GMT

A "reporter" named Feinberg turns out to be a traitorous rat actually working for the DOJ (Dept of Joostice). Who woulda thunk?

Flavius , October 10, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT

Propaganda? Our political class is going to protect us from Propaganda? Our bureaucracies, the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, are going to protect us from Propaganda? If it doesn't jibe with what our media organs of record are putting out, they're going to stamp it Propaganda? Don't make me laugh! The Propaganda is that those clowns wouldn't call a pig a duck for a dime's worth of advantage.

"The Russians tried to influence our election" taken at face value and removed from the context of 65 years of American Foreign Policy is probably the most pernicious little bit of self serving swamp propaganda that I've ever seen. It appears to be the factoid that the Uniparty and its legions have chosen upon which to make their last stand and to hell with the American people.

utu , October 10, 2017 at 7:15 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

To be quite frank I hope that the US declares RT/Sputnik foreign agents (or bans them outright). – I hope you wrote this thoughtlessly because you were exasperated or upset or something. You should perhaps take it back. There is no question that Russia is better off with RT and Sputnik than w/o them. Any child understands it.

Vidi , October 10, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT

This assault on the First Amendment shows that the driving force behind the neocons is not American. A real American would tend to value the Constitution more.

KenH , October 10, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

As Priss Factor mentioned, RT and Sputnik do tend to be left of center on many issues, but they do appear to be sincere and independent leftists in contrast to the American prog establishment which has become just a dog and pony show controlled and directed by Jewish billionaires like Soros. RT especially is no friend of white nationalism although they have given figures on the racialist right air time on occasion.

I do find they are more objective in foreign policy matters whereas the U.S. media , including, FOX, all sing from the same song sheet on foreign policy matters and only differ slightly in degree. But they rarely seem to criticize Israel.

This action on the part of the Sessions DOJ is hypocritical in light of the fact that we routinely undermine governments and institutions in Ukraine and Russia via our NGO's and in any nation whose foreign policy is deemed an impediment to the goals Israel and their American vassal state.

Beckow , October 10, 2017 at 9:32 pm GMT

Every banned political speech has always been banned because it was deemed 'subversive' or 'divisive'. Or the new 20th century term 'propaganda'. This has been the case for thousands of years, the censors always say that. No censor ever just banned free expression or said that it has to be banned because it is true. The banning is also often done by admin harassment, 'foreign agent' label, cutting access, etc..

So the latest hysteria about banning RT/Sputnik is squarely in the mainstream of censorship. It meets all the usual criteria: foreign influence, trying to stir up discord, undermining the system (that would be 'democracy' in US). And the methods are also the usual one: registration, harassment, restriction on distribution, etc

It is a minor issue and mainly matters symbolically. But it is going to give US democracy and freedom of speech reputation a black eye. How does recover once speech is banned because it is causing 'division in the society'? The problem is that the ruling class simply doesn't understand what classical liberal values are – they talk a lot, they 'lawyer' a lot, but have no understanding of what a free society looks like.

Priss Factor , Website October 10, 2017 at 10:17 pm GMT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5854-qAqkM

Vinteuil , October 10, 2017 at 11:12 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin Never even knew Sputnik existed. RT I knew about – but it's got about the same profile as Al Jazeera in the USA: i.e., next to none.

Avery , October 10, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

{3. Gives Russia a great excuse to kick out dishonest Western journalists (about 75% of them).}

Interesting perspective.

Seamus Padraig , October 10, 2017 at 11:55 pm GMT

At least the Russians have a sense of humor about the whole thing. Here's their new ad campaign for RT UK: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1438856412889207&set=a.117074591734069.21731.100002945854869&type=3&theater

[Oct 10, 2017] Sputnik and RT Under Investigation

FARA was a powerful tool against attempts to stage a color revolution in the particular county. But it can't save decaying neolineraim. which by now probably exceeed useful shelf life. The only thing that is keeping it afoot is there is no political force capable to provide viable alternative. That's it. Bastard neoliberalism of Trump is essentially the acceptance of the defeat.
The charge "Intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions" is too broad change and if applied indiscriminately no other entity other then government controlled press can operate in the country.
As a short term measure it definitely will be effective (although it increase popularity of RT.uk or RT.ca) as this essentially shut down both in the USA. RT can operate much like Guardian . But in a longer term, blacklisting RT (Sputnik is not that important) is a sign of weakness, not strength.
But eventually the boomerang might return and not necessary for entities like "Voice of America" (which after the collapse of the USA became a zombie for the xUSSR audiences). While influence of Voice of America on foreign audience now is minuscule and this is mostly money wasted due to decline of neoliberal ideology (and with it prestige and influence of the USA) , they can now be shut down with impunity, by any foreign government inclined to do so.
So in a way, the US actions engager crown jewels of its propaganda machine. also any such action is a sign of weakness not strength by definition. It just signify that the tratment of neoliberalism in RT can't be fought by directly.
And not only Voice of America but also similar, potentially more effective propaganda entities. In effect that is the acceptable of the fact that neoliberal MSM are losing grip on the population and require coercive measures against competitors.
Notable quotes:
"... The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation ..."
"... This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. ..."
"... Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. ..."
"... News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. ..."
"... The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. ..."
"... they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC. ..."
"... Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia ..."
"... Voice of America ..."
Oct 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Somehow everything keeps coming back around to Russia. In one of its recent initiatives, the Justice Department (DOJ) appears to be attacking the First Amendment as part of the apparent bipartisan program to make Vladimir Putin the fall guy for everything that goes wrong in Washington. In the past month, the DOJ has revealed that the FBI is investigating Russian owned news outlets Sputnik News and RT International and has sent letters to the latter demanding that one of its business affiliates register as a foreign agent by October 17 th . The apparent line of inquiry that the Bureau is pursuing is that both are agencies of the Russian government and that both have been spreading disinformation that is intended to discredit the United States government and its institutions.

This alleged action would make them, in the DOJ view, a propaganda arm of a foreign government rather than a news service. It also makes them subject to Department of the Treasury oversight under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938.

Sputnik , which is owned by a Russian government media group headed by Putin consigliere Dimitri Kiselyov, has been under investigation due to the accusations made by a fired broadcaster named Andrew Feinberg. Feinberg, the former Sputnik White House correspondent, reportedly took with him a thumb drive containing some thousands of internal business files when he left his office. He has been interviewed by the FBI, has turned over his documents, and has claimed that much of the direction over what the network covered came from Moscow.

RT America , more television oriented than Sputnik, operates through two business entities : RTTV America and RTTV Studios. The Department of Justice has refused to identify which of the businesses has been targeted by a letter calling for registration under FARA, but it is believed to be RTTV America, which provides both operational support of the broadcasting as well as the production facilities. Both companies are actually owned by Russian-American businessman Alex Yazlovsky, though the funding for them presumably comes from the Russian government.

I have noticed very little pushback in the U.S. mainstream and alternative media regarding the Department of Justice moves, presumably because there is a broad consensus that the Russians have been interfering in our "democracy" and have had it coming. If that assumption on my part is correct, the silence over the issue reflects a certain naïvete while also constituting a near perfect example of a pervasive tunnel vision that obscures the significant collateral damage that might be forthcoming.

News organizations are normally considered to be exempt from the requirements of FARA. The Department of Justice action against the two Russian major media outlets is unprecedented insofar as I could determine. Even Qatar owned al-Jazeera, which was so vilified during the early stages of the Afghan War that it had its Kabul offices bombed by the U.S., did not have to register under FARA, was permitted to operate freely, and was even allowed to buy a television channel license for its American operations.

The DOJ is in effect saying that RT and Sputnik are nothing more than propaganda organs and do not qualify as journalism. I would have to disagree if one goes by the standards of contemporary journalism in the United States. America's self-described "newspapers of record" the New York Times and the Washington Post pretend that they have a lock on stories that are "true." The Post has adopted the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness" while the Times proclaims "The truth is more important now than ever," but anyone who has read either paper regularly for the past year knows perfectly well that they have been as often as not leading propaganda organs for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, pushing a particular agenda and denigrating Donald Trump. They differ little from the admittedly biased television news reporting provided by Fox News and MSNBC.

What exactly did the Russians do? According to last January's report signed off on by the FBI, CIA and NSA, which may have motivated the DOJ to take action, RT and Sputnik "consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional U.S. media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment." Well, they certainly got that one right and did better in their reporting of what was going on among the American public than either the Washington Post or New York Times .

Regarding Sputnik, Feinberg claimed inter alia that he was "pushed" to ask questions at White House press briefings suggesting that Syria's Bashar al-Assad was not responsible for some of the chemical attacks that had taken place. One wonders at Feinberg's reluctance as Sputnik and RT were not the only ones expressing skepticism over the claims of Syrian involvement, which have been widely debunked. And why is expressing a credible alternative view on an event in Syria even regarded as propaganda damaging to the American public?

There is a difficult to distinguish line between FARA restricted "trying to influence opinion" using what is regarded a fake news and propaganda and legitimate journalism reporting stories where the "facts" have been challenged. Even real journalists choose to cover stories selectively, inevitably producing a certain narrative for the viewer, listener or reader. All news services do that to a greater or lesser extent.

I have considerable personal experience of RT in particular and, to a lesser extent, with Sputnik. I also know many others who have been interviewed by one or both. No one who has done so has ever been coached or urged to follow a particular line or support a specific position insofar as I know. Nor do I know anyone who has actually been paid to appear. Most of us who are interviewed are appreciative of the fact that we are allowed to air views that are essentially banned on the mainstream media to include critique of maladroit policies in places like Syria and Afghanistan and biting critiques of the war on terror.

Sputnik, in my opinion, does, however, lean heavily towards stories that are critical of the United States and its policies, while RT has a global reach and is much more balanced in what it covers. For sure, it too criticizes U.S. policies and is protective of the Russian government, but it does not substantially differ from other national news services that I have had done interviews for. I find as much uniquely generated negative reporting about the U.S. (usually linked to violence or guns) on BBC World News, France24 and Deutsche Welle as I do on RT International . To describe it as part of an "influence campaign" driven by a "state-run propaganda machine" has a kernel of truth but it is nevertheless a bit of a stretch since one could make the same claims about any government financed news service, including Voice of America . Governments only get into broadcasting to promote their points of view, not to inform the public.

There is a serious problem in the threats to use FARA as it could advance the ongoing erosion of freedom of the press in the United States by establishing the precedent that a foreign news services that is critical of the U.S. will no longer be tolerated. It is also hypocritical in that countries like Israel that interfere regularly in American politics are exempt from FARA registration because no one dares to take such a step, while Russia is fair game.

Going after news outlets also invites retaliation against U.S. media operating in Russia and, eventually, elsewhere. Currently Western media reports from Russia pretty much without being censored or pressured to avoid certain stories. I would note a recent series that appeared on CBS featuring the repulsive Stephen Colbert spending a week in Russia which mercilessly lampooned both the country and its government. No one arrested him or made him stop filming. No one claimed that he was trying to undermine the Russian government or discredit the country's institutions, even though that is precisely what he was doing.

And then there is the issue of the "threat" posed by news media outlets like RT and Sputnik. Even combined the two services have limited access to the U.S. market, with a 2014 study suggesting that they have only 2.8 million actual weekly viewers . RT did not make the cut and is not included on the list of 100 most popular television channels in the U.S. and it has far less market penetration than other foreign news services like the BBC. It can be found on only a limited number of cable networks in a few, mostly urban areas. It does better in Europe, but its profile in the U.S. market is miniscule. As even bad news is good news in terms of selling a product, it probably did receive higher ratings when the intelligence agency report slamming it came out on it in January. Everyone probably wanted to learn what RT was all about.

So it seems to me that the United States' moves against RT and Sputnik are little more than lashing out at a problem that is not really a problem in a bid to again promote the Russian "threat" to explain the ongoing dysfunction that prevails in America's democratic process. One keeps reading or hearing how the American government has "indisputable" proof of Moscow's intentions to subvert democracy in the U.S. as well as in Europe but the actual evidence is still elusive. Will Russiagate end with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.

Priss Factor > , Website October 10, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT

The irony is RT news is pretty much dominated by Progs and Leftists. It's not Russian Nationalist or Conservative. But it features the kinds of Progs who do question and challenge Globalist Oligarchs of the West.

Johnny F. Ive > , October 10, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT

They need Russia to be an enemy to justify their actions and the Europeans want to use the US to threaten Russia. Its a shame this can't be generalized against all foreign agents of influence. The US Mainstream Media is basically an arm of the Hasbara. Their guest from think tanks are foreign agents of influence. Its not fun watching a bunch of foreigners and their domestic owned Americans run the US Empire into the ground.

Backwoods Bob > , October 10, 2017 at 5:59 am GMT

As psychopaths lose their grip over the target, they change from cool, calm, lie-to-your face con men to pathetic, shrieking cartoons of themselves.

The shredders were working overtime, bleach bit, hammers, cell phones wiped, people bumped off, closing up all of the criminal gangster operations of the government before Trump got in.

They can't get rid of him, not suing for re-counts, not getting him declared incompetent, not stage-managed riots of Soros stooges, not a fake dossier with Russian whores peeing on the Donald's bed, not screeching about Russia

Eventually, if our Republic is worth a shit at all, these crimes will finally be acknowledged and the hysteria over Russia will subside.

Ronald Thomas West > , Website October 10, 2017 at 6:26 am GMT

What the Russians appear to have clearly recognized is how to take advantage of the corrupt nature of the western 'mainstream' press, an institution which has been co-opted by western intelligence agencies for a very long time.

The Russian method? It could not be more simple; report the actual facts in the geopolitical contest and when this is inconvenient, practice lies by omission

Depending on the geopolitical reality of the day, for instance whether the paranoid ego-maniac Sultan Erdogan of Turkey is behaving well or not, the stories by western dissident journalists that will withstand a close scrutiny are run in Russian or Russia friendly media outlets. The result? Odds are 100:1 you'll get more reliable information from Russian state TV or Russian sponsored websites than from ABC, CBS, CNN or NBC

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2016/12/03/propaganda-spy-vs-spy/

My take from 10 or so months ago. I don't really think much has changed except for the 'Russia hacked the election' story is clearly more false than ever; with narcissism queen Julian Assange holding the story hostage:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2017/09/16/incompetent-espionage-wikileaks-iii/

Verymuchalive > , October 10, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT

Russia has been remarkably restrained in its counteractions. But retaliate fully it will. China is getting its retaliation in first, with plans for an oil futures market, trading in yuan, in Shanghai already near completion. The days of the Petro-dollar seem numbered. Will American hegemony collapse with a bang or a whimper? No one seems to know.
Either way, ten years from now, " Russiagate ", a fake scandal, will be almost completely forgotten, rather like major real scandals earlier this century like Enron. The latter seems to have been pushed right down the memory hole.

exiled off mainstreet > , October 10, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT

This is further evidence that the yankee regime walks and talks like a fascist duck. Its deep state and its media acolytes, Carlos Slim's New York Times, CIA contractor Bezos' Washington Post, PBS, the corporate parasite broadcast system, CNN, the Clinton News Network, NBC, home of professional lesbian deepstate lackey Rachel Maddow, CBS and ABC (along with government owned satellite state medias like BBC, CBC and Australia's ABC are quintessential propaganda outlets. While the Russian outlets are naturally pro-Russian, they are less openly propagandistic than the US-controlled propaganda press, which is on the side of barbarism in its attitudes toward the middle east and NATO issues.

LondonBob > , October 10, 2017 at 8:10 am GMT

I actually find the quality of guests on RT to be far superior to what the British news channels offer, embarrassingly so really as these guests seem easy enough to find whilst the likes of the BBC believe the ill informed opinions of journalists is only of interest. RT UK is also a lot more politically balanced with most of the media seemingly having ditched the old ethos that they should at least make some vague attempt at balance. RT's coverage of the migrant crisis was in stark contrast to the British media's cheer leading. In addition in the past few years Palestine has completely disappeared from British screens however RT still covers the occupation as well as matters such as the USS Liberty.

Anyway this does seem like part and parcel of the attempt to increasingly suppress the press and free speech in the West, whether that is driven by lefty ideologues, zionists, an unthinking security apparatus or a military with no purpose.

[Oct 10, 2017] DECAMERON NEO-CON RESET

Oct 10, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Last week saw the Senate Intelligence Committee going after Russia's influence in the "free market places of ideas": Twitter, Facebook, etc. Senators fulminated over Twitter's failure to appreciate the magnitude of the danger of Russia's interference in free elections. Cartoonists lampooned Russia with caricatures of the famous Russian military parades showing the Facebook and Twitter logos as displays in the parade along with tanks and missiles.

Suddenly the Senate was all atwitter over, well, Twitter. Who's feeding this sudden awareness?

The recently created Alliance for Securing Democracy, housed (at least for now) at the German Marshall Fund--USA is one of the core anti-Putin, anti-Russia operations that merits keeping an eye on, especially as it impacts Congressional hearings, resolutions, and media. It's an alliance of hard core neo-cons who were in the thick of promoting the 2003 Iraq war and the "axis of evil" attacks on Iran-Iraq-North Korea during Bush 43 administration, with the hillary-cons.

They're determined to turn up the heat against Moscow, not just in the United States, but to spread the Cold War mania to Europe through its GMF network.

For now, the Alliance's money seems to be limited, but it is a clear move to migrate the "Never Trump" Republicans into alliance with the Democratic Party, even further polluting and destroying that party on the foreign policy front.

With a network of some 2 dozen operatives in the USA and Europe (including former Assistant Secretary of Defense under Obama, Derek Chollet) the Alliance for Securing Democray blog is churning out steady stream of articles about Russian interference in elections (including big focus on the latest German elections) and demanding that Congress take action to further investigate/stop Russian interference in said elections. They claim to be monitoring 600 Russian twitter accounts that they think are threatening democracy.

A significant part of the apparatus comes from the group, Foreign Policy Initiative which went belly up in August, 2017, when it ceased operations. According to The Nation, FPI's demise was largely due to the dropping off of funds in 2017 after the Trump election. The FPI was led by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. These "never Trump'ers" were apparently an albatross after the 2016 elections for some Republican and conservative deep pockets who always want to keep a path open to the White House, no matter who they preferred.

Now Kristol has a new home on the Advisory Board of the Alliance for Securing Democracy along with Michael Chertoff, and the anti-Putin ex-Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul. Also on the Board is Jake Sullivan, a top Hillary operative at the State Dept. Chertoff recently landed a Wall Street Journal article on September 6 th , headlined, Congress Can Help Prevent Election Hacking. I expect there will be a lot of Congressional action on this front if the "Alliance for Securing Democracy" has its way.

Securing democracy? The crowd that brought us Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011?

Investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald did an impressive first expose of this outfit in July of this year, identifying the alliance between the war party neo-cons and the Democratic Party, but there's a lot more to watch in its continuing operations to promote its Cold War agenda, especially in Congress.

james , 08 October 2017 at 07:13 PM

these neo con bloodsuckers are becoming irrelevant.. sure, they continue to suck on the blood of a number of countries, but it is going to come to an end. if fact, it looks like the end is in motion at present.. they want their war where-ever, and the corporations are all in tow on this.. meanwhile ordinary people can see it for what it is..

i saw an article in fox news from kagan.. what was interesting were the comments in response to his drivel... it gave me hope that people who are crazy enough to even read something on fox news, can see bullshit when they see it and are willing to call it as such.. people aren't beholden to the western msm as much as some would like to think..

tpcelt , 08 October 2017 at 09:40 PM
How can ordinary people, like me, be informed and make sound decisions? Common sense with a strong bu****t meter helps. But there's so much going on and cross currents.
1664RM , 08 October 2017 at 10:03 PM
Are sure you have the title correct? 'Reset'

- Personally I don't think there has ever been a 'reset'.

It's the same as it ever was - they are still there operating in plain sight & pulling the strings & levers of power in both the US Senate & Congress, of course the influence of the AIPAC 'bloc' cannot be overlooked.

HRC was their candidate, as was BHO, as was Bush the younger, as was WJC et al.

PNAC is alive & well, the plan is still to destroy any nation which can independently produce/supply hydrocarbons outside of the control of the US/Saudi hydrocarbon cartel, or act as a third party transit corridor to China or Europe.

These nations typically fall foul of 'coloured revolutions', or ethinc minorities within them - normally Sunni Muslims suddenly become the victims of 'ethnic cleansing' by State Govt forces, no proof of this (pictures, moving images etc is ever provided by the MSM). The issue is presented to the world as an 'uman rights issue. Often local Sunni extremists (sometime in neighbouring states) then wage 'Jihad' & thus the state in question is totally destroyed & 'Balkanised in the process.

Coupled with this is the ongoing operation to isolate Russian geopolitical & economic influence over Festung Europa whilst drawing an ever more 'Balkanized 'Europa' into more reliance on US influenced sources of hydrocarbons.

Simultaneous to this is the encirclement of Russia on 3 sides with THAAD style weapons & conventional military forces to create a preemptive Nuclear/Conventional Strike Scenario a reality.

In the Asia Pacific region its also a similar plan directed against China.

All of this is directly linked to maintaining the economic hegemony of the US 'Empire' into the 21st Century.

Its not that simple to work out or follow.

Just my vacant ramblings this fine Monday morning 'downunder' feel free to rip it apart as you wish.

Linda , 08 October 2017 at 11:08 PM
And now Possibly Iran in 2017
1664RM -> Linda... , 09 October 2017 at 10:16 AM
Myanmar - shaping up to become a new hydrocarbon overland transit route from the Gulf for China (avoiding the Malacca Straights maritime chokepoint) in exchange for an invitation into the OBOR Project - Well it was until -

All of a sudden the Royhingas have been murdered en masse & driven into exile into neighbouring Bangladesh (incidentally has anybody actually seen ANY pictorial moving footage evidence of ANY of this?)

Bangladesh ... where the 'jihad' to avenge the Royhinga pogrom will be launched into Myanmar ... has just 'accepted' an offer from the Kingdom of Saudi to construct hundreds of new Mosques & Madrassas ... the perfect breeding ground to hatch a new generation of Jihadis in SE Asia. Bangladesh will be in a perfect geographic position to threaten neighbouring Indian provinces too. India has the largest Muslim population outside of the Muslim world. There several million Bangladeshi migrant workers inside The Gulf states working for a pittance ... who knows what some of them are up too.

Catlonia ... is/was setting itself up as a major LNG entry point into the EU from North Africa ... primarily Algeria, since the predicted US 'Shale Boom' has not actually materialised in sufficient volume to 'wean' the EU away from Russian Gas supplies.

Syria & now the likely formation of this quasi Kurdish state straddling the Shia Crescent ... it really IS all about the Gas ... how can the Syrian state access its hydrocarbons & move them abroad to the foreign market if somebody else has been encouraged to create a quasi state right on top of them?

The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim & since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China they now have a full blown 'insurgency' in the south despite plenty of US Military hardware in the very local region (or is id direcly BECAUSE of the proximity of US Military forces?).

The Ukraine ... I could go on ....

Pacifica Advocate -> 1664RM ... , 09 October 2017 at 12:36 PM
>>>The Ukraine ... I could go on ....

Nah. You couldn't've, because you were running on empty why you started your screed.

>>>The Phillipines ... the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim & since Duterte began making friendly overtures to regional players i.e. China they now have a full blown 'insurgency' in the south ...

A) Mindanao is the locus of the insurgency, and it has been that way ever since Spain annexed it into its "The Philippines" administrative region.

B) The Muslim population of Mindanao is hardly the "southern half" of the Philippines; at best, they are the "Southern sixteenth."

C) The Muslim portion of the "Southern Half of the Island Chain" makes up a total of about 6% of the total population of the Philippines. How you jump from there to "the southern half of the Island chain is predominantly Muslim" is beyond me. That's simply factually false.

D) Duterte's overtures towards China have been overwhelmingly supported by the local population, a vast number of whom have relatives who are overseas laborers working in Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Canton/Guangdong, etc. In fact, the local Muslims in Mindanao were trained by the US, and those currently financed by the Saudis (and, in the 70s, trained by the U.S.) are staunchly opposed to Duterte's campaign to open up the Philippines to Chinese investment.

Long-story-short: you're wrong on pretty much everything I am in a position to criticize you on, and I suspect the rest of your screed can be similarly debunked.

Serge -> Pacifica Advocate... , 09 October 2017 at 11:15 PM

Pacifica Advocate,

Yep, the usual economic determinism mumbo jumbo from this guy, an epidemic in amateur and professional poli sci circles conducting analysis on US geopolitical actions since 2003. Cast aside the wide scope of history into the dustbin and focus on the US as some omnipotent robot machine that runs on plundered oil. If the Colonel is reading this, what got me hooked on SST was a comment of his back in 2014 in which he shot down that economic determinism crap as it related to Iraq

Tim B. , 08 October 2017 at 11:24 PM
This is a great read from the left wing Nation magazine. https://www.thenation.com/article/russiagate-is-more-fiction-than-fact/
The Porkchop Express , 09 October 2017 at 01:00 AM
It is just beyond belief that the majority of these clowns continue to be treated as if they have a shred of credibility left or that their ideas carry ANY weight when it comes to their outrageously incompetent foreign policy decisions/actions. That their ideological ideas have any value at all, particularly when there has been no admission of a mistake or a reorientation of their ideas, is just astounding. To be wrong so repeatedly and so publicly should have engendered a least some, however small, sense of shame or humility.

On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate this bullshit.

semiconscious -> The Porkchop Express... , 09 October 2017 at 09:20 AM
'On the other hand, it says something about our polity, too, that we continue to tolerate this bullshit.'

absolutely. that these clowns, along with the various members of the pundit class (friedman, krugman) who, after being repeatedly wrong about any number of things, continue to be provided their bully pulpits tells you all you really need to know...

Yeah, Right , 09 October 2017 at 06:50 AM
Every time I read about William Kristol's latest career move I am reminded of those old Hammer Horror movies with Christopher Lee.

The dude comes to a grisly end in every movie, yet there he is in the next one, back from the grave and - inevitably - none the wiser for the experience.

Ol' Dracula never once stops to think: Ya' know what, these always end badly. Maybe I should sit this one out?

Neither does Kristol, apparently.

LeaNder , 09 October 2017 at 08:57 AM
Good article by Glenn, he is one of the best.
Matthew , 09 October 2017 at 09:42 AM
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the Red Czar).

With every passing day, the Neo-Cons and their fellow travelers are introducing the Soviet method into American politics: Denunciations, Conspiracies, and the Never-Ending Search for Wreckers.

LeaNder , 09 October 2017 at 11:37 AM
Jacob Heilbrunn, via, I know, I know, the NYT. But, Heilbrunn, JULY 5, 2014

WASHINGTON -- AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears responsibility for the current round of global crises.

Does anyone remember the curious renaissance of the neocons? Quite a time before the election officially started or heated up?

Iraq, looked at in hindsight with the appropriate and needed distance in time, may not have been that wrong after all? At least once there was someone else to blame? The appropriate public period of repentance seemed to be over. New servants available, that might escape the probling public eye?

Now the Americans may not have chosen the right "cherry blossom king" (Tyler) in their opinion, or backed the right horse in the race. But does that matter? Strictly, hadn't the winner delivered the new meme variant quite dutifully?

One has to keep open to twists of fate, seize the day, I would assume Trump knows that too. Let's see. ...

******

Yes, now I remember a tale in Boccaccio's The Decameron, Sixth Day, Tenth Tale, Friar Cipolla and a Feather of the Angel Gabriel. Which might fit. One of my favorites really.

http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/special/authors/boccaccio/boc-6-10.html

SmoothieX12 , 09 October 2017 at 04:29 PM
I just finished Simon Montefiore's two books on Stalin (Young Stalin and The Court of the Red Czar).

Judging by the "level" of Western historic narrative (granted with some notable exceptions) on Russian/Soviet history of the 20th Century, I would be very cautious when reading anything from Great Britain, especially from people with Montefiore's background. Not to mention people who praise him--from WSJ, NYT etc. Western awareness of actual, real Russian history is extremely low.

Joseph Moroco , 09 October 2017 at 05:43 PM
This is the first I've heard of the German Marshall Fund other than on The Ministry of Information, I mean NPR, they are occasionally mentioned as providing money for some of the propaganda uh, programming. I thought it was a fund to thank us for lending Les Boches a helping hand after we were done bombing them to smithereens.

Here is a link to Der Spiegel that is a tribute to the founder, but is also a history of the GMF. http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/founder-of-german-marshall-fund-guido-goldman-retires-a-834696.html

It appears to be Neocon safe space. Can there be too many.

Virginia Slim , 09 October 2017 at 05:43 PM
Forgive me, but "Alliance for Securing Democracy" sounds like a Münzenberg-era front organization.

[Oct 10, 2017] Facebook must 'follow the money' to uncover extent of Russian meddling by Diana Pilipenko

Oct 10, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Robzview2 -> BaronVonAmericano , 9 Oct 2017 21:51

100% with you my rational thinking brother. I have another post here somewhere, Facebook excecs had to be asked 3 times before they "found" these alleged Russian election changing ads- just writing that makes me laugh- and stated that approximately 56% of these ads only ran after the election. I mean we no those evil Russians are ultra cunning and highly sophisticated but even so that takes some doing.
Principleagentprob -> Cato1836 , 9 Oct 2017 19:50
And the NSA, GCHQ, CIA does not have trolls apparently despite their massive budgets? Bear in mind lefty news outlets are favourite covers for western security services. An example of this is Kim Philby who while ostensibly working for MI6 was posted to the middle east working for the Sunday edition. You know before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Indeed the wall to wall anti-Russian propaganda and the extremely close relationship between the Clinton campaign and the US media indicates the trolls are running mainstream media in the US and the UK.
It's the sense of entitlement that gets me, candidates throw as much questionable campaign contributions at an election (such as Singer) and believe the electorate has a duty to vote for them, and if the dont then the it must of been because of the opposition corruption and the stupidity of the lower orders rather than incompetence or policy failure such as representing wall St. rather than main St. on their part.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/28/kim-philby-david-astor-observer

Robzview2 -> Cato1836 , 9 Oct 2017 18:49
I'll do that English course when I have time, at the moment - and for the foreseeable- future I'm flat out ridiculing the Russia-gate nonsense and the fools who are eager to champion any old nonsense, no matter how ludicrous and continue to do so even when it is comprehensively demolished.
anonym101 , 9 Oct 2017 18:48
There is tonnes of more proof that refugee numbers in Europe and the illegal bombing of Libya and arming of 'rebels' in Syria are connected, yet everyone avoids that question.
There is also video proof that McCain and Nuland had incited the violent overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine a few years ago. Before accusing me of being a Russian troll, I am Hungarian.
multilis , 9 Oct 2017 18:45
Hilary Clinton election spending $581m. Donald Trump election spending $340 million according to https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/09/trump-and-clintons-final-campaign-spending-revealed

Facebook spending by "russia" $100,000, unclear that was russian government.

Presidential salary of Bill Clinton $400,000/year. Clinton's at start had little net worth according to them, now they have estimated net worth of $110 million+, much of it comes from speeches, including to groups in places like Saudi Arabia.

Clinton foundation charity received donations from foreign governments and individuals, including millions from some in saudi arabia. Not possible to see exact amounts.

US spending in ukraine over 20 years according to politfacts.com: About $2.4 billion went to programs promoting peace and security, which could include military assistance, border security, human trafficking issues, international narcotics abatement and law enforcement interdiction, Thompson said. More money went to categories with the objectives of "governing justly and democratically" ($800 million), "investing in people" ($400 million), economic growth ($1.1 billion), and humanitarian assistance ($300 million).... of course not all money by CIA may be disclosed here.

I suspect Russia, US, and many other countries do spend on influencing other countries, small potatoes though compared to how much Hillary and Trump spent, and those hundreds of millions of dollars given to Hillary and Trump were probably partially to influence/bribe them for later government decisions.

Principleagentprob , 9 Oct 2017 18:41
Are you not embarrassed writing this?
McCarthy is dead, the 50s are over, the Soviet Union no longer exists, The Billion Dollar Brain and Dr Strangelove was not advice on how to run a successful US foreign policy, nobody believes this nonsense anymore.

Quite honestly it is articles like this make me wish the Guardian would hurry up and go bankrupt, although I hope your more reputable Journalists (such as Larry Elliot) continue their journalism in another form. You are dragging a paper with a proud history from Manchester radicalism into the mud and besmirching real journalists trying to carry out real journalism.

To quote another 'article' in the Guardian (I use the word loosely) that does not have comments "Russian operatives spent thousands of dollars on Google ads, source claims". Really $1000s of Dollars, there are pet food ad campaigns that spend more than this.
Is the Guardian world news just run out of somebody else's office?

Yes, lets follow the money, using facts who made campaign contributions to the Democratic and Republican party.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance /

Hilary Clinton campaign $1.4Bn
Trump $957.6 M

And who contributed a little more than $1000s to the democratic campaign?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/superpac-donors-2016 /

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/top-presidential-donors-campaign-money.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wall-street-is-putting-money-behind-these-presidential-candidates_us_55b143e7e4b08f57d5d414ad

Yes, there is a conspiracy all right, it's the old one of the plutocrats conspiring against the poor. To ensure their man or woman would represent wall street not the electorate such as by ensuring Sanders was blocked by the super delegates. Then trying to ensure the more finance friendly candidate became president, such as by google working closely with the Clinton campaign. And no this is not misogyny as Bill Clinton was Americas worst domestic president in history. 3 strikes and you're out, workfare mass incarceration of black people, deregulation of finance. George W gets the crown as worst US president in foreign affairs due to Iraq.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/31/the-podesta-emails-show-who-runs-america-and-how-they-do-it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/04/08/hillary-clinton-hires-google-executive-to-be-chief-technology-officer /

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-was-paid-millions-by-tech-industry-for-speeches/2015/05/18/f149d598-fd86-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/08/zuckerberg-hires-clintons-chief-strategist

Yes, lets follow the money.

And the Russians according to evidence free speculation spent $1000s and were successful? You are aware that $1.4bn is larger than $1000s? The US are obviously not very good at advertising or capatalism or democracy, and if you want a cost-effective ad campaign go to Russia, as nobody in history has run such a cost effective ad campaign where 1000s can be more effective than Bns.

Quite frankly I am insulted this article is being presented in what used to be a reputable newspaper.

Robzview2 , 9 Oct 2017 18:31
For a good laugh go to Consotiumnews. com, read the article headed The mystery of the Russiagate puppies. There is a lot there but essentially Clinton's desperate losers would have us believe that a page set up for puppy lovers was Trojan horse to start slipping in anti Clinton stuff. Those evil evil Rooskies, is there no end to their perfidy! puppies! is nothing sacred?! A line that got a laugh for me is:' if some fact, like the puppies page doesn't seem to fit the sinister conspiracy theory you simply pound it into place until it does
technotherapy , 9 Oct 2017 18:25
If we can only fully understand something by following the money Diana, why does your organisation, the Center for American Progress Action Fund - which Politico says 'openly runs political advocacy campaigns, and plays a central role in the Democratic Party's infrastructure' - refuse to disclose who its donors are?
Robzview2 -> Sutir Comed , 9 Oct 2017 18:17
There's a mountain of pig flop, most of the alleged "evidence" has collapsed under relatively mild scrutiny. Remember the "hacked" voting machines and electric utility computer system? not only not the evil Russians, just didn't happen at all and there are other tissue thin bits of "evidence". No convincing any of Clinton's sore loser bleaters of course but I assume you are aware that 25% of the alleged Russian ads were not viewed by anyone and that many were not run til AFTER the election. Is there no end to those devilish Rooskies that they can impact an election result AFTERWARDS!
GriseldaLamington -> Sutir Comed , 9 Oct 2017 17:51
It wasn't the entire US intelligence community - it was hand picked representatives from four agencies. By the way, how are you going with all those weapons of mass destruction that the entire US intelligence community was so sure of?
GriseldaLamington , 9 Oct 2017 16:45
Let me get this straight. The USA, which holds the modern record for interfering in other people's elections, for engineering coups, for doing dodgy deals with cocaine and heroin merchants to fund death squads, which BOASTED (on the front cover of Time no less) of fixing the 1996 election in Russia, has now got it's tits in a tangle because some maybe, might be, could possibly be if you hold them edge on against a red light, Russians bought some Facebook ads. Seriously?

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad

Robert Furst , 9 Oct 2017 16:36
In previous elections China has been linked to helping Democrats I don't see anyone complaining, perhaps because the Democrats won. The USA, under a Democratic Preisdent spent nearly $100 million dollars on an attempt to affect the election of an ally Israel in a vain attempt to get rid of Netanyahu as Prime Minister. Welcome to politics.
freeandfair -> Landish , 9 Oct 2017 16:20
> So, it's not Facebook's problem that they are aiding and abetting treason?

So, if the let's say an entity connected to the US government pays for an article/ advert that could be linked to some protests or a controversial issue in a foreign country, then the entity who sold the media space is guilty of treason?
Be careful what you wish for.

The reason you don't even see how wrong you points to the fact that the US is a semi-totalitarian state already.

jackrousseau , 9 Oct 2017 16:14
So wait, I'm trying to follow the logic of continuing to beat the Russia drum after it's so clearly jumped the shark. Let me see if I understand...

What you're now telling me is that Clinton and her cadre of policy wonks and election experts had the entire media behind them (including the owners of Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) and spent $1,200,000,000 to win the election.

Nevertheless, they still lost against *Donald Trump*. ...Because...because the Russians "hacked the election" with $150,000 and a few online trolls. Is this what it's come to? Say it ain't so.

Also, why isn't the actual content of these election-changing ads being disclosed? What did they say? What propaganda did "The Russians" use that was so effective on the American public?

So far I've only seen that the Russians supported BLM and created various "blacktivist", feminist, and LGBTI accounts promoting the same brand of identity politics peddled by The Guardian for clicks. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/30/blacktivist-facebook-account-russia-us-election

I mean, did "The Russians" promote any ideas that were actually *more* offensive than what the Guardian publishes on a daily basis? I'd like to see the Russian identity politics ads to compare...

BaronVonAmericano -> Durangotang , 9 Oct 2017 16:08
The only trolls are the ones claiming that unproven allegations of Russians buying a handful of ads on facebook are somehow more important than the fact that both our political parties are owned and operated by private corporate interests.
freeandfair , 9 Oct 2017 16:05
> Only through this method can we fully understand the Russian corporate hydra behind the ad buys

Lol. I am here with my popcorn to be entertained. Bring it on.

American politicians spend billions on their campaigns , but, sure, facebook has to investigate those few allegedly Russian linked ads. They are just a drop in a sea of political propagandizing and manipulation that goes on daily.

Also, how does this align with the freedom of speech? The way I look at it - as long as information is truthful, it doesn't matter what source it is coming from, friendly or unfriendly. Going after the source just because you don't like what being said seems to be the old method of killing the messenger.

And who is the author of this article? "Diana Pilipenko is a principal investigator for the Moscow Project at the Center for American Progress Action Fund."

It figures. Someone who works for whatever "Center for American Progress Action Fund" is. She is basically a lobbyist.

furryandrew -> Gunsarecivilrights , 9 Oct 2017 15:55
Whats truly laughable is this whole "was Russia involved" witch-hunt particularly in light of all the US involvement in swinging Latin American elections etc for DECADES! We are basically encouraging the people who live in glass houses to throw as many stones as possible and get away with it!

Much as I don't like Trump that whole "was Russia involved in the Hillary-wikileaks" was also purely a diversionary tactic. Don't talk about the content talk about who might have provided it. Personally I don't care whether it was North Korea who dug it up, what should have been THE story was the appalling corrupt stuff that was in those shocking leaks, and it surely would have been front-page news for months had the target been Sanders or Trump and not Wall Streets chosen favourite! IMHO we the public are being taken for mugs!

WalterCronkiteBot , 9 Oct 2017 15:03
During the Cold War you had "Team B" looking for non-existent nefarious Russian schemes. It was staffed by the now infamous Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

At least they looked into matters of import such as nuclear missiles and submarines, this is more like "Team Z".

Ironically the people devoting the most effort to investigating Russiagate are Wolofowitz/Rumsfeld's brothers in arms from the Iraq days, like Bill Kristol.

TheWindsOfWinter93 -> EAlbee , 9 Oct 2017 14:32
The FSB chief and Putin must be having a right laugh. Western journos who are still sore over HRC losing the American Presidential Election are making for the best unpaid shills to extol Russian intelligence and political power.
TheWindsOfWinter93 , 9 Oct 2017 14:30
It seems to me that pundits like the one that wrote this risible article are doing far more to promote KGB and Russian propaganda around the world and in the West than the Russians themselves, through their screaming of "BIG BAD RUSSIAN BEAR!!!!!" from every soap box they can find.

Putin should invite them to the Kremlin and decorate them for service to the Motherland. Even CIA couldn't dream of such mythologising by the mass media.

kasprowy , 9 Oct 2017 14:12
"Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on political ads in 2016 ..."

0.00153% to be exact. Same proportion of total voters who voted for anybody would be 2000 people. Or 0.115 cents per voter. Yeah, this is a big news story.

I cannot resist another analogy. A Super Bowl commercial (and we all know what big fans of the NFL the Left is) goes for $5 million per 30 seconds. The amount mentioned in this article would buy a 900 millisecond ad (that's 0.9 seconds for those who missed it). Need some good subliminal flash advertising to get your money's worth.

Pete green , 9 Oct 2017 13:53
Let me know when the investigation reveals that the $150,000 spent on Facebook ads by the Russians starts to be significant compared to the $9.8 billion spent on the campaign adverts.

Clinton vastly outspent Trump and still lost because she was a deplorable candidate.

http://adage.com/article/media/2016-political-broadcast-tv-spend-20-cable-52/307346 /

Romka Stomka -> Supermind , 9 Oct 2017 13:48
The ads could have been easily paid by pro-Ukrainians living in Russia,to try and put Russia in the spotlight.
LiviaDrusilla , 9 Oct 2017 13:30

Some have argued that $150,000 is an insignificant fraction of the total spent on political ads

And they would be correct. Out of the $7 billion or so spent on the American elections, it's a piddling amount. However, you are clinging to it for dear life because, almost a year on, you can't accept that Clinton was a horrible candidate, so much so that even someone as obscene as Trump could beat her (and yes I know she got more votes thank you very much).

You're really coming across as desperate now. Not a good look.

Supermind , 9 Oct 2017 13:29
Most of these ads look more like click bait than any kind active measures campaign. As usual, there is no evidence that the ads are in anyway connected to the Russian government. Even if they were, $150,000 worth of ads are insignificant in an election where over $1billion was spent on digital advertising. American elites should spend more time pondering how their policy failures contributed to Trump's election and less chasing the chimera of Russian interference.
JJ139 , 9 Oct 2017 13:22
This whole Russian meddling is getting more and more absurd. Clinton spent billions on advertising and lost. Some supposed Russian investors spent thousands on puppy photo sites as part of a cunning plan to suck Americans in. Russia is behind black lives matter, Russia is behind taking the knee at american football matches, Russia is behind the Catalan referendum, Russia is behind Brexit, Russia is probably behind the Dove advert. And anyone who finds the whole farrago of mudslinging at Russia is obviously a Putinbot from a troll farm somewhere in St Petersburg. The lunatics have very definitely taken over the asylum in America.
Laplace_Transforms , 9 Oct 2017 13:12
Roy Greenslade wrote an excellent column today on fake news. The hysteria regarding Russian involvement in US politics could well be a prime example of which Roy writes. The Nation, in an article titled Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact details exactly how this tale of innuendo, supposition but very little evidence has been pushed. The Nation examines in detail the Facebook accusations, and records:

Then there is Facebook's disclosure that fake accounts "likely operated out of Russia" paid $100,000 for 3,000 ads starting in June 2015. The New York Times editorial board described it as "further evidence of what amounted to unprecedented foreign invasion of American democracy." A $100,000 Facebook ad buy seems unlikely to have had much impact in a $6.8 billion election. According to Facebook, "the vast majority of ads didn't specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate" but rather focused "on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum -- touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights." Facebook also says the majority of ads, 56 percent, were seen "after the election." The ads have not been released publicly. But by all indications, if they were used to try to elect Trump, their sponsors took a very curious route.

The ads are commonly described as "Russian disinformation," but in the most extensive reporting on the story to date, The Washington Post adds multiple qualifiers in noting that the ads "appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency," itself a Kremlin-linked firm (emphasis added).

The Post also reveals that an initial Facebook review of the suspected Russian accounts found that they "had clear financial motives, which suggested that they weren't working for a foreign government." Furthermore, "the security team did not find clear evidence of Russian disinformation or ad purchases by Russian-linked accounts." But Russiagate logic requires a unique response to absent evidence: "The sophistication of the Russian tactics caught Facebook off-guard."

Would it be too much to ask for actual evidence of Russian interference, rather than this leap to conviction?

[Oct 09, 2017] A Visit to Russia Can Relations Be Improved

The official US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. that excludes any friendship. The best that can be done is to avoid WWIII. And due to Putin patience that might be possible. After Putin is gone, who knows. If nationalist come to power, the neocon might really feel the depth of Russian anger at the US imperial policies.
Bunch of neocons travel to Moscow to test waters for rapprochement. After then pissed Russia and launched neo-McCarthyism campaign for the last two years... such a great diplomats.
Those neocons completely poisoned the well and now want to drink clean water. No way.
Notable quotes:
"... President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. ..."
"... because Mr. Putin does not seem to feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's 2018 presidential elections ..."
"... Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie ..."
"... It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run its course and less and less people believe it. ..."
"... The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national debt. ..."
"... I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that "Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke. ..."
"... The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved relations. ..."
"... Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics. US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this way at least since Truman administration. ..."
"... NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia. ..."
"... trump was given a choice by the deep state of you either work with us or else... so he has become a puppet of the swamp ..."
"... Swamp Puppet! That's catchy! ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
Russian officials were largely dismissive of U.S. and European economic sanctions, which some indirectly credit with significantly strengthening Russia's agricultural sector -- to such an extent that they claimed Russian products may fiercely compete in Europe if and when the European Union eases it sanctions and Russia lifts its protectionist counter-sanctions. Indeed, the U.S. Department of State itself asserted in 2016 that a loss of "at most 1 percent of GDP can be potentially explained by sanctions" as opposed to declining global energy prices. The combination of "at most" and "potentially" in this sentence suggests that there is little empirical evidence that sanctions have caused real damage to Russia's economy. Moreover, since U.S. sanctions could account for only a small part of this -- because Europe's economic relationship with Russia is far larger than America's -- there is no reason to think that new U.S. sanctions, which have yet to be fully implemented, will make a material difference at the macroeconomic level. (The State Department did find that sanctioned companies appeared to lose significant revenue and assets.) Still, some officials did privately admit that the sanctions undermine Russia's investment climate, especially among foreign investors.

At the same time, however, some officials reacted quite strongly to the Trump administration's decision to close Russia's consulate in San Francisco, the latest move in an escalating diplomatic spat that began with the Obama administration's expulsion of thirty-five Russian diplomats and seizure of two diplomatic properties in December, following a widely publicized intelligence community report on Russia's election interference.

Even in this area, however, our interlocutors seemed to prefer curtailing the dispute over extending it -- notwithstanding President Vladimir Putin's recent hint that the Kremlin could cut another 155 people from the number permitted to work at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow.

Yet containing this battle between the State Department and Russian Foreign Ministry bureaucracies may well be the easiest step in working toward a functional U.S.-Russia relationship. Far more important and more challenging will be addressing Russia's election interference, which has poisoned the relationship to an extent that Russian officials -- who describe the matter strictly as a U.S. partisan slugfest brought on by sour-grapes Democrats -- did not seem to appreciate....

... Russia's diplomatic, economic, military and security officials will each seek to pursue their own objectives, sometimes contradicting one another. Also, because Mr. Putin does not seem to feel real pressure from U.S. sanctions, he is unlikely to be disposed to offer major concessions to the United States simply to reach agreement, especially in the runup to Russia's 2018 presidential elections .

Thus "getting to yes" on these or other issues will take persistence and creativity.

Paul J. Saunders, associate publisher of the National Interest, is executive director of the Center for the National Interest.

pavel , October 7, 2017 3:36 AM

Keep pretending that Russia has hacked your elections. There is zero interest from the US side in improving relations and we know this quite well here. There is no question that the fat defense and intelligence budgets and all the extra power that the spooks now got is a direct outcome of destroyed Russia-US relations. The democrats sour grapes and election rigging cover up with Russiagate is also undeniable. Keep living the lie

dannyboy116 -> pavel , October 7, 2017 9:52 AM

I agree with you that Russia probably did not hack the US elections. Julian Assange, head of WikiLeaks, has made it quite clear that he received the Clinton campaign emails from elsewhere. (and he has a 100% history of being truthful with regard to what he releases) But I would say to Russia to not give up on better relations with America. It is true that the "deep state" and the Military Industrial Complex make a lot of money from "bad relations" with Russia, but I think Trump understands that improving relations will be good for both sides and potentially save a lot of money for America's citizens. Give it some time.....

sergey_hv -> dannyboy116 , October 7, 2017 2:34 PM

It's not the time he needs, but an adequate congress and fewer idiots of Russophobes who rule the US foreign policy, twisting Trump's hands.

pavel -> dannyboy116 , October 7, 2017 3:49 PM

Wow, good to hear a sober voice! I have felt some backlash personally in the commercial world, and it really feels nasty (basically just like racism), especially since I feel like 1/2 American, having lived in the US for 11 years. So this has gone very deep even in private sector.

Not too sure about good prospects coming up soon. I'm following both the foreign and domestic policies of the current government in Washington and its a bit scary - Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, NK, China, Iran - all are becoming enemies, sanctions reintroduced, and all the ultra-right wing stuff home like getting rid of health insurance, removing all regulations, now 20% poverty rate in CA, I don't recognize the country I used to live a couple decades ago!

dannyboy116 -> pavel , October 9, 2017 7:38 PM

It is sad that the media, the Democratic party, and the "deep state" are all working together to try to keep the phony Trump-Russia collusion story alive - but it has almost run its course and less and less people believe it. It is now looking like it was the Obama Admin's justice department that actually paid for the phony "Trump Dossier" that was used as an excuse to wiretap the Trump campaign. Once that story blows up (Senator Grassley has subpoenaed the background docs) I think you will see a rapid improvement in relations.

KlingOn2K -> pavel , October 8, 2017 9:46 PM

pavel , Russia made its choices. The onus is not on the US to pacify Russia with any standard of proof that it may find convincing. Its up to the US authorities to interpret the Russian actions as being either confrontational or friendly. Russia has no say over it.

cvxxx -> KlingOn2K , October 9, 2017 3:38 PM

The US doctrine is and has been containment of Russia. That is a very foolish and self defeating way in the 21st century. The West would have been better off when the bankers did not have such controls and the American congress grew real courage and paid down the national debt.

bscook111 , October 7, 2017 10:57 AM

It is testimony to the gross malfeasance of American media and pols (both sides but especially Ds like both idiotic Clintons) that America has no working relationship with Russia. The good news, once again in time Trump will be proved right.

JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 10:09 PM

I don't know to what degree the author of this article and those he went with have real influence on either side, but we, the American public, have yet to be presented with any real proof that Russia (and specifically its government, directly) actually did anything significant with regard to the election. To the degree that we've been shown any evidence, it appears completely inconsequential, extremely minor dabbling at most. The latest is that "Russia" (nebulously defined) spent $100,000 on Facebook ads... Meanwhile the Clinton campaign spent $1 BILLION. This is a joke.

But apparently this group went over there and acted as if the American people are outraged. No, dishonest Democrat hacks and never-Trump Republicans inside the Beltway are obsessed with it, because they hate the outcome of the election and want to discredit Trump. But they've been fishing for a year and a half and can't find anything, despite furiously leaking every innuendo they can, that turns out to be a false smear against Trump and completely falls apart on inspection.

The situation in Ukraine is a million times more of a significant obstacle to improved relations.

... ... ...

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 10:31 PM

"If Russia can't be trusted to respect the borders of its neighbors, we can't have good relations."

Says who? Citizen of a country which invaded 100+ countries since 1890, including Russia twice? Learn how to respect borders and sovereignity or others yourself. Otherwise it is not going to end well for you.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 10:41 PM

Given your namesake, I'm not sure what point you think you're making. My point is that now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries. The past is the past. This is just practical reality. We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism. Again, because of your namesake. If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot improve.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 10:52 PM

"My point is that now, today, the US and Russia have no reason to be adversaries."

Russia and US have all the reasons to be adversaries. Because US seeks global domination but will never be able to achieve it as long as Russia exists as subject of global politics. US invests huge resources into making harm to Russia in every possible way. And it been this way at least since Truman administration.

'This is just practical reality."

Exactly. And reality is that US stirs up troubles all over the world, including sphere of vital interests of Russia like Ukraine.

"We have allies in Europe who are worried about Russian expansionism."

Russian expansionism? Oh please, there never was any at all. Its been EXACTLY Europe which hundreds of times tried to expand into Russia. The only way Russia expanded over centuries was by defeating and absorbing those who tried to conquer Russia first. If western degenerate elites will not learn this important lesson, of cource Russia will defeat and absorb the west. It will be civilizational self defense.
You better leave Russia alone, and stop meddling in its business.

" If Russia makes moves to its west, relations cannot improve."

Russia does not need any improvement in relations with the west. At all. Over centuries we learned that force is only language you barbarians do understand. You can not be reasoned with. That is why we will always keep you at the gunpoint. And out gun will always be bigger than yours.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 10:59 PM

If you are, presumably, Russian, it doesn't sound as if your government shares your mindset. Which is good. I can tell you that the American people do not "seek global domination". And European nations basically have no military to speak of, so the idea that they would expand into Russia is ridiculous. You are very much stuck far in the past. In the modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism and the rising economic power of China, the US and Russia, as allies, would be an insurmountable bulwark. To the extent there would be "global domination", it would be mutual.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:20 PM

"government shares your mindset."

As imperfect as our goverment is, it still orders of magnitude more intelligent and competent than yours. Especialy when it comes to geopolitics. Russia always plays chess, while your nations can`t handle checkers nowadays.

"American people do not "seek global domination""

Every people has government which it deserves. So do not try to shift blame to your government as if you are not responsible for it. You gave them mandate.

"European nations basically have no military to speak of"

Nice excuse to expand NATO east it was, wasn`t it? So much for this "Russian expansionism" B-S.

"so the idea that they would expand into Russia is ridiculous"

Sorry, but we are not buying that. NATO heavily expanded east breaking all past promises. NATO now tries to sиck in even Ukraine. So please, we are not going to just sit idle and watch how your goverments loom another 1812 or 1941.

" You are very much stuck far in the past"

Because we have memory. Do not take us for idlots who was born yesterday.

" In the modern world, with the threat of Islamic terrorism "

Which your goverment created and keeps massively supporting. Oh yes we know that better than you can imagine.

"rising economic power of China"

Nothing wrong with rising economic power of China.

", the US and Russia, as allies,"

US and Russia are not allies.

"To the extent the would be "global domination", it would be mutual."

Russia seeks no global domination. It just wants to be left completely alone on its backyard and mainland which has size of a planet.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 11:24 PM

You have plenty of knowledge of history, but no wisdom. I did not say the US is blameless in the continued conflicts. What I said is that both governments have shown short sightedness, and are stuck in the past - and you provide an extreme example of someone stuck in the past.

You have also said numerous things that are not true, but it's not worth the time to argue. You should go out for a walk, breathe some fresh air and relax.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:28 PM

"both governments have shown short sightedness"

Yes. Our government used to be naive enough to trust west and expect it to live up their promises. And yours by poking the Bear in every possible way. When you poking sleeping Bear with a short sight and shorter stick, do not complain whole situation exploding into your face.

"and are stuck in the past "

No. Only your government stuck in its past, past dreams about "the end of history" and unrestrained global domination. Russia exactly learned from the past and moved on, that is why your elites are panicking trying to hold on to their sweet illusions.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 11:34 PM

If you had more wisdom and less hostility, you would see that what I'm saying is more favorable to you than you think. The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for Russia to join NATO. Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. But the continual back and forth of spats been the US, Europe and Russia prevents it. I'm talking about a bigger, more positive vision of the future, and you can only see small bitterness about the past.

Sane people want peace and prosperity. You do not seem to be one of them.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:40 PM

"The ideal outcome, ultimately, world be for Russia to join NATO."

The ideal outcome, ultimately, would be for NATO to join Russia. Perfectly without Russia making it the hard way.

"Putin has voiced that idea himself, as have past US presidents. "

Look up what does sarcasm means.

"more positive vision of the future"

Russia has only two allies, its army and fleet. - Tsar Alexander III.

Today its also RuASF and SRF. We do not need any more allies than that. You choose if you want to be or enemy. It was not Russia who started all this mess.

JoeS54 -> Stalinist , October 7, 2017 11:43 PM

I've seen Putin talk about this, on video. He was not being sarcastic. You are an extreme example of the mindset I'm criticizing, on both sides. The people of both of our countries are not served by it, at all. It's a useless waste of energy and resources.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:47 PM

" He was not being sarcastic."

For any native Russian speaker who has even slightest idea on what happening during historic period he was talking about his sarcasm was clear and transparent. The very idea of "Russia joining NATO" is an insult.

" The people of both of our countries are not served by it, at all."

We had no choice but to arm ourselves. You however always had. Russia and the USSR used to lend you a hand with an olive branch many times. You choosen to spit on it.

JoeS54 Stalinist , October 7, 2017 11:49 PM

What is the ultimate outcome of your mindset? Nuclear war, wiping out both countries? You can't see any better solution?

Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people. I'm not sure why I'm arguing with you. If you actually cared about the Russian people, you would not use that name.

Stalinist -> JoeS54 , October 7, 2017 11:55 PM

" Nuclear war, wiping out both countries? "

We will not fire it first, but if it will ever come to this, Russia has all means it needs to win it.

"You can't see any better solution?"

Yes, accept the idea that we are simply not interested in playing your ball. And we are against you playing your ball on our lawn too. So figuratively speaking, we need you to get lost from our horizon and never come back without an invitation. Your "civilization" reminds me of jehovah`s whitness preachers annoying everybody with their nonsense. With the difference that you tend to kill those who not agree to listen to your gospel.

"Your namesake was a mass murderer, of his own people."

See? Jehova's whitness mode on again. Sorry but he was not any kind of mass murderer, he is ultimate hero for us Russians, and we do not need you to lecture us on our own history. We can figure it out ourselves.

JoeS54 -> KlingOn2K , October 9, 2017 12:35 AM

" Russia is attempting to subvert the process that stands at the very heart of the US democratic system"

Still waiting for any real evidence, much less actual proof. As the calendar flips by.

What we've been told so far is that Hillary's $1B campaign was apparently helpless against a few internet memes, which we're told were sponsored by the Russian government, without any proof.

WTF -> JoeS54 , October 9, 2017 12:51 AM

Proof? Its too inconvenient. Get on with the times. We don't need proof in the 21st century.

MAGA Big League , October 7, 2017 11:43 AM

Russia is not going to unilaterally apologize for perceived influence in the US election. Quite the contrary. Their tiny amount of influence will simply continue with tiny Facebook purchases and commenters as well as RT coverage etc. becoming a permanent fixture of US politics (if it wasn't before, which it likely was, but as long as Democrats were winning no one in the media cared).

It shouldn't be hard for a US politician to win an election going up against this small degree of influence which is probably less influential than that of other foreign countries in America (Israel, Saudi and China come to mind). Hillary Clinton, however, was just that awful of a candidate that she needed the whole system rigged for her just to get close. If even one world power center was against her she couldn't win. One wasn't and she didn't.

Meanwhile Donald Trump's foreign policy is dangerous without Russian rapprochement. We are antagonizing other rivals that in the past we have had to keep isolated from cooperating with Russia (Iran, China).

This is what the Russians are waiting for Washington to realize. No current American policy goal in the world can be achieved cheaply (less than an Iraq War level of engagement and cost) without a working relationship with Russia. Our strategy becomes a binary trade off- do we sacrifice our interests everywhere but Europe (Russia) or do we sacrifice them in Europe for everywhere else?

My sense is that the Trump policy is a natural consequence of the Asian continent becoming equal to Europe in economic might by 2020 (it already nearly is). We can no longer treat the rest of the globe as ancillary to our objectives in Europe (although that is certainly our habit now).

Whoever follows Trump will fall into this same strategic trap. Hemming in Russia is now quite painful for Washington to accomplish. Ham fisted half measures don't work and bringing to bear the full measure of our influence entails great sacrifice in areas equally or more important.

Primavera Allie Youpe , October 9, 2017 3:41 AM

None of the recent terror attacks in Europe and US have been traced to Iran. Please stop beating the war drum against this country, chances are you will lose again.

siberiankitten Allie Youpe , October 9, 2017 7:09 PM

Iran is a #1 perceived threat to Israel, and a sponsor to Hezbollah. Beyond Hezbollah support there is nothing that qualifies Iran as a sponsor of terrorism

VadimKharichkov Allie Youpe , October 9, 2017 4:11 AM

Allie, is your worldview formed solely by mainstream media? Have you tried independent media? You sure you get the other side's story? You know, you can't really claim you comprehend the situation without hearing both sides?

Edward Easterling Allie Youpe , October 8, 2017 2:26 PM

How is the Syrian government a "genocidal regime"?

Edward Easterling Allie Youpe , October 8, 2017 9:24 PM

I can't recall which one it was, but one of the chemical attacks has been proven to be carried out by rebels. Also, a chemical attack has been proven to be a hoax. Like I said, I can't recall all the details. If you are interested you are free to look them up.

Primavera Edward Easterling , October 9, 2017 3:42 AM

Ghouta attack I think

siberiankitten Primavera , October 9, 2017 7:11 PM

Read what Seymour Hersh and Theodore Postol had to say about this attack

Sascha Gruss , October 9, 2017 4:15 PM

Russia will never support the imperial ambitions of the USA. The current situation is a result of a long chain of anti-Russian decisions by the US. The USA tries to assault the Russian economy, its harming the people, destroying families and futures. No Russian citizen should forget that.

enoch arden -> timmay timmy , October 8, 2017 9:43 AM

NATO cannot save a non-existent failed state. There are at least three different and geographically separate Ukraines. Catholic Galicia has nothing to do with the rest of the country. And the East wants to separate. It is another case of former Yugoslavia.

Stalinist -> timmay timmy , October 7, 2017 11:17 PM

"We have American and NATO boots on the Ground. "

I have bad news for ya http://freetexthost.com/m6b ... NATO can not stop Russia from doing whatever it wants.

" Our NATO training base we are setting up in Ukraine will ensure the Russians do not encroach. "

Adolf Hitler told something like that around 1944 when the Red Army was steam rolling his goons and his Ostwall. You are even more deluded than him if you believe that few twirpy little bases where your deуenerate men will get drunk and do local рrostitutes can scare RussiaLOL

"Any drain on the Russian economy such as supporting the Crimea is less money for the military."

Russian economy is booming since 2014. Russian reserves are growing. And Russian average living standards are higher than US has it. But whatever makes you sleep at nights, keep dwelling in russophrenic fantasies induced by your elites.

CB -> Stalinist , October 8, 2017 7:06 PM

You are deluded if you think living standards in Russia are higher than the USA. It's not even close. I guess you are spoon fed a steady diet of propaganda. The USA is by far the most professional military in the world, and this military constantly foils Russian plans at expansion.

Stalinist -> CB , October 8, 2017 7:17 PM

"You are deluded if you think living standards in Russia are higher than the USA. "

No, i just well informed. http://freetexthost.com/nyy...

"The USA is by far the most professional military in the world"

US has most expensive military in the world. And most inept. US never won any major war at all and can not even deal with cave dwellers in Afganistan for 16 long years.

"and this military constantly foils Russian plans at expansion."

Russia has no plans for expansion. And if it ever will get one, nobody on this planet can stop Russia from successfuly completing it.

CB -> Stalinist , October 9, 2017 9:19 AM

Misinformed. Not a verifiable source. The USA has won plenty of wars, including the war to topple the taliban in Afghanistan. Saying otherwise is nothing more than a talking point of Russian propaganda. I've seen you say in other posts Russia will eventually reclaim Kiev Rus, so which one is it? Try not contradicting yourself when debating educated people. You will lose credibility. Russia literally just expanded to take the Crimea. They tried to expand into Afghanistan, so you'd think you would have more respect for the USA effort there. Hightailed it out of there after those goat herders whooped that @ss huh?

WTF -> CB , October 9, 2017 12:08 PM

You won over the all powerful state of Grenada. Give you that.

Whooped the Taliban? After 16 years you're still stuck there and Trump adding more troops to America's longest war to date. How long more to beat the goat herders, in your honest opinion?

CB -> WTF , October 9, 2017 6:21 PM

Stuck there? We could leave anytime we wanted. If the taliban took control of the country again we could topple them again. Reconstructing a tribal society is not the same as fighting a war. The war was over before it started. Unfortunately some people from our side are benefiting from the status quo, and so allow it to persist. It is a drain on the country, but not to the point that I'd call it losing a war. Not even close. Would you rather be in some skyscraper in NYC or some cave in Baluchistan?

JoeS54 timmay timmy , October 7, 2017 11:08 PM

This guy is a nut. His name is proof enough. You shouldn't assume he speaks for Russia.

bakbaklazhan , October 7, 2017 9:30 AM

"President Donald Trump will succeed in overcoming political opposition"

trump was given a choice by the deep state of you either work with us or else... so he has become a puppet of the swamp

ScratInTheHat bakbaklazhan , October 7, 2017 9:51 AM

Swamp Puppet! That's catchy!

enoch arden -> PERICLES--- , October 7, 2017 4:18 PM

The development and production of new weapon systems is the most efficient way to advance the technology and, in this way, the economic productivity. All the technological breakthroughs which provided the current prosperity were financed by the governments with absolutely non-commercial purpose. Therefore, the fact that Russia finally started developing new weapon systems is quite promising for its future economic progress.

PERICLES--- enoch arden , October 7, 2017 4:47 PM

They are spending about 5% of GDP on their military, not counting intelligence agencies and secret police and the money going towards the "rebels" in Ukraine. For a nation with the domestic issues of Russia, it's quite a lot. Russia's oligarchs aren't spending that money because it's a good use of the budget, they're doing it because they need the military to distract the Russian public abroad and crush opposition at home. It's a sign of weakness, not strength.

enoch arden -> PERICLES--- , October 7, 2017 5:15 PM

You don't seem to disagree with my point. Developing new weapon system is much more useful for the economic development than production of consumer goods.

PERICLES--- enoch arden , October 7, 2017 6:07 PM

Who's buying? Russia's list of allies is small, many of their new weapon systems are quite pricey, and that's all technology the US had years ago. And when it comes to low quality, high quantity guns they are now competing with China.

enoch arden -> PERICLES--- , October 7, 2017 7:14 PM

I don't think you understand what you are talking about. Technological development is a strategic project, it is ridiculous to discuss it commercially. Private business would have never paid for the development of jet engines, laser, computer, nuclear reactor and internet. They are parasites using the technology developed on the taxpayers money for commercial purpose.

Concerning the customers: the US are still buying the Russian rockets. The Saudis and Turkey have recently bought anti-aircraft defence systems. Avoid discussing what is beyond you competence scope.

PERICLES--- enoch arden , October 7, 2017 8:06 PM

My, my, someone is feeling tense. Technological development is certainly helpful. It's less helpful, however, if your competitors are there a few years before you. No enterprise exists in a vacuum. If the primary strategic objective in Russia's development of technology is in order to sell it, they will have to arrive there ahead of the US and others. Given Russia's current situation, that seems... unlikely.

VadimKharichkov PERICLES--- , October 9, 2017 4:19 AM

Hmm... I once read a Stratfor's report on the subject I actually know - it was about business development in Islamic republics of Russia, and at the time I was one of the analysts in Investment Promotion Agency of Bashkortostan.

The report was strait idiotic - a crazy mince of facts and fiction. I'm pretty sure now these dudes are in business of making propaganda and have nothing to do with the truth but to turn it into half-truths.

bakbaklazhan -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 9:30 AM

"Hacking the US elections was way below the belt and will not be readily forgotten."

ahahaha. any solid proof of that?

dannyboy116 -> bakbaklazhan , October 7, 2017 9:55 AM

There is no proof because it didn't happen. The US media was heavily invested in trying to get Hillary elected (they were even sending her debate questions in advance) - and needed a scapegoat (the terrible Russians) for her loss. I think the truth will eventually come out.

pavel -> dannyboy116 , October 7, 2017 3:58 PM

The truth has come out - besides having zero evidence of Russian government involvement, there was no internet transfer of data from the DNC servers, its was a local leak. As you probably know, DNC didn't allow FBI access to the servers, and instead hired a private firm to conclude that it was Russian hacking (the zero-evidence conclusions of this private firm were later used in intelligence agencie's reports). But nobody is listening to this, because Russiagate is just so beneficial to so many actors.

Drinas -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 3:48 AM

"Hacking the election". Could you define what that means and present a single shred of evidence of it? Or we simply follow the Goebelsian "A lie you keep repeating becomes the truth.."

SurfaceUnits -> Drinas , October 7, 2017 12:01 PM

In the mid 70s, Vladimir Putin and the Russians began the systematic depopulation of Detroit so that 40 years later Donald J Trump would win Michigan. It's true, ask a Dimocrat.

KlingOn2K -> Drinas , October 8, 2017 2:36 AM

Maybe you might want to take a gander at this: https://www.nytimes.com/201...
But I guess when you're in total denial, any amount of "proof" will be insufficient. All I'd say to the Russians is, keep it going.

Drinas -> KlingOn2K , October 8, 2017 3:48 AM

bahaha That's the proof?! That's the best you can come up with? You fail to see that it is people like you because of your toxic hatred and dogmatism that jump on any crazy theory to support your hacking claims. The most probable underlying reason-excluding racist russophobia? You just can't fathom why Trump won. That's the side-effect of reading the coastal elites narratives instead of focusing on what has been happening on "fly-over country" for a couple of decades. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

CB -> Drinas , October 8, 2017 7:23 PM

Are you serious? You ask for proof, it is provided, and then you just go on pretending it wasn't? You do realize that with all the resources and technology at the disposal of our government, the notion of tracking the origins of certain content on the web is not at all far fetched. And why would any American patriot not be alarmed at the fact that the Russian government, the offspring of the USSR, our rival from the Cold War period, was involved in a concerted effort to target voters with information that was proven to be false. This is information warfare, and you would respond by rewarding the culprit. I hope you don't have kids. Maybe you Greeks ought to learn how to run your country before commenting on international affairs.

Drinas -> CB , October 9, 2017 3:56 AM

"You ask for proof, it is provided" Ahh..No, it wasn't. The only thing provided was a report by US intelligence services-the last entity one could call a neutral party to this-that basically said, "Trust us, we tell you the truth".

Again, until a shred of evidence is provided, the whole "russiagate" is BS of the first order. A fact that even mainstream commentators in the US reluctantly begin to accept. e.g.- "Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact" https://www.thenation.com/a...

As for Greece, thank you for your advice considering us running our country. If you adhered to the same principle of not being involved in the affairs of our nation-you helped install a junta in Greece in 1967, you still interfere in our politics-we would refrain from criticising your foreign policy that has a bad habit of sticking its dirty fingers everywhere.

CB -> Drinas , October 9, 2017 9:26 AM

I see you buy into the conspiracy theories. In terms of global development, peace and prosperity, Russia is not on the same page as the USA. One simply has more credibility than the other. This is for historical reasons which you needlessly discard. Either way, it is not just an intelligence report. Try browsing the web a bit. Finding Russian misinformation is not difficult at all. Facebook, a private entity with no dog in this fight, has verified Russian interference.

I'm sorry about the junta. A part of history I'm not familiar enough with. My understanding was this was part of the fight against communism. The ends don't justify the means, but our interests must be protected. Sometimes that means others go under the boot. We are able to do that because our house is in order, and we are the most powerful country there ever was. You may hate the fact, but it's the simple truth. No other nation has the same ability to project power. Intelligent minds wouldn't disagree.

Drinas -> CB , October 9, 2017 4:07 PM

Lol..You simply cherish raw power-just like the naz.s did for that matter. Of course the US is powerful, the most powerful country in terms of power projection. But being powerful does not make one right. Your founding fathers remembered that but you have long forgotten it, corrupted by power.
You actually believe your own megalomanic and delusional propaganda about being morally "exceptional" with a mandate to do as you like. You are as exceptional as the other empires before you were and headed to the same direction-decline and fall.

We Greeks have been around for a few millennia. We had our fair share of fights and helped destroy some empires as well-the Persians, the Ottomans. We also had the distinction of having our own empire twice-a feat very very few people can claim.

Today on your struggle with Russia no matter what the power balance might look (and it keeps shifting on Russia's favor), Russia is morally right. But even excluding morality and Russia and what not, and looking at the raw facts the fate of your Empire seems sealed.

A favorite metric of your money-obsessed society is GDP. In 1945 the US GDP was equal to almost 50% of the World GDP. In 1990 it was about 25%. Today it is close to 16% and in relation to the World GDP it keeps falling. Your military is in need of modernization but more importantly it simply cannot bare the costs of maintaining a global presence, much less engage in numerous conflicts.

But I think you already know those facts, that is why you shield your argument behind the "we are the most powerful blah, blah, blah".

As I said, all this is not knew, even the creation of scapegoats-Russia, N.Korea, Iran ,China etc are typical of every failing Empire, we 've seen this before.

I have a nice Greek term for you, it is a fundamental pillar of our way of viewing the world. It's called Hubris and the US is so full of it it can't see past its own nose.

CB -> Drinas , October 9, 2017 7:54 PM

I don't cherish power, just understand and respect it. And the USA is full of it, and admittedly full of hubris too. I wouldn't be quite so certain that the empire is over, but agreed overstretched. Adjustments are being made, though only time will tell if it is too little too late. Your reading of history is accurate, but history doesn't predict the future. It simply provides proper context for discussion. Your entire comment seems more ideological than logical. Where did I claim exceptionalism? I apologized about the junta, said it wasn't justified, but acknowledged the underlying dynamics. Your response was to compare me to the nazis? Wow. I will say this. You think Russia is "right". Good for you. I think it's quite a bit more complicated. I certainly think the socioeconomic and political systems in be USA are far superior to that of Russia, not inherently, but because of the institutions that have been created. Russia has chosen to emphasize nationalism versus the USA where individualism is still the prevailing ideological force. Nationalism was what the nazis promoted. Luckily I don't share your assessment about the global balance of power. The USA, land of the free and home of the brave, will continue to promote its interests abroad for quite some time to come.

Drinas -> KlingOn2K , October 8, 2017 4:34 PM

I don't know about "us Russians" because no matter how unfathomable it might seem to you, not everyone even mildly supportive of Russia is a Russian. I am Greek and I consider Russia a friendly state, with ties going back 1000 years, a state which is wrongfully demonized by the Western elites. You claim that everyone speaking vs Putin is targeted somehow. Obivously you have never been to Russia or spoke to Russians or have the vaguest clue of public discourse in Russia both online and on the street.

Oh, and in case you missed it, I asked for a single proof of "Russia hacking the election". Or anyone "hacking the election" for that matter. I did not ask any proof about Russia's internal politics or whether it conforms to your hypocritical and selective notions of democracy, ones that you care not apply to a host of tyranical nations you openly support.

Drinas -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 9:34 AM

Oh, what a brilliant idea you got there..The one accused being responsible for providing evidence of his innocence while the accuser having no need to present evidence to support his case. Just relying on-"but it's Russia! It's evil and all that s..t!"

And neither Putin nor any Russian official ever made such an admission. Hillary lost because she was a terrible candidate whose own actions fueled a populist backlash against her and the Washington consensus policies she espoused.

kelly bako -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 9:38 AM

So, you presume that russia is guilty because you don't have any proof of its innocence or culpability when it comes to assert if there were any interference in America's elections?

Andrew -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 10:20 AM

When was it caught, doing what?

Mrm Penumathy -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 1:02 PM

KingOn2K your assertion and the greatest press in the universe repeating continuously that Russians did it without providing any shred of evidence after more than one and half year of investigations (Sorry I forgot, they the press do mention that our $100 Billion + intelligence agencies say so the same guys who got us in the mess in Iraq good luck believing these guys). In the meanwhile we have an opioid epidemic and crumbling infrastructure.

KlingOn2K -> Mrm Penumathy , October 8, 2017 11:12 PM

Mrm Penumathy maybe, just maybe, it might dawn on Russia that the US is not in any way hinged to Russia. The status quo would do just fine. Apart from denials and raising a non-sequitur like Iraq the arguments for a reset don't look convincing. It is always amusing to see arguments on relative economic strengths coming from Russians when 68% of their exports come from oil !!

SurfaceUnits -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 12:24 PM

The reason Hillarity was stumbling and falling during the campaign is because Vladimir Putin and the Russians spiked her GERITOL(R)(TM). It's true, ask a Dimocrat.

Midnight -> KlingOn2K , October 7, 2017 4:59 AM

In order to become a successful economy as the US needs to have 20 trillion foreign debt? The Russian economy is not so dependent on oil as it is told on CNN ..

Russia is not bad at earning rocket engines for the USA (rd180) and delivering American astronauts to the ISS ;) Economy of Russia - GDP rank 12th (nominal) / 6th (PPP) (2017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

[Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government. ..."
"... Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home." ..."
"... This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in. ..."
"... Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war." ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

In a new interview with host Jesse Ventura at RT, former United States presidential candidate and House of Representatives Member Dennis Kucinich stressed the importance of the American people challenging the "two-party duopoly that's committed to war."

In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government.

Regarding the Iraq War, Kucinich, who is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, explains that his research showed that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, didn't have any connection to the anthrax attack, didn't have the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and didn't have the weapons of mass destruction that were being claimed." This information, Kucinich relates, he provided to US Congress members in an October 2, 2002 report showing "there was no cause for war."

Despite Kucinich and other individuals' efforts to stop the march toward war, Congress passed an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq later in October, and the invasion of Iraq commenced in March of 2003.

Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home."

Why are we "wasting the blood of our nation, the treasure of our nation, our young people" on these overseas activities that are "causing catastrophes among families in other countries?" Kucinich asks. He answers as follows:

This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in.
Continuing with his explanation for the support for the Iraq War and other US military intervention abroad, Kucinich says:
The problem today we have in Washington is that both political parties have converged with the military-industrial complex, fulfilling President Eisenhower's nightmare and setting America on a path toward destruction.

Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war."

Watch Kucinich's complete interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3n5w1xYmV8A


Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Oct 09, 2017] After Nine Months, Only Stale Crumbs in Russia Inquiry by Scott Ritter

Highly recommended!
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.

The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators explained, and there was still work to be done.

Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."

Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.

The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.

This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence.

It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States (1921):

The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.

One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.

The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."

No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.

Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.

There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall").

These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.

The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:

Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.

Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch is the Duty of a Good Officer.

Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective staffs, would do well to heed those words.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).

[Oct 09, 2017] Autopilot Wars by Andrew J. Bacevich

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality. ..."
"... Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ..."
"... The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. ..."
"... On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. ..."
"... Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. ..."
"... Blather crowds out substance. ..."
"... Besides, we're too busy. ..."
"... Anyway, the next president will save us. ..."
"... Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. ..."
"... Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question. ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Autopilot Wars Sixteen Years, But Who's Counting?

Consider, if you will, these two indisputable facts. First, the United States is today more or less permanently engaged in hostilities in not one faraway place, but at least seven . Second, the vast majority of the American people could not care less.

Nor can it be said that we don't care because we don't know. True, government authorities withhold certain aspects of ongoing military operations or release only details that they find convenient. Yet information describing what U.S. forces are doing (and where) is readily available, even if buried in recent months by barrages of presidential tweets. Here, for anyone interested, are press releases issued by United States Central Command for just one recent week:

  • September 19 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • September 20 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • Iraqi Security Forces begin Hawijah offensive
  • September 21 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • September 22 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • September 23 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • Operation Inherent Resolve Casualty
  • September 25 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq
  • September 26 : Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq

Ever since the United States launched its war on terror, oceans of military press releases have poured forth. And those are just for starters. To provide updates on the U.S. military's various ongoing campaigns, generals, admirals, and high-ranking defense officials regularly testify before congressional committees or brief members of the press. From the field, journalists offer updates that fill in at least some of the details -- on civilian casualties, for example -- that government authorities prefer not to disclose. Contributors to newspaper op-ed pages and "experts" booked by network and cable TV news shows, including passels of retired military officers, provide analysis. Trailing behind come books and documentaries that put things in a broader perspective.

But here's the truth of it. None of it matters.

Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not that big a deal.

While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.

Why do Americans today show so little interest in the wars waged in their name and at least nominally on their behalf? Why, as our wars drag on and on, doesn't the disparity between effort expended and benefits accrued arouse more than passing curiosity or mild expressions of dismay? Why, in short, don't we give a [ expletive deleted ]?

Perhaps just posing such a question propels us instantly into the realm of the unanswerable, like trying to figure out why people idolize Justin Bieber, shoot birds, or watch golf on television.

Without any expectation of actually piercing our collective ennui, let me take a stab at explaining why we don't give a @#$%&! Here are eight distinctive but mutually reinforcing explanations, offered in a sequence that begins with the blindingly obvious and ends with the more speculative.

Americans don't attend all that much to ongoing American wars because:

1. U.S. casualty rates are low . By using proxies and contractors, and relying heavily on airpower, America's war managers have been able to keep a tight lid on the number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded. In all of 2017, for example, a grand total of 11 American soldiers have been lost in Afghanistan -- about equal to the number of shooting deaths in Chicago over the course of a typical week. True, in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries where the U.S. is engaged in hostilities, whether directly or indirectly, plenty of people who are not Americans are being killed and maimed. (The estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed this year alone exceeds 12,000 .) But those casualties have next to no political salience as far as the United States is concerned. As long as they don't impede U.S. military operations, they literally don't count (and generally aren't counted).

2. The true costs of Washington's wars go untabulated. In a famous speech , dating from early in his presidency, Dwight D. Eisenhower said that "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dollars spent on weaponry, Ike insisted, translated directly into schools, hospitals, homes, highways, and power plants that would go unbuilt. "This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense," he continued. "[I]t is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." More than six decades later, Americans have long since accommodated themselves to that cross of iron. Many actually see it as a boon, a source of corporate profits, jobs, and, of course, campaign contributions. As such, they avert their eyes from the opportunity costs of our never-ending wars. The dollars expended pursuant to our post-9/11 conflicts will ultimately number in the multi-trillions . Imagine the benefits of investing such sums in upgrading the nation's aging infrastructure . Yet don't count on Congressional leaders, other politicians, or just about anyone else to pursue that connection.

On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. Others have made the point so frequently that it's the equivalent of hearing "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" at Christmastime. Even so, it bears repeating: the American people have defined their obligation to "support the troops" in the narrowest imaginable terms , ensuring above all that such support requires absolutely no sacrifice on their part. Members of Congress abet this civic apathy, while also taking steps to insulate themselves from responsibility. In effect, citizens and their elected representatives in Washington agree: supporting the troops means deferring to the commander in chief, without inquiring about whether what he has the troops doing makes the slightest sense. Yes, we set down our beers long enough to applaud those in uniform and boo those who decline to participate in mandatory rituals of patriotism. What we don't do is demand anything remotely approximating actual accountability.

4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. While international terrorism isn't a trivial problem (and wasn't for decades before 9/11), it comes nowhere close to posing an existential threat to the United States. Indeed, other threats, notably the impact of climate change, constitute a far greater danger to the wellbeing of Americans. Worried about the safety of your children or grandchildren? The opioid epidemic constitutes an infinitely greater danger than "Islamic radicalism." Yet having been sold a bill of goods about a "war on terror" that is essential for "keeping America safe," mere citizens are easily persuaded that scattering U.S. troops throughout the Islamic world while dropping bombs on designated evildoers is helping win the former while guaranteeing the latter. To question that proposition becomes tantamount to suggesting that God might not have given Moses two stone tablets after all.

5. Blather crowds out substance. When it comes to foreign policy, American public discourse is -- not to put too fine a point on it -- vacuous, insipid, and mindlessly repetitive. William Safire of the New York Times once characterized American political rhetoric as BOMFOG, with those running for high office relentlessly touting the Brotherhood of Man and the Fatherhood of God. Ask a politician, Republican or Democrat, to expound on this country's role in the world, and then brace yourself for some variant of WOSFAD, as the speaker insists that it is incumbent upon the World's Only Superpower to spread Freedom and Democracy. Terms like leadership and indispensable are introduced, along with warnings about the dangers of isolationism and appeasement, embellished with ominous references to Munich . Such grandiose posturing makes it unnecessary to probe too deeply into the actual origins and purposes of American wars, past or present, or assess the likelihood of ongoing wars ending in some approximation of actual success. Cheerleading displaces serious thought.

6. Besides, we're too busy. Think of this as a corollary to point five. Even if the present-day American political scene included figures like Senators Robert La Follette or J. William Fulbright , who long ago warned against the dangers of militarizing U.S. policy, Americans may not retain a capacity to attend to such critiques. Responding to the demands of the Information Age is not, it turns out, conducive to deep reflection. We live in an era (so we are told) when frantic multitasking has become a sort of duty and when being overscheduled is almost obligatory. Our attention span shrinks and with it our time horizon. The matters we attend to are those that happened just hours or minutes ago. Yet like the great solar eclipse of 2017 -- hugely significant and instantly forgotten -- those matters will, within another few minutes or hours, be superseded by some other development that briefly captures our attention. As a result, a dwindling number of Americans -- those not compulsively checking Facebook pages and Twitter accounts -- have the time or inclination to ponder questions like: When will the Afghanistan War end? Why has it lasted almost 16 years? Why doesn't the finest fighting force in history actually win? Can't package an answer in 140 characters or a 30-second made-for-TV sound bite? Well, then, slowpoke, don't expect anyone to attend to what you have to say.

7. Anyway, the next president will save us. At regular intervals, Americans indulge in the fantasy that, if we just install the right person in the White House, all will be well. Ambitious politicians are quick to exploit this expectation. Presidential candidates struggle to differentiate themselves from their competitors, but all of them promise in one way or another to wipe the slate clean and Make America Great Again. Ignoring the historical record of promises broken or unfulfilled, and presidents who turn out not to be deities but flawed human beings, Americans -- members of the media above all -- pretend to take all this seriously. Campaigns become longer, more expensive, more circus-like, and ever less substantial. One might think that the election of Donald Trump would prompt a downward revision in the exalted expectations of presidents putting things right. Instead, especially in the anti-Trump camp, getting rid of Trump himself (Collusion! Corruption! Obstruction! Impeachment!) has become the overriding imperative, with little attention given to restoring the balance intended by the framers of the Constitution. The irony of Trump perpetuating wars that he once roundly criticized and then handing the conduct of those wars to generals devoid of ideas for ending them almost entirely escapes notice.

8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. As recently as the 1990s, the U.S. military establishment aligned itself with the retrograde side of the culture wars. Who can forget the gays-in-the-military controversy that rocked Bill Clinton's administration during his first weeks in office, as senior military leaders publicly denounced their commander-in-chief? Those days are long gone. Culturally, the armed forces have moved left. Today, the services go out of their way to project an image of tolerance and a commitment to equality on all matters related to race, gender, and sexuality. So when President Trump announced his opposition to transgendered persons serving in the armed forces, tweeting that the military "cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail," senior officers politely but firmly disagreed and pushed back . Given the ascendency of cultural issues near the top of the U.S. political agenda, the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism and from being called to account for a less than sterling performance in waging wars. Put simply, critics who in an earlier day might have blasted military leaders for their inability to bring wars to a successful conclusion hold their fire. Having women graduate from Ranger School or command Marines in combat more than compensates for not winning.

A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them -- and us -- to care.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author, most recently, of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History .

Dan Hayes > , October 9, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT

You have enumerated ten general reasons why Americans "don't attend" to ongoing wars.

Let me add a further specific one: the draft or lack of same. If there were a draft in place either the powers-that-be would not even dare to contemplate any of our present martial misadventures, or failing that the outraged citizenry would burn down the Congress!

BTW I had never thought about reason #8: the military's embrace of diversity helps to insulate it from criticism. This explains General Casey's inane statement that diversity shouldn't be a casualty of the Fort Hood massacre by a "diverse" officer!

Carlton Meyer > , Website October 9, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

One reason Trump won is that he promised to pull back the empire, while suggesting the Pentagon already has plenty of money. After the election, he demanded a 10% increase, and threatens North Korea to justify it! This increase alone is bigger than the entire annual military budget of Russia! The public is informed that this is because of cuts during the Obama years, but there were no cuts, only limits to increases.

How did the Democrats react? Most voted for a bigger military budget than the mindless increase proposed by Trump! That news was not reported by our corporate media, as Jimmy Dore explained:

Miro23 > , October 9, 2017 at 6:52 am GMT

A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America.

Well, yes, the US has recently killed 100.000′s of Arab civilians because they were Terrorists (?) or to Bring them Democracy (?) or whatever, or something – or who cares anyway. There's more coverage of the transgender toilet access question.

So who are Mr & Mrs Indifferent, the emblems of contemporary America? https://www.yahoo.com/news/29-couples-boudoir-photos-almost-172445904.html ?.tsrc=fauxdal – Thanks to Priss

Backwoods Bob > , October 9, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT

Structurally, you have arms production, military bases, hospitals, and related service industries across nearly all the congressional districts in the country.

So it is an enormous set of vested interests with both voting power and corporate money for campaign treasuries.

Quoting Ike was good, and he mentions the opportunity cost in schools, roads, etc. – but also the organizing political and economic power of the military industrial complex.

The government schools are with some exceptions worthless. No subject, let alone war, is taken on seriously.

The legacy media has been co-opted by the MIC/Financial interests. The state is spying on everyone and everyone knows so. Free speech, free association, free assembly, right to bear arms, confront your accuser, trial by jury, habeas corpus – all gone now.

So the sheep behave. They walk by the dead whistling, and look straight ahead.

Robert Magill > , October 9, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT

While serving as defense secretary in the 1960s, Robert McNamara once mused that the "greatest contribution" of the Vietnam War might have been to make it possible for the United States "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." With regard to the conflict once widely referred to as McNamara's War, his claim proved grotesquely premature. Yet a half-century later, his wish has become reality.

He was dead wrong about this in the 60′s as it soon became obvious to everyone else. But we learned how "to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire." Cut out the military draft and embed the press into the ranks so they dare not report the actions they witness.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

[Oct 09, 2017] SHOCKING!!! Google discovers ads placed on its site from Russia, proving America's democracy was hacked by

Oct 09, 2017 | theduran.com

It was only a matter of time before Google and its subsidiaries (most notably
YouTube) would jump on the "Russia hacked the election" narrative concocted by

Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.

Executive Chairman of Alphabet, Inc., (Google's parent company), Eric Schmidt
was after all advising the Hillary Clinton campaign.

What took Schmidt and Google execs so long to join in on the never ending
litigation of the US presidential election, that Hillary lost almost one year ago?

Via The Daily Caller...

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google's parent company
Alphabet, wanted to be "head outside advisor" to the Hillary
Clinton campaign, according to Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta in an email released by WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks has continued to reveal Schmidt's cozy relationship with
the Clinton campaign. In a previously leaked email,
a memo showed that Schmidt was working directly with the Clinton
campaign on setting up various backend features to their website.

[Oct 09, 2017] Corker Strikes Back by Daniel Larison

And this guy was elected with the mandate to end all foreign wars, although regarding Iraq he always was pretty crazy and jingoistic.
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Bob Corker followed up on his initial response to Trump's attack on him with some scathing criticism in an interview with The New York Times :

Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, charged in an interview on Sunday that President Trump was treating his office like "a reality show," with reckless threats toward other countries that could set the nation "on the path to World War III."

In an extraordinary rebuke of a president of his own party, Mr. Corker said he was alarmed about a president who acts "like he's doing 'The Apprentice' or something."

"He concerns me," Mr. Corker added. "He would have to concern anyone who cares about our nation."

Corker isn't saying anything that many others haven't already said, but it is significant that it is coming from such a high-profile elected Republican. The senator was among a very few in the Senate inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt in the past, and he sometimes went out of his way to say positive things about Trump's foreign policy. During the election, he was saying that Trump was bringing a "degree of realism" and "maturity" to foreign policy. That was always wishful thinking, and Corker's criticism now is a belated admission that he was wrong about all of that. It is fair to fault Corker for not realizing or saying any of these things sooner, but that doesn't make it any less extraordinary that he is saying it on the record. Thanks to Trump's foolish attack on him yesterday, he evidently no longer feels obliged to keep quiet about the problems he has with the president.

One of the more interesting things that Corker confirmed concerned Trump's repeated undermining of Tillerson:

The senator, who is close to Mr. Tillerson, invoked comments that the president made on Twitter last weekend in which he appeared to undercut Mr. Tillerson's negotiations with North Korea.

"A lot of people think that there is some kind of 'good cop, bad cop' act underway, but that's just not true," Mr. Corker said.

Without offering specifics, he said Mr. Trump had repeatedly undermined diplomacy with his Twitter fingers. "I know he has hurt, in several instances, he's hurt us as it relates to negotiations that were underway by tweeting things out," Mr. Corker said.

We already knew this, but it is important that someone in Corker's position is acknowledging that the administration's foreign policy is every bit as dysfunctional as it appears to be. It remains to be seen whether Corker's break with Trump will translate into meaningful opposition to any part of Trump's foreign policy, but his remarks in this interview suggest that it might.

[Oct 09, 2017] Dennis Kucinich We Must Challenge the Two-Party Duopoly Committed to War by Adam Dick

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government. ..."
"... Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home." ..."
"... This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in. ..."
"... Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war." ..."
Oct 09, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

In a new interview with host Jesse Ventura at RT, former United States presidential candidate and House of Representatives Member Dennis Kucinich stressed the importance of the American people challenging the "two-party duopoly that's committed to war."

In the interview, Kucinich discusses his work to expose the misinformation used to argue for US government interventions overseas before and during the Iraq War and, later, concerning the US effort to assist in the overthrow of the Syria government.

Regarding the Iraq War, Kucinich, who is an Advisory Board member for the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, explains that his research showed that "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with al-Qaeda's role in 9/11, didn't have any connection to the anthrax attack, didn't have the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and didn't have the weapons of mass destruction that were being claimed." This information, Kucinich relates, he provided to US Congress members in an October 2, 2002 report showing "there was no cause for war."

Despite Kucinich and other individuals' efforts to stop the march toward war, Congress passed an authorization for use of military force (AUMF) against Iraq later in October, and the invasion of Iraq commenced in March of 2003.

Kucinich, in the interview, places the Iraq War, with its costs including trillions in US government spending and the death of over a million Iraqis, in the context of "this American imperium, this idea that somehow we have the right to establish ourselves anywhere we want" including with "over 800 bases in 132 countries" and to go around the world "looking for dragons to slay while we ignore our own problems here at home."

Why are we "wasting the blood of our nation, the treasure of our nation, our young people" on these overseas activities that are "causing catastrophes among families in other countries?" Kucinich asks. He answers as follows:

This is a racket. This is a way for people who make arms to cash in or have government contracts to cash in.
Continuing with his explanation for the support for the Iraq War and other US military intervention abroad, Kucinich says:
The problem today we have in Washington is that both political parties have converged with the military-industrial complex, fulfilling President Eisenhower's nightmare and setting America on a path toward destruction.

Rescuing America from a future "cataclysmic war," Kucinich argues, requires that Americans both "realize that our position in the world was never, ever meant to be a cop on the beat, a global cop," and "challenge this two-party duopoly that's committed to war."

Watch Kucinich's complete interview here:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/3n5w1xYmV8A


Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Oct 09, 2017] Russiagate Is More Fiction Than Fact by Aaron Maté

Oct 06, 2017 | www.thenation.com

From accusations of Trump campaign collusion to Russian Facebook ad buys, the media has substituted hype for evidence.

Since Election Day, the controversy over alleged Russian meddling and Trump campaign collusion has consumed Washington and the national media. Yet nearly one year later there is still no concrete evidence of its central allegations. There are claims by US intelligence officials that the Russian government hacked e-mails and used social media to help elect Donald Trump, but there has yet to be any corroboration. Although the oft-cited January intelligence report "uses the strongest language and offers the most detailed assessment yet," The Atlantic observed that "it does not or cannot provide evidence for its assertions." Noting the "absence of any proof" and "hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack," The New York Times concluded that the intelligence community's message "essentially amounts to 'trust us.'" That remains the case today.

The same holds for the question of collusion. Officials acknowledged to Reuters in May that "they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Well-placed critics of Trump -- including former DNI chief James Clapper, former CIA director Michael Morrell, Representative Maxine Waters, and Senator Dianne Feinstein -- concur to date.

Recognizing this absence of evidence helps examine what has been substituted in its place. Shattered, the insider account of the Clinton campaign, reports that "in the days after the election, Hillary declined to take responsibility for her own loss." Instead, one source recounted, aides were ordered "to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way." Within 24 hours of Clinton's concession speech, top officials gathered "to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."

But the focus on Russia has utility far beyond the Clinton camp. It dovetails with elements of state power that oppose Trump's call for improved relations with Moscow and who are willing to deploy a familiar playbook of Cold War fearmongering to block any developments on that front. The multiple investigations and anonymous leaks are also a tool to pacify an erratic president whose anti-interventionist rhetoric -- by all indications, a ruse -- alarmed foreign-policy elites during the campaign. Corporate media outlets driven by clicks and ratings are inexorably drawn to the scandal. The public is presented with a real-life spy thriller, which for some carries the added appeal of possibly undoing a reviled president and his improbable victory.

These imperatives have incentivized a compromised set of journalistic and evidentiary standards. In Russiagate, unverified claims are reported with little to no skepticism. Comporting developments are cherry-picked and overhyped, while countervailing ones are minimized or ignored. Front-page headlines advertise explosive and incriminating developments, only to often be undermined by the article's content, or retracted entirely. Qualified language -- likely, suspected, apparent -- appears next to "Russians" to account for the absence of concrete links. As a result, Russiagate has enlarged into a storm of innuendo that engulfs issues far beyond its original scope.

The latest two stories about alleged Trump campaign collusion were initially received as smoking guns. But upon further examination, they may actually undermine that narrative. One was news that Trump had signed a non-binding letter of intent to license his name for a proposed building in Moscow as he ran for the White House. Russian-born developer Felix Sater predicted to Trump lawyer Michael Cohen that the deal would help Trump win the presidency. "I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected," Sater wrote, believing that voters would be impressed that Trump could make a real-estate deal with the United States' "most difficult adversary." The New York Times describes the outcome:

There is no evidence in the emails that Mr. Sater delivered on his promises, and one email suggests that Mr. Sater overstated his Russian ties. In January 2016, Mr. Cohen wrote to Mr. Putin's spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, asking for help restarting the Trump Tower project, which had stalled. But Mr. Cohen did not appear to have Mr. Peskov's direct email, and instead wrote to a general inbox for press inquiries.

The project never got government permits or financing, and died weeks later.

Peskov has confirmed he ended up seeing the e-mail from Cohen, but did not bother to respond. The story does raise a potential conflict of interest: Trump pursued a Moscow deal as he praised Putin on the campaign trial. But it is hard to see how a deal that never got off the ground is of more importance than actual deals Trump made in places like Turkey, the Philippines, and the Persian Gulf. If anything, the story should introduce skepticism into whether any collusion took place: The deal failed, and Trump's lawyer did not even have an e-mail address for his Russian counterparts.

The revelation of Sater's e-mails to Cohen followed the earlier controversy of Rob Goldstone offering Donald Trump Jr. incriminating information on Hillary Clinton as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Goldstone's e-mail was more fruitful than Sater's in that it yielded a meeting, albeit one that Trump Jr. claims he abandoned after 20 minutes. Those who deem the Sater-Goldstone e-mail chains incriminating or even treasonous should be reminded of their provenance: Sater is known as " a canny operator and a colorful bullshitter " who has " launched a host of crudely named websites -- including IAmAFaggot.com and VaginaBoy.com to attack a former business partner." Meanwhile, Goldstone is a British tabloid journalist turned music publicist. One does not have to be an intelligence expert to doubt that they are Kremlin cut-outs.

[Oct 09, 2017] SHOCKING!!! Google discovers ads placed on its site from Russia, proving America s democracy was hacked

Oct 09, 2017 | theduran.com

Menu

[Oct 08, 2017] A Vet Remembers

Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 6, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT

@Auntie Analogue Every time someone says to me, "Thank you for your service," above my head appears a cartoon thought balloon containing a wisp of the smoke of exasperation. It's weird how or when this reverent, pro-military bullshit toward veterans of the military (NB: very few ever in life-threatening combat) began. It seemed to be right around when our wars were solely about Zionist interests. My dad saw combat as an Army infantryman in the most ferocious battles of WWII. He received Purple Hearts (injuries from grenades and bullets) and medals of valor. When I was growing up he never discussed it unless you asked him questions. He never sought nor thought he was ever entitled to any benefits from it. Never went to the VA. All of his friends were the same way. It was only at the funeral of a close friend's dad that I learned that he had been in the military, and the Battle of the Bulge! I used to see this guy daily for years and stayed at their house all the time. Never once did he mention it. But back then, when being in the military meant being in combat, it was just something all men were expected to do and move on. Even if you were a major leaguer like Ted Williams you had to put your pro baseball career on hold and go off to combat and then return and resume things. They didn't expect or want any adulation. These kinds of guys would be embarrassed by it.

Nowadays every military veteran I know left with a disability and generous VA benefits and wears his military service on his soldier. Guys and gals who spent 3 years at Fort Huachuca or Lackland AFB or were "deployed" (PCS) to Okinawa, Japan or South Korea, expect to worshipped because they "defended freedom and put their lives on the line for all Americans".

The modern military, which became a jobs program, has been disasterous for white middle America. It destroyed families and created a bunch of less-than-manly white males who are worse than welfare queens living large on the MIC. But nowadays the military of today, 2017, is very diverse and third world. Today you're more likely to see the children of immigrants from West Africa or Latin America at basic training rather than some white kid.

Cato > , October 8, 2017 at 5:30 am GMT

I was a 15 year old freak when I first met the returning vets, at the city park where freaks hung out. At that time I thought that I too would be sent to Vietnam, and, in a way, I (and my friends) had prepared for that our whole lives–our parents had stories about WWII, and many also had stories about Korea. Today I feel grateful that it didn't happen (the draft ended the year I turned 19, and I got my adventure a different way). But at the time, the stories of the returning vets were all about drugs, and hot women, and power, and not about casualties. So, for some years I thought I had missed out on something. But think about it: 50,000 dead, four times what we've lost in the Bush-Obama-Trump wars. I knew some of those guys who died, and I also knew some of the guys who, like Fred, did things beyond what most of us have done. But none of the latter seemed particularly happy about having done those things. Overall, it seems that war sucks. A lot. Someone please inform Bill Kristol.

Uebersetzer > , October 8, 2017 at 6:35 am GMT

The combat soldier who goes home or at least on leave and meets incomprehension is a literary theme going back some decades if not centuries. All Quiet On The Western Front has a main character who goes on leave and finds the civilians have no comprehension of the war although they are enthusiastic about it, sometimes offering him patronising advice about how to win it. Remarque's book was banned in the Third Reich, though many German memoirs were not which extolled war as the highest of human experiences and expressed contempt for the Etappenschweine (rear echelon MFs) and, slightly less overtly, mere civilians. The scorned veteran who enjoyed the war or at least had trouble dealing with postwar civilian life was part of the soil in which fascism took root.

gdpbull > , October 8, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

I watched on line the portion of the Burns documentary that covered the period of time that I was in Nam to get a sense of its accuracy since I had direct knowledge of that time period. The coverage was completely perfunctory. I had hoped that the long multi-part documentary of the war would be a well an actual documentary of the war for a change. You know, showing not only the high level politics and overall strategy end, but also the nuts and bolts of the war. Well, it really didn't even show the high level strategic aspects to much detail, let alone the nuts and bolts. It was just one more navel gazing piece of crap. So I didn't bother watching any of the other segments.

DESERT FOX > , October 8, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

To see who was behind getting America into the Vietnam war , read the book JFK, THE CIA and VIETNAM by L. Fletcher Prouty, can be had on Amazon.com. This book also tells who killed JFK.

[Oct 08, 2017] The Dark History of Fear, Inc

Notable quotes:
"... None of this qualifies as your typical run-of-the-mill lunacy (scented candles cause cancer), over-the-top tripe (the recent solar eclipse marks the beginning of the apocalypse), or unbelievable baloney (that man-made pyramids have been discovered in Antarctica). Rather, the paranoid style is rooted in pernicious, but believable, political fears: that the nation is under threat from people or movements plotting to do it harm and is teetering, teetering, teetering on the edge of an abyss. The problem is not that this is patently false (The Germans! The Japanese! The Russians!), but that it's often exaggerated -- and, sometimes, purposely so. Then too, as Hofstadter implied, preying on these fears for political gain not only isn't new, it's tried, tested, and often successful. Scaring the dickens out of voters is as American as the 4th of July. ..."
"... The claims now are not only as breathless as anything the CIA said about East Germany in the 1980s, they're as suspect: Mexico is "on the verge of collapse" -- a claim made by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly -- that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban (retold by the recently retired commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr., and, just the other day by James Mattis), that the U.S. military will be "outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries in the future" (noted by national security adviser H.R. McMaster prior to his service at the White House) and that, as Donald Trump himself said during his address to the United Nations, large parts of the world " are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell ." ..."
"... The problem with the claims is that those who are asked to dismiss them are required to defend the opposite -- that Mexico is economically healthy (it isn't, but it's hardly on the verge of collapse), that Russian weapons haven't shown up in Afghanistan (they have, though not simply in the hands of the Taliban), that Russia and China aren't developing new and more sophisticated weapons (they are, but so what?), or that it's ridiculous not to believe that "major portions of the world are in conflict" (that's always been true). The other problem with disproving the claims is that doing so contains a whiff of weakness, or naiveté: that the skeptic favors open borders, supports Afghan terrorism, doesn't support a strong military, or is hopelessly misinformed. In fact, however, each of these claims have been made before -- and refuted by expert testimony. ..."
"... The same holds true for each of the other claims. Following Gen. Nicholson's statement that Russia was providing arms to the Taliban, his claim was given short shrift by both the Defense Intelligence Agency and by Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO. Stoltenberg acknowledged that he'd seen the reports, adding that the only thing they lacked was proof. ..."
"... That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow's nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us? Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. ..."
"... So, yes, we're in deep, deep trouble -- just as we were when witches danced in Ipswich, when Samuel Morse claimed we were being subverted by papists, when Joe McCarthy saw a communist under every State Department memo -- and when the Russians were producing missiles like sausages. ..."
Oct 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Back in 1835, Samuel F.B. Morse (who went on to invent the telegraph and the Morse Code), wrote a book about a plot to overthrow the American republic. The conspiracy, Morse wrote, was well-funded, highly secretive, and hatched in Vienna by members of the The St. Leopold Foundation, which had dispatched cells of Jesuit missionaries to the U.S. to forcibly convert the nation to Roman Catholicism. This was no small intrigue: The plot's leaders, as Morse meticulously catalogued, were Austrian diplomat Klemens von Metternich, Ferdinand V of Hungary, and (of course) Pope Gregory XVI. "It is high time that we awakened to the apprehension of danger," Morse wrote .

What is shocking about this nonsense is not that Morse actually believed it, but that millions of other Americans did too. Morse's book seeded the rise of the nativist "Know-Nothing" party , whose goal was to curb immigration, root out Catholicism, and return America to its protestant ideals. In essence, they were the America-firsters of the nineteenth century. The Know-Nothings swept into office in Chicago, were strong in Massachusetts and, in 1856, nominated a national ticket (Millard Fillmore and Andrew Donelson), for the presidency; they tallied nearly 900,000 votes, one-quarter of those cast. "I know nothing but my country, my whole country and nothing but my country," they chanted.

Historians have since excavated the Morse plot with relish, if only as a way to better understand a nation that, from time to time, enjoys being scared witless.

Before the Know-Nothings there were the Anti-Masons, a political movement that warned of a takeover by secretive apron-wearing do-gooders who met for god-knows-why. And before that Americans were warned about witches named Dorothy, Rebecca, Martha, and Rachel, dancing in New England's forests. Some 120 years after Morse, in 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter dubbed this "the paranoid style in American politics" -- a paradigm-shifting essay that catalogued a raft of intrigues peopled by witches, Illuminati, Masons, Jesuits, Mormons, Jewish bankers, Bilderbergers and, in Hofstadter's time, communist dupes doing Moscow's bidding. America's enemies might be unseen, but they were everywhere.

"In the end, the real mystery, for one who reads the primary works of paranoid scholarship," Hofstadter wrote, "is not how the United States has been brought to its present dangerous position but how it managed to survive at all."

None of this qualifies as your typical run-of-the-mill lunacy (scented candles cause cancer), over-the-top tripe (the recent solar eclipse marks the beginning of the apocalypse), or unbelievable baloney (that man-made pyramids have been discovered in Antarctica). Rather, the paranoid style is rooted in pernicious, but believable, political fears: that the nation is under threat from people or movements plotting to do it harm and is teetering, teetering, teetering on the edge of an abyss. The problem is not that this is patently false (The Germans! The Japanese! The Russians!), but that it's often exaggerated -- and, sometimes, purposely so. Then too, as Hofstadter implied, preying on these fears for political gain not only isn't new, it's tried, tested, and often successful. Scaring the dickens out of voters is as American as the 4th of July.

The historical "for instance" in this is well-documented: during the 1960 presidential campaign, John Kennedy insisted that the Soviet Union had outstripped the U.S. in ballistic missile production. There was a growing and dangerous "missile gap" Kennedy claimed, placing the nation in great peril. Dwight Eisenhower, he said, had been derelict in not acknowledging the threat. An independent study commission issued a report that confirmed the fear and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev gave it credence: We are "turning out missiles like sausages," he claimed. As it turns out, Kennedy was right: there was a missile gap, but not in a way that he thought -- we had plenty, while they had none (a later CIA report speculated that, actually, they might have had three, maybe). Years later, Kennedy's claim looked downright foolish: the problem for the Russians wasn't that they couldn't make missiles (they eventually did, and plenty of them), but that they couldn't make sausages -- which cost them their empire. The same kinds of claims were retailed by U.S. intelligence services about Russia's allies: a 1987 CIA fact book said that East Germany's GDP per capita was higher than West Germany's, a claim so ludicrous that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan dismissed it to a panel of CIA officers with a legendary quip: "I know a Berlin taxi driver who could have told you that wasn't true."

The claims now are not only as breathless as anything the CIA said about East Germany in the 1980s, they're as suspect: Mexico is "on the verge of collapse" -- a claim made by White House Chief of Staff John Kelly -- that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban (retold by the recently retired commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John W. Nicholson, Jr., and, just the other day by James Mattis), that the U.S. military will be "outranged and outgunned by many potential adversaries in the future" (noted by national security adviser H.R. McMaster prior to his service at the White House) and that, as Donald Trump himself said during his address to the United Nations, large parts of the world " are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell ."

The problem with the claims is that those who are asked to dismiss them are required to defend the opposite -- that Mexico is economically healthy (it isn't, but it's hardly on the verge of collapse), that Russian weapons haven't shown up in Afghanistan (they have, though not simply in the hands of the Taliban), that Russia and China aren't developing new and more sophisticated weapons (they are, but so what?), or that it's ridiculous not to believe that "major portions of the world are in conflict" (that's always been true). The other problem with disproving the claims is that doing so contains a whiff of weakness, or naiveté: that the skeptic favors open borders, supports Afghan terrorism, doesn't support a strong military, or is hopelessly misinformed. In fact, however, each of these claims have been made before -- and refuted by expert testimony.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey said that Mexico was in a state of collapse back in 2009, a claim contradicted by then-Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair. More recently, and before the recent earthquake shook Mexico City, the collapsing Mexican government offered to help provide aid to Texans victimized by Hurricane Harvey. It's a wonder they would think of us as the walls were coming down around them. Then too, if Mexico is really on the verge of collapse, shouldn't the administration be doing something about it -- perhaps we should appeal to the international community to provide the Mexican government with low interest loans, or maybe we should deploy a U.S. aircraft carrier group to the Gulf of Mexico. Or perhaps, just perhaps, the claim is Morse-like: designed to frighten us, perhaps, into building a wall as a barrier to keep immigrants who are not pouring over the border from pouring over the border.

The same holds true for each of the other claims. Following Gen. Nicholson's statement that Russia was providing arms to the Taliban, his claim was given short shrift by both the Defense Intelligence Agency and by Jens Stoltenberg, the General Secretary of NATO. Stoltenberg acknowledged that he'd seen the reports, adding that the only thing they lacked was proof. But Stoltenberg went further, inviting Russia to be a part of the Afghanistan peace process -- a strange request to a nation that a top U.S. general claims is helping the enemy. Even so, the claim was repeated just this last week by Defense Secretary James Mattis, who added Iran to the growing list of Taliban allies. Of course, Nicholson and Mattis might be absolutely right, but they're saying so doesn't make it so. Then too (we shuffle our feet, look at our shoes, mumble to ourselves), the Taliban's best friend in Afghanistan isn't Russia or Iran, it's Pakistan -- our friend.

That Russia is an antagonist is now widely accepted, and it is trivially true that Moscow's nuclear arsenal (with or without the help of China) could lay waste to the U.S. But outgunning us? Russia spends a fraction of what the U.S. spends on its military establishment (some 14 percent of what we spend, in fact) and so must pick and choose what weapons it will develop. The result is that the Russian Federation continues technological advances in some weapons systems, but lacks significant technological depth elsewhere. During its 2015 May Day military parade, Russia showed off its new state-of-the-art T-14 main battle tank, complete with a new-fangled APS (active protection system) designed to defeat anti-armor weapons. Onlookers ogled the tank, oohing and ahhing at its shiny exterior, its impressive armament. But then, just as it was about to exit Red Square it broke down -- and had to be towed. Is Russia a threat? Sure, it's a threat. But Russia has many of the same problems now that it had at the end of the Cold War. It ranks 53rd in per capita GDP -- just behind Panama.

The world has problems, big problems but it is not going to hell. Here's what going to hell looks like. In the autumn of 1941, Europe was under the domination of a genocidal regime that had extended its murderous policies through all of Europe and whose armies were headed towards Moscow. In Asia, large swathes of China and all of Southeast Asia were occupied by Japanese militarists. The two, with Italy, had formed an axis and controlled significant portions of the globe. Their enemies were teetering on the edge of defeat. The world was going to hell, alright, but the U.S. had yet to get into the war.

But that's not the worst of it. During the early morning hours of September 26, 1983, Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov was notified by his computer system that the U.S. had launched five intercontinental ballistic missiles at Russia. Petrov sat there for a moment, when he should have been on the telephone to his superiors. After several moments he concluded that the warning just didn't make sense. Why would the U.S. launch only five missiles at Russia, when everyone in the Soviet military supposed they would launch a barrage. "The siren howled, but I just sat there for a few seconds," he later told the BBC, "staring at the big, back-lit, red screen with the word 'launch' on it." Petrov ignored the warning -- and may well have prevented a nuclear holocaust.

So, yes, we're in deep, deep trouble -- just as we were when witches danced in Ipswich, when Samuel Morse claimed we were being subverted by papists, when Joe McCarthy saw a communist under every State Department memo -- and when the Russians were producing missiles like sausages.

Now, as then, we have two choices: we can either embrace our fears and shake in our boots, or we can tell the sky-is-falling crowd what Samuel F.B. Morse's friends told him all the way back in 1835.

Get a grip.

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst and the author of The Most Dangerous Man in America: The Making of Douglas MacArthur. His next book, The Pentagon's Wars, will be released in October. He tweets @markperrydc

[Oct 08, 2017] A Vet Remembers

Oct 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anonymous > , Disclaimer October 6, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT

@Auntie Analogue Every time someone says to me, "Thank you for your service," above my head appears a cartoon thought balloon containing a wisp of the smoke of exasperation. It's weird how or when this reverent, pro-military bullshit toward veterans of the military (NB: very few ever in life-threatening combat) began. It seemed to be right around when our wars were solely about Zionist interests. My dad saw combat as an Army infantryman in the most ferocious battles of WWII. He received Purple Hearts (injuries from grenades and bullets) and medals of valor. When I was growing up he never discussed it unless you asked him questions. He never sought nor thought he was ever entitled to any benefits from it. Never went to the VA. All of his friends were the same way. It was only at the funeral of a close friend's dad that I learned that he had been in the military, and the Battle of the Bulge! I used to see this guy daily for years and stayed at their house all the time. Never once did he mention it. But back then, when being in the military meant being in combat, it was just something all men were expected to do and move on. Even if you were a major leaguer like Ted Williams you had to put your pro baseball career on hold and go off to combat and then return and resume things. They didn't expect or want any adulation. These kinds of guys would be embarrassed by it.

Nowadays every military veteran I know left with a disability and generous VA benefits and wears his military service on his soldier. Guys and gals who spent 3 years at Fort Huachuca or Lackland AFB or were "deployed" (PCS) to Okinawa, Japan or South Korea, expect to worshipped because they "defended freedom and put their lives on the line for all Americans".

The modern military, which became a jobs program, has been disasterous for white middle America. It destroyed families and created a bunch of less-than-manly white males who are worse than welfare queens living large on the MIC. But nowadays the military of today, 2017, is very diverse and third world. Today you're more likely to see the children of immigrants from West Africa or Latin America at basic training rather than some white kid.

Cato > , October 8, 2017 at 5:30 am GMT

I was a 15 year old freak when I first met the returning vets, at the city park where freaks hung out. At that time I thought that I too would be sent to Vietnam, and, in a way, I (and my friends) had prepared for that our whole lives–our parents had stories about WWII, and many also had stories about Korea. Today I feel grateful that it didn't happen (the draft ended the year I turned 19, and I got my adventure a different way). But at the time, the stories of the returning vets were all about drugs, and hot women, and power, and not about casualties. So, for some years I thought I had missed out on something. But think about it: 50,000 dead, four times what we've lost in the Bush-Obama-Trump wars. I knew some of those guys who died, and I also knew some of the guys who, like Fred, did things beyond what most of us have done. But none of the latter seemed particularly happy about having done those things. Overall, it seems that war sucks. A lot. Someone please inform Bill Kristol.

Uebersetzer > , October 8, 2017 at 6:35 am GMT

The combat soldier who goes home or at least on leave and meets incomprehension is a literary theme going back some decades if not centuries. All Quiet On The Western Front has a main character who goes on leave and finds the civilians have no comprehension of the war although they are enthusiastic about it, sometimes offering him patronising advice about how to win it. Remarque's book was banned in the Third Reich, though many German memoirs were not which extolled war as the highest of human experiences and expressed contempt for the Etappenschweine (rear echelon MFs) and, slightly less overtly, mere civilians. The scorned veteran who enjoyed the war or at least had trouble dealing with postwar civilian life was part of the soil in which fascism took root.

gdpbull > , October 8, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

I watched on line the portion of the Burns documentary that covered the period of time that I was in Nam to get a sense of its accuracy since I had direct knowledge of that time period. The coverage was completely perfunctory. I had hoped that the long multi-part documentary of the war would be a well an actual documentary of the war for a change. You know, showing not only the high level politics and overall strategy end, but also the nuts and bolts of the war. Well, it really didn't even show the high level strategic aspects to much detail, let alone the nuts and bolts. It was just one more navel gazing piece of crap. So I didn't bother watching any of the other segments.

DESERT FOX > , October 8, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

To see who was behind getting America into the Vietnam war , read the book JFK, THE CIA and VIETNAM by L. Fletcher Prouty, can be had on Amazon.com. This book also tells who killed JFK.

[Oct 05, 2017] Tillerson Summoned to White House Amid Presidential Fury

MSm stil trying to sing Trump, and it looks like he is helping them. Campaign of well times and damaging leaks continue.
Notable quotes:
"... Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian Salama. ..."
Oct 05, 2017 | www.msn.com
Additional reporting from Peter Alexander, Hallie Jackson and Vivian Salama.

WASHINGTON -- John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, abruptly scrapped plans to travel with President Donald Trump on Wednesday so he could try to contain his boss's fury and manage the fallout from new revelations about tensions between the president and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, according to six senior administration officials.

Kelly summoned Tillerson, and their ally Defense Secretary James Mattis, to the White House, where the three of them huddled to discuss a path forward, according to three administration officials. The White House downplayed Kelly's decision to stay in Washington, saying he did so to manage day-to-day operations.

Vice President Mike Pence, meanwhile, was fuming in Phoenix, where he was traveling, seven officials told NBC News. He and Tillerson spoke on the phone before the secretary's public appearance on Wednesday morning.

Pence was incensed upon learning from the NBC report that Tillerson's top spokesman had said he once privately questioned the value of Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Officials said the spokesman, R.C. Hammond, fabricated an anecdote that Pence had asked Tillerson in a meeting whether Haley, who is seen as a possible successor if Tillerson, is helpful or harmful to the administration.

NBC reported Wednesday that Tillerson had threatened to resign in July after a series of clashes with the president, at one point venting his frustrations among his colleagues by calling the president a "moron," according to multiple senior administration officials who were aware of the matter at the time.

Four senior administration officials said Trump first learned on Wednesday that Tillerson had disparaged him after a July 20 national security meeting at the Pentagon. Trump vented to Kelly Wednesday morning, leading Kelly to scrap plans to travel with the president to Las Vegas to meet with victims and first responders in Sunday's mass shooting.

Trump was furious when he saw the NBC News report, which was published shortly before 6 a.m. Wednesday. For the next two hours the president fumed inside the White House, venting to Kelly, officials said. He left for Las Vegas shortly after 8 a.m., 20 minutes behind schedule. Tillerson scrambled to pull together a statement, while his spokesman publicly apologized for his comments about Pence and Haley, saying he "spoke out of line about conversations I wasn't privy to."

Tillerson delivered a statement praising Trump and insisting he never considered resigning, but it's what he didn't say that further enraged Trump, officials said.

The secretary's refusal to deny that he had called the president a "moron" in his opening statement and in his responses to questions from reporters stoked Trump's anger and widened the rift between the two men, officials said. After watching the secretary's response Wednesday, one White House official said, "When Tillerson didn't deny it, I assumed it was true." Hammond is seen by the White House, particularly Pence's office, as untrustworthy, officials said. It's unclear if he will remain in his post, according to three administration officials.

Pence was "very annoyed anyone would misrepresent anything he said, particularly in private meetings," one White House official said. On Wednesday, this source said, White House officials spoke to State Department officials to make it clear that Hammond's comment was "false" and needed to be corrected. The revelations followed Trump's frustrations over the weekend after Tillerson said the U.S. would talk to North Korea.

State Department officials tried to reach Tillerson on his government aircraft during his flight from Beijing to Japan, but they couldn't reach him, sources said. The secretary and his team didn't want to issue a clarification, further stoking tensions with the White House, on administration official said.

Trump took to Twitter, telling Tillerson not to waste his time trying to negotiate with the North Korean regime.

Related:

[Oct 04, 2017] Wheels and Deals Trouble Brewing in the House of Saud by Pepe Escobar

The quote attributed to Mark Twain and Yogi Berra "It's Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future" still holds. This assessment by Pete Escobar about forthcoming bankruptcy of KAS need to be verified in three years from now. It is unclear whether the key future events (such as prediction that the current Crown Prince might be deposed with the CIA help) will take place.
It is, nevertheless, clear that KAS economics is under considerable stress due to low oil prices and that eventually can bankrupt the kingdom as foreign currency reserves shrink rapidly. What such economic crisis might entail for KAS we can only guess by reshuffling at the top is quite probably in this case. So in a way the future of KAS hangs on how soon oil prices will be pushed back into $100 range.
Notable quotes:
"... MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else. ..."
"... "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together. ..."
"... Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership." ..."
"... MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people." ..."
"... The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal. ..."
"... I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. ..."
"... The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles." ..."
"... Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles." ..."
"... In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill. ..."
"... In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment. ..."
"... In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt." ..."
"... This piece first appeared in Asia Times . ..."
Oct 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

No wonder, considering that the ousted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef – highly regarded in the Beltway, especially Langley – is under house arrest. His massive web of agents at the Interior Ministry has largely been "relieved of their authority". The new Interior Minister is Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef, 34, the eldest son of the governor of the country's largely Shi'ite Eastern Province, where all the oil is. Curiously, the father is now reporting to his son. MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else.

Former King Abdulaziz set up his Saudi succession based on the seniority of his sons; in theory, if each one lived to the same age all would have a shot at the throne, thus avoiding the bloodletting historically common in Arabian clans over lines of succession.

Now, says the source, "a bloodbath is predicted to be imminent." Especially because "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together.

ISIS playing by the (Saudi) book

Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership."

MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people."

The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed – "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal.

I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. Egypt and Pakistan have refused to send troops to Yemen, where relentless Saudi air bombing – with US and UK weapons – has accelerated malnutrition, famine and cholera, and configured a massive humanitarian crisis.

The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles."

Which brings us to the ultimate Saudi contradiction. Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles."

In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill.

And then there's the economic blockade against Qatar – another brilliant MBS plot. That has only served to improve Doha's relations with both Ankara and Tehran. Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani was not regime-changed, whether or not Trump really dissuaded Riyadh and Abu Dhabi from taking "military action." There was no economic strangulation: Total, for instance, is about to invest US$2 billion to expand production of Qatari natural gas. And Qatar, via its sovereign fund, counterpunched with the ultimate soft power move – it bought global footballing brand Neymar for PSG , and the "blockade" sank without a trace.

"Robbing their people blind"

In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment.

No dissent whatsoever is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Even the economic analyst Isam Az-Zamil, very close to the top, has been arrested during the current repression campaign. So opposition to MBS does not come only from the royal family or some top clerics – although the official spin rules that only those supporting Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, Iran and Qatari "terrorism" are being targeted.

In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt."

It will be immensely enlightening to compare what Trump gets from Salman with what Putin gets from Salman: the ailing King will visit Moscow in late October. Rosneft is interested in buying shares of Aramco when the IPO takes place. Riyadh and Moscow are considering an OPEC deal extension as well as an OPEC-non-OPEC cooperation platform incorporating the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).

Riyadh has read the writing on the new wall: Moscow's rising political / strategic capital all across the board, from Iran, Syria and Qatar to Turkey and Yemen. That does not sit well with the US deep state. Even if Trump gets some Rust Belt deals, the burning question is whether the CIA and its friends can live with MBS on the House of Saud throne.

This piece first appeared in Asia Times .

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). His latest book is Empire of Chaos . He may be reached at [email protected] .

[Oct 04, 2017] Trump Administration Policies in North Korea and Yemen Show Costs of Empire

Oct 04, 2017 | www.usnews.com

The idea that North Korea's nuclear capacity is a threat to the U.S., in particular because Kim might be crazy enough to attack us, was dismissed in a recent New York Times report :

The fear is not that Mr. Kim would launch a pre-emptive attack on the West Coast; that would be suicidal, and if the 33-year-old leader has demonstrated anything in his five years in office, he is all about survival. But if Mr. Kim has the potential ability to strike back, it would shape every decision Mr. Trump and his successors will make about defending America's allies in the region.
In other words, if North Korea could retaliate against a U.S. attack, Washington would have less power in Asia. It seems that when we dig beneath the surface of "national security" arguments for terribly dangerous or violent foreign policies, it is more often power, rather than the security or well-being of Americans, that underlies them. Otherwise, the negotiation of peaceful solutions would be the first priority. But as recently as June, the Trump administration dismissed an offer from North Korea and China to negotiate a deal in which North Korea would freeze its missile and nuclear testing in return for the U.S. freezing its "big, large-scale military exercises" in the Korean peninsula. The same imperial priorities that prevent a negotiated solution with North Korea appear to be a major reason for U.S. participation in the war and atrocities in Yemen. In this case it is part of Washington's strategic alliance with the Saudi dictatorship, which has recently been subjected to increasing criticism for its support for terrorist groups, including ISIS. Fortunately, members of Congress are pushing back against the unconstitutional, unauthorized participation in the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

[Oct 04, 2017] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Whose Bright Idea Was RussiaGate by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia. ..."
"... The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex. ..."
"... Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas. ..."
"... These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org . ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

The answer to the question in the title of this article is that Russiagate was created by CIA director John Brennan. The CIA started what is called Russiagate in order to prevent Trump from being able to normalize relations with Russia. The CIA and the military/security complex need an enemy in order to justify their huge budgets and unaccountable power. Russia has been assigned that role. The Democrats joined in as a way of attacking Trump. They hoped to have him tarnished as cooperating with Russia to steal the presidential election from Hillary and to have him impeached. I don't think the Democrats have considered the consequence of further worsening the relations between the US and Russia.

Public Russia bashing pre-dates Trump. It has been going on privately in neoconservative circles for years, but appeared publicly during the Obama regime when Russia blocked Washington's plans to invade Syria and to bomb Iran.

Russia bashing became more intense when Washington's coup in Ukraine failed to deliver Crimea. Washington had intended for the new Ukrainian regime to evict the Russians from their naval base on the Black Sea. This goal was frustrated when Crimea voted to rejoin Russia.

The neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony requires the principal goal of US foreign policy to be to prevent the rise of other countries that can serve as a restraint on US unilateralism. This is the main basis for the hostility of US foreign policy toward Russia, and of course there also is the material interests of the military/security complex.

Russia bashing is much larger than merely Russiagate. The danger lies in Washington convincing Russia that Washington is planning a surprise attack on Russia. With US and NATO bases on Russia's borders, efforts to arm Ukraine and to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO provide more evidence that Washington is surrounding Russia for attack. There is nothing more reckless and irresponsible than convincing a nuclear power that you are going to attack.

Washington is fully aware that there was no Russian interference in the presidential election or in the state elections. The military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Democratic Party are merely using the accusations to serve their own agendas.

These selfish agendas are a dire threat to life on earth .

Reprinted with permission from PaulCraigRoberts.org .

[Oct 03, 2017] The Vietnam Nightmare -- Again by Eric Margolis

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence. ..."
"... Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics. The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.' ..."
"... The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor. ..."
"... This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next. ..."
"... In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over 58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. ..."
"... For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance ..."
"... So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland. ..."
"... Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor for the poor). ..."
"... War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors (and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable. Completely. Utterly. ..."
"... When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing world." ..."
"... Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism. ..."
"... I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds then nor is it now. ..."
"... The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing, ..."
"... We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us into icebergs time and again. ..."
"... What don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it still lost the American war. ..."
"... I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior class, which changes that dynamic. ..."
"... Too many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching the level of mutiny. ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

The current 17-year old US war in Afghanistan has uncanny resemblances to the Vietnam War. In Kabul and Saigon, the US installed puppet governments that command no loyalty except from minority groups. They were steeped in drugs and corruption, and kept in power by intensive use of American air power. As in Vietnam, the US military and civilian effort in Afghanistan is led by a toxic mixture of deep ignorance and imperial arrogance.

The US military understands it has long ago lost the Afghan War but cannot bear the humiliation of admitting it was defeated by lightly-armed mountain tribesmen fighting for their independence. In Vietnam, Washington could not admit that young Vietnamese guerillas and regulars had bested the US armed forces thanks to their indomitable courage and intelligent tactics. No one outside Vietnam cared about the 2-3 million civilians killed in the conflict

Unfortunately, the PBS program fails to convey this imperial arrogance and the ignorance that impelled Washington into the war – the same foolhardy behavior that sent US forces into Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq and perhaps may do so in a second Korean War. The imperial spirit still burns hot in Washington among those who don't know or understand the outside world. The lessons of all these past conflicts have been forgotten: Washington's collective memory is only three years long.

Vietnam was not a 'tragedy,' as the PBS series asserts, but the product of imperial geopolitics. The same holds true for today's Mideast wars. To paraphrase a famous slogan from Vietnam, we destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to make them safe for 'freedom.'

One of the craziest things about the Vietnam War has rarely been acknowledged: even at peak deployment, the 550,000 US soldiers in Vietnam were outnumbered by North Vietnamese fighting units.

That's because the huge US military had only about 50,000 real combat troops in the field. The other half million were support troops performing logistical and administrative functions behind the lines: a vast army of typists, cooks, truck drivers, psychologists, and pizza-makers.

Too much tail to teeth, as the army calls it. For Thanksgiving, everyone got turkey dinner with cranberry sauce, choppered into the remotest outposts. But there were simply not enough riflemen to take on the Viet Cong and tough North Vietnamese Army whose Soviet M1954 130mm howitzer with a 27 km range were far superior to the US Army's outdated WWII artillery.

Poor generalship, mediocre officers, and lack of discipline ensured that the US war effort in Vietnam would become and remain a mess. Stupid, pointless attacks against heavily defended hills inflicted huge casualties on US troops and eroded morale.

The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing, turned the war into a macabre joke. This was the dumbest command decision since Louis XV put his girlfriend Madame de Pompadour in charge of his armies.

We soldiers, both in Vietnam and Stateside, scorned the war and mocked our officers. It didn't help that much of the US force in 'Nam' were often stoned and rebellious.

The January 30, 1968 Tet Offensive put the kibosh on US plans to pursue the war – and even take it into south-west China. Tet was a military victory of sorts for the US (and why not, with thousands of warplanes and B-52 heavy bombers) but a huge political/psychological victory for the Communists in spite of their heavy losses.

I vividly recall standing with a group of GI's reading a typed report on our company barracks advising that the Special Forces camp in the Central Highlands to which many of our company had been assigned for immediate duty had been overrun at Tet, and all its defenders killed. After that, the US Army's motto was 'stay alive, avoid combat, and smoke another reefer.'

The war became aimless and often surreal. We soldiers all knew our senior officers and political leaders were lying. Many soldiers were at the edge of mutiny, like the French Army in 1917. Back in those ancient days, we had expected our political leaders to be men of rectitude who told us the truth. Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.

This same dark cloud hangs over our political landscape today. We have destroyed large parts of the Mideast, Afghanistan and northern Pakistan without a second thought – yet wonder why peoples from these ravaged nations hate us. Now, North Korea seems next.

Showing defiance to Washington brought B-52 bombers, toxic Agent Orange defoliants and endless storms of napalm and white phosphorus that would burn through one's body until it hit bone.

In spite of all, our imperial impulse till throbs. The nightmare Vietnam War in which over 58,000 American soldiers died for nothing has been largely forgotten. So we can now repeat the same fatal errors again without shame, remorse or understanding.

(Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)

anonymous, Disclaimer September 30, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they realize there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save face. Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be anything that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother to brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.

anonymous, Disclaimer September 30, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

For both Vietnam and Afghanistan, as well as other places, the guiding principle is that they live there and we don't. These are all expeditionary wars for the US. Resistant peoples can't be controlled at a distance. Of course the morale of US soldiers ends up being bad when they realize there's nothing for them to fight for. No one wants to die to help some politician save face. Insofar as the current much publicized Vietnam documentary goes there doesn't seem to be anything that's new or original. All of it has been known for many years to anyone who would bother to brush up on the subject. The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority.

Cranky, September 30, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

So whose name gets to be the last American killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc? Dying for a place on the memorial, boys. "The war was being run by a bunch of four-star clowns who were going to end up giving the whole circus away."

Some things don't change- I wonder if Rand has a new copy of the Pentagon Papers regarding post 9/11. And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too -- and yet pushed more into it simply amazing.

nsa, September 30, 2017 at 5:55 pm GMT

@Sam McGowan First, I was heavily involved in Vietnam from 1965 to 1970. Second, I have written extensively about the war and read the books. The fact is that the US didn't "lose" the war, the left-wing presidents that got us into it, JFK and LBJ, has no intention of defeating the communist insurgency, they just wanted "to contain it". Cam Ranh Bay and made a speech in which he commented to the troops present that he wanted them to "nail the coonskin to the wall." Richard Nixon began withdrawing troops immediately after his inauguration and gave Abrams an edict to "reduce American casualties" shortly afterwards. In fact, Vietnam as well as Korea - as well as other wars around the world - were continuations of World War II, which Americans thought ended when the Japanese surrendered. By the way, I am not watching Ken Burn's latest left-wing propaganda piece nor do I intend to. I don't need him to tell me what happened in Southeast Asia, I was there. Save your senile hot air for the other menopausal drunks drooling in the VFW lounge. The conscript US military completely collapsed fragging, rampant drug usage, desertion, abject morale, chain of command disintegration, and the usual commissioned officer cowardice. Any western country stupid enough to pursue a land war in Asia deserves what it gets .inevitable defeat and humiliation.

Priss Factor, Website September 30, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT

I don't think CucKen Burns is entirely wrong in empathizing with those who got involved. Sure, there were warmongers. Sure, they were profiteers. Sure, there were power-maniacs. Sure, there were paranoids.

But Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon were not particularly sadistic or cruel men. Eisenhower could be aloof and mean. Kennedy could be vain. Johnson was plenty corrupt. Nixon could be nasty. But were not psychos or radicals like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, or Mao.

As for military men, well, whaddya expect? They were trained to think of the world in terms of military power. As for CIA, we are talking of more sinister elements, but let's keep in mind that Soviets had their intelligence organizations and methods of subversion. Let's remember Soviets had infiltrated FDR's government and pulled dirty trick. Even got the Bomb during Truman era.
Also, Soviets could be utterly ruthless in their own empire.

Now, would the US have intervened in Vietnam if the nation was to be united by a non-communist nationalist? Probably not. US didn't intervene in Indonesia when it gained independence under Sukarno. The only reason US got involved was because Ho was a Soviet-leaning communist. And even though Domino theory has been 'debunked', it made sense at the time. Even Soviets believed in it. Mao believed in it. Soviets believed that sign of US weakness could spread the revolution all around. Che Guevara believed in the Domino Theory. Communist victory over Cuba, he thought, would herald spread of communism all over Latin America, and then it would spread into US itself. Che really believed this, which is why he died in Bolivia trying to start an insurgency.

Also, in a way, Domino Theory did come true, at least for awhile. Not so much in Southeast Asia, though Laos and Cambodia also fell to communism. And keep in mind Indonesia almost could have become communist if the Peking-backed coup had succeeded. And keep in mind it took lots of British brutality and ruthlessness to stem the communist movement in Malaysia. Brits built huge hamlets and concentration camps. They took extreme measures.

At any rate, communism did continue to spread after the fall of Vietnam. US power seemed to be declining. And not only communists were emboldened by US defeat in Vietnam. Vietnam became a metaphor for anti-Americanism all over the world. May 68 movement that almost brought down the French government was fired up partly by Vietnam(though it began as some silly stuff about dorms and sex). Vietnam was bigger than Algeria because US was seen as the Great Power. French defeat wasn't all that surprising in Algeria. So, after US left from Vietnam, there was a sense that David could beat American Goliath. Iran regime fell and Islamists came to power. Afghanistan turned communist, and Soviets felt emboldened in rolling in tanks. Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Angola turned communist. Communists won in Nicaragua and almost won in El Salvador. There was a raging Maoist insurgency in Peru. Allende came to power through elections, and he was pro-Soviet and pro-Cuba. He was removed only by US-backed coup that did as much harm as good. It blackened US reputation around the world. So, in a way, the Domino Theory wasn't all wrong. Vietnam did signal a sea-change in world politics at least for awhile.

In the end, communism wasn't defeated by the US. It defeated itself. Soviet economics just couldn't sustain the empire. Its subsidies to Cuba were costly. Its support of Marxist regimes in Africa drained Soviet economy. USSR had to prop up Iron Curtain nations economically. And Vietnamese communism was a disaster. Maoism was hell on earth. Some might say communism failed cuz Capitalist West froze the communists out of world trade. But considering that the communist world encompassed resource-rich Soviet Empire, people-rich China, and lots of nations willing to do business with communist nations -- India and Arab nations had good relations with Soviets -- , the real reason for failure of communism was it was its own worst enemy.

And when we look at the aftermath of communist victory in Indochina -- brutal repression in Vietnam and Laos and psychotic democide in Cambodia -- and when we consider how even communist nations like China and Vietnam switched to market economics, it's clear that US was on the right side of history on many issues.

Also, the conflict was complicated because both sides were aggressors. US was the aggressor in working with the French to divide Vietnam in half, in occupying the southern half, and dropping bombs and using Viet women as whores. But the communists were also aggressors because they tried to impose a form of Stalinism on people in the South, most of whom didn't want communism. After all, many more people fled the north to the south than vice versa. Why? There is something prison-like about communism. The commissars never leave you alone. Also, North Vietnamese leaders, though inspired and patriotic, were utterly ruthless in their own way, willing to sacrifice any number of people for victory just like Japanese militarists were willing to Go All the Way instead of calling it quits to save lives.

Still, in retrospect, Ho Chi Minh was a genuine patriot, a legendary figure much beloved by many Viets. And for that reason, US shouldn't have intervened, and the whole mess could have been avoided.

CucKen Burns makes my skin crawl, but at his best, he can look at both sides of the issue instead of going for b/w version of history with good guys vs bad guys.

That said, maybe his position reflects globalism. As Proglobalists now control the US, the neo-Pax-Americana is about the spread of agendas favored by the likes of CucKen Burns, like homomania, Jewish Power, anti-nationalism, and Afromania. Today's progs want the world to become neo-Americanized.

And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland.

After all, where was CucKen Burns when Obama and Hillary were destroying Libya, Ukraine, Syria, and etc. Where were he and his ilk when Jews were cooking up New Cold War with Russia with hysteria that would make McCarthy blush?

Anon, Disclaimer October 1, 2017 at 4:37 am GMT

Is the view that JFK wanted out of Vietnam merely a conspiratorial fantasy?. The following articles are easy reads:

Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam
James K. Galbraith, BOSTON REVIEW

JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation
A response to Rick Perlstein.
By James K. Galbraith, THE NATION

Jim Christian, October 1, 2017 at 6:03 am GMT

@anonymous

"The question is whether Americans are capable of learning from the past and the answer seems to be no for the vast majority."

Americans at-large have no power. A small cadre runs things now. Once Americans didn't have a draft to worry over, they vacated the streets and left the dying to the farmers' sons (metaphor for the poor). That's all it is. The damage done to the economy, the sheer quantities of cash vacuumed up from the rest of the country and showered over the Washington DC region escapes the imagination of us out here in the country with our local issues and problems. These, rooted in the sheer theft of our taxes and handed over to the war-mongers of DC because there simply isn't enough left over after feeding The Beast in Washington. We have aircraft carriers that can't launch aircraft, planes that won't fly, weapons that won't work and wrong strategies followed in war-fighting and procurement, yet still, the theft goes on.

War after war lost, yet the Generals are still revered, money to the pro-war think tanks is never ending and the revolving door between the Pentagon, White House and defense contractors (and their corporate boards) has never been richer. Doesn't matter the war industry doesn't win wars, the money is just so damned good they can't stop, won't stop. And who is to stop them? These are the folks that kill people, that have a file on each of us. Indeed, it is our only remaining industry, flawed and failed though it may be. It certainly is a rich one. And it IS unstoppable. Completely. Utterly.

Jim Christian, October 1, 2017 at 6:22 am GMT

@Sam McGowan Concur all, McGowan, good takes. Yeah, my Pop was into Naval spook communications and messaging, he'd pick up the WashPost off the driveway and see various and sundry in the paper lying and white-washing the effort and just be wild by the time he left for work. He knew the carriers were having no success, he knew the air-war was a mess, he knew the Marines were getting killed all over the country. People that knew the truth from the inside hadda keep their traps shut.

By the time I joined up for a 6 year dose of USN carrier decks in 1976 I got the scoop from a few of our officers, almost all of whom had flown with VA35 over Vietnam in A-6′s. Clusterfuck, they could then acknowledge just those few years later, only the most junior officers hadn't served in the air war over Vietnam. And they had good stories that pointed out the folly throughout.

Now? The military is just a revenue-stream, nothing produced, much destroyed to the enrichment of a few insiders.

2/1Doc RVN 68-89, October 1, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

Sir
Recently came across some startling statistics about men who served in Vietnam like you and me. Of the 2.7 million who served only 850,000 are still alive at last census!!!!!! 700,500 died prematurely between 1995 census and 2000 census. No country for old men .

The Alarmist, October 1, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT

@Priss Factor

"And in Vietnam, as Linh Dinh reported, there is now homo parades and Afromania and Vietcuckery. So, considering that Viet commies stood for patriotism and national sovereignty, maybe the globalist viewpoint is more favorable to US efforts to turn Vietnam into globo-disneyland."

Bingo! The only problem is that the globalists are now using the opportunity to also wear down the populations of the home territories as well. The only reason our national economic imperialism wasn't enough of a raging success (don't get me wrong by any rational measure it was) was that it was kept in check by the opposing communist bloc, and still America managed to conquer the so-called free world with Coca Cola, McDonalds, Hollywood Inc., etc.

When the communists gave up and joined the party, our globalist masters realized that they could not only amass further wealth by spreading these things to the former communist bloc and under-exploited non-aligned nations, but they could now squeeze even more profit-margin out of the home territories by wearing down the power of the local workforce at all levels, except, of course, for the very pinnacle, by outsourcing production and even many services to the newly "developing world."

Ironically, fighting the communist threat probably kept our leadership more honest than they have been in the new world order since the fall of communism.

The Alarmist, October 1, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT

"No one in Washington seemed to know that China and the Soviet Union had split and become bitter enemies. As ever, our foreign human intelligence was lousy."

They knew of the rift that had grown since 1960 or so, but they didn't believe it until the short border war in 1969. The same way that a number of indicators suggested as early as 1983 that the USSR was imploding, but the menace of the USSR was used to keep justifying a buildup and procurement of new systems until and even beyond its actual implosion a few years later.

Evil, stupid, or merely blind. You decide.

KenH, October 1, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

I know opinions vary on Ken Burns/PBS's "Vietnam" documentary, but what struck me is that we're following the same script in Afghanistan and the Middle East as we were in Vietnam and expecting a different (i.e., more favorable) outcome. The script being "pacification" through providing medicine, foodstuffs, soccer balls and American smiles to the local populations combined with placing massive amounts of ordnance on targets deemed hostile. It didn't win hearts and minds then nor is it now.

The generals keep telling us that with just a few more antibiotics, soccer balls and troops victory is around the bend.

Hindsight's always 20/20, but to be fair a military force in Vietnam did seem like the right thing do at least in the early years. Any de-escalation and/or withdrawals would have been perceived by a rabidly anti-communist population as surrendering to communist aggression and political suicide for any president proposing it.

The monumentally stupid war mismanagement of Pentagon chief Robert McNamara, a know-it-all who knew nothing,

We have legions of McNamara's calling the shots today. They are called neoconservatives and liberal interventionists. The big brains of the Ivy league do seem to excel at steering us into icebergs time and again.

As it was former allies Vietnam and China briefly fought each other in 1979 and Vietnam didn't have the desire or the ability to project power much beyond Cambodia and Laos.

DB Cooper, October 2, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT

"We really believed that if the US did not make a stand in Vietnam the Soviets and Chinese would overrun all of South Asia."

India played a big role in shaping this narrative. Just five years ago before 1967 China finally responded to India's creeping land grab after years of trying to warn New Delhi's to stop its 'Forward Policy' by launching a massive anticipatory strike into India. India was defeated militarily but India was able to fool the world that India was a hapless victim against an agressive China when in fact the reverse is true.

Diversity Heretic, October 2, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT

@Jim Christian A bit off topic, but, since I know that you had naval experience, any take on why Navy ships keep colliding with merchantmen? Is it reduced competence because of racial and sexual preferences, or overworked sailors because deployed ships are short-staffed as a result of pregnancies? Or is it just a run of bad luck? I've read some different theories but I've seen you post often enough to know that you'll have an informed opinion.

Blowback, October 2, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Sam McGowan What don't you understand about Clausewitz's dictum "war is the mere continuation of politics with other means"? War is what you do when you can't achieve your political objectives by other means. The United States' political objective in Vietnam was to prevent the American satrapy in the south being re-united by the nationalists in the north. So, where the f ** k is South Vietnam? The United States might believe it won every battle (slight exaggeration) but it still lost the American war.

Jim Christian, October 2, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic The military is off-kilter all over. Navigation? Routine. Ought to be. Not anymore. Procurement? Driven by inertia and the corruption of planners that know a carrier's planes are useless if the ship has to stand off 500-1000 miles because of a cruise missile environment that they KNOW every third-world shitbox has been building for 30 years now, starting with the Norks. From aircraft to ships, a complete clusterfuck.

Personnel? Ya gotta be shitting me, right? Between the sexism, reverse-racism and the cultural kookiness from the top of a terrorized Central Command and throughout the military, right down to the pretty little Blonde Hispanic Black Dwarf tranny just dying to terrorize said command with a complaint, we really haven't much good to say about our staffing. It's not a meritocracy anymore, hasn't been since Reagan. The entire thing is sitting there waiting to be taken down and humiliated.

And still? We sprinkle the trillions onto the DC region, make the war planners rich, we still lionize Generals and Admirals that haven't won shit in 75 years and we cycle them through the think tanks and corporate boards of the defense contractors and make THEM rich too. Then we even put them in charge at the White House, having discarded the notion of Congressional approval for the wars they "fight" in our names. And they start wars. And finally, the notion that we have civilian control of our military is long gone. We are a Junta. There is a coup ongoing, two or more in our past and we're no more than a broke but dangerous and heavily armed danger to the rest of the world run by the thugs of the Pentagon, the think tanks, the defense contractors and the lazy sloth of Congress, who is supposed to keep this shit straight and Constitutional. Doom. Yes, the word doom comes to mind.

Don Bacon, October 2, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

@anonymous re: "No one wants to die to help some politician save face."

I don't have a teevee, but I bet they didn't cover the mutiny in the ranks which is the main reason the US had to withdraw because of a "broken army." That included fragging, mission refusal, and an overall negative attitude as you suggest. Now we have a volunteer army, a warrior class, which changes that dynamic.

Jim Christian, October 2, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic

Thanks! Always appreciate your candor!

One man's opinion. I do wish someone would show me where I'm wrong, but I spent too many years down in DC doing their tech stuff after I left the Navy (too many women that couldn't, at that point in 82, go to sea) and so they only had more sea duty because the shore billets were all taken in their haste to "integrate" women into the Navy. Even instructor duty for Naval Air Maintenance was hosted by women that had never served a day in carrier air, training the young mice how to do business on a flight deck. They did offer me, for variety, another four year hitch in a WestPac squadron aboard one damned carrier deck or another. Already having done 5, I said no thanks and went back home to Virginia. And so I got familiar with the workings of the spooks, Booze, Allen, Heritage, Cato, Brookings, the Pentagon, NSA, FBI, Quantico, there were hundreds of them, most with two or three names in the chain of title. I did their phones for decades, they're psychos, they're paranoid, everything classified and spooky and ooga-booga. Worthless ants on a big log and they each think they're steering it down the river.

Bunch of fucking Frank Burns's is what they are..Cheers.

Diversity Heretic, October 2, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT

@Jim Christian Take care of yourself. People like you are a national asset, appreciated by at least some of us.

anonymous, Disclaimer October 2, 2017 at 11:03 pm GMT

There never was a communist threat. Not since at least the 1920s, when Stalin defeated Trotsky. Trotsky wanted world revolution. Stalin, for all his bloodthirsty antics in Russia, realised this was all nonsense. He just wanted Socialism in One Country, developing the country economically. He wasn't really interested in the outside world.

In the 1930s he was willing to cooperate with right wing western governments till they did a deal with Hitler in 1938. He was never interested in invading countries to grab land and resources. Whenever he did so, Poland in 1939, or Eastern Europe post 1945, it was for security reasons. The part of Poland he occupied in 1939 had been taken from Russia by force in 1920. It was inhabited by 1o million White Russians and Ukrainians and no Poles.

Jack Spratt, October 3, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

Wissing's book "Funding the enemy" details the totally corrupt Afghan government and is a compelling argument why we should pull out at once and needs to be read by anyone with half a brain. I served in Vietnam also, in 1967, and its deja vu all over again.

Capn Mike, October 3, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT

@The Alarmist Having been on – site at the time (North Tonkin Gulf), I can tell you that China gave U.S.N. units free rein over those waters, including Chinese waters. The fix was in. In 1969 onwards. China and Viet Nam were NEVER friends. Did CIA realize this? I don't know.

Vidi, October 3, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

@DanC

Anyways, expect the US to keep on wasting money in Afghanistan (and Pakistan and Tajikistan) until it gets bankrupted by the next Big War!

Or until all the routes into Afghanistan are blocked. At the moment, the only route still open passes through Pakistan, and that may close at any time.

wayfarer, October 3, 2017 at 6:19 am GMT

Of the 58,220 Americans who were sacrificed by the U.S. Government during the Vietnam War, 270 were Jewish. That's approximately 0.46 percent of the total number of American kids who died, or less than a half of one-percent.

"Statistical Information About Casualties of the Vietnam War"

https://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html

" 9/11 Israel Did It! "

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/9-11/Israel_did_it

Hibernian, October 3, 2017 at 10:57 am GMT

@Grandpa Charlie The Japanese trained their naval cadets using a mock Pearl Harbor type exercise annually for a fair number of years prior to WW2. The Russo-Japanese War of 1905 began with a Japanese surprise attack. You have the unmitigated gall to attack Margolis as an establishment mouthpiece when you yourself are whitewashhing the "sainted" FDR. No prudent military planner would absolutely assume that the attack would come in one particular place, whether the Phillipines, Pearl, or elsewhere.

Hibernian, October 3, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT

@Don Bacon Too many of the volunteers are really economic draftees. You can have plenty of discipline problems with volunteers, I've seen it up close and personal, although never reaching the level of mutiny.

Che Guava, October 3, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT

@Capn Mike That is interesting to me. As is the Margolis artictle, never knew he had been a USA soldier, very interesting article. Thought he was a Canada person.

I have a question for you, Capn Mike.

If the PRC had allowed the USA free rein in Gulf of Tonkin, where were the supply lines to the Nth. Viet military and Viet Cong?

Must it not still have been overland from PRC at that time you say (1969)?

Hu Mi Yu, October 3, 2017 at 12:52 pm GMT

@Cranky

I don't for a moment believe that the 'saintly' President John Kennedy planned to end the war but was assassinated by dark, rightwing forces, as is claimed. This is a charming legend. Richard Nixon, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson all feared that a withdrawal from Vietnam would lose them the next election. Republicans were still snarling over 'who lost China'.

I didn't like Kennedy either, but go back and reread the newspapers from the early days of the Kennedy administration. The oval office was bugged, and the information leaked in ways to embarrass Kennedy and UN Ambassador Adelai Stevenson. There is only one way that could have happened. Eisenhower installed those bugs before he left. These same bugs brought down Nixon in the Watergate crisis. The swamp wanted war, and they pulled the rug out from under both presidents as soon as they brought peace.

And a new Nixon in office .he vowed to get out too- and yet pushed more into it simply amazing.

He promised to get out and he did get us out. The peace treaty was announced just before the election in 1972. He knew it was his only hope for re-election. The Vietnamese disputed some of the terms, and that resulted in the Christmas bombing that year. The American withdrawal began in January 1973.

Trump promised to get us out of the Middle East. We should give him some rope. Maybe he hangs himself, or just maybe he can pull it off. He will need to be re-elected in three years.

Max Havelaar, October 3, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

Nice personal account of Vietnam.

However, the US foreign policy keeps holocausting the 3-rd world and lately the 2 -cond world.

The holocausts keep coming from US foreign policy of "exceptionalism" = "Nazi Übermensch"="the chosen ones" over this planet, many executed by the CIA-Nazi's:
The Syrian holocaust
The Yemen holocaust
The Ukranïan holocaust (Euromaidan) by Poroshenko/Nuland neo-nazi"s.
The Libyan holocaust
The Irak holocaust
The Afghanistan holocaust

The Belgrad holocaust

The Indonesian holocaust (Kissiger e.a.)
The Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand holocaust (Kissinger e.a)
The Korean holocaust

During WWII:

The Jewish/Polish/Russian holocaust by Nazi's funded by Wallstreet/London bankers
The German holocaust (Die Rheinweisen lager) by US army Morgenthau plan.

Before WWII:
The Ukranian and Russain holocausts 1921-22, 1932-33 (holodomor) by Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin.

All these, were and are financed by the Wallstreet elite owners, the Billionaires who are mega-fascists, eugenic and satanic in character. Their credo is GREED.

(sources: Antony Sutton, Carrol Quickley, W.F. Engdahl)

jacques sheete, October 3, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT

Thanks to Vietnam, the politicians were exposed as liars and heartless cynics with no honor.

A couple of the biggest lies were exposed, but the myths still live that the US government is an effective and dependable force for peace and freedom, and that the US military is an institution of dignity worthy of honor.

And people still put their faith (or is it hope) in the heartless cynics ( eunichs, really) with no balls, fewer brains, no soul, and even less honor.

[Oct 03, 2017] Russian Ads On Facebook A Click-Bait Campaign

Highly recommended!
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump.

It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue.

On September 6 the NYT asserted :

Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign, which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election.

Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.

If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved that.

Today the NYT says that the ads were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:

There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid ads

No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence" campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.

With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of "election manipulation" falls further apart:

Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after, the company said

The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election victory?

More details via the Wall Street Journal:

Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.

Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed. Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads ran after the election.

All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ... designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?

No.

But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:

Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held in reserve for future use.

Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political influence op.

The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook mini-ads for them.

A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized.

This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.

We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:

The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice.

"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."

The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their Macedonian friends were running on.

With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague information keeps its name in the news.

After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.

Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum".

The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war against the people of the United States!

You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!

Samantha Power @SamanthaJPower - 3:45 PM - 3 Oct 2017

This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by "demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo

It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.

Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM | Permalink

nmb | Oct 3, 2017 2:20:52 PM | 1

As Shock Therapy failed miserably in the 90s, the neocon dynasty seeks now direct confrontation with Russia
Jackrabbit | Oct 3, 2017 2:32:24 PM | 2
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .

Taxi | Oct 3, 2017 2:32:34 PM | 3
Oh dear intrepidus, why are you still talking about MSM's favorite weapon of mass distraction?

Even though you make a fine point or two, at this stage, you're actually adding to the whirling stupidity by indulging it it yourself, methinks.

I'm so very, very over Russiagate and it's non-existent tentacles. Pfft!

Grieved | Oct 3, 2017 2:49:24 PM | 4
Thanks, b.

You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for gain.

The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.

Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for their gain, not ours.

We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.

It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta characteristics like never before.

Anon | Oct 3, 2017 2:49:39 PM | 5
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.

What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this nonsense.

the pair | Oct 3, 2017 3:07:19 PM | 6
$3 ads on facebook seen by nobody:

"russian meddling! their puppies hate our freedom!"

pharmaceutical ads on every evening news show and boeing/lockheed sponsoring the "p"bs news hour?"

"nothing to see here! take off your tin foil hat you f_cking alex jones putinbot!!!!"

you'd think by now most americans would realize the actual threat is other americans. the rest of the world realized it long ago.

sejomoje | Oct 3, 2017 3:08:47 PM | 7
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a response.

But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues. Independence has been made quaint.

karlof1 | Oct 3, 2017 3:10:42 PM | 8
Hi Grieved--

I posted this link at the Vegas thread, but the item's contents are valid here too, and speaks to the content of your above comment, https://sputniknews.com/viral/201710031057912410-google-facebook-youtube-vegas-fake-news/

somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.

But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.

Like the double hoax of " The War of Worlds broadcast ".

The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013, Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers. ... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths, including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio, a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the ground.
ashley albanese | Oct 3, 2017 3:13:06 PM | 10
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the 'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Lea | Oct 3, 2017 3:42:35 PM | 11
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.

The "Russiadunnit" thingy has turned into a business in the US. And when a new market is launched in the US, as people depend on it for their living and careers, it generally doesn't go away.
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/28/the-slimy-business-of-russia-gate/

OJS | Oct 3, 2017 3:45:59 PM | 12
god bless amerika

somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9
The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a joke. whole page on WooW: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/

specific could it happen again? http://www.radiolab.org/story/91624-could-it-happen-again-and-again/

c1ue | Oct 3, 2017 3:58:38 PM | 14
Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
Christian Chuba | Oct 3, 2017 3:58:49 PM | 15
Russian Trolls outed as kids from Oregon: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-latest-fake-news-panic-appears-to-be-fake-news-w506396
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it appears....

The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's" tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...

The group was most likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "

Christian Chuba | Oct 3, 2017 4:00:46 PM | 16
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be shunned for life for one bad story?
Kalen | Oct 3, 2017 4:03:18 PM | 17
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.

There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything else plays the book of provocateurs.

Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 4:13:28 PM | 18
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....

And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)

Don Bacon | Oct 3, 2017 4:13:47 PM | 19

Lucky for us that television "news" doesn't use this business model. /s
Pnyx | Oct 3, 2017 5:02:54 PM | 20
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B? Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
Mina | Oct 3, 2017 5:05:12 PM | 21
https://mobile.twitter.com/dgaytandzhieva/status/913545591757697024
brian | Oct 3, 2017 5:09:39 PM | 22
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump.

This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders

https://www.amazon.com/They-Dare-Speak-Out-Institutions/dp/155652482X

those who dont obey orders: http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/how-i-got-fired/

Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 5:36:59 PM | 23
@ Posted by: Pnyx | Oct 3, 2017 5:02:54 PM | 20

This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...

Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ... and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the "remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ... all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...

It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account ... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?

Lochearn | Oct 3, 2017 6:43:01 PM | 24
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which included the following referring to the Catalan people:

"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement, inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."

"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"

Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned, which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.

ToivoS | Oct 3, 2017 7:32:04 PM | 25
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
Susan Sunflower | Oct 3, 2017 7:43:29 PM | 26
I'm waiting for the expose of the Russian mail-order bride business (Do they still exist?)
ab initio | Oct 3, 2017 8:29:04 PM | 27
Very good analysis.

The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues.

ben | Oct 3, 2017 8:30:46 PM | 28
Jackrabbit @ 2: Yep!!

And here is another part to the puzzle:

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19516:Empire-Files%3A-The-Hidden-Purging-of-Millions-of-Voters

Chipnik | Oct 3, 2017 8:42:54 PM | 29
Your answer can be found ...right ...here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yc7kskox
james | Oct 3, 2017 8:44:05 PM | 30
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...

"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is this a position you share?

MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the next JCPOA guideline.

The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria. Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.

I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that determination when he's ready to do so."

https://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2017/10/274592.htm

[Oct 03, 2017] North Koreans remember well that their country was literally flattened by US bombing, and many may recall how US forces bombed major dams when there were no other targets left

Notable quotes:
"... The North Korean dictatorship may well win the prize for brutality and repression, but it is seeking and to some extent carrying out economic development, despite the overwhelming burden of a huge military system. That system includes, of course, a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and missiles, which pose a threat to the region and, in the longer term, to countries beyond -- but its function is to be a deterrent, one that the North Korean regime is unlikely to abandon as long as it remains under threat of destruction. ..."
"... Today, we are instructed that the great challenge faced by the world is how to compel North Korea to freeze these nuclear and missile programs. Perhaps we should resort to more sanctions, cyberwar, intimidation; to the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system, which China regards as a serious threat to its own interests; perhaps even to direct attack on North Korea -- which, it is understood, would elicit retaliation by massed artillery, devastating Seoul and much of South Korea even without the use of nuclear weapons. ..."
"... But there is another option, one that seems to be ignored: we could simply accept North Korea's offer to do what we are demanding. China and North Korea have already proposed that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile programs. The proposal, though, was rejected at once by Washington, just as it had been two years earlier, because it includes a quid pro quo: it calls on the United States to halt its threatening military exercises on North Korea's borders, including simulated nuclear-bombing attacks by B-52s. ..."
"... The 2017 South Korean elections may offer a ray of hope. Newly elected President Moon Jae-in seems intent on reversing the harsh confrontationist policies of his predecessor. He has called for exploring diplomatic options and taking steps toward reconciliation, which is surely an improvement over the angry fist-waving that might lead to real disaster. ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Barsamian: What are the strategic issues where Korea is concerned? Can anything be done to defuse the growing conflict?

Chomsky: Korea has been a festering problem since the end of World War II, when the hopes of Koreans for unification of the peninsula were blocked by the intervention of the great powers, the United States bearing primary responsibility.

The North Korean dictatorship may well win the prize for brutality and repression, but it is seeking and to some extent carrying out economic development, despite the overwhelming burden of a huge military system. That system includes, of course, a growing arsenal of nuclear weapons and missiles, which pose a threat to the region and, in the longer term, to countries beyond -- but its function is to be a deterrent, one that the North Korean regime is unlikely to abandon as long as it remains under threat of destruction.

Today, we are instructed that the great challenge faced by the world is how to compel North Korea to freeze these nuclear and missile programs. Perhaps we should resort to more sanctions, cyberwar, intimidation; to the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system, which China regards as a serious threat to its own interests; perhaps even to direct attack on North Korea -- which, it is understood, would elicit retaliation by massed artillery, devastating Seoul and much of South Korea even without the use of nuclear weapons.

But there is another option, one that seems to be ignored: we could simply accept North Korea's offer to do what we are demanding. China and North Korea have already proposed that North Korea freeze its nuclear and missile programs. The proposal, though, was rejected at once by Washington, just as it had been two years earlier, because it includes a quid pro quo: it calls on the United States to halt its threatening military exercises on North Korea's borders, including simulated nuclear-bombing attacks by B-52s.

The Chinese-North Korean proposal is hardly unreasonable. North Koreans remember well that their country was literally flattened by U.S. bombing , and many may recall how U.S. forces bombed major dams when there were no other targets left. There were gleeful reports in American military publications about the exciting spectacle of a huge flood of water wiping out the rice crops on which "the Asian" depends for survival. They are very much worth reading, a useful part of historical memory.

The offer to freeze North Korea's nuclear and missile programs in return for an end to highly provocative actions on North Korea's border could be the basis for more far-reaching negotiations, which could radically reduce the nuclear threat and perhaps even bring the North Korea crisis to an end. Contrary to much inflamed commentary, there are good reasons to think such negotiations might succeed. Yet even though the North Korean programs are constantly described as perhaps the greatest threat we face, the Chinese-North Korean proposal is unacceptable to Washington, and is rejected by U.S. commentators with impressive unanimity. This is another entry in the shameful and depressing record of near-reflexive preference for force when peaceful options may well be available.

The 2017 South Korean elections may offer a ray of hope. Newly elected President Moon Jae-in seems intent on reversing the harsh confrontationist policies of his predecessor. He has called for exploring diplomatic options and taking steps toward reconciliation, which is surely an improvement over the angry fist-waving that might lead to real disaster.

[Oct 03, 2017] The Trump Presidency

Notable quotes:
"... The most dangerous of these has barely been reported. A very important study in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ..."
Oct 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Not all of the damage can be blamed on the con man who is nominally in charge, on his outlandish appointments, or on the congressional forces he has unleashed. Some of the most dangerous developments under Trump trace back to Obama initiatives -- initiatives passed, to be sure, under pressure from the Republican Congress.

The most dangerous of these has barely been reported. A very important study in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , published in March 2017, reveals that the Obama nuclear weapons modernization program has increased "the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three -- and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike."

As the analysts point out, this new capacity undermines the strategic stability on which human survival depends. And the chilling record of near disaster and reckless behavior of leaders in past years only shows how fragile our survival is. Now this program is being carried forward under Trump. These developments, along with the threat of environmental disaster, cast a dark shadow over everything else -- and are barely discussed, while attention is claimed by the performances of the showman at center stage.

Whether Trump has any idea what he and his henchmen are up to is not clear. Perhaps he is completely authentic: an ignorant, thin-skinned megalomaniac whose only ideology is himself.

[Oct 03, 2017] Are You Ready to Die by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards." ..."
"... In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know. ..."
"... Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. ..."
"... This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack. ..."
"... What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes? ..."
"... I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.unz.com

Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept exposes the fake news put out by the US Department of Homeland Security (an euphemistic name for a Big Brother operation that spies on US citizens) that Russia hacked 21 US state elections, news that was instantly spread around the world by the presstitute media. The propagandists running Homeland Security were contradicted by the state governments, forcing Homeland Security to retract its fake news claims. https://theintercept.com/2017/09/28/yet-another-major-russia-story-falls-apart-is-skepticism-permissible-yet/

The unasked/unanswered question is why did Homeland Security put out a FAKE NEWS story?

Greenwald explains that the US media is so conditioned by the National Security State to see Russian President Putin lurking behind and masterminding attacks on America that it is "now religious dogma" -- a requirement -- to find Russian perfidy everywhere. The result Greenwald correctly says is that "an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards."

In other words, the United States no longer has a media . It has a propaganda ministry for the military/security complex, the neoconservatives, and the Israel Lobby. And the idiot Americans sit in front of the TV and absorb the propaganda, and they read the New York Times and think that they are sophisticated and in the know.

What Greenwald doesn't address is the effect of the massive amount of fake news on Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. Russia knows that Washington knows that the accusations against Russia are false. So why is Washington making false accusations against Russia?

This is a serious question, not only for Russia but for the entire world. All previous false accusations from the Clinton regime criminals, the Bush/Cheney regime criminals, and the Obama regime criminals ended in military attacks on the falsely demonized targets. Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea would be within reason to wonder if the false news propaganda attack on them is a prelude to military attack.

Iran and North Korea cannot attack the US and its European vassals, but Russia and China can. I have written about the Operational Command of the Russian armed forces conclusion that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. Instead of reassuring the Russians that no such planning is in the works, Washington has instead pushed further the fake news Russiagate story with the false report that Russia had hacked the elections of 21 states.

What is the point of US security agencies such as Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, NSA constantly filling the propaganda machine known as the American Media with lies about Russia? Russia must wonder as well. Russia knows that they are lies. Russia knows that it does no good to refute the lies because the West has a Propaganda Ministry instead of a media. Russia knows that Washington told lies about the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Iran. What does Russia conclude from the constant stream of lies about Russia that flow out of Washington and are presented as truth by the Western presstitutes?

If you were the Russian government, would you conclude that your country was the next to be attacked militarily by Washington? If you were the Russian government, you would know that Washington/NATO cannot possibly attack Russia except by surprise nuclear strike. Knowing this, if you were the Russian government, would you sit there and wait on the strike? Imagine yourself the Russian government listening day in, day out, to endless wild improbable charges against Russia. What can Russia possibly conclude other than this is preparation of Western peoples for a nuclear attack on Russia?

Russia is not going to be hung like Saddan Hussein or murdered like Gaddafi.

I have written many times that provoking nuclear powers such as Russia and China is the most extreme form of recklessness and irresponsibility. The crazed morons in Washington are risking the life of the planet. The presstitutes are worse than the whores that they are. They never question the path to war; they only amplify it. Washington's craven, cowardly, moronic vassal states in UK, Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, and the rest of the EU/NATO idiots are, by their cooperation with Washington, begging for their own destruction.

Nowhere in the West is there a sign of intelligence.

Will Washington follow Adolf Hitler's folly and march into Russia?

[Oct 02, 2017] John Helmer Washington Post Misses Manafort's Real Crimes

Notable quotes:
"... For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash – Deripaska had been hustled. ..."
"... The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel car division. ..."
Sep 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

The second half of 2008 was a very bad time for Deripaska, as the Russian aluminium and other businesses on which he depended, collapsed into insolvency with accumulated debts at one point of about $20 billion. Deripaska told the Cayman Island court: "By mid-summer 2008, there were clear indications of the oncoming world financial crisis, and at this time the Petitioner was the only limited partner in the Partnership which had made only one investment (BSC [Black Sea Cable]). In September 2008 the Petitioner [Deripaska] informed the GP [Manafort] that it was suspending further investment into the Partnership."

For the next three years, the court papers claim, Deripaska tried to get Manafort to provide accounting reports of what he had done with the money, but received nothing. "The Petitioner has not been provided with these audit reports nor is it aware whether any further audits were performed in respect of the Partnership." There is no trace or sign in these records, or in the New York Times excerpts of the Cyprus cutout loan accounts, that any Ukrainian asset had been purchased. If Deripaska's court claim is to be believed, Manafort had legged it with the cash – Deripaska had been hustled.

A few weeks ago Kurochkina refused to tell the New York Times whether Deripaska is continuing to pursue Manafort's $18 million debt. That newspaper claimed "Mr. Deripaska appears to have stopped pursuing his court action against Mr. Manafort and his former investment partners, Rick Gates and Rick Davis, in late 2015." The newspaper reporters didn't ask, and Kurochkina didn't explain, what services Manafort had invoiced Deripaska for which $7.3 million was paid out. Noone has asked Deripaska whether he thinks Manafort kept the money for himself.

The years 2008 and 2009 turned out to go badly for Deripaska in the US, particularly as he had set his heart on a German and Russian Government-financed buyout of General Motors' Opel car division. The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to believe then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were reported here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials broke their word, and cancelled the Opel sale. If Deripaska had been content to leave Manafort holding $26,288,400 of the Russian oligarch's cash through the 2008 crisis and the General Motors negotiations in 2009, his patience had run out by November 2009, when the cancellation of the Opel sale became public.

On November 5, 2009, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced after his cabinet ministers had discussed the Opel deal, "it shows that our American partners have a very original culture when dealing with counterparties. We will have to take into account this style of dealing with partners in the future, though this scornful approach toward partners mainly affects the Europeans, not us. GM did not warn anyone, did not speak to anyone despite all the agreements reached and documents signed. Well, I think it is a good lesson."

These days, according to the media leaks, US Government investigators of Manafort are pursuing a different lesson. This is that Manafort took Deripaska's money for the purpose of subverting the US presidential election of 2016. The court evidence indicates that Manafort was paid for Ukrainian assets which didn't materialize, and kept the money for himself through a period when the US government first decided to sell a multi-billion dollar part of then-bankrupt General Motors to Derripaska, and then, quite suddenly, decided not to.

Watt4Bob , September 25, 2017 at 10:43 am

Considering the following, (follow the link) that stretch thingie starts making more and more sense.

The lobbying in Washington which Deripaska paid for, as well his reason to believe then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported his Opel deal, were reported here . But Clinton, the US Treasury and other Obama Administration officials broke their word, and cancelled the Opel sale.

From the linked article;

When Hillary Clinton (lead, left) was US Secretary of State in 2009, she proved she could lie to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel; keep secret her hostility towards Russia even in her secret staff emails; and take money in her back pocket for an $8 billion deal between the US, Germany and Russia recommended by her subordinates. The record, recently revealed in US investigations of Clinton's emails and donations to the Clinton Foundation, shows why the Kremlin assessment of Clinton is hostile and blunt – Clinton invites and takes bribes, but can't be relied on to keep her bargains

A lot of people remember being screw*d out of a $million, even 5 or 10 years after the fact.

Watt4Bob , September 25, 2017 at 10:56 am

The way I read this post, and the embedded history of Hillary's double-cross of Deripaska, is that there is an unstated agreement among our current ruling class, that it's ok to double-cross and provoke Russia/Russians for profit, but not to make actual deals because that would be collaboration at least, and maybe treason.

justanotherprogressive , September 25, 2017 at 11:04 am

Or maybe the US's "elite" don't consider the Russian oligarchs "sophisticated" and are therefore ripe for plucking. After all, "it's just business"!

doug , September 25, 2017 at 11:10 am

The US Elite don't consider any of us 'sophisticated', and therefore ripe for the picking.

Fool , September 25, 2017 at 1:21 pm

I thought these Russian bad boys played a more brass knuckled style of business. How does one steal $19 million from Deripaska and get away with it?

Barry Fay , September 27, 2017 at 2:10 pm

I thought the same thing. Does Manafort have stock in Blackwater or what? The blithe narration of unmitigated corruption says all one needs to know of the times we live in.

shinola , September 25, 2017 at 1:23 pm

Apparently, the Russians still believed in that old saw about "honor among thieves".

Suckers!

St Jacques , September 27, 2017 at 5:33 am

Probably makes sense in Russia, where a lack of honour can soon turn you into bear meat.

[Oct 02, 2017] The Russian Defence Minister has released photos of US Forces stationed on Daesh territory

Oct 02, 2017 | www.voltairenet.org

On 24 September 2017, the Russian Defense Minister broadcast satellite images of US Special forces camping right in the centre of Daesh territory in Deir ez-Zor, a region in Syria.

The Turkish press agency, Anadolu, had already flagged up the existence of these bases on 17 June.

A number of sources confirm that there is a non-aggression agreement between the US Forces and Kurdish forces on the one hand, and Daesh on the other. These photographs challenge the version that the United States and its Kurdish allies are fighting the Islamic State. Only States which have satellites positioned above Syria are able to verify the authenticity of these photos. It follows that this information is meant for them.

JPEG - 69.9 kb

[Oct 02, 2017] the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens 'Double standard hypocrisy' Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan refere

Oct 02, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

'Double standard & hypocrisy': Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan referendum Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has accused the EU of hypocrisy and double-standards following its denouncement of the Catalonian referendum as illegal, while acknowledging the independence of the breakaway province of Kosovo.
" The question every citizen of Serbia has for the European Union today is: How come that in the case of Catalonia the referendum on independence is not valid, while in the case of Kosovo secession is allowed even without a referendum, " B92 quoted Vucic as saying during a news conference.
" How did you proclaim the secession of Kosovo to be legal, even without a referendum, and how did 22 European Union countries legalize this secession, while destroying European law and the foundations of European law, on which the European policy and EU policy are based? "
On Monday the European Commission echoed the Spanish government's stance that the referendum held in Catalonia was illegal, describing the events on Sunday, which saw voters being beaten by Spanish riot police, as an "internal matter". By contrast in 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution urging its member states to recognize Kosovo's independence.
" This is the best example of the double standards and hypocrisy of the world politics, " Vucic said.

[Oct 02, 2017] The Kurdish independence referendum was a political miscalculation

Independence of small nations always depends on great powers. They are essentially pawns in a bigger game, national aspirations and all that as a tool in often pretty dirty game.
Notable quotes:
"... The Iraqi government has banned international flights to the Kurdish capital Irbil from 6pm this Friday, isolating the Kurds in Iraq to a degree they have not experienced since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The isolation is political as well as geographical as traditional Kurdish allies, like the US, UK, France and Germany, have opposed the referendum on Kurdish independence while near neighbours in Turkey, Iran and Baghdad are moving to squeeze the Kurds into submission. ..."
"... The four countries with Kurdish minorities fear that secessionism might spread, but a further problem is that they do not believe that an Iraqi Kurdish state would be truly independent, but would shift into the orbit of another power. The Iranians are paranoid about the possibility that such a state would be an American base threatening Iran. Politicians in Baghdad say that, if the Kurds are serious about self-determination, they would cling onto the oil fields of Kirkuk and be dependent on Turkey through which to export their crude. ..."
Oct 02, 2017 | www.unz.com

The Iraqi government has banned international flights to the Kurdish capital Irbil from 6pm this Friday, isolating the Kurds in Iraq to a degree they have not experienced since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The isolation is political as well as geographical as traditional Kurdish allies, like the US, UK, France and Germany, have opposed the referendum on Kurdish independence while near neighbours in Turkey, Iran and Baghdad are moving to squeeze the Kurds into submission.

The referendum succeeded in showing that the Kurds, not just in Iraq but in Turkey, Iran and Syria, still yearn for their own state. Paradoxically, the outcome of the poll has demonstrated both the strength of their demand for self-determination and the weakness of their ability to obtain it. The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) is revealed as a minnow whose freedom of action – and even its survival – depends on playing off one foreign state against the other and keeping tolerable relations with all of them, even when they detested each other. In the past an American envoy would go out one door just as the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards came in the other.

The referendum has ended, perhaps only temporarily, these delicate balancing acts at which the Kurdish leadership was very skilled. In the last few weeks, the US has denounced the referendum in forthright terms, emboldening Iraq, Turkey and Iran to punish the Kurds for their undiplomatic enthusiasm to be an independent nation.

The poll was always a dangerous gamble but it is too early to say that it has entirely failed: minority communities and small nations must occasionally kick their big power allies in the teeth. Otherwise, they will become permanent proxies whose agreement with what their big power ally wants can be taken for granted. The skill for the smaller player is not to pay too high a price for going their own way. Iraq, Turkey and Iran have all made threatening statements over the last few days, some of them bombast, but they can hit the Kurds very hard if they want to.

The Kurds are in a fix and normally they would look to Washington to help them out, but under President Trump US foreign policy has become notoriously unpredictable. Worse from the Kurdish point of view, the US no longer needs the Iraqi Kurds as it did before the capture of Mosul from Isis in July. In any case, it was the Iraqi armed forces that won a great victory there, so for the first time in 14 years there is a powerful Iraqi army in the north of the country. We may not be on the verge of an Arab-Kurdish war, but the military balance of power is changing and Baghdad, not Irbil, is the gainer.

Anxious diplomats and excited journalists describe Iraq as "being on a collision course", but the different parties will not necessarily collide. Muddling through is not only a British trait. But there is no doubt that the situation has become more dangerous, particularly in the disputed territories stretching across northern Iraq from Syria to Iran.

The referendum always had a risky ambivalence about it which helped ignite the present crisis. It all depended on what audience Kurdish President Masoud Barzani was addressing: when he spoke to Kurdish voters, it was a poll of historic significance when the Kurds would take a decisive step towards an independent state.

But addressing an international and regional audience, Barzani said he was proposing something much tamer, more like an opinion poll, in which the Iraqi Kurds were politely indicating a general preference for independence at some date in the future. Like many leaders who play the nationalist card, Barzani is finding that his rhetoric is being taken more seriously than his caveats. "Bye, Bye Iraq!" chanted crowds in Irbil on the night of the referendum.

Much of this was born of Barzani's bid to outmanoeuvre his political rivals in Kurdistan by re-emerging as the standard bearer of Kurdish nationalism. He will benefit from his decision to defy the world and press ahead with the vote when it comes to the presidential and parliamentary elections in KRG on 1 November.

But the price of this could be high. It is not only Barzani who is facing an election in which national self-assertion is an issue in the coming months. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has a parliamentary election in 2018 and does not want to be accused of being insufficiently tough on the Kurds. Banning of international flights to Irbil is far less than many Iraqi MPs say they want.

By holding a referendum in the disputed territories, Barzani promoted this issue to the top of the Iraqi political agenda. It might have been in the interests of the Kurds to let it lie since the contending claims for land are deeply felt and irreconcilable. Optimists believe that Irbil and Baghdad could never go to war because they are both too dependent militarily on foreign powers. It is true that the Iraqi armed forces and the Kurdish Peshmerga alike could not have held off and defeated Isis without close air support from the US-led coalition. But by putting the future status of the KRG and the territories in play, Barzani has presented the Iraqi government, Turkey and Iran with a threat and an opportunity.

The four countries with Kurdish minorities fear that secessionism might spread, but a further problem is that they do not believe that an Iraqi Kurdish state would be truly independent, but would shift into the orbit of another power. The Iranians are paranoid about the possibility that such a state would be an American base threatening Iran. Politicians in Baghdad say that, if the Kurds are serious about self-determination, they would cling onto the oil fields of Kirkuk and be dependent on Turkey through which to export their crude.

Once the KRG dreamed of becoming a new Dubai with gleaming malls and hotels, but since 2014 it has looked more like Pompeii. The skyline is punctured by dozens of half completed tower blocks beside rusting cranes and abandoned machinery. The boom town atmosphere disappeared in 2014 when the price of oil went down, money stopped coming from Baghdad and Isis seized Mosul two hours' drive away. The state is impoverished and salaries paid late, if at all. This will now all get a lot worse with airports and border crossings closed and 35,000 federal employees no longer being paid.

At all events, the political landscape in Iraq and Syria is changing: we are at the beginning of a new political phase in which the battle to defeat Isis is being replaced by a power struggle between Arabs and Kurds.

[Oct 01, 2017] Republican civil war looms as Steve Bannon takes aim at the establishment

Notable quotes:
"... Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target. ..."
"... Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda. ..."
"... "The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time." ..."
"... Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge." ..."
"... Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs ..."
Oct 01, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Already Bannon is touring the country and meeting with candidates who will carry forward such an agenda. He told the Bloomberg agency: "The populist-nationalist movement proved in Alabama that a candidate with the right ideas and a grassroots organization can win big. Now, our focus is on recruiting candidates to take over the Republican party."

The election eve rally in Alabama was a reunion of sorts of those in Bannon's political orbit. Two potential candidates, Chris McDaniel of Mississippi and Mark Green of Tennessee, attended along with Paul Nehlen, a primary challenger last year to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, whose campaign was heavily promoted by Breitbart.

McDaniel described Moore's win as "incredibly inspiring" for his own challenge to Senator Roger Wicker in 2018. "We know Mitch McConnell was rejected tonight and Roger Wicker is just another part of Mitch McConnell's leadership apparatus," McDaniel told the Associated Press.

"We supported Donald Trump because he was an agent of change, and he's still an agent of change. In this instance, he must have been given bad advice to retain this particular swamp creature."

On Thursday, Bannon spent two hours with Tom Tancredo, who worked on Nehlan's behalf and is considering a run for Colorado governor next year. Tancredo, a former congressman, told the Guardian: "He was encouraged by what happened in Alabama and was certainly hoping he can replicate it.

"He's trying to establish an awareness of the fact the Republican party should be standing for the values he and others have tried to articulate over the years. It's a hugely difficult undertaking when you consider the power of the establishment and the swamp. He just kept reiterating: 'I need to try to save the country.'"

Asked about the prospect of a Republican civil war, Tancredo replied: "A good philosophic blood letting is not necessarily a bad thing."

... ... ...

Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target.

"Every dollar that is spent on a candidate by Mitch McConnell and the Republican party is a dollar spent against them," Bardella added. "And that's because it plays right into the theme that they're bought and paid for by the establishment."

Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda.

But he can expect at least tacit backing from Trump, who was said to be furious about having backed the wrong horse in Alabama: the president even deleted three tweets that endorsed Strange. Bannon also has powerful benefactors in the shape of the billionaire hedge fund investor Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah Mercer. The New York Times reported that Bannon and Robert Mercer began working out a rough outline for a "shadow party" that would advance Trump's nationalist agenda during a five-hour meeting last month at the family's Long Island estate.

Bannon has also been consulting with Henry Kissinger and other foreign policy veterans, Bloomberg reported, and is preparing make the threat posed by China a central cause. "If we don't get our situation sorted with China, we'll be destroyed economically," he said.

Rick Tyler, a political analyst and former campaign spokesman for the Texas senator Ted Cruz, said: "Roy Moore has demonstrated that the establishment and all its money can be beaten. You can only spend so much money in Alabama before it becomes irritating: you can only stuff so much in people's mailboxes or run so many ads on TV.

"The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time."

Republican memories are still raw from 2014, when the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, was beaten in a primary contest by Dave Brat, a little-known professor backed by the Tea Party. But Bannon could make the establishment versus Tea Party battle look like a mere skirmish.

Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge."

Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs

[Oct 01, 2017] Tea Party Patriots against Neoliberalism by Bhaskar Sunkara

Notable quotes:
"... The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism. ..."
"... Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades. ..."
"... The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. ..."
"... people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. ..."
Oct 01, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

Ideas spread in all sorts of directions. I've heard Christian right "intellectuals" haphazardly invoke Gramsci and counter-hegemony and I myself have spent more of my youth than I'm willing to admit reading back issues of National Review . It's probably less of a stretch that some Tea Partiers have favorably nodded toward the ideas on their movement that our friend Walter Benn Michaels expresses in his interview in the inaugural Jacobin .

Here's my summary of Michaels's argument on the Tea Party and immigration, which brings up the question, a question that shouldn't really be a question at all, about the left and open borders. (My thoughts on the over-hyped and over-exposed Tea Party can be found over at New Politics .)

Michaels identifies the Tea Party as a reaction against neoliberalism. He doesn't view the challenge as a serious one, but also stresses that the movement, "is not simply a reaction against neoliberalism from the old racist right." Michaels contests the American left's desire to summarily reduce the Tea Party to racists: "They're thrilled when some Nazis come out and say 'Yeah, we support the Tea Party' or some member of the Tea Party says something racist, which is frequently enough." Michaels finds the subversive content of their political program in an opposition to illegal immigration.

The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism.

Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades.

The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. Responding to those who place the roots of this angst in the growing diversification of the elite, Michaels says:

. . . people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. So my point isn't really to deny the phenomenon of status anxiety, it's just to point out the extraordinary eagerness of American liberals to identify racism as the problem, so that anti-racism (rather than anti-capitalism) can be the solution.

Michaels's conclusion is, in sum, that students of Friedrich Hayek and exalters of Ayn Rand are the most visible source of resistance to neoliberalism on the American scene. Such a view, I believe, is as contradictory as it appears...

Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin .

[Oct 01, 2017] Goodbye, American neoliberalism. A new era is here by Cornel West

Notable quotes:
"... The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness. ..."
"... This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. ..."
"... In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome! ..."
"... The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang ..."
"... The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised. ..."
"... if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial! ..."
"... The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad. ..."
"... Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back. ..."
"... He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did. ..."
"... Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried. ..."
Nov 17, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians.

The Bush and Clinton dynasties were destroyed by the media-saturated lure of the pseudo-populist billionaire with narcissist sensibilities and ugly, fascist proclivities. The monumental election of Trump was a desperate and xenophobic cry of human hearts for a way out from under the devastation of a disintegrating neoliberal order – a nostalgic return to an imaginary past of greatness.

White working- and middle-class fellow citizens – out of anger and anguish – rejected the economic neglect of neoliberal policies and the self-righteous arrogance of elites. Yet these same citizens also supported a candidate who appeared to blame their social misery on minorities, and who alienated Mexican immigrants, Muslims, black people, Jews, gay people, women and China in the process.

This lethal fusion of economic insecurity and cultural scapegoating brought neoliberalism to its knees. In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future.

What is to be done? First we must try to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties.

Feminists misunderstood the presidential election from day one Liza Featherstone By banking on the idea that women would support Hillary Clinton just because she was a female candidate, the movement made a terrible mistake Read more

The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.

Rightwing attacks on Obama – and Trump-inspired racist hatred of him – have made it nearly impossible to hear the progressive critiques of Obama. The president has been reluctant to target black suffering – be it in overcrowded prisons, decrepit schools or declining workplaces. Yet, despite that, we get celebrations of the neoliberal status quo couched in racial symbolism and personal legacy. Meanwhile, poor and working class citizens of all colors have continued to suffer in relative silence.

In this sense, Trump's election was enabled by the neoliberal policies of the Clintons and Obama that overlooked the plight of our most vulnerable citizens. The progressive populism of Bernie Sanders nearly toppled the establishment of the Democratic party but Clinton and Obama came to the rescue to preserve the status quo. And I do believe Sanders would have beat Trump to avert this neofascist outcome!

Click and elect: how fake news helped Donald Trump win a real election Hannah Jane Parkinson The 'alt-right' (aka the far right) ensnared the electorate using false stories on social media. But tech companies seem unwilling to admit there's a problem

In this bleak moment, we must inspire each other driven by a democratic soulcraft of integrity, courage, empathy and a mature sense of history – even as it seems our democracy is slipping away.

We must not turn away from the forgotten people of US foreign policy – such as Palestinians under Israeli occupation, Yemen's civilians killed by US-sponsored Saudi troops or Africans subject to expanding US military presence.

As one whose great family and people survived and thrived through slavery, Jim Crow and lynching, Trump's neofascist rhetoric and predictable authoritarian reign is just another ugly moment that calls forth the best of who we are and what we can do.

For us in these times, to even have hope is too abstract, too detached, too spectatorial. Instead we must be a hope, a participant and a force for good as we face this catastrophe.

theomatica -> MSP1984 17 Nov 2016 6:40

To be replaced by a form of capitalism that is constrained by national interests. An ideology that wishes to uses the forces of capitalism within a market limited only by national boundaries which aims for more self sufficiency only importing goods the nation can not itself source.

farga 17 Nov 2016 6:35

The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang.

Really? The white house and congress are now dominated by tea party politicians who worship at the altar of Ayn Rand.....read Breitbart news to see how Thatcher and Reagan are idolised.

That in recent decades middle ground politicians have strayed from the true faith....and now its time to go back - popular capitalism, small government, low taxes.

if you think the era of "neo liberalism" is over, you are in deep denial!

Social36 -> farga 17 Nov 2016 8:33

Maybe, West should have written that we're now in neoliberal, neofascist era!

ForSparta -> farga 17 Nov 2016 14:24

Well in all fairness, Donald Trump (horse's ass) did say he'd 'pump' money into the middle classes thus abandoning 'trickle down'. His plan/ideology is also to increase corporate tax revenues overall by reducing the level of corporation tax -- the aim being to entice corporations to repatriate wealth currently held overseas. Plus he has proposed an infrastructure spending spree, a fiscal stimulus not a monetary one. When you add in tax cuts the middle classes will feel flushed and it is within that demographic that most businesses and hence jobs are created. I think his short game has every chance of doing what he said it would.

SeeNOevilHearNOevil 17 Nov 2016 6:36

The age of Obama was the last gasp of neoliberalism. Despite some progressive words and symbolic gestures, Obama chose to ignore Wall Street crimes, reject bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality and facilitate war crimes like US drones killing innocent civilians abroad.

Didn't Obama say to Wall Street ''I'm the only one standing between you and the lynch mob? Give me money and I'll make it all go away''. Then came into office and went we won't prosecute the Banks not Bush for a false war because we don't look back.

He did not ignore, he actively, willingly, knowingly protected them. At the end of the day Obama is wolf in sheep's clothing. Exactly like HRC he has a public and a private position. He is a gifted speaker who knows how to say all the right, progressive liberal things to get people to go along much better than HRC ever did.

But that lip service is where his progressive views begin and stop. It's the very reason none of his promises never translated into actions and I will argue that he was the biggest and smoothest scam artist to enter the white house who got even though that wholly opposed centre-right policies, to flip and support them vehemently. Even when he had the Presidency, House and Senate, he never once introduced any progressive liberal policy. He didn't need Republican support to do it, yet he never even tried.

ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 6:37

I agree with some of this, but do we really have to throw around hysterical terms like 'fascist' at every opportunity? It's as bad as when people call the left 'cultural Marxists'.

LithophaneFurcifera -> ProbablyOnTopic 17 Nov 2016 7:05

True, it's sloganeering that drowns out any nuance, whoever does it. Whenever a political term is coined, you can be assured that its use and meaning will eventually be extended to the point that it becomes less effective at characterising the very groups that it was coined to characterise.

Keep "fascist" for Mussolini and "cultural Marxist" for Adorno, unless and until others show such strong resemblances that the link can't seriously be denied.

I agree about the importance of recognising the suffering of the poor and building alliances beyond, and not primarily defined by, race though.

l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 6:40
Hang about Trump is the embodiment of neo-liberalism. It's neo-liberalism with republican tea party in control. He's not going to smash the system that served him so well, the years he manipulated and cheated, why would he want to change it.
garrylee -> l0Ho5LG4wWcFJsKg 17 Nov 2016 9:38
West's point is that it's beyond Trump's control. The scales have fallen from peoples eyes. They now see the deceit of neo-liberalism. And once they see through the charlatan Trump and the rest of the fascists, they will, hopefully, come to realize the only antidote to neo-liberalism is a planned economy.

Nash25 17 Nov 2016 6:40

This excellent analysis by professor West places the current political situation in a proper historical context.

However, I fear that neo-liberalism may not be quite "dead" as he argues.

Most of the Democratic party's "establishment" politicians, who conspired to sabotage the populist Sanders's campaign, still dominate the party, and they, in turn, are controlled by the giant corporations who fund their campaigns.

Democrat Chuck Schumer is now the Senate minority leader, and he is the loyal servant of the big Wall Street investment banks.

Sanders and Warren are the only two Democratic leaders who are not neo-liberals, and I fear that they will once again be marginalized.

Rank and file Democrats must organize at the local and state level to remove these corrupt neo-liberals from all party leadership positions. This will take many years, and it will be very difficult.


VenetianBlind 17 Nov 2016 6:42

Not sure Neo-Liberalism has ended. All they have done is get rid of the middle man.

macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 6:46

It would seem that there is a great deal of over simplifying going on; some of the articles represent an hysteric response and the vision of sack cloth and ashes prevails among those who could not see that the wheels were coming off the bus. The use of the term 'liberal' has become another buzz word - there are many different forms of liberalism and creating yet another sound byte does little to illuminate anything.

Making appeals to restore what has been lost reflects badly upon the central political parties, with their 30 year long rightward drift and their legacy of sucking up to corporate lobbyists, systems managers, box tickers and consultants. You can't give away sovereign political power to a bunch of right wing quangos who worship private wealth and its accumulation without suffering the consequences. The article makes no contribution (and neither have many of the others of late) to any kind of alternative to either neo-liberalism or the vacuum that has become a question mark with the dark face of the devil behind it.

We are in uncharted waters. The conventional Left was totally discredited by1982 and all we've had since are various forms of modifications of Thatcher's imported American vision. There has been no opposition to this system for over 40 years - so where do we get the idea that democracy has any real meaning? Yes, we can vote for the Greens, or one of the lesser known minority parties, but of course people don't; they tend to go with what is portrayed as the orthodoxy and they've been badly let down by it.

It would be a real breath of fresh air to see articles which offer some kind of analysis that demonstrates tangible options to deal with the multiple crises we are suffering. Perhaps we might start with a consideration that if our political institutions are prone to being haunted by the ghost of the 1930's, the state itself could be seen as part of the problem rather than any solution. Why is it that every other institution is considered to be past its sell by date and we still believe in a phantom of democracy? Discuss.

VenetianBlind -> macfeegal 17 Nov 2016 7:00

I have spent hours trying to see solutions around Neo-Liberalism and find that governments have basically signed away any control over the economy so nothing they can do. There are no solutions.

Maybe that is the starting point. The solution for workers left behind in Neo-Liberal language is they must move. It demands labor mobility. It is not possible to dictate where jobs are created.

I see too much fiddly around the edges, the best start is to say they cannot fix the problem. If they keep making false promises then things will just get dire as.

[Oct 01, 2017] Republican civil war looms as Steve Bannon takes aim at the establishment

Notable quotes:
"... Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target. ..."
"... Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda. ..."
"... "The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time." ..."
"... Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge." ..."
"... Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs ..."
Oct 01, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

Already Bannon is touring the country and meeting with candidates who will carry forward such an agenda. He told the Bloomberg agency: "The populist-nationalist movement proved in Alabama that a candidate with the right ideas and a grassroots organization can win big. Now, our focus is on recruiting candidates to take over the Republican party."

The election eve rally in Alabama was a reunion of sorts of those in Bannon's political orbit. Two potential candidates, Chris McDaniel of Mississippi and Mark Green of Tennessee, attended along with Paul Nehlen, a primary challenger last year to the House speaker, Paul Ryan, whose campaign was heavily promoted by Breitbart.

McDaniel described Moore's win as "incredibly inspiring" for his own challenge to Senator Roger Wicker in 2018. "We know Mitch McConnell was rejected tonight and Roger Wicker is just another part of Mitch McConnell's leadership apparatus," McDaniel told the Associated Press.

"We supported Donald Trump because he was an agent of change, and he's still an agent of change. In this instance, he must have been given bad advice to retain this particular swamp creature."

On Thursday, Bannon spent two hours with Tom Tancredo, who worked on Nehlan's behalf and is considering a run for Colorado governor next year. Tancredo, a former congressman, told the Guardian: "He was encouraged by what happened in Alabama and was certainly hoping he can replicate it.

"He's trying to establish an awareness of the fact the Republican party should be standing for the values he and others have tried to articulate over the years. It's a hugely difficult undertaking when you consider the power of the establishment and the swamp. He just kept reiterating: 'I need to try to save the country.'"

Asked about the prospect of a Republican civil war, Tancredo replied: "A good philosophic blood letting is not necessarily a bad thing."

... ... ...

Bardella said Bannon had helped villainise McConnell, making him a toxic symbol of the Republican establishment and an albatross around the necks of vulnerable Republicans such as Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada. A seat in Tennessee following Senator Bob Corker's announcement that he would not seek re-election in 2018 could also be a target.

"Every dollar that is spent on a candidate by Mitch McConnell and the Republican party is a dollar spent against them," Bardella added. "And that's because it plays right into the theme that they're bought and paid for by the establishment."

Among the "establishment" donors likely to oppose Bannon in a series of running battles are the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Bannon himself has admitted there is not "a deep bench" of viable candidates to represent his agenda.

But he can expect at least tacit backing from Trump, who was said to be furious about having backed the wrong horse in Alabama: the president even deleted three tweets that endorsed Strange. Bannon also has powerful benefactors in the shape of the billionaire hedge fund investor Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah Mercer. The New York Times reported that Bannon and Robert Mercer began working out a rough outline for a "shadow party" that would advance Trump's nationalist agenda during a five-hour meeting last month at the family's Long Island estate.

Bannon has also been consulting with Henry Kissinger and other foreign policy veterans, Bloomberg reported, and is preparing make the threat posed by China a central cause. "If we don't get our situation sorted with China, we'll be destroyed economically," he said.

Rick Tyler, a political analyst and former campaign spokesman for the Texas senator Ted Cruz, said: "Roy Moore has demonstrated that the establishment and all its money can be beaten. You can only spend so much money in Alabama before it becomes irritating: you can only stuff so much in people's mailboxes or run so many ads on TV.

"The floodgates are open. You'll see a lot of this, one after another, and Steve Bannon's going to be at the centre of it. He's one for one. It'll be a civil war; it has been for quite some time."

Republican memories are still raw from 2014, when the House majority leader, Eric Cantor, was beaten in a primary contest by Dave Brat, a little-known professor backed by the Tea Party. But Bannon could make the establishment versus Tea Party battle look like a mere skirmish.

Andrew Surabian, a political strategist who worked under Bannon at the White House, told USA Today: "Bannon is plotting a strategy to launch an all-out assault on the Republican establishment. I think it's fair to say that if you're tied to Mitch McConnell, any of his henchmen in the consulting class, or were a Never-Trumper during the campaign, you're not safe from a primary challenge."

Additional reporting by Lauren Gambino and Ben Jacobs

[Oct 01, 2017] A Crash Course on the True Causes of "Anti-Semitism" by The Saker

Oct 01, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

This is a topic which has had so much written about it that you could fill an entire city library with books entirely dedicated to this topic. Marx took a shot at it . As did Sartre . There were, of course, also plenty of good books written on this topic, but rather than list them all, I want to suggest a few simple common sense points and then go to what I consider an authoritative explanation of this thing we call "antisemitism" and which, of course, has nothing to do with Semites.

So first, let's dump this silly term and replace it by a simple and straightforward one: judeophobia. Just like any other phobia (say, for example, Russophobia) the phobia of X is the 1) fear and/or hatred of X. Some people hate Jews, others fear them (think of the "fear of the Jews" in the Scripture), some do both. So judeophobia seems both logical and uncontroversial to me.

Second, it is a truism to say that everything in the universe has a cause. That includes phobias. Including Russophobia and judeophobia. For example, I would be the first person to admit that there are objective characteristics of the Russian people which makes other people fear and hate them. Like the fact that all western attempts at conquering Russia have failed. Or that the Russians have always, and still are, rejecting the Papacy. Just these two factors will create plenty of Russophobia in the West, for sure.

[Oct 01, 2017] Podesta emails showed Facebook colluded with Clinton, Assange reminds

Sep 29, 2017 | www.legitgov.org

Originally from Podesta emails showed Facebook colluded with Clinton, Assange reminds | 29 Sept 2017

As US lawmakers demand social media companies show how their platforms were allegedly used by Russia to meddle in the 2016 election, WikiLeaks co-founder tweeted emails that show Facebook executives in direct communication with one candidate's team.

Beginning on October 7 last year, WikiLeaks published hundreds of emails from the private account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. The daily drops continued for a couple days after the November 8 election.

On Thursday, as US media were speculating about "Russian" meddling on Twitter, Facebook and Reddit, Julian Assange tweeted some of the Podesta emails with a reminder that the social network's leading lights were Clinton fans.

[Oct 01, 2017] Tea Party Patriots against Neoliberalism by Bhaskar Sunkara

Notable quotes:
"... The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism. ..."
"... Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades. ..."
"... The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. ..."
"... people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. ..."
Oct 01, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com

Ideas spread in all sorts of directions. I've heard Christian right "intellectuals" haphazardly invoke Gramsci and counter-hegemony and I myself have spent more of my youth than I'm willing to admit reading back issues of National Review . It's probably less of a stretch that some Tea Partiers have favorably nodded toward the ideas on their movement that our friend Walter Benn Michaels expresses in his interview in the inaugural Jacobin .

Here's my summary of Michaels's argument on the Tea Party and immigration, which brings up the question, a question that shouldn't really be a question at all, about the left and open borders. (My thoughts on the over-hyped and over-exposed Tea Party can be found over at New Politics .)

Michaels identifies the Tea Party as a reaction against neoliberalism. He doesn't view the challenge as a serious one, but also stresses that the movement, "is not simply a reaction against neoliberalism from the old racist right." Michaels contests the American left's desire to summarily reduce the Tea Party to racists: "They're thrilled when some Nazis come out and say 'Yeah, we support the Tea Party' or some member of the Tea Party says something racist, which is frequently enough." Michaels finds the subversive content of their political program in an opposition to illegal immigration.

The Tea Party recognizes that "one of the primary sort of marks of the triumph of neoliberalism in the US is a very high tolerance of illegal immigration, and that illegal immigration is the kind of one plus ultra of the labor mobility that neoliberalism requires." The rise of illegal immigration represents a new form of capitalism, as opposed to the old "meritorious" capitalism of the post-war period. When right-wing ideologues attack "communism," the argument goes, they are actually conceptualizing neoliberalism.

Michaels concedes that the Tea Party is a disproportionately upper middle class movement, but argues that even segments of the top twenty percentile of Americans by income have been hit hard in recent decades.

The top one percent have been the big winners of the neoliberal era, while the other 19 percent in that bracket anxiously see their position falter in comparison. Responding to those who place the roots of this angst in the growing diversification of the elite, Michaels says:

. . . people in the Tea Party movement have a problem that is realer than "White male status anxiety," that the economic shifts that are taking place, the more and more extreme inequality, the more and more going to the top, no doubt some people may be unhappy because of loss of status, but many millions more are going to be unhappy because of the loss of actual money. So my point isn't really to deny the phenomenon of status anxiety, it's just to point out the extraordinary eagerness of American liberals to identify racism as the problem, so that anti-racism (rather than anti-capitalism) can be the solution.

Michaels's conclusion is, in sum, that students of Friedrich Hayek and exalters of Ayn Rand are the most visible source of resistance to neoliberalism on the American scene. Such a view, I believe, is as contradictory as it appears...

Bhaskar Sunkara is the founding editor of Jacobin .

[Oct 01, 2017] The Bombs Are Still Falling - MSNBC Urges Government Censorship Of Social Media To Protect Democracy

An interesting slide of opinions in this comment thread. Nobody mentions the term McCarthyism though.
Oct 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

The segment started off with Geist introducing the latest reporting on the topic:

GEIST: Twitter says it has shut down more than two-hundred accounts that were tied to the same Russian operatives who bought political ads on Facebook. Of the 450 accounts released by Facebook as part of its investigation, Twitter was able to match 22 of them to its own site. The disclosure by Twitter followed a briefing by company officials to staffers of the Senate and House Intel committees yesterday. Following that meeting, the top Democrat on the Senate committee, Mark Warner, slammed Twitter for its presentation.

SEN. MARK WARNER [D-VA]: [playing clip] The presentation that the Twitter team made to the Senate Intel staff today was deeply disappointing. The notion that their work was basically derivative based upon accounts that Facebook had identified showed enormous lack of understanding from the Twitter team of how serious this issue is, the threat it poses to democratic institutions, and, again, begs many more questions than they offered.

(...)

GEIST: The top Democrat on the House Intel Committee, Adam Schiff, also weighed in on Twitters briefing to his committee, releasing a statement that read, in part: "... it is clear that Twitter has significant forensic work to do to understand the depth and breadth of Russian activity during the campaign. This additional analysis will require far more robust investigation into how Russian actors used their platform as a part of their active measures campaign..."

Without any perceptible degree of skepticism about the Democratic Congressmen's claims, Geist then teed up Nicolle Wallace, host of the MSNBC afternoon show Deadline: White House , to talk about social media and the 2016 election more generally:

GEIST: You do get the sense, Nicolle, that Facebook, Twitter, social media was totally clueless about what was happening on their sites during the 2016 campaign.

WALLACE: It's worse than that [...]. The social media companies are sort of like the worst stereotype of a Republican political organization. They're reactive, theyre opaque, they're defensive, they are very slow to understand the value of transparency. They're totally lawyered up, lobbied up. And they are as a culture, the hubris of thinking that they're all about the public good, when if you take a low-tech analogy, its basically like someone got mugged in your backyard and their position is: well, it's not our problem, I mean, we just bought the lot on which the house was built, not our problem.

Giant Meteor , Sep 30, 2017 7:01 PM

Lordy, it's a cookbook !

overbet -> Giant Meteor , Sep 30, 2017 7:06 PM

How about $10m fine for citing anonymous sources.

AlaricBalth -> overbet , Sep 30, 2017 7:30 PM

The MSM does not report news. They provide entertainment for their demographic base of couch riding spectators. Controversy, salaciousness and division increase the amount of eyeballs, which allow these channels of distraction to charge exorbitant fees to advertisers who are selling crap most don't need or want. It's all just "chewing gum" for the eyes.

AtATrESICI -> AlaricBalth , Sep 30, 2017 7:37 PM

But, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. OMG! What happened?

This shit is a sad fucking joke...

AtATrESICI -> AtATrESICI , Sep 30, 2017 7:51 PM

One more thing. Folks that are Russian hack the election people, believe the .gov story on 911 to the letter. That does not wash with me.

Paul Kersey -> AlaricBalth , Sep 30, 2017 7:41 PM

"This isn't new, this is the Kremlin playbook. They have been exacerbating racial tensions in the US [for years]... "

So it's the Russians that have caused racial tensions in the U.S., who knew? Racial voting patterns in this country are almost the same today as they were before the Civil War. In any Presidential election, for instance, 95% of blacks vote Democrat, regardless of who is running, and over 80% of Christian Fundamentalists vote Republican, regardless of who is running.

During this last Presidential election, if you flipped the State of Virginia with the State of Pennsylvania, the election turned on the Mason-Dixon line. Unless the Russians can be blamed for the racism this nation was born into, it's probably absurd to blame today's racial tensions on them.

Skeero , Sep 30, 2017 7:04 PM

"Black Lives Matter and targeting, specifically, ethnic groups [...] and allowing people to target, not only for Russian influence, but also target housing ads, employment ads."

Shame on them for trying to get people to get a job!

Blankone , Sep 30, 2017 7:07 PM

How long until they declare antifa is a Russian sponsored terrorist org.? I know it is not time yet but once the violence of antifa generates general rejection by the middle class due to fear - perhaps then they will throw them under the bus. And use antifa as justification for oppressive policies/laws.

Dickweed Wang , Sep 30, 2017 7:11 PM

Who the fuck watches shit like this anyway?

AriusArmenian , Sep 30, 2017 7:41 PM

Instead of America taking responsibility for its racial tensions it tries to find some foreign demon to make responsible.

Everything negative in America is now the fault of Russia, Iran, or others.

Very convenient.

Just destroy Russia, Iran, etc., then America will be perfect.

Destroy the world and everything will then be perfect.

If this is what is operating in the American unconscious psyche then the world is screwed.

xrxs , Sep 30, 2017 7:42 PM

Thinking about Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent really opened my eyes to what democratization of the media could do. Why are we having this conversation about 2016, and not 2008 or 2012? I have a number of theories about this. I think the endgame here is to create a Great Firewall for major social media platforms to keep people from finding out certain truths (I think you won't be hearing from Wikileaks, for example). It's a dark time, and I'm sad we're here.

GreatUncle , Sep 30, 2017 7:44 PM

Yaaaaaaaaawwwwwwn ... I don't do social media full stop.

So any government control mechanism actually fails and if anything with all the proactive advertising, fake news and now mostly junk content I know people who are dumping it prefering alternative forms of communication ... like talking to real people.

I never knew ... me dear old mum well retired now curses google and facebook with all the shit they come out with.

Mwhahahahaha ... it's spreading.

To the point just refuse to talk to people who use social media, let them keep their dumbed down universe to themselves.

Hikikomori , Sep 30, 2017 7:47 PM

Clearly, we have to destroy our democracy to save it.

TomGa , Sep 30, 2017 7:52 PM

MSNBC is a network of wackos. So are the ideas they promote as well as the usual suspects they interview. No one takes this network or the nonsense they spew seriously.

Disgruntled Goat , Sep 30, 2017 8:01 PM

Sure, lets invent another huge government bureaucracy in order to maintain the monopoly of a dying, legacy media dinosaur !!!!

Through censorship no less

Its fucking both pathetic and laughable.... the MSM is a Dead Media Walking....

You think Bezos wanted to buy WaPo to enhance its journalistic character? No fucking chance... he took it over in order to save a mouthpiece of the elite that was ready to go TU..... for a huge Qid Pro Quo I might add ( to wit, you may recall that shortly after Bezos took over WaPo, Amazon was suddenly given the ok to accept EBT, with not a peep of protest or a question from Congress. So now, we have welfare queens ordering online and getting wildly expensive Amazon Fresh deliveries IN THE FUCKING GHETTO.... ISNT THIS COUNTRY GREAT !!!!)

What cannot be controlled or co-opted by these fucks must somehow be "regulated" or eliminated.

WELL FUCK THAT!!! Keep stacking pms, lead and brass

[Sep 30, 2017] Yet Another Major Russia Story Falls Apart. Is Skepticism Permissible Yet by Glenn Greenwald

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards. ..."
"... Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked. ..."
"... A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia"). ..."
"... The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism." ..."
"... That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties. ..."
"... No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. ..."
"... Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. ..."
Sep 28, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Last Friday, most major media outlets touted a major story about Russian attempts to hack into U.S. voting systems, based exclusively on claims made by the Department of Homeland Security. "Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states in the run-up to last year's presidential election, officials said Friday," began the USA Today story, similar to how most other outlets presented this extraordinary claim.

This official story was explosive for obvious reasons, and predictably triggered instant decrees – that of course went viral – declaring that the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election is now in doubt.

Virginia's Democratic Congressman Don Beyer, referring to the 21 targeted states, announced that this shows "Russia tried to hack their election":

MSNBC's Paul Revere for all matters relating to the Kremlin take-over, Rachel Maddow, was indignant that this wasn't told to us earlier and that we still aren't getting all the details. "What we have now figured out," Maddow gravely intoned as she showed the multi-colored maps she made, is that "Homeland Security knew at least by June that 21 states had been targeted by Russian hackers during the election. . .targeting their election infrastructure."

They were one small step away from demanding that the election results be nullified, indulging the sentiment expressed by #Resistance icon Carl Reiner the other day: "Is there anything more exciting that [sic] the possibility of Trump's election being invalidated & Hillary rightfully installed as our President?"

So what was wrong with this story? Just one small thing: it was false. The story began to fall apart yesterday when Associated Press reported that Wisconsin – one of the states included in the original report that, for obvious reasons, caused the most excitement – did not, in fact, have its election systems targeted by Russian hackers:

The spokesman for Homeland Security then tried to walk back that reversal, insisting that there was still evidence that some computer networks had been targeted, but could not say that they had anything to do with elections or voting. And, as AP noted: "Wisconsin's chief elections administrator, Michael Haas, had repeatedly said that Homeland Security assured the state it had not been targeted."

Then the story collapsed completely last night. The Secretary of State for another one of the named states, California, issued a scathing statement repudiating the claimed report:

Sometimes stories end up debunked. There's nothing particularly shocking about that. If this were an isolated incident, one could chalk it up to basic human error that has no broader meaning.

But this is no isolated incident. Quite the contrary: this has happened over and over and over again. Inflammatory claims about Russia get mindlessly hyped by media outlets, almost always based on nothing more than evidence-free claims from government officials, only to collapse under the slightest scrutiny, because they are entirely lacking in evidence.

The examples of such debacles when it comes to claims about Russia are too numerous to comprehensively chronicle. I wrote about this phenomenon many times and listed many of the examples, the last time in June when 3 CNN journalists "resigned" over a completely false story linking Trump adviser Anthony Scaramucci to investigations into a Russian investment fund which the network was forced to retract:

Remember that time the Washington Post claimed that Russia had hacked the U.S. electricity grid, causing politicians to denounce Putin for trying to deny heat to Americans in winter, only to have to issue multiple retractions because none of that ever happened? Or the time that the Post had to publish a massive editor's note after its reporters made claims about Russian infiltration of the internet and spreading of "Fake News" based on an anonymous group's McCarthyite blacklist that counted sites like the Drudge Report and various left-wing outlets as Kremlin agents?

Or that time when Slate claimed that Trump had created a secret server with a Russian bank, all based on evidence that every other media outlet which looked at it were too embarrassed to get near? Or the time the Guardian was forced to retract its report by Ben Jacobs – which went viral – that casually asserted that WikiLeaks has a long relationship with the Kremlin? Or the time that Fortune retracted suggestions that RT had hacked into and taken over C-SPAN's network? And then there's the huge market that was created – led by leading Democrats – that blindly ingested every conspiratorial, unhinged claim about Russia churned out by an army of crazed conspiracists such as Louise Mensch and Claude "TrueFactsStated" Taylor?

And now we have the Russia-hacked-the-voting-systems-of-21-states to add to this trash heap. Each time the stories go viral; each time they further shape the narrative; each time those who spread them say little to nothing when it is debunked.

None of this means that every Russia claim is false, nor does it disprove the accusation that Putin ordered the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta's email inboxes (a claim for which, just by the way, still no evidence has been presented by the U.S. government). Perhaps there were some states that were targeted, even though the key claims of this story, that attracted the most attention, have now been repudiated.

But what it does demonstrate is that an incredibly reckless, anything-goes climate prevails when it comes to claims about Russia. Media outlets will publish literally any official assertion as Truth without the slightest regard for evidentiary standards.

Seeing Putin lurking behind and masterminding every western problem is now religious dogma – it explains otherwise-confounding developments, provides certainty to a complex world, and alleviates numerous factions of responsibility – so media outlets and their journalists are lavishly rewarded any time they publish accusatory stories about Russia (especially ones involving the U.S. election), even if they end up being debunked.

A highly touted story yesterday from the New York Times – claiming that Russians used Twitter more widely known than before to manipulate U.S. politics – demonstrates this recklessness. The story is based on the claims of a new group formed just two months ago by a union of neocons and Democratic national security officials, led by long-time liars and propagandists such as Bill Kristol, former acting CIA chief Mike Morell, and Bush Homeland Security Secretary Mike Chertoff. I reported on the founding of this group, calling itself the Alliance for Securing Democracy, when it was unveiled (this is not to be confused with the latest new Russia group unveiled last week by Rob Reiner and David Frum and featuring a different former national security state official (former DNI James Clapper) – calling itself InvestigateRussia.org – featuring a video declaring that the U.S. is now "at war with Russia").

The Kristol/Morell/Chertoff group on which the Times based its article has a very simple tactic: they secretly decide which Twitter accounts are "Russia bots," meaning accounts that disseminate an "anti-American message" and are controlled by the Kremlin. They refuse to tell anyone which Twitter accounts they decided are Kremlin-loyal, nor will they identify their methodology for creating their lists or determining what constitutes "anti-Americanism."

They do it all in secret, and you're just supposed to trust them: Bill Kristol, Mike Chertoff and their national security state friends. And the New York Times is apparently fine with this demand, as evidenced by its uncritical acceptance yesterday of the claims of this group – a group formed by the nation's least trustworthy sources.

But no matter. It's a claim about nefarious Russian control. So it's instantly vested with credibility and authority, published by leading news outlets, and then blindly accepted as fact in most elite circles. From now on, it will simply be Fact – based on the New York Times article – that the Kremlin aggressively and effectively weaponized Twitter to manipulate public opinion and sow divisions during the election, even though the evidence for this new story is the secret, unverifiable assertions of a group filled with the most craven neocons and national security state liars.

That's how the Russia narrative is constantly "reported," and it's the reason so many of the biggest stories have embarrassingly collapsed. It's because the Russia story of 2017 – not unlike the Iraq discourse of 2002 – is now driven by religious-like faith rather than rational faculties.

No questioning of official claims is allowed. The evidentiary threshold which an assertion must overcome before being accepted is so low as to be non-existent. And the penalty for desiring to see evidence for official claims, or questioning the validity and persuasiveness of the evidence that is proffered, are accusations that impugn one's patriotism and loyalty (simply wanting to see evidence for official claims about Russia is proof, in many quarters, that one is a Kremlin agent or at least adores Putin – just as wanting to see evidence in 2002, or questioning the evidence presented for claims about Saddam, was viewed as proof that one harbored sympathy for the Iraqi dictator).

Regardless of your views on Russia, Trump and the rest, nobody can possibly regard this climate as healthy. Just look at how many major, incredibly inflammatory stories, from major media outlets, have collapsed. Is it not clear that there is something very wrong with how we are discussing and reporting on relations between these two nuclear-armed powers?

[Sep 30, 2017] Is the US in cahoots with IS - TTG

Notable quotes:
"... "BEIRUT, LEBANON (2:50 P.M.) – A video has just been released on social media showing the interview of an ISIS fighter from Deir Ezzor who admits that the terrorist groups forces in the region are forbidden by their commanders from attacking US-backed, Kurdish-led militias. ..."
"... The interviewee, Mohammed Moussa al-Shawwakh, says that his group, tasked with defending the area around the Conoco Gas Fields, was ordered to allow Kurdish forces to enter the strategic site. The order, he says, came from a top regional emir (leader) called Abu Zaid. ..."
"... The ISIS fighters confession goes on to mention that Kurdish-led forces were also allowed to enter other gas and oil fields in the region in order to make propaganda videos. ..."
"... Mohammed finishes the interview by saying that he knows for a fact that the US is attempting to establish an alliance between Kurdish forces and ISIS in Deir Ezzor province in order to undermine government-led military efforts to liberate the region." ..."
"... Regime change in Syria was an Obama/Hillary project aided and abetted by Ambassador Ford, the French, Germans and British and of course the prime manipulators Bibi, Erdogan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies. ..."
"... Brennan and CENTCOM were in hog heaven. No idea if they directly aided the jihadis both AQ & IS. But clearly indirectly and in a big way. Then Putin intervened. I recall Obama trolling him saying this would be another Afghanistan quagmire for Russia. Well, it seems like R+6, have the winning hand and Assad may survive and Syria will face the long road to reconstruction as a mostly secular state. ..."
"... The distinction about arrogance, if I understand TTG correctly, is more that the brainiacs in DC and CENTCOM making policy think they are such world class game players that they can or will have control over the situation. Because they are so astute and on top of things, the pieces will move because they want them to. ..."
"... US foreign policy is another topic - my mental image is of a bunch of kittens in a bag. When all the kittens are moving in different directions the bag won't move but sometimes three kittens are moving in one direction and the bag will move. I label the kittens Gas&Oil, AIPIAC+neocons, CIA and banking.... ..."
"... Is this the case with Canada and Australia? It's usually assumed, maybe simplistically, that the Ukrainian/Eastern European diaspora in those countries keeps the politicians there committed to neocon foreign policy anyway. At the more extreme end of the spectrum you sometimes see on the internet assertions that both the Ukrainians and the Israelis are holding the fort for white civilisation. Whether that's some nutter sounding off on a blog or whether it represents the underlying attitude of some of the Mr and Mrs Averages in that diaspora is difficult to tell from this distance. ..."
"... ISIS=Saudi; Al Nusra=Turkey & SDF=IDF with Saudi & IDF collaboration. Thus, ISIS melts away and voilà: SDF takes over ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
In short, no. IS is clearly losing cohesion and any IS or allied groups not closely tied to the central leadership are beginning to despair of the fight. I think YPG/SDF units may be able to bypass some of these deflated jihadis without much of a fight. Local jihadis may also be open to local truces with the local SDF Arab tribes. I would think the US and its allied forces would be happy to avoid these fights rather than aggressively seek combat. CJTF-OIR may also be watching the success of the Russian reconciliation program in turning former enemy fighters into allies and seek to do the same east of the Euphrates.

Yesterday Al Masdar News published an enlightening story where an ISIS fighter admits that ISIS is forbidden to attack Kurdish forces in Deir Ezzor.

*********

"BEIRUT, LEBANON (2:50 P.M.) – A video has just been released on social media showing the interview of an ISIS fighter from Deir Ezzor who admits that the terrorist groups forces in the region are forbidden by their commanders from attacking US-backed, Kurdish-led militias.

The interviewee, Mohammed Moussa al-Shawwakh, says that his group, tasked with defending the area around the Conoco Gas Fields, was ordered to allow Kurdish forces to enter the strategic site. The order, he says, came from a top regional emir (leader) called Abu Zaid.

The ISIS fighters confession goes on to mention that Kurdish-led forces were also allowed to enter other gas and oil fields in the region in order to make propaganda videos.

Mohammed finishes the interview by saying that he knows for a fact that the US is attempting to establish an alliance between Kurdish forces and ISIS in Deir Ezzor province in order to undermine government-led military efforts to liberate the region."

**********

Well, this would certainly explain the ease of the YPG/SDF advance to Deir Ezzor and the lack of combat. Some will see this as proof of US-IS collusion. I see it as evidence supporting my earlier thoughts of the CJTF-OIR seeing the wisdom of neutralizing the enemy through negotiations rather than eliminating them through combat. It is evidence of IS weakness rather than US perfidy.

Remember all that talk about the Russians and Assad being allied with IS because they were busy slamming all those other jihadis, including our unicorn army, rather than exclusively targeting IS? Many also were, and still are, in high dungeon about the whole Russian sponsored de-escalation zone effort. We were most recently mightily upset that the R+6 and Lebanon would allow a few busloads of IS jihadis and their families to leave their positions along the Syrian-Lebanese border enroute to Deir Ezzor. In my opinion, all these de-escalation efforts have put the R+6 in a far better position of neutralizing the jihadi threat in Idlib now than it was in immediately after the liberation of Aleppo. Perhaps the CJTF-OIR has realized what the R+6 discovered long ago. As Churchill said, Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war. Even as a tactic of war, it makes sense in this region.

What is more troubling is that we dont know what the USG and CJTF-OIR plans to do once IS is neutralized on both sides of the Euphrates. CENTCOM is a damnably arrogant command which has long sought to maintain a sizable and influential footprint in the region. Why?

mike , 27 September 2017 at 09:31 PM

Mohammed Moussa al-Shawwakh is saying whatever the Mukhbarat wants him to say. But I am sure there will be many commenters here who will believe his "confession" to be the final proof they are looking for. Sadly.

CENTCOM arrogant? Maybe. They do have a lot on their plate:

http://www.centcom.mil/portals/6/Images/centcommapmideast_Cropped.jpg?ver=2016-07-13-125046-033

Why you ask? Seems to me that is their charter from the National Command Authorities, and not from General Votel.

james -> mike... , 27 September 2017 at 09:45 PM
mike, the guys comments are in a long line of similar revelations for anyone receptive to the idea.. no '''final'' proof needed.. in the past it was always assad working with isis and etc. etc.. folks in the west have been indoctrinated to years of this bs.. i think it was obama who stated something to the effect he thought that isis would help to get rid of assad... that is the level of depravity the usa has sunk to here as i see it.. it has been ongoing and this guys comments come in a long line of examples of us exceptionalism..
mike -> james... , 28 September 2017 at 11:47 PM
james -

I do not believe Assad ever worked with Daesh. Some claim otherwise. I have not suggested that. His security services did release some jihadis from prison who became Daesh leaders, just like al-Baghdadi was released from imprisonment in Iraq. Many Syrians claim it was deliberate on Assad's part. I have not suggested that. Stupidity? Incompetence? Yes to both IMO, and that includes both the USA and the Syrian regime.

The real father of Daesh is Bush Junior and his invasion of Iraq in 2003, and Iraqi prime Minister Maliki. But to give them the benefit of the doubt, that was probably arrogance and ignorance on their part and not a deliberately evil intention.

PS - Why do you call this death cult by their preferred name of 'ISIS'? By using that term you legitimize their argument that they are a state, in other words a country like Syria or Belgium or the US or any country in the United Nations. They are the Daesh, a word they despise, a word which they have flogged people for using and threaten to cut out the tongue of those who use the word. Do not legitimize these monsters. They are not a state.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/what-daesh-mean-isis-threatens-6841468

james -> mike... , 29 September 2017 at 12:35 AM
mike,

i never said you did, but the western msm did fairly regularly.. as for the name isis - i have called them the ''moderate'' headchoppers too - to make fun of the stupid idea of any moderate opposition in all of this, although that bill of goods has been passed off regularly via the western msm and by the usa in particular.. they are a bunch of wahabbi nut jobs spreading their religion of intolerance and hate thanks the funding from saudi arabia primarily - again - a country the usa continues to countenance... i am sorry mike, but it burns me up to think anyone would believe the usa (or the uk, and a host of other countries) has played an honest role in anything to do with syria.. they haven't.. they have tried to tear it apart and ruined countless innocent lives with their bullshit... and - it continues all under the guise of going after isis, or daesh or whatever you want to call it.. thanks..

Red Cloud -> mike... , 28 September 2017 at 01:24 PM
Mohammed Moussa al-Shawwakh's comments don't contradict any accepted facts, and just as TTG pointed out - his statements are in line with the evidence of what actually happened.

So from an objective standpoint there is more reason to believe what he is saying than to not.

Yet right on que, you were the first comment to quickly dismiss everything the man said.

james -> Red Cloud... , 28 September 2017 at 05:26 PM
the pay must be good..
LeaNder -> Red Cloud... , 28 September 2017 at 09:38 PM
Army Times reported on a new Baghdadi audio that surfaced. I know, I know reminiscent of the curious OBL videos. But thankfully this time all that is needed is voice recognition. Wonder how good they are in that field by now. ;)

https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/28/isis-releases-baghdadi-audio-as-the-group-crumbles-in-iraq-and-syria/

In the message, Baghdadi told his supporters that ISIS remains steadfast as America grows weary in the conflict, according to analysis by Hassan Hassan, a senior fellow at the Tahrir Institute located in Washington D.C.

Townsend, thought he was still alive and kicking in the Middle Euphrates River Valley (MERV) Syria/Iraq; MT, August 31:
https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2017/09/28/isis-releases-baghdadi-audio-as-the-group-crumbles-in-iraq-and-syria/

Slightly more elaborated via the NYT, same date:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/31/us/politics/isis-military-us-iraq-syria-euphrates.html

Were planning for tough fights ahead, General Townsend said.

The Syrian Democratic Forces, which are backed by the United States, are largely led by Syrian Kurds who may not be immediately acceptable to the local Arab populations. The Syrian Kurds provide most of the essential command-and-control for the overall fighting force, half of which is Arab.

But as they move into the Euphrates River Valley, the Syrian forces now are expected to recruit additional local Arabs as well other Arab fighters who have been trained by American and allied forces at al-Tanf, a desert outpost in southern Syria near the intersection of the Jordanian and Iraqi borders.

The Arab fighters from al-Tanf are vetted and supported with small arms, navigation tools and medical supplies. American and other allied advisers also provide basic combat training skills, including first aid, marksmanship and techniques on how to clear a house of militants.

They also report that an agreement between Russia and the US that the SAA stay on the Western side hadn't been reached at that date.


Christian Chuba , 27 September 2017 at 09:37 PM
Great post TTG. Both the SDF and SAA have made evacuation arrangements to spare civilians or to gain military advantage and both sides have made something that resembles reconciliation / de-escalation agreements but the SAA and Russians have been better at it.

Between the U.S./SDF vs the Syrian / Russians, I'd say that we have grandstanded much more about it when the SAA have done this because we are always in Information War mode. I wish we wouldn't, poisoning the waters doesn't do any good and can eventually bite us but it sure makes us feel good and gives Nikki lots to rant about.

There must be tiers of ISIS members, a top tier of Baghdadi types who are 'irredeemable' and a bottom tier who are just as comfortable being part of any number of groups. I don't think we should get on our high horse about it if someone local decides that it's a good idea to let some of them scat but then again we once thought that Baghdadi was one of the more harmless ones. No one has invented a Takfiri gauge yet.

james , 27 September 2017 at 09:41 PM
thanks ttg.. i guess the question i have is has the usa paid a fee to get isis to stand down? i don't know if that is the case, but i am fine with that. my problem with the usa is their intent all along has been to divide syria and remove assad.. it seems to be continuing on for the most part here..

as for your last statement and question, i think the answer is the usa's intent to divide syria, giving the part in the east to the kurds, which works well with the oil interests and israel which the usa seems to always coincidently align itself with..

Jack , 27 September 2017 at 10:11 PM
TTG, Sir

I watched Ken Burn's Vietnam War documentary. IMO, an important aspect of the documentary was perspective.

Regime change in Syria was an Obama/Hillary project aided and abetted by Ambassador Ford, the French, Germans and British and of course the prime manipulators Bibi, Erdogan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies.

Brennan and CENTCOM were in hog heaven. No idea if they directly aided the jihadis both AQ & IS. But clearly indirectly and in a big way. Then Putin intervened. I recall Obama trolling him saying this would be another Afghanistan quagmire for Russia. Well, it seems like R+6, have the winning hand and Assad may survive and Syria will face the long road to reconstruction as a mostly secular state.

The big winners from a strategic sense are Russia, Iran and Hezbollah who earned whatever that victory means in blood. Maybe some decades from now the next Ken Burns will come along and give us a documentary of our sordid role in creating chaos and anarchy in the Middle East beginning with regime change in Iraq on the basis of false pretenses.

J , 27 September 2017 at 10:51 PM
TTG,

Speaking of the Kurds, appears Kurd nationalism is bringing together Iran/Iraq/Turkey in a joint op to squash Kurd independence.

jjc , 27 September 2017 at 10:51 PM
The focus for SDF was removing ISIS from Raqqa, then suddenly it became a race to the Euphrates and the oil fields. The Kurdish militias have moved far outside their traditional territory. So it's hard not to see this as a land and resources grab, facilitated by a cooperative ISIS (who still attack SAA).
LeaNder , 28 September 2017 at 09:53 AM
Mohammed finishes the interview by saying that he knows for a fact that the US is attempting to establish an alliance between Kurdish forces and ISIS in Deir Ezzor province in order to undermine government-led military efforts to liberate the region.

I could imagine that Russia and its partners in war wonder about what drives the Iraqi Kurds to have an election on independence right now? ...

Elijah J. M.
https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2017/09/28/masoud-barzani-either-burned-or-paved-the-way-for-the-syrian-kurds-a-dangerous-move/

JJackson , 28 September 2017 at 10:17 AM
The poorly thought out neocon dream of destuction of a Shia cresent is showning every sign of developing into something beyond their worst nightmares. When the dust settles they may well be faced by a new Warsaw pact of the feared Shia cresent plus the defection of Turkey and Qatar. The new Hizb re-armed and retrained by the Russians - quite possibly with defacto control of Lebanon. At this point the Golan would seem vunerable and should it go Jordan may well begin to wonder if a realignment may not also be in its best interests. What then Judea and Sumeria?
As to TTG's why? My guess would be that the incoherent multi-faceted US FP still has significant elements that have not given up hope of a 'friendly' entity in east Syria. Trump may have given up on Syrian regieme change but I am not sure everyone else has and these delusional dreamers may still hope this can be used as a springboard from which to undo all that has occured since the start of the second Iraq war.
Charles Michael -> The Twisted Genius ... , 28 September 2017 at 01:20 PM
TTG,
That is exactly my understanding of the situation.
From the start of the insurgency Bachar Al Hassad has been rather benevolent with the Kurds.
Surely with victory in sight he will not start speeling Kurds blood.

Most westerners seems unable to consider a long game, true it is nerve raking; but all quick fix imposed by brutal force have proved very temporary.

Ishmael Zechariah -> The Twisted Genius ... , 28 September 2017 at 05:18 PM
TTG,
For whatever it's worth, PKK, PYG, KRG etc. are completely infiltrated by Mossad at this time and must dance to the izzie tune. IMO the kurds are too deeply in to extricate themselves gracefully. Governments might make nice w/each other but the tribes surrounding the kurds will not forget kurdish perfidy that easily.
Ishmael Zechariah
The Porkchop Express , 28 September 2017 at 11:12 AM
TTG - I think you struck a very important distinction: the issue of connivance vs. arrogance when it comes to US/assorted jihadis in Syria and around the region.
Willybilly -> The Porkchop Express... , 28 September 2017 at 12:53 PM
TPE & TTG, Thre are definitely connivance and arrogance galore... and YES the US, NATO and the Izzies are in cahoots with ISIS and ALL its cousins, sisters and brothers in arms from day one. But plausible deniability requires all the acrobatics and various posturing we have seen over the years, in a veiled but failing attempts at denying the obvious...
The Porkchop Express -> Willybilly... , 28 September 2017 at 04:19 PM
There is no way the US is actively, directly in cahoots with Daesh, HTS/al Qaeda, or any other salifiyye. The Israelis, maybe. Saudis most assuredly.

The distinction about arrogance, if I understand TTG correctly, is more that the brainiacs in DC and CENTCOM making policy think they are such world class game players that they can or will have control over the situation. Because they are so astute and on top of things, the pieces will move because they want them to.

That doesn't mean the US is in bed with any of them.

james -> The Porkchop Express... , 28 September 2017 at 05:28 PM
and who is in cahoots with israel and saudi arabia??? one can see a pattern here!~
The Twisted Genius -> Willybilly... , 28 September 2017 at 11:35 PM
Willybilly,

While the USG thought it was clever enough to allow IS to attempt to topple the Assad government, it did not deliberately create and direct IS to do so. If that was the USG policy, we would not have bombed the crap out of IS around Kobane when the Rojava Kurds were about to be wiped out? We supported those Kurds in their successful campaign against IS since then.

We still seem hell bent on pursuing an "Assad must go" policy, but we did not deliberately support IS. We just stupidly let IS rampage across Iraq and Syria when we thought we could gain from that. As part of that stupid and destructive policy, we let the Saudis and Turks directly support IS. Now all those "moderate jihadis" who freely supported Al Qaeda and IS were our direct fault. Of course we weren't alone in that idiocy, either.

jld -> The Twisted Genius ... , 29 September 2017 at 02:51 AM
If that was the USG policy, we would not have bombed the crap out of IS around Kobane when the Rojava Kurds were about to be wiped out?

That argument doesn't hold because it suppose some USG rationality but there is plenty of evidence that the USG does engage in stupid/contradictory/incoherent/schizophrenic behavior.
Hey, careful, you might destroy the so convenient excuse "It's only stupidity not malevolence" !

semiconscious -> The Twisted Genius ... , 29 September 2017 at 09:36 AM
'We still seem hell bent on pursuing an "Assad must go" policy, but we did not deliberately support IS. We just stupidly let IS rampage across Iraq and Syria when we thought we could gain from that ...'

i believe the accepted term for describing this type of behavior is 'enabling' :) ...

FkDahl -> The Twisted Genius ... , 29 September 2017 at 12:55 PM
ISIS is the Tasmanian Devil, full of chaos and destruction, and the US has no direct control over it - but it appears the growth of ISIS was useful for certain US foreign policy goals.

Why European leaders went along with this and thus greatly facilitated the growth of combat experienced salafist terrorists in Europe is yet another example how - to put it frankly - stupid and short sighted (Western) European leaders are. Playing ball with the hegemon gives you a nice sinecure as a cushy post-politics job is the best explanation I can think of.

US foreign policy is another topic - my mental image is of a bunch of kittens in a bag. When all the kittens are moving in different directions the bag won't move but sometimes three kittens are moving in one direction and the bag will move. I label the kittens Gas&Oil, AIPIAC+neocons, CIA and banking....

Richardstevenhack , 28 September 2017 at 02:09 PM
"It is evidence of IS weakness rather than US perfidy."

In the immortal words of Tony Stark: "I say, is it too much to ask for both?"

Sure, the US is bombing ISIS NOW. Go back to 2014 to 2015. A year of US bombing ISIS and ISIS continued to make gains throughout Syria.

The Russians come in September, 2015 - and six months later the tide is turned. 25-50 Russian jets did in six months what US bombing for a year did not do.

Pretty much stands for itself. Not to mention that all during that time the US was insisting that "Assad must go" as their primary objective, several times threatening to establish a "no-fly zone" as a cover for directly attacking the Syrian regime.

Now that the tide is turned, and Russia (and Iran and Hizballah) has shamed the US in terms of effectiveness, of course the US comes in to try to finish off ISIS and have a hand in any subsequent negotiations.

I think this interpretation of the history of events is quite plausible.

Babak Makkinejad -> Richardstevenhack ... , 28 September 2017 at 06:10 PM
A joint US-Jordanian force could have destroyed ISIS in Syria in its early days. Wonder why that was never attempted, I guess helping the Party of Ali was a big No-No.
Richardstevenhack , 28 September 2017 at 02:14 PM
This is how the Russians do it...

REVENGE: Russia Vaporizes 5 Al-Qaeda Commanders Who Attacked Their MPs Last Week
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/revenge-russia-vaporizes-5-al-qaeda-commanders-who-attacked-their-mps-last-week/ri21077

"At present, special measures to search for and destroy all the militants involved in the attack on Russian servicemen in Syria are continuing."

ISL -> Richardstevenhack ... , 29 September 2017 at 11:52 AM
Richardstevenhack:

Thanks for the link:

From the article:

"It was discovered where the leaders would hold a meeting..."

If true, this would suggest that ISIS is now leaking perhaps as individuals try and buy their post ISIS survival.

I do not recall such reports claimed a year or so ago.

VietnamVet , 28 September 2017 at 06:55 PM
TTG

Thanks again for keeping us up-to-date. This is invaluable.

Policies that ignore American citizens and enrich polluters and war profiteers are reaching a point of implosion. The chickens are coming home to roost.

Either the Shiite Crescent is accepted with Iran as a regional leader in an alliance with Russia or a world war is about to break out to form Kurdistan to cut the landline in half. Tens of thousands of American soldiers and contractors are in Syria and Iraq. As Houston, Florida and Puerto Rico point out; projected catastrophes do happen. Dont develop quagmires.

mike , 28 September 2017 at 09:02 PM
There are some signs of Damascus relaxing their attitude against the Kurds in northern Syria. The Syrian Foreign Minister, Walid al-Moualem, told Russia Today News that some form of autonomy may be possible. Is he sincere - or just trying to head off an independence referendum in Syria like what happened in northern Iraq?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds/damascus-says-syrian-kurdish-autonomy-negotiable-report-idUSKCN1C10TJ

The Kurds with their Syriac-Assyrian/Arab/Turkmen allies in the Democratic Northern Syria Federation have "answered Syrian Foreign Ministers remarks on 'negotiations', saying that they are ready for talks." They say Moualem's statement is welcome and a positive step. They put it in writing.

https://anfenglish.com/rojava/northern-syria-answers-damascus-we-are-ready-for-negotiations-22376

My thinking is that Russian pressure on Damascus has made this possible. The Kurds have been so far shut out of Geneva and Astana. So this possible thawing of relations is a good sign. Russia has also suggested that Afrin may be the next 'de-escalation' area. About time I say.

Negotiations will be tough. Damascus will hold out for control of oil and gas assets in the north - plus the lion's share of electricity distribution from Tishrin and Tabqa dams that are under SDF control. The Kurds (and their allies) will hold out for the right to elect their own local officials instead of carpetbaggers from Damascus. They will want the right to participate in legitimate political parties other than the Ba'ath Party. Plus they may want justice for the PYD Party officials who were tortured and died while imprisoned by the Mukhbarat in the past. That last won't happen IMO, no way the regime is going to give up the men of its security apparatus to trial. In any case it will take a lot of good faith and compromising on both sides to make it work. Tough road ahead.

Laguerre -> mike... , 29 September 2017 at 08:46 AM
"There are some signs of Damascus relaxing their attitude against the Kurds in northern Syria."

This is a quite inexact reading of the situation. The Rojavan Kurds have always been negotiating with Damascus, because of course they recognize that they will have to make a deal with Asad when the war is over. It's just the US that wants outright war. The evidence of course is the survival of the Syrian army base in Qamishli (or is it Hassekeh?). There was one attack upon it, but it was never renewed, and they're still there. I've always presumed that the attack was under US pressure, and now the Kurdish leadership has thought again, and doesn't want to go there now.

mike -> Laguerre... , 29 September 2017 at 01:56 PM
Laguerre -

You are correct that the Kurdish PYD have for a long time been in discussions with the Syrian regime - or at least elements of the regime. And cooperating with them too. You case in point about Qamislo is but one example. The Kurds in the Sheikh Maqsoud neighborhood of Aleppo City cooperated with and helped the SAA to break the siege there.

It was al-Hasakah where the Kurds and regime forces clashed. But that was due to attacks on Kurds by elements of the regime backed NDF militia. There are still regime police and other elements in Hasakah. There was also a minor skirmish in Qamislo about a year and a half ago when NDF militia opened fire on a Kurdish Asayish police patrol.

But this latest thaw (if it is one) is critical as it follows the two to three week long agitprop blitz out of Baghdad and Moscow about the SDF and the US.

I'm not sure what to make of the Syrian FM. He also said this back in May of this year: I think that what the Syrian Kurds are doing in fighting Daesh is legitimate in the framework of their keenness on preserving the unity and integrity of Syrian territories. He thought that the Kurds were helping to preserve Syrian unity.

Does Moualem speak for Assad? Maybe. Or not. But some Kurds claim that Assad had a Kurdish grampa. Or maybe it was a great grampa?

Laguerre -> mike... , 29 September 2017 at 04:42 PM
"But that was due to attacks on Kurds by elements of the regime backed NDF militia."

Ha ha. You expect me to believe that? If the Kurds wanted the Syrian base gone, it would have been gone long ago.

mike -> Laguerre... , 29 September 2017 at 08:06 PM
Laguerre -

You are correct in saying: "If the Kurds wanted the Syrian base gone, it would have been gone long ago." The facts that they did not should bolster the case that these were primarily local pissing-contest firefights between the Kurds and local/hostile militias. There are probably lots of he-saids and she-saids as to who fired the first shots in these skirmishes. The Kurdish police claim they were fired on at NDF checkpoints. I have not seen any counterclaims from the NDF.

JJackson -> masoud... , 29 September 2017 at 05:02 AM
Personally I do not believe that. I think they were happy to sit back and watch Assad and IS weaken each other with a view to picking up the pieces later. In addition their poor understading of the flows of knowledge, arms and personel between all the Jihadis led them to aid groups they thought 'friendly' only to find they were then fighting them once they morphed into something else. At root the problem is the difference between reality and 'US reality' as understood inside the beltway bubble and various tendrils of USgov.
LeaNder -> masoud... , 29 September 2017 at 08:23 AM
That's a nice and comfortable formula, case closed let's move on? Are you going to be both prosecutor and judge? Also executor of your own verdict? And what exactly would that be concerning the US? to not dwell too long on masoud.
English Outsider , 29 September 2017 at 07:24 AM

TTG - Thank you for another great summary. In addition to that, I believe that the second paragraph of your reply to "Willybilly" is the most accurate summary possible of the issue of claimed Western support for IS. We "let" ISIS run. We did not deliberately "create and direct" it.

Who's "We?". As the Syrian conflict becomes more and more solely a US/Russia affair, as far as the participants outside the ME are concerned, the final sentence of that second paragraph points to something else that needs clarifying about the "stupid and destructive policy" that led to the Syrian debacle: European and Israeli input into the policy and into the implementation of that policy.

The Israeli input into both policy and implementation gets sufficient attention, sometimes even in the media. The European input not so much, though I believe it was significant. Of the British component of that input on the ground we in the general public - that is, we in the general public who might have a rough idea of where Syria is on the map - know little except for what we hear of some dubious sounding intelligence/PR work and the odd reference to Special Forces. Even less of the French and German component.

Given the disinformation and spin that surrounds the subject arriving at a view of Western intervention in the ME that is at once informed and balanced isn't easy. This is the only site that does it. At present we're waiting to see whether Syria succeeds in recovering its territory, whether it goes into a "frozen conflict" condition, or whether it ends up with a Kosovo scenario. As said, the Israeli influence on that outcome is recognised. European influence on the outcome and on arriving at it will also be a factor. Are there any indications of how that influence is exerted at present?

There is also the question of Chinese interests in Syria and whether that will lead to the Chinese seeking to exert influence on the outcome.

Such questions seem at present to have little direct bearing on the military position you are examining. They must, however, be in the minds of whoever in Washington is making the military decisions.

David Habakkuk -> English Outsider ... , 29 September 2017 at 12:48 PM
EO,

On the British role in Syria, an invaluable resource is the material collected in the pages entitled Talk: British involvement in Syria, on the A Closer Look On Syria site.

(See http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:British_involvement_in_Syria .)

This has a lot of material on the activities of Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, whom I discussed briefly in my post on the British role in the Ghouta false flag and the subsequent cover-up, back in April.

(See http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/sentence-first-verdict-afterwards-a-revision-by-david-habakkuk-14-april-2017.html .)

Among other subjects covered is the role of James Le Mesurier in the White Helmets, and of Paul Tilley in InCoStrat.

One interesting feature is that the British seemed to have carved out a niche in StratCom. So, for example, a sometime colleague of mine, Mark Laity, who when I had dealings with him was BBC Radio Defence Correspondent, is now Chief Strategic Communication at SHAPE.

In this capacity, he produces presentations with titles like Perception becomes Reality, and Behavioural approaches to Perception management.

(See https://www.cmdrcoe.org/download.php?id=336 , https://www.cmdrcoe.org/download.php?id=341 )

What I find fascinating – and depressing – is that former British Army officers – like Tilley, Le Mesurier, and de Bretton-Gordon – seem to have swallowed this kind of nonsense hook, line and sinker.

They do not seem to realise a central problem with propaganda – that, very often, the easiest person to fool is oneself.

This may also be relevant to a central issue raised by British involvement in Syria, as also in other places.

All one can find here are indications and pointers. But it seems likely that, behind the scenes, arguments about the dangers of blowback involved in the assumption that we could collaborate with the Saudis and other Gulfies in using jihadists against those deemed common enemies have been going on for a long time.

It is of interest that a figure who has traced the history of this devils bargain very incisively – Alastair Crooke – is a former employee of MI6.

(See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html .)

There is enough of the old Tory cynic in me to think that it is commonly a very major mistake to apply the twenty-twenty vision of hindsight. There are a lot of matters where it seemed a good idea at the time is an appropriate maxim.

However, the evidence is fairly clear that the kind of people who run MI6 have been remarkably resistant to the accumulating evidence that Sunni jihadists have been, as it were, devils with whom we have supped without a long enough spoon.

So, for example, as late as July 2014 the former head of the organisation, Sir Richard Dearlove, was still attempting to convince others – and probably himself – that we didnt have to worry too much about the Islamic State, because their central objective was to butcher Shia.

(See http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iraq-crisis-how-saudi-arabia-helped-isis-take-over-the-north-of-the-country-9602312.html .)

To see the extent to which the leadership of MI6 still dont get it – and cannot grasp how the assumptions that have shaped the organisations activities for decades have little relevance to todays world – one has only to read the first public speech of its current head, Sir Alex Younger, given last December.

From the section on Syria:

Because beyond any of our capabilities, it is legitimacy that is the strongest weapon against international terrorism. If you doubt the link between legitimacy and effective counter-terrorism, then – albeit negatively – the unfolding tragedy in Syria will, I fear, provide proof. I believe the Russian conduct in Syria, allied with that of Asads discredited regime, will, if they do not change course, provide a tragic example of the perils of forfeiting legitimacy. In defining as a terrorist anyone who opposes a brutal government, they alienate precisely that group that has to be on side if the extremists are to be defeated. Meanwhile, in Aleppo, Russia and the Syrian regime seek to make a desert and call it peace. The human tragedy is heart-breaking.

(See https://www.sis.gov.uk/media/1155/cs-public-speech-8-december-2016-final.doc .)

The man is, quite patently, both a gibbering idiot and a very unpleasant kind of sentimentalist. And, commonly, sentimentalists are precisely those people who are capable of the most wicked actions.

But the MSM, in Britain and the United States, continue to behave like the characters in the Hans Christian Andersen fable – they cannot face the fact that the Emperor has no clothes, and they have been among those who have been praising the beauty of his suits all the time.

How this situation has developed is a very interesting question.

james -> David Habakkuk ... , 29 September 2017 at 09:08 PM
eo and david h.. thank you both for the insightful and knowledgeable comments.. yes - white helmets and probably the info shop sohr - all on the uk/usa propaganda bankroll... i am not absolving canada - where i live) in any of this either.. canada with regard to syria has also been an abject failure of vision and leadership.. all our political class here do is follow what the usa does.. it's pathetic..
English Outsider -> james... , 30 September 2017 at 08:58 AM

James - pathetic all right but I have some reservations:-

You write- "all our political class here do is follow what the USA does.."

Is this the case with Canada and Australia? It's usually assumed, maybe simplistically, that the Ukrainian/Eastern European diaspora in those countries keeps the politicians there committed to neocon foreign policy anyway. At the more extreme end of the spectrum you sometimes see on the internet assertions that both the Ukrainians and the Israelis are holding the fort for white civilisation. Whether that's some nutter sounding off on a blog or whether it represents the underlying attitude of some of the Mr and Mrs Averages in that diaspora is difficult to tell from this distance.

In any case I believe the view that neocon is just something the cronies do is incorrect. In Eastern Europe, parts of Germany and France, and I think in Canada and Australia there is a genuine sub-stratum of popular support for neocon foreign policy. We merely have to look at the relaxed attitude some Germans take to their government giving the Neo-Nazis a hand in the Ukraine; and some of those Neo-Nazis are getting up to considerably more than just sounding off on a blog. With respect, I don't think the Beltway is leading the charge in such aspects of neocon foreign policy. More shoulder to shoulder.

More generally I'd suggest, very diffidently because the general public doesn't get to see a lot of what's happening, that sometimes in the various Western interventions abroad the tail has been wagging the dog pretty vigorously.

That was my impression at times, both of the Clinton and Bush II years and of the Obama years. Still waiting to see what happens in the Trump years.

james -> English Outsider ... , 30 September 2017 at 11:03 AM
thanks eo... actually i think it is the case.. we are told to continue on with this nato exercise and to continue to spend more money on the military and we are encouraged to get involved in these conflicts around the globe where the usa deems the correct side to be on is - opposed to syria, with ukraine, and etc. etc... i prefer to not use the word neocon to describe it all..

i agree there is a part of canada's public that continues to be okay with this war spending and foreign activities in support of the usa general policy as expressed in a newspaper.. this segment is becoming less and less relevant as i see it.. there have been too many botched jobs in the middle east beginning with iraq and moving on to libya... there are enough people that can see when you constantly hold up the idea that you have found the next hitler - saddam, gaddaffi, assad, putin - it wears very thin... i think the stomach for these types of foreign actions/interventions is quite low..

now it might be slightly different with regard to ukraine where a large diaspora of ukranian people have a spokesperson in the form of crystia freeland who i personally find a huge embarrassment to canada, but other then that - i don't think canucks are in any significant way supportive of as you say 'neocons'... in the case of freeland, her connections to george soros remain enshrouded in secrecy and of course we know of soros position towards russia with his open russia ngo... he can go have another party with pussy riot and try to con the west all he wants and of course there will always be willing fools to buy into it especially ones in the western msm..

JJackson -> David Habakkuk ... , 30 September 2017 at 08:46 AM
Long ago, somewhere in these threads, I posted a link to a Small Wars Journal post by a British officer sent to the US DoS to add British input into the Iraq war post kinetic recunstruction phase. From memory the gist was this. The planning was going quite well originally but as the offensive drew near DoD got on a roll and began to take over the show at which point they looked at the DoS plan and junked it as being overly pessimistic as in their view the victorious allies would be welcomed as much loved liberators and post Saddam Iraq would naturally morph into some kind of democratic ally.
David Habakkuk -> English Outsider ... , 29 September 2017 at 12:53 PM
Pat,

EO's comment seemed to need a reply, but once again it has been put into spam. The lawsuits provoked by the dossier are getting odder and odder. The lawyers for BuzzFeed are now trying to compel key figures in the American 'intelligence community' to produce some kind of testimony. This is, ironically, a situation familiar in wars -- where there are clearly escalatory dynamics, which are hard to predict.

I have been tied up with other things, but hope to produce something sensible about what is going on at some point.

English Outsider -> David Habakkuk ... , 30 September 2017 at 10:18 AM

David Habkkuk,

These people you're researching, particularly those in or on the fringes of the media - when you write more on them it will be instructive to see how you account for their being able to reconcile their activities with any sort of recognisable Service or institutional ethos.

mike , 29 September 2017 at 10:55 AM
Press brief yesterday morning by the CJTF-OIR spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon. Coalition airstrikes killed a network of three Daesh drone developers in and near Mayadin. (That indicates agents or sources (moles?) on the ground in Mayadin that are providing intel on Daesh leadership and constituents. It appears Colonel Lang was correct in his previous comment on that subject.)

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/554521/inherent-resolve-spokesman-briefs-reporters

Other key points that Dillon mentioned: More than 44000 sq kilometers liberated from Daesh in Syria by CJTF supported CJTF. (That is more than 24% of Syrian landmass in my estimation.) Two million Syrians no longer under the control of ISIS thanks to CJTF supported SDF.

"Singular mission of the coalition joint task force is the annihilation of ISIS."

Laguerre , 29 September 2017 at 05:24 PM
The basic point about ISIS is the remark of I think it was Bandar bin Sultan who said, 'ISIS is a Saudi thing, the Muslim Brotherhood is Qatar.' Evidently since then Saudi has been obliged to disavow its support. But, you know, the islamic tradition is for private support of jihad objectives, thus no problem for the saudi princes to continue to support ISIS out of their private pocket, which is the same thing as the public pocket. There are endless public sermons in favour of ISIS in Saudi.

I don't know how much the US is involved in all this, but I guess they've figured it out. Stick with Saudi and you stick with jihadism.

Lurker -> Laguerre... , 30 September 2017 at 08:46 AM
ISIS=Saudi; Al Nusra=Turkey & SDF=IDF with Saudi & IDF collaboration. Thus, ISIS melts away and voilà: SDF takes over

[Sep 30, 2017] The Slimy Business of Russia-gate Comments to the article at Consortiumnews

Notable quotes:
"... Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power? I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch. Is that ironic or what? ..."
"... The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous. ..."
"... Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the military-industrial-complex. ..."
"... This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. ..."
"... It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . . . Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama. ..."
"... All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones – in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia. ..."
"... Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an interesting article on the Neocons. ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

SteveK9 , September 28, 2017 at 5:30 pm

At some point, you would like to believe that this stuff is so over the top, it would be self-defeating. Are there any accurate polls of what the general public thinks of all this? If it weren't for the threat of a thermonuclear Armageddon, it would only mean more resources wasted on the war party and less for social security, etc. Russia is not going anywhere, and I believe is beyond our ability to harm it, unless said nuclear holocaust ensues. Our attempts to isolate Russia are doomed to fail.

Sam F , September 28, 2017 at 9:41 pm

Yes, the charade is doomed to fail to persuade, let alone hurt Russia, but will succeed in creating the foreign monster needed by tyrants to demand domestic power. In our modern witch hunts we all know that there are no witches – the whole performance is a declaration of tyranny over public information, a statement to the common man that he must follow his master the mass media, he must avow that he is the slave of the rich, and pretend that the declared enemy is his own. He must praise the flag betrayed by his masters the oligarchy.

hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:08 am

Is it possible that the left is being played? Is it possible that the media who almost exclusively report what the establishment wants are being told to report BS? Is it disinfo campaign aimed at ruining the lefts chances of coming back to power? I know the public can easily be made to have their collective heads explode over anything but are journalists that brainwashed too? I'm starting to see a birther parallel here. ouch. Is that ironic or what?

Abe , September 29, 2017 at 11:26 pm

During a discussion with The Nation concerning the documentary series The Putin Interviews, first broadcast in June 2017, Academy Award winning film producer Oliver Stone addressed the hacking allegations and questions of influence on the American election:

The influence on the election from the Russians to me is absurd to the naked eye. Israel has far more influence on American elections through AIPAC. Saudi Arabia has influence through money Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers have much more influence on American elections And the prime minister of Israel comes to our country and addresses Congress to criticize the presidents policy in Iran at the time – thats pretty outrageous.

Our country is very much in the grip of a dictator: The dictator is money, the military-industrial-complex. Its beyond absurd to have this kind of expenditure every year on military.

https://www.thenation.com/article/oliver-stone-talks-to-the-nation-about-his-new-documentary-the-putin-interviews/

Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 5:36 pm

If there is any comfort to be found in any of this, all this blaming Russia on everything and anything is getting all to outrageous as each day goes by. In other words the MSM overkill on this Russia-Gate silliness, is losing its credibility, with all this nonsense and coverage saying so.

eole , September 29, 2017 at 6:34 am

I wish you were right. Unfortunately, here in Europe, there are still a lot of countries which blindly follow whatever the USA think or do, particularly with NATO which would so like to step by mistake of course across the Baltic and Polish borders.

I must say that I admire the strength of Putins nerves. How long will it last? Also there are elections next year, and we can observe that Washington is arleady trying to plant seeds of revolution. I dont think it'll work. According to Xavier Moreau a French political observer living in Moscow, Putin enjoys a popularity that lots of foreign politicians would be envy!

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:22 am

I wish eole, likeminded Europeans and us in the U.S. were to band together to protest, and petition, our governments to stop with all this warring madness. From the Donbass, to Deir Ezzor, and all the way across the globe to Seoul Korea, we the people for peace should stand arm and arm to defy this ugly monster whos only goal is to marginalize us citizens with their ultimate military strength towards having their ownership over all of the worlds precious natural resources. All this to make a few bankers rich. Joe

mike k , September 28, 2017 at 5:46 pm

Money controls everything. ETHICS DOESNT STAND A CHANCE IN COMPETITION WITH MONEY. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ WELCOME TO THE WONDERLAND OF Capitalism, where you can have anything you want, if only you have the MOOLA! Souls for sale here – CHEAP!
Just sign here in blood, and have we got a deal for you….

Leslie F , September 28, 2017 at 7:51 pm

The only poll I know about was an internal Democratic Party poll showing that rank and file Democrats resented the incessant Russia did it mantra as not responsive to their concerns. I don't remember whether people believed it or not but they definitely through it was getting too much attention from Democratic leaders at the expense of more important issues.

Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 9:23 pm

This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency. It will serve the Democrates well, for allowing themselves for being used as a tool for the Shadow Government.

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:07 am

Joe – This Democratic voters resentment against all this blame Russia nonsense is going to annihilate any chances the party of the people will have had to capturing the majority of seats in our governments congress, not to mention regaining the office of the presidency.

It does not make an iota of difference which party is in power. The party of the People was in power, when Obama took office. Look what happened. They started more wars, finished off Libya as a Nation, started the destruction of Syria, started extermination in Yemen . . . . Obama set up more U.S. bases in Africa – the land of his ancestors to bring them back under control. And don't forget the Drone Wars of Obama.

All this Russia Gate mess was started by Obama, and largely fueled by The Party of the People. If they come to power, they are going to double up on it. Dont we watch the likes of Adam Schiff On TV every day spitting out their lies and and hatred towards Russia! The party of Bill and Hillary are clamoring for more action – like setting up no Fly Zones – in Syria. They want to subjugate Russia.

The way the things are in the country, of all the bad options available, Trump probably is the best to have – he can not make the case for more wars effectively, like the slick politician Obama did.

Mike K. in his post yesterday under Rise of New McCarthyism had this link to an interesting article on the Neocons.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article178638.html

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:40 am

Dave you are right. The reason I mentioned the Democrates was because they were the last party that I can recall who did once stand for the we the people. My memory also can recall how even when at their best the Democrates weren't all that great to living up to their overrated motto. So what I was referring too in many ways doesnt exist, and some would say never did. These presidents we all find fault with, in my mind are only front people for our Shadow Government (look up YouTube of Kevin Shipp). In fact watching Trump turn over his staff, and his redo of his campaign promises, is like seeing the Shadow Government take over in real time. You and I Dave are most definitely living inside of the matrix. Thanks Dave for moving this conversation along in the right direction. Joe

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 11:53 am

Yes Joe. There was lot of good in that old Democratic Party of the 1960s and 70s – my wife and I took part in the McGoverns campaign. And in those days, in old main street type conservative Republicans, I found lot of good too. In fact, when I came to this country during mid 1960s, the city council of Ann Arbor was Republican, and they were good people. And now the city council of Ann Arbor is in Democratic Party hands – all Hillary supporters, and Russia bashers too.

I wonder what they are teaching in these schools now. This is what this very effective propaganda machine of this new age Edward Bernays is doing to the young minds and to the public at large.

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm

Dave you bring up the 1972 McGovern presidential run, and the way that all went down. I quit voting after that all took a turn for the worst, and for the following next twenty years I stayed away from the voting booth. That no doubt wasnt a smart way of dealing with my disappointment, but at that time I thought it appropriate because I could see then that I didnt necessarily agree with the majority of my fellow countrymen and woman. No big deal, I just did what needed done to get my family food on the table. To be honest Dave, I still dont know why I vote. Although you are right the Democrates arent in anyway much better than the Republicans, and with that we all suffer. Joe

Laninya , September 28, 2017 at 5:57 pm

Quote: And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.

Ha!ha! You know whats funny about this? Its that all the money poured into the NGOs in Russia in the past quarter century that was intended to, not just meddle in, but to shape the Russian political, social, and economic realities has, under Putins wise and delicate rule, been squeezed into an ineffectual state of presence. And because their attempts on the ground in real life have failed over there, a theatrical inversion of reality has to be created over here.

Ah!ha!ha! This is SUCH an amazing movie. And, better when wearing 3-D glasses! Cant wait to see how it ends.

Joe Tedesky , September 28, 2017 at 6:19 pm

Your right, Putin seems to out smart these clever American instigators every step of the way. I will now take a knee for injustices committed against Blacks, and Native-Americans (remember Dakota Access), and stay down on my knee a little while longer with the hope that my beloved USA may come to its senses, and that my country will finally wise up.

laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:44 am

Joe,

I appreciate your taking a knee for injustices committed against certain of those who share this continent with us English-speaking peoples (who seem to have have claimed it as our own), as I have long appreciated the tone and substance of your comments on this site.

So, Im gonna quibble (in a friendly way) with you on the idea that Putin out smarts American instigators at every step. Ive been spying on that guy for about three years, now, and Id say its just that hes playing a different game. One the American players dont understand, and dont believe even exists or maybe theyve heard rumours of such a game, but they think its mythical.

See: our people -- yours and mine: your beloved USA and my Canada, heirs of the British Empire -- our people make war for fun and profit. Always have done. We rule the waves, and privateering is our game.

Putins people, on the other hand, have occupied the crossroads at the centre of the major overland trade routes (north-south as well as east-west) since ancient times, and, due to the geography and the demographics, have been fighting off invaders from all direction the whole time. Its a whole different game.

And, its a game VV Putin takes seriously, cause he has no other choice. After perestroika, after the Harvard boys [did] Russia ( ref: https://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia/ ), that huge nation (11 time zones!) was on the brink of total collapse and dismemberment. For the stability, security and prosperity of (what was left of) his people and the 1000-year history of the nation, he just couldnt afford to make any mistakes or false steps.

For him and his team (Putin doesnt work alone by any stretch of the imagination), this isnt a pissing contest. Its the life of their nation.

Whole different game.

I hope our countries wise up, too. Were really blowing it.

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 1:46 am

There are two things here I see as interesting, and possibly crucial, laninya.

One, is the U.S. and Canada by the standards of a countrys age are fairly young. In fact Russia got our countries beat by, probably would you say 4 fold? Anyway, our time at bat as being an Empire of somekind would even be shorter by the standards of empire time. So for America being stupid and young enough to be excused for at least this kind of uncontrolled blind patriotism we have seen of late in the U.S., added to the total absence of attentioned paid to all these American instigated wars, why us Americans are like distracted children in a playground, so our youth is our only plead. I could be wrong, but this collective mindset in our society here, makes me believe we need to do a lot of growing up in this nation, and the world will be happy to throw the U.S. a coming of age party if peace is the prize.

The second matter is, is that I agree that Russia by having a defense oriented military strategy is in better shape than like the U.S. having ourselves stretched out all over the global network we have wove. You see I dont trust big, and Im leery of to much technology as wellbut thats me. In fact, if a body existed like the UN who had some real juice were to laid down some enforceable laws, I would then hedge towards them making nations have their militaries situated more like the Russian Federation does.defensive. With the NFL in the news so much these days this Good Defense thinking should make sense to no matter who stands or kneels.

Lastly, the U.S. has already over spent itself on war, now the U.S. only needs to go on a frantic rampage of somekind.lets hope it just boils down to rhetorical saber rattlings, and the world laughs with us. Kim looks to be having a ball. I shouldnt have said that, but sometimes a little humor lightens the reality.oh its very American to laugh when we should be worried, but I digress..

Big isnt always better. You may look better in a $1,000. 00 suit than I do in my $10,000.00 suit, and oh by the way these clothes we have on are still suits.

Nice conversation laninya. Joe

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 4:19 am

Ianinya – An excellent analysis. Right on the mark. Putin is not a dictator as they malign him in the Media in The West. He is leading a team – very astute and shrewd team. For Russia it is an existential struggle – a fight they can not lose. They have been subjected to it during their entire History as you pointed out.

Americans – even our politicians and experts – do not have much understanding of other peoples history – they do not understand Russia.

laninya , September 29, 2017 at 12:48 pm

Dave,

Well, its interesting what a person can learn these days just sitting in a chair, poking at a few buttons on a keyboard. Never in the history of the world have ordinary people had so many resources at their disposal and so much information at their fingertips. Yet, your last sentence still seems accurate.

Why is that? In the US and Canada, we do have experts who are very knowledgable about other peoples history and culture, including Russias. But, for some reason or another, there are times when we just collectively choose to sideline and ignore them. In the US you have Stephen F. Cohen Jack Matlock, and Sharon Tennison, among others, who can speak intelligently about Russia. In Canada we have the voices of Patrick Armstrong, Paul Robinson, and the blogger Mark Chapman (The Kremlin Stooge). Armstrong and Robinson both come from a military background, both also publish easily accessible blogs.

I believe it was thanks to a commenter over at the Kremlin Stooge that I discovered a book, then newly available in English translation, titled Russia and Europe / The Slavic Worlds Political and Cultural Relations with the Gremanic-Roman West by Nikolai Danilevskii, originally published c.1868.

Let me show you a quote from that book. A hundred and fifty years ago, Danilevskii wrote this:
It is still in fashion among us to attribute everything to our unfamiliarity with Europe, and to its ignorance concerning Russia. Our press says nothing, at least until recently, but our enemies slander us. How would poor Europe learn the truth? It is shrouded in fog and befuddled. Risum teneatis, amici; or, as we say in Russian, it would make a chicken laugh, my friends. How could Europe -- which knows everything from the Sanskrit language to the Iroquois dialects, from the laws of motion of complex solar systems to the structures of microscopic organisms -- not know a thing about Russia? Such excuses -- ignorance, naivety, and gullibility, as if we are talking about an innocent schoolgirl -- are laughable coming from Europe, shrewd as a serpent.

Funny, eh?

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 8:37 pm

My comments have been in moderation for couple of hours, may be due to links to The Saker I put in. I am posting it again without the links.

laninya,

The last paragraph in your comments, quotation from Danilevsky is very interesting. Yes, you are right. There are quite a few people in academia and outside, like Stephen Cohen, Matlock, and others. Matlock has been trying to calm the waters with his appearances on RT, and a few other places, and also at the Valdai International discussion club forum. But these people have no power.

Just about all the power – finance, media, TV, entertainment industry, foreign policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is in the hands of the NeoCons, mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.

You wrote about the Harvard Boys doing all this financial engineering on Russia during 1990s under that charlatan Yeltsin, who was in U.S. hands. I really thought The West has finally finished Russia off – and that Russia can not recover in hundred years , as the media was proclaiming here. Putin and his team has resurrected Russia once again – it is almost a miracle. They – Russia – are not in good shape yet, but it seems like they can defend themselves.

As you wrote, Russia, being at the cross roads, has faced invasions, and dangers throughout its history – Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, under Tatar yoke for two centuries, nomads from the steppes and Central Asia, Turks from the South, and from Caucasus warrior tribes. From the West – Sweden, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, and France.

Russia has been under constant existential threat through out its history, and so is today under threat form U.S., and the rest of The West. Wests intervention in Syria for regime change, and then Iran as target is all aimed at Russia. Russia had no other recourse but help Syria against the Jihadis, armed and supported by The West.

But Syria still is not out of danger. There are some articles in the Saker today related to it and Kurdistan issue. In Syria , it seems like U.S., SDF, and ISIS are working in tandem to stop the advance of Syrian Army supported by Russia.

Laninya , September 30, 2017 at 12:15 am

Hey Dave,

Glad you tweaked to the Danilevskii quote. When I read it, I thought: wow! has time stood still?

Let me address what you said about power, though. You wrote:

But these people have no power. Just about all the power – finance, media, TV, entertainment industry, foreign policy, and to a large extent defense policy, in the U.S. is in the hands of the NeoCons, mostly Zionists, in complicity with Israel.

See, I dont go along with that cop out. The population at large has the power to make or break any of the entities listed above. If Neocons have power, its because people are buying what theyre selling. Stephen Cohen and Jack Matlock do not because few want to hear what they have to say right now.

As I said above, our Western economy was built on privateering. We know what butters our bread (plunder), yet we also want to present ourselves as being on the side of the angels. So we give power to the murders and thieves among us and then pretend were not responsible for what they do. I read that as being the shrewd as a serpent part of what Danilevskii was talking about.

As for the Saker, I frequent the Vineyard myself.

Thanks for the conversation.

Karl Sanchez , September 28, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Essentially, in other words, the CIAs having another recruiting drive to further undermine what little remains of honest, deeply investigative journalism within the Outlaw US Empire. The Big Black Hole gets dug deeper daily. The success of CIA brainwashing can be seen by the number of people denouncing those Taking a Knee.

MaDarby , September 28, 2017 at 7:56 pm

Clearly propaganda works. People rage against the empire and then swallow whole its fear mongering and demonizing of Russia ultimately siding with the Empire.

There are so many people journalists and persons loved by the left who have clearly now sided with the Empire big names who just cave in and say oh just one more election in our wonderful democracy please its pathetic. There is no such thing as democracy in an Empire.

Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 9:14 am

what has been revealed by Republican government officials to be facts, like the intrusion of voting machines in 21 states

One should be very careful about such facts – much of it has been retracted, and usually the retraction receives much less attention than the original allegation. As far as Wisconsin is concerned, the allegations have already been retracted: https://www.apnews.com/10a0080e8fcb4908ae4a852e8c03194d Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department of Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa, with Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection. So, while the attribution of the source of the probing to the Russian state is speculative, in the case of Wisconsin, the target was not even the elections commission, but the department of workforce development.

Of course, not everything has explicitly been retracted, but when we look at this pattern of allegations about Russia (like that they hacked the electric grid in Vermont) that are later retracted, that should rather lead people to be skeptical about all these allegations.

Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 1:44 pm

Your very mention of hacked e-mails reveals your extreme bias on the issue. In your view, it would be impossible to expect one or more individuals with integrity in the IT department of the DNC being horrified by the revelations and the dealings these revealed about the pre-selected candidate Clinton. Some people may have been genuinely outraged by the attempt of the DNC establishment hacks to undermine Sanders in violation of the partys own rules and proceed to leak this sensitive info to Wikileaks. But for people like you it had to be Russia.

If anything, the pitiful arguments and non-facts used to promote the fake Russia-gate scandal further reinforce the certainty that this was concocted to attack Trumps presidency. And what people like you fail to understand is that had a leftist candidate won the elections, one who would be sincerely interested to change the course of the US in numerous aspects of domestic and foreign policy, such an individual would face the same implacable hostility by the neoliberal establishment.

And it is the servile mentality of a large number of the US/western citizenry – to which part you obviously belong – that allows the same people who have spewing lies and fantastic narratives that serve the countrys corporate oligarchy to get away again and again and proceed to do so in every occasion it is required of them. There are no consequences for deliberately spreading falsehoods and it always works.

As for the threat of an armageddon, if you honestly believe that penalizing diplomacy with Russia (a fantastic achievement that was not seen during the Cold War) doesnt carry any dangers, you have an extremely limited perception of international politics.

Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 2:57 pm

Mr. Goldman, your comments on this site are entertaining and obfuscating at once. You say, as though speaking truth, …it did appear that the hacked e-mails and Trumps closing arguments in the election, were coordinated. What hacked emails? There were no hacked emails, though, like you, newspapers repeat that phrase to establish it as a given in peoples minds, cementing the propaganda at which point it is no longer questioned. Seeit worked with you. Hacking and leaking are entirely different processes. The emails were LEAKED from the DNC to Julian Assange/Wikileaks. Period. Provable. Fact. Ground zero is the leaked emailsproving Hilary wanted to discredit Sanders as an opponent, move forward on war with Iran and Russia (both would be as illegal as all our other wars in the past 70 years), strengthen her connections with the banking world, and become president. Since you say you want facts to prevail, let them.

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:15 pm

To say there is no proof of mischief is a conclusion that defies logic and fact. Firstly we have every right to investigate this issue, and secondly Trump operatives and Russian behavior created this investigation, not the other way around, and the evidence appears to be growing.

I think this person is a True Believer in what is the logical extension of the Cheney Doctrine. <and here I've been saying that the BushBots were all gone!) From the wiki:

If theres a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. Its not about our analysis Its about our response.

In other words, the Bushies were going to do what they damned well pleased. Fast Forward to 2017. From the essay above:

The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So, this alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times, dont you think?

As Mr. Golden says, it defies logic not to treat this as a genuine Threat To American Democracy. Approximately 1/10,000th of 1% of Twitter accounts are in on this scheme – Mr. Parry is clearly being a contrary stick-in-the-mud for denying evidence which is perfectly obvious to the most casual observer.

Seer , September 29, 2017 at 8:29 am

Do you type with a straight face? From your previous post: Trump operatives and Russian behavior created this investigation

anon , September 28, 2017 at 7:35 pm

More propaganda from the zionist scammer Golden:
1. The professional investigators did any usable internet tracing in 2016: routers do not have second thoughts; the investigators made serious and amateurish mistakes and false statements recently;
2. An abundance of caution was allowed in 2016 and is propaganda now;
3. It is absurd to say that statements of the lack of evidence defy logic and fact and then be unable to cite a single bit of evidence;
4. More zionist lies pretending that the US Mideast policy is not dictated by Israeli bribes;
5. More zionist lies that Russia and the US have conflicting, geo-political interests in the Middle East, that have nothing to do with Israel
6. Spare us the fantasy and stick to the facts or go preach to your zionist paymasters.

D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 6:27 pm

right track wrong track polling with current sept figures

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/right_direction_wrong_track_25

right track wrong track polling shows similar to above a year ago

https://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 6:42 pm

Right track wrong track polling, links now waiting moderation, show in the 60 percentiles America on the wrong track in successive years. In pursuing this type of polling I find in similar sources, consistent over the past year, discontent with the government spending time on the Russia conspiracy instead of getting after health care and other issues considered more important. I also find 84% currently support the NFL athletes right to protest, but only 39% think taking a knee is acceptable. Also found a somewhat amusing reference to the Lingerie Football League, which Id never heard of, females playing football in skimpy outfits, and this (should I say body) states that the flag is too sacred to be protested. Well, the Russkies didnt get to these lingerie football players yet, I am relieved to report.

I found results in duck duck go under right track wrong track polling and do Americans believe in Russia-gate and do Americans support NFL players protesting.

Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm

I think 12% of Americans favored the R health care plan. They have spent 9 months on it, and havent given up. Two years pitching Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi as a complete fabrication, so what is your point again? Further, check your data on the Russian investigation again. I dont know anyone who doesnt support the investigation and Rachael Maddow is now #1 on cable news (from 3rd), and thats all she talks about.

D5-5 , September 28, 2017 at 8:12 pm

This comment appears to be typical of your thinking, Robert, and Im sorry to say it does no credit. You have taken what I said and twisted it. According to poll reports I was looking at earlier, and some of these are now waiting moderation 65% of Americans felt the emphasis on Russia-gate overdone and want the government to spend time on more important matters, such as health care, which you dismiss here as outright incorrect. In your previous reply to me you revealed what your certainty about fact rests on: in your own words that is hunch. Well, hunch wont do it for the critical thinking youre calling for, Robert, which I respectfully suggest you do more of. Your cred here is pretty low at the moment. I mean no malice by saying so.

Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm

R. Golden, Here are some facts: Healthcare for all citizens in this country would be half the cost for twice the care. Period. Read T.R. Reids book, investigating other countries with free health care for all. It is amusing that Fidel Castro once pointed out the Cuban education and health care systems compared to the US.
All citizens want healthcare for all, except those few who are made wealthy keeping the status quo (pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, those doctors in the AMA who are paid off for supporting certain markets in the medical fields and encouraging use of certain drugs, and paid-off politicians who lobby for these thieves and get funding for their elections). Why should those handful of money hungry men control our health system? You may be interested to learn that the people in the medical field who actually care about patients, the vast majority, want Medicare from birth forward.

Rob Roy , September 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm

R. Golden, Rachael Maddow has lost her creditability with her rants about Russia and pro-militarism, neither stance defendable. If shes now ranked 3rd, that is indicative of the low level of intelligence and critical thinking in the country. After all, Russia/Putin is innocent until proven otherwise (not by guesses, hunches, innuendos, suggestions, quotes by unnamed officials, and outright lies). After all, ALL our wars since WWII have been illegal and against international law, and are engaged with false flags. Should we support soldiers who are sent into battle to murder innocent civilians in sovereign lands? No. That would be insanity.

WC , September 28, 2017 at 6:53 pm

Bad enough on my safe space that I have Paul Craig Roberts harping on these same issues, now Parry joins the fray. I need to be reassured that there is no profit in a nuclear wasteland and even political sociopaths and the bankers that own them have an instinct for survival. In the back of my head I keep hearing George C. Scotts character in Strangelove saying, http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0003295/quotes

floyd gardner , September 28, 2017 at 8:26 pm

WaterCloset, a courtesy flush please?

WC , September 29, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Good one. :) But you cant flush the level of BS that has been fed to the public over the past number of years. Thats why Trump the plumber was elected, to drain the swamp etc.

So now what happens? 20+ trillion in debt with 100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities, let alone off-shoring all those jobs is a fairly good indicator the shit is backed up to the ceiling. If we are to believe Trump actually makes any decisions, what are his choices? QE4? Austerity to piss people off even more? Or start another war someplace to take peoples minds off the collapsing economy?

To quote Bachman Turner Overdrive – You Aint Seen Nothing Yet.

Danny Weil , September 28, 2017 at 7:17 pm

America is stumbling into a diystopic future with a clueless public and a corporate fascist government.

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:30 pm

The motivation of the neocon NYT is worth speculating about. Yes, they've been wanting to smash Muslim nations for israel for ages. What other possible motives might there be?

Why are these billionaires doubling down on Israeli Investments?

What do Bill Gates, Carlos Slim Helu, Mark Cuban, Donald Trump, and Warren Buffett all have in common?

Speculation – it might be as simple as money. Remember, Israel OWNS the US Congress, and has managed to put the fear of God into every last one of them. This unprecedented influence could easily be translated into some enormous financial benefits for those Rich Guys who suck up in the proper and approved manner. It would be as simple as slipping in some innocent-looking phrases into some of the boring legislation hardly anybody reads. You can bet that it would pass, and you can also bet that the Corporate Media will keep their yaps shut about it.

So thats another theory – plain and simple corruption midwifed by the thieving and murdering little shithole of an apartheid nation.

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:31 pm

http://blog.ourcrowd.com/why-are-these-billionaires-doubling-down-on-israeli-investments/

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 7:34 pm

I seem to have forgotten to mention that Carlos Slim is supposed to be a major stockholder of the neocon NYT.

Robert Golden , September 28, 2017 at 7:48 pm

Please do some reading. Your first stop should be the Koch Bros who own the largest track of Canadian Tar Sands, and are potentially going to be twice as rich, after Trump approved the Keystone Pipeline, from Canada through the middle of America all the way to the flooded and toxic plains, to Houston (final destination Asia). Youll find they already own most of the global warming denying Congress (not Israel), and their next extraction site will probably be the Grand Canyon. After you have read up on the Kochs, check out the Mercers.

Zachary Smith , September 28, 2017 at 8:24 pm

koch Bros
Canadian Tar Sands
Keystone Pipeline

Mercers

The connection of these places and people to the BS peddling by the NYT isnt entirely clear to me.

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:21 am

The connection is that this modern Roman Empire is very big: the inheritors of the Roman Empire (France, Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, and so on) have been wanting to smash Muslim Empires for 1500 years, having lost their M.E. and N. African Provinces to them. Since the Zion project was hatched by Cecil Rhodes RoundTable Group in the19th century, the Israel Project is a project of the British Province of the modern Roman Empire, which ALSO commands considerable influence in its Western Provinces Canada and USA, hence: Koch Bros.,Canadian Tar Sands, Keystone Pipeline, Mercers. Of course Im talking about the integrated community of 1%er Oligarchs, NOT The People of these Provinces. Corbyn and Sanders (and whoever the Canadian and Israeli equivalents would be) can throw a gigantic Monkey Wrench into these imperial shenanigans

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 9:26 am

Israel is a way of continuing the smashing process of Muslim Empires by the modern Roman Empire, and I forgot to say that Germany is also a very big part of the modern Roman Empire, which carried the name Holy Roman Empire up to Napoleonic times (which, BTW, ole Nappie himself became their model for a modern Fascist Roman Emperor, as his Generals and extremely regressive factions within the Catholic Church hatched the Synarchy Internationale Project mid-19th century).

hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 11:59 am

ok, you brought it up, so i will run with it..

bringing it around full circle.

modern roman empire. yes. agreement . but

only british monarchy. with allies, not partners. why is this important? if one looks at the history of the royal institute for international affairs, one can see that the crown had to figure out how to maintain control of their assets. fast forward to the american branch. its called the council on foreign relations. the number of members in our government over years and years is staggering. just keep that in mind.

there is ample evidence of british involvement in the us war of northern aggression. and not just because they traded with the south. did you know that the monarchys cousins, the russian crown, sent warships to california in defense of the union?

its my opinion that this act is what sealed the fate of the romanovs in 1917. payback. for whatever reason the british crown holds grudges. im irish. not sure what my ancestors did to piss them off but they havent let off on our people in a thousand years…

this anti russia thing started before obama although it was not as overt.

the orange color revolution happened in (wait for it….) ukraine under bush. and while not reported as a cia supported venture, i think we know what happened.

does anyone remember 8/8/08? opening day of the olympics in china. but a mini war was started in south ossetia. american media initially reported that russians had attacked un soldiers there.

the present anti russian hysteria started when putin checkmated the neo libs/neo cons when their attempt to destabilize syria failed. thats when i observed the overt media attacks begin.

funny thing. i have actually been to russia and ukraine. in 1979. it was the first time in my life that i had been outside of the usa. the government propaganda of the previous 60 years had made me think of all russians as evil bond villians. it was eye opening to finally meet real russians. understand they were just people like me. i was 16 and it was the first time i had the blinders lifted. a real learning moment.

so, i guess that makes me guilty of collusion. sorry to you hillary supporters.

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:21 pm

Yes, hated, I agree with you on all points. Czar Alexander II was killed (he was Lincolns Ally against British and French plans to join battle with Davis against Lincoln. Lincoln was killed for the Greenback maneuver around British monetary control (a Venetian style of Empire via monetary control & manipulation). Lincolns war of agression was a war against the superpower British Empire and its puppet the Confederacy (Planter Oligarchs), Wall Street assets (J.P. Morgan & Co., money handlers for the Planters), and the Essex Country Junto (New England Blue Bloods in shipping for the Empires slave and Opium trade). The Planter oligarchy was crushed. The Wall Streeters lived on (Essex County Junto bluebloods tooour Axis of Evil against the Republic, and Independence from Empire). Lincolns GreenBacks was a typical example of the American Credit System of Political Economy (control of economy by a Sovereign Nation-States Government in the hands of We The People via House of Representatives, a deadly threat to the British-Style of Empire via a Venetian Monetary System manipulated & controlled by oligarchs. Russia always supported USA Revolution as a counter-balance to British Empire designs on Russia (enemy of my enemy is my friend),(and French Empire and Ottoman Empire too, as evidenced by Crimean War 1856).

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 2:25 pm

British Crown is Princeps? (First among Equals)

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 4:15 pm

Im of Welsh-Irish ancestry (Irish on my mothers side). Her grand father came over as a stow-a-way to flee the potato famine (neo liberal economics at its purestancestor of TINA Thatcherism and austerities, deficits, balanced budgets and suchlike wicked gaming with peoples lives (but Banks and MIIC are too big to fail of course). Lincoln would have just GreenBacked his way out of Depression and imminent economic collapse (a Credit System recognizing it is LABOR upon raw materials that is the SOURCE of ALL wealth, NOT Venetian Fondi in an oligarchs off-shore piggy bank). The grudge against the Celtic Fringe (Welsh and Scotts too) comes from the fact that we were on the the Islands first, by many Centuries before the Angels, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians showed up. This is just flawed human nature in action. I suppose the Picts can claim the same grievance against us Celts; American Indians too. The enemy is Oligarchy. It s class warfare, not Tribal warfare, and THEY are masters at divide-to-conquer, seeking out all useful flaws and weaknesses.

Nancy Gillard-Bartels , September 28, 2017 at 7:37 pm

As the rest of the world also sees the US fabrications, American may one day find itself under fire from many directions. No one likes a dirty player.

Louise , September 28, 2017 at 7:47 pm

While it may appear to become a nuisance after more than a year, it may also become very dangerous. It could be a serious effort to get the populace to condone an illegal war in Syria involving Russia. People dont pay much attention to Assad and the Syrians, but the Russians are already complaining about US forces working with ISIS. If those reports are true the plausible deniability will work if the people are preconditioned to disbelieve whatever comes from the Kremlin.

Common Tater , September 28, 2017 at 8:43 pm

Washington accuses others of nefarious tactics it employs itself. Now Washington accuses the Syrian Arab Army of colluding with the wahabist militants bent on genocide in Syria. This accusation alone informs the audience that Washington is in collusion with the wahabist militant gangs operating across the globe.
In the link you will see how the SDF seems to cut through wahabist gang territory like a hot knife through butter. Easily securing the region north of Deir es-Zor, and are currently cutting west across the desert as fast as those ubiquitous toyota trucks can carry them without showing any evidence of fighting, according to Russian surveillance.

Eva , September 28, 2017 at 8:32 pm

Slimy business has been going on too long….To anyone with an open ear, the door closes on 9/30/2017…

Sam F , September 29, 2017 at 7:18 am

Which door closes and why then? Q3 financials?

Gary Severson , September 28, 2017 at 9:14 pm

Russia is all about protecting its buffer zone & rightly so. The West plays the Great Game while an unwitting public buys the rationale for standing up to Russia, China, Iran etc. Why wouldnt the Russians use the Trump admin to shore up its borders to protect them from NATO expansion? Trump is surely engaged in laundering the Russian oligarchs money. How else could it be after the US did everyting it could to cause the collapse of the Soviet Union & let it be taken over by industries privatized by Yeltzin as a schill for America. As Putin has pointed out, the collapse of the SU was the worst thing that happened in the 20th cent.

Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 10:17 am

As far as I know, Putin did not say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst thing that happened (to Russia?) in the 20th century. That would hardly be plausible – even if the 90es were very bad for Russia, the Holocaust and Nazi Germanys attack on the Soviet Union with about 20 million Soviet victims was almost certainly worse. Also the crimes of Stalinism are certainly on a larger scale than the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What Putin said was: Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

a major geopolitical disaster of the century does not necessaily mean the greatest geopolitical disaster of the century

As with some other statements (for example the canard that Putin allegedly praised Trump as a genius in December 2015), the basis of the claim is a translation problem. This question is discussed here: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/10457/what-is-the-basis-for-putin-describing-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-as-the/10549 Putin used a superlative form krupneyshaya. The meaning of this form is similar to the Italian grandissima and means very big. But it does not necessarily mean the biggest, although it could in some contexts.

hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:06 pm

i like your comment. well researched.

Constantine , September 29, 2017 at 2:02 pm

The crimes of Stalin did not leave the country – USSR or Russia – a moribund state. The population was increasing in the end of the 30s and the country was an industrialized power that could not be easily threatened by other forces, short of being hit by the most powerful army in the world (which is what happened). Russia by the late 90s was a post-apocalyptic gangland with a fast decreasing population and a swiftly unraveling state and society. That was a product of the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing neoliberal shock treatment.

Since the countrys descent into the abyss was stopped by Putin & Co, it goes without saying that this was the cause of the recent outburst of Putinophobia.

Lois Gagnon , September 28, 2017 at 9:39 pm

It all reeks of desperation on the part of the Empires power trippers. They know in the back of their minds that their criminal racket is faltering. Russiagate is the duct tape holding the house of cards together. At least until they can finish looting every last drop of profit from as many colonies (including this one) as they can.

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:52 am

Well put.

aletho , September 28, 2017 at 10:26 pm

Sorry to say, the same phenomenon has been at work in climate science for quite some time.

Apparently its all about providing fodder for propaganda outlets and requiring conformity on the part of the white collar set.

Whether or not its convincing to the masses is not an issue.

Russiagate will be easier to fudge over the long term, and short of an upset in the power structure may prevail for some decades until revision finally takes place.

Hide Behind , September 28, 2017 at 11:46 pm

The original inveztigation was begun by a man since fired, N. Y. STAtes attorney General, and it had to do nothing at all about election interference by Russia proper,:It was about Trumps illegally laundering Russian Oligarchs stolen funds from Russia.
Trail led to and thru AGI bank of Germany and off shore banking in Bahamas. Same facilitys Clinton Foundation uses.
This got into a cluster fu.. when Feds and Congress intervened. As the Investigation also uncovered many a counts to politicly connected elected and appointed officials who like as Russia showed Mc Cains letters Doing for contributions from high ranking Russians during his run for Prez.
Same formula as used clear back to Arizona 5s embezzlement of Fed HUD and FHA funds and
original Clintons when in Arkansas of same embezzlement that got sidetracked into a Lie about a BJ in white house by girl.
Smoke and mirrors have hid many many a prominent and financial miscreants deeds in US.
Yet the brain washed still a t as if they live in a
Democracy, And like Little Ikemens salute the flag and let children never learn difference of indoctrinated Nationalism from Ideals of
patriotism.
Dumb As Rocks Spout, Support The Troop, But Not The War, As the volunteer troop slaughter hundreds of thousands and displace millions.
into eternal poverty by just following orders.
Go watch your military recruitment indoctrination and show your loyalty to permanent warfare as millions of Americans suffer from your as S ki

Hide Behind , September 29, 2017 at 1:47 am

I would like to recommend George Orwells collection of essays, All art is propaganda, it is not so much of a heavy read as it is time consuming as so many essays when finished invade ones mind that one pauses to assimilate and judge the content fully before beginning next.
As for slime:
It is said that government began in Mespotamia and it was quite a model for each following social order; That is until the Greeks invented politics and since them chaos reigns.
Politics defy treason and logic as well as natural physical laws.
For unlike in natures scheme of things pond slime sinks to the bottom. Whereas in politics the slime raises to the top.
Not of Orwell s caliber of writing, just my own observation of USA politi Al system.

Realist , September 29, 2017 at 2:53 am

This Spanish Inquisition being run by the Congress is getting to the point of absurdity. They ought to be prosecuted for trying to deliberately deceive the public, and simply for insulting the intelligence of everyone on the planet earth.

RT reports the following, they are usually spot on accurate with their reporting since Washington is always trying to debunk them:

Earlier this month, Facebook said that it had identified up to $150,000 in advertising, purchased between June 2015 and May 2017, that was connected to roughly 470 inauthentic accounts and pages that were likely operated out of Russia, Chief Security Officer Alex Stamos wrote. Stamos admitted that the vast majority of ads run by these accounts had nothing to do with the election, voting, or a particular candidate.

Google said it had failed to unearth any facts that would implicate Moscow in exploiting advertising to manipulate the election. Were always monitoring for abuse or violations of our policies and weve seen no evidence this type of ad campaign was run on our platforms, Google said last week, according to Reuters.

During the 2016 election, Twitter said they deleted thousands of tweets and accounts that attempted to suppress or otherwise interfere with the exercise of voting rights, including the right to have a vote counted, by circulating intentionally misleading information. This included tweets that told users they could cast their ballots by text or tweet, which is not true. Twitter also said that they shared the content of deleted tweets with investigators on Thursday. The company however noted that they did not find any of those accounts had obvious Russian origin. All these things were presented before Congress on Thursday.

So, Facebook, Google and Twitter all provide scant evidence, if any, that Russia or Russians directed any disinformation at the American voter to try to sabotage our democracy. If anything of the sort got through, it was certainly like a single tear drop in the deluge of mud-slinging that the American candidates and their two parties constantly cast at one another. Any sane person would realise nothing consequential was or really could be attempted against that torrent of genuine American-made bullcrap, so there was zero motive to do so, and we know that Putin is no fool to waste his time or resources. Yet, Adam Schiff presents his hideous visage, peanut brain and deceptive words on American network television yesterday and claims that its certain fact that the Russian government sabotaged our election by purchasing ads on Facebook and tweeting mean things about Hillary Clinton on Twitter. For good measure, he says Russia is also guilty of stirring up the whole Black lives matter campaign and the bruhaha about taking a knee during the national anthem played at sporting events. They wouldnt try making this stuff up even in Alices Wonderland. It would fail to get a laugh in the Onion, even on April 1st. These people are a national embarrassment for being so blatantly and shamelessly dishonest. These are the same knuckleheads who thought Baghdad Bob was the propaganda parody to end them all, and theyve gone him one better far better.

I eagerly hope to see examples of the handful of ads and tweets that the conspiracy freaks in the Congress have made the centerpiece of their case against Russia. But if they are nothing more than blurbs advertising their media productions (like watch Larry King, Ed Schultz or Tom Hartmann), I doubt we will ever will. Or, maybe they said something extremely provocative like watch RT and evaluate the facts for yourself. Wow, that would be tantamount to an act of war (in the minds of neocons), but still not enough to warrant a viewing by the American public which still might harbor some sane individuals.

GMC , September 29, 2017 at 3:50 am

Trust me – as an Amerikanska in Russia – I think some Russians are hating me when they hear me speak some English while from the other side –America – I no longer get e-mails from -- Anyone. I understand where the Russians are coming from because I see the demonization of their country coming from the Americans and their axis, but to see the Americans get sooo programmed in propaganda that they cant even listen to someone theyve known for decades -- is pretty disgusting , especially when some of them are/ used to be – rather intelligent. Spacibo Mr. Parry and commenters.

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 6:51 am

Why Americans ever put any stock in the self-serving propaganda put out by the wealthy owners of the major media is a mystery, until you consider all the false ideas about America that have already been shoveled into their heads by their long public education brainwashing and numbing experience. The basic idea promoted by our culture is just shut up and accept whatever garbage you are told, and you will get along fine (conform). Start asking a lot of challenging questions, and you are in for a lot of trouble. I know this from personal experience, I was always in a lot of trouble with the self-satisfied authorities in my life, including my parents and teachers. I am forever grateful that I stubbornly persisted in questioning authority, in spite of all the difficulties it has caused me.

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 7:03 am

The football players who are taking a knee during the playing of the national anthem, are experiencing the fury of those who clutch their societal group-think like a precious security blanket. Our public opinion manipulator in chief D. Trump is making it clear why it was said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. Score one propaganda ploy for the scoundrel in chief.

Joe Tedesky , September 29, 2017 at 9:59 am

Yes all this nonsense while at the same time, once again I might add, the 1st Amendment takes a backseat to Private Ownership.now stand up damn it.

Sam F , September 29, 2017 at 10:19 am

Yes, the groupthink of mass media is accepted by most for personal security.
Mass media tell them the oligarchy line as what other people think so they dare not disagree.
Mass media say that all are unethical so why pay a price to be good citizens.
But it is very significant that the football players refused to display nationalism.

D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:12 pm

It is also significant in signaling automatic (pavlovian) behavior, no questions asked, and right in line with my country right or wrong and blind obedience, attitudes historically is associated with autocracy and repression. I have yet to see any commentary on what the flag means, or possible contexts of meaning, including that it stands for the current governing system, as well as for historical considerations. Sorry to harp on this, but the scantily dressed females of the Lingerie Football League in stating the flag is too sacred evidently found no inconsistency in their salutes with serious faces while scantily clad. This seems to me akin to going to church in a bikini and somehow contradictory to sacred. But sacred in itself hearkens back to the 1690s and the Salem witch trials before separation of church and state became understood as more rational. Any kind of worship can be taken too far into mindlessness, which is contradictory to the ideals this country was founded on in terms of equality and the first amendment. Beware of the scoundrels indeed.

Lee , September 29, 2017 at 6:35 am

I have always wondered why you seldom get reflections of the illness in American society, after reading articles like this. Trump is mad, Hillary is evil, the MS media is corrupt and dishonest. But its American culture that is responsible for thisthese arent accidents or untypical. Self-honesty is the least common of all American characteristics. Hunting for excuses and boogeymen, one of the most common.

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:25 am

The tacit belief in our exceptionalism makes us immune to self-criticism. Another name for American Hubris. Our belief that we are Gods chosen ones explains in part our strange affinity with Israel.

Brad Owen , September 29, 2017 at 11:39 am

The American Culture was concocted with Malice Afore Thought by the Congress of Cultural Freedom (CCF) starting in the Post-War years: from EIR search box; Congress of cultural freedom; making the world safe for fascism, also from search box; Synarchy against America.

Clif , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am

NPR is complicit, giving Mark Jacobson of Georgetown a platform on Sept. 28 All Things Considered to pontificate about how Americans are falling prey to Russian disinformation. This entire sequence has drained me of any faith in American Intelligence operations, and MSM.

napier , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am

The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyperpartisan, or *conspiratorial political news and information*.

I face-palmed when I read this. The lack of self-awareness on the part of the researchers is truly amazing.

Adrian Engler , September 29, 2017 at 8:36 am

Often with such propagandistic allegations – be it WMD in Iraq or Russian meddling -, there are problems that go beyond the lack of evidence. People without access to secret information could not know, of course, whether these was a good basis for the allegations about WMD. Certainly, people should have demanded that some of the evidence is made public, but even if someone accepts that some things must remain secret, it simply did not make sense to use the presentation of Colin Powell before the UN as a basis for starting a war. It could have been a basis for intensifying the inspections – and at that time, after some pressure, the Iraqi government allowed inspections everywhere -, but it certainly was no basis for stopping the inspections and starting a war of aggression.

Similarly, it is clear that those who put forward allegations about Russian meddling (some are regularly retracted, some arent and their status remain unclear) have the burden of proof. But the problem is not just that evidence is lacking, but many of these allegations are not very plausible and make little sense.

The first problem is that many statements in US media presuppose a worldview of international politics as a kind of zero sum game and dont even ask the question whether such a worldview is appropriate and whether it is common in Russia. It is just assumed that Russia and the United States are enemies and that anything that is bad for the United States is good for Russia and anything that is bad for Russia is good for the United States. Of course, there are areas in international politics where the United States have conflicting positions, but such a worldview based on a zero-sum game is far from obvious. What exactly should be the advantage for Russia when internal divisions in the United States are increased? Is it plausible that the United States is more likely to take the Russian perspective more seriously or be ready for compromises if it has more severe internal divisions? Not necessarily, I would even think that the opposite is more likely. Probably, the proponents of this theory could come up with a story why in that case it would make sense for Russia to increase internal divisions in the United States, but mostly, this question is not even asked, and these stories look more like an ad-hoc justification for a preconceived story.

Then, ignoring the doubts whether it would really make sense from a strategic point of view for Russia to exacerbate internal divisions in the United States for a moment, what would someone who, indeed, has the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States do? At first sight, it might seem that supporting both sides in existing conflicts (e.g. for and against BLM, for and against gun rights, for and against NFL players kneeling down etc.) may make sense. But the problem is that such a line of reasoning ignores the question of effectiveness. As far as these matters are concerned, there are already many US citizens who passionately support one of the two sides, and there are US donors who are ready to support one of these sides. If, in addition to those passionate supporters of one side, someone who is interested in increasing the divisions also supports both sides, the effect relative to the resources that are needed is relatively small. This may not be a strong counter-argument if we were talking about a large rich country attempting to meddle in a small poor one, but that is hardly an adequate description of the relationship of Russia to the United States. Certainly, on the whole, the Russian state still has quite a lot of resources, but if it had the goal to increase internal divisions in the United States, adding a bit more to both sides of existing conflicts about which many Americans are so passionate that they are ready to use time and in some cases money to support one of the two sides would probably so ineffective that it would hardly make sense. Attempting to create new conflicts could theoretically make sense – then, we should see ads and social media campaigns about conflicts that are not very prominent in public discourse (I dont know about any evidence or even indications that this is actually done) -, but when there are just ads and social media messages from fake accounts for both sides of common existing conflicts, other explanations are more plausible. For instance, it can be that it only seems that they come from a common source because of some superficial features, but are in fact from opposing sides (i.e. people who want to support one of the sides in the conflict, not to increase the conflict by supporting both sides), or it could be that there is a common source, but that the common source is a commercial entity that conducts campaigns for both sides for money (and maybe there are some people who use Russian language settings or some parts of that business are in Russia).

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:29 am

To expect most American citizens to think rationally is to expect the impossible. Not only were they not taught to think critically; they were taught not to do that.

mike k , September 29, 2017 at 10:35 am

And because of that deficiency in the public, if we wish to effect some change in their thinking, we are reduced to employing the same emotion based methods that have proven so successful for the establishment and its propagandists. The simple truth has zero effect on the typical American Zombie – he is too dead sure that his conditioning trumps reality.

D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 11:37 am

It is almost amusing, as with this mainstream analysis from CNN (Sept 26), that states the FB ads were meant to sew divisions and chaos in the electorate, with many of the messages at cross-purposes.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/26/media/facebook-russia-ads/index.html

The apparent goal of the ads, the sources who spoke with CNN said, was to amplify political discord and fuel an atmosphere of incivility and chaos around the 2016 presidential campaign, not necessarily to promote one candidate or cause over another.

This assessment is spoken with great seriousness and a recommendation that these ads be made accessible to the public. This MSM report also assumes that the Russia-bought accounts stem from official Russia or the Kremlin, with no further discussion. A CNN poll claims 54% of Americans believe Russia interfered via these FB ads. Further breakdown in that polling indicates the lions share comes from whites who believe this.

But as you point out, Adrian, the body politic is (and was during the election period) already riven and in a state of incivility (another claim of the purpose of these FB ads) as we could see by reviewing behaviors in the election itself, to include Trumps statements at his rallies and Hillary Clintons actions in consort with a corrupted DNC. Common sense would indicate these widely exposed rogue behaviors at the time would out-do a mere 100,000 spent on FB, as has already been pointed out, so the CNN report is in danger of desperate exaggeration.

As far back as 2014 surveys of that time indicates the American publics trust in MSM had plummeted to something like 40%, and although I cannot find current figures on this (in 2016 RT found that only 6% of Americans trust MSM, but thats RT) but especially given the fiasco of the 2016 election, plausibly, that sense of trust is not increasing much. So that, given the already fractious and uncivil state of the country in many respects what were seeing is a continuation of desperate efforts to use the Russia did it meme for various political and opportunistic purposes. Further, MSM besides in the employ of special interests, has a naturally in-built bias toward presentation of dramatic, simplistic viewpoints that incite emotionalism and nationalism.

As I noted yesterday, the NFL controversy currently includes, with a straight face, scantily dressed female football players of the Lingerie Football League claiming that the flag is too sacred to be protested as they stand there with their booties exposed in the wind clutching their chests with straight faces. This sort of high drama is surely could for MSM audiences and ratings.

As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters there are, again, the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an outrageous health care scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police management, and rising inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering politics has become.

Methinks the MSM furor now turning to FB in its puny weight to be taken seriously is getting more and more desperate–and ridiculous.

Dave P. , September 29, 2017 at 12:01 pm

D5-5 –

Your comments: As to why a lot of Americans dont think critically about these matters there are, again, the problems of survival, job-holding, paying rent, dealing with an outrageous health care scheme which treats them as profit opportunities, increasing police management, and rising inflation, let alone the morbidity and turn-off that considering politics has become.

You have summed up the state in which an average person lives here now.

hatedbyu , September 29, 2017 at 12:24 pm

ok, i have to say it.

everybody is stupid. all over the world. and yet.everybody is a genius. even though i partake in this complaining about how
stupid people are sometimes. its really not true. people are smart. just easily led.

i find that americans are just used to being propagandized. its a habit. that only some of us are starting to come out of. if the workings of propaganda and advertising were taught in school, at a young age, the world would be a better place. i think most of the commenters here at consortium news have probably made that jump from believing the media blindly. but we are still a minority. and to be honest, some views i see repeated here still seem to reflect this instinctive belief in doctrines put forth in the media. remember that its only been about 8 generations of people since we threw off the monarchy here. talk about indoctrination…thats really not a long time. the history of kings/queens as rulers takes up a much larger part of the history of human existence. one could even say its in our genes..epi-genetics…

modern propaganda is only 100 years old or so.

so a modern antidote should be thought of.

well hopefully figure it out.

D5-5 , September 29, 2017 at 12:31 pm

Dave, Im privileged in being able to spend so much time here in this forum and do some thinking. But out on the street I find a different situation than what were discussing here so often with (including myself) the tendency to talk of the American sheeple and stupidity and such. I find people in supermarket parking lots in a state of despair, asking me for a quarter, their misery plain on their faces. Im told 45 million Americans are on the verge of poverty and in poverty. Where I go, too, I find my community members trying to be civil, most of them, and theres not a whole lot of political talk at the cashier stands in the grocery stores. I despair that this beautiful country, which still has a great deal going for it, is knuckled under to the worst political system Ive seen in my lifetime going back decades. I do not understand that an opposition party could become so inept and corrupted into incompetence, and the ruling party in a state of incoherence and stupidity. And yet I can give all this sort of thing time and thinking, but how many can? I love this country and the people, and am very saddened at the travesty, and where we now stand in world opinion.

Stephen J. , September 29, 2017 at 1:32 pm

January 10, 2017
Blame It On Putin

There is endless wars and devastation around the world
Western war criminals have their war banners unfurled
Millions dead and many millions uprooted
And the financial system is corrupted and looted
Blame it on Putin

The war criminals are free and spreading bloody terror
And their dirty propaganda says Putin is an aggressor
These evil plotters of death and destruction
Should be in jail for their abominable actions
But, Blame it on Putin.

The American election is won by Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton loses and gets politically dumped
The media is frenzied and foaming at their mouths
They are crying and lying, these corporate louts
They Blame it on Putin

Hollywood, too, is getting in on the act
The B.S. merchants are able to twist facts
In their fantasy world of channel changers
They do not approve of a political stranger
They Blame it on Putin

The spymasters and their grovelling politicians
All agree that their democracy is lost in transmission
Their comfortable and controlled system is now in danger
And these powerful parasites are filled with anger
They Blame it on Putin

One loose canon talks and babbles of an act of war
Could nuclear hell be started by a warmongering whore?
If the madmen of the establishment get their way
Could we all be liquidated in the nuclear fray?
Blame it on Putin

There is no doubt that the ruling class
Are all worried about saving their ass
Could there be huge changes and still more coming?
Is the sick and depraved society finally crumbling?
Hey, Blame it on Putin
[more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/01/blame-it-on-putin.html

Stephen J. , September 29, 2017 at 1:39 pm

March 3, 2017
Is Blaming Russia a Diversion, Designed to Hide the Treachery of Western War Criminals?
[much more info at link below]
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/03/is-blaming-russia-diversion-designed-to.html

Dominic Pukallus , September 29, 2017 at 6:52 pm

Having just watched the episode of Oliver Stones excellent Untold History of the United States which deals with the earliest historical political period which I can remember from first hand experience, I found the revisiting of Ronald Reagan bald-faced lies delivered with absolute seeming sincerity to be truly frightening. He was either a truly underestimated first-rate actor, a complete psychopath, or he really was just a carefully picked figurehead. Perhaps it really was as intimated in the episode that it was more a Bush II/Cheney sort of thing, the first two options sort of meld into each other if the lies he repeated were done so knowingly and he just didnt seem to have the intellectual capacity for much of anything arduous like being an actual Machiavellian.

The most important thing about this was just how easy it was, at the time, to just take the edifice of lies at face value. I was in my teens at the time, but I did consider myself to be of a rather independent mindset and much of what was bandied by these Republican Party Reptiles (not a funny proposition at all really in the end despite ORourkess seductiveness) rang false. That did not stop them from acquiring the patina of Truth, albeit ever so superficial, due to the hypnotic authoritative method of their delivery. Im glad I properly discovered the work of Robert Parry even if it is belatedly, due to my own Sleep of Reason because of this saturation of falsehoods despite his tireless work along with other similar-minded people. I can sense some frustration here in his phrasing with the seeming lack of difference this tireless work seems to be making to the general perception but I am grateful for his lucidity, which contributes to mine. How long will such lucidity be allowed to be disseminated, one can only wonder.

Michael Eremia , September 29, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Another home-run by Robert Parry.

[Sep 30, 2017] Exposing The Slimy Business Of 'Russia-Gate' (What The Mainstream Media Doesn't Want You To Know) Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings. ..."
"... And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are. ..."
"... So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the MSM. ..."
"... The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S., quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against America. ..."
"... The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a country of 144 million people. ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

As the U.S. government doles out tens of millions of dollars to 'combat Russian propaganda', one result is a slew of new 'studies' by 'scholars' and 'researchers' auditioning for the loot ...

The Field of Dreams slogan for Americas NGOs should be: If you pay for it, we will come.

And right now, tens of millions of dollars are flowing to non-governmental organizations if they will buttress the thesis of Russian meddling in the U.S. democratic process no matter how sloppy the research or how absurd the findings.

And, if you think the pillars of the U.S. mainstream media – The Washington Post, The New York Times, CNN and others – will apply some quality controls, you havent been paying attention for the past year or so. The MSM is just as unethical as the NGOs are.

So, we are now in a phase of Russia-gate in which NGO scholars produce deeply biased reports and their nonsense is treated as front-page news and items for serious discussion across the MSM.

Yet, there's even an implicit confession about how pathetic some of this scholarship is in the hazy phrasing that gets applied to the findings, although the weasel words will slip past most unsuspecting Americans and will be dropped for more definitive language when the narrative is summarized in the next days newspaper or in a cable-news crawl.

For example, a Times front-page story on Thursday reported that a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to Russia seized on both sides of the [NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem] issue with hashtags, such as #boycottnfl, #standforouranthem and #takeaknee.

The story, which fits neatly into the current U.S. propaganda meme that the Russian government somehow is undermining American democracy by stirring up dissent inside the U.S., quickly spread to other news outlets and became the latest proof of a Russian war against America.

However, before we empty the nuclear silos and exterminate life on the planet, we might take a second to look at the Times phrasing a network of Twitter accounts suspected of links to Russia.

The vague wording doesn't even say the Russian government was involved but rather presents an unsupported claim that some Twitter accounts are suspected of being part of some network and that this network may have some ill-defined connection – or links – to Russia, a country of 144 million people.

Six Degrees from Kevin Bacon

Its like the old game of six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. Yes, perhaps we are all linked to Kevin Bacon somehow but that doesnt prove that we know Kevin Bacon or are part of a Kevin Bacon network that is executing a grand conspiracy to sow discontent by taking opposite sides of issues and then tweeting.

Yet that is the underlying absurdity of the Times article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Scott Shane. Still, as silly as the article may be that doesn't mean its not dangerous. The Times high-profile treatment of these gauzy allegations represents a grave danger to the world by fueling a growing hysteria inside the United States about being at war with nuclear-armed Russia. At some point, someone might begin to take this alarmist rhetoric seriously.

Yes, I understand that lots of people hate President Trump and see Russia-gate as the golden ticket to his impeachment. But that doesnt justify making serious allegations with next to no proof, especially when the outcome could be thermonuclear war.

However, with all those millions of dollars sloshing around the NGO world and Western academia – all looking for some study to fund that makes Russia look bad – you are sure to get plenty of takers. And, we should now expect that new findings like these will fill in for the so-far evidence-free suspicions about Russia and Trump colluding to steal the presidency from Hillary Clinton.

If you read more deeply into the Times story, you get a taste of where Russia-gate is headed next and a clue as to who is behind it:

Since last month, researchers at the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a bipartisan initiative of the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, have been publicly tracking 600 Twitter accounts -- human users and suspected bots alike -- they have linked to Russian influence operations. Those were the accounts pushing the opposing messages on the N.F.L. and the national anthem.

Of 80 news stories promoted last week by those accounts, more than 25 percent had a primary theme of anti-Americanism, the researchers found. About 15 percent were critical of Hillary Clinton, falsely accusing her of funding left-wing antifa -- short for anti-fascist -- protesters, tying her to the lethal terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and discussing her daughter Chelseas use of Twitter. Eleven percent focused on wiretapping in the federal investigation into Paul Manafort, President Trumps former campaign chairman, with most of them treated the news as a vindication for President Trumps earlier wiretapping claims.

The Neocons, Again!

So, lets stop and unpack this Times reporting.

First, this Alliance for Securing Democracy is not some neutral truth-seeking organization but a neoconservative-dominated outfit that includes on its advisory board such neocon luminaries as Mike Chertoff, Bill Kristol and former Freedom House president David Kramer along with other anti-Russia hardliners such as former deputy CIA director Michael Morell and former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers.

Neoconservative pundit William Kristol. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

How many of these guys, do you think, were assuring us that Iraq was hiding WMDs back in 2003?

This group clearly has an ax to grind, a record of deception, and plenty of patrons in the Military-Industrial Complex who stand to make billions of dollars from the New Cold War.

The neocons also have been targeting Russia for regime change for years because they see Russian President Vladimir Putin as the chief obstacle to their goal of helping Israel achieve its desire for regime change in Syria and a chance to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. Russia-gate has served the neocons well as a very convenient way to pull Democrats, liberals and even progressives into the neocon agenda because Russia-gate is sold as a powerful weapon for the anti-Trump Resistance.

The Times article also might have mentioned that Twitter has 974 million accounts. So, this alarm over 600 accounts is a bit disproportionate for a front-page story in the Times, dont you think?

And, theres the definitional problem of what constitutes anti-Americanism in a news article. And what does it mean to be linked to Russian influence operations? Does that include Americans who may not march in lockstep to the one-sided State Department narratives on the crises in Ukraine and Syria? Any deviation from Official Washingtons groupthink makes you a Moscow stooge.

And, is it a crime to be critical of Hillary Clinton or to note that the U.S. mainstream media was dismissive of Trumps claims about being wiretapped only for us to find out later that the FBI apparently was wiretapping his campaign manager?

However, such questions arent going to be asked amid what has become a massive Russia-gate groupthink, dominating not just Official Washington, but across much of Americas political landscape and throughout the European Union.

Why the Bias?

Beyond the obvious political motivations for this bias, we also have had the introduction of vast sums of money pouring in from the U.S. government, NATO and European institutions to support the business of combatting Russian propaganda.

President Obama in the Oval Office.

For example, last December, President Obama signed into law a $160 million funding mechanism entitled the Combating Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. But that amounts to only a drop in the bucket considering already existing Western propaganda projects targeting Russia.

So, a scramble is on to develop seemingly academic models to prove what Western authorities want proven: that Russia is at fault for pretty much every bad thing that happens in the world, particularly the alienation of many working-class people from the Washington-Brussels elites.

The truth cannot be that establishment policies have led to massive income inequality and left the working class struggling to survive and thus are to blame for ugly political manifestations – from Trump to Brexit to the surprising support for Germanys far-right AfD party. No, it must be Russia! Russia! Russia! And theres a lot of money on the bed to prove that point.

Theres also the fact that the major Western news media is deeply invested in bashing Russia as well as in the related contempt for Trump and his followers. Those twin prejudices have annihilated all professional standards that would normally be applied to news judgments regarding these flawed studies.

On Thursday, The Washington Post ran its own banner-headlined story drawn from the same loose accusations made by that neocon-led Alliance for Securing Democracy, but instead the Post sourced the claims to Sen. James Lankford, R-Oklahoma. The headline read: Russian trolls are stoking NFL controversy, senator says.

The evidence cited by Lankfords office was one Twitter account calling itself Boston Antifa that gives its geolocation as Vladivostok, Russia, the Post reported.

By Thursday, Twitter had suspended the Boston Antifa account, so I couldnt send it a question, but earlier this month, Dan Glaun, a reporter for Masslive.com, reported that the people behind Boston Antifa were a pair of anti-leftist pranksters from Oregon who started Boston Antifa as a parody of actual anti-fascist groups.

In an email to me on Thursday, Glaun cited an interview that the Boston Antifa pranksters had done with right-wing radio talk show host Gavin McInnes last April.

And, by the way, there are apps that let you manipulate your geolocation data on Twitter. Or, you can choose to believe that the highly professional Russian intelligence agencies didnt notice that they were telegraphing their location as Vladivostok.

Mindless Russia Bashing

Another example of this mindless Russia bashing appeared just below the Posts story on Lankfords remarks. The Post sidebar cited a study from researchers at Oxford Universitys Project on Computational Propaganda asserting that junk news on Twitter flowed more heavily in a dozen [U.S.] battleground states than in the nation overall in the days immediately before and after the 2016 presidential election, suggesting that a coordinated effort targeted the most pivotal voters. Cue the spooky Boris and Natasha music!

Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.

Of course, any Americans living in battleground states could tell you that they are inundated with all kinds of election-related junk, including negative TV advertising, nasty radio messages, alarmist emails and annoying robo-calls at dinner time. Thats why theyre called battleground states, Sherlock.

But whats particularly offensive about this study is that it implies that the powers-that-be must do more to eliminate what these experts deem propaganda and junk news. If you read deeper into the story, you discover that the researchers applied a very subjective definition of what constitutes junk news, i.e., information that the researchers dont like even if it is truthful and newsworthy.

The Post article by Craig Timberg, who apparently is using Russia-gate to work himself off the business pages and onto the national staff, states that The researchers defined junk news as propaganda and ideologically extreme, hyperpartisan, or conspiratorial political news and information.

The researchers also categorized reports from Russia and ones from WikiLeaks – which published embarrassing posts about Democrat Hillary Clinton based on a hack of her campaign chairmans emails – as polarizing political content for the purpose of the analysis.

So, this study lumped together junk news with accurate and newsworthy information, i.e., WikiLeaks disclosure of genuine emails that contained such valid news as the contents of Clintons speeches to Wall Street banks (which she was trying to hide from voters) as well as evidence of the unethical tactics used by the Democratic National Committee to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanderss campaign.

Also dumped into the researchers bin of vile disinformation were reports from Russia, as if everything that comes out of Russia is, ipso facto, junk news.

And, what, pray tell, is conspiratorial political news? I would argue that the past year of evidence-lite allegations about Russian meddling in the U.S. election accompanied by unsupported suspicions about collusion with the Trump campaign would constitute conspiratorial political news. Indeed, I would say that this Oxford research constitutes conspiratorial political news and that Timbergs article qualifies as junk news.

Predictable Outcome

Given the built-in ideological bias of this research, it probably wont surprise you that the reports author, Philip N. Howard, concludes that junk news originates from three main sources that the Oxford group has been tracking: Russian operatives, Trump supporters and activists part of the alt-right, according to the Post.

The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

I suppose that since part of the methodology was to define reports from Russia as junk news, the appearance of Russian operatives shouldnt be much of a surprise, but the whole process reeks of political bias.

Further skewing the results, the report separated out information from professional news organizations [and] political parties from some junk news source, according to the Post. In other words, the researchers believe that professional news organizations are inherently reliable and that outside-the-mainstream news is junk – despite the MSMs long record of getting major stories wrong.

The real junk is this sort of academic or NGO research that starts with a conclusion and packs a study in such a way as to guarantee the preordained conclusion. Or as the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

Yet, its also clear that if you generate research that feeds the hungry beast of Russia-gate, you will find eager patrons doling out dollars and a very receptive audience in the mainstream media.

In a place like Washington, there are scores if not hundreds of reports generated every day and only a tiny fraction get the attention of the Times, Post, CNN, etc., let alone result in published articles. But studies that reinforce todays anti-Russia narrative are sure winners.

So, if youre setting up a new NGO or youre an obscure academic angling for a lucrative government grant as well as some flattering coverage in the MSM, the smart play is to join the new gold rush in decrying Russian propaganda.

  • New York Times
  • Germany
  • Iran
  • Twitter
  • Vladimir Putin
  • Iraq
  • Neocons
  • ETC
  • President Obama
  • Israel
  • European Union
  • FBI
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Ukraine
  • Washington D.C.
  • Newspaper
  • Twitter
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Sep 29, 2017 11:30 PM
  • 14
  • Comment viewing options Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    HopefulCynical , Sep 29, 2017 11:45 PM

    tl;dr - the usual suspects are looting the country...

    ...at some point, we really need to have had enough of this.

    Slippery Slope -> HopefulCynical , Sep 30, 2017 12:04 AM

    Every notice that the worst Russia-phobes are Jewish-Russian-Americans?

    People like Julia Iouffe, Leonid Bershidsky, Bill Browder, Garry Kasparov, Marsha Gessen?

    These useful Russian idiots really hate the idea of a strong Russia, with a growing influence of the Russian Orthodox Christians.

    Cabreado , Sep 29, 2017 11:45 PM

    1) This is the rise of the Self-Absorbed -- the Narcissist and Sociopath -- to a critical mass of places of influence and control.

    2) Pay attention to and denounce your more local/regional media -- they are in Control mode, operating in stealth mode, enabling the narrative, in self-preservation.

    3) The People are failing. There's no way to recover from that.

    Taras Bulba , Sep 29, 2017 11:46 PM

    The neo cons again!

    They are like termites, they just never go away, but why worry, none of them will ever be held accountable-meanwhile, they are in the game, making tons. what is not to like.

    Some are also citizens of israel, chertoff for example. I believe he also has a large security consulting firm;

    "heh, here is my card, please call if you are worried about the iranian nuclear capability."

    quasi_verbatim , Sep 29, 2017 11:48 PM

    America is the failed false flag and Russia the new shining lamppost on the dunghill. Get over it.

    dark pools of soros , Sep 29, 2017 11:52 PM

    throw kristol into a vat of acid

    runswithscissors -> dark pools of soros , Sep 30, 2017 12:18 AM

    The dumbmasses will not be able to follow whatever bullshit narrative the deep state invents to "prove" Russian collusion-hacking-global warming or whatever.

[Sep 30, 2017] The Rise of the New McCarthyism by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as Communisms fellow travelers. ..."
"... The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to get Trump. ..."
"... Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may have said something similar. ..."
"... The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace. ..."
"... Americas Stolen Narrative, ..."
Sep 30, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Special Report: As the New McCarthyism takes hold in America, the neocon Washington Post makes Russia the villain in virtually every bad thing that happens, with U.S. dissidents treated as fellow-travelers, writes Robert Parry.

Make no mistake about it: the United States has entered an era of a New McCarthyism that blames nearly every political problem on Russia and has begun targeting American citizens who dont go along with this New Cold War propaganda.

A difference, however, from the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that this New McCarthyism has enlisted Democrats, liberals and even progressives in the cause because of their disgust with President Trump; the 1950s version was driven by Republicans and the Right with much of the Left on the receiving end, maligned by the likes of Sen. Joe McCarthy as un-American and as Communisms fellow travelers.

The real winners in this New McCarthyism appear to be the neoconservatives who have leveraged the Democratic/liberal hatred of Trump to draw much of the Left into the political hysteria that sees the controversy over alleged Russian political meddling as an opportunity to get Trump.

Already, the neocons and their allies have exploited the anti-Russian frenzy to extract tens of millions of dollars more from the taxpayers for programs to combat Russian propaganda, i.e., funding of non-governmental organizations and scholars who target dissident Americans for challenging the justifications for this New Cold War.

The Washington Post, which for years has served as the flagship for neocon propaganda, is again charting the new course for America, much as it did in rallying U.S. public backing for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and in building sympathy for abortive regime change projects aimed at Syria and Iran. The Post has begun blaming almost every unpleasant development in the world on Russia! Russia! Russia!

For instance, a Post editorial on Tuesday shifted the blame for the anemic victory of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the surprising strength of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) from Merkels austerity policies, which have caused hardship for much of the working class, or from her open door for Mideast refugees, which has destabilized some working-class neighborhoods, to – you guessed it – Russia!

The evidence, as usual, is vague and self-interested, but sure to be swallowed by many Democrats and liberals, who hate Russia because they blame it for Trump, and by lots of Republicans and conservatives, who have a residual hatred for Russia left over from the Old Cold War.

The Post cited the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab, which has been pushing much of the hysteria about alleged Russian activities on the Internet. The Atlantic Council essentially is NATOs think tank and is financed with money from the U.S. government, Gulf oil states, military contractors, global financial institutions and many other sources which stand to gain directly or indirectly from the expanding U.S. military budget and NATO interventions.

Blaming Russia

In this New Cold War, the Russians get blamed for not only disrupting some neocon regime change projects, such as the proxy war in Syria, but also political developments in the West, such as Donald Trumps election and AfDs rise in Germany.

Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

The Atlantic Councils digital lab claimed, according to the Post editorial, that In the final hours of the [German] campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of possible election fraud, and the online alarms were driven by anonymous troll accounts and boosted by a Russian-language bot-net."

Of course, the Post evinces no evidence tying any of this to the Russian government or to President Vladimir Putin. It is the nature of McCarthyism that actual evidence is not required, just heavy breathing and dark suspicions. For those of us who operate Web sites, trolls – some volunteers and some professionals – have become a common annoyance and they represent many political outlooks, not just Russian.

Plus, it is standard procedure these days for campaigns to issue last-minute alarms to their supporters about possible election fraud to raise doubts about the results should the outcome be disappointing.

The U.S. government has engaged in precisely this strategy around the world, having pro-U.S. parties not only complain about election fraud but to take to the streets in violent protests to impugn the legitimacy of election outcomes. That U.S. strategy has been applied to places such as Ukraine (the Orange Revolution in 2004); Iran (the Green Revolution in 2009); Russia (the Snow Revolution in 2011); and many other locations.

Pre-election alerts also have become a feature in U.S. elections, even in 2016 when both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton raised questions about the legitimacy of the balloting, albeit for different reasons.

Yet, instead of seeing the AfD maneuver as a typical ploy by a relatively minor party – and the German election outcome as an understandable reflection of voter discontent and weariness over Merkels three terms as Chancellor – the Atlantic Council and the Post see Russians under every bed and particularly Putin.

Loving to Hate Putin

In the world of neocon propaganda, Putin has become the great bête noire, since he has frustrated a variety of neocon schemes. He helped head off a major U.S. military strike against Syria in 2013; he aided President Obama in achieving the Iran nuclear agreement in 2014-15; Putin opposed and – to a degree – frustrated the neocon-supported coup in Ukraine in 2014; and he ultimately supplied the air power that defeated neocon-backed rebel forces in Syria in 2015-17.

President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

So, the Post and the neocons want Putin gone – and they have used gauzy allegations about Russian meddling in the U.S. and other elections as the new propaganda theme to justify destabilizing Russia with economic sanctions and, if possible, engineering another regime change project in Moscow.

None of this is even secret. Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy, publicly proclaimed the goal of ousting Putin in an op-ed in The Washington Post, writing: The United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so.

But the way neocon propaganda works is that the U.S. and its allies are always the victims of some nefarious enemy who must be thwarted to protect all that is good in the world. In other words, even as NED and other U.S.-funded operations take aim at Putin and Russia, Russia and Putin must be transformed into the aggressors.

Mr. Putin would like nothing better than to generate doubts, fog, cracks and uncertainty around the German pillar of Europe, the Post editorial said. He relishes infiltrating chaos and mischief into open societies. In this case, supporting the far-right AfD is extraordinarily cynical, given how many millions of Russians died to defeat the fascists seven decades ago.

Not to belabor the point but there is no credible evidence that Putin did any of this. There is a claim by the virulently anti-Russian Atlantic Council that some anonymous troll accounts promoted some AfD complaint about possible voter fraud and that it was picked up by a Russian-language bot-net. Even if that is true – and the Atlantic Council is far from an objective source – where is the link to Putin?

Not everything that happens in Russia, a nation of 144 million people, is ordered by Putin. But the Post would have you believe that it is. It is the centerpiece of this neocon conspiracy theory.

Silencing Dissent

Similarly, any American who questions this propaganda immediately is dismissed as a Kremlin stooge or a Russian propagandist, another ugly campaign spearheaded by the Post and the neocons. Again, no evidence is required, just some analysis that what youre saying somehow parallels something Putin has said.

The Washington Post building in downtown Washington, D.C. (Photo credit: Washington Post)

On Tuesday, in what amounted to a companion piece for the editorial, a Post article again pushed the unproven suspicions about Russian operatives buying $100,000 in Facebook ads from 2015 into 2017 to supposedly influence U.S. politics. Once again, no evidence required.

In the article, the Post also reminds its readers that Moscow has a history of focusing on social inequities in the U.S., which gets us back to the comparisons between the Old McCarthyism and the new.

Yes, its true that the Soviet Union denounced Americas racial segregation and cited that ugly feature of U.S. society in expressing solidarity with the American civil rights movement and national liberation struggles in Africa. Its also true that American Communists collaborated with the domestic civil rights movement to promote racial integration.

That was a key reason why J. Edgar Hoovers FBI targeted Martin Luther King Jr. and other African-American leaders – because of their association with known or suspected Communists. (Similarly, the Reagan administration resisted support for Nelson Mandela because his African National Congress accepted Communist support in its battle against South Africas Apartheid white-supremacist regime.)

Interestingly, one of the arguments from liberal national Democrats in opposing segregation in the 1960s was that the repression of American blacks undercut U.S. diplomatic efforts to develop allies in Africa. In other words, Soviet and Communist criticism of Americas segregation actually helped bring about the demise of that offensive system.

Yet, Kings association with alleged Communists remained a talking point of die-hard segregationists even after his assassination when they opposed creating a national holiday in his honor in the 1980s.

These parallels between the Old McCarthyism and the New McCarthyism are implicitly acknowledged in the Posts news article on Tuesday, which cites Putins criticism of police killings of unarmed American blacks as evidence that he is meddling in U.S. politics.

Since taking office, Putin has on occasion sought to spotlight racial tensions in the United States as a means of shaping perceptions of American society, the article states. Putin injected himself in 2014 into the race debate after protests broke out in Ferguson, Mo., over the fatal shooting of Michael Brown, an African American, by a white police officer.

'Do you believe that everything is perfect now from the point of view of democracy in the United States? Putin told CBSs 60 Minutes program. If everything was perfect, there wouldnt be the problem of Ferguson. There would be no abuse by the police. But our task is to see all these problems and respond properly."

The Posts speculative point seems to be that Putins response included having Russian operatives buy some ads on Facebook to exploit these racial tensions, but there is no evidence to support that conspiracy theory.

However, as this anti-Russia hysteria spreads, we may soon see Americans who also protest the police killing of unarmed black men denounced as Putins fellow-travelers, much as King and other civil rights leaders were smeared as Communist dupes.

Ignoring Reality

So, instead of Democrats and Chancellor Merkel looking in the mirror and seeing the real reasons why many white working-class voters are turning toward populist and extremist alternatives, they can simply blame Putin and continue a crackdown on Internet-based dissent as the work of Russian operatives.

Already, under the guise of combating Russian propaganda and fake news, Google, Facebook and other tech giants have begun introducing algorithms to hunt down and marginalize news that challenges official U.S. government narratives on hot-button issues such as Ukraine and Syria. Again, no evidence is required, just the fact that Putin may have said something similar.

As Democrats, liberals and even some progressives join in this Russia-gate hysteria – driven by their hatred of Donald Trump and his supposedly fascistic tendencies – they might want to consider whom theyve climbed into bed with and what these neocons have in mind for the future.

Arguably, if fascism or totalitarianism comes to the United States, it is more likely to arrive in the guise of protecting democracy from Russia or another foreign adversary than from a reality-TV clown like Donald Trump.

The New McCarthyism with its Orwellian-style algorithms might seem like a clever way to neutralize (or maybe even help oust) Trump, but – long after Trump is gone – a structure for letting the neocons and the mainstream media monopolize American political debate might be a far greater threat to both democracy and peace.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, Americas Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

SteveK9 , September 26, 2017 at 5:46 pm

Its been going on since the arrival of the national security state after World War II. At least for decades there really was a contest between Capitalism and Communism, not that it excuses the lying and killing of millions. Now, its just a we rule the World habit. Is it really getting worse? Perhaps so.

Erik G , September 26, 2017 at 7:17 pm

I would say that the dominance of economic power over democratic institutions has been completely consolidated since WWII, accelerated under Reagan and after the collapse of the USSR, and has been completed since 911. The articles conclusion that letting mainstream media monopolize American political debate is a greater threat than Trump is quite an understatement, appropriate to new readers.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
While Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

SteveK9 , September 26, 2017 at 7:49 pm

More even than economic power (banks?) it is the intelligence agencies (all revolving around the CIA) and the military-industrial complex. We could make progress in a lot of areas if we could simply stop waging war, overt or covert, but it doesnt seem possible, partly because the Deep State has become smart enough not to wage a war that requires a draft or kills too many Americans. Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having the Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.

Dave P. , September 27, 2017 at 11:41 am

SteveK9 – Your comments: Its OK to spend trillions though, especially since having the Worlds reserve currency allows us to create as much as we need.

That is how we suck the blood of the people of the World beyond the Wests borders – by printing unlimited money, using cheap labor, taking over and exploiting their resources.

The oppressed have also to pay to the oppressor for their own subjugation. That is how we maintain our grand life style – as they boast every day on TV channels and elsewhere – for the top 10%.

During the Soviet days, USSR was a hindrance to this Western Imperialism. And now again some how it turns out that Russia is again becoming the protector of the Oppressed – though they have themselves a kind of makeshift type of Capitalism at this stage.

Sam F , September 27, 2017 at 5:50 pm

The complete economic power of oligarchy (zionists/MIC/WallSt/corporations) over Congress, judiciary, federal agencies, and mass media, results in thedeep state structure. Doubtless there is further deep state gangsterism.

The US has been dominated by the economic power that arose in the 19th century, because the emerging middle class failed to see that this would corrupt democratic institutions if not severely regulated, and of course oligarchy soon controlled the press and excluded the issue from public debate.

Kiza , September 26, 2017 at 9:09 pm

I find it truly fascinating that the US Deep State has changed the narrative through its liberal MSM mouthpieces, since Zuckcrook $100K ad saga, that the Russian goal was not so much to elect President Swamp then to saw chaos and discord in US. Let us look at the hidden meaning of this:
1) the Deep State feels confident that President Swamp has been brought under control; only the quasi-liberal wing of the Deep State still wants to impeach him (fat chance now that he is well under control, if he ever was not yet another faux agent of change – YAFAOC)
2) the rulers are truly concerned about the forthcoming challenge to their rule, which would begin as unrest, chaos and possibly a civil war; ironically they are delivering a very powerful tool to Putin by establishing parallels between US sedition and Putins words; this means that, if he wanted, Putin could just state some obvious criticisms, a sore point of the US/Global system and this becomes a point of oppression in US; such oppression can ultimately have only one outcome for the oppressors.

In brief, it is always useful to monitor the official statements to deduce what is on the rulers minds. They do not appear terribly self confident with their Putin ate my homework stories. Putin is both the leader of the hated Eurasia and Putins face is morphing into the face of the internal enemy Emanuel Goldstein .

Peter Loeb , September 27, 2017 at 7:22 am

STEVEK9

An excellent comment, Stevek9.

To continue responding is to play by the McCarthyist rules. Do I want
to circulate Robert Parrys excellent article (for the most part)? There
would be a collective reply that :the Russians are coming and a
groupthink diversions from WHAT the issues really are (oppression of
blacks in the US -- the real point of the NFL -- discussions usually hidden
under Do you like Trump?Do you hate Russia?And thus not
addressed or an article in Consortium yesterday on the Palestine/
Israeli conflict which was responded to mainly in terms of what
the Russians are doing etc. etc.

I remember the McCarthy era. My Dad had to sign a loyalty
oath. There were other forms such as the Harry Trumans
the Attorney Generals list, The Truman Doctrine, domino
theories etc.

The late historian Gabriel Kolko discussed this in the subsection
Violence and Social Control of his major work MAIN CURRENTS
IN MODERN AMERICAN HISTORY (part of Chapter 5 of that work).

No one is talking about the raw courage of so many black players
(mostly) who suddenly step away from their roles as entertainers
of the American society to remind us all that the US is considering
the murder of unarmed blacks as patriotic…heroic.

Instead, the issue is President Donald Trump and I can guess
that , like Hitler and Mussolini, he loves it with a passion.

What a dirty shame that in the US blacks demonstrating for
justice, for life, are attacked by police funded by the US
via private organizations such as those of Israel which provide
their particular expertise in how to oppress minorities --
accompanied by junkets for US law enforcement officials
for training in the Israeli efficiency in murder, oppression,
and inhuman treatment of those Zionists consider inferior
if human at all.

Dont read the above if you fear that its all the
fault of the Russians.

In French one once said Le revolution se mange..
(The revolution eats itself (se))

-- –Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

Susan Sunflower , September 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm

Yes, I think the Woodrow Wilson 14-point plan legacy of helping to keep most of Europe from going communist or trying to do so is overlooked For all of Wilsons lies, deals and broken promises, I think his inclusive idealistic promise to ordinary people that is still felt today (and may provide some of the origin of American accepted world leadership in anti-communism). European democratic socialism arose to quell the unrest, expectations and dissatisfaction of those same people after the fall of the empires. Remember all those Frank Capra movies in which Americanism was a non-communist path to egalitarian future. (yes, Capra was an anti-communist)

Counterpunch has an article -- link next comment

Susan Sunflower , September 27, 2017 at 12:12 pm

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/26/world-war-i-continues-to-haunt-america/

Susan Sunflower , September 26, 2017 at 6:18 pm

Heres a fun fact

MADISON, Wis. (AP) -- The U.S. Department of Homeland Security reversed course Tuesday and told Wisconsin officials that the Russian government did not scan the states voter registration system.

Homeland Security told state elections officials on Friday that Wisconsin was one of 21 states targeted by the Russians, raising concerns about the safety and security of the states election systems even though no data had been compromised. But in an email to the states deputy elections administrator that was provided to reporters at the Wisconsin Elections Commission meeting on Tuesday, Homeland Security said that initial notice was in error.

Based on our external analysis, the WI IP address affected belongs to the WI Department of Workforce Development, not the Elections Commission, said the email from Juan Figueroa, with Homeland Securitys Office of Infrastructure Protection.

It wasnt immediately known if Homeland Security made similar mistakes with any of the other 20 states. Figueroa did not immediately reply to an email seeking an explanation of how the mistake was made.

Dr. Ip , September 26, 2017 at 6:28 pm

Ive lived in Germany for over 30 years now, and what has been clear since the infamous Agenda 2010 introduced during the reign of the SPD government under Schroeder, and the reforms introduced by pseudo-Socialist governments in France, is that the same right wing forces that have captured the US, Poland, Hungary and are threatening France and Spain, have their roots (and subtle support) from the neoliberals preoccupied with wealth creation for the few and the destruction of the social net for the many.

Endless war – a perpetuum mobile cash machine – and the attempt to actually own the whole world, has led to a situation that is an updated version of the corporatist fascism of the 30s and 40s. Destruction of the Left is acceptable because it clears a path toward endless profit, and arousal of the Right is seen as profit-beneficial because the uneducated masses that comprise this sector are in love with the illusion of one day belonging to a group that will allow them to achieve wealth and power. Of course it never will. But the unleashing of their anger and violence against all those perceived as superior, especially in intelligence, allows them a catharsis of blood and death which eventually consumes them.

There is a wonderful drawing by Paul Weber entitled Deutsches Verhängnis 1931/1932 which illustrates this point superbly.
( http://www.weber-museum.de/werk/widerstand/ )

Annie , September 26, 2017 at 7:15 pm

People who are registered democrats often see the party as liberal, when in fact it is not. Under Bill Clintons administration the party was pushed even further to the right. I know many democrats who define themselves as progressive or liberals, and have bought into the nonsense that Russia rigged the US election. I never perceived these people as progressive, or liberal and most kept their mouths shut throughout the Obama administration, although he engaged in policies, and practices that no real progressive, or liberal would, or should find acceptable. If they were liberal or progressive in their thinking why would they be so vulnerable to propaganda? Why would they be so easily manipulated if they were truly progressive in their thinking, or not be able to see things from a broader perspective? To me many democrats simply hate Trump, and cant accept that their whining, war candidate lost. And how can you define yourself as progressive when you supported Hillary Clinton in the first place? We should be careful how we use the word liberal, or progressive. It was under the Obama administration that the new cold war really got underway.

Realist , September 27, 2017 at 8:43 am

What you are saying is so true, Annie, but far too many people allow these truths to be obscured by the stereotypes they would rather cling to. I look at Obama as the great betrayer of liberal or progressive causes. He was about as progressive as a Wall Street banker investing his yearly bonus on choice foreclosed properties, or Mitt Romney picking the bones of companies he buys to strip of assets.

Susan Sunflower , September 26, 2017 at 7:18 pm

Recommend Richard Wolfe on fire on RT tonight -- are we at the end of capitalism . cant find a link to youtube.. but while this new mccarthyism hysteria probably (not) the sort of death-throes ravings what one might hope for the reality is that we are past pablum, nostrums, teaks and fixes -- none of which are still operative
Wolfe here is in fine form .

D5-5 , September 26, 2017 at 7:50 pm

b who runs the Moon of Alabama site has a similar view to Parrys on the WAPOs view of the German election (and as always comments recommended):

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/09/the-russian-influence-story-falls-apart-a-new-fairy-tale-is-needed.html

[Sep 28, 2017] Russias Stand-Off Capability The 800 Pound Gorilla in Syria

In comments the term Neoliberal was replaced to Neoliberal for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... Long term goal for USI meant Neoliberal Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umphNeoliberal Empire implosion. ..."
"... Nobody voted for Trump to advocate a dreamer amnesty, and nobody voted for Trump to continue the neocons foreign policy. So right now Trump has two big black marks against him. ..."
Sep 28, 2017 | www.unz.com

This is both a legitimate but also a highly unprofessional question. In fact, there are many people of prominence in the US who apart from considering such a terrifying scenario are actually pushing for it. Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters doesnt mince words when it comes to attacking Russians; in fact, he is a very straight to the point guy when giving prescriptions on how to fight those Russians: This could spin out of control very, very fast. If it does, we have to win rapidly and decisively -- and keep it within Syria.

There is no doubt that Peters and the bunch of US military and political people he represents did partake in the strategic wisdom of the past, from Clausewitz to Moltke to Guderian, but it is here where a seemingly legitimate question on the probability of American success in bombing those nasty Russkies into the stone age at Khmeimim and elsewhere in Syria stops being, well, serious. Of course, US can unleash whatever it has at its conventional disposal at Khmeimim and it will eventually overwhelm whatever the Russians have there, from several SU-35s to S-300s and S-400s and, possibly, make Peters wet dream of keeping the whole ordeal confined to Syria very real. This would work, say against anyones military contingent except Russia.

At issue here is not the fact that Russia is a nuclear superpower -- everyone knows that. Even the most rabid American Russophobes know this and can grasp, however slightly, the concept of their poor dears turning into radioactive ash pretty fast if they do the unthinkable, such as attacking Russia proper with nuclear weapons. Syria, however, is a bit different -- the escalation to a nuclear threshold could, indeed, be controlled by those who hold a decisive advantage conventionally. At issue here is the fact of conventional war -- a precise type of a conflict US military prided itself on for the last 30+ years, boasting of being able to handle any kind of adversary.

In the foundation of this, rather overly assertive approach, the self-assurance was the real and not so real advantage of the US in stand-off weapons. Aggression against Yugoslavia showed the US military could overwhelm the air-defense of a nation such as Serbia fairly fast and from distances far beyond the reach of its obsolete air defenses. There were Tomahawk cruise missiles, which were launched at Serbia in thousands and which rendered her air defense almost useless after the first couple of weeks of incessant bombing.

But here is the problem for the US: Russia can take this hypothetical conventional conflict well beyond Syria any time it wants and I am not talking about other strategic theaters, such as Ukraine, where Russia can compensate for a hypothetical defeat in Syria. The reason for this is purely technological -- Russia can go tit-for-tat conventionally in Syria and anywhere in the Middle East. In fact, the Russian military has in its possession the most advanced arsenal of High Precision stand-off weapons which have been demonstrated in action for the whole world to see.

This is what makes the whole talk about defeating the Russian contingent in Syria very amateurish. War is much more than some shoot-out between belligerents, the war starts in the operational rooms and political offices well before any shot is fired. If the Russian contingent in Syria had been deployed there say in 2005, there would have been no problem in imagining Ralph Peters scenario. But it is not 2005 and an 800 pound gorilla, which many continue to ignore, in the room is Russias stand-off capability -- it is simply much better than the American one and it opens an operational door, in case of a hypothetical conventional attack on Kheimim, for a massive retaliation against any US asset in the region.

Yesterday, in the wake of the death of Lieutenant General Asapov in Syria, allegedly with some help from the so called Coalition in the vicinity of the liberated Deir-ez-Zor, Russias strategic aviation launched long-range stealthy X-101 cruise missiles at ISIS targets in Syria. There is nothing new now in Russias using 5,500+ kilometer range cruise missile, nor is there news any more for the Russian Navy being able to launch 2,500+ kilometer range 3M14 of Kalibr family from anywhere in the Eastern Mediterranean or the Caspian Sea. These are ranges which are simply beyond the reach of any stand-off weapon in US arsenal with Tomahawk TLAM-A Block II having the maximum range of around 2,500 kilometers while TLAM Block IV, currently being most produced variety, having the range of 1,600 kilometers.

Raytheon says that these missiles are capable of loitering and that Tomahawk would be able to hit moving targets. It is all fine and dandy but the key is range and precision and here the US is not in the leading position to put it mildly. Range gives an unprecedented operational flexibility and yesterdays launch from Russian Tu-95 Bears strategic bombers had a very serious message -- not in terms of X-101′s range, even longer range cruise missiles are getting ready for procurement, with ranges in 10,000 kilometers vicinity. The message was in the fact that missiles were launched from Iranian and Iraqi aerospace. They didnt have to do so, this could have been easily done from the area of the Caspian Sea. But Bears launched while being escorted in Iranian aerospace by Su-30s and Su-35s of Russian Air Space Forces and that, apart from obvious hint at Russian full capability to reach any US ground asset in the area, provided some ominous signs.

Iran knows for sure that should the unthinkable but not improbable happen, such as an American attack on the Russian forces in Syria, Iran will not be left standing on the side -- she gets immediately involved whether she wants it or not. So, the logic goes, why not make the best of it when all bets, other than nuclear, will be off. Iran may as well have Russian forces on her side and in her airspace, which, obviously helps significantly. But that also opens another serious operational possibility in case of a real conventional conflict in the area between Russia and the US -- a scenario Neocons, due to their military illiteracy and overall detachment from the strategic reality, are dreaming about. Putting inevitable emotions aside and looking at the factual side of things, Russias Military Doctrine since 2010, reaffirmed in 2014 Edition, views the use of stand-off High Precision as a key in strategic force containment, as Article 26 of a doctrine clearly states. Russia doesnt want war with the US, but if push comes to shove Russia is totally capable of not only reaching US ground assets, such as CENTCOMs Qatar forward installation but, what is even more significant, also the naval ones in the Persian Gulf.

Apart from 66 long-range strategic bombers, the Tu-160s and Tu-95s, Russia has at her disposal more than 100 TU-22M3 bombers many of which are capable of both inflight refueling and of carrying a rather intimidating weapon -- the X-32 (Kh-32) cruise missile whose range is 1000 kilometers and the speed is in excess of Mach 4.2. This missile, apart from being able to attack anything on the ground, is capable in fact was designed primarily for the purpose, of hitting anything moving on the surface of the sea. The missile, let alone a salvo of those, is incredibly difficult if possible at all to intercept and as yesterdays demonstration showed, Iran, most likely would have no problem with allowing these very TU-22M3s to operate from her airspace in case of the worst case scenario. Launched anywhere from Darab area the salvo will not only cover all of a Persian Gulf but will reliably close off Gulf of Oman for any naval force. No ship, no Carrier Battle Group will be able to enter this area in case of a conventional conflict with Russia in Syria -- the strategic ramifications of this are enormous. Even the salvo of 3M14s from Caspian Sea on October 7, 2015 made such an impression that USS Theodore Roosevelt and her CBG almost immediately left the Gulf .

Ron Unz > , September 27, 2017 at 8:06 pm GMT

In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, Id think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trumps military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

Thorfinnsson > , September 27, 2017 at 8:22 pm GMT

Advanced Russian cruise missiles–or at least should not be news to military planners.

They were well known in Cold War times and discussed in Western defense publications such as Janes.

The entire purpose of the failed F-111B and its replacement, the F-14, was to keep Soviet maritime bombers and their deadly cruise missiles as far away from the fleet as possible. A lesson obviously forgotten since the end of the Cold War.

The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.

The real question: how many working cruise missiles does Russia have in inventory? If Soviet stocks still exist the answer could be quite a lot.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website September 27, 2017 at 9:11 pm GMT

@Thorfinnsson Advanced Russian cruise missiles--or at least should not be news to military planners.

They were well known in Cold War times and discussed in Western defense publications such as Jane's.

The entire purpose of the failed F-111B and its replacement, the F-14, was to keep Soviet maritime bombers and their deadly cruise missiles as far away from the fleet as possible. A lesson obviously forgotten since the end of the Cold War.

The existence of advanced military technology in Russia (or, really, anywhere outside of America) does appear to surprise American civilian leaders however, few of whom have any military expertise these days.

The real question: how many working cruise missiles does Russia have in inventory? If Soviet stocks still exist the answer could be quite a lot.

Advanced Russian cruise missiles–or at least should not be news to military planners.

Second generation Anti-Shipping Missiles , starting from Malakhyt and ending with P-700 Granit are not news since 1980s. We are talking about latest generation of high precision land and surface attack weapons which make all previous Soviet weapons obsolete and look like amateurs. 3M14 and X-101 are a new word in TLAMs which, apart from Inertial, GLONASS and TERCOM guidance use other quirky things and, again–nothing was produced ever with combat range of 5,500+ kilometers. None. You are talking about mostly anti-shipping missiles. Among them today only P-1000 Voulkans are retained on old Missile Cruisers of Slava-class and P-700 Granits (NATO: SS-N-19 Shipwreck) carried by some Project 949A (Oscar-II class) SSGNs and Cruiser Peter The Great–most of those will be removed (some are being as I type it) and will have new generation of: P-800 Onyx, 3M54 Kalibr family and 3M22 Zircon hyper-sonic missiles installed. X-32 also is already fully operational for strategic aviation. Those are game changers. Once Mach=8 capable 3M22 Zircon comes on-line, it is pretty much over for the naval warfare as we know it. Real American military professionals know it, others only sense it.

peterAUS > , September 28, 2017 at 4:28 am GMT

Read the article.

Interesting.

Say its all true. So what?

MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

And thats precisely whats going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those oh SHIT! moments. Anyway.

The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OKNeoliberal Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos …in……that……region.

Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well.fine. I just dont see it.

All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is ….just….irrelevant.

The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and thats fine. Not a bad job.

But the game which killed the General will go on. And on…..and on..and it wont be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

Russia can keep the presence -- –US (yes..sorry..Neoliberal Empire) will maintain chaos . Both winners.

Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

The Syrians, though…..mice and elephants.

Long term goal for USI meant Neoliberal Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umphNeoliberal Empire implosion.

SimpleHandle > , September 28, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT

Nobody voted for Trump to advocate a dreamer amnesty, and nobody voted for Trump to continue the neocons foreign policy. So right now Trump has two big black marks against him. I hope Trump can be convinced to back off from his military brinkmanship but with the generals in his administration I am not optimistic. Russia is on the right side of the Syrian conflict.

unit472 > , September 28, 2017 at 5:03 am GMT

@peterAUS Read the article.

Interesting.

Say it's all true. So what?

MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

And that's precisely what's going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those "oh SHIT!" moments. Anyway.

The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK...Neoliberal Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos ......in............that............region.

Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well....fine. I just don't see it.

All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is .......just.......irrelevant.

The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and that's fine. Not a bad job.

But the game which killed the General will go on. And on........and on.....and it won't be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

Russia can keep the presence -----US (yes..sorry..Neoliberal Empire) will maintain chaos . Both winners.

Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

The Syrians, though...........mice and elephants.

Long term goal for US...I meant Neoliberal Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umph...Neoliberal Empire implosion.

All fine. Unless one is a Syrian. Indeed, high tech ( and expensive) weaponry is almost useless against groups like the Taliban or ISIS. Unless you are willing to wage a Mosul type campaign and slaughter civilians on an industrial scale rooting out bands of armed brigands requires infantry. A $ 10 million drone firing a $100,000 missile may take out a terrorist leader but these guys are not indispensable. OTOH some guy driving a car or wearing a suicide vest can take out a whole bunch of highly trained military professionals.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 28, 2017 at 5:56 am GMT

Check out this article and video of a Russian cruise missile launch, hitting ISIS targets a thousand miles away. Very impressive. This was from the Deir al-Zor operation from a few weeks ago. In the comments section there is dispute as to weather the USN has this same vertical launch system capability (launch rate).

VIDEO: Russian Frigate Fires 3 Cruise Missiles on ISIS Targets in Syria

https://news.usni.org/2017/09/05/video-russian-frigate-fires-3-cruise-missiles-isis-targets-syria

Eagle Eye > , September 28, 2017 at 6:02 am GMT

@Ron Unz In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I'd think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump's military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty. Thank you, Mr. Unz, for bringing these items – which are of fundamental strategic importance – to a wider public.

Just found that the Russians actually released a video of the October 2015 cruise missile launches from the Caspian Sea.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/oct/07/russia-launches-missiles-on-isis-from-caspian-sea-video

Frankie P > , September 28, 2017 at 8:49 am GMT

@peterAUS Read the article.

Interesting.

Say it's all true. So what?

MAD was assured during Cold War.So what? Soviet/Warsaw Pact was superior in conventional capability then NATO. So what? The end result was dissolution of not only Warsaw Pact but Soviet Union itself.

And that's precisely what's going on here. Not an all out war with Russia. I mean, it can happen but neither party would want it. If it happens it will be one of those "oh SHIT!" moments. Anyway.

The purpose of war in Syria, from US (OK...Neoliberal Empire/whatever) point is ongoing chaos in that region. Chaos ......in............that............region.

Russia can not make that chaos go away. Or if it can, well....fine. I just don't see it.

All this missiles/high tech/who has a bigger dick thing is .......just.......irrelevant.

The Professor is doing a fine job of spinning positive image on that General (and some other people) death here and that's fine. Not a bad job.

But the game which killed the General will go on. And on........and on.....and it won't be solved by advanced missiles and what not.

Russia is in Syria to prop its strategic ally and keep the presence there. The presence there is the objective.

Russia can keep the presence -----US (yes..sorry..Neoliberal Empire) will maintain chaos . Both winners.

Military personnel on both sides will keep being killed and mutilated. Part of the job. High tech assassinations and just bad luck.

And Islamists from all over the world will keep fulfilling their destiny.

The Syrians, though...........mice and elephants.

Long term goal for US...I meant Neoliberal Empire, is weakening the regime in Moscow and executing a regime change. Long term goal for Russia is enduring and waiting/hoping for US..umph...Neoliberal Empire implosion.

All fine. Unless one is a Syrian. You miss the more immediate goal of the AngloNeoliberal Empire, namely the prevention of the Shia Crescent becoming a stable and calm area, protected and strengthened by well-trained, battle-hardened, united forces, including of course the SAA, Iran, the Iraqi militias, and Hezzbollah. For although as you mentioned the Neoliberal narcissistic great evil and its Yinon Plan to destabilize the entire Middle East / North Africa has long been a goal, we see once again that reality presents them having bitten off more than they could chew, and actions like the Iraq War, a neocon feast of overconfidence and bluster, ended up strengthening the true resistance, the true danger to their regional hegemonic plans. They doubled down, as psychopathic narcissists are prone to do, in Syria, and the resulting action by a stronger and more aggressive Russia has shone the light on the folly of their ways. The resistance has now become The Resistance, and with Americas continuing belligerence pushing Russia and China ever closer, we will soon be calling it THE RESISTANCE.

Frankie P

Randal > , September 28, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT

So, what do you think, what could be the next steps in that play?

OK lets look at it a bit closer. But to do so we must recognise that we are moving to the realms of wider politics rather than its subset, war. At the level we are talking about, the decisions are always political rather than military, even when they are taken by military men in an overtly military regime.

The context is what is discussed by Martyanov above – the US regime, presumably listening to some of the less wise amongst its senior military men and the less honestly motivated amongst its influential political and media figures, decides to try to defeat and destroy the Russian forces in Syria whilst counting on what they believe is the USs general escalation superiority to constrain Russian responses and keep the open conflict contained to the region. After the initial probably devastating US attack on Russian forces in Syria, involving the overloading and suppression by various means including direct SEAD attacks of the limited air defences in theatre, the Russians respond with large standoff attacks that effectively destroy US bases and/or carriers used in the attack or in the vicinity. They would not have enough to keep all US and allied ships and bases from which attacks could be launched in Syria out of action, but they could presumably render several substantial bases unusable for significant periods and sink a number of ships including carriers, which would have to operate from more distant locations, rendering operations more costly and less effective.

What does the US do next? Militarily it has to retaliate, but it can choose how far to escalate in doing so. The problem is that substantive retaliation presumably requires attacks on Russian bases inside Russia, which involves very high risks of uncontrolled escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. Do they do that? If they launch limited attacks inside Russia (eg an attack on a base used to launch the strategic bombers, say), Russia has the strategic capability to carry out direct tit for tat responses.

Given the likely involvement of the forces and bases of regional allies (though who really knows how enthusiastic Turkey would really be, these days), it seems likely the attack on Russian forces in Syria could still be prosecuted to completion with their effective destruction, and meaningful Russia reinforcements interdicted successfully, but that would now seem rather a sideshow. And meanwhile Iraqi and Iranian involvement would be likely, and not to the advantage of the USs interests on the ground. Russian ships in the region and perhaps elsewhere could (certainly would in the case of ships in theatre) be engaged in full scale air/sea battles likely resulting in their fairly prompt destruction, but not without significant ongoing losses to US naval forces.

While all this is going on, what is the political response that will drive the long term outcome? Imo that depends on the political context – is this Pearl Harbor or the Beirut bombings for the US regime? In Pearl Harbor the Japanese executed a Bush Doctrine preventive attack on US military forces intended to forestall what they probably correctly saw as an existential threat from a rival. The result was that although they did considerable military damage all they ultimately achieved was to provide the political context in which the US regime could do what it had not previously been capable of doing, namely to wage a total war to defeat and occupy its Pacific rival. In Beirut the US was interfering in a Lebanese conflict under the transparently false pretext of peacekeeping, and their enemies struck back at them by carrying out a large suicide bombing attack on their military base in theatre. The result was not the creation of a political motivation for invasion and occupation, but rather the discrediting of the intervention policy and the withdrawal of US military forces from Lebanon.

In the context under discussion, would the loss of US bases and/or carriers, with massive loss of life and arguably even greater loss of prestige (and, it should be remembered, substantial loss of actual military intervention capability in theatre, even if that could be rebuilt and replaced over time), result in an American political determination to engage in a long, massive military confrontation to defeat Russia strategically (a WW2 Japan-style open war of invasion and occupation is ruled out by the modern nuclear peace), and would the US have the necessary global support in waging such a campaign to give it any chance of succeeding?

Or would it result in a backlash, both domestic and international, against the US regime itself for attacking Russian forces in Syria and essentially provoking the Russian response?

Much depends on propaganda – does the US regime and its various collaborating elites still have sufficient control of the global and domestic media environment to impose the necessary narrative of a dastardly Russian act of aggression (yes, incredibly enough that is how they try to would portray it – the Americans have demonstrated over the years a shocking degree of hypocrisy when it comes to viewing themselves as the victims in cases of retaliation against them for the actions of their own government and military)? But much also would depend upon the particular circumstances in which the initial American attacks took place and how they were justified (supposed chemical attacks, WMD, responses to provocations, etc).

In the end, all the dithering in Washington over the past six years about how far to go in Syria has been in large part about who gets the blame if things go wrong.

So would the result be some kind of strategic defeat for Russia (as for Japan in WW2), or political turmoil in the US resulting in a loss of stomach for further interference (as in Lebanon)? If the former, then you have to explain how such a defeat is realistically going to occur given the reality of the strategic nuclear deterrent Russia has against any massive military attack, and its very significant defensive conventional capabilities, as well as the reality that even if the USs European and Pacific satellites might be willing to go along in such a venture (questionable in some cases, depending on the context), China and most of Asia, and much of Africa and South America, certainly would not, and these areas weigh much more heavily in the global economic balance than they did a few decades ago.

The real lesson of all this, of course, is that the US regime would have to be profoundly stupid or desperate to risk attacking Russian forces in Syria. Sadly thats not as reassuring as it ought to be.

The Alarmist > , September 28, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

There are reasons why that rabid attack chihuahua Peters retired as a Lieutenant Colonel, not the least of which is an inability to grasp the meaning of tactical and strategic indicators and the differences between them. He undoubtedly makes great money giving Fox red-meat quotes for the Rah-Rah crowd who drive the advertising, but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website September 28, 2017 at 12:48 pm GMT

@The Alarmist There are reasons why that rabid attack chihuahua Peters retired as a Lieutenant Colonel, not the least of which is an inability to grasp the meaning of tactical and strategic indicators and the differences between them. He undoubtedly makes great money giving Fox red-meat quotes for the Rah-Rah crowd who drive the advertising, but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.

but I doubt anyone who is anyone, except for a few of the dumbest neocons, takes anything he says seriously.

Here is the problem, Peters is not alone, in fact, a lot of his hysteria is echoed by such people as former SACEUR Phil Breedlove, today it is Dunford etc. Another matter, because those are still uniformed (or were recently) it is really bad idea to behave as psychopaths as Peters but all of them read from the same script, just the method of delivery differs, slightly at that. As per neocons–these are exact people who set foreign policies in D.C. Their military incompetence is appalling (which is expected from people with their backgrounds) and as such they are extremely dangerous. So I would dispute this thesis of yours. Militarily all neocons are dumb. For people who think that the history of Peloponnesian War (in their big honcho Kagans version) has any relevance to the age of GPS/GLONASS and Combat Informational Control Systems with Stand-off weapons–these people should be looked at very seriously by psychiatrist.

Randal > , September 28, 2017 at 12:57 pm GMT

@Ron Unz In support of the strategic thesis advanced in this important article, I seem to recall that the original Russian military intervention in Syria was accompanied by a volley of ultra-long-range cruise missiles, whose capabilities greatly surprised American military analysts.

At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

Also, since Russia, Iran, and Iraq have become de facto allies in the Syria War, I'd think that the use of Iranian and Iraqi airspace as the launch point for the latest bombardment is also meant to raise much greater doubts in Trump's military advisors about the huge risks in any future attack against Iran or attempt to forcefully renegotiate the existing nuclear treaty.

At the time, such a high-tech attack on ISIS positions seemed rather cost-ineffective to me, but presumably a major purpose was to dissuade America (and Israel) from considering any future attack on what was a rather small and isolated Russian expeditionary force.

Clearly it made no sense in a tactical military sense to use cruise missiles when straightforward air attack was available, and the use of the Kalibrs in October 2015 was certainly motivated as a demonstration of capability. To what degree it was a warning to potential enemies (the US regime, Israel and the Gulf states, obviously, but also remember at the time still Turkey, though that brief hostility seems to have been managed out of existence, helped by the US turning to the Kurds as their proxies in Syria, since then), as opposed to a marketing pitch ( the Russians have been selling export versions of these missiles for many years ) is open to question – probably both.

The issue is not so much the possession of cruise missiles – the Soviets had nuclear armed Tomahawk equivalents back in the 1980s, and its always been assumed that those (the air and sea launched ones, anyway) were repurposed as conventionally armed missiles. Its having them, along with deployable launchers, in numbers and proving that they work reliably that was the issue. Theres an understandable post-Soviet tendency in the US sphere to discount Russian capabilities in terms of high tech weapons. And in order to use cruise missiles in the way Martyanov describes here – basically as a base-denial weapon against a peer rival – you need plenty of them. To hit a US base and render it unusable with conventionally armed weapons, you have to hit it accurately and you have to hit it multiple times, evading or overloading the defences and counter-measures. To take out a carrier, you have to locate the target first, and then beat the counter-measures to hit it at least once and preferably several times, though one hit could be a mission kill. And in the case of the land base, you have to be able to do it again a few days later, and keep hitting it.

So the Russians, with their repeated uses of cruise missiles and the introduction of more modern and potentially significantly more capable missiles that Martyanov refers to, have been building a credible case that the US can no longer count on escalation superiority in Syria to protect them.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website September 28, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

@unit472

Sinking a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier has not yet been done.

And hopefully will not be done in the future–lets keep our fingers crossed.

The Forrestal survived multiple detonations and explosions on its flight deck back in 1967 though over 100 sailors died

Tragic scenario which still rendered USS Forrestal nonoperational. But then again: E=(mv^2)/2 . If to discount explosives, kinetic energy alone of Mach=3 (not to mention Mach=7+) of a single missile will surpass anything what Forestall or, for that matter, USS Enterprise endured in 1969. But here we get into the main issue of leaker and this is the problem which any US naval air defense system is not capable of solving. You may read more on the issue on US Naval Institute written by me.

https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama

Michael Kenny > , September 28, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

This sort of Russia is invincable bluster is old hat. It suggests that Putins American supporters are getting nervous.

Sergey Krieger > , September 28, 2017 at 1:58 pm GMT

Now I see how shooting from Iranian airspace increases salvo.missiles with shorter range can be used which could not have been used from Russian airspace. Now the logic behind longer range missiles is also clear to avoid being dependent on allies too. Those are not reliable
One can only say in retrospective that were it not for what happened in 90s soviet/ Russian stand off capabilities would be absolutely crushing strong long time ago. Now, combined with EW capabilities, air defences and fast moving hard hitting land forces all this United by computerized control it must be something.

The Alarmist > , September 28, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov There are reasons why Breedlove was pushed out. Ive been out of the war for a couple decades, so my confidence that there are saner heads where it counts might be misplaced.

I wouldnt say 99%, but the number is non-trivial, and that is alarming. Peters is aimed at the folks who buy the medicines and other crap hawked on Fox. It helps sell his fiction to people who used to read Tom Clancy but now have to take a step down. If he were taken seriously, hed be doing more appearances on the Sunday shows.

Stoltenbergs militancy is distressing, but I again hope his masters have him on a short leash, meaning he will bark but he wont bite.

The neocons are a problem. I think theyve largely been kept in check by calmer heads in the military, which has to do the fighting and occasional dying in the fights the neocons want to pick, which in my opinion is why the neocons have gone about achieving their aims using the Company and its assets.

DoD has undoubtedly seen and assessed the standoff capability of the Russians, which is why their involvement has been somewhat muted, but yeah, there are some rabid types down the chain who are itching to try their toys on the only real adversaries we have in the world, and given the independence we often give field commanders, they can get us in trouble.

Thorfinnsson > , September 28, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Pardon the pun, but converting anti-ship missiles into land attack missiles doesnt sound like rocket science.

Even if the Soviet Union didnt have advanced land-attack cruise missiles in the 80s, it should still have been obvious to anyone that their anti-ship missiles could be developed into land attack missiles.

Were really just talking about a different guidance package, and depending on the sensors involved that can be as simple as a software change. GLONASS began to enter service in 1982, and the first test of a satellite guided bomb was conducted in 1993. Any idiot shouldve been able to put two and two together here, and at least some Western writers have been warning about increasingly sophisticated Russian weapons for more than a decade.

Whether or not anti-ship missiles make surface warships obsolete I do not know. My hunch is certainly yes (and the future obsolescence of surface warships was predicted already before the war), but this is one of those things we wont truly know until we see it done.

For that matter Im not sure that hypersonic missiles are game changers for naval warfarepresumably one could simply saturate any naval task force with cheaper subsonic missiles and overwhelm defenses. If none of the of the ships in the task force have low frequency radars, stealth aircraft could drop laser guided bombs right down the blind stack directly on top of warships. A 2,000 pound high explosive bomb would sink more or less any warship afloat today. The Australian theorist Carlo Kopp proposed this for the F-22 as part of his pet cause to get his country to acquire F-22s.

It has long struck me as idiotic that modern surface warships are largely unarmored, and I also find it curious how few CIWS Western warships have compared to Russian ones.

DESERT FOX > , September 28, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

The Neoliberal neocons who control the U.S. are used to invading and destroying small countries with no regard for international law and killing millions of civilians including men , women and children, this is what the Neoliberal neocons do or rather this is what they make the American military do.

America is run by a Neoliberal crime cabal that operates much as Hitler and the Nazis did with no regard for life or limb, ie a rogue nation that creates terror groups such as ISIS and AL CIADA that it uses to wreck countries and pretends to fight this self created terror.

The Neoliberal warmongers are going to destroy America and in case of war with Russia both nations will be destroyed and fools like col. ralph peters are typical of the toy officer contingent that is harbored in the military, and who are puppets of Israel.

The real GORILLA is the Neoliberals and Israel who have driven American foreign policy for decades and who are going to destroy America as just as a parasite destroys its host...

GOD BLESS RUSSIA AND SYRIA

[Sep 28, 2017] The Russia-Blamers Think Youre Stupid by Thomas L. Knapp

Notable quotes:
"... Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter. ..."
"... I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators of the new Red Scare are claiming. ..."
"... If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists, it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in the hands of the gullible. Just sayin ..."
Sep 28, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

Russian operatives used Facebook ads to exploit Americas racial and religious divisions, the Washington Post claims in a September 25 headline .

Over at The Daily Beast , Dean Obeidallah explains How Russian Hackers Used My Face to Sabotage Our Politics and Elect Trump.

And US Senator James Lankford (R-OK) thinks that the Russians and their troll farms (as opposed to Donald Trump and professional football players) are behind the current take a knee kerfuffle between Donald Trump and professional football players.

Because, you know, Americans never had rowdy disagreements with each other over race and religion until last year, and wouldnt be having them now if not for those dirty, no-good Russian hackers who stole the 2016 presidential election from the second most hated candidate in history, on behalf of the most hated candidate in history, operating through subterfuge to achieve the outcome that some of us predicted months in advance, long before anyone mentioned Russian hackers. *

Evidence? Who needs evidence? The people who hated the outcome and have been railing against it for nearly a year now have told us what happened, and why, and whodunit, and theyd never lie to us about something like that, would they? They lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and about illegal wiretapping by the NSA, and about a thousand other things, but THIS is DIFFERENT.

Keep in mind that when all the most wild and baseless accusations (e.g. that !THEM RUSSIANS! hacked the voting machines) are discarded, the basic claim remaining is this: By spreading fake news through social media, !THEM RUSSIANS! fooled a bunch of Americans into voting the wrong way.

Lets assume for a moment that the basic claim is true, although so far the actual evidence indicates a tiny propaganda operation in the scale of things. If its true, the conclusion it points to is: American voters are morons who can be gamed into doing anything by anyone with the ability to buy ads on Facebook and Twitter.

I didnt say that. Russian hackers didnt say that, at least in public. Thats what the propagators of the new Red Scare are claiming.

If the American electorate is really as abjectly stupid as the blame the Russians crowd insists, it seems to me that instead of blaming the Russians, they should get to work on either making the electorate smarter or coming up with a system that doesnt leave important political decisions in the hands of the gullible. Just sayin

*In May of 2016, I predicted that Donald Trump would carry every state Mitt Romney carried in 2012, plus Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. I didnt predict Wisconsin and Iowa, but 48 of 50 states from six months out aint too shabby, is it?

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism . He lives and works in north central Florida. This article is reprinted with permission from William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism.

[Sep 27, 2017] Sanctions and counter-sanctions cost the EU US 3.2 billion a month; the Russian economy has lost US 55 billion in total. He calculates the total cost to both at US 155 billion

US Empire is essentially a variation of British empire. Kind of British Empire, version 2
Sep 27, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

SANCTIONS. According to the UN rapporteur , sanctions and counter-sanctions cost the EU US$3.2 billion a month; the Russian economy has lost US$55 billion in total. He calculates the total cost to both at US$155 billion.

In short, he agrees that Europe has been hit much harder than Russia and certainly much more than the USA. Perhaps that was the real point: Washington's " overriding strategic objective is the prevention of a German-Russian alliance ".

[Sep 27, 2017] Moore Victory Shows Populist Movement Bigger Than Trump by James Kirkpatrick

Notable quotes:
"... If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" ..."
"... Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election ..."
"... Associated Press, ..."
"... Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself. ..."
"... Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore ..."
"... McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus ..."
"... Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange ..."
"... President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview ..."
"... New York Daily News, ..."
"... During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump ..."
"... Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' ..."
"... Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate ..."
"... Western Journalism, ..."
"... Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama ..."
"... Talking Points Memo, ..."
"... Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange ..."
"... , Fox News, ..."
"... The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore ..."
"... The Atlantic, ..."
"... Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News ..."
"... Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama ..."
"... How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment ..."
"... Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' ..."
"... Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange ..."
"... Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base ..."
"... New York Times, ..."
"... Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda. ..."
"... If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself. ..."
"... James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc. ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

[See: If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" by James Kirkpatrick]

He must have known what was coming. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a pillar of the cowardly GOP Establishment , announced he would not be running for re-election on Tuesday [ Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election , by Richard Lardner and Erik Schelzig, Associated Press, September 26, 2017]. Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening , by Amber Phillips, Washington Post, September 26, 2017]

And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself.

Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore , by Bob Unruh, WND, August 3, 2017] As a result, Judge Moore openly campaigned against his party's own Senate leader during the primary, claiming a victory for him would mean the end of McConnell's hapless leadership. [ McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus , by Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim, Politico, September 18, 2017]

However, and significantly, Moore never campaigned against President Trump himself. Yet Trump certainly gave Moore ample cause. He openly campaigned for Luther Strange, speaking with the incumbent Senator at a major rally, with Strange sporting a red MAGA hat [ Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange , by Alex Pappas, Fox News, September 22, 2017]. Trump also said Moore would have a hard time beating the Democrats because they would pour in so much money. He even called Moore by the wrong first name [ President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview , by Jason Silverstein, New York Daily News, September 25, 2017]

And yet, revealingly, Moore and his allies framed their insurgency against Trump's wishes as an act of loyalty.

During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump , by Alex Isenstadt and Daniel Strauss, Politico, September 21, 2017]

UKIP's former leader Nigel Farage said "absolutely" that "the point is to help the president" by electing Roy Moore and suggested The Judge would help deliver on President Trump's agenda [ Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' by Ian Mason, Breitbart, September 25, 2017]

Sarah Palin channeled Trump's rhetoric by saying Moore would take on "DC's swamp monsters" and "help Make America Great Again" [ Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate , by Randy DeSoto, Western Journalism, August 24, 2017]

Some of President Trump's best-known advisors also backed Moore.

Ben Carson, one of President Trump's own Cabinet secretaries, essentially endorsed Moore, saying he was "delighted" he was running and that he "wished him well" [ Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama , by Cameron Joseph, Talking Points Memo, September 22, 2017]. Sebastian Gorka endorsed Moore, hinted the president was pressured into backing Strange, and said it would be a "very great day" for Trump if Strange was defeated [ Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange , Fox News, September 23, 2017]. And of course, Breitbart's Steve Bannon endorsed Moore, but said "we did not come here to defy Donald Trump, we came here to praise and honor him" [ The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore , by Rosie Gray, The Atlantic, September 26, 2017]

Even before Trump's inauguration, when there were troubling signs the new President was surrounding himself with the Republican Establishment, it was clear that the President's supporters would need to rise against Trump in his own name . The victory of Roy Moore is the best example so far of how this insurgency will play out.

And most importantly, it shows how the populist and nationalist movement is larger than Trump himself.

Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News interview referenced above, Dr. Gorka claimed "no one voted for Trump, we voted for his agenda." And during his speech in support of Moore, Bannon referenced Jeff Sessions, not Trump, as the "spiritual father of the populist and nationalist movement."

But does Trump himself know this? Already, the Main Stream Media is trying to present this as a devastating defeat for the president personally. The New York Times kvetched about Moore's social views and sneered that his victory "demonstrated in stark terms the limits of Mr. Trump's clout" [ Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama , by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, September 26, 2017]. Jason Le Miere at Newsweek suggested Trump had suffered his first major political defeat at the ballot box and hinted his political weakness could trigger his impeachment. [ How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment , September 26, 2017]

This wildly overstates the case. Trump had hedged his bets, suggesting at one point he made a "mistake" in endorsing Strange [ Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," Washington Post, September 25, 2017]. He also said he would "campaign like hell" for Moore if Moore won [ Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me , by Sean Langille, Washington Examiner, September 25, 2017].

It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.

But there is still a lesson for Trump. The Chamber of Commerce and Republican Establishment picked this fight to "shut down" Moore and show populists who was in charge. [ Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, September 24, 2017] They just got their answer. It's not them.

Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange , by Allahpundit, Hot Air, September 26, 2017]

Tellingly, Trump in his messy intuitive way is already embarking on a movement to shore up his base by taking on the pro-Black Lives Matter and anti-American antics of the National Football League [ Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base , by Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman, New York Times, September 25, 2017]. But such symbolic fights are meaningless unless they are coupled with real action on trade and immigration policy.

Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda.

If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself.

Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him. It's time for him to return to the people who have supported him from the very beginning.

James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

Parsifal > , September 27, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT

Look people, it's time to grasp some basic politics. The heart might have said Roy Moore but a leader can not think with his heart alone. Whatever happened in the GOP primary, Luther Strange was going to remain in the Senate until January. There are big, important votes coming up in Congress and Trump's margin of error in the Senate is virtually non-existent. What sense does it make to alienate, even slight, a sitting Senator that has always voted your way and has never trashed you in public?

Realist > , September 27, 2017 at 8:13 am GMT

Moore's victory means nothing. If Moore is elected it will change nothing. The Deep State rules .they will eat Moore for lunch.

"Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him."

Trump has caved to the Establishment Republicans. He will never return.

Randal > , September 27, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT

All seems pretty much directly on target.

It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.

As a man who supposedly highly values personal loyalty, does Trump really not understand that the men who pushed him to support Strange are also the men who will be first in line to vote for impeachment the moment it looks as though the leftist establishment has found a pretext that will succeed?

Greg Bacon > , Website September 27, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT

Like Bannon said, the Trump people voted for is gone. If he was ever around, or just being smart enough to know what to say to get votes.

President Kushner, er Trump will not be draining any Swamp anytime soon, not until he drags himself out of the Swamp and back onto sane, dry land.

WhiteWolf > , September 27, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT

The movement better start paying attention to the thoughtcrime laws being passed right now under the banner of "hatespeech". The first amendment isn't just a nice concept. People in other countries are jailed for speaking their mind in the way Americans take for granted.

[Sep 27, 2017] Bannon Roy Moore Is a Bannonite on Foreign Policy Too by Curt Mills

Notable quotes:
"... We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated. ..."
"... It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

...Steve Bannon told me Wednesday afternoon that he and Moore, who defeated Sen. Luther Strange (whom President Trump had backed) for the Republican primary nomination in Alabama on Tuesday, see eye to eye on global affairs, as well, and that, yes, he is every bit the Bannonite on foreign policy.

Moore, the twice-ousted Alabama Chief Justice, is likely headed to the United States Senate. Bannon and the Trump movement have often been depicted as essentially non-interventionist. My recent reporting indicates a caveat to that, however. While Bannon and his cohort might differ with the blob on confronting Kim Jong Un in North Korea or Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Vladimir Putin in Russia, they are much more suspicious of the government of Iran. ...

... ... ...

The judges website, Roymoore.org, features such language. We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated.

But there are notable divergences from the paleocons. Like Bannon, Moore is a hawk for Israel. We should pass the Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. His writing that the U.S. should not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which leave us vulnerable to foreign powers and that it should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel's security clearly alludes to the Iran deal. The pair would part company with Buchanan on that.

And like President Trump, Moore, a graduate of West Point, wants a bigger military. More funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to provide our Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, and Coast Guard with the most modern technology including weapon systems. Respect for our strength is the best defense. Walk softly and carry a big stick is and should be our guide.

... ... ...

It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative , tells me. My guess is that while the nationalists will speak more provocatively, abort diplomatic agreements, and ramp up `political warfare, they'll engage in fewer large-scale, nation-building interventions. McCarthy adds that religion is important here, as well. Moore and Bannon are both on record as deeply religious. Neoconservative foreign policy is sold as a scheme for secular salvation, bringing the blessings of liberalism and democracy and human rights to a world that eagerly awaits them, says McCarthy. Moore's religious convictions might help to immunize him against a belief in worldly salvation through American arms and advisers...

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills.

[Sep 27, 2017] Come You Masters of War by Matthew Harwood

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. ..."
"... he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force. ..."
"... Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights. ..."
"... They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.) ..."
"... History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning. ..."
"... Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives. ..."
"... The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power. ..."
"... Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts. ..."
"... As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. ..."
"... Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge. ..."
"... Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | www.fff.org

Review of America's War for the Greater Middle East by Andrew J. Bacevich (New York: Random House, 2016; 480 pages)

Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Over time, other considerations intruded and complicated the wars conduct, but oil as a prerequisite of freedom was from day one an abiding consideration.

By 1969, oil imports already made up 20 percent of the daily oil consumption in the United States. Four years later, Arab oil exporters suspended oil shipments to the United States to punish America for supporting Israel in the October War. The American economy screeched to a halt, seemingly held hostage by foreigners -- a big no-no for a country accustomed to getting what it wants. Predictably the U.S. response was regional domination to keep the oil flowing to America, especially to the Pentagon and its vast, permanent war machine.

The Middle East was now a U.S. military priority, and the pursuit of direct American domination of the region came from none other than the supposed peacenik, Jimmy Carter. Before him, Richard Nixon was content to have the Middle East managed by proxies after the bloodletting America experienced in Vietnam. His arch-proxy was the despised shah of Iran, whom the United States had installed into power and then armed to the teeth. When his regime collapsed in 1979, felled by Islamic revolutionaries who would eventually capture the American embassy and initiate the Iranian hostage crisis, so too did the Nixon Doctrine. That same year, the Soviet Union rolled into Afghanistan. The world was a mess, and Carter was under extreme pressure to do something about it, lest he lose his bid for a second term. (He suffered a crushing defeat anyway.)

Furies beyond reckoning

The result was the Carter Doctrine. Delivered to the American people during the 1980 State of Union Address, Carter started Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Months earlier, in his infamous malaise speech, Carter asked Americans to simplify their lives and moderate their energy use. Now he declared Americas right to cheap energy. Let our position be absolutely clear, he said. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Analyzing the Carter Doctrine, Bacevich writes that it represented a broad, open-ended commitment, one that expanded further with time -- one that implied the conversion of the Persian Gulf into an informal American protectorate. Defending the region meant policing it. And police it America has done, wrapping its naked self-interest in the seemingly noble cloth of democratization and human rights.

It is illustrative, and alarming, to list Bacevichs selected campaigns and operations in the region since 1980 up to the present, unleashed by Carter and subsequent presidents. Lets go in alphabetical order by country followed by the campaigns and operations:

  1. Afghanistan (Cyclone, 1980–1989; Infinite Reach, 1998; Enduring Freedom, 2001–2015; Freedoms Sentinel, 2015–present);
  2. Bosnia (Deny Flight, 1993–1995; Deliberate Force, 1995; Joint Endeavor, 1995–1996);
  3. East Africa (Enduring Freedom -- Trans Sahara, 2007–present);
  4. Egypt (Bright Star, 1980–2009);
  5. Iraq (Desert Storm, 1991; Southern Watch, 1991–2003; Desert Strike, 1996; Northern Watch, 1997–2003; Desert Fox, 1998; Iraqi Freedom, 2003–2010; New Dawn, 2010–2011; Inherent Resolve, 2014–present);
  6. Iran (Eagle Claw, 1980; Olympic Games, 2007–2010)
  7. Kosovo (Determined Force, 1998; Allied Force, 1999; Joint Guardian, 1999–2005);
  8. Lebanon (Multinational Force, 1982–1984);
  9. Libya (El Dorado Canyon, 1986; Odyssey Dawn, 2011);
  10. North/West Africa (Enduring Freedom -- Trans Sahara, 2007– present);
  11. Pakistan (Neptune Spear, 2011);
  12. Persian Gulf (Earnest Will, 1987–1988; Nimble Archer, 1987; Praying Mantis, 1988);
  13. Saudi Arabia (Desert Shield, 1990; Desert Focus, 1996);
  14. Somalia (Restore Hope, 1992–1993; Gothic Serpent, 1993); Sudan (Infinite Reach, 1998);
  15. Syria (Inherent Resolve, 2014–present);
  16. Turkey (Provide Comfort, 1991);
  17. Yemen (Determined Response, 2000)

While Bacevich deftly takes the reader through the history of all those wars, the most important aspect of his book is his critique of the United Statess permanent military establishment and the power it wields in Washington. According to Bacevich, U.S. military leaders have a tendency to engage in fantastical thinking rife with hubris. Too many believe the United States is a global force for good that has the messianic duty to usher in secular modernity, a force that no one should ever interfere with, either militarily or ideologically.

As Bacevich makes plain again and again, history does not back up that mindset. For instance, after the Soviet Unions crippling defeat in Afghanistan, the Washington elite saw it as an American victory, the inauguration of the end of history and the inevitable march of democratic capitalism. They didnt see that the U.S.-armed Afghan mujahideen also believed they were the victors and that they had every intention of resisting Americas version of modernity as much as they had resisted the Soviet Unions. (Americas self-destructive trend of arming its eventual enemies -- either directly or indirectly from Saddam Hussein to ISIS, respectively -- is a recurring theme of Bacevichs narrative.)

Over and over again after 9/11, America would be taught this lesson, as Islamic extremists, both Sunni and Shia, bloodied the U.S. military across the Greater Middle East, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. History cannot be controlled, and it had its revenge on a U.S. military and political elite who somehow believed they could see the future and manage historical forces toward a predestined end that naturally benefitted America. As Reinhold Niebuhr warned, and Bacevich quotes approvingly, The recalcitrant forces in the historical drama have a power and persistence beyond our reckoning.

Yet across Americas War for the Greater Middle East, presidents would speak theologically of Americas role in the world, never admitting the United States is not an instrument of the Almighty. George H.W. Bush would speak of a new world order. Bill Clintons Secretary of State Madeleine Albright would declare that America is the indispensable nation. George W. Bushs faith in this delusion led him to declare a global war on terrorism, where American military might would extinguish evil wherever it resided and initiate Condoleeza Rices 'paradigm of progress -- democracy, limited government, market economics, and respect for human (and especially womens) rights across the region. As with all zealots, there was no acknowledgment by the Bush administration, flamboyantly Christian, that evil resided inside them too. Barack Obama seemed to pull back from this arrogance in his 2009 Cairo speech, declaring, No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. Yet he continued to articulate his faith that all people desire liberal democracy, even though that simply isnt true.

All in all, American presidents and their military advisors believed they could impose a democratic capitalist peace on the world, undeterred that each intervention created more instability and unleashed new violent forces the United States would eventually engage militarily, such as Saddam Hussein, al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Bacevich explains that this conviction, deeply embedded in the American collective psyche, provides one of the connecting threads making the ongoing War for the Greater Middle East something more than a collection of disparate and geographically scattered skirmishes.

War and diplomacy

Another piece of connective tissue, according to Bacevich, is the belief that war is not the failure of diplomacy but a necessary ingredient to its success. The U.S. military establishment learned this lesson in Bosnia when U.S.-led NATO bombing brought Serbia to the negotiating table at the Dayton Peace Accords. The proper role of armed force, writes Bacevich, was not to supplant diplomacy but to make it work. Gen. Wesley Clark was more succinct when he called war coercive diplomacy during the Kosovo conflict. U.S. military force was no longer a last resort, particularly when technology was making it easier to unleash violence without endangering U.S. service members lives.

This logic would run aground in Iraq after 9/11 during what Bacevich calls the Third Gulf War. In an act of preventive war, the Bush administration shocked and awed Baghdad, believing U.S. military supremacy and its almost divine violence would bring other state sponsors of terrorism to heel after America quickly won the war. Vanquishing Saddam Hussein and destroying his army promised to invest American diplomacy with the power to coerce. Although the Bush administration believed the war ended after three weeks, Bacevich notes, the Third Gulf War was destined to continue for another 450. The people on the ground, as the D.C. elites just learned in November, have a way of not going along with the best-laid plans made for them in the epicenters of power.

There was hope that Barack Obama, a constitutional professor, would correct the Bush administrations failures and start to wind down Americas War for the Greater Middle East. Instead, he expanded it into Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and West Africa through drone warfare and special-operations missions. Without any unifying aim or idea, according to Bacevich, the Obama administrations principal contribution to Americas War for the Greater Middle East was to expand its fronts.

Now this war is in the hands of Donald J. Trump. If there is any upside to a Trump presidency -- and I find it hard to find many -- its the possibility that the intensity of American imperialism in the Middle East will wane. But I find that likelihood remote. Trump has promised to wipe out ISIS, which means continued military action in at least Iraq, Syria, and Libya. He has also called for more military spending, and I find it hard to believe that he or the national-security establishment will increase investment in the military and then show restraint in the use of force overseas.

As Bacevich clearly shows over and over again in his narrative, the men and women who make up the defense establishment have a fanatical, almost theological, belief in the transformational power of American violence. They persist in this belief despite all evidence to the contrary. These are the men and women who will be whispering their advice into the new presidents ear. Expect Uncle Sams fangs to grow longer, his talons sharper, his violence huge.

Bacevich, himself, is not hopeful. In a note to readers that greets them before the prologue, Bacevich is refreshingly terse with his assessment of Americas war for the Greater Middle East: We have not won it. We are not winning it. Simply trying harder is unlikely to produce a different outcome. And to this its not hard to hear Trump retort, Loser! And so the needless violence will continue on and on with no end in sight unless the American population develops a Middle East syndrome to replace the Vietnam syndrome that once made Washington wary of war.

That lack of confidence in the masters of war cant come soon enough.

This article was originally published in the July 2017 edition of Future of Freedom .

[Sep 27, 2017] Bannon Roy Moore Is a Bannonite on Foreign Policy Too by Curt Mills

Notable quotes:
"... We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated. ..."
"... It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

...Steve Bannon told me Wednesday afternoon that he and Moore, who defeated Sen. Luther Strange (whom President Trump had backed) for the Republican primary nomination in Alabama on Tuesday, see eye to eye on global affairs, as well, and that, yes, he is every bit the Bannonite on foreign policy.

Moore, the twice-ousted Alabama Chief Justice, is likely headed to the United States Senate. Bannon and the Trump movement have often been depicted as essentially non-interventionist. My recent reporting indicates a caveat to that, however. While Bannon and his cohort might differ with the blob on confronting Kim Jong Un in North Korea or Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Vladimir Putin in Russia, they are much more suspicious of the government of Iran. ...

... ... ...

The judges website, Roymoore.org, features such language. We should not be entangled in foreign wars merely at the whim and caprice of a President, Moore writes on his site. We must treat sovereign nations as we would want to be treated.

But there are notable divergences from the paleocons. Like Bannon, Moore is a hawk for Israel. We should pass the Taylor Force Act and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. His writing that the U.S. should not rely on nuclear reduction treaties which leave us vulnerable to foreign powers and that it should reject agreements or policies that undermine Israel's security clearly alludes to the Iran deal. The pair would part company with Buchanan on that.

And like President Trump, Moore, a graduate of West Point, wants a bigger military. More funding should be available to develop a missile defense system and to provide our Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines, and Coast Guard with the most modern technology including weapon systems. Respect for our strength is the best defense. Walk softly and carry a big stick is and should be our guide.

... ... ...

It's too early to tell whether the nationalist hawks will be more or less interventionist overall than the internationalist, neocon hawks were, Daniel McCarthy, editor-at-large at the American Conservative , tells me. My guess is that while the nationalists will speak more provocatively, abort diplomatic agreements, and ramp up `political warfare, they'll engage in fewer large-scale, nation-building interventions. McCarthy adds that religion is important here, as well. Moore and Bannon are both on record as deeply religious. Neoconservative foreign policy is sold as a scheme for secular salvation, bringing the blessings of liberalism and democracy and human rights to a world that eagerly awaits them, says McCarthy. Moore's religious convictions might help to immunize him against a belief in worldly salvation through American arms and advisers...

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills.

[Sep 27, 2017] Moore Victory Shows Populist Movement Bigger Than Trump by James Kirkpatrick

Notable quotes:
"... If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" ..."
"... Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election ..."
"... Associated Press, ..."
"... Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself. ..."
"... Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore ..."
"... McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus ..."
"... Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange ..."
"... President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview ..."
"... New York Daily News, ..."
"... During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump ..."
"... Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' ..."
"... Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate ..."
"... Western Journalism, ..."
"... Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama ..."
"... Talking Points Memo, ..."
"... Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange ..."
"... , Fox News, ..."
"... The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore ..."
"... The Atlantic, ..."
"... Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News ..."
"... Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama ..."
"... How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment ..."
"... Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," ..."
"... Washington Post, ..."
"... Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me ..."
"... Washington Examiner, ..."
"... Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' ..."
"... Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange ..."
"... Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base ..."
"... New York Times, ..."
"... Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda. ..."
"... If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself. ..."
"... James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc. ..."
Sep 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

[See: If Only The God-Emperor Knew: Using Trump_vs_deep_state Against The Trump Administration" by James Kirkpatrick]

He must have known what was coming. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, a pillar of the cowardly GOP Establishment , announced he would not be running for re-election on Tuesday [ Republican Sen. Corker announces he won't seek re-election , by Richard Lardner and Erik Schelzig, Associated Press, September 26, 2017]. Corker's departure is widely being interpreted as a sign of the Establishment's inability to control the GOP base, as the election of President Trump, the rise of nationalism and the emergence of alternative media outlets (such as Breitbart and VDARE.com) make it harder for cuckservatives to Republican primary voters in line [ Sen. Bob Corker's retirement is notable for when it's happening , by Amber Phillips, Washington Post, September 26, 2017]

And now, we have the ultimate proof in Alabama. Judge Roy Moore, one of the most persistent targets of the Southern Poverty Law Center, is now the Republican nominee for the Senate. And he defeated incumbent Senator Luther Strange despite Strange being endorsed by President Donald J. Trump himself.

Of course, Strange didn't just have Trump in his corner. He also had Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell using his PAC to run negative ads against Moore, ads which conservative websites called "defamatory" and which cost many millions of dollars [ McConnell's Super PAC accused of 'defaming ' Roy Moore , by Bob Unruh, WND, August 3, 2017] As a result, Judge Moore openly campaigned against his party's own Senate leader during the primary, claiming a victory for him would mean the end of McConnell's hapless leadership. [ McConnell's mortal enemy might soon be in his caucus , by Burgess Everett and Seung Min Kim, Politico, September 18, 2017]

However, and significantly, Moore never campaigned against President Trump himself. Yet Trump certainly gave Moore ample cause. He openly campaigned for Luther Strange, speaking with the incumbent Senator at a major rally, with Strange sporting a red MAGA hat [ Alabama rally: Trump campaigns in last-ditch effort for Senate candidate Luther Strange , by Alex Pappas, Fox News, September 22, 2017]. Trump also said Moore would have a hard time beating the Democrats because they would pour in so much money. He even called Moore by the wrong first name [ President Trump admits he doesn't 'know that much' about Alabama Senate contender Roy Moore, gets his name wrong in interview , by Jason Silverstein, New York Daily News, September 25, 2017]

And yet, revealingly, Moore and his allies framed their insurgency against Trump's wishes as an act of loyalty.

During a debate with Strange, Moore suggested President Trump was being "redirected" by Mitch McConnell and others who "will not support his [Trump's] agenda" [ Alabama Senate debate erupts over whether McConnell is manipulating Trump , by Alex Isenstadt and Daniel Strauss, Politico, September 21, 2017]

UKIP's former leader Nigel Farage said "absolutely" that "the point is to help the president" by electing Roy Moore and suggested The Judge would help deliver on President Trump's agenda [ Brexit Hero Farage in Alabama: Judge Roy Moore 'Not Going To Be Sucked Into The Swamp' by Ian Mason, Breitbart, September 25, 2017]

Sarah Palin channeled Trump's rhetoric by saying Moore would take on "DC's swamp monsters" and "help Make America Great Again" [ Sarah Palin endorses Judge Roy Moore for US Senate , by Randy DeSoto, Western Journalism, August 24, 2017]

Some of President Trump's best-known advisors also backed Moore.

Ben Carson, one of President Trump's own Cabinet secretaries, essentially endorsed Moore, saying he was "delighted" he was running and that he "wished him well" [ Ben Carson Splits With Trump, Basically Endorses Roy Moore in Alabama , by Cameron Joseph, Talking Points Memo, September 22, 2017]. Sebastian Gorka endorsed Moore, hinted the president was pressured into backing Strange, and said it would be a "very great day" for Trump if Strange was defeated [ Gorka: Trump Was Pressured to Endorse 'Swamp Dweller' Strange , Fox News, September 23, 2017]. And of course, Breitbart's Steve Bannon endorsed Moore, but said "we did not come here to defy Donald Trump, we came here to praise and honor him" [ The Breitbart Universe Unites For Roy Moore , by Rosie Gray, The Atlantic, September 26, 2017]

Even before Trump's inauguration, when there were troubling signs the new President was surrounding himself with the Republican Establishment, it was clear that the President's supporters would need to rise against Trump in his own name . The victory of Roy Moore is the best example so far of how this insurgency will play out.

And most importantly, it shows how the populist and nationalist movement is larger than Trump himself.

Trump's advisors seem to know this. In the Fox News interview referenced above, Dr. Gorka claimed "no one voted for Trump, we voted for his agenda." And during his speech in support of Moore, Bannon referenced Jeff Sessions, not Trump, as the "spiritual father of the populist and nationalist movement."

But does Trump himself know this? Already, the Main Stream Media is trying to present this as a devastating defeat for the president personally. The New York Times kvetched about Moore's social views and sneered that his victory "demonstrated in stark terms the limits of Mr. Trump's clout" [ Roy Moore Wins Senate G.O.P. Runoff in Alabama , by Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns, September 26, 2017]. Jason Le Miere at Newsweek suggested Trump had suffered his first major political defeat at the ballot box and hinted his political weakness could trigger his impeachment. [ How Alabama Senate Election Results Could Trigger Trump's Impeachment , September 26, 2017]

This wildly overstates the case. Trump had hedged his bets, suggesting at one point he made a "mistake" in endorsing Strange [ Trump supports Strange, but says it may be "mistake," Washington Post, September 25, 2017]. He also said he would "campaign like hell" for Moore if Moore won [ Roy Moore: 'I can't wait' for Trump to 'campaign like hell' for me , by Sean Langille, Washington Examiner, September 25, 2017].

It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.

But there is still a lesson for Trump. The Chamber of Commerce and Republican Establishment picked this fight to "shut down" Moore and show populists who was in charge. [ Chamber of Commerce: 'Shut Down' Roy Moore & 'Remind Bannon Who's In Charge' by Joel Pollak, Breitbart, September 24, 2017] They just got their answer. It's not them.

Trump should seize on the narrative of his supposed opponents. He is unquestionably being given objectively poor political counsel by his aides!not surprising how utterly incompetent the Republican Establishment is when it comes to political strategy. [ Steve Bannon: We Need A Review After This Alabama Race To See How Trump Came To Endorse Someone Like Luther Strange , by Allahpundit, Hot Air, September 26, 2017]

Tellingly, Trump in his messy intuitive way is already embarking on a movement to shore up his base by taking on the pro-Black Lives Matter and anti-American antics of the National Football League [ Trump's N.F.L. Critique a Calculated Attempt to Shore Up His Base , by Glenn Thrush and Maggie Haberman, New York Times, September 25, 2017]. But such symbolic fights are meaningless unless they are coupled with real action on trade and immigration policy.

Today, those who defeated Trump in the Republican army are still proclaiming their loyalty to their Commander-in-Chief. But Donald Trump, memes aside, is not a sovereign or just a symbol. He is a man who created a political movement!and that movement expects results. The movement he created, and which put him in office, is desperate for him to lead on an America First agenda.

If Trump does not give it results, the movement will eventually find a new leader. Roy Moore is almost certainly not that leader on a national scale. But in Alabama tonight, Moore proved he is stronger than the president himself.

Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him. It's time for him to return to the people who have supported him from the very beginning.

James Kirkpatrick [ Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

Parsifal > , September 27, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT

Look people, it's time to grasp some basic politics. The heart might have said Roy Moore but a leader can not think with his heart alone. Whatever happened in the GOP primary, Luther Strange was going to remain in the Senate until January. There are big, important votes coming up in Congress and Trump's margin of error in the Senate is virtually non-existent. What sense does it make to alienate, even slight, a sitting Senator that has always voted your way and has never trashed you in public?

Realist > , September 27, 2017 at 8:13 am GMT

Moore's victory means nothing. If Moore is elected it will change nothing. The Deep State rules .they will eat Moore for lunch.

"Trump has given the Establishment Republicans their chance and they have failed him."

Trump has caved to the Establishment Republicans. He will never return.

Randal > , September 27, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT

All seems pretty much directly on target.

It's hardly a devastating defeat for President Trump when his supposed enemies are fanatically loyal to him and his "allies" can't wait to stab him in the back.

As a man who supposedly highly values personal loyalty, does Trump really not understand that the men who pushed him to support Strange are also the men who will be first in line to vote for impeachment the moment it looks as though the leftist establishment has found a pretext that will succeed?

Greg Bacon > , Website September 27, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT

Like Bannon said, the Trump people voted for is gone. If he was ever around, or just being smart enough to know what to say to get votes.

President Kushner, er Trump will not be draining any Swamp anytime soon, not until he drags himself out of the Swamp and back onto sane, dry land.

WhiteWolf > , September 27, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT

The movement better start paying attention to the thoughtcrime laws being passed right now under the banner of "hatespeech". The first amendment isn't just a nice concept. People in other countries are jailed for speaking their mind in the way Americans take for granted.

[Sep 26, 2017] US-Saudi Alliance Fragments the Middle East (2-2) by RANIA KHALEK

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... And so, now, you have a situation now where Yazidis and Sunni Arabs who were able to live together for quite a while in Sinjar next door, being not just neighbors, but also friends, now hate each other. Yazidis never, ever, ever, and this is actually not just true for Yazidis, I mean, I'm talking like minority communities in general in Iraq, they now kind of harbor this hatred for Sunni Arabs because of what ISIS did to them and in some cases, it was their neighbors who turned on them when ISIS came. So, people that they knew, people that were even friends with. And so, now there is this trauma and this distrust between Sunni Arabs and Yazidis and they probably won't be able to live together for a very, very long time. ..."
"... At the same time, the Kurdistan regional government is using the ISIS atrocities as a way to kind of like remove Sunni Arabs from areas just kind of calling them blanket, calling them all ISIS and removing them and burning down their villages as they did in Sinjar. And so, now you have a situation where it's just like you said, one community after another keeps being pitted against the other. And at the end of the day, the region is less safe. The region is a less hospitable place for people to live, and I mean Iraq is honestly one of the most extreme versions of this that I've ever seen and it's the outcome of decades and decades and decades of U.S. empire meddling in that region and just using one group against another. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | therealnews.com

The consequences of US meddling and Saudi Wahhabism have decimated Iraq and pitted multiple Middle East groups against the other, says independent journalist Rania Khalek

... ... ...

RANIA KHALEK: No, exactly, and at the end of the day, it kind of goes to the outside players who continue to meddle in the region. They just create a more violent, more toxic region where the conditions are fomented for more sectarianism, for more hatred, for more atrocities, one group against another.

And you know, I didn't really get to this in my piece, but now you have a situation because of what happened with ISIS, and we can also say ISIS, the outcome of ISIS existing, is a direct result of the U.S. intervention in Iraq. You could say that Al Qaeda would never have come to Iraq. You never would have had ISIS had the U.S. not opened the floodgates when it intervened in that country in the way it intervened.

And so, now, you have a situation now where Yazidis and Sunni Arabs who were able to live together for quite a while in Sinjar next door, being not just neighbors, but also friends, now hate each other. Yazidis never, ever, ever, and this is actually not just true for Yazidis, I mean, I'm talking like minority communities in general in Iraq, they now kind of harbor this hatred for Sunni Arabs because of what ISIS did to them and in some cases, it was their neighbors who turned on them when ISIS came. So, people that they knew, people that were even friends with. And so, now there is this trauma and this distrust between Sunni Arabs and Yazidis and they probably won't be able to live together for a very, very long time.

At the same time, the Kurdistan regional government is using the ISIS atrocities as a way to kind of like remove Sunni Arabs from areas just kind of calling them blanket, calling them all ISIS and removing them and burning down their villages as they did in Sinjar. And so, now you have a situation where it's just like you said, one community after another keeps being pitted against the other. And at the end of the day, the region is less safe. The region is a less hospitable place for people to live, and I mean Iraq is honestly one of the most extreme versions of this that I've ever seen and it's the outcome of decades and decades and decades of U.S. empire meddling in that region and just using one group against another.

It's worse than any place I've ever seen in that respect. Syria, Lebanon, I mean Iraq really tops it all. And so at the end of the day, I think it's really kind of a lesson in why the U.S. should not be involved in the Middle East in the way it has been.

AARON MATÉ: Rania, finally, you spoke to Yezidis who survived and witnessed unimaginable atrocities under ISIS. What was that like for you?

RANIA KHALEK: It's the first time that I've ever had to sit down and listen to somebody tell me about how they were gang raped or about they were raped at all. I'm not a grief counselor and I don't think that I've ever, ever, I mean I've never heard these kinds of stories before. It was really, really shocking to me especially speaking to the women survivors. The most, it was really, really shocking to me, the kinds of stuff they went through.

In one case, one woman told me that the ISIS wife of one of the men who bought her, she was sold seven times, and one of the men who bought her, his wife actually helped him rape her. So, you have women who participated in helping to rape people because of their identity, because they were sub-human to them because they were Yazidi.

Hearing these kinds of stories, honestly, it really felt like I was talking to Holocaust survivors. It was really, really shocking and I don't think that level of, like I said, the Yazidi plight has received a lot of attention, but I don't think their genocide has necessarily received the attention that it deserves because all I kept thinking was how angry it made me.

Because there's an ideological basis, an ideological foundation for why ISIS did the things that they did. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. It doesn't come from nowhere. Its ideology is based in Salafism and Wahhabism and it's an ideology that is the state religion of the U.S.'s greatest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

And that's something that Yazidis kept saying to me that I never, ever, ever see expressed in any articles that I read about the Yazidis is they always, always say, "How come Saudi Arabia is allowed to push these ideas everywhere." That's where this comes from. This is who did this to us as this ideology. And they mention the Saudis and they mention the U.S.. For some reason, this will be in other articles I have coming out about this issue, but I never, ever read about this. And so if anything, hearing the kinds of stories I heard, at the end of the day, as atrocious as they were and as traumatic as they were to hear, what made me angriest is that nobody's talking about the ideological basis behind this, which is a fascistic ideology that is tolerated because it comes from America's number one ally in the region.

AARON MATÉ: Yeah, and really on this front I have to point out, for raising this issue in the same way that we've seen supporters of Israel call critics of Israel anti-Semites. I've recently been seeing some critics of yours paint your argument as Islamophobic for pointing to the particularly dangerous facets of Wahhabism in the Saudi Arabian version which I found a very interesting parallel. I don't know, a brief comment on that?

RANIA KHALEK: Well, yeah, so I think that that's a really great way you just put it is if anything, the people who want to defend Wahhabism have adopted a similar strategy as we've seen Israel's most excited supporters take views against its critics, which is to call anybody who criticizes Zionism or Israel or the policies of Israel, an anti-Semite. And it's really sad to me to see people taking that strategy and applying it to the issue of Islamophobia. Especially at a time when in America, Islamophobia is at its peak. It's at its worst it's ever been. We have a president right now who literally got elected on hatred for Muslims.

So, it's not something that should ever be, I feel like it makes a mockery of Islamophobia to try and say that and austere strain of Sunni Islam like Wahhabism, to say that criticizing that is somehow Islamophobic. It's absolutely absurd. And beyond that, I will tell you right now, it is not just, this is the fascistic ideology in the Middle East is Wahhabism and Salafi-like Jihadi style thinking, which comes directly out of Wahhabism.

And so for someone like me, who's a Middle Easterner, who at the moment is based in the region, I can tell you right now this is a conversation here that people are having and they don't see this being Islamophobic whatsoever, and it's really absurd for people in the West to be projecting Western dynamics of Islamophobia onto a region that actually does have to deal with groups that want to impose, Sharia Law that want to impose Al-Qaeda style laws. Because we do have Al-Qaeda in this region that does want to impose this on people, that wants to wipe out minorities, that wants to wipe out secular people, that wants to wipe out anybody who doesn't agree with them.

And so I think it's just really, there's a lot of conversations happening among progressives in the U.S. about how it might be Islamophobic to be criticizing, like I said, Wahhabism and Salafism, but from my vantage point in this region, it just looks so absurd and so disconnected from reality.

AARON MATÉ: The term that I think Max Blumenthal coined, correct me if I'm wrong is 'Woke Wahhabism.'

RANIA KHALEK: Yeah, [laughs] 'Woke Wahhabism.' I don't think people understand. It's so insane. Wahhabism literally preaches like, supremacy. It's like the Middle East's version of white supremacy is Wahhabism. It's like these Al-Qaeda groups, these ISIS groups are the Middle East's version of the KKK and of these white nationalist groups you see in the U.S., and so if anything, these are kind of similar symptoms of something I see happening around the globe which is this sort of rise of fascism, but we always have to remember that in the Middle East, in the context of the Middle East and even beyond the Middle East, Wahhabism isn't rising naturally. Salafism isn't rising naturally. Saudi Arabia has spent a hundred billion dollars plus over the past several decades with the U.S.'s approval and participation supporting this ideology in Muslim communities around the world. And this is something we need to be talking about or else we end up conceding the conversation about these issues to the far Right, which is just going to blanket brush every single Muslim as being a part of the Wahhabi style doctrine, which isn't true.

And so, I think that this is a conversation that the Left needs to be having. It needs to be on the forefront of because at the end of the day, Wahhabism is really just a tool of American imperialism because the Saudis don't do anything without America's approval and without America participating in helping them do it. So that's something to consider when we do have these conversations. 'Woke Wahhabism.' [laughs].

AARON MATÉ: Rania Khalek, independent Journalist, co-host of the podcast, Unauthorized Disclosure. Her new piece for Alternate's Grayzone Project is called In the

'Field with Yezidi Fighters, Tales of Genocide at ISIS's Hands and More Conflicts to Come.' Rania, thank you.

Youri • 2 days ago

thank you Real News for having Rania on, I feel you could invite her more but I'm glad you haven't blacklisted her like Vice, Jacobin, Al Jazeera, Democracy Now, The Intercept and others who have shamefully jumped the shark on Syria, Venezuela, and Russia conspiracy theories. Rania I feel deserves a Reality Asserts itself special, please do it. And I can't believe with all we know about Saudi Arabia and US-UK foreign policy towards the Middle East that people would be for the overthrow of Assad and ignore Western support for Saudi and Qatar and turkey exporting ISIS to Syria to overthrow Assad so they can put pipeline and create a Sunni client state there. How is Rania or anyone islamaphobic or a assadist for that? its ridiculous.

Well Rania keep up the brilliant work your doing, and all the haters and smear artists and insincere left outlets and faux indie outlets can go to hell. Folks donate generously to the Real News, AlterNet that publishes Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton and yours truly Rania's work, and donate to Shadowproof and Unauthorized Disclosure that Rania co-hosts with Kevin Gosztola. Stay safe Rania, and "Good night & good luck".

[Sep 26, 2017] Is Foreign Propaganda Even Effective by Leon Hadar

Highly recommended!
I think the key to collapse of Soviet society and its satellites was the victory of neoliberal ideology over communism. It was pure luck for neoliberalism was that its triumphal march over the globe coincide with deep crisis of both communist ideology and the Soviet elite (nomenklatura) in the USSR. Hapless, mediocre Gorbachov, a third rate politician who became the leader of the USSR is a telling example here. Propaganda, especially "big troika" (BBC, Deutsche Welle and Voice of America), also played a very important role in this. Especially in Baltic countries and Ukraine.
Domestic fake new industry always has huge advantage over foreign one in the USA and other Western countries, because of general cultural dominance of the West.
The loss of effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda now is the same as the reason for loss of effectiveness of communist propaganda since 60th. In the first case it was the crisis of communist ideology, in the second is the crisis of neoliberal ideology. Everybody now understands that the neoliberal promises were fake, and "bait and switch" manuver that enriched the tiny percentage of population (top 1% and even more 0.01%).
When the society experience the crisis of ideology it became inoculated toward official propaganda -- it simply loses its bite.
Notable quotes:
"... As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board. ..."
"... RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets. ..."
"... Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket. ..."
"... Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?") ..."
"... Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans. ..."
"... In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

The Russians can dish it out, but don't expect Americans to swallow everything.

During the Cold War, it became an article of faith among Western policymakers and journalists: One of the most effective ways to discredit the leaders of Communist countries would be to provide their citizens with information from the West. It was a view that was shared by Soviet Bloc regimes who were worried that listening to the Voice of America (VOA) or watching Western television shows would induce their people to take political action against the rulers.

So it was not surprising that government officials in East Germany, anxious that many TV stations from West Germany could be viewed by their citizens, employed numerous means!such as jamming the airwaves and even damaging TV antennas that were pointing west!in order to prevent the so-called "subversive" western broadcasts from reaching audiences over the wall.

After the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, communication researchers studying public attitudes in former East German areas assumed that they would discover that those who had access to West German television!and were therefore exposed to the West's political freedom and economic prosperity!were more politically energized and willing to challenge the communist regime than those who couldn't watch Western television.

But as Evgeny Morozov recalled in his Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom , a study conducted between 1966 and 1990 about incipient protests in the so-called "Valley of the Clueless"!an area in East Germany where the government successfully blocked Western television signals!raised questions about this conventional wisdom.

As it turns out, having access to West German television actually made life in East Germany more endurable. Far from radicalizing its citizens, it seemed to have made them more politically compliant. As one East German dissident quoted by Morozov lamented, "The whole people could leave the country and move to the West as a man at 8pm, via television."

Meanwhile, East German citizens who did not have access to Western German television were actually more critical of their regime, and more politically restless.

The study concluded that "in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had attributed to religious beliefs in capitalist society when he condemned religion as the 'opium of the people.'"

Morozov refers to the results of these and other studies to raise an interesting idea: Western politicians and pundits have predicted that the rise of the Internet, which provides free access to information to residents of the global village, would galvanize citizens in Russia and other countries to challenge their authoritarian regimes. In reality, Morozov contends that exposure to the Internet may have distracted Russian users from their political problems. The young men who should be leading the revolution are instead staying at home and watching online pornography. Trotsky, as we know, didn't tweet.

Yet the assumption that the content of the message is a "silver bullet shot from a media gun to penetrate a hapless audience," as communication theorists James Arthur Anderson and Timothy P. Meyer put it, remains popular among politicians and pundits today, despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Hence the common assertion that a presidential candidate who has raised a lots of money and can spend it on buying a lots of television commercials, has a clear advantage over rivals who cannot afford to dominate the media environment. But the loser in the 2016 presidential race spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for winner's campaign, according to NBC News . Candidate Trump also spent a fraction of what his Republican rivals had during the Republican primaries that he won.

Communication researchers like Anderson and Meyers are not suggesting that media messages don't have any effect on target audiences, but that it is quite difficult to sell ice to Eskimos. To put it in simple terms, media audiences are not hapless and passive. Although you can flood them with messages that are in line with your views and interests, audiences actively participate in the communication process. They will construct their own meaning from the content they consume, and in some cases they might actually disregard your message.

Imagine a multi-billionaire who decides to produce thousands of commercials celebrating the legacy of ISIS, runs them on primetime American television, and floods social media with messages praising the murderous terrorist group. If that happened, would Americans be rallying behind the flag of ISIS? One can imagine that the response from audiences would range from anger to dismissal to laughter.

In 2013 Al Jazeera Media Network purchased Current TV , which was once partially owned by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and launched an American news channel. Critics expressed concerns that the network, which is owned by the government of Qatar and has been critical of U.S. policies in the Middle East, would try to manipulate American audiences with their anti-Washington message.

Three years later, after hiring many star journalists and producing mostly straight news shows, Al Jazeera America CEO Al Anstey announced that the network would cease operations. Anstey cited the "economic landscape" which was another way of saying that its ratings were distressingly low. The relatively small number of viewers who watched Al Jazeera America 's programs considered them not anti-American but just, well, boring.

You don't have to be a marketing genius to figure out that in the age of the 24/7 media environment, foreign networks face prohibitive competition from American cable news networks like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, social media, not to mention Netflix and yes, those online porno sites. Thus the chances that a foreign news organization would be able to attract large American audiences, and have any serious impact on their political views, remain very low.

That, indeed, has been the experience of not only the defunct Al Jazeera America , but also of other foreign news outlets that have tried to imitate the Qatar-based network by launching operations targeting American audiences. These networks have included CGTN (China Global Television Network), the English-language news channel run by Chinese state broadcaster China Central Television ; PressTV, a 24-hour English language news and documentary network affiliated with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting ; or RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government that operates cable and satellite television channels directed to audiences outside of Russia.

After all, unless you are getting to paid to watch CTGN, PressTV, or RT -- or you are a news junkie with a lot of time on your hands -- why in the world would you be spending even one hour of the day watching these foreign networks?

Yet if you have been following the coverage and public debate over the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, you get the impression that RT and another Russian media outlet, Sputnik (a news agency and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya ), were central players in a conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Kremlin to deny the presidency to Hillary Clinton.

In fact, more than half of the much-cited January report on the Russian electoral interference released by U.S. intelligence agencies was devoted to warning of RT's growing influence in the United States and across the world, referring to the "rapid expansion" of the network's operations and budget to about $300 million a year, and citing the supposedly impressive audience numbers listed on the RT website.

According to America's spooks, the coordinated activities of RT and the online-media properties and social-media accounts that made up "Russia's state-run propaganda machine" have been employed by the Russian government to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

And in a long cover story in The New York Times Magazine this month, with the headline, " RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War, " Jim Rutenberg suggested that the Kremlin has "built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century" and that it "may be impossible to stop."

But as the British Economist magazine reported early this year, while RT claims to reach 550 million people worldwide, with America and Britain supposedly being its most successful markets, its "audience" of 550 million refers to "the number of people who can access its channel, not those who actually watch it."

As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board.

The Times' s Rutenberg argues that the RT's ratings "are almost beside the point." RT might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN's in conventional terms, "but in the new, 'democratized' media landscape, it doesn't need to" since "the network has come to form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the Twitter-and-Facebook-age media."

Traveling "through the same diffuse online channels" and "chasing the same viral hits and memes" sounds quite impressive. Indeed, RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets.

But as The Economist points out, when it comes to Twitter and Facebook, RT's reach is narrower than that of other news networks. Its claim of YouTube success is mostly down to the network's practice of buying the rights to sensational footage -- for instance, Japan's 2011 tsunami -- and repackaging it with the company logo. It's not clear, however, how the dissemination of a footage of a natural disaster or of a dog playing the piano helps efforts to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."

It is obvious that the Russian leaders have been investing a lot of resources in RT, Sputnik, and other media outlets, and that they employ them as propaganda tools aimed at promoting their government's viewpoints and interests around the world. From that perspective, these Russian media executives are heirs to the communist officials who had been in charge of the propaganda empire of the Soviet Union and its satellites during much of the 20th Century.

The worldwide communist propaganda machine did prove to be quite effective during the Great Depression and World War II, when it succeeded in tapping into the economic and social anxieties and anti-Nazi sentiments in the West and helped strengthen the power of the communist parties in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States.

But in the same way that Western German television programs failed to politically energize East Germans during the Cold War, much of the Soviet propaganda distributed by the Soviet Union at that time had very little impact on the American public and its political attitudes, as symbolized by the shrinking membership of the American Communist Party.

Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it.

Soviet propaganda may have scored limited success during the Cold War when it came to members of the large communist parties in France, Italy, and Japan, as well as exploited anti-American sentiments in some third-world countries. In these cases, the intentions of the producer and the convention of the message seemed to be in line with the interpretations of the receivers.

There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket.

Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?")

Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans.

In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience.

Leon Hadar is a writer and author of the books Quagmire: America in the Middle East and Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and the National Interest.

The Color of Celery , says: September 26, 2017 at 1:20 am

For an example of the success of propaganda, look at Breitbart. The messages online during the 2016 election were pervasive and insidious. I think this post underestimates the threat by focusing on traditional media instead of social interaction.

RT covered Assange during the election better than other outlets.

It's easy to see everything from a personal perspective and forget that we are very diverse. We don't live in an ABC, CBS, and NBC world anymore, with information controlled. Changes in thought and belief happen online now, in many, many different venues.

polistra , says: September 26, 2017 at 3:39 am
A government that has confidence in its own support doesn't need to fight foreign information. In the '30s and '40s the US government encouraged shortwave listening, and manufacturers made money by adding SW bands to their radios. We were going through a depression and then a war, but our government was CONFIDENT enough to encourage us to understand the world.

Since 1950 the government has been narrowing the focus of external input because it knows that it no longer has the natural consent of the governed. TV and the Web are intentional forms of jamming, filling our eyes and ears with internally produced nonsense to crowd out the external info.

Meddlesome , says: September 26, 2017 at 7:44 am
The ones you have to worry about are those much closer to home – "inside the tent".

Friends in the UK, Canada, and Europe are appalled at the distorting effect Israeli propaganda has on American news sources, and how unaware of it typical Americans seem to be.

Indeed, it is odd and more than a little worrying that all the concern about "foreign meddling" has so far failed to engage with Israel, which is hands down the best funded, most sophisticated and successful foreign meddler.

The FBI annually reports that Israel spies on us at the same level as Russia and China. But we have yet to fully register that Israeli spying includes systematic efforts to influence American elections and policies, efforts that dwarf those of Putin's Russia both in scale and impact.

Fran Macadam , says: September 26, 2017 at 9:24 am
I think that the corporate masters of propaganda media and politics in these United States, have, in the words of Edward G. Robinson's Rico in Little Caesar, "gotten to where you can dish it out, but you can't take it anymore."

It's counterfactual to conflate Soviet propaganda with the perspective of Russians today, unless Communism never really was the real point. In fact, it's our own leaders in media and politics who now increasingly issue dogmatic and insulting derogatory language, sounding more and more like late Soviet propagandists themselves.

Pelayo Viriato , says: September 26, 2017 at 10:20 am
@The Color of Celery:

So what? What's wrong with people being exposed to a broad array of points of view, trying to better understand the world and constantly challenging, refining, and reshaping their worldview in the process?

You're coming perilously close to suggesting that Americans who are critical of their government are dupes of hostile foreign powers ! an unfair, unhelpful, and undemocratic assertion.

ZGler , says: September 26, 2017 at 11:45 am
The problem with Russian trolls is that people don't know they are Russian trolls. They think they are their fellow Americans and neighbors on Facebook. The influence of foreign propaganda on Americans is not due to transparent media like Al Jazeera. It's due to propaganda disguised as your neighbor's opinion.
Mike Johnson , says: September 26, 2017 at 3:33 pm
this conversation cant be taken serious without a serious discussion on Israel, who by the way provides the perfect case and point of how effective foreign propaganda can be. They work through our media, school systems and even our churches. Just look at what happened to McGraw Hill for daring to show before and after maps of the Palestine over the years.

[Sep 26, 2017] Neocons and Hollywood Liberals Go to War on Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless conclusions. ..."
"... Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a man I greatly admire. ..."
"... Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason? The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC! ..."
"... Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless ..."
"... Right on, and well said Max! Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and beliefs; but I won't. ..."
"... SCAM is the correct word. Now after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks (Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing to do with clinton). ..."
Sep 22, 2017 | therealnews.com

The promotional video of the Committee to Investigate Russia features actor Morgan Freeman in what is 'probably his worst role since Driving Miss Daisy,' says AlterNet's Max Blumenthal

Outside the government, there's a lot of going on, too. Media outlets and liberal organizations have devoted extensive time and energy to Russiagate. This week, a new group joined the fray. It's called the Committee to Investigate Russia. Its board includes Rob Reiner, the well-known actor, producer, and liberal activist, and several right-wing pundits, including David Frum, the man who coined George W. Bush's infamous phrase, the 'axis of evil.'

The committee's kickoff video features the actor Morgan Freeman.

MORGAN FREEMAN: We have been attacked. We are at war. We need our president to speak directly to us and tell us the truth. We need him to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and say, "My fellow Americans, during this past election, we came under attack by the Russian government. I've called on the Congress and our intelligence community to use every resource available to conduct a thorough investigation to determine exactly how this happened. The free world is counting on us for leadership. For 241 years, our democracy has been a shining example to the world of what we can all aspire to, and we owe it to the brave people who have fought and died to protect this great nation and save democracy, and we owe it to our future generations, to continue the fight."

VOICEOVER: Join the Committee to Investigate Russia. Join the fight.

AARON MATE: Joining me is Max Blumenthal, bestselling author, journalist, senior editor of AlterNet's Grayzone Project, and cohost of the new podcast Moderate Rebels. Max, welcome. I'm going to predict that you're not joining this fight.

MAX BLUMENTHAL: This is sad. It's sad for Morgan Freeman, and I think whatever you think about Russia, you can agree with me that this is probably his worst role since Driving Miss Daisy. Now he's driving, basically, the PNAC train, Project for a New American Century, driving the neocons. This is highly unusual for me, maybe I'm wrong here, to hear a black American say that America has been a shining example of democracy for 241 years. It sounds like something a neocon would write in a script and put for Morgan Freeman in a teleprompter. 200 years ago, or longer, he would have been scrubbing Thomas Jefferson's chamberpot, so this is just deeply disturbing American exceptionalism.

Beyond that, Morgan Freeman has basically been brought into this by Rob Reiner, who's been brought in by a cast of neocons, not just unindicted Iraq War criminal David Frum, who crafted the axis of evil phrase, which has helped spread instability and death around the world, but Max Boot, the neoconservative pundit and self-styled historian who's never met a war he didn't like. We also have James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence and NSA director affiliated with this group, the Committee to Investigate Russia. Max Boot is a fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, which is run by Kimberly Kagan, who's part of the neoconservative Kagan dynasty. The Institute for the Study of War is funded primarily by the arms industry and surveillance industry, and their job is basically to gin up wars and consult for generals, and make a windfall profit in the process.

That's what the Committee to Investigate Russia is about. It brings this Hollywood element to it. Rob Reiner's involvement helps get David Frum on CNN and a host of radio and MSNBC programs. It almost makes a neocon like him seem likable, although he and Max Boot were welcomed with open arms by the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, so in many ways we're experiencing still the toxic alluvia of the Clinton camp with this bizarre initiative.

We have to first ask, what is the Committee to Investigate Russia? It reminds me of the Committee on the Present Danger, which was a Cold War collection of neoconservatives, as well as the Project for a New American Century, which was a larger conglomeration of neoconservatives looking to take advantage of the post-Cold War atmosphere to gin up a war on terror. What they said in their initial document was that, "Short of a catalyzing event, we won't be able to realize our goals." Three years later, 9/11 happened, and that was the catalyzing event.

They are attempting to manufacture a catalyzing event through the narrative of Trump-Russia collusion in order to ramp up hostilities with Russia, not just in Russia's near abroad in Ukraine, but also in Syria and across the world. This is an incredibly dangerous prospect.

AARON MATE: There was a piece today in the Daily Beast picking up on this Facebook story, which you and I haven't discussed yet on the Real News, but it's gotten a lot of attention. A few weeks ago, Facebook disclosed that some $100,000 was spent on Facebook ads by suspected Russian accounts that may be tied to the Kremlin. It was a bit ambiguous. Most of the ads were in 2015, a year before the election, and most of the ads, Facebook said, were not even directly to do with the election but about divisive social issues. This was taken as another new level of Russian influence in the U.S.

Just today, on the Daily Beast, which has been all over this story, there's an exclusive story written by four reporters. A team of four reporters writes, "Exclusive. Russians appear to use Facebook to push Trump rallies in 17 U.S. cities." Subheading is, "Being Patriotic, a Facebook group uncovered by the Daily Beast, is the first evidence of suspected Russian provocateurs explicitly mobilizing Trump supporters in real life."

MAX BLUMENTHAL: Maybe it's true. Maybe these four reporters found something that might be true, but if you read into the ninth paragraph of that article, like so many articles about Russiagate, these four reporters, the finest minds of the Daily Beast, including Spencer Ackerman, who wrote the foreword to Russiagate huckster Malcolm Nance's book on how the election was stolen, and I think his book might have come out before the election was decided, if you read into the ninth paragraph that the story is not confirmed, that Facebook explicitly states that it cannot confirm that any of these accounts are Russian accounts. Throughout the article, the authors are forced to refer to them as suspected Russian accounts. I don't know how this got past an editor, except that there is so much zeal at the Daily Beast to keep up the Trump-Russia collusion narrative that generates clicks.

That's the same, I would assume, mentality that prevails among the producers among Rachel Maddow's show, which you wrote about really clearly and effectively. I think it's not just the narrative that's driven by political zeal but also the desire for ratings and clicks. At no point in this piece do they ever establish that these are Russian accounts. It is possible that this Facebook accounting question, was a Facebook account turned to a Russian bot farm, that's what a lot of accounts do. They pay some bot farm to boost their profile on Facebook. One of the things that bot farms do is they'll direct users to political ads, political hot button issues, because that's what gets people engaged.

Again, there's no evidence here. What I found really interesting about this article, and this is true for the previous Daily Beast article that Spencer Ackerman published about Facebook suspected, alleged, possible Russian bots, is that he turns to a fake Russia expert named Clint Watts, who's a former FBI agent. If you actually look at Clint Watts's work, and you're just remotely informed about politics in the U.S., I think you'll realize that character is a complete crank. If we actually lived in an actual meritocracy that relied on real experts, he would be out with a metal detector looking for loose change on the beach or in some public park, but instead, he was testifying before Congress.

He testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Clint Watts, that the chaos of Black Lives Matter was spawned by RT and Sputnik. He links to an RT article about Black Lives Matter as his evidence. Along with the Bundy ranch chaos. This too was a Russian active measure. Yeah, the Bundy ranch. Russia had a huge hand in that. This is someone testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Even worse, he goes on to talk about an article he wrote with Will McCants and Mike Doran, who are these Beltway think tankers presented as terror experts. He wrote it in Foreign Affairs, which is the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. It was an article lobbying the U.S. government, the Obama administration, to send arms to Ahrar Al-Sham, which is a Salafi jihadist rebel group in Syria. The teaser of this article, it's unbelievable, is, "An Al Qaeda-linked group we can be friends with."

The article comes out. Clinton Watts gets mocked heavily on Twitter. I think I might have been among the people mocking him, but again, I'm a Russian bot. [Inaudible]. I'm malfunctioning right now. No, actually, real people mocked Clint Watts on Twitter justifiably. He was calling for supporting an Al Qaeda alliance in Syria. He goes before the Senate and says that, "This is when I noticed that there were Russian active measures and an influence campaign, because I was being mocked on Twitter for this article." He doesn't say what the article is. He covers up the content.

This testimony elucidates the kind of Russia experts that are being relied on to prove that there's this vast information warfare campaign, this Gerasimov doctrine, employed by Russia. Clint Watts is part of a larger initiative spun out of the failed Clinton campaign. It includes people like Laura Rosenberger, who was a former policy advisor of Hillary Clinton. This should scare anyone. Consider that these people would have been involved in foreign policy decisions. Andrew Weisberg I think is another, and then there's J.M. Berger, who's part of the terror jihadology industry. He never really established himself as much of a major expert there, but now the hype is all around Russia, so he's rebranded himself as a Russia expert.

They have an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. If you go on the Alliance for Securing Democracy's website, it's almost as entertaining as the Committee to Investigate Russia. They have a chart that shows the Russia information threat matrix. They're addressing all of the different websites, including the National Review, maybe they'll name the Real News today, that are echoing Kremlin propaganda. How do they determine what the Kremlin's propaganda is? They not only look at RT and Sputnik, they have a list that they've refused to release of 600 Russian bots or Russian-controlled social media accounts. As I said, they refuse to name what these social media accounts are.

Scott Shane, the New York Times reporter, he published another one of these exposes that exposes nothing, and by the ninth paragraph, you realize the whole thing is unconfirmed and it's based on suspicions and speculation. He determined that a lot of these supposed Russian bots he was supposed to be looking at were actually real people, one you can look it is Marcel Sardo, real people who just simply don't believe in a unipolar world, and they support Russia as a counterhegemonic force. I know this is impossible for Beltway insiders and coastal elites to believe, but there are people who actually think that way and are on Twitter.

You're basically looking at a gigantic scam. Scams are bad as they are. Amway's bad. It rips a lot of people off and makes money for right-wingers. This is a pro-war scam that has effectively deep-sixed diplomacy with Russia, which could have been effective in establishing stability in certain areas. 1.4 million people are displaced in Ukraine. Syria's a complete mess. The U.S. has to work with Russia there to defeat ISIS. This is just dangerous on a global scale, and so it's important to call out these scam initiatives and to completely scrutinize and hound the fraudmeisters and neocons behind it.

AARON MATE: All right, that's going to wrap part one of this discussion with Max Blumenthal. Stay tuned for part two.

Max Blumenthal is a senior editor of the Grayzone Project at AlterNet, and the award-winning author of Goliath, Republican Gomorrah, and The 51 Day War. He is the co-host of the podcast, Moderate Rebels. Follow him on Twitter at @MaxBlumenthal.

Rob Roy 4 days ago

Why isn't Max Blumenthal's great book, "The 51 Day War," listed above? Its omission seems odd and deliberate. Also, "Driving Miss Daisy" was not a bad role for Morgan. It was an excellent snap shot of the south at the time and the reduction of two representatives of that era into real people. Never mind.

Anyway, the whole Russiagate thing will either explode into nothing or drift off into nothing. Why? Because there's no "there" there. ALL just fabricated hype. Too many people fall prey to surmises and suggestions and baseless conclusions.

Read Robert Parry, and, please, interview him and others from consortiumnews.com , my best go to source for truth. Thanks for this interview with Max, a man I greatly admire. see more

kober Rob Roy 7 hours ago

Agreement on Parry, a bit verbose but cuts Reagan and GHW Bush to bite size pieces over Iran gate! see more

ollo10 Rob Roy 3 days ago

Fabricated hype yes, but for what reason? The last thing the 'elites' want is Trump making friends with Russia, they are scared it would expose their NATO scam. No enemies = no money for MIC!

Now the dollar is starting to collapse, note each nation America are at loggerheads with, have all stopped using or want to stop using the dollar. So, yes, they fabricated the hype and move onto N Korea, because Russia wouldn't play ball and fire the first shot!

Perhaps Kim Jung-Un can be tricked into this move? It also throws a spanner in the works against the Chinese One Belt One Road [Eurasian Union] that also threatens American hegemony & dollar. see more

Palimpsestuous 4 days ago

Neocons make military war while neoliberals make economic war. Neither group makes any sense and both groups are destroying the human race with synthetic ideologies based on nothing but greed, fear, hatred and greed. Both groups represent extreme wealth and the project to enslave and impoverish the whole world. It's them or us and so far we're clueless.

Maria M Cummings 4 days ago

Right on, and well said Max! Now then, we know who the neocons are, nastiness is embedded in their DNA and makeup. I could go and on to an eternity, using a plethora of adjectives to describe their repugnant ideas and beliefs; but I won't.

On the other hand, here we have the "liberals" of the West coast. Bad losers! Alas, Hillary, "the queen of chaos" lost, and the Hollywood crowd "lost their mind."
And regarding Morgan Freeman, highly disappointing and utterly pathetic.

truthynesslover 4 days ago

Democrats and Neo-CONs want WW3...

Seer 4 days ago

Morgan is a "natural character actor"- while I enjoy some of his movies, he could easily be "Morgan Freeman" in each role. I understand his desire to work and perhaps make more money-he is a paid spokesman I presume. Morgan possesses mo particular geopolitical or economic expertise that I am aware of: enough about Morgan.

SCAM is the correct word. Now after failing to get a Russian "hack" dismissed by former CIA & NSA experts and Wikileaks (Never lied yet to my knowledge) NOW we get Russian FB accounts ( most of which have nothing to do with clinton).

Why won't Clinton go away?- she is just Not personable enough to get elected against someone more personable. This is why Trump and Obama won.

I believe she could have beat Jeb and some other GOP hopefuls who also are not as personable. This DEM meme is all about trying to set itself up for 2018 elections and perhaps to try to bring Trump down before he does some AWFUL things such as: Open up a truly independent 911 investigation; release the JFK files "unclassified" (The CIA would probably not comply)

Incidentally the CIA was never Congressionally approved -- Trump could eliminate them with an executive order; of course then we would see direct evidence of the shadow governments power. What concerns me is that we do not see: Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Kevin Shipp, Robert Steele, Stephen Cohen in RN interviews? Is RN reporting its funding sources on its site?

Donatella • 4 days ago

A sign of the Democrat party's desperation is its embrace of the always-wrong warmongering neocons. Hillary embraced them during her campaign assuming that it would bring her Republican votes as Chuck Schumer seemed to think. Max Boot is part of this joint Democrat/Neocon propaganda "Committee to Investigate Russia", there is an excellent interview of him at the link below.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[Sep 26, 2017] US Lawmakers Accuse Russian Outlet of Time Travel

www.moonofalabama.org

Lawmakers want the FCC to investigate the Russia-backed Sputnik Radio for using "U.S. airwaves to influence the 2016 presidential election," apparently not realizing that Sputnik wasn't on the radio until July 2017, says Max Blumenthal

[Sep 26, 2017] The Russian Influence Story Falls Apart - A New Fairy Tale Is Needed

Notable quotes:
"... It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2 billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion. ..."
"... The whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human spirit. ..."
"... "The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be." ..."
"... Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners. ..."
"... There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred. ..."
"... Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined. ..."
Sep 26, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Obama White House and some Democratic officials pressed Facebook to find evidence for alleged "Russian interference" in the U.S. election. When Facebook found none, the pressure increased. Facebook went back, again found nothing and political pressure increase further. Congress threatened to investigate. Senator Warner flew to California and demanded the "right" results. Eventually Facebook gave in:

By early August, Facebook had identified more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political issues that ran in the United States between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency.

All hailed Facebook - finally there was something they could build their anti-Russian campaign on.

It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2 billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion.

Moreover - as it now turns out these 3,000 advertisements which "appeared" to be "associated" with something "Russian" were not anti-Clinton or pro-Trump but were a mix of pro- and contra ads on various social issues:

The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with s ome ads promoting African American rights groups, including Black Lives Matter, and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat , say people familiar with the covert influence campaign.

The Russian campaign ! taking advantage of Facebook's ability to send contrary messages to different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics ! also sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.

(Note again - there is no evidence that any of the ads were "Russian bought" or part of a "Russian campaign". Those are mere assertions by the Washington Post authors.)

As we now learn that these ads were not, as earlier assumed, pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, the narrative has to change. Earlier it was claimed that the alleged Russian aim was to get Trump elected. That no longer holds:

"Their aim was to sow chaos," said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. "In many ­cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than increasing turnout."

How pro- and anti-Black Lives Matter ads might have suppressed voter turnout will stay Senator Warner's secret.

Instead of "Russia helped Trump" we now get an even more implausible "Russia wanted to sow discord" narrative. As if Donald Trump's campaign style had not been enough to cause controversies.

The Washington Post has been the major outlet to push the "Russian influence" baloney . It has long left all journalistic standards behind. Today it goes even further. An editorial now claims that Russia interfered in the German elections by pushing the right-wing AfD vote through last minute tweets from some Twitter bots:

The party was buoyed by social-media campaigns of the kind Russia has used elsewhere ! faceless bots that multiply messages over and over. Once again, the Kremlin's quest to disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the rules-based liberal international order may have found a toehold.

No evidence is presented that any online activity "buoyed" the AfD. No evidence is presented that anything Russian was involved. Here is the sole point the editorial builds on:

In the final hours of the campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of possible election fraud, and the online alarms were "driven by anonymous troll accounts and boosted by a Russian-language botnet," according to the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab.

The Atlantic Council is financed by foreign (Middle East) interest, NATO and the oil- and weapon industry. It has been a major driver of the anti-Russian new Cold War narrative. Its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" indeed claims to have found a few Twitter accounts which have their names written in Cyrillic(!) letters. Only Russian influence accounts would ever do that! It even found one tweet warning about election fraud that was retweeted 500(!) times. That MUST have helped the AfD to receive more than 12% of the 47 million cast votes in Germany - (not!).

Election fraud in the German pen and paper balloting is nearly impossible. No one will take vague claims thereof as serious. It is simply not an issue in Germany and any such claim would not effect the vote. German officials have found no sign of "Russian" election hacking or of voting fraud.

What the Washington Post editors and the Atlantic Council have missed in their search for undue election influence in the German election is the large support of a islamophobic US megadonor for the rightwing Germany AfD party:

[O]ne of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right [German] party is an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.

Rosenwald's site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.

The fake news stories by the Zionist agitators were translated into German and disseminated to support the AfD.

Allegations of "Russian influence" in U.S., French and German elections is made up from hot air. No evidence is or ever was presented to support these claims. Massive election interference by other foreign interests, like large Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation, or Zionist Jewish financier support for extremist positions in Germany and France is ignored.

The story about "Russian influence" was made up by the Democrats to explain Clinton's loss of the election and to avoid looking at her personal responsibility for it. It also helps to push the new cold war narrative and to sell weapons. As no evidence was ever found to support the "Russian influence" campaign, Facebook and others come under pressure to deliver the "evidence" the U.S. intelligence services could not produce. The now resulting story of "sowing chaos" is something out of la-la-land.

If there is something to learn from this sad story it is this: The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be.

Posted by b on September 26, 2017 at 01:50 PM | Permalink

bc | Sep 26, 2017 2:10:09 PM | 1

Once again, the Kremlin's quest to disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the rules-based liberal international order may have found a toehold.

O, it hurts. The irony, it hurts. Repeating myself from the end of the last thread: The whole ugly mess would be a farce through and through if not for the suffering of innocents and the endless, meaningless attempted destruction of everything noble in the human spirit.

ralphieboy | Sep 26, 2017 2:11:56 PM | 2
There is nothing illegal about attempting to influence another nation's elections. However, in most countries, it is illegal for citizens to actively work with foreign governments to do so.
Peter AU 1 | Sep 26, 2017 2:28:05 PM | 3
"The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be."

Without journalistic integrity, there is no democracy as the average voter cannot make an informed choice. The threat won some time ago.

Anon | Sep 26, 2017 2:32:34 PM | 4
Whats most outrageous about this is that same western liberal media daily could whine about Russian propaganda, meanwhile themselves could write propaganda everyday! These people are brainwashed, and unfortunately they fool a lot of westerners.

Not sure what illegal thing there is with political ads to begin with? Again there is no logic to the brainwashed liberal.

Anon | Sep 26, 2017 2:47:31 PM | 5
There is no end to this, these liberals wont stop until Trump declare war on Russia, they are sick in their heads, racist against Russians, no other way to define their irrational hatred.

'Where are the Russians?': No sign of Russian meddling reported during ongoing German elections: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCYpfV_XLNk

somebody | Sep 26, 2017 2:50:53 PM | 6
Re: 2

That is news to me. I think you have to label it ' treason ' and the country concerned 'enemy' to get anywhere in law. Or some illegality has to be involved. Is Russia America's Enemy?

ralphieboy | Sep 26, 2017 3:12:48 PM | 7
From http://www.businessinsider.de/collusion-russia-trump-crime-2017-6?r=US&IR=T

"James Gardner, an election law expert at SUNY Buffalo Law School, said the answer to whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia "depends on what specific actions formed the basis of collusion." Political historian Allan Lichtman agreed, saying indictments and prosecutions would depend upon the particular circumstances of a case and interpretations of the law that are not always clear.

Both Lichtman and Gardner said the federal statute criminalizing treason could apply. But putting aside treason, "there are numerous laws" that could be implicated by collusion with any foreign government, Lichtman said.

Those include the Logan Act, which forbids dealings by private individuals with foreign governments involved in disputes with the US; the Stored Communications Act, which creates Fourth Amendment-like privacy protections for email and other digital communications; and the Espionage Act.

John Coates, an election law expert at Harvard University Law School, pointed to relevant federal statutes that could apply, including at least two federal statutes governing campaign contributions and donations by foreign nationals and two governing fraud and conspiracy offenses."

karlof1 | Sep 26, 2017 3:13:08 PM | 8
Ah Ha! The Bezos Bozo strikes again! The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook. Boycott the disgusting online retailer and urge everyone to, explaining that Bezos is a far bigger threat to peace and democracy than Russia, China, and DPRK combined.
Mr. Unpopular | Sep 26, 2017 3:23:50 PM | 9
@4 and 5

@b - the US papers were bought out at least as early as 1915 in the run up WWI.

Nothing here Cicero couldn't have commented on.

And so it goes.

Mr. Unpopular | Sep 26, 2017 3:24:45 PM | 10
@ 4 and 5 f'reals this time...

What the hell does liberal have to do with any of this? It's all neo-con, eh?

Anon | Sep 26, 2017 3:32:49 PM | 11
Mr Unpopular

Are you joking or perhaps a liberal yourself? The russian conspiracy bs is spread by liberal media companies.

AriusArmenian | Sep 26, 2017 3:36:22 PM | 12
I usually can't miss by always first assuming that reports by officials or media in the West are disinformation narratives.

I also am usually right to assume that they project on some other what these vermin in the West are in themselves. They tell us what they are planning or already doing right out of their mouths if you listen carefully.

likklemore | Sep 26, 2017 3:36:44 PM | 13
@ Karlofi 8
"The only real way to hurt that man is in his Amazon.com pocketbook."

Untouchable he is. In addition to being well subsidized on every shipment by the taxpayers, he is owned by that famous 3-letter agency. Look up the contract.

Oilman2 | Sep 26, 2017 3:41:48 PM | 14
@ Anon 11...

AND... endlessly parroted at need by the neocons. This entire thing really isn't a left/right or red/blue deal - it's pro-war and pro-intervention propaganda from the elite rich of both sides in the US.

james | Sep 26, 2017 3:53:50 PM | 15
if only hillary clinton could have spent 100,000 over the course of 2 years to influence the election, LOLOL...
james | Sep 26, 2017 3:59:25 PM | 16
in other related news, hillary clinton has influenced her good friends in saudi arabia to let women drive.... for all the money they gave her to lose the election, that was the least she could do for the women of saudi arabia!
scottindallas | Sep 26, 2017 4:08:58 PM | 17
there is no liberal foreign paper, you're confusing their domestic narrative with the foreign one
somebody | Sep 26, 2017 4:12:54 PM | 18
7

Sounds like they would have to stretch that a lot. But that is what lawyers are for.

The Logan Act does not seem to apply as influencing an election is not "negotiating with foreign governments".

They are basically doing to Trump what Republicans did to Clinton with the Libyan investigation - keep going on and on to accidentally uncover something relevant in the end.

financial matters | Sep 26, 2017 4:15:13 PM | 19
My iphone gives me a news feed that is often from CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, ABC/NBC news. It is constant Trump bashing. No useful news if any at all on such things as Syria, economic issues (other than the DOW), health care (other than insurance friendly Congressional nonsense). All useful news has to be found on alternative media of which this site is definitely one of the best on Syria.
steven t johnson | Sep 26, 2017 4:16:23 PM | 20
Look, if Whitewater, Vince Flynn's murder, Benghazi, Clinton Cash, Pizzagate don't need evidence that leads somewhere, neither does Russian hacking. Pussies whining because their loser boy Trump doesn't have the prestige actually winning the election would give him is stupid, useless and boring. Go cry in the Electoral College.

Puting favored Trump. Tough shit if jingo xenophobia is dogmatically acceptable to conservatives. That's going to be an embarrassment.

It's true that Putin was a gigantic fool for favoring Trump, but that's his shame to bear.

zeke | Sep 26, 2017 4:36:24 PM | 21
20

Stop being emotional, of Course Trump is better than Hillary on Russia.

Gareth | Sep 26, 2017 4:36:44 PM | 22
And another alleged Russki conspiracy bites the dust!

In reversal, feds say Russian hacking attempt didn't hit Wisconsin election systems

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/in-reversal-feds-say-russian-hacking-attempt-didn-t-hit/article_c75959b6-3fb5-5c93-91c8-f8ae3fa9c10a.html

frances | Sep 26, 2017 4:40:16 PM | 23
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 26, 2017 4:15:13 PM | 19
I backed Bernie and several Dem candidates back when that seemed to matter. Because of that I get about 50 plus emails a day asking for money. ALL without exception begin with a Trump bashing statement, each more strident than the last (probably because I am not giving them anything).
As you noted, there is nothing about Syria, loads about Russians, vague invasion hysteria regarding Ukraine,endless black/white nonsense and don't get me started on the latest flag/NFL rants.
I've protested in person and in writing just about every military adventure the US was ever involved in during my life time and until the last few years it was a fairly lonely process. But now, the level of information on and rejection of the Syrian war appears to be as high as it was at the end of the Vietnam war. So we are getting somewhere, maybe. What is that number, is it 13 percent of a population that is needed to create real change?
sejomoje | Sep 26, 2017 4:57:45 PM | 24
Bezos is nothing more than an apparatchik of the new USSA. Amazon is the company store. There is no "boycotting" the company store. And anyway it's too late for that. You WILL read the company newsletter, you WILL watch those writings being reinforced on the Company Channel Network, you WILL shop at the company store, you WILL be surveilled by the company in order to maintain company supremacy and ever-increasing profits.

As long as the company 'owns' the water you drink and the land you live on at least. And it's not Bezos who owns the company, he's just on the board.

somebody | Sep 26, 2017 5:25:59 PM | 25
21 :-))

Trump is not my Bride, Putin says

"It's hard to deal with people who confuse Austria and Australia, but there's nothing you can do about this," he said, probably referring generally to Washington foreign policy circles, though the original gaffe is attributed to former President George W. Bush. "Apparently, this is the level of political culture within a certain part of the U.S. establishment."
nonsense factory | Sep 26, 2017 5:30:20 PM | 26
The Russian conspiracy claim is just the corporate Democrats excuse for losing the election to a blowhard reality TV star and real estate hustler who had to be bailed out from several bankruptcies by the Saudis and the US government. Despite having almost every media outlet and government bureaucrat on her side, Hillary Clinton lost.

Where'd she lose? In the Rust Belt states that have been hit hardest by neoliberal trade policies that have wrecked the local economies in those states.

The whole Russia thing really doesn't even involve the Republican Party - its mostly internal Democratic Party politics, with Sanders Democrats trying to use Clinton's loss to unseat the corporate Wall Street crowd, and the Clintonites fighting to stay in power by claiming that their loss wasn't due to their crappy policies and incompetence, but rather to a massive Russian conspiracy.

Don't forget, the American oligarchs who control the media were really hoping for a Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton election, and despite pushing hard for that, it almost came up as a Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump election. Indicating a loss of control by the plutocracy - that's the take home message. They're still struggling to re-establish control, which is what flogging the Russia hype is all about.

Truth is, America would be better off with someone like Putin in the executive office, someone who wouldn't be afraid to imprison at least a few leading Wall Street financiers for their role in the 2008 economic collapse.

Christian Chuba | Sep 26, 2017 5:30:26 PM | 27
That story in the Washington Post was pathetic. It reminds me of a saying, 'if you torture the data, it will eventually confess'
karlof1 | Sep 26, 2017 5:37:11 PM | 28
sejomoje @24--

Fortunately, it's not that bad--yet. But it will probably need to get close to that before the disparate US citizenry arises in an attempt to overcome it all.

james | Sep 26, 2017 5:39:17 PM | 29
take the iphone, amazon, wapo and etc. etc. and flush them down the toilet.... alternatively - take a ride into the toilet, lol..

[Sep 25, 2017] I am presently reading the book JFK and the Unspeakable by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint. ..."
"... Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats. ..."
"... What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street. ..."
"... I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed. ..."
"... Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge. ..."
"... David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him. ..."
"... But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself. ..."
"... When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people ..."
"... The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof. ..."
"... Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on ..."
"... The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America ..."
"... "In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia. ..."
"... This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off . ..."
"... Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe... ..."
"... Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Jenny G · 3 days ago

Although I voted for Trump, only because he was a slightly smaller POS than Hillary, it's hard to have any sympathy for him.

Every time he walks out on a stage clapping his hands, encouraging applause, like a daytime TV game show host, I want to puke.

I honestly don't think Trump really expected to win the presidency. And when he did, he was clueless. His "Mission Accomplished" party at the White House for a bill which would never pass the senate, was pure Dubya Bush. The orange haired POS is an embarrassment to the country.

Felix · 4 days ago
The Democrats and the Deep State should have accused Israel of interfering in US elections. That would have been a credible complaint.
follyofwar · 3 days ago
Felix, Except that Israel and her deep state puppets were interfering on behalf of the democrats.
olde reb · 3 days ago
What is happening in the U.S. is the same MO the CIA has developed over the past 64 years to create turmoil within a nation to overthrow a ruler that would not comply with the dictates of Wall Street.

Detailed in --. http://farmwars.info/?p=15338 . A FACE FOR THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT

The "ultimate goal" (according to internal memos), is to collect on the fraudulent $20 trillion national debt which will result in Wall Street owning the United States. Hello, Greece.

Guysth · 3 days ago
I am presently reading the book " JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W.Douglass and it is exactly why Kennedy was assassinated by the very same group that desperately wants to see Trump gone and the rapprochement with Russia squashed.

Peace is not in their books,war is. John Kennedy had an epiphany and was wanting to make peace with the USSR at the time, after the Cuban crisis, and this could not be allowed to happen .

Same $hit different pile.

doray · 3 days ago
Russia-gate - Just another weapon of mass distraction, brought to you by the liars in charge.
astraeaisabella · 3 days ago
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2011/10/25... This may seem relevant, but considering Trump's visit to SAudi Arabia and then immediately "Israel", you might find it interesting.
follyofwar · 3 days ago

David Stockman's excellent analysis makes clear that Trump doesn't know what he's doing and has appointed poor advisors, many of whom have been working against him from the start. Yet, per Stockman, "he doesn't need to be the passive object of a witch hunt." He could have and should have exposed the crimes of his accusers from the beginning, while he still had 100% support from the anti-war Right, which put him in office in the first place. He should have ignored the hysteria emanating from his enemies, and made peace with Vladimir Putin as a first order of business. Millions would have supported him.

But, after his provocations in Syria and against Russia, which really resulted because he gave control of military decisions to uber hawk and Russia-phobic Mad Dog Mattis, his support from the anti-war crowd has all but evaporated and is unlikely to return. In other words, although he has been treated extremely unfairly by the corporate media, ultimately he has no one to blame but himself. Trump, with his endless stupid tweeting, has become a sad caricature of himself.

RedRubies · 3 days ago
Stockman has only been a Congressman. They are allowed more leeway.

When an outsider (like Trump) is elected POTUS and promises to do harm to the Pentagon, against the will of the Deep State -- the battle is on. A coup was planned against him, even before he took the oath of office. And, BTW--against the will of the people, themselves.

The Deep State bureaucracy will never let him have full control. Apparently, Obomber and Killery are running a Shadow White House, with all major decisions coming from the Deep State actors thereof.

Killery still has her security clearance, by which she knew where the US Military would strike in Syria before Trump had any idea what was going on (http://headlinebits.com/2017-06-21/deep-state-hillary-clinton-staffers-still-have-security-clearances-access-to-sensitive-governmen.AlsHBgBSVVwAV1FWVwdSAwBWAg8HXQYE.html) .

You can't write an article about a 'soft coup' and NOT mention her name in connection with it!

The Pentagon has seized power and does not recognize any elected or appointed power of the US government. Trump's 'power' is non-existent. If this 'soft coup' becomes a hard one, I predict all hell breaking loose in America.

Stephen M. St. John · 3 days ago

"In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City." Interesting point of view from David Stockman. Whatever happens in Washington, one can be sure there will come another provocation against Russia.

This will probably be the Joint Investigation Team's final word on the shootdown of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014, not long after the little putsch in Kiev. The Joint Investigation Team relies on the Dutch Safety Board's Final Report on Flight MH17. With this report, the Dutch Safety Board has given the world a classic snow job, which I have pointed out in my critique on it. Please read it on my website at www.show-the-house.com/id119.html and share it with your elected representatives. Maybe a collective effort can head this off .

Schlüter 91p · 3 days ago
Not the first time! "US Power Elite, at war among themselves?" https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/us-powe...
Dick · 3 days ago
Watching from Australia what passes for domestic politics in the US within the media, reminds me of a primitive tribe reacting to a solar eclipse. They run around in hysterical fear gnashing their teeth thinking the great evil spirit has come to steal their corn, carry off their daughters, and destroy their village.

Emotional ignorance and blindness to the rational reality will only lead to more tears.

[Sep 25, 2017] Russophobia - Symptom Of US Implosion by Finian Cunningham

Implosion or not, it is definitely an attempt to internal problems including the collapse of neoliberal ideology by unleashing a witch hunt in best Senator McCarthy style. One motivation might be suppressing any critique of neoliberalism by equating it to pro-Russian propaganda. This is very much in best USSR traditions, where propaganda was preoccupied with foreign enemies which were constantly trying to undermine the state...
So far it proved to be a very effective tool for marginalizing the dissent. As in 1984: "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."
Mar 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Finian Cunningham, via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

There was a time when Russophobia served as an effective form of population control – used by the American ruling class in particular to command the general US population into patriotic loyalty. Not any longer. Now, Russophobia is a sign of weakness, of desperate implosion among the US ruling class from their own rotten, internal decay.

This propaganda technique worked adequately well during the Cold War decades when the former Soviet Union could be easily demonized as "godless communism" and an "evil empire". Such stereotypes, no matter how false, could be sustained largely because of the monopoly control of Western media by governments and official regulators.

The Soviet Union passed away more than a quarter of a century ago, but Russophobia among the US political class is more virulent than ever.

This week it was evident from Congressional hearings in Washington into alleged Russian interference in US politics that large sections of American government and establishment media are fixated by Russophobia and a belief that Russia is a malign foreign adversary.

However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday. This is partly due to more diverse global communications which challenge the previous Western monopoly for controlling narrative and perception. Contemporary Russophobia – demonizing Russian President Vladimir Putin or Russian military forces – does not have the same potency for scaring the Western public. Indeed, due to greater diversity in global news media sources, it is fair to say that "official" Western depictions of Russia as an enemy, for example allegedly about to invade Europe or allegedly interfering in electoral politics, are met with a healthy skepticism – if not ridicule by many Western citizens.

What is increasingly apparent here is a gaping chasm between the political class and the wider public on the matter of Russophobia. This is true for Western countries generally, but especially in the US. The political class – the lawmakers in Washington and the mainstream news media – are frenzied by claims that Russia interfered in the US presidential elections and that Russia has some kind of sinister leverage on the presidency of Donald Trump.

But this frenzy of Russophobia is not reflected among the wider public of ordinary American citizens. Rabid accusations that Russia hacked the computers of Trump's Democrat rival Hillary Clinton to spread damaging information about her; that this alleged sabotage of American democracy was an "act of war"; that President Trump is guilty of "treason" by "colluding" with a "Russian influence campaign" – all of these sensational claims seem to be only a preoccupation of the privileged political class . Most ordinary Americans, concerned about making a living in a crumbling society, either don't buy the claims or view them as idle chatter.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov this week dismissed the Congressional hearings into alleged Russian interference in US politics. He aptly said that US lawmakers and the corporate media have become "entangled" in their own fabrications. "They are trying to find evidence for conclusions that they have already made", said Peskov.

Other suitable imagery is that the US political class are tilting at windmills, chasing their own tails, or running from their own shadows. There seems to be a collective delusional mindset.

Unable to accept the reality that the governing structure of the US has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the people, that the people rebelled by electing an outsider in the form of business mogul-turned-politician Donald Trump, that the collapse of American traditional politics is due to the atrophy of its bankrupt capitalist economy over several decades – the ruling class have fabricated their own excuse for demise by blaming it all on Russia.

The American ruling class cannot accept, or come to terms, with the fact of systemic failure in their own political system. The election of Trump is a symptom of this failure and the widespread disillusionment among voters towards the two-party train wreck of Republicans and Democrats. That is why the specter of Russian interference in the US political system had to be conjured up, by necessity, as a way of "explaining" the abject failure and the ensuing popular revolt.

Russophobia was rehabilitated from the Cold War closet by the American political establishment to distract from the glaring internal collapse of American politics.

The corrosive, self-destruction seems to know no bounds. James Comey, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, told Congress this week that the White House is being probed for illicit contacts with Russia. This dramatic notice served by Comey was greeted with general approval by political opponents of the Trump administration, as well as by news media outlets.

The New York Times said the FBI was in effect holding a "criminal investigation at the doorstep of the White House".

Other news outlets are openly airing discussions on the probability of President Trump being impeached from office.

The toxic political atmosphere of Russophobia in Washington is unprecedented. The Trump administration is being crippled at every turn from conducting normal political business under a toxic cloud of suspicion that it is guilty of treason from colluding with Russia.

President Trump has run afoul with Republicans in Congress over his planned healthcare reforms because many Republicans are taking issue instead over the vaunted Russian probe.

When Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was reported to be skipping a NATO summit next month but was planning to visit Moscow later in the same month, the itinerary was interpreted as a sign of untoward Russian influence.

What makes the spectacle of political infighting so unprecedented is that there is such little evidence to back up allegations of Trump-Russia collusion. It is preponderantly based on innuendo and anonymous leaks to the media, which are then recycled as "evidence".

Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said earlier this week that he has seen no actual evidence among classified documents indicating any collusion between the Trump campaign team and the Russian government.

Even former senior intelligence officials, James Clapper and Michael Morell who are no friends of Trump, have lately admitted in media interviews that there is no such evidence.

Yet, FBI chief James Comey told Congress that his agency was pursuing a potentially criminal investigation into the Trump administration, while at the same time not confirming or denying the existence of any evidence.

And, as already noted, this declaration of open-ended snooping by Comey on the White House was met with avid approval by political opponents of Trump, both on Capitol Hill and in the corporate media.

Let's just assume for a moment that the whole Trump-Russia collusion story is indeed fake. That it is groundless, a figment of imagination. There are solid reasons to believe that is the case. But let's just assume here that it is fake for the sake of argument.

That then means that the Washington seat of government and the US presidency are tearing themselves apart in a futile civil war.

The real war here is a power struggle within the US in the context of ruling parties no longer having legitimacy to govern.

This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics.

trulz4lulz -> Logan 5 •Mar 24, 2017 9:15 PM

I've been MSM-free for so long now, I forgot who I'm supposed to be hating this week!! I see the effects in sooo many of my friends though, more so on the left, than the right. Which is odd....? Or maybe it isn't, due to their mental retardation. Ohh well...game on.
stizazz -> trulz4lulz •Mar 24, 2017 9:44 PM

Russophobia has been ongoing since W Bush. They just want to keep Trump on the World War 3 track.

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

oncemore -> Logan 5 •Mar 25, 2017 5:11 AM

Bolsevism, apart being a russian word, is at home in US, originated in US, was nurtured by US money and was, still is, the main US export (topic: imperial US wars).

hoyeru (not verified) •Mar 24, 2017 9:17 PM

Whether the Soviet Union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare.

Besides, USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed off about it.

daveO -> hoyeru •Mar 24, 2017 9:34 PM

"Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia."

I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by coincidence, there seemed to be no end in sight.

As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)...

MEFOBILLS -> daveO •Mar 25, 2017 3:31 AM

Oceania is always against a land power arising, including Eurasia.

Another wrinkle that is important: Feminized Western Societies. Russia is now a traditional masculine society, while the west has been feminized. (Judaized and Feminized are similar - both operate with deception)

http://www.heretical.com/sgs-2014/fem-war.html

Femine societies lash out, don't forgive, make dubious alliances, and fight underhanded.

The table at the bottom of link above describes the differences in wartime behavior between the two types of societies.

Since Trump is masculine, he naturally will be more instinctively in alignment with Putin and Russia.

nmewn •Mar 24, 2017 9:22 PM

Isn't it interesting that Russian government officials simply say "Veee don't comment on state spying activities" while in American government officials simply pass it directly to their media cronies who are quoted in newspapers and on TeeeVeee?

Anonymously...of course ;-)

DuneCreature •Mar 24, 2017 9:31 PM

Did we declare war on Russia while I was taking a nap?

What is the hell is going on with the raving Russian hacker meltdown horseshit? ... Bill Gates and the NSA camps out on my network every time I turn it on? .. Do I get to declare war and run to the UN for sanctions on Ft Meade?

Will Insane McCain get charged for fraternizing with ISIS Big Bagdaddy?
... ... ...

Cabreado •Mar 24, 2017 9:49 PM

"This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics."

More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the elected (isn't that the real heart of US politics?)

And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists. This is why they ("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like We mean it.

francis scott f... •Mar 24, 2017 10:14 PM

Russophobia - Symptom Of US Implosion ? may be Symptom of Deep State implosion

dark_matter •Mar 24, 2017 10:36 PM

The Americans are poor haters in international affairs because of their innate feeling of superiority over all foreigners. An American's hatred for a fellow American (for Hoover or Roosevelt) is far more virulent than any antipathy he can work up against foreigners. Should Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost confidence in their own way of life. ~Eric Hoffer in True Believer

Escapeclaws -> dark_matter •Mar 25, 2017 2:49 AM

That book was written eons ago in "historical time". Now Americans, being ever more stomped upon and ground down are identifying with the victims of totalitarian ideologies, like the Russians under Bolshevism. We have our our own Bolsheviks. Like the Bolsheviks, they will kill millions of their fellow citizens if all goes according to plan (20 Million in Russia under the Bolsheviks). History doesn't rhyme, it repeats. THE NEOCONS--THEY WANT YOU DEAD!

Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 3:37 AM

Look at US inequality:

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/557ef766ecad04fe50a257cd-960/screen shot 2015-06-15 at 11.28.56 am.png

A picture paints a thousand words. American philanthropists sponsor right wing think-tanks to make people believe those at the top need more.
Look behind Trump when he talks from one of his residences, not everything is covered in gold leaf. He does need more. The US is being ransacked by its own elite and who are not going to take any responsibility for their own greed, so they are blaming the Russians.

Looking on the bright side. A nation with military bases in almost every nation on Earth is ransacked by its own elite, a source of great amusement for generations to come (outside the US). American exceptionalism – exceptionally stupid.

Batman11 -> Batman11 •Mar 25, 2017 4:03 AM

Add it to the list of things that will last forever: The British Empire, The Thousand Year Reich, American exceptionalism

krage_man •Mar 25, 2017 5:02 AM

Russophobia is just the result of the clash of 2 irreconcilable things. The first one is about USA being the superpower, controlling world affairs. The second one is that Russia's economy, influence, military power and state management by Putin government actually prevent USA from dominating Russia and its affairs.

It is internal conflict in the mind of Deep State figures. The only way is to either prove that the USA status by dominating Russia, or to adjust self vision as the only superpower and accept the changing world. Trump was elected to follow the later, but the deep state/establishment is unable to see anything other that the former as the way forward. So Russophobia is to keep all society following the way of dominance and to prevent Trump adopting more rational way of agreeing on sphere of influence with Russia.

BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 6:15 AM

Can Russia be trusted?

Russia tells Britain give back Gibraltar & Falklands before telling US what to do.
RUSSIA has told Britain it should "clean its conscience" and give back Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands before it criticises them over their involvement in Ukraine.

Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin made the shocking remarks when responding to his British counterpart Matthew Rycroft at a UN security council meeting in New York. (Daily Express 4 Feb 2017)

Do the Spanish have a claim to the Rock? Gibraltar - Some Relevant International Law: https://www.academia.edu/10575180/Gibraltar_-_Some_Relevant_Internationa...

Perhaps not.

Funny thing to say when Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands. So how can they 'be returned' ?

Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:

https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina

brushhog -> BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 7:42 AM

No, of course Russia cannot be "trusted". Their governmen is no better than anyone elses.

Mimir -> BritBob •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM

Spain is continuously claiming the return of Gibraltar to Spain. (Was conquered in 1704)

When it comes to Falkland Islands, according to all International maritime agreements and especially United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, it is very difficult to argue that the Falkland Islands is part of the UK. It would be for the International Court of Justice to solve the dispute.

I think Russia has a point.

d edwards -> Last of the Middle Class •Mar 25, 2017 8:12 AM

Seems the only one's with Russophobia are the f ing neomarxist dems who need a scapegoat for their loses over the last eight years under 0dumbo.

brushhog •Mar 25, 2017 7:40 AM

Its very simple, those in charge need an outside enemy to blame and to try to unite the people against. The worse things get, the louder they will cry wolf and the more threatening they will become towards Russia.

The global elitists would rather end the world in a nuclear holocaust then let go of power and admit they're to blame.

Beans •Mar 25, 2017 7:53 AM

The whole Russophobia gimmick in the West is purely a Zionist fiction created to punish the White Christian Russians for daring to assert themselves. Connect the dots between Jewish political/business interests in Ukraine, Russia and the US Congress/Executive branch/Governmental agencies and you quickly see how everything falls into place. Free yourselves, White Christian Americans.

Faeriedust -> Beans •Mar 25, 2017 1:38 PM

Not all Jews are Bankers. Not all Bankers are Jewish. There is, however, a significant overlap.

Beans -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 4:16 PM

Yeah sure, you're absolutely right. Another way of putting it is by saying; 'Not all Jews were Bolsheviks. Not all Bolsheviks were Jews'... The historically indisputable fact however, is that about 85 to 90% of the members of the first Bolshevik government of 'Soviet' Russia was indeed Jewish ;)

Faeriedust -> StopBeingParanoid •Mar 25, 2017 12:51 PM

Of course they try to influence our elections. Now step back. Ever heard the name Victoria Nuland? Phillip of Makedon? Or perhaps The Great Game? In point of fact, major players in world domination ALWAYS try to influence both rivals and all the bit players who have something they want. And the Russians play hardball, no question about that. But generally, with their OWN dissidents, not other people's. Ask Trotsky's ghost. Politics is a full-contact sport. The only exception is when all the players belong to the same League, and the League bans anyone who breaks the rules. Right now, there IS no league. So yes, Putin plays hard. The CIA does, too.

aloha_snakbar •Mar 25, 2017 9:44 AM

However, the power of the Russophobia propaganda technique over the wider population seems to have greatly diminished from its Cold War heyday.

Im hiding under a desk... I cant hear you...

VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 10:46 AM

Commiey is a stooge of the deep state. Someone has some serious dirt on him.

Caleb Abell -> VW Nerd •Mar 25, 2017 11:01 AM

Along those lines, Comey may have derailed Clinton because elements of the deep state wanted her gone, and they were willing to accept Trump on a temporary basis. Now that Clinton is out of the picture, they can work on replacing Trump (one way or the other) with the much more compliant Pence.

CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:31 PM

This article would have an even stronger case if it weren't based on a false premise. The Soviet Union WAS a threat to the West; that wasn't propaganda. Now Russia isn't a threat and it is propaganda.

Thus it is even more obvious that the US/Western elite are hunting for a way to demonize Russia, and we need look no further than Russia/China's efforts to escape the World banking structure for the reason.

Faeriedust -> CRM114 •Mar 25, 2017 12:42 PM

That's really debateable. Remember, the Soviet Union was our ALLY in WWII. Stalin was a batshit thug, and we (not to mention the Russians) were well rid of him. BUT -- immediately after his death the USSR was taken over by a committee of Experienced Old Men who were willing and able to be pragmatic.

Try to remember that when the Bolshevik Revolution started, both the English and the Americans weren't sure whether to support it or oppose it. Then Lenin and Trotsky decided to default on the Russian war debt -- which they had NO way of paying. Suddenly they became the world's greatest evil. Many high-ranking foreign service specialists in Britain even supported Hitler, initially, with the idea that they would turn him loose against the Russians and sit back to watch the fireworks. Of course, that was before Hitler repudiated Germany's WWI war debt. Do you see a pattern yet?

The issue was ALWAYS the wealth, profit, and survival of the banks. ALWAYS.

CRM114 -> Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 1:12 PM

I suggest you read some more history. You are making links for which there is only circumstantial evidence, whereas the alternatives have an abundance of evidence. I am vehently against the current role of the bankers, but...

Now, the bankers sought to exploit all of this and make a profit, immoral or otherwise, but they didn't start it,and they couldn't have stopped it.

I am prepared to consider the idea that they now can exert such a high level of influence, and are doing so, but this was not true in the past.

Faeriedust •Mar 25, 2017 12:35 PM

Washington has had a problem with groupthink for a long time, but now it's become obvious to the entire world, not to mention the mythical Average American. Neither Millenials nor Boomers were ever likely to fall for McCarthyism 2.0. Instead, they see the political leadership for what it is -- a senile elite that has entirely lost its grip on reality. This is common in dying empires; in fact it's the fundamental reason why empires collapse.

Yes, running through all your resources, hollowing out your military, and destroying international goodwill aren't exactly the way to Win Friends And Influence People. But they happen, because the 1% at the top of the totem pole become so divorced from what life is like for the other 99%, that they lose the ability to make intelligent or rational decisions.

It's like an oil tanker trying to thread its way through a gap in a reef -- with good steering and a willing crew, it can be done. But if the captain's passed out drunk and the Exec is high on meth, with half the crew already taking off in the lifeboats against orders . . . it takes a miracle to avoid the rocks.

[Sep 24, 2017] How Sony, Obama, Seth Rogen and the CIA Secretly Planned to Force Regime Change in North Korea by Tim Shorrock

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S., he warned in a recent speech on Capitol Hill that I attended, must deliver Kim a simple message: "We know the only thing you care about is your regime's survival. Either denuclearize or we will take actions politically to destabilize your regime." His talk was a basic primer for this "uprising" from within, which is exactly what the Bush administration sought in Iraq when it invaded in 2003. ..."
"... K-Pop, the South Korean musical genre that's popular around the world, could be another weapon: "It's acidic as far the regime is concerned." And commercials about South Korean life planted in DVDs smuggled into the North "would be terrible for Kim Jong-un." ..."
"... The purpose of the operation, he said, is to convince the people of the DPRK that their "paranoid" leader is not a "god," and to plant the idea that his country is unstable: "If that's in his mind, it will affect his behavior." In short, a psy-op. ..."
"... Why Bennett? His official biography states that he has worked for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Forces in South Korea and Japan, the U.S. Pacific Command as well as the South Korean and Japanese militaries. According an email he wrote to Sony's Lynton in 2014, he got his start in Asia as a Mormon missionary to Japan and began working on Korea in 1989 "at the request of the Pentagon." By 2014, he said, he had made over 100 trips to South Korea to advise the U.S. Army and senior South Korean military personnel "on how to deter North Korea." Even though he has never been to the DPRK, he bases his knowledge of the country on his "extensive interviews with senior North Korean defectors." ..."
"... The film allegedly sparked North Korea to hack Sony and leak thousands of internal Sony emails. North Korea also warned the Obama administration not to allow the film to be released, branding it "an act of terrorism." So, when Bennett invited questions at his congressional briefing, I asked him: what was his involvement in The Interview , and did he think it was effective? ..."
"... As Americans come to grips with Trump's confrontational policies with North Korea, it's easy to forget that U.S. relations with North Korea reached a nadir under Barack Obama. Here's why: Bennett's regime change proposals were, and are, the culmination of policies hatched by Obama's left-liberal administration to weaken Kim's hold on power and hasten what they considered North Korea's inevitable collapse. Obviously they failed, yet elements of the plan still abound. ..."
"... To head off that development, in 1994 President Bill Clinton negotiated an agreement with North Korea's founding leader, Kim Il-sung, that sought to allay his government's fears by ending America's hostile policies. Under the "Agreed Framework," the DPRK shut down its one test reactor -- its only source for plutonium -- in return for U.S. shipments of oil for its power grid and two new light-water reactors to be built by an international consortium. Most importantly, both sides agreed to end mutual hostility by fully normalizing their economic and political relations. ..."
"... The agreement, which froze North Korea's nuclear program for 12 years, held for several years. But in 2002, the Bush administration accused the DPRK -- falsely it turned out -- of building a secret uranium program as a second route to a bomb and tore up the framework. In response, North Korea, which was by now led by Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father, restarted its nuclear program, and by 2006 had exploded its first nuclear device. ..."
"... Surprisingly, Bush reopened negotiations only three weeks later, and by 2007, under the rubric of the Six Party Talks, the DPRK agreed again to freeze its program. That accord was still pending when Obama was elected in 2009. He had run for president pledging to talk to Iran and North Korea, but quickly changed course on Korea. ..."
"... Obama and his top adviser on Asia, Jeff Bader, decided in 2009 to side with the new, conservative president of South Korea, Lee Myung Bak, who had campaigned against engagement and demanded stronger pressure tactics against the DPRK. Soon, the idea of direct talks and regular was abandoned. Officially, the doctrine for replacing direct engagement with pressure tactics was known as "strategic patience." Behind it was a mistaken assumption!the same one made by Bennett today!that North Korea was headed for collapse, making even the chance of an agreement a futile exercise. ..."
"... It's difficult to overstate how reactionary Obama's policies became. In contrast to Bush, and even Trump, Obama flatly rejected the idea of negotiating with the North without a prior commitment to denuclearization. He also expressed no interest in the DPRK's offer to sign a peace agreement. More disturbingly, he was the first president in history to refer to the Korean War, which has been universally recognized as a bloody stalemate, as a "victory." In doing so, Obama revived a right-wing trope that was first used in the 1950s and resurrected during the Bush years by David Frum and other neocons. So from the onset, Obama caused America's policy toward Korea to take a sharp right turn. ..."
"... But the U.S. government had no doubts at all. In January 2015, Obama called the DPRK's alleged hack an "act of war" and used it as an excuse to launch one of the most aggressive American actions on behalf of a private corporation in U.S. history. His executive order imposed sanctions against three North Korean agencies and nearly a dozen "critical North Korean operatives" in retaliation for the hack. The Treasury Department said the sanctions were in direct response to North Korea's "numerous provocations, particularly the recent cyber-attack targeting Sony Pictures Entertainment." The action marked a major escalation, returning "the U.S. to a posture of open hostility with its oldest remaining Cold War adversary," the Wall Street Journal noted . ..."
"... Shortly after these actions were taken, the New York Times published a revelation that raised serious questions about the hack, reporting that the NSA had broken into the DPRK's computer systems as early as 2010 and "penetrated directly into the North with the help of South Korea and other American allies." If that was true, the NSA might have watched the alleged hackers and allowed them to do their work. Here's what the Times concluded: ..."
"... Today, Kim Jong-un remains firmly in control of North Korea, and the Trump administration -- despite Trump's tweets on Sunday equating engagement with "appeasement " -- appears to be slowly moving toward negotiations of some kind with his government. Bruce Bennett continues to fantasize about bringing the leader down. Kim, he argued in a recent post , craves his weapons not for self-defense but because "nukes are one way to show his subjects he's a god." Kim is "a weak leader consumed by paranoia," he wrote in a separate piece. ..."
"... And on August 29, in a departing interview with Fox News, ousted White House adviser Sebastian Gorka let it slip that the cyber attacks on North Korea probably continue. "On the more covert side of things, you have seen a lot of missile tests fail," he said . "Most tests actually fail. Sometimes there may be reasons beyond just incompetence by North Korea." ..."
"... And there was an intriguing exchange recently between one of Obama's top national security officials and South Korea's new president, Moon Jae-in . On August 4, Moon spoke out against Korean right-wingers who send anti-DPRK propaganda over the border in large balloons!one of the tactics frequently suggested by Bennett and carried out by neocons Kirchick and Halvorssen. These actions, he warned , unnecessarily aggravate the North, and particularly during times of severe tension, "could prompt accidental clashes." ..."
"... That sparked an angry tweet from Samantha Power, the Obama administration's former U.N. ambassador and perhaps the most famous proponent of "humanitarian intervention" against enemy states like North Korea. "So mistaken," Power tweeted in response to Moon. "Information is what Kim Jong-un fears most. ..."
Sep 05, 2017 | www.alternet.org

Grayzone Project 294 COMMENTS

Over the past month, President Trump's incendiary threats to rain " fire and fury " on North Korea in response to its ballistic missile program set off a chain of military escalations that climaxed this week with Pyongyang's sixth test of a nuclear device , a hydrogen bomb three to five times more powerful than the American bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As the crisis unfolded, the Rand Corporation, a military-intelligence think tank founded during the Cold War, relentlessly promoted the views of Bruce W. Bennett, a defense researcher it calls "one of the leading experts on the world's most reclusive country." Two or three times a day, Rand's media shop tweets out links to Bennett's writings on Kim Jong-un, the 33-year-old who rules the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK), its formal and preferred name.

While Trump has vowed to use sanctions, war threats and diplomacy to stop Kim from developing a ballistic missile that could fire nuclear weapons at the United States!exactly what Kim claimed to do on Sunday!Bennett believes that the only target worth considering is North Korea's " Supreme Leader " himself.

Bennett's basic theme is that North Korea is teetering on collapse and internal unrest because the military and technocratic elite who run the country have given up on Kim and his dynastic family. It's a theory that's been around for decades , but has picked up steam in reaction to Kim's recent purges, including possibly his own brother and a string of high-level defections that includes Thae Yong-ho , the erudite former North Korea ambassador to London.

In glossy books and pamphlets ("Preparing North Korean Elites for Unification") and in appearances from CNN to Fox to Teen Vogue , Bennett lays out his plan for overthrowing the North Korean government by saturating the country with leaflets and propaganda and providing assurances to potential plotters in the North that they would have a place within a new, unified Korea!but only under South Korean and U.S. control.

The U.S., he warned in a recent speech on Capitol Hill that I attended, must deliver Kim a simple message: "We know the only thing you care about is your regime's survival. Either denuclearize or we will take actions politically to destabilize your regime." His talk was a basic primer for this "uprising" from within, which is exactly what the Bush administration sought in Iraq when it invaded in 2003.

The plan, Bennett said, might begin with the U.S. Air Force dropping leaflets on North Korean missile bases that invite North Korean soldiers to defect. "If there were one or two, that would be a political loss of face." K-Pop, the South Korean musical genre that's popular around the world, could be another weapon: "It's acidic as far the regime is concerned." And commercials about South Korean life planted in DVDs smuggled into the North "would be terrible for Kim Jong-un."

The purpose of the operation, he said, is to convince the people of the DPRK that their "paranoid" leader is not a "god," and to plant the idea that his country is unstable: "If that's in his mind, it will affect his behavior." In short, a psy-op.

As I listened to his spiel, I was reminded of Bennett's advisory role in the 2014 Seth Rogen comedy The Interview , about two Hollywood stoners hired by the CIA to kill Kim. It depicted, in graphic detail, Kim's head being blown apart by a guided missile fired by fed-up North Korean "elites" who had come over to the U.S. side after their conversations with the fake American journalists, played by Rogen and his sidekick James Franco.

The film was produced by Japan's Sony Pictures, but finalized only after receiving critical advice and assistance from the Obama State Department, the Rand Corporation, and according to a 2014 interview Rogen gave to the New York Times, the CIA ("We made relationships with certain people who work in the government as consultants, who I'm convinced are in the CIA") But it was all under the tutelage of Bruce Bennett, who was brought into the project by Sony Entertainment CEO Michael Lynton, a prominent member of Rand's board of directors and a close confidante of President Obama.

Why Bennett? His official biography states that he has worked for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Forces in South Korea and Japan, the U.S. Pacific Command as well as the South Korean and Japanese militaries. According an email he wrote to Sony's Lynton in 2014, he got his start in Asia as a Mormon missionary to Japan and began working on Korea in 1989 "at the request of the Pentagon." By 2014, he said, he had made over 100 trips to South Korea to advise the U.S. Army and senior South Korean military personnel "on how to deter North Korea." Even though he has never been to the DPRK, he bases his knowledge of the country on his "extensive interviews with senior North Korean defectors."

The movie's plot closely follows Bennett's vision for regime change from within, and is illustrated in two key scenes.

"We're aware of a small faction in the existing leadership that already wants him gone," the CIA agent overseeing the assassination plot tells her American recruits early on. "They want change and they're too scared to act alone. And they need you two to go in there and remove Kim and embolden them to revolt." Later, "Sook," the sexy assistant to Kim who joins the regime change plot, pleads with Rogen: "How do you prove to the 24 million people of North Korea that their god is a murderer and a liar? The people need to be shown that he's not a god."

The film allegedly sparked North Korea to hack Sony and leak thousands of internal Sony emails. North Korea also warned the Obama administration not to allow the film to be released, branding it "an act of terrorism." So, when Bennett invited questions at his congressional briefing, I asked him: what was his involvement in The Interview , and did he think it was effective?

At first, Bennett was elusive, saying, "I did not work on the movie." When I reminded him that he had been listed as an adviser, he changed course. "I heard about it for the first time when I was sent a copy of the DVD by the president of Sony Pictures, who was asking, do we need to be worried about this?" he explained, inspiring a ripple of laughter throughout the room. Bennett continued: "So I had a tail-end role in trying to help them appreciate what they might be worried about."

But there's a lot more to the story. Now that Kim is dominating the news once again, it's time to revisit this film and how it became a weapon in the long-running American war against North Korea.

Obama's hard line on DPRK

As Americans come to grips with Trump's confrontational policies with North Korea, it's easy to forget that U.S. relations with North Korea reached a nadir under Barack Obama. Here's why: Bennett's regime change proposals were, and are, the culmination of policies hatched by Obama's left-liberal administration to weaken Kim's hold on power and hasten what they considered North Korea's inevitable collapse. Obviously they failed, yet elements of the plan still abound.

Let's start with some basic background. The hostile U.S. relationship with the DPRK dates back to the Korean War, when U.S. bombers turned the country into cinders in a destructive campaign of carpet-bombing that killed millions of people. In 1953, an armistice ended the fighting, leaving the country divided and in a perpetual state of war. A peace treaty was never signed. Sometime in the late 1980s, with the border still tense and the U.S. showing no signs of withdrawing its military forces from the South, the DPRK decided to embark on a nuclear program to defend itself from wars of regime change and guarantee its sovereignty.

To head off that development, in 1994 President Bill Clinton negotiated an agreement with North Korea's founding leader, Kim Il-sung, that sought to allay his government's fears by ending America's hostile policies. Under the "Agreed Framework," the DPRK shut down its one test reactor -- its only source for plutonium -- in return for U.S. shipments of oil for its power grid and two new light-water reactors to be built by an international consortium. Most importantly, both sides agreed to end mutual hostility by fully normalizing their economic and political relations.

The agreement, which froze North Korea's nuclear program for 12 years, held for several years. But in 2002, the Bush administration accused the DPRK -- falsely it turned out -- of building a secret uranium program as a second route to a bomb and tore up the framework. In response, North Korea, which was by now led by Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un's father, restarted its nuclear program, and by 2006 had exploded its first nuclear device.

Surprisingly, Bush reopened negotiations only three weeks later, and by 2007, under the rubric of the Six Party Talks, the DPRK agreed again to freeze its program. That accord was still pending when Obama was elected in 2009. He had run for president pledging to talk to Iran and North Korea, but quickly changed course on Korea.

According to Leon Sigal, a former State Department official who has met with North Korea many times in unofficial talks, Obama and his top adviser on Asia, Jeff Bader, decided in 2009 to side with the new, conservative president of South Korea, Lee Myung Bak, who had campaigned against engagement and demanded stronger pressure tactics against the DPRK. Soon, the idea of direct talks and regular was abandoned. Officially, the doctrine for replacing direct engagement with pressure tactics was known as "strategic patience." Behind it was a mistaken assumption!the same one made by Bennett today!that North Korea was headed for collapse, making even the chance of an agreement a futile exercise.

It's difficult to overstate how reactionary Obama's policies became. In contrast to Bush, and even Trump, Obama flatly rejected the idea of negotiating with the North without a prior commitment to denuclearization. He also expressed no interest in the DPRK's offer to sign a peace agreement. More disturbingly, he was the first president in history to refer to the Korean War, which has been universally recognized as a bloody stalemate, as a "victory." In doing so, Obama revived a right-wing trope that was first used in the 1950s and resurrected during the Bush years by David Frum and other neocons. So from the onset, Obama caused America's policy toward Korea to take a sharp right turn.

The tensions were exacerbated by the covert cyber war Obama launched against North Korea to damage and slow its missile program. During the Obama years, North Korea tested three more nuclear bombs, and despite the cyber war, rapidly expanded its missile abilities. As the situation deteriorated, Obama embarked on a series of military exercises with South Korea that increased in size and tempo over the course of his administration. They included unprecedented overflights by B-52 and stealth B1-B bombers as well as training in " decapitation strikes " designed to take out Kim and his leadership. All of this led straight to the crisis Trump inherited and has only made worse.

But while Trump critics rightly chafe over his reckless allusions to a nuclear attack on Korea, it's often forgotten that Obama himself made similar statements, couched in his trademark cool. "We could, obviously, destroy North Korea with our arsenals," Obama told CBS News in April 2016. A few months later, Daniel Russel, the president's senior diplomat on Asia who had earlier viewed The Interview at Sony's request, actually threatened North Korea's destruction. If Kim gets "an enhanced capacity to conduct a nuclear attack," Russel told defense reporters, he would "immediately die."

At the time, these threats hardly caused a ripple in the media, and sparked few complaints from the liberals who now criticize Trump for pushing the U.S. to war or the progressive reporters who criticized Bush for his invasion of Iraq.

Seth Rogen 'melted head' assassination scene

Although the idea for The Interview had been around for a while, the real inspiration, director Seth Rogen told the Los Angeles Times, was some "idle kidding around" he did with his friends after the assassination of Osama bin Laden in 2011. He and Sony were also encouraged by the wild success of the 2004 hit movie Team America , which ridiculed Kim Jong-il's big glasses and bouffant hair-do. But what sparked Sony's decision to go ahead with its $35 million investment was the crisis that shook the Korean Peninsula when the DPRK tested its third nuclear device in February 2013.

The nuclear test vaulted Kim Jong-un into the headlines for the first time, giving Sony the moment it had been seeking. In a "strategic marketing and research" paper later leaked by hackers, the studio told promoters to push the theme of "the dictator's bizarre behavior!he's a young, inexperienced guy with self-esteem and 'daddy' issues." The film used every racist image and trope that Rogen could dream up, from the sing-songy caricatures of Asian speech that were a film staple in the 1940s and '50s, to the concept that Koreans are either robotic slaves (like Kim's security guards) or sex-starved submissives who crave American men (like Sook, the "elite" aide to Kim who falls for the Rogen character).

In the end of the film, the Hollywood rebels triumph after badgering Kim with tough questions about his ability to feed his own people, an allusion to the terrible famine that occurred in the late-1990s. Kim goes crazy, forcing "a man once revered among mortals to cry and shit in his pants," the Rogen character explains. After the stoner character screams, "he's no god, he's a butthole," Kim is struck on his helicopter by the fatal missile shot by Sook's rebels, and his head explodes in a fireball. The rebels' job now "is to make sure power is transferred to the right hands," the Americans explain.

It was that ending that caused most of the controversy, both at the studio and when the film was later pre-screened to select officials of the Obama administration. When the first takes were shown in June 2014, some of Sony's Japanese executives were disturbed by both the violence and the racism. By this time, North Korea (which relentlessly monitors U.S. media) had got wind of the film and its theme of assassinating its head of state. So the studio asked Rogen to tone it down by removing one scene in which moviegoers watched Kim's face slowly melt and slide off his head. This sent Rogen on a tirade.

"We feel the story of censorship and trying to appease North Korea WILL in fact hurt the film critically, and thus financially," he wrote to Amy Pascal , Sony Pictures' top executive at the time. "The head melting shot described vividly in all these articles is universally received as awesome by the articles writing about them, and when these critics see a shot that is decidedly LESS awesome, regardless of what story we put out there, the truth will be apparent: it's a compromised product." (The head-melting scene was removed, but Rogen's Hollywood version of selective morality was revealing nonetheless).

By this point, North Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs was denouncing the film as tantamount to "an act of war," and threatening "a decisive and merciless countermeasure" if the Obama administration allowed it to be shown. That was apparently the result Rogen was looking for.

"There was a lot of high-fiving," he told the Los Angeles Times. Even if it caused a war?

"Hopefully," Rogen said, "people will say, 'You know what? It was worth it. It was a good movie!'"

It was then that Sony turned to the government for help, through Rand and its Korea expert, Bruce Bennett.

With top Obama contacts, Sony and Rand collaborate on coup narrative

The Rand Corporation first became famous in 1971, when Daniel Ellsberg, a Rand analyst, leaked the Pentagon Papers that exposed the secret history of the Vietnam War. The incredible tale of official lies that unfolded in pages of the New York Times and other papers helped end the war four years later and triggered the beginning of the end of Richard Nixon. After shaking off that incident, Rand emerged as one of the premiere research centers for the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence.

As a result of 9/11 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Rand returned full force to refining the practice of counterinsurgency , or COIN, the "soft power" side of empire-building that got its start in Vietnam and aims at winning "hearts and minds" of countries that the United States invades or subverts. Bennett's policy proposals to divide members of the North Korean "elite" from their government with offers of political support and financial assistance come right out of the COIN playbook .

The link between Rand and Sony was made shortly after the first public viewing of the film by Rand CEO Michael Rich, a lifelong employee of the think tank. Under his leadership, Rand developed close ties with U.S. intelligence. In November 2014, for example, Rich presided over a "rare dialogue" with the National Security Agency that took place at Sony's headquarters in Century City and included then NSA director Michael Rogers as well as Michael Leiter, the former director of the CIA's National Counterterrorism Center.

In June 2014, after the first clips of the movie where shown, Rich emailed Bennett, informing him he had recommended that Rand "trustee Michael Lynton, CEO of Sony Entertainment, get in touch with you for some quick assistance." Lynton, too, had high-level connections. As the hacked Sony emails collected by Wikileaks would later reveal , he had attended dinners at Martha's Vineyard with President Obama, and as a Rand board member, had contacts throughout government. From June on, Bennett, through Lynton, became a critical adviser to the film and acted as a liaison between the studio and the Obama administration.

The makers of The Interview were especially interested in advice on crafting the ending of the film. The scene of Kim's head exploding pleased Bennett, as he wrote in one of his emails. "I have been clear that the assassination of Kim Jong-Un is the most likely path to a collapse of the North Korean government," he wrote .

Bennett continued: 'Thus while toning down the ending may reduce the North Korean response, I believe that a story that talks about the removal of the Kim family regime and the creation of a new government by the North Korean people (well, at least the elites) will start some real thinking in South Korea and, I believe, in the North once the DVD leaks into the North (which it almost certainly will). So from a personal perspective, I would personally prefer to leave the ending alone."

Bennett firmly believed the film could spark the U.S.-led coup he had dreamed about for so long. "There are many ways that United States and even Sony Pictures could affect North Korean internal politics," he wrote on the Rand website. "Slipping DVDs of at least parts of The Interview into the North, including a narration describing what their 'god' Kim is really like is one way." (In fact, a version of this stunt was attempted right after the film came out by two of the more fanatical regime-changers in Washington, the neocon writer Jamie Kirchik and right-wing human rights hustler Thor Halvorssen .)

To make sure the film was on the right track, Sony arranged to show the ending to officials at the State Department. Lynton emailed Daniel Russel, who was the assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, that the studio was "concerned for the safety of Americans and American and North Korean relations." He and other U.S. officials gave their blessing to the film's violent ending. After word of Russel's involvement leaked out, the State Department denied any role, only to be contradicted by Russel himself. In a 2016 speech in Los Angeles, he said , "I'm the U.S. government official who told Sony there was no problem 'greenlighting' the movie The Interview ."

Despite the official go-ahead, Sony agreed at first to only release The Interview on DVD. Then, when Sony temporarily pulled the film in December 2014, Obama became its champion, declaring that "we cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship here in the United States." That led to the remarkable sight of Hollywood actors and directors from the liberal left, led by the likes of George Clooney and Michael Moore, defending the film as an act of free speech and urging Americans to defy Kim's "censorship" and go see it in a theater.

By this time, Sony had been hacked by a group that called itself the " Guardians of Peace ." The FBI later claimed this group was secretly working for North Korea. The Obama administration agreed, and said its top intelligence officials had concluded that North Korea was "centrally involved." This finding was questioned by many cyber-security experts (especially Gregory Elich's critique in Counterpunch and Kim Zetter's analysis in Wired). They concluded that the FBI's "evidence" found in servers in Thailand, Singapore and elsewhere was thin and speculative, and found signs that the real hackers (who had an uncanny insider knowledge of Hollywood) could still be at large and might have been former Sony employees.

But the U.S. government had no doubts at all. In January 2015, Obama called the DPRK's alleged hack an "act of war" and used it as an excuse to launch one of the most aggressive American actions on behalf of a private corporation in U.S. history. His executive order imposed sanctions against three North Korean agencies and nearly a dozen "critical North Korean operatives" in retaliation for the hack. The Treasury Department said the sanctions were in direct response to North Korea's "numerous provocations, particularly the recent cyber-attack targeting Sony Pictures Entertainment." The action marked a major escalation, returning "the U.S. to a posture of open hostility with its oldest remaining Cold War adversary," the Wall Street Journal noted .

Shortly after these actions were taken, the New York Times published a revelation that raised serious questions about the hack, reporting that the NSA had broken into the DPRK's computer systems as early as 2010 and "penetrated directly into the North with the help of South Korea and other American allies." If that was true, the NSA might have watched the alleged hackers and allowed them to do their work. Here's what the Times concluded:

"The extensive American penetration of the North Korean system raises questions about why the United States was not able to alert Sony as the attacks took shape last fall, even though the North had warned, as early as June, that the release of the movie would be 'an act of war.'"

By this time, however, the film had done its damage by convincing Kim's government that the Obama administration did indeed want its destruction. More missile and nuclear tests followed, and by the end of the Obama administration relations were far worse than they were when Bush left office in 2009. In other words, the film had the opposite of its intended effect, prompting a clampdown by Kim and suppressing whatever internal dissent existed.

Today, Kim Jong-un remains firmly in control of North Korea, and the Trump administration -- despite Trump's tweets on Sunday equating engagement with "appeasement " -- appears to be slowly moving toward negotiations of some kind with his government. Bruce Bennett continues to fantasize about bringing the leader down. Kim, he argued in a recent post , craves his weapons not for self-defense but because "nukes are one way to show his subjects he's a god." Kim is "a weak leader consumed by paranoia," he wrote in a separate piece.

At the same time, there is abundant evidence that the combination regime-change/cyber war project adopted by the Obama administration is still in force. A few weeks ago, CIA Director Mike Pompeo told a crowd at the Aspen Forum that he's been ordered to find ways to "separate" Kim from his "missiles and nuclear weapons" -- a "strong hint," the New York Times reported , "that the United States was considering seeking a regime change in North Korea." And on August 29, in a departing interview with Fox News, ousted White House adviser Sebastian Gorka let it slip that the cyber attacks on North Korea probably continue. "On the more covert side of things, you have seen a lot of missile tests fail," he said . "Most tests actually fail. Sometimes there may be reasons beyond just incompetence by North Korea."

The Democrats haven't let up, either. Last month, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal told NBC News that the Obama administration should have responded more aggressively to North Korea's alleged hack of Sony in 2014. And there was an intriguing exchange recently between one of Obama's top national security officials and South Korea's new president, Moon Jae-in . On August 4, Moon spoke out against Korean right-wingers who send anti-DPRK propaganda over the border in large balloons!one of the tactics frequently suggested by Bennett and carried out by neocons Kirchick and Halvorssen. These actions, he warned , unnecessarily aggravate the North, and particularly during times of severe tension, "could prompt accidental clashes."

That sparked an angry tweet from Samantha Power, the Obama administration's former U.N. ambassador and perhaps the most famous proponent of "humanitarian intervention" against enemy states like North Korea. "So mistaken," Power tweeted in response to Moon. "Information is what Kim Jong-un fears most."

[Sep 24, 2017] Mark Ames When Mother Jones Was Investigated for Spreading Kremlin Disinformation by Mark Ames

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. ..."
"... "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians." ..."
"... The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not. ..."
"... Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too. ..."
"... The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy. ..."
"... The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you. ..."
"... It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution. ..."
"... Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . . ..."
"... To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986. ..."
"... Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru. ..."
"... Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons. ..."
"... These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. ..."
"... The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album". ..."
"... 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form. ..."
"... The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. ..."
"... American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today. ..."
"... It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%. ..."
"... It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence. ..."
"... Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say ..."
"... American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union. ..."
"... A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ ..."
"... It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media. ..."
"... They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger. ..."
"... Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989. ..."
"... I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto ..."
"... Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace. ..."
"... Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though! ..."
"... The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. ..."
"... Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. ..."
Jun 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here. Originally published at The eXiled

Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting"-in the words of editor Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because we're free.

Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.

But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation" and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using "terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.

And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.

Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness- a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule the world.

Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:

"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians."

Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation" conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin agent.

Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,

"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.

" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything must seem possible."

It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's history.

Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy. Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.

PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?

One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this - donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.

Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism-a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop" this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose. Here's what MJ's partner writes now:

RUSSIAN EXPANSION

Through unknowing manipulation, or by direct support, Trump will become an accessory to the continual expansionism committed by Putin. Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-but Putin's Russia plays by different rules. Or maybe no rules at all.

The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not.

* * *

What's kind of shocking to me as someone who was alive in the Reagan scare is how unoriginal this current one is. Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too.

Today we're supposed to remember how cheerful and optimistic the Reagan Era was. But that's now how I remember it, it's not how it looked to Mother Jones at the time - and it's not how it looks when you go back through the original source material again and relive it. The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy.

As soon as the new Republican majority in the Senate took power in 1981, they set up a new subcommittee to investigate Kremlin disinformation dupes, called the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. Staffers leaked to the media they intended to investigate Mother Jones. Panic spread across the progressive media world, and suddenly all those cool Ivy League kids who invested everything in becoming the next Woodward-Bernsteins - the cultural heroes at the time - got scared. The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you.

It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution.

By the end of Reagan's first year in office, there was still no formal investigation into Mother Jones, but the harassment was there and it wasn't subtle at all - such as the Republican Senate mailer accusing the magazine of being KGB disinformation dupes. At the end of 1981, MJ editor/founder Adam Hochschild announced he was stepping aside, and in his final note to readers and the public, he wrote:

To Senator Jeremiah Denton, chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism: If your committee investigates Mother Jones, a plan hinted at some months ago, I demand to be subpoenaed. I would not want to miss telling off today's new McCarthyites.

So here we are a few decades later, and Mother Jones' editor Clara Jeffery is denouncing WikiLeaks - yesterday's journalism stars, today's traitors - as "Russia['s] willing dupes and propagandists" while Mother Jones magazine turned itself into a mouthpiece for America's spies peddling the same warmed-over conspiracy theories that once targeted Mother Jones.

* * *

Jeremiah Denton - the New Right senator from Alabama who led the SST committee investigation into Kremlin "disinformation" and its dupes like Mother Jones - believed that America was being weakened from within and had only a few years left at most to turn it around. As Denton saw it, the two most dangerous threats to America's survival were a) hippie sex, and b) Kremlin disinformation. The two were inseparable in his mind, linked to the larger "global terrorism" plot masterminded by Moscow.

To fight hippie sex and teen promiscuity, the freshman senator introduced a "Chastity Bill" funding federal programs that promoted the joys of chastity to Americans armies of bored, teen suburban long-hairs. A lot of clever people laughed at that, because at the time the belief in linear historical progress was strong, and this represented something so atavistic that it was like a curiosity more than anything - Pauly Shore's "Alabama Man" unfrozen after 10,000 years and unleashed on the halls of Congress.

Less funny were Denton's calls for death penalty for adulterers, and laws he pushed restricting women's right to abortion.

Jeremiah Denton was once a big name in this country. Americans have since forgotten Denton, because John McCain pretty much stole his act. But back in the 70s and early 80s, Denton was America's most famous Vietnam War hero/POW. Like McCain, Denton was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam and taken prisoner. Denton spent 1965-1973 in North Vietnamese POW camps-two years longer than McCain-and he was America's most famous POW. His most famous moment was when his North Vietnamese captors hauled him before the cameras to acknowledge his crimes, and instead Denton famously blinked out a Morse code message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E".

In the 1973 POW exchange deal between Hanoi and Nixon, "Operation Homecoming," it was Denton who was the first American POW to come off the plane and speak to the American tv crews (McCain was on the same flight, but not nearly as prominent as Denton). I keep referring back to McCain here because not only were they both famous Navy pilot POWs, but they both wind up becoming the most pathologically obsessive Russophobes in the Senate. Just a few days ago, McCain said that Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State. Something real bad must've happened in those Hanoi Hiltons, worse than anything they told us about, because those guys really, really hate Russians - and they reallywant the rest of us to hate Russians too.

Everything they loathed about America, everything that was wrong with America, had to be the fault of a hostile alien culture. There was no other explanation for what happened in the 1970s. The America that Denton came home to in 1973 was under some kind of hostile power, an alien-controlled replica of the America he last saw in 1965. Popular morality had been turned on its head: Hollywood blockbusters with bare naked bodies and gutter language! Children against their parents! Homosexuals on waterskis! Sex and treason! Patriots were the enemy, while America-haters were heroes! Denton re-appeared like some reactionary Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the safe feather-bed world of J Edgar Hoover's America - only to wake up eight years later on Bernadine Dohrn's futon, soaked in Bill Ayers' bodily fluids. For Denton, the post-60s cultural shock came on all at once - as sudden and as jarring as, well, the shock so many Blue State Americans experienced when Donald Trump won the election last November.

Sex, immorality & military defeat-these were inseparable in Denton's mind, and in a lot of reactionaries' minds. Attributing all of America's social convulsions of the previous 15 years to immorality and a Kremlin disinformation plot was a neat way of avoiding the complex and painful realities - then, as now.

"No nation can survive long unless it can encourage its young to withhold indulgence in their sexual appetites until marriage." - Jeremiah Denton

What hit Denton hardest was all the hippie sex and the pop culture glorification of hippie sex. It's hard to convey just how deeply all that smug hippie sex wounded tens of millions of Americans. It's a hate wound that's still raw, still burns to the touch. A wound that fueled so much reactionary political fire over the past 50 years, and it doesn't look like it'll burn out any time soon.

Back in 1980, Denton blamed all that pop culture sex on Russian active measures, and he did his best to not just outlaw it, but to demonize sex as something along the lines of treason.

Just as so many people today cannot accept the idea that Trump_vs_deep_state is Made In America-so Denton and his Reagan Right constituents believed there had to be some alien force to explain why Americans had changed so drastically, seeming to adopt values that were the antithesis of Middle America's values in 1965. It had to be the fault of an alien voodoo beam! It had to be a Russian plot!

And so, therefore, it was a Russian plot.

A 1981 Time magazine profile of the freshman Senator begins, Denton believes that America is being destroyed by sexual immorality and Soviet-sponsored political 'disinformation'-and that both are being promoted by dupes, or worse, in the media. By the mid-1980s, he warns, "we will have less national security than we had proportionately when George Washington's troops were walking around barefoot at Valley Forge."

Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . .

To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986.

Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru.

Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons.

These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. I don't think this is something as simple as hypocrisy - it's actually quite consistent: Establishment faction wakes up to a world it doesn't recognize and loathes and feels threatened by, and blames it not on themselves or anything domestic, but rather on the most plausible alien conspiracy they can reach for: Russian barbarians. Anti-Russian xenophobia is burned into the Establishment culture's DNA; it's a xenophobia that both dominant factions, liberal or conservative, view as an acceptable xenophobia. When poorer "white working class" Americans feel threatened and panic, their xenophobia tends to be aimed at other ethnics - Latinos and Muslims these days - a xenophobia that the Establishment views as completely immoral and unacceptable, completely beyond the pale. The thought never occurs to them that perhaps all forms of xenophobia are bad, all bring with them a lot of violence and danger, it just depends on who's threatened and who's doing the threatening

The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album".

I'll get to that "FBI Terrorist Photo Album" story later. There's a lot of recent "Kremlin disinformation" history to recover, since it seems every last memory cell has been zapped out of existence.

After Reagan's inauguration (the most expensive, lavish inauguration ball in White House history), Senator Denton sent a chill through the liberal and independent media world with all the talk coming out of his committee about targeting activists, civil rights lawyers and journalists. Denton tried to come off as reasonable some of the times; other times, he came right out and said it: "disinformation" is terrorism: When I speak of a threat, I do not just mean that an organization is, or is about to be, engaged in violent criminal activity. I believe many share the view that support groups that produce propaganda, disinformation or legal assistance may be even more dangerous than those who actually throw the bombs.

Congratulations Mother Jones, you've come a long way, baby! Next post, I'll recover some of the early committee hearings, and the rightwing hucksters, creeps and spooks who fed Denton's committee.

glmmph , June 3, 2017 at 7:00 am

I think that John McCain may well be correct, if for the wrong reasons. 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form.

Disturbed Voter , June 3, 2017 at 7:23 am

This is now, that was then. There is no comparison. The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. It seems both parties are struggling to bring back the 1960s with Cold War 2.0. We need to pull out of the Middle East, and invade Vietnam, again ;-( And yes, probably even back then, Mother Jones was controlled opposition. They just don't bother hiding it anymore.

John Zelnicker , June 3, 2017 at 3:18 pm

@Disturbed Voter – Dontcha know. We just signed deals with Viet Nam that will bring "billions of dollars" to the U.S. Trump said so last week after meeting with the Vietnamese Prime Minister, so it must be true. They're safe for now. :-)

witters , June 3, 2017 at 7:29 am

"Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-" Is there a Darwin Award for this?

Disturbed Voter , June 3, 2017 at 9:30 am

American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today.

oh , June 3, 2017 at 3:18 pm

Our nation worries about other countries' problems but we never care about ours! It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%.

Magazines (tabloids) and (fake)news organization are cheer leaders to this effort because they cash in on the chant du jour.

Baby Gerald , June 3, 2017 at 8:16 am

Thank you so much for exposing in such great detail the hypocrisy regarding MJ s recent neo-Red Scare leanings. If only the editorial staff at dear MJ would educate themselves not only about their own organization's history, but history in general, they might avoid looking like complete fools and enemies to their own institution's founding principles when we collectively reminisce on this bizarre era at some point in the future.

It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence.

Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say

American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union.

As a kid in the 80s I remember MJ being singled out as a leftist commie rag by Reaganites of the day. Through college this was about all I knew about the magazine– as an epithet for what hippie commie liberals read before trying to ruin our country. Despite it leaning to my political inclinations, I never paid it any attention.

A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ to my news stream. Once Sanders- then later Trump- started looking like an actual threat to the Clinton campaign, their headlines started turning snippy and trite toward her opposition. I turned them off my feed last year, so the only exposure to their drivel is thanks to the links here at NC . Now with the advent of twitter, their staff have taken the extra step of proving how twisted their personal Russophobian views really are. Between just Corn and Jeffery, there's enough material to make any McCarthyite proud.*

[* – I was going to close with ' and make Adam Hochschild roll in his grave' but then I googled him and discovered that he's still alive. Wonder what he thinks about this current turn at the magazine he co-founded?]

Damson , June 3, 2017 at 8:40 am

Reposting a comment that IMV, snapshots the reality of Russophobia far better than Ames (it was in response to a Ray McGovern article on Trump's visit to NATO HQ) :

"Ray has written well to the general audience, bridging the information gap for those heavily propagandized. He has properly shown the expansion of NATO as an act of calculated betrayal, a policy of aggression in the face of zero threat.

It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media.

They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger.

Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other and compete for the most radical propositions of nonexistent foreign threats. They fully well know that they are lying to the people of the United States to serve a personal and factional agenda that involves the murder of millions of innocents, the diversion of a very large fraction of their own and other nations' budgets from essential needs, and they have not an ounce of humanity or moral restraint among them. Those who waver are cast aside, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This is why the nation's founders opposed a standing military, and they were right.

Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989.

Let us hope that Trump pulls the plug on NATO interventionism, accidentally or otherwise. The Dem leaders have now joined the Reps in their love of bribes for genocide, but at the least the Reps still don't like paying for it. Perhaps the last duopoly imitation of civilization."

nowhere , June 3, 2017 at 11:26 am

Hmm "but at the least the Reps still don't like paying for it." I strongly disagree. War is the only thing Rs don't mind openly supporting.

Ptolemy Philopater , June 3, 2017 at 3:15 pm

One can not repeat often enough: War Crimes Tribunals! How to disincentivize the madness.

Skip Intro , June 4, 2017 at 2:14 am

I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto .

Mary Wehrhein , June 3, 2017 at 9:40 am

Having lived in Kansas for 60 some years which is the poster-child for trickle-down necromancy and a land heavily infused with rural, German-Catholic sensibilities, I can vouch for the deeply felt attitudes towards sex as a primary issue. "Family Values" being the code word for the whole sex and reproductive moral prism.

Like Cuba with its 50s autos, the conservatives have never given up their 60s conception of the Democrats as the party of free love, peace-nicks (soft on commies hard on guns) and tax and spend bleeding hearts coddling dependent malingerers.

The GOP here campaigns against a democrat party that no longer exists (if it ever did). They seem oblivious to the fact that the democrats have become the moderate republicans of yore. Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace.

GERMO , June 3, 2017 at 9:42 am

Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though!

Pespi , June 3, 2017 at 10:33 am

This is a great piece. The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. Tell me about why South African dupes are causing all the problems in society, tell me that the people of the Maldives each own a nuclear capable artillery piece and are burning American flags.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 11:25 am

Thanks for this post down memory lane. I assumed MJ was liberal. And Jane Fonda was a conservative. And by 1981 I was completely confused about where the media stood on any given issue. And now finally the mask is coming off and we can see (Phillip K. Dick style) that left is right and right is left. And we are all fascists. Will the real Atilla please stand up? #Resistance is a little over the top and so is putintrump. But what looks like actual progress is the fact that Bernie was not completely destroyed by the state paranoia. There has to be a certain bed-rock decency that can rise above this eternal crap. Just a note of interest on the young Orrin Hatch being on the SST as a freshman senator. Orrin was the subject of local rumors that claimed he had been put in the senate by the mafia (some mormon-mafia connection in las vegas) and the fact that they did use entrapment with a hooker to disgrace his opponent was mafia-enough to make the story convincing. The story died out fast. But we should all remember that the mafia was involved in its own anti-commie terrorist tactics for decades.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 2:28 pm

file under Too Weird: 15 minutes after I posted the above I got a call from Orrin Hatch's robo-computer inviting me to a local discussion call me paranoid.

John Zelnicker , June 3, 2017 at 2:45 pm

@Susan the other – It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. Or, to get all of us. Or, demonstrates that they have the ability to do so at will.

REDPILLED , June 3, 2017 at 11:39 am

Only 16% of people surveyed are very worried about climate change.

Corporate news is consumed with covering the Trump/Russia affair, but whatever the truth of all this turns out to be, it pales in significance to the real existential threat that is upon us. Largely due to a lack of coverage by corporate television news, there is a dangerous lack of public awareness of it.

Susan the other , June 3, 2017 at 11:42 am

land of the free and home of the brave you have to be brave to live in this free-for-all. Just want to pass on this killer quote from Discover Magazine: "It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information." what a nightmare world.

mpalomar , June 3, 2017 at 9:43 pm

"It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information."

Accepting that premise does not rule out the possibility of free will, it only suggests that our free will is likely mired in a blind stumbling, darkness of unknowing.
Hallelujah.

sunny129 , June 3, 2017 at 1:57 pm

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell. Every one has that 'right', right or wrong! But it is your right & duty to develop 'critical' thinking to DISCERN the difference

Darn , June 4, 2017 at 4:48 am

Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. The book "Shattered" says her campaign did internal polling which found Uranium One was the most damaging line to use against Clinton so she decided to get her retaliation in first and use the Russia charge at every opportunity. And on election night when they realised they had been defeated they decided to blame Russia again. What has Trump done for Russia so far? He's kept up sanctions and bombed their client state Syria. Whereas Clinton had a pattern of arms sales to Foundation donors. Prefer Clinton? Fine, but not over this.

[Sep 24, 2017] Trump allies see vindication in reports on Manafort wiretapping

Obama did spied on his political opponents... He really was a well connected to intelligence agencies wolf in sheep's clothing.
Notable quotes:
"... For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. ..."
"... Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication. ..."
Sep 24, 2017 | www.msn.com

For some of President Trump's staunchest allies, reports that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was under U.S. surveillance are nothing short of vindication of the president's widely-dismissed claims that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

... ... ...

Longtime advisor Roger Stone has gleefully circulated a segment from Tucker Carlson's show on Fox News in which the host says "all those patronizing assurances that nobody is spying on political campaigns were false" and "it looks like Trump's tweet may have been right."

... ... ...

A spokesperson for Manafort, Jason Maloni, has characterized the court orders as an abuse of power by the Obama administration, which he says wanted to spy on a political opponent.

"It's unclear if Paul Manafort was the objective," Maloni told The Journal. "Perhaps the real objective was Donald Trump."

Surveillance experts are skeptical of that suggestion. For one thing, it is illegal for investigators to "reverse target" a U.S. person by spying on a person with whom they know their true target to be in communication.

If the president were in fact the oblique target of government surveillance - either as a candidate or as the president-elect - both Eddington and Shedd say, it would have been so explosive that it would have almost certainly been leaked to the press.

... ... ...

The disclosure of the warrants targeting Manafort have drawn legitimate scrutiny as a violation of Manafort's civil liberties and a possible criminal leak - the mere existence of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, warrant is classified.

House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who first raised alarm about the practice of "unmasking" the names of Americans caught up in government surveillance, is currently under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegedly exposing classified information when he disclosed his findings to reporters.

[Sep 24, 2017] They only picked Manaforts lock as a professional courtesy; thousands of average Americans have been awakened to their doors being smashed in, a couple flash-bangs tossed in, dogs being shot, etc. As Trump might have tweeted before the Deep State gained control of him, Sad!

Sep 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

The Alarmist, September 23, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT

" pick their locks and force entry to their bedrooms in predawn mist as they did to Paul Manafort. This Gestapo-style terror knocked the wind out of Trump's sails."

Wasn't the Gestapo known for at least knocking on the door in the middle of the night before dragging their quarry to the building that no-one stops to watch? NKVD too, now that I think about it. They only picked Manafort's lock as a professional courtesy; thousands of average Americans have been awakened to their doors being smashed in, a couple flash-bangs tossed in, dogs being shot, etc. As Trump might have tweeted before the Deep State gained control of him, "Sad!"

Bannon was right to some extent that there is no military solution to this the piece he was missing was the qualifier, " for sane people who have a conscience."

The fact that we repeatedly use the starvation of millions of innocent civilians in undeclared wars on their leaders shows the lack of conscience on the part of ours, because that route is more disingenuous to our values than making outright war against their nations, albeit not by much. I'm not qualified to render a diagnosis of insanity, but I think I have enough information to inform my opinion.

[Sep 24, 2017] Trump misreads North Koreas sacred dynasty at his peril by Michael Brabazon

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's threat of fire and fury is the worst response imaginable ..."
"... The Korean War ended with an armistice, or stand-off, but never a peace treaty, and the US is, in essence, still fighting the Korean War. That is the crux of the problem. ..."
"... I would also add that who started the Korean War is open to some debate. There is some evidence that the North invaded in response to an incursion started from the South. Both sides were attacking each other across the parallel before the 'War' started and there's documentation that the South was keen to invade the North. The Korean leadership on both sides saw the division as unacceptable and themselves as the legitimate government of the entire country. ..."
"... I think you have hit on something I've been thinking about. I believe Trump is deliberately stirring the pot in an attempt to goad Kim Jong Un into doing things that actually rile the Chinese. ..."
"... During the Cold War, the Soviet arsenal posed a far greater danger than North Korea does now. Nevertheless, no US president was so stupid to try and solve the crisis by pressing the USSR into giving up its missiles. Everybody knew we could just lean back and wait for the Soviet Empire to collapse by itself. And that's what happened ..."
"... But Trump doesn't know jacksh*t about history, and he certainly has no patience ..."
"... You certainly have a point. Anyone who thinks that we in the West are not susceptible to propaganda is the best proof that we are. However, flawed as it may be, I still prefer the Western Way of Life to anything else. There is a reason why the East German government had to build the Berlin Wall to keep its own citizens from running off to the West. There is a reason why there are no Americans applying for Russian or Chinese citizenship, but hundreds of Russians and Chinese standing in line in front of US embassies for a Green Card. ..."
"... How about the indoctrination of say people in the USA. Children are taught to sing the National anthem. This is sung at sports and other events in almost mandatory fashion. You see the Star Spangled banner in homes, public buildings almost everywhere. ..."
"... Hollywood and the American media feed the public a constant and pervasive diet of movies, television shows and propaganda about America's might, values and glory. Books,literature, clothing, toys you name it highlight and accentuate this. Try spending a week watching CNN, Fox news MSNBC, BBC et al. ..."
"... The US walked away from negotiations in 2002, after six years of talks, because NK refused to give in on some unreasonable pre-conditions. ..."
Sep 24, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
... ... ...

Dealing with Kim is not the same as dealing with a fanatic like Osama bin Laden or an apparatchik like Khrushchev. He is impervious to realpolitik, and the lives of perhaps tens of millions of people are at stake – by privation, if not war.

Trump's threat of fire and fury is the worst response imaginable to a religious extremist who believes he alone can save humanity – and that the US and her allies are all that stand in the way of Korea fulfilling its own destiny.

Eisvogel , 24 Sep 2017 13:37

The Korean War ended with an armistice, or stand-off, but never a peace treaty, and the US is, in essence, still fighting the Korean War. That is the crux of the problem.

The solution lies in a peace treaty that demilitarizes the whole Korean peninsula and this treaty must include China, since China was the main adversary to the US during a war that never really ended after more than 60 years.

Babis_K , 24 Sep 2017 12:05
No one (Trump or Kim) is so insane that will dare to escalate this verbal war into a real war that can easily turn into a nuclear war.

If Kim fires first he knows that he, his regime and a great part of his people will be annihilated by the American fire and fury.

If the US strike first they can't endure the consequences of a nuclear counter- attack by N. Korea with millions of dead in the ally countries of S. Korea and Japan but even in the US territory from 60 nukes Kim processes today.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/north-korea-now-making-missile-ready-nuclear-weapons-us-analysts-say/2017/08/08/e14b882a-7b6b-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html?utm_term=.b761ade32408

I see this verbal dispute as a repetition of cold war Cuba tension some 55 years ago but in a less diplomatic and more hoodlum language.

Diplomats from the US and N. Korea should sit at the same table and find a way to relax this tension.

Tom1982 , 24 Sep 2017 10:28
Interesting the author puts so much emphasis on Juche in his assessment of North Korean political deliberations.

B. R. Myers wrote an influential book on North Korea that made the case that Juche is a non-philosophy designed solely for the purpose of bamboozling foreigners, and that the motivations of the DPRK leadership are based around racial nationalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cleanest_Race

AshesToAshes -> Blenheim , 24 Sep 2017 10:28
It is realpolitik sharpened to a knife edge. The USA acts as nuclear hegemon, because it is in their own interests to do so. The USSR would like to have done so, and China would still if it could. We benefit from the status quo.

North Korea having nuclear weapons is odious to the USA as hegemon, so it will not be allowed to happen. Morality is irrelevant. The only question is who has the will and the power to enforce that will.

AshesToAshes -> TragicomedyBeholder , 24 Sep 2017 10:21
Unfortunately if he so desperately wants war, the price will be immeasurable.

Imagine h actually fires a handful of ICBMs at the continental USA. It really doesn't matter much at that point whether US missile defence takes them down before impact or not. Either way, the US would then counterstrike with a force not dissimilar to the hammer of God.

Trump might decide that the best way to stop Seoul getting pulverised by DPRK artillery is to carpet the area north of the DMZ with small tactical nuclear strikes, and then unleash dozens, perhaps hundreds of strategic warheads on Pyongyang and every single other target of any value. It would be over in a morning, but NK would be utterly incinerated.

jdanforth -> Andrei Lankov , 24 Sep 2017 09:37
Yeah, Vietnam, Cuba and China have done some privatizations, so what you say about North Korea sounds correct to me, but the core of heavy industry there and in all of these countries is still state-owned.

The only way for any of them to once again be ruled by a capitalist class would be a counterrevolutionary collapse like the one that happened in the USSR in 1991-92. Such an event would be unmistakeable, cataclysmic, and most likely catastrophic, for the inhabitants of the country in question, just as it was in the USSR. It cannot happen as some sort of gradual evolution in the policies of the governing bureaucracy, although the privatizations and corruption that you mention do make it a more likely outcome than before. A US invasion and military regime would be a way to restore capitalist rule to North Korea, though it could easily backfire, and anyway, I don't think the imperialists could conquer North Korea without first exterminating its entire population, which I guess is what Trump is threatening.

It's interesting that you say that the North Korean fishing industry started getting privatized right around the time of the Soviet collapse. That´s also when China started charging university fees, and when Cuba entered its "Periodo Especial."

WallyWillage -> FobRoared , 24 Sep 2017 09:18
They could buy a dozen nuclear weapons and delivery systems before breakfast if they wanted one - and would happily use it on Iran not Israel (who have plenty too - including submarine based ones).

Saudis were the majority of the mujahadeen and AQ funders and leaders and the pilots of the 9/11 attackers.

They also have a major US base. Prob with nukes if not all the biggest and deadliest weapons.

Adam Yusaf -> Engelbach , 24 Sep 2017 08:53
A redkneck hillbilly,his thought process doesent stretch that far
rhytrn -> Phil Atkinson , 24 Sep 2017 08:47
And one would add the Americans and then the person put in place to run South Korea, Syngman Rhee, depended on Japanese collaborators, not a few of whom had already been involved in war crimes before the end of WWII.

I would also add that who started the Korean War is open to some debate. There is some evidence that the North invaded in response to an incursion started from the South. Both sides were attacking each other across the parallel before the 'War' started and there's documentation that the South was keen to invade the North. The Korean leadership on both sides saw the division as unacceptable and themselves as the legitimate government of the entire country.

rhytrn -> Phil Atkinson , 24 Sep 2017 08:33
Or Xi Jinping whose grandfather fought against the Japanese. The Chinese have in the past been very critical of Shinzo Abe's visiting a memorial to people they consider war criminals.
Steven J. Barber -> theAthensdog , 24 Sep 2017 08:26
I think you have hit on something I've been thinking about. I believe Trump is deliberately stirring the pot in an attempt to goad Kim Jong Un into doing things that actually rile the Chinese.

If you have noticed the Chinese have only recently began to get serious about reigning in North Korea by enforcing sanctions.

North Korea's increased provocations, a reaction to US and her allies have seriously angered China. Also the threats of economic retaliation on Chinese entities doing business with North Korea have caused the Chinese to weigh the cost of doing business with the Norks vs the cost of sanctions.

It seems recently the Chinese have been considering the DPRK as more of a detriment.

VirginMary , 24 Sep 2017 07:31
I do not believe that KJU could be convinced to change is behaviour. Is practically a God so what else can be given? Nothing can compare.

I believe there will be war in the Korean peninsular. If we are lucky it will be a sudden military intervention from China (and perhaps Russia) into North Korea to replace KJU and a few other people. The objective is to maintain the existence of North Korea as a country and largely a status quo and NOT a country under the influence of US.

If we are not lucky it will be a messy war US first will battle North Korea and win then US forces will get involved in a messy and prolonged confrontation on the ground with "local" NK troops: troop supported by Russian and Chinese volunteers (special forces). It will ultimately result again in a stalemate but a few millions of people will be dead

Dominguini -> Blenheim , 24 Sep 2017 07:04
"Since the end of WW", the US has only ever been about America first".

Absolutely. You would never catch the Russians, or the Chinese, or the French, putting THEIR country first, would you?

Ladegast -> Alex Ira , 24 Sep 2017 06:12
... and by the way, who said the world "needs to respond to the threats"? That's exactly the kind of one-dimensional thinking that led mankind into the First World War.

The more attention the Fat Kid gets, the more noise he makes. Just let him have his silly rockets and ignore him. What do we care about North Korea? They do not even have oil. Just forget about that country and let it rot away. This has worked for the last 64 years, and so far North Korea has not harmed one American soldier.

During the Cold War, the Soviet arsenal posed a far greater danger than North Korea does now. Nevertheless, no US president was so stupid to try and solve the crisis by pressing the USSR into giving up its missiles. Everybody knew we could just lean back and wait for the Soviet Empire to collapse by itself. And that's what happened.

But Trump doesn't know jacksh*t about history, and he certainly has no patience.

Conanbarbarian -> SchakarMevsky , 24 Sep 2017 06:08
"Its central doctrine, the supremacy of man, is based directly on the founding belief of the Cheondogyo sect: in nae Cheon – 'man is God'. Hmmm. Sounds like Marxism-Leninism to me. You don't get this kind of crap in anything ancient."---erm, Jesus the man is held by Christians to be God.
Conanbarbarian -> Hermann Steinpilz , 24 Sep 2017 06:06
The correct comparison is surely Japan up to the end of the 2nd World War and even up to today for some Japanese, and its cult of Emporer-God.
Ladegast -> Alex Ira , 24 Sep 2017 05:47
Avoiding nuclear war by provoking it makes little sense.

"History crap" is exactly what this idiot in the White House is "thinking". Everyone knows Trump doesn't read books and has no understanding of history. That's why he is incapable of solving international problems.

All he can do is insult people and bully them into obedience.

This might work with some provincial politician from Hillbilly Creek, Oklahoma. But it certainly does not get you anywhere when you are dealing with some Asian dictator and mass-murderer.

You have to know your enemies thoughts - this has been known since the days of Sun Tzu.

Ladegast -> studio1reggae , 24 Sep 2017 05:35
You certainly have a point. Anyone who thinks that we in the West are not susceptible to propaganda is the best proof that we are. However, flawed as it may be, I still prefer the Western Way of Life to anything else. There is a reason why the East German government had to build the Berlin Wall to keep its own citizens from running off to the West. There is a reason why there are no Americans applying for Russian or Chinese citizenship, but hundreds of Russians and Chinese standing in line in front of US embassies for a Green Card.

There is a reason why Syrian refugees turn their hopes to Europe and not to Saudi Arabia or Russia.

studio1reggae , 24 Sep 2017 04:07
Interesting article Mr Brabazon

You talk about the indoctrination of the Korean people and how it is perpetuated. You approach this from a more introspective level than many others.

How about the indoctrination of say people in the USA. Children are taught to sing the National anthem. This is sung at sports and other events in almost mandatory fashion. You see the Star Spangled banner in homes, public buildings almost everywhere.

Hollywood and the American media feed the public a constant and pervasive diet of movies, television shows and propaganda about America's might, values and glory. Books,literature, clothing, toys you name it highlight and accentuate this. Try spending a week watching CNN, Fox news MSNBC, BBC et al.

America presidents and the West loves to holler on about the "Free World". What is this bull-shit about the Free world. Oh yes it has to be run by them. The American and them has to lead and run it of course.

The pentagon/NATO loves to talk about defending the west values, ideology and human rights. So here in the West and America propaganda and indoctrination abounds. It has been this ways for hundreds of years now.

xoffox -> SchakarMevsky , 24 Sep 2017 03:03
The roman emperors were considered gods to be venerated by the people. The god-like status of the North Korean leaders does not look that different.
Andrei Lankov -> jdanforth , 24 Sep 2017 01:13
Funny. You could not choose worse examples. Fishing in North Korea is roughly 90% privately owned, and this has been the case since the early 1990s. Mines, if you mean coal mines, are indeed largely state-owned, but tonchu (rich private investors, operating with tacit or open permit of the party-state) control a noticeable part of the industry. The agriculture, which was remarkably good in generating famines when it was indeed done by the state, has been privatized after '6-28 instructions', in 2012-2014, and is now run more or less along the Chinese lines.
Will Will , 24 Sep 2017 01:05
Very interesting article, Mr Brabazon. But my suspicion is that you might be confusing the regime's religious-nationalist claim to legitimacy with the actual thinking processes of the regime's leader himself. Specifically, is Kim Jong-un really 'a religious extremist' in person - something that would suggest he is not entirely rational - and possibly even quite unhinged?

All signs suggest he is rather in fact an extremely rational, calculating, cold-hearted manipulator. He has a well-documented history of ramping up diplomatic/military hostilities and then pivoting at the last moment to extract advantage or concessions (sanctions relief, aid, import/export access, etc). So to say then that he's 'impervious to realpolitik' seems quite odd indeed. He appears to be very good at cynical real-political gamesmanship. He just doesn't appear to define NK's national interest as the pursuit of power for its own sake (as in the European realpolitik tradition), but for the sake of the survival of his dynastic regime. Similarly, the NK foreign minister reportedly said just recently that NK's nuclear ambition is 'to balance' the US. The idea of a balance of power stands at the heart of realpolitik thought.

Kim Jong-un appears driven less by non-rational religious conviction than by a very rational quest to achieve mutual deterrence with the US by developing nuclear ICBMs. Juche may help explain why he can't/won't/doesn't need to accept any bribe to abandon this quest, but more likely its main role is to maintain domestic political control in the face of widespread privation and fear.

Kevskos -> ThanksNeolibZombies , 24 Sep 2017 00:08
Yes we had an agreement with North Korea that President Carter had negotiated for Clinton that Bush II trashed and NK started building nukes. Felt for some reason they could not trust the US since we had invaded Iraq for trying to make nukes when they were not. Felt they needed nukes as the only way to protect themselves from US invasion.
spiral batholith -> sejong , 24 Sep 2017 00:04
While US politics, society, and global respect obviously decline at the hands of this idiotic potus...US military spending and force has increased exponentially since 2011. It does not bode well for anyone on the Korean peninsula that these two pinheads keep hurling childish insults that could eventually turn into catastrophic military decisions. Trump and Kim will go down in history as the morons that fought a war over battered little fucktard egos...and that cost a lot of innocent people their lives. We have to evolve...this is the same damn game cavemen played except instead of throwing rocks we're throwing globally fatal neutron bombs. Sad.
Phil Atkinson -> clshannon , 23 Sep 2017 23:47
Try this on for size:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/north-korea-missile-test-us-1994-agreed-framework-pyongyang-programme-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-a7876446.html

Phil Atkinson -> Ian Maitland , 23 Sep 2017 23:44
You must believe every single word printed in the media.

"...and his firing of missiles over our ally..."

The way this is portrayed in the media is akin to deadly missiles flying over Japan at head height, or at least inside Japanese air space. The facts, of course, are different.

Because of Japan's proximity to the Korean peninsular, test missiles have to be fired from sea level, straight into space (100kms above sea level) to avoid Japanese air space. The missiles' trajectories ensure Japanese air space is not encroached upon and while this practice is less than neighbourly, it's not illegal. The Japanese, given their historical animosity towards Korea, make such propaganda of these test firings as they can and the western media laps it up.

Phil Atkinson -> iRtRb7suiJLtkfuPvJFa , 23 Sep 2017 23:37
Michael Brabazon's a historian, not a statesman. We need statesmen, not politicians to fix this mess, ideally a group comprising representatives from both Koreas, China, Russia and the US. NOT Japan. Lock them all in a room and don't let them out until the Korean question is resolved.
Phil Atkinson -> Mark Williams , 23 Sep 2017 23:29
"The war ended 70 years ago for everyone else..."

No it didn't and many people ignore this when commenting on various North Korean responses. Let's be clear - a state of war still exists between North Korea and its allies and South Korea and its allies. All that was signed in 1953 was an armistice - a cease-fire. It was not a peace treaty.

North Korea correctly(?) feels that the US may breech the cease fire and is arming itself accordingly. While the US and South Korea keep playing war games near the DMZ, that view won't change.

Igloo -> id0102 , 23 Sep 2017 23:27
I know, I know, the guy dropping the bombs is always in the wrong.
Do you accept that the Korean war began because a large force came over the 38th parallel from the north and among other things, occupied Seoul? And that hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops joined in on the NK side? Not to mention Russian fighter pilots? There is always a context when bombs are dropping.
It's not just the North Koreans who have existential fears- the South Koreans do as well, and their worst nightmare would be living under a Kim regime.
monicamac -> Videogamesatemycat , 23 Sep 2017 23:19
I doubt it to be honest.
jdanforth -> BrianMonaghan , 23 Sep 2017 23:18
Capitalism is defined in any dictionary as private ownership of the means of production. North Korea has overthrown it. That is why the country got bombed in the 1950s, and that is why America's capitalist government has been threatening it ever since with more bombing.

Who owns the fishing industry, agriculture and the coal mines in North Korea? The state! These industries can't be bought by US "investors" because no individual owns them, so the only solution is to try to erase North Korea from the map again. This plan, if it is a plan, is raving madness, of course, but capitalism is not a rational system.

monicamac -> dack72 , 23 Sep 2017 23:13
Go USA, go the Trump man who knows nothing - he is just a fool and those who follow him have got blinkers on - thinking make America great again - WTF?? Mate this is not the wild west anymore nor the movies where you go in with your guns blazing and you always win - you need some sophistication and some brains to know how to handle these issues. Trump the man and Trump the President are duds!!

If Obama behaved as Trump has been doing - he would have been shouted down as the black man behaving badly.

Trump needs to be shouted down as the white man who is behaving extremely badly - get rid of him through empeachment and get someone who knows that they are doing!!!

awilson5280 , 23 Sep 2017 23:11
Thank you for this article, Mr. Brabazon. I now understand North Korea and the dynamic on the Korean peninsula better. Your point that Trump doesn't know what he's messing with is well-taken, but that is something that is true with regards to nearly any topic you could name.

The fact that North Korea has a national indoctrination program of an ideology that has no grounding in a modern reality - and that cares nothing for the international order that attempts to keep us all from killing each other - gives valuable perspective. However, it does not change the fact that North Korea is going to continue to act in ways that threaten other countries, and that (especially due to its ideology and its disconnection from any real allies) it miscalculate and find itself erased from the map, likely taking a lot of South Koreans with it.

This has the potential to be a really bad situation: the best result is reform from within, second best result is implosion of the regime. Everything else looks to involve significant loss of life.

Phil Atkinson -> Mark Williams , 23 Sep 2017 23:04
"...launched a surprise invasion of South Korea."

Surprise?

From 1948 until the invasion, north and south Koreans were facing-off across the DMZ and there were a significant number of violent incursions by both sides - mostly initiated by South Koreans, who were itching for a fight. (That's according to the US general in charge of South Korean forces at the time). The north's invasion was no surprise and the only reason it occurred in June 1950 was because the north had a division of troops fighting with the Chinese communists. Those troops didn't return to North Korea until early 1950

Phil Atkinson -> rhytrn , 23 Sep 2017 22:30
This is also a good read and covers the period 1910 on:

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n10/bruce-cumings/a-murderous-history-of-korea

This goes into a little more detail in some aspects:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/north-korea/3352778

Phil Atkinson -> kasprowy , 23 Sep 2017 22:28
"But he thinks he is descended from gods? So which is it?"

Neither. The people are taught that Kim is a godlike figure. I doubt Kim believes that himself - he's western educated.

Phil Atkinson -> luckysue , 23 Sep 2017 22:24
" It may be too late, but have we tried this?"

No.

North Korea has put peace proposals to the UN/US which included offers to cease their nuclear ambitions, or at least put them on hold. Both the US and South Korea have rejected the offers out of hand.

Phil Atkinson -> rhytrn , 23 Sep 2017 22:21
It's hard to imagine Shinzo Abe and Kim Jong-un at the same conference table - the two grandchildren of two of the original protagonists during the Japanese occupation of Korea 1910-45. Some people have long memories.
Phil Atkinson -> rhytrn , 23 Sep 2017 22:16
The Korean situation is different, in that it was one national entity until 1945, when Japan ceded Korea to the US as part of the surrender terms. At the time, then (Soviet) Russians, who were nominally our allies, had moved into northern Korea as part of their push against the Japanese. This concerned the US, who wanted Korea to remain in their control, so John J. McCloy instructed Dean Rusk to divide Korea in two and Rusk drew a line through the 38th parallel. The Soviets administered the north and the US the south until 1948.

You can imagine how Kim Il-sung felt about this - he'd spent the previous 13 years actively fighting the Japanese invaders in order to reclaim his country and was one of the few surviving guerrilla leaders. The Japanese had murdered his wife and had ruthlessly suppressed any dissent. Now all of that was for nothing - all that happened was that other invaders had moved in and split the country. It was the direct cause of North Korea invading the south in 1950.

Phil Atkinson -> Sasha Rieger , 23 Sep 2017 21:53
"...this article merely makes the point that the current Kim cannot be reasoned with ..."

That's drawing a bit of a long bow. Kim may be many things, but stupid doesn't appear to be one of them. The same can't be said for Trump. North Korea recently submitted a plan to the UN/US with a proposal that the north puts a hold on its nuclear weapons development. In return, North Korea asked for (a) a formal treaty ending the Korean War, with non-aggression guarantees from both sides, (b) South Korea and the US to cease military exercises close to the DMZ and (c) a timetable for the reduction of US troops in South Korea. This plan was backed by both Russia and China. The US and South Korea refused the offer point-blank.

Now who is being unreasonable?

id0102 -> garpalgumnut , 23 Sep 2017 21:52
Kim played the anti-US card simply for a political grip on power, and keeps that grip very tight after the recent displays of nuclear weapons. He's probably even more popular now, in spite of the famine and poverty.
Phil Atkinson -> AndrewWatkins , 23 Sep 2017 21:46
An excellent point, very likely totally missed by the US administration (such as it is). It's impossible to fight an enemy unless you understand them.
Phil Atkinson -> Telvannah , 23 Sep 2017 21:43
The jury returned a unanimous verdict that Trump has the attention span of a loaf of wet bread.
Phil Atkinson -> PJL1234 , 23 Sep 2017 21:42
"...the article reinforces the need to take action before North Korea loses all sense of rational and morale judgement."

The only problem there is that we're 64 years too late - any resolution should have been in 1953, even if it had meant open war with China. Now, 3, 4 or 5 generations later, the North Koreans are not going to change their beliefs or mindset. We've missed the boat, unfortunately for all concerned.

BrianMonaghan , 23 Sep 2017 21:42
Excuse me but the CIA and ihe intelligence services of the world ate all well informed about Juche. Since when does the US regard the DPRK as Marxist in any sense? If an analogy is required, the DPRK, with its emperor worship and nonsense about the divinity of its people, is closer to 1930's Japan than it is to communism. It's a nationalistic monarchy, for goodness sake.
honeycomb42 -> Michael_GPF , 23 Sep 2017 21:10
The US led the attack. The US is the superpower. And Clinton had a personal hatred for Gadhafi. It was a US drone that tracked him and directed the terrorists to his location where he was raped with a bayonet and shot.
id0102 -> Igloo , 23 Sep 2017 21:10
3 million Koreans dead was not a repel, it was a massacre. Note that North Korea did not have an air force so so speak. Within a year the US and UK ran out of military targets, and bombed civilians mercilessly.
ThanksNeolibZombies -> stuart255 , 23 Sep 2017 21:09

"If you want peace, prepare for war" is about the most ancient wisdom there is and over thousands of years it has proven to be pretty sound advice.

I'm not sure how helpful this is in a nuclear age. We live perilously close to nuclear annihilation, there are obvious incentives for states to obtain nuclear weapons, and preparation for war does not seem to be the answer to this problem.

khoffman -> Engelbach , 23 Sep 2017 21:07
You don't understand what gualtiero is saying. It's very logical. As NK develops ICBM with nuclear warheads they neutralize the US nuclear option. In 10-20 years, NK could have enough nuclear armed ICBMs to overwhelm
ThanksNeolibZombies -> dack72 , 23 Sep 2017 20:49

In other words he is a nut and the people supressed so we just pussy foot around him and he has the world just where he wants them - living on edge- just like we do with the terrorism of the world now from our fanatics.

Are you describing Trump here or Kim Jong-un?

There doesn't seem to be a good alternative to diplomacy and negotiation here.
In any case, strategically it seems a good idea to understand where people are coming from.

Also you should ask how on gods earth did such a nut get to have this ability- perhaps another Obama disaster .

Didn't the North Korean nuclear tests begin under George W Bush?

Engelbach -> AlexFishy , 23 Sep 2017 20:14
There haven't been recent attempts at negotiation and diplomacy with North Korea by the United States.

The US walked away from negotiations in 2002, after six years of talks, because NK refused to give in on some unreasonable pre-conditions.

Kim is a dictator who uses fear and hatred of an outside enemy to solidify his hold on his people. He's not suicidal. Destruction of North Korea would be fatal to his goal of spreading his ideology to the world.

Knee jerk reactions to obvious evil are neither a revelation nor a basis for a practical solution to the tensions.

[Sep 24, 2017] Kabuki Politics by Israel Shamir

Sep 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

- The Unz Review

However, for an American President in the United Nations his speech was unbecoming and shockingly brutal. The people of the world listened to his United Nations General Assembly speech, and experienced a touch of nostalgia for the late Mr Adolf Hitler, a kind and mild man of subtle messages in comparison to the fiery US President.

The German Chancellor allegedly killed six million civilians, and this sublime sacrifice (do not ask me to what deity, this is just a translation of the Greek 'holocaust') is considered the worst crime in the bloody history of mankind. Mr Trump publicly and loudly promised to incinerate five or six times that amount. While the German never boasted of that crime, the American already boasts of his still undone crime. His desire to "totally destroy North Korea", to wipe out an entire nation of 25 million, and in addition to cause the death of millions of Koreans in the South of the peninsula as well, secures him a unique place among the villains.

Kim, the brazen King of the North, dismissed Trump as a 'barking dog' who, people say, never bites, and this is surely a comforting thought, but not as comforting as a muzzle for the beast. This barking dog is obviously dangerous and should be restrained, or put out of its misery. The hound has been hounded by his domestic enemies, and thus he became possessed by a demon, for just a few months ago Trump was a peace-loving creature who wanted to attend to the US infrastructure, who refused to bow to AIPAC and was friendly to Putin. It's Mrs Clinton who was the warmonger. But invocation magic worked on him.

... ... ...

Every statesman on the planet knows you can't cross the US. America is powerful, vindictive and vicious, and you must obey or else. They will destroy you and/or your country sooner or later for your disobedience. If they can't invade, they will bomb, if they can't bomb, they will starve first – and then bomb, and only afterwards, invade. One should be crazy to resist. But the little Korean resisted. He is definitely crazy. But we humans adore such crazy rebels against supreme authority, be it Che Guevara or Luke Skywalker. Or McMurphy.

Yes, by his suicidal courage, Kim reminds me of 'Mac', Randle McMurphy, the protagonist of Ken Kesey's novel and Milos Forman's movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Probably you remember his hopeless stand and a futile, doomed fight against the almighty Nurse Ratched. She rules supreme over the inmates. Against her will, there is no appeal. The inmates tremble before her. But she can't break Mac. She is forced to burn his brain, to kill him by other means, and this evil deed releases the inmates. Until then, they supported and obeyed the Nurse like the nations of the world obeyed the Judeo-American power. Incineration of Mac's brain puts paid to her dominion. In revulsion, the placid inmates leave the ward, chose freedom and leave her behind, broken. This is human nature. There is no way for the US to prevail in its fight against Kim the Bold. They can kill him and thirty million of other Koreans, but they can't prevail.

... ... ...

The Russians were dismayed with Trump's plans to reform the UN and eliminate or undermine their right of veto. They noticed an uncanny similarity of Trump's call for the UN reform 2017 with Adolf Hitler's call to reform the League of the Nations in 1937. They aren't likely to agree to any attempt to cancel their veto. They will not leave the UN, either. They tried to walk out once, and it did not work out well.

In January 1950, the Russians were dismayed by America's steadfast refusal to transfer the seat in the UN Security Council to the new Chinese Government of Chairman Mao. They insisted the seat should be occupied by Kuomintang-ruled Taiwan. The Russians boycotted the Security Council to their peril: the Security Council (sine Russians) voted to invoke military action by the United Nations for the first time in the organization's history. The Russians could have blocked the action in the Security Council, since they had absolute veto power, but no Russian delegate was present.

In just a short time, a multinational U.N. force under American leadership arrived in South Korea and the grueling three-year Korean War was underway. The Russians immediately returned to the Security Council but they never could reverse the decision, and until today the US troops in Korea use the UN banner.

The Russians remember that, and they will never repeat the mistake. Even if Trump takes his allies out, the Russians and the Chinese will remain and they will keep the Security Council running, if necessary, without the Americans.

The Americans want to have the UN without the Russians. Trump-proposed declaration of intent to revamp the UN has been endorsed by many small states, but the great ones declined to join. In a brazen act, countries that were hesitant or unwilling to sign the declaration – which include Russia, China, Brazil and South Africa – were not invited to the launch. An organization without them, will not be the United Nations, perhaps NATO 2.0.

The Russian feelings towards the US hardened a lot in the aftermath of the General Assembly. The Russians helped the Syrian government army cross Euphrates and seize the east bank, despite American demands to stay away on the other side of the great river. For the first time ever, they threatened the Americans present in Syria with using their supreme fire power if their troops will be jeopardized like they were a few days ago, when the Islamists led by American instructors made an attempt to snatch a group of Russian policemen.

Mike Johnson > , September 23, 2017 at 6:28 am GMT

Excellent article! One thing I remember about a few months ago was Trump showing up at the AIPAC conference kissing some serious ass, so you must be referring to before that when he threw little hints at being an independent player but even back then didn't he have Sheldon in his corner??

animalogic > , September 23, 2017 at 9:41 am GMT

" The people of the world listened to his United Nations General Assembly speech, and experienced a touch of nostalgia for the late Mr Adolf Hitler, a kind and mild man of subtle messages in comparison to the fiery US President".
The above gave me a genuine LOL moment though nothing else did.
It's no wonder Paul Craig Roberts is now referring to the US as the "fourth Reich". Makes one almost nostalgic for the days of GWB: he was merely stomping on weaker nations – not directly poking a sharp stick at a bear AND a dragon at the same time
The US gave birth to itself from revolution: nothing less will likely save it save all of us .

Parbes > , September 23, 2017 at 9:56 am GMT

The U.S. government and ruling elites are nothing but a collection of evil criminals that constitute the greatest threat to the planet. They should be punished accordingly, preferably by their own people – but that would require today's American population to be something other than a mixture of braindead ignorant sheeple, chauvinist jingoist patriotards, and narcissistic degenerate hedonists.

In other words – the vast majority of Americans deserve whatever happens and will happen to them.

[Sep 24, 2017] Russian special forces repel a US-planned attack in Syria, denounce the USA and issue a stark warning - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... There are a couple of problems here. First, objectively, the Russian contingent in Syria is a tiny one if compared to the immense power of CENTCOM, NATO and the ever-present Israelis. Not only that, but in any US-Russian confrontation, Russia as a country is objectively the weaker side by any measure except a full-out nuclear exchange. ..."
"... Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, Russians are much more concerned by the initiation of any incident which could lead to all-out war than the Americans who always fight their wars in somebody else's country. ..."
"... In practical terms this means that an American miscalculation could very well lead to a Russian military response which would stun the Americans and force them to enter an escalatory spiral which nobody would control. ..."
"... At the same time a new Kurdistan means that the US, NATO, and Israel will lose Turkey to Russia forever. And that is a very bad trade off! ..."
"... Anything short of nuclear is excellent for business but the profit potential of nuclear bombs is limited. ..."
Sep 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

Something rather unprecedented just happened in Syria: US backed "good terrorist" forces attempted a surprise attack against Syrian government forces stationed to the north and northeast of the city of Hama. What makes this attack unique is that it took place inside a so-called "de-escalation zone" and that it appears that one of the key goals of the attack was to encircle in a pincer-movement and subsequently capture a platoon of Russian military police officers deployed to monitor and enforce the special status of this zone. The Russian military police forces, composed mainly of soldiers from the Caucasus region, fought against a much larger enemy force and had to call for assistance. For the first time, at least officially, Russian special operations forces were deployed to rescue and extract their comrades. At the same time, the Russians sent in a number of close air support aircraft who reportedly killed several hundred "good" terrorists and beat back the attack ( Russian sources speak of the destruction of 850 fighters, 11 tanks, three infantry fighting vehicles, 46 armed pickup trucks, five mortars, 20 freighter trucks and 38 ammo supply points; you can see photos of the destroyed personnel and equipment here ). What also makes this event unique is the official reaction of the Russians to this event.

Head of the Main Operations Department at Russia's General Staff Colonel General Sergei Rudskoi declared that:

"Despite agreements signed in Astana on September 15, gunmen of Jabhat al-Nusra and joining them units that don't want to comply with the cessation of hostilities terms, launched a large-scale offensive against positions of government troops north and northeast of Hama in Idlib de-escalation zone from 8 am on September 19 ( ) According to available data, the offensive was initiated by American intelligence services to stop a successful advance of government troops east of Deir ez-Zor ".

Today, other Russian officials have added a not-so-veiled threat to this accusation. The Russian Defense Ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov has declared that:

Russia unequivocally told the commanders of US forces in Al Udeid Airbase (Qatar) that it will not tolerate any shelling from the areas where the SDF are stationed ( ) Fire from positions in regions [controlled by the SDF] will be suppressed by all means necessary

This is unprecedented on many levels. First, the Russians clearly believe that this attempt to kill or capture a platoon of the Russian military police was planned by the United States. The fact that they are making this accusation officially shows the degree of irritation felt by the Russians about the duplicity of the Americans. Second, this is the first time, at least to my knowledge, that Russian Spetsnaz forces had to be sent in to rescue a surrounded Russian subunit. All Spetsnaz operators survived, but three of them were wounded in the operation (the Russians are not saying how badly). The close air support by very low flying SU-25 aircraft was obviously coordinated by Spetsnaz forward air controllers and probably saved the day. In other words, this was a close call and things could have ended much more badly (just imagine what the Takfiri crazies would have done, on video, to any captured Russian serviceman!). Finally, a US-organized attack on what was supposed to be a "de-confliction" zone combined with an attempt to capture Russian soldiers raises the bar for American duplicity to a totally new level.

The big question now is "do the Russians mean it?" or are they just whining with real determination to hit back if needed.

There are a couple of problems here. First, objectively, the Russian contingent in Syria is a tiny one if compared to the immense power of CENTCOM, NATO and the ever-present Israelis. Not only that, but in any US-Russian confrontation, Russia as a country is objectively the weaker side by any measure except a full-out nuclear exchange. So the Russians are not in a position of force. Furthermore, for historical and cultural reasons, Russians are much more concerned by the initiation of any incident which could lead to all-out war than the Americans who always fight their wars in somebody else's country. This might seem paradoxical, but the Russians fear war but they are ready for it. In contrast to the Russians, the Americans don't fear war, but neither are they ready for it. In practical terms this means that an American miscalculation could very well lead to a Russian military response which would stun the Americans and force them to enter an escalatory spiral which nobody would control.

Johnny Rico > , September 21, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

Finally, a US-organized attack on what was supposed to be a "de-confliction" zone combined with an attempt to capture Russian soldiers raises the bar for American duplicity to a totally new level.

Wow! That escalated quickly.

First it is an accusation by a Russian general and a paragraph later it is apparently a fact.

Evidence not required. You are worse than the Pentagon.

So much for exercising caution and restraint.

hunor > , September 22, 2017 at 4:39 am GMT

@Johnny Rico " evidence not required"

the Russians are not in a position to make an outlandish accusation ,without proof.

they have intercepted communications between American military personals and moderate jihadist

/ AL Nustra / both in the planning , and executing of the operation. the Russians presented the evidence to they

American "partners " The American official response was that the USA considers the Al Nustra front

a terrorist organization

anonymous > , Disclaimer September 22, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT

This is a very strange story and I find it puzzling. Could this be true? The numbers of killed and destroyed tanks and trucks seem to be rather high. Tanks? Who's supplying them with tanks? There's a confusing array of combatants out there, each with their own sponsors. What we need is a scorecard. Also, what's needed is an analysis of what the US goal of setting up a separate Kurdish state is all about and what the perceived benefits are. It's hard to tell if there's a coherent plan behind all this or if it's all due to confusion and gung-ho incompetence.

Dr. Charles > , September 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

This is a very, very dangerous situation. And it is by no means clear who will blink first. All the contemptuous things that may be said about Trump only add to the danger. Yes, he's both a bully and a coward (as most bullies are). That's why he fired Bannon (who was going to get him out of Syria) and then put the Junta (of Mattis, McMaster and Kelly) over him–to "make a man out of him." That's why Trump's Dad sent him to Military School. So Trump will follow orders as he did back then. The military discipline didn't stick. But his military school years were the best he ever felt about himself. That's why he put the Junta over him now. And the Junta is out to be great generals all and win where others have failed. They'll be the Grants and Shermans of the 21st century. They'll win the Syrian War, the Afghan War, and the Korean War. (Just follow McArthur's nuclear plan!) Defeat Iran too– and send Russia running back to its borders. (Obama and HRC both privately pegged Putin as an appeaser a la letting the Kiev coup go through and just defending Crimea.)

In Syria, Plan B was always to create a separate state of Kurdistan in Eastern Syria; build scores of US bases there; and cut off Hezbollah from Iran. Then let Israel wipe out Hezbollah (Good luck with that one!) and extend Israel's borders to the Litani River, which would then be diverted South to irrigate Israeli lands.

Then Israel and the US would catch and destroy Assad in a pincer movement. And it's assumed Putin will withdraw rather than fight. He's already said on the record that Russia doesn't need Syria to survive. And if that causes the hardliners to topple him, the US will be ready with a First Strike option by then.

I believe "Mad Dog" Mattis and McMaster think they can pull it off. They have the blood of General Custer in them!

anon > , Disclaimer September 22, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT

@Johnny Rico "Nothing to see here"

No. There's a lot to see here . 1st America declares Assad should go Then UK tells Assad has left the country for Russia .NATo says it is considering erecting safe zone and someone with bewitching smile saying: I am coming I am seeing but he is not dying I will impose no- fly zone.
Then HRW and paid and bribed NYT WaPO and Guardian CNN FOX were asking when when when , when are we going to decapitate Assadd- that Sarin gas smells bad !!!

AIPAC and Holocaust Museum with Natanyhuu getting irtae with Obama and now with Trump for not doing yet what should have been done 4 years ago. Trump goes to UN after firing misile and warns the world of his next move against Syria and IRan.

Against these backdrop, relentless but slow recapture of territories by the 3 enemy forces – Iran Syria and Hizbullah must have turned AIPAC , ADL Holocaust Museum ,Natanyhu and their children in Congress and cabinets pure eunuchs with dry shrunken balls hanging between two beastly legs . There is a lot to see. Now Russia has told them something that any country with balls will point to the lies and laugh at the accusation or warnings or both. US just swallow it and like a confused child spit venom at NK IRAN and VENEZUELA thinking the ground underneath his feet was responsible for his fall.

Schmid > , September 22, 2017 at 10:25 pm GMT

I wonder why the Rebels /Islamist don't opt for a radical guerilla tactic. Why does they operate in a way, they risk being shot from air, a large amount of them in one place with their heavy material, being an easy target for air-forces? Isn't this crazy? I'm by far no military expert, so just asking.

Other questions are the credibility of the sources and the possibility of other narrative

Dr. Charles > , September 22, 2017 at 11:59 pm GMT

@paull Pure fantasy from Saker McNasty. The US isn't interested in winning battles. It's interested in controlling the future of Syria. Russia may have won this battle, but the message sent was by the US and Russia, despite its public fulminating, got that message. Russia will agree to the partition of Syria that the US wants. This whole story is about face saving for Russia. Saker McNasty has a role to play in that. He plays it well.

I think Putin never really intended to defend Syria's sovereignty. I think he has basically the same idea Trump has: that sovereignty means something different for small countries. Let's just say that the more powerful a country is, the more 'sovereignty' it has.

So Russia boasts that it has won a battle and consequently makes threats. Meanwhile negotiations for the carve-up of Syria are being finalized... I do not believe that any of us should be permitted by the moderators to engage in vicious slurs, as in adding the epithet, "McNasty," to The Saker's illustrious nom de plume (or nom de guerre, as the case may be). The Saker never descends to such mud-slinging. He is ever challenging, but never girlishly "nasty." Such insult-throwing only inflames us all to turn troll. The moderators should not allow it. If a comment otherwise has merit, the moderators should have the option of sending the comment back to the writer to decide if he wants to have his comment published without these self-degrading slurs that substitute for rational debate. As for your "Americanized" (Animal Farm) version of what Putin thinks about sovereignty, it's certainly contrary to everything I know about the man (based on my own long professional study of his words and deeds)!starting with his lifelong (literally since age 13) commitment to the moral philosophy of Judo or "Gentle Path" in Japanese (reinforced by his post-1996 embrace of Orthodox Christianity): which holds that all people are equal and deserving of mutual respect, regardless of size, as expressed by the obligatory exchange of bows before matches. And Putin has carried that through to international relations, as often stated in his addresses at international forums. That said, he may decide that it may be in everyone's best interest to avoid a hot war with the US for now and let the US partition Syria for the time being–knowing that this new Kurdistan is not apt to last very long with Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Russia, and possibly China (as a major oil/gas buyer) all opposed to it and only Israel and the US supporting it.

At the same time a new Kurdistan means that the US, NATO, and Israel will lose Turkey to Russia forever. And that is a very bad trade off! Though I, for one, believe that if Putin does allow this partitioning to happen, the 3 generals now running Trump are likely to see this as further evidence of their own bogus (US-propaganda contradicting) theory of Putin's "appeasement" tendencies and go for a "limited" First Strike option (meaning: "accept our total destruction of your nuclear forces and unconditionally surrender or our Second Strike will incinerate every Russian city!").

And that will be the ballgame. Whereas The Saker finds this idea that Trump's damned generals are so Hell-bent on ruling the world that they would actually go for a First Strike option just too well insane. True Son of the Enlightenment he! Just joking

I'm not joking, however, when I say that it is my true belief that these Hell-bound generals now ruling Trump and our "post-Christian" Empire are so blinded by Satanic pride and lustful delusions of grandeur that they may well bring down a nuclear Armageddon upon us all.

KA > , September 23, 2017 at 3:11 am GMT

@Johnny Rico The Saker piece you read above is, in itself, a deception, however unintentional or not it may be.

It does this by presenting its own narrative and context for the "facts" as provided by the linked articles. And also, leaving out any awkward details that might not match the desired narrative.

Any history of this incident written a year from now will look quite different. As will one written 10 years from now.

Here is another early take on the context.

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-accuses-us-working-al-q-affiliate-syria-668414

Accusation is not new . American scholars have accused of the same practices . American government has had a love hate relationship with this terrorists outfit .

RAND corporation was very clear and explicit in its urging that America should embrace Jihadist to reach its goal. America is recapturing its past association with Fascist and with Nazis . Nothing remarkable or out of character . It is par the course .

What is confusing is the half baked attempts to undermine Assad without a ready coherent opposition who America can present . It seems American plans embrace the theory of vivisection of Syria by different weakened groups as it happening in Libya . But what is different here is the presence of strong interested neighbors who have designs on this land . US wants to satisfy them .

Then use the platform to project its power over Iran and possibly wobbly vacillating East European countries . Once Iran is corralled , America most likely target the belt and road initiative of China .

It is very important for America to succeed in Syria. Otherwise it is done as far power projection is concerned. This is the reason America agreed to let Assad stay but within demarcated zone . Although it is doubtful if it could have done otherwise . This is plan B .

Iain W > , September 23, 2017 at 6:53 am GMT

Maybe the Russians have now finally realised after processing all the permutations in their 'reflexive control' model that talk is useless with the perfidious and odious US degenerates. The US is now an existential threat to the existence of Russia along with other non US aligned countries. If so, this will become a fight for survival at some point.

CPH > , September 23, 2017 at 9:51 am GMT

There is a contingent within the American government which has been pushing for war with Russia since Trump was elected. Unfortunately, any clear signals from the Russians that what this incident represents will not be tolerated is exactly what they are looking for.

The bet they'll make is that the Russian government will not respond to the next provocation with a credible threat to escalate to nuclear war. Anything short of nuclear is excellent for business but the profit potential of nuclear bombs is limited.

GreenEyedJinn > , September 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT

That al-Nusra attacked Idlib is likely. It's what they do. To say that it was orchestrated in any way by the US is not. We don't coordinate or push any ops with al-Nusra. The current al-Nusra is a splinter of ISIS. The US is in the business of killing ISIS, not supporting them. I'm glad the Russians are having success in killing al-Nusra, too.
Note in the original TASS article there is zero mention of any US-Russian interaction. http://tass.com/defense/966624

Christian > , September 23, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

@Realist Its pretty clear to me that Trump has stopped funding many of the covert operations in Syria under the Obama admin. He didn't completely stop the stupidity, I doubt anyone could, but the eminent destruction of ISIS would be far less likely if his rival had one the election.

El Dato > , September 23, 2017 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Dr. Charles This is a very, very dangerous situation. And it is by no means clear who will blink first. All the contemptuous things that may be said about Trump only add to the danger. Yes, he's both a bully and a coward (as most bullies are). That's why he fired Bannon (who was going to get him out of Syria) and then put the Junta (of Mattis, McMaster and Kelly) over him--to "make a man out of him."

That's why Trump's Dad sent him to Military School. So Trump will follow orders as he did back then. The military discipline didn't stick. But his military school years were the best he ever felt about himself. That's why he put the Junta over him now. And the Junta is out to be great generals all and win where others have failed. They'll be the Grants and Shermans of the 21st century. They'll win the Syrian War, the Afghan War, and the Korean War. (Just follow McArthur's nuclear plan!) Defeat Iran too-- and send Russia running back to its borders. (Obama and HRC both privately pegged Putin as an appeaser a la letting the Kiev coup go through and just defending Crimea.)

In Syria, Plan B was always to create a separate state of Kurdistan in Eastern Syria; build scores of US bases there; and cut off Hezbollah from Iran. Then let Israel wipe out Hezbollah (Good luck with that one!) and extend Israel's borders to the Litani River, which would then be diverted South to irrigate Israeli lands. Then Israel and the US would catch and destroy Assad in a pincer movement.

And it's assumed Putin will withdraw rather than fight. He's already said on the record that Russia doesn't need Syria to survive. And if that causes the hardliners to topple him, the US will be ready with a First Strike option by then. I believe "Mad Dog" Mattis and McMaster think they can pull it off. They have the blood of General Custer in them! Pretty much this.

You are just leaving out Saudi Arabia (still hell-bent on "leveraging" Sunni Radicalism to throw its might around but getting a first rash of blowback), Pakistan and India (both interested in having a role in the future of Afghanistan while mooning each other over a sometimes-hot funny border war) and China (apparently probing the anus of the good old USA and not ready to play running dog lackey)

Johnny Rico > , September 23, 2017 at 11:38 pm GMT

@Realist The US should not be in any part of Syria. "There will never be peace in the Middle-East and in a hundred years it won't matter because we will all be dead."
-my East German-defector (he was rumored to have commandeered an APC and driven it across the border) Defense Journalism professor at BU circa 1993

Those, however, are predictions and I don't know what the future holds.

I would say we probably shouldn't be in Syria either. But that is probably an unlikely outcome and problematic expectation.

In regards to American involvement there, my opinion is that it is better Trump is President than Hillary. No regrets there. And I didn't vote for either one.

peterAUS > , September 24, 2017 at 4:18 am GMT

@paull Agree.

Especially with:

Russia will agree to the partition of Syria that the US wants.

I think Putin never really intended to defend Syria's sovereignty. I think he has basically the same idea Trump has: that sovereignty means something different for small countries. Let's just say that the more powerful a country is, the more 'sovereignty' it has.

Meanwhile negotiations for the carve-up of Syria are being finalized

[Sep 23, 2017] Sensational Report Is Russiagate a Hoax Ordered by Vladimir Putin

Notable quotes:
"... One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | russia-insider.com

The Russians may have developed the capability to create elaborate hoaxes that turn the US into a laughing stock in the eyes of outsiders Russell O'Phobe 90

For almost a year, Russia's meddling in last year's election, along with collusion with the Trump campaign, have dominated the political and media landscape. But an explosive new classified report produced by US intelligence may be about to blow apart the narrative, and reveal an even bigger story that has been missed in all the commentary so far.

The report was set up to try to answer two questions: firstly, why is it that after nearly a year, there still hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence to prove either the hacking or the collusion? And secondly, given this lack of credible evidence, how is it that the US media and political classes have been talking about nothing else for months and months without any sign of letting it go, to the point of giving the impression of being obsessed with the issue?

The report, which was signed off by all 17 agencies ! that's the DIA, CIA, FBI and NSA ! reaches a conclusion which is nothing short of sensational:

"If there hasn't actually been any hard evidence presented of meddling or collusion, we must ask the question of how and why the entire political and media class have been talking about nothing else for months.

One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life."

... ... ...

[Sep 23, 2017] Russia's foreign minister said Friday the downturn in relations with the United States began with the Obama administration's "small-hearted" and "revengeful" actions and has plummeted further because of "Russo-phobic hysteria."

Notable quotes:
"... Russia's top diplomat said he can't believe this because "first and foremost the United States has all the information leaking all the time." And he said with so many people involved in hearings and investigations related to the alleged Russian meddling, "it cannot be that not a single fact has leaked. It would have leaked." ..."
"... But he said relations are suffering because former president Barack Obama's administration "put this time bomb in U.S.-Russian relations. "I did not expect that from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but he did manifest himself and we can still see the ramifications," he said. ..."
"... Today, Lavrov said, "our relations are contracting due to Russo-phobic hysteria." As a result, "the immense potential of our bilateral relations" isn't being realized and international issues aren't being solved because the U.S. and Russia cannot coordinate, he said. ..."
"... He said a lot of U.S. politicians say "Russia has to do this and that on Syria," and Russia has to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, and other global crises. But the U.S. military has "a ban on cooperating with Russia," Lavrov said. "Why? Because legislators who find it important not to solve issues in different parts of the world, and not to develop beneficial relations with Russia. Such legislators need to have these political signals. They did it, and that's the reality we live in." ..."
"... "We have to calm down the hotheads," and this requires contacts between the Trump administration and Kim's government, he said. Lavrov said Russia would welcome any efforts at mediation, saying "the mediators could be one of the neutral European countries." He added that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has talked about mediation and said if he received such a request "he would try to fulfill that." ..."
"... If the Iran nuclear deal falls apart, he said, "then North Korea would say, 'why do I need to negotiate with you if you do not carry out your promises?'" ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

UNITED NATIONS (AP) ! Russia's foreign minister said Friday the downturn in relations with the United States began with the Obama administration's "small-hearted" and "revengeful" actions and has plummeted further because of "Russo-phobic hysteria."

Sergey Lavrov told a news conference there has been a lengthy campaign claiming Russia interfered in the U.S. election to ensure victory for President Donald Trump ! "but we do not see any facts."

When he asked U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson how Russia could confirm his words that Moscow interfered in the American election process, Lavrov said Tillerson replied: "I cannot show you anything because this is confidential information.'"

Russia's top diplomat said he can't believe this because "first and foremost the United States has all the information leaking all the time." And he said with so many people involved in hearings and investigations related to the alleged Russian meddling, "it cannot be that not a single fact has leaked. It would have leaked."

Lavrov recalled World War II when the United States and Russia fought as allies against Nazi Germany.

But he said relations are suffering because former president Barack Obama's administration "put this time bomb in U.S.-Russian relations. "I did not expect that from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but he did manifest himself and we can still see the ramifications," he said.

Today, Lavrov said, "our relations are contracting due to Russo-phobic hysteria." As a result, "the immense potential of our bilateral relations" isn't being realized and international issues aren't being solved because the U.S. and Russia cannot coordinate, he said. The U.S. and Russian militaries maintain contact to prevent accidents or confrontations between their forces fighting in Syria, but Lavrov said "in order to eliminate terrorists we need not only de-confliction, we need coordination."

He said a lot of U.S. politicians say "Russia has to do this and that on Syria," and Russia has to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, and other global crises. But the U.S. military has "a ban on cooperating with Russia," Lavrov said. "Why? Because legislators who find it important not to solve issues in different parts of the world, and not to develop beneficial relations with Russia. Such legislators need to have these political signals. They did it, and that's the reality we live in."

He was asked about Trump's combative speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday in which the American president threatened "to totally destroy North Korea" if the U.S. is forced to defend itself or its allies and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un responded calling Trump "deranged" and saying he will "pay dearly" for his threats.

Calling the exchange of threats "quite bad," Lavrov said "it is unacceptable to simply sit back and to look at the nuclear and military gambles of North Korea, but it is also unacceptable to start war on the peninsula."

"We have to calm down the hotheads," and this requires contacts between the Trump administration and Kim's government, he said. Lavrov said Russia would welcome any efforts at mediation, saying "the mediators could be one of the neutral European countries." He added that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has talked about mediation and said if he received such a request "he would try to fulfill that."

The Russian minister said he had no new initiatives to bring the two sides together, explaining that he believes "the potential" for the Russian-Chinese freeze-for-freeze proposal "is not yet exhausted." It would halt North Korean nuclear and missile tests in exchange for the U.S. and South Korea stopping their joint military exercises, but the Trump administration has rejected it.

Lavrov was asked whether he saw a link between the crisis in North Korea and Trump's threat to pull out of the 2015 agreement to cap Iran's nuclear program. He stressed that all other parties to the deal, including Russia, support the agreement and don't want it reopened. "Right now, North Korea is being told, renounce nuclear weapons and we will lift the sanctions," Lavrov said.

If the Iran nuclear deal falls apart, he said, "then North Korea would say, 'why do I need to negotiate with you if you do not carry out your promises?'"

[Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

Highly recommended!
Garrett 's book The People's Pottage The Revolution Was-Ex America-Rise of Empire i ncludes a timeless quote on U.S. foreign policy. "You are imperialistic all the same, whether you realize it or not... You are trying to make the kind of world you want. You are trying to impose the American way of life on other people, whether they want it or not." The "Rise of Empire" opens with the sentence "We have crossed the boundary between Republic and Empire." It contains a critical view of President Truman's usurpation of Congress' power to declare war. Some of the "distinguishing marks" of an empire taken from history were "Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy" and " A system of satellite nations". I think most of us are would be familiar with those two in modern context. His labeling of this policy as the "Empire of the Bottomless Purse" was historically accurate.
The book was printed in 1953. What's amazing is how little some political ideology has changed since then. Take this quote; "And the mere thought of 'America First', associated as that term is with 'isolationism', has become a liability so extreme that politicians feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it." Think back to Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and how he was labeled an "isolationist" for similar views of nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order. ..."
"... Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself. ..."
"... That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power." ..."
"... Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear." ..."
"... An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance." ..."
"... Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. ..."
"... Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'" ..."
"... It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other. ..."
"... The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like." ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
The Exit Strategy of Empire Written y Friday September 22, 2017
The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy.

-- Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire

The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible or substantial threat. But if that's the entering strategy, what is the exit one?

One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is -- a nation exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil, financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.

In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur. Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully on the American empire because he'd had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.

A path to reversing Empire

Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:

  • The dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
  • The subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
  • The rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
  • A system of satellite nations (vassals) in the name of collective security ;
  • A zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear : bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.

Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire, but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage. The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates power in various ways. They include:

  • By delegation -- Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
  • By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
  • Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never considered them.
  • By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
  • Through usurpation -- the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.

A sixth component of Empire

But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out. A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.

That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."

In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett's point: "[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s] itself to be 'a prisoner of history.' For beyond fear lies 'collective security,' and the playing of the supposedly destined American role upon the world stage."

Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear."

Satellite nations

"We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations," Garrett wrote. "Nevertheless, satellite is the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard." Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe [how] could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we may lose a following of dependent people who act as an outer guard."

An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance."

In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.

Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. In his introduction to Garrett's book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett's point. Ramsey writes, Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'"

It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other.

The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like."

Conclusion

In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.

It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire is best opposed.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .


Related

[Sep 23, 2017] North Korea: The poorest advanced economy in the World.

Sep 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Amanita Amanita | Sep 23, 2017 7:49:12 PM | 36

North Korea: The poorest advanced economy in the World.

http://www.38north.org/2017/09/jbaron090717/

nonsense factory | Sep 23, 2017 8:12:14 PM | 37
@Kalen 12,
I think b is correct when he says: The U.S. military is too afraid to use its $300 billion missile defense boondoggle because that would prove that it is one gigantic scam.

It's not just that advanced countermeasures can defeat the system, it's that even a single ballistic missile without any tricks would be hard to shoot down at best. See this for example, from a writer who generally promotes U.S. military technology, noting there's a very high probability they'd have missed if they tried to shoot down a North Korean test. . .
https://arstechnica.com. . . -us-have-shot-it-down/

Missing a shot at a missile just passing over Japan could have far-reaching political implications, as it would suggest that anti-ballistic missile systems are incapable of protecting people in South Korea, Japan, or Guam.

For more evidence that the system is completely over-hyped, see this:

The US has tested the interceptor system 19 times since 1999, succeeding about half the time. The most recent test, three years ago, marked another success, but three prior attempts fizzled. That kind of success rate is troubling, given the meticulously managed conditions. "These tests are scripted for success," says Philip Coyle, senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation and former head of the Pentagon's test and evaluation office. "What's been surprising to me as that they have failed as often as they have in spite of that."
Those failures are all with single standard ballistic missiles, without any add-ons, lined up under optimal conditions and optimal trajectories, with advance warning - and they still fail a lot of the time. That sure looks like a massive scam/cash cow.
Kalen | Sep 23, 2017 8:33:00 PM | 38
@37
NK also would use decoys if they decide to retaliate, low efficiency of interception you pointed out will be even worse than half hits in controlled tests, may be one in ten or less in operational circumstances.

In other words Anti Missile Systems are useless against ICBMs except for narrow circumstances of none nuke ICBMs.

Grieved | Sep 23, 2017 8:54:04 PM | 39
@36 Amanita Amanita

Thanks for that link. Do you read that website? It was new to me: "38 North...a program of the US-Korea Institute at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC." Seems at first glance like a useful clearinghouse for policy discussion, with views from all sides.

Very interesting view into North Korea, a developing country by all definitions, and yet an advanced one in terms of ability to produce capital goods, and all from sheer self-grown application. Interesting information on its agriculture and socialist system. The information seems credible.

The view points to the conclusion that extreme sanctions on NK - similar to the oil embargo on Japan that pushed it to attack the US first at Pearl Harbor - could push NK to attack the US, knowing that it couldn't "win", but doing so preemptively before it ran out of fuel to resist attack from the US.

I've seen other analysis that shows NK would have sufficient fuel regardless. And we have to factor China and Russia into this equation too. But the speaker was an economist not a geo-political analyst. It seemed like an even-handed discussion.

Perimetr | Sep 23, 2017 9:27:21 PM | 40
In other words, Finland and Sweden have both become de facto members of NATO, creating a new 833 mile long "northern front" for NATO on the Russian border.
Perimetr | Sep 23, 2017 9:30:48 PM | 41
Apparently my links to the Swedish and Finish MOUs signed with NATO were deleted. WTF? These links to the text of the agreements are hard to find. I would think that some of the readers might wish to read them?

These MOUs state:

· The HN [Host Nation, Sweden and Finland] will provide support within its fullest capacity, subject to availability and within the practical limitations of the circumstances that then exist, to the forces deployed on NATO-led military activities.
· NATO Military Activities: Military actions including exercises, training, operational experimentation and similar activities, or the carrying out of a strategic, tactical, service, training, or administrative military mission performed by forces; the process of carrying on combat, including attack, movement, supply and manoeuvres needed to gain the objectives of any battle or campaign.
· The provisions of this MOU apply in peace, emergencies, crisis and conflict or periods of international tension as may be jointly determined by the appropriate HN [Host Nation, Sweden and Finland] and NATO authorities.
· Host Nation Support (HNS). The civil and military assistance rendered in peace, emergencies, crisis and conflict by a Host Nation to allied forces and organisations, which are located on, operating in or transiting through the Host Nation's territory, territorial waters or airspace.
· NATO military activities supported by this MOU may require multinational support air operations by fixed wing aircraft and helicopters, and in the case of ports, by merchant and military support vessels. The HN [Sweden and Finland] acknowledges that movement of such aircraft, helicopters, ships and their crews in and through HN [Swedish and Finnish] territorial areas, will take place under a general clearance for the duration of the NATO military activity.

It is discouraging to spend time putting together a detailed post with links and then have it immediately vanish. Would you prefer unsubstantiated opinions?

RC | Sep 23, 2017 9:34:18 PM | 42
Ironic that Reagan's "star wars" missile defense scam, successful maybe in scaring the Soviet's into bankruptcy in the 80's, is now accepted as military fact by the monkeys on Capital Hill.
daffyDuct | Sep 23, 2017 9:41:28 PM | 43
Amanita #34 and #36

Stunning articles.

The reference to 1941 I believe is in another article

# Getting Tough on North Korea: Iran and Other Mirages

http://www.38north.org/2017/09/jdethomas090117

"In July 1941, in response to the Japanese invasion of Indochina, President Roosevelt took a series of steps that look very much like the sanctions advocated by those who want to get tough on the DPRK. He froze Japanese assets and required that Japan obtain specific export licenses to obtain any US goods!including oil upon which the Japanese economy and military was dependent. Subsequently, the US government denied Japan the right to use the US dollar to purchase goods, thus making it impossible to obtain oil even if licenses were granted. Those who made the decision to take this step were confident Japan would not go to war over the sanctions, since both US and Japanese leaders knew it would be a suicidal act for Japan to do so. The Japanese military chose to gamble on an attack on the US fleet and a simultaneous invasion of South East Asian oil fields. Four years of total war in the Pacific ensued. The Japanese decision was indeed suicidal, but it cost a great deal in American blood and treasure to confirm it."

[Sep 23, 2017] The Crazy Imbalance of Russia-gate by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states." ..."
"... But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia? ..."
"... After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe. ..."
"... Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off. ..."
"... And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms. ..."
"... But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic means to a political end. ..."
"... As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match. ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The core absurdity of the Russia-gate frenzy is its complete lack of proportionality. Indeed, the hysteria is reminiscent of Sen. Joe McCarthy warning that "one communist in the faculty of one university is one communist too many" or Donald Trump's highlighting a few "bad hombres" raping white American women.

It's not that there were no Americans who espoused communist views at universities and elsewhere or that there are no "bad hombre" rapists; it's that these rare exceptions were used to generate a dangerous overreaction in service of a propagandistic agenda. Historically, we have seen this technique used often when demagogues seize on an isolated event and exploit it emotionally to mislead populations to war.

Today, we have The New York Times and The Washington Post repeatedly publishing front-page articles about allegations that some Russians with "links" to the Kremlin bought $100,000 in Facebook ads to promote some issues deemed hurtful to Hillary Clinton's campaign although some of the ads ran after the election.

Initially, Facebook could find no evidence of even that small effort but was pressured in May by Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia. The Washington Post reported that Warner, who is spearheading the Russia-gate investigation in the Senate Intelligence Committee, flew to Silicon Valley and urged Facebook executives to take another look at possible ad buys.

Facebook responded to this congressional pressure by scouring its billions of monthly users and announced that it had located 470 suspect accounts associated with ads totaling $100,000 – out of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue.

Here is how the Times described those findings: "Facebook officials disclosed that they had shut down several hundred accounts that they believe were created by a Russian company linked to the Kremlin and used to buy $100,000 in ads pushing divisive issues during and after the American election campaign." (It sometimes appears that every Russian -- all 144 million of them -- is somehow "linked" to the Kremlin.)

Last week, congressional investigators urged Facebook to expand its review into "troll farms" supposedly based in Belarus, Macedonia and Estonia – although Estonia is by no means a Russian ally; it joined NATO in 2004.

"Warner and his Democratic counterpart on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam B. Schiff of California, have been increasingly vocal in recent days about their frustrations with Facebook," the Post reported

Facebook Complies

So, on Thursday, Facebook succumbed to demands that it turn over to Congress copies of the ads, a move that has only justified more alarmist front-page stories about Russia! Russia! Russia!

In response to this political pressure – at a time when Facebook is fending off possible anti-trust legislation – its chief executive Mark Zuckerberg added that he is expanding the investigation to include "additional Russian groups and other former Soviet states."

So, it appears that not only are all Russians "linked" to the Kremlin, but all former Soviet states as well.

But why stop there? If the concern is that American political campaigns are being influenced by foreign governments whose interests may diverge from what's best for America, why not look at countries that have caused the United States far more harm recently than Russia?

After all, Saudi Arabia and its Sunni Wahabbi leaders have been pulling the U.S. government into their sectarian wars with the Shiites, including conflicts in Yemen and Syria that have contributed to anti-Americanism in the region, to the growth of Al Qaeda, and to a disruptive flow of refugees into Europe.

And, let's not forget the 8,000-pound gorilla in the room: Israel. Does anyone think that whatever Russia may or may not have done in trying to influence U.S. politics compares even in the slightest to what Israel does all the time?

Which government used its pressure and that of its American agents (i.e., the neocons) to push the United States into the disastrous war in Iraq? It wasn't Russia, which was among the countries urging the U.S. not to invade; it was Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Indeed, the plans for "regime change" in Iraq and Syria can be traced back to the work of key American neoconservatives employed by Netanyahu's political campaign in 1996. At that time, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and other leading neocons unveiled a seminal document entitled " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm ," which proposed casting aside negotiations with Arabs in favor of simply replacing the region's anti-Israeli governments.

However, to make that happen required drawing in the powerful U.S. military, so after the 9/11 attacks, the neocons inside President George W. Bush's administration set in motion a deception campaign to justify invading Iraq, a war which was to be followed by more "regime changes" in Syria and Iran.

A Wrench in the Plans

Although the military disaster in Iraq threw a wrench into those plans, the Israeli/neocon agenda never changed. Along with Israel's new regional ally, Saudi Arabia , a proxy war was fashioned to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

As Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren explained , the goal was to shatter the Shiite "strategic arc" running from Iran through Syria to Lebanon and Israel's Hezbollah enemies.

How smashing this Shiite "arc" was in the interests of the American people – or even within their consciousness – is never explained. But it was what Israel wanted and thus it was what the U.S. government enlisted to do, even to the point of letting sophisticated U.S. weaponry fall into the hands of Syria's Al Qaeda affiliate.

Israel's influence over U.S. politicians is so blatant that presidential contenders queue up every year to grovel before the Israel Lobby's conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. In 2016, Donald Trump showed up and announced that he was not there to "pander" and then pandered his pants off.

And, whenever Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to show off his power, he is invited to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress at which Republicans and Democrats compete to see how many times and how quickly they can leap to their feet in standing ovations. (Netanyahu holds the record for the number of times a foreign leader has addressed joint sessions with three such appearances, tied with Winston Churchill.)

Yet, Israeli influence is so engrained in the U.S. political process that even the mention of the existence of an "Israel Lobby" brings accusations of anti-Semitism. "Israel Lobby" is a forbidden phrase in Washington.

However, pretty much whenever Israel targets a U.S. politician for defeat, that politician goes down, a muscle that Israel flexed in the early 1980s in taking out Rep. Paul Findley and Sen. Charles Percy , two moderate Republicans whose crime was to suggest talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization.

So, if the concern is the purity of the American democratic process and the need to protect it from outside manipulation, let's have at it. Why not a full-scale review of who is doing what and how? Does anyone think that Israel's influence over U.S. politics is limited to a few hundred Facebook accounts and $100,000 in ads?

A Historical Perspective

And, if you want a historical review, throw in the British and German propaganda around the two world wars; include how the South Vietnamese government collaborated with Richard Nixon in 1968 to sabotage President Lyndon Johnson's Paris peace talks; take a serious look at the collusion between Ronald Reagan's campaign and Iran thwarting President Jimmy Carter's efforts to free 52 American hostages in Tehran in 1980; open the books on Turkey's covert investments in U.S. politicians and policymakers; and examine how authoritarian regimes of all stripes have funded important Washington think tanks and law firms.

If such an effort were ever proposed, you would get a sense of how sensitive this topic is in Official Washington, where foreign money and its influence are rampant. There would be accusations of anti-Semitism in connection with Israel and charges of conspiracy theory even in well-documented cases of collaboration between U.S. politicians and foreign interests.

So, instead of a balanced and comprehensive assessment of this problem, the powers-that-be concentrate on the infinitesimal case of Russian "meddling" as the excuse for Hillary Clinton's shocking defeat. But the key reasons for Clinton's dismal campaign had virtually nothing to do with Russia, even if you believe all the evidence-lite accusations about Russian "meddling."

The Russians did not tell Clinton to vote for the disastrous Iraq War and play endless footsy with the neocons ; the Russians didn't advise her to set up a private server to handle her State Department emails and potentially expose classified information; the Russians didn't lure Clinton and the U.S. into the Libyan fiasco nor suggest her ghastly joke in response to Muammar Gaddafi's lynching ("We came, we saw, he died"); the Russians had nothing to do with her greedy decision to accept millions of dollars in Wall Street speaking fees and then try to keep the speech contents secret from the voters; the Russians didn't encourage her husband to become a serial philanderer and make a mockery of their marriage; nor did the Russians suggest to Anthony Weiner, the husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, that he send lewd photos to a teen-ager on a laptop also used by his wife, a development that led FBI Director James Comey to reopen the Clinton-email investigation just 11 days before the election; the Russians weren't responsible for Clinton's decision not to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan; the Russians didn't stop her from offering a coherent message about how she would help the struggling white working class; and on and on.

But the Russia-gate investigation is not about fairness and balance; it's a reckless scapegoating of a nuclear-armed country to explain away – and possibly do away with – Donald Trump's presidency. Rather than putting everything in context and applying a sense of proportion, Russia-gate is relying on wild exaggerations of factually dubious or relatively isolated incidents as an opportunistic means to a political end.

As reckless as President Trump has been, the supposedly wise men and wise women of Washington are at least his match.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

This article was first published by Consortium News

[Sep 23, 2017] Trumps UN Speech the Swamps Wine in an America First! Bottle

Notable quotes:
"... Listening to the president, one would almost think Trump was giving two different speeches, one rhetorical and one substantive. The rhetorical speech ( reportedly authored by Stephen Miller ) was the most stirring advocacy one could hope for of the rule of law and of the Westphalian principle of the sovereign state as the bedrock of the international order. The substantive speech, no doubt written by someone on the National Security Council staff, abrogates the very same Westphalian principle with the unlimited prerogatives of the planet's one government that reserves the right to violate or abolish the sovereignty of any other country – or to destroy that country altogether – for any reason political elites in Washington decide. ..."
"... With respect to North Korea, some people assume that because the consequences would be patently catastrophic the "military option" must be off the table and that all this war talk is just bluster. That assumption is dead wrong. The once unthinkable is not only thinkable, it is increasingly probable. As Trump said: "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea." This is exactly backwards. Threatening North Korea with total destruction doesn't equate to the defense of the US (forget about our faux ..."
"... With respect to Iran, the relevant passages of Trump's speech could as well have been drafted in the Israeli and Saudi foreign ministries – and perhaps they were. Paradoxically, such favoritism toward some countries and hatred for others is the exact opposite of the America First! principle on which Trump won the presidency. ..."
"... Not to belabor the obvious, at least as far as foreign policy goes, the would-be Swamp-drainer has lost and the Swamp has won. ..."
"... We can speculate as to why. Some say Trump was always a liar and conman and had no intention of keeping his promises. ..."
"... To be fair, Trump's populism was never based on consistent non-interventionism. In 2016 he promised more money for the Pentagon and vowed to be the most " militaristic " president ever. Still, he seemed to understand that wars of choice unrelated to vital national interests, like Bush's in Iraq and Obama's in Libya, were a waste of untold billions of dollars and produced only disasters. ..."
"... His acceptance of the Swamp's continuation of the war in Afghanistan was his first major stumble towards the dismal path of his predecessors. War against North Korea or Iran, or God forbid both, would wreck his presidency and his pledge to "Make America Great Again!" even more surely than Iraq ruined Bush's. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from the Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

In his maiden speech to the United Nations General Assembly , President Donald Trump invoked the terms "sovereign" and "sovereignty" 21 times. In a manner unimaginable coming from any other recent occupant of the White House, the President committed the United States to the principle of national sovereignty and to the truth that "the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition." More, Trump rightly pointed out that these pertain not just to the US and the safeguarding of American sovereignty but to all countries:

In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty. Our government's first duty is to its people, to our citizens -- to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.

As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first."

Then he took it all back.

Listening to the president, one would almost think Trump was giving two different speeches, one rhetorical and one substantive. The rhetorical speech ( reportedly authored by Stephen Miller ) was the most stirring advocacy one could hope for of the rule of law and of the Westphalian principle of the sovereign state as the bedrock of the international order. The substantive speech, no doubt written by someone on the National Security Council staff, abrogates the very same Westphalian principle with the unlimited prerogatives of the planet's one government that reserves the right to violate or abolish the sovereignty of any other country – or to destroy that country altogether – for any reason political elites in Washington decide.

Numerous commentators immediately rushed to declare that Trump had dialed back to George W. Bush's 2002 " Axis of Evil " speech. (The phrase is attributed to then-speechwriter David Frum , now a moving figure behind the " Committee to Investigate Russia ," which in the sage opinion of Rob Reiner and Morgan Freeman claims "we are at war" with Russia already.) Trump has now laid down what amounts to declarations of war against both North Korea and Iran. On both he has left himself very little room for maneuver, or for any compromise that would be regarded as weakness or Obama-style "leading from behind." While hostilities against both countries may not be imminent (though in the case of North Korea, they might be) we are, barring unforeseen circumstances, now approaching the point of no return.

With respect to North Korea, some people assume that because the consequences would be patently catastrophic the "military option" must be off the table and that all this war talk is just bluster. That assumption is dead wrong. The once unthinkable is not only thinkable, it is increasingly probable. As Trump said: "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea." This is exactly backwards. Threatening North Korea with total destruction doesn't equate to the defense of the US (forget about our faux allies South Korea and Japan, which contribute nothing to our security), it positively increases the danger to our country and people.

The Deep State would rather risk the lives of almost 30,000 American military personnel in Korea, of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of South Koreans, and of even more millions in North Korea – not to mention prodding Pyongyang to accelerate acquisition of a capability for a nuclear strike on the United States itself – than pry its grip off of a single square meter of our forward base against China on the northeast Asian mainland.

With respect to Iran, the relevant passages of Trump's speech could as well have been drafted in the Israeli and Saudi foreign ministries – and perhaps they were. Paradoxically, such favoritism toward some countries and hatred for others is the exact opposite of the America First! principle on which Trump won the presidency. As stated in his Farewell Address by our first and greatest president (wait – are we still allowed to say that? George Washington was a slave-owner!), a country that allows itself to be steered not by its own interests but the interests of others negates it own freedom and becomes a slave to its foreign affections and antipathies:

The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
Not to belabor the obvious, at least as far as foreign policy goes, the would-be Swamp-drainer has lost and the Swamp has won.

We can speculate as to why. Some say Trump was always a liar and conman and had no intention of keeping his promises. (Let's see what he does on the "Dreamers" and throwing away his wall on the Mexican border. As Ann Coulter says , "If Trump doesn't get that wall built, and fast, his base will be done with him and feed him to Robert Mueller.") Others say Trump meant what he said during the campaign but now surrounded by generals and globalists that dominate his administration, and with populists in the White House now about as common as passenger pigeons , he's a virtual captive. If so, it's a captivity of his own making.

To be fair, Trump's populism was never based on consistent non-interventionism. In 2016 he promised more money for the Pentagon and vowed to be the most " militaristic " president ever. Still, he seemed to understand that wars of choice unrelated to vital national interests, like Bush's in Iraq and Obama's in Libya, were a waste of untold billions of dollars and produced only disasters.

His acceptance of the Swamp's continuation of the war in Afghanistan was his first major stumble towards the dismal path of his predecessors. War against North Korea or Iran, or God forbid both, would wreck his presidency and his pledge to "Make America Great Again!" even more surely than Iraq ruined Bush's.

Still unanswered: does Trump know that, does he care, and does he have the wherewithal to do anything about it? At the moment, it doesn't look good.

Reprinted with permission from the Strategic Culture Foundation .


Related

[Sep 23, 2017] Would Putin Make a Better President Than Obama by Mike Whitney

Notable quotes:
"... Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. ..."
"... We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? ..."
"... Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making" is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies. ..."
"... Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down, austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty, eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities: ..."
"... "Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions. It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not. ..."
"... The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives below the official poverty line . ..."
"... People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off ..."
"... The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve the situation . ..."
"... Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of society and serve as the pillar of public morality . ..."
"... I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base of these sectors will come to nothing . ..."
"... Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments – up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers – 200% of the average pay across the region .. ..."
"... Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example, in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils . ..."
"... In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements . ..."
"... While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent . ..."
"... And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work . ..."
"... The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children . ..."
"... It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible. Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/ ..."
"... Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms" (that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education" or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for them. Right. ..."
"... Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone proves that he'd make a better president than Obama. ..."
"... MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . He can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Jul 20, 2012 | www.unz.com

"Every rouble spent in the social sphere should 'generate justice.' An equitable social and economic system is the main requirement for ensuring our sustained development during these years."

– Russian President Vladimir Putin

Is Vladimir Putin really the "KGB thug" the US media makes him out to be?

Take a look at this except from a book review in the New York Times and see what you think.

"A decade ago it was possible to imagine two inner Putins wrestling for his soul: the K.G.B. thug versus the modernizer. Sadly, events since then suggest that the inflexible misanthrope we see is the only Putin we get

Even the most casual Putin-watcher has marveled at his narcissism, manifested in his odd habit of inviting cameras to record him bare-chested on horseback, swimming the butterfly stroke in a Siberian river, scuba diving and collecting skin samples from whales, among other stunts. Gessen traces his self-absorption back to his youth.

Putin's childhood ambition was to be a spy in the K.G.B., but Gessen reveals that his actual experience was more Walter Mitty than James Bond. He was basically a paper-pusher, collecting press clippings in Dresden while the East German Stasi did the real dirty work of recruiting informers and policing dissent .Putin soon hitched himself to the first of a series of flawed, small-d democrats, who would propel him to power." ("Reclaiming the Kremlin", Bill Keller, New York Times)

Read enough?

Okay, so according to the Times, Putin is an ass-kissing, paper-pushing, self-adsorbed, autocratic thug who has dreams of greatness. Did we miss something? Oh yeah, he's also a misanthropic slacker who let's everyone else do the heavy lifting.

Is that what they call objective journalism at the NYT? Its worth noting that this laughable bit of propaganda was written by the Times editor himself, Bill Keller! Can you believe it? I mean, wouldn't you think that the editor of the nation's number 1 newspaper would make some effort to hide his bias?

But, no, when it comes to serving the folks in power, Keller is just as willing to run his credibility through the mud as the next guy. And, so he has, but what does that tell us about Putin?

It tells us that Putin is despised by powerful members of the US policy establishment. That's what it tells us. After all, it's their views that are reflected in the mainstream media via propagandists like Keller.

But, why? Putin is not a fiery leftist like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. He's a right-of-center nationalist who's not particularly ideological, confrontational, or unreasonable. so, what's the problem? Besides, Putin has bent over backwards to accommodate the US on everything from nuclear disarmament to the War on Terror. So why the hostility?

It's because Putin wants to be a partner on global issues, particularly security issues. But the US doesn't want partners; it wants lackeys and puppets who will follow orders. And that's why the NY Times and the others in the moron media are ganging up on him, because–in Washington's eyes–if your not a lackey, your the enemy. It's that simple.

If you want to know why Russian-US relations have steadily deteriorated, you might want to read this excerpt from an article by Pat Buchanan who asks "Doesn't Putin Have a Point?"

"Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.

Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.

Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?

Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.

U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.

Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.

These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?"

There it is in a nutshell. The world's biggest troublemaker (guess who?) has broken its promises, surrounded Russia with military bases, put NGOs on the ground to incite revolution in all the former Soviet states (and Russia), and now wants to situate nuclear missile sites a few hundred miles from Moscow. This is how Washington strengthens ties with its former adversaries, by poking a thumb in their eye at every opportunity.

The Obama administration has assured Putin that its anti-ballistic missile defense system, which will be deployed in former Warsaw pact countries in E Europe, is strictly defensive and will only be aimed at Iran. But it isn't true. In fact, the system will be aimed at Russia and poses a direct threat to Russian national security. Everyone knows this, even though the media continues to soft-peddle the dangers of the proposed system. The Washington Post even characterized it as "a small missile defense system" which has set off "waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign opponents".

Sure, what's a few nuclear weapons among friends?

Naturally, Putin has seen through this ruse and protested. Here's what he at a press conference 6 years ago:

"Once the missile defense system is put in place it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.

"For the first time in history there will be elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security ..Of course, we have to respond to that."

Putin is right. The "so-called" defense system is actually an expansion (and integration) of America's existing nuclear weapons system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this are obvious.

The US (under Bush and Obama) wants to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the "longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia". That's what missile defense is all about.

In Boyle's article "US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat" he states:

"By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."

By "compellence" Boyle means that first strike capability will allow the US to force Moscow to meet its demands or face certain annihilation.

So what should Putin do? Should he sit back on his haunches and wait for the US to come to its senses or threaten to remove the new installations by force? The issue remains unresolved.

As for the US NGOs, it's long been known that they're up to no good, and that they function as the civilian component of a larger military strategy to rule the world. There was an interesting piece by Paul Craig Roberts in CounterPunch on Thursday which fleshes out the activities of these groups and their real purpose. Here's an excerpt from the article:

"The Russian government has finally caught on that its political opposition is being financed by the US taxpayer-funded National Endowment for Democracy and other CIA/State Department fronts in an attempt to subvert the Russian government and install an American puppet state in the geographically largest country on earth, the one country with a nuclear arsenal sufficient to deter Washington's aggression ..

Much of the Russian political opposition consists of foreign-paid agents .. The Itar-Tass News Agency reported on July 3 that there are about 1,000 organizations in Russia that are funded from abroad and engaged in political activity .

The Washington-funded Russian political opposition masquerades behind "human rights" and says it works to "open Russia." What the disloyal and treasonous Washington-funded Russian "political opposition" means by "open Russia" is to open Russia for brainwashing by Western propaganda, to open Russia to economic plunder by the West, and to open Russia to having its domestic and foreign policies determined by Washington."

That sums it up pretty well, doesn't it? Of course, any action taken by Putin to impede the the activities of foreign spies (and agents for global capital) is denounced in the media as an attack on civil liberties and democracy.

Talk about hypocrisy? Do we really need to hear the world's biggest civil rights abuser scold Russia for defending itself from foreign invasion? When was the last time Putin bombed a wedding party in Pakistan or blew up one of its own citizens in a drone attack or incarcerated and tortured mere "suspects" without charging them with a crime? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black?

Did you know that the Bush administration thought they could co-opt Putin and bring him into the imperial fold like America's other puppets around the world?

It's true. Bush actually liked Putin and tried to get him to fall in line. But then something happened at a Conference on Security Policy in Munich in February 2007, where all the top brass in the administration and the far-right think tanks realized that Putin couldn't be co-opted; that he was ferociously nationalistic and would not do their bidding. So the entire strategy was scrapped and the demonisation began. Here's a clip from the speech that Putin gave in Munich that turned things around. It's a rather long because I wanted you to get a sense of the man, his sincerity, his earnestness, and his genuine desire for fundamental change in US-Russian relations:

"Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community's and the world's agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place.

The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn't happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.

It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today's world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today's – and precisely in today's – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.

Along with this, what is happening in today's world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.

And what have the results been?

Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state's legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.

And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this ! no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

The force's dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security." (Russian President Vladimir Putin, Conference on Security Policy in Munich in February 2007)

Can you see why Washington gave up on Putin? The speech identifies the United States reckless behavior as the single greatest threat to global security today. Putin says that the unipolar world-model which operates from "one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making" is unacceptable, has no "moral foundation", and "plunges the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." The speech is a straightforward repudiation of Washington's lunatic ambition to rule the world, which is why Putin is presently on America's list of enemies.

Putin's domestic vision also conflicts with US policy, which is dominated by neoliberal, trickle-down, austerity-crazed, deficit hawkery that transfers the nations wealth to the 1 percent plutocrats at the top of the economic foodchain. The Russian president has made great strides in reducing poverty, eliminating illiteracy, improving healthcare, and raising the standard of living for millions of working people. Here's an excerpt from a speech by Putin that outlines his domestic priorities:

"Russia is a social welfare state .Social policy has many objectives and many dimensions. It entails providing support for the poor and those who are unable to earn a living for valid reasons. It means implementing social mobility and providing a level playing field for every person on the basis of his or her capabilities and talents. The effectiveness of social policy is measured by whether popular opinion believes the society we live in is a just one or not.

The glaring income disparity is unacceptably high. Every eighth Russian citizen still lives below the official poverty line .

People, primarily the "middle class," well-educated and well-paid individuals, are dissatisfied with the level of social services on the whole. The quality of education and healthcare is still quite low, despite higher budgetary allocations. Services that you have to pay for in these areas are still rife. The goal of creating a comfortable living environment is still a long way off

The decline in the national workforce and an increasingly ageing population means the efficiency of social spending has to be increased. We simply have no choice, if we want to preserve and improve the situation .

Every country looks upon its teachers, doctors, scientists and cultural workers as the backbone of the "creative class", as the people who contribute to the sustained development of society and serve as the pillar of public morality .

I believe that healthcare and education reforms are only possible when they guarantee decent pay for public sector professionals. A doctor, teacher or professor should be able to earn enough on their basic jobs not to have to seek outside earnings. If we fail to fulfill this condition our efforts to change the organisation of the economic mechanisms and renew the material base of these sectors will come to nothing .

Starting on September 1, we will raise the pay of lecturers in state educational establishments – up to the average salary for the region. In the course of 2013-2018, the average salary of professors and lecturers will be gradually increased twofold to double the average in the economy .In the case of doctors and researchers, the target for 2018 is the same as for higher school lecturers – 200% of the average pay across the region ..

Together with the trade unions we have to consider legislation to broaden the participation of workers in the management of enterprises. This kind of participation is practiced, for example, in Germany in the form of what are known as works councils .

In the next few years, we must create a system to help every disabled person who is able and willing to learn and work find their educational and professional niche in life: from specialised educational programmes to jobs adapted to an individual's specific requirements .

While incomes are growing, the gap between the richest and the poorest population groups is decreasing too slowly. Income disparity in Russia is comparable to that in the Untied States but is considerably higher than in Western Europe. A certain degree of income differentiation is logical for a mature market economy, but too large a gap can be seen as inequality and can fuel social tensions. Hence our priority is to reduce material inequality by making social policy more targeted and effective, but above all by giving people an opportunity to earn enough to ensure a desirable level of income ..This will allow us to perceive Russia as a more equitable country where everyone earns his or her income with their own labour and talent .

And the government will provide targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work .

The government is taking measures to support families' desire to have two or more children .

It is absolutely unacceptable for the birth of a child to bring a family to the edge of poverty. A national goal for the next three or four years is to make this totally impossible. Today the regional governments approve the size of most child benefits, and it should be said that they are scandalously small in many regions .However, such assistance should not be provided to families with high incomes (Read the whole speech here: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18071/

Sure, it's a political speech, but when was the last time you heard Obama talk about "social mobility" or "support for the poor" or "glaring income disparity" or "healthcare and education reforms" (that didn't involve privatization) or "decent pay for public sector professionals" or strengthening unions or doubling the "salary of professors and lecturers" or increasing "child benefits and education" or "creating a system to help every disabled person" or "providing targeted assistance to those who cannot earn an income or are too young to work" etc etc etc. On every issue, Putin's platform is more progressive than Obama's, and yet, idiot Americans still think President Hopium is working for them. Right.

Putin's motto is: "Each rouble spent in the social sphere must 'produce justice.'" That alone proves that he'd make a better president than Obama.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion . He can be reached at [email protected]

[Sep 23, 2017] Russia's foreign minister said Friday the downturn in relations with the United States began with the Obama administration's "small-hearted" and "revengeful" actions and has plummeted further because of "Russo-phobic hysteria."

Notable quotes:
"... Russia's top diplomat said he can't believe this because "first and foremost the United States has all the information leaking all the time." And he said with so many people involved in hearings and investigations related to the alleged Russian meddling, "it cannot be that not a single fact has leaked. It would have leaked." ..."
"... But he said relations are suffering because former president Barack Obama's administration "put this time bomb in U.S.-Russian relations. "I did not expect that from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but he did manifest himself and we can still see the ramifications," he said. ..."
"... Today, Lavrov said, "our relations are contracting due to Russo-phobic hysteria." As a result, "the immense potential of our bilateral relations" isn't being realized and international issues aren't being solved because the U.S. and Russia cannot coordinate, he said. ..."
"... He said a lot of U.S. politicians say "Russia has to do this and that on Syria," and Russia has to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, and other global crises. But the U.S. military has "a ban on cooperating with Russia," Lavrov said. "Why? Because legislators who find it important not to solve issues in different parts of the world, and not to develop beneficial relations with Russia. Such legislators need to have these political signals. They did it, and that's the reality we live in." ..."
"... "We have to calm down the hotheads," and this requires contacts between the Trump administration and Kim's government, he said. Lavrov said Russia would welcome any efforts at mediation, saying "the mediators could be one of the neutral European countries." He added that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has talked about mediation and said if he received such a request "he would try to fulfill that." ..."
"... If the Iran nuclear deal falls apart, he said, "then North Korea would say, 'why do I need to negotiate with you if you do not carry out your promises?'" ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

UNITED NATIONS (AP) ! Russia's foreign minister said Friday the downturn in relations with the United States began with the Obama administration's "small-hearted" and "revengeful" actions and has plummeted further because of "Russo-phobic hysteria."

Sergey Lavrov told a news conference there has been a lengthy campaign claiming Russia interfered in the U.S. election to ensure victory for President Donald Trump ! "but we do not see any facts."

When he asked U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson how Russia could confirm his words that Moscow interfered in the American election process, Lavrov said Tillerson replied: "I cannot show you anything because this is confidential information.'"

Russia's top diplomat said he can't believe this because "first and foremost the United States has all the information leaking all the time." And he said with so many people involved in hearings and investigations related to the alleged Russian meddling, "it cannot be that not a single fact has leaked. It would have leaked."

Lavrov recalled World War II when the United States and Russia fought as allies against Nazi Germany.

But he said relations are suffering because former president Barack Obama's administration "put this time bomb in U.S.-Russian relations. "I did not expect that from a Nobel Peace Prize winner, but he did manifest himself and we can still see the ramifications," he said.

Today, Lavrov said, "our relations are contracting due to Russo-phobic hysteria." As a result, "the immense potential of our bilateral relations" isn't being realized and international issues aren't being solved because the U.S. and Russia cannot coordinate, he said. The U.S. and Russian militaries maintain contact to prevent accidents or confrontations between their forces fighting in Syria, but Lavrov said "in order to eliminate terrorists we need not only de-confliction, we need coordination."

He said a lot of U.S. politicians say "Russia has to do this and that on Syria," and Russia has to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, and other global crises. But the U.S. military has "a ban on cooperating with Russia," Lavrov said. "Why? Because legislators who find it important not to solve issues in different parts of the world, and not to develop beneficial relations with Russia. Such legislators need to have these political signals. They did it, and that's the reality we live in."

He was asked about Trump's combative speech to the General Assembly on Tuesday in which the American president threatened "to totally destroy North Korea" if the U.S. is forced to defend itself or its allies and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un responded calling Trump "deranged" and saying he will "pay dearly" for his threats.

Calling the exchange of threats "quite bad," Lavrov said "it is unacceptable to simply sit back and to look at the nuclear and military gambles of North Korea, but it is also unacceptable to start war on the peninsula."

"We have to calm down the hotheads," and this requires contacts between the Trump administration and Kim's government, he said. Lavrov said Russia would welcome any efforts at mediation, saying "the mediators could be one of the neutral European countries." He added that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has talked about mediation and said if he received such a request "he would try to fulfill that."

The Russian minister said he had no new initiatives to bring the two sides together, explaining that he believes "the potential" for the Russian-Chinese freeze-for-freeze proposal "is not yet exhausted." It would halt North Korean nuclear and missile tests in exchange for the U.S. and South Korea stopping their joint military exercises, but the Trump administration has rejected it.

Lavrov was asked whether he saw a link between the crisis in North Korea and Trump's threat to pull out of the 2015 agreement to cap Iran's nuclear program. He stressed that all other parties to the deal, including Russia, support the agreement and don't want it reopened. "Right now, North Korea is being told, renounce nuclear weapons and we will lift the sanctions," Lavrov said.

If the Iran nuclear deal falls apart, he said, "then North Korea would say, 'why do I need to negotiate with you if you do not carry out your promises?'"

[Sep 23, 2017] The Exit Strategy of Empire by Wendy McElro

Highly recommended!
Garrett 's book The People's Pottage The Revolution Was-Ex America-Rise of Empire i ncludes a timeless quote on U.S. foreign policy. "You are imperialistic all the same, whether you realize it or not... You are trying to make the kind of world you want. You are trying to impose the American way of life on other people, whether they want it or not." The "Rise of Empire" opens with the sentence "We have crossed the boundary between Republic and Empire." It contains a critical view of President Truman's usurpation of Congress' power to declare war. Some of the "distinguishing marks" of an empire taken from history were "Domestic policy becomes subordinate to foreign policy" and " A system of satellite nations". I think most of us are would be familiar with those two in modern context. His labeling of this policy as the "Empire of the Bottomless Purse" was historically accurate.
The book was printed in 1953. What's amazing is how little some political ideology has changed since then. Take this quote; "And the mere thought of 'America First', associated as that term is with 'isolationism', has become a liability so extreme that politicians feel obliged to deny ever having entertained it." Think back to Ron Paul's 2008 campaign and how he was labeled an "isolationist" for similar views of nationalism.
Notable quotes:
"... These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order. ..."
"... Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself. ..."
"... That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power." ..."
"... Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear." ..."
"... An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance." ..."
"... Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. ..."
"... Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'" ..."
"... It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other. ..."
"... The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like." ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
The Exit Strategy of Empire Written y Friday September 22, 2017
The Roman Empire never doubted that it was the defender of civilization. Its good intentions were peace, law and order. The Spanish Empire added salvation. The British Empire added the noble myth of the white man's burden. We have added freedom and democracy.

-- Garet Garrett, Rise of Empire

The first step in creating Empire is to morally justify the invasion and occupation of another nation even if it poses no credible or substantial threat. But if that's the entering strategy, what is the exit one?

One approach to answering is to explore how Empire has arisen through history and whether the process can be reversed. Another is to conclude that no exit is possible; an Empire inevitably self-destructs under the increasing weight of what it is -- a nation exercising ultimate authority over an array of satellite states. Empires are vulnerable to overreach, rebellion, war, domestic turmoil, financial exhaustion, and competition for dominance.

In his monograph Rise of Empire, the libertarian journalist Garet Garrett (1878–1954), lays out a blueprint for how Empire could possibly be reversed as well as the reason he believes reversal would not occur. Garrett was in a unique position to comment insightfully on the American empire because he'd had a front-row seat to events that cemented its status: World War II and the Cold War. World War II America already had a history of conquest and occupation, of course, but, during the mid to late 20th century, the nation became a self-consciously and unapologetic empire with a self-granted mandate to spread its ideology around the world.

A path to reversing Empire

Garrett identifies the first five components of Empire:

  • The dominance of executive power: the White House reigns over Congress and the judiciary.
  • The subordination of domestic concerns to foreign policy: civil and economic liberties give way to military needs.
  • The rise of a military mentality: aggressive patriotism and obedience are exalted.
  • A system of satellite nations (vassals) in the name of collective security ;
  • A zeitgeist of both zealous patriotism and fear : bellicosity is mixed with and sustained by panic.
These are not sequential stages of Empire but occur in conjunction with one another and reinforce each other. That means that an attempt to reverse Empire in the direction of a Republic can begin with weakening any of the five characteristics in any order.

Garrett did not directly address the strategy of undoing Empire, but his description of its creation can be used to good advantage. The first step is to break down each component of Empire into more manageable chunks. For example, the executive branch accumulates power in various ways. They include:

  • By delegation -- Congress transfers its constitutional powers to the president.
  • By reinterpretation of the Constitution by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
  • Through innovation by which the president assumes powers that are not constitutionally forbidden because the Framers never considered them.
  • By administrative agencies that issue regulations with the force of law.
  • Through usurpation -- the president confronts Congress with a fait accompli that cannot easily be repudiated.Entanglement in foreign affairs makes presidential power swell because, both by tradition and the Constitution, foreign affairs are his authority.
Deconstructing these executive props, one by one, weakens the Empire. When all five components are deconstructing, the process presents a possible path to dissolving Empire itself.

A sixth component of Empire

But in Rise of Empire, Garet Garrett offers a chilling assessment based on his sixth component of Empire. There is no path out. A judgment that renders prevention all the more essential.

That was why Garrett does not deal with how to reverse the process of Empire. Once an empire is established, he argues, it becomes a "prisoner of history" in a trap of its own making. He writes, "A Republic may change its course, or reverse it, and that will be its own business. But the history of Empire is a world history and belongs to many people. A Republic is not obliged to act upon the world, either to change it or instruct it. Empire, on the other hand, must put forth its power."

In his book For A New Liberty, Murray Rothbard expands on Garrett's point: "[The] United States, like previous empires, feel[s] itself to be 'a prisoner of history.' For beyond fear lies 'collective security,' and the playing of the supposedly destined American role upon the world stage."

Collective security and fear are intimately connected concepts. It is no coincidence that the sixth component of Empire -- imprisonment -- comes directly after the two components of "a system of satellite nations" and, "a complex of vaunting and fear."

Satellite nations

"We speak of our own satellites as allies and friends or as freedom loving nations," Garrett wrote. "Nevertheless, satellite is the right word. The meaning of it is the hired guard." Why hired? Although men of Empire speak of losing China [or] Europe [how] could we lose China or Europe, since they never belonged to us? What they mean is that we may lose a following of dependent people who act as an outer guard."

An empire thinks that satellites are necessary for its collective security. Satellites think the empire is necessary for territorial and economic survival; but they are willing to defect if an empire with a better deal beckons. America knows this and scrambles to satisfy satellites that could become fickle. Garrett quotes Harry Truman, who created America's modern system of satellites. "We must make sure that our friends and allies overseas continue to get the help they need to make their full contribution to security and progress for the whole free world. This means not only military aid -- though that is vital -- it also means real programs of economic and technical assistance."

In contrast to a Republic, Empire is both a master and a servant because foreign pressure cements it into the military and economic support of satellite nations around the globe, all of which have their own agendas.

Garrett also emphasizes how domestic pressure imprisons Empire. One of the most powerful domestic pressures is fear. An atmosphere of fear -- real or created -- drives public support of foreign policy and makes it more difficult for Empire to retreat from those policies. In his introduction to Garrett's book Ex America, Bruce Ramsey addresses Garrett's point. Ramsey writes, Empire has "'less control over its own fate than a republic,' he [Garrett] commented because it was a 'prisoner of history', ruled by fear. Fear of what? 'Fear of the barbarian.'"

It does not matter whether the enemy is actually a barbarian. What matters is that citizens of Empire believe in the enemy's savagery and support a military posture toward him. Domestic fear drives the constant politics of satellite nations, protective treaties, police actions, and war. Foreign entanglements lead to increased global involvement and deeper commitments. The two reinforce each other.

The fifth characteristic of Empire is not merely fear but also "vaunting." Vaunting means boasting about or praising something excessively -- for example, to laud and exaggerate America's role in the world. Fear provides the emotional impetus for conquest; vaunting provides the moral justification for acting upon the fear. The moral duty is variously phrased: leadership, a balance of power, peace, democracy, the preservation of civilization, humanitarianism. From this point, it is a small leap to conclude that the ends sanctify the means. Garrett observes that "there is soon a point from which there is no turning back .The argument for going on is well known. As Woodrow Wilson once asked, 'Shall we break the heart of the world?' So now many are saying, 'We cannot let the free world down'. Moral leadership of the world is not a role you step into and out of as you like."

Conclusion

In this manner, Garrett believed, Empire imprisons itself in the trap of a perpetual war for peace and stability, which are always stated goals. Yet, as Garrett concluded, the reality is war and instability.

It is not clear whether he was correct that Empire could not be reversed. Whether or not he was, it is at its creation that Empire is best opposed.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .


Related

[Sep 23, 2017] Uncle Sam vs. Russia in Eastern Syria the Nightmare Scenario

Notable quotes:
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

The impending collapse of ISIS has touched off a race for territory in the oil-rich eastern part of Syria pitting US-backed forces against the Russian-led coalition of Syria, Iran and Hezbollah. This is the nightmare scenario that everyone wanted to avoid. Washington and Moscow's armies are now converging on the same area at the same time greatly increasing the probability of a conflagration between the two nuclear-armed superpowers. The only way a clash can be avoided is if one party backs down, which seems increasingly unlikely.

The situation can be easily explained. The vast swath of territory captured by ISIS is steadily shrinking due to the dogged perseverance of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) which has liberated most of the countryside west of the Euphrates River including the former ISIS stronghold at Deir Ezzor, a critical garrison at the center of the fighting. ISIS is also getting pressure from the north where the US-backed SDF is pounding their capital at Raqqa while deploying troops and tanks southward to the oil fields in Deir Ezzor province.

Washington has made it clear that it wants its proxy-army to control the area east of the Euphrates establishing a soft partition between east and west. The US also wants to control Deir Ezzor's vast oil resources in order to provide a reliable revenue stream for the emergent Kurdish statelet.

Syrian President Bashar al Assad has said many times that he will never agree to the partitioning of the country. But the decision will not be made by Assad alone. His coalition partners in Moscow, Beirut and Tehran will also help shape the final settlement. As far as Putin is concerned, it seems extremely unlikely that he'd risk a protracted and bloody war with the United States simply to recapture every square inch of Syrian territory. The Russian president will probably allow the US to keep its bases in the northeast provided that critical areas are conceded to the regime. But where will the line be drawn, that's the question?

The US wants to control the area east of the Euphrates including the lucrative oil fields. This is why they deployed troops from the SDF southward even though they're still needed in Raqqa. Earlier in the week, it looked like the Syrian Army had a leg up on the SDF as troops and armored vehicles crossed the Euphrates headed east to the oil fields. But reports that appeared late Thursday indicate that the SDF has beaten them to the punch. This is from South Front:

"On Thursday, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) captured Tabiyeh and al-Isba oil fields in the northwestern Deir Ezzor countryside, according to pro-Kurdish sources. If these reports are confirmed, the SDF will be in control over a half of Syria's oil reserve. Moreover, that will mean that the SDF at least partly blocked the SAA way on the eastern bank of the Euphrates river." ("Syrian Democratic Forces Capture Key Oil Fields In Deir Ezzor", South Front)

This is a major setback for the Russian coalition. It means that the SAA backed by the Russian Airforce will have to fight a group which, up to this point, has been an ally in the war against ISIS. Now it's clear that the mainly-Kurdish SDF is no ally, it's an enemy that wants to steal Syria's resources and carve a state out of its eastern flank.

The news about the SDF's arrival at the oil fields came just hours after the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov issued a terse warning to the US and SDF that Russia would retaliate if SAA positions were attacked again by SDF mortar or rocket fire.

Quote: "Russia unequivocally told the commanders of US forces in Al Udeid Airbase (Qatar) that it will not tolerate any shelling from the areas where the SDF are stationed ( ) Fire from positions in regions [controlled by the SDF] will be suppressed by all means necessary."

In retrospect, it looks like the SDF had already decided to make a clean break with the government leaving no doubt of where they stood. Washington is using the SDF to seize the oil fields and to claim to the entire east side of the Euphrates for its own. There's no doubt that these combat units of the SDF are accompanied by US Special Forces who are providing critical communications, logistic and tactical support. This operation has Washington's fingerprints all over it.

On Friday morning, loyalist forces led by the 5th Assault Corps ISIS Hunters, established full control over Khusham village on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River near Deir Ezzor city. The strategically-located village blocks a key road linking the area held by the SDF to the Omar oil fields.

Get the picture? US-backed forces and Russian coalition members are now operating cheek-to-jowl in the same theatre trying to seize the same oil-rich scrap of land. This has all the makings of a major head-on collision.

Putin is a cautious and reasonable man, but he's not going to hand over Syria's oil fields without a fight. Besides, Assad needs the oil receipts to finance the rebuilding of his decimated country. Equally important, he needs the territory east of Deir Ezzor to for an overland route connecting Beirut to Damascus to Baghdad to Tehran, the so-called Arab Superhighway. Putin's job is to glue as much of the country together as needed to create a viable state. So while he may allow the SDF and US military to occupy parts of the northeast, he's not going to surrender crucial resources or strategically-located territory.

So what does it all mean? Does it mean that Russia will support Assad's attempts to liberate the oil fields even if it could trigger a broader war with the United States?

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

Putin doesn't want a slugfest with Uncle Sam, but he's not going to abandon an ally either. So there's going to be a confrontation because neither party is willing to give up what they feel they need to achieve success.

So there you have it. As the standoff begins to take shape in east Syria, the two rival superpowers are preparing themselves for the worst. Clearly, we have reached the most dangerous moment in the six year-long war.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

TG > , September 23, 2017 at 1:57 pm GMT

An intelligent and well-argued commentary, as usual from this source.

But here is something that nobody is talking about: sure oil is important. But Syria is mostly an arid plateau. Water is more important. Why is nobody talking about that?

It gets zero press coverage, but the real trigger for Syria's nasty civil war was the deliberately-engineered Syrian population explosion. The population doubled and doubled and then the aquifers had been drained, and the mostly agrarian economy fell apart Even without idiotic foreign meddling, one way or the other, good things would not have happened to Syria.

http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-story-on-syria-forced.html

So here's my question: who controls the water supplies in Syria? What is the status of the aquifers? What has the war and the exodus of refugees done to the rate of population increase? I heard recently that one faction opened the spillgates on a dam to slow an enemy river crossing: how much water was wasted? What happens if one faction decides to drain the reservoirs before retreating?

You say that Syria will want oil money to rebuild: but you can't buy water, at least not enough to grow crops on a substantial scale. Sure, in theory networks of nuclear power plants running desalinization plants might work, but that would take about all the money in the world just to keep 30 million Syrians fed. Or perhaps people who until recently were goatherds and farmers will suddenly re-educate themselves into world-class computer programmers and within two years they will be beating the Singaporeans at their own game and have created a non-agrarian economy from scratch and they can import food from elsewhere. Good luck with that one.

The mainstream press may not be talking about water, but I assure you, the Syrian government and the Syrian people very much aware of the issue.

DESERT FOX > , September 23, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

ISIS aka AL CIADA is a creation of the U.S. and Israel and Britain and is supplied with men and weapons and equipment by them and the U.S. airforce acts as the ISIS airforce and most of all, the U.S. has no legal right to be in SYRIA where as Russia was invited in by the Syrian government.

Russia and Syria are going to destroy ISIS and kick the U.S. the hell out of Syria and the Kurds will have to accept defeat as of now they are being used as a proxy army of the U.S. and the Kurds will be betrayed by the U.S. in the end in any event as this is what the U.S. does.

GOD BLESS SYRIA AND RUSSIA.

Janis > , September 23, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

The U.S. has no strategic national interest in Syria. I am convinced the only reason we are there is in the behest of Israel. We no longer have Perle, Wolfowitz or Feith impacting U.S. foreign policy, but we have other Israel firsters in government who have taken their place. Dual loyalty is a farce. I like what Barry Goldwater said on the subject in his book, "Goldwater." He said: "I was never put under greater pressure than by the Israeli lobby, nor has the Senate as a whole. It's the most influential crowd in Congress and America by far. The Israelis can come up with 50 votes or more on almost any bill in the Senate that affects their interests. They went to extraordinary lengths to get me to vote for them, even sending some of my dearest and closest Arizona friends, like Harry Rosenzweig, to lobby me in Washington. The Israelis never raised the fact of my being half Jewish, but they stressed protecting Israel in the event of war. I told them over and over, without a treaty we've already promised to go to war to protect Israel. And the United States is not getting all that much out of the deal. I think Israel is doing pretty well. I don't worry about Israel when I go to sleep at night. I worry about the U.S. Constitution, which I've sworn to uphold–not Israel's Constitution, not that of Saudi Arabia, Lebanon or anybody else in the Middle East or the world. That usually shut them up, but they often went away mad because I was not about to support everything they wanted." That quote is from "Goldwater" page 16-17.

Would to God we had more Goldwaters back in the day or now for that matter!

[Sep 23, 2017] Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy. NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars

Notable quotes:
"... Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy. ..."
"... NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters . ..."
"... NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go. ..."
www.unz.com
KA , September 5, 2016 at 5:19 pm GMT

"HANGZHOU, China : The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel house.

But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced little pressure over the issue,

That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/world/middleeast/obama-syria-foreign-policy.html

Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy.

The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.

Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking to know what America should do.

Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the voters will destroy his chances. Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's Trojan horse .

NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessary platform for future wars . Another Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences for the plotters .

If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran, may be Kennedy would have survived. But his earlier political escapades were also built on something that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more time .

NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground. All are done openly. When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the exception that has heard them. With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected. They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.

Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's Russia despite being his co conspirator .

Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success . First Iraq war, if went bad from beginning, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again who knows what media can deliver. They delivered Joe Liberman .

[Sep 23, 2017] Possible entrapment of Trump with the help of FBI

Notable quotes:
"... Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager. ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee has asked the FBI whether it warned Donald Trump's presidential campaign about alleged attempts by Russia to infiltrate the campaign.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's office said on Thursday he wrote to Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Christopher Wray asking whether the agency provided "defensive briefings" to Trump's team given its ongoing investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump's campaign manager.

Related Searches Trump Campaign Manager Trump Russia Investigation

"If the FBI did provide a defensive briefing or similar warning to the campaign, then that would raise important questions about how the Trump campaign responded," Grassley wrote in the letter dated Sept. 20.

If the FBI did not alert the campaign, Grassley said, that would raise "serious questions about what factors contributed to its decision and why it appears to have been handled differently in a very similar circumstance involving a previous campaign."

The senator said that according to press reports, U.S. intelligence had raised similar concerns with John McCain during the Republican senator's 2008 presidential campaign.

[Sep 23, 2017] Sensational Report Is Russiagate a Hoax Ordered by Vladimir Putin

Notable quotes:
"... One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life ..."
Sep 23, 2017 | russia-insider.com

The Russians may have developed the capability to create elaborate hoaxes that turn the US into a laughing stock in the eyes of outsiders Russell O'Phobe 90

For almost a year, Russia's meddling in last year's election, along with collusion with the Trump campaign, have dominated the political and media landscape. But an explosive new classified report produced by US intelligence may be about to blow apart the narrative, and reveal an even bigger story that has been missed in all the commentary so far.

The report was set up to try to answer two questions: firstly, why is it that after nearly a year, there still hasn't been a single piece of hard evidence to prove either the hacking or the collusion? And secondly, given this lack of credible evidence, how is it that the US media and political classes have been talking about nothing else for months and months without any sign of letting it go, to the point of giving the impression of being obsessed with the issue?

The report, which was signed off by all 17 agencies ! that's the DIA, CIA, FBI and NSA ! reaches a conclusion which is nothing short of sensational:

"If there hasn't actually been any hard evidence presented of meddling or collusion, we must ask the question of how and why the entire political and media class have been talking about nothing else for months.

One possible explanation would simply be that they have all gone nuts. But since this cannot possibly be the case, this leaves just one other explanation: Russiagate itself is a clever but sinister hoax intended to make it look like our political and media class have lost their marbles, therefore undermining our democracy, our values and our way of life."

... ... ...

[Sep 23, 2017] A conspiracy theory is a theory based on facts but without MSM backing. Theres no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

Notable quotes:
"... So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight. ..."
"... People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority". ..."
www.unz.com
LondonBob > , September 6, 2016 at 5:39 pm GMT

@Paul Jolliffe Mr. Unz,

Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news management.

Abraham > , September 6, 2016 at 6:28 pm GMT

@Lot Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra. Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.

A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.

Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control.

Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed would have damaging repercussions for them.

For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.

It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites. After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.

The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such as Watergate and Iran Contra.

How is this a problem?

WorkingClass > , September 6, 2016 at 9:12 pm GMT

The CIA is the presidents private secret army. Nothing it does is legal.

Ron Unz > , September 6, 2016 at 9:53 pm GMT

For those without convenient access to a copy of the deHaven-Smith book, I've discovered there are some lengthy extracts available on the web:

https://off-guardian.org/2016/09/04/are-you-a-mind-controlled-cia-stooge/

Boris > , September 6, 2016 at 10:48 pm GMT

@biz

He is really very good.

He has a book https://www.amazon.com/Guilt-Association-Deception-Self-Deceit-America/product-reviews/098213150X/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent

anti_republocrat > , September 7, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT

@Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the media, overnight.

Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its proponents to take off their tin foil hats. Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee ," without any specificity whatsoever as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7

Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines. You can't make this s ** t up.

Nathan Hale > , September 7, 2016 at 4:12 am GMT

@Jason Liu

...In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst to the employees or shareholders.

NoseytheDuke > , September 7, 2016 at 4:32 am GMT

@Alfred1860 I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories, so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are obviously very sacred cows.

People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do know is infinity to one. Be more open minded. "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather than truth for authority".

Gerald Massey

Ed Rankin > , Website September 7, 2016 at 8:42 pm GMT

In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of "talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:

  • Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
  • Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
  • Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
  • Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
  • Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
  • Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
  • Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.

I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments, newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.

Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government, foundations and other institutions of authority.

While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative, but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper has acknowledged ties to the CIA

With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if in fact, it ever ceased.

Bill Jones > , September 7, 2016 at 9:47 pm GMT

A nice little piece on one of the players in the big conspiracy: https://www.corbettreport.com/911-suspects-philip-zelikow/

Marie > , September 8, 2016 at 4:01 am GMT

Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.

I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.

It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course

Hippopotamusdrome > , September 9, 2016 at 8:21 am GMT

@biz Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.

The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.

... ... ...

[Sep 22, 2017] Samantha Power sought to unmask Americans on almost daily basis, sources say

Notable quotes:
"... Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.foxnews.com

Samantha Power, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, was 'unmasking' at such a rapid pace in the final months of the Obama administration that she averaged more than one request for every working day in 2016 - and even sought information in the days leading up to President Trump's inauguration, multiple sources close to the matter told Fox News.

Two sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, said the requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting, known as unmasking, exceeded 260 last year. One source indicated this occurred in the final days of the Obama White House.

[Sep 22, 2017] America Can Never Be Trusted! by Stephen LENDMAN

Sep 22, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org

Time and again throughout its history, America breached treaties and other agreements – proving it doesn't negotiate in good faith. Just the opposite!

According to Russian official Zamir Kabulov, US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Alice Wells expressed "willingness to cooperate with us on Afghanistan, while realizing that the area of cooperation is very narrow."

The only thing Washington wants from Russia is compliance with its imperial agenda – its endless wars of aggression, in Afghanistan and everywhere else.

Does Russia really believe it has a partner in America? Do Putin, Lavrov and other top officials think improved bilateral relations are possible?

Do they publicly express views they don't believe privately? Do they realize after a century of US hostility toward their country, things are worse today than ever – with no prospect for improvement?

How can there be when Washington wants regime change, sovereign Russia eliminated, US vassal state subservience replacing it – puppet governance, not democratic rule.

Chances for improved bilateral relations are nil. America considers Russia an adversary, not a partner. Getting along is not an acceptable option in Washington.

Illegal sanctions on Russia alone prove it. So does closing, seizing and inspecting its San Francisco consulate and other diplomatic properties in Washington and New York, flagrantly breaching international law in both instances.

US cooperation with Russia in Syria is illusory. On Tuesday, US-supported al-Nusra terrorists attacked Syrian troops and Russian police in Idlib's de-escalation zone – after Washington agreed to observe ceasefire in all Syrian de-escalation zones.

According to head of Russia's General Staff Gen. Sergey Rudskoi:

"Despite agreements signed in Astana on September 15, (hundreds of) gunmen of Jabhat al-Nusra (together with allied terrorists) launched a large-scale offensive against positions of government troops north and northeast of Hama in the Idlib de-escalation zone on September 19."

"According to available data, the offensive was initiated by American intelligence services to stop a successful advance of government troops east of Deir Ezzor."

Russian aerial operations thwarted the attack, killing hundreds of terrorists, destroying their heavy weapons and equipment, aided by Syrian Assault Corp troops deployed to the area and Russian special forces.

This incident and numerous others shows Washington wants endless war, not peace. It wants Assad toppled, US-controlled puppet rule replacing Syrian sovereign independence.

Nothing in prospect suggests a change in US policy. Sergey Lavrov admitted Washington supports al-Nusra terrorists – "shield(ing) and spar(ing) them from (US) airstrikes."

"This is inadmissible," he stressed. Eliminating their fighters, along with ISIS, is Russia's top military objective in Syria. Washington's aim is polar opposite, supporting the scourge it claims to oppose.

The agendas of both countries are in conflict with no prospect for change. Nor is there any possibility for improved relations.

They remain dismal, likely worsening ahead, not improving. Nothing Russia can do diplomatically will change things. Chances for eventual confrontation between both countries is ominously real.

Differences between them are irreconcilable, Washington fully responsible, not Moscow.

A Final Comment

So-called US-supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) attacked government positions at least twice in Deir Ezzor with mortar and rocket fire. Russian Defense Ministry spokesman General Igor Konashenkov warned US commanders "it will not tolerate any shelling from the areas where the SDF are stationed." "Fire from positions in regions (they control) will be suppressed by all means necessary," he stressed, adding:

"SDF militants work to the same objectives as IS terrorists. Russian drones and intelligence have not recorded any confrontations between IS and the 'third force,' the SDF."

They're colluding with each other in Deir Ezzor. "More than 85% percent of (its) territory is under the full control of Syrian troops. Over the next week the city will be liberated completely," Konashenkov explained.

stephenlendman.org

[Sep 21, 2017] Trump's UN Speech A Neocon Dream by Daniel McAdams

Please listen to the audio at the link...
Sep 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
President Trump's speech yesterday at the United Nations got rave reviews from neocons like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams. The US president threatened North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and Iran. At the same time he claimed that the US is the one country to lead by example rather than by violating the sovereignty of others. Are the neocons on a roll as they push for more war? Have they "won" Trump?

[Sep 21, 2017] Trump Slams US and Saudi Foreign Policy in Fiery UN Speech

Sep 21, 2017 | theantimedia.org

( ANTIMEDIA Op-ed) In a bold move, President Trump condemned the violent, oppressive behavior and policies of the U.S. and its allies while speaking at the U.N. this week.

We're revolutionizing the news industry, but we need your help! Click here to get started.

He described the decline of " a wealthy country, with a rich history and culture, into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos ."

His description accurately fits the United States, which has devolved from a country with high-minded (if not fully realized ) ideals, courageous struggles for human and civil rights, and a strong sense of independence into a nationalistic, militant nation with a fledgling economy and an increasingly impoverished population whose government has spent its wealth arming radical extremists and waging endless war. The U.S. government has sowed chaos around the world over the years, from Iran to Iraq to Libya to Chile and Guatemala, spilling the blood of countless innocents as it plays geopolitical chess to favor its own hegemonic interests.

Sad!

Trump also called out the despicable behavior of U.S. allies, blasting entities that use their oil profits to support " terrorists that kill innocent Muslims." He asserted that such wealth is used to " fuel Yemen's civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East ," an apt description of the Saudi Arabian Kingdom.

" We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities , " he bravely said.

Further, apparently condemning the behavior of both the U.S. and its allies , Trump warned that evildoers " must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving [their] own people, and respect the sovereign rights of [their] neighbors. "

It is easy to make the case that the Saudis themselves are engaging in terrorism by directly targeting civilians in Yemen for a political purpose .

Find Out More > 44,130

During his speech at the U.N., Trump described all of the behavior displayed by the U.S. and Saudi Arabia ! but he wasn't talking about either. In all of the excerpts listed above, he was unironically talking about Iran, condemning the admittedly repressive regime for the exact same crimes the U.S. government and its allies commit.

The U.S. is responsible both for war crimes and for arming radical Islamists ! who Trump loves to condemn ! from the mujahideen in the 1980s to "moderate" (read: al-Qaeda-affiliated) rebels in Syria. The U.S. and its allies have grotesquely violated the "sovereign rights" of countries around the world for decades, and the Saudis are actively violating the rights of their neighbor, Yemen, using American-made weapons to maintain power for their murderous regime while they destabilize the region.The Saudis have been documented supporting ISIS and using their oil profits to export radical ideologies while beheading , flogging , and attempting to crucify political dissidents at home (candidate Trump condemned the Saudis' alleged support for terrorism before selling them billions of dollars in arms as president; he also criticized their human rights record while before he rose to power).

Laughably, in his speech he bragged about the U.S.' success in battling ISIS in Syria, completely ignoring Iranian-backed militias' contributions to defeating the terror group while actually respecting Syria's sovereignty (Iran is an ally of the Syrian government whereas the U.S. does not have official authorization to be there).

Further, Trump's own administration has admitted Iran is complying with the nuclear deal Trump vehemently condemns. " No nation on Earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles ," he said at the U.N.

He bemoaned the possibility of other countries like Iran and North Korea having nuclear weapons while his own war criminal government holds one of the largest caches of nukes in the world and is the only country to have ever intentionally used them on civilian populations.

Even worse, Trump's claims about Iran's undemocratic government may be true, but this modern reality did not come about absent American influence. The Iranian regime is repressive. It does support terror groups like Hezbollah (though Hezbollah is far less globally influential than ISIS, which, again, the Saudis have been exposed for fostering and funding). Iran's government is no friend to freedom, but how did Iran get to this point?

Might it have something to do with, yet again, the U.S. government's own flagrant disrespect for the sovereignty of other nations? Its own proliferation of bloodshed and chaos? Is toppling Iran's democratically elected government for the sake of oil profits in 1953 ! installing the ousted leader with an autocratic shah ! supposed to qualify as 'respecting sovereign rights'? Is the world supposed to pretend that over two decades of such an oppressive, American-installed monarch were entirely unrelated to the reactionary Iranian revolution that broke out against that ruler in 1979 and the political conditions that have developed since?

As the president grandstands to the world, boasting of American compassion and spewing American exceptionalism while condemning his enemies for the exact same behavior of the empire he now rules over, it is clear the emperor has no clothes.

[Sep 21, 2017] Hysteria in America -- Congress Filled With Totalitarians Who Oppose

Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, American legislators have published a bill that could potentially block Russian broadcasters from being shown in the US. It could allow US content providers to break their contracts, leaving Russian channels without any legal recourse. ..."
"... "prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from being required to carry certain video content that is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian Federation" ..."
"... Why the focus on Russia, in what's supposed to be an annual defense spending bill? ..."
"... As we mentioned, various foreign governments fund TV channels in America, but only Russia gets a mention in this bill. Is that a case of double-standards? Should the attention just solely be on Russia? ..."
"... Does it look like this measure has been deliberately buried in a huge defense bill to avoid scrutiny? Or do you expect debate on this? ..."
"... 'Investigate Russia' ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from RT . ..."
Sep 21, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

'Free Market of Ideas' by RT

There are members of Congress who don't want anyone on TV saying America's foreign policy is a disaster and it costs a fortune, Daniel McAdams, executive director, Ron Paul Institute, told RT.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the fiscal year 2018, which passed the US Senate earlier this week, carries some added provisions that have little in common with the military.

Indeed, American legislators have published a bill that could potentially block Russian broadcasters from being shown in the US. It could allow US content providers to break their contracts, leaving Russian channels without any legal recourse.

The plan is buried inside a tiny amendment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The part about Russia is summarized in just a few lines, between details on funding of the US military.

Amendment No 1096 , which aims to "prohibit multichannel video programming distributors from being required to carry certain video content that is owned or controlled by the Government of the Russian Federation" .

RT: Why the focus on Russia, in what's supposed to be an annual defense spending bill?

Daniel McAdams: There is an obsession on Capitol Hill and within the mainstream media with RT because RT is effective and RT is watched. But also, and this is very important because RT carries perspectives that are not available in the mainstream media. Commentators on RT that I know would say the same thing that they say on RT if they were invited by any of the mainstream media, but they won't. The matter of fact is that John McCain and Lindsey Graham, the people who were behind this amendment, the Atlantic Council and the others are trying to silence RT. They are the totalitarians, they are the enemies of free speech; they're the enemies of the First Amendment; they don't want anyone coming on television saying that America's foreign policy is a disaster; it is broken; it is making us more vulnerable to attack, and it's costing a fortune. It cannot stand competition in the area of ideas.

RT: As we mentioned, various foreign governments fund TV channels in America, but only Russia gets a mention in this bill. Is that a case of double-standards? Should the attention just solely be on Russia?

DM: The attention should be on none of these stations. It should be viewer beware. If you're watching RT and you know that it is funded, or its funding comes from the Russian government, you take that into consideration just as any intelligent person would do. When I watch France 24, when I watch the BBC, I know that that takes the perspectives of the British government into consideration, because it is funded by that.

This is a free market of ideas; this is what this is all about. But the people on Capitol Hill are again totalitarians – they don't want a free market in ideas. They want to control the debate. They don't want Americans to wake up and see that the foreign policy that they are pushing is resulting in a charred Earth and a disaster that is coming home to roost.

RT: Does it look like this measure has been deliberately buried in a huge defense bill to avoid scrutiny? Or do you expect debate on this?

DM: This is how it's done, absolutely. I have read a million defense spending bills in my 15 years on the Hill. This is called planting a seed – you plant this kernel, and it starts to grow. If someone objects, later on, you can say – this is already passed in the defense bill; you've already voted on this; this is already part of the law; this is just suggesting, clarifying, or going further. This is how they do things: you bury it in a huge bill like this; you plant a seed and you watch it grow.

I don't know the exact language in the bill; I am sure Russia is not only the flavor of the month, it is the flavor of the year. There is the 'Investigate Russia' committee , where a bunch of Hollywood liberals got together with a bunch of neocons and are finding reds under our beds. There is a hysteria going on in America. I still would like to believe that the average American thinks it's absolutely nuts; I hope it stays that way. Hopefully, this will blow over at some point, and not blow up .

Hollywood was once on the receiving end of McCarthyism in the 50s, and now it looks like they want to dish out McCarthyism on everyone else.

Reprinted with permission from RT .


Related

[Sep 21, 2017] Donald Trump yesterday spoke from the gut without thinking through the consequences

Notable quotes:
"... His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea. ..."
"... But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National Security Advisor McMaster. ..."
Sep 21, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

That's essentially what Donald Trump did yesterday. He spoke from the gut without thinking through the consequences.

His threat to wipe out North Korea reminded me of Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN. Great theater but makes one thing that the shoe banger is crazy. There is no acceptable military option in North Korea.

But Trump is not the only one spouting such madness. We've heard the same delusional threats from SecDef Mattis and National Security Advisor McMaster.

I learned a long time ago that you do not make threats you are not will to carry out. In fact, I'm a firm believer in the sucker punch. Why tell someone what you are going to do and how you are going to do it? That stuff only works in Hollywood.

Remember this clip from Billy Jack?

[Sep 20, 2017] The Politics of Military Ascendancy by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities. ..."
"... We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition. ..."
"... The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. ..."
"... The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures. ..."
"... The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China. ..."
"... After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'. ..."
"... Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones. ..."
"... The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price. ..."
"... While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders. ..."
"... The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. ..."
"... Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses. ..."
"... The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons: ..."
"... the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. ..."
"... Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees. ..."
"... Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains. ..."
"... Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities. ..."
"... American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. ..."
"... They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter. ..."
"... How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ... ..."
"... It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself ..."
Sep 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Clearly the US has escalated the pivotal role of the military in the making of foreign and, by extension, domestic policy. The rise of ' the Generals' to strategic positions in the Trump regime is evident, deepening its role as a highly autonomous force determining US strategic policy agendas.

In this paper we will discuss the advantages that the military elite accumulate from the war agenda and the reasons why ' the Generals' have been able to impose their definition of international realities.

We will discuss the military's ascendancy over Trump's civilian regime as a result of the relentless degradation of his presidency by his political opposition.

The Prelude to Militarization: Obama's Multi-War Strategy and Its Aftermath

The central role of the military in deciding US foreign policy has its roots in the strategic decisions taken during the Obama-Clinton Presidency. Several policies were decisive in the rise of unprecedented military-political power.

The massive increase of US troops in Afghanistan and their subsequent failures and retreat weakened the Obama-Clinton regime and increased animosity between the military and the Obama's Administration. As a result of his failures, Obama downgraded the military and weakened Presidential authority. The massive US-led bombing and destruction of Libya, the overthrow of the Gadhafi government and the failure of the Obama-Clinton administration to impose a puppet regime, underlined the limitations of US air power and the ineffectiveness of US political-military intervention. The Presidency blundered in its foreign policy in North Africa and demonstrated its military ineptness. The invasion of Syria by US-funded mercenaries and terrorists committed the US to an unreliable ally in a losing war. This led to a reduction in the military budget and encouraged the Generals to view their direct control of overseas wars and foreign policy as the only guarantee of their positions. The US military intervention in Iraq was only a secondary contributing factor in the defeat of ISIS; the major actors and beneficiaries were Iran and the allied Iraqi Shia militias. The Obama-Clinton engineered coup and power grab in the Ukraine brought a corrupt incompetent military junta to power in Kiev and provoked the secession of the Crimea (to Russia) and Eastern Ukraine (allied with Russia). The Generals were sidelined and found that they had tied themselves to Ukrainian kleptocrats while dangerously increasing political tensions with Russia. The Obama regime dictated economic sanctions against Moscow, designed to compensate for their ignominious military-political failures.

The Obama-Clinton legacy facing Trump was built around a three-legged stool: an international order based on military aggression and confrontation with Russia; a ' pivot to Asia' defined as the military encirclement and economic isolation of China – via bellicose threats and economic sanctions against North Korea; and the use of the military as the praetorian guards of free trade agreements in Asia excluding China.

The Obama 'legacy' consists of an international order of globalized capital and multiple wars. The continuity of Obama's 'glorious legacy' initially depended on the election of Hillary Clinton.

Donald Trump's presidential campaign, for its part, promised to dismantle or drastically revise the Obama Doctrine of an international order based on multiple wars , neo-colonial 'nation' building and free trade. A furious Obama 'informed' (threatened) the newly-elected President Trump that he would face the combined hostility of the entire State apparatus, Wall Street and the mass media if he proceeded to fulfill his election promises of economic nationalism and thus undermine the US-centered global order.

Trump's bid to shift from Obama's sanctions and military confrontation to economic reconciliation with Russia was countered by a hornet's nest of accusations about a Trump-Russian electoral conspiracy, darkly hinting at treason and show trials against his close allies and even family members.

The concoction of a Trump-Russia plot was only the first step toward a total war on the new president, but it succeeded in undermining Trump's economic nationalist agenda and his efforts to change Obama's global order.

Trump Under Obama's International Order

After only 8 months in office President Trump helplessly gave into the firings, resignations and humiliation of each and every one of his civilian appointees, especially those who were committed to reverse Obama's 'international order'.

Trump was elected to replace wars, sanctions and interventions with economic deals beneficial to the American working and middle class. This would include withdrawing the military from its long-term commitments to budget-busting 'nation-building' (occupation) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and other Obama-designated endless war zones.

Trump's military priorities were supposed to focus on strengthening domestic frontiers and overseas markets. He started by demanding that NATO partners pay for their own military defense responsibilities. Obama's globalists in both political parties were aghast that the US might lose it overwhelming control of NATO; they united and moved immediately to strip Trump of his economic nationalist allies and their programs.

Trump quickly capitulated and fell into line with Obama's international order, except for one proviso – he would select the Cabinet to implement the old/new international order.

A hamstrung Trump chose a military cohort of Generals, led by General James Mattis (famously nicknamed ' Mad Dog' ) as Defense Secretary.

The Generals effectively took over the Presidency. Trump abdicated his responsibilities as President.

General Mattis: The Militarization of America

General Mattis took up the Obama legacy of global militarization and added his own nuances, including the 'psychological-warfare' embedded in Trump's emotional ejaculations on 'Twitter'.

The ' Mattis Doctrine' combined high-risk threats with aggressive provocations, bringing the US (and the world) to the brink of nuclear war.

General Mattis has adopted the targets and fields of operations, defined by the previous Obama administration as it has sought to re-enforce the existing imperialist international order.

The junta's policies relied on provocations and threats against Russia, with expanded economic sanctions. Mattis threw more fuel on the US mass media's already hysterical anti-Russian bonfire. The General promoted a strategy of low intensity diplomatic thuggery, including the unprecedented seizure and invasion of Russian diplomatic offices and the short-notice expulsion of diplomats and consular staff.

These military threats and acts of diplomatic intimidation signified that the Generals' Administration under the Puppet President Trump was ready to sunder diplomatic relations with a major world nuclear power and indeed push the world to direct nuclear confrontation.

What Mattis seeks in these mad fits of aggression is nothing less than capitulation on the part of the Russian government regarding long held US military objectives – namely the partition of Syria (which started under Obama), harsh starvation sanctions on North Korea (which began under Clinton) and the disarmament of Iran (Tel Aviv's main goal) in preparation for its dismemberment.

The Mattis junta occupying the Trump White House heightened its threats against a North Korea, which (in Vladimir Putin's words) ' would rather eat grass than disarm' . The US mass media-military megaphones portrayed the North Korean victims of US sanctions and provocations as an 'existential' threat to the US mainland.

Sanctions have intensified. The stationing of nuclear weapons on South Korea is being pushed. Massive joint military exercises are planned and ongoing in the air, sea and land around North Korea. Mattis twisted Chinese arms (mainly business comprador-linked bureaucrats) and secured their UN Security Council vote on increased sanctions. Russia joined the Mattis-led anti-Pyongyang chorus, even as Putin warned of sanctions ineffectiveness! (As if General ' Mad Dog' Mattis would ever take Putin's advice seriously, especially after Russia voted for the sanctions!)

Mattis further militarized the Persian Gulf, following Obama's policy of partial sanctions and bellicose provocation against Iran.

When he worked for Obama, Mattis increased US arms shipments to the US's Syrian terrorists and Ukrainian puppets, ensuring the US would be able to scuttle any ' negotiated settlements' .

Militarization: An Evaluation

Trump's resort to ' his Generals' is supposed to counter any attacks from members of his own party and Congressional Democrats about his foreign policy. Trump's appointment of ' Mad Dog' Mattis, a notorious Russophobe and warmonger, has somewhat pacified the opposition in Congress and undercut any 'finding' of an election conspiracy between Trump and Moscow dug up by the Special Investigator Robert Mueller. Trump's maintains a role as nominal President by adapting to what Obama warned him was ' their international order' – now directed by an unelected military junta composed of Obama holdovers!

The Generals provide a veneer of legitimacy to the Trump regime (especially for the warmongering Obama Democrats and the mass media). However, handing presidential powers over to ' Mad Dog' Mattis and his cohort will come with a heavy price.

While the military junta may protect Trump's foreign policy flank, it does not lessen the attacks on his domestic agenda. Moreover, Trump's proposed budget compromise with the Democrats has enraged his own Party's leaders.

In sum, under a weakened President Trump, the militarization of the White House benefits the military junta and enlarges their power. The ' Mad Dog' Mattis program has had mixed results, at least in its initial phase: The junta's threats to launch a pre-emptive (possibly nuclear) war against North Korea have strengthened Pyongyang's commitment to develop and refine its long and medium range ballistic missile capability and nuclear weapons. Brinksmanship failed to intimidate North Korea. Mattis cannot impose the Clinton-Bush-Obama doctrine of disarming countries (like Libya and Iraq) of their advanced defensive weapons systems as a prelude to a US 'regime change' invasion.

Any US attack against North Korea will lead to massive retaliatory strikes costing tens of thousands of US military lives and will kill and maim millions of civilians in South Korea and Japan.

At most, ' Mad Dog' managed to intimidate Chinese and Russian officials (and their export business billionaire buddies) to agree to more economic sanctions against North Korea. Mattis and his allies in the UN and White House, the loony Nikki Hailey and a miniaturized President Trump, may bellow war – yet they cannot apply the so-called 'military option' without threatening the US military forces stationed throughout the Asia Pacific region.

The Mad Dog Mattis assault on the Russian embassy did not materially weaken Russia, but it has revealed the uselessness of Moscow's conciliatory diplomacy toward their so-called 'partners' in the Trump regime.

The end-result might lead to a formal break in diplomatic ties, which would increase the danger of a military confrontation and a global nuclear holocaust.

The military junta is pressuring China against North Korea with the goal of isolating the ruling regime in Pyongyang and increasing the US military encirclement of Beijing. Mad Dog has partially succeeded in turning China against North Korea while securing its advanced THADD anti-missile installations in South Korea, which will be directed against Beijing. These are Mattis' short-term gains over the excessively pliant Chinese bureaucrats. However, if Mad Dog intensifies direct military threats against China, Beijing can retaliate by dumping tens of billions of US Treasury notes, cutting trade ties, sowing chaos in the US economy and setting Wall Street against the Pentagon.

Mad Dog's military build-up, especially in Afghanistan and in the Middle East, will not intimidate Iran nor add to any military successes. They entail high costs and low returns, as Obama realized after the better part of a decade of his defeats, fiascos and multi-billion dollar losses.

Conclusion

The militarization of US foreign policy, the establishment of a military junta within the Trump Administration, and the resort to nuclear brinksmanship has not changed the global balance of power.

Domestically Trump's nominal Presidency relies on militarists, like General Mattis. Mattis has tightened the US control over NATO allies, and even rounded up stray European outliers, like Sweden, to join in a military crusade against Russia. Mattis has played on the media's passion for bellicose headlines and its adulation of Four Star Generals.

But for all that – North Korea remains undaunted because it can retaliate. Russia has thousands of nuclear weapons and remains a counterweight to a US-dominated globe. China owns the US Treasury and its unimpressed, despite the presence of an increasingly collision-prone US Navy swarming throughout the South China Sea.

Mad Dog laps up the media attention, with well dressed, scrupulously manicured journalists hanging on his every bloodthirsty pronouncement. War contractors flock to him, like flies to carrion. The Four Star General 'Mad Dog' Mattis has attained Presidential status without winning any election victory (fake or otherwise). No doubt when he steps down, Mattis will be the most eagerly courted board member or senior consultant for giant military contractors in US history, receiving lucrative fees for half hour 'pep-talks' and ensuring the fat perks of nepotism for his family's next three generations. Mad Dog may even run for office, as Senator or even President for whatever Party.

The militarization of US foreign policy provides some important lessons:

First of all, the escalation from threats to war does not succeed in disarming adversaries who possess the capacity to retaliate. Intimidation via sanctions can succeed in imposing significant economic pain on oil export-dependent regimes, but not on hardened, self-sufficient or highly diversified economies.

Low intensity multi-lateral war maneuvers reinforce US-led alliances, but they also convince opponents to increase their military preparedness. Mid-level intense wars against non-nuclear adversaries can seize capital cities, as in Iraq, but the occupier faces long-term costly wars of attrition that can undermine military morale, provoke domestic unrest and heighten budget deficits. And they create millions of refugees.

High intensity military brinksmanship carries major risk of massive losses in lives, allies, territory and piles of radiated ashes – a pyrrhic victory!

In sum:

Threats and intimidation succeed only against conciliatory adversaries. Undiplomatic verbal thuggery can arouse the spirit of the bully and some of its allies, but it has little chance of convincing its adversaries to capitulate. The US policy of worldwide militarization over-extends the US armed forces and has not led to any permanent military gains.

Are there any voices among clear-thinking US military leaders, those not bedazzled by their stars and idiotic admirers in the US media, who could push for more global accommodation and mutual respect among nations? The US Congress and the corrupt media are demonstrably incapable of evaluating past disasters, let alone forging an effective response to new global realities.

Raffler, September 15, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMT

American actions in Europe, Asia and the middle east appear increasingly irrational to many international observers. Their policy thrusts are excused as containment of evildoers or punishment of peoples who think and act differently. Those policy thrusts will accomplish the opposite of the stated intention.

They will drive into a new detente such incompatible parties as Russia and Iran, or China and many countries. America risks losing its way in the world and free peoples see a flickering beacon that once shone brighter.

nsa, September 16, 2017 at 4:03 am GMT

Anyone with military experience recognizes the likes of Mad Poodle Mattis arrogant, belligerent, exceptionally dull, and mainly an inveterate suck-up (mil motto: kiss up and kick down).

Every VFW lounge is filled with these boozy ridiculous blowhards and they are insufferable. The media and public, raised on ZioVision and JooieWood pablum, worship these cartoonish bloodletters even though they haven't won a war in 72 years .not one.

How about this comic book tough guy quote: "I'm pleading with you with tears in my eyes: if you fuck with me, I'll kill you all" notice the first person used repetitively as he talks down to hapless unarmed tribesman in some distant land. A real egomaniacal narcissistic coward. Any of you with military experience would immediately recognize the type ...

KA, September 16, 2017 at 3:24 pm GMT

It seems that the inevitable has happened. Feckless civilians have used military adventures to advance their careers , ensure re- elections, capturr lucrative position as speaker, have a place as member of think tank or lobbying firm or consultant . Now being as stupidly greedy and impatient as these guys are, they have failed to see that neither the policies nor the militaries can succeed against enemies that are generated from the action and the policy itself .

Now military has decided to reverse the roles . At least the military leaders don't have to campaign for re employment . But very soon the forces that corrupt and abuse the civilian power structure will do same to military .

The Alarmist, September 19, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

Never met him at any of the parties I attended in the '70s and '80s, so I don't know much about Mad Dog, but I can say that only in America can the former commander of a recruiting station grow up to pull the strings of the President.

[Sep 20, 2017] The Empire's Hustle Why Anti-Trump_vs_deep_state Doesn't Include Anti-War by Ajamu Baraka

Notable quotes:
"... Similarly on the war issue, the only let-up in the constant barrage of negative press that Trump experienced was when he launched an attack on Syria, demonstrating once again that a consensus exists among the oligarchy on what instrument will be used to ensure their continued global dominance. ..."
"... Therefore, anti-Trump_vs_deep_state does not include a position against war and U.S. imperialism. ..."
"... The Democrat's are playing games with the people by pretending they are going to block increases in military spending during the appropriation stage of the process. And their criticisms of Trump's bellicosity and claims that he is reckless also are disingenuous because if they thought he was militarily reckless, they wouldn't have joined Republicans in supporting increased military spending. ..."
"... Both parties support militarism because both parties support the interests of the oligarchy and the oligarchy is interested in one thing!maintaining the empire. ..."
"... And to maintain the empire, they are prepared to fight to the last drop of our blood. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

With these words, Paul became one of the few voices to oppose the obscenity that is known as U.S. war policy. But only two other senators joined him: Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). But there is a wrinkle here: Paul is not concerned with the size of the military budget. He's pointing his finger at the continuation of the Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF) of 2001, which was the "legal" basis for the U.S. global "war on terror." He wants Congress to re-assess this legislation that has prompted endless wars abroad.

... ... ...

Nothing rehabilitates an unpopular president in capitalist "America" like war. In fact, the only sustained negative press that Barack Obama received was when he seemed reluctant to fully immerse the United States in direct efforts to cause regime change in Syria by attacking that nation and committing to significant "boots on the ground." For the Neo-cons and liberal interventionists driving U.S. policy, allowing U.S. vassal states to take the lead in waging war in that country was an unnecessary and inefficient burden on those states.

Similarly on the war issue, the only let-up in the constant barrage of negative press that Trump experienced was when he launched an attack on Syria, demonstrating once again that a consensus exists among the oligarchy on what instrument will be used to ensure their continued global dominance.

With the escalating decline in U.S. influence from the Bush administration through Obama and now to Trump, U.S. global dominance increasingly depends on its ability to project military power. Obama's "pivot to Asia," the veritable rampage by the United States through West Asia and North Africa since 2003, the expansion of AFRICOM to offset Chinese influence in Africa, the commitment to a permanent military occupation of Afghanistan to facilitate blocking China's New Silk Road and to exploit Afghan mineral wealth all attest to the importance of continued popular support for the permanent war agenda.

Therefore, the state is vulnerable because it has to generate public support for its war agenda and that provides the domestic anti-war and anti-imperialist opposition with a strategic opportunity.

The abysmal levels of popular support for Congress reflect a serious crisis of legitimacy. That erosion of confidence in Congress must be extended to a critical stance on congressional expenditures related to the Pentagon budget and the rationalization for military/security spending. An ideological opening exists for reframing military spending and the war agenda for what it is: An agenda for the protection of the interests of the 1 percent. And for disrupting the acceptance of patriotic pride in U.S. military adventures beyond the borders of the country.

The current work on the part of the United National Antiwar Coalition to encourage concentrated public educational work on Afghanistan in October, the new coalition to oppose U.S foreign military bases and CODEPINK's military divestment campaign being launched in October are just some of the efforts being organized to take advantage of the moment.

... ... ...

Opposition to Trump has been framed in ways that supports the agenda of the Democratic Party!but not the anti-war agenda. Therefore, anti-Trump_vs_deep_state does not include a position against war and U.S. imperialism.

When the Trump administration proposed what many saw as an obscene request for an additional $54 billion in military spending, we witnessed a momentary negative response from some liberal Democrats. The thinking was that this could be highlighted as yet another one of the supposedly demonic moves by the administration and it was added to the talking points for the Democrats. That was until 117 Democrats voted with Republicans in the House !including a majority of the Congressional Black Caucus!to not only accept the administration's proposal, but to exceed it by $18 billion. By that point, the Democrats went silent on the issue.

The progressive community and what passes for the Left was not that much better. When those forces were not allowing their attention to be diverted into re-defining opposition to White supremacy in the form of the easy opposition to the clownish, marginal neo-Nazi forces, they were debating the violence of Antifa. And since hypocrisy has been able to reconcile itself with liberalism, they didn't see that their concerns with the violence of Antifa was in conflict with their support for violent interventions by the U.S. state in places like Libya and Syria. So for that sector since war and violence had been normalized unless it is carried out by unauthorized forces like oppressed peoples,Antifa forces and nations in the crosshairs of U.S. imperialism!it is opposed. Why bother with the issues of war and militarism. And so the anti-war and anti-imperialist position was not included as part of anti-Trump_vs_deep_state!

The Democrat's are playing games with the people by pretending they are going to block increases in military spending during the appropriation stage of the process. And their criticisms of Trump's bellicosity and claims that he is reckless also are disingenuous because if they thought he was militarily reckless, they wouldn't have joined Republicans in supporting increased military spending.

Both parties support militarism because both parties support the interests of the oligarchy and the oligarchy is interested in one thing!maintaining the empire.

And to maintain the empire, they are prepared to fight to the last drop of our blood. But we have a surprise for them.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch magazine.

[Sep 20, 2017] Where Are the Brave Military Voices Against Forever War by Maj. Danny Sjursen

Notable quotes:
"... Today, my peers are silent. ..."
"... Siegfried Sassoon ..."
"... For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings. ..."
"... In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so. ..."
"... So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination. ..."
"... By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Today, my peers are silent.

But they've been taught the way to do it

Like Christian soldiers; not with haste

And shuddering groans; but passing through it

With due regard for decent taste

-- Siegfried Sassoon , How to Die (1918)

It is my favorite moment. Of World War I, that is. The one that stays with me.

Christmas, 1914: Nearly a million men are already dead, and the war is barely four months old. Suddenly, and ultimately in unison, the opposing German and British troops begin singing Christmas carols. At first light, German troops emerge unarmed from their trenches, and walk out into "no-man's land." Despite fearing a ruse, the Brits eventually joined their sworn enemies in the churned earth between the trench lines. Carols were sung, gifts of cigarettes exchanged -- one man even brought out a decorative tree. It only happened once. Though the bloody, senseless war raged across three more Christmases, the officers on each side quashed future attempts at a holiday truce. And yet, for that brief moment, in the ugliest of circumstances, the common humanity of Brits and Germans triumphed. It must have been beautiful.

Ultimately, nearly ten million men would die in battle. For all that, little was settled. It rarely is. The ruling classes still ruled, the profiteers profited, and Europe went to war again not twenty years later. So it went, and so it goes.

Nonetheless, World War I boasted countless skeptics and anti-war activists both in and out of uniform. Their poetry and prose was dark, but oh was it ever powerful. Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen from the Brits; Erich Maria Remarque for the stoic Germans; and our own Ernest Hemingway. A lost generation, which sacrificed so much more than youth: their innocence. They call to us, these long dead dissenters, from the grave.

They might ask: Where are today's skeptical veterans? Tragically, silence is our only ready response.

It was not always so in America. During the brutal Seminole Indian Wars, 17 percent of army officers resigned in disgust rather than continue burning villages and hunting natives down like dogs in Florida's Everglades' swamps. Mark Twain's cheeky prose demolished the Philippine-American colonial war at the turn of the century (some 30 years after he briefly served in the Missouri state militia during the Civil War). Hemingway, laid the truth bare after being wounded in the First Great War while serving as a Red Cross ambulance driver. And Major General Smedley Butler -- two-time Medal of Honor recipient though he was -- emerged from the Caribbean "Banana Wars" to admit he'd been naught but a "high class muscle man for Big Business," a "gangster for capitalism."

For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings.

Today, despite a few brave attempts, we are treated to nothing of the sort. Why, you ask?

To begin with, most of the above mentioned wars were fought by draftees, militiamen, and short-term volunteers: in other words, citizen-soldiers. Even now, the identity of "citizen-soldier" ought to emphasize the former term: citizen . It doesn't. Now, as we veterans are constantly reminded, we are warriors . Professionals. Hail Sparta!

In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so.

In truth, the "citizen-soldier" is dead, replaced -- to the sound of cheers -- by self-righteous subalterns hiding beneath the sly veil of that ubiquitous corporate idiom: professionalism. Discipline, motivation, teamwork -- these are all sleek, bureaucratic terms certain to mold terrific middle managers, but they remain morally bare. And, ultimately, futile.

So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination.

Only don't rule out cowardice. Who isn't fearful for their career, income, and family stability? It is only natural. After all, this business -- despite protestations to the contrary -- does not tend to value intellectualism or creative thinking. Trust me. Besides, in this struggling transitory economy, the military "welfare state" is a tempting option for America's declining middle class. Ironic, isn't it, that the heavily conservative officer corps loves their socialized medicine and guaranteed pensions?

Under the circumstances, perhaps silence is understandable. But it is also complicity.

By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why.

Perhaps a good officer suppresses such doubt, maintains a stoic, if dour, dignity, and silently soldiers on. As for me, I am not made of such stuff, and more's the pity. I buried seven men in the fields of the Forever War, casualties of combat and the muted sufferings of suicide.

Their banal sacrifice demands explanation. They deserve as much. For those lonely few, we who publicly dissent, the audience is scant, interest meagre, and our existence: solitary.

Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wrote a memoir, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.)

*** This article has been edited to reflect Mark Twain's brief stint in the Missouri state militia, not the regular Confederate army; and the fact that Ernest Hemingway served the Red Cross during World War I.

[Sep 20, 2017] Foreign Policy Realists Hit Nerve With Establishment Elite by Andrew J. Bacevich

The problem with neocon chickenhawks is that they all want money from MIC. So their jingoism is a king of prostitution...
Notable quotes:
"... "Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power. ..."
"... Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements. ..."
"... The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens! ..."
"... Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In the September issue of Commentary, a magazine of distinguished lineage, there appears an essay bearing the title "Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists." Once upon a time, essays published by Commentary , penned by such eminences as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Hans Morgenthau, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Robert C. Tucker, shaped the debate over U.S. foreign policy. Those days have long since passed. If "Saving Realism" serves any purpose, it is to expose the intellectual exhaustion of the foreign-policy establishment. Those who fancy themselves the source of policy-relevant ideas have given up on actually thinking.

"Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power.

The chief purpose their essay is to mount a frontal assault on a group of individuals they deride as "academic realists." Of course, when not occupying positions on the fringes of power, Brands and Feaver are themselves academics. Here, however, their use of the term drips with ridicule and condescension. "Academic" becomes a synonym for naïve or wooly-headed or simply irresponsible.

To their credit, Brands and Feaver do not balk at naming names, fingering Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Barry Posen, and Christopher Layne, prominent political scientists, as dangerous proponents of academic realism.

Take the claims made by Brands and Feaver at face value and this Gang of Four poses a direct threat not only to U.S. national security but to the very possibility to creating a decent global order. "Today's academic realists essentially argue," they write, "that the United States should dismantle the global architecture that has undergirded the international order" ever since World War II. Academic realists seek "the deliberate destruction of arrangements that have fostered international stability and prosperity for decades." They are intent on tearing down "the pillars of a peaceful and prosperous world." They are, in short, a wrecking crew.

Brands and Feaver do not explain what motivates Walt et al., to undertake this nefarious plot, merely hinting that personal pique is probably a factor. "Having lost policy arguments that they thought they should have won," on issues such as NATO expansion and invading Iraq, "academic realists decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater." They are, in effect, soreheads.

For this reason alone, their critique of U.S. policy, suggesting that since the end of the Cold War the United States has squandered a uniquely advantageous position, is without merit. So too with their complaint that in recent decades the United States has misused its military power. What academic realists are actually proposing, Brands and Feaver charge, is to "stake everything on a leap into the unknown." Their calls for greater restraint amount to little more than a pose. In reality, they advocate unvarnished recklessness.

Worse still, Brands and Feaver see worrisome signs that the Gang of Four is making headway. In Donald Trump's White House academic realism "seems to be finding a sympathetic hearing." Indeed, they write, "One of the least academic presidents in American history may, ironically, be buying into some of the most misguided doctrines of the ivory tower."

This is pretty wild stuff. Let me acknowledge that I know each member of this Gang of Four and hold them in high regard. That said, whether individually or collectively, they wield about as much clout in present-day Washington as Karl Marx.

Indeed, the reader will search "Saving Realism" in vain for evidence actually linking the Gang of Four to President Trump. To my knowledge none of the four are Trump supporters. I am unaware of any of them having endorsed the policies of the Trump administration. As for Trump himself, my bet is that he could care less about anything Walt, Mearsheimer, Posen, and Layne have to say. If our president has absorbed the Gang of Four's policy perspective, he must be doing it by osmosis.

In short, the case presented by Brands and Feaver comes precariously close to being a McCarthyite smear!guilt by association without even establishing that any association actually exists.

To which the average American citizen, tested by the trials of everyday life, might well respond: Who cares? An intramural tiff among privileged members of the professoriate might merit a panel at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. But should it qualify as a matter of general interest?

In one specific sense, perhaps it ought to. While it may not be their intended purpose, by mounting their overheated attack on "academic realism," Brands and Feaver succeed in demonstrating why genuine realism rarely receives a serious hearing inside the Beltway. The answer is simply this: Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements.

Brands and Feaver do their very best to conjure up such a "reality." Having established to their own satisfaction that Trump and the Gang of Four are somehow colluding with each other, they offer their own prescription for a "reformed realism" to be built on "seven bedrock insights."

The seven insights share this common quality: They are unflaggingly banal. Yet the last of the seven manages to be both banal and immensely instructive: Realism, Brands and Feaver write, "requires not throwing away what has worked in the past."

Here we come to the heart of the matter. What exactly is the "the past" that remains relevant to the present and that provides the basis for their version of authentic (as opposed to academic) realism?

On this point, Brands and Feaver, are admirably candid. The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens!

Rather than get hung up on Iraq or Afghanistan or the ongoing debacle of U.S. interventionism in the Islamic world, Brands and Feaver keep their focus on the early Cold War, which they depict as a veritable Golden Age of realism and by extension of American statecraft. Peppering their account are favorable references to "Cold War-era realism" and "Cold War realists." After World War II, "realist thinkers understood that America was uniquely capable of stabilizing the international order and containing Soviet power." Back then, serious realists!in contrast to today's academic types!were the very inverse of wooly-headed. "Cold War realists were willing to see the world as it was," according to Brands and Feaver. "During the Cold War, then, realism was a supple, nuanced doctrine."

Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent.

"Contemporary academic realists," Brands and Feaver charge, "sit atop a pyramid of faulty assumptions." They themselves require no such pyramid. Their version of realism rests on just a single assumption: That history is a menu from which Americans can pick and choose. To escape from currently bothersome predicaments, in no small part the product of our folly, Brands and Feaver would have the United States choose from that menu only those bits that we find congenial. The rest we can simply ignore.

Come to think of it, that's an approach that might find favor with Donald Trump himself.


Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.

[Sep 20, 2017] Manafort News a Blockbuster or Nothingburger

To what extent Natalia Veselnitskaya represented Russian state and to what extent interests of certain Russian oligarchs is unclear. The obvious guess is that she did not. She is an oligarchs lawyer. But she could pretend that he did.
Notable quotes:
"... On the night of the election, most anchors reacted in shock. Rachel Maddow appeared aghast. They were stunned at their own failure to predict this outcome and were obliged to seek excuses for the unexpected, unfortunate outcome. The Comey announcement was of course the first explanation deployed, but soon a far more useful one appeared: Russia had rigged the election by providing stolen DNC emails to Wikileaks, using them to discredit Hillary. (It's rarely mentioned how, precisely, they had done that, by showing that the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders.) ..."
"... Obama requested a quick intelligence report, to justify immediate harsh sanctions. He got it, expelled over 700 Russian diplomats, and closed down consulates and recreational facilities owned by the Russian state. These follow the sanctions applied in 2014 in response to events in Ukraine, which caused Russia to retaliate, among other things, by ending the program through which Americans adopt Russian children. ..."
"... News anchors keep referring to Manafort as "Trump's campaign manager," elevating his significance. Recall that Trump had Corey Lewandowski as his campaign chairman from January to June; Manafort from June to August; and Stephen Bannon from August to November. Why not say, "Bannon, the second out of three Trump campaign chiefs"? And why not add: " who resigned when it was disclosed that he had been paid huge sums as a consultant for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych?" ..."
"... And then mention that Yanukovych had been democratically elected in 2010, and that Manafort, who had advised U.S. presidential candidates Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Ferdinand Marcos, Mobuto Sese Seko, and Jonas Savimbi. And that there's probably nothing illegal about that. ..."
"... But why this term, "operative"? What is a "Russian operative," such as the Trump campaign may have met? As opposed to a Russian businessman, politician, lawyer, journalist, priest? The term is tendentious, implying that every Russian operates on behalf of the Russian state and Vladimir Putin. Russophobic language infects the relentless coverage of this issue, which!as Van Jones suggested!has been a nothingburger. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Flipping the channel to U.S. cable news, the lead story is Paul Manafort's imminent indictment, apparently for his business dealings. Presented as a BLOCKBUSTER, it's got all the talking heads smelling blood in the water. Here, they hope, is the smoking gun. Their eyes are bright with hope, if not for Trump's impeachment, for his forced embrace of continued confrontation with Moscow.

On the night of the election, most anchors reacted in shock. Rachel Maddow appeared aghast. They were stunned at their own failure to predict this outcome and were obliged to seek excuses for the unexpected, unfortunate outcome. The Comey announcement was of course the first explanation deployed, but soon a far more useful one appeared: Russia had rigged the election by providing stolen DNC emails to Wikileaks, using them to discredit Hillary. (It's rarely mentioned how, precisely, they had done that, by showing that the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders.)

Obama requested a quick intelligence report, to justify immediate harsh sanctions. He got it, expelled over 700 Russian diplomats, and closed down consulates and recreational facilities owned by the Russian state. These follow the sanctions applied in 2014 in response to events in Ukraine, which caused Russia to retaliate, among other things, by ending the program through which Americans adopt Russian children.

"Russian Interference"

The meeting between Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in Trump Tower in June 2016, including Donald Jr., Jared Kushner, Manafort, Rinat Akhmetshin and publicist Rob Goldstone appears to have included three elements: withdrawal of sanctions under a Trump administration, restitution of the adoption program (with which Veselnitskaya has indeed been involved) as one action in return, and the issue which drew Don Jr. to the gathering: and possibly the promise of info on Hillary. So if Don Jr. and Jared say it was about adoption they might be telling the partial truth.

Hadn't Junior been told that there were documents that "would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father," and hadn't he said "I love it"? It is just possible that this meeting resulted in Russian hacking of the DNC and the leaking of the documents by Wikileaks (although Julian Assange and colleague Craig Murray strongly deny this).

On July 22, Wikileaks released its first batch of DNC emails. Wasserman-Schultz and half a dozen others had to resign, and DNC sincerely apologized to Sanders for Wasserman-Schultz's comment that it would be "silly" to imagine a Sanders victory.

On July 27 Trump speaking to a news conference in Doral, Florida said this:

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing [from Clinton's emails] I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."

On Nov. 7, Wikileaks released a second batch of documents, including a email written by Hillary's own campaign chairman John Podesta in January, saying: "I'm down. Our team is all tactics and has no idea of how to lift her up." Very embarrassing just before the election. But the provenance of the leaked documents is in fact unclear, and contested.

This BLOCKBUSTER news about Manafort reportedly involves financial transactions. The idea may be to trade leniency for financial wrongdoing for information on the alleged "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Moscow. But what if there is none?

News anchors keep referring to Manafort as "Trump's campaign manager," elevating his significance. Recall that Trump had Corey Lewandowski as his campaign chairman from January to June; Manafort from June to August; and Stephen Bannon from August to November. Why not say, "Bannon, the second out of three Trump campaign chiefs"? And why not add: " who resigned when it was disclosed that he had been paid huge sums as a consultant for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych?"

And then mention that Yanukovych had been democratically elected in 2010, and that Manafort, who had advised U.S. presidential candidates Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Ferdinand Marcos, Mobuto Sese Seko, and Jonas Savimbi. And that there's probably nothing illegal about that.

Why All the Fuss?

Why all this fuss about Manafort in Ukraine? Because he's accused of developing ties with Russians while there, which is hardly surprising, considering that he's a mercenary opportunist and businessman, and Russia and Ukraine have numerous historical, cultural, economic and business ties. Yanukovich's party (Party of Regions) is described by the U.S. as "pro-Russian" although that is simplistic and reflects ignorance of the ethnic mix in Ukraine and the relationship to both Russia and the EU. (Victoria Nuland, Obama's assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs, promoted that view and declared the U.S.'s support for "the Ukrainian people's European aspirations.")

Yanukovich could have introduced Manafort to lots of Russians. But that was all over in 2014 before Trump announced his campaign.

We now know that Manafort came under investigation by the FBI soon after the U.S.-backed putsch in February 2014 and is ongoing. But it didn't start as an investigation into Russian election meddling. And it will very possibly not find any evidence for that. It may find, for example, an email in which Manafort supports the withdrawal of the party plank in July 2015 advocating lethal arms to the current government. (This is another of the very few "facts" cited establish "Russian interference." But it seems to me a lot of Republicans don't want to provoke Russia in Russia's backyard. Since when does mere reason constitute "collusion"?) But it would be a stretch to assume he's the key villain interlocutor between "Russian operatives" and the Trump campaign.

But why this term, "operative"? What is a "Russian operative," such as the Trump campaign may have met? As opposed to a Russian businessman, politician, lawyer, journalist, priest? The term is tendentious, implying that every Russian operates on behalf of the Russian state and Vladimir Putin. Russophobic language infects the relentless coverage of this issue, which!as Van Jones suggested!has been a nothingburger.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan ; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan ; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 . He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion , (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected]

[Sep 20, 2017] Where Are the Brave Military Voices Against Forever War by Maj. Danny Sjursen

Notable quotes:
"... Today, my peers are silent. ..."
"... Siegfried Sassoon ..."
"... For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings. ..."
"... In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so. ..."
"... So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination. ..."
"... By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why. ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Today, my peers are silent.

But they've been taught the way to do it

Like Christian soldiers; not with haste

And shuddering groans; but passing through it

With due regard for decent taste

-- Siegfried Sassoon , How to Die (1918)

It is my favorite moment. Of World War I, that is. The one that stays with me.

Christmas, 1914: Nearly a million men are already dead, and the war is barely four months old. Suddenly, and ultimately in unison, the opposing German and British troops begin singing Christmas carols. At first light, German troops emerge unarmed from their trenches, and walk out into "no-man's land." Despite fearing a ruse, the Brits eventually joined their sworn enemies in the churned earth between the trench lines. Carols were sung, gifts of cigarettes exchanged -- one man even brought out a decorative tree. It only happened once. Though the bloody, senseless war raged across three more Christmases, the officers on each side quashed future attempts at a holiday truce. And yet, for that brief moment, in the ugliest of circumstances, the common humanity of Brits and Germans triumphed. It must have been beautiful.

Ultimately, nearly ten million men would die in battle. For all that, little was settled. It rarely is. The ruling classes still ruled, the profiteers profited, and Europe went to war again not twenty years later. So it went, and so it goes.

Nonetheless, World War I boasted countless skeptics and anti-war activists both in and out of uniform. Their poetry and prose was dark, but oh was it ever powerful. Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen from the Brits; Erich Maria Remarque for the stoic Germans; and our own Ernest Hemingway. A lost generation, which sacrificed so much more than youth: their innocence. They call to us, these long dead dissenters, from the grave.

They might ask: Where are today's skeptical veterans? Tragically, silence is our only ready response.

It was not always so in America. During the brutal Seminole Indian Wars, 17 percent of army officers resigned in disgust rather than continue burning villages and hunting natives down like dogs in Florida's Everglades' swamps. Mark Twain's cheeky prose demolished the Philippine-American colonial war at the turn of the century (some 30 years after he briefly served in the Missouri state militia during the Civil War). Hemingway, laid the truth bare after being wounded in the First Great War while serving as a Red Cross ambulance driver. And Major General Smedley Butler -- two-time Medal of Honor recipient though he was -- emerged from the Caribbean "Banana Wars" to admit he'd been naught but a "high class muscle man for Big Business," a "gangster for capitalism."

For all the celebration (and mythologizing) over World War II, at least we had Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller to burst our comfortable, patriotic bubble. And, though it likely lost him the presidency, Senator John Kerry (and his Vietnam Vets against the War mates) showed the courage to testify to the truth in the Winter Soldier Hearings.

Today, despite a few brave attempts, we are treated to nothing of the sort. Why, you ask?

To begin with, most of the above mentioned wars were fought by draftees, militiamen, and short-term volunteers: in other words, citizen-soldiers. Even now, the identity of "citizen-soldier" ought to emphasize the former term: citizen . It doesn't. Now, as we veterans are constantly reminded, we are warriors . Professionals. Hail Sparta!

In 2017, it's near impossible to remember that today's professional, volunteer army is less than half a century old, a product of epic failure in Vietnam. Most of America's Founding Fathers, after all, scorned standing armies and favored a body of august, able citizen-soldiers. Something more akin to our National Guard. Deploy these men to faraway lands, so the thinking went, and each town would lose its blacksmith, carpenter, and cobbler too. Only vital interests warranted such sacrifice. Alas, it is no longer so.

In truth, the "citizen-soldier" is dead, replaced -- to the sound of cheers -- by self-righteous subalterns hiding beneath the sly veil of that ubiquitous corporate idiom: professionalism. Discipline, motivation, teamwork -- these are all sleek, bureaucratic terms certain to mold terrific middle managers, but they remain morally bare. And, ultimately, futile.

So today, my peers are silent. Professional officers are volunteers; dissenters are seen as little more than petulant whiners, or oddball nuts. It is hard to know why, exactly, but the increasing cognitive and spatial distance of contemporary soldiers from society at large seems a likely culprit. Combine that with the Republican Party's veritable monopoly on the political loyalties of the officer corps and you have yourself a lethal combination.

Only don't rule out cowardice. Who isn't fearful for their career, income, and family stability? It is only natural. After all, this business -- despite protestations to the contrary -- does not tend to value intellectualism or creative thinking. Trust me. Besides, in this struggling transitory economy, the military "welfare state" is a tempting option for America's declining middle class. Ironic, isn't it, that the heavily conservative officer corps loves their socialized medicine and guaranteed pensions?

Under the circumstances, perhaps silence is understandable. But it is also complicity.

By now, the wars are lost, if ever they were winnable. Iraq will fracture, Syria collapse, and Afghanistan wallow in perpetual chaos. It will be so. The people will forget. Our professional, corporate regiments will, undoubtedly, add banners to their battle flags -- sober reminders of a job well done in yet another lost cause. Soldiers will toast to lost comrades, add verses to their ballads, and precious few will ask why.

Perhaps a good officer suppresses such doubt, maintains a stoic, if dour, dignity, and silently soldiers on. As for me, I am not made of such stuff, and more's the pity. I buried seven men in the fields of the Forever War, casualties of combat and the muted sufferings of suicide.

Their banal sacrifice demands explanation. They deserve as much. For those lonely few, we who publicly dissent, the audience is scant, interest meagre, and our existence: solitary.

Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan, and wrote a memoir, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet .

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.)

*** This article has been edited to reflect Mark Twain's brief stint in the Missouri state militia, not the regular Confederate army; and the fact that Ernest Hemingway served the Red Cross during World War I.

[Sep 20, 2017] Foreign Policy Realists Hit Nerve With Establishment Elite by Andrew J. Bacevich

The problem with neocon chickenhawks is that they all want money from MIC. So their jingoism is a king of prostitution...
Notable quotes:
"... "Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power. ..."
"... Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements. ..."
"... The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens! ..."
"... Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In the September issue of Commentary, a magazine of distinguished lineage, there appears an essay bearing the title "Saving Realism from the So-Called Realists." Once upon a time, essays published by Commentary , penned by such eminences as Jeane Kirkpatrick, Hans Morgenthau, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Robert C. Tucker, shaped the debate over U.S. foreign policy. Those days have long since passed. If "Saving Realism" serves any purpose, it is to expose the intellectual exhaustion of the foreign-policy establishment. Those who fancy themselves the source of policy-relevant ideas have given up on actually thinking.

"Saving Realism" is the handiwork of Hal Brands and Peter Feaver, well-connected scholars employed by elite institutions. Brands teaches at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and, according to his bio, has "consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities." Feaver teaches at Duke University. During the George W. Bush administration, he served on the staff of the National Security Council. They are classic policy intellectuals, one foot planted in academe, the other in the corridors of power.

The chief purpose their essay is to mount a frontal assault on a group of individuals they deride as "academic realists." Of course, when not occupying positions on the fringes of power, Brands and Feaver are themselves academics. Here, however, their use of the term drips with ridicule and condescension. "Academic" becomes a synonym for naïve or wooly-headed or simply irresponsible.

To their credit, Brands and Feaver do not balk at naming names, fingering Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, Barry Posen, and Christopher Layne, prominent political scientists, as dangerous proponents of academic realism.

Take the claims made by Brands and Feaver at face value and this Gang of Four poses a direct threat not only to U.S. national security but to the very possibility to creating a decent global order. "Today's academic realists essentially argue," they write, "that the United States should dismantle the global architecture that has undergirded the international order" ever since World War II. Academic realists seek "the deliberate destruction of arrangements that have fostered international stability and prosperity for decades." They are intent on tearing down "the pillars of a peaceful and prosperous world." They are, in short, a wrecking crew.

Brands and Feaver do not explain what motivates Walt et al., to undertake this nefarious plot, merely hinting that personal pique is probably a factor. "Having lost policy arguments that they thought they should have won," on issues such as NATO expansion and invading Iraq, "academic realists decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater." They are, in effect, soreheads.

For this reason alone, their critique of U.S. policy, suggesting that since the end of the Cold War the United States has squandered a uniquely advantageous position, is without merit. So too with their complaint that in recent decades the United States has misused its military power. What academic realists are actually proposing, Brands and Feaver charge, is to "stake everything on a leap into the unknown." Their calls for greater restraint amount to little more than a pose. In reality, they advocate unvarnished recklessness.

Worse still, Brands and Feaver see worrisome signs that the Gang of Four is making headway. In Donald Trump's White House academic realism "seems to be finding a sympathetic hearing." Indeed, they write, "One of the least academic presidents in American history may, ironically, be buying into some of the most misguided doctrines of the ivory tower."

This is pretty wild stuff. Let me acknowledge that I know each member of this Gang of Four and hold them in high regard. That said, whether individually or collectively, they wield about as much clout in present-day Washington as Karl Marx.

Indeed, the reader will search "Saving Realism" in vain for evidence actually linking the Gang of Four to President Trump. To my knowledge none of the four are Trump supporters. I am unaware of any of them having endorsed the policies of the Trump administration. As for Trump himself, my bet is that he could care less about anything Walt, Mearsheimer, Posen, and Layne have to say. If our president has absorbed the Gang of Four's policy perspective, he must be doing it by osmosis.

In short, the case presented by Brands and Feaver comes precariously close to being a McCarthyite smear!guilt by association without even establishing that any association actually exists.

To which the average American citizen, tested by the trials of everyday life, might well respond: Who cares? An intramural tiff among privileged members of the professoriate might merit a panel at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. But should it qualify as a matter of general interest?

In one specific sense, perhaps it ought to. While it may not be their intended purpose, by mounting their overheated attack on "academic realism," Brands and Feaver succeed in demonstrating why genuine realism rarely receives a serious hearing inside the Beltway. The answer is simply this: Especially since the end of the Cold War, reality itself is impinging on the prerogatives to which members of the American foreign-policy establishment have grown accustomed and to the arrangements that sustain those prerogatives. It therefore becomes incumbent upon scholars who serve that establishment to deflect such threats. They do so by contriving a "reality" conducive to affirming existing prerogatives and arrangements.

Brands and Feaver do their very best to conjure up such a "reality." Having established to their own satisfaction that Trump and the Gang of Four are somehow colluding with each other, they offer their own prescription for a "reformed realism" to be built on "seven bedrock insights."

The seven insights share this common quality: They are unflaggingly banal. Yet the last of the seven manages to be both banal and immensely instructive: Realism, Brands and Feaver write, "requires not throwing away what has worked in the past."

Here we come to the heart of the matter. What exactly is the "the past" that remains relevant to the present and that provides the basis for their version of authentic (as opposed to academic) realism?

On this point, Brands and Feaver, are admirably candid. The only past that matters is the Cold War, carefully curated as a narrative of American triumphalism. Anything that happened before the Cold War qualifies as irrelevant. Cold War episodes that turned out to be less than triumphal!Vietnam, for example!receive the barest acknowledgment. As for misfortunes that may have befallen the United States since the Cold War ended almost three decades ago, Brands and Feaver shrug them off as insignificant. Sure, "the invasion and occupation of Iraq did prove far costlier than expected." But so what? Stuff happens!

Rather than get hung up on Iraq or Afghanistan or the ongoing debacle of U.S. interventionism in the Islamic world, Brands and Feaver keep their focus on the early Cold War, which they depict as a veritable Golden Age of realism and by extension of American statecraft. Peppering their account are favorable references to "Cold War-era realism" and "Cold War realists." After World War II, "realist thinkers understood that America was uniquely capable of stabilizing the international order and containing Soviet power." Back then, serious realists!in contrast to today's academic types!were the very inverse of wooly-headed. "Cold War realists were willing to see the world as it was," according to Brands and Feaver. "During the Cold War, then, realism was a supple, nuanced doctrine."

Stripped to its essentials, their argument reduces to a brazen tautology: Approaches to policy that worked during the Cold War will work today because they worked during the Cold War. Of course, the argument presumes that the world in which we live today is more or less comparable to the world that existed back in the Forties and Fifties. As to how the supple, nuanced doctrine advanced by realists during that Golden Age yielded such dubious propositions as bipolarity, the domino theory, and the bogus enterprise known as nuclear strategy, Brands and Feaver are conveniently silent.

"Contemporary academic realists," Brands and Feaver charge, "sit atop a pyramid of faulty assumptions." They themselves require no such pyramid. Their version of realism rests on just a single assumption: That history is a menu from which Americans can pick and choose. To escape from currently bothersome predicaments, in no small part the product of our folly, Brands and Feaver would have the United States choose from that menu only those bits that we find congenial. The rest we can simply ignore.

Come to think of it, that's an approach that might find favor with Donald Trump himself.


Andrew J. Bacevich is The American Conservative 's writer-at-large.

[Sep 20, 2017] The hubris, ignorance and stupidity in face of the failure of "regime change" operation in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... The truth is that it was the Americans who created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it through all these years. ..."
"... The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about fighting this Wahabi abomination. ..."
"... And then, just to make things worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS. In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined. The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens, even innocent children, shock the conscience of every decent person. No society could be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread. That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.

When I heard these words I felt embarrassed for Trump. First, it is absolutely pathetic that Trump has to claim as his success the victories with the Syrians, the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah have achieved against the Wahabi-crazies of Daesh/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/etc, especially since the latter are a pure creation of the US CIA!

The truth is that it was the Americans who created this Wahabi monster and that they aided, protected, financed, trained and armed it through all these years.

The US also viciously opposed all the countries which were serious about fighting this Wahabi abomination.

And now that a tiny Russian contingent has achieved infinitely better results that all the power of the mighty CENTCOM backed by the Israeli and Saudi allies of the US in the region, The Donald comes out and declares victory?!

Pathetic is not strong enough a word to describe this mind-bogglingly counter-factual statement.

And then, just to make things worse, The Donald *proudly* mentions the failed attack against a Syrian air force base which had nothing to do with a false flag fake chemical attack. Wow! For any other political leader recalling such an event would be a burning embarrassment, but for The Donald it is something he proudly mentions. The hubris, ignorance and stupidity of it all leaves me in total awe

[Sep 20, 2017] Sovereign Nations Is Main Theme Of Trump's UN Speech

Sovereignty is oppose of neoliberal globalization, so in a way this is an some kind of affirmation of Trump election position. How serious it is is not clear. Probably not much as Imperial faction now controls Trump, making him more of a marionette that a political leader of the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. ..."
"... The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in. ..."
"... There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told". ..."
"... "The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in" ..."
"... The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had. ..."
"... He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion. ..."
"... Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011. ..."
"... How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces. ..."
"... Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology ..."
"... I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open. ..."
"... Trump - the Republican Obama ..."
"... "The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality. ..."
"... The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?" ..."
"... it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. ..."
"... Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are ..."
"... baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking. ..."
"... In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. ..."
Sep 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Today the President of the United States Donald Trump spoke (rush transcript) to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech's main the me was sovereignty. The word occurs 18(!) times. It emphasized Westphalian principles .

[W]e do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties, to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation

All leaders of countries should always put their countries first, he said, and "the nation state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition ."


The Ratification of the Treaty of Münster, 15 May 1648 - bigger

Sovereignty was the core message of his speech. It rhymed well with his somewhat isolationist emphasis of "America first" during his campaign. The second part of the speech the first by threatened the sovereignty of several countries the U.S. ruling class traditionally dislikes. This year's "axis of evil" included North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and Cuba:

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime. The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary."

Many people will criticize that as an outrageous and irresponsible use of words. It is. But there is nothing new to it. In fact the U.S., acting on behalf of the UN, totally destroyed Korea in the 1950s. The last U.S. president made the same threat Trump made today:

President Barack Obama delivered a stern warning to North Korea on Tuesday, reminding its "erratic" and "irresponsible" leader that America's nuclear arsenal could "destroy" his country.

The South Korean military sounds equally belligerent :

A military source told the Yonhap news agency every part of Pyongyang "will be completely destroyed by ballistic missiles and high-explosives shells". ... The city, the source said, "will be reduced to ashes and removed from the map".

Trump labeled the Syrian government "the criminal regime of Bashar al Assad." The "problem in Venezuela", he said, is "that socialism has been faithfully implemented." He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos." He forgot to mention pistachios . The aim of such language and threats is usually to goad the other party into some overt act that can than be used as justification for "retaliation". But none of the countries Trump mentioned is prone to such behavior. They will react calmly - if at all. There was essentially nothing in Trump's threats than the claptrap the last two U.S. presidents also delivered. Trump may be crazy, but the speech today is not a sign of that.

The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in.

Posted by b on September 19, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink

somebody | Sep 19, 2017 1:32:33 PM | 2
There is no emphasis on sovereignty b. Trump says that Russia's and China' threat to the sovereignty of countries is bad but the sovereignty of small countries the US does not like is somehow threatened by these countries themselves. Which I interpret as a threat - "you endanger yourself if you don't do as told".
If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent. We must protect our nations, their interests and their futures. We must reject threats to sovereignty from the Ukraine to the South China Sea. We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.

And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threatens us with chaos, turmoil, and terror. The score of our planet today is small regimes that violate every principle that the United Nations is based. They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries. If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph. When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.

b | Sep 19, 2017 1:51:10 PM | 3
@1 somebody - thanks - link corrected.

@2 somebody - yes, unaimed hostile prose from the speechwriter. Such is in the speech of every U.S. president. But it is not the general theme of the Trump speech when one reads it as one piece. The weight is put in the other direction (though the media will likely point to the threats instead of reading the more extraordinary parts where Trump pushes national sovereignty.)

Luther Blissett | Sep 19, 2017 1:53:43 PM | 4
  • "sovereign nation" = a country that obeys the US over its own interests
  • "rogue nation" = a country that has actual sovereignty

If there is more to this than the usual US double-speak, I don't see it.

james | Sep 19, 2017 1:57:07 PM | 5
thanks b... ''the criminal regime of donald trump'' is much more on target....
Perimetr | Sep 19, 2017 2:02:47 PM | 6
"The stressing of sovereignty and the nation state in part one was the point where Trump indeed differed from his interventionist predecessors. But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in"

It appears that his generals are instructing him what to "believe in". At least, he certainly doesn't seem to "believe in" most of his campaign promises, not unlike his recent predecessors. The whole "democracy and freedom" thing in the US is just a charade, as far as I am concerned.

financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
The word sovereignty has taken on different and sinister implications with the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005. The US pushed for this and it squeaked by and they used it to justify the invasion of Libya in 2011. I think Libya was a major turning point. I don't think Russia and Iran are going to back off easily. (I originally posted this in 2015 at another site) The US also seems to have pretty much lost what humanitarian clout they may have had.

I think this was a very good interview of Vijay Prashadby by Chris Hedges

Prashad

He talks about the period from 1989 when we had the Panama invasion and collapse of the Soviet Union as leading to an unleashing of US military power leading to the Iraq War in 2003. This war serious dented the image of the US as being a humanitarian actor and the US pushed for the UN Responsibility to Protect Act in 2005 which was used to justify the Libya invasion.

Prashad sees the results of that invasion and what is going on now in Syria as reflecting that the period 2011-2015 is seeing the end of this US unipolarism that lasted from 1989 to 2011.

--------

The good news is that Syria is turning out much different than Libya. Would be great to see the US cooperate with the China/Russia etc economic goals rather than stirring up trouble in the Phillippines, Myanmar etc. The first test will be to see if Trump can deliver single payer health care to the US. :) ie start to back off on the anti socialism rhetoric

Jeff Kaye | Sep 19, 2017 2:24:19 PM | 8
The "nation state" brought us the millions slaughtered in World War 1. The nation states threatened by the internationalist communist ideology of the USSR (in its early days) ultimately brought us World War 2. The hypertrophied nation state that is the United States of America will bring us World War 3 in its drive to secure its total supremacy. Luckily for us, there will be no World War 4.
Christophe Douté | Sep 19, 2017 2:27:49 PM | 9
How can a country A be "forced to defend itself" by a country B so weak comparatively to country A it can actually be "totally destroyed" by country A?

How can Trump believe in defending Westphalia Treaty principles, sovereignty and the nation state, when US policy in the Arab world consists in destroying all these? This is rather like Warren Buffett lamenting that American billionaires are so rich, and pay less taxes than their secretaries. They are just laughing at us in our faces.

Robert Beal | Sep 19, 2017 2:34:28 PM | 10
beyond hypocrisy, refined doublespeak
OJS | Sep 19, 2017 2:40:10 PM | 11
Sound more or less like Hussein Obomo address at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 24, 2013 - America is exceptional ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HT5BjNDg5W0 No wonder Putin and Xi did not care to attend. Anyway Putin winning in Syria and Xi gaining in economic, science and technology
Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 2:43:24 PM | 12
The United Nations is based upon the equal sovereignty of nations.
--from the UN Charter --
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations
Krollchem | Sep 19, 2017 2:46:18 PM | 13
Trump's speech seemed to represent an ignorant mouthy bully with a big stick who is threatening any nation he is told to hate. I have to agree with Paveway IV that Trump is just the announcer. The "national sovereignty" comments were just for internal consumption for his base of supporters.

The "Trump world: appears to be getting very crazy given the agendas of the people who handle Trump:
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_77417.shtml
http://www.unz.com/jpetras/who-rules-america-2/

To a major extent Trump's focus on the "great leader" of countries opposed to the US helps simplify the hate for the "little people" in the US. They have not noticed that the US (as in most other Western countries) has many mini "great leaders" who work toward the same goals while distracting the "little people" with political theatre.

Linda O | Sep 19, 2017 3:05:11 PM | 14
I really don't know what the purpose of this rambling threat to the rest of the world was supposed to accomplish.

Yes, it really was nothing new. The fundamental material of the speech was the very same garbage written by the same Washington establishment of previous administrations - essentially the nuclear armed US regime is 'special' and reserves the right to attack and destroy any country it chooses to.

While the Trump speech is rightly being both ridiculed around the world, what is very scary is the humiliated Trump base is seizing on it.

The Trump base is begging for their failed 'God Emperor' to attack someone to feel better about their own humiliation.

Very, very scary.

Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 3:10:41 PM | 15
Sovereignty is also an excuse for US intervention, get it? . . .Trump does....
America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests, and their well-being, including their prosperity.
duplicitousdemocracy | Sep 19, 2017 3:27:35 PM | 16
His speechwriters deserve to be fired and the text size on both teleprompters should have been increased. Alternatively, he should wear glasses (along with a more suitably fitted toupee). Sarah Palin would seem like Einstein at the side of this clown.
Ort | Sep 19, 2017 3:32:27 PM | 17
Trump's speech is Orwellian! Not just generally-- it is arguably an elaboration of a close paraphase of an Orwell quote, to wit: "All nations are sovereign, but some nations are more sovereign than others."

I have a strongly ambivalent reaction to Trump's UN appearance-- although I confess that I can only stand to watch and listen to him for brief time periods. It's appalling and embarrassing to watch any of the US's seemingly inexhaustible supply of lizard-brained degenerates at the UN. But part of me thinks it's better to have the quintessential Ugly Amerikan beating his chest and engaging in rhetorical feces-flinging. At least the rest of the world won't be bamboozled, the way they might be by a smooth, silver-tongued liar.

likklemore | Sep 19, 2017 3:50:54 PM | 18
@OJS 11

Putin, Xi and other leaders did not attend this year's UN gathering. They are busy attending the affairs of their citizens.

We are being distracted from the game changer ahead – de-dollarization now on the fast track.
While the toothless dog barks,

Putin orders to end trade in US dollars at Russian seaports

https://www.rt.com/business/403804-russian-sea-ports-ruble-settlements/

This is on the heels of Trump's threatening to exclude China from use of SWIFT (the USD) and China's gold yuan oil futures contract coming mid October as opposed to USD. The petro-yuan is a game changer; hitting the petro-dollar hegemony that keeps the dollar in worldwide demand.

The toothless dog has only his bark. Are Americans prepared for hyper-inflation?

psychohistorian | Sep 19, 2017 4:08:53 PM | 19
I agree with other commenters about the Orwellian nature of the speech. Sovereignty is an interesting word to abuse and I expect we will see more abuse of it. How can the US ever be a sovereign nation when it does not own its own financial system? But in the interim all other aspects of sovereignty will be examined but not global private finance.....unless the China/Russia axis hand is forced into the open.

The abuse of the term sovereignty by Trump is part of a crafted Big Lie message. Just like Trump linking to the poster of him, with a rope over his shoulder, dragging a barge of companies back to America......the internationalism genie will never go completely back into the bottle and is counterproductive to all.

Christian Chuba | Sep 19, 2017 4:46:02 PM | 20
John Bolton and the moron, Sean Hannity, love the speech. That should be all anyone needs to know. It was Orwellian, super-villain, double-speak.
If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.
Madman. How has Iran violated the U.N. charter? They were invited into Iraq and Syria by the UN recognized govts. Okay, they make veiled threats against Israel, they get a demerit for that. Even if you argue that they are 'predicting' rather can 'threatening to cause' Israel's demise, I'd take that as a veiled threat. But Israel makes equally hostile comments towards Iran albeit, in a passive / aggressive manner. Netanyahu, 'We recognize Iran's right to exist but truth be told the planet, no wait, the entire universe itself would be better off if they disappeared'.
Jackrabbit | Sep 19, 2017 5:02:50 PM | 21
Trump - the Republican Obama
Jackrabbit | Sep 19, 2017 5:12:32 PM | 22
If you like your sovereignty, you can keep your sovereignty.
Andy | Sep 19, 2017 5:12:41 PM | 23
Well, it has finally arrived at the U.N. speech. Trump is showing his real colors, whether they are forced or were originally his own. It doesn't matter. He is spouting the same nonsenze as the neocons and the rest of them. He has crossed over - he maybe never knew the way through, but was only parroting other's views. He is clearly a chameleon, willing to change his stripes on a dime. The man is darkly lost in the woods, or is it the swamp?
chet380 | Sep 19, 2017 5:26:05 PM | 24
Sorry, somewhat off-topic --

While there have been hints that the Rohingya "rebels" are receiving funds from expatriates in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, is there anything concrete that connects the CIA to the rebels?

Laguerre | Sep 19, 2017 5:42:58 PM | 25
Frankly Trump is a big mouth, but there's no evidence that he's more than that. If he wanted war, we'd already be there. It's different from Saddam in the old days, who went to war within a year of becoming leader, or the Saudi crown prince, Muhammad bin Salman, who launched the war against Yemen.

59 Tomahawks, that's the style. I haven't seen different from then.

Taxi | Sep 19, 2017 5:46:38 PM | 26
Hypocrisy - huuuge hypocrisy, believe me it was tremendous hypocrisy!
mcohen | Sep 19, 2017 5:47:45 PM | 27
trump is mr thunder thump
Bart in VA | Sep 19, 2017 5:50:25 PM | 28
He called Iran "an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos."

Like the pundits who shadow him, he really has no understanding of irony.

Bart in VA | Sep 19, 2017 5:52:58 PM | 29
#4 - "Failed State" - A country too poor for us to exploit.
Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:01:13 PM | 30
The advantage of having Trump around is that he seems to diffuse energy. He is not building a case against N. Korea like Bush did with Iraq, but instead he is big on bluster. There is no appeal to the emotions of people and their fears and as such he is not marketing it, something he knows a lot about. In his own way I believe he is defusing the situation by talking big but remebering Bannon's comments when he left. And as a consummate player at the table of power (unlike the novice Obama) he has his status.

What interests me is Tillerson and the State Department and its attitude to Israel. Syria is where Israel met its match and was soundly thrashed. The world will never be the same again, And the State Department is recognizing this reality. I think there is a recognition in certain powerful quarters that whole neocon-Zionist shit has got America nowhere. As Talking Heads said, "We're on the road to nowhere."

Extra | Sep 19, 2017 6:12:58 PM | 31
Andy@23
It's the swamp. Sounds like Pete Seeger's 'Waist deep in the Big Muddy' all over again.
Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:15:58 PM | 32
The speech (it reminds me on movie The Kings Speech https://youtu.be/PPLIw64rLJc TERRIBLE MOVIE) is for internal the US purpose, for Amerikkaans. Majority of them, according to the Gov. media outlets, support military action against DPRK and mostly likely against Iran (the most hatred nation by far) as well. Amerikkaans will support any crime anywhere and probably destruction of whole planet Earth.

In the same time his words and deeds are the most irrelevant of any US presidents. I bet he never heard of that word "sovereignty" before nor for "nation state". This morning when Trump woke up some member of National Security Council put sheet of paper with the speech on his desk and tell him "Read this!". Just as they did to Obama in many occasions, one of example is this: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/may/04/obama-drinks-flint-water-video

There some people in the US who knows what is going on:

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/redefining-winning-afghanistan-22176

For all the very considerable expense, however, the American military does not have a very impressive record of achieving victory. It has won no wars since 1945!especially if victory is defined as achieving an objective at acceptable cost!except against enemy forces that essentially didn't exist.
james | Sep 19, 2017 6:24:49 PM | 33
@7 financial matters.. good comment and relevant.. i agree with you.. unipolar no more.. however, not quite multipolar yet either... we are still in a transitional place.. syria is no libya fortunately.. but causing this kind of shit around the globe is what the usa is known for.. they will continue to make war projects, especially if you believe as b notes a couple of threads ago - trump is no longer calling the shots.. it is military guys full on..
Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:26:51 PM | 34
@ 52

I rather liked the film "The King's Speech because it was about speech. Your English is fucking awful Chancey, not good enough for this forum. Get some lessons and come back.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:28:50 PM | 35
@Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:26:51 PM | 34

Read this Nazi. https://www.sprottmoney.com/Blog/actions-of-a-bully-child-or-dying-empire-sanctions-and-threats-rory-hall.html

"The sanction game is over. It's only the dying empire of the Federal Reserve, ECB, Wall Street, City of London and their military strong arm operating in the Pentagon that have yet to accept this new reality.

The days of bullying nations and simply bombing them into submission is over as well. Russia and China have made it very clear this is no longer acceptable and Russia has all but shut down the operations in Syria. The "ISIS" boogeyman is surrounded and fleeing into Asia and recently showed up in the Philippines. The fact that a group of desert dwellers acquired an ocean going vessel should be enough evidence to even the most brain-dead these desert dwellers are supported by outside forces – like the CIA Otherwise, from where did the ship(s) materialize?"

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:29:56 PM | 36
Lochearn | Sep 19, 2017 6:26:51 PM | 34

You like a movie. Of course, it is for morons.

Lozion | Sep 19, 2017 6:38:33 PM | 37
Comment @4 is spot on..
Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:39:43 PM | 38
@Lochearn aka Nazi

I recognize you from before, but how do you like these links?

https://www.sprottmoney.com/Blog/actions-of-a-bully-child-or-dying-empire-sanctions-and-threats-rory-hall.html

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/redefining-winning-afghanistan-22176

Where have you raised, under rock or in cave?

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 6:51:12 PM | 39
For a Nazi. A question, do you believe in science? Here is one. But does one need to be scientist to figure this out?"The Rise of Incivility and Bullying in America"

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201207/the-rise-incivility-and-bullying-in-america

you are lost case anyway but here is good text from fellow Amerikkaan. But "Rise" from where? I would argue not from Zero but from 60 on scale of 100.

Agree?

karlof1 | Sep 19, 2017 6:56:49 PM | 40
Violating the sovereign sanctity of nations is what the Outlaw US Empire has done without parallel since the United Nation's formation. One of those nations was Vietnam, and a somewhat respected documentary film maker looks like he's going to try--again--to pull wool over the eyes of his intended audience by trying to legitimate the Big Lie that provided the rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's illegal war against Vietnam. The detailed argument regarding Ken Burns's effort to "correct" the actual historical record can be read here, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/19/getting-the-gulf-of-tonkin-wrong-are-ken-burns-and-lynn-novick-telling-stories-about-the-central-events-used-to-legitimize-the-us-attack-against-vietnam/ and it is probably the sort of history Trump would enjoy since he doesn't seem to know any better.
Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 7:09:16 PM | 41
@Lochearn aka Nazi

How many nick/names do you have? You may hide under this and that stupid but your associations are still here. You stay stupid. I know, I know the truth hurts. You Amerikkaans are not used to it. Go and watch a porn, before de-dollarization is in full swing. Than you are going to stave to death, no more credit cards and quantitative easing. That's is Trump's speech for.

https://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Happened-to-All-Those-by-Jim-Hightower-Banksters_Homeownership_Housing-170819-119.html

Wall Street bought them -- and is now leasing them out and driving up rents.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 7:13:05 PM | 42
Oh my terrible English. Forgive me, would you?

Instead "stave" should be "starve".

All this has to do with shitty Europe, Germany first and foremost.

MadMax2 | Sep 19, 2017 7:14:02 PM | 43
Posted by: financial matters | Sep 19, 2017 2:22:58 PM | 7
Nice interview from a couple of years back. Prashad's worldview is worthy of reposting. Enjoyable. Cheers.

US Americans might have proved themselves very adept at destroying both nation states and the English language, though it will be Syria who restores true meaning to the word 'sovereign' - with some collective help of course.

The almost failed state will emerge from this steeled with a sense of identity, pride and purpose. The minnow that refused to buckle.

The Don putting together some performances that finally warrant the unified, rabid reaction from the press....

Oilman2 | Sep 19, 2017 7:42:50 PM | 44
"But its still difficult to judge if that it is something he genuinely believes in."

Are you serious? Everything coming out of DC is still the same - sanctions against other sovereign countries who do not tow the line the US demands, cruise missiles for the little guys, disavowing and de-legitimizing the JCPOA, unrelenting 'freedom of navigation' patrols, threats to cut nations off from the SWIFT system, every word out of Nikki Haleys' mouth... It's really easy to go on and on, and his first year isn't even done.

The amount of disrespect for other sovereign nations by the USA is mind boggling, and that is only the official stuff. Throw in CIA ops and NGO ops and there you have an entire other level of the failure to recognize sovereignty.

Can you send me some of what you are smoking? Because it obviously makes you oblivious to the obvious, and that may help my mood...

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 7:48:40 PM | 45
Obviously, the UN has became an arena of the one country show and that country puppets. Zionist PM, the West most "faithful ally" on Middle East, and his speech. Mix of infantilism, rhetoric and implicit racism of "God Chosen People". And sea of self-congratulating lies.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47844.htm

In par with Trump's speech.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 7:56:52 PM | 46
Oilman2!

is that you?

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 8:05:13 PM | 47
What is Trump's speech for?

Senate backs massive increase in military spending
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense-congress/senate-backs-massive-increase-in-military-spending-idUSKCN1BT2PV

V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 8:12:32 PM | 48
karlof1 | Sep 19, 2017 6:56:49 PM | 40

Great comment re: Vietnam. The Ken Burns documentary is just one more fairy tale of the U.S. involvement/war in Vietnam.
Among the many myths, foremost is that Ho Chi Minh was a communist; he most assuredly was not. Yes, he was a member of the party in France, but it is irrelevent to history (Ho was a nationalist).
Did you know he tried to engage FDR?
Below is a remarkable interview with John Pilger on the real history of the U.S. and Vietnam; it ain't pretty. Even Mao tried to engage the U.S., which the U.S. duly ignored.

https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/403760-nuclear-standoff-crisis-china/

PavewayIV | Sep 19, 2017 8:12:34 PM | 49
Why is everyone hating on Trump? Be realistic: sometimes you have to genocide 25 million people to save them. We're the God damn hero here - you bastards should be thanking the USA.

Well, I guess we're really not trying to save the North Koreans at all. But they refuse to leave the buffer zone (all of North Korea) that is protecting the world from red Chinese expansion south. Worse than that, the North Koreans insist on protecting themselves BY FORCE from the US. How evil is that?

Reminds me of those evil Syrians and Iraqis who refuse to vacate the buffer zone protecting Israel from Iran. The nerve!

Only US lapdog nations have the right to defend themselves - as long as its with US-made weapons and they're protecting themselves from anybody except the US. And we get to build US bases on their soil. Who wouldn't want that? Because the US is... what did Trump say... RIGHTEOUS. You know:

"...good, virtuous, upright, upstanding, decent; ethical, principled, moral, high-minded, law-abiding, honest, honorable, blameless, irreproachable, noble; saintly, angelic, pure..."

Tell me which one of those synonyms DOES NOT apply to the US? I prefer 'angelic'.

The first thing psychopaths do when they attain any measure of power and control is to redefine evil as anything that threatens their power and control. Then constantly hammer that threat into the minds of the little people so the little people don't think too hard about stringing them up from the lamp posts.

Everything the US has done in my lifetime has been about preserving and protecting the US government no matter how corrupt, evil or immoral it acts. Protecting the people is only given lip service when it can be used to justify further protections for the state. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security Stazi is probably the end stage for full-spectrum dominance over the little people - it is slowly morphing (as planned) into a federal armed force to protect the US government FROM the little people. I guess the FBI wasn't up to the task.

"The government you elect is the government you deserve" Thomas Jefferson, Founding Terrorist.

V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 8:14:56 PM | 50
PavewayIV | Sep 19, 2017 8:12:34 PM | 49

Spot on...

Krollchem | Sep 19, 2017 8:26:44 PM | 51
Chauncey Gardiner@ 32

Do you agree that to point of National Interest article seem to be that the US is not capable of invading and controlling non-European countries?

I did find the Cato Institute author to be very poorly informed about the US invasions of Granada and Panama, the Balkan wars, the Kosovo invasion and the Syrian war.

As for ISIS, the author does not know anything about the incubation of ISIS by the US administrations and the Libyan war (Hillary/Obama/Sarkozy) connection . He also does not discuss the billions in military hardware that the US allowed ISIS to capture in Iraq.

As for the US efforts they are more about preventing the formation of an integrated economic sphere between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanese Republic. The war efforts by the US in fighting ISIS are minimal compared to the Syrian and Russian efforts, yet he lies by omission to pump up the US efforts. At least he didn't attempt to praise Turkey (sic) for their efforts in cutting off aid to ISIS and Al Qaeda (under all its names).

Remember that the Cato Institute is another flavor of the NGO spider supporting the deep state!

Please understand that this is not a personal attack as I am here to learn and share.

John Gilberts | Sep 19, 2017 8:44:57 PM | 52
Canada's Trudeau will follow Trump at the UN on Thursday. Today he received an award from the Atlantic Council: 'Worldwide the long established international order is being tested..' And obviously the sexy northern selfie-king knows his place in it...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Kp49TFRMR8g
Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 8:51:24 PM | 53
@ 49
Yes, to save the 25 million North Koreans the US must destroy them!

"No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea. It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more."
. ..but there are limits. . .

"The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea."

So give me that "no more contempt" line again, Donald? (Personally, I can't imagine Hillary doing any less. So much for elections.)

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 8:56:49 PM | 54
"Why is everyone hating on Trump?" Preposterous. You give him too much importance. He is rather the object of ridicule.

"The word occurs 18(!) times."

While the word Sovereignty

Maybe by accident maybe not just conspicuous coincidence. But it seems to me with Trump an era of so-called globalization has come to its end. With self-inflicted wounds ($20T Gov. debt) and new president who is (initially) inward looking, it is time to talk about old stuff. As if the US statehood has been in question for a moment. Old trick of capitalist class.

Chauncey Gardiner | Sep 19, 2017 9:04:30 PM | 55
I was looking for Putin and Sovereignty and I've found this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-uses-putins-arguments-to-undermine-the-world
nonsense factory | Sep 19, 2017 9:21:01 PM | 56
File under "propaganda for domestic consumption"

Targeting Iran was never about nuclear weapons (the U.S. let Pakistan expand its nuclear weapons program without interfering, despite knowing all about the AQ Khan network, because Pakistan was cooperating with the U.S. agenda in Afghanistan and elsewhere), it was about the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (during the GW Bush era) and the expansion of economic ties with Syria (during the Obama era).

Now, with the easing of sanctions, Iran's pipeline deals have been revived, such as Iran-Pakistan, or Iran-India (undersea) , Iran-Europe, with China and Russia and Turkey as potential partners. Meanwhile, the proposed TAPI pipeline backed by the Clinton, Bush & Obama State Departments, as well as Chevron and Exxon, from Turkmenistan to the Indian Ocean, is still held up due to instability in Afghanistan (i.e. the Taliban would immediately blow it up). Obama's 30,000 troop surge to 100,000 couldn't solve that, and the recent Trump troop surge (much smaller) will have little effect on that either.
TAPI pipe dreams continue, Sep 17 2017

There's no way Trump or Tillerson would ever be honest about this in an international forum, any more than Obama and Clinton would, or Bush and Condi Rice, but it's the same old "great game" for Central Asian oil and gas that's dominated U.S. regional foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 9:26:11 PM | 57
@ 54/55
Of course countries subjected to senseless US sanctions, like Russia, are concerned with sovereignty. They are subject to baseless economic attacks by the country that controls world banking.
b4real | Sep 19, 2017 10:12:08 PM | 59
[throws meat to the lions] Orlov has a great read up
Debsisdead | Sep 19, 2017 10:16:10 PM | 60
It is foolish to consider the trumpet's lunatic ravings in isolation, according to that organ of empire foreign policy dot com , the amerikan airforce is ready and rearing to go and blast the bejeezuz outta North Korea.
Sure it may be bluster when they come out with seeming tosh like:
""We're ready to fight tonight," Gen. Robin Rand, commander of the Air Force's Global Strike Command, told reporters at an Air Force conference in Washington on Monday. "We don't have to spin up, we're ready.""

Because everyone knows that a manned tactical airforce is on the way out, that bombing a population has only ever served to strengthen resolve within that population, but the first point that the airforce of jocks n fighters is verging on obsolescence, might just drive the generals of middle management, concerned that their career is about to hit a brick wall, to go for one last roll of the dice. Blow some shit up, create a few heroes and maybe the inevitable can be staved off for long enough for their scum to rise to the surface, jag a great gig with a contractor, then retire in luxury. I mean to say it's gotta be worth a shot right? The alternative of layoffs and all the sexy fighting stuff being done by unsexy drones, is just too awful to consider.

So what if Guam gets wasted, a good memorial at Arlington will balance that shit and when it is all said and done, most of the people who will get nuked by DPRK aren't amerikans - but here's the best bit, we can sell them to the idjits just like they were, while we build the anger and bloodlust, then backpedal on that when it comes down to lawsuits, compensation or whatever it is those whale-fuckers whine about - right?

A pre-emptive attack based on the possibility that DPRK hasn't yet developed nuke tech sufficiently, but will do so "if we continue to sit on our asses" would be an easy sell to an orange derp whose access to alternative points of view has been cut off.
The only real question is whether the rest of the military (the non-airforce parts) go for it.
The navy likely will because they are in the same boat (pun intended) as the airforce when it comes down to usefulness as a front line conflict agent and they too will likely get a role to play in the destruction of North Korea - at the very least as a weapons platform (just like with the mindless Syria aggression) and may even get to be the forward C&C base since South Korea isn't mobile and may cop a fair amount of DPRK reaction.

Only the army for whom a pre emptive attack on the people of North Korea has little upside, but lots of downside, may oppose this insane butchery. The army will be tasked with neutralising a population whose innate loathing of all things amerikan has just been raised by about ten notches. So soon after the Iraq debacle, they may see an attack as all negative in that once again they will cop the blame and even worse the old enemies - the airforce and navy - will come out smelling like roses. It is true that the bulk of the yellow monkey's 'advisors' are army types, so under normal circumstances they would obstruct any such bullshit grabs for the brass ring by the navy & airforce upstarts - but there is a high probability that the army leadership will do no such thing.
The reason for that is as old as humanity itself and I was sad to see that it copped little mention in the last thread about the 'soft' coup at the whitehouse.

Many people were cheering the takeover by the military doubtless the same people who imagine that "amerika could be great again - if only we go back to the way it was in the 1950's and 60's". What they miss is that everything is fluid; nothing is held in stasis as a proof that perfection has been reached. The 'eisenhower/johnson years were merely steps on the path, the world was never gonna stay in white bourgeois contentment no matter whether unwhites kicked up or not. There are diverse reasons for that from ambitious careerism forcing change so a lucky few can ascend one more rung on the ladder, to the reality that it is impossible for all humans to be content all the time -some groups will be disadvantaged, advertise that then be 'adopted' by careerists as an excuse for forcing change. That is inevitable - as inevitable as the reality that once the military gained power, their next move would be to consolidate it and to try ensure that they kept it for ever.

In other words the initial coup may have been largely bloodless (altho several million dead mid easterners would strongly disagree if they could) but any study of human behavior reveals that it is the need to hold on to power which is what really incites oppression violence and mass murder.
The Pennsylvania Avenue generals understand that the simplest way of retaining control is gonna be if the orange 'whipped* gains re-election. If the orange chunder is gonna win the next one he needs to hit some home runs and have a lot less ties or outright defeats.

At this stage it doesn't matter what turkey kicked up the Korea bizzo, or even it it has any moral dimension at all, what matters is that the trumpet has made it a major issue and if he doesn't 'prevail' in the short-term, the odds of him retaining support much less gaining more support, are gone - very likely for the duration of the tangerine prezdency. It's not as if the ME situation offers the slightest chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Syria is history now and that Iran thing has a good chance of dividing europe from amerika, just as climate change has. I reckon that the junta who, individually & institutionally have a big investment in Nato, will be looking to steer the orange nit away from inciting a confrontation over the nuke deal. Korea could be the alternate shiny thing the junta draws trumpet's attention to in order to distract the dingbat.

So even though it is a total cleft stick that the junta is in, I reckon it is extremely probable that the army branch of the amerikan government will allow the airforce and possibly the navy as well, their moment in the sun.

The way this fuckwittery is shaping up, people of Korea are more likely to be enduring Predators up their jacksies than not, before the end of "the summer of '18'

*anyone who doesn't see that the trumpet displays all the signs (boasting of alleged performance, number of 'conquests' size of penis etc) of a man who is unable to have his voice heard above the demands of the women around him, doesn't comprehend the nature of inter-gender relationships (doncha love 'inter-gender' it sounds exactly like the type of pallid word the identity-ists would use heheh).

Forest | Sep 19, 2017 10:45:08 PM | 61
Ah sovereignty vs. solvency.

There's the rub.

V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 10:47:15 PM | 62
Debsisdead | Sep 19, 2017 10:16:10 PM | 60

The main problem I have with your post is China. You do not say anything about China. The Chinese made it clear that if the U.S. pre-emptively attacks the DPRK; China will get involved; and I should think Russia will be somehow involved as well. Moon Jae-In has told the U.S. it (SK) will be the one to decide on an attack, as it should.

But, I do get your drift; I just hope the U.S. will not act...for once. That said; I do think the U.S. lost its tether decades ago...

V. Arnold | Sep 19, 2017 11:00:10 PM | 63
The other possiblity the U.S. won't attack DPRK is that the U.S., cowardly as it is; hasn't attacked a country of any military consequence since WWII.
Don Bacon | Sep 19, 2017 11:36:48 PM | 64
There's one little factor about getting it on with DPRK, besides the ones mentioned, and that is that SecDef Gates several years ago declared that Korea was safe enough to allow it to be an accompanied tour, i.e. soldiers could have their families join them in the Land of the Morning Calm. This coincided with the consolidation of US bases, with a ten billion dollar expansion of Camp Humphreys about seventy miles south of the DMZ. So now we have high-rise apartments with wives, kids, pets, etc. in this "safe" place, now 35,000 strong including all. They practice evacuation. From a recent report --

The noncombatant evacuation operations, or NEO, are aimed at making sure everybody knows their roles in the event of a noncombatant evacuation, which may be ordered in the event of war, political or civil unrest, or a natural or man-made disaster. "I liken the NEO operation to being a scaffolding. It's not a fully fleshed out plan because it's preparing for a million different worst-case scenarios," 1st Lt. Katelyn Radack, a spokeswoman for the 2nd Combat Aviation Brigade, told Stars and Stripes. ... Brandy Madrigal, 32, was participating in her third NEO -- so she knew exactly what to pack when she got the call to report to the Assembly Point at the main gym at Camp Humphreys on June 5. She ticked off the list -- clothes, food for the kids, documents, phone, toiletries -- before driving with her two children from their first-floor apartment to the base to be processed.

Imagine that -- all those people assembling in one place for "processing." They'd get processed, all right. So the US Army won't be red-hot for the mighty US Air Force to (again) conduct its aerial murder in North Korea, with their loved ones being in rocket range of a counter-attack. That's in addition to any feelings people have for the ten million plus South Koreans in Seoul, close to the border.

Stumpy | Sep 19, 2017 11:54:05 PM | 65
Karlof @ 40

re: Ken Burns Viet Nam -- one only has to look at the sponsors. Burns will cleave to the line only more so. Darling of the aristocratic charities. Somehow reaching the glory 50 years later. Now that Agent Orange has nearly completed the harvest.

Action against Iran and NK, could it really be termed "war", anymore?

ben | Sep 20, 2017 12:16:54 AM | 66
Luther Blissett @ 4 said:"sovereign nation" = a country that obeys the US over its own interests

"rogue nation" = a country that has actual sovereignty

Succinct but true..

The fucking hypocrisy in that UN speech takes my breath away. Trump and his mannerisms sure do remind me of "il Duce".

Debsisdead | Sep 20, 2017 12:19:55 AM | 67
@ V Arnold # 62

I deliberately left China outta the equation because the conflict with DPRK will be engineered to be kicked off with a provocation allegedly committed by DRPK, amerika will 'respond' andthe war will quickly escalate. Yes PRC may become involved, but getting into a war with amerika right now is not great for the PRC either, if the most vital concern is the proximity of amerikan troops to the China border, amerika can give an agreement signed in blood that amerikan military will pull back behind the 38th parallel once the 'regime has been changed' and that only Korean men and equipment will remain.

Of course China would be smart to distrust that but sold correctly with incentives and maybe even the use of some mutually trusted referee, China might decide that is a superior option to kicking off ww3.

As for the enlisted mens families somehow I doubt that the military cares any more about them than it does the men and women they have in their forces - so not very much - smart officer class types will be considering the need to 'further their children's education back home' right now, whether or not the trump decides to go for broke. As I pointed out before, the plan will require that DRPK feels trapped into committing some type of really egregious provocation, or false flagging such a provocation.

Imagine Guam got nuked and all initial evidence pointed to DRPK, China is in a tough spot plus most amerikans will be of the opinion that protecting the families in South Korean barracks comes second to vengeance. That would be an easy sell on fox and msnbc.

Amerika seemingly being attacked is also gonna end msnbc & the rest's potshots at the orange derp, just as 911 halted just about all reference to the view shrub stole the election from Gore in the MSM.

Linda O | Sep 20, 2017 12:20:32 AM | 68
Ignoring Trump.

What scares me the most about the US regime's threats to attack and destroy North Korea is I had naively assumed that all the talk was just the standard game theory back and forth. There never was any real threat beyond the occasional minor incident like there have been in the past few decades.

And I didn't understand why China would so openly and absolutely support North Korea with any sort of attack by the US regime.

But then I read some of the neocon online postings or writings about North Korea and it was a sickening shock to realize that I had been so foolish to believe the Korean crisis was not about Korea, but China.

Getting the US regime's military directly on the Chinese border is something the neocons are perfectly willing, and most likely gleefully happy, to trade millions to tens of millions of North and South Korean lives for.

I can't imagine the revulsion and horror the rest of the world must be feeling towards the United States right now.

Nuff Sed | Sep 20, 2017 12:33:07 AM | 69
Talking of Westphalia... Here is an excerpt from an article of mine which which appeared in the Vineyard of the Saker's site earlier this year:
https://thesaker.is/sacred-communities-and-the-emergent-multipolar-landscape/

The German philosopher and sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855 – 1936) distinguished between two types of social groupings. Gemeinschaft (often translated as community or left untranslated) and Gesellschaft (often translated as society). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft describe the crucial distinction between community and "Civil Society"; community being characterized by a dispensationalist consensus or a sacred communal consensus on a dispensation sent down from on high, and the latter being characterized as a consensus to "agree to disagree" and to agree that a consensus in any meaningful form can no longer be reached, paving the way to a "conventional" polity (agreed to by secular-humanist convention). This "agreement to disagree" which crystalized between the Peace of Augsburg (1555) and the Peace of Westphalia (1644 – 1648) was, in effect, the West's long and excruciating decision to throw out the baby of Community with the bathwater of the Church's malfeasance in the revolutionary fervor of the Reformation and the "Enlightenment" that followed in its wake. But whereas the integrality of church and state was lost with the Peace of Westphalia circa 1648 whereat pre-Westphalian communities gave way to the Westphalian order of "Civil Societies", the Islamic Revolution of 1979 restored community to the Moslem nation of Iran.

psychohistorian | Sep 20, 2017 12:49:38 AM | 70
I posted this comment over in the latest Syria summary thread but then thought that it belongs here as an example of the craven duplicity of empire about Syria sovereignty.

The following is a link and article quote from China news that says Russia is accusing the US of chickenshit (my term) tactics in Syria

"He said the advancing Syrian government troops supported by the Russian Air Force managed to break the fierce resistance and liberate
more than 60 square km of territory on the left bank of the Euphrates River in the last 24 hours.

But their advance was hampered by a sudden rise of the water level in the Euphrates and a two-fold increase of the speed of its current
after the government troops started crossing the river, Konashenkov said.

In the absence of precipitation, the only source of such changes in the water level could be a man-made discharge of water at the dams
north of the Euphrates, which are held by the opposition formations controlled by the international coalition led by the United States, he said.
"

Russia accuses U.S., opposition of hampering Syrian gov't troops' advance

ProPeace | Sep 20, 2017 1:02:39 AM | 71
What's worries me the most in Trumps speech, sounds actually ominously, is the phrases "dead Poles, fighting [???!!!] French, strong[!] English" ... Is this what's planned for the near future? I'm not liking it a bit.

What about Syria's sovereignty? VoltaireNet predicts launching a big campaign to carve out AnloZio run "Kurdistan" (a la Kosovo) from her right after illegal Sep 25th referendum organized by the Barzani mob. Was the speech (written by Jewish ) hinting to POTUS support for that? Meyssan says that Trump could go both ways. I concur, confusing the enemy has been the name of his game so far.

Orwellian "two minutes of hate" against Trump in the lame-scream media does it stop either:

Situation in the US is getting worse, seems that this Fall big changes are coming, and no lies can hide the truth: LIES, LIES & OMG MORE LIES Who is the enemy? Some names can be found here (and in a recent Eric Zuesse piece):

Southern Poverty Law Center Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

ProPeace | Sep 20, 2017 1:08:39 AM | 72
Hitlary Killton just can't go away:

Hillary Clinton May Challenge Legitimacy of Presidential Election

The Borg, the AngloZio pedo-satanic cabal of the City of London Crown Corporation, the web of merchants of death and corporate oligarchy have been doing whatever possible to help her stay relevant and expand information war, blame Russia:

Amazon Censor Bad Reviews of Hillary Clinton's New Book

Why Is Google Hiring 1,000 Journalists To Flood Newsrooms Around America?

Hysterical US Lawmakers Breach Time and Space Limits in Fight With Radio Sputnik

james | Sep 20, 2017 1:43:12 AM | 73
@59 b4real.. thanks.. great article.. here it is again for anyone interested..

http://cluborlov.blogspot.ca/2017/09/military-defeat-as-financial-collapse.html

psychohistorian | Sep 20, 2017 3:10:44 AM | 74
@ james #72 with Orlov link

Nice summary but I disagree with the dedollarization part. To me, ending the US dollar as reserve Currency is just a part of the issue. If that occurs American paper money becomes worthless as the article states. While this bankrupts the US, what will it do to the global world of private finance, BIS, SWIFT, IMF, etc.? Does private finance, private property and inheritance all get dealt with in this adjustment? How long will the adjustment period take?

What is clear though now is that there are two factions that are moving in "opposite" directions and the implications will lock up global commerce at some point....fairly soon (weeks/months)......and hopefully adults from all sides will work things out peacefully.

dirka dirka | Sep 20, 2017 4:15:13 AM | 75
Pistachio imperialism -- Bring it on --
john | Sep 20, 2017 5:25:11 AM | 76
these 16 years of bin laden wars constitute the most concerted assault on sovereignty since time out of mind. conspicuously in the cradle of civilization...cultural harmonies undermined and religious sects set at each others throats, tribes ripped from their roots, their facilities and systems desecrated, their families ravaged by rack and ruin and displacement, an alien scourge unleashed on their landscape.

but as someone upstream suggested, the window on these destructive incursions might be closing, what with Russia and China being unconquerable and all.

of course there are other dark forces gnawing at sovereignty , possibly even more stealthily treacherous ones...

like the alien scourge of mass tourism.

b | Sep 20, 2017 5:35:41 AM | 77
Others pointing out the "sovereignty" contradictions: Obama lover and liberal (zionist) interventionist Peter Beinart:

A Radical Rebuke of Barack Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy - Donald Trump used his first address at the United Nations to redefine the idea of sovereignty.

On the one hand, Trump defended sovereignty as a universal ideal. On the other, he demanded that America's enemies stop mistreating their people. The result was gobbledygook.
...
to make his incoherence even more explicit, Trump declared that "our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests and their well-being." That's like saying that my respect for your right to do whatever you want in your garden should be a call to action for you to stop growing weed.
...
For Trump, by contrast, sovereignty means both that no one can tell the United States what to do inside its borders and that the United States can do exactly that to the countries it doesn't like. That's not the liberal internationalism that Obama espoused. Nor is it the realism of some of Obama's most trenchant critics. It is imperialism. General Pershing, in the Philippines, would have approved.

The Saker at UNZ: Listening to the Donald at the UN

In conclusion, what I take away from this speech is a sense of relief for the rest of the planet and a sense of real worry for the USA. Ever since the Neocons overthrew Trump and made him what is colloquially referred to as their "bitch" the US foreign policy has come to a virtual standstill. Sure, the Americans talk a lot, but at least they are doing nothing. That paralysis, which is a direct consequence of the internal infighting, is a blessing for the rest of the planet because it allows everybody else to get things done.
ashley albanese | Sep 20, 2017 5:57:26 AM | 78
Pressure will be intense on U S business in east coast China to refrain from converting their 'yuan' profits into gold .
What a contradictory set of pressures much
ashley albanese | Sep 20, 2017 5:59:47 AM | 79
what a contradictory set of pressures much U S business will be under . That's the nature of Capitalism , isn't it ?
anonymus | Sep 20, 2017 6:49:13 AM | 80
Wtf? Actor Morgan Freeman featuring in cold war warmongering propaganda campaign directed against Russia and Putin. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz9PNoecNxU
notlurking | Sep 20, 2017 7:10:22 AM | 81
anonymus | Sep 20, 2017 6:49:13 AM | 79

I would think that most of Hollywood is neolib heavy on foreign policy.....

Linda O | Sep 20, 2017 8:03:48 AM | 82
My god... That Morgan Freeman video is bizarre and sickening. I see that dimwitted lowlife Rob Reiner was one of the people who funded that garbage.

[Sep 19, 2017] I had shared with you my opinion that the anti-Iran bluster was just that, given that Russia is Iran's strategic partner.

Sep 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anon > , Disclaimer September 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

I had emailed the following comment to a friend just a few hours ago. It seems germane, so I'm taking the liberty of just pasting it here, in the context of the Iran policy discussion :

!

As you know I had high hopes of Trump, based mostly on my wishful thinking about his dog-whistles. Now I am mostly inclined to view him in terms appropriate to the sell-out to the Judaic world order detailed by Petras in his recent article on Who Rules America.

The main serious person I know of who continues to harbour hopes about Trump's hidden agenda is Mark Glenn of The Ugly Truth.

I had shared with you my opinion that the anti-Iran bluster was just that, given that Russia is Iran's strategic partner. But lately I concluded that it was probably just dangerous Judaic policy. A recent editorial essay in Rothschild's Economist has given me pause. The article strongly opposes taking on the nuclear pact with Iran. So what are the mega-Jews concerned about? Maybe Trump intends to lever Iran into nuclear status. Their leadership says that's what will happen. Trump, like Bannon with his absurd affirmations of allegiance to Judeo-Christian civilisation, might be loving the Jews to death. A nuclear armed Iran might very well be what humanity needs. And America as well. Just a thought.

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21728896-it-right-worry-about-irans-growing-influence-trump-administration-may-be-about

I know this will not convince you. That's okay. It's just a possibility. But keep it tucked away in a recess of your head for future reference.

!

If Iran gives every indication of proceeding with nuclear arming, once the US leaves it no alternative, it would require a nuclear umbrella until such time as it could defend itself. That might come from Russian or Chinese nukes under the rubric of SCO. Like American nukes in Turkey and Germany, these could be put at the disposal of the Iranis without violating the Non-Proliferarion Treaty, or at least no more than the American nukes under foreign control do.

[Sep 19, 2017] Trump behaviour at UN and Nixon's "madman gambit" against Soviets

Highly recommended!
Trump said nothing about the Saudi-led war on Yemen or its role in causing the world's worst humanitarian crisis.
Sep 19, 2017 | www.msn.com

Trump's address to the United Nations on Tuesday should erase any doubts that he is threatening a completely unprecedented military strike against North Korea. This seems to be Trump even more fully embracing the so-called Madman Theory, in which he makes himself so unpredictable that other world leaders fear setting him off.

But that approach isn't without its downsides. Former general David Petraeus described it thusly a few days back :

"There is some merit to this. You can argue perhaps there is some merit to it in international relations, although it obviously can go too far. My concern there with the so-called 'madman theory -- that actually (Richard) Nixon put forward through Kissinger where he had Kissinger tell the Soviets, 'You know, Nixon's under a lot of pressure right now and, you know, he drinks at night sometimes, so you guys ought to be real careful. Don't push this into a crisis.' There may, again, be some merit into the madman theory until you get in a crisis. But you do not want the other side thinking you are irrational in a crisis. You do not want the other side thinking that you might be sufficiently irrational to conduct a first strike or to do something, you know, so-called 'unthinkable.'"

Polls show the American people are not confident in Trump's ability to handle the North Korea situation, with 61 percent saying they are "uneasy" Trump's words Tuesday likely won't calm many fears, but he's clearly gambling on North Korea backing down in the face of big talk.

[Sep 19, 2017] I had shared with you my opinion that the anti-Iran bluster was just that, given that Russia is Iran's strategic partner.

Sep 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anon > , Disclaimer September 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

I had emailed the following comment to a friend just a few hours ago. It seems germane, so I'm taking the liberty of just pasting it here, in the context of the Iran policy discussion :

!

As you know I had high hopes of Trump, based mostly on my wishful thinking about his dog-whistles. Now I am mostly inclined to view him in terms appropriate to the sell-out to the Judaic world order detailed by Petras in his recent article on Who Rules America.

The main serious person I know of who continues to harbour hopes about Trump's hidden agenda is Mark Glenn of The Ugly Truth.

I had shared with you my opinion that the anti-Iran bluster was just that, given that Russia is Iran's strategic partner. But lately I concluded that it was probably just dangerous Judaic policy. A recent editorial essay in Rothschild's Economist has given me pause. The article strongly opposes taking on the nuclear pact with Iran. So what are the mega-Jews concerned about? Maybe Trump intends to lever Iran into nuclear status. Their leadership says that's what will happen. Trump, like Bannon with his absurd affirmations of allegiance to Judeo-Christian civilisation, might be loving the Jews to death. A nuclear armed Iran might very well be what humanity needs. And America as well. Just a thought.

https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21728896-it-right-worry-about-irans-growing-influence-trump-administration-may-be-about

I know this will not convince you. That's okay. It's just a possibility. But keep it tucked away in a recess of your head for future reference.

!

If Iran gives every indication of proceeding with nuclear arming, once the US leaves it no alternative, it would require a nuclear umbrella until such time as it could defend itself. That might come from Russian or Chinese nukes under the rubric of SCO. Like American nukes in Turkey and Germany, these could be put at the disposal of the Iranis without violating the Non-Proliferarion Treaty, or at least no more than the American nukes under foreign control do.

[Sep 19, 2017] Massive White Helmets Photo Cache Proves Hollywood Gave Oscar to Terrorist Group

Sep 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

liam > , Website September 19, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT

... The entire Syrian war is being misreported in the US media. Israel and the US are on the same side with Saudi Arabia and are pumping billions of dollars to terrorist factions in the warzones. That fact is continually being covered up by the CIA infiltrated US mainstream media. The proof of such is here:

Massive White Helmets Photo Cache Proves Hollywood Gave Oscar to Terrorist Group

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/02/27/massive-white-helmets-photo-cache-proves-hollywood-gave-oscar-to-terrorist-group/

Father of Invention: Media Portrayed Grief Stricken Dad Turns Out To Be al-Nusra Front Terrorist

https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/05/02/father-of-invention-media-portrayed-grief-stricken-dad-turns-out-to-be-al-nusra-front-terrorist/

[Sep 19, 2017] Since the initial strike in April, the Trump administration has deliberately attacked regime or allied forces an additional five times

Notable quotes:
"... Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about). ..."
Sep 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

matt > , September 19, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT

@WJ Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?

I remember the debate between Pence and the hideous Tim Kaine where the Democrat vowed that there would be No Fly Zone over Syria which would certainly have allowed the head chopping rebels to gain a stronger foothold.

In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic. US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.

Outside of an almost symbolic launch of cruise missiles into Syria in April, how has Trump been a warmonger?

You haven't been paying attention. Since the initial strike in April, the Trump administration has deliberately attacked regime or allied forces an additional five times. ( one , two , three , four , five ).

Including the Tomahawks in April, that's a total of 6 deliberate attacks on the Syrian Arab Republic or its allies (so far), which is already 6 more than Obama carried out during his entire presidency. And it's not like this is the end of Trump's tenure, either; it's the 9th goddamn month since he's been in office. I'm sure the war hawks in Wahington are quite pleased with his progress, as they should be.

In addition to all that, Trump has also cut off aid to the Syrian rebels. His Afghanistan policy /escalation is also symbolic.

Anyone could tell by that point that Assad isn't going to be overthrown. The aim now is to limit the Assad regime's territorial gains as much as possible, and the "rebels" proved they were useless at doing that when Shia militia reached the Iraqi border at al-Tanf, and cut them off from reaching Deir ez-Zor back in May (which was what one of the attacks mentioned above was about).

After that, the Trump administration put all its eggs in the "Syrian Democratic Forces/People's Protection Units (SDF/YPG) basket, the mainly Kurdish (with some Arab fighters) militia that the US has been using to fight ISIS since 2015 (it's also, ironically, a hard left socialist organization. Think Kurdish Antifa. Though I doubt Trump knows or cares or could do anything about it even if he did). Trump has given the SDF <a title="" https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/&quot ; https://sputniknews.com/amp/middleeast/201709141057402885-america-weaponry-deir-ez-zor/&quot ;heavy weaponry with the aim of confronting Assad and limiting his territorial gains. They've also been pressuring the rebel groups they formerly supported to join the SDF.

I have sympathy for the SDF/YPG and the Syrian Kurds, and it made sense to support them when they were under direct assault from ISIS (though US motives were hardly altruistic even then). But ISIS is all but beaten now, and this is a dangerous game the US is playing, which could readily lead to a military confrontation betweeen the US and Russia and/or Iran. In fact, just a few days ago, the SDF seized part of Deir ez-Zor after SAA forces reached the city, and the Pentagon is now accusing Russia (which has in the past at least had good relations with the SDF/YPG), of deliberately bombing SDF fighters, in close proximity to American special forces.

US troops won't be in direct combat and there will only be 15000 there anyway.

Only 15,000! I guess you wouldn't mind, then, if they Taliban, or the Afghan Army for that matter, or any other country, put 15,000 troops on American soil, as a "symbolic" gesture.

Trump has also accelerated US collaboration in the sadistic torture of Yemen by the Saudis, past the levels under even Obama, which was already shameful.

And again, we should also keep in mind that it's only been 9 months. For his next act, Trump might be thinking about ending the Iran deal in October.

[Sep 19, 2017] The Lucy Stein Gang Rides into Moscow by Israel Shamir

Sep 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

In Moscow (which is the only place in Russia that counts) the three main opposition parties, the Communists and the Nationalists, as well as Kremlin-friendly Socialists, were been decimated. Their votes had been snatched by pro-Western liberals, self-described as "those of good genes", "the fair-faced ones", "handshake-worthy"; all these epithets vaguely connected in Russian mind with prosperous Jewishness, of sorts, or with Jewified Sovi nomenclature . The best-known names include Ms Lucy Stein, a young Jewish journalist of some notoriety – she installed plaster copies of her breasts and filmed a staged act of a little boy being roughly treated by Putin's police. Another one is Mr Maxim Katz, a young Jewish activist – he organized the delivery of flowers to the place of the opposition leader Mr Nemtsov's assassination, allegedly with some profit for himself.

These youngsters (in their early twenties) have been led by Mr Dmitry Gudkov, a Russian Parliament Member and a son of a Russian Parliament Member. This sounds like the House of Lords, but Gudkov the Senior is an ex-KGB colonel, an oligarch and the owner of a bailiff business, rather than a hereditary peer. Gudkov's people made a loose coalition with Yabloko (Apple, in Russian), a liberal party of some prominence in the Yeltsin years. They are against Putin's policies, for the restoration of the Crimea to the Ukraine and for an alliance with the liberal West.

While other parties didn't give a hoot, the liberals cared to come to the neglected elections, and they delivered their voters to the booths. For that purpose, they imported American technology , and one of Sanders' operatives, a Russian-born Mr Vitali Shklyarov, who had come to set up what they called "a political Uber", a web app for fielding candidates and getting voters. In addition, they vastly overspent their competitors.

Democracy in action? Forsooth! This was a clear-cut example of real (as opposed to imaginary) interference in foreign elections. While endless FBI probes have never produced any tangible proof of Russian interference in the US elections, and the Facebook investigation "revealed that it had sold as much as $150,000 in political ads to pro-Kremlin entities between 2015 and 2017", the US interference in recent Moscow elections had been vast, powerful and effective. The pro-American forces spent over sixty million dollar in Moscow alone by very conservative estimates, and probably much more. And the funds came from abroad.

The very idea of Russian interference in the US elections had been flattering but silly. The Russians are not in the same league, in speaking of political technologies. The Americans are much more masterful, being trained in a competitive environment. The Russians' only chance to have fair elections is adopting another American technology, namely the active fight against foreign interference. The Kremlin could and should investigate the path of every US buck to the Stein-Katz Gang, and deal with it as harshly as Americans are dealing with imaginary Russian interference. But would they? I doubt it. The wiseguys who mismanaged elections for Kremlin will do all they can to kill the story. No important Russian media carried it, by direct orders from Kremlin.

We have proof to back up our claims of the US interference in the Russian elections: a confession made by the coordinator for Open Russia , a political body created by Mr Michael Khodorkovsky. This oligarch, once the richest man in Russia, did nine years in a Russian jail for massive tax evasion, white-collar crimes, organized crime and conspiracy for murder, as brutal and ruthless a shark as ever swam murky waters of Russian business and politics.

Mr Khodorkovsky had been an American agent of influence for many years. Since being pardoned by President Putin, he moved abroad and became the focal point for the US-led clandestine campaign for regime change in Russia. Together with other exiled (and wanted) oligarchs, Tel Aviv-based Mr Nevzlin and London-based Mr Chichvarkin , Mr Khodorkovsky funnels money to Russia's pro-Western opposition.

His coordinator Ms Maria Baronova had been quite close to Mr Khodorkovsky but parted with him some time ago. In her Facebook blog she admits that "Gudkov and Katz are a secret project of M. B. Khodorkovsky" while other elements of the opposition are a public project of Mr Khodorkovsky. In other words, the whole campaign has been organized from Washington, or perhaps from Langley.

As we learned from Wikileaks-published State Department cables, this is the current trend of CIA for orchestrating regime change: instead of sending money directly to the opposition with a courier, they employ oligarchs as go-between. This mode has been used in Syria since 2006, as well as in Lebanon, and now is being applied in Moscow.

The winners of the recent municipal elections in Moscow weren't just the "fair-faced" children of nomenclature, but appointees of the US deep state. They did it using American know-how and American money. This is the real and very successful interference, and the organisers got away with it. 5371 September 18, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT

A law should be passed making it compulsory to swear an oath affirming that Crimea is part of Russia in order to hold any office. That was effective in dealing with similar vermin in Hong Kong. More fun, of course, would be to shoot them down like dogs in the street, and hopefully that will happen one day.

The Alarmist > , September 18, 2017 at 11:25 am GMT

You know, if Vlad and his gang were as evil as Western MSM and politicos makes them out to be, these folks wouldn't have even lived to see the election.

iffen > , September 18, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

@5371 A law should be passed making it compulsory to swear an oath affirming that Crimea is part of Russia in order to hold any office. That was effective in dealing with similar vermin in Hong Kong. More fun, of course, would be to shoot them down like dogs in the street, and hopefully that will happen one day. would be to shoot them down like dogs in the street, and hopefully that will happen one day

Yes, nothing says electoral democracy like large scale killing of candidates.

Parbes > , September 18, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

@iffen would be to shoot them down like dogs in the street, and hopefully that will happen one day

Yes, nothing says electoral democracy like large scale killing of candidates. These are not "democratic candidates", disingenuous chutzpah-filled Zio-boy; they are open traitors being FUNDED AND DIRECTED by a foreign enemy nation that is threatening war and is currently engaged in all kinds of hostile actions against "their" country – as is clearly explained in the article. Are you too stupid to read and understand, or do you take everyone else on this website to be so?

But I guess deliberate cognitive dissonance is par for the course for you arrogant neo-Orwellian Anglo-Zio trollboys.

survey-of-disinfo > , September 18, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

The Russians are not in the same league, in speaking of political technologies.

Some would argue that Russian "fair faced ones" wrote the book on "political technologies":

Funny how it is all unfolding precisely as he predicted.

Gerard2 > , September 18, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

@peterAUS


media silence that accompanied both the election and its results.

.internal Russian politics (as opposed to foreign relations). They are parochial, obscure and not democratic.

Kremlin wiseguys try and fix the results with all the subtleness of Democratic primaries under Ms Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

they had zero publicity, zero announcements, zero TV coverage.
The Russian post-Soviet political system as organized by Putin's wiseguys should share the blame.

Don't say.....

they had zero publicity, zero announcements, zero TV coverage.
The Russian post-Soviet political system as organized by Putin's wiseguys should share the blame.

Shamir is simply talking bollocks. There was more than enough publicity. I was watching Rossiya24 and they had full analysis during and after the election. Yabloko guys interviewed as well as the major parties. Not to mention the newspapers,radio and so on.

Anatoly Karlin > , Website September 18, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT

@5371 A law should be passed making it compulsory to swear an oath affirming that Crimea is part of Russia in order to hold any office. That was effective in dealing with similar vermin in Hong Kong. More fun, of course, would be to shoot them down like dogs in the street, and hopefully that will happen one day. What do you have against dogs anyway?

Anatoly Karlin > , Website September 18, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT

Great article, nothing to substantively disagree with here.

However, it is not unusual for such bodies to reach for more power in a revolutionary situation. In France, in 1789, the elected parliament was intended to be an advisory to the monarch, but very soon it assumed all the powers and chopped off the king's head. In the USSR, in 1991, the Russian Federation parliament had very few rights being subservient to the Soviet parliament, but it assumed rights and broke up the USSR.

Though Israel is omitting the most famous such institution of them all: The Petrograd Soviet.

The Ukraine had been ruled by a similar Party of the Regions. Led by Mr Victor Yanukovych, the party fell to pieces after the coup, its members deserting the sinking ship as fast as they could.

As concerns the "real" parties, commies and liberals were neck and neck, with nationalists at half their strength, and that's in my heavily prole district (where liberals perform poorly).

In the center and southwest, of course, the liberals are dominant, sometimes even surpassing United Russia.

Hypothetically, if Putin (and consequently, United Russia) were to somehow vanish tomorrow, it will be the liberals vs. the commies and the nationalists.

And frankly, the liberals would win. They are much better funded, have more brainpower, can cooperate with each other while commies and nationalists never will. Commies have some brains but they're too old, while nationalists have brawn on the streets but they're too stupid on average. (I say this is an LDPR-voting nationalist myself).

The military is strongly nationalist, but they're probably not going to intervene, since Russia has never had an activist military in the Third World junta style.

anony-mouse > , September 18, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT

I am very pleased that so many people here have gotten into a panic over the results of a municipal election. Where I live most people , including myself, couldn't tell anybody the results of the last election except for who got elected mayor.

Although I'm very angry that a dedicated bus lane is being built near where I live. Must be the CIA

anon > , Disclaimer September 19, 2017 at 3:14 am GMT

@Michael Kenny I don't see why this party is described as "pro-American", other than as a rather silly attempt to divert attention away from Russiagate. You mean, no evidence but gut feelings of Mrs. Clnton and the NYT editors re "Russiagate" are much stronger factor than the documented evidence of the "pro-American forces spent over sixty million dollars in Moscow alone and the funds came from abroad "
Let's talk arithmetic. There is currently a mega-hysterics over the probable involvement (via the Facebook) of some probably Russians who probably wanted to affect the elections in the US. This probable involvement was estimated as worth $100.000 .
Now, Mr. Michael Kenny, let's compare $100.000 that were probably spent on the Facebook by probably Russians to probably affect the US elections with the $ 60.000.000 spent by the pro-American forces to affect elections in Moscow alone.

"Mr Khodorkovsky had been an American agent of influence for many years. Since being pardoned by President Putin, he moved abroad and became the focal point for the US-led clandestine campaign for regime change in Russia. Together with other exiled (and wanted) oligarchs, Tel Aviv-based Mr Nevzlin and London-based Mr Chichvarkin, Mr Khodorkovsky funnels money to Russia's pro-Western opposition."
If you are still not convinced of the malignancy of the US meddling in Russian affairs, here is more about Mr. Khodorkovsky: "In October 2014, Khodorkovsky visited the U.S., delivering the keynote address at a Washington, D.C., meeting of Freedom House and giving a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky
The US meddling is not a probable cause; this is a well-documented involvement of the US stooge in Russian elections. Until you show any evidence of Russian Federation' meddling into the US elections, your insinuations re Russiagate will remain insinuations – a slander, actually.
If you care about the purity of the US politics, see no farther than the AIPAC and the Saudi's contributions to the Clinton Foundation and such.

[Sep 18, 2017] How The Military Defeated Trumps Insurgency

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. ..."
"... The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies. ..."
"... a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad ..."
"... It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price. ..."
"... Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law. ..."
"... It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation. ..."
"... This is no longer a Coup Waiting to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands: ..."
"... Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran . ..."
"... Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan, Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president." ..."
"... Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.) ..."
"... It is only way to sustain the empire. ..."
"... It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won. ..."
"... The U$A corporate empire is driven by, and according to, the dictates of the mega-corporate desires. The Generals dance to their tune. ..."
"... I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations because they were flunkies to the establishment . ..."
"... Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration, or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president. It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly. ..."
"... Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.) Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all of those things. ..."
"... It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping, information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems to have broken even. Is this a fair read? ..."
"... Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate? ..."
"... Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa). ..."
"... As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell. ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy. That hope is gone. The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one). The military has taken control of the White House process and it is now taking control of its policies.

It is schooling Trump on globalism and its "indispensable" role in it. Trump was insufficiently supportive of their desires and thus had to undergo reeducation:

When briefed on the diplomatic, military and intelligence posts, the new president would often cast doubt on the need for all the resources. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson organized the July 20 session to lay out the case for maintaining far-flung outposts -- and to present it, using charts and maps, in a way the businessman-turned-politician would appreciate

Trump was hauled into a Pentagon basement 'tank' and indoctrinated by the glittering four-star generals he admired since he was a kid:

The session was, in effect, American Power 101 and the student was the man working the levers. It was part of the ongoing education of a president who arrived at the White House with no experience in the military or government and brought with him advisers deeply skeptical of what they labeled the "globalist" worldview. In coordinated efforts and quiet conversations, some of Trump's aides have worked for months to counter that view, hoping the president can be persuaded to maintain -- if not expand -- the American footprint and influence abroad

Trump was sold the establishment policies he originally despised. No alternative view was presented to him.

It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC. They came to power over decades by shaping culture through their sponsorship of Hollywood, by manipulating the media through "embedded" reporting and by forming and maintaining the countries infrastructure through the Army Corps of Engineers. The military, through the NSA as well as through its purchasing power , controls the information flow on the internet. Until recently the military establishment only ruled from behind the scene. The other parts of the power triangle , the corporation executives and the political establishment, were more visible and significant. But during the 2016 election the military bet on Trump and is now, after he unexpectedly won, collecting its price.

Trump's success as the "Not-Hillary" candidate was based on an anti-establishment insurgency. Representatives of that insurgency, Flynn, Bannon and the MAGA voters, drove him through his first months in office. An intense media campaign was launched to counter them and the military took control of the White House. The anti-establishment insurgents were fired. Trump is now reduced to public figure head of a stratocracy - a military junta which nominally follows the rule of law.

Stephen Kinzer describes this as America's slow-motion military coup:
Ultimate power to shape American foreign and security policy has fallen into the hands of three military men [...]
...
Being ruled by generals seems preferable to the alternative. It isn't.
...
[It] leads toward a distorted set of national priorities, with military "needs" always rated more important than domestic ones.
...
It is no great surprise that Trump has been drawn into the foreign policy mainstream; the same happened to President Obama early in his presidency. More ominous is that Trump has turned much of his power over to generals. Worst of all, many Americans find this reassuring. They are so disgusted by the corruption and shortsightedness of our political class that they turn to soldiers as an alternative. It is a dangerous temptation.

The country has fallen to that temptation even on social-economic issues:

In the wake of the deadly racial violence in Charlottesville this month, five of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were hailed as moral authorities for condemning hate in less equivocal terms than the commander in chief did.
...
On social policy, military leaders have been voices for moderation.

The junta is bigger than its three well known leaders:

Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
...
the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff.

This is no longer a Coup Waiting to Happen The coup has happened with few noticing it and ever fewer concerned about it. Everything of importance now passes through the Junta's hands:

[Chief of staff John] Kelly initiated a new policymaking process in which just he and one other aide [...] will review all documents that cross the Resolute desk.
...
The new system [..] is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven't been vetted.

To control Trump the junta filters his information input and eliminates any potentially alternative view:

Staff who oppose [policy xyz] no longer have unfettered access to Trump, and nor do allies on the outside [.. .] Kelly now has real control over the most important input: the flow of human and paper advice into the Oval Office. For a man as obsessed about his self image as Trump, a new flow of inputs can make the world of difference.

The Trump insurgency against the establishment was marked by a mostly informal information and decision process. That has been destroyed and replaced:

Worried that Trump would end existing US spending/policies (largely, still geared to cold war priorities), the senior military staff running the Trump administration launched a counter-insurgency against the insurgency.
...
General Kelly, Trump's Chief of Staff, has put Trump on a establishment-only media diet.
...
In short, by controlling Trump's information flow with social media/networks, the generals smashed the insurgency's OODA loop (observe, orient, decide, act). Deprived of this connection, Trump is now weathervaning to cater to the needs of the establishment ...

The Junta members dictate their policies to Trump by only proposing to him certain alternatives. The one that is most preferable to them will be presented as the only desirable one. "There are no alternatives," Trump will be told again and again.

Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran.

Other countries noticed how the game has changed. The real decisions are made by the generals, Trump is ignored as a mere figurehead:

Asked whether he was predicting war [with North Korea], [former defence minister of Japan, Satoshi] Morimoto said: "I think Washington has not decided ... The final decision-maker is [US Defence Secretary] Mr Mattis ... Not the president."

Climate change, its local catastrophes and the infrastructure problems it creates within the U.S. will further extend the military role in shaping domestic U.S. policy.

Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase. Military control will creep into ever extending fields of once staunchly civilian areas of policy. (Witness the increasing militarization of the police.)

It is only way to sustain the empire.

It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him. Any flicker of resistance will be smashed. The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won.

Posted by b on September 18, 2017 at 11:20 AM | Permalink

Stephen | Sep18, 2017 11:32:00 AM | 1

Only good news: The mask has been torn off US elections. They simply don't matter. Waste of time and money. US has become Saddam's Iraq, Sisi's Egypt, Mugabe's Zimbabwe etc....expect to see Trump win 90% of vote in 2020....hahaha...
Hogwash | Sep18, 2017 11:32:04 AM | 2
Hogwash - The SAA just crossed the Euphrates. If the neocons were really in control, WW3 would start before dawn tomorrow. Otherwise, Assad will get his biggest oil field back from ISIS.

The Russians are hinting that the SDF isn't really fighting ISIS but just pretending to while ISIS soldiers switch uniforms. If that's true, it means the neocons may still be in charge, but what are they going to do about the Syrian Army blocking them now?

Ken Nari | Sep18, 2017 11:46:59 AM | 3
Interesting, and certainly a possible explanation of what's going on. Still, if the military is running the show, why the growth of private mercenary businesses? (A new meaning for "corporate warriors."). My own feeling, based on nothing except decades of experience working with the military, is that the generals don't mind a few little wars, but they well know the risks of a big one.

For that reason, the military leadership seems to be trying to cool things down -- that the U.S. didn't go to war with Iran, Russia, China or North Korea (yet) may be due to the influence of the top brass.

b: It is doubtful that Trump will be able to resist the policies imposed on him.

hmmm...I'm not sure there's any pressure at all on Trump. Since Kennedy was removed the president has little real power and is mostly to provide the trappings of democracy and keep the proles entertained. Over 100 years ago T. Roosevelt noticed the lack of presidential freedom to act -- the bully pulpit and all that.

financial matters | Sep18, 2017 11:47:33 AM | 4
One of the main reasons I was pleased to see Trump get elected was that he wanted to get us out of Syria. Somewhat amazingly I'd say, that has pretty much happened.

Russia, Iran and China have shown themselves to be responsible players and have the strength to back that up.

So, I think in reality the US military will be forced by facts on the ground, as well as a weakening of their propaganda, to go along with Trump's original more accommodating posture.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 12:06:26 PM | 5
It's probably inevitable that the military would rule in the twilight of US world dominance.

Back in the true USA#1 days it was different. A couple of President Truman quotes: "It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform that I plan to take apart". . ."I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."

The main problem with generals is that most (not all) of them got to where they are by sucking up to higher authority, or "go along to get along." Then couple that with all the perks they get including fine housing, enlisted servants and a fat $250K pension for full generals, and they look at themselves in the mirror with all their fancy ribbons and medals and naturally adopt Harry Truman's "gods in uniform" opinion of themselves, forgetting that they have become successful in an isolated military milieu that favors appearance and disregards lack of accomplishment. And the current crop of generals certainly lacks accomplishment.

Lemur | Sep18, 2017 12:19:50 PM | 6
"Nationalistic indoctrination, already at abnormal heights in the U.S. society, will further increase."

If that were true, why is the historic American nation being replaced by mystery meats from the global south? The Washington machine certainly produces oodles of propaganda, but it is virulently opposed to ethnocentrism at home and abroad, because that might lead to groups with the solidarity to stand up to a degenerate empire.

The indoctrination taking place here is militaristic globalism. And everyone is invited.

ben | Sep18, 2017 12:27:31 PM | 7
b said:"Trump was seen as a presidential candidate who would possibly move towards a less interventionist foreign policy."

Only by those who don't fully understand the TRUE American system, and those who dream of a system that actually provides " truth, liberty and justice for all".

The better liar won the "election".

The swamp (sewer) in Washington getting muddier each day

Posted by: OJS | Sep18, 2017 12:44:21 PM | 8

The swamp (sewer) in Washington getting muddier each day
ben | Sep18, 2017 12:48:52 PM | 9
P.S...The U$A corporate empire is driven by, and according to, the dictates of the mega-corporate desires. The Generals dance to their tune.

"It's just business" Trump has NEVER intended to be anything but what the elites wanted him to be....A wealthy puppet..

Michael McNulty | Sep18, 2017 12:49:32 PM | 10
I think the US is weak militarily for two deep and fundamental reasons, both of which have US politicians to blame.

First, the US has not had able generals and admirals since WWII because politicians today[especially since 9/11] cannot take criticism. Therefore men like MacArthur and Kimmel, who would tell them a war can't be won like that or this strategy is a bad idea, no longer get the promotions. Yes-men get promoted over more able men.

Second, this promotion of yes-men allows politicians to take over the planning of a war. Whereas MacArthur would have shut the door on the neo-cons and told them he'll let him know when his plan is ready, today politicians use political strategy to try and defeat the war strategy of an opponent. For example, Rumsfeld should have been told that if he wanted to steal Iraq he'd need half a million men - but the generals tried to do the impossible and steal Iraq with a third that number because more was politically sensitive.

If politicians are going to have a war, leave it to able generals to plan it. Or lose.

karlof1 | Sep18, 2017 12:50:31 PM | 11
There's no saving the Unipolar attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance -- not even nuclear war -- and I think the generals and their minders actually know this, although they seem to be keeping up appearances. Escobar's latest from last Friday details why this is so, http://www.atimes.com/article/iran-turns-art-deal-upside/

Even the Brazilian regime change project is becoming a loser as the massive corruption scandal is about to devour the neocon favorite Temer, while Lula is rising like the Phoenix. The latest leak scandal over the meeting between Rohrabacher and Kelly regarding Russiagate and the status of Julian Assange reveals more than the leak itself, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47818.htm

And finally, we have another great op/ed by Finian Cunningham who's on a roll of late at the Outlaw US Empire's expense, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201709161057451619-us-alien-peace/

likklemore | Sep18, 2017 12:54:41 PM | 12

Always follow the money. There is only so far a $1 will go. Shrinkflation. The USD, as reserve currency, allowed the US to fund wars, everyday essentials and live high on the hog at the expense of the rest of the world. This exceptional privilege is coming to an end.

When the US declared war; [excluded Iran from use of SWIFT/ the USD] that was the shot heard far and wide. Putin and Xi noted, we could be next and put in place CHIPS.

Lately, Russia and then China has been threatened with sanctions; latest folly of Mnuchin, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. The petro-Yuan Exchange for gold was announced and less than 005% of Americans realize the impact of bypassing the USD.

USA has met its comeuppance. Russia and China need not fire a shot. Prosperity of the exceptional ones is an illusion built on hundreds of trillions of debt. We are kept diverted from de-dollarization by the focus on unschooled Trump. Eight+ months after the selection, it's "Russiagate" – Putin did it; are angels male or female? What happened?

sleepy | Sep18, 2017 1:35:10 PM | 13
Thus we get a continuation of a failed Afghanistan policy and will soon get a militarily aggressive policy towards Iran.

As a candidate way before any junta was installed, Trump always vowed to rip up the Iran nuclear deal. Now why on earth would North Korea trust that any nuclear agreement it made with the US would not similarly be ripped up and shredded a couple years down the road?

Oilman2 | Sep18, 2017 1:35:11 PM | 14
If the handling of "local catastrophes" such as Harvey and Irma are any indication of the power of this junta, then I am not very much worried. The FEMA folks, Red Cross and many others showed their ineffectiveness in spades here in Houston. What's even more revealing is just how quickly they dashed out of here to remain in the news when Irma hit Florida.

I met two ATF guys driving down here after Harvey - and they had no idea why they were coming here. Couldn't articulate a thing to me except to say, repeatedly, "We are ATF and coming to assist." They had ZERO specifics on what they were going to do to help anyone. But they were very much enjoying wearing their ATF t-shirts and sporting their pistols on hip. But it's Texas, and that just made me smile and shake my head. Made me realize that whatever happens here in America, DC and the central government are so incredibly out of touch and living "in the bubble" that they are of very limited use for locals (those outside the East Coast) in any way.

The Feds plan for national, not local catastrophes - and their primary issue is COG, period. They are much more concerned about maintaining government and their own little fiefdoms than in assisting people far away from the DC/NYC corridor.

Further, the math just doesn't work for the junta doing much more than controlling foreign policy (who we next attack) - to try that same thing across America would result in rapid expulsion and failure, as we outnumber them most significantly.

When the pain they cause becomes enough, then things will change. Unfortunately, it seems that change via the national elections has now been abrogated. Something else is likely to ensue, eventually.

Permafrost | Sep18, 2017 1:36:52 PM | 15
The outside insurgency which enabled his election is left without a figurehead, It will likely disperse. The system won.

The problem here ie that the cost for the system to win keeps rising, and the law of diminishing returns remains valid. So for how long? not long.

NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 2:34:52 PM | 16
I just don't understand how people can fall for the line that "nationalism" somehow equates to an undesirable movement akin to the rise of nazism. The media has been blitzing this as of late and rallying cries around the antifa demonstrations have been taking this buzzword and running with it, equating proponents of it to racist KKK members in some silly way or another. Even here, b, you seem to be eating right out of the hands of these pagemasters who dictate what words mean.

I'm sorry, but there is a glaring doublestandard when you praise the policy of say Venezuela which "nationalized" their oil industry and condemn all of us Americans who are begging to disassociate from global mechanisms which are crippling fair-spending of tax dollars here in the state. It is fair to assume that military junta historically use the energy of nationalism's lexicon to promote their agenda, but in this case, as you point out, the junta and the status quo of globalism's iron hand seem to fit together nicely. I read that as nationalism never even taking flight here.

I get your trepidation with this terminology considering the history of your country, but America IS different and we deserve an attempt to put America first...shocking, I know.

Kalen | Sep18, 2017 2:49:10 PM | 17
B fell pray of partisan propaganda, Trump - the coup d'etat enabler DNC MANTRA.. So please inform me when generals were not in executive charge of the US government. On behave of oligarchic ruling elite ? Where were those civilian rulers during documented 250 conflicts or war US was engaged during 228 years of existence

The first president was a general and since then US generals executed basic US imperial economic model of aggression and exploitation, military land grab from Indians and Mexicans to suppression of workers strikes by shelling their families at home in US as well in its conquered colonies in CA and Caribbean we have proof thanks to Gen. Butler.

It was a Gen. Eisenhower who warned us the junta refused to disarm after WWII and constitutes coear and present danger to even a facade of republican order.

Anybody who believe that imperial US is run by civilians is SIMPLY gullible since no emporia were ever run by civilians by definition. Roman Empire was run over last 200 year explicitly by generals COMMANDING armies of foreign mercenaries like US today in NATO and ASEAN .

What has changed is that veil of deceit has failed and with Trump those warmongering cockroaches came out of WH woodwork to see a light and tookbopenly control f what they already controlled clandestinely.

Peter AU 1 | Sep18, 2017 2:49:47 PM | 18
16
If you think US is different to nazi it might be worth reading saker's piece on it. If you think US nationalism is any different to Nazi Germany in aggression then think again. The US population, and much of the so called west, is swamped in propaganda while the US attacks country after country.
NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 3:06:17 PM | 19
@18 Peter

But once again, many here think that Europe is already one big vassal state of the global/US empire. So if anything, we are all already under the jack boot of empire. To dislodge one piece (US), indeed, the central piece, seems to me that the world would be in recovery mode from "the global reich." Please correct if I'm wrong, but your logic does not compute. Furthermore, I don't think a reeling US economy and population, freshly liberated, is going to be convinced any time soon to wage wars abroad for precious metals and the like. "Helping" the world would probably take a back seat.

Hoarsewhisperer | Sep18, 2017 3:39:20 PM | 20
...
"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them would be in jail."
...
Posted by: Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 12:06:26 PM | 5

And, despite the fact that Trump rubbed shoulders with dozens of these wannabe Generals at Military Academy, and was exposed to the same claptrap, it seems safe to assume that he realised that a Life spent in the US Military would be pointless, unimaginative and frustrating.

WithAllWindsAhead | Sep18, 2017 3:40:39 PM | 21
Re. Ben #7:

To be fair he did put an end to Timber Sycamore. The deep state wouldn't have pushed so hard on the Russian angle if there weren't a real upheaval. IMO, it went beyond simply covering for the DNC leaks. The whole establishment dog piled the Russian angle. It was for a time the principal means of disrupting Trump's agenda. I think Trump's token strike on the Syrian airbase is evidence of all of this. It was the absolute minimum he could have done in the face of a tidal wave of internal war pressures. And, they certainly could have gotten away with way more of the "trump is a Nazi angle," but they appear to have stopped after they got Bannon out.

Prescribing Trump, a monster though he is, as being at least the lesser war candidate holds IMO. What his presidency has illuminated above all else is the wild degree to which US is first and foremost of war. It is perhaps the most ubiquitous force that charges the US system.

That all said, we are going to find out real soon what the military is after. The SDF and SAA meeting in Deir Ezor is going to tell us a lot. This is perhaps their last chance at balkanization of Syria. A glimmer of hope still resides however in the supposed Pentagon revolt that took place over Obama's red line in the sand, as reported by Sy Hersh and others. As evil as the US military is, they dont seem to actually want war with Russia, unlike the intelligence complex. I, personally, am still hopeful at least about Syria.

somebody | Sep18, 2017 4:17:08 PM | 24
16 - let Putin explain it to you
The Russian leader expressed confidence that "one of the key components of our self-consciousness, one of the values and ideas is patriotism." Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.
somebody | Sep18, 2017 4:38:26 PM | 25
add to 24

Or more historical: "Patriotism" was coined in Europe by the French revolution, forming a common state of citizens open to all who can identify with common values and culture. But American Patriots came before that and that is probably where the French got the word.

As a group, Patriots represented a wide array of social, economic and ethnic backgrounds.

"Nationalism" was a 19th century reaction to the export of the French revolution when European kingdoms tried a legitimization of borders based on language and genetics. It was all war from there to the Second World War and Auschwitz. If you want to sink the US in an internal Civil War try nationalism.

Jackrabbit | Sep18, 2017 4:42:09 PM | 26
I think there is some hyperventilating here. Was Trump 'turned'? Was his administration 'taken over' or was he always a figurehead? I decided several months ago that it was the latter:
> How Things Work: Betrayal by Faux Populist Leaders

> Taken In: Fake News Distracts Us from Fake Election

During his campaign Trump was vocally pro-military.

PS Hillary has always been pro-military also.

broders | Sep18, 2017 5:09:57 PM | 27
well, the system cannot "win"... dialectics... every steps it takes to control and secure "things", brings it closer to its end, and this, inevitably. no one wins, ever. no one looses even. the only way to fight and defeat evil is a decisive progress in goodness, to ignore it... the reality on the ground allows us to think that way, to set up concerts in the ruins, for good. thank you russia (as for the us military, they need 5 or 6 years to just cath up with last year's stand... but they still can agitate their little arms, so they do).
Christian Chuba | Sep18, 2017 5:40:56 PM | 28
Location, location, location
I am in shock and awe of our Pentagon (and CIA)'s ability to market themselves. I am convinced that this is their core area of competency as I read the slick consultant generated talking points on how $600B equals a dilapidated military instead of one that needs a purge. If we really have a readiness problem, heads should roll before they get more money but instead we cry for the incompetents.

The vaunted sea lanes and free trade

I used for fall for this nonsensical argument, that we needed 20 carrier groups to patrol the oceans to ensure free trade. Really? All we need is an international system of Coast Guards augmented by a few missile boats if there are some countries that don't have the budget for a coast guard to prevent piracy. We don't need aircraft carriers for that. Why do we assume that we need 24x7 aircraft coverage in the Pacific, Persian Gulf and Mediterranean? I have a vague memory of the 80's where it was a big deal that we 'sent our fleet' to the Mediterranean for some occasions. It wasn't assumed that we had a task force parked there 100% of the time.

I don't see why we can't get by with 6 or at most 8 carrier groups with the understanding that we would never deploy more than 2 for special occasions so that they can rotate assignments.

I don't want to think of one | Sep18, 2017 5:41:53 PM | 29
Disappointed in your post, b. Expected better.

"The insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. (Historically its first successful one)"

The USA was on the winning side for the Boxer Rebellion, the 1899-1902 Philippine Insurrection, and a lot of other counter-insurgency operations. Basic military history. Just wanted to mention that to set the correct tone, because your blog post started out factually incorrect and carried on that way until the end.

Basic reasoning test, b:

i) Do you think Trump has been defeated by 'the US military', or ii) do you think a small number of senior military men have thwarted Trump? Because the two are very different things.

I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks for their retirement funds; people fearful of being blackmailed and destroyed by the NSA and CIA and Mossad; people who rose to senior posts during prior administrations because they were flunkies to the establishment .

Do you think Trump is a weak-minded cretin? Because that's what your theory requires. That the guy can't remember his oft-repeated positions and statements after some briefings and a few months. I say that nobody loses their wits that fast, and nobody does a 180 on so many core policies without knowing that they're doing it.

Trump's wealth (at least in the high hundreds of millions $) and his election victory say he's no moron. He probably knows what he is doing. He's either a guy who gave up the struggle after getting the proverbial political hell beaten out of him in the first months of his administration, or he willingly misled his electoral base when campaigning. Perhaps a little of both. He's known for being a BS merchant. Myself, I think he lied outright to the voters during his run for president. It's not a wild idea: so did Obama, Bush, and Clinton. Bigly.

Trump made the decisions that we criticse so much. Trump decided to let the Obama holdovers stay in the administration. He decided to hire Goldman Sachs flunkies. He decided to send cruise missiles to strike Shayrat. He decided to approve US assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen. H decided to let his zionist son-in-law, who is indebted to George Soros, into the White House. He decided to fire Bannon almost as soon as Bannon came out publicly against war with North Korea. (Possibly a deliberate, desperate attempt at a 'spoiler' tactic on Bannon's part, to prevent conflict.) Trump decided to renege on his promises to the electorate about immigration. He decided to sign an unprecedented, unconstitutional law that bound his hands and imposed sanctions on Russia. He decided to go along with the Russian hacking lie by saying that Russia could, maybe, have hacked the DNC and HRC and whoever else (probably including Disney, the Shriners, and my mother). He decided to employ Sean Spicer and Reince Priebus, Scaramucchi and everyone else. He approved all of those things.

"It is indisputable that the generals are now ruling in Washington DC."
Yeah, nah. Pretty sure that's still the Wall St lobby, the Israel lobby, the CFR and the usual mob. Generals are just hired thugs, as Smedley Butler put it. Or as Kissinger put it, the US military is made up of "Military men" who "are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns."

What you've done, b, is to pull together some half-formed thoughts and mashed them all together. It sounds badass as a righteously indignant blog post, and I bet the Huffpost crowd would love it – but it fails as logic.

NemesisCalling | Sep18, 2017 5:58:47 PM | 30
@25 somebody

Nice play of semantics. But it still sounds like "patriotism" is a nice euphemism for nationalism. Why else would Putin be the scourge of the west? Reminds me too of how Putin played nice all through the Syrian War calling the US their "partner." Another euphemism. Seems like Putin likes to sound like the better man (and he is) but part of his strategy has always been to underplay his hand in the mix.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 6:09:44 PM | 31
@CC #28
re: aircraft carriers

New carriers cost about $12B each, plus the cost of the 5,000 crew-members and aircraft, plus the cost of the accompanying fleet that goes with every carrier. Carriers have been mainly used in the last decade in the Gulf area to launch aircraft to bomb third world countries. Most carriers are in port most of the time because they require a lot of maintenance, which adds a lot more to expense. They are also used to sail near enemy countries, Washington believing that they are useful to scare third world countries into thinking that they may be bombed, which might make some sense except the results are questionable. As you indicate, the main threat to world shipping is piracy for which carrier fleets are useless. The good thing about having a carrier in the Persian Gulf much of the time is that it ensures that Iran would not be attacked; it would be a sitting duck.

The current location of the eleven US carriers is below taken from here . There is a new addition to the fleet, CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford.
1 - Persian Gulf
1 - hurricane duty
1 - off Carolina coast
1- off Japan coast
7 - port

les7 | Sep18, 2017 6:22:59 PM | 32
There are generals and then there are generals... Just which ones are taking over? The Neo-con backed guys? The Pro-pentagon guys? The CIA/JSOC guys? The Black Ops Guys? or the Black on Black Ops guys? The reason I ask is that at one time they were all fighting each other in N.Syria.

It is not especially clear to me (being an outsider to US politics) which of the groups (or combination of groups) seems to have come out on top and have their guys as the gate-keeping, information-vetting guys doing the briefing of Trump. My feel of it is that the Pentagon has gained while JSOC, the black ops contractors, and black-on-black ops contractors have lost. The CIA seems to have broken even. Is this a fair read?

If so... I think it is overall a good thing (the beso of an bunch of bad) because the Pentagon have shown themselves to be a lot more sane when it comes to creating conflict zones. They tend to be less covert, a lot more overt and a lot less likely to forment war for the sake of some corporation or political subset of the ruling elite.

thoughts anyone?

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 6:24:14 PM | 33
#29
You're wrong. It's obvious who's in charge in Washington currently. There is no doubt that, politically speaking, the insurgency that brought Trump to the top was defeated by a counter-insurgency campaign waged by the U.S. military. Generals Mattis, McMaster and Kelly are paramount in the new administration. Mattis has been given decision power on war, which Trump had promised to curtail.

McMaster, with no diplomatic experience, is national security and Kelly manages Trump's office.

The whole administration has taken a new tack with these generals and their military cohorts -- they do no stand alone, they are part of an institution -- managing US foreign policy. Concomitant to this are other factors including the cut in the State Department budget, the appointment of neophyte and hawkish Haley at the UN and Trump's romance with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Palloy | Sep18, 2017 6:45:10 PM | 34
Politics is always complex and messy and no one ever "rules" in the way being assumed. The military have always had a big say - how else did they get such a huge budget for years on end? CIA have always played a big part, likewise FBI, NSA, Wall St., CFR, Fed, IMF and so on. Three, maybe six , Generals now have a bigger influence. Bannon has gone, so less influence for the deplorables. That is only a subtle change in the big scheme of things.

And now we are going to have a military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue on 4th of July, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-18/day-fire-and-fury-trump-considers-military-parade-down-pennsylvania-avenue (sorry -don't know what you want for links), just like that other fat person with a funny hair-cut, inexperienced, erratic and unpredictable, nuclear-armed and dangerous.

This is the just the death throes of an empire that is meeting the Limits to Growth. Expect MUCH MUCH worse to come. I think it will be SO horrible, many people will take the suicide option.

Linda O | Sep18, 2017 7:22:25 PM | 35
Obviously any 1000 or so word article is going to woefully simplified compared to the decades of historical and political research that will dissect the Trump presidency in the finest detail, I will say that this article has one glaring flaw that significantly lessens its value. Trump has rolled over for EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in Washington. There really is nothing special about the military's ease with which they captured and neutered Trump.

I don't think there is a single area of his campaign platform that he has given up on or flip-flopped on. I don't think there is any other president who has been a comparable ACROSS THE BOARD FAILURE like Trump.

No one has ever been surprised that the wacky, inane, or divorced from reality promises presidents made to get themselves elected never were followed through on. But every single president before Trump at the very least had a core set of priorities they immediately set in motion.

The failure of the Trump presidency should for once and for all put to rest the silly and juvinille dream of the lone super man heading off to Washington to FINALLY TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS and show those sleazy career politicians who things are done in the real world.

Trump walked into the White House with absolutely no governing apparatus ready to go on day one like every other presidential candidate has in the past.

Presidential candidates spend decades building up a vast network of people ready to hit the ground running and know how Washington works from the moment the election is over.

One has to wonder if Trump really ever expected to win. Or just has a complete lack of interest in the massive network o loyal and knowledgeable people needed to setup a brand new presidential administration.

And there is no check on how badly the Trump administration can fail. His base appears to be currled up in fetal position on Breitbart collectively chanting 'this is not happening, this is not happening.'

I don't think I've ever felt more joy than seeing that ABSOLUTE FILTH Hillary Clinton get here murderous and vile ass get handed to her by a TV personality.

Never in my dreams did I think Trump wouldn't accomplish ANYTHING.

So Trump fans, keep posting those MEMES and WINNING --

VietnamVet | Sep18, 2017 7:30:08 PM | 36
b's analysis rings true. The establishment has reined in Donald Trump. On their return from Florida, it appeared that Melania Trump is well aware of the history of the House of Bourbon. One does not become a Four-star General in the establishment today without an instinctive understanding of the needs of the organ grinder. The end stage of an Empire is everybody for themselves. The open source insurrection is over until it isn't anymore. Periodic combat takeoffs from Joint Base Andrews are not reassuring. The desire to stay alive is the only brake on the rush to a nuclear war with North Korea or the heating up of the Cold War with Russia.
Madmen | Sep18, 2017 7:58:27 PM | 38
A great follow-up article to an UNZ article early this year which stated:

During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

http://www.unz.com/article/political-sciences-theory-of-everything-on-the-2016-us-election/

PavewayIV | Sep18, 2017 8:15:14 PM | 39
I respectfully disagree with everyone. There is nobody in charge in Washington DC and hasn't been for a long time.

There are psychopathic oligarchs, warlords, fiefdoms and secret cabals milking their power and authority for a variety of self-serving interests with varying degrees of success and failure. The entire government has mutated to an arena where the above powers spar for more control and more money day after day. There is no real oversight. It's too complex and secretive for any one person or group to be 'in charge'.

The announcer is not 'in charge'. He's just the announcer, nothing more. And the little people are just spectators, nothing more.

MadMax2 | Sep18, 2017 8:23:13 PM | 40
@34 Palloy

Couldn't agree more re: Limits to Growth. And no prizes for guessing which major economies have gone about insulating themselves against the pitfalls of cowboy economics... nothing was fixed, repaired, refitted or replaced after 2008...crazy that any chance of sensible, sustainable capitalism in the west might be lost to the cannibals need of rampant consumerism. I'll side with the nations that keep an interest in public banking systems rather than the one's that encourage it citizens ro eat the face off one another.

It's not all dark though, The Tale of The Don is really a romantic one... Of the wild west never ending... Of the railroad tycoons that never really died.

Jackrabbit gets more right with every passing day... there is no such thing as an outsider the moment you win.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 8:27:27 PM | 41
@ 38
Yes, the power elite's military faction. Not: "I would argue that Mattis, McMaster, Kelly, and their line reports don't represent "the US military", or even its generals per se. They represent themselves as people financially beholden to major investment banks. . ."

Outsiders don't appreciate the power of the strengthening military-industrial complex that Eisenhower cautioned about in his farewell address.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Don Bacon | Sep18, 2017 8:31:06 PM | 42
from "The Hill": Overnight Defense: Senate passes $700B defense bill | 3,000 US troops heading to Afghanistan | Two more Navy officials fired over ship collisions
V. Arnold | Sep18, 2017 8:34:04 PM | 43
A Chinese fire drill best describes what passes for the U.S.'s present level of policy. Most of the world watches; aghast at the spectacle, while cowering with fear at the hubris...
Jackrabbit | Sep18, 2017 8:38:28 PM | 44
@spudski

But other commenters have also been critical, though less colorful.

@Madmen

Is the possibility of Trump as controlled opposition so far-fetched? Do you think the "power elite's political wing" only runs one candidate? Have you heard of "illusion of choice"? Do you think sheepdog Bernie was a real candidate?

Obama and Trump both gained greater apparent legitimacy by: 1) beating the establishment candidate; and 2) being besieged by bat-shit crazy critics (birthers; anti-Russians & antifa).

As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell.

V. Arnold | Sep18, 2017 9:00:19 PM | 45
Jackrabbit @ Sep18, 2017 8:38:28 PM | 44

As soon as you choose a side, you are trapped. Two sides of the same coin. Minted in hell.

Nice, I like it...

spudski | Sep18, 2017 9:01:53 PM | 46
@Jackrabbit

Agreed. I had no problem with the substance, in fact I like the fact that there are diverse opinions here and I learn a lot from the discussions. I just didn't need the gratuitous insults to b given how much effort he puts in here.

[Sep 18, 2017] Looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence: non-interventionism, no to neoliberal globalization, no to outsourcing of jobs, and no to multiculturism. All were betrayed very soon

Highly recommended!
Jun 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

It looks like Trump initially has a four point platform that was anti-neoliberal in its essence:

  1. Non-interventionism. End the wars for the expansion of American neoliberal empire. Détente was Russia. Abolishing NATO and saving money on this. Let European defend themselves. Etc.
  2. No to neoliberal globalization. Abolishing of transnational treaties that favor large multinationals such as TPP, NAFTA, etc. Tariffs and other means of punishing corporations who move production overseas. Repatriation of foreign profits to the USA and closing of tax holes which allow to keep profits in tax heavens without paying a dime to the US government.
  3. No to neoliberal "transnational job market" -- free movement of labor. Criminal prosecution and deportation of illegal immigrants. Cutting intake of refugees. Curtailing legal immigration, especially fake and abused programs like H1B. Making it more difficult for people from countries with substantial terrorist risk to enter the USA including temporary prohibition of issuing visas from certain (pretty populous) Muslim countries.
  4. No to the multiculturalism. Stress on "Christian past" and "white heritage" of American society and the role of whites in building the country. Rejection of advertising "special rights" of minorities such as black population, LGBT, etc. Promotion them as "identity wedges" in elections was the trick so dear to DemoRats and, especially Hillary and Obama.

That means that Trump election platform on an intuitive level has caught several important problem that were created in the US society by dismantling of the "New Deal" and rampant neoliberalism practiced since Reagan ("Greed is good" mantra).

Of cause, after election he decided to practice the same "bait and switch" maneuver as Obama. Generally he folded in less then 100 days. Not without help from DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) which created a witch hunt over "Russian ties" with their dreams of the second Watergate.

But in any case, this platform still provides a path to election victory in any forthcoming election, as problems listed are real , are not solved, and are extremely important for lower 90% of Americans. Tulsi Gabbard so far is that only democratic politician that IMHO qualifies. Sanders is way too old and somewhat inconsistent on No.1.

Frank was the first to note this "revolutionary" part of Tramp platform:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support

Last week, I decided to watch several hours of Trump speeches for myself. I saw the man ramble and boast and threaten and even seem to gloat when protesters were ejected from the arenas in which he spoke. I was disgusted by these things, as I have been disgusted by Trump for 20 years. But I also noticed something surprising. In each of the speeches I watched, Trump spent a good part of his time talking about an entirely legitimate issue, one that could even be called left-wing.

Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame.

He did it again during the debate on 3 March: asked about his political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about trade.

It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.

[Sep 18, 2017] The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia by Rober Parry

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that. ..."
"... At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media. ..."
"... The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists." ..."
"... Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate. ..."
"... For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build. ..."
"... THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight). ..."
"... The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record? ..."
"... To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck. ..."
Sep 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia September 15, 2017

Exclusive: The New York Times' descent into yellow journalism over Russia recalls the sensationalism of Hearst and Pulitzer leading to the Spanish-American War, but the risks to humanity are much greater now, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

Reading The New York Times these days is like getting a daily dose of the "Two Minutes Hate" as envisioned in George Orwell's 1984, except applied to America's new/old enemy Russia. Even routine international behavior, such as Russia using fictitious names for potential adversaries during a military drill, is transformed into something weird and evil.

In the snide and alarmist style that the Times now always applies to Russia, reporter Andrew Higgins wrote – referring to a fictitious war-game "enemy" – "The country does not exist, so it has neither an army nor any real citizens, though it has acquired a feisty following of would-be patriots online. Starting on Thursday, however, the fictional state, Veishnoriya, a distillation of the Kremlin's darkest fears about the West, becomes the target of the combined military might of Russia and its ally Belarus."

This snarky front-page story in Thursday's print editions also played into the Times' larger narrative about Russia as a disseminator of "fake news." You see the Russkies are even inventing "fictional" enemies to bully. Hah-hah-hah -- The article was entitled, "Russia's War Games With Fake Enemies Cause Real Alarm."

Of course, the U.S. and its allies also conduct war games against fictitious enemies, but you wouldn't know that from reading the Times. For instance, U.S. war games in 2015 substituted five made-up states – Ariana, Atropia, Donovia, Gorgas and Limaria – for nations near the Caucasus mountains along the borders of Russia and Iran.

In earlier war games, the U.S. used both fictitious names and colors in place of actual countries. For instance, in 1981, the Reagan administration conducted "Ocean Venture" with that war-game scenario focused on a group of islands called "Amber and the Amberdines," obvious stand-ins for Grenada and the Grenadines, with "Orange" used to represent Cuba.

In those cases, the maneuvers by the powerful U.S. military were clearly intended to intimidate far weaker countries. Yet, the U.S. mainstream media did not treat those war rehearsals for what they were, implicit aggression, but rather mocked protests from the obvious targets as paranoia since we all know the U.S. would never violate international law and invade some weak country -- (As it turned out, Ocean Venture '81 was a dress rehearsal for the actual U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983.)

Yet, as far as the Times and its many imitators in the major media are concerned, there's one standard for "us" and another for Russia and other countries that "we" don't like.

Yellow Journalism

But the Times' behavior over the past several years suggests something even more sinister than biased reporting. The "newspaper of record" has slid into yellow journalism, the practice of two earlier New York newspapers – William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal and Joseph Pulitzer's New York World – that in the 1890s manipulated facts about the crisis in Cuba to push the United States into war with Spain, a conflict that many historians say marked the beginning of America's global empire.

Except in today's instance, The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that.

At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media.

Even as neo-Nazi and ultranationalist protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at police, Yanukovych signaled a willingness to compromise and ordered his police to avoid worsening violence. But compromise wasn't good enough for U.S. neocons – such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland; Sen. John McCain; and National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman. They had invested too much in moving Ukraine away from Russia.

Nuland put the U.S. spending at $5 billion and was caught discussing with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should be in the new government and how to "glue" or "midwife this thing"; McCain appeared on stage urging on far-right militants; and Gershman was overseeing scores of NED projects inside Ukraine, which he had deemed the "biggest prize" and an important step in achieving an even bigger regime change in Russia, or as he put it: "Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian imperialism that Putin represents. Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."

The Putsch

So, on Feb. 20, 2014, instead of seeking peace , a sniper firing from a building controlled by anti-Yanukovych forces killed both police and protesters, touching off a day of carnage. Immediately, the Western media blamed Yanukovych. Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally in Kiev.

Shaken by the violence, Yanukovych again tried to pacify matters by reaching a compromise -- guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland -- to relinquish some of his powers and move up an election so he could be voted out of office peacefully. He also pulled back the police.

At that juncture, the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists spearheaded a violent putsch on Feb. 22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Ignoring the agreement guaranteed by the three European nations, Nuland and the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the coup regime "legitimate."

However, ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which represented Yanukovych's electoral base, resisted the coup and turned to Russia for protection. Contrary to the Times' narrative, there was no "Russian invasion" of Crimea because Russian troops were already there as part of an agreement for its Sevastopol naval base. That's why you've never seen photos of Russian troops crashing across Ukraine's borders in tanks or splashing ashore in Crimea with an amphibious landing or descending by parachute. They were already inside Crimea.

The Crimean autonomous government also voted to undertake a referendum on whether to leave the failed Ukrainian state and to rejoin Russia, which had governed Crimea since the Eighteenth Century. In that referendum, Crimean citizens voted by some 96 percent to exit Ukraine and seek reunion with Russia, a democratic and voluntary process that the Times always calls "annexation."

The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists."

But what is particularly remarkable about the endless Russia-bashing is that – because it started under President Obama – it sucked in many American liberals and even some progressives. That process grew even worse when the contempt for Russia merged with the Left's revulsion over Donald Trump's election.

Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate.

The Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire U.S. news media joined the "resistance" to Trump's presidency and embraced the neocon "regime change" goal for Putin's Russia. Very few people care about the enormous risks that this "strategy" entails.

For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia.

The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism.

The Times and rest of the mainstream media are just having too much fun hating Russia and Putin to worry about the possible extermination of life on planet Earth.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

jo6pac , September 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm

Amerikas way of bring the big D to your nation. Death

http://www.globalresearch.ca/unknown-snipers-and-western-backed-regime-change/27904

Thanks RP for reading the times so I don't have to not that would.

Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Thanks for the link, I knew about the use of snipers in Venezuela '02, did not realize there were so many more.

BayouCoyote , September 18, 2017 at 11:13 am

Kinda reminds me of what our only "Ally in the ME" did to our Marines in Iraq.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIiGfUjZnbU

JWalters , September 16, 2017 at 7:29 pm

Bingo -- In a surely related story, the mainstream press is equally relentless in AVOIDING telling Americans the facts about Israel, and especially about its control over the American press.
"Israel lobby is never a story (for media that is in bed with the lobby)"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/israel-lobby-never/

Virtually everything average Americans have been told about Israel has been, amazingly, an absolute lie. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for all.

How has this gigantic package of outright lies has been foisted upon the American public for so long? And how long can it continue? It turns out they did not foresee the internet, and the facts are leaking out everywhere. So it appears they're desperately coercing facebook and google to rig their rankings, trying to hide the facts. But one day soon there will be a 'snap' in the collective mind, and everybody will know that everybody knows.

For readers who haven't seen it yet,
"War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror"
http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

Common Tater , September 17, 2017 at 3:48 am

JWalters
I can tell you are angry. I too was angry when I figured it out.
Long before I figured it out, I was a soldier. Our unit was prepared for an exercise and we were all sleeping at the regiment compound, the buses would arrive at zero-dark thirty. I was reading a book about the ME(this was shortly after 9-11). A friend, came up and asked what I was reading. I told him I was reading about the Balfour paper and how that had a significant effect on the ME. He began explaining to me how the zionist movement had used the idea that no one lived on that land, to force the people from that land, out of that land.
I quickly responded that Israel had defended that land against 5 Arab armies and managed to hold on to that land. I informed him he was mistaken.
He agreed to disagree, and walked away.
This happened way back in 2002 if only I could pick his mind now. How did he know about this, way back before the internet was in any shape to wake people up?
There is hope still that guys who are young as i was, will say "Fuck You I defend this line and no further."
Without their compliance, there can be no wars.

Bernard Fisher , September 17, 2017 at 8:57 am

CommonTater your story parallels mine -- I was in the military, went to Vietnam to 'defend our nation against communism', felt horror at the Zionist stories of how Palestinians rocketed them, was told by senior officer about what Zionism is really about and I, like you, disbelieved him. That was in 1974 -- -- Now, with all the troubles in the world I won't read the MSP but look towards the alternative news sources. They make more sense. But as I try to educate others on what I have learned I am as disappointed as my senior officer must have been back them. Articles such as this one reproduced by ICH are gems: I save and print them in a compendium detailing ongoing war crimes.

Common Tater , September 17, 2017 at 2:35 pm

Bernard Fisher
Thanks for your response.
Good Idea to save and print these "gems" on consortiumnews.
Hopefully they wake more Americans.
Cheers

michael fish , September 15, 2017 at 5:44 pm

Thanks Mr. Parry,
You are a voice in the hurricane of hatred and lies propagated by the richest people on the planet.
Eventually some moron who believes this new York Times garbage will actually unleash the bomb and we will all be smoke.
That has always been the result of such successful propaganda. And it is very successful. It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners .
Michael Fish

Yomamama , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 am

Agreed. I wish this clear and comprehensive article could be stapled on every American voter's door (wanted to say forehead but violence is bad). Many would toss it in the trash. Many would not agree even with full comprehension because of their own horrid beliefs. But maybe a few would read it and have an epiphany. It's very hard work to find an avenue to change the minds of millions of people who've been inculcated by nationalist propaganda since birth. Since 4 years old seeing the wonderful National Anthem and jets fly over the stadium of their favorite sports team. Since required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

I refused to stand for or recite the Pledge when I was seven or eight years old. I was sent to detention. My awesome mom though intervened and afterwards I could remain seated while most or all other kids stood up to do the ritual. I refuse to stand up and place hand-on-heart and remove cap during any sporting contests when the Anthem is played. I've been threatened with physical violence by many strangers around me.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

Thanks Mr. Parry, your voice is appreciated, your articles and logic are top-notch. Very valuable stuff, available for the curious, the skeptical. Well, until Google monopolizes search algorithms and calls this a Russian fake news site, perhaps or Congress the same

Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

Excellent link, Yomamama.

Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm

My hat is off to you sir, I have not been to any sporting events since I woke up, but I imagine it would be very difficult to remain seated and hatted during the opening affirmation of nationalism. My waking up coincides with a drastic drop in sports viewing. I used to be an NFL fan, rooted for the Niners (started watching NFL in the late eighties), the last full season I followed was the 2013-14 season.

It was the Ukraine coup that woke me up. It started when watching videos on youtube of guys stomping on riot cops, using a fire hose on them like a reverse water cannon. Then I realized these guys were the peaceful protesters being talked about on t.v. It was like a thread hanging in front of me, I began pulling and pulling until the veil in front of my eyes came apart. It was during this time I discovered consortiumnews.com.

Thomas Dickinson , September 16, 2017 at 3:03 pm

Mr Common Tater–just appreciating reading that someone else "woke up". That is the way it has felt to me. For me it was Oct 2002 and Bush's speech that was clearly heading us to war in Iraq. The "election" (appointment) of Bush in 2000 though was the first alarm clock that I started to hear. Most recent wake up is connected to Mr Parry's relentless (I hope) and necessary debunking of the myth of Russian nastiness and corresponding myth of US rectitude. Been watching The Untold History of the United States and have been dealing with the real bedrock truth that my government invented and invents enemies as a tactic in a game–ie. it's a bunch of boys thinking foreign relationship building is first and foremost a game. It has been hard to wash away all this greasy insidious smut from my life.

Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 4:28 pm

Thomas Dickinson

It sucks to wake up, in a way. Once one gets past the denial, Tom Clancy novel type movies lose some of it's fun, although still entertaining. One secretly knows the audience in the cinema is just eating it all up and loving it. The American hero yells "yippie kayay mother f -- -r" as he defeats the post-Soviet Russian villain in Russia blowing up buildings, and destroying s–t as he saves the world for democracy. The Russian authorities amount to some guy in Soviet peaked hat, and long coat, begging for a bribe.

Oliver Stone's series is really good, it turns history on his head and shakes all the pennies out his pockets. Another good reporter is John Pilger, he has a long list of docs he has done over several decades.

Cheers

Homer Jay , September 16, 2017 at 5:44 pm

I have been watching that same series, about 3 episodes in. The most mind blowing part to think about is how the establishment consipired to block the nomination of the progressive Henry Wallace as a repeat VP for Roosevelt, leading instead to Harry Truman's nomination as VP, and then you know the rest of the story.

Funny how history repeated itself with the nomination of Clinton instead of Sanders. Btw, after Sanders mistakenly jumped on the Russia bashing bandwagon he was one of the few who voted against the recent sanctions being imposed against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So yeah, I'd feel alot better with a Sanders president at this point.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm

Apart from the obvious Exceptionalist and Zionazi imperative to destroy Russia and China in order that God's Kingdom of 'Full Spectrum Dominance' be established across His world by his various 'Chosen People', the USA always needs an enemy. Now, more than ever, as the country crumbles into disrepair and unprecedented inequality, poverty and elite arrogance, the proles must be led to blame their plight on some Evil foreign daemon.

Only this time its no Saddam or Gaddaffi or Assad that can be easily bombed back to that Stone Age that all the non-Chosen must inhabit. This time the bullying thugs will get a, thermo-nuclear, bloody nose if they do not back off. Regretably, their egos refuse to withdraw, even in the interest of self-survival.

Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:13 am

" It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners."

You are so right about that, I notice it every day on other forums on which I discuss current affairs with others: the US views are the accepted ones, and I get a lot of stick for stating different views. It is actually frightening to see how few people can think for themselves.

mike k , September 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm

The American people are being systematically lied to, and they don't have a clue that it is happening. There is no awake and intelligent public to prevent what is unfolding. The worst kind of criminals are in charge of our government, media, and military. The sleeping masses are making their way down the dark mountain to the hellish outcome that awaits them.

"These grand and fatal movements toward death: the grandeur
of the mass
Makes pity a fool, the tearing pity
For the atoms of the mass, the persons, the victims, makes it
seem monstrous
To admire the tragic beauty they build.
It is beautiful as a river flowing or a slowly gathering
Glacier on a high mountain rock-face,
Bound to plow down a forest, or as frost in November,
The gold and flaming death-dance for leaves,
Or a girl in the night of her spent maidenhood, bleeding and
kissing.
I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
To change the future I should do foolishly. The beauty
of modern
Man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain."

Robinson Jeffers

HopeLB , September 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm

Great, Dark and Accurate poem -- Thank You -- Think I'll send it to Rachel Maddow, Wapo and the NYTimes.Might do them some good. Wouldn't that be lovely.

Patrick Lucius , September 16, 2017 at 12:42 am

Which poem is that? Not Shine, perishing Republic, is it?

Thomas Dickinson , September 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm

Rearmament by Robinson Jeffers. I liked that a lot, too, so looked it up. https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/rearmament/

Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 11:35 am

Fabulous reply. Back atcha:

Dulce et Decorum Est
BY WILFRED OWEN

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas -- GAS -- Quick, boys -- -- An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. --
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.

******************************

And this, from Bob Dylan's "Jokerman" .

Freedom just around the corner for you
But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?

******************************

I love life and am by nature a cockeyed optimist, but I find myself intermittently gloomy, my optimism overwhelmed by cynicism, when I see the abundance of moronic belligerence so passionately snarled out in the comments sections across the internet. Clearly, humans are cursed with an addiction to violence For my part, I am old and will die soon and have no children, plus I live in a quiet backwater far away from the nuclear blast zone. Humanity seems on course for a major "culling". Insane and sad.

Mike Morrison , September 15, 2017 at 5:48 pm

Over three years now the war in Donbass, Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoKj39HKls

Dr. Ando Arike , September 15, 2017 at 5:49 pm

I'd like to see more investigative reporting on the NYT's and other major media outlets' links to the CIA and other Deep State info-war bureaus. What the Times is doing now is reminiscent of the Michael Gordon-Judith Miller propaganda in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. Operation Mockingbird, uncovered during the mid-70s Church Hearings, is an ongoing effort, it would seem. Revealing hard links to CIA information ops would be a great service to humanity.

SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:22 pm

After 'Michael Gordon-Judith Miller' I stopped reading the Times.

Beard681 , September 18, 2017 at 11:52 am

I am amazed at how many conspiracy types there are who want to see some sort of oligarch, capitalist, zionist or deep state cabal behind it all. (That is a REALLY optimistic view of the human propensity for violent conflict.) It is just a bunch of corporate shills pushing for war (hopefully cold) because war sells newspapers.

Rich Rubenstein , September 15, 2017 at 5:53 pm

Robert Parry has gotten this exactly right -- I'm a regular NYTimes subscriber /-have been for years -- and I have NEVER read anything about Russia that has not been written by professional Russia-haters like Higgins. Frankly, I don't get it. What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?

mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm

Have you looked into who owns the NYT?

Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:32 am

Why do you keep reading the NYT? Not only the Russia stories are heavily biased, but all their stories are. Most op-ed's about Israel/Palestine are written by zealous pro-Israel/pro-Zionists, against very few pro-Palestine people.

Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:07 am

The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build.

THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight).

Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:08 am

Progs=propaganda stupid iPad.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm

Here in Aust-failure I read the papers for many years until they became TOO repulsive, particularly the Murdoch hate and fear-mongering rags. I also, and still do, masochistically listen to the Government ABC and SBS. In all those years I really cannot recall any articles or programs that reported on Russia or China in a positive manner, save when Yeltsin, a true hero to all our fakestream media, was in charge. That sort of uniformity of opinion, over generations, is almost admirable. And the necessity to ALWAYS follow the Imperial US ('Our great and powerful friend') line leads to some deficiencies in the quality of the personnel employed, as I one again reflected upon the other day when one hackette referred to (The Evil, of course)Kim Jong-un as 'President Un', several times.

Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm

"What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?"

Several points:

The Russian -- formerly Commie -- -- boogieman is a profit center for the military, their industrial suppliers, and the political class. That's the major factor. But also, the Zionist project requires a bulked up US military "tasked" with "full spectrum" military dominance -- the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the American jackboot on the world's throat forever -- to insure the eternal protection of Israel. Largely unseen in this Israeli/Zionist factor is the thousand-year-old blood feud between the Jews and Russians. They are ancient enemies since the founding of Czarist Russia. No amount of time or modernity can diminish the passion of that animus. (I suspect that the Zionist aim to "destroy" Russia will eventually backfire and lead instead to the destruction of Israel, but really, we shouldn't talk about that.)

mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:26 pm

The richest man in the world has the controlling interest in the NYT. Draw your own conclusions.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/mexican-billionaire-carlos-slim-becomes-top-owner-of-new-york-times/

Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:36 am

Mexico, ground zero for the world fascist movement in the 20s and 30s (going by name Synarchy Internationale still does) throuout Ibero-America, centered in PAN. The Spanish-speaking World had to contend with Franco, and Salazar being in power so long in the respective "Mother Countries" of the Iberian Peninsula. This was the main trail for the ratlines to travel.

I saw a dead coyote on the side of the road the other day. I know you know what that means to me, Mike. Omens are a lost art in these modern times, and I have no expertise in these matters, but it struck my attention hard. It was on the right side of the road: trouble for Trump coming from The Right? They are more potent than the ineffective Left, so this might be the way Trump is pulled down.

Sfomarco , September 16, 2017 at 3:37 pm

Carlos Slim (f/k/a Salim)

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:31 pm

Yes, but who bankrolls Slim?

Stiv , September 15, 2017 at 6:51 pm

I wouldn't even need to read this to know what's going to be said. After the last article from Parry, which was very good and interesting .plowing new ground for him he's back to rehashing the same old shit. Not that it's necessarily wrong, only been said about a hundred times. Yawn

D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:46 am

After months of so many people pointing out how and why the "Russia stole the election" claim is false, it came roaring back (in liberal media) in recent days. It demands a response.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am

No one is required to read anything on CN.

Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

RP brought lots of new things into play in his article and showed how they mesh together and support one another "against Trump." I almost skipped it because so familiar with the topic, but RP brought new light to the subject, in my humble opinion.

Common Tater , September 16, 2017 at 2:40 pm

I do not need to read or watch established "news" media to know what's going to be said. After the last b.s. story from the usual talking heads which was low brow and insulting to the intelligence of the audience, they are back at it again same ol'shit by the same talking heads. It is most definitely wrong, and it needs to be countered as much as possible not yawning.

Gregory Herr , September 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm

That's what struck me just how absurdly insulting will the Times get?

And I think the point that trying to destabilize the Russian Federation may very well bring about a more militant hardline Russia is important to stress.

anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:02 am

"Stiv" is a troll who makes this junk comment every time. Better to ignore him.

Colin , September 18, 2017 at 11:54 am

Were you planning to contribute anything useful to the discussion?

SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:19 pm

I always wonder what motivation the accusers believe you have when they call you a 'Putin stooge'. Why would you be one? Are you getting paid? Of course not, so this is just a judgment on your part. They could call you a fool, but accuse you of 'carrying water for the Kremlin' as I heard that execrable creature, Adam Schiff say to Tucker Carlson? That just makes no sense. Of course, none of it is rational.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm

They're insane. A crumbling Empire which was supposed to rule the world forever, 'Under God' through Full Spectrum Dominance, but which, in fact, is disintegrating under its own moral, intellectual and spiritual rottenness, is bound to produce hate-crazed zealots looking for foreign scape-goats. Add the rage of the Clintonbots whose propaganda had told then for months that the She-Devil would crush the carnival-huckster, and her vicious post-defeat campaign to drive for war with Russia (what a truly Evil creature she is)and you get this hysteria. Interestingly, 'hysteria' is the word used to describe Bibi Nutty-yahoo, the USA's de facto 'capo di tutti capi', in Sochi recently when Putin refused to follow orders.

David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:30 pm

I have another theory I'd like to get reviewed. These are corporate wars, and not aimed at the stability of nations. It is claimed that in 1991, at the fall of the Soviet Union, the oligarchs were created by the massive purchasing of the assets of the collapsing nation. The CIA was said to have put together a 'bond issue' worth some $480 Billion, and it was used to buy farms, factories, mineral rights and other formerly common holdings of the USSR. This 'bond issue' was never repaid to the US taxpayers, and the deeds are in the hands of various oligarchs. Not all of the oligarchs are tied to the CIA, as there were other wells of purchasers of the country, but the ties to Trump are actually ties to dirty CIA or other organized crime entities.

The NY Times may be trying to capture certain assets for certain clients, and their editorial policy reflects this.

I'd appreciate feedback on this.

Thanks,
David

David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:33 pm

There are many on-line videos on this theme. Searching 'Black Eagle Trust' is one form. Here is one link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhBZJEqoe0A

stephen sivonda , September 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm

David Grace . what have we here, a thinking man? I like your premise, and I haven't even watched the link you supplied. That being said, I'll sign off and investigate that link.

D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:39 am

Conspiracy theories upon conspiracy theories, ensuring that the public will never be able to root out the facts. People still argue about the Kennedy assassination 54 years later.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:39 pm

There is no rational 'argument' about what really happened to JFK.

Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Most conspiracy theories are fantasy fiction. If you have real evidence, based on verifiable facts, then it's not a theory any more. But most of the conspiracy theories popular in the USA just serve popular vanity. We never have to accept our mistakes, our crimes against humanity, etc. It's always THEIR fault.

We Americans over all are like small children, always making excuses.

mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:23 pm

Some of the material on the Black Eagle Trust are suspect. It gives figures for stolen Japanese war loot, for example, that are simply ludicrous. Figures of so many thousand tons of gold, for example, when the references should probably be to OUNCES of gold.

RBHoughton , September 15, 2017 at 8:03 pm

One sniper in Ukraine overthrew the democratic government. Previously one sniper in Dallas overthrew another democratic government. Are there any other examples?

Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into supposing they have value beyond their labour?

AshenLight , September 15, 2017 at 10:13 pm

> Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into supposing they have value beyond their labour?

It's about control -- those who know they are slaves will resist and fight, but those who mistakenly believe they are free will not (and if you give them even just a little comfort, they'll tenaciously defend their own enslavement). It turns out this "inverted totalitarianism" thing works a lot better than the old-fashioned kind.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:19 am

Indeed. Gurdjieff told the tale of a farmer whose sheep were always wandering off due to his being unable to afford fences to keep them in. Then he had an idea, and called them all together. He told some of them they were eagles, and others lions etc. They were now so proud of their new identities that it never occurred to them anymore to escape from their master's small domain.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:23 am

MLK is another example, as is Robert Kennedy.

Anna , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

The American patriots are coming out: "CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The Shadow Government" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092G That would be the end of the Lobby, mega oilmen and the FedReserve criminals

mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm

Yes, snipers on rooftops in Deraa, southern Syria, in 2011. These mysterious figures fired into crowds, deliberately targeting women and young children to inflame the crowd. At the same time the same snipers killed 7 police officers. Unarmed police had been sent in to deal with unrest without bloodshed. These police officers were armed only with batons.

This is a standard page from the CIA playbook. The mysterious snipers in Maidan Square in 2014 are believed to have been Yugoslavian mercenaries hired by the CIA

Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:14 pm

The US has had oligarchy since 1789.

BobH , September 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm

We all have some kind of a bias but fortunately most of us here know the difference between bias and propaganda. Bias based on facts and our own values is often constructive but the N.Y. Times(like most msm) has descended into disseminating insidious propaganda. Unfortunately the search for truth requires a bit more research and time than most people are willing to invest. Thankfully, Robert Parry continues his quest but the dragons are not easy to slay. My own quest for truth once led to a philosophical essay. The cartoon at the bottom(SH Chambers) sums it up.
https://crivellistreetchronicle.blogspot.com/2016/07/truth-elusive-concept.html

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:13 am

I put a comment on your blog.

BobH , September 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

Mike, thanks so much, I'll look forward to reading it(so far, I don't see it Moderation?)

Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm

If we have a bias towards honesty, that helps. It keeps one's mind more open and provides a willingness to entertain various points of view. It's not naivete, however, but thoughtful consideration coupled with awareness and that protects one from being easily manipulated. But then, oppositely, there's a human tendency to want to be popular which inclines one towards groupthink. But why that so entrenches itself, making people impervious to truth, is a conundrum -- Maybe if the "why" can be answered, the "how" will become apparent -- how to reach individuals with the truth as so oft told, though hard on the ears, at CN.

Jacob Leyva , September 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm

So what do you think of the Russia-Facebook dealings? When will we get an article on that?

Fuzzy , September 18, 2017 at 7:19 am

Really? You think this is important?

http://davidswanson.org/warlist/?link_id=3&can_id=ed31bf4cbc8f991980718b21b49ca26d&source=email-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928-2&email_referrer=email_232560&email_subject=how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928

John , September 15, 2017 at 10:47 pm

The Russian /Iranian vs the Ashkenazi has been going on for many, many years ..The USA is to a large extent controlled by the Ashkenazi / Zionist agenda which literally owns most of the MSM outlets .Agendas must be announced through propaganda to sway the sleeping public toward conformity .The only baffling question that remains is why do Americans allow Zionist to control such a large part of their great republic ?

Art , September 16, 2017 at 1:43 am

Robert, you come from intelligence. Why don't you look at Russia-gate from all possible angles?
I suggest the following. Putin is an American spy. Russia-gate is created to make him a winner, a hero.
And the specious confrontation is a good cover for Putin.
This is in a nutshell.
I can obviously say mu-uch more.

D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:33 am

Throughout 2017, we've seen a surge of efforts by both parties -- via the media that serve them -- to build support for a final nuclear war. The focus jumps from rattling war sabers at China (via Korea, at the moment) to rattling them at Russia, two nuclear-armed world powers. This has been working to bring Russia and China together, resolving their years of conflict in view of a potential world threat -- the US. Whatever their delusions, and regardless of their ideology, our political leaders are setting the stage for the deaths of millions of us, and the utter destruction of the US.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:59 am

Our political leaders have betrayed us.

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:42 pm

Thermo-nuclear war would cause human extinction, not just billions of casualties.

Jim Glover , September 16, 2017 at 3:15 am

It is the same now with North Korea and China. So what would happen if those nations were destabilized by Sanctions or worse Russia, China Iran and more would support Kim. How to make peace?

Dennis Rodman has the guts to suggest call and talk with Kim or "Try it you might like it better than total mutual destruction". Think Love and Peace it can't hurt like all the war, hate and fear the media keeps pushing for advertising profits. War and Fear is the biggest racket on the planet. What can I do? Fighting a losing battle but it is fun tryin' to win.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:57 am

We may be losing now, but who knows? It ain't over till it's over. Hang in there.

GMC , September 16, 2017 at 3:20 am

Great article- again . I used to live in the US, I used to live in Alaska, I used to live in Crimea, Ukraine but now I live in Crimea, Russia and Smolensk, Ru. I watched this all go down but it took awhile to see the entire picture. I seldom get any more emails from the states – even my brother doesn't get it. They think I'm now a " commie" , I guess. I see it as the last big gasp of hot, dangerous air from an Empire -- Exposed. Unfortunately, its not over yet and maybe we/you will have more bad times ahead. Crimea this summer is doing well with much work going on – from the badly needed new infrastructure to the new bridge, the people are much better off than in Ukraine. They made the right choice in returning to Mother Russia even though it was a no-brainer for them. The world is lucky to have free writers like, Parry, Roberts, Vltchek, Pepe', the Saker and the intelligent commenters are as important as the writers in spreading the Pravda. Spacibo Mr. Parry

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:54 am

Thanks for sharing with us GMC. And good luck to you.

ranney , September 16, 2017 at 4:22 am

YES -- -- -- -- -- Yes to all that you wrote Robert -- Thank you again for writing clearly and saying what obviously needs to be said, but no one else will. We've been down this road before -i.e. the media pulling us into wars of Empire – first the Spanish- American one, then a bunch of others working up to Viet Nam, and then Iraq. Each one gets worse and now we're reaching for a nuclear one. Keep writing; your voice gives some of us hope that just maybe others will join in and stop the media from their constant "messages of hate" and the urging of the public to a suicidal conflagration.

Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 8:55 am

The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record?

Come to think of it, the 'fake news' theme is brilliant considering that now we have no bench mark for what the truth is, and by not having that bench mark for the truth we all go our separate ways believing what we believe, because certainly my news source is the only truthful one, and your news source is beyond questionable of how the news should be reported.

People read headlines, but hardly do they ever read the article. Many hear news sound bites, but never do they do the research required, in order to verify the stories accuracy. Hear say works even more to rain in the clouds of mass deception. Then there are those who sort of buy whatever it is the established news outlets are selling based on their belief that it doesn't much matter anyway, because 'the establishment' lies to us all the time as a rule, so what's the big deal to keep up on the news, because it's all obviously one big lie isn't it? So not only do we have irresponsible news journalist, we also have a very large number of a monopolized unqualified news gatherers who must accept what the various news agencies report, regardless of what the truth may be. It's better the Establishment keep it this way, because then the Establishment has better control over the 'mob grabbing the pitchforks and sickles' and crying out justice for somebody's head. It's kind of like job security for the Establishment, but in their case it's more like a 'keeping your elitist head' security, if you know what I mean.

To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:29 am

The truth has never been that easy to find Joe. Actually all the beyond obvious propaganda on the MSM might wake some people up to do the searching necessary to get closer to what is really happening in their world. Maybe the liars have finally overplayed their hand? Or are we the people really that dumb? (I am scared to hear the answer to that one -- )

Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 12:04 pm

I could be a wise guy, and say to you 'or so you say' in reply to your kind comment, but then that would make me a troll.

All I'm saying mike is that in this era of 'fake news' we are all running about on different levels, and never shall the two of us meet. That is unless you and I get our news from the same source, but what are the odds of all of us getting the same news? It's impossible, and I'm not quite that sure that that would be what we want either. Still without an objective, and honest large media to set the correct narrative we end up in this place, where you might find yourself doing a spread sheet study to come to some conclusion of what is true, and what isn't.

Case in point, read about Russia-Gate here on consortiumnews, and then go listen to Rachel Maddow report on the same thing. Two different sets of stories. Just try and reconcile what you read on sites like this one concerning Ukraine, then go watch MSNBC or CNN. Never a match. So you mike read consortiumnews, and your in laws read the NYT and watch CNN, and there you go, a controversy arises between you and the in laws and with that life goes on, but where is the correct news to be found to settle the score?

Once upon a time the established news agencies such as CNN, and the NYT, were the hallmark of the news, and sites such as this one were the ones on the edge, now I'm convinced this conviction has reversed itself.

Thanks mike for the reply. Joe

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:07 am

Wouldn't it be hilarious mike, if the dumbed down people attacked the Bastille under false pretense? Especially if the lie had been concocted by the blinded by their own hubris sitting powers to be. Talk about poetic justice, and well placed irony. Priceless --

Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm

Joe, Apparently people take the easy way out. And that's just it -- "the way out." Extinction -- Maybe they haven't learned there's something worth learning about and living for. I'm gonna concentrate on that. Open eyes that they might see

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:08 am

You are right Virginia, it is probably 'a way out', and God bless them for it. My late Mother was like that, but I'll tell you why. When my Mother was growing up in a family of eleven children, her father would rent out their street level basement to the voting polls. A block away my uncle who was quite older than my Mother owned a corner saloon. Now on Election Day my Mother said how the men in suits would pull up in their big expensive cars, and they would descend upon my uncles corner bar. Soon after one by one drunks would come out of the tavern wearing Republican buttons then they would go into grandpap's basement voting booth, and vote. Not long after my Mom said, the same drunks would come pouring out of my uncles tavern and this time they were wearing Democratic buttons, and they would go vote once or as many times as it would take to thank the big guys in the suits for the free drinks. My Mom said this went on all day. She said a lot dead people voted whether they knew it or not, and that's the truth. She would follow up by saying, 'yeah a lot of politicians won on the drunk vote'.

So Virginia some can't take the decept and lying, and with that they give up. I myself don't feel this way, but then there are the times I can't help but think of how my dear sweet Mother probably did have it right for the sake of living your life in the most upright and honest way. Sadly, there is no virtue in politics, or so it seems.

Oh yeah, that uncle who owned the corner saloon, he did go into politics holding nominee appointed positions, until he got wise and got a honest job, as he would jokingly say.

For the record my Mother did vote, but she was the lady standing in line who looked reluctant and pissed off to be there, but never the less my Mum was a voter. Oh, the candidate my Mother loved the most was JFK. John F Kennedy's was the only presidential picture my Mother ever hung in our humble home.

My message here, was only meant to give some cover, and an explanation for those who shy away from politics, and not an excuse to stay uninvolved. For even my non political Mum did at least in the end break down, and do the right thing. We should all at least try, and keep up on the events of our time, and vote with the best intentions we can muster up.

Okay, I'm sorry for the length of my reply, but you are always worth taking time for me to give a reasonable answer to. I also hope I'm entertaining with these stories I seem to tell from time to time. Take care Virginia. Joe

Tannenhouser , September 17, 2017 at 7:28 pm

Humans are approximately 90% water, give or take depending on evaporation (Age). Water always takes the path of least resistance. Oh I wish and hope for the day when most realize they are much more than 'just' water:)

Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:47 pm

The fakestream media lies incessantly, and has for generations. Chomsky and Herman's 'Manufacturing Consent' outlines the propaganda role of the 'mass media', and is twenty-five years old, in which period things have gotten MUCH worse (just look at the fate of the UK 'Guardian' for an example). Yet the fakestream presstitutes STILL have the unmitigated gall to call others 'fake' and demand that we believe their unbelievable narratives. That's real chutzpah.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:26 am

You know Mulga you are correct, many generations have listened to many, many, lies upon their way to the voting booths. It goes without saying, how the aristocrats when they find it necessary, as they often do find it necessary, they lie to their flock for a whole host of reasons. Why we could pick anytime in history, and find out where lies have paved the way to a leaders greater conquest, or a leaders said greater conquest if not met with defeat, but never the less the public was used to propel some leaders wishes onward and upward whether for the good or the bad.

But here we are Mulga, you and the rest of us here, straddling on the fence over what might be right to what possibly could be wrong. Without a responsible press you and us Mulga need to learn from each other. Like when comment posters leave links, that's always been something good for me to follow through on.

We live in a unique time, but a time not that unique, as much as it is our time. Our great, great, grandparents were straddling the same fence, and I'm guessing they too relied on each other to navigate there way through the twisting maze of politics, and basically what they all wanted, was a little peace on earth. So Mulga I also guess that you and we the people are just carrying on a tradition that us common folk have been assigned too continue.

Like reading your comments Mulga, good to see you here. Joe

Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm

Fake news has always been common. Critical thinking has never been popular because Occam's Razor might slice your favorite story to shreds. Personally, I give full credence to few things in life, but suspect many more, to some degree. I trust my own experiences more than what I read in the media and try to reject conventional wisdom as much as possible.

Herman , September 16, 2017 at 9:39 am

Observing Putin's behavior, you have to be impressed with his continue willingness to extend the olive branch and to seek a reasonable settlement of differences. His language always leaves open the possibility of détente with the understanding that Russia is not going to lay down to be run over. On the contrary, the language of Obama and Trump, and their representatives is consistently take it or leave and engaging in school yard insults of Russia, Putin, Lavrov and others. We have consistently played the bully in the school yard encouraging others to join in the bullying. We talk about the corrosive discourse at home, but observe the discourse in foreign affairs. Trump and his associates are guilty, but slick talking Obama and his subordinates was often worse. .As has so often been said, we have only two arrows in our foreign affairs quiver, war and sanctions. We lack the imagination and will to actually engage in civil discussions with those on our enemies' list.

Parry is of course correct in his opinion of the New York Times but it doesn't stop there, only that the New York Times undeservedly is the "newspaper of record." His citing of Orwell is on the mark. Just turn your TV on for the news and see for yourself.

Dave P. , September 16, 2017 at 8:27 pm

Very well said, Herman. Very true.

Patricia Victour , September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am

I don't subscribe to the NYT for this reason, and it is galling to me that our local rag, "The Santa Fe New Mexican," while featuring excellent local coverage for the most part, gets all it's "national" news from the likes of the NYT, WaPo, and AP. These stories, much of it "fake news" in my opinion, are offered as gospel by the "New Mexican", with no journalistic effort to print opposing views. People I know seem so proud of themselves that they subscribe to "The Times," and I don't even dare try to point out to them that they are being duped and propagandized into believing the most outrageous (and dangerous) crap.

To add another dimension, these sources are so jealous of their position as the ultimate word on what Americans are to believe, and also so worried about their waning influence, that now RT and Sputnik, both Russia-sponsored news outlets, may be forced to register as "foreign agents" in the U.S. I am not familiar with Sputnik, but I have been watching RT on TV for several years and find it to be an excellent source of national and foreign news. Stories I see first on RT are usually confirmed soon after by other reliable sources, such as this excellent site – Consortiumnews. At no point did I feel I was being coerced by Russia during the 2016 election – I needed no confirmation that both Trump and Clinton were probably the worst candidates ever to run for President.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:31 am

You know what I find interesting is how a reporter such as Robert Parry will pinpoint his details to a critique of say the NYT, but when or if a NYTer is to write a likewise article of the Alternative Internet Press the NYTer will just simply critique their internet rival as a 'conspiracy theorist' or as now as in 2017 they refer to them as 'fake news artist'. I mean no rebuttal back referencing certain details such as what Parry mentioned, but just rhetorical words written over tabloid written headlines finalized under the heading of 'fake news'. This must be being taught in journalism school these days, because it's popular in the MSM.

Just like you have never heard or read from the MSM a detailed answered rebuttal to the pointed questions of say the '911 Truthers' or a 'JFK Assassination Researcher' a valid bona fide answer. No, but you do hear the masters and mistresses of the corporate media world call writers such as Parry, Roberts, and St Clair, 'fake newscasters', 'Putin Puppets', and or a whole host of other nasty names, as they feel fit to write, but never a honest too goodness rebuttal. Then they talk about Trump not sounding or acting presidential hmm the nerve of these wordsmiths.

BTW, I don't care much for Trump, and I even care less for our MSM. Just wanted to get that straight.

Nice comment Patricia. Joe

hatedbyu , September 16, 2017 at 10:57 am

let's not forget about the nytimes grossly negligent reporting on syria and libya. judith miller? russian doping scandal. lying about the holdomor . man i could do this all day ..

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 10:12 am

You mean the on air hours of punditry explaining away their professions mistakes, or the honest rebuttal? It's at those particular times and occurrences of ignored self reflection our honorable (not) MSM falls back on Orwell's 1984. Like it never happened. The dog didn't eat no home work, because there never was a dog, nor was there any homework .stupid us. Life goes on uninterrupted and non commercial time can be filled with an update on Bill Cosby's past alleged sexual predator attacks, and this is our professional news casting doing its best to entertain us, not inform us god forbid, but entertain us the ignorant masses of their workless society.

One day hatedbyu the ignorant masses may just show the corporate infotainment duchess and dudes that they 'the people' ain't so ignorant, and things must change. Well at least that's the dream, but it's still a work in progress, and then there's the historical seesaw.

I think it's the power of empire to expand, just like a balloon, until it reaches it's bursting point. But just what that bursting point is, is without a doubt the most disputable of arguments to be made. I am coming to the belief we are, as always, continually getting to that point, and we may of course be very close to igniting that spark in the not so far off future. I would prefer the spark to be completely financial, and dealt with accordingly, but I'm a dreamer purest and a conspiracy theorist, so that means when the crap starts going down, I'll be the old man on the hill lighting up a big fat doobie cue soundtrack 'Fool On the Hill'.

Sorry just had to get carried away, but it's Sunday morning hatedbyu and I'm home alone and nobody's trying to break in .. Good comment hatedbyu. Joe

Stephen J. , September 16, 2017 at 11:27 am

A Compilation Not seen in Corporate Media: See Link Below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
US Wars and Hostile Actions: A List
By David Swanson

http://davidswanson.org/warlist/?link_id=3&can_id=ed31bf4cbc8f991980718b21b49ca26d&source=email-how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928-2&email_referrer=email_232560&email_subject=how-outlawing-war-changed-the-world-in-1928

Bob Van Noy , September 16, 2017 at 9:42 pm

Stephen J. Thank you for introducing me to David Swanson. Great link.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 11:29 am

Im with you on that Bob, Stephen J providing the Swanson link should be a must read, to keep things fair and balanced. I also do wonder if Swanson's message isn't getting out there, and we all don't already know it? I'm a glass half full kind of guy, but what do we really know about each other, other than what the corporate media instills on us? I wish cable news would air a program made up of Swanson, Pilger, and Parry, for that at least could put some well needed balance finality back, if it ever was there in the first place, back into the public narrative .but there go I.

Good to see you Bob. Joe

Hank , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

The deep state sticks with what works: controlling the media keeps the masses ignorant and malleable. "Remember the Maine"
Germans are bayoneting Belgium babies and "remember the Lusitania" , some evidence shows higher ups knew the Japanese fleet was 400 miles from Hawaii, recall "Tonkin Gulf" episode, Iran Contra , invasion of Granada, Panama, and of course 911 and war on terror, patriot act, weapons of mass destruction, and Russia hacking the election. The masses "believe" these to be true and react and respond accordingly.

"
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."

–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm

Thanks Hank. Same ole same ole, eh? When will we ever learn?

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

"Trump might well go down in history of the President who screwed-up a historical opportunity to really change our entire planet for the better and who, instead, by his abject lack of courage and honor, his total lack of political and diplomatic education and by his groveling subservience to the "swamp" he had promised to drain ended up being as pathetically clueless as Obama was." (The Saker)

My sentiments exactly.

Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 11:49 am

What a glaring lie this article is, its' author being either "useful idiot" played by Kremlin, or maybe not so much of an idiot. What are you talking about here in comments, those who applaud this article, this bunch of lies? You live in Ukraine, you know anything about that so-called "putch"? How dare you to insult the whole nation – Ukrainian nation? Shame on you, people. You don't know (author of the article including) anything about Russia, Ukraine and that bloody Putin, but you have problems with the US and its' politics. US are your business, Ukraine definitely not. Find some other examples of NYT and USA malfeasance, some you know something about. Stop insulting other nations.

anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:53 am

You are not from Ukraine, and you care not for Ukraine, or you would seek unity not dominance of East over West Ukraine. Tell us about your life in Ukraine, and show us the evidence of "that bloody Putin."

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.

Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition "partner network".

In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0 coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process".

The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're "verification"

Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/insider/the-times-uses-forensic-mapping-to-verify-a-syrian-chemical-attack.html

Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency" Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look Media.

Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".

Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification" charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the streets and buildings"

Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded "First Draft" coalition.

Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video to "strengthen" their "storytelling".

In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.

Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.

In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian, and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat / Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and Twitter campaigns.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Thanks Abe. Sounds like these guys all read 1984, and decided it was just the thing for 2017 Amerika.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:49 pm

"Our investigation debunks the claims"

Browne keeps the April 2017 NYT video positioned at the top of his Twitter feed
https://twitter.com/malachybrowne/status/857290743068721152

Obviously Browne is proud of the "investigation" even though merely shared a "story" fed to him by Higgins' Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council .

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm

Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives (DNI).

Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in news verification".

Higgins claims the DNI funding "allowed us to push this to the next level".
https://digitalnewsinitiative.com/news/case-study-codifying-social-conflict-data/

In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man" now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins' role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their "online investigations".

The Atlantic Council donors list includes:

– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army, US Marines.

– The NATO military alliance

– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips, and Dow Chemical

– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland, Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia

– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security), Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.

Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.

Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster anti-Russian propaganda:

Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)

However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by government sources is an obvious lie.

Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.

The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his service to the Atlantic Council:

"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia, uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."

While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.

King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.

The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.

Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.

There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the "regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.

Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake "citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.

Dave P. , September 17, 2017 at 12:26 am

Abe – Thanks for all the invaluable information you have been providing.

jaycee , September 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm

The meme of an aggressive assertive Russia, based on what happened in Crimea, is a deliberate lie expressed with the utmost contempt towards principled diplomacy. The average consumer of mainstream news is also being shamelessly and contemptuously manipulated.

First, the people of Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine after the USSR dissolved, and had previously expressed their opinion through referenda. The events of 2014 were part of an obvious pattern of previously expressed opinion.

Second, around the time of the so-called Orange Revolution, NATO analysts forecast what would probably happen should Ukraine embrace European "security architecture" (i.e. NATO), and concluded that Russia would take steps to protect their naval facilities in Crimea. Yet, in 2014, NATO officials would disingenuously express their utmost shock and surprise at the event.

Third, Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in Ukraine in 2005 through the NED-financed Orange Revolution, consistently described his intention to join Ukraine with European institutions, including its "security architecture" (NATO), although acknowledging that the Ukrainian citizenry would have to be manipulated into accepting such a controversial and adversarial position. He would downplay presumed Russian reaction to potential removal from Crimea despite the obviousness and predictability of a serious crisis (see Sept 23, 2008 "Conversation with Viktor Yushchenko" Council On Foreign Relations). Yushchenko polled at 5.45% when he lost the Presidency in 2010, running on a platform of European integration.

Fourth, Russian officials at the highest level told their American counterparts in 2009 that any attempt to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and a corresponding threat to the Crimean naval facilities, would result in moves similar to what would later happen in 2014. Yet the United States, after instigating and legitimizing the Ukraine coup, would react to the Crimean referendum as an aggressive act which represented an unexpected security crisis requiring a reluctant but firm response of militarizing the entire region, and portraying the Russian state to the public as a dangerous and aggressive rogue power.

The deliberate omission of relevant contextual background by politicians, military officials, and the mainstream media demonstrates that none of these institutions can be trusted, and it is they who represent the greatest threat to international security. Putin has been relentlessly demonized, but it can be argued that his swift and essentially bloodless moves in Crimea in 2014 avoided what could have been a major international crisis on the level of the Berlin blockade in 1961. It appears, in hindsight, that such a crisis is exactly what the NATO alliance desired all along.

Sam F , September 17, 2017 at 9:58 am

Well said.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:02 pm

Nicely put jaycee. What you wrote took me back to a time of some eight months before Maiden Square, when my niece decided to live in Kiev. A bit of a ways away from Pittsburgh, so I started researching Ukraine. I also discovered RT & Moonofalabama, and sites like that.

What you wrote jaycee, in my humble opinion should be said in our MSM news. If for no other reason but to give an alternative fair and balance to say the likes of Rachel Maddow, or Joy Ann Reed. The way the MSM picks and chooses, and skims across important events in Ukraine, like Odessa, are criminal if ever the Press is to be judged for crimes of war. To the crys of a destroyed empire's vanquished population would then your small essay be heard jaycee, and yet that's the world we live in, but at least you said it.

Thanks jaycee (that's the first time I wrote your name and the j didn't go capital what does that mean? Who cares.)
Joe

rosemerry , September 16, 2017 at 2:04 pm

Of course the NYT liars would not bother to watch Oliver Stone's interviews with Pres. Putin, but during them he explained at length about his cooperation during the years after Ukraine elected a pro-Western president, managing to carry out mutual agreements and policies, but after the new pro- Russian president was elected, the USA did not accept him and overthrew him, which preceded the antics of Nuland et al in 2014 and the rest which followed.

MaDarby , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm

It appears to me that the elites decided long ago that the best solution to overpopulation is just to let climate change take care of three or four billion people while the Saud family and the Cargill family live on in their sheltered paradises with every convenience AI can provide.

It is clear these mega-rich families DO NOT CARE about society, about mass human extension or even about nature itself. They are the pinnacle of human evolution. Psycho-pathological loss of empathy might have been a bad evolutionary experiment.

This is derangement on a human specie scale, no leader no one in power has been willing to do anything but exploit every opportunity to make money and increase global domination, the great powers knew this day was coming when they made their decisions to hide it 50 years ago. The consequences are acceptable to the decision makers.

A mass extension of organic life is taking place before our eyes, nothing can stop it, THEY DO NOT CARE.

They sure as hell don't care if millions don't believe the Russia crap they just move ahead as the Imperial power, might makes right. In the end it is a religious project, the biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil.

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm

What you bring up MaDarby takes me towards the direction of wondering what all those other Departments, other than State & Defense, of the Presidential Cabinet are up too? If our news were done and somehow properly organized, in such away as to educate us peons, then whatever the time allowed would be to broadcast and print out what each Federal Agency is up to. Now I know a citizen can seek out this information, but why can't there be a suitable mass media representation to reach us clunkheads like me, not you?

What should be exposed is the corporate ownership of the very agencies that were put in place to protect the 'Commons' has been corrupted to the point of no return. This dilemma will take a huge public referendum short of a mob revolution to change this atmosphere of complacency. The public will get blamed, but the real blame should be put on the massive leadership programs which were bolted down on to their citizens masses knowledge of said events, and there in lies the total crime of deception.

MaDarby your concern for nature is where a smart person should put their number one priority concern, no arguing there, but just a lifting word of approval of how you put it. Joe

Donald Patterson , September 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm

Consortium has been a clear voice on the lunacy of the Russia-Gate scandal. But to paint Yanukovych former President of the Ukraine as an injured party considering his history in government with what appears to be large scale corruption is part of the story as well. A treason trial started in May. More info needed on what looks like a complicated story. This would be a good piece of investigative journalism as well.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 9:03 pm

Can you imagine what a huge can of worms would be revealed if there was a thorough investigation on every congressperson and public official in Washington DC? It would make Yanukovych look like a saint. And in addition, let's investigate the 10,000 richest people in the US, including all their offshore fortunes gained by illegal means. Wouldn't it make sense to do that? Isn't there enough evidence of probable criminal activity to open these investigations? Where is our ethical sense when it comes to our own dirty laundry? I guess it's easier to speculate about other's crimes than look into our own, eh?

Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:40 pm

The focus I get isn't so much focused on Yanukovych, even Putin wasn't all that crazy about his style of leadership, but my focus on a viable democratically created government doesn't necessarily start with an armed public coup. Yes, leading up to the violence, peaceful protesters took to the streets, but as we both know this is always the case until the baton twirling thugs come to finally ramp up the protest to a marathon of violent clashes and whatever else gets heads busted, until we have a full fledged revolution on our hands pass out the cookies. I mean by by-passing the voting polls, even to somehow ad hoc a temporary government in some manner of government overthrow were done peacefully, well then maybe I could get on board with this new Ukrainian government, but even the NYT finds it impossible to cover up everything.

And what about the people of Donbass? Shouldn't they have a say in this new government realignment? Ukraine has, and has always had a East meets West kind of problem. That area has been ruled over for centuries by each other, and one another, to a point of who's who and what's what is hard to figure out. Donbass, should in my regard be separate from the Now Kiev government. (Be kind with your critique of me for I am just an average American telling you what I see from here)

It's like everything else, where we should let the people of the region sit down with each other and work it out, we instead blame it on Putin, or whoever else Putin appears to be, and there you have it MIC spending up the ying-yang, for the lack of a better portrayal, but still a portrayal of what ills our modern geopolitical society.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 2:49 pm

"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?" (the Saker)

Please go to the entire article on today's Saker Blog.

Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 3:48 pm

Sick edition consortiumnews, sick readers. Elites, Deep State, Evil Empire USA Dove Putin with olive branch Guys, why don't you watch, say for a week, Russian TV, if you have somebody around who can translate from Russian. If you want to hear real nazi racist alt-whatever crap, Russian TV is the place. But you'll enjoy it, most probably. Thankfully, you guys, are obviously, minority, with all your pseudo intellectual delusions, discussions and ideas. "Useful idiots" – that's what Lenin said about the likes of you.

Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm

There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and able to make mischief.

For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400 thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent) hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.

A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979 when their son was five years old.

Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.

In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.

Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful".

In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."

The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing evil".

This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for you.

Google has been enthusiastically promoting Eliot Higgins "arm chair analytics" since 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbWhcWizSFY

Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.

In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song and dance via their YouTube page.

Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing imagery in Google Earth.

Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA

Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy" scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.

Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded. The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter accounts.

In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine, California.

Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.

Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.

Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers".

"But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post interview.

Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against "threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".

The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive operations.

Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose commander is also the head of the NSA.

US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping, shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US, and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and China.

The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber operations are purely defensive is a myth.

Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.

The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting effect.

In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation" antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.

mike k , September 16, 2017 at 8:50 pm

Thanks Abe. Your insights are invaluable.

GMC , September 17, 2017 at 4:53 am

I live in Russia and see those shows that you speak of. The Nazi rants are from the Ukraine folks invited on the show – you want to see Ukraine shows like the ones in RU. – well, you won't see any Russians invited to talk -- -- NONE --

Gregory Herr , September 17, 2017 at 10:33 am

Your posts are so blatantly contrived it's almost funny. Do you write for sitcoms as well?

mrtmbrnmn , September 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Is this a great country, or wot???

Stupid starts at the very top and there is no bottom to it .

Dominic Pukallus , September 16, 2017 at 10:13 pm

The Washington Post has its own ironically self-describing slogan. Perhaps that of the NYT these days should be, in the same vein, "The Sleep of Reason begets monsters". And who will soon then be able to whistle in the darkness full of these things?

mike k , September 17, 2017 at 8:03 am

When looking for monsters, the WaPo should start by looking at themselves.

Walter DuBlanica , September 17, 2017 at 2:26 pm

The chaos in Ukraine was engineered by Victoria Nuland at Hillary's request. Good that she is not president. The Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people, same DNA, same religion Orthodoxy., Slavic, languages very close to each other, Cyrillic alphabet and a long common history .

Russian_angel , September 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm

Thank you for the truth about Russia, it hurts the Russians to read about themselves in the American newspapers a lie.

Florin , September 18, 2017 at 2:15 am

Gershman, Nuland, Pyland, Feltman . essentially ths four biggest US (quasi) diplomats, like Volodymyr Groysman, Petro Poroshenko and perhaps 'our guy' Yats – are Jewish.

Add to this the role of Israeli 'ex' military, some hundreds, which means Mossad, and of Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine – and consider that Jews are less than 1% of the population.

The point is if we were free to speak plainly, the Ukraine coup looks to be one in which American and Ukrainian Jews acted in concert to benefit Jewish power. There is more to be said on this, but this glimpse will suffice because, of course, one is not free to speak plainly even where plain speaking is, on the face of it, encouraged.

Jamie , September 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm

Where was fake Antifa when Obama armed Nazi's in the Ukraine?

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/12/u-s-house-admits-nazi-role-in-ukraine/

Obama then put Joe Biden's sleazy son, Hunter, on the board of the largest gas company there:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/05/14/hunter-bidens-new-job-at-a-ukrainian-gas-company-is-a-problem-for-u-s-soft-power/

By ignoring the fascism of one political party, Antifa is actually pro-fascist. This fits in well with their Hitler-like disdain for freedom of press, speech and assembly. And their absolute love of violence, we also saw in the 1930s among Nazi groups

[Sep 18, 2017] Trump won but he is completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies by The Saker

Although he speaks about the USA being occupied, looks like Saker does not understand that that the US empire is actually a global neoliberal empire where multinationals and financial oligarchy have political control. And without a viable alternative it probably will not collapse, as any collapse presuppose the withdrawal of support. The necessary level of isolation is possible only if a an alternative is present
Now like in befor the World War Ii there is struggle for "spheres of influence", in which the USA is gradually losing as both Germany and Japan restored their industrial potential and China is a new powerful player on the world scene, which now is allied with Russia with its formidable nuclear deterrent that now anti-missile defense can neutralize"
Also the USA venture into Ukraine means the completion of revision of the results of WWII, which opened a new can of worms for the USA making Russia essentially a hostile power (which neocon admit and try to exploit via the current neo-McCarthism witch hunt)
Notable quotes:
"... Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. ..."
"... In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. ..."
"... And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse. ..."
"... Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. ..."
"... This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. ..."
"... Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia . ..."
"... I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population. ..."
"... just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! ..."
"... when the cat is gone, the mice dance ..."
"... The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ..."
"... Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course. ..."
"... No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war. ..."
"... Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. ..."
"... What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. ..."
"... And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary. ..."
"... The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways. ..."
"... This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody. ..."
"... This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?! ..."
"... My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways! ..."
"... my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). ..."
"... The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice. ..."
"... Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). ..."
"... in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ..."
"... There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

First, my writing on the wall

In October of last year a wrote an analysis I entitled The USA are about to face the worst crisis of their history and how Putin's example might inspire Trump and I think that this is a good time to revisit it now. I began the analysis by looking at the calamities which would befall the United States if Hillary was elected. Since this did not happen (thank God!), we can safely ignore that part and look at my prediction of what would happen if Trump was elected. Here is what I wrote:

Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid " crazies in the basement "? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities" (from actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned their bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an easy pushover his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose and they will fight to the very last one.

What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if he is surrounded by Neocons and their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team? How is he going to vet them? His first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he will appoint some new version of the infamous Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has both principles and courage, the Neocons can always "Dallas" him and replace him with Pence. Et voilà !

I went on to suggest that Trump's only option would be to follow Putin's example and do the the Neocons what Putin did to the oligarchs. Clearly that did not happen. In fact, one month after the election of Trump I wrote another analysis entitled " The Neocons and the "deep state" have neutered the Trump Presidency, it's over folks! ".

Less than a month ago I warned that a 'color revolution ' was taking place in the USA . My first element of proof was the so-called "investigation" which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump's candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Tonight, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation . Trump accepted it. Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not. However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump's national security policy . ( ) The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador. And Trump accepted this resignation. Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. But now Trump has betrayed us all. Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him. The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again. It's over, folks, the deep state has won.

I then concluded that the consequences of this victory would catastrophic for the United States:

In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show their true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.

I think that what we are seeing today are the first signs of the impending collapse.

The symptoms of the agony

Externally, the US foreign policy is basically "frozen" and in lieu of a foreign policy we now only have a long series of empty threats hurled at a list of demonized countries which are now promised "fire and brimstone" should they dare to disobey Uncle Sam. While this makes for good headlines, this does not qualify as a "policy" of any kind (I discussed this issue at length during my recent interview with SouthFront ). And then there is Congress which has basically stripped Trump from his powers to conduct foreign policy . This bizarre, and illegal, form of a "vote of no-confidence" further hammers in the message that Trump is either a madman, a traitor, or both. Internally, the latest riots in Charlottesville now being blamed on Trump who, after being a Putin agent is now further demonized as some kind of Nazi (see Paul Craig Roberts' first and second warnings about this dynamic) Organizationally, it is clear that Trump is surrounded by enemies as illustrated by the absolutely outrageous fact that he can't even talk to a foreign head of state without having the transcript of his conversation leaked to the Ziomedia .

I believe that these all are preparatory steps to trigger a major crisis and use it to remove Trump, either by a process of impeachment, or by force under the pretext of some crisis. Just look at the message which the Ziomedia has been hammeing into the brains of the US population.

The psychological preparation for the forthcoming coup: scaring them all to death Here are three very telling examples taken from Newsweek's front page:

... ... ...

Ask yourself, what is the message here? Trump is a traitor, he works for Putin, Putin wants to destroy democracy in the United States and these two men together are the most dangerous men on the planet . This is a " plot against America ", no less! Not bad, right? "They" are clearly out there go get "us" and "we" are all in terrible danger: Kim Jong-un is about to declare nuclear war on the US, Xi and Putin are threatening the world with their armies, and "our" own President came to power courtesy of the "Russian KGB" and "Putin's hackers", he now works for the Russians, he is also clearly a Nazi, a White supremacist, a racist and, possibly, a " new Hitler " ( as is Putin , of course!).

And then, there are those truly scary Mooslims and Aye-rabs who apparently want only two things in life: destroy "our way of life" and kill all the "infidels". This is why we need the TSA, 16 intelligence agencies and militarized police SWAT teams everywhere: in case the terrorists come to get us where we live.

Dangerous international consequences

This would all be rather funny if it was not also extremely dangerous. For one thing, the US is really poking at a dangerous foe when it constantly tries to scare Kim Jong-un and the DPRK leadership. No, not because of the North Korean nukes (which are probably not real nuclear capable ICBMs but a not necessarily compatible combination of nuclear 'devices' and intermediate range ballistic missiles) but because of the huge and hard to destroy conventional North Korean military. The real threat are not missiles, but a deadly combination of conventional artillery and special forces which present very little danger to the US or the US military, but which present a huge threat for the population of Seoul and the northern section of South Korea. Nukes, in whatever form, are really only an added problem, a toxic "icing" on an already very dangerous 'conventional cake'.

[Sidebar - a real life nightmare : Now, if you *really* want to terrify yourself and stay awake all night then consider the following. While I personally believe that Kim Jong-un is not insane and that the main objective of the North Korean leadership is to avoid a war at all costs, what if I am wrong? What if those who say that the North Korean leaders are totally insane are right? Or, which I think is much more likely, what if Kim Jong-un and the North Korean leaders came to the conclusion that they have nothing to lose, that the Americans are going to kill them all, along with their families and friends? What could they, in theory, do if truly desperate? Well, let me tell you: forget about Guam; think Tokyo! Indeed, while the DPRK could devastate Seoul with old fashioned artillery systems, DPRK missiles are probably capable of striking Tokyo or the Keihanshin region encompassing Kyoto, Osaka and Kobe including the key industries of the Hanshin Industrial Region . The Greater Tokyo area (Kanto region) and the Keihanshin region are very densely populated (37 and 20 million people respectively) and contain an immense number of industries, many of which would produce an ecological disaster of immense proportions if hit by missiles. Not only that, but a strike on the key economic and financial nodes of Japan would probably result in a 9-11 kind of international economic collapse. So if the North Koreans wanted to really, really hurt the Americans what they could do is strike Seoul, and key cities in Japan resulting in a huge political crisis for the entire planet. During the Cold War we used to study the consequences of a Soviet strike against Japan and the conclusion was always the same: Japan cannot afford a war of any kind. The Japanese landmass is too small, too densely populated, to rich in lucrative targets and a war lay waste to the entire country. This is still true today, only more so. And just imagine the reaction in South Korea and Japan if some crazy US strike on the DPRK results in Seoul and Tokyo being hit by missiles! The South Koreans have already made their position unambiguously clear , by the way. As for the Japanese, they are officially placing their hopes in missiles (as if technology could mitigate the consequences of insanity!). So yeah, the DPRK is plenty dangerous and pushing them into their last resort is totally irresponsible indeed, nukes or no nukes]

What we are observing now is positive feedback loop in which each move by the Neocons results in a deeper and deeper destabilization of the entire system. Needless to say, this is extremely dangerous and can only result in an eventual catastrophe/collapse. In fact, the signs that the US is totally losing control are already all over the place, here are just a few headlines to illustrate this:

Iran could quit nuclear deal in 'hours' if new U.S. sanctions imposed: Rouhani Israel: Netanyahu declares support for a Kurdish state Syrian forces take 3 more towns en route to Deir ez-Zor in first airborne operation Maduro calls for nationwide 'anti-imperialist' drills after Trump's threat of 'military option' Soldiers of the 201st (Russian) base in Tadjikistan have been put on high alert as part of a military exercise Confirmed: Turkey to end support for anti-government terrorists in Syria Russia Plans Huge Zapad 2017 Military Exercises With Belarus

A French expression goes " when the cat is gone, the mice dance ", and this is exactly what is happening now: the US is both very weak and basically absent. As for the Armenians, they say " The mouse dreams dreams that would terrify the cat ". Well, the "mice" of the world are dancing and dreaming and simply ignoring the "cat". Every move the cat makes only makes things worse for him. The world is moving on, while the cat is busy destroying himself.

Dangerous domestic consequences

First on my list would be race riots. In fact, they are already happening all over the United States, but they are rarely presented as such. And I am not talking about the "official" riots of Black Lives Matter, which are bad enough, I am talking about the many mini-riots which the official media is systematically trying to obfuscate. Those interested in this topic should read the book here ). The simple truth is that no regime can survive for too long when it proactively supports the exact opposite of what it officially is supposed to stand for. The result? I have yet to meet an adult American who would sincerely believe that he/she lives in the "land of the free and the home of the brave". Maybe infants still buy this stuff, but even teenagers know that this is a load of bull.

Third, for all the encouraging statistics about the Dow Jones, unemployment and growth, the reality is that the US society is rapidly transforming itself in a three-tired one: on top, a small number of obscenely rich people, under them, a certain amount of qualified professionals who service the filthy rich and who struggle to maintain a lifestyle which in the past was associated with the middle-class. And then the vast majority of Americans who basically are looking at making "minimal wage plus a little something" and who basically survive by not paying for health insurance, by typically working two jobs, by eating cheap and unhealthy "prolefeed" and by giving up on that which every American worker could enjoy in the 1950s and 1960s (have one parent at home, have paid holidays, a second vacation home, etc.). Americans are mostly hard workers and, so far, most of them are surviving, but they are mostly one paycheck away from seriously bad poverty. A lot of them only make ends meet because they get help from their parents and grand-parents (the same is true of southern Europe, by the way). A large segment of the US population now survives only because of Walmart and the Dollar Store. Once that fails, food stamps are the last option. That, or jail, of course.

Combine all this and you get a potentially extremely explosive situation. No wonder that when so many Americans heard Hillary's comment about the "basket of deplorables" they took that as declaration of war.

And how do the Neocons plan to deal with all this? By cracking down on free speech and dissent, of course! What else? Their only response – repression of course!

YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter – they are all cracking down on "bad" speech which includes pretty much any topic a garden variety self-described 'liberal' frowns upon. GoDaddy and Google are even going after domain names. Oh sure, nobody gets thrown in jail for, say, defending the 2nd Amendment, but they get "demonetized" and their accounts simply closed. It's not the cops cracking down on free speech, it's "Corporate America", but the effect is the same. Apparently, the Neocons do not realize that censorship is not a viable strategy in the age of the Internet. Or maybe they do, and they are deliberately trying to trigger a backlash?

Then there is the vilification campaign in the media: unless you are some kind of 'minority' you are assumed to be nefarious by birth and guilty of all the evils on the planet. And your leader is Trump, of course, or maybe even Putin himself, vide supra. Christian heterosexual White males better run for cover

Whatever may be the case, by their manic insistence, on one hand, to humiliate and crush Trump and, on the other, to repress millions of Americans the Neocons are committing a double mistake. First, they are showing their true face and, second, they are subverting the very institutions they are using to control and run this country. That, of course, only further weaken the Neocons and the United States themselves and that further accelerates the positive feedback loop mentioned above which now threatens the entire international system.

Us and Them

What makes the gradual collapse of the AngloZionist Empire so uniquely dangerous is that it is by far the biggest and most powerful empire in world history. No empire has ever had the quasi monopoly on power the USA enjoyed since WWII. By any measure, military, economic, political, social, the US came out of WWII as a giant and while there were ups and downs during the subsequent decades, the collapse of the USSR only reaffirmed what appeared to be the total victory of the United States. In my admittedly subjective opinion, the last competent (no, I did not say 'good', I said 'competent') US President was George Herbert Walker Bush who, unlike his successors, at least knew how to run an Empire. After that, it is all downhill, faster and faster. And if Obama was probably the most incompetent President in US history, Trump will be the first one to be openly lynched while in office. As a result, the AngloZionist Empire is now like a huge freight train which has lost its locomotive but still has an immense momentum pushing it forward even though there is nobody in control any more. The rest of the planet, with the irrelevant exception of the East Europeans, is now scrambling in horror to get out of the path of this out of control train. So far, the tracks (minimal common sense, political realities) are more or less holding, but a crash (political, economic or military) could happen at any moment. And that is very, very scary.

The US has anywhere between 700 to 1000 military bases worldwide, the entire international financial system is deeply enmeshed with the US economy, the US Dollar is still the only real reserve currency, United States Treasury securities are held by all the key international players (including Russia and China), SWIFT is politically controlled by the US, the US is the only country in the world that can print as much money as it wants and, last but not least, the US has a huge nuclear arsenal. As a result, a US collapse would threaten everybody and that means that nobody would want to trigger one. The collapse of the Soviet Union threatened the rest of mankind only in one way: by its nuclear arsenal. In contrast, any collapse of the United States would threaten everybody in many different ways.

So the real question now is this: can the rest of the planet prevent a catastrophic collapse of the AngloZionist Empire?

This is the irony of our situation: even though the entire planet is sick and tried of the incompetent arrogance of the AngloZionists, nobody out there wants their Empire to catastrophically collapse. And yet, with the Neocons in power, such a collapse appears inevitable with potentially devastating consequences for everybody.

This is really amazing, think of it: everybody hates the Neocons, not only a majority of the American people, but truly the entire planet. And yet that numerically small group of people has somehow managed to put everybody in danger, including themselves, due to their ugly vindictiveness, infinite arrogance and ideology-induced short-sightedness. That this could ever have happened, and at a planetary scale, is a dramatic testimony to the moral and spiritual decay of our civilization: how did we ever let things get that far?!

And the next obvious question: can we still stop them?

I honestly don't know. I hope so, but I am not sure. My biggest hope with Trump was that he would be willing to sacrifice the Empire for the sake of the US (the opposite of what the Neocons are doing: they are willing to sacrifice the US for the sake of their Empire) and that he would manage a relatively safe and hopefully non-violent transition from Empire to "normal country" for the US. Clearly, this is ain't happening. Instead, the Neocons are threatening everybody: the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans and the Venezuelans of course, but also the Europeans (economically), the entire Middle-East (via the "only democracy in the Middle-East"), all the developing countries and even the American people. Heck, they are even threatening the US President himself, and in not-so-subtle ways!

So what's next?

Truly, I don't know. But my overwhelming sense is that Trump will be removed from office, either for "high crimes and misdemeanors" or for "medical reasons" (they will simply declare him insane and unfit to be the President). Seeing how weak and spineless Trump is, he might even be "convinced" to resign. I don't see them simply murdering him simply because he is no Kennedy either. After that, Pence comes to power and it will all be presented like a wonderful event, a group-hug of the elites followed by an immediate and merciless crackdown on any form of political opposition or dissent which will immediately be labeled as racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, terrorist, etc.

The evil hand of the "Russian KGB" (yes, I know, the KGB was dissolved in 1991) will be found everywhere, especially amongst US libertarians (who will probably the only ones with enough brains to understand what is taking place). The (pseudo-) "Left" will rejoice.

Should this course of action result in an unexpected level or resistance, either regional or social, a 9-11 false flag followed by a war will the most likely scenario (why stray away from something which worked so well the first time around?!). Unless the US decides to re-invade Grenada or give Nauru a much deserved thrashing, any more or less real war will result in a catastrophic failure for the US at which point the use of nukes by the Neocon crazies might become a very real risk, especially if symbolic US targets such as aircraft carriers are hit ( in 1991 when the US sent the 82nd AB to Iraq there was nothing standing between this light infantry force and the Iraqi armored divisions. Had the Iraqis attacked the plan was to use tactical nuclear weapons. Then this was all quickly forgotten ).

There is a reason why the Neocons thrive in times of crisis: it allows them to hide behind the mayhem, especially when they are the ones who triggered the mayhem in the first place. This means that as long as the Neocons are anywhere near in power they will never, ever, allow peace to suddenly break out, lest the spotlight be suddenly shined directly upon them. Chaos, wars, crises – this is their natural habitat. Think of it as the by-product of their existence. Eventually, of course, they will be stopped and they will be defeated, like all their predecessors in history. But I shudder when I think of the price mankind will have to pay this time around.

This analysis was written for The Unz Review

[Sep 18, 2017] Why Petraeus, Obama And Brennan Should Face 5,000 Years In Prison

Notable quotes:
"... add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people. ..."
"... "It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus." ..."
"... one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA ..."
"... Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012) ..."
"... The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program: ..."
"... Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS). ..."
"... Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet. ..."
"... But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives ..."
"... I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well ..."
"... What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy. ..."
"... Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan. ..."
"... As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/ ..."
"... While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around. ..."
"... That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable. ..."
"... Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back). ..."
"... I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. ..."
"... Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal. ..."
"... His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo ..."
"... John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads. ..."
"... WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria. ..."
"... The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government. ..."
"... Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. ..."
"... b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners. ..."
"... NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. ..."
"... Brennan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBG81dXgM0Q ..."
"... Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks. ..."
Aug 04, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

California CEO Allegedly Smuggled Rifle Scopes to Syria - Daily Beast, August 1 2017

Rasheed Al Jijakli,[the CEO of a check-cashing business who lives in Walnut,] along with three co-conspirators, allegedly transported day and night vision rifle scopes, laser boresighters used to adjust sights on firearms for accuracy when firing, flashlights, radios, a bulletproof vest, and other tactical equipment to Syrian fighters.
...
If Jijakli is found guilty, he could face 50 years in prison . Jijakli's case is being prosecuted by counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys. An FBI investigation, in coordination with other agencies, is ongoing.
---

Under Trump, a Hollowed-Out Force in Syria Quickly Lost CIA Backing - NY Times * , August 2, 2017

CIA director, Mike Pompeo, recommended to President Trump that he shut down a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels
...
Critics in Congress had complained for years about the costs [...] and reports that some of the CIA-supplied weapons had ended up in the hands of a rebel group tied to Al Qaeda
...
In the summer of 2012, David H. Petraeus , who was then CIA director, first proposed a covert program of arming and training rebels
...
[ Mr. Obama signed] a presidential finding authorizing the CIA to covertly arm and train small groups of rebels
-...
John O. Brennan , Mr. Obama's last CIA director, remained a vigorous defender of the program ...

When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Where are the counterintelligence and Terrorism and Export Crimes Section attorneys prosecuting them? Those three men engaged in the exactly same trade as Mr. Jijakil did, but on a much larger scale. They should be punished on an equally larger scale.

* Note:

The NYT story is largely a whitewash. It claims that the CIA paid "moderate" FSA rebels stormed Idleb governate in 2015. In fact al-Qaeda and Ahrar al Sham were leading the assault. It says that costs of the CIA program was "more than $1 billion over the life of the program" when CIA documents show that it was over $1 billion per year and likely much more than $5 billion in total. The story says that the program started in 2013 while the CIA has been providing arms to the Wahhabi rebels since at least fall 2011.

Posted by b on August 3, 2017 at 05:15 AM | Permalink

nmb | Aug 3, 2017 5:31:09 AM | 1

Easy: because they are war criminals.
V. Arnold | Aug 3, 2017 5:47:16 AM | 4
But, but, b; you're dealing with a rogue government of men; not laws. Should have been obvious in 2003, March 19th...
Igor Bundy | Aug 3, 2017 5:47:28 AM | 5
In case there is any doubt, North Korea has already said arming "rebels" to over throw the government would face nuclear retaliation.
Igor Bundy | Aug 3, 2017 5:52:50 AM | 6
India and Pakistan spends insane amounts of money because Pakistan arms "rebels" both countries could use that money for many other things. Especially Pakistan which has a tenth the economy of India. BUT Pakistan is controlled by the military or MIC so arming terrorists is more important than such things as schools and power supplies etc. Their excuse is India is spending so much on arms. Which India says is because in large part due to Pakistan. US says well move those 2 million troops to attack China instead. Everyone is happy except the population in those 3 countries which lack most things except iphones. Which makes US extremely happy.
Emily | Aug 3, 2017 5:54:48 AM | 7
It would interesting to get to the truth about Brennan. Is he an islamist himself? Did he actually convert to islam in Saudi Arabia? Lots of stories out there.
Has he been acting as a covert agent against his own country for years?Selling out the entire west and every christian on the planet. Time to find this out, methinks.

Is treason in the USA a death penalty issue?. Its certainly what he deserves.

Mina | Aug 3, 2017 5:55:21 AM | 8
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/274688/World/Region/,-Syrian-refugees-and-fighters-return-home-from-Le.aspx
V. Arnold | Aug 3, 2017 6:25:03 AM | 9
Mina | Aug 3, 2017 5:55:21 AM | 8

Informative link; thanks.

Peter AU 1 | Aug 3, 2017 6:30:12 AM | 10
"a four-year-old effort to arm and train Syrian rebels."

A four year effort to arm the f**kers? Doubtful it was an effort to arm them, but training them to act in the hegemon's interests... like upholders of democracy and humanitarian... headchopping is just too much of an attraction

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 6:52:48 AM | 12
add Bush. Glenn Greenwald on John Brennan . It is interesting that the empire sues the little people.
Anonymous | Aug 3, 2017 6:54:31 AM | 13
Mina @3. The title of the article is deceptive.

"7,000 Syrian refugees and fighters return home from Lebanon"

The 'al-Qaeda linked' fighters are mostly foreigners, paid mercenaries. They have been dumped in Idlib along with the other terrorists. In the standard reconciliation process, real Syrians are given the option of returning home if they renounce violence and agree to a political solution. Fake Syrians are dumped in with the foreigners. The real Syrian fighters who reconcile have to join the SAA units to fight against ISIS etc.

ISIS fighters were encouraged to bring their families with them (for use as human shields and to provide settlers for the captured territory). ISIS documents recovered from Mosul indicate that unmarried foreign mercenaries fighting with them were provided with a wife (how does that work? do the women volunteer or are they 'volunteered'?), a car and other benefits. These families and hangers-on would probably be the 'Syrian refugees'.

On a side note, the Kurds have released a video showing the training of special forces belonging to their allies, the 'Syrian Defense Force' (composed largely of foreigners again). The SDF fighters fly the FSA flag, ie they are the carefully vetted moderate head chopping rebels beloved of the likes of McCain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHBFkZZ1y40

librul | Aug 3, 2017 8:20:55 AM | 14
somebody @12,

Thanks for the link, it is a keeper.

"It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus."

My own addition to the Brennan record:

Brennan was station chief for the CIA in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the planning period for 9/11. The Saudi rulers do not use the US embassy as their first point of contact with Washington, they use the CIA Brennan moved back to the US some time in (late?) 1999. The first 9/11 Saudi hijackers arrived on US shores in January 2000. Brennan was made CIA chief of staff to Director Tenet in 1999 and Deputy Executive Director of the CIA in March 2001.

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 8:36:06 AM | 15
14 add this New York Times link: U.S. Relies Heavily on Saudi Money to Support Syrian Rebels
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decades long relationship between the spy services of Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal, support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes, as in Syria, the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written checks underwriting American covert activities. ... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.

From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.

...

The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" -- a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France -- that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses.

...

Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account.

When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom kept its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by Lawrence E. Walsh, the independent counsel.

In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences and commitments, like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."

michaelj72 | Aug 3, 2017 8:43:35 AM | 16

"Many commit the same crime with a very different result. One bears a cross for his crime; another a crown." ― Juvenal, The Satires

librul | Aug 3, 2017 9:09:59 AM | 17
somebody @15

one more quote from your newest link to the NYT: "The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through the CIA station chief." The Saudis bought the CIA From station chief in Riyadh to Director Tenet's chief of staff to Deputy Executive Director of the CIA and finally, under Obama, to Director of the CIA

Greenbean950 | Aug 3, 2017 9:47:03 AM | 18
NYT's article was a white wash. It was cover. NYT = CIA
paul | Aug 3, 2017 9:47:16 AM | 19
The art of limited hangout as practiced by the NYT
nonsense factory | Aug 3, 2017 10:15:14 AM | 20
Best background article I've come across on how the Arab Spring pro-democracy uprisings were either suppressed (in the U.S. client oil monarchies like Bahrain) or hijacked for regime change purposes (as in Libya and Syria): http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion... how-the-arab-spring-was-hijacked/ (Feb 2012)
In particular:
A fourth trend is that the Arab Spring has become a springboard for playing great-power geopolitics.

Syria, at the center of the region's sectarian fault lines, has emerged as the principal battleground for such Cold War-style geopolitics. Whereas Russia is intent on keeping its only military base outside the old Soviet Union in Syria's Mediterranean port of Tartus, the U.S. seems equally determined to install a pro-Western regime in Damascus.

This goal prompted Washington to set up a London-based television station that began broadcasting to Syria a year before major protests began there. The U.S. campaign, which includes assembling a coalition of the willing, has been boosted by major Turkish, Saudi, Qatari and UAE help, including cross-border flow of arms into Syria and the establishment of two new petrodollar-financed, jihad-extolling television channels directed at Syria's majority Sunni Arabs.

The best explanation is that despite the effort to "woo" Assad into the Saudi-Israeli axis (c.2008-2010), Assad refused to cut economic ties with Iran, which was setting up rail lines, air traffic and oil pipeline deals with Assad on very good terms. This led Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, etc. to lobby Obama to support a regime change program:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Leon-Panetta-supports-Hillary-Clinton-plan-to-arm-Syrian-rebels.html (Feb 2013)

Replace "plan" with "ongoing project". The main point would be that Panetta and Clinton also belong on that "illegal arms transfer" charge sheet. Civil damages for the costs Europe, Turkey, Lebanon etc. bore due to millions of fleeing refugees should also be assessed (let alone damage in Syria, often to priceless historical treasures destroyed by ISIS).

Then there's the previous regime and its deliberate lies about non-existent WMDs in Iraq, claims used to start a war of aggression that killed thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians - Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Woolsey, Tenet, Powell - they should have their own separate charge sheet.

Send the lot to Scheveningen Prison - for the most notorious war criminals. Pretty luxurious as prisons go, by all accounts.

Jackrabbit | Aug 3, 2017 10:36:48 AM | 21
But it wasn't just anti-arms trafficking laws that were broken, was it? Wouldn't a conspiracy to use extremists as a weapon of state amount to a crime against humanity? David Stockman thinks so, but he pins the 'crime' on old, sick McCain. (see: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon Cancer Lives
karlof1 | Aug 3, 2017 10:45:27 AM | 22
Within the Outlaw US Empire alone, there're several thousand people deserving of those 5,000 year sentences, not just the three b singled out. But b does provide a great service for those of us who refuse to support terrorists and terrorism by not paying federal taxes by providing proof of that occurring. I classify attempts at regime change as terrorism, too, since it's essentially the waging of aggressive war via different means, which is the #1 War Crime also violating domestic law as well. Thanks b!
james | Aug 3, 2017 12:07:05 PM | 23
it's the usa!!!! no one in gov't is held accountable.. obama wants to move on, lol... look forward, not backward... creating a heaping pile of murder, mayhem and more in other parts of the world, but never examine any of it, or hold anyone accountable.. it is the amerikkkan way...
stumpy | Aug 3, 2017 12:46:57 PM | 26
What of the US bases being established in N. Syria that were helpfully marked by the Turks? Within the context that the SF force multiplier model has varied success but hasn't worked AFAIK since the Resistance in WW2. What, short of an explicit invasion, is an option for the US+? US-hired mercenaries failed to do the job, and the US as mercenaries for the Arabs are not willing to commit. Maybe if the USIC offered up more "wives" they'd acquire more psychopathic murderers to spread the joy.

Trump may have put Pompeo in to present the facade of housecleaning, but who here believes that there is any serious move to curtail the Syrian misadventure? Just a change in the marketing plan.

As the Brits came out with blocking the release of 30-yr-old official records on the basis that "personal information" and "national security" would be compromised? More like the criminal activity at 10 Downing St. and the misappropriation of public money for international crime would be brought to light. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4159032/whitehall-refuses-documents-release/

RUKidding | Aug 3, 2017 12:56:29 PM | 27
While I do agree with some of the things Trump has done so far, I cannot agree that he makes for a good "leader" of our rapidly devolving nation. As much "good" that Trump has done, he's probably done much worse on other issues and levels. It's really pretty awful all around.

That said, when some people say how much they "miss Obama," I want to either pound my head into a brick wall and/or throw up. The damage that Obama and his hench men/women did is incalculable.

At least with Trump, we can clearly witness his idiocy and grasp the level of at least some of his damage.

Not so much with "No drama Obama" the smooth talking viper that we - either unwittingly or wittingly - clutche to our collective bosom. Obama's many many many lies - all told with smooth suave assurance - along with his many sins of omission served as cover for what he was doing. Trump's buffoonery and incessant Twitting at least put his idiocies out on the stage for all to see (of course, the Republicans do use that as cover for their nefarious deeds behind Trump's doofus back).

Agree with b. NYT is worthless. Limited hangout for sure.

stumpy | Aug 3, 2017 1:15:55 PM | 28
Speaking of who DID get arrested, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/03/fbi-arrests-wannacry-hero-marcus-hutchins-las-vegas-reports/

Gee, wouldn't we like to see the arrest warrant?

NemesisCalling | Aug 3, 2017 1:16:29 PM | 29
@27 beating a dead horse, but I agree.

I likened a Trump presidency to sticking the landing of a crashing US empire. He'll bring it down without going true believer on us, a la Clinton and ilk who were busy scheduling the apocalypse.

Trump has not been tested yet with a rapidly deteriorating economy which as we all know is coming. Something is in the air and Trump will have to face it sooner or later. The weight of the anger of millions will be behind it...will it be too late? Will Trump finally go MAGA in what he promised: Glas-Steagall, making trade fair for US interests, dialing back NATO...etc. etc. I fear he can not articulate the issues at hand, like Roosevelt or Hitler. He is too bumbling. I guess really we can only hope for an avoidance of WW. Will the world even weep for a third world USA?

Mina | Aug 3, 2017 1:23:53 PM | 30
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/274706/Egypt/Politics-/Egypt-and-Russia-broker-truce-between-Syrian-regim.aspx
harrylaw | Aug 3, 2017 2:14:24 PM | 31
Remember this, The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

John McCain was neck deep in supporting Terrorists in Syria he wanted to give them manpads.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) -- Media reported earlier in October that Syrian rebels asked Washington for Stinger missiles to use them against Russia's military jets. "Absolutely Absolutely I would," McCain said when asked whether he would support the delivery of Stinger missiles to the opposition in Syria.

"We certainly did that in Afghanistan. After the Russians invaded Afghanistan, we provided them with surface-to-air capability. It'd be nice to give people that we train and equip and send them to fight the ability to defend themselves. That's one of the fundamental principles of warfare as I understand it," McCain said. https://sputniknews.com/us/201510201028835944-us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain/

virgile | Aug 3, 2017 2:23:20 PM | 32
They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position.
harrylaw | Aug 3, 2017 2:44:11 PM | 33
The US were into regime change in Syria a long time ago..... Robert Ford was US Ambassador to Syria when the revolt against Syrian president Assad was launched. He not only was a chief architect of regime change in Syria, but actively worked with rebels to aid their overthrow of the Syrian government.

Ford assured us that those taking up arms to overthrow the Syrian government were simply moderates and democrats seeking to change Syria's autocratic system. Anyone pointing out the obviously Islamist extremist nature of the rebellion and the foreign funding and backing for the jihadists was written off as an Assad apologist or worse.

Ambassador Ford talked himself blue in the face reassuring us that he was only supporting moderates in Syria. As evidence mounted that the recipients of the largesse doled out by Washington was going to jihadist groups, Ford finally admitted early last year that most of the moderates he backed were fighting alongside ISIS and al-Qaeda. Witness this incredible Twitter exchange with then-ex Ambassador Ford: http://www.globalresearch.ca/you-wont-believe-what-former-us-ambassador-robert-s-ford-said-about-al-qaedas-syrian-allies/5504906

Noirette | Aug 3, 2017 2:48:20 PM | 34
Specially Petraeus. A US Army General, and director of the CIA You don't get more 'pillar' of the State than that! And off he goes doing illegal arms trades, in the billions, see for ex. Meyssan, as an ex.:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article197144.html

In other countries / times, he'd be shot at dawn as a traitor. But all it shows really is that the USA does not really have a Gvmt. in the sense of a 'political structure of strong regulatory importance with 'democratic' participation..' to keep it vague.. It has an elaborate public charade, a kind of clumsy theatre play, that relies very heavily on the scripted MSM, on ritual, and various distractions. Plus natch' very vicious control mechanisms at home.. another story.

Meanwhile, off stage, the actors participate and fight and ally in a whole other scene where 'disaster capitalism', 'rapine', 'mafia moves' and the worst impulses in human nature not only bloom but are institutionalised and deployed world-wide! Covering all this up is getting increasingly difficult -Trump presidency - one would hope US citizens no not for now.

The other two of course as well, I just find Petraeus emblematic, probably because of all the BS about his mistress + he once mis-treated classified info or something like that, total irrelevance spun by the media, which works.

OJS | Aug 3, 2017 2:49:46 PM | 35
@virgile, 32

"They will pay sooner or later for their crimes against the Syrians. Add Sarkozy, Cameron and Holland to the list of criminals hiding under their position."

I humbly disagree, and they sincerely believe they are helping the Syrians (plus other states) - freedom and democracy against the brutality of Dr. Assad. I believe all these murderers are sincere doing god works and will all go to heaven. That is one of the reasons why I refuse to go to heaven even if gods beg me. Fuck it!

My apologies if I offend you or anyone. It's about time we look carefully beside politic and wealth, what religion does to a human?

karlof1 | Aug 3, 2017 3:26:11 PM | 36
OJS @35--

Have you read Reg Morrison's Spirit in the Gene ? Here's a link to one of his related essays with many more of relevance on his website, https://regmorrison.edublogs.org/1999/07/20/plague-species-the-spirit-in-the-gene/

ben | Aug 3, 2017 3:35:09 PM | 37
b asked : "When will the FBI investigate Messrs Petraeus, Obama and Brennan? Duh, like never... Most here understand this, I'm sure. The wealthy and the connected puppets never face justice, for their crimes, committed in the service of their owners.

You can include ALL the POTUS's and their minions, since the turn of the century. " It's just business, get over it."

john | Aug 3, 2017 4:16:52 PM | 38
ben says:

Duh, like never..Most here understand this, I'm sure right. like voyeurs, we like to watch , and watch , and watch .

somebody | Aug 3, 2017 4:23:25 PM | 39
35 Religion has nothing to do with it.

How to spot a Sociopath

6 Look for signs of instigating violent behavior. As children some sociopaths torture defenseless people and animals. This violence is always instigating, and not defensive violence. They will create drama out of thin air, or twist what others say. They will often overreact strongly to minor offenses. If they are challenged or confronted about it, they will point the finger the other way, counting on the empathic person's empathy and consideration of people to protect them, as long as they can remain undetected. Their attempt to point the finger the other way, is both a smokescreen to being detected, and an attempt to confuse the situation.

The link is a pretty good summary. It is easy to find more respectable psychological sources for the disorder on the internet.

fast freddy | Aug 3, 2017 5:45:24 PM | 40
NYT never saw a war (rather an attack by the US, NATO, Israel, UK, on any defenseless nation) that it did not support. Wiki uses the word "allegedly" in explaining the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. It just isn't feasible that a secret government agency - gone rogue - with unlimited funding and manpower could write/edit the news for six media owners with similar war-profiteering motives. /s
OJS | Aug 3, 2017 8:12:07 PM | 42
@karlof1, 36

" Here, evolution had hit on the sweetest of solutions. Such perceptions were guaranteed to produce a faith-dependent species that believed itself to be thoroughly separate from the rest of the animal kingdom, ...."

Interesting article, but stop reading years ago when struggled to raise a family, make a living to survive. Debatable Is "sociopath" (Antisocial Personality Disorder) or the genes make humanly so brutally? Very often hard to fathom the depth of human suffering be it USA, Syria or elsewhere. Thanks sharing you thought.

falcemartello | Aug 3, 2017 9:03:06 PM | 43
What most of the msm and the echo chamber seem to be deliberately missing is all intentional. The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the free world ,debunked.

Hence I expect that the western oligarchs along with their pressitute and compromised politicians will be bying up alot of bleach. They will be whitewashing for the next three months all semblance of anything related to their fraudulent existence.

Nurenberg 2, the Hague would be to soft for these vile criminals of humanity. Look how they had to back track on the Milosevic conviction mind u post death.
Just another day in the office for these criminals of humanity. Gee can't wait until this petro-dollar ponzi scheme crashes hopefully we can get back o being human again. The emperor has no clothes.

runaway robot | Aug 3, 2017 9:07:30 PM | 44
karlof1@36:
Thanks for reminding me about Reg Morrison! I need to re-read that book, slowly.
fast freddy | Aug 3, 2017 9:20:33 PM | 45
43 The whole Assad must go meme is dead and buried. The western cabal has not acheived their regime change in Syria. The Russian economy has not sunk to the bottom of the Black sea, the Russians hacked into my fridge meme has all been debunked and is falling apart. The collusion of all anglo antlantacist secret agency and governments to destabalize the ME has all come out with an ever turbulant flow. Iran being the threat of the world ,debunked. Russia invading and hacking the free world,debunked.

Optimistic. Has Trump been instrumental in these? Perhaps. This would be a good reason for Zionists to hate him. But how is it that Trump is such a bumbling idiot? Now the Senate has ratfcked him with recess appointments. And he signed that stupid Russia Sanctions bill.

Temporarily Sane | Aug 4, 2017 12:06:50 AM | 46
@45 fast freddy
This would be a good reason for Zionists to hate him.

Except they don't hate him. Quite the opposite in fact. Looking to Trump as some sort of savior figure is absolutely ridiculous.

rm | Aug 4, 2017 12:17:56 AM | 47
Brennan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBG81dXgM0Q

Seymour Hersh, in his 'Victoria NULAND moment' audio, states categorically BRENNAN conceived and ran the 'Russian Hack' psyop after Seth RICH DNC leaks.

[Sep 18, 2017] The Russian Hacking Story Continues to Unravel by Mike Whitney

The key problem with the "official" story of DNS hack is the role of Crowdstrike and strangely coincident murder of Seth Rich. Que bono analysis here might also help: the main beneficiary of "Russian hack" story was Hillary camp as it allowed them to put a smoke screen shadowing allegation that they nefariously has thrown Sanders under the bus. A very serious allegation which has substantial supporting evidence. In a way they were fighting for their lives. Also Imran Awan story is omitted from the official narrative. Was not this another proved large scale hacking case? They also have a motive and opportunity in DNC case.
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that. ..."
"... As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. ..."
"... He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders' ..."
"... Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." . ..."
"... Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election. ..."
"... 'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that." ..."
"... Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now. ..."
"... But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case? ..."
"... Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"? ..."
"... "It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden) ..."
"... What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple. ..."
"... But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers? ..."
"... The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense. ..."
"... "The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access. ..."
"... 4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ." ..."
"... The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions? ..."
"... It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people. ..."
"... "Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed." ..."
"... What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg. ..."
"... Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest. ..."
"... Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. ..."
"... Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.) ..."
"... "There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation) ..."
"... Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press. ..."
Sep 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

A new report by a retired IT executive at IBM, debunks the claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential campaign by hacking Democratic computers and circulating damaging information about Hillary Clinton. The report, which is titled " The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", provides a rigorous examination of the wobbly allegations upon which the hacking theory is based, as well as a point by point rejection of the primary claims which, in the final analysis, fail to pass the smell test. While the report is worth reading in full, our intention is to zero-in on the parts of the text that disprove the claims that Russia meddled in US elections or hacked the servers at the DNC.

Let's start with the fact that there are at least two credible witnesses who claim to know who took the DNC emails and transferred them to WikiLeaks. We're talking about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and WikiLeaks ally, Craig Murray. No one is in a better position to know who actually took the emails than Assange, and yet, Assange has repeatedly said that Russia was not the source. Check out this clip from the report:

Assange has been adamant all along that the Russian government was not a source; it was a non-state player.

ASSANGE: Our source is not a state party

HANNITY (Conservative talk show host): Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta's emails -- can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia

ASSANGE: Yes.

HANNITY: or anybody associated with Russia?

ASSANGE: We -- we can say and we have said repeatedly over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party

("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

Can you think of a more credible witness than Julian Assange? The man has devoted his entire adult life to exposing the truth about government despite the risks his actions pose to his own personal safety. In fact, he is currently holed up at the Ecuador embassy in London for defending the public's right to know what their government is up to. Does anyone seriously think that a man like that would deliberately lie just to protect Russia's reputation?

No, of course not, and the new report backs him up on this matter. It states: "No where in the Intelligence Community's Assessment (ICA) was there any evidence of any connection between Russia and WikiLeaks." The reason Assange keeps saying that Russia wasn't involved is because Russia wasn't involved. There's nothing more to it than that.

As for the other eyewitness, Craig Murray, he has also flatly denied that Russia provided WikiLeaks with the DNC emails. Check out this except from an article at The Daily Mail:

(Murray) "flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off near American University with one of the email sources. Murray said the leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'

Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists." .

Murray said he was speaking out due to claims from intelligence officials that Wikileaks was given the documents by Russian hackers as part of an effort to help Donald Trump win the U.S. presidential election.

'I don't understand why the CIA would say the information came from Russian hackers when they must know that isn't true,' he said. 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that."

(EXCLUSIVE: Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails", Daily Mail)

Is Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and human rights activist, a credible witness? There's one way to find out, isn't there? The FBI should interview Murray so they can establish whether he's telling the truth or not. And, naturally, one would assume that the FBI has already done that since the Russia hacking story has been splashed across the headlines for more than a year now.

But that's not the case at all. The FBI has never questioned Assange or Murray, in fact, the FBI has never even tried to get in touch with either of them. Never. Not even a lousy phone call. It's like they don't exist. Why? Why hasn't the FBI contacted or questioned the only two witnesses in the case?

Could it be because Assange and Murray's knowledge of the facts doesn't coincide with the skewed political narrative the Intel agencies and their co-collaborators at the DNC what to propagate? Isn't that what's really going on? Isn't Russia-gate really just a stick for beating Russia and Trump? How else would one explain this stubborn unwillingness of the FBI to investigate what one senator called "The crime of the century"?

Here's something else from the report that's worth mulling over:

"It is no secret that NSA has the technology to trace a web event, e.g., a cyber attack, back to its source. There has been no public claim, nor is it implied in either Grizzly Steppe or the ICA that the NSA has trace routing to Russia on any of these purported Russian hacks." ("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

This is a crucial point, so let's rephrase that in simple English. What the author is saying is that: If Russia hacked the DNC computers, the NSA would know about it. It's that simple.

But no one at the NSA has ever verified the claims or produced one scintilla of evidence that connects Russia to the emails. In fact, the NSA has never even suggested that such evidence exists. Nor has anyone in the media asked Director Michael Rogers point blank whether the NSA has hard evidence that Russia hacked the DNC servers?

Why? Why this conspiracy of silence on a matter that is so fundamental to the case that the NSA and the other Intel agencies are trying to make?

The only logical explanation is that there's no proof that Russia was actually involved. Why else would the NSA withhold evidence on a matter this serious? It makes no sense.

According to the media, Intelligence agents familiar with the matter have "high confidence' that Russia was involved.

Okay, but where's the proof? You can't expect to build a case against a foreign government and a sitting president with just "high confidence". You need facts, evidence, proof. Where's the beef?

We already mentioned how the FBI never bothered to question the only eyewitnesses in the case. That's odd enough, but what's even stranger is the fact that the FBI never seized the DNC's servers so they could conduct a forensic examination of them. What's that all about? Here's an excerpt from the report:

"The FBI, having asked multiple times at different levels, was refused access to the DNC server(s). It is not apparent that any law enforcement agency had access.

The apparent single source of information on the purported DNC intrusion(s) was from Crowdstrike.

3. Crowdstrike is a cyber security firm hired by the Democratic Party.

4. Not the FBI, CIA, nor NSA organizations analyzed the information from Crowdstrike. Only picked analysts of these agencies were chosen to see this data and write the ICA ."

( "The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge)

Have you ever read anything more ridiculous in your life? The FBI's negligence in this case goes beyond anything I've ever seen before. Imagine if a murder was committed in the apartment next to you and the FBI was called in to investigate. But when they arrive at the scene of the crime, they're blocked at the door by the victim's roommate who refuses to let them in. Speaking through the door, the roommate assures the agents that the victim was shot dead with a single bullet to the head, and that the smoking gun that was used in the murder is still on the floor. But "don't worry", says the obstructing roommate, "I've already photographed the whole thing and I'll send you the pictures as soon as I get the chance."

Do you really think the agents would put up with such nonsense?

Never! They'd kick down the door, slap the roommate in handcuffs, cordon-off the murder scene, and start digging-around for clues. That's what they'd do. And yet we are supposed to believe that in the biggest case of the decade, a case that that allegedly involves foreign espionage and presidential treason, that the FBI has made no serious effort to secure the servers that were allegedly hacked by Russia?

The DNC computers are Exhibit A. The FBI has to have those computers, and they are certainly within their rights to seize them by any means necessary. So why haven't they? Does the FBI think they can trust the second-hand analysis from some flunkey organization whose dubious background casts serious doubt on their conclusions?

It's a joke! The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

Here's another interesting clip from the report:

"Adam Carter: the FBI do not have disk images from any point during or following the alleged email hack. CrowdStrike's failure to produce evidence. – With Falcon installed between April and May (early May), they should have had evidence on when files/emails/etc were copied or sent. – That information has never been disclosed."

("The Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge", Skip Folden)

Read that excerpt over again. It's mind boggling. What Carter is saying is that, they have nothing, no evidence, no proof, no nothing. If you don't have a disk image, then what do you have?

You have nothing, that's what. Which means that everything we've read is 100 percent conjecture, not a shred of evidence anywhere. Which is why the focus has shifted to Manafort, Flynn, Trump Jr and the goofy Russian lawyer?

Who gives a rip about Manafort? Seriously? The investigation started off with grave allegations of foreign espionage and presidential collusion (treason?) and quickly downshifted to the illicit financial dealings of someone the American people could care less about. Talk about mission creep!

What people want is proof that Russia hacked the DNC servers or that Trump cozied up to Russia to win the election. Nothing else matters. All these diversions prove is that, after one full year of nonstop, headline sensationalism, the investigation has produced nothing; a big, fat goose-egg.

A few words about the ICA Report

Remember the January 6, Intelligence Community Assessment? The ICA report was supposed to provide iron-clad proof that Russia hacked Democratic emails and published them at WikiLeaks. The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.

Right. The whole thing was a fraud. As it happens, only four of the agencies participated in the project (the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.) and the agents who provided the analysis were hand-picked for the task. Naturally, when a director hand-picks particular analysts for a given assignment, one assumes that they want a particular outcome. Which they did. Clearly, in this case, the intelligence was tailored to fit the policy. The intention was to vilify Russia in order to further isolate a country that was gradually emerging as a global rival. And the report was moderately successful in that regard too, except for one paradoxical disclaimer that appeared on page 13. Here it is:

"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

What the authors are saying is that, 'Everything you read in this report could be complete baloney because it's all based on conjecture, speculation and guesswork.'

Isn't that what they're saying? Why would anyone waste their time reading a report when the authors openly admit that their grasp of what happened is "incomplete or fragmentary" and they have no "proof" of anything?

Gregory Copley, President, International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) summed it up best when he said: "This is a highly politically motivated and a subjective report which was issued by the intelligence community. does not present evidence of successful or even an attempt to actually actively manipulate the election process."

Like we said, it's all baloney.

Lastly, Folden's report sheds light on the technical inconsistencies of the hacking allegations. Cyber-forensic experts have now shown that "The alleged "hack" was effectively impossible in mid-2016. The required download speed of the "hack" precludes an internet transfer of any significant distance." In other words, the speed at which the emails were transferred could only have taken place if they were "Downloaded onto external storage, e.g., 2.0 thumb drive." (The report also provides evidence that the transfers took place in the Eastern time zone, which refutes the theory that the servers were hacked from Romania.)

The Nation summed it up perfectly in this brief paragraph:

"There was no hack of the Democratic National Committee's system on July 5 last year!not by the Russians, not by anyone else. Hard science now demonstrates it was a leak!a download executed locally with a memory key or a similarly portable data-storage device. In short, it was an inside job by someone with access to the DNC's system." ("A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack", Patrick Lawrence, The Nation)

Bingo.

Bottom line: A dedicated group of independent researchers and former Intel agents joined forces and produced the first hard evidence that "the official narrative implicating Russia" is wrong. This is a stunning development that will, in time, cut through the fog of government propaganda and reveal the truth. Skip Folden's report is an important contribution to that same effort.

Read the whole report here: " Non-Existent Foundation for Russian Hacking Charge ", Skip Folden, Word Press.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Seamus Padraig > , September 14, 2017 at 12:43 pm GMT

In related news, Craig Murray is now being sued for libel in the UK over specious accusations stemming from the Jeremy Corbyn 'anti-Semitism' scandal. Murry writes:

I am being sued for libel in the High Court in England by Jake Wallis Simons, Associate Editor of the Daily Mail Online. Mr Wallis Simons is demanding £40,000 in damages and the High Court has approved over £100,000 in costs for Mark Lewis, Mr Wallis Simons' lawyer. I may become liable for all of this should I lose the case, and furthermore I have no money to pay for my defence. I am currently a defendant in person. This case has the potential to bankrupt me and blight the lives of my wife and children. I have specifically been threatened by Mr Lewis with bankruptcy.

Source: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/save-craig-murray/

Britain is notorious for having libel laws with a reversed burden of proof , meaning that the defendant (in this case, Murray) must prove himself innocent! Some shady plaintiffs, when jurisdiction-shopping for a libel case, have been known to try and file libel charges in Britain for this very reason.

Somebody's after Craig Murray big-time.

elmer t. jones > , September 14, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT

The ICA report was a joke to anyone with rudimentary internet skills. It had a page of infographics featuring the iconic hacker-in-a-hoodie, a short list of perps ("hairyBear69″ etc etc) and the rest of it looked like a generic corporate PowerPoint on good cyber security practices. The media of course acted like it was all damning evidence of collusion.

Jonathan Mason > , September 15, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT
Reading Unz Review you will be better off replacing the word "Jew" with the term "the member of financial oligarchy". That's also will be more correct as tribal interests of financial oligarchy are the same as attributed to Jews in Protocols of Zion Elders...

The media endlessly reiterated the claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment and that it's (sic) conclusions represented the collective, objective analysis of America's finest.

Well, at the time, I, and probably most other people of moderate intelligence, said: "It is highly unlikely that all seventeen intelligence agencies have carried out independent investigations and come to identical conclusions without any of them being able to produce hard evidence. So this can safely be dismissed as bullshit."

People are not stupid, just like almost no one believed in Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Apparently Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton were the only people who were fooled. And Hillary Clinton also believed that she came under fire in Serbia, having been sent as First Lady to a place where it was too dangerous for the President to go, even though he had been there in person only a few months earlier.

There is a pattern here, I think.

Miro23 > , September 15, 2017 at 3:29 am GMT

The only rational explanation for the FBI's behavior, is that they've been told to "stand down" so they don't unwittingly expose the truth about what's really going on, that the whole Russia hacking fiction is a complete and utter fraud, and that the DNC, the CIA and the media are all having a good laugh at the expense of the clueless American people.

The same that they were told to "stand down " on the plentiful 9/11 evidence that contradicts the government story (see especially what they were doing down in Florida, Daniel Hopsicker "Welcome to Terrorland" https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0970659164/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1505445435&sr=8-2&keywords=daniel+hopsicker ).

I'm not sure that the FBI and CIA operatives are having a good laugh. To some extent they ARE the American people, and will have some basic ideas of justice and honesty. Their political masters can bribe and coerce them but there are limits to the efficiency of a (US) system run on fear and greed.

exiled off mainstreet > , September 15, 2017 at 3:36 am GMT

Despite the massive amount of evidence exposing the fraudulent nature of the story the media keeps going along based on the assumption that the lies are facts. Many if not most of those who consume the media propaganda continue to believe this crap. It is a sort of 21st century iteration of Goebbels propaganda but with the risk of nuclear war.

dc.sunsets > , September 15, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT

Fake news is gonna be fake.

Until recently, people believed. They believed in The System (and the System's Narrative) more fervently than did their 14th Century European ancestors believe in Christianity.

They believed we could all get rich by Government and corporations issuing more and more and more debt. They believed that a promise to pay future cash flows, from Social Security or a Teacher's Pension or a Treasury Bond maturing, it was ALL as certain as if the money was already sitting on a table in front of their eyes.

Every institution in the West is being destroyed from within by the very people who staff it and who count on it for financial income. Those working in The News make stuff up out of whole cloth, apparently believing that a public that sees their output as fiction will continue to fund the channel that accrues to their paycheck. The same holds true of FB and social media. Government officials can't keep their lies straight anymore, and everywhere we look we see a wave of awakening, as members of the public each come to reframe that which they can see.

We are past apogee on the wave of pathological trust. The path ahead is of growing distrust, and while healthy in part, it will likely overshoot a better place by as much on the downside as it trust overshot wisdom on the upside.

View everything with distrust and suspicion; by doing so now, you'll be the rush.

Backwoods Bob > , September 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT

It's exasperating but the strategy from the beginning has been psychological, not evidence-based, and it has been working.

All they have to do is keep repeating the three words Russia, Trump, and Hacking in close proximity to one another. They got the vast majority of people to believe Saddam Hussein did 9/11. I visit my mother in a retirement home and the mainstream television media has them completely in their grip.

I occasionally check in with the nauseating mainstream press or talking head shows, and watched a gaggle of clowns devolve into a shouting match over Trump/Russia. It was perfectly choreographed to make sure no coherent sentence, no complete thought was ever uttered. It was just noise – which is what the CIA is paying for and the producers are serving up.

In the meantime the Awan spy ring in Congress is being investigated by citizen journalists and studiously ignored by both Congress and the media. Does that tell you anything? They're mostly either safely blackmailed or paid off. The FBI can't find a crime being committed right in front of them in broad daylight so long as the criminal is helping out the country with weapons deliveries to Al Qaeda and ISIS, opium from Afghanistan, and other charitable efforts.

CalDre > , September 16, 2017 at 7:38 am GMT

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.

The Alarmist > , September 16, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT

The term "Stand Down" seems to crop up a lot in matters involving Hillary Clinton, no?

Anonymous > , Disclaimer September 16, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT

I put some effort into editing the original text by Skip Folden and put into into .odt and .pdf. Also checked the links and highlighted some problems.

Have a go, I put it on Amazon S3 (imma supporting Bezos, here), it's easier to read on the train, too:

The+Non+Existent+Foundation+of+the+Russian+Hacking+Charge.pdf

The+Non+Existent+Foundation+of+the+Russian+Hacking+Charge.odt

Logging is off BTW.

El Dato > , September 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

Meanwhile, Stripped Nuts and Loose Screws:

https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=66BF6DAD-0C50-4279-8EA2-018A8B17CAD7

"There is no credible doubt that Russia attacked our election infrastructure in 2016," said Gillibrand. "We need a public accounting of how they were able to do it so effectively, and how we can protect our country when Russia or any other nation tries to attack us again. The clock is ticking before our next election, and these questions are urgent. We need to be able to defend ourselves against threats to our elections, our democracy, and our sacred right to vote. I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to create a 9/11-style Commission to defend our democracy and protect ourselves against future attacks on our country."

Lying and not realising you created the problem in the first place (Closed-source Diebold QUALITY machines etc.)

Just go back to paper, you fcsking idiots.

Seamus Padraig > , September 16, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT

@CalDre Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against. How is Assange a witness? Did the leaker/hacker walk into the Ecuadorian embassy in London and hand it to him? No, no doubt he thinks that because that is what Murray told him. Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

This just doesn't advance the ball one iota.

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against.

Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.

Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Backwoods Bob > , September 16, 2017 at 6:44 pm GMT

@El Dato I can't remember hearing much about Sibel Edmond's revelations either recently.

That story disappeared faster than Oswald exiting a bookstore.

At least she's still alive. So true, El Dato. Even after the 29 pages came out and pointed to Saudi Arabian involvement like suspected, it was just dropped.

Or any number of other ghastly acts like Fast and Furious, the IRS and other organs of government being used to harass and suppress. We overthrew Ukraine and the mockingbird media made it sound like it was a Russian invasion, the story could not have been more backwards.

It's the Church Committee, Iran-Contra, and the Rosenberg's except bigger. Judicial Watch keeps digging out pay-to-play emails. A person would have to be brain dead not to see Comey obstructed investigations and let them destroy evidence. It is clear Congressmen are implicated directly, both parties, Clinton and McCain represent all the worst of our corruption. Aiding Al Qaeda and ISIS.

We have whole shipping containers at a time going to and fro from our ports under diplomatic immunity. Talk about a grotesque corruption of the diplomatic "pouch" immunity. The USSR did its industrial and defense espionage through diplomatic immunity, read Major Jordan's Diaries on the ratline through Alaska via the Lend-Lease program. But now instead of brief cases, it is international shipping containers.

Clear and Present Danger.

CalDre > , September 16, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

Whilst I share the view there is no credible evidence of this "Russian hacking", this article does not provide any evidence against.
Oh? You want us to reverse the burden of proof, do you? Look, I don't know what country you come from, but in the US, a man is always innocent until proven guilty.
Now Murray could be lying, or he could have been fooled: if indeed it was Russia behind the hacks, they could have hired anyone / used any asset to deliver the goods to Murray.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

You want us to reverse the burden of proof

First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's not reversing the burden of proof – in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.

Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

Lawrence Fitton > , September 16, 2017 at 7:51 pm GMT

in 1947 the national security act was passed which meant politicians can lie to the American public as long as the lie is to protect national security. everything is a national security issue now. Not that politicians weren't liars before the act. but today they have cover. Remember james clapper's lies on tv? But he also lied to congress. Congress has no balls or they would have prosecuted him. they have given up their power, of which they have much. particularly when it comes to war. congress declares it; congress funds it; congress can end it. The bums we elect just know to do one thing – hold out their hands.

JackOH > , September 16, 2017 at 11:51 pm GMT

I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's skivvies.

CalDre > , September 17, 2017 at 3:25 am GMT

@JackOH I'm not even a close follower of the "Russian hacking" theory, or whatever the hell it is, but as an ordinary, thinking human being, I find the explanation that a disgruntled Seth Rich (?) leaked those e-mails much more parsimonious than a bunch of Ivans messing about in the DNC's skivvies. Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me.

Seamus Padraig > , September 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

@CalDre

You want us to reverse the burden of proof
First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it. Second, it's not reversing the burden of proof - in a trial both sides submit evidence. The "burden of proof" only indicates who will win if there is no evidence at all. Once the part with the burden of proof submits evidence, it is up to the other side to disprove it.
Like Seth Rich, for example? Now that would be an elaborate plot!
Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

First, I never claimed that. It was the author's claim that he was "disproving" it.

In a technical sense, you are right. Whitney did once above use (or misuse, actually) the word 'disprove' to mean that the other side had failed to prove it's case. But in our legal system, simply showing that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case is quite sufficient to get your man acquitted. You don't have to have proof positive of your man's innocence, so long as the prosecution has no proof of his guilt. Why? Because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Whitney's semantic gaffe here doesn't change that fundamental fact.

Has Murray, who allegedly met the leaker, ever claimed it was Seth Rich? Craig isn't dead, you know.

He confirmed having met the leaker in person inside the US, though it's true he never mentions Rich by name. Wikileaks strives to protect the anonymity of their sources wherever possible. However–and rather tellingly–Assange did offer a cash reward for information leading the arrest of Rich's murderer(s). Again, Assange did not come out and say plainly that Rich was the source, but it's hard to imagine him offering a reward for just anybody out there in world with no connection to Wikileaks whatsoever.

And while Craig Murray may still be alive, as I pointed out above in comment #1, he is now facing a potentially ruinous trial in Britain. A bit like the mysterious Swedish rape allegations against Assange, one could argue that this is all just some remarkably timed coincidence; but then again, it could just as well be the system's way of signalling its displeasure with Murray for cooperating with Wikileaks.

FKA Max > , Website September 18, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT

This is a pretty amusing and insightful article, that might interest Unz Review readers:

'I Get Called a Russian Bot 50 Times a Day'

How a network of little-known Twitter "rooms" helps die-hard fans amplify Trump's message, attack CNN, and spread #MAGA to the world.

[Hide MORE]

Microchip, a Twitter user who uses several different accounts and is routinely banned from the site, told POLITICO the pro-Trump rooms help him spread racist and otherwise controversial material. His dual aims are to prod the left and entice the media into covering the latest online controversy he helped stoke.

Microchip said he started several rooms in November 2015. A handful of people in other rooms confirmed that he was an "early player." But he has been blocked from many rooms because of his "wild claims," one said, as well as anti-Semitic and inflammatory remarks.
[...]
But Microchip, who described himself as an "atheist liberal that just hates immigration" and transgender people, has open contempt for most of Trump's base.

"Conservatives are generally morons," he said. "It's like herding cats."

He's just as frank about what he's peddling to Trump supporters.

"You know how I know they're spreading lies?" Microchip asked one die-hard this week. "Because I do the same thing, it's fake news and spin."
[...]
Lotan said Microchip's claims explain the link between the boomer generation in the mainstream rooms and the younger meme producers on 4chan and reddit.

"The boomers are there, thirsty for ammunition. And 4chan is so good at generating ammunition," Lotan said. "But the boomers will not go to 4chan."

People in the mainstream pro-Trump rooms said Microchip had not been active there for many months. In turn, Microchip said he maintains pseudonymous accounts to hide his identity from "brain dead" Trump supporters.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/09/twitter-trump-train-maga-echo-chamber-215470

... ... ...

JackOH > , September 18, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT

@CalDre Absolutely, Seth Rich, a leftist Jew who supported Bernie Sanders, a leftist Jew, being disgusted by the conspiring at the DNC to screw Sanders makes perfect sense.

Except Craig Murray has never claimed (or AFAIK denied) that it was Seth. One could understand him not revealing it since Wikileaks promises anonymity, and they need to keep that promise even posthumous to be effective.

Only chance of getting at that truth is if Seth's family authorizes Wikileaks to claim or disclaim Seth as the source (if they would honor such a request is another issue), but they won't do that because they are Democrat loyalists and would rather their son's death go unsolved than implicate the Democrats in a huge scandal. Seth's family actually disgusts me. CalDre, thanks. This whole story stinks badly, and the "Russian hack" blather put out on the TV blab shows by Washington gamesmen just seems to me self-serving careerism.

We're asked to believe that Russian intelligence has gathered damaging information on Hillary Clinton, then the front-runner among Democrat candidates, by hacking the DNC's computers. Then, instead of reserving this information to blackmail a future President Hillary Clinton, they turn the information over to Julian Assange. Why in hell would I, i. e ., Russian intelligence, squander good leverage over President Hillary? Are we expected to believe Russian intelligence actually thought it could swing an election by using Assange as a sort of sub-contractor?

Seth Rich, on the other hand, is an idealistic, low-level guy who has a strong motive to hurt the organization that's betrayed him.

As I mentioned, my knowledge of the story is pretty superficial, but it really does seem to me a pile of horse dung.

jilles dykstra > , September 18, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT

Even if Russia tried to interfere in USA elections, what is it in comparison with the CIA organising the murder of Allende, or Soros trying to change Hungarian law ?

Joe Hide > , September 18, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

This is great news. The fraudulent stories about Russia and Trump are great news. The other deep state and shadow government false propaganda are great news. This is because the level of this false propaganda is so low, so poor, so unbelievable, that sane people wake up and withdraw any allegiance to the sources of this misinformation. It is great news, because many of the politically insane citizens are becoming sane due to the misinformation being so obviously a pack of lies, that even they have to think differently.
By the way, Great Article!

Wizard of Oz > , September 18, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig Forgive me if I am out of date but to say that there is a reverse burden of proof in libel cases in Britain (sic – Scotland too?) is BS according to my recollection. (I set aside the possibility that you S P are confusing a civil tort action with a criminal prosecution although your use of the wòrd "innocence" suggests that you may be).

Here's how it was for at least 150 years. Once the court decided that the words complained of were defamatory so at least some general damages were possibly claimable (maybe a farthing which meant the plaintiff would have to pay the defendant's costs) the defendant had several possible avenues of defence. One was that the words were true. If you call a man a thief you have committed an assault on his reputation and you had better have some justification for that. Are you really complaining about that? Complain all you like about so-called "stop writs" where a (typically) rich plaintiff starts proceedings which he suspects the defendant will not have the means to defend properly, and then just sits on the cade having achieved intimidation.

Then there is the defense of "fair comment on a matter of public interest" which is available to the defendant even if he can't prove the truth of his libel. Logically that can't succeed if the defendant is found to have been actuated by malice.

Finally, without pretending to cover the whole subject, the defendant can contend and provide evidence that the plaintiff had no good reputation to lose.

Having read the link I see that it does look like a move to shut him up. If the plaintiff wanted real compensation he would be suing Sky Television which didn't cut the defamatory remarks. Or has that been settled by an apology – which wouldn't be usual for Sky would it?

I am intrigued by the £100,000 costs approved by the court. Presumably this is some procedural innovation which was introduced well after I learned about libel actions and which could be justified .. except it surely leaves the law looking like an ass if the damages clImed are only £40,000!

Finally .can you tell us what the actual libel was? What did Murray say? This is a US site so the First Amendment should look after us.

Wizard of Oz > , September 18, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie

The most interesting thing in your Comment is what you claimed to have found by your "background checks" on the new Senator Obama. What can you tell us to substantiate the novel assertion that Obama was closely connected to the CIA What sources? What relationships? What facts?

[Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Sep 05, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply not plausible.

Let me take you through the known facts:

1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f). Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016 was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware. Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016? an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.

With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine, The Smoking Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of emails, online posts and interviews , Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive 200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.

Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking, releasing the very donor lists the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data" which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016. I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source.

Fool , 05 September 2017 at 09:01 AM

Where was it reported that Rich was a Sanders supporter?
Publius Tacitus -> Fool... , 05 September 2017 at 09:15 AM
This is one of the reports, http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/seth-rich-julian-assange-source-wikileaks-wiki-dnc-emails-death-murder-reward-video-interview-hillary-clinton-shawn-lucas/.
Anna -> Publius Tacitus ... , 05 September 2017 at 10:56 AM
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Stephanie -> Publius Tacitus ... , 06 September 2017 at 12:12 PM
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.b20208de48d3

"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."

http://www.businessinsider.com/seth-rich-family-response-lawsuit-rod-wheeler-2017-8

"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it in June."

Richardstevenhack -> Stephanie... , 07 September 2017 at 07:43 PM
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.

It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out.

Anna , 05 September 2017 at 09:20 AM
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").

Here is an article by Alperovitch: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-cyber-attacks-in-the-united-states-will-intensify

Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.

Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.

The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.

LeaNder , 05 September 2017 at 09:59 AM
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.

And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought yesters.

But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?

One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?

But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?

LondonBob , 05 September 2017 at 03:27 PM
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.

Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.

Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away with it

Richardstevenhack , 05 September 2017 at 06:23 PM
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:

Dumbstruck: How CrowdStrike Conned America on the Hack of the DNC https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f

The article by Jeffrey Carr on CrowdStrike referenced from back in 2012 is also worth reading: Where's the "Strike" in CrowdStrike? https://jeffreycarr.blogspot.com/2012/09/wheres-strike-in-crowdstrike.html

Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations, computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."

Malware Analysis: The Danger of Connecting the Dots: https://www.oodaloop.com/technology/2012/09/11/malware-analysis-the-danger-of-connecting-the-dots/

His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.

The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.

None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.

And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.

The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering terrorism.

[Sep 17, 2017] The So-called Russian Hack of the DNC Does Not Make Sense by Publius Tacitus

Highly recommended!
All signs of sophisticated false flag operation, which probably involved putting malware into DNC servers and then detecting and analyzing them
Notable quotes:
"... 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. ..."
"... The Smoking Gun ..."
"... I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. ..."
"... Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. ..."
"... Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source. ..."
"... Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/ ..."
"... I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents. ..."
"... It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out ..."
"... Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect"). ..."
"... Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money. ..."
"... One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet? ..."
"... Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post: ..."
"... His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on. ..."
"... The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia. ..."
"... None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak. ..."
Sep 05, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Notwithstanding the conventional wisdom that Russia hacked into the DNC computers, downloaded emails and a passed the stolen missives to Julian Assange's crew at Wikileaks, a careful examination of the timeline of events from 2016 shows that this story is simply not plausible.

Let me take you through the known facts:

1. 29 April 2016 , when the DNC became aware its servers had been penetrated (https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f). Note. They apparently did not know who was doing it. 2, 6 May 2016 when CrowdStrike first detected what it assessed to be a Russian presence inside the DNC server. Follow me here. One week after realizing there had been a penetration, the DNC learns, courtesy of the computer security firm it hired, that the Russians are doing it. Okay. Does CrowdStrike shut down the penetration. Nope. The hacking apparently continues unabated. 3. 25 May 2016. The messages published on Wikileaks from the DNC show that 26 May 2016 was the last date that emails were sent and received at the DNC. There are no emails in the public domain after that date. In other words, if the DNC emails were taken via a hacking operation, we can conclude from the fact that the last messages posted to Wikileaks show a date time group of 25 May 2016. Wikileaks has not reported nor posted any emails from the DNC after the 25th of May. I think it is reasonable to assume that was the day the dirty deed was done. 4. 12 June 2016, CrowdStrike purged the DNC server of all malware. Are you kidding me? 45 days after the DNC discovers that its serve has been penetrated the decision to purge the DNC server is finally made. What in the hell were they waiting for? But this also tells us that 18 days after the last email "taken" from the DNC, no additional emails were taken by this nasty malware. Here is what does not make sense to me. If the DNC emails were truly hacked and the malware was still in place on 11 June 2016 (it was not purged until the 12th) then why are there no emails from the DNC after 26 May 2016? an excellent analysis of Guccifer's role : Almost immediately after the one-two punch of the Washington Post article/CrowdStrike technical report went public, however, something totally unexpected happened -- someone came forward and took full responsibility for the DNC cyber attack. Moreover, this entity -- operating under the persona Guccifer 2.0 (ostensibly named after the original Guccifer , a Romanian hacker who stole the emails of a number of high-profile celebrities and who was arrested in 2014 and sentenced to 4 ½ years of prison in May 2016) -- did something no state actor has ever done before, publishing documents stolen from the DNC server as proof of his claims.
Hi. This is Guccifer 2.0 and this is me who hacked Democratic National Committee.

With that simple email, sent to the on-line news magazine, The Smoking Gun , Guccifer 2.0 stole the limelight away from Alperovitch. Over the course of the next few days, through a series of emails, online posts and interviews , Guccifer 2.0 openly mocked CrowdStrike and its Russian attribution. Guccifer 2.0 released a number of documents, including a massive 200-plus-missive containing opposition research on Donald Trump.

Guccifer 2.0 also directly contradicted the efforts on the part of the DNC to minimize the extent of the hacking, releasing the very donor lists the DNC specifically stated had not been stolen. More chilling, Guccifer 2.0 claimed to be in possession of "about 100 Gb of data" which had been passed on to the online publisher, Wikileaks, who "will publish them soon." 7. Seth Rich died on 10 July 2016. I introduce Seth Rich at this point because he represents an alternative hypothesis. Rich, who reportedly was a Bernie Sanders supporter, was in a position at the DNC that gave him access to the emails in question and the opportunity to download the emails and take them from the DNC headquarters. Worth noting that Julian Assange offered $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Rich's killer or killers. 8. 22 July 2016. Wikileaks published the DNC emails starting on 22 July 2016. Bill Binney, a former senior official at NSA, insists that if such a hack and electronic transfer over the internet had occurred then the NSA has in it possession the intelligence data to prove that such activity had occurred. Notwithstanding the claim by CrowdStrike not a single piece of evidence has been provided to the public to support the conclusion that the emails were hacked and physically transferred to a server under the control of a Russian intelligence operative. Please do not try to post a comment stating that the "Intelligence Community" concluded as well that Russia was responsible. That claim is totally without one shred of actual forensic evidence. Also, Julian Assange insists that the emails did not come from a Russian source.

Fool , 05 September 2017 at 09:01 AM

Where was it reported that Rich was a Sanders supporter?
Publius Tacitus -> Fool... , 05 September 2017 at 09:15 AM
This is one of the reports, http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/seth-rich-julian-assange-source-wikileaks-wiki-dnc-emails-death-murder-reward-video-interview-hillary-clinton-shawn-lucas/.
Anna -> Publius Tacitus ... , 05 September 2017 at 10:56 AM
Wikileaks, the protector of the accountability of the top, has announced a reward for finding the murderers of Seth Rich. In comparison, the DNC has not offered any reward to help the investigation of the murder of the DNC staffer, but the DNC found a well-connected lawyer to protect Imran Awan who is guilty (along with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) in the greatest breach of national cybersecurity: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/29/wasserman-schultz-seemingly-planned-to-pay-suspect-even-while-he-lived-in-pakistan/
Stephanie -> Publius Tacitus ... , 06 September 2017 at 12:12 PM
Seth Rich's family have pleaded, and continue to plead, that the conspiracy theorists leave the death of their son alone and have said that those who continue to flog this nonsense around the internet are only serving to increase their pain. I suggest respectfully that some here may wish to consider their feelings. (Also, this stuff is nuts, you know.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-parents-stop-politicizing-our-sons-murder/2017/05/23/164cf4dc-3fee-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.b20208de48d3

"We also know that many people are angry at our government and want to see justice done in some way, somehow. We are asking you to please consider our feelings and words. There are people who are using our beloved Seth's memory and legacy for their own political goals, and they are using your outrage to perpetuate our nightmare."

http://www.businessinsider.com/seth-rich-family-response-lawsuit-rod-wheeler-2017-8

"Wheeler, a former Metropolitan Police Department officer, was a key figure in a series of debunked stories claiming that Rich had been in contact with Wikileaks before his death. Fox News, which reported the story online and on television, retracted it in June."

Richardstevenhack -> Stephanie... , 07 September 2017 at 07:43 PM
I'm afraid you're behind the times. Wheeler is no longer relevant now that Sy Hersh has revealed an FBI report that explicitly says Rich was in contact with Wikileaks offering to sell them DNC documents.

It's unfortunate for the Rich family, but now that the connection is pretty much confirmed, they're going to have to allow the truth to come out.

Anna , 05 September 2017 at 09:20 AM
Mr. Dmitri Alperovitch, of Jewish descent (and an emigre from Russia), has been an "expert" at the Atlantic Council, the same organization that cherishes and provides for Mr. Eliot Higgins. These two gentlemen - and the directorate of Atlantic Council - are exhibit one of opportunism and intellectual dishonesty (though it is hard to think about Mr. Higgins in terms of "intellect").

Here is an article by Alperovitch: http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-cyber-attacks-in-the-united-states-will-intensify

Take note how Alperovitch coded the names of the supposed hackers: "Russian intelligence services hacked the Democratic National Committee's computer network and accessed opposition research on Donald Trump, according to the Atlantic Council's Dmitri Alperovitch.

Two Russian groups ! codenamed FancyBear and CozyBear ! have been identified as spearheading the DNC breach." Alperovitch is not just an incompetent "expert" in cybersecurity - he is a willing liar and war-mongering, for money.

The DNC hacking story has never been about national security; Alperovitch (and his handlers) have no loyalty to the US.

LeaNder , 05 September 2017 at 09:59 AM
PT, I make a short exception. Actually decided to stop babbling for a while. But: Just finished something successfully.

And since I usually need distraction by something far more interesting then matters at hand. I was close to your line of thought yesters.

But really: Shouldn't the timeline start in 2015, since that's supposedly the time someone got into the DNC's system?

One could of course start earlier. What is the exact timeline of the larger cyberwar post 9/11, or at least the bits and pieces that surfaced for the nitwits among us, like: Stuxnet?

But nevermind. Don't forget developments and recent events around Eugene or Jewgeni Walentinowitsch Kasperski?

LondonBob , 05 September 2017 at 03:27 PM
The Russia thing certainly seems to have gone quiet.

Bannon's chum says the issue with pursuing the Clinton email thing is that you would end up having to indict almost all of the last administration, including Obama, unseemly certainly. Still there might be a fall guy, maybe Comey, and obviously it serves Trump's purposes to keep this a live issue through the good work of Grassley and the occasional tweet.

Would be amusing if Trump pardoned Obama. Still think Brennan should pay a price though, can't really be allowed to get away with it

Richardstevenhack , 05 September 2017 at 06:23 PM
Scott Ritter's article referenced in PT's post is terrific, covering a ton of issues related to CrowdStrike and the DNC hack. You need to read it, not just PT's timeline. In case you missed the link in PT's post:

Dumbstruck: How CrowdStrike Conned America on the Hack of the DNC https://medium.com/homefront-rising/dumbstruck-how-crowdstrike-conned-america-on-the-hack-of-the-dnc-ecfa522ff44f

The article by Jeffrey Carr on CrowdStrike referenced from back in 2012 is also worth reading: Where's the "Strike" in CrowdStrike? https://jeffreycarr.blogspot.com/2012/09/wheres-strike-in-crowdstrike.html

Also, the article Carr references is very important for understanding the limits of malware analysis and "attribution". Written by Michael Tanji, whose credentials appear impressive: "spent nearly 20 years in the US intelligence community. Trained in both SIGINT and HUMINT disciplines he has worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. At various points in his career he served as an expert in information warfare, computer network operations, computer forensics, and indications and warning. A veteran of the US Army, Michael has served in both strategic and tactical assignments in the Pacific Theater, the Balkans, and the Middle East."

Malware Analysis: The Danger of Connecting the Dots: https://www.oodaloop.com/technology/2012/09/11/malware-analysis-the-danger-of-connecting-the-dots/

His article echoes and reinforces what Carr and others have said about the difficulty of attribution of infosec breaches. Namely that the basic problem of both intelligence and infosec operations is that there is too much obfuscation, manipulation, and misdirection involved to be sure of who or what is going on.

The Seth Rich connection is pretty much a done deal, now that Sy Hersh has been caught on tape stating that he knows of an FBI report based on a forensic analysis of Rich's laptop that shows Rich was in direct contact with Wikileaks with an attempt to sell them DNC documents and that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account. Despite Hersh's subsequent denials - which everyone knows are his usual impatient deflections prior to putting out a sourced and organized article - it's pretty clear that Rich was at least one of the sources of the Wikileaks email dump and that there is zero connection to Russia.

None of this proves that Russian intelligence - or Russians of some stripe - or for that matter hackers from literally anywhere - couldn't or didn't ALSO do a hack of the DNC. But it does prove that the iron-clad attribution of the source of Wikileaks email release to Russia is at best flawed, and at worst a deliberate cover up of a leak.

And Russiagate depends primarily on BOTH alleged "facts" being true: 1) that Russia hacked the DNC, and 2) that Russia was the source of Wikileaks release. And if the latter is not true, then one has to question why Russia hacked the DNC in the first place, other than for "normal" espionage operations. "Influencing the election" then becomes a far less plausible theory.

The general takeaway from an infosec point of view is that attribution by means of target identification, tools used, and "indicators of compromise" is a fatally flawed means of identifying, and thus being able to counter, the adversaries encountered in today's Internet world, as Tanji proves. Only HUMINT offers a way around this, just as it is really the only valid option in countering terrorism.

[Sep 17, 2017] Israel wants strategic depth in spades. Israel feels, legitimately or not, insecure. I've heard politicians in Israel give an outline of Israel's "needs". Yes, they want the West Bank but leaving the Palestinians autonomy in their cities. They are going to keep the Golan and yes want enough of Lebanon to control the headwaters of the Litani and it's water. You are correct that Israel does not need the Litani water but they want it to weaken Lebanon and especially Hizballah. Last but not least they want the Sinai back.

Sep 17, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

10 November 2016 at 07:50 PM

Will ,

I'd like to know what is it the Zionists really want. Would they be satisfied with the West Bank? Would they be satisfied with the part of the Golan Heights they grabbed or do they want all of it? Will they quit trying to grab the waters of the Litani River in Lebanon since reportedly through desalination they have more water than they need?

You are dealing with a country that refuses to fix its borders? If it were given what it wanted, would it then let its neighbors go in Peace? Why did they not accept the Saudi Beirut Peace initiative? Why was Rabin assassinated? Why did Olmeret suddenly get removed due to a criminal inquiry?

I used to read Haaretz at one time until it went behind a paywall. I get some insight from Uri Avnery, b/ I'm truly lost at what they really want. Is it from the river to the river? Wadi-el-Arish to the Euphrates?

Do they really want to continue as the Lacedomnians lording it over the Helots? The Israeli Firsters have destroyed secular Irak, now working on Syria, and would love to destroy Lebanon and turn it into a choatic non-functioning state. They would love to destroy Iran as a semi-secular civiliazton. Trump advisor Gen Michael Flynn, for all his good qualities, has a hard-on for the Persians. So does Trump. Really worrying. You cannot have a concert of nations resolution w/o bringing Iran to the table.

Of course, Trump will make them concessions. Adelson gave him some $30 mil for his campaign and Ivanka has converted to Judaism. He will recognize Jerusalem/Quds as the capital of Israel. that's a foregone conclusion.

But the glimmer of hope is that he has said, that he would try to be neutral and work out a Peace agreement.

Again I quote from George Mitchell:
"First, I believe there is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended. Conflicts are created and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings. No matter how ancient the conflict, no matter how much harm has been done, peace can prevail."

jdledell -> Will... , 10 November 2016 at 07:50 PM
Will - Israel wants strategic depth in spades. Israel feels, legitimately or not, insecure. I've heard politicians in Israel give an outline of Israel's "needs". Yes, they want the West Bank but leaving the Palestinians autonomy in their cities. They are going to keep the Golan and yes want enough of Lebanon to control the headwaters of the Litani and it's water. You are correct that Israel does not need the Litani water but they want it to weaken Lebanon and especially Hizballah. Last but not least they want the Sinai back.

This would give them strategic depth in the North, South and West. They are growing their Naval capabilities to cover the East.

[Sep 17, 2017] Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt.

Notable quotes:
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

LondonBob says: July 11, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT

http://mihsislander.org/2017/06/full-transcript-james-mattis-interview/

Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.

[Sep 17, 2017] A Letter to My American Friends by The Saker

The false Kuwait baby incubator story that helped sell the US war against Iraq shows that even today we are not as clever or discerning as we imagine. And this in an age when we actually have alternative avenues of information to fact check the media.
Notable quotes:
"... Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the US) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely misled people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives. ..."
"... [Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 "Bologna massacre", the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?] ..."
"... I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting "our friends and allies" and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US "Congresspersons"? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent "saviors of others" in the US polity? ..."
"... Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and they allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?! ..."
"... I don't think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are "mistakes" (how would you react it somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made "mistakes"?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of "mistake". ..."
"... How would you define "success"? ..."
"... You clearly don't mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of "success" is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become to victim of such as "successful" military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of "success" to have the means to be "successful" in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can't even achieve any type of "success" even by their own definition, nevermind yours?! ..."
"... Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the "Yankee go home" slogan. ..."
"... Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. ..."
"... You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal? ..."
"... And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay " War is a Racket " by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in this time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps : (emphasis added) ..."
"... Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law , think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson , the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil" of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they "come with the territory", they are not the exception, they are the norm. ..."
"... As many, even in the US, realize the "Empire's" days are numbered, the best thing would be to abandon the Empire, rather than waiting for it to collapse. Conscious abandonment frees resources for rebuilding the country, and suggests it could be managed for minimum impact. A belly landing at best, but eminently survivable with luck and skill at the controls. Collapse, if delayed much longer, is shaping up to be catastrophic for the US, and highly disruptive for the rest of the world, and that's assuming we avoid anybody going nuclear. ..."
"... Active, managed abandonment of the Empire is what the people voted for. Collapse is what it looks like they'll get. Not "best" at all, and maybe very, very bad. ..."
"... The German elite in this era believed they were practicing 'good science' by these actions. In fact they were by the standards of the pseudo science of Eugenics which was supported universally by leading figures in the West. The Nazis began this purge with German citizens deemed faulty and a threat to humanity long before attention was focused on Jews, gypsies, Slavs etc etc. The shock of the camps and the actions at Nuremberg put an end to Eugenics except in the US where it continued. Actually Eugenics was the horror child birthed in the US and UK. ..."
"... If the American empire is collapsed as you wish it would be, then what? What magical solution do you have? Because rest assured there will be someone else taking the reins but I guess you feel that the next power will do it the 'right way'. Laughable ..."
"... I agree with most of this article. Al Qaeda had help inside the US for sure and there was a cover up at the highest levels, but the debris that could be used to test the demolition theory was removed quickly without analysis to China. ..."
"... The lowest order of social organization is the band society. Historically they would war against each other. Chimpanzees war against each other. This a hominidae problem at least. Also human society favors narcissist and psychopaths for leaders. The psychopaths lie the US into war for their objective. Narcissist do it because they want to feel good about murdering people so they lie to themselves. This won't stop unless these groups of people are screened and prevented from reaching positions of power. ..."
"... [Choose a single Handle and use it, or Anonymous/Anon. Using multiple Handles to conceal your identity will get all your comments trashed.] ..."
"... Capitalism and the systematic capture of the political system by big money has made it an empire. This will end badly, not just for the US but the whole world. I give it a year or twenty. ..."
"... The closing paragraph shows this writer's confusion. The best thing would be collapse of American Empire? But just a few sentences later he notes correctly that America is the most dangerous entity in history? How does collapse equal security of our mountains of weapons? How many nukes must escape our collapsing empire before it becomes an even bigger danger than before? ..."
"... On a different thread here the Russian view of WW2 was characterized as a victory cult, and that's entirely accurate. ..."
Sep 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction by the Saker: During my recent hurricane-induced evacuation from Florida, I had the pleasure to see some good friends of mine (White Russian emigrés and American Jews who now consider themselves American and who fully buy into the official propaganda about the US) who sincerely think of themselves as liberals, progressives and anti-imperialists. These are kind, decent and sincere people, but during our meeting they made a number of statements which completely contradicted their professed views. After writing this letter to them I realized that there might be many more people out there who, like myself, are desperately trying to open the eye of good but completely misled people about the reality of Empire. I am sharing this letter in the hope that it might maybe offer a few useful talking points to others in their efforts to open the eyes of their friends and relatives.

Dear friends:

During our conversation you stated the following:

The US needs a military One of the reasons why the US needs a military are regimes like the North Korean one The US has a right to intervene outside its borders on a) pragmatic and b) moral grounds During WWII the US "saved Europe" and acquired a moral right to "protect" other friends and allies The Allies (USSR-US-UK) were morally superior to the Nazis The Americans brought peace, prosperity and freedom to Europe. Yes, mistakes were made, but this is hardly a reason to forsake the right to intervene

I believe that all seven of these theses are demonstratively false, fallacies based on profoundly mistaken assumptions and that they all can be debunked by common sense and indisputable facts.

But first, let me tackle the Delphic maxim "know thyself" as it is, I believe, central to our discussion. For all our differences I think that there are a number of things which you would agree to consider as axiomatically true, including that Germans, Russians, Americans and others are roughly of equal intelligence. They also are roughly equally capable of critical thinking, personal investigation and education. Right? Yet, you will also agree that during the Nazi regime in Germany Germans were very effectively propagandized and that Russians in Soviet Russia were also effectively propagandized by their own propaganda machine. Right? Do you have any reason to suppose that we are somehow smarter or better than those propagandized Germans and Russians and had we been in their place we would have immediately seen through the lies? Could it be that we today are maybe also not seeing through the lies we are being told?

It is also undeniable that the history of WWII was written by the victors of WWII. This is true of all wars – defeated regimes don't get to freely present their version of history. Had the Nazis won WWII, we would all have been treated to a dramatically different narrative of what took place. Crucially, had the Nazis won WWII, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the German people would have shown much skepticism about the version of history presented in their schools. Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.

You doubt that?

Just think of the number of Germans who declared that they had no idea how bad the Nazi regime really was. Even Hitler's personal secretary, Traudl Junge, used that excuse to explain how she could have worked for so many years with Hitler and even like him so much. There is an American expression which says "where I sit is where I stand". Well, may I ask – where are we sittting and are we so sure that we have an independent opinion which is not defined by where we sit (geographically, politically, socially and even professionally)?

You might ask about all the victims of the Nazi regime, would they not be able to present their witness to the German people and the likes of Traudl Junge? Of course not: the dead don't speak very much, and their murderers rarely do (lest they themselves end up dead). Oh sure, there would be all sorts of dissidents and political activists who would know the truth, but the "mainstream" consensus under a victorious Nazi Germany would be that Hitler and the Nazis liberated Europe from the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists.

This is not something unique to Germany, by the way. If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don't reproduce. As a result, the modern Russian historiography is heavily skewed towards whitewashing the Soviet crimes and atrocities. To some degree this is a good thing, because it counteracts decades of US anti-Soviet propaganda, but it often goes too far and ends up minimizing the actual human cost of the Bolshevik experiment in Russia.

So how do the US compare to Germany and Russia in this context?

Most Americans trust the version of history presented to them by their own "mainstream". Why? How is their situation objectively different from the situation of Germans in a victorious Third Reich? Our modern narrative of WWII was also written by victors, victors who had a vested reason in demonizing all the other sides (Nazis and Soviets) while presenting us with a heroic tale of liberation. And here is the question which ought to really haunt us at night: what if we had been born not Russians and Jews after a Nazi defeat but if we had been born Germans after an Allied defeat in WWII? Would we have been able to show enough skepticism and courage to doubt the myths we were raised with? Or would we also be doubleplusgoodthinking little Nazis, all happy and proud to have defeated the evil Judeo-Bolshevik hordes and the Anglo-Masonic capitalists?

Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated. No wonder that we, Jews and Russians, don't particularly care for that kind of genocidal racist views. But surely we can be humans before being Jews and Russians, and we can accept that what is bad for us is not necessarily bad for others. Sure, Hitler was bad news for Jews and Russians, but was he really so bad news for "pure" (Aryan Germanic) Germans? More importantly, if we had been born "pure" Germans, would have have cared a whole lot about Jews and Russians? I sure hope so, but I have my doubts. I don't recall any of us shedding many tears about the poly-genocided (a word a coined for a unique phenomenon in history: the genocide of all the ethnicities of an entire continent!) Native Americans! I dare say that we are a lot more prone to whining about the "Holocaust" or "Stalinism", even though neither of them ever affected us personally, (only our families and ethnicity) than about the poly-genocide of Native Americans. I very much doubt that our whining priorities would have been the same if our ethnicity had been Lakota or Comanche. Again, I hope that I am wrong. But I am not sure sure.

Either way, my point is this:

We are hard-coded to be credulous and uncritically accept all the demonization of Nazis and Soviets because we are Jews and White Russians. Careful here, I am NOT saying that the Nazis and Soviets were not evil – they definitely were – but what I am saying is that we, Jews and Russians, are far more willing to accept and endorse any version of history which makes the Nazis and Soviets some kind of exceptionally evil people and that, in contrast, we almost instinctively reject any notion that "our" side (in this case I mean *your* side, the American one since you, unlike me, consider yourselves American) was just as bad (if only because your side never murdered Jews and Russians). So let's look at this "our/your side" for a few minutes.

By the time the US entered WWII it had already committed the worse crime in human history, the poly-genocide of an entire continent, followed by the completely illegal and brutal annexation of the lands stolen from the Native Americans. Truly, Hitler would have been proud. But that is hardly all, the Anglo invaders then proceeded to wage another illegal and brutal war of annexation against Mexico from which is stole a huge chunk of land which includes modern Texas, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico! Yes, all this land was illegally occupied and stolen by your side not once, but TWICE! And do I even need to mention the horrors of slavery to add to the "moral tally" of your side by the time the US entered the war? Right there I think that there is more than enough evidence that your side was morally worse than either the Nazis or the Soviets. The entire history of the US is one of endless violence, plunder, hypocrisy, exploitation, imperialism, oppression and wars. Endless wars of aggression. None of them defensive by any stretch of the imagination. That is quite unique in human history. Can you think of a nastier, more bloodthirsty regime? I can't.

Should I even mention the British "atrocities tally", ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?

I can just hear you say that yes, this was horrible, but that does not change the fact that in WWII the US "saved Europe". But is that really so?

To substantiate my position, I have put together a separate PDF file which lists 5 sources, 3 in English, 2 in Russian. You can download it here:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByibNV3SiUooWExTNGhMTGF5azQ

I have translated the key excerpts of the Russian sources and I am presenting them along with the key excerpts of the English sources. Please take a look at this PDF and, if you can, please read the full original articles I quote. I have stressed in bold red the key conclusions of these sources. You will notice that there are some variations in the figures, but the conclusions are, I think, undeniable. The historical record show that:

The Soviet Union can be credited with the destruction of roughly 80% of the Nazi military machine. The US-UK correspondingly can be credited with no more than 20% of the Allied war effort. The scale and scope of the battles on the Eastern Front completely dwarf the biggest battles on the Western Front. Battles in the West involved Divisions and Brigades, in the East they involved Armies and Groups of Armies. That is at least one order of magnitude of difference. The US only entered the war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would lose the war.

The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be defeated and that their real motive was not the "liberation of oppressed Europe" but to prevent the Soviets from occupying all of Europe. The Americans never gave a damn about the mass murder of Jews or Russians, all they cared about was a massive land-grab (yet again).

[Sidebar: By the way, and lest you think that I claim that only Americans act this way, here is another set of interesting dates:

  • Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: August 6 and 9, 1945
  • Soviet Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation: August 9–20, 1945

We can clearly see the same pattern here: the Soviets waited until it was absolutely certain that the US had defeated the Japanese empire before striking it themselves. It is also worth noting that it took the Soviets only 10 days to defeat the entire Kwantung Army, the most prestigious Army of the Japanese Empire with over one million well-trained and well-equipped soldiers! That should tell you a little something about the kind of military machine the Soviet Union had developed in the course of the war against Nazi Germany (see here for a superb US study of this military operation)]

Did the Americans bring peace and prosperity to western Europe?

To western Europe, to some degree yes, and that is because was easy for them: they ended the war almost "fresh", their (stolen) homeland did not suffer the horrors of war and so, yes, they could bring in peanut butter, cigarettes and other material goods. They also made sure that Western Europe would become an immense market for US goods and services and that European resources would be made available to the US Empire, especially against the Soviet Union. And how did they finance this "generosity"? By robbing the so-called Third World blind, that's all. Is that something to be proud of? Did Lenin not warn as early as 1917 that "imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism"? The wealth of Western Europe was built by the abject poverty of the millions of Africans, Asians and Latin Americas.

But what about the future of Europe and the European people?

There a number of things upon which the Anglos and Stalin did agree to at the end of WWII: The four Ds: denazification, disarmament, demilitarisation, and democratisation of a united Germany and reparations to rebuilt the USSR. Yes, Stalin wanted a united, neutral Germany. As soon as the war ended, however, the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, their rocket program and to subvert the Soviet Union. Worse, they immediately developed plans to attack the Soviet Union. Right at the end of the WWII, Anglo powers had at least THREE plans to wage war on the USSR: Operation Dropshot , Plan Totality and Operation Unthinkable . Here are some basic reminders from Wikipedia about what these operations were about:

  • Operation Dropshot : included mission profiles that would have used 300 nuclear bombs and 29,000 high-explosive bombs on 200 targets in 100 cities and towns to wipe out 85% of the Soviet Union's industrial potential at a single stroke. Between 75 and 100 of the 300 nuclear weapons were targeted to destroy Soviet combat aircraft on the ground.
  • Plan Totality : earmarked 20 Soviet cities for obliteration in a first strike : Moscow, Gorki, Kuybyshev, Sverdlovsk, Novosibirsk, Omsk, Saratov, Kazan, Leningrad, Baku, Tashkent, Chelyabinsk, Nizhny Tagil, Magnitogorsk, Molotov, Tbilisi, Stalinsk, Grozny, Irkutsk, and Yaroslavl.
  • Operation Unthinkable : assumed a surprise attack by up to 47 British and American divisions in the area of Dresden, in the middle of Soviet lines. This represented almost a half of roughly 100 divisions (ca. 2.5 million men) available to the British, American and Canadian headquarters at that time. ( ) The majority of any offensive operation would have been undertaken by American and British forces, as well as Polish forces and up to 100,000 German Wehrmacht soldiers .

[Were you aware of these? If not, do you now wonder why?]

I am not making these things up, you can look it up for yourself on Wikipedia and elsewhere. This is the Anglo idea of how you deal with Russian "allies": you stab them in the back with a surprise nuclear attack, you obliterate most of their cities and you launch the Nazi Wehrmacht against them.

I won't even go into the creation of NATO (before the WTO was created in response) or such petty crimes as false flag terrorist attack ( Operation Gladio ).

[Have you ever heard of Operation Gladio or the August 1980 "Bologna massacre", the bombing of the Bologna train station by NATO secret terrorist forces, a false-flag terrorist attack (85 dead, over 200 wounded) designed to discredit the Communist Party of Italy? If not – do you now wonder why you never heard of this?]

The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab, that the Cold War was an Anglo creation, as was the partition of Europe, and that since WWII the US always treated Europe as a colony form which to fight the "Communist" threat (i.e. Russia).

But, let's say that I am all wrong. For argument's sake. Let's pretend that the kind-hearted Americans came to Europe to free the European people. They heroically defeated Hitler and brought (Western) Europe peace, prosperity, freedom, happiness, etc. etc. etc.

Does this good deed give the US a license for future interventions? You both mentioned WWII as an example and a justification for the need for the US to maintain a military large enough to counter regimes such as the North Korean one, right? So, let me ask again,

Does the fact that the US altruistically, kindly and heroically liberated Europe from both the Nazis and the Soviets now grant the moral legitimacy to other, subsequent, US military interventions against other abhorrent, aggressive or evil regimes/countries out there?

If you reply "no" – then why did you mention it as a justification?

If you reply "yes" – then please forgive me for being so obtuse and ask you for how long this "license to militarily intervene" remains valid? One year? Five years? Maybe ten or even seventy years? Or maybe this license grants such a moral right to the US ad aeternam , forever? Seriously, if the US did liberate Europe and bring it peace and happiness, are we to assume that this will remain true forever and everywhere?

I also want to ask you this: let's say, for the argument's sake, that the moral license given by the US participation in the war in Europe is, truly, forever. Let's just assume that, okay? But let me ask you this: could it be revoked (morally, conceptually)? Say the US did something absolutely wonderful in Europe. What about the subsequent horrors in southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle-East. How many murdered, maimed, occupied, terrorized, bombed and otherwise genocided "non-West Europeans" would it take to outweigh the putatively "happily liberated" Europeans which, according to you, grant the US the license to intervene? Even if the US in Europe was all noble and pure, do the following seventy years of evil mass murder worldwide really count for nothing or does there come a point were "enough is enough" and the license cam be revoked, morally speaking, by people like us, like you?

May I point out to you that your words spoken in defense of a supposed need for the US to maintain a military capable of overseas operations strongly suggest that you believe that the US has a moral right (if not a duty!) to conduct such operations, which means that the post WWII atrocity-tally of the US is not, in your opinion, sufficient to elicit a "enough is enough" reaction in you. Are you sure that you are comfortable with this stance?

In theory, there could be another reason to revoke such a moral license. After all, one can have the moral right to do something, but not necessarily the capability to do so. If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so. Right? So when you say that the US needs to maintain a military capable of protecting friends and allies from rogue and dangerous regimes like the one in North Korea, you do imply that besides having the right to extend such a protection the US also has the capabilities and the expertise to do so?

Really?

And what is the evidence for that, may I ask?!

I asked you to name me a single successful US military intervention since WWII and you could name none. Good! I agree with you. The reality is that every single US military operation since WWII has resulted in a disaster either on the humanitarian, political and military level (often on all of them combined). Even Grenada was a total (military) failure! Also, do you see who sits in the White House today? Do you really want The Donald in charge of protecting "our friends and allies" and are you confident that he has the skillset needed to do this competently? Or Hillary for that matter? Even Sanders has a record of defending catastrophic military operations, such as the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006 which, you guessed it (or not), ended in abject defeat for the Israelis and untold civilians horrors in Lebanon. But forget the President, take a look at US generals – do they inspire in you the belief that they are the kind of people who can be trusted to skillfully execute a military intervention inspired by moral and ethical reasons?! What about US "Congresspersons"? Would you trust them? So where do you see honest and competent "saviors of others" in the US polity?

Did you notice that there was no Islamic State in Iraq before the US invasion? Or did you notice that ever since the US declared a war on ISIS the latter has been getting stronger and stronger and taking over more countries. Yes, of course, once the Russians got involved ISIS began suffering defeat after defeat, but all the Americans had to say about the Russian intervention was to denounce it and predict it would fail. So why is it that the Russians are so good at fighting ISIS and the Americans, and they allies, so bad? Do you really want the Americans in charge of world security with such a record?!

Is insanity not repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

Now I hear the reply you gave me to this point. You said "yes, mistakes were made".

Mistakes ?!

I don't think that millions of murdered people, including hundreds of thousands of children, are "mistakes" (how would you react it somebody conceded to you that Hitler and Stalin made "mistakes"?). But there is something even more insidious in this notion of "mistake".

How would you define "success"?

Say the US armed forces were not only good at killing people (which they are), but also good at winning wars (which they ain't). Say the US had been successful in not only invading Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in fully pacifying these countries. Say the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been successfully defeated, their economy had bounced back, and democratic regimes put in power: capitalism everywhere, 100 channels on each TV, McDonalds in every Afghan villages, gay pride parades in downtown Kabul, gender-neutral toilets in every mosque, elections every 4 years or so and not a single shot fired, not a single bomb going off? Would that be a "success"?

I pray to God and hope with all my heart that your reply to this question is a resounding "no!!". Because if you answered "yes" then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. Yup, I mean that. Why? Because your notion of "success" is the spiritual, psychological and cultural death of an ancient civilization and that makes you, quite literally, an mortal enemy of mankind as a whole. I can't even imagine such a horror. So I am sure that you answered "no!!" as every decent human being would, right?

But then what is a "success"? You clearly don't mean the success as defined by your rulers (they would enthusiastically support such an outcome; in fact – they even promise it every time over and over again!). But if their idea of "success" is not yours, and if you would never want any other nation, people or ethnicity to ever become to victim of such as "successful" military intervention, why do you still want your rulers with their satanic notion of "success" to have the means to be "successful" in the future? And that in spite of the fact that the historical record shows that they can't even achieve any type of "success" even by their own definition, nevermind yours?!

Did you notice that nowhere in my arguments above did I mention the fact that the US has never asked people (as opposed to local Comprador elites) whether they wanted to be saved by Uncle Sam or not? Neither did they ask the American people if they wanted to go to war, hence all the well-known false flags from the "remember the Maine", to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, to the "Gulf of Tonkin incident", to September 11 th : every time a lie had to be concocted to convince the American people that they had to go to war. Is that really people power? Is this democracy?!

Are there people out there, anybody, who really favor US military interventions? Yes, I suppose that there are. Like the Kosovo Albanians. I suspect that the Afghan Tajiks and Hazara were pretty happy to see the US bomb the crap of the Taliban. So there might be a few cases. Oh, and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example). But it is pretty safe to say that in reality nobody wants to be liberated by Uncle Sam, hence the wordwide use of the "Yankee go home" slogan.

This letter is already way too long, and I will forgo the listing of all the reasons why the US are pretty much hated all over the planet, not by the ruling elites, of course, but by the regular people. And when I say "the US" I don't mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino, James Taylor or the Bill of Rights or the beautiful country called "the US". But the regime, as opposed to any one specific government or administration in Washington, the regime is what truly universally hated. I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even in France, Greece or Latin America. But the hate for the Empire is quasi universal by now. Only the political elites whose status, power and well-being is dependent on the Empire do, in fact, support the Empire and what it stands for. Everybody else despises what the US stands for today. And every military intervention only makes this worse.

And you want to make sure this continues? Really?

Right now the US is desperately trying to save al-Qaeda (aka IS, ISIS, Daesh, al-Nusra, etc.) from defeat in Syria. How is that for a moral stance after 9/11 (that is, if you accept the official narrative about 9/11; if you understand that 9/11 was a controlled demolition in which al-Qaeda patsies were used as a smokescreen, then this makes sense, by the way).

By the way – who are the current allies the US are so busy helping now? The Wahabi regime in Saudi Arabia. The Nazi regime in the Ukraine and... The last officially racist regime on the planet in Israel. Do these really strike you as allies worth supporting?! And what are the American people getting form all that? Nothing but poverty, oppression, shame, hatred, fear and untold physical, psychological and moral suffering.

These are the fruits of Empire. Every Empire. Always.

You mentioned that every time you see a veteran you thanked him for his service. Why? Do you really think that he fought in a just war, that his service is something he can be proud of? Did he fight for his people? Did he defend the innocent? Or was he an occupier in a foreign land and, if he saw combat, did he not kill people who defended their own land, their families and their way of life? What exactly do you thank that veteran for? For following orders? But is that not something the Nuremberg trials specifically condemned as immoral and illegal?

Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx's Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their material needs taken care of? You added "compare that to Russian servicemen". Well, you clearly are not aware of how Russian soldiers live nowadays, under your hated Putin, but that is besides the point. The question which I wanted to ask you then and which I will ask you now is this: is the comfortable lifestyle granted to US Marines good enough a reason to be a Marine – that is being part of the very first force called in to murder innocent people and invade countries? Do you even know what Marines did to Fallujah recently? How much is a human soul worth? And it is really your belief that being being a hired killer for the Empire is an honorable way of life? And should you think that I am exaggerating, please read the famous essay " War is a Racket " by Marine Brigadier General Smedley Butler, who had the highest rank a Marine could achieve in this time and who was the most decorated Marine in history. If war is a racket, does that not make Marines professional racketeers, hired thugs who act as enforcers for the mobsters in power? Ask yourself this: what would be the roughly equivalent counterparts of the US Marines in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia? To help you answer this question, let me offer a short quote from the Wikipedia entry about the Marine Corps : (emphasis added)

The Marine Corps was founded to serve as an infantry unit aboard naval vessels and was responsible for the security of the ship and its crew by conducting offensive and defensive combat during boarding actions and defending the ship's officers from mutiny ; to the latter end, their quarters on ship were often strategically positioned between the officers' quarters and the rest of the vessel.

Does that help you identify their Nazi or Soviet counterparts? Of all people, is it not we, Jews and Russians, who ought to recognize and categorically reject the trappings of Empire and all the rationalizations used to justify the subservient service to Empires?

I believe that history shows beyond any doubt that all Empires are evil, inherently and essentially, evil. They are also therefore equally evil. Shall I explain why?

Do you know what crimes is considered the ultimate, supreme, most evil crime under international law? It is not genocide, or crimes against humanity. Nope, the ultimate crime is the crime of aggression (that, by the way, makes every single US President a war criminal under international law , think of it!). In the the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson , the crime of aggression is the ultimate crime because "it contains within itself the accumulated evil" of all the other war crimes. Well, to paraphrase Jackson, imperialism contains within itself all the accumulated evil of all empires. Guantanamo, Hiroshima, Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Gladio and all the rest, they "come with the territory", they are not the exception, they are the norm.

The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays this outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"? What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?

peterAUS > , September 17, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT

Whooaah

Anyway.

Apologize for being the first and with "wrong" attitude. Time zones I guess.

What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species?

A conviction that Russia or/and China would not fill the empty space after US pulling out/weakening.

Disclaimer:
Thinking as one of those, quote: " Balt and Ukrainian", "Kosovo Albanians" and, my addition:
Finns
Polish
Czechs
Slovaks
Hungarians
Slovenians
Croats
Albanians (proper)
Romanians
Bulgarians.
Georgians
will stop here there are more there but, no need .

And, yes:
Taiwanese
South Korean
..probably more but let's not get carried away.

So, probably the best for this "debate" would be if people from that list just don't get involved.

You the rest .enjoy.

Thirdeye > , September 17, 2017 at 5:52 am GMT

Overall valid thesis undone by the inclusion of a bunch of extraneous and erroneous rubbish, from the supposed "polygenocide" to the 9/11 conspira

utu > , September 17, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT

Looks like you had a really rough time with your friends. Think how far out you are from the reality of average Americans.

I liked the 1st half about all the bandits participating in the WWII. And the history written by the winner.

I like you assessment of Russia and the unfortunate situation that the perpetrators of Soviet crimes outlived and outbred their victims and nobody is remorseful. If God is just Russia will pay for the omission of atonement for its sins. That Russian pride themselves for defeating the III Reich it is just like bragging among the murders who is the baddest.

"And when I say "the US" I don't mean Paul Newman, Mark Twain, Miles Davis, Quentin Tarantino, James Taylor " How many just and righteous men were needed to save Sodom and Gomorrah. Does the US have enough of them? Are you sure Tarantino belongs to the list? Americans are more responsible for the deeds of their Empire than Germans or Russians for III Reich or USSR or at least the ones who insist that they live in true democracy.

The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only delays – Perhaps God should smite only those.

I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere – Perhaps because many perceive Americans as children who one day will grow up. This might be a benevolent mistake.

I liked what you insinuated about the US Marines. I would say give them an opportunity an they will demonstrate they are worse than SS and NKVD combined. The training and brainwashing in the ability to kill w/o thinking far exceeds what ever was done in Germany and USSR. On top of it there is complete absence of warrior chivalry, that one could still spot even among some SS but not in NKVD, that was completely replaced with that American pragmatism that knows no mercy and no true honor.

and I forgot our Balt and Ukrainian friends (but then, they were also happy when the Nazis came, hardly much of an example) – No, that is very good example on the awfulness of Soviet regime and its crimes that many were willing rather to go with the Nazis. In 1945 everybody in Eastern Europe was dreaming to be liberated by Americans instead of by the Red Army.

Because if you answered "yes" then you are truly messianic genocidal imperialists. – Excellent point!

Jason------- > , September 17, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT

"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire."
and replace it with what, another empire? Isn't that what the empire did in Iraq and Afghanistan? What were the results in those places?

"Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"?"
Many people do exactly this. I'm one of them.

"What would it take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the survival of our species?"
Which side am I supposed to join exactly? Didn't you just get done telling us that all empires are equally evil? Tell you what, until something better comes along, I'll just be on my side.

5371 > , September 17, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT

The US didn't have 20 nuclear weapons in 1945, and didn't have 300 in 1949. So neither of those was a practical plan, and nor was the third, even according to its own authors.

Canadian Cents > , September 17, 2017 at 7:14 am GMT

In 1941, during WWII, Harry Truman wanted a brutal and prolonged conflict in order to inflict as much death and destruction in Europe as possible, declaring:

"If we see Germany winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible."

The US (as expressed by one of its key leaders) wanted the brutal war to continue for as long as possible, so that as many Russians and Germans as possible would be killed, (with other Europeans, including Jews, as inevitable collateral casualties in that process,) so that the US could then step in at the end to dominate war-destroyed Europe.

And that was exactly what happened: Some 27 million Soviet people were killed, about 16% of their population, while the Americans and British delayed starting a western front until after the outcome was largely decided, then raced to seize control of as much of Europe and of the credit as possible at the end:

"It was not until well after the Nazis' fortunes had been decisively reversed at Stalingrad that the long-promised 'second front' [by the US and Britain] actually materialized. Indeed, by this point the outcome of the war had effectively already been determined. D-Day, then, was waged not to defeat the Nazis but to ensure the Soviet Union, who had borne almost all of the sacrifice, would not reap the fruits of their victory."

British Troops Enter Syria and Libya to Ensure That War Outlives ISIS

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/15/british-troops-enter-syria-and-libya-to-ensure-that-war-outlives-isis/

It seems like the US is following this same pattern again in Syria: prolong the brutal war and suffering for as long as possible, and now race at the end to be able to falsely claim credit (for the defeat of ISIS) and seize control (via a Kurdistan proxy).

Heros > , September 17, 2017 at 7:53 am GMT

Saker, from deep within his Russo-Soviet, Intelligence Community, and now apparently Judaic bubble as well, chastises Americans for being in their own Yankee-doodle propaganda bubble. A pox on all of them.

The Jewish-Bolsheviks won the cold war. The USA, Germany, the EU and Russia are all basically judeo-communist now. Each with a different flavored frosting of democracy.

Saker manages to dance around Nuremburg and the "Holocaust". He never mentions lend lease and all the other illegal activities led by the cabal without which Stalin, Moscow and the USSR would not have survived the winter of 1941/2 let alone achieved victory.

Unfortunately for Saker, you cannot have an honest discussion of the last 100 years of history without bringing up Freemasonry, Judaism and other sinister forces and the effects they had on WWI, Versailles, Poland 1939, the "Holocaust", Nuremburg and most of all Nagasaki, the catholic capitol of Japan.

Otherwise Saker is merely spewing narrative at one propaganda bubble from within another one.

CensoredByTheSaker > , September 17, 2017 at 8:12 am GMT

"the Anglos reneged on all of these promises: they created a heavily militarized West Germany, they immediately recruited thousands of top Nazi officials for their intelligence services, "

-This is not really true, they waited until 1947, after starving and tortured the German civilian population for 2 years under the Morgenthau Plan, which actually was quite a nice treatment, compared to the initial Morgenthau Plan that wanted to exterminate 20 million German civilians.(Morgenthau was a jew btw, another genocidal one, go figure)

The reason the allies stopped starving the German civilians was not due to their high moral standards however, they were just worried the German civilians would rather live under soviet where they were allowed to eaten then live under USA and starve to death.

LauraMR > , September 17, 2017 at 8:14 am GMT

Crimes committed at one point in history cannot, in general, by compared to crimes committed at another point in history.

Europeans 2,000 years ago were an entirely different people than Europeans 1,200 or 500 years ago. Same geographical location but completely distinct populations. To the point, these populations would have not recognized each other. Indeed, even a gap of a few generations is enough to produce folks with different lore, priorities, and taboos.

So, no, you cannot compare 19th century USA with 20th Germany. In fact, you cannot even compare early 20th Russia with mid 20th century Germany. The moral standards by which you judge them are the same. The moral standards by which each lived are unalike.

RobinG > , September 17, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT

Oliver Stone film 'UKRAINE ON FIRE' on YouTube

Ukraine. Across its eastern border is Russia and to its west-Europe. For centuries, it has been at the center of a tug-of-war between powers seeking to control its rich lands and access to the Black Sea. 2014′s Maidan Massacre triggered a bloody uprising that ousted president Viktor Yanukovych and painted Russia as the perpetrator by Western media. But was it?

"Ukraine on Fire" by Igor Lopatonok provides a historical perspective for the deep divisions in the region which led to the 2004 Orange Revolution, 2014 uprisings, and the violent overthrow of democratically elected Yanukovych. Covered by Western media as a people's revolution, it was in fact a coup d'état scripted and staged by nationalist groups and the U.S. State Department. Investigative journalist Robert Parry reveals how U.S.-funded political NGOs and media companies have emerged since the 80s replacing the CIA in promoting America's geopolitical agenda abroad.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton backed the Nazis. Oddly enough, the same 'blood and soil' imagery and chants were used in Charlottesville and the Unite the Right 'rally'. Add in the fact the organizer, Kessler, was an Obama voter and Occupy supporter. It appears Charlotttesville was scripted as well.

Erebus > , September 17, 2017 at 8:52 am GMT

As good a rant as ever I've read. Picking a nit here.

The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire.

As many, even in the US, realize the "Empire's" days are numbered, the best thing would be to abandon the Empire, rather than waiting for it to collapse. Conscious abandonment frees resources for rebuilding the country, and suggests it could be managed for minimum impact. A belly landing at best, but eminently survivable with luck and skill at the controls. Collapse, if delayed much longer, is shaping up to be catastrophic for the US, and highly disruptive for the rest of the world, and that's assuming we avoid anybody going nuclear.

Active, managed abandonment of the Empire is what the people voted for. Collapse is what it looks like they'll get. Not "best" at all, and maybe very, very bad.

Silva > , September 17, 2017 at 9:06 am GMT

"Your country" is Russia, but you didn't bother to live in it last I checked. Has it changed? If not, care to explain why "your country" isn't the one you live in?

Anatoly Karlin > , Website September 17, 2017 at 9:11 am GMT

If you take the Russian population today, it has many more descendants of executioners than descendants of executed people and this is hardly a surprise since dead people don't reproduce.

Unlikely, considering there were far fewer executioners than executed, and a good percentage of them belonged to a specific ethnocultural group that gradually turned against the USSR once they were driven out of power around 1938, after which most of them eventually emigrated.

Miro23 > , September 17, 2017 at 9:16 am GMT

In my experience letters to friends (or at least speeches of this kind – I haven't done any letters) don't go down too well and produce a high level of boredom.

Political action is rather uncomfortable, and it seems to be restricted to defined places, where it can be read and heard or ignored, like the editorial columns of main stream newspapers or explicitly political forums like Congress or Think Tanks.

The problem of course, is that in the US and Western Europe these "respectable" forums have been hijacked by the centre and force fed with propaganda while preserving the veneer of impartiality.

So, that seems to leave places like Unz Review , in the role of the pre-WW1 Viennese coffee house (e.g. Café Central 1913 with Papadopoulos/Dzhugashvili (Stalin) and Bronstein (Trotsky) playing chess at one table and Hitler and friends with cakes and coffee at another).

Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?

Public political talk probably only becomes general and continuous (unless it is obligatory as in Switzerland) through direct threatening experiences, involving everyone, such as a total war, mass unemployment or hyperinflation and the US hasn't arrived there yet.

Randal > , September 17, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT

Not only that, but I would submit that most Germans would also believe that they were free people and that the regime they live under was a benevolent one.

The reality is that freedom is not the simple yes/no issue that it is presented as by American-style simplist propagandists. It is a complex matter of degrees, and of more freedom in some areas versus less in others, of more freedom for some in a particular society versus less for others.

One of the best easily readable anecdotal sources imo on the way government supporting Germans viewed their pre-WW2 government, is the following:

They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

Robert Magill > , September 17, 2017 at 10:02 am GMT

Oh sure, Hitler considered Jews as parasites which had to be exiled and, later, exterminated and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated.

The German elite in this era believed they were practicing 'good science' by these actions. In fact they were by the standards of the pseudo science of Eugenics which was supported universally by leading figures in the West. The Nazis began this purge with German citizens deemed faulty and a threat to humanity long before attention was focused on Jews, gypsies, Slavs etc etc. The shock of the camps and the actions at Nuremberg put an end to Eugenics except in the US where it continued. Actually Eugenics was the horror child birthed in the US and UK.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Renoman > , September 17, 2017 at 10:16 am GMT

"The World is ruled by violence but that is better off left unsaid." Bob Dylan

DAN III > , September 17, 2017 at 10:36 am GMT

Saker,

Having spent years in the Federal Republic of Germany as a member of the USA's military occupation force, I cannot agree with you more.

Re: Winning the war in Europe. The source I read YEARS ago stated that 84.9% of all WW2 German casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA) occurred on the Eastern Front at the hands of the Soviets. The American military did not defeat the NAZI war machine. They only conducted mop-up ops after the Soviets had disembowled the Wehrmacht.

Believe me. Not all Americans are asleep to the lies and imperialism of the scoundrels who comprise the U.S. government. Thank you for your accurate synopsis.

Serge Krieger > , September 17, 2017 at 10:36 am GMT

Very well written and emotionally charged piece by Sacker. Despite disagreeing with him mostly on Soviet past and whitewashing of Islam I see good in him. Now, I will try to be brief but making Soviet regime equal in evilness to the mentioned Nazi and US regimes is completely false and mostly comes form Sacker's background.

First thing that should never be missed is that unlike Nazi and US regimes Soviet regime never committed genocides. All those fair tales about tens of millions killed in Gulag and elsewhere with opened archives are pure bogus, nor did Russians and Soviets committed genocides against populations under their control in new acquired lands. Central Asia had extremely low population when taken over by Russia. Under Soviet rule that population ballooned out of all proportions due to extremely favorable conditions created. I know, I lived there for 20 years.

It should never be forgotten that Sacker comes from the line or class that had been sadistically exploiting and draining Russian peasant population for at least 200 years leading to their mental and physical degeneration and huge deformities of Russian character which are still there even after decades of Soviet power to tackle it. By every definition Russian peasants were not serfs but slaves who could be sold, families broken and gambled away of exchanged for dogs.
Lenin and Stalin had to do with extremely low level of human material available to them , which was uplifted basically from the dirt, educated and provided with things necessary for decent life which they never experienced before. This regime cannot be called evil. USSR did not commit evil against other countries and actually propped and helped other third world nations to build their own countries unfortunately at the expense of our own people.

The last but not the least, were there not Bolsheviks, Russia would seize to exist as thanks to pre Bolsheviks regime, old regime led Russia to certain death by 1917.

Knowing what we know about Nazis, it would be the end of Russia without Lenin and Bolsheviks coming along and the death of millions of European people and Jews. How this regime can be called evil. I have no clue.

Otherwise, I often agree with Sacker and consider him a good man.

Black Bird > , September 17, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

Whilst I have followed you constantly over the years and respect your views immensely and have studied your works for several years, my one and only response (as a follow-up) to your 'letter' is this:

What is your solution? What system or which empire shall we replace the American one with? Someone with your intelligence should know that things don't exist in a vaccum.

If the American empire is collapsed as you wish it would be, then what? What magical solution do you have? Because rest assured there will be someone else taking the reins but I guess you feel that the next power will do it the 'right way'. Laughable

You do a great job pointing out the faults of the American Empire but I feel you fall into the same 'hole' that so many do while riding their high horse, and that is: complain, complain, point out faults, compare the USA to Nazi Germany, and to the more evil Soviet Union (which by the way – according to many sources was extraordinarily worse; by a order of magnitude worse then the Nazis).

Anyway, to get to my point about your rant. Your main point is what?

dearieme > , September 17, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT

'the British "atrocities tally", ranging from opium wars, to the invention of concentration camps, to the creation of Apartheid, the horrors of the occupation of Ireland, etc. etc. etc.?' Christ, you might at least be accurate. In three hundred years of exploring, colonising, trading, and conquering there must be some genuine atrocities you could discuss. Why discuss fake ones? Apartheid was nothing to do with Britain, it was introduced in independent South Africa by an Afrikaner party that won power after WWII.

The Opium Wars don't seem to me to be an atrocity: opium was legal in Britain and throughout the Empire. I agree that the wars might be classed as wicked – aggressive war usually is – but they were no atrocity.

Britain didn't invent Concentration Camps – in the sense of the expression used by the Nazis, the Nazis invented Concentration Camps. In the sense of the expression used by Britain in the South African war, the camps were simply a copy of the earlier concentration camps used by the US in the Philippines and by Spain in Cuba. etc, etc.

dearieme > , September 17, 2017 at 10:59 am GMT

"The truth is that the Americans only entered the war when it was clear that the Nazis would be defeated": your implication of cause-and-effect seems to me to be bogus. The US 'entered' the war against Hitler because Hitler declared war on the US.

War for Blair Mountain > , September 17, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT

But Saker you and your White Russian emigre friends don't seem to have any problems taking advantage of the European conquest of North America. If you are going to play the "Evil Whitey" game then please just leave, and go back to Russia. Perhaps you and your fellow Russians can welcome the millions of Blacks Mexicans . Muslims and Hindus into Mother Russia so that you can be blessed by our diversity.

iffen > , September 17, 2017 at 11:43 am GMT

This is an ugly and evil country. I am stuck here cause I'm a Murican. If I was of another nationality or citizenship, I would leave this evil and ugly place just for the salving of my soul.

CK > , September 17, 2017 at 11:49 am GMT

1) At Tehran and again at Potsdam, the US and GB gave the Russians an ultimatum. "Join the war against Japan within 90 days of the end of the war in Europe or have no voice in the partition of Asia." The Russians attacked on the 89th day.

2) The Russians were preparing to land on Hokkaido as they had already done on Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands when the Japanese capitulated.

War for Blair Mountain > , September 17, 2017 at 11:56 am GMT

@War for Blair Mountain Saker

For the record, I agree with the anti-war theme of your post, but unfortunately your veer off into the "EVIL WHITEY' realm. Working Class Native Born White American Teenagers join the US Military "voluntarily" because they have been made economically redundant by post-1965 Immigration Policy. The scale of the nonwhite imported scab labor=Nonwhite Immigrants+the US born geneline of nonwhite legal immigrants.

The Alt Right Rally in Charlottesville was a protest against post-1965 imported nonwhite scab labor and The Democratic Party which has made an open declaration of war against Christian Russian. The Democratic Party is the post-1965 nonwhite Party in 2017 ..

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

Arrrrggghh!

What a confused mixture of good insight and tiresome parroting of threadbare, hackneyed, Allied propaganda. While the intent is clearly good, the overall analysis is so lacking in logic and avoidance of basic facts that it's impossible to even begin a reasonable criticism. The anti-Hitler shtick is particularly appallingly elementary as are the concepts of "victors" history and Nazi propaganda.

Letter to Saker:

If you really want people to read your stuff, you should consider employing an editor. Check your facts and assumptions, and most of all tighten it up , especially when repeating ancient propaganda.

Also, it would help you to educate yourself. Here's a good start.:

" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions "

- Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966

http://mises.org/daily/2592

So cut the tiresome Nazi-bashing, will ya?

Johnny F. Ive > , September 17, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT

I agree with most of this article. Al Qaeda had help inside the US for sure and there was a cover up at the highest levels, but the debris that could be used to test the demolition theory was removed quickly without analysis to China.

The lowest order of social organization is the band society. Historically they would war against each other. Chimpanzees war against each other. This a hominidae problem at least. Also human society favors narcissist and psychopaths for leaders. The psychopaths lie the US into war for their objective. Narcissist do it because they want to feel good about murdering people so they lie to themselves. This won't stop unless these groups of people are screened and prevented from reaching positions of power.

Afghanistan is a disgusting society run by pedophiles. I'm not sympathetic to their way of life. The Taliban at least tried to stop the practice. I would be disappointed if the Iraqis didn't miss secularism. The Syrians are fighting for their very lives to live in a secular society.

Modern US is an Empire that is ruled by finance, corporations, and foreign governments such as Israel. The description of the whore of Babylon in the book of Revelations fits Washington D.C. to a T. The internet has documented its crimes and corruption for all to see. The US Empire is not completely incoherent because there are servants in it that are rational and pushing back. It is why the war with Iran has been delayed. The US under Obama sought to use Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria. President Trump stopped the support of Al Qaeda in Syria, and challenged the Muslim world to stop using terrorism to solve its problems. Afghanistan war is prolonged but negotiating with the Taliban is an option which is something George W. Bush rejected.

The American Empire is a hit-man for the well connected, including governments. President Trump has shown interest in having them fund the American Empire since its broke, they do receive some protection from it, but they themselves do not seem to want to fund it. Europe cries about Russia, Gulf States cry about Iran, and Asia cries about China. They are militarily occupied but the American people suffer the expense.

American Imperium has and does great evil but its a pagan society which is pretty tolerant if you are within its domain with a favorable status. I think those that adopted a pagan capitalist society are at least living comfortably for the most part. I do think a free pagan society is the highest form of human civilization. It is true the US has allied with some nasty belief systems like Nazis, Wahhabist, etc. It will be interesting to see how things pan out once China takes America's place since it is hostile to religion. Americans have been brainwashed into thinking that the US must be a global policeman and that its poop doesn't stink. There are those that think other nations poop doesn't stink. All of the poop stinks.

The US will decline and will have to give up the Empire unless it figures out a sustainable course, rejects perpetual war in favor of being a counterbalance just from its presence. It also would have to reorient the military industrial complex towards something profitable outside of war profiteering. The US Empire may be replaced with the Chinese one road, one belt project. The US is at a crossroads. We got an Iran deal which is in jeopardy but its amazing that it was made in the first place. In Syria the US hasn't started World War 3 on behalf of Al Qaeda. The internet is clearly having an affect on the American Empire. It is why there is a rush to censor it. No longer can evil human beings misuse power without everyone else finding out about it. They can't control the information from reaching the rest of the world now. They will try and people will get around it. The American Empire has a huge bureaucracy and there are a lot of moral human beings in it. The US political class has other problems: it hasn't won a war since World War II, and economic inequality is having its negative effect on the American people. We got Trump instead of Hillary because half the nation realized the US is in bad shape.

CensoredByTheSaker > , September 17, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT

lol jews doesn't care for genocidal views? Ever hear of the Palestinians? Heck, ever heard Jews speak about Germans or White people in general? I'd say the mainstream view for Jews is pro-genocide. In Israel is pro-Palestinians genocide, and in the Europe Jews are pro-white genocide.

In pretty much every country stretching from UK to Russia. I doubt many needs to be reminded that 6 out of the 7 oligarch that seized 50% of the Russian economy in the 1990s and inflicted genocidal conditions on Russian of poverty, alcholism, abortion, were jews And I am not even going to go into the jewish influence in mass-extermination of ethnic Russians and other white slavic groups during the bolshevik rule. For that just read some works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to understand the jewish view of ethnic christian Russians.

"Mr. Ignatiev pledges in the essay that his journal, Race Traitor, intends to "keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females, too, until the social construct known as 'the white race' is destroyed not 'deconstructed' but destroyed.""

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2002/sep/4/20020904-084657-6385r/

"JEW German politician calls germans nazis and says they must die!"

Jews will play a leading role in multicultural Europe says Jewish researcher Barbara Spectre

The Alarmist > , September 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm GMT

Well reasoned, well thought-out, thought-provoking piece. Shame it will be dismissed by many as merely pro-Russian propaganda.

Just a couple comments:

"If I see somebody drowning in a flood, I most certainly have the moral right to jump in the water and try to save this person, do I not? But that does not mean that I have the strength or skills to do so."

I think in this particular context you are mixing right up with obligation . Many Americans see it as the US having both the right and the obligation to intervene. The two together compose the license.

"I have never seen any anti-Americanism directed at the American people anywhere, not even in France, Greece or Latin America."

I have, but only when the objects of scorn were behaving like Amerotrash. In the 30+ years living abroad, I have never personally experienced it, but I try to be on my best behaviour, and sometimes actually succeed.

"Do you remember how you told me that xxxxx's Marine husband lived in a nice house with all their material needs taken care of? You added "compare that to Russian servicemen"."

The comparison to military housing when I served nearly 40 years ago is telling. We should have had it so nice. It's expensive to keep enough people interested with today's ops tempo if they have to deal with a screaming family back home, especially now that cheap global telecom has replaced monthly AUTOVON morale calls home.

"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire."

Can't agree with that, because if America as we know it today collapses, they're taking the whole world down with them. I would be happy if they simply accepted that this is a multi-polar world with nations that have simetimes competing goals, but full of people who pretty much want the same things in life: Health, happiness, love, entertainment, good food, etc. These things are pretty common across the globe, even in North Korea.

The Alarmist > , September 17, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

@CK One has to admit that mobilising forces, many of which were war-weary from the European front, to engage in Asia in 89 days is remarkable. To point out that they took 89 of the 90 days to do it is a rather cheap shot.

Tom Welsh > , September 17, 2017 at 12:43 pm GMT

"The US only entered the war a year after Stalingrad and the Kursk battle when it was absolutely clear that the Nazis would lose the war".

Sorry, but that is wrong. The USA entered the war on December 11th, 1941. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_declaration_of_war_against_the_United_States_(1941)

Of course, it is true that the USA never chose to enter the war at all, but was forced to when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and then Hitler personally declared war on the USA four days later – incidentally, showing a degree of loyalty to his allies that puts the USA to shame.

The battle of Stalingrad lasted from August 23rd, 1942 to January 31st, 1943. The battle of Kursk lasted from July 5th, 1943 to July 17th, 1943. They began eight months and 19 months respectively after the USA entered WW2.

It is true that the Western Allies did not invade France until June 1944, but that was a tactical decision whose timing was dictated by military necessities.

Greg Bacon > , Website September 17, 2017 at 12:45 pm GMT

Thought the 'SAKER' was in control of his faculties but after reading this rant, implying that there is no difference between WW II Nazis and Americans, think the Saker has been too long out in the Sun. That's the same toxic BS the violent Judaic-led Antifa Thugs are pushing, that white Americans males are actually secret Nazis and must be exterminated. Yet the Saker nor Antifa mention the fact that the Bolshevik Jews, from 1917-1957 murdered around 66 million Russians, mostly Christians who refused to bow down to Godless Communism. Add in the other Commie slaughters and the figure is easily over 100 million.

This toxic ideology is what the SAKER wants us to follow after his/her Antifa buds tear apart the USA?

Tom Welsh > , September 17, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

@Jason------- " and replace it with what, another empire?"

How about let's see.. a republic?

Beefcake the Mighty > , September 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT

@5371 Yes. As per the linked source (Wiki), Plan Totality was a disinformation campaign, a bluff, it was not a concrete military plan. (You could probably say the same about the others as well.) I like Saker's stuff, but he's being over-eager here.

Avalanche > , September 17, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

Yup, great propaganda for your side, your skewed version of reality, your heart's desire to believe about yourself and your people not QUITE as well-honed as the propaganda used by the both sides in WWII , and everything before and after, but good try! (not.)

Sarah Toga > , September 17, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

There is an American expression which says "where I sit is where I stand".

Saker, I'm almost 61 years old, born and raised in middle America, have lived and worked in the Northeast, the South, the Southwest – I have never heard that expression. Where did you learn that expression?

ondrej > , September 17, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT

@utu In 1945 everybody in Eastern Europe was dreaming to be liberated by Americans instead of by the Red Army.

You hardly now anything about so called Eastern Europe during and shortly 2. ww. Eastern Europe is propagandistic term of cold war, probably referring to nazi propaganda and has nothing to do with geographical realities.

  • Several of my friends including myself often make a point out to our colleagues in Vienna that they are Eastern of Prague, Yet – that consider themselves proudly Western city.
  • Speaking of Eastern of Vienna there was Hungary south Romania, hardly waiting for liberation of U.S. army as proud members of AXIS.
  • Speaking of Yugoslavia resistance and partizan movement was hardly waiting for US liberation.
  • Speaking Czechoslovakia – major uprising of Slovak army in Slovakia was coordinating and waiting for Red Army to get trough Dukla pass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_National_Uprising

I will not be speaking on behalf of Poland where it was more difficult for various reasons. So, my grand parents were waiting for Red Army and not dreaming about US I can assure you

Ghost > , September 17, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

@Erebus Erebus: I agree. EMPIRE is collapsing. Too late, I think, to manage anything.

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT

@Heros

OMG! Please contribute more! You said more in 200 words than the columnist did in 5300, and I'm generally in sympathy with the author's apparent motives. For instance, how many people know this:

most of all Nagasaki, the catholic capitol of Japan.

For those new to the idea, here's a quote from a very well written article that is highly worth anyone's time in my ever so humble opinion.

70 years ago (August 9, 1945) an all-Christian bomber crew [blessed prior to takeoff by Christian clergy] dropped a plutonium bomb over Nagasaki City, Japan, instantly vaporizing, incinerating or otherwise annihilating tens of thousands of innocent civilians, a disproportionately large number of them Japanese Christians. Ironically, prior to the bomb exploding nearly directly over the Urakami Cathedral at 11:02 AM, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan, and the massive cathedral was the largest Christian church in the Orient.

-Gary G. Kohls, The 70th Anniversary of the Bombing of Nagasaki, Unwelcome Truths for Church and State, Aug 2015.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/gary-g-kohls/the-70th-anniversary-of-the-bombing-of-nagasaki/

CensoredByTheSaker > , September 17, 2017 at 1:34 pm GMT

@Greg Bacon

TheSaker also believes that the black supremacist Malcom X that called white children blue eyed devils is the greatest american that has ever lived.

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 1:37 pm GMT

@Jason-------

and replace it with what, another empire?

Why replace it at all? Why not just be rid of it? If you just got rid of a bad case of hemorrhoids, why would you want to replace them with anything? Wouldn't you be happy just to be rid of 'em? Explain?

Sarah Toga > , September 17, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire.

Beg to differ. The best thing that could happen to this country would be to end immigration. See VDARE dot com for all the reasons why and supporting data.

CensoredByTheSaker > , September 17, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT

@Robert Magill [Choose a single Handle and use it, or Anonymous/Anon. Using multiple Handles to conceal your identity will get all your comments trashed.]

" pseudo science of Eugenics"

-There is no psuedo-science, it is well established since before recorded history that if you breed individual with desirable traits these traits will likely be passed on and increase in the population. Eugenics is just this basic knowledge applied to humans, which of course are animals and subject to the hereditary.

Longfisher > , September 17, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT

Always refreshing to hear from The Saker who is more solidly anchored to reality than most.

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 2:03 pm GMT

@dearieme

The US 'entered' the war against Hitler because Hitler declared war on the US.

That was merely the technical excuse. The US was at economic and propaganda war against Germany long before that declaration. For instance, the US broke international laws, treaties and circumvented its own Neutrality Act well prior to Hitler's declaration of war. The concept applies not only for the Atlantic areas, but the Pacific ones as well, where FDR and his crew of ghouls worked overtime to provoke the Japanese militarists to fire the first shot.

anonymous > , Disclaimer September 17, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

The sad reality is that the US intervention in Europe was a simple land-grab,

That's pretty much all of it. The Germans and Soviets grabbed as much as they could so it's just a matter of who is more successful at grabbing the most. Being under the Americans pays the best unlike the other two who work you to death or kill you outright. The moral angle is just a way of fancying things up and only deluded low-level munchkins believe any of that rot. That's the way it's always been with most empires. Which ruler gives you the higher standard of living?

Sarah Toga > , September 17, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT

@Heros

The USA, Germany, the EU and Russia are all basically judeo-communist now.

Hmm.
Look at who are the prime-movers behind dangerous, nation-wrecking mass-immigration.

This is one place where Catholics and Evangelicals are buying into the same line of propaganda.
The RCC is now a force pushing a mindless, dangerous mass-migration.
Look at what "Francis" says, approving violent Moslems and Africans flooding the EU.

Evangelicals and "Main Line" Protestants are just as bad, profiteering from US-taxpayer-funded "refugee resettlement."

We all need to understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem.

I am ashamed of my fellow Christians who are suckered into open borders propaganda.

Jason------- > , September 17, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Any idea where I can find one of those today?

Jason------- > , September 17, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

Nature abhors a vacuum. If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be absorbed by competing empires with the probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't just "get rid of it". It has to be replaced with something more robust than the last model which is what mutated into this present form. I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately, it has it's roots in human nature.

I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as it gets and it's our own fault as a species.

KenH > , September 17, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

@nickels

Early in his career David Irving believed that six million Jews were "systematically" killed by the Nazis. But later he reversed himself upon more research into the matter and has held firm even after withering assaults on his reputation and character.

iffen > , September 17, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

@ondrej So, my grand parents were waiting for Red Army and not dreaming about US I can assure you

That's okay, nothing wrong with that, everybody needs to dream. However, some did not dream of being liberated by the Red Army, and some that were dreaming that dream found it to be a nightmare instead of a dream. I am old enough to remember when Germans shot other Germans for trying to escape "the dream." It hasn't even been thirty years yet. No "history" books or "propaganda" needed.

Michael Kenny > , September 17, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

I took this article seriously until I got down to the "Nazi regime in the Ukraine". At that point, I realised that it was just pro-Putin propaganda. I don't see how any of this, even if it were true, affects the right of the Ukrainian people to have their own sovereign nation-state. The sovereign nation-state, or the aspiration to it, has been the fundamental building block of the European political order since the French Revolution. The problem with Putin is that he rejects that concept and is seeking to resurrect the pre-1789 concept of "spheres of influence".

iffen > , September 17, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT

@KenH Yes, it seems that the 6 million figure is a lie. It was actually 5, 999, 999.

Avery > , September 17, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT

{ ..and he saw Russians as subhumans which needed to be put to work for the Germanic Master Race and whose intelligentsia also needed to be exterminated .}

Saker, why are you whitewashing what the Nazis planned to do? The plan was to exterminate nearly all Slavic peoples in East Europe and SU East of the Urals to make room for Lebensraum for the alleged* Master Race. ALL Slavic peoples, not just the intelligentsia. Didn't Nazi invaders murder and kill ~15 million Soviet _civilians_, or is that a myth.

______
*
You know, like Goebbels, a club-footed scrawny runt, who murdered his 5 children, before offing himself. Or Goering, a drug-addict overweight swine, who also offed himself. Or Himmler, a myopic weakling, with a malformed skull, who couldn't stand the sight of bloodshed. Instead of going down fighting, he was caught trying to flee like a rat. Also offed himself. And Hitler himself: 6'3″ tall, perfect physic, blond hair, deep blue eyes ..such an 'Aryan'. He also committed suicide, instead of going down fighting.

KA > , September 17, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

@CensoredByTheSaker "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances." .
McCullough, David (15 June 1992). Truman. New York, New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 262. Truman made this remark after hearing that Hitler had invaded Soviet Russia.

Avery > , September 17, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

@nickels {(2) if Germany had not torn into Russia, considering the massive buildup of arms (Hitler's big mistake was underestimating this), it is likely that Bolshevism would have enslaved Europe and, perhaps, in time, the world.}

Like all neo-Hitlerite apologists and revisionists you too are suffering from an overactive imagination. There was no so-called massive buildup of arms by SU.
Nazi German juggernaut reached deep into SU – Volga river, Stalingrad. Red Army was in no position in 1941 to mount in invasion of Nazi Germany, even if they wanted to. Red Army got badly beaten by tiny Finland a couple of years earlier.

Nazi Germany was thoroughly defeated and vanquished by the Red Army, after years of tough fighting and great sacrifices. Bolshevism* did not enslave Europe. Communism did not, quote, 'enslave' East Europe. East Europeans, who fell under Communist rule, had a hard life no doubt, but they are having the last laugh now. Despite the hardships of Communist rule, they are still Polish, Hungarians, Czechs, Bulgarians. They are still Christians.

Western Europe, 'liberated' by US, is being slowly but methodically de-Christianized, de-nationalized, and Islamized. Guess by who ( it sure isn't Russia).

Despite the hysteria of supposed world domination, Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight and inherent contradictions within. People of Russia are slowly but inexorably reverting to their Russian nationalist and Orthodox Christian roots. While 'enlightened', 'liberated' Western Europe is slowly sinking into a witches brew concocted by the 'Free World'.

!!–
* Stalin wiped out pretty much all Jewish Bolsheviks.

Reverend Spooner > , Website September 17, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

The genocide of the Indians by the Americans was inevitable. An immigrant who makes a dangerous crossing into new country with few comforts just for food security (land for growing food) and right to practice a religion with no spiritual component, but conformity with neighbors – will always find reasons for genocide.

All this happened at the time of the industrial revolution and with inputs from the old world along with their own ingenuity, it made America a power to reckon with, more so with its sparsely populated northern neighbor and a backward Latin Mexico. Two huge oceans made it an impregnable fortress.

Capitalism and the systematic capture of the political system by big money has made it an empire. This will end badly, not just for the US but the whole world.
I give it a year or twenty.

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT

@Jason-------

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Nature probably also abhors human institutions and would probably prefer a vacuum if one would ensue after the collapse of the (particularly disgusting) 'Merkin empire. Humans and their societies existed before empires and the threat of a vacuum probably didn't exist then, and shouldn't now.

If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be absorbed by competing empires with the probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't just "get rid of it". It has to be replaced with something more robust than the last model which is what mutated into this present form.

True, but I'd like to emphasize that's the type of reasoning that leads to arms races and wars, but your next comments are right on target, and I agree completely.

I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately, it has it's roots in human nature. I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as it gets and it's our own fault as a species.

What really torques me is that all are to blame to some degree, yet most persist in thinking their behavior is immaculate and justified. The rank hypocrisy and distorted finger pointing stinks as well, along with the idea that politicians and governments exist to make things better. Where do folks get their faith?

Anyway, I'd prefer nothing over emerods!

Tom Welsh > , September 17, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

@Jason------- Switzerland? Uruguay? Mostly small nations without any pretensions to supremacy. The trouble nowadays is that there are far too many people, far too much wealth, far too many weapons, and far far far too much propaganda – most of it exceptionally successful. Not because the propaganda is believable, but because the sheeple just don't care.

Wealth and power attract the filthiest fractions of humanity like flies to honey. The bigger the concentration of wealth and power, the more and the more degraded the human filth that congregates.

Sergey Krieger > , September 17, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Obviously you have alternative views on real history.

Kris > , September 17, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

Key difference between the American, Nazi, and Soviet empires: in the Nazi and Soviet empires, one would not be permitted to write articles against them.

AB_Anonymous > , September 17, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

What aggravates the problem is the fact that US is not just an Empire – it's a highjacked Empire, with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively helping the highjackers, while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's going on, and the number of those daring to speak out against the army of super-powerful and well-organized criminals is even less.

And wars, aggressions, revolutions, etc. in the last 200 years often (if not always) were initiated not by the nominal governments (or by their opponents) but by the hidden global forces, whose presence nowadays, thanks to the Internet, is impossible to deny.

These forces influence all governments across the globe, at least to some degree (even the North Korean), and their methods of control vary from exclusively financial to pure criminal.

The very special role of US in that scheme of things stems from the fact that after a certain point in 20-th century, willingly or unwillingly, it has become the most powerful and the most controllable military and financial tool in the hands of global criminals.

So, the best thing that can happen to US (and every other country in this world) would be the deliverance from these nasty and sticky "puppet-masters".

Unfortunately, there's a tiny chance that it may happen by itself or without grave complications. Primarily because these "puppet-masters", in addition to all other negative features, are truly sick maniacs.

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 3:55 pm GMT

@Avery Avery

But, but, but what about da roads, man!?? I believe that recently you tried to convince me of the need for government on the basis of all the nice goodies they provided, especially roads, now here you are criticizing the Nazis, when in point of fact, the Nazis were far ahead of most, in caring for their own people and providing for them the nice things in life.

In fact, the Nazis comparatively speedily built an autobahn system that was copied by the Americans only decades later. The Nazis were very far ahead in the area of taking care of their workers as well, which was an embarrassment to the socially backward American and Soviet systems, both of which were much closer to slave labor camps than Nazi Germany was at least until Churchill provoked the war which even he admitted was unnecessary.

So, back to the road argument, (not that it's a valid one),you may want to change your view of Nazis. Regarding Nazi vs "Allied" civil rights, here's how Mencken put it. :

The [single] bloody Hitler purge that made such a sensation in the summer of 1934 is, [and has been], [ often ] duplicated in Russia at close intervals, and if it were not for the army there would undoubtedly be rebellions on a large scale, and in all parts of [our ally, Russia]. To prevent such works of Satan the Moscow Mussolinis keep 9oo,ooo yokels under arms, with an enormous outfit of tanks, airplanes, and artillery, and missionaries in every squad to preach the Only True Faith. The American pacifists, always easily gulled, compare this formidable host to the band of Boy Scouts that Richard the Lion-Hearted led up the walls of Acre. It is actually much more like the corps of mine guards in the Pennsylvania coal fields.

-H.L. Mencken, The Reds and Civil Rights, The American Mercury, July 1936, pp. 284-289

http://www.unz.org/Pub/AmMercury-1936jul-00284

Priss Factor > , Website September 17, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

hence the wordwide use of the "Yankee go home" slogan.

Now the slogan is 'Yankee, take me to America'.

Tom Welsh > , September 17, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT

@Johnny Rico "The British were also fighting the Nazis BEFORE June 1941 for more than a year when the Russians were ALLIED with the Nazis!!!"

I'm aware of that, since my father was one of the British soldiers. However, it is slightly inaccurate to say that "the Russians were allied with the Nazis". The Russians – or rather the Soviet leadership, at whose head was the Georgian Stalin – agreed a non-aggression pact with Germany. But only after years of begging the British and French to join with the USSR in order to contain Germany.

The British and French, and of course the Americans, loathed the Soviets even more than the Nazis (indeed many of them admired the Nazis until finding themselves at war with them).

Reverend Spooner > , September 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

Nature abhors a vacuum.
Nature probably also abhors human institutions and would probably prefer a vacuum if one would ensue after the collapse of the (particularly disgusting) 'Merkin empire. Humans and their societies existed before empires and the threat of a vacuum probably didn't exist then, and shouldn't now.
If the American Empire collapsed today, it would be absorbed by competing empires with the probably outcome that nothing good would result. You can't just "get rid of it". It has to be replaced with something more robust than the last model which is what mutated into this present form.
True, but I'd like to emphasize that's the type of reasoning that leads to arms races and wars, but your next comments are right on target, and I agree completely.
I think the problem is not solvable because ultimately, it has it's roots in human nature. I think George Carlin is probably right. This is as good as it gets and it's our own fault as a species.
What really torques me is that all are to blame to some degree, yet most persist in thinking their behavior is immaculate and justified. The rank hypocrisy and distorted finger pointing stinks as well, along with the idea that politicians and governments exist to make things better. Where do folks get their faith?

Anyway, I'd prefer nothing over emerods! ;) You are and American and trying to opt out. The Saker did not point at ordinary Americans but I guess reading about American interventions around the world makes you uneasy and you don't want to face the facts.

Beckow > , September 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

@peterAUS I can assure you that neither Czechs nor Slovaks in general favour 'foreign military interventions'. That also holds true for almost all of the elite, comprador or not. I am not sure about the others you have listed, but I have my doubts about some.

The fear of 'empty space' that you use is silly. There is no space to fill. People have always lived together and fought together, there is no 'space manager' on this planet. You just become part of the fight with all the consequences. You cannot even theoretically fill the 'space', that's a crazy abstraction. Remember, a map is not the territory.

Am I getting inappropriately 'involved'?

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger

Obviously you have alternative views on real history.

Obviously I have valid views on real history.

Wally > , Website September 17, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT

@Avery {(2) if Germany had not torn into Russia, considering the massive buildup of arms (Hitler's big mistake was underestimating this), it is likely that Bolshevism would have enslaved Europe and, perhaps, in time, the world.}

Like all neo-Hitlerite apologists and revisionists you too are suffering from an overactive imagination.

There was no so-called massive buildup of arms by SU. Nazi German juggernaut reached deep into SU - Volga river, Stalingrad. Red Army was in no position in 1941 to mount in invasion of Nazi Germany, even if they wanted to. Red Army got badly beaten by tiny Finland a couple of years earlier.

Nazi Germany was thoroughly defeated and vanquished by the Red Army, after years of tough fighting and great sacrifices.
Bolshevism* did not enslave Europe.
Communism did not, quote, 'enslave' East Europe.
East Europeans, who fell under Communist rule, had a hard life no doubt, but they are having the last laugh now. Despite the hardships of Communist rule, they are still Polish, Hungarians, Czechs, Bulgarians,....
They are still Christians.

Western Europe, 'liberated' by US, is being slowly but methodically de-Christianized, de-nationalized, and Islamized.
Guess by who (...it sure isn't Russia).

Despite the hysteria of supposed world domination, Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight and inherent contradictions within.
People of Russia are slowly but inexorably reverting to their Russian nationalist and Orthodox Christian roots.

While 'enlightened', 'liberated' Western Europe is slowly sinking into a witches brew concocted by the 'Free World'.

--------
* Stalin wiped out pretty much all Jewish Bolsheviks. Spoken like another amateur Stalinist / communist / Zionist apologist.
You talk because you have a mouth. You are laughable

The Allies did succeed in turning over 1/2 of Europe to the communists, see map.
Some 'victory' that was.

The USSR underwent a massive arms build up in it's plan to invade Germany.

Debate here and get smacked own:
Operation Barbarossa Was A Preventive Attack

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=7999

"Revisionism has the general function of bringing historical truth to a public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth. If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions, about the current World War III version of the same myth. Nothing would stop the current headlong flight to war faster, or more surely cause people to begin to reason about foreign affairs once again, after a long orgy of emotion and cliché."
- Righteous Jew, Murray Rothbard, Review of The Origins of the Second World War, 1966

http://mises.org/daily/2592

Reverend Spooner > , September 17, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

@KA All Bullshit. There was a blockade placed on Japan and it prevented them from importing oil.

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT

@Sarah Toga Hmm.
The RCC is now a force pushing a mindless, dangerous mass-migration.
Look at what "Francis" says about violent Moslems and Africans flooding the EU.

If Japan had a big RCC presence now, they might be flooded by 3rd world mass immigration.
Just speculation, I know.
And not the way to stop the global plague of mass immigration.

But understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem, causing more long-term harm than the two atom bombs dropped on Japan.
I am ashamed of my fellow Christians who are suckered into open borders propaganda.

But understand the global plague of mass immigration is the number one world problem,

Many Palestinians would probably agree. I think the number one world problem is the clique of bored, depraved bankers with too much time on their bloody paws

For details see TW's comment #73.

KenH > , September 17, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT

@iffen Yes, it seems that the 6 million figure is a lie. It was actually 5, 999, 999. The original four million death toll at Auschwitz was Soviet propaganda. Numbers have been drastically revised downward with the death toll ranging from as low as 630K to 1.1 million. If we use the latter figure it means your vaunted six million gets reduced to three million which is still too high.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v21/v21n3p24_weber.html

The dubious claims of six million dead means that holocaust museums should be closed and demolished much like the Jewish funded and led left is finding pretexts to destroy monuments and icon to confederate history. Besides, Jewish holocaust memorials and museums have no place on U.S. soil since this nation had nothing to do with hardships experienced by Jews in WWII.

SimplePseudonymicHandle > , September 17, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT

From the Saker's "About" page on his blog,

My main objective in the immediate future is to (finally) write my thesis for the graduate degree in patristic theology I am working on now, and to set some money aside to visit Russia again

Stick to that. If you must take shots at empire – you need a friend. One that can help you dial these down several notches. A body of knowledge isn't sufficient, and in the absence of critical thinking, can lead to hubris, which is worse.

The Scalpel > , Website September 17, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT

@Fred V. Reed If this is Fred Reed, the contributor to this site, the comments should be highlighted in yellow like those of other contributors. If this is an imposter, the alias should be changed to prevent confusion.

Reverend Spooner > , September 17, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

@AB_Anonymous What aggravates the problem is the fact that US is not just an Empire - it's a highjacked Empire, with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively helping the highjackers, while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's going on, and the number of those daring to speak out against the army of super-powerful and well-organized criminals is even less.

And wars, aggressions, revolutions, etc. in the last 200 years often (if not always) were initiated not by the nominal governments (or by their opponents) but by the hidden global forces, whose presence nowadays, thanks to the Internet, is impossible to deny.

These forces influence all governments across the globe, at least to some degree (even the North Korean), and their methods of control vary from exclusively financial to pure criminal.

The very special role of US in that scheme of things stems from the fact that after a certain point in 20-th century, willingly or unwillingly, it has become the most powerful and the most controllable military and financial tool in the hands of global criminals.

So, the best thing that can happen to US (and every other country in this world) would be the deliverance from these nasty and sticky "puppet-masters".

Unfortunately, there's a tiny chance that it may happen by itself or without grave complications. Primarily because these "puppet-masters", in addition to all other negative features, are truly sick maniacs. AB Anonymous, your post is spot on.

I totally agree with your statement when you say 'US is not just an Empire – it's a hijacked Empire, with all its major institutes of power and about 10% of population actively helping the hijackers, while out of remaining roughly 90% only a tiny fraction understands what's going on. "

And thank you for the new label 'Global Criminals'.

Thankfully the petrodollar is being abandoned and the days of the Saudi, Israeli, UK, Aussie American hegemony will end.

Bragadocious > , September 17, 2017 at 5:04 pm GMT

Polygenocide? Laughable.

Saker keeps banging this drum over and over, but if you look at the facts, the allegation doesn't hold up. What the Anglo invaders were involved in was a war . The Lakota Sioux and Iroquois and Cheyenne had weapons and fought back, often brutally. Moreover, they're still here, which kinda demolishes the point about a genocide, since the point of a successful genocide is to wipe out every single vestige of an ethnic or racial group. Kinda like what the Spanish did so successfully all across Central and South America. Why nothing on them? Or is he just using this imagined polygenocide as a brickbat to condemn a country he hates yet oddly resides in? It surely has nothing to do with today's neocon wars, and I agree that we should pull out of NATO and let Europe fend for itself. Of course, as soon as a U.S. politician questions NATO, he's immediately attacked -- by Europe .

Likewise, bleating about the Mexican War doesn't help his case either. The Mexicans were invaders and conquistadors just like the Anglos were. The 1848 war was like one drug dealer robbing another. No victims, really. And note that the Mexicans signed a treaty ratifying the lands lost and didn't complain about it until the "Indian problem" they couldn't deal with had been dealt with, and the territories had been developed along First World standards. Then all of a sudden, they had an urge to "reconquer." I say sure, let them -- as long as we re-arm the Apaches and Navajos with automatic weapons and blow up all the roads/bridges/sewers/dams/electrical grids first. In other words, return the lands to their condition in 1848. I'm sure Mexico will jump on that opportunity.

Stan d Mute > , September 17, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT

The closing paragraph shows this writer's confusion. The best thing would be collapse of American Empire? But just a few sentences later he notes correctly that America is the most dangerous entity in history? How does collapse equal security of our mountains of weapons? How many nukes must escape our collapsing empire before it becomes an even bigger danger than before?

This failure in critical thinking is also evident in his genocidal Americans commentary. We are so inept that our genocide of Amerinds left us facing societal collapse under a tidal wave of North American Amerinds from south of our border. We are so incompetent that our unprecedented cruelty towards Africans led to the 400K we imported becoming 45M of them today and an epidemic of obesity. So cruel are we that Africans' greatest social problems are dependence on all the free shit we give them and abject stupidity as we have exempted them from being forced to acquire the bare minimum of education. Extending our racist hatred even back to their homelands in Africa we have forced upon them such horrors as clean water, food, and medicine such that they will soon be the most populous race on the planet.

Interspersed with the obvious fallacies he sprinkles truth tidbits, but by that time it's too late for him to be taken for anything other than a communist tool.

Johnny Rico > , September 17, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Agreed.

I like to say "allied" because they were working together in many respects and had been throughout the 1930s.

Not to mention the awkward issue of Poland. And also, there is the "alliance" between the The US and Stalin after June 1941 – which wasn't always a perfect partnership. And dissolved into the Cold War as soon as there was no common enemy in 1945.

Peace Sells, But Who's Buying?

Stan d Mute > , September 17, 2017 at 5:44 pm GMT

@Bragadocious

Polygenocide? Laughable.

All the more so as he's too stupid to look at a map or know what "continent" means. He claims we genocided a "continent" – which one? North America includes Mexico and Canada. South America maybe? Is it particularly hard to find an Amerind in Canada, America, or Mexico today? Or in South America? Amerinds hard to locate in say Peru or Colombia or Brazil? In fact, of those who survived the new germs unknowingly brought with explorers, pioneers, and settlers (and conquistadors in the south), their population has exploded just like the African population. There are FAR FAR more (apparently imaginary) Amerinds and Africans today than at ANY point in history and solely due to our (reverse) genocide.

Munx > , September 17, 2017 at 5:59 pm GMT

Some of your details are accurate as much as Soviet and Red Chinese propaganda is or was by insertion of mini truths to make it believeable. It does bring back memories of Pravda tho.. too much of your anti American speil sounds like you were schooled by the Brezhnev Regime with some outside assistance.

Some points to ponder. Israel is racist but the Islamists that want them exterminated ? Neither of them is a "race" like Spanish is not a race. No mention of the millions Stalin startved to death or sent off to Gulags not to mention those they executed by the thousands in eastern Europe and Ukraine before attacking the beastly nazis.. Ukranians just want their country back the Soviets stole from them after starving millions for not producing food fast enough.

No Mention of the millions executed, starved, forced abortions and Red Chinese butchery that continues today.. but thats not important either..

I really get the "Ugly American" concept but its tired and to paint Americans as colluding with the criminal element currently running this govt as a third hidden entity is unacceptable.. we were trusting once but those days are over. We also reject nonsense, disinformation and misinformation perpetrated whatever the reason.. Not all of us are ignorant of history just because most today are. If you want the right to claim your information is factual that you need to clean up your "facts" first.

You sound really angry and hateful of this country and its stupid people yet you wear Marine camo with a 40 year old helmet nd salute like a Brit Who or what are you really ?

Cyrano > , September 17, 2017 at 6:06 pm GMT

@Serge Krieger For those who still don't know the difference between German Nazism, Jewish liberalism, US imperialism and Russian communism – the Russians never treated anyone worse than they treated themselves, which can't be said about the other 3, whose starting position has always been – we are better than you.

KA > , September 17, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT

@Reverend Spooner How does your fact negate what I have referred to. Empire is a complex business with many layers of disconnected realities. Its the motive or fealty to the motives that binds them together. Individual success of failure or change of track doesn't disprove the overarching philosophy . It is easier to put sanction .Nobody notices excepting the suffering peasants . It is much difficult to declare war . Back then it was more difficult .

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger I'm crushed.

Anyway, you got anything better? Prove it.

FederalistForever > , September 17, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

This deplorable article by The Saker contains many questionable assertions. I will focus here only on The Saker's claim that the U.S. Government is directly responsible for a uniquely evil event in world history: a "poly-genocide" – defined by The Saker as "the genocide of all the ethnicities of a single continent." The Saker seems proud of this term as he has been injecting this concept into most of his recent articles. But it is a sham concept, which reveals more about The Saker's ever increasing anti-American bias then it reveals about the true history of the U.S. Government and its relations with the Native Americans.

The fact is, if you added up all of the death totals from all of the wars, skirmishes, battles, or forced removals involving the U.S. and Native Americans, the total numbers would still be well short of the total deaths of many single battles in European or Russian history or either of the two World Wars. For example, George Washington's troops in the Revolutionary War killed maybe two hundred Iroquois out of a population of about 9000. Same for the Sand Creek massacre in 1864 or the tragedy at Little Big Horn or any of the other famous massacres or wars (e.g. the Seminole Wars) or forced removals – in each case, we're talking possibly several thousand deaths, at most.

You only get massive numbers comparable to other well-known genocides and ethnic cleansings if you instead do one or more of the following: (1) start counting from the late 1400s – almost three hundred years before the United States came into existence (thereby falsely attributing to the U.S. Government deaths which occurred well before the U.S. came into existence); (2) including the entire Western Hemisphere (including Mexico, where according to anthropologist Henry Dobyns and other scholars a much larger number of indigenous peoples have suffered and died), rather than just the land that currently belongs to the U.S.; (3) by including deaths that occurred due to intertribal warfare. The Cherokee, for example, were probably not "indigenous" to the Southern Appalachian region, but were in fact a conquering people, who swept down from the north and killed or displaced the tribes that had previously lived there. Should the U.S. Government be held responsible for those deaths? A similar story can be told re the Comanche, who became the dominant tribe on the Southern Plains only because of their brutal and unceasing warfare against the weaker tribes that previously lived there. Again, do these deaths carried out by the Comanche and other conquering Native American tribes count towards The Saker's "poly-genocide" totals?

Scholarly consensus is the intentional infliction of smallpox-infected blankets (e.g., by British general Amherst in 1763, or by American fur traders in the 1830s) did not happen that often. Exactly how diseases such as smallpox and malaria were first introduced is a matter of ongoing controversy and debate. Moreover, if Europeans (and their American descendants) are to be held responsible for introducing smallpox and malaria, should Native Americans be held responsible for introducing syphilis to Europeans?

Since The Saker is so obviously uninformed about and poorly read in U.S. history, he would be well advised to focus instead on Russia's history, of which he is much more knowledgeable. There he would find numerous recent examples of large scale ethnic cleansings and genocidal conquests carried out by Russia's government against its native peoples. As author Oliver Bullough recounts in his devastating book "Let Our Fame Be Great," the Russian Government's genocidal colonial war against the Circassians in the late 1800s resulted in the displacement or death of over one million people. Now THAT is a true example of a genocide! A similar sad story can be told about the Russian Government's actions against other native peoples such as the Nogais, Chechens, Mountain Turks and Ingush. The combined death total attributable to the Russian Government's actions against these peoples easily exceeds two million. On no reasonable and informed account could the U.S. Government be said to be directly responsible for the deaths of anywhere near as many Native Americans.

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

@Priss Factor hence the wordwide use of the "Yankee go home" slogan.

Now the slogan is 'Yankee, take me to America'.

Now the slogan is 'Yankee, take me to America'.

Because you've bombed the Piss outta my country and I no longer have a place to live. Think Vietnamese boat people, for instance..

Beefcake the Mighty > , September 17, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT

@Johnny Rico

On a different thread here the Russian view of WW2 was characterized as a victory cult, and that's entirely accurate.

Beefcake the Mighty > , September 17, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT

@Johnny Rico +1000 for the Megadeth reference.

jacques sheete > , September 17, 2017 at 6:24 pm GMT

@Reverend Spooner You are and American and trying to opt out. The Saker did not point at ordinary Americans but I guess reading about American interventions around the world makes you uneasy and you don't want to face the facts. Bless you Padre, but you have sinned. You better get your stinky little tushy to confession, ASAP.

PS: You evidently don't know what you're talking about either, so kindly drop the free online psychoanalysis. As for your nitwit charge of my pusillanimity regarding facing facts, you seem to be yet another fool with projection problems.

And don't forget to luv thy neighbor. (If any can stand to associate with you.)

utu > , September 17, 2017 at 6:25 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh However, it is slightly inaccurate to say that "the Russians were allied with the Nazis".

Must be very slightly.

1. Invaded Poland together. Had victory parade together. Had Gestapo-NKVD conferences in occupied Poland.
2. Traded
3. Stalin ordered all communist parties in the world to cease all ant-NAZI propaganda. Some communist outfits cooperated with Gestapo in occupied France denouncing anti-German resistance. In the US till June 22, 1941 communists were siding with the America First isolationist and were acting against pro war British propaganda.
4. When Germany was invading countries in the West USSR was invading countries in the East.
5. When USSR attacked Finland UK was considering sending help to Finland and Germany did not do it. UK was considering bombing of Baku so Germany would not get oil.

Beefcake the Mighty > , September 17, 2017 at 6:29 pm GMT

@KenH Don't forget the fantastical 1.4M the Soviets claimed were killed at Majdanek (the accepted number now is 75,000). These propaganda fables form much backbone of the WW2 myth, both in America and Russia.

Anon > , Disclaimer September 17, 2017 at 6:48 pm GMT

@utu Good points; 2) does not count though, neutrals have trade rights. 5) should be clarified as Germans actually prevented aid from German-aligned nations (certainly Italy) from reaching Finland.

yeah > , September 17, 2017 at 6:51 pm GMT

"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of this Empire."

This point of Saker's seems to have rankled many. A controlled "withering away" has been argued for by many, including the likes of Pat Buchanan. Not for reasons to do with any anti-Americanism, but precisely out of love for the American Republic and the people. "Empire or Republic" is a well argued thesis.

But what looks like is that the Empire is growing and growing. Many argue that the Empire is on its last legs, that it will collapse when the dollar collapses, or when the left loonies and other half-crazed groups create sufficient inner discord. I don't see it happening in the next twenty years. The US State is strong, very strong, far stronger than any other that history has seen; and it plans to hold on to its empire and strengthen it by any and all means. It is not going to wither away, fade away, or be planned down. Nor is its unwinding going to be supported by many Americans, and that is the tragic part, the real tragic part, as Saker has passionately tried to address. He thinks evil and ignorance can be talked down; I doubt it. That is the tragedy and danger of our times.

So keep your popcorn and chilled beer ready, and wait for the next of round of boom, kabbatz, and other spectacular sounds and images to keep you entertained. Likely, it all will happen "over there", so no danger to you or the homeland.

CK > , September 17, 2017 at 6:54 pm GMT

@The Alarmist No, it is pointing out that they did it early. Not a cheap shot but a praise for a job well done.
Or,
If you prefer to admit a bit of soviet control over the ailing Roosevelt; Hiss and White helped con the US president into believing that the USSR was a spent force and could not possibly mobilize and cross from Berlin to Manchuria in 90 days with the millions of men, tanks, artillery, POL, food, meds etc. over the single double tracked railroad in existence in that part of the world.

The Russians did that with time to spare.

I submit to you for your approval that the single most important battle in WWII was the battle of Khalkhin Ghol in September of 1939. The Japanese army in Manchuria had its ass handed to it by Zhukov and the Russians. The Japanese and the Russians signed a peace treaty that was renewed yearly until the evening before the Russian attack in 1945. As a result, the USSR was the only nation that did not have to engage in a multiple front war. Russia's enemy came from her west and was sent back the same way. The US's enemies came from her west and her east ditto the British empire, and Japan. China's enemies were from her east and internal. France was an irrelevancy but her empire did have to face internal enemies as well as the Japanese.

CK > , September 17, 2017 at 7:15 pm GMT

@Reverend Spooner In 1904 the Japanese did a preview of Pearl Harbor on the Russians at the urging of GB. In 1905 at Portsmouth Teddy Roosevelt screwed the Russians as a favour to the House of Warburg, with the Treaty of Portsmouth.

In 1918 the US, France, GB, Japan, and others invaded Russia to attempt to control the outcome of the Russian Civil War. The Americans left when it became obvious that Wilson was stroked out and Harding would become the next president. The Japanese stayed until 1925 trying to sever Siberia from Russia. The Japanese left in 25 and attempted to re-insert themselves in 37. The revamped Russian military handed them their asses at Khalkhin Ghol. A blockade is an act of war.

Jonathan Mason > , September 17, 2017 at 7:23 pm GMT

You only have to read the Old Testament to see that even God was a war criminal, particularly if seen from the point of view of Baal or the Philistines. And the Romans, although known for propagating aspects of civilization like public baths, clean water, sewerage, and the rule of law, were not averse to X-rated entertainment like watching enemies of the state eaten by lions.

A lot of crimes of Manifest Destiny were committed under the somewhat mistaken belief that Christianity was officially sanctioned by The Creator, and that lesser breeds needed to knuckle down and accept their place in the world or they would get their just desserts.

Since God's retirement there has been a lot less of the Spanish Inquisition and that kind of thing, though admittedly there is a kind of residual effect in the consideration of human history that prevents us from being too hard on our forefathers. The case for the defense may be summed up as forgive them for they knew not what they did .

However, to be fair, a lot of the Native Americans were already regularly killing each other before they came under the British Crown and it was time for the business of culling excess human beings to be brought under central control. Native Americans are now running casinos, which is a step up from ripping off scalps.

Although George W. Bush reintroduced torture which had generally fallen out of favor, his heart was in the right place, and who is to say that a few Christian lives were not saved by selective torturing of infidels?

The concentration camps in Nazi Germany were certainly not Western Civilization's finest moment, but how many times do the Germans have to say sorry? They know they screwed up, and they have promised not to do it again. Now they are making Volkswagens, not waging war.

[Sep 17, 2017] Last year Roberts' predictions proved correct.

Sep 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

Priss Factor >, Website September 11, 2017 at 5:43 am GMT

From last year. Roberts' predictions proved correct.

https://youtu.be/TcvI9_B9qps

Trump can't do anything cuz of deep state and oligarchy.

Wally > , September 11, 2017 at 6:29 am GMT

@Priss Factor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcvI9_B9qps

From last year. Roberts' predictions proved correct.

Trump can't do anything cuz of deep state and oligarchy.

Not quite. Gorsuch. Trump withdraws US from Paris Accord. President Trump Eliminates 860 Obama-Era Federal Regulations http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/21/great-again-trump-eliminates-860-obama-era-federal-regulations/

[Sep 17, 2017] Neocons such as Mr. Morell, the Kagans' clan, AIPAC, aare still quite powerful policy makers. The violation of a ceasefire by the US in Syria, which produced dozens of deaths among military personnel (perhaps including a Russian or two) and some 200 wounded was intentional; moreover, the violation was followed immediately by an attack by ISIS

Sep 17, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

10 November 2016

Laura

Trump doesn't really know anyone in foreign policy...so he will probably, at first, appoint people like John Bolton. After all, Bolton has been on lots of talk shows! Also there is this: But Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, in an interview with the state-run Interfax news agency, said that "there were contacts" with the Trump team.

"Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage," Rybakov said. "Those people have always been in the limelight in the United States and have occupied high-ranking positions. I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives."
He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said "maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks."

So I imagine that Russia will weigh in on his foreign policy choices as well. Reply 10 November 2016 at 11:08 AM

Anna -> Laura... , 10 November 2016 at 02:01 PM

"So I imagine that Russia will weigh in on his foreign policy choices as well."

For what reason? Just because "...quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives?" Then you were not aware of Mr. Morell, the Kagans' clan, AIPAC, and other still quite powerful policy makers. You may also want to learn about the violation of a ceasefire by the US in Syria, which produced dozens of deaths among military personelle (perhaps including a Russian or two) and some 200 wounded; moreover, the violation was followed immediately by an attack by ISIS.

Just read carefully the following:

"French journalist and Middle East expert Christian Chesnot noted that the duration of the attack (50 minutes), the number of planes involved and the fact that 62 Syrian servicemen died as a result cast doubts on the Pentagon's claims that the Deir ez-Zor attack was a mistake. Like many others, he also pointed to the Pentagon's technical capabilities that seem to indicate that the airstrike could not have been unplanned."

The best the Russians can dream of is a coordination between RF and US in a fight against Daesh.

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201609201045509532-us-syrian-army-warning/

[Sep 17, 2017] Israel wants strategic depth in spades. Israel feels, legitimately or not, insecure. I've heard politicians in Israel give an outline of Israel's "needs". Yes, they want the West Bank but leaving the Palestinians autonomy in their cities. They are going to keep the Golan and yes want enough of Lebanon to control the headwaters of the Litani and it's water. You are correct that Israel does not need the Litani water but they want it to weaken Lebanon and especially Hizballah. Last but not least they want the Sinai back.

Sep 17, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

10 November 2016 at 07:50 PM

Will ,

I'd like to know what is it the Zionists really want. Would they be satisfied with the West Bank? Would they be satisfied with the part of the Golan Heights they grabbed or do they want all of it? Will they quit trying to grab the waters of the Litani River in Lebanon since reportedly through desalination they have more water than they need?

You are dealing with a country that refuses to fix its borders? If it were given what it wanted, would it then let its neighbors go in Peace? Why did they not accept the Saudi Beirut Peace initiative? Why was Rabin assassinated? Why did Olmeret suddenly get removed due to a criminal inquiry?

I used to read Haaretz at one time until it went behind a paywall. I get some insight from Uri Avnery, b/ I'm truly lost at what they really want. Is it from the river to the river? Wadi-el-Arish to the Euphrates?

Do they really want to continue as the Lacedomnians lording it over the Helots? The Israeli Firsters have destroyed secular Irak, now working on Syria, and would love to destroy Lebanon and turn it into a choatic non-functioning state. They would love to destroy Iran as a semi-secular civiliazton. Trump advisor Gen Michael Flynn, for all his good qualities, has a hard-on for the Persians. So does Trump. Really worrying. You cannot have a concert of nations resolution w/o bringing Iran to the table.

Of course, Trump will make them concessions. Adelson gave him some $30 mil for his campaign and Ivanka has converted to Judaism. He will recognize Jerusalem/Quds as the capital of Israel. that's a foregone conclusion.

But the glimmer of hope is that he has said, that he would try to be neutral and work out a Peace agreement.

Again I quote from George Mitchell:
"First, I believe there is no such thing as a conflict that can't be ended. Conflicts are created and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings. No matter how ancient the conflict, no matter how much harm has been done, peace can prevail."

jdledell -> Will... , 10 November 2016 at 07:50 PM
Will - Israel wants strategic depth in spades. Israel feels, legitimately or not, insecure. I've heard politicians in Israel give an outline of Israel's "needs". Yes, they want the West Bank but leaving the Palestinians autonomy in their cities. They are going to keep the Golan and yes want enough of Lebanon to control the headwaters of the Litani and it's water. You are correct that Israel does not need the Litani water but they want it to weaken Lebanon and especially Hizballah. Last but not least they want the Sinai back.

This would give them strategic depth in the North, South and West. They are growing their Naval capabilities to cover the East.

[Sep 17, 2017] America could ironically be experiencing its very own Color Revolution. The Last Color Revolution on Earth! Which I suppose is poetic justice.

Notable quotes:
"... Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe. I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are Styrofoam take-out containers. ..."
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer." ..."
"... Listen to this final Trump ad. Except for the illegal immigration sentence, this is vintage Sanders ..."
"... I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written. ..."
Sep 17, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"The Art of the Deal?" revisited on 6 September 2017 I posted this just after DJT became president. In light of today's DJT agreement with the Democrats over McConnell and Ryans' heads it seems of continued relevance. pl

**************

"First, the President-elect must make a stab at uniting the country, after a scorched-earth campaign in which he consciously tore at the nation's gender, racial and economic fault lines to build a movement to win power. He's practicing some unusual humility. "I pledge to every citizen of our lands that I will be the president for the American people," Trump said in his victory speech Tuesday. "For those who have chosen not to support me in the past, for which there were a few people, I'm reaching out to you for your guidance and your help so we can work together and unify our great country." But his challenges were on clear display Wednesday as protests broke out from Boston to Los Angeles." ------------- The crazies with their foreheads painted "not my president" don't bother me. They can march around the big cities all they want. Rain will come. Snow and wind will come and they will go home. The progressive cause has taken a mighty hit but it will re-assert itself.

There are two real question facing the US as to what sort of president will Trump be.

1. Thus far he looks to me to be a man who will play a dominan role deciding major issues himself and will make deals with whomever has the power to entable him to reach his goals.

IMO that means that the Republicans in Congress will either go along with Trump's legislative proposals or see Trump go across the aisle to seek votes.

A good example would be whatever it is that Trump decides that he wants to do about the obvious failure that is the ACA, presently sinking under the weight of far higher costs than expected and smaller enrollments. Democrats understand that the law must be modified for it to survive and to preserve the increase in health care coverage that it has brought. The hardline Republicans in both Houses of Congress want to destroy Obamacare and they have no realistic alternative other than the usual blather about private health accounts. Trump will not want to alienate his working class followers. Why would Trump not make a deal with the Democrats to get what he wants and needs?

2. There is also a danger that the neocon faction among Trump's advisers will succeed in achieving power in his cabinet. The appointment of John Bolton to State, would be ,IMO, an unmitigated disaster. pl

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-transition/index.html

kao_hsien_chih -> Kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 05:41 PM

I have a bit of soft spot for Gingrich: I've found him, at least in his Congressional career, to be very unprincipled in a good way, meaning that he is willing to negotiate and cut deals when he feels is necessary, rather than hold on to his "principles" like a madman to the end, and ironically, is willing to pay a high personal price for the sake of compromise. That, plus, his usually good read of the political terrain can make him a very good advisor, although his total lack of tact and uncanny ability to stuff both feet into his mouth make for a bad front man.

I realized this during the Clinton impeachment fight: he basically lost speakership because he tried to go behind other Republican leaders' backs to work out a compromise for censure with the Democratic leaders, rather than go ahead with the impeachment vote. Other Republican leaders did not take kindly to it and ousted him, but, however much that act of spite--the impeachment vote supported only by Republicans--might have satisfied their self-righteousness, it did the Republicans no good, while a bipartisan censure might have carried real political bite in the long term.

johnf -> kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 05:41 PM
With Move On on the move, it seems that America could ironically be experiencing its very own Color Revolution. The Last Color Revolution on Earth! Which I suppose is poetic justice.

As for the progressives, Bernie already seems to be putting the message out. And after their major defeat, I doubt if the neo-con and neo-liberal Clintonistas will have much sway within the party. Bernie's chosen successor and Elizabeth Warren would both be serious challengers.

Kooshy -> johnf... , 10 November 2016 at 05:02 PM
Being still on some of the so called democratic organization mailing list, last night I got an email for move on asking supporters to attend anti-Trump demonstrations all over the country.

They even had a zip code link to where you could find. Demonstration/ gathering near you some in private residences. Their agenda and Is to pressure Trump early on, from what I learned on how Trump beat them on the poles, I don't think or hope they can succeed.

kooshy -> Kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 10:08 PM
Here is the link on email I got from the pathetic Move On,

http://act.moveon.org/event/Solidarity_gatherings/?source=couragecampaign

Kooshy -> johnf... , 10 November 2016 at 05:06 PM
Start getting worried if you see Victoria N cookies in Time Square
ex-PFC Chuck -> kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 12:23 PM
Or Soros, allegedly its primary beneficiary, could rename it "Won't Move On."
Martin Oline -> ex-PFC Chuck... , 10 November 2016 at 01:29 PM
PFC Chuck:

Soros you say. I wondered why it reminded me of the "Color Revolutions" of eastern Europe. I suppose they'd be banging pots and pans together except their utensils of choice are Styrofoam take-out containers.

There are probably many powerful people who believe they won't be able to manipulate our president-elect. I suspect that Tel Aviv would much rather deal with Mike Pense than the Donald. I'm not a religious person but I think I'll start praying for Trump's health.

I remember Nixon supposedly saying he selected Agnew as his vice president because no one would try to assassinate him because they'd get Spiro.

Seeing the winner of his first presidential campaign getting shot probably made him much more aware of that possibility than the average citizen. I don't know if he chose Spiro for that reason but it was interesting that Agnew was removed just before his administration came to an end.

oofda -> kooshy... , 10 November 2016 at 05:03 PM
No- they were spontaneous after the election- the kid of a friend of mine at one of the California universities reported that.

The Colonel is spot on about Bolton -- appointing him to State would be an unmitigated disaster. Check his history- in addition to being an incompetent manager -- he is one of those who puts the interests of another country ahead of the USA...

Pitch Pole , 10 November 2016 at 10:41 AM
There's a natural tendency to over extrapolate on the state of the progressive cause or liberalism in America from the election result. The election was lost by the democratic establishment which, while it has its liberal or progressive elements, is firmly a corporatist, statist organization. The presidency and the senate, though probably not the house, were lost by an ingrown and complacent party bent on crowning their seriously flawed queen. We will never know for sure - but if they had put up Biden instead of shoving him aside, we'd still be talking about the fate of the republican party. Bernie would have been a wild card, but the primaries showed him getting lots of votes in the places that put Trump into the whitehouse.

It will be interesting to see how positive everyone remains once the Republicans own the show for a few years. Will everyone on this board still be so glowing with what appears to be their apparent full embrace of Israel's priorities? If we pull the Iran deal and start the air campaign? When those manufacturing and coal mining jobs don't come flooding back?

It was a devil's choice and not the outcome I would have wanted, however half heartedly, so I'm keeping an open mind. Trump has no fixed core beliefs and revels in pissing up anyone's leg whenever he feels like it, and that might be a feature not a bug. At this juncture, I'm more concerned with the people to whom he's going to delegate so much. Those guys we've seen in action for long enough to be very worried....

- Pitch

johnf , 10 November 2016 at 12:46 PM
On Trump seeking Democrat support in Congress:

"Sanders: I'm 'Prepared To Work With' Trump On Economic Issues

"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media," Sanders said in a statement. "People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer."

"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him," Sanders added."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-prepared-work-with-trump

kao_hsien_chih -> johnf... , 10 November 2016 at 05:45 PM
God, I honestly hope that kind of cooperation works out--Democratic deplorables working together with the Republican deplorables, for the betterment of the country. The stage is set for that kind of enterprise, now that both parties' elites lie in wreck humbled.
Mishkilji -> johnf... , 10 November 2016 at 05:47 PM
Listen to this final Trump ad. Except for the illegal immigration sentence, this is vintage Sanders

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8

Earthrise , 10 November 2016 at 06:20 PM
I don't think Trump really matters at the moment. What happened to the Borg (my first use of this term, still not sure) is what is important. It doesn't matter if Trump is a Sheldon Adelson lap dog, the MSM has been shamed, the Anglo-Zionists have coped a reversal, and the American people have woken from a long slumber. Stop following the bouncing ball, the world has caught up to itself is a giant leap, the future is no longer written.

This is what hope feels like.

[Sep 13, 2017] A despot in disguise: one mans mission to rip up democracy by George Monbiot

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... He aimed, in short, to save capitalism from democracy. ..."
Sep 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

theguardian.com

George Monbiot's the missing chapter: a key to understanding the politics of the past half century. To read Nancy MacLean's new book, Democracy in Chains : The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America, is to see what was previously invisible.

The history professor's work on the subject began by accident. In 2013 she stumbled across a deserted clapboard house on the campus of George Mason University in Virginia. It was stuffed with the unsorted archives of a man who had died that year whose name is probably unfamiliar to you: James McGill Buchanan. She says the first thing she picked up was a stack of confidential letters concerning millions of dollars transferred to the university by the billionaire Charles Koch .

Her discoveries in that house of horrors reveal how Buchanan, in collaboration with business tycoons and the institutes they founded, developed a hidden programme for suppressing democracy on behalf of the very rich. The programme is now reshaping politics, and not just in the US.

Buchanan was strongly influenced by both the neoliberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises , and the property supremacism of John C Calhoun, who argued in the first half of the 19th century that freedom consists of the absolute right to use your property (including your slaves) however you may wish; any institution that impinges on this right is an agent of oppression, exploiting men of property on behalf of the undeserving masses.

James Buchanan brought these influences together to create what he called public choice theory . He argued that a society could not be considered free unless every citizen has the right to veto its decisions. What he meant by this was that no one should be taxed against their will. But the rich were being exploited by people who use their votes to demand money that others have earned, through involuntary taxes to support public spending and welfare. Allowing workers to form trade unions and imposing graduated income taxes were forms of "differential or discriminatory legislation" against the owners of capital.

Any clash between "freedom" (allowing the rich to do as they wish) and democracy should be resolved in favour of freedom. In his book The Limits of Liberty , he noted that "despotism may be the only organisational alternative to the political structure that we observe." Despotism in defence of freedom.

His prescription was a "constitutional revolution": creating irrevocable restraints to limit democratic choice. Sponsored throughout his working life by wealthy foundations, billionaires and corporations, he developed a theoretical account of what this constitutional revolution would look like, and a strategy for implementing it.

He explained how attempts to desegregate schooling in the American south could be frustrated by setting up a network of state-sponsored private schools. It was he who first proposed privatizing universities, and imposing full tuition fees on students: his original purpose was to crush student activism. He urged privatization of social security and many other functions of the state. He sought to break the links between people and government, and demolish trust in public institutions. He aimed, in short, to save capitalism from democracy.

In 1980, he was able to put the programme into action. He was invited to Chile , where he helped the Pinochet dictatorship write a new constitution, which, partly through the clever devices Buchanan proposed, has proved impossible to reverse entirely. Amid the torture and killings, he advised the government to extend programmes of privatisation, austerity, monetary restraint, deregulation and the destruction of trade unions: a package that helped trigger economic collapse in 1982.

None of this troubled the Swedish Academy, which through his devotee at Stockholm University Assar Lindbeck in 1986 awarded James Buchanan the Nobel memorial prize for economics . It is one of several decisions that have turned this prize toxic.

Koch officials said that the network's midterm budget for policy and politics is between $300m and $400m, but donors are demanding legislative progress

But his power really began to be felt when Koch, currently the seventh richest man in the US, decided that Buchanan held the key to the transformation he sought. Koch saw even such ideologues as Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan as "sellouts", as they sought to improve the efficiency of government rather than destroy it altogether . But Buchanan took it all the way.

MacLean says that Charles Koch poured millions into Buchanan's work at George Mason University, whose law and economics departments look as much like corporate-funded thinktanks as they do academic faculties. He employed the economist to select the revolutionary "cadre" that would implement his programme (Murray Rothbard, at the Cato Institute that Koch founded, had urged the billionaire to study Lenin's techniques and apply them to the libertarian cause). Between them, they began to develop a programme for changing the rules.

The papers Nancy MacLean discovered show that Buchanan saw stealth as crucial. He told his collaborators that "conspiratorial secrecy is at all times essential". Instead of revealing their ultimate destination, they would proceed by incremental steps. For example, in seeking to destroy the social security system, they would claim to be saving it, arguing that it would fail without a series of radical "reforms". (The same argument is used by those attacking the NHS). Gradually they would build a "counter-intelligentsia", allied to a "vast network of political power" that would become the new establishment.

Through the network of thinktanks that Koch and other billionaires have sponsored, through their transformation of the Republican party, and the hundreds of millions they have poured into state congressional and judicial races, through the mass colonisation of Trump's administration by members of this network and lethally effective campaigns against everything from public health to action on climate change, it would be fair to say that Buchanan's vision is maturing in the US.

But not just there. Reading this book felt like a demisting of the window through which I see British politics. The bonfire of regulations highlighted by the Grenfell Tower disaster, the destruction of state architecture through austerity, the budgeting rules, the dismantling of public services, tuition fees and the control of schools: all these measures follow Buchanan's programme to the letter. I wonder how many people are aware that David Cameron's free schools project stands in a tradition designed to hamper racial desegregation in the American south.

In one respect, Buchanan was right: there is an inherent conflict between what he called "economic freedom" and political liberty. Complete freedom for billionaires means poverty, insecurity, pollution and collapsing public services for everyone else. Because we will not vote for this, it can be delivered only through deception and authoritarian control. The choice we face is between unfettered capitalism and democracy. You cannot have both.

Buchanan's programme is a prescription for totalitarian capitalism. And his disciples have only begun to implement it. But at least, thanks to MacLean's discoveries, we can now apprehend the agenda. One of the first rules of politics is, know your enemy. We're getting there.

[Sep 05, 2017] Should Tillerson Resign by Daniel Larison

for some reasons Larison support neocon blabbering of Daniel W. Drezner in WaPo Why Secretary of State Rex Tillerson should resign - The Washington Post ez
If Critics such as neocon Max Boot are calling for him to resign, I want him to stay.
The "wrecking of the State Department" that By Daniel Larison is concerned, is necessary as it is too infested with neocons leftover from Hillary days, including cadre of female warmongers.
Also color revolutions zeal needs to be tamed.
Taking into account that Trump effectivly changed sided starting from infamous Tomahawk attack, the nes round of sanctions for Russia and sabersrattling with Iran and North Korea, it is difficult to forsee how the Secratary of State can be effective with such a boss. Being a bully in the schoolyard was the policy the the USA sucessfully tried for all presidencies since Reagan, so in a sense Trump is proud hier f this noble tradition.
Notable quotes:
"... Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out some don't. ..."
"... Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted. Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office a new diplomat will have to wait. ..."
"... Even setting aside the critical matter of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society, these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success, or even sound judgment. ..."
Aug 31, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
calls for Rex Tillerson's resignation:

In less than seven months in the job, Tillerson has proven to be a feckless manager of his organization and a poor handler of the president of the United States. To be fair, even the savviest secretary of state would have his or her hands full with a president like Trump. The sharp contrast between Tillerson's fumblings and the more nimble footwork of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis shows that Tillerson is the opposite of a good secretary of state. Most of Trump's private-sector cabinet officials have been dreadful, but Tillerson is the worst of the lot.

Tillerson has been presiding over the wrecking of the State Department ever since he was confirmed, and he has very little else to show for his tenure. It's safe to say that the demoralization and hollowing out of the department will just keep getting worse the longer he is in charge. The trouble is that replacing Tillerson probably won't change any of that, because the gutting of the State Department has been and continues to be an administration priority. The person Trump chooses to replace Tillerson is likely to have the same disdain for diplomacy and diplomats that he has.

So while I am inclined to agree with the call for Tillerson's resignation, I can't agree with Drezner when he says "I am no longer worried about who Trump would pick to replace him." This is exactly what we should be worrying about.

Tillerson got the job at State in part because all of the other people Trump was considering were so fanatical, ethically compromised, or otherwise awful that he seemed the best of a bad lot at the time. That may have been true, but that process produced one of the least effective Secretaries of State in modern times.

Now imagine Trump going through a similar process a second time. Is he likely to choose someone more capable than Tillerson? Considering the state of Trump's administration after just seven months, would anyone who fits that description be willing to take the job? If there is someone willing, I am concerned Trump would end up choosing another former general on account of his fascination with military officers, and that would be at least one too many in this Cabinet.

Tillerson reportedly never wanted the job, so it shouldn't take much to persuade him to leave. That said, the damage already done to the State Department isn't going to be repaired anytime soon, and as long as Trump is president we should assume it will continue regardless. I have been very critical of how Tillerson has been running his department, but as one his critics I think we should acknowledge that his successor could still be even worse.

Dan Green , August 31, 2017 at 10:07 am

Tillerson was a CEO of for the longest time head of the US largest corporation by market cap. His problem or problems no doubt reflect his tenure in the corporate world. A world where you have to get things done some work out some don't.

Point is he is a non fit in the Swamp where dysfunction is implanted. Can readers recall how an experience career politician like John Boy ran all over the world and in the end was manipulated by the Russians to their advantage. Hillary logged millions of miles obviously to the benefit of the Clinton foundation. So until the prior ruling class gets back in office a new diplomat will have to wait.

icarusr , August 31, 2017 at 10:15 am
Looks like what's good for Exxon is not necessarily good for the United States.
Seven Months In 2017 , August 31, 2017 at 10:47 am
"I am concerned Trump would end up choosing another former general on account of his fascination with military officers, and that would be at least one too many in this Cabinet."

And you should be concerned. Even setting aside the critical matter of civilian control of the government and military in a democratic society, these days our military isn't exactly a by-word for competency, success, or even sound judgment.

It has failed to win on multiple battlegrounds. Judging by the recent Three Stooges performance of the Pacific Fleet, there are basic competency issues at the highest levels of command. And now we learn that both Gens. Mattis and McMaster strongly urged Trump to double down in Afghanistan, one of the worst examples of judgment and decision-making in recent memory.

So far as I know, Tillerson had nothing to do with that idiocy, so I'd leave him where he is and pray that Trump will eventually be disabused of the instinct to defer to (or rather cringe before) his generals.

collin , August 31, 2017 at 11:20 am
TBH, I can't figure out exactly why Tillerson has been so bad but I assume his lack of experience of the State Department makes him a very poor choice for President Trump. Judging by the Trump's administration G&G (General & Goldman) cabinet is very experience expertise with Job-like patience is needed to work with President Trump. Basically, it fits Drezner's toddler comments that Mattis works well with Trump because Mattis knows a lot more than the President and is willing to allow Trump to throw two hour tantrums for his policy. It is to the point that we almost need Mattis to be Secretary of State as at least we know that he can work with the President. (Dear God is wrong to state that an ex-General be our chief Diplomat.)

However, one area where Tillerson does work well is he truly dislikes taking media oxygen away from Trump so he may last awhile.

JEinCA , August 31, 2017 at 11:28 am
Why doesn't everyone resign and we'll make little "Billy" Kristol of the Weekly Standard the official Emperor of United States? Tillerson is the last voice of reason (and bulwark against the psychotic war mongering neocons) lefy in Trump's Administration.
Viriato , August 31, 2017 at 12:46 pm
@collin: We've had at least two generals serve as Secretary of State before: George Marshall and Colin Powell. And those are just two examples that I can name off the top of my head. I would not be surprised to find out that there have been other generals who served as our nation's Chief Diplomat.
Viriato , August 31, 2017 at 12:54 pm
Personally, I think Tillerson has been doing reasonably well at State. He seems to be a very articulate, thoughtful person. Certainly I much prefer Sec. Tillerson's ineffectiveness to Sec. Clinton's deadly effectiveness in Libya.

As to the gutting of the State Department. Tillerson recently stated that the hiring freeze was temporary and indeed announced a major hiring initiative: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s8LynW4TmTU

MB , August 31, 2017 at 12:56 pm
There's probably an easily identifiable formula out there for who Trump might chose as a Tillerson replacement, based on who donated to his campaign, who has more money than Trump himself, and/or who has suspicious ties to Russian interests. Rohrabacher? Royce?
Cynthia McLean , August 31, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Tillerson should probably resign to retain his integrity and save his soul.
Swami , August 31, 2017 at 4:36 pm
Rumor is that Hillary Clinton is currently between gigs.

[Sep 05, 2017] Medvedev said that the Trump signed sanctions bill is an attempt to squeeze Russia out of foreign markets by Michael Averko

Notable quotes:
"... Actually, the tough talk and sanctions against Russia haven't worked. Trump's effort at improving relations with Russia has been greatly stonewalled. This surely isn't an act on his part. In line with the predominating Capitol Hill and US mass media groupthink, it'd be politically convenient for him to fully acquiesce to their line – something he hasn't done. Some related matters caught my eye. ..."
"... well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | www.eurasiareview.com

The disagreement between US President Donald Trump and his main critics on Russia lingers on. In a July 31 MSNBC segment, former US Ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul said that Trump was tame in his reply to the Russian government measures taken against US diplomatic interests in Russia. For McFaul, what earlier happened to Russian diplomatic staff in the US is apparently okay, unlike the Russian retaliation, which came months AFTER the US based Russian diplomatic personnel were penalized. McFaul misleadingly underscored that Trump's playing nice with Putin hasn't worked.

Actually, the tough talk and sanctions against Russia haven't worked. Trump's effort at improving relations with Russia has been greatly stonewalled. This surely isn't an act on his part. In line with the predominating Capitol Hill and US mass media groupthink, it'd be politically convenient for him to fully acquiesce to their line – something he hasn't done. Some related matters caught my eye.

... ... ...

Trump and Tillerson, have expressed a reluctance in going along with the increased sanctions against Russia, which is overwhelmingly supported by the mostly groupthink minded (on Russia) US Congress and Senate. Trump and Tillerson can make a strong case on why the sanctions are counterproductive. Specifically:

  • the EU's (notably Germany's) negative reply to the advocated further sanctions
  • Russia's retaliatory response
  • limits in persuading Russia to go against its reasonable interests.

When it comes to US mass media and body politic, the last particular is very much in the too hot to handle category. The present lack of a strongly detailed Trump rebuttal to the Congress and Senate is what led Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to say that the US president has been too capitulationist. Medvedev also said that the Trump signed sanctions bill is an attempt to squeeze Russia out of foreign markets. (The bill seeks to penalize Western companies doing business in Russia.)

Within US mass media, there've been some second guessing of the Capitol Hill groupthink sanctions against Russia. David Ignatius' August 3 Washington Post column expresses that view. Notwithstanding, Ignatius clings to the faulty belief in "Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election ." I'd love to see him directly reply to the counterclaim on that opinion, which he presents as a clearly established fact.

The Tucker Carlson hosted Fox News show continues to provide some reasonably dissenting views. One such recent segment featured retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who believes that Capitol Hill has been overly bellicose towards Russia. Mind you that Macgregor is no Russophile. He expressed doubt on whether the US and Russia can ever become allies and characterized the latter as a periodic 300 year menace to the West.

On this point, I expressed my disagreement to Macgregor (who I've had some prior limited discourse with) by noting that:

  • The West hasn't been so monolithic, in conjunction with Russia not being such a perennial threat.
  • The US fought Germany in two world wars – not Russia.
  • Russian behavior during America's Revolution, War of 1812 and Civil War was more favorable to America than the British stance.
  • Russia joined Britain, Prussia and Austria in opposing Napoleon.
  • Russia had openly inquired about NATO membership upon the Soviet collapse.
  • Russia was the first nation to console the US on 9/11, followed by Russian cooperation with the US in Afghanistan.

I haven't gotten a reply back from him. In the aforementioned Fox News segment, Macgregor noted how some special interest groups get disproportionate influence in the US. Concerning that matter, I brought to his attention the Democratic National Committee-Kiev regime collusion and a July 31 pro-Polish/anti-Russian National Interest article , which is cherry picked history – contradicting the realist image of the venue where it appeared.

I'm of the belief that patriotically minded Russians should be able to acknowledge bad moments on Russia's part relative to Poland and some others. Conversely, the same should hold true when it comes to the wrongs of others. While glorying Poland and bashing Russia, The National Interest article in question omits the following:

  • 1919 – Under Josef Pilsudski, Poland seeks to take former Russian Empire territory, largely inhabited by non-Poles with ties to Russia. The Pilsudski led Poles reject a Russian White offer to combat the Reds, when the Bolsheviks were in a losing situation. The Russian Whites were willing to recognize a Polish state within Polish ethnic boundaries.
  • 1920 -Thousands of Soviet POWs die under miserable conditions while in Polish captivity.
  • 1934 – Polish-Nazi non-aggression pact, four years prior to the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact.
  • 1938 – Polish, Nazi and Hungarian taking of CzechoSlovak territory, with the Soviet call for a joint Soviet-West (particularly French) counter support for CzechoSlovakia rebuffed.

According to German General Heinz Guderian and some other sources, the Soviets needed a break on their WW II westward offensive. After the Stalingrad battle, the Nazis were still a threat, as evidenced by the many casualties they were still able to inflict on the Red Army. The Polish Home Army didn't initially seek to coordinate their uprising with the Red Army. That only came after the Nazi counterattack in Warsaw.

Under Stalin, the USSR had some especially brutal aspects. Nevertheless, equating the USSR with Nazi Germany is false. The former utilized a good number of Jews and Poles – something the latter wouldn't tolerate. Between the two world wars, Poland left something to be desired on the subject of respecting non-Polish minorities.

One can also go back to the early 1600s Polish subjugation of Russia, as well as the close to 100,000 Poles who joined Napoleon in his attack on Russia.

Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic. This article was initially placed at the Strategic Culture Foundation's website on August 6.

[Sep 04, 2017] Make no mistake, the latest US thuggery is a sign of weakness, not strength

Notable quotes:
"... " Why would they give us only 2 days? Do they really think that we cannot clear the premises from anything sensitive in 60 minutes if needed? Or are they actually trying to inconvenience our personnel? If so, do they really think that we are going to break out in hysterics? Do the Americans really think that they will find something? What? Papers proving that Trump is our agent? Maybe a hidden nuclear device? Or the computers we used to hack in every server in the USA? " ..."
"... The latest US thuggery against Russian diplomats is as stupid as it is senseless. I think that US diplomats of the era of James Baker must be absolutely mortified to see the kind of idiocy their successors are now engaging in. ..."
"... Incorrect, the author left out a key point. As the Obama team left last December, it started a fire by expelling the Russians from a vacation compound for diplomats in New York, just to be dicks. The Russians expected Trump to correct this insult, and when he spinelessly refused, they retaliated. ..."
"... Now, whoever runs US foreign policy (no one is really sure), refused to let it end. They closed more Russian compounds, just to be dicks. Meanwhile, these dicks want Russia to help with the North Korea mess. ..."
"... Whichever European power used to be the dominant one at the time, in order to be truly certified as the top dog – they sought to prove superiority over Russia. That baton was picked up by US after WW2. No European power has ever succeeded in proving superiority over Russia – at least not military one. ..."
"... Another sign of the spasmodic, directionless, almost suicidal weakness of the United States is its recent abuse of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The United States is going around the world identifying countries and individuals who will no longer be allowed to use the dollar and the dollar-designated US-controlled international payment system for financial transactions as an instrument of its foreign policy. ..."
Sep 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

For a while already the Russian diplomats have been openly saying that their American counterparts are недоговороспособны or "non-agreement capable". This all began under Obama, when Kerry flew to meet with Lavrov and declared 'A', then flew back to Washington, DC and declared 'B'. Then there were the cases in Syria when the US agreed to a deal only to break that very same deal in less than 24 hours. That's when the Russians openly began to say that their US colleagues are rank amateurs who lack even the basic professionalism to get anything done . Now the US has slipped even lower: the Russians speak of US "hellish buffoonery" and "stupid thuggery".

Wow!

For the normally hyper-diplomatic Russians, this kind of language is absolutely unheard of, this has never ever happened before. You could say that the Russians are naive, but they believe that their diplomats should always be, well, diplomatic, and that public expressions of disgust is just not something a diplomat does. Even more telling is rather than call the Americans "evil" or "devious", they openly express their total contempt for them, calling them stupid, incompetent, uneducated and their actions unlawful (read Maria Zakharova's statement to that effect on Facebook ).

So let me explain what is happening here how the Russians interpreted the latest US thuggery concerning the Russian Consulate in San Francisco and the Russian diplomatic annexes in Washington and New York.

First, the Russians fully expected the Americans to retaliate after the Russian expulsion of US diplomatic personnel in Russia. That, by itself, is not the problem. The Russians understand that Trump is a cornered and weak President, that he has to show how "tough" he is. Sure, they smile, but they think that this is 'fair game'. The Russians also know that, as a country, the USA cannot accept the biggest reduction in US diplomatic personnel in history without reacting. Again, they don't necessarily like it, but they think that this is 'fair game'.

You know what really triggered the Russians off? The fact that the Americans gave them only 2 days to vacate the premises they would seize and that they organized some kind of bizarre search operation. Let me immediately explain that this is not a case of ruffled feathers by the Russians, not at all. But here is how they would think about it:

" Why would they give us only 2 days? Do they really think that we cannot clear the premises from anything sensitive in 60 minutes if needed? Or are they actually trying to inconvenience our personnel? If so, do they really think that we are going to break out in hysterics? Do the Americans really think that they will find something? What? Papers proving that Trump is our agent? Maybe a hidden nuclear device? Or the computers we used to hack in every server in the USA? "

To a Russian, these questions can only have one answer: of course not. So what is going on here? And then there is the only possible explanation left:

" We beat them is Syria, we are beat them in the Ukraine, they lost Afghanistan, they lost Iraq, their Navy apparently does not know how to use a radar, their soldiers are terrified to fight somebody capable of resistance, they failed to impress not only China, but even the North Koreans who are openly laughing at them. Hezbollah laughs at them. Even Venezuela refuses to be scared! The Iranians openly threaten them with consequences if they back out of the deal they signed. Even Pakistan is openly expressing its disgust with the USA. Ditto for Turkey. Heck – the Americans are losing on all fronts and the very best they can do is try to feel good about illegally harassing our diplomatic personnel! Pathetic, lame, losers! "

And they are 100% correct.

The latest US thuggery against Russian diplomats is as stupid as it is senseless. I think that US diplomats of the era of James Baker must be absolutely mortified to see the kind of idiocy their successors are now engaging in.

This is also the end of Rex Tillerson. The poor man now has only two options left: resign (that would be the honorable thing to do) or stay and become another castrated eunuch unable to even deal with the likes of Nikki Haley, nevermind the North Koreans!

A "spokesperson" for the White House declared that Trump personally ordered the latest thuggery. Okay, that means one of two thing: either Trump is so weak that he cannot even fire a lying spokesperson or that he has now fallen so low as to order the "thug life" behavior of the State Department. Either way, it is a disgrace.

This is also really scary. The combination of, on one hand, spineless subservience to the Neocons with intellectual mediocrity, a gross lack of professionalism and the kind of petty thuggery normally associated with street gangs and, on the other hand, nuclear weapons is very scary. In the mean time, the other nuclear armed crazies have just declared that they have a thermonuclear device which they apparently tested yesterday just to show their contempt for Trump and his general minions. I don't think that they have a hydrogen bomb. I don't think that they have a real ICBM. I don't even think that they have real (usable) nuclear warheads. But what if I am wrong? What if they did get a lot of what they claim to have today – such as rocket engines – from the Ukies?

In one corner, the Outstanding Leader , Brilliant Comrade, Young Master and Great Successor, Kim Jong-un and on the other, The Donald, Grab them by the xxxxx and Make 'Merica Great, the Grand Covfefe Donald Trump. Both armed with nukes.

Scary, scary shit. Really scary.

But even more scary and depressing is that the stronger man of the two is beyond any doubt Kim Jong-un.

All I see in the White House are vacancy signs.

Cloak And Dagger , September 3, 2017 at 11:49 pm GMT

We beat them is Syria, we are beat them in the Ukraine, they lost Afghanistan, they lost Iraq, their Navy apparently does not know how to use a radar, their soldiers are terrified to fight somebody capable of resistance, they failed to impress not only China, but even the North Koreans who are openly laughing at them. Hezbollah laughs at them. Even Venezuela refuses to be scared! The Iranians openly threaten them with consequences if they back out of the deal they signed. Even Pakistan is openly expressing its disgust with the USA. Ditto for Turkey. Heck – the Americans are losing on all fronts

Such is the sad state of affairs in this country and the beginning of the end of the American Empire (and none too soon). We squandered the potential for world peace when the Soviets broke up. Instead of taking advantage of the peace windfall, the neocons redoubled their efforts to dominate by projecting military power. We have been paying the price since.

Meanwhile, the Chinese have been expanding their power projection peacefully by leveraging their financial might. The gold-backed RMB is about to replace the petro-dollar. They have been quietly building alliances across the globe using trade as the incentive, while we have been killing and maiming people everywhere – and all in vain, apparently to win "hearts and minds"!

Something that amused me a few days ago was a picture of a Chinese businessman in Pakistan, escorted by two pro-government, two anti-government, and two rebel businessmen. Apparently, this assured the safety of the Chinese businessman, even if his companions hated each other. For our part, we had refused to do business there because we had not found a means to unify these warring factions – and we are supposed to be the capitalists!

A day of reckoning is fast approaching, my fellow countrymen, and the price we will have to pay is daunting. It may be a while before we can recover from the coming debacle, however, I take solace in the following:

  1. The accompanying pain will rewaken all our somnambulant citizenry to who and what has brought us to this low point in our history, and they may unite to rout the Jewish banking power that has resulted in our predicament.
  2. We will no longer be able to borrow the trillions that fund our illegal wars across the globe, and civilians can sleep peacefully once more.
  3. Without our support, and the increasing unification of the countries in the ME (note Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, ) Israel and Saudi Arabia will stand alone, surrounded by angry nations that have scores to settle. I doubt that those two mischief makers will survive another 5 years.

So, an imposed world peace is possible – even probable. With increasing Russian influence in the Middle East and the sale of advanced weaponry to the emerging coalition of Muslim countries, western invasions of these countries will become all but impossible. Already, the Syrian airspace has been shut out from Israel and the US by Russia's command of the skies, by S-300 and S-400 defenses and the Russian air force. It is only a matter of time before Lebanon, too, enjoys the same protection, as will Iraq. Iran is already unassailable. Turkey has started to distance itself from NATO, and is still smarting from the EU rejection.

Interesting, but painful times lay ahead.

Carlton Meyer , Website September 4, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT

"First, the Russians fully expected the Americans to retaliate after the Russian expulsion of US diplomatic personnel in Russia."

Incorrect, the author left out a key point. As the Obama team left last December, it started a fire by expelling the Russians from a vacation compound for diplomats in New York, just to be dicks. The Russians expected Trump to correct this insult, and when he spinelessly refused, they retaliated.

Now, whoever runs US foreign policy (no one is really sure), refused to let it end. They closed more Russian compounds, just to be dicks. Meanwhile, these dicks want Russia to help with the North Korea mess.

It seems whenever the USA threatens to destroy North Korea, their leader threatens to harm the USA if that happens. Clearly, the North Korean leader is mad, at least those dicks think so.

Cyrano , September 4, 2017 at 7:17 am GMT

Whichever European power used to be the dominant one at the time, in order to be truly certified as the top dog – they sought to prove superiority over Russia. That baton was picked up by US after WW2. No European power has ever succeeded in proving superiority over Russia – at least not military one.

I don't think that the exceptional ones believe that they can do it either, that train left the station in the 90's, together with Boris. So now the exceptional ones are throwing temper tantrums, because the bear doesn't want to lie down and play dead. They had their chance for a while and they didn't really deserve it either.

The bear that they used to know and love in the 90's was a circus animal and that circus has left town. The world is changing and if you think that the best protection against hitting the iceberg is to blow the horn, for everybody to get out of your way because you are too big to sink, you are heading straight to the bottom, only maybe with accompanying loud noise from the horn, for which the world really doesn't care too much about.

Osten , September 4, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT

American media show paranoia about Russia.
Trump Russia connections and election influence are nonsense.
Public sees the nonsense so media dropped the publicity.
Democratic Party will put on charm offensive to say they reject Antifa so to defuse Republican Trump supporters.
If Democrats succeed they will regain many Congress seats in 2018 election.
Republicans need to put pressure on FBI to complete Clinton investigation.
That completion would clear air for better relations, restore public trust in government and slap media to be more honest.
Republicans should be glad Russia is in Syria. Russia presence reduces American defense expense.
Israel wants American presence.
Saudi Arabia wants presence.
People in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon and Iraq want peace after years of American wars that cause death and refugee humanitarian crisis.
American journalists except for Seymour Hersh are not allowed to tell Americans facts about Middle East countries.

Realist , September 4, 2017 at 9:18 am GMT

@Carlton Meyer

"Meanwhile, these dicks want Russia to help with the North Korea mess."

Russia should tell the US to go shit in their hat and pull it down over your ears.

TheJester , September 4, 2017 at 10:21 am GMT

The End of Bretton-Woods I and II

Another sign of the spasmodic, directionless, almost suicidal weakness of the United States is its recent abuse of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The United States is going around the world identifying countries and individuals who will no longer be allowed to use the dollar and the dollar-designated US-controlled international payment system for financial transactions as an instrument of its foreign policy.

Led by the BRICS, the rest of the world is racing to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency with local currencies and/or pseudo-currencies and the US-controlled international payment system with block-chain technologies.

When the movement to de-status the dollar reaches critical mass, the United States will officially be recognized as a bankrupt Third-World country wracked by inflation. It will no longer have the luxury of recklessly printing petrodollars to pay its bills.

Not all is bleak. The collapse of the AngloZionist Empire is the sine qua non for getting our Constitutional liberties back.

KA , September 4, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450890/iran-nuclear-deal-exit-strategy-john-bolton-memo-trump

John Bolton wants to scrap the deal, provide supports to outsiders and insiders to foment troubles against the regime and ban all commercial diplomatic and educational legal contacts to the rest of the world . He wants to inform China and Russia only after the whole thing is over ( Iran has become I guess Yemen!).

Why is he outside the high security prison or outside the administration?

anon , Disclaimer September 4, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

@KA

Genesis of American relentless march to stupidity has been promoted and secured by dimwit halfling midget like Bolton

Unfortunately Israel instead of keeping and maintaining the logical support from the intellectual, visionary and moral people has relied on morons like these endangering itself and USA . These morons wouldn't get a job as a third shift janitor in a slaughter house solely on merits . They did what they could – race the bottom of the barrel of dishonesty because that was their upbringing . It made them street smart without necessary IQ.

[Sep 03, 2017] Anyone who blames the US for something it is not responsible for, in an attempt to distract from the country's economic issues for example, is an anti-American

Sep 03, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Matt , September 3, 2017 at 3:06 pm

Strawman, that many here, including Mark and PO, have tried using against me. First, I have criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, like the 2003 Iraq war, intervention in Libya, and the war in Afghanistan. This debunks the first part of your post.

As for the second: anyone who blames the U.S. for something it is not responsible for, in an attempt to distract from the country's economic issues for example, is an anti-American. Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people with stereotypes.

The above paragraph can be applied to any country in the world and is standard fare for defining phobia against a country. You and your ilk are quick to whine about "Russophobia", but when similar tactics are used against the U.S., you start calling anyone who calls them out an "imperialist".

Such extreme over-simplifications do nothing except twist my words and make it easier for you to avoid critically self-assessing your views on U.S. foreign policy. An easy way to avoid debate.

Same old, same old.

likbez , September 3, 2017 at 6:10 pm
"Ditto for anyone who wants the U.S. to collapse, be destroyed, or makes fun of its people with stereotypes."

That's too simplistic. The USA simultaneously represents a country and a global neoliberal empire led from Washington. The latter gave us all those wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen and Syria (KSA is a part of the empire).

You may want prosperity for the USA proper, and the collapse of this neoliberal empire at the same time. This is essentially Bannon's position and the position of other "economic nationalists" in the USA, who are now tarred and feathered as "Putin friends" (Putin's position is also somewhat closer to economic nationalism then to neoliberalism, although in certain areas he sits between two chairs).

The USA is a great country which among other things gave the world Internet, as we know it. As well as modern CPUs and computers ( although here British scientists and Germans made important contributions too, often as staff of foreign subsidiaries of the US companies such as Intel, and IBM) . Due to which such forums are possible.

Neoliberalism and US governed global neoliberal empire will most probably shrink or even collapse after the end of cheap oil and due to the rise of nationalist movements in almost all EU countries and elsewhere, which partially reverses the trend toward neoliberal globalization that existed before. That's uneven process. In the USA neoliberalism demonstrated amazing staying power after financial crisis of 2008, which buried neoliberal ideology.

Recently in some countries (not without some help from the USA) neoliberalism staged revenge (Argentina, Brazil), but the general trend now does not favor neoliberal globalization and, by extension, kicking the can down the road via color revolutions and such.

The typical forecast for end of cheap oil is a decade or two. KSA is the canary in the mine here. It should collapse first.

The USA as a country probably will be OK because it is rich in hydrocarbons, but the neoliberal empire will collapse as the USA probably it will not be able or willing to serve as armed enforcer of multinationals around the globe any longer. The set of ideas known as neoliberalism are already on life support. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199283273 A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey. Also see http://softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Political_skeptic/Neoliberalism/index.shtml

Neoliberals who control the US state after Reagan coup (or even starting with Carter) still push down the throats of Americans those dead ideas due to power of propaganda machine, but they are less and less effective. Trump election means that allergic reaction to neoliberal propaganda already is a factor in the US political life. Hillary positioned herself as quintessential globalist and warmonger for the USA led neoliberal empire and lost. Trump proved to be no better then the king of "bait and switch" Barak Obama and shed all his election promises with ease. But the fact remains. .

For the same reason we also need to distinguish between neocons, who currently determine the US foreign policy (and dominate the State Department) and the rank-and-file Americans who suffer from this imperial overreach, from outsourcing, with some of them returning home dead or maimed. There nothing bad in denigrating neocons.

I would view the current round of hostilities between Russia and the USA through the prism of the fight for the preservation of the US neoliberal empire. They need an external enemy to squash mounting resistance to neoliberalism with the USA. And Ukraine gambit was designed explicitly for that. If they can take out Russia (by installing Yeltsin-style regime, which is the goal) the life of empire might be prolonged (they tried and failed in 2012). The second round of looting also might help with paying external debt. The shot in the arm which the USA got from the collapse of the USSR led to [fake] prosperity in 1994-2000.

[Sep 03, 2017] Russian consulate shutdown Deep State victory or Trumps attempt to avoid impeachment

Notable quotes:
"... On Thursday, the US State Department demanded closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco, as well as two annex buildings in Washington and New York. The decision was motivated by the "spirit of parity invoked by the Russians" and came in response to Moscow ordering the US to reduce its diplomatic personnel in Russia, according to the US State Department. ..."
"... "One can say pretty firmly that the change of the chief of staff and other personnel in the Trump White House means that, as some would have it, the Deep State has won and this so-called 'isolationist Donald Trump candidate' is over. He's ramping up military war games on the Korean peninsula, he's ramping up troops to Afghanistan and he's ramping up troops to Russia's actual borders in the European Union countries," ..."
"... "What we're seeing here is definitely ramping up of tension with Moscow. We have to wait [and see] what the next enemy of Washington is, is it now going to be China? ..."
"... "The United States is ramping it up when it comes to the foreign diplomatic pressure, foreign military pressure. We must remember the number of times the Trump White House said 'all options are on the table' over a variety of different problems that previously have been seen as diplomatic," ..."
"... "Russia collusion" ..."
"... "A cynic might say that while this may be not very good news for Russian citizens in the United States and business partnerships and so on between the United states and Russia, this could be a means seen by some in the Trump administration of trying to curb continuous attacks on US media that Donald Trump is compromised by the Putin government in Moscow," ..."
"... "By doing this he can say 'Look, I'm no pawn of Moscow, here I am, making unprecedented closures of diplomatic facilities and actually creating more tensions with Moscow than President Obama did or did his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.' And therefore by showing this might, he's somehow independent and therefore 'Please don't impeach me'," ..."
"... because they are the biggest nuclear powers on Earth," ..."
"... "We have to wait and see whether Donald Trump himself tweets differently or indeed speaks differently, when he talks at a press conference – compared to the former CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, his Secretary of State, someone much more arguably deeply allied to the Deep State." ..."
Sep 03, 2017 | www.rt.com

On Thursday, the US State Department demanded closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco, as well as two annex buildings in Washington and New York. The decision was motivated by the "spirit of parity invoked by the Russians" and came in response to Moscow ordering the US to reduce its diplomatic personnel in Russia, according to the US State Department.

Read more US orders closure of Russian Consulate in San Francisco – State Department

While the decision will likely to ramp up tensions between the two countries, the reasons behind it might have deeper roots, Rattansi believes.

"One can say pretty firmly that the change of the chief of staff and other personnel in the Trump White House means that, as some would have it, the Deep State has won and this so-called 'isolationist Donald Trump candidate' is over. He's ramping up military war games on the Korean peninsula, he's ramping up troops to Afghanistan and he's ramping up troops to Russia's actual borders in the European Union countries," Rattansi said, adding that this is all quite in line with the recent Trump policy of heating up tensions worldwide and searching for enemies.

"What we're seeing here is definitely ramping up of tension with Moscow. We have to wait [and see] what the next enemy of Washington is, is it now going to be China?

The aggressive US policy is being watched closely by the international community and the developing countries, Rattansi said, stressing that previously purely diplomatic questions are now becoming international flashpoints.

"The United States is ramping it up when it comes to the foreign diplomatic pressure, foreign military pressure. We must remember the number of times the Trump White House said 'all options are on the table' over a variety of different problems that previously have been seen as diplomatic," Rattansi said.

Read more Lavrov to Tillerson on consulate closure: We regret escalation of tension not initiated by Russia

Such behavior might be a desperate attempt to fix the internal problems in the US and help Trump to beat the "Russia collusion" narrative, which has been plaguing his presidency.

"A cynic might say that while this may be not very good news for Russian citizens in the United States and business partnerships and so on between the United states and Russia, this could be a means seen by some in the Trump administration of trying to curb continuous attacks on US media that Donald Trump is compromised by the Putin government in Moscow," Rattansi said.

"By doing this he can say 'Look, I'm no pawn of Moscow, here I am, making unprecedented closures of diplomatic facilities and actually creating more tensions with Moscow than President Obama did or did his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.' And therefore by showing this might, he's somehow independent and therefore 'Please don't impeach me'," Rattansi said.

It's quite hard to tell how far the tensions can go, as there will always be diplomatic relations between Moscow and Washington, " because they are the biggest nuclear powers on Earth," Rattansi believes. "We have to wait and see whether Donald Trump himself tweets differently or indeed speaks differently, when he talks at a press conference – compared to the former CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, his Secretary of State, someone much more arguably deeply allied to the Deep State."

[Sep 03, 2017] US raid of Russian diplomatic sites a parade of power to reassert claim for global dominion

Notable quotes:
"... The international law lays it down really clearly. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says that any diplomatic and affiliated premises in a foreign country are inviolable. And any incursion on that territory is therefore seen as an attack on the country that is hosting that diplomatic mission. ..."
"... So this is breaching all international law. And I have to say it seems very hypocritical because for example, going back to the Snowden disclosures of 2013, where it was disclosed that there were big illegal spying technical operations on the roof off, for example, the British embassy in Berlin, the American embassy in Berlin Can you imagine the outcry if Germans then said: 'We don't want this in our country. We're going to go raid these embassies and see what is going on inside them.' I cannot imagine the international fallout. So why is that okay for America to do this to another sovereign state's property in its own country? ..."
"... Why they are doing it now, I do not know. It seems that President Trump initially wanted to try and recalibrate the relations with Russia to try to build a peaceful and a profitable world for both nations. And he has been hedged in, hedged in, hedged in, ever since his election by an American establishment plot to try and stop him, to make sure he can't do that. ..."
"... I think there is a certain degree of theatre always in these sort of acts but also what is particularly concerning to me is that there is a Senate Intelligence Authorization Act going through the corridors of power in America. It was announced in the middle of August and this will actually effectively attack intelligence agencies working in America and even non-state hostile intelligence agencies, as they are calling WikiLeaks for example. ..."
"... We have had a situation since the end WWII where there's been a sort of detente with diplomatic relations, where people have assumed that there are certain rules in play, and it has been quite civilized. And it appears now increasingly on all sort of fronts, not just diplomatic fronts but you know on internet fronts, corporate fronts, whatever, that America keeps trying to claim global dominion. ..."
"... And I think they are trying to assert that in this case – the question is why and why now? And I think it might be linked to this Senate Intelligence Authorization Act that is going through at the moment that is not being much reported on in America. ..."
Sep 03, 2017 | www.rt.com

People are seen on the rooftop at the Consulate General of Russia in San Francisco, California, U.S., September 2, 2017 © Stephen Lam / Reuters

The shutting and subsequent searches of Russia's diplomatic sites are a meaningless show of power and domination by the US, which, however, could help push through controversial new intelligence related legislation, believes Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer. It's part of efforts to push through the Intelligence Authorization Act that would recognize actors, such as WikiLeaks, as a "non-state hostile intelligence service," Machon told RT. Read more 'Illegal, meaningless clownery': Russia condemns US searches of diplomatic property

RT: The State Department is saying the trade mission has been stripped of its immunity, that it was essentially lifted when that consulate was shut down. The Vienna Convention which governs consular relations says otherwise. Which do you think has got this right?

AM: The international law lays it down really clearly. The 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations says that any diplomatic and affiliated premises in a foreign country are inviolable. And any incursion on that territory is therefore seen as an attack on the country that is hosting that diplomatic mission.

So this is breaching all international law. And I have to say it seems very hypocritical because for example, going back to the Snowden disclosures of 2013, where it was disclosed that there were big illegal spying technical operations on the roof off, for example, the British embassy in Berlin, the American embassy in Berlin Can you imagine the outcry if Germans then said: 'We don't want this in our country. We're going to go raid these embassies and see what is going on inside them.' I cannot imagine the international fallout. So why is that okay for America to do this to another sovereign state's property in its own country?

RT: It seems a strange decision in a sense – I mean really, all you need to do is conduct an internet search... that this apparently goes against the Vienna Convention, and yet the US has gone ahead with this. Why do you think they are doing this?

AM: I don't know, I really don't know why they are trying to do this now. Well, obviously the tension has been ramping up. So Barack Obama in his last days as a president, at the end of last year, actually sent home 35 diplomats from Russia, which sort of confirmed in the public mind globally that Russia was involved in this bogus election hacking. And it just escalated from there.

So more sanctions being placed against Russia at the beginning of August. Russia was retaliating by expelling more American diplomats and their associates. So it is just escalating from this point.

Why they are doing it now, I do not know. It seems that President Trump initially wanted to try and recalibrate the relations with Russia to try to build a peaceful and a profitable world for both nations. And he has been hedged in, hedged in, hedged in, ever since his election by an American establishment plot to try and stop him, to make sure he can't do that.

RT: Why conduct a search of the premises? Is it just a pantomime, a kind of theatre?

AM: I think there is a certain degree of theatre always in these sort of acts but also what is particularly concerning to me is that there is a Senate Intelligence Authorization Act going through the corridors of power in America. It was announced in the middle of August and this will actually effectively attack intelligence agencies working in America and even non-state hostile intelligence agencies, as they are calling WikiLeaks for example.

Russian diplomatic property in America 'inviolable', Assange tells US

Now we all know that Julian Assange has had a safe haven in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012. We also know that in 2012, the UK government was looking at the idea that they might try and raid the embassy against all international law, again to try to get him out to try to get him extradited.

So I'm wondering if this might be linked? There is some sort of meaningless parade of power by raiding these consulates in America, Russian consulates in America. Because they are going to push through this new law and then they can use it globally against anyone else they perceived to be an enemy. And we know that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are perceived to be an American enemy. And they want him back there, and they want to persecute him under some secret laws.

RT: And this deadline to vacate the premises, it is really short notice, isn't it? We saw that the Russian gave the US a whole month to clear out. Do you think the US is trying to set a precedent to let foreign nations know – don't get too comfortable, we could ask you to get out at any moment?

AM: Absolutely. We have had a situation since the end WWII where there's been a sort of detente with diplomatic relations, where people have assumed that there are certain rules in play, and it has been quite civilized. And it appears now increasingly on all sort of fronts, not just diplomatic fronts but you know on internet fronts, corporate fronts, whatever, that America keeps trying to claim global dominion.

And I think they are trying to assert that in this case – the question is why and why now? And I think it might be linked to this Senate Intelligence Authorization Act that is going through at the moment that is not being much reported on in America.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

[Sep 03, 2017] Russia Urges Washington To Come To Their Senses Over Consulate, Denounces Blunt Act Of Hostility

Did the US intelligence services know something, or this just a dirty provocation by neocons entrenched in the State Department, who managed to coopt Rex Tillerson ?
Notable quotes:
"... If the international diplomatic agreements are no longer valid, then there is no longer any reason for other countries to comply with them. How can the US comp!ain, if Russia (or other countries) no longer choose to abide by the rules? ..."
"... Actually, there were MULTIPLE searches: the Trade Mission and the apartments of the Mission's employees. Let's forget for a second that the diplomats still have valid diplomatic immunity. Each search requires a separate warrant. What kind of a crime could all of them have committed that would give a probable cause to search all of their apartments in the Mission? ..."
"... Now, this shit cannot be blamed on the Kenyan fudge-packer. The warmongering cunts in Congress have nothing to do with this either. This is not just on Trump's watch – he actually ordered it! ..."
Sep 03, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Already furious over Washington's " unprecedented aggressive action, " at the Russian consulate in San Francisco, Moscow has responded with an official statement calling the "occupation" of diplomatic properties in the US a "blunt act of hostility. "

As a reminder, Russian diplomats were denied access to the trade mission building despite it being owned by Russia and protected by diplomatic immunity.

The ministry called the planned "illegal inspection" of Russian diplomatic housing an " unprecedented aggressive action ", which could be used by the U.S. special services for " anti-Russian provocations" by the way of "planting compromised items ".

Searches of the Russian premises began on Saturday, after the US State Department ordered the foreign ministry on August 31 to vacate the premises by September 2.

The FBI arrived in at least two vehicles to search the San Francisco Consulate. The minute the deadline expired, agents entered the Russian-owned diplomatic property, which in 2016 alone issued more than 16,000 tourist visas to American citizens.

Russian diplomats have posted photo and video evidence of the searches, which they call a "travesty of justice."

https://www.youtube.com/embed/DzSKTqAqxDc

And now, as RT reports, the ministry said in a statement on Sunday. " We regard the incident as a blunt act of hostility, a gross violation of international law by Washington, including the Vienna Conventions on diplomatic and consular relations," The ministry called upon the US "to come to their senses and immediately return Russian diplomatic compounds ." "Otherwise, the US will be responsible for the continuing degradation of relations between our countries , which largely affect global stability and international security," the statement continued.

The Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations forms the basis for diplomatic immunity and defines the framework of relation between countries. It states that the premises of [any] mission "shall be inviolable" and the "agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission." Moscow pointed out that all seized properties in New York, Washington, and San Francisco have diplomatic immunity. "The US special services supported by armed police are now 'hosting' the occupied buildings," the statement added.

"The US State Department is violating the Vienna Convention; this creates a bad precedent to international diplomacy," Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, who served as a Greek ambassador in Canada in 2000-2004, told RT. " I can't see the reason why it is happening. The relations between the US and Russia are not bad. Some people in the US are trying to make [these relations] bad. Perhaps that was the goal all along?

ET , Sep 3, 2017 3:26 PM

War is the continuation of politics by other means. - Carl von Clausewitz

It could be worse for the Russians. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8bC1DEYbI4

JohninMK -> ET , Sep 3, 2017 3:31 PM

Brilliant precedent for the US to have set. Time to increase State's budget for protection of its premises around the world. Also, every diplomatic mission in the US is now only too aware that they are vulnerable to this type of action.

ET -> JohninMK , Sep 3, 2017 3:34 PM

I'm in favor of resolving disputes through diplomacy and negotiations rather than violence and barbarism. Good leadership works toward peace and prosperity. We have had the good fortune of not having had a destructive World War in many decades. That time might be coming to an end.

Fritz -> JohninMK , Sep 3, 2017 3:50 PM

It's all just another bullshit distraction to control the news cycle.

OverTheHedge -> Fritz , Sep 3, 2017 4:30 PM

Possibly, but in a world of tit for tat escalations, what happens if the Russians now evict all US personnel from an American consulate, with zero notice, and show the world all the incriminating evidence of attempted regime change they are bound to find?

If the international diplomatic agreements are no longer valid, then there is no longer any reason for other countries to comply with them. How can the US comp!ain, if Russia (or other countries) no longer choose to abide by the rules?

I think there might be consequences that the US no longer seems capable of recognizing: does no one wargame these scenarios any more?

As a Brit, I can tell you that end-of-empire is a difficult period of readjustment, and it takes quite a lot of soul-searching to get through unscathed.

Looney -> OverTheHedge , Sep 3, 2017 4:32 PM

What's the probable cause for the searches? Lifting diplomatic immunity from the Trade Mission is not enough of a cause to conduct a search of the property.

Actually, there were MULTIPLE searches: the Trade Mission and the apartments of the Mission's employees. Let's forget for a second that the diplomats still have valid diplomatic immunity. Each search requires a separate warrant. What kind of a crime could all of them have committed that would give a probable cause to search all of their apartments in the Mission?

This is beyond weird, it's fucking scary! If this can be done to foreign diplomats covered by both the US Constitution (searches) and the Vienna Convention (diplomatic immunity), can you imagine what they can do to us, working stiffs? Rule of Law my ass!

Now, this shit cannot be blamed on the Kenyan fudge-packer. The warmongering cunts in Congress have nothing to do with this either. This is not just on Trump's watch – he actually ordered it!

As soon as I'm done typing, I'm gonna take a huge dump into my MAGA hats.

BTW If anybody wants their MAGA hats filled too, lemme know – first come, first served. ;-)

Looney

Looney -> Looney , Sep 3, 2017 4:33 PM

Here's the full text of the Vienna Convention , but check out Article 22 and, especially, Article 45 below:

Article 22

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.

2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.

3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

Article 45

If diplomatic relations are broken off between two States, or if a mission is permanently or temporarily recalled:

(a) The receiving State must, even in case of armed conflict, respect and protect the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives;

(b) The sending State may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State;

(c) The sending State may entrust the protection of its interests and those of its nationals to a third State acceptable to the receiving State.

Looney

MozartIII -> Looney , Sep 3, 2017 4:41 PM

Looney, Our pols can't and don't care to read. Why do you think they pass bills so that we can then see whats in them.

jeff montanye -> ET , Sep 3, 2017 3:48 PM

these blackhearted bastards have no interest in good leadership, peace or any prosperity but their own. we citizens have got to vote the war party out and the peace party in. break the hold that the mossad likud zionists have on our government.

president trump, when do you start to assert some authority? left to their own devices you see what the deep state will do. that the intelligentsia world wide is coming to understand this better through the exposure of such clumsy false flags as russiagate and charlottesvile is of valuable but limited consolation.

not being hillary clinton may not be enough in 2018 or 2020.

stacking12321 -> jeff montanye , Sep 3, 2017 3:51 PM

"Peace party"? Sounds like an oxymoron. People get into the government racket to take power over others through violent means. Bad means lead to bad ends. And btw, trump has no authority. The only true authority is personal sovereignty, everything else is a con game.

Dark star -> jeff montanye , Sep 3, 2017 4:17 PM

Trump is an instant one term President. He has reneged on every promise he made to his supporters; his credibility is zero.

MozartIII -> jeff montanye , Sep 3, 2017 4:38 PM

Of what peace party do you speak? The Russians are asking our leadership to come to their senses. For that to happen, we would need someone in washington with an IQ over 20. Not going to happen. With any luck Irma will strenghen to a cat 12 hurricane, hit washington & erase the swamp. We need to start somewhere!

GUS100CORRINA -> ET , Sep 3, 2017 3:59 PM

Russia Urges Washington To "Come To Their Senses" Over Consulate, Denounces "Blunt Act Of Hostility" My response: The US Legislators should be ashamed of themselves. They have pushed America's executive and law enforcement groups to do STUPID THINGS.

I am beginning to wonder if America can survive this CRAP much longer?

By the way, the DEMON released during Obama's 2nd term is called NERGAL who is a war god. You can read about this DEMON below. I really hate where this is headed!!!

http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/nergalhyborian.htm

Of course, the Churches in America for the most part are absolutely CLUELESS when it comes to understanding this stuff and impact on people's faith. I have truly come to believe that many of our godless US legislators are being influence by NERGAL,

OverTheHedge -> GUS100CORRINA , Sep 3, 2017 4:46 PM

From your link:"First appearance, Conan the Barbarian" Great books, and very iffy film, but hardly conclusive proof that demons are amoung us. It's fiction - made up scary stories to frighten children and entertain adults. Are you frightened, or entertained?

serotonindumptruck -> JohninMK , Sep 3, 2017 3:44 PM

Clearly, the ultimate goal behind the US State Department's illegal search of the Russian Embassy was to provoke an escalatory response from the Russians.

As the collapse of the Amerikan Empire gains steam, we should anticipate further insults and provocations to be levied against the Russian Federation by the despicable US Government.

opport.knocks -> JohninMK , Sep 3, 2017 3:45 PM

... cuz it was the Russians who gave the keys, floor plans and detailed instuctions to the invaders in Benghazi, donchano.

Not Too Important -> JohninMK , Sep 3, 2017 3:49 PM

After Benghazi who is stupid enough to be in any US mission anywhere? Except for the gay US diplomatic corp in Norway that like little kids and get Hillary's protection.

https://mic.com/articles/48277/howard-gutman-prostitution-wasn-t-even-th...

jmarshally -> JohninMK , Sep 3, 2017 4:36 PM

Right-e-o John,

Further, it makes one wonder; if the US Government has no respect for the privacy (sanctity of one's dwelling; i.e private property) of a foregin nation, it does not bode well for the privacy of a US citizen (in any venue).

J.

John Basilone -> JohninMK , Sep 3, 2017 4:43 PM

If Trump ok'd this we can then assume that he's gone full retard - or his Joo master basterds are dangling the orange haired marionette while his mad dog SecDef bloviates bellicose bullshyte ad nauseam.

chunga , Sep 3, 2017 3:26 PM

I'm right with you Russia. The depraved frauds in DC have got to go. The Imperial City is clearly a domestic and international menace.

Francis Marx , Sep 3, 2017 3:27 PM

Isn't there any US buildings they can occupy in Russia?

JohninMK -> Francis Marx , Sep 3, 2017 3:33 PM

Yes, but for some strange reason the Russians and Putin in particular seem to believe in the rule of Law. Yesterday's attitude from the US perspective.

Blankone -> JohninMK , Sep 3, 2017 3:48 PM

It is not a belief in the rule of law (although that may also be true), it is the lack of backbone.

This is NOTHING compared to all the murdered diplomats, business leaders/Putin allies, downed airliner, downed military transport with military music group, arrests of russians in the public eye on "Trumped" up charges, sanctions against business leaders, sanctions against key businesses, international arrest warrants so that business CEO's cannot travel outside Russia etc,

The current action is akin to an Arab taking off his shoe and slapping Putin across the face with it on an international live news cast. Or Clint Eastwood in a cowboy flick spitting tobacco into the face of a dirty .... The entire town is watching and knows the magnitude of insult.

Don't Poke The Bear!!! Again, well, not again, well better not again, please stop, please it's making him cry, ....

Cue the photo opp, Putin riding a horse with no shirt, Putin fishing with no shirt, Putin staring intensely during a diplomatic meeting/photo session,

the_narrator -> Blankone , Sep 3, 2017 3:56 PM

I wonder if the recent navy ship collisions and diplomat injuries in Cuba are Russian retaliation.

Blankone -> the_narrator , Sep 3, 2017 4:15 PM

The diplomat injuries in Cuba (IF they are real) may be. Should be. But why do so in Cuba, why put Cuba out there, instead do so in a US friendly country. For that reason I feel it may be a false story to begin negative PR against Cuba. I believe the travel restrictions were recently put back in place by Trump.

I doubt the ships. The ships are so huge, move so slow, any competent officer in the control structure should have been able to see it coming in the dark of night even. IMO Plus there are more than one system looking for approaching objects.

John Basilone -> Blankone , Sep 3, 2017 4:45 PM

The worst I ever witnessed during my time in the USMC was an LPD that ran aground in Australia. The ship collisions are either a sign of gross incompetence (which is unlikely) or sabotage. I tend to think it is the latter.

neutrino3 -> Blankone , Sep 3, 2017 4:07 PM

You patetic ukrop still do not undersand Dei Plan A. Dontcha?

Baron von Bud , Sep 3, 2017 3:28 PM

The Russians are right. This act was incited by a brain damaged person with poor judgment. Someone needs to talk to McCain.

chunga -> Baron von Bud , Sep 3, 2017 3:35 PM

I like to bash McCain as much as the next guy but trump is presidont.

Not Too Important -> chunga , Sep 3, 2017 3:52 PM

But, at this point, is he allowed to make any real decisions? He looks like he's been ring-fenced by the NWO.

They'd kill him like Kennedy if they could, but at this point it would cause domestic war, with little or no control on their part. So he lives, has his Twitter feed, and they run the country.

I wish someone would show us different.

chunga -> Not Too Important , Sep 3, 2017 4:10 PM

Checks and balances are long gone, US gov is run by evil forces and no one in it fights back. We need to brace for big changes.

Blankone -> Not Too Important , Sep 3, 2017 4:40 PM

He is president, he can make decisions aplenty. He is making the decisions he wants to make, they just do not match the lies he told during his campaign.

He is one of "them". But his fans will deflect blame to the point of claiming "they made him do it/say it".

BritBob , Sep 3, 2017 3:29 PM

Blunt act of hostility?

Russia tells Britain give back the Falklands before telling US what to do.

RUSSIA has told Britain it should "clean its conscience" and give back the Falkland Islands before it criticises them over their involvement in Ukraine. Moscow's ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin made the shocking remarks when responding to his British counterpart Matthew Rycroft at a UN security council meeting in New York. ( Daily Express 4 Feb 2017)

Funny thing to say when Argentina has never legally owned the Falklands. So how can they 'be returned' ?

Falklands -- Never Belonged to Argentina (single page):

https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina

AurorusBorealus -> BritBob , Sep 3, 2017 3:50 PM

Ok Bob, I will bite. First off, I do not want to hear any nonsense about how the British Parliament is so concerned about the 500 fishermen and their families that live on those islands. If the British government were concerned about its people, it would not be flooding your country with terrorist Muslim to blow the little Britbobs to bits in London.

Britain is using those islands to claim the vast oilfields around them as "British" property. How large are the oilfields... well... very large. Ok. So Britian is using a flag that they planted in the ground 300 years ago as an excuse to rob oil from regions that are, by international law, in the maritime zone of Argentina, and under Argentina's jurisdiction. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/17/rockhoppers-falklands-oil...

Do not believe me? Then why is Argentina able, by international law, to prohibit the development of the oilfields there? Why? Because these oilfields are on Argentina property. That England has managed to cajole 2,600 fishermen on a few rocks in the Atlantic to live under British rule does not give England the right to take a billion barrels of oil that rightfully belong, BY LAW, to the people of Argentina.

If I can convince 2,600 of your good Muslim friends in England to vote to renounce English rule, does that give Argentina the right to all of BPs holdings in the North Sea?

Typically British shit. Use any excuse to rob, steal, and pillage, and then call it "empire" and our "right." You are full of shit Bob.

opport.knocks -> BritBob , Sep 3, 2017 3:48 PM

Russia's opinion does not matter and ZH readers do not care Bob - talk to the nobs in your own foreign service about their policies toward Russia first.

Dark star -> BritBob , Sep 3, 2017 4:09 PM

What Vitaly Churkin said was that if Britain wished to criticise Russia over Crimea, THEN Britain should give the Falklands to Argentina.

It was a justifiable complaint about double standards, not a definitive statement regarding Russia's view of International Law.

Everybody understands that except you.

Every sane and normal person on the planet understands that Crimea had a fair referendum, (like that which Britain depended on for its stance in the Falklands), which was necessitated by the U.S. overthrowing a democratically elected Government. Western politicians who argue otherwise merely make themselves look stupid subservient poodles of the Rogue State which the U.S. has now become.

Albertarocks , Sep 3, 2017 3:34 PM

USA has just crossed the Rubicon. This is undoubtedly the most aggregious act of lawlessness ever perpetrated by the USA in its history. The sanctity of embassies is the one common sense rule and tradition that all civilized nations on earth have honored almost throughout history. Sure, Iran invaded the US embassy, but don't forget how they were chastised and demonized for it. Now it's the USA's turn to commit the same unthinkable crime.

The USA will never be trusted again, by any nation, for eternity. This is the last straw because with this one act of supreme lawlessness the US has essentially isolated itself from the rest of the world *forever*. Talk about shooting yourself in the face.

AriusArmenian -> Albertarocks , Sep 3, 2017 3:39 PM

Exactly right. Diplomatic missions from the rest of the world are aware of the lawless rogue nature of the US.

The Cooler King -> AriusArmenian , Sep 3, 2017 3:43 PM

I doubt they're unaware about (((who))) is responsible for the rogue nature of US politics.

Escrava Isaura -> Albertarocks , Sep 3, 2017 3:43 PM

You can't make this stuff up. Albertarocks : USA has just crossed the Rubicon. Just crossed? LOL.

chunga -> Albertarocks , Sep 3, 2017 3:48 PM

Pulling a stunt like this with the present situation in KN is reckless, unstable, dangerous.

Not Too Important -> chunga , Sep 3, 2017 3:58 PM

The rest of the world governments know the US is on its' last legs, period. A pit bull with steroid rage, with a lethal case of rabies. The smart thing to do is sit back and let it run its' course, while keeping a safe distance, but it'll be a few years before the dog loses his bite and no way to keep it on a leash.

How would you run your government's foreign policy under this scenario? Knowing that the only other options for safety are on the pitbull's kill list before it dies?

A thousand nukes on Russia or China will affect every country on this planet. There are a lot of world leaders shitting their pants right now, and will for the next decade until the dog rolls over and dies.

GoatHollow -> Not Too Important , Sep 3, 2017 4:04 PM

Russia has 7,000 nuclear warheads of it's own.

finametrics , Sep 3, 2017 3:31 PM

we all know why this is happening. butthurt establishment is desperate and acting out. their time is near and they know it.

Big Creek Rising -> finametrics , Sep 3, 2017 3:45 PM

Would it not be best for Russia to at least kinda sorta be on our side with the NorK debacle? We're giving Putin good reason to quietly support that chubby little dickhead that now has better nukes and missiles.

And for what benefit?

Dark star -> Big Creek Rising , Sep 3, 2017 3:56 PM

What idiot would be on the side of someone who had just kicked them in the balls? The U.S. needs friends to help deal with NK and it has none left. Why is NK only threatening the U.S.? Could it perhaps be that only the US is threatening to attack NK? Questions far beyond the ability of the U.S. State Dept

[Sep 03, 2017] It seems that nearly every week Congress is passing bills that are intended to pummel one foreign adversary or another. Russia and Iran have become particular favorites

Notable quotes:
"... sometimes stealth is employed, inserting a nugget in an otherwise innocuous bit of legislation that will provide authority to go after yet another potential enemy of the state. ..."
"... With a digital media, the Espionage Act could conceivably reach even a citizen merely reading online a classified document that has been leaked. While no longer called the Sedition Act, that was originally the title of the amendment to the Espionage Act, and remnants of its logic remain in the current Espionage Act putting anyone who disseminates information contrary to the official government narrative at risk in some way or other, entirely at the whim of the C-in-C. ..."
Sep 03, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Original title: Is U.S. Congress Declaring War on WikiLeaks The American Conservative

By Philip GiraldiSeptember 1, 2017

The United States, uniquely among nations, believes that its writ runs all over the world!and that it has a right to use its courts of law to seek retributive justice even in situations that did not involve American citizens and occurred in a foreign land. No other country sends its marshals overseas to forcibly detain fugitives from "justice." If the United States is truly exceptional, it is no doubt due to its hubris in declaring itself to be the final arbiter of what goes on all around the globe.

It seems that nearly every week Congress outdoes itself in passing bills that are intended to pummel one foreign adversary or another. Russia and Iran have become particular favorites with nary a dissenting voice when new sanctions are put in place, together with mechanisms to ensure that a puissant chief executive shall have no ability to mitigate the punishment. And sometimes stealth is employed, inserting a nugget in an otherwise innocuous bit of legislation that will provide authority to go after yet another potential enemy of the state.

The latest Senate Intelligence Authorization Act (SB 1761) , which was released by the committee on August 18 when few senators were in town, is in the nature of a routine document. It notably calls for "more" in terms of both probing and revealing Russian spying and alleged aggression, but that was to be expected due to the current panic over Moscow and its intentions. It will nevertheless almost certainly become law even though few members of congress will actually bother to read any part of it.

The bill has already been approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee and will likely go immediately to a vote in the full Senate when that body reconvenes after the August recess. It will almost certainly be approved unanimously.

That anyone in the alternative media is paying any attention at all to what the bill says is due to the last section in the document, numbered 623. It reads "SENSE OF CONGRESS ON WIKILEAKS: It is the sense of Congress that WikiLeaks and the senior leadership of WikiLeaks resemble a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors and should be treated as such a service by the United States."

Todd Pierce , says: September 1, 2017 at 8:46 am

Thanks for this very informative and important article Phil! Anyone who thinks this stops at Wikileaks is foolishly infantile, and ignorant of what has been going on in the U.S. legal system now for years. McCain, Graham, and their Democratic ally Joe Lieberman were instrumental in getting Congress to pass Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA (now Public Law) which provided for arbitrary military detention of anyone deemed a threat by the Commander in Chief (FKA President).

How far that reached was shown in DOJ arguments in the case of Hedges v. Obama, where it was argued that, of course, journalists and activists were subject to military detention for their "expressive activities."

With a digital media, the Espionage Act could conceivably reach even a citizen merely reading online a classified document that has been leaked. While no longer called the Sedition Act, that was originally the title of the amendment to the Espionage Act, and remnants of its logic remain in the current Espionage Act putting anyone who disseminates information contrary to the official government narrative at risk in some way or other, entirely at the whim of the C-in-C.

Jim Bovard , says: September 1, 2017 at 9:51 am
Excellent article – the best analysis I have seen on this outrage.
IHeartDagny , says: September 1, 2017 at 10:24 am
What do people think all those taxpayer funds FORCED from the American people and given to most countries around the world is supposed to pay for?

[Sep 03, 2017] Proper response would be for Russia to nationalize their bank

It is interesting that on Sunday, Sept 3, 2017 there was no anti-Russian hysteria in US MSM anymore. The flow of anti-Russian news just disappeared
Russia still need year to recover from Yeltsin carnage, so the best policy for Russia is just do not react on this provocation. direct retaliation is counterproductive.
Sep 03, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Son of Captain Nemo , Sep 3, 2017 4:26 PM

To the Russian Federation. If this faggot pedo of a U.S. Marine doesn't make it clear enough at this point ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-03/mattis-we-have-many-options-ach... ), after the banks attempted to control your resources post-Soviet Union for 28 years using threats of war and well "war" in your neighborhood, with paid for mercenaries in American $$$ to kill their own in places like your Southern Caucus, Dagestan

They are desperate, bankrupt financially and without resources with no equal in human history... And angry at their own worst choices going on the last 72 years and in need of a Hemorrhoid-ectomy with one of these ( http://www.mashpedia.com/RS-28_Sarmat )

TIMES UP!... GLOVES NEED TO COME OFF!... YOU GAVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT!... Now it's time to throw them out of your Country for good and tell them YOU'RE READY FOR ANYTHING THEY CHOOSE TO DO NEXT!!!

Anunnaki , Sep 3, 2017 4:40 PM

Is this draining the swamp, how? The Cheetolini is AWOL from foreign affairs.

rejected , Sep 3, 2017 4:41 PM

I really wish the Russians would respond in kind but I suspect they have too much class. Link for more videos of yet another treaty violation by the US government.

https://sputniknews.com/society/201709031057051981-russia-consulate-fbi-...

Anunnaki -> rejected , Sep 3, 2017 4:55 PM

Proper response would be for Russia to nationalize their bank

RedDwarf , Sep 3, 2017 4:54 PM

Wow, we really are heading for war with Russia. This is turning into America vs. World. It never ends well for the country that tries to go to war against the rest of the world. There is no sane reason to do this unless your desire is the destruction of America or a religious goal of bringing about the end days.

We need to find these lunatics and traitors and we need to get rid of them before they poison the Northern Hemisphere in blood and ash.

Consuelo -> RedDwarf , Sep 3, 2017 5:00 PM

There is no 'finding them', RD. They operate in plain view. But they have the 'cattle' herded in essentially any direction they so choose, by way of Fake News, Sports & entertainment and social-media distraction. It takes a thinking electorate to see and identify their machinations. Which is why they get so upset when thinking people speak...

[Sep 03, 2017] Steve Bannon and Trumps Populist Victory

Notable quotes:
"... over $100 million ..."
"... Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , ..."
"... Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency ..."
"... Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon ..."
"... Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, ..."
"... When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years." ..."
"... Devil's Bargain ..."
"... the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days. ..."
"... Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017] ..."
"... But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing. ..."
"... Nixon's White House Wars ..."
get=

Republished from VDare.com

Throughout 2016, I would occasionally turn on the television to see how the punditocracy was responding to the mounting Trump tsunami . If you get most of your news online, watching cable news is frustrating. The commentary is so dumbed down and painfully reflective of speaker's biases, you can always basically guess what's coming next. With a few exceptions!above all Ann Coulter 's famous June 19, 2015 prediction of a Trump victory on Bill Maher !these pundits again and again told us that Trump would eventually go away, first after he made this or that gaffe, then after he "failed" in a debate, then after people actually started voting in the primaries.

Finally, after having been wrong at every point during the primaries, they just as confidently predicted that the Republican primary voter had foolishly done nothing more than assure that Hillary Clinton would be the next president.

The most interesting cases to me: the " Republican strategists ," brought on to CNN and MSNBC to give the audience the illusion that they were hearing both sides: Nicole Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Ana Navarro, Rick Wilson, Margaret Hoover, Todd Harris. Mike Murphy even convinced donors to hand him over $100 million to make Jeb Bush the next president! [ Jeb's 2016 departure draws out Mike Murphy critics , By Maeve Reston, February 22, 2016]

With campaigns and donors throwing money at these people, and the Main Stream Media touting them, it was easy to assume they must know what they were talking about. Significantly, each of these pundits was a national security hawk, center-right on economic issues, and just as horrified by " racism " and " sexism " as their Leftist counterparts . By a remarkable coincidence, the " strategic " advice that they gave to Republican candidates lined up perfectly with these positions. Their prominence was a mirage created by the fact that the MSM handed this token opposition the Megaphone because they did not challenge the core prejudices of the bipartisan Ruling Class.

And of course they were all humiliated in a spectacular fashion, November 8 being only the climax. Joshua Green begins his book Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by giving us a view inside the Trump campaign on election night, before tracing Steve Bannon's path up to that point. Reliving the journey is one of the joys of Green's work, which is mostly an intellectual biography of Steve Bannon, with a special focus on his relationship with Trump and the election.

Bannon joined the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 without any previous experience in electoral politics. But like the candidate himself, the Breitbart editor showed that he understood the nature of American politics and the GOP base better than Establishment Republicans. The "strategists'" supposed "expertise," "strategic advice," and "analysis" was in reality built on a house of cards. (In fact, the Bannon-Trump view of the electorate is closer to the consensus among political scientists that, unlike more nationalist and populist policies, Republican Establishment positions have relatively little popular support. [ Political Divisions in 2016 and Beyon d | Tensions Between and Within the Two Parties, Voter Study Group, June 2017]).

One key example: Green recounts how after Obama's re-election, the GOP Establishment was eager to surrender on immigration, supporting the bipartisan Amnesty/ Immigration Surge Gang of Eight bill . GOP leaders had neutralized Fox News, leaving Breitbart.com, talk radio and guerilla websites like VDARE.com as the only resistance. But the bill died due to a grass-roots revolt, partly inspired by Breitbart's reporting on the flood of Central American "child" refugees t he Obama Regime was allowing across the southern border. GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his congressional seat in a shock upset in the primaries. And little over a year later, Donald Trump became a candidate for president with opposition to illegal immigration as his signature issue.

Bannon at Breitbart.com gave the Republican base what it wanted. Moral: in a democracy, you always have a chance at winning when public opinion (or at least intraparty opinion) is on your side.

Green traces Bannon's journey from his Irish-Catholic working-class roots and traditionalist upbringing, to his time in the Navy, at Harvard Business School and Goldman Sachs, and finally Breitbart.com and the pinnacle of American politics. The picture that emerges is of a man with principles and vigor, refusing to submit to the inertia that is part of the human condition, with enough confidence to realize that life is too short to not make major changes when staying on the current path is not going to allow him to accomplish his goals.

For example, Bannon originally wanted a career in defense policy, and took a job in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Yet he was off to Harvard Business School when he realized that the rigid bureaucracy that he was a part of would not let him move up to a high-level position until he was middle-aged. Decades later, after taking over his website upon the unexpected death of Andrew Breitbart in 2012, it would have been easy to go low-risk!sticking to Establishment scripts, making life comfortable for Republican elites, implicitly submitting to the taboos of the Left. Instead , he helped turn Breitbart News into a major voice of the populist tide that has been remaking center-right politics across the globe.

When Donald Trump burst onto the scene, Bannon had found what he is quoted describing as a "blunt instrument for us," a man who had "taken this nationalist movement and moved it up twenty years."

From Green, we learn much about Bannon's intellectual influences. Surprisingly, although he was raised as a Roman Catholic and maintains that faith today, we find out that Bannon briefly practiced Zen Buddhism while in the Navy. There are other unusual influences that make appearances in the book, including Rightist philosopher Julius Evola and René Guénon, a French occultist who eventually became a Sufi Muslim. Although not exactly my cup of tea, such eccentric intellectual interests reflect a curious mind that refuses to restrict itself to fashionable influences.

It's incorrect to call Devil's Bargain a biography. There is practically no mention of Bannon's personal life!wives, children. I had to Google to find out that he has three daughters. His childhood is only discussed in the context of how it may have influenced his beliefs and political development.

Rather, we get information on Bannon's intellectual and career pursuits and his relationships with consequential figures such as mega-donor Robert Mercer, Andrew Breitbart and Donald Trump.

As Bannon exits the White House and returns to Breitbart, we must hope that Bannon and the movement he's helped to create accomplish enough in the future to inspire more complete biographies.

But the rise of Bannon and Trump holds lessons for the Dissident Right. One of them: despite how powerful the Establishment may appear, there are fatal disconnects between it and the people it rules!for example, on social and identity issues. Thus, many members of this Ruling Class, such as the Republican strategists who predicted a Jeb or Rubio victory, have been more successful in deluding themselves than they have been in building any kind of effective base. Similarly, Clinton campaign operatives believed, without much evidence, that undecided voters would eventually break in their favor. Because the thought of a Trump presidency was too horrifying for them to contemplate, they refused to recognize polls showing a close race, ignored the Midwest and sauntered their candidate off to Arizona in the final days.

Of course, currently the ideas that Bannon fought for appear to be on the wane, leading him to declare upon leaving the White House that the "Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." [ Weekly Standard, August 18, 2017]

But this is probably somewhat of an exaggeration. I doubt that Bannon laments the fact that the current president is Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton or Marco Rubio. But it has proved much more difficult to change government policy than to win an election. Unlike GOP strategists, the Deep State appears to know what it is doing.

In his memoir Nixon's White House Wars , Pat Buchanan writes about how, despite playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were

playing a pivotal role in the election of 1968, the conservative movement was mostly shut out of high-level jobs:

Then there was the painful reality with which the right had to come to terms. Though our movement had exhibited real power in capturing the nomination for Barry Goldwater and helping Nixon crush the Rockefeller-Romney wing of the Republican Party, and though we were veterans of a victorious presidential campaign, few of us had served in the executive branch. We lacked titles, resumes, credentials Our pool of experienced public servants who could seamlessly move into top positions was miniscule compared to that of the liberal Democrats who had dominated the capital's politics since FDR arrived in 1933.

History repeated itself in 2016, when Donald Trump would win the presidency on a nationalist platform but find few qualified individuals who could reliably implement his agenda.

If nationalists want to ensure that their next generation of leaders is able to effectively implement the policies they run on, they are going to have to engage in the slow and tedious project of working their way up through powerful institutions.

Bannon may have been and remains an "outsider" to the political Establishment. But nonetheless, throughout his life he has leveraged elite institutions such as Harvard, Goldman Sachs, the Republican Party, and even Hollywood in order to become financially independent and free to pursue his political goals.

If enough of those on the Dissident Right forge a similar path, we can be sure that future nationalist political victories will be less hollow. Jeremy Cooper is a specialist in international politics and an observer of global trends. Follow him at @NeoNeoLiberal .

Clyde Wilson > , August 29, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices?

Jobless > , August 30, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT

@Clyde Wilson Is there any evidence that Trump even tried to find the right people to fill the offices? Having dabbled ever so slightly in this process in the spring, my impression is that there is a mechanism run largely by lawyers from the big DC law firms (presumably one for each party) who are the gatekeepers for applicants. The result of this system, which I have little doubt that the "Trump Team" did not try to take on (after all, they had only a couple of months to put together the beginnings of a team, and that left little or no time replacing The Swamp Machine ) is that the key positions throughout the administration are largely filled with lawyers from connected law firms. After all, who better to administer the government than lawyers!?!?

At any rate, my experience with the process was: on your marks, get set, nothing. 30 years experience in and around federal government, but not a lawyer. Don't call us, we don't want to talk to you. (I also made clear in my cover letter that the key motivator for my application -- and first ever political contributions -- was Trump and his agenda. In retrospect, this "admission" was probably a kiss of death. I was a Trumpite. Eeeewww!!! (I may well not have been qualified for anything, but I'm SURE I was disqualified by my support for Trump )

The triumph of the Swamp.

Clyde Wilson > , August 30, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

We have here perhaps the key to Trump's tragic failure. It was our last shot.

Sep 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

[Sep 03, 2017] These Lethal U.S. Anti Tank Missiles Are Showing up in ISIS Arsenals by Jared Keller

Sep 02, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
With the heart of ISIS's self-proclaimed "caliphate" in Mosul in ruins and Secretary of Defense James Mattis in Baghdad to assess the U.S.-led campaign against the terror group, Iraqi security forces are working overtime to expunge more than 2,000 militants from the strategically crucial city of Tal Afar. The offensive could signal "the end of ISIS's military presence" in the country's northern region, according to a spokesman for the U.S. coalition, but the ISF and their Western military partners have run into a familiar obstacle: American-made anti-tank weapons.

Raw footage posted to YouTube by Iraqi television station Al-Mawsleya appears to show an FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile and launcher among a cache of weapons recovered just outside Tal Afar. The Javelin has a range of up to 2.7 miles with an 18-pound tandem warhead (two shaped charges, one to pierce reactive armor the other to wreak havoc) and designed to penetrate even the toughest armor -- including the skin of the Pentagon's beloved M1 Abrams tank.

...

An ISIS propaganda video released in June 2015, after the capture of the Syrian city of Palmyra, revealed militants targeting Syrian government forces with U.S.-made BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles. One year later, the same missiles, allegedly fired by U.S.-backed Syrian rebels, were used to down a Russian Mi-25 assault helicopter.

It's likely ISIS fighters came upon the Javelin in the same way it acquires most of its other conventional weapons: by looting Syrian and Iraqi military weapons caches. A 2003 Government Accountability Office report published after the invasion of Iraq found that at least 36 Javelin missile command launch-units had gone missing in the country as a result of lax chain-of-custody standards at U.S. weapons depots. If more are in enemy hands, those launchers would be added to the tons of armored vehicles, Humvees, artillery, surface-to-air missiles, and Turkish variants of the U.S.-made M72 LAW anti-tank weapons and Russian RPGs that are confirmed to be in ISIS's arsenal. Most of those arms were simply abandoned by the Iraqi Army and left for militants to pick up.

But the anti-tank weapons like the Javelin and TOW didn't just turn up in Iraq and Syria amid the chaos of the 2003 invasion: they were sent there more recently by the U.S.-led coalition in Syria. Under Timber Sycamore , the covert CIA program established during the Obama administration to arm Syrian rebels locked in a protracted civil war against the Bashar al-Assad regime, at least 500 TOW missiles were reportedly transferred through Saudi Arabia to the Free Syrian Army in late 2015. And in February 2016 Washington Post reporter and Marine veteran Thomas Gibbons-Neff identified a Javelin in the hands of Kurdish YPG forces at work in northern Syria. (The Pentagon and State Department both denied sending any anti-tank weapons to regional forces fighting ISIS in Syria.)

Rickuh , September 2, 2017 9:21 AM

Russia has been complaining for over a year that Islamic rebels in Syria have the TOW in seeming abundance. Many were obviously looted from Iraqi stocks, but I suspect some may have come from Turkey and other Islamic countries.

Jeff , September 2, 2017 1:49 PM

The Department of Defense is a collection of incompetent morons. I wonder how many of our people will be killed by our own weapons in the future.

Maybe not selling advanced weapons to the Saudi tyrant from now on?

Jon , September 2, 2017 10:35 AM

America is very much reckless in disposing its tech. Multinationals are only about making money even at the expense of american lives. I think yanks need a touch of smoldering iron hands and liquidate with utmost brutality all anti us nationals.

America is all.about money its disgusting

[Sep 03, 2017] These Lethal U.S. Anti Tank Missiles Are Showing up in ISIS Arsenals The National Interest Blog

get=
With the heart of ISIS's self-proclaimed "caliphate" in Mosul in ruins and Secretary of Defense James Mattis in Baghdad to assess the U.S.-led campaign against the terror group, Iraqi security forces are working overtime to expunge more than 2,000 militants from the strategically crucial city of Tal Afar. The offensive could signal "the end of ISIS's military presence" in the country's northern region, according to a spokesman for the U.S. coalition, but the ISF and their Western military partners have run into a familiar obstacle: American-made anti-tank weapons.

Raw footage posted to YouTube by Iraqi television station Al-Mawsleya appears to show an FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile and launcher among a cache of weapons recovered just outside Tal Afar. The Javelin has a range of up to 2.7 miles with an 18-pound tandem warhead (two shaped charges, one to pierce reactive armor the other to wreak havoc) and designed to penetrate even the toughest armor -- including the skin of the Pentagon's beloved M1 Abrams tank.

...

An ISIS propaganda video released in June 2015, after the capture of the Syrian city of Palmyra, revealed militants targeting Syrian government forces with U.S.-made BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missiles. One year later, the same missiles, allegedly fired by U.S.-backed Syrian rebels, were used to down a Russian Mi-25 assault helicopter.

It's likely ISIS fighters came upon the Javelin in the same way it acquires most of its other conventional weapons: by looting Syrian and Iraqi military weapons caches. A 2003 Government Accountability Office report published after the invasion of Iraq found that at least 36 Javelin missile command launch-units had gone missing in the country as a result of lax chain-of-custody standards at U.S. weapons depots. If more are in enemy hands, those launchers would be added to the tons of armored vehicles, Humvees, artillery, surface-to-air missiles, and Turkish variants of the U.S.-made M72 LAW anti-tank weapons and Russian RPGs that are confirmed to be in ISIS's arsenal. Most of those arms were simply abandoned by the Iraqi Army and left for militants to pick up.

But the anti-tank weapons like the Javelin and TOW didn't just turn up in Iraq and Syria amid the chaos of the 2003 invasion: they were sent there more recently by the U.S.-led coalition in Syria. Under Timber Sycamore , the covert CIA program established during the Obama administration to arm Syrian rebels locked in a protracted civil war against the Bashar al-Assad regime, at least 500 TOW missiles were reportedly transferred through Saudi Arabia to the Free Syrian Army in late 2015. And in February 2016 Washington Post reporter and Marine veteran Thomas Gibbons-Neff identified a Javelin in the hands of Kurdish YPG forces at work in northern Syria. (The Pentagon and State Department both denied sending any anti-tank weapons to regional forces fighting ISIS in Syria.)

Rickuh , September 2, 2017 9:21 AM

Russia has been complaining for over a year that Islamic rebels in Syria have the TOW in seeming abundance. Many were obviously looted from Iraqi stocks, but I suspect some may have come from Turkey and other Islamic countries.

Jeff , September 2, 2017 1:49 PM

The Department of Defense is a collection of incompetent morons. I wonder how many of our people will be killed by our own weapons in the future.

Maybe not selling advanced weapons to the Saudi tyrant from now on?

Jon , September 2, 2017 10:35 AM

America is very much reckless in disposing its tech. Multinationals are only about making money even at the expense of american lives. I think yanks need a touch of smoldering iron hands and liquidate with utmost brutality all anti us nationals.

America is all.about money its disgusting

Sep 03, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

[Sep 03, 2017] Al Gore Advises President Trump To Resign

Media attack on Trump continues unabated...
Sep 03, 2017 | www.msn.com

During a recent interview with LADbible, when Al Gore was asked what advice he would give President Trump, he simply responded, "resign."

[Sep 02, 2017] Washington and Moscow Must Embrace Détente -- Despite Trump by Katrina vanden Heuvel

What Katrina van den Heuvel does not understand is that American imperialism in not compatible with independent, sovereign Russia, only with vassal Yeltsin Russia. that why Russian believe that the USA is trying "regime change" via color revolution in Russia. Obama administration tried this and spend a lot of cash delivered by diplomatic mail on this exercise in 2012. They failed. So the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency" is right in reporting that "the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia."
So as long as the USA continues building global neoliberal empire led from Washington, tensions are hostilities are inevitable
Notable quotes:
"... In Russia, the United States is seen as the aggressor, asserting itself as the global unipower. ..."
"... NATO expansion helped convince Russians that the West regards it as a permanent enemy. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently reported that the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia. ..."
"... In fact, each perspective holds more than a grain of truth. ..."
"... The United States has seen itself as the global arbiter, the "indispensable nation," dismissing the legitimacy of any other nation's sphere of influence. ..."
"... Despite all this, two countries possessing over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons urgently need a working relationship. A working détente requires persistent efforts to find areas of agreement and to settle disputes, rather than a willingness to freeze relations, deepen sanctions and escalate military posturing. ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia could have joined in building and strengthening a zone of peace in Europe. Instead, the United States expanded NATO right up to Russia's border. ..."
"... An agreement guaranteeing Georgia and Ukraine's independence, committing them to remain nonaligned, outside of NATO and free to join both the EU and the Russian economic bloc, would greatly reduce tensions. Russia and the United States might join in pushing for the full implementation of the Minsk II Accords, providing for an end to violence and greater autonomy for eastern Ukraine. Sanctions relief might be combined with an agreement for an internationally monitored referendum on Crimea's status, under the UN's auspices. ..."
Sep 02, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

On January 26 of this year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reset the Doomsday Clock from 11:57 to 11:58:30 (midnight represents nuclear apocalypse). The Bulletin considers these days more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis, and for good reason. The new cold war between Russia and the United States is punctuated by perilous military face-offs in three arenas: in Syria; in the skies over the Baltic Sea, on Russia's western border with three hundred thousand NATO troops on high alert and both Russia and NATO ramping up deployments and exercises; and in Ukraine.

The rising tensions express totally contradictory perspectives. In the United States, across the political spectrum, Putin is seen as a merciless autocrat with expansionist designs. He's denounced for aggression in Georgia and Ukraine, and for propping up a brutal dictator in Syria. Investigations on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election -- and possible collusion with the Trump campaign -- have generated a continuing media frenzy that poisons any discussion.

In Russia, the United States is seen as the aggressor, asserting itself as the global unipower. When Bill Clinton trampled upon repeated promises and began expanding NATO towards the Russian border, George F. Kennan, the architect of containment, warned of a "tragic mistake." NATO expansion helped convince Russians that the West regards it as a permanent enemy. The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency recently reported that the Kremlin apparently believes the United States seeks regime change in Russia.

In fact, each perspective holds more than a grain of truth. Putin does want to reassert Russia's influence on the international stage, and challenge what he sees as America's unipolar delusion. The United States has seen itself as the global arbiter, the "indispensable nation," dismissing the legitimacy of any other nation's sphere of influence. The Pentagon does designate Russia as its leading adversary. The United States has encouraged the "color revolutions" in Georgia and the coup in Ukraine. Both countries have mucked about in the others' internal and electoral politics.

Despite all this, two countries possessing over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons urgently need a working relationship. A working détente requires persistent efforts to find areas of agreement and to settle disputes, rather than a willingness to freeze relations, deepen sanctions and escalate military posturing.

The first priority for the United States should be reengaging Russia in efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals, and to deny terrorists access to nuclear materials. They should be working together -- as they did in the P5+1 negotiations over Iranian nuclear-weapons capacity -- to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

The United States and Russia also have a shared concern about the terrorist threat posed by ISIS, Al Qaeda and their offshoots. In Syria, cooperation with Russia may be the only way to stabilize the nation so it can eventually recover from its horrific war. The United States has no intention of committing the troops and resources needed to overthrow Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad. Washington would do well to increase cooperation with Russia in the war against ISIS, and seek joint guarantees of a cease-fire that gives the Syrian people a respite from six years of brutal warfare, and begins to slow the refugee flows destabilizing Europe.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia could have joined in building and strengthening a zone of peace in Europe. Instead, the United States expanded NATO right up to Russia's border. That expansion will be virtually impossible to undo, but the United States and Russia could reverse the buildup of troops and stand down the military exercises on both sides of the Russian border without any formal agreement.

An agreement guaranteeing Georgia and Ukraine's independence, committing them to remain nonaligned, outside of NATO and free to join both the EU and the Russian economic bloc, would greatly reduce tensions. Russia and the United States might join in pushing for the full implementation of the Minsk II Accords, providing for an end to violence and greater autonomy for eastern Ukraine. Sanctions relief might be combined with an agreement for an internationally monitored referendum on Crimea's status, under the UN's auspices.

... ... ...

Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor and publisher of the Nation.

[Sep 02, 2017] The Costs of Ignoring Russia by Dimitri K. Simes

This is extremely week article. The problem here is the logic of neoliberalism requires crushing Russian attempt to restore sovereignty and open the country to multinationals on multinationals, not Russia. terms.
In this sense the USA play role of armed enforcer of neoliberal values around the globe and as long as it continues to play this role normalization of relations with Russia without color revolution (that Obama administration attempted to launch in 2012 but failed) are somewhat unrealistic.
Sep 02, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

...failing to arrest the downward spiral in U.S.-Russia relations poses real dangers. The most dramatic, if least likely, is a direct military confrontation leading to uncontrollable escalation and potentially a global catastrophe. Many dismiss this risk, arguing that neither the United States nor Russia wants to commit suicide and would show restraint; however, the same assumption that the other side would pull back at the last moment contributed to World War I. The truth is that no one knows what might happen if U.S. and Russian warplanes started shooting at each another or if American cruise missiles hit Russian bases in Syria. Russia could retaliate asymmetrically, perhaps in eastern Ukraine...

...Russia could double down on its emerging alignment with China. Russia and China maintain strong mutual suspicions, and China is a much stronger country by most measures. Although both are interested in normal relations with the United States, and would be reluctant to go too far in ways that could lead to a serious conflict, they are fearful of and, indeed, irritated with Washington. They are drawing closer economically and militarily, and are increasingly coordinating their foreign policies. Moscow and Beijing are concerned over American-led encirclement and, specifically, expanding U.S. antimissile systems that threaten their retaliatory capabilities. At a minimum, the worse the U.S.-Russia relationship, the more a rising China can count on Russian support in any disagreement with the United States. Emboldening China in this fashion cannot be in the U.S. national interest.

... ... ...

The obstacles to seeking a new approach to Russia are so numerous and momentous that many may feel that even trying is not a good use of President Trump's time, energy and limited political capital. Yet if it goes badly wrong, the U.S.-Russia relationship could end in nuclear conflict.

Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the Center for the National Interest.

[Sep 02, 2017] Cutting Iran out of SWIFT, while caused some harm, does not have the effects the USA expected. Russia is probably better prepared now such move and can borrow some Iran experience using smartphones as a substitute to credit cards, at least domestically

Looks like the USA now playing into Chinese hands...
Notable quotes:
"... The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that, but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against the USA. ..."
Sep 02, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , September 2, 2017 at 1:58 am

CGTN, Published on 29 Aug 2017

Russia is collaborating with China to create an alternative of SWIFT system for international payments, along with establishing domestic credit card.

Zerg , September 2, 2017 at 7:21 am
They can create alternative for payments with each other but it not alternative because they need swift for interbank exchange with banks in swift system anyway.

Domestically it can be replaced with whatever homebrew solution and not issue, but it needed for interneational tranasactions, this is the point.

And If you declared to be "cut" out of swift, it will not stop you for using it domestically but swift system international banks will just stop any transactions with you by whatewer means.

All this talk is overhyped, will Germany pay for gas by trucks with cash or what. When we at this point – cards is last of your problem. So swift will stay in any case. mir is old news

marknesop , September 2, 2017 at 1:06 pm
The idea was floated to cut Russia out of SWIFT, but it was quickly stepped on by the Americans themselves. Cutting Iran out of SWIFT was a transparently self-interested move by the United States to discourage an oil brokerage which avoided use of the US dollar as a benchmark – don't want people getting ideas. Western states which got on board were sharply rebuked when the EU's General Court ruled that sanctioning two Iranian banks was illegal and that they must be compensated for their losses, as no proof was offered that they were doing business on behalf of 'the regime'.

The USA is accustomed to ignoring the law and pressing ahead when it suits it to do that, but the deciding factor was that sanctions and cutting Iran out of SWIFT were ineffective at achieving US aims. Iran suffered, but it was not stopped, and the whole exercise mobilized feeling against the USA.

You could times that by ten in Russia's case. So they won't do it. But Russia becoming fiscally more self-reliant and the international business community becoming more suspicious of American manipulating are overall good things.

And two large countries agreeing to remove the US dollar from their bi-national trades is a blow to dollar dominance.

Patient Observer , September 2, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Presumably a BRICS SWIFT could be developed to facilitate transactions among the members. It could be part of the effort to reduce the dominance of the US dollar in international trade. Presumably, other countries can be added resulting in more of a global payment system.

As a total novice in such matters, I can state with complete confidence it will be a likely next step in the growing financial power of Russia, China and like-mined nations.

[Sep 02, 2017] Iranians and Their iPhones, and the Futility of Sanctions by Paul R. Pillar

Does the USA tried to replay Iranian sanctions round on Russia? As Russia depends on the USA companies for many technologies this can be painful.
Notable quotes:
"... That Apple's move is the result of an abundance of fear and caution is indicated by Google taking a different tack. Google has done nothing to remove Iranian-developed apps for Android phones from its Play store, and it permits Iranian developers to publish their apps in Iran provided that they do not involve purchases. ..."
"... But with the American political impulse to keep imposing still more anti-Iran sanctions, and with a resulting system of sanctions that is so complicated it can be fully understood only by a few experts in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, many companies will take Apple's more cautious approach. ..."
"... it stimulates a turn to Iranian alternatives such as an internal Iranian online payment system. ..."
"... the overall effect on the Iranian economy is to weaken portions of that economy that are outside the regime and to strengthen the regime's influence over other parts, including the economic activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the sanctions mean more lost business for American companies. While Apple is prevented from selling its phones in Iran, one of its biggest competitors, Samsung, opened earlier this year a large sales center in Iran. ..."
Sep 02, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

U.S.-imposed economic sanctions often have been misdirected and counterproductive, but a new sanctions-related development involving Iran is especially illustrative.

First, some background. Iran has been a favorite target of American politicians who use sanctions as a vehicle for expressing disapproval for a regime, with little apparent thought about the actual effects of the sanctions. Since the entering into force of the nuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which in the eyes of most governments successfully resolved the issue of a possible Iranian nuclear weapon, the United States has been alone among major powers in continuing to sanction Iran. The sanctions that the United States has piled on Iran for years have become so extensive and complex, and the penalties for violation so severe, that many American companies have erred on the side of caution by forgoing business opportunities in Iran even more than is legally required. The fear of God, or rather of the U.S. Treasury Department, has made them wary of inadvertently stepping across some unclear line.

The new development is that Apple is attempting to shut down apps developed by Iranians for use on iPhones inside Iran. The sanctions prohibit Apple from selling its phones in Iran, but millions of the popular devices have been smuggled into the country from places such as Dubai and Hong Kong. Hence the market for apps that Iranians find useful, such as an Uber-like ride-hailing service known as Snapp. Apple is removing Iranian-developed apps, including Snapp, from its App Stores. The company issued a message to Iranian developers in which it attributed the move to "U.S. sanctions regulations".

That Apple's move is the result of an abundance of fear and caution is indicated by Google taking a different tack. Google has done nothing to remove Iranian-developed apps for Android phones from its Play store, and it permits Iranian developers to publish their apps in Iran provided that they do not involve purchases. Maybe Google is on firm legal ground. But with the American political impulse to keep imposing still more anti-Iran sanctions, and with a resulting system of sanctions that is so complicated it can be fully understood only by a few experts in Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, many companies will take Apple's more cautious approach.

Impeding the full use by Iranians of their iPhones does absolutely nothing to weaken the Iranian regime, to punish it for behavior we don't like, to deter it from future behavior we might not like, or to accomplish any other ostensible purpose of the sanctions that have led Apple to do what it is doing. It only takes ordinary Iranians farther away from fully enjoying an American product with an American operating system, and it stimulates a turn to Iranian alternatives such as an internal Iranian online payment system.

As with many of the U.S. sanctions, the overall effect on the Iranian economy is to weaken portions of that economy that are outside the regime and to strengthen the regime's influence over other parts, including the economic activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

An instructive irony of Apple removing apps that ordinary Iranians use is that recently Apple removed apps that ordinary Chinese were using to circumvent government censorship and gain use to non-Chinese internet sites. The Iranian regime, like the Chinese regime, blocks the use of some popular Western-based social media (although the Iranian telecommunications minister has hinted that some of these restrictions may be dropped).

The difference is that in one case Apple is responding to pressure from the Chinese government, while in the other case it is responding to pressure not from Iran but instead from the U.S. government.

Meanwhile, the sanctions mean more lost business for American companies. While Apple is prevented from selling its phones in Iran, one of its biggest competitors, Samsung, opened earlier this year a large sales center in Iran.

[Sep 02, 2017] US Warns Russia Relationship in a Downward Spiral

Sep 02, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

US Warns Russia Relationship in a 'Downward Spiral' US Officials Say Russia Started It

Jason Ditz Posted on August 31, 2017 August 31, 2017 Categories News Tags Russia , State Department , Trump The US State Department has admitted in its statement on the US closing the Russian Consulate in San Francisco that the move comes amid a "downward spiral in our relationship." This is an unusual admission that relations are both at an all-time low, and continuing to worsen at a rapid pace .

improve relations ," this doesn't seem sincere expectation. Rather, the State Department's comments seem more interested in trying to shift the blame.

The State Department credited itself for only closing one consulate and two annexes, saying they "have chosen to allow the Russian government to maintain some of its annexes" to try to keep the situation getting worse.

One official was quoted as saying that "it is our hope that the Russians will recognize that they were the ones who started the discussion" on facility closures, citing the recent US loss of a warehouse in Moscow and a vacation house.

Absent in all official US comments were the December 2016 US moves to expel Russian diplomats and seize two vacation houses. While Russia couched their closures as retaliation for that, US officials are choosing to ignore December and present today's moves as retaliation for Russia's closures.

The comments about hoping for better relations don't appear realistic, as the closure of a consulate is a major step forward in escalation of tensions, and will almost certain oblige Russia to take further moves. These tit-for-tat measures show no sign of ending any time soon. The best we can hope is that it doesn't further escalate.

[Sep 02, 2017] Moscow summons US Ambassador to submit protest note over diplomatic downsizing

Notable quotes:
"... "We consider the planned illegal search of Russian diplomatic premises in the absence of Russian officials and the threat we have received to break down the door of the building as an aggressive action, which the US intelligence service may use to orchestrate an anti-Russian provocation by planting compromising items," the statement also said. ..."
Sep 02, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Perimetr | Sep 2, 2017 11:56:25 AM | 15

US reportedly preparing to forcibly enter Russian trade mission in DC to "search" it

http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/09/breaking-moscow-summons-us-ambassador.html?m=1

BREAKING: Moscow summons US Ambassador to submit protest note over diplomatic downsizing
September 2, 2017 - Fort Russ News - Paul Antonopoulos

Russia has call for the deputy chief of mission of the US Embassy in Moscow, Anthony F. Godfrey, to submit a protest letter over US plans to search the Russian trade mission in Washington, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement just made moments ago.

The statement revealed that Russian diplomats have been denied access to the trade mission building despite being owned by Russia and protected by diplomatic immunity. Because of this gross violation of diplomatic immunity, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that:

"The US authorities must stop the gross violations of international law and refuse to encroach on the immunity of Russia's diplomatic institutions. Otherwise we reserve the right to reciprocate on the basis of reciprocity."

"We consider the planned illegal search of Russian diplomatic premises in the absence of Russian officials and the threat we have received to break down the door of the building as an aggressive action, which the US intelligence service may use to orchestrate an anti-Russian provocation by planting compromising items," the statement also said.

This was triggered when days ago the US ordered the closure of the Russian consulate in San Francisco and the downsizing of its diplomatic presence in New York City and Washington DC.

[Sep 02, 2017] Sic Semper Tyrannis US will allow Iranian forces in Syria to operate within 8 km of Israel by Andrew Illingworth

Notable quotes:
"... Is it the case than neither Kelly, Mattis, nor McMaster saw a day of combat in Vietnam? I am not seeking to pour gasoline onto a lighted fire, but much has been made of Cheney's, Trump's, Bush's, Clinton's deferments, so I think it is relevant that the Generals who surround Trump are in the same league. And not simply from a public relations point of view. ..."
Sep 02, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
01 September 2017 "US will allow Iranian forces in Syria to operate within 8 km of Israel" by Andrew Illingworth Bibi


"The United States will allow Iranian military elements and Iranian-backed militias operating in Syria to take up positions within eight kilometers of Israel's Golan border region according to a report released yesterday by the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat news agency.

The report stated that an agreement to allow both actual Iranian forces and Iranian proxies in Syria to establish bases as close as eight kilometers to both the Jordanian and Israeli borders was recently reached between US and Russian diplomats following talks in Jordan.

This report comes at a time when Russia has official downplayed Israeli hysteria over the presence of Iranian forces in Syria, refusing to entertain Netanyahu's claims that Iran is preparing to attack Israel ." Andrew Illingworth in Al Sharq al Awsat

-----------

Well, well, pilgrims. ASAA has always had deep Saudi royal family ties so one must question the motive for this publication of work by Mr. Illingworth, whoever he may be. Is this Saudi spite at evidence of subterranean Trump Administration cooperation with Russia over both Iran and Syria?

Bibi must be eating his own guts at the thought. All that and Sarah up to her hips in corruption investigation, being PM just isn't what it used to be,

Can it be that the whisperings between the Trumpian foreign policy gaggle and the Rooshians actually had substance. Can it be?

BTW The last I heard was that the buses were still out in the desert somewhere near Sukhna having been re-routed. CENTCOM still can't work out what to do with them.

And I sure hope that IS keeps throwing troops at the R+6 in SE Raqqa. pl

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-will-allow-iranian-forces-syria-operate-within-8-km-israel/

Posted at 04:10 PM in Policy , Russia , Syria Permalink Comments (19)

Peter AU , 01 September 2017 at 05:04 PM

I have mostly been undecided about whether Trump and Mattis where genuine about taking out the takfiri's or would continue to enable them, but a lot of signs now that this is genuine, and also working with Russia.

Re the ISIS convoy. There has been no noise from Russia, Syria, Iran about US blocking the convoy. I doubt they would have liked to let the bastards loose either, so this may be working in their favour, as they can keep hold of them without breaking their part of the deal.

Also when Raqqa was left open, RUAF was destroying large convoy coming out of Raqqa towards Palmyra. Some exchanges of intel between US and Russia?

Whatever is happening it seems to be different than what was going on under the Obama admin.

Illingworth is a reporter for al-Masdar news.

Outrage Beyond , 01 September 2017 at 05:41 PM
In a related vein, Alastair Crook analyzes Netanyahu's "panic" and the new reality of the resistance to Israel.

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/01/the-reasons-for-netanyahus-panic/

Peter AU , 01 September 2017 at 06:21 PM
Andrew Illingworth twitter https://twitter.com/oz_analysis
Annem , 01 September 2017 at 06:50 PM
Can anyone explain why the ISIS families wanted to be escorted to BuKamal, right next to all those militias that would love to make minced meat out of them. Once there, how did they plan to defend themselves?
iowa steve -> Outrage Beyond... , 01 September 2017 at 07:22 PM
An excellent article. Thank you for the link.
Thirdeye , 01 September 2017 at 07:32 PM
I'm inclined to see the ASAA claim as an attempt to ratchet up the Iran-in-Syria issue in the US after it so miserably failed to impress the Russians, most likely with an eye towards bringing US pressure to bear on Russia through pressure on Trump. Painting arch-Zionist Trump as somehow being convinced by the Russians to all of a sudden take a benign view towards Iran seems silly, but silliness hasn't disqualified anything else so far.
turcopolier , 01 September 2017 at 07:49 PM
thirdeye

"arch-Zionist Trump" You really do not understand him. He isn'tan arch anything except arch-egotist. He will dump anyone and anything that he thinks is causing him real damage. Crooke is right. pl

Bill Herschel , 01 September 2017 at 09:05 PM
Off topic. Is it the case than neither Kelly, Mattis, nor McMaster saw a day of combat in Vietnam? I am not seeking to pour gasoline onto a lighted fire, but much has been made of Cheney's, Trump's, Bush's, Clinton's deferments, so I think it is relevant that the Generals who surround Trump are in the same league. And not simply from a public relations point of view.
DH , 01 September 2017 at 10:29 PM
I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island, too...
Babak Makkinejad -> Outrage Beyond... , 01 September 2017 at 10:41 PM
Israel is not a Western country.
turcopolier , 01 September 2017 at 11:57 PM
Bill herschel

They are all too young I think. pl

MRW , 02 September 2017 at 01:56 AM
Bibi must be eating his own guts at the thought.
Ode to Joy.
johnf -> Outrage Beyond... , 02 September 2017 at 02:15 AM
An excellent article. Israel invaded Lebanon and after 20 years of war was faced by Hezbollah. Israel and her supporters started endless wars in the Middle East to supposedly overcome a non-existent "Shia Crescent." Now after 16 years it is faced by a real "Shia Crescent" backed by Russia and China, with the Gulfies in turmoil and the US and Europe at best indifferent.

Those whom the gods would destroy they first make Netanyahu.

The Porkchop Express , 02 September 2017 at 02:40 AM
Hariri claims he and Aoun decided to let Daesh leave Lebanese territory. Not Hezb.
Lemur , 02 September 2017 at 04:26 AM
Col, I am a little confused over who is associated with who. My understanding was Illingworth is with the pro-Assad anti Saudi AMN, but both your links go to the same Illingworth article at AMN, and I can find no Illingworth articles at the other publication.

On another note, I'd like to point out Trump's non alt-right MAGA base is oblivious to his deviation from the Israeli agenda in Syria. I keep up to date with Conservative Tree House as a representative sample, and they remain firmly persuaded Bibi has an unshakable friend in the white house now. A little rhetoric gets you a long way...

Great article outlining in what respects Trump steamrolled over the Israeli lobby's 'concerns': http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/israels-syria-policy-collapses-63932273

turcopolier , 02 September 2017 at 08:25 AM
lemur

I told you that I have no idea who Illingworth is. pl

mike , 02 September 2017 at 09:35 AM
Dunford was too young. Both Mattis and Kelly enlisted during that time frame, Mattis in 69 and Kelly in 70. But Melvin Laird's 'Vietnamization' policy had been started by then and troops were coming home. So Mattis and Kelly never got there.

On the Daesh bus convoy, I tend to agree with what PeterAU implied above that Syria is happy with not letting them go. Although there are reports in the Iraqi press and here that some did get through to Daesh territory. About 100 fighters per the Iraqi press, a dozen or two by using civilian vehicles per the Miami Herald. Coalition says the 17 busses are still within SAA lines.

https://twitter.com/DavidMWitty1/status/903925762759196673

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/article170953607.html

Iranian Ambassador to Iraq, Iraj Masjedi, is doing a lot of explaining and non-apology apologies in Baghdad.

DH , 02 September 2017 at 09:50 AM
from Lemur's article:

"But now it is becoming clear that Israel's aims in Syria are not going to be accomplished. Assad will stay in power, Iran will increase its presence, Hezbollah will emerge stronger and, despite the Israeli air force sorties, the group's missile arsenal is probably bigger with more accurate weaponry."

All, is there any truth to the claim that in 2003 Israel begged Bush II to go after Iran instead of Iraq?

turcopolier , 02 September 2017 at 09:50 AM
mike

Enlisted? If they were officers service schools, etc would have delayed a possible arrival in VN past the time that there were any USMC untis left in theater. By the time I got back to VN in early '72 the only US ground combat units were three army brigades who were not much use any longer due to propaganda from CONUS and a deep seated "last man to die" phobia. I was in SOG and its post stand down successor STDAT-158 and that was quite different. the only marines I saw in that tour were adviserd to the RVN marines. pl

[Sep 02, 2017] Putin BRICS Ready to Challenge US Dollar as Global Reserve Currency

Notable quotes:
"... Putin says BRICS is ready to "overcome the excessive domination of the limited number of reserve currencies" ..."
"... The goal is to create a package of cooperation measures to work against the restrictive business practices of large multinational corporations and trans-border violations of competition rules, ..."
"... "Considerable practical achievements have been recently reported in this area, primarily the launch of the New Development Bank (NDB). It has approved seven investment projects in the BRICS countries worth around $1.5 billion," Putin said. ..."
Sep 02, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Putin says BRICS is ready to "overcome the excessive domination of the limited number of reserve currencies" TASS 37 Russia is ready to join forces with its partners to counter excessive domination' of the limited number of reserve currencies, Russian President Vladimir Putin said in his article in the run-up of the BRICS summit published on Friday.

"We are ready to work together with our partners to promote international financial regulation reforms and to overcome the excessive domination of the limited number of reserve currencies. We will also work towards a more balanced distribution of quotas and voting shares within the IMF and the World Bank," Putin said in his article, headlined "BRICS: Towards New Horizons of Strategic Partnership," to be published by the leading media of the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) ahead of the group's summit due on September 3-5 in China.

Unfairness of global financial architecture

According to the Russian leader, Russia shares the BRICS countries' concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture, which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies.

"I am confident that the BRICS countries will continue to act in a consolidated manner against protectionism and new barriers in global trade," he said. "We value the BRICS countries' consensus on this issue, which allows us to more consistently advocate the foundations of an open, equal and mutually beneficial multilateral trade system and to strengthen the role of the WTO as the key regulator in international trade."

The president said that Russia's initiative on the development of cooperation among the BRICS countries' antimonopoly agencies is aimed at creating effective mechanisms to encourage healthy competition.

" The goal is to create a package of cooperation measures to work against the restrictive business practices of large multinational corporations and trans-border violations of competition rules, " he said.

Role of New Development Bank

The Russian leader said that a BRICS Strategy for Economic Partnership, which is currently being successfully implemented, was adopted at the summit in the Russian city of Ufa in 2015.

"We hope to be able to discuss new large-scale cooperation tasks in trade and investment and industrial cooperation at the Xiamen Summit," Putin said.

He added that Russia is interested in promoting economic cooperation within the BRICS format.

"Considerable practical achievements have been recently reported in this area, primarily the launch of the New Development Bank (NDB). It has approved seven investment projects in the BRICS countries worth around $1.5 billion," Putin said.

"This year, the NDB is to approve a second package of investment projects worth $2.5-$3 billion in total," the Russian leader continued. "I am convinced that their implementation will not only be a boost to our economies but will also promote integration between our countries.".

[Sep 02, 2017] The truth about US support for the FSA terrorists in Syria

Sep 02, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Liam | Sep 2, 2017 11:06:38 AM | 13

The truth about US support for the FSA terrorists in Syria - Now playing on DTube - Intentional Lies and Taking Lives - U. S. State Department Greatest Hits on Syria (Highly Graphic - N.S.F.W.)

https://dtube.video/#!/v/clarityofsignal/mzaqrtv3

This highly revealing video features numerous heightened tension moments during U.S. State Department briefings where reporters exposed the U.S. State Department spokesperson's hypocrisy and misdirection related to events in Syria. These reporter questions relate to horrific events in Syria, including the beheading of 12 year old Abdullah Issa by US backed terrorist group Nour Al-Zinki, the chemical weapons attack that took place in Kherson, Syria on April 4, 2017 and the bombing of the UN convoy in September 2016, as well as parallels between events taking place in Yemen in comparison to Aleppo in December 2016. This video exposes the fact that the FSA and White Helmets are aligned directly with al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria) terrorist groups and have consistently received US and western support for their actions. Photos at the link reveal that the White Helmets are, in actuality, terrorists and not the humanitarian rescuers the mainstream media portrays them to be. The terrorist photos contrasted with the State Department statements put forth in the videos reveal that the US government and media have been intentionally lying and covering up the truth about terrorist related events in Syria all along.

Additional links proving the White Helmets are terrorists -

Massive White Helmets Photo Cache Proves Hollywood Gave Oscar to Terrorist Group - clarityofsignal.com/2017/02/27/massive-white-helmets-photo-cache-proves-hollywood-gave-oscar-to-terrorist-group

Direct Terrorist Collusion: Over One Dozen Videos Capture White Helmets Working Side-By-Side With Terrorist Groups in Syria -
clarityofsignal.com/2017/05/08/direct-jihadist-collusion-over-one-dozen-videos-capture-white-helmets-working-side-by-side-with-terrorist-groups

Tapestry of Terror - White Helmets Exposed As FSA Terrorists Linked With ISIS (Highly Graphic - N.S.F.W.) - steemit.com/video/@clarityofsignal/now-playing-on-dtube-tapestry-of-terror-white-helmets-exposed-as-fsa-terrorists-linked-with-isis-highly-graphic-n-s-f-w

Intertwined – The White Helmets and FSA Terrorist Groups – Evidence of Collusion -Part 1 -steemit.com/news/@clarityofsignal/intertwined-the-white-helmets-and-fsa-terrorist-groups-evidence-of-collusion-part-1

Numerous US Government Officials Caught On Camera Meeting With White Helmets and FSA Terrorists -clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/18/numerous-us-government-officials-caught-on-camera-meeting-with-white-helmets-and-fsa-terrorists

"Now You See Me" – Over 100 White Helmet Self-Posted Facebook Images Expose Fake Humanitarian Group as FSA Terrorists Linked with Al-Qaeda - clarityofsignal.com/2017/05/01/now-you-see-me-over-100-white-helmet-self-posted-facebook-images-expose-fake-humanitarian-group-as-fsa-terrorists-in-bed-with-al-qaeda

White Helmets Exposed: Numerous Videos and Photo Evidence Directly Link White Helmets to FSA Terrorists Torture and Atrocities -
clarityofsignal.com/2017/01/30/white-helmets-exposed-numerous-videos-and-photo-evidence-link-white-helmets-to-fsa-terrorists-torture-and-atrocities

Video composed by Clarity of Signal utilizing official State Department briefing moments combined with Free Syrian Army (FSA) cached screen images proving the US supported FSA is comprised of murderous terrorist groups who conduct atrocities in Syria.

[Sep 02, 2017] No Russian Hacking In Durham Election - NY Times Report Belies Its Headline

NYT = neocon/neolib fear mongering and neo-McCarthyism.
If we assume that Russians can control election machine, the question arise about the CIA role in the US elections. They are much more powerful and that's their home turf. And they can pretend to be Russians of Chinese at will. Then they can cry "Thief" to divert attention. Does this that promoting Russia hacking story they implicitly reveal to us that elections are controlled by Deep State and electronic voting machines and voter rosters are just a tool to this end. They allow to get rid of human vote counting and that alone makes hijacking of the election results really easy. machine magically calculates the votes and you are done. As Stalin said it doesn't matter how people are voting, what matters is who is calculating the votes.
Dems should concentrate on removing neoliberal/Clinton wing of the Party from the leadership and making it at lease "A New Deal" Party, not sold to Wall Steer bunch of fear mongering neocons. Anti-Russian campaign is designed to sabotage those efforts.
Notable quotes:
"... All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes ..."
"... Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems: ..."
"... The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times. ..."
"... The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) ..."
"... The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all. ..."
"... "Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this. ..."
"... At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"! ..."
"... The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians? ..."
Sep 02, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The last piece pointed out that the NYT headline " U.N. Peacekeepers in Lebanon Get Stronger Inspection Powers for Hezbollah Arms " was 100% fake news. The UNIFIL U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon were not getting any stronger inspection powers. The relevant UN Security Resolution, which renewed UNIFIL's mandate, had made no such changes. No further inspection powers were authorized.

Today we find another similarly lying headline in the New York Times.

Russian Election Hacking Efforts, Wider Than Previously Known, Draw Little Scrutiny

By NICOLE PERLROTH, MICHAEL WINES and MATTHEW ROSENBERGSEPT. 1, 2017

The piece is about minor technical election trouble in a district irrelevant to the presidential election outcome. Contradicting the headline it notes in paragraph five:

There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns -- local officials blamed human error and software malfunctions -- and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a Russian role in it
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state," said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House. "If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research and investigation, and you may not find out even then."

...

the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.

All of the reported troubles are simple computer hiccups that would not have occurred in a more reasonable election system build on paper and pencil balloting. All the computer troubles have various innocent causes. The officials handling these systems deny that any "Russian hacking" was involved. Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:

Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates , this time Hillary Clinton.

The NYT headline is an outrageous lie. It promotes as causal fact completely unproven interference and troubles for which, as the article notes, plenty of other reason might exist. It is politically irresponsible. Only two out of ten people read beyond the headlines. Even fewer will read down to paragraph five and recognize that the headline lies. All others will have been willfully misled by the editors of the New York Times.

This scheme is the gist of ALL reporting about the alleged "Russian hacking" of the U.S. presidential election. There exists zero evidence that Russia was involved in anything related to it. No evidence -none at all- links the publishing of DNC papers or of Clinton counselor Podesta's emails to Russia. Thousands of other circumstances, people or political entities might have had their hands in the issue. There is zero evidence that Russia was involved at all.

The whole "Russian hacking" issue is a series of big lies designed and promulgated by Democratic partisans (specifically Brennan and Clapper who were then at the head of U.S. intelligence services) to:

  • cover up for Hillary Clinton's and the DNC's failure in the election and to
  • build up Russia as a public enemy to justify unnecessary military spending and other imperial racketeering.

The New York Times, and other media, present these lies as facts while not providing any evidence for them. In many cases they hide behind " intelligence reports " without noting suspiciously mealymouthed caveats in those subjective "assessments" of obviously partisan authors. Hard facts contradicting their conclusions are simply ignored and not reported at all.

Posted by b on September 1, 2017 at 11:26 PM | Permalink

WG | Sep 2, 2017 1:27:08 AM | 1

Look at what happened today in San Francisco - after ordering the Russians to shut down their embassy there in an unreasonably short timeframe, they then had the fire department respond to smoke coming out of the chimney of the building. Conveniently this brings attention to the situation and continues the narrative of 'ongoing conflict' to the American people.

The end of this story has already decided. It didn't matter who won the election, it doesn't matter that the people chose the candidate who wanted peace, and it doesn't matter that there wasn't any Russian election hacking.

blues | Sep 2, 2017 1:37:27 AM | 2
"Never trust a computer with anything important." I have been relentlessly campaigning against the use of voting machines, particularly voting computers, since 2004. I have demanded openly hand counted paper ballots in hundreds of blog posts, and even have a website promoting this.

At the end of the day it is obvious that the Deep State Syndicate controls the machines, and thus the elections. And then they have the nerve to demand that we must beware of "Russian hacking"!

Get strategic hedge simple score voting today!

psychohistorian | Sep 2, 2017 1:59:38 AM | 3
The whole Russia stole my homework meme is getting fairly old and it makes me wonder what they are really hiding with this ongoing obfuscation of the facts......if the drums of war are loud enough will they drown out the calls for justice by any of the current or recent politicians?

Yes, of course.....thats the plan.....is it working?

If not, invade Venezuela on some pretext and claim ownership of their oil....someone has to make Israel look reasonable.

Bob | Sep 2, 2017 2:01:39 AM | 4
What a bizarre article.
"We don't know if any of the problems were an accident, or the random problems you get with computer systems, or whether it was a local hacker, or actual malfeasance by a sovereign nation-state," said Michael Daniel, who served as the cybersecurity coordinator in the Obama White House. "If you really want to know what happened, you'd have to do a lot of forensics, a lot of research and investigation, and you may not find out even then."

...

the firm had not conducted any malware analysis or checked to see if any of the e-poll book software was altered, adding that the report produced more questions than answers.

They don't even know what happened. Best blame it on the Russians anyway.

Perimtr | Sep 2, 2017 3:07:52 AM | 5
The "paper of record" is just another outlet for the Ministry of Propaganda.
Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6
B of course realizes that the headline of an article is almost never written by author but by an editor.

Such as blatant nonsense at NYT and elsewhere I think is possible when author wanting to get published on good NYT page would lie to editor about its contents.

Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure {actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations however baseless.

Shakesvshav | Sep 2, 2017 3:31:33 AM | 7
The Guardian still sees mileage in Pussy Riot, or at least one former member: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/01/pussy-riot-mariya-alyokhina-russian-activist-jailed-white-house
Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 2, 2017 7:21:37 AM | 8
...
Of course Editor is no idiot and in old American tradition of pretending and deniability does not read it to cover his/her butt and hence this obvious crap get published epitomizing a failure {actually Orwellian success] of editor to vet the paper, as long as bosses are happy with insinuations however baseless.
Posted by: Kalen | Sep 2, 2017 3:22:15 AM | 6

I like the theory that NYT's sub-editors are too lazy/busy/careless to read the articles they're paid to summarise and add an appealing headline. It's certainly food for thought when pondering possible Chain Of Command issues within the MSM.

When I was a regular lurker at What's Left, one notable aspect was the frequency with which Gowans' most stunning revelations were sourced from the nether regions of articles published in the NYT, WaPo et al.

Lawrence Smith | Sep 2, 2017 9:59:42 AM | 9
What this all speaks of is ineptitude and malfeasance at all levels of government. Lies covering more lies. The only things that gets done in Washington iare covering asses and those, like their wars without end, are complete and utter failures. That the Clinton mob are sore losers and press on with delegitimization of a clown president who, unlike the wicked witch of the West, feigned disinterest in war and won what's left of a hollowed out presidency is theatre of the absurd par excellence. Build the fence around the beltway and keep the psychopaths in the asylum in.
doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10
Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in one district would have effected the general election. There was thereby no motive for anyone to hack these systems:

Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...

james | Sep 2, 2017 11:01:34 AM | 12
yeah - more stories on pussy riot.. a story like how pussy riot ate george soros, or putins breakfast would be good..... when i read the nyt, i want a story filled with lies and deception... i'm running away from reality and heading straight for the nyt, lol..
Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 2, 2017 11:20:17 AM | 14
...
Plenty wrong with that logic...gosh...give it some thought...a tiny bit will help there...
Posted by: doug | Sep 2, 2017 10:44:46 AM | 10

It would only be a logical fallacy if it said... "Moreover, there was no chance that these troubles in more than one district would have effected the general election." ...but it doesn't, so it isn't.

[Sep 01, 2017] America and Russia Same Old, Same Old

It is interesting to see posts of neocon Gary below and reactions of other commenters to his nonsense...
Notable quotes:
"... Angela Stent directs the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University and is the author of ..."
"... The "smaller or weaker" states you mention had better not involve themselves in a campaign to demonize Russia and everything Russian-but above all they should try to ..."
"... Not attack it directly like Georgia did in 2008 ..."
"... Attack it indirectly as Ukraine did after the Maidan coup in 2014 ..."
"... In both cases an appropriate and symmetric response was handed to them by Russia. You know, being small or weak does not mean that you are virtuous ..."
"... Gary believes America is protected by a comic book superhero version of Jesus that will magically intercept all of Russia's ICBM's. These people are crazies. ..."
"... Before to come to conclusions, remember please about jar of white powder Colin Powell. Where are the Iraqi nuclear weapons? When Russia invaded Using the word "invaded" compare the situation in Crimea and Iraq, or Libya. Just think about it for leisure. ..."
"... Crimea is a done deal. It is more likely that Russia would give Moscow than Crimea. As for the Donbass rebels, sure, as long as the Kiev regime ceases its brutal repression tactics across the rest of Ukraine, I believe an understanding where Donbass integrates somehow with Ukraine could be reached. ..."
"... Putin certainly came intending to negate the disasters of the Yeltsin years. He has, and Russians widely admire him for that. However, the assertion that he wants to return to the USSR and its overpowering of all neighbors is neocon dogma, not based in anything Putin has said or done. ..."
"... Putin actually said this: "Those who do not regret that the USSR has fallen apart have no heart, those who want it back have no brain" ..."
"... Every administration since 1992 has expanded NATO eastward, up to the border of Russia itself. NATO is a nuclear-armed military alliance. How would we feel if the Warsaw Pact was deploying thousands of soldiers and missiles along our southern and northern borders? ..."
"... Why are american journalists always inventing fake desires for Putin and Russia. It is like saying the US wants world domination and to defeat Russia and China. Well, it would be nice if it happened, but we are not working toward it, are we? ..."
Sep 01, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

What interests do the United States and Russia have in common? Both bear a unique responsibility as the two nuclear superpowers and share a commitment to preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, but when it comes to defining exactly what they mean by that, they cannot always agree. Both agree that terrorism is a common threat, but often have different definitions of who is a terrorist, as is clear from the difficulties they have had cooperating in the fight against ISIS in Syria. And, unlike the United States' relationship with China, for instance, it has limited common economic interests with Russia, and hence fewer stakeholders to promote continued and improved relations. Russia's main exports are hydrocarbons and military hardware, neither of which the United States needs. And the difficult investment climate and weakness of the rule of law!as well as the current sanctions regime!act as a brake on further U.S. investment.

Despite the lack of common interests, there are issues on which the United States and Russia must and can work together. The war in Syria, with its catastrophic human toll, is the most pressing issue. Beyond the current cease-fire, Washington and Moscow must continue to deconflict air operations and to provide humanitarian relief. The fact that bilateral military ties have resumed is a hopeful sign. The situation in North Korea could also be an avenue for cooperation, although Russia opposes putting further pressure on Kim Jong-un. And opening talks about designing rules of the road in the cyber sphere would be desirable.

Ukraine remains another major stumbling block to improved ties. The appointment of Ambassador Kurt Volker as special envoy for Ukraine is a welcome development. But the prospects for the Minsk agreement being fulfilled are not good. Secretary Tillerson has hinted that there may be a way forward outside of Minsk, but that will require imagination and determination on all sides to resolve the conflict.

Given the fundamental differences between the two sides on a host of issues, and the lack of trust, the U.S.-Russian relationship will at best remain a limited partnership, with cooperation on some issues of mutual interest, and disagreement or competition on others. Things are unlikely to look so different under a Trump administration from the way they did under the Obama administration, barring some major new revelation about Russian activities during the election campaign last year. That should not be surprising, since the basic issues that confront the United States and Russia have not really changed that much over the past decade. Given these realities, skilled management of a challenging relationship and avoiding a deterioration in ties are probably the most to be expected for the foreseeable future.

Angela Stent directs the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University and is the author of The Limits of Partnership: U.S-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century .

Gary -> Guest , August 18, 2017 9:52 PM

Are you saying that the smaller or weaker states on Russia's western borders must submit to Russia's control as during the Cold War? Sorry, but we are not going to let Russia bully or threaten them. They made the decision to join the NATO precisely out of distrust and fear of Russia, confirmed by Putin's belligerence and aggression in Georgia and Ukraine. Blame it on Putin's nostalgia for Russia's domination over Eastern Europe and the occupation of the Baltic states.

Roy Tyrell -> Gary , August 19, 2017 3:19 PM

Who is "we" Gary?

I'm a native born American citizen (as is my family - many generations - going back to 1850) and a voter.

No one in my Family will ever take up arms for the glorification of neocons.

CCCP -> Gary , August 20, 2017 8:20 PM

They made the decision to join the NATO In some countries (new NATO members) had a referendum on this subject?
But Crimea held a referendum on joining Russia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia held a referendum on independence and fought for their independence.
If you refer to the decision of the people, then do it always, not only when you want it.

Drinas -> Gary , August 24, 2017 6:33 AM

The "smaller or weaker" states you mention had better not involve themselves in a campaign to demonize Russia and everything Russian-but above all they should try to :

A) Not attack it directly like Georgia did in 2008

B) Attack it indirectly as Ukraine did after the Maidan coup in 2014

In both cases an appropriate and symmetric response was handed to them by Russia. You know, being small or weak does not mean that you are virtuous .

Youry Gromadsky -> Guest , August 19, 2017 2:28 PM

Yes! You right 1000000$

Gary G9 -> Guest , August 19, 2017 6:28 AM

US treats Russia a major power, not a minor country. We've got a lot of special bilateral agreements on nukes and other things. When Russia invaded Ukraine/Crimea we didnt do a Desert Storm operation or even send defensive weapons to Ukraine. Ditto with Georgia 2008, Syria in 2016. US and West knows these aren't worth risking confrontation. Russia still has its Security Council UN seat. So, I think we are "somewhere in the middle", as you say.

Russia's leaders want to dominate their smaller neighbors without the West criticising them harshly, and they want to invest their klepto-wealth in the West's safe banking and real estate world so that a future Russian leader can't re-steal it. They will probably succeed in getting one or these goals, but not both. We Westerners love to criticize bogeyman, and Russia is still more interesting in that role than the Chinese. But at least a bogeyman is respected, not ignored. Until Russia becomes part of the West, and not its own Eurasian civ, this is the best we can all hope for.

Roy Tyrell -> Guest , August 19, 2017 3:22 PM

Gary believes America is protected by a comic book superhero version of Jesus that will magically intercept all of Russia's ICBM's. These people are crazies.

Gary G9 -> Guest , August 20, 2017 2:18 AM

We Agree - that's my point. We don't treat Russia like Iraq, Panama, Libya.

CCCP -> Gary G9 , August 20, 2017 8:08 PM

Before to come to conclusions, remember please about jar of white powder Colin Powell. Where are the Iraqi nuclear weapons? When Russia invaded Using the word "invaded" compare the situation in Crimea and Iraq, or Libya. Just think about it for leisure.

Gary G9 -> CCCP , August 20, 2017 9:20 PM

How would you like me to think about Russia military intervention in southern Ukraine (i.e. Crimea), and its involvement supporting with the separatists in SW Ukraine? Are you saying these these events not happen and continue to happen? Are you saying the reporting from those areas are some sort of Western media conspiracy against pacifist Russia?

Sergey Titkov -> Gary G9 , August 21, 2017 3:58 AM

First of all most of western reporters have never been to Donbass or Crimea. They usually stay in Kiev or on Ukrainian territory close to the border with DNR/ LNR. Some of them just copy/paste each other's nonsense. If RF was involved in a conflict there would have been no Ukrainian as state in a week (remember Georgian conflict?).

There are "specialists" in DNR/LNR, nothing more. I've got some relatives there so I need neither Russian nor western media to tell me what's really going on there.

About Crimea try asking people from there or someone who has really been there recently. I guarantee that if you tell locals about "the occupation" they'll just laugh in your face.

Gary G9 -> Sergey Titkov , August 21, 2017 5:25 AM

I don't think we're saying different things. You seem to think that I think that a million RF troops and thousands of tanks are in Ukraine. I never said that, nor did I say anything about an occupation of Crimea. I said "intervention" in Crimea, and continued military support of separatists in SW Ukraine.

I guess the morale of the story is never give up your nukes, and never trust the Russians. Ukraine, Germany, Poland, Sweden should create their own independent nuclear deterrent so they aren't at the mercy of Russia, and aren't reliant on a permanent US umbrella.

Question: Why haven't you guys "intervened" in Odessa yet? Most reports I hear are that a majority of population are Russian, so you would welcomed with open arms, just like Crimea. Why are you letting your Russian-speaking brethren wallow in Ukrainian corruption and Western decadence?

Sergey Titkov -> Gary G9 , August 22, 2017 7:54 AM

Well, about Odessa it's not quite true. There is a Russian minority, they could have held two referendums as people did in Crimea (on independence from Ukraine and another one on accession to RF) but no-one would ever let them since the city is very well guarded.

Besides people are very much afraid 'cause they remember what so called "patriots" did few years ago (about 50 people burned alive). Now we come to the nuclear question. Guess what will happen if mindless nationalistic ukropithecus government gets its bloody hands on this tech (they are now talking that Rostov and Kuban' is there territory).

There will be trouble, 'cause in that case we will have to interfere in a full scale. Other countries you've mentioned will never even try to get the tech cause it is far cheaper to cry in hysterics asking US troops to defend them (they have succeeded in this). You could give them a few bombs, pols now know how to use those. But I doubt you ever will. And we do not have a million in the army. It is better to have a medium size but a highly professional army and that's what we aim for.

P.S. In some time there will be riots not only in Odessa but in all cities of Ukraine. They used to have a thief for a president, now they have thieves and murderers.

Gary G9 -> Sergey Titkov , August 22, 2017 8:57 AM

Yes, yes, of course, the Ukrainians are so much more corrupt and murderous than Russia's competent and loving government. Its a great wonder why they wanted to become independent country 25 years ago and a mystery that they haven't overthrown their corrupt leaders and asked to re-join Mother Russia.

The only possible explanation must be that the CIA has bribed its leaders and brainwashed the Ukraine population with anti-Russia propaganda, including that fairy tale about how Moscow starved 5 or 10 million of their grandparents in the 1930s. Ha hahahahah.

Come on Sergey, give me a break. I appreciate your insights about Odessa, but Russians should stop the propaganda that Ukrainians are like children and incapable of self-government.

Sergey Titkov -> Gary G9 , August 23, 2017 6:31 AM

You didn't get what I was trying to say. Every Ukrainian government was corrupt (in some way or another), but none was killing its own people, none was making the 2nd Ward War criminals their national heroes, none was blocking media, arresting and killing jurnalists, none except this one.

About their "independence": remind me what was Nuland and McCain doing there during maidan?

What was she discussing on the phone with Jim "the lord of Ukraine" Payete? What was Jo Biden's son doing there? And it is just a coincidence that in the SBU building in Kiev there are two floors with CIA personnel, and SBU agents are not permitted there, isn't it? You do not need to brainwash people a lot 'cause there are pretty many rationalists in western Ukraine. You just need to help them to come to power, all the rest they'll do themselves. I wish Ukraine could be a sovereign and neutral state, but it became a US vassal, an anti-Russian puppet. Remember who said this: "Samosa is a son of a ..., but he is our son of a ..." )? This is a huge political game.

And for God sake we do not want them to become a part of RF. It is a huge pain in a very well-known part of a body. Would you like for example Honduras to be another US state? I doubt so. And I have no illusions about our government: some of them should be hanging out somewhere in "sunny" Magadan (lots of good prisons there for them).

Sergey Titkov -> Gary G9 , August 23, 2017 6:46 AM

And about that starvation: far more Russians died in southwest of Russia than in Ukraine. This was a crime but not a crime against Ukrainians as a nation. Golodomor is a ukronationalists' and former Hitler's collaborators' lie. It has been around for about 65 years, this is not a new invention.

CCCP -> Gary G9 , August 21, 2017 4:42 PM

You speak as if someone stole your car. You somehow completely forgot about the people who live in Crimea. In the Crimea there was a referendum, 80% of the total adult population voted for joining Russia (I'm talking about the total number, not of those who went to vote).
My friends go every year to rest into Crimea with young children. Would you go for a vacation in Libya, or Iraq? Citizens would surely will make a very warm welcome for you, because you freed them from the bloody dictators and brought democracy...

Drinas , August 18, 2017 3:36 AM

"The appointment of Ambassador Kurt Volker as special envoy for Ukraine is a welcome development."

Sure, what is wrong with appointing a rabid Russophobe like Volker (John "all Russians are evil" McCain) at this position? The first move by Volker was to push for advanced weapon deliveries for Ukraine, thus fueling the now quasi-frozen conflict. Very constructive..

Roy Tyrell -> Drinas , August 19, 2017 3:15 PM

Russia would bulldoze Ukraine if they ever started stepping outside the box with new weapon systems. There would be no Ukraine left to whine about Crimea.

Gary -> Drinas , August 18, 2017 9:55 PM

Just tell Russia to stop supporting the Donbas rebels, negotiate with Ukraine on Crimea and respect the sovereignty of his neighbors. Then we can have mutual respect.

Drinas -> Gary , August 19, 2017 2:48 AM

Crimea is a done deal. It is more likely that Russia would give Moscow than Crimea. As for the Donbass rebels, sure, as long as the Kiev regime ceases its brutal repression tactics across the rest of Ukraine, I believe an understanding where Donbass integrates somehow with Ukraine could be reached.

Till then, they will fight for their freedom. As for mutual respect, how about doing something about rampant russophobia in US media, Hollywood etc? That would be a good start.

Roy Tyrell -> Drinas , August 19, 2017 3:02 PM

I'm an American and do wish to visit Russian Crimea one day. It sounds like you guys are really turning that place into quite a tourist destination (with plenty of military protection). Well done on the Turbines ;-)

Drinas -> Roy Tyrell , August 19, 2017 3:23 PM

You are more than welcome! Summertime is the best season for visiting Crimea. Another tourist attraction is on its way- https://sputniknews.com/rus...

Just don't take pictures of it! :-P Joking aside, I just hope relations will at least normalize soon. The vast majority of Russian people, though somewhat disenchanted, still very much like USA and its people!

Sergey Titkov -> Roy Tyrell , August 21, 2017 4:29 AM

And you (as anyone else) is always welcome. There are still some major problems in Crimea (electricity being turned off from time to time, Kiev regime blocking water supplies and harassing people moving through the border) but they will be solved when the bridge is finished (ukrops will likely try blowing it up so it needs to be well protected). P.S. There was a grand jazz festival in Koktebel recently with quite a number of musicians from the US. It's held every summer.

Roy Tyrell , August 17, 2017 11:10 PM

I'm sorry but America bears the bulk of the blame. This goes all the way back to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the CIA's unmitigated disastrous role in the whole sordid affair. Ending with bombing Serbia - the country that Russia literally went to global war to protect early in the 20th century.

It's all on America and it's unbridled arrogance.

Gary -> Roy Tyrell , August 18, 2017 9:44 PM

BS! The situation with the former Yugoslavia was that Serbia was trying to expand its territory at the expense of Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia, so the Serbs started attacking the non-Serbs there hoping to drive them out and creating Greater Serbia. The Serbs were attacking Sarajevo with anti-aircraft guns, mortars and snipers resulting in death of civilians there. They also massacred over 7,000 Bosnian men and boys at Srebrenica. The UN had enough and authorized the NATO to attack Serbian targets to get them to stop killing and sit down to a peace talk.

You don't get to create an alternative history to suit your biases.

Андрей Соколов -> Gary , August 19, 2017 3:46 AM

These "7000
Bosnian men and boys" (we call these people Islamic terrorists) during their raids from Srebrenica cruelly killed three thousand Serbian women and children.

Is this also an "alternative history"?

Gary -> Андрей Соколов , August 27, 2017 8:14 PM

No, they weren't terrorists. You just pretend that they were to justify murdering them and no, they didn't killed any Serbian women. That is just your invention and YOUR alternative history.

Андрей Соколов -> Gary , August 28, 2017 3:08 AM

Do you think that the Serbs themselves killed their children in order to justify the invasion of Srebrenica?

Mark Thomason , August 18, 2017 12:14 PM

Putin certainly came intending to negate the disasters of the Yeltsin years. He has, and Russians widely admire him for that. However, the assertion that he wants to return to the USSR and its overpowering of all neighbors is neocon dogma, not based in anything Putin has said or done.

Putin has said the opposite, that while the heart may see the end of the USSR as disaster, the head must see that it was the right thing for Russia.

Putin's actions have been reactions, and he has stopped short, as when he pulled back out of Georgia after the lunatics of Georgia attacked Russia, with encouragement from the neocon lunatics of the Bush Admin led by Cheney himself.

Our problems with Russia are real, but they are not what these ideologues pretend.

We could deal with the Russians, to find a level that would feel safe enough for them to cooperate on other issues. Instead, we are set on feeding their paranoia.

Ashok Bhagat -> Mark Thomason , August 27, 2017 10:01 PM

Russia should have gone it and taken Georgia whether they were at it and put Shaskshivilli in prison. One less issue to deal with.

Sergey Titkov -> Mark Thomason , August 21, 2017 4:53 AM

You are right. Putin actually said this: "Those who do not regret that the USSR has fallen apart have no heart, those who want it back have no brain" .

And about Georgia: they attacked and killed our peacekeepers while bombing Tskhinval so literally they stacked RF. Later it was recognised by Heidy Taliaviny and EU parliament.

But no-one seem to care now 'cause we are once again called "aggressors". Quite convenient for some western politicians.

sammagus , August 18, 2017 2:59 PM

Every administration since 1992 has expanded NATO eastward, up to the border of Russia itself. NATO is a nuclear-armed military alliance. How would we feel if the Warsaw Pact was deploying thousands of soldiers and missiles along our southern and northern borders?

This is the only real problem we have with Russia, which is, like most countries we deal with, a more or less capitalistic, and more or less democratic state. There is no fundamental reason we should not be partnering with Russia to manage the difficulties of the current and developing world situation.

Jiri Klouda , August 18, 2017 6:38 PM

Why are american journalists always inventing fake desires for Putin and Russia. It is like saying the US wants world domination and to defeat Russia and China. Well, it would be nice if it happened, but we are not working toward it, are we?

if everyone in the world started making fake claims like this about our aims and then acted based on those fantasies, it would be pretty difficult.

We could of course deny it as much as we would like to, but it would only be taken as confirmation of our nefarious ways. Come on. Can we once take the Russians at their word and just agree that all they want is respect and sovereignty in their own territory and no NATO bases near their borders and just for once base our analysis on the facts rather than fiction?

Gary -> Jiri Klouda , August 18, 2017 10:12 PM

No, we can't take the Russians at their word seriously. They have been lying for so long about their goals in the hope of fooling us into dropping our guard. The former Warsaw Pact countries and the independent Baltic states will stay under the NATO protection that they want until Putin and his ilks leave.

Jiri Klouda -> Gary , August 19, 2017 4:55 PM

Gary, you are absolutely absurd. Just look at the facts. We have lied about every single war since the Cold War ended. The Russians are lying? Look at Trump for fsck sake? Compared to him, Putin is a high moral authority. Seriously, you must thing that people outside of United States are as blind, uncaring and uneducated as the people inside.

Roy Tyrell -> Gary , August 19, 2017 3:07 PM

The public record is too easy to find. It's like asking off-duty soldiers not to see wikileaks because the material is outside their clearance. Absolutely absurdity.

America's fantasy world needs to come to an end.

You have done a heroic effort to makes us all believe in ZENU and the easter bunny though

Sergey Titkov -> Gary , August 21, 2017 5:03 AM

Before speaking about lies look at your own governments starting from Clinton times, take a good look at your media as well. Goebbels would have been pleased. Remember this quotation: "tell as many lies as you can, eventually you will believe them yourself". That is happening now, do not be fooled.

Gary G9 , August 22, 2017 2:59 AM

Why do all these Russians dominate this Comments section? Does National Interest do a lot of advertsing there, or is this some kind of target for their government's disinformation campaign?

Hey Russians - is there some sort of similar Russian-based web publication I can go to give you guys my opinions on GeoPolitics, or would i be wasting my time?

Gary -> Gary G9 , August 27, 2017 8:20 PM

They are probably working at the troll factory in St. Petersburg. It is their duty to divert, deflect and lie about everything, and they have a daily quota to make many nonsensical pro-Russia and anti-American comments.

Airbrush2020 , August 18, 2017 11:38 PM

The author cites "...the difficult investment climate and weakness of the rule of law..." The problem with Russia is the internal climate of being a mafia controlled security state. The rules of the game are much different in Russia. And, given that Russia continuously tries to degrade European alliances, western organizational structures, and faithfully poses a military threat to the west...we can say that we've never had "good" relations with either the USSR or Russia.

[Sep 01, 2017] Is America Losing Its Military Edge to Russia The National Interest Blog

Sep 01, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

don huang , August 31, 2017 12:23 AM

A war with Russia will eventually go nuclear; Russia will be tempted to use the nuke option if they perceive losing the war, and the same goes for the US-led NATO forces. The biggest losers will be the Europeans because the war, if any, is in Europe. NATO is not protecting European security; rather it is serving more for the US's national interests by deploying NATO forces right up to the Russian borders. NATO's relentless recruitment of former USSR's satellite states in eastern Europe would be considered as 'casus belli', inviting aggression rather than deterring it.

Juan Manzano , August 30, 2017 7:47 PM

It's going to be 4/8 booming years for Defense contractors.

Bangash , August 31, 2017 6:07 AM

Very technical and impressive. However, it could have been more suitable if you had made it some balance approach in other words, contrasting measures. This article is actually telling the story against Russian armaments, looking from here as a villain, but where are the American Facts?

Indeed, you should also discuss other side of the coin in order to convey a message before everyone, or at least a novice.

cynicus , August 31, 2017 11:19 PM

Another one sided rubbish article from the American media. Crimea was part of Russia since 1783. In 1954 the President of the USSR gave it to the Ukraine to administer. The majority of the Crimean population, who consider themselves Russian by the way, voted in a 2014 referendum to rejoin Russia.
The billions of dollars Russia spends on arms, around $90 billion, pales in comparison to what America spend which is around $800 billion.
America is very good at bombing other countries that can't fight back, North Korea is not like them, they can fight back and South Korea would suffer, the only solution is to negotiate.

johngaltfla.com , August 30, 2017 7:23 PM

The funny thing is Russia is not ready for an offensive. By 2020, sure, possibly, but not yet. In the mean time our bureaucrats and bungling Pentagon keep trying to acquire weapons for the last war, not the next one.

The scariest part is that Russia has tested its robotic armored vehicles (small versions) in real combat situations in Syria. While we argue about the best vendor for the same.

don huang johngaltfla.com , August 31, 2017 12:44 AM

Whatever the Russians are doing today, the reality is that the USA had done it a long time ago. The Russians are depicted as an enemy for political expedient because it suits the profits of the oil and military industrial conglomerate.

johngaltfla.com don huang , August 31, 2017 6:35 AM

True. And the US is a victim of the "we have to have an enemy" paranoia to maintain the globalist military-industrial complex.

Thomas Fung , August 30, 2017 4:59 PM

It seems to this person that if additional ground troops are indeed needed in Europe, then they should be provided by Europeans, not North Americans.

don huang Thomas Fung , August 31, 2017 12:28 AM

Since it is the Americans that is actively pushing NATO forces to move into the former USSR's satellite states in Eastern Europe it is only reasonable that American troops be leading from the Russian fronts.

[Sep 01, 2017] FSA planning gas use in Deraa, Syria

Sep 01, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

"On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the Shabab al-Sunnah militant group in Daraa has of chemical weapons and is planning to use them."We have received worrying information. According to Russia's information, the Shabab al-Sunnah armed group has access to chemical weapons," Zakharova said during a press conference.

Shabab al-Sunnah is one of the US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) groups in southern Syria. The group participated in the attack on the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in Daraa city earlier this year. Furthermore, the groups is one of few FSA groups in Daraa that has received US-made TOW ATGMs.

Zakharova releveled that Shabab al-Sunnah has several missiles fitted with chemical agents in its warehouse in Daraa. Furthermore, according to Zakharova, the group is planning to use this weapons against a civilian area in Daraa.

Likely Shabab al-Sunnah is planning to sabotage the de-escalation agreement in southern Syria by faking a chemical weapons attack by the "Assad regime".

Lately the group took part in the attack against ISIS-affiliated Jaysh Khalid ibn al-Waleed in the western Daraa countryside and made no gains what so ever." SF

----------------

Ok pilgrims, BOHICA! (one of the oldies here will explain)

Having been repeatedly defeated these scum bags are probably going to try to create another bogus Syrian Govenment chemical drama.

OK! Spread the word pilgrims. There are a hell of a lot of you. 10,000 a day visit this site.

The FSA unicorns so beloved by McCain and the LOLFSC released a Syrian Army pilot captured after shoot down and 30 border guards. Hopefully this is a sign that the unicorns are giving up the fight against the multi-confessional Syrian Government.

In SE Raqqa IS continues to throw reserves of men they cannot afford to lose into what has become and attritional fight against the Tiger Forces. What should we call the Tiger Forces now, a division, an army corps?

pl

https://southfront.org/russia-fsa-planning-use-chemical-weapons-daraa/

Posted at 05:58 PM in Russia , Syria Permalink Comments (3)

Lemur , 31 August 2017 at 08:34 PM

Speaking of multi-confessional, Col, there's a post up at lawfare blog complaining once Assad wins the civil war will restart because he hasn't accommodated the grievances which led to mass violence.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/rules-reconstruction-syria

How exactly do you accommodate a confession which wants to kill the other confessions?

It seems to me when the Arab and Turkic elites were thinking about how to function as independent entities in the modern world, they understood certain proclivities within the population would have to be suppressed. That's why the Turkish military played a constitutional role in Turkish politics. Likewise, the Syrian military has had to suppress the anti-secular ideas of the more traditionalist Sunnis in Hama and Idlib, who can be easily incited by organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood.

johnT , 31 August 2017 at 10:02 PM
Bend over, here it comes again!
deteodo , 31 August 2017 at 10:37 PM
I saw last night on PBS "Dick Cavett"s Vietnam." Again, as always, our motives were damned rather than our strategy criticized. But note that it's the other way around when our Syria policy is criticized.
Lemur , 31 August 2017 at 10:37 PM
Update: According to the Syrian Civil War Map, which is generally the most accurate, the SAA are now just 37 kms from Deir Ez Zor.

[Aug 31, 2017] US orders Russia to close consulate and annexes in diplomatic reprisal

Aug 31, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

The US has ordered Russia to close diplomatic offices in San Francisco, New York and Washington within the next two days, in the latest round of punitive measures between the two countries that began at the end of last year.

The secretary of state Rex Tillerson spoke to his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, in a phone call on Thursday. Lavrov said Moscow "regrets an escalation of tension not initiated by Russia", according to the state-run RT news channel . A senior US administration official said the call was "professional" and that Lavrov "agreed to the sentiment that it was important to find a way to improve our relations".

No Russians will be expelled in this latest move, and US officials said staff at the offices affected could be reassigned to other Russian diplomatic missions around the country. But they made it clear that the buildings had to be vacated and would have to be sold or have their leases ended.

[Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

Highly recommended!
This is way too simplistic interpretation of the events, but still she shed a light on the problems of anti war movement in the USA. As sson as soch movemetn grow to represnt a threat to status wquo they instantly get in cross hears of intelligence agencies. Arrests follow.
Bill Ayers part is better and he managed to land a couple of quotes with rather deep observations about the nature of the problems with the US media.
Notable quotes:
"... UnAmerican Activities ..."
"... "Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy." ..."
"... "The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head." ..."
"... The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan ..."
"... Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq ..."
"... The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible ..."
Aug 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

... ... ...

In 1970, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a group that emerged out of Students for a Democratic Society, issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the US government, and shortly thereafter began carrying out bombings against symbols of US Empire, including even the Pentagon itself. Targeting mostly government buildings and several banks -- and taking care not to injure human beings -- the actions were designed to "bring the war home" in order to highlight imperial injustices against the oppressed, and the egregious violence of US imperialism.

... ... ...

"[The Media's role was] so important that the US military learned to never again allow independent journalists into their war zones," Dohrn explained. "[Significantly], the mainstream media never again allowed images of human people, families, women or children who suffer the consequences of US bombings or invasions."

With the dominant media avoiding these responsibilities, one of the many roles the WUO played was, according to Dohrn, to communicate to the public the ways in which people, cultures and whole civilizations were suffering under US air strikes and CIA repression.

"The media was plenty corporatized during the '60s and '70s, and it was the anti-war movement in concert with the Black Freedom Movement and the returning vets who changed the hearts and minds of the US people from 1965-1968," she said.

WUO member David Gilbert told Truthout he believes it was the strength of the anti-war movement, and the US losses in Vietnam, that finally pushed sectors of the media to start reporting some of the truth about the war.

He echoes Dohrn's point that the media was already corporatized back then (though the conglomerates were not nearly as large as they are today), and the pro-war bias of the media was just as real as it is now.

"An example was the use of napalm bombs, designed to cling to and burn through flesh, on civilians," Gilbert said. "The mainstream media completely whited-out these horrible war crimes."

In fact, in January 1967 a radical magazine, Ramparts, published a series of color photos of children and babies burned by napalm.

"That's the point when some of us became absolutely frantic to stop the war," Gilbert said. "But it also exposed the mainstream media for what they were covering up."

According to Gilbert, by 1967 a whole network of small radical papers had a combined readership of roughly 6 million, making up a crucial wing of the movement. Of course, it was therefore ripe for targeting by intelligence agencies.

"An important part of the FBI and police offensive to beat the radical movements was to destroy the radical media, a campaign that's detailed in Geoffrey Rips's UnAmerican Activities ," he said.

By the late '60s, largely due to constant pressure from the increasingly powerful anti-war movement, portions of the media started to come around to presenting some of the realities of the Vietnam War. Plus, by then, it was clear the US was likely going to lose the war, US brutality abroad was being exposed to the world, and the political upheaval on the home front was becoming white hot.

Gilbert went on to explain how, then as now, "The hawks waged a concerted campaign to blame that on 'the liberal media,' to the point that this lie has become accepted today."

At that time, the myth of the "liberal media" accomplished several things for the right wing, according to Gilbert. "It's covered up the truth that the US military machine was defeated by a Global South nation, it's convinced the public that the 'truth lies somewhere in between' the hawks and the media, when in fact the media didn't do nearly enough to expose the injustice and horrors of the war, and it's intimidated the media, which fell into line as pure propaganda organs in subsequent wars."

Naomi Jaffe, one of the WUO's founding members who joined in solidarity with movements for Black self-determination, agreed with Gilbert in that pressure from the anti-war movement was a leading factor that pushed the media to share more images of the war. However, she was quite critical of the overall role the media played during Vietnam.

"Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Not a hint of independent reporting ever questioned it until long after the war was over," Jaffe told Truthout. "The body counts? Regular reports of how the US was winning by killing more 'Viet Cong' every week than could possibly have existed overall."

Bill Ayers, who is married to Dohrn, was also a leader and cofounder of the WUO.

"Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy."

For example, Ayers says, the New York Times announced that it saw the "light at the end of the tunnel" -- the turning point when the war would at long last be turned around and won -- days before the decisive defeat during the Tet Offensive in 1968. In 1966, Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor and the most trusted journalist of his generation, presented a fawning interview with the puppet and fascist Nguyen Cao Ky and called him the George Washington of Viet Nam.

"The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head."

Ayers said it wasn't the media that played a role in helping end the war in Vietnam, it was, by far, the decisive actions of the Vietnamese people themselves "in defeating the most potent military force on earth." He pointed out, "Vietnam was engaged in an authentic social revolution, deep and broad, in which peasants and workers were massively engaged in the overthrow of colonialism and foreign control as well as feudal relationships and capitalism itself."

Moreover, Ayers said, this revolution was part of "the anti-colonial and Third World moment, a context that allowed us to understand the revolution in Vietnam as part of a world phenomenon sweeping from South Africa to Egypt to Chile to Indonesia."

He also pointed to "the important role of the underground -- popular or alternative or movement -- press in the US, and its ability to tap international sources like the Cuban media, for example, to uncover the truth of events."

He sees the typical narrative -- the idea that the military draft made the war real in the eyes of the US public, and the media cemented that reality, helping to end the war -- as skewed. It "buys into a simplistic and largely self-serving explanation," Ayers said. "The Vietnamese revolution and war resistance at home impacted the media coverage, not the other way around."

... ... ... DAHR JAMAIL

Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards.

His third book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible , co-written with William Rivers Pitt , is available now on Amazon.

Dahr Jamail is also the author of the book, The End of Ice , forthcoming from The New Press. He lives and works in Washington State.

[Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

Highly recommended!
This is way too simplistic interpretation of the events, but still she shed a light on the problems of anti war movement in the USA. As sson as soch movemetn grow to represnt a threat to status wquo they instantly get in cross hears of intelligence agencies. Arrests follow.
Bill Ayers part is better and he managed to land a couple of quotes with rather deep observations about the nature of the problems with the US media.
Notable quotes:
"... UnAmerican Activities ..."
"... "Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy." ..."
"... "The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head." ..."
"... The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan ..."
"... Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq ..."
"... The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible ..."
Aug 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

... ... ...

In 1970, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a group that emerged out of Students for a Democratic Society, issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the US government, and shortly thereafter began carrying out bombings against symbols of US Empire, including even the Pentagon itself. Targeting mostly government buildings and several banks -- and taking care not to injure human beings -- the actions were designed to "bring the war home" in order to highlight imperial injustices against the oppressed, and the egregious violence of US imperialism.

... ... ...

"[The Media's role was] so important that the US military learned to never again allow independent journalists into their war zones," Dohrn explained. "[Significantly], the mainstream media never again allowed images of human people, families, women or children who suffer the consequences of US bombings or invasions."

With the dominant media avoiding these responsibilities, one of the many roles the WUO played was, according to Dohrn, to communicate to the public the ways in which people, cultures and whole civilizations were suffering under US air strikes and CIA repression.

"The media was plenty corporatized during the '60s and '70s, and it was the anti-war movement in concert with the Black Freedom Movement and the returning vets who changed the hearts and minds of the US people from 1965-1968," she said.

WUO member David Gilbert told Truthout he believes it was the strength of the anti-war movement, and the US losses in Vietnam, that finally pushed sectors of the media to start reporting some of the truth about the war.

He echoes Dohrn's point that the media was already corporatized back then (though the conglomerates were not nearly as large as they are today), and the pro-war bias of the media was just as real as it is now.

"An example was the use of napalm bombs, designed to cling to and burn through flesh, on civilians," Gilbert said. "The mainstream media completely whited-out these horrible war crimes."

In fact, in January 1967 a radical magazine, Ramparts, published a series of color photos of children and babies burned by napalm.

"That's the point when some of us became absolutely frantic to stop the war," Gilbert said. "But it also exposed the mainstream media for what they were covering up."

According to Gilbert, by 1967 a whole network of small radical papers had a combined readership of roughly 6 million, making up a crucial wing of the movement. Of course, it was therefore ripe for targeting by intelligence agencies.

"An important part of the FBI and police offensive to beat the radical movements was to destroy the radical media, a campaign that's detailed in Geoffrey Rips's UnAmerican Activities ," he said.

By the late '60s, largely due to constant pressure from the increasingly powerful anti-war movement, portions of the media started to come around to presenting some of the realities of the Vietnam War. Plus, by then, it was clear the US was likely going to lose the war, US brutality abroad was being exposed to the world, and the political upheaval on the home front was becoming white hot.

Gilbert went on to explain how, then as now, "The hawks waged a concerted campaign to blame that on 'the liberal media,' to the point that this lie has become accepted today."

At that time, the myth of the "liberal media" accomplished several things for the right wing, according to Gilbert. "It's covered up the truth that the US military machine was defeated by a Global South nation, it's convinced the public that the 'truth lies somewhere in between' the hawks and the media, when in fact the media didn't do nearly enough to expose the injustice and horrors of the war, and it's intimidated the media, which fell into line as pure propaganda organs in subsequent wars."

Naomi Jaffe, one of the WUO's founding members who joined in solidarity with movements for Black self-determination, agreed with Gilbert in that pressure from the anti-war movement was a leading factor that pushed the media to share more images of the war. However, she was quite critical of the overall role the media played during Vietnam.

"Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Not a hint of independent reporting ever questioned it until long after the war was over," Jaffe told Truthout. "The body counts? Regular reports of how the US was winning by killing more 'Viet Cong' every week than could possibly have existed overall."

Bill Ayers, who is married to Dohrn, was also a leader and cofounder of the WUO.

"Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy."

For example, Ayers says, the New York Times announced that it saw the "light at the end of the tunnel" -- the turning point when the war would at long last be turned around and won -- days before the decisive defeat during the Tet Offensive in 1968. In 1966, Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor and the most trusted journalist of his generation, presented a fawning interview with the puppet and fascist Nguyen Cao Ky and called him the George Washington of Viet Nam.

"The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head."

Ayers said it wasn't the media that played a role in helping end the war in Vietnam, it was, by far, the decisive actions of the Vietnamese people themselves "in defeating the most potent military force on earth." He pointed out, "Vietnam was engaged in an authentic social revolution, deep and broad, in which peasants and workers were massively engaged in the overthrow of colonialism and foreign control as well as feudal relationships and capitalism itself."

Moreover, Ayers said, this revolution was part of "the anti-colonial and Third World moment, a context that allowed us to understand the revolution in Vietnam as part of a world phenomenon sweeping from South Africa to Egypt to Chile to Indonesia."

He also pointed to "the important role of the underground -- popular or alternative or movement -- press in the US, and its ability to tap international sources like the Cuban media, for example, to uncover the truth of events."

He sees the typical narrative -- the idea that the military draft made the war real in the eyes of the US public, and the media cemented that reality, helping to end the war -- as skewed. It "buys into a simplistic and largely self-serving explanation," Ayers said. "The Vietnamese revolution and war resistance at home impacted the media coverage, not the other way around."

... ... ... DAHR JAMAIL

Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards.

His third book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible , co-written with William Rivers Pitt , is available now on Amazon.

Dahr Jamail is also the author of the book, The End of Ice , forthcoming from The New Press. He lives and works in Washington State.

[Aug 30, 2017] Insurgent Russia is prior target of global oligarchy

Aug 30, 2017 | eadaily.com

Three powerful groups have opposed the oligarchy: the group of insurgents Russia, the group in US led by Mr. Trump, and finally, the group in China led by Mr. Xi. These three groups are now trying to feel out the possibility of making a strategic alliance to overcome the decline. Perhaps, each group would like to keep the old game rules on conditions favorable to it.

Since there are no such conditions, they have to rise against the system. The key link in that revolt against old rules is Russia. It was the first to see that something very muddy is happening and it must be stopped.

Of course, there is no longer the Russia that won the Great Patriotic War. However, present-day Russia is awakening; it has army, a nuclear missile shield.

All these factors taken together can ensure a successful revolt. Russia announced revolt in 2013, when it stopped the US Administration and did not let it destroy Syria. Since that moment, the insurgent Russia is the prior target of the global oligarchy.

[Aug 30, 2017] Selected quotes from antiwar.com

Notable quotes:
"... In war, truth is the first casualty. ..."
"... The great armies, accumulated to provide security and preserve the peace, carried the nations to war by their own weight ..."
"... Force always attracts men of low morality ..."
"... The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Below is a listing of the quotes you see displayed on all Antiwar.com pages. .

  1. History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. ~Abba Eban About the quote: Israeli diplomat (1915-2002)

  2. Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both. ~Abraham Flexner

  3. Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived. ~Abraham Lincoln
  4. I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends. ~Abraham Lincoln
  5. America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. ~Abraham Lincoln
  6. We must recognize the chief characteristic of the modern era -- a permanent state of what I call violent peace. ~Admiral James D. Watkins
  7. Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. ~Adolph Hitler
  8. In war, truth is the first casualty. ~Aeschylus
  9. Any excuse will serve a tyrant. ~Aesop
  10. One is left with the horrible feeling now that war settles nothing; that to win a war is as disastrous as to lose one. ~Agatha Christie
  11. The great armies, accumulated to provide security and preserve the peace, carried the nations to war by their own weight. ~A. J. P. Taylor
  12. No matter what political reasons are given for war, the underlying reason is always economic. ~A. J. P. Taylor
  13. Wars based on principle are far more destructive... the attacker will not destroy that which he is after. ~Alan Watts About the quote: from the book "The Way of Zen"
  14. We used to wonder where war lived, what it was that made it so vile. And now we realize that we know where it lives...inside ourselves. ~Albert Camus

  15. When a war breaks out, people say: "It's too stupid, it can't last long." But though a war may be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. ~Albert Camus
  16. The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants. ~Albert Camus
  17. Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. ~Albert Einstein
  18. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. ~Albert Einstein
  19. The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one. ~Albert Einstein
  20. Force always attracts men of low morality. ~Albert Einstein
  21. Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding. ~Albert Einstein
  22. The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing. ~Albert Einstein
  23. It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. ~Albert J. Nock
  24. What is absurd and monstrous about war is that men who have no personal quarrel should be trained to murder one another in cold blood. ~Aldous Huxley
  25. Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  26. The next war ... may well bury Western civilization forever. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  27. Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  28. The demands of internal growth are incomparably more important to us...than the need for any external expansion of our power. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  29. Even if we are spared destruction by war, our lives will have to change if we want to save life from self-destruction. ~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
  30. War paralyzes your courage and deadens the spirit of true manhood. ~Alexander Berkman
  31. Those who stand for nothing fall for anything. ~Alexander Hamilton
  32. O peace! how many wars were waged in thy name. ~Alexander Pope
  33. All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it. ~Alexis de Tocqueville
  34. Our modern states are preparing for war without even knowing the future enemy. ~Alfred Adler
  35. War is organized murder and torture against our brothers. ~Alfred Adler
  36. Our modern states are preparing for war without even knowing the future enemy. ~Alfred Adler
  37. War is not the continuation of politics with different means, it is the greatest mass-crime perpetrated on the community of man. ~Alfred Adler
  38. At least we're getting the kind of experience we need for the next war. ~Allen Dulles
  39. The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations. ~Ambrose Bierce
  40. Since the end of the World War II, the United States has fought three "small" wars...we lost all three of them and for the same reason--hubris. ~Andrew Greely About the quote: Andrew Greely is a columnist at the Chicago Sun-Times. You can read his articles at http://www.suntimes.com/index/greeley.html
  41. Today the real test of power is not capacity to make war but capacity to prevent it. ~Anne O'Hare McCormick
  42. A great war leaves a country with three armies: an army of cripples, an army of mourners, and an army of thieves. ~Anonymous (German) About the quote: (quote from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' edited Eric Groves, Sr., pub. Quirk Books, 2008)
  43. Brute force is not our salvation, especially as directed by State central planning and done with little regard for the innocents... ~Anthony Gregory About the quote: Anthony Gregory is a writer and musician from Berkeley, CA. You can read his articles at www.lewrockwell.com About the quote: Anthony Gregory is a writer and musician from Berkeley, CA. You can read his articles at www.lewrockwell.com War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. ~Antoine De Saint-Exupery
  44. Make wars unprofitable and you make them impossible. ~A. Philip Randolph About the quote: Randolph (1889-1979) was an African American civil rights leader. (quote from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' edited Eric Groves, Sr., pub. Quirk Books, 2008)
  45. Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor. ~A pirate, from St. Augustine's "City of God"
  46. Old men declare war because they have failed to solve complex political and economic problems. ~Arthur Hoppe About the quote: Hoppe (1925-2000) was an American writer. (quote from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' edited Eric Groves, Sr., pub. Quirk Books, 2008)
  47. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~Arthur Schopenhauer
  48. Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that? ~Barbara Bush About the quote: Mrs. Bush spoke these words on ABC's "Good Morning America," March 18, 2003.
  49. No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots. ~Barbara Ehrenreich
  50. War is the unfolding of miscalculations. ~Barbara Tuchman
  51. You've got to forget about this civilian. Whenever you drop bombs, you're going to hit civilians. ~Barry Goldwater
  52. The world cannot continue to wage war like physical giants and to seek peace like intellectual pygmies. ~Basil O'Connor
  53. War is never a solution; it is an aggravation. ~Benjamin Disraeli
  54. There never was a good war or a bad peace. ~Benjamin Franklin
  55. All wars are follies, very expensive and very mischievous ones. ~Benjamin Franklin
  56. When will mankind be convinced and agree to settle their difficulties by arbitration? ~Benjamin Franklin
  57. I hope....that mankind will at length, as they call themselves responsible creatures, have the reason and sense enough to settle their differences without cutting throats... ~Benjamin Franklin
  58. Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
  59. We Americans have no commission from God to police the world. ~Benjamin Harrison About the quote: from an 1888 address to Congress
  60. The Atomic Age is here to stay-- but are we? ~Bennett Cerf
  61. Let us not deceive ourselves; we must elect world peace or world destruction. ~Bernard M. Baruch
  62. War does not determine who is right, only who is left. ~Bertrand Russell
  63. Can anything be more ridiculous than that a man has a right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the water, and because his ruler has quarrel with mine, although I have none with him? ~Blaise Pascal
  64. The terrorist is the one with the small bomb. ~Brendan Behan
  65. After each war there is a little less democracy left to save. ~Brooks Atkinson About the quote: Atkinson was an American journalist who lived from 1864-1984. (quote from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' edited Eric Groves, Sr., pub. Quirk Books, 2008)
  66. Blind faith in your leaders or in anything will get you killed. ~Bruce Springsteen About the quote: This was part of Springsteen's introduction to his 1985 version of Edwin Starr's song 'War.' In this war – as in others – I am less interested in honoring the dead than in preventing the dead. ~Butler Shaffer
  67. No nation ever had an army large enough to guarantee it against attack in time of peace, or ensure it of victory in time of war. ~Calvin Coolidge
  68. The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes. ~Carl P. G. von Clausewitz
  69. War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means. ~Carl P. G. von Clausewitz
  70. Politics is the womb in which war develops. ~Carl P. G. von Clausewitz
  71. The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy. ~Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu About the quote: from "The Spirit of Laws" (1748)
  72. The voice of protest...is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum...is bidding all men...obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. ~Charles Eliot Norton
  73. If a war be undertaken...before the resources of peace have been tried and proved vain to secure it, that war has no defense, it is a national crime. ~Charles Eliot Norton
  74. War should be made a crime, and those who instigate it should be punished as criminals. ~Charles Evans Hughes
  75. The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principles on which it was founded. ~Charles-Louis De Secondat About the quote: From "The Spirit of Laws," 1748
  76. [War] is a positive, precise and specific evil, of gigantic proportions ...making within the sphere of its influence all true grandeur impossible. ~Charles Sumner About the quote: From his 1845 speech "The True Grandeur of Nations."
  77. Almost all war making states borrow extensively, raise taxes, and seize the means of combat- including men--from reluctant citizens... ~Charles Tilly
  78. Name me an emperor who was ever struck by a cannonball. ~Charles V of France
  79. The truth is that neither British nor American imperialism was or is idealistic. It has always been driven by economic or strategic interests. ~Charley Reese
  80. War, n: A time-tested political tactic guaranteed to raise a president's popularity rating by at least 30 points. It is especially useful during election years and economic downturns. ~Chaz Bufe
  81. The failure to dissect the cause of war leaves us open for the next installment. ~Chris Hedges
  82. After victory, you have more enemies. ~Cicero
  83. True patriotism hates injustice in its own land more than anywhere else. ~Clarence Darrow
  84. Hell hath no fury like a non-combatant. ~C.L. Montague About the quote: Quote from "Among the Dead Cities," by A.C. Grayling (Walker & Co., 2006).
  85. Chauvinism is a proud and bellicose form of patriotism...which equates the national honor with military victory. ~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps
  86. The dangerous patriot...is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. ~Colonel James A. Donovan, Marine Corps
  87. War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures. ~Congressman Ron Paul

  88. Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms. ~Congressman Ron Paul
  89. As a rule of thumb, if the government wants you to know it, it probably isn't true. ~Craig Murray
  90. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive. ~C. S. Lewis
  91. Do not waste time bothering whether you "love" your neighbor; act as if you did. ~C.S. Lewis
  92. You cannot win a War on Terrorism. It's like having a war on jealousy. ~David Cross
  93. We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
  94. Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower About the quote: from 1953 There is no glory in battle worth the blood it costs. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
  95. "Rules of engagement" are a set of guidelines for murder. ~Dr. Teresa Whitehurst
  96. We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
  97. Tyrants seldom want pretexts. ~Edmund Burke
  98. A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. ~Edward Abbey
  99. Our "neoconservatives" are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell. ~Edward Abbey About the quote: A naturalist and author, Abbey lived from 1927-1989.
  100. The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other--instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals. ~Edward Abbey About the quote: A naturalist and author, Abbey lived from 1927-1989.
  101. Violence is an admission that one's ideas and goals cannot prevail on their own merits. ~Edward M. Kennedy About the quote: Kennedy (b. 1932) is a U.S. Senator (D, MA). (from 'The Anti-War Quote Book,' Quirk Books, Ed. by Eric Groves Sr.)
  102. We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it. ~Edward R. Murrow
  103. History is littered with wars which everybody knew would never happen. ~Enoch Powell
  104. The first casualty of war is not truth, but perspective. Once that's gone, truth, like compassion, reason, and all the other virtues, wanders around like a wounded orphan. ~Ente Grillenhaft
  105. We must get away from the idea that America is to be the leader of the world in everything. ~Francis John McConnell
  106. The State acquires power... and because of its insatiable lust for power it is incapable of giving up any of it. The State never abdicates. ~Frank Chodorov
  107. The pertinent question: if Americans did not want these wars should they have been compelled to fight them? ~Frank Chodorov
  108. It is not that power corrupts but that power is a magnet to the corruptible. ~Frank Herbert
  109. All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. ~Frank Herbert
  110. War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. ~General Smedley Butler
  111. War is just a racket...I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. ~General Smedley Butler
  112. Our enemies are innovative and resourceful...They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. ~George W. Bush About the quote: From remarks by the president at the signing of The Defense Appropriations Act for 2005 (8/5/04)
  113. What experience and history teach is this-that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it. ~Georg W. Hegel
  114. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. ~Herman Goering
  115. The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home. ~James Madison
  116. Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~John Adams
  117. Whether or not patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, national security can be the last refuge of the tyrant. ~Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe About the quote: from 1/14/05
  118. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero
  119. What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. ~Marcus Tullius Cicero
  120. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ~Margaret Mead
  121. The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. ~Marie Beyle
  122. It takes more courage to get out of a war than it does to get into one. ~Mark Couturier
  123. Look at you in war...There has never been a just one, never an honorable one, on the part of the instigator of the war. ~Mark Twain About the quote: from "The Mysterious Stranger," published 1910.
  124. Man is the only animal that is cruel. It kills just for the sake of it. ~Mark Twain

  125. Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. ~Mark Twain
  126. Why, the Government is merely...a temporary servant...Its function is to obey orders, not originate them. ~Mark Twain
  127. Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. ~Mark Twain
  128. The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is being attacked, and every man will be glad of these conscience-soothing falsities ~Mark Twain
  129. I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land. ~Mark Twain About the quote: From an interview, 9/15/1900
  130. Be loyal to your country always, and to the government only when it deserves it. ~Mark Twain
  131. Let not your zeal to share your principles entice you beyond your borders. ~Marquis de Sade
  132. Social order at the expense of liberty is hardly a bargain. ~Marquis de Sade
  133. Is it not a strange blindness on our part to teach publicly the techniques of warfare and to reward with medals those who prove to be the most adroit killers? ~Marquis de Sade
  134. What is more immoral than war? ~Marquis de Sade
  135. There are many terrorist states in the world, but the United States is unusual in that it is officially committed to international terrorism. ~Noam Chomsky About the quote: from his book "Necessary Illusions" (p. 270)
  136. Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. ~Noam Chomsky
  137. Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich. ~Sir Peter Ustinov
  138. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ~Sun Tzu
  139. The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all. ~Tacitus
  140. To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace. ~Tacitus
  141. The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media. ~William Colby, former CIA director About the quote: as quoted by Dave McGowan in his book "Derailing Democracy"
  142. If you want war, nourish a doctrine. Doctrines are the most frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject... ~William Graham Sumner
  143. The greatest crime since World War II has been US foreign policy. ~William Ramsey Clark About the quote: William Ramsey Clark was US Attorney General under Lyndon B. Johnson
  144. The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. ~Winston Churchill
  145. When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise. ~Winston Churchill
  146. Wars teach us not to love our enemies, but to hate our allies. ~W. L. George
  147. To fight, you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fibre of national life... ~Woodrow Wilson

[Aug 30, 2017] Weather Underground Members Speak Out on the Media, Imperialism and Solidarity in the Age of Trump

Highly recommended!
This is way too simplistic interpretation of the events, but still she shed a light on the problems of anti war movement in the USA. As sson as soch movemetn grow to represnt a threat to status wquo they instantly get in cross hears of intelligence agencies. Arrests follow.
Bill Ayers part is better and he managed to land a couple of quotes with rather deep observations about the nature of the problems with the US media.
Notable quotes:
"... UnAmerican Activities ..."
"... "Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy." ..."
"... "The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head." ..."
"... The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan ..."
"... Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq ..."
"... The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible ..."
Aug 30, 2017 | www.truth-out.org

... ... ...

In 1970, the Weather Underground Organization (WUO), a group that emerged out of Students for a Democratic Society, issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the US government, and shortly thereafter began carrying out bombings against symbols of US Empire, including even the Pentagon itself. Targeting mostly government buildings and several banks -- and taking care not to injure human beings -- the actions were designed to "bring the war home" in order to highlight imperial injustices against the oppressed, and the egregious violence of US imperialism.

... ... ...

"[The Media's role was] so important that the US military learned to never again allow independent journalists into their war zones," Dohrn explained. "[Significantly], the mainstream media never again allowed images of human people, families, women or children who suffer the consequences of US bombings or invasions."

With the dominant media avoiding these responsibilities, one of the many roles the WUO played was, according to Dohrn, to communicate to the public the ways in which people, cultures and whole civilizations were suffering under US air strikes and CIA repression.

"The media was plenty corporatized during the '60s and '70s, and it was the anti-war movement in concert with the Black Freedom Movement and the returning vets who changed the hearts and minds of the US people from 1965-1968," she said.

WUO member David Gilbert told Truthout he believes it was the strength of the anti-war movement, and the US losses in Vietnam, that finally pushed sectors of the media to start reporting some of the truth about the war.

He echoes Dohrn's point that the media was already corporatized back then (though the conglomerates were not nearly as large as they are today), and the pro-war bias of the media was just as real as it is now.

"An example was the use of napalm bombs, designed to cling to and burn through flesh, on civilians," Gilbert said. "The mainstream media completely whited-out these horrible war crimes."

In fact, in January 1967 a radical magazine, Ramparts, published a series of color photos of children and babies burned by napalm.

"That's the point when some of us became absolutely frantic to stop the war," Gilbert said. "But it also exposed the mainstream media for what they were covering up."

According to Gilbert, by 1967 a whole network of small radical papers had a combined readership of roughly 6 million, making up a crucial wing of the movement. Of course, it was therefore ripe for targeting by intelligence agencies.

"An important part of the FBI and police offensive to beat the radical movements was to destroy the radical media, a campaign that's detailed in Geoffrey Rips's UnAmerican Activities ," he said.

By the late '60s, largely due to constant pressure from the increasingly powerful anti-war movement, portions of the media started to come around to presenting some of the realities of the Vietnam War. Plus, by then, it was clear the US was likely going to lose the war, US brutality abroad was being exposed to the world, and the political upheaval on the home front was becoming white hot.

Gilbert went on to explain how, then as now, "The hawks waged a concerted campaign to blame that on 'the liberal media,' to the point that this lie has become accepted today."

At that time, the myth of the "liberal media" accomplished several things for the right wing, according to Gilbert. "It's covered up the truth that the US military machine was defeated by a Global South nation, it's convinced the public that the 'truth lies somewhere in between' the hawks and the media, when in fact the media didn't do nearly enough to expose the injustice and horrors of the war, and it's intimidated the media, which fell into line as pure propaganda organs in subsequent wars."

Naomi Jaffe, one of the WUO's founding members who joined in solidarity with movements for Black self-determination, agreed with Gilbert in that pressure from the anti-war movement was a leading factor that pushed the media to share more images of the war. However, she was quite critical of the overall role the media played during Vietnam.

"Remember the Gulf of Tonkin? Not a hint of independent reporting ever questioned it until long after the war was over," Jaffe told Truthout. "The body counts? Regular reports of how the US was winning by killing more 'Viet Cong' every week than could possibly have existed overall."

Bill Ayers, who is married to Dohrn, was also a leader and cofounder of the WUO.

"Empire always, then and now, cloaks itself in the garments of mystification and deceit," Ayers said. "The message from the corporate media was unambiguous: the US loves peace and fights only when it must, and always selflessly in defense of freedom and democracy."

For example, Ayers says, the New York Times announced that it saw the "light at the end of the tunnel" -- the turning point when the war would at long last be turned around and won -- days before the decisive defeat during the Tet Offensive in 1968. In 1966, Walter Cronkite, CBS anchor and the most trusted journalist of his generation, presented a fawning interview with the puppet and fascist Nguyen Cao Ky and called him the George Washington of Viet Nam.

"The lies and misdirection go on and on," Ayers said. "And don't believe the narcissistic media today rewriting its role in moving the country against the war 50 years ago, making itself a forerunner and a major actor, heroizing its efforts and turning reality on its head."

Ayers said it wasn't the media that played a role in helping end the war in Vietnam, it was, by far, the decisive actions of the Vietnamese people themselves "in defeating the most potent military force on earth." He pointed out, "Vietnam was engaged in an authentic social revolution, deep and broad, in which peasants and workers were massively engaged in the overthrow of colonialism and foreign control as well as feudal relationships and capitalism itself."

Moreover, Ayers said, this revolution was part of "the anti-colonial and Third World moment, a context that allowed us to understand the revolution in Vietnam as part of a world phenomenon sweeping from South Africa to Egypt to Chile to Indonesia."

He also pointed to "the important role of the underground -- popular or alternative or movement -- press in the US, and its ability to tap international sources like the Cuban media, for example, to uncover the truth of events."

He sees the typical narrative -- the idea that the military draft made the war real in the eyes of the US public, and the media cemented that reality, helping to end the war -- as skewed. It "buys into a simplistic and largely self-serving explanation," Ayers said. "The Vietnamese revolution and war resistance at home impacted the media coverage, not the other way around."

... ... ... DAHR JAMAIL

Dahr Jamail, a Truthout staff reporter, is the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last 10 years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards.

His third book, The Mass Destruction of Iraq: Why It Is Happening, and Who Is Responsible , co-written with William Rivers Pitt , is available now on Amazon.

Dahr Jamail is also the author of the book, The End of Ice , forthcoming from The New Press. He lives and works in Washington State.

[Aug 30, 2017] Russia Fears New U.S. Bomb Ups Risk of Nuclear Strike

Aug 30, 2017 | www.msn.com
Russia Fears New U.S. Bomb Ups Risk of Nuclear Strike 2 / 46 Newsweek logo Newsweek Newsweek Damien Sharkov 44 mins ago SHARE SHARE TWEET SHARE EMAIL A woman walks past a TV screen broadcasting news of North Korea's missile launch, in Tokyo, Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2017. North Korea fired a ballistic missile from its capital Pyongyang that flew over Japan before plunging into the northern Pacific Ocean, officials said Tuesday, an aggressive test-flight over the territory of a close U.S. ally that sends a clear message of defiance as Washington and Seoul conduct war games nearby. (AP Photo/Shizuo Kambayashi) Kim says N. Korea should conduct more missile tests into the Pacific

A B-2 Spirit Bomber from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri, drops a B61-11 "Bunker Buster" bomb casing during an exercise in this undated photo.: B61 model 11 drop © Stringer/Reuters B61 model 11 drop Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs fears updated, high-precision U.S. models of nuclear bombs will lower inhibitions to use nuclear weapons in combat, Russian state news agency Itar-Tass reported on Tuesday.

The B-61 model 12 is a weapon that the U.S. has worked on for some time, testing a mock-up of it in 2015. The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration announced on Tuesday that it had carried out another non-nuclear test of the model 12 and would continue doing so in the next three years, hoping to clear it for service. The weapon is meant to be the first precision-guided atomic bomb, and Russia does not like the sound of it.

"The advantage of the new modification of the B61-12, according to U.S. military experts themselves lies in the fact that it will be, as they put it, 'more ethical' and 'more usable'," Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Nonproliferation and Weapons Control Department told Tass.

Referring to comments made by former undersecretary of defense James Miller and ex-President Barack Obama's key nuclear strategist General James E. Cartwright, Ulyanov expressed fears the U.S. may develop a more laissez-faire view of nuclear arms' use, knowing they "cause less catastrophic consequences for the civilian population.

"From this we can conclude that the clearing of such bombs for service could objectively lead to lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear arms," Ulyanov said. "This, we can imagine, is the main negative impact of the ongoing modernization."

The upgrade is, in the eyes of some U.S. defense experts, a needed replacement of an integral part of U.S. nuclear capabilities whose design dates back to the 1960s. Former U.S. General Cartwright defended the program in 2016, noting that increasing precision and shrinking the size of the arms means fewer will be needed to act as a deterrent in the first place.

Ulyanov, however, felt the U.S. and any of its NATO allies that may benefit from the upgrade sought the B-61 model 12's potential clearing in response to what they perceive as Russian nuclear posturing. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have issued a handful of verbal reminders that Russia's own nuclear capabilities exist to back up its foreign policy if needed.

North Korea's current nuclear missile program has topped the list of concerns for the U.S. of late, with a missile test flying over Japan taking place on Tuesday morning. Though Russia formally opposes the North's nuclear program, Moscow chose to once again condemn the U.S. for provoking the test by carrying out its annual defense drill with regional ally South Korea.

[Aug 29, 2017] 9 reasons Trumps dream of Russian reconciliation is now impossible

Notable quotes:
"... Dr. Samuel Johnson said that "the road to hell is good intentions". Donald Trump's good intentions in respect of Russia have led not to a new kind of hell but to the status quo becoming more entrenched. ..."
"... When Donald Trump took office, he bravely embarked on what could rightly be called 'mission difficult'. Now, the American deep state/military industrial complex has revealed that in reality, it was always going to be mission impossible due to geo-strategic realities, uniquely American arrogance which is embedded into the thinking of even many Washington moderates and finally, because we have learnt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is only as powerful as those around him, allow him to be. ..."
Aug 29, 2017 | theduran.com

"I hope that we do have good relations with Russia. I say it loud and clear, I've been saying it for years: I think it's a good thing if we have great relationships, or at least good relationships with Russia.

It's a big country, it's a nuclear country, it's a country that we should get along with, and I think we will eventually get along with Russia".

In spite of Trump's stated wishes, the policies of his administration, irrespective of who is actually authoring them, are in total opposition to Russia's stated geo-political goals and Russia's geo-strategic interests.

The Trump administration's approach to Venezuela, Afghanistan (and South Asia as a whole) and North Korea (and East Asia as a whole) and beyond is totally antithetical to the interests and stated desires of Russia and Russia's closest partners.

READ MORE: Venezuela, Afghanistan and North Korea: 3 conflicts which represent the US vs. China and Russia

Here are the key places where US policy under Trump and Russia's geo-political positions are in total opposition

1. Venezuela

In Venezuela Trump has threatened war and implemented sanctions against the government of Nicolas Maduro. Russia by contrast vehemently opposes sanctions and war.

2. Afghanistan

Trump's flagship policy of a troop surge in Afghanistan is opposed by Russia as is his policy to effectively bomb the Taliban to the peace table.

Russia favours a process which would see moderate rebel elements of the Taliban invited to a peace table in conjunction with a cease-fire in order to develop a lasting peace based on reconciliation between the Taliban and the government in Kabul, something which in reality means a reconciliation between Pashtun Afghans and the ethnic minorities who are in the current government.

Russia also takes exception to Trump's threats and criticisms against Pakistan, a country which is rapidly becoming an important Russian partner in South Asia.

3. North Korea

Just this morning, Donald Trump once again threatened war on North Korea. By contrast, Russia has said multiple times that war can never be considered an option on the Korean peninsula and has called for the US to cease its delivery of THADD missile systems to South Korea and has also called for a cessation of US-South Korea military drills. In each of these cases, the US has totally ignored Russia and China's requests, in spite of the fact that both states border the Korean peninsula.

Russia like China also calls for direct talks between Washington and Pyongyang, something the Trump administration is apparently not considering seriously at this time.

4. South China Sea

While Russia is not directly involved with the South China Sea dispute, America's provocative stance on the region has infuriated Russia's most important partner, China. America's imperial actions in the region, confusingly called 'freedom of navigation' by Washington, do not bode well for Moscow which wants to see cooperation rather than confrontation in Asia.

5. Turkey

While Russia is fast becoming an important partner of Ankara, the US seems to be t hrowing out its nearly century long alliance with Turkey.

The US has blatantly disregarded Turkish concerns about America's arming and funding of Kurdish militants in Syria while Russia continues to show courtesy and countenance for Turkey's position which is shared by Iran.

6. Europe

Russia has constantly called for NATO to de-escalate its presence in Europe, but under the Trump administration, Obama's own European 'troop surge' has continued with no signs of stopping. Donald Trump's recent speech in Poland where he quoted deeply Russophobic propaganda does not bode well for reconciliation between America's EU allies and Russia.

7. Palestine/Israel

While the US approach to the conflict in the Levant is completely one-sided, Russia maintains uniquely good relations with both Palestinian leaders and Israeli leaders in Tel Aviv. While Russia's approach is clearly a conflict aversion tactic, if the US supported Israel in any aggression against Syria, this would clearly end any attempts at fledgling cooperation between the US and Russia in a Syrian conflict which is in any case, drawing to a close. Russia is carefully balancing the interests of its Syrian partner with trying to contain the aggressive military posturing of the Israeli regime with which Russia continues to do business.

Any US support of an Israeli strike against any Middle Eastern country would throw theSyrian de-escalation zone which is jointly policed by America, Russia and Jordan, into disarray. To this end, the south western Syrian de-escalation zone is thus far the only area where the Trump administration has made any progress in respect of improving relations with Russia. Currently, it hangs by a thread for more reasons than one.

8. Iran and the Persian Gulf

While Donald Trump's Tweets indicate a policy that is fully pro-Saudi, even as his own state department emphases a US position of neutrality, as Qatar works to re-normalise relations with Iran, the US could find itself increasingly at odds with its technical ally in Doha.

In respect of Iran itself, Donald Trump continues to advocate hostile policies against Tehran which include threats to tear up the so-called Iran Nuclear Deal as well as false accusations of Iran sponsoring terrorism.

Russia by contrast is an economic partner of Iran and is working with Iran to combat Salafist terrorists in Syria. In the Persian Gulf, Russia has won respect from Qatar for adopting a genuine and unambiguous position of neutrality. This has also allowed Russia to maintain healthy relations with Saudi through out the conflict.

9. Libya

The US and the west more broadly seems to have no coherent strategy to deal with the Libyan failed state, beyond propping up the fledgling Government of National Accord, which is competing with the National Salvation Government as well as assorted militant groups for control of Tripoli.

By contrast, Russia continues to engage with Khalifa Haftar, the leader of Libya's only successful and well organised military, the Libyan National Army. The LNA is also the only force in Libya that has successfully liberated important cities from terrorist control, namely the eastern city of Benghazi.

Egypt continues to support Haftar and the Libyan House of Representatives from which he derives political legitimacy. As Russia becomes ever closer to the government in Cairo, it would appear that Russia's plan to help reconcile Haftar's forces with what's left of the UN backed government in Tripoli, is the closest thing any non-Arab power has to a plan for Libya.

The US appears to have no plans at all, but one can count on the US opposing Russian involvement in Libya, even though there is now little the US could conceivably do to stop Moscow and Cairo from cooperating in a country the US first destroyed and later abandoned.

CONCLUSION

As I warned prior to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's first meeting,

"With all the fuss over Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meeting later this week at the G20 summit, many have conspicuously failed to grasp that the monumental task ahead of both leaders has little to do with their own period in government and even less to do with their personalities. These things of course do matter, but their importance is dwarfed by larger historical and present economic and geo-strategic concerns.

With that in mind, here are the giant obstacles that both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will be faced with when they meet".

READ MORE: 5 obstacles Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin will have to address in their meeting

In the month and three quarters since the Trump-Putin meeting, this situation has merely intensified. Differences in American and Russian geo-political interests have become ever more pronounced and the Trump administration shows no signs of even attempting to meet Russia half way, let alone approach the situation in a pragmatic manner. The ideological dogmas of the US continue as if Donald Trump is the mere figurehead in foreign affairs that many believe him to literally be.

Donald Trump's personal respect for Russia seems genuine beyond any lingering doubts. He has no reason to say he wants warm relations with Russia any longer but he still says he does.

The policies of his administration however, belie the supreme difficulty of implementing such policies or even attempting to do so.

Dr. Samuel Johnson said that "the road to hell is good intentions". Donald Trump's good intentions in respect of Russia have led not to a new kind of hell but to the status quo becoming more entrenched.

When Donald Trump took office, he bravely embarked on what could rightly be called 'mission difficult'. Now, the American deep state/military industrial complex has revealed that in reality, it was always going to be mission impossible due to geo-strategic realities, uniquely American arrogance which is embedded into the thinking of even many Washington moderates and finally, because we have learnt beyond a reasonable doubt, that the President of the United States is only as powerful as those around him, allow him to be.

[Aug 28, 2017] Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause

Aug 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

SolontoCroesus > , August 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT

@Corvinus "The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely."

Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see."

Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,

What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

Corvinus > , August 20, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus Yo, Corvie the normie,

What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"

There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact thing.

So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?"

Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them."

Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more."

Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come back"?

[Aug 28, 2017] The Knives Are Out for Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster by Kate Brannen

May 09, 2017 | foreignpolicy.com

Donald Trump's second national security advisor, want him out. This week, they've made their campaign against him public, leaking to reporters details about the rocky relationship he has with his boss and trying to paint him as someone hellbent on overseas nation-building projects that are doomed to fail. The timing isn't accidental. The effort to damage McMaster comes as the Trump administration decides what its policy should be in Afghanistan, a debate that's pitting McMaster against Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist.

"McMaster is pushing this Afghanistan policy through. I think some people are giving him the rope to get it through, hoping he hangs himself with it," one senior intelligence official said. The Afghanistan strategy McMaster is pushing, with the support of Defense Secretary James Mattis, would send roughly 3,000-5,000 U.S. and NATO troops to Afghanistan, according to a separate source familiar with the internal deliberations. These troops would be sent to help bulk up the Afghan National Security Forces, which, after years of U.S. assistance, are still struggling against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a small Islamic State presence in the country.

According to the Washington Post , the new strategy "would authorize the Pentagon, not the White House, to set troop numbers in Afghanistan and give the military far broader authority to use airstrikes to target Taliban militants." The hope is that by increasing pressure on the Taliban, it will force them to the negotiating table with more favorable terms for Kabul and Washington. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan follows a decision made last year by then-President Barack Obama, who announced in July that 8,400 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan through January 2017 because of the "precarious" security situation there, undoing his previous plan to draw down to 5,500 by the time he left office.

[Aug 28, 2017] The ouster of Mattis: Some follow-up details and a White House response by homas E. Ricks

ttis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. <
Here are a few things I have heard since I posted my comments on Friday about the Obama administration pushing General Mattis out at Central Command. Thanks to all who wrote in to make this follow-up possible:
  • A particular point of disagreement was what to do about mischief Iran is exporting to other countries. Mattis is indeed more hawkish on this than the White House was.
  • National Security Advisor Tom Donilon in particular was irked by Mattis's insistence on being heard. I cringe when I hear about civilians shutting down strategic discussions. That is exactly what the Bush administration did in late 2002 when generals persisted in questioning whether it was wise to invade Iraq. That led to what some might call a fiasco.
  • I wonder if Donilon understands that the key to making effective, sustainable national security policy is having robust, candid discussions between civilian and military leaders that bring to the surface differences and also explore assumptions. I am told that that is what Mattis was trying to do. He knows, as do all smart generals, that in our system, at the end of the discussion the civilians get to decide what to do. In a talk at Johns Hopkins SAIS in late November, Mattis said that, "We military leaders have a right and duty to be heard, to give our best military advice, but we were not elected to and we have no right to dictate." (In the same talk, Mattis also likened Cairo today to Paris in 1789 -- a very interesting thought, and one that made me wonder if 15 years from now, one Arab leader will dominate the entire region as Napoloen dominated Europe early in the 19 th century.)
  • Insisting on being heard should be part of the duty of a senior general. That's the lesson of two great books: H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty and Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command . Indeed, General Mattis cited the latter in his talk at Johns Hopkins SAIS. I suspect Donilon needs to brush up on both.

[Aug 28, 2017] Let's Call "Trump's Generals" What They Are A Military Junta

Aug 27, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Trump is fond of boasting about "his" generals. But over the short course of his presidency's first months, the possession and control have reversed themselves. Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly have banished all opposition and now pour the neo-con agenda straight into Trump's ear.

By Whitney Webb

August 27, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - WASHINGTON – The U.S., long known for its meddling in the affairs of other nations, also has a long and sordid history of supporting military juntas abroad, many of which it forced into power through bloody coups or behind-the-scenes power grabs. From Greece in the 1960s to Argentina in the 1980s to the current al-Sisi-led junta in Egypt , Washington has actively and repeatedly supported such undemocratic regimes despite casting itself as the world's greatest promoter of "democracy."

Finally in 2017, karma appears to have come back to roost, as the current presidential administration has now effectively morphed into what is, by definition , a military junta. Though the military-industrial complex has long directed U.S. foreign policy, in the administration of President Donald Trump a group of military officers has gathered unprecedented power and, for all intents and purposes, rules the country.

Three generals at the center of power

In a recent article in The Washington Post , titled "Military Leaders Consolidate Power In Trump Administration," Post reporters Robert Costa and Philip Rucker noted that "At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated personal relationships with the president and gained his trust."

"This is the only time in modern presidential history when we've had a small number of people from the uniformed world hold this much influence over the chief executive," John E. McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA who served in seven administrations, told the Post . "They are right now playing an extraordinary role."

This role, however, appears to reach beyond "extraordinary". Although Trump is fond of calling them "my generals," they now, Costa and Rucker report, "manage Trump's hour-by-hour interactions and whisper in his ear – and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy." Another Washington Post article, published last Tuesday, led with the headline "The Generals Have Trump Surrounded."

Also notable is the fact that this trio of generals has overseen the firing of more independent, "outsider" voices, notably Derek Harvey and Steve Bannon. Bannon, in particular, was a thorn in the side of the generals, in light primarily of his staunch opposition to the American "empire project" and new wars abroad. Bannon had opposed Trump's strike against Syria, troop surges in Iraq, and the dropped hint of a "military option" to deal with the crisis in Venezuela. The New York Times referred to McMaster as Bannon's "nemesis in the West Wing," precisely due to McMaster's commitment to American empire building.

With Bannon's relatively recent departure, the tone of the Trump administration – now unequivocally ruled by "the generals" – has changed significantly -- as illustrated by Trump's decision to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, a measure both Bannon and Trump himself once opposed.

In addition, last Thursday, Politico published a report detailing the control exercised by Kelly over the president, as he personally vets "everything" that comes across Trump's desk. Politico referenced two memos that laid out a system "designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven't been vetted."

The Hill further noted that Kelly is also "keeping a tight leash" on who gets to meet directly with the President in the Oval Office, which is now strictly appointment-only and also dependent upon Kelly's approval.

[Aug 28, 2017] The ouster of Mattis: Some follow-up details and a White House response

get=
Here are a few things I have heard since I posted my comments on Friday about the Obama administration pushing General Mattis out at Central Command. Thanks to all who wrote in to make this follow-up possible:
  • A particular point of disagreement was what to do about mischief Iran is exporting to other countries. Mattis is indeed more hawkish on this than the White House was.
  • National Security Advisor Tom Donilon in particular was irked by Mattis's insistence on being heard. I cringe when I hear about civilians shutting down strategic discussions. That is exactly what the Bush administration did in late 2002 when generals persisted in questioning whether it was wise to invade Iraq. That led to what some might call a fiasco.
  • I wonder if Donilon understands that the key to making effective, sustainable national security policy is having robust, candid discussions between civilian and military leaders that bring to the surface differences and also explore assumptions. I am told that that is what Mattis was trying to do. He knows, as do all smart generals, that in our system, at the end of the discussion the civilians get to decide what to do. In a talk at Johns Hopkins SAIS in late November, Mattis said that, "We military leaders have a right and duty to be heard, to give our best military advice, but we were not elected to and we have no right to dictate." (In the same talk, Mattis also likened Cairo today to Paris in 1789 -- a very interesting thought, and one that made me wonder if 15 years from now, one Arab leader will dominate the entire region as Napoloen dominated Europe early in the 19 th century.)
  • Insisting on being heard should be part of the duty of a senior general. That's the lesson of two great books: H.R. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty and Eliot Cohen's Supreme Command . Indeed, General Mattis cited the latter in his talk at Johns Hopkins SAIS. I suspect Donilon needs to brush up on both.

[Aug 28, 2017] Bryan MacDonald

Notable quotes:
"... The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system, via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond ridiculous. ..."
"... Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from strained ties between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell. ..."
"... The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism. ..."
"... The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort. Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in the language. ..."
"... America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the travails of nationalist politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the Russians" are involved. ..."
"... But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't even hold down a job in Moscow. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from RT . ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
Since the German Marshall Fund of the United States unveiled its "Alliance For Securing Democracy (AFSD)," I've resisted commenting, simply because the lobby group's "Hamilton 68 dashboard" is too preposterous to merit serious analysis.

It has rightly been ridiculed by journalists and activists who never tire of knocking the Kremlin.

The portal purports to use "600 Twitter accounts linked to Russian influence efforts online" to prove how Moscow is trying to sow seeds of doubt in the Western political system, via the social network. However, the creators won't reveal the users concerned, and results seem to suggest they are mostly members of the US alt-right and alt-left. Meaning this is yet another attempt to pass off American dissent as some Kremlin "Psy-op." Which is beyond ridiculous.

Furthermore, the names behind AFSD betray the project's real purpose: to shift blame from internal American and European factors to the convenient Russian bogeyman. Which, of course, suits its financial backers , including the State Department, NATO, and the ubiquitous weapons maker Raytheon. All of whom benefit commercially and politically from strained ties between Moscow and Washington.

To achieve these goals they've hired the usual roll call of reliably anti-Russia blowhards. Including Estonian-American politician Ilves Toomas and rent-a-quote talking head Michael McFaul, the 'Mother Theresa of the Russia beat.' Those two are joined by neoconservative windbag William Kristol and ex-CIA chief Michael Morell.

Convert zeal

The dashboard itself is helmed by a chap named J.M. Berger , who was apparently an expert on ISIS and the Middle East, before discovering the Russia-bashing gravy train this summer. This week, he's taken to the pages of Politico to explain his plaything. What follows is best described as an inept and ignorant form of thrift-store McCarthyism.

Berger tells us how his dashboard displays "the near-real-time output of Russian Influence Operations on Twitter." Something he calls RIOT, for short. And he cites things like RT's coverage of Vladimir Putin's recent pike fishing trip, a jaunt also prominently featured in The New York Times, The Daily Mail and The Sun, which incidentally described Putin as a "beefcake." Meaning, either Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch are Russian agents, or this contention is just farcical.

The lobbyist also frets over this network's widely-shared report on Oliver Stone's Facebook post "condemning US sanctions against Russia and claiming US intelligence agencies are engaged in a 'false flag' war against Russia." Which exposes a total lack of comprehension of how news works. Because Stone is one of Hollywood's most famous figures and his name attached to a perspective like this was bound to attract plenty of attention, regardless of the messenger. It's also worth pointing out (for the really obtuse) that RT obviously doesn't control Stone's Facebook and was merely bringing to a wider audience the American writer and director's personal beliefs.

The examples become ever stranger. Berger bemoans "conspiracy theories seeking to discredit Bana al-Abed, a young girl in Syria who tweeted about the civil war." But it doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest the then seven-year-old was manipulated to serve a propaganda effort. Especially after a press interview revealed how the child couldn't understand even rudimentary English, despite issuing hundreds of perfectly crafted tweets in the language.

Rock Bottom

Our hero descends further into hogwash when observing how "the most retweeted Russia Today stories recorded by the dashboard involved scaremongering videos appearing to show refugees swarming into Spain." But, two weeks ago, a boatful of migrants did land on a Spanish tourist beach, near Cadiz, and quickly scattered to evade police detection. And numerous outlets, including The New York Times , The Guardian and the BBC prominently reported the story. But apparently, it's only an issue when RT gives it coverage.

But the garrulous quack isn't finished, asserting how RT "treads relatively carefully in their flirtation with the far right, and they devote a significant amount of space to the far left as well." Hardly news, given how the channel openly admits offering a platform for alternative voices, regardless of their political compass. Incidentally, a mirror image of what America's state broadcaster's RFE/RL and VOA do in Russia where they laboriously detail the travails of nationalist politicians like Alexei Navalny and their leftist counterparts, such as Sergei Udaltsov. This is what alternative media does in every market, but it seems to be only unusual when "the Russians" are involved.

Berger does concede one salient point: "it is important to note here again that we are not asserting Russia is responsible for creating or shaping this content," he writes. Which suggests he fully understands how his project is geared to smear anybody who opposes US policy as working for Moscow's interests.

Yellow press

But, not content with mulching around the bottom of the barrel, he reaches into the depths when he states "while the alt-right has a very real base of support in the United States, it also enjoys deep and undisputed ties to Russia, many of which can be found offline in the real world." Amazingly, the link he uses to justify his contention is a Daily Beast article on how American white supremacist Richard Spencer was married to an ethnic Russian. The lady involved has no profile in Russia, doesn't live in the country and is a follower of a fringe philosopher called Alexander Dugin. Who is so far outside the Russian mainstream that he can't even hold down a job in Moscow.

The fact Berger has to descend to such irrelevant tittle-tattle to score a few points tells us all we need to know about the moral bankruptcy of the Alliance For Securing Democracy. This is pathetic, miserable and feeble stuff and the German Marshall Fund of the United States should be ashamed of themselves for financing this sort of muck.

Reprinted with permission from RT .

[Aug 28, 2017] Racism if a new rallying cry of anti-Trump coalition

Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

Brabantian > , Website August 26, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters

But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well & honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?

Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself but all his family?

As this photo meme suggested

bliss_porsena > , August 26, 2017 at 7:26 am GMT

Brawling street-fighting rabbles do not a revolutionary civil war make. You need snipers on rooftops. Every perspective ruler knows that.

Greg Bacon > , Website August 26, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest FEMA Gulag for reeducation NOW! Don't force us to kick down your door at 3 am.

What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:

"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."

Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry. Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.

They advocate for the abolition of gender:

They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:

And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open proponents of communism.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/armed-antifa-group-hosts-%E2%80%9Cour-enemies-blue%E2%80%9D-anti-police-workshop

Robert Magill > , August 26, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT

This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world leadership.

The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we exhibit.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

jacques sheete > , August 26, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish racism.

True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world what crazed narcissism looks like.

[Aug 28, 2017] Racism if a new rallying cry of anti-Trump coalition

Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

Brabantian > , Website August 26, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

Israel Shamir has some terrific but sadly likely-only-dream-world recommendations for Donald Trump, asking him to be the man whom voters hoped he was how beautiful it would be indeed, for Trump to end the Mid-East & South Asian wars, close Guantánamo, let hundreds of thousands of non-violent black & other offenders / railroaded innocents out of US prison (as Vladimir Putin did for hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners) this last an especially brilliant suggestion by Shamir, as that one Lincolnesque act would be a total trumping of the 'racist' slurs against Trump & his voters

But the question is Can we really hope that the USA 'Tsar' will or could act well & honourably for his people? Was Trump just the Master New York Salesman all along?

Or is it that Trump in his heart really wanted to do some good with that high office he was able to win Trump who trumpeted to the world the great truth that the News is Fake but a Trump who is in fact now in part a hostage under the direst threats, not only against himself but all his family?

As this photo meme suggested

bliss_porsena > , August 26, 2017 at 7:26 am GMT

Brawling street-fighting rabbles do not a revolutionary civil war make. You need snipers on rooftops. Every perspective ruler knows that.

Greg Bacon > , Website August 26, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

Welcome to the NWO Comrade. The USA will become the USSA, please report to your nearest FEMA Gulag for reeducation NOW! Don't force us to kick down your door at 3 am.

What do we know about RAM? [An offshoot of Antifa] Well, according to their website:

"The Revolutionary Abolitionist Movement is a political movement dedicated to freeing people from bondage and building resistance in the United States."

Just like every other Antifa group, they oppose white supremacy, racism, and bigotry. Seems reasonable, right? But read a little further into their "Political Foundation" and you will find a few things that aren't so reasonable.

They advocate for the abolition of gender:

They advocate for the expropriation of good, lands, and tools:

And finally, just like every other Antifa group, they oppose capitalism and are open proponents of communism.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-25/armed-antifa-group-hosts-%E2%80%9Cour-enemies-blue%E2%80%9D-anti-police-workshop

Robert Magill > , August 26, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT

This article is an accurate indictment of forces at work in America that don't bode well for our future as a great power. So be it. We have never demonstrated an affinity for world leadership.

The same tendencies that led to the schism the preceded our Civil War have risen again in global affairs. The materialism and cupidity that so rankled the South in 1861 became the m.o. of the victors and shape us today. This won't do. Eurasia has had enough and is turning away from US influence as rapidly as feasible considering the tendency for rabid violence we exhibit.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

jacques sheete > , August 26, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

Zionists are good for one thing. They are excellent for revealing the hidden Jewish racism.

True. They're also good at presenting themselves as something they're not, (just like Trump, btw). They present themselves as victims, while the opposite is more accurate. They present themselves as Semites, while Palestinians are probably much more "Semitic" than they are. Zionists, in fact, are among the most anti-Semitic characters around. They present themselves as Jews, and i'd like to know by what standard. Most are likely not even religious. They present themselves as sane and "intelligent," but their actions don't show it. We're told that they are moral; I'd like to know how. They are good for showing the world what crazed narcissism looks like.

[Aug 27, 2017] Trump and Korea I'm Also Scared

Aug 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Trump's ability to trigger a nuclear war is "pretty damn scary" said former US intelligence director James Clapper this week. Remember when Trump vowed to "bomb the shit" out of his enemies?

I don't have much respect for Clapper, who brazenly lied to Congress and is a ringleader of the deep government's efforts to overthrow Trump. But this time, Clapper is 100 percent right. He's scared and I am too.

This week, Trump proclaimed he would continue the pointless, stalemated US colonial war in Afghanistan and might ask India to help there – a sure-fire way to bring nuclear-armed India and Pakistan into a terrifying confrontation.

Meanwhile, Trump has backed himself into a corner over North Korea. His threats and bombast have not made the North's leader Kim Jong-un stop threatening to launch nuclear-armed missiles at the US island of Guam, Hawaii, Japan and South Korea. That is, if the US and South Korea keep up their highly provocative annual military war games on North Korea's borders that each year invoke North Korea's fury.

The Pentagon insists these war games are just a routine military exercise. But that's not the view in Pyongyang, and, as a long-time Korea military analyst, not mine.

North Korea, which faces the 500,000-man South Korean Army (ROK) most of which is just down the main highway, has good reason to be nervous. I've been with the 1st ROK Division up on and under the Demilitarized Zone. The South Koreans are heavily armed with top line equipment and tough as nails. They are backed by massive US/South Korean air and naval power.

North Koreans are well aware that Egypt deceived Israel in the 1973 war by using frequent military exercises to mask its plans to storm the Suez Canal. It worked. Israel was caught flat footed by the surprise Egyptian attack on the canal.

By refusing a peace to end the 1950-53 Korean War, and by continuing economic and political warfare against North Korea, the US has only itself to blame for North Korea developing nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. Kim Jong-un saw what happened to Libya's Khadaffi (thanks to Hillary Clinton) and Iraq's Saddam Hussein.

Trump is now in a serious fix over North Korea. Jong-un has called Trump's bluff and sneered at the Donald's fire and brimstone threats. So Trump's choices are to back away from the Korean crisis he created or else attack North Korea. But the North's weapons and leadership are very well dispersed and deeply dug into the mountains. A US conventional attack on the North is estimated to cost 250,000 American casualties.

The US can certainly knock out some of Kim's medium and longer-ranged missiles in a major blitz, but it can't be certain that a few nuclear tipped N. Korean missiles won't survive to strike Japan, South Korea, Hawaii, Okinawa or Guam – and maybe even Los Angeles and San Francisco. It is unlikely that South Korea and the US can decapitate North Korea's leadership by using conventional weapons – starting with Kim Jong-un.

Unless, of course, Trump, who managed to avoid Vietnam era military service because of a bump on his foot, decides to go nuclear. This would mean hitting North Korea with a score or more nuclear weapons, large and small, before the North could riposte. North Korea would be totally destroyed, and its 25 million people left dying, maimed or starving. Japan, the world's third largest economy, would also be shattered.

nsa > , August 26, 2017 at 5:15 am GMT

Zero chance of an attack on Korea for one simple reason .there is nothing in it for the jooies . Why would the clever conniving jooies waste their most useful idiot's assets on a stupid pointless war in far away Asia, when those same assets could be used to destroy more of the ME?

Claus Eric Hamle > , August 26, 2017 at 10:02 am GMT

Actually, the US is worse than the Nazis. Torture that not even the Nazis could do. They were nice people compared to the US. Our dear ally, The Great Satan. Birth defects are worse in Fallujah than they were in Hiroshima because of Uranium weapons. In Panama City they killed about 6000 unarmed civilians when they kidnapped the president. In Ukraine they spent 5 billion dollars to organize the coup. It would be a better world without the US. Doesn´t a nuclear attack on N.K. produce Nuclear Winter so you can´t grow anything in United Bluff ?

Full Screen Fool > , August 26, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT

Take some penicillin for your case of the clap. The generals will again persuade Trump to accept the status quo plus a 15% increase in troops, equipment, and/or live drills, prompting all but anti-war voices to proclaim progress.

[Aug 27, 2017] What A Mess! - Pentagon At War With CIA In Syria Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... As a result, the two arms of offensive US strategic power, the Pentagon and CIA, went separate ways in Syria. Growing competition between the US military and militarized CIA broke into the open in Syria. ..."
"... The US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey armed and financed ISIS as a weapon to unleash on Syria, which was an ally of Iran that refused to take orders from the Western powers. The west bears heavy responsibility for the deaths of 450,000 Syrians, at least half the nation of 23 million becoming refugees, and destruction of this once lovely country. ..."
"... Kurdish rebels in Iraq have been armed and financed by Israel since the 1970's ..."
"... When America's Arab jihadists proved militarily feeble, the US turned to the Kurds, who are renowned fighters, arming and financing the Kurdish Syrian YPG which is part of the well-known PKK rebel group that fights Turkey. ..."
"... So, Turkey, a key American ally, is now battling CIA-backed Kurdish groups in Syria. Eighty percent of Turks believe the recent failed coup in Turkey was mounted by the US – not the White House, but by the Pentagon which has always been joined at the hip to Turkey's military. ..."
"... Now the Russians have entered the fray in an effort to prevent their ally, Bashar Assad, from being overthrow by western powers. Also perfectly predictable. Russia claimed to be bombing ISIS but in fact is targeting US-backed groups. Washington is outraged that the wicked Russians are doing in the Mideast what the US has done for decades. ..."
Sep 06, 2016 | www.zerohedge.com
Tyler Durden Sep 6, 2016 8:40 PM 0 SHARES Submitted by Eric Margolis via Strategic-Culture.org,

What a mess! In the crazy Syrian war, US-backed and armed groups are fighting other US-backed rebel groups . How can this be?

It is so because the Obama White House had stirred up war in Syria but then lost control of the process. When the US has a strong president, he can usually keep the military and intelligence agencies on a tight leash.

But the Obama administration has had a weak secretary of defense and a bunch of lady strategists who are the worst military commanders since Louis XV, who put his mistress, Madame de Pompadour, in charge of French military forces during the Seven Year's War. The French were routed by the Prussians. France's foe, Frederick the Great of Prussia, named one of his dogs, 'la Pompadour.'

As a result, the two arms of offensive US strategic power, the Pentagon and CIA, went separate ways in Syria. Growing competition between the US military and militarized CIA broke into the open in Syria.

Fed up with the astounding incompetence of the White House, the US military launched and supported its own rebel groups in Syria, while CIA did the same.

Fighting soon after erupted in Syria and Iraq between the US-backed groups. US Special Forces joined the fighting in Syria, Iraq and most lately, Libya.

The well-publicized atrocities, like mass murders and decapitations, greatly embarrassed Washington, making it harder to portray their jihadi wildmen as liberators . The only thing exceptional about US policy in Syria was its astounding incompetence.

Few can keep track of the 1,000 groups of jihadis that keep changing their names and shifting alliances. Throw in Turkomans, Yzidis, Armenians, Nestorians, Druze, Circassians, Alawis, Assyrians and Palestinians. Oh yes, and the Alevis.

Meanwhile, ISIS was inflicting mayhem on Syria and Iraq. But who really is ISIS? A few thousand twenty-something hooligans with little knowledge of Islam but a burning desire to dynamite the existing order and a sharp media sense. The leadership of these turbaned anarchists appears to have formed in US prison camps in Afghanistan.

The US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey armed and financed ISIS as a weapon to unleash on Syria, which was an ally of Iran that refused to take orders from the Western powers. The west bears heavy responsibility for the deaths of 450,000 Syrians, at least half the nation of 23 million becoming refugees, and destruction of this once lovely country.

At some point, ISIS shook off its western tutors and literally ran amok. But the US has not yet made a concerted attempt to crush ISIS because of its continuing usefulness in Syria and in the US, where ISIS has become the favorite whipping boy of politicians.

Next come the Kurds, an ancient Indo-European stateless people spread across Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. They have been denied a national state by the western powers since WWI. Kurdish rebels in Iraq have been armed and financed by Israel since the 1970's.

When America's Arab jihadists proved militarily feeble, the US turned to the Kurds, who are renowned fighters, arming and financing the Kurdish Syrian YPG which is part of the well-known PKK rebel group that fights Turkey.

I covered the Turkish-Kurdish conflict in eastern Anatolia in the 1980's in which some 40,000 died.

Turkey is now again battling a rising wave of Kurdish attacks that caused the Turks to probe into northern Syria to prevent a link-up of advancing Kurdish rebel forces.

So, Turkey, a key American ally, is now battling CIA-backed Kurdish groups in Syria. Eighty percent of Turks believe the recent failed coup in Turkey was mounted by the US – not the White House, but by the Pentagon which has always been joined at the hip to Turkey's military.

This major Turkish-Kurdish crisis was perfectly predictable, but the obtuse junior warriors of the Obama administration failed to grasp this point.

Now the Russians have entered the fray in an effort to prevent their ally, Bashar Assad, from being overthrow by western powers. Also perfectly predictable. Russia claimed to be bombing ISIS but in fact is targeting US-backed groups. Washington is outraged that the wicked Russians are doing in the Mideast what the US has done for decades.

The US and Russia now both claim to have killed a senior ISIS commander in an air strike. Their warplanes are dodging one another, creating a perfect scenario for a head-on clash at a time when neocons in the US are agitating for war with Russia.

Does anyone think poor, demolished Syria is worth the price? Hatred for the US is now seething in Turkey and across the Mideast. Hundreds of millions of US tax dollars have been wasted in this cruel, pointless war.

Time for the US to stop stirring this witch's brew.

* * *

And if that didn't 1) drive you crazy, and/or 2) confuse you, here is UK's Channel 4 to explain in pictures...

Who is fighting who in #Syria ? The question's simple – the answer's not. pic.twitter.com/3LD6p6oSPO

! Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) September 5, 2016

[Aug 27, 2017] Pentagon vs State Dept. Feud Goes Political by Rachel Marsden

Sep 16, 2016 | therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com

Donald Trump recently gave a noninterventionist foreign policy speech suggesting that he wants to make new allies of old foes and find common ground with them on shared national security challenges. He noted that 88 U.S. generals and admirals have endorsed him, and that "the current strategy of toppling regimes, with no plan for what to do the day after, only produces power vacuums that are filled by terrorists."

Trump should tell that to the 51 State Department officials who called for ramping up U.S. military intervention in Syria in an internal memo that was reviewed by CNN in June prior to being classified.

Hoping to force Syrian President Bashar Assad back to the negotiating table, these State Department officials figured that in lieu of diplomacy, it would be a good idea to prolong a conflict that has already driven millions of migrants into Europe and is demographically overwhelming that part of the world.

The State Department, which works closely with the CIA in providing official diplomatic cover to CIA officers abroad, has long been at odds with the Pentagon over Syria. It's no wonder that Pentagon generals are backing Trump, while just a few weeks ago a handful of former CIA directors publicly did the same for Hillary Clinton by signing a letter denouncing Trump.

Documents sent to and from Clinton's private email server while she was secretary of state suggest that she wanted to remove Assad despite the power vacuum it would create.

In March 2012, according to a document released by WikiLeaks, Clinton instructed special assistant Robert Russo to print an email sent to her titled, "An interesting proposal from [CIA veteran] Bruce Riedel re how Israel could help get Assad out of office."

Another email found on Clinton's private server, this one purportedly from Clinton herself, iterates: "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."

This is the kind of reckless interventionist mindset that has long infused the State Department.

Meanwhile, a classified Defense Intelligence Agency report from 2012 obtained by Judicial Watch actually predicted the rise of the Islamic State as a result of the U.S. aligning itself with "rebels."

"ISI [Islamic State in Iraq] could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory," the report stated.

This issue underscores the clash of worldviews between the Clinton and Trump campaigns. Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director Michael Flynn, a retired lieutenant general and key Trump defense and intelligence adviser, had long warned about Syria turning into a terrorist hotbed.

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, who has publicly slammed Trump's candidacy, claims that while Clinton was secretary of state, the Obama administration never provided support to the Islamic State or any other terrorist organization.

"The administration went to great lengths to ensure that any aid provided by the United States to the opposition would not fall into the hands of extremists, including IS and Al Qaeda," Morell wrote for Politico.

How disingenuous. Morell and Clinton were both serving in the Obama administration during the rise of the Islamic State. We now know that the CIA was, in fact, training the rebels who ultimately joined ISIS or one of the other terrorist groups that plague the region.

Just when you think American foreign policy couldn't possibly get any worse, we might get to see what Clinton, emboldened by interventionist enablers in the CIA and State Department, could do with unfettered executive power.

[Aug 27, 2017] All the countries America has invaded includes Russia. The USA invaded Russia in 1919, from the north

Aug 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

aloha_snakbar , Aug 26, 2017 9:18 PM

Why havent we invaded Canada yet?

yomutti2 -> TeethVillage88s , Aug 26, 2017 9:22 PM

This map is bullshit. America has never invaded Russia or China.

JLee2027 -> yomutti2 , Aug 26, 2017 9:26 PM

We invaded Canada twice. Revolutionary War, War of 1812.

Not shown

auricle -> JLee2027 , Aug 26, 2017 9:34 PM

If financial invasion doesn't work, then military invasion is administered. This is a list of countries that have resisted.

Stuck on Zero -> auricle , Aug 26, 2017 10:27 PM

If you had a map of the countries Cuba has invaded with its troops (for its size) it would make us out as pikers.

CRM114 -> JLee2027 , Aug 26, 2017 10:37 PM

..and you are back where you started from.

Thank you for stopping by, do visit the gift shop on your way back ;)

2whitedogs -> yomutti2 , Aug 26, 2017 9:32 PM

The USA invaded Russia in 1919, from the north. The troops were poorly supported and were frozen out. It invaded China during the Boxer rebellion. See the movie 55 Days at Peking with Charlton Heston. The US is still technically in possession of Taiwan insofar as there has never been a treaty to end WWII there.

Iskiab -> 2whitedogs , Aug 26, 2017 9:58 PM

Sort of... during the communist revolution in Russia during WW1, England and the US dropped off troops in Russia to help the Tzar and try to hold up the eastern front of the war. It was unsuccessful.

As others have noted the US did invade Canada. There are other countries missing as well.

fleur de lis -> yomutti2 , Aug 26, 2017 10:01 PM

To our great shame, our American "leaders" funded the Bolshevik Revolution which put millions of Russians to death.

During the Bolshevik project, our military was sent to Russia.

https://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/far-northern-lands-marines-ashor...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Russia_Intervention

http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MarApril12/Polar_Bear.html

[Aug 26, 2017] Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause

Aug 26, 2017 | www.unz.com

August 20, 2017

SolontoCroesus > , August 20, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT

@Corvinus "The plantation owners had them and in spite of Northern propaganda, these people (slaves) were usually treated very humanely."

Ripping them from their homeland, putting them on boats and dying by the dozens, being sold on a stage and branded, and then being forced to work against their will...and you claim they were treated "humanely" because Boss Hogg gave them enough food to eat, clothes on their backs, and tin roof over their head.

"Moving our flags and our statues for spite only angers us and hastens our will to become independent again. Keep it up and see."

Most normies (north and south, east and west) abhor the Confederacy. It represented slavery and secession. The Confederacy sought to DESTROY our nation. The norms are about what those monuments represent FROM THE PAST. They do not care that monuments serve as a historical record, nor do they care about the history of such individuals the monuments pay tribute to. Yes, Robert E. Lee opposed slavery. Yes, he had significant reservations about personally abandoning the Union. But what matters most is that he supported the Confederacy.

What about Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln? Should not their monuments be ripped down? According to most normies, no. While these individuals supported slavery, their accomplishments are generally viewed as BUILDING or PRESERVING our nation. That is the nuance here. The Confederacy monuments and the Washington/Jefferson/Lincoln monuments are on a separate moral plane as viewed by normies. In the end, the monuments are used as political pawns by the right and the left, not as historical pieces. I say move the monuments to private property. But in the meantime, anyone who rips them down now and in the future is defacing public property and ought to be arrested. Yo, Corvie the normie,

What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie?

Corvinus > , August 20, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus Yo, Corvie the normie,

What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?

Good idea to kill civilians and destroy property with reckless abandon because the only thing that matters is WINNING!
Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?

Just War theory is a legacy from millennia a ago -- waaaay before you normies developed your keen sense of moral clarity -- (don't you just love that term? moral clarity -- Israelis love that term, moral clarity: IDF drops phosphorus on children in Gaza with moral clarity . . .)

Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more.

Did Sherman abide by those age-old norms, normie? "What's your view -- you and your fellow normies -- on Sherman's Scorched earth march to the sea?"

There are myths in Sherman's March that need to be explored.

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/rethinking-shermans-march/

We know that to the victors go the spoils. Winners write the history, and losers claim that the history is other than accurate. Did Sherman commit war crimes? In my opinion, yes. But in war, does winning ultimately matter? Yes. There is no "honor" in war itself, just bloodshed by men who honorable in their willingness to die for their cause. There is no doubt that if the tables were turned, and Lee was rampaging through Philadelphia and New York to finally put an end to "northern aggression", southern apologists would say the exact thing.

So, I take it that you oppose a similar Shermanesque policy if proposed by your allies or those on the Alt Right, correct? Make it official.

Furthermore, you do realize that the slave owners themselves had committed crimes against humanity, right? Are you ready to condemn them? Make it official.

"Or is the notion of killing civilians -- women and children -- abhorrent to self-respecting military men who view a war as something engaged in between martial forces who observe codes of military honor?"

Kurgen, a commenter at the Men Of The West blog, said, "Unfortunately, violence is inevitable. In fact, from a practical and logical point of view, violence is required to expel all the SJWs and their allies from polite civilization, and will further be required to man the walls of the forts that hold the line against them, as well as to expel any dissidents within them."

Do you share his sentiments? Would not those allies include women and children? I mean, if the overall goal is for Western Civilization to emerge on top, would it not be in the best interest to cull the herd? In this next "civil war", will YOU abide by those age-old norms?

"Just War Theory states that war, once engaged, must act to protect civilians to the fullest extent possible, and should should meet force with proportionate force and not more."

Great theory, just impractical when one desires to obliterate your enemy. Besides, is it not best to salt the earth to ensure that the offspring of your enemy will NOT "come back"?

[Aug 26, 2017] Why Google The long war

Notable quotes:
"... The Pentagon's New Map. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | medium.com

No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map. Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating on the ground in the Middle East.

Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett received a glowing review in the Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend, Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.

Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.

These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding," he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."

For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security, writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in particular sums up his vision:

"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure. Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."

Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.

Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed around his "SysAdmin" concept.

The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.' Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from 1997 to 2001, described his experience of one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:

"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose their own."

The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."

Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it, along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.

Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership, argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.

Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology for the US military-industrial complex.

But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.

[Aug 26, 2017] Why Google The long war

Notable quotes:
"... The Pentagon's New Map. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread. ..."
"... In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America. ..."
"... Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, ..."
"... "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth." ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | medium.com

No better illustration of the truly chauvinistic, narcissistic, and self-congratulatory ideology of power at the heart of the military-industrial complex is a book by long-time Highlands Forum delegate, Dr. Thomas Barnett, The Pentagon's New Map. Barnett was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's Office of Force Transformation from 2001 to 2003, and had been recommended to Richard O'Neill by his boss Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski. Apart from becoming a New York Times bestseller, Barnett's book had been read far and wide in the US military, by senior defense officials in Washington and combatant commanders operating on the ground in the Middle East.

Barnett first attended the Pentagon Highlands Forum in 1998, then was invited to deliver a briefing about his work at the Forum on December 7th 2004, which was attended by senior Pentagon officials, energy experts, internet entrepreneurs, and journalists. Barnett received a glowing review in the Washington Post from his Highlands Forum buddy David Ignatius a week later, and an endorsement from another Forum friend, Thomas Friedman, both of which helped massively boost his credibility and readership.

Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms : The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread.

These two functions of US power are captured by Barnett's concepts of "Leviathan" and "System Administrator." The former is about rule-setting to facilitate the spread of capitalist markets, regulated via military and civilian law. The latter is about projecting military force into The Gap in an open-ended global mission to enforce security and engage in nation-building. Not "rebuilding," he is keen to emphasize, but building "new nations."

For Barnett, the Bush administration's 2002 introduction of the Patriot Act at home, with its crushing of habeas corpus, and the National Security Strategy abroad, with its opening up of unilateral, pre-emptive war, represented the beginning of the necessary re-writing of rule-sets in The Core to embark on this noble mission. This is the only way for the US to achieve security, writes Barnett, because as long as The Gap exists, it will always be a source of lawless violence and disorder. One paragraph in particular sums up his vision:

"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure. Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished."

Much of what Barnett predicted would need to happen to fulfill this vision, despite its neoconservative bent, is still being pursued under Obama. In the near future, Barnett had predicted, US military forces will be dispatched beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to places like Uzbekistan, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Northwest Africa, Southern Africa and South America.

Barnett's Pentagon briefing was greeted with near universal enthusiasm. The Forum had even purchased copies of his book and had them distributed to all Forum delegates, and in May 2005, Barnett was invited back to participate in an entire Forum themed around his "SysAdmin" concept.

The Highlands Forum has thus played a leading role in defining the Pentagon's entire conceptualization of the 'war on terror.' Irving Wladawsky-Berger, a retired IMB vice president who co-chaired the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee from 1997 to 2001, described his experience of one 2007 Forum meeting in telling terms:

"Then there is the War on Terror, which DoD has started to refer to as the Long War, a term that I first heard at the Forum. It seems very appropriate to describe the overall conflict in which we now find ourselves. This is a truly global conflict the conflicts we are now in have much more of the feel of a battle of civilizations or cultures trying to destroy our very way of life and impose their own."

The problem is that outside this powerful Pentagon-hosted clique, not everyone else agrees. "I'm not convinced that Barnett's cure would be any better than the disease," wrote Dr. Karen Kwiatowski, a former senior Pentagon analyst in the Near East and South Asia section, who blew the whistle on how her department deliberately manufactured false information in the run-up to the Iraq War. "It would surely cost far more in American liberty, constitutional democracy and blood than it would be worth."

Yet the equation of "shrinking The Gap" with sustaining the national security of The Core leads to a slippery slope. It means that if the US is prevented from playing this leadership role as "global cop," The Gap will widen, The Core will shrink, and the entire global order could unravel. By this logic, the US simply cannot afford government or public opinion to reject the legitimacy of its mission. If it did so, it would allow The Gap to grow out of control, undermining The Core, and potentially destroying it, along with The Core's protector, America. Therefore, "shrinking The Gap" is not just a security imperative: it is such an existential priority, that it must be backed up with information war to demonstrate to the world the legitimacy of the entire project.

Based on O'Neill's principles of information warfare as articulated in his 1989 US Navy brief, the targets of information war are not just populations in The Gap, but domestic populations in The Core, and their governments: including the US government. That secret brief, which according to former senior US intelligence official John Alexander was read by the Pentagon's top leadership, argued that information war must be targeted at: adversaries to convince them of their vulnerability; potential partners around the world so they accept "the cause as just"; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they believe that "the cost" in blood and treasure is worth it.

Barnett's work was plugged by the Pentagon's Highlands Forum because it fit the bill, in providing a compelling 'feel good' ideology for the US military-industrial complex.

But neoconservative ideology, of course, hardly originated with Barnett, himself a relatively small player, even though his work was extremely influential throughout the Pentagon. The regressive thinking of senior officials involved in the Highlands Forum is visible from long before 9/11, which was ceased upon by actors linked to the Forum as a powerful enabling force that legitimized the increasingly aggressive direction of US foreign and intelligence policies.

[Aug 26, 2017] Total amount of capital that private Russian citizens have taken offshore exceeds one trillion dollars

Notable quotes:
"... At the recent G20 summit, finance ministers discussed closing loopholes that allow multinational corporations to stash profits in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. In the U.S., Senator Carl Levin has introduced the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act" to prohibit U.S. corporations from avoiding paying taxes on their offshore income. ..."
"... NerdWallet Taxes conducted a study of the Fortune 50 to find that 88% are stashing profits in foreign subsidiaries . But just how much tax revenue is at stake? ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

karl1haushofer ,

August 23, 2017 at 2:44 am
Total amount of capital that private Russian citizens have taken offshore exceeds one trillion dollars (trillion dollars = 1,000 billion dollars): https://lenta.ru/news/2017/08/23/offshore/

This is three times more than the level of Russia's foreign exchange reserves.

Luckily Finland does not have an "elite" like this. Take this kind of money out of Finland and we would have nothing.

karl1haushofer , August 23, 2017 at 2:45 am
Imagine what would happen to Russian economy is even half of this capital was sensibly reinvested back to Russia.
Moscow Exile , August 23, 2017 at 3:12 am
The above linked lenta.ru article posted by the oh-so-concerned about Russia Finn is based on this source:

FROM SOVIETS TO OLIGARCHS:
INEQUALITY AND PROPERTY IN RUSSIA, 1905-2016

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
August 2017

In the lenta.ru article the following is pointed out:

В настоящее время перекос в распределении доходов в России находится на уровне США -- 1 процент граждан получают 20-25 процентов всех доходов в стране.

Currently, the imbalance in income distribution in Russia is at the level of the USA: 1 percent of the population receives 20-25 percent of all income in the country.

Luckily Finland does not have an "elite" like that in the USA!

yalensis , August 23, 2017 at 3:20 am
Is Finland a socialist country?
karl1haushofer , August 23, 2017 at 3:28 am
More so than Russia. Stealing this kind of wealth and taking it offshore would not be possible here. And Finnish elite is a tad more patriotic than Russian.
Moscow Exile , August 23, 2017 at 3:35 am
How do you know that the wealth invested offshore by some Russian citizens has all been stolen?
karl1haushofer , August 23, 2017 at 3:45 am
If it was not stolen why would they take it out of the country?
Moscow Exile , August 23, 2017 at 3:51 am
Hmmmmm -- that's a tough one to answer.
Jen , August 23, 2017 at 4:08 am
Well, where exactly do these Russians invest their money? Do you know if the countries that receive this money are known tax havens? Is all or most of the money going into family trust funds or going into accounts based in countries where taxation of income or profit is known to be lower than in Russia?

Also you can't assume that because these people are sending the money out of Russia, that it was all stolen. For all you know, they could be sending the money out because they are not confident that Russian financial markets are stable enough or that the Central Bank is pursuing policies that would allow them to invest in enterprises or funds in Russia.

Jen , August 23, 2017 at 4:53 am
Wikipedia article on Russian billionaire Alexey Khotin:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexey_Khotin

Khotin owns stock in various companies within and outside Russia either directly or indirectly through other companies. If he has a stake in Kuwait Energy, is that evidence of guilt on his part? Where did the money come from, that he could buy shares in an energy company? Who says that Russian individuals and companies may not invest their after-tax profits in companies outside Russia?

Look at this billionaire's Wikipedia entry – aaargh, this David Iakobashvili fellow invests money stolen I mean, earned in Russia in philanthropic causes in Georgia!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Iakobashvili

marknesop , August 23, 2017 at 1:43 pm
Oh, I don't know .maybe it has something to do with taxes.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/taxes/corporate-tax-rates/corporations-hide-billions-in-offshore-profits/

At the recent G20 summit, finance ministers discussed closing loopholes that allow multinational corporations to stash profits in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. In the U.S., Senator Carl Levin has introduced the "Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act" to prohibit U.S. corporations from avoiding paying taxes on their offshore income.

NerdWallet Taxes conducted a study of the Fortune 50 to find that 88% are stashing profits in foreign subsidiaries . But just how much tax revenue is at stake?

[Aug 26, 2017] Why the Russian Navy Is a More Capable Adversary Than It Appears

Notable quotes:
"... The oft-unacknowledged truth is that the Russian Navy is a lot more operational now than it has been in many years. ..."
"... the next time you hear that the Russian Navy is disappearing, Russia is running out of people, out of money, or out of business, and want to test this theory, just remember to pack a life raft. ..."
Aug 22, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

The oft-unacknowledged truth is that the Russian Navy is a lot more operational now than it has been in many years.

... ... ... ...

In the interim the Russian Navy will remain a mess, but one that is slowly being cleaned up. The "kalibrzation" of the Russian Navy will continue, more Kalibr missile shooters, larger magazines and higher missile counts in storage. Russia will continue pumping out diesel and nuclear-powered submarines and refitting some of the existing Soviet platforms with current generation offensive systems as a cost-saving measure.

While the coming years will be spent on system integration and working out the problems in shipbuilding, new generation weapon systems!like hypersonic missiles!are already in development. For all its woes, the Russian Navy is actually in better shape than it ever has been in the post–Cold War period. Today ships and submarines are staffed entirely by contract servicemen, with conscripts used for shore duties. On the whole this is a service trying to recover from some of the worst decades in its history, but the Russian admiralty has room for cautious optimism.

There are still plenty of deficits to point to, but the Russian Navy isn't going anywhere; when you look at the trend lines over the near to midterm, they are actually positive.

Russia is building a navy that makes sense for its strategy. It is transitioning to a green-water force by design, while retaining and investing in capabilities that will allow it to deter or threaten stronger maritime powers for decades to come. So the next time you hear that the Russian Navy is disappearing, Russia is running out of people, out of money, or out of business, and want to test this theory, just remember to pack a life raft.

Ernesto Castillo

Kofman -- as Goremburg -- remains one of the few non-biased, well informed international analyst dealing with Russia's current military state. Tired from "Russia's 10 feet tall" and "Russia's down the sink" articles, this writing is a balanced, very well-researched and nicely written piece of fresh air.

m.Karim , August 24, 2017 9:25 PM

With limited Budget Russia managed to build powerful strategic weapons that is feared by US mighty war machines. This may have kept peace and global stability just! With wealthy China on her side could bring in some justice to vulnerable nations sovereignty and well-being from predatory activities by superpower owned by few warmongers!

Mahmud Essenbaev , August 25, 2017 4:17 AM

The US government began in late 2013 a war with Russia. But Russia does not start a war, it ends the war!

R. Arandas , August 23, 2017 1:41 AM

Is Russia's navy superior to China's?

WTF -> R. Arandas , August 23, 2017 3:03 AM

Answering the question in simplistic terms, each have their own strengths. The Russian naval strength is in their subs. The Chinese are with surface combatants.

The key question in naval strength is where it will be fought. We are not going to see a sea battle between US, China or Russia out in the open like the Battle of Midway. Chinese and Russian naval forces are on mainly defensive posture with A2/AD kill box set ups.

So if the Chinese fight the Russians in the Black or Barents Seas, high probability they will lose badly. If the Russians fought the Chinese in the ECS and SCS, the Russians will probably lose. Why? Homeground advantage -- supply lines and land batteries.

If any of the 3 major naval powers had to steam hundreds or thousands of miles to refit used ASMs, SAMs, LACMs and torpedoes, they are heading back with hollow tubes. Any ship can be sunk when attacked by planes, fast missile boats, frigates and destroyers, drones and especially ASMs saturate the target from land and sea. It's a numbers game.

[Aug 26, 2017] Gorka Bannon, others 'systematically undermined'

Notable quotes:
"... "I realized after the President's speech this week on Afghanistan that he's not being well-served," Gorka said. "That speech was written by people for the President in direct contravention of everything that we voted for November the 8th." ..."
"... In his interview Saturday, Gorka said: "It is important now that key personalities inside the NSC have been removed that we keep the pressure on from the outside because we must continue until global jihadism is a laughing stock and does not pose a serious threat to America and our friends or allies" ..."
"... On the day he was fired, Bannon told The Weekly Standard: "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." He added, "We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It'll be something else." ..."
"... Gorka said on Saturday: "I decided, just as with Steve, we can be far more effective for the President on the outside, and it's a very exciting day for me and my family to start again supporting the MAGA message as private citizens." ..."
"... CNN's Kevin Liptak, Kaitlan Collins and Eric Bradner, contributed to this report. ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | www.msn.com

Gorka also stressed to Breitbart's Matt Boyle on SiriusXM Patriot on Saturday morning that he decided to resign after President Donald Trump delivered a speech Monday night outlining the US path forward in Afghanistan, including an unspecified troop increase.

"I realized after the President's speech this week on Afghanistan that he's not being well-served," Gorka said. "That speech was written by people for the President in direct contravention of everything that we voted for November the 8th."

... ... ...

In his interview Saturday, Gorka said: "It is important now that key personalities inside the NSC have been removed that we keep the pressure on from the outside because we must continue until global jihadism is a laughing stock and does not pose a serious threat to America and our friends or allies"

Gorka echoed comments Bannon made after he left the administration regarding the officials who now occupy the West Wing.

On the day he was fired, Bannon told The Weekly Standard: "The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." He added, "We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It'll be something else."

Gorka said on Saturday: "I decided, just as with Steve, we can be far more effective for the President on the outside, and it's a very exciting day for me and my family to start again supporting the MAGA message as private citizens."

"Time to make #MAGA real outside the @WhiteHouse," he tweeted after the interview.

CNN's Kevin Liptak, Kaitlan Collins and Eric Bradner, contributed to this report.

[Aug 26, 2017] Russian air defense at their Tartus naval facility in Syria shot down an American RQ-21 "Blackjack" spy drone on May 27th,

Aug 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Drutten , August 25, 2017 at 8:20 am

Also, interesting: Russian air defense at their Tartus naval facility in Syria shot down an American RQ-21 "Blackjack" spy drone on May 27th, it's been revealed.

[Aug 26, 2017] US troops in Syria must all be social workers in uniform. Or maybe 'SF" stands for 'Super Friendly' and not 'Special Forces'. It's okay when Uncle Sam kills people, because he has love in his heart.

Notable quotes:
"... The US objective seems to be to seize control of the oil fields in the region adjacent to Raqqa, which would ensure the economic viability of a Kurdistan entity in northern Syria. Turkey fears that the next step by the US would be to launch operations in northern Syria along Turkey's borders with a view to carve out a contiguous Kurdistan, which would have access to the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey rightly apprehends that a Kurdistan as next-door neighbour would put intolerable strain on its integrity and stability. ..."
"... "Despite Russia's denials, we know they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe," Mattis told reporters, alongside Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Cortes , August 24, 2017 at 6:09 pm

Cooperation among Iran-Russia-Turkey with potential for

1. Disruption of plans to create separate Kurdish state and

2. Exploitation of Iranian hydrocarbons

in an article by M K Bhadrakumar:

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/russia-turkey-iran-axis-would-have-been-absurd-fantasy-year-ago-now-its-reality/ri20733

et Al , August 25, 2017 at 1:33 am
Qatar has given KSA a big public FY! by fully restoring diplomatic relations with Iran. I wonder if they've yet (Qatar) stopped sponsoring IS/ISIL/DAESH/Whatever yet?

The USA likes to make deals then go back on them too. It made a deal with China over North Korea and has gone back on it, it is undermining the I-ran nuclear deal etc. It looks to me as if it is methodically destroying its political credentials which means that when it really needs help, the deal will be signed in their own blood.

marknesop , August 25, 2017 at 11:38 am
The US objective seems to be to seize control of the oil fields in the region adjacent to Raqqa, which would ensure the economic viability of a Kurdistan entity in northern Syria. Turkey fears that the next step by the US would be to launch operations in northern Syria along Turkey's borders with a view to carve out a contiguous Kurdistan, which would have access to the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey rightly apprehends that a Kurdistan as next-door neighbour would put intolerable strain on its integrity and stability.

I must be politically naive. I thought Washington had major objections to 'redrawing borders'.

Oh; look at that – it does .

"Despite Russia's denials, we know they are seeking to redraw international borders by force, undermining the sovereign and free nations of Europe," Mattis told reporters, alongside Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

Those troops must all be social workers in uniform. Or maybe 'SF" stands for 'Super Friendly' and not 'Special Forces'. It's okay when Uncle Sam does it, because he has love in his heart.

[Aug 26, 2017] Neo-imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need without any duty to account to anyone

Notable quotes:
"... Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos at its core, and it's deadly serious about it. ..."
"... This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq -- in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon's New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented. ..."
"... He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy, and his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible. ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
Erebus > > > , August 25, 2017 at 4:32 pm GMT

Thierry Meyssan thinks the world doesn't yet understand the US' Imperial Strategy following 9/11. It is jauntily summarized by Pepe as "Empire of Chaos", as if it was trying to be an Empire, but somehow prevented from properly becoming one because of the bumbling fools that are running it.

Much more sinister than that, American Imperial Strategy has chaos at its core, and it's deadly serious about it.

This strategy, radically new, was taught by Thomas P. M. Barnett following 11-September 2001. It was publicly revealed and exposed in March 2003 – that is, just before the war against Iraq -- in an article in Esquire, then in the eponym book, The Pentagon's New Map. However, such a strategy appears so cruel in design, that no one imagined it could be implemented.

Imperialism seeks to divide the world in two. One part will be a stable area which profits from the system while in the other part a terrifying chaos will reign. This other will be a zone, where all thought of resisting has been wiped it; where every thought is fixated on surviving; an area where the multinationals can extract raw materials which they need without any duty to account to anyone.

Translated from the French, Parts 1 & 2 are here:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article197477.html http://www.voltairenet.org/article197541.html

He goes on to maintain that Assad was the first leader to understand this strategy, and his development of a counter strategy is the principle reason for his continued, indeed enhanced reign. If they didn't then, I have a feeling that Putin & Xi now also understand, and that some of their counter-strategies are becoming visible.

Delinquent Snail > > , August 25, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT

@The Alarmist

"As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?"
That's the beauty: There is no end game. it's a never-ending gravy-train of policy studies, think-tank research, strategy-consulting, and weapons R&D and procurement,with a smattering of foreign aid and economic development money thrown in. Everybody wins ... well, everybody who matters.
Its all about "closing the gap".

"Barnett's vision is neoconservative to the root. He sees the world as divided into essentially two realms: The Core, which consists of advanced countries playing by the rules of economic globalization (the US, Canada, UK, Europe and Japan) along with developing countries committed to getting there (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and some others); and the rest of the world, which is The Gap, a disparate wilderness of dangerous and lawless countries defined fundamentally by being "disconnected" from the wonders of globalization. This includes most of the Middle East and Africa, large swathes of South America, as well as much of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. It is the task of the United States to "shrink The Gap," by spreading the cultural and economic "rule-set" of globalization that characterizes The Core, and by enforcing security worldwide to enable that "rule-set" to spread."

"America as global cop creates security. Security creates common rules. Rules attract foreign investment. Investment creates infrastructure. Infrastructure creates access to natural resources. Resources create economic growth. Growth creates stability. Stability creates markets. And once you're a growing, stable part of the global market, you're part of the Core. Mission accomplished"

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

The Pentagon's "highlands forum" is the "deepstate", or the closest thing to it that I've found. Its members are ranking military officers, high level government officials, "captains of industry". They have been directing America since the 90s. Several members are now part of Google, Facebook, Goldman Sachs, the list goes on and on.

Delinquent Snail > > , August 25, 2017 at 9:34 pm GMT

@DESERT FOX The Zionist neocon agenda is to keep us in a state of perpetual fear and in perpetual wars for as George Orwell said , wars are not meant to be won they are meant to keep the state in control and keep the proles in a state of continual poverty and fear.

There will be wars forever until and unless the Zionist neocon control over America is ended and as of now it appears there is no end in sight. England invaded Afghanistan in 1838 and did not leave until 1919 so as a template the Zionist neocons have another 64 years to go defending their CIA and MOSSAD drug running and spilling American blood in Afghanistan.

We are Oceania.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

You would find this article worthy of your time.

[Aug 26, 2017] Economic Nationalism Theory, History and Prospects

Aug 26, 2017 | www.globalpolicyjournal.com

In its aftermath, commentators warned of a resurgence of economic nationalism, that is, protectionism. Some states did increase tariff levels but this has not led to a generalised increase in barriers to trade in the pursuit of national economies for interrelated reasons: (1) the integration and therefore interdependency of economies; (2) the complexity of the global economy, making it all but impossible to separate by nationality; (3) the greater extensity of world markets compared to the mid-20th century; (4) the redundancy of the various models of economic nationalism.

Policy Implications
  • Economic nationalism should be understood as a set of practices to create, bolster and protect national economies in the context of world markets. The rise and institutionalisation of economic nationalism in the 20th century was a product of economic crisis, nationalist movements and enlarged states.
  • There has been no 'return of economic nationalism' as in a generalised rise in protective barriers to trade since the financial crash of 2011. Unlike the 1930s, sovereign debt has not motivated states to withdraw from global markets.
  • The integration, complexity and extensity of the world's economy mean that a reversal of trade as great as during the interwar period would entail an economic Armageddon. Whatever future ructions the world's economy experiences due, above all, to chronic levels of sovereign debt, policy makers should be mindful of this reality.
  • Simultaneously, they should be aware that ongoing instability may entail greater economic nationalism. The key lesson from the period after the Second World War is relevant now at a more overtly global level: the importance of planning, regulation and respect for models of economic diversity to further global trade.

[Aug 26, 2017] What the Alternative Right is

Anti-globalism of alt-right is very important...
See discussion at "16 Points Of The Alt Right" That Invert The Alt Right Into Leftism
Notable quotes:
"... neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right. ..."
"... The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives. ..."
"... The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means. ..."
"... The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. ..."
"... The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another ..."
Aug 26, 2017 | voxday.blogspot.com

  1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.
  2. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk's 10 Conservative Principles , but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.
  3. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.
  4. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.
  5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
  6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.
  7. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.
  8. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.
  9. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.
  10. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
  11. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.
  12. The Alt Right doesn't care what you think of it.
  13. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.
  14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.
  15. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.
  16. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.
TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.

The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."

This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change.

[Aug 26, 2017] The Alt-Right Is Not Who You Think They Are by George Hawley

Rejection of globalization by alt-right is very important. that's why make them economic nationalists. And that's why they are hated neocon and those forces of neoliberalism which are behind Neocon/Neolib Cultural Revolution -- promotion of LGBT, uni-gender bathrooms, transsexuals, etc, identity wedge in politics demonstrated by Hillary, etc. (modeled on Mao's cultural revolution, which also what launched when Mao started to lose his grip on political power).
Aug 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
In my experience with the alt-right, I encountered a surprisingly common narrative: Alt-right supporters did not, for the most part, come from overtly racist families. Alt-right media platforms have actually been pushing this meme aggressively in recent months. Far from defending the ideas and institutions they inherited, the alt-right!which is overwhelmingly a movement of white millennials!forcefully condemns their parents' generation. They do so because they do not believe their parents are racist enough

In an inverse of the left-wing protest movements of the 1960s, the youthful alt-right bitterly lambast the "boomers" for their lack of explicit ethnocentrism, their rejection of patriarchy, and their failure to maintain America's old demographic characteristics and racial hierarchy. In the alt-right's vision, even older conservatives are useless "cucks" who focus on tax policies and forcefully deny that they are driven by racial animus.

... ... ...

To complicate matters further, many people in the alt-right were radicalized while in college. Not only that, but the efforts to inoculate the next generation of America's social and economic leaders against racism were, in some cases, a catalyst for racist radicalization. Although academic seminars that explain the reality of white privilege may reduce feelings of prejudice among most young whites exposed to them, they have the opposite effect on other young whites. At this point we do not know what percentage of white college students react in such a way, but the number is high enough to warrant additional study.

A final problem with contemporary discussions about racism is that they often remain rooted in outdated stereotypes. Our popular culture tends to define the racist as a toothless illiterate Klansman in rural Appalachia, or a bitter, angry urban skinhead reacting to limited social prospects. Thus, when a white nationalist movement arises that exhibits neither of these characteristics, people are taken by surprise.

George Hawley (@georgehawleyUA) is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama. His books include Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism , White Voters in 21st Century America , and Making Sense of the Alt-Right (forthcoming).

Nate J , says: August 24, 2017 at 10:35 pm

It boggles my mind that the left, who were so effective at dominating the culture wars basically from the late 60s, cannot see the type of counter-culture they are creating. Your point about alt-righters opposing their parents drives this home.

People have been left to drift in a sea of postmodernism without an anchor for far too long now, and they are grasping onto whatever seems sturdy. The alt-right, for its many faults, provides something compelling and firm to grab.

The left's big failure when all the dust settles will be seen as its inability to provide a coherent view of human nature and a positive, constructive, unifying message. They are now the side against everything – against reason, against tradition, against truth, against shared institutions and heritage and nationalism It's no wonder people are looking to be for something these days. People are sick of being atomized into smaller and smaller units, fostered by the left's new and now permanent quest to find new victim groups.

DonChi , says: August 25, 2017 at 5:17 am
I'm disappointed to read an article at The American Conservative that fails to address the reality behind these numbers. Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics themselves in not surprising, and it's a bit offensive to attribute this trend to the eternal mysteries of inexplicable "racist" hate.

The young can see through the fake dynamic being depicted in the mainstream media, and unless The American Conservative wants to completely lose relevance, a light should be shone on the elephant in the room. For young white kids, The Culture Wars often present an existential threat, as Colin Flaherty shows in Don't Make the Black Kids Angry–endorsed and heralded as a troubling and important work by Thomas Sowell.

Nicholas , says: August 25, 2017 at 7:44 am
From the 16 Points of the Alt-Right:
5. The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.
6. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

It is important to remember that nations are people, not geography. The current American Union, enforced by imperial conquest, is a Multi-National empire. It has been held together by force and more recently by common, though not equal, material prosperity.

With the imposition of Globalism's exotic perversions and eroding economic prospects the American Union is heading for the same fate as all Multi-National empires before it.

Nation(Identity) > Culture > Politics.

KD , says: August 25, 2017 at 9:15 am
Mysteriously absent from the scholarly discussion seems to be the pioneer of sociology, Ludwig Gumplowicz. Incredibly so, as the same factors that led to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire abound in contemporary America.
Steve , says: August 25, 2017 at 9:25 am
I have two teenage sons – we live in Canada – and they tell that, no matter what they say, who they hang out with, what music they listen to, no matter how many times they demonstrate they are not racist, they are repeatedly called racist. They are automatically guilty because they are white. They are beaten over the head with this message in school and in the press and are sick and tired of it.
Todd Pierce , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:48 am
What might also be considered is the cultural effect upon a generation which has now matured through what the government calls "perpetual war," with the concomitant constant celebration of "warriors," hyper-patriotism as demanded of all public events such as shown in the fanaticism of baseball players engaged in "National Anthem standouts," such as were popular a couple years ago in MLB, the constant references in political campaigns to the "enemy," to include Russia as well now, and the "stab in the back" legend created to accuse anyone opposed to more war and occupation of "treason." We've "radicalized" our own youth, with Trump coming along with his links to Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli "Right," and created a cultural condition much like this: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/04/conservative-revolutionaries-fascism/
Doc Broom , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:49 am
Odd, you write "How did the youngest white Americans respond to the most racially polarizing election in recent memory?" In reality it was less racially polarized than 2012, when 93 % of African Americans and 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama while in 2016 88% of Blacks and 65% of Hispanics voted from Hillary. So Trump won a higher percentage of African American votes and Hispanic votes than Mitt Romney. In 2008 Obama won 95% of Blacks and 67% of Hispanics, in 2004 the numbers were 88 and 53 for Kerry so the three elections between 2004 and and 2016 were all more polarizing than the 2016 race.
Eric Mader , says: August 25, 2017 at 10:55 am
Yes, you make many important points, Mr. Hawley, but that you feel the need to join the chorus of those who see our president's reaction to Charlottesville as somehow inappropriate or even itself racist–that is sad. I don't see what else you may be implying in your opening paragraphs, since you move directly from the number of "likes" Obama's bromide received to this: "[Obama's reaction] also offered a stark contrast to that of President Trump."

In spite of many liberals' frantic desire to read whatever they want into President Trump's words, he very clearly condemned the neo-Nazis and the evil of Heather Heyer's murderer. That he also condemned the violence coming from Antifa ranks does not lessen his condemnation of that coming from the alt right side. Rather, condemning the rising illiberalism on both sides of this growing conflict was both commendable and necessary.

Many Americans see these recent events in a context stretching back years. Myself, at fifty, having watched especially the steady empowerment of a demagogic left on our campuses, I'm not much surprised that a racist "white nationalist" movement should burst into flame at just this point. The kindling is right there in the anti-white, misandrous virulence of our SJW left.

Sane conservatives have strongly condemned the new alt-right racism. The problem is that we are not seeing anything similar from the left. Our left seems incapable of condemning, let alone even seeing , its own racist excesses. Which are everywhere in its discourse, especially in our humanities departments.

I would say that in the recent decades the American left has grown much more deeply invested in identity politics than the right has ever been during my lifetime. In my view, our left has grown more enamored of identity issues precisely because it has abandoned the bread and butter issues that really matter to most Americans.

I have many left-liberal friends and regularly read the left press. Surveying the reactions to Charlottesville and the rising conflict between alt-right extremists and a radicalized Antifa left, I see nowhere a step toward acknowledging the obvious: our rabid identity politics is by no means just a problem of the right.

Racial identity politics is a curse. Sadly, it seems we've been cursed by it well and and good. The poison's reaching down to the bone. Unless both smart moderates and people on the left start to recognize just how badly poisoned our left has been by this curse, no progress will be made. Identity politics needs to be condemned on both sides of this growing national street brawl, and it should start NOW.

But I'm afraid it's not going to happen. I see my friends on the left, and they're nowhere near acknowledging the problem. And I'm sad to see our president's attempt to call out both sides has gotten such negative reactions. I'm afraid this isn't going to end well.

Todd Pierce , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:21 am
Should read: "National Anthem standoffs," not "standouts."
Siarlys Jenkins , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:29 am
Liberal identity politics creates an inherently adversarial arena, wherein white people are depicted as the enemy. That young whites should respond by gravitating toward identity politics themselves in not surprising

One of many good reasons for rejecting "identity" politics generally.

CampNouidiote , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:34 am
A white friend attended a Cal State graduate program for counseling a couple of years ago; he left very bitter after all his classes told him that white men were the proximate cause of the world's misery. Then a mutual Latina friend from church invited him to coffee and told him that he was the white devil, the cause of her oppression. You can conclude how he felt.

The liberal universities' curricula has caused a storm of madness; they have unleashed their own form of oppressive thought on a significant portion on American society:white men. There is now an adverse reaction. Of course, even more opprobrium will be heaped upon on men who might question the illogicality of feminism and the left. How can all of this end well if the humanity of white men is denied in universities, public schools and universities?

G. K. , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:39 am
The Alt Right simply believes that Western nations have a right to preserve their culture and heritage. Every normal man in these United States agreed with that premise prior to the Marxist takeover of our institutions in the 1960's. And you know it's true.
Cornel Lencar , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:41 am
Maybe at the bottom of it is not racism as in they are the wrong colour, but about cultural traits and patterns of behaviour that are stirring resentment. Plus maybe the inclusion towards more social benefits not available before (Obamacare?).

The current rap music, as opposed to the initial one, that emphasized social injustice is such that one feels emptying his own stomach like sharks do.

The macho culture that black gangs, latin american gangs manifest is a bit antagonistic to white supremacists gangs and attitudes towards women. After all, vikings going raiding used to have shield maidens joining, and Celtic culture is full of women warriors. Northern European culture, harking back to pre-Christian times was more kinder to women than what women from southern Europe (Greece, Rome) experienced (total ownership by husbands, the veil, etc., all imported from the Middle East: but one must not judge too harshly, the book "Debt, the first 5000 years" could be an eye opener of the root causes of such attitudes).

Also, the lack of respect for human life expressed in these cultures is not that palatable, even for white supremacists (while one can point to Nazi Germany as an outlier – but there it was the state that promoted such attitudes, while in Japan the foreigner that is persecuted and ostracized could be the refugee from another village around Fukushima – see the Economist on that).

So I think there are many avenues to explore in identifying the rise in Alt right and white supremacists in the U.S. But colour is definitely not it.

Joe Beavers , says: August 25, 2017 at 11:50 am
Come now. There were the same types around me years ago at school, work, society. They just did not march around like Nazis in public, probably because the Greatest Generation would have kicked their butts.

Now, with the miracle of modern technology, a few hundred of them can get together and raise hell in one place. Plus they now get lots of encouraging internet press (and some discouraging).

A better article on this is:

http://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/keillor-my-advice-be-genial-dont-take-lunacy-too-seriously/

Jack V , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:17 pm
This article says virtually nothing.
The author fails to define his terms, beginning with Alt-Right.
And he seems to operate from a dislike of Trump underneath it all. This dislike is common among pundits, left and right, who consider themselves to be refined and cultured. So it was that the NYT's early condemnation of Trump led with complaints about his bearing and manners – "vulgar" was the word often used if memory serves.
This gets us nowhere. Many in the US are disturbed by the decline in their prospects with a decrease in share of wages in the national income ongoing since the 1970's – before Reagan who is blamed for it all. Add to that the 16 years of wars which have taken the lives of Trump supporters disproportionately and you have a real basis for grievances.
Racism seems to be a side show as does AntiFa.
KD , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Richard McEvoy writes:

"The accusation of being racist because you are white is a misunderstanding of structural racism."

I agree, but I notice that Jews have the same misunderstanding when you mention structural "Zionist Occupied Government" or "Jewish Privilege".

Perhaps because they are both conspiracy theories rooted in hatred and ignorance, which is where we descend when the concept of a statistical distribution or empirical data become "controversial", or "feelings" overtake "facts".

Alex (the one that likes Ike) , says: August 25, 2017 at 12:36 pm
And progressives still refer to KKK when they seek an example of a white supremacist group. Amazing. They are too lazy even to learn that the Klan lost its relevance long ago, and the most powerful white supremacist organization of today consists of entirely different people, who are very far from being illiterate.

***

Todd Pierce,

Israel's ultra militarist, Benjamin Netanyahu

I won't deny that Bibi is a controversial figure, but calling him an ultra militarist is quite a bit of a stretch.

haderondah , says: August 25, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Elite sports. After reading this article and it's underlying thesis, it occurs to me that the way sports have evolved in this country is very likely to be the experience that millennial whites have had that fosters their "out group" belief systems. It is very common, using soccer as my frame of reference, for wealthy suburban families to spend a fortune getting their children all the best training and access to all the best clubs. Their children are usually the best players in their community of origin and usually the top players all the way through the preadolescent years only to find all of that money and prestige gone to waste once their kids get to around sixteen at which point their children are invariably replaced on the roster by a recent immigrant -- mainly from Africa or south of our border and usually at a cut rate compared to the one they are bleeding the suburban families with. I'm assuming this is becoming more common across all sports as they move toward a pay to play corporate model. In soccer, the white kids are, seriously, the paying customers who fill out the roster that supports the truly talented kids (from countries who know how to develop soccer talent.)
sedric , says: August 25, 2017 at 8:20 pm
The thing is when blacks begin to feel power and a secure place in America then their true colors show-at least among many. Left unchecked they would become the biggest racists of all. You can see that now. So what it comes down to are white people going to give away their country? Until blacks become cooperative and productive things need to stay as they are. Sad maybe but that's just the way it has to be.
vato_loco_frisco , says: August 25, 2017 at 8:18 pm
There have always been fringe, rightwing groups in the US. Nothing new there. But the so-called alt-right, comprised of Nazi wannabes and assorted peckerwoods, is truly the spawn of the looney left, whose obsession with race has created the toxic environment we find ourselves in.

[Aug 25, 2017] The US military industrial complex needs a bogey-man

Aug 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Gavekal On The Coming Clash Of Empires Russia's Role As A Global Game-Changer Zero Hedge

Now for China's "dream of empire" to work, China would need to convince two important countries, and maybe three, to at least become "neutral", instead of quasi-hostile, for these new communications lines to work. Those two countries are Russia and Germany. The 3rd is Saudi Arabia, which has an interesting hand to play.

1. Russia

Russia is the main land bridge between China and Europe. So logic says that the US should be very nice to Russia and seek to establish some kind of military alliance, if only to control the movement of people and goods between China and Europe, and from Europe to China. However, in its immense wisdom, the US Senate and the entire US diplomatic corps have decided that America's interests are best served by imposing sanctions on Russia for crimes!not even proven at the time of writing!that the Central Intelligence Agency routinely commits inside countries that are nominally allies of the US!

It seems that US policymakers have forgotten Lord Palmerston's dictum that nations don't have friends, just permanent interests. And instead of following policies to maximize its national interest, the US would rather cut off its nose to spite its face. The end result is that the US seems to be working as hard as possible to make Russia join forces with China. But why would the US so consciously make an enemy out of Russia?

A starting point is that it is a little odd that a country that cannot conceivably be invaded spends more on defense then the next ten nations combined (see chart overleaf). It is also odd that the US has been involved in wars, somewhere around the globe, with very few interruptions, ever since President Dwight Eisenhower warned his countrymen about the growing clout of the "US military industrial complex".

Of course, we fully realize that even mentioning the "US military industrial complex' makes one sound like some kind of tin-potted, conspiracy-theorist prone loon. This is not our intention. But we do want to highlight that, in order to justify a budget of US$622bn, soon heading to US$800bn, the US military industrial complex needs a bogey-man

Now the natural bogey-man should logically be China. After all, China is now sporting the second biggest military budget in the world (US$192bn in 2016), is rapidly expanding its global presence (Belt and Road, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, Silk Road Fund) and increasingly treats the South China Sea as a mare nostrum. Still, the past few months of broad US hysteria toward Russia make it fairly clear that US military interests would rather pick on Russia then China. Why so? The first, and most obvious explanation, is simply institutional inertia. After all, Russia was the main enemy between 1945 and 1991 and entire institutions were built (NATO, OECD, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) with either the stated, or unstated, goal of containing Russia's influence. Such government-led institutions usually turn around as easily as a cruise ship captained by Francesco Schettino.

...As no-one in the US business community cares deeply about Russia, Moscow makes for a good, "compromise bogey man"?

A third explanation is tied to a theme we have discussed in the past (see The Consequences of Trump's Syrian Strike ), namely the unfolding civil war in the Middle-East between Sunnis and Shias. On the Sunni side of the war sits Saudi Arabia. On the Shia side of the war is Iran. And behind Iran stands Russia, who would like nothing more than to see the Saudi regime implode. Indeed, a collapse of the House of Saud would be an immense boon for Russia. The price of oil would likely surge (which would be great for non-Arab producers like Russia) and Europe would find itself wholly dependent on Russia for its energy supplies, thereby giving Moscow more geopolitical clout than it has enjoyed in decades.

At the same time, a collapse of the House of Saud would be terrible news for US, French and British arms suppliers (for whom the Middle-Eastern monarchies are big clients) and for all big oil companies which have huge contracts in Saudi Arabia and across the Middle-East to protect.

This brings us to the current make-up of the US administration which, to say the least, is somewhat skewed towards military officers (military men and the merchants of death tend to get along) and oil-men. Is it too much of a stretch to think that an administration loaded with oil and military men would, almost by default, fight Saudi Arabia's corner? Now this may be unfair. After all, it's not as if the first trip of the current US president was to Saudi Arabia, or as if that trip yielded many lucrative deals for US weapons manufacturers, US oil companies, and US financiers, was it?

Russia as a game-changer

Whatever the reason for the current anti-Russia hysteria in the US, it is now clearly in Russia's interest for it to play a very active role in the coming Chinese efforts to reduce the power of the dominant "maritime empire". This means that Chinese and European products will be able to travel through Russia for the foreseeable future, so avoiding possible threats created by the US navy should Washington ever act to disrupt trade between the two economic centers.

The reason that the US's approach to Russia is so short-sighted is that Russia's role in the coming clash between the two empires may go far beyond it facilitating communication and transport across its territory. Indeed, Russia (along with Qatar and Iran) could already be helping China break the monopoly that the US has on the payment of energy all over the world through the US dollar (see The Most Important Change And Its Natural Hedge ).

For the past 100 years, the US dollar has been the world's major reserve and trading currency. Needless to say, having the ability to settle one's (rather large) trade and budget deficits in one's own currency is a competitive advantage of huge proportions. Greater than its edge in finance, tertiary education, technology, biotech, weapons manufacturing and agricultural productivity, this "exorbitant privilege" may be the US's single biggest comparative advantage.

Now our starting point when looking at China is that the guys who run the show in Beijing are basically control freaks. After all, what else do you expect from career technocrats steeped in Marxist theory? So with that in mind, the question every investor should ask themselves is: why would control freaks yield control of their country's exchange rate and interest rate structure? Why liberalize the bond and currency markets?

For let's face it, there are few prices as important to an economy as the exchange rate and the interest rate. So if the politburo is willing to gradually lose control over them, it must be because it hopes to gain something better on the other side. And the something better is to transform the renminbi into Asia's deutschemark; the "natural" trading (and eventually reserve) currency for Asia and even wider emerging markets. In fact, internationalizing the renminbi is the lynchpin on which the whole "Belt and Road" empire rollout rests. If this part fails, then China's imperial ambitions will most likely crumble over time (for one cannot have an empire on somebody else's dime).

The rise of the renminbi

Which brings us to a key change in our global monetary system that has received scant attention, namely, the recent announcement by the Hong Kong exchange that investors will soon be able to buy and settle gold contracts in renminbi (see release). This initiative has the potential to be a game-changer for the architecture of our global monetary system.

Imagine being Russia, Iran, Qatar, Venezuela, Sudan, Uzbekistan or any other country liable to fall foul of US foreign policy, and thus susceptible to having Washington use the dollar as a "soft weapon" (see BNP, Big Brother And The US Dollar ). Then China comes along and says: "Rather than trading in dollars, which leaves us both exposed to US sanctions, and US banks' willingness to fund our trade, let's deal in renminbi. I can guarantee that ICBC will never pull the rug from under your feet ".

If you are Russia, or Qatar ( which have already signed renminbi deals for oil and natural gas) , this may be an interesting proposition. However, the question will quickly arise: "What will I do with my renminbi? Sure, I can buy goods in China, but I only need so much cheap clothing, tennis shoes, and plastic junk. What do I do with what is left over?". And the answer to that question is that the US dollar remains the world's reserve currency since the US offers the deepest and most liquid asset markets. From real estate (as shown by the Russia-Trump investigation), to equities, to bonds, there is no shortage of US assets that Americans will sell foreigners so that foreigners can park their hard earned dollars back into the US.

This brings us back to China and the main constraint to the renminbi's rise as a reserve currency. Simply put, foreign investors do not trust the Chinese government enough to park their excess reserves in Chinese assets. This lack of trust was crystallized by the decision in the summer of 2015 to "shut down" the equity markets for a while and stop trading in any stock that looked like it was heading south. That decision confirmed foreign investors' apprehension about China and in their eyes set back renminbi internationalization by several years, if not decades.

Until now, that is. For by creating a gold contract settled in renminbi, Russia may now sell oil to China for renminbi (already signed), then take whatever excess currency it earns to buy gold in Hong Kong. As a result, Russia does not have to buy Chinese assets or switch the proceeds into dollars (and so potentially fall under the thumb of the US Treasury). This new arrangement is good news for Russia, good news for China, good news for gold and horrible news for Saudi Arabia as it leaves the Middle-Eastern kingdom in between a rock and a hard place.

2. Saudi Arabia

The fact that China wants to buy oil with its own currency will increasingly present Saudi Arabia with a dilemma . It could acknowledge that China is now the world's largest oil importer, and only major growth market, and accept renminbi payments for its oil. However, this would go down like a lead balloon in Washington where the US Treasury would (rightly) see this as a threat to the dollar's hegemony . In such a scenario, it is unlikely that the US would continue to approve modern weapon sales to Saudi and the embedded "protection" of the House of Saud that comes with them. And without this US protection, who knows which way the Sunni-Shia civil war may tip (most likely in favor of the Iran-Russia axis).

Unfortunately for Saudi Arabia, the alternative is hardly attractive. Getting boxed out of the Chinese market will increasingly mean having to dump excess oil inventories on the global stage, thereby ensuring a sustained low price for oil. But with its budget deficit stuck at about 16% of GDP, with half its population below 27 and needing jobs, and with reserves shrinking by around US$10bn a month, just maintaining the current status quo is not a long-term viable option.

So which way will Saudi turn? Will Riyadh accept low oil prices forever and the associated costs on Saudi society? Or will it change horse and move to accept renminbi in order to ensure more access to the world's largest oil importer, even at the risk of triggering Washington's wrath? Investors who like to bet on form may wish to consider the second option. Indeed, King Ibn Saud (the current King Salman's father) was once a loyal British client as the Brits had helped suppress the Wahhabi brotherhood, so cementing his power. Yet in 1936, Ibn Saud's adviser Abdullah Philby (father of British traitor Kim Philby), persuaded the king to switch his allegiance to the US, by offering Saudis exclusive oil concession to Chevron/Texaco rather than BP. This is why the Saudi oil company is called Aramco (the Arab-American oil company) rather than Arbroco.

Could the House of Saud pull off the same stunt again? One indication may be who lines up as cornerstone investors in the coming Aramco IPO. If those end up as China Investment Corporation, Petrochina and the PRC's State Administration of Foreign Exchange, than perhaps Aramco will be on its way to becoming Archoco. And with that, the pricing of Saudi oil could shift from US dollars to renminbi.

Incidentally, such a move would likely solve Saudi's biggest macro hurdle; specifically, the defense of the Saudi Riyal peg to the US dollar. Indeed, with reserves shrinking so rapidly, the arrangement looks to be on a slow-moving death watch (admittedly, at the current pace of reserve depletion, Riyadh could hold out three years and possibly five). But should Saudi announce that Aramco (or Archoco!) will now accept renminbi for oil payments, the dollar would likely tank while oil prices would shoot up (as Saudi would have a willing buyer for its oil in China). A lower US dollar/ higher oil combination would, needless to say, make the Saudi peg that much easier to sustain.

Lastly, if you were King Salman and thought that the long-term sustainability of the House of Saud depended on dumping the US and engaging China, what would you be doing right now? Would you be buying as many top-end US weapons as you possibly could, knowing that, in the future, such purchases may no longer be as easy as they are today? But let us now move to the third major player in this many-part drama, namely Germany, where the situation is even more complex.

3. Germany

Unencumbered by its own "heavy" history, Germany! being at heart a "continental" nation!would probably have joined the "continental alliance" and left the maritime alliance (which may explain why the "maritime alliance" tapped Angela Merkel's phone; arguably a greater intrusion then anything the US has accused Russia of). After all, consider the advantages for Germany of joining the "land-based empire":

  • Politically, Germany could finally develop its own diplomacy and stop taking orders from Washington.
  • Economically, German industry would have unlimited access to develop not only Russia but also all the populations north of the Himalayas set to join the modern world through the creation of the "New Silk Road".
  • Geopolitically, let us first state the obvious: a Middle-East ruled by the Sunnis under the control of the US diplomacy has not been a resounding success. Worse yet, the incredible mistakes made by the last two US administrations across the Middle-East have led to a very old religious war (Sunnis vs. Shiites) again erupting. As we write, it seems that the Russians and Iranian allies are gradually succeeding in taking the control of the Middle East. Now the return to some form of peace (under a Russia/Iranian yoke) would offer new markets for German industry, provided Germany immediately allied itself with Russia and broke away from the American sanctions imposed by the US Senate. Failing that, Germany could lose a Middle-Eastern market which has historically been important for its exporters.
  • Domestically: A German-Russian alliance would crimp Turkey's resurgence as Ankara would find itself isolated due to Iran and China being on its eastern borders and Russia on its northern frontiers. As a result, Turkey would most likely stop rattling Europe's cage, which would be a boon for Merkel as Recep Tayyip Erdo?an has been a significant thorn in her side. In other words, Merkel would outsource her "Turkey problem" to Russia.
  • Energetically, a Russian-dominated Middle East would still provide gas from Russia and oil from the Middle-East. The implication is that Germany would no longer need to have its energy imports "protected" by the maritime empire's fleet (Merkel's short-sightedness on the energy front, from the end of coal, to the banning of nuclear power, has fitted in the category of being "worse than a crime, it is a mistake").
  • Many people in Germany!business people and public servants such as ex -chancellor Gerhard Schroeder!understand the above and have lobbied for such an outcome. The recent trend of US prosecutors trying to export the supremacy of the US legal system over local ones, and imposing egregious fines on all and sundry (Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen) can only push German business leaders further down that path.

    Of course, as Frenchmen, we know that nothing good comes of:

  • Germany and Russia getting along like a house on fire.
  • Britain retreating back to its island.
  • And we would suggest that President Emmanuel Macron is also keenly aware of this. Which explains he is so far the only Western leader to have gone out of his way to be nice to President Trump; aside from the Polish President of course (more on that later).

    Macron has bent over to accommodate Merkel. And let's face it, his task is not easy. For as good as our president may be with the older ladies, he needs to convince Merkel to walk away from the above win-win and keep Germany committed to the greater European integration exercise, and Germany wedded to its role inside the broader "maritime empire".

    Germany as the sole paymaster

    Now, to be fair, the German population has enthusiastically supported the European integration project, partly out of historical guilt (now abating as the share of the population alive in World War II fast shrinks) and partly because it has been a boon to German exporters. However, recent years have highlighted that the low hanging fruit of European integration has been harvested. And to stay afloat, the European project now needs Berlin to transfer 2%-6% of GDP to poorer, less productive, European Union countries (especially as the UK will soon stop paying into EU coffers). This is a hard sell, even for a politician as gifted as Macron. Soon, Germany may be the only meaningful contributor to French agricultural subsidies; and that is unlikely to go down well with the average Bavarian housewife.

    Which brings us to the only other Western leader who has publicly embraced the current incumbent of the White House, namely Polish president, Andreszj Duda. After all, History suggests that France should not be the only country worried about a German rapprochement with the new "land-based empire". Most Eastern European countries, in particular Poland, have similar reactions to such a hook-up. In fact, threat of a German-Russian rapprochement may already be creating the birth of a new, Austro-Hungarian empire, aka the Visegrad Group alliance of the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.

    Historically, the role of the Austrian empire was to protect Europe from the Turks and also to stop an alliance between Prussia and Russia. For the time being the Visegrad group is negotiating (rather unsuccessfully) with Berlin about how to handle thousands of "Turks" (at least migrants entering Europe through Turkey, whether those migrants come from North Africa, the Middle-East, Afghanistan, Bangladesh or elsewhere is almost irrelevant). This Eastern grouping may have to address, sooner than they think, a German-Russian rapprochement.

    Just as importantly, the re-emergence of the Austrian empire is incompatible with the "Europe as a Nation" project. In the world we are describing Poland, followed by Hungary and the Czech Republic, may be the next countries to leave the EU. Although in so doing, the Visegrad Group would almost guarantee the feared rapprochement between Germany and Russia. Of course the Eastern European nations would only make such a move if they were militarily guaranteed by the US. And, by an amazing coincidence, this is exactly the promise that President Trump just delivered in Warsaw!

    For the "maritime empire", a loss of Germany would have to be rapidly compensated by an increased presence in Poland, the Czech Republic, Austria, Lithuania and almost every country East of Berlin and West of Moscow. Of course, this is what France and England (the "maritime empires of the day") did in the 1930s! with limited success .

    Conclusion

    History shows that maritime powers almost always have the upper hand in any clash; if only because moving goods by sea is cheaper, more efficient, easier to control, and often faster, than moving them by land. So there is little doubt that the US continues to have the advantage. Simple logic, suggests that goods should continue to be moved from Shanghai to Rotterdam by ship, rather than by rail.

    Unless, of course, a rising continental power wants to avoid the sea lanes controlled by its rival. Such a rival would have little choice but developing land routes; which of course is what China is doing. The fact that these land routes may not be as efficient as the US controlled sealanes is almost as irrelevant as the constant cost over-run of any major US defense projects. Both are necessary to achieve imperial status.

    As British historian Cyril Northcote Parkinson highlighted in his mustread East And West, empires tend to expand naturally, not out of megalomania, but simple commercial interest: "The true explanation lies in the very nature of the trade route. Having gone to all expenses involved the rule cannot be expected to leave the far terminus in the hands of another power." And indeed, the power that controls the end points on the trading road, and the power that controls the road, is the power that makes the money. Clearly, this is what China is trying to achieve, but trying to do so without entering into open conflict with the United States; perhaps because China knows the poor track record of continental empires picking fights with the maritime power

    Still, by focusing almost myopically on Russia, the US risks having its current massive head-start gradually eroded. And obvious signs of this erosion may occur in the coming years if and when the following happens:

  • Saudi Arabia adopts the renminbi for oil payments
  • Germany changes its stripes and cozies up to Russia and pretty much gives up on the whole European integration charade in order to follow its own naked self-interest.
  • The latter two events may, of course, not happen. Still, a few years ago, we would have dismissed such talk as not even worthy of the craziest of conspiracy theories. Today, however, we are a lot less sure. And our concern is that either of the above events could end up having a dramatic impact on a number of asset classes and portfolios.

    And the possible catalyst for these changes is China's effort to create a renminbi-based gold market in Hong Kong. For while the key change to our global financial infrastructure (namely oil payments occurring in renminbi) has yet to fully arrive, the ability to transform renminbi into gold, without having to bring the currency back into China (assuming Hong Kong is not "really" part of China as it has its own supreme court and independent justice system just about!) is a likely game-changer.

    Clearly, China is erecting the financial architecture for the above to occur. This does not mean the initiative will be a success. China could easily be sitting on a dud. But still, we should give credit to Beijing's policymakers for their sense of timing for has there ever been a better time to promote an alternative to the US dollar? If you are sitting in Russia, Qatar, Iran, or Venezuela and listening to the rhetoric coming out of Washington, would you feel that comfortable keeping your assets, and denominating your trade, in dollars? Or would you perhaps be looking for alternatives?

    This is what makes today's US policy hard to understand. Just when China is starting to offer an alternative!an alternative that the US should be trying to bury!the US is moving to "weaponize" the dollar and pound other nations!even those as geo-strategically vital as Russia!for simple domestic political reasons. It all seems so short-sighted

    ... ... ...

    skbull44 -> Mr 9x19 , Aug 20, 2017 10:57 AM

    I've got a different suggestion for the US Empire, rather than attempt to suppress rising competition, take the words of Eddie Morra in the Bradley Cooper movie Limitless to heart: "There are no safeguards on human nature. We're wired to overreach. Look at history, all the countries that ever ruled the world. Portugal with this big, massive navy. All they got now are salt cod and cheap condos. The Brits. Now they're just sitting on their dank, little island fussing over their suits. No one's stopping and thinking, hey, we're doing pretty well. We got France. We've got Poland. We've got big, Swiss bank accounts. You know what? Let's not invade Russia in the winter. Let's go home. Let's pop a beer. And, let's live off the interest."

    new game -> Jim in MN , Aug 20, 2017 7:43 AM

    agree on pile of shit. so many if this then thats, I am head spinning. moar like predictiing the weather.

    but to wish/think merica will cease eurasia vital interests agression is moar hogwash. see, this is what empires do until they make that fatal mistake of over extending themselves into the hand of conflict and loose.

    and trillions later and the mideast in turmoil serves as a prime example the beginning of failure. but to think the deep state/MIC is going to roll back operations is to think mcstain lindsey types are going away, just plain dellusional.

    jim, you are ignorant of the gorilla in the budget, 600+ billion and growing! some say near 1 trillion counting all inclusive costs-va ect.

    there will be the opposite of your wish think realize-moar expansion and bases...

    until defeat.

    history...

    purplewarrior -> Buckaroo Banzai , Aug 20, 2017 3:47 AM

    I don't see Russia being a game changer. They rely too much on oil. Low oil prices really cripple them.

    Freddie -> purplewarrior , Aug 20, 2017 4:00 AM

    Russia has some of the best computer programmers in the world. Their rocket engines and missiles are the best in the world too. Jet fighters may be the best as well because the F-35 is garbage and the F-22 was killed and has it's own problems.

    Finally, Russia has the largest gold reserves in the world and also other natural resources. As long as Putin is around, Russia will be fine.

    besnook -> DrewJackson , Aug 20, 2017 11:41 AM

    When wealth is in an endless supply of commodities demographics are not as important, Canada and Australia for examples. i don't think Russia is losing population anymore, anyway. russia is the game changer. they are the eurasian link. the side that gets russia gets the world. If both Germany and china get Russia the usa is finished economically and politically on the world stage. That much is obvious. a lot of the rest of what these guys are saying is just geopolitical speculation based upon historic European geopolitical behavior.

    My response to that is the Eurozone would have been considered impossible just a few years ago. a united Eurozone allied with Russia and China in a multipolar world suits everyone and provides an economic and political check and balance on violence on both continents leaving the USA harmless in the middle of the oceans.

    sinbad2 -> purplewarrior , Aug 20, 2017 4:01 AM

    It's the US that relies too much on oil, a little competition from Russia and Iran, has forced the US to start wars in a dozen countries

    sinbad2 -> Buckaroo Banzai , Aug 20, 2017 3:58 AM

    You obviously haven't noticed that all of Africa's resources, gold diamonds oil etc, is owned by American British and French companies.

    The slavers never left Africa, the US has special forces destabilizing many countries in Africa today.

[Aug 25, 2017] Some analogies of current events in the USA and Mao cultural revolution: In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir. ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

Robert Magill, August 23, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT

"The country's bourgeois culture] laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance substance abuse and crime.

You might think that's pretty bland stuff."

You might think that's bland, but in essence that was the American Myth for most of the 20th century. In the middle nineteen fifties the myth began to unravel when the boomers reached sufficient numbers to be targeted for separation from the mainstream mythology. They constituted a potential very lucrative major market. Enter bubble-gum pop: an entry vehicle for what would follow. Bye bye "Your Hit Parade". Hello Sex, drugs and Rock and Roll.

Forward flash to 2017 and that pretty bland stuff still looks like pretty bland stuff. So if Myth America was too bland to be true, how do we set about replacing it with something more realistic.

In China when the Mao mythology was threatened the Red Guard raised holy hell and lives were ruined. Apparently our Red Guard is now beginning to stir.

GummyBar, August 23, 2017 at 10:00 pm GMT

May I suggest an acronym – rather than the Obama-Holder-Lynch Effect, change the order to the Holder-Obama-Lynch Effect. HOLE just seems much more appropriate.

[Aug 25, 2017] New opium wars

Aug 25, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

karl1haushofer , August 24, 2017 at 5:08 am

The West also needs to keep the cheap heroin and opium from flowing Afghanistan to Russia. This is why more war is needed.
Patient Observer , August 24, 2017 at 5:40 pm
I tend to agree with your comment. Per wikipedia:

Opium production in Afghanistan has been on the rise since U.S. occupation started in 2001.[3] Based on UNODC data, opium poppy cultivation was more in each of the growing seasons in the periods between 2004 and 2007 than in any one year during Taliban rule. More land is now used for opium in Afghanistan than is used for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the non-pharmaceutical-grade opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan.[4] This amounts to an export value of about $4 billion, with a quarter being earned by opium farmers and the rest going to district officials, insurgents, warlords, and drug traffickers.[5] In the seven years (1994–2000) prior to a Taliban opium ban, the Afghan farmers' share of gross income from opium was divided among 200,000 families.[6]

It was alleged by the Soviets on multiple occasions that American CIA agents were helping smuggle opium out of Afghanistan, either into the West, in order to raise money for the Afghan resistance, or into the Soviet Union, in order to weaken it through drug addiction. According to Alfred McCoy, the CIA supported various Afghan drug lords, for instance Gulbuddin Hekmatyar[12] and others such as Haji Ayub Afridi.

n July 2000, Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, collaborating with the United Nations to eradicate heroin production in Afghanistan, declared that growing poppies was un-Islamic, resulting in one of the world's most successful anti-drug campaigns. The Taliban enforced a ban on poppy farming via threats, forced eradication, and public punishment of transgressors. The result was a 99% reduction in the area of opium poppy farming in Taliban-controlled areas, roughly three quarters of the world's supply of heroin at the time.[16] The ban was effective only briefly due to the deposition of the Taliban in 2002.

Apparently, growing poppies for opium is unIslamic but not unAmerican. Which group is backwards and criminal? Its all so confusing .

[Aug 25, 2017] Influential GOP Donor Sheldon Adelson Supports Campaign to Oust McMaster report

Notable quotes:
"... Powerful Republican "megadonor" Sheldon Adelson has privately told an ally that he supports a campaign against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster that depicts him as anti-Israel and seeks to remove him from the White House, according to a new report. ..."
Aug 25, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
Powerful Republican "megadonor" Sheldon Adelson has privately told an ally that he supports a campaign against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster that depicts him as anti-Israel and seeks to remove him from the White House, according to a new report.

Adelson wrote in an email to Mort Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of America who is running the campaign: "Now that I have talked to somebody with personal experience with McMaster, I support your efforts," according to Axios.

The support from Adelson -- arguably the most influential donor in Republican politics -- comes after his spokesman said he had nothing to do with ZOA's campaign against McMaster and was "perfectly comfortable" with the job he was doing.

... ... ...

A White House source tried to downplay the email, telling Axios that the Israel team -- which included "noted right winger Ambassador Friedman" – feels that McMaster is "remarkably pro-Israel and he just had a meeting with senior Israeli officials where he won plaudits from them for understanding their unique security needs."

Adelson's email is a blow to McMaster, who is under heavy criticism for ousting political opponents inside the National Security Council who wanted to implement the president's "America First" foreign policy agenda.

[Aug 24, 2017] McCain renews calls for Trump to send weapons to Ukraine

Notable quotes:
"... During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S. remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to The Associated Press . ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | thehill.com
John McCain (R-Ariz.) is again urging President Trump to provide lethal aid to Ukraine as Defense Secretary James Mattis arrives in the country for a meeting with its president and top defense official.

"It is long past time for the United States to provide Ukraine the defensive lethal assistance it needs to deter and defend against further Russian aggression," McCain, the chairman of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday.

The senator's renewed calls for the U.S. to provide lethal weaponry to Ukraine as it battles pro-Russia separatists in the eastern Donbas region comes two days after Trump announced a new broad strategy for Afghanistan.

With the change of course in Afghanistan, McCain said, Trump "now has the same opportunity with regard to Ukraine."

The senior Arizona Republican argued that providing weapons to Ukraine "is not opposed to a peaceful resolution of this conflict -- it is essential to achieving it."

"As long as the status quo remains, Russia has no reason to change its behavior, and we should only expect more violence and more death," he said.

Russia has denied providing support to the separatists, but U.S. officials have claimed otherwise.

The president already has the authority to send lethal assistance to Ukraine under the annual defense policy bill. But former President Barack Obama chose instead to send only nonlethal assistance to the country.

During his visit to Kiev, Mattis is expected to reassure the country's leaders that the U.S. remains opposed to Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea, according to The Associated Press .

Trump entered office in January with hopes of improving the relationship between the U.S. and Russia. But ties have grown tense amid ongoing investigations into Russia's role in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

Also fueling tensions between the two countries is a sanctions package signed into law earlier this month that penalizes Russia for its efforts to meddle in the election. Trump reluctantly signed the measures after they were overwhelmingly passed by Congress.

[Aug 24, 2017] RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 24 AUGUST 2017

Aug 24, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

THE NEW NWO AND RUSSIA. This is very much worth reading . The authors argue that in the coming (well, already here) rivalry between the American maritime power and the Chinese land power, Russia is the swing player that can hand victory to one or the other: "So logic says that the US should be very nice to Russia and seek to establish some kind of military alliance". Well, logic's voice isn't loud enough for the US Congress to hear. Also interesting is their discussion of Germany's choices and the important role Saudi Arabia could play if it changes protectors again. ( I too wondered this two years ago.

PUTIN'S POPULARITY. Some Western academics asked " But is his popularity real, or are respondents lying to pollsters?" and concluded "Putin's approval ratings largely reflect the attitudes of Russian citizens. " I didn't bother to read their paper because I know – as does any serious observer – the answer already. Of course he's popular: he is the leader of a team which has achieved a tremendous turnaround in Russia's situation. Since 2000 all indicators are up. I wish we could say the same in our part of the world.

RUSSIA INC. GDP grew 2.5% year-on-year in the second quarter ; this is the highest growth since 2013. PMI is up to 52.7 Inflation is the lowest in five years

USSR DEBT. With a payment to Bosnia, Moscow has paid off the last of the debt it inherited from the USSR . When an earlier agreement that the 15 would divide the debt fell apart, Moscow took responsibility for all of it in return for USSR assets abroad. It did this despite the fact that its creditors insisted on repayment while many of its debtors could not pay. The total was about USD80 billion and many debts to it were forgiven. I well remember how glad we all were that it took responsibility for the debts as well as the other leftovers: weaponry outside, nuclear weapons and its guarantee of Russian citizenship to any Soviet citizen who wasn't automatically given citizenship where he lived. It was only later that the last three were rebranded as evidence of imperialistic intentions.

DEMOGRAPHICS. There has been a small net decline in Russia's population this year after several years of growth. We will see if this is a bump or a trend. (Although Karlin, who is much more knowledgeable than I, predicted a return to "normal" rates two and a half years ago .)

AGRICULTURE. The Agriculture Minister estimates the grain harvest will be 110 million tonnes which would leave as much as 40 million for export . So Russia will presumably keep the title of number one.

VISA RETALIATION. My take : I believe Moscow is ready to follow Washington right down to zero representation is that's where it goes. But, if the Russiagate bubble bursts (probably the most severe blow is the exposure of the Guccifer 2.0 fake by VIPS ) then the original pretext will burst too and things can get back to normal.

MAKING WATER RUN UP HILL. Lithuania is getting LNG from the USA and Ukraine coal from the USA . More expensive but supposedly for security. Well, whatever: if they want to pay more, let them. Of course in all likelihood they will "pay" with IMF or EU loans. Payback's a problem for later.

CHANGE OR BLIP? The Prime Minister says Riga is interested in better relations with Moscow and a Polish poll shows number who regard Russia as a threat down about 50% in 3 years . After all, despite years of " Europe faces a 'real threat' from Russia " Russia still hasn't conquered anybody. But that just makes some people shout louder: " The growing Russian military threat in Europe ".

TRUMP KEEPS AFGHANISTAN GOING. Reinforcing failure . Trump Vows To Leave A Better Afghanistan For Nation's Grandchildren To Fight In . The generals rolled him, as they rolled Obama . And if it really was short skirts, then there's a lot more to that story than he, or McMaster, probably know . Today the Americans get their supplies in via Pakistan or the Central Asian countries (through Russia). Washington has made threatening noises at Pakistan and Russia. How then?

CHICKENS, HOME, ROOST . Torchlight parades in Kiev , Riga , Tallinn . And now Charlottesville . " Nationalists" there , but " Nazis" here . Some historical background for the Ukraine case ; Baltics .

AMERICA-HYSTERICA. Newsweek discovers a new bottom level. " Charlottesville's Alt-right Leaders Have a Passion for Vladimir Russian Federation President Putin ".

UKAINE. More signposts of disaster. Ukrainians now spend 50% of their income on food; not poverty says the Minister of Social Policy fatuously but because they like to eat well . The Economist rates Kiev among the ten least liveable cities . Did Ukraine supply the rocket motors to North Korea ? And, I've mentioned this before , but the longest-lasting effect of the Kiev coup may be a nuclear disaster

[Aug 24, 2017] The Economist Exclusive -- The Future of Bannonism 'The Judeo-Christian Liberal West Won'

Notable quotes:
"... Bannon openly acknowledged his animus for the "Party of Davos" editorial positions of The Economist ..."
"... For Mr Bannon, who went from a working-class Virginian family to careers in Wall Street and Hollywood, those agreements epitomised the folly of globalisation, which he considers disastrous for American workers and avoidable. He hardened this critique after returning to America from a spell in Hong Kong; China, whose gaming of WTO rules Mr Bannon considers tantamount to an "economic war" against America, remains at the heart of it. ..."
"... When some of Mr Bannon's early schemes failed -- including the shabbily planned travel ban, now snarled up in the courts -- Mr Trump turned increasingly to his more conventional advisers, including Mr Kushner and Mr McMaster. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
President Trump's former chief strategist and current Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon invited the editors of The Economist to his home for a candid discussion about the future of the populist economic nationalist movement and the civilizational challenges that will pit "the Judeo-Christian liberal West" against globalist "mercantilist" forces from China to Silicon Valley.

Bannon openly acknowledged his animus for the "Party of Davos" editorial positions of The Economist , referring to them as "the enemy" of economic nationalism for their "radical" obsession with free trade at all costs.

He also affirmed his loyalty to Trump and his desire to help him. Breitbart "will never turn on [Trump]," Bannon said, "But we are never going to let him take a decision that hurts him."

Bannon acknowledged that in the White House he had "influence," but outside at Breitbart he has "power." He said he intends to use that power to "rally the base" and "have [Trump's] back. The harder he pushes, the more we will be there for him."

The discussion soon turned to what Bannon sees as the inevitable civilizational struggle between the Judeo-Christian classical liberalism of the West -- which affirms human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and self-governance -- versus the "mercantilist, Confucian system" of an ascendant China.

From The Economist :

Among the particular opponents he has in his sights, said Mr Bannon, seated in a dining-room decorated with Christian iconography and political mementos, are congressional Republicans ("Mitch McConnell, I'm going to light him up"), China ("Let's go screw up One Belt One Road") and "the elites in Silicon Valley and Wall Street -- they're a bunch of globalists who have forgotten their fellow Americans." Despite his departure -- voluntarily, he insists, though his resignation is reported to have been demanded of him -- Mr Bannon says he will never attack his former boss. Yet Breitbart will caution Mr Trump to stick to the populist nationalist course Mr Bannon charted. "We will never turn on him. But we are never going to let him take a decision that hurts him." The website offered an early taste of this in its disparaging coverage of Mr Trump's "flip-flop" decision to send more American troops to Afghanistan, which was announced on August 21st and Mr Bannon strongly opposes (see article ).

As Mr Trump's campaign chief (his third in two months, the campaign having been roiled by scandals) Mr Bannon urged him to redouble that effort [to campaign on as a populist economic nationalist taking on the politically correct establishment]. "The American people understood his foibles and understood his character flaws and they didn't care," he says. "The country was thirsting for change and [Barack] Obama didn't give them enough. I said, we are going for a nationalist message, we are going to go barbarian, and we will win."

For Mr Bannon, who went from a working-class Virginian family to careers in Wall Street and Hollywood, those agreements epitomised the folly of globalisation, which he considers disastrous for American workers and avoidable. He hardened this critique after returning to America from a spell in Hong Kong; China, whose gaming of WTO rules Mr Bannon considers tantamount to an "economic war" against America, remains at the heart of it.

A zealous Catholic who believes in the inevitability of civilizational conflict, he considers China's growth to be an additional, overarching threat to America, which it must therefore dial back. "I want the world to look back in 100 years and say, their mercantilist, Confucian system lost. The Judeo-Christian liberal West won."

The president has, if not fixed intellectual differences with Mr Bannon, different predilections, including his slavish regard for the military and business elites now stocking his cabinet, whom his former adviser derides. ("What did the elites do?" asks Mr Bannon. "These are the guys who gave us happy talk on Iraq, who let China into the WTO and said it would sign up to the rules-based order.")

When some of Mr Bannon's early schemes failed -- including the shabbily planned travel ban, now snarled up in the courts -- Mr Trump turned increasingly to his more conventional advisers, including Mr Kushner and Mr McMaster.

On trade and security in particular, they have edged him towards the mainstream. Whereas Mr Bannon urged the president to withdraw from NAFTA and Afghanistan, for example, he has launched a modest-looking review of the former and will send more troops to the latter. Increasingly isolated, Mr Bannon's departure from the White House was predicted.

Read the rest here .

[Aug 24, 2017] Civil War inside the US Far Right by Tamar Pileggi

www.defenddemocracy.press
'I'm not going to breathe the same air as that terrorist'
Bannon boycotted Trump meet with 'terrorist' Abbas -- report

Days after his ouster from the White House, the extent of the animosity between divisive strategist Steve Bannon and the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner is steadily emerging in US media reports, with an article in Vanity Fair detailing their disputes and asserting that Bannon is now planning his "revenge."

Bannon, a hero of the so-called "alt right" whose presence in the West Wing was controversial from the start, had become the nucleus of one of several competing power centers in a chaotic White House. During his six-month tenure as Trump's chief strategist, Bannon and Kushner reportedly clashed on numerous policy issues, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

... ... ...

Hours after he was fired, Bannon returned to his previous job as editor of the ultra-conservative Breitbart News, where he declared war on Ivanka, Kushner and fellow "globalist" Gary Cohn.

The Vanity Fair article was headlined: "Steve Bannon readies his revenge: The war on Jared Kushner is about to go nuclear."

... ... ...

"Jared and Ivanka helped push him out. They were concerned about how they were being viewed by the Jewish community," The Mail reported on Sunday.

Read more http://www.timesofisrael.com/bannon-boycotted-trumps-meeting-with-terrorist-abbas-report

SOURCE www.timesofisrael.com

Commnets from Bannon boycotted Trump meet with 'terrorist' Abbas -- report The Times of Israel

Jossef Perl · Nahariyah, Hazafon, Israel Yes, this time it is Tamar Pileggi who gives us Time of Israel's typical Trump's blasting story quoting "Vanity Fair detailing their (i.e. Kushner vs. Bannon) disputes and asserting that Bannon is now planning his 'revenge."" If it comes from Vanity Fair that Bannon is planning a revenge (albeit without a single named source) it must be true right? But this is what the US fake news media has decended to, while the Israeli fake news media goes one step lower, just quoting the US fake media. Any 7 years old can see the that intent here continues to be to creat an impression that the Trump white is out of control and everything around Trum is falling apart. How can this kind of media continue to think the public believes a word from them? Tamar Pileggi, if all you do is quoting Vanity Fair, which is typical to the rest of the staff at TOI, why don't you all just include a link to the original articles in your TOI webpage? Who need all of you filling your paper by quoting other publications without any due diligence? How can you call yourselves journalists when all you do is cut and paste? Audrey Travis · Works at Music Teacher - Retired Perhaps, but 90% of the world knows nothing about the extreme violence of the ultra left Antifa and the fact the y brought and used weapons in Charlottesville. What Trump should have done was be explicit in the detailsof why he was condemning both side. His broadsided condemnation of both sides was the problem. Albert Reingewirtz · Works at Happily Retired He did not do any equivalence between two despicable gangs of mobsters. He talked about BOTH of their VIOLENCE. You listen too much to propaganda. The more they repeat the more people believe their lies. Steve Klein · Works at Self-Employed Albert Reingewirtz, do you believe there were "some very fine" people marching with the Nazis in Charlottesville? Like · Reply · 2 · Aug 21, 2017 5:17am Steve Klein · Works at Self-Employed 'Bannon: Mahmoud Abbas is a terrorist, I'd never meet with him'

Ousted WH strategist Steve Bannon reportedly lobbied hard for Jerusalem embassy move, tougher line against PA - but was opposed by Kushner.

David Rosenberg, 21/08/17 11:23 (Israel National News)

[Aug 24, 2017] Russian meddling is Watergate-worthy, but Israeli meddling is hunky-dory by Philip Weiss

This is the key question: if there are instances of meddling in the USA elections while not to investigate them all, why to select Russia who is probably a monor player in this game.
Notable quotes:
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
www.defenddemocracy.press

The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal press; and for my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC are suspicioning about Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians have something on Trump personally, possibly involving money or sex; and that the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the meddling changed the outcome; no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)

But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that conduct that is Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when it comes to Israel. Just yesterday, for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts with a Russian official last year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's family, out of devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's a real problem. MSNBC doesn't.

Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active interests in our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.

First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel regards the Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel lobby group AIPAC produced legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople, including many liberal heroes, signed on to that trashes the First Amendment by making it a possible crime to support boycott of Israel. By the way, AIPAC has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the Israeli government and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator Fulbright, AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to be a scandal, but everyone walks on by.

Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald Trump reached with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent weapons getting to Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S. duly echoed Netanyahu's view.

Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who launched his dazzling career, in his own words, "with the support of the pro-Israel community," wrote :

"This is unbelievable! Trump Administration ignored Israel's security concerns in making the Syrian deal with Putin."

While Daniel Shapiro , also a former U.S. ambassador to Israel– who lately called Israel "this miracle, this gift, this jewel" -- wrote that the deal needs to be revised:

Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes that difficult & worrisome. But effort needs to be made.

Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.

I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review:

  • Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state solution, which was U.S. policy. The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.)
  • Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
  • Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; as did liberals such as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go to war against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv. Whether the voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in our decision to invade Iraq (I say it was), this is an influence that clearly should have been exposed and investigated, beyond the efforts of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby. But the media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts of Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces.

[Aug 24, 2017] A China-North Korea mutual defense treaty has been in effect since 1961. Under this framework, Beijing's response to Trump's "fire and fury" was a thing of beauty. If Pyongyang attacks, China is neutral. But if the US launches a McMaster-style pre-emptive attack, China intervenes militarily on behalf of Pyongyang.

Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Canthama | Aug 23, 2017 5:31:30 PM | 58

There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time. China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands.
Alexander Grimsmo | Aug 23, 2017 7:01:10 PM | 59
After Irans experience with US "lifting of sanctions", should anyone ever trust USA at all?
karlof1 | Aug 23, 2017 7:27:31 PM | 60
Canthama @56--

Nice to see you commenting here! Agreed that China and Russia understand but still seek dialog since that's the essence of "the patience game." But I wonder about those running Brazil; we don't discuss that much at SyrPers. Then there's India's Modi and the cadre of Hindu Neoliberals who seem to want to have their own game instead of teaming with China and Russia for a Win/Win partnership rather than the dying Zero-Sumism of the Neoliberalcons. And thanks again for all the effort you devote to SyrPers; it's quite remarkable!

les7 | Aug 23, 2017 8:58:38 PM | 61
does anyone remember this?

https://www.rt.com/news/386326-russian-navy-ship-crashes/

ASD | Aug 23, 2017 10:56:57 PM | 62
Canthama,
I will second Karlof1's sentiment. I think a lot of people go to SyrPer for your comments/updates on the Syrian Conflict. You seem to have the best info around on that topic.
michaelj72 | Aug 23, 2017 11:12:26 PM | 63
@50 karlof1

good article, as nearly always, from Escobar. thanks for that link
here are bits of it. and I noticed it too, as soon as China come out in a big way and said that it would defend/intervene in favor of North Korea if the US attacked first, the rhetorical level in the US when way down. This is a serious situation, and China is serious too...

Escobar is good, & so often reports and thinks outside the box meaning outside the Beltway myopic thinking...


http://www.atimes.com/article/korea-afghanistan-never-ending-war-trap/

....But this is extremely serious. A China-North Korea mutual defense treaty has been in effect since 1961. Under this framework, Beijing's response to Trump's "fire and fury" was a thing of beauty. If Pyongyang attacks, China is neutral. But if the US launches a McMaster-style pre-emptive attack, China intervenes – militarily – on behalf of Pyongyang.

As a clincher, Beijing even made it clear that its preference is for the current status quo to remain. Checkmate.

Hunger Games apart, the rhetorical war in the Korean Peninsula did decrease a substantial notch after China made its position clear....


.....The bulk of Washington's "aid" to Kabul throughout these past 16 years has been on the bombing, not the economy, front. Government corruption is cataclysmic. Warlords rule. The Taliban thrive because they offer local protection. Much to Pashtun ire, most of the army is Tajik. Tajik politicians are mostly close to India while most Pashtun favor Pakistan.....

[Aug 24, 2017] Kelly, Mattic and McMaster complete the militarization of the executive branch

"I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's mind."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
48

"...At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster...."

These three basically complete the militarization of the executive branch and the Political Elites. They've all pushed for or have been intimately involved in wars in which the US has lost or never been able to 'win'. This is Trump's best and the brightest


Kelly: In 2002, Kelly again served with the 1st Marine Division, this time as the assistant division commander. Much of Kelly's two-year assignment was spent deployed in Iraq. In March 2003, while in Iraq, Kelly was promoted to brigadier general..... later, he served as the commanding general of the Multi-National Force West in Iraq from February 2008 to February 2009....

Mattis: During the initial planning for the War in Afghanistan, Mattis led Task Force 58 in operations in the southern part of the country; In May 2004, Mattis ordered the 3:00 a.m. bombing of a suspected enemy safe house near the Syrian border, which later came to be known as the Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre, and which resulted in the deaths of 42 civilians; Mattis played key roles in combat operations in Fallujah, including negotiation with the insurgent command inside the city during Operation Vigilant Resolve in April 2004, as well as participation in planning of the subsequent Operation Phantom Fury in November; responsible for American military operations in the Middle East, Northeast Africa, and Central Asia, from August 11, 2010, to March 22, 2013; etc etc

In other words, Mattis is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the destruction of Fallujah.....

H.R. McMaster: Director of the Combined Joint Interagency Task Force-Shafafiyat at the International Security Assistance Force Headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan... He is known for his roles in the Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. From August 2007 to August 2008 McMaster was part of an "elite team of officers advising US commander" General David Petraeus on counterinsurgency operations (perhaps known as how to kill Iraqis who resisted the US invasion and occupation)

Carol Davidek-Waller | Aug 24, 2017 3:13:23 PM | 30

What you are saying is that General Jack D Ripper is now president and Dr. Strangelove is Trump's top security advisor?

[Aug 24, 2017] Robert Reich Has a Message for Trump Voters, Whether They Want to Hear It or Not

Notable quotes:
"... He did not drain the swamp. After telling voters how he would take control away from special interests, he has surrounded himself with the very Wall Street players he decried. Now, those who gamed politicians for tax loopholes and laws that reward the rich don't even have to sneak around with backroom deals. ..."
"... Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, Dina Powell and others from Wall Street, as well as corporate lobbyists by the dozens, are now inside the Trump administration rigging the system for the extremely wealthy from the inside. ..."
"... They want to make it easier for banks to once again gamble with your money and repeat our financial crisis. They want to cut health care for millions of you. They want to lower taxes on corporations and the rich. They want to get rid of rules that stop corporations from harming your health or safety. ..."
"... That's not the change you were promised. Make America Great Again? The Trump administration wants to expand on policies that have kept American wages stagnant for almost four decades. Huge corporations and billionaires get the breaks, and hard working Americans once again get left waiting for the crumbs. That's not the change you were promised. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.alternet.org

You voted to change our country's power base – to get rid of crony capitalism and give our government back to the people who are working, paying taxes, and spending more just to survive. Lots of Americans agree with you. But now, the president is turning his back on that idea and the many changes he promised.

He did not drain the swamp. After telling voters how he would take control away from special interests, he has surrounded himself with the very Wall Street players he decried. Now, those who gamed politicians for tax loopholes and laws that reward the rich don't even have to sneak around with backroom deals.

Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, Dina Powell and others from Wall Street, as well as corporate lobbyists by the dozens, are now inside the Trump administration rigging the system for the extremely wealthy from the inside.

They want to make it easier for banks to once again gamble with your money and repeat our financial crisis. They want to cut health care for millions of you. They want to lower taxes on corporations and the rich. They want to get rid of rules that stop corporations from harming your health or safety.

That's not the change you were promised. Make America Great Again? The Trump administration wants to expand on policies that have kept American wages stagnant for almost four decades. Huge corporations and billionaires get the breaks, and hard working Americans once again get left waiting for the crumbs. That's not the change you were promised.

Bringing back fiscal responsibility? The Secret Service budget is skyrocketing to protect his family on international business trips, ski vacations, and separate New York City living quarters.

At the same time, the president still refuses to untangle himself from his businesses and prove he's not leveraging our government for his financial gain. You're paying for his lifestyle while he's doing nothing to help yours.

That's not the change you were promised.

[Aug 24, 2017] 'It's a coup d'etat' Antiwar conservatives decry Trump's Afghanistan surge

Notable quotes:
"... The Hillary Clinton supporting Deep State is elated by this decision. Naturally most of the media is too. ..."
"... The warmongering is not stopping. Most people don't even know in how many conflicts the US is involved in and now they will know even less until it is too late. ..."
"... There are very few policy positions held by Trump that I support, but pulling U.S. troops out of the Afghanistan quagmire was one of them. More broken promises, more advancement of failed "macho aggression" tactics, and more loss of lives and treasure. Thanks Trump -- you stink. ..."
"... There is too much money to be made. Follow the money! ..."
"... He was reading what Gen. Kelly had written off of a teleprompter. Anybody can show some semblance of balance and sense when they read someone else's words off of a teleprompter. ..."
"... The "anti war conservatives" who are now complaining: (1) elected a president with no governing experience and hence no foreign policy track record whatsoever, (2) apparently relied on Trump's words alone in concluding he would advance the foreign policy they advocate, and (3) did so knowing Trump repeatedly and habitually lies about matters both big and small. This is a recipe for disappointment. ..."
"... The truth at this point should be obvious to conservatives and liberals (and everybody in between): This president is a reality television personality -- nothing more. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and he's not terribly concerned with promises made. Look no further than his promises that Mexico would "pay for" a border wall while he essentially confided to the Mexican president that no such payment actually was expected. ..."
"... Your country's politicians, army and intelligence officers like to keep the cauldron of Afghanistan and Kashmir on either side boiling all the time, so U.S dollars keep pouring in and they can continue with their luxurious way of life. ..."
"... Remember when the Taliban were "Freedom Fighters". And if I remember correctly the Taliban were the good guys in one of those Rambo movies. ... ..."
"... These people are idiots. The President has surrounded himself with the "War Party." From numerous barely retired Generals to nationalists like Gorka and even the DeVos/Prince connection. Not exactly the party of peace. ..."
"... Yes, Prince will be raking it in. Especially when he manages to convince Trump mercenaries are a great solution ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

President Trump's speech advocating a stepped-up military commitment in Afghanistan won him his first positive reviews from some Republicans in weeks -- and a respite from the controversy over his handling of Charlottesville.

"I think I heard a new Trump strategy, or doctrine," said House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).

"I think there'll be a lot of bipartisan support in Congress for this proposal," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).

But the speech was a horror for one portion of Trump's base -- conservatives opposed to military adventurism. Having celebrated when Trump mocked the Bush-era foreign policy consensus, opposing (after the fact) the Iraq War.

"Everybody who voted for Donald Trump hoping that he would reduce the US military's involvement in foreign wars has been made a fool of," American Conservative columnist Rod Dreher wrote in a Wednesday morning column. "I'm sorry, but there it is."

[In escalating America's longest war, Trump acts against his 'original instinct']

At AntiWar.com, a hub for anti-imperialist libertarians, the Trump speech was received with an arch sort of resignation. "The war party got to him," wrote AntiWar's Eric Garris, sharing a 2012 video in which Trump called for America to leave Afghanistan.

"We've wasted billions and billions of dollars, and more importantly, thousands and thousands of lives," the future president said in the video.

Steve Diamond, 8:59 AM EDT

The saddest, most horrifying part of this is the completion of an insidious long term trend: making America's foreign policy a state secret that citizens are not allowed to know. The US generals know that the biggest threat of ending the billions of dollars for endless wars is the scrutiny of the public. PR distractions, embedded journalism, no more body counts, plausible deniability, and on and on. It's a war on truth, and the American people are a threat to a hoped for victory someday, because they have other priorities than permanent wars which only put us in more danger.

Michael Stephens, 8:53 AM EDT

The Hillary Clinton supporting Deep State is elated by this decision. Naturally most of the media is too.

Momcat, 8/22/2017 5:47 PM EDT

"Everybody who voted for Donald Trump ... has been made a fool of".
Nailed it!

Grannylore, 5:26 PM EDT

The warmongering is not stopping. Most people don't even know in how many conflicts the US is involved in and now they will know even less until it is too late.

One Who Reads, 8/22/2017 11:46 AM EDT

There are very few policy positions held by Trump that I support, but pulling U.S. troops out of the Afghanistan quagmire was one of them. More broken promises, more advancement of failed "macho aggression" tactics, and more loss of lives and treasure. Thanks Trump -- you stink.

Grannylore , 5:28 PM EDT

There is too much money to be made. Follow the money!

pigface, 8/22/2017 12:38 PM EDT

He was reading what Gen. Kelly had written off of a teleprompter. Anybody can show some semblance of balance and sense when they read someone else's words off of a teleprompter.

Grannylore, 5:29 PM EDT

But beware when it comes from a general,

johnrf, 8/22/2017 11:41 AM EDT

Americans no longer fight to keep their shores safe,
Just to keep the jobs going in the arms making workplace.

Then they pretend to be gripped by some sort of political reflex,
But all they're doing is paying dues to the Military Industrial Complex.

The Military and the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary, The Military and the Monetary. The Military and the Monetary,

get together whenever they think its necessary,

They turn our brothers and sisters into mercenaries,
they are turning the planet into a cemetery.

The Military and the Monetary, use the media as intermediaries,
they are determined to keep the citizens secondary, they make so many decisions that are arbitrary.

We're marching behind a commander in chief,
who is standing under a spotlight shaking like a leaf.

Gil Scott Heron

One Who Reads, 8/22/2017 11:46 AM EDT

Yep, it's Winter in America, all over again.

Desiree Wenrich, 8/22/2017 5:21 PM EDT

I'm just glad there are no dragons.

Eileen Kuch, 3:48 PM EDT

Fantastic poem you just posted, John, Gil Scott Heron had it nailed perfectly. What Trump did was he surrendered meekly to the MIC, showed no courage whatsoever.
The MSM can squawk all they can about Neville Chamberlain's so-called "appeasement" to Adolf Hitler at the Munich Conference in 1938; but the truth of that is, there was no "appeasement".

But now, we have Donald Trump's actual appeasement to John Kelly and the other warmongering Generals over the Afghan War, instead of securing negotiations between the current Afghan Gov't. and the Taliban (which Trump was ready to do). Chamberlain was greeted by cheering UK citizens upon his return from Munich, but all Trump's getting for his appeasement to the MIC over Afghanistan is a huge backlash from a handful of true conservative Republicans and the American public.

Owat_Agoosiam, 8/22/2017 11:45 AM EDT

Quite right, too little, too late. But if Trump doesn't toe the line militarily, his generals will leave him to fend for himself. So four thousand now, two thousand next week, five thousand next month. Before you know it, we're surging.

Grannylore, 5:33 PM EDT

Forget about universal healthcare, safe roads, bridges and dams, education of our children. But hurray, we want to win the war in Afghanistan.

Elobornola, 8/22/2017 11:28 AM EDT

The "anti war conservatives" who are now complaining: (1) elected a president with no governing experience and hence no foreign policy track record whatsoever, (2) apparently relied on Trump's words alone in concluding he would advance the foreign policy they advocate, and (3) did so knowing Trump repeatedly and habitually lies about matters both big and small. This is a recipe for disappointment.

The truth at this point should be obvious to conservatives and liberals (and everybody in between): This president is a reality television personality -- nothing more. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and he's not terribly concerned with promises made. Look no further than his promises that Mexico would "pay for" a border wall while he essentially confided to the Mexican president that no such payment actually was expected.

Fair people on both sides can fairly debate Afghanistan policy. But can we finally agree that this president is a serial liar?

Reine Audu, 8/22/2017 11:28 AM EDT

Make our Afghan Puppet government great again.

Usman Khan, 8/22/2017 10:41 AM EDT

As a Pakistani I strongly believe that trump must order all his diplomats to return back to USA and cut off all ties. Most of Pakistanies believe that main cause of all Pakistani Problems is USA and it its hypocrite leaders. I would suggest that all Pakistani Americans must be sent back to Pakistan and their american citizenship should be cancelled. In 70 years of Pakistani history this will be the best thing ever to happen that USA has no space in Pakistan and perhaps it would be equally good for USA too.

The problem with US leadership is that they continuously interfere in Pakistani matters since 1947. They killed first prime minister of Pakistan and always supported dictatorship from Gen Ayub Khan, Gen Zia, Gen Musharaf.

USA created Taliban to tackle USSR and now those Talibans have made the life of ordinary Pakistani hell.

There is no compulsion on you guys to have any ties with Pakistan. The world is now divided in two camps good and evil, there is no space for hypocrisy anymore so if you think your self in good camp then leave us alone we are happy in our bad camp, just let us live and live your life. You on your way we on our way.

Grannylore, 5:38 PM EDT

The US armed the Taliban in order to fight the Soviets. And now that insanity has back fired. Just like the support of the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Omar Qaddafi in Libya. First they are our puppets and we supply them with arms and chemicals, and when they refuse to obey, we attack them.

'It's a coup d'etat': Antiwar conservatives decry Trump's Afghanistan surge - The Washington Post

Timepass Techie 8/22/2017 11:27 AM EDT

Although the U.S. owe responsibility for creating the Taliban, it is the U.S that is being played for a sucker for a long time now. Your country's politicians, army and intelligence officers like to keep the cauldron of Afghanistan and Kashmir on either side boiling all the time, so U.S dollars keep pouring in and they can continue with their luxurious way of life.
Usman Khan 8/22/2017 11:49 AM EDT
well again if i am failed to explain in my post i would be blunt to say LEAVE US ALONE. We are happy to live here and love to contribute to my beloved nation in maintaining minimum deterrence. We solute our forefathers and seniors for providing us nuclear and missile technology which is being technically enhanced every day and good enough to tackle India. We are proud of our young army, air force and navy officers, staff and intelligence people who are sacrificing their lives, time and families for all of us so we can wear whatever we want whether jeans t shirt or burqa or hijab or pray in church mandir or mosque, we are not afraid of being black, white, muslim or non muslim

As a nation we are quite emotional and if any war imposed on us trust me retaliation from us will be unbearable for you guys in general and India in particular. By not providing us aid u would be helping us alot, i request ur government to completely cut off aid and send back all american Pakistani who are extremely talented

johnrf 8/22/2017 11:50 AM EDT
Remember when the Taliban were "Freedom Fighters". And if I remember correctly the Taliban were the good guys in one of those Rambo movies. ...
wa51jd 8/22/2017 4:28 PM EDT
We don't deport American citizens. Obviously Pakistani Americans don't want to live in Pakistan or they would be there, not here. So no, we won't be sending them back there. If they choose to go, fine, but I don't see a big exodus happening. .
Owat_Agoosiam 8/22/2017 11:41 AM EDT
You're absolutely right, we should cut off Pakistan. It will make our relationship with India that much stronger.
Usman Khan 8/22/2017 12:00 PM EDT
Absolutely correct @Owat, as I remember reading a column in NYtimes that USA is a bad friend and a good enemy Smile
CoClare Observer 8/22/2017 9:14 AM EDT
Mr. Dreher could have simplified his statement by dropping the qualifier and just saying, "Everybody who voted for Donald Trump has been made a fool of." ...
macdaddybj 8/22/2017 11:13 AM EDT
...over and over and over... ... more
a sly fox 8/22/2017 9:05 AM EDT [Edited]
the most striking idea in his speech to me was the idea of involving India in the conflict with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Pakistan and India gained independence from colonial status in the British Empire. Millions died as Moslems from India's multi religious society and Hindus from Pakistan were moved from that overwhelming Islamic country. Some were moved forcibly, some by choice, from each region where those individuals were in the religious minority. Pakistan (and now what is Bangladesh) became Islamic and India Multi religious

Today, Kashmir, an area of India, is still the area in which armed conflicts occur by those who wish it to be controlled by Pakistan

these religious conflicts have existed for centuries as Islamic forces came from the north and west (and other routes ) to gain control over the Hindus of India until the Europeans took control. Out bursts of violence on both sides continued during the rule by Europeans.

This is not an attack by me on the peaceful religion of Islam, just a real world recognition that in many areas of the world, religious differences are used as a basis for violent conflict.

does no one in the trump know history?

India and Pakistan have nuclear tipped rockets aimed at each other and the trump administration wish to have India attempt to influence those countries driven by their Islamic Religious beliefs? The trump administration thinks that would be helpful? Why not ask Nazis to intervene in the conflict between Israel and its Islamic neighbors?

jblah 8/22/2017 8:59 AM EDT
These people are idiots. The President has surrounded himself with the "War Party." From numerous barely retired Generals to nationalists like Gorka and even the DeVos/Prince connection. Not exactly the party of peace.
wa51jd 8/22/2017 4:31 PM EDT
Yes, Prince will be raking it in. Especially when he manages to convince Trump mercenaries are a great solution

[Aug 24, 2017] MoA - Notes On The Junta, An Unnecessary Land-Corridor And A Regular Russian Maneuver

Notable quotes:
"... As for Russiagate, it's collapse is due to the VIPS metadata analysis published recently that provides irrefutable facts. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

... ... ...

The Zionist propaganda is claiming that Iran is taking over Syria and that its sole concern is to create a land-corridor between Iran and Lebanon. The AP is now reporting this myth as if it were fact. The argument the AP writers make is illogical and fails:

The land-route would be the biggest prize yet for Iran in its involvement in Syria's six-year-old civil war. [...] It would facilitate movement of Iranian-backed fighters between Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon as well as the flow of weapons to Damascus and Lebanon's Hezbollah , Iran's main proxy group.

That landline would facilitate something that, according to further AP "reporting", has already been achieved without it:

The route is largely being carved out by Iran's allies and proxies, a mix of forces including troops of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Hezbollah fighters and Shiite militias on both sides of the border aiming to link up. Iran also has forces of its own Revolutionary Guard directly involved in the campaign on the Syrian side.

So, apparently, Iran needs a land corridor to move weapons and fighters to Syria and Lebanon. To open that currently closed-off land corridor it has moved weapons and fighters to Syria and Lebanon. Somehow that argument is not convincing at all.

---

The usual NATO propaganda outlets are retching up fear over an upcoming Russian maneuver:

Russia is preparing to mount what could be one of its biggest military exercises since the cold war, a display of power that will be watched warily by Nato against a backdrop of east-west tensions.

Western officials and analysts estimate up to 100,000 military personnel and logistical support could participate in the Zapad (West) 17 exercise, which will take place next month in Belarus, Kaliningrad and Russia itself.

It follows a lot of speculation and obvious bullshit. In reality Zaphad is a series of smaller maneuvers taking place over some six month. It includes local police and civil defense agencies which lets the numbers look big. Each year such maneuvers take place in one of the four military districts of Russia. The number of soldiers at the core of the exercise will amount to about a division size force of 13,000-15,000 troops. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is unusual with that maneuver but the NATO propaganda attempts to make it look like an imminent Russian invasion of western Europe.

karlof1 | Aug 24, 2017 11:57:18 AM | 13
The Zionists have an Iranian Brain Freeze as NuttyYahoo displayed in his Moscow visit, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/netanyahu-meets-putin-rants-about-iran.html

I suspect he's feeling the heat of the corruption investigation that will hopefully land him in prison, thus his ranting.

As for Russiagate, it's collapse is due to the VIPS metadata analysis published recently that provides irrefutable facts.

Yet, it's very clear so-called liberals and Democrats are incapable of admitting defeat and have doubled down yet again trying to prove something nefarious occurred between Russia and Trump, https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/08/23/follow-money-they-say-it-was-about-russian-orphans-theyre-lying The comment made to that article by HisStory torpedoes it rather well.

So, we have an inside-out version of Seven days in May . I wonder if the generals are as hip to escalate the hybrid war against China and Russia as those the Clintons represented? Something tells me they're not so keen; perhaps the initial volleys made by the Outlaw US Empire have drawn some return fire we are yet to become privy to.

Ghostship | Aug 24, 2017 12:56:33 PM | 19

>>>> Jonesy | Aug 24, 2017 11:25:12 AM | 9
More anti-Iranian propaganda from the UK, this is not a coincidence IMHO:

You always need to be extremely cynical when reading a British newspaper.

Thousands of Iranian-backed fighters are battling their way through the Middle East in a bid to secure a corridor from the Tehran through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean.

That's just about everybody except the Russians fighting on the government side in Syria. Small matter that they're the only people doing a good job at liquidating Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Previously, the route has not been possible due to Iraqi resistance,...

Iraqi resistance aka ISIS.

Sunni Arab countries

The countries that have been funding, arming and supporting Al Qaeda and ISIS all along.

Israel, the nemesis of both Iran and Hezbollah

That's the wrong way round, it should read "Iran and Hezbollah, the nemeses of Israel".

Anonymous | Aug 24, 2017 12:59:54 PM | 20

Regarding the Iraniuan taking over Syria BS, Netanyahu, and the the heads of Mossad and Israel military intelligence have scuttled off to Moscow to plead with Putin to stop destroying Israel's terrorists in Syria. The Russians aren't fooled by Netanyahu's duplicity nor are they intimidated by claims of 'anti-semitism'.

Israel fears the collapse of its strategy in Syria

Netanyahu Meets Putin, Rants About Iran, Putin Ignores Him

Ghostship | Aug 24, 2017 1:13:51 PM | 22

>>>> karlof1 | Aug 24, 2017 11:57:18 AM | 13
The Zionists have an Iranian Brain Freeze as NuttyYahoo displayed in his Moscow visit...

According to Al-masdar News it's way beyond bipolar disorder into paranoid schizophrenia

Netanyahu claims Israel is defeating ISIL in Syria, demands Iran leaves..

Netanyahu str essed that "with joint efforts we are defeating Islamic State ," which he said "is a very important thing."

In former years he would have been shipped off to the Deolali Transit Camp in India.

[Aug 24, 2017] Notes On The Junta, An Unnecessary Land-Corridor And A Regular Russian Maneuver

Neoliberalism logically leads to the establishment on military junta or some variation of centralized control of the state. This also makes possible to suppress or at least deflect the wave of right wing nationalism that is swiping all Western countries and which also is the restion to the failure of neoliberalism as a social system The USA is just a little bit ahead of EU countries in this respect
Notable quotes:
"... Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff. ..."
"... Western society is awash in propaganda, and we dare make fun of the North Koreans. ..."
"... The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space along with the banksters. ..."
"... The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite into their interpretations of statuatory law. ..."
"... This was written before the inauguration - during the transition: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500 A good dissection of Mad Dog ..."
"... on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will happen again. ..."
"... But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation. The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names). Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could install his own stoolies. Imo. ..."
"... I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally. Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT issues. ..."
"... Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union" committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans. ..."
"... Goldman Sachs and Military Hunta are just plain Evil ..."
"... "Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements". ..."
"... As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest, etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.' Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law' method.. ..."
"... The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in certain conditions it is embraced. ..."
"... I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's. ..."
"... The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:) ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
According to a 1950s political theory The Structure of Power in American Society is mainly build on three elite groups, the high military, the corporation executives and the political directorate. (The "political directorate" can best be described as the bureaucracy, the CIA and their proxies within Congress.)

On election day I noted that only the military had supported The Not-Hillary President . The corporate and executive corners of the triangle had pushed for Hillary Clinton and continued to do so even after Trump had won. (Only recently did the "collusion with Russia" nonsense suddenly die down.) I wrote:

The military will demand its due beyond the three generals now in Trump's cabinet.

That turned out to be right. A military junta is now ruling the United States:

Inside the White House, meanwhile, generals manage Trump's hour-by-hour interactions and whisper in his ear -- and those whispers, as with the decision this week to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy.

At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated personal relationships with the president and gained his trust.

...

Kelly, Mattis and McMaster are not the only military figures serving at high levels in the Trump administration. CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke each served in various branches of the military, and Trump recently tapped former Army general Mark S. Inch to lead the Federal Bureau of Prisons. [...] the National Security Council [..] counts two other generals on the senior staff.

With the firing of the renegade Flynn and various other Trump advisors, the Junta has already removed all independent voices in the White House. It is now attaching more control wires to its "salesperson" marionette:

The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.

Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy during his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.

P Walker | Aug 24, 2017 10:16:40 AM | 1

Western society is awash in propaganda, and we dare make fun of the North Koreans.
yancey | Aug 24, 2017 10:48:40 AM | 2
The political directorate has basically become a group of surrogates for corporate/banking interests, while the military elite have moved into the political space along with the banksters.

The third element of non-democratic rule in the US is the judiciary front men/women who are essentially putting the interests of the corporate elite into their interpretations of statuatory law.

Anonymous | Aug 24, 2017 10:58:10 AM | 4
Meanhwhile NATO join Sweden in tremendous military exercise next month. But western outlet propaganda journalists wont tell you about that...
Exercise: "Aurora 17"
"Is a planned military exercise that will take place in Sweden during a three-week period, from 11 through 29 September 2017.[1] It is expected to be the largest military exercise in 20 years to take place on Swedish soil.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_17

Also: Mattis mulls supplying Ukraine with lethal weapons after visit
https://www.sott.net/article/360000-Mattis-mulls-supplying-Ukraine-with-lethal-weapons-after-visit

nmb | Aug 24, 2017 10:59:05 AM | 5
As Western propaganda rapidly collapses, Washington's hawks start to retire from searching for pretexts
Yul | Aug 24, 2017 11:20:28 AM | 7
@b

This was written before the inauguration - during the transition: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/james-mattis-iran-secretary-of-defense-214500 A good dissection of Mad Dog

Yul | Aug 24, 2017 11:23:14 AM | 8
BTW: Mad Dog has thrown the Kurds under the bus:
YPG:
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ypg-not-a-choice-but-necessity-us-tells-turkey.aspx?pageID=238&nID=117126&NewsCatID=409

PKK:

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/mattis-pledges-support-erdogan-pkk-turkey.html

Jonesy | Aug 24, 2017 11:25:12 AM | 9
More anti-Iranian propaganda from the UK, this is not a coincidence IMHO:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4815440/Iranian-backed-fighters-close-corridor-Med.html

james | Aug 24, 2017 11:25:54 AM | 10
thanks b..

on the first part, i quote you "But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless." i fully agree with what you say here.. However, i think this has probably already happened and will happen again.

point 2 - israel wants a war with iran.. they will dream up anything they can to keep the usa military on alert for whatever hairbrained warmongering act they have in mind next..

point 3.. more bullshit to sprinkle with what is not bullshit - nato war exercises as @4 anonymous points out...

dh | Aug 24, 2017 11:40:51 AM | 11
@8 Mad Dog might as well come right out and tell the YPG/PKK/SDF they are dispensable. Time for another rabies shot.
Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 24, 2017 11:49:23 AM | 12
...
The new system, laid out in two memos co-authored by [General] Kelly and Porter and distributed to Cabinet members and White House staffers in recent days, is designed to ensure that the president won't see any external policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports, and even news articles that haven't been vetted.

Trump has a weakness for the military since he attended a New York military academy during his youth. But he does not like to be controlled. I expect him to revolt one day. He will then find that it is too late and that he is actually powerless.
...

I agree it's beginning to LOOK grim for Trump, b.

But I'm optimistic that He's still got a few tricks up his sleeve. I've never watched The Apprentice but EVERY real CEO has a stool pigeon or two, or more, within the organisation. The CEO of Oz Branch of the last multinational corp I worked for had 4 (according to the Credit Manager(!?) who gave me a list of their names). Trump was a CEO. There's no way he would take a CEO job without making sure that he could install his own stoolies. Imo.

psychohistorian | Aug 24, 2017 12:24:55 PM | 14
Thanks for the posting b.

That said, again the private finance folk are not included in your analysis. The private finance folk are certainly part of Trump's inner circle and none of them have been ejected. Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations......

I now think this is about old big money/values versus new (past 40 years) upstart money/values. But what we are seeing are the troops/puppets.....and that is internally. Internationally, the internal conflict is focused, like Bannon says, around trying to contain the China/Russia axis and maintain global private finance control versus haggling about LGBT issues.

fastfreddy | Aug 24, 2017 12:45:11 PM | 16
Western Society is awash in propaganda as it is enveloped in a Homeland Security/Domestic Surveillance Police State - New World Order - Juggernaut.

Interesting that 20 years ago USA Americans were taught that "The Evil Red Soviet Union" committed these horrible acts (state propaganda and domestic surveillance) and that because of these things its people were not FREE like USA Americans.

(Homeland Security is budgeted such that airport security personnel are hired not out of necessity, but simply to soak up the funding.

dahoit | Aug 24, 2017 12:47:16 PM | 18
In the Guardian the other day they had a poll;54


''''5


In the Guardian the other day; 54% to 27% saying leave the Con. monuments alone.

Brad | Aug 24, 2017 1:01:51 PM | 21
@14
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-315-meet-goldman-sachs-the-vampire-squid/

Everyone sing.....

" Goldman Sachs and Military Hunta are just plain Evil , they are Evil as can be...."

ben | Aug 24, 2017 2:10:13 PM | 24
Thanks b, I would agree that a military Junta has the reins and Trump's ear, but, as

psycho @ 14 said.. "Then there is the MIC corporations that rotate leadership of generals through their organizations...... The Generals are held captive by that big $ welded, and promised to them for their "second lives" in various MIC corporations after their "retirements".

Noirette | Aug 24, 2017 2:25:01 PM | 25
The raucous clamor painting Trump as a Russkie collaborator has now sputtered, frizzled out, to be replaced by the equally lame 'Trump is a neo-nazi fascist racist mysoginist' as his supporters 'mow down ppl', etc. or whatever. All these elements were present before he was elected. (Trump is less racist than Obama..not that it matters..)

As, let's not forget, Trump's cloudy common sense, his semi-isolationist nationalist attitude, trade protectionism (etc.) actually appealed to voters, which is unbearable to the PTB, out of bounds, leading to covert hysteria, burning up the wires. The sheeples are supposed to vote as the Media Spin ordains, not ever for their own interests or for a disgusting deplorable person like pussy-grabbing Trump. Unthinkable! that the PTB would ever be bothered by 'voter' crap. The Gore-Bush II standoff was splendiferous, a tight contest, etc. and who won might be suspense but not more, policies would be in the 'same system.' Arguments about Supreme Court decisions, yeah, only evidence a genuine 'rule of law' method..

The no.1. faction that can dominate Trump, also many others, is the Military. (Second are the banks, third Big Corps.) For now their position is shadowed and ambiguous, but a military Junta is perhaps not so fanciful. Thing is, a Junta solves many problems for many ppl, so in certain conditions it is embraced.

frances | Aug 24, 2017 2:30:39 PM | 26
B- Great article,just a few thoughts

re the surfeit of military

I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion and probably not in Trump's.

re Trump info access

He has people who can and do provide him with info galore outside of the office, he is not as isolated as you suggest, and he is out of the office a lot:)
re Wars

... ... ...

re Afghanistan

The new troops may be a Pentagon face saving measure ... Or they may be a sop to the CIA, those poppy fields won't guard themselves:)

[Aug 24, 2017] Russian meddling is Watergate-worthy, but Israeli meddling is hunky-dory by Philip Weiss

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company. ..."
"... I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review: ..."
"... The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.) ..."
"... –Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite . ..."
"... Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; ..."
07, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The investigation of Russia's meddling in our politics dominates the liberal press; and for my part, I believe everything The New York Times and MSNBC are suspicioning about Donald Trump and the Russians. I bet that the Russians have something on Trump personally, possibly involving money or sex; and that the Russians meddled in our election. (Not that the meddling changed the outcome; no, Hillary Clinton did a great job of losing it on her own.)

But as someone who focuses on Israel policy, what stands out to me is that conduct that is Watergate-worthy when it comes to Russia is hunky-dory when it comes to Israel. Just yesterday, for instance, Trump adviser Jared Kushner was on the hot seat in Congress over his contacts with a Russian official last year. But no one has a hearing about the fact that Kushner's family, out of devotion to Israel, financed illegal Israeli settlements that have undermined the two-state solution, thereby nullifying longtime U.S. policy. I think that's a real problem. MSNBC doesn't.

Just in the last week there have been two other expressions of Israel's active interests in our politics that the liberal media have failed to say boo about.

First, there's the Israel Anti-Boycott Act in the House and Senate. Israel regards the Boycott movement (BDS) as an existential threat; and so the Israel lobby group AIPAC produced legislation that scores of Senators and Congresspeople, including many liberal heroes, signed on to that trashes the First Amendment by making it a possible crime to support boycott of Israel. By the way, AIPAC has a mission to insure that there is "no daylight" between the Israeli government and the U.S. government. In the 1960s despite the best efforts of Senator Fulbright, AIPAC escaped designation as an agent of a foreign government. That ought to be a scandal, but everyone walks on by.

Then there's Israel's unhappiness with the Syrian ceasefire deal that Donald Trump reached with Russia. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu says that the deal fails to limit Iran's presence in Syria or to prevent weapons getting to Israel's enemy, Hezbollah; and Israel supporters in the U.S. duly echoed Netanyahu's view.

Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, who launched his dazzling career, in his own words, "with the support of the pro-Israel community," wrote :

"This is unbelievable! Trump Administration ignored Israel's security concerns in making the Syrian deal with Putin."

While Daniel Shapiro , also a former U.S. ambassador to Israel– who lately called Israel "this miracle, this gift, this jewel" -- wrote that the deal needs to be revised:

Can the deal be restructured to Isr's satisfaction? US-Russia dynamic makes that difficult & worrisome. But effort needs to be made.

Apart from the question of whether Trump will be brought down by his Russia connections, the real issue here is, What is the American people's interest? In the Syria case, it would appear that Trump is realigning U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. And that this realignment could be good for the U.S. position in the world: an effort to lessen U.S. military engagement in the Middle East. But meanwhile it is clearly in Israel's interest for the U.S. to be up to its hips in the perpetual war of the Middle East, because occupiers love company.

I believe the no-daylight policy has been hugely costly to the United States; and has involved a great deal of meddling by Israel and its friends in our politics. The media are afraid to touch this stuff; but a look back on the special relationship between the countries reveals a number of policy decisions that the U.S. would have made differently if Israel weren't putting its thumb on our scale. Let's review:

  • –Israel has put more than 600,000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, thereby violating the Geneva Convention and destroying the two-state solution, which was U.S. policy. The United States has suffered enormously for its inability to stop this process. Even the 9/11 attacks were motivated in good measure by the sufferings of Palestinians. The Israel lobby and its American friends played the lead role in nullifying U.S. policy in the settlements– witness the undermining of President Obama's efforts to stop settlements in 2011 and 2012 via political pressure. (Even Noam Chomsky has said that in this area the client is influencing the superpower, not the other way round.)
  • –Israel acquired nuclear weapons in violation of clear U.S. policy in the 60s, and likely also by pilfering highly-enriched uranium from the United States through a front operation in Pennsylvania. There has never been a squeak about this from the U.S. government or officials– no they all maintain the deception– and meantime Israeli nukes have contributed to an arms race around the region, and fostered the U.S. image as lying imperialist hypocrite .
  • Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for the Iraq war, saying it would transform the region for the better: "If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." The leading Israel lobby group AIPAC also pushed for this war, while Israel's rightwing American friends, the neoconservatives, argued that the war would bring democracy to Arab states and make Israel safer; as did liberals such as Tom Friedman, Israel's onetime promoter, who said we should go to war against Iraq because terrorists were blowing up pizza parlors in Tel Aviv. Whether the voice given to Israel's interest was determinative or not in our decision to invade Iraq (I say it was), this is an influence that clearly should have been exposed and investigated, beyond the efforts of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby. But the media shut down that conversation, in part through the vociferous efforts of Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly emigrated to Israel and served in its armed forces.

[Aug 24, 2017] Reports Globalists in White House Oppose Trumps Border Wall, Reforms

Notable quotes:
"... The "West Wing Democrats" in the White House are eager to sacrifice President Donald Trump's top campaign promise in exchange for Democratic approval of the tax cuts sought by wealthy donors and business interests, according to an article in Politico. In an August 23 article about Trump's push to get funding for an extended border wall, Politico described the lack of support for the wall among his business-affiliated aides: Few staff members in the West Wing are as concerned about it [as the President], senior administration officials said. Some in the White House have urged Trump not to focus as much on the wall, try to pass a clean debt-ceiling bill and move to tax reform. "You have barely anyone here saying, 'Wall, wall, we have to get the wall at all costs,'" one White House official said. Two people who have spoken to Trump said he sees not building the wall as a personal embarrassment -- and that he has shown more interest in building the wall than in other issues, like the upcoming budget negotiations. "You don't want a government shutdown," the White House official said. "He is told that. He says, 'I want money for the wall.'" The same emphasis on tax cuts for the elite before immigration reform for voters was also cited by Axios on August 20, in an article which claimed to explain why top staff chose to stay in the White House amid elite hatred of his populist, wage-boosting, pro-American priorities. Axios reported : We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale: "You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall. "General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer him to more conventional policy responses. This situation leaves Trump dependent on a few aides -- such as immigration reformer Steve Miller -- and his supporters at his rallies to help fend off the insistent demands by his globalist aides for a back-room surrender of his presidential goals. ..."
"... the pro-American immigration reformers who backed Trump in the election fear his globalist aides will push Trump to accept and establish former President Barack Obama's DACA amnesty in exchange for minor concessions, such as a modest amount of funds to build a short distance of border wall. ..."
Aug 24, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
The "West Wing Democrats" in the White House are eager to sacrifice President Donald Trump's top campaign promise in exchange for Democratic approval of the tax cuts sought by wealthy donors and business interests, according to an article in Politico.

In an August 23 article about Trump's push to get funding for an extended border wall, Politico described the lack of support for the wall among his business-affiliated aides:

Few staff members in the West Wing are as concerned about it [as the President], senior administration officials said.

Some in the White House have urged Trump not to focus as much on the wall, try to pass a clean debt-ceiling bill and move to tax reform. "You have barely anyone here saying, 'Wall, wall, we have to get the wall at all costs,'" one White House official said.

Two people who have spoken to Trump said he sees not building the wall as a personal embarrassment -- and that he has shown more interest in building the wall than in other issues, like the upcoming budget negotiations. "You don't want a government shutdown," the White House official said. "He is told that. He says, 'I want money for the wall.'"

The same emphasis on tax cuts for the elite before immigration reform for voters was also cited by Axios on August 20, in an article which claimed to explain why top staff chose to stay in the White House amid elite hatred of his populist, wage-boosting, pro-American priorities. Axios reported :

We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale:

"You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall.

"General Mattis needs us": Many talk about their reluctance to bolt on their friends and colleagues who are fighting the good fight to force better Trump behavior/decisions. They rightly point out that together, they have learned how to ignore Trump's rhetoric and, at times, collectively steer him to more conventional policy responses.

This situation leaves Trump dependent on a few aides -- such as immigration reformer Steve Miller -- and his supporters at his rallies to help fend off the insistent demands by his globalist aides for a back-room surrender of his presidential goals.

That surrender would help his aides win Democratic support for their goals -- but it would leave Trump with few friends heading into the 2018 midterm elections and the crucial 2020 reelection, says D.C. insiders. For example, the pro-American immigration reformers who backed Trump in the election fear his globalist aides will push Trump to accept and establish former President Barack Obama's DACA amnesty in exchange for minor concessions, such as a modest amount of funds to build a short distance of border wall.

"If [Trump's aides] are left to their own devices, they would exchange this for a few trinkets," so violating Trump's campaign promise before the 2018 and 2020 elections, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The suggested deal was outlined in a Tuesday article by Anita Kumar, a reporter for the McClatchy news service. She uses the Democrats' term -- 'dreamers' – to describe the 800,000 DACA illegals as she wrote:

White House officials want Trump to strike an ambitious deal with Congress that offers Dreamers protection in exchange for legislation that pays for a border wall and more detention facilities, curbs legal immigration and implements E-verify, an online system that allows businesses to check immigration status, according to a half-dozen people familiar with situation, most involved with the negotiations.

The group includes former and current White House chiefs of staff, Reince Priebus and John Kelly , the president's daughter, Ivanka Trump , and her husband, Jared Kushner , who both serve as presidential advisers, they said. Others who have not been as vocal publicly about their stance but are thought to agree include Vice President Mike Pence , who as a congressman worked on a failed immigration deal that called for citizenship, National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and Gary Cohn, a Democrat who serves as director of the National Economic Council.

There is no evidence that Democrats will accept that ambitious deal before the 2018 election, and much evidence that Trump's aides will quickly give up wall funding and the popular RAISE Act to win Democratic support for tax cuts. So far, top Democrats have responded that they would not offer anything as they demand a permanent DACA amnesty.

However, Trump's determination to resist his aides is likely boosted by the cheering he gets at rallies when he promises to build the wall.

"We are building a wall on the southern border, which is absolutely necessary," he told roughly 30,000 cheering supporters at an August 22 rally in Phoenix, Ariz. "The obstructionist Democrats would like us not to do it, believe me, [but] if we have to close down our government, we are building that wall We're going to have our wall. We're going to get our wall."

There you have it, @realDonaldTrump -- Your own 30k focus-group. LIKE: deportations, a wall, jobs; DON'T LIKE: Media, Afghan War & tax cuts.

-- Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) August 23, 2017

Trump later thanked the crowd.

Phoenix crowd last night was amazing – a packed house. I love the Great State of Arizona. Not a fan of Jeff Flake, weak on crime & border --

-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 23, 2017

Read the Axios article here , and the Politico article here .

Under current immigration policy, the federal government accepts 1 million legal immigrants each year, even though 4 million young Americans enter the workforce to look for decent jobs. Each year, the government also hands out almost 3 million short-term work permits to foreign workers. These permits include roughly 330,000 one-year OPT permits for foreign graduates of U.S. colleges, roughly 200,000 three-year H-1B visas for foreign white-collar professionals, and 400,000 two-year permits to DACA illegals.

The current annual flood of foreign labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up r eal estate prices , widens wealth-gaps , reduces high-tech investment , increases state and local tax burdens , hurts kids' schools and college education , pushes Americans away from high-tech careers , and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families.

Many polls show that Americans are very generous, they do welcome individual immigrants, and they do want to like the idea of immigration. But the polls also show that most Americans are increasingly worried that large-scale legal immigration will change their country and disadvantage themselves and their children. Trump's "Buy American, Hire American" policies are also extremely popular , including among Democratic-leaning voters.

<

[Aug 23, 2017] The U.S. Can Not Be Trusted - Case XXXIV Trump Cheats On China Sanction Deal

Notable quotes:
"... the usa needs to copyright this : ''sanctions-r-us''.... they will sell this as the good cop routine that plays to the wacky right wing nut jobs that drive us foreign policy.. it wears thin quickly though for anyone looking under the hood - something the western msm is loath or unable to do.. keeping the populace ignorant is the cause de jour for them.. some things don't change... show down in the o k corral is on it's way... ..."
"... Honestly, anyone who doesn't understand that making deals and treaties with the US is pointless when not dangerous because they will never respect them is hopeless and has lost any pretense at sanity. I've yet to see any single treaty in their whole history that the US hasn't broken at some point. Though I also have to point out that it's not merely that "Americans are treacherous and have a forked tongue" or whatever. It's hardcoded in the political system itself, which is highly unstable and at the same time doesn't punish inconsistency, stupidity and betrayal. ..."
"... China deserved what they got since they were dumb enough to believe ANYHING the US. How can anyone side with a country that is on the other side of the world against one that is right next to you? The only thing I can think of is a ploy by China to further cause the US to economically hurt itself. So many things are going on that it's hard to keep track of what's what. ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
The U.S. Can Not Be Trusted - Case XXXIV: Trump Cheats On China Sanction Deal

During the ramp up to new UN sanctions on North Korea the Trump administration threaten to sanction China if it would not commit to further pressure. Trade measures against China were held back while the discussions about the resolution were ongoing:

An opportunity to hit North Korea with new United Nations sanctions has sidelined President Donald Trump's bid to punish China for its alleged unfair trade practice.
...
[O]n Thursday afternoon, senior administration aides postponed the announcement [of trade measures against China] at the urging of United Nations and State Department officials, who are in the sensitive final stages of convincing China to sign on to a U.N. resolution that would impose new sanctions on North Korea. U.N. and State Department officials warned that the trade announcement could kill their chances of winning Beijing's buy-in , according to the officials.

Trump himself implied that he was willing to go for a quit pro quo:

While past presidents have tried at least ostensibly to keep security and economic issues on separate tracks in their dealings with China, Mr. Trump has explicitly linked the two, suggesting he would back off from a trade war against Beijing if it does more to pressure North Korea. "If China helps us, I feel a lot differently toward trade, a lot differently toward trade," he told reporters...

A deal was made and the UN Resolution 2371 passed. China immediately implemented the relevant measures:

In an unprecedented move against North Korea, China on Monday issued an order to carry out the United Nations sanctions imposed on the rogue regime earlier this month.

China did its part of the deal. It helped pass the UN resolution against North Korea and it immediately implemented it even while that causes a significant loss for Chinese companies which trade with North Korea.

Now Trump is back at sanctioning Chinese (and Russian) companies:

The Trump administration on Tuesday imposed sanctions on 16 mainly Chinese and Russian companies and people for assisting North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and helping the North make money to support those programs.
...
Among those sanctioned are six Chinese companies, including three coal companies ; two Singapore-based companies that sell oil to North Korea and three Russians that work with them; a Russian company that deals in North Korean metals and its Russian director; a construction company based in Namibia; a second Namibia-based company, and its North Korean director, that supplies North Korean workers to build statues overseas to generate income for the North.

These are "secondary sanctions" which block financial transactions and make it nearly impossible for those companies and people to run an international business. Moreover - China had already banned all coal imports from North Korea. It had sent back North Korean coal ships and instead bought coal from the United States. Now Chinese companies get sanctioned over North Korean coal they no longer buy? Furthermore selling fuel oil to North Korea is explicitly allowed under the new UN sanctions. There is no reason to sanction any company over it.

The Chinese feel cheated:

Reuters World @ReutersWorld - 7:12pm · 22 Aug 2017

JUST IN: China urges U.S. to 'immediately correct its mistake' of sanctioning Chinese firms over North Korea - embassy spokesman

If the Trump administration insist of holding up these sanction China and Russia will obviously become negligent in controlling the sanctions imposed on North Korea. Why should they hold to their side of the deal, at great costs, when the U.S. does not hold up its side?

They will also stop at making any further deals with the Trump administration. It has now proven to be just as lying and cheating as the Obama administration has been. The U.S. can forget about ANY further action or sanctions at the UN.

This as extremely shortsighted and stupid way of handling international relations.

How does the U.S. hope to win anything in the long run when it behaves in such untrustworthy ways?

02:41 PM | Comments (37)

Mike Maloney | Aug 22, 2017 2:58:52 PM | 1

Bannon's sayonara interview with Robert Kuttner was all about the coming trade war with China. Bannon thinks it is the key to electoral success. It will be interesting to see if his strategy lives on now that he is gone.
james | Aug 22, 2017 3:10:41 PM | 2
thanks b.... the usa needs to copyright this : ''sanctions-r-us''.... they will sell this as the good cop routine that plays to the wacky right wing nut jobs that drive us foreign policy.. it wears thin quickly though for anyone looking under the hood - something the western msm is loath or unable to do.. keeping the populace ignorant is the cause de jour for them.. some things don't change... show down in the o k corral is on it's way...
Clueless Joe | Aug 22, 2017 3:18:44 PM | 3
Honestly, anyone who doesn't understand that making deals and treaties with the US is pointless when not dangerous because they will never respect them is hopeless and has lost any pretense at sanity. I've yet to see any single treaty in their whole history that the US hasn't broken at some point. Though I also have to point out that it's not merely that "Americans are treacherous and have a forked tongue" or whatever. It's hardcoded in the political system itself, which is highly unstable and at the same time doesn't punish inconsistency, stupidity and betrayal.
ben | Aug 22, 2017 3:19:25 PM | 4
Gee, you mean the U$A doesn't want to live up to its words? Well, I'm shocked.. Not! Actions, not meeting rhetoric, is the U$A's stock in trade, in all its endeavors.

I see Trump rolled out his new infrastructure plan. Destroying other nation's infrastructure, to create more jobs in the weapons industry here at home.

Wonderful...

Peter AU 1 | Aug 22, 2017 3:25:21 PM | 5
@1
Bannon August 16..."To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover."
Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us."

Reuters August 21... China expressed "strong dissatisfaction" on Monday with the U.S. launch of an investigation into China's alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, calling it "irresponsible".

The U.S. Trade Representative formally announced the investigation on Friday, a widely expected move following a call from President Donald Trump earlier last week to determine whether a probe was needed.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trade-china-idUSKCN1B10MF

fastfreddy | Aug 22, 2017 3:34:00 PM | 6
Because he is a bit dim-witted like Dubya, Trump has a way of going off script and putting his foot in his mouth. The PTB knew all along they were going to fck China - with or without the UN Korean sanctions agreement.

This would be one reason why AIPAC doesn't want Trump. That other moron, Pence, would be capable of reading his lines without the need for extemporaneous commentary.

Perimtr | Aug 22, 2017 3:34:16 PM | 7
What goes around, comes around.

When China starts turning down US dollars and Treasuries in exchange for all Chinese services and goods produced by the industries we offshored to them (only accepting RMB and gold today, thank you), we will see how this all works out.

Probably the neocon "solution" will be military (isn't it always?), but as they say, "Good luck with that!" The recent rash of US naval "accidental collisions" provides a hint of things to come.

NotToMention | Aug 22, 2017 3:34:23 PM | 8
It looks even worse for China. NK might be the epicenter of the realization that China is just as self-serving as any other country, but the ripples will have damaged China's reputation far and wide. By not enforcing the UNSC sanctions China will only prove her vote was not based on principle.
JSonofa | Aug 22, 2017 3:58:45 PM | 9
Quit Pro Quo. That actually does sound like Trump policy. Oh man, that's great! Thanks b!!!
NewYorker | Aug 22, 2017 3:59:57 PM | 10
China deserved what they got since they were dumb enough to believe ANYHING the US. How can anyone side with a country that is on the other side of the world against one that is right next to you? The only thing I can think of is a ploy by China to further cause the US to economically hurt itself. So many things are going on that it's hard to keep track of what's what.
ger | Aug 22, 2017 4:15:41 PM | 11
The words Trump and Cheat are redundant! Nobody in their right mind would buy a used car from the Big Cheat in Chief.
Oliver K | Aug 22, 2017 4:46:40 PM | 12
Isn't it obvious that any form of sanctions, "cheating" etc. by the US is the best thing for the rest of the world? Unfortunately, the "elites" in Russia, and many people in China are only too eager to lick the feet of the US. Good old fashioned corruption via trade would surely destroy (likely) Russia and China -- but, as a god-given present, the US actually behaves as the benevolent exceptional nation, really, by teaching Russia and China the necessary lessons!

Perhaps Trump is really a deep genius? Or perhaps in 50 years we will learn that ACTUALLY Putin did it! He really controls the whole West, and makes it destroy itself. :-))

jo6pac | Aug 22, 2017 4:55:29 PM | 13
That's great news and hopefully NC had to pay the same great price the Ukraine got or maybe the Ukraine will trade with NC for more rocket motors. Greed Amerikas bottom line and I wonder what the trumpster cut was?
Out of Istanbul | Aug 22, 2017 4:58:24 PM | 14
I doubt any other state actors still trust the US, regardless of what administration is in power. Power when wielded is always a blunt instrument, and as long as the US policy elite see no equal on the world stage, thanks to the US' sprawling military and extensive economic advantages (reserve currency, resource wealth, etc), they don't need to nor will play nice.
brian | Aug 22, 2017 5:39:54 PM | 15
would china PLEASE pull the plug on USA and call in its debt?!
Hesllng | Aug 22, 2017 5:43:26 PM | 16
Well in a way this serves China right, the price they pay for a treacherous act of betrayal against NK and instead thinking they can do a deal the devil. Now perhaps the Chinese will "get their logic right"
michaelj72 | Aug 22, 2017 5:49:12 PM | 17
"These are "secondary sanctions" which block financial transactions and make it nearly impossible for those companies and people to run an international business..."

I have often wondered how any nation can have such power - and continually wield it so unwisely as the United States has

apparently there's no real appeal to the use of the such sanctions (please correct me if I am wrong) so that in essence it is a world-wide dictatorial economic power exercised by one nation over all the others, and without legal recourse, the very definition of tyranny.....and even if there were current judicial recourse, the US would have corrupted that totally as well.

The Chinese and the Russian have been pretty foolish the last 10-15 years or so in trusting the US at all. the perfect case was the UN resolution on Libya which the West used to slaughter the whole country and create a failed state. at least Putin learned his lesson early on in Syria and took effective counter-measures, finally putting his foot down on this also world-wide regime change bullshit, which has really paid off since Nov 2015....

Kalen | Aug 22, 2017 5:49:40 PM | 18
Question is why they were so gullible to believe US in the first place after repeated betrayal in the past. Are they retarded? Were they really ready to strangle NK economy in a face of blatant US belligerence and provocations knowing well that only NK nukes may bring Japan and US to the peace table to end WWII and Korean War?

Is in the national interest of China and Russia collapse of NK. OF COURSE NOT. So why all those stupid maneuvers? Do they not see that US incoherence is aimed for dividing Sino-Russian alliance? Somobody have to say it if b is not saying that, fool me once, but if you fool me twice I become a fool. Are Russians and Chinese fools believing that US are something else than bunch of delusional psychotics one cannot reason with or bargain with?

Is that because they are rich delusional psychotics and pay is good?

Pnyx | Aug 22, 2017 6:08:26 PM | 19
"The U.S. can forget about ANY further action or sanctions at the UN."

I really, really hope so, B. I can't understand why China agreed to the U.N. resolution in the first place. The outcome was crystal clear from the beginning, we had it before times and again. Are the Russian and the Chinese governments to stupid to learn from experiences? Or just to gutless to 'just say no'? Or to eager to hold the neoliberal economic system afloat, they obviously immagine as the only way possible? I wonder.

ian | Aug 22, 2017 6:22:39 PM | 20
I don't feel the least bit sorry for the Chinese. They have been playing us re North Korea - North Korea starts pulling crazy shit at just the right moments, China offers to 'help'. There won't be any huge trade wars either - it is in their interest just as much as ours to avoid it and they're businessmen, first and foremost.
Julian | Aug 22, 2017 7:07:02 PM | 21
The Chinese knew this would happen, signing onto new sanctions against North Korea has absolutely nothing to do with dodging any US trade sanctions!

Totally irrelevant.

The Chinese have sanctioned North Korea for their own reasons.

Peter AU 1 | Aug 22, 2017 7:15:14 PM | 22
Chinese casualties in the Korean war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Casualties
Western sources estimate the PVA suffered about 400,000 killed and 486,000 wounded,
Data from official Chinese sources, on the other hand, reported that the Chinese PVA had suffered 114,000 battle deaths, 34,000 non-battle deaths, 340,000 wounded, 7,600 missing

Either way, China shed a lot of blood for NK. The latest UN sanctions were harmless bullshit to buy a bit of time. China and Russia made a joint statement that they would not see North Korea economicaly strangled. Any NK losses would be made up in other ways.

karlof1 | Aug 22, 2017 7:18:49 PM | 23
Throughout all of history, I can't recall any nation as dishonest as the USA. In a Just World, it would be shunned, ostracized and be made to sit is the equivalent of a corner for a millennia-long time-out. But since it has a UNSC veto, it really can't be made to behave within the family of nations. The only way forward I can see is for the planet's people to push every vestige of the Outlaw US Empire out of their nations and declare it persona non grata until it's proven for at least a century that it's changed its ways. And don't go to visit it despite the scenery of its landscape; there're plenty of other outstanding places having natural beauty on the planet to visit. And don't use any of its tech products, like Google, Yahoo!, Amazon, etc. In other words, Boycott everything USA-- Everything! And don't give its Trolls the time of day.
ashley albanese | Aug 22, 2017 7:30:41 PM | 24
There is a bottom line - ww3 - the Russians and Chinese know what this means . They are terrified as Stalin was of the 'West ' in 1941. Under such pressure things must always be 'Alice and Wonderlandish' . Events of the moment are to be seen in this equivocal light.
Outsider | Aug 22, 2017 7:48:32 PM | 25
"How does the U.S. hope to win anything in the long run when it behaves in such untrustworthy ways?"

Because they're all in on it? Everyone. What other explanation is there?

It's a fake world people and it's starting to become glaring.

anonymous | Aug 22, 2017 7:49:57 PM | 26
@20

Specifically, the United States and South Korea 'start' a (yearly) variation of military exercises, North Korea responds by 'threatening' missile tests (secretly offering a mutual 'freeze' of exercises and tests), and China offers to sponsor (yearly) peace conferences.

What else can China do?

anonymous | Aug 22, 2017 7:58:16 PM | 27
They made us many promises, more than I can remember, but they kept only one; they promised to take our land, and they did.
Red Cloud
Daniel Bruno | Aug 22, 2017 8:31:51 PM | 28
1.

The State Dept, TSA, DHS et al. treats individual American citizens with the same utter contempt and scorn...that Washington has for NK, China and Russia (unless said American citizen is connected to a certain lobby / special group or status.)

2.

In light of how the US government has not upheld treaties it signed with First Nations people for 300 years, or any other organization or government that was weaker than itself at any time, it bewilders me how any modern government could expect the US to honor any treaty it signs today, unless upholding said treaty were in the immediate interest of the US.

3.

How utterly stupid is the regime in Washington?...it seems to gyrate madly, imposing sanctions here, sanctions there, threatening everybody from NK to Syria to Venezuela to China to Russia, when it should be minding its own fucking business. We need a constitutional convention in the US and we need to restore democratic governance to the USA.

OJS | Aug 22, 2017 8:32:11 PM | 29
anonymous, 27

OT continuation "they promised to take our land, and they did. Red Cloud"

First we had the land and they had the Bibles, now we have the Bibles and they have the land. Chief Dan George

http://www.azquotes.com/quote/645351

"When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land". Desmond Tutu and Jomo Kenyatta

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/desmondtut107531.html

daffyDuct | Aug 22, 2017 8:52:26 PM | 30
Somewhat related in terms of leverage/sanctions:

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/08/15/us-russia-ties-poised-to-take-incredible-turn/

"
"The Ukraine crisis -- and Russian-American relations -- reaches an inflection point with the assessment made by the International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) in London that North Korea's dramatic leap in ballistic missile capability in the past year is attributable to its clandestine acquisition of a Soviet-era technology that is available in a factory near the frontline in Donbass war zone, close to the breakaway region held by Russia-backed separatists. The IISS flags that North Korea's Hwasong-14 missile, tested for the first time, twice, last month signifies an incredible leap in technology that is simply inconceivable for human ingenuity – that is, unless Pyongyang gained access to foreign technology from an established missile power.

However, the IISS report says,

The engine tested by North Korea does not physically resemble any LPE manufactured by the US, France, China, Japan, India or Iran. Nor do any of these countries produce an engine that uses storable propellants and generates the thrust delivered by the Hwasong-12 and -14 LPE. This leaves the former Soviet Union as the most likely source.

Now, there could have been clandestine transfers of the engines from either Russia or Ukraine with the knowledge of the local authorities – or more likely, there might have been clandestine smuggling by the mafia from factories that are loosely guarded. The mafia is active in both Russia and Ukraine. The IISS is inclined to point the finger at the factory in Ukraine (known as Yuzhnoye which has facilities in Dnipropetrovsk and Pavlograd), which has been in dire straits ever since 2006 when Russia stopped buying from it as part of the Soviet-era supply chain and the once-vaunted factory came to the brink of financial collapse circa 2015. To quote the IISS,

The total number of RD-250 (rocket) engines fabricated in Russia and Ukraine is not known. However, there are almost certainly hundreds, if not more, of spares stored at KB Yuzhnoye's facilities and at warehouses in Russia A small team of disgruntled employees or underpaid guards at any one of the storage sites could be enticed to steal a few dozen engines by one of the many illicit arms dealers, criminal networks, or transnational smugglers operating in the former Soviet Union. The engines (less than two metres tall and one metre wide) can be flown or, more likely, transported by train through Russia to North Korea. Pyongyang has many connections in Russia North Korean agents seeking missile technology are also known to operate in Ukraine Today, (Ukrainian) Yuzhnoye's facilities lie close to the front lines of the Russian-controlled secessionist territory. Clearly, there is no shortage of potential routes through which North Korea might have acquired the few dozen RD-250 engines that would be needed for an ICBM programme.

Several questions arise. Importantly, almost all of them will have implications for the trajectory of US-Russia relations. Most important -- the timing of the IISS report. The US-Russia relations are on razor's edge. (See my blog Russia edgy as US prepares to retaliate.)

Thus, can it be that the Russian intelligence leaked the information already available with it to respectable western sources so as to underscore in western capitals that the West has ended up creating a bleeding wound in Ukraine that is turning gangrene? (After all, IISS has profound links with Smiley's people.)

It is entirely conceivable that the CIA and the Pentagon are ahead of the IISS' scientific finding. Has this got something to do with the threatening reports that refuse to die away that the Trump administration is revisiting the moribund idea of supplying lethal weapons to hit at Russia-backed separatists in Donbass -- which Russia has been opposing tooth and nail? Simply put, is someone firing a flare into the night sky to make the point that it is a rotten idea to supply lethal weapons to Ukraine which will sooner or later find their way inevitably to non-state actors? This is one thing.

Indeed, Russia is keen to engage with the Trump administration over the Ukraine crisis. But then, Russia also hopes that progress on Ukraine would lead to an easing of Western sanctions. Now, on the contrary, the US Congress' latest bill on Russia sanctions expressly forbids the White House from negotiating the sanctions removal without its prior approval. If there is ever a Gordian knot, waiting to be cut, this is it.

The IISS concludes by stressing the high importance of the "US and its allies, along with China and perhaps Russia, to negotiate an agreement that bans future missile testing, and effectively prevents North Korea from perfecting its capacity to terrorise America with nuclear weapons. But the window of opportunity will soon close, so diplomatic action must be taken immediately."

However, such a process demands a high level of Russian-American coordination and cooperation. Of course, 'Barkis is willing'. But, is the US ready to abandon the sanctions against Russia? There is an existential choice to be made here, because Russian intelligence must be up to date on North Korea. Paradoxically, the US needs Russian intelligence inputs to protect the American people from potential nuclear radiation."

OJS | Aug 22, 2017 9:02:06 PM | 31
Economic (sanctions) war with Russia may be a piece of cake but not so easy against China. Both sides suffer. Especially China's wartime arch enemies' Japan and stupid India tagging behinds.

There were speculations what China can do - import/export/wheats/soy beans/US$... Where it hurts most, trademarks Ivanka Trump's company in China

J Swift | Aug 22, 2017 9:03:04 PM | 32
Several have said China (and Russia) are fools, or they are cowards...why would they fall for this again? Well, they aren't fools or cowards, and in fact there is every reason to think they did in fact expect the US to renege on any agreement almost immediately. Especially lately, where the US has gone completely off the rails, and no longer conceals that sanctions are aimed as much at weakening its "friends" (competitors) as its "enemies."

That said, perhaps this was intended to be another demonstration, an emphasis, particularly to the Europeans who are already getting sick of US sanctions. Why not agree to sanctions as requested by the US, knowing they will never have to be enforced because of US weaseling, while providing a strong argument to refuse all future attempts at sanctions.

frances | Aug 22, 2017 9:17:48 PM | 33
What if these Trump admin actions are a deliberate ploy to backdoor making America great again by getting other nations to set up trade barriers forcing America to return to manufacturing
Paisciego | Aug 22, 2017 9:18:39 PM | 34
Mr. Arkadin. Scorpion and frog
james | Aug 22, 2017 9:20:00 PM | 35
@17 michaelj72.. i think you have that exactly right, except in your last paragraph... it is difficult to navigate, and until russia and china are of a similar level to the usa militarily, i think they have been working towards the moment when they can do just that - pull the plug of this ponzi / mafia type set up the usa has going..

@18 kalen / @19 pnyx... see my response to michael above... it is how i see it..

@24 ashley albanese.. we see it very similar.. thanks..

@30 daffyduck.. thanks.. interesting speculation that all sounds plausible..

@32 j swift.. i tend to see it that way too, although europe is going to have to get a backbone at some point.. same deal all the usa lapdogs...

frances | Aug 22, 2017 9:36:43 PM | 36
reply to DaffyDuct 30

".. engines that would be needed for an {NK} ICBM programme."

All well and good except for the fact that NK doesn't have an ICBM capability.
The US govt admitted that the NK rockets fired were NOT ICBMs but were Intermediate missiles used in the past to launch NK weather satellites.

V. Arnold | Aug 23, 2017 12:51:34 AM | 37
karlof1 | Aug 22, 2017 7:18:49 PM | 23

Yup, I dumped google and yahoo years ago.
Yandex browser and e-mail; both are excellent.
When my anti-virus expires I'm going to Kaspersky Labs; my wife already did.

[Aug 23, 2017] Good Riddance to Steve Bannon by Karl Rove

The fact that Karl rove is allowed to write for WSJ makes WSJ a yellow publication...
Aug 23, 2017 | www.wsj.com

The country is better off with him out of the West Wing, but now Trump has to step up.

After departing his post as White House chief strategist last week, Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard that "the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." The clear suggestion is that Mr. Trump's chance at success had followed Mr. Bannon out the door.

Trying to recast his ouster as a personal choice, Mr. Bannon bragged "I can fight better on the outside." He promised "to crush the opposition," saying "I built a f! machine at Breitbart."

The former adviser also told a Bloomberg reporter he would be "going to war for Trump against his opponents!on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America."...

[Aug 23, 2017] The Mini-Skirt Deception How McMaster Got His Afghan 'Surge' - Antiwar.com Original

Aug 23, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

The Mini-Skirt Deception: How McMaster Got His Afghan 'Surge'

A photo of Soviet era Afghanistan won Trump over

by Justin Raimondo Posted on August 23, 2017 August 22, 2017 According to reports , Gen. H. R. McMaster convinced President Trump to give up his longstanding opposition to the Afghan war by showing him this photograph, below, of Afghan women in what the media are describing as "miniskirts." As the Washington Post put it:

"One of the ways McMaster tried to persuade Trump to recommit to the effort was by convincing him that Afghanistan was not a hopeless place. He presented Trump with a black-and-white snapshot from 1972 of Afghan women in miniskirts walking through Kabul, to show him that Western norms had existed there before and could return."

The irony is that, in 1972, when this photo was taken on the grounds of Kabul University, Afghanistan was firmly in the orbit of the Soviet Union, as it had been since 1953, when Prime Minister Mohammed Daoud Khan rose to power and instituted a series of progressive reforms, including equal rights for women. The next year, Khan deposed King Mohammed Zahir Shah, and Soviet aid poured in, alongside the Red Army.

More irony: it was the United States, alongside Washington's then-ally Osama bin Laden, that overthrew the communist regime, and conducted a guerrilla war against the Afghan government and their Soviet sponsors. The last Soviet troops left in 1989 -- and there were no more miniskirts to be seen anywhere in Afghanistan.

Gen. McMaster knows all this: our President does not. Does McMaster think he can bring communism back to Afghanistan? I jest, but with serious intent. Because the commies attempted what our President has vowed not to do in Afghanistan: they sought to create a nation out of a collection of mountain-guarded valleys, isolated bastions untouched by time or the vaunted ambitions of their many would-be conquerors.

Here is Trump , trying to justify the prolongation of the longest war in our history:

"I am here to talk about tonight, that nearly 16 years after September 11 attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war without victory.

"Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in American history – 17 years. I share the American people's frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most importantly, lives trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations."

How to reconcile this abjuration of hubris with that photo of mini-skirted Afghan women? It can't be done, but then again Trump is all about contradictions:

"Shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia.

"My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts. But all my life, I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the oval office. In other words, when you are president of the United States."

Has such a confession of betrayal ever been uttered by a public figure? For years he told us Afghanistan was a waste of lives and treasure, and that we had to get out. And now he's flip-flopped because McMaster showed him a photo of Afghan women in mini-skirts! Oh, how easy it was – too easy!

"So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle," he claims. Really? Did he study it enough to realize that no one has ever conquered Afghanistan? Did he contemplate the storied history of that unforgiving land, which caused even Alexander the Great to turn back? Did he study the provenance and context of that photograph, in which Afghan women dared to show their knees?

Of course not!

"After many meetings over many months," Trump continued,

"[W]e held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America's core interests in Afghanistan.

"First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win."

What is the moral meaning of this? That lives wasted in a futile crusade must be matched by yet more sacrifices on the altar of the war god? We are told that Trump met with five enlisted soldiers before making his decision to go along with the generals' war plan: I'd like to know what they said. The White House won't tell us.

From this moral inversion Trump descends into an inversion of the facts:

"Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill, just as happened before September 11."

The 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned and directed from Hamburg, Germany , and right here in the United States – indeed, not too far from Mar-a-Lago -- not Afghanistan. This "safe haven" argument is so tattered and overused that it comes apart under the most cursory inspection. And what are we to make of someone who describes ending a 16-year war as "a hasty withdrawal"?

We are then treated to the myth of "victory denied in Iraq," which attributes the rise of ISIS to US withdrawal from Iraq – when it reality ISIS was created by our "ally" Saudi Arabia and the Arab sheikhs of the Gulf states who have funded and encouraged their co-co-religionists in the Sunni-versus-Shi'ite civil war that has sundered the Muslim world. And of course there would be no ISIS if not for the invasion of Iraq – but even Trump knows this quite well.

Drifting off into vague threats against Pakistan, Trump reiterates his determination to solve "big and intricate problems." But how? How will it be different, this time?

"As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South Asia will change dramatically in the following ways: A core pillar of our new strategy is a shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I've said it many times, how counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to begin or end military operations.

"We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America's enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out."

A child could see through this rodomontade. Because unless we intend to stay in Afghanistan forever, what is to prevent the Taliban from simply waiting us out? We have to leave sometime. So what is the purpose of this vow of silence? It is simply to keep the truth from the American people. We won't know how many troops are in Afghanistan, nor will we know when more are sent in: it's all to be conducted under the radar, so that Trump's voters – who took seriously his tirades against foreign wars – won't know the extent to which he has betrayed his mandate, and them.

The absurdities accumulate like refuse during a garbage strike:

"We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists." Yet Gen. McMaster, a disciple of Gen. David Petraeus and his " COINdistas ," are the original nation-builders – aside from the Soviets, that is, from whom they cadged their "strategy."

"We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately." No it won't. Remember when Sen. Rand Paul tried to end US aid to Pakistan? It didn't happen then and it won't happen now.

"As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us." So Afghanistan is going to pay for this war, just like Mexico is going to pay for the Great Wall of Texas! In your dreams, Mr. President.

"Our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check." The history of the past 16 years refutes this, as does the content of the President's peroration. Of course we're giving them a blank check: that's because the Afghan government only has such resources as we give to it. And since Trump is refusing to say when or even if we're leaving, then our commitment is indeed potentially unlimited. Does he imagine our Afghan puppets, who are happily stealing us blind, don't know this?

I can't bear to go on cataloging the lies, the contradictions, the flip-flops – it pains me to even think about it, much less write about it. The "America First" foreign policy Trump promised during the campaign is just a memory, and his baffled supporters are left to contemplate the most brazen betrayal in modern American political history.

Yet there are some benefits, here, for anti-interventionists to reap, which may not be readily apparent. Because Trump's supporters, who took seriously his anti-interventionist rhetoric, are now wondering what hit them. They had to go through this experience: betrayal can be enlightening. And we here at Antiwar.com are ready, willing, and able to enlighten them. That is, after all, what we're about.

On step forward, two steps back – this is how progress, however agonizingly slow, is made.

AN IMPORTANT NOTE TO MY READERS

Take heart: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Trump's brazen reversal on Afghanistan and the triumph of the generals is provoking a movement in the opposite direction – the anti-interventionist movement is growing and getting more visible. Many of Trump's supporters are in open rebellion , and we here at Antiwar.com are getting more visibility: check out this Washington Post piece which reads like it was taken from our front page.

We're making progress – but we can't do it without your help. We need your tax-deductible donations to keep Antiwar.com going. Donate today!

Read more by Justin Raimondo The Revolution Betrayed – August 20th, 2017 'Russia-gate' Hoax About To Be Exposed? – August 17th, 2017 Which Way for the Trump Administration? – August 15th, 2017 Don't Say We Didn't Warn You – August 13th, 2017 What Are We To Believe? – August 10th, 2017

[Aug 23, 2017] Good Riddance to Steve Bannon by Karl Rove

The fact that Karl rove is allowed to write for WSJ makes WSJ a yellow publication...
Aug 23, 2017 | www.wsj.com

The country is better off with him out of the West Wing, but now Trump has to step up.

After departing his post as White House chief strategist last week, Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard that "the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." The clear suggestion is that Mr. Trump's chance at success had followed Mr. Bannon out the door.

Trying to recast his ouster as a personal choice, Mr. Bannon bragged "I can fight better on the outside." He promised "to crush the opposition," saying "I built a f! machine at Breitbart."

The former adviser also told a Bloomberg reporter he would be "going to war for Trump against his opponents!on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America."...

[Aug 23, 2017] Amerika got where it is today by being a fork tongued double dealer whose words aren't worth the paper

Notable quotes:
"... With many of the asset purchases by China based corporations there is absolutely no intention of selling them or otherwise letting go of them ever again. As I learned this is per se no bad thing, but it could be if say, too much of a nation was owned by foreigners who will never relinquish those properties. ..."
"... Most Chinese certainly China's leaders have no intention of changing their outlook one iota, but that doesn't mean they want non-Chinese to alter and adopt their values. If Xi Jinping bothered to consider that he would most likely decide he preferred Trump and the rest of the Americans to remain exactly as they are because the adulation of material gain, arrogance and inability to lie straight in bed makes people's behaviour very predictable. ..."
"... I disagree with those who think that China has been duped - there's simply no evidence that China is that gullible. One century of humiliation was enough to learn how the western world works. ..."
"... As Debsisdead points out, "Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may not be actioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered and impregnable." ..."
"... We keep talking about hybrid warfare, and noting the west with its color revolutions and its increasingly visible lies, but have we learned yet how to detect asymmetrical responses from the multi-polar world? Especially since it's at least possible that they will occur almost invisibly? ..."
"... No. China does not believe anything the US says in public or even in private to them. 80% of Earth ppl know the US can't be trusted, it does not do deals, even private individuals who shake hands and the like, ever (they back out, my country orders..) ..."
"... All is calculation on where it might be advantageous to seem to 'submit' or 'shut up' or conversely 'complain' and make a fuss (to the UN, WTO, the US itself ) China and Russia don't want to take on the US militarily for now (except in low level proxy wars with a positive calculated outcome, see Syria), so all this stuff is just par for the course, it is expected, it is tit for tat shadow play that on the part of the weaker groups is thought out cynically. ..."
"... Trump maybe doesn't quite know what he is doing, in the sense of measuring, anticipating the results, as he is being manipulated. That is one view. Others can be put forward. ..."
"... Backdoors created for NSA/CIA can be exploited by others too, which makes all Outlaw US military electronic systems vulnerable. I recall a video presentation by Nasrallah showing the video Hezbollah intercepted from Zionist drones scouting the ground for its assassination of Hariri--evidence for Hezbollah's defense in the affair that nobody thought they'd be capable of obtaining that demolished the Zionist/Outlaw US Empire framing of Hezbollah for that murder. ..."
"... My bet is that the Generals have taken complete charge. ..."
"... An Asymmetric war will not do for the overlords (or generals?). The "Cyber" and other parts are to control dissidents in the EU and US. Both Russai and China will be aware of this as it is not the first time that either of them has been targeted by the US-UK. ..."
"... Adopting the NATO sanctions against NK must have fit the Chinese game plan. Chinese are not that stupid. ..."
"... There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time. China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands. ..."
"... After Iran's experience with US "lifting of sanctions", should anyone ever trust USA at all? ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Debsisdead | Aug 23, 2017 2:25:35 AM | 38

I'm with everyone who has already noted that amerika got where it is today by being a fork tongued double dealer whose words aren't worth the paper I wipe my arse with.
There isn't a single agreement reached between US authorities and any other entity since the days of treaties with the indigenous owners of the land amerika continues to purloin that amerika hasn't breached in either the letter or the spirit, usually both.

On the other hand China isn't Iran, not only are they well aware of amerikan perfidy they are in a position to counter it.

The fact they haven't done so yet merely indicates their preference for a square up which doesn't cost China or any of its citizens. This is a culture which always plays the long game no matter how long - witness their bemusement at amerikan commercial interests bitching about listed Chinese corporations not meeting Wall St imposed quarterly 'targets'.
When I lived in Northern Australia I had a landlord for several years who never increased my rent - this in a market where property prices were shooting up thanks to the usual worthless asset appreciation that too many consider a wealth generator. When I asked my landlord who was a third generation Australian the great grandson of gold miners who arrived from Shanghai towards the end of the 19th century he said "You are paying me $25 a week correct?" I replied yes, to which he responded "Well your week's rent is considerably more than my grandfather paid for it, $25 was a fair price when we shook hands and so that is what the rent will remain at unless you move out - a deal is a deal. I'm happy if you are"

That is what happened after I did move out the building which was little more than a big corrugated iron shed was pushed over and my former landlord put an office block in its stead. On the fringes of Darwin's CBD when I moved in by the time I left the property was most def 'down town'. The family will never sell it because for them it will always be a part of the family morphology. The original settler would never have been able much less permitted to buy land in 1880's China but he innately knew exactly how it related to his family once he bought land somewhere else.

This is something that few if any of the media or business outside China fully comprehend, an assumption has been made that Chinese, just as likely they imagine of all non-western peoples, are morphing into western commercial mindsets.

We see this all the time when those nations who have a bureaucratic mechanism for scrutinizing foreign asset purchases decide at least in part on the basis that the property will eventually change hands again.

With many of the asset purchases by China based corporations there is absolutely no intention of selling them or otherwise letting go of them ever again. As I learned this is per se no bad thing, but it could be if say, too much of a nation was owned by foreigners who will never relinquish those properties.

I was initially positive about Chinese investors outbidding engander, Oz, amerikan and european buyers for big chunks of Aotearoa but now I am less positive because denying locals the opportunity to buy in their own country seems to me to be a recipe for eventual conflict.

Trump may 'get away' with his deceit, but America will not. Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may not be auctioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered and impregnable.

Most Chinese certainly China's leaders have no intention of changing their outlook one iota, but that doesn't mean they want non-Chinese to alter and adopt their values. If Xi Jinping bothered to consider that he would most likely decide he preferred Trump and the rest of the Americans to remain exactly as they are because the adulation of material gain, arrogance and inability to lie straight in bed makes people's behaviour very predictable.

jezabeel | Aug 23, 2017 3:34:56 AM | 39
No. Rookie fucking error by the Chinese. Take one look at the record of the US keeping its word on anything. They deserve to be done over.
Arioch | Aug 23, 2017 4:16:16 AM | 40
DoubleThink concept was coined by UK BBC propagandist.

I had a dispute with allegedly UK citizen, who at THE SAME time demanded me to agree that

1) there was no NATO promise to avoid expanding East, as there is no signed paper document today on it, and personal speaks are merely speaks.

2) there is no threat to Russia from, and hence Russia acts unreasonably demanding legally-binding documents to, those "anti-Iranian" missile stations in Europe, because "everyone told you so".

And he did pursue both lanes in the SAME argument.

-----------

Now, while i admit that US and UK are different states for long, some habits seem to die hard

-----------

They also say, Iran was promised US do not care about their invasion in Kuwait, and they also say in 19114 German kanzler was promised UK King would not do a thing about European(read: Continental) war.

paulmeli | Aug 23, 2017 7:59:17 AM | 42
"would china PLEASE pull the plug on USA and call in its debt?!"

Central banks still funding government deficits and the sky remains firmly above

Ragheb | Aug 23, 2017 8:26:01 AM | 43
US warmonging will not end until and unless military suffers heavy casualties in a war of choice or the buck goes down for the count.
somebody | Aug 23, 2017 9:27:23 AM | 44
40

Gorbachev did not care about any written statement as he assumed the cold war to be over and envisioned a common European-Russian zone from "Wladivostock to Lisbon".

"The West" assumed the same but interpreted it as taking over Russia (integrating it in the Western system) as Russia "had lost the cold war".

The West then lost the peace by their best and brightest causing a severe economic and humanitarian crisis in Russia which led to the rise of Putin and Russia realizing that they had to defend themselves.

Steinmeier just held a speech in Estonia accusing Russia of "thinking in terms of zones of influence" and geopolitics whilst disrespecting the free will of people. The speech was very coded but ended with Germany never again fighting against Russia in "blind enemity" whilst saying before that Germany would never again do something like the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Usually what you say in the end sticks in people's mind.

The way Victoria Nuland operated (and the EU/Steinmeier followed) showed Russia is not alone in geopolitical thinking never mind the free will of people and their elected representatives.

Same party as Steinmeier, Martin Schulz now campaigns with the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Germany.

Let's see how this plays out.

okie farmer | Aug 23, 2017 10:10:20 AM | 45
Global Empire - A Conversation With Edward Said
https://youtu.be/YvR3qeroQ2M
Mina | Aug 23, 2017 10:28:34 AM | 46
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-41023264
Ksa is fine but not Egypt?
Grieved | Aug 23, 2017 10:52:33 AM | 47
I agree with the voices here saying that China understands exactly what is going on. Especially thanks to Debsisdead @ 38 for the wonderful cultural insights.

I disagree with those who think that China has been duped - there's simply no evidence that China is that gullible. One century of humiliation was enough to learn how the western world works.

@41 lysias - "The McCain apparently experienced a mysterious steering failure before the collision."

I too wonder if the US Navy is experiencing asymmetrical responses from either Russia or China or both. I greatly want to know more about all this. Joaquin Flores had a speculative piece at Fort Russ the other day, making the point that the Navy's call to halt all operations worldwide seems completely disproportionate to the apparent causes. Pun intended, what's really going on below the waterline?

As Debsisdead points out, "Whatever China eventually does to counter these deceits may not be actioned for decades, but when it is implemented it will be apposite, well considered and impregnable."

We keep talking about hybrid warfare, and noting the west with its color revolutions and its increasingly visible lies, but have we learned yet how to detect asymmetrical responses from the multi-polar world? Especially since it's at least possible that they will occur almost invisibly?

Noirette | Aug 23, 2017 11:28:15 AM | 48
China deserved what they got since they were dumb enough to believe ANYHING the US. .. New Yorker at 10.

1) No. China does not believe anything the US says in public or even in private to them. 80% of Earth ppl know the US can't be trusted, it does not do deals, even private individuals who shake hands and the like, ever (they back out, my country orders..)

Are the Chinese, Gvmt., industry, military, to be considered out of that loop?

2) All is calculation on where it might be advantageous to seem to 'submit' or 'shut up' or conversely 'complain' and make a fuss (to the UN, WTO, the US itself ) China and Russia don't want to take on the US militarily for now (except in low level proxy wars with a positive calculated outcome, see Syria), so all this stuff is just par for the course, it is expected, it is tit for tat shadow play that on the part of the weaker groups is thought out cynically.

3) Trump maybe doesn't quite know what he is doing, in the sense of measuring, anticipating the results, as he is being manipulated. That is one view. Others can be put forward.

karlof1 | Aug 23, 2017 11:36:46 AM | 49
Grieved @47--

If fly-by-wire control systems can be hacked and captured on airplanes, then the same can happen to any such system regardless of what it's guiding; and there've been hints at this being done by the Multipolar Alliance. Recall Iran's capturing one of the Outlaw US Empires most sophisticated drones several years ago then reverse engineering its own version.

Lots of evidence cruise missiles went awry thanks to EW. Then there were several reports of Outlaw US Navy vessels having their systems completely shutdown via Russian EW. I imagine PavewayIV has a good recap of these incidents.

Backdoors created for NSA/CIA can be exploited by others too, which makes all Outlaw US military electronic systems vulnerable. I recall a video presentation by Nasrallah showing the video Hezbollah intercepted from Zionist drones scouting the ground for its assassination of Hariri--evidence for Hezbollah's defense in the affair that nobody thought they'd be capable of obtaining that demolished the Zionist/Outlaw US Empire framing of Hezbollah for that murder.

Detecting asymmetrical responses will be difficult since the Multipolar Alliance will be reluctant to announce such an action, while the Unipolar Hegemon will also be reluctant since it won't want the other side to learn how effective its actions are. Imagine if North Korea has the capability to redirect B-1 and B-2 bombers by taking control of their fly-by-wire systems; would you expect North Korea to announce such capability or reserve it for use?

karlof1 | Aug 23, 2017 12:08:27 PM | 50
Pepe Escobar weighs-in yet again on the "two never-ending wars with no visible benefits" in Korea and Afghanistan, http://www.atimes.com/article/korea-afghanistan-never-ending-war-trap/
Brad | Aug 23, 2017 12:15:04 PM | 51
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/us-china-trade-war-brewing-trade-deficit-sticks-at-25-billion-dollars.html

US want China to exit production economy and become Debt consumer Economy. US can play that stock market/futures with print money out of thin air. If Rothschilds want China to become US debt model,...it probably happens,
Or....Chinese get RIP of Rothschilds

james | Aug 23, 2017 12:18:30 PM | 52
@38 debsisdead ...

thanks for your personal insights debs.. it is interesting to me as i have lived in the vancouver area for most of my life.. the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation chinese seem so different then the new arrivals from hong kong..

I would like to agree with your view, but this new generation primarily from hong kong, seem to have a very different mind set.. either way - thanks for sharing..

anonymous | Aug 23, 2017 12:46:42 PM | 53
@40

If you're ever confronted by any more British apologists on the issue of NATO missile systems in Poland and Romania, mention the United States could only have set up the systems by unilaterally withdrawing American signatures from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, a decade BEFORE the European Union and Ukraine 'started talks' on framing, signing, and ratifying the EU Association Agreement (violating Article Six of the Russian-Ukrainian Friendship Treaty of 1997, which required Russian foreknowledge and participation in any frameworks or any agreements Ukraine had with 'a third party') that partitioned public opinion in Ukraine and precipitated the civil war.

@44

While transcripts of the NATO-Soviet peace talks throughout 1990 haven't been released, the U.S. Secretary of State and the West German Foreign Minister literally layed out a post-war framework (the Nine Assurances in May; the London Declaration in July) publicly (it was reported in mainstream German and American media) at the end of these respective conferences BEFORE the Two Plus Four Agreement was reached.

It envisioned the 'reform' of NATO in the framework of the CSCE (now OSCE) or the replacement of NATO by the CSCE, the ratifying of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (building on other 'arms reduction measures by treaty' needed to permanently demilitarize Europe), and the invitation of the original nine Soviet Republics to NATO Summits to accept NATO Membership BEFORE post-Soviet Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Caucasus were invited to accept membership.

The framework ('collective security') was explicitly what the Soviet Politburo had been trying to achieve since the Soviet Foreign Ministry requested the British Foreign Ministry (through public conferences) and the Polish Foreign Ministry (through secret telegrams) to sign mutual security treaties in early and mid August of 1939 (which was rejected consistently by Britain and Poland).

The Soviet Politburo was quick to end the war because it seemed the 'long strategy' had worked, not because of Soviet indifference to formality. I think it was widely understood by any European (worker or statesmen) the United States would never substantially compromise to the discipline of formality, however, the Soviet Union preferred the risk and not diplomatic stagnation.

Side note:

While I personally dislike involving a notorious personality in a social or political history, I think it's interesting to speculate what would've happened if it was Chernenko who lived and Gorbachev who died in 1985. He was a militarist, but never seemed committed to decentralizing the Soviet economy and compromising so easily to the United States.

stonebird | Aug 23, 2017 1:28:15 PM | 54
Part of b's headline; "Trump cheats...." may be wrong. Does Trump control anything at all any more?

Not only the NK sanctions, but a corresponding increase in troop levels in Afghanistan, (including "unknown helicopters" ferrying militants in Mazar-i-Sharif, from the Afghan base of the 209 Afgh Nat Army corps in NATO controlled airspace, for a massacre of Hazara Shias in Sar-e-Pol province), the increase of US servicemen training Ukrainian snipers on the Donbass frontline and a reported blocking of a (small) Russian Bank from the SWIFT network, - all suggest that the military have totally taken over command in the US.

That they have decided to push everyone around as far as possible. This change in policy is since Trump "lost" his powers to Congress by massive one sided voting, and the introduction of the "new" all encompassing anti-Russian and Chinese sanctions.

I may be wrong about WHO is in control (add your own here...), but it seems fairly clear that the "Americans" (people) have been reduced to potential cannon-fodder.

My bet is that the Generals have taken complete charge.

-----

Unfortunately this is not a uniquely US phenomena. Examples in France go back to 1875 with the "Anarchists" (actually FOR worker's rights at the beginning), The "commune de Paris, (US CHicago riots) where other normal people didn't want the "status-quo" of overlord-underling to continue. Usually the movement was treated as a proto-terrorist threat, all the MSM of the time condemning the leaders - and the whole thing finishing in a blood-bath with troops firing on dissenters -- WWI was another "overlord organised restucturation" by the military).

Not really OT - but I am just trying to show that the new situation has antecedents throughout history, and if I am correct the next stage will be to cross several frontiers (by NATO or US) "accidentally" to provoke a reaction. ie NK is another.

An Asymmetric war will not do for the overlords (or generals?). The "Cyber" and other parts are to control dissidents in the EU and US. Both Russai and China will be aware of this as it is not the first time that either of them has been targeted by the US-UK.

I hope this post is not too OT!

fast freddy | Aug 23, 2017 4:47:40 PM | 55
Adopting the NATO sanctions against NK must have fit the Chinese game plan. Chinese are not that stupid.

It should be considered that official sanctions naturally encourage, promote and serve the black markets - the Mafia, Cartels, etc. The underground economy will surely not obey sanctions. It should also be noted that certain official bodies will turn a blind eye and allow certain other bodies to engage in trade, etc.

Note how the CyA brings in drugs to Mena Arkansas, for one example. And the cya plane crash in Central America - loaded to the gills.

Canthama | Aug 23, 2017 5:31:30 PM | 56
There is no naive China, Russia or whatever, all Nations understand that the US regime is not reliable nor trustworthy, the game most of the Nations continue to play is the game to buy time, any war with the US regime can be hard at the moment, but not in few years time. China knows is and will play the patience game til the end, Russia does the same, expect for few "no go" like Syria and the south China sea islands.
Alexander Grimsmo | Aug 23, 2017 7:01:10 PM | 57
After Iran's experience with US "lifting of sanctions", should anyone ever trust USA at all?
karlof1 | Aug 23, 2017 7:27:31 PM | 58
Canthama @56--

Nice to see you commenting here! Agreed that China and Russia understand but still seek dialog since that's the essence of "the patience game." But I wonder about those running Brazil; we don't discuss that much at SyrPers. Then there's India's Modi and the cadre of Hindu Neoliberals who seem to want to have their own game instead of teaming with China and Russia for a Win/Win partnership rather than the dying Zero-Sumism of the Neoliberalcons. And thanks again for all the effort you devote to SyrPers; it's quite remarkable!

[Aug 23, 2017] How the Brass Talked Another President Into a Losing Strategy The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... The Military Times ..."
"... Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan ..."
"... The American Conservative ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
Aug 23, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
How the Brass Talked Another President Into a Losing Strategy Despite tough talk, Trump approach on Afghanistan is no different than 2009. By Mark Perry August 22, 2017

President Donald Trump walks with U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Michael Howard, commander of Joint Force Headquarters, at Arlington National Cemetery, May 29, 2017. Behind them are Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and U.S. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Flickr/CreativeCommons/DOD photo by U.S. Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brigitte N. Brantley)

The American people don't like long wars with uncertain outcomes!and never have. That was true in 1953, when the U.S. accepted a stalemate and armistice with the Chinese-backed North Koreans, and it was true again in 1975, when the U.S. suffered an ignominious defeat and 58,000 dead at the hands of pajama-clad guerrillas and the North Vietnamese army. "Never fight a land war in Asia," General Douglas MacArthur famously said, and for good reason: in both Korea and Vietnam, the enemy could be endlessly supplied and reinforced.

The solution, in both cases, was to either widen the war or leave. In Korea, MacArthur proposed expanding the war by taking on Chinese military sanctuaries in China (which got him fired), while in Vietnam, Richard Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia and mined North Vietnam's harbors, an expansion of the war that sparked a genocide and merely postponed the inevitable. America's adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have been as unsatisfying. A troop surge retrieved America's position in Iraq, though most military officers now view Baghdad as "a suburb of Tehran" (as a currently serving Army officer phrased it), while the U.S. has spent over $800 billion on a Kabul government whose writ extends to sixty percent of the country!or less.

Given this, it's not surprising that opinion surveys showed that the majority of the U.S. military supported Donald Trump in the last election; Trump promised a rethink of America's Iraq and Afghanistan's adventures, while Clinton was derided as an interventionist, or in Pentagon parlance, "cruise missile liberal." Trump had the edge over his opponent among both military voters and veterans, especially when it came to ISIS: "I would bomb the shit out of them" he said, a statement translated in the military community as "I would bomb the shit out of them!and get out." A headline in The Military Times two months before the election said it all: "After 15 years of war, America's military has about had it with 'nation building.'"

As it turned out, the military weren't the only ones who'd "had it with nation building"!so too did Donald Trump. Back in January 2013, two years before he was a candidate for president, Trump made it clear what he would do if he ever occupied the White House. "Let's get out of Afghanistan," he tweeted. "Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA." Three days later, Trump was even more outspoken, explicitly endorsing Barack Obama's Afghanistan strategy!which amounted to a troops surge, followed by a troop drawdown. "I agree with Pres. Obama on Afghanistan," he wrote. "We should have a speedy withdrawal. Why should we keep wasting our money – rebuild the U.S.!"

Now, after addressing the American people Monday on his "new strategy in South Asia" (a purposeful trope used to signal his intention to shape a broader, regional policy), Trump appears to have embraced the military's anti-nation building sentiments, while adopting a policy of "winning," though without saying exactly how that would happen. The policy! which also includes not saying how many troops "winning" will take, or setting a timetable for victory!includes a pledge of help from America's allies, and a new focus on Pakistan. Trump was also intent to signal that his new strategy (the war will be left in the hands of warfighters, he announced, and not "micro-managed from Washington") is much different than the one adopted by his predecessors who, as he all but said, got it wrong.

In fact, though he would almost certainly deny it, what Trump has proposed is a reprise of what Barack Obama did in January of 2009.

Back then, one of Obama's first decisions on Afghanistan was to assign Bruce Riedel, a 30-year CIA veteran and South Asia expert, to study the conflict and come up with ways to fight it. The following March, on Air Force One, Riedel briefed Obama on his conclusions. Afghanistan would be a big problem for a long time, he said, but the situation in the country was getting worse. The Kabul government was corrupt, its leaders were out-of-touch with the Afghan people and the Taliban and al-Qaeda were gaining strength. But even with that, Riedel added, the real problem wasn't really Afghanistan, it was Pakistan. "That's the real challenge," Riedel said.

Obama agreed with Riedel's sobering assessment and, on March 27, 2009, he announced his decision to the American people. "The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor Pakistan," Obama said in a nationally televised address. "In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al-Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier." Put more simply (though Obama did not mention it), the same problem that the U.S. had faced in Korea, and again in Vietnam and Iraq!its failure to destroy the sanctuaries where its enemies could be reinforced and resupplied!it was now facing in Afghanistan. To deal with that problem, Obama appointed super-diplomat Richard Holbrooke to serve as a special envoy to the region (and to work with Centcom commander David Petraeus "to integrate our civilian and military efforts"), launched a drone war against Taliban and al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan, urged Congress to pass a $1.5 billion aid package to Pakistan that would make American strikes more palatable and then, the following May, replaced General David McKiernan, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, with Stanley McChrystal.

It didn't work.

In 2012, reporter and author Rajiv Chandrasekaran (whose book Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan remains the authoritative source on the Obama plan) concluded that while the Taliban was "pushed out of large stretches of southern Afghanistan," and the "influx of U.S. resources accelerated the development of the Afghan security forces" the surge did not achieve its objectives . In effect, the Obama administration threw good money after bad: Afghan president Hamid Karzai never bought into the strategy, the Pakistanis failed to "meaningfully pursue" the Taliban and the Afghan army hung back!allowing the U.S. to do the fighting. What the U.S. should have done, Chandrasekaran wrote, was "go long." Afghanistan is not a sprint, he concluded, but a marathon!and America "got winded too quickly."

James Mattis and H.R. McMaster have digested these lessons, a senior Pentagon official told me just hours before Trump's national address, and "have spent the last weeks trying to convince the president that the 'three yards and a cloud of dust' approach," as he termed it, will work. Roughly translated, what that means is that in adopting a more modest increase in American troops, as McMaster and Mattis told Trump, the president would be signaling that while the U.S. was willing to help the Afghan government fight the Taliban, the numbers would not be significant enough to defeat them!that would have to be done by the Afghan Army. In truth, the McMaster-Mattis approach (what one senior Pentagon officer described as "doubling down on a war that is going nowhere") has some support in the U.S. diplomatic community, and particularly among those civilians who have spent years working in the country.

Among these is David Sedney, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who is the former acting president of the American University of Afghanistan and served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. For Sedney, it's the uncertainty of the American commitment that has been the problem. "We've been ambivalent about Afghanistan for the last fifteen years," he told The American Conservative , "and this has given hope to the Taliban and Pakistan. The message that they've taken is that all they need do is wait the U.S. out. Bush focused on Iraq and Obama put in troops caps." One of the keys, Sedney goes on to say, is that the U.S. "has failed to strengthen the Afghan state in fundamental ways, but the most important is to make a commitment and keep it. That's the key."

Sedney also has little use for the views retailed inside the White House by outside experts, like Frontier Services Group president Eric Prince, who advised the administration (in a Wall Street Journal op-ed back in May, and then in a personal meeting with McMaster) to increase the number of contractors in the country, thereby allowing for a drawdown in U.S. troops while also, as Prince argued, saving the U.S. money. While some Pentagon officials speculated as late as last week that secretary Mattis "was not as opposed to the Prince's ideas as was originally thought," more recent reports say that the idea "was dead on arrival in the Pentagon, almost from the minute it was mentioned." Sedney dismisses the idea out of hand, citing his experience with his students in Kabul. "My students don't want an American proconsul," he says, "they want an Afghan government that knows how to do the job, and that should be our focus."

But while Trump has apparently nixed Prince's contractor idea (and it went unmentioned in his speech), Pentagon officials tell The American Conservative that he has quietly bought into claims that the U.S. can help revive the Afghan economy by exploiting the nation's mineral resources. While Trump did not mention the program in his speech, and the claim remains debated in the White House, the president (a senior Pentagon civilian told TAC) "is intent to explore ways for this war to pay for itself"!which apparently includes a review of whether Afghanistan's resources can be exploited sufficiently to put the Afghan government on a sound footing. Will it work?

"This was a good idea back in 2009," one former Pentagon official says, "but it's not going to work now." A geologic survey conducted a decade ago shows that Afghanistan is rich in deposits of gold, silver, and platinum, as well as large quantities of uranium, zinc, bauxite, coal, natural gas and copper! a mother lode of natural resources that could proved Kabul with a badly needed budgetary windfall .

"It's a pig in a poke," a former Pentagon official who worked in Afghanistan on identifying the deposits told The American Conservative , "don't believe a word of it." The archaic "pig in a poke" phrase, which denotes that a buyer should beware of buying a pig that couldn't be seen (because it was in a "poke," or bag), denotes the common belief that while Afghanistan may contain the mineral deposits numerous mining surveys have identified, they remain elusive. Then too, as the former Pentagon official with whom we spoke says, the idea that American companies will realize a windfall on the mineral scheme (to which, as a businessman, Trump is particularly attracted), is simply not in reach.

"American companies no longer do the kind of mining that it would take," this former Pentagon official says, "security is bad, and commodity prices have collapsed. Why would companies invest in mineral deposits in Afghanistan when they won't make the same investments in Australia." Which is to simply say that the Afghanistan problem is now, under Trump, what it was under George W. Bush and Barack Obama!an intransigent challenge whose resolution is dependent on fighting and winning a war against an enemy who can fight, retreat, resupply and reinforce and fight again. The key to that victory is now what it has always been: Pakistan. Trump, and McMaster and Mattis, realize this of course, which is why tonight the president focused on providing a strategy for "South Asia"!a phrase the defense secretary, in particular, has used over the last weeks.

"I have hope for Afghanistan," CSIS's Sedney says. "The Afghan military is fighting better than ever before. When I went to Kabul in 2002, Kabul looked like Dresden, but now it's a vibrant city. Yes, the Taliban can kill people, but most Afghanis are moving ahead with their lives in spite of this. The problem is that, as we've seen over the last decade, a small minority can keep the country destabilized. That's what we have to stop. We have to come up with a way of stopping that."

In the wake of Trump's address, credit for its opening paean was given to new White House chief of staff John Kelly, the retired Marine Corps general who, TAC was told, insisted that Trump use the speech to walk back the controversy of his remarks on Charlottesville!a suggestion that both McMaster and Mattis readily agreed to when Trump's national security team met on Friday at Camp David. In the end, however, it was McMaster and Mattis who had the greatest influence on Trump's thinking. "There was all this speculation that maybe, just maybe, the president would somehow come around to getting out," the senior Pentagon civilian with whom we spoke said, "but that was never going to happen. Jim Mattis wouldn't let it happen. You can see his fingerprints all over this."

Another Pentagon observer had a much different take. "This is Joe Biden's plan, all the way," he said, referring to the then-Vice President's recommendation to Obama back in 2009. "Biden said that we should increase counterterrorism operations, draw down U.S. forces in the provinces, increase pressure on Pakistan and make a deal with India. Obama said 'no' to the idea, but you can bet Mattis was listening. This is his plan all the way."

Almost everyone at the Pentagon agrees, though key senior military officers who have been privy to James Mattis's thinking over the last weeks (but who remain unconvinced by it) provide a cautionary, and nearly fatalistic, note. "This Trump plan, at least so far as I understand it, sounds a lot like the kind of plan we've come up with again and again since the end of World War Two," a senior Pentagon officer says. "We're going to surge troops, reform the government we support and put pressure on our allies. In this building [the Pentagon] there's a hell of a lot of skepticism. And that's because we all know what this new strategy really means – and what it means that the only way we can get out of Afghanistan is to get further in. You know, it seems to me that if there's one thing we've learned, it's that that doesn't work."

Mark Perry is a foreign policy analyst and the author of The Most Dangerous Man in America: The Making of Douglas MacArthur . His next book, The Pentagon's Wars , will be released in October. He tweets @markperrydc

[Aug 22, 2017] Hawks Soaring After Bannons Departure by Michael Crowley

Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster. ..."
"... More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria. ..."
"... Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin. I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual power. ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

His exit is a win for backers of a more traditional -- and interventionist -- U.S. foreign policy.

Stephen Bannon may have been a political adviser to President Donald Trump, but his firing Friday could have an impact on U.S. foreign policy from Europe to the Middle East and Asia. Bannon's exit clears an obstacle for backers of an active U.S. foreign policy in line with recent presidencies -- and is a resounding win for Bannon's internal rival, national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

Bannon was a regular participant in national security debates, often as an opponent of military action and a harsh critic of international bodies like the United Nations and the European Union.

He has also been a withering critic of diplomatic, military and intelligence professionals -- "globalists" he says have repeatedly shown bad judgment, particularly when it comes to U.S. military interventions abroad. That put him at loggerheads with Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, as well as McMaster.

"If you look at the balance of power of isolationists versus internationalists in the White House now, it seems safe to say that the pendulum has swung towards the internationalists," said Danielle Pletka, senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Though Bannon has not described himself as an "isolationist," he has proudly adopted Trump's "America First" motto, which he says argues for spending less blood and treasure overseas for anything less than America's most vital interests.

He has also alarmed European leaders with his criticism of the E.U. and his expressed support for some European nationalist movements. Bannon actively backed Great Britain's 2016 "Brexit" from the E.U. and introduced Trump to its chief political advocate, the populist British politician Nigel Farage.

"Our European allies are happy about Bannon's departure," said Jorge Benitez, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council.

In the immediate term, foreign policy insiders agreed, Bannon's departure also could increase the chances of a U.S. troop increase in Afghanistan -- a plan championed by McMaster but strongly opposed by Bannon, who managed to draw out debate on the issue with direct appeals to Trump.

More generally, it will remove an internal brake on U.S. military action abroad. Bannon has argued greater U.S. intervention in Iraq and Syria and was among the few White House officials to oppose President Donald Trump's early-April missile strike in Syria.

Bannon is not totally conflict averse: He calls for a far stronger U.S. posture against China and has warned that war with Beijing could be inevitable. But he pressed Trump to take economic, not military action against Beijing.

And on Wednesday, Bannon told the American Prospect magazine that there is "no military solution" to Trump's standoff with North Korea -- undermining the president's recent military threats against that country, and echoing China's view of the situation.

Beyond the policy realm, Bannon's exit is a clear victory for national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who at times seemed to be in zero-sum struggle with the Trump adviser for power and influence in the White House.

Foreign policy veterans were startled when, in early February, Trump designated Bannon as a member of the National Security Council's elite principals committee -- calling it unprecedented for a White House political adviser to have a reserved seat at the table for life-and-death debates.

McMaster stripped Bannon of his official NSC position in April, after succeeding the ousted Michael Flynn -- a Bannon ally -- as national security adviser. Bannon continued to attend NSC meetings and debates about foreign policy in the Oval Office. But Bannon resented McMaster for demoting him, and for purging several Flynn allies from the NSC.

Bannon and McMaster also sharply differed on how Trump should discuss terrorist groups like ISIS and al Qaeda. Bannon favors using the phrase "radical Islamic extremism," but McMaster has largely prevented Trump from saying it in public on the grounds that it could alienate moderate Muslims who hear it as an attack on their religion.

McMaster's defenders have accused Bannon of spearheading a campaign of leaks meant to undermine the top national security aide.

"The campaign to get him out was clearly coming from Bannon or his allies," said Brian McKeon, a former NSC chief of staff and senior Pentagon policy official in the Obama administration. "The national security adviser's job is hard enough without having to always look over your shoulder to see who's trying to knife you.

"This will make McMaster's days a little easier," he added.

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Your Free Daily Newsletter You can't buy your way onto these pages

Likely to share McMaster's satisfaction at Bannon's ouster is Tillerson, who chafed at Bannon's role in State Department personnel decisions. Speaking to the American Prospect this week, Bannon boasted that he was working to remove Tillerson's top official for China and East Asia.

"I'm getting Susan Thornton out at State," Bannon said in the interview.

In a pointed show of support the next morning, Tillerson shook Thornton's hand in front of television cameras.

And when Tillerson recommended in February that Trump nominate former Reagan and George W. Bush administration official Elliott Abrams to be his deputy, Bannon intervened to block the choice, according to Abrams.

"Bannon's departure probably means a return to normalcy, where the State and Defense Departments will have greater influence on foreign policy," Abrams said.

Bannon also told the Prospect that he was "changing out people" on the Pentagon's China desk. Mattis, too, has had personnel disputes with the White House.

"Anything that Tillerson and Mattis really push for will now have a better chance of winning out -- for better and for worse," Abrams added.

Abrams and others said that Bannon's exit makes it more likely that McMaster and Mattis will convince Trump to send more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the subject of a meeting among Trump and his national security team at Camp David today.

Some sources downplayed the significance of Bannon's departure, however -- noting that, on military and diplomatic issues, Bannon was more dissenter than policy maker.

Ben Rhodes, a former top national security aide to former President Barack Obama, said Bannon's main contributions was his backing for Trump's early executive orders restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. Bannon was also a defender of his friend and ally Sebastian Gorka, a controversial White House adviser who often appears on television.

"On national security, it was hard to see Bannon's influence anywhere other than the Muslim ban and Gorka doing cable hits, so I don't think it changes that much," Rhodes said, adding: "It does suggest a greater likelihood of a troop increase in Afghanistan."

And several sources cautioned that while Bannon may not longer occupy the White House, his worldview is still frequently reflected in the words of the most powerful policymaker of all: President Trump.

European allies "will not be popping champagne corks because their main source of worry remains in the White House, Donald Trump," Benitez said. "Most Europeans blame Trump personally rather than Bannon or other subordinates for damaging transatlantic relations."

"The president gets the last vote," McKeon added. "And he has a different approach to foreign policy than all his predecessors."

Eliana Johnson contributed reporting

===

Click Here To Support Information Clearing House

Felix · 7 hours ago

As long as there is disagreement there is hope for compromise and moderation. If everyone in the Executive branch were in agreement, there would be no hope for moderation..
DrS · 6 hours ago
Our 'dear' leaders are NOT in control. North Korea ia a distraction as is Trump. Examine the military buildup by Nsto against Russia. Time for Germany, Russia and China to work together militarily for harmony/peace in our world.
andrewboston · 4 hours ago
God help us when Bannon is the voice of reason ......
Bill Malcolm · 4 hours ago
330 million people and a bunch of nutbars in charge of the place, very few of whom have ever had a vote cast for them in any election, Trump being the exception. Some guy like Bannon sits around formulating a wanker worldview and somehow gains power for seven months. I don't suppose the EU gives a tinker's damn that he dislikes it, it's none of his business. Fulminating on it just exposes his acceptance of Imperial America, muttering threats because in his blinkered mind that's not the way the US would have organized Europe - I am unaware that anyone with a brain regards Bannon as an intellectual, merely a weirdo. Then you have all these generals running around thinking they're political geniuses or something, all unelected bozos with little exposure to real life. Giving and taking orders and salutes all around, living a regimented life - just the thing for running the civilian part of the USA.

Why is it that in the US you vote for dogcatchers, sheriffs and judges which no other country bothers with, yet all these high cabinet posts are filled from unelected dorks out there who somehow got noticed, picked by the president, nominated and agreed to by the Senate? The argument has been, well because they're specialists. So what - they're not responsible to the electorate in any direct manner. There's a fat chance that they are managerial competents if they are from the military, a big chance they have developed some warped theory about the world, and few of them are in the slightest bit interested in domestic politics as it relates to the average citizen. 50% of the budget goes to running the armed forces, by nature always measuring foreign "threats" as if diplomacy was a competition or something. The business types picked as cabinet secretaries are invariably from the big business side of the ledger and find foreigners annoying when they don't hand over their natural resources for next to nothing royalties, leading to the government bashing these foreigners over the head until they put someone in charge who sees the "light" and becomes a US ally.

It's a formula for bad government for the domestic population from beginning to end. So up ramps the patriotism to make the people keep the faith which many are happy to do, and then they crap all over the way other countries are organized, their food, customs and "only in America can a hobo be elected President" and there's no opportunity anywhere but in the USA memes. Mesmerized by their own propaganda into thinking the US is the best there is. Cough.

GivingUpOnTrump · 4 hours ago
Tonight if Trump order more troops to Afghanistan, he'd put the last and hardest nail on his own coffin. I do not understand, how long Americans will let the Deep State win, making them sacrificial animals at the mercy of a perpetual power.

[Aug 22, 2017] Pat Buchanan

Buchanan demonstrates very superficial understanding of the result of the USSR collapse. Afghan war was just one contributing factor. It was never the primary reason. Soviet people understood pretty well that they actually faced the USA in Afghan war. Or more correctly the combination of the USA has technological superiority, Saudi money and political Islam. The fact that the USA supplied Stingers portable anti-aircraft rocket launchers. Which later will shoot down some US helicopters. The fact the the USA fe-factor put political Islam on front burner later will bite the USA several times.
Also Buchanan does not understand the role of neoliberal revolution (or coup d'état if you wish, called quite coup) of 80th in the current US troubles. Trump was the first ever presidential candidate, who companied and managed to win the elections on promises to tame neoliberal globalization. The fact that he was crushed in six month of so is not surprising, as he faced very well organize Trotskyite militants (aka deep state) - neoliberalism is actually Trotskyism for rish. Russiagate witch hunt with its Special Prosecutor is a replica of Stalin processes. As Marx used to say history repeats, first as tragedy, second as farce.
"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," said Winston Churchill. and this is the essence of Trump betrual of his election promises.
Notable quotes:
"... Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country. ..."
"... Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action." ..."
"... Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze. ..."
"... Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war. ..."
"... America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars. ..."
"... This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda? ..."
"... Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed him in the election. ..."
"... For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance. ..."
"... I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base. ..."
"... Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. ..."
"... Continuing to maintain forces in South Korea continues to contribute to our bankruptcy. ..."
"... Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises. ..."
Aug 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

12 Comments

"I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," said Winston Churchill to cheers at the Lord Mayor's luncheon in London in November 1942. True to his word, the great man did not begin the liquidation. When his countrymen threw him out in July 1945, that role fell to Clement Attlee, who began the liquidation. Churchill, during his second premiership from 1951-1955, would continue the process, as would his successor, Harold Macmillan, until the greatest empire the world had ever seen had vanished.

While its demise was inevitable, the death of the empire was hastened and made mo re humiliating by the wars into which Churchill had helped to plunge Britain, wars that bled and bankrupted his nation. At Yalta in 1945, Stalin and FDR treated the old imperialist with something approaching bemused contempt. War is the health of the state, but the death of empires. The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires all fell in World War I. World War II ended the Japanese and Italian empires -- with the British and French following soon after. The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989. Afghanistan delivered the coup de grace.

Is it now the turn of the Americans? Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there. Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent? The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country.

Yet what did the great general, whom Trump so admires, Douglas MacArthur, say of such a strategy? "War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision." Is not "prolonged indecision" what the Trump strategy promises? Is not "prolonged indecision" what the war policies of Obama and Bush produced in the last 17 years? Understandably, Americans feel they cannot walk away from this war. For there is the certainty as to what will follow when we leave.

When the British left Delhi in 1947, millions of former subjects died during the partition of the territory into Pakistan and India and the mutual slaughter of Muslims and Hindus. When the French departed Algeria in 1962, the "Harkis" they left behind paid the price of being loyal to the Mother Country. When we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam, the result was mass murder in the streets, concentration camps and hundreds of thousands of boat people in the South China Sea, a final resting place for many. In Cambodia, it was a holocaust.

Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.

Consider the wars, active and potential, Trump faces.

Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest: "War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action."

If Pyongyang tests another atom bomb or ICBM, some national security aides to Trump are not ruling out preventive war.

Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.

Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war.

America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars.

America voted for economic nationalism and an end to the mammoth trade deficits with the NAFTA nations, EU, Japan and China. America voted to halt the invasion across our Southern border and to reduce legal immigration to

Grandpa Charlie > , August 22, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

I think that the case of Korea is very different from all the others, but generally I agree with Mr. Buchanan to the extent that I say: Pat Buchanan for President

Miro23 > , August 22, 2017 at 6:44 am GMT

Trump's populist-nationalist and America First agenda,

This agenda did exist and Trump used it to get elected. Once he pulled off that trick he tried to get together again (unsuccessfully) with his New York Plutocrat friends. It's that New York social background. It's always been difficult to see Trump fit together economically or socially with the America that elected him, and after he got elected he quickly weakened his ties with Middle America. So why should he complain about Fake News since he got elected on a Fake Agenda?

MEexpert > , August 22, 2017 at 7:12 am GMT

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This quote is so well-known that almost everyone knows it, except perhaps the politicians and the generals. Afghanistan has been called the deathbed of empires. The two recent empires to go down are the British and the Soviet. For almost 200 years the British tried to tame the Afghan tribes but couldn't. The devastation they caused did not deter the natives. It is all there in the history books for everyone to read. The Soviet empire didn't even last ten years. It cut its losses and ran.

The lack of teaching of history and geography in American schools is quite evident when one looks at the performance of American forces in Afghanistan after 17 years. Add the arrogance of the Presidents and the generals to this lack of knowledge and one can understand the disasterous results of the Afghan war. One other subject that is missing from the modern presidency is diplomacy. War over diplomacy seems to be the order of the day.

Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.

Trump does not even remember what he was elected to do. A man who was determined to drain the swamp is deep, up to his neck, in that swamp. The neocons and the never-Trumpers are the main decision makers in the Trump administration. All the loyal supporters have been chased out of the Trump's inner circle. A man who built his empire with his brain and shrewdness can't seem to handle the Presidency. He is trying to appease the very same people who opposed him in the election.

Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.

It is never going to happen. Not only the Middle East would be set ablaze, but America will lose its European allies as well. The relations with Russia are already confrontational and heading fast towards an ultimate war. European allies are also confused about the US foreign policy or lack thereof. Trade war is brewing with China. The only country which is happy with this chaos is Israel.

For a smart businessman, Donald Trump can't seem to make any friends. There is a very simple solution to these wars of choice. Mr. Trump swallow your pride and bring the boys home. You will save American lives and will also earn the gratitude of the families of these soldiers. You may even bring peace to many countries around the world and people who have been displaced by these wars can return home. You may even solve the refugee problem in the process. You might even save your presidency. Give peace a chance.

Renoman > , August 22, 2017 at 8:51 am GMT

No one has ever been able to conquer Afghanistan why would America think it can? Likely just throwing a bone to the neocons. As for Iran, Trump has been beating his chest all over the World and doing nothing, again with the Neocon feeding, I don't think he has any intention of getting into anything larger than a skirmish with anyone, he's a lot smarter than he looks --

syd.bgd > , August 22, 2017 at 9:10 am GMT

Well while Mr. Buchanan is not an expert in Balkans history, or politics, as I've argued here, he is excellent in American history and politics. An article somewhat short, because he is not connecting his sharp analysis to ongoing First Amendment disaster. It comes along, obviously, but still an excellent piece.

To be copied and saved in my personal archives, anyway. I do not believe that even this site will last long. Greetings from Serbia, suicidal country controlled from that feudal fortress (US Embassy) where our Scott-Pasha resides.

Chris Dakota > , August 22, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

It was the eclipse that swept across America to change it forever. We now know we are on our own, there is no political solution for this war. The eclipse marks the end of a war, our war, we lost. Trump extends Afghan swamp war on the very day. Eclipse was conjunct Trumps Mars, he was castrated. Doesn't mean we won't win, but it won't be via the rigged ballot box and the DC swamp.

KenH > , August 22, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base.

Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises.

But if it prevents tens of thousands of knuckle dragging Afghans steeped in a culture of violence, pedophilia and pederasty from entering America as refugees then I guess there's a silver lining.

MEH 0910 > , August 22, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/full-transcript-donald-trump-announces-his-afghanistan-policy/537552/

My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

Trump isn't going to keep his campaign promises. That means he's not going to build a beautiful wall on our southern border.

Liberty Mike > , August 22, 2017 at 2:31 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie What is different about "the case of Korea"?

Continuing to maintain forces in South Korea continues to contribute to our bankruptcy.

Liberty Mike > , August 22, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@KenH I think The Donald offered the lame excuse that things looks much different when you're in the oval office vs. the campaign trail. That won't be any consolation to people who voted for him in the hopes that their family members in the military would be coming home soon. And it won't be any consolation to some members of his base.

Now that the generals have gone wild under Trump we may as well admit that we're ruled by a military junta. We'll let them make all the decisions since they're so brilliant while Trump tweets and holds stupid rallies trying to convince people that he hasn't reneged on any campaign promises.

... ... ..

[Aug 22, 2017] Interactive Timeline Everything We Know About Russia and President Trump by Steven Harper

Hatchet job. But pretty well designed hatchet job. Sophisticated set of lies mixed with truth to facilitate the witch hunt.
Aug 21, 2017 | billmoyers.com

Explore our updated, comprehensive Trump-Russia Timeline -- or select one of the central players in the Trump-Russia saga to see what we know about them.

... ... ...

Steven Harper blogs at The Belly of the Beast , is an adjunct professor at Northwestern University, and contributes regularly to The American Lawyer. He is the author of several books, including The Lawyer Bubble -- A Profession in Crisis and Crossing Hoffa -- A Teamster's Story (a Chicago Tribune "Best Book of the Year"). Follow him on Twitter: @StevenJHarper1 .

[Aug 22, 2017] Russia-gate's Evidentiary Void by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... "There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said. ..."
"... Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: A cyber-warfare expert sees no technical evidence linking Russia to the Democratic email releases, but The New York Times presses ahead with a new hope that Ukraine can fill the void, reports Robert Parry.

The New York Times' unrelenting anti-Russia bias would be almost comical if the possible outcome were not a nuclear conflagration and maybe the end of life on planet Earth.

A classic example of the Times' one-sided coverage was a front-page article on Thursday expressing the wistful hope that a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016 could somehow "blow the whistle on Russian hacking."

Though full of airy suspicions and often reading like a conspiracy theory, the article by Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Higgins contained one important admission (buried deep inside the "jump" on page A8 in my print edition), a startling revelation especially for those Americans who have accepted the Russia-did-it groupthink as an established fact.

The article quoted Jeffrey Carr, the author of a book on cyber-warfare, referring to a different reality: that the Russia-gate "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's GRU military intelligence service or Russia's FSB security agency lack a solid evidentiary foundation.

"There is not now and never has been a single piece of technical evidence produced that connects the malware used in the DNC attack to the GRU, FSB or any agency of the Russian government," Carr said.

Yet, before that remarkable admission had a chance to sink into the brains of Times' readers whose thinking has been fattened up on a steady diet of treating the "Russian hack" as flat fact, Times' editors quickly added that "United States intelligence agencies, however, have been unequivocal in pointing a finger at Russia."

The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt.

"American intelligence agencies have determined Russian hackers were behind the electronic break-in of the Democratic national Committee," the Times reported, followed by the assertion that the hacker's "malware apparently did" get used by Moscow and then another reminder that "Washington is convinced [that the hacking operation] was orchestrated by Moscow."

By repeating the same point on the inside page, the Times editors seemed to be saying that any deviant views on this subject must be slapped down promptly and decisively.

A Flimsy Assessment

But that gets us back to the problem with the Jan. 6 "Intelligence Community Assessment," which -- contrary to repeated Times' claims -- was not the "consensus" view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies, but rather the work of a small group of "hand-picked" analysts from three agencies: the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency. And, they operated under the watchful eye of President Obama's political appointees, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was the one who called them "hand-picked."

Those analysts presented no real evidence to support their assessment, which they acknowledged was not a determination of fact, but rather what amounted to their best guess based on what they perceived to be Russian motives and capabilities.

The Jan. 6 assessment admitted as much, saying its "judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

Much of the unclassified version of the report lambasted Russia's international TV network RT for such offenses as hosting a 2012 presidential debate for third-party candidates excluded from the Republican-Democratic debate, covering the Occupy Wall Street protests, and reporting on dangers from "fracking." The assessment described those editorial decisions as assaults on American democracy.

But rather than acknowledge the thinness of the Jan. 6 report, the Times – like other mainstream news outlets – treated it as gospel and pretended that it represented a "consensus" of all 17 intelligence agencies even though it clearly never did. (Belatedly, the Times slipped in a correction to that falsehood in one article although continuing to use similar language in subsequent stories so an unsuspecting Times reader would not be aware of how shaky the Russia-gate foundation is.)

Russian President Vladimir Putin and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have denied repeatedly that the Russian government was the source of the two batches of Democratic emails released via WikiLeaks in 2016, a point that the Times also frequently fails to acknowledge. (This is not to say that Putin and Assange are telling the truth, but it is a journalistic principle to include relevant denials from parties facing accusations.)

Conspiracy Mongering

The rest of Thursday's Times article veered from the incomprehensible to the bizarre, as the Times reported that the hacker, known only as "Profexer," is cooperating with F.B.I. agents inside Ukraine. President Barack Obama and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards. The Ukrainian government is fiercely anti-Russian and views itself as engaged in an "information war" with Putin and his government.

Ukraine's SBU security service also has been implicated in possible torture , according to United Nations investigators who were denied access to Ukrainian government detention facilities housing ethnic Russian Ukrainians who resisted the violent coup in February 2014, which was spearheaded by neo-Nazis and other extreme nationalists and overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

The SBU also has been the driving force behind the supposedly "Dutch-led" investigation into the July 17, 2014 shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. That inquiry has ignored evidence that a rogue Ukrainian force may have been responsible – not even addressing a Dutch/NATO intelligence report stating that all anti-aircraft missile batteries in eastern Ukraine on that day were under the control of the Ukrainian military – and instead tried to pin the atrocity on Russia , albeit with no suspects yet charged.

In Thursday's article, the Times unintentionally reveals how fuzzy the case against "Fancy Bear" and "Cozy Bear" – the two alleged Russian government hacking operations – is.

The Times reports: "Rather than training, arming and deploying hackers to carry out a specific mission like just another military unit, Fancy Bear and its twin Cozy Bear have operated more as centers for organization and financing; much of the hard work like coding is outsourced to private and often crime-tainted vendors."

Further, under the dramatic subhead – "A Bear's Lair" – the Times reported that no such lair may exist: "Tracking the bear to its lair has so far proved impossible, not least because many experts believe that no such single place exists."

Lacking Witnesses

The Times' article also noted the "absence of reliable witnesses" to resolve the mystery – so to the rescue came the "reliable" regime in Kiev, or as the Times wrote: "emerging from Ukraine is a sharper picture of what the United States believes is a Russian government hacking group."

The Times then cited various cases of exposed Ukrainian government emails, again blaming the Russians albeit without any real evidence.

The Times suggested some connection between the alleged Russian hackers and a mistaken report on Russia's Channel 1 about a Ukrainian election, which the Times claimed "inadvertently implicated the government authorities in Moscow."

The Times' "proof" in this case was that some hacker dummied a phony Internet page to look like an official Ukrainian election graphic showing a victory by ultra-right candidate, Dmytro Yarosh, when in fact Yarosh polled less than 1 percent. The hacker supposedly sent this "spoof" graphic to Channel 1, which used it.

But such an embarrassing error, which would have no effect on the actual election results, suggests an effort to discredit Channel 1 rather than evidence of a cooperative relationship between the mysterious hacker and the Russian station. The Times, however, made this example a cornerstone in its case against the Russians.

Meanwhile, the Times offered its readers almost no cautionary advice that – in the case of Russia-gate – Ukraine would have every motive to send U.S. investigators in directions harmful to Russia, much as happened with the MH-17 investigation.

So, we can expect that whatever "evidence" Ukraine "uncovers" will be accepted as gospel truth by the Times and much of the U.S. government – and anyone who dares ask inconvenient questions about its reliability will be deemed a "Kremlin stooge" spreading "Russian propaganda."

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 3:39 pm

Can the United States, its mainstream media, and its intelligence services sink any deeper into the status of laughable but also malicious clowns? Yes. They reach new lows with practically every edition of the NYT -- The only group maintaining any respectability within these entities is the VIPS group.

Pathetic. Laughingstock of the world. But don't kick sand in these bullies' faces. They may nuke you --

Anna , August 18, 2017 at 5:32 pm

You don't understand. The Times Co. Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the publisher of the newspaper, wants the Golan Heights for his pet project by any means and he is beyond himself that the bad, bad Russians stopped the slaughter of civilians in Syria and thus stopped the dissolution of Syria.

The Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. hates, hates the idea of sovereign Syria. He wants Syria to become another Libya. Period.

And he wants to see Iran obliterated (some old grievances against the noble ancient civilization that used to provide the best living place for Jews). And then, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. wants to see profits, even if his profitable fake-news business could lead to a nuclear conflict with Russain Federation. Like other super-wealthy imbeciles, the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. is accustomed to a very special order when other people are always ready to clean his mess. He is not aware that the Mess, which he is so eagerly inviting, could end up his comfortable life and make his relatives into shades on a hard surface. Would not this planet be better without the Chairman Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr. and likes?

JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:02 pm

Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem. At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.

"War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" . http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

Erik G , August 18, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Yes, the VIPS & CN have provided critical analysis of these mass media scams, often led by the biased NYT.

Those who would like to petition the NYT to make Robert Parry their senior editor may do so here:
https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-bring-a-new-editor-to-the-new-york-times?recruiter=72650402&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink .

Mr. Parry may prefer independence, and we all know the NYT ownership makes it unlikely, and the NYT may try to ignore it, it is instructive to them that intelligent readers know better journalism when they see it. A petition demonstrates the concerns of a far larger number of potential or lost subscribers.

j. D. D. , August 19, 2017 at 3:07 pm

The "Russiagate" hoax is in big trouble. thanks in large part to the V.I.P.S. memo to President Trump, first published on this site on July 24. No surprise then that the Times has rushed to stem the bleeding, much the way the Post did in its threatening message to The Nation editor Van den Heuvel to retract its coverage of that explosive report. So what now? Shift the tactic to playing the race card, in an effort to oust this President, the methods, and in fact many of the same names employed in the staged event in Charlottesville, being all too familiar to those who followed the coup which overthrew the elected government of Ukraine.

Randal Marlin , August 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm

I think your statement "Yet, the reliance on Ukraine to provide evidence against Russia defies any objective investigative standards" gets to the crux of the matter.
Note how the evidentiary question is not significantly altered when, say, expert Dutch investigators confirm a Russian-blaming narrative regarding MH-17 when, and to the extent that, the Dutch experts form their opinion based on evidence selected by (anti-Russian) Ukrainian authorities.

I've used the example before of salted gold-ore samples being given to experts for analysis. Those who fell for the Bre-X scam some 20 years ago apparently failed to appreciate the disclaimer by SNC-Lavalin, who reported a rich find, that they had not done an independent collection of the ore samples. There was a high reported price tag for the analysis and people may have just assumed such an independent collection had taken place.

Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 6:03 pm

It is absurd that an admitted hacker in Ukraine, and its militantly anti-Russian government, are considered reliable sources in the smoke-and-mirrors game of tracing international hacking. Their only "evidence" appears to be standard hacking scams of simulating sources to throw off investigators. It is amazing that they can't even find a hacker somewhere else to make absurd claims in a plea bargain. Obviously NYT does not believe this ridiculous story themselves. It is the greatest fool who believes all others to be greater fools.

JWalters , August 18, 2017 at 7:14 pm

Israel controls the New York Times. Therefore this is an Israeli operation. "What Neocons Want from Ukraine Crisis" http://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/02/what-neocons-want-from-ukraine-crisis/

The Israelis appear afraid Trump will suddenly turn on them, just as he suddenly and totally disavowed all forms of racism, white supremacism, KKK, alt-right, etc. (And Bannon did, too.) He had needed that support to wrest the GOP nomination away from the Wall Street gang (who merely winked and nodded at the racists, a large and crucial part of their voting base.) Perhaps the glaring, blaring racist crimes and atrocities of Israel will be called out next?
"Netanyahu is silent for 3 days over neo-Nazi violence, while his son says Black Lives Matter and Antifa are the real threat"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/netanyahu-violence-antifa/
"Charlottesville is moment of truth for empowered U.S. Zionists (who name their children after Israeli generals)"
http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/charlottesville-empowered-children/

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Interesting that you say that this is an Israeli operation. I once traced malware on my PC to three sources, one with an address in Tel Aviv Israel, and two front companies in NYC run by people with Jewish names. Complete coincidence of course.

I also traced a complex web of internet copyright piracy, which included front companies, servers, and offices in Panama, Cayman Islands, Barbados, Montreal, UK, and various piracy and tax evasion venues. One company "TzarMedia" (in English) claimed to have its servers in Moscow, but it turned out that this was just one more false-flag: it was in Texas, and its servers could be anywhere. So anti-Russia false-flags are standard practice.

Because some Ukrainian oligarchs are apparently Jewish with Israeli nationality and bitter anti-Russia views on both fronts, it seems likely that they would be hiring Ukrainian hackers by the dozen to create false-flag hacks blamed on Russia. That must be a real growth industry in Ukraine and Israel by now, not to mention Washington.

Peter Dyer , August 18, 2017 at 3:58 pm

This is sadly reminiscent of another instance of the willingness of the New York Times to publish "evidence" of malfeasance on the part of the enemy du jour: the series of stories in 2001-02 by Judith Miller based on Ahmad Chalabi's "evidence" of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:57 pm

At least it ended her career with the NYT. Judith Miller was being fed stories from the office of VP Cheney, who would later cite the NYT as evidence of his accusations of WMD, completing the circle. Similarly, Kwiatkowski went public with how DIA staff were pressured by Sec of Defense and Cheney to stovepipe cherry picked intel to support WMD. The malfeasance germinated in the mechanical heart of one Richard Cheney and the NYT and DIA were used and abused. Not faultless, but the bulk of the derision belongs with that administration.

Bill , August 18, 2017 at 4:12 pm

There's a bigger story behind all of this. John Brennan was abusing his position as CIA Director to wage a war against Trump. Comey and Clapper are also "in" on it. A conspiracy? Yes. Who told them to do it? By golly, it was President Obama.

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:07 pm

Yes, but don't dream of tarnishing the halo St. Barry with perfectly reasonable suppositions as to who put this mess in motion and, I reckon, continues to ride herd on it. He is "above the fray" (my a–). He is at the center of the fray. After Hillary's ignoble loss to Obama in 2008, she ate crow and went to work for him. They must have made some kind of deal, reached some kind of accommodation.

Richard Tarnoff , August 18, 2017 at 4:19 pm

It is depressing, but not surprising given their corporate ownership, that the entire MSM is unwilling to ask the same hard questions as does Consortium News. It is also depressing that the Democratic Party is happy to jump on this risky band wagon in their desperate desire to bring down Trump.

Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:25 pm

I find it bizarre and frustrating that the anti-Trump forces insist on focusing on the flimsy Russia-gate distraction when there are so many objectively awful reasons to criticize the Trump administration.

*Resurgence of Civil-Asset Forfeiture? Check.
*Supporting the private prison industry? Check.
*Empowering federal prosecutors? Check.
*Working to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal? Check.
*Dismissing anthropogenic climate change? Check.
*Going out of his way to equate Nazis with anti-Nazi protestors? Check.
*Undermining net neutrality? Check.
*Subverting scientific independence at the EPA? Check.
*Sticking up for Wall Street and bad-mouthing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Check.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:38 pm

Trump's being criticized for all-of-the-above by virtually all of the leftist media and NGO's (Counterpunch, DemocracyNow, FAIR, RealNewsNetwork, Free Press, Public Citizen, etc) that criticized Obama, Bush, Clinton, et al for their many shortcomings and fuck-ups.
You need to get out more.

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:09 pm

But it seems like the MSM is standing in for "leftish" (sic) forces, as they combine with neocons to bring Trump down.

Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Just because the MSM doesn't like Trump doesn't mean he's a good person.

BobH , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm

Yes, but the DNC has put all their ammo into the straw man argument of Russia-gate. I believe this is what Drogon was saying, and I also believe it's a valid point.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:52 pm

I'll agree that it's the focus of the DNC. But he wrote "anti-Trump forces", which encompasses much more than the DNC.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:49 pm

Way to go BobS, you have an excuse for every stupid remark you make. Since Drogon said some pretty factual things that made sense, you had to go find something to make a negative comment as a reply, and in doing so you made yourself look awfully foolish I'll bet your working hard to sound smart and clever all the time, guess what you make yourself look ignorant instead.

If you are a contributor to this site, then I want my money back. You certainly don't bring any class, or anything worthwhile to this site, with your crudeness. Although, you probably laugh at your own jokes, and think your funny. I've tried for the last couple of days to somehow deal with you with the hopes that you and I could have a civil conversation, but as I can see I shouldn't take it personally, since you seem to offend everyone no matter what what is wrong with you man.

Leslie F , August 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm

All of this is worthy of criticism, but not likely to lead to his ouster. The fools think Russia-gate will, but it is obviously that the Repubs. in Congress are not buying it anymore than most of the population who just declines to become hysterical over Russia when they have much more immediate problems. There is that matter of Trumps financial malfeasance which is real AND impeachable, but the Dem establishment isn't interested because it won't deflect attention from their internal problems and many among their number are guilty of similaar crimes, if not to the same extent as Trump. And the deep state doesn't care because it doesn't advance their neocon agenda like Russia-gate. I think, however, that it could help mobilize popular outrage which will be necessary if he is ever going to be impeached.

turk151 , August 18, 2017 at 7:50 pm

That is because those are all ideas that the MSM's benefactors actually support.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm

Yet another strained effort to distract from the actual reality of Trump's Russian connection. Here is Bill Moyers' timeline of factual events. Tells the story better for anyone with an open mind.

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

Drogon , August 18, 2017 at 4:41 pm

Does Trump have "Russian connections?" Of course he does. He's a billionaire oligarch and, as such, he almost certainly has corrupt connections with billionaire oligarchs from pretty much any country you can name. If the anti-Trump brigade was less hysterical, these connections could most likely be used to remove him from office. That said, is there currently any evidence that he collaborated with the Russian government to throw the election? No.

Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 4:55 pm

Thank you for the link. Because of my "closed mind" I've concluded that Bill Moyers has lost it.

I made a couple of searches of my own and found this from Moyers:

"Raked over the coals by Republican inquisitors in Congress who could never make a case that she had acted wrongly in Libya "

Gist of the story, poor Hillary isn't a male and everybody has been after the innocent woman on that account. Obviously nobody would have commented if it had been a MAN with the same amount of blood on his hands. In another story he dismissed Hillary's email maneuvers.

h**p://billmoyers.com/story/hillary-hatred-revisited/

The man is an old Hillary-Bot and I've no use at all for that sort.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Actually, if you'd watched her testimony, they couldn't make that case, the reason being they focused on BENGHAZEEEE -- -- -- -- as opposed to the attack on Libya itself (which all or most of the Republicans in Congress agreed with).
Also, it's disingenuous to pretend that Clinton (and female politicians, in general) aren't held to somewhat different standards than men.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm

Agree with you Bob. But CN is infected with Russian bots. Used to be main go to site for me, now it's just the place for Trump and Putin apologists.

Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm

"Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm

""Roy G Biv" is today's name for one of the discredited trolls here lately, probably BobS himself, who pretends to be a former supporter. Thanks for letting us know that rightwingers are liars."

Thanks for letting me know it's so easy to fuck with your somewhat empty head.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:30 pm

Yeah BobS your the only smart one here. BTW You couldn't put a patch on Anon's ass even if you tried.

D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am

"CN infected with Russian bots and Putin apologists." Here's your guilt by association tool again. Anyone critical of the Official Narrative = automatically name-called to Russian bots etc etc the "commie sympathizer" BS of years ago. This kind of comment from you automatically disqualifies you as having anything worthwhile to say here.

Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm

He just finished saying that they are being held to different standards.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:39 pm

His implication was that they get a pass, when in fact just the opposite is true.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm

I was never once discredited. Just censored and shouted down. Now you plant a flag and claim to have refuted. That's not winning an argument, it's just being loud and intolerant.

LongGoneJohn , August 19, 2017 at 4:11 am

So because of the comments, you don't frequent CN anymore? I call BS, mr perpetual war apologist.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm

Actually the timeline stands on its own, and is factual. Try reading it and follow the chain of events. Very illustrative. Doesn't really matter your personal animus against Moyers and Clinton.

D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 5:04 pm

The specific charge, emanating from the Clinton people, and used as diversion from DNC corruption and Clinton Foundation corruption, is that Russia interfered with the 2016 election. This is a separate matter from Trump has had dealings with and association with Russia since decades back. Conflating these two matters is the easy demonizing brush which you're pushing here. There is no evidence on the specific accusation that Trump worked with Putin to fix the election. If you think there is evidence, versus guilt-by-association, give us a heads-up on where and what it is.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 5:42 pm

WhoWhatWhy & David Cay Johnston are doing and have done a much better job than consortiumnews in covering Trump's likely connections to Russian (and Italian) organized crime.

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:11 pm

That begs (that is, avoids) the question.
I suspect all of our presidents have had connections with organized crime.

Trump is being charged with, basically, treason for colluding with the Russians to influence the election. Two different animals.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

"That begs (that is, avoids) the question."
?
Kennedy, at least, at the wrong end of a gun.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:29 pm

Malcolm Nance has also chronicled the rise of Vlad and his seizure of the Russian economy from foreign vulture capitalists, only to claim all the spoils for himself and his cronies, as well as how Trump relied on Russian funding to bail out his bankrupcies. It's shockingly ignored here.

BobH , August 18, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Malcolm Nance's book is a "best seller" because he allowed himself to become a shill for the corporate intelligence network not unlike Ann Coulter who became a "best seller" with right wing sponsorship. Such books are printed in mass by the propagandist and often advertised as best sellers before a copy is sold. Unlike, Coulter, Nance is articulate but he starts out by "poisoning the well" with the premise that Putin's Russia is evil. He never really questions the hack theory. His book THE PLOT TO HACK AMERICA is all the rage among Demo "true believers". It was given to me by a friend, no doubt to open my eyes to the evil Putin's maneuvers but apart from the probability that he believed it himself his conclusion was based on a number of distorted facts(yes, I actually read it).

Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:25 pm

BobS: The organized Russian Crime mafia you are referring to had branches in Tel Aviv, New York, and London too. They were lot of people who were part of it, and must be close too Clintons too in their corrupt World in New York and elsewhere in the West. That is how our British Friends keep their economy running. The real Russians, the peasants according to the West they are, never really learnt the art you are describing.

May be, Trump had his hand in there in that pot somewhere too, when they were looting Russia in a big way. But they have not dug it out yet. I fail to understand with all these intelligence agencies, they have not shown it to the public as yet.

mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:30 pm

If your mind is open like a sieve.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:33 pm

The sieve serves to filter isolate particles of significance from the soup of information. A dam on the other hand prevents the flow. Most here have built dams against anything implicating Trump and Putin, and there is extensive evidence of it, from many sources.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:56 pm

Good analogy.
There's enough criticism of Trump here (although he does have his share of apologists, especially with respect to Charlottesville e.g.'whatabout BLM?'), but Putin, not so much. I'm guessing he gets a pass from many of the readers due to him being somewhat alone in standing up to the US (in Georgia, Ukraine, etc) as well as consortiumnews being relatively unique in disputing the 'official' narrative with respect to the Ukrainian coup, MH17, & Crimea (as well as Syria). While Putin has served as a valuable counterweight to the American empire, it doesn't make him beyond reproach, and he may possibly have helped to put a white-nationalist authoritarian into the presidency.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm

Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office. Bernie would have won, but your darling Hillary made sure that he didn't stand a chance to win the Democratic primary, because her being a Clinton means she cheats.

Why don't you and Roy go peddle your insulting selfs to people who might buy what your selling. She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost any of the insane Republicans who ran. You BobS are one dull gem of a person .now go mimic me you clown.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:48 pm

"Hillary put Trump in the Oval Office."
She helped.

"Bernie would have won"
Agreed.

"She loss, because she wasn't a good candidate. In fact Hillary would have loss to almost.."
You should get your money back for the ESL course.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm

BobS why can't you just talk sensibility with me?

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:18 pm

Vlad does get some credit for straight-arming the West vulture capitalists from feeding on the carcass of the USSR and the state owned infrastructure, BUT he supplanted those efforts with his own. He's become one of the richest men in the world by the most unrestrained crony capitalism and is a skilled authoritarian ruler. Why he is so defended around here makes me wonder who these people are who feel so butt hurt when he is criticized.

Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:53 am

What garbage: find the evidence and your intellectual superiors will gladly review it.

Anon , August 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm

Roy G Biv = BobS: you know as well as we that the utterly discredited Russiagate propaganda is intended solely to distract from the DNC corruption and Repub corruption. So you pretend that discrediting it is a distraction. The crook is always full of accusations of the same crookedness, like our Ukrainian hacker.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:23 pm

Hate to disappoint you Anon, but we are not the same person and I have no idea who BobS is. I guess you find it easier to ignore dissenting opinion by lumping it into one persona. And your dismissal of Malcolm Nance is pretty thin IMO. The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established and creating slogans and memes like "Russiagate" is a cheap parlor trick.

Anon , August 19, 2017 at 5:56 am

BS. You haven't a single shred of evidence of any election hacking, let alone Russian, and apparently you know it. I demand your evidence, not propaganda.

DocHollywood , August 20, 2017 at 12:51 am

"The Russian hacking of our election and the financial connections to DJT are well established"

All that's missing is evidence.

Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm

I only pick up the New York Times once or twice a year as a novelty. It has priced itself out of the market, as have many other newspapers, which used to be affordable by those eking out even the meanest of livings.

It would appear that the Russian hysteria is somehow connected with the anti-Trump hysteria in general, to which has been added the charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in conjunction with a politically charged demonstration. Yet, the latter charges would seem to divide so-called progressives while casting intellectually honest analyses like Parry's as sympathetic to white supremacists by association. This may seem to be quite a challenging environment for journalists to operate in, as the actual situation is so at odds with the conventional wisdom being touted from the same regions of the universe. I do hope the very fabric of truth-telling is not ripped to shreds by these counter-currents.

mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm

So Trump is not a Nazi sympathizer? They sure think so. Ask David Duke. He tweeted thanks to Trump for defending them.

Litchfield , August 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

This is faulty logic.
I have said it before and I will say it again:
In our two-party system, millions of voters don't actually have any party that represents their views. This includes what would be called in the USA "extremists" on both the left and the right.

Unlike what would be the case in a parliamentary system, where if a party gets over the 5% threshold they are represented in the legislature and may even participate in forming a government, in the USA such groups have to decide which of the two parties is closer to their own platform. IF David Duke decides that the Repugs are closer to what he wants, that doesn't mean that Trump is therefore a Nazi or white supremacist.
It means that Duke is some kind of Republican.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm

Trump has received adulation from the white nationalist fringe unusual for a candidate from any party.
Even more unusual, Trump has reciprocated.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm

Knowing you BobS you'll probably think that what I'm about to say, is my supporting Trump, because you are still living the 2016 presidential election. When you bring up odd alliances, how about when Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland (and John McCain) orchestrated the coup in Ukraine that installed a full on Nazi Party, complete with swastikas?

Let's see if you can answer me in a decent tone. That doesn't mean you need to agree with me, but it does mean you are an ignorant know it all, if you don't answer me with some common respect.

Before you came here BobS, it was nice to have conversations with the many others who whether they agreed with you or not, at least the use of good manners did lead to our learning something worthwhile. You BobS, only bring out the worst in a person, with your little boy agitation. It also over shadows the good points you make, when you use ridicule the way you do. In other words BobS, I can tell your not stupid, but you sure come off that way with your words and actions when you do the silly things you do with your rude comments.

It's very rare that I burn down bridges, for you see BobS all my life I have been a bridge builder. So, when your ready to grow up, and become mature, then who knows, maybe you and I will become friends, if not well it's no big loss. Take care Joe

Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 11:43 pm

Joe, they are both professional disruptors. The Roy G Biv character is too well informed to be merely mistaken – he's simply not honest. I'd posit he is CIA or back-room NYT employee. Or possibly a nutcase Zionist with a good US education posting from some stolen land in Israel.

Speaking of the New York Times, I'm done with them. I now have zero respect for the filthy propaganda site.

As I was reading through Mr. Parry's piece I decided to find out for myself if they were as bad as they seem. But how to test this? Long story short, I hit on the idea to see what they've written about the USS Liberty on this 50th Anniversary of the attempted sinking of the ship and attempted mass murder of all aboard.

Search terms were "USS LIberty" and "nytimes.com".

According to the Google results there were zero mentions of the USS Liberty on the NYT site within the past 12 months. Double checking, I went to the site and entered the term into the search there. Nothing.

They lie. They distort. They conceal. Mostly for Israel. These days Israel wants Syria to get the Iraq/Libya treatment. Russia is an obstacle. The lying, cheating, and distortions of the NYT and WP are focused on pressuring Russia enough to get them out of Syria. The professional newcomers here are accusing us of being Putin-Hacks, and much more. They do everything they can to disrupt discussion. I'd imagine it's because Mr. Parry's site is becoming one too many people around the world come to view. The deliberate chaos created by these guys is another small part of the attack on Russia for Israel.

By the way, have you noticed a single thing the BobS and Roy G Biv types have written which is notable in any way whatever? I haven't. I'm going to try very hard to be done with them as well.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 12:00 am

Thanks Zachary. Hearing you say that these two buttheads maybe professional disrupters is comforting. No, I'm actually honored that BobS started with me (I think first) the other day. Now I feel empowered to deal with the likes of these two clown asses.

You may have already seen this article over at the Saker, about the USS Liberty, but here it is in case you haven't, or for the others who may find interest in it as well.

http://thesaker.is/remembering-the-liberty/

Take care Zachary Joe

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:33 am

I agree, Zachary and Joe. They appear to be trolls, and may use varying names for a while.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm

You just said: " .charge of his being a white nationalist Nazi, merely because he acknowledged two factions willing to exercise violence in conjunction with a politically charged demonstration." Your use of the word merely is very disturbing. If it was abundantly clear from previous revelations, his performance this week should have removed all doubt about his sentiments.

Peter Duveen , August 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm

Yes it was wrong for me to use "merely," because the characterization of Trump as a white supremacist has nothing to do with reality, and the fact that Trump took a balanced approach to the demonstration was another excuse for unfounded accusations. What we have is people who want Trump out, who lost an election, who are doing everything they can to overthrow a president. Since the Russian hacking meme has been shown to be without merit (although it is still harped upon), the white supremacist angle is now being milked for everything it has. It's a hoax completely in parallel with the Russian hacking narrative. Reality has nothing to do with this attempt to overthrow Trump. And the CIA is fully behind it. So stick with it. People may be making idiots of themselves, but for them, the ends justifies the means.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm

Well, I guess we'll see. But I believe you will be the one eating crow when the facts are laid out. It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity, i.e. the past misdeeds of the CIA vs the idea that they might actually be doing public service in this Putin/Trump situation. I don't have trouble with this and embrace both. The world and people are complex, not neatly black or white.

Annie , August 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm

I remember as soon as the leak that the DNC tried to subvert the Sanders campaign came out, Hillary's campaign manager Robby Mook stated the Russians did it, and obviously he had no conclusive proof. At the time I thought they already had it planned that if their misdeeds were ever revealed Russia would be blamed, and it would be a good reason to go after Trump should he win the election. It would also allow them to continue to escalate a cold war, already well underway under the Obama administration. It's basic science that you can't come to a valid conclusion if you have already determined what that will be. I never believed their lies from the get go. What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public, and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception.

mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:37 pm

Right, they are all in on this phony Russia scare gambit. There are plenty of other causes to impeach Trump. Our President is a crook, as well as a racist.

Annie , August 18, 2017 at 7:11 pm

I don't know if Trump's a racist, maybe he is, but did you ever hear Obama, Bush, or Cheney called a racist, or if they were, did the American people buy into it the way they have with Trump? However, what would you call people who destroy whole nations which are predominantly Muslim, cross sovereign borders in Muslim countries killing thousands of innocents with drone warfare? Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist? Are we not racist as a nation as well? I ask myself if these countries were predominately Christian would the American people be so laid back about our warring exploits in these countries? What about those papal bulls that gave explorers of the new world the right to conquer and exploit the indigenous people? Not to mention our sense of entitlement to practically wipe out the American Indian population. If indeed he is a racist, he fits right in. Take a look at our legal system where over 90 percent of people take a plea bargain and never get a fair trial, and most of the prison population is black although they constitute a small minority in this country.

I have a friend who berated me for not being more outraged by Trump's racist rhetoric, but she refused to visit an elderly, and lonely aunt who lived in a black area, while I move in and out of that area quite frequently. We're full of hypocrisy.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:32 pm

"I don't know if Trump's a racist"
Trump's a racist.

"Is Israel in it's treatment of the Palestinians not racist?'
Amy Goodman had on a spokesman from the Anne Frank Center this morning forcefully (and accurately, in my opinion) criticizing Trump, Bannon, & Gorka.
The interview took a somewhat comical turn when Goodman showed her guest a clip of white supremacist Richard Spencer being interviewed on Israeli television saying:
"As an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. I mean, you could -- you could say that I am a white Zionist, in the sense that I care about my people. I want us to have a secure homeland that's for us and ourselves, just like you want a secure homeland in Israel."
The comical part was watching the histrionics of the guy from the Anne Frank Center as he avoided addressing Spencer's point.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm

"Hail Trump -- " chanted by Richard Spencer after the election. Fascists love fascists.

Annie , August 18, 2017 at 9:37 pm

I usually listen to Democracy Now, but missed this one, and it makes a good point. Easy to point a finger at someone's perceived racism, but difficult to look at your own, which is too often justified. My point exactly. People talk about Trumps immigration policies and deportation of immigrants, but are mindless of the fact that Obama deported 2 million immigrants. Many Americans don't place what is going on now within an historical framework, not even a recent historical framework. I also believe there is an attempt to undermine the people who voted for Trump, which would make a coup more possible. I don't like Trump, but more then anything I don't like the idea of overturning the election of a president based on lies and innuendo. I really don't think that's a good thing --

Dave P. , August 18, 2017 at 9:49 pm

Annie, your comments are always very sincere and objective.

You wrote above: ". . .What is very disturbing is that the press is so complicit in pushing this lie while the American public, and in this case the so called liberal/progressives, are so willing to swallow it. For me, that's the scary part. Equally scary is that the CIA, FBI and NIA are equally complicit in this deception. . ."

By this time, it should be clear to any one with an open mind that there is no such thing left in the country as free and fair Media which informs public. And all these agencies you mentioned are nothing but a sewage pit of lies. And the liberal/ progressives are like most of the population, completely brainwashed and believe whatever is fed to them by the likes of Rachael Maddow.

Annie , August 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm

My brother listens to her everyday, and I can't listen to him. He's literally hysterical over the Trump presidency, as is she. He can't hear anything I have to say, or any other point of view. To me it is a total surprise since he is well educated, and will define himself as a liberal thinker. Bah humbug --

frank scott , August 22, 2017 at 7:54 pm

thank you annie

Drew Hunkins , August 18, 2017 at 5:23 pm

"The Times' rebuke toward any doubts about Russia-gate was inserted after Carr's remark although the Times had already declared several times on page 1 that there was really no doubt about Russia's guilt."

The NYT is now terrified of the genuine research and honest conclusions made by the VIPS. It's almost as if the NYT's suffering under some sort of OCD neurosis, the VIPS has them on their heels, though the NYT will never admit it. Ergo, like Rainman, they resort to repeating over and over and over to their brainwashed readers the Kremlin's guilt and the intel agencies' assurances. They try ever so hard to pass themselves off as the only reasonable and sane voices in the room, during these times of upheaval and uncertainty.

To use an admittedly stretched sports analogy: the VIPS have been doing, and are going to do, to the NYT what Floyd Mayweather is about to do to McGregor in their upcoming prize fight. A real authentic professional is about to dominate a huckster and charlatan who's out of his element, just there to collect a fat paycheck (not unlike the careerism of the NYTers).

Karl Sanchez , August 18, 2017 at 5:33 pm

Given the overall context of Russiagate and the "journalistic" history of the NY Times , it would be fair to assess it and its loyal readership as spreading Washington propaganda and unwitting Washington stooges, respectively. But which gets to claim the Greatest Propaganda Rag Prize: NY Times or Washington Post ?

mike k , August 18, 2017 at 5:39 pm

Too close to call.

D5-5 , August 18, 2017 at 6:02 pm

From Parry: the "certainties" blaming the DNC "hack" on Russia's intelligence agencies "lack a solid evidentiary foundation."

What would that evidentiary foundation be?

Would it be Donald Trump visited Russia therefore he's guilty of conspiring with Putin to fix the election, starting with hacking the DNC.

Or Trump had real estate dealings, mafia dealings, whatever, with Russia, and leap to "I wouldn't doubt it."

Or, I hate Trump so much I'll believe anything negative about him.

Or Russia was once the Soviet Union and a bunch of commie rat bastards so of course this story is true.

Or, The New York Times, that esteemed bastion of truth and investigative journalism says it's true so it must be true.

Evidence defined: what furnishes proof.

Yet, reminded by Parry once again, here is the basis for the January 6 assessments:

Quoted from the reporting agencies themselves on January 6, their judgments–

"are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."

Based on what evidence IS, here we have NO evidence. What we do have is speculation.

Clapper weighed in on January 6 with a "moderate" assessment. How does a moderate differ from a high assessment–was some of the logic–since the statement indicates no proof based on fact exists–somehow dubious or tendentious?

He was moderately convinced that it just might be so, maybe, possibly. Is that what this means?

Dempsey weighed in at "high" with the above statement, and perhaps somebody knows what this "high" meant, based on what?

Comey weighed in at "high" although his agency, the FBI, did not examine the DNC computers, and relied entirely on Crowdstrike, shown repeatedly as a biased anti-Russian source in the employ of Hillary Clinton.

This is the authority creating the flimsy evidentiary foundation of the NY Times et al MSM to which we citizens are now either a) skeptical or b) entirely convinced.

"Evidentiary void"–right on, Robert Parry --

D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 12:08 pm

Sorry, meant to say Brennan, not "Dempsey" re CIA assessment.

Stephen J. , August 18, 2017 at 6:53 pm

An interesting read at link below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
The Neocons Are Pushing the USA and the Rest of the World Towards a Dangerous Crisis
THE SAKER • AUGUST 18, 2017
http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:14 pm

The Saker is always interesting, and even though you find some good people over there (Michael Hudson & Mike Whitney, among others), the race stuff at Unz always makes me feel like I have to wash off.

John , August 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm

America is walking into a well planned nightmare. Spoon fed to you by the corporate media soon the spark of hate will become an uncontrollable wildfire

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:00 pm

It did not rely entirely on Crowdstrike. They are just the ones who referred it to FBI. If you don't think the USA has powerful IT divisions who can forensically determine source and method, then your fear of deep state are immediately invalidated, a contradiction. If you believe in the awesome power of the intelligence community, then you cannot use the argument that they don't know anymore than what the got from Crowdstrike. I understand the mistrust of the IC, but you must admit that they just might me trying to protect us in this case from enemies foreign and domestic.

Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm

No, no one can "forensically determine source and method" except in lucky cases or when tracing naive hacks. NSA got its trove of hack methods including false-flagging methods on the black market from a Ukraine hacker. So no one will buy garbage accusations of Russia from a Ukrainian hacker.

If the US IC has insider sources, they must be prepared to have them bail out and give testimony, after some reasonable period, where grave accusations must be either discredited or cause serious policy changes.
No hiding behind "trust us" after months: only fools will believe "confidence."

The same goes for MH-17, WMD, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and many others.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm

What you are saying is true and reasonable. But consider that this is an ongoing counter espionage investigation that has been in progress for over one year, and these take years to conclude. You may not be able to trust them without seeing the info and intel, but you cannot simply conclude that the evidence simply doesn't exist just because it's not visible to you. There are reasons to hold cards close to the vest while leveraging suspects into witnesses.

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am

Fine, let them investigate, but they must not announce extremely serious conclusions to the public, with immediate political implications, especially conclusions that serve immediate political ends in the US, and refuse to provide evidence to the public even after a month or so. That is either careless methodology or fraud. The history of such "revelations" on "high confidence" has been a history of fraud by political appointees to the intel agencies.

I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be revealed with the evidence, although it appears that the secrets could generally be kept. Such technology requires having a safe disclosure method, such as disguising/relocating informants and devices. Most likely such technology would provide clues to direct other safely-revealable technology. If it does not, it does not serve democracy well, and probably is fundamentally a tool of tyranny, a product of excessive spying, and must be discounted by the public.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm

By the way, the "Evidentiary Void" might actually look pretty filled up in private eyes of the office of special counsel. I wouldn't expect to see the all of the evidence of a case in progress, as persons being investigated are best left unknowing and useful to flip for a leniency deal. Again, the timeline will be very informative if you take the time to read it. It's merely the chronological presentation of factual events.

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-russia-timeline/

Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:08 pm

That link is so full of invasive scripts that my script blocking software cannot be persuaded to show it.

Zachary Smith , August 18, 2017 at 8:37 pm

I use YesScript for Firefox on a case-by-case basis. If a site has annoying animations, it gets the treatment.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:40 pm

Just goole billmoyers.com and look for timeline. It's so easy.

D5-5 , August 19, 2017 at 10:40 am

The time-line is irrelevant to the specific claim that Trump conspired with Russia to fix the election. Point to anything in this time-line that offers evidence.

Reminder 1: evidence is what offers proof on the specific charge.

Reminder 2: the IC January 6 statement "not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

This very interesting statement suggests that a political motive was operative in these assessments, in which "what we want to believe" becomes "what we believe," or to quote Seymour Hersh recently, 2 + 2 = 45.

Your absence of doubt, particularly given the history of lying from our official government reps over many years now, as well as your swerving aside to an irrelevant "time-line," puts you in the camp of the propagandists.

Stephen J. , August 18, 2017 at 7:26 pm

This is disgusting: where is the outrage?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- –

Missouri Senator: 'I Hope Trump Is Assassinated -- '
12:46 PM 08/17/2017
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/missouri-senator-i-hope-trump-is-assassinated/

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm

I'm outraged.
Feel better?

Stephen J. , August 18, 2017 at 7:38 pm

I believe it is a disgusting and dangerous remark for a person in an elected position to make.

BobS , August 18, 2017 at 7:56 pm

That's why I'm outraged.

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm

See BobS no one knows how to take your snarky remarks. Plus, I don't believe you when you say you were outraged, because your squirrelly mind doesn't know how to be sincere. Oh will you pay for my ESL courses? Jagoff.

Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm

Mr. Pary, do you manage to send your articles to selected editors and journalists of the NYT, The Guardian, and their MSM mates? To selected politicians, including executive bureaucrats & MIC peple? It seems to me that some of them must read more than twits twittering? I think it's very vital that you do so or that someone does it on your behalf (and ours.)

Pierre Anonymot , August 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm

Oops, Parry.

Roy G Biv , August 18, 2017 at 9:42 pm

Parry is well known on Capitol Hill and among the MSM. Long standing feud, but no doubt respected.

Sam , August 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm

"a Ukrainian hacker whose malware was linked to the release of Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails in 2016"

Mr Parry, the malware and its developer had nothing whatsoever to do with the DNC. The New York Times erroneously made this claim and was forced to issue a correction. It has NEVER been claimed that this malware was deployed against the DNC. I think your piece would be strengthened if you mentioned that The New York Times made a big blunder about this.

Sam F , August 18, 2017 at 8:11 pm

Hi Sam, I regularly post here as Sam F and would appreciate your using an initlal to avoid confusion, if you will.

Taras77 , August 18, 2017 at 9:33 pm

This might be a tad OT but both links follow the reporting on Russia-gate hysteria:

This link is a review of a book on the Browder deception (title of review article is a tad more dire than the title of the book):

http://thesaker.is/cooperative-authors-the-killing-of-william-browder-deconstructing-bill-browders-dangerous-deception-alex-krainer-with-review-by-the-saker/

This link is to a very long article by saker on the neo con campaign to take down America and probably the world-very long but worth a read, particularly with fast moving developments in the trump white house; comments in general are also worthy of perusing:

http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/ ?

Joe Tedesky , August 18, 2017 at 11:13 pm

We should be careful, as not to dwell strictly on memorial statues. I will admit though, that the conversation should be had, but not without looking at the type of individuals who flock towards the racist trend. So far, of what I have been able to read regarding these young white guys, who have found comfort in racism, I find these misguided youth to be angry over the rise of minority groups. Reading their words, these angered white supremacist wrote, they complain that we spend to much time worried about bathrooms over them having a decent job. I say, why can't we do both. Someone needs to tell these racist, that it's not the various minority's who are getting in the way of their success in America, as much as it is themselves for not being able to overcome the many obstacles life has put in their way. They need to realize, that their future welfare doesn't rely on a minority losing any of their rights, in order for these racist to survive comfortably. What they need to learn, is they are their own best hope .attitude is altitude.

I also hope, that what happened in Charlottesville doesn't bring down the hammer on all public protest.

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 3:20 am

Joe – but there are too many "unskilled" workers coming into the country and it IS making a difference. Long time ago, when there was an abundance of factories churning out all sorts of products, there was a need for unskilled labor. People flooded into the country to fill these much-needed positions. You didn't need any special training; you didn't need to understand English.

With jobs having been offshored to Asia and with increasing automation, there is not a need for the same amount of "unskilled" labor as before, and yet they continue to pour into the country. What are the people who are on the left-hand side of the bell curve supposed to do? Innovate? Compete with the newcomers and have wages decline even more?

It's not the immigrants these kids dislike. It's the sheer numbers of them. Does that make any sense to you, that it's about the "numbers"? I agree that obstacles in life often make you wiser and stronger, but there comes a point in time when you start banging your head against the wall. What is the point of putting so many unnecessary obstacles in front of people? So some corporation can maintain a cheap labor force?

Sometimes my posts come across as sounding blunt. I don't mean them to. It's just that when things are reduced to words, you miss the shrugs of the shoulders, the eye movement, the sincerity in a person's voice.

Cheers, Joe.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:22 am

You never come off sounding bad, or blunt, with me.

For all the reasons you mentioned, is for all the reasons we as a society should require us to pull together. You see, I don't believe that all these problems should be remedied with racism taking over our young white mens political ideology. That's all I'm saying. If only our country would elect leaders, instead of billionaire realtors with tv celebrity status. If only this country's political parties were to not break the law running their gentrified Wall St hack candidate, who's only aim is to feather her historical bio. You see backwardsevolution, we need leaders, not celebrities seeking office for their own vain gratification.

Yes, for all the hard choices, and for all the tough decisions, should be the reason for our leaders to reach out or down, which ever you prefer, and should be what pulls us together. It breaks my heart, that here we are in 2017, the most successful nation God ever put on earth, and our white young men are turning into racist. Now, what could be wrong with that? I'll tell you what's wrong with that. Our leaders have quit leading, and replaced this leadership we the people should be receiving, and replaced this ever distant leadership with ignorance of doing their job to represent the voters.

Thanks for your response. Joe

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:49 am

Joe – " our white young men are turning into racists." I don't think they are, Joe. I think they get angry that they are not being allowed to speak, as if what they have to say doesn't really matter. I think that what we hear is carefully filtered, especially in the MSM, so as to make it look like they're racist, but I don't think this is the case at all. No time now, Joe. Thanks.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 11:59 pm

Okay, I will admit that our media portrays many of our events in the worst possible way. You more than likely may have a point that these young white men are not racist, that for many of them this white supremacist movement is just a vehicle to carry out their concerns.

What is wrong with our country's leadership, is how they speak to the problems, such as unemployment, with the sharpest rhetoric they can find to say how they are going to create many, many new and exciting jobs, but once in office they don't do a darn thing, as they go on to ignore the many promises they had made on the campaign trail. What these politicians seem completely oblivious too, is the voters who voted for them ,have memories, and they don't forget.

Opportunity only comes to those who seek it. Well that's not completely true, but in most cases it does prove that to those who try hard, much may be achieved. So if our politicians were to really want to change our sad employment status in this country, then why don't they do it? Would you invite 100 people over for a barbecue, and only have enough beverage and food for 25 of your guess. So, why can't the American politicians manage to accommodate a sagging work force, who's jobs they send off shore, with enough new jobs to fill the quota of the unemployed? Because they weren't told too, by their corporate special interest, or maybe they just didn't care enough to do something about it.

So, the young white, black, red, and yellow, person loses out. They lose out all because they were neglected by the very people who said they would help them. I don't know about you, but one of life's biggest disappointments, is when your savior turns their back on you.

I hope backwardsevolution I'm not sounding like I'm just spinning wheels, and I hope you at least get a peek of what is going on inside my head, with these important issues.

Joe

Realist , August 19, 2017 at 5:49 am

"Illegitimi non carborundum." (Don't let the bastards grind you down.)

Keep fighting for your principles AND civil discourse on this board, Joe. I offer the same words to backwardsevolution with whom you were conversing. You have both been stellar examples of respectful debaters.

I don't for a minute think, like some who keep obnoxiously pushing the accusation that most Americans, especially most Southern Americans, are racist, that racism underlies most of the dysfunction in governance of modern America, and that President Trump is the king of all racists, winning office only with the support of racists (and Russian saboteurs) to carry on a racist agenda thus depriving us of a new golden age under Saint Hillary the Great. The whole racist conflict in Charlottesville seemed suspiciously contrived to me to distract from other problem areas and to facilitate the ongoing coup against Trump (like him or hate him). I am NOT going to recapitulate all that yet again.

Certainly there were bone fide haters, some predisposed to violence, recruited into both factions by professional agitators. They couldn't have succeeded in provoking the violence if there were not. But, most working Americans are basically running scared, fearing they might lose their jobs, their houses, their medical coverage, quality education for their kids, and a viable future. Most whites, whether right or left, from the North or South, do not hate blacks, Latinos, Muslims or immigrants in general. They can see how disadvantaged those people often are and fear ending up in the same predicament. Most never say much about the situation, certainly not in strident public statements. Even the participants at political rallies are just a self-selected minority. Most who vote do so quietly, without comment. (My parents would never tell us who they voted for -- Keeps the peace.) More than half the country does not even vote. They choose to shy away from the political battlefield and certainly do not want to confront agitators in the street.

Call them alienated or disconnected from society, and condemn them if it suits your world view. We contributors to this site do put a lot of blame on those we decide are willfully ignorant. But I suspect that most of the self-disenfranchised simply don't have enough time to devote to learning the issues, choosing up sides and becoming activists, or even voters. I doubt that many of them think that tearing down a bunch of old monuments they were totally oblivious to will change their lives in any way and they certainly don't want to devote the time or energy to fighting about them.

If either the left or the right want to improve the lot of regular Americans, they will take some kind of action to bring back jobs to this country, not just high-skill jobs that require massive re-education, but jobs for the middle and the working classes alike. I thought that's what Dems always wanted to do, and what Trump said he would do. Why is everything still in grid-lock in Washington while both parties are trying to dump the man who opposed the TPP and said he would pressure corporations to keep jobs in and even bring back jobs to America–not that I think the latter is likely, but why has even lip-service to the idea stopped? If the Dems ostentatiously claimed THAT issue was their major bone of contention with Trump, they'd have a lot more followers than the few idiots who buy the Russia-Gate bullshit.

When Newt Gingrich swept the GOP to power in the congress during Bill Clinton's first term, he had devised a lengthy detailed plan of action called the "Contract for America." I was not an advocate of those policies, but they certainly resonated better with the public than today's "elect the Democrats to power and the Russians will never steal another election, in fact, we'll kick their asses from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea." "Plus we'll tear down all the confederate monuments which should bring peace and harmony to the streets." If the real game changers can ever be implemented (which seems near to hopeless to me), racism will not be a major issue in this country, not if most of us are physically and economically secure and optimistic about our futures. (I've had two black families and a Latino family living in houses right next to mine in South Florida, and I had a mixed race family as neighbors in my previous place of residence. Do I care? No. Do they care? No. Anyone else in the neighborhood ever make a comment about anyone's race? No. Does it affect my property value? No, but the real estate bubble caused by the banks sure did.)

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 7:03 am

Yes, good to point out that economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers. This is a great concern to those who advocate international development aid, who must answer objections on economic effects.

The answer on globalization may involve treaties and laws restricting trade to nations that provide a standard of living that compares well with the lower middle class of the US, and to suppliers who provide well for their employees. While that would be cheaper elsewhere, so does not remove competition with US labor, it does require that the cost in jobs to the US worker is matched by benefits in development elsewhere. So our assistance to US workers is reduced by development assistance.

It also would prevent the US heartlessly exploiting cheap labor pools of oppressed workers, without you or I being able to help them by purchasing choices, or to escape guilt in their exploitation. It would be good to know that one could make purchasing decisions without grinding others into poverty and degradation to save a few pennies.

BobS , August 19, 2017 at 7:53 am

" economic distress is a major factor in apparent racism and immigration resistance among US workers."
Partly, though certainly not solely, with respect to immigration.
Racism?
Nope.
Makes a nice scapegoat, though, for racists and their apologists.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 10:07 am

Your comment Sam took my mind back to my younger days when this town had an abundance of steel mills. If you were a young apprentice sometimes on your first day on the job, no one seemed to want to teach you the ropes, because each mill worker felt threatened that you were to be trained to replace them. In time, if you didn't screw up, you would be accepted and inducted into the group. We love cliques and groups, don't we? I thought of this, because what you wrote reminded me of how outsiders are viewed by the existing work force. This comparison on a international level is what we are experiencing. Our leadership is to blame for this new dividing dilemma. Promises to replace your old job with a brand new better job, was the big lie. Corporate profits override human necessity, and with that we all lose. I don't think that all these retail outlets closing their doors, is merely due to Amazons convenient purchasing, but much of this loss of retail revenue, is due to the beatdown society just cannot afford it.

Good comment as always Sam. Joe

Realist , August 19, 2017 at 6:25 pm

You are very much on point, Joe, about worker pitted against worker. Who benefits from such a divide and conquer tactic? The robber baron capitalists are who. And, I use that term because the phenomenon is nothing new. It, like the bruhaha about race goes back to before the Civil War. Ever watch the movie "The Gangs of New York?" Both these conflicts, involving race (and ethnicity) and socioeconomic class, are laid out powerfully right there. And, just as in the movie, after our generations exit the stage following all the sturm und drang, all the hate and all the angst churned up because we are made pawns of greater forces, no one will even remember we personally ever existed.

Trump Tower, the Clinton Foundation, and Obama's Library in Jackson Park (yeah, named after the racist Andrew, not Stonewall) will still persist though, just like the confederate statues do today. But would we really want our descendants to forget this era and the players who dominated it? We build monuments in DC to the holocaust in Europe which didn't even happen here, not to honor or glorify it but so we collectively don't forget. Maybe the purpose of some monuments actually evolves over time to serve as a lesson rather than hero worship, and when Americans a hundred years from now look upon a bronze cast of Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant or Douglas MacArthur their take will be, "war, how could our forebears possibly have embraced something so heinous, so destructive, so insane?"

Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 12:20 am

I always take away something of high value from what you write Realist. I agree with what you wrote here. I also think that our government should build right next to the Holocast museum, a fitting tribute to the suffering of the 600 indigenous nations who the U.S. had destroyed in its quest for manifest destiny. I'm serious, as a Sunday school teacher is on a Sunday teaching the word of God. If our nation's soiled pass, is to remain hidden by the curtain of everything that's just and right, then America's beloved citizens will never know to what is true. How can our nation become truly great, if it keeps on continuing to lie to itself. Making stuff up, will only last so long, until the truth will finally overcome every lie you ever told yourself.

The change in attitude towards venerating our country's historical pass, is a sign of how our American culture is changing. What got praise 100 years ago, may not be praise worthy by today's existing society. There isn't much to cry about, but instead we should understand that these changes will come, just as night follows day. I guess I'm a revisionist at heart, but I do believe that assumptions and conclusions, are a ever changing thing. So what we are witnessing, and experiencing, is just our own human evolution. Plus, I might add, as you know Realist, history is always being updated, and revised, and with it many truths that weren't known then become known.

It's always a pleasure to correspond with a reasonable, and sensible, comment poster as you. Joe

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 am

Every word you wrote Realist, is excellent. I felt the same way about Bill Clinton, but your right, at least the masses at his time in office thought the economy was what it was all about. I will save going into the reality of Clinton's time in office, but your point is well made.

Whether it be the Democrates, or a truly changed Republican party, one of these political parties will need to accommodate the voter, if anything is to get better.

Rather than me go on, I'm just going to read once again what you wrote Realist, because I could not write what you had wrote any better. Your words are excellent to what we are talking about.

I always enjoy reading your comments Realist, never leave us. Joe

Gregory Herr , August 19, 2017 at 3:06 pm

I have to chime in Joe. I read it twice for good measure. Thanks to Realist and the many here who share such understandings.

backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:11 am

Realist – thank you for your kind words. I always appreciate your well-thought-out and intelligent posts. They provide class and depth to the conversation. I, on the other hand, do not really belong on this site.

Sam F , August 20, 2017 at 9:58 am

Your posts have also been very useful and interesting, b-e.

backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:15 am

Yours too, Sam. Always enjoy your comments --

Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:02 pm

Hey backwardsevolution your the life of this party, you never seem like you don't belong. I personally look forward to reading your comments. So brighten up, you are needed here, and that's no lie. Joe

backwardsevolution , August 21, 2017 at 12:25 am

Joe – you're such a kind man. Thank you. I enjoy reading your posts too; they're always very considerate. What I mean by "I do not really belong on this site" is that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently. I'll hang around a while yet, though. Thanks, Joe.

Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:09 pm

"that I just see things differently than a lot of others on here do, too differently"

With your quote that is all the more reason this sites comment board needs you backwardsevolution.

backwardsevolution , August 20, 2017 at 7:15 am

Realist – excellent post. Thank you.

exiled off mainstreet , August 19, 2017 at 12:02 am

At Nuremberg, in 1946, Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi propaganda rag Der Stuermer, was executed based on the crime of propagandizing for war. This article provides further evidence that the New York Times Russia posturing is a tissue of propaganda lies. Since the logical goal of the propaganda is war, and the crap they are publishing has similar validity to that which was published for decades in the Nazi Stuermer rag, then if the legal doctrines put forward in the Nuremberg trial could be applied to US war propagandists, their status as war criminals would be apparent.

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am

exiled – yeah, I don't see a difference between then and now. Lies are everywhere, and not just little ones, but huge mothers used to sway public opinion. These guys really need to be in jail.

Look at what the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, said re Charlottesville. His remarks were quickly refuted by the Virginia State Police, but if you happened to hear what McAuliffe said, yet missed the police's remarks, you'd be none the wiser and you probably would have believed McAuliffe.

"In an interview Monday on the Pod Save the People podcast, hosted by Black Lives Matter activist DeRay Mckesson, McAuliffe claimed the white nationalists who streamed into Charlottesville that weekend hid weapons throughout the town.

"They had battering rams and we had picked up different weapons that they had stashed around the city," McAuliffe told Mckesson.

McAuliffe claimed in an interview with The New York Times that law enforcement arrived to find a line of militia members who "had better equipment than our State Police had." In longer comments that were later edited out of the Times' story, McAuliffe said that up to 80 percent of the rally attendees were carrying semi-automatic weapons. "You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army," he said."

All total bullshit -- Talk about inciting people -- Why is this guy still walking around?

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 11:43 am

exiled – here's the link for the above:

http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/16/virginia-state-police-say-they-didnt-fin

Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 12:16 am

Neo-nazis in Ukraine = good.

Neo-nazis in the US = bad.

To be more successful, the right wing protestors should have paraded under a facade of free speech, human rights and democracy, all the while promoting Nazi policies. This is something US intelligence agencies, MSM, and Congress do every day. US politicians should wear little swastika lapel pins on their suits to avoid confusion.

BobS , August 19, 2017 at 1:24 am

Obviously, the correct answer is
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad.
Then there's answers I've read in these comment sections, for instance
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = bad BUT .whatabout BLM?
&
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad
neo-Nazis in the U S = trap for Trump
as well as this classic:
neo-Nazis in Ukraine = bad.
neo-Nazis in the U S = DEEP STATE -- -- --

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am

Here is a post by Karl Denninger, a fellow who used to own his own Internet company in Chicago and is very knowledgeable about these things. After reading The Nation article by Patrick Lawrence, he said:

"I wouldn't go so far as to claim impossible, but I would say "highly unlikely." The second part of the statement, however, is utterly true -- it is completely consistent with either a SD card or USB flash drive inserted into a computer.

When it comes to Internet transfer of data, remember one thing: You're only as fast as the slowest link in the middle.

There are plenty of places on the Internet with gigabit (that's ~100MegaBYTE per second) speeds. But you would need such pipes end to end, and in addition, they'd have to be relatively empty at the time you exfiltrated the data.

What's worse is that there is a real bandwidth product delay problem that most "pedestrian" operating systems do not handle well at all.

In other words as latency and number of hops go up, irrespective of bandwidth, there's an issue with the maximum realistically obtainable speed, irrespective of whether there's sufficient available pipe space to take the data. This is a problem that can be tuned for if you know how and your system has the resources to handle it on some operating systems -- specifically, server-class operating systems like FreeBSD. But the "common" Windows machine pretty-much cannot be adjusted in this way and it requires expert knowledge to do so. [ ]

But it sure does cast a long shade on the claims of "Russians -- " in this alleged "hack." The simple fact of the matter is that the evidence points to inside exfiltration of the data directly from the physical machines in question, which is no "hack" at all: It's an inside job, performed by someone who had trusted, administrative access, and then doctored the documents later to make it look like Russians.

And, I might add, poorly doctored at that.

PS: Left unsaid in the linked article, but it shouldn't have been, is that if there was an SD card or external USB device plugged into the machine there is an event log from said machine documenting the exact time that said device was attached and detached. Find that log (or the timestamp on it being erased, which is equally good in a situation like this), match it against the metadata times, and then start looking for security camera footage and/or access card logs for where that machine is and you know who did it with near-certainty, proved by the forensic evidence.

Now perhaps you can explain why the FBI didn't raid the DNC's offices with a warrant, take custody of said logs and go through them to perform this investigation -- which would have pointed straight at the party or parties responsible .."

Read the whole thing.

backwardsevolution , August 19, 2017 at 1:59 am

Here's the link for the above piece:

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=232304

Stephen J. , August 19, 2017 at 8:06 am

Article of interest at link below
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -
FINIAN CUNNINGHAM | 18.08.2017 | OPINION
As Russia-Gate Story Stalls, Cue Trump Neo-Nazi Scandal
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/18/as-russia-gate-story-stalls-cue-trump-neo-nazi-scandal.html

Stephen J. , August 19, 2017 at 8:19 am

Could the quote below apply to today?
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right." – George Orwell, 1984

BobS , August 19, 2017 at 8:44 am

"Could the quote below apply to today?"
If one is a drama queen, apparently yes.

Joe Tedesky , August 19, 2017 at 9:51 am

Stephen it doesn't take a drama queen to recognize the true sorry state our society has evolved into. Orwell's 1984 is disturbingly coming to life more than ever. I read 1984 back when I was a sophomore in high school, but recently a lawyer friend of mine read that book, and he said that all he kept thinking about was me. He said, that while he read the book, the many conversations which him and I had had made him think of my warnings to where our civilization is going. No we are here, the date on your calendar may read 2017, but make no mistake about it we are living in 1984.

I dread that these violent protest, will deny our civil rights to form protests, and that would be a great loss. Although, these buggers in D.C. are convinced they must seize every crisis, and milk it for all they can. Each terrible disaster brings with it new restrictions. It maybe found when boarding a plane, or opening an investment account, as each tragic event brought us to these new restrictions we must live with. We are being played, but that piece of information, is covered over with conspiracy nut paper, and there go I.

Keep the faith Stephen, and ignore the trolling critics, who no doubt are paid to annoy us with our own hard earned taxpayer money .now that's Big Brother stuff, if ever there was any Big Brother stuff to disturb our inquiring minds. Joe

Stephen J. , August 19, 2017 at 11:12 am

Hi Joe Tedesky, very true, 1984 is here in 2017, but some are ignorant of the fact. i believe we are "Prisoners of "Democracy"
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/07/the-prisoners-of-democracy.html
I always enjoy your concise comments.

Joe Tedesky , August 20, 2017 at 9:53 am

Reading the link you provided, all I could picture, was Senator John McCain doing a photo op session with his new found friends the terrorist. Also, I believe that if you pay your taxes you have every right to complain. That your ability to lodge a complain against your government shouldn't depend solely on your voting, because you still pay your taxes, and that paying your taxes, is your ticket to the complaint window.

What this country's politicians really need is a 'low voter turnout', so low as to delegitimize the results of any election, which would result in the world not honoring your country's election results.

https://criminalbankingmonopoly.wordpress.com

Good conversation, and link sharing Stephen. Joe

BobS , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 am

As if on cue, to illustrate my point.
Get out the smelling salts.

Tannenhouser , August 22, 2017 at 10:32 pm

Balloons full of piss. I'd say that illustrates anything remotely resembling a point you make believe you have made bobs.

Keep up the good work Joe. Thanks for all you and other's do here.

Michael Kenny , August 19, 2017 at 10:30 am

Mr Parry is simply repeating what he has said before in many articles. He even harks back to the Malaysian airliner -- Whatever other evidence there may be (MacronLeaks, the criminal investigation into which is still ongoing), Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference in the US election. Russians claiming to represent their government met with Junior and offered him DNC "dirt". DNC dirt subsequently appeared on the internet via Wikileaks. That those two events are wholly unrelated coincidences is more than I am prepared to believe. At that point, it matters not one whit how the Russians obtained the information or from whom. The Russians promised, the Russians delivered. Did Charlottesville really do this much damage? Putin's American supporters seem to be in panic -- Or is it Bannon?

Desert Dave , August 19, 2017 at 10:53 am

"Trump Junior's admissions prove Russian interference"? Unless I am not keeping up, all that happened is that a PR flak (not in Russian government) used the promise of compromat to arrange a meeting with Junior, where they talked about something else.

That's weak, my friend. And while it seems true that Trump's supporters are in a panic, Trump is not Putin.

And in case you want to put me in the box with Trump supporters, know that I am actually a LGBTQ-celebrating, anti-war, dirt-worshipping tree-hugger.

Gregor , August 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm

A sincere congratulations to some of us who have learned to ignore the snarky but non- contributive remarks
of Bob S. . Joe and Stephen and others, it seems you have found a way to communicate with each other and the rest of us
without responding to Bob S. That's good.

Bob In Portland , August 19, 2017 at 2:16 pm

Let me toot my own horn again. I figured all this out last spring. But the way the false information was fed to the public, large portions were revealed after the election, indicates that the disinformation wasn't originally to prevent Trump's election, but rather intended as use for President Hillary Clinton's casus belli to take the war to Russia. Everyone presumed she would win. You can read original piece here: https://caucus99percent.com/content/okeydoke-americans-were-supposed-get

But, as I suggested in April, this okeydoke was directed by the intelligence wing of the Deep State, probably the CIA, for Hillary's warhorse to ride into battle. It not only was supported by the CIA, it was created by it. And while most Americans never consider that the powers who are the likeliest suspects for the political assassinations of the sixties would insinuate themselves into the political system and support and promote their own, I suggest that another article, another one from the New York Times, which tries to explain Hillary suspiciously bouncing from the right to the left during the troubled times of 1968. What the article doesn't provide is that after volunteering for Gene McCarthy in early 1968 she attended the Republican convention. After that she worked as an intern in Congress that summer and wrote a speech for then-Republican congressman Robert "Bom" Laird about financing the war in Vietnam. Six months after that speech Laird was Nixon's Secretary of Defense, sending wave after wave of B-52s over Vietnam. Then Hillary capped her summer by going to the civil war that was the Chicago Democratic convention.

Rather than looking like a confused college student, not sure whether to be a pro-war Republican or an anti-war Democrat, Hillary Rodham looks more like one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of government spies that infiltrated all progressive groups back then in operations like the FBI's COINTELPRO. What did she do after that? She "observed" a Black Panther trial in New Haven. Then a year or so later she spent a summer interning for the law office in Oakland that represented Black Panthers in the Bay Area.

In short, she appeared to have an intelligence background before she allegedly met Bill on the Yale campus, which holds out the possibility that their marriage was actually a marriage made in Langley. And that explains why Deep State interests wanted and expected her to be leading the charge in 2017.

Here is the NY Times article on Hillary, published in September 2007 to prepare the Times' audience for her initial run for the Presidency in 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=0

Joe Tedesky , August 21, 2017 at 4:13 pm

As usual I take away a lot from your posting comments.

Michael , August 19, 2017 at 4:54 pm

Roy G Biv wrote: "It seems people have trouble holding disparate thoughts in their minds and require mutual exclusivity "

Sam F wrote: "I do not exclude the possibility that intel technology whose nature and location are critical secrets might be revealed with the evidence "

So what is being said is that the benefit to the USA of disclosing methods and sources has not yet reached the level at which the FBI or the IC will comply on their own to make public any evidence AND it also has not negatively affected the country enough to force our leaders with the levers of power in their hands to make them comply.

That's what I hear and it sounds like typical political posturing. So we will get more dysfunction in govt and more people dying here and abroad. Mean while we wait for the magic event that will put us over the line. Or not

Sam F , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 pm

Yes, it looks like political manipulation. The IC could have revealed sufficient information after a month or so at only moderate loss of intelligence asset value, both on the alleged hacking and flight MH-17. If they were unprepared to reveal evidence after this time, then they should not have publicized conclusions. By now they should accept the loss and reveal it, otherwise citizens may fairly presume that political appointees in intel are deceiving them for political purposes.

Typical sources that could be revealed by now:
1. A well-placed source in a foreign government agency: Try to claim another plausible source, email intercept, or recently dismissed employee or defector already protected; if that is impossible and the info is of great political importance in the US, the real source must defect to the US for safety. We must take the intel loss to preserve the integrity of public information.
2. A satellite or new technology: If the images or info seem to identify the source or location or capability, then modify them enough to make it look like another technology or location. Admitting alteration is better than providing nothing.
3. A snoop connection in a valuable location: move it, install another similar device, claim that the info comes from a distinct source or location, etc.

If the problem is "developing" witness credibility or forthrightness, which some may hope will improve, then the source is not yet credible and potential conclusions should not be stated with "high confidence" by anyone who cares for truth in policy making.

Billy , August 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm

The "Russia hacked the DNC so if you pay attention to the content of the emails leaked, you're a Putin loving unAmerican dog -- " lie used by the DNC to distract from their cheating Bernie. Really took off, practically every pretend news source on the internet repeated the evidence free accusation, as if it were a proven fact. As did all the MSM propagandist posing as news anchors. The sheer number of people pushing the lie was mind boggling. Now all of the sudden not a peep about it. I have to question the timing of the statue removal shit stirring. It seems like a convienent distraction. Why now? All of a sudden these statues must go -- -- I still haven't figured out what the distraction is distracting from. But the Nation and other web sites were starting to publish truth about "Russia gate"

Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:13 pm

Good comment Billy. The timing of these events is always interesting. Like when the MSM released info on trumps son meeting with a Russian, just after trump met face to face with Putin in Europe. Presumably the MSM had this story for months, and ran it to "punish" trump for the Putin meeting.

Bruce , August 19, 2017 at 10:04 pm

Again, its probably best to ignore BobS. He is probably a paid professional disruptor ..your tax dollars at work huh? The fact he is bothering to muddy these waters is both flattering to CN and evidence of the validity of CN's stance on many important issues.

Herman , August 20, 2017 at 9:50 am

President Trump will probably survive but the effects of his treatment by the media, politicians in both parties, and monied folks but the way he was attacked and its effects will forever leave a mark on the Office itself. It is an unnecessary reminder how mindless lynch mobs can be and how powerless the great majority of people are regarding what is happening and will likely happen to them.

Hank , August 21, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Russia Gate is a Farce. If by now, the deep state has not figured out a way to make it look like a Russian hack with some "credible" evidence that at least MSM and the masses can swallow then we must seriously doubt. Post Categories: Canada
William Blum | Saturday, June 24, 2017, 20:02 Beijing
33
Print

GR Editor's Note

This incisive list of countries by William Blum was first published in 2013, posted on Global Research in 2014.

In relation to recent developments in Latin America and the Middle East, it is worth recalling the history of US sponsored military coups and "soft coups" aka regime changes.

In a bitter irony, under the so-called "Russia probe" the US is accusing Moscow of interfering in US politics.

This article reviews the process of overthrowing sovereign governments through military coups, acts of war, support of terrorist organizations, covert ops in support of regime change.

In recent developments, the Trump administration is supportive of a US sponsored regime change in Venezuela and Cuba

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, June 24, 2017

******************

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War.

(* indicates successful ouster of a government)

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Libya 2011*
Syria 2012

Q: Why will there never be a coup d'état in Washington?

A: Because there's no American embassy there.

Tom , August 22, 2017 at 7:13 am

Putin's denial is meaningless (though he just as likely could be telling the truth) HOWEVER to my knowledge Assange has yet to be proven wrong (must less intentionally lying) about anything. IMO he's the ONLY person in all of this who has anything resembling a record of credibility. That MSM dismisses this demonstrates they are driven by narrative & ideology, NOT pursuit of fact/truth

Jamie , August 22, 2017 at 12:59 pm

"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake.
They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."

– Crooked Hillary

Large Louis de Boogeytown , August 22, 2017 at 2:58 pm

There is just as much evidence that Ukraine hacked the DNC computer and releasing the information was another one of that countries 'mistakes'. If they are capable of nothing else, Ukraine seems to produce "software experts" who are involved in EVERY dirty game attached to the internet. The latest one is about turning the Ukrainian 'hryvnia' into real money – 'bitcoin'.

Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Yes, it DID rely ENTIRELY on CrowdStrike.

All CrowdStrike did was send the FBI a "certified true image" of the DNC servers. This also applies to the other two infosec companies who weighed in on the evidence – Mandiant and FireEye. Neither the FBI or those two companies ever examined the DNC servers, the DNC routers or other IT infrastructure which is an absolute MUST in investigating a computer crime.

That is NOT sufficient. ALL the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike is either circumstantial or easily spoofable. Therefore the only thing the FBI can see on that "certified true image" is the "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike.

And CrowdStrike is COMPLETELY COMPROMISED by being a company run by an ex-pat Russian who hates Putin and Russia, someone who sees Russian under every PC.

Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:32 pm

I should also point out that Jeffrey Carr has been saying this exact thing since the events unfolded last summer. In fact, from an email to me, he's said he's tired of talking about it.

Jeffrey is absolutely right. NONE of the alleged "evidence" provided by CrowdStrike in any way connects directly back to ANYONE, let alone the Russian government.

Some of it is laughable, such as the notion that the malware compile times were "during Moscow business hours." If you look at a time zone map, you see that Kiev, Ukraine, is one hour behind Moscow time. When it's business hours in Moscow, it's business hours in Ukraine – and can you imagine there are Ukraine hackers more than willing to frame Russia for a high-profile hack?

The National article and the research by The Forensicator does not PROVE that the DNC emails were leaked, because it is POSSIBLE for someone to access high-speed Internet. Unlikely, as The Forensicator states, but NOT impossible. At least 17% of the US has access to Gigabit Ethernet to the home and business. However, as The Forensicator correctly points out, it's hard to get that kind of speed across the Internet, especially to Eastern Europe where the entity Guccifer 2.0 allegedly resides.

Further, we don't know that the copies analyzed by The Forensicator were copied originally from the DNC. In fact, The Forensicator specially disavows that requirement. What is important to him is that the analysis proves that Guccifer 2.0 was NOT remotely hacking from Romania because 1) the speeds involved, and 2) the timestamps are all East Coast USA times (which he acknowledges could be faked but Guccifer 2.0 would have had little reason to do so or even think of doing so.)

The bottom line is that The Forensicator's analysis, coupled with Adam Carter's analysis of the Guccifer 2.0 entity, establishes good solid CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is NOT a remote Romanian hacker and is NOT a Russian agent, but rather an entity inserted into the mix to provide "evidence" that the DNC leak was a Russian hack.

And finally, of course, we have Sy Hersh being caught on tape explicitly stating that he has seen or had read to him an FBI report that specifically states the murdered DNC staff Seth Rich WAS in contact with Wikileaks and had offered to sell them DNC documents. And that Wikileaks had access to Rich's DropBox account where presumably he was stashing those documents or using it to transfer them to Wikileaks.

Hersh is preparing a full report on this matter, which if it's anything like his earlier articles will bury the "DNC hack" story completely.

Remember that "Russiagate" essentially depends on TWO critical factors:

1) That it is a fact that Russia hacked the DNC; and
2) That it is Russia that transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks – otherwise there is no real reason why Russia would hack the DNC and it certainly did not do so to "influence the election."

If number one is weak, due to laughable "evidence" and number two proves to be false, the entire "Russia influencing the election" story goes away. And the rest of the "Trump collusion" "evidence" is also laughable.

Now it may well be true that even if Russia did not give Wikileaks the emails they may still have hacked the DNC at some point. I submit that if the Russian government did it, we'd never know about it. First because they wouldn't have done it over the Internet because of the risk of the NSA detecting it (the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC) and second, they wouldn't have left any real evidence, especially not evidence linking directly to Russia.

Russian intelligence would have either used a physical penetration of the DNC network (easily done as demonstrated by US penetration testers all the time) or used a wireless connection into the DNC network from somewhere close to the DNC server location. That's assuming they wouldn't use the standard intelligence tactic of bribery or blackmail to get a DNC staffer to GIVE them the emails. In any case, the NSA would not have detected that hack, and CrowdStrike wouldn't have found any significant forensic evidence except perhaps some evidence that forensic traces had been ERASED.

Which basically means that whoever hacked the DNC – and that is only IF the DNC was REALLY hacked, for which there is NO PROOF except the DNC's and CrowdStrike's word since the FBI did not investigate the alleged hack itself – might have been 1) some criminal hacker(s) from Russia or elsewhere, or 2) some other intelligence agency trying to frame Russia for a hack.

It has been suggested that Russian intelligence DOES use criminal hackers on a contract basis either to perform hacks or to buy intel from said hackers. However, I find it unlikely that Russian intelligence would use incompetent hackers – and the DNC hackers had to be incompetent to leave the traces they did – for such a "sensitive" hack on a political party in the US.

You can't have it both ways: 1) that awesomely capable Russian hackers are hacking everything in the US connected to the election, and 2) that they are so incompetent as to leave easily followed trails right back to the Kremlin.

In general, so-called "attribution" of "Russian hackers "is nothing of the sort. It is merely attribution to a collection of hacking tools and alleged "targets". With the sole exception of Mandiant identifying specific individuals in a specific building in China, which if accurate was an impressive display of solid attribution, ninety percent of the time no individuals or agencies can be reliably identified by attribution.

Instead, what we get is the following:

1) Someone ASSUMES that because "target X" is a government or other sensitive facility that the hacker of said target MUST BE a "nation state actor."

2) Then some later hacker who either happens to use the same hacking tools or happens to target a similar target is ASSUMED to be either the same hacker or associated with the same hacker. (Note: the DNC hackers are actually alleged to be TWO SEPARATE entities – APT28 and APT29 – not including Guccifer 2.0.)

3) Thus a house is built on the sand of the first assumption and used to justify all the subsequent "analysis" and "assessments."

An example of this is German intelligence believing that Russia committed a specific hack, and that is now used as justification for believing the DNC hack was done by the same group, when in fact German intelligence merely stated that because of the TARGET of the hack they "assessed" that it MIGHT have been Russian intelligence.

In reality, ANY hacker will hack ANY TARGET if he thinks 1) that it will be a challenge, and/or 2) that it will be interesting, and/or 3) that it contains PII (Personally Identifiable Information) or other data such as credit cards which he can sell on the hacker underground. Therefore the choice of target doesn't really prove anything.

The choice of hacking tools is also irrelevant. CrowdStrike asserted that some of the tools used in the DNC hack are "exclusive". Jeffrey Carr has proven they're not, because he spoke to Ukrainian hackers and others who have them.

Bottom line: Without HUMINT (human intelligence) or SIGINT (signals intelligence) obtained offline that specifically identifies a given organization or individuals, attribution of a specific hack to a specific hacker(s) is almost impossible.

Most of the hackers who have been caught have been caught because they had poor operational security and allowed email addresses and other identifying information that connected directly to their offline identity to be found. Without that, most hackers get away, unless they can be lured into identifying themselves by bragging or being set up by a law-enforcement sting.

At this point, Carr is right: There is NO publicly available, non-circumstantial, non-spoofable evidence that a DNC hack even occurred, let alone that any hack that might have been done was done by Russians at all, let alone the Russian government. And all of the alleged US intelligence "assessments" have provided NO additional evidence.

Richard Steven Hack , August 22, 2017 at 7:36 pm

Correction to my post:

"(the NSA certainly wasn't monitoring the DNC)" s/b
"(the NSA certainly was monitoring the DNC)"

frank scott , August 22, 2017 at 7:41 pm

now it isn't just the nytimes but the new yorker as well, with a many pages piece in its current issue that reads like a doctoral thesis written by a gossip columnist and is a hatchet job on assange and in great part accusing him, putin and russia of electing trump.. hope you will comment on some of the specifics the writer includes which will probably be convincing to readers of political gossip columns and benefit from informed criticism such as you can provide..i don't believe any of this crap anyway.

[Aug 21, 2017] Steve Bannon Plots Fox News Competitor As He Goes To War With Globalists, Report

Notable quotes:
"... Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power. ..."
"... "That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying." ..."
"... The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Axios: that part of that war effort might include a brand new cable news network to the right of Fox News.

Axios' Jonathan Swan hears Bannon has told friends he sees a massive opening to the right of Fox News , raising the possibility that he's going to start a network. Bannon's friends are speculating about whether it will be a standalone TV network, or online streaming only.

Before his death in May, Roger Ailes had sent word to Bannon that he wanted to start a channel together. Bannon loved the idea: He believes Fox is heading in a squishy, globalist direction as the Murdoch sons assume more power.

Now he has the means, motive and opportunity: His chief financial backer, Long Island hedge fund billionaire Bob Mercer, is ready to invest big in what's coming next, including a huge overseas expansion of Breitbart News. Of course, this new speculation comes after Bannon declared last Friday that he was " going to war" for Trump ...

" If there's any confusion out there, let me clear it up. I'm leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,

Meanwhile, with regard his internal adversaries , at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system, Bannon was ever harsher...

"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.

"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."

Finally, perhaps no one can summarize what Bannon has planned for the future than Bannon himself:

"The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over I feel jacked up Now I'm free. I've got my hands back on my weapons.

I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There's no doubt. I built a f***ing machine at Breitbart. And now we're about to rev that machine up."

[Aug 21, 2017] As President Trump considers sending more troops to Afghanistan, it's worth recalling the modern U.S. dynamic of politicians and generals making misguided judgments about war, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

Aug 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: mauisurfer | Aug 20, 2017 7:58:16 PM | 10

By Ray McGovern

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/20/truth-and-lives-vs-career-and-fame/

[Aug 21, 2017] Truth and Lives vs. Career and Fame by Ray McGovern

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Fifty years ago, I could have tried to stop the Vietnam War, but lacked the courage. On Aug. 20, 1967, we at CIA received a cable from Saigon containing documentary proof that the U.S. commander, Gen. William Westmoreland, and his deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, were lying about their "success" in fighting the Vietnamese Communists. I live with regret that I did not blow the whistle on that when I could have.

(I wrote about this two years ago: " The Lasting Pain from Vietnam Silence ," republished below.)

Why raise this now? Because President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with starry-eyed generals (or generals with their eyes focused on their careers). And he seems to have little inkling that they got their multiple stars under a system where the Army motto "Duty, Honor, Country" can now be considered as "quaint" and "obsolete" as the Bush-Cheney administration deemed the Geneva Conventions.

All too often, the number of ribbons and merit badges festooned on the breasts of U.S. generals these days (think of the be-medaled Gen. David Petraeus, for example) is in direct proportion to the lies they have told in saluting smartly and abetting the unrealistic expectations of their political masters (and thus winning yet another star).

In my apologia that follows, the concentration is on the crimes of Westmoreland and the generations of careerist generals who aped him. There is not enough space to describe (or even list) those sycophantic officers here.

There are, sadly, far fewer senior officers who were exceptions, who put the true interests of the country ahead of their own careers. The list of general officers with integrity – the extreme exceptions to the rule – is even shorter. Only three spring immediately to mind: two generals and one admiral, all three of them cashiered for doing their job with honesty. What they experienced was instructive and remains so to this day.

1-On February 25, 2003, three weeks before the attack on Iraq, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that post-war Iraq would require "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers." He was immediately ridiculed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, for having exaggerated the requirement. Shinseki retired a few months later.

2-Army General David McKiernan was cut from the same cloth. When President Barack Obama took office, McKiernan was running the war in Afghanistan. Even before Obama's election, he had expressed himself openly and strongly against applying the benighted Iraq-style "surge" of forces to Afghanistan, emphasizing that Afghanistan is "a far more complex environment than I ever found in Iraq," where he had led U.S. ground forces.

"The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,'" McKiernan told a news conference on Oct. 1, 2008. He warned that a large, sustained military buildup would be necessary to achieve any meaningful success. Worse still for the Washington Establishment, McKiernan added a stunning "no-no" – he said to achieve anything approaching a satisfactory outcome would take a decade, perhaps 14 years. Imagine!

Former CIA Director (and later Defense Secretary) Robert Gates.

For his political bosses, that cautionary realism was too much. On May 11, 2009, the Defense Secretary whom Obama's predecessor bequeathed to him, Robert Gates, sacked McKiernan, who had been in command less than a year. Gates replaced him with the swashbuckling Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a protégé of Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus.

Now, more than eight years later – with the American death toll almost quadrupled since the start of the Obama administration ( now exceeding 2,400 ), with a vastly greater death toll among Afghan civilians and with the U.S. military position even more precarious – President Trump is receiving advice to dispatch more U.S. troops.

3-Admiral William J. ("Fox") Fallon , one of the last Vietnam War veterans on active duty late into George W. Bush's administration, took over as chief of the Central Command on March 16, 2007. Fallon had already come under heavy criticism from the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute for not being hawkish enough.

Fallon had also been confronting Vice President Dick Cheney's desire to commit U.S. forces to another Mideast war, with Iran. As Fallon was preparing to take responsibility for U.S. forces in the region, he declared that a war with Iran "isn't going to happen on my watch," according to retired Army Col. Patrick Lang who told the Washington Post.

Gen. David Petraeus posing before the U.S. Capitol with Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War. (Photo credit: ISW's 2011 Annual Report)

Fallon's lack of patience with yes-men turned out to be yet another bureaucratic black mark against him. Several sources have reported that Fallon was sickened by David Petraeus's earlier, unctuous pandering to ingratiate himself with Fallon, his superior (for all-too-short a time). Fallon is said to have been so turned off by all the accolades in a flowery introduction given him by Petraeus that he called him to his face "an ass-kissing little chicken-shit," adding, "I hate people like that."

Fallon lasted not quite a full year. On March 11, 2008, Gates announced the resignation of Fallon as CENTCOM Commander, but Fallon's resistance to a war on Iran bought enough time for the U.S. intelligence community to reach a consensus that Iran had stopped work on a nuclear bomb years earlier, thus removing President Bush's intended excuse for going to war.

A Troubling Message

Sadly, however, the message to aspiring military commanders from this history is that there is little personal gain in doing what's best for the American people and the world. The promotions and the prestige normally go to the careerists who bend to the self-aggrandizing realities of Official Washington. They are the ones who typically become esteemed "wise men," the likes of Gen. Colin Powell, who went with the political winds (from his days as a young officer in Vietnam through his tenure as Secretary of State).

Someone needs to tell President Trump what Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity told President George W. Bush in a memorandum for the President on February 5, 2003, immediately following Powell's deceptive testimony urging the United Nations' Security Council to support an invasion of Iraq. What we said then seems just as urgent now:

Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on Feb. 5. 2003, citing satellite photos which supposedly proved that Iraq had WMD, but the evidence proved bogus.

"[A]fter watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic."

And on the chance that President Trump remains tone-deaf to such advice, let me appeal to the consciences of those within the system who are privy to the kind of consequential deceit that has become endemic to the U.S. government. It is time to blow the whistle – now.

Take it from one who lives with regret from choosing not to step forward when it might have made a difference. Take it from Pentagon Papers truth-teller Daniel Ellsberg who often expresses regret that he did not speak out sooner.

Take it from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in a passage ironically cited often by President Obama: "We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now there is such a thing as being too late."

[Below is McGovern's article from May 1, 2015]

The Lasting Pain from Vietnam Silence

Exclusive: Many reflections on America's final days in Vietnam miss the point, pondering whether the war could have been won or lamenting the fate of U.S. collaborators left behind. The bigger questions are why did the U.S. go to war and why wasn't the bloodletting stopped sooner, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern reflects .

By Ray McGovern

Ecclesiastes says there is a time to be silent and a time to speak. The fortieth anniversary of the ugly end of the U.S. adventure in Vietnam is a time to speak and especially of the squandered opportunities that existed earlier in the war to blow the whistle and stop the killing.

While my friend Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 eventually helped to end the war, Ellsberg is the first to admit that he waited too long to reveal the unconscionable deceit that brought death and injury to millions.

Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

I regret that, at first out of naiveté and then cowardice, I waited even longer until my own truth-telling no longer really mattered for the bloodshed in Vietnam. My hope is that there may be a chance this reminiscence might matter now if only as a painful example of what I could and should have done, had I the courage back then. Opportunities to blow the whistle in time now confront a new generation of intelligence analysts whether they work on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, ISIS or Iran.

Incidentally, on Iran, there was a very positive example last decade: courageous analysts led by intrepid (and bureaucratically skilled) former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence Thomas Fingar showed that honesty can still prevail within the system, even when truth is highly unwelcome.

The unanimous intelligence community conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier played a huge role in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran in 2008, their last year in office. Bush says so in his memoir; and, on that one point, we can believe him.

After a half-century of watching such things closely, this is the only time in my experience that the key judgment of an NIE helped prevent a catastrophic, unwinnable war. Sadly, judging from the amateurism now prevailing in Washington's opaque policymaking circles, it seems clear that the White House pays little heed to those intelligence officers still trying to speak truth to power.

For them I have a suggestion: Don't just wring your hands, with an "I did everything I could to get the truth out." Chances are you have not done all you can. Ponder the stakes the lives ended too early; the bodies and minds damaged forever; the hatred engendered against the United States; and the long-term harm to U.S. national interests and think about blowing the whistle publicly to prevent unnecessary carnage and alienation.

I certainly wish I had done so about what I learned of the unconscionable betrayal by senior military and intelligence officers regarding Vietnam. More recently, I know that several of you intelligence analysts with a conscience wish you had blown the whistle on the fraud "justifying" war on Iraq. Spreading some truth around is precisely what you need to do now on Syria, Iraq, Ukraine and the "war on terror," for example.

I thought that by describing my own experience negative as it is and the remorse I continue to live with, I might assist those of you now pondering whether to step up to the plate and blow the whistle now, before it is again too late. So below is an article that I might call "Vietnam and Me."

Photos of victims of the My Lai massacre in Vietnam galvanized public awareness about the barbarity of the war. (Photo taken by U. S. Army photographer Ronald L. Haeberle)

My hope is to spare you the remorse of having to write, a decade or two from now, your own "Ukraine and Me" or "Syria and Me" or "Iraq and Me" or "Libya and Me" or "The War on Terror and Me." My article, from 2010, was entitled "How Truth Can Save Lives" and it began:

If independent-minded Web sites, like WikiLeaks or, say, Consortiumnews.com, existed 43 years ago, I might have risen to the occasion and helped save the lives of some 25,000 U.S. soldiers, and a million Vietnamese, by exposing the lies contained in just one SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Saigon.

I need to speak out now because I have been sickened watching the herculean effort by Official Washington and our Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) to divert attention from the violence and deceit in Afghanistan, reflected in thousands of U.S. Army documents, by shooting the messenger(s), WikiLeaks and Pvt. Bradley Manning.

After all the indiscriminate death and destruction from nearly nine years of war, the hypocrisy is all too transparent when WikiLeaks and suspected leaker Manning are accused of risking lives by exposing too much truth. Besides, I still have a guilty conscience for what I chose NOT to do in exposing facts about the Vietnam War that might have saved lives.

The sad-but-true story recounted below is offered in the hope that those in similar circumstances today might show more courage than I was able to muster in 1967, and take full advantage of the incredible advancements in technology since then.

Many of my Junior Officer Trainee Program colleagues at CIA came to Washington in the early Sixties inspired by President John Kennedy's Inaugural speech in which he asked us to ask ourselves what we might do for our country. (Sounds corny nowadays, I suppose; I guess I'll just have to ask you to take it on faith. It may not have been Camelot exactly, but the spirit and ambience were fresh, and good.)

Among those who found Kennedy's summons compelling was Sam Adams, a young former naval officer out of Harvard College. After the Navy, Sam tried Harvard Law School, but found it boring. Instead, he decided to go to Washington, join the CIA as an officer trainee, and do something more adventurous. He got more than his share of adventure.

Sam was one of the brightest and most dedicated among us. Quite early in his career, he acquired a very lively and important account, that of assessing Vietnamese Communist strength early in the war. He took to the task with uncommon resourcefulness and quickly proved himself the consummate analyst.

Relying largely on captured documents, buttressed by reporting from all manner of other sources, Adams concluded in 1967 that there were twice as many Communists (about 600,000) under arms in South Vietnam as the U.S. military there would admit.

Dissembling in Saigon

Visiting Saigon during 1967, Adams learned from Army analysts that their commanding general, William Westmoreland, had placed an artificial cap on the official Army count rather than risk questions regarding "progress" in the war (sound familiar?).

Official photo of Army Chief of Staff GEN William C. Westmoreland. (Wikipedia)

It was a clash of cultures; with Army intelligence analysts saluting generals following politically dictated orders, and Sam Adams aghast at the dishonesty, consequential dishonesty. From time to time I would have lunch with Sam and learn of the formidable opposition he encountered in trying to get out the truth.

Commiserating with Sam over lunch one day in late August 1967, I asked what could possibly be Gen. Westmoreland's incentive to make the enemy strength appear to be half what it actually was. Sam gave me the answer he had from the horse's mouth in Saigon.

Adams told me that in a cable dated Aug. 20, 1967, Westmoreland's deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, set forth the rationale for the deception. Abrams wrote that the new, higher numbers (reflecting Sam's count, which was supported by all intelligence agencies except Army intelligence, which reflected the "command position") "were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press."

Abrams emphasized, "We have been projecting an image of success over recent months" and cautioned that if the higher figures became public, "all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion."

No further proof was needed that the most senior U.S. Army commanders were lying, so that they could continue to feign "progress" in the war. Equally unfortunate, the crassness and callousness of Abrams's cable notwithstanding, it had become increasingly clear that rather than stand up for Sam, his superiors would probably acquiesce in the Army's bogus figures. Sadly, that's what they did.

CIA Director Richard Helms, who saw his primary duty quite narrowly as "protecting" the agency, set the tone. He told subordinates that he could not discharge that duty if he let the agency get involved in a heated argument with the U.S. Army on such a key issue in wartime.

CIA Director Richard Helms.

This cut across the grain of what we had been led to believe was the prime duty of CIA analysts, to speak truth to power without fear or favor. And our experience thus far had shown both of us that this ethos amounted to much more than just slogans. We had, so far, been able to "tell it like it is."

After lunch with Sam, for the first time ever, I had no appetite for dessert. Sam and I had not come to Washington to "protect the agency." And, having served in Vietnam, Sam knew first hand that thousands upon thousands were being killed in a feckless war.

What to Do?

I have an all-too-distinct memory of a long silence over coffee, as each of us ruminated on what might be done. I recall thinking to myself; someone should take the Abrams cable down to the New York Times (at the time an independent-minded newspaper).

Clearly, the only reason for the cable's SECRET/EYES ONLY classification was to hide deliberate deception of our most senior generals regarding "progress" in the war and deprive the American people of the chance to know the truth.

Going to the press was, of course, antithetical to the culture of secrecy in which we had been trained. Besides, you would likely be caught at your next polygraph examination. Better not to stick your neck out.

I pondered all this in the days after that lunch with Adams. And I succeeded in coming up with a slew of reasons why I ought to keep silent: a mortgage; a plum overseas assignment for which I was in the final stages of language training; and, not least, the analytic work, important, exciting work on which Sam and I thrived.

Better to keep quiet for now, grow in gravitas, and live on to slay other dragons. Right?

One can, I suppose, always find excuses for not sticking one's neck out. The neck, after all, is a convenient connection between head and torso, albeit the "neck" that was the focus of my concern was a figurative one, suggesting possible loss of career, money and status not the literal "necks" of both Americans and Vietnamese that were on the line daily in the war.

But if there is nothing for which you would risk your career "neck" like, say, saving the lives of soldiers and civilians in a war zone your "neck" has become your idol, and your career is not worthy of that. I now regret giving such worship to my own neck. Not only did I fail the neck test. I had not thought things through very rigorously from a moral point of view.

Promises to Keep?

As a condition of employment, I had signed a promise not to divulge classified information so as not to endanger sources, methods or national security. Promises are important, and one should not lightly violate them. Plus, there are legitimate reasons for protecting some secrets. But were any of those legitimate concerns the real reasons why Abrams's cable was stamped SECRET/EYES ONLY? I think not.

Air Force F-105s bomb a target in the southern panhandle of North Vietnam on June 14, 1966. (Photo credit: U.S. Air Force)"

It is not good to operate in a moral vacuum, oblivious to the reality that there exists a hierarchy of values and that circumstances often determine the morality of a course of action. How does a written promise to keep secret everything with a classified stamp on it square with one's moral responsibility to stop a war based on lies? Does stopping a misbegotten war not supersede a secrecy promise?

Ethicists use the words "supervening value" for this; the concept makes sense to me. And is there yet another value? As an Army officer, I had taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

How did the lying by the Army command in Saigon fit in with that? Were/are generals exempt? Should we not call them out when we learn of deliberate deception that subverts the democratic process? Can the American people make good decisions if they are lied to?

Would I have helped stop unnecessary killing by giving the New York Times the not-really-secret, SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Gen. Abrams? We'll never know, will we? And I live with that. I could not take the easy way out, saying Let Sam Do It. Because I knew he wouldn't.

Sam chose to go through the established grievance channels and got the royal run-around, even after the Communist countrywide offensive at Tet in January-February 1968 proved beyond any doubt that his count of Communist forces was correct.

When the Tet offensive began, as a way of keeping his sanity, Adams drafted a caustic cable to Saigon saying, "It is something of an anomaly to be taking so much punishment from Communist soldiers whose existence is not officially acknowledged." But he did not think the situation at all funny.

Dan Ellsberg Steps In

Sam kept playing by the rules, but it happened that unbeknown to Sam Dan Ellsberg gave Sam's figures on enemy strength to the New York Times , which published them on March 19, 1968. Dan had learned that President Lyndon Johnson was about to bow to Pentagon pressure to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos and up to the Chinese border perhaps even beyond.

President Lyndon Johnson meeting with South Vietnamese President Nguyen van Thieu on July 19,1968.

Later, it became clear that his timely leak together with another unauthorized disclosure to the Times that the Pentagon had requested 206,000 more troops prevented a wider war. On March 25, Johnson complained to a small gathering, "The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. We have no support for the war. I would have given Westy the 206,000 men."

Ellsberg also copied the Pentagon Papers the 7,000-page top-secret history of U.S. decision-making on Vietnam from 1945 to 1967 and, in 1971, he gave copies to the New York Times , Washington Post and other news organizations.

In the years since, Ellsberg has had difficulty shaking off the thought that, had he released the Pentagon Papers sooner, the war might have ended years earlier with untold lives saved. Ellsberg has put it this way: "Like so many others, I put personal loyalty to the president above all else above loyalty to the Constitution and above obligation to the law, to truth, to Americans, and to humankind. I was wrong."

And so was I wrong in not asking Sam for a copy of that cable from Gen. Abrams. Sam, too, eventually had strong regrets. Sam had continued to pursue the matter within CIA, until he learned that Dan Ellsberg was on trial in 1973 for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was being accused of endangering national security by revealing figures on enemy strength.

Which figures? The same old faked numbers from 1967! "Imagine," said Adams, "hanging a man for leaking faked numbers," as he hustled off to testify on Dan's behalf. (The case against Ellsberg was ultimately thrown out of court because of prosecutorial abuses committed by the Nixon administration.)

After the war drew down, Adams was tormented by the thought that, had he not let himself be diddled by the system, the entire left half of the Vietnam Memorial wall would not be there. There would have been no new names to chisel into such a wall.

Sam Adams died prematurely at age 55 with nagging remorse that he had not done enough.

In a letter appearing in the (then independent-minded) New York Times on Oct. 18, 1975, John T. Moore, a CIA analyst who worked in Saigon and the Pentagon from 1965 to 1970, confirmed Adams's story after Sam told it in detail in the May 1975 issue of Harper's magazine.

Moore wrote: "My only regret is that I did not have Sam's courage. The record is clear. It speaks of misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, of outright dishonesty and professional cowardice.

"It reflects an intelligence community captured by an aging bureaucracy, which too often placed institutional self-interest or personal advancement before the national interest. It is a page of shame in the history of American intelligence."

Tanks But No Thanks, Abrams

What about Gen. Creighton Abrams? Not every general gets the Army's main battle tank named after him. The honor, though, came not from his service in Vietnam, but rather from his courage in the early day of his military career, leading his tanks through German lines to relieve Bastogne during World War II's Battle of the Bulge. Gen. George Patton praised Abrams as the only tank commander he considered his equal.

Vice President Hubert Humphrey, President Lyndon Johnson and General Creighton Abrams in a Cabinet Room meeting on March 27, 1968. (Photo credit: National Archive)

As things turned out, sadly, 23 years later Abrams became a poster child for old soldiers who, as Gen. Douglas McArthur suggested, should "just fade away," rather than hang on too long after their great military accomplishments.

In May 1967, Abrams was picked to be Westmoreland's deputy in Vietnam and succeeded him a year later. But Abrams could not succeed in the war, no matter how effectively "an image of success" his subordinates projected for the media. The "erroneous and gloomy conclusions of the press" that Abrams had tried so hard to head off proved all too accurate.

Ironically, when reality hit home, it fell to Abrams to cut back U.S. forces in Vietnam from a peak of 543,000 in early 1969 to 49,000 in June 1972, almost five years after Abrams's progress-defending cable from Saigon. By 1972, some 58,000 U.S. troops, not to mention two to three million Vietnamese, had been killed.

Both Westmoreland and Abrams had reasonably good reputations when they started out, but not so much when they finished.

And Petraeus?

Comparisons can be invidious, but Gen. David Petraeus is another Army commander who has wowed Congress with his ribbons, medals and merit badges. A pity he was not born early enough to have served in Vietnam where he might have learned some real-life hard lessons about the limitations of counterinsurgency theories.

Moreover, it appears that no one took the trouble to tell him that in the early Sixties we young infantry officers already had plenty of counterinsurgency manuals to study at Fort Bragg and Fort Benning. There are many things one cannot learn from reading or writing manuals, as many of my Army colleagues learned too late in the jungles and mountains of South Vietnam.

Unless one is to believe, contrary to all indications, that Petraeus is not all that bright, one has to assume he knows that the Afghanistan expedition is a folly beyond repair. So far, though, he has chosen the approach taken by Gen. Abrams in his August 1967 cable from Saigon. That is precisely why the ground-truth of the documents released by WikiLeaks is so important.

Whistleblowers Galore

And it's not just the WikiLeaks documents that have caused consternation inside the U.S. government. Investigators reportedly are rigorously pursuing the source that provided the New York Times with the texts of two cables (of 6 and 9 November 2009) from Ambassador Eikenberry in Kabul. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning ."]

Barack Obama and George W. Bush at the White House.

To its credit, even today's far-less independent New York Times published a major story based on the information in those cables, while President Barack Obama was still trying to figure out what to do about Afghanistan. Later the Times posted the entire texts of the cables, which were classified Top Secret and NODIS (meaning "no dissemination" to anyone but the most senior officials to whom the documents were addressed).

The cables conveyed Eikenberry's experienced, cogent views on the foolishness of the policy in place and, implicitly, of any eventual decision to double down on the Afghan War. (That, of course, is pretty much what the President ended up doing.) Eikenberry provided chapter and verse to explain why, as he put it, "I cannot support [the Defense Department's] recommendation for an immediate Presidential decision to deploy another 40,000 here."

Such frank disclosures are anathema to self-serving bureaucrats and ideologues who would much prefer depriving the American people of information that might lead them to question the government's benighted policy toward Afghanistan, for example.

As the New York Times /Eikenberry cables show, even today's FCM (fawning corporate media) may sometimes display the old spunk of American journalism and refuse to hide or fudge the truth, even if the facts might cause the people to draw "an erroneous and gloomy conclusion," to borrow Gen. Abrams's words of 43 years ago.

Polished Pentagon Spokesman

Remember "Baghdad Bob," the irrepressible and unreliable Iraqi Information Minister at the time of the U.S.-led invasion? He came to mind as I watched Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell's chaotic, quixotic press briefing on Aug. 5 regarding the WikiLeaks exposures. The briefing was revealing in several respects. Clear from his prepared statement was what is bothering the Pentagon the most. Here's Morrell:

"WikiLeaks's webpage constitutes a brazen solicitation to U.S. government officials, including our military, to break the law. WikiLeaks's public assertion that submitting confidential material to WikiLeaks is safe, easy and protected by law is materially false and misleading. The Department of Defense therefore also demands that WikiLeaks discontinue any solicitation of this type."

Rest assured that the Defense Department will do all it can to make it unsafe for any government official to provide WikiLeaks with sensitive material. But it is contending with a clever group of hi-tech experts who have built in precautions to allow information to be submitted anonymously. That the Pentagon will prevail anytime soon is far from certain.

Also, in a ludicrous attempt to close the barn door after tens of thousands of classified documents had already escaped, Morrell insisted that WikiLeaks give back all the documents and electronic media in its possession. Even the normally docile Pentagon press corps could not suppress a collective laugh, irritating the Pentagon spokesman no end. The impression gained was one of a Pentagon Gulliver tied down by terabytes of Lilliputians.

Morrell's self-righteous appeal to the leaders of WikiLeaks to "do the right thing" was accompanied by an explicit threat that, otherwise, "We shall have to compel them to do the right thing." His attempt to assert Pentagon power in this regard fell flat, given the realities.

Morrell also chose the occasion to remind the Pentagon press corps to behave themselves or face rejection when applying to be embedded in units of U.S. armed forces. The correspondents were shown nodding docilely as Morrell reminded them that permission for embedding "is by no means a right. It is a privilege." The generals giveth and the generals taketh away.

It was a moment of arrogance, and press subservience, that would have sickened Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, not to mention the courageous war correspondents who did their duty in Vietnam. Morrell and the generals can control the "embeds"; they cannot control the ether. Not yet, anyway.

And that was all too apparent beneath the strutting, preening, and finger waving by the Pentagon's fancy silk necktie to the world. Actually, the opportunities afforded by WikiLeaks and other Internet Web sites can serve to diminish what few advantages there are to being in bed with the Army.

What Would I Have Done?

Would I have had the courage to whisk Gen. Abrams's cable into the ether in 1967, if WikiLeaks or other Web sites had been available to provide a major opportunity to expose the deceit of the top Army command in Saigon? The Pentagon can argue that using the Internet this way is not "safe, easy, and protected by law." We shall see.

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

Meanwhile, this way of exposing information that people in a democracy should know will continue to be sorely tempting, and a lot easier than taking the risk of being photographed lunching with someone from the New York Times .

From what I have learned over these past 43 years, supervening moral values can, and should, trump lesser promises. Today, I would be determined to "do the right thing," if I had access to an Abrams-like cable from Petraeus in Kabul. And I believe that Sam Adams, if he were alive today, would enthusiastically agree that this would be the morally correct decision.

My article from 2010 ended with a footnote about the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII), an organization created by Sam Adams's former CIA colleagues and other former intelligence analysts to hold up his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power.

At the time there were seven recipients of an annual award bestowed on those who exemplified Sam Adam's courage, persistence and devotion to truth. Now, there have been 14 recipients: Coleen Rowley (2002), Katharine Gun (2003), Sibel Edmonds (2004), Craig Murray (2005), Sam Provance (2006), Frank Grevil (2007), Larry Wilkerson (2009), Julian Assange (2010), Thomas Drake (2011), Jesselyn Radack (2011), Thomas Fingar (2012), Edward Snowden (2013), Chelsea Manning (2014), William Binney (2015).

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a close colleague of Sam Adams; the two began their CIA analyst careers together during the last months of John Kennedy's administration. During the Vietnam War, McGovern was responsible for analyzing Soviet policy toward China and Vietnam.

[Aug 21, 2017] The Lasting Pain from Vietnam Silence

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
May 01, 2015 | original.antiwar.com

Ecclesiastes says there is a time to be silent and a time to speak. The fortieth anniversary of the ugly end of the US adventure in Vietnam is a time to speak and especially of the squandered opportunities that existed earlier in the war to blow the whistle and stop the killing.

While my friend Daniel Ellsberg's leak of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 eventually helped to end the war, Ellsberg is the first to admit that he waited too long to reveal the unconscionable deceit that brought death and injury to millions.

I regret that, at first out of naiveté and then cowardice, I waited even longer until my own truth-telling no longer really mattered for the bloodshed in Vietnam. My hope is that there may be a chance this reminiscence might matter now if only as a painful example of what I could and should have done, had I the courage back then. Opportunities to blow the whistle in time now confront a new generation of intelligence analysts whether they work on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, ISIS or Iran.

Incidentally, on Iran, there was a very positive example last decade: courageous analysts led by intrepid (and bureaucratically skilled) former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence Thomas Fingar showed that honesty can still prevail within the system, even when truth is highly unwelcome.

The unanimous intelligence community conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier played a huge role in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran in 2008, their last year in office. Bush says so in his memoir; and, on that one point, we can believe him.

After a half-century of watching such things closely, this is the only time in my experience that the key judgment of an NIE helped prevent a catastrophic, unwinnable war. Sadly, judging from the amateurism now prevailing in Washington's opaque policymaking circles, it seems clear that the White House pays little heed to those intelligence officers still trying to speak truth to power.

For them I have a suggestion: Don't just wring your hands, with an "I did everything I could to get the truth out." Chances are you have not done all you can. Ponder the stakes the lives ended too early; the bodies and minds damaged forever; the hatred engendered against the United States; and the long-term harm to US national interests and think about blowing the whistle publicly to prevent unnecessary carnage and alienation.

I certainly wish I had done so about what I learned of the unconscionable betrayal by senior military and intelligence officers regarding Vietnam. More recently, I know that several of you intelligence analysts with a conscience wish you had blown the whistle on the fraud "justifying" war on Iraq. Spreading some truth around is precisely what you need to do now on Syria, Iraq, Ukraine and the "war on terror," for example.

I thought that by describing my own experience negative as it is and the remorse I continue to live with, I might assist those of you now pondering whether to step up to the plate and blow the whistle now, before it is again too late. So below is an article that I might call "Vietnam and Me."

My hope is to spare you the remorse of having to write, a decade or two from now, your own "Ukraine and Me" or "Syria and Me" or "Iraq and Me" or "Libya and Me" or "The War on Terror and Me." My article, from 2010, was entitled "How Truth Can Save Lives" and it began:

If independent-minded Web sites, like WikiLeaks or, say, Consortiumnews.com, existed 43 years ago, I might have risen to the occasion and helped save the lives of some 25,000 US soldiers, and a million Vietnamese, by exposing the lies contained in just one SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Saigon.

I need to speak out now because I have been sickened watching the herculean effort by Official Washington and our Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) to divert attention from the violence and deceit in Afghanistan, reflected in thousands of US Army documents, by shooting the messenger(s), WikiLeaks and Pvt. Bradley Manning.

After all the indiscriminate death and destruction from nearly nine years of war, the hypocrisy is all too transparent when WikiLeaks and suspected leaker Manning are accused of risking lives by exposing too much truth. Besides, I still have a guilty conscience for what I chose NOT to do in exposing facts about the Vietnam War that might have saved lives.

The sad-but-true story recounted below is offered in the hope that those in similar circumstances today might show more courage than I was able to muster in 1967, and take full advantage of the incredible advancements in technology since then.

Many of my Junior Officer Trainee Program colleagues at CIA came to Washington in the early Sixties inspired by President John Kennedy's Inaugural speech in which he asked us to ask ourselves what we might do for our country. (Sounds corny nowadays, I suppose; I guess I'll just have to ask you to take it on faith. It may not have been Camelot exactly, but the spirit and ambiance were fresh, and good.)

Among those who found Kennedy's summons compelling was Sam Adams, a young former naval officer out of Harvard College. After the Navy, Sam tried Harvard Law School, but found it boring. Instead, he decided to go to Washington, join the CIA as an officer trainee, and do something more adventurous. He got more than his share of adventure.

Sam was one of the brightest and most dedicated among us. Quite early in his career, he acquired a very lively and important account, that of assessing Vietnamese Communist strength early in the war. He took to the task with uncommon resourcefulness and quickly proved himself the consummate analyst.

Relying largely on captured documents, buttressed by reporting from all manner of other sources, Adams concluded in 1967 that there were twice as many Communists (about 600,000) under arms in South Vietnam as the US military there would admit.

Dissembling in Saigon

Visiting Saigon during 1967, Adams learned from Army analysts that their commanding general, William Westmoreland, had placed an artificial cap on the official Army count rather than risk questions regarding "progress" in the war (sound familiar?).

It was a clash of cultures; with Army intelligence analysts saluting generals following politically dictated orders, and Sam Adams aghast at the dishonesty, consequential dishonesty. From time to time I would have lunch with Sam and learn of the formidable opposition he encountered in trying to get out the truth.

Commiserating with Sam over lunch one day in late August 1967, I asked what could possibly be Gen. Westmoreland's incentive to make the enemy strength appear to be half what it actually was. Sam gave me the answer he had from the horse's mouth in Saigon.

Adams told me that in a cable dated Aug. 20, 1967, Westmoreland's deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, set forth the rationale for the deception. Abrams wrote that the new, higher numbers (reflecting Sam's count, which was supported by all intelligence agencies except Army intelligence, which reflected the "command position") "were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press."

Abrams emphasized, "We have been projecting an image of success over recent months" and cautioned that if the higher figures became public, "all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion."

No further proof was needed that the most senior US Army commanders were lying, so that they could continue to feign "progress" in the war. Equally unfortunate, the crassness and callousness of Abrams's cable notwithstanding, it had become increasingly clear that rather than stand up for Sam, his superiors would probably acquiesce in the Army's bogus figures. Sadly, that's what they did.

CIA Director Richard Helms, who saw his primary duty quite narrowly as "protecting" the agency, set the tone. He told subordinates that he could not discharge that duty if he let the agency get involved in a heated argument with the US Army on such a key issue in wartime.

This cut across the grain of what we had been led to believe was the prime duty of CIA analysts, to speak truth to power without fear or favor. And our experience thus far had shown both of us that this ethos amounted to much more than just slogans. We had, so far, been able to "tell it like it is."

After lunch with Sam, for the first time ever, I had no appetite for dessert. Sam and I had not come to Washington to "protect the agency." And, having served in Vietnam, Sam knew first hand that thousands upon thousands were being killed in a feckless war.

What to Do?

I have an all-too-distinct memory of a long silence over coffee, as each of us ruminated on what might be done. I recall thinking to myself; someone should take the Abrams cable down to the New York Times (at the time an independent-minded newspaper).

Clearly, the only reason for the cable's SECRET/EYES ONLY classification was to hide deliberate deception of our most senior generals regarding "progress" in the war and deprive the American people of the chance to know the truth.

Going to the press was, of course, antithetical to the culture of secrecy in which we had been trained. Besides, you would likely be caught at your next polygraph examination. Better not to stick your neck out.

I pondered all this in the days after that lunch with Adams. And I succeeded in coming up with a slew of reasons why I ought to keep silent: a mortgage; a plum overseas assignment for which I was in the final stages of language training; and, not least, the analytic work, important, exciting work on which Sam and I thrived.

Better to keep quiet for now, grow in gravitas, and live on to slay other dragons. Right?

One can, I suppose, always find excuses for not sticking one's neck out. The neck, after all, is a convenient connection between head and torso, albeit the "neck" that was the focus of my concern was a figurative one, suggesting possible loss of career, money and status not the literal "necks" of both Americans and Vietnamese that were on the line daily in the war.

But if there is nothing for which you would risk your career "neck" like, say, saving the lives of soldiers and civilians in a war zone your "neck" has become your idol, and your career is not worthy of that. I now regret giving such worship to my own neck. Not only did I fail the neck test. I had not thought things through very rigorously from a moral point of view.

Promises to Keep?

As a condition of employment, I had signed a promise not to divulge classified information so as not to endanger sources, methods or national security. Promises are important, and one should not lightly violate them. Plus, there are legitimate reasons for protecting some secrets. But were any of those legitimate concerns the real reasons why Abrams's cable was stamped SECRET/EYES ONLY? I think not.

It is not good to operate in a moral vacuum, oblivious to the reality that there exists a hierarchy of values and that circumstances often determine the morality of a course of action. How does a written promise to keep secret everything with a classified stamp on it square with one's moral responsibility to stop a war based on lies? Does stopping a misbegotten war not supersede a secrecy promise?

Ethicists use the words "supervening value" for this; the concept makes sense to me. And is there yet another value? As an Army officer, I had taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

How did the lying by the Army command in Saigon fit in with that? Were/are generals exempt? Should we not call them out when we learn of deliberate deception that subverts the democratic process? Can the American people make good decisions if they are lied to?

Would I have helped stop unnecessary killing by giving the New York Times the not-really-secret, SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Gen. Abrams? We'll never know, will we? And I live with that. I could not take the easy way out, saying Let Sam Do It. Because I knew he wouldn't.

Sam chose to go through the established grievance channels and got the royal run-around, even after the Communist countrywide offensive at Tet in January-February 1968 proved beyond any doubt that his count of Communist forces was correct.

When the Tet offensive began, as a way of keeping his sanity, Adams drafted a caustic cable to Saigon saying, "It is something of an anomaly to be taking so much punishment from Communist soldiers whose existence is not officially acknowledged." But he did not think the situation at all funny.

Dan Ellsberg Steps In

Sam kept playing by the rules, but it happened that unbeknown to Sam Dan Ellsberg gave Sam's figures on enemy strength to the New York Times , which published them on March 19, 1968. Dan had learned that President Lyndon Johnson was about to bow to Pentagon pressure to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos and up to the Chinese border perhaps even beyond.

Later, it became clear that his timely leak together with another unauthorized disclosure to the Times that the Pentagon had requested 206,000 more troops prevented a wider war. On March 25, Johnson complained to a small gathering, "The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. We have no support for the war. I would have given Westy the 206,000 men."

Ellsberg also copied the Pentagon Papers the 7,000-page top-secret history of US decision-making on Vietnam from 1945 to 1967 and, in 1971, he gave copies to the New York Times , Washington Post and other news organizations.

In the years since, Ellsberg has had difficulty shaking off the thought that, had he released the Pentagon Papers sooner, the war might have ended years earlier with untold lives saved. Ellsberg has put it this way: "Like so many others, I put personal loyalty to the president above all else above loyalty to the Constitution and above obligation to the law, to truth, to Americans, and to humankind. I was wrong."

And so was I wrong in not asking Sam for a copy of that cable from Gen. Abrams. Sam, too, eventually had strong regrets. Sam had continued to pursue the matter within CIA, until he learned that Dan Ellsberg was on trial in 1973 for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was being accused of endangering national security by revealing figures on enemy strength.

Which figures? The same old faked numbers from 1967! "Imagine," said Adams, "hanging a man for leaking faked numbers," as he hustled off to testify on Dan's behalf. (The case against Ellsberg was ultimately thrown out of court because of prosecutorial abuses committed by the Nixon administration.)

After the war drew down, Adams was tormented by the thought that, had he not let himself be diddled by the system, the entire left half of the Vietnam Memorial wall would not be there. There would have been no new names to chisel into such a wall.

Sam Adams died prematurely at age 55 with nagging remorse that he had not done enough.

In a letter appearing in the (then independent-minded) New York Times on Oct. 18, 1975, John T. Moore, a CIA analyst who worked in Saigon and the Pentagon from 1965 to 1970, confirmed Adams's story after Sam told it in detail in the May 1975 issue of Harper's magazine.

Moore wrote: "My only regret is that I did not have Sam's courage. The record is clear. It speaks of misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, of outright dishonesty and professional cowardice.

"It reflects an intelligence community captured by an aging bureaucracy, which too often placed institutional self-interest or personal advancement before the national interest. It is a page of shame in the history of American intelligence."

Tanks But No Thanks, Abrams

What about Gen. Creighton Abrams? Not every general gets the Army's main battle tank named after him. The honor, though, came not from his service in Vietnam, but rather from his courage in the early day of his military career, leading his tanks through German lines to relieve Bastogne during World War II's Battle of the Bulge. Gen. George Patton praised Abrams as the only tank commander he considered his equal.

As things turned out, sadly, 23 years later Abrams became a poster child for old soldiers who, as Gen. Douglas McArthur suggested, should "just fade away," rather than hang on too long after their great military accomplishments.

In May 1967, Abrams was picked to be Westmoreland's deputy in Vietnam and succeeded him a year later. But Abrams could not succeed in the war, no matter how effectively "an image of success" his subordinates projected for the media. The "erroneous and gloomy conclusions of the press" that Abrams had tried so hard to head off proved all too accurate.

Ironically, when reality hit home, it fell to Abrams to cut back US forces in Vietnam from a peak of 543,000 in early 1969 to 49,000 in June 1972, almost five years after Abrams's progress-defending cable from Saigon. By 1972, some 58,000 US troops, not to mention two to three million Vietnamese, had been killed.

Both Westmoreland and Abrams had reasonably good reputations when they started out, but not so much when they finished.

And Petraeus?

Comparisons can be invidious, but Gen. David Petraeus is another Army commander who has wowed Congress with his ribbons, medals and merit badges. A pity he was not born early enough to have served in Vietnam where he might have learned some real-life hard lessons about the limitations of counterinsurgency theories.

Moreover, it appears that no one took the trouble to tell him that in the early Sixties we young infantry officers already had plenty of counterinsurgency manuals to study at Fort Bragg and Fort Benning. There are many things one cannot learn from reading or writing manuals, as many of my Army colleagues learned too late in the jungles and mountains of South Vietnam.

Unless one is to believe, contrary to all indications, that Petraeus is not all that bright, one has to assume he knows that the Afghanistan expedition is a folly beyond repair. So far, though, he has chosen the approach taken by Gen. Abrams in his August 1967 cable from Saigon. That is precisely why the ground-truth of the documents released by WikiLeaks is so important.

Whistleblowers Galore

And it's not just the WikiLeaks documents that have caused consternation inside the US government. Investigators reportedly are rigorously pursuing the source that provided the New York Times with the texts of two cables (of 6 and 9 November 2009) from Ambassador Eikenberry in Kabul. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning ."]

To its credit, even today's far-less independent New York Times published a major story based on the information in those cables, while President Barack Obama was still trying to figure out what to do about Afghanistan. Later the Times posted the entire texts of the cables, which were classified Top Secret and NODIS (meaning "no dissemination" to anyone but the most senior officials to whom the documents were addressed).

The cables conveyed Eikenberry's experienced, cogent views on the foolishness of the policy in place and, implicitly, of any eventual decision to double down on the Afghan War. (That, of course, is pretty much what the President ended up doing.) Eikenberry provided chapter and verse to explain why, as he put it, "I cannot support [the Defense Department's] recommendation for an immediate Presidential decision to deploy another 40,000 here."

Such frank disclosures are anathema to self-serving bureaucrats and ideologues who would much prefer depriving the American people of information that might lead them to question the government's benighted policy toward Afghanistan, for example.

As the New York Times /Eikenberry cables show, even today's FCM (fawning corporate media) may sometimes display the old spunk of American journalism and refuse to hide or fudge the truth, even if the facts might cause the people to draw "an erroneous and gloomy conclusion," to borrow Gen. Abrams's words of 43 years ago.

Polished Pentagon Spokesman

Remember "Baghdad Bob," the irrepressible and unreliable Iraqi Information Minister at the time of the U.S.-led invasion? He came to mind as I watched Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell's chaotic, quixotic press briefing on Aug. 5 regarding the WikiLeaks exposures. The briefing was revealing in several respects. Clear from his prepared statement was what is bothering the Pentagon the most. Here's Morrell:

"WikiLeaks's webpage constitutes a brazen solicitation to US government officials, including our military, to break the law. WikiLeaks's public assertion that submitting confidential material to WikiLeaks is safe, easy and protected by law is materially false and misleading. The Department of Defense therefore also demands that WikiLeaks discontinue any solicitation of this type."

Rest assured that the Defense Department will do all it can to make it unsafe for any government official to provide WikiLeaks with sensitive material. But it is contending with a clever group of hi-tech experts who have built in precautions to allow information to be submitted anonymously. That the Pentagon will prevail anytime soon is far from certain.

Also, in a ludicrous attempt to close the barn door after tens of thousands of classified documents had already escaped, Morrell insisted that WikiLeaks give back all the documents and electronic media in its possession. Even the normally docile Pentagon press corps could not suppress a collective laugh, irritating the Pentagon spokesman no end. The impression gained was one of a Pentagon Gulliver tied down by terabytes of Lilliputians.

Morrell's self-righteous appeal to the leaders of WikiLeaks to "do the right thing" was accompanied by an explicit threat that, otherwise, "We shall have to compel them to do the right thing." His attempt to assert Pentagon power in this regard fell flat, given the realities.

Morrell also chose the occasion to remind the Pentagon press corps to behave themselves or face rejection when applying to be embedded in units of US armed forces. The correspondents were shown nodding docilely as Morrell reminded them that permission for embedding "is by no means a right. It is a privilege." The generals giveth and the generals taketh away.

It was a moment of arrogance, and press subservience, that would have sickened Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, not to mention the courageous war correspondents who did their duty in Vietnam. Morrell and the generals can control the "embeds"; they cannot control the ether. Not yet, anyway.

And that was all too apparent beneath the strutting, preening, and finger waving by the Pentagon's fancy silk necktie to the world. Actually, the opportunities afforded by WikiLeaks and other Internet Web sites can serve to diminish what few advantages there are to being in bed with the Army.

What Would I Have Done?

Would I have had the courage to whisk Gen. Abrams's cable into the ether in 1967, if WikiLeaks or other Web sites had been available to provide a major opportunity to expose the deceit of the top Army command in Saigon? The Pentagon can argue that using the Internet this way is not "safe, easy, and protected by law." We shall see.

Meanwhile, this way of exposing information that people in a democracy should know will continue to be sorely tempting, and a lot easier than taking the risk of being photographed lunching with someone from the New York Times .

From what I have learned over these past 43 years, supervening moral values can, and should, trump lesser promises. Today, I would be determined to "do the right thing," if I had access to an Abrams-like cable from Petraeus in Kabul. And I believe that Sam Adams, if he were alive today, would enthusiastically agree that this would be the morally correct decision.

My article from 2010 ended with a footnote about the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII), an organization created by Sam Adams's former CIA colleagues and other former intelligence analysts to hold up his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power.

At the time there were seven recipients of an annual award bestowed on those who exemplified Sam Adam's courage, persistence and devotion to truth. Now, there have been 14 recipients: Coleen Rowley (2002), Katharine Gun (2003), Sibel Edmonds (2004), Craig Murray (2005), Sam Provance (2006), Frank Grevil (2007), Larry Wilkerson (2009), Julian Assange (2010), Thomas Drake (2011), Jesselyn Radack (2011), Thomas Fingar (2012), Edward Snowden (2013), Chelsea Manning (2014), William Binney (2015).

Read more by Ray McGovern Moral Corrosion of Drone Warfare – July 16th, 2017 Russia-China Tandem Shifts Global Power – July 3rd, 2017 What Trump Can Expect From Putin – July 2nd, 2017 NBC's Kelly Hits Putin With a Beloved Canard – June 12th, 2017 Hiding the Ugly Business of Torture – June 2nd, 2017

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. In the Sixties he served as an infantry/intelligence officer and then became a CIA analyst for the next 27 years. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). View all posts by Ray McGovern

[Aug 21, 2017] Bannon Firing Proves Trump is Winging It by Robert W. Merry

To a certain extent Bannon firing was his own foult as perchant for self-promition proved to be quite destructive.
But it was also a stage of Trump conversion into Bush III. Globalist coalition won but this is a Pyrrhic victory.
The problem that brought Trump to the White house -- crisis of neoliberalism and first of all neoliberal globalization is unsolvable within the neoliberal framework. And Trump administration has now nothing but his bastard version of neoliberal and deregulation and all that staff.
And to this "Javanka" problem and Trump looks doomed to be failure.
Notable quotes:
"... He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far. ..."
"... In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville. ..."
"... What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers. ..."
"... It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected. ..."
"... But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it. ..."
"... ...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech... ..."
"... The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal ..."
"... "There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel" ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com August 21, 2017

In the wake of Stephen Bannon's firing, it has become almost inconceivable that President Trump can avoid a one-term fate. This isn't because he sacked Bannon but because of what that action tells us about his leadership. In celebrating Bannon's dismissal, The Wall Street Journal wrote in an editorial: "Trump can't govern with a Breitbart coalition. Does he see that?" True enough. But he also can't govern without the Breitbart constituency -- his core constituency -- in his coalition. The bigger question is: Does he see that ?

It's beginning to appear that Trump doesn't see much of anything with precision or clarity when it comes to the fundamental question of how to govern based on how he campaigned. He is merely a battery of impulses, devoid of any philosophical coherence or intellectual consistency.

Indeed, it's difficult to recall any president of recent memory who was so clearly winging it in the Oval Office. Think of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both of whom made huge mistakes that cost them the White House. But both knew precisely what they wanted to accomplish and how to go about accomplishing it. The result was that both accomplished big things. Ronald Reagan propelled himself into governing mode from campaign mode as if he had shot himself out of a cannon. Even Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, who stumbled into one-term diminishment, demonstrated more leadership coherence than the current White House occupant.

Trump's political challenge on Inauguration Day was simple but difficult. He had to galvanize his political base and build from there to fashion a governing coalition that could give propulsion to his agenda. Further, that agenda had to give a majority of Americans a sense that the economy was sound and growing, that unnecessary foreign wars would be avoided, that domestic tranquility would prevail, that the mass immigration of recent years would be curtailed, that the health care mess would be fixed, and that infrastructure needs would be addressed.

He has made little or no progress on any of it. And now, with Bannon banished from the White House, the president even seems to be taking a cavalier attitude toward his core constituency, America's white working class, beset by sluggish economic growth, the hollowing out of America's industrial base, unfair competitive practices by U.S. trading partners, unchecked immigration, the opioid crisis, and a general malaise that accompanies a growing sense of decline.

Trump became president because he busted out of the deadlock crisis that had gripped America for years, with both parties rigidly clinging to shopworn nostrums that fewer and fewer Americans believed in but which precluded any fresh or original thinking on the part of the party establishments. Consider some of the elements of conventional wisdom that he smashed during the campaign.

  1. Immigration: Conventional thinking was that a "comprehensive" solution could emerge as soon as officials convinced voters that they would, at some point soon, secure the border, and then the 11 million illegals in the country could be granted some form of amnesty. After all, according to this view, polls indicated solid support for granting illegals a path to citizenship or at least legal residence. Thus the issue was considered particularly hazardous to Republicans. But Trump demonstrated that voter concerns about the magnitude of immigration -- both legal and illegal -- were more widespread and intense than the political establishment wanted to believe. He transformed the dynamics of the issue.
  2. Foreign Policy: Trump railed against George W. Bush's Iraq invasion, the ongoing and seemingly pointless war in Afghanistan, Barack Obama's actions to help overthrow Libya's President Muammar Qaddafi, and the previous administration's insistence that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must leave office even though his toughest enemies, ISIS and al-Nusra, were also our enemies. He sought to sooth the tensions then gaining momentum between the United States and Russia, and he did so in the face of widespread hostility from most of the foreign policy establishment. In all this he signaled that, as president, he would formulate an entirely new grand strategy designed to align U.S. policy with U.S. power and avoid foreign wars with little connection to U.S. vital interests.
  3. Trade: Trump took on the establishment view that globalized free trade provided an automatic benefit to the U.S. economy and U.S. workers, even when big trading partners, particularly China, imposed non-tariff trade barriers that slammed America's waning industrial core and the country's working classes. Here again he demonstrated a strong body of political sentiment that had been ignored or brushed aside by the country's economic and financial elites.

The important point about these issues is that they all cut across partisan lines. That's what allowed Trump to forge a nontraditional coalition that provided him a slim margin of victory -- but only in the Electoral College. His challenge was to turn this electoral coalition into a governing one.

He has failed. While he moved quickly on the immigration issue, he did so in such a ham-handed way that any prospect for momentum was lost before it could begin. On foreign policy he has belied his own campaign rhetoric with his bombing of Syrian military targets, his support for Saudi Arabia's nasty war in Yemen, his growing military presence in Syria, his embrace of NATO membership for Montenegro, his consideration of troop augmentations in Afghanistan, and his threat to consider military involvement in Venezuela's internal affairs. On trade, it must be said, he has sought to move in the direction of his campaign rhetoric, though with limited results thus far.

In the meantime, he suffered a tremendous defeat with the failure of congressional Republicans to make good on their vow to end and replace the Affordable Care Act. His tax-overhaul initiative is far behind the kind of calendar schedule needed for smooth success (by this point in 1981 Reagan had secured both his big tax package and an even more controversial spending-reduction program). And Trump's infrastructure program must be seen as residing currently in Nowheresville.

What we see in these defeats and stalled initiatives is an incapacity on the part of the president to nudge and herd legislators, to mold voter sentiment into waves of political energy, to fashion a dialectic of political action, or to offer a coherent vision of the state of the country and where he wishes to take it. Everything is ad hoc. No major action seems related to any other action. In a job that calls for a political chess master, Trump displays hardly sufficient skills and attentiveness for a game of political checkers.

And now Stephen Bannon is gone. The rustic and controversial White House strategist represented Trump's most direct and compelling tie to his political base, the people who flocked to his rallies during the campaign, who kept him alive when his political fortunes waned, who thrilled to his anti-establishment message, and who awarded him the states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. As the Journal says, Trump can't govern only with this electoral base. But if his support among these people wanes or dissipates, he will have no base from which to build -- and no prospect for successful governance.

It's telling, but not surprising, that Trump couldn't manage his White House staff in such a way as to maintain a secure place on the team for the man most responsible for charting his path to the White House. This isn't to say that Bannon should have been given outsized influence within West Wing councils, merely that his voice needed to be heard and his connection to Trump's core constituency respected.

But that's not the way Trump operates -- another sign of a man who, over his head at the top of the global power structure, is winging it.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.

doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM Its all about ideas-and which ones are adopted by society.

The USA has a very poor prognosis-has yet to shed its 20th century Bolshevick Baggage. Occident Mortal doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:17 PM It's mostly down to culture.

Some people are more culturally predisposed to exploring and trying new things.

If you believe the future will be better than the past then you will be prepared to work to improve things, if you believe the world is in terminal decline and that the glory days were some time ago, either when gods or prophets did all the important stuff or when your locale was more prosperous then you will not be as encouraged to work on improvements and you will thend to hoarde meagre resources and live by thrift with minimal expenditure. Oracle of Kypseli Occident Mortal Aug 20, 2017 10:00 PM I think that colonialism is in play again as the advance societies are starving for resources and will invest in these countries in exchange. This will change the trend into better education, better jobs and everything that comes with it for the middle classes but perpetuate slave wages for the uneducated masses.

The world is not changing but morphing. It's the nomenclature that changes for the sake of political correcteness and feel good predisposition.

DjangoCat Oracle of Kypseli Aug 20, 2017 10:15 PM

The history of western investment in third world resources does not make for a pretty read. Look now at what has happened just in the last months of a major silver mine being closed in a small Central American country, where the local manager has been accused of murdering protestors and objectors to the mines presence in their midst, destroying the countryside.

The CIA seems to have had, as it's primary objective, the job of clearing the way for US and British, and Canadian industrial, infrastructure and mining interests to come in and take the resources. A good payoff to the man in power greases the wheels, and the people get nothing but a degraded environment and mammoth debt.

The next step is to restructure the debt, in the process privatizing state infrastructure at cut rate prices. This is nothing but mass rape and pillage.

Wake up.

Unknown User DjangoCat Aug 20, 2017 10:54 PM

England never freed its colonies. It simply changed the means of enslavement from physical to financial.

Eeyores Enigma DjangoCat Aug 21, 2017 12:38 AM

Too true DC but that truth doesn't work well with "American Exceptionalism" so we get articles like this one.

Ayreos Eeyores Enigma Aug 21, 2017 3:57 AM

"American exceptionalism" is just a small-time ugly consequence of the actual phenomenon: good old imperialism, taught by the British. And there's nothing wrong with it. All European countries have accepted NATO and american influence on them willingly. They have all recognized and validated American exceptionalism themselves. As subjects of an empire they now complain that the Emperor is quickly losing its clothes,

Crazy Or Not Occident Mortal Aug 21, 2017 5:38 AM

True you have to have "Ambition & Will" for change to stomach the difficult period of creating that change.
(eg Gandhi, US independence etc).

...A major part of the reason was, ironically, the economic prosperity that had come through industrialization, massive improvements in transportation, and the advent of telecommunications, ethnic and religious respect, freedom of speech...

This however while a factor is also bias. Post WWII no weapons (other than US) were permitted in Pacific war region and a decisive factor in limiting the influence of the Brits in their pre war colonies. Post colonials also saw war as a way out of colonial rule, using US leverage to oust Brit influence.

edit - probably BritBob will go apoplectic with this? Cue "Rule Britania"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRwj1SmPF5w

...and other jingoistic bollocks ;)

buttmint Oh regional Indian Aug 21, 2017 12:41 AM ...

all ZHers owe themselves trek to Mother India, quite a head turning experience. One comes to appreciate the West's "can-do philosophy."

This approach to problem solving is in small measure in India. India's fine burgeoning medical capital in Chennai (old Madraas) is a testament to talented Indians being schooled in Occidental universities and then returned to Mother India to set up shop. In many ways, India will lead the West OUT of their self-imposed medical nemesis. There is much progress in India. All Indians love to ORATE. You betcha, they stand on the corner and begin lecturing. A much better approach than USA's 535 idiots and grifters that make up the US Congress.

My own hunch is that India will eclipse the remarkable progress of China. Stay tuned as the world squirms.....

Oh regional Indian Koba the Dread Aug 21, 2017 2:54 AM

Unfortunately, it has become quite the living hell....

Western model of development + rampant corruption + poor engineering standards have made this a hotch-potch of a rending screech of a marriage between east and west....

Ayreos Oh regional Indian Aug 21, 2017 3:51 AM

Perhaps it's time to admit Indians got a chance to take their country back and move their society forward, seen through nationalist Gandhi, but Indians neither want nor understand the concept of moving forward.

Without the "western model of development" there would be no development in India for millennia. Kobe Beef Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:20 AM Without the Aryan colonization/admixture of many millennia ago, there would never have been any civilization on the Indian Subcontinent.

The Second Aryan invasion (ie British colonialism) left barely enough behind to last more than the coming century.

The differing subspecies of hominids are neither fungible nor equal . But there is huge amount of paper profits to be derived from pretending otherwise. There is a lot of ruin to be extracted from the Commons. At home, The African Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. Abroad, The Afghan Equality Racket has garnered trillions so far, with no sign of stopping. No signs of progress with either hominid population. And yet, we still have people arguing that culture is somehow separate from biology.

But back to the topic at hand..

Prediction: India returns to barbarism and warring superstitions.

asstrix Ayreos Aug 21, 2017 5:21 AM

The western way of moving forward is about consuming, using up resources. Once the resources are gone, they have to find a new place to plunder, in order to again move forward.

The eastern culture is in general about living in a sustainable manner, in harmony with nature. Their way is more about trade and not war. This is why they got conquered so easily.

Now I can't say which is better. Plundering and moving forward or staying put and living in peace with nature. My only hope is that the easterners have enough of the western values already in them to not repeat the old mistakes again.

Tallest Skil doctor10 Aug 20, 2017 9:40 PM

Reminder that Europe (((gave up))) the entire colored portion of the map above because Germany wanted a land corridor to East Prussia.

Son of Captain Nemo Aug 20, 2017 9:32 PM

"...the hope among people in the World Bank, the IMF, and other armchair intellectuals was that once the correct incentives were in place and institutions were organized, these structures imposed from on high would put the third world on a path to perpetual growth. They couldn't have been more wrong..."

Anyone who tracked the likes of Hans Adler a German/Brazilian Jew who worked for the World Bank in the 60s and 70s and who I studied under at George Mason University in the 80s knows that the "Latifundio/Minifundio" land tenure structure was the mechanism and means to exploit the gold fillings "literally" out of the mouths of the natives that owned and tended their lands throughout Latin America from the 40s through the 80s doing what the World Bank and IMF always has done it's best to get the multinationals in to take over the most important arable land for exploitation through "incentivized" loan deals that ended up robbing them of all their ownership for worthless "shit paper" -- ... Rinse and repeat for the "model" used everywhere else especially Middle Eastern oil.

John Perkins solidified it in his work "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" 25 years later...

Too little too late I'm afraid. Only wish there were many more like him --

DemandSider Son of Captain Nemo Aug 21, 2017 1:05 AM

I only wish Perkins had explained the role of the dollar. This book, 'The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony' 'Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets' explains that better. He does explain how The IMF and World Bank keep them in line with debt, though.

The Cooler King Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM

"There are easily a billion or more people today, who have no concept of either the pipe or the wheel"

But they can balance a mean jug of water on their head, which makes make them perfect candidates to GET RICH buying cryptos

Moe Hamhead The Cooler King Aug 20, 2017 9:30 PM

Obummer removed Churchill's bust from the Oval office -- He was offended by his graven image. I recall that it has since been brought back.

TuPhat Jason T Aug 20, 2017 11:20 PM

I agree, except for the part about the internet being responsible for wealth. That part is garbage. Internet wealth is non productive and eventually a drain on any economy.

DjangoCat Aug 20, 2017 10:02 PM

Read "The Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". IMF, USAID and BIS have worked in unison to rape and pillage the "Third World"

This is not a problem of the colonies falling apart, it is a problem of deliberate overselling of debt with a side of mandated privatisation, followed by ruin and sale of government assets, followed by grinding povery and tax to pay the interest on the ever climbing debt.

This is a system of overt debt slavery disguised as aid.

I think this piece is white wash propaganda. Tylers??

Koba the Dread DjangoCat Aug 21, 2017 2:00 AM

Well said, Cat -- The occupying nations left a cadre of native criminals behind to enslave their countrymen. The cadre of native criminals take their cut and pass the rest uphill to London, Paris or New York. They call it "Independence" -- Sort of like what happened in the new United States of America where farmers and artisans fought for freedom from Great Britain and New York, Massachusetts and Virginia aristocrats took over the country.

Oh regional Indian Scanderbeg Aug 20, 2017 10:40 PM

You need to read up on a litle history my friend..... your post is ignorant at so many levels, it's laughable. The number of highly advanced concepts that were stolen from the east over the centuries is legion. India and the ME were the root of all great knowledge, astrology, astronomy, metallurgy (Damascus steel came from India), mathematics (Zero came from India)......

Whites were shitting on the streets and eating their dead not 300 years ago.

Jhonny come lately with a gun, get it? And all your scientific wonders are toxic to the world and humans. All of them, including your "medicine"....

[Aug 21, 2017] Problems Too Big And Too Many To Fix: Trump Will Be The Fall Guy

Notable quotes:
"... Stephen K. Bannon has always been more comfortable when he was trying to tear down institutions -- not work inside them. ..."
"... With his return to Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon will be free to lead the kind of ferocious assault on the political establishment that he relishes, even if sometimes that means turning his wrath on the White House itself. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon's exit is, of course, a relief. As the well-financed Pied Piper of the alt-right Breitbart crowd, Mr. Bannon at the pinnacle of White House policy making was a nightmare come to life. ..."
Aug 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The axe fell on Steve Bannon Friday.

Mid-day, mainstream media proclaimed stocks were up because of the firing. Stocks closed the day down. Apparently, stocks were both up and down due to Bannon.

Now Bannon is Back on the Outside , back at Breitbart, and happy to be there.

Stephen K. Bannon has always been more comfortable when he was trying to tear down institutions -- not work inside them.

With his return to Breitbart News, Mr. Bannon will be free to lead the kind of ferocious assault on the political establishment that he relishes, even if sometimes that means turning his wrath on the White House itself.

Hours after his ouster from the West Wing, he was named to his former position of executive chairman at the hard-charging right-wing website and led its evening editorial meeting. And Mr. Bannon appeared eager to move onto his next fight.

"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda President Trump ran on," he said Friday. "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war with."

Among those already in Mr. Bannon's sights: Speaker Paul D. Ryan; Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader; the president's daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner; and Gary D. Cohn, the former president of Goldman Sachs who now directs the White House's National Economic Council.

Thanks But No Thanks

Trump thanked Bannon for his help during the campaign, but not for his tenure in the White House

I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service. He came to the campaign during my run against Crooked Hillary Clinton - it was great! Thanks S

! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 19, 2017

Trump explicitly thanks Bannon for his time on the campaign. Not his 7 months in the W.H. as chief strategist.

Nothing to see here. https://t.co/gqDRj5I2zJ

! Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) August 19, 2017

New York Times Parting Shot

The New York Times editorial, Exit Steve Bannon , gave Banon a swift kick on his way out the door.

Mr. Bannon's exit is, of course, a relief. As the well-financed Pied Piper of the alt-right Breitbart crowd, Mr. Bannon at the pinnacle of White House policy making was a nightmare come to life.

But Mr. Bannon, who promptly returned to Breitbart as its executive chairman on Friday, still poses a danger for our broader politics. Outside the White House, he is freer to rally his forces against anyone who doesn't toe his nationalist-protectionist line. A Bannon-led right-wing backlash against Mr. Trump, who unleashed the worst impulses of nationalists in service to himself, would be a fitting comeuppance.

More Fun to Throw Mud

Clearly, it's far more fun to throw mud than have it thrown at you.

Lost in the Bannon and Trump bashing is one key question: Who is really the bigger threat, Hillary, Trump, or Bannon?

Why We Are Where We Are

We are in this mess because Obamanomics, war-mongering, Fed policies, and social handouts created a budget mess but did not solve any problems. People revolted, and Trump got elected.

When it comes to trade and protectionism, Trump is wrong. So is Bannon.

Those who think Hillary would have been any better on trade policy are mistaken. If you believe differently, then please take Today's Quiz: Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton – Who Said It?

We would have a no-fly zone over Syria, had Hillary won. That would have risked a confrontation with Russia. Hillary wrecked Libya, and of course Obama and Bush had extremely misguided warmongering policies in the Mideast.

Obamacare was a failure, but no one on either side seems able or willing to fix it.

So here we are, with everything broken, and we still cannot get anything done. Republicans want more military spending and Democrats want more social spending. Warmongers on both sides want more war.

Art of Compromise

Compromise in Washington is more military spending and more social spending.

Repetitive "compromises" sent deficits soaring out of sight. On top of it all, the Fed blew massive bubbles in just about everything.

Problems Too Big and Too Many To Fix

One thing I expect Trump will get right, at least from a public union standpoint, regards appointments to the supreme court.

Overall, I hoped Trump would do better on many fronts. It was not to be. Trump could not drain the swamp. Partisan politics interfered, there was too much infighting, and there is nonsensical Russia bashing on both sides of the aisle.

The problems are too big and too many to fix. If you think Hillary would have fixed them you are delusional

To the victor, goes the blame. Trump will be the fall guy when this mess blows up. https://t.co/99d7BrUfak

! Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) August 19, 2017

  • goldman sachs
  • Goldman Sachs
  • White House
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Aug 20, 2017 8:00 PM
  • 91
  • Comment viewing options Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    ET , Aug 20, 2017 8:07 PM

    Trump is an obnoxious and racist man but he is POTUS with a business sense. We should hope that he can bring jobs and factories back.

    Don't look to him for moral guidance.

    If, however, he decides to call an end to US military operations in Afghanistan, then he may win over quite a few on the anti-war folks on both left and right.

    Future Jim -> ET , Aug 20, 2017 8:07 PM

    "Trump will be the fall guy."

    Yes, that is why they chose him.

    Simplifiedfrisbee -> Future Jim , Aug 20, 2017 9:48 PM

    Trumptards in full blown aids denial! Fucking morons! The urine faced Messiah owns the entire US economy because he has publicly stated that the economy is booming DIRECTLY DUE TO HIS POLICIES! Y'all are delusional stupid Satanists(rather typical for racist bigots).

    PrezTrump -> Simplifiedfrisbee , Aug 20, 2017 10:43 PM

    Good sir, Go Fuck Yourself. That is all.

    Déjà view -> PrezTrump , Aug 20, 2017 11:13 PM

    Change will only come when USD lost reserve status and rating agencies rate U.S. sovereign debt accordingly... Everything else is a circus...

    wee-weed up -> Déjà view , Aug 20, 2017 11:18 PM

    What would Liberals do if they didn't have their "blame game."

    At the beginning of the Obozo Admin...

    It was blame Bush for everything.

    Now, after Obozo, it's blame Trump!

    They are SOOOO transparent!

    No real workable solutions - just blame.

    BigFatUglyBubble -> ET , Aug 20, 2017 8:09 PM

    The 50's and 60's are gone, and they are never coming back; neither are manufacturing jobs you can raise a whole family on. That is the farce of this whole thing. Trump made many people believe they could, so they voted for him.

    P.S. Trust me, I wish they would come back.

    Baron von Bud -> BigFatUglyBubble , Aug 20, 2017 8:31 PM

    So correct. 1975 was peak income for Americans. We went off gold in the early 70s and it's been downhill ever since.

    Jim in MN -> Baron von Bud , Aug 20, 2017 8:41 PM

    I've always been impressed by the irony: All in the Family and Barney Miller telling us how shitty everything was, when that was the best it was ever gonna be.....well, OK, it was foreshadowing and some of the writing was on the wall.....women entering the workforce not as Mary Tyler Moore wanting to, but because the one-income household was dying (being killed).

    Jim in MN -> Jim in MN , Aug 20, 2017 8:45 PM

    Anyhow, let's please remember that it isn't about Trump the man, but about what his election represented.

    Independents, a healthy chunk of Democrats, a shaky bloc of Republicans, more blacks and latinos than Romney got, and a solid Asian support.

    It is not a small matter. Not a lonesome cowboy. A populist revolt, and you can see the R n D neolibcon thugs attacking at every turn.

    The shit that is still going to be revealed will peel back your eyelids. Trump or no Trump.

    doctor10 -> Jim in MN , Aug 20, 2017 8:55 PM

    Its a two party system....US and THEM.

    THEM is at most about 5000 people inside the DC Beltway-and about another 3000-5000K mostly in LA/Boston/NY.

    THEM has no idea of the whoop-ass waiting for them if they continue to ignore and impede the will of the American People -temporarily and at the moment expressed through Donald Trump.

    Simplifiedfrisbee -> Jim in MN , Aug 20, 2017 9:58 PM

    You don't know shit.

    Bay of Pigs -> Simplifiedfrisbee , Aug 20, 2017 11:59 PM

    Care to elaborate or just troll like a typical dumbfuck?

    SurlysonofaBitch -> Jim in MN , Aug 20, 2017 8:51 PM

    The 70s were shitty, don't kid yourself.

    shovelhead -> SurlysonofaBitch , Aug 20, 2017 8:59 PM

    Mine were great.

    Lots of money and pussy.

    EINSILVERGUY -> SurlysonofaBitch , Aug 20, 2017 10:29 PM

    Well yeah but in a different sort of way. I was a teenager in the 70's. Music and Movies were great. Ecoomy sucked. I remember standing in line on odd licesne plates days to get gas. I remember that idiot Jimmy Carter as President. I remember watching the fall of Saigon on TV. I remember the "misery index" when mortgage interest and inflation exceeded 21 percent.

    I remember all of that but I also remember being able to drink a beer legally while driving down the road and DWI were half the occurence you hear about now. Rarely heard of anything bad happening to kids and the thrill of feeling a girl up and driving around my truck, working in my Dad's shop.

    We didnt have this social justice bullshit and most everyone got along. In my 4 years of High school I only saw 1 girl that got knocked up and had to have her baby away from school. My wife told me the schools she visit as part of her job,they have to have a daycare for the 30-40 some odd babies that need care. Kids have to have these fidget spinners so they dont get bored in school. Most schools are overrun with 3rd world central american kids that cant speak english or read, who dont want to be there and who cant wait to join a gang. Meanwhile they are cussing out and assaulting the teachers who have to spend half their time babysitting.

    We didnt consistently elect sociopaths into elected office

    This country had a bad time in then 70's but we are completely fucked now

    Lost in translation -> EINSILVERGUY , Aug 21, 2017 1:59 AM

    An excellent description of then, and now.

    Al Gophilia -> Baron von Bud , Aug 20, 2017 9:22 PM

    1913 Treasonous Wilson trumps the 1971 treasoonous Nixon, who both would have been tyros compared to Hillary. All Quislings can be seen by photograpic display wherever they hang pictures of presidents, from Lincoln onwards.

    swmnguy -> BigFatUglyBubble , Aug 20, 2017 9:28 PM

    All those manufacturing jobs will come back as soon as Americans can figure out how to live in America on the purchasing power equivalent of $5,000, as manufacturing workers do in China. This is the natural outcome of a system that regards labor as nothing more than a cost to be cut.

    Xena fobe -> swmnguy , Aug 20, 2017 10:05 PM

    It's not hard to figure out how to live on 5k. Just eat only rice and live four to a room. Use a bicycle everywhere you go. Work three jobs, 18 hours per day. Buy one shirt and wear it for 30 years. No phone, no internet, no a/c, no heat. No medical or dental care. No pets.

    A couple of lotto tickets a week are OK.

    FixItAgainTony -> Xena fobe , Aug 20, 2017 10:11 PM

    I like your optimism. It sounds pretty good compared to what we will actually be able to afford when the fiat goes hyperinflationary supernova and all us plebes net worth goes negative from tax liens.

    Lost in translation -> FixItAgainTony , Aug 21, 2017 1:57 AM

    "It sounds pretty good..."

    Actually, it sounds like Monterey Park.

    Lumberjack -> ET , Aug 20, 2017 8:10 PM

    Give us one solid example of his "racism".

    BigFatUglyBubble -> Lumberjack , Aug 20, 2017 8:13 PM

    Dude, don't bother. They want you to waste your time with this crap.

    jmack -> Lumberjack , Aug 20, 2017 8:15 PM

    He did not appoint Obama to the supreme court, he chose gorsuch. ipso facto pure racist

    Oldwood -> jmack , Aug 20, 2017 8:26 PM

    I think it is pretty simple and transparent.

    If you were against Obama, YOU were a racist.

    If you supported Trump, YOU ARE a racist.

    When your reduce this down further, if you are white, you are either a racist (voting Trump) or a reformed racist carrying massive white guilt for your genetic racist predisposition AND your white privilege (voting for ANY democrat/socialist).

    Oh, and if you procreated using natural biology, you are a homophobic general hater and miscreant.

    It's not easy being white, which is sad given that from the black perspective it's not easy being black either. Tough world.

    Could it be the race baiting divisive haters of all mankind that simply want to see us ALL at our end?

    Giant Meteor -> Oldwood , Aug 20, 2017 9:25 PM

    Good stuff. Well not good stuff, but you know what I mean.

    Nailed it ..

    Identity politics, a term that is generally misleading.

    It is MIS-IDENTITY politics, a real life "game" of obfuscation, a way to avoid real issues of our time, like getting increasingly bent over by centralized everything, avoid common cause, national interests, a way to "pigeon hole" make separate, divide, water down, weaken all cultures in order that all peoples, races, colors, creeds, have something other than the true source of their troubles to blame, in forced compliance and subserviance to the aims and wishes of said "centralized" power .. and in particular, the money power, where all manner of shit stirring emanates, and all evil, resides.

    So far, it appears to be working extrordinarliy well ..

    Yeah, tear down that Robert E Lee statue, that ought to "fix things" right up ..

    Oldwood -> Giant Meteor , Aug 20, 2017 9:57 PM

    And lets not forget. It's not just about removing symbols offensive to snowflakes, it's about demonstrating POWER....that they can DO THIS against all of our complaints....complaints falling on deaf ears.

    I saw this years back with homosexuals. For years they hid their proclivities from the public eye, but once they were fully outed and it became a cause celebre, they were in the streets, bare assed chaps, hugging, groping, kissing, NOT because they wanted to do these things but because they wanted to rub it in the faces of all those they despised.

    This is NOT about ideology, it is about POWER, and those wanting power will use any ideology to get it.

    swamp -> ET , Aug 20, 2017 8:13 PM

    And what is your agenda besides bashing and whining?

    Number 156 -> ET , Aug 20, 2017 8:25 PM

    Racist? Im still trying to figure out exactly what 'triggered' CNN in regards to that.

    Leave it up to the people who by way of Kathy Griffin thought it was funny to go full ISIS on Trump simulate his decapitation. Yeah, funny.

    Baron von Bud -> ET , Aug 20, 2017 8:28 PM

    I don't think Trump is a racist. He has a low opinion of some people probably based on business experiences like rentals. Probably based on income status rather than color - that's how his brain thinks. And, I agree, if he pulls the plug on Afghanistan that's good at home, good with Russia/China, bad for CIA/McCain.

    adanata -> Baron von Bud , Aug 20, 2017 9:00 PM

    In 2008 Trump took care of Jennifer Hudson when her relatives were brutally murdered. He put her up for free in his hotel and looked out for her. She took everything he gave her and was very grateful. Doesn't look rayciss to me.....

    Oldwood -> adanata , Aug 20, 2017 10:44 PM

    People use the word "racist" to denigrate, to minimize and devalue a person as something lower, less than....the same way people used the word "nigger". Words are used not only to communicate ideas but to also inflict pain and to dehumanize. Eventually, this will evolve to the combined use of "racist nigger" and come full circle.

    At some point we will just have accept the term HUMAN as a derogatory putdown, but will probably have to wait for robots to come self aware....but maybe not. There is an awful lot of self hate going around and the touchy feely people are pushing to extend human rights to animals, so I fully expect a demotion any day now.

    galant -> ET , Aug 20, 2017 8:48 PM

    And if, with Bannon --his most anti-neocon adviser dumped -- he escalates war?

    Xena fobe -> ET , Aug 20, 2017 9:55 PM

    Why would you think Trump is racist? I really am just curious. I don't see anything to indicate that.

    SheHunter -> ET , Aug 21, 2017 12:09 AM

    I quite clearly have seen nothing racist about Trump. The MSM has taken incidents and words out of context with every attempt to make Trump appear racist...but I do not see it. can you plz post a few explicit examples that bring you to this conclusion? TIA

    Sam Spayed -> ET , Aug 21, 2017 12:19 AM

    ET is racist.

    LindseyNarrates... -> ET , Aug 21, 2017 1:52 AM

    Folks, the (((antifa))) training-manual has been found, and revealed: http://100percentfedup.com/antifa-manual-found-evergreen-college-campus-...

    Lindsey

    tmosley , Aug 20, 2017 8:03 PM

    No problem is too big to fix. We the people wanted a wrecking ball, and that is exactly what Trump will become if he finds he is unable to fix the current system from within.

    BigFatUglyBubble -> tmosley , Aug 20, 2017 8:12 PM

    Why do you assume he will not be "removed" (LHO style) if he goes too far off the beaten trail?

    tmosley -> BigFatUglyBubble , Aug 20, 2017 8:31 PM

    Because there would be a civil war, and the system would be torn down, and the guilty would be hung in the streets.

    They don't want to go down that road.

    Oldwood -> BigFatUglyBubble , Aug 20, 2017 8:39 PM

    Sadly, we are not fighting an ideology that can be debated, dissected and analyzed. What we are fighting is a system of corruption that provides for dependency, and no amount of logic or proof will drive people away from their meal ticket. Further, we have suffered generations of self hatred and guilt ridden indoctrination that literally dissolves the stiffened spine.

    They have spent many years preaching to blacks that trying to get ahead was useless in a white man's world and telling the whites that they were responsible for the universal ills of the world. And we wonder why we are now here.

    If our government were actually the parents they claim to be, they would be in jail for child abuse.

    shovelhead -> Oldwood , Aug 20, 2017 9:04 PM

    Further, we have suffered generations of self hatred and guilt ridden indoctrination that literally dissolves the stiffened spine.

    Not in my neighborhood.

    It must suck where you live.

    Oldwood -> shovelhead , Aug 20, 2017 9:23 PM

    Have you listened to progressives talk? Have you seen what has come out of schools in the last thirty years?

    Crawl out of your echo chamber and see what has happened AROUND THE WORLD

    east of eden -> BigFatUglyBubble , Aug 20, 2017 9:07 PM

    Because this time, there are wayyyy too many eyeballs on everything.

    wide angle tree , Aug 20, 2017 8:07 PM

    Only problem is that President Trump is Teflon. Nothing will stick. The anit-trumpites hate Trump but that's all they know. President Trump did not create any of our nation's problems. The DO-NOTHING Congress is going to take the fall.

    east of eden -> wide angle tree , Aug 20, 2017 9:06 PM

    Oh, COngress does LOTS, just not any of the stuff that the country needs, but they are always there for the corps, the mic and the banks.

    Number 156 , Aug 20, 2017 8:08 PM

    Trump got there because people are tired of getting lied to and ripped off by their political parties.

    If the soft coup against Trump succeeds, wouldn't it be logical to conclude that they would be even madder than they are now?

    chunga -> Number 156 , Aug 20, 2017 8:15 PM

    Indeed, the harder he fights against them the more support he'll get. There are many cards he can play but how hard he'll fight is anybody's guess. So far not nearly as much as I'd like.

    The blues and reds are never gonna work with the guy.

    Oldwood -> chunga , Aug 20, 2017 8:50 PM

    As disgusting as it is for me to say, once elected we are of no value to Trump's agenda beyond the threat of civil disobedience we represent if he is ever forcibly removed. we can HOPE for a chance to vote against for some lesser evil, but those choices are narrowing quickly. We COULD react financially, effectively boycotting those financial elements most directly working towards Trump's demise, but those financial consequences would be blamed upon Trump, upon his failure of leadership.

    Unfortunately for those of us who have preached nonviolence for years, I think we have always known it would come to this, and I believe it is a losing hand, because I believe it is what they always actually wanted.

    Conservatives, even those simply defending the constitution, will (and currently ARE) branded as terrorists, and the full force of this corrupt government will come to bear. It will be the end of more than just our constitution....much more.

    But we do have the threat of violence, and for some that might be enough for Trump to stay in place, but do not underestimate the hopes and desires of the evil fucks who want to control it ALL. Let us hope that violence does NOT break out from the conservative side, because it will be the end.

[Aug 21, 2017] Why Explaining US Internal Strife Through Russian Influence Is Lazy and Unhelpful by Alexey Kovalev

Notable quotes:
"... By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
Aug 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
August 19, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a well-argued debunking of various "evil Rooskie" claims and is very much worth circulating. Stunningly, there actually are people asserting that white supremacists and the figurative and now literal hot fights over Confederate symbols (remember that Confederate flags have been a big controversy too?) are part of a Russian plot. Help me. Fortunately their views don't seem to have gotten traction outside the fever-swamp corners of the Twitterverse.

Author Kovalev's bottom line: When you are doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing something wrong.

By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy

On 11-12 August, violent clashes erupted between the far-right Unite the Right movement and anti-fascist counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman died when an alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer rammed a car into a crowd of counter-protesters. There were numerous injuries and a major national crisis erupted in the United States resulting from and inspired by the rapid rise of white nationalist, neo-Nazi and other similar sentiments far to the right of the political spectrum.

As it often happens these days, numerous people on Twitter immediately jumped in, pitching the so-called "hot takes" -- rapid, hastily weaved together series of tweets with often outlandish theories of what really happened. These instant experts, who have come to prominence in the wake of the Trump presidency, have carved out a niche for themselves by taking the most tangential or non-existent connection to anything Russian and "connecting the dots" or "just asking questions". The most egregious example is Louise Mensch , a former UK conservative pundit (and sometime MP) now residing in the US. Mensch is the most extreme example of a Twitter-age conspiracy-mongering populist . But there are other people, with more credible credentials, who are also prone to demanding that "ties with Russia" (via individuals, events and institutions) be investigated.

Immediately following the events in Charlottesville, the writer and consultant Molly McKew and Jim Ludes of the Pell Center , among others, chimed in with their "hot takes", repeating each other almost word for word: "We need to closely examine the links between the American alt-right and Russia." These particular expressions ("links between X and Russia", "ties with Russia", "Russian connections" or "close to Putin/Russian government") are, essentially, weasel words, expressions so elastic that they could mean anything -- from actively collaborating with senior Russian officials and secretly accepting large donations from to the vaguest, irrelevant connections mentioned simply for the sake of name-dropping Russia in an attempt to farm for more clicks.

Almost every person of Russian origin involved in the Trump drama is "Putin-connected", although in Russia that definition only applies to a tiny power circle of trusted aides and advisors, a select group of oligarchs running state-owned enterprises and close personal friends from before Putin's presidency. The exaggerated tone of reporting often suggests something more far-reaching, coordinated and sinister than a loose collection of unconnected factoids.

So, what do "links between the American alt-right and Russia" actually mean? Much of the allegations of American alt-right's "collusion" with Putin's regime rely on the fact that Richard Spencer, a divisive figure in this already quite loose movement, was once married to a woman of Russian origin , Nina Kupriyanova. Their current marital status is unclear and, frankly, irrelevant. Kupriyanova, a scholar of Russian and Soviet history with a PhD from the University of Toronto, is also a follower of Alexander Dugin, a larger-than-life figure in contemporary Russian media and politics. Because of Dugin's outsized presence in the western media where he is often, and quite erroneously, presented as "Putin's mastermind" or "Putin's Bannon", this connection is often enough to be declared the smoking gun in the crowdsourced investigation .

Dugin has been many things to many people over his decades-long, zig-zagging career as an underground occult practitioner in the Soviet years: philosopher, lecturer, one of the founding fathers of a radical movement, public intellectual, flamboyant media personality. But he is not a "Putin advisor" and never has been. Although Dugin is a vocal fan of the Russian president, has repeatedly professed his loyalty to Putin and has orbited the halls of Russian power for more than a decade, he hasn't accumulated enough influence to even keep a stable job.

In 2014, Dugin was fired from his position as a guest lecturer at the department of sociology of Moscow State University. Students and academic staff had complained for years about the "anti-scientific, obscurantist" atmosphere Dugin had created within the department (one petition filed by the students mentions Dugin "performing extrasensory experiments" on them during lectures). But the final straw was Dugin's interview where he agitated to "kill, kill, kill" Ukrainians in June 2014 -- the early stages of Russia's war campaign in Ukraine. Both Dugin and his patron, the dean of the sociology department, were promptly fired after a major media scandal.

Later, Dugin was quite unceremoniously removed from his position as a host on Tsargrad TV -- a right-wing, reactionary private network funded by "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeyev and launched with the help of a former Fox News executive. All mentions of Dugin's show on Tsargrad simply disappeared from the network's website.

Although Richard Spencer's own writings for his Radix Journal do have visible Dugin inspirations, it's inconceivable that Dugin has any significant influence on the American right. His teachings are just too eclectic, esoteric and over-intellectualised for an average American neo-Nazi who just wants to see more white faces around him. In fact, Dugin's overarching idea of "Eurasianism" goes against the grain of "keeping America white and ethnically pure": at its core is an obscure early 20th century Orientalist school of thought which accentuated Russia's civilisational continuity with Mongolian and Turkic ancestors, as opposed to the spiritually alien West.

Russia's conservatives of all shades of right have indeed been long cultivating links with their brethren to the west of Moscow -- well before Putin appeared on the scene. These have been well documented by scholars of the far right such as Anton Shekhovtsov . After Putin's onslaught in Ukraine, Russia, in dire need of new allies, intensified efforts to strengthen those links .

A trove of leaked emails released by the hacker group Shaltai Boltai ("Humpty Dumpty") in December 2014 did indeed uncover a sinister plot to place Russia in the centre of a wide-ranging alliance of right-wing, far-right, pro-life, pro-"family-values", hardcore Christian and other similar organisations in Europe and both Americas. But there's little evidence that anything resembling the coveted "Black International" ever came to fruition. Only temporary, tactical alliances have been more or less successful, aimed at promoting shared common interests -- such as Italy's pro-Kremlin Lega Nord party lobbying for lifting EU's sanctions against Russia -- or values.

In the latter case, the dynamic is reversed: it's not Russia influencing the West and exporting its values, but vice versa. It's Russia's parliamentary ultra-conservatives like Yelena Mizulina (now a senator) who have been inspired and supported by the American religious right.

Russia's last public attempt to unite the European and American far-right ended in a major media scandal in early 2015 when the "International Russian Conservative Forum" in Saint Petersburg was widely criticised in the press. The forum's Russian official supporters from the "traditionalist" Rodina (Motherland) party allied with the ruling United Russia were forced to withdraw their endorsement, and no further attempts to organise the forum have been made. Propaganda outlets like RT are quietly shedding commentators with far-right sympathies like Manuel Ochsenreiter or Richard Spencer mentioned above in an attempt to cleanse their image as a safe haven for Holocaust deniers and white power enthusiasts. Only a couple of days after Charlottesville, Russian authorities banned The Daily Stormer, a virulently anti-Semitic "alt-right" website, which had temporarily sought refuge on Russian web space after having been refused service in the US.

There is little to no evidence that any of the above had anything to do with the tragic events in Charlottesville. The resurgence of murderous, hateful ideologies in the United States is a home-grown issue. Young men with identical haircuts and matching, uniform-like attires chanting "Blood and soil -- " in the streets of American cities are inspired and influenced by many things, but a bearded Russian mystic is hardly one of them. Attempting to explain internal strife in your country by "Russian influences", hastily put together disjointed and exaggerated phenomena, is intellectually lazy. It distracts from getting to the root of the problem by offering quick, easy answers to complicated questions.

Ironically, it's also a very Putin thing to do. Explaining Russia's internal issues by blaming the West's machinations is the Russian president's shtick. When you find yourself doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing it wrong.

[Aug 20, 2017] Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists fomenting more wars

With Bannon Gone, Trump Loses Key Anti-War Aide Trump Loses Anti-War Aide In Bannon The Daily Caller
Notable quotes:
"... For the record, Mr. Bannon gave notice on 8/7 to POTUS. As well, Mr. Bannon, when appointed to Trump's cabinet, stated for any who bothered to read/listen that he would accept under one condition, which was he'd be leaving the WH in eight months. Eight months brings us to 8/7. No one fired him. He is back at Breitbart as its Chairman. ..."
"... Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists who are determined to keep their march toward raping the world from all her resources aka the NWO/neocon/neolib mafia while fomenting more war(s). ..."
"... If you are unaware of the current round of NAFTA negotiations, now in its fourth day, w/Canada and Mexico OR if you are unaware that on Friday the Trump administration formally launched a Section 301 Trade investigation into China's trading practices, then you are not paying attention to what the right hand is doing. ..."
"... Oh, and btw, it was Kushner and his data operation who carried Trump over the finish line not Bannon and his policy positions. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | t-room.us

h | Aug 20, 2017 12:52:39 PM | 122

Francis @68 - Refreshing to read a comment by someone who obviously has made it her/his business to understand Trump and Team from the conservative perspective. Great comment and spot on IMHO.

For the record, Mr. Bannon gave notice on 8/7 to POTUS. As well, Mr. Bannon, when appointed to Trump's cabinet, stated for any who bothered to read/listen that he would accept under one condition, which was he'd be leaving the WH in eight months. Eight months brings us to 8/7. No one fired him. He is back at Breitbart as its Chairman.

Bannon's interview with the American Prospect last week was his shot across the proverbial bow aimed directly at the globalists who are determined to keep their march toward raping the world from all her resources aka the NWO/neocon/neolib mafia while fomenting more war(s).

Bannon with Mercer and et al backing (and I can make a pretty solid educated guess that there are others) have been developing a new media platform of some kind which will be launched in weeks not months (another educated guess). Sinclair broadcasting has been mentioned on other conservative platforms as getting ready to make a move of some kind as well.

As Breitbart's editor wrote on Friday following the Bannon announcement - "WAR" - is unequivocally that sites way of saying the Swamp in DC is going to be drained. Indeed, Trump and Team have already begun to roll out their 2018 election strategy.

Any who hold the belief that Trump is stupid, naive, or whatever derogatory statement conjured up is just plain wrong and shouldn't be taken seriously by any here who know better.

Trump is a businessman. Trump is not a politician. And he certainly wasn't elected to serve as America's grandpa-he ain't gonna hold your hand...ever.

If you are unaware of the current round of NAFTA negotiations, now in its fourth day, w/Canada and Mexico OR if you are unaware that on Friday the Trump administration formally launched a Section 301 Trade investigation into China's trading practices, then you are not paying attention to what the right hand is doing.

There is always much going on behind all of the noise the insufferable Left makes on a daily basis. Apparently, they don't want you to know about any of the plethora of Executive Orders signed, the roll back of regulations zero and czars put in place, the trade negotiations and so, so much more.

On the other hand, conservative sites are all over the blogosphere report daily what this administration is doing and how it is succeeding. Bannon remains a phone call away.

Oh, and btw, it was Kushner and his data operation who carried Trump over the finish line not Bannon and his policy positions.

[Aug 20, 2017] Bannon Was Set for a Graceful Exit. Then Came Charlottesville.

Notable quotes:
"... "Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people. ..."
"... Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

With little process to speak of, tensions over policy swelled. Ideological differences devolved into caustic personality clashes. Perhaps nowhere was the mutual disgust thicker than between Mr. Bannon and Mr. Trump's daughter and son-in-law.

Mr. Bannon openly complained to White House colleagues that he resented how Ms. Trump would try to undo some of the major policy initiatives that he and Mr. Trump agreed were important to the president's economic nationalist agenda, like withdrawing from the Paris climate accords. In this sense, he was relieved when Mr. Kelly took over and put in place a structure that kept other aides from freelancing.

"Those days are over when Ivanka can run in and lay her head on the desk and cry," he told multiple people.

Mr. Bannon made little secret of the fact that he believed "Javanka," as he referred to the couple behind their backs, had naïve political instincts and were going to alienate Mr. Trump's core coalition of white working-class voters.

[Aug 20, 2017] Laugh all you want, but you really are ignoring some harsh facts about the current US economy, what it's based on, and what conflict with North Korea will entail should the US be foolish enough to continue along that track

Notable quotes:
"... If the US attacks North Korea, that's the end of the US-centric Pacific Commonwealth. Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines will all strongly realign following the inevitable destruction of South Korea--most towards a more China-friendly relationship--and the rest of South East Asia will follow suit. Taiwan will become increasingly isolated, and that will put huge pressure on it to cut off its client status with the US and move towards normalization of relations with China. ..."
"... Besides - the media slowly, slowly starts to wake up. CNN: North Korea gives US a clear choice: Restraint or missile launches ..."
"... Bottom line: It is premature to suggest that the US is winning this game. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Pacifica Advocate -> BillWade... Reply , 17 August 2017 at 10:04 AM

Very, very, very far, in fact.

If the US attacks North Korea, that's the end of the US-centric Pacific Commonwealth. Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, and the Philippines will all strongly realign following the inevitable destruction of South Korea--most towards a more China-friendly relationship--and the rest of South East Asia will follow suit. Taiwan will become increasingly isolated, and that will put huge pressure on it to cut off its client status with the US and move towards normalization of relations with China.

In the US, Wal Mart, Target, and all the other big superstores of that ilk (Hobby Lobby...) will just waft away into vapor as their suppliers gradually disappear (and certainly, they'll take a huge economic hit during the quarter or half-year that the conflict ensues).

Laugh all you want, but you really are ignoring some harsh facts about the current US economy, what it's based on, and what conflict with North Korea will entail should the US be foolish enough to continue along that track.

b said in reply to jonst... , 17 August 2017 at 04:28 AM
Since when is "the world's" notice relevant in political issues?

Besides - the media slowly, slowly starts to wake up. CNN: North Korea gives US a clear choice: Restraint or missile launches
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/opinions/north-korea-us-guam-choice-adam-mount/index.html

Richardstevenhack said in reply to turcopolier ... , 16 August 2017 at 10:11 PM
Yes, I'm aware. But that doesn't change the likelihood that
  1. Kim never intended to launch those missiles, but merely make the threat in another attempt to pressure the US to negotiate (in which case, of course, he failed - big surprise that) and
  2. Even if he did actually intend to launch such a missile test, his generals likely suggested it would be TOO provocative.

In any event, my main point is that nothing has changed.

Alexander Mercouris did a piece today at The Duran suggesting that both sides have backed off. I submitted a comment disagreeing.

NK will likely continue to launch missiles until the US agrees to negotiate. And Trump is unlikely to agree to negotiate until he's painted himself into a corner where he will have to launch SOME sort of military action against NK - which is likely to trigger full-scale war.

Bottom line: It is premature to suggest that the US is winning this game.

[Aug 20, 2017] McMaster solidifies power at NSC -- and supports Iran deal, sees Israel as occupier by Philip Weiss

Aug 05, 2017 | mondoweiss.net

Last night President Trump issued a statement affirming his support for National Security adviser H.R. McMaster in the face of a storm of criticism from rightwing outlets. The statement is a sign that Trump and his new chief of staff are taking the realist side of the debate inside his administration over foreign policy.

So while Trump claims to be doing everything he can to trash the Iran deal, the good news is that his foreign policy team is for it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clearly advocated for the deal at a press briefing earlier this week, while suggesting that he could differ with the president on how effective it's been.

I think there are a lot of alternative means with which we use the agreement to advance our policies and the relationship with Iran.

Tillerson is one of the "adults" who are thought to be able to rein in Trump's worst tendencies on Iran, as Paul Pillar wrote :

Reportedly the adults, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, last month urged a resistant Trump to recognize reality and certify that Iran was complying with the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].

Further comfort comes from the fact that three days ago, General McMaster fired Ezra Cohen-Watnick , an enigmatic thirtyish intelligence aide who was vehemently opposed to the Iran deal, leading to calls to get rid of McMaster. Like Tillerson, McMaster is plainly a realist. And he is thought to have job security because his predecessor, General Mike Flynn, lasted barely three weeks and went out with a splash. The Atlantic says McMaster is cleaning house at the NSC; two weeks ago he got rid of an ideologue who spread anti-Muslim conspiracies.

Supporters of Israel are upset by the personnel changes. The Israeli-American hothead Caroline Glick writes at her Facebook page that McMaster is "deeply hostile" to Israel as an occupying power.

The Israel angle on McMaster's purge of Trump loyalists from the National Security Council is that all of these people are pro-Israel and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, positions that Trump holds.

McMaster in contrast is deeply hostile to Israel and to Trump. According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews.

McMaster "has chosen to eliminate the pro-Israel voices at the National Security Council," according to Jordan Schachtel at the Conservative Review, who cited interviews with White House officials who are trying to undermine the general:

McMaster not only shuns Israel, he is also historically challenged on Arab-Israeli affairs, according to the sources.

"McMaster constantly refers to the existence of a Palestinian state before 1947," a senior West Wing official tells CR (there was never an independent Palestinian state), adding that McMaster describes Israel as an "illegitimate," "occupying power."

The NSC chief expressed great reluctance to work with Israel on counterterror efforts, as he shut down a joint U.S.-Israel project to counter the terrorist group Hezbollah's efforts to expand Iran's worldwide influence.

One of the main indictments of McMaster by neoconservatives (right-wing Israel supporters who favor regime change) is that he restrained the president on his tour of occupied territories in May ( as Allison Deger reported at the time ). In this White House briefing, McMaster refused to say that the western wall in occupied East Jerusalem is part of Israel.

[Aug 20, 2017] Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise

Notable quotes:
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.msn.com

Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise. The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.

The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.

By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr. Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the deadly violence needed to be amended.

Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr. Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.

"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr. Kelly.

[Aug 20, 2017] Breitbart Goes After Ivanka And McMaster

Aug 20, 2017 | dailycaller.com

The first earlier in the day was " Report: Powerful GOP Donor Sheldon Adelson Supports Campaign to Oust McMaster ." This article detailed how major Republican donor Sheldon Adelson reportedly is supporting a campaign against McMaster that claims the national security adviser is anti-Israel.

Later in the day, the lead story on the site was " McMaster Of Disguise: Nat'l Security Adviser Endorsed Book That Advocates Quran-Kissing Apology Ceremonies ." This piece from frequent McMaster critic Aaron Klein said that McMaster endorsed a book that "calls on the U.S. military to respond to any 'desecrations' of the Quran by service members with an apology ceremony, and advocates kissing a new copy of the Quran before presenting the Islamic text to the local Muslim public."

The article went on to say that McMaster has "troubling views" on Islamic terrorism.

The site also published two articles Sunday critical of Ivanka. One of them is an aggregate of a Daily Mail report that claimed Ivanka helped push Bannon out of the White House. Shortly after the story was published, the article received an update that said a White House senior aide stated the Daily Mail report is "totally false."

Breitbart also wrote a piece that highlighted six times Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner's displeasure with President Trump had been leaked to the media.

Bannon said in interviews after his departure from the White House that he will use Breitbart to fight for the president's agenda.

"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda President Trump ran on," Bannon told The New York Times . "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war with."

[Aug 20, 2017] Breitbart goes after McMaster

Aug 20, 2017 | thehill.com

Breitbart News, the media outlet helmed by President Trump's former chief strategist Stephen Bannon, published an article on Sunday casting national security adviser H.R. McMaster as soft on Islamist extremism and terrorism.

The former chief strategist's exit from the White House on Friday immediately raised questions about the future of Bannon's relationship with Trump, as well as how Breitbart would cover the administration with Bannon at the helm again.

In an interview last week on NBC's "Meet the Press," McMaster repeatedly dodged questions about whether he could work with Bannon, saying simply that he is "ready to work with anybody who will help advance the president's agenda and advance the security, prosperity of the American people."

"I get to work together with a broad range of talented people, and it is a privilege every day to enable the national security team," McMaster told the show's host Chuck Todd.

[Aug 20, 2017] The Bannon - McMaster war can be very easily explained

Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

somebody | Aug 20, 2017 5:49:52 AM | 98

The Bannon - McMaster war can be very easily explained

McMaster made sure the US remains in the Iran deal

This is not what Sheldon Adelson or the Mercers paid for. This is not what right wing Israelis want.

Stability is not what the Mercers thrive on .

Hedge fund insiders say that quant funds, whose trading profits typically depend on volatility, have been hurt by what has been a surprisingly steady market environment in the second quarter, most notably in June, when the CBOE Volatility Index, or VIX � which reflects investors� views of expected stock market volatility � gained between 10 percent and 12 percent, half of its 52-week highs. The Republicans� failure to pass a health care bill, a steady drumbeat of news about the Russia-Trump investigation, and nuclear missile tests of North Korea did little to jar investor confidence in the stock market. The S&P 500 gained 0.6 percent during the month, putting it up 9.3 percent this year

Grieved | Aug 19, 2017 10:06:59 PM | 86

@58 karlof1

Thanks for the Escobar link. The story makes great sense. It's good to know about Mercer and to see that Trump and Bannon are tight. Oddly, it did seem that with all the jackals circling around Trump's neck, in this one case, Bannon is more use outside the tent pissing in than inside pissing out. And Breitbart has now received a massive profile lift, it'll become a national player in the narrative, one would expect.

By the way, I was pondering lately this whole aspect of a grass roots movement. Funny you should bring it up. The only question here about the US is, will the people actually get a voice in this society? If the electoral system keeps bringing liars and betraying promises, then it's time to Occupy the Ballot and have new movements. This is happening I think, with Trump actually being one of the precursor litmus tests.

~~

As for the generals, what does a ruler need except the people and the army? Trump has them both. It makes him harder to take down with all those generals around. Of course, Caesar will have to accord with his praetorian guard or the guard will get a new Caesar. But the US is a banana republic now, this is how it's done - and I'm serious about this, these are real dynamics I think.

Surely the generals will end up being more conservative in action than in rhetoric? And if they get a little giddy and actually send their soldiers out into the real world, they'll quickly receive more of those globally public humiliations that are lowering the empire to the ground so effectively. What can go wrong, that couldn't always go wrong anyway, regardless of who's in charge, or thinks they're in charge?

V. Arnold | Aug 19, 2017 8:50:03 PM | 80
somebody | Aug 19, 2017 10:01:52 AM | 24

Trump would not have been elected without Robert Mercer. Robert Mercer is the billionaire behind Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart and Steve Bannon.

Who financed Adolf Hitler?

Bingo! Finally, some one got the Mercers; both the father and the daughter.
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19811:The-Real-Story-of-How-Bannon-and-Trump-Got-to-The-White-House

smuks | Aug 20, 2017 8:45:55 AM | 101
@psychohistorian 85

We express things differently, but think very much alike.

The water and sewage system is a good example, but you could take any basic utility/ basic human need: Everyone needs it, but there's no need for 'growth' and little if any room for efficiency gains. So the only ways to profit as a private investor are to overcharge users or to pay miserable wages and let the infrastructure rot.

Private enterprise and competition can work miracles when an economic sector is rapidly developing, expanding and advancing technologically. Governments should encourage this, so I don't think they're (purely) socialistic. But once the sector is 'grown-up' and enters a more or less 'steady state', there's neither room nor justification for profits. It becomes more important to provide high-quality services to everyone(!) while using as little natural resources as possible - and for this, a democratic form of organization is much more fitting than a private profit-driven one (which strives to maximize throughput).

I'm cautiously optimistic. My impression is that more and more people realize that in our time, 'democracy', 'equal rights' and 'sustainability' more important than 'profits' and 'growth'...don't you think?

nb...'posit' - I just learned a new word, thanks!

@somebody 98

Thanks for pointing out the uncertainty and 'volatility'/ VIX bit. I agree it's what speculative investors like hedge funds need and thrive on - so it's what they try to promote by all means (cf. certain websites).
Especially now that we are saying goodbye to the 'growth' phase of the economy and entering a 'steady state' (s.ab.), financial market volatility is increasingly the only thing to reap (relevant) profits from. It's a fight between the pro-stability and the 'profit at all cost' factions - luckily, the former is winning.

[Aug 20, 2017] The USA are about to face the worst crisis of their history and how Putin's example might inspire Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Putin outsmarted you at every step of the way ..."
"... Et voilà ..."
"... semibankirshchina ..."
Oct 22, 2016 | thesaker.is

Watching the last Presidential debate was a rather depressing experience. I thought that Trump did pretty well, but that really is not the point here. The point is this: no matter who wins, an acute crisis is inevitable.

Option one : Hillary wins. That's Obama on steroids, only worse. Remember that Obama himself was Dubya, only worse. Of course, Dubya was just Clinton, only worse. Now the circle is closed. Back to Clinton. Except this time around, we have a women who is deeply insecure, who failed at every single thing that she every tried to do, and who now has a 3 decades long record of disasters and failures. Even when she had no authority to start a war, she started one (told Bill to bomb the Serbs). Now she has that authority. And now she had to stand there, in front of millions of people, and hear Trump tell her " Putin outsmarted you at every step of the way " (did you see her frozen face when he said that?). Trump is right, Putin did outsmart her and Obama at every step. The problem is that now, after having a President with an inferiority complex towards Putin (Obama) we will have a President with the very same inferiority complex and a morbid determination to impose a no-fly zone over Russian forces in Syria. Looking at Hillary, with her ugly short hair and ridiculous pants, I thought to myself "this is a woman who is trying hard to prove that she is every bit as tough and any man" – except of course that she ain't. Her record also shows her as being weak, cowardly and with a sense of total impunity. And now, that evil messianic lunatic with a deep-seated inferiority complex is going to become Commander in Chief?! God help us all!

Option two : Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have a total, repeat total , control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid " crazies in the basement "? Consider the vicious hate campaign which all these "personalities" (from actors, to politicians to reporters) have unleashed against Trump – they have burned their bridges, they know that they will lose it all if Trump wins (and, if he proves to be an easy pushover his election will make no difference anyway). The Neocons have nothing to lose and they will fight to the very last one. What could Trump possibly do to get anything done if he is surrounded by Neocons and their agents of influence? Bring in an entirely different team? How is he going to vet them? His first choice was to take Pence as a VP – a disaster (he is already sabotaging Trump on Syria and the elections outcome). I *dread* the hear whom Trump will appoint as a White House Chief of Staff as I am afraid that just to appease the Neocons he will appoint some new version of the infamous Rahm Emanuel And should Trump prove that he has both principles and courage, the Neocons can always "Dallas" him and replace him with Pence. Et voilà --

I see only one way out:

The (imperfect) Putin model

When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. The big difference is that, unlike what is happening with Trump, the Russian version of the US Neocons never saw the danger coming from Putin. He was selected by the ruling elites as the representative of the security services to serve along a representative of the big corporate money, Medvedev. This was a compromise solution between the only two parts of the Russian society which were still functioning, the security services and oil/gas money. Putin looked like a petty bureaucrat in an ill fitting suit, a shy and somewhat awkward little guy who would present no threat to the powerful oligarchs of the semibankirshchina (the Seven Bankers) running Russia. Except that he turned out to be one of the most formidable rulers in Russia history. Here is what Putin did as soon as he came to power:

First, he re-established the credibility of the Kremlin with the armed forces and security services by rapidly and effectively crushing the Wahabi insurgency in Chechnia. This established his personal credibility with the people he would have to rely on to deal with the oligarchs.

Second, he used the fact that everybody, every single businessman and corporation in Russia, did more or less break the law during the 1990s, if only because there really was no law. Instead of cracking down on the likes of Berezovski or Khodorkovski for their political activities, he crushed them with (absolutely true) charges of corruption. Crucially, he did that very publicly, sending a clear message to the other arch-enemy: the media.

Third, contrary to the hallucinations of the western human rights agencies and Russian liberals, Putin never directly suppressed any dissent, or cracked down on the media or, even less so, ordered the murder of anybody. He did something much smarter. Remember that modern journalists are first and foremost presstitutes, right? By mercilessly cracking down on the oligarchs Putin deprived the presstitutes of their source of income and political support. Some emigrated to the Ukraine, others simply resigned, and a few were left like on a reservation or a zoo on a few very clearly identifiable media outlets such as Dozhd TV, Ekho Moskvy Radio or the newspaper Kommersant. Those who emigrated became irrelevant, as for those who stayed in the "liberal zoo" – they were harmless has they had no credibility left. Crucially, everybody else "got the message". After that, all it took is the appointment a few real patriots (such as Dmitri Kiselev, Margarita Simonian and others) in key positions and everybody quickly understood that the winds of fortune had now turned.

Fourth, once the main media outlets were returned back to sanity it did not take too long for the "liberal" (in the Russian sense, meaning pro-USA) parties to enter into a death-spiral from which they have never recovered. That, in turn, resulted in the ejection of all "liberals" form the Duma which now has only 4 parties, all of them more or less "patriotic".

That's the part that worked.

So far, Putin failed to eject the 5th columnists, whom I call the "Atlantic Integrationists" (for details, including their names, see here ) from the government itself.. Even the notorious Alexei Kudrin was not fired by Putin, but by Medvedev. The security services succeeded in finally getting rid of Anatolii Serdyukov but they did not have power needed to put him in jail. I still think that a purge will happen while Alexander Mercouris disagrees . Whatever may be the case, what is certain is that Putin has not tackled the 5th columnists in the banking/finance sector and that the latter have being very careful not to give him a pretext to take action against them.

Russia and the USA are very different countries, and no recipe can be simply copied from one to another. Still, there are valuable lessons from the "Putin model" for Trump, not the least of which that his most formidable enemies probably are sitting in the Fed. One Russian analyst – Rostislav Ishchenko – has suggested that Trump could somehow force the Fed to increase interest rates, which would result in a bankruptcy domino effect for US banks which might be the only way to finally crush the Fed and re-take control of US banking. Maybe. I honestly am not qualified to have an opinion about that.

What is sure is that for the time being the USA will continue to look like that:

A homeless man, possibly a veteran, has built a "corridor of flags" to get people to give him money. Florida, October 2016.

Rich on cheapo patriotism and otherwise poor.

Hillary thinks that this is a stunning success. Trump thinks that this is a disgrace. I submit that the choice between these two is really very simple.

To those who are saying that there cannot be a schism in the AngloZionist elites, I will reply that the example of the conspiracy to prevent Dominique Strauss-Kahn from becoming the next French President shows that, just like hyenas, AngloZionist leaders do sometimes turn on each other. That happens in all regimes, regardless of their political ideology (think SS against SA in Nazi Germany or Trotskists against Stalinists in Boshevik USSR).

Of brooms and body parts

Leon Trotsky used to say the Soviet Russia needed to be cleansed from anarchists and noblemen with an "iron broom". He even wrote an article in the Pravda entitled "We need an iron broom". Another genocidal manic, Felix Derzhinskii, founder of the notorious ChK secret police, used to say that a secret police officer must have a "burning heart, a cool head and clean hands". One would seek weakness, or even compassion, in vain from folks like these. These are ideology-driven "true believers", sociopaths with no sense of empathy, profoundly evil people with a genocidal hatred of anybody standing in their way.

Hillary Clinton and her gang of Neocons are the spiritual (and sometimes even physical) successors of the Soviet Bolsheviks and they, just like their Bolshevik forefathers, will not hesitate for a second to crush their enemies. Donald Trump – assuming he is for real and actually means what he says – has to understand that and do what Putin did: strike first and strike hard. Stalin, by the way, also did exactly that, and for a while the Trotskyists were crushed, but in the years following Stalin's death they gradually bounced back only to seize power again in 1991 (not Trotskyists in a literal sense of the word, but russophobic Jews who had nothing but contempt for the Russian people). I think that the jury is still out on whether Putin will succeed in finally removing the 5th columnist from power. What is sure is that Russia is at least semi-free from the control of these people and that the US is their last bastion right now. Their maniacal hatred of Trump can in part be explained by the sense of danger these folks feel, being threatened for the first time in what they see as their homeland (I don't mean that in a patriotic sense – but rather like a parasite care for "his" host). And maybe they have some good reason to fear. I sure hope that they do.

I am rather encouraged by the way Trump handled the latest attempt to make him cower in fear. Yesterday Trump dared to declare that since the election might be rigged or stolen he does not pledge to recognize their outcome. And even though every semi-literate person knows that elections in the USA have been rigged and stolen in the past, including Presidential ones, by saying that Trump committed a major case of crimethink . The Ziomedia pounced on him with self-righteous outrage and put immense pressure on him to retract his statement (which, by the way, contradicted Pence's stance). Instead of rolling over and recanting his "crime", Trump replied with this:

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=7fb0ec4a8ebe

Beautiful no? Let's hope he continues to show the same courage.

Trump is doing now what Jean-Marie Le Pen did in France: he is showing the Neocons that be that he dares to openly defy them, that he refuses to play by their rules, that their outrage has no effect on his and that they don't get to censor or, even less so, silence him. That is also what he did when, yet again, he refused to accuse the Russians of cyber-attacks and, instead, repeated that it would be a good thing for Russia and the USA to be friends. Again, I am not sure that how long he will be able to hold that line, but for the time being there is no denying that he is openly defying the AngloZionist deep state and Empire.

Conclusion

The United States are about to enter what might possibly be the deepest and most dangerous crisis of their history. If Trump is elected, he will have to immediately launch a well-planned attack against his opponents without giving them any pretext to accuse him of politically motivated repressions. In Russia, Putin could count on the support of the military and the security services. I don't know whom Trump can count on, but I am fairly confident that there are still true patriots in the US armed forces. If Trump gets the right person to head the FBI, he might also use that agency to clean house and deliver a steady streams of indictments for corruption, conspiracy to [fill the blank], abuse of authority, obstruction of justice and dereliction of duty, etc. Since such crimes are widespread in the current circles of power, they are also easy to prove and cracking down on corruption would get Trump a standing ovation from the American people. Next, just as Putin in Russia, Trump will have to deal with the media. How exactly, I don't know. But he will have to face this beast and defeat it. At every step in this process he will have to get the proactive support of the people, just like Putin does. Can he do it?

I don't know. Honestly, I doubt it. First, I still don't trust him. But, more relevantly, I would argue that to overthrow the deep state and restore true people power is even harder in the USA than it was in Russia. I have always believed that the AngloZionist Empire will have to be brought down from the outside, most probably by a combination of military and economic defeats. I still believe that. However, I might be wrong – in fact, I hope that I am – and maybe Trump will be the guy to bring down the Empire in order to save the United States. If there is such a possibility, however slim, I think that we have to believe in it and act on it as all the alternatives are far worse.

The Saker

[Aug 20, 2017] The chattering political classes have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. They use identity politics to discredit his base.

The USA started to imitate post-Maydan Ukraine: another war with statues... "Identity politics" flourishing in some unusual areas like history of the country. Which like in Ukraine is pretty divisive.
McAuliffe was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign, and was one of her superdelegates at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
Notable quotes:
"... The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. ..."
"... It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats. ..."
"... Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general. ..."
"... So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. ..."
"... Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive. ..."
"... From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person). ..."
"... I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). ..."
"... Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently. ..."
"... There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]... ..."
"... I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts. ..."
"... But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor. ..."
"... The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor. ..."
"... On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election. ..."
"... The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening. ..."
"... What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving. ..."
"... I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault. ..."
"... There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation. ..."
"... CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. ..."
"... The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election. ..."
"... As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers). ..."
"... It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness. ..."
"... But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen. ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

doug , 17 August 2017 at 04:54 PM

The media, and political elite, pile on is precisely what I expect. The chattering political classes have converged on the belief that Trump is not only incompetent, but dangerous. And his few allies are increasingly uncertain of their future.

The thrust appears to be to undercut components of his base while ratcheting up indignation. WaPo and the Times dribble out salacious "news" stories that, often as not, are substance free but written in a hyperbolic style that assumes a kind of intrinsic Trump guilt and leaps from there. They know better. No doubt they rationalize this as meeting kind with kind. Trump is the epitome of the salesman that believes he can sell anything to anyone with the right pitch. Reporters that might normally be restrained by actual facts and a degree of fairness simply are no longer so constrained.

It reminds me of the coverage in the run up to Nixon's resignation. Except this one's on steroids. I believe the DC folks fully expect Trump to be removed and now are focusing on the strategy that accrues the maximum benefit to their party. Unfortunately, things strongly favor the Democrats.

Democrats want to drag this out as long as possible and enjoy the chipping away at segments of the Republican base while the Republicans want to clear the path before the midterms. However, the Republican officials, much as many or most can't stand Trump, have to weave a thin line because taking action against Trump would kill them in the primaries and possibly in the general.

So the Democrats are licking their chops and hoping this can continue until the midterms with the expectation they will then control Congress. After that they will happily dispatch Trump with some discovered impeachable crime. At that point it won't be hard to get enough Republicans to go along.

The Republicans can only hope to convince Trump to resign well prior to the midterms. They hope they won't have to go on record with a vote and get nailed in the elections.

In the meantime the country is going to go through hell.

turcopolier , 17 August 2017 at 05:19 PM
kerim,

Yes, we are staring into the depths and the abyss has begun to take note of us. BTW the US was put back together after the CW/WBS on the basis of an understanding that the Confederates would accept the situation and the North would not interfere with their cultural rituals.

There was a general amnesty for former Confederates in the 1870s and a number of them became US senators, Consuls General overseas and state governors.

That period of attempted reconciliation has now ended. Who can imagine the "Gone With the Win" Pulitzer and Best Picture of the Year now? pl

Tyler , 17 August 2017 at 05:30 PM
Some of you still don't get it. Trump isn't our last chance. Its your last chance. Yet still so many of you oxygen thieves still insist RUSSIA is the reason Hillary lost. You guys are going to agitate your way into a CW because you can't accept you lost. Many of you agitating are fat, slow, and stupid, with no idea how to survive.
Murali -> LeeG... , 17 August 2017 at 05:38 PM
I totally disagree with you LeeG. From day one after the unexpected (for the punditry class and their media coherts) elections results everybody was piling on Trump. The stories abound about his Russia Collusion (after one year of investigation not even a smoke signal) or his narcistic attitudes (mind you LeeG Trump always addresses people as We where as Humble Obama always addresses in the first person).

I get this feeling the Swamp doesn't want a President who will at least try to do something for the American people rather than promises (Remember Hope and Change ala Obama, he got the Change quite a bit of it for him and his Banker Pals from what is left of the treasury and we the people are left with Hope). I hope he will succeed but I learnt that we will always be left with Hope!

AK -> Dr.Puck... , 17 August 2017 at 06:27 PM
Dr. Puck,

The calls have begun:

That last tweet is from the Green Party candidate for VP. Those are just a few examples from a quick Google search before I get back to work. Those of you with more disposable time will surely find more.

BillWade , 17 August 2017 at 06:47 PM
Someone on the last thread said in a very elegant way that what binds us Americans together is one thing, economic opportunity for all. I believe that was Trump's election platform, with the "for all" emphasized frequently.

I believe Charlottsville was a staged catalyst to bring about Trump's downfall, there seems now to be a "full-court press" against him. If he survives this latest attempt, I'll be both surprised and in awe of his political skills. If he doesn't survive I'll (and many others, no matter the "legality of the process") will consider it a coup d'etat and start to think of a different way to prepare for the future.

A.I.Schmelzer , 17 August 2017 at 07:20 PM
There is quite the precedent for the media treating trump as they do, Putin has been treated quite similarly, as well as any other politician the media cars disagree with [neocons/neolibs]...

I think, during the election campaign, the negative media coverage may have well be a boon to him. Anyone who listened to the media, and then actually turned up at a Trump rally to see for himself, immediately got the idea that the media is full of shit. I think this won Trump a fair number of converts.

But I think by now they are just over the top. It almost reminds me of Soviet denunciations of old communists who have fallen out of favor.

As far as statue removal goes: There should be legal ways of deciding such things democratically. There should also be the possibility of relocating the statues in question. I imagine that there should be plenty of private properties who are willing to host these statues on their land. This should be quite soundly protected by the US constitution.

That these monuments got, iirc, erected long after the war is nothing unusual. Same is true for monuments to the white army, of which there are now a couple in Russia.

As far as the civil war goes, my sympathies lie with the Union, I would not be, more then a 100 years after the war, be averse to monuments depicting the common Confederate Soldier.

I can understand the statue toppler somewhat. If someone would place a Bandera statue in my surroundings, I would try to wreck it. I may be willing to tolerate a Petljura statue, probably a also Wrangel or Denikin statue, but not a Vlassov or Shuskevich statue. Imho Lees "wickedness", historically speaking, simply isn't anything extraordinary.

Haralambos -> turcopolier ... , 17 August 2017 at 07:29 PM
Col., thank you for this comment. I grew up in the "North" and recall the centenary of the Civil War as featured in _Life_ magazine. I was fascinated by the history, the uniforms and the composition of the various armies as well as their arms. I would add to that the devastating use of grapeshot. I knew the biographies of the various generals on both sides and their relative effectiveness. I would urge others to read Faulkner's _Intruder in the Dust_ to gain some understanding of the Reconstruction and carpetbagging.

I believe the choice to remove the monument as opposed to some other measure, such as the bit of history you offer, was highly incendiary. I also find it interesting that the ACLU is taking up their case in regard to free-speech: http://tinyurl.com/ybdkrcaz

I was living in Chicago when the Skokie protest occurred.

Fred -> Lars... , 17 August 2017 at 07:36 PM
Lars,

"They came to Charlottesville to do harm. They came armed and were looking for a fight."

I agree. This means Governor McAuliffe failed in his duty to the people of the Commonwealth and so did the Mayor of Charlottesville and the senior members of the police forces present in the city. Congradulations to the alt-left.

They - the left - previously came to DC to do harm - on flag day no less. Namely the Bernie Bro James Hodgkinson, domestic terrorist, who attempted to assasinate Steve Scalise and a number of other elected representatives. The left did not denounce him nor his cause. Sadly they did not even denounce the people who actually betrayed him - those who rigged the Democratic primary: Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Seamus Padraig -> Dr.Puck... , 17 August 2017 at 07:40 PM
"I know of no call by anybody to remove all statues of the slaveholders. Please edify."

Well, it appears that Al Sharpton is now in favor of defunding the Jefferson Memorial. That's close, isn't it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg4XKIX1bs4&feature=youtu.be&t=5

VietnamVet , 17 August 2017 at 08:32 PM
PT

The one clear thing is that there is a coup attempt to get rid of Donald Trump led by globalist media and supra-national corporate intelligence agents. Charlottesville may well be due to the total incompetence of the democratic governor and mayor.

On the other hand, the razing of Confederate Memorials started in democrat controlled New Orleans and immediately spread to Baltimore. This is purposeful like blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election.

The protestors on both divides were organized and spoiling for a fight.

The unrest here at home is due to the forever wars, outsourcing jobs, tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Under stress societies revert to their old beliefs and myths. John Brennon, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, George Soros and Pierre Omidyar are scorpions; they can't help themselves. After regime change was forced on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine; a color revolution has been ignited here in the USA; damn the consequences. We are the only ones that can stop it by pointing out what is really happening.

James , 17 August 2017 at 09:32 PM
It seems to me that this brouhaha may work in Trump's favor. The more different things they accuse Trump of (without evidence), the more diluted their message becomes.

I think the Borg's collective hysteria can be explained by the "unite the right" theme of the Charlottesville Rally. A lot of Trump supporters are very angry, and if they start marching next to people who are carrying signs that blame "the Jews" for America's problems, then anti-Zionist (or even outright anti-Semitic) thinking might start to go mainstream. The Borg would do well to work to address the Trump supporters legitimate grievances. There are a number of different ways that things might get very ugly if they don't. Unfortunately the establishment just wants to heap abuse on the Trump supporters and I think that approach is myopic.

Jack , 17 August 2017 at 09:56 PM
There will always be an outrage du jour for the NeverTrumpers. The Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, Morning Joe & Mika ain't gonna quit. And it seems it's ratings gold for them. Of course McCain and his office wife and the rest of the establishment crew also have to come out to ring the obligatory bell and say how awful Trump's tweet was.

What I see in my Democrat dominated county is that the blue collar folks are noting this overt coup attempt and while they didn't vote for Trump are beginning to become sympathetic towards him. I sense this is in part due to the massive mistrust of the MSM and the political establishment who are viewed as completely self-serving.

Cvillereader -> turcopolier ... , 17 August 2017 at 10:17 PM
It is illegal in the Commonwealth of Virginia to wear a mask that covers one's face in most public settings.

LEOs in Central Va encountered this exact requirement when a man in a motorcycle helmet entered a Walmart on Rt 29 in 2012. Several customers reported him to 911 because they believed him to being acting suspiciously. He was detained in Albemarle County and was eventually submitted for mental health evaluation.

This is not a law that Charlottesville police would be unfamiliar with.

luxetveritas , 17 August 2017 at 10:45 PM
Chomsky: "As for Antifa, it's a minuscule fringe of the Left, just as its predecessors were. "It's a major gift to the Right, including the militant Right, who are exuberant."

"what they do is often wrong in principle – like blocking talks – and [the movement] is generally self-destructive."

"When confrontation shifts to the arena of violence, it's the toughest and most brutal who win – and we know who that is. That's quite apart from the opportunity costs – the loss of the opportunity for education, organizing, and serious and constructive activism."

Bill H , 18 August 2017 at 02:02 AM
I read a transcript of the entirety of Trump's news conference upon which CBS and others are basing their claims that Trump is "defending white supremacists," and at no point did he come within hand grenade distance of doing anything of the sort. What he did do is accuse the left wing group of being at fault along with the right wing group in causing the violence, and he did not even claim that they were equally at fault.

There is no doubt whatever that his statement was entirely accurate, if in no other respect in that the left's decision to engage in proximate confrontation was certain to cause violence and was, in fact, designed to do so regardless of who threw the first punch. CBS and other media of its caliber are completely avoiding mentioning that aspect of the confrontation.

CBS et. al. have been touting the left's possession of not one but two permits for public assembly, but they carefully do not point out that the permits were for two areas well removed from the area where the conflict occurred, and that they did not have a permit to assemble in that area. A pundit on CBS claimed that "if they went" to the park in question, which of course they did, "they would not have been arrested because it was a public park." He failed to mention that large groups still are required to have a permit to assemble in a public park.

The media is flailing with the horror of Trump's advocacy of racial division, but it is the Democratic Party which has for more than a decade pursued the policy of "identity politics," and the media which has prated endlessly about "who will get the black vote" or "how Hispanics will vote" in every election.

Old Microbiologist -> Lars... , 18 August 2017 at 03:53 AM
Lars, but they came with a legal permit to protest and knew what they would be facing. The anti-protestors including ANTIFA had a large number of people being paid to be there and funded by Soros and were there illegally. The same mechanisms were in place to ramp up protests like in Ferguson which were violent and this response was no different.

However, the Virginia Governor a crony of the Clintons, ordered a police stand down and no effort was made to separate the groups. I remind you also that open carry is legal in Virginia.

So, IMHO this was deliberately set up for a lethal confrontation by the people on the left. I will also remind you that the American Nazi Party and the American Communist Party among others, are perfectly legal in the US as is the KKK. Believing and saying what you want, no matter how offensive, is legal under the First Amendment. Actively discriminating against someone is not legal but speech is. Say what you want but that is the Constitution.

AK -> Richardstevenhack ... , 18 August 2017 at 04:02 AM
Richardstevenshack,

Your last paragraph is a suitably Leftist post-modern ideological oversimplification of an infinitely complex phenomenon. It also reveals a great deal of what motivates the SJW Left:

" As for the notion that this is a 'cultural issue', I quote: 'Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my revolver.' 'Culture' is the means by which some people oppress others. It's much like 'civilization' or 'ethics' or 'morality' - a tool to beat people over the head who have something you want. "

First, it is a cultural issue. It's an issue between people who accept this culture as a necessary but flawed, yet incrementally improvable structure for carrying out a relatively peaceful existence among one another, and those whose grudging, bitter misanthropy has led them to the conclusion that the whole thing isn't fair (i.e. easy) so fuck it, burn it all down. In no uncertain terms, this is the ethos driving the radical Left.

Second, I don't know exactly which culture created you, but I'm fairly sure it was a western liberal democracy, as I'm fairly certain is the case with almost all Leftists these days, regardless of how radical. And I'm also fairly certain the culture you decry is the western liberal democratic culture in its current iterations. But before you or anyone else lights the fuse on that, remember that the very culture you want to burn down because it's so loathsome, that's the thing that gave you that shiny device you use to connect with the world, it's the thing that taught you how to articulate your thoughts into written and spoken word, so that you could then go out and bitch about it, and it even lets you bitch about it, freely and with no consequences. This "civilization" is the thing that gives rise to the "morals" and "ethics" that allow you to take your shiny gadgets to a coffee shop, where the barista makes your favorite beverage, instead of simply smashing you over the head and taking your shiny gadgets because he wants them. These principles didn't arise out of thin air, and neither did you, me, or anyone else. This culture is an agreed-upon game that most of us play to ensure we stand a chance at getting though this with as little suffering as possible. It's not perfect, but it works better than anything else I've seen in history.

Old Microbiologist -> FourthAndLong... , 18 August 2017 at 04:12 AM
Not as significant but along a similar trend to re-write history is this pastor asking Chicago mayor Emmanuel to rename parks named for Presidents because they were also slave owners. http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/inevitable-chicago-pastor-demands-washington-name-be-removed-from-park-because-of-slavery-ties/
AK -> Tyler... , 18 August 2017 at 04:33 AM
In his inimitable fashion, I'll grant Tyler (and the Colonel, as well) the creditable foresight to call this one. Those of you who find yourselves wishing, hoping, agitating, and activisting for an overturn of the election result, and/or of traditional American culture in general would do well to take their warnings seriously.

If traditional American culture is so deeply and irredeemably corrupt, I must ask, what's your alternative? And how do you mean to install it? I would at least like to know that. Regardless of your answer to question one, if your answer to question two is "revolution", well then you and anyone else on that wagon better be prepared to suffer, and to increase many fold the overall quotient of human suffering in the world. Because that's what it will take.

You want your revolution, but you also want your Wi-Fi to keep working.
You want your revolution, but you also want your hybrid car.
You want your revolution, but you also want your safe spaces, such as your bed when you sleep at night.

If you think you can manage all that by way of shouting down, race baiting, character assassinating, and social shaming, without bearing the great burden of suffering that all revolutions entail, you have bitter days ahead. And there are literally millions of Americans who will oppose you along the way. And unlike the kulaks when the Bolsheviks rode into town, they see you coming and they're ready for you. And if you insist on taking it as far as you can, it won't be pretty, and it won't be cinematic. Just a lot of tragedy for everyone involved. But one side will win, and my guess is it'll be the guys like Tyler. It's not my desire or aim to see any of that happen. It's just how I see things falling out on their current trajectory.

The situation calls to mind a quote from a black radical, spoken-word group from Harlem who were around in the early to mid 60s, called the Last Poets. The line goes, "Speak not of revolution until you are willing to eat rats to survive." Just something to think about when you advocate burning it all down.

[email protected] -> rick... , 18 August 2017 at 07:19 AM
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe (D) has added his name to a growing list of public officials in state governments encouraging the removal of Confederate statues and memorials throughout the South. Late in the day on Wednesday McAuliffe released an official statement saying monuments of Confederate leaders have now become "flashpoints for hatred, division and violence" in a reference to the weekend of violence which shook Charlottesville as white nationalists rallied against the city's planned removal of a Robert E. Lee statue. McAuliffe further described the monuments as "a barrier to progress" and appealed to state and local governments to take action. The governor said:

As we attempt to heal and learn from the tragic events in Charlottesville, I encourage Virginia's localities and the General Assembly – which are vested with the legal authority – to take down these monuments and relocate them to museums or more appropriate settings. I hope we can all now agree that these symbols are a barrier to progress, inclusion and equality in Virginia and, while the decision may not be mine to make...

It seems the push for monument removal is now picking up steam, with cities like Baltimore simply deciding to act briskly while claiming anti-racism and concern for public safety. Of course, the irony in all this is that the White nationalist and supremacist groups which showed up in force at Charlottesville and which are even now planning a major protest in Lexington, Kentucky, are actually themselves likely hastening the removal of these monuments through their repugnant racial ideology, symbols, and flags.

Bishop James Dukes, a pastor at Liberation Christian Center located on Chicago's south side, is demanding that the city of Chicago re-dedicate two parks in the area that are named after former presidents George Washington and Andrew Jackson. His reasons? Dukes says that monuments honoring men who owned slaves have no place in the black community, even if those men once led the free world.

Just a few I've seen....

James F , 18 August 2017 at 07:29 AM
Salve, Publius. Thanks for the article. Col. Lang made an excellent point in the comments' section that the Confederate memorials represent the reconciliation between the North and the South. The same argument is presented in a lengthier fashion in this morning's TAC http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-confederate-monuments-represent-reconciliation/ . That reconciliation could have been handled much better, i.e. without endorsing Jim Crow. I wish more monuments were erected to commemorate Longstreet and Cleburne, JB Hood and Hardee. I wish there was more Lee and less Forrest. Nonetheless, the important historical point is that a national reconciliation occurred. Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation. The past which is being erased is not the Civil War but the civil peace which followed it. That is tragic.
Ishmael Zechariah -> Dr.Puck... , 18 August 2017 at 08:14 AM
Dr. Puck,
Do you agree w/ this elected representative's statement: ""I hope Trump is assassinated!" Missouri state Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, wrote during a morning Facebook exchange, referring to Republican President Donald Trump."
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/chappelle-nadal-posts-deletes-facebook-post-hoping-for-trump-s/article_406059d6-1aa4-52fc-89ee-2a6a69baaf2e.html
Ishmael Zechariah
Kooshy -> Richardstevenhack ... , 18 August 2017 at 09:21 AM
IMO, most of the problems majority of people (specially the ruling class) have with Donald Trump' presidency is that, he acts and is an accidental president, Ironically, everybody including, him, possibly you, and me who voted for him knows this and is not willing to take his presidency serious and act as such. IMO, he happens to run for president, when the country, due to setbacks and defeat on multiple choice wars, as well as national economic misfortunes and misshapes, including mass negligence of working class, was in dismay and a big social divide, as of the result, majority decided to vote for some one outside of familiar cemented in DC ruling class knowing he is not qualified and is a BS artist. IMO that is what took place, which at the end of the day, ends of to be same.
Croesus -> doug... , 18 August 2017 at 09:52 AM
Netanyahu is under pressure for failing to speak out forcefully against Trump

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/benjamin-netanyahu-resists-calls-to-denounce-trumps-response-to-charlottesville/

Bibi has keen political skills. He hasn't lasted this long based on his mastery of judo.

Fred -> James F... , 18 August 2017 at 10:03 AM
James F,

" Removing the statues is a symbolic act which undoes the national reconciliation."

That is the intent. The coalition of urban and coastal ethnic populists and economic elites has been for increased concentration and expansion of federal power at the expense of the states, especially the Southern states, for generations. This wave of agitprop with NGO and MSM backing is intended to undo the constitutional election and return the left to power at the federal level.

TV , 18 August 2017 at 10:18 AM
I agree with most of Trump's policy positions, but he is negating these positions with his out-of-control mouth and tweets.
As much as I have nothing but contempt and loathing for the "establishment" (Dems, Republicans, especially the media, the "intelligence" community and the rest of the permanent government), Trump doesn't seem to comprehend that he can't get anything done without taming some of these elements, all of whom are SERIOUSLY opposed to him as a threat to their sinecures and riches.
"Who is this OUTSIDER to come in and think that he in charge of OUR government?"
blowback , 18 August 2017 at 10:33 AM
What seems like a balanced eyewitness account of Charlottesville that suggests that although the radicals on both sides brought the violence, it was the police who allowed it to happen.

https://newrepublic.com/article/144365/cops-dropped-ball-charlottesville

The need to keep protesters away from counter-protesters particular when both are tooled should be obvious to anyone, but not so with the protest in Charlottevlle.

doug -> Tyler... , 18 August 2017 at 10:40 AM
-"Trump isnt our last chance. Its your last chance."

Reminds me of the 60's and the SDS and their ilk. A large part of the under 30 crowd idolized Mao's Little Red Book and convinced themselves the "revolution" was imminent. So many times I heard the phrase "Up Against the Wall, MFs." Stupid fools. Back then people found each other by "teach-ins" and the so called "underground press." In those days it took a larger fraction to be able to blow in each other's ear and convince themselves they were the future "vanguard."

These days, with the internet, it is far easier for a smaller fraction to gravitate to an echo chamber, reinforce group think, and believe their numbers are much larger than what, in reality, exists. This happens across the board. It's a rabbit hole Tyler. Don't go down it.

turcopolier , 18 August 2017 at 10:45 AM
Booby

Yes, Forts Bragg, Hood, Lee, AP Hill, Benning, etc., started as temporary camps during WW1 and were so named to encourage Southern participation in the war. The South had been reluctant about the Spanish War. Wade Hampton, governor of SC said of that war, "Let the North fight. the South knows the cost of war." pl

ISL , 18 August 2017 at 10:53 AM
I would like to share my viewpoint. As a firm believer in the media efforts to sabotage Trump and a former supporter (now agnostic, trending negative - Goldman Sachs swamp creatures in the Oval Office????), he greatly disappointed me. First, i will state, that I do not believe Trump is antisemitic (no antisemite will surround himself with rich Jewish Bankers).

But violence on all sides is absolute BS. Nazi violence gets its own sentence and language at least as strong as the language he has no trouble hitting ISIS with. Didn't hear that. So I guess in his mind, the threat the US faced from Nazis during WW2 was less than a ragtag, 3rd world guerilla force whose only successes are because of 1. US, Saudi, and other weapons, and their war on unstable third world countries. Give me a break - did he never watch a John Wayne movie as a kid?

When I discuss nazi's, F-bombs are dropped. I support the right of nazi's to march and spew their vitriolic hatred, and even more strongly support the right of free speech to counter their filth with facts and arguments and history.

I am sorry, but Antifa was not fighting against the US in WW2. If one wants to critique Antifa, or another group, that criticism belongs in a separate paragraph or better in another press conference. Taking 2 days to do so, and then walking it back, is the hallmark of a political idiot (or a billionaire who listens to no one and lives in his own mental echo chamber).

If Trump gets his info and opinions from TV news, despite having the $80+ billion US Intel system at his beck and call, he is the largest idiot on the planet.

sid_finster , 18 August 2017 at 11:29 AM
It doesn't matter whether Trump is getting a raw deal or not. Politics has nothing to do with fairness.

But when you've lost Bob Corker, and even Newt Gingrich is getting wobbly, when Fox News is having a hard time finding Republicans willing to go on and defend Trump, you don't need to be Nostradamus to see what's going to happen.

[Aug 20, 2017] As Russia-Gate Story Stalls, Cue Trump Neo-Nazi Scandal by Finian Cunningham

Notable quotes:
"... Former CIA chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security risk". ..."
"... The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective. ..."
"... It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not hacked. ..."
"... In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility. ..."
"... Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a hoax. ..."
"... The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

August 18, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - The political opponents of President Trump have found a new lever for sabotaging his presidency – his alleged embrace of white supremacists and Neo-Nazis. He is now being labelled a "sympathizer" of fascists and bringing America's international image into disrepute. Cue the impeachment proceedings.

Notably, the same power-nexus that opposed Trump from the very outset of his presidency is vociferously condemning his alleged racist leanings. Pro-Democrat media like the Washington Post, New York Times and CNN can't give enough coverage to Trump "the racist", while the intelligence community and Pentagon have also weighed in to rebuke the president. Former CIA chief John Brennan said Trump's comments on racial violence were a "national security risk".

This is not meant to minimize the ugliness of the various Neo-Nazi fringe groups that have lately rallied across Southern US states. Trump's wrongheaded remarks which appeared to lay equal blame on anti-fascist protesters for deadly violence last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, were deplorable.

However, the concerted, massive media campaign to nail Trump as some kind of new Fuhrer seems way over the top. The media frenzy smacks of Deep State opponents scouring for a handy new pretext for ousting him from office.

The enthusiasm for whipping up the new anti-Trump campaign seems due in large part because the erstwhile Russia-gate story has patently failed to gain any traction. For nearly seven months since Trump's inauguration, the relentless claims pushed by Democrats, the media and anonymous intelligence sources that his election last November was enabled by Russian interference have shown little impact in terms of discrediting Trump and ultimately forcing him out of the White House. The Russia-gate theme has failed in its soft coup objective.

Back in January, on the eve of Trump's inauguration, the US intelligence agencies claimed that Russia had interfered in the presidential election with the aim of promoting Trump's victory over Democrat rival Hillary Clinton. But seven months on, no evidence has ever been produced to support that sensational claim.

Despite this absence of "killer evidence" to damage Trump as a Russian stooge, the Congress continues to hold investigations into the vapid allegations. And, separately, a "special prosecutor" – former FBI chief Robert Mueller – continues to expand his investigation, forming a grand jury and this week opening enquiries into White House staff.

Thus the whole Russia-gate affair is in danger of becoming a giant farce from the lack of evidence. With so little to show for their herculean efforts to trap Trump as a "Russian patsy", his political opponents, including prominent media organizations, are at risk of being seen as ridiculous hoaxers.

A telltale sign of how bankrupt the Russia-gate story is was the publication of a lengthy article in Wired earlier this month. The California-based online magazine proclaims to be a cutting-edge technology publication. Wired is published by Condé Nast, a global American company, whose other prestige titles include Vogue, Vanity Fair and New Yorker . With a claimed monthly readership of 30 million, and an editorial staff of over 80, Wired is supposed to be a global leader in new technology and communications.

According to its advertising blurb, "Wired is where tomorrow is realized", adding: "It is the essential source of information and ideas that make sense of a world in constant transformation".

Therefore, as a US technology forum, this publication is supposed to be the elite in insider information and "nerdy journalism". With these high claims in mind, we then turn excitedly to its article published on August 8 with the headline: "A guide to Russia's high tech tool box for subverting US democracy".

On reading it, the entire article is a marathon in hackneyed cliches of Russophobia. It is an appalling demonstration of how threadbare are the claims of Russian hacking into the US election last year. Citing US intelligence sources, the Wired article is a regurgitation of unsubstantiated assertions that Russian state agencies hacked into the Democratic National Committee last July and subsequently used whistleblower site Wikileaks to disseminate damaging information against Trump's rival Hillary Clinton.

"According to US investigators", says Wired, "the hack of the DNC's servers was apparently the work of two separate Russian teams, one from the GRU [military intelligence] and one from the FSB [state security service], neither of which appears to have known the other was also rooting around in the Democratic Party's files. From there, the plundered files were laundered through online leak sites like WikiLeaks and DCLeaks Their impact on the 2016 election was sizable, yielding months of damaging headlines".

Nowhere in the Wired article is any plausible technical detail presented to back up the hacking claims. It relies on US intelligence "assessments" and embellishment with quotes from think tanks and anonymous diplomats whose anti-Russia bias is transparent.

Wired's so-called Russian "tool box for subverting US democracy" covers much more than the alleged hacking into the DNC. It accuses Russia of using news media, diplomats, criminal underworld networks, blackmail and assassinations as an arsenal of hybrid warfare to undermine Western democracy.

Wired declares: "And they are self-reinforcing, because in Russia the intelligence apparatus, business community, organized crime groups, and media distribution networks blend together, blurring and erasing the line between public and private-sector initiatives and creating one amorphous state-controlled enterprise to advance the personal goals of Vladimir Putin and his allies".

This is an astoundingly sweeping depiction of Russia in the most slanderous, pejorative terms. Basically, Wired is claiming that the entire Russian state is a criminal enterprise. The Russophobia expressed in the article is breathtaking – and this is in a magazine that is supposed to be a leader in technology-intelligence.

Wired tells its readers of Russia having a "Grand Strategy" – to undermine Western democracies, and multilateral alliances from NATO to the European Union.

With foreboding, it warns: "[T]he Putin regime's systematic effort to undermine and destabilize democracies has become the subject of urgent focus in the West the biggest challenge to the Western order since the fall of the Berlin Wall".

The salient point here is that despite its grandiose professional claims, Wired provides nothing of substance to support the narrative that Russia hacked into the US election. If a supposed cutting-edge technology magazine can't deliver on technical details, then that really does demonstrate just how bankrupt the whole Russia-gate story is.

Moreover, another nail in the coffin for the Russia-gate narrative was recently provided by a respected group of former US intelligence officers called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Last month, the group wrote to President Trump with their expert analysis that the DNC incident was not a hack conducted via the internet, but rather that the information came from a DNC insider. In other words, the information was a leak, not a hack, in which the data was transferred by person out of the DNC offices on a memory disk. In that case, Russian agents or any other internet agents could not have possibly been involved. The key finding in the VIPS analysis is that the information obtained from the DNC computers was so vast in file size, it could not have been downloaded over the internet in the time period indicated by meta-data.

It is relevant that Wikileaks editor Julian Assange has consistently denied US intelligence and media claims that his source was Russian hackers. Also, former British ambassador Craig Murray has confirmed that he knows the identity of the source for Wikileaks and that, as the dissenting veteran US intelligence people have assessed, the information was leaked, not hacked.

In sum, the Russia-gate story that the US Deep State and media have peddled non-stop for seven months is on its knees gasping for lack of credibility.

Even a supposed top technology publication, Wired, is embarrassingly vacant of any details on how alleged Russian hackers are supposed to have interfered in the US election to get Trump into the White House. As if to compensate for its dearth of detail, the Wired publication pads out its "big story" with hackneyed Russophobia worthy of a corny James Bond knock-off.

Not only that, but now technical details and expert analysis are emerging from credible former US intelligence personnel who are verifying that the Russia-gate story is indeed a hoax.

The Deep State and other political/media opponents of Trump are inevitably scrabbling for alternative means of sabotaging his presidency. They are finding that the Russia-gate ploy to get Trump out of the White House is in danger of collapsing from lack of evidence and from the emergence of a plausible explanation for the DNC breach that damaged Clinton's election campaign. The bottomline is: it wasn't the Russians, so all the hype about Trump being a Russian stooge is a case of fake news, just as Trump has long maintained.

The imminent death of the Russia-gate "scandal" is giving way to the next orchestrated campaign to oust Trump in the form of allegations that the president is a "Neo-Nazi sympathizer". Trump's nationalistic America First views may be suspect, even reprehensible in their wider association. That's not the point. The point is the concerted, orchestrated way that the Deep State will rail-road the new campaign to oust Trump in place of the failing Russia-gate ploy. The contempt for democratic process raises the question of who the more dangerous American fascists are?

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was first published by Strategic Culture Foundation

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Aug 20, 2017] Ship Rudderless After Trump Drops Its Pilot

Notable quotes:
"... Trump making more and more room for neocons, deepstate, warmongers with these completely irrational moves kicking out he's closest friends and advisors! Now MSM, deepstate will be even stronger, I wouldnt be surpised if Trump step down himself eventually and hand over the presidency to Pence, either that or Trump will more and more tone done his views, policy and go along what msm/deep state wants. ..."
"... These moves clearly show how isolated he really is ..."
"... We could throw away that improvement of Russia/US relationsship, we will see more Nato supporting Trump, more wars and covert ops. in the middle east and elsehwere. Very tragic and bad situation. ..."
"... The US has a military junta in control These are people Trump picked - they were not imposed on him. The people that got Trump elected out lived there usefulness ..."
"... If Bannon turns out to be smarter than I credit him for, things could become interesting. Mainly with strong Bernistas on the other side (they may think they are polar opposite, but they are basically calling for the same thing – no more wars, jobs, education, etc). ..."
"... The war we feared Clinton would bring is now on the horizon. Apparently it was only delayed, not prevented. ..."
"... So what is going on here? Trump in order to physically survive had to dig up allies in the senior military who had the guns, frankly, to keep him in office. The ouster of Bannon may be a "good" thing if we understand that the chief attribute of Washington since Obama was elected for his second term was the power struggle between various gangs within the power-elite exhibited by Ash Carter's mutiny against the Kerry-Lavrov agreement on Syria almost a year ago. So the power struggle appears to have been simplified. The permanent war state is once again in the driver's seat now we'll see where they choose to go. ..."
"... Bannon engineered the ascent of Rex Tillerson at State despite the fact that Tillerson's patron and chief influence is non-other than Condoleezza Rice, the neocon former Bush NSA Director and cheerleader for the Iraq war. Documents which leaked from the Presidential transition proved that Rice was Tillerson's advocate and that several other staffers she recommended where quickly hired at State. Perhaps this is why Politico correctly tabbed the rise of veteran Romney-ites at State. The Trump State Department has failed to excise the Soros control of a number of U.S. embassies and is currently leaning on the Hungarian government not to impede Soros toppling of that democratically elected government. Bannon delivered the Trump State Department into the hands of the Globalists. ..."
"... Trump getting swallowed up and neutered by the Washington establishment makes a complete mockery of anyone who made the asinine claim of a populist lone hero walking into office and 'draining the swamp'. ..."
"... A presidential administration requires years, even decades, to build up the people and relationships that are needed to hit the ground running on day one. The mass of experienced people who can act as the foundations of the new administration. ..."
"... With Trump getting elected by the unique combination of traditional populism and the Democratic part establishment thinking they had enough power to ram a complete piece of shit candidate like Hillary Clinton down the country's throat have managed to put someone in office who completely lacks the tools to effectively operate an administration. ..."
"... Obama deliberately lied to us in 2008, it was all a con. I know this because the instant he was elected, he fired all his liberal economic advisors and brought in Goldman Sachs. I know this because of reports that during his campaign his agents were privately telling his wealthy patrons that he didn't mean a word of it. ..."
"... Trumps started his presidency like he really meant to do what he promised during the campaign. THEN, after enormous pressure, even he started to bend. The inflection point was the missile strike on Syria. Now he's just sailing on, being president, and the promises of the campaign are like the promises of a car salesman... ..."
"... The 2nd bad mistake was H-ikki Haley. - Internationally. Trump had much potential support that was destroyed by this woman. He burned SO many bridges.. ..."
"... Bannon was probably the only non warmonger in the whole Tronald team - including the boss. Although I strongly oppose everything else he believes in his political course would have been much healthier for the rest of the world. ..."
"... Bannon's removal opens wide the door to neo-cons, war mongers and the pro-jewish lobbies that only think of "making america great" through wars. The neo-cons are much more right-wing than Bannon. Without Bannon, Trump is becoming another puppet just like Bush jr. We will come to regret the last anti-Israel voice in the White House. ..."
"... This article totally ignores his position on China. Like the Bush adminstration had planned to destroy 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran), Bannon said: "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face - and you understand how important face is - and say it's an ancient territorial sea." ..."
"... Trump's troubles are phoney (Russia, statues) but Trump hasn't been effective in countering them - sometimes shooting himself in the foot (suggesting that he had tapes of Comey; drip-drip-drip of the Trump Jr meeting with Russians; etc) ..."
"... I call him the Republican Obama. Apologists and critics of Trump won't dont like this view. ..."
"... if i thought exxon, goldman sachs, lockheed martin and all these corps that have a huge say on the direction of the usa today, had any other clue then their 'bottom line' or recognized at the whole game is in jeopardy of being lost, i doubt any of them would have the guts or character to say anything about it.. it is not only that the usa is rudderless at this point.. the whole planet looks in much the same point, especially the usa poodles, which would include canada, the country i live in.. no naomi klein book or anything is going to change it either.. ..."
"... firing Bannon mean getting rid of people that think like Trump, so this is quite bad because instead comes pure neocons filling up the WH, and then Trump will be very isolated with his ideas on detente and so on. ..."
"... I highly suggest MoA barflys read Pepe Escobar's analysis of Bannon's departure, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201708191056603401-steve-bannon-white-house-trump-war/ ..."
"... Obama was heavily backed by the billionaire Pritzker family. One of them was put in charge of the treasury. One of them is a gender-bender, once a he, now a she. Hence the gender wars. Ever feel you've been had? ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
" The Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over ," Bannon said Friday, shortly after confirming his departure. "We still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over."

Bannon was the "Make America Great Again" guy in the White House. The strategist who had the populist ideas that brought the votes for Trump. Jobs, jobs, jobs, infrastructure investments, immigration limits, taxing globalists were his issue.


Dropping the pilot - Punch 1890

Trump is no young German Emperor and Bannon is no chancellor Bismark. (Both would probably have liked those roles.) But with Bannon leaving, the Trump presidency is losing its chief strategist, the one person which set priorities and could set an alternative course for the ship of state under Trump's command.

The racist Huffington Post headline implies that Bannon prioritized the wrong country.

Cont. reading: Ship Rudderless After Trump Drops Its Pilot

Anon | Aug 19, 2017 4:44:19 AM | 1

Good post,

Trump making more and more room for neocons, deepstate, warmongers with these completely irrational moves kicking out he's closest friends and advisors!
Now MSM, deepstate will be even stronger, I wouldnt be surpised if Trump step down himself eventually and hand over the presidency to Pence, either that or Trump will more and more tone done his views, policy and go along what msm/deep state wants.

These moves clearly show how isolated he really is , he could have been strong instead he backs off ASAP it seems.

We could throw away that improvement of Russia/US relationsship, we will see more Nato supporting Trump, more wars and covert ops. in the middle east and elsehwere. Very tragic and bad situation.

Alexander Grimsmo | Aug 19, 2017 5:03:43 AM | 2
Trump hitting Syria with those missiles was the final nail in the coffin for any hope in the Trump regime. This just confirms it.
Realist | Aug 19, 2017 5:13:45 AM | 3
Trump proves you don't have t be smart to be rich. Trump has the IQ of a corn dog. He is surrounding himself with Deep State assholes....his days are numbered.
James lake | Aug 19, 2017 5:18:08 AM | 4
The US has a military junta in control These are people Trump picked - they were not imposed on him. The people that got Trump elected out lived there usefulness

Now we will see more war - arms to Ukraine and escalation in Syria and against Iran and North Korea. The American public have really been led by the nose as they will see all this as a good thing.

Lea | Aug 19, 2017 5:33:52 AM | 5
I doubt that it will help Trump to implement what Bannon and Trump himself intended to do.

It won't. These globalists, Goldman Sachs lobbyists and MIC/Pentagon vultures are too firmly entrenched in the immediate vicinity of the Oval office to be uprooted that easily. On the other hand, the anti-war, America-First, get-the jobs-back Trump voters can be made into a whole frigging mass movement which could multiply peaceful protest actions and, as they say, " rock the boat ".

It would take brains and planning, but it can be done.

If Bannon turns out to be smarter than I credit him for, things could become interesting. Mainly with strong Bernistas on the other side (they may think they are polar opposite, but they are basically calling for the same thing – no more wars, jobs, education, etc).

From The Hague | Aug 19, 2017 5:55:29 AM | 6
The dismissal of Flynn was the first grave error.
Perimtr | Aug 19, 2017 5:58:28 AM | 7
The war we feared Clinton would bring is now on the horizon. Apparently it was only delayed, not prevented.
Mina | Aug 19, 2017 6:06:58 AM | 8
I wouldn't mind to see Pence taking over at some stage. The two real faces of the White power in the US for everyone in the world to contemplate. Might get their lackeys sober. Let the Titanic drowns to the bottom so the rest of the world can breathe.
charlie | Aug 19, 2017 6:07:14 AM | 9
american zionist war criminal clowns.
somebody | Aug 19, 2017 6:18:02 AM | 10
Staying with the caricature you show, b., Trump will start a war. Yeah, Bannon talked of infrastructure. Hitler built the Autobahn and got rid of unemployment, one way or the other, "economic nationalism" is a relabeling of fascism.

Quoting Likhachev via Putin

Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism.

"Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.

Duh.

somebody | Aug 19, 2017 6:36:08 AM | 11
add to 10

This here is what Trump's presidency has been about right from the start - a capitalist raid on government. Bannon's role has been - and looking at Breitbart still is - to sell Trump to the stupid little people.

ashley albanese | Aug 19, 2017 7:06:24 AM | 12
At school in Australia in the 1960's our regular theme was the inevitability of 'hegemonic ' struggle . I noticed it vanished as a theme from history and social studies, 70's onwards.

Used to think it was deliberately done to subconsciously underline the newness and completeness of the Anglo/ American empire . A product here to stay -- The old forces of struggle - of victory and defeat no longer patterns at play .

Anon | Aug 19, 2017 7:42:53 AM | 13
somebody

Ridiculous! You are using Hitler fallacy blasting Trump, Bannon, their policies, why dont you go to CNN instead and comment? Whiny Trump, Bannon is nazis, fascist is the liberal propaganda fake-news, meanwhile in the real world:

Steve Bannon : white nationalists, neo-Nazis 'losers' and 'a collection of clowns'
http://businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-white-nationalists-neo-nazis-losers-clowns-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

And you talk about "stupid people"?

Banger | Aug 19, 2017 8:07:25 AM | 14
Great analysis. This internal power struggle is not over. Yes, the generals are now in charge as I once predicted long ago when we first started seeing the decline in the polls at all levels of the state except for two major institutions: 1) the military; and 2) the police. The logical conclusion was that, eventually, these institutions would hold most of the political power since they are the most popular.

It's fascinating how martinets who continually lose wars are still considered "heroes" (thank you for your service). So what is going on here? Trump in order to physically survive had to dig up allies in the senior military who had the guns, frankly, to keep him in office. The ouster of Bannon may be a "good" thing if we understand that the chief attribute of Washington since Obama was elected for his second term was the power struggle between various gangs within the power-elite exhibited by Ash Carter's mutiny against the Kerry-Lavrov agreement on Syria almost a year ago. So the power struggle appears to have been simplified. The permanent war state is once again in the driver's seat now we'll see where they choose to go.

Rahul Varshney | Aug 19, 2017 8:33:29 AM | 15
Bannon didn't help things by backing Tillerson.
Bannon engineered the ascent of Rex Tillerson at State despite the fact that Tillerson's patron and chief influence is non-other than Condoleezza Rice, the neocon former Bush NSA Director and cheerleader for the Iraq war. Documents which leaked from the Presidential transition proved that Rice was Tillerson's advocate and that several other staffers she recommended where quickly hired at State. Perhaps this is why Politico correctly tabbed the rise of veteran Romney-ites at State. The Trump State Department has failed to excise the Soros control of a number of U.S. embassies and is currently leaning on the Hungarian government not to impede Soros toppling of that democratically elected government. Bannon delivered the Trump State Department into the hands of the Globalists.

Bannon's Time Is Up decent analysis by Roger Stone.

Recommend people follow twitter.com/ezilidanto. Trump has already re-instated Clinton's people to continue the UN occupation of Haiti. Trump is getting blindsided when all he needs to do is up his twitter game and ignore the lame stream bilderberg media.

Vannok | Aug 19, 2017 8:36:24 AM | 16
Trump getting swallowed up and neutered by the Washington establishment makes a complete mockery of anyone who made the asinine claim of a populist lone hero walking into office and 'draining the swamp'.

A presidential administration requires years, even decades, to build up the people and relationships that are needed to hit the ground running on day one. The mass of experienced people who can act as the foundations of the new administration.

With Trump getting elected by the unique combination of traditional populism and the Democratic part establishment thinking they had enough power to ram a complete piece of shit candidate like Hillary Clinton down the country's throat have managed to put someone in office who completely lacks the tools to effectively operate an administration.

Trump has been effectively reduced to a who might as well just be sitting in the Oval Office jerking off to porn and watching to cat videos.

It is also laughable to see people crying about the country stumbling into a 'civil war'. The Trump base is a bunch of clowns who still believe they won a presidential election with 'meme magic'.

Their 'god emperor' has become the ultimate 'cuck' and they have nothing in response other than crying in their echo chamber forums about how they are 'winning'.

librul | Aug 19, 2017 9:06:01 AM | 17
" liberals are loving it."

Not all liberals are loving it.

The avoidance of war, was always this liberals priority.

TG | Aug 19, 2017 9:20:13 AM | 18
Excellent post.

I have always thought that Obama was a con artist, and Trump, a salesman.

Obama deliberately lied to us in 2008, it was all a con. I know this because the instant he was elected, he fired all his liberal economic advisors and brought in Goldman Sachs. I know this because of reports that during his campaign his agents were privately telling his wealthy patrons that he didn't mean a word of it.

Trump, however, is a salesman. He will simply tell you what you want to hear at the moment to close the deal. 'Oh yeah, that model car is great, no the seats in the other model are exactly the same..." just making it up on the fly, trying to read the customer. A salesman probably doesn't really think of it as lying. And when the deal is made, they won't deliberately stab you in the back - they just maybe won't be too concerned if it doesn't work out quite like they said.

Trumps started his presidency like he really meant to do what he promised during the campaign. THEN, after enormous pressure, even he started to bend. The inflection point was the missile strike on Syria. Now he's just sailing on, being president, and the promises of the campaign are like the promises of a car salesman...

steven t johnson | Aug 19, 2017 9:20:29 AM | 19
Trump lost the vote. If it weren't for the moronic Electoral College crap Trump wouldn't be president. So when Bannon tries to posture as the genius who won the presidency for Trump, Trump knows better. Everyone who talks about Trump winning the election is lying. Trump knows this, because that's the bottom line. Trump doesn't need a loser for an adviser. It's Trump who may now create a significant fascist movement by his support. It is not Bannon who will bring the fascist masses to Trump, because the masses aren't fascist.

As for delusions about Trump's non-imperialist foreign policy? The man ran as a conqueror, not a peacemaker. Trump is an owner. The US economy relies on the dollar and the dollar is backed by blood. Its role is not commensurate with the US' real economy, much less gold. The Soviets could give up their alleged empire because it wasn't an empire, it was an expense. The owners of the US rely on their empire. They can't give it up and they don't want to. Trump is one of them. He's about trashing old politics. Nazis in Charlottesville is the new politics, but he doesn't need Bannon for that.

Anon | Aug 19, 2017 9:38:26 AM | 20
"Trump is nazi"
"Bannon is nazi"
"Trump is a fascist"
"Bannon is a fascist"

Tragic that even people here buying the fake-news liberal propaganda. Nazi? Facists? Come on please. No wonder world is a mess or rather a brainwashed mass.

Noirette | Aug 19, 2017 9:38:51 AM | 21
Trump would not have been elected without him. -Bannon. b's top post.

Wondered about this, probably correct... though Trump, DT - Bannon are a sort of meeting of the minds so who what? etc. DT did veer pragmatically away from Bannon-type core positions on 'Muslims', in the infamous Clash of Civilzations line, as DT relegated religion to the lower drawer, to use violence as a no. 1. criteria - "ISIS", "terrorism", etc. (Campaign.)

DT clarioned the obvious, MAGA was for all Amrikis - LGTB, muslim, black, anyone, etc. That is why he won! (Bannon would of course have understood this.) On Iran DT has also been a little more 'tempered' imho but who knows really, e.g.:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-iran-idUSKBN19Y226

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.780140

I posted about Trump's VP pick at the time saying it was a terrible sign. Response, he had to pick a Rep. estab. figure. NO. That was his first capitulation that led to all the others and those to come. And it will be his downfall. He could have picked a nonenity, anybody really, a woman would have been ~+ (not S. Palin, that type or top Rep. F figures at the time), a young man of Hispanic origin, someone sympathetic with stage presence, etc. Why not, Bannon himself? The bold move would have been to offer it publically to B. Sanders as a challenge.

DT is from the biz world and his intuitions about 'breaking molds' are constrained by the profit motive, which operate in a regulated field, he does not understand politics where 'anything goes.'

The 2nd bad mistake was H-ikki Haley. - Internationally. Trump had much potential support that was destroyed by this woman. He burned SO many bridges..

somebody | Aug 19, 2017 9:53:06 AM | 22
20

It is a fascist road map. Weimar street fights - check. "Wenn das der Führer wüsste"- problems are the people around the leader, not the leader himself. The leader is a saint. - check. "We will have to crash them" ie the Röhm mob who did the street fights - check. Infrastructure projects against unemployment, no matter the conditions of forced labor - check. "Buy German" - check. War against economic competitors - check. Find an interior race to unite against - Jews, Black lives matter - check

Defeat .....

Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 19, 2017 10:00:51 AM | 23

If Bannon is going back to Breitbart then I'm very confident that The Swamp will soon be in deep do-do. He can disrupt their schemes, smear them 24/7, and make them look stupider, from Breitbart, than he ever could have done from inside the White House.

Bannon knows that the Swamp believes ALL of it's own bullshit. With Bannon pointing it out, it won't be long before everyone on Earth knows too.

somebody | Aug 19, 2017 10:39:24 AM | 31
add to 29 Steve Bannon and taxes
The White House is also getting support for its tax-cut plan from the political network of billionaire brothers Charles Koch and David Koch, who didn't support President Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign. Short and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are set to appear on a tax panel hosted by two Koch-funded groups Monday in Washington.

And this is Robert Mercer

Since the IRS found in 2010 that a complicated banking method used by Renaissance and about 10 other hedge funds was a tax-avoidance scheme, Mercer has gotten increasingly active in politics. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, he doled out more than $22 million to outside conservative groups seeking to influence last year's elections, while advocating the abolition of the IRS and much of the federal government.

Richard Painter, chief White House ethics adviser under President George W. Bush, said the optics surrounding the Mercers' political connections and the IRS case "are terrible."

"The guy's got a big case in front of the IRS," said Painter, now a University of Minnesota law professor who is also vice chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "He's trying to put someone in there who's going to drop the case. Is the president of the United States going to succumb to that or is he not?"

"Are we going to have a commissioner of the IRS who aggressively enforces the law and takes good cases to Tax Court or (somebody who) just throws away tax cases so billionaires don't have to pay their taxes and the rest of us can pay more taxes?"

The Real News - The real story of how Trump and Bannon got to the White House

nobody | Aug 19, 2017 10:42:24 AM | 32
You recognize you are in the middle of a psychological war yet do not act accordingly.

The "two sides" in this war shoot their weapons in the direction of the "other side" but the aim is strictly at the boobs in the middle. You should know this but yet you insist on being the boob in the middle.

Why is that?

Printing is pretty cheap these days. Pamphlets work wonders. Go forth and publish. While you still can.

fastfreddy | Aug 19, 2017 11:24:34 AM | 34
The US is a fascist nation. By degrees it became increasingly fascist. The key element of fascism is collusion between government and big business. This collusion does not serve the common citizen.
somebody | Aug 19, 2017 11:25:41 AM | 35
33

What I did say was - if you dress like a Nazi, if you shout Nazi slogans, if you act like Nazis did, if your political programme is that of Nazis, there is a strong likelihood that you are a Nazi.

Of course there is a cultural difference, these US billionaire backers of potential mass movements are after a " disruptive " tax and regulation free oligarchy, competitive advantage plus the profits of war, whilst German (and US) industrialists of the time were after an authoritarian corporate state, competitive advantage and the profits of war.

The difference between industrialists who depend on a work force and money made by speculation.

What Bannon is selling to the little people is the protection of an authoritarian corporate state.

AriusArmenian | Aug 19, 2017 11:43:35 AM | 36
The neocon and neolib warmongers are in full control. The US now marches in one direction: WAR. Millions (billions?) more will suffer more death and destruction. The US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals are nothing but vile and despicable. All my remaining hope is in the Eastern powers standing strong.
From The Hague | Aug 19, 2017 11:44:02 AM | 37
talk is cheap
nobody | Aug 19, 2017 11:48:32 AM | 38
"What I did say was - if you dress like a Nazi, if you shout Nazi slogans, if you act like Nazis did, if your political programme is that of Nazis, there is a strong likelihood that you are a Nazi."

"programme" << Not in the American tongue.

Anon is a boob. There is hope for Anon yet.

You are a dissimulator and a propaganda agent. (Per your own if it walks like a duck ...)

Anon | Aug 19, 2017 11:55:15 AM | 39
somebody

Nobody reject that there are nazis, I disclaim your attempt to claim that majority of voters for Trump are fascists/nazis.

As for Bannon, I already posted this: Steve Bannon : white nationalists, neo-Nazis 'losers' and 'a collection of clowns'
http://businessinsider.com/steve-bannon-white-nationalists-neo-nazis-losers-clowns-2017-8?r=US&IR=T

That is Bannon himself ok? If you want to deny what he is saying and claim otherwhise, well go ahead, it will then be another fake-news claim.

Pnyx | Aug 19, 2017 12:23:08 PM | 40
Bannon was probably the only non warmonger in the whole Tronald team - including the boss. Although I strongly oppose everything else he believes in his political course would have been much healthier for the rest of the world.
Robert Beal | Aug 19, 2017 12:23:13 PM | 41
The deep state and Wall Street have long run the ship, and now Big Oil's hand is on the rudder. The personality/reality show cast changes but always diverts attention; i.e., grabs eyeballs for the mainstream media.
Yul | Aug 19, 2017 12:36:23 PM | 42
The Hypocrites wrt Charlottesville: http://mondoweiss.net/2017/08/charlottesville-empowered-children/
james | Aug 19, 2017 1:01:13 PM | 43
thanks b.. the usa situation looks increasingly disturbing... not sure what happens next.. trump at this point looks very weak and not in control..
john | Aug 19, 2017 1:25:54 PM | 44
Pnyx says:

Bannon was probably the only non war mongerer in the whole Tronald team

well, there you have it! the guy's gotta go!

virgile | Aug 19, 2017 1:34:02 PM | 45
Bannon's removal opens wide the door to neo-cons, war mongers and the pro-jewish lobbies that only think of "making america great" through wars. The neo-cons are much more right-wing than Bannon. Without Bannon, Trump is becoming another puppet just like Bush jr. We will come to regret the last anti-Israel voice in the White House.
Piotr Berman | Aug 19, 2017 1:39:43 PM | 46
trump at this point looks very weak and not in control..

Posted by: james | Aug 19, 2017 1:01:13 PM | 43

That makes an assumption that Trump has some goals, program or whatever. I always had serious doubt, because he never showed some coherent program. Trump does not really think in terms of abstract ideas, but in terms of people that he knows. Bannon is a favorite of a billionaire lady that has an apartment in Trump Tower and who bankrolled recent Bannon's project. Who knows, with Rebeccah Mercer as a president, USA would have more coherent policies? But Trump hobnobbed with a lot of "good people" and his views seemed to be some incoherent mishmash.

Not that coherence is always a virtue. Probably all his acquaintances believed that "Obamacare" was a terrible idea, and none of them had any notion how to "fix it", so Trump probably projected a consensus "get rid of it, and if you can, replace it with something marvelous". And we all know that getting a "bipartisan consensus" in Congress, with 98-2 vote, requires some profoundly stupid legislation. And dinosaurs of American foreign policy may be pretty consistent.

Bannon was just another loudmouth for hire as far as Trump is concerned, something that he himself did for a living when casinos etc. were less rewarding. Trump is good at repeating stuff heard from acquaintances, but apart of letting the compatriots bask in his greateness, I am not sure if he really wants something.

xor | Aug 19, 2017 1:46:37 PM | 47
What I miss in this Bannon praise is a clear picture on how the globalist neolibcons got rid of Trump's key strategist. What I see is sanctification of Bannon, a far right ghoul who used his power and influence to move the political zenit further to the right.

This article totally ignores his position on China. Like the Bush adminstration had planned to destroy 7 countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran), Bannon said: "We're going to war in the South China Sea in five to 10 years," "There's no doubt about that. They're taking their sandbars and making basically stationary aircraft carriers and putting missiles on those. They come here to the United States in front of our face - and you understand how important face is - and say it's an ancient territorial sea."

Let's hope the rudderless ship hits an iceberg and sinks to the bottom of the sea.

Seamus Padraig | Aug 19, 2017 2:22:42 PM | 48
It's sad to see all the defeatism here at MoA right now. Look, I too wish Trump hadn't fired Bannon -- or Flynn. And I wish he hadn't fired missiles at Syria or signed the new sanction bill. But consider this: a mere month after firing those missiles (apparently, after warning the Russians and Syrians in advance so they had time evacuate their troops), Trump agreed to the deconfliction zones in Syria, and then a month after that, he ordered the CIA to pull the plug on their jihadi freak-show there. Two weeks ago, all my liberal friends (yes, I still have some, but it's getting harder and harder to reason with them) over his tweets on N. Korea. And then what happened? Nothing!

Trump is well south of a hundred percent, I grant; but he's definitely more than zero.

As far as Bannon is concerned: please don't fall for the MSM propaganda about Bannon having been 'Trump's brain'. No. If you'll recall, Bannon only joined Trump's campaign toward the end, in August of 2016. And yet Trump never changed his fundamental policies or campaign strategy at all. Détente with Russia was NOT Bannon's idea; it was Trump's from the start. Dropping 'régime change' in Syria was NOT Bannon's idea; it was Trump's all along.

So have some faith, people. The worst has still not happened. There's a chance -- just a chance -- that we may still avoid a nuclear war.

Mina | Aug 19, 2017 2:42:47 PM | 49
OT curious to read Noirette's insiders' jokes on Bluenext and Kyoto ? (+ the Turkish bank) ref to http://tempsreel.nouvelobs.com/justice/20170529.OBS9978/gregory-zaoui-cerveau-ou-second-couteau-de-l-escroquerie-du-siecle.html
Vannok | Aug 19, 2017 2:50:47 PM | 50
The US Regime has just attacked the SAA fighting on the frontline against IS:

US Regime Attack

Stick a fork in Trump. He's done.

Jackrabbit | Aug 19, 2017 3:03:18 PM | 51
Trump's troubles are phoney (Russia, statues) but Trump hasn't been effective in countering them - sometimes shooting himself in the foot (suggesting that he had tapes of Comey; drip-drip-drip of the Trump Jr meeting with Russians; etc)

His response to Charlottesville is a case in point: he didn't explain what each group had done wrong so his "many mistakes on all sides" was read as a reluctance to denounce right-wing hate groups, then he flip-flopped (denounced white supremists) and flip-flopped again (returned to his earlier position) after out-cry from the right. I call him the Republican Obama. Apologists and critics of Trump won't dont like this view.

james | Aug 19, 2017 3:05:40 PM | 52
@46 piotr... i hear what you are saying.. trump is in it for trump... the guy is all about what corporations are about - branding, logo, etc. etc.. trump inc. and making money... as i was saying to a friend earlier today, if everything is about money - the bottom line of so many - when these folks no longer have a planet, there ain't gonna be no bottom line to look after either...

if i thought exxon, goldman sachs, lockheed martin and all these corps that have a huge say on the direction of the usa today, had any other clue then their 'bottom line' or recognized at the whole game is in jeopardy of being lost, i doubt any of them would have the guts or character to say anything about it.. it is not only that the usa is rudderless at this point.. the whole planet looks in much the same point, especially the usa poodles, which would include canada, the country i live in.. no naomi klein book or anything is going to change it either..

if correct, and i haven't read the link @50 vannok post is further confirmation of it..

Anon | Aug 19, 2017 3:13:30 PM | 53
Seamus Padraig 48

Great points, although if I could add - firing Bannon mean getting rid of people that think like Trump, so this is quite bad because instead comes pure neocons filling up the WH, and then Trump will be very isolated with his ideas on detente and so on.

somebody | Aug 19, 2017 3:21:38 PM | 54
39

I never said Trump voters were Nazis, they were anti-Hillary. Including the non-voters.

Bannon on "clowns" see

"We will have to crash them" ie the Röhm mob who did the street fights - check.

It is a fascist road map
See " Roehm putsch - night of the long knives "

He is dissociating from the Nazis in a left wing publication, why do you think that is? Because his Nazi friends have become toxic but don't read left wing publications. He did not say that in Breitbart.

Now what does Breitbart say: "CNN normalizes Antifa - Leftists seek peace through violence".

Now, again, who was violent in Charlottesville? What do the videos show?

It is obvious that Mercer/Bannon did not split with Trump. Bannon is now firing up the base whilst Trump does what he has to do to satisfy his billionaire friends ie get rid of regulations and taxes.

Whilst Bannon pretends Trump is hostage to Republican elites that have to be removed by his base.

Bannons "War with China" is not non interventionist.

Bannon is a paid tool.

Those Nazis have been filmed from all sides and are being identified online, losing their jobs because of it.
I suggest people send them Bannon's interview in the American Prospect.

StephenLaudig | Aug 19, 2017 3:32:08 PM | 55
The came to mind. Even gets the orange correct but it is misplaced....
......

http://hhgproject.org/entries/president.html

President of the Imperial Galactic Government

The President is very much a figurehead - he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.

An orange sash is what the President of the Galaxy traditionally wears.

On those criteria Zaphod Beeblebrox is one of the most successful Presidents the Galaxy has ever had. He spent two of his ten Presidential years in prison for fraud. Very very few people realize that the President and the Government have virtually no power at all, and of these very few people only six know whence ultimate political power is wielded. Most of the others secretly believe that the ultimate decision-making process is handled by a computer. They couldn't be more wrong.
============

cheers.

Krollchem | Aug 19, 2017 3:45:38 PM | 56
For those interlopers who claim Hillery won and that the Electoral college is evil consider the following:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-18/us-has-35-million-more-registered-voters-live-adults-red-flag-electoral-fraud

Anon | Aug 19, 2017 3:50:28 PM | 57
somebody

You spread so much lies and fake news.

1. "I never said Trump voters were Nazis, they were anti-Hillary. Including the non-voters."
No they voted because of his economic policy.

2. "He is dissociating from the Nazis in a left wing publication, why do you think that is? Because his Nazi friends have become toxic but don't read left wing publications. He did not say that in Breitbart."
Lol you are making up stupid conspiracy theories, he said something about Charlottesville because he was asked to obviously.
You cant accept what Bannon is saying you are making up things in your head. If you cant accept reality, what matter is our discussion? But keep those conspiracy theories coming because those are novel.

3. "Now what does Breitbart say: "CNN normalizes Antifa - Leftists seek peace through violence".
Now, again, who was violent in Charlottesville? What do the videos show?"

Yes they sure do, the videos show violence on both sides, apparently you and CNN see the world in such bad/good sides. You have become blind by the liberal MSM apparently.
As far as violence in europe,

Europol: Leftists Carried Out 27 Times More Terror Attacks Than Right-Wingers
- https://twitter.com/prisonplanet/status/877535259952328704

You believe Antifa is some kind of peace loving party. Next time they might get a lunatic behind the wheel.

karlof1 | Aug 19, 2017 4:05:13 PM | 58
I highly suggest MoA barflys read Pepe Escobar's analysis of Bannon's departure, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201708191056603401-steve-bannon-white-house-trump-war/

On other threads, the need for solidarity's been raised by myself and others. I believe what I'll call the Hate Resistance or Anti-Hate forces could provide the foundation for the required rise of a Progressive-Populist Movement, https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/19/alt-right-gathers-boston-thousands-counter-rally-fight-supremacy Now, I understand that those with the money behind these counter protests are anything but Progressive or want to see Populism rise; however, the required solidarity's been generated, so all that's needed is for Direction to be supplied for a bottom->up Movement to grow and become a new political force that could even tap into some of the issues Bannon will certainly raise.

okie farmer | Aug 19, 2017 4:19:56 PM | 59
Night of the Long Knives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Night of the Long Knives (disambiguation).
Night of the Long Knives

Ernst Röhm (right) with Kurt Daluege
and Heinrich Himmler
Native name
Unternehmen Kolibri
Duration
June 30 – July 2, 1934
Location: Nazi Germany

Also known as
Operation Hummingbird, Röhm Putsch (by the Nazis), The Blood Purge

Type: Coup d'état and purge

Cause: Conflicts between Strasserist and Hitler
Organised by

Adolf Hitler
Joseph Goebbels
Heinrich Himmler
Reinhard Heydrich

Participants
Schutzstaffel (Hitler faction)
Sturmabteilung (Röhm faction)
Unorganized regime opposition
Outcome
Adolf Hitler's supremacy confirmed
Elimination of opposition to the Nazi Government
Casualties
85 officially and upwards to 150–200 total

The Night of the Long Knives (German: Nacht der langen Messer (help·info)), also called Operation Hummingbird (German: Unternehmen Kolibri) or, in Germany, the Röhm Putsch[a] (German spelling: Röhm-Putsch), was a purge that took place in Nazi Germany from June 30 to July 2, 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a series of political extrajudicial executions intended to consolidate Hitler's absolute hold on power in Germany. Many of those killed were leaders of the SA (Sturmabteilung), the Nazis' own paramilitary Brownshirts organization; the best-known victim was Ernst Röhm, the SA's leader and one of Hitler's longtime supporters and allies.

Leading members of the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), along with its figurehead, Gregor Strasser, were also killed, as were establishment conservatives and anti-Nazis (such as former Chancellor Kurt von Schleicher and Bavarian politician Gustav Ritter von Kahr, who had suppressed Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923). The murders of Brownshirt leaders were also intended to improve the image of the Hitler government with a German public that was increasingly critical of thuggish Brownshirt tactics.

smuks | Aug 19, 2017 4:22:09 PM | 60
@somebody 22

The similarities go on and on, it's plain ridiculous, almost embarrassing to even point them out.

Bannon is a dangerous ideologue. I have no idea if Trump himself has any political beliefs, probably not - but he loves and needs popular support. And if he doesn't manage to create 'jobs, jobs, jobs', what will he do?

T. is pretty alone now, that's true. Having no political standpoints, this makes him an easy target for others to drive into a corner and manipulate - and afterwards, they'll say: "Trump is crazy, we told you so, this war was all his fault and his alone!"

Yeah, sure. And of course, the blame for WW2 lies entirely with a few 'crazy Nazis', the German (and international) capital elite had nothing to do with it, they didn't want the Nazis to destroy the Soviet Union, no no...

The parallels are plain ridiculous.

smuks | Aug 19, 2017 4:42:17 PM | 61
@okie farmer 59

Yes, this was the crucial moment: Those Nazis who actually believed their own anti-elite propaganda had to be eliminated, so the rest could serve as a popular figurehead for pro-elite policies. H. had the support of the masses, but what he did served the interest of the '1%' - including the war on Soviet Russia, which they wanted. Of course, afterwards the German money elite had nothing to do with it, it was all done by those 'crazies', and that's what the history books still tell us today...

@StephenLaudig 55

lol, kudos! Last orders, please!

Anon | Aug 19, 2017 4:45:53 PM | 62
smuks and somebody

You consider Trump a nazi/fascists, sure then you you consider Putin a fascist/nazi too?

smuks | Aug 19, 2017 4:49:13 PM | 63
@james 43

"trump at this point looks very weak and not in control.. "

That's exactly what I wrote more than a year ago, and why I didn't want him to be president: He may not be an 'evil person' (I have no idea), but he's weak and prone to doing 'stupid stuff' when in a difficult situation.

I do hope Russia and China understand this, and act accordingly/ offer him a face-saving way out.

smuks | Aug 19, 2017 4:51:14 PM | 64
@Anon 62

re-read my comments, you completely missed the point.

I don't like Putin's policies much, but he's intelligent and responsible.

Just Sayin' | Aug 19, 2017 5:59:31 PM | 66
Trump Continues to Resist Pressure for Afghan Escalation

Pence, McMaster Lead Call for Escalation

Friday's Camp David talks on Afghanistan appear to have ended without a final decision by President Trump on troop levels, as he continues to resist pressure from top cabinet officials to sign off on a massive escalation of the 16-year-old conflict with thousands of fresh troops.

Trump had initially delegated the decision to Defense Secretary James Mattis, but Mattis found a cap limiting his maximum deployment too restrictive.

Now, Vice President Pence and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster are also taking up the cause of large-scale escalation, pushing Trump to accept the recommendations of the commanders.Pence and McMaster were at the Camp David meeting, but Blackwater founder Erik Prince, who has been pushing a "privatize the war" initiative, was blocked, apparently at the behest of McMaster.

Trump aide Steve Bannon, another skeptic of military escalation, was sacked outright.

What's the purpose of the "escalation"?

Why escalate in Afghanistan?
What has happened recently to require such an escaltion?

(Nothing, as far as I can see)

So why "escalate?

As far as I can see Trump is no longer in charge of any of the several wars the US is currebtly waging. If he ever was in charge in the first place.

As far as I can tell, the purpose of any escalation would simply be: "to escalate". With all the increase in expenditure that such an escalation would naturally require.

Throughout the Obama era troop levels in afghanistan were raised and lowered without any rhyme or reason, with no connection to events on the ground, that I could see.

Nothing has changed in that regard since Tronald took charge.

If anything this confirms Orwell's theory, espoused in his "Theory and Practice of Oligarical Collectivism", that the purpose of war is: "To wage war".

Thus filling the coffers of those who profit from waging war. And more importantly emptying the treasury of funds that could be used to improve living conditions for the proles. Proles of all different skin colours.

Nothing has changed in that regard since the Obama era.

Except: the circus has a new show on, to distract the " stupid little people". Instead of "gender wars" the show at the local theatre changed to "race wars"

But at the end of the day, it's still just a show, just like it was under Obomber, designed to distract.

Bread and Circuses.

Since nothing has changed, claims of Nazism aimed at Trump are nonsense, unless the person making the claim was making the exact same claim regarding
Obama.

Which they weren't

Which brings us back to the "stupid little people"

Just Sayin' | Aug 19, 2017 6:04:15 PM | 67
Btw.

Obama was heavily backed by the billionaire Pritzker family. One of them was put in charge of the treasury. One of them is a gender-bender, once a he, now a she. Hence the gender wars. Ever feel you've been had?

frances | Aug 19, 2017 6:07:55 PM | 68
There are a few assumptions that are driving the Trump is doomed story. The first; he is unthinking, borderline stupid. The second: he is isolated. The third; he has no plan.

I think they are wrong on all counts. I believe he is shrewd, his business dealings show that. He is not isolated as he trusts very few people and relies on his family and only his family. He has few people close to him by choice. Finally he clearly has plans and surrounding himself with military give you a glimpse into his thinking. He has just announced an upgrade to the cyber security agency and it may take over NSA responsibilities.

The Pentagon has long been at war with the CIA/State Dept and the NSA. He is backing the Pentagon and with their help can decimate his and their enemies. As for congress, he has been assembling a war chest and in the 2018 elections will support those who are loyal to him. He will bury the Republicans who failed to come up with a healthcare plan, he will bury the Republicans who failed to support him. He was a leading developer worldwide, dealing with some of the world's biggest business sharks do you seriously think he can't take on Congressional sycophants?

MadMax2 | Aug 19, 2017 6:27:02 PM | 69
The U.S. appears ungovernable at this time, the hysterical temper whipped up on all sides, no reasoned thinking. I guess we're now getting a look at the big show Obama was able to put on for us, when in actual fact things were ungovernable all along - it's just so, so exposed now under Trump. He's being bitten by the people closest to him. Repeatedly.

There would be a way for a country to escape such internal capitulation if there were a visible rule of law, or maybe some code of ethics on show. Rule of the rich should look this way, paying for the pleasure of watching other people watch monkeys to throw shit at one another daily.

JustSayin' | Aug 19, 2017 6:36:31 PM | 70
One more:

Trump is probably best known, amongst the proles, as host of the show "The Apprentice". The premise of this show was that he gathered together a whole bunch of asshats and then one by one fired all of them.

Fast Forward to 2017 and the Trump presidency.

He gathered a whole bunch of asshats around him and one by one fired all of em . . . . .

Say what you like about the man, but at least he's consistent ;-)

Copeland | Aug 19, 2017 6:40:47 PM | 71
Americans who simply ignore President Trump's occasionally hints of brutality ( that police should be even rougher or more brutal in their dealings with criminal suspects), are citizens proceeding at their own peril. President Obama, in his heyday, made public statements, in which he pronounced Army private Bradley (Chelsea) Manning guilty of treason;--a young soldier who had been held in brutal detention in a military stockade,--when no trial had even begun. The law is found to be expedient when it serves political ends, and is otherwise ignored.

In preemptive violence they trust: glorification of abusive power and coersion, and demonization of the Other. It's truly a bi-partisan thing we are seeing: the last links to sanity being removed. No one is sure what the little extra nudge it might be, that could hurl us down into social chaos. Whether Trump proves himself more or less dangerous than Hillary Clinton would have been, simply shrinks into insignificance, compared to the US Congress, and the bi-partisan consensus for irrational global dominance that keeps pushing us toward destruction.

But some liberals have decided that the Day of Antifa is not such a bad thing; meaning we should duke it out in the streets with crazier right wingers, hoping that the contagion of hate will spread throughout the land. Mark Bray, a lecturer at Dartmouth College, is giving the necessity of preemptive violence his academic blessing. With the flood of adrenaline, the blood thickens and grows hot, and eventually spills out on the paving stones and the curb.

On the other hand, the inchoate lunges and political retractions, the firings and shuffling of personnel in the administration, is not at all inspiring. If Trump brings any more generals into the National Security Council, people will have even more reason to worry. Bannon's departure, in and of itself, will probably not change the trajectory that the US government is locked into. Bannon is not the pilot of Trump's soul, nor is he the Mephistopheles whispering into the ear of Trump.

What keeps me awake at night is the knowledge that the only time Congress rallies to Trump, is when they are confident that he is about to start pushing out the borders of the empire, economically strangling small countries,--or better still, when he proves his mettle by bombing and killing folks. Does this president have the grit to resist foolhardy military adventures, or improve diplomatic relations with countries that view the US with alarm, or to put people back to work and rebuild the domestic economy? It's hard to say how.

JustSayin' | Aug 19, 2017 6:43:35 PM | 72
re: #71
Says the guy who back in 2008 was pimping for Obama. telling us all how he represented a change.

Seriously: why would anyone ever listen to anything you have to say about anything?

smuks | Aug 19, 2017 6:43:42 PM | 73
@Anon 65

You seem to be rather cognitively challenged: I don't say Trump's a fascist, I say he 'probably has no political beliefs'. Go watch TV if complex arguments are too much for you.

Putin is no fascist either, but he needs extreme right-wing support so Russian fascists have a certain influence on him imo.

Just Sayin' | Aug 19, 2017 6:47:27 PM | 74
It's hard to say how.

Posted by: Copeland | Aug 19, 2017 6:40:47 PM | 71

even if it were easy, given your track record you'd probably fuck it up anyhow

psychohistorian | Aug 19, 2017 7:13:35 PM | 75
Can Trump do any more to show the rest of the world what a craven puppet the US has become to the God of Mammon folks?

I believe that all this strum and drang are the prelude for war or a major shift in geo-political focus on war as an economic engine of society. The next step in the prelude is either war or economic war, both about maintaining global private finance control or away from that model. The propaganda and fear mongering escalate so that rational discussion of the paths forward are obfuscated and misdirected.

Trump may have dropped a pilot but it is foolish to think that those who have piloted global private finance for centuries have let down their guard.

Copeland | Aug 19, 2017 7:14:55 PM | 76
72, 74

Are you one of those rare infallible gentlemen who never has made a mistake? Why are you making it personal? I can only guess that you are trolling. No one born in this world can pass through it free of error. But I guess you have pardoned yourself, given that you are an exception.

fast freddy | Aug 19, 2017 8:02:19 PM | 77
Rational Thought, reasoned thinking and discussion are not the tools of government, the military, religion or the angry mob.

Bullshit and flinging shit like monkeys offer proven and preferred methodologies.

psychohistorian | Aug 19, 2017 8:21:28 PM | 78
@ fast freddy who didn't credit any with the tool of Rational Thought

Below is a recent quote from Lord Rothschild that you can analyze keeping in mind that his organization reduced its US holdings from 62% to 37% of it portfolio in the past 6 months....
"
The period of monetary accommodation may well be coming to an end. Geopolitical problems remain widespread and are proving increasingly difficult to resolve. We therefore retain a moderate exposure to equity markets and have diversified our asset allocation towards equity investments where value creation is driven by some identifiable catalyst or which are exposed to longer-term positive structural trends.
"
Hey, he is being "upfront" about it........I wonder when the music stops?

Curtis | Aug 19, 2017 8:40:01 PM | 79
StephenLaudig 55
Thanks for the HHG reference. Sometimes we need some comedy to temper our outrage.

Yes, I agree Trump is now surrounded by Goldman Sachs, military types, and pro-Israel Jared. Nothing good can come of this. SecDef Gates resisted the warmongering of Team Obama but ultimately he went along with it. So even if there is some common sense among the generals, that doesn't mean they can prevent another warmongering misadventure. Tillerson has shown some restraint but it's hard to trust anyone in govt anymore.

V. Arnold | Aug 19, 2017 8:50:03 PM | 80
somebody | Aug 19, 2017 10:01:52 AM | 24

Trump would not have been elected without Robert Mercer. Robert Mercer is the billionaire behind Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart and Steve Bannon.

Who financed Adolf Hitler? Bingo! Finally, some one got the Mercers; both the father and the daughter.
http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19811:The-Real-Story-of-How-Bannon-and-Trump-Got-to-The-White-House

fudmier | Aug 19, 2017 9:04:03 PM | 81
We Americans have a problem: the USA is not performing as it should . We Americans have not solved the problem of how to satisfactorily staff a two man team capable to manage the white household, nor have we Americans done any better seating old 100 gents to rule the Senate, worse among us we seem unable to supply 425 jugglers, dancers, and actors the house of dancing confusion needs to sell its show time tickets. This staffing problem is an American problem, not a USA problem. Its time Americans set their minds to solving it.

Its disappointing to see that Trump may have a problem supporting people that pledge their reputations, futures, and positions to help Trump. In business I have seen many persons with this psychological problem, its not about the hired person, its about imperfection : even the slightest non-conforming misstep by the supportive employee is sufficient to bring about a vilification, a firing, and the like. It nows seems possible that the surround sound family in the white house was a defensive move designed to overcome a known-to-Trump problem that probably has plagued Trump his entire life. I put a short-run fantastic performing employee in charge of a significant managerial position; within a year he had fired nearly everyone in the place, some fired had 20 years of relevant experience. Five years later the same person repeated the performance, within a year everyone in the new place had been fired. Later, another person, this time an expert with 20 years experience in a particular line of business was bathed in venture capital and tasked to establish a new business within his expertise; he fired nearly everyone that he hired; some made it a year, but that was it. He ended up trying to run the business all by himself.

Gorgar Tilts | Aug 19, 2017 9:12:09 PM | 82
This will likely only hasten the inevitable: either the liquidation of cucks and neocons as the GOP becomes the implicit party of white nationalism, or the liquidation of the GOP as such at the hand of white nationalists.

The sooner either of these occur, the better it is going to be for the majority white population in the US. Probably for the black and brown populations, too.

smuks | Aug 19, 2017 9:17:51 PM | 83
Is it just me, or is Trump's team becoming more and more reminiscent of the Soviet politburo c. 1986 ?

@psycho 75

In other words, we either overcome capitalism or face war...unless, of course, we miraculously stumble upon the driver of a new Kondratieff. Without completely destroying the planet, that is.

psychohistorian | Aug 19, 2017 9:21:41 PM | 84
@ fudmier who posits that Americans have a problem.

I dare say that the problem Americans have is shared by the rest of the species. Society is stuck in feudal mode at its core with its fealty to the powers of global private finance and those who own it and have for centuries. The model of a few, unaccountable people, perpetuating the God of Mammon religion of private property, inheritance to insure continuation and that some humans are better than others inherently is a sick measure of what we think of as civilization.

All this shit going on is proxy manipulations like have been pursued by the elite for centuries. Humanity needs to lose its private finance pilot and set sail with a commonly piloted future.

psychohistorian | Aug 19, 2017 9:43:34 PM | 85
@ smuks who chimed in

Let me expand my thought.

I think our solution is as simple or complicated as we want to make it.....its all about a collective meme.

I have posited before here that the sewage treatment plants and water systems of the world are not the problem. Those things represent social advances that have been built to support towns and cities by governments.

I posit that government, by definition, is socialistic in purpose....and I further posit that we have forgotten this and/or this definition has been twisted by others. I grew up in Tacoma, Washington and had an uncle who was an engineer for the regional water/power SOCIALIST organization that is still in existence today.

The reason I make that point is that I believe that by "simply" evolving the private finance/property/inheritance component of our form of social organization we will immensely improve the incentives we live by.

We need to kill the God of Mammon. Who believes in this religion? Will humanity evolve past fealty to this god?

Grieved | Aug 19, 2017 10:06:59 PM | 86
@58 karlof1

Thanks for the Escobar link. The story makes great sense. It's good to know about Mercer and to see that Trump and Bannon are tight. Oddly, it did seem that with all the jackals circling around Trump's neck, in this one case, Bannon is more use outside the tent pissing in than inside pissing out. And Breitbart has now received a massive profile lift, it'll become a national player in the narrative, one would expect.

By the way, I was pondering lately this whole aspect of a grass roots movement. Funny you should bring it up. The only question here about the US is, will the people actually get a voice in this society? If the electoral system keeps bringing liars and betraying promises, then it's time to Occupy the Ballot and have new movements. This is happening I think, with Trump actually being one of the precursor litmus tests.

~~

As for the generals, what does a ruler need except the people and the army? Trump has them both. It makes him harder to take down with all those generals around. Of course, Caesar will have to accord with his praetorian guard or the guard will get a new Caesar. But the US is a banana republic now, this is how it's done - and I'm serious about this, these are real dynamics I think.

Surely the generals will end up being more conservative in action than in rhetoric? And if they get a little giddy and actually send their soldiers out into the real world, they'll quickly receive more of those globally public humiliations that are lowering the empire to the ground so effectively. What can go wrong, that couldn't always go wrong anyway, regardless of who's in charge, or thinks they're in charge?

Grieved | Aug 19, 2017 10:14:06 PM | 87
Reflecting that b's post is actually about who's steering the ship.

Personally, I don't know - or give much weight to - whether Trump is driving his own train here. The man shows an extraordinary plasticity, which is useful in the whirlwind that buffets him. He can afford to entertain a million ideas, players and plans. He will outlive them all, I suspect. Despite enormous gaffes, he stays afloat. It's not a Teflon thing, it's a buoyancy thing, or something. Maybe it lies in the country being seen as so crazy and screwed up right now that no one can claim the high ground, and meanwhile he is, after all the elected president, and keeps showing up for work every day as if he's in charge.

I don't see the country as broken, unless the people accept this false narrative concocted by the media about sides split by division. Admittedly, from all the arguing and attacking going on in this thread, one could guess that maybe the false narrative will win.

But we could draw much comfort from the words of this young black woman, Red Pill Black, in a 5 minute YouTube essay that has a quarter million views so far in the last 2 days. She makes stunningly good sense - it's worth 5 minutes or your money back: I Don't Care About Charlottesville, the KKK, or White Supremacy

And I have some respect for the tide of history, and would challenge the notion that anyone was ever really in charge anyway. And this is the great promise that I think Trump still holds. I believe he will bend with the prevailing winds, within his belief system - and there are winds stirring that no one controls, I think. History again. I can't prove it, or even point to it at this stage, but I'm happy enough to wait.

Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 19, 2017 11:05:03 PM | 88
Given that Trump's Inauguration speech included a promise to challenge the abusive power of the Swamp/Deep State, anyone who expected something other than a Magical Mystery Tour, or imagined that he would behave predictably, is utterly clueless about Leadership, Power, and the predictable consequences of "throwing down the gauntlet."
fudmier | Aug 19, 2017 11:48:56 PM | 89
All this shit going on is proxy manipulations like have been pursued by the elite for centuries. Humanity needs to lose its private finance pilot and set sail with a commonly piloted future.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Aug 19, 2017 9:21:41 PM | 84

Ever heard of the enclosure acts ? Do you know which wealthy propaganda artist and lobbyist placed Art. I, Sec. 8, (8) in the US constitution? The Congress shall have the power ...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries..." ?

Any idea how the patent and copyright clause has been used to force on the people of the world the crime of kill and take, lie and steal everything from whomever capitalism? Imagine the monopoly power the Wall Street Bandits can insert into corporations by raising enough money to enable the corporation to acquire monopoly rights in any & all great ideas [THEY CAN OWN the marketing rights and make the profits from ANYTHING ANYONES MIND CAN THINK UP]that can be reduced to objects than can make money.

MONOPOLY POWER is a requirement of SUCCESSFUL CAPITALISM?

Patents and copyrights produce a great portion of the faults we are all so upset about. Americans have a problem, the USA is not performing satisfactorily because those in charge of the USA respond only to the global capitalist who have sufficient funds to purchase what they USA is selling.

Most Americans cannot afford to buy what the USA is selling?

[Aug 20, 2017] Stick a fork in Trump. He's done.

Aug 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Vannok | Aug 19, 2017 2:50:47 PM | 50

The US Regime has just attacked the SAA fighting on the frontline against IS:

US Regime Attack

Stick a fork in Trump. He's done.

[Aug 20, 2017] A De-Putin-Nazification of America Update

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
Aug 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

Given the current level of hysteria, few people are going to check your facts. This is one you can really have fun with. See how far you can push the paranoia. Make up elaborate conspiracy theories. If you're not quite sure how to go about that, check The New York Times or The Washington Post they're masters of that kind of thing.

Your anti-Nazi loyalty oath should definitely not include any of the following:

(1) Any mention of the Ukrainian Nazis that Obama, Clinton, and the rest of the Resistance (before it was the Resistance, of course) helped regime-change the Ukrainian government when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Mentioning the Resistance's support of these Nazis would only confuse those reading your oath, who might not understand that there are good Nazis and bad Nazis, and who have probably forgotten how the US government smuggled a number of actual Nazis (i.e., members of the NSDAP) into America after WWII or how, since the end of that war, the United States has mass murdered countless millions of people all over the planet (but, technically, not in a genocidal fashion, so that doesn't make us the same as Nazis).

(2) Actual membership figures on neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, because those figures are pathetically small. Doing this would make your loyalty oath (not to mention the whole Nazi hysteria thing, generally) seem, if not paranoid, then at least absurd, or like part of some manufactured effort to whip up support for a ruling class coup by waving Nazis in front of everyone's faces. This would be extremely counterproductive. Remember, one of the primary goals of the De-Putin-Nazification program is to convince the public that Richard Spencer (and the handful of other insignificant idiots that the corporate media is showering with publicity) is about to lead an overwhelming force of tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis into the streets of American cities to battle the hyper-militarized police, the national guard, and the US military, or some other preposterous scenario like that.

(3) Any reference whatsoever to the corporatocracy that runs the country, and that normally decides who can run for president, and which is currently making an example of Trump in order to dissuade any future billionaires from having the audacity to fuck with them. You'll be better off avoiding this subject entirely, as it only reminds folks how screwed they are, and how, odds are, they're probably all worked up about something the corporate-owned media wanted to get them all worked up about, neo-Nazis, Russian hackers, nuclear war with North Korea, Syrian gas attacks, lone wolf terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, or whatever. Take it from someone who's worked in show business. No one likes being made aware of how they are being manipulated or provided with a binary set of officially acceptable contextual parameters within which they can think and speak.

But don't worry too much about that binary stuff. There'll be plenty of time to get into all that after we rid the world of these Nazis, and these racists, and all these Confederate statues. And Trump, of course. That's the main thing getting rid of Donald Trump, and getting a Democrat back in office. Oh, yeah and the books. We need to look at the books. God knows how many Confederate books are still out there in the public libraries, and in people's homes, where children can read them. We'll need to get to the books eventually.

In the meantime, focus on Priority One. Go hard on the Nazi hysteria, at least throughout the rest of the weekend, after which they'll probably need to switch us back to the Russia hysteria, or possibly the North Korea hysteria, or damn, see? Here I go with that contextual parameter stuff again. I've really got to stop doing that. The last thing I need is to get myself accused of being some kind of Nazi sympathizer, or Confederate apologist, or Russian propagandist, or extremist, or terrorist, or, you know whatever.

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org

Brabantian > , Website August 19, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

Indeed it is hysteria & the madness of crowds in the USA, to a degree never seen before in our lifetimes

Perhaps the cleverness of Trump & others with him, is instinctively understanding that, this hysteria cannot be directly defused given its elite & corp media support, but now the fire must simply be left to run its course, until it burns itself out, in the end forcing a widespread recognition of the absurdity, & enduring shame for those who fostered it

This may explain including such nominal feints such as the jettisoning of 'goy' top advisor Steve Bannon to give the antifa etc hysterics more fuel for their fires

Interesting article by, of all people, David P Goldman aka 'Spengler' of Asia Times, arguing that Donald Trump may at the moment be making an extremely clever riverboat gamble -

Siding with the more common-sense ordinary people of both USA Democrat & Republican political parties, as those parties implode and split into pieces, & possibly building a new, core, more sensible political centre once the current hysteria has run its course

Trump will reach out to Democratic voters who are alienated from a leadership that has devoted most of its energy to a radical social agenda instead of bread-and-butter solutions, and he will appear to a majority of his own party. I do not know whether he will succeed; if he does, the self-inflicted wounds to the erstwhile arbiters of American opinion will be fatal.

'The Bloody Shirt of Charlottesville and its unintended consequences'

http://www.atimes.com/unintended-consequences-charlottesville/

Renoman > , August 19, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT

Good article, thank you.

War for Blair Mountain > , August 19, 2017 at 11:39 am GMT

When all the Confederate Statutes are taken down, what replaces them?

The Anti-fascist replacement:go google photos of Hillary Clinton pick the Hillary Clinton photo with Hillary wearing the most hideous of her pantsuits that's the one that will replace General Lee .A statue of a psychopathic War Criminal bulldyke who was organized and gave the order to mass murder Conservative Russian Christians in the Eastern Ukraine on behalf of Neo-Nazis.

Hillary Clinton created Al QUEDA and ISIS .enabler of Ukraino Nazis ..

Hillary Clinton..the poster girl for the Antifa Tranny Freaks .and the cucked White Protestant Male Ministers standing up to hate in Charlottesville

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT

Nicely provocative, an essay that seems more likely than a lot published here to get through to Americans not yet divided-and-conquered.

Another way to help people you know and care about to get beyond the TV-level dumbshittery afflicting the country: posit whether ANY statue, plaque, etc., of ANY politician, military "hero," or other person being thus celebrated for exercising governmental authority is worth funding with taxation, much less squabbling over.

Every sheep gets sheared.

Michael Kenny > , August 19, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT

Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in the pro-Putin camp.

Seamus Padraig > , August 19, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny Yet another panic reaction to Charlottesville, I suppose. Small correction of fact: the Ukrainian government wasn't overthrown when it wouldn't play ball with the EU and NATO. Quite the contrary, indeed. It was when Yanukovych decided that he would sign the EU association agreement that he was overthrown or, more correctly, that he simply fled. NATO was never an issue. As with Mr Zuesse, the polemical style and the pro-Putin line suggest growing fear in the pro-Putin camp. As usual, you're dead wrong. Yanuvovich ultimately did not sign the EU agreement:

The political provisions of the treaty were signed on 21 March 2014 after a series of events that had stalled its ratification culminated in a revolution in Ukraine and overthrow of the then incumbent President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. This ousting was sparked by Yanukovych's refusal to sign the agreement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93European_Union_Association_Agreement

As far as NATO is concerned, it is unlikely that Ukraine will be joining in the near future, because of Transnistria and because it has two border disputes with Russia. But the country can still be used as a cat's paw to get at Russia (just like Georgia under Sakashvili), which is even better from Washington's point of view, since they don't even have to give the Ukies any security guarantees if they get into trouble with Russia (again, just like Georgia under Sakashvili).

Anon > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT

You are right, hypocrisy rules. What else is new? Civil war has nothing to do with what happened in Charlottesville. These monuments stood for ~100 years or longer and caused no violence. It is important to face this fact, as well as the fact that the violence in Charlottesville was started by self-proclaimed "liberals". Considering how shamelessly they push lies in the media and how they violently suppress any opinion that differs from theirs, these "liberals" are anything but. What we are witnessing is yet another string of provocations by those who are sore that their beloved mad witch spent twice as much money as Trump and lost. Mind you, I am no fan of Trump, but I don't trust that lying corrupt to the core "alternative" an inch. As far as Hillary is concerned, from my viewpoint her gender does not matter. What matters is massive fraud in the Democratic primaries (that's why Debbie Wasserman-Schulz resigned as a head of DNC in 2016 right before the convention she presumably prepared), as well as the fact that Hillary never gave a speech w/o at least $100,000 "speaking fee", took vast amounts of money from the most unsavory sources, including Saudi Arabia (the same one that murders people by public beheading with a curved sword, exactly like ISIS, and keeps murdering hundreds of civilians in Yemen), and was openly supported by the most notorious neocons from both parties. I would not trust a male with this kind of record, either.
Trump's words that removal of monuments is "sad" and "so foolish" arguably are his first intelligent utterance in months. History does not change no matter what people do, and it has a way of punishing those who forget or try to erase it. Only cowardly scum fights monuments. I am deeply ashamed that some scenes from my country resemble those earlier seen in hopeless basket cases, like present-day Ukraine.

SolontoCroesus > , August 19, 2017 at 9:32 pm GMT

@Priss Factor https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/898978484709666821

Look, events in Boston vindicating the Alt Right narrative in Charlottesville.

All the violence is instigated by 'counter-protesters', as the globalist CBS calls them.

They are Antifanissary thugs and lunatics who oppose free speech and side with Wall Street and the War State.

I'm glad this event happened. At this event, there were no Confed flags, no one with Nazi flag, and no extremists.

There were only patriots defending free speech, but the Antifanissary scum attack just the same.

Trump should talk about this.

Globalist War on Free Speech and Free Assembly.

Barking dogs on leash who can't tolerate the howl of free wolves.

Thank the Police on this. The State, in this case, defended those defending freedom of speech and assembly.

But the Corporations will all side with PC Proglodytes.
But there will be blowback. Just like the Jihadis supported by the US turned on the West, these Antifa scum will turn around and bite the corpies.

In a way, the bogeyman of 'nazi' is very useful to corporations. Capitalists know that the Far Left hates them and wanna smash windows, burn down Starbucks, create havoc in upscale cities like Seattle, and etc. And capitalists fear BLM and black thugs too.

If 'nazis' didn't exist, these restless Antifa and BLM would likely be doing Occupy Wall Street, rioting in gentrified parts of town, attacking yuppies and hipsters, and attacking GREED.

But if there are 'nazis' as bogeyman, the corporations can direct all Antifa and BLM rage at the 'white supremacists' who actually have no power and wealth.
Also, as having sponsored the Antifa and BLM, the corpies hope that the far-left and black thugs will be grateful and not attack them.

But there is blowback sometime down the line. you've made an important point, Priss: "Nazi," "Hitler," "Swastika" and "Holocaust ™ " are brands created by and for corporate interests; the narrative behind these brands does NOT represent history, it is the product of Bernays/hasbara. That is, its basic appeal is to emotion, deliberately bypassing reason and critical analysis.

Corporatists, zionists and Jews *** are striking back as hard as they are, and attempting to associate "hate" with "Nazi" as often as they can, in an exercise in Brand Spanking: as Sam Shama let slip the other day, spanking the Nazi etc. brand is essential because more and more people are waking up .

Charlottesville was, indeed, a set-up: some PR shop managed the affair and cucksertive media are following the script to a Tee.

On C Span on Aug 15, John McArdle hosted an exercise in propaganda so obvious you have to wonder if UVa might consider rescinding his diploma. McArdle invited callers to opine on Trump's statement on the C'ville events; in the 61 minute program, he spoke the word "hate" 41 times: once every 90 seconds.

"Hate" was associated with "white" at every opportunity.
If a caller failed to link "hate" with "white/supremacists/nationalist," McArdle prompted them to do so.

https://www.c-span.org/schedule/?date=2017-08-15

The history of the era of the European-Jewish wars is a radically different entity from the branding.

Before the history can be made more fully consistent with reality -- an absolute essential for a the "well informed citizens" in a representative form of government -- the "Nazi" etc. brands have got to be torn apart: shattered, fragmented.

One of Eddie Bermays's first triumphs was to persuade elite women that smoking cigarettes was chic.

Years and many deaths later, cigarettes now carry a warning from the Surgeon General that cigarettes can kill you.

The same thing has to happen to the deadly way the Jewish PR/media has bastardized "Nazi" Hitler" "Swastika" .

It must be made clear in every instance that the people who inserted the toxic ingredients in those brands had only their own revenue stream in view, and not full and truthful information for the American public.

!!!

*** Jews -- and they can be named & should be shamed -- were at the vanguard of branding "Nazi" "Hitler" and "Swastika" with the epithet Hate nearly a decade before a single hair on a Jewish head was so much as mussed: James Waterman Wise, son of Rabbi Stephen Wise, published a book titled "Swastika" in about May, 1933.
The book opened with the declaration that "the swastika represents hatred of the Jew."

https://www.amazon.com/Swastika-Nazi-terror-James-Waterman/dp/B00086B93S/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1472385235&sr=8-3&keywords=swastika+the+nazi+terror

In fact, and contrary to the sappy tale related in some video docs, the design of the Swastika/banner is based on a Harvard banner https://www.shutterstock.com/editor/image/197551868?exit=%2Fimage-photo%2F197551868&ref=image-photo (in the 1800s, Harvard football banners borethe letter H in a white shield, on a red field) , just as "Seig Heil" is based on Harvard football cheers.

SolontoCroesus > , August 20, 2017 at 1:58 am GMT

@Anon I've listened to nearly a 24-hour day's worth of C Span programming about Charlottesville; I've heard "hate" and "Nazi" and "KKK" and "white supremacy" said so many time my ears are numb and my cerebral cortex overdosed.

I have NOT heard, in all that C Span programming, one, single, solitary guest or journo-phoner discuss what Robert E. Lee stood for; or his correspondence with Lord Acton, about the necessity of state sovereignty to guard against an oppressive centralized power that could take a country to war with no bulwark against its force.

Incredibly -- and I have to post this for all to see: a Jewish woman called C Span to complain that Jewish interests were not represented in C Span programming on Charlottesville.
Here's what she said:

Moderator: Let's go to Virginia Beach, Virginia; Betty is on the line for Democrats:

BETTY: Good morning. Thank you for C Span. I want to say one thing. The two gentlemen you just had on were fine, *** but I'm extremely disappointed because I happen to be Jewish and I was in Connecticut, which I'm originally from Newtown, Connecticut [and spent ] the last weekend there visiting my family there.
I heard more news when I got home. But what I'm disappointed about -- I don't know if C Span ever invited -- I know you've had Jewish people on talking before, but with the Charlottesville thing, I don't know if you've invited anybody from the Anti Defamation League or a rabbi or some other Jewish person to come on, representing a group, because it's awful with the KKK but it's also awful with these Nazis marching -- Nazis marching down in Charlottesville! Both groups are – are- are terrible. It was a horrible thing to see such a thing in 2017 in the United States of America.
And one other thing, and I mean, these other networks, I mean, I don't just sit home and watch TV but I watch C Span, I watch CNN, I watch MSNBC quite a bit --
I haven't seen too many uh Jewish commentators come out and talk. And I really I appreciate and respect the Black commentators that have come on, but I don't know why there hasn't just! Let me make one more comment please:
All the Jews and people of color that are in -- I don't think there's too many, but the ones that are in the Trump administration really should resign after what he said.
I'm glad Steve Bannon is gone. But he uh he uh Trump himself in my opinion is a sympathizer to these groups, that's how I feel, I mean that's how I feel.
And just, I mean, y'know uh uh they're wimps, and especially his son-in-law. He's supposed to be an Orthodox Jew? No, I'm not even a religious Jew, but I mean in my heart, that's what I am. But I mean, he's a wimp! He shouldn't be in there with his father-in-law! He should get up and walk out! That's how I feel.
And real quick !I was so proud to get a letter from President Obama -- I was always going to write him -- I always been a big supporter of his from the very very beginning. And uh I wrote him a letter before he left office, and now I have a framed letter from President Obama on my wall and I'm very very grateful for that.
Thank you very much for allowing me to make my comments.I00:10:04

Mod. Geoff Bennett: Thank you for your suggestion about our programming. We will take it under consideration.

In fact, several persons who are "Jewish in their hearts" (or at least their names) appeared on C Span to explain the many sins of the "white supremacists."

Several highly informative Black people also were guests at the C Span table. Two of them, Robert Woodson and Prof. Bernard Anderson of Princeton University, were highly critical of the cult of victimization that is besetting the Black community. https://www.c-span.org/video/?432749-4/washington-journal-robert-woodson-bernard-anderson-discuss-race-relations-us

Over the course of 6 days, I heard only ONE (white male) guest who had been on the scene, who had a journalist's eye, and who provided a larger perspective than "Nazis . . . hate . . . white supremacist." That was Joe Thomas, a Charlottesville-based conservative radio talk show host with 30 years experience in the city. His commentary is here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?432556-3/charlottesville-radio-host-discusses-aftermath-white-nationalist-protests-violence

The one group (in addition to sound historians on Robert E Lee) that was not represented in C Span program over the course of this hysteria was a single representative of the Unite the Right project.

There are plenty of articulate voices that C Span could have hosted to better inform its audience.

Paul Craig Roberts's article, here ,

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/15/america-propaganda-vanquished-truth/

would make a very useful contribution to the knowledge-base of the C Span audience.

Surely C Span producers are aware of the work of persons like Roberts, and of Giraldi and Ray McGovern.

They don't want those voices to be heard.

Go get 'em, Betty; the world is your (kosher) oyster.

[Aug 19, 2017] Vassal Aristocracies Increasingly Resist Control by US Aristocracy by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together, into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts about those international events.

The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.

First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented (via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the current news: America's aristocracy controls both the U.S. federal government and press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC. The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world.

The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich.

Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means) as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events.

For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often referred to the U.S. government, "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come." To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable." All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise. Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money, to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit their given nation's public.

The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called "Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into. Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief locus of the old order's fractures .

This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the backlash-phase of it.

A turning-point in escalating the weaponization of finance was reached in February 2014 when a Ukrainian coup that the Obama Administration had started planning by no later than 2011, culminated successfully in installing a rabidly anti-Russian government on Russia's border, and precipitated the breakaway from Ukraine of two regions (Crimea and Donbass) that had voted overwhelmingly for the man the U.S. regime had just overthrown . This coup in Ukraine was the most direct aggressive act against Russia since the Cold War had 'ended' (it had actually ended on the Russian side, but not on the American side, where it continues ) in 1991. During this coup in Kiev, on February 20th of 2014, hundreds of Crimeans, who had been peacefully demonstrating there with placards against this coup (which coup itself was very violent -- against the police, not by them -- the exact opposite of the way that "the Maidan demonstrations" had been portrayed in the Western press at the time), were attacked by the U.S.-paid thugs and scrambled back into their buses to return home to Crimea but were stopped en-route in central Ukraine and an uncounted number of them were massacred in the Ukrainian town of Korsun by the same group of thugs who had chased them out of Kiev .

This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens.

On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued "Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty" over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right Ukrainian thugs, who were racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's vassal aristocracies then imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a secret their public would not be allowed to know.)

The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President .

It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined on August 1st, "Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage -- the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this hot war against Russia is via the "Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also backed up by major increases in physical weaponry , and by the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments have become lying aggressors.

Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online, by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to on this):

All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another, so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military) aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here from rt dot com):

"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned. So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break their existing corrupt mold) don't publish this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type, such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia. The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is 'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.

The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined "Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian but all editions, was "Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's Xinhua News Agency bannered "Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" , and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29 showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.

Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin , because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings, they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the ugly reality about him.

However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue a study, "Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor; and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."

The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted. Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those 80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and, after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60% .

President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to be, he is fascist ; just not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their 'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad -- e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media, which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President, Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret, of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Recently from Author

America's Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia Why Readers Shouldn't Trust Staff Reporters Why Sanders Supporters Should Vote for Trump

Fidelios Automata > , August 19, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT

Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been fascist to some degree.

exiled off mainstreet > , August 19, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT

One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.

WorkingClass > , August 19, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT

Good news – The beast is dying. Bad news – We Americans are in its belly.

Wally > , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

"America's aristocracy" = lying Israel First Zionists. Why doesn't Eric Zuesse just say the truth? What is he afraid of?

Must read:

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT

" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.

Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump does not hold her hand.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am GMT

Fidelios,

Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing as a normal business practice.

On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever since Wilson).

Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th Century.

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT

@Fidelios Automata

Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity, the Roman empire, were celebrated.

One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians, it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their hatred of communism.

Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.

Priss Factor > , August 19, 2017 at 7:52 am GMT

Come on

'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)

US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.

It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.

Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.

Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia, deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews, BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran, Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.

They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be different from Jewish obsessions.

Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.

So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat' around.

We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But Hitler had Rohm wiped out.

Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.

One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants. But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists' wanted.

It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.

Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.

I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.

Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi." I'm open to suggestions.

"Goonocrats"?

Anon > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT

and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will.

They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence

No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 1:46 pm GMT

@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him: one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.

Joe Hide > , August 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology, and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy, narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.

SolontoCroesus > , August 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

"ruling mafiosi."

No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most. Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good deal right.

First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.

It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.

Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3% of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.

The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics – is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.

Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem 'immigrant' as Pope.

Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

@Brabantian Good comments.They apply to a few others around here as well, particularly this.

who mixes some truth with big lies

Priss Factor > , Website August 19, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all. This story must be told.

https://altright.com/2017/08/19/charlottesville-occupy-wall-st-and-the-neoliberal-police-state/

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus

"ruling mafiosi."
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."

Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.

Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer Lansky and many many others.

Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-gangsters-in-america

New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, LA, Miami, and many others all dominated by non-Italian mobsters, not to mention the US government.

[Aug 19, 2017] Vassal Aristocracies Increasingly Resist Control by US Aristocracy by Eric Zuesse

Notable quotes:
"... the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC ..."
"... The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world. ..."
"... The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich. ..."
"... So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events. ..."
"... This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens. ..."
"... The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President . ..."
"... Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft ..."
"... I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate. ..."
"... They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level. ..."
"... First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

The tumultuous events that dominate international news today cannot be accurately understood outside of their underlying context, which connects them together, into a broader narrative -- the actual history of our time . History makes sense, even if news-reports about these events don't. Propagandistic motivations cause such essential facts to be reported little (if at all) in the news, so that the most important matters for the public to know, get left out of news-accounts about those international events.

The purpose here will be to provide that context, for our time.

First, this essential background will be summarized; then, it will be documented (via the links that will be provided here), up till the present moment -- the current news: America's aristocracy controls both the U.S. federal government and press , but (as will be documented later here) is facing increasing resistance from its many vassal (subordinate) aristocracies around the world (popularly called "America's allied nations"); and this growing international resistance presents a new challenge to the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), which is controlled by that same aristocracy and enforces their will worldwide. The MIC is responding to the demands of its aristocratic master. This response largely drives international events today (which countries get invaded, which ones get overthrown by coups, etc.), but the ultimate driving force behind today's international news is the aristocracy that the MIC represents, the billionaires behind the MIC, because theirs is the collective will that drives the MIC. The MIC is their collective arm, and their collective fist. It is not the American public's global enforcer; it is the American aristocracy's fist, around the world.

The MIC (via its military contractors such as Lockheed Martin) also constitutes a core part of the U.S. aristocracy's wealth (the part that's extracted from the U.S. taxpaying public via the U.S. government), and also (by means of those privately-owned contractors, plus the taxpayer-funded U.S. armed forces) it protects these aristocrats' wealth in foreign countries. Though paid by the U.S. government, the MIC does the protection-and-enforcement jobs for the nation's super-rich.

Furthermore, the MIC is crucial to them in other ways, serving not only directly as their "policeman to the world," but also indirectly (by that means) as a global protection-racket that keeps their many subordinate aristocracies in line, under their control -- and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will. (International law is never enforced against the U.S., not even after it invaded Iraq in 2003.) So, the MIC is the global bully's fist, and the global bully is the U.S. aristocracy -- America's billionaires, most especially the controlling stockholders in the U.S.-based international corporations. These are the people the U.S. government actually represents . The links document this, and it's essential to know, if one is to understand current events.

For the first time ever, a global trend is emerging toward declining control of the world by America's billionaire-class -- into the direction of ultimately replacing the U.S. Empire, by increasingly independent trading-blocs: alliances between aristocracies, replacing this hierarchical control of one aristocracy over another. Ours is becoming a multi-polar world, and America's aristocracy is struggling mightily against this trend, desperate to continue remaining the one global imperial power -- or, as U.S. President Barack Obama often referred to the U.S. government, "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come." To America's aristocrats, all other nations than the U.S. are "dispensable." All American allies have to accept it. This is the imperial mindset, both for the master, and for the vassal. The uni-polar world can't function otherwise. Vassals must pay (extract from their nation's public, and then transfer) protection-money, to the master, in order to be safe -- to retain their existing power, to exploit their given nation's public.

The recently growing role of economic sanctions (more accurately called "Weaponization of finance" ) by the United States and its vassals, has been central to the operation of this hierarchical imperial system, but is now being increasingly challenged from below, by some of the vassals. Alliances are breaking up over America's mounting use of sanctions, and new alliances are being formed and cemented to replace the imperial system -- replace it by a system without any clear center of global power, in the world that we're moving into. Economic sanctions have been the U.S. empire's chief weapon to impose its will against any challengers to U.S. global control, and are thus becoming the chief locus of the old order's fractures .

This global order cannot be maintained by the MIC alone; the more that the MIC fails (such as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, ), the more that economic sanctions rise to become the essential tool of the imperial masters. We are increasingly in the era of economic sanctions. And, now, we're entering the backlash-phase of it.

A turning-point in escalating the weaponization of finance was reached in February 2014 when a Ukrainian coup that the Obama Administration had started planning by no later than 2011, culminated successfully in installing a rabidly anti-Russian government on Russia's border, and precipitated the breakaway from Ukraine of two regions (Crimea and Donbass) that had voted overwhelmingly for the man the U.S. regime had just overthrown . This coup in Ukraine was the most direct aggressive act against Russia since the Cold War had 'ended' (it had actually ended on the Russian side, but not on the American side, where it continues ) in 1991. During this coup in Kiev, on February 20th of 2014, hundreds of Crimeans, who had been peacefully demonstrating there with placards against this coup (which coup itself was very violent -- against the police, not by them -- the exact opposite of the way that "the Maidan demonstrations" had been portrayed in the Western press at the time), were attacked by the U.S.-paid thugs and scrambled back into their buses to return home to Crimea but were stopped en-route in central Ukraine and an uncounted number of them were massacred in the Ukrainian town of Korsun by the same group of thugs who had chased them out of Kiev .

This massacre didn't play well on local Crimean television. Immediately, a movement to secede and to again become a part of Russia started, and spread like wildfire in Crimea. (Crimea had been only involuntarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine by the Soviet dictator Khrushchev in 1954; it had been part of Russia for the hundreds of years prior to 1954. It was culturally Russian.) Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, said that if they'd vote for it in a referendum, then Russia would accept them back into the Russian Federation and provide them protection as Russian citizens.

On 6 March 2014, U.S. President Obama issued "Executive Order -- Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine" , and ignored the internationally recognized-in-law right of self-determination of peoples (though he recognized that right in Catalonia and in Scotland), and he instead simply declared that Ukraine's "sovereignty" over Crimea was sacrosanct (even though it had been imposed upon Crimeans by the Soviet dictator -- America's enemy -- in 1954, during the Soviet era, when America opposed, instead of favored and imposed, dictatorship around the world, except in Iran and Guatemala, where America imposed dictatorships even that early). Obama's Executive Order was against unnamed "persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine." He insisted that the people who had just grabbed control of Ukraine and massacred Crimeans (his own Administration's paid far-right Ukrainian thugs, who were racist anti-Russians ), must be allowed to rule Crimea, regardless of what Crimeans (traditionally a part of Russia) might -- and did -- want. America's vassal aristocracies then imposed their own sanctions against Russia when on 16 March 2014 Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to rejoin the Russian Federation . Thus started the successive rounds of economic sanctions against Russia, by the U.S. government and its vassal-nations . (As is shown by that link, they knew that this had been a coup and no authentic 'democratic revolution' such as the Western press was portraying it to have been, and yet they kept quiet about it -- a secret their public would not be allowed to know.)

The latest round of these sanctions was imposed not by Executive Order from a U.S. President, but instead by a new U.S. law, "H.R.3364 -- Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" , which in July 2017 was passed by 98-2 in the Senate and 419-3 in the House , and which not only stated outright lies (endorsed there by virtually everyone in Congress), but which was backed up by lies from the U.S. Intelligence Community that were accepted and endorsed totally uncritically by 98 Senators and 419 Representatives . (One might simply assume that all of those Senators and Representatives were ignorant of the way things work and were not intentionally lying in order to vote for these lies from the Intelligence Community, but these people actually wouldn't have wrangled their ways into Congress and gotten this far at the game if they hadn't already known that the U.S. Intelligence Community is designed not only to inform the President but to help him to deceive the public and therefore can't be trusted by anyone but the President .

It's basic knowledge about the U.S. government, and they know it, though the public don't.) The great independent columnist Paul Craig Roberts headlined on August 1st, "Trump's Choices" and argued that President Donald Trump should veto the bill despite its overwhelming support in Washington, but instead Trump signed it into law on August 2nd and thus joined participation in the overt stage -- the Obama stage -- of the U.S. government's continuation of the Cold War that U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush had secretly instituted against Russia on 24 February 1990 , and that, under Obama, finally escalated into a hot war against Russia. The first phase of this hot war against Russia is via the "Weaponization of finance" (those sanctions). However, as usual, it's also backed up by major increases in physical weaponry , and by the cooperation of America's vassals in order to surround Russia with nuclear weapons near and on Russia's borders , in preparation for a possible blitz first-strike nuclear attack upon Russia -- preparations that the Russian people know about and greatly fear, but which are largely hidden by the Western press, and therefore only very few Westerners are aware that their own governments have become lying aggressors.

Some excellent news-commentaries have been published about this matter, online, by a few 'alternative news' sites (and that 'alt-news' group includes all of the reliably honest news-sites, but also includes unfortunately many sites that are as dishonest as the mainstream ones are -- and that latter type aren't being referred to here), such as (and only the best sites and articles will be linked-to on this):

All three of those articles discuss how these new sanctions are driving other nations to separate themselves, more and more, away from the economic grip of the U.S. aristocracy, and to form instead their own alliances with one-another, so as to defend themselves, collectively, from U.S. economic (if not also military) aggression. Major recent news-developments on this, have included (all here from rt dot com):

"'US, EU meddle in other countries & kill people under guise of human rights concerns' – Duterte", and presented Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte explaining why he rejects the U.S. aristocracy's hypocritical pronouncements and condemnations regarding its vassals among the world's poorer and struggling nations, such as his. Of course, none of this information is publishable in the West -- in the Western 'democracies'. It's 'fake news', as far as The Empire is concerned. So, if you're in The (now declining) Empire, you're not supposed to be reading this. That's why the mainstream 'news'media (to all of which this article is being submitted for publication, without fee, for any of them that want to break their existing corrupt mold) don't publish this sort of news -- 'fake news' (that's of the solidly documented type, such as this). You'll see such news reported only in the few honest newsmedia. The rule for the aristocracy's 'news'media is: report what happened, only on the basis of the government's lies as to why it happened -- never expose such lies (the official lies). What's official is 'true' . That, too, is an essential part of the imperial system.

The front cover of the American aristocracy's TIME magazine's Asian edition, dated September 25, 2016, had been headlined "Night Falls on the Philippines: The tragic cost of President Duterte's war on drugs" . The 'news'-story, which was featured inside not just the Asian but all editions, was "Inside Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte's War On Drugs" , and it portrayed Duterte as a far-right demagogue who was giving his nation's police free reign to murder anyone they wished to, especially the poor. On 17 July 2017, China's Xinhua News Agency bannered "Philippines' Duterte enjoys high approval rating at 82 percent: poll" , and reported: "A survey by Pulse Asia Inc. conducted from June 24 to June 29 showed that 82 percent of the 1,200 people surveyed nationwide approved the way Duterte runs the country. Out of all the respondents, the poll said 13 percent were undecided about Duterte's performance, while 5 percent disapproved Duterte's performance. Duterte, who assumed the presidency in June last year, ends his single, six-year term in 2022." Obviously, it's not likely that the TIME cover story had actually been honest. But, of course, America's billionaires are even more eager to overthrow Russia's President, Putin.

Western polling firms can freely poll Russians, and do poll them on lots but not on approval or disapproval of President Putin , because he always scores above 80%, and America's aristocrats also don't like finding that confirmed, and certainly don't want to report it. Polling is routinely done in Russia, by Russian pollsters, on voters' ratings of approval/disapproval of Putin's performance. Because America's aristocrats don't like the findings, they say that Russians are in such fear of Putin they don't tell the truth about this, or else that Russia's newsmedia constantly lie about him to cover up the ugly reality about him.

However, the Western academic journal Post-Soviet Affairs (which is a mainstream Western publication) included in their January/February 2017 issue a study, "Is Putin's Popularity Real?" and the investigators reported the results of their own poll of Russians, which was designed to tap into whether such fear exists and serves as a distorting factor in those Russian polls, but concluded that the findings in Russia's polls could not be explained by any such factor; and that, yes, Putin's popularity among Russians is real. The article's closing words were: "Our results suggest that the main obstacle at present to the emergence of a widespread opposition movement to Putin is not that Russians are afraid to voice their disapproval of Putin, but that Putin is in fact quite popular."

The U.S. aristocracy's efforts to get resistant heads-of-state overthrown by 'democratic revolutions' (which usually is done by the U.S. government to overthrow democratically elected Presidents -- such as Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, Zelaya, Yanukovych, and attempted against Assad, and wished against Putin, and against Duterte -- not overthrowing dictators such as the U.S. government always claims) have almost consistently failed, and therefore coups and invasions have been used instead, but those techniques demand that certain realities be suppressed by their 'news'media in order to get the U.S. public to support what the government has done -- the U.S. government's international crime, which is never prosecuted. Lying 'news' media in order to 'earn' the American public's support, does not produce enthusiastic support, but, at best, over the long term, it produces only tepid support (support that's usually below the level of that of the governments the U.S. overthrows). U.S. Presidents never score above 80% except when they order an invasion in response to a violent attack by foreigners, such as happened when George W. Bush attacked Afghanistan and Iraq in the wake of 9/11, but those 80%+ approval ratings fade quickly; and, after the 1960s, U.S. Presidential job-approvals have generally been below 60% .

President Trump's ratings are currently around 40%. Although Trump is not as conservative -- not as far-right -- as the U.S. aristocracy wants him to be, he is fascist ; just not enough to satisfy them (and their oppostion isn't because he's unpopular among the public; it's more the case that he's unpopular largely because their 'news'media concentrate on his bads, and distort his goods to appear bad -- e.g., suggesting that he's not sufficiently aggressive against Russia). His fascism on domestic affairs is honestly reported in the aristocracy's 'news'media, which appear to be doing all they can to get him replaced by his Vice President, Mike Pence. What's not reported by their media is the fascism of the U.S. aristocracy itself, and of their international agenda (global conquest). That's their secret, of which their public must be (and is) constantly kept ignorant. America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble contolling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Recently from Author

America's Top Scientists Confirm: U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia Why Readers Shouldn't Trust Staff Reporters Why Sanders Supporters Should Vote for Trump

Fidelios Automata > , August 19, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT

Fascism is defined as a system that combines private monopolies and despotic government power. It is sometimes racist but not necessarily so. By the correct definition, every President since at least Herbert Hoover has been fascist to some degree.

exiled off mainstreet > , August 19, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT

One bit of silver lining in the deep-state propaganda effort to destabilise the Trump regime is the damage to the legitimacy of the yankee imperium it confers, making it easier for vassal states to begin to jump ship. The claims of extraterritorial power used for economic warfare might confer a similar benefit, since the erstwhile allies will want to escape the dominance of the yankee dollar to be able to escape the economic extortion practised by the yankee regime to achieve its control abroad.

WorkingClass > , August 19, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT

Good news – The beast is dying. Bad news – We Americans are in its belly.

Wally > , August 19, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

"America's aristocracy" = lying Israel First Zionists. Why doesn't Eric Zuesse just say the truth? What is he afraid of?

Must read:

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT

" America's aristocracy has almost as much trouble controlling its domestic public as it has controlling its foreign vassals. "

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence as long as the USA made it clear it wanted to control the world. Dutch minister of Foreign Affairs Ben Bot made this quite clear whan the Netherlands did not have a USA ambassador for three months or so, Ben Bot complained to the USA that there should be a USA ambassador.
He was not used to take decisions all by himself.

Right now Europe's queen Merkel has the same problem, unlike Obama Trump does not hold her hand.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 19, 2017 at 6:38 am GMT

Fidelios,

Yes, of course. I don't know about before Herbert Hoover, but certainly during the 50s, business -- monopolistic or oligopolistic (like the old Detroit auto industry) -- and government (including the MIC) were closely integrated. Such was, indeed, as aspect of progressivism. It was considered by most to be a good thing, or at least to be the natural and normal state of affairs. Certainly, the system back then included what amounted to price-fixing as a normal business practice.

On the other hand, the "despotic" thing is less clear. Some assert that since FDR was effectively a dictator during World War II, that therefore the Democratic Party represented despotism ever since FDR (or maybe ever since Wilson).

Having lived through that period of time, I have to say that I am not so sure about that: if it was despotism, it was a heavily democratic and beneficent despotism. However, it is evident that there was a fascist skein running through the entirety of USA's political history throughout the 20th Century.

jilles dykstra > , August 19, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT

@Fidelios Automata

Fascism originates from Mussolini's Italy. It was anti socialist and anti communist, it of course was pro Italian, Italy's great deeds in antiquity, the Roman empire, were celebrated.

One can see this as racist, but as Italy consisted of mostly Italians, it was not racist in the present meaning of the word at all. Italy was very hesitant in persecuting jews, for example. Hitler depised Mussolini, Mussolini was an ally that weakened Germany. Hitler and Mussolini agreed in their hatred of communism.

Calling Hitler a fascist just creates confusion. All discussions of what nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.

Priss Factor > , August 19, 2017 at 7:52 am GMT

Come on

'Aristocracy' and 'fascist' are all weasel words. (I'm the only true fascist btw, and it's National Humanism, National Left, or Left-Right.)

US is an ethnogarchy, and that really matters. The Power rules, but the nature of the Power is shaped by the biases of the ruling ethnic group.

It is essentially ruled by Jewish Supremacists.

Now, if not for Jews, another group might have supreme power, and it might be problematic in its own way. BUT, the agenda would be different.

Suppose Chinese-Americans controlled much of media, finance, academia, deep state, and etc. They might be just as corrupt or more so than Jews, BUT their agenda would be different. They would not be hateful to Iran, Russia, Syria, or to Palestinians. And they won't care about Israel.

They would have their own biases and agendas, but they would still be different from Jewish obsessions.

Or suppose the top elites of the US were Poles. Now, US policy may be very anti-Russian BUT for reasons different from those of Jews.

So, we won't learn much by just throwing words like 'fascist' or 'aristocrat' around.

We have to be more specific. Hitler was 'fascist' and so was Rohm. But Hitler had Rohm wiped out.

Surely, a Zionist 'fascist' had different goals than an Iranian 'fascist'.

One might say the Old South African regime was 'fascist'. Well, today's piggish ANC is also 'fascist', if by 'fascist' we mean power-hungry tyrants. But black 'fascists' want something different from what white 'fascists' wanted.

It's like all football players are in football. But to understand what is going on, we have to know WHICH team they play for.

Jewish Elites don't just play for power. They play for Jewish power.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

Good summary of where we're at, but please don't call the ruling goons aristocrats. The word, "aristocrat," is derived from the Ancient Greek ἄριστος (áristos, "best"), and the ruling thugs in this country have never been the best at anything except lies, murder and theft.

I realize that calling them violent bloodthirsty sociopathic parasites is a mouthful, and that "plutacrats" doesn't have quite the appropriate sting, but perhaps it's more accurate.

Or maybe we should get into the habit of calling them the "ruling mafiosi." I'm open to suggestions.

"Goonocrats"?

Anon > , Disclaimer August 19, 2017 at 12:56 pm GMT

and that threatens those foreign aristocrats with encroachments against their own territory, whenever a vassal aristocracy resists the master-aristocracy's will.

They also -- through the joint action of Rating Agencies, the Anglosaxon media, the vassal vassal states' media, make national debt's yield spreads skyrocket. It's been the way to make entire governments tumble in Europe, as well as force ministers for economics to resign. After obeisance has been restored -- and an "ex Goldman Sachs man" put on the presidential/ministerial chair, usually -- investors magically find back their trust in the nation's economic stability, and yield spreads return to their usual level.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

These foreign vassals had a cozy existence

No doubt about it. That's how thugs rule; there are plenty of quivering sell outs to do the rulers' bidding. Look at the sickening standing ovations given to Netanyahoo by supposed "US" congresscreeps.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 1:46 pm GMT

@Fidelios Automata Abraham Lincoln's economic policy was to combine private monopolies with the Federal Government under a President like him: one who ordered the arrests of newspaper editors/publishers who opposed his policies and more 'despotic' goodies.

Joe Hide > , August 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

While the article favorably informs, and was written so as to engage the reader, it lacks reasonable solutions to its problems presented. One solution which I never read or hear about, is mandated MRI's, advanced technology, and evidence supported psychological testing of sitting and potential political candidates. The goal would be to publicly reveal traits of psychopathy, narcissism, insanity, etc. Of course, the most vocal opposition would come from those who intend to hide these traits. The greatest evidence for the likelyhood of this process working, is the immense effort those who would be revealed have historically put into hiding what they are.

SolontoCroesus > , August 19, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

@jacques sheete

"ruling mafiosi."

No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Jake > , August 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

Eric Zuesse is a nasty, hardcore leftist in the senses that matter most. Often, he reveals his Leftism to be based on his hatred of Christianity and his utter contempt for white Christians. But there is that dead clock being correct twice per day matter. In this article, Zuesse gets a good deal right.

First, he delineates the American Elites well. The USA forged by Abe Lincoln is not a real democracy, not a real republic. It is the worst kind of oligarchy: one based on love of money almost exclusively (because if a man does not love money well enough to be bribed, then he cannot be trusted by plutocrats) while proclaiming itself focused on helping all the little guys of the world overcome the power of the rich oppressors.

It is the Devil's game nearly perfected by the grand alliance of WASPs and Jews, with their Saudi hangers-on.

Second, it is fair to label America's Deep State fascist , Elite Fascist. And we should never forget that while Jews are no more than 3% of the American population, they now are at least 30% (my guess would be closer to 59%) of the most powerful Deep Staters. That means that per capita Jews easily are the fascist-inclined people in America.

The most guilty often bray the loudest at others in hope of getting them blamed and escaping punishment. And this most guilty group – Deep State Elites evolved from the original WASP-Jewish alliance against Catholics – is dead-set on making the majority of whites in the world serfs.

Third, the US 'weaponization of finance' seems to have been used against the Vatican to force Benedict XVI to resign so that Liberal Jesuit (sorry for the redundancy) Jorge Bergolgio could be made Pope. The Jesuits are far and away the most Leftist and gay part of the Catholic Church, and the American Deep State wanted a gay-loving, strongly pro-Jewish, strongly pro-Moslem 'immigrant' as Pope.

Fourth, that America's Leftists of every stripe, America's Neocons, and America's 'compassionate conservatives' all hate Putin is all you should need to know that Putin is far, far better for Russia's working class, Russia's non-Elites, than our Elites are for us.

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

@Brabantian Good comments.They apply to a few others around here as well, particularly this.

who mixes some truth with big lies

Priss Factor > , Website August 19, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

Charlottesville, Occupy Wall St And The Neoliberal Police State. Charlottesville was a Neoliberal ambush designed to crush the Alt Right once and for all. This story must be told.

https://altright.com/2017/08/19/charlottesville-occupy-wall-st-and-the-neoliberal-police-state/

jacques sheete > , August 19, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus

"ruling mafiosi."
No way. How about Jewish terrorists ? Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy." Lots of Jews.

Very few Italians in the ruling "aristocracy."

Another common misconception is to associate the mafia with Italians mostly. The Italian mafiosi are pikers compared to the American ones of Eastern European descent. The real bosses are not the Italians.

Bugsy Siegel, Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, Longy Zwillman, Moe Dalitz, Meyer Lansky and many many others.

Even the Jewish Virtual Library admits to some of it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-gangsters-in-america

New York, Chicago, Las Vegas, LA, Miami, and many others all dominated by non-Italian mobsters, not to mention the US government.

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon s work is done. Donald Trump doesn t need him now

Notable quotes:
"... Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class. ..."
"... There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns. ..."
"... The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be. ..."
"... People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there. ..."
"... "In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now. ..."
"... I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer ..."
"... With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times... ..."
"... The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one. ..."
"... Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:16

Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.

So a billionaire like Trump, with Bannon's aid, does whatever he can to focus the disatisfaction of the population on people who have a different skin colour, rather than the vastly rich elites who have grabbed such a massive share of US wealth and power - and demand yet more

joey2000 -> jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:29

There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns.

Must have gone down really well in those rustbelt towns where everyone is on oxycontin out of sheer despair. But hey, they're only rednecks so who cares right ?

JerHig -> jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:36

Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.

Exactly, it's all about creating a group you can point to and say "at least you're not as bad off as them!"

When your entire existence is predicated on 'at least I'm not the worst off' it becomes frightening when those who were previously 'worse off' start improving. But instead of improving themselves they try and bring the others down again.

MattSpanner -> Isomewhatagree , 18 Aug 2017 09:34

That's what I don't get about the Nazis who turned up in Charlottsville: they chanted "Jews will not replace us" and also "we're going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump". How can Nazis believe Trump is on their side when his daughter is married to a Jew? There are so many contradictions in this situation that I can't get my head around it.

asparagusnextleft -> MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:40

It's simple. They're fucking idiots.

Fwaffy -> BrokenLogic , 18 Aug 2017 09:34

It's remarkable isn't it, the man appears to be visibly decomposing. It's been suggested that the statue of Robert E Lee was his penultimate Horcrux.

MattSpanner -> Fwaffy , 18 Aug 2017 09:49

He looks like an alchy.

therebythegrace -> MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 10:13

Or Dorian Gray's picture. Maybe the more evil Trump gets, the worse Bannon looks?

Ravenblade -> Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 10:35

Someone has to lose out in a redistribution of anything, be it political power or wealth. I mention the white middle classes because they tend to the the keyboard warriors refusing to tackle the insecurities and concerns of the white working class, and simply resorting to calling them racist.

The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be.

Agree with your latter point and I'm sensitive to the fact that within class groups, minorities and women remain disadvantaged; I'm not saying we don't continue to look at that. But realistically, on an economic level, you're not going to get white working class men accepting that middle class minorities or women are disadvantaged compared to them, are you? The only reason this distinction doesn't seem to happen (class lines) is because most of the SJW contingent suddenly have to check an aspect of privilege they're unkeen to pay attention to.

tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:27

People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.

As to Bannon still in the job, I think LBJ's story about tents and which way the piss goes applies.

Bjerkley -> tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:31

Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.

As others have noted, given that both of them worked in finance/had some background in finance, it's odd that their fathers lost savings which could have been avoided (Bannon's father, for instance, only lost out because he sold his stock but it regained its value shortly afterwards, i.e. it was a bad financial decision). But as you say, its out there.

KeithNJ -> Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 09:54

Indeed. If you held on through the crash you now have double the money you had in 2007.

There are some pretty basic retirement rules (60/40 equity to bonds or less, keep 2 years in cash) which if anyone followed would have resulted in no pain from the crash, just some anxiety.

If he got greedy, had 100% in equities and sold at the bottom of the market because he had not kept a cash cushion - well he cannot blame the Chinese for that.

Of course he was bitter before his son became a billionaire, but to still be bitter is more about character than the economy.

MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:28

"In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

"What we are witnessing," Bannon told The Washington Post last month, "is the birth of a new political order.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

...and along comes N.Korea and makes all Bannon's dreams come true.


richmanchester
-> MattSpanner
, 18 Aug 2017 09:34

Though in Bannon's last interview he explicitly stated there was no military option available wrt North Korea.

Dwaina Tembreull -> userforaday , 18 Aug 2017 09:54

An interesting interpretation of his behavior. I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner.

ID4524057 , 18 Aug 2017 17:49

" and it has forged an indefatigable core of support that will stay with Trump through the next general election and beyond."

Except that atavistic and uneducated people can and will change their sense of allegiance on a dime or a whim and given the fact that Trump is not an ideologue but rather an unstable pathological narcissist and a bigot (versus espousing a coherent racist plan of action because he has a particular ideological agenda) there is no way to effectively predict what his actions will echo in that part of his base and therefore no way to predict what his base will do if Trump is untethered from Bannon. Trump is as likely to make a boneheaded deal with China that pleases Wall Street as he is to accidentally start a war. He is as likely to break his support as he is to cement it.

As Christopher Hitchens said:

"A feature, not just of the age of the end of ideology, but of the age immediately preceding the age of the end of ideology, is that of the dictator who has no ideology at all."

Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer though he is a bigot and clearly dictatorial. Trump is all expediency first and faith second even if he has consistently been a racist.

The second problematic issue is that if you assert that Axelrod and Rove "achieved" anything of lasting consequence then Axelrod could not have followed Rove and Bannon could not have followed Axelrod.

Unlike in France where the president serves far longer the reelection cycle here with its utterly corrupt need to raise massive amounts of cash which then forces candidates to constantly be in race mode (and effectively reduces the period of actual governance to around 18 months) has created a perpetually unstable and ineffective bureaucracy that has more in common with late Ottoman inefficiency than it does with a contemporary "modern" state.

With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times...

Further, there is this: "There's another reason why firing Bannon wouldn't be a huge loss: his work is largely done."

In fact, Trump has achieved nothing and done nothing of lasting change to the bureaucracy. In a sense it is analogous to the situation with North Korea where, despite Trump's pale Strangelove imitation it was noted in the media that the military had made no changes to its posture.

... ... ...

jmad357 , 18 Aug 2017 17:53

The only time I have ever agreed with Bannon is that his analysis of the potential for N Korea to destroy S Korea with an artillery barrage. With about 12,000 artillery prices the North could launch somewhere around 50,000 shells per minute into Soul. Do the arithmetic for a 10 minute shelling. Any grandstanding by the US military is simply folly.

MasMaz , 18 Aug 2017 17:59

The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one.

Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit.

[Aug 18, 2017] Allies of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief by Robert Kuttner

Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... "To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover." ..."
"... Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us." ..."
"... "The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
"... For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here . ..."
Aug 16, 2017 | prospect.org
You might think from recent press accounts that Steve Bannon is on the ropes and therefore behaving prudently. In the aftermath of events in Charlottesville, he is widely blamed for his boss's continuing indulgence of white supremacists. Allies of National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster hold Bannon responsible for a campaign by Breitbart News, which Bannon once led, to vilify the security chief. Trump's defense of Bannon, at his Tuesday press conference, was tepid.

But Bannon was in high spirits when he phoned me Tuesday afternoon to discuss the politics of taking a harder line with China, and minced no words describing his efforts to neutralize his rivals at the Departments of Defense, State, and Treasury. "They're wetting themselves," he said, proceeding to detail how he would oust some of his opponents at State and Defense.

Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me.

Needless to say, I was a little stunned to get an email from Bannon's assistant midday Tuesday, just as all hell was breaking loose once again about Charlottesville, saying that Bannon wished to meet with me. I'd just published a column on how China was profiting from the U.S.-North Korea nuclear brinkmanship, and it included some choice words about Bannon's boss.

"In Kim, Trump has met his match," I wrote. "The risk of two arrogant fools blundering into a nuclear exchange is more serious than at any time since October 1962." Maybe Bannon wanted to scream at me?

I told the assistant that I was on vacation, but I would be happy to speak by phone. Bannon promptly called.

Far from dressing me down for comparing Trump to Kim, he began, "It's a great honor to finally track you down. I've followed your writing for years and I think you and I are in the same boat when it comes to China. You absolutely nailed it."

"We're at economic war with China," he added. "It's in all their literature. They're not shy about saying what they're doing. One of us is going to be a hegemon in 25 or 30 years and it's gonna be them if we go down this path. On Korea, they're just tapping us along. It's just a sideshow."

Bannon said he might consider a deal in which China got North Korea to freeze its nuclear buildup with verifiable inspections and the United States removed its troops from the peninsula, but such a deal seemed remote. Given that China is not likely to do much more on North Korea, and that the logic of mutually assured destruction was its own source of restraint, Bannon saw no reason not to proceed with tough trade sanctions against China.

Contrary to Trump's threat of fire and fury, Bannon said: "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." Bannon went on to describe his battle inside the administration to take a harder line on China trade, and not to fall into a trap of wishful thinking in which complaints against China's trade practices now had to take a backseat to the hope that China, as honest broker, would help restrain Kim.

"To me," Bannon said, "the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover."

Bannon's plan of attack includes: a complaint under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act against Chinese coercion of technology transfers from American corporations doing business there, and follow-up complaints against steel and aluminum dumping. "We're going to run the tables on these guys. We've come to the conclusion that they're in an economic war and they're crushing us."

But what about his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing's aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don't want to mess with the trading system?

"Oh, they're wetting themselves," he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.

"I'm changing out people at East Asian Defense; I'm getting hawks in. I'm getting Susan Thornton [acting head of East Asian and Pacific Affairs] out at State."

But can Bannon really win that fight internally?

"That's a fight I fight every day here," he said. "We're still fighting. There's Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying."

"We gotta do this. The president's default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don't get me wrong. It's like, every day."

Bannon explained that his strategy is to battle the trade doves inside the administration while building an outside coalition of trade hawks that includes left as well as right. Hence the phone call to me.

There are a couple of things that are startling about this premise. First, to the extent that most of the opponents of Bannon's China trade strategy are other Trump administration officials, it's not clear how reaching out to the left helps him. If anything, it gives his adversaries ammunition to characterize Bannon as unreliable or disloyal.

More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.

The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.

I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

From his lips to Trump's ear.

"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

I had never before spoken with Bannon. I came away from the conversation with a sense both of his savvy and his recklessness. The waters around him are rising, but he is going about his business of infighting, and attempting to cultivate improbable outside allies, to promote his China strategy. His enemies will do what they do.

Either the reports of the threats to Bannon's job are grossly exaggerated and leaked by his rivals, or he has decided not to change his routine and to go down fighting. Given Trump's impulsivity, neither Bannon nor Trump really has any idea from day to day whether Bannon is staying or going. He has survived earlier threats. So what the hell, damn the torpedoes.

The conversation ended with Bannon inviting me to the White House after Labor Day to continue the discussion of China and trade. We'll see if he's still there.

For ideas on how to counter the far-right agenda in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, click here .

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon goes as the military takes over the Trump administration by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | theduran.com

The announcement of the 'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.

Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense.

In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is continuing to tighten his control of the White House.

Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is completing his purge of the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.

Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.

I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills.

Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible – it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.

The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland.

I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it.

However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely believed – probably rightly – to have written it.

As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration.

In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway.

It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.

The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.

The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.

All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.

The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.

It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.

Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower.

The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.

Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.

[Aug 18, 2017] Pentagon took over White house: The firing of Bannon leaves the Generals without an opposing view. They will no longer be contradicted

Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker. For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Are we a step closer to War?

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:19:23 PM | 97

Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...

Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage which might destroy those projects in the future.

Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-scrap-rule-protect-094700052.html

Oh, my. Things ought to be interesting in DC in the near future. Dangerous all over in the long run.

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:20:53 PM | 98
Oops. Real work consequences should have been real world consequences. Preview is a good tool to use....
karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:29:00 PM | 99
Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/

Now it appears that Trump's completely surrounded by the former generals he appointed--a different version of Seven Days in May? Or is it the fantastical number of contradictions finally coming home to roost as The Saker seems to think, http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/

When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.

It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no fog!

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:37:52 PM | 100 previous page
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s what sort of message given the context Gore opined? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself as a previously closeted Neocon?
Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 2:40:58 PM | 101
Another "grown up"?:

Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit

US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

fastfreddy | Aug 18, 2017 2:42:16 PM | 102
Manifest Destiny and Religious Zealotry (extremism) were manifested in recent history by America's Great Leaders. Here's General Boykin:

You know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his [about Muslims in Somalia]. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.

Many other quotes here:

http://www.azquotes.com/author/39645-William_G_Boykin

Greg M | Aug 18, 2017 2:55:25 PM | 103
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners. First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
@Madderhatter67 | Aug 18, 2017 3:21:06 PM | 104
Thirdeye & Fastfreddy

Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)

This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.

Pardon Me! High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump By Tom Engelhardt

Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of ours.

We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow.

Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond compare?

And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/

Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 3:34:25 PM | 105
Greg D

You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 3:37:18 PM | 106
@Madderhatter67 @104--

Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality.

smuks | Aug 18, 2017 6:50:43 PM | 107
Nah...don't quite agree on this one. The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes.

Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.

[Aug 18, 2017] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/politics/steve-bannon-trump-white-house.html

Notable quotes:
"... Lots of dunces, but chief strategist Steve Bannon, sadly, isn't one of them. The intellectual leader of the alt-right movement is no genius – nobody with his political views could be – but neither is he an idiot. He's one of the few people in that White House with even a primitive grasp of long-term strategy, which makes his impulsive-seeming decision to call The American Prospect this week curious. ..."
"... In the interview, Bannon said there was "no military solution" to North Korea's posturing. He stressed his efforts to fight economic war with China, adding, in a Scaramuccian touch, that his intramural foes on that front were "wetting themselves." ..."
"... "The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em," he said. "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats." ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:19 AM

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-fire-steve-bannon-w498354

Fire Steve Bannon

The Trump administration's stubbly race warrior reminds us why he's so dangerous

By Matt Taibbi
21 hours ago

The list of nitwits in the Trump administration is long. Betsy DeVos, in charge of education issues, seems capable of losing at tic-tac-toe. Ben Carson thought the great pyramids of Egypt were grain warehouses. Rick Perry, merely in charge of the nation's nuclear arsenal, probably has post-it notes all over his office to remind him what things are: telephone, family photo, souvenir atomic-reactor paperweight, etc.

Lots of dunces, but chief strategist Steve Bannon, sadly, isn't one of them. The intellectual leader of the alt-right movement is no genius – nobody with his political views could be – but neither is he an idiot. He's one of the few people in that White House with even a primitive grasp of long-term strategy, which makes his impulsive-seeming decision to call The American Prospect this week curious.

In the interview, Bannon said there was "no military solution" to North Korea's posturing. He stressed his efforts to fight economic war with China, adding, in a Scaramuccian touch, that his intramural foes on that front were "wetting themselves."

When asked about the Charlottesville tragedy, Bannon called the neo-Nazi marchers "a collection of clowns." He also called them "losers" and a "fringe element."

This theoretically should be a dark time for Bannon, since Charlottesville reminded the whole world of his inexplicable and indefensible presence in the White House. The story has even the National Review howling for his dismissal.

But Prospect writer Robert Kuttner noted with surprise in his piece that Bannon seemed upbeat. He essentially told Kuttner he believed the Charlottesville mess and stories like it were a long-term political windfall for people like himself.

"The longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em," he said. "I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:20 AM

The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Stephen K. Bannon as chief strategist.

Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the president's family.

Trump Tells Aides He Has Decided to Remove Stephen Bannon https://nyti.ms/2vKGSNG

NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - August 18

President Trump has told senior aides that he has decided to remove Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled White House chief strategist who helped Mr. Trump win the 2016 election, according to two administration officials briefed on the discussion.

The president and senior White House officials were debating when and how to dismiss Mr. Bannon. The two administration officials cautioned that Mr. Trump is known to be averse to confrontation within his inner circle, and could decide to keep on Mr. Bannon for some time.

As of Friday morning, the two men were still discussing Mr. Bannon's future, the officials said. A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted the parting of ways was his idea, and that he had submitted his resignation to the president on Aug. 7, to be announced at the start of this week, but the move was delayed after the racial unrest in Charlottesville, Va.

Mr. Bannon had clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers and members of the president's family.

But the loss of Mr. Bannon, the right-wing nationalist who helped propel some of Mr. Trump's campaign promises into policy reality, raises the potential for the president to face criticism from the conservative news media base that supported him over the past year.

Mr. Bannon's many critics bore down after the violence in Charlottesville. Outraged over Mr. Trump's insistence that "both sides" were to blame for the violence that erupted at a white nationalist rally, leaving one woman dead, human rights activists demanded that the president fire so-called nationalists working in the West Wing. That group of hard-right populists in the White House is led by Mr. Bannon.

On Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York, Mr. Trump refused to guarantee Mr. Bannon's job security but defended him as "not a racist" and "a friend."

"We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," Mr. Trump said.

Mr. Bannon's dismissal followed an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with whom he had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect. In it, Mr. Bannon mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical: "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:37 AM
Trump on North Korea https://nyti.ms/2vI6smj
NYT - MARK LANDLER - August 17

WASHINGTON -- For all his fire-breathing nationalism -- the demands to ban Muslims, build a wall on the Mexican border and honor statues of Confederate heroes -- Stephen K. Bannon has played another improbable role in the Trump White House: resident dove.

From Afghanistan and North Korea to Syria and Venezuela, Mr. Bannon, the president's chief strategist, has argued against making military threats or deploying American troops into foreign conflicts.

His views, delivered in a characteristically bomb-throwing style, have antagonized people across the administration, leaving Mr. Bannon isolated and in danger of losing his job. But they are thoroughly in keeping with his nationalist credo, and they have occasionally resonated with the person who matters most: President Trump.

Mr. Bannon's dovish tendencies spilled into view this week in unguarded comments he made about North Korea to a liberal publication, The American Prospect. Days after Mr. Trump threatened to rain "fire and fury" on the North Korean government if it did not curb its belligerent behavior, Mr. Bannon said, "There's no military solution here; they got us." ...
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:43 AM

The casualties are not worth the little chance of blunting Kim.

Beside look: with all that money and training and so forth....DDG 62, an Aegis destroyer could not stay safe in peaceful water!

US can't poke ISIS out of Raqqa in 3 years, what would happen with 2 million soldier tough as VC?

+outside of Lemay/MacArthur nukes. Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 02:12 PM

"When asked about the Charlottesville tragedy, Bannon called the neo-Nazi marchers "a collection of clowns." He also called them "losers" and a "fringe element.""

Maybe that was it? Why would he call the Prospect? Did he think he was calling the American Conservative and it was off the record? Did he know he was out?
Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:45 AM

Stephen K. Bannon's exit was described in a White House statement as a mutual decision between Mr. Bannon and Chief of Staff John Kelly.

Critics of Mr. Bannon, a right-wing nationalist, bore down after the violence in Charlottesville.

Stephen Bannon Out at the White House After
Turbulent Run https://nyti.ms/2vKGSNG

Stephen K. Bannon, the embattled chief strategist who helped President Trump win the 2016 election but clashed for months with other senior West Wing advisers, is leaving his post, a White House spokeswoman announced Friday.

"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said in a statement. "We are grateful for his service and wish him the best." ... Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 11:31 AM

What kind of talk doesn't threaten the money and power of the 0.1%?

What kind of talk do we get and from whom? Reply Friday, August 18, 2017 at 10:55 AM

"The Democratic Party isn't going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill."

by Jake Johnson, staff writer
....................
"The Democratic Party isn't going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill," Warren said. "We're not going back to the days of being lukewarm on choice. We're not going back to the days when universal healthcare was something Democrats talked about on the campaign trail but were too chicken to fight for after they got elected."

"And," Warren concluded, "we're not going back to the days when a Democrat who wanted to run for a seat in Washington first had to grovel on Wall Street."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/centrist-democrats-riled-warren-says-days-lukewarm-policies-are-over

[Aug 18, 2017] What Bannon s exit might mean the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism

To a certain extent Bannon symbolized backlash against neoliberal globalization, that is mounting in the USA. With him gone Trump is a really emasculated and become a puppet of generals, who are the only allies left capable to run the show. Some of them are real neocons. What a betrayal of voters who are sick and tired of wars for expansion and protection of global neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit. ..."
"... The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies). ..."
"... Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away. ..."
"... So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt. ..."
"... with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Christopher H. , August 18, 2017 at 01:24 PM

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/whither-Trump_vs_deep_state/

Whither Trump_vs_deep_state?

by Paul Krugman

AUGUST 18, 2017 1:48 PM

Everyone seems to be reporting that Steve Bannon is out. I have no insights about the palace intrigue; and anyone who thinks Trump will become "presidential" now is an idiot. In particular, I very much doubt that the influence of white supremacists and neo-Nazis will wane.

What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit.

The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies).

Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away.

So what's a tax-cutter to do? His agenda is fundamentally unpopular; how can it be sold?

One long-standing answer is to muddy the waters, and make elections about white resentment. That's been the strategy since Nixon, and Trump turned the dial up to 11. And they've won a lot of elections -- but never had the political capital to reverse the welfare state.

Another strategy is to invoke voodoo: to claim that taxes can be cut without spending cuts, because miracles will happen. That has sometimes worked as a political strategy, but overall it seems to have lost its punch. Kansas is a cautionary tale; and under Obama federal taxes on the top 1 percent basically went back up to pre-Reagan levels.

So what did Trump seem to offer that was new? First, during the campaign he combined racist appeals with claims that he wouldn't cut the safety net. This sounded as if he was offering a kind of herrenvolk welfare state: all the benefits you expect, but only for your kind of people.

Second, he offered economic nationalism: we were going to beat up on the Chinese, the Mexicans, somebody, make the Europeans pay tribute for defense, and that would provide the money for so much winning, you'd get tired of winning. Economic nonsense, but some voters believed it.

Where are we now? The herrenvolk welfare state never materialized, in part because Trump is too lazy to understand policy at all, and outsourced health care to the usual suspects. So Trumpcare turned out to be the same old Republican thing: slash benefits for the vulnerable to cut taxes for the rich. And it was desperately unpopular.

Meanwhile, things have moved very slowly on the economic nationalism front -- partly because a bit of reality struck, as export industries realized what was at stake and retailers and others balked at the notion of new import taxes. But also, there were very few actual voices for that policy with Trump's ear -- mainly Bannon, as far as I can tell.

So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt.

But he does have the racism thing. And my prediction is that with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars.

[Aug 18, 2017] "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us

At least Bannon does not look like a sociopath as Hillary "We came, we saw he died" and her inner cicle. He has some concerns about South koreian population, dying for US empire geopolitical goals.
Notable quotes:
"... "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.msn.com

... [in] an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with whom he had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect. In it, Mr. Bannon mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical: "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."

He also bad-mouthed his colleagues in the Trump administration, vowed to oust a female diplomat at the State Department and mocked officials as "wetting themselves" over the consequences of radically changing trade policy.

[Aug 18, 2017] Banish Bannon Trump weighs his options as top aides feud Defend Democracy Press

Aug 18, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the White House.

The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.

Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.

Read more at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-bannon-analysis-idUSKCN1AV2MZ

[Aug 18, 2017] Alt-Right and Ultra-Zionist Alliance against National Security Advisor McMaster

Notable quotes:
"... He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall, he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well. ..."
"... Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | therealnews.com

Remember Lieutenant-General Herbert Raymond McMaster? He was appointed as President Trump's national security adviser back in February. He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall, he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well.

Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon and extreme right-wing Zionists such as the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, as well as by Israeli journalist Caroline Glick from the Jerusalem Post. President Trump, in response to all of this, called McMaster "a good man, very pro-Israel," and Israeli officials have also come forward calling McMaster a friend of Israel.

On to talk about these connections and tensions is Shir Hever. Shir is a Real News correspondent in Heidelberg, Germany. Of course, he covers Israel and Palestine for us extensively. I thank you so much for joining us, Shir.

SHIR HEVER: Thanks for having me, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Shir, President Trump is now six months into his office as president. He initially has appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to take up the Israel file, but there are these allegations flying against General McMaster. Explain to us what's going on. Why are these individuals like Sheldon Adelson even concerned about how Trump is responding in terms of Israel and Israel policy?

SHIR HEVER: I think there's very little that General McMaster can actually do about Israel or against Israel. It really doesn't matter much. The only issue that has come up was the Iran nuclear deal, and I think this is going to be a decision taken directly by President Trump and not by McMaster. Also, what exactly is the Israel interest regarding the Iran nuclear deal? It is not so clear. Obviously, Prime Minister Netanyahu has a certain opinion, but other Israeli politicians have other opinions.

I think this is really a symbolic issue. There are people in the alt-right and also the extreme Zionism who are using this old worn-out accusation that somebody is anti-Israel in order to get their own people into the National Security Council, in order to exert influence on the Trump administration. This coalition between extreme right nationalists, white nationalists in the United States, and Jewish Zionists, which traditionally were on opposing sides, are now working together because of this very strange rise of this alt-right.

SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, give us a greater sense of the connection or the tensions between these alt-right organizations and McMaster and Bannon. Map this for us.

SHIR HEVER: Yeah. I've been looking through these accusations that Caroline Glick, deputy editor of the Jerusalem Post, and Steve Bannon himself, and also Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America. What problem do they have with McMaster? They make very vague things about some statements that he made, but they couldn't put them in context. He said that Israel is an occupying power. Of course, Israel is an occupying power, but they couldn't place that statement. The only thing that their criticism boils down to is they say McMaster is a remnant of the Obama administration. He continues the Obama policies, and therefore he's not loyal to Trump.

I think this is the crux of the matter, because actually, for people like Caroline Glick and I think also for Sheldon Adelson, their relation to Trump borders on religious. They consider Trump to be some kind of messiah or savior that will allow Israel once and for all to annex the occupied territory, expand its borders, and then the land will be redeemed. They talk about this in religious terminology.

Here's the problem. Trump has been president for six months now, and Israel did not annex the territory. It did not expand its borders. In fact, it has gone from one crisis to the next, and the Israeli government is not able to cement its power over the Palestinians. Palestinian resistance is not tied down. They're looking for an explanation. The explanation is that something is not pure in the Trump administration, and they're pointing the finger at McMaster saying, "Because of people like him who are sabotaging Trump's own policies from the inside, then this is preventing the Trump administration from reaching its full potential."

SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Obviously, Netanyahu and the Israeli government doesn't agree with this assessment. In fact, they have come out supporting McMaster as being a good supporter of Israel. How does this play out here?

SHIR HEVER: Absolutely. Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing real politics. He knows that there's nothing that President Trump can do that will actually make Israel suddenly conquer more territory. That's not the point. Netanyahu is trying to balance a very complicated system with pressure from different points, and he is a populist, and he's only in power because of his populism. Now, his administration is under threat because of corruption allegations, so this is a problem for him. When people expect that the Trump administration will free his hands to do whatever he wants, Netanyahu suddenly has a problem because he needs to come up with a new excuse. Why doesn't he annex all the occupied territory?

Of course, for him, it's not a good time to get into a fight with the Trump administration. He wants to create the impression that things are happening under the surface, that he is in the know, that his friends are involved in this, but I think the fact that Sheldon Adelson, the big financial supporter of Netanyahu, is now switching to support extreme right groups that have nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli current administration, but are actually trying to push the Israeli administration to move further to the extreme right and to annex territory, that puts Netanyahu in trouble. I think it also spells some clouds over the warm relationship between Netanyahu and Adelson.

SHARMINI PERIES: Coming back to this side of things here in the United States, in light of the events of Charlottesville, Shir, showing a direct link between the alt-right and hardcore racists and neo-Nazis, why would extreme right-wing Zionist Jewish organizations and individuals like Glick and Klein agree to cooperate with the alt-right in this way?

SHIR HEVER: I think people on the left tend to forget that, just like the left considers itself to be a kind of universalist movement, and that leftists around the world should have solidarity with each other, the right also has a kind of solidarity, especially the extreme right. Extreme right movements in different countries consider the extreme right in other countries to be their allies. One of the things we saw in Charlottesville is that some of these neo-Nazi groups and white nationalist groups are big supporters of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, because they see him as the kind of strong leader they would like to see in the United States as well.

For people who see Donald Trump talking about America first, then they're saying, "Okay, that's exactly the kind of administration we want to see in Israel, somebody taking about Israel first." For Caroline Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of racism and even anti-semitism against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters in exchange for being allowed to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing policy towards their minorities. Just like the American administration has its minorities, Muslims, Mexicans which are being targeted, Israel also has its minorities, Palestinians and asylum-seekers, and they want those people to be targeted in the same harsh language and the same harsh policies, so that we can [inaudible] a great compromise.

I have to say, the events in Charlottesville had a profound impact on Israeli public opinion. In fact, there are a lot of Israelis who are very concerned about this kind of coalition. They are saying, "No, there's not that much that we're willing to take in order to keep the relations with the Trump administration on good footing." Because of that, the president of Israel, President Rivlin, and also the education minister Naftali Bennett issued statements condemning white nationalists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. I think Naftali Bennett, who is the head of the Jewish Nationalist Party in Israel, and he's actually of the same political camp as Caroline Glick, as Morton Klein, when he makes that statement, that shows that even he thinks that they have gone too far.

SHARMINI PERIES: Interesting analysis, Shir. I thank you so much for joining us today. I guess the situation in Charlottesville is evolving, and it would be interesting to continue to keep an eye on what's developing here against what's happening in Israel as well. Thank you so much.

SHIR HEVER: Thank you, Sharmini.

SHARMINI PERIES: Thank you for joining us here on the Real News Network.

Jibaro 4 hours ago

Confusing, at least to me, in any case I believe that the Zionists learned a lot from the Nazis and there is very little difference between the two groups. I would say that the main difference lies in the fact that the Zionists are sneakier and know how to play with popular opinion. That's why it doesn't surprise me that they are making a common cause with the white supremacists groups.

The only surprise here is that they are doing it openly now. They have become brave and have decided to take the backlash. Perhaps they are doing so because they know they have the support of Trump.

Divide and conquer. Soon we will be fighting on our own streets against each other. It will be the death of the US...

Donatella 10 hours ago

"For Caroline Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of racism and even anti-semitism against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters in exchange for being allowed to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing policy towards their minorities."

I have great respect for Shir Hever, he has great insight into Israel society and politics. However, his statement that Klein and Glick (and maybe Adelson) want to be "allowed" to copy Trump's supporter's racism and right-wing policies towards minorities in Israel is beyond hilarious. Minorities in Israel have been and continue to be subjected to racist and supremacist policies (much worse than anything Trump supporters can even imagine) by the Zionists since the theft of Palestinian's land in 1948. The Israelis are not just pursuing racist policies but as Israeli historian Ilan Pappe said, they are committing slow motion genocide against the Palestinians.

[Aug 18, 2017] Stephen Bannon Out at the White House After Turbulent Run

Now whom Trump represents? GS and military industrial complex ?
Aug 18, 2017 | www.msn.com

"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said in a statement. "We are grateful for his service and wish him the best."

... ... ...

On Tuesday at Trump Tower in New York, Mr. Trump refused to guarantee Mr. Bannon's job security but defended him as "not a racist" and "a friend." "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," Mr. Trump said. Mr. Bannon's dismissal followed an Aug. 16 interview he initiated with a writer with whom he had never spoken, with the progressive publication The American Prospect.

In it, Mr. Bannon mockingly played down the American military threat to North Korea as nonsensical: "Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that 10 million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." He also bad-mouthed his colleagues in the Trump administration, vowed to oust a diplomat at the State Department and mocked officials as "wetting themselves" over the consequences of radically changing trade policy.

Of the far right, he said, "These guys are a collection of clowns," and he called it a "fringe element" of "losers." "We gotta help crush it," he said in the interview, which people close to Mr. Bannon said he believed was off the record. Privately, several White House officials said that Mr. Bannon appeared to be provoking Mr. Trump and that they did not see how the president could keep him on after the interview was published.

[Aug 18, 2017] Trump betrayed his antiglobalism agenda when he elevated the roles of Gary D. Cohn, his top economic policy adviser and a former official at Goldman Sachs, and Dina Powell, a former Bush administration official who also worked on Wall Street

Notable quotes:
"... Mr. Bannon had been aligned with Mr. Kelly's predecessor, Reince Priebus, who was forced out in late July. More significantly, Mr. Bannon has been in a battle with Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, since the spring ..."
"... Mr. Bannon, whose campaign against "globalists" was a hallmark of his tenure steering the right-wing website Breitbart.com, and Mr. Kushner had been allies throughout the transition process and through the beginning of the administration. ..."
"... But their alliance ruptured as Mr. Trump elevated the roles of Gary D. Cohn, his top economic policy adviser and a former official at Goldman Sachs, and Dina Powell, a former Bush administration official who also worked on Wall Street... ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.msn.com

"We gotta help crush it," he said in the interview, which people close to Mr. Bannon said he believed was off the record.

Mr. Bannon's departure was long rumored in Washington. The president's new chief of staff, John F. Kelly , a retired Marine Corps general who was brought on for his ability to organize a chaotic staff, was said to have grown weary of the chief strategist's long-running feud with Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser.

Mr. Bannon had been aligned with Mr. Kelly's predecessor, Reince Priebus, who was forced out in late July. More significantly, Mr. Bannon has been in a battle with Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, since the spring.

Mr. Bannon, whose campaign against "globalists" was a hallmark of his tenure steering the right-wing website Breitbart.com, and Mr. Kushner had been allies throughout the transition process and through the beginning of the administration.

But their alliance ruptured as Mr. Trump elevated the roles of Gary D. Cohn, his top economic policy adviser and a former official at Goldman Sachs, and Dina Powell, a former Bush administration official who also worked on Wall Street...

[Aug 18, 2017] I'm somewhat surprised that Peter Escpbar did not mention the Western supplied chemical weapon components recently captured by the SAA and prominently displayed by Russia's Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affair s-- news kept out by Charlottesville

Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 11:36:28 AM | 88

Speaking of Grownups, Pepe Escobar recaps the recent exploits of Moqtada al-Sadr and provides a peek at the 2018 Iraqi elections. Pepe then segues into Syria and its Chinese connection.

I'm somewhat surprised he didn't mention the Western supplied chemical weapon components recently captured by the SAA and prominently displayed by Russia's Ministries of Defense and Foreign Affair s-- news kept out by Charlottesville.

http://www.atimes.com/article/winners-post-daesh-era/ and https://sputniknews.com/politics/201708181056581304-syria-us-uk-toxic-agents/

[Aug 18, 2017] Russia-gate Hoax About To Be Exposed by Justin Raimondo

Aug 18, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Julian Assange has the evidence – but will he reveal it?

There's an exciting new development in the "Russia-gate" investigation, one that has the potential to blast apart what is arguably the biggest hoax in the history of American politics.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) has met with Julian Assange – the first US congressman to do so – and returned with some spectacular news:. The Hill reports :

"Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year's election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks in the near future."

Assange has maintained all along that the Russians had nothing to do with procuring the DNC/Podesta emails, despite the intelligence community's assertions – offered without evidence – that Vladimir Putin personally approved the alleged "hack." Yet credible challenges to this view have emerged in recent days, including from a group of former intelligence officials, that throw considerable doubt on the idea that there was even a "hack" to begin with. "Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents," says The Hill ,

"Rohrabacher said he had information to share privately with President Trump. 'Julian also indicated that he is open to further discussions regarding specific information about the DNC email incident that is currently unknown to the public,' he said."

What this looks like is an attempt by Assange to negotiate with the US government over his current status as a political prisoner: he has been confined to the Ecuadorian embassy in London for many years. Hanging over him is the threat of arrest should he leave and his rendition to the United States to face charges. Could he be making a bid for freedom, offering to provide evidence of how he got his hands on the DNC/Podesta emails in exchange for a pardon?

Rohrabacher, who has a history as a libertarian fellow traveler, has been the target of a smear campaign due to his unwillingness to go along with the Russophobic hysteria that's all the rage in Washington, D.C. these days. Politico attacked him in a piece calling him "Putin's favorite congressman," and "news" accounts of this meeting with Assange invariably mention his "pro-Russian" views – as if a desire to get along with Russia is in itself somehow "subversive."

It's a brave stance to take when even the ostensibly libertarian and anti-interventionist Cato Institute has jumped on the hate-on-Russia bandwagon. Cato cut their ties to former Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus because he refused to accept the War Party's line on the US-sponsored Ukrainian coup that overthrew the country's democratically elected chief of state. But it gets worse. Here 's Cato senior fellow Andrei Illarionov saying we are already at war with Russia:

"First of all, it is necessary to understand that this is a war. This is not a joke, this is not an accident, this is not a mistake, this is not a bad dream. It will not go away by itself. This is a war. As in any war, you either win or lose. And it is up to you what choice you will make."

And it's not just a cold war: the conflict must, says Illarionov, contain a military element:

"First, in purely military area, it is quite clear that victory in this war cannot be achieved without serious adjustments made to the existing military doctrine. Certainly, soft power is wonderful, but by itself it does not deter the use of force."

While the rest of the country is going about its business with nary a thought about Russia, in Washington the craziness is pandemic. Which is why Democratic National Committee spokeswoman Adrienne Watson felt safe vomiting up the usual bile in response to Rohrabacher's initiative: "We'll take the word of the US intelligence community over Julian Assange and Putin's favorite Congressman."

The power of groupthink inside the Washington Beltway has energized both the neo-cold warrior hysterics – epitomized by the imposition of yet more sanctions -- and the "Russia-gate" hoax to the point where it is unthinkable for anyone to challenge either. Yet Rohrabacher, whom I don't always agree with, has the balls to stand up to both, and for that he should be supported.

Assange has stubbornly resisted revealing anything about the provenance of the DNC/Podesta emails, allowing the CIA/NSA to claim that it was the Russians who "hacked the election," and also giving them a free hand to smear WikiLeaks as an instrument of the Kremlin. This meeting with Rohrabacher, and the promise of revelations to come, indicate that he is reconsidering his stance – and that we are on the verge of seeing "Russia-gate" definitively debunked.

We here at Antiwar.com have challenged the "mainstream" media's wholesale swallowing of the government's line from the very beginning. That's because there hasn't been one iota of solid proof for blaming the Russians, or even for the assertion that the DNC was "hacked." We don't accept government pronouncements at face value: indeed, we don't accept the "conventional wisdom" at face value, either. We always ask the question: " Where's the evidence? "

[Aug 18, 2017] The Corporate fascist - with grains of salt - USA. The democracy part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the organised/fake elections, to attempt some kind of readjustement - renewal - reset...

Ethnic nationalism rises when the state and the nation experience economic difficulties. Weimar republic is a classic example here.
Notable quotes:
"... That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft. ..."
"... The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility. ..."
"... Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out. ..."
"... "In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes." ..."
"... Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm. ..."
"... The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk ..."
"... The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating à vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Tay | Aug 18, 2017 6:56:05 AM | 82

The US has no problem generating wealth, and has no need to force conflict with China. The US's problem is that that wealth is funneled upwards. Wealth inequality is not a meme. "Shrinking middle class" is a euphemism for downward-mobility of the middle class, an historical incubator for Reaction. And that's what we have here, reactionaries from a middle class background who now are earning less than their parents at menial jobs, or who are unemployed, becoming goons; aping the klan, appropriating nazi icons, blaming the foreigner, the negro, the Jew, the Muslim, for their circumstances. A "trade war" will not help them one iota, it will make their lives worse, and Bannon will go out and say it's the fault of the foreigner and the immigrant, their numbers wool swell. More terror, depper culture wars. I suppose that's nationalism to some people.

Grieved | Aug 18, 2017 9:51:21 AM | 83

@82 Tay

That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft.

The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility.

Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out.

Since we're looking for the grown-ups, let's turn to Vladimir Putin, always reliable for sanity when direction is lost.

Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.

-- Putin reminds that "patriotism drastically differs from nationalism"

somebody | Aug 18, 2017 11:00:25 AM | 86
83
Upward mobility has fallen sharply
"In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes."

Interventions worth considering include universal preschool and greater access to public universities, increasing the minimum wage, and offering vouchers to help families with kids move from poor neighborhoods into areas with better schools and more resources, they said.

Is there any political party or group in the US that suggests this?

Noirette | Aug 18, 2017 11:56:04 AM | 90
The Corporate "fascist" - with grains of salt - USA. The 'democracy' part is fiction, camouflaged via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others.. the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger who broke thru the \organised/ fake elections, to attempt some kind of re-adjustement - renewal - re-set - review...

Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm.

Heh, the profits of domination are to be organised, extracted and distributed, differently. One Mafia-type tribe taking over from another! Ivanka will be The Sweet First Woman Prezzie! Style, Heart, Love, Looks! Go!

The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk, so they are activating all - anything to attack. The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating à vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc.

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon goes as the military takes over the Trump administration by Alexander Mercouris

Notable quotes:
"... Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one. ..."
"... Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense. ..."
"... Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual. ..."
"... n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills. ..."
"... The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland. ..."
"... I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it. ..."
"... As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration. ..."
"... In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway. ..."
"... The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise. ..."
"... The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | theduran.com

The announcement of the 'resignation' of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon represents the culmination of a process which began with the equally forced 'resignation' of President Trump's first National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn.

Individuals who were close to Donald Trump during his successful election campaign and who largely framed its terms – people like Bannon and Flynn – have been picked off one by one.

Taking their place is a strange coalition of former generals and former businessmen of essentially conventional Republican conservative views, which is cemented around three former generals who between them now have the levers of powers in their hands: General Kelly, the President's new Chief of Staff, General H.R. McMaster, his National Security Adviser, and General Mattis, the Secretary of Defense.

In the case of Bannon, it is his clear that his ousting was insisted on by General Kelly, who is continuing to tighten his control of the White House.

Bannon's removal – not coincidentally – has come at the same time that General H.R. McMaster is completing his purge of the remaining Flynn holdovers on the staff of the National Security Council.

Bannon's removal does not just remove from the White House a cunning political strategist. It also removes the one senior official in the Trump administration who had any pretensions to be an ideologist and an intellectual.

I n saying I should say that I for one do not rate Bannon as an ideologist and intellectual too highly. Whilst there can be no doubt of Bannon's media and campaigning skills, his ideological positions seem to me a mishmash of ideas – some more leftist than rightist – rather than a coherent platform. I also happen to think that his actual influence on the President has been hugely exaggerated. Since the inauguration I have not seen much evidence either of Bannon's supposed influence on the President or of his famed political skills.

Bannon is sometimes credited as being the author of the President's two travel ban Executive Orders. I am sure this wrong. The Executive Orders clearly originate with the wishes of the President himself. If Bannon did have any role in them – which is possible – it would have been secondary to the President's own. I would add that in that case Bannon must take some of the blame for the disastrously incompetent execution of the first of these two Executive Orders, which set the scene for the legal challenges that followed.

The only occasion where it did seem to me that Bannon exercised real influence was in shaping the text of the speech the President delivered during his recent trip to Poland.

I have already made known my views of this speech . I think it was badly judged – managing to annoy both the Germans and the Russians at the same time – mistaken in many of its points, and the President has derived no political benefit from it.

However it is the closest thing to an ideological statement the President has made since he took office, and Bannon is widely believed – probably rightly – to have written it.

As for Bannon's alleged political skills, he has completely failed to shield the President from the Russiagate scandal and appears to me to have done little or nothing to hold the President's electoral base together, with Bannon having been almost invisible since the inauguration.

In view of Bannon's ineffectiveness since the inauguration I doubt that his removal will make any difference to the Trump administration's policies or to the support the President still has from his electoral base, most of whose members are unlikely to know much about Bannon anyway.

It is in a completely different respect – one wholly independent of President Trump's success or failure as President – that the events of the last few weeks give cause for serious concern.

The events of the last year highlight the extent to which the US is in deep political crisis.

The US's core electorate is becoming increasingly alienated from its political class; elements of the security services are openly operating independently of political control, and are working in alliance with sections of the Congress and the media – both now also widely despised – to bring down a constitutionally elected President, who they in turn despise.

All this is happening at the same time that there is growing criticism of the economic institutions of the US government, which since the 2008 financial crisis have seemed to side with a wealthy and unprincipled minority against the interests of the majority.

The only institution of the US state that still seems to be functioning as normal, and which appears to have retained a measure of public respect and support, is the military, which politically speaking seems increasingly to be calling the shots.

It is striking that the only officials President Trump can nominate to senior positions who do not immediately run into bitter opposition have been – apart from General Flynn, who was a special case – senior soldiers.

Now the military in the persons of Kelly, McMaster and Mattis find themselves at the heart of the US government to an extent that has never been true before in US history, even during the Presidencies of former military men like Andrew Jackson, Ulysses Grant or Dwight Eisenhower.

The last time that happened in a major Western nation – that the civilian institutions of the state had become so dysfunctional that the military as the only functioning institution left ended up dominating the nation's government and deciding the nation's policies – was in Germany in the lead up to the First World War.

Time will show what the results will be this time, but the German example is hardly a reassuring one.

[Aug 18, 2017] Pentagon took over White house: The firing of Bannon leaves the Generals without an opposing view. They will no longer be contradicted

Bannon does not have a well defined economic policy. And he was a suspected leaker. For a former military officer he also have pretty lose lips (which tend to sink ships) and penchant for self-promotion as we later discovered from Wolff's book
Notable quotes:
"... Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/ ..."
"... US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity." ..."
"... We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow. ..."
"... Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera. ..."
"... Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality. ..."
"... The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes. ..."
"... Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Are we a step closer to War?

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:19:23 PM | 97

Well, with Bannon gone who will have most influence over Trump now? Will the rest of the Alt-Righters stay at the White House? Hhhmmm...

Meanwhile, while the MCM (mainstream corporate media) is unable to focus on more that one or two things, Trump has signed an executive order which will have real work consequences as sea levels rise. Under Obama, a rule was developed to require infrastructure projects to consider the effects of global warming on flooding, effects of storms, etc. Now, developers are free to build what and where they want, with no consideration for the possible damage which might destroy those projects in the future.

Throw-away society on a grand --and expensive-- scale.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-scrap-rule-protect-094700052.html

Oh, my. Things ought to be interesting in DC in the near future. Dangerous all over in the long run.

jawbone | Aug 18, 2017 2:20:53 PM | 98
Oops. Real work consequences should have been real world consequences. Preview is a good tool to use....
karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:29:00 PM | 99
Presumably, Bannon's mouth ( American Prospect interview) got him fired -- requested to resign -- at the instigation of Chief of Staff Gen. Kelly, with it being spun nicely: "Kelly and Bannon "have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day," White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. 'We are grateful for his service and wish him the best.'" https://www.rt.com/usa/400175-trump-fires-bannon-strategist/

Now it appears that Trump's completely surrounded by the former generals he appointed--a different version of Seven Days in May? Or is it the fantastical number of contradictions finally coming home to roost as The Saker seems to think, http://thesaker.is/the-neocons-are-pushing-the-usa-and-the-rest-of-the-world-towards-a-dangerous-crisis/

When Trump got elected, I thought the best outcome would be total gridlock in DC; and in some ways, that's what's occurred. Yet, as The Saker points out, something's afoot if the propaganda published by Newsweek--which is owned by Bezos--is any indication.

It's Friday. The Syrian Army is making huge gains. Congress is in recess. And the weather forecast for Monday's eclipse here on the Oregon coast is looking positive--no fog!

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 2:37:52 PM | 100 previous page
Yeah jawbone, it's a good tool. I should've used it prior to my comment being grabbed by the spambot. Al Gore's opined Trump should resign, indicating he favors Pence, which send s what sort of message given the context Gore opined? https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/18/al-gore-has-just-one-small-bit-advice-trump-resign As most barflys know, Pence is far worse on most things than Trump. Did Gore just out himself as a previously closeted Neocon?
Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 2:40:58 PM | 101
Another "grown up"?:

Mattis to back Kiev's claim to Crimea during Ukraine visit

US Defense Secretary James Mattis will visit Ukraine next week and reassure the government in Kiev that the US still considers Crimea a part of the country's territory, the Pentagon said. Mattis will tell Kiev the US is "firmly committed to the goal of restoring Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

fastfreddy | Aug 18, 2017 2:42:16 PM | 102
Manifest Destiny and Religious Zealotry (extremism) were manifested in recent history by America's Great Leaders. Here's General Boykin:

You know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his [about Muslims in Somalia]. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.

Many other quotes here:

http://www.azquotes.com/author/39645-William_G_Boykin

Greg M | Aug 18, 2017 2:55:25 PM | 103
@96, I view this as part of an effort to push back against anti Iran pro Israel hard liners. First with Flynn, then McMaster forcing out Flynn allies, and now Bannon. Not that McMaster and his people are not pro Israel or possess any redeeming qualities, but it is important to understand that Bannon and those in his circle are NOT anti interventionists.
@Madderhatter67 | Aug 18, 2017 3:21:06 PM | 104
Thirdeye & Fastfreddy

Thirdeye "The third eye is a mystical and esoteric concept of a speculative invisible eye which provides perception beyond ordinary sight." Wikipedia ;)

This is a good read. Especially for Thirdeye blind.

Pardon Me! High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump By Tom Engelhardt

Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were the planet's indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of ours.

We were the sole superpower, Earth's hyperpower, its designated global sheriff, the architect of our planetary future. After five centuries of great power rivalries, in the wake of a two-superpower world that, amid the threat of nuclear annihilation, seemed to last forever and a day (even if it didn't quite make it 50 years), the United States was the ultimate survivor, the victor of victors, the last of the last. It stood triumphantly at the end of history. In a lottery that had lasted since Europe's wooden ships first broke out of a periphery of Eurasia and began to colonize much of the planet, the United States was the chosen one, the country that would leave every imperial world-maker from the Romans to the British in its shadow.

Who could doubt that this was now our world in a coming American century beyond compare?

And then, of course, came the attacks of 9/11................ The rest below.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/

Anonymous | Aug 18, 2017 3:34:25 PM | 105
Greg D

You couldnt be more wrong: Bannon, Flynn etcetera was actually quite sane compared to the other neocon, deep state figures coming in, go figure why these people had to go - think also why someone like Mattis DONT have to go and is loved by the media, deep state etcetera.

karlof1 | Aug 18, 2017 3:37:18 PM | 106
@Madderhatter67 @104--

Engelhardt still doesn't understand that 911 was supposed to (and did) solidify the justification for the expansion of The American Century since we now made our own rules and reality.

smuks | Aug 18, 2017 6:50:43 PM | 107
Nah...don't quite agree on this one. The Bannon interview is fascinating, but don't forget that he's a strategist: He says what he thinks will serve his purpose, not necessarily what he believes.

Now he's gone, whether for good time will tell. And Trump is looking rather isolated. If he feels his position becomes too complicated or even untenable, he might do 'stupid stuff' - and as I mentioned earlier, this may be just what the Neocons want: With the US decline accelerating both internally and globally, 'war' may seem the last option to them. But of course, they don't want the blame - they want to be able to say 'see, we told you he's crazy, but you didn't listen.' Difficult times.

[Aug 18, 2017] What Bannon s exit might mean the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism

To a certain extent Bannon symbolized backlash against neoliberal globalization, that is mounting in the USA. With him gone Trump is a really emasculated and become a puppet of generals, who are the only allies left capable to run the show. Some of them are real neocons. What a betrayal of voters who are sick and tired of wars for expansion and protection of global neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit. ..."
"... The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies). ..."
"... Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away. ..."
"... So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt. ..."
"... with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

Christopher H. , August 18, 2017 at 01:24 PM

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/whither-Trump_vs_deep_state/

Whither Trump_vs_deep_state?

by Paul Krugman

AUGUST 18, 2017 1:48 PM

Everyone seems to be reporting that Steve Bannon is out. I have no insights about the palace intrigue; and anyone who thinks Trump will become "presidential" now is an idiot. In particular, I very much doubt that the influence of white supremacists and neo-Nazis will wane.

What Bannon's exit might mean, however, is the end of even the pretense that Trumpist economic policy is anything different from standard Republicanism -- and I think giving up the pretense matters, at least a bit.

The basics of the U.S. economic debate are really very simple. The federal government, as often noted, is an insurance company with an army: aside from defense, its spending is dominated by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (plus some ACA subsidies).

Conservatives always claim that they want to make government smaller. But that means cutting these programs -- and what we know now, after the repeal debacle, is that people like all these programs, even the means-tested programs like Medicaid. Obama paid a large temporary price for making Medicaid/ACA bigger, paid for with taxes on the wealthy, but now that it's in place, voters hate the idea of taking it away.

So what's a tax-cutter to do? His agenda is fundamentally unpopular; how can it be sold?

One long-standing answer is to muddy the waters, and make elections about white resentment. That's been the strategy since Nixon, and Trump turned the dial up to 11. And they've won a lot of elections -- but never had the political capital to reverse the welfare state.

Another strategy is to invoke voodoo: to claim that taxes can be cut without spending cuts, because miracles will happen. That has sometimes worked as a political strategy, but overall it seems to have lost its punch. Kansas is a cautionary tale; and under Obama federal taxes on the top 1 percent basically went back up to pre-Reagan levels.

So what did Trump seem to offer that was new? First, during the campaign he combined racist appeals with claims that he wouldn't cut the safety net. This sounded as if he was offering a kind of herrenvolk welfare state: all the benefits you expect, but only for your kind of people.

Second, he offered economic nationalism: we were going to beat up on the Chinese, the Mexicans, somebody, make the Europeans pay tribute for defense, and that would provide the money for so much winning, you'd get tired of winning. Economic nonsense, but some voters believed it.

Where are we now? The herrenvolk welfare state never materialized, in part because Trump is too lazy to understand policy at all, and outsourced health care to the usual suspects. So Trumpcare turned out to be the same old Republican thing: slash benefits for the vulnerable to cut taxes for the rich. And it was desperately unpopular.

Meanwhile, things have moved very slowly on the economic nationalism front -- partly because a bit of reality struck, as export industries realized what was at stake and retailers and others balked at the notion of new import taxes. But also, there were very few actual voices for that policy with Trump's ear -- mainly Bannon, as far as I can tell.

So if Bannon is out, what's left? It's just reverse Robin Hood with extra racism. On real policy, in other words, Trump is now bankrupt.

But he does have the racism thing. And my prediction is that with Bannon and economic nationalism gone, he will eventually double down on that part even more. If anything, Trump_vs_deep_state is going to get even uglier, and Trump even less presidential (if such a thing is possible) now that he has fewer people pushing for trade wars.

[Aug 18, 2017] Steve Bannon s work is done. Donald Trump doesn t need him now

Notable quotes:
"... Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class. ..."
"... There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns. ..."
"... The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be. ..."
"... People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there. ..."
"... "In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now. ..."
"... I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer ..."
"... With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times... ..."
"... The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one. ..."
"... Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:16

Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.

So a billionaire like Trump, with Bannon's aid, does whatever he can to focus the disatisfaction of the population on people who have a different skin colour, rather than the vastly rich elites who have grabbed such a massive share of US wealth and power - and demand yet more

joey2000 -> jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:29

There's more to it than that. Its true that the white working class in America are the only group that the media feels it is acceptable to insult/denigrate. What was it Obama said - People in small towns clinging on to their religion & guns.

Must have gone down really well in those rustbelt towns where everyone is on oxycontin out of sheer despair. But hey, they're only rednecks so who cares right ?

JerHig -> jessthecrip , 18 Aug 2017 09:36

Tragic that so many in the US don't seem able to see that the problem is gross economic inequality in their country, regardless of race. But divide and rule still works well for the ruling class.

Exactly, it's all about creating a group you can point to and say "at least you're not as bad off as them!"

When your entire existence is predicated on 'at least I'm not the worst off' it becomes frightening when those who were previously 'worse off' start improving. But instead of improving themselves they try and bring the others down again.

MattSpanner -> Isomewhatagree , 18 Aug 2017 09:34

That's what I don't get about the Nazis who turned up in Charlottsville: they chanted "Jews will not replace us" and also "we're going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump". How can Nazis believe Trump is on their side when his daughter is married to a Jew? There are so many contradictions in this situation that I can't get my head around it.

asparagusnextleft -> MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:40

It's simple. They're fucking idiots.

Fwaffy -> BrokenLogic , 18 Aug 2017 09:34

It's remarkable isn't it, the man appears to be visibly decomposing. It's been suggested that the statue of Robert E Lee was his penultimate Horcrux.

MattSpanner -> Fwaffy , 18 Aug 2017 09:49

He looks like an alchy.

therebythegrace -> MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 10:13

Or Dorian Gray's picture. Maybe the more evil Trump gets, the worse Bannon looks?

Ravenblade -> Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 10:35

Someone has to lose out in a redistribution of anything, be it political power or wealth. I mention the white middle classes because they tend to the the keyboard warriors refusing to tackle the insecurities and concerns of the white working class, and simply resorting to calling them racist.

The white middle class has to walk the walk with respect of social justice. Due to the economics of it, multiculturalism has affected the working classes far more than the middle classes. As I say, I'm prepared for the consequences personally, but I wonder how many others would be.

Agree with your latter point and I'm sensitive to the fact that within class groups, minorities and women remain disadvantaged; I'm not saying we don't continue to look at that. But realistically, on an economic level, you're not going to get white working class men accepting that middle class minorities or women are disadvantaged compared to them, are you? The only reason this distinction doesn't seem to happen (class lines) is because most of the SJW contingent suddenly have to check an aspect of privilege they're unkeen to pay attention to.

tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:27

People may underestimate the populist element in Bannon's make up. As Scaramucci tells it, both he and Bannon had white middle class fathers who had played with a straight bat and had their retirement savings wiped out in 2008 and all that, while the fat cats were saved by Uncle Sam. Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.

As to Bannon still in the job, I think LBJ's story about tents and which way the piss goes applies.

Bjerkley -> tamborineman , 18 Aug 2017 09:31

Maybe a story just for the telling, but it is out there.

As others have noted, given that both of them worked in finance/had some background in finance, it's odd that their fathers lost savings which could have been avoided (Bannon's father, for instance, only lost out because he sold his stock but it regained its value shortly afterwards, i.e. it was a bad financial decision). But as you say, its out there.

KeithNJ -> Bjerkley , 18 Aug 2017 09:54

Indeed. If you held on through the crash you now have double the money you had in 2007.

There are some pretty basic retirement rules (60/40 equity to bonds or less, keep 2 years in cash) which if anyone followed would have resulted in no pain from the crash, just some anxiety.

If he got greedy, had 100% in equities and sold at the bottom of the market because he had not kept a cash cushion - well he cannot blame the Chinese for that.

Of course he was bitter before his son became a billionaire, but to still be bitter is more about character than the economy.

MattSpanner , 18 Aug 2017 09:28

"In Bannon's view, we are in the midst of an existential war, and everything is a part of that conflict. Treaties must be torn up, enemies named, culture changed. Global conflagration, should it occur, would only prove the theory correct. For Bannon, the Fourth Turning has arrived. The Grey Champion, a messianic strongman figure, may have already emerged. The apocalypse is now.

"What we are witnessing," Bannon told The Washington Post last month, "is the birth of a new political order.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-bannon-apocalypse_us_5898f02ee4b040613138a951

...and along comes N.Korea and makes all Bannon's dreams come true.


richmanchester
-> MattSpanner
, 18 Aug 2017 09:34

Though in Bannon's last interview he explicitly stated there was no military option available wrt North Korea.

Dwaina Tembreull -> userforaday , 18 Aug 2017 09:54

An interesting interpretation of his behavior. I got the strong sense that Trump was hunkered down defensively and baring his teeth like a feral dog trapped in a corner.

ID4524057 , 18 Aug 2017 17:49

" and it has forged an indefatigable core of support that will stay with Trump through the next general election and beyond."

Except that atavistic and uneducated people can and will change their sense of allegiance on a dime or a whim and given the fact that Trump is not an ideologue but rather an unstable pathological narcissist and a bigot (versus espousing a coherent racist plan of action because he has a particular ideological agenda) there is no way to effectively predict what his actions will echo in that part of his base and therefore no way to predict what his base will do if Trump is untethered from Bannon. Trump is as likely to make a boneheaded deal with China that pleases Wall Street as he is to accidentally start a war. He is as likely to break his support as he is to cement it.

As Christopher Hitchens said:

"A feature, not just of the age of the end of ideology, but of the age immediately preceding the age of the end of ideology, is that of the dictator who has no ideology at all."

Trump is not Mussolini or Franco in that he is not a true believer though he is a bigot and clearly dictatorial. Trump is all expediency first and faith second even if he has consistently been a racist.

The second problematic issue is that if you assert that Axelrod and Rove "achieved" anything of lasting consequence then Axelrod could not have followed Rove and Bannon could not have followed Axelrod.

Unlike in France where the president serves far longer the reelection cycle here with its utterly corrupt need to raise massive amounts of cash which then forces candidates to constantly be in race mode (and effectively reduces the period of actual governance to around 18 months) has created a perpetually unstable and ineffective bureaucracy that has more in common with late Ottoman inefficiency than it does with a contemporary "modern" state.

With the exception of the military which at this point is a state unto itself the government is a paradox of being both omnipresent and nowhere and thus truly Kafkaesque...utterly opaque and completely visible at all times...

Further, there is this: "There's another reason why firing Bannon wouldn't be a huge loss: his work is largely done."

In fact, Trump has achieved nothing and done nothing of lasting change to the bureaucracy. In a sense it is analogous to the situation with North Korea where, despite Trump's pale Strangelove imitation it was noted in the media that the military had made no changes to its posture.

... ... ...

jmad357 , 18 Aug 2017 17:53

The only time I have ever agreed with Bannon is that his analysis of the potential for N Korea to destroy S Korea with an artillery barrage. With about 12,000 artillery prices the North could launch somewhere around 50,000 shells per minute into Soul. Do the arithmetic for a 10 minute shelling. Any grandstanding by the US military is simply folly.

MasMaz , 18 Aug 2017 17:59

The left's focus on identity politics is the reason this Bannon chump is relevant at all. The switch in focus from class to race and gender has segmented the working class from the common struggle. A people divided. This is about the only strategic fact Bannon understands. But it is an important one.

Identity politics at its core is mostly untenable and while it might treat the symptoms of disease in the short run it will always collapse under the weight of its internal inconsistencies. The blind squirrel Bannon has found his nut. Continuing to assert that poor white men have it made is demonstrably false and offensive. And gives the alt-right plenty of tools to recruit.

[Aug 18, 2017] Nomenklatura was an internal contradiction that doomed the USSR

Notable quotes:
"... Kotz and Weir's "Russia's Path From Gorbachev to Putin" is decent as an explanation. ..."
"... To sum it up, laws in 1986-87 effectively criminalized the 'command departments' of the Central Committee in planning policy through Gosplan, Gossnab, and Gosbank. A national market was encouraged by individual activity laws, joint stock laws, cooperative laws, and the directive banning the federal monopoly on inter-state trade in 1988. ..."
"... Out of this top-down 'reform,' a minority of Soviet Enterprises began mimicking capitalist infrastructure: managers, directors, and ministers (of companies and banks) granting themselves larger wages or salaries, using the surpluses to buy up and monopolize the stocks and infrastructure of competing companies, using artificial resale of (monopolized) local goods or exclusively selling natural resources to Western clients, tripling the profits for a minority of private households. ..."
"... This nascent middle class used this newfound profit to privatize Soviet media, effectively monopolizing it by the end of the decade, shifting the narratives of Soviet society, bribing politicians to convince the Soviet population that 'market reform' wasn't total privatization of resources, stocks, and companies, and 'Russian autonomy' wasn't succession from the Union (neutral European Polls found clear majorities in the original nine Soviet Republics continued to support democratic socialism, social democracy, and preserving the Union in 1991). Political crisis, like the Moscow coup in August of 1991, was used to manipulate the passive public in accepting fundamental change. ..."
"... The Soviet Union effectively repeated the Yugoslav model: self-governed, democratically managed, or autonomous companies (and later republics) 'fairly competing' in an unregulated or semi-regulated national market. Both models produced middle classes pushing for the acceptance of IMF credits, total privatization of any state companies to repay Western debts, and seceding from a Union of socialist states. ..."
"... Fair competition in a 'socialist' market is a myth. ..."
Aug 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 4:59:14 PM | 62

@52

I remember reading Shahak's translation of Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" and seeing other articles in the Zionist collection arguing nuclear war was the ideological core of Marxism-Leninism, implying the Soviet Politburo and Soviet society would never accept reform without it.

Do you think 'ideological readings' of foreign policy are always the best interpretation?

@Madderhatter67 | Aug 17, 2017 4:25:43 PM | 59

Stonebird

The Soviet Union collapsed because of its internal contradictions. Not due to overspending.

stonebird | Aug 17, 2017 4:45:30 PM | 61

Thirdeye @56.

Gently is the name of the game. The whole "movement" is probably based on a long-term scenario. The Chinese think along those lines. So OK they won't blow the house down, but they will move in incremental steps. It might take generations to fully exploit the gap left by the US loosing influence.

"Save the US"? Maybe, if they can gain something in exchange - but it won't be cash.

Madderhatter67 @59
That was one of them, and another would have been the "rise" of the Nomenklatura (with only one million card-carrying voters). Which just shows that an "elite", when in power, simply won't look after anyone but themselves.

I presume that is what you meant by "internal contradictions", - having an unaccountable elite in a supposedly socialist/egalitarian country. But it was for their egos that they overspent on the immediately visble - and not on the infrastructure needed to keep the country going.
(Tut tut, doesn't that remind you of somewhere?)

@Madderhatter67 | Aug 17, 2017 5:21:58 PM | 63

Stonebird

Nomenklatura was an internal contradiction.

"Some Marxists, such as Ernest Mandel, have criticised Djilas and the theory of state capitalism: "The hypothesis that the Soviet bureaucracy is a new ruling class does not correspond to a serious analysis of the real development and the real contradictions of Soviet society and economy in the last fifty years."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura#Criticism

&

"The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System is a political theory book by communist Yugoslav figure and intellectual Milovan Đilas about the concept of the new class.[1][2] He proposed that the party-state officials formed a class which "uses, enjoys and disposes of nationalised property".[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Class:_An_Analysis_of_the_Communist_System

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 5:28:18 PM | 65

@59

@61

It is an apologist work for Khrushchevite and Gorbachevite ideology, but Kotz and Weir's "Russia's Path From Gorbachev to Putin" is decent as an explanation.

The rate of Soviet GNP was uneven, but not consistently negative until after the successions of Russia and the separation of Soviet Republics from the Union.

To sum it up, laws in 1986-87 effectively criminalized the 'command departments' of the Central Committee in planning policy through Gosplan, Gossnab, and Gosbank. A national market was encouraged by individual activity laws, joint stock laws, cooperative laws, and the directive banning the federal monopoly on inter-state trade in 1988.

Out of this top-down 'reform,' a minority of Soviet Enterprises began mimicking capitalist infrastructure: managers, directors, and ministers (of companies and banks) granting themselves larger wages or salaries, using the surpluses to buy up and monopolize the stocks and infrastructure of competing companies, using artificial resale of (monopolized) local goods or exclusively selling natural resources to Western clients, tripling the profits for a minority of private households.

This nascent middle class used this newfound profit to privatize Soviet media, effectively monopolizing it by the end of the decade, shifting the narratives of Soviet society, bribing politicians to convince the Soviet population that 'market reform' wasn't total privatization of resources, stocks, and companies, and 'Russian autonomy' wasn't succession from the Union (neutral European Polls found clear majorities in the original nine Soviet Republics continued to support democratic socialism, social democracy, and preserving the Union in 1991). Political crisis, like the Moscow coup in August of 1991, was used to manipulate the passive public in accepting fundamental change.

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 5:40:53 PM | 66
@63

While I come from a Yugoslav family, I have far less sympathy for market socialist ideology. I've never understood the romanticism so many Westerners have always had for the Old Country. Mind you, I'm not including you in this.

The Soviet Union effectively repeated the Yugoslav model: self-governed, democratically managed, or autonomous companies (and later republics) 'fairly competing' in an unregulated or semi-regulated national market. Both models produced middle classes pushing for the acceptance of IMF credits, total privatization of any state companies to repay Western debts, and seceding from a Union of socialist states.

Fair competition in a 'socialist' market is a myth.

[Aug 17, 2017] Guam rejoices!

Notable quotes:
"... The war of words increased, and then decreased, NOBODY BLINKED, all players decided that hey do not want to get China upset by being the first idiot to act in a war like manner. ..."
"... Red cloud i agree with you and below is a quote by Pat Buchanan showing that the U.S does not seem too interested in dealing with the very real consequences of attacking N.K. ..."
"... There are clearly discussions going on in the background. The US would never admit to negotiating with North Korea, but most of the reason for their petulance is constant muscle flexing by the Americans and South Koreans. They probably ought to just relax. I doubt the US and South Korea would ever launch an attack. There's nothing to be gained from it on any level. ..."
"... Additionally the (very short) planting and harvesting seasons demand a peak of labor force - the military units are ordered to help their local communities in these. Readiness requirements during South Korean/U.S. maneuvers collide with these needs. ..."
"... That is the argument North Korea officially makes to justify its nuclear program. It is intended to replace the too costly conventional deterrence and free up labor force. ..."
"... Didn't China force them both to blink? My reading of the China statement was that China would defend NK if NK was attacked - with the implication that it would NOT help NK if NK were the aggressor. ..."
"... China's position makes each side wary of being deemed to be the aggressor. ..."
"... Looks like the real behind the seen negotiations that cooled both sides, was rightfully between China and US. Doing Stuff in South China Sea, ends of having proxies thirteen our stuff. I think what Henry Kissinger said about Iran is better fit and applied on US, He said "US (Iran) needs to decide if it wants to be a nation or a cause" sounds like a lot of people in the world are not accepting the post 9/11 formatted US. Like Henry said they see us as a cause and not a nation, ..."
Aug 15, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Guam rejoices! Guamjoy

"North Korean leader Kim Jong Un reviewed his military's plans to rain "an enveloping fire" around the U.S. territory of Guam -- but opted not to fire missiles at this time, according to state media. Despite the stand-down, some Guamanians were alarmed after two radio stations aired an erroneous emergency alert Tuesday.

Kim visited the Korean People's Army as the self-imposed mid-August deadline for a missile demonstration approached, the Korean Central News Agency reports. But after hearing the plan and considering it, Kim opted not to give the order to launch missiles, but instead "would watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees," the report says." NPR

---------------

It was not an IO. It was real and Trump/Mattis won. The fat kid blinked. pl

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/15/543603140/north-korea-says-it-wont-fire-missiles-at-guam-after-all

Posted at 10:02 AM in Korea Permalink

Reblog (0) Comments

BillWade , 15 August 2017 at 10:26 AM

I never thought Kim's Ace in the Hole was his nukes but more his DMZ forces/artillery.
Perhaps one of his generals told him it would be wise to keep it around for more than 72 hours.
b , 15 August 2017 at 10:27 AM
I vehemently disagree with you.

The announcement of the possible plan to launch towards Guam was conditional. It demanded that the U.S. stop B1-B flights out of Guam over South Korea near the North Korean border.

Since the announcement was made no B1-B flights near NoKo took place. Thus the temporary suspension of the plan. This suspension includes the explicit warning that it can or will be changed into action should the U.S. return to such action.

/quote/
He said that the U.S. imperialists caught the noose around their necks due to their reckless military confrontation racket, adding that he would watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct of the Yankees spending a hard time of every minute of their miserable lot.
...
In order to defuse the tensions and prevent the dangerous military conflict on the Korean peninsula, it is necessary for the U.S. to make a proper option first and show it through action, as it committed provocations after introducing huge nuclear strategic equipment into the vicinity of the peninsula , he said, adding that the U.S. should stop at once arrogant provocations against the DPRK and unilateral demands and not provoke it any longer./endquote/
https://kcnawatch.co/newstream/1502749950-753062439/kim-jong-un-inspects-kpa-strategic-force-command/

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 11:14 AM
b

(irony alert) I know, I know, evil America against the world. pl

Red Cloud , 15 August 2017 at 11:21 AM
Trump threatened "fire and fury" if North Korea continued with threats. NK promptly threatened to incinerate Guam.

What was Trump's response? "Uh..... what I meant was......"

Trump blinked first. Fact

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 11:26 AM
Red Cloud

Oh BS. North Korea threatened the US and has decided to think about it. pl

Norbert M Salamon , 15 August 2017 at 11:45 AM
With great respect Colonel:

The USA has threatened North Korea for years, and caused untold economic damage via sanctions.

The war of words increased, and then decreased, NOBODY BLINKED, all players decided that hey do not want to get China upset by being the first idiot to act in a war like manner.

BillWade -> b ... , 15 August 2017 at 11:45 AM
Laughing here. how many minutes away do you think our tactical air forces at Kunsan and Osan are away from doing enough damage to NoKor to make them think twice and think hard?
Bsox327 , 15 August 2017 at 11:55 AM
Red cloud i agree with you and below is a quote by Pat Buchanan showing that the U.S does not seem too interested in dealing with the very real consequences of attacking N.K.

'assuming this crisis is resolved, what does the future of U.S.-North Korean relations look like?

consider the past.

In 1968, North Korea hijacked the USS Pueblo on the high seas and interned its crew. LBJ did nothing. In April 1969, North Korea shot down an EC-121, 100 miles of its coast, killing the crew. Nixon did nothing.

Under Jimmy Carter, North Koreans axe-murdered U.S. soldiers at Panmunjom. We defiantly cut down a nearby tree.

Among the atrocities the North has perpetrated are plots to assassinate President Park Chung-hee in the 1960s and '70s, the Rangoon bombing that wiped out much of the cabinet of Chun Doo-hwan in 1983, and the bombing of Korean Air Flight 858, killing all on board in 1987.

And Kim Jong Un has murdered his uncle and brother.

If the past is prologue, and it has proven to be, the future holds this. A renewal of ICBM tests until a missile is perfected. Occasional atrocities creating crises between the U.S. and North Korea. America being repeatedly dragged to the brink of a war we do not want'

The North Koreans are at the very least as intransigent and possibly way more as Fidel Castro was in his confrontations with the U.S

FourthAndLong , 15 August 2017 at 12:10 PM
Colonel,

The article at the link below, titled "The Secret of North Korea's ICBM success", is a worthy read IMO. OUtlines many pitfalls and unknowns, including unforeseen perils of sanction regimes. Suitable for a lay audience:

http://www.iiss.org/en/iiss%20voices/blogsections/iiss-voices-2017-adeb/august-2b48/north-korea-icbm-success-3abb

More readily accessible, however mildly inflammatory, is this piece from The NY Times which links to the iss piece:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/asia/north-korea-missiles-ukraine-factory.html?

FWIW, the Yuzhmash company has posted on its website emphatic disagreement with some of the latter articles' inferences.

My own takeaway is that it all underlines the monumental stupidity of our post 1991 Russia policy. George Keenan and more recently Jack Matlock have gone on record very strenuously in this regard.

The author of the iss piece, Michael Elleman, concludes that room for diplomacy remains but is diminishing rapidly.

DJK , 15 August 2017 at 01:02 PM
Maybe the fat boy blinked and Trump/Mattis won or maybe there was hidden deal, or the hint of a deal. I'm reminded of the events of 1962 when it was said that Kruschev blinked and Kennedy/Rusk won. The fact that there was a deal to remove US missiles from Turkey didn't emerge for several years.
Richardstevenhack , 15 August 2017 at 03:01 PM
I suspect both interpretations are probably true: 1) Kim may have interpreted the recent suspension of B-1 flights in light of the ongoing back-channel diplomacy as a win for his side, and 2) his generals probably convinced him it was not a smart idea to launch missiles very close to a US base, if for no other reason than his unguided missiles might actually HIT the base, starting the war he really doesn't want.

In any event, nothing has otherwise changed. The expectation is that NK will continue to test their missiles until the US is prepared to open bilateral negotiations or at least negotiations including Russia and China, who have proposed them.

Since the US is steadfast against talking to NK, I continue to expect war by the end of the year, since NK missile launches will likely not stop.

The only diplomatic solution to the crisis is known to everyone, except apparently Trump. Whether Kim can be persuaded to accept it will be remain unknown until the US actually agrees to talk about it.

b , 15 August 2017 at 03:09 PM
@Pat - this does not have to do with good or bad America. It has to do with negotiations and with under standing the signaling of the opponents side.

Take the bluster away from the North Korean statements and read what is left as conditions and consequences.

Here Cheryl Rofer took the original announcement of the Guam test apart. https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/north-korea-reaches-out/
/quote/

I contend that the North Korean statement issued in response to Donald Trump's "fire and fury" threat contains an invitation to negotiations. As is often the case, that invitation is not stated as such. Diplomacy guards such invitations so that nobody loses face when they don't work.
...(textual analysis)...

In simpler words, stop threatening us with bombers from Guam and we won't attack Guam.

Quid pro quo.

It reeks of blackmail, but that is how North Korea negotiates. If we want negotiations, rather than war, it would be smart to respond to the offer to negotiate. That doesn't necessarily mean ending the B1B overflights, although my adventurous side says, hey, why not?
/endquote/

Since August 9 six B1-B are at Guam but have not flown towards North Korea.

https://www.postguam.com/news/local/six-b--bombers-arrive-from-south-dakota/article_c12e3f5e-7cda-11e7-ad48-737a61ecfb7d.html

Thus the suspension of the North Korean "test".

To see this as a NoKo capitulation to Trump's bluster is the wrong take. It will likely prevent you to correctly judge the next steps in the negotiation process.

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 04:09 PM
b

Our air flights over S Korea did not threaten anyone unless North Korea wished to force us to give up our alliance with South Korea. We have not given up anything. The fat boy has given up his threat to try to hit Guam. Where is a statement that the US and South Korea will not hold Combined exercises this month? pl

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 04:12 PM
richardstevenhack

Guam is not just a US "Base." The inhabitants of the island are US citizens and the island is sovereign US territory as much as a state is. pl

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 04:27 PM
b and all who think NOKO won the confrontation,
I will believe that is true when the US and South Korea call off their big exercise without conditions. On the other hand if negotiations begin for re-unifications of Korea without pre-conditions then everyone won. pl
Fredw , 15 August 2017 at 04:43 PM
Or maybe not. The message North Korea sent to the world seems pretty clear, but there seems to be some notion that they may be too delusional to realize that. Sure enough. Personalities matter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/15/north-korea-guam-strike-pause-donald-trump-negotiations

Many longstanding observers of the North Korean regime expressed concern that the US could misinterpret the message that it sent on Monday when Kim said he would "watch a little more" how the US acted in the region before deciding whether to go ahead with a plan to launch missiles over Japan aimed at the seas around the US territory of Guam.

In some of the US media, that statement was portrayed as a withdrawal of the Guam plan in the face of threats of overwhelming retaliatory force from Donald Trump and US defence secretary James Mattis.

That would be the wrong way to read the signs, said Vipin Narang, an associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology specialising in nuclear strategy.

"I think people are not reading the statement," Narang said. "This is literally restating the threat and leaving space for some quid pro quo and space for negotiation.

"But the threat remains. It's not like he took the threat off the table. If the US does anything that he sees as provocative, he has reviewed the plan and now stands poised to execute it," Narang added.

turcopolier , 15 August 2017 at 04:46 PM
fredw

IMO if NoKo fires into the sea around Guam NoKo will cease to exist. The Russians and Chinese would not lift a finger to save NoKo. pl

kao_hsien_chih -> Fredw... , 15 August 2017 at 05:11 PM
Fredw,

I don't think anything ever actually "ends" for good until and unless one of the parties to the "negotiations" disappears completely, and even then, it may not actually end.

The immediate crisis does seem to have ended, though. There is a limit to which even NoKo's can ratchet up the pressure. Once you get to the Pearl Harbor stage, which dropping missiles around Guam would have been, there is no more "negotiations." NoKo's still have much by means of threatening assets and they will try to use them, no doubt, but now everyone knows where the limit is, and that is a good thing. I don't oppose giving them some concessions, for the right price, but not carte blanche to demand more whenever they feel like it and threaten to throw a crazy tantrum if they don't get their way.

eakens -> turcopolier ... , 15 August 2017 at 05:17 PM
I also believe this is exactly right. Many on here have indicated that they have been a rational actor in the face of US belligerence. If one believes that, then it should be accepted that suicide is not an option for them, particularly against an enemy which will undoubtedly suicide even if North Korea were able to get a couple hits in.

Hopefully this is in fact the crescendo from which the parties can begin to deescalate the situation, and try finding an alternate path to resolving this conflict. NoKo has a lot to offer by giving up the nuclear threat they have been able to put together, and if they are a rational actor like many claim, they will take advantage of the situation and use it to negotiate a good deal.

AriusArmenian , 15 August 2017 at 05:19 PM
If you think that Kim blinked then the US should blink more often instead of rushing into wars and creating chaos as was done in Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, and Syria.

I also expect more from you than calling Kim a fat kid.

Seamus Padraig , 15 August 2017 at 05:37 PM
Pyong Yang and Washington have been playing these games for decades. Only the liberal MSM seriously entertained the idea that this was going to erupt into a full-blown war, because ... Trump. Neither side has any interest in a war, and legend to contrary, both Trump and the Norks are rational actors, as are the Chinese.
BillWade , 15 August 2017 at 06:05 PM
I imagine it goes something like this: We hold our exercises with our allies on a schedule that is convenient for us. In all the years we've been holding these exercises we have never attacked NK, the reason we haven't attacked is not because they are ready for us, it's because we choose not to, their rice planting season is or is not a concern to us. Their decision to how best use their military is or is not a concern to us. However, when they threaten us we do listen. We may make a show of force in response or we may not. We may not know all their nuclear capabilities or we may know every last detail, their decisions are theirs but they might consider erring on the side of caution. They have decided now on caution.

BSox mentions all the times NoKor has provoked us. That we haven't responded with overwhelming force during those times is a sign of our strength. Perhaps one of those events is when we decided it was now more convenient for us to hold exercises at a less convenient time for NoKor, who knows - I don't.

Kim might launch another missile, that's his decision. We might make him toast before he does that, or while he does it, or after he does it, or not at all. I don't know, B doesn't know, but most importantly, Kim doesn't know.

BillWade , 15 August 2017 at 06:22 PM
B, don't you recognize that rice farming is for rice farmers and not GIs, you make us look bad with that propaganda.
Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg , 15 August 2017 at 06:26 PM
There are clearly discussions going on in the background. The US would never admit to negotiating with North Korea, but most of the reason for their petulance is constant muscle flexing by the Americans and South Koreans. They probably ought to just relax. I doubt the US and South Korea would ever launch an attack. There's nothing to be gained from it on any level.
TonyL , 15 August 2017 at 08:26 PM
IMHO, both Trump and Kim blinked. Perhaps Kim has been waiting for any gesture that allow him to stop the planned missile launch. Perhaps Trump has realized it is foolish and unnecessary to proceed with the B1-B missions (the US-South Korean military exercise is still a more important show of force).

They both came out of this potential crisis as loosers. And Trump certainly had gotten us close to the brink of WW3/nuclear war with his exchanges of childish rhetorics with Kim.

SAC Brat , 15 August 2017 at 08:47 PM
Anyone have Sergey Lavrov's travel or phone logs? He was in SE Asia last week.
A. Pols , 15 August 2017 at 08:51 PM
Maybe the whole Guam thing was just a head fake and the NOKOs were just engaging in a bit of trolling. After all, if you threaten to do something you have no actual intention of doing, then pretend to back down, what is that other than a prank? More and more we live in a world of hoaxes.

But what do you all think the latest information about the transfer by Ukrainian interests of RD250 engines to NOKO? The story has the appearance of plausibility and, if true, sure is cause for some awkwardness...

Yeah, Right -> BillWade... , 15 August 2017 at 11:16 PM
BillWade,
The old James Bond dictum springs to mind: once is an accident, twice is happenstance, and three times is.... war.

To decide if those exercises is deliberately timed to be harmful to North Korean rice production we would need to know:
a) How long is the NK rice harvest season?
b) What reasons make it uniquely advantageous for the USA/SK to conduct exercises during that same period, year in and year out.

I don't doubt that nobody wants to get out of bed in the harsh Korean winter to much up the hill and down again. Sure. But I doubt that the North Koreans have given a guarantee that they'll only attack during the summer months, and it'll all be over by Xmas.

That strikes me as the main difficulty with claiming happenstance i.e. of necessity the North Koreans can't change when the rice needs to be harvested, but the USA/SK should be varying the timing of their military exercises.

After all, what if the GIs only find out after the shooting starts that their guns don't work in the cold?

Yeah, Right -> turcopolier ... , 16 August 2017 at 05:02 AM
No, never heard of it. Though it sounds like something that should be advertised on porn sites.

But the point I made still holds true: military exercises on the Korean peninsular shouldn't just be held in the same month year in, year out. Doing so presupposes a gentleman's agreement about when any war is going to be fought.

And I assume everyone here accepts that such a gentleman's agreement has not been struck with the North Koreans?

b -> FourthAndLong... , 16 August 2017 at 05:25 AM
Elleman speculated wrongly. And the NYT (Sanger) used that to engage in the usual anti-Russian propaganda.

The North Korean missile motor has one combustion chamber the regular R-250 has two. The outer appearance has similarities with R-250 but is not identical.
North Korea has the capability to develop and manufacture these themselves. Like everyone else they copied parts of existing designs.
Three new piece today seem to confirm what several experts (countering Elleman) said yesterday:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1AV2CK
North Korea likely can make missile engines without imports: U.S.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-believes-north-korea-produces-its-own-rocket-engines-1502849211?mod=e2twa
U.S. Believes North Korea Produces Its Own Rocket Engines

http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/north-koreas-new-high-performance-missile-engines-likely-werent-made-in-russia-or-ukraine/
North Korea's New High-Performance Missile Engines Likely Weren't Made in Russia or Ukraine

b -> turcopolier ... , 16 August 2017 at 05:45 AM
The U.S. uses B1-B flights to "threaten" North Korea and "in response" to North Korean testing. These flights are marketed as special "show of force". They are not routine.

It did so last September:
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2016/09/22/b1-b-flew-close-to-north-korean-border-u-s-says/
/quote/
The United States often sends powerful warplanes to South Korea in times of heightened animosity between the Koreas, but it is still unusual for such aircraft to fly near the rivals' border, the world's most heavily fortified.
...
U.S. Pacific Command said on its website Wednesday that the flight was the closest a B-1 has ever flown to the border.
/endquote/

It did so recently:
https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/us-sends-b-1b-bombers-in-show-of-force-after-north-korean-icbm-test-1.477208#.WZQTZrjVpnQ
US sends B-1B bombers in show of force after North Korean ICBM test

b -> BillWade... , 16 August 2017 at 06:04 AM
The North Korean army mostly feeds itself. Many military facilities have fields nearby and the soldiers are engaged in agriculture as well as other types of production (Songun policy).

Additionally the (very short) planting and harvesting seasons demand a peak of labor force - the military units are ordered to help their local communities in these. Readiness requirements during South Korean/U.S. maneuvers collide with these needs.

That is the argument North Korea officially makes to justify its nuclear program. It is intended to replace the too costly conventional deterrence and free up labor force.

You may disagree with that argument but you will have to admit that it is coherent and somewhat reasonable.

Old Microbiologist , 16 August 2017 at 08:24 AM
Some good points here: http://theweek.com/articles/570764/time-military-leave-south-korea
Greco -> Norbert M Salamon... , 16 August 2017 at 09:06 AM
The US-led sanctions aside, this is a country that employs millions into slave labor and practices total political control over its society. Is this a place where anyone would want to trade goods? Sanctions or no sanctions, I wouldn't want anything out of this God forsaken hellhole.

And if nobody blinked, then why is Kim now suggesting he won't strike near or at a US territory like he said he had planned? Clearly he has thought things over and has balked. And I don't see where the US has blinked. Trump responded threat for threat, backing down from none, while at the same time he has shown a ready eagerness for a peaceful solution to ending North Korea's nuclear ambitious.

This is a positive development. And Kim will be more careful to avoid making similar threats he can't back up going forward.

Fred -> Yeah, Right... , 16 August 2017 at 09:24 AM
Yeah, Right,

How many decades has North Korea had to diversify its industrial base so that it can build its own tractors and thus free up all that manpower from harvesting rice every year when they know, just know, that the evil South and those American allies are going to rush across the DMZ?

Greco -> b ... , 16 August 2017 at 09:44 AM
I respectfully disagree with their position and on the matter of whether they're indeed reasonable.

We don't know if Kim is a nihilist. He's under enormous pressure to maintain control. He may see things as all or nothing for him and that he won't care if he takes millions of others down with him.

And even if assuming he's acting on totally reasonable mertis now, who's to say how reasonable he will be in the future if we allow him to become more emboldened. Ten years from now he may very well fall out of power and someone more dangerous may assume his place.

This is a problem that has been allowed to fester to a point that may soon be no longer acceptable. If North Korea gets a pass now, they and others will become emboldened and act in a manner that is even more egregious and reckless.

I find their position unacceptable. I find their system of governance reprehensible. And we ultimately endanger ourselves if we fail to meet the challenge of confronting them on the strongest of terms.

Could more have been done to discourage where we stand now? Perhaps, but we're here now and we need to force North Korea's weaker hand and get them to back down. This administration has a shown willingness to do that and I think they will succeed in getting North Korea to abandon their plans for a nuclear deterrent while ensuring a tentative, if not lasting peace. That is assuming Kim Jung-Un is a rational and reasonable actor as some may have done well to argue.

Jackrabbit , 16 August 2017 at 09:49 AM
Didn't China force them both to blink? My reading of the China statement was that China would defend NK if NK was attacked - with the implication that it would NOT help NK if NK were the aggressor.
Jackrabbit -> Jackrabbit ... , 16 August 2017 at 10:51 AM
China's position makes each side wary of being deemed to be the aggressor.
ISL , 16 August 2017 at 11:33 AM
Dear Colonel,

A third possibility (of which I have no evidence) is that NoKo looked at their test data and realized there is a technical flaw that requires fixing to avoid a high probability of an embarrassing prang. I would not assess this as low probability, but definitely not zero.

dilbert dogbert , 16 August 2017 at 11:49 AM
Too bad he blinked. Those missiles would have made good and cheap target practice. I assume we have the national technical means to recover the stages of the missiles and find out where the technology came from.
dilbert dogbert -> Greco... , 16 August 2017 at 12:05 PM
"I find their position unacceptable. I find their system of governance reprehensible. And we ultimately endanger ourselves if we fail to meet the challenge of confronting them on the strongest of terms."

This was advocated during the Cold War. Fortunately we chose "Containment" and a nuclear exchange with the USSR was avoided. I remember JFK, Khrushchev and Cuba and it was a close thing. I don't want to relive that experience in my declining years.

Bandolero -> turcopolier ... , 16 August 2017 at 12:11 PM
turcopolier

I think it's win-win: both Trump and Kim won.

Trump can credibly claim that his "tough talk" was effective in deterring Kim from launching missiles close to Guam. And Kim can credibly claim that he established the DPRK as a new nuclear weapon power.

SmoothieX12 , 16 August 2017 at 02:39 PM
Fat Thing blinked--that much is clear. He may have been "helped" in blinking by China and Russia, who is second to China in NoKo policies--that is how China goes, Russia follows on this issue. Nobody involved needs any trouble in the neighborhood. With or without American rhetoric it has to be remembered that it was Kim Il Sung who unleashed the war in 1950. Three times he pressed Stalin for support, two times he was refused, on the third Stalin surrendered. We all know the rest. Has to be stated, though, that there were no nice people on both (South and North) sides then--mostly SOBs in political top.
Freudenschade , 16 August 2017 at 02:45 PM
Col.,

The US and the two Koreas have long been in a Mutual Assured Destruction love triangle. The US just got pulled a little more into the center of the bed, that's all.

Kooshy , 16 August 2017 at 03:03 PM
Looks like the real behind the seen negotiations that cooled both sides, was rightfully between China and US. Doing Stuff in South China Sea, ends of having proxies thirteen our stuff. I think what Henry Kissinger said about Iran is better fit and applied on US, He said "US (Iran) needs to decide if it wants to be a nation or a cause" sounds like a lot of people in the world are not accepting the post 9/11 formatted US. Like Henry said they see us as a cause and not a nation,

U.S., China Sign Military Agreement To Improve On Communication

http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2017/08/15/531909/China US Fang Dunford agreement direct communication

b -> Greco... , 16 August 2017 at 03:29 PM
The same arguments were made over China and the Soviet Union.
Deterrence policy won with regard to the Soviet Union and to China. It will also be the policy towards North Korea.

Besides - it is too late now to preempt North Korea. It is a full fledged nuclear weapon state. Get over it.

b , 16 August 2017 at 03:38 PM
Those who think that B-1B were not the issue at hand over which the recent (secret) negotiations were made should read the NBC piece below which was published on August 9.

The B1-B flights were clearly test runs for a preemptive strike and/or decapitation strike. No wonder North Korea disliked and countered them.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/b-1-bombers-key-u-s-plan-strike-north-korean-n791221
B-1 Bombers Key to a U.S. Plan to Strike North Korean Missile Sites
/quote/
The Pentagon has prepared a specific plan for a preemptive strike on North Korea's missile sites should President Trump order such an attack.

Two senior military officials -- and two senior retired officers -- told NBC News that key to the plan would be a B-1B heavy bomber attack originating from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.

Pairs of B-1s have conducted 11 practice runs of a similar mission since the end of May, the last taking place on Monday. The training has accelerated since May, according to officials.
...
/endquote/

North Korea knew this and wanted to end it. Thus the Guam "test" threat and the negotiation offer discussed above. The U.S. agreed to stop the B-1B flights and North Korea put the "test" on hold.

No side lost face. No side won or lost. After building confidence over this issue both are now ready to discuss the less urgent stuff.

BillWade , 16 August 2017 at 04:26 PM
"Kim Jong Un of North Korea made a very wise and well reasoned decision," Trump wrote on Twitter.

"The alternative would have been both catastrophic and unacceptable!"

Joint US-SK exercises in 5 days.

jonst -> b ... , 16 August 2017 at 04:31 PM
and you figure the audience, 'the world', is going to notice these nuances you allege?

[Aug 17, 2017] Grown-ups Versus Ideologues The Media Narrative of the White House May Be All Wrong

Notable quotes:
"... McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just became one . Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades. Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all. ..."
"... Compare that to Steve Bannon's take on the issue: ..."
"... "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been in power. ..."
"... "Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires." ..."
"... Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly. ..."
"... All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing "realist" about his foreign policy. ..."
"... @12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together. ..."
Aug 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The Democrats and the media love the Pentagon generals in the White House. They are the "grown ups":

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., had words of praise for Donald Trump's new pick for national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster -- calling the respected military officer a "certified, card-carrying grown-up,"

According to the main-stream narrative the "grown ups" are opposed by " ideologues " around Trump's senior advisor Steve Bannon. Bannon is even infectious, according to Jeet Heer, as he is Turning Trump Into an Ethno-Nationalist Ideologue . A recent short interview with Bannon dispels that narrative.

Who is really the sane person on, say, North Korea?

The "grown-up" General McMaster, Trump's National Security Advisor, is not one of them. He claims North Korea is not deterrable from doing something insane.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But your predecessor Susan Rice wrote this week that the U.S. could tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea the same way we tolerated nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union far more during the Cold War. Is she right?

MCMASTER: No, she's not right. And I think the reason she's not right is that the classical deterrence theory, how does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea? A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a continuous threat to the its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction?

McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just became one . Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades. Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all.

Compare that to Steve Bannon's take on the issue:

"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."

It was indeed the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which "got" the United States and stopped the U.S. escalation game. It is wrong to think that North Korea "backed off" in the recent upheaval about a missile test targeted next to Guam. It was the U.S. that pulled back from threatening behavior.

Since the end of May the U.S. military trained extensively for decapitation and "preemptive" strikes on North Korea:

Two senior military officials -- and two senior retired officers -- told NBC News that key to the plan would be a B-1B heavy bomber attack originating from Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.
...
Of the 11 B-1 practice runs since the end of May, four have also involved practice bombing at military ranges in South Korea and Australia.

In response to the B-1B flights North Korea published plans to launch a missile salvo next to the U.S. island of Guam from where those planes started. The announcement included a hidden offer to stop the test if the U.S. would refrain from further B-1B flights. A deal was made during secret negotiations . Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea suspended its Guam test plans. McMaster lost and the sane people, including Steve Bannon, won.

But what about Bannon's "ethno-nationalist" ideology? Isn't he responsible for the right-wing nutters of Charlottesville conflict? Isn't he one of them?

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

Bannon sees China as an economic enemy and wants to escalate an economic conflict with it. He is said to be against the nuclear deal with Iran. The generals in Trump's cabinet are all anti-Iran hawks. As Bannon now turns out to be a realist on North Korea, I am not sure what real position on Iran is.

Domestically Bannon is pulling the Democrats into the very trap I had several times warned against:

"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."

This worked well during the presidential election and might continue to work for Trump. As long as the Democrats do not come up with, and fight for, sane economic polices they will continue to lose elections. The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that bathroom. They are interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They are unlikely to get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it.

Posted by b on August 16, 2017 at 11:51 PM | Permalink

Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM | 1

A couple of very interesting links from the last thread were the one to the Bannon article, and also the link to the Carter/NK article.

Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have read this is a cultural thing t hat predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior. Many pictures of Kim show an overweight youngster amongst gaunt hungry looking generals. Gave the impression of a spoilt kid simply handed power. Not going to the May 9 parade in Russia when invited also gave the impression he was paranoid.

But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been in power.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.

The link to the Carter article http://www.fox5atlanta.com/national-news/273096065-story

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:22:28 AM | 2
b said: "The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that bathroom. They are interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They are unlikely to get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it."

With that statement b, you nailed it..

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 1:32:51 AM | 3
"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us."

Doesn't that at least show Bannon as the adult in the room?
I would say so.

psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 1:53:13 AM | 4
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.

Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution, Mercantilism and planned economies.

Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers", Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect domestic steel production.

Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one possible scenario.

At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let the side taking by nations begin. I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global power shifting and the US loses its empire status.

psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5
I thought that maybe Bannon was being a bit too forthright in his recent comments and perhaps he has just painted a big bullseye on his back for the racist clowns he has used to aim at. Check this out: Bannons colleagues disturbed by interview with left wing publication
Copeland | Aug 17, 2017 2:30:36 AM | 6
Bannon thinks the bombast on display between the Kim and Trump has been "a sideshow". The real show, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the dramatic sparring between the two leaders. The Mother Of All Policies, according to Bannon, is an all-bets-on trade war with China, whose endgame admits to only one outcome,--that is to say-- that only one hegemon will remain standing at the end of this struggle.

There can be only one King-of-the-Hill. But where is the Greek Chorus?--the prophetic warning that goes by the name of necessity?-- that tries to ward off hubris? "One must never subscribe to absurdities" (it was Camus who aptly said that).

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 2:39:11 AM | 7
psychohistorian | Aug 17, 2017 2:19:03 AM | 5

I had read this before; interesting to say the least.
Truth be told, I'd never heard of Bannon prior to Trumps election and still know little about him.
Politics aside Bannon seems a straight shooter; I certainly can't argue his statement re: what would happen if we attacked NK. His statement is echo'd by many long before today.
I do plan to start paying attention from this point forward.
Oh, and I did read that Trump is afraid of Bannon, but don't remember the reason stated.

Realist | Aug 17, 2017 3:18:01 AM | 8
Here is Bannon's latest:

Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant:

"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.

Bannon is no friend of White Nationalists.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 4:49:34 AM | 12
No, whoever planned that "United Right" rally walked Trump into the trap.

As Trump was incapable to disassociate himself clearly from people who protest against the take down of a statue of General Lee. Trump now owns the race issue.

Steve Bannon is a fascist . That does not mean he is stupid.

The generals are clearly dangerous. They have the power to walk everybody to world war III. Trump has pledged to spend even more on the US military, the military already has the highest spending world wide. The generals don't want to admit that they cannot solve anythings by military power.

Trump going off script in that press conference into a stream of consciousness was bad. He reminded everybody of their rambling demented great-grandfather. He tried to get the discussion to economic issues, he did not succeed.

Veterans Today is a dubious source, but this here sounds genuine Washington behind the mirrors

In stepped more lies and garbage, this time more fake than the other, with chaos theory and psychological warfare organizations drowning in capabilities from the overfunded phony war on terror and too much time on their hands now lending their useless talents toward disinforming the general public.

The result has been a divided US where "alternative facts" fabricated for a vulnerable demographic now competes with the "mainstream" now termed, and I believe rightly so, "fake news" to support different versions of a fictional narrative that resembles reality only in the most rarified and oblique manner.
...

America has left itself open to dictatorship. It long since gave up its ability to govern itself, perhaps it was the central bank, the Federal Reserve in 1913 or more recent erosions of individual power such as the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2005. Whatever milestone one chooses, the remains of democratic institutions in the US are now difficult to find.

What we are left with is what increasingly seems to be factions, mistakenly defined as "right" or "far right" jockeying for control over America's military, and with that, control over the planet itself.

You see, whoever controls the American military controls the world, unless a power bloc appears that can challenge, well, challenge what? If the Pentagon controls America's military and the Pentagon is controlled by a cabal of religious extremists as many claim or corporate lackeys as most believe, then where does the world stand?

Then again, if Trump and his own Republican congress are at war over impeachment, and I assure you, little else is discussed in Washington, two sides of the same coin, servants of different masters, has all oversite of the newfound military power over American policy disappeared?

To this, we reluctantly say "yes."

Clueless Joe | Aug 17, 2017 5:24:06 AM | 13
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by biases on others - him wanting total economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the regime. I mean, even Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.

Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to pick someone who's more realist than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for him.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 6:16:13 AM | 14
There is something to that interview by Steve Bannon with a left wing website .
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump's election were "Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.

The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.

I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's base.

He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it: "Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."

Explanation a) He wants to explain the climbdown of his boss on North Korea.
Not really helpful to Trump.

b) He wants to save his reputation as the association with the KKK and White Suprematists has become toxic.

Checking on what Breitbart is doing - splitting the Republican Party

A trade war with China would mean prices in the US would become very expensive. It is a fool's strategy.

In other news Iran is threatening to leave the nuclear agreement, and Latin America unites against the US threatening Venezuela with war.

The generals are completely useless.

fairleft | Aug 17, 2017 6:35:17 AM | 15
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well, not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s.
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:51:35 AM | 16
psychohistorian a
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM | 17
psychohistorian at 4: 'as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting...'

as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in the world

V. Arnold | Aug 17, 2017 7:43:30 AM | 18
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM | 17
as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in the world

Very good; and I agree with your POV; the usa can not run out of dollars.
And therein lies its power; a very dangerous situation that I do not think the world is equipped to deal with in toto...

steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and his Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses. Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

It appears that as a purely nominal Republican, an owner in a hostile takeover, Trump has no qualms about trashing the system. Practically speaking, this is the very opposite of draining the swamp, which requires effective leadership.

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 8:51:55 AM | 20
Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have read this is a cultural thing that predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior.

But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM | 1

OR, looked at another way:

Perhaps the gurning wunderkind Kim's ascent to the North Korean Throne was completely predictable and was predicted a long time ago, and plans were set in motion to ensure that he was co-opted as a kid, and now works with the US to help counter the rising Chinese power.

Perhaps the alleged face-off Trump, Kim and the western MSM treated the world to over the past while, was merely nothing but a pre-scripted choreographic display, a piece of theater agreed upon beforehand by all participants except China

I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong Un and Trump actually play for the same side.

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 8:59:31 AM | 21
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, i

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19

Actually as far as I can tell the real political swindlers are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that a US Presidential election is, (and has been for nearly whole time the US has been in existence, which is more than 200 years for those who have problems keeping track of such simple matters) decided NOT by the popular vote but by the results of the Electoral College voting.

Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

Again, just to repeat the actual reality regarding US Presidential elections: They are decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the popular vote, as political swindlers would now like everyone to believe.

Thegenius | Aug 17, 2017 9:08:56 AM | 22
Economics PhDs are resisting the only thing that can actully cause higher inflation rate: trade war
somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM | 23
19

He is doubling down now defending General Lee statues as beautiful. He is doing the same strategy as he did in his duel with Hillary Clinton when everybody thought he was insane, playing to his core Republican base to make sure Republicans have to stay in line or face a primary challenge.

Breitbart is doing the same threatening "Republican traitors".

The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular, because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a woman.

But Republicans who have to pretend they are religious right wing nuts in the primaries, then have to appeal to independents to win the actual election.

So they cannot go against Trump but cannot defend him. They are paralysed.

That what it comes down to. That the main aim of the president of the United States is to paralyze the party he hijacked.


somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:58:52 AM | 24
add to 23

Breitbart has gone full culture wars. It is comical, have a look.

john | Aug 17, 2017 10:26:02 AM | 25
Just Sayin' says:

They are decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the popular vote, as political swindlers would now like everyone to believe

indeed, though, speaking of political swindlers, there's mucho evidence that Trump may have won the popular vote as well.

likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:32:06 AM | 26
Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19

Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and his Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses. Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.

Have you read the Constitution of the USA? The Electoral College elects the President by the rank and file voters electing the Electors to the College on November election day. That's how the system works.

Ask Al Gore; he won the popular vote.

Oh and btw, the Hillary won the popular 2016 vote meme. Take a look at Detroit, MI heavy Democrats' precints - more votes than voters - and the millions of illegal aliens' vote in California who voted after the invite of Obama.

WJ | Aug 17, 2017 10:50:13 AM | 27
Trump won the election. Period. End of story. Done. Finished. Get over it and get on with your life. He didn't compete to win the popular vote. He competed and campaigned to win the election. Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman who is corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 10:56:25 AM | 29
The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular, because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a woman.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM | 23

Nope - first part of the sentence is correct but the rest of is just you, as usual, repeating crap you found on the Internet and then repeating it here pretending it is profound and that you actually understand what you are talking about, which you clearly don't as evidenced by the fact that you then go on to reference Nate Silver whose fame was never anything but media created hype with little or nothing to back it up.

Silver's feet of clay were evident long before the latest Prez election. It became obvious that his alleged electoral statistical prowess rested as much on luck as anything else. Lucky in prediction when it came to the 2008 election but by 2010 things started to go wrong but the media ignored his feet of clay and kept hyping him as a stats genius.

By the time 2016 rolled round Silver was exposed for the lucky fraud he is.

The real truth of Hillarys inability to win lies not in her being female as you and many others disingenuously (at best) try to claim, but simply lies in the fact that she is a thoroughly unpleasant person with a complete lack of charisma and a massive sense of entitlement.

Blacks and others, minorities generally and independents, who came out in droves for the Obama elections simply refused to go and vote for her.

The Republican vote however changed very little - pretty much the exact same demographic voted republican as voted for Romney.

Trump won partly because of Clintons massive hubris in refusing to campaign in several key states. Cambridge analytical were not required to give him the win, no matter what you read, without analysing it, elsewhere on the web and are now repeating here in an effort to pretend you know what you are talking about.

CA probably helped somewhat but it unlikely that they were central to the win. Clintons hubris and her complete lack of charisma, ensured low black/minority/independent for her in key states, especially those where she had refused to even bother to campaign, which was enough to seal the win for Trump

You simply repeating crap you heard on the net and pretending that if you say it in an authoritative fashion it will magically become true, just ends up making you look completely clueless, as usual. (or dishonest)

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM | 30
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through Breitbart. Suggested you read his world view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute, Vatican Conference 2014

Posted by: likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:51:54 AM | 28

Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,

RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 11:21:24 AM | 32
US politics is a great big clusterfeck - worse than ever, which is hard to believe. Bannon's big liar. He did heaps to create this very situation with the White Supremacists. Of course the Democrats are worse than useless. All they're doing is presenting themselves as "We're not Trump" and whining about Putin. All of them are clowns. Every last one. Including the so-called "Generals." Worthless.
Pnyx | Aug 17, 2017 11:27:14 AM | 33
"Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea suspended its Guam test plans."
but: "Yesterday (...) two US B-1 strategic bombers, operating with Japanese fighter jets, conducted exercises to the southwest of the Korean Peninsula." says WSWS. ?
james | Aug 17, 2017 12:32:00 PM | 37
@2 ben.. i agree!

everything about the usa today is divisive... i can't imagine the usa being happy if this didn't continue until it's demise..the 2 party system hasn't worked out very well as i see it.. failed experiment basically.. oh well..

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 12:51:38 PM | 39
@19

If I remember correctly, wasn't it both the President Elect and the Republican Congressmen who won clear majorities in nearly 80 percent of congressional districts? Presuming an issue like the gerrymandering of districts wasn't significant, that's a far more legitimate victory than an extra million Democrats voting in California (determining the future of national policy). I'm not a fan of the Republicans, but denying the short term efficiency of 'populist rhetoric' isn't helping the left win any substantial electoral victories in the future.

Morongobill | Aug 17, 2017 1:03:36 PM | 40
Good Lord. Can't people read anymore? The election is all about the EC. Keep talking and running for the popular vote, and Trump will keep winning the Electoral College. You either want to win or you don't. I hope you keep preaching the popular vote personally.
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 1:06:52 PM | 41
@ Just Sayin' 30

I won't give you a pass. Your bias and lack of intelligence is on great display.


No pass for little ol me? Aw shucks, I'm heart broken.

The fact that you think Bannon&Trump are going to do anything about Wall Street and the Banking System in general is quite amusing.

Perhaps you could list a few of Bannon&Trumps anti Wall Street achievements or initiatives since Trump took office?

It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both Bannon & Trump certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little.

So, do please tell us: what have they actually done?

Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 1:15:57 PM | 42
@2 ben.. i agree!

everything about the usa today is divisive...

Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 12:32:00 PM | 37

As the CIA might say: "Mission Accomplished!!"

Keep the proles spilt in their little "identity groups", their micro-tribes, and continue building the Kleoptocracy/Prison/Military State while the dumbed down demos are busy hunting micro-aggressions/fighting gender & race wars etc etc

During the last 5 Prez Election cycles the population spilt on utterly retarded lines such as Gay-marriage, Gender-free toilets etc. All this while the US fought or financed numerous very expensive wars in the Middle East ukraine etc, resulting hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 1:16:15 PM | 43
@26

The 2008 elections had one of the highest ever voter turnout rates for the Democrats and the 2016 elections had one of the lowest ever. The turnout rates (abysmal if ever compared to voter turnout rates in Germany and Japan) easily explain the initial victory and the eventual defeat, not 'Detroit fraud' or 'the millions of illegals' voting in your head. Racial gerrymandering against black voters in the Southern States is a far more real issue.

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:33:55 PM | 44
somwbody @ 12: Good link thanks..Interesting read about "The Forth Turning"

psycho @ 5: good link also..

WJ @ 27 said:" Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman who is corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star."

Yep, so-called "Russian hacking" wasn't the problem, HRC was the problem...

ben | Aug 17, 2017 1:40:34 PM | 45
Just Sayin' @ 41 said:"It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both Bannon & Trump certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little."

Kinda' waitin' myself to see all those "accomplishments"....

anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 2:01:34 PM | 46
@40

I'll assume this was directed to me.

I understand and respect your point, but I was responding to the initial comment's implicit argument on public opinion: "a common argument is the lower-middle-to-upper-middle-class social base of the Republicans is less receptive to the short term effects of Protectionist policy and this would reduce political morale, as well as grassroots and voting organization. However, the Democrats 'won the popular vote.' So, it's 'obvious' in saying the classless definition of 'the American people' oppose this Republican policy, and naturally, the social base of the Republican Party isn't especially relevant to consider when organizing voters and grassroots movements for a renewed Democratic Party."

To be fair, I think like the early Unionist and Communist circles, and presume public opinion translates to expressions of grassroots politics between conflicting classes (more so than it actually happens in American class society).

Mina | Aug 17, 2017 2:32:30 PM | 47
From Syria with love

https://arabic.rt.com/liveevent/894352-%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AD-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%B6-%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%82-%D8%AF%D9%88%D9%84%D9%8A-5-%D8%B3%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%BA%D9%8A%D8%A7%D8%A8/

Sad Canuck | Aug 17, 2017 2:52:38 PM | 48
If one proceeds on the assumption that politics in the United States closely follows themes, scripts and production values pioneered by WWF, then all becomes clear. It's simply pro-wrestling on a global scale with nuclear weapons and trillions of dollars in prize money.
james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM | 49
@42 just sayin'.. yes to all you say - it is quite sad actually.. not sure of the way out at this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which looks like a longs ways off at this point..
Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 3:12:27 PM | 50
not sure of the way out at this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which looks like a longs ways off at this point..

Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM | 49

Most of the younger generation seem to be much to busy, obsessing over non-existent things like "Micro-agressions" or "hetero-normative cis-gender oppression", to pay attention to, let alone acknowledge, the enormous global macro-aggressions their own country is engaged in on a world-wide scale.

Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 3:24:12 PM | 52
But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it.
Is there a "don't" missing from that sentence?

I must disagree that DPRK nuclear missiles are a qualitatively similar threat to those possessed by the Soviet Union and China. DPRK's guiding Suche ideology is a literal cult that goes far beyond the cult-of-personality that held sway over the Soviet Union and China when Stalin and Mao ruled. And by the time the Soviets developed delivery capabilities Stalin was dead and his cult was done. By the time the Chinese developed delivery capabilities Mao was declining into figurehead status and Zhou Enlai, who as commander of the PLA realized how weak China really was militarily, had no illusions about what would happen in a military confrontation with the US. But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers that allowed them to drive the Japanese off the peninsula then fight off an American "invasion." They truly don't mention the role of the Soviets and the Chinese in saving their bacon. In terms of face-saving, the Kims have set the bar pretty high for themselves by fostering their cult. Their legitimacy would be threatened if their statecraft as rational actors undermined their Suche cult.

DPRK have been rogue actors against ROK and Japan out of sheer spitefulness, fully exploiting the umbrella provided by the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Assistance with China. They have done extraterritorial kidnappings and murders not for perceived strategic reasons but merely to intimidate. DPRK has pointedly refused to enter talks for a formal peace between them and the ROK. Those kinds of motives do not bespeak of someone who can be trusted with nukes.

Charles R | Aug 17, 2017 3:39:13 PM | 53
Posted by: RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 12:23:40 PM
Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White Supremacy in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess some are willing to buy what he was selling yesterday. Not me.

What are your reasons for believing this about Bannon? What counts as contributing, and how did you come to your decision?

It's not that I don't believe you. It's rather important to establish in what way his words (whether the ones you found or the recent ones in American Prospect ) are lies or misdirection, so that I, and anyone interested, can evaluate this for ourselves and come to similar or different conclusions.

stonebird | Aug 17, 2017 3:40:47 PM | 54
I don't think Bannon wants a "trade" war with China but he is right that there is an economic war going on. The "silk roads" and the various new organisations that the Chinese-Russians have set up, (Major Banks, "Swift" equivalent, Glossnass satellites, card payment systems, industrial independence, and food self-sufficiency etc), plus the use of currencies other than the dollar - are all examples of a break-away from a US-EU domination.

However, they have not suddenly introduced everything at once to "bring the US house down". Why? One possible reason could be that they are expecting the US to collapse anyway. Another is that viable alternatives also take time to set up.

b has mentioned the "grown ups" v the Idealogues". The impact of the military on the economic war seems to be underestimated. How much longer can the US afford the more than trillion dollars per year of the "visible" arms? This does not include hidden costs ("Intelligence agencies and pork). Nor does it include costs borne by other countries. ie. Italy has about 80 US bases (the most in the EU) and about 77 nuclear warheads on its soil. Italy PAYS for those bases, and even that does not include infrastucture (roads, increased airport capacity, sewage, water mains, etc) which are paid for by the Italians themselves. Other countries will have similar systems. Some like Kuwait are "paying" back the amounts spent on arms for example.
The total cost is astronomical.

A brief reminder the USSR collapsed because of massive overspending on arms and military projects - leaving the rest of the economy in the lurch. Presumably the Chinese and Russians are expecting the same thing to happen again.

(Aside - yes, you can print dollars as a sovereign state, but printing roubles didn't help the soviets either)
So McMasters and the others are in fact just spoilt brats who think that the good times are forever.
----
One example of the new "bluff-calling" cheaper method of economic warfare (*NK is the another) were the recent NATO/US manoeuvres in Georgia (country) on the anniversary of the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The number of troops and means involved would have been enough to carry out a "surprise" attack this time too. The Russians - sent in Putin, who declared that the Russians supported S.Ossetia and were ready to deal with any threat - exactly as they did "last" time. Cost? One plane trip.

(*The NK threat by the US would have seen about 40'000 men from S. Korea and Japan sent against about 700'000 motivated local troops and massive artillery arrays. It was a non-starter, even with nukes)

Tom in AZ | Aug 17, 2017 4:03:19 PM | 55
thirdeye @52

You are forgetting to mention the main sticking point to talks is our refusal to halt our annual̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶s̶i̶v̶e̶ ̶d̶r̶i̶l̶l̶s̶ invasion practice before they will come to the table. At least from what I read.

Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 4:04:22 PM | 56
54

Even with China's international financial position growing more robust with SWIFT independence, AIDB, the New Silk Road and such, they still have an interest in the Dollar-based western financial system as long as they can make money off of it. They are not going to shoot themselves in the foot by deliberately causing it to collapse. They might even prop it up in a crisis, but I suspect they would drive a hard bargain.

@Madderhatter67 | Aug 17, 2017 4:09:49 PM | 57
Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?


MCMASTER: Says classic deterrence strategy won't work with NK.

"Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires."

Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly.

RUKidding | Aug 17, 2017 4:31:17 PM | 60
@53 Charles R: fair enough question.

What I base my analysis of Bannon is his leadership at Bretibart which may or may not be continuing right now. Just read Breitbart if you think Bannon isn't fully behind the White Supremacists rising up right now.

somebody | Aug 17, 2017 5:26:37 PM | 64
35
Steve Bannon is a fascist.

exhibit A
Steve Bannon Allies with Catholic Theo-Fascism Against Pope Francis

exhibit B
Steve Bannon shares a fascist's obsession with cleansing, apocalyptic war. And now he's in the White House

exhibit C
Generation Zero - Bannons Film using the theory of the fourth turning

The idea that people (a people) have to suffer a big war in order to cleanse themselves from moral depravity is fascism pure and simple as who should force people to do this but a dictator.

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:15:08 PM | 67
All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing "realist" about his foreign policy.
Thirdeye | Aug 17, 2017 6:15:20 PM | 68
55 Tom in AZ

That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has been refusing that for years. Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling against ROK was what lent impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place? The US knows that China would not tolerate a US invasion of DPRK. Why take the risk of invading across great defensive terrain when you can simply destroy?

57 Madhatter67

Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?

That's a dumb analogy and a pathetic attempt at deflection. Criticize American Exceptionalism all you want, but don't compare it to a supernaturalist cult. That's just stupid.

DPRK has a history of doing whatever they think they can get away with, exploiting their treaty with China. If their delusional Suche ideology leads them to miscalculate or paints them into a corner trying to prop it up, it could lead to war.

If there's any bright spot in the whole picture it's China's chilly stance towards DPRK after recent events. The excesses of DPRK's ruling cult have occurred largely because they figured China had their back. But China's regional interests have changed dramatically over the past 30 years. ROK is no longer a competitive threat to China and is economically more important to China than DPRK ever was. DPRK's military power is of much less benefit to China than it was in the past. It might even be considered a liability.

61 Stonebird

It wouldn't be cash, it would be be assets and/or the means of controlling them. Big Chinese money is already coming into the west coast of the US and Canada. Oh well, we fucked things up here; maybe the Chinese will do a better job.

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:20:48 PM | 69
@10, this article was written while Bannon was heading Breitbart, bragging about being "conceived in Israel." http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-network-born-in-the-usa-conceived-in-israel/

Bannon is against the nuclear deal, and is one of the top people in the administration arguing for Trump to move the Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Bannon has been cited as promoting Sheldon Adelson's Israel policy in meetings with Trump. http://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-abbas-lauder-hawkish-adelson-battling-to-influence-trump-on-mideast/ If anything Bannon/Breitbart push an even harder line on Israel than most politicians and media do.

blues | Aug 17, 2017 6:27:33 PM | 70
First of all, I will now declare that I am 99% confused! So please let me review the 1% that comes through my little keyhole. What has been said?

/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM | 30

Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,
\~~~~~~~~~~

Well sure! The guy's a political operative -- One does not get to be a political operative by being some kind of a Dudly Do-Right. Damn.

/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = les7 | Aug 17, 2017 12:27:02 PM | 35

@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist.
\~~~~~~~~~~

Well since we can't believe anything from Bannon... And aside from that I am sick of hearing Mussolini's definition of fascism -- After all, he was a psycho-villain -- so why believe it?!

UNTIL WE HAVE STRATEGIC HEDGE SIMPLE SCORE VOTING WE WILL BE SADDLED WITH THE TWO-PARTY "SYSTEM" (really only one party). Who cares if we really have no choice whatsoever. We are held hostage to the false alternatives of the vast legion of the election methods cognoscenti.

See my simple solution soon at Global Mutiny!

Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:30:54 PM | 71
@31, "except for the Zion-flavored warmongering." I don't know about you but completely disqualifies him in my view.
Greg M | Aug 17, 2017 6:34:43 PM | 72
@35, please refer to post 69. If Bannon was not a Zionist, he would not have ran a site which brags of being conceived in Israel and which pushes a harder line on Israel than almost any other, and he would not be promoting Adelson's Israel policy within the administration.
Curtis | Aug 17, 2017 7:03:10 PM | 73
Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together.
anoymous | Aug 17, 2017 7:41:46 PM | 74
"That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has been refusing that for years."

I doubt any substantial transcripts from early talks will ever be released, so whoever had diplomats offering the 'fairest' compromises for terms of an early framework (resulting in a later settlement) cannot be known (regarding specifics).

If I remember correctly, there has been at least three Chinese-sponsored peace conferences (on Korea) since 2007, where the general position of the U.S. was: North Korea had to freeze total nuclear production, accept existing and additional (U.N.) verification missions, and dismantle all warheads PRIOR to the signing of any peace treaty. How is demanding unconditional surrender not intransigence? Are we going to just pretend the United States hadn't sponsored military coups in Venezuela and Honduras and hadn't invaded Iraq and Libya (in a similar time frame)?

During peace talks, any terms are argued, refused, and eventually compromised (usually over years and sometimes over decades). Why presume the United States and South Korea had the fairest offers and general settlements in a handful of conferences (especially when we have no transcripts)?

"Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling against ROK was what lent impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place?"

You're presuming your case and not giving specific information on what you might know.

Personally, I don't know who 'started it' (I would guess Japan 'started it' by forcing through the Protectorate Treaty of 1905, or the United States 'started it' by forcing through the Amity and Commerce Treaty of 1858), but if North Korea isn't testing missiles near Guam and the United States isn't flying specific planes over South Korea, a compromise WAS made this last week, and more can be made to ensure peace.

Why do any Americans oppose this?

[Aug 16, 2017] Dont be Fooled, the CIA was Only Half the Problem in Syria Defend Democracy Press by Steven MacMillan

Notable quotes:
"... The plan to Balkanize Syria is well on its way, and the Pentagon is leading the charge. How Russia positions herself in the coming months will be crucial for the future of Syria. ..."
August 2, 2017 www.defenddemocracy.press

Originally published: www.4thmedia.org

Don't be Fooled, the CIA was Only Half the Problem in Syria 14/08/2017

The news that President Trump has halted the CIA program to arm and train rebel groups in Syria should be viewed with caution, as the CIA program only represented half of US involvement in Syria.

Even if we take this information as completely accurate, and the CIA will cease to be involved in any covert programs in Syria, there is still a giant arm of US imperialism that is going to be heavily involved in the Syrian conflict for the foreseeable future; namely, the Pentagon.

The notion that the CIA was the only branch of the US establishment involved in the destabilization of Syria is nonsense. The US has always had two operations running simultaneously in Syria, with one being ran by the CIA, and other being ran by the Pentagon.

As Reuters reported in an article in May of this year, titled: Syrian rebels say U.S., allies sending more arms to fend off Iran threat, military aid has been provided through "two separate channels:"

"Rebels said military aid has been boosted through two separate channels: a program backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), known as the MOC, and regional states including Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and one run by the Pentagon."

These two programs have often clashed, as was the case last year, when militias armed by the CIA fought against militias armed by the Pentagon.

The Pentagon has been as involved in the disastrous operation to arm and train rebels in Syria as the CIA has, and has contributed heavily to the mess on the ground.

In September 2015 for instance, it was reported that a Pentagon-armed group of rebels – named Division 30 – handed over theirweapons to al-Qaeda in Syria, a scenario that was a common outcome from many CIA operations as well.

Read also: Who is running US Foreign Policy

The Pentagon, never shy to blow an obscene amount of taxpayers' money on imperial matters, has already wasted hundreds of millions of dollars training and arming rebels in Syria, yet Trump only wants to increase the US war budget.

Trump: The Man of the Military

Trump's decision to halt the CIA program was hardly surprising, considering the support Trump has received from large sections of the military. A look at the backgrounds of the individuals that Trump has given cabinet positions reveals Trump's close relationship with the military.

Undoubtedly, there are many good forces in the US military (as in any other large organization), and there is nothing wrong with having a military background. But equally, there is also many nefarious forces in the military, and the influence of military-industrial complex is pervasive, constantly agitating for more imperial wars.

With this context in mind, it is hardly surprising that Trump favours the Pentagon program over the CIA one, especially considering the power struggle taking place between the CIA and the military within the US. It should be highlighted that Trump has notcompletely halted all US programs to arm and train militias in Syria, he has merely shutdown one channel.

Pentagon Using Kurds to Balkanize Syria

The Pentagon has been heavily involved in arming Kurdish forces in Syria, using them as a tool to attempt to Balkanize and fracture Syria into micro-states. In May of this year, President Trump approved a plan – supported by many in the Pentagon – to arm the People's Protection Unit (YPG), a Kurdish militia operating predominantly in northern Syria.

The YPG is also the controlling militia in the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which includes an array of other militias. In addition to providing arms to the YPG, US special forces have been pictured on the ground in northern Syria working in conjunction with YPG fighters.

Read also: The President and the Power

The Secretary of Homeland Security for instance, John Kelly, is a retired Marine Corps General and former Commander of US Southern Command. Trump's pick for the Director of the CIA is even more telling, as Mike Pompeo has his roots in the military, graduating from West Point in the 1980s:

"Mr. Pompeo graduated first in his class at the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1986 and served as a cavalry officer patrolling the Iron Curtain before the fall of the Berlin Wall. He also served with the 2nd Squadron, 7th Cavalry in the US Army's Fourth Infantry Division."

When most of the public was distracted by the story of Trump halting the CIA program, footage surfaced showing US armed military vehicles passing through Qamishli – a city in northern Syria on the Turkish border – reportedly on route to Raqqa. The recipients of the vehicles are believed to be either the SDF or US forces directly, who are involved in the battle against ISIS in Raqqa.

If (or when) ISIS is defeated in Raqqa, it will be very interesting to see who ends up controlling the city. It is possible that the Pentagon wants to defeat ISIS in Raqqa, and then hand Raqqa to the Kurds – a scenario that many Kurds would only be too happy with.

In March of this year, Saleh Muslim, the co-chair of the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) – the political affiliate of the YPG – said that once ISIS is defeated in Raqqa, the city should be incorporated into a Kurdish state in northern Syria.

Read also: Israeli Intel Chief: We Don't Want ISIS Defeated in Syria

The Pentagon's support for Kurdish forces is clearly part of a strategy to break the northern part of the country away from control of the Syrian government in Damascus. A subservient Kurdish state in northern Syria (which would probably join with Kurdish zones in Iraq and other countries in the future) would allow the US to have a permanent military presence in Syria, and easy access to thenatural resources in the Kurdish region.

The creation of Kurdish state in northern Syria would of course cause a severe breakdown in relations with NATO member Turkey, given the views of the current Turkish leadership that is. Turkey considers the YPG to be an extension of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), a group Ankara views as a terrorist organization.

Turkey has repeatedly denounced US support for Kurdish groups in Syria, with this being a major source of disagreement between the US and Turkey.

It is no coincidence that Turkish state media recently published a list of classified US military bases and outposts in northern Syria, with this information revealing the extent to which the US military is embedded in Kurdish-controlled regions in Syria.

The plan to Balkanize Syria is well on its way, and the Pentagon is leading the charge. How Russia positions herself in the coming months will be crucial for the future of Syria.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook".

[Aug 16, 2017] Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars Defend Democracy Press by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran. ..."
"... Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false. ..."
"... But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours. ..."
"... Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible. ..."
"... "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
"... The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow. ..."
"... In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored. ..."
5 August 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press

The original source of this article is Consortiumnews Copyright © Robert Parry , Consortiumnews , 2017

A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance. Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.

Since the neocons' emergence as big-time foreign policy players in the Reagan administration , they also have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, receiving a steady flow of money often through U.S. government-funded grants from organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and through donations from military contractors to hawkish neocon think tanks .

But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting the Left's disgust with President Trump

People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more difficult.

The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties, passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.

The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.

In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on the table just where the neocons want it.

The Putin Obstacle

As for Russia, the neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since 2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military strike over dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Subsequent evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.

While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to shatter the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.

Many neocons are, in effect, America's Israeli agents and – since Israel is now allied with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni Gulf states versus Iran – the neocons exercise their media/political influence to rationalize U.S. military strikes against Iran's regional allies, i.e., Syria's secular government of Bashar al-Assad

Read also: JFK at 100

For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.

Punishing Russia

It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia.

Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain , delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.

When Putin responded by allowing Crimeans to vote on secession from Ukraine and reunification with Russia, the West – and especially the neocon-dominated mainstream media – denounced the move as a "Russian invasion." Covertly, the Russians also helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine who defied the coup regime in Kiev and faced annihilation from Ukrainian military forces, including the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which literally displayed Swastikas and SS symbols. Putin's assistance to these embattled ethnic Russian Ukrainians became "Russian aggression."

Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.

But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.

Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.

Successful Propaganda

As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded.

Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.

Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said ,

"Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press."

Read also: The future of Sanders' political movement

But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.

Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia.

The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace.

So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , to come up with an assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.

'Hand-Picked' Analysts

According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.

Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney

The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point about Washington groupthink.

"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.

Lost Logic

But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government.

Read also: Now, only CIA and the military do not lie in USA! But, alone, can they stop the Coup and the War?

Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:

"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election has been outrageous."

However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents. Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.

Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush 's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.

But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets.

Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars.

There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear war, more likely.

In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani , "We told you so" that the U.S. government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.

Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev , are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow.

In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Aug 14, 2017] Slouching Toward Mar-a-Lago

Notable quotes:
"... Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all). ..."
"... Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize. ..."
"... Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence. ..."
"... the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid. ..."
"... "Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. ..."
"... Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability. ..."
"... The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass. ..."
"... I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion. ..."
"... Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

If we have, as innumerable commentators assert, embarked upon the Age of Trump, the defining feature of that age might well be the single-minded determination of those horrified and intent on ensuring its prompt termination. In 2016, TIME magazine chose Trump as its person of the year . In 2017, when it comes to dominating the news, that "person" might turn out to be a group -- all those fixated on cleansing the White House of Trump's defiling presence.

Egged on and abetted in every way by Trump himself, the anti-Trump resistance has made itself the Big Story. Lies, hate, collusion, conspiracy, fascism: rarely has the everyday vocabulary of American politics been as ominous and forbidding as over the past six months. Take resistance rhetoric at face value and you might conclude that Donald Trump is indeed the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse , his presence in the presidential saddle eclipsing all other concerns. Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death will just have to wait.

The unspoken assumption of those most determined to banish him from public life appears to be this: once he's gone, history will be returned to its intended path, humankind will breathe a collective sigh of relief, and all will be well again. Yet such an assumption strikes me as remarkably wrongheaded -- and not merely because, should Trump prematurely depart from office, Mike Pence will succeed him. Expectations that Trump's ouster will restore normalcy ignore the very factors that first handed him the Republican nomination (with a slew of competitors wondering what hit them) and then put him in the Oval Office (with a vastly more seasoned and disciplined, if uninspiring, opponent left to bemoan the injustice of it all).

Not all, but many of Trump's supporters voted for him for the same reason that people buy lottery tickets: Why not? In their estimation, they had little to lose. Their loathing of the status quo is such that they may well stick with Trump even as it becomes increasingly obvious that his promise of salvation -- an America made "great again" -- is not going to materialize.

Yet those who imagine that Trump's removal will put things right are likewise deluding themselves. To persist in thinking that he defines the problem is to commit an error of the first order. Trump is not cause, but consequence.

For too long, the cult of the presidency has provided an excuse for treating politics as a melodrama staged at four-year intervals and centering on hopes of another Roosevelt or Kennedy or Reagan appearing as the agent of American deliverance. Donald Trump's ascent to the office once inhabited by those worthies should demolish such fantasies once and for all.

How is it that someone like Trump could become president in the first place? Blame sexism, Fox News, James Comey, Russian meddling, and Hillary's failure to visit Wisconsin all you want, but a more fundamental explanation is this: the election of 2016 constituted a de facto referendum on the course of recent American history. That referendum rendered a definitive judgment: the underlying consensus informing U.S. policy since the end of the Cold War has collapsed. Precepts that members of the policy elite have long treated as self-evident no longer command the backing or assent of the American people. Put simply: it's the ideas, stupid.

Rabbit Poses a Question

"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?" As the long twilight struggle was finally winding down, Harry "Rabbit" Angstrom, novelist John Updike's late-twentieth-century Everyman , pondered that question. In short order, Rabbit got his answer. So, too, after only perfunctory consultation, did his fellow citizens.

The passing of the Cold War offered cause for celebration. On that point all agreed. Yet, as it turned out, it did not require reflection from the public at large. Policy elites professed to have matters well in hand. The dawning era, they believed, summoned Americans not to think anew, but to keep doing precisely what they were accustomed to doing, albeit without fretting further about Communist takeovers or the risks of nuclear Armageddon. In a world where a " single superpower " was calling the shots, utopia was right around the corner. All that was needed was for the United States to demonstrate the requisite confidence and resolve.

Three specific propositions made up the elite consensus that coalesced during the initial decade of the post-Cold-War era. According to the first, the globalization of corporate capitalism held the key to wealth creation on a hitherto unimaginable scale. According to the second, jettisoning norms derived from Judeo-Christian religious traditions held the key to the further expansion of personal freedom. According to the third, muscular global leadership exercised by the United States held the key to promoting a stable and humane international order.

Unfettered neoliberalism plus the unencumbered self plus unabashed American assertiveness: these defined the elements of the post-Cold-War consensus that formed during the first half of the 1990s -- plus what enthusiasts called the information revolution. The miracle of that "revolution," gathering momentum just as the Soviet Union was going down for the count, provided the secret sauce that infused the emerging consensus with a sense of historical inevitability.

The Cold War itself had fostered notable improvements in computational speed and capacity, new modes of communication, and techniques for storing, accessing, and manipulating information. Yet, however impressive, such developments remained subsidiary to the larger East-West competition. Only as the Cold War receded did they move from background to forefront. For true believers, information technology came to serve a quasi-theological function, promising answers to life's ultimate questions. Although God might be dead, Americans found in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs nerdy but compelling idols.

More immediately, in the eyes of the policy elite, the information revolution meshed with and reinforced the policy consensus. For those focused on the political economy, it greased the wheels of globalized capitalism, creating vast new opportunities for trade and investment. For those looking to shed constraints on personal freedom, information promised empowerment, making identity itself something to choose, discard, or modify. For members of the national security apparatus, the information revolution seemed certain to endow the United States with seemingly unassailable military capabilities. That these various enhancements would combine to improve the human condition was taken for granted; that they would, in due course, align everybody -- from Afghans to Zimbabweans -- with American values and the American way of life seemed more or less inevitable.

The three presidents of the post-Cold-War era -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- put these several propositions to the test. Politics-as-theater requires us to pretend that our 42nd, 43rd, and 44th presidents differed in fundamental ways. In practice, however, their similarities greatly outweighed any of those differences. Taken together, the administrations over which they presided collaborated in pursuing a common agenda, each intent on proving that the post-Cold-War consensus could work in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.

To be fair, it did work for some. "Globalization" made some people very rich indeed. In doing so, however, it greatly exacerbated inequality , while doing nothing to alleviate the condition of the American working class and underclass.

The emphasis on diversity and multiculturalism improved the status of groups long subjected to discrimination. Yet these advances have done remarkably little to reduce the alienation and despair pervading a society suffering from epidemics of chronic substance abuse , morbid obesity , teen suicide , and similar afflictions. Throw in the world's highest incarceration rate , a seemingly endless appetite for porn , urban school systems mired in permanent crisis, and mass shootings that occur with metronomic regularity, and what you have is something other than the profile of a healthy society.

As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama. Yet it has also embroiled the United States in a series of costly, senseless, unsuccessful, and ultimately counterproductive wars. As for the vaunted information revolution, its impact has been ambiguous at best, even if those with eyeballs glued to their personal electronic devices can't tolerate being offline long enough to assess the actual costs of being perpetually connected.

In November 2016, Americans who consider themselves ill served by the post-Cold-War consensus signaled that they had had enough. Voters not persuaded that neoliberal economic policies, a culture taking its motto from the Outback steakhouse chain, and a national security strategy that employs the U.S. military as a global police force were working to their benefit provided a crucial margin in the election of Donald Trump.

The response of the political establishment to this extraordinary repudiation testifies to the extent of its bankruptcy. The Republican Party still clings to the notion that reducing taxes, cutting government red tape, restricting abortion, curbing immigration, prohibiting flag-burning, and increasing military spending will alleviate all that ails the country. Meanwhile, to judge by the promises contained in their recently unveiled (and instantly forgotten ) program for a "Better Deal," Democrats believe that raising the minimum wage, capping the cost of prescription drugs, and creating apprenticeship programs for the unemployed will return their party to the good graces of the American electorate.

In both parties embarrassingly small-bore thinking prevails, with Republicans and Democrats equally bereft of fresh ideas. Each party is led by aging hacks. Neither has devised an antidote to the crisis in American politics signified by the nomination and election of Donald Trump.

While our emperor tweets, Rome itself fiddles.

... ... ...

Robert Magill > , August 8, 2017 at 5:06 pm GMT

First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American politics.

The November numbers indicate that for the time being without the Electoral College, California and New York will elect our President well into the future.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Priss Factor > , Website August 8, 2017 at 5:17 pm GMT

If Bacevich had really balls, he would cut to the chase and say it like it is.

I think Trump the person doesn't want trouble with Iran, Syria, and Russia. He's a businessman who wants to do business with the world while protecting US borders and sovereignty. Trump is anti-Iran because of Jewish Lobby. His peace with Russia was destroyed by the Lobby and its purse-strings and puppet-strings.

The undeniable fact of the US is it's not a democracy in terms of real power. It is a Jewish Supremacist Oligarchy. To be sure, there are Jewish critics of Jewish power. Think of Philip Weiss and others. Technically, US still has rule of law and due process. But in the end, the Power decides. Look at the anti-BDS bill supported even by Republicans who make a big stink about liberty and free speech.

California is said to be uber-'progressive', and many grassroots people there are supportive of BDS. But California elites and whore politicians are anti-BDS and even passed laws against it. What does that tell you?

Rule of Law is for little people. The Power has Rule of Rule. And if American People, along with their politicians, seem to schizo, well, what does one expect? They get their info from J-Media that feed that lies 24/7.

What is often called 'American' is processed mindset, like yellow American singles is bogus processed 'cheese food'. Because handful of industries control all the media that beam same signals to over 300 million TV sets in the US, 'Americanism' is processed mind-food. We need more organic minds. Too many minds have been processed and re-processed by Great Mind Grinder of J-Media.

The Scalpel > , Website August 9, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT

AB's 10 recommendations remind me of the beauty pageant contestant answering the question about what she intended to do ."promote world peace".

Actually the beauty queen is being more sincere and realistic. AB's points are very nice sounding, but he gives us no idea how realistically, he or anyone could achieve them and we are left with the feeling that he is just grandstanding. Like the beauty queen, he knows that he will never do much of anything concrete to further these goals, not even if his life or his son' life, depended on it.

DYiFC > , August 10, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

Well said. I agree – Trump is a symptom of the underlying problems in this country.

Stogumber > , August 12, 2017 at 5:49 am GMT

"Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?"

Well, Updike speaks from the position of a "universalist"? Did he ever consider that being an American may not mean standing up for universal ideas, but simply caring for one's own children and grandchildren? But even from a universalist position the answer seems simple now – not for Bacevich, but for me. The United States are singled out and unique w.r.t. their First Amendment. Whereas all other Western countries have succumbed to Bolshevist propaganda and have undermined freedom of speech, the "Americans" are the only ones to stand up for it. Why, even Damore may win a lawsuit against Google.

Carlton Meyer > , Website August 14, 2017 at 4:50 am GMT

Whoops Colonel, you forgot to add slashing military spending to your list. The USA could cut its military budget in half and still spend more than Russia, Iran, North Korea, and China combined. Trump's insane push for more military spending undermines his effort at cutting domestic programs to balance the budget. Yet Jimmy Dore explains that most Democrats voted boost the military budget even more than Trump!

It is unfair to depict Trump as a bumpkin. He graduated from an excellent university and used a few million dollars from Dad's seed money to become a billionaire. Moreover, he defied all odds to become President of the USA. I challenge all his brilliant critics to run for President in 2020 to prove that is simple.

LarryS > , August 14, 2017 at 4:59 am GMT

@Robert Magill The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 14, 2017 at 7:05 am GMT

As for militarized American global leadership, it has indeed resulted in various bad actors meeting richly deserved fates. Goodbye, Saddam. Good riddance, Osama.

Goodbye Saddam?? The implication being that all the death and destruction was somehow worth it?? You scum, of the most evil *beep* nation on earth! A pox on all of you.

The Alarmist > , August 14, 2017 at 8:07 am GMT

"First, abolish the Electoral College. Doing so will preclude any further occurrence of the circumstances that twice in recent decades cast doubt on the outcome of national elections and thereby did far more than any foreign interference to undermine the legitimacy of American politics."

Yeah, let's trade the consensus of a nation of local communities for the tyranny of the (bi-coastal) majority. I might give up the EC, however, if the system was replaced by gladiatorial combat to the death for all who want the job, or, if we're sticking to a two-party system, the decision can come by pistols at dawn (Good Morning America can't get the nod I hate that Roker chap, and I don't think Megan Kelly should be anywhere near selection of a President). Real skin in the game, so to say.

Yeah, bring back the draft. Military service only. We won't end senseless wars unless many more of our young people actually experience them, and that's not going to happen if they are picking up litter or emptying bed pans.

More money for public education? We've been doing that for years dude, and we get worse results as we spend more. There's already too much money in public education. College for all is a mistake, and in gen snowflake, tell me who isn't deserving. How about serious testing for results and beating for those who do not achieve them?

Income equality sounds nice, but it's never been had anywhere by taxation. It takes a certain societal moderation and modesty requiring our ruling elites to not want to be so conspicuous in their consumption (this in the age of the Rich Kids of Instagram) and to share the wealth through employment and good wages to their fellow citizens. Good luck with that ever gracing our shores.

Stop yakking about the pseudoscience nay the religion of climate change. Plant some more trees and take a couple aspirin. Add the costs of global wars for resources to the cost of gas, which will spike it to $6 per gallon and dissuade a lot of unnecessary driving.

Require all candidates for Federal elective office to be physically neutered, and forbid any of their progeny for at least three generations as well as any immediate relations closer than fourth cousin from holding any position of honor, elective office, or Federal employment whatsoever.

Priss Factor > , Website August 14, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT

Trump or no Trump, things would be much saner without Jewish globalist pressure.

I never liked Obama, but I don't think he has personal animus against Russia, Syria, Iran, Libya, or Palestinians. But given who was looking over his shoulder, he had to make things difficult for those nations, and that is why leaders of those nations and Obama came to hate one another. As for North Korea, much of the tensions wouldn't exist if US hadn't threatened or invaded 'axis of evil' nations and forced S. Korea to carry out joint exercises to prepare for invasion.

Same with Trump. I seriously doubt if Trump has personal animus against Syrians, Russians, Iranians, Palestinians, and etc. But who is looking over his shoulder? So, he has to hate the same people that Obama had to hate.

In the US, politicians must hate according to Jewish neurosis. And that's the problem. We don't have autonomy of likes and dislikes. Like dogs, we have to like or hate what our master likes or hates. And Jewish Globalists are elites. The great evil of America is we are forced to HATE whatever Jewish globalists Hate. It is a culture of Hate. Ironically, the biggest haters accuse others of hate.

Priss Factor > , Website August 14, 2017 at 9:49 am GMT

Jeff & Gerald Celente – The Trump Presidential Freak Show

Priss Factor > , Website August 14, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT

Stephen Cohen on why we need close cooperation with Russia.

A new kind of terrorism in aftermath of state collapse in Middle East.

But it seems new sanctions will totally derail any sane policy.

Reactionary Utopian > , August 14, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT

Most of Mr. Bacevich's piece was quite good. Then we got to the Ten-Point Program. A bold, revolutionary program calling for more of how we got here. What the hell?

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT

@LarryS The US Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College by 3/4 of the states ratifying the amendment. The smaller states would never vote to eliminate their role in electing the president. Nor should they. My respect for Bacevich is waning. Yes, it is interesting how smaller states in federations show that they understand and will hold on to their leverage even when , as in Australia, the people themselves vote on constitutional change.

But why would eliminating the Electoral College allow presidentlal elections to be decided by the popular vote in California and NY as someone suggested? Aren't the number of electoral college votes adjusted quite promptly in proportion to population changes?

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT

Here's an anti Imperial Presidency policy for the author to consider and perhaps endorse .

1. Move towards the constitutiobal monarchy or limited presidency parliamentary model by strengthening the H of R and relying on ordinary human ambition to forward the project;

2. Specifically extend Congressional terms from 2 years to 4 (and perhaps provide lots of public financing and free publicity to diminish thevcorruption by donors)

3. Enhance the role of Majority leader – indeed facilitate his forming his own Cabinet – and restrict the amending of budget bills submitted (as the main ones would have to be) by the leader of the majority – or his nominated Finance spokesperson..

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 12:44 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Aren't the votes in the Electoral College quite promptly adjusted for population changes?

The Alarmist > , August 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz To some extent, but since each state has at least one Representative and two Senators, there is a bias toward political geography that is difficult to overcome by population. This is a good thing.

The Alarmist > , August 14, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Sorry, should have connected the dots each state's Electors total the same as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435.

bliss_porsena > , August 14, 2017 at 1:57 pm GMT

Eleven: write more articles with never-can-be-done lists until the whole aberrant construct cracks wide open.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 14, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Only with respect to the EC votes corresponding to the number of House Representatives. From Wikipedia:

"Each state chooses electors, totaling in number to that state's combined total of senators and representatives."

Each state – irrespective of population – has two senators, so this protects citizens of less populous states from those in, e.g., California. Part of the Constitutional bargain that makes for a republic as opposed to a national democracy.

Were you sincerely unaware of this?

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Sorry, should have connected the dots ... each state's Electors total the same as their Congressional delegations in House and Senate, and House is capped at 435. Yes, the effect of adding in the senators is substantial. The two biggest (Democrat) states add just 4 out of 543 to their basic Congressional weighting while the 48 other states add 96/543. Thus 17.6 per cent against just an extra 0.7 per cent.
Not even Texas would think of supporting the abolition of the Electoral College. A pity yhe excellent author should be so sloppy as not at least to acknowledge which items on his wish list are pure fantasy.

Logan > , August 14, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT

"Nominally, the Constitution assigns responsibilities and allocates prerogatives to three co-equal branches of government."

Oh, dear, I do get tired of this meme.

No, the Constitution does not create "three co-equal branches of government," no matter how often the phrase is repeated.

The Constitution establishes a legislative branch that, whenever it is sufficiently united and desirous, has absolute power over the other two branches.

The Congress can remove any member of the other two branches from office, among other powers, but the countervailing power of the other two branches over Congress, at least per the Constitution, is very limited indeed.

In most republics and constitutional monarchies, the executive branch has a number of ways to influence the legisilature, including calling new elections when desired. Our Constitution has none of that.

Under the Constitution, the Congress is not co-equal. Its supreme.

Logan > , August 14, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

@gustafus " as we import more and more of the LOW IQ 3rd world – education will be more about the reasons we don't boink our children siblings and cousins"

Nahh, that would be imposing our Eurocentric values on their vibrant cultures.

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

@Joe Franklin That sounds like another valid reason to stick with the EC.

Wizard of Oz > , August 14, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT

@Logan And that's why it's ownership by the donors is so destructive.

Jus' Sayin'... > , August 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm GMT

@Robert Magill Any citizen of the USA and/or student of its history who writes in the same essay both that he is a conservative and that he favors abolishing the Electoral College is either a fool, an unprincipled knave, or most likely both.

Olorin > , August 14, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Robert Magill I came in to make the same point and will add that it would be effectively only two metropolitan areas–LA and NYC.

Whoever would control those cities politically would control the nation politically, economically, and socially the way Chicago's elites control much of Wisconsin (to use an example recently discussed at iSteve).

The republic would be ripe for division into two coastal demesnes vying with each other for power, resources, and serfs (both in the coastal hives and the "flyover states").

What is undermining the legitimacy of American politics isn't the United States Constitution. It is the countless billions of dollars spend on election campaigning each year. That includes all corollary expenditures, as on media buys and polling.

Not the kind of polling that involves voting. The kind of polling that Nate Silver does.

Election campaigns engineer infiltration of the public culture at every level–federal, state, county, municipal, and local–by divisive discourse and methods. These originally were developed so that merchants could differentiate and sell to the masses soap and junk food brands. Not even the commodities themselves–but brands of them.

Political campaigning rolls up the worst elements of advertising, PR, propaganda, and opinion research into one unending tsunami of hostility, division, manufactured conflict, false equivalencies, forced choices, and sneering tearing-down of what others believe, want, or have built.

The people who create political campaigns for a living–with all the corollary products that go with that, including the candidate himself/herself–are, like the people who communicate those, among the biggest parasites in the republic. They literally create positions, opinions, and ideas, then go out and create the demand for them by whatever means it takes. They produce nothing of value. They siphon off value and resources and set the conditions where by organic excellence is drowned in a sea of mass communications.

If the Electoral College were demolished tomorrow, they would have even more unfettered access to more billions of dollars as Candidate Cool Ranch Dorito vied for an influential and lucrative sinecure with Candidate Salty Crunchy Triangular Fried Corn Thing.

And thanks to Citizens United, money is free speech, and free speech means carefully selected, constructed, massaged, spun, and polled speech.

Keeping the campaign-media-finance industrial complex operating is all that matters to these people. Sounds like Bacevich is one of them. Members of the Pontificating Caste usually are. The Constitution is a barrier to their aspirations.

As it was designed to be.

Linda Green > , August 14, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT

The author did a decent job of describing the zeitgeist. But his list of 10 big government solutions is a riot! The solution is a return to human liberty and acceptance of the reality that all politics that matter to people is local. But our owners don't like local, they like global, they like universal, they claim to be supporters of diversity but their diversity if they have their way looks exactly the same everywhere you go – wow, how diverse. You can be in any major metropolitan area in the US these days and you find it has the same chain store signage dominating the landscape, the same stories in the newspapers, the same ideological megaphones spouting (((their))) doctrines to the masses, the same conformity of expressed opinions (don't say what you really think if you want to keep your job at xyz corp), the same. And unbeknownst to most Americans who are quick to thank servicemen for "their service", their actual service is that when are elites have finally won the entire world will be indistinguishable like US metropolitan areas are today. There is not a big government solution to these issues, big xxx is the problem. The real question at least in my mind is if our owners would allow pockets of American style, liberty based pockets to emerge?

If we could find responsible enough men to do it, we could take back monetary sovereignty from the federal reserve and start a Bank of America. We have our politicians beginning to sell off the commons (highways for example) to investors. We can fund that by letting some money creation occur by being earned into existence rather than loaned into existence. This is explicitly disallowed in the FEDs charter, and it is not for certain we can find men responsible enough to handle this task without problems nor is it certain that global finance would not retaliate. But we have a lot of infrastructure that needs upgrading and maintenance. This would allow some level of exodus from the metros back to Mayberry if there were jobs. We need a small effective government that has a long term plan of how we are going to maintain our infrastructure. Presently the elected children in Washington, short sighted immature bunch they are, put construction money for bridges in the back of bills recognizing a particular day as "insert bullshit day here day" to make their fellow child go along with the pork they put is some other garbage bill. This is an awful way to run a country and the chickens have come home and are roosting. Let the metros continue their present course of forced conformity via peer shaming and propaganda.

Flavius > , August 14, 2017 at 5:44 pm GMT

Alarm bells going off in the night? How about Bill Clinton? Robert Dole? Al Gore? George W Bush? How about the stupendously unqualified mirage of Presidential gravitas, Barrack Obama? his opponents, the snarling ignoramus from Arizona, John McCain? the leaden corporatist Mitt Romney. Perhaps we are to understand these names that the Colonel leaves unmentioned as constituting the "slouching:" But the reason we have arrived at Mar-a-Lago is that the terminally corrupt Democratic Party chose as their candidate the terminally corrupt, stupendously unqualified former President's wife. The foresight of our founding Father's saved us from that miserable fate, thank you US Constitution.
But lest we become too nostalgic for a time when our co-equal legislative branch had members who could assert themselves against the stooge of the moment who the people had installed in the White House, let us take a moment to ponder the stupendous stupidity of our current body that just recently, with near unanimity, chose to lump Russia in with Iran and North Korea on its sanctions bill while producing no evidence of any kind to justify its measure.

Alden > , August 14, 2017 at 5:46 pm GMT

@Joe Franklin Vote fraud is not necessary in California. I'm the only person I know who votes Republican.

Logan > , August 14, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Quite right. Though the whole thing started when the "real" job of the congressman became re-election. Once that was internalized, the rest was pretty much inevitable. As long as the government is heavily involved with businesses, determining not only their profit rate but perhaps whether they even survive, they will continue efforts to influence government decisions. Limiting contribution's primary effect, I suspect, would be to drive the influence-buying underground.

The solution, of course, is to get the government out of business and indeed everything else to the extent possible.

[Aug 14, 2017] MoA - Hyping North Korea To Relaunch Reagan's Star Wars

Notable quotes:
"... The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims. ..."
"... implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more weapons. ..."
"... One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China. ..."
"... The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative , aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely a fraud to transfers billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates. ..."
"... Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug 14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to whom this factory sells its engines. ..."
Aug 14, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

... .. ...

The claim that the U.S. intelligence agencies are exaggeration North Korean capabilities is likely false. But it is also reasonable. The Trump administration, the Pentagon and weapon salesmen will of course use the occasion to further their aims.

One missile defense marketing pundit claimed today that the North Korean missile engines used in the recent tests were bought from factories in Ukraine or Russia. The usual propagandist at the New York Times picked up on that to further their anti-Russian theme:

Mr. Elleman was unable to rule out the possibility that a large Russian missile enterprise, Energomash, which has strong ties to the Ukrainian complex, had a role in the transfer of the RD-250 engine technology to North Korea. He said leftover RD-250 engines might also be stored in Russian warehouses.

But the engines in question are of different size and thrust than the alleged R-250 engines and the claimed time-frame does not fit at all. The Ukrainian government denied any transfer of missiles or designs. The story was debunked with in hours by two prominent experts . But implicating Russia, however farfetched, is always good if one wants to sell more weapons.

One Pentagon hobby horse is the THAAD medium range missile defense systems that will now be stationed in South Korea. This even as it is incapable to defend South Korea from short range North Korean missiles. It is obviously targeted at China.

The Reagan wannabe currently ruling in the White House may soon revive Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative , aka "Star Wars", which was first launched in 1984. SDI was the expensive but unrealistic dream of lasers in space and other such gimmicks. Within the SDI the U.S. military threw out hundreds of billions for a Global Ballistic Missile Defense which supposedly would defend the continental U.S. from any incoming intercontinental missile. The program was buried in the early 1990s. One son of Star Wars survived. It is the National Missile Defense with 40 interceptors in Alaska and California. It has never worked well and likely never will. If NMD would function as promised there would be no reason to fear any North Korean ICBMs. Missile defense is largely a fraud to transfers billions of dollars from U.S. taxpayers to various weapon producing conglomerates.

I expect that the North Korean "threat" will soon be used to launch "SDI - The Sequel", another attempt to militarize space with billions thrown into futuristic but useless "defense" projects. It will soothe the Pentagon's grief over the success North Korea had despite decades of U.S. attempts to subjugate that state.

Posted by b on August 14, 2017 at 01:51 PM | Permalink

james | Aug 14, 2017 2:19:56 PM | 1

thanks b... regarding mcmasters words - "A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people?" how does this get supported? what is the evidence for it? it is the same mantra dished up regularly where ever the usa is - which is just about everywhere militarily..
Eugene | Aug 14, 2017 2:26:51 PM | 2
Now if this were to go viral. . . . . . which of course, it wont be allowed, because of the implications that the worlds only superpower is what some say, or shades of the "U.S. is a paper tiger"?

The Pentagon hasn't been able to get it right since W W 2, but it has spent $$$$ like a drunken sailor.

The truly sad fact, is that arms merchants have only one loyalty, that's to its own bottom line. Watching the actions since Trump got elected, reminds one of watching the scrum alongside a fishing boat when they throw buckets of chopped fish in the water, to attract sharks to the surface. It seems his administration may end up being named Murphy instead, as in Murphy's law fame.

dh | Aug 14, 2017 2:55:04 PM | 3
"I am confident that the strategic bomber overflights from Guam will soon end."

Me too. There really is no other option for Trump. But he will need to come up with a good explanation to save face.

DH | Aug 14, 2017 3:22:13 PM | 4
Something is wrong with the North Korea story. According to the NY Times (Zerohedge Aug 14) the rocket engines the DPRK is using on their ICBMs come from a factory in the Ukraine. The Ukraine is a U.S. client state. It seems inconceivable that the CIA would not know to whom this factory sells its engines.

Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS in Syria - to create an existential threat to justify a military intervention, and in the end to create another client state to use as a base to project power, only this time in East Asia?

Maybe this is why China warned the U.S. against regime change with respect to the DPRK (Zerohedge August 11).

dh | Aug 14, 2017 3:34:19 PM | 5
@4 Upper case DH asks....."Is the U.S. trying to use the DPRK like it has tried to use ISIS in Syria..."

I think you give the US too much credit. They have been outsmarted in Syria and they are being outsmarted in East Asia. It's that lateral thinking thing again.

lower case dh

dh | Aug 14, 2017 3:46:25 PM | 6
@5 That should be linear thinking darn it.
likklemore | Aug 14, 2017 3:50:27 PM | 7
McMaster is pure bluster. Soon he will receive some high priority emails from Wal-Mart, Dollar Tree, Apple, Samsung, Canon and other masters et al.

You know those daily essentials and critical components that are made in China, South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia. Empty shelves and assembly lines.

Global supply chain disrupted as the entire region is declared a War Zone with maritime insurance suspended. Who will insure the cargo vessels transporting daily essentials to the ROTW?

Sick of the USA war mongering.
Kim is having a good laugh watching Act 1 of The civil war in America, 2017.

PavewayIV | Aug 14, 2017 4:25:31 PM | 8
Kim is most directly threatened by the annual spring and fall joint US-South Korean military exercises held annually (and have been for decades). The largest by far is the fall exercise, this year's is starting next Monday: Ulchi-Freedom Guardian 2017. Several other NATO countries and pals are involved as well. It usually runs for just under two weeks.

The exercise is a simulation of a US-ROK war with the DPRK. It's more of a command and control exercise rather than mass troop/armor movements. Various details have been pieced together over the years or described by various military sources. In recent years, the goal is not to simply repel a North Korean attack, but respond by invading North Korea, overthrowing Kim and the DPRK government and securing the country as part of South Korea.

THAT's the part that set Kim off a few years ago, and he's been pissed about it more and more every year. The US is delighted with that fact and is unlikely to just stop holding the exercise because it's provocative. McMaster's recent comments about a 'preventative war' didn't do much to calm Kim down.

Both North and South go on heightened military alert - I image about now - just in case the other one flinches. But the US military has gone overboard the last few days to assure the world that it is not gearing up for a war in North Korea. The White House a one point suggested the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier was heading to Korea, but that wasn't the case. The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier is sitting in its home port in Yokosuka, Japan. Strategic bombers, currently B-1Bs, have been stationed on Guam for years as a show of support for regional allies.

In any kind of US war with North Korea, they have to have started it (Pearl Harbor) or appear to have started it (Gulf of Tonkin). OPLAN 5027 takes care of it after that.

james | Aug 14, 2017 4:39:56 PM | 9
the usa time the military drills at north korea's harvest time - right when they need to be working in the fields... coincidence? lol.. i think not..
john | Aug 14, 2017 4:44:30 PM | 10
recap
brian | Aug 14, 2017 7:01:04 PM | 11
'brutal against internal dissidents'

you mean seditionists

Procopius | Aug 14, 2017 8:06:35 PM | 12
Any unprovoked war against North Korea would thereby escalate into a war with China and no one is seriously interested in that adventure.
Well, John Bolton certainly would advocate for it. I don't know about McMaster. He is a known Zionist (as is Mattis), so his judgement may not be too good. He is quite alarming on the subject of Iran. I'm old enough to remember both Douglas MacArthur and Curtis LeMay. People like them but dumber seem to be in decision-making positions in this administration (and earlier).
Peter AU 1 | Aug 14, 2017 8:31:18 PM | 13
US politicians seem to like phrases like "unspeakable brutality" when talking about a targeted leader or country, yet the US has committed much brutality against the citizens of target countries that it does not speak about.

[Aug 12, 2017] Who Is the Hidden Hand at the NSC

Aug 12, 2017 | talkingpointsmemo.com

Josh Marshall

Mike Flynn has been out at the White House for more than four months. He is, we are told, in the most serious kind of legal trouble. Yet the political ghost of Mike Flynn still seems to be a hidden hand driving outcomes in the Trump White House. Maybe it's even Flynn himself.

Allow me to explain.

On Friday, Foreign Policy published an article explaining that the White House is pushing for widening the war in Syria over Pentagon objections. Look into the details and you see it's more specific than 'widening the war'. It's moving from a near exclusive focus on defeating ISIS to pushing a broader confrontation with Iran, which is of course heavily involved in Syria.

Not only does this run the risk of a major and damaging military confrontation with Iran. It almost certainly complicates or hurts the campaign against ISIS since Iran is itself extremely hostile to ISIS and fighting it on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

So who exactly is "the White House" here?

According to the Foreign Policy piece, it's principally two people. Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek Harvey, respectively the chief intelligence adviser at the NSC and the chief Middle East advisor. If that first name rings a bell, it should: Cohen-Watnick is the Flynn protege who was behind the Devin Nunes, Susan Rice "un-masking" nonsense caper. While Cohen-Watnick was up to that mischief, McMaster, as one of his first orders of business was trying to can him .

But he was blocked by Trump and Bannon.

Dereck Harvey is clearly a hawk but he at least seems to be respected within the military and intelligence establishments beyond just Mike Flynn. David Patraeus had him as an advisor and he appears to have held Harvey in high esteem.

There's an additional element to the story that bears directly on the Russia probe.

Remember that the most plausible read of what Cohen-Watnick was doing in that case was trying to surveil the investigation into his boss and mentor, Flynn, and the larger Russia probe. White House Counsel Don McGahn appears to have realized that as soon as Cohen-Watnick brought the "findings" of his "review" to the Counsel's office. McGahn told Cohen-Watnick to stand down. That prompted Cohen-Watnick to pull an end run by going to Nunes.

Here's what I wrote in early April

As even Lake concedes, Rice's alleged actions – if the report is accurate – were almost certainly legal. Most national security experts say they were not only legal but entirely proper. Moreover, the kind of snooping around that Cohen-Watnick was apparently doing could very plausibly be interpreted as an attempt to monitor or interfere with the on-going counter-intelligence probe of Trump associates' ties to Russia. The White House Counsel's job is to protect and look after the legal interests of the President. A good lawyer would likely want to shut that kind of freelancing down right away, especially if what Cohen-Watnick had found didn't amount to anything that helped the President or the White House.

My basic question is: why does Cohen-Watnick still have a job? Maybe McMaster couldn't fire him on day one. But he's had months to establish himself and place his stamp on the NSC.

Who is opposing this at the Pentagon? According to Foreign Policy , it's principally Secretary of Defense Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chair Dunford. Foreign Policy is less clear on where McMaster stands but assumes (I think rightly based on other published reports) he is in the latter (Pentagon) group. (Remember, that Mattis is considered a major Iran hawk; the fact that he opposes this speaks volumes.)

Now, conflicts between Departments (State, Defense, CIA, et al.) and the NSC are common in American foreign policy. The NSC often wins them. That is not odd in itself. What is odd is that in this case the "NSC" is not clearly being driven by the President's National Security Advisor. That's highly odd.

Indeed, if we look at the current NSC it seems to still be stocked in many cases by Mike Flynn's people. Again, not entirely out of the norm. A new boss isn't really in a position to fire everyone at once. But Mike Flynn isn't any former NSC boss. He resigned in disgrace and is at the center of an investigation that is consuming the whole country. Copious reporting says that he has not been permitted to fire a number of Flynn people.

Who exactly is keeping Cohen-Watnick and others like him in place? Remember, this isn't my imagination or speculation. McMaster tried to fire him as soon as he took over the NSC. More than not being fired, what juice does he have that is allowing him to carry on major inter-agency battles to which the NSC chief, his nominal boss, is either a bystander or an opponent? You don't stay in a position like that against that kind of opposition – and certainly not with that much power – unless someone very powerful is on your side.

There is some unseen power center at work here. Is it the President? Is it Steve Bannon? Is it Flynn? From what I can tell it's not clear. But it seems pretty important to find out.

[Aug 11, 2017] RUSSIAN FEDERATION SITREP 20170810

Notable quotes:
"... But short-sighted outbursts are to be expected in the final days I suppose: Congress' war with Trump displays a contemptuous indifference to its allies' interests. (Mercouris argues that Trump's signing statement hints at a Supreme Court challenge : very plausible given that there is nothing to the Russia collusion story – even the WaPo seems to be backing off – and that Trump will be able to appoint more SC judges.) ..."
"... Do you think Putin is messing with their minds? ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
257.a.9 ) is specifically targeted; damage to NASA ( 237 ) is carefully voided. (NASA needs the Russians to get to the ISS and to launch things but European allies can freeze in the dark .

Take that, Europeans, it's for your own good! " You can't... ask for a bigger U.S. military commitment... while... oppose nonmilitary coercive measures ").

The effect of anti-Russia sanctions since 2014 is that Europe has likely suffered more than Russia and certainly more than the USA; Russia has used the sanctions (and its counter sanctions) to increase domestic production (see below) whereas Europe has just lost markets. Well, we'll find out whether Europe has the feet to stand on that Merkel thinks it has .

Russia has many ways to respond and, as Jeffrey Carr has pointed out, Congress has shown it where to hit hardest .

Another thing to find out is whether Moscow decides it's had enough – as Medvedev suggests – and that it's time to make its "partner" hurt. (Some responses: no more rocket engines, no overflights, no supply line to Afghanistan, no US NGOs, no Russian investments in USA, no accepting US dollars in trade.

But Putin & Co will probably come up with something cleverer than anything I can think of). They will be a drag on Washington's foreign policy for decades: "never recognize" Crimea in Russia ( 257.a.3 )? well, they're going to have to some time. I am collecting negative reactions on my site.

They're another step on the downward trajectory of the USA: they will drive a wedge between Europe and the USA; push Russia closer to China; may even lead to a rapprochement between Europe and Russia. But short-sighted outbursts are to be expected in the final days I suppose: Congress' war with Trump displays a contemptuous indifference to its allies' interests. (Mercouris argues that Trump's signing statement hints at a Supreme Court challenge : very plausible given that there is nothing to the Russia collusion story – even the WaPo seems to be backing off – and that Trump will be able to appoint more SC judges.)

SANCTIONS EFFECT. Russian statistics tell us that the share of imports in the retail sector is 36%, the lowest since the 2008 crash . Food imports are down to 24% from 34% in 2014. The percentage of imports in various categories: cereals 0.2%; sausages 1.6%; flour 1.8%; poultry 4.1%; pork 8.3%. Gessen will be glad that cheese imports are 27.7%, but sad that they're down from 48.4%. Sanctions work: just not the way the US Congress thinks they do. Altogether, it's probably fair to say that Russia is now self-sufficient in food. And production is only going to become bigger: the potential of Russian agriculture has never been tapped; serfdom, the village mir and collectivisation were not very productive.

CORRUPTION. The trial of the former Minister of Economic Development has begun . He was caught red-handed taking a bribe they say. I believe he is the highest ranking official yet to be charged: some – Luzhkov and Serdyukov spring to mind – have been accused of things and been fired, but no charges laid. We are told that 45,000 people have been convicted of corruption crimes over the last three and a half years and about 350 officials have been fired this year and the same last year.

VILLAGE LIFE. Someone who often lives in the Russian countryside blasts another NYT-Russia-is-an-unchanging-nightmare piece . Agreement from an American happily living in a village .

PHOTO OP. Putin and Shoygu, alone but for photographers, go fishing in Tyva; they forget to pack shirts. Western media goes nuts. ( DMail ) ( USA Today ) ( Daily B ) ( AP ) ( Fox ) ( Time ) ( Sky ) ( WaPo ) ( TorSun ) ( News.com.au ) France 24 ) ( Telegraph ) ( You look for the rest ). Maybe he really is " the most powerful man in the world ". Bare-chested Trudeau and Obama are ever so dreamy, but bare-chested Putin isn't: CrazyLand is bigger than I imagined. ( Do you think Putin is messing with their minds?

THE THREAT. Pew has an international survey out asking about leading security threats . The following NATO members name US power as a greater threat than Russian or Chinese: Canada, Germany, Greece, Spain and Turkey. USA is named first by 19 countries, China by 9, Russia by 7. This is a competition that the US has won every time out of the gate . And rising . Interesting, eh? And after all that propaganda, too. NATO StratCom needs more money!

UKRAINE. The disaster continues. In 2001 its population was 48.5 million. Latest official estimate is 42.5. Examination of various consumption statistics suggest that this estimate is too high. About 2.5 million are in Russia and another 1.5 million in Poland . At some point, for a country constructed out of bits and pieces of other states, depopulation will become geopolitically significant.

[Aug 11, 2017] Colluding with Foreign Spies--It Apparently Ain t the Trumps by Publius Tacitus

Notable quotes:
"... " So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." ..."
"... https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s ..."
"... What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof, thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times . ..."
"... McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan. ..."
"... Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11. ..."
"... I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria. ..."
"... In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow. ..."
"... The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong. ..."
"... The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line. ..."
"... Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary. ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

When it comes to meeting with foreign spies to dish dirt on a Presidential candidate (or a President elect), John McCain is more at fault than anyone connected to Donald Trump. McCain was directly involved in spreading unverified slanderous material regarding President-elect Donald Trump as he consorted with operatives linked to a foreign government--in this case, the United Kingdom.

This should give Lindsay Graham pause after watching his his exchange with FBI nominee Christopher Wray at Wednesday's Senate Judiciary hearing. Graham, who rhetorically fell on a fainting couch overwhelmed by outrage from the news that an obscure Russian lawyer had sought a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. in order to dish dirt on Hillary Clinton, admonished the FBI nominee to deal harshly with his colleagues on the following :

" So here's what I want you to tell every politician: If you get a call from somebody suggesting that a foreign government wants to help you by disparaging your opponent, tell us all to call the FBI." https://youtu.be/VzawbjQc4iM?t=1m34s

But Donald Trump Jr. is not guilty of doing this. Instead, it is Senator John McCain. He is the one who was fooling around with a foreign intelligence organization.

What did McCain do? He twice received material generated by a foreign intelligence operative and passed this along as if it was valuable, verified intelligence. Here is the proof, thanks to Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times .

Aleksej Gubarev , a Cypriot based chief executive of the network solutions firm XBT Holdings, filed suit against Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, for defamation over their role in the publication of an unproven dossier (which appeared in Buzzfeed) on President Donald Trump's purported activities involving Russia and allegations of Russian interference during last year's U.S. election.

The businessman, Aleksej Gubarev , claims he and his companies were falsely linked in the dossier to the Russia-backed computer hacking of Democratic Party figures.

Gubarev , 36, also is seeking unspecified damages from Buzzfeed and its top editor, Ben Smith, in a parallel lawsuit filed in Miami. Lawyers for Christopher Steele and Orbis Business Intelligence in the United Kingdom filed a response with the British court.

Rowan Scarborough obtained a copy of the document and posted it on-line in April. The defense document is both illuminating and damning (I don't know how I missed this when it came out in April). This is like a statement under oath and it presents the following facts:

1. Orbis Business Intelligence was engaged by Fusion GPS sometime in early June 2016 to prepare a series of confidential memorandum based on intelligence concerning Russian efforts to influence the U.S. Presidential election process and links between Russia and Donald Trump (the first memo was dated 20 June 2016).

2. Fusion GPS is run by three former Wall Street Journal reporters: Glenn Simpson; Tom Catan; and Peter Fritsch. ( According to the New York Times, Fusion GPS was originally hired by a Republican donor – who has not been publicly identified – to dig up dirt on Trump in 2015. After Trump won the nomination, the firm began working with Democrats and honed in on Trump's links to Russia.)

3. Senator John McCain, accompanied by David Kramer (a Senior Director at Senator McCain's Institute for International Leadership), met in London with an Associate of Orbis, former British Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, to arrange a subsequent meeting with Christopher Steele in order to read the now infamous Steele Dossier.

4. David Kramer and Christopher Steele met in Surrey on 28 November 2016, where Kramer was briefed on the contents of the memos.

5. Once Senator McCain and David Kramer returned to the United States, arrangements were made for Fusion GPS to provide Senator McCain hard copies of the memoranda.

6. After Donald Trump was elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) that made the following claims:

  • Michael Cohen held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016 with Kremlin operatives.
  • Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met with Oleg SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the Trump team more generally.
  • In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the operation, but in particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary Clinton won the Presidency.
  • Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by both Trump's team and the Kremlin.

[Note--Michael Cohen denies he was ever in Prague.]

7. Christopher Steele passed a copy of the December memo to a senior UK Government national security official and to Fusion GPS (via encrypted email) with the instruction to give a hard copy to Senator McCain via David Kramer.

Sometime between December 14, 2016 and December 31, 2016, Senator McCain passed this salacious material to FBI director, James Comey.

As I pointed out in my previous piece ( Trump Jr. Emails Prove No Collusion . . . ), the Steele Dossier now stands completely discredited because the Trump Jr. emails provide prima facie evidence that there was no regular, sustained contact with Kremlin operatives. If there had been then there was no need to meet with an unknown lawyer peddling anti-Hillary material that, per the Steele Dossier, already had been delivered to the Trump team.

The role of Fusion GPS in this whole sordid affair needs to be thoroughly investigated. Circumstantial evidence opens them to charges of facilitating and enabling sedition. What they did appears to go beyond conventional opposition research and dirty tricks. Spreading a lie that Donald Trump and his team are Russian operatives crosses a line and, as we have witnessed over the last six months, roiled and disrupted the American political system.

McCain is not the only one guilty here. The work of Fusion GPS was paid for by unnamed Democrats (and one unnamed Republican). And this is not the only instance of collusion with a foreign intelligence organization. Hillary Clinton and her campaign reportedly consorted with Ukrainian operatives:

Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

You can read the full story here . The hysteria on the part of Democrats over alleged Russian meddling and collusion with the Trumps shows a growing potential for blowback. As more actual evidence emerges of anti-trumpets receiving intelligence and sharing that intelligence in underhanded back channels, the greater the risk that public attention will hone in on the real actions as opposed to unsubstantiated allegations. Such a development would leave the Democrats very vulnerable and very exposed.

IssacNewton -> iowa steve... , 17 July 2017 at 08:21 PM

I agree that Birtherism was an unethical strategy (e.g., when did you stop molesting children). I would point out the Hillary Clinton used this as an issue against Obama in 2008. She published photos of him in native african garb and had her surrogetes us this against up through the Democrat Convention. It was a strategy of both Trump and Clinton.
I'veBeenANaughtyBoy , 16 July 2017 at 06:07 AM
Slightly OT but mentioned by Steve & Iowa Steve above. I watched an hour or so long You Tube video 3 or 4 months ago about how Sheriff Joe Arpio (??sp) had got a couple of investigators to look into the Obama birth Cert brouhaha & to try & put it to bed, one way or another. The result was what I considered to be (I am not any expert in document forensics) a pretty convincing explanation of how the Birth Cert that the White House put forward was a forgery & how it had been falsified.

They even had tracked down (& named the woman) the birth cert that Obamas had been based on. It was convincing.

The other thing that sold the investigation to me as being genuine was there was nothing - nothing, in the MSM about it. I took that to mean that they didn't want to try & debunk it as it would attract attention to the video. I didn't pay over much attention to the scandal back when, & only watched the vid as I was laid up that day. Since then I've also come across a "Barry Soetoro" foreign student I.D. card from Columbia U with a young Obama pictured on it.

DianaLC , 14 July 2017 at 02:30 PM
We can argue the merits of a Trump presidency all we want. We can continue to be distracted by new intelligence about shenanigans during the presidential election until Trump's first term is up. That is the plan.

I understand that foreign governments -- and probably mostly Russia -- try desperately to influence our elections in their favor. Just as I understand that our government officials do the same in foreign elections. It's disgusting behavior for someone who really, really believes the high principles on which our government was founded. I admit it: I am a Pollyanna in that regard.

But I also KNOW my tendencies to be more idealistic than realistic in regard to human nature. At my age, the reality of human nature has caused me more heartbreak than I care to remember.

Therefore, I have to prioritize my worries. And so, here again, I am with PT on this issue. McCain is the bigger jerk. In my opinion, he can't stand it that more Americans voted for Trump than voted for McCain (this American included--though I did hold my nose and vote for McCain simply because my stomach would not take voting for BHO. I was not a birther, but I was fully aware of things in regard to his past that I didn't like and his ideology that I despised and his friendships with people I found reprehensible. I could go on, but won't).

The people I admire the most are, in many cases, people who did champion Trump from the beginning. I was originally flabbergasted by that fact. I was, and still am, a Cruz person. But.....I am also an American and do put much faith in the everyday, working, Americans who live in the Middle, where I live. These are truly the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world" people. Their votes were given mostly because, I think, Trump declared that he wanted to "drain the swamp." We knew what that meant. We know now that avoiding the machinations of swamp people is harder than we might have guessed. So I am willing to give the Trump boys some grace, but not the smarmy "bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomp Iran" McCain.

Nothing came from this juvenile and inept attempt to "collude." Let's forget it, get the swamp drained and the leaks plugged and get on with making campaign promises come true. Take the NYT and WaPo copies and find some way to use them for good: birdcage liners, shredded packaging stuffing, even cat litter. Let CNN become a memory as you avoid watching it or any news story about it. Heck, don't even watch Fox except to get the news without listening to the commentary. Write your senators and representatives about your views of the issues; then go on with leading good American lives, while saying your daily prayers to the only One who is in charge.

Anna -> David Habakkuk ... , 14 July 2017 at 01:37 PM
"Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up."

This is in addition to attracting more attention to Magnitsky Act (and to a documentary by Nekrasov), and, by association, to another important documentary, "Two hundreds years together" by Solzhenitsyn. Both authors used to be the darlings of the west for their harsh critique of the Soviet Union (by Solzhenitsyn) and Putin (by Nekrasov).

No publishing house in the US and UK dares to publish "Two hundreds years together," and no western country dares to show "The Magnitsky Act – Behind The Scenes," because the presented facts are not fitting the ziocons' sensibilities.

blowback -> Fred... , 14 July 2017 at 12:18 PM
What subversion is that? Nothing came of Donald Jr's stupidity but there were real effects from the Fusion GPS garbage. As for Trump making gooey eyes at Putin, it was one part of his election platform that Trump was clear and open about and as the president pretty much gets to decide foreign policy, rather than McCain, Graham, the Clintonists, etc. so what?

Which reminds me what about all those dirty little wars, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc that Obama and the Clintonist queen involved the US in on the basis of an AUM signed back in 2001, and how was Gadaffi, Assad and the Houthis, all sworn enemies of the jihadists, "associated force" of those responsible for 9/11.

Greco , 14 July 2017 at 10:49 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4690834/Don-Trump-Jr-lawyer-linked-dirty-dossier-firm.html

Apparently the Russian lawyer who met with Don Jr was lobbying on behalf of a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned as a result of the Magnitsky Act. That same oligarch was also faced with a $230 million fine for money laundering. He tried to cut a deal back in 2015 whereupon he would act as an informant to US authorities. The $230 million fine was later reduced to only $6 million days before his case was set for trial this past May.

Sam Peralta -> David Habakkuk ... , 14 July 2017 at 10:14 AM
David

" In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. "

This is exactly what breeds cynicism. I don't believe it is any different in the US as the judiciary always gives a pass when the "state secrets" defense is mounted. This is a perfect legal doctrine as it can be used to cover up all kinds of malfeasance and misfeasance. There's a reason why support exists for whistleblowers like Snowden and Wikileaks among the general public.

What was the reaction of the average person in Britain to the Lord Hutton "inquiry"?

I continue to be baffled by the Trump Administration's response to the continued attacks by former and possibly current high officials in the IC. There seems to be no overt investigation by the AG. They seem to be just reacting as the media go to town manufacturing hysteria.

David Habakkuk , 14 July 2017 at 09:31 AM
PT,

There is a further lawsuit against BuzzFeed, brought by the Alfa Group oligarchs, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven, and German Khan. The summons, dated 26 May 2017 is at

http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/buzzfeed.pdf

Also, a report on 'McClatchy' on 11 July, entitled 'John McCain faces questions in Trump-Russia dossier case', linked to the response of Steele and Orbis dated 18 May to the request by Gubarev's lawyers for further information in response to the 'Defence' in the London suit to which you linked.

(See http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article160622854.html .)

Whether the fact that the lawyer who prepared the response, Nicola Cain, was until recently a senior barrister at the BBC is of any relevance I do not know.

There is a lot in this which is not at the moment making a great deal of sense. It is absolutely basic journalistic 'tradecraft' to get a piece like the dossier 'lawyered' before publication. The question in my day would have been 'is it a fair business risk?'

A lawyer competent in the law of defamation – as Ms Cain clearly is – would I think have almost certainly said that the memorandum on the Alfa oligarchs was in no way a 'fair business risk.'

Moreover, it is hard to see any compelling reason why it should not have simply been omitted from the published version of the dossier – particularly as this would not have materially reduced the 'information operations' impact of the document.

As to the reference to Gubarev, a simple redaction would have reduced the risk of his suing to zero, and again, would not have materially reduced the impact of the dossier.

Indeed, even if the BuzzFeed journalists are amateurish, former WSJ journalists like those who run Fusion – and one of the company's partners, Thomas Catan, is also a former 'Financial Times' journalist – should have been aware they were on a sticky wicket without needing to consult a lawyer.

At the moment, both sets of legal proceedings are a hostage to fortune, for many reasons, including the possibility that they could make people for the first time actually notice that Sir Robert Owen's report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko is a flagrant cover-up.

Although the claims made about Steele's involvement in that affair are a hopeless mess of contradictions, what would seem reasonably clear is that he was a key figure in orchestrating proceedings. (Whether Fusion were involved, at the American end, is an interesting question.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we end up with a situation where people are stabbing each other in the back. So Steele is trying to rescue himself, by suggesting that the memoranda were not intended for publication at all, and that the reason for their publication was a violation of a confidentiality agreement by Fusion.

Meanwhile, the former British Moscow Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood has already directly contradicted the 'Defence', claiming that, contrary to what it says, he was never an 'associate' of Orbis.

(See http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/09/comey-testimony-leaves-questions-unanswered-about-anti-trump-dossier.html .)

In Britain, when the intelligence services make an unholy mess of things, it is usually possible to find the right kind of judge, or former senior official, to apply the appropriate degree of 'whitewash'. It was Lord Hutton's application of a lavish quantity of this substance to the Joint Intelligence Committee, MI6, and the Blair Government in his inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly which played a non-trivial role to reducing the BBC to its present status as a kind of imitation of the Brezhnev-era Radio Moscow.

The acceptance of patently fabricated evidence by Owen took the 'whitewash' process to new heights. It would seem to me unlikely that those involved are optimistic that, by selecting the right kind of judge and organising another propaganda 'barrage' on the BBC and other outlets, they can contain the damage done by the lawsuits brought over the dossier. But I could be wrong.

Anna -> LeaNder... , 14 July 2017 at 09:21 AM
More on the same, this time on the infamous Magnitsky Act: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/13/how-russia-gate-met-the-magnitsky-myth/#comment-274252
Fred -> steve... , 14 July 2017 at 08:49 AM
Steve,

"Just can't bring myself to get worked up over this..."

Subverting the constitutional order is a-ok if the guy duly elected is a jerk. What a wonderful standard of conduct.

Anna -> steve... , 13 July 2017 at 11:32 PM
The whole anti-Trump bruha-ha has been about his alleged collusion with a foreign government. Here we have a documented case of a collusion of clintonistas with the foreign intelligence organization (UK) and foreign government (Ukraine). The "progressives" (including McCain and the most rabid ziocons) have been waling like sirens about alleged "treason." Well. It seems that their wish was heard.
This is not about Trump. This is about the law.

"...if there was any line, it was crossed a long time ago."

Sigh. Obama's "we scam" was a powerful instrument of breeding both lawlessness and cynicism. i

iowa steve -> steve... , 13 July 2017 at 10:46 PM
Yeah, Trump's birtherism was odious but I don't see the equivalence between that and the current Russiaphobia.

The latter [Russophobia] is an effort to assert US power over the legitimate interests of a nuclear-armed Russia, to continue to act provocatively against Russia, and to kill any attempts at a rapprochement. Birtherism crossed a line of political rhetoric, but the efforts of neocons in tying Trump's hands regarding peaceful relations with Russia is crossing a far more dangerous line.

Birtherism was one of many things that discredited Trump as a huckster from receiving my vote. Warmongering, among other matters, also disqualified Hillary.

[Aug 11, 2017] Why Some US Ex-Spies Dont Buy the Russia Story by Leonid Bershidsky

Notable quotes:
"... Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention. ..."
"... The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network. ..."
"... The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic ..."
"... However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed. ..."
"... And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power. ..."
"... Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia... ..."
"... The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed. ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | www.bloomberg.com
Evidence that undermines the "election hack" narrative should get more attention.

What if it wasn't Russia's fault?

In 2003, when a number of former intelligence professionals formed a group to protest the way intelligence was bent to accuse Iraq of producing weapons of mass destruction, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a sympathetic column quoting the group's members. In 2017, you won't read about this same group's latest campaign in the big U.S. newspapers.

The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been investigating the now conventional wisdom that last year's leaks of Democratic National Committee files were the result of Russian hacks. What they found instead is evidence to the contrary.

Unlike the "current and former intelligence officials" anonymously quoted in stories about the Trump-Russia scandal, VIPS members actually have names. But their findings and doubts are only being aired by non-mainstream publications that are easy to accuse of being channels for Russian disinformation. The Nation, Consortium News, ZeroHedge and other outlets have pointed to their findings that at least some of the DNC files were taken by an insider rather than by hackers, Russian or otherwise.

The January assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, which serves as the basis for accusations that Russia hacked the election said, among other things: "We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks."

VIPS instead surmises that, after WikiLeaks' Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016 his intention to publish Hillary Clinton-related emails, the DNC rushed to fabricate evidence that it had been hacked by Russia to defuse any potential WikiLeaks disclosures. To this end, the theory goes, the DNC used the Guccifer 2.0 online persona to release mostly harmless DNC data. Guccifer 2.0 was later loosely linked to Russia because of Russian metadata in his files and his use of a Russia-based virtual private network.

The VIPS theory relies on forensic findings by independent researchers who go by the pseudonyms "Forensicator" and "Adam Carter." The former found that 1,976 MB of Guccifer's files were copied from a DNC server on July 5 in just 87 seconds, implying a transfer rate of 22.6 megabytes per second -- or, converted to a measure most people use, about 180 megabits per second, a speed not commonly available from U.S. internet providers. Downloading such files this quickly over the internet, especially over a VPN (most hackers would use one), would have been all but impossible because the network infrastructure through which the traffic would have to pass would further slow the traffic.

However, as Forensicator has pointed out , the files could have been copied to a thumb drive -- something only an insider could have done -- at about that speed.

Adam Carter, the pseudonym for the other analyst, showed that the content of the Guccifer files was at some point cut and pasted into Microsoft Word templates that used the Russian language. Carter laid out all the available evidence and his answers to numerous critics in a long post earlier this month.

VIPS includes former National Security Agency staffers with considerable technical expertise, such as William Binney, the agency's former technical director for world geopolitical and military analysis, and Edward Loomis Jr., former technical director for the office of signals processing, as well as other ex-intelligence officers with impressive credentials. That doesn't, of course, mean the group is right when it finds the expert analysis by Forensicator and Carter persuasive. Another former intelligence professional who has examined it, Scott Ritter, has pointed out that these findings don't necessarily refutes that Guccifer's material constitute the spoils of a hack.

VIPS's record of unruly activism might have devalued its theories and conclusions in the eyes of mainstream journalists. Ray McGovern, a VIPS founder who used to prepare and deliver White House briefings at the Central Intelligence Agency, has been removed from Hillary Clinton's events for protesting her policies. While the group was right about Iraq in 2003, that doesn't mean it's right about Russia in 2017, with some of its members' intelligence work now long in the past.

And yet these aren't good reasons to avoid the discussion of what actually happened at the DNC last year, especially since no intelligence agency actually examined the Democrats' servers and CrowdStrike, the firm whose conclusions informed much of the intelligence community's assessment, had obvious conflicts of interest -- from being paid by the DNC to co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch's affiliation with the Atlantic Council , a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that has generally viewed Russia as a hostile power.

One hopes that the numerous investigations into Trump-Russia are based on hard evidence, not easy assumptions. But since these investigations are not transparent at this point, the only way to make sure their attention is still focused on the technical aspects of the suspected Russian hacks and leaks is to present the available evidence, along with any arguments undermining it, to the public.

Many Americans' certainty about Russian involvement, which has led to increased hostility toward Russia...

Having been burned so badly on the Iraq intelligence claims in 2003, you would think major U.S. media would apply more journalistic skepticism and rigor here, even if, to the broader public, Russia is a faraway power to which it's easy to ascribe pretty much any nefarious activity. Instead, these outlets seem more intent on noting Putin's bare-chested physique and accusing him of further meddling on social networks. The alt-right may not need Russia's help in using Twitter bots to run its social media campaigns , but it gets less scrutiny for them than Russia.

The U.S. public didn't quite buy Clinton's "the Russians did it" line last year, and she lost the election. By now, though, many Americans are sold on it. That may be an Iraq-sized mistake, leading to a dangerous failure to recognize that Donald Trump's victory was an American phenomenon, not a Russian-made one. Authoritarian regimes such as Putin's routinely use external enemies to gloss over domestic divisions and distract the public from problems at home. In a functioning democracy, such tactics should not succeed.

( Corrects volume of data transferred in sixth paragraph.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at [email protected]

[Aug 11, 2017] August 4, 2017 at 9:02 pm

Notable quotes:
"... The United States also pledged to the Soviet Union (Gorbachov) that they would not expand NATO up to Russia's borders, if only Russia would allow Germany to reunite. Just trust us! See how that went. ..."
"... Naive Russians learned a lesson: That pindosi speak with forked tongue and always lie. American government are not to be trusted, any more than you can trust the word of a scorpion. ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_reunification#United_States

"The United States officially supports Korean reunification under a democratic government. Mike Mansfield proposed that Korea be neutralized under a great-power agreement, accompanied by the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the discontinuation of security treaties with the great power guarantors of the North and South."

Sounds good, right? Reply

Patient Observer , August 4, 2017 at 9:37 pm

Matt, really? I don't think that you are so naive as to take such proclamations at face value. The US also officially supports freedom and democracy as it installs and supports dictators of every sort.

The NK topic seems to have been discussed enough. I learned a lot and thank all those who added facts and logic to the discussion including you.

yalensis , August 5, 2017 at 5:57 am
The United States government also pledged (many times) to Native Americans that they are not out to grab more aboriginal territory. Just trust us! See how that went.

The United States also pledged to the Soviet Union (Gorbachov) that they would not expand NATO up to Russia's borders, if only Russia would allow Germany to reunite. Just trust us! See how that went.

Naive Russians learned a lesson: That pindosi speak with forked tongue and always lie. American government are not to be trusted, any more than you can trust the word of a scorpion.

[Aug 11, 2017] China pledges neutrality - unless US strikes North Korea first

Aug 11, 2017 | www.msn.com

"If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime, and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so," reported the Global Times , a daily Chinese newspaper controlled by the Communist Party.

... ... ...

One North Korean government official, meanwhile, accused Trump of "going senile," Fox News reported .

[Aug 11, 2017] The US goal in xUSSR region and developing countries is really to make a transition to neoliberal corporate governance and enable exploitation of countries resources for wealthy American conglomerates and other multinationals

Aug 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

August 5, 2017

marknesop , August 5, 2017 at 2:42 pm

There's nothing wrong with a policy which says sovereign decisions are a matter for the country's people to decide but to offer a helping hand to encourage 'good behaviours' which are likely to result in a minimum of disruption and possibly danger to a nation's neighbours. And here is where the slippery slope comes in. Devotees of American exceptionalism argue – often with good conscience – that this is all Washington is doing; trying to help ease the transition to a market economy, or whatever, pick your meme. It is difficult to prove that the aim is really to make a transition to corporate governance and enable exploitation for wealthy American conglomerates, and a lot of people on both sides get to throw the 'conspiracy theorist' term around.

[Aug 11, 2017] Is the United States in Decline by Christopher Layne

Notable quotes:
"... Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system." ..."
"... Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process. ..."
"... While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945, bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in the camp of U.S. global dominance. ..."
"... But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United States will not be an exception. ..."
"... Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally. ..."
"... the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial regime collapsed of its own weight. ..."
"... today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects the shifting Sino-American balance of power. ..."
"... because of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened." ..."
"... For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance, Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game." ..."
"... China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As Martin Jacques puts it: ..."
"... The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed. ..."
"... Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule. ..."
"... As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western interests. ..."
"... But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. ..."
"... Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results. ..."
Aug 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

No state stays on top of the great power pyramid forever. August 8, 2017 In mid-May, leaders of 29 nations, and representatives from some 80 others, descended on Beijing to discuss China's ambitious "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) development initiative!also known to some as the "New Silk Road." This plan is the follow-on to China's creation several years ago of the Asia Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB), a major new international financial institution to foster economic development in "emerging market" nations.

OBOR, a signature policy of Chinese president Xi Jinping, calls for investing massive amounts of money ($1 trillion, according to some reports) to promote trade and economic development by constructing transportation links that will tie together East Asian manufacturing hubs with Southeast Asia, Central Asia, Africa, and Southwest Asia. These new transportation routes also will connect China with the participating nations and Europe. China's aim is twofold: to create new markets for the goods and services it produces, and to extend its geopolitical influence. Some analysts see OBOR as a Chinese version of the Marshall Plan, the important post-World War II American initiative that helped rebuild Western Europe and laid the foundation for European economic unity that ultimately culminated in the European Union.

With OBOR, China is following the example of Great Britain and the United States (as well as pre-World War I European great powers such as Germany). In the 19th century, the expansion of the British empire, including what scholars Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher describe as its "informal empire," was driven by the perceived need to find outlets for the United Kingdom's "surplus" goods and capital!that is, goods and capital that could not be profitably absorbed by the domestic economy. When the United States burst onto the world stage as a great power in the late 19th century, acquiring Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines, it imitated Britain's pursuit of both informal and formal empire for the same reason: the belief that America's continuing economic growth depended on exporting American capital and goods. China today faces the problem of insufficient demand for its products and limited prospects for profitable domestic investment. Beijing is responding to these problems pretty much as Britain and the United States did in the latter part of the 19th century: by seeking new markets and attractive investment opportunities abroad.

As both Britain and the United States demonstrated, economic expansion begets geopolitical expansion. Economic clout can buy a lot of political influence. But the lines of communication linking the home country to its overseas markets must be protected. And political stability must be maintained where the home country is investing. For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in the inexorable expansion of their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have a similar effect on China. It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection capabilities. Beijing will be compelled to assume an increasingly active role in managing regional security in places affected by OBOR!especially in Central Asia and Pakistan, which are plagued by political instability and terrorism.

OBOR is a milestone on China's path to great power status and is one of several indicators of receding American power!not just geopolitically, but also in matters involving the international economy and international institutions. When discussing the Sino-American rivalry, attention is focused on the military balance between the United States and China and to flashpoints between the two countries that could spark a conflict!the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula. But these more intangible economic and diplomatic developments will be no less important in shaping relations between Washington and Beijing as in determining the fate of the world order built by the United States following World War II!that is, Pax Americana, or what is sometimes referred to as "the liberal rules-based international order."

Since the early 2000s there has been an ongoing conversation among scholars, policymakers, and members of the broader American foreign policy establishment about whether U.S. power is in decline. The question actually extends back to the 1980s, with the publication of Yale historian Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and other important books on the subject by scholars David Calleo and Robert Gilpin. The controversy surrounding decline dissipated, however, when the Soviet Union imploded and Japan's economic bubble burst. In one fell swoop, America's primary military and economic competitors fell off the geopolitical chessboard.

The decline issue remained dormant through the "the unipolar moment" of the 1990s but was rekindled with China's rapid great-power emergence in the early 2000s. China's rise is the flip side of American decline. The central geopolitical question of the early 21st century is whether Pax Americana can survive China's rise and the resulting shift of world geopolitical and economic power from west to east. The U.S. foreign policy establishment is allergic to the word "decline." After all, as Jon Huntsman declared during his brief presidential run in 2012: "Decline is un-American." Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.

Though Huntsman has plenty of company on this issue in the foreign policy establishment, we would do better to heed the advice of the great Hall of Fame pitcher Satchel Paige. "Don't look back," he said, "because something may be gaining on you." A glance at the rear-view mirror shows China rapidly closing the gaps with the United States in all the dimensions of power upon which the Pax Americana was built: military, economic, and institutional.

In the last decade, China has displaced the United States as the world's leading manufacturing power. In 2014, according to the World Bank, China passed America as the world's largest economy (measured by purchasing power parity). In 1980, the United States accounted for about 25 percent of gross world product. Today it accounts for around 18 percent. Some analysts have come up with clever arguments to discount the importance of these economic trends. They are unconvincing. But the reality of U.S. decline is more than just a matter of numbers; it is also evident in Washington's diminishing ability to manage the international economy and in the growing challenges to many legacy institutions of Pax Americana.

A strain of thinking called hegemonic stability theory holds that a liberal, open international economy requires an overarching power to manage and stabilize the system by creating a political and security order that permits economic openness. The United States filled this role for half a century, from 1945 until the Great Recession. The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods that benefit the international system as a whole, including: making the rules for the international economic order; opening its domestic market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the global economy; and providing a reserve currency. Having declined to grasp the mantle of leadership during the 1930s, Washington seized it decisively after World War II. Johns Hopkins professor Michael Mandelbaum has argued that, following the Cold War, the United States essentially acted as a de facto government for the international system by providing security and managing the global economy.

The Great Recession impaired the United States' ability to provide leadership for the international economy. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them. But America plunged the world into economic crisis when its financial system seized up with the sub-prime mortgage crisis. A hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy, but the United States became the borrower of first resort!the world's largest debtor. When the global economy falters, the economic hegemon must assume responsibility for kick-starting recovery by purchasing other nations' goods. From 1945 to the Great Recession, America's willingness to consume foreign goods constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns. During the Great Recession, however, the U.S. economy proved too infirm to lead the global economy back to health.

At the April 2009 G20 meeting in London, President Barack Obama conceded that, in key respects, the United States' days as economic hegemon were numbered because America is too deeply in debt to continue as the world's consumer of last resort. Instead, he said, the world would have to look to China (and other emerging market states plus Germany) to be the motors of global recovery.

Another example of how the U.S. has lost its grip on global economic leadership is its failure to prevail over the Europeans (read: Germany) in the transatlantic "austerity versus stimulus" debate that commenced in late 2009. Reflecting their different historical experiences, the United States and Europe (more specifically, Germany and the European Central Bank, or ECB) adopted divergent fiscal policies during the Great Recession. Obama administration economic policymakers were guided by the Keynesian lessons learned from the 1930s Great Depression: to dig out of a deep economic slump, the federal government should boost demand by pump-priming the economy through deficit spending, and the Federal Reserve should add further stimulus through low interest rates and easy money. Obama administration policymakers and leading American economists were haunted by the "1937 analogy"!FDR's "recession within the Depression''!demonstrating that if stimulus is withdrawn prematurely, a nascent recovery may be aborted.

On the other hand, Germany!the EU's economic engine!has long been haunted by the "1923 analogy": the fear that inflation can become uncontrollable, with disastrous economic, social, and political consequences. From the founding of post-World War II West Germany until the advent of the European Monetary Union and eventually the Euro, Germany's central Bundesbank maintained a primary mission of combatting inflation and preserving the Deutschmark's value. For the German government, assurance that the new ECB would follow the Bundesbank's sound money policy was a sine qua non for Berlin's decision to give up the Deutschmark in favor of the Euro.

This U.S.-European divide on austerity versus stimulus was apparent as early as the April 2009 London G20 summit, where the United States wanted to rebalance the international economy by inducing the Europeans (most particularly, Germany, which, with China, was one of the two large surplus economies) to lift the Continent out of the Great Recession by emulating Washington's use of deficit spending to galvanize economic revival. Washington wanted Germany to export less and import more. Berlin flatly refused. German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued that for states!especially ones already deeply in debt!to accumulate more debt in an effort to spend themselves out of the Great Recession would only set the stage for an even greater crisis down the road.

Washington's inability to prevail over Berlin in the stimulus vs. austerity debate highlighted waning U.S. power in the international economy. Jack Lew, then Treasury secretary, implicitly said as much at the October 2015 IMF-World Bank annual meeting when he stated that the United States could not be the "sole engine" of global growth.

But America's inability to get Germany to give up austerity was not the only indicator of America's decreasing ability to shape the international economic agenda. During the Obama administration's first term, the United States was unable to persuade China to allow the renminbi to appreciate to Washington's preferred level (which the United States hoped would reduce China's export surplus to the United States while simultaneously boosting American exports to China).

U.S. economic and fiscal troubles have contributed significantly to the fraying of Pax Americana's institutional global framework. The Great Recession spurred calls for a major overhaul of the international institutional order as evidenced by the emergence of the G20, demands for IMF and World Bank reform, and a push for expanded membership of the UN Security Council. The past decade or so also has seen the creation of new international organizations and groupings such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). As American power wanes, a parallel or "shadow" international order is being constructed as an alternative to Pax Americana. Perhaps the most dramatic example of his is Beijing's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

As Beijing rolled out its AIIB plans, the Obama administration kicked into high gear diplomatically in an attempt to squelch it. As the New York Times reported, Washington "lobbied against the [AIIB] with unexpected determination and engaged in a vigorous campaign to persuade important allies to shun the project." Washington's attempt to dissuade its allies from joining the AIIB failed. The dam burst when, in an Ides of March 2015 decision, Britain announced it was going to become a member of the AIIB ("Et Tu Britain?"). London's decision to join the AIIB set off a stampede as other states on the fence rushed to sign up for membership. Those joining included U.S. allies such as France, Germany, Italy, Australia, South Korea, even Israel and Taiwan. Beijing's diplomatic coup in attracting widespread support for its AIIB initiative from long-standing U.S. allies was viewed as a direct challenge to America's global geopolitical and economic leadership.

Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system."

Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process.

Not surprisingly, U.S. policymakers and the wider foreign policy establishment brush off any possibility of diminishing U.S. power. Recent books by leading foreign policy analysts (including Josef Joffe, Robert Lieber, and Joseph S. Nye Jr.) assert that U.S. power is robust, and that the 21st century, like the 20th, will be an "American century." Meanwhile, during the Obama administration U.S. foreign policy officials never missed a chance to assert America's continuing role as a global hegemon (though President Obama's own views on U.S. primacy seemed more nuanced). For example, the Obama administration's 2015 National Security Strategy, a twenty-nine page document, invoked the term "American leadership" more than 100 times.

While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945, bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in the camp of U.S. global dominance.

But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United States will not be an exception.

Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally.

And, of course, the United States alone had atomic weapons. America used its commanding economic, military, and political supremacy to lay the foundations of the post-World War II international order, reflected in such institutions as the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which has morphed into the World Trade Organization). Additionally, the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial regime collapsed of its own weight.

All this represented a remarkable achievement, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for more than half a century. But today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects the shifting Sino-American balance of power.

Washington said it opposed AIIB because of doubts that it would adhere to the same environmental, governance, lending, transparency, labor, and human rights standards practiced by the IMF, World Bank, and Asian Development Bank. But Treasury's Lew was more candid when he said that, because of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened."

For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance, Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game."

The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although the ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's economic orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However, Beijing's ability to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB bandwagon suggests this assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may override security concerns and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit. The trajectory of ASEAN's trade flows is revealing. In 1993, the United States accounted for 18 percent of ASEAN's total trade (imports and exports combined), and China for only 2 percent. By 2013 the United States' share of ASEAN's total trade had shrunk to 8.2 percent while China's had jumped to 14 percent. The trend lines indicate that in coming years China's share of regional trade will continue to rise while that of the U.S. will decline.

Thus while OBOR and the AIIB don't get the same attention from U.S. grand strategists as does China's military buildup, they are equally important in signaling the ongoing power transition between the United States and China in East Asia. Among American security studies scholars, even those who once firmly believed that unipolarity would last far into the future now grudgingly concede that the era of American hegemony may be drawing to a close. They console themselves, however, with the thought that the United States can cushion itself against future power declines and the loss of hegemony by taking advantage of what they see as a still-open window to "lock in" Pax Americana's essential features!its institutions, rules, and norms!so that they outlive unipolarity. As Princeton's G. John Ikenberry puts it, the United States should act today to put in place an institutional framework "that will safeguard our interests in future decades when we will not be a unipolar power."

Ikenberry argues that China, having risen within the post-1945 international system, has no incentive to overturn it. His argument is superficially attractive because it posits that, even if the material foundations of U.S. dominance wither, its institutional and ideational essence will live on. This almost certainly is incorrect. China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As Martin Jacques puts it:

The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed.

Thus the "lock-in" concept isn't likely to work because China, along with much of the developing world, does not accept the foundations upon which the post-World War II liberal international order rests.

For many American scholars and policy makers the notion of a "liberal, rules-based, international order" has a talismanic quality. They believe that rules and institutions are politically neutral and thus ipso facto beneficial for all. Many proponents of "lock-in" have constructed a geopolitically antiseptic world, one uncontaminated by clashing national interests. In this world, great power competition and conflict are transcended by rules, norms, and international institutions. The problem is that this misconstrues how the world works. Great power politics is about power. Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule.

As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western interests.

Proponents of "lock-in" are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a "responsible stakeholder" (with Washington defining the meaning of "responsibility") in an international order that it did not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States. In plain English, what those who believe in "lock-in" expect is that an increasingly powerful China will continue to accept playing second fiddle to the United States.

But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

Christopher Layne is University Distinguished Professor of International Affairs, and Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, at Texas A&M University.

ds9 , says: August 9, 2017 at 12:30 am

Thank you for a very interesting article. Still, I think there is a large issue not addressed: Isn't China on the verge of a now unstoppable demographic catastrophe? How do you see that affecting China's "rise" long term?
RVA , says: August 9, 2017 at 12:34 am
Professor Layne: You left out something very significantly causal re: decline of American power. It is not mysterious or a deeply historic twist of inevitable fate.

Rather, we have spent TRILLIONS in vain military blood and treasure over the past 17 years, with NOTHING to show for it – besides a destabilized region raining the most refugees since WW2 onto our allies, the Europeans (destabilizing THEM as well.)

This failure is not even being addressed, let alone changed. Policymakers responsible apparently have clearance to continue this uselessness indefinitely.

A Chinese sage named Sun Tzu said it best, some 2500 years ago, in The Art of War:

" When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. "

No mystery here. America is proving not to be Exceptional enough to survive elite mismanagement.

Catalan , says: August 9, 2017 at 1:02 am
No. The rest of the world is merely catching up. The wealth that the US enjoyed relative to the rest of the world in the decades following WWII was unprecedented, and is probably not a repeatable phenomenon. If we are declining, it is only because we fail to appreciate the multi-latereral nature of our world, and stick our nose where it doesn't belong.
hn , says: August 9, 2017 at 2:20 am
too long of an article to read.
Nelson , says: August 9, 2017 at 9:14 am
We're in decline not because of China but because of the decisions we make (or fail to make). We devote too many resources towards wars and asset appreciation (financial bubbles) and not enough into investing in ourselves (education and infrastructure). In the short run, the strong military made us look strong to the world snd ourselves but we never examined whether that was the most judicious use of our resources for the long run.

This is not anything new. Eisenhower spoke of this 50 some odd years ago.

EliteCommInc. , says: August 9, 2017 at 9:33 am
If we are in decline and there are signs that is the case. It is by our doing. Over expanded strategic goals and dismantling the very social structure(s) that maintains, sustains and protects longevity.

The abandonment of national identity by our leadership class. They claim in the national interests, but upon examining their policy agendas, immigration, bailout, lobbying rules, domestic agendas and management, there's plenty to be concerned about.

EliteCommInc. , says: August 9, 2017 at 9:41 am
" For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in the inexorable expansion of their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have a similar effect on China. It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection capabilities."

The trick here is managing the relational dynamics so that whatever mechanisms one uses in maintaining that power don't backlash to the point of disruptive violence or using sufficient force that such backlash doesn't occur.

The British/European model model of colonial rule was unsustainable. It might be wise to examine Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, maybe Germany but comparing these socialist smaller states would be a tricky comparison.

bkh , says: August 9, 2017 at 10:07 am
The idea that the US would maintain its world standing has been laughable for decades. A nation cannot excel when you have a population as narcissistic and willfully ignorant like we have now. The economic downfall is only a symptom of the ever deepening moral failures we find ourselves fighting over and even clinging to. I am no fan of socialism or communism, but what we have created here in America is an out of control monster set to destroy all in its path.
Kurt Gayle , says: August 9, 2017 at 10:22 am
A valuable analysis, Dr. Layne:

"The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although the ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's economic orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However, Beijing's ability to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB bandwagon suggests this assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may override security concerns and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit."

It is in this context -- South Korea, Japan, and other south Asian nations being drawn inexorably into China's geopolitical orbit, thus overturning US post-WW2 hegemony in the region – that current, much-exaggerated US concerns about North Korean nuclear weapons can best be understood.

The US is using North Korea's nuclear development – undertaken by North Korea as a defensive measure against regime change by the US – as one of a series of pretexts aimed at preserving its ever-diminishing post-WW2 hegemony in Asia.

At some point the US will begin to withdraw the 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea and the 30,000 US troops stationed in Japan – and will stop conducting military exercises and shows of force near the Chinese border – and will sit down with China, North Korea, South Korea, and Japan and begin the long process of negotiating the gradual, peaceful US acceptance of the new geopolitical reality in east Asia.

John Gruskos , says: August 9, 2017 at 10:28 am
The lesson I took from reading Paul Kennedy was, decline is a choice.

China, India and the Middle East could have competed with early modern Europe if centralized multi-ethnic empires (Manchu, Mughal and Ottoman Empires) hadn't stifled the energy of those civilizations.

The Spanish could have stayed on top if, beginning in 1559, Philip II, III, and IV hadn't stubbornly clung to ethnically dissimilar European territories such as the Netherlands, and if they hadn't wasted their nation's strength in the wars of the Counter Reformation.

Beginning with the 1670 Treaty of Dover, the French under Louis XIV and XV fell into the same trap, wasting their strength in the service of the Counter Reformation and territorial ambitions in the Netherlands.

The British could have stayed on top if they hadn't alienated the Americans, wasted their strength on tropical imperialism and balance of power wars, and then surrendered their industrial lead to Germany and America via the dogmatic embrace of free trade.

Germany might have replaced Britain as the new leading power if they had maintained the peace with a simply foreign policy based on a strong alliance with Russia, instead of the Byzantine complexity of Bismark's diplomacy followed by the belligerent buffoonery of Kaiser Wilhelm.

Prior to the Cold War, Americans did everything right. We grew from a tiny settlement in 1607 to a colossas possessing half (!) the world's GDP in 1947. We maintained the homogeneity, without stifling the energy, of our people. Most of our wars were fought to obtain sparsely populated temperate zone land for the colonization of our people – not for tropical imperialism, balance of power, or international ideological crusades. Pragmatism, not ideology, guided our economic policy. During the Cold War, we began sacrificing the interests of the American nation to the newfangled ideology of "Americanism". Tentatively under Truman, and definitively beginning with Kennedy, we undermined the homogeneity of our people with mass immigration from the whole world, undermined our traditional morality with liberal social engineering, became the policeman of the world intent on exporting "Americanism", and assumed an attitude of lofty contempt for our own trade interests.

The Chinese, on the other hand, chose ascent when they purged The Gang of Four and substituted Chinese ethno-nationalism for feverish Maoism as their guiding principle.

ScottA , says: August 9, 2017 at 10:30 am
It is obvious that we are now in the decline phase of the life cycle of empires. See the British general Sir John Bagot Glubb's book "The Course of Empire" and other writings.
Kurt Gayle , says: August 9, 2017 at 10:31 am
@ "hn" who said (2:20 a.m.): "too long of an article to read."

Luv it!

That comment belongs in a time capsule.

Michael Kenny , says: August 9, 2017 at 10:50 am
Blue chip stocks yield to blue chopsticks! Human civilisation is a forward-moving perpetual motion machine. It never stops and it never goes back. There is no "end of history". There is no point at which human civilisation just stops dead in its tracks and never moves again until the sun implodes in 10 million years and roasts us all. The world has always had its revisionists and reactionaries who want to take their countries back to some real or imagined golden age. If we're lucky, such people eventually disappear into Trotsky's famous "dustbin of history". If we're not lucky, they start a war, lose it and then disappear into said dustbin, destroying their country in the process and opening up the way for a new dominant power to emerge. Just as Britain dominated the world by 1850 and the US by 1950, China will dominate the world by 2050. I don't really see what disadvantage there is in that for Americans and for us in Europe, it looks very positive. Machiavelli said that as between two tyrants, always choose the most distant. China is Europe's distant tyrant. OBOR seems to be very much to Europe's advantage, displacing American hegemony and undermining US hegemonists' attempts to use Putin's Russia as an instrument to keep Europe under their control.
Dan Green , says: August 9, 2017 at 11:24 am
Being a confirmed Realist and having researched Realism what is going on today between ourselves, the Chinese Reds, and Russia is quite understandably. Few share our Democracy model, it is too messy.
Jon S , says: August 9, 2017 at 11:34 am
"the liberal rules-based international order."

Let's not be obtuse. This order was put in place by individuals in the USA because it was to their economic benefit to do so. That in no way means that this order benefits all Americans or even a majority. And to the tens of thousands of American soldiers who have died maintaining this order it was to their great detriment.

I personally have no allegiance to "the liberal rules-based international order". If the Chinese can do better, let them have at it.

The important question is not whether America is in decline. It is whether the American people's living standards are in decline.

Gaius Gracchus , says: August 9, 2017 at 11:44 am
Empire is not cost effective or beneficial to the general welfare of a country. It only serves to enrich a few, while creating domestic corruption and inequality.

The post-WW2 American empire, allegedly to contain Communism, really didn't benefit America. And the costs have been enormous.

It did benefit bankers, defense contractors, scoundrels, and the Wall Street Washington cabal centered on the CFR.

We wasted the post Cold War era believing there was an "End to History". Anyone with decent understanding would have considered that trying for a unipolar moment was a huge mistake and a world with various Great Powers was a more likely outcome.

Unipolar attempts don't work. Acknowledging the US as the greatest Great Power, among many, is a much better idea than trying to keep the US as the sole Superpower. That isn't decline but breaking through illusion.

Michael N Moore , says: August 9, 2017 at 12:43 pm
The Soviet Union sustained 20 Million causalities in the Second World War while it moved its factories east to keep them out of German hands. Contrast this with the US imperial elite who simply handed over our industrial base to China. The result is that China's economy is growing a rate three times that of the United States.
Adriana I Pena , says: August 9, 2017 at 12:49 pm
What goes up must come down
Spinnin' wheel got to go 'round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony let the spinnin' wheel spin
Interguru , says: August 9, 2017 at 1:35 pm
This thoughtful article is followed by thoughtful comments. One commenter already mentioned demographics. Due to immigration, America is the only advanced country not facing a population implosion.

Another ace-in-the-whole is geography. We are protected by two oceans with weak friendly neighbors on our land borders.We are blessed with rich resources. This includes rich agricultural land reachable by navigable rivers and mineral wealth.

We have rich political and social institutions that hopefully can survive Trump.

While we are doing our best to squander these they give us a cushion.

SteveM , says: August 9, 2017 at 2:39 pm
The U.S. is in an inevitable decline. The only question is the extent of the economic sabotage and outright wars that the Deep State will instigate to try to forestall the collapse.

Washington will not tolerate a second axis of power arising even if it is strictly economic. Consider how American Elites used subversion to catalyze the coup in Ukraine. They will stop at nothing to sustain U.S. hegemony in the larger global sphere.

Should China, Russia and Europe seek to integrate into a huge, contiguous Eurasian economic marketplace independent of United States hegemonic interference, the Deep State will use all of its military power to prevent it. (Especially ironic since death and destruction are becoming America's primary exports.)

The current rumblings of American power projection in the South China Sea and Russian borders are a set up for future conflicts. The United States regime deluded by arrogance and stupidity and saturated by the cult of military exceptionalism can't say no to military coercion and war as its primary foreign policy instrument.

With the Neocon/Neoliberal militarists now running the show, it's only going to get worse

Peter , says: August 9, 2017 at 3:56 pm
We are in decline because the decisions we made during and after the cold war.
– we tried to buy goodwill ("allies") by using the "most favored nation" clause – outsourcing manufacturing jobs, starting at the bottom of the sophistication scale (apparel, appliances ).
And all we have left is defense manufacturing jobs. We have no more jobs to give away to buy goodwill.
– while reducing taxes, we kept increasing defense related spending by borrowing money.
With all the senseless wars, we have a huge debt, not exactly something which gives you clout.
– we wasted brainpower on financial gimmicks which have zero contribution to economic strength.
Such gimmicks might mess up the economy – and we did this, too – for the whole world.
China took the market driven part of communist economy which was viciously stamped out by Stalin – the New Economic Policy (NEP) – and built an economic powerhouse, with money to spend.
Phillip , says: August 9, 2017 at 4:06 pm
The decline of the United States can be directly correlated to the decline in our spiritual fervor and the absence of the fear of God. Falling morals precipitate the fall of the nation. It's not a question of if at this point, but when. You can argue whatever other factors you wish, but there is a direct correlation between strength of a nation and God throughout human civilization.
Dan Green , says: August 9, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Lots to chew on as they say, but a couple key points from the article. A US President represents how the world view's we Americans. From all the so called turmoil, with both political parties sent packing, Trump may in fact represent real America. The fantasy the left markets, of a social democratic welfare state is a myth. Next, we have grown up on a diet of our President elect, being Commander in Chief, of the worlds most powerful military. So I ask, did Bill Clinton or Barack Obama seem to Americans, like a commander in chief. Bush wasn't capable of responding to 9-11, he tried and failed. Last Commander in Chief we had in our image was Ronald Reagan. Any wonder our enemies are making hay while the sunshines. So now we have two very very admirable foes. China and Russia neither with western values. How we now fit is up in the air. Getting Trump impeached or forced to resign replaced with whoever won't change millions of Americans.
EliteCommInc. , says: August 9, 2017 at 5:28 pm
I would take exception to some of these comments about inevitable decline. The word decline suggests to some end. That is very different than retraction or change.

When one examines China, Russia, Europe, these nations have been in play as states for 1500 years. And despite periods of retraction have maintained some semblance of their origins, more than some. Their cores remain intact as to culture and practice despite differing polities What is key for the US is her youth. We are unable to match the strategic long term strategies as the states mentions because we have not been around long enough to seal our core existence as a nation.

Mistaking youthful exuberance for wisdom of age is where we are. There is no mistaking that the US can remain a major player in world events and we should. But that process need not be at the expense of who we are are becoming or in lieu of it.

I will have to dig out my Zsun Tsu. It is easy to apply those admonitions out of their intended context. Because so many different environmental war scenarios are addressed. For example, Asia plays the long game. They are not thinking merely about this century, this decade, this year, month . . . but the next century. Hence the idea of long war. Consider how long they have been on the Continent of Africa.

They are in a sense just waiting everyone else out. Iraq, blood in the water. Afghanistan, blood in the water. They are not the least troubled that we are embroiled in the ME.

The size of our debt is troubling and the size of how much of that debt is owned by other states is disturbing. China, some ten years ago, indicated that they are seeking a way around the power of the dollar.

I am fully confident that we can survive the rise of any nation on earth. I believe we are special unique, and endowed with an energy, ingenuity, vibrancy and psyche today's world. But we are so inundated with a kind of can't do -- must accept attitude in social polity that undermines sense of self. and that is where I think the force of a Pres Trump is helpful, reinvigorating.

Conserving a sense of self, identity is mandatory for survival.

And while I have opposed out latest military interventions as unnecessary, if we decide to make war -- we had better do it to the full and be done with. This is more in line with what I think Tzun Tzu -- destabilize the opponents psychology.

Here the importation of Doaist, Hindu, and other existentialist philosophies are upending western thought. The humanities are tearing asunder our social and psychological meaning of self. Whether it is soulmates, no anchored truth or reality or the notion of that human sexuality is malleable and no right no wrong save as to individual minding and social circumstance . . . the system of concreteness is being chiseled to nothingness.

And it shows. Europe remains a cautionary tale.

EliteCommInc. , says: August 9, 2017 at 5:36 pm
"Such gimmicks might mess up the economy – and we did this, too – for the whole world."

Actually we did something else, we embraced the world's standards – Basel I and Basel II. Which are major contributors to our economic system. When Pres Nixon pressed to go off the gold standard . . . huge error.

Last week one of the toughest hurdles was to avoid getting into that ambulance I knew the minute I did, I would be entering a system bent on bending me to its will.

Before we go about making the world -- we need a clear and clean sense of self and resist change, regardless of the pressure by friend or foe.

EliteCommInc. , says: August 9, 2017 at 5:42 pm
" The United States filled this role for half a century, from 1945 until the Great Recession. The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods that benefit the international system as a whole, including: making the rules for the international economic order; opening its domestic market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the global economy; and providing a reserve currency."

Uhh you are playing fast and loose here with one overarching reality -- there really was no one else left who could do so. And that lasted a good while. As those regions recovered, we continued to provide without ever adjusting to the their own ability to provide. Prime example, our presence in Europe, I would be interested in the ROI of defending the Europeans even as they make war on others or encourage conflicts they themselves ave no intention of supporting, but are more than happy that the US do so.

SteveK9 , says: August 9, 2017 at 7:31 pm
Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results.
philadelphialawyer , says: August 9, 2017 at 8:53 pm
I think just the opposite. OBOR, AIIB and the Shanghai Group show China playing precisely by the rules of the international, rules-based liberal order set up by the Western powers generally over the last few centuries and particularly by the USA after WWII. China actually follows the international rules. It hasn't invaded anyone since 1979. How many wars not authorized by the UNSC, and generally either dubious or flat out in violation of international law, has the US engaged in since that date? China does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. As the article states, China follows the rules of Westphalian sovereignty. But it also follows the rules of international law. China does not abuse its veto power in the UNSC, the way the Western powers, particularly the USA, does. China is not looking to impose its way of life on other countries. And its international initiatives, including the international organizations it has created and sponsored, are all about trade, tourism, and co operation and development, as opposed to the USA's, which are all about domination, ever expanding "defensive" military alliances, military bases everywhere, demeaning and degrading, not to mention hypocritical, "human rights report cards," endless "sanctions" and "embargoes" on everyone who does not do its bidding, covering up for the sins of its aggressive, horrible client states, particularly Israel and the KSA, handing out cookies to coupsters in the process of overthrowing legitimate, and even democratically elected, governments, and generally sticking its nose into the elections of other countries, and now, with Trump, threatening to upset the apple cart when it comes to international trade and tourism and cultural exchange.

The USA is the rogue state, in regard to the very international order that it played a huge role in establishing. The USA can't even seem to go through an Olympic Games without making a fuss about something or another.

"Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule international politics 'cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and the political interests which it serves.' The post-World War II international order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western interests. Proponents of 'lock-in' are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a 'responsible stakeholder' (with Washington defining the meaning of 'responsibility') in an international order that it did not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States. In plain English, what those who believe in 'lock-in' expect is that an increasingly powerful China will continue to accept playing second fiddle to the United States. But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing."

Of course the distribution of power matters. But China is using its power within the liberal, rules-based framework established by the West. It actually already behaves in a "responsible" manner. It didn't invade Hong Kong or Macao, rather it made deals with the declining colonial powers which controlled them. It doesn't invade Taiwan. Rather it uses diplomacy to slowly advance its cause with respect to "One China." It uses its economic clout to develop trading partners, not to try to bully them into political submission, a la the USA. It is patient with regard to North Korea. It is patient with regard to US sabre rattling and blustering right at its borders. It is patient and rule-abiding in just about everything. Its organization are bypassing the USA. Not confronting it. If China eventually eclipses the USA, it will be because China has beaten it at its own game.

Sam Bufalini , says: August 9, 2017 at 9:26 pm
Last Commander in Chief we had in our image was Ronald Reagan. Yeah, that invasion of Grenada was huge!
Dale McNamee , says: August 9, 2017 at 10:51 pm
Our moral decline leads to the other decline mentioned in the article. There's a statement that says :"America is great because she is good But, she will cease to be great because she ceased to be good" We've been in decline since the '60's and are coming to our "bottom" ( and end ) ever more quickly
Interguru , says: August 9, 2017 at 11:13 pm
"The decline of the United States can be directly correlated to the decline in our spiritual fervor and the absence of the fear of God. " @Phillip

Does China have a fear of God?

Misstique , says: August 9, 2017 at 11:37 pm
Sort of a silly question isn't it?
Student , says: August 10, 2017 at 9:40 am
One thing not mentioned in the article is how we lost our technological lead. This in large part due to our H1B program, which is a conveyor belt to transfer tech and organizational knowhow abroad. Most R&D operations seem to be staffed largely by guest workers from China and India. Yes, there is a saving on salaries, leading to profits. But in addition to the knowledge transfer, there is the discouragement to US natives from entering tech fields.

[Aug 10, 2017] The Untouchable Mr. Browder

Notable quotes:
"... The New Republic ..."
"... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Chapeau, Mr Browder! Hats off for this incredible man. Last month, he succeeded in stopping a film screening in the European parliament and took off a few articles from American web sites. This week, he turned the only US screening of a film critical to his version of events into a ruckus . No freedom of speech for his enemies! His lawyers prowl around and issue summons to whoever digs in his sordid affairs. His hacks re-wrote his Wikipedia entry, expunging even discussions of the topic: despite hundreds of edits, nothing survived but the official version. Only a few powerful men succeed purifying their record to such an extent. Still, good fortune (a notoriously flighty lady) is about to desert Mr Browder.

Who is this extremely influential man? A businessman, a politician, a spy? The American-born Jewish tycoon William Browder, says The Jewish Chronicle , considers himself Putin's Number One enemy. For him, Putin is "no friend of the Jews", "cold-blooded killer" and even "criminal dictator who is not too different from Hitler, Mussolini or Gadhafi". More to a point, Browder is the man who contributed most to the new cold war between the West and Russia. The roots were there, still he made them blossom. If the US and Russia haven't yet exchanged nuclear salvos, do not blame Browder: he tried. For a valid reason, too: he was hit by cruel Hitler-like Mr Putin into his most susceptible spot, namely his pocket. Or was there even a better reason?

Browder, a grandson of the US Communist leader, came to Russia at its weakest point after the Soviet collapse, and grabbed an enormous fortune by opaque financial transactions. Such fortunes are not amassed by the pure of spirit. He was a ruthless man who did as much as any oligarch to enrich himself.

Eventually he ran afoul of Mr Putin, who was (and is) very tolerant of oligarchs as long as they play by the rules. The oligarchs would not be oligarchs if they would found that an easy condition. Some of them tried to fight back: Khodorkovsky landed in jail, Berezovsky and Gusinsky went to exile. Browder had a special position: he was the only Jewish oligarch in Russia who never bothered to acquire the Russian citizenship. He was barred from returning to Russia, and his companies were audited and found wanting.

As you'd expect, huge tax evasion was discovered. Browder thought that as long as he sucked up to Putin, he'd get away with bloody murder, let alone tax evasion. He was mistaken. Putin is nobody's fool. Flatterers do not get a free ride in Putin's Russia. And Browder became too big for his boots.

It turned out that he did two unforgivable things. Russians were afraid the foreigners would buy all their assets for a song, using favourable exchange rates and lack of native capital, as had happened in the Baltic states and other ex-Communist East European countries. In order to avoid that, shares of Russian blue-chip companies (Gazprom and suchlike) were traded among Russian citizens only. Foreigners had to pay much more. Browder bought many such shares via Russian frontmen, and he was close to getting control over Russian oil and gas. Putin suspected that he had acted in the interests of big foreign oil companies, trying to repeat the feat of Mr Khodorkovsky.

His second mistake was being too greedy. Russian taxation is very low; but Browder did not want to pay even this low tax. He hired Mr Magnitsky, an experienced auditor, who used loopholes in the Russian tax code in order to avoid taxes altogether. Magnitsky established dummy companies based in tax-free zones of Russia, such as pastoral Kalmykia, small, Buddhist, and autonomous. Their tax-free status had been granted in order to improve their economy and reduce unemployment; however, Browder's companies did not contribute to economy and did not employ people; they were paper dummies swiftly bankrupted by the owner.

Another Magnitsky trick was to form companies fronted by handicapped people who were also freed from paying tax. In the film, some of these persons, often illiterate and of limited intelligence, told the filmmaker of signing papers they could not read and of being paid a little money for the millions passing through their account.

(Mr Browder does not deny these accusations; he says there is nothing criminal in trying to avoid taxes. You can read about Browder and Magnitsky tricks here and here , and learn of the ways they attacked companies using minority shareholders and many other neat schemes.)

Eventually Magnitsky's schemes were discovered and he was arrested. Ten months later, in 2009, he died in jail. By that time, his patron Mr Browder was abroad, and he began his campaign against Russia hoping to regain his lost assets. He claimed Mr Magnitsky had been his lawyer, who discovered misdeeds and the outright thievery of government officials, and was imprisoned and tortured to death for this discovery.

The US Congress rushed in the Magnitsky Act, the first salvo of the Cold War Two. By this act, any Russian person could be found responsible for Mr Magnitsky's untimely death and for misappropriation of Browder's assets. His properties could be seized, bank accounts frozen – without any legal process or representation. This act upset the Russians, who allegedly had kept a cool $500 billion in the Western banks, so tit for tat started, and it goes to this very day.

The actual effect of the Magnitsky Act was minimal: some twenty million dollars frozen and a few dozen not-very-important people were barred from visiting the US. Its psychological effect was much greater: the Russian elite realised that they could lose their money and houses anytime – not in godless Putin's Russia, but in the free West, where they had preferred to look for refuge. The Magnitsky Act paved the road to the Cyprus confiscation of Russian deposits, to post-Crimean sanctions and to a full-fledged Cold War.

This was painful for Russia, as the first adolescent disillusionment in its love affair with the West, and rather healthy, in my view. A spot of cold war (very cold, plenty of ice please) is good for ordinary people, while its opposite, a Russian-American alliance, is good for the elites. The worst times for ordinary Russian people were 1988-2001, when Russians were in love with the US. The oligarchs stole everything there was to steal and sold it to the West for pennies. They bought villas in Florida while Russia fell apart. That was bad time for everybody: the US invaded Panama and Afghanistan unopposed, Iraq was sanctioned to death, Yugoslavia was bombed and broken to pieces.

As the Cold War came back, some normalcy was restored: the Russians stopped the US from destroying Syria, and Russian officials learned to love Sochi instead of Miami. For this reason alone, Browder can be counted as a part of the power which eternally wills evil and eternally works good. The Russian government, however, did not enjoy the cold shower.

The Russians denied any wrongdoing or even political reasons for dealing with Browder. They say Magnitsky was not a lawyer, just an auditor and a tax code expert. They say that he was arrested and tried for his tax avoidance schemes, and he died of natural causes while in jail. Nobody listened to them, until they demanded that Browder testify under oath. He refused. For two years lawyers tried to give him a summons , but he was a quick runner. There are funny videos showing Browder running away from summons.

Some good sense began to seep into American minds. The New Republic wondered : if Browder was indeed the victim of persecution in Russia and had enlisted the U.S. justice system to right the balance, why was he so reluctant to offer his sworn testimony in an American courtroom?

Enter Mr Andrey Nekrasov , a Russian dissident filmmaker. He made a few films considered to be highly critical of Russian government. He alleged the FSB blew up houses in Moscow in order to justify the Chechnya war. He condemned the Russian war against Georgia in 2008, and had been given a medal by Georgian authorities. He did not doubt the official Western version of Browder-Magnitsky affair, and decided to make a film about the noble American businessman and the brave Russian lawyer fighting for human rights. The European organisations and parliamentarians provided the budget for the film. They also expected the film to denounce Putin and glorify Magnitsky, the martyr.

However, while making the film, Mr Nekrasov had his Road to Damascus moment. He realised that the whole narrative was hinging on the unsubstantiated words of Mr Browder. After painstaking research, he came to some totally different conclusions, and in his version, Browder was a cheat who run afoul of law, while Magnitsky was his sidekick in those crimes.

Nekrasov discovered an interview Magnitsky gave in his jail. In this interview, the accountant said he was afraid Browder would kill him to prevent him from denouncing Browder, and would make him his scapegoat. It turned out Browder tried to bribe the journalist who made the interview to have these words expunged. Browder was the main beneficiary of the accountant's death, realised Nekrasov, while his investigators were satisfied with Magnitsky's collaboration with them.

Nekrasov could not find any evidence that Magnitsky tried to investigate the misdeeds of government officials. He was too busy covering his own tax evasion. And instead of fitting his preconceived notions, Nekrasov made the film about what he learned. ( Here are some details of Nekrasov's film)

While the screening in the EU Parliament was been stopped by the powerful Mr Browder, in Washington DC the men are made of sterner stuff. Despite Browder's threats the film was screened , presented by the best contemporary American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, who is 80 if a day, and still going strong. One has to recognise that the US is second to none for freedom of speech on the globe.

What makes Browder so powerful? He invests in politicians. This is probably a uniquely Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures. The Arabs will spend more on horses and jets, the Russians prefer real estate, the Jews like politicians. The Russian NTV channel reported that Browder lavishly financed the US lawmakers. Here they present alleged evidence of money transfers: some hundred thousand dollars was given by Browder's structures officially to the senators and congressmen in order to promote the Magnitsky Act.

Much bigger sums were transferred via good services of Brothers Ziff, mega-rich Jewish American businessmen, said the researchers in two articles published on the Veteran News Network and in The Huffington Post .

These two articles were taken off the sites very fast under pressure of Browder's lawyers, but they are available in the cache. They disclose the chief beneficiary of Browder's generosity. This is Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat from Maryland. He was the engine behind Magnitsky Act legislation to such an extent that the Act has been often called the Cardin List . Cardin is a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton, also a cold warrior of good standing. More to a point, Cardin is a prominent member of Israel Lobby.

Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and international crime. Almost all involved figures appear to be Jewish, not only Browder, Brothers Ziff and Ben Cardin. Even his enemy, the beneficiary of the scam that (according to Browder) took over his Russian assets is another Jewish businessman Dennis Katsiv (he had been partly exonerated by a New York court as is well described in this thoughtful piece).

Browder began his way to riches under the patronage of a very rich and very crooked Robert Maxwell, a Czech-born Jewish businessman who assumed a Scots name. Maxwell stole a few million dollars from his company pension fund before dying in mysterious circumstances on board of his yacht in the Atlantic. It was claimed by a member of Israeli Military Intelligence, Ari Ben Menashe, that Maxwell had been a Mossad agent for years, and he also said Maxwell tipped the Israelis about Israeli whistle-blower Mordecai Vanunu. Vanunu was kidnapped and spent many years in Israeli jails.

Geoffrey Goodman wrote Maxwell "was almost certainly being used as – and using himself as – a two-way intelligence conduit [between East and West]. This arrangement included passing intelligence to the Israeli secret forces with whom he became increasingly involved towards the end of his life."

After Maxwell, Browder switched allegiance to Edmond Safra, a very rich Jewish banker of Lebanese origin, who also played East vs West. Safra provided him with working capital for his investment fund. Safra's bank has been the unlikely place where the IMF loan of four billion dollars to Russia had been transferred!and disappeared. The Russian authorities say that Browder has been involved in this "crime of the century," next to Safra. The banker's name has been connected to Mossad: increasingly fearful for his life, Safra surrounded himself by Mossad-trained gunmen. This did not help him: he died a horrible death in his bathroom when his villa was torched by one of the guards.

The third Jewish oligarch on Browder's way was Boris Berezovsky, the king-maker of Yeltsin's Russia. He also died in his bathroom (which seems to be a constant feature); apparently he committed suicide. Berezovsky had been a politically active man; he supported every anti-Putin force in Russia. However, a few months before his death, he asked for permission to return to Russia, and some negotiations went on between him and Russian authorities.

His chief of security Sergey Sokolov came to Russia and purportedly brought with him some documents his late master prepared for his return. These documents allege that Browder had been an agent of Western intelligence services, of the CIA to begin with, and of MI6 in following years. He was given a code name Solomon, as he worked for Salomon Brothers. His financial activity was just a cover for his true intentions, that is to collect political and economic data on Russia, and to carry out economic war on Russia. This revelation has been made in the Russia-1 TV channel documentary Browder Effect , (broadcasted 13.04.2016), asserting that Browder was not after money at all, and his activities in Russia, beside being very profitable, had a political angle.

The documents had been doubted for some linguistic reasons discussed by Gilbert Doctorow who comes to a reasonable conclusion: "Bill Browder['s] intensity and the time he was devoting to anti-Russian sanctions in Europe was in no way comparable to the behaviour of a top level international businessman. It was clear to me that some other game was in play. But at the time, no one could stand up and suggest the man was a fraud, an operative of the intelligence agencies. Whatever the final verdict may be on the documents presented by the film "The Browder Effect," it raises questions about Browder that should have been asked years ago in mainstream Western media if journalists were paying attention. Yevgeny Popov deserves credit for highlighting those questions, even if his documents demand further investigation before we come to definitive answers".

We do not know whether Browder is, or had been, a spy. This should not surprise us, as he was closely connected to Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky, the financiers with strong ties in the intelligence community.

Perhaps he outlived his usefulness, Mr Browder did. He started the Cold war, now is the time to keep it in its healthy limits and to avoid a nuclear disaster or rapid armaments race. This is the task we may hope will be entertained by the next US President, Mr Donald Trump.

This article was first published in The Unz Review .

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

Astuteobservor II > , June 20, 2016 at 4:20 am GMT

damn, this fucker and madoff is like what everyone in the world hates about jews come to life.

If I were jewish, I would want to distance my self as far away as possible, that taint is real.

Lot > , June 20, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT

his hacks re-wrote his Wikipedia entry, expunging even discussions of the topic

Wikipedia talk pages are regularly archived so that only active discussions are on the main talk page. "Expunged" implies they were deleted and not available. In fact, the old talk pages for the article are all available one click away from the main talk page.

Here, for example, is a much longer archived talk page for Browder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Browder&oldid=544048631

Likewise, there seems to be no censorship of the article. Rather, like most wikipedia articles, over the years the article has slowly grown in length. The only substantial deletion from the article in the past 6 years was the recent deletion of a 4,000 word quotation from a source article. Such very long quotations are usually copyright violations and in any case are not good wikipedia style.

In short, both your claim of wikipedia censorship and wikipedia "expunging" content are completely wrong.

The wikipedia editor who made the deletion and is presumably the "hack" is an extremely prolific editor who has made more than 500 wikipedia edits in the past month and many thousands of edits since 2009, the first being on the articles "Protein folding" and "Chloride peroxidase."

Now it is possible Browder has a long-time wikipedia super-editor as one of his "hacks," but if you are going to libel a person like this, some evidence should be presented.

Kiza > , June 20, 2016 at 8:52 am GMT

I have written this before, but most US citizens think that CIA is a big bureaucracy which does secret stuff. Although this is partially true, there are also free-wheeling agents who work primarily for their own private or group interest (getting rich) and hopefully also in the Israeli and/or US national interest. Like in everything else, intelligence agencies are organised in a packing order: Mossad at the top, CIA working for Mossad, MI6 and BND working for CIA and so on. But most of the time these agencies both cooperate and compete and sometimes shaft each other (e.g. 911), from project to project.

One small complaint within a great article. Israel says:

One has to recognise that the US is second to none for freedom of speech on the globe.

This is a wrong interpretation of what transpired. There are two reasons why the documentary could have been shown in the US but not in EU:
1) EU is a lower level servant of the state of Israel than the US, and
2) EU has the most draconian libel laws (especially UK), which make stating anything about a lawyered person prepared for lawfare too risky. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

The most interesting, previously unknown, detail to me in this article was that Browder's grandfather was the leader of the US Communist Party. This underlines Communism as primarily a Jewish movement world-wide.

Tom Welsh > , June 20, 2016 at 9:01 am GMT

My, we are disempowered, aren't we? Amid a plethora of articles and books suggesting that Jewish people conspire together to enrich themselves, buy politicians and control governments, no one dares say a word – unless, like Mr Shamir, they are themselves Jewish. Even then there is a definite risk, which I thank and applaud Mr Shamir for taking.

JL > , June 20, 2016 at 9:14 am GMT

" Browder was not after money at all " Uh, no. Browder was notorious for his greed and obsession with money. This is someone who had a program that calculated his personal net worth online and would check it no less than every half hour. Think Gordon Gekko but too cheap to even buy a decent suit. While there may have been some intelligence connections somewhere along the way, as the article states, he went political only when his honey pot was removed. Without Russia, his fund management business quickly tanked.

Rehmat > , June 20, 2016 at 9:17 am GMT

Israel Shamir should have learned from his own experience that in the Zionist colonized "civilized West" there is no 'freedom of speech' for people who are disliked by the powerful Organized Jewry.

For example, Europe's so-called cradle of 'freedom of speech' – France, where insulting Muslims and Islam had long been declared "freedom of speech" – but French Christians who tell the truth about Jewish history are persecuted.

On Tuesday, a French court fined French philosopher Alain Soral $13,000 and six month suspended jail sentence for saying that Nazis should have finished killing the Jews of Europe.

The sentence, handed down was over Soral's Facebook post of last year about Romanian Serge Klarsfield, 80, and his German wife Beate Klarsfeld, 77, the so-called 'Nazi hunter couple'. The legendary Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal was a Mossad agent according to Dalia Karpel, Ha'aretz, February 9, 2010.

"This is what happens when you don't finish the job," Soral wrote about an article on a state honor of Federal Order of Merit conferred on the Klarsfelds by Germany last year. During the acceptance speech both parroted the "rising antisemitism in Europe" mantra.

The judge found Soral guilty of "justifying war crimes and crimes against humanity." In other words supporting Israeli rabbis that Jews are the only humans and the rest of six billion people were created to serve the 13 million Jews!

The judge also ordered Soral to pay $5,600, to each of the Klarsfelds and $2,250, to the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism, which filed the complaint against Soral for his Facebook post.

In 2004, Alain Soral was fined $8,000 for insulting the Zionist Jewry.

https://rehmat1.com/2016/06/19/french-philosopher-fined-27000-for-insulting-jews/

Robert Magill > , Website June 20, 2016 at 9:49 am GMT

Everything you need to know in 631 words on 55 lines. Read it now!

https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/faith-the-human-o-s/

Seraphim > , June 20, 2016 at 10:09 am GMT

@Astuteobservor II A really astute observation: Browder>Madoff. Where the money to finance Madoff's Ponzi Scheme came from? An who were the beneficiaries? The whole tribe, as it were. Wiesel, Spielberg, Katzenberg, Spitzer, Zuckerman, Gottesman ..

Jon Halpenny > , June 20, 2016 at 10:39 am GMT

Jewish Communism transmuting into oligarchism

AmericaFirstNow > , Website June 20, 2016 at 10:54 am GMT

US pushing a Zionist PNAC Neocon agenda vs Russia: :

http://america-hijacked.com/2014/02/24/us-has-neocon-agenda-in-ukraine-russia-analyst/

http://tinyurl.com/neoconmeddling

The Alarmist > , June 20, 2016 at 10:55 am GMT

If Putin was as evil and meglomoniacal as everyone keeps telling us in the west, wouldn't this guy be dead already?

Jacques Sheete > , June 20, 2016 at 11:04 am GMT

@Astuteobservor II "If I were jewish, I would want to distance my self as far away as possible, that taint is real."

That is very true. For that reason, many smart, moral Jews resisted and still resist the (atheist) Zionist project in Palestine as you may already know. Of course, they were and are sidelined.

Once again, all it takes is a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel.

annamaria > , June 20, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

@Kiza This is priceless: "We do not know whether Browder is, or had been, a spy. This should not surprise us, as he was closely connected to Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky, the financiers with strong ties in the intelligence community."

Could Mr. Browder hope for a better end of life than Maxwell, Safra and Berezovsky? And what would be the fate of Mr. Cardin, the famous congressional prostitute? http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/?p=3742#.V2fRqzc5FCo

"Israel's Agent of Influence: Senator Ben Cardin shows how it's done:"

"So who does Cardin actually represent? I would suggest that he fits the mold of the classic agent of influence in that his allegiance to the United States is constrained by his greater loyalty to a foreign nation."

Karl > , June 20, 2016 at 11:38 am GMT

@Rehmat another day, another "honor killing" by Rehmat's tribesmen:

http://ktla.com/2016/06/19/pregnant-woman-husband-tortured-and-shot-dead-in-honor-killing-in-pakistan/

Quartermaster > , June 20, 2016 at 1:06 pm GMT

More conspiracy theories posited as fact.

Alas, Putinist Russia is dangerous to those who would criticize Putin's regime, or Putin himself. Putin is known for using accusations of tax evasion as an excuse for seizing certain businesses. If he has to, he has no compunction about jailing the proprietors, especially if they become politically active in opposition to Putin and his greater Russian schemes. Just ask Khodorkovsky.

Rehmat > , June 20, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT

@Karl Another day, another "Jewish lie" by Karl's 'chosen tribe' .

http://newdemocracyworld.org/culture/muslims5.html

polistra > , June 20, 2016 at 1:39 pm GMT

@JL I don't know anything more about this case than what Shamir has written but the connection of CIA, leftists and banking is NOT unusual at all. It's highly typical and goes back many decades. Wherever you find American leftists, you'll find banking and CIA/OSS connections.

KA > , June 20, 2016 at 1:47 pm GMT

@Karl Honor is interesting issue in human psyche .It is deeply emotional
It can be tribal /communal or can be individual . In US , you might have noticed had you paid some attention that on average once a week a child and his or her mother are killed by the boyfriend or ex husband . Neither Koran nor American Constitution supports it . Nether local board of Kabul or Pakistan nor Bible supports it unless you search old bible.

Jacques Sheete > , June 20, 2016 at 2:31 pm GMT

SOS, aka history repeats.

"If you want to be anybody nowadays, you must dare some crime that merits narrow Gyara[23] or a gaol; honesty is praised and left to shiver. It is to their crimes that men owe their pleasure-grounds and palaces, their fine tables and old silver goblets with goats standing out in relief. For when was Vice more rampant? When did the maw of Avarice gape wider? When was gambling so reckless? Men come not now with purses to the hazard of the gaming table, but with a treasure-chest beside them. "

Juvenal, SATIRE I, ~ 100AD

Difficile Est Saturam Non Scribere (Indeed)

CanSpeccy > , Website June 20, 2016 at 3:09 pm GMT

Maxwell stole a few million dollars from his company pension fund before dying in mysterious circumstances on board of his yacht in the Atlantic.

The amount Maxwell nicked from his own workers was more than a few million. It was in fact £440 million , or about $1 billion. Moreover, Maxwell died, according to the official inquest held in Madrid, not "on board his yacht" but of "accidental drowning." However, it was claimed by Auberon Waugh, writing in the Telegraph, that the corpse recovered from the ocean as that of Robert Maxwell (and buried on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem), was in fact the remains of a small white whale. In view of Maxwell's enormous size and weight, who could really be sure.

JL > , June 20, 2016 at 3:52 pm GMT

@polistra Oh, I'm not saying there was no connection, just that money was his prime motivator. Anything else, including intelligence work, was either to further his greedy gains or simply out of revenge later on. I've had the great pleasure of knowing him personally.

Realist > , June 20, 2016 at 3:59 pm GMT

@Quartermaster People like you are the rich Zionists favorite goyim

Realist > , June 20, 2016 at 4:05 pm GMT

"This is probably a uniquely Jewish quality: Jews outspend everybody in contributions to political figures. The Arabs will spend more on horses and jets, the Russians prefer real estate, the Jews like politicians."

And this, boys and girls is why Jews call the shots and have for decades, probably centuries.

Mark Green > , Website June 20, 2016 at 4:08 pm GMT

Israel Shamir writes another fascinating and insightful article. Thank you. Essays of this quality make UNZ one of the hottest online magazines around.

The Alarmist > , June 20, 2016 at 4:24 pm GMT

@Quartermaster

"Putin is known for using accusations of tax evasion as an excuse for seizing certain businesses."

And that would differentiate him from other countries' tax authorities in what way?

JL > , June 20, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT

Yeah, didn't they get Al Capone for tax evasion?

The Browder affair is a heady upper-class Jewish cocktail of money, spies, politicians and international crime – The Daily Coin > , June 20, 2016 at 4:47 pm GMT

[ ] by Israel Shamir, Unz Review [ ]

Israel Shamir > , June 20, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT

@Rehmat This is exactly what I said: the US has more freedom of speech))

Israel Shamir > , June 20, 2016 at 5:17 pm GMT

@Quartermaster In Russia, everybody criticises Putin. No danger at all. Andrey Nekrasov was a foremost critic of Putin, made him no harm. Russia has as much freedom of speech as Europe; still less than the US.

Israel Shamir > , June 20, 2016 at 5:21 pm GMT

@Kiza Dear Kiza, you provide an explanation, but the fact remains there: the US has more freedom of speech. Not as much as we would like, but indeed more than Europe, as you yourself explained. Still, David Duke had a spell (a year?) in jail for some strange reason.

empty > , June 20, 2016 at 6:21 pm GMT

After Maxwell, Browder switched allegiance to Edmond Safra, a very rich Jewish banker of Lebanese origin The banker's name has been connected to Mossad: increasingly fearful for his life, Safra surrounded himself by Mossad-trained gunmen. This did not help him: he died a horrible death in his bathroom when his villa was torched by one of the guards.

Safra's widow has had an interesting life various patterns emerge from wikipedia

Lily Safra (née Watkins) is a Brazilian philanthropist and socialite who attained considerable wealth through her four marriages. By March 2013, her net worth was estimated at $1.2 billion; according to Forbes, she is one of the richest people in the world. Safra has a significant art collection and owns the historic Villa Leopolda on the French Riviera.

Safra was born Lily Watkins on December 30, 1934, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, daughter of Wolf White Watkins, a Czechoslovak railway engineer who moved to South America, and Annita Noudelman de Castro, a Uruguayan of Russian-Jewish ancestry. She grew up in Rio de Janeiro but moved with her family to Uruguay.

At the age of 17, she met and married Mario Cohen, an Argentine hosiery magnate of Italian-Jewish descent. They had three children: Claudio, Eduardo, and Adriana. (Claudio died with his three-year-old son in a car crash in Brazil ca. 1989.) Lily and Cohen divorced in the early 1960s.

In 1965, she married Alfredo "Freddy" Monteverde, (formerly Greenberg). He was a Romanian Jewish immigrant who fled Europe in 1939 because of Nazi Germany's persecution of Jews. He was a leader in the Brazilian household appliance distribution business, where he established the Ponto Frio brand. He and Lily adopted a child, named Carlos. In 1969, Monteverde committed suicide. According to biographer Isabel Vincent, Monteverde left all his assets to his wife.

One month after her husband's death, Lily Monteverde moved to London. Her late husband's banker, Edmond Safra, helped her secure control over her late spouse's entire fortune. She dated Safra for some time but the romance ended. Her family, who is of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, did not approve of her relationship with Safra, who was of Sephardic Jewish descent.

In 1972, Monteverde married businessman Samuel Bendahan, also a Sephardic Jew. They separated after two weeks, and she divorced him after one year of marriage.

In 1976, Monteverde married Edmond Safra after all.

Bill Jones > , June 20, 2016 at 7:28 pm GMT

Speaking of Maxwell, the English satirical Private Eye had a long running fight with Maxwell, whom they nicknamed Captain Bob (he was an avid sailor)- careful on the spelling there, Jones. He sued them for libel numerous times and they took to incorporating a new legal vehicle for each Issue at one point if they had good stuff on him.

They of course had the last word, after he was found drowned after falling, drunk, off his boat, the PE headline was
"Captain Bob, bob, bob"

The word around town at the time was that Maxwell had been "suicided"

Art > , June 20, 2016 at 7:35 pm GMT

The US Congress rushed in the Magnitsky Act, the first salvo of the Cold War Two. By this act, any Russian person could be found responsible for Mr Magnitsky's untimely death and for misappropriation of Browder's assets. His properties could be seized, bank accounts frozen – without any legal process or representation. This act upset the Russians, who allegedly had kept a cool $500 billion in the Western banks, so tit for tat started, and it goes to this very day.

Here is the real crime – the Jew control of our government.

We expect Jews to be thieves and cheating money changers – that is a given – that is their cultural DNA. Jew dishonest greed is legendary.

But here we see the US government – congress and the presidency – backing up Jew crime and Jew criminals. Look at all the evil that the Jew oligarchs did to Russia – a nation of hundreds of million people. Look at how America is turned and used by Jews.

Here is the real truth – the giant crime of a tribe. Browder did not do this on his own – he had a criminal network of Jews backing him up. Browder had AIPAC, and J-Street, and the ADL, and your Jew neighbor backing him up.

This is a JEW tribal crime. Thinking anything else is cowardly.

Svigor > , June 20, 2016 at 7:59 pm GMT

Muslim slavers and slave-owners castrated hundreds of thousands of black slaves.

Wally > , Website June 20, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT

@Lot Wikipedia is highly controlled by supremacist Jew fanatics / Zionists, as are many other sites.

see:
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

Then there's:
Zionist attempt to control language:
The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY

https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf

The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014

Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

Wally > , Website June 20, 2016 at 8:40 pm GMT

@Realist " And this, boys and girls is why Jews call the shots and have for decades, probably centuries. "

Now that is an understatement.

Who demands mass immigration into white gentile countries, but stops non-Jew immigration into "that shitty little country"?
Who runs the Federal Reserve?
Who runs Wall Street?
Who owns the US Congress?
Who owns the White House?
Who forces acceptance of the fictitious & impossible '6M & gas chambers'?
Who runs the media / entertainment?
Who runs the music business?
Who dominates 'academia'?
Why is AIPAC the most powerful, dominant lobby, which regularly writes the text of Congressional bills and resolutions?
Who is it that wants to censor free speech via the "hate speech" canard?
Who is it that demands we shed the blood of US troops for their interests?
Who are the real & biggest racists on the planet?

5371 > , June 20, 2016 at 9:40 pm GMT

@empty [Wolf White Watkins, a Czechoslovak railway engineer]

Shome mishtake here shurely

Anonymous > , Disclaimer June 20, 2016 at 10:02 pm GMT

@Tom Welsh Are we talking about the same Browder? If this one is the son of Earl Browder, former head of CPUSA in the thirties, we need to note that EB was born in Kansas to a farmer who was also a Methodist minister. Earl Browder was, to my knowledge, a Unitarian until he shucked religion for Communism.

Oscar Peterson > , June 20, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

Incredible–well, not really–that our mainstream media resolutely refuses to print, much less discuss, the two main pieces of information here:

1. Browder was the one who gained most from Magnitsky's death as evidenced by the interview in which the latter asserted a fear of being killed by Browder.

2. Nekrasov, the film's director, has a history of making films very critical of Putin and the Russian government and state.

US media coverage either omits any mention of these two points or buries allusions to them in the article. The NYT piece on Browder's attempt to block the film's screening at the Newseum in Washington was filed in the "Europe" section of the paper.

Freedom of speech is under assault in the West and, again and again, we see the common denominator of these despicable efforts to suppress key information.

LG > , June 21, 2016 at 12:08 am GMT

@Anonymous Please look up the background of his mother, Raisa Berkman

NewModelArmy > , June 21, 2016 at 12:12 am GMT

Israel Shamir: Why do you and some commenters write about Browder being Jewish if his dad, Earl Browder of the CPUSA, was born into a Kansas Methodist farm family? What gives in your research?

anony-mouse > , June 21, 2016 at 12:19 am GMT

1/ ' The Untouchable Mr. Browder? '

No problem. Just wait till he dies and then put him on trial. Worked for Magnitsky didn't it? So why the fuss?

2/ As to wikipedia edits-here's a wikipedia article with obviously very few edits you can work on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_trial

Only one (Magnitsky) posthumous trial in the last few centuries? That can't be right, can it?

3/ Sorry folks but Putin bungled. You can't condemn Browder without condemning Magnitsky and very few (sane) people will condemn the 'defendant' in a post-mortem trial.

Giving him not one but two lawyers in his trial (one who wore a t-shirt during the proceedings). Nice touch.

4/Should in the future Shamir question the justice system of any other country, remember, he thinks post-mortem trials are just fine. In fact, he endorsed the verdict in one.

5/ In the distant past when a person committed a capital crime while riding a horse, it was not impossible to put the horse on trial as well. Ha, ha, ha, boy is that ridiculous, putting a horse on trial. Almost as ridiculous as, as, as, well, putting a corpse on trial.

6/ If you want to link Jews with a clear victim of injustice (Magnitsky) go ahead.

anonymous > , Disclaimer June 21, 2016 at 12:23 am GMT

@Svigor I'd say that even worse than the castration was the starvation and maltreatment of male slaves along the desert trade routes; the majority coming from the bantu regions died on the way to their routes.

Realist > , June 21, 2016 at 1:30 am GMT

@Wally I said what you said .concisely

Anonymous > , Disclaimer June 21, 2016 at 2:05 am GMT

@Anonymous Earl married Raissa Berkman, a Russian Jew in about 1929 while on a trip to the USSR. Bill's father was likely raised as an ethnic Jew and may have married Jewish as well, which would make Bill a Jew.

Earl and Bill are cousins to me, falling in my Browder family lines through one of my GG Grandmothers, Victoria Louella Browder.

5371 > , June 21, 2016 at 4:50 am GMT

@anony-mouse To hold a posthumous trial of an individual to establish the facts of the case sounds very like holding a "trial of the facts" while he is alive but reportedly too senile to be put in the dock in an actual trial. And most unluckily for anony-rats, the latter procedure was exactly that which the justice system of perfidious Albion was going to apply to the great and good "Lord" Greville Janner, shining light among British Jews, pioneering holocaust-propagandist and alleged sexual abuser of dozens of children, had he not conveniently passed on to the great big orphanage in the sky.

Seraphim > , June 21, 2016 at 5:20 am GMT

@Rehmat In relation to Serge Klarsfeld (not a Romanian, but "born in Bucharest to a family of Romanian Jews" – Wikipedia) Wikipedia gives some interesting details:

"In 2012 the archivist of the Stasi revealed that Klarsfeld's attack on the chancellor was carried out in agreement with and the support of the government of East Germany, which was conducting a campaign against West German politicians (see Braunbuch). Beate Klarsfeld was paid 2,000 DM by the Stasi for her actions. Both Serge and Beate Klarsfeld were revealed to have been regular Stasi contacts. According to the State Commissioner for the Stasi Archives of Saxony, they cooperated with the Stasi in the 1960s in blackmailing West German politicians for Second World War activities The cooperation of both Beate and Serge Klarsfeld with the Stasi and their status as contacts was also documented in a new book by former Stasi officers, Günter Bohnsack and Herbert Brehmer."

Israel Shamir > , June 21, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT

@NewModelArmy Earl was his grandfather, and the rest of Bill's parentage was Jewish. More to the point, he himself considers himself Jewish as the piece in the Jewish Chronicle (referred in the article) makes clear.

Seraphim > , June 21, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Anonymous He is presented as Jew:

"Vladimir Putin is no friend of the Jews. So says William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as the leader's "number one enemy" in his book: Red Notice."
"He married his first wife in Marble Arch Synagogue and his son (Joshua) was barmitzvahed; a ceremony he never had."
@ http://www.thejc.com/arts/books/148889/be-careful-putin-he-a-true-enemy-jews

He might not have been raised as a "Jew" (meaning practicing), Communists being professed 'atheists'. But it most likely that he frequented Jewish milieux (which probably pushed him).

JL > , June 21, 2016 at 7:52 am GMT

How funny to hear people question Browder's Jewishness, in the Unz comments section of all places. Lest there be any doubt, he, himself, very much identified as being a Jew, to the extent that he had a Mezuzah on his office doorway and hired only Jewish employees.

Concerning Magnitsky's indeed unusual posthumous trial, this was actually at the behest of his own mother who refused to sign the legal papers closing the criminal case due to his death. This is usually a mere formality. However, the Russian legal system is a stickler for the letter of the law and so the trial went ahead. His mother's motivation was unclear, though it probably had something to do with extra publicity.

5371 > , June 21, 2016 at 8:47 am GMT

@Anonymous Did he ever share any of the loot with you gentile relatives?

tbraton > , June 21, 2016 at 2:41 pm GMT

When I first became aware of Mr. Browder a number of years ago, I was curious about his name, since I was aware of Earl Browder, the former head of the American Communist Party when I was growing up. After I subsequently learned of the familial connection, I was highly amused to discover the leap from Communist to capitalist in three generations. But then I recalled that Dr. Armand Hammer, eventually the controlling shareholder of Occidental Petroleum, had a father who was also a doctor, an emigrant from Odessa, and a founder of the Communist Party U.S.A. That was a mere two generations to make the leap from Communist to capitalist.

A few years ago I happened to read an amusing memoir of the girl who was my date to my high school prom but who went on to achieve a modest fame and acquaintance with many prominent Americans and foreigners. (I am being intentionally vague.) When I was dating her in high school and college, I operated under the false assumption that her mother (whom I met) was Jewish and her natural father (whom I never met); I met her stepfather, who was Jewish) was Catholic, which I thought was kind of cool, since I was totally nonreligious. You can imagine my disappointment to learn nearly a half century later that both of her natural parents were Jewish. Elsewhere in her memoir, my friend referred to her mother's sister, who was a member of the Communist Party and got caught up in the Hollywood blacklist and lost her job. (That was the first I heard of it, btw.) Things turned out well for her since she hooked up with and married a wealthy Jewish doctor, who left her a sizable fortune when he died. She eventually moved to Israel where she found nirvana, marrying a much younger man and enjoying late in life "fantastic sex." So, it appears that what motivates many young Communists is the dream of becoming fantastically wealthy and enjoying life as a plutocrat, not the BS of improving life for the downtrodden. If I weren't such a natural skeptic, I would have been very disillusioned, but not as much as I was to discover late in life that her father was Jewish and not Catholic. Apologies to all those women I dated in my 20′s and 30′s whom I regaled with the story of my half-Jewish, half-Catholic prom date.

Sam Shama > , June 21, 2016 at 2:51 pm GMT

@5371 The establishment surely closed ranks around Janner, whom I had the distinct inconvenience of shaking hands with once, at a speech arranged by some club or the other at my alma mater in the latish 90s. That he was a buggerer of little boys had already made the rounds, yet it was with astonishing ease the good Lord Janner managed to negotiate his way around Labour/lefty social circles. "trial of the facts" was all they could muster and in keeping with the impunity that marked several decades of his activities, Janner passed as you say, to the big orphanage upstairs. I am also reminded, 'as it 'appens' of Jimmy Savile who similarly managed to give CPS the slip (?); his preference, if memory serves was for little girls, apparently on occasion arranged in a row.

joey > , June 21, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Wikipedia can be crooked.
From my own experience.
I contacted Wikipedia with some serious complaints about an article discussing a court decision, which presented opinion as being fact. .
Wikipedia almost immediately replied, disputing my complaint about the content.
When I immediately returned to the article, the sections about which I complained were gone, and the whole article had been re written, except for remaining one identifier critical line.
Very fast work, indeed.
My mistake was in not saving the original article, and printing it.
Wikipedia would never admit to its informational "crime."
Obviously Wikipedia admitted guilt by first grossly changing the article, and then refusing to admit to that.
On any critical issue, never trust Wikipedia.
This is always a big problem with anything not published and distributed on paper .
Unless you are searching not for light, but for the darkness.

Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] > , Website June 21, 2016 at 7:03 pm GMT

For two years lawyers tried to give him a summons, but he was a quick runner. There are funny videos showing Browder running away from summons.

I thoroughly enjoyed the video:-)

bunga > , June 21, 2016 at 7:13 pm GMT

"Yet Schroeder's employment in an oil-gas venture that is 51 percent owned by Gazprom no more makes Schroeder a Russian prostitute than big campaign contributions to Lantos from the Washington PAC make him a whore for Israel. Presumably, Schroeder believes trade with Russia is in Germany's (and Europe's) interests, just as Lantos thinks America's current policy of unconditional support for Israel is good for America.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2007/06/27/tom-lantos-warmonger/

As is often the case with AP's coverage of news having to do with Israel, there's a serious omission in its reporting on the Russia-Israel connection even when it involves oil and the United States.

The day after the State of the Union Address, two Interpol fugitives attended the "National Prayer Breakfast" held in Washington DC. The day before that, these fugitives from the law were the guests of honor at an hour-long meeting of the International Relations Committee on Capitol Hill, invited by ranking Democrat Tom Lantos (Calif.)

You would think it would be hot news when wanted men being hunted by European police suddenly pop up in the US particularly on Capitol Hill and at events attended by the US president.

Yet, there was not a single AP story in the US on any of this. [1] Not a single national network television or radio news program even mentioned these facts. In fact, Google and LexisNexis searches four days after these events took place turned up only three newspaper articles on them anywhere in the entire country. [2]

Who are these fugitives from the law, wanted by Interpol, who are meeting at the highest levels of the US government? And why didn't we learn of them?

Therein lies the story. These two men, it turns out, are just the tips of a colossal iceberg. And this iceberg doesn't just have 90 percent of its mass hidden under water; this iceberg is almost entirely submerged.

They are Mikhail Brudno and Vladimir Dubov, Israeli-Russian partners in the giant Russian oil company Yukos. They, along with a number of their cronies, are wanted by Interpol for allegedly bilking Russian citizens out of billions of dollars. To elude Russian prosecution, these men have taken up residence in Israel. [3]

As the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz explains: "In recent years Russian authorities began investigating [Yukos], its managers and major stockholders, many of whom are of Jewish origin. The probes caused several of the managers to flee to Israel, and resulted in Khodorkovski's [Yukos CEO] arrest and a Kremlin attack on Yukos."

http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/02/17/russia-israel-and-media-omissions/

I will suspect Tom Lantos was taking money from these fugitives

imbroglio > , June 21, 2016 at 8:12 pm GMT

@Astuteobservor II Yes, it's Abe and Izzy who run the shoe store on Main Street, pay their bills and their taxes and struggle to make ends meet and are true to their wives and help their kids with their homework, who'll pay the price.

anony-mouse > , June 21, 2016 at 11:19 pm GMT

@5371 1/ Of course, as you point out once he died there was no question of having a trial-which backs my position-no sane justice system would put a dead person on trial-and none have for centuries until Magnitsky.

2/ I'm pleased though with 2 things:

a/ that you think that 'anony-rat' is an argument.

b/ that you (along with many others here) are backing Shamir in justifying in some way a post-mortem trial.

In the distant future when people look back on this trial they're going to react like we do today to the idea of trying horses for the crimes of their owners. Why not?

Can't be sure what they'll make of the defenders of such a trial, but I can guess.

Art > , June 21, 2016 at 11:55 pm GMT

@bunga

As is often the case with AP's coverage of news having to do with Israel, there's a serious omission in its reporting on the Russia-Israel connection even when it involves oil and the United States.

The AP (All Propaganda) is always pro Jew/Israel on everything domestic and foreign – you do not write bad things about Jews/Israel if you are published by the AP – PERIOD.

Oscar Peterson > , June 22, 2016 at 1:08 am GMT

@tbraton Sounds a lot like Ayn Rand.

Seraphim > , June 22, 2016 at 2:08 am GMT

@tbraton It became tedious to evoke the murky relations of Bolshevism with the Jewish bank cartel in the financing of Lenin, Trotsky &Co by Jacob Schiff ("a banker who grew up in House of Rothschild Frankfurt, monopolized American rail system, funded the Rockefellers through First City Bank, ADL and the NAACP. Schiff's granddaughter married Al Gore's Son" From his base on Wall Street, he was the foremost Jewish leader from 1880 to 1920 in what later became known as the "Schiff era", grappling with all major Jewish issues and problems of the day, including the plight of Russian Jews under the Tsar, American and international anti-semitism, care of needy Jewish immigrants, and the rise of Zionism" – per Wikipedia), and Warburg ("Paul Warburg was a planner for the U.S. Federal Reserve System which is a collection of private banks, and attended as American representative, the Treaty of Versailles conference, where his brother Max was on the German side of the bargaining table" by Wiki). One can see why Lenin was 'permitted' to pass through Germany!

Schiff financed the Japanese for their attack on Russia ("He extended loans to the Empire of Japan in the amount of $200 million, through Kuhn, Loeb & Co Schiff saw this loan as a means of answering, on behalf of the Jewish people, the anti-Semitic actions of the Russian Empire, specifically the then-recent Kishinev pogrom"), the 1905 Revolution and the 1917 Revolution. "In addition to his famous loan to Japan, Schiff financed loans to many other nations, including those that would come to comprise the Central Powers Schiff made sure none of the funds from his loans ever went to the Russian Empire, which he felt oppressed Jewish people. When the Russian Empire fell in 1917, Schiff believed that the oppression of Jews would end. He formally repealed the impediments within his firm against lending to Russia". It's true that Communist Russia quickly opened the door for foreign investment (NEP) and the looting of Russia.
When Stalin tried to reduce USSR's dependence on foreign investments, he became instantly the monster. It is remarkable that America stood behind Trotsky in the case of the so-called "Show Trials" (The Dewey Commission).
Particularly interesting is that (per Wikipedia);
"Some ten years later, the Dewey Commission was cited in great detail, when in an open letter to the British press dated 25 February 1946, written by George Orwell and signed by Arthur Koestler, C. E. M. Joad, Frank Horrabin, George Padmore, Julian Symons, H. G. Wells, F. A. Ridley, C. A. Smith and John Baird, among others, it was suggested that the Nuremberg Trials then underway were an invaluable opportunity for establishing "historical truth and bearing upon the political integrity" of figures of international standing. Specifically, they called for Rudolf Hess to be interrogated about his alleged meeting with Trotsky and that the Gestapo records then in the hands of Allied experts be examined for any proof of any "liaison between the Nazi Party or State and Trotsky or the other old Bolshevik leaders indicted at the Moscow trials "

tbraton > , June 22, 2016 at 2:21 am GMT

@Oscar Peterson "Sounds a lot like Ayn Rand."

I assume you are referring to the aunt, who was a Communist in Hollywood. As I indicated in my message, the first I learned about her aunt was from reading the memoir a few years ago.

With respect to the memoir, I had the uneasy feeling when I read it that it was not altogether truthful. I am mentioned briefly in the memoir, and the few pages were very flattering, so I have nothing to complain about. But some of the details are wrong, which led me to speculate that, if she got our story wrong whether accidentally or deliberately, the details of the numerous other stories in her book could also be untrustworthy. I posted in detail about my friend's memoir on Rod Dreher's blog dealing with Lena Dunham's "memoir" about a year and a half ago. See http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/liar-lena-dunham/comment-page-2/#comment-7047604

My friend's memoir ostensibly was written by her, not a "as told to" book. It is very well written and very funny, and, as far as I know, it is the first book written by her. And, while her talents lie in areas other than writing, her memoir refers to her close friendship over the years with a man noted for his writing ability, and I suspect that he played a major role in reviewing and editing my friend's "memoir." (Within the past few years, my older first cousin who is in her late 80′s and who graduated from Radcliffe in the late 40′s wrote a book based on her late mother's experience growing up in rural Greece in the early part of the 20th century before coming to America. I was impressed with my cousin's effort and actually learned a lot about my family, but I could tell she had little experience writing books since the book did not flow easily and could have used some editing by a professional writer. My friend's memoir, on the other hand, has a very professional touch to it, is tightly written and is very entertaining.)

tbraton > , June 22, 2016 at 2:29 am GMT

@Seraphim Huh? What does all that have to do with my post?

Seraphim > , June 22, 2016 at 3:33 am GMT

@tbraton Can't you figure out?

heady cocktail - Occurrences > , June 22, 2016 at 4:32 am GMT

[ ] "The Untouchable Mr. Browder?" by Israel Shamir: [ ]

5371 > , June 22, 2016 at 5:21 am GMT

@anony-mouse [no sane justice system would put a dead person on trial]

Because, I presume, no dead person can in any way be made to answer for his actions. So why, slow-witted rodent, was the English justice system going to have a trial when the possibility of making the protagonist answer for his actions in any way had been excluded?

5371 > , June 22, 2016 at 5:25 am GMT

@Seraphim [One can see why Lenin was 'permitted' to pass through Germany!]

You think it was all because of the Warburgs? Or maybe because Germany was fighting for her life and needed to bet on any long shot of weakening one of her enemies?

Israel Shamir > , June 22, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT

http://plumenclume.org/blog/126-intouchable-mr-browder-par-israel-adam-shamir

tbraton > , June 22, 2016 at 11:21 am GMT

@Seraphim Don't want to waste my time figuring out the connection between your post, which looks like it should have been a stand alone post, and mine, since it doesn't exactly respond to any point I made. Since I now know your tendency, I won't waste my time responding next time.

Sam Shama > , June 22, 2016 at 1:53 pm GMT

@tbraton Don't want to waste my time figuring out the connection between your post, which looks like it should have been a stand alone post, and mine, since it doesn't exactly respond to any point I made. Since I now know your tendency, I won't waste my time responding next time. [ figuring out the connection ]
I am guessing the inextricable link between Jewish finance, Bolshevism and Germany's contemporary, pre and post-war experience? [It was very tangential a reply to your post of course]

annamaria > , June 22, 2016 at 8:11 pm GMT

@Quartermaster More conspiracy theories posited as fact.

Alas, Putinist Russia is dangerous to those who would criticize Putin's regime, or Putin himself. Putin is known for using accusations of tax evasion as an excuse for seizing certain businesses. If he has to, he has no compunction about jailing the proprietors, especially if they become politically active in opposition to Putin and his greater Russian schemes. Just ask Khodorkovsky. Is this what your former-Soviet relatives have been telling you? Still believing in anti-semitism in Russia? Perhaps you need to inform yourself about recent executive order (anti-Constitutional) prohibiting a peaceful worldwide protest known as BDS: "NY Gov. Cuomo signs "unconstitutional, McCarthyite" pro-Israel exec. order punishing BDS boycott movement" http://www.salon.com/2016/06/05/ny_gov_cuomo_signing_unconstitutional_mccarthyite_pro_israel_exec_order_punishing_bds_boycott_movement/

You see, here are businesses of a whole state of New York, prepped for punishment because of their critique of a (special) foreign government.

annamaria > , June 22, 2016 at 8:23 pm GMT

@anony-mouse 1/ '... The Untouchable Mr. Browder?...'

No problem. Just wait till he dies and then put him on trial. Worked for Magnitsky didn't it? So why the fuss?

2/ As to wikipedia edits-here's a wikipedia article with obviously very few edits you can work on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_trial

Only one (Magnitsky) posthumous trial in the last few centuries? That can't be right, can it?

3/ Sorry folks but Putin bungled. You can't condemn Browder without condemning Magnitsky and very few (sane) people will condemn the 'defendant' in a post-mortem trial.

Giving him not one but two lawyers in his trial (one who wore a t-shirt during the proceedings). Nice touch.

4/Should in the future Shamir question the justice system of any other country, remember, he thinks post-mortem trials are just fine. In fact, he endorsed the verdict in one.

5/ In the distant past when a person committed a capital crime while riding a horse, it was not impossible to put the horse on trial as well. Ha, ha, ha, boy is that ridiculous, putting a horse on trial. Almost as ridiculous as, as, as, well, putting a corpse on trial.

6/ If you want to link Jews with a clear victim of injustice (Magnitsky) go ahead. "Sorry folks but Putin bungled." – What has Putin to do with the holy Browder?

"If you want to link Jews with a clear victim of injustice "
Enjoy:
"Known Pedophile is Instrumental in Promoting Holocaust Hoaxer and Plagiarizer Denis Avey's New Book:" http://carolynyeager.net/book/export/html/96
"There is credible evidence that this man carried out some of the most serious sex crimes imaginable over three decades against children who were highly vulnerable and the majority of whom were in care." http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/01/remembering-greville-janner-on-holocaust-memorial-day/

tbraton > , June 22, 2016 at 8:27 pm GMT

@Sam Shama Thanks, Sam. I figured it was something along those lines, but the response was so "tangential" to my message that I thought I would let it pass without comment. I try to make my responses to a specific message as responsive to a point contained in that message as possible. If I have an entirely separate point to make, I will post a separate message in order to avoid confusion.

BTW, while I pointed out the three generation process from Communist to Capitalist in the case of Browder and the two generation process in the case of Armand Hammer, I forgot to mention the one generation process in the case of the Russian oligarchs, both Jewish and non-Jewish. As far as I know, every oligarch in Russia started out as a Communist with very good connections in the Communist Party.

Sam Shama > , June 22, 2016 at 9:24 pm GMT

@tbraton [ I forgot to mention the one generation process in the case of the Russian oligarchs, both Jewish and non-Jewish. As far as I know, every oligarch in Russia started out as a Communist with very good connections in the Communist Party.]

Hahaha, you are quite right. It appears that with passing generations, the cloak of "class struggles" slipped off with greater ease.

tbraton > , June 22, 2016 at 11:55 pm GMT

@5371 "Or maybe because Germany was fighting for her life and needed to bet on any long shot of weakening one of her enemies?"

I am shocked that you would think such a thing.

DaveE > , June 23, 2016 at 12:29 am GMT

@imbroglio Yeah, yeah, the "eternal victim" thing.

Jews have had 100 years to stand up for the Palestinians, 100 years to admit they destroyed Russia, took out Germany .. 15 years to stand for 9/11 Truth . the theft of the Fed, the USS Liberty, Pollard, Lavon Affair Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel, Morgenthau, the entire Rosenfeld Administration .. it just goes on and on and on.

How long should Abe and Lizzy have to "come clean"?

tbraton > , June 23, 2016 at 12:33 am GMT

@tbraton BTW I wonder how many people, including posters here, are aware that the U.S., under President Wilson, sent a military expedition to Russia after the Communist takeover there in 1917 and kept them there for about a year and a half. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia When I was in college in the early 60′s, I bought a paperback of George Kennan's "Russia and the West, Under Lenin and Stalin" (hardcover ed. 1961), the first book of Kennan that I read, and was startled to learn of our military invasion of Russia at the end of WWI and after, something I didn't remember being taught in high school American history a few years earlier. That was about 50 years ago. This past year I got around to reading A. Scott Berg's much acclaimed biography, "Wilson." I didn't remember reading anything in that biography re Wilson's commitment of military forces to Russia. I have just reviewed the index and found one obscure reference to "military intervention in Russia" (p. 590 of hardcover ed.) and George Kennan. More important, I reviewed the Bibliography and found no reference to George Kennan's "Russia and the West, Under Lenin and Stalin." I don't know what to make of the gross omission by a highly-regarded biographer, but it is clear that an effort has been made to downplay this aspect of Wilson's policy, for reasons that escape me.

Kiza > , June 23, 2016 at 12:51 am GMT

@tbraton Sorry to barge in on your discussion, maybe I am to blame for initiating it in this thread.

In terms of progression from Communism to Capitalism in so many or no generations, I would offer an opinion (from personal encounters). It is the Populism part of the Communism which attracts demagogues and careerists, who are quick to change color at the first chance. True communists are often ideological extremists who would rather die than change colors. Many a capitalist learns from communists how to be a populist, one example which comes to mind is Lachlan Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's son, who studied philosophy and was a fan of Marxism in his student days. This could be extended to contemporary populists such as Donald Trump – whatever he says is unreliable, he will change it in a blink of an eye.

In summary, my point is that Populism is the cheap ideology under whose flag most opportunists fly. Under Communism the only version of Populism allowed was Communism thus so many converts after its demise. This part has nothing to do with Jews.

Kiza > , June 23, 2016 at 1:52 am GMT

@tbraton Maybe because I was educated in a different country I was very well aware of this item of information. It was not only the US, then most of the Western countries from both sides of WW1, including Britain, France, Italy, then also Czechoslovakia (Austria-Hungary), Japan, Germany and so on, which sent troops to Russia on the side of Belaya Gvardiya fighting the Lenin's Bolsheviks, even whilst WW1 was still ongoing. They fought with Belaya Gvardiya in Siberia, Ukraine and Crimea (part of Russia, not part of Ukraine until 1953 when given to Ukraine by the Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev).

This is possibly the best reference about this second, less well known, part of WW1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_movement

The US contingent was supposed to support the Siberain Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Army but shipped back without fighting.

Sam Shama > , June 23, 2016 at 1:56 am GMT

@tbraton Fascinating, thank you. Reading more, I find that Wilson was motivated to safeguard almost a billion dollars in armaments and equipment [including railway cars] given to Russia by the U.S in the hopes of Russia prevailing over the Central Powers and thereafter adopting the capitalist model. Alas the men and hardware [including frozen machine guns] did not hit the right wavelength with the Siberian winter.

Sam Shama > , June 23, 2016 at 2:31 am GMT

@tbraton It occurred to me to ask you if you thought her ideological metamorphosis had had in part, resulted from the entry of Alan Greenspan in their midst ?

Great story to captivate your company no doubt!

Anatoly Karlin > , June 23, 2016 at 2:41 am GMT

@Quartermaster

Just ask Khodorkovsky.

Why don't you ask the ECHR while you're at it?

tbraton > , June 23, 2016 at 3:51 am GMT

@Sam Shama As I made clear in my message, Sam, the first I heard of her black-listed aunt was from reading my friend's memoir a few years ago. The aunt never came up in our conversations, and I knew her for roughly 10 years or more. In fact, we never discussed her natural father, whom she discusses a lot in the memoir. I have reason to doubt the veracity of her story for reasons stated here and in my earlier message on Dreher's blog and for other unstated reasons. (It was my first occasion to be mentioned in someone's memoir, and it became a consuming moment, because my still good memory remembered things very differently from what was represented in the one or two pages which refer to me quite favorably. My friend was not only attractive, but she was built like a young Elizabeth Taylor and was highly intelligent and a very nice girl. That leads me to suspect that the misrepresentations of which I am aware were deliberate and not accidents of a faulty memory and lead me to suspect that other parts of the memoir may be fabricated as well.) In reading about her Communist aunt, I was struck by the utter lack of irony expressed by my old friend. That applies as well to an overarching theme of the book which my friend violates without exhibiting any sense of self-awareness. I guess I gave her more credit than she deserved. She is also relatively vague about dates, which, I suspect, is done deliberately to hide inconsistencies in her story, many of which I only became aware of upon reading her memoir. Suddenly, things which had puzzled me at the time made sense, as I learned more details of her life.

5371 > , June 23, 2016 at 5:28 am GMT

@tbraton As I often point out, the real purpose of that expedition was to prevent the Japanese from using the Russian civil war as an opportunity for large-scale expansion.

Seraphim > , June 23, 2016 at 5:47 am GMT

Many of us are aware of the 'Allied Intervention in the Russian civil war' which occured in the aftermath of the Peace of Brest-Litovsk while the Entante was still at war with Germany. The chaos which ensued as a result of the misguided policies of the HLH (Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Hoffman), especially the 'Napoleonic complex' of Ludendorff compounded by the greedy desires of many petty German 'Fuersten' for crowns in the East, determined the Allies to intervene, motivated by the following considerations:
- prevent the German or Bolshevik capture of Allied material stockpiles in Arkhangelsk
- mount an attack helping the Czechoslovak Legions stranded on the Trans-Siberian Railroad
– resurrect the Eastern Front by defeating the Bolshevik army with help from the Czechoslovak Legions and an expanded anti-Bolshevik force of local citizens and stop the spread of communism and the Bolshevik cause in Russia.

Now, this is news only for graduates of American schools where history is no more taught. The Wikipedia entry ('Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War') would have been sufficient (for beginners) to set the record straight:

"Severely short of troops to spare, the British and French requested that President Wilson provide American soldiers for the campaign. In July 1918, against the advice of the United States Department of War, Wilson agreed to the limited participation of 5,000 United States Army troops in the campaign. This force, which became known as the "American North Russia Expeditionary Force" (a.k.a. the Polar Bear Expedition) were sent to Arkhangelsk while another 8,000 soldiers, organised as the American Expeditionary Force Siberia, were shipped to Vladivostok from the Philippines and from Camp Fremont in California. That same month, the Canadian government agreed to the British government's request to command and provide most of the soldiers for a combined British Empire force, which also included Australian and Indian troops. Some of this force was the Canadian Siberian Expeditionary Force; another part was the North Russia Intervention. A Royal Navy squadron was sent to the Baltic under Rear-Admiral Edwyn Alexander-Sinclair. This force consisted of modern C-class cruisers and V- and W-class destroyers. In December 1918, Sinclair sailed into Estonian and Latvian ports, sending in troops and supplies, and promising to attack the Bolsheviks "as far as my guns can reach". In January 1919, he was succeeded in command by Rear-Admiral Walter Cowan.
The Japanese, concerned about their northern border, sent the largest military force, numbering about 70,000. They desired the establishment of a buffer state in Siberia, and the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff viewed the situation in Russia as an opportunity for settling Japan's "northern problem". The Japanese government was also intensely hostile to communism.
The Italians created the special "Corpo di Spedizione" with Alpini troops sent from Italy and ex-POWs of Italian ethnicity from the former Austro-Hungarian army who were recruited to the Italian Legione Redenta. They were initially based in the Italian Concession in Tientsin and numbered about 2,500.
Romania, Greece, Poland, China, and Serbia also sent contingents in support of the intervention."
All these troops have been involved, in a way or another, in the Russian Civil War, but by 1920 all have been withdrawn. Only the Japanese stayed in the Maritime Provinces of the Russian Far East until 1922 and in northern Sakhalin until 1925.

There is obviously no space here to talk about the 'Treaty of Rapallo' between Russia and Germany of 1922 and of the 'Genoa Conference' held in Genoa in 1922, where "the representatives of 34 countries gathered to discuss global economic problems following World War I. The purpose was to formulate strategies to rebuild central and eastern Europe, particularly Russia, after the war, and also to negotiate a relationship between European capitalist economies, and the new Russian Bolshevik regime". These were signals for the introduction of NEP (New Economic Policy) and the policy of 'concessions' which was, in Lenin's terms " a strategic retreat from socialism".
Anyhow, I think that a BA is a minimum requirement in order to gain a modicum of understanding of these problems. For sure Wikipedia is not sufficient.

Seraphim > , June 23, 2016 at 6:46 am GMT

If someone would have the resolve and patience to delve into the genealogies of the Bolsheviks/Neo-Con/Bankers/American communists/NY 'intellectuals'/Holywood moguls/Kosher Nostra/paranoid Russophobe journalists/Analysts of 'Russian problems', he will find a common thread linking them to what was called "The Pale of Settlement (Russian: Черта́ осе́длости, chertá osédlosti, Yiddish: דער תּחום-המושבֿ‎, der tkhum-ha-moyshəv, Hebrew: תְּחוּם הַמּוֹשָב‎‎, tcḥùm ha-mosháv) the western region of Imperial Russia, in which permanent residency by Jews was allowed and beyond which Jewish permanent residency was generally prohibited. It extended from the eastern pale, or demarcation line, to the western Russian border with the Kingdom of Prussia (later the German Empire) and with Austria-Hungary."
One would stop then wonder why all display that pathological hatred of Russia and Russians and the desire to harm her no matter what, as retribution for the imagined 'persecutions' they supposedly endured.

Kiza > , June 23, 2016 at 2:09 pm GMT

@Seraphim My high school history, at the level of Wikipedia, is nowhere near your knowledge of the subject. Thanks for this learning experience.

Israel Shamir > , June 23, 2016 at 7:28 pm GMT

@annamaria "Sorry folks but Putin bungled." - What has Putin to do with the holy Browder?

"If you want to link Jews with a clear victim of injustice..."
Enjoy:
"Known Pedophile is Instrumental in Promoting Holocaust Hoaxer and Plagiarizer Denis Avey's New Book:" http://carolynyeager.net/book/export/html/96
"There is credible evidence that this man carried out some of the most serious sex crimes imaginable over three decades against children who were highly vulnerable and the majority of whom were in care." http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/01/remembering-greville-janner-on-holocaust-memorial-day/ Do not feed a troll, the first web wisdom says, and the person you replied to is an obvious troll.

Islamophobia is a multimillion-dollar industry – aladdinsmiraclelamp > , June 24, 2016 at 11:46 am GMT

[ ] This article was first published in The Unz Review. [ ]

MR BROWDER, IL NEMICO NUMERO UNO DI PUTIN | micheletocci > , June 26, 2016 at 1:15 pm GMT

[ ] Fonte: The Unz Review. [ ]

tbraton > , June 28, 2016 at 3:31 pm GMT

@Kiza Maybe because I was educated in a different country I was very well aware of this item of information. It was not only the US, then most of the Western countries from both sides of WW1, including Britain, France, Italy, then also Czechoslovakia (Austria-Hungary), Japan, Germany and so on, which sent troops to Russia on the side of Belaya Gvardiya fighting the Lenin's Bolsheviks, even whilst WW1 was still ongoing. They fought with Belaya Gvardiya in Siberia, Ukraine and Crimea (part of Russia, not part of Ukraine until 1953 when given to Ukraine by the Communist leader Nikita Khrushchev).

This is possibly the best reference about this second, less well known, part of WW1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_movement

The US contingent was supposed to support the Siberain Army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Army but shipped back without fighting. There is no question the involvement of U.S. troops in Russia following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 is downplayed in the U.S. As I noted, the issue wasn't touched on in my high school history class, and I was surprised to learn of our military involvement in Russia's civil war only when I went to college and bought the small paperback of Kennan's "Russia and the West Under Lenin and Stalin." In fact, I have a one-volume history of the U.S. written by one of the U.S.'s leading historians, Samuel Eliot Morison, who was the highly acclaimed biographer of Christopher Columbus and John Paul Jones and a long-time professor of history at Harvard. He was also the author of the highly acclaimed "History of the United States Naval Operations in World War II," a 15-volume effort. In his "The Oxford History of the American People" (1965, 1122 pages, ending with the 1963 assassination of JFK), he states briefly at p. 878 that "President Wilson went along [with efforts of France and Britain to overthrow the Bolsheviks] to the extent of sending a small American force to Archangel, ostensibly to prevent a cache of military supplies reaching Germany, and participating in a Japanese-directed invasion of Siberia, to see that Japan did not go too far." Rather cryptic reference to a somewhat small military involvement that lasted for more than a year and a half, but, in defense of Morison, his history was a one-volume affair (published by the Oxford University Press) and the American involvement in Russia had no effect on the Russian Revolution, other than to sour the relationship between the new Communist government and the U.S., which did not diplomatically recognize the new regime until FDR became President in 1933.

A. Scott Berg has no such defense. His detailed biography of Wilson runs to 743 pages, and he makes no reference at all to the U.S. military contingent that was sent to Russia in 1918 by Wilson and remained there for more than a year and a half. You would think that Berg could have added a few brief sentences alluding to the military expeditionary force and a brief summary of its impact, but not a word. This from an author who discusses the infamous "Palmer raids" at the end of the Wilson Administration and the bombs which set off those raids. I am just puzzled about the omission and fail to see what agenda is being served, other than it highlights the utter hypocrisy of Wilson with his vaunted "Fourteen Points," which impliedly called for respect of international borders. Wilson was also the hypocrite who won reelection in a close race in 1916 running on a campaign that "he kept us out of war" and the declared war against Germany a month after he was reinaugurated in March 1917.

Rehmat > , July 7, 2016 at 7:06 pm GMT

@Israel Shamir This is exactly what I said: the US has more freedom of speech)) NOPE – that's what you said morally.

Did you ever questioned the SIX MILLION DIED or the 9/11 official story which have turned-out to be fraud?

Have you met Afro-American Catholic professor Larycia Hawkins who was fired by Wheaton College for saying that "both Christians and Muslims worship the same God"?

What I meant by your experience was the distortion your 2011 interview you gave to Will Yakowicz.

https://rehmat1.com/2011/05/19/israel-shamir-lost-in-translation/

AccidentalInsider > , July 31, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT

@empty So glad to see someone noticing interesting patterns The media have only barely scratched the surface. There's so much more to Lily Safra, the death of her late (fourth) husband, Edmond Safra, and his connection to Russia. I hope more reporters will try to dig deeper and go beyond what powerful individuals want us to believe. The whole story has yet to emerge.

BilDing > , August 2, 2017 at 2:58 am GMT

Alternate title

Benefits of Friends in High Places

Clinton has Congress in a frenzy over a Russian illusion.
Browder has Congress in a frenzy over a Russian illusion.

Is it little wonder that real America has been taken to the cleaners over the past 4 decades?

NoseytheDuke > , August 3, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT

@Svigor I missed that part in the article.

Robert Magill > , August 3, 2017 at 10:00 am GMT

BTW I wonder how many people, including posters here, are aware that the U.S., under President Wilson, sent a military expedition to Russia after the Communist takeover there in 1917 and kept them there for about a year and a half.

Actually this 'invasion' was to help stabilize Russia during the revolution and to block Japan in the far east. Russia and the US had been good friends and allies since we helped Russia during the Crimean War, and with the purchase of Alaska and they had helped us during the US Civil War.
Harry Truman put an end to all that 'good neighbor policy" when he needed a scapegoat to launch the National Security State and prevent another depression. On it goes.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Uebersetzer > , August 3, 2017 at 11:22 am GMT

@Anonymous I'm sure Wichita, Kansas in 1891 was just like the Pale of Settlement. If anything Browder was one of the few CPUSA leaders who didn't come from a Jewish background, but if your mantra is "the Jew is the Communist and the Communist is the Jew", that's you ready to partake in an Einsatzgruppe in Belarus in 1941. Or write comments on Unz Review

Sean > , August 3, 2017 at 11:31 am GMT

Any stick will do to beat a dog.

Quartermaster > , August 3, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

Eventually he ran afoul of Mr Putin, who was (and is) very tolerant of oligarchs as long as they play by the rules.

Meaning, Putin gets a healthy cut. If he doesn't get a piece of the action, you will suddenly be found to have evaded taxes, or worse. And, heaven forfend, if you decided to use your wealth to oppose Putin politically, just as Khodorkovsky.

The Alarmist > , August 3, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT

" Hillary Clinton, also a cold warrior of good standing"

As an unrepentant Cold Warrior (v 1.0), I resent having the wicked witch of Chicago cum Arkansas and her fellow travelers reborn in new clothing likened to me and others who served honorably.

Can't we refer to those folks as Neo-Cold-Warriors, Neo-Warriors, Neo-Patriots or something similar?

Druid > , August 3, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT

@imbroglio Yes, it's Abe and Izzy who run the shoe store on Main Street, pay their bills and their taxes and struggle to make ends meet and are true to their wives and help their kids with their homework, who'll pay the price. Unfortunately, most of the Abe and Izzy's support Zionism which is the current backbone of the shysters!

David In TN > , August 3, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT

@Kiza Browder, Browder, let's see now, I knew I'd heard that name somewhere before.

Astuteobservor II > , August 4, 2017 at 3:09 am GMT

when I saw the news about browder testifying in front of congress, I was like, damn, our govt is completely bought and paid for. our politicians are stupid to boot.

using someone who was one of the few that raped russia for a decade to testify about putin being bad, because he kicked him out of russia. yea.

and the press eat that vomit up.

TheJester > , August 4, 2017 at 10:38 am GMT

Seems like the entire Browder/Magnitsky hustle is nothing more than Jews protecting Jews in a kind of international crime syndicate. When found out, they even have the network in place to control the narrative about their crimes to the point that trying to hold them accountable quickly morphs into a fundamental violation of their human rights.

"What do you mean you can't rip off a country's assets and hide the loot in offshore accounts? What do you do when you see a $10 bill laying in the street? You take it, of course! What else is a person suppose to do? When opportunity strikes, you make the best of it."

Browder and Magnitshy . How history repeats itself! I recall reading that something similar happened in the Weimar Republic when Germany was stripped of its assets after WWI. Indeed, even then there was an ((( international syndicate ))) in place to control the narrative and protect the shysters.

Don bass > , August 4, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT

@Quartermaster """Meaning, Putin gets a healthy cut. If he doesn't get a piece of the action, you will suddenly be found to have evaded taxes, or worse. And, heaven forfend, if you decided to use your wealth to oppose Putin politically, just as Khodorkovsky."""
What evidence do you have for this libellous allegation?? These assertions are made habitually in the western media. However this article on Browder demonstrates who are the parties making such claims and why.

Hibernian > , August 5, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT

@Uebersetzer We're talking about his grandson, an international businessman active in Russia at one time. The WASP grandfather who eventually became CPUSA chief married a Jewish woman and their mathematician son was the international businessman grandson's father.

Try to get your facts straight before you call everybody and his brother a Nazi.

n230099 > , August 6, 2017 at 12:03 pm GMT

@Kiza I have written this before, but most US citizens think that CIA is a big bureaucracy which does secret stuff. Although this is partially true, there are also free-wheeling agents who work primarily for their own private or group interest (getting rich) and hopefully also in the Israeli and/or US national interest. Like in everything else, intelligence agencies are organised in a packing order: Mossad at the top, CIA working for Mossad, MI6 and BND working for CIA and so on. But most of the time these agencies both cooperate and compete and sometimes shaft each other (e.g. 911), from project to project.

One small complaint within a great article. Israel says:


One has to recognise that the US is second to none for freedom of speech on the globe.
This is a wrong interpretation of what transpired. There are two reasons why the documentary could have been shown in the US but not in EU:
1) EU is a lower level servant of the state of Israel than the US, and
2) EU has the most draconian libel laws (especially UK), which make stating anything about a lawyered person prepared for lawfare too risky. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

The most interesting, previously unknown, detail to me in this article was that Browder's grandfather was the leader of the US Communist Party. This underlines Communism as primarily a Jewish movement world-wide.

"The most interesting, previously unknown, detail to me in this article was that Browder's grandfather was the leader of the US Communist Party. "

That's funny. The first thing I thought upon seeing the name and the topic was "oh good grief could it be?'

Skeptikal > , August 7, 2017 at 2:40 am GMT

@Kiza Shamir fails to mention that Browder now has UK citizenship.
All the better to perform financial jiujitsu on Russia from the City.

Skeptikal > , August 7, 2017 at 2:50 am GMT

@Quartermaster More conspiracy theories posited as fact.

Alas, Putinist Russia is dangerous to those who would criticize Putin's regime, or Putin himself. Putin is known for using accusations of tax evasion as an excuse for seizing certain businesses. If he has to, he has no compunction about jailing the proprietors, especially if they become politically active in opposition to Putin and his greater Russian schemes. Just ask Khodorkovsky. "especially if they become politically active"

Right. That was the deal. You can make money and even sort of rape to reap, but stay out of politics.
Nothing wrong with that.
Russia is Russia.
USA is USA. Here the deal is a bit different.]
You go into politics to MAKE money.

Ram > , August 7, 2017 at 6:28 am GMT

How did a US$ 4 billion "loan" made to Russia end up in a bank owned by a Zionist.?

TheOldOne > , August 9, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

Putin should just bomb the SOB's estates; ditto for Soros. KILL THEM!

Kiza > , August 10, 2017 at 3:48 am GMT

@Skeptikal Shamir fails to mention that Browder now has UK citizenship.
All the better to perform financial jiujitsu on Russia from the City. Being English speaking and brought up in the Anglo-world but with good understanding of Russia through Communism, made this Jewish Godfather much more damaging to Russia than the other forced Jewish emigres: Berezovsky, Gusinsky and Khodorovsky.

Browder's ties with Mossad and CIA make him a prototypical Deep-Stater, spreading Anglo-Zionist dominance of the World (Globalism) and getting personally rich in the process. If the Anglo-Zionists manage to bring down Russia (say, kill Putin) then Browder could become the Paul Bremer III of Russia (perhaps titled William Browder I).

[Aug 10, 2017] I sense a developing narrative that erases any and all responsibility of Western political leaders for the Syrian disaster

Notable quotes:
"... "There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover (over) the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country." ..."
Aug 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

/div

/div
failure of imagination | Aug 5, 2017 4:39:26 AM | 54
Bureaucrats gonna crat. Military schools, elite universities, and monkey politics seem to deny Cassandra calls. Their accredentialism is for linear thinkers ( see how they adorn themselves with acronyms and ribbons ie. in lines ). For cohesion they need conformity, and limit discourse because they also need The Other (civilians, deplorables, barbarians, fascists, ) and without an enemy they would turn on themselves. "Don't do stupid shit" is a pretty stupid starting point- oh yeah do SMART shit, yeah. Thanks, Obama (but for what?).
Didn't They plan for the day when the CIA chief would be a wahabbi without a beard? With those googly eyes I'd wager he could surf cognitive dissonances such as loyalty. America, you are one crazy lady.
Petra | Aug 5, 2017 7:15:12 AM | 55
Short version of this story.Americans are thick as two bricks. What do you expect to get when thick people attempt to run a country. Worse still, attempt to exert power and influence beyond their borders. Worst of all, when they strut in the mantle of the super power. It would perhaps be tolerable, just, for the rest of the rest of the 7 billion if the 300 million Americans minded their own business. It has always struck me, the USA is shat you would have got if the Afrikaner nationalists had succeeded.

Btw, you know there must be more than a grain of truth in this when you start hearing rumours about efforts in certain places to raise "anti-Americanism" to the thought-crime level of another famous "anti".

Ray | Aug 5, 2017 8:11:39 AM | 58
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bremer

Interesting White Wash by Brenner. Just another neocon bringing death and destruction to the world. Just like the fable of 9/11 and only one security camera at the Pentagon.

Jackrabbit | Aug 5, 2017 10:13:48 AM | 65
I sense a developing narrative that erases any and all responsibility of Western political leaders for the Syrian disaster.
1. "Washington never really had a plan in Syria." (Michael Brenner)

2. John McCain was responsible for any US involvement (David Stockman)
See: 'Moderate Rebels' Cheerleader McCain is Fall Guy But Neocon So Neocon Cancer Can Live On

EnglishOutsider | Aug 5, 2017 10:31:59 AM | 67
The essay by Michael Brenner is an achievement. It pulls together a lot of material, some of which is amplified in the comments. Thank you for putting it out.

As "Grieved" above intimates it's a start, and as some other comments indicate it starts from a necessarily limited perspective. The primary question we should ask ourselves is here not addressed. How is it that we in the West found ourselves engaged, with such commitment and over such a period of time, in enterprises that left a trail of dead bodies and shattered societies strewn across three continents?

Sooner or later, as in German society after the Second World War, we're going to have to ask ourselves that question. Michael Brenner's essay seeks to provide no answer but perhaps sets out a framework in which the answer can be looked for.


On a more parochial note there's this from "Anonymous" @ 37:-

"There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover (over) the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country."

I think those statements by "Anonymous" about what we were or are doing in Syria, Libya and the Ukraine are probably true.

However, to say "I think those statements are probably true" isn't proof or anywhere near it. We can pick up indications from the Chilcott report or the House of Commons Select Committee on Libya that point to such a conclusion. Putting that together with various statements made by President Obama in off-teleprompter mode, various statements put out by the State Department and a recent decision by President Trump that confirms the type of operations undertaken in Southern Syria, it's near impossible to avoid putting together a picture that confirms "Anonymous'" statements above.

Nevertheless "indications" and "putting together a picture" still don't amount to proof. Without proof all this is just words and inference, however convincing we might feel them to be. Since the PR and information resources pushing a different story are all-powerful such inferences count for nothing outside what I believe to be fairly small numbers of people in Europa and America who follow these matters attentively. Might I ask, would it be possible to give references that nail down the statements made by "Anonymous" above?

[Aug 10, 2017] I think the USA neocons first hoped to forestall any intervention by keeping Russia busy elsewhere (Ukraine, economic troubles, etc.). And threats that if Russia did intervene, it would "pay heavy price" an true Russian passenger jet was blow in the air, while there had been no such terror attack against USA.

Aug 10, 2017 | jackrabbit.blog
"US didn't have a plan in Syria" is misleading. Brenner tries to justify this statement by listing "piecemeal actions" of various US government entities.

In fact, while publicly the US claimed to have no direct role (Obama: US "leading from behind"), the US had both an important covert role and a deceptive public one (providing diplomatic cover).

It seems doubtful that Brenner is unaware of the US dual role or of the years of planning with allies (as described by Seymour Hersh).

I think Brenner is also wrong about contingency planning wrt a a price" (a favorite Obama expression) via terrorism. Indeed, within a month after Russians arrived in Syria a Russian passenger jet was downed.

Despite a US bombing campaign Russian intervention. I think they first hoped to forestall any intervention by keeping Russia busy elsewhere (Ukraine, economic troubles, etc.). if Russia did intervene, it would "pay heavy price" an true Russian passenger jet was blow in the air, while there had been no such terror attack against USA.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 4, 2017 5:37:06 PM | 30

[Aug 09, 2017] Trump's Choices

Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump as President of the United States was humanity's hope, or, I should say, the hope of that part of humanity aware of the danger inherent in provoking conflict between nuclear powers. For two decades, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have thrown sticks, stones, and nasty words at the Russian bear. The US has broken and withdrawn from security agreement after security agreement and has compounded the threat that Russia sees by conducting war games on Russia's borders, staging a coup in Ukraine, a province of Russia for centuries, and by a continuous stream of false accusations against Russia. ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Donald Trump as President of the United States was humanity's hope, or, I should say, the hope of that part of humanity aware of the danger inherent in provoking conflict between nuclear powers. For two decades, the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have thrown sticks, stones, and nasty words at the Russian bear. The US has broken and withdrawn from security agreement after security agreement and has compounded the threat that Russia sees by conducting war games on Russia's borders, staging a coup in Ukraine, a province of Russia for centuries, and by a continuous stream of false accusations against Russia.

The result of this irresponsible, thoughtless, and reckless policy toward Russia was the announcement a few weeks ago (ignored by the US media) by the Russian high command that Russian military planners have concluded that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia

This is the most alarming event of my lifetime. Now that Washington's criminally insane have convinced Russia that Russia is in Washington's war plans, Russia has no alternative but to prepare to strike first.

During the Cold War both sides received numerous false alarms of incoming ICBMs, but because both sides were working to reduce tensions, the alarms were disbelieved. But today with Washington having raised tensions so high, both sides are likely to believe the false alarm. The next false alarm could bring the end of life on earth, and for this there is no one to be blamed but Washington.

Trump's emphasis on normalizing relations with Russia was a great relief to people sufficiently intelligent to understand the consequences of nuclear war. But none of these people are in Washington, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the military/security complex, or among the presstitutes that pass for a media in America. All of these people want to destroy Trump because he wants to make peace with Russia.

Of the 535 members of the House and Senate, 530 voted in support of a bill that violates the separation of powers and prevents President Trump from removing sanctions on Russia. As the vote is so over-whelming that it is veto proof, the White House has announced that Trump will sign the bill, thus surrendering and giving up on his goal of restoring normal relations with Russia.

The White House believes that as the bill is veto proof, all that Trump could achieve by a veto is to prove the charges that he is a Russian agent and is using his office to protect Russia, and this could easily be turned into an impeachment proceeding.

However, there are things Trump could do, and since defusing the threat that Russia sees is essential to the avoidance of war, it is imperative that Trump do everything he can to prevent the military/security complex and its servants in Congress and the media from locking America into deadly conflict with Russia.

As I wrote yesterday ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/31/witch-hunt-donald-trump-surpasses-salem-witch-trials-1692-93/ ), Trump could take his case to the American people in a major speech and point out that Congress is violating the separation of powers, hamstringing the power of the presidency, and making it illegal for him to reduce the dangerous tensions that previous administrations have created with a major nuclear power.

Trump could also tell Congress that their law is unconstitutional and that he won't sign or veto the bill, and if Congress persists he will take it to the Supreme Court.

Trump could also get on the telephone with the German politicians and corporate CEOs who have denounced the sanctions as illegal and intended to serve US business interests at the expense of Germany. He should tell them to force Merkel to announce that Germany will not accept the sanctions. The EU leadership also denounces the sanctions. Trump, with a little effort, can organize so much European opposition that he can tell Congress that as the President of the United States he cannot permit a collection of mindless morons, which is what Congres is, to destroy Washington's empire by driving Europeans out of it. If Trump can get the Europeans to act, he can defeat the bill, which is really nothing but Congress' service to its political campaign contributors in the military/security complex and the US energy industry.

Trump is a fighter. And this is Trump's fight. He has everything to gain by rising to the challenge, and so do the rest of us. The entire world should get behind Trump as there is no one else to defuse the tensions that are leading to nuclear war.

I have been amazed at the stupidity and mendacity of the American liberal-progressive-left, who have fallen in line with the military/security complex's effort to destroy Trump, because peace with Russia takes away the orchestrated enemy so essential to the budget and power of the military/security complex. Of course, America no longer has a left. The left has been displaced by Identity Politics, a Zionist creation, as Gilad Atzmon explains in his books, that is proving effective in destroying the goyim by teaching them to hate one another. In Identity Politics, everyone is the victim of white heterosexual males, whom Identity Politics defines as misogynist, racist, homophobic gun nuts!Hillary's "Trump deplorables." As the "deplorables" voted for Trump, the liberal-progressive-left hate Trump and are helping the military/security complex destroy him even it it means nuclear war.

As I predicted would be the case, Trump had no idea how to appoint a government that would be on his side, and obviously failed completely. He is continually contradicted by his UN ambassador, his Secretary of State, his National Security Advisor, his Secretary of Defense. Trump is alone in his government.

So, he might as well fight. Address the American people. Organize the angry Europeans. Take the fight to criminally insane Washington before the criminals destroy the world in war.

Already in the 21st century Washington has destroyed in whole or part seven countries, producing millions of refugees who, together with immigrants claiming refugee status, are altering the populations of European countries and wiping Europe off of the face of the earth. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/30/europe-is-history/

This is Europe's reward for being Washington's vassal.

Trump should say to Europe: "It is time to tell Washington that you have had enough!"

If Trump doesn't fight and is led away by the morons advising him into the camp of the ruling oligarchs, Trump, in order to perform in a leadership role will lead American wars against the world. As a war leader he will be supported by the ruling oligarchy, and the dumbshit liberal-progressives, having helped the military/security complex defeat Trump's initiative for peace with Russia, will have not a leg to stand on.

Here is my prediction. Trump's personality compells him to be a leader. Trump, having been defeated in his peace initiative by the military/security complex, the liberal-progressive-left, the corrupt Democrats, the corrupt Republicans, and the whores who pass for a media will regain leadership via wars and aggression against foreign enemies.

Trump has already put illegal sanctions on Venezuela, hoping to overthrow Venezuelan democracy and restore Washington's rule through the small group of right-wing Spanish who have traditionally dominated Venezuela.

Russia and China had a chance to come to Venezuela's aid and to prevent the coming overthrow of the democratically elected government by Washington, but both countries lacked the necessary vision. Once Washington overthrows the Venezuelan government, Washington will overthrow the government in Ecuador and have Julian Assange's diplomatic asylum revoked. Once Assange is tortured into claiming that Wikileaks is a Russian/American organization financed by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, Assange will be put to death, and the dumbshit Americans will cheer. Then Washington will overthrow Bolivia and have a purge conducted in Brazil against all political leaders who are not on the CIA's payroll.

Then Washington will brand Russia and China "outlaw nations" and surrounded as they will be with US nuclear missiles and ABM sites, Washington will demand surrender or destruction.

It all seems a fantasy, doesn't it. But it is very real.

Fake News A US Media Specialty

By Paul Craig Roberts

August 07, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - The American media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime the American media has produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and destruction of Yugoslavia? Do you remember "war criminal" Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president branded "the butcher of the Balkans," who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on to the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of charges by the International Criminal Tribunal. http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-and-the-destruction-of-yugoslavia-unpleasant-truths-no-one-wants-to-know/5540873

Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by the criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was destroyed. Millions of Iraqis were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was subjected to a show trial more transparent than Stalin's trial of Bukharin and then murdered under the pretext of judicial execution.

Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!"

Do you remember the lies that the criminal Obama regime told about Assad of Syria and the planned US invasion of Syria that was blocked by the UK Parliament and the Russian government? Do you remember that Obama and the killer bitch sent ISIS to do the job that US troops were prevented from doing? Do you remember General Flynn revealing on TV that it was a "willful decision" of the criminal Obama regime to send ISIS to Syria over his objection as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency? This bit of told truth is why Gen. Flynn is hated by the Washington criminals who forced him out as Trump's National Security Adviser.

Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"?

Can you think of any truthful report in the American news in the past two decades?

All of the lies leading to the death of millions told by the criminal Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes were transparent. The US media could easily have exposed them and saved the lives of millions of peoples and saved seven countries from destruction in whole or part. But the presstitutes cheered on the gratuitous and criminal destruction of countries and peoples. Every one of the presstitutes is a war criminal under the standards set by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials.

We cannot even get a truthful jobs report. Yesterday (Aug. 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 205,000 new private sector jobs in July and a drop in the unemployment rate to 4.3%. This is fake news.

The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber rah-rahs the fake news, adding that many economists think "robust hiring could continue for many more months, or even years." Let's think about that for a moment. Generally speaking economists regard full employment to be a 5% rate of unemployment. There can never be a zero rate of unemployment because of frictions in the job market. For example, there are people between jobs who have lost or quit a job and are looking for a new one, and there are people who have dropped out of the work force, perhaps to spend more time parenting or to care for an aged and ill parent, and have reentered the work force. Economists also believe that employment cannot go too low without pushing up inflation.

Assuming economists have not suddenly changed their minds about what rate of unemployment is full employment, if the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, it is already below the full employment rate. How can the rate continue to fall for years when the economy is already at full employment? Apparently, this question did not occur to the AP reporter or to the "many economists."

No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

Get Our Free Daily Newsletter You can't buy your way onto these pages

Of course, the 4.3% unemployment rate is fake news. It does not include millions of discouraged workers. When these workers who have not looked for jobs within the last four weeks are included, the unemployment rate jumps to 22-23%.

Now consider the alleged 205,000 July new jobs. Probably about half of these jobs are due to the add-ons from the birth-death model, and the other half from manipulations of seasonal adjustments. John Williams at shadowstats.com will tell us. However, let's assume the jobs are really there. Where does the BLS tell us the jobs are?

Eighty-nine percent of the jobs are in services, essentially domestic non-tradable services.

Professional and business services account for 49,000 of the jobs, of which 30,000 are in administrative and waste services (garbage collection) and 14,700 are in temporary help services.

54,000 of the jobs are in education and health services, of which ambulatory health care services, home health care services and social assistance account for 46,900 of the jobs.

62,000 of the jobs are in leisure and hospitality, of which waitresses and bartenders account for 53,100 of the jobs and amusements, gambling, and recreation account for 5,900 jobs.

This picture of American employment has been holding for about two decades. It is a portrait of a third world labor force. The jobs are not in export industries. The jobs are not in high productivity, high value-added occupations that produce a middle class income. The jobs are in lowly paid, often part-time domestic services.

The jobs do not produce incomes that provide discretionary spending to drive up business profits. So why did the stock market hit new highs? The answer is that corporate executives are taking advantage of the Federal Reserve's zero interest rates to borrow money with which to buy back their companies' shares in order to drive up their bonuses, the main component of their pay.

But these undeniable facts about employment did not prevent Christopher Rugaber and the other financial presstitutes or newspaper headline writers or "many economists" from asking "How much better can it get?" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution front page, Aug. 5, 2017).

It is not only seven Muslim countries that Washington and its presstitutes have destroyed in whole or part with lies. Washington's lies have also destroyed the American economy and the American work force.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West , How America Was Lost , and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order

Conspiracy to Remove Trump at All Costs

By Greg Hunter

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts agrees that Democrats, RINO Republicans, military complex and the Deep State want Donald Trump removed from the White House at any and all costs. Dr. Roberts explains, "That's correct and, again, it's several different interests. The Democrats want him out because they want to be vindicated that he stole the election from them through some form of collusion with the Russians. The military security complex want him out because they see him as a threat to their budget. Trump normalizing relations with Russia!they don't want that. They need an enemy. The talk of pulling out of Syria also annoyed them. They don't want to give up these wars that keep people worried and willing to support the military. . . . The media is mad because Trump disproved all the smart people's predictions of Hillary being a shoe-in. Plus, Trump is elected by Americans considered to be deplorable. The deplorables are white heterosexual males. They are racist. They are sexist. They are homophobes. They are gun nuts, and these are illegitimate people. These illegitimate people elected Trump when all of the good people wanted to elect Hillary. So, you have that kind of left wing crazed ideological element, as well. So, all of these things conspire against Donald Trump. What is going on is essentially what Attorney General Robert Jackson warned all U.S. Attorneys about in 1940. He said it is impermissible to pick a person and then go look for some crime he may have committed. . . . And, yet, that's what the Special Prosecutor is doing in the case of Trump. We have no evidence of any crime. Even if there was some kind of Russian collusion, it's not illegal. It's normal for incoming governments to have open discussions with foreign governments. It happens in every administration. It's part of the transition team. . . In the case of Trump, there is no crime, but now there is a wide ranging investigation that has gone far beyond any sort of Russian contacts."

Who is conspiring to push Trump out? Dr. Roberts says, "I do know about campaign contributions, and they do come from the military security complex, and they come from energy companies. These are two massive campaign contributors. So, that's why the Russian sanctions bill passed. Of the 535 members of the House and Senate, 530 voted for the sanctions. . . . It's not the people who put Senators and Congressmen in office, it's the interest groups that finance their election campaigns. So, the members of the House and Senate are not responsible to their constituents or voters. They are responsible to their constituency of their campaign contributors. In this case, the Congress is perfectly loyal to the energy companies and to the military security complex, and they never are loyal to 'We the People.'"

Dr. Roberts thinks sanctions and provocations with Russia and China are "acts of war" by the U.S. Roberts contends the U.S. does not want war. If there is war, Dr. Roberts says it will have nothing to do with a failing economy. Roberts contends, "The notion that the government is somehow worried about the economy and, therefore, we will go to war, that's not likely. In fact, I think the military security complex doesn't really want a war. They want an enemy like they had with the Soviet Union for all those decades of the 'Cold War.' They want a renewed Cold War. They want an ever present threat because that keeps the budget funded. It keeps it growing, and it keeps their power in place. So, this is what they want, but these things can backfire. These are the kinds of things that will produce a war. It won't be some conscious decision. . . . If you are talking war with Russia, nothing will be left standing."

On the economy, Dr. Roberts, who was an Assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan Administration and holds a PhD in economics, says, "There is no economy there. The markets are rigged. The Fed has a huge trading desk, and they can trade anything."

Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with former Assistant Treasury Secretary Dr. Paul Craig Roberts.

(To Donate to USAWatchdog.com Click Here )

https://www.youtube.com/embed/FaSb3VV6BF8?rel=0

Dr. Roberts is a prolific writer and sometimes writes as many as three fresh articles a day. You can find his work free of charge on PaulCraigRoberts.org. To donate to Dr. Roberts to keep his site running click here.

This article was first published by USAWatchdog.com

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Aug 09, 2017] Shamir Archive

Notable quotes:
"... while average Russian salary (excepting Moscow and St Petersburg) is around $200 per month. ..."
"... Before the sanctions, rich Russians did not give a damn about their less fortunate fellow citizens. They went for holidays to Cote d'Azur, they sent their children to study at Oxford and Yale. They were as removed from ordinary Russians as Leo Tolstoy's nobles were. ..."
"... Putin, despite his macho ways, is a very cautious politician. He is not rushing into more confrontation with the US than it is strictly necessary. He is ready to wait. ..."
"... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

Blogview Between Cersei and Daenerys Israel Shamir August 7, 2017

...The Russian Prime Minister Mr Medvedev summed the situation in a brief and to the point post in his Facebook page , conveniently in Russian and English. "First, the sanctions law ends hopes for improving Russia's relations with the new US administration. Second, it is a declaration of a full-fledged economic war on Russia. Third, the Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This changes the power balance in US political circles."

The Prime Minister is a man whose opinion matters. He is not the weakling that the Russian nationalist opposition branded him. While a President and a Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, on 8.8.8 (Aug 8, 2008, for slow thinkers) he disregarded the US calls and Russians' divided public opinion, moved the tanks beyond the Caucasus mountains and defeated the arrogant Georgians with their Israeli and American instructors in a brief war. Still he is a liberal, his government carries out liberal policy, he is not seeking confrontation. If he says it's war, albeit economic one, then it's war the US declared on Russia.

Still the more important war goes on between the Establishment and the President, and this war is not over. Trump had been humiliated, it is true, he lost a battle but not the war. It is too early to write him off, as Medvedev suggests.

President Putin understood that as he ordered the mass expulsion of the US diplomats before Trump signed the bill, though previously he said he will do it after the bill will become a proper law. If Putin would wait a few days, the expulsion could be considered a response to Trump's signing. But Putin preferred to make the Congress responsible for the action.

President Trump agreed with Putin, when he twitted : "Our relationship with Russia is at an all-time & very dangerous low. You can thank Congress!" The Russia-baiting senator John McCain replied with "You can thank Putin", but this line of accusations leads nowhere.

Trump is in one hell of a mess, but he has some solid support. I do not mean the people, I mean the real business sector of America. The Swamp has been fed by the virtual economy of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, mass media, the Federal Reserve, the spy agencies. Their enemies, the people of the real industry, support Trump, and they aren't likely to surrender. The conflict crossed the Atlantic, and now it rages in Europe, where supporters of the Clinton Collective had found themselves in an unpleasant situation. They're losing money, for American business does not want to support them anymore

... ... ...

Sympathies of Putin and his supporters still are with Trump, with American nationalists, for we can imagine a deal that can be reached with them, a deal that will allow Russia to live peacefully in its own niche of the world and of the market. It is hard even to imagine a possible deal with devoted globalists who want to remake the world including Russia after their own image. Still, Putin does not intend to get involved in the intra-American quarrel.

The nearest and the best he could do was waiting for half a year before acting on December expulsion of the Russian diplomats. Now we are entering a new stage, a full-blown Cold War.

Here I must admit that it is not bad for the world, not bad at all. A great harmony between Trump and Putin would be even better, as I described , but Cold War is surely second best solution.

There are too many aggressive American actions all over the world. Before 1990, they were partially blocked by the USSR. Since then, the US could do whatever it wishes, with dire results. Interventions in Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, and elsewhere would not have happened if there would be some counterweight to the US. And Putin's Russia didn't want to take the role of major counterweight. The Russians acted only within very limited territories and by very limited means. They saved Crimea from being turned into a NATO military base; they stopped the destruction of Syria. This is very good, but far from leading global resistance to the Empire. At best, they refused to cooperate with American designs.

... ... ...

...Putin's authoritarian regime gave the new Russian nobility of money and state positions too much leeway. They built the biggest yachts, they threw money like there was no tomorrow, while ordinary Russians had a very, very modest way of life. Deputy Prime Minister Mr Igor Shuvalov flies his wife's corgis in his private jet and owns $100 million worth real estate, while average Russian salary (excepting Moscow and St Petersburg) is around $200 per month.

Before the sanctions, rich Russians did not give a damn about their less fortunate fellow citizens. They went for holidays to Cote d'Azur, they sent their children to study at Oxford and Yale. They were as removed from ordinary Russians as Leo Tolstoy's nobles were.

The sanctions helped a bit. Some of the Putin's officials have been forbidden to travel and thus they were forced to discover modest discomforts of their homeland. If the Cold War will cut them off their properties in the West and will annihilate their offshore savings, they will contribute more to their own country.

They surely do not want that; that is why the new rich of Putin's Russia are the force against Cold War. They already call for a surrender to US mercy . The new Cold War will make these people irrelevant, as the US communists became irrelevant in the harsh climate of Cold War I.

The sanctions law is not a bad thing for Europe, too. By meddling in European elections, the US created a comprador political class. These blind followers of American invade/invite liberals were a real disaster for Europeans. With the advent of Trump, they began to get weaned off the American tit. Sanctions are likely to strike the Europeans' tender spot, their pockets. They are already annoyed by what they consider exterritoriality of American law, by heavy fines applied to European banks for doing things forbidden in the US, but perfectly legal in Europe, like trading with Iran. The US attack on their supply of cheaper Russian gas is likely to release them from their American tenets. So it is also positive thing.

In short, the new Cold War II is a good deal. Yes, harmony would be better, but until it comes, give us Cold War!

* * *

P.S. I'd like to conclude on this upbeat note, but as I am paid neither by Putin nor by Trump, I'd add that Cold War is not here yet. Putin, despite his macho ways, is a very cautious politician. He is not rushing into more confrontation with the US than it is strictly necessary. He is ready to wait.

We observed it in the case of diplomats. Obama expelled 35 diplomats, Putin patiently waited for seven months. During this waiting time, he reminded of the debt many times. Only met with American stonewalling, he decided to act, and then he expelled twenty times more diplomats. (The exact number is not clear yet, but it is about 700 carriers of US diplomatic passport.) This is Russian style. Russians procrastinate, stall, postpone, and when you think they forgot or gave up they produce a lot of quick action.

Now, after the sanctions, Putin's Russia voted today Saturday Aug 5 in the UN Security Council for the US-proposed draft with new sanctions against North Korea. The U.S.-drafted resolution bans North Korean exports of coal, iron, iron ore, lead, lead ore and seafood. It also prohibits countries from increasing the current numbers of North Korean labourers working abroad, bans new joint ventures with North Korea and any new investment in current joint ventures, says Reuters . Thus Russia is punishing itself (it is an importer of Korean goods, it employs Korean workers and there are quite a few Russian – North Korean joint ventures) and sanctioning its North Korean ally while doing American bidding.

I regret this decision, but this is Putin: he does not want to aggravate the Russia-US rift. He is ready to launch a counterstrike, if necessary, but he is not in a rush to Doomsday. He does not want to give a chance to both Cersei and Daenerys to unite against him. He'd rather procrastinate a bit more, while the two queens fight it out. I'd prefer very, very cold war with a lot of ice and a twist of lemon, but then, I didn't pursue a pike for two hours in cold Siberian water.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review

See also: The Trump Administration Goes Neocon-Crazy The Saker April 5, 2017

Brabantian > , Website August 7, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT

Mr Israel Shamir is quite wrong when he claims above that Seymour Hersh is " the most trustworthy US journalist " Sy Hersh is a psy-op, a dis-info agent of some decades (see below). Hersh's currently famous video & leak 'debunking Russia-gate', is a Trojan horse cover for a very ugly deception.

Amidst Hersh's staged 'leak' – nicely pro-Trump to fool us – Hersh sells us a dodgy claim that Seth Rich was, he assures us, definitely NOT killed by mafias linked to Hillary Clinton but by some random street thug, according to Hersh's amazing 'secret inside sources' he always has when he is running a US gov psy-op this unknown 'street thug killed Seth Rich', but 'got scared' so didn't take Seth Rich's wallet uh-huh

Hersh is also trying to distract us from the fact that we now have a string of people who are dead or in prison after contacting what are known as the oily US-Israeli intel frauds of Wikileaks & also The Intercept, which are in fact 'rat traps' to help identify, silence & kill real dissidents duped into contacting them.

Wikileaks may have helped kill both Seth Rich, & another anti-Hillary leaker, Peter W Smith, also dead after contacting Wikileaks, with Assange absurdly claiming he never got any Smith files. Tho Assange posted a 'reward' for info about Seth Rich – funny how the USA international financial dragnet doesn't close Wikileaks fat bank accounts – Assange arguably may have set up the killing.

Just to remind that, years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski & Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, both admitted that 'not really living in the London Ecuador Embassy' Julian Assange, & Wikileaks itself, are USA-Israeli intel agency frauds, the leaks all selected & controlled. Assange was the dry run for another fraud, that of Rothschild employee & ex-gay-p-rnographer Gleen Greenwald, who pumped the young friend of Dick Cheney & the Brzezinski family, 'Edward Snowden' who first claimed to 'leak' to Dick Cheney's biographer at the Washington Post with many other proofs of the fraud – a fraud Putin himself hints at, tho he plays along, not wishing to over-provoke the USA as Shamir states above – starting point on the Snowden fraud here:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/09/21/russia-govt-report-snowden-greenwald-are-cia-frauds/

Assange & Greenwald & Snowden of course recommend the 'TOR' browser developed by United States Naval Research Laboratory employees working for US intel, as the 'safe' way to contact them, uh-huh, really secure

In younger days, Seymour Hersh made his bones as a fake 'brave investigative reporter' who like other 'limited hang-outs' of the time, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc, claimed the official JFK assassination story, lone gunman Oswald etc, was all perfectly fine & dandy the reward for all these people was their later fame.

Hersh and all of these fakers are totally anti 9-11 truth, against even questioning the official narrative – Seymour Hersh, Hersh's current media partner Eric Zuesse, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange all of these dis-info people say the US official 9-11 story is just great, Israel had nothing to do with it, don't talk about the arrested 'dancing Israelis' or the 'Israeli art students' photographed in the Twin Towers with boxes of bomb detonator components a few weeks before 9-11, the pix in the New York Times, no less

http://www.newnationalist.net/2017/03/02/world-trade-centers-infamous-91st-floor-israeli-art-student-project/

Seymour Hersh – card-carrying member of the intel agency psy-op confusion brigade – also sold a greasy, absurd alt version of the 'Osama bin Laden assassination in 2011′ fake story, Hersh claiming that Pakistani leaders helped to murder bin Laden & toss his body pieces from a helicopter, in total insult to their own Muslim religion HA. Whereas the actual evidence points to Osama bin Laden having died a decade earlier, shortly after the 9-11 attacks of which, in fact, the real bin Laden denied being involved.

jilles dykstra > , August 7, 2017 at 10:37 am GMT

@Brabantian Hersh ended the Vietnam war by one photograph, My Lai, alas his description on how Obama had Bin Laden murdered had not a similar effect.

white noise > , August 7, 2017 at 11:05 am GMT

"And it will be beneficial for Americans. The worst Putin can dream to do against the US: forcing the US to close its military bases, end their interventions and regime changes, destroying the Federal Reserve and the position of US Dollar in international trade, will be good for you. Your country will not invade the world and invite the world. Americans will again have work, and meaningful work. Your country will blossom."

Right on These changes alone would practically save the world, not just America. Maybe the most important factor would be DESTROYING THE FEDERAL RESERVE, which has always had Jews at the helm.

Of all evils, the Federal Reserve, which is NOT a part of the Federal government, but a fucking foreign bankers cartel, is the most pernicious.

white noise > , August 7, 2017 at 11:22 am GMT

@The Alarmist "Seriously, Vlad knows the Neocons are itching to finally take Russia off the world stage and that the US is more than equipped to do it with relative impunity. All he can do is watch his step and hope the fastest draw in the west doesn't decide to unholster the arsenal."

Uh? With relative impunity? I don't doubt that the neocons are itching to push the buttons, but they won't Even these psycopaths understand that Russia has more nuclear power than the USA, currently. If relative impunity means that erasing who knows how many American big cities from the face of Earth is unimportant, then ok, I guess you can call it "relative impunity."

Putin said: A preemptive strike from any side would probably mean that nobody would survive. He means in the world. That was/is a wise thing to say.

Robert Magill > , August 7, 2017 at 11:54 am GMT

Russia is a side-show. The main event is China. Fortunately foggy bottom and the swamp buy the distraction and the big show continues. The longer the focus is on Russia and not China the better the chance for Europe, Asia and Africa to avoid further US meddling.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

LondonBob > , August 7, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT

Mr Shamir should look up when President Taft was forced to abrogate the Russo-American Friendship Treaty of 1832.

Logan > , August 7, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT

@white noise In the early 60s, at the time of the Cuban crisis, the total megatonnage of all Bombs was somewhere upwards of 10,000. Since that time all(?) of the really big Bombs have been gotten rid of, as smaller Bombs will do the job fine with better accuracy, and in addition the total number of Bombs has gone way, way down.

As a result, the total megatons of all Bombs today is somewhere in the vicinity of 500. That's still a lot of big booms, but 500 is a LOT less than 10,000. The risk of extermination of humanity has presumably been proportionately reduced. BTW, it is surprisingly difficult to find info on total megatons, which would seem to be an important metric to track.

Captain Nemo > , August 7, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT

@The Alarmist

You seem like a singularly competent military expert, The Alarmist LOL!Yup, that's why the US is in panic because of North Korea feeble ICBM's Because it can even take out all the Russian ones

Moi > , August 7, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

Putin is weak–he voted in support of more sanctions on the DPRK. Sad that China also went along with this hypocrisy.

Michael Kenny > , August 7, 2017 at 1:46 pm GMT

Mr Shamir is an author in whose articles I always have difficulty finding a common thread. A few points: he speaks of "a deal that will allow Russia to live peacefully in its own niche of the world and of the market". That would be very nice, but, of course, the problem is precisely Putin's refusal to live in his own niche of the world. Clearly for such a "deal" to be possible, Putin must withdraw from Ukraine, to say nothing of Transnistria, South Ossetia etc. Secondly, I'd love to know where Mr Shamir gets the idea that there was ever any plan to turn Crimea into a NATO base or even to expel the Russian navy base already there. As for "working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America", "the Taliban with surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters and jets", "new trade deals with North Korea and works to stabilize the Kim regime's struggling economy" or "Russia that provides equipment and training to anti-American terrorist groups", the more the merrier! The more Putin gets into open conflict with the US the better!

Beckow > , August 7, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT

Cold war is not a war. And the last one wasn't one either. It is simply another word for hostility. The hostility gets worse, or sometimes better, each side tries to hurt the other in all the usual ways: attack allies, hurt economically, demonize in the media, try attacking key persons among the enemy, etc This has always be done, France and England had spent hundreds of years in this form of a 'cold war', or – on a smaller scale – Denmark and Sweden, and many others. Only when it actually turned into a hot war with actual fighting each other, only then there would be a war. War is too serious a business to devalue linguistically. Let's not inflate what we have today into what it clearly is not.

The key question is not the level of insanity among the neo-cons, or who would 'win' a nuclear war (who would want to?). I think the key still unanswered question is why are so many Washington courtiers escalating the hostility with Russia. I have seen different explanations: wanting Russia's resources, eager ammunition sellers, disappointed Clinton clan hangers-on, pipelines through Syrian deserts, atavistic ethnic hatreds, even belated bitterness over grandma's pogrom stories, but none of them – or even all of them together – really satisfy. On closer examination each one of those reasons is more nuanced and not compelling enough.

So, why really? Is this a force on its own in the DC ruling establishment court? Is it something that in an almost Tolstoyan fashion is simply a flow of history, and irresistible mental force that joins black inner-city politicians with Du Pont circle think-tank buffet aficionados, ambitious media scribes with Georgetown professors on a sugar high from too many cupcakes? What the is going on in their minds? How do you get extreme identity leftists from Baltimore inner city and small city Texas 'lord-is-coming' types to sing like a well coordinated choir? This is embarrassing because of its stupidity and total disregard for consequences. As if we are dealing with children.

Regarding Trump: historically a ruler so far out of sync with the court that surrounds him, but with strong popular support, either perished in an internal coup of some kind, or he asserted himself by a drastic clean-up of the courtiers. (Or in a few cases, he would just give up and go hunting, or to play golf). I think we are in for some turbulence.

Joe Wong > , August 7, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT

Pentagon and Department of Energy requested 1 trillion to update US nuclear arsenal, such action simply means all US ICBMs are not at fly-worth conditions and "bolt out of the blue" is a fantasy.

ThatDamnGood > , August 7, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT

If the USA could do successful first strikeon either Russia or China or both, it would have done so.

Israel Shamir > , Website August 7, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT

It appears that the vote in the Security Council had been initiated by China, as the Chinese are very worried by the developments and prefer to try more diplomacy. Russia followed its Chinese ally. Makes sense.

ThatDamnGood > , August 7, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT

Also, Putin isn't trying to avoid giving the USA some excuse to go to war against Russia, if they wanted to, the. USA would conjure up the pretext, learn your history. He hopes for some counterbalance to the Dragon and doesn't want to close the door on working with the USA on this.

Russia is playing a double game with China. It's does not want to be a USA dog yet doesn't real want a dominant China.

If Russia undermines China to much, more than it has, it will become one of the USA's satraps. So what will it do?

Putin I would say is showing the lethargy of being confronted with 2 outcomes he doesn't like. Regardless of how rational he has been trained to be, such training tends to involve suppressing the emotions one way or another.

Beckow > , August 7, 2017 at 4:34 pm GMT

@ThatDamnGood Also, Putin isn't trying to avoid giving the USA some excuse to go to war against Russia, if they wanted to, the. USA would conjure up the pretext, learn your history. He hopes for some counterbalance to the Dragon and doesn't want to close the door on working with the USA on this.

Russia is playing a double game with China. It's does not want to be a USA dog yet doesn't real want a dominant China.

If Russia undermines China to much, more than it has, it will become one of the USA's satraps. So what will it do?

Putin I would say is showing the lethargy of being confronted with 2 outcomes he doesn't like. Regardless of how rational he has been trained to be, such training tends to involve suppressing the emotions one way or another. It takes a lot to destroy a country, even to turn it into a satrapy. We are in very early stages of this process after literally decades of trying. Any 'outcomes' are way, way in the future, if any would happen at all. The interplay among major geo-political countries moves at snail pace and the changes are very gradual.

From Russia's point of view, China is more or less contained, all they need is not to have active hostility on that border and good trade relations – and they have both. US hostility toward Russia doesn't play well in Europe, people there know a lot more about it, there is a long nuanced history, and they are after all neighbors with an obvious interest in trade. What looks like a good strategy in Washington will never play out the same way in Europe. And having hostile relations with US might be unpleasant for Russia, but once that has become inevitable, as all people, they will simply adjust. US is not at all important for most things that happen in Russia.

Putin is rational enough to know that there are no end-points, no 'outcomes', just an ongoing process. He also knows that by taking Crimea he took the most valuable thing that was in play in this phase – and he could not had done it without the very clumsy, self-defeating Obama intervention in Ukraine to change the elected government there. So I would not describe that as lethargy, when one is basically winning, why stir it up?

Wally > , August 7, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT

@Moi "Weak"?

How does acting in Russia's best interests indicate weakness?

bjondo > , August 7, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra Hersh ended the Vietnam war by one photograph, My Lai, alas his description on how Obama had Bin Laden murdered had not a similar effect. I've read that My lai was first reported in France, Le Mond. My Lai was well known in Vietnam and was a medium level atrocity in America's rolodex of atrocities.

Not sure quite why Hersh is such a hero for re reporting an atrocity well known except of course to the baboons of USA.

I don't trust him either. Only part of the story gets reported.

I think Israel Shamir sometimes is too polite and respectful.

Wally > , August 7, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny Mr Shamir is an author in whose articles I always have difficulty finding a common thread. A few points: he speaks of "a deal that will allow Russia to live peacefully in its own niche of the world and of the market". That would be very nice, but, of course, the problem is precisely Putin's refusal to live in his own niche of the world. Clearly for such a "deal" to be possible, Putin must withdraw from Ukraine, to say nothing of Transnistria, South Ossetia etc. Secondly, I'd love to know where Mr Shamir gets the idea that there was ever any plan to turn Crimea into a NATO base or even to expel the Russian navy base already there. As for "working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America", "the Taliban with surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters and jets", "new trade deals with North Korea and works to stabilize the Kim regime's struggling economy" or "Russia that provides equipment and training to anti-American terrorist groups", the more the merrier! The more Putin gets into open conflict with the US the better! I remind our Zionist friend that the eastern Ukraine people voted overwhelmingl y to return to Russia. They will not go back.

Yes. we realize that Jews First Zionists wants as much "open conflict" as possible, as long as US gentile blood is being spilled.

The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

Israel's Dirty Little Secret
How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

Israeli occupied territories
'Join the US army, Fight for Israel

bjondo > , August 7, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny Mr Shamir is an author in whose articles I always have difficulty finding a common thread. A few points: he speaks of "a deal that will allow Russia to live peacefully in its own niche of the world and of the market". That would be very nice, but, of course, the problem is precisely Putin's refusal to live in his own niche of the world. Clearly for such a "deal" to be possible, Putin must withdraw from Ukraine, to say nothing of Transnistria, South Ossetia etc. Secondly, I'd love to know where Mr Shamir gets the idea that there was ever any plan to turn Crimea into a NATO base or even to expel the Russian navy base already there. As for "working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America", "the Taliban with surface-to-air missiles to shoot down U.S. helicopters and jets", "new trade deals with North Korea and works to stabilize the Kim regime's struggling economy" or "Russia that provides equipment and training to anti-American terrorist groups", the more the merrier! The more Putin gets into open conflict with the US the better! Which DC neocon cubicle do you occupy.

Of course, you could be satire.

Anatoly Karlin > , Website August 7, 2017 at 6:54 pm GMT

@The Alarmist The idea of US "nuclear primacy" is a neocon fantasy.

Anatoly Karlin > , Website August 7, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT

@Moi The DPRK is a friend of sorts, being one of the few countries that recognized Crimea, but ultimately it is China's ward and Russia would be wise to follow China's direction there.

bjondo > , August 7, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT

the sanctions signing is a temporary and eventually pyrrhic victory for the slugwhores of congress
Trump had his signing qualifiers
he can attack later

peterAUS > , August 7, 2017 at 7:30 pm GMT

@Beckow

So, why really?

A thoughtful post.

Not even close to be qualified in those matters, the same topic has been badgering me since this "Russians this/that" erupted all over the place.

Read article, recently, trying to explain it by angle "Protestant/Puritan vs Orthodox".

But, and now I am really going out of reservation, how about this:
The essential need of a human to have OTHER .as opponent, enemy, focus of bad things in life stuff like that.
Say, related to "Star Wars" makeup .the need for a certain myth for a human psyche.
I think we are not in rational space any more, but deep hindbrain.
As that movie "Forbidden planet" superego/ego/ID.

Anyway ..

But, in any case, the topic should get more attention around.

Would you have a theory?

Israel Shamir > , August 7, 2017 at 8:37 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin I agree with Anatol. Korea's connection to China is much, much stronger than Russia's. During Korean War, the Russians had lost a few dozen men, Chinese had lost tens of thousands, or even more. Son of Mao was killed defending Korea. All overland links of North Korea lead to China. There is a short stretch of Russian-Korean border, but until very recently there was no road neither bridge.
Korean trade with China is many times bigger than their trade with Russia.
However, Koreans are very strong nationalists; they are suspicious of China, and of China's motives. Thy think China does not want to have strong Korea next to itself, and that is why the Chinese can easily be persuaded by the Americans to join them demanding nuclear disarmament.
Both Russia and China have big Korean communities. As a bottom line, it would look strange for Russians to reject measures agreed by the US with Beijing.

Marshall Lentini > , August 7, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT

@peterAUS "I think we are not in rational space any more, but deep hindbrain."

Pretty much.

I'd call it an availability heuristic tangled up with a few other things.

The Cold War set a precedent of America being at odds with Russia, following the old European example. They're reverting to something convenient. Focusing too hard on China would ultimately be "racism", as well.

They must blame Russia, for otherwise, they'd have to admit that selling out white people for so many decades is what got Trump elected. That would mean admitting that whites have interests. And that is Crimestop #1.

They also hate the existence of a massive white state not totally under their thumb, and where men are still mostly in charge. This isn't a small thing: "women's liberation" was one of the main casus bellorum for invading Afghanistan. So Russia, where smacking your bitch is now just a misdemeanor and the President goes hunting like old Teddy, is in need of enlightening.

The difference between neurotics and the American establishment is that the former are confined to over-definition of their own sphere, while the latter have the power to define that of others. In the end, they will tear everything down to avoid confronting their own sunk cost fallacies, just like neurotic in denial.

utu > , August 7, 2017 at 9:29 pm GMT

@Beckow "self-defeating Obama intervention in Ukraine to change the elected government there. "

Why self-defeating? It kind of worked. That Russia annexed Crimea is not really a big g deal. They do not care about Crimea. There was no real designs about turning Crimea into NATO base or Jewish colony as some say. That they act upset is just posturing. Their argument is legalistic. Technically Russia broke international law. But they succeeded up to some point of prying large chunk of land from Russia's direct sphere of influence and managed to turn Ukrainians to be hostile towards Russia. For people who do not consider peace and harmony to be the highest value the Maidan operation was a success.

Si1ver1ock > , August 7, 2017 at 9:48 pm GMT

I would have to rate this column as superior, very good.

The part that starts out:

There are considerable differences between refusing to cooperate with the United States, and working assertively to resist U.S. policies and damage America.

. . . .

is something I might have written in my comments even as recently as last year, but I find myself censoring my own comments these days. I'm not as sanguine about a new Cold War as the author is. The United States is bordering on becoming a Stasi State.

Wiki on Stasi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

The Security forces of the US have been going after pattern-of-life information on US citizens.

Marina has the ability to look back on the last 365 days' worth of DNI metadata seen by the Sigint collection system, regardless whether or not it was tasked for collection." The stored metadata is mainly used for pattern-of-life analysis. US persons are not exempt because metadata is not considered data by US law (section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern-of-life_analysis

Which sets us up for Zersetzung.

The practice of repression in Zersetzung comprised extensive and secret methods of control and psychological manipulation, including personal relationships of the target, for which the Stasi relied on its network of informal collaborators,[2] (in German inoffizielle Mitarbeiter or IM), the State's power over institutions, and on operational psychology. Using targeted psychological attacks the Stasi tried to deprive a dissident of any chance of a "hostile action".

Wiki on Zersetzung: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zersetzung

bjondo > , August 7, 2017 at 10:21 pm GMT

Not cold war 2 following cold war 1.

This new war with Russia is by and for the jews with their lickspittle puppets for israel.

It is about Russia stopping the defeat of Syria.

it is about Putin not bowing to judaized America and the judaized west.

it is about Trump not bowing to the corrupt, deep state – the judaized state.

Avery > , August 7, 2017 at 10:46 pm GMT

@utu { There was no real designs about turning Crimea into NATO base .}

How would you know?
There is no possible way for you to know that.

No, I don't know either, but given what has transpired since the breakup USSR and how West/NATO lied to idiot Gorbachev about not pushing NATO Eastward, it is far more plausible that NATO did in fact plan to oust Russia from Crimea, and the naval base there.
Oh, what a prize for NATO that would have been.

One after another country has been bribed into NATO.
NATO is right on the border of RF today in Europe.
And NATO tried and is still trying to recruit Republic of Georgia, right on Russia's border in the Caucasus.
So NATO/US campaign to surround and strangle Russia has not stopped.

{ .to turn Ukrainians to be hostile towards Russia.}

Part of Ukrainians – the Western ones – were always hostile to Russia and Russians, despite being Slavs. They even collaborated with Hitler to murder their fellow Slavs, until Hitler turned on them too and started murdering the idiots.

As to Eastern Ukrainians: you are right; Maidan operation was a success, but in a different way. With Ukraine intact, it would always be thorn on the side of Russia.
With it broken up, Novorossiya with its ethnic Russian population will eventually break free and join Russia – and everybody will live happily ever after.

bjondo > , August 7, 2017 at 11:33 pm GMT

@bjondo This new Jew war against Russia would be war number ?? against Russia in last 200 years.

Also Jew did hellava lot id killing of non jew in USSR.

Beckow > , August 8, 2017 at 12:12 am GMT

@peterAUS

The essential need of a human to have OTHER .as opponent, enemy, focus of bad things in life

What you wrote is about as close to what my theory would be if I felt competent to have one. The truth is that we really don't know. On some level what the motivation is – why people do what they do – doesn't matter. We cannot see into human psyche (thank god for that), and in my view assigning motivations is inherently imprecise. I am just curious.

A lot of establishment people in the West crave having an 'evil white enemy'. It is deeply embedded in the popular culture, it is today the only enemy that can exist given the PC and historical constraints in the West. There is no other viable alternative candidate for the role of the 'OTHER'. And Russia due to its whiteness, Christianity, but also remoteness and a slight obscurity – with the non-latin alphabet, Orthodoxy and difficult language – is an almost perfect 'ENEMY'. It has fulfilled this role for centuries, alternating with the Ottoman Turkey as the designated eternal foe.

Given today's reality our civilization cannot survive if it divides itself. To put it bluntly another civil war among the European countries will simply mean the end of the broader European civilization. We cannot afford more WW1′s or WW2′s. So this hysteria that is clearly out of control in Washington elite circles is very harmful. And maybe that's why they do it.

Pachyderm Pachyderma > , August 8, 2017 at 12:22 am GMT

@Israel Shamir I think a united, independent and nuclear Korea is in best interest of the United States and furthermore, both sides, the Chinese and the Americans are playing a waiting game to see which way the Kim regime will blow to see if it becomes, either a destitute dependency of China or a staunch ally of America (never say it's impossible).

Marshall Lentini > , August 8, 2017 at 12:26 am GMT

@Beckow I said it better.

For once.

Beckow > , August 8, 2017 at 12:30 am GMT

@utu They do care about Crimea – that was the price. Do you think Ukraine in Nato would continue having the home base for the Russian Navy? How would that work? The base would be gone over time and that was definitely part of the plan. There is no way Ukraine would be allowed into EU without first joining Nato – the logic here was ironclad and both sides knew it.

Russia broke the international law in the same way as Nato broke it when they bombed Serbia to force independence for Kosovo Albanians. It is hard to complain about one and ignore the other.

Russia used to heavily subsidize Ukraine, now Europe and US are expected to do it. The Ukrainian hostility toward Russia (and others) has always been there. It is more now, but these hatreds come and go as circumstances change. I agree that some might simply enjoy the chaos in Ukraine on the Russian border, but that is a very tricky goal that can easily backfire. My view is that everybody lost on Maidan: Russia, Europe, US and most of all the normal Ukrainians. Obama was either disengaged or extremely incompetent, this has not benefitted US in any tangible long-term way. And it permanently removed Crimea from Ukraine. That was a powerful lever against Russia and once used and lost it is no longer available. So, yes it was a stupid self-defeating policy. You can tell from Washington squealing about Crimea that they know it. They are angry at Russia for acting in Crimea, at their Kiev 'allies' for screwing it up, and at themselves for being so slow and clumsy. But it is too late.

utu > , August 8, 2017 at 5:27 am GMT

@Beckow They knew that prying Ukraine from Russia would force Russia to annex Crimea. So they did not count on getting Crimea. Ukraine minus Crimea was good enough. If Russia failed to act I am sure they would be more happy to get Crimea as a bonus. However by forcing Russia to act they got Russia where they wanted, i.e., aa a rouge state that does not respect international laws and thus can be sanctioned and isolated. Only squashing the Maidan coup would prevent it. Again somebody was asleep at the switch in Kremlin like in cases of Yugoslavia and Libya or simply Russia did not have means like lack of sufficient number of operatives in Kiev and Yanukovych regime. Perhaps Yanukovych was designated to do it but he did not want to be the fall guy who ends up with blood on his hands and then in the Hague court where Russia would certainly deliver him after restoring peace and control in Ukraine.

You can console yourself that it was Obama's mistake and so on. Time will tell. In the meantime Russa was beaten in this round.

Russia broke the international law in the same way as Nato broke it when they bombed Serbia to force independence for Kosovo Albanians. It is hard to complain about one and ignore the other.

Yes, but this does not make any difference in the world as it is. Might makes right. The West defines the narrative by which all actions are later justified in international institutions. Russia's propaganda apparatus with RT and Sputnik are no match. Russia never was good in PR and this kind of soft power. Not before Bolshevik revolution and not after and not after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always concentrated its propaganda for internal consumption chiefly to convince the population of Russia that the leadership knows what it is doing and that its military is great. Every authoritarian regime does it. Russia has no tradition of non-authoritarian rule.

The Alarmist > , August 8, 2017 at 7:09 am GMT

@Anatoly Karlin Yep, but that's all it takes for the Neocons to act.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 8, 2017 at 7:51 am GMT

@The Alarmist The christian west (you keep electing the same evil mofers, so ) is out of its evil fcuking mind, that such a situation can even be considered!

With great Power, comes great Evil.

The white race, which will never peacefully relinquish its hegemony, will forever be proof of that.

white noise > , August 8, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

@Logan Putin was probably thinking of the radiation, which can last many years, and can be transported far by the wind and rain and rivers, and even sewage. In any case, I hope we won't have to test just how bad a nuclear war can be.

white noise > , August 8, 2017 at 10:30 am GMT

@Michael Kenny There is a famous recorded phone conversation where American politicians discuss effecting a coup d'etat in Ukraine. This developed into the Maidan, and the ousting of President Yanukovich, who was loyal to Putin. John McCain was quick to visit the new government. McCain has been involved in many similar interventionist episodes in several countries, so that was suspicious.

It is conjecture to think if there was a plan to install a NATO base, but so, in all appearance, the coup was engineered by the American government. At first, Putin claimed that Russia intervened "to protect the Russian-speaking people" in Crimea. But later, he said that it was in fact a strategic move, to protect the Russian fleet in the Black Sea. Most likely, he decided to invade Crimea when he saw that Yanukovich fell and had to flee for his life His next move, which was to invade East Ukraine (through proxies in this case) shows that he got nervous with the change of government in Kiev, which announced a plan to join NATO and EU.

Lucy > , August 8, 2017 at 10:38 am GMT

@Avery They are hostile to Poles as well, despite Poland's "conservative" government's acting as if Ukraine was Poland's ally against Russia.

white noise > , August 8, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT

@Beckow "From Russia's point of view, China is more or less contained, all they need is not to have active hostility on that border and good trade relations – and they have both. US hostility toward Russia doesn't play well in Europe, people there know a lot more about it, there is a long nuanced history, and they are after all neighbors with an obvious interest in trade. What looks like a good strategy in Washington will never play out the same way in Europe. And having hostile relations with US might be unpleasant for Russia, but once that has become inevitable, as all people, they will simply adjust. US is not at all important for most things that happen in Russia.

Putin is rational enough to know that there are no end-points, no 'outcomes', just an ongoing process. He also knows that by taking Crimea he took the most valuable thing that was in play in this phase – and he could not had done it without the very clumsy, self-defeating Obama intervention in Ukraine to change the elected government there. So I would not describe that as lethargy, when one is basically winning, why stir it up?"

That is it.

white noise > , August 8, 2017 at 10:55 am GMT

@Anatoly Karlin "The idea of US "nuclear primacy" is a neocon fantasy."

Absolute fantasy.

Israel Shamir > , August 8, 2017 at 10:59 am GMT

Here is an interesting comment that was sent by a US military man from circles close to President Trump.

We are told that congressional approval–sampled by the same polls that rate the president at 40%–is at 4%; and since all of these polls are engineered we can easily accept that President Trump is in reality at 60%, whilst the congressional scum actually garners 6% approval from respondents, who are largely over-sampled in favour of democraps and independents (republicans are almost invariably a mere third of any selected group). The polls are very sophisticated garbage of the kind that predicted Trump's loss to Hitlery: nothing is real any longer in this vile, technologically-driven society of knaves and cretins.

I rather enjoy Mr Shamir's reasoning, my friend. But he is wrong about Trump. The president is in a death struggle with the greatest alliance of traitors and kleptocrats the world has ever known. He will win, because two-hundred-million Americans stand with him in this fight against globalist totalitarianism. Democrap leaders and their "social justice warrior" creatures are either seditious or guilty of outright treason. All are supported by massive globalist wealth, the Koch brothers and George Soros, Gates, Buffet and Zuckerberg, along with a great host of other top-level players, including Carlos Slim the Inaptly Named, who is the world's most powerful drug dealer. And yet President Trump stands tall against the crushing tide.

Why? Because the American presidency, while not nearly as autonomous as its French counterpart, functions as does our sun among the more distant stars. Trump can be attacked ceaselessly, even "indicted" as you suggest he may be–FOR NOTHING!–but his position at the heart of the U.S. governmental system is unassailable. And even if he is impeached by a future democrap majority, good to remember that Clinton went nowhere, disrupted the nation for two more horrible years after his impeachment, and then went on to loot the planet free of any stigma. Trump is a force for good, is beloved by tens of millions and is the most effective communicator in political history, tapping into the psyche of average Americans in a way that even Ronald Reagan could not match.

The left is satanic. It will continue to peddle its vomitory prescriptives, engineered polls, engineered riots, engineered outrage among its bicoastal supporters–and Trump will continue to work eighteen hours daily for the American people, undermining the illegitimate Federal Reserve system that is largely responsible for the West's boom and bust economic cycle, remaking the nation's infrastructure, at last reforming the moronically complex tax code, unravelling so-called Obamacare, which sought to control 40% of America's economy for the benefit of global insurance companies. Illegal immigration is already down 70%. The Department of Veterans Affairs has been overhauled at light speed (veterans were literally dying whilst waiting for care that they earned). American manufacturing renewal is being championed in every way by this president, while the Paris Climate Accord is dead to U.S. and America has been withdrawn from TPP, a disgraceful globalist compact designed to annihilate what remains of this country's manufacturing base.

My distant cousin will have to go. McMaster is working against President Trump. He is a neo-con globalist operative who wants war with Russia. McMaster's team has worked to isolate the president from developing events; these people have filtered information that should be fully analysed by Donald J. Trump; they have purged advisers who favour détente with Russia, together with a realistic approach to Ukraine and Syria. McMaster cannot be trusted. And Trump does not like him personally, happily enough. But these delicate moves take time and we have no time. The satanic left, aided by the deep state and its creatures, is working to eliminate the president. If they are successful, America will soon be finished.

What goes up must come down. The wildly inflated stock market is most likely going to crash and with it the global economy. President Trump will be on the side of those who are left out of the current temporary boom, the tens of millions who will be wrecked by this coming disaster, "the forgotten men and women" to whom he refers in every speech. Corrosive structures that Western elites built to enslave U.S. are coming apart at the seams. The inevitable economic realignment will benefit President Trump. If we can keep him alive. And if our president falls, the deep state goes down with him.

Semper Fidelis

white noise > , August 8, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

@utu To begin with, Russia can at least claim that Ukraine was part of Russia for a long, long time. And it's the same people, Slavs. Centuries of history lived together. So, one could argue that Ukraine is Russia's business, to some extent. But it's definitely none of America's business.

It doesn't look like a success, anyway. The CIA ehr, I mean, the government in Kiev, has lost Crimea and the Donbass to Russia. And I can't see how could they recover them without making the interventionism (which is making the USA a hated country all over the world) significantly more obvious and risking a retaliation by Russia, which has nuclear power to really worry about, in spite of comic books fantasies a la Captain America.

Perhaps the American government should worry more about its own people than in scheming how to control other nations.

white noise > , August 8, 2017 at 11:22 am GMT

@bjondo "Not cold war 2 following cold war 1.

This new war with Russia is by and for the jews with their lickspittle puppets for israel.

It is about Russia stopping the defeat of Syria.

it is about Putin not bowing to judaized America and the judaized west.

it is about Trump not bowing to the corrupt, deep state – the judaized state."

Exactly. Putin is being demonized by the corporate media for a reason. He is going against the designs of the Jewish cabal. Also Trump is, and that's why the corporate media is demonizing him too, and also why they will try to impeach him.

The fact that Putin and Trump had a very cordial meeting of two hours and a half at the G20 is also no coincidence. And it could have been a longer conversation, but they both were urged to go and meet other dignitaries that they had WAITING in line, because they considered their meeting more important.

white noise > , August 8, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT

@utu Might makes right? So, you're saying that brute force alone is ok. That's barbaric, uncivilized. Very neo con, actually, and very in tune with the pro-Jewish rethoric of war, war and more war. You're not another minion of the Jews, are you?

But the might has not worked well, anyway America could not win a war in Vietnam, or Korea, or Afghanistan, or Irak, or Syria Nowhere.

The American government should perhaps worry more about its own people and its own affairs inside USA territory than in scheming how to control and invade and hurt other countries.

Human kind certainly needs for all these neo con crazies in the government to finally give up on their lunacy.

The Alarmist > , August 8, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

@Si1ver1ock Do your part for the resistance lose the smart-phone, and pay for everything with cash.

The Alarmist > , August 8, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT

@white noise Then again, Russia rubber-stanped the UN sanctions on North Korea in a more MAD day and age, they might have vetoed. Vlad knows the hand he has been dealt.

utu > , August 8, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

@white noise So, you're saying that brute force alone is ok.

What is wrong with you people? What happened to reading comprehension? When one makes an affirmative statement that A is B this does not imply that one approves or condones that A is B or that one does not think that A should not be B.

Beckow > , August 8, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

@utu Motivations are hard to establish. But when we focus on the sequence of observable events, it looks like a major part of the plan was to 1) push the Russian Navy out of Crimea and 2) over time turn Sebastopol into a quasi-Nato naval base ('temporary visits'?). These things take time and you can imagine that 15-20 years time-frame and a Ukrainian fig leave in the meantime would be used. Same as e.g. with the Baltics.

they did not count on getting Crimea. Ukraine minus Crimea was good enough.

Crimea is geo-politically and strategically by far the most important part of Ukraine. Hitler had dreams about it and started German settlements there in the middle of WW2. It is that good. It has been a central piece of geography there for 3-4,000 years, from ancient Greeks, Goths, Ottomans, Russia. It is not credible to think that Washington planners gazing at maps of the region would not salivate at getting it, or at least at denying it to Russia. Without Crimea southern Russia is more or less surrounded.

It didn't work because Russia moved very fast. The clumsiness of the Kiev overthrow, the incompetence of the Maidanistas and their sponsors, and the general chaos and inertia were the reasons. Why in the holy f..k didn't Kiev secure key points of Crimea ahead of time? They had the forces, at a minimum they could had caused a stalemate, a division as in Donbass. Instead they focused on prancing around Yanukovitch's saunas and on who would be at meetings how frequently each week – listen to Nuland's tape, it is embarrassing in its shallowness and amateurism.

Ukraine as an appendage to Nato, as an irritant to Russia, as an unofficial forward base – all of that is very expensive to sustain permanently. Kiev players know that they are indispensable so they will raise the costs. Unless an enormous investment is made into Ukraine ($100 billion plus sustained aid, and not in 'loans'), the place will be an economic basket case. They are cut-off from both the Russia's market and also the EU market. People are leaving as quickly as they can. Democracy doesn't flourish in a situation like that, we are more likely to see a series of odd-ball strongmen. And those, as US has learned around the world, are hard to control. So what is the gain? It probably felt good in 2014-15, but longterm unless it gets successfully escalated it is a cul-de-sac. An escalation is extremely risky, Russia has nukes and they have shown in Crimea that they will make sudden assertive moves.

Maidan was a media success, as was the 'Orange Revolution' 10 years earlier. But it was a strategic screw-up. It handed Crimea to Russia on a silver plate, that was simply not going to happen under any other circumstances. (Could Nuland be a mole?)

peterAUS > , August 8, 2017 at 7:51 pm GMT

@utu Apart from

They knew that prying Ukraine from Russia would force Russia to annex Crimea. So they did not count on getting Crimea.

agree.

Especially agree with

Again somebody was asleep at the switch in Kremlin

Seen this debate tons of times so far.

You have, say, "western" approach.
Beckow "eastern".
Disregard the idiots, kids and high school fanbase members around.

The question is really only "did West get overstretched by Ukraine"?
If no, Russia lost.
If yes, Russia is, slowly, winning.

Mulegino1 > , August 8, 2017 at 8:03 pm GMT

@utu Russia may never have been very good at propaganda during the age of mainstream media hegemony, but now- in the age of virtually absolute informational fluidity- there is no need for state sponsored propaganda. The current dichotomy is set in stone. The stupid mouth breathers will continue to accept the mainstream MINITRUE propaganda as gospel, while the more articulate and intelligent will accept the in depth and scholarly analysis provided them by the alternative media. All the latter have to do is to state the facts. The former have no choice but to spout their foolishly consistent kosher narratives. The latter will lose among those with even a modicum of cerebral ability, and they will continue to succeed among the lobotomized infotainment consumers.

Smiddy > , August 8, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT

@Brabantian Mr Israel Shamir is quite wrong when he claims above that Seymour Hersh is " the most trustworthy US journalist " ... Sy Hersh is a psy-op, a dis-info agent of some decades (see below). Hersh's currently famous video & leak 'debunking Russia-gate', is a Trojan horse cover for a very ugly deception.

Amidst Hersh's staged 'leak' - nicely pro-Trump to fool us - Hersh sells us a dodgy claim that Seth Rich was, he assures us, definitely NOT killed by mafias linked to Hillary Clinton ... but by some random street thug, according to Hersh's amazing 'secret inside sources' he always has when he is running a US gov psy-op ... this unknown 'street thug killed Seth Rich', but 'got scared' so didn't take Seth Rich's wallet ... uh-huh

Hersh is also trying to distract us from the fact that we now have a string of people who are dead or in prison after contacting what are known as the oily US-Israeli intel frauds of Wikileaks & also The Intercept, which are in fact 'rat traps' to help identify, silence & kill real dissidents duped into contacting them.

Wikileaks may have helped kill both Seth Rich, & another anti-Hillary leaker, Peter W Smith, also dead after contacting Wikileaks, with Assange absurdly claiming he never got any Smith files. Tho Assange posted a 'reward' for info about Seth Rich - funny how the USA international financial dragnet doesn't close Wikileaks fat bank accounts - Assange arguably may have set up the killing.

Just to remind that, years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski & Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, both admitted that 'not really living in the London Ecuador Embassy' Julian Assange, & Wikileaks itself, are USA-Israeli intel agency frauds, the leaks all selected & controlled. Assange was the dry run for another fraud, that of Rothschild employee & ex-gay-p-rnographer Gleen Greenwald, who pumped the young friend of Dick Cheney & the Brzezinski family, 'Edward Snowden' ... who first claimed to 'leak' to Dick Cheney's biographer at the Washington Post ... with many other proofs of the fraud - a fraud Putin himself hints at, tho he plays along, not wishing to over-provoke the USA as Shamir states above - starting point on the Snowden fraud here:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/09/21/russia-govt-report-snowden-greenwald-are-cia-frauds/

Assange & Greenwald & Snowden of course recommend the 'TOR' browser developed by United States Naval Research Laboratory employees working for US intel, as the 'safe' way to contact them, uh-huh, really secure

In younger days, Seymour Hersh made his bones as a fake 'brave investigative reporter' who like other 'limited hang-outs' of the time, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, etc, claimed the official JFK assassination story, lone gunman Oswald etc, was all perfectly fine & dandy ... the reward for all these people was their later fame.

Hersh and all of these fakers are totally anti 9-11 truth, against even questioning the official narrative - Seymour Hersh, Hersh's current media partner Eric Zuesse, Glenn Greenwald, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange ... all of these dis-info people say the US official 9-11 story is just great, Israel had nothing to do with it, don't talk about the arrested 'dancing Israelis' or the 'Israeli art students' photographed in the Twin Towers with boxes of bomb detonator components a few weeks before 9-11, the pix in the New York Times, no less
http://www.newnationalist.net/2017/03/02/world-trade-centers-infamous-91st-floor-israeli-art-student-project/

Seymour Hersh - card-carrying member of the intel agency psy-op confusion brigade - also sold a greasy, absurd alt version of the 'Osama bin Laden assassination in 2011' fake story, Hersh claiming that Pakistani leaders helped to murder bin Laden & toss his body pieces from a helicopter, in total insult to their own Muslim religion HA. Whereas the actual evidence points to Osama bin Laden having died a decade earlier, shortly after the 9-11 attacks of which, in fact, the real bin Laden denied being involved. So I suppose Wikileaks blowing the whistle on Iraq during the Bush admin was to the globalist's agenda?

So I suppose pedogate was only controlled information that the globalists wanted to get out as well? Even though the corporate media has been locking that story down like their lives depended on it Also funny how they release pedogate the day after Trump's pussygate was made public Whoever backs Wikileaks is in some type of alliance with Trump

Wikileaks is the result of the NWO-autonomous joint Russian-Israeli tech sector, and you don't even know that Israeli Nationalists (e.g. Bibi, believe it or not, even though they colluded on 9/11, but I suppose the globalists wanted Israel to call out Soros last month smh) are opposing the Globalists/Rothschilds these days, so I suppose that shows how much you know. You don't even know that there is a split between the "Zionists", hell you probably think the Rothschilds/NWO are loyal to Jews and Israel before anything. Believe it or not, to some degree, they even use Israel as a front, and Israel has been biting their hand since atleast Contra (Carter was the bankster's pick they did not want Reagan).

All that said I actually agree on your original premise of Seymour but then you take it on a tangent. And upon closer observation you're just another one of those emotional, "its all one giant conspiracy" pundits.

utu > , August 9, 2017 at 4:56 am GMT

there is a split between the "Zionists"

There are lots of signs of it. For example what compelled Netanyahu to get cozy with Putin and let Putin have his little show of muscle flexing in Syria?

The split however is not about the ultimate goal. There is only one goal and they agree on it. It is about the tactics and the priorities on the way to it.

[Aug 09, 2017] Force Multipliers and 21st Century Imperial Warfare Practice and Propaganda by Maximilian C. Forte

Highly recommended!
Highly recommended --
The full book can be downloaded here (for free) .
Notable quotes:
"... What is a force multiplier? ..."
Nov 08, 2015 | zeroanthropology.net

If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and the force multipliers of US dominance. We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers, terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly (as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies. US intervention will provoke and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line. "Force multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales, media, and so on.

Yet, in the end, we are still left with a basic question: What is a force multiplier? There are even more answers to this question than there are persons answering it. Beyond the most basic definition in physics, we see a proliferation of examples of force multipliers, reflecting a weak pseudo-science that reifies actual policies, offering mixed results in practice. Given the scientistic and positivist approach that achieved hegemony during the Cold War in US universities and the military, the conceptualization of force multipliers reveals familiar problems arising from the naturalization of social phenomena, of "man" as "molecule" of society. As an impoverished form of political science, one that is formulaic, mechanical, utilitarian, and ideologically-driven, the force multiplier idea nonetheless poses difficult anthropological questions about the agency of others.

My hope was that military writers did not choose to write "force multipliers" because candidly calling them "quislings," "shills," "dupes," "pawns" or "suckers" would have been too "politically incorrect," or would have validated older, Cold War-era accusations of the US supporting "stooges," "lackeys," "cronies," "henchmen," "running dogs," or "lap dogs". In other words, my hope was that this was not yet another imperial euphemism. Regardless of the intentions behind the terminology, whether conscious or not, the basic idea of using humans as a form of drone , one that is less expensive yet more precise and in less need of constant guidance, seems to be the persisting feature of the force multiplier concept.

If the concept is not a mere euphemism, then there is still an absence of sound theorization of force multipliers on the part of the Pentagon, and by that I mean that while an inchoate lexical infrastructure exists consisting of nested synonyms derived from the natural sciences, there is little more than crude utilitarianism and functionalism to hold the terms together. Some may wish to retort, "then that is the theory" by noting the presence of functionalist assumptions and premises derived from rational-choice theories. However, the presence of theory should also involve the process of theorization, which entails questioning, revising, and exposing one's assumptions to a dialogue with other theories and with facts that appear to challenge the validity of the theory.

There may be a lot of real-world destruction by the US military and intelligence apparatus, but there is no winning as such!the absence of theorization is killing the imperial political and security structures, but their exposure to critical theories will only hasten their defeat. No wonder then that so many right-wing "pro-military" columnists in the US routinely scoff at and dismiss "post-colonialism"!theirs is a hegemony in trouble, turned narcissistic: unable to find their mirror image in many sectors of the social sciences and humanities, they resort to angry triumphalism and cyclical repetition of the same failed "solutions," repeated over and over again. On the other hand, they can find their mirror-image in academia, and particularly anthropology, in other ways: many US anthropologists' convoluted (meta)theoretical fumblings, obfuscated by pretentious language whose deliberate lack of clarity masks deep confusion and bewilderment, stands out particularly in the cases of topics which are "new," such as democracy or globalization. In this sense, both the US military and US anthropology in some quarters share in common a proliferation of theoretical-sounding rhetoric and a lack of scientific theory. Not coincidentally, both also share an apparent aversion to even saying the word "imperialism". One might detect a certain decadence in imperial intellectual life, of which the force multiplier theoretical pretense is but one small example.

Clearly there are numerous examples of agents serving as "force multipliers," and almost as clear is the absence of theorization, let alone reason for imperial elites to feel confident about success when the political, economic, and cultural projects they represent are domestically bankrupt and alienating. Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq, and "winning hearts and minds," certainly did happen in some places and to some extent, which gives partial weight to the "force multiplier" idea at the core of these processes. However, on the whole, counterinsurgency programs have been defeated in Afghanistan just as in Vietnam before.

[Aug 09, 2017] When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr and prior to him al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman.

Aug 09, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: Yul | Aug 4, 2017 7:58:45 PM | 41

Dr Brenner,

Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of various Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit this week:

When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman." Thamer al-Sabhan in a July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's version of Shiism" and praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less than 24 hours later, however, that tweet was removed. It is still unclear whether Sadr is really attempting to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. However, a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor would succeed in ending the rivalry between the two regional powers.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/iraq-sadr-bin-salman-meeting-saudi-iran-rapprochement.html

Dr Brenner,

Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of various Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit this week:

When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman." Thamer al-Sabhan in a July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's version of Shiism" and praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less than 24 hours later, however, that tweet was removed. It is still unclear whether Sadr is really attempting to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. However, a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor would succeed in ending the rivalry between the two regional powers.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/08/iraq-sadr-bin-salman-meeting-saudi-iran-rapprochement.html

[Aug 09, 2017] Trump has done precisely nothing to dampen the Anti-russian mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention" in recent Presidential elections

Notable quotes:
"... Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency, Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. ..."
"... His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia, have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point ..."
"... Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin a top priority, Trump has again done nothing ..."
"... The only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination. ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | zeroanthropology.net

Yet when it came to Russia , Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency, Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice.

To be clear, Trump has done precisely nothing to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".

His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia, have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary, it has degraded " and his spokesman called the relations " deplorable ".)

Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing.

The only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.

[Aug 09, 2017] A hypothesis about Trump after-election malleability. It might be not deep state who forced him to shed his election campaign skin

Notable quotes:
"... Those with an interest in political economy will need to bend a little and admit that to some degree, beneath the workings of large macro forces of class and transnational capital, personal factors also play a role. Idiosyncratic characteristics, personality, and family life cannot be excluded. Nor can we ignore the role of the media, the new Cold War atmosphere that dominates US politics, the entrenched bureaucracy, the role of elite class prejudices, and a Trump support base divided into factions. ..."
"... Others have looked at institutional factors, such as Trump's insufficient number of loyal personnel with experience in government, to legislators acting as hostage-takers in holding up a large number of nominations. Another form of institutional explanation, one common in alternative media, is that there has been a coup by the "deep state". ..."
"... However, what they refer to as the deep state in most cases is just the state -- without anything particularly deep or mysterious about it. They refer to the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the military, Congress, which are all very much the state . ..."
"... There were disturbing signs that Trump had begun to shed his campaign skin from the first days after his electoral triumph. First, there was his inexplicable need to ingratiate himself with his enemies, with those who worked assiduously to demonize him personally, and to demoralize and stigmatize his base. On prosecuting Hillary Clinton, after revelling in chants of "lock her up" at campaign rallies, after nearly promising she would be in jail if he were president, and explicitly vowing he would appoint a special prosecutor -- Trump instead told CBS' 60 Minutes on November 13: " I don't want to hurt them [the Clintons] , I don't want to hurt them. They're, they're good people. I don't want to hurt them". ..."
"... Trump misled people if he implied that his days of being a Clinton golf partner and patron were in the distant past. On Barack Obama, who had repeatedly mocked and berated him, Trump would then turn around and say about the man he said was virtually a founder of ISIS, "We get along. I don't know if he'll admit this, but he likes me. I like him ". When Trump visited Obama in the White House at the start of the transition, he seemed almost obsequious and unnecessarily generous in his flattery of Obama. ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | zeroanthropology.net

No single definitive explanation has been provided by any others analyzing Trump's malleability, and at best I am offering a draft of an explanation. What we have is a bundle of possible influences, pressures, constraints, mixed in with opportunism and class prejudice.

Those with an interest in political economy will need to bend a little and admit that to some degree, beneath the workings of large macro forces of class and transnational capital, personal factors also play a role. Idiosyncratic characteristics, personality, and family life cannot be excluded. Nor can we ignore the role of the media, the new Cold War atmosphere that dominates US politics, the entrenched bureaucracy, the role of elite class prejudices, and a Trump support base divided into factions.

Others have looked at institutional factors, such as Trump's insufficient number of loyal personnel with experience in government, to legislators acting as hostage-takers in holding up a large number of nominations. Another form of institutional explanation, one common in alternative media, is that there has been a coup by the "deep state".

However, what they refer to as the deep state in most cases is just the state -- without anything particularly deep or mysterious about it. They refer to the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the military, Congress, which are all very much the state .

My concern is that "deep" state might mystify knowable actors and processes, shrouding them in a conspiratorial pall under which they operate with seemingly limitless power and with the independent ability to reproduce and fund themselves. Put another way, I have yet to read a "deep state" explanation for Trump's course changes, that does not sound like it is handing an alibi to Trump.

Next, let's review some of the main course changes charted by Trump after his electoral victory.

Trump's Deference to Obama and the Clintons

There were disturbing signs that Trump had begun to shed his campaign skin from the first days after his electoral triumph. First, there was his inexplicable need to ingratiate himself with his enemies, with those who worked assiduously to demonize him personally, and to demoralize and stigmatize his base. On prosecuting Hillary Clinton, after revelling in chants of "lock her up" at campaign rallies, after nearly promising she would be in jail if he were president, and explicitly vowing he would appoint a special prosecutor -- Trump instead told CBS' 60 Minutes on November 13: " I don't want to hurt them [the Clintons] , I don't want to hurt them. They're, they're good people. I don't want to hurt them".

Trump misled people if he implied that his days of being a Clinton golf partner and patron were in the distant past. On Barack Obama, who had repeatedly mocked and berated him, Trump would then turn around and say about the man he said was virtually a founder of ISIS, "We get along. I don't know if he'll admit this, but he likes me. I like him ". When Trump visited Obama in the White House at the start of the transition, he seemed almost obsequious and unnecessarily generous in his flattery of Obama.

Then there was the endless parade of visitors to Trump Tower in New York, invited by Trump as he possibly considered them for cabinet roles -- including the leader of the "Never Trump" campaign, and arch neoliberal Mitt Romney. Various familiar neoconservatives were also considered for key posts -- and each time a name was floated, such as that of Elliot Abrams, it was left to his legions of supporters to frantically try to change Trump's mind, well trained as they were by the experience of trying to clean up his messes over and over again during the campaign.

The uncertainty seemed to leave many of them desperate and worried about the strangely wavering Trump. In voting for Trump, his supporters certainly got neither what they asked for , nor what they deserved.

[Aug 09, 2017] I think the USA neocons first hoped to forestall any intervention by keeping Russia busy elsewhere (Ukraine, economic troubles, etc.). And threats that if Russia did intervene, it would "pay heavy price" an true Russian passenger jet was blow in the air, while there had been no such terror attack against USA.

Aug 09, 2017 | jackrabbit.blog
"US didn't have a plan in Syria" is misleading. Brenner tries to justify this statement by listing "piecemeal actions" of various US government entities. In fact, while publicly the US claimed to have no direct role (Obama: US "leading from behind"), the US had both an important covert role and a deceptive public one (providing diplomatic cover). It seems doubtful that Brenner is unaware of the US dual role or of the years of planning with allies (as described by Seymour Hersh).

I think Brenner is also wrong about contingency planning wrt a a price" (a favorite Obama expression) via terrorism. Indeed, within a month after Russians arrived in Syria a Russian passenger jet was downed.

Despite a US bombing campaign Russian intervention. I think they first hoped to forestall any intervention by keeping Russia busy elsewhere (Ukraine, economic troubles, etc.). If Russia did intervene, it would "pay against ISIS for about a year there had been no such terror attack against USA.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 4, 2017 5:37:06 PM | 30

[Aug 09, 2017] The current CIA-led regime change operation in Venezuela seems to be following the same script as used in Ukraine and Syria with armed oppostion attacks on state forces, ignored by the western media who focus solely on presenting what appears to be unprovoked attacks against hapless protestors. If the CIA has their way, the next stage should be mysterious snipers shooting both sides.

Notable quotes:
"... The US never seems to consider what the other side will do in response to its actions, assuming the other side will be overwhelmed or forced to submit. ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Anonymous | Aug 4, 2017 6:49:21 PM | 35

The term 'linear thinking' might better be described as 'mechanistic thinking' or the 'playbook approach'.

The US never seems to consider what the other side will do in response to its actions, assuming the other side will be overwhelmed or forced to submit. For example, the Gulenist-faction shootdown of the Su-24 led to Russia using that as an excuse to bring in heavy air-defense for for its forces. The bombing of the airliner in Egypt was used by Russia to invoke the UN article of self defense against Daesh/ISIS, which no other actor has done.

The US bombing of SAA ground forces led to Russia inserting its own ground forces tempering further air attacks. The Trump cruise missile strike against the SAA base holding Russian personnel led to a mysterious S-300 launch from Tartus into the eastern Med. Subsequently US aircraft carrying out attacks in SYria/Iraq appear to be flying from carriers in the Persian Gulf.

The creation of reconciliation zones has led to the presence of Russian forces close to the Golan which seems to have dampened the IDF's enthusiasm for bombing Hezbollah which in turn helped them clear out ISIS/whatever from the Syria/Lebanon border.

The current CIA-led regime change operation in Venezuela seems to be following the same script as used in Ukraine and Syria with armed oppostion attacks on state forces, ignored by the western media who focus solely on presenting what appears to be unprovoked attacks against hapless 'protestors'. If the CIA has their way, the next stage should be mysterious snipers shooting both sides.

[Aug 09, 2017] US forces preparing sudden nuclear strike on Russia - Moscow Security Conference

Apr 27, 2017 | www.fort-russ.com

Representatives of the Russian Armed Forces have stated that the US is creating a military infrastructure near Russia's borders for the application of a sudden nuclear strike.

This statement was made on April 26, the first Deputy Chief of the Main Operations Directorate,Viktor Poznihir, at the Moscow international security conference of the Russian Armed Forces.

US missile defense bases in Europe, ships with missile defense elements in the seas and oceans close to the territory of Russia, creates a powerful hidden impact component for the application of a surprise nuclear missile attack on the Russian Federation.

Poznihir said that the European echelon of the US missile defense system uses ground-based version of radar systems and missile launchers maritime defense system. These launchers provide the use of a wide range of missiles, including Tomahawk cruise missiles. .

Tomahawks are designed to destroy ground targets and have a maximum range of 1,700 to 2,500 kilometers (depending on the version). One Tomahawk can deliver nuclear warheads ranging from 5 to 200 kilotons of TNT.

In fact, the cruise missile, the Tomahawk, is equipped with a nuclear warhead of intermediate and shorter-range missiles. Back in 1987, the US and the Soviet Union signed the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty to liquidate the weapons, in order to halt the arms race.

Over the past 15 years, the US government has spent $130 billion on strengthening and deployment missile 'defense' systems, and plan to invest another $ 55 billion in the next five years.

[Aug 09, 2017] Liberating Europe from Russian Gas

Notable quotes:
"... The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder. "We came, we saw, he died!") ..."
"... Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam, against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable (whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does. ..."
"... Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way." But where will this power lead? ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

But U.S. policy now, under the Trump administration, is to promote U.S. energy exports to Europe to replace Russian ones. It is both old-fashioned Cold War Russophobia and old-fashioned inter-capitalist, inter-imperialist contention.

The sanctions bill has been promoted as one that appropriately penalizes Russia for its international misbehavior. The always-cited examples being the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the (alleged) invasion of Ukraine in 2014. (As though these in any way rival in their impact and ramifications of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, based on lies, in 2003, or the U.S./NATO-led assault on Libya sold in the UN Security Council as a "humanitarian" intervention supported by Russia, that turned out to be a grotesque regime change operation culminating with Hillary Clinton's public orgasm following Muammar Gadaffi's sodomy-murder. "We came, we saw, he died!")

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fgcd1ghag5Y?feature=oembed

Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi: We came, we saw, he died

Russia is always depicted in the corporate media as an "adversary." It acts, we are told ad nauseam, against U.S. "interests" around the world. Its involvement in Syria is (to support the survival of the secular modern Syrian state against the most savage opponents imaginable) is somehow objectionable (whereas U.S. bombing of Syria, condemned by Damascus as a violation of Syrian sovereignty and clearly in violation of international law, is treated as a matter of course). Its role in the bombing of Aleppo, resulting in the reconquest of the city from al-Nusra and its allies, was depicted by the U.S. media as a bad thing. Meanwhile U.S. bombing of Mosul, to retake that city from ISIL, is treated as heroic, however many thousands perish in "collateral damage." Anyway CNN won't cover it and has fewer reporters on the ground there than RT does.

Russia is depicted as "provocative" when it mobilizes military forces within its own territory (and Belarus), in response to massive NATO exercises involving 31,000 troops in Poland last June that the German foreign minister criticized as "warmongering."

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev matter-of-factly tweeted: "The Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way." But where will this power lead?

The concept, as articulated by Sen. John McCain and Sen. John Hoeven in a 2014 Wall Street Journal op-ed, is to "liberate our allies from Russia's stranglehold on the European natural-gas market." But as the Washington Post has observed, "The problem is that Europeans don't necessarily want to be liberated. Russian gas is much cheaper than American LNG, and could become even cheaper to undercut the United States if it entered the European market. American LNG suppliers prioritize their own profits over America's strategic advantage anyway, and are likely to want to target more lucrative markets than Europe, such as Japan. Finally, the Russian gas supply is likely to be more reliable than the United States', since it involves predictable long-term contracts, whereas U.S. production capacity rises and falls, as it becomes cheaper and more expensive to extract American unconventional hydrocarbons."

The McCain-Hoeven piece was of course written before there was any talk about Russian "election meddling." But that issue was used to justify the sanctions bill. That, plus miscellaneous Russian actions, basically in response to U.S. actions (as in Ukraine, where!as everyone should know!Hillary Clinton's crony Victoria Newland helped organize a putsch in February 2014, designed to pull Ukraine into NATO, although that effort has failed and anyway lacks German support).

The U.S. at this point (under Trump) is taking actions towards Russia that recall those of the Truman administration. The warm, fuzzy (and miserable, abjectly weak) Russia of the 1990s under Yeltsin is now a reviving world power within an emerging Eurasian trade system. The relationship between Russia and China will stay strong even if the U.S. takes measures to sabotage trade relations between Russia and Europe.

Meanwhile, the sanctions law has produced general European outrage. This is not the anti-Trump outrage that accompanied his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. It is outrage at the U.S. legislature for its arrogance in demanding Europe shoot itself in the foot, to show Washington deference. In other words, the entirety of the divided, troubled U.S. polity is seen as a problem. This is as a new Pew Research Center report showing that only 49% of the world's people now hold a positive view of the U.S.

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern have publicly condemned the law, which could prevent them from benefiting from the planned Nord Stream 2 pipeline, declaring: "we cannot agree with threats of illegal extraterritorial sanctions against European companies which take part in the development of European energy supply." Brigitte Zypries, head of Germany's Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, says the new sanctions are "against international law, plain and simple Americans cannot punish German companies because they [do business] in another country." The foreign ministers of Germany, France, Austria, Italy and Spain have protested. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, said the bill could have "unintended unilateral effects" on the EU's energy security, adding, "America first cannot mean that Europe's interests come last."

This is not just a provocation of Russia, but of the whole world. It's leveled by a bipartisan effort, and general (although insane) consensus that Russia is trying to revive the Soviet empire, is constantly interfering in foreign countries' elections, and represents an "existential" threat to the U.S. and its freedoms, etc. (Because!reputable media talking heads opine routinely!Putin hates freedom and wants to oppose it, by electoral interference in Germany, France, Italy, etc.)

U.S. politicians!many of whom who do not believe in global warming or evolution, and cannot find Syria or Ukraine on the map!have boldly gone where no one has gone before: to risk a trade war with traditional allies, to force them to more firmly embrace the principle of U.S. hegemony. This when the U.S. GDP has dropped below that of the EU, and U.S. clout and credibility in the world!in large part due to global revulsion at the results of U.S. regime-change wars!is at low ebb.

Medvedev predicts that "relations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely tense regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major international issues." No bromance here.

Meanwhile Sen. Lindsey Graham!an extreme reactionary and warmonger now lionized my the mainstream media as some sort of "moderate" and adult in the room!informs NBC's Today Show that reports that "there is no military option" on North Korea are "just false."

"There is a military option: to destroy North Korea's nuclear program and North Korea itself. He's not going to allow -- President Trump -- the ability of this madman [Kim Jong Un] to have a missile that could hit America. If there's going to be a war to stop him, it will be over there. If thousands die, they're going to die over there. They're not going to die over here -- and he's told me that to my face."

[Aug 09, 2017] Trump adviser fired over memo warning of globalist-Islamist 'deep state'

Aug 08, 2017 | www.wnd.com
Rich Higgins

Rich Higgins

But the fired adviser, Rich Higgans, is only the latest chip to fall in an ongoing "purge" of "America-first" stalwarts from the National Security Council.

The idea that an alliance of Obama holdovers consisting of globalists and Islamists are working inside the government as part of a "deep state" effort to destroy the Trump presidency has been a common theme put forth by outside analysts trying to explain the intrigue behind Trump's first six months in the White House.

But the idea apparently was not confined to outsiders. Higgins, a high-level official inside the president's National Security Council, sent a memo up the chain of command in May, warning of just such a plot. Higgins' memo caught the eye of McMaster and cost him his job.

According to a report Wednesday by the Atlantic , McMaster removed Higgins from his post as director of strategic planning on July 21 after reading the memo, which was considered too "conspiratorial."

The memo alleged that leftists, globalists, Islamists and "deep state" actors are engaged in "political warfare" against Trump. It states:

"Through the campaign, candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many citizens that America is at risk and slipping away. Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed."

The memo described the insurrection against Trump as "Maoist" in nature.

"In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state power," the memo reads. "Functioning as a hostile complete state acting within an existing state, it has an alternate infrastructure. Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the 'counter-state.'

"Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national, and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives. These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum, and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies."

Several sources told the Atlantic they believed the memo made its way to Trump's desk, but that has not been confirmed.

Higgins spent a little more than two months on the job before he was ousted. Prior to joining the government, Higgins hit on similar issues in his writings, asserting Islam is in an alliance with secular, Marxist-oriented global elites in an effort to destroy America.

"National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors," he wrote in a September 2016 op-ed for the Washington Times .

The exit of Higgins and another official within the NSC apparatus, Senior Director for the Middle East Derek Harvey, could be an indication that the "deep state," if it exists, is gunning for its ultimate enemy within the White House – former Breitbart executive chairman Steve Bannon.

Bannon, the president's chief strategist, has already been removed, at McMaster's behest, from the daily briefings of the NSC.

McMaster recoils at 'list' of Obama holdovers

Like Higgins, Harvey is a Bannon ally. Harvey reportedly kept a list of Obama holdovers who were seeking to undermine the Trump agenda.

McMaster declined to fire any of the persons on the list and, in fact, made statements at a NSC town-hall meeting that "there is no such thing as a holdover." He said career federal staffers were among the most loyal public servants.

Yet, that would seem to conflict with comments made by Obama's own top domestic-policy adviser, Cecilia Muñoz, in April 2015. As reported by WND , Muñoz, speaking at a symposium of the White House Task Force on New Americans live-streamed over the Internet, said it was her top priority to "institutionalize" Obama's policies throughout all federal agencies so they would live on long after she and her boss left the White House.

In addition to the terminations of Harvey and Higgins, McMaster also purged from the NSC staff Tera Dahl, a former Breitbart writer and congressional aide to Michele Bachmann.

A fourth Trump conservative, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, has been fired from his position as senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council, according to a report by Conservative Review on Wednesday .

As for the future, continued volatility could be in the cards, depending on McMaster's ability to retain the president's confidence, said Philip Haney, a former DHS immigration officer who co-authored the whistleblower book " See Something, Say Nothing ."

"If you are Trump, you need to realize your people are being purged out of the agencies, one by one, and if there are no holdovers why is McMaster firing people?" Haney told WND.

"The people he's letting go are not Obama holdovers. He's keeping those designated as holdovers and purging the people who helped President Trump get elected. So if he's seeking unity, he seems to be replacing people who are loyal to Trump or prominently supportive of Trump.

"If you are (presidential deputy assistant) Sebastian Gorka and Steve Bannon, you've got to be pretty nervous right now."

More important than the faces of the people leaving or entering the administration is the future of American foreign policy as it relates to Islamic terrorism and its more subtle counterpart – civilizational jihad.

Higgins may have tipped his hand to what he believes a responsible national security policy would look like in his op-ed last fall in the Washington Times.

He wrote :

A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us – which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment.

He tried to provide a vivid picture to his higher ups of what he believed they were up against, and he was rewarded with a pink slip.

[Aug 09, 2017] Economic Principals a weekly column about economics and politics, formerly of The Boston Globe, independent since 2002

Notable quotes:
"... This Time Is Different ..."
"... Systems of Survival:A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics ..."
"... The USSR in Crisis ..."
"... Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia ..."
Aug 09, 2017 | www.economicprincipals.com
Politics vs. Commerce ... in Russia August 6, 2017 No Comments ↓ Posted in Uncategorized It's not easy to find a disinterested and well-informed view of the Russian economy these days. I don't know a better source among economists than Kenneth Rogoff, of Harvard University.

The former chief economist of the IMF (2001-03) has no axe to grind as far as I can tell, beyond a certain taste for good housekeeping and global order. (His wife, Natasha Lance Rogoff , produced Sesame Street for Russian television in the Nineties.) An early diagnostician of the severity of the 2008 financial crisis, he was author, with fellow Harvard professor Carmen Reinhart , of This Time Is Different (Princeton, 2009). As a reformer, he wants to rein in on cash , especially $100 bills. Rogoff wrote up a recent estimate of Russia for Project Syndicate , a source of op-ed articles by economists.

He made two basic points.

The first is that 25 years after the Soviet Union came apart, Russia remains a victim of the resource curse , and therefore highly vulnerable to the cycle of commodity prices. The great preponderance of its foreign earnings come from the export of oil and gas. With the price of a barrel of oil at $119 Russia was riding high as Dimitri Medvedev completed his sole term as president, in February 2012.

Vladimir Putin began his third term just as the cycle turned down. The price of oil fell to $27 bbl in 2016. A deep recession accompanied the plunge, comparable to what the US suffered in 2008-09, Rogoff wrote, with real output contracting 4 percent. The ruble fell by half against the dollar, forcing consumers to cut back sharply. The Ukraine crisis welled up halfway through the downturn: Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Moscow; the annexation of Crimea followed, and brought US and European sanctions that exacerbated the recession, as least somewhat.

That Russia avoided a financial crisis, Rogoff wrote, owed largely to the efforts of the Central Bank of Russia, and its governor, Elvira Nabiullina . Despite strenuous objections by various oligarchs, she kept interest rates high to control inflation (cut from 15 percent to 4 percent) and forced banks to raise capital and write down loans (at least the smaller, less politically-connected banks). Twice Nabiullina has been cited by the trade press as central banker of the year. Putin reappointed her in March to a second five-year term.

Rogoff's second point: Russia suffers from the failure to diversify its economy. The price of oil is back to around $50 bbl, but growth prospects for the year are barely 2 percent. The Economist reported last week that Daimler-Benz broke ground on a new Mercedes-Benz plant northwest of Moscow -- the first such foreign automaker investment since sanctions were imposed three years ago.

Russian media blame the sanctions, Rogoff wrote, but far more pervasive are the problems identified by economist Sergei Guriev – weak institutions, courts inparticular. Guriev, head of Moscow's prestigious New School of Economics, fled in 2013 rather than risk retribution for his opposition to Putin's third presidential term. He is today chief economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. "Without reform" wrote Rogoff, "there is little reason to be optimistic about Russia's long-term growth trend despite having an enormously talented and creative population."

I have a lot of sympathy for central bankers. In principle, and sometimes in practice, they are among the most importantan protectors of social order. Reading about Nabiullina, whose contributions Putin underscores by regularly referring to her in public by her first name, I realized the extent to which I see the story of Russia's transition through the eyes of Jane Jacobs , the American-born Canadian social philosopher.

In her last major book, Systems of Survival:A Dialogue on the Moral Foundations of Commerce and Politics (Random House, 1992), Jacobs distinguished between two different and distinct ethical systems – syndromes, she called them – that had evolved over millennia to govern human conduct in different spheres of life.

Guardians (a term she took from Plato) are custodians of the political order – leaders, priests, soldiers, police, bureaucrats and, yes, central bankers. An extensive commercial class called the bourgeoisie has grown up in the last several hundred years as well -- traders, or commerce-seekers, in Jacobs's terminology, as opposed to guardians. The two ways of life are essentially incompatible. Problems arise when one moral code or another gets too much of an upper hand in society; or when values are commingled.

Jacobs enumerated aspects of the two codes:

Guardians shun trading, exert prowess, cherish obedience and discipline, adhere to tradition, respect hierarchy, prize loyalty, take vengeance, deceive for the sake of the task, embrace leisure, dispense largesse, behave ostentatiously, remain exclusive, show fortitude, remain fatalistic, and treasure honor.

Commerce-seekers shun force, compete, prize efficiency, are open to inventiveness and novelty, use initiative and enterprise, come to voluntary agreements, respect contracts, dissent for the sake of the task, are industrious, thrifty, invest for productive purposes, collaborate easily with strangers and aliens, promote comfort and convenience, are optimistic, honest.

Russia has been investing heavily in its guardian class since 1993 – the men and women of power known as siloviki . What chance is there that leaders who already recognize the necessity of a rising commercial class will accommodate it with new ways and institutions in the future – sooner or later? Pretty good, I'd say. But what a lot of tension in the meantime!

. xxx

Marshall Goldman , a mainstay of the Wellesley College Department of Economics for several decades, died last week, at 87. He was well known, too, as an expert on the mysteries of the USSR's centrally-planned economy, appearing frequently on television. As a member of Harvard's Russian Research Center, he wrote six books about the Soviet transition

Goldman had one major scoop as a Sovietolgist, according to David Engerman, of Brandeis University: The USSR in Crisis (Norton 1983) broke the news and galvanized the public debate about the future of the Soviet Union, just as the Reagan arms build-up reached its peak. Goldman followed up with five more books, concluding with Petrostate: Putin, Power, and the New Russia (Oxford, 2012). Those six books constitue an indelible record of what we knew (and thought we knew) and how we knew it (or didn't) -- a first-rate first draft of the history of those years.

[Aug 09, 2017] Could the September 11 masterminds have imagined todays world by Rich Higgins

This is article by the person recently fired by McMaster for promoting "deep state" theory of the coup against Trump. The hypothesis that does makes some sense ;-).
But primitive anti-Islamism does provide much insights into the situation, In snot American Imperialism and neoliberal globalization it promotes and enforces by force (sometimes by force of arms) destined to produce blowback? the fact that some of it runs on Islamic banners is mostly immaterial. Also the USA is using political Islam for its purposes since the days of The USSR occupation of Afghanistan.
The fact that attempts to resist neoliberal globalization in Islamic world often decent into barbarity and head chopping should not obscure the reason political Islam obtained traction and the leading role of the USA in forming the current brand as a tool to make the USSR occupation of Afghanistan the second Vietnam for the USSR. In was a social experiment hatched in the USA political laboratories as a countervailing force for Soviet Bolshevism (which was a decaying ideology since mid 60th, in any case and eventually was overthrown by the forces of neoliberalism in the USSR space) that eventually went wrong. and this reckless political experimentation is hall mark of the USA foreign policy for a long time.
So is Muslim Brotherhood which definitely has deep connection with Obama administration was a threat, or a tool for the US led global neoliberal empire (Huma Aberdeen of Hillary Clinton email scandal fame is one example) ? Kind of universal door opener for neoliberal globalization for countries that try to resist it. This is the question.
Notable quotes:
"... Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight. ..."
"... The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including open FBI cases in all 50 states. ..."
"... A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment. ..."
Sep 09, 2016 | www.washingtontimes.com Washington Times

Picture a breakfast meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001 between Mullah Omar, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Osama bin Laden, the three leaders of al-Qaeda. While eating their yogurt and fruit, they discuss the successful September 9th assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud and the imminent strikes in Washington and New York.

Could they have imagined that a short 15 years later:

The United States would be approximately $20 TRILLION in debt.

Iraq in sectarian civil war and Afghanistan under increasing Taliban (ISIS) control would both have Constitutions placing those Republics under Sharia Law, and U.S. ally Turkey would be moving quickly into the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) camp.

Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak would be removed from power in Egypt, replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, then replaced by Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the U.S. would support the MB.

Abidine Ben Ali would be removed in Tunisia, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen and Moammar Quadaffi in Libya, the latter two states descending into civil war, as a Syrian civil war rages with no coherent U.S. strategy and no end in sight.

Nigeria, West Africa (Boko Haram) and Somalia (al Shahbab) under threat.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is on the road to nuclear weapons and receives $150 BILLION courtesy of the U.S. government while Saudi Arabia builds hundreds of Wahhabi mosques in Indonesia and in South America.

Nascent Islamic insurgencies in France, Italy, Germany, England, Belgium and other European countries fueled by millions of inassimilable Islamic immigrants who reside in "no-go zones" and who are flooding into Europe as well as the U.S. receiving social welfare benefits paid for by the citizens of those counties.

The Islamic State (ISIS) would be armed with American weapons and declare itself the Caliphate, spreading across the globe using videos of Christian beheadings and other atrocities broadcast on digital media to recruit thousands of jihadis worldwide, including open FBI cases in all 50 states.

U.S. presidential candidates from both political parties saying "the Islamic State is not Islamic" while U.S. and European patriotism is considered racism.

National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors.

  • If you could go back in time and tell Messrs. Omar, Zawahiri and bin Laden this would be the outcome in just 15 short years, do you think they would believe you? Do you think that they would think that their side is winning?
  • When a tactical fire-team breaches a door expecting four bad guys on the other side, but they find forty, what do they do?
  • Do they keep going in? That's a one-way trip.
  • Do they ask one of the bad guys why there are so many of them in the room? Probably wouldn't be a smart move to hang around for the answer. Not smart at all.

Ideally, the team backs out quickly and moves off the target. This is called a tactical pause and that is basically what Donald Trump has proposed in the form of a halt on immigration.

After getting out of danger, the tactical team will do a reassessment of what happened. Was their information wrong? Did they go to the wrong house? Did somebody purposefully give them bad information? Can they call in an air strike? All of these things need to be considered.

A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism" narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the enemy was attacking us!which is supposed to be the first order of business in any strategic threat assessment.

At present, Mr. Trump's proposed course of action pertaining to the terrorist threat is a tactical pause and a strategic reassessment. This proposal isn't rhetorical, alarmist or ill-conceived. This is smart tactics being applied to a strategic issue.

Rich Higgins is currently a DOD contractor. He formerly led several classified programs for Special Operations Command. He is the former Chair of Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict at the National Defense University's College of International Security Affairs.

[Aug 09, 2017] Trump is Guilty, of Something by Andrew Levine

Aug 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

Donald Trump is guilty of something, guilty as sin. Nobody outside his innermost circle knows yet what he is guilty of, and all the evidence is circumstantial. But guilty he surely is.

Is it that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton? That is the story line that corporate media take for gospel truth. It is not out of the question that some Russians, some of whom had some connection with the Russian government, hacked into something. Even if they did, however, the Russian meddling story is ridiculously overblown – for reasons that are politically self-serving and irresponsibly, if not criminally, dangerous.

If catastrophic outcomes can somehow be avoided, that story will eventually go the way of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Before that happens, however, count on Vladimir Putin's affront to the "integrity" of American democracy being used to justify devastating, potentially catastrophic, diplomatic and military adventures -- in much the way that Saddam Hussein's WMDs once were.

By the time the dust settles, it will likely become clear that either there never was any reason to accept the party line on Russian meddling or that, even if there was something to it, there was never any reason to get all worked up about it.

This is not to say that "Russiagate" investigations should be opposed; quite to the contrary, there is every reason to support them fully.

If nothing else, investigations like Robert Mueller's and the ones underway in the House and Senate help keep Trump and the people he has brought into his administration from executing their nefarious agendas. Better yet, they are likely, before long, to bring Trump himself down – in ways that would make it harder for Trump's appointees and, when the times comes, for Mike Pence to turn many of the progressive gains of the past hundred or so years around.

But the fact remains: the election meddling furor is, at best, a red herring – about which all one can honestly say, for now, is: Who knows? Who cares?

Who knows – because the only reason to think that there was Russian meddling is that "the intelligence community" says there was. But, as everybody knows or ought to know, they are inveterate liars. Lying is in their genes and in their job descriptions.

Moreover, if history is a guide, they are just as likely to be wrong as to be right, even when they aren't deliberately telling lies.

Everybody also knows that the CIA in particular is not above politicizing intelligence when it serves some institutional purpose.

Who knows too – because liberal and not-so-liberal media have been pressing the case for Russian election meddling so vigorously for such a long time that the idea has become almost second nature to all but the most circumspect consumers of news. In cases like this, the wisest course of action usually is to become more, not less, skeptical.

It is hard to say which media outlet is the most at fault; the competition is so intense. The Washington Post and The New York Times are serious contenders, though it must be said, in fairness, that the Trump menace seems to have reignited a taste for real investigative reporting – about Trump -- in both of them. For that, one could forgive a great deal.

But they are still, on the whole, a servile lot. My vote for the worst of them all is MSNBC, with Joy Reid leading the way and Rachel (take twenty minutes to make a twenty second point) Maddow close behind.

A character in Edgar Allan Poe's "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" advised believing only half of what one sees and nothing that one hears. Inasmuch as most of what one sees and hears about Russian meddling in the 2016 election are breathless repetitions of claims originating in the intelligence services, this is good advice in the case at hand.

The problem is not "fake news," news reports that are deliberately deceptive. Trump blathers on endlessly about that – in his usual, self-serving, bullying way – using the term so loosely as to void it of meaning. On this as on so much else, what comes out of Trump's mouth and what one reads in his tweets is sheer nonsense.

It is true, of course, that, under his aegis and inspiration, there has been an up-tick in deliberately false news stories, mainly in "alt-right" media outlets. But there is little, if any, genuinely fake (deliberately false) news in mainstream media. This side of Fox News, and sometimes even there, most journalists do try to maintain journalistic standards. They are not pathological liars, little Donald Trumps.

What they are, wittingly or not, are propagandists – in the sense discussed long ago by Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman in Manufacturing Consent (reprint edition, Pantheon, 2002). Ï

Through the workings of the several mechanisms described in that book, they fashion and reinforce narratives, story lines, that accord with the interests of the owners of the corporations they work for and, when the need arises, with the interests of the entirety of what C. Wright Mills called the "power structure." At the same time, they derogate and marginalize counter-narratives that have, or could have, effects detrimental to the interests of the people and institutions they serve.

Their express intention, of course, is to report the news, not to maintain the status quo; they don't set out to deceive. More often than not, they believe the stories they tell. Why would they not? The system they are part of incentivizes compliance with the power structure's interests; and, when tensions arise, it is generally easier to go along than to be a stickler for plausibility.

***

For getting mainstream media to sign on to the election meddling narrative, it would be difficult to underestimate the importance of the role played by a key component of the power structure in the United States today, the Democratic Party.

That is how desperate Democrats are to make sure that Clinton's stunning, self-inflicted defeat last November will not be Clintonism's (neoliberalism's, liberal imperialism's) last hurrah. To that end, they have been willing, even eager, to revive Cold War demons that had lain dormant for decades -- bringing the world to the brink of a nuclear apocalypse.

Ostensibly the less noxious of the two neoliberal parties that dominate our politics, Democrats today have sunk so low that were Republicans still no worse than they were, say, when they fell into line behind George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, or even before Obama's 2008 electoral victory made many rank-and-file Republicans bat shit crazy, it would now be an open question which party actually is the greater evil of the two.

The consensus view in mainstream media lately, in the Democratic Party, and increasingly in the Republican Party as well, is that Trump is doing grave harm to the office of the Presidency and to many of the institutions, both domestic and international, through which the United States has dominated the world since 1945.

This is certainly the case. But, contrary to what is assumed throughout the power structure, it is at least debatable whether Trump's effect on these institutions – and the negative effect his presidency is having on the GOP itself – is, on balance, a good or bad thing.

Instead of rallying around the Democratic Party, a genuine Left would itself be taking aim at the bastions of empire and class rule that Trump is mindlessly but inexorably undoing. Trump's way is nihilistic and thuggish; and the only alternatives he or his cabinet secretaries and agency heads have in mind are odious even by Republican standards.

This is why the Trump presidency is, and will continue to be, an unmitigated disaster – no matter how much damage Trump does to the old world order or to some of the more disabling institutional arrangements afflicting the political scene.

Democrats can be and, for the most part, actually are, monumentally awful, but Republicans who support Trump are worse. This would not be so plainly the case, if the comparison was with pre-9/11 Republicans or even with the Republican Party before the 2008 election.

After all, if the appropriate metric is damage to world peace, geopolitical stability, and the wellbeing of humankind, Bush is still the worst President ever. Of course, if Trump mentally decomposes more than he already has, or if he starts acting out in exceptionally lethal ways, he could surpass even the standard Bush has set. For now, though, six months into the Trump era, W remains Number One How revealing, therefore, that the very media that, to their credit, have nothing good to say about the billionaire buffoon, are now welcoming Bush, and his underlings, back into the fold.

In polite society nowadays, Obamaphiles, including Obama himself and his First Lady, even seem to regard Bush the Younger as one of the good guys; and miscreants from his administration are featured in all the leading media outlets. How pathetic is that!

To his credit, however, Bush, unlike Trump, was not blatantly racist or nativist in his public pronouncements; and notwithstanding the fact that he and Cheney waged war on the Muslim world, he wasn't overtly Islamophobic either. The party he led generally followed suit.

However, once he was gone, Tea Partiers and Tea Party fellow travelers didn't have anything holding them back. With Obama at the helm of the empire, it didn't take long for them to make the Party over in their image.

For appearance sake, the Republican Party became the Party of No, but what they really were was the anti-Obama-for-all-the wrong-reasons Party. Republicans had no principled reason to turn Obama into Public Enemy Number One; his political views, which he did little to advance in any case, were more or less in line with those of pre-2001, or even pre-2008, Republicans.

Obama's rival in the 2012 election, Mitt Romney, was essentially a pre-2008 Republican; politically, he and Obama were cut from the same cloth. Tea Partiers didn't like that one bit, but even the most "deplorable" of them never hated Romney the way they hated Obama. What set their hatred off was the color of Obama's skin.

How else to account for eight years of "repeal and replace Obamacare" sloganeering? In substance and genealogy (its origins in the Heritage Foundation, the implementation of something very like it in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney) Obamacare is essentially a Republican program. Had it not come with Obama's name attached, doctrinaire free-market theologians of the Rand Paul or Ted Cruz variety would still not like it, but neither would they or any of their co-thinkers get especially worked up on its account.

Nevertheless, it was opposition to Obamacare, more than anything else, that kept the GOP's several factions together during the Obama years. How ironic that all those "repeal and replace" Republicans are now floundering because when they finally got their chance to do what they said they wanted to do, they were unable to do anything at all. It is tempting to say that they outsmarted themselves, but the word "smart" grates when applied to them.

Democrats are generally nicer than Republicans, and many times more civilized. Were their self-exonerating anti-Russian, anti-Putin campaigning not so dangerous, they would plainly be the good guys still, comparatively speaking.

Even with their hysterical Russophobia, they probably still are. But being comparatively less awful than the GOP is no reason to buy into the election meddling story that Democrats are so assiduously promoting.

It is possible, of course, that despite all the reasons to be skeptical of their narrative, there is some truth in what they say. Even if there is, however, why make such a big deal or it? Who cares?

Evidently, pundits with venting privileges on ostensibly liberal cable networks do and Democratic Party sore losers, but their concerns are misdirected. No one, not even the worst of the worst on MSNBC, claims that those dastardly Russian meddlers affected the outcome of the election in any significant way. Russians didn't defeat Hillary Clinton; she defeated herself.

It is not for want of trying that no one has been able to make a plausible case for the claim that, but for Russian meddling, Clinton would have beaten Trump. But, alas, no one has been able to maintain that Russians had anything to do with collecting or counting votes, or that they interfered with the workings of the electoral process in any other way.

The idea instead is that they depressed Democratic turnout by diminishing enthusiasm for Clinton. They did this, supposedly, by providing evidence of the Democratic National Committee's efforts to rig the election for Hillary and against Bernie Sanders, and by demeaning Clinton in ways that Democrats and their friends in the mainstream press don't even bother to try to spell out.

If only the Democrats and their media flacks would evince half as much self-righteous indignation over past and on-going Republican efforts at voter suppression! There is no doubt that they were real and that their consequences were significant. Neither is the case with alleged Russian voter suppression efforts last year.

Moreover, even if the Russians did do all that our propagandists claimed they did, they did nothing worse than what countless homegrown political operatives do when they sell candidates to voters in more or less the way that commercial advertisers sell the wares they peddle to targeted audiences.

The difference is morally significant. If the Russians actually did suppress voter turnout in 2016, it was through one or another form of persuasion. Republicans suppress votes by making it difficult, or impossible, for likely Democratic voters -- African Americans and other "persons of color" mainly, but also students, and many elderly citizens -- to exercise their right to vote.

***

The consensus view notwithstanding, the Russian election meddling narrative is short on compelling evidence, and is grounded in a patently defective rationale. Even so, it could still have merit.

But even if there was meddling as charged, nothing much came of it. This has always been obvious, and it too is significant.

Sanders supporters didn't need Russians to tell them that the Democratic Party wanted Bernie to lose and Hillary to win. Everyone paying attention knew that already. Clinton's shortcomings were also evident for all to see.

Therefore, if the story line being pushed by our "manufacturers of consent" is on track, it would only show that those Russians are not nearly as clever as the propagandists vilifying them would like people to think. By documenting the obvious, what they did made about as much sense as throwing buckets of water into the ocean.

Why then is Trump putting the extent of his ineptitude on display by acting as if he is about to block the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling? Trump may not be the magisterial dealmaker his remaining fans believe him to be, but he is surely not as self-destructively stupid as his actions suggest.

The answer must be that he really does have something to hide; something more damaging than anything the mainstream media narrative suggests.

Trump doesn't know much, but he surely does know that Congressional investigations and Justice Department investigations involving special prosecutors take on lives of their own, even when, in the first instance, they are much ado about nothing. Watergate was only "a third-rate burglary," after all.

He is also shrewd enough to realize that his business machinations give Congress and the Justice Department plenty to investigate. There is sleaze galore out there, waiting to be uncovered.

Therefore, in the weeks and months ahead, if Trump is still around – or even if he returns to the gilded monstrosity on Fifth Avenue that he had built to glorify himself, leaving arch-reactionary Mike Pence in charge -- we will have loads of well-corroborated reports of shady (artful?) deals with Russian oligarchs and, insofar as there is a difference, Russian mobsters, making the news interesting again.

This is sheer speculation, of course; and the evidence, what there is of it so far, is circumstantial. Much of it consists of idiotic tweets that suggest nothing more damning than an acute consciousness of guilt. Ì

Nevertheless, I would bet the ranch, if I had one to bet, that honest and determined investigators with subpoena power scratching beneath the surface, will find incontrovertible proof of legal, moral, or political infractions so egregious that even the fools who still refuse to admit that Trump conned them into thinking that, as President, he would somehow make their lives better, will find it impossible to keep on standing by their man.

Trump is guilty, a hundred times over; and it is plain as day too that whatever it turns out to be that he is guilty of, that his over-arching cupidity and vanity made him do it.

Finding out what he is guilty of should be at the top of every competent authority's to do list. It should also become a consuming passion of journalists who, for their own good and the good of the public they serve, no longer want to propagandize for the beneficiaries of the status quo.

Because the power structure is so thoroughly and uniformly intent on dumping Trump – not for wholly creditable reasons, but, for a matter of such urgency, that hardly matters – opportunities for doing authentic journalism, even in the face of the propaganda mechanisms Herman and Chomsky identified, now exist to a degree that would have seemed unimaginable before November 2016.

It is a complicated business, however because the same anti-Trump animosities that make it possible to mobilize the press against the government also enable the Democratic Party to enlist support, in media circles and more generally, for the demonization of Putin and his government, with all the dangers that ensue.

So, by all means, investigate, investigate, and investigate some more – taking care, however, not to be sidetracked onto false paths where perils of Clintonite design threaten to spin out of control in ways that even competent statesmen, like Putin and Sergey Lavrov, would have a hard time diffusing, if they still had reasonable interlocutors in Washington to work with.

Those are, to put it mildly, in short supply. With Trump in the White House and a bipartisan (but Clinton inspired) neocon consensus in Congress, reasonable interlocutors in Washington are about as numerous as genuine progressives in the Democratic fold. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine

ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Aug 09, 2017] Fake News A US Media Specialty by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!" ..."
"... Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"? ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

August 07, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - The American media specializes in fake news. Indeed, since the Clinton regime the American media has produced nothing but fake news. Do you remember the illegal US bombing and destruction of Yugoslavia? Do you remember "war criminal" Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian president branded "the butcher of the Balkans," who was compared to Hitler until Hillary passed the title on to the President of Russia? Milosevic, not Bill Clinton, was arrested and placed on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal. He died in prison, some say murdered, before he was cleared of charges by the International Criminal Tribunal. http://www.globalresearch.ca/milosevic-and-the-destruction-of-yugoslavia-unpleasant-truths-no-one-wants-to-know/5540873

Do you remember the destruction of Iraq justified by the orchestrated propaganda, known by the criminal George W. Bush regime to be an outright lie, about Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," weapons that the UN arms inspectors verified did not exist? Iraq was destroyed. Millions of Iraqis were killed, orphaned, widowed, and displaced. Saddam Hussein was subjected to a show trial more transparent than Stalin's trial of Bukharin and then murdered under the pretext of judicial execution.

Do you remember the destruction of Libya based entirely on Washington's lies and the criminal misuse of the UN no-fly resolution by turning it into a NATO bombing of Libya's military so that the CIA-armed jihadists could overthrow and murder Muammar Gaddafi? Do you remember the killer bitch Hillary gloating, "we came, we saw, he died!"

Do you remember the lies that the criminal Obama regime told about Assad of Syria and the planned US invasion of Syria that was blocked by the UK Parliament and the Russian government? Do you remember that Obama and the killer bitch sent ISIS to do the job that US troops were prevented from doing? Do you remember General Flynn revealing on TV that it was a "willful decision" of the criminal Obama regime to send ISIS to Syria over his objection as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency? This bit of told truth is why Gen. Flynn is hated by the Washington criminals who forced him out as Trump's National Security Adviser.

Do you remember the US coup in Ukraine against the democratically elected government and its replacement with a neo-nazi regime? Do you remember that Washington's crime against Ukrainian democracy was quickly hidden behind false charges of "Russian invasion"?

Can you think of any truthful report in the American news in the past two decades?

All of the lies leading to the death of millions told by the criminal Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes were transparent. The US media could easily have exposed them and saved the lives of millions of peoples and saved seven countries from destruction in whole or part. But the presstitutes cheered on the gratuitous and criminal destruction of countries and peoples. Every one of the presstitutes is a war criminal under the standards set by US Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg trials.

We cannot even get a truthful jobs report. Yesterday (Aug. 4) the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported 205,000 new private sector jobs in July and a drop in the unemployment rate to 4.3%. This is fake news.

The Associated Press's Christopher Rugaber rah-rahs the fake news, adding that many economists think "robust hiring could continue for many more months, or even years." Let's think about that for a moment. Generally speaking economists regard full employment to be a 5% rate of unemployment. There can never be a zero rate of unemployment because of frictions in the job market. For example, there are people between jobs who have lost or quit a job and are looking for a new one, and there are people who have dropped out of the work force, perhaps to spend more time parenting or to care for an aged and ill parent, and have reentered the work force. Economists also believe that employment cannot go too low without pushing up inflation.

Assuming economists have not suddenly changed their minds about what rate of unemployment is full employment, if the unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, it is already below the full employment rate. How can the rate continue to fall for years when the economy is already at full employment? Apparently, this question did not occur to the AP reporter or to the "many economists."

[Aug 08, 2017] Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and covert means

Aug 08, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 1:46:45 PM | 33

The sanctions are a smart play for world domination by the cabal that controls the Empire. that the rest of the world suffers while this plays out is of no concern to them.

Those wringing their hands over Trump's failure to confront Congress are foolish. His caving was entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him. Isn't it clear by now that "America First" is as much as lie as "Change You Can Believe In"?

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and covert means.

As the economic cost of conflict with the US mounts, so too does the potential benefits of restoring ties. The potential for a HUGE economic boost by restoring ties with the West will play a big part in post-Putin politics.

If US can disrupt energy trade with China and new Silk-Road transport links (via proxies like ISIS) , the Russian economy will sink and pro-Western candidates will gain much support.

JSonofa | Aug 6, 2017 1:48:59 PM | 34
LOL. Mentions Karl Marx twice. Yeah, like he didn't quite get it right. Nice false flag.
Seamus Padraig | Aug 6, 2017 2:27:41 PM | 35
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues.

Yeah, sure. (((Domestic U.S. policy issues.)))

Seriously though, as a committed isolationist, I'm actually overjoyed that our congress is idiotic enough to start up a trade war with the EU. The notion that the Germans are going to import overpriced fracked gas all the way from the US is a total fantasy. No: these sanctions will accelerate the coming break-up of NATO ... an outcome I very much welcome. And even if the Germans were to cave and cancel Nordstream, the Russians would simply sell all that extra gas to Asia anyway. So this isn't going to have any real effect on them either.

Grieved | Aug 6, 2017 2:30:05 PM | 36
@30 h

Trump was realistic to sign the sanctions bill. What's important is his Signing Statement, which lawyer Mercouris analyzes nicely, and therebu shows what many people are missing, including I'm afraid b, and commenters in this thread, up until your comment.

Articles of Impeachment are not a judicial thing - they are brought by Congress in its discretion. If Trump vetoed a bill coming forward with such hugely unanimous backing, he would be overridden for sure, and the Congress would then have the upper hand completely. From there, it's completely realistic to think of impeachment, and the odds are very good many Republicans would go along with this, as it would then make Pence the President.*

I was going to link that Mercouris piece too. I've been recommending everywhere that people read it. It was NOT a mistake to sign a bill that was impossible to veto successfully. But in his signing statement, Trump lays the ground very clearly for a challenge to the Supreme Court if he wants to make any accord in the future that contradicts whatever elements of the sanctions bill may infringe on his prerogative to run foreign policy.

It seems likely that the bill does infringe on the presidential role, and by laying it open to a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality, Trump actually is holding the hand now - while the act of sanctioning will reflect on Congress and Trump's enemies, as the sanctions both fail and help to tear the EU apart.

The Mercouris piece is essential reading in my view for anyone wanting to pass a judgment on the wisdom of Trump's signing this bill. That link again: Trump sidesteps impeachment trap in sanctions law and prepares challenge to Supreme Court

~~

* as to how serious a situation this was for Trump, a commenter on the Mercouris piece agrees that the prospect of Pence as president is all the Republicans need to support impeachment, and adds:

"When Andrew Johnson was impeached he was a Republican nominated VP (serving out Lincoln's term) impeached by a Republican dominated Congress which wanted to install a 'real' Republican in his place."
h | Aug 6, 2017 2:33:32 PM | 37
Jackrabbit @33, I must respectfully disagree with this part of your comment "His caving was entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him."

Using the word 'populist' whether faux or not when describing Obama is a disservice to the meaning of the word. Obama was a liar. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As for Trump? I don't really know what term I'd use to describe his politic. Candidly, I'm not sure if such a term for his style even exists.

But I will say that I don't concur with your take on his signing the sanctions bill. I don't see it as 'caving' and as I stated above your comment, Merouris' take on his signing the legislation makes sense, at least to me. Especially given the plethora of battle lines being drawn in the sewage pit known as DC. Gaining clarity as to motives behind decision making these days is murky at best, but nothing about Trump and his resume suggests 'caving' as being part of his character. Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them does.

And imagine if Merouris' take turns out to be correct. If so, how in the world does one navigate the minefields, let alone, succeed. More importantly, it means 550 elected leaders are out to destroy one. My God man, how friggin sick is that?!? The globalists don't get their way so they are going to destroy our form of government? That is the kind of power they are wielding when they succeed in securing what was it, 548 votes in the House and Senate (I haven't read the vote tally but know Rand Paul and another Senator, maybe Sanders, voted against it).

My point is that that's not only significant it's HUGE. At a minimum it means dysfunction and maximum means a declared war inside our body politic - the Globalist puppets v Trump/Pence.

Wwinsti | Aug 6, 2017 2:38:49 PM | 38
@ #6 blues:

Reverse engineer?!? Boing has had a license to build RD180s for over a decade. It's not an option they seem overly eager to employ by the leisurely pace they've asked regarding their construction. At least I think it's Boing.

chet380 | Aug 6, 2017 2:49:08 PM | 39
Grieved --

If Trump and Tillerson are quietly able to have the Europeans to raise a constant hue and cry about the bill's negative impact on their ability to conduct international trade, an excellent groundwork would be laid for Trump to go to the US SC to attack the constitutionality of the bill.

h | Aug 6, 2017 2:54:20 PM | 40
Grieved @36 - I appreciate your most thoughtful comment. When I read Mercouris' article I immediately thought - Whoa, if this turns out to be the correct analysis, my God man the U.S. government is in way more trouble than I understood. Navigating a soft coup takes a great deal of skill to avoid, but if the globalists continue to escalate their warmongering demands from the White House and Trump/Team continue to form their own path, the people of the U.S. should be warned a hard coup isn't far behind...Antifa and others are being readied for just such an event.

Gives me a chill...

james | Aug 6, 2017 2:58:32 PM | 41
thanks b.. i am super busy so not able to comment and read the comments like i would like, but i am sure someone else has already articulated what i am going to say... is it a failure of strategy, or is it a continuation of the same strategy to make war for financial reasons on others? seems like a combo of both at this point.. either way, when do the western puppets wake up, or is that not going to happen, as they are a part of this same financial ponzi scheme as well?
james | Aug 6, 2017 2:59:51 PM | 42
@36 grieved.. if i could just paraphrase you in my own words... the usa system is fucked...
Berry Friesen | Aug 6, 2017 3:31:14 PM | 43
b got it right: "a huge and stupid mistake."

Mercouris' talk of "an impeachment trap" suggests he doesn't understand the US system of government very well. A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto, and a veto would only have strengthened Trump's claim that the bill breaches the separation of powers. As matters stand, it appears Trump doesn't believe his own signing statement.

If the Republicans ever hope to impeach their guy without forever wrecking their party and bringing years of civil unrest to this country, they will needs reams of solid evidence supporting legitimate charges. A veto wouldn't count for much in terms of legitimacy.

Vollin | Aug 6, 2017 3:35:37 PM | 44
What happens if Trump declines to enforce sanctions?
Sid2 | Aug 6, 2017 3:43:41 PM | 45
On the other hand to the Mercouris view--

He could have signed it and still gone to the Supreme Court. This leaves he signed it due the impeachment threat. This won't go away by his signing it. 2018 is closer by the minute and you've got to suppose Repub candidates are nervous about re-election due to Trump (poll numbers sinking). On the other hand if he had signed it he would have showed some guts instead of caving and earning the "humiliated" label from the Russians. Instead of no respect he might have gotten a little respect. He has reinforced Trump as BS full of talk and inept. I agree with b.

Sid2 | Aug 6, 2017 3:47:27 PM | 46
Couple days back I read he'll be gone by February. Not long ago the odds were 2-1 by the end of the year.
Temporarily Sane | Aug 6, 2017 4:34:15 PM | 47
b writes:
That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to?

When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing: war.

frances | Aug 6, 2017 4:46:10 PM | 48
my apologies, this is a bit long but...On Trump's perceived option of signing vs not signing; I think he knew that the Congress/DNC/MSM would have tarred and feathered him as a RUSSIAN PAWN (RP) till the cows come home if he didn't sign. However by signing the bill with notations stating its flaws and forwarding it the the SC for their review, he blocked this latest RP label attempt and attendant witch hunt. And assuming the SC thinks as little of the two bills legislative incursions into the exec domain as I do, it can be tossed back to both houses of Congress (with a 2018 election cycle staring them in the face)with a statement from Trump saying something to the effect of "Merciful God, how can you represent your constituents when you clearly don't have a grasp of your own job description?? Now I have to fund Trump supporting candidates to run against every single one of you." Remember he has already raised 75 million and he raised 250 million plus 66 million of his own and beat a 1.3 billion DNC machine. I do not see him as a great candidate but I do see that every single current congressional seat is held by people who are bought and paid for by business/MIC interests opposed to mine. I believe this latest attack on him via these bills will give him the opportunity to "drain the swamp" some of it anyway, in the upcoming election cycle and I will contribute to his effort to wipe them out of office and I suspect others will as well. There will be no coup on my watch if I can help it by helping him.
heath | Aug 6, 2017 4:50:46 PM | 49
rather than press China directly in the south China Sea, it seems DC keeps on pressing the North Koreans to do something rash and the Chinese having to invade to forestall the rash attack then being stuck in a long Guerrilla war against Korean resistance.
the US strategy seems to be to create a problem and force other nations to choose "the Axis of Evil" or "the Free World"
goldhoarder | Aug 6, 2017 4:56:09 PM | 50
Xi has made 6 visits to Russia. I am not sure how often Putin has been to Beijing. The number of heads of state visits is remarkable. I've never seen anything like this in history. Has anyone else noticed this? Clearly they are trying to form a significant economic and military power block to challenge US "Full Spectrum Dominance".
karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 5:03:32 PM | 51
b--would you check the spam grabber and rescue my links-filled post from @4pm blog time? Thanks!!
ben | Aug 6, 2017 5:04:51 PM | 52
The following, is for all you folks that believe voting in the U$A can make a difference.

https://www.rt.com/usa/397907-defcon-first-voting-village/

Until we trash the e-voting systems, our voting means nothing..

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 5:06:39 PM | 53
Grieved @36--

If you haven't yet, you'll want to read my several posts related to yours a few threads ago beginning here, http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/07/countdown-to-war-on-venezuela.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d29b37ca970c

Anonymous | Aug 6, 2017 5:25:41 PM | 54
LawrenceSmith @1

There are two faces to Europe - the ordinary elected representatives and business people see the futility and danger of the sanctions. The bought Eurocrat and high political placemen will repeat what they are paid to say as the waters rise above their lips.

fast freddy | Aug 6, 2017 5:26:57 PM | 55
Trump can go on TV anytime and appeal to the Public with some creative truth. Why not? Afraid of the PTB? or he's a fraud like Obama going along with the PTB?

Mostly from Trump we get boilerplate global terror war bullshit, immigrant and gay bashing - gruel for the knuckleheads.

There is no question that Pence would gladly run the bus over Trump and be a real warmonger for Zion. The "real" Republicans (and the "business-friendly New Democrats") would love President Pence. Everything (media) would quiet down.

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 5:35:50 PM | 56
Regarding the Mercouris article myself and others have linked to and discussed, one possibility he didn't really explore was Trump Pocket Vetoing the bill. Congress would then upon returning from its recess need to reenact the entire measure after getting lots of heat from constituents for their votes during recess. Indeed, I think the overwhelming Pro vote was due to many congresscritter's assumption that Trump would do just that.

For me, the important question is why the Deep State instigated this move; so, I posted links to 6 incisive articles also looking for an answer in one manner or other that all together pointing to a Deep State flailing its arms in the deep end of the Hubris Pool realizing its drowning in its own effluent yet unable to utter that truth as it never will--it will break the mirror before allowing it to utter the truth. The Law of Diminishing Returns is finally laying the lumber to the Deep State after 130 years of grossly naked imperialism. Luce would be spinning in his grave if he knew how his American Century was being destroyed for A Few Dollars More.

Perhaps, John Pilger's latest essay will provide an explanation, https://www.rt.com/op-edge/398789-us-russia-china-war/

Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 6:01:45 PM | 57
h@37

My take on Trump is informed by facts such as:

>> The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining office. Examples: Citizens United and the rules to qualify for inclusion in candidate debates.

>> Obama was a faux populist and Sanders was a sheep-dog. Are we to believe that these populists were phonies but Trump is the real deal?

>> Only Sanders and Trump positioned themselves as populists. And even more importantly, Hillary didn't counter Trump by taking a more populist approach.

>> Hillary made it clear that she wanted to face Trump in the general election. The media dutifully covered Trump as a serious candidate. Supposedly, she felt that she had a better chance to defeat him. She then ran a terrible campaign (see: NYPost: Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever despite having every advantage.

>> Why would any oligarch oppose the establishment? Especially since Trump was so close to Hillary who was considered to be the likely next President. In fact, Trump served Hillary by becoming a leader of the 'Birthers'. Hillary was the first to question if Obama was foreign born.

>> Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP?

>> One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated.

>> Trump acts or doesn't act in ways that are inconsistent with 'America First' and/or fuel the scaremongering over Russia:

> The missile attack on Syria (despite tweeting warnings to Obama not to bomb Syria in 2013) and sword dancing with the Saudis (WTF?);

> Not dismissing Comey early in his Administration - then alluding to 'tapes' after he did;

> Drip-drip of info regarding Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian; Publicly attacking Sessions; etc.

> Trump complains about 'Fake News' but has accepted that Russia interfered in the election;

For more:

How Things Work: Betrayal by Faux-Populist Leaders

Taken In: Fake News Distracts Us From Fake Election

Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:07:06 PM | 58
h, Greived...
Some of the points in the Mercouris article, Trump has most likely played a bad hand the best way possible. What I see in the article though is that Trump/White House managed to have a few changes made to the wording to try to protect US/European companies and individuals from the new sanctions.
I would have preferred it to hit the European companies hard. If the peasants do it tough, nobody cares, but when big manufacturing, and the likes of European based oil companies get hit, then something may happen.
With Trumps amendments? to the law, the European dog may keep crawling back to its master rather than turning to Russia/China and the multi polar world.
PavewayIV | Aug 6, 2017 6:11:05 PM | 59
Berry Friesen@43 - "...A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto..."

Depends. From Mercouris:

With the President totally isolated in Congress his opponents would be in a position to say that by vetoing the law the President was obstructing action by Congress to protect the integrity of the US electoral process from interference by Russia, and that he was therefore guilty of committing a "high crime or misdemeanour" by preventing action against Russia, the US's main international adversary, on an issue of fundamental importance to the US. On those grounds they would say that he should be impeached and removed from office.

Since the Constitution does not say what a "high crime or misdemeanour" is and leaves the definition entirely to Congress, it is not impossible that in the present hysterical atmosphere the President's constitutional use of his veto to block an unconstitutional sanctions law could be successfully misdefined in that way, and that Congress would accept this mis-definition and would vote for impeachment on that basis.

This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will eventually support the thesis that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with elections. And as Mercouris points out, the interpretation of those facts and a vote for impeachment is entirely up to Congress , not the courts. Whether an indictment for such imagined collusion would stand up in US courts and result in a conviction is immaterial - they have no say.

An impeachment resolution HR 438 has already been filed by members of our lower house. It's rather weak, citing Trump's firing of former FBI Director, James Comey, as an obstruction of justice. The bill's sponsor acknowledges it is weak, but says it "gets the ball rolling". It will either be amended with additional articles of impeachment, or a new resolution will replace it. If one assumes all Democrat lower house representatives vote for the bill (~195 of 435), they will only need an additional 24 Republicans to pass it. It has not been submitted to a vote, but will when the representatives think the charges are numerous and strong enough that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote for Trump's removal. This is not necessarily a Democrat vs. Republican fight - Republicans would be delighted to give Trump the boot for a much more obedient replacement, Republican yes-man Vice President Pence. Hence the near unanimous vote for the sanctions bill. I can almost hear Congress screeching: "Trump must go!

They are waiting to assemble the final package of articles of impeachment so it looks credible and the MSM has sold it as such. One shouldn't look at Mercouris' logic regarding the veto as the only thing Congress will eventually use in the articles of impeachment against Trump. The bill will have to look legitimate and will be accompanied by a dumpster of manufactured evidence to confuse the little people and raise doubt.

FBI Director Muller's current investigation is to whether the Trump team colluded with Russia. It has TWO purposes: indicting someone close to Trump including his family, and (as a side-effect) blessing manufactured evidence as factual that can then be used by Congress to impeach Trump. If Trump fires Muller (perfectly legal) then - Aha! More evidence!

If Trump pardons any of his family members or close associates as a result of an indictment (perfectly legal), then that will be used against him suggesting that the charges are true. In any case, the investigation will probably produce more manufactured facts which will be used to strengthen the argument that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with elections. A veto to the sanctions bill would have been used to support that thesis, not 'prove' an impeachable offense by itself.

An Articles of Impeachment bill - the 'charges' - are just for show. The Senate is free to interpret them any way it wants. Their decision overrides 'the law' so it doesn't matter if they prove the thesis by law or logic.

The US Congress - Democrats and Republicans - want Trump gone and Pence as the replacement lackey taking us into war. The 'facts' supporting an impeachment will eventually prove sufficient. They've got the whole Borg working on them. The veto ploy was far from the only 'evidence' that will be used for impeachment. Linear thinking... Trump Must Go!

I personally have no dog in this hunt either way - it's not like either outcome will make much difference. I'm close enough to strategic US targets that I won't feel a thing for more than, say, a microsecond or two.

Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 6:16:36 PM | 60
karlof1 @56

Alternative to signing the bill:

1. Veto and explain why to the public: partisan politics / Russian witchhunt / etc.

2. Pocket veto and appeal to the public in the weeks before Congress returns from its summer recess. Congress-critters would then have to explain why they disagree with the President.

3. Veto/pocket veto and issue an executive order that imposes sanctions but doesn't tie his hands. If Congress re-enacted, it would ONLY be to unconstitutionally impinge on Presidential authority. (This strategy was suggested by someone at ZeroHedge.)

4. A combination of 2+3: first 2, then 3 if Congress decided to re-enact.

Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:29:32 PM | 61
karlof1 56

Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he only writes a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed in MSM.

Clueless Joe | Aug 6, 2017 6:37:47 PM | 62
At this point, it is the EU's duty to actually tell the US to go fuck itself with a nuclear warhead. And then to throw in the dumpster all the current economic treaties with it.
If EU leaders don't do it, then break the whole sorry useless Union that can't even be bothered to defend its constituency, and if needed create another better one, that is one with the clear, open and deliberate intent to stand up against the US bully, a Union which will forever stand as an opponent to the US, ready to side with China, Russia or India if needed.
But then, any sane European leaders would've understood 20 years ago that the only sensible move for EU would be a formal alliance with Russia and a loosening of the trans-atlantic ties. It's probably too late for that, and this might cost once again the vassalization of a third of Europe to Moscow; so be it then, these dumb fuckers should've seen the light earlier when that kind of moves would've been far less costly.
Shh | Aug 6, 2017 6:47:33 PM | 63
It's possible that the US strategic end game is not one we understand and highly effective. What that might be is obscured by reason.

Hahahahahaha! oh I slay me!

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:49:46 PM | 64
Not Off Topic: Learned of yet another head of state assassination done by CIA prior to JFK's, Pakistan's first PM, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, "according to State Department documents," http://www.thedailystar.net/world/south-asia/cia-killed-first-pm-pakistan-1442917
Fidelios Automata | Aug 6, 2017 9:58:07 PM | 65
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Grieved | Aug 6, 2017 10:05:09 PM | 66
@53 karlof1

I realize I never did acknowledge your various comments in that thread - I was grateful, and should have said so. I copied them all to a note for my reference, and thank you for offering all of that material. Time is my great enemy and I'm something of a hit-and-run poster in threads - but this one I did come back to scan, as I do increasingly with most of these MoA threads nowadays, it seems...

By the way, I read - and value - all of your comments here that I see.

Grieved | Aug 6, 2017 10:26:56 PM | 67
@42 james

It's rare that LOL actually means what it says but reading your comment I burst out laughing. Thank you.

On reflection, however, I have to say that I feel the US system has great merit. The country may well be fucked, but the underlying system has the potential to be workable, in suitable hands.

I don't know of any representative system in the world that isn't gamed by the big boys. This business of the people's actually having a say in how a nation is run is a newish thing, by and large, I think. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's been perfected yet. To me, it's still a miracle that even the pretense of having it exists - and this speaks loudly of something real that inheres in the people and that rulers remain wary of, at every turn.

I don't know if before the American Revolution anyone in the world ever published the paradigm that national sovereignty derives exclusively from the sovereignty of the individual persons that comprise the nation. I only know where I heard it first, and still hear it today.

I actually admire what the framers of the Constitution put together, having read their discussions verbatim. But it was the Bill of Rights that enabled that document to be ratified - it would not have happened without the Ten Amendments. And that powerful piece of negotiation came from the people, and their States. So we see in the US system a combination of interests.

I'm not ready yet to write it off, and I don't say that it was in itself compromised from the beginning. Gamed and bypassed, yes, certainly. We're still working on ruling ourselves, we sovereign individuals. Story not finished yet.

Debsisdead | Aug 6, 2017 10:27:47 PM | 68
Anyone else seen this little beauty from Foreign Policy?
"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."

Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn is pretty good.

james | Aug 6, 2017 10:56:31 PM | 69
okay - got a chance to read others comments..

@6 blues.. good post.. thanks.

@22 fast freddy..good comments too, but your link doesn't work.

@38 Wwinsti.. i think what blues is trying to say is if you don't have any engineers, or manufacturing capabilities which have been in a state of decline for many years, all the talk of reverse engineering is just that - talk and nothing more..

@48 frances.. it is funny that russian pawn claptrap was given such a regular viewing in the msm, that some now seem to truly believe it.. i am still waiting for the tooth ferry myself.. let me know if anyone sees it, lol...

@50 goldhoarder. yeah, as b notes - if the usa was trying to throw russia and china together - they are going about it the right way!!!

@56 karlof1.. good article.. thanks!

@59 paveway quote "This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will eventually support the thesis that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with elections." as i mentioned earlier the usa is fucked in the head.. but maybe a better way to put it is in an opening quote in naomi kleins latest book (2017) called "NO is not enough"... "I'm not looking to overthrow the American government, the corporate state already has." John Trudell - Santee Dakota activist, artist, and poet ( 1946-2015) in the msm we trust, lol - it's in the national anthem... i like how you ended your post, lol..

@62 clueless joe.. i had heard they cleaned up the bill to make it more palatable for europe.. i don't know if that is true, but i read that somewhere.. they put some usa #1 export sugar on top of the large dose of arsenic.. lets see if the poodles go for it, lol...

@64 karlof1.. sounds about right.. i guess the leader was a bit too democratic for his own good, lol.. clearly he was doing something right for the cia to want to get rid of him..

@67 grieved.. thanks.. i use the lol way too much and clearly i am mostly talking to myself and laughing at my own stupid jokes that most people find boring..i admire your optimism and the fact you don't fall prey to cynicism nearly as quickly as me! i hope you are right, but man we are at a tipping point here in a major way circa 2017... i don't see things moving forward all that favourably but i do admire those who can stay positive in spite of what we are seeing here..

@68 debs is dead.. thanks.. too many pop ups from fp, so i'm closing the window.. sounds about right though.. to quote the pilger article that karlof1 left @64 - "A coup against the man in the White House is under way. This is not because he is an odious human being, but because he has consistently made clear he does not want war with Russia." msm verses trump... msm is winning, lol... trump is going to have to pick up the twitter pace or he is in deep doo doo, or deep 6'd by the deep state.. mcmaster - what a disgrace to the scottish clan this man is.. he needs to change his friggin nam...


PavewayIV | Aug 7, 2017 12:09:28 AM | 70
Debsisdead@68 - Everyone seems to take a side on McMaster. Some conservative press claims he's cleaning house of Israeli-firsters, a claim denied by TimesofIsrael despite their description of Ezra Cohen-Watnik as a "Jewish official". They see a common thread of 'Iran hawks' in the McMaster purge. Other conservative press sees McMaster as the puppet of Saudi-controlled Soros, wonderfully illustrated here . Their association with the Richard Higgins memo is less clear, and the memo (and Higgins views in general) are usually portrayed as nutty. The Atlantic just published an article that gives a more rational-sounding (relative, I know...) description of Higgins views in the memo as:
"...Higgins's memo describes supposed domestic and international threats to Trump's presidency, including globalists, bankers, the "deep state," and Islamists. The memo characterizes the Russia story as a plot to sabotage Trump's nationalist agenda. It asserts that globalists and Islamists are seeking to destroy America. The memo also includes a set of recommendations, arguing that the problem constitutes a national-security priority..."

I have to say that the threat to Trump's presidency seems real enough regardless of the debate about who or why.

The real reason I think Higgins was fired: he had called for whistle-blowers in US law enforcement and the DHS to come forward with evidence of being ordered to allow suspected terrorists into the US and systematic blindness at all levels of any monitoring or investigation. This is all (according to him) being driven by political correctness and the globalist's/Soros' 'open borders' scheme. Nutty conspiracy theory? I'm not so sure. I keep hearing the same thing from European nations - an official (but secret) policy of turning a blind eye to terrorism suspects entering their country. That's a damn strange 'conspiracy theory' coincidence across the pond, if I do say so myself.

Back to the McMaster 'purge' - who knows? Nobody is in charge at the White House and everyone is purging everyone else (apparently even Trump). McMaster himself is thought to be in danger of dismissal - his grand hawkish plans for a renewed, invigorated Afghanistan War version 2.0 were quickly rejected by Trump. The plans were essentially, "We'll try again in Afghanistan, but with more troops... and we'll REALLY mean it this time!"

I don't necessarily think Trump is against US world domination schemes. He is just skeptical of the clownish, sure-to-fail linear-thinking plans the neocons have typically choked out. Incometence - sad! Trump would rather bumble into a war all on his own, I guess...

James | Aug 7, 2017 1:40:27 AM | 71
Thanks for this insight into the Sanctions bill - b.

What I'm waiting for is the response of the EU ( Germany)
Will they stop nord stream 2 ?

Also do these sanctions affect Turk stream?

I can't see Erdogan stopping this pipeline which will underpin Turkeys economic developments and build stronger reflations with those in Southern Europe - Hungary, Bulgaria, and the ex-Yugoslavia countries.

As for the Baltic countries and Poland - they are the fly in the EU ointment making a unified EU response impossible - always ready to do the US bidding especially if it involves attacking Russia.
But even here does economic concerns come even before this? as LNG from the US will cost far far more than Russian gas.

Poland would loose transit fees due to nordstream 2 . Then we have Ukraine who need the transit fees - it's part of their budget. The Infrastructure however needs investment - and who will do that.

Also the does anyone know if the pipeline to china - can't remember its name - is being built and when that is due to be operational

All in all the sanctions bill just codified the domestic Russophobia and if anything should kill off the Pro - American wing that exists in Russia. The accusations against Russia were unjust and have not been proved.

The main response from Russia will be to further insulate itself from these type of attacks which are only possible through being part of the dollar economy.


P S - I disagree with b that medvedev could be president again. Most Russians don't even want him as prime minister! His statement read to me as a reflection of his personal disappointment in Trump.

psychohistorian | Aug 7, 2017 1:54:44 AM | 72
@ b who wrote:
"
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years.
"
I think that the geo-political situation is too volatile at this time to make this claim and one, multiple and/or a sequence of events is going to precipitate a crisis that will end the current shape of our world and birth something else....the crisis will include a global debt "reset" of some sort if not frontal on attack on private finance global tools......whatever is going to happen will occur in less than 30 years is my point to counter b's statement.

What will the US do to precipitate the crisis TPTB seem to be jonesing for?....or will the rest of the world continue to stand by and watch the center of empire collapse of its own deathly dissonance?

Steve | Aug 7, 2017 3:19:43 AM | 73
I concur with everything in this piece but this line: "Core European countries will resist pressures that endanger their economies." I doubt there is any European country that has the backbone to stand up against the US interest at this moment.
Anon | Aug 7, 2017 4:46:34 AM | 74
Whats worse is the stupid sanctions on NK, pushed by neocons and supported by not only stupid warmongering EU but also Russia and China! Talk about being naive and a sell out!
J Swift | Aug 7, 2017 7:37:02 AM | 75
Are we underestimating the importance of it being Medvedev who sent such a blunt and honest critique of the sanctions scheme? He is the spokesboy for the pro-West/oligarch/integrationist half of the Russian government. For him to make such a statement must have been either as a plea or warning ("Dude! You're killing your own agents over here!); or perhaps its more grave and is more of an indication that even the lapdogs in Russia are disgusted and angry and prepared to side with Putin's sovereign Russia camp and make some of the financial changes Putin has been sneaking up on for the last few years. Either way, sounds like it could be good news for Russia, and more strengthening of Putin's hand as we approach their election cycle. He may already have the political capital to kick out or hamstring most of the foreign NGOs, which he certainly needs to do as a follow-up to the diplomatic staff reductions. Should be interesting.
john | Aug 7, 2017 7:41:19 AM | 76
a million laughs how so much commentary in its infinite wisdom still confers such faith in our hallowed institutions. be it a Congress that votes unanimously to sanction a sovereign nation based on unproven absurdities while ignoring their president's lobbing of 60 cruise missiles into another sovereign nation for, well, for no real reason at all, actually, oh yeah, for other unproven absurdities, to some purported strategy for the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom to presumably restore good sense and order to perfidious political shenanigans(oooh, the intrigue)...that would be the same Supreme Court that protects scum-of-the-earth corporate personhood above all else(remember Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker ?).
okie farmer | Aug 7, 2017 8:18:22 AM | 77
Google: Lost in translation?

by Seamus Padraig In an article sure to breathe life into the old conspiracy theories about Silicon Valley and the CIA, The Guardian recently reported that: Google has fixed an "automated" error which saw its online translating tool convert "Russian Federation" into "Mordor". Other erroneous translations included "russians" becoming "occupiers" and the name of Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, rendered as "sad little horse". Mordor is the fictional realm in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books, also known as the land of shadows. The error, which Google said is down to an automatic bug, appeared in the online tool when users converted the Ukranian [sic] language into Russian. Google, naturally, denied any 'evil' intent, telling The Guardian in a written statement that its translator tool works "without the intervention of human translators". Sure it does! And no doubt the problem was fixed automatically too, wasn't it! Down in the comboxes, many took the opportunity to bash Russia and all things Russian, but at least one commenter decided to take a shot at the messenger.

Lea | Aug 7, 2017 8:24:50 AM | 78
A Russian MP talking to RT has an interesting and simple take: Trump made no mistake and is no puppet. He knowingly declared a trade war onto Russia, while retaining a "good cop" attitude designed to shift the blame and hopefully to keep a good image among his anti-war voters, Obama-style, of "prisoner in the White House" (poor guy is "forced to be tough" against his will, sob).
Sometimes, the simplest explanation makes the most sense, all the more as, every time Trump has made amicable noises in the past, something bad has ensued. What if it's no accident?
https://www.rt.com/politics/398429-trump-is-no-puppet-russian/
Piotr Berman | Aug 7, 2017 9:24:06 AM | 79
While the percentage of Germans mentioning Russia as the largest foreign threat dropped to 33% (below 35 for USA), Poland has hefty 65%. Main political parties vigorously insult each other, and Russian/Putin stooge is a favorite (although creativity in that field exceeds American standards, polite Britain not really competing). Thus I was surprised that the current foreign minister made an effort to allow several interviews with Russian media. Among others, he stated that while Poland is interested in American liquified natural gas, at this time it is not competitive with Russian natural gas (it seems that European gas prices are at least double of those in Europe, but liquifying, transporting highly explosive cargo etc. adds a lot to the cost). And the purchase of American Patriots is needed, but not finalized (the government talks a lot about expanding the military to face the Russian threat, but they are surprisingly stingy with arms budget, so far they got a big fleet of armored limousines for VIPs and few Being planes, also for VIPs).

Basically, even most Russophobic politicians do not want real breakdown in trade, and given that arms industry is mostly non-domestic, they have measured enthusiasm for the arms race. I guess Waszczykowski (English phonetics: Vashchikofky) does not support new American sanctions. The other aspect is that the current government is in conflict with "EU bureacracy", but what alternatives does Poland have? Well... there are some, right?

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 9:33:57 AM | 80
At #38
Here's some links that try to explain why the US isn't building the Russian aka Soviet RD180 rocket engine:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39502.0

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/15494/why-cant-pratt-whitney-make-rd-180-engines-on-their-own

http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/featurerussian-rockets-the-us-governments-rd-180-conundrum-4325220/

James | Aug 7, 2017 9:49:40 AM | 81

I agree with the post at 78. Trump is all in with these sanctions -he is just trying to fool his base.

Does anyone really think he did not know the bill was being drafted - Paul Ryan and Priebus would have told him.

An article on antiwar.com states the following

Tillerson says he's told Russia that US will respond by Sept. 1 to Moscow's move to expel US diplomats.

They want an escalation and Cold War

Bluemot5 | Aug 7, 2017 10:21:52 AM | 82
". This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy. " b

Seems to me that Russian gas probably has a much smaller carbon footprint than fracked, compressed, shipped and regassified USA shale gas? I have searched but not found any carbon footprint comparisons online.

if Russian gas is much cleaner, they could win at least on the public opinion front on this issue....


paul | Aug 7, 2017 10:27:41 AM | 83
For Putin to whine and cry about sanctions vs Russia whilst hammering North Korea with sanctions is just pure hypocrisy - raging, insane hypocrisy - at best. Putin, it's clear now, is just a punk and a thug and ultimately a US vassal. Xi the same. Before I thought that somehow those two leaders, bad as they are, were pillars of decency and integrity compared to US misleaders. That, it seems, has changed. US misleaders are worse than ever. Trump is a total creep. Both parties exude nothing but stench. Yet Xi and Putin are Trump's/US' vassals, even more disgusting. When called upon to jump, they do a dance and jump right through the ring as commanded.

A couple of weeks ago China and Russia made a reasonable statement pointing out that the way to peace had to involve regard for the security issues on both sides. Now they've burned that statement just because they were commanded to. Oh yes it's sort of there in the UNSC fine print, which I guess makes for a nice fig leaf.

James | Aug 7, 2017 10:36:38 AM | 84

Paul @ 83
Putin has not commented on the sanctions
Medvedev did.

As for North Korea - that's a separate topic all together which I am sure b will cover.

Anon | Aug 7, 2017 10:47:28 AM | 85
paul

Yeah, one day before China and Russia blast sanctions imposed on themselves by Trump, then next day - they follow through with Trump and do the same onto North Korea. Hypocrisy and treachery!

lysias | Aug 7, 2017 10:48:13 AM | 86
A system of represntative government that severely limited the power of the rich was that of ancient Athens. Council members and most government officials were chosen by lot from the whole body of adult male citizens. As a reading of elite authors like Plato will reveal, the rich didn't like this system at all.
RenoDino | Aug 7, 2017 10:50:25 AM | 87
The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later.
fast freddy | Aug 7, 2017 11:36:47 AM | 88
Sanctions, but US still buying billions of dollars worth (including baksheesh) of rocket engines and screwing around with international space station boondoggle (million dollar toilet seats, hammers and widgets). And more baksheesh.

Try to google search a fixed price on one Russian rocket engine.

Just Sayin' | Aug 7, 2017 11:39:59 AM | 89
This 'Pipelineistan' [Bullshit?] conspiracy: The war in Syria has never been about gas
Paul Cochrane
Wednesday 10 May 2017 10:57 UTC


The pipeline hypotheses do not stand up to the realities of how energy is transported through the Middle East in the 21st century

3. No Qatari offer to Damascus

The pipeline narrative, from 2013 onwards, also makes much mention of Damascus rebuffing an alleged Qatari offer in 2009 to build a pipeline. This part of the story hinges around statements by unnamed diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse article about a meeting between Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan.

Qatar's then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (R) and First Lady Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al-Misned (L) welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma at Doha airport in January 2010 (AFP)

The report says: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

But Dargin says: "There are no credible sources that show that Qatar even approached Syria in 2009 and was rebuffed in the process. I am not saying it definitely did not occur, rather there is no evidence supporting this claim."

Syrian experts also support Dargin's rebuttal, highlighting the burgeoning economic and political ties between Doha and Damascus.

'An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline' - Jihad Yazigi, Syria Report

Yassin-Kassab says: "The absurdity is that relations between the Assad regime and the Qataris were excellent until summer 2011. Assad and his wife and the Qatari royal couple were also being portrayed as personal friends."

Although Assad may have repeatedly criticized Qatar since late 2011 onwards for supporting "terrorists," he has never publicly stated that Qatari support for the rebels was over a future pipeline.

Jihad Yazigi, editor of economy website Syria Report, says: "An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline; that is telling in itself, that Assad never mentioned it."


4. The Moscow-Tehran connection

Then there's the other part of the Pipelineistan puzzle – the Iran-Syria pipeline, also known as the Islamic Pipeline.

Yazigi explains: "The Islamic pipeline has been talked about for years. There were pre-contract memorandums of understanding, but until July 2011, there was no formal signing [between Syria and Iran]. You can't argue this is a serious reason to destroy the whole country. "

While the project was politically expedient, it ignored economic and energy realities. First, the project was estimated to cost $10 billion, but it was unclear who would foot the bill, particularly as Tehran was – and still is – under US and international sanctions, as is Syria, since 2011.

Second, Iran lacks the capabilities to export significant amounts of gas. Sanctions mean it cannot access the advanced US technology that would allow it to exploit gas from the South Pars field that borders Qatar.

dh | Aug 7, 2017 11:41:03 AM | 90
@71 James, there are many small contractors involved in Nordstream in several countries. The sanctions are designed to squeeze them out and make Nordstream impossible.

It's not unlike the strategy being used against NK. They are designed to make life even more difficult for ordinary people....perhaps drive them into China and cause China to attack NK.

dh | Aug 7, 2017 11:57:30 AM | 91
@90 Should have included this link...it mentions the situation with the Black Sea pipeline.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-sanctions-gazprom-analysis-idUSKBN1AJ1AN

Skip | Aug 7, 2017 12:04:55 PM | 92
@15

"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster."

Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that almost never go to the top of the building.

Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.

All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven, not here on Terra Firma.

Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced' members of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval rating.

karlof1 | Aug 7, 2017 12:16:45 PM | 93
Grieved @66 & 67--

Thanks for your reply and endorsement.

Something to consider when dealing with the Revolutionary time period is what part of the populous is considered "The People," as in "We The People"? And just how equal in reality were those people in 1776 when the phrase "All men are created equal" appeared? This is of great importance when we look at the proportion of the populous that was allowed to have a stake in the process and compare that with the amount of time it took until a majority was finally deemed to have equal rights under the law--1920 within USA--although it can be argued that full equality under the law is still lacking as Glenn Greenwald did to great affect in With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality . Two works providing info on this issue are The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States and People of Paradox: An Inquiry Concerning the Origins of American Civilization , although there are many others.

Is the United States federal government reformable? IMO, as currently constituted, no. A new document and associated institutions needs to be written and built, although some current institutions will have a place within the new construct. Yes, I did write a Constitution 3.0 using Madisonian principles not long after the fiasco of the 2000 election to use as a classroom discussion tool. But to have any chance at making that reality, the Rule of Law must be reinstated within the Outlaw US Empire in order to bring the Deep State to Justice and thus its destruction.

james | Aug 7, 2017 12:44:43 PM | 94
@78 lea.. i agree.

@81 James.. i agree as well - "they want an escalation and cold war." keeping the us$ supreme is the forever game plan..

@83 paul.. as always thanks for the laugh..

nurse.comic | Aug 7, 2017 1:02:13 PM | 95
I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard as portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US working constructively>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less conflict. As he says, "The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility".
Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations between Russian and the US. I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article. Or rather I am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.
Arioch | Aug 7, 2017 1:30:51 PM | 96
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.

@18 - or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS. Then - the second option.

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 2:33:33 PM | 97
AT #88:


Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill – Parabolic Arc

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/17/russian-rocket-engines-exempted-sanctions-bill/

17 Jun 2017 ... Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill ... using at least one Russian engine to try to placate the Great Russia ... Which means that it could've been human rated or fixed to meet the NASA needs. Tom Billings • 1 month ago. And cost two to four times as much as an Atlas V. Those LHy/Lox ...

Just Sayin' | Aug 7, 2017 2:56:49 PM | 98
Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.

Posted by: Arioch | Aug 7, 2017 1:30:51 PM | 96

What's wrong about that statement is that the EU nations are not US Allied states - they are US vassal states.

bit of a difference between those two: "allied state" and "vassal state"

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 3:12:30 PM | 99
At #96:
or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS. Then - the second option.

Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think tanks'. They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. He is after all, a billionaire capitalist, who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and probably some in Russia as well. Show me a big capitalist who hasn't?

In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told!

karlof1 | Aug 7, 2017 3:44:05 PM | 100
Use of the terms "Isolationist" and "Isolationism" within the context of US History differs little from the use of the terms "Conspiracy Theory," Conspiracy Theorist," and "Revisionist"--all are used in an attempt to degrade the credibility of an individual or organization. A priori, everyone aside from First Peoples is an Internationalist as commerce with other nations of the world isn't optional--it's mandatory, thus the phrase within the Declaration about telling the world why. Rather, Isolationist is used to tar someone against Imperialism, the best examples being the very heated debate during the 1930s over the various Neutrality Acts when the hoi polloi last had some vestige of control over the federal government. (Pacifist was also a derogatory term used then for similar reasons.) Did Trump say he would close US borders to one and all--people, goods, financial instruments? No, of course not; so, he cannot be labeled an Isolationist. Now, is he what's known as a Nativist promoting an America First Nativism? During his campaign, he did use rhetoric of that sort, but his actions in office don't provide confirmation. (The 1932 presidential election also gives an excellent example of how the terms Internationalist and Isolationist are used politically, with FDR steadfastly refusing to acknowledge his Internationalism thanks to the divisive League of Nations debate after WW1.)

Essentially, to be an informed citizen of almost any nation, one needs the equivalent of a PhD in their national and world history, with minors in philosophy, anthropology and economics, which is why the citizenry seems so ill-informed--they are!--and easily led by the nose.

[Aug 08, 2017] What if Trump did want sanctions ?

Notable quotes:
"... The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later. ..."
Aug 08, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 56

Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he only writes a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed in MSM.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:29:32 PM | 61

Shh | Aug 6, 2017 6:47:33 PM | 63

It's possible that the US strategic end game is not one we understand and highly effective. What that might be is obscured by reason.

Hahahahahaha! oh I slay me!

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:49:46 PM | 64
Not Off Topic: Learned of yet another head of state assassination done by CIA prior to JFK's, Pakistan's first PM, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, "according to State Department documents," http://www.thedailystar.net/world/south-asia/cia-killed-first-pm-pakistan-1442917
Fidelios Automata | Aug 6, 2017 9:58:07 PM | 65
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Grieved | Aug 6, 2017 10:26:56 PM | 67
@42 james

It's rare that LOL actually means what it says but reading your comment I burst out laughing. Thank you.

On reflection, however, I have to say that I feel the US system has great merit. The country may well be fucked, but the underlying system has the potential to be workable, in suitable hands.

I don't know of any representative system in the world that isn't gamed by the big boys. This business of the people's actually having a say in how a nation is run is a newish thing, by and large, I think. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's been perfected yet. To me, it's still a miracle that even the pretense of having it exists - and this speaks loudly of something real that inheres in the people and that rulers remain wary of, at every turn.

I don't know if before the American Revolution anyone in the world ever published the paradigm that national sovereignty derives exclusively from the sovereignty of the individual persons that comprise the nation. I only know where I heard it first, and still hear it today.

I actually admire what the framers of the Constitution put together, having read their discussions verbatim. But it was the Bill of Rights that enabled that document to be ratified - it would not have happened without the Ten Amendments. And that powerful piece of negotiation came from the people, and their States. So we see in the US system a combination of interests.

I'm not ready yet to write it off, and I don't say that it was in itself compromised from the beginning. Gamed and bypassed, yes, certainly. We're still working on ruling ourselves, we sovereign individuals. Story not finished yet.

PavewayIV | Aug 7, 2017 12:09:28 AM | 70
Debsisdead@68 - Everyone seems to take a side on McMaster. Some conservative press claims he's cleaning house of Israeli-firsters, a claim denied by TimesofIsrael despite their description of Ezra Cohen-Watnik as a "Jewish official". They see a common thread of 'Iran hawks' in the McMaster purge. Other conservative press sees McMaster as the puppet of Saudi-controlled Soros, wonderfully illustrated here . Their association with the Richard Higgins memo is less clear, and the memo (and Higgins views in general) are usually portrayed as nutty. The Atlantic just published an article that gives a more rational-sounding (relative, I know...) description of Higgins views in the memo as:
"...Higgins's memo describes supposed domestic and international threats to Trump's presidency, including globalists, bankers, the "deep state," and Islamists. The memo characterizes the Russia story as a plot to sabotage Trump's nationalist agenda. It asserts that globalists and Islamists are seeking to destroy America. The memo also includes a set of recommendations, arguing that the problem constitutes a national-security priority..."

I have to say that the threat to Trump's presidency seems real enough regardless of the debate about who or why.

The real reason I think Higgins was fired: he had called for whistle-blowers in US law enforcement and the DHS to come forward with evidence of being ordered to allow suspected terrorists into the US and systematic blindness at all levels of any monitoring or investigation. This is all (according to him) being driven by political correctness and the globalist's/Soros' 'open borders' scheme. Nutty conspiracy theory? I'm not so sure. I keep hearing the same thing from European nations - an official (but secret) policy of turning a blind eye to terrorism suspects entering their country. That's a damn strange 'conspiracy theory' coincidence across the pond, if I do say so myself.

Back to the McMaster 'purge' - who knows? Nobody is in charge at the White House and everyone is purging everyone else (apparently even Trump). McMaster himself is thought to be in danger of dismissal - his grand hawkish plans for a renewed, invigorated Afghanistan War version 2.0 were quickly rejected by Trump. The plans were essentially, "We'll try again in Afghanistan, but with more troops... and we'll REALLY mean it this time!"

I don't necessarily think Trump is against US world domination schemes. He is just skeptical of the clownish, sure-to-fail linear-thinking plans the neocons have typically choked out. Incometence - sad! Trump would rather bumble into a war all on his own, I guess...

James | Aug 7, 2017 1:40:27 AM | 71
Thanks for this insight into the Sanctions bill - b.

What I'm waiting for is the response of the EU ( Germany)
Will they stop nord stream 2 ?

Also do these sanctions affect Turk stream? I can't see Erdogan stopping this pipeline which will underpin Turkeys economic developments and build stronger reflations with those in Southern Europe - Hungary, Bulgaria, and the ex-Yugoslavia countries.

As for the Baltic countries and Poland - they are the fly in the EU ointment making a unified EU response impossible - always ready to do the US bidding especially if it involves attacking Russia. But even here does economic concerns come even before this? as LNG from the US will cost far far more than Russian gas.

Poland would loose transit fees due to nordstream 2 . Then we have Ukraine who need the transit fees - it's part of their budget. The Infrastructure however needs investment - and who will do that.

Also the does anyone know if the pipeline to china - can't remember its name - is being built and when that is due to be operational

All in all the sanctions bill just codified the domestic Russophobia and if anything should kill off the Pro - American wing that exists in Russia. The accusations against Russia were unjust and have not been proved.

The main response from Russia will be to further insulate itself from these type of attacks which are only possible through being part of the dollar economy.

P S - I disagree with b that Medvedev could be president again. Most Russians don't even want him as prime minister! His statement read to me as a reflection of his personal disappointment in Trump.

psychohistorian | Aug 7, 2017 1:54:44 AM | 72
@ b who wrote:
"
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years.
"
I think that the geo-political situation is too volatile at this time to make this claim and one, multiple and/or a sequence of events is going to precipitate a crisis that will end the current shape of our world and birth something else....the crisis will include a global debt "reset" of some sort if not frontal on attack on private finance global tools......whatever is going to happen will occur in less than 30 years is my point to counter b's statement.

What will the US do to precipitate the crisis TPTB seem to be jonesing for?....or will the rest of the world continue to stand by and watch the center of empire collapse of its own deathly dissonance?

Steve | Aug 7, 2017 3:19:43 AM | 73
I concur with everything in this piece but this line: "Core European countries will resist pressures that endanger their economies." I doubt there is any European country that has the backbone to stand up against the US interest at this moment.
Anon | Aug 7, 2017 4:46:34 AM | 74
Whats worse is the stupid sanctions on NK, pushed by neocons and supported by not only stupid warmongering EU but also Russia and China! Talk about being naive and a sell out!
J Swift | Aug 7, 2017 7:37:02 AM | 75
Are we underestimating the importance of it being Medvedev who sent such a blunt and honest critique of the sanctions scheme? He is the spokesboy for the pro-West/oligarch/integrationist half of the Russian government. For him to make such a statement must have been either as a plea or warning ("Dude! You're killing your own agents over here!); or perhaps its more grave and is more of an indication that even the lapdogs in Russia are disgusted and angry and prepared to side with Putin's sovereign Russia camp and make some of the financial changes Putin has been sneaking up on for the last few years. Either way, sounds like it could be good news for Russia, and more strengthening of Putin's hand as we approach their election cycle. He may already have the political capital to kick out or hamstring most of the foreign NGOs, which he certainly needs to do as a follow-up to the diplomatic staff reductions. Should be interesting.
john | Aug 7, 2017 7:41:19 AM | 76
a million laughs how so much commentary in its infinite wisdom still confers such faith in our hallowed institutions. be it a Congress that votes unanimously to sanction a sovereign nation based on unproven absurdities while ignoring their president's lobbing of 60 cruise missiles into another sovereign nation for, well, for no real reason at all, actually, oh yeah, for other unproven absurdities, to some purported strategy for the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom to presumably restore good sense and order to perfidious political shenanigans(oooh, the intrigue)...that would be the same Supreme Court that protects scum-of-the-earth corporate personhood above all else(remember Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker ?).
okie farmer | Aug 7, 2017 8:18:22 AM | 77
Google: Lost in translation?

by Seamus Padraig In an article sure to breathe life into the old conspiracy theories about Silicon Valley and the CIA, The Guardian recently reported that: Google has fixed an "automated" error which saw its online translating tool convert "Russian Federation" into "Mordor". Other erroneous translations included "russians" becoming "occupiers" and the name of Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, rendered as "sad little horse". Mordor is the fictional realm in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books, also known as the land of shadows. The error, which Google said is down to an automatic bug, appeared in the online tool when users converted the Ukranian [sic] language into Russian. Google, naturally, denied any 'evil' intent, telling The Guardian in a written statement that its translator tool works "without the intervention of human translators". Sure it does! And no doubt the problem was fixed automatically too, wasn't it! Down in the comboxes, many took the opportunity to bash Russia and all things Russian, but at least one commenter decided to take a shot at the messenger.

Lea | Aug 7, 2017 8:24:50 AM | 78
A Russian MP talking to RT has an interesting and simple take: Trump made no mistake and is no puppet. He knowingly declared a trade war onto Russia, while retaining a "good cop" attitude designed to shift the blame and hopefully to keep a good image among his anti-war voters, Obama-style, of "prisoner in the White House" (poor guy is "forced to be tough" against his will, sob).

Sometimes, the simplest explanation makes the most sense, all the more as, every time Trump has made amicable noises in the past, something bad has ensued. What if it's no accident?

https://www.rt.com/politics/398429-trump-is-no-puppet-russian/

Piotr Berman | Aug 7, 2017 9:24:06 AM | 79
While the percentage of Germans mentioning Russia as the largest foreign threat dropped to 33% (below 35 for USA), Poland has hefty 65%. Main political parties vigorously insult each other, and Russian/Putin stooge is a favorite (although creativity in that field exceeds American standards, polite Britain not really competing). Thus I was surprised that the current foreign minister made an effort to allow several interviews with Russian media. Among others, he stated that while Poland is interested in American liquified natural gas, at this time it is not competitive with Russian natural gas (it seems that European gas prices are at least double of those in Europe, but liquifying, transporting highly explosive cargo etc. adds a lot to the cost). And the purchase of American Patriots is needed, but not finalized (the government talks a lot about expanding the military to face the Russian threat, but they are surprisingly stingy with arms budget, so far they got a big fleet of armored limousines for VIPs and few Being planes, also for VIPs).

Basically, even most Russophobic politicians do not want real breakdown in trade, and given that arms industry is mostly non-domestic, they have measured enthusiasm for the arms race. I guess Waszczykowski (English phonetics: Vashchikofky) does not support new American sanctions. The other aspect is that the current government is in conflict with "EU bureacracy", but what alternatives does Poland have? Well... there are some, right?

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 9:33:57 AM | 80
At #38
Here's some links that try to explain why the US isn't building the Russian aka Soviet RD180 rocket engine:
James | Aug 7, 2017 9:49:40 AM | 81

I agree with the post at 78. Trump is all in with these sanctions -- he is just trying to fool his base. Does anyone really think he did not know the bill was being drafted - Paul Ryan and Priebus would have told him. An article on antiwar.com states the following.

Tillerson says he's told Russia that US will respond by Sept. 1 to Moscow's move to expel US diplomats. They want an escalation and Cold War

Bluemot5 | Aug 7, 2017 10:21:52 AM | 82
". This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy. " b

Seems to me that Russian gas probably has a much smaller carbon footprint than fracked, compressed, shipped and regassified USA shale gas? I have searched but not found any carbon footprint comparisons online.

if Russian gas is much cleaner, they could win at least on the public opinion front on this issue....

paul | Aug 7, 2017 10:27:41 AM | 83
For Putin to whine and cry about sanctions vs Russia whilst hammering North Korea with sanctions is just pure hypocrisy - raging, insane hypocrisy - at best. Putin, it's clear now, is just a punk and a thug and ultimately a US vassal. Xi the same. Before I thought that somehow those two leaders, bad as they are, were pillars of decency and integrity compared to US misleaders. That, it seems, has changed. US misleaders are worse than ever. Trump is a total creep. Both parties exude nothing but stench. Yet Xi and Putin are Trump's/US' vassals, even more disgusting. When called upon to jump, they do a dance and jump right through the ring as commanded.

A couple of weeks ago China and Russia made a reasonable statement pointing out that the way to peace had to involve regard for the security issues on both sides. Now they've burned that statement just because they were commanded to. Oh yes it's sort of there in the UNSC fine print, which I guess makes for a nice fig leaf.

James | Aug 7, 2017 10:36:38 AM | 84

Paul @ 83
Putin has not commented on the sanctions. Medvedev did. As for North Korea - that's a separate topic all together which I am sure b will cover.
Anon | Aug 7, 2017 10:47:28 AM | 85
paul

Yeah, one day before China and Russia blast sanctions imposed on themselves by Trump, then next day - they follow through with Trump and do the same onto North Korea. Hypocrisy and treachery!

lysias | Aug 7, 2017 10:48:13 AM | 86
A system of representative government that severely limited the power of the rich was that of ancient Athens. Council members and most government officials were chosen by lot from the whole body of adult male citizens. As a reading of elite authors like Plato will reveal, the rich didn't like this system at all.
RenoDino | Aug 7, 2017 10:50:25 AM | 87
The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later.
Just Sayin' | Aug 7, 2017 11:39:59 AM | 89
This 'Pipelineistan' [Bullshit?] conspiracy: The war in Syria has never been about gas
Paul Cochrane
Wednesday 10 May 2017 10:57 UTC

The pipeline hypotheses do not stand up to the realities of how energy is transported through the Middle East in the 21st century

3. No Qatari offer to Damascus

The pipeline narrative, from 2013 onwards, also makes much mention of Damascus rebuffing an alleged Qatari offer in 2009 to build a pipeline. This part of the story hinges around statements by unnamed diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse article about a meeting between Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan.

Qatar's then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (R) and First Lady Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al-Misned (L) welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma at Doha airport in January 2010 (AFP)

The report says: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

But Dargin says: "There are no credible sources that show that Qatar even approached Syria in 2009 and was rebuffed in the process. I am not saying it definitely did not occur, rather there is no evidence supporting this claim."

Syrian experts also support Dargin's rebuttal, highlighting the burgeoning economic and political ties between Doha and Damascus.

'An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline' - Jihad Yazigi, Syria Report

Yassin-Kassab says: "The absurdity is that relations between the Assad regime and the Qataris were excellent until summer 2011. Assad and his wife and the Qatari royal couple were also being portrayed as personal friends."

Although Assad may have repeatedly criticized Qatar since late 2011 onwards for supporting "terrorists," he has never publicly stated that Qatari support for the rebels was over a future pipeline.

Jihad Yazigi, editor of economy website Syria Report, says: "An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline; that is telling in itself, that Assad never mentioned it."


4. The Moscow-Tehran connection

Then there's the other part of the Pipelineistan puzzle – the Iran-Syria pipeline, also known as the Islamic Pipeline.

Yazigi explains: "The Islamic pipeline has been talked about for years. There were pre-contract memorandums of understanding, but until July 2011, there was no formal signing [between Syria and Iran]. You can't argue this is a serious reason to destroy the whole country. "

While the project was politically expedient, it ignored economic and energy realities. First, the project was estimated to cost $10 billion, but it was unclear who would foot the bill, particularly as Tehran was – and still is – under US and international sanctions, as is Syria, since 2011.

Second, Iran lacks the capabilities to export significant amounts of gas. Sanctions mean it cannot access the advanced US technology that would allow it to exploit gas from the South Pars field that borders Qatar.

dh | Aug 7, 2017 11:41:03 AM | 90
@71 James, there are many small contractors involved in Nordstream in several countries. The sanctions are designed to squeeze them out and make Nordstream impossible.

It's not unlike the strategy being used against NK. They are designed to make life even more difficult for ordinary people....perhaps drive them into China and cause China to attack NK.

dh | Aug 7, 2017 11:57:30 AM | 91
@90 Should have included this link...it mentions the situation with the Black Sea pipeline.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-sanctions-gazprom-analysis-idUSKBN1AJ1AN

Skip | Aug 7, 2017 12:04:55 PM | 92
@15

"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster."

Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that almost never go to the top of the building.

Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.

All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven, not here on Terra Firma.

Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced' members of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval rating.

karlof1 | Aug 7, 2017 12:16:45 PM | 93
Grieved @66 & 67--

Thanks for your reply and endorsement.

Something to consider when dealing with the Revolutionary time period is what part of the populous is considered "The People," as in "We The People"? And just how equal in reality were those people in 1776 when the phrase "All men are created equal" appeared? This is of great importance when we look at the proportion of the populous that was allowed to have a stake in the process and compare that with the amount of time it took until a majority was finally deemed to have equal rights under the law--1920 within USA--although it can be argued that full equality under the law is still lacking as Glenn Greenwald did to great affect in With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality . Two works providing info on this issue are The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States and People of Paradox: An Inquiry Concerning the Origins of American Civilization , although there are many others.

Is the United States federal government reformable? IMO, as currently constituted, no. A new document and associated institutions needs to be written and built, although some current institutions will have a place within the new construct. Yes, I did write a Constitution 3.0 using Madisonian principles not long after the fiasco of the 2000 election to use as a classroom discussion tool. But to have any chance at making that reality, the Rule of Law must be reinstated within the Outlaw US Empire in order to bring the Deep State to Justice and thus its destruction.

james | Aug 7, 2017 12:44:43 PM | 94
@78 lea.. i agree.

@81 James.. i agree as well - "they want an escalation and cold war." keeping the us$ supreme is the forever game plan..

@83 paul.. as always thanks for the laugh..

nurse.comic | Aug 7, 2017 1:02:13 PM | 95
I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard as portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US working constructively>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less conflict. As he says, "The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility".
Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations between Russian and the US. I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article. Or rather I am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.
Arioch | Aug 7, 2017 1:30:51 PM | 96
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.

@18 - or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS. Then - the second option.

AT #88:

Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill – Parabolic Arc

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/17/russian-rocket-engines-exempted-sanctions-bill/

AT #88:

Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill – Parabolic Arc

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/17/russian-rocket-engines-exempted-sanctions-bill/

17 Jun 2017 ... Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill ... using at least one Russian engine to try to placate the Great Russia ... Which means that it could've been human rated or fixed to meet the NASA needs. Tom Billings • 1 month ago. And cost two to four times as much as an Atlas V. Those LHy/Lox ...
/div

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 3:12:30 PM | 99
At #96:
or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS. Then - the second option.

Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think tanks'. They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. He is after all, a billionaire capitalist, who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and probably some in Russia as well. Show me a big capitalist who hasn't?

In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told!

[Aug 08, 2017] According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called deep state is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration

Notable quotes:
"... "According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out." ..."
Aug 08, 2017 | foreignpolicy.com

Anyone else seen this little beauty from Foreign Policy?

"According to a source familiar with the matter, McMaster is trying to dismiss anyone involved with a controversial memo arguing that the so-called "deep state" is engaged in a Maoist-style insurgency against the Trump administration. The author of that memo, NSC staffer Rich Higgins, has already been fired, and at least two other anti-globalist NSC staffers have also been forced out."

Heh heh heh the trumpeters Vs the corporatists - every oppressive theocracy should be made to play this game; of course the audience is susceptible to table-tennis watchers neck from swivelling to follow the dried dog turd bouncing back n forth, but the popcorn is pretty good.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Aug 6, 2017 10:27:47 PM | 68

[Aug 08, 2017] What if Trump did want sanctions ?

Notable quotes:
"... The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later. ..."
Aug 08, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 56

Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he only writes a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed in MSM.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:29:32 PM | 61

Shh | Aug 6, 2017 6:47:33 PM | 63

It's possible that the US strategic end game is not one we understand and highly effective. What that might be is obscured by reason.

Hahahahahaha! oh I slay me!

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:49:46 PM | 64
Not Off Topic: Learned of yet another head of state assassination done by CIA prior to JFK's, Pakistan's first PM, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, "according to State Department documents," http://www.thedailystar.net/world/south-asia/cia-killed-first-pm-pakistan-1442917
Fidelios Automata | Aug 6, 2017 9:58:07 PM | 65
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
Grieved | Aug 6, 2017 10:26:56 PM | 67
@42 james

It's rare that LOL actually means what it says but reading your comment I burst out laughing. Thank you.

On reflection, however, I have to say that I feel the US system has great merit. The country may well be fucked, but the underlying system has the potential to be workable, in suitable hands.

I don't know of any representative system in the world that isn't gamed by the big boys. This business of the people's actually having a say in how a nation is run is a newish thing, by and large, I think. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's been perfected yet. To me, it's still a miracle that even the pretense of having it exists - and this speaks loudly of something real that inheres in the people and that rulers remain wary of, at every turn.

I don't know if before the American Revolution anyone in the world ever published the paradigm that national sovereignty derives exclusively from the sovereignty of the individual persons that comprise the nation. I only know where I heard it first, and still hear it today.

I actually admire what the framers of the Constitution put together, having read their discussions verbatim. But it was the Bill of Rights that enabled that document to be ratified - it would not have happened without the Ten Amendments. And that powerful piece of negotiation came from the people, and their States. So we see in the US system a combination of interests.

I'm not ready yet to write it off, and I don't say that it was in itself compromised from the beginning. Gamed and bypassed, yes, certainly. We're still working on ruling ourselves, we sovereign individuals. Story not finished yet.

PavewayIV | Aug 7, 2017 12:09:28 AM | 70
Debsisdead@68 - Everyone seems to take a side on McMaster. Some conservative press claims he's cleaning house of Israeli-firsters, a claim denied by TimesofIsrael despite their description of Ezra Cohen-Watnik as a "Jewish official". They see a common thread of 'Iran hawks' in the McMaster purge. Other conservative press sees McMaster as the puppet of Saudi-controlled Soros, wonderfully illustrated here . Their association with the Richard Higgins memo is less clear, and the memo (and Higgins views in general) are usually portrayed as nutty. The Atlantic just published an article that gives a more rational-sounding (relative, I know...) description of Higgins views in the memo as:
"...Higgins's memo describes supposed domestic and international threats to Trump's presidency, including globalists, bankers, the "deep state," and Islamists. The memo characterizes the Russia story as a plot to sabotage Trump's nationalist agenda. It asserts that globalists and Islamists are seeking to destroy America. The memo also includes a set of recommendations, arguing that the problem constitutes a national-security priority..."

I have to say that the threat to Trump's presidency seems real enough regardless of the debate about who or why.

The real reason I think Higgins was fired: he had called for whistle-blowers in US law enforcement and the DHS to come forward with evidence of being ordered to allow suspected terrorists into the US and systematic blindness at all levels of any monitoring or investigation. This is all (according to him) being driven by political correctness and the globalist's/Soros' 'open borders' scheme. Nutty conspiracy theory? I'm not so sure. I keep hearing the same thing from European nations - an official (but secret) policy of turning a blind eye to terrorism suspects entering their country. That's a damn strange 'conspiracy theory' coincidence across the pond, if I do say so myself.

Back to the McMaster 'purge' - who knows? Nobody is in charge at the White House and everyone is purging everyone else (apparently even Trump). McMaster himself is thought to be in danger of dismissal - his grand hawkish plans for a renewed, invigorated Afghanistan War version 2.0 were quickly rejected by Trump. The plans were essentially, "We'll try again in Afghanistan, but with more troops... and we'll REALLY mean it this time!"

I don't necessarily think Trump is against US world domination schemes. He is just skeptical of the clownish, sure-to-fail linear-thinking plans the neocons have typically choked out. Incometence - sad! Trump would rather bumble into a war all on his own, I guess...

James | Aug 7, 2017 1:40:27 AM | 71
Thanks for this insight into the Sanctions bill - b.

What I'm waiting for is the response of the EU ( Germany)
Will they stop nord stream 2 ?

Also do these sanctions affect Turk stream? I can't see Erdogan stopping this pipeline which will underpin Turkeys economic developments and build stronger reflations with those in Southern Europe - Hungary, Bulgaria, and the ex-Yugoslavia countries.

As for the Baltic countries and Poland - they are the fly in the EU ointment making a unified EU response impossible - always ready to do the US bidding especially if it involves attacking Russia. But even here does economic concerns come even before this? as LNG from the US will cost far far more than Russian gas.

Poland would loose transit fees due to nordstream 2 . Then we have Ukraine who need the transit fees - it's part of their budget. The Infrastructure however needs investment - and who will do that.

Also the does anyone know if the pipeline to china - can't remember its name - is being built and when that is due to be operational

All in all the sanctions bill just codified the domestic Russophobia and if anything should kill off the Pro - American wing that exists in Russia. The accusations against Russia were unjust and have not been proved.

The main response from Russia will be to further insulate itself from these type of attacks which are only possible through being part of the dollar economy.

P S - I disagree with b that Medvedev could be president again. Most Russians don't even want him as prime minister! His statement read to me as a reflection of his personal disappointment in Trump.

psychohistorian | Aug 7, 2017 1:54:44 AM | 72
@ b who wrote:
"
These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years.
"
I think that the geo-political situation is too volatile at this time to make this claim and one, multiple and/or a sequence of events is going to precipitate a crisis that will end the current shape of our world and birth something else....the crisis will include a global debt "reset" of some sort if not frontal on attack on private finance global tools......whatever is going to happen will occur in less than 30 years is my point to counter b's statement.

What will the US do to precipitate the crisis TPTB seem to be jonesing for?....or will the rest of the world continue to stand by and watch the center of empire collapse of its own deathly dissonance?

Steve | Aug 7, 2017 3:19:43 AM | 73
I concur with everything in this piece but this line: "Core European countries will resist pressures that endanger their economies." I doubt there is any European country that has the backbone to stand up against the US interest at this moment.
Anon | Aug 7, 2017 4:46:34 AM | 74
Whats worse is the stupid sanctions on NK, pushed by neocons and supported by not only stupid warmongering EU but also Russia and China! Talk about being naive and a sell out!
J Swift | Aug 7, 2017 7:37:02 AM | 75
Are we underestimating the importance of it being Medvedev who sent such a blunt and honest critique of the sanctions scheme? He is the spokesboy for the pro-West/oligarch/integrationist half of the Russian government. For him to make such a statement must have been either as a plea or warning ("Dude! You're killing your own agents over here!); or perhaps its more grave and is more of an indication that even the lapdogs in Russia are disgusted and angry and prepared to side with Putin's sovereign Russia camp and make some of the financial changes Putin has been sneaking up on for the last few years. Either way, sounds like it could be good news for Russia, and more strengthening of Putin's hand as we approach their election cycle. He may already have the political capital to kick out or hamstring most of the foreign NGOs, which he certainly needs to do as a follow-up to the diplomatic staff reductions. Should be interesting.
john | Aug 7, 2017 7:41:19 AM | 76
a million laughs how so much commentary in its infinite wisdom still confers such faith in our hallowed institutions. be it a Congress that votes unanimously to sanction a sovereign nation based on unproven absurdities while ignoring their president's lobbing of 60 cruise missiles into another sovereign nation for, well, for no real reason at all, actually, oh yeah, for other unproven absurdities, to some purported strategy for the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom to presumably restore good sense and order to perfidious political shenanigans(oooh, the intrigue)...that would be the same Supreme Court that protects scum-of-the-earth corporate personhood above all else(remember Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker ?).
okie farmer | Aug 7, 2017 8:18:22 AM | 77
Google: Lost in translation?

by Seamus Padraig In an article sure to breathe life into the old conspiracy theories about Silicon Valley and the CIA, The Guardian recently reported that: Google has fixed an "automated" error which saw its online translating tool convert "Russian Federation" into "Mordor". Other erroneous translations included "russians" becoming "occupiers" and the name of Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, rendered as "sad little horse". Mordor is the fictional realm in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings books, also known as the land of shadows. The error, which Google said is down to an automatic bug, appeared in the online tool when users converted the Ukranian [sic] language into Russian. Google, naturally, denied any 'evil' intent, telling The Guardian in a written statement that its translator tool works "without the intervention of human translators". Sure it does! And no doubt the problem was fixed automatically too, wasn't it! Down in the comboxes, many took the opportunity to bash Russia and all things Russian, but at least one commenter decided to take a shot at the messenger.

Lea | Aug 7, 2017 8:24:50 AM | 78
A Russian MP talking to RT has an interesting and simple take: Trump made no mistake and is no puppet. He knowingly declared a trade war onto Russia, while retaining a "good cop" attitude designed to shift the blame and hopefully to keep a good image among his anti-war voters, Obama-style, of "prisoner in the White House" (poor guy is "forced to be tough" against his will, sob).

Sometimes, the simplest explanation makes the most sense, all the more as, every time Trump has made amicable noises in the past, something bad has ensued. What if it's no accident?

https://www.rt.com/politics/398429-trump-is-no-puppet-russian/

Piotr Berman | Aug 7, 2017 9:24:06 AM | 79
While the percentage of Germans mentioning Russia as the largest foreign threat dropped to 33% (below 35 for USA), Poland has hefty 65%. Main political parties vigorously insult each other, and Russian/Putin stooge is a favorite (although creativity in that field exceeds American standards, polite Britain not really competing). Thus I was surprised that the current foreign minister made an effort to allow several interviews with Russian media. Among others, he stated that while Poland is interested in American liquified natural gas, at this time it is not competitive with Russian natural gas (it seems that European gas prices are at least double of those in Europe, but liquifying, transporting highly explosive cargo etc. adds a lot to the cost). And the purchase of American Patriots is needed, but not finalized (the government talks a lot about expanding the military to face the Russian threat, but they are surprisingly stingy with arms budget, so far they got a big fleet of armored limousines for VIPs and few Being planes, also for VIPs).

Basically, even most Russophobic politicians do not want real breakdown in trade, and given that arms industry is mostly non-domestic, they have measured enthusiasm for the arms race. I guess Waszczykowski (English phonetics: Vashchikofky) does not support new American sanctions. The other aspect is that the current government is in conflict with "EU bureacracy", but what alternatives does Poland have? Well... there are some, right?

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 9:33:57 AM | 80
At #38
Here's some links that try to explain why the US isn't building the Russian aka Soviet RD180 rocket engine:
James | Aug 7, 2017 9:49:40 AM | 81

I agree with the post at 78. Trump is all in with these sanctions -- he is just trying to fool his base. Does anyone really think he did not know the bill was being drafted - Paul Ryan and Priebus would have told him. An article on antiwar.com states the following.

Tillerson says he's told Russia that US will respond by Sept. 1 to Moscow's move to expel US diplomats. They want an escalation and Cold War

Bluemot5 | Aug 7, 2017 10:21:52 AM | 82
". This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy. " b

Seems to me that Russian gas probably has a much smaller carbon footprint than fracked, compressed, shipped and regassified USA shale gas? I have searched but not found any carbon footprint comparisons online.

if Russian gas is much cleaner, they could win at least on the public opinion front on this issue....

paul | Aug 7, 2017 10:27:41 AM | 83
For Putin to whine and cry about sanctions vs Russia whilst hammering North Korea with sanctions is just pure hypocrisy - raging, insane hypocrisy - at best. Putin, it's clear now, is just a punk and a thug and ultimately a US vassal. Xi the same. Before I thought that somehow those two leaders, bad as they are, were pillars of decency and integrity compared to US misleaders. That, it seems, has changed. US misleaders are worse than ever. Trump is a total creep. Both parties exude nothing but stench. Yet Xi and Putin are Trump's/US' vassals, even more disgusting. When called upon to jump, they do a dance and jump right through the ring as commanded.

A couple of weeks ago China and Russia made a reasonable statement pointing out that the way to peace had to involve regard for the security issues on both sides. Now they've burned that statement just because they were commanded to. Oh yes it's sort of there in the UNSC fine print, which I guess makes for a nice fig leaf.

James | Aug 7, 2017 10:36:38 AM | 84

Paul @ 83
Putin has not commented on the sanctions. Medvedev did. As for North Korea - that's a separate topic all together which I am sure b will cover.
Anon | Aug 7, 2017 10:47:28 AM | 85
paul

Yeah, one day before China and Russia blast sanctions imposed on themselves by Trump, then next day - they follow through with Trump and do the same onto North Korea. Hypocrisy and treachery!

lysias | Aug 7, 2017 10:48:13 AM | 86
A system of representative government that severely limited the power of the rich was that of ancient Athens. Council members and most government officials were chosen by lot from the whole body of adult male citizens. As a reading of elite authors like Plato will reveal, the rich didn't like this system at all.
RenoDino | Aug 7, 2017 10:50:25 AM | 87
The Trump Presidency is effectively over. It ended on the day he signed the Sanctions Bill. A velvet junta has assumed control of the executive branch. Trump's family and advisors await conviction. The Generals are now in charge and will lead us into the next war sooner than later.
Just Sayin' | Aug 7, 2017 11:39:59 AM | 89
This 'Pipelineistan' [Bullshit?] conspiracy: The war in Syria has never been about gas
Paul Cochrane
Wednesday 10 May 2017 10:57 UTC

The pipeline hypotheses do not stand up to the realities of how energy is transported through the Middle East in the 21st century

3. No Qatari offer to Damascus

The pipeline narrative, from 2013 onwards, also makes much mention of Damascus rebuffing an alleged Qatari offer in 2009 to build a pipeline. This part of the story hinges around statements by unnamed diplomats in a 2013 Agence France-Presse article about a meeting between Russia's President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia's Bandar bin Sultan.

Qatar's then-Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani (R) and First Lady Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser al-Misned (L) welcome Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife Asma at Doha airport in January 2010 (AFP)

The report says: "In 2009, Assad refused to sign an agreement with Qatar for an overland pipeline running from the Gulf to Europe via Syria to protect the interests of its Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

But Dargin says: "There are no credible sources that show that Qatar even approached Syria in 2009 and was rebuffed in the process. I am not saying it definitely did not occur, rather there is no evidence supporting this claim."

Syrian experts also support Dargin's rebuttal, highlighting the burgeoning economic and political ties between Doha and Damascus.

'An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline' - Jihad Yazigi, Syria Report

Yassin-Kassab says: "The absurdity is that relations between the Assad regime and the Qataris were excellent until summer 2011. Assad and his wife and the Qatari royal couple were also being portrayed as personal friends."

Although Assad may have repeatedly criticized Qatar since late 2011 onwards for supporting "terrorists," he has never publicly stated that Qatari support for the rebels was over a future pipeline.

Jihad Yazigi, editor of economy website Syria Report, says: "An important aspect that we don't talk about is the Syrian government never said the Qataris were fighting for a pipeline; that is telling in itself, that Assad never mentioned it."


4. The Moscow-Tehran connection

Then there's the other part of the Pipelineistan puzzle – the Iran-Syria pipeline, also known as the Islamic Pipeline.

Yazigi explains: "The Islamic pipeline has been talked about for years. There were pre-contract memorandums of understanding, but until July 2011, there was no formal signing [between Syria and Iran]. You can't argue this is a serious reason to destroy the whole country. "

While the project was politically expedient, it ignored economic and energy realities. First, the project was estimated to cost $10 billion, but it was unclear who would foot the bill, particularly as Tehran was – and still is – under US and international sanctions, as is Syria, since 2011.

Second, Iran lacks the capabilities to export significant amounts of gas. Sanctions mean it cannot access the advanced US technology that would allow it to exploit gas from the South Pars field that borders Qatar.

dh | Aug 7, 2017 11:41:03 AM | 90
@71 James, there are many small contractors involved in Nordstream in several countries. The sanctions are designed to squeeze them out and make Nordstream impossible.

It's not unlike the strategy being used against NK. They are designed to make life even more difficult for ordinary people....perhaps drive them into China and cause China to attack NK.

dh | Aug 7, 2017 11:57:30 AM | 91
@90 Should have included this link...it mentions the situation with the Black Sea pipeline.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-sanctions-gazprom-analysis-idUSKBN1AJ1AN

Skip | Aug 7, 2017 12:04:55 PM | 92
@15

"Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster."

Gag me with a spoon. This argument is so old and so worn thin. Statistically 95+% of these fools are reelected because the highly cerebral voters you refer to have elevators that almost never go to the top of the building.

Money, money money. That's what drives the engine of elections. Incumbents have it working for them in so many ways: PACs, corporate centers of influence; radio and teevee.

All of the alternatives you propose are red herrings. They are only workable in heaven, not here on Terra Firma.

Remember, all of that institutional memory brought about by all of the 'experienced' members of congress got us where we are today. And, it's gotten them a 10% approval rating.

karlof1 | Aug 7, 2017 12:16:45 PM | 93
Grieved @66 & 67--

Thanks for your reply and endorsement.

Something to consider when dealing with the Revolutionary time period is what part of the populous is considered "The People," as in "We The People"? And just how equal in reality were those people in 1776 when the phrase "All men are created equal" appeared? This is of great importance when we look at the proportion of the populous that was allowed to have a stake in the process and compare that with the amount of time it took until a majority was finally deemed to have equal rights under the law--1920 within USA--although it can be argued that full equality under the law is still lacking as Glenn Greenwald did to great affect in With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality . Two works providing info on this issue are The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States and People of Paradox: An Inquiry Concerning the Origins of American Civilization , although there are many others.

Is the United States federal government reformable? IMO, as currently constituted, no. A new document and associated institutions needs to be written and built, although some current institutions will have a place within the new construct. Yes, I did write a Constitution 3.0 using Madisonian principles not long after the fiasco of the 2000 election to use as a classroom discussion tool. But to have any chance at making that reality, the Rule of Law must be reinstated within the Outlaw US Empire in order to bring the Deep State to Justice and thus its destruction.

james | Aug 7, 2017 12:44:43 PM | 94
@78 lea.. i agree.

@81 James.. i agree as well - "they want an escalation and cold war." keeping the us$ supreme is the forever game plan..

@83 paul.. as always thanks for the laugh..

nurse.comic | Aug 7, 2017 1:02:13 PM | 95
I was happily surprised to just read the BRZEZINSKI article which wasn't ruthless chessboard as portrayed here. The quote doesn't give a good idea of what the article says about the US working constructively>> with both Russia and China not for domination but less conflict. As he says, "The alternative to a constructive vision, and especially the quest for a one-sided militarily and ideologically imposed outcome, can only result in prolonged and self-destructive futility".
Zbigniew Brzezinski died in May, as late as April this year he was calling for closer relations between Russian and the US. I am sad to see this site misuse him in this article. Or rather I am glad because now I hold ZB a bit higher and will be even more cautious here.
Arioch | Aug 7, 2017 1:30:51 PM | 96
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.

@18 - or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS. Then - the second option.

AT #88:

Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill – Parabolic Arc

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/17/russian-rocket-engines-exempted-sanctions-bill/

AT #88:

Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill – Parabolic Arc

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/06/17/russian-rocket-engines-exempted-sanctions-bill/

17 Jun 2017 ... Russian Rocket Engines Exempted from Sanctions Bill ... using at least one Russian engine to try to placate the Great Russia ... Which means that it could've been human rated or fixed to meet the NASA needs. Tom Billings • 1 month ago. And cost two to four times as much as an Atlas V. Those LHy/Lox ...
/div

William Bowles | Aug 7, 2017 3:12:30 PM | 99
At #96:
or the opposite. If Trump really is isolationists and if he wants USA isolate itself on the two Americas, then he has two options: make America turn its back on the world, or make the world turn its back on America. The first option he failed, DC regime is stronger than POUTS. Then - the second option.

Everything continues as 'normal' with Trump as Prez, except, he's a bit of a loose canon, not one of the 'boys'. Worse still, he actually believes that the prez runs the show! I don't know prezs actually last ran the show, maybe Kennedy, maybe never. Big capital runs the show and uses structures like the CFR, Bilderberg, Chatham House, plus of course, the universities and 'think tanks'. They're not united however, as Trump so forcefully reveals. So how to deal with him without giving the game away? Pre-election, they tried ridicule. Post, they're trying to incriminate him and it shouldn't be difficult to do, without Russia. He is after all, a billionaire capitalist, who must have done all kinds shady, nee illegal deals and probably some in Russia as well. Show me a big capitalist who hasn't?

In a strange way, Trump is actually helping them by being such a big doofus. I think the lights are on but nobody's home. If only he'd behave the way Obummer did, and do as he's told!

[Aug 07, 2017] Us dollar is the focal point of the US military adventures

Notable quotes:
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov, Website

@Sergey Krieger
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.

Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home.

Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.

Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.

[Aug 07, 2017] Us dollar is the focal point of the US military adventures

Notable quotes:
"... Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it. ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Andrei Martyanov, Website

@Sergey Krieger
Us$ is being main focal point. While wrong perception maintained about usa military conventional superiority over anyone was critical to mantain us$ status, us$ status as major reserve currency is the only thing that allowing united States to mantain her military at current levels and basically USA status as major global power. Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home. Everything that undermines us$ status is well come including showing USA military impotence vs major nations that are challenging the status quo.

Take us$ status away and the king is naked USA would become very local power with vastly reduced if not ruined military and great issues at home.

Very true. In fact, US military (in its conventional iteration) is one of the main (if not the main) pillar of the US Dollar as a main reserve currency, hence of US economy. It is, in effect, a business enterprise -- that is why US strategic (and military-doctrinal) though becomes increasingly incoherent -- one can formulate "global power" memes only for so long, at some point the sheer idiocy and futility of such "thinking" becomes evident even to those who believe in it.

Only complete crazies remain. Plus, inability to realize itself as a real continental power is akin to acute sexual frustration.

[Aug 07, 2017] Nekrasov film about Magnitsky and Browder

Aug 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Corvinus > , August 4, 2017 at 12:49 pm GMT

@geokat62


Which, in the end, is irrelevant to his testimony. Nice try.
I beg to differ. Ever heard of the expression: "actions speak louder than words"?

Why would someone who is purportedly telling the truth run away from someone who is trying to serve him a subpoena to appear in court? Or, as Giraldi put it:

"In one case he can be seen on YouTube running away from a server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide." "Why would someone who is purportedly telling the truth run away from someone who is trying to serve him a subpoena to appear in court?"

You probably will be asking that question to members of Trump's team in the coming months.

Regardless, as I stated earlier, Browder undoubtedly tried to make money through questionable, or even illegal means. And in the end, his testimony was unwavering.

"In one case he can be seen on YouTube running away from a server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide."

It is other than unusual for people who are guilty of something to avoid potential negative consequences, whether it be a five-year-old boy who took some cookies when he wasn't suppose to or whether it be an older man who was engaged in fraudulent activities.

He had little to hide once he was secured by the legal system and compelled to testify. Again, his testimony was unwavering.

Don Bass > , August 4, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT

First four words of the article: "Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer" . And so the article begins with an egregious error. As fellow Unz contributor Israel Shamir states. Magnitsky was a tax accountant With a talent for tax minimisation and tax avoidance schemes Only his after his death did he become a Russian "lawyer" a promotion or career allocation by Browder.

It is worth noting that while in prison Magnitsky stated he feared for his life from Browder, who indeed does seem to have benefitted from Sergei's demise. Language again masks and misdirects the truth.

geokat62 > , August 5, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT

@Corvinus

He had little to hide once he was secured by the legal system and compelled to testify.

Which legal system are you referring to? Not the Senate Judiciary Hearing, I hope? If so, you must have been impressed by the grilling to which Bill Browder, the witness, was exposed. He looked like he was about to melt sitting in the hot seat for over an hour and a half. The cross-examining was relentless.

Again, his testimony was unwavering.

It was unwavering because there was no one their to contradict his statements. Which member of the Judiciary committee would you say posed the most difficult questions to Bill Browder? That was no proceeding of the legal system, it was a Putin hate fest, joined in by every single member of the committee.

The irony of the subject matter before the committee could not have been any greater. Bill Browder filing a compliant under FARA that representatives of the Russian government were trying to influence US gov't policy by attempting to lift the Magnitsky sanctions.

For those who haven't been drinking the Zionist kool-aid, it is incredible to witness a hearing investigating interference by a foreign government (in this case Russia), while the whole political system is beholden to the Zionist Lobby and no one is questioning why they are not required to register under FARA. You have to be totally politically ignorant not to see the incredible irony in that. Could you even imagine these illustrious members of the Judicial Committee putting pointed questions to a witness of The Lobby seeking to expose it to the light of day. Hell will freeze over before any of us witness a day like that.

MarkinLA > , August 5, 2017 at 1:07 am GMT

@Corvinus The NYAG is looking into human sex trafficking and money laundering against Trump Model Management.

Seriously, Trump wanting to create a modeling agency of the likes of Elite and Wilhelmina is supposed to be a front for prostitution and call girls who are sex slaves? Give Trump some credit, high end call girls are anything but sex slaves. Sex slaves usually come from places Trump would never even visit.

What is your definition of "real proof"?

Well it certainly isn't the testimony of some highly suspect scumbag like Browder.

Tony > , August 5, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT

@Rehmat Hey rehmat you still around. Figured you'd be deported already. Trump got his eye on you boy.

geokat62 > , August 5, 2017 at 2:12 am GMT

The purpose was to find facts. There was a specific purpose in mind.

The purpose was not to find facts. It was to vilify Putin as the next Hilter.

It's not about Jews, it's about specific Russians and their relationship with Trump.

You are so clueless, it isn't funny. The Lobby has a stranglehold over the American political system and you're obsessed with what those dastardly Ruskies are up to.

Just keep watching the Lugenpresse of Weimerica and I'm sure you'll be able to connect the dots if not this millennium, then the next.

Focus on the substance. You are emphasizing peripherals.

Look who's talking!

MarkinLA > , August 5, 2017 at 2:28 am GMT

@Corvinus Nobody's testimony is real proof of anything. What does he have to back up his testimony? Nothing but his "sacred honor".

Trump has been all over the world, especially Eastern Europe. Allegedly, underage sex slaves were procured there through Trump Modeling.

Imagine, modeling agencies going where the prettiest girls in the world are. This is obviously proof of a crime. Trump like any big agency has people scouting for him. Trump doesn't see them in person until they back to NYC.

It is amazing that you are so willing to believe such drivel without any proof.

ussr andy > , August 5, 2017 at 4:25 am GMT

@Boris N

But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well.

I think the whole Crimea business though showed that Putin has some geopolitical vision. He didn't need any of the stuff that followed. So he can't be purely a comprador and a time-server.

And I don't see how the Russian government is colonial and to whom (except in the sense that elites tax farming a working population, i.e. the whole system of wage labor, is colonial.) Putin does seem to try to preserve what little has been left of the USSR, basic research, defense, which IMO is about as anti-colonial and close to "wanting good for the people" as it gets.

ussr andy > , August 5, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT

@Boris N you know, there are people who say the 1979 Revolution was in essense a bourgeois revolution under an Islamic sauce (or anesthetic) and the conflicts between the West and Iran should be regarded as an internecine conflict between various brands of pro-Western (and ultimately, anti-Persian people) colonialists.

hence why it's hard for me to see this "liberalism sucks but so does Putin" opinion and claims of complete continuity between Yeltsin and Putin as anything but concern trolling.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 5, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT

@rod1963 Just a small example of how the christian (their boast) west has systematically looted the world, for God only knows how long. Is it any wonder that they have built such elaborate cities and succeeded in so many fields?

Immense success through ill gotten wealth, by the most immoral people, with the best masks.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 5, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

@Sebastian Puettmann "Your enemies are not wealthy Jews who see investments opportunities first."

You sir, must be one those who was indeed "born yesterday." ;D

Alfred > , August 6, 2017 at 4:42 am GMT

"Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer" Sorry. He was an accountant. He never studied law. He is not a qualified lawyer in Russia or anywhere else. Please stop repeating this piece of fiction. His speciality was tax-avoidance.

The cop who was accused of mistreating him started a libel case in London over this matter. The English judge decided that since this Russian policeman had no reputation to protect in the UK, the case cannot proceed.

geokat62 > , August 6, 2017 at 10:10 am GMT

@Alfred

Sorry. He was an accountant. He never studied law. He is not a qualified lawyer in Russia or anywhere else. Please stop repeating this piece of fiction. His speciality was tax-avoidance.

But Browder "solemnly, sincerely and truly affirmed" that he was his lawyer, as part of his compelling and unwavering testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, right Corvy?

geokat62 > , August 6, 2017 at 10:58 am GMT

@Corvinus

Yes, those Jews are everywhere. They are even hiding under your bed. Boo!

Under my bed? Try at the top of this page.

Again, in the coming months, we will find out.

Months? You've got to be joking. This will be dragged out until next year's mid-terms at least, if not the 2020 election. Corvy, sorry to disappoint you, but there is no there, there.

If you'd paid closer attention, you would know this. Why aren't you familiar with this blockbuster news story:

Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence
July 24, 2017

In a memo to President Trump, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, cite new forensic studies to challenge the claim of the key Jan. 6 "assessment" that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails last year.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Was the "Russian Hack" an Inside Job?

Executive Summary

Forensic studies of "Russian hacking" into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computers, and then doctored to incriminate Russia.

After examining metadata from the "Guccifer 2.0" July 5, 2016 intrusion into the DNC server, independent cyber investigators have concluded that an insider copied DNC data onto an external storage device, and that "telltale signs" implicating Russia were then inserted.

Key among the findings of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack. Of equal importance, the forensics show that the copying and doctoring were performed on the East coast of the U.S. Thus far, mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies [see here and here].

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-russia-hack-evidence/

Pretty interesting stuff, hey Corvy. Don't you find it rather peculiar that the "mainstream media have ignored the findings of these independent studies"?

Why would that be, Corvy? Any hypotheses?

geokat62 > , August 6, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT

and in part because editors deem this story as other than important at this time.

Kind'a like the story that broke in the alternative media a few years back about Snowden's disclosure that the NSA had contracted out spying on Americans to their Israeli counterpart and how the editor of the NYT (the paper of [false] record) refused to cover it? Something along those lines?

Here's a previous comment of mine:

And we only found out about this secret MOU because Edward Snowden was courageous enough to disclose it. You would think that this bombshell of a story would be reported on the front page of the NYT, the so-called newspaper of record, right? Here's what Margaret Sullivan of the NYT wrote shortly after the disclosure:

After no mention was made in The Times of the article, I asked the managing editor, Dean Baquet, about it on Monday morning.

"I didn't think it was a significant or surprising story," he said. "I think the more energy we put into chasing the small ones , the less time we have to break our own. Not to mention cover the turmoil in Syria."

So, I asked him, by e-mail, was this essentially a question of reporting resources? After all, The Times could have published an article written by a wire service, like Reuters or The Associated Press.

"I'd say resources and news judgment," he responded.

In a world with many news outlets, he said: "We can spend all our time matching stories, and not actually covering the news. This one was modest and didn't feel worth taking someone off greater enterprise. "

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/guardian-story-on-israel-and-n-s-a-is-not-surprising-enough-to-cover/?_r=0

Corvy, you keep waiting for the Lugenpresse of Weimerica (LOW) to report the truth. The irony is the Russian people came to realize their newspapers were telling them lies. I wonder how long it will take the average American to reach the same conclusion? Judging by a few of the commenters here, it may never happen.

Henry's Cat > , August 6, 2017 at 7:03 pm GMT

The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes," produced by Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov. The documentary had been blocked in Europe through lawsuits filed by some of the parties linked to the prevailing narrative..

Is this film commercially available anywhere? If not, why isn't it on YouTube, or any other video-sharing site outside the purview of European courts?

Perhaps Mr. Giraldi could explain more about Browder's involvement in the film, and his reaction when Nekrasov began to go off script. Did he seek to address Nekrasov's concerns? Did he try and scupper the release of the film? Was the film privately financed?

One really can't begin to make sense of things without a lot more knowledge of said affairs.

Philip Giraldi > , August 6, 2017 at 8:54 pm GMT

@Henry's Cat Henry – Bob Parry goes into the film much more deeply that I did. His article will likely answer all your questions: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/02/a-blacklisted-film-and-the-new-cold-war/ . I will have a new article on the story here at Unz on Tuesday. As far as I can tell, the film is not available anywhere due to lawsuits filed by Browder.

Henry's Cat > , August 6, 2017 at 10:15 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Mr. Giraldi, you wrote:

A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov documentary at the Newseum but it is not clear if any of them actually bothered to attend, demonstrating once again how America's legislature operates inside a bubble of willful ignorance of its own making. Nor was the event reported in the local "newspaper of record" the Washington Post, which has been consistently hostile to Russia on its editorial and news pages.

But the Parry piece you linked to says different: After the Newseum presentation, a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. I trust you won't make a distinction between reportage and an editorial.

Your reference to Browder being subpoenaed with regard to "allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are making their way through American courts" require more substance. Perhaps you'll address that on Tuesday.

As for the availability of the film, how did you get to see it? Parry says it's hiding on Vimeo.

Philip Giraldi > , August 6, 2017 at 10:34 pm GMT

@Henry's Cat Mr. Giraldi, you wrote:

A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov documentary at the Newseum but it is not clear if any of them actually bothered to attend, demonstrating once again how America's legislature operates inside a bubble of willful ignorance of its own making. Nor was the event reported in the local "newspaper of record" the Washington Post, which has been consistently hostile to Russia on its editorial and news pages.
But the Parry piece you linked to says different: After the Newseum presentation, a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. I trust you won't make a distinction between reportage and an editorial.

Your reference to Browder being subpoenaed with regard to "allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are making their way through American courts" require more substance. Perhaps you'll address that on Tuesday.

As for the availability of the film, how did you get to see it? Parry says it's hiding on Vimeo. The Washington Post did not announce it before the fact-after the fact is irrelevant since they only chose to attack it. I saw the viewing at Newseum.

[Aug 07, 2017] Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars

Notable quotes:
"... These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads. After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the aggression against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto Americans? Why does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is from RI, not the author) ..."
"... It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia. The Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar ..."
"... As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded. ..."
"... , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November. Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia. The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace. ..."
"... According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years. ..."
"... "When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions. ..."
"... But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets. ..."
"... Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars. ..."
"... And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West. ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Neocons Leverage Trump-Hate for More Wars

The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top Robert Parry 31

These arch-neocons, Krauthammer (left), and Kristol are still omni-present as talking heads. After all the war, death and suffering in the Middle East that they have cheered on, and all the aggression against Russia they have peddled, why are their views still pushed by the networks onto Americans? Why does Tucker Carlson have widely despised Krauthammer on all the time? (caption is from RI, not the author)


The enactment of new sanctions against Russia and Iran – with the support of nearly all Democrats and Republicans in Congress – shows how the warmongering neocons again have come out on top. A savvy Washington observer once told me that the political reality about the neoconservatives is that they alone couldn't win you a single precinct in the United States. But both Republicans and Democrats still line up to gain neocon support or at least neocon acceptance.

Part of the reason for this paradox is the degree of dominance that the neoconservatives have established in the national news media – as op-ed writers and TV commentators – and the neocon ties to the Israel Lobby that is famous for showering contributions on favored politicians and on the opponents of those not favored.

big-time foreign policy players in the Reagan administration , they also have demonstrated extraordinary resilience, receiving a steady flow of money often through U.S. government-funded grants from organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy and through donations from military contractors to hawkish neocon think tanks .

But neocons' most astonishing success over the past year may have been how they have pulled liberals and even some progressives into the neocon strategies for war and more war, largely by exploiting the Left's disgust with President Trump.

People who would normally favor international cooperation toward peaceful resolution of conflicts have joined the neocons in ratcheting up global tensions and making progress toward peace far more difficult.

The provocative "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act," which imposes sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea while tying President Trump's hands in removing those penalties, passed the Congress without a single Democrat voting no.

The only dissenting votes came from three Republican House members – Justin Amash of Michigan, Jimmy Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky – and from Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky and Independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Senate.

In other words, every Democrat present for the vote adopted the neocon position of escalating tensions with Russia and Iran. The new sanctions appear to close off hopes for a détente with Russia and may torpedo the nuclear agreement with Iran, which would put the bomb-bomb-bomb option back on the table just where the neocons want it.

The Putin Obstacle

As for Russia, the neocons have viewed President Vladimir Putin as a major obstacle to their plans at least since 2013 when he helped President Obama come up with a compromise with Syria that averted a U.S. military strike over dubious claims that the Syrian military was responsible for a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013.

Subsequent evidence indicated that the sarin attack most likely was a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate to trick the U.S. military into entering the war on Al Qaeda's side.

While you might wonder why the U.S. government would even think about taking actions that would benefit Al Qaeda, which lured the U.S. into this Mideast quagmire in the first place by attacking on 9/11, the answer is that Israel and the neocons – along with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni-governed states – favored an Al Qaeda victory if that was what was needed to shatter the so-called "Shiite crescent," anchored in Iran and reaching through Syria to Lebanon.

For his part, Putin compounded his offense to the neocons by facilitating Obama's negotiations with Iran that imposed strict constraints on Iran's actions toward development of a nuclear bomb and took U.S. war against Iran off the table. The neocons, Israel and Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. military to lead a bombing campaign against Iran with the hope of crippling their regional adversary and possibly even achieving "regime change" in Tehran.

Punishing Russia

It was in that time frame that NED's neocon President Carl Gershman identified Ukraine as the "biggest prize" and an important step toward the even bigger prize of removing Putin in Russia.

The Neo-Con's greatest fear - the Return of the Czar

Other U.S. government neocons, including Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain, delivered the Ukraine "prize" by supporting the Feb. 22, 2014 coup that overthrew the elected government of Ukraine and unleashed anti-Russian nationalists (including neo-Nazis) who began killing ethnic Russians in the south and east near Russia's border.

Many U.S. pundits and journalists – in the conservative, centrist and liberal media – were swept up by the various hysterias over Syria, Iran and Russia – much as they had been a decade earlier around the Iraq-WMD frenzy and the "responsibility to protect" (or R2P) argument for the violent "regime change" in Libya in 2011. In all these cases, the public debate was saturated with U.S. government and neocon propaganda, much of it false.But it worked. For instance, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks achieved extraordinary success in seducing many American "peace activists" to support the "regime change" war in Syria by sending sympathetic victims of the Syrian government on speaking tours.Meanwhile, the major U.S. media essentially flacked for "moderate" Syrian rebels who just happened to be fighting alongside Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and sharing their powerful U.S.-supplied weapons with the jihadists, all the better to kill Syrian soldiers trying to protect the secular government in Damascus.

Successful Propaganda

As part of this propaganda process, the jihadists' P.R. adjunct, known as the White Helmets , phoned in anti-government atrocity stories to eager and credulous Western journalists who didn't dare visit the Al Qaeda-controlled zones for fear of being beheaded.

Still, whenever the White Helmets or other "activists" accused the Syrian government of some unlikely chemical attack, the information was treated as gospel . When United Nations investigators, who were under enormous pressure to confirm the propaganda tales beloved in the West, uncovered evidence that one of the alleged chlorine attacks was staged by the jihadists, the mainstream U.S. media politely looked the other way and continued to treat the chemical-weapons stories as credible.

Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said , "Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press."

But all these successes in the neocons' "perception management" operations pale when compared to what the neocons have accomplished since Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton last November.

Fueled by the shock and disgust over the egotistical self-proclaimed pussy-grabber ascending to the highest office in the land, many Americans looked for both an excuse for explaining the outcome and a strategy for removing Trump as quickly as possible. The answer to both concerns became: blame Russia.

The evidence that Russia had "hacked our democracy" was very thin – some private outfit called Crowdstrike found Cyrillic lettering and a reference to the founder of the Soviet KGB in some of the metadata – but that "incriminating evidence" contradicted Crowdstrike's own notion of a crack Russian hacking operation that was almost impossible to trace.

So, even though the FBI failed to secure the Democratic National Committee's computers so the government could do its own forensic analysis, President Obama assigned his intelligence chiefs, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to come up with an assessment that could be used to blame Trump's victory on "Russian meddling." Obama, of course, shared the revulsion over Trump's victory, since the real-estate mogul/reality-TV star had famously launched his own political career by spreading the lie that Obama was born in Kenya.

'Hand-Picked' Analysts

According to Clapper's later congressional testimony, the analysts for this job were "hand-picked" from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and assigned to produce an "assessment" before Obama left office. Their Jan. 6 report was remarkable in its lack of evidence and the analysts themselves admitted that it fell far short of establishing anything as fact. It amounted to a continuation of the "trust us" approach that had dominated the anti-Russia themes for years.

Much of the thin report focused on complaints about Russia's RT network for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests and sponsoring a 2012 debate for third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Democratic-Republican debates between President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney.

The absurdity of citing such examples in which RT contributed to the public debate in America as proof of Russia attacking American democracy should have been apparent to everyone, but the Russia-gate stampede had begun and so instead of ridiculing the Jan. 6 report as an insult to reason, its shaky Russia-did-it conclusions were embraced as unassailable Truth, buttressed by the false claim that the assessment represented the consensus view of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies.

So, for instance, we get the internal contradictions of a Friday column by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius who starts off by making a legitimate point about Washington groupthink.

"When all right-thinking people in the nation's capital seem to agree on something – as has been the case recently with legislation imposing new sanctions on Russia – that may be a warning that the debate has veered into an unthinking herd mentality," Ignatius wrote as he questioned the wisdom of overusing sanctions and tying the President's hands on when to remove sanctions.

Lost Logic

But Ignatius failed to follow his own logic when it came to the core groupthink about Russia "meddling" in the U.S. election. Despite the thinness of the evidence, the certainty about Russia's guilt is now shared by "all right-thinking people" in Washington, who agree that this point is beyond dispute despite the denials from both WikiLeaks, which published the purloined Democratic emails, and the Russian government.

Neocon logic at its finest

Ignatius seemed nervous that his mild deviation from the conventional wisdom about the sanctions bill might risk his standing with the Establishment, so he added:

"Don't misunderstand me. In questioning congressional review of sanctions, I'm not excusing Trump's behavior. His non-response to Russia's well-documented meddling in the 2016 presidential election has been outrageous."

However, as usual for the U.S. mainstream media, Ignatius doesn't cite any of those documents. Presumably, he's referring to the Jan. 6 assessment, which itself contained no real evidence to support its opinion that Russia hacked into Democratic emails and gave them to WikiLeaks for distribution.

Just because a lot of Important People keep repeating the same allegation doesn't make the allegation true or "well-documented." And skepticism should be raised even higher when there is a clear political motive for pushing a falsehood as truth, as we should have learned from President George W. Bush's Iraq-WMD fallacies and from President Barack Obama's wild exaggerations about the need to intervene in Libya to prevent a massacre of civilians.

But Washington neocons always start with a leg up because of their easy access to the editorial pages of The New York Times and Washington Post as well as their speed-dial relationships with producers at CNN and other cable outlets.

Yet, the neocons have achieved perhaps their greatest success by merging Cold War Russo-phobia with the Trump Derangement Syndrome to enlist liberals and even progressives into the neocon drive for more "regime change" wars.

There can be no doubt that the escalation of sanctions against Russia and Iran will have the effect of escalating geopolitical tensions with those two important countries and making war, even nuclear war, more likely.

In Iran, hardliners are already telling President Hassan Rouhani, "We told you so" that the U.S. government can't be trusted in its promise to remove – not increase – sanctions in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

And, Putin, who is actually one of the more pro-Western leaders in Russia, faces attacks from his own hardliners who view him as naïve in thinking that Russia would ever be accepted by the West.

Even relative Kremlin moderates such as Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, are citing Trump's tail-between-his-legs signing of the sanctions bill as proof that the U.S. establishment has blocked any hope for a détente between Washington and Moscow.

In other words, the prospects for advancing the neocon agenda of more "regime change" wars and coups have grown – and the neocons can claim as their allies virtually the entire Democratic Party hierarchy which is so eager to appease its angry #Resistance base that even the heightened risk of nuclear war is being ignored.


Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Aug 07, 2017] The US propaganda machines has accused Russia of arming the Taliban

Notable quotes:
"... The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban" ..."
"... I've been expecting this for some time. ..."
"... No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory' flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step to this new artificial reality. ..."
"... When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it's too dangerous. ..."
Aug 07, 2017 | www.unz.com

Si1ver1ock, August 5, 2017 at 10:21 am GMT

The fact that now the US propaganda machines has accused Russia of "arming the Taliban"

I've been expecting this for some time. Funny how the blame falls on the Russians–without proof as usual. Little if any mention of the 16 years of U.S. occupation.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/25/asia/taliban-weapons-afghanistan/index.html

Greg Bacon, Website August 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT

@restless94110

Churchill started making speeches; the recent book on the brothers Dulles documents extensively Allen Dulles' extreme beliefs about Communism, so radical that he favored fascism and Nazis over the Commies. He became the father of the CIA, and made sure that many in the Nazi spy apparatus found homes in the United States, then went on a decade long crusade to crush communism in Italy and several other countries.

It is you who is silly. Writing some nonsense about something in the archives somewhere when there is evidence in the West that's been right in front of your face? You couldn't be that stupid, could you?

And by the way, do you know the difference between Trotsky and Stalin? Trotsky wanted world-wide revolution; Stalin wanted communism in the USSR, no world-wide revolution. Do you know who won that argument?

You probably don't. Stalin did.

Furthermore, are you familiar with the Game theory basis for the Cold War? It was the lunatic schizoprhenic John Nash, who was certifiably insane when he cooked it up, and years later, when he his schizophrenia was on the wane, repudiated his own theory!

The Cold War was cooked up in the West by state actors. Don't talk your nonsense. I agree. No sooner had WW II ended than the West started on the Cold War, designed to create fear, panic and hysteria in the US–and Europe–so the Deep State types could regal Americans with tales of a nuclear weapons, missiles, bombers and the like 'gaps' that those devious Rooskies had on the US and we just had to spend all sorts of money to build machines of death to keep 'Old Glory' flying high. And use that excuse to go after people and head-hunt those who didn't goose step to this new artificial reality.

When the Iron Curtain fell, within 18 months, the West had a new boogeyman, Saddam and on 9/11, that was enlarged to include the Islamic world, who we just have to fight over there so we don't fight them in Baltimore, not that any sane nation would want to invade most of our big cities, it's too dangerous.

[Aug 06, 2017] New Sanctions Against Russia - A Failure Of U.S. Strategy

Notable quotes:
"... I think this was a shrewd move by the CFR foreign policy hardliners: further isolating Russia, coercing Europe, and cornering Trump. Russia cannot respond. Europe cannot respond. Nor can Trump. What else should the imperial strategist do? Be nice to everybody and lose control? ps: why is the media not covering this? well perhaps because of this: http://bit.ly/2vE26Ol ..."
"... When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing: war. ..."
"... Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP? ..."
"... One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated. ..."
Aug 06, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Recently the U.S. congress legislated sanctions against the Russian Federation over alleged, but completely unproven, interference in the U.S. presidential elections. The vote was nearly unanimous.

President Trump signed these sanctions into law. This was a huge and stupid mistake. He should have vetoed them, even as a veto would likely be overturned. With his signing of the law Trump gave up the ability to stay on somewhat neutral grounds towards Russia. This for no gain to him at all.

Sanctions by Congress are quasi eternal. The 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment restricted trade with the then "Communist block". It was supposed to press for Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union to Israel. But even after the Soviet Union broke down in the early 1990s, after the "communist block" had disappeared and long after any limits on emigrations had been lifted, the law and its economic sanctions stayed in place. It was only lifted in 2012 and only to be immediately replaced by the ludicrous Magnitsky act which immediately established a new set of sanctions against the Russian Federation and its interests.

The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues. There is nothing Russia could have done to avoid them and there is nothing it can do to have them lifted.

The new U.S. sanctions are not only directed against Russia but against any company and nation that cooperates with Russia over energy. This a little disguised attempt to press European countries into buying expensive U.S. liquefied natural gas instead of cheap Russian gas delivered by pipelines. The immediate target is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which passes through the Baltic Sea to avoid potential conflict points in east Europe. The sanctions are a threat to an independent German energy policy. (Additional partners in the pipeline are Austria, France and the Netherlands.) Consequently 35% of Germans name the U.S. as a "major threat to the country". Russia is seen as such by only 33%. This view is consistent with the global perception .

These sanctions will shape U.S.-Russian relation for the next 30 plus years. On August 2 the Russian Prime Minister Medvedev pointed to the weakness of President Trump as the main reason for these sanctions :

The US President's signing of the package of new sanctions against Russia will have a few consequences. First, it ends hopes for improving our relations with the new US administration. Second, it is a declaration of a full-fledged economic war on Russia . Third, the Trump administration has shown its total weakness by handing over executive power to Congress in the most humiliating way. This changes the power balance in US political circles.

What does it mean for them? The US establishment fully outwitted Trump ; the President is not happy about the new sanctions, yet he could not but sign the bill. The issue of new sanctions came about, primarily, as another way to knock Trump down a peg. New steps are to come, and they will ultimately aim to remove him from power. A non-systemic player has to be removed. Meanwhile, the interests of the US business community are all but ignored, with politics chosen over a pragmatic approach. Anti-Russian hysteria has become a key part of both US foreign policy (which has occurred many times) and domestic policy (which is a novelty).
...

Remember that Medvedev as Russian leader was, for a long time, the "hope" of the U.S. establishment. He was perceived as more amenable than the Russian President Putin. Medvedev may well become president again. But no U.S. media except the New York Post took notice of his statement. That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to? Medvedev predicts:

The sanctions regime has been codified and will remain in effect for decades unless a miracle happens. [...] [R]elations between Russia and the United States are going to be extremely tense regardless of Congress' makeup and regardless of who is president. Lengthy arguments in international bodies and courts are ahead, as well as rising international tensions and refusal to settle major international issues

Economically and politically Russia can and will cope with these sanctions, says Medvedev. But can the U.S.?

The supreme global role of the U.S. depends on preventing a Euro-Asian alliance between, mainly, Russia and China. In his latest "grand chessboard" piece Toward a Global Realignment the U.S. strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski - ruthless, amoral and capable - asserts:

[I]t behooves the United States to fashion a policy in which at least one of the two potentially threatening states becomes a partner in the quest for regional and then wider global stability, and thus in containing the least predictable but potentially the most likely rival to overreach. Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China.

The U.S. foreign policy establishment has declared war on Russia. The confrontational position towards China, which was en vogue under Obama, has noticeably changed. The Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama "pivot to Asia" was cancelled. The anti-Chinese Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement has been called off. Military provocations of China in the South Chinese Sea have been reduced and replaced by continuous provocations against Russia in eastern Europe. These steps follow the strategy Brzezinski laid out.

Russia has historically proven to be resourceful in its policies. It is extremely resistant to pressure. With the U.S. in a less hostile position against China, the behemoth will relentlessly press its own advantage. Russia will soon be one of China's main sources of fossil energy and other commodities. There is no major reason for China and Russia to disagree with each other. Under these circumstances the hoped for Russian-Chinese split will not happen. Core European countries will resist pressures that endanger their economies.

The Brzezinski strategy is clouded by a personal hate against Russia. (He is descendant of minor noble Galician-Polish family .) It is flawed as it enables China to establish its primacy. Even under Brzezinski's framework a Russian-European-U.S. alliance against Chinese pursuit of hegemony would have been the more logical way to go.

Hillary Clinton's strategy to blame Russia for her lack of likability and her failure in the election now results in a major failure of U.S. grand strategy. An organized White House policy could have prevented that but there is no such thing (yet) under Trump.

I fail to see how the current strategy, now enshrined by congressional sanctions, could ever end up in an overall advantage for the United States.

Lawrence Smith | Aug 6, 2017 11:17:13 AM | 1

Of course the NATO alliance and much of the EU will follow such ignorance and hostility to their grave. Unless powerful nations such as Germany wakes up to what hardship this will place on them and the daunting danger enlisted by such a corrupt policy, we are all in for dangerous times. The US congress has always been a pack of fools. No sign of that ever changing.
WorldBLee | Aug 6, 2017 11:22:23 AM | 4
Yep, as usual short-term thinking prevails in the US. It seems cheap and easy (to the US, although not to Europe!) to sanction Russia as well as Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea while proclaiming US supremacy. Because of the US dollar's role as reserve currency, the US can inflict heavy damage on many countries. "Step out of the line," the US says with its sanctions, "and you'll be next on our list."

Unfortunately, China saw that it definitely was next on the list and the best way to alleviate that situation was to partner with Russia to combine China's growing economic power with Russia's military, energy, and diplomatic strengths, thus providing an impressive barrier against US unilateral actions. The one thing the US cannot overcome--a united China and Russia -- is now in place, with Europe just barely starting to wake up to the reality that it MIGHT not want to exclusively depend on the US.

Russia and China exhibit long term thinking while the US follows the CEO mantra of short term results, damn the long term effect on the company (or country).

blues | Aug 6, 2017 11:44:15 AM | 6
/~~~~~~~~~~
Reuters -- U.S. needs up to 18 more Russian rocket engines: Pentagon -- April 9, 2016
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-space-russia-idUSKCN0X600H

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon will need to buy up to 18 more Russian-built RD-180 engines to power rockets carrying U.S. military satellites into space over the next six years or so, Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said in an interview on Friday.

[....]

Work said the United States needed to ensure there were at least "two affordable and reliable means into space." He added the RD-180 would be needed only during what he described as a transition period of new domestic rocket engine development.

"We just don't see any way you can get a new engine in anything less than six years," Work said.
\~~~~~~~~~~

Let's think about what this means. The USSA currently possesses something like a score of these Russian RD-180 rocket engines (they are liquid fueled -- kerosene/liquid oxygen -- engines, which may be observed at the base of rockets). Since the USSA has physical possession of them, reverse engineering should be a cake walk. So why the six year hold-up?

Since circa 1971 the USSA has been gutting its technology-based productional system. And since circa 2000, Russia has been frantically consolidating its own. Of course a country may have a large GDP and yet have a severely fragmentary productional base, if it's exporting bananas, or technology that requires imported components, and this is just what the USSA has been doing. Because of this productional fragmentation it cannot produce RD-180 rocket engines even though all of the technical details of this engine are well known. It cannot even produce a quality strike fighter jet, as illustrated in the case of the F-35.

And because the Russians have been consolidating their technological productionality while the USSA has been fragmenting its own, the sanctions have turned out to be a tremendous boon to the Russians.

The sanctions are all about symbolism, which the USSA is obsessed with; they are not about gaining any advantages. Russia is the party that will reap all the advantage. The Beloved Leaders of the USSA prove once again to be insane.

JSonofa | Aug 6, 2017 11:44:51 AM | 7
#1
"The US congress has always been a pack of fools. No sign of that ever changing."

Maybe. Maybe not. In the words of the ever-sage George Harrison, "All Things Must Pass." Anyone for a constitutional amendment for term-limiting congress to two terms? Re: realignment; BRICS, onward and upward. May the IMF and its war machine have financial competition and lose their monopolistic squeeze on empire.

AllHopeGone | Aug 6, 2017 11:46:33 AM | 8
Quote: " I fail to see how the current strategy... could ever end up in an overall advantage for the United States."
The advantage of the United States...!!?? What's that got to do with anything? The US government is there to service the interests of Wall Street and The Israel Lobby/Neocon/International Zionists. Everyone surely recognises this now. Get used to it.
Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 6, 2017 11:51:09 AM | 9
It sounds dramatic but all I see is The Swamp's "Let's do SOMETHING, even if it's stupid" megalomaniacs enthusiastically outing themselves. I was wondering when and how Trump was going to out them but they've 'cleverly' decided to do it for him. I'm confident that Trump saw this coming and will turn it to his MAGA advantage.
Mishkin | Aug 6, 2017 11:54:06 AM | 10
I think this was a shrewd move by the CFR foreign policy hardliners: further isolating Russia, coercing Europe, and cornering Trump. Russia cannot respond. Europe cannot respond. Nor can Trump. What else should the imperial strategist do? Be nice to everybody and lose control? ps: why is the media not covering this? well perhaps because of this: http://bit.ly/2vE26Ol
metamars | Aug 6, 2017 12:02:25 PM | 12
"huge and stupid mistake" is too kind. I think it was idiotic of Trump. What's even more depressing is that Trump is claiming "national unity" as his reason for signing. He'll get no "national unity" for this - I suppose the Republican leaders have played him for a fool, and Trump was dumb enough to believe it.

It's secondarily depressing that the media was claiming that Trump had little choice. So, the media was employed in manipulating Trump, both before and after the fact (of his signing). Did it not occur to Trump that this exculpatory nonsense might be "fake news"?

From "Trump Signs Russia Sanctions Bill, World At A Dangerous Point As Deep State Shows Their Teeth" @ http://www.activistpost.com/2017/08/trump-signs-russia-sanctions-bill-deep-state.html

"As Paul Craig Roberts points out in his article, there were a number of strategies that could have been taken by Trump. First, he should have vetoed the bill. At worst, if Congress overrode his veto, Congress would bear responsibility for the political fallout or the radioactive fallout if it comes to that.
Second, in the lead up to the veto, Trump could have brought his case to the American people. He could have laid it all out in the open, pointing out that Congress, both misinformed and eaten up with special interest money, was endangering America's way of life and possibly even life itself the world over. He could have stated plainly that the interests who own Congress and who are working through Congress are now marching the United States to World War Three. He could have even told them to go watch The Day After with their families and ask themselves if they think the potential costs would be worth it. He could have done any number of things explaining why he was vetoing the bill and then he could have vetoed it. But he didn't. "

john | Aug 6, 2017 12:04:50 PM | 13
sounds like more flatulence from the chubby little super power, or, as Frank Zappa might say, 'America drinks and goes marching.'
metamars | Aug 6, 2017 12:05:16 PM | 14
Somewhat off/topic, though if the Russia nonsense had been debunked more competently by the Trump Administration, maybe Trump wouldn't have felt compelled to sign the sanctions bill. "Ray McGovern Explains How The DNC Hack Was Used To Cover-Up The Election Stolen From Bernie Sanders" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vte-uSyQhKw

The Trump Administration should take McGovern's counsel often, but is probably too dumb/manipulated to do so.

blues | Aug 6, 2017 12:06:01 PM | 15
=>> JSonofa | 11:44:51 AM | 7

"Anyone for a constitutional amendment for term-limiting congress to two terms?"

Not me! Term limits mean nothing more than the elimination of the ability of the voters to assess candidates based on legislative track records. The result is that every two years the voters will have to choose representatives with no past history of legislation. Disaster.

The only answer is to abolish the two-party system by eliminating the spoiler effect. Strategic hedge simple score voting would do that. Nothing else, including "ranked choice" voting ("IRV") will work. This is vital to understand!

JSonofa | Aug 6, 2017 12:06:14 PM | 16
Here's a new type of realignment: The End Of Nation States

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-05/doug-casey-end-nation-state

Harry | Aug 6, 2017 12:15:17 PM | 18
One jewish journalist (link was posted here few days ago) nicely pointed out these sanctions are the stupidest thing US could have possibly done. Not only it forges even closer Russia-China-Iran alliance, it also alienates the closest and strongest ally US have - the EU.

I don't know how far EU will go to fight back, but their alliance is breaking through all stitches, and US effectively expedited EU rapprochement to the East. It was bound to happen sometime in the future due to US decline and the rise of SCO/BRICS, but now calculation has changed - it will happen soon.

j | Aug 6, 2017 12:26:06 PM | 19
"I fail to see how the current strategy, now enshrined by congressional sanctions, could ever end up in an overall advantage for the United States."

unless the USG itself is nothing more at this moment than a platform for committing "crimes against the peace," foreign & domestic. or is there some other motivation than domination of rivals, w/not the slightest hint of "partnership"? there is nothing the USG can do except use its (overrated & rapidly declining) military advantage to offset its steadily declining economic supremacy, w/all the dangers of nuclear war from the morally insane running this country.

the task of people in the US is to distract the eye of Sauron (the one on the pyramid on the dollar bill) in any way it can, until Mordor, Inc. just collapses. and that requires some serious troublemaking here, massive national strikes, burning down the pentagon & the like, which don't seem too likely.

Mataman | Aug 6, 2017 12:38:35 PM | 21
@15 So long as Congress critters get to sit in office indefinitely they have the opportunity to build their criminal fiefdoms and become available for bribery. Why do they need some legislative track record? Either they vote for sane things or they don't. And if they're insane, they get tossed the next election cycle. And even if they're great it is better to get fresh blood in every few years.

A more logical solution would be to institute a draft of legislators from ordinary citizens (who maybe need to meet certain educational benchmarks just so they're mentally capable of doing the job--something our Congress of idiot lawyers is usually unable to do). You get drafted to serve your nation in Congress, get a nice check, and legislate for your fellow citizens while discussing their concerns with other regular citizens and then take your honorable discharge back into civilian life. When you have people who want power and allow them to be elected by other people who want the power to manipulate the people who write the laws it is necessarily going to end in disaster. Get people who don't really want to be there and shift their composition every few years and regulatory capture by industry becomes impossible.

Also, Congress mostly needs to spend time removing laws and consolidating laws. There isn't really a lot of reason to pass new laws every term other than to look busy. Note they have done absolutely nothing this term save sanction Russia and the world continues as normal.

fast freddy | Aug 6, 2017 12:42:08 PM | 22
blues 6

The graft will be enormous. Billion$. The esteemed Senator McCain right in the thick of it. Typical ridiculous doublespeak in that article - and the players - John McCain, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, United Launch Alliance, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings and sanctions on two particular individuals in the Russian Space Agency.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/08/ american_space_program_not_pay.html

Aug 1, 2017
Meanwhile, NASA has only 12 employees in Russia now, according to a tally in the Washington Post. They are supporting those rides for American astronauts to the space station. America has been paying Russia $81 million per seat for rides to the station while it awaits completion of U.S. crew carriers being built by Boeing and SpaceX.

Add the history of cooperation, the interest in going forward by top Russian space officials, and the money involved and the space program seems out of the threat zone for now. If Russia does sever the relationship, it will be a sign of a truly serious breech between the two countries.

JSonofa | Aug 6, 2017 12:47:39 PM | 23
@ #15 blues

Perhaps a secret life in government, a spy since WWII, a secret life lived, but not ever fully-vetted, secret knowledge and involvement in Dallas 1963 to later become a pivotal US President to invade Iraq, and still today, a life not ever fully vetted, would give you pause that the answer lies in the simple abolition of the 2 party system?

The Secret Life of Poppy: https://whowhatwhy.org/2013/09/16/part-1-mr-george-bush-of-the-central-intelligence-agency/

fast freddy | Aug 6, 2017 1:27:05 PM | 29
China is making well-planned, strategic moves - Silk Road, Rail Bridge to Russia, Base in Djibouti. All excellent. Nothing ham-handed, self-defeating, short-term, knee-jerk and stupid.
h | Aug 6, 2017 1:33:38 PM | 30
I'm thinking Alexander Mercouris has a solid take on Trump's reasoning for signing congresses sanctions into law - Impeachment... Trump sidesteps impeachment trap in sanctions law and prepares challenge to Supreme Court - http://theduran.com/trump-sidesteps-impeachment-trap-sanctions-law-prepares-challenge-supreme-court/

,BLOCKQUOTE>"Indeed the more I think about this bizarre sanctions law the more I wonder whether the impeachment scenario I have just outlined may have been the very scenario that it was intended to engineer." ...

"In other words the sanctions law may have been put together by the President's opponents in Congress – who include Republicans as well as Democrats – with the actual intention of provoking him into vetoing it so as to set up the conditions for his impeachment by Congress on an issue where Congress is united against him."

"If so then the President – heeding the advice of his lawyers – has sidestepped the trap whilst putting himself in a strong position to challenge the law in the US Supreme Court when the right moment comes."

The globalists boogieman is Putin and Team, at least for the next four or more years. He became their target for displeasure long ago, thus, he must pay. Globalists don't give a rats about Trump's agenda BECAUSE the Globalists bought Congress off long ago...THEY OWN IT. Congress stopped working for the good folks of the United States long ago and for heavens sake they're not all of a sudden going to start working for us now. Just sayin...

Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 1:46:45 PM | 33
The sanctions are a smart play for world domination by the cabal that controls the Empire. that the rest of the world suffers while this plays out is of no concern to them. Those wringing their hands over Trump's failure to confront Congress are foolish. His caving was entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him. Isn't it clear by now that "America First" is as much as lie as "Change You Can Believe In"?

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Russia is more susceptible than China to being politically undermined by both overt and covert means. As the economic cost of conflict with the US mounts, so too does the potential benefits of restoring ties. The potential for a HUGE economic boost by restoring ties with the West will play a big part in post-Putin politics. If US can disrupt energy trade with China and new Silk-Road transport links (via proxies like ISIS) , the Russian economy will sink and pro-Western candidates will gain much support.

Seamus Padraig | Aug 6, 2017 2:27:41 PM | 35
The new additional sanctions, like the Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Magnitsky act, were shaped by domestic U.S. policy issues.

Yeah, sure. (((Domestic U.S. policy issues.)))

Seriously though, as a committed isolationist, I'm actually overjoyed that our congress is idiotic enough to start up a trade war with the EU. The notion that the Germans are going to import overpriced fracked gas all the way from the US is a total fantasy. No: these sanctions will accelerate the coming break-up of NATO ... an outcome I very much welcome. And even if the Germans were to cave and cancel Nordstream, the Russians would simply sell all that extra gas to Asia anyway. So this isn't going to have any real effect on them either.

Grieved | Aug 6, 2017 2:30:05 PM | 36
@30 h

Trump was realistic to sign the sanctions bill. What's important is his Signing Statement, which lawyer Mercouris analyzes nicely, and therebu shows what many people are missing, including I'm afraid b, and commenters in this thread, up until your comment.

Articles of Impeachment are not a judicial thing - they are brought by Congress in its discretion. If Trump vetoed a bill coming forward with such hugely unanimous backing, he would be overridden for sure, and the Congress would then have the upper hand completely. From there, it's completely realistic to think of impeachment, and the odds are very good many Republicans would go along with this, as it would then make Pence the President.*

I was going to link that Mercouris piece too. I've been recommending everywhere that people read it. It was NOT a mistake to sign a bill that was impossible to veto successfully. But in his signing statement, Trump lays the ground very clearly for a challenge to the Supreme Court if he wants to make any accord in the future that contradicts whatever elements of the sanctions bill may infringe on his prerogative to run foreign policy.

It seems likely that the bill does infringe on the presidential role, and by laying it open to a Supreme Court finding of unconstitutionality, Trump actually is holding the hand now - while the act of sanctioning will reflect on Congress and Trump's enemies, as the sanctions both fail and help to tear the EU apart.

The Mercouris piece is essential reading in my view for anyone wanting to pass a judgment on the wisdom of Trump's signing this bill. That link again: Trump sidesteps impeachment trap in sanctions law and prepares challenge to Supreme Court

~~

* as to how serious a situation this was for Trump, a commenter on the Mercouris piece agrees that the prospect of Pence as president is all the Republicans need to support impeachment, and adds:

"When Andrew Johnson was impeached he was a Republican nominated VP (serving out Lincoln's term) impeached by a Republican dominated Congress which wanted to install a 'real' Republican in his place."
h | Aug 6, 2017 2:33:32 PM | 37
Jackrabbit @33, I must respectfully disagree with this part of your comment "His caving was entirely predictable because he is a faux-Populist like Obama before him."

Using the word 'populist' whether faux or not when describing Obama is a disservice to the meaning of the word. Obama was a liar. Period. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As for Trump? I don't really know what term I'd use to describe his politic. Candidly, I'm not sure if such a term for his style even exists.

But I will say that I don't concur with your take on his signing the sanctions bill. I don't see it as 'caving' and as I stated above your comment, Merouris' take on his signing the legislation makes sense, at least to me. Especially given the plethora of battle lines being drawn in the sewage pit known as DC. Gaining clarity as to motives behind decision making these days is murky at best, but nothing about Trump and his resume suggests 'caving' as being part of his character. Knowing when to hold them and when to fold them does.

And imagine if Merouris' take turns out to be correct. If so, how in the world does one navigate the minefields, let alone, succeed. More importantly, it means 550 elected leaders are out to destroy one. My God man, how friggin sick is that?!? The globalists don't get their way so they are going to destroy our form of government? That is the kind of power they are wielding when they succeed in securing what was it, 548 votes in the House and Senate (I haven't read the vote tally but know Rand Paul and another Senator, maybe Sanders, voted against it).

My point is that that's not only significant it's HUGE. At a minimum it means dysfunction and maximum means a declared war inside our body politic - the Globalist puppets v Trump/Pence.

Wwinsti | Aug 6, 2017 2:38:49 PM | 38
@ #6 blues:

Reverse engineer?!? Boing has had a license to build RD180s for over a decade. It's not an option they seem overly eager to employ by the leisurely pace they've asked regarding their construction. At least I think it's Boing.

chet380 | Aug 6, 2017 2:49:08 PM | 39
Grieved --

If Trump and Tillerson are quietly able to have the Europeans to raise a constant hue and cry about the bill's negative impact on their ability to conduct international trade, an excellent groundwork would be laid for Trump to go to the US SC to attack the constitutionality of the bill.

h | Aug 6, 2017 2:54:20 PM | 40
Grieved @36 - I appreciate your most thoughtful comment. When I read Mercouris' article I immediately thought - Whoa, if this turns out to be the correct analysis, my God man the U.S. government is in way more trouble than I understood. Navigating a soft coup takes a great deal of skill to avoid, but if the globalists continue to escalate their warmongering demands from the White House and Trump/Team continue to form their own path, the people of the U.S. should be warned a hard coup isn't far behind...Antifa and others are being readied for just such an event.

Gives me a chill...

Berry Friesen | Aug 6, 2017 3:31:14 PM | 43
b got it right: "a huge and stupid mistake."

Mercouris' talk of "an impeachment trap" suggests he doesn't understand the US system of government very well. A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto, and a veto would only have strengthened Trump's claim that the bill breaches the separation of powers. As matters stand, it appears Trump doesn't believe his own signing statement.

If the Republicans ever hope to impeach their guy without forever wrecking their party and bringing years of civil unrest to this country, they will needs reams of solid evidence supporting legitimate charges. A veto wouldn't count for much in terms of legitimacy.

Sid2 | Aug 6, 2017 3:43:41 PM | 45
On the other hand to the Mercouris view--

He could have signed it and still gone to the Supreme Court. This leaves he signed it due the impeachment threat. This won't go away by his signing it. 2018 is closer by the minute and you've got to suppose Repub candidates are nervous about re-election due to Trump (poll numbers sinking). On the other hand if he had signed it he would have showed some guts instead of caving and earning the "humiliated" label from the Russians. Instead of no respect he might have gotten a little respect. He has reinforced Trump as BS full of talk and inept. I agree with b.

Temporarily Sane | Aug 6, 2017 4:34:15 PM | 47
b writes:
That in itself is astonishing and frightening. Can no one in the U.S. see where this will lead to?

When analyzing the United States' relations with the rest of the world it helps to keep in mind the deep state goal of world domination via "full spectrum dominance". It is a dangerous delusion of the highest order but it is one that is actively being put into practice. The actions taken against Russia, Iran, North Korea and other nations all lead to one thing: war.

frances | Aug 6, 2017 4:46:10 PM | 48
my apologies, this is a bit long but...On Trump's perceived option of signing vs not signing; I think he knew that the Congress/DNC/MSM would have tarred and feathered him as a RUSSIAN PAWN (RP) till the cows come home if he didn't sign. However by signing the bill with notations stating its flaws and forwarding it the the SC for their review, he blocked this latest RP label attempt and attendant witch hunt. And assuming the SC thinks as little of the two bills legislative incursions into the exec domain as I do, it can be tossed back to both houses of Congress (with a 2018 election cycle staring them in the face)with a statement from Trump saying something to the effect of "Merciful God, how can you represent your constituents when you clearly don't have a grasp of your own job description?? Now I have to fund Trump supporting candidates to run against every single one of you." Remember he has already raised 75 million and he raised 250 million plus 66 million of his own and beat a 1.3 billion DNC machine. I do not see him as a great candidate but I do see that every single current congressional seat is held by people who are bought and paid for by business/MIC interests opposed to mine. I believe this latest attack on him via these bills will give him the opportunity to "drain the swamp" some of it anyway, in the upcoming election cycle and I will contribute to his effort to wipe them out of office and I suspect others will as well. There will be no coup on my watch if I can help it by helping him.
heath | Aug 6, 2017 4:50:46 PM | 49
rather than press China directly in the south China Sea, it seems DC keeps on pressing the North Koreans to do something rash and the Chinese having to invade to forestall the rash attack then being stuck in a long Guerrilla war against Korean resistance.
the US strategy seems to be to create a problem and force other nations to choose "the Axis of Evil" or "the Free World"
goldhoarder | Aug 6, 2017 4:56:09 PM | 50
Xi has made 6 visits to Russia. I am not sure how often Putin has been to Beijing. The number of heads of state visits is remarkable. I've never seen anything like this in history. Has anyone else noticed this? Clearly they are trying to form a significant economic and military power block to challenge US "Full Spectrum Dominance".
ben | Aug 6, 2017 5:04:51 PM | 52
The following, is for all you folks that believe voting in the U$A can make a difference.

https://www.rt.com/usa/397907-defcon-first-voting-village/

Until we trash the e-voting systems, our voting means nothing..

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 5:06:39 PM | 53
Grieved @36--

If you haven't yet, you'll want to read my several posts related to yours a few threads ago beginning here, http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/07/countdown-to-war-on-venezuela.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d29b37ca970c

Anonymous | Aug 6, 2017 5:25:41 PM | 54
LawrenceSmith @1

There are two faces to Europe - the ordinary elected representatives and business people see the futility and danger of the sanctions. The bought Eurocrat and high political placemen will repeat what they are paid to say as the waters rise above their lips.

fast freddy | Aug 6, 2017 5:26:57 PM | 55
Trump can go on TV anytime and appeal to the Public with some creative truth. Why not? Afraid of the PTB? or he's a fraud like Obama going along with the PTB?

Mostly from Trump we get boilerplate global terror war bullshit, immigrant and gay bashing - gruel for the knuckleheads.

There is no question that Pence would gladly run the bus over Trump and be a real warmonger for Zion. The "real" Republicans (and the "business-friendly New Democrats") would love President Pence. Everything (media) would quiet down.

karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 5:35:50 PM | 56
Regarding the Mercouris article myself and others have linked to and discussed, one possibility he didn't really explore was Trump Pocket Vetoing the bill. Congress would then upon returning from its recess need to reenact the entire measure after getting lots of heat from constituents for their votes during recess. Indeed, I think the overwhelming Pro vote was due to many congresscritter's assumption that Trump would do just that.

For me, the important question is why the Deep State instigated this move; so, I posted links to 6 incisive articles also looking for an answer in one manner or other that all together pointing to a Deep State flailing its arms in the deep end of the Hubris Pool realizing its drowning in its own effluent yet unable to utter that truth as it never will--it will break the mirror before allowing it to utter the truth. The Law of Diminishing Returns is finally laying the lumber to the Deep State after 130 years of grossly naked imperialism. Luce would be spinning in his grave if he knew how his American Century was being destroyed for A Few Dollars More.

Perhaps, John Pilger's latest essay will provide an explanation, https://www.rt.com/op-edge/398789-us-russia-china-war/

Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 6:01:45 PM | 57
h@37

My take on Trump is informed by facts such as:

>> The US political system is designed to prevent real populists from ever gaining office. Examples: Citizens United and the rules to qualify for inclusion in candidate debates.

>> Obama was a faux populist and Sanders was a sheep-dog. Are we to believe that these populists were phonies but Trump is the real deal?

>> Only Sanders and Trump positioned themselves as populists. And even more importantly, Hillary didn't counter Trump by taking a more populist approach.

>> Hillary made it clear that she wanted to face Trump in the general election. The media dutifully covered Trump as a serious candidate. Supposedly, she felt that she had a better chance to defeat him. She then ran a terrible campaign (see: NYPost: Hillary ran the worst presidential campaign ever despite having every advantage.

>> Why would any oligarch oppose the establishment? Especially since Trump was so close to Hillary who was considered to be the likely next President. In fact, Trump served Hillary by becoming a leader of the 'Birthers'. Hillary was the first to question if Obama was foreign born.

>> Pence is a friend of McCain's. Why would any populist pick Pence as VP?

>> One of Trump's first announcements after he was elected was that he would not seek to prosecute Hillary. The strange, and short-lived, media frenzy regarding Hillary's health helped Trump to make this choice. It seems likely that this was coordinated.

>> Trump acts or doesn't act in ways that are inconsistent with 'America First' and/or fuel the scaremongering over Russia:

> The missile attack on Syria (despite tweeting warnings to Obama not to bomb Syria in 2013) and sword dancing with the Saudis (WTF?);

> Not dismissing Comey early in his Administration - then alluding to 'tapes' after he did;

> Drip-drip of info regarding Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian; Publicly attacking Sessions; etc.

> Trump complains about 'Fake News' but has accepted that Russia interfered in the election;

For more:

How Things Work: Betrayal by Faux-Populist Leaders

Taken In: Fake News Distracts Us From Fake Election

Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:07:06 PM | 58
h, Greived...
Some of the points in the Mercouris article, Trump has most likely played a bad hand the best way possible. What I see in the article though is that Trump/White House managed to have a few changes made to the wording to try to protect US/European companies and individuals from the new sanctions.

I would have preferred it to hit the European companies hard. If the peasants do it tough, nobody cares, but when big manufacturing, and the likes of European based oil companies get hit, then something may happen.

With Trumps amendments to the law, the European dog may keep crawling back to its master rather than turning to Russia/China and the multi polar world.

PavewayIV | Aug 6, 2017 6:11:05 PM | 59
Berry Friesen@43 - "...A president doesn't commit an impeachable offense when using his veto..."

Depends. From Mercouris:

With the President totally isolated in Congress his opponents would be in a position to say that by vetoing the law the President was obstructing action by Congress to protect the integrity of the US electoral process from interference by Russia, and that he was therefore guilty of committing a "high crime or misdemeanour" by preventing action against Russia, the US's main international adversary, on an issue of fundamental importance to the US. On those grounds they would say that he should be impeached and removed from office.

Since the Constitution does not say what a "high crime or misdemeanour" is and leaves the definition entirely to Congress, it is not impossible that in the present hysterical atmosphere the President's constitutional use of his veto to block an unconstitutional sanctions law could be successfully misdefined in that way, and that Congress would accept this mis-definition and would vote for impeachment on that basis.

This was only one of the many other twisted 'facts' that will eventually support the thesis that Trump colluded with the Russians to interfere with elections. And as Mercouris points out, the interpretation of those facts and a vote for impeachment is entirely up to Congress , not the courts. Whether an indictment for such imagined collusion would stand up in US courts and result in a conviction is immaterial - they have no say.

An impeachment resolution HR 438 has already been filed by members of our lower house. It's rather weak, citing Trump's firing of former FBI Director, James Comey, as an obstruction of justice. The bill's sponsor acknowledges it is weak, but says it "gets the ball rolling". It will either be amended with additional articles of impeachment, or a new resolution will replace it. If one assumes all Democrat lower house representatives vote for the bill (~195 of 435), they will only need an additional 24 Republicans to pass it. It has not been submitted to a vote, but will when the representatives think the charges are numerous and strong enough that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote for Trump's removal. This is not necessarily a Democrat vs. Republican fight - Republicans would be delighted to give Trump the boot for a much more obedient replacement, Republican yes-man Vice President Pence. Hence the near unanimous vote for the sanctions bill. I can almost hear Congress screeching: "Trump must go!

They are waiting to assemble the final package of articles of impeachment so it looks credible and the MSM has sold it as such. One shouldn't look at Mercouris' logic regarding the veto as the only thing Congress will eventually use in the articles of impeachment against Trump. The bill will have to look legitimate and will be accompanied by a dumpster of manufactured evidence to confuse the little people and raise doubt.

FBI Director Muller's current investigation is to whether the Trump team colluded with Russia. It has TWO purposes: indicting someone close to Trump including his family, and (as a side-effect) blessing manufactured evidence as factual that can then be used by Congress to impeach Trump. If Trump fires Muller (perfectly legal) then - Aha! More evidence!

If Trump pardons any of his family members or close associates as a result of an indictment (perfectly legal), then that will be used against him suggesting that the charges are true. In any case, the investigation will probably produce more manufactured facts which will be used to strengthen the argument that Trump colluded with Russia to interfere with elections. A veto to the sanctions bill would have been used to support that thesis, not 'prove' an impeachable offense by itself.

An Articles of Impeachment bill - the 'charges' - are just for show. The Senate is free to interpret them any way it wants. Their decision overrides 'the law' so it doesn't matter if they prove the thesis by law or logic.

The US Congress - Democrats and Republicans - want Trump gone and Pence as the replacement lackey taking us into war. The 'facts' supporting an impeachment will eventually prove sufficient. They've got the whole Borg working on them. The veto ploy was far from the only 'evidence' that will be used for impeachment. Linear thinking... Trump Must Go!

I personally have no dog in this hunt either way - it's not like either outcome will make much difference. I'm close enough to strategic US targets that I won't feel a thing for more than, say, a microsecond or two.

Jackrabbit | Aug 6, 2017 6:16:36 PM | 60 Peter AU 1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:29:32 PM | 61
karlof1 56

Thanks for the link to the Pilger article. I don't check his site very often because he only writes a few articles, but worth reading when they appear.
Another of the Vietnam era investigative journalists who can no longer get articles printed in MSM.

Clueless Joe | Aug 6, 2017 6:37:47 PM | 62
At this point, it is the EU's duty to actually tell the US to go fuck itself with a nuclear warhead. And then to throw in the dumpster all the current economic treaties with it.
If EU leaders don't do it, then break the whole sorry useless Union that can't even be bothered to defend its constituency, and if needed create another better one, that is one with the clear, open and deliberate intent to stand up against the US bully, a Union which will forever stand as an opponent to the US, ready to side with China, Russia or India if needed.
But then, any sane European leaders would've understood 20 years ago that the only sensible move for EU would be a formal alliance with Russia and a loosening of the trans-atlantic ties. It's probably too late for that, and this might cost once again the vassalization of a third of Europe to Moscow; so be it then, these dumb fuckers should've seen the light earlier when that kind of moves would've been far less costly.
karlof1 | Aug 6, 2017 6:49:46 PM | 64
Not Off Topic: Learned of yet another head of state assassination done by CIA prior to JFK's, Pakistan's first PM, Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan, "according to State Department documents," http://www.thedailystar.net/world/south-asia/cia-killed-first-pm-pakistan-1442917
Fidelios Automata | Aug 6, 2017 9:58:07 PM | 65
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

[Aug 04, 2017] Is Trump's Russia Policy Being Hijacked

While the US is clearly not omnipotent, Ukraine was sliding into Baltic model for a long time, probably since independence. So while the Maydan coup was organized and implemented by the USA, the coming to power of right wing Western Ukrainian nationalists was probably given. The USA actually only speeded the events by a year or two. During the next Presidential election far right Ukrainian nationalist my impression is that they would depose Yanukovich anyway. so the coup was probably more the result of incompetence and hubris of staunch neocon (and former Cheney associate) Nuland then a real necessity. If we consider neocons to be a flavor of political psychopaths such a result is not surprising.
Putin has a chance to prevent Maydan by using the same dirty methods as the USA, but iether had chosen not to do this, or was slightly distracted by Olympics (please not that Georgian invasion of South Ossetia also happened during Olympic events). After the coup he has one or two days -- a small window of opportunity for deposing right wing nationalist by recognizing Yanukovich government and sending groups to restore "the legitimate government", which was actually corrupt (although probably to lesser level the subsequent government of Poroshenko, where each minister became a millionaire) and hated by a lot of Ukrainians. So the population reaction to restoration of Yanukovich regime by force might be quite hostile. Putin and his government had chosen not to do it and gave the victory to the USA: Russia completely lost the geopolitical game for Ukraine to the USA and now need to suffer the new cold war2 (which also was given, the the global hegemon which accepts only vassals, the USA needed only the pretext to squash attempts of Russia to conduct independent foreign policy). But in a decade from now the USA probably will pay the price for this as the alliance of Russia and China is now more of a reality then even before. Also the end of "cheap oil" automatically will drive the US economy into perma stagnation. The current artificial low price can't last forever.
Destruction on Ukraine and its economic potential started at this point in full force and in addition to the necessity of handing huge refugees flow to Russia, Russian economic suffered huge losses from braking cooperation with Ukraine (which was part of the USSR economics and were closely connected to Russian).
So Barack Obama got a huge geopolitical victory, the main victory of his presidency (along with his Libyan adventure). But Ukrainians now need to suffer and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. they are now just pawns in Washington geopolitical game against Russia and have no choice but fight.
Notable quotes:
"... In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev. ..."
"... As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win. ..."
"... If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass. ..."
"... Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations. ..."
"... If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/ ..."
"... Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years. ..."
"... Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement ..."
"... On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event. ..."
"... And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it ..."
"... The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded ..."
"... It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there. ..."
"... I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens! ..."
"... a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html ..."
"... Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html ..."
Aug 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

In crafting the platform in Cleveland on which Donald Trump would run, America Firsters inflicted a major defeat on the War Party. The platform committee rejected a plank to pull us deeper into Ukraine, by successfully opposing new U.S. arms transfers to Kiev.

Improved relations with Russia were what candidate Trump had promised, and what Americans would vote for in November.

Yet, this week, The Wall Street Journal reports:

"The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval as Kiev battles Russia-backed separatists Defense Secretary Mattis has endorsed the plan."

As pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine have armored vehicles, Kiev wants U.S. tank-killing Javelin missiles, as well as antiaircraft weapons. State and Defense want Trump to send the lethal weapons. This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides. And it is a war Vladimir Putin will not likely allow Kiev to win.

If Ukraine's army, bolstered by U.S. weaponry, re-engages in the east, it could face a Moscow-backed counterattack and be routed, and the Russian army could take permanent control of the Donbass.

Indeed, if Trump approves this State-Defense escalation plan, we could be looking at a rerun of the Russia-Georgia war of August 2008.

Then, to recapture its lost province of South Ossetia, which had seceded in 1992, after Georgia seceded from Russia, Georgia invaded.

Putin sent his army in, threw the Georgians out, and recognized South Ossetia, as John McCain impotently declaimed, "We are all Georgians now!"

Wisely, George W. Bush ignored McCain and did nothing.

But about this new arms deal questions arise.

As the rebels have no aircraft, whose planes are the U.S. antiaircraft missiles to shoot down? And if the Russian army just over the border can enter and crush the Ukrainian army, why would we want to restart a civil war, the only certain result of which is more dead Ukrainians on both sides?

The Journal's answer: Our goal is to bleed Russia.

"The point of lethal aid is to raise the price Mr. Putin pays for his imperialism until he withdraws or agrees to peace. The Russians don't want dead soldiers arriving home before next year's presidential election."

Also going neocon is Mike Pence. In Georgia this week, noting that Russian tanks are still in South Ossetia, the vice president not only declared, "We stand with you," he told Georgians the U.S. stands by its 2008 commitment to bring them into NATO.

This would mean, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, that in a future Russia-Georgia clash the U.S. could find itself in a shooting war with Russia in the South Caucasus.

Russia's security interests there seem clear. What are ours?

Along with Trump's signing of the new sanctions bill imposed by Congress, which strips him of his authority to lift those sanctions without Hill approval, these developments raise larger questions.

Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? These are not academic questions. For consider the architect of the new arms package, Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations.

A former CIA agent, member of the National Security Counsel, and envoy to NATO, Volker believes Russian troops in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk are all there illegally -- and U.S. policy should be to push them out.

A former staffer of Sen. McCain, Volker was, until July, executive director of the neocon McCain Institute. He has called for the imposition of personal sanctions on Putin and his family and European travel restrictions on the Russian president. In the Journal this week, "officials" described his strategy:

"Volker believes that a change in Ukraine can be brought only by raising the costs for Moscow for continued intervention in Ukraine. In public comments, he has played down the notion that supplying weapons to Ukraine would escalate the conflict with Russia."

In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home in caskets before his 2018 election. As for concerns that Putin might send his army into Ukraine, such worries are unwarranted. Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement.

Does Trump believe this? Does Trump believe that confronting Putin with rising casualties among his army and allies in Ukraine is the way to force the Russian president to back down and withdraw from Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk, as Nikita Khrushchev did from Cuba in 1962?

What if Putin refuses to back down, and chooses to confront?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

Ace , August 4, 2017 at 5:28 am GMT

E. Ukraine and Crimea would be part controlled by Ukraine and there would be no fighting in E. Ukraine today if Obama and Nuland had not interfered in Ukraine. Period.

The upheaval and deaths there are entirely our responsibility.

jilles dykstra , August 4, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

If the following is true it is worth reading: https://www.rt.com/news/398490-us-main-global-threat-survey/

Wally , August 4, 2017 at 6:45 am GMT

@reiner Tor "Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election or he's not really a dictator." Well said.

Wally , August 4, 2017 at 6:47 am GMT

@Taras77 Forget "neo con", call them what they are, Israel First

alexander , August 4, 2017 at 7:07 am GMT

Dear Mr. Buchanan, Had the Journal one small moment of "truth telling" then its goal would be crystal clear not to bleed Russia but to bleed the United States to utter insolvency through their endless stupid wars.. Just look at our nation's balance sheet to see the truth. Nearly FIFTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS of debt generated in a mere seventeen years.

What an utter disaster and total disgrace to our nation.

for-the-record , August 4, 2017 at 7:14 am GMT

Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement .

On the contrary, I think that Volker and others driving US policy are very well aware that Putin won't back down, and this is indeed what they want. A direct, permanent conflict with Russia which will leave it isolated from the "Western" world. A bit like track and field, where it increasingly looks like Russia will be permanently excluded from international competitions, and where Russian athletes will only be allowed to compete as "neutrals", under pain of exclusion if they as so much as sing the Russian national anthem in their hotel. And once the conflict heats up in Ukraine, look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia (as per the 1980 Olympics). The recent Confederations Cup in Russia was widely viewed as a considerable success, and received favorable reporting in much of the Western press, and this clearly can't be allowed to happen with the World Cup, the World's premier sporting event.

Captain Nemo , August 4, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT

And of course conflict with Russia has nothing to do with the proclaimed goal of containing an "agressive" Putin and Russia, which is a fallacious representation of Russia's actions and motives, and everything to do with maintaining the seemingly absolute World hegemony the USA gained after the collapse of the USSR. This fantasy of absolute hegemony is hard to let go for Neocons and Deep state, and they will cling to it with all their claws, even risking nuclear war for it .

The latest sanctions on Russia are an attempt to bleed Russia in another way, by pushing it out of the World economy, with the naive conviction that it would all end well if that plan succeeded

Anyone with an ounce of common sense realises that it would end terribly bad for all the parties involved.

The Alarmist , August 4, 2017 at 7:50 am GMT

@reiner Tor It's a confusion of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan with the defense of ethnic Russians standing up to a Yankee Puppet Regime trying to subjugate them. The coffins might well secure a landslide election for Putin in such a cause. The US may have seriously misunderestimated the situation there.

Priss Factor , Website August 4, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT

Ozzie done it. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/03/jfk-assassination-lone-gunman-cia-new-files-215449

Renoman , August 4, 2017 at 9:10 am GMT

I'd say the neocons have Trump on the ropes. Perhaps he figures if he buys enough of their guns he can pacify them long enough to get some control back, I doubt he has any intention of firing those guns but hey, shit happens!

Sergey Krieger , August 4, 2017 at 9:22 am GMT

Expecting Russia to back down fearing causalities? It would be wise to check who has been backing down due to causalities first before making such conclusions. Here Russia security is concerned and causalities are acceptable. USA should be very worried not to take too much responsibilities along Russian borders because things can get hot and this is not the war USA can win. Lose it even small way and USA days as great power are over.

jacques sheete , August 4, 2017 at 9:36 am GMT

@Taras77

and never be held accountable

That's a huge flaw in "our" system. We really need to find good answers to that problem.

JL , August 4, 2017 at 9:51 am GMT

Both this article, and the problems it proposes to address, are based on deep and fundamental misunderstandings of Russia and its domestic politics. Russia has escalation dominance in the Ukrainian theater and will not only match, but exceed, any American provocation there, including the delivery of arms to the UAF. I believe Russia would have no problem with this development, as it would give them cover to increase, and perhaps make official, its support for the NDF.

As an aside, before their civil war, the Ukraine was perennially among the top five of the world's largest arms exporters. So lack of arms is not clearly not the problem. No, the problem is that those who are trained to use them are not particularly enthusiastic about fighting, and those that are enthusiastic about fighting are not particularly well trained. Not to mention that a lot of them are dead already.

As for Putin and the elections, the real risk for him is not soldiers coming home in bodybags. Russian mentality, and their general attitudes towards war, allow them to take losses perhaps like no one else in the world. No, the real political risk to Putin is not appearing to react strongly enough.

As it is, Russian public opinion would like him to take a tougher stance in facing down the Empire. The world should really be glad that Russia has such a patient and tolerant leader. Russia's next leader will lack the political capital that Putin has developed over the years, and will likely be much more aggressive in the defense of Russia's national interests. Those dreaming of Putin's exit should really be careful of what they wish for.

Randal , August 4, 2017 at 11:13 am GMT

@reiner Tor Silence, boy. The Emperor's suit is of surpassing magnificence, as all respectable folk agree.

isthatright , August 4, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT

@reiner Tor good point

War for Blair Mountain , August 4, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT

The Democratic Party

Mass murder of Conservative Christian Russians in the name of Homosexual-Pedophile-Tranny Rights

Democratic Party Family Values ..

War for Blair Mountain , August 4, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

If Putin backs down to the neocons .he will very likely be overthrown by the Russian Military .I would like to know Comrade Saker's and Comrade SmothieX1′s view on this matter since they are both by many orders of magnitude more qualified to comment on this point that I have raised

Andoheb , August 4, 2017 at 12:03 pm GMT

Wonder if Russians could respond by arming Taliban

neutral , August 4, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT

@for-the-record

look for a call to boycott the 2018 World Cup in Russia

That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care, but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.

Astuteobservor II , August 4, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT

putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow NK to be taken over.

anonymous , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

Well, at least we're spared in his latest Mr. Buchanan's witlessly carrying around a bucket of "Russian hacking" BS.

But he still serves the Establishment. Note his habitual use of "we" in reference to the USG. People who self-identify with their rulers are essential for the warmongers. Isn't that why Americans are subjected to camouflage uniforms and "thank you for your service" spectacles at athletic events?

I can appreciate the author's desire to see himself and to be lauded as a "true conservative." But the fact is that he was part of the regime that was more successful only because it picked on Grenada and other relative weaklings. 99% of the people who live in this country shouldn't care less about who governs Ukraine, Korea, or any other place outside the lawful territory of the United States

More of us every day realize that the beat has been rolling on, no matter who is in nominal power in Washington, for a long, long time. Mr. Buchanan should take a couple more steps back. Maybe he will see that, too.

Andrei Martyanov , Website August 4, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT

In short, Volker believes giving antitank and antiaircraft missiles to Ukraine will bring Putin to the negotiating table, as he fears the prospect of dead Russian soldiers coming home in caskets before his 2018 election.

1.There are NO cohesive Russian Armed Forces units (formations) in Donbass. Volunteers (aka "vacationers") from regular Russian Army? Sure, they are being paid well, plus Northern Wind. But it seems even Ukrainian Army's top brass admission that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine falls on a deaf ear. Evidently those in the "West" who continue to repeat this baloney have very little understanding of how real wars are fought and how real formations from company up to battalion and regiment level, not to speak of brigades or divisions, are deployed. Per personnel–neither DNR nor LNR have issues with mobilizing numbers.

2. Volker continues, if that are his real intentions, to demonstrate a complete lack of any strategic vision and following dead beat cliches–which are defining characteristics of D.C. "elites" who are completely removed from everyday realities, which actually matter, of the world. Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table". Even giving some Javelins (not to speak of TOWs) and Stinger-type weapons will only accelerate a demise of the Ukrainian Army and with it, of the current Kiev regime. But then again, considering level of US "diplomacy" in general, and Volker's in particular one can reasonably expect another FUBAR with dire consequences for both US and its clients.

Andrei Martyanov , Website August 4, 2017 at 1:02 pm GMT

@Astuteobservor II

putin will 100% not back down. this is not 1962. same reason why china would never allow NK to be taken over.

It has nothing, zilch, to do with Putin. It has everything to do with overwhelming majority of Russian people, whose blood was spilled on US and EU (NATO) money. The combined West and especially its pathetic Russian "academe" have no clue about cultural suicide West (US especially) has committed in Russia. It is my academic contention that US Russia's "scholarship" (with some few exceptions) knows next to zero about Russia and especially her 20th and 21st century history. It is an established scientific fact now. Overwhelming empirical evidence to support my claim is in place and easily accessible. It is also a major reason why US "power elites" are so dangerous–they miscalculate constantly, because they are incompetent.

Michael Kenny , August 4, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

If I have understood Mr Buchanan's writings correctly, his primary goal is the destruction of the EU, which he sees as a threat to US global hegemony. Putin is merely an American stooge to be used to promote that end in return for which he is to get such reward as the hegemonic US vouchsafes to grant him. The conundrum for the US hegemonists is that if Putin wins in Ukraine, then US global hegemony is irreversibly destroyed but if he loses, the hated EU is enormously strengthened, which in its turn destroys US global hegemony! Heads, the EU wins, tails, the US loses! The argument Mr Buchanan is challenging seems to be that taking Putin out will do less damage to US hegemony than allowing him to win. As for Putin, he has two choices. He can capitulate in return for some face-saving fudge that will fool nobody. That will probably destroy him politically with his elderly Soviet-generation supporters at home. Or he can start WWIII and lose or start WWIII, go nuclear and then lose. That too will destroy him at home. Thus, for US hegemonists who haven't yet accepted that Putin has "blown it" and can no longer serve as a battering ram to destroy the EU (and has, indeed, become a liability to the very US groups that initially backed him), the logical thing is to try to get the US to capitulate to Putin in the mistaken belief the the European members of NATO are incapable of fending off Putin's rickety military machine by themselves. That wholly misunderstands the strength of nationalism in Europe, the very same nationalism that the US hegemonists have been trying to whip up as (yet another!) battering ram to destroy the EU!

Harold Smith , August 4, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT

"Is President Trump losing control of Russia policy? Has he capitulated to the neocons? [OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD FROM THE BEGINNING]?"

There; I fixed it for you.

Ludwig Watzal , Website August 4, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress. which blocks any of his initiatives. What Vice President Mike Pence is talking about his trip in the Baltics or the other US satellite states, is irresponsible. It shows that Trump has lost control that is what the war party and the Republicans want. They will push Trump out of office and if it doesn't work some hired crazy will kill him like JFK. The real political gangsters are the members of the Deep State such as the CIA, NSA, the wider intelligence community, and the Clinton and Obama political mafia.

The suggestions made by Kurt Volker, the new U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, are just beyond the pale for the Russians. For what Volker suggested, Trump should replace him. President Putin should not accept being fooled by the US any longer and just take the Donbas, period as he did with South Ossetia. If the US war-mongers in Washington want to go to war over Ukraine, they should try it. Putin should not allow the US to blackmail him further on.
Putin is not an imperialist or an aggressor, but the US Empire and its NATO satellites are.

Having conquered 75 per cent of the world's territories through over 700 US military bases, the real perpetrator is obvious. Putin should not back down against US aggression and provocation. Why should the US risk its destruction for a corrupt and criminal political leadership in Ukraine? Perhaps there are still some sane people within the Belt Way, although they are thin on the ground.

Seward , August 4, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT

@JL As I've proposed in other fora, a simple, effective Russian response would be to proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties. (I.E., temporarily permanent.) A precedent would be the French protectorates Tunisia and Morocco, and the various analogous protectorates still exercised around the world (see Wikipedia). The proclamation should proclaim that Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian; and also against any ground attack across the cease-fire line using ground forces presently deployed in Russia, at the request of either Donbas republic. The U.S. and Nato would scream bloody murder of course, Congress would vote more meaningless sanctions, but the situation would stabilize permanently IMHO, perhaps after a few retaliatory barrages. It would be like the Crimea, a frozen conflict the Ukraine and the West know they cannot win short of WW3.

Sergey Krieger , August 4, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov And because they have not been hurt yet and have no clue as to what real hubris after failure coming home looks like.

anon , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT

@Wally You are deluded. It's almost hopeless – but one last try- the policy of US global hegemony has nothing to do with Israel. It's been the goal of almost the entire foreign policy elite- including the WASP elite- since 1945. If you mistakenly insist on blaming Israel or its supporters for everything that is happening, you can't identify the real ideas and forces that are propelling us to disaster. That's why anti- Semitisn is such a disabling disease- it mentally cripples those who go down that path. But you won't listen or try to get out, so I'm wasting my breath.

anon , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

@Captain Nemo Your analysis is correct. Add in the liberal interventionists to the foreign policy groups seeking US global hegemony.

anon , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT

@Captain Nemo Your analysis is correct. Add in the liberal interventionists to the foreign policy groups seeking US global hegemony.

Quartermaster , August 4, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

This is a formula for a renewed war, with far higher casualties in Ukraine than the 10,000 dead already suffered on both sides.

last I looked there is already a war. Nothing would be "renewed," as it is ongoing.

Volker envisions a deepening U.S. involvement in a Ukrainian civil war that can bleed and break Russia's Ukrainian allies and convince Putin to back down and accept what we regard as a just settlement.

It is not a civil war. That is a Putinist lie. Russian units are already on the ground in the Donbas and their casualties have been quite heavy. Russian troops have been captured, and they were in possession of their military ID and internal passports. "Cargo 200″ shipments have been rather heavy over the last 3 years, and parents of the troops killed have been asking about their kids.

The Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves. They simply need the tools. Putin may not like the fact that the Ukrainians don't want any part of his renewed Russian Empire, but it need not involve our troops when the people are their are willing to fight.

annamaria , August 4, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

@Taras77 "The stupidity of Volker is astonishing but he is in keeping with his neo con associates "

This is not stupidity. This is the zioncon-inspired treason against US citizenry at large. McCain father, an admiral, got his fame for whitewashing the USSLiberty "accident," thus insulting the memory of American sailors who were wounded and died during the despicable Israeli attack. John McCain moniker, "Tokyo Rose," is not for nothing. Similarly, his open fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis (on a cue from ziocons) is just a family tradition of profitable betrayal. McCain has been loyal to ziocons because the Lobby has become all-powerful in the US.
https://www.dailystormer.com/senile-traitor-john-mccain-claims-america-was-stronger-under-obama/ "McCain's entire political career has been based off of doing what's best for Israel and not America."

http://america-hijacked.com/2011/09/02/john-mccain-praises-fathers-whitewashing-of-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty/

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/john-mccain-most-hypocritical-opportunistic-and-untrustworthy-senator

As for Volker, he is a regular opportunist who would sell the US for a right amount of money and power. Like boss, like servant.

Wally , Website August 4, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

@anon Another desperate hasbarist has spoken.

'Antisemitism' is simply a logical reaction to the lies, thievery, violence, destruction, and hate that is perpetrated and advocated by Jewish supremacists.

The '6M Jews' crap is falling part, BDS is breathing down their neck, & "that shitty little country" is doomed. Excellent.

"Alone the fact that one may not question the Jewish "holocaust" and that Jewish pressure has inflicted laws on democratic societies to prevent questions!while incessant promotion and indoctrination of the same averredly incontestable 'holocaust' occur!gives the game away. It proves that it must be a lie. Why else would one not be allowed to question it? Because it might offend the "survivors"? Because it "dishonors the dead"? Hardly sufficient reason to outlaw discussion. No, because the exposure of this leading lie might precipitate questions about so many other lies and cause the whole ramshackle fabrication to crumble."

- Gerard Menuhin / righteous Revisionist Jew, son of famous violinist

Must reads:
Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries

http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:

http://codoh.com

No name calling, level playing field debate here:

http://forum.codoh.com

The True Cost of Parasite Israel
Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

Israel's Dirty Little Secret
How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

Rurik , August 4, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

@Seward

proclaim a temporary protectorate over the Donbas republics of the Ukraine until such time as the Minsk II agreement is fulfilled, or renegotiated to the agreement to the concerned parties

but that all presumes the existence of some adherence to some principle of International Law or respect for such notions. When from the West, there are none anymore. The zio-West now destroys entire nations based on what everyone knows and accepts are blatant lies. The charade is over. Even the trappings of the illusion have been tossed aside, and the snarling zio-face of 'might = right' is now menacing the world.

A precedent would be the French protectorates

you're using the language of codified law, when there isn't any anymore

Russia will retaliate against any artillery, missile, air, or naval attacks on the Donbas using forces located in Russian;

the zio-fiend is salivating for any pretext it can use to act outraged and shocked, shocked! that today it has been proven true! Putin is Adolf Hitler and threatens the world with military tyranny! He must be stopped at all costs! John McCain and Lindsey Graham were right all along!! This man is a menace! and France and Germany and England are joining the ZUSA with immediate calls for Russia to desist and respect International Law and sovereign borders!!

'THIS WILL NOT STAND!'

blah, blah, blah

What Putin should do is tell the West/NATO to stop fomenting war on his borders, and if they really are going to keep pushing until Russia accepts its status as vassal state to Tel Aviv, (like the ZUSA and England and France and Germany obviously are), that before that happens, everyone should know that there's a certain 'shitty little state' in the middle east that can expect to be visited by a couple of Satan II ambassadors before Russia bows down like a mangy dog to the Jewish supremacist$ in Israel.

anonymous , Disclaimer August 4, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

@neutral ZioUSA did everything in its power to derail Sochi.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/boycott-the-winter-olympi_b_4439037.html

U.S. skeleton athletes seek boycott of Sochi championships
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sport-doping-skeleton-usa-idUSKBN13U01H

U.S. Athletes Weigh a Boycott Over Russian Doping – The New York

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/04/sports/russian-doping-boycott-us-athletes.html

Should the US have boycotted the Sochi Olympics
http://www.debate.org › Opinions › Politics

Latvia skeleton team to boycott world championships in Russia | Sport
https://www.theguardian.com › Sports › Russia doping scandal

U.S. men's hockey players may boycott world championships in
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ /ct-us-men-may-boycott-hockey-world-championships-2 ;

U.S. women's hockey players to boycott world championships
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ /ct-womens-hockey-world-championships-boycott-20170 ;

Boycott the Winter Olympics | HuffPost
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/boycott-the-winter-olympi_b_4439037.html

Canada and U.S. should consider boycott of men's hockey in Sochi
archives.cerium.ca/Canada-should-boycott-men-s-hockey

for-the-record , August 4, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

@neutral That would never work, the USA could prevent their team from going and nobody would care, but there is no way they could make the rest of the world do this, to deprive people of such a big event would create an epic backfire for the neocons, even vassal states such as Germany or UK being told by the USA not to go with get the middle finger.

My point was that there will be a call to boycott the World Cup, hopefully you are right as to the outcome. After decades of being subservient vassals, it would be truly ironic if the ultimate wedge between the US and the "coalition of the willing" were to be sports, showing what is truly important in life

for-the-record , August 4, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Nor are they competent in their assessments of the scale of the resources required for "bringing Putin to negotiating table".

Following up on an earlier post, I think you are misinterpreting Volker's objective (and those of his "fellow travelers"). They know very well that Putin won't "come to the table", in fact they don't want him to. What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them to demonize it.

Rurik , August 4, 2017 at 3:17 pm GMT

They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them to demonize it.

bingo!

Mulegino1 , August 4, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

As Volker so trenchantly illustrates, corruption, stupidity, recklessness and ignorance are indispensable prerequisites for the wielding of influence in the Washington D.C. "national security" establishment. It is not so much a swamp as an open sewer.

Trump should have let the Russian sanctions bill become law without his signature. One of his major weaknesses is his being bedazzled by flag officers and brass. His chief national security adviser is a dead ringer for Aleister Crowley.

Andrei Martyanov , Website August 4, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

What they want is to force him to intervene directly and openly, as in Syria, and then use this "invasion" to justify permanent pariah status for Russia. They don't care at all what happens to Ukraine, only that Russia is forced to act in a manner that will allow them to demonize it.

It would have been a valid point should what you propose as a rationale hasn't been tried before–to no avail. Russia DOES have a proxy force in LDNR and, if and when necessary, may drastically "improve" its fighting capabilities. Considering the (what's known) present state of the Ukrainian Army (obviously a "strongest one in Europe(c)", wink, wink) I think the forces LDNR field currently are enough to prevent Kiev from attempting any large scale offensive. Having said all that, Poroshenko is desperate and he may try anything but political fallout for Russia, if to consider Russia's direct involvement, which will be very short and very bad for Ukraine, is being increasingly mitigated by Russia's Asian dynamics. Once Power of Siberia is operational (among other serious infrastructure projects at the Far East)–Europe can go to hell. But I am sure there are more aces and trump cards (no pun intended) up Russia's "sleeve". As per demonization: is it possible to demonize even more? I think Clapper has already established the fact that Russians are genetically inferior. So, concentration camps for Russians are in order at some point of time.

Harold Smith , August 4, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT

@Ludwig Watzal "Political morons are running the US. Trump is not in control of any of his agencies or departments. All of them are hostile to him not to speak to Congress."

Would you agree with me that this pathetic situation obviously didn't happen by "accident"? It must be concluded that the Trump "presidency" is a Trojan horse. Trump's whole campaign was a calculated fraud from the beginning. That is, presidential poseur Trump ran with the intention of turning most general policy decisions, especially foreign policy, over to his Jewish-supremacist handlers, and letting them pick most if not all of his subordinates (or at least letting them have veto power over his choices).

Hood Canal Gardner , August 4, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT

What has The Donald got for a 'good deal swap' for Afghanistan, ie Putin to pick up where they left-off in the 70s?

virgile , August 4, 2017 at 4:25 pm GMT

What is the USA's Achilleus heel where Russia, Iran or North Korea can inflict it the maximum pain?
Iraq? Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia? the Gulf countries? Japan? Israel?
It seems that North Korea already won as Tillerson now strongly denies that the USA is seeking a regime change there. It seems that the threat of nuclear is very effective in making the USA back down. Iran has proven on the ground in Syria that its missiles can easily reach Israel, that is why the USA rushed to inflict new sanctions. The USA seems to be building up a pretext ( or a false flag) to destroy Iran's missile development capabilities to protect Israel. Is Iran staying idle, or covertly threaten USA's local allies, the Gulf countries of possible retaliation? The Gulf countries are probably trying to prevent any attack on Iran. Japan did the same about North Korea, resulting in offers of negotiations. Will the Gulf countries have the same weight or the USA will take the chance of an all out war where it would have to intervene militarily again?
Now Russia will be watching Trump weakening and the neocons taking over. Is it a done game? who will rescue Trump? The American people who voted for him? will the USA fall into a civil war if Trump is threatened of impeachment?
I trust Trump will reach to the American people and win back his power.

Alden , August 4, 2017 at 5:36 pm GMT

@Harold Smith Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?

jacques sheete , August 4, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT

@Harold Smith

[OR ARE WE NOW FORCED TO CONCLUDE THAT TRUMP'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WAS A CALCULATED FRAUD FROM THE BEGINNING]?"

There; I fixed it for you.

You certainly did!

aaaa returns , August 4, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny The EU are doing a good job of destroying themselves. If the Central and Eastern countries continue to be bullied over migrants and bad economic deals, then maybe they'll rightly cut and run.

USA's soft-war against Europe was evident right after the 2008 economic bust, with Greece CDS's being targeted until capitulation. Then Hillary or whomever conned Europe into wrecking Libya, then Ukraine, then Syria, then the wave of migrants began..

It might sound ridiculous, but I am starting to think Erdogan has been a far better leader than Merkel or the clown car carousel of France. He's totally ruthless, and has been a supporter of terrorists, but his moves have been somewhat logical in the face of extreme crisis. Now he seems to have oriented Turkey to a relatively solid footing as far as I can see.

annamaria , August 4, 2017 at 6:07 pm GMT

@Rurik The destruction and rape of Ukraine had been planned already by the ZUSA when a previous puppet of US, Yushchenko, was installed in Kiev with the help of the State Dept. and the CIA-supported and educated organizations like The National Endowment for Democracy (NED). http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/08/killing-europe-us-launches-sanctions.html

"Back in 2010, Russia proposed creating a joint venture with Ukraine and unifying Gazprom's fields and Ukraine's gas pipelines. However, the pro-American leadership of Ukraine at the time (when Viktor Yushchenko, who led the country as a result of a color revolution, was president) rejected the project, seeing such as a "threat" to "national dignity", i.e., Ukraine's GTS [gas transport system]. The plan for "increasing Ukraine's energy security" contained in HR 3364 [concocted in the US] means turning Ukraine into a transit monopolist under the control of American companies. Accepting the Americans' conditions is economically disadvantageous to Russia and renders it politically dependent on the unpredictable transit that is Ukraine. If this act is implemented, American energy companies will be able to participate in the privatization of Ukraine's GTS (as provided by the Third Energy Package) and profit off of the transport of gas across Ukrainian territory. Thus, the main revenue from transiting Russian gas would not go to the Ukrainians, but to their overseas overlord."

Very clear. The natives can go die out peacefully without making any unnecessary noise re "sovereignty," "national interests" and other trifles that are of no interests for the US corporations.

Monsanto is already in charge of the Ukraine' agricultural lands. Splendid. http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2526593/ukraine_opens_up_for_monsanto_land_grabs_and_gmos.html

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has been chaired by Carl Gershman, the ziocon who has been president since NED was founded in 1983.

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192992.html

https://journal-neo.org/2015/08/03/national-endowment-for-democracy-is-now-officially-undesirable-in-

SolontoCroesus , August 4, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

@Alden

Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?

technicalities.

Woodrow Wilson was under control of zionists, most notably, in the person of Louis Brandeis & his claque.

Franklin D Roosevelt was most certainly under the control of zionists/Jews -- Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, and the Morgenthaus, pater et fil plus their acolytes and syanim, exerted enormous power over FDR. Eisenhower owed most of his power/authority to doing things that pleased zionist/Jewish string-pullers who maneuvered FDR

as you say, LBJ for sure was more committed to keeping the gawd's chozen happy than to protecting the interests of the American people.

Based on a review on "The American Empire Project" of a book by Nathan Thrall, titled "The Only Language they Understand," http://americanempireproject.com/blog/the-only-language-they-understand-by-nathan-thrall/ , Jimmy Carter probably did more to turn USA over to the zionists than even LBJ: this is surprising because, as the review notes, Carter initially took a hard line on Israel, demanding early on that Israel halt settlement-building, and arguing forcefully that Palestinians deserved protection of their territorial and all other rights.

When Carter's other activities vis a vis Jews are correlated with the actions Thrall describes, I think -- should say speculate -- that Carter was out-maneuvered by the zionists: it was Carter who gave Jews the opening to create the holocaust museum in Washington, DC -- in other words, it may be that Carter allowed the Trojan Horse to be rolled through the gates of the USA and to stand at USA's front door.
The Jews got what they wanted, but Carter's demands were not only ignored, they -- and he -- were cast aside.

Harold Smith , August 4, 2017 at 6:57 pm GMT

@Alden "Hasn't every president since Johnson been an Israeli/APAIC front man?"

Obviously. But the tenor of Ludwig Watzal's post seems to be that Trump, other than perhaps being "weak" or "incompetent" is not at fault.

I agree with him that technically, Trump probably isn't "in control", but that's apparently what Trump agreed to when he and his handlers set out to defraud all of us.

annamaria , August 4, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT

What made Mueller such a great asset for the deep state?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/08/comey-and-mueller-russiagates-mythical-heroes/

"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang . Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11.
He is just "their man."

EugeneGur , August 4, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT

@Quartermaster You sound like you copied this statement from a Ukrainian propaganda site.

Sure thing, thousands of Donbass people fighting in the militia do not exists but Russia troops nobody has been able to see or photograph do. I have the utmost respect for the Russian military capabilities but I do not think they've developed a clocking device as yet.

And, of course, going to a secret military mission, you should never forget to bring along you internal passport and military ID. Heavy losses, really? We know people who died in Donbass by name – and they aren't Russia soldiers. Oh, you forgot about buryats – no picture of the Russia invasion could be complete without byuryat motorized divisions invading Donbass.

You may not like it but this is a civil war brought about by the idiotic policies of the scumbags the West put in charge of Ukraine. As to the tools, bring them over – they'll end up in the hands of the Donbass militia in no time. You see, "Ukrainians are willing to fight for themselves" mostly on the pages of Facebook. Those that do go to the Army, mostly do it for money. The situation in today's Ukraine is so desperate, killing one's former compatriots is about the only way for a man to make a living.

Rurik , August 4, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

@annamaria all true anna

they've had their devil's tentacles in Ukraine for quite some time. When you mentioned the word 'trifles', I was reminded of what the Israeli/"Ukrainian" oligarch said about the people on MH17. He called their deaths a 'trifle', as he mentions that the wrong plane was shot down. Presumably his merc was sent up to shoot Putin's plane down and he shot the wrong one down (which would explain the machine gun holes).

this video has been scrubbed from most of the internet, and most of the ones you click on will say 'this video has been removed'

https://youtu.be/-TmarLwobzs

yeah , August 4, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT

@reiner Tor Interestingly, it's never explained why Putin would fear his soldiers being killed before the election if he really was a dictator. Either he doesn't care much for the election or he's not really a dictator. Good catch! The pity is that people who have made up their minds (or have had theirs made up for them) about Putin being a dictator will not see the wit and logical beauty of your argument. They are quite likely to write you off as another Russian-stooge and dig in their heels even further. Here is a short farcical satire about our times.

Good, obedient citizen: Please Guvm'nt, help me. I can't sleep at night 'cause I fear there may be a red under my bed waiting to choke me to death.

Guvm'nt: Don't worry lad. We watch your house, we monitor your mail. We watch you and yours. We know when you pee and we watch who comes in and out of your house. No one can even breathe without our being in the know.

Good citizen: Ah thank God! Thanks for preventing a red under my bed. I can now sleep in peace.

[Aug 04, 2017] What made Mueller such a great asset for the deep state?

Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism." ..."
"... Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
Aug 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria > > , August 4, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT

What made Mueller such a great asset for the deep state?

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/08/comey-and-mueller-russiagates-mythical-heroes/

"Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang . Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

Mueller knew that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."

[Aug 03, 2017] The Magnitsky Hoax

Margnistsky was an accountant. He never has been a laywer.
Notable quotes:
"... "Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US". ..."
"... There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends. ..."
"... I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy. ..."
"... The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure. ..."
"... The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU. ..."
"... Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic . ..."
"... Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008). ..."
"... A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987) ..."
"... According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/ ..."
"... Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done. ..."
"... And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white. ..."
"... On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true). ..."
"... Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom). ..."
"... What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong. ..."
"... It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. ..."
"... And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree. ..."
"... I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME. ..."
"... Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional. ..."
"... I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets. ..."
"... To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin. ..."
"... Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia. ..."
"... Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money. ..."
Aug 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William Browder, who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely accepted story on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to promoting the legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that. The grandson of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party, William Browder studied economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.

From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing with reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst for Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the Russia team at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.

He left Salomons in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage Capital Management Fund. Hermitage is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It is a hedge fund that was focused on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the loans-for-shares scheme under Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir Putin's ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.

Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In his book Red Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to function in a corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the loans-for-shares scheme that made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption, an arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and bribery.

As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country. Three companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is not clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully, made his case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during and since that time, though there have been skeptics regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman, always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians and media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different, which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.

Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been carefully constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with Magnitsky's mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured and that he died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or treatment shortly after he had a heart attack. A subsequent investigation ordered by then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received medical treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.

Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual documents sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant, not a lawyer, which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a criminal investigation of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was instead a suspected criminal.

Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to enable the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were irrelevant to how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by Hermitage other than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.

In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme used to carry out the deception.

To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case that contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an intelligence officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so considerable care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the evidence being provided. It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder and Magnitsky have been the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the other way around. In my experience perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to be incorrect.

Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right, though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain, Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what the consequences of proposed action might be.

One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him huffing and puffing to explain himself at times and he has avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube running away from a server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.

A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov

likbez, August 4, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

Magnitsky was a sleazy accountant, not a lawyer and among his activities one was about getting tax breaks for Browder, using fictitious hiring of disabled people to get a tax break.

Browder was one of the very bold and very suspicious "gold-diggers" in xUSSR space, who tried to participate in the "economic rape of Russia".

http://thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Economics&Finance/+Doc-Economics&Finance-GovernmentInfluence&Meddling/BankstersInRussiaAndGlobalEconomy.htm

During this time of gangster capitalism in Russia under drunk Yeltsin such a person, especially a foreign one, could easily get a six grams of led if he stepped on some oligarchs foot, but this did not stopped him. He was really reckless. I wonder why. Who protected him in Russia? Here is pretty interesting and educational reading

https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/sergei-magnitsky-bill-browder-hermitage-capital-management-and-wondrous-metamorphoses/

One quote:

"Ties with Russia run deep in his family; his grandfather was General Secretary of the US Communist Party and, according to documents released in 1995, worked for the NKVD, running a spy ring. Bill himself specialized in Eastern European markets, and when he felt the time was right, he founded Hermitage Capital Management in 1996, along with the main investor, Edmond Safra."

His real connection and why he renounced US citizenship and is hiding in UK suggest that some influential British structures were behind his activities.

In a way Browder was very interested in Magnitsky death as dead Magnitsky was much more useful for him that alive. Magnitsky knew way too much about Brower activities in Russia and already started talking.

Boris N, June 28, 2016 at 6:04 am GMT

It's a pity that doublespeak and doublethink rule the world. Every time you read something you now must decipher.

"Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US".

There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends.

But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well. This entire conflict is between the native colonial administration and the foreign carpetbaggers. And the main point is who'll get the cash, either Browder and his friends or some unknown Russian oligarchs and corrupt officials. But both the results are bad for Russians.

Haxo Angmark, Website June 28, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

the Short Version: Putin's Russia is a large White pebble in the open-borders Judeo-globalist shoe. The Zionists/neo-conz/cucks will do anything – even upbrink to a nuclear WW III – to destroy Nationalist Russia

Boris N, June 28, 2016 at 6:36 am GMT

And something else about democracy, freedom, human rights and so on hypocritical demagogy of the West.

I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy.

But the fact is that everyday for the last 25 years thousands of common Russians are faced with the violations of their rights. But nobody in the West worry about them, nobody mention them, they simply do not exist for the West. The only people that exist are those who are directly or indirectly connected with the Western establishment. That is the Western establishment and their tame press are concerned only about their personal interests.

And when another Western (or Russian) journalist or human rights "activist", while writing another article about Russia, mention again and again just only that half a dozen of the names, I just cannot help but despise those hypocrites.

exiled off mainstreet, June 28, 2016 at 6:55 am GMT

The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure.

Rehmat, June 28, 2016 at 8:33 am GMT

Sergei Magnitsky like the US and EU was a Zionist clown whose strings were held by the Organized Jewry.

In November 2015, in an interview with UK's No.1 Israeli propaganda media outlet, 'Jewish Chronicle', William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as Putin's "number one enemy" in his book: Red Notice, claimed that though Putin had met Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, and local Jewish leaders; supports Israel and donated $1 million to Moscow's Holocaust Museum – his heart is filled with hatred towards Jews. Why? Because he tortured and killed Magnitsky and supports Iran's ally Assad.

Madeleine Albright, who found her Jewish family roots while holding post of US secretary of state, in a recent interview she gave to Austrian newspaper DiePress.com called Russian president Vladimir Putin "a smart but a truly evil man." She claimed that Putin is trying his best to destroy European Union and NATO, two of Israel's allies.

"He is smart but truly an evil man. An officer of KGB, who wants to exercise power and believes that every body has come together to conspire against Russia. This is not true. Putin is playing bad cards well, for the time being at least. I believe his goal is to undermine and split EU. He want NATO to disappear from his sphere of influence," She said.

https://rehmat1.com/2016/04/24/madeleine-albright-putin-is-an-evil-man/

Philip Giraldi, June 28, 2016 at 11:43 am GMT

@Rehmat

Thanks. The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU.

Wizard of Oz, June 28, 2016 at 3:57 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet

You omit taking notice of the author's shrewd observation that there might still be available some large amount of money that even Nekrasov might find irresistable as way to quickly achieved financial independence. Even if he is basically an honest man he might be able to rationalise selling out if he knows that Browder is, anyway, a crook.

Rurik, June 28, 2016 at 5:06 pm GMT

@Boris N Hello Boris,

But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well.

in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West? From here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being systematically murdered off

Personally, for me, what it feels like is that the worst elements in the population that were in Russia (and Eastern Europe) during the 20th century have now emigrated over to the West. And that just as Russia and Eastern Europe suffered unimaginable horrors during the last century, under cruel and sadistic Bolsheviks (and the Cheka and NKVD), they are now over here, fomenting genocide and looting the place blind.

It's as if when Putin came to power, the Fiend slithered over the Berlin wall into the West, where it now molders in the assorted banking houses and think tanks plotting its next iniquitous atrocity, whether financial or military or social/cultural.

That's how it seems to me anyways.

(thank you PG for your superlative and informative articles. They're very much appreciated)

bunga, June 28, 2016 at 5:53 pm GMT

@Rehmat

I guess he doesn't have to be anti Jewish ,but being a proponent of prosperity at home and peace abroad does create a monster out of a decent man in today's garbage land which defines the western minds . It sure doesn't help the warmongering war readiness war friendly Zio

In some way Zio are doing what they did to other peace makers through the ages. Being against war and being for peace automatically ensures extended definition of antisemitism will be attached

Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic .

WTF with these shitheads

Rehmat, June 28, 2016 at 10:32 pm GMT

Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).

During his acceptance speech Jim McGovern said that he was a staunch supporter of Israel and supported the US-Iran nuclear agreement because it would be good for Israel in long-term.

During his stay in London, Jim McGovern was interviewed by Israeli mouthpiece, Jewish Chronicle – published on November 27.

"I understand the security concerns, but I also believe that ultimately, the way forward in Israel is for there to be real negotiations with the Palestinians -- a two-state solution. People need to learn to live with each other -- that's the solution all over the world," McGovern said.

When asked does that include Hamas? McGovern replied: "I don't need to negotiate with my friends. I need to negotiate with the people I consider my adversaries and my enemies."

He also criticized Israel's human rights abuses and warned such actions are isolating Israel from the international community. "I think Israel does not have a perfect human rights record. I think the settlement policies are very troublesome," he said.

https://rehmat1.com/2015/11/28/rep-mcgovern-only-hamas-can-guarantee-israels-security/

Anonymous, Disclaimer June 29, 2016 at 12:28 am GMT

@Anonymous Scotland the Brave

http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/scotland-the-brave/?highlight=pan+am+103+lockerbie

Sam J., June 29, 2016 at 3:06 am GMT

@Anonymous As Anonymous says,"
Q: Who is guilty of lying, Nekrasov or Browder?

A: Which one is the Jew?"

Agreed. Frequently you will find that to find the truth just see what the Jew is saying and the opposite will be the truth or what they say will be so convoluted as to twist the truth into a blaspheme of some sort.

Art, June 29, 2016 at 4:09 am GMT

@Rehmat

Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).

God help us, that Jew jerk Lantos is still screwing over America. Wonder how many Palestinians he is responsible for murdering?

Wizard of Oz, June 29, 2016 at 7:51 am GMT

@Anonymous Are you just idly polluting UR with your prejudices or do you have some faintly relevant information?

The Browders who are descended from (non-Jewish) Communist Earl Browder seem to have good mathematical brains which may be inherited from Earl Browder's Russian Jewish wife. But it appears the Jewishness ended with her. The younger Bill Browder (who has a mathematician uncle also called Bill) is the son of mathematician Felix who doesn't appear to have married a Jew. Over to you to research Nekrasov. Will your brain suffer spasms or paraysis if you find that neither of them are Jews.

Carroll Price, June 29, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT

A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987)

Philip Giraldi, June 29, 2016 at 10:05 am GMT

@Wizard of Oz

According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/

alexander, June 29, 2016 at 10:34 am GMT

@Carroll Price Carroll,

If this is an accurate quote, and I assume that it is, .what is the point of it? I mean what goals should the CIA have ? Shouldn't OUR CIA be doing everything in its power, (like every other government agency which we employ) to shore up the health ,wealth and security of our nation.? Every action it takes, clandestine or otherwise, should be designed to ensure the safety, freedom , and prosperity of our nation and its citizens .

Period. End of story. If they are not doing that .Fire the bums.

peterike, June 29, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT

@Greasy William

I still don't get what the cute girl in the pic is all about? She doesn't look Jewish or anything.

That cute girl is Elena Servettaz who edited the book, the cover of which is behind her. Here's a lot more photos of her for your viewing pleasure. Including one with her and Crazy John McCain, which probably tells you all you need to know.

http://magnitskybook.com/?page_id=29

Carroll Price, June 29, 2016 at 3:33 pm GMT

@Greasy William Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail, Elena Servettaz is a Russian Jew who serves basically the same role in the international journalistic world as Pamela Gellar serves in the right-wing talk-show host/U-tube world based in Jew York City.

http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/Elena_Servettaz

JL, June 29, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz Don't be ridiculous, Bill Browder is Jewish and has always strongly identified as such. He has a mezuzah on his office door and only hires Jewish employees. I knew him personally back in the 90s and 00s.

Eileen Kuch, June 29, 2016 at 8:32 pm GMT

@Boris N I agree with you wholeheartedly, Boris, with the comments you made on democracy in Russia, as well as the role the foreign (US) carpetbaggers had played in Russian society.

However, you failed to mention Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had succeeded the drunken, incompetent Boris Yeltsin, who had been installed by the Jewish Oligarchs, who were – during his Presidency – looting the Russian Treasury and bleeding the nation dry. It was Putin who salvaged the Russian economy by imprisoning and/or exiling these Oligarchs and seizing all of their assets. He also restored Orthodox Christianity in Russia after 70 years of it being underground under Bolshevik Communism. The magnificent Cathedral of Christ the Redeemer, which had been built in the 19th Century, then demolished by Lazar Kaganovich under Josef Stalin's orders, was restored (rebuilt) after Yeltsin became President in the 1990′s.

Democracy also came to Russia under Putin, along with the revival of Orthodox Christianity. As a result, the Russian people are experiencing more freedom than people are in Western countries, including the US. In a way, these two nations – Russia and the US – have switched ideologies. Even as I type this reply, Boris, Christianity in the US has just come under attack by the Federal Courts which, btw, is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees, along with freedoms of speech, press and peaceable assemply, freedom of religion.

helena, June 29, 2016 at 9:01 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz "as amongst the Jews what anti-Semites (and some Jews) would regard as "typically Jewish"."

Don't be ridiculous. Jewish people define themselves as an ethnic group. The fact that the ethnic group has considerably admixed is not the fault of those who merely observe that fact.

Carroll Price, June 30, 2016 at 4:27 am GMT

@Carroll Price https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/06/jean-marie-le-pen-fined-again-dismissing-holocaust-detail

Wizard of Oz, June 30, 2016 at 7:15 am GMT

@Eileen Kuch A friend who ran a very big charity funded by Khodorkovsky told me that he is not Jewish but Russian Orthodox and, indeed, his mother Marins seems to be Orthodox Christian, so why would the Jerusalem Post online refer to him as Jewish? Did he convert?

I guess its just that, on balance, any group likes to claim the rich unless they are too disreputable.

A related question is whether people with Jewish fathers, like K, got into the habit of associating with others who were at least part Jewish because of the viciousness or at least weight of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. After all one can get an idea of what it was like from the mad snti-Semitism in UR comments where even Rupert Murdoch can be called Jewish out of spite and envy even though he doesn't have a drop of known Jewish ancestry – pure Anglo-Celt it seems in case some twisted mind picks on that "known".

Boris N, June 30, 2016 at 7:29 pm GMT

@Rurik

in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West?

Yes, absolutely. It is not just my mere assumption, and it is not a conspiracy either, but clear open facts that anybody can see if one wants to see. It is not "as corrupt as", it IS controled by the West. We must not be deceived by the trickery red herring play of the official Kremlin (I do not like the cliche "Kremlin propaganda", but this is exactly it; unfortunately the Western MSM use this term for absolutely different things; the Western MSM play in the same duo, by the way).

Who is Putin and where has he come from in the first place? Apart from that he is a former KGB officer, and, as they say, "there aren't former KGB officers" (and this is important as a great deal of Russian oligarchs came from that organization), he has not come from anywhere and suddenly but fairly won the presidential campaign in 2000. During the 1990s he was moving around in the Russian oligarchic and Kremlin circles, in fact he once was the right hand of the first mayor of St.-Petersburg Sobchak, which in turn was a friend of Yeltsin. You think Putin is different, but he is the same, he is from the same circles, you has been tricked by the made-up image of Putin, a fiend for oligarchs and a friend of people, whereas he is, in fact, a friend of oligarchs, literally.

Then, what is more important. Even if we know little about Putin's life in the 1990s (everything is deliberately hidden), we know, hey, the entire world knows, how Putin has come to power. Putin was a protege of Yeltsin, and this Yeltsin's protectionism was not hidden, but absolutely public and official. Putin is the successor of Yeltsin, directly appointed by Yeltsin, a "legacy president" whose main goal is to maintain the status quo from the 1990s. I would rater call him a CEO under the control of the real masters, than an independent leader of the state. How can one at all believe "Putin is not Yeltsin", when it is contrary to the facts. And again we know which circles Yeltsin represented, and we know that those circles have had close connections with the West if not controled by the West, and here we've come to the most interesting part.

The entire post-Soviet Russian elite (oligarchs and government officials) has come come from the Communist nomenklatura, from the KGB and from the Soviet black market mafia structures (usually run by Jews, Ukrainians and Asiatics like Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and Uzbeks). And everybody of them have had many connections with the West, particularly with London, thousands of Russian oligarchs, higher officials or at least their families live in London, London is a second (true?) capital of Russia.

So there is no reason, why we must take the Kremlin and the West at face value. Why must we believe there is a conflict of the planetary scale, when there is none.

Well, I've said much enough (I hope MI6 will not find me; joke), but you can dig further yourself, everything is in open, the Russian ruling clique does not much hide itself, you do not need to be a secret agent trying to acquire the secret Kremlin (or rather Westminster?) documents, you just need to know the right directions of your searches. Just don't allow them to confuse yourself with the information noise, both from the Kremlin and the West. Sift attentively thousands of articles about a good Putin and a bad Putin from both the direction, because their real goal is just to hide the real truth.

Boris N, June 30, 2016 at 8:17 pm GMT

@Rurik

from here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being systematically murdered off

As for the Russian middle class. Of course, since 2000 the living standards of Russians have improved greatly. We could argue if it is due magical Putin or high prices of natural resources. But this only if we compare it with the Sovet pitiful existence and the extreme poverty of the 1990s. But Even if Russians have now more money, cars, things and all, Russia outside of Moscow and St.-Petersburg is still and will be for many decades a Second Word country, in many places even a Third World one. I lived in Western Europe and I can tell the difference. This is absolutely another different planet. Every bit there is better than in Russia, so Russia seems quite backward. It is just simply pleasant to live in a First World country. You constantly complain how bad the life in the West is, but you do not understand your luck that you were born or live there.

And nothing much have changed since the 1990s, if not since the Soviet times. The entire country is still ruled by the former Soviet nomenklature, the oligarchs of the 1990s and Western companies still own and pwn Russia, gigantic bulks of the Russian wealth flow to off-shore havens, the state budget still consist of >60% of the "natural rent", the high level corruption is flourishing, a great deal of the budget is embezzled by officials. Maybe the reason why the average Russians still live decent lives is Russia's wealth so immense, that even if half of it is stolen by the upper 5-10%, the remaining half is enough for the well-being of the other 90%. But imagine how well the Russians would live without the robbery by the Kremlin oligarchic clique.

And don't take official Russian statistics at face value. The Russian middle class hardly exists. And after 2014 the income of people has been dropping steadily. For the most provincial cities the picture is following (at 70 roubles per USD):

  • Lowest 30% earn below $200 per month
  • Low Middle 40% – $200-$400
  • High Middle 20% – $400-$600
  • Upper 5% – $600-$1200

In Moscow, St.-Petersburg and some northern regions these number are 2 times higher, but they comprise barely 15% of the population.

And we're left with 5%, the clique and their servants.

I can hardly name the people who earns under $400 the "middle class", and the country where 70% earns below that can hardly be called rich (though it is quite developed, comparing with the Third World). So there are just 5%, max 25%, of the real middle class. And the average pensions are around $200/month, so no less than 40 mln of senior Russians live for that small amount of money, and with constantly rising prices it is very difficult to make both ends meet.

And the last. You will complain that Europe is being flooded with immigrants, but Russia is a last stronghold. But I'll tell you what. Russia is on the second place by immigrant population after the USA! And they are coming in. Russia has officially 10 mln and unofficially close to 25 mln of immigrants from Asia. Moscow, in fact, must compete with London by the percentage of Asiatic immigrants. The Muslim population is rising and the Kremlin openly favours Muslims and Muslim immigrants.

Boris N, June 30, 2016 at 9:00 pm GMT

@Eileen Kuch You just reproduce the idealized image (either good or bad) of Putin that has been created by the propaganda machine from both the sides during the past 15 years. As I said above, Putin is hardly a threat to the oligarchs. Putin hardly persecute any oligarch. There are up to 100 Russian billionaires, and some thousands of millionaires, but only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev and maybe a couple of others were really imprisoned. No any other oligarchs have been persecuted. Never the privatisation of the 1990s was questioned. Never the legacy of Yeltsin was questioned, rather he is a "hero", an entire Yeltsin museum has been built. The very same oligarchs from the 1990s, except for maybe some outcasts, are continuing to loot and rob Russian wealth. They buy entire castles somewhere in England or France, they buy enormous luxury yachts, they have bought a great deal of the London luxury realty, etc., etc. They roll in money, Russian money. The only reason the average Russians still live decent is the enormous size of the Russian wealth, that even scraps are enough for the entire nation to live.

And I'm not that religious, I do not think that the renaissance of religiosity in Russia is any good, I rather agree with (a rare case) the Marx's opinion about "opium for the people". It just makes Russian people stupid, superstitious and easy to manipulate. We live in the 21th century, we do not need 2000-year old fairy tales to be good. Anyway, I have a great respect for the PAST Russian Christian tradition, I think it is an important part of the Russian culture and mentality, so I'm strongly against any destruction of it.

However, with both the economics and the culture you seem to present a false dilemma. You imply that the only alternative to Yeltsin and Putin are Kaganovich and Stalin, whereas I strongly believe there are many better alternatives.

Carroll Price, July 1, 2016 at 2:00 am GMT

@Boris N The overall quality of life in any country and in any generation depends on much more than annual income, reflected in the amount of money people have at their disposal. In fact, it's becoming increasingly evident that the more money people have to spend on "toys" and other unnecessary items, leads to major social problems including atomized families, wide-spread drug addiction, high suicide rates, mental problems, obesity, and homelessness. Not to speak of a lowering of moral standards that's simply off the charts – in the wrong direction. It's obvious that rural Americans (in particular) in the 1920s and 30s, although having little money at their disposal, enjoyed a much higher quality of life including extended and close knit families, than the majority of Americans today. I could be mistaken, but I suspect the same would be true for the average Russian today.

Rurik, July 2, 2016 at 7:33 pm GMT

@Boris N Thank you for your reply Boris.

We all know Putin plays footsie with the oligarchs. We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik. But the impression I get is of a man who wrested control of Russia away from the worst of the oligarchs, while playing nice with the rest of them. That's how it looked to us from thousands of miles away in the dying West, and firmly under the Zio/Rothschild boot, that this was/is a great man. A world-class statesman and nationalist who crushed the fanatical terrorists in Chechnya and mollified the moderate ones with reasonable policies, and he returned the resources of Russia back the Russian state.

Sure there is massive corruption, and other problems, but considering what the Russian people have endured with decades of (Jewish imposed) genocidal commie slavery, and then having it all do a 180 and then being impoverished even worse under the cruel destitution of crony Jewish 'capitalism' that simply handed Russia over to a few Jewish and Russian minions of Rothschild- to lord it over the dying and starving Russian people- for Putin to have turned this around is incomprehensible. It's nothing less than an historic accomplishment of a truly great man. A giant on the world's stage.

He has, it seems to me, nearly single handedly reined in the drooling, frothing Fiend, ripping to shreds everything it could get its blood dripping teeth on. Libya was the final straw for Putin, and he alone stood up to the beast when all of Europe were counting their shekels and tossing their citizens and their nation's dignity onto the Moloch's pyres of war and slaughter and cowardly appeasement of the Fiend.

Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done.

That's sort of how I see it. Yes, he plays ball with some very unsavory types, and corruption is rampant. But he has done something wonderful Boris.. he has given the Russian people back their dignity. They have something today that I don't think they've had for generations.. Hope. A shred of pride at being who and what they are; Russians.

How do you put a price on that? How do you quantify that kind of thing. Sure, Americans may be able to afford more flat screen TVs, with which to watch their culture and heritage being relentlessly maligned, their identities excoriated as evil, and their culture turned into a sewer. Oh joy. But how do you put a value on giving to your people a quiet sense of personal dignity? Vs. pitting them endlessly against each other with raging identity politics and a race down to the moral abyss of spiritual feculence, writ large.

That is our lot over here in the West Boris, and the SUVs and flat screen TVs just aren't all that, when you consider the soul and the doomed future of your people.

Boris N, July 2, 2016 at 8:15 pm GMT

@Carroll Price

I will strongly disagree. We have a lot of examples all around the world where the lack of money and low living standards lead to the same bad things that you have listed. You do not need to go far, just look at your neighbour countries in Central America, or else you even might go to your own American poor minority (Black or Hispanic) neighbourhood, where the people will strongly disagree with you that their living on $10,000/year gives them a great virtue, like if they have no money to buy "toys" (in fact, first-necessity goods) then they live better "spiritual" lives. When the poor speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means a getaway from the harsh reality with the help of self-illusion. When the rich speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means they try to cheat the poor.

Greasy William, July 2, 2016 at 8:22 pm GMT

We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik .

1. He's not pretending. There is a reason that Russian nationalists absolutely despise him. He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's deal.

2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having publicly good relations with Netanyahu. That tells you all you need to know about how indifferent the Russian people are towards the Palestinians. Contrary to your delusions, Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists who actually live in Russia would be quick to tell you.

Rurik, July 2, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT

He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's deal.

Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your quote! What he doesn't want is an all out war with the Zio-West!

2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having publicly good relations with Netanyahu.

again, he's pretending to like Bibi because Bibi is the king of the Jews and therefore the default king of the West today. He's Rothschild's number one stooge. Of course Putin has to play nice with him. But be honest Greasy, no one on this planet actually likes Bibi. That's like saying you like hemorrhoids. You deal with things like hemorrhoids or Bibi, as the case may be, but sure as shit don't like them.

Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists

no, certainly not. But it's also not a cultural sewer of the Jewish id, that we in the West all have to marinate in, thankyouverymuch.. not

Greasy William, July 2, 2016 at 9:37 pm GMT

@Rurik

Bibi is the king of the Jews

Bibi rules purely by default. He's not the king of anything. Nasrallah knew what he was talking about when he said that Sharon was the last King of Israel.

Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your quote!

But Putin is democratically elected. The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians. The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.

Carroll Price, July 2, 2016 at 9:54 pm GMT

@Boris N Moral always come first, with money being secondary. Of course It takes a certain amount of money for people to live, but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get. With Hollywood pukes being living examples of what money without morals produces. I'm surprised you haven't figured this out.

Greasy William, July 2, 2016 at 10:42 pm GMT

but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get.

Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable. As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.

Boris N, July 4, 2016 at 12:30 pm GMT

@Rurik I can understand why you have a distorted view of Putin and the Russian life. Because Westerners simply lack important sources of information about the reality in Russia, you simply do not live in Russia, do not meet and hear the people everyday, you are not insiders. This is why I always say that the voice for Russia in the Western media (at least in the non-mainstream one, because I have no illusion about the MSM) must be given not to West-based either Russophobes or Russophiles, who practically know nothing, but to middle-aged, middle-class Russians, who love and understand best their own home. But even in such a case we must have many voices because no two Russians have a similar point of view, for example, even if I become one of the voices (I've written quite much here, that many of my comments deserve to become articles on their own, ha-ha) many Russians will agree with me, many will disagree, and many may have totally different third, forth, and so on views. The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the West.

And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white.

On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true).

Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom).

What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong.

Maybe our opinions are heavily influenced by our lives, both you and I may have been disappointed by our lives in our respective countries, but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare, but I bet if you come to Russia and do not become one of the high-paid Western expats who live luxury lives in Moscow, you'll very soon run off home and your Putinism will fade immediately (though your love to Russia itself may strengthen, as it has been with many Westerners).

Boris N, July 4, 2016 at 12:46 pm GMT

@Greasy William I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about, simply because there are not THE Russian nationalists, but one or two dozens of diffused different small groups with different if not opposite views, who may call themselves or other may call them "Russian nationalists". Not to mention thousands of common non-partisan Russians who may call themselves nationalists as well but as well may have thousands of different personal opinions about the past and the current affairs.

Among those nationalists I know personally, most of them absolutely do not care about Iran, Israel and Palestine and about the Middle East in general. The interest has only aroused since the Syrian intervention, but the general opinion about it is negative, because many think that the war in Syria is utterly inappropriate, when just at the border there is an ongoing unfinished war with Ukraine. And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples of national states, of what Russia must become. And unlike many commenters here, most (with some exemptions) are not so much obsessed with Israel and Jews, and they do not care if Putin loves either Israel or Iran, they dislike Putin not for that, but for other mostly internal problems.

Boris N, July 4, 2016 at 12:56 pm GMT

@Carroll Price

I do not deny the need and the role of good moral, but I have a more materialistic view of the world, an important if not the fundamental condition for good moral is the full stomach. Again no need to go far for examples, there is Latin America where people theoretically have good moral, they all are devoted Catholics, but they live in a chaotic criminal frenzy, when Detroit would look like a safe haven compared to San Salvador. Do you really think that if the USA will be as poor as but as "spiritual" as Latin America, the US life will improve?

Boris N, July 4, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Greasy William

It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

In both the cases wealth does not guarantee good moral, but good moral is not an inevitable result of poverty. Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual" San Salvador?

Greasy William, July 4, 2016 at 7:19 pm GMT

Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual" San Salvador?

But San Salvador is just as spiritually sick as the West, just in a different way. A spiritually healthy society will have low corruption, low violence, respect for women's rights and concern for the welfare of the weak (the poor, the disabled, the sick). Poverty *can* breed evil, but evil always ultimately breeds poverty.

I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about

The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed on their asses.

And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples of national states, of what Russia must become.

They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?

Have you ever read the Kreutzer Sonata? It is the only piece of Russian literature I have ever read and I really liked it a lot.

Rurik, July 5, 2016 at 2:11 pm GMT

@Boris N Hey Boris,

The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the West.

well from what I can glimmer, the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.

Perhaps it has something to do with hard politics on the ground, and the reality that it's this guy that is running things today in Russia, for better or worse.

I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white.

I wouldn't quite characterize it in this way. It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth. Sometimes they mix a little truth in with the lies, and sometimes they say what's really going on, because by doing so it suits their agenda(s).

When they say the Olympics are happening in Sochi, I believe them. When they say Putin shot down MH17, I think they're lying. And then with most things in between, I think it's a combination of lies and truth, always with an agenda in mind. If Putin were assisting with the destruction of Syria today, like they (the occupied West) did to Iraq and Libya, I think they'd be calling him a great statesman, and partner in freedom and democracy. It all depends on if he toes the line.

but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare

It's true I've never been to Russia, at least not yet. The closest I've came is Slovakia and Hungary, (but I did meet a beautiful Russian girl when I visited Cuba a few years ago!)

I've never thought life was better in Russia. We do have many blessings in the West. But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West. And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.

My short take is that after the revolution and the murder of the Tsar and his family, the Fiend took control of Russia, and set about slaughtering the best of the Russians (and everyone else they could get their feculent hands on), and imposing a genocidal slavery on those people for generations. And then one day when they (Rothschild) decided that commie slavery was too expensive (you had to feed and house the people), they decided to impose a system even more cruel and fiendish. They'd simply use their puppet, quisling government in Moscow to loot the wealth and resources of Russia outright, and make Rothschild's minions some of the richest men in the world overnight, while impoverishing the Russian people to the point of near starvation. (it's what the do ; )

And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree.

But then came Libya, and Putin saw that the Fiend was in absolute control of the West, and must not be fed anymore, lest the Fiend grow and fester and become a dire threat to Russia itself, (again). So Putin put the kibosh on Syria, and now he's locked in a death struggle with the Fiend, who is insane with power-lust.

It's a difficult situation to be sure. And that's how I see the West vs. Putin's Russia, and why I like Putin even with all his warts and faults. At least he's trying to make Russia great again, and that's why there are many of us in the West who pine for a man like him to take on the Fiend that has its fangs locked deeply into the jugular of the West.

For what it's worth.

cheers

Rurik, July 5, 2016 at 2:25 pm GMT

@Greasy William

The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians.

I think they do care what happens to Iran, since it's a close trading partner. And the Palestinians are just a distant, tragic people to the Russians. Why should they wring their hands, it isn't them who're foisting the evils upon the Pals, it's us Americans that are doing that.

The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.

how many Russian nationalists do you know or speak to who are not Jewish, Greasy?

From what I understand, the IDF is chock full of Russian émigrés, and their take on things must be skewed by Putin's thwarting of Israel's designs on the Golan.

here's a forum run by an ultra-Russian nationalist

http://www.network54.com/Forum/84302

another

http://slavija.proboards.com/

here's the Pravda main forum

http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/forum/3-main-forum/

lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the Russian nationalists are on about

(they love Putin ; )

Rurik, July 5, 2016 at 2:39 pm GMT

@Greasy William

Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable. As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.

having linked to the Pravda forum, I just took a moment to peruse the Pravda front page.

This from an article on Russia today:

Putin has saved the country before and he is saving the country now. We despise all the fifth column "dissent" that is based on your taxpayer money. Russia will never behave like Soros, who maintains institutions to overthrow governments, because our leaders are Orthodox Christians. Capitalism is not our religion. You are addicted to a beautiful body, and we are addicted to a beautiful soul.

more:

Our aggressiveness exists only in your imagination. The reunification of the Russian people with the Crimea passed without one single shot, because Russia is more than just a country. Russia is a territory, which shares a common language, history and culture. We see any attempt to "reprogram" Russians in Ukraine as a hybrid warfare against us. One can welcome the Scottish Premier and discuss the likelihood for the UK to fall apart, but one can not support the population of southern lands of the former Russian Empire in their aspiration to withdraw from Ukraine? Is this not a double standard?

.. we do not like your determination to make us be like you. We change. Moscow has become one of the most beautiful capitals in Europe. We do not live up to Western lifestyles, and we do not "give a damn" if you do not like our way.

http://www.pravdareport.com/society/stories/04-07-2016/134920-russians_foreigners-0/

NoseytheDuke, July 6, 2016 at 3:22 am GMT

@Greasy William

I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME.

Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional.

I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets.

Boris N, July 9, 2016 at 2:25 am GMT

@Rurik

the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.

To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin.

I cannot say for sure for the Western public but I hardly saw such a variety of views. Maybe the reason why Russians cannot unite and change something, because they are so disintegrated on many issues.

It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth.

OK, I did not mean that. Of course, when they say that somewhere there has been a tornado, or, as in your example, a sporting event, or some other trivial factual thing they simply cannot not to say truth. But when they are trying to create some sort of analysis about hot global political affairs they usually back up the agenda of their Washington-Brussels masters. But the agenda of the Kremlin is hardly better . The best option is not to listen them both.

But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West.

Again, you say this because you simply has a very limited range of sources of information. You just repeat a made-up image of the Russian government or, precisely, of just one person, Putin. But this is just an image for the outside (non-Russian) public . You need know more, much more, form a variety of Russian sources, for a long period of time, and then you might have not the right, but at least a less distorted view. The actual Russian government, if we put Putin (pun) aside, is comprised of very ugly, greedy, treacherous, hypocritical people, I simply cannot find the right words for those bastards. They are utterly disgusting. They have been ruining the country for the past 25 years.

And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.

Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia.

And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope,

Putin did not turn out of blue, he was a member of the 1990s robbing elite, he is a continuation of Yeltsin, I explained it in my other comments colorfully. Not to mention Putin's "team" are the very same people from the 1990s. Take anybody and they all were doing some ugly things in the 1990s, but now they are "respected" officials and "businessmen". The only thing he has done is to hide this ugly truth under the cover. And millions around the world believe his deceit, how naive.

Boris N, July 9, 2016 at 2:42 am GMT

@Greasy William

The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed on their asses.

If you speaking seriously, what I doubt, then they are a very small, marginal minority. Since the 2000s being 1488 is a mauvais ton in the Russian national circles, nobody take those Racial Holy Warriors and fans of Hitler seriously, they are just nutheads.

They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?

Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money.

Of course, no Russian nationalists want this, even the Nazi nuthead minority. When I said Israel was taken as an example I meant something like that .

Boris N, July 9, 2016 at 2:56 am GMT

@Rurik

lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the Russian nationalists are on about

(they love Putin ; )

No, you cannot accidentally pick up some obscure bulletin boards, hosted on a free-hosting site, which boards nobody knows and cares about.

The actual whole Russian national movement has been being thought through, discussed and constructed for many years entirely in Russian, in the Russian part of the internet, and not in English by some pro-Russian foreigners or Russian emigres.

[Aug 02, 2017] Collateral Damage U.S. Sanctions Aimed at Russia Strike Western European Allies

Notable quotes:
"... République en marche ..."
"... Diana Johnstone is co-author of From MAD to Madness, by Paul H. Johnstone (Clarity Press). ..."
"... She can be reached at [email protected] ..."
Aug 02, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

The Bill H.R. 3364 "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" was adopted on July 25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives. An earlier version was adopted by all but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a certainty.

... ... ...

The United States gets away with this gangster behavior because over the years it has developed a vast, obscure legalistic maze, able to impose its will on the "free world" economy thanks to the omnipresence of the dollar, unrivaled intelligence gathering and just plain intimidation.

... ... ...

Extraterritoriality

The chairman of the commission of enquiry, long-time Paris representative Pierre Lellouche, summed up the situation as follows:

"The facts are very simple. We are confronted with an extremely dense wall of American legislation whose precise intention is to use the law to serve the purposes of the economic and political imperium with the idea of gaining economic and strategic advantages. As always in the United States, that imperium, that normative bulldozer operates in the name of the best intentions in the world since the United States considers itself a 'benevolent power', that is a country that can only do good."

Always in the name of "the fight against corruption" or "the fight against terrorism", the United States righteously pursues anything legally called a "U.S. person", which under strange American law can refer to any entity doing business in the land of the free, whether by having an American subsidiary, or being listed on the New York stock exchange, or using a U.S.-based server, or even by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise can avoid. In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine billion dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S. sanctions. The transactions were perfectly legal under French law. But because they dealt in dollars, payments transited by way of the United States, where diligent computer experts could find the needle in the haystack. European banks are faced with the choice between prosecution, which entails all sorts of restrictions and punishments before a verdict is reached, or else, counseled by expensive U.S. corporate lawyers, and entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers urge the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences.

Alstom, a major multinational corporation whose railroad section produces France's high speed trains, is a jewel of French industry. In 2014, under pressure from U.S. accusations of corruption (probably bribes to officials in a few developing countries), Alstom sold off its electricity branch to General Electric.

The underlying accusation is that such alleged "corruption" by foreign firms causes U.S. firms to lose markets. That is possible, but there is no practical reciprocity here. A whole range of U.S. intelligence agencies, able to spy on everyone's private communications, are engaged in commercial espionage around the world. As an example, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, devoted to this task, operates with 200 employees on an annual budget of over $30 million. The comparable office in Paris employs five people.

This was the situation as of last October. The latest round of sanctions can only expose European banks and enterprises to even more severe consequences, especially concerning investments in the vital Nord Stream natural gas pipeline.

This bill is just the latest in a series of U.S. legislative measures tending to break down national legal sovereignty and create a globalized jurisdiction in which anyone can sue anyone else for anything, with ultimate investigative capacity and enforcement power held by the United States.

... ... ...

Jacques Myard said that "American law is being used to gain markets and eliminate competitors. We should not be naïve and wake up to what is happening."

This enquiry marked a step ahead in French awareness and resistance to a new form of "taxation without representation" exercised by the United States against its European satellites. They committee members all agreed that something must be done.

That was last October. In June, France held parliamentary elections. The commission chairman, Pierre Lellouche (Republican), the rapporteur Karine Berger (Socialist), Elisabeth Guigou (a leading Socialist) and Jacques Myard (Republican) all lost their seats to inexperienced newcomers recruited into President Emmanuel Macron's République en marche party. The newcomers are having a hard time finding their way in parliamentary life and have no political memory, for instance of the Rapport on Extraterritoriality.

As for Macron, as minister of economics, in 2014 he went against earlier government rulings by approving the GE purchase of Alstom. He does not appear eager to do anything to anger the United States.

However, there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.

Diana Johnstone is co-author of From MAD to Madness, by Paul H. Johnstone (Clarity Press).
She can be reached at [email protected]

[Aug 02, 2017] Sanctions, smoke and mirrors from a kindergarten on LSD by Saker

Notable quotes:
"... "Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". ..."
"... For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons. ..."
"... Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. ..."
"... urbi et orbi ..."
"... Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops. ..."
"... someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please. ..."
"... The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death. ..."
"... This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo! ..."
"... anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse? ..."
"... After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon." ..."
"... I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. ..."
"... The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill. ..."
"... This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks. ..."
"... We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide. ..."
"... I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else. ..."
"... Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed. ..."
"... Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. ..."
"... And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. ..."
Jul 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response have resulted in a torrent of speculations in the official media and the blogosphere – everybody is trying to make sense of a situation which appears to make no sense at all. Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?! This is even more baffling when you consider that the single biggest effect of these sanctions will be to trigger a rift, and possibly even counter-sanctions , between the US and the EU. What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies. And yet, every Senator except Paul and Sanders voted for this. Does that make any sense to you?

Let's try to figure out what is going on here.

First, a simple reminder: like all US politicians, from the county level to the US Congress, Senators have only one consideration when then vote – "what's in it for me?". The very last thing which any US Senator really cares about are the real life consequences of his/her vote. This means that to achieve the kind of quasi unanimity (98%) for a totally stupid vote there was some kind of very influential lobby which used some very forceful "arguments" to achieve such a vote. Keep in mind that the Republicans in the Senate knew that they were voting against the wishes of their President. And yet every single one except for Rand Paul voted for these sanctions, that should tell you something about the power of the lobby which pushed for them. So who would have such power?

The website " Business Pundit: Expert Driven " has helpfully posted an article which lists the 10 top most powerful lobbies in Washington, DC . They are (in the same order as in the original article)

  • Tech Lobby
  • Mining Industry
  • Defense Industry
  • Agribusiness Industry
  • Big Oil
  • Financial Lobby
  • Big Pharma
  • AARP
  • Pro-Israel Lobby
  • NRA
Okay, why not? We could probably rearrange them, give them different labels, add a couple (like the "Prison Industrial Complex" or the "Intelligence Community") but all in all this is an okay list. Any name on it jump at you yet?

One could make the case that most of these lobbies need an enemy to prosper, this is certainly true of the Military-Industrial Complex and the associated high tech industry, and one could also reasonably claim that Big Oil, Mining and Agribusiness see Russia has a potential competitor. But a closer look at the interests these lobbies represent will tell you that they are mostly involved in domestic politics and that faraway Russia, with her relatively small economy, is just not that important to them. This is also clearly true for Big Pharma, the AARP and the NRA. Which leaves the Israel Lobby as the only potential candidate.

"Israel Lobby" is, of course, a misnomer. The Israel Lobby has very little interest in Israel as a country or, for that matter, for the Israeli people. If anything, the Israel Lobby ought to be called the "Neocon Lobby". Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him. These are the folks who simply use "Russia" as a propagandistic fulcrum to peddle the notion that Trump and his entourage are basically Russian agents and Trump himself as a kind of "Presidential Manchurian Candidate".

Keep in mind that the historical record shows that while the Neocons are fantastically driven, they are not particularly smart. Yes, they do have the kind of rabid ideological determination which allows them to achieve a totally disproportionate influence over US policies, but when you actually read what they write and listen to what they say you immediately realize that these are rather mediocre individuals with a rather parochial mindset which makes them both very predictable and very irritating to the people around them. They always overplay their hand and then end up stunned and horrified when all their conspiracies and plans come tumbling down on them.

I submit that this is exactly what is happening right now.

First, the Neocons lost the elections. For them, it was a shock and a nightmare. The "deplorables" voted against the unambiguously clear "propaganda instructions" given to them by the media. Next, the Neocons turned their rabid hatred against Trump and they succeeded at basically neutering him, but only at the cost of terribly weakening the USA themselves! Think of it: 6 months plus into the Trump administration the USA has already managed to directly threaten Iran, Syria, the DPRK and in all cases with exactly zero results. Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo --

So while Kim Jong-un fires missiles on the 4th of July, the Syrian Army is closing in on Deir ez-Zor, the Ukraine is turning into Somalia, the Russian economy is back to growth and Putin's popularity is as high as ever, the Neocons are totally freaking out and, as is typical of a person losing control, they don't do things which would make sense but do what they are used to doing: slapping sanctions (even if they are totally ineffective) and sending messages (even if they are totally ignored). In other words, the Neocons are now engaging in magical thinking, the deliberately chose to delude themselves about their power and influence and they are coping with their full-spectrum failure at everything by pretending that their votes in Congress matter. They truth is – they don't.

Here is where we need to turn to the other misconception in this matter, that the Russian reaction to these latest sanctions is really about these sanctions. It is not.

First, let's tackle the myth that these sanctions are hurting Russia. They really don't. Even the 100% russophobic Bloomberg is beginning to realize that, if anything, all these sanctions have made both Putin and Russia stronger . Second, there is the issue of timing: instead of slapping on some counter-sanctions the Russians suddenly decided to dramatically reduce the US diplomatic personnel in Russia and confiscate a two US diplomatic facilities in a clear retaliation for the expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian diplomatic facilities by Obama last year. Why now?

Many observers say that the Russians are "naive" about the West and the USA, that Putin was "hoping" for better relations and that this hope was paralyzing him. Others say that Putin is "weak" or even "in cahoots" with the West. This is all total nonsense.

People tend to forget that Putin was an officer in the foreign intelligence branch of the KGB, the so-called "First Main Directorate" (PGU). Furthermore, Putin has recently revealed that he worked in the highly secretive "Directorate S" of the PGU and he was in charge of contacts with a network of illegal Soviet spies in East-Germany (were Putin was under the official cover of Director of the USSR-GDR Friendship House). If the PGU was the "elite of the elite" of the KGB, and its most secretive part, then the "Directorate S" was the "elite of the elite" of the PGU and its most secretive part. This is most definitely not a career for "naive" or "weak" people, to put it mildly! First and foremost, PGU officers were "specialists of the West" in general, and of the United States especially because the USA was always officially considered as the "main enemy" (even if most PGU officers personally considered the British as their most capable, dangerous and devious adversary). Considering the superb level of education and training given to these officers, I would argue that the PGU officers were amongst the best experts of the West anywhere in the world. Their survival and the survival of their colleagues depended on their correct understanding of the western world. As for Putin personally, he has always taken action in a very deliberate and measured way and there is no reason to assume that this time around the latest US sanctions have suddenly resulted in some kind of emotional outburst in the Kremlin. You can be darn sure that this latest Russian reaction is the result of very carefully arrived to conclusion and the formulation of a very precise and long-term objective.

I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions. In practical terms, if Trump wanted to lift any of these sanctions, he would have to send an official letter to Congress which would then have 30 days to approve or reject the proposed action. In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.

That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system.

It also is a telling testimony to the utter depravity of the US Congress which took no such measures when Presidents bypass Congress and started wars without the needed congressional authority, but which is now overtly taking over the US foreign policy to prevent the risk of "peace breaking out" between Russia and the USA.

And Trump's reaction?

He declared that he would sign the bill.

Yes, the main is willing to put his signature on the text which represents an illegal coup d'état against this own authority and against the Constitution which he swore to uphold.

With this in mind, the Russian reaction is quite simple and understandable: they have given up on Trump.

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama and maybe return the international relations to a semblance of sanity. Alas, this did not happen, Trump turned out to be an overcooked noodle whose only real achievement was to express his thoughts in 140 characters or less. But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve. Worse, his only reaction to their multi-dimensional attempts at overthrowing him were each time met with clumsy attempts at appeasing them.

For Russia is means that President Trump has now been replaced by "President Congress".

Since it is absolutely impossible to get anything done with this Congress anyway, the Russians will now engage in unilaterally beneficial measures such as dramatically reducing the number of US diplomats in Russia. For the Kremlin, these sanctions are no so much an unacceptable provocation has an ideal pretext to move on a number of Russian internal policies. Getting rid of US employees in Russia is just a first step.

Next, Russia will use the frankly erratic behavior of the Americans to proclaim urbi et orbi that the Americans are irresponsible, incapable of adult decision-making and basically "gone fishing". The Russians already did that much when they declared that the Obama-Kerry team was недоговороспособны (nedogovorosposobny: "non agreement capable", more about this concept here ). Now with Trump signing his own constitutional demise, Tillerson unable to get UN Nikki to shut the hell up and Mattis and McMaster fighting over delusional plans to stop "not winning" in Afghanistan, the Obama-Kerry teams starts to look almost adult.

Frankly, for the Russians now is the time to move on.

I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump. I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions (if only because the USA has run out of countries it can safely and easily attack). Some "pretend interventions" (like the ill-fated missile strike on Syria) remain, of course, quite possible and even likely. This internal slow-mo coup against Trump will absorb the vast majority of the energy to get anything done, and leave foreign policy as simply another byproduct of internal US politics.

The East-Europeans are now totally stuck. They will continue to haplessly observe the unfolding Ukrainian disaster while playing at silly games pretending to be tough on Russia (the latest example of that kind of "barking from behind a fence" can be seen in the rather pathetic closure of the Romanian air space to a civilian aircraft with Russian Vice-Premier Dmitri Rogozin amongst the passengers). The real (West) Europeans will gradually come back to their senses and begin making deals with Russia. Even France's Emmanuel Macron de Rothschild will probably prove a more adult partner than The Donald.

But the real action will be elsewhere – in the South, the East and the Far-East. The simple truth is that the world cannot simply wait for the Americans to come back to their senses. There are a lot of crucial issues which need to be urgently tackled, a lot of immense projects which need to be worked on, and a fundamentally new and profoundly different multi-polar world which needs to be strengthened. If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem.

Washington DC is starting to look like a kindergarten on LSD – something both funny and disgusting. Predictably, the kids don't look too bright: a mix of bullies and spineless idiots. Some of them have their fingers on a nuclear button, and that is outright scary. What the adults need to do now is to figure out a way of keeping the kids busy and distracted so they don't press the damn button by mistake. And wait. Wait for the inevitable reaction of a country which is so much more and better than its rulers and which now desperately needs a real patriot to stop Witches' Sabbath in Washington DC.

I will end this column on a personal note. I just crossed the USA, literally, from the Rogue River in Oregon to East Central Florida. During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government. I have now lived a total of 20 years in the USA and I have learned to love and deeply appreciate the many kind, decent, honorable and simply beautiful people who live here. Far from seeing the American people as enemies of Russia, I see them has natural allies, if only because we have the same enemy (the Neocons in DC) and absolutely no objective reasons for conflict, none whatsoever. Moreover, in many ways Americans and Russians are very much alike, sometimes in comical ways. Just as during the Cold War I never lost hope in the Russian people, I now refuse to lose hope in the American people. Yes, the US federal government is disgusting, evil, ugly, stupid, degenerate and outright satanic, but the people of the USA are not. Far from it. I don't know if this country can survive the current regime as one unitary USA or whether it will break up in several quite different entities (something I see as very possible), but I do believe that the people of the USA will survive and overcome just as the Russian people survived the horrors of the 1980s and 1990s.

[Sidebar: after being accused of being a "paid Putin agent" (Vladimir, please send me money!!), a "Jew-lover" or even a "crypto-Jew" myself, a Nazi and Anti-Semite (which decent and good person has not been called an Anti-Semite" at least once in his/her life), a Communist and a Muslim (or, at least, a "Muslim propagandist"), I will now be called an "USA lover". Fine. Guilty as charged! I do love this country very much, as I do love its people. In fact, my heart often breaks for them and for the immense sufferings the Anglo-Zionist Empire also inflicts upon them. In the fight between the people of the USA and the Empire I unapologetically side with the people whom I see as friends, allies and even brothers.]

Right now the USA appears to be plunging into a precipice very similar to the one the Ukraine has plunged into (which is unsurprising, really, the same people inflicting the same disasters on whatever country they infect with their presence). The big difference is that immense and untapped potential of the USA to bounce back. There might not even be a Ukraine in 10 years, but there will most definitely be a USA, albeit maybe a very different one or even maybe several successor states.

But for the time being, I can only repeat what Floridians say when a hurricane comes barreling down on them: "hunker down" and brace for some very difficult and dangerous times to come. (Republished from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 12:58 am GMT

Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU–they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

Sharrukin > , August 1, 2017 at 1:50 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Americans and the US government are two different things.

That is no small part of why Trump got elected.

Antagonize Russia to what purpose?

Now we have Haley at the UN, Tillerton, and McMaster making statements at odds with Trumps and they still have a job. Can Trump even remove them?

Who is actually in charge of the American government? Is it Trump or the Neocons?

The entire Russia hacking story is a joke and probably a setup by the Democrats if their links to Fusion GPS is true.

Regardless, foreign nations have to deal with the world outside of Washington DC and its looks like the lunatics have taken control of the DC asylum which may well be the case.

The problem is the lack of coherence from Washington.

We may be looking at a slow motion coup, or simple incompetence, but Trump never struck me as incompetent in his other business dealings.

A power struggle seems to make the most sense.

Ned > , August 1, 2017 at 2:07 am GMT

God bless you Saker

Ned > , August 1, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Your trolling comment is offensive

Excal > , August 1, 2017 at 2:26 am GMT

"During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government."

I am anything but beautiful, but everything else about that sentence describes me.

I have never been to Russia, but I have known many Russians, and I am a bit of a Russophile. I voted for Trump partly because I was certain that Clinton would immediately plunge us into war with Russia. It sickens me that the senate are now rattling sabres against them. I am praying for them, and that this country is stopped from doing any real damage to them.

I can't help but wonder whether the all-but-signed alliance with the Saudis has something to do with this. There must be something diabolical there too.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 3:45 am GMT

@Ned Your trolling comment is offensive You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that?

exiled off mainstreet > , August 1, 2017 at 5:07 am GMT

Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war.

NoseytheDuke > , August 1, 2017 at 6:21 am GMT

@Bragadocious You returned from a 3-year posting absence to write that? So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.

Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.

Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is increasingly looking like it's not going to happen.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 1, 2017 at 6:22 am GMT

I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)

In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the "known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle) is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive proposition – destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY – why do the neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc., you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort, CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly, has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now – ever since Kissinger (godfather of the neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment – in particular to political parties and to the media – since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know, and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold, Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930′s, but that might mean identifying with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)

That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee) are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it to keep Congress dumb and afraid but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires, including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.

If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review, check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If your mind has been closed, let it open.

"Yet none dare call it treason."

Parbes > , August 1, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

The neocons and their media in the U.S. and the rest of the West simply HAVE to be taken out, one way or another. This is the only acceptable route – a knot tying the whole world up in insanity, which must be broken.

utu > , August 1, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond.

Randal > , August 1, 2017 at 8:15 am GMT

But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.

Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates Nikki Haley's open warmongering).

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:

How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trump's Foreign Policy

Randal > , August 1, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.

Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly) singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.

Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?

He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.

And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?

Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary importance for US foreign and military policy.

JL > , August 1, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT

This article is something of a mixed bag. The idea that there is going to be some rift between the EU and US is, at best, wishful thinking, but probably closer to downright delusion. No, European countries ceased to be subjects of history, and became objects, when they ceded their sovereignty to the implicitly Atlanticist and supranational structure that is the EU. So they may growl and gnash their teeth a bit, but will eventually roll over and hope that their bellies are scratched and not slashed.

As for Trump signing the sanctions legislation as it is written, Saker's point is valid. No president should abrogate power without a fight. He should, at the very least, insist that the restrictions on his ability to unilaterally cancel sanctions be removed from the legislation or he will veto the bill and fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. And, he should make clear that this isn't about sanctioning or not sanctioning Russia, but the fact that the law is unconstitutional.

Saker is also correct that the US is simply too dysfunctional now to pursue any kind of coherent foreign policy. If I were Putin, I would ask Trump who in Congress he should be negotiating with, since neither Trump himself, nor anyone in his cabinet, possesses the authority to follow through with any possible agreements. The smarter commentators are actually all coming around to the same view. Dmitry Trenin:

"I think the Kremlin views the U.S. as a dysfunctional polity, with its political class at war with itself and its society deeply divided along cultural fault lines. Under these circumstances one hardly expects a consistent policy Bad as they are now, U.S.-Russian relations continue to get worse, edging ever closer to a kinetic collision between their armed forces somewhere: in Syria, over the Baltic and Black Seas, or Ukraine."

It does indeed seem like something dramatic needs to happen, at which point the US will either come to its senses or it's mushroom cloud time for all of us.

animalogic > , August 1, 2017 at 8:58 am GMT

Although I think there is some hypobole involved, I would like to thank the Saker for raising this very interesting and very pregnant issue:

"In other words, the Congress has now hijacked the power of the Presidency to conduct foreign policy and taken upon itself to micromanage the US foreign policy.
That, my friends, is clearly a constitutional coup d'état and a gross violation of the principles of separation of powers which is at the very core of the US political system."

This is a very disturbing development, to say the least.

However, I do disagree with the Saker on this point:
"If the Americans want to basically recuse themselves from it all, if they want to bring down the constitutional order which their Founding Fathers created and if they want to solely operate in the delusional realm which has no bearing on reality – that is both their right and their problem."

The "Americans" -- that is US citizens -- do NOT want to bring down the constitution, nor have a government operate in a delusional realm. Nor does the US "government have the "right" to operate in the way they do: that amounts to saying they have the right to commit treason ( a meaningless concept for the Elites). Finally, it is NOT just an American "problem": unfortunately, it's a world problem. We are all liable to suffer for the insane shenanigans of the US Ruling class.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 10:19 am GMT

I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.

And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey – a certified swamp creature – to be loyal is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump. With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government.

I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions

Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke So Ned took a break for whatever reason, what of it? He wrote that your comment was offensive, I would have called it simply stupid. It smacks of knee-jerk chest-thumping of the sort that the US has already had more than enough of.

Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock. Trump was elected because he promised to do something about it but so far he's been a wimp. Many people still hope that Trump is merely playing rope-a-dope but Saker makes it clear in the article that this time is different in that it undermines the president's authority and it neuters his ability to effect change. Chew on that please, or better still, re-read the article.

Saker was hoping for peace just like so many Americans were when they voted for DT but it is increasingly looking like it's not going to happen. Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock

Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama

See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound like a kindergartner on LSD.

"I would have called it stupid"

Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart.

Bragadocious > , August 1, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

@Randal


I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't.
Saker didn't refer to any of those things in his criticism of the Trump regime's foreign policy stupidity. The only aspect of "Trump's behaviour towards Europe" that he (absolutely correctly) singles out for criticism is the literally stupid sanctions resolution. Though he could equally well have criticised the delusional stupidity of Trump's seeming wholesale swallowing of neocon propaganda about Iran and the nuclear agreement.

Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq?
He's clearly well aware of that. As he has rightly pointed out previously (and Buchanan also points out again today), Trump was elected in part precisely because he seemed to offer an escape from the neocon-driven invade the world/invite the world lunacy. But his actual foreign policy seems to have been little more than continuity with minor trimming only when forced by reality, especially with the likes of Nikki Haley in such a prominent position.

And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to?
Not trying to right all the world's suppose wrongs by force (military or economic) would be a good start. That and ceasing to regard the interests of Israel and of Saudi Arabia as of primary importance for US foreign and military policy. Saker didn't refer to any of those things

I agree, he didn't, but then again, it seems Saker doesn't do nuance very well. He specializes in grandiose insults (stupid, LSD, kindergartners, overcooked noodle, gone fishing) without mentioning some pretty important stuff, like Trump cutting off funding to the Syrian rebels. That move infuriated the neocons. Why doesn't Saker mention that? I guess it doesn't jibe with his overall "incompetence" theme and anti-Trump snark.

As for the sanctions, they seem to upset Saker. But then he says it's water off a duck's back for Putin. Hey, they probably even strengthen his hand -- So really, who gives a shit? He contradicts himself.

Finally, he says Trump has turned over foreign policy responsibility to Congress. I'm no constitutional expert, but Congress is in charge of declaring war. Sanctions can be interpreted as an act of war. In any case, forcing the congresscritters to go on record for something like this can be seen as very useful, just as the Iraq war vote was in blocking Hillary from higher office.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

Thanks for the compliments regarding the American people. They all want peace just like all others and have always voted for what they thought was the peace candidate only to be betrayed later. I've lived here longer than just twenty years, however, but my whole life and am not so sanguine about the nature of most Americans. I'd say the vast majority, perhaps 70%, are ignorant dolts and easily bamboozled. Elections are just festivals of lies and deceit with few being able to learn from the previous experience. The population is composed mostly of dodo birds. The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen. This is a bad formula and can only go so far. The fault is not in our stars but in us.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 1, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT

" The ruling class are predators looking for the next dollar to be extorted or stolen."

And who exactly is this "ruling class" if not the neocons? Are they not exactly like Milovan Djilas' "new class" – a class of apparatchiks in positions to profit enormously (while living very comfortably) from the decline and fall of an empire. How could this be, if their treasonous profiteering could only leave them as having no place to turn but the China-dominated new world order? Well, perhaps they actually know that the very millionaires who controlled key industries in China prior to 1950, were also millionaires who lived, have lived even during the Cultural Revolution, and for their families, continue to live, very comfortably and securely in Shanghai from 1950 onward – assuming that they were astute enough to have been doing business with the Communists all along. Perhaps they realize that the Communists are about as communistic as the National Socialists were socialistic so that course which is most profitable in the short-run is also most profitable in the long run.

"Yet none dare call it treason."

Robert Magill > , August 1, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.

This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently. Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much bigly. All will be well --

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

Sean > , August 1, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Sean > , August 1, 2017 at 7:58 pm GMT

@Robert Magill


I submit that the key to the correct understanding of the Russian response is in the fact that the latest US sanctions contain an absolutely unprecedented and, frankly, shocking feature: the new measures strip the President from the authority to revoke the sanctions.
This is part of the plan to sideline Russia, render it untouchable on the Executive's part and move on to China. The plan is to stun everyone with the announcement (probably on Labor Day) of 50k new, well paying, mostly private sector jobs, with benefits. China will feature prominently. Chinese built factories in Wisconsin, Chicago etc. just teasers. Bigly deal to follow: much, much bigly. All will be well --

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com The production facilities of the future will be automated and the elimination of workers will mean there is no particular reason to continue offshoring production. The factories will come back to the West, but the jobs won't exist .

Alan Donelson > , August 1, 2017 at 8:03 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet Great picture and great description. Hopefully, things will degenerate to the point where they can't gin up a nuclear war. Great picture -- just not congruent with the title of the post. With a moniker like that, EoM, one might think you'd notice the size of that girl's pupils. Not on LSD. Ill bet she had already graduated from kindergarten, too. But then, why be critical of what one sees and reads. I take SAKER's input with a salt shaker on hand.

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 1, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT

And yet, every Senator except Paul and Sanders voted for this.

2 men out of "100″ men looks like the regular average.

Chuck > , August 1, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT

@Grandpa Charlie I see USA as analogous to the Chinese Empire during its "decline and fall" 1850-1950 (very last part of the Manchu dynasty). Of course, it's a rough analogy, but it's there all the same. Like China back then, the "Court" of the USA like the imperial court of China was willing to sell off anything and everything. It's all been for sale for at least the last 50 years. (If you want an example, take the Panama Canal.)

In that milieu, consider the neocons. What are they unless (like the DNC and the GOP's National Central Committee) but a money-laundering and influence-peddling center. So apply that to the "known known" that the main 'position' of the neocons (their excuse for some kind of principle) is "Russia is dangerous and must be destroyed." As seen in the Saker's article, that is a destructive proposition - destructive of the interests of the USA and its people. So then WHY - why do the neocons pursue that agenda? Well, if you think about the nature of the neocons, of Congress, etc., you realize that the neocons must be making money off of this. They are pushing the anti-Russia agenda because they are paid to do so. Then, ask yourself, as with any money-following effort, CUI BONO? Well. what is accomplished by keeping the heat turned up on Russia? Isn't it that the anti-Russia agenda provides a distraction from what China is doing? And who, almost certainly, has been paying off the neocons for almost 50 years now - ever since Kissinger (godfather of the neocons) took his secret trip to Beijing in 1973. Put it this way: the old China lobby had been providing huge amounts of $US to the entire USA establishment - in particular to political parties and to the media - since way back in WW II. Now there would be a huge hole where the old China lobby had been. Who would fill that? Kissinger, for all his many faults, was smart enough to know, and Chou En-Lai was smart enough to know, what had to be done. And the old China Lobby had long seen the writing on the wall. So the old China Lobby was taken over by the New China Lobby. Lo-and-behold, Kissinger created the neocons where the paleocons had been. (If you want, you can also find evidence of an effective conspiracy extending back into WW II and the 1930's, but that might mean identifying with the old JBS, and I want to stay focused on issues more current.)

That's the basic reality about the neocons. The PRC (or its rulers in the Standing Committee) are the neocons' bread-and-butter. Oh, sure they appreciate the Israel lobby and they need it to keep Congress dumb and afraid ... but their bread-and-butter is the PRC. Or more precisely, the Standing Committee. Americans like to think that we have all the billionaires (or the billionaires have us), but the reality is that USA's politicians, bureaucrats and bankers deal with many billionaires, including the billionaires (active and retired) of the Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China and the billionaires of the Kim dynasty of the DPRK. These billionaires use their money much more in concert with one another than do most billionaires. So they get what they want. And what they want includes the ability not to be bothered by, e.g., the US Navy when they decide to extend their empire over the SCS and do not want USA's people even to know that Hanoi asks pleadingly to become a port and outpost of the US Navy. Etc. etc.

If you find this hard to believe, google on "Clinton china bribery." Or, here at the Unz Review, check out Peter Lee's 'China Matters' blog story "Four Corners/Fairfax". Just think it over. If your mind has been closed, let it open.

"Yet none dare call it treason." Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national

Priss Factor > , Website August 2, 2017 at 4:08 am GMT

Let the US reveal itself to be totally owned by Zionist globalists.

And if EU goes along, it will only show itself as cuck vassals of the US.

Russia needs to fix its problems and build a super-economy of its own.

With China and Iran as partners, Russia can do much if they put their mind to it.

But do Russians have the National Character?

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website August 2, 2017 at 4:15 am GMT

@utu Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond.

And obviously Putin is a superman

Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything is a stroke of genius.

These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize these mediocrities for what they are.

NoseytheDuke > , August 2, 2017 at 4:35 am GMT

@Bragadocious Yes, the neocons took over before Trump. Good observation, Sherlock

Thanks. The reason I wrote that was because Saker wrote this:

Not that they ever had much hope in him, but they always strongly felt that the election of Trump might maybe provide the world with a truly historical opportunity to change the disastrous dynamic initiated by the Neocons under Obama

See, the key word there Sherlock, is initiated . That means to start, in case you didn't know. I know, I'm Captain Obvious again. Maybe Saker should write more carefully, and not sound like a kindergartner on LSD.

"I would have called it stupid"

Yes, that's the operative word for Saker and his minions. Everyone's stupid. Except you. You're smart. Especially when you're peddling 9/11 truther stuff. Then you're a special kind of smart. I see that you've outed yourself as a Coincidence Theorist there so you may console yourself as at least being "useful", even if it is only as being a useful idiot.

Start with ae911truth.org, grap a book on high-school physics and go on from there. There's plenty of reading and learning ahead for you, but you'll be much better for it. Oh, and stop the chest-thumping, it only results in bruises.

Grandpa Charlie > , August 2, 2017 at 4:41 am GMT

@Chuck Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/259853-training-tactical-officers-critical-for-national "Kingmaker Sheldon Adelson also has a China connection." – Chuck, citing to The Hill

Thanks, Chuck. That's a great catch.

aaaa returns > , August 2, 2017 at 4:45 am GMT

As always, a good read from the Saker.
I think his assessment is spot on; Trump and his movement have been disabled. Now Congress members seem to be jockeying for future power-gains, while Trump might be starting to check out. He'll keep tweeting or whatever, but Nikki Haley, Pence and the generals might end up grabbing more decision-making power or perhaps not.. who knows.

There's always the 25th amendment scenario, the Russian collusion angle, or maybe some other damning revelation to pop up in the future to sink Trump, but I think many in Washington may be under warning that his removal could have a devastating impact.

I am not as optimistic about a lack of militarism in response to the crisis. That has been the go-to option for all modern American presidents in times of crisis.

nsa > , August 2, 2017 at 5:08 am GMT

The worms in the House and Senate have been totally terrorized by the vile jooies. Give the loathsome jooies whatever they want, no matter how foul, and keep their jobs or cross the abominable jooies and lose their jobs when a well funded opponent supported by the repulsive KM (kosher media) just happens to appear in the next primary. The Jooie Lobby runs the Knesset on the Potomac, not the US citizenry who are held in the utmost contempt by the bloodthirsty jooie elites. Government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies .

KA > , August 2, 2017 at 5:25 am GMT

Many events are sprouting up all over the map
India China, Taliban in Afghanistan ,Venezuela , Iran Syria Lebanon , Israel Palestine -- all are moving rapidly into unknown territory . America is no longer is in a position to influence these events. . despite not wanting American policy makers will be forced to look inwards . Those counytriesmay nt bother to inform America .

Health Care, Student loans, next inevitable housing bubble, millennial not saving and being forced to spend the income on health care and rents along , nation as a whole see increasing social fragmentation on ethnic lines -- these forces will make America much weaker economically and socially . Foreign countries like China and Gulf monarchies will influence American foreign and domestic policies .

America democracy itself may not survive the changes . Neocons with eager media may settle down on dictatorship.

F > , August 2, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@Ned God bless you Saker Creepy comment.

Sergey Krieger > , August 2, 2017 at 7:52 am GMT

"The latest US sanctions and the Russian retaliatory response"

There has not been any response so far. Response was to US expelling 35 Russian diplomats 6+ months ago. This is why I am not a fan of delayed responses. As saying goes, spoon is for dinner, not afterwards. Russia so far failed to respond to USA aggression which is what sanctions are.
Putin has been doing this whole patience expectations of US coming to her senses for some 10 years with poor results as US belligerence seems to grow in lack of appropriate responses from Russia.
Putin being liberal he is, seems cannot abandon hope to be part of the club so far hence this treatment in white gloves when it is stick across US face and kick into US groin what's necessary.
USA is like a dog that understands only stick. And stick has been missing despite Russia having enough options to start really hurting USA where it hurts and stop cooperation everywhere even in Syria.
I am not holding my breath with Putin though. He still insists on not letting up and talking to madman despite that doing everything to hurt him.
Slow learner he is both in regards to USA and Russian economy.

Sergey Krieger > , August 2, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

"What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 8:07 am GMT

@Randal


But the one crucial, vital, thing which Trump absolutely needed to succeed in – mercilessly crushing the Neocons – he totally failed to achieve.
Indeed. The next step, as with Buchanan's piece today which is similarly discouraged as far as US foreign policy under Trump is concerned, is to name the neocons. Identify the people burrowing into the institutions of the US administration and subverting any hope of any substantive change in foreign policy from the Clinton/Bush/Obama years. Name the people who act as the tools of the Neocon Lobby within the administration, because those Trump can at least deal with, if he ever comes to understand what is going on (which admittedly seems unlikely so long as he tolerates Nikki Haley's open warmongering).

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists - which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

See the piece yesterday by Ron Maxwell, naming some of the neocons:

How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trump's Foreign Policy

The subservience of Congress can only be dealt with by the American people defeating these sitting members and replacing them with ones who fear, and are loyal to, their constituents more than the lobbyists – which of course requires Americans to recognise when they are being manipulated by lobbyists via the media.

Yet, that has never happened, and will never happen. People elect leaders quite like themselves.

It is the people, stupid (I don't necessarily mean you).

The Alarmist > , August 2, 2017 at 9:06 am GMT

The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying will be done over there in their estimation.

TheJester > , August 2, 2017 at 10:20 am GMT

Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.

Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham but this need be no more complex than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.

The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT

Does that make any sense to you?

No.

And one of the things I've learned is to NOT seek a reasonable answer to situations provoked by utter crackpots.

It's simple; many of those in positions of power and responsibility are not only nuts in the head, but no human is built to shoulder much power at all.

mp > , August 2, 2017 at 10:56 am GMT

Of the lobby groups listed, probably only Big Oil and Big Jew (and not in that order) have much of an interest in going to war with Russia. The Military-Industrials are happy just to get contracts to build stuff. They don't really care, or particularly want, their stuff to be used. Most of it is too expensive to use, and probably doesn't work as advertised, anyhow.

Wizard of Oz > , August 2, 2017 at 10:58 am GMT

I'm afraid you're right.

But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity.

Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!

And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference to that Senate vote?

Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your explanation .. Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its dug in positions.

The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as that?

white noise > , August 2, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

@Anonymous


I predict that the Neocon-crazies will not stop until they impeach Trump.
And that's probably behind this clusterfuck. The globalist cabal is working hard to make Trump look bad and he's falling for it (him asking Comey - a certified swamp creature - to be loyal is proof of his naivete). This same cabal is running Western Europe so any "positive" developments between Macron de Rothchild and Putin will be temporary and designed to further ostracise Trump. With Jews you loose and Russia will forever be their ultimate target. Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government.

I furthermore predict that the USA will not launch any major military interventions
Don't be so sure. They want him to make mistakes . A new war would disappoint a lot of Trump's core supporters and destroy his capability to expand the base. "Russian nukes are the only thing standing in the way of One World Government."

Indeed. Vladimir Putin has big balls, and the elites hate him. But he's not afraid of a murder attempt. The elites know that if something happens to him, Europe, Israel and North America would be reduced to radioactive debris in about one hour

KA > , August 2, 2017 at 12:11 pm GMT

A new alignment is likely to emerge .t will be much less adversarial and much less enthused with polemic. America China Israel Saudi Arab – pitted against – India Russia Iran Japan, . China will embrace US because of Neocon and myriad financial connections with US .India will be forced to return to Russia . China joining America or America deciding to join China is the game changer and disrupt very other relationship. China will try to occupy American position after WW2 while US will find itself occupying post WW2 British position. Neoconservatives and financial system of the world will force this merger .

Pakistan Germany Turkey will try to juggle and hedge theirs bets . Central Asian Stan will be politically connected to Russia but economically to China .China and Russia will quarrel here and these countries will face a period of turmoil. Balkans will move back to Russia . NATO will be largely irrelevant with no ability to have consensus and a mission .
The world will become more rambunctious and hyper verbal but it won't fight .
Polyglot countries like India and America will try to talk along ethnic lines more but the fundamental underlying realities will not change . Despite the divisiveness promoted by parties, the citizen will move to closer relationship and understanding and common ground partly because the divisiveness will fail to accrue any benefit to the groups most interested in harvesting it .But the divisiveness will not disappear from daily discourse .

ffff > , August 2, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

Anyone else find their comments censored on thesaker? Seems like a "pro"-russian version of CNN

utu > , August 2, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@Stephen R. Diamond


And obviously Putin is a superman
Have you notice that the same folks you say Trump is a superman say the same of Putin? Everything is a stroke of genius.

These folks might study up a bit on the nature of intelligence. It would help them recognize these mediocrities for what they are. ;) Everything is a stroke of genius.

Like playing 3D or nD (n–>inf) chess, right?

I think it come from desperation and hope, I think. And as they say, hope does not want to die in spite of the evidence that it should long time ago.

n230099 > , August 2, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

" 10 top most powerful lobbies in Washington, DC. They are (in the same order as in the original article)

Tech Lobby
Mining Industry
Defense Industry
Agribusiness Industry
Big Oil
Financial Lobby
Big Pharma
AARP
Pro-Israel Lobby
NRA"

Well, some are 'lobbies' but some are just bogeymen.

white noise > , August 2, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT

@The Alarmist The neoconservative are like junkies. Does a junkie ever really appreciate the risk whilst in the middle of pursuing his next fix? Each successive fix is never quite enough, so they go on to bigger fixes at the risk of overdose. Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high, a cakewalk nonetheless, same for China thereafter, because the wars and dying will be done over there ... in their estimation. " Neocons seem to think kicking Russia's ass will be a manageable high"

That's what they think. Given that Russia currently has more nuclear power than USA and Israel combined, to think that they can handle Russia is sheer stupidity.

anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For the US one can imagine what those might be.

John Q. Public > , August 2, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT

We need a better term than "neo-con." People like Brennan, Clapper and McMaster were never Trotskyites and they never wrote for Commentary. Their view is really a liberal internationalism update for the post-Cold War, post-9/11 situation. And this view is ubiquitous inside the Beltway.

Joe Hide > , August 2, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

Saker,
I especially liked your use of the term "demonic" which is an appropriate term both figuratively and possibly literally to describe many neocon adherents.
The internet is providing "Light coming into the world", that is, Truth or information coming into mass consciousness. Mass consciousness must shape which possible futures become reality, or the controlled media wouldn't be spending billions to try to influence it. Some would say that this is solely because of the physical changes that people then force to happen, but evidence also supports consciousness simply altering possible outcomes "The prayers of a righteous man availeth much".
Saker, thanks much for Your articles!

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT

Lesson unlearned.

Abstinence from all injustice to other first-rate powers is a greater tower of strength than anything that can be gained by the sacrifice of permanent tranquillity for an apparent temporary advantage.

Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book I, 1.42-[3]

Aedib > , August 2, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT

Great article. Quite accurate description of the hubris infected American establishment.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless response otherwise it invites more of aggression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse

Not always, and not necessarily now. Sometimes no response is the most powerful. Aggressive and ruthless responses are often best reserved for the times they're likely to succeed decisively. Responding to petulant pissants is more often than not a waste of time, energy and concentration. Putin appears to know all that, and good for him. I 'd love to see him knock the bastards on their collective asses permanently. Sometime.

Aedib > , August 2, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

@utu

Did I miss it or Saker does not even explain what kind of sanctions were imposed but nevertheless he assures his readers that they won't hurt Russia and possibly make it even stronger and basically everything will be hunky-dory because PGU has extremely well qualified individuals on its staff: "superb level of education and training." And obviously Putin is a superman who was in charge of spies in East Germany which required as much sophistication and risk taking as spying in Wales for James Bond. Russia had quite satisfactorily surfed sanctions.

https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russian-economy-2014-2016-the-years-of-sanctions-warfare/

Pandos > , August 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

@Bragadocious Worse, Trump's behavior towards Europe and the anti-Trump propaganda inside Europe has now put the EU and the US on a collision course. This is absolutely amazing: for the Russians the current tensions between the EU and the USA are a dream come true and yet they had absolutely nothing to do with it – it was all done by the self-defeating stupidity of the Americans who created this situation completely ex nihilo

So I guess the Americans are stupid for antagonizing Russia, they're stupid for antagonizing Russia's enemies in the EU--they're just plain stupid, according to this Dutch-Russian emigre. I don't know why America's stupid for standing up for its rights on climate change and refugee admissions and calling out NATO freeloaders, I really don't. And if this upsets Western Europe, so much the better. Also, someone should explain to "The Saker" that the neocons were well in control before Obama. How do you think we got into Iraq? And what is the "semblance of sanity" he thinks we should return to? "rights on climate change and refugee admissions" Seriously? Oh please.

yeah > , August 2, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or . the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.

Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome "Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting – with trade wars, sanctions-wars, hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars – but you will have to spare us such merry excitement.

John Q. Public > , August 2, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

You are making too big a deal about the 30 day repeal. I bet you Trump will include a signing statement that he reserves the right to ignore the parts of the law that are unconstitutional.

schmenz > , August 2, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

jacques sheete > , August 2, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

@schmenz I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel. I'm really not sure what planet Saker lives on but he might ask the destroyed nations around Israel if they think the Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

I'm afraid I had to stop reading when our beloved Saker stated that the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with Israel.

This could no doubt be more accurately stated as, the Israel Lobby has nothing to do with the interests of the Israeli people. It seems to exist for the benefit of the ultra moneybag crowd and its deranged puppets such as Netanyahooooo!

Mulegino1 > , August 2, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. Thus, the "American" (please note the quotation marks) oligarchy is imploding. Hopefully, they will not exercise a Samson Option of their own, but anything is possible with this gang of criminal sociopaths. Their poster boy is now an insatiable warmonger who is suffering from brain cancer! How could things get any worse?

After the impressive military victories the US has achieved against such formidable foes as Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, mighty Grenada, Serbia and Libya, taking on Russia should be a "cakewalk", right? And to think there is a sizable demographic in this country which still believes this! Unbelievable. The last time that the US took on a military opponent at rough conventional parity with it (the Chinese in Korea) the result was a stalemate. To paraphrase Cardinal Newman, "To be deep in history is to cease to be a neocon."

Trump should have just let the veto proof sanctions become law without his signature.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 5:56 pm GMT

"The big difference is that immense and untapped potential of the USA to bounce back."

This tells me the writer is delusional. The "American Century" is over, and it did not last one hundred years. Too bad.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT

@TheJester

Furthermore, we also have to keep in mind that the Neocon Lobby is unlike any other lobby in the list above. For one thing, it does not represent US interests. Neither does it represent the interests of Israel. Rather, it represents the interests of a specific subset of the US ruling elites, in reality much smaller than 1% of the population, which all share in the one common ideology of worldwide domination typical of the Neocons.

These are the folks who in spite of their 100% ironclad control of the media and Congress lost the Presidential election to Donald Trump and who are now dead set to impeach him.

Many people who notice believe that "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew". Yes, there are non-Jewish outliers among the Neocons like John McCain and Lindsey Graham ... but this need be no more complex than assuming that they, like so many others in government such as Bill and Hillary Clinton, have cut their deals with the Jewish lobby. Indeed, when I read an article on Neocons, the list of culprits does read like a list of Ashkenazi Jews.

The import is that if the Neocons are religiously committed to world domination and "Neocon" is a euphemism for "Jew", then it follows that the age-old stereotype that there are cabals of Jews seeking world domination at the expense of the goyim they live among is true. Agree!

Anonymous > , Disclaimer August 2, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

@Sean Largely due to Obama's timidity in Syria on top of his denial of defensive weapons to Kiev, Russia humiliated America in Syria. Putin will rue the day, because America is going to hit back at Russia (it has to). Trump is going to take asymmetric vengeance and bleed Russia white. A fraction of what has been spent in Syria will go a very long way in you-know-where.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/world/europe/pentagon-and-state-department-are-said-to-propose-arming-ukraine.html

Russia humiliated America in Syria

They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project.

Suman > , August 2, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against the sanctions. Bernie Sanders is getting undue credit.

Moi > , August 2, 2017 at 6:04 pm GMT

@Wizard of Oz

I'm afraid you're right. But I remain puzzled at how 98 Senators could have been lined up for that stupidity. Can you enlarge on the details of neo-con ideas, personnel and means of influence to explain the neo-con part? I mean 98 out of 100 Senators!!!

And, given especially your assertion that Israeli lobbyists aren't acting in Israel's real interests, can you give a fuller explanation of what they are up to and why, with particular reference to that Senate vote?

Following on from that, or, if you insist, as an aside would you care to give your view of what rational Israeli lobbying might seek Americann help for. Here's my attempt at starting your explanation..... Israel knows it can no longer defeat the battle hardened Hezbollah forces, from which they have already received a bloidy nose, without using nuclear weapons or losing a high proportion of young Israelis. So it fears that Hezbollah, still connected to Iran and protected in that by Syria, will launch intolerable rocket attacks to provoke Israeli attack against its dug in positions.

The need to remove Assad's regime has to be seen in that light??? Could it be as simple as that? That kind of overwhelming support in the Senate is usually reserved for Israel.

Joe Levantine > , August 2, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

The current crisis between the largely special interest owned American executive branch and the largely failing reformer Donald Trump can be a historic opportunity for Europe to mend the artificial divide between the European Union and Russia. The crisis can also be a golden opportunity to shake the corrupt system of government in the USA. These opportunities are subject to having strong and free leaders who can capitalize on the hubris of the ignorant senators and representatives on Capitol Hill.

Germany, absent Merkel, can resurrect the reinsurance treaty with Russia which Kaiser Wilhelm II abrogated much to the frustration and disapproval of Bismarck, the pilot of German unification. What followed was a precarious geopolitical divide in Europe which led to the WWI with its disastrous consequences for Germany, followed by the ordeal of the Versailles Treaty and ultimately the breakout of WWII.

By putting the energy gun to the head of the Europeans, the American legislature will force the Europeans to rethink and revamp their self defeating policies towards Russia that are done at the behest of the USA. Any rapprochement with Russia will seal the fate of Eurasia as an integrated economic bloc with the New Silk Road at its backbone.

As for the United States internal politics, it is obvious that the neocons are pushing matters to a head with Trump whose only resort is to knit a special relationship with those leaders of the military establishment who do not fancy the dominance of the deep state under the leadership of the CIA The neocons move to impeach the president should create the kind of unrest that should spur the military to take action against the corruption of the legislative branch and its extension in the neocons media complex.

Yet this very much desired scenario that could a boon for world peace hinges on the emergence of a new leadership in the western world that is willing to defy the powers that be. Currently Europe is woefully lacking in the quality of leadership that can seize the moment to break free from the dominance of the neocons.

Zogby > , August 2, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT

This sanctions bill is a domestic US matter. The Republicans are trying to pacify the Democrats' rage and bitterness over losing the election. It is most convenient for them to adopt the canard blaming Russia for the result of the election. The voters knew exactly where Trump stands on Russia, so even if Russia leaked the DNC and Podesta emails, there was no theft of the election. Voters were not mislead about positions, and knew very well the Democrats accuse the Russian of the leaks.

Trump did not veto the the bill because of the veto proof majority, but will effectively veto the bill by ignoring it. I don't see any Federal Court issuing orders to enforce this bill, and can ignore that too. It's like Congress declaring a war the President doesn't want to fight. Who is gonna make him?

Harold Smith > , August 2, 2017 at 6:33 pm GMT

"Why in the world would the US Senate adopt new sanctions against Russia when Russia has done absolutely nothing to provoke such a vote? Except for Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, every single US Senator voted in favor of these sanctions. Why?!"

There is no satisfactory "worldly" explanation for what's happening here, but there is an explanation. The Jew-controlled "U.S. government" apparently hates Russia for the same reason that Cain hated (and eventually murdered) Abel. To put it another way, "bad" (evil) hates "good" because if there were no such thing as "good", then there would be no such thing as "bad" by comparison. The Russian government demonstrates respect for international law, mutual cooperation, diplomacy, stability, restraint, etc., while the U.S. government simply trashes everything, including America.

The Jews HATE a good example, and Russian re-emergence onto the world scene as an example of relative goodness, in stark contrast to U.S. evil, is simply too much for them to bear.

"An unjust man is an abomination to the just: and he that is upright in the way is abomination to the wicked" (Proverbs 29:27).

Seamus Padraig > , August 2, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger "What is absolutely clear is that these sanctions will have exactly zero effect on Russia and I don't think anybody is seriously expecting the Russians to change anything at all in their policies."

Zero effects? Speaking of changing policy is true but not that it won't create troubles for Russia. Anyway, any aggression requires swift and ruthless repsonse otherwise it invites more of agression. Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

Putin is wrong to behave the way he behaves. There must be zero patience and head for an eye response. Than aggression stops.

I second what 'jaques sheete' said. I just want to add that we could be on the verge of a major break between Washington and the EU -- something Putin has been working towards for years. We have an old saying: when you're enemy's committing suicide, stand back and let him. That's what Washington is doing now: committing suicide.

Miro23 > , August 2, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

During that long trip I did not only see breathtakingly beautiful sights, but also plenty of beautiful people who oppose the satanic ball in DC with every fiber of their being and who want their country to be free from the degenerate demonic powers which have taken over the federal government.

I don't believe the "with every fiber of their being" part. This is just wishful thinking on the part of Saker. If this were so, they wouldn't just be grumbling or trusting their corrupt representatives. Average Americans still elect people like McCain, Graham and Schumer and I haven't seen any mass anti-war demonstrations in Washington or New York or anywhere else.

Seamus Padraig > , August 2, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT

Even more depressing than the bill is Trump's craven capitulation:

In a signing statement released by the White House, Trump said the legislation "included a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions" in lawmakers' "haste" to pass it.

"While I favor tough measures to punish and deter aggressive and destabilizing behavior by Iran, North Korea and Russia, this legislation is significantly flawed," he said

Trump, however, said in another statement accompanying the bill that he would not allow the U.S. to "tolerate interference in our democratic process and that we will side with our allies and friends against Russian subversion and destabilization."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-signs-russia-sanctions-bill/story?id=48985465

So Trump now officially regards his own election as illegitimate? As the result of Russian "subversion and destabilization"? Incredible! I realize he can't stop the bill; but that doesn't mean he has to officially sign it.

Sean > , August 2, 2017 at 7:36 pm GMT

@yeah Regarding Syria and your comments thereon: Excuse me, but is it all about Russia versus America or can the Syrian people and their Government have any say? The world has people and Governments other than American ones, you know, and they don't like freedom, democracy, or whatever delivered by bombs, not even by smart bombs. The Syrian Government did not ask Washington to intervene, so under international law American intervention and bombings there are as legitimate as "Saving Vietnam from the commies", "Bringing democracy to Iraq", or .... the list is long. No adventure on that list turned out well for America or anyone else, with the exception of the merchants of death.

Now your fond hope is "Trump is going to bleed Russia white" and no doubt you would welcome "Getting tough on Russia". Maybe you prefer your news to be exciting - with trade wars, sanctions-wars, hot wars, cold wars, shooting wars, full blown mushroom-cloud-wars - but you will have to spare us such merry excitement.

https://defenceindepth.co/2017/02/17/the-russian-militarys-view-on-the-utility-of-force-the-adoption-of-a-strategy-of-non-violent-asymmetric-warfare/

Russian military thinking seems to have reached the point now where the idea of using force intentionally in conflicts with peer-state adversaries has been almost completely ruled out. This seems a radical move. But there has been a clear recognition within this military that better strategic outcomes for Russia will result from the use of non-violent 'asymmetric warfare' activities rather than those which will or can involve the use of force – such as conventional war or hybrid warfare. [...] The principal aim of Russian asymmetric warfare is to create degrees of destabilisation (destabilizatsiya) within targeted states and within collectives of targeted states (e.g. NATO, EU). [...] And all this plays to the Russian military's own strengths – its 'own relative advantages'. While it might lack 'quantitative indicators' – the tanks, aircraft and ships – it does have a massive capacity to gather information, to disseminate (mis)information and to employ considerable cyber abilities

The most painful sanctions for Putin are old news, it was the cancellation of the Exxon deal by the Obama administration. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-exxon-treasury-fight-and-the-roots-of-russiagate_us_597de928e4b0c69ef70528ff ).

Too backward to frack, Russia tried to bribe the tech from Exxon with massive access to Russia untapped resources to show them how. I would really like someone to tell me why Russia should be rewarded by transfer of crucial US technology for what it did in Ukraine. Were they expecting a pat on the back? Russia will it not start a conventional or nuclear war unless it thinks there is a chance of it winning, and there isn't.

Sean > , August 2, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT

@Anonymous

Russia humiliated America in Syria
They humiliated Tel Aviv. American people never wanted to spill their blood and treasure on the other side of the Globe for the Grater Israel project. No because Jordan not Syria is just across the river from the occupied territories' Palestinian population. Syria has little or no bearing on the West Bank Arab problem, which is the main one for Israel
Johnny Rico > , Website August 2, 2017 at 7:47 pm GMT

It is all about the oil.

Oil is the only reason the global population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. The Industrial Revolution was not enough. Oil is necessary to maintain this population and keep it fed.

The remaining relatively-cheap oil is all in Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and The UAE. Everybody understands this. The Russians, the Chinese, the Neocons, Donald Trump. They all get this.

The United States is for all intents-and-purposes energy independent when you include supplies from Canada and rapidly-dwindling supplies from Mexico. But the United States relies on "control" of the oil coming from the Persian Gulf to maintain control of its Empire and as tenuous control over its real one and only rival – China.

South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are completely dependent for survival economically on energy that comes from the Middle-East and is protected by the U.S. Navy.

The constant tension between Israel and Saudi Arabia (The two worst regimes in the world) on the one side and Iran on the other is necessary to give the American Deep State and Empire purpose.

While it 'appears' that all the American military equipment and bases and meddling in the Middle East are aimed at surrounding and blunting Iran's power – it should be obvious from 75-plus years of history that the real purpose is to surround Saudi Arabia.

Whether it is Roosevelt meeting with the King in 1945 on the way back from Yalta or Trump meeting with the King a month ago – the message is clear – The heads belonging to the House of Sand are only attached to their necks at the discretion of the United States.

peterAUS > , August 2, 2017 at 8:26 pm GMT

@anonymous

Much is made of this so-called "neocon" business. They appear to be a current highly aggressive strain of American expansionism. However, there were no "neocons" in 1898 when the US saw it's opportunity to attack Spain and grab away it's holdings. The US has been aggressively expanding ever since, inserting itself into both world wars at the very last minute in order to gain as much for itself as possible. It got a couple bloody rebuffs in Korea and Vietnam but learned how to refine it's technique from those experiences. The US has been on the march ever since 1898, sometimes slowly sometimes quickly. It's not something new but is an inherent dynamic. Like a balloon things expand until they reach some sort of internal or external limiting factor. For the US one can imagine what those might be. Agree.

The only difference, at this stage of expansion, is that the lower classes do not get the spoils of the expansion. If they did .well .it would be interesting to see how much they'd be against The Empire.

And, yes, that another THING; this time the opponent can retaliate hard. Nukes do make all that difficult to execute. What a conundrum ..

[Aug 02, 2017] US committed to path of conflict with Russia, tensions higher than in Cold War by Paul Craig Roberts

Notable quotes:
"... Russia took retaliatory measures by cutting the US Embassy staff there in the Federation. In your view, how should Russian leadership interpret these new sanctions? ..."
"... It is unfortunate that one thing that seems to unite a lot of the American political class is Russophobia, the desire to restart the Cold War, in effect, in terms of a way to handle diplomatic relations There are interests behind that: the security industry and armaments industry in particular, they are all quite keen to restart the new Cold War. When you look at the actions of politicians, you should always look at the actions of who is paying and sponsoring politicians. There are usually sound economic reasons and reasons of private profit why they take the decisions that they do. ..."
"... This is just the beginning of measures taken by Russia. How do you see this playing out moving forward, especially when we have President Trump who's looking – against the wishes of Congress, apparently – to normalize these relations? How do you foresee Russia playing this out? ..."
Aug 02, 2017 | www.rt.com

RT Op-Edge

PCR: That's part of it. Congress gains political contributions from the American energy industry and it gains political contributions from the military-security complex because this bill is constructed to serve both interests. They're both extremely powerful interest groups. And so, the military-security complex wins by preventing the normalization of relations, which is a threat to the budget and the power of the military-security complex. And the energy companies win by having a new market for their natural gas, the liquefied natural gas that they're getting from the fracking operations that are doing so much environmental damage in the United States. This benefits both groups. And therefore Congress – as you saw, the votes are almost unanimous, only two senators out of a hundred voted against it, and only three US representatives out of [more than] four hundred [419-3] voted against it. You can see the power of these interest groups and they put their interests ahead of normalizing relations between nuclear powers. When you have bad relations between nuclear powers like Russia and the United States, the chance of something going wrong is extremely high.

... ... ...

RT: Russia took retaliatory measures by cutting the US Embassy staff there in the Federation. In your view, how should Russian leadership interpret these new sanctions?

PCR: I think the Russian leadership now has to finally abandon its cherished illusion that it can reach accommodation with Washington. I have made clear for a long time now, the only way Russia can reach accommodation with Washington is to surrender and to accept American hegemony. Now, if the Russian government continues with this illusion that it can reach an accommodation, I think it is guilty of a very dangerous delusion. I think this should be a wake-up call for Russia that the United States Congress has now made the principal goal of American foreign policy conflict with Russia.

It is unfortunate that one thing that seems to unite a lot of the American political class is Russophobia, the desire to restart the Cold War, in effect, in terms of a way to handle diplomatic relations There are interests behind that: the security industry and armaments industry in particular, they are all quite keen to restart the new Cold War. When you look at the actions of politicians, you should always look at the actions of who is paying and sponsoring politicians. There are usually sound economic reasons and reasons of private profit why they take the decisions that they do. – Craig Murray, former UK diplomat

RT: This is just the beginning of measures taken by Russia. How do you see this playing out moving forward, especially when we have President Trump who's looking – against the wishes of Congress, apparently – to normalize these relations? How do you foresee Russia playing this out?

PCR: Trump no longer can normalize relations. The bill prohibits that. And he has no real alternative to signing it because it's veto-proof. If Trump doesn't sign it, the media will use that as proof that he is working in favor of Russia and that would probably lead to his impeachment. So what Russia does, I don't know, it depends on how much they wake up, how much they give up this illusion, this delusion actually, of reaching an accommodation. It is a serious situation for Russia to have the United States committed to a path of conflict with Russia. And that is precisely where the United States is. That is the precise effect of this bill and that is the intention of one of the two main sponsors of the bill – to further the conflict, to raise tensions, because this is essential to the power and budget of the military-security complex.

[Aug 02, 2017] President Trump Signs Russia Sanctions Bill but Issues Signing Statement of 'Concern' by Jason Ditz

This looks like attempt of Republicans to placate DemoRats (Neoliberal democrats) at the expense of Russia... A lot of internal politics involved.
Notable quotes:
"... And while he clearly had big problems with the bill, he signed it anyhow, saying he plans to work with Congress to "make the bill better," even though it's already the law of the land now. After struggles within Congress to get the bills through, there is little appetite to re-negotiate it. ..."
"... The bill imposes new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and limits the president's ability to remove sanctions without Congressional permission. Russia and Iran have threatened retaliation over the bill, as has the European Union, which fears the bill is going to target German energy companies. ..."
Aug 02, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Condemns 'Seriously Flawed' Bill, Signs It Anyhow

Despite comments from the administration in recent days suggesting they were satisfied with the changes made to the Russia sanctions bill, President Trump's signing statement on the bill was an outright condemnation, insisting it improperly encroaches on his power, and hurts European allies .

And while he clearly had big problems with the bill, he signed it anyhow, saying he plans to work with Congress to "make the bill better," even though it's already the law of the land now. After struggles within Congress to get the bills through, there is little appetite to re-negotiate it.

In reality, Trump didn't have a lot of choice on the matter, as the overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate meant they could've easily overridden a veto if he'd offered it, which would've been politically embarrassing, particularly on a Russia-themed bill.

The bill imposes new sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and limits the president's ability to remove sanctions without Congressional permission. Russia and Iran have threatened retaliation over the bill, as has the European Union, which fears the bill is going to target German energy companies.

[Aug 02, 2017] Meet the all-star team of lawyers Robert Mueller has assembled for the Trump-Russia investigation

From witch hunt there is a very small distance to "show trials". Show me the man and I will find the crime -- Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria , head of Stalin's secret police
Notable quotes:
"... several members of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to Democrats, ..."
"... "You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump said Thursday on Twitter . ..."
Aug 02, 2017 | www.msn.com
... Yet despite the lawyers' resumes and reputations, several members of the team have come under fire for their previous donations to Democrats, prompting some critics to cry foul on the investigation and urge Trump to fire Mueller.

Trump himself has even weighed in:

"You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history - led by some very bad and conflicted people!" Trump said Thursday on Twitter .

[Aug 02, 2017] Show Me The Man And Ill Find You The Crime by Bob Barr

The US Deep State witch hunt against President-elect Trump has taken all the distinct characteristics of "show trials".
Notable quotes:
"... Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition. ..."
"... And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person. ..."
"... What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime." ..."
"... So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | townhall.com

The "Sorkinization" of American politics; a cultural phenomenon engendered by the works of Hollywood director Aaron Sorkin -- in which Washingtonian politics is romanticized as some grandiose theatrical production, in which the protagonist (normally a liberal archetype) wins against his unscrupulous foe (usually a conservative stereotype) by simply giving a rousing speech or clever rhetorical foil. You see it everywhere in Washington, D.C. -- beltway pundits breathlessly waiting to share together in that idyllic " Sorkin moment "; whether it was Hillary's hoped-for victory speech last November or, now, waiting for Special Counsel Robert Mueller astride his white horse to out the "evil Trump clan" for sins and improprieties.

This, of course, is all a Hollywood fairytale. What currently is taking place under Mueller's direction resembles not so much a magnanimous crusade for truth and justice; but rather another example of what happens when bureaucrats are taken off the leash. It becomes the classic tale of a government lawyer in search of a crime.

Though likely a disappointment to all the partisan spectators wishing for a clear moral victory from Mueller, the sweeping, unspecified, and costly nature of his investigation has all the hallmarks of a typical prosecutorial fishing expedition.

Rather than setting specific parameters for his investigation, or having them set for him, the order appointing Mueller, by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein grants Mueller almost limitless leeway in his probe, be it relative to "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with President Trump's presidential campaign (which likely would not constitute a crime), to federal regulations that relate to crimes that are among the most subjective, such as obstruction of justice and witness intimidation.

As one might expect, Mueller has taken the ball handed to him, and is off and running; like Diogenes with his lamp in search of an honest man, but here a prosecutor with a subpoena in search of a guilty man.

Not bound by any real budget constraints, Mueller already has begun building an investigatory army with which to haunt the Trump Administration for as long as he wants; or, at least, for as much time as it takes to find something to prosecute. That Mueller will find something is a virtual certainty given the vast scope of his appointment, and the lack of oversight by the Department of Justice now that Attorney General Jeff Sessions hastily (and, in my opinion, needlessly) recused himself. And, as any criminal defense lawyer knows, given the reach of federal criminal laws, if you look long enough and subpoena enough witnesses and documents, you are fairly guaranteed to find some violation of some law to pin on some person.

What comes to mind is Harvey Silverglate's 2009 book, "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"; and, perhaps most frightening, his reminding us that it was Stalin's feared NKVD henchman, Lavrentiy Beria, who assured his boss, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."

So, what is the point to all these theatrics? Same as it always is in Washington. Personal and partisan aggrandizement for bureaucrats, at a massive cost to the rest of us. Mueller gets his name in the spotlight for kicking-up a lot of dust. Democrats claim a moral victory for forcing the appointment of a special prosecutor. And Republicans dodge a bullet for Trump's poor personnel choices.

The troubling, and lasting ramification of this melodrama, however, is the precedent it sets for future federal investigations. The degree of legal leeway given to Mueller is deeply bothersome. As law professor John C. Eastman notes in a recent article, the absence of virtually any limits on Mueller's power harks back to the days of the British empire's use of "writ[s] of assistance" and "general warrant[s]" to target and harass American colonists through invasive searches of homes, papers and possessions – with no judicial oversight, probable cause, or expiration date. "That is the very kind of thing our Fourth Amendment was adopted to prevent," writes Eastman , "[i]ndeed, the issuance of general warrants and writs of assistance is quite arguably the spark that ignited America's war for independence."

At the end of all this (if there is an end), America will be left a little more divided (if that is possible), and the Bill of Rights even weaker than today. If we were living in the "West Wing," it wouldn't really matter; but we are not living in Sorkin World. We are living in the real world; where government power run amok has very real and damaging effect on the way of life envisioned by our Founding Fathers and as enshrined in the United States Constitution.

[Aug 02, 2017] Washington will try to drag everyone else in the nes McCarthyism campaign. I don't think it has any credibility now, with its constant hysterical blaming of Russia for every single thing that is not to its liking

Aug 02, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , August 2, 2017 at 12:46 pm

Keep on poking the bear
Russia-backed agents tried to kill Montenegro PM: Mike Pence
AFP| Last Updated: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 – 18:48

Podgorica: US Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday accused Russian-backed agents of attempting to assassinate the prime minister of Montenegro during an alleged coup attempt last year
Russia`s intentions were laid bare over the past year when Moscow-backed agents sought to disrupt Montenegro`s elections, attack your parliament and even attempt to assassinate your prime minister", Pence said at the Adriatic Charter Summit.
He said the attack aimed "to dissuade the Montenegrin people from entering our NATO alliance"

marknesop , August 2, 2017 at 1:16 pm
On its way down the side of the toilet bowl, Washington will try to drag everyone else with it. I don't think it has any credibility now, with its constant hysterical blaming of Russia for every single thing that is not to its liking. And the ridiculous pretense that Montenegro will contribute in any meaningful way to the defensive strength of the NATO alliance is just comical – it has become all about snatching territory away, allegedly out of Russia's grasp. I hope NATO does pour money into the Baltics like there's no tomorrow – the Balts will gladly take it, but NATO will see no return on its money, and unless it comes up with a way you can burn bullshit for fuel they will still depend on Russia for their energy.

[Aug 01, 2017] The New York Times Pushes Propaganda War Against Russia

Notable quotes:
"... Exercise Saber Guardian 17 is a U.S. European Command, U.S. Army Europe-led annual exercise taking place in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in the summer of 2017. This exercise involves more than 25,000 service members from over 20 ally and partner nations. The largest of the Black Sea Region exercises, Saber Guardian 17 is a premier training event for U.S. Army Europe and participating nations that will build readiness and improve interoperability under a unified command, executing a full range of military missions to support the security and stability of the Black Sea Region. It is deterrence in action. ..."
"... Some of the more notable aspects of SG17 include: the massing of 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (3/4ID) from several locations across the Operation Atlantic Resolve area of operation to the exercise joint operations area (JOA) in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria; and the movement of 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) from Vilseck, Germany, to numerous locations throughout the JOA. ..."
"... it all makes sense once you understand from the perspective of the Washington borg, the world is comprised of semi-autonomous zones subject to broad oversight from the 'benign' hegemon. ..."
"... From time to time, some of these zones assert their sovereignty, which is a clear aggression against the Global Administrative Political Economy. The small ones are District Thirteen-ed, the large ones are treated as malevolent beasts who have seceded from humanity. ..."
"... If I may. Having looked at this a while, I noticed a synchronicity that manifests itself often in the intellectually barren Corridors of NYT, WaPo and CNN. All 3 seem to operate almost like a mutually supporting Machine with each sharing similar Naratives, getting convenient 'Leaks' that help these Naratives and each often quoting the others reporting. ..."
Aug 01, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

There is no longer any doubt that the New York Times is nothing more than a willing cog in the establishment war machine and is happy to serve as a propaganda platform. While there are times that newspapers and electronic media outlets are unwitting dupes for propaganda, the article penned by MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT (published on 31 July 2017) is the work of willing puppets masquerading as journalists:

Russia's Military Drills Near NATO Border Raise Fears of Aggression

This screed starts with this piece of artful dishonesty:

Russia is preparing to send as many as 100,000 troops to the eastern edge of NATO territory at the end of the summer, one of the biggest steps yet in the military buildup undertaken by President Vladimir V. Putin and an exercise in intimidation that recalls the most ominous days of the Cold War.

Since when is it an act of "aggression" for a country -- Russia in this case--to conduct military exercises in its own territory? Gordon and Schmitt also conveniently omit the facts that the United States has been engaged in a variety of military exercises on the border of Russia for the last year. Yet, rather than acknowledge that truth, Gordon and Schmitt push the lie that this is an unprovoked action by a militaristic Russia hell bent on conquering the world.

How else is one to interpret the following quotes:

The military exercise . . . .is part of a larger effort by Mr. Putin to shore up Russia's military prowess, and comes against the backdrop of an increasingly assertive Russia. Beyond Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election in support of the Trump campaign, which has seized attention in the United States, its military has in recent years deployed forces to Syria, seized Crimea and intervened in eastern Ukraine, rattled the Baltic States with snap exercises and buzzed NATO planes and ships . . . .

"There is only one reason you would create a Guards Tank Army, and that is as an offensive striking force," General Hodges said. "This is not something for homeland security. That does not mean that they are automatically going to do it, but in terms of intimidation it is a means of putting pressure on allies."

If you read only this article you would be excused for assuming that Russia is on the prowl for no good reason. Fortunately, our media is not totally subservient to the war machine. NPR reported last week that the United States is actually carrying out the largest military operations on Russia's border in 27 years :

The U.S. and NATO are staging their largest military exercises since the end of the Cold War, and they're doing it in countries of 3 former members of the Warsaw Pact: Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary

DAVID WELNA, BYLINE: Yes, I did. This is all part of what's been called the European Deterrence Initiative, and it's a reinforcement of U.S. forces that had been depleted in Eastern Europe before Russia annexed Crimea three years ago. And as part of this sort of hardening of the U.S. presence here, there was an armored combat brigade team of about 4,000 Army troops from Fort Carson, Colo., that arrived here in Eastern Europe early this year. And they're here in Romania, and they're taking part in military exercises along with about 20,000 other troops.

On Saturday, I was in the Carpathian Mountains, and I watched a pretty impressive live fire, land and air assault there on an imagined enemy. And then yesterday, along the banks of the Danube River here, there was another assault staged to retake the other side of the river from another imagined enemy.

GREENE: You keep saying imagined enemy. Who is the imagined enemy?

WELNA: Well, no doubt it's Russia. And, you know, while this wasn't really a D-Day invasion along the Danube - there was no fire return from the other side - there was a lot of sound and fury. And here's a bit of what it sounded like.

The US military exercise is dubbed Saber Guardian :

Exercise Saber Guardian 17 is a U.S. European Command, U.S. Army Europe-led annual exercise taking place in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria in the summer of 2017. This exercise involves more than 25,000 service members from over 20 ally and partner nations. The largest of the Black Sea Region exercises, Saber Guardian 17 is a premier training event for U.S. Army Europe and participating nations that will build readiness and improve interoperability under a unified command, executing a full range of military missions to support the security and stability of the Black Sea Region. It is deterrence in action.

Some of the more notable aspects of SG17 include: the massing of 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division (3/4ID) from several locations across the Operation Atlantic Resolve area of operation to the exercise joint operations area (JOA) in Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria; and the movement of 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) from Vilseck, Germany, to numerous locations throughout the JOA.

But that's not all. The United States also has been busy in the Baltics in early June 2017 :

The U.S.'s European Command, which is based in Germany, said Thursday it had deployed an unspecified number of F-16 Fighting Falcons from Aviano Air Base in Italy to the Krzesiny Air Base in Poland in support of Baltic Operations (BALTOPS) and Saber Strike , two massive annual drills intended to boost the U.S.'s military presence in Europe and to support regional allies. European Command's statement came a day after it said a number of B-1B Lancers had been sent from Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota to join three B-52H Stratofortresses at the Royal Air Force base in Fairford, U.K. Meanwhile, 800 U.S. airmen in Europe were poised to train with NATO allies this month as the Western military alliance escalates its rivalry with Russia.

And there was US activity in Poland in January :

U.S. troops arrived in the small town of Drawsko Pomorskie, Poland, as part of the largest armed military brigade deployed in Europe since the end of the Cold War

The U.S. troops, along with 53 track vehicles, including the M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer, reached Poland after a three-day journey through Germany. The show of force falls under Operation Atlantic Resolve, designed to show the United States' commitment to its European allies in the face of what NATO sees as Russian aggression.

This is not a comprehensive list. If you take time to do further research you will discover that the United States military in tandem with other countries has carried out several military exercises from the Black Sea in the south, all along the western border of Russia and in the Baltic Sea in the north.

If you are Russia and you are witnessing repeated deployments of U.S. infantry, armor, air and naval units on the frontier that produced that last military invasion of Russia (which left at least 20 million dead) would you sit back and do nothing?

What would the United States do if Russia managed to convince Mexico to sign a mutual defense treaty and then proceeded to conduct tank and military air exercises along our southern border? Would we do nothing?

Gordon and Schmitt are an embarrassment to the profession of journalism. Rather than actually report facts and place them in their proper context, they chose instead to push lies as truth and try to help shape public opinion into believing that Russia poses an imminent threat to the west.

One other point worth remembering--Russia spends $60 billion annually on defense spending while the United States is slated for $650 billion. How much is the US spending on just EUCOM exercises targeted at Russia? Sadly, there is bipartisan stupidity and ignorance when it comes to the issue of properly assessing Russia and the threat it does (or does not) pose to the United States. My cynical conclusion is that as long as Russia is portrayed as the great Red menace bent on world domination we can justify spending $650 billion dollars to thwart an invasion that is not coming.

Posted at 01:20 PM in Borg Wars , Russia Permalink

Anna , 01 August 2017 at 02:11 PM
The two presstitutes, and the NYT at large, do their job for the propagators of Wolfowitz the Trotskyist' doctrine, according to which "Washington must conserve its advance over the rest of the world by hindering the development of all potential competitors." http://www.voltairenet.org/article197288.html
Meyssan writes, "We therefore find ourselves faced with the equation with which we started – one one side, the outsider President of " the People's America ", and on the other, all of the Washington ruling class supported by the deep state (meaning that part of the administration charged with the continuity of the state over and above political alternances). It is apparent that this coalition is supported by the United Kingdom and Israël."
Kooshy , 01 August 2017 at 02:17 PM
PT- incase you missed it, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller are the two NYT propaganda sonography couple to go to, in case you need to start and sell a war choice that the American public will have to pay with blood and savings.
Peter AU , 01 August 2017 at 02:24 PM
All western media singing in tune. All US senate minus two singing in tune. All US house of representatives minus three singing in tune. With the latest Russia/Iran/NK sanctions, the US president has just been rendered obsolete. Whoever owns US 'democracy' now must be congratulating themselves.
Dr. K. , 01 August 2017 at 02:27 PM
Please include VP Pence stirring the pot in the Baltic States.
Anna -> Dr. K.... , 01 August 2017 at 08:44 PM
and in Ukraine: "Adding fuel to the fire': Russia blasts US plans to supply lethal arms to Ukraine" https://www.rt.com/news/398253-us-weapon-supplies-ukraine-russia/
Lemur , 01 August 2017 at 03:04 PM
it all makes sense once you understand from the perspective of the Washington borg, the world is comprised of semi-autonomous zones subject to broad oversight from the 'benign' hegemon.

From time to time, some of these zones assert their sovereignty, which is a clear aggression against the Global Administrative Political Economy. The small ones are District Thirteen-ed, the large ones are treated as malevolent beasts who have seceded from humanity.

Grazhdanochka , 01 August 2017 at 03:48 PM
If I may. Having looked at this a while, I noticed a synchronicity that manifests itself often in the intellectually barren Corridors of NYT, WaPo and CNN. All 3 seem to operate almost like a mutually supporting Machine with each sharing similar Naratives, getting convenient 'Leaks' that help these Naratives and each often quoting the others reporting.

There is Quote some here will be familiar with - "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action" , whenever they each start to sing the same Tune I take more particular note.

For this Reason, I while ago suggested they represent a Media Form of the 3 Horsemen

iffen , 01 August 2017 at 04:01 PM
Beginning of NPR story:
After Russia annexed Crimea three years ago, the U.S. started reversing a military pullout from Eastern Europe.
From the body of the story:
PRESIDENT KLAUS IOHANNIS: This is living proof of the fact that our soldiers not only talk together. They are able, when it is necessary, to fight together.
WELNA: Could they deter Russia?
IOHANNIS: Of course they could. And I think they do it.
WELNA: But Romania's top military official, General Nicolae Ciuca, is less sanguine.
You are on the shore of the Black Sea. So is Russia. How worried are you about Russia?
NICOLAE CIUCA: I am as worried as the alliance is. We are not apart from the alliance.
WELNA: But is there reason to worry?
CIUCA: Always there's a reason to worry. We are not living in a full peace environment.

If our allies, who are quite familiar with an invasion from Russia, are worried, isn't the least we can do is act like we are prepared to act?
Lyttenburgh -> iffen... , 01 August 2017 at 07:17 PM
"If our allies, who are quite familiar with an invasion from Russia, are worried, isn't the least we can do is act like we are prepared to act?"

Are you aware when and under which circumstances did Romania experienced "an invasion from Russia", whose ally it have been at the moment etc.?

Btw, what do you understand by "our ally" pertaining to Romania? A sattelite state?

rkka -> Lyttenburgh... , 01 August 2017 at 09:03 PM
It was so funny when then Ukrainian PM Yatsenyuk announced to the world that the USSR invaded Europe through Ukraine in 1944 and that Ukraine would prevent such an awful event in the future.

So now it appears that the Banderastani mental disease has spread the Romanian general staff...

rkka -> iffen... , 01 August 2017 at 08:54 PM
"CIUCA: Always there's a reason to worry. We are not living in a full peace environment."

One wonders whether poor trembling Nicolae was similarly and fearful when the US was bombing Bosnia and Serbia back in the 1990s. The question answers itself.

What really has the Anglosphere Foreign Policy Elite & Punditocracy's (AFPE&P) knickers in a twist is that Russia and China now have the military capacity to deter them conventionally.

The AFPE&P are consumed, indeed, fixated, on having 'leverage' and 'freedom of action' and it drives them utterly out of their minds to be deprived of both.

VietnamVet , 01 August 2017 at 04:46 PM
PT

Russiagate shows that American citizens don't matter. Not a shred of evidence has been made public to document a Russian involvement. A war that could annihilate mankind could break out any second with no justification. Even, Germany staged the Gleiwitz Incident with Nazi S.S. troops wearing Polish uniforms to feed their propaganda machine to start WWII. With the rise of Major General (ret.) John F. Kelly to Chief of Staff, the military now controls the White House. To end the global media/intelligence community coup attempt; perhaps, a diversionary war with Iran is in the cards. North Korea has nuclear weapons. It is not clear if the relative sanity of General Martin Dempsey and Admiral Mike Mullen has returned to DC. Still, absolutely no one advocates for Peace and Prosperity.

blowback , 01 August 2017 at 05:49 PM
Aaah, Michael R Gordon, the s**t who didn't resign over the aluminium tubes story used as fake evidence to support the invasion of Iraq. And he and the NY Times have been spouting fake news ever since.

https://thinkprogress.org/after-propagating-false-iraq-intel-nyts-michael-gordon-now-echoing-bush-claims-on-iran-40881c2ed9fe

Cortes -> blowback... , 01 August 2017 at 08:01 PM
Delightful to see the use of maskirovka in the names of the two authors of the NYT article. Anyone might think that they're not Zionist.
Anna -> Cortes... , 01 August 2017 at 09:19 PM
Meanwhile, the MSM silence re Awan affair (the greatest national cyber-security breach) is deafening. It seems that the "deciders" made some orders for the presstitutes to not mention the well-documented (unlike "Russian hacking") breach. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/08/01/did-hillary-scapegoat-russia-to-save-her-campaign/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgKCNaDFl_U
Anna -> blowback... , 01 August 2017 at 08:49 PM
" Michael R Gordon, the s**t who didn't resign over the aluminium tubes story "
The families of the wounded and fallen soldiers -- the victims of the war-profiteers including Michael R Gordon -- should start a nice lawsuit against the scoundrel. There, for sure, is a line in the Nuremberg protocols that addresses the agitators of a war of aggression.
English Outsider , 01 August 2017 at 06:36 PM

A valuable over-view of where we are now in what has become a dangerous and unnecessary confrontation. Many thanks.

I'd like to ask about the Russian populations in the Baltic states.

Their position could be similar to that of the Russians in the Donbass in 2014. The Russian or pro-Russian population of the Donbass was at risk from the post-coup Ukrainian Government. That put the Russian Government in a cleft stick. It couldn't abandon the Donbass Russians even had it wanted to because Russian public opinion wouldn't let it. Nor could it simply order the Russian armed forces to move in to the Donbass and protect them. The compromise solution of assisting the rebels to the extent of not allowing them to be over-run was eventually adopted.

That task was simplified in that some of the Donbass Russians were trained soldiers and had been able to form effective fighting units on their own. It's also said that they were initially more or less self-sufficient in weapons and ammunition.

Although the Donbass resistance was initially piecemeal and uncoordinated it had the advantage of being unexpected and the further advantage that the forces sent against it were also poorly coordinated. The regular Ukrainian army was ill-prepared and the only Ukrainian forces eager to fight were untrained street fighters. NATO participation was initially restricted to advisers and covert assistance.

The position would be entirely different now in all respects. What happens if the Russians living in the Baltic states were similarly at risk from their governments? It would be difficult now for the Russian Government to assist them. Are the Baltic Russians in a position to protect themselves as the Donbass Russians did? Do they have access to arms? Or would we see what was avoided in the Donbass, forced expulsion of Russians living in the near-abroad?

Grazhdanochka -> English Outsider ... , 01 August 2017 at 07:23 PM
Situations for Russians in Donbass and Baltics differs of course...

Without going so deeply to this Matter, simply in Ukraine Russians and well all People sympathetic to Russian Identity were not only significant in Demographic and Political Weight but also have considerably involvement in Security Establishment....

When Events of Maidan through Crimea Events and into early Days of Donbas happened you saw the defections of Berkut, Interior Ministry (Regionally) and in case of Khodakovskiy and his Men - Regional SBU Unit...

This Groups made the Nucleus of Indigenous Resistance that expanded as Times went by (Ukrainian Military also defected with some Armor), this also helped to gain access to Arms and provided direct Inspiration regardless Moscow.

Russian Government support simply ensured that they would never lose...

Baltics by comparison has a Military which is far more Homogenous, Manned and Structured and Culturally distinct from most Post Soviet Militaries, it also carries NATO Membership making even just basic Perception of Support from Moscow a more risky consideration...

I think in general Russians in Baltics simply will do as always.... Sit and Deal with it demoralised, Emigrate, in some cases Assimilate or simply be flattened by local Power Structures should they express to much Anger.

For Russia, the Priority I think should be to how best bring them Home

Anna -> Grazhdanochka... , 01 August 2017 at 09:07 PM
The Baltic states had started a Russophobic complain under a slogan of the "native language" immediately after their "liberation." Even those Russian families that have been living in the Baltic states for generations must hold an exam in the "native" language in order to maintain their citizenship there. The statistics for the citizens of Baltic States tells that a large percent of the educated, intelligent, and ambitious have already left the new NATO launching pads against Russia. https://worldview.stratfor.com/analysis/baltics-emigration-and-demographic-decline
rkka -> English Outsider ... , 01 August 2017 at 08:45 PM
"What happens if the Russians living in the Baltic states were similarly at risk from their governments?"

It is surpassingly unlikely that ethnic Russians in the Baltics are similarly at risk from their governments. While they discriminate heavily against their ethnic Russians, they have never shown any propensity to actively harm them, unlike the Banderastanis.

AriusArmenian , 01 August 2017 at 06:39 PM
This is it. It's another Cold War or probably worse. The US Congress has spiked our future.
mike , 01 August 2017 at 07:05 PM
Trump's sidekick, Mike Pence, visited blisis where he stated: "US strongly condemns the occupation" that "sees Russian tanks parked on Georgian soil". Then visited Podgorica as a show of support after Montenegro's entrance into the NATO sparked bitter opposition from Moscow.
Lyttenburgh , 01 August 2017 at 07:07 PM
"One other point worth remembering--Russia spends $60 billion annually on defense spending while the United States is slated for $650 billion. "

Actually, I'm against such blanked exercises in the monetary phallometry . The amount of money spent doesn't mean anything without the context. It was here, on SSC, when I read about a multi million $ waste on overpriced DoD office equipment and such. How much $ does the US spend on TP compared to Russia? Whatever the answer, I can safely predict that US will be winner here as well. But... but... [you see what I'm doing here? ;)] does the overpriced US military TP is somehow better than the one we used in Russian military? Does it have some hitherto unknown properties, which might explain its higher cost? Some, pardon me, "magickal power"?

Once again, unadjusted flat budget numbers mean nothing . They might make someone feel good, that's for sure. But let me remind you of a something. Throughout the 2016 a certain wing of the political spectrum in the US flaunted their budget. They had more time on the TV. More so - the Intelligence community sympathetic to them had more money than the "potential enemy"... Now they are claiming that FSB (or whatever the crazy scheme of the week says) hacked them. Now they say that RT and Sputnik managed to (SOMEHOW!) dupe the populace of the Republic using a tiny fraction of CNN's budget alone.

Makes you feel... useless, doesn't it?

P.S.

Relax! Remember that Saudi Arabia military still spends humongous amount of money, more than the supposedly "traditional" powers of yore. It doesn't translate into the battlefield prowess. Money =/= assured victory.

[Aug 01, 2017] What will be the ramifications of Putins order to reduce US embassy staff? by Shaun Walker

Guardian is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for neocons and neoliberals now. A part of the US deep state war propaganda machine.
Shaun is well-known Guardian pressitute, so the article by itself does not make much sense. But some comments are interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... So Putin helps reduce Russian collusion in US Embassy in Moscow. That is the bright side I believe. ..."
"... Probably worth a mention that parity of staff not just the tit for tact reactions is the usual norm. The fact US had 1000+ staff in Russia compared to Russia's 455 in the US was a product of billateral agreements in the 90s, when the relations were good. Now they're not so it's not exactly scandalous a decision. ..."
Aug 01, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
A source in Moscow confirmed that the 455 figure was not only for US diplomats but for all staff employed at the US missions, "from the cleaners to the ambassador", and said it would be up to the Americans to decide how they reorganised their staffing.

Putin said on Sunday evening that the Russian order meant that 755 employees would have to "cease their work".

The US embassy has refused to comment on how many staff it has and what the breakdown is between local hires and diplomats, but a 2013 internal report into the Russia mission noted that the state department deployed 301 diplomats and 934 locally hired staff positions in Russia. Allowing for small changes over the past four years, this would fit roughly with Putin's statement that 755 should be dismissed to leave a total of 455.

... ... ...

The almost unanimous passing by both houses of Congress last week of new sanctions proved to be the final straw. Putin last week said Russia could not continue to tolerate such "insolence" from the Americans.

"After half a year of waiting and then harsh new American sanctions, a symmetrical response would have looked weak," the pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov wrote on Facebook.

"After the new law in which Russia is basically called an enemy of the US, there's no possibility for good relations. So why do we need such a big army of their diplomats here? So that they can spy and interfere in our elections? It's better if they go home."

Aquarius9 -> sebastian1974 , 31 Jul 2017 12:47

Please ....... provide evidence, because even the US hasn't provided any proof, all they do is make a noise ....... out of the emptiest vessels comes the loudest noise.
freeandfair -> gooner4thewin , 31 Jul 2017 12:43
Russia is more convenient as an enemy because it allows to justify spending a trillion on American "defense" every year without actually going to war with Russia.

At the same time, Russia is a major competitor in the energy and weapons sales businesses, and hurting Russia means benefiting the US businesses in this area.

KhusroK , 31 Jul 2017 12:43
Always nice to see the Guardian batting for the US.
ploughmanlunch , 31 Jul 2017 12:41
'What will be the ramifications of Putin's order to reduce US embassy staff?'

We can safely assume that none of the diplomats the US chooses to bring home were engaged in espionage, allowing the Russian security services to better concentrate their resources on the remainder.

Aquarius9 -> Rudeboy1 , 31 Jul 2017 12:39
And what follows is not going to be pleasant for Russia and Putin....talk about blowback.

Not sure that, that will be the case. Putin outmanoeuvred Obama and the US re Crimea, and Syria, added to which there was an article recently whereby both China and Russia agreed to protect each other, they both know that if one falls the other one will be next. Trump and the US have been waving their small willies around re the South China Sea, China has not said no ships can pass through it, and the US has also been having a go at Russia, the EU however, are not willing to support the new sanctions.

There is a crazy mentality in Washington, (together with a load of arm chair journalist) who think that if they start a war, they will win, the truth will probably be far more serious than that, for all parties, and the wider world ....... and then ask yourself why has neither China or Russia both of whom have vetoing powers on the UN, not pushed North Korea re it's missile tests, the geography, speaks for itself. It is about time, the willy waving, power crazed noises in the US, shut up. Jaw, jaw, is far better than a major catastrophe

KhusroK , 31 Jul 2017 12:37
This report could be factually more informative. There is reciprocity in the Russian move: the 455 staff who may stay on at the US Missions in Russia is precisely the number employed by Russia at its Missions in the US. In terms of real estate too there is reciprocity: 2 for 2.
For an informed assessment see: http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/07/30/us-russia-ties-going-south /
HollyOldDog -> Jonathan Stromberg , 31 Jul 2017 12:33
I'm certain that China is able to supple Russia with whatever fertilisers + machinery it needs though the Yanks have missed out in their sales of GMO seeds as Russia wouldn't except them as a gift ( neither would Ukraine- if it has any sense left ( hmm-debatable)).
TheDogsSnout -> Jonathan Stromberg , 31 Jul 2017 12:28
That's oversimplified bullocks, and I think you know it. US foreign policy in constant regardless of who is in the WH and Russia has been very patient.
MozartDE -> PekkaRoivanen , 31 Jul 2017 12:24
the sanction are probably thought to hit the EU business as the US is losing influence and can not keep a pace with the EU.
SUNLITE , 31 Jul 2017 12:24
How easily the public is mis led by the lies of our so called intelligence agencies and the accusations of a hysterical Hillary and the DNC .This has played perfectly into the hands of the NEO CONS.All without one scintilla of proof of any Russian hacking.As a 35 yr ,hi ranking whistle blowing NSA official William Binney said ,he suspects an FBI official released the E-Mails.Democrats and liberals have jumped on board because it makes the idiot ,boy king look bad.They have forgotten all the lies told to us since the end of WW2 by the pentagon,CIA,FBI,NSA State Dept and unnamed sources like "Curve Ball"and WMDs.
PekkaRoivanen , 31 Jul 2017 12:20
So Putin helps reduce Russian collusion in US Embassy in Moscow. That is the bright side I believe.

What I am curious about is what will be the response form Brussels once the American sanctions hit European businesses.

jochanan -> John Favre , 31 Jul 2017 12:19
and for the average south and central american, under waves of repression brought about by the us, sometimes indirectly, sometimes directly, over more than a century.

Middle east: American and western aggression also comes to mind.

a large amount of pity is indicated. and regret. and sorrow. repent, us -- there will be little forgiveness.

tomspen -> Aquarius9 , 31 Jul 2017 12:16
It is quite funny to watch. Obama and Clinton laughed at the suggestion of interference, now they've lost it's all their media friends are pushing. It is quite transparent and quite hypocritical considering the amount of elections and governments they've interfered with over the years.
John Favre -> MozartDE , 31 Jul 2017 12:14
Major allies for the US: Canada, Mexico, most of Europe, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Australia, Japan

Russia: Syria and Iran

China: North Korea

If only the US were as popular as Russia and China...sigh.

Aquarius9 , 31 Jul 2017 12:14
The only way to make the cuts without sending dozens of diplomats home would be to make career diplomats start pruning the hedges and answering the phones.

Love it ..... lets see how well, these self-important people manage) Putin and Russia have been very restrained since Obama threw his teddy across the room, and spat out his dummy. No proof has been provided to collaborate Russia's supposed interference in the US elections, (the same as with other accusations) and until there is, the US should stop having childish tantrum ...... what's more, the US is saying that it is not the greatest nation on earth, that it's security/ IT systems aren't all singing, all dancing (well they have been hacked into by teenagers and others with medical condition), and that unless something goes a particular way, they'll shout 'it's not fair' like 5 year olds, when they can't get their own way ........ incidentally how many people precisely actually voted on line in the US? or is the US, saying all the millions who voted for Trump were brain-washed by Russia? If so, then Russia is most certainly the most powerful nation on earth.

Ifyouhavetoask -> Alexander Shlapak , 31 Jul 2017 12:12
Thank you for your mail. Unfortunately most people in the UK (and almost all those in the US) believe all this stupid propaganda about Putin interfering in elections and being an aggressive warmonger when he is nothing of the sort. The US war machine needs constant conflict, and Putin, by standing up to the US, provides a significant enough enemy to get budgets approved. I wish you all the best in Russia.
tomspen , 31 Jul 2017 12:04

Russia's surprise move is so severe that if it goes ahead it is likely to paralyse the work of US diplomats in Russia – depending on how the details shake out

'Diplomats' or 'spies' to give them their proper name.

freeandfair , 31 Jul 2017 11:50
Well, if 455 Russian diplomats can serve the US, a country of 320mil+ people, then the same number should be able to serve the country of 140mil+ people.

Yet, it already takes 2 months for a Russian tourist to get a US visa, while it takes just a couple of days for an American tourist to get a Russian visa.

I am assuming with the cuts it is going to be a year to get an American visa.

Honestly, I always got an impression that Americans didn't want to give visas to Russians at all. Otherwise, why make the process so difficult?

juster , 31 Jul 2017 11:45
Probably worth a mention that parity of staff not just the tit for tact reactions is the usual norm. The fact US had 1000+ staff in Russia compared to Russia's 455 in the US was a product of billateral agreements in the 90s, when the relations were good. Now they're not so it's not exactly scandalous a decision.
MustyKankles -> TragicomedyBeholder , 31 Jul 2017 11:42
"I expect that Putin and Trump will take it from here to move towards more constructive relations."

You appear to have convinced yourself the Russia wants to be America's friend. No, they dont. They want to best America, to achieve for yhemselves everything that Americans already have.

The Russians are still eager, still hungry. America, by comparisson, is fat and complacent.

Alexander Shlapak , 31 Jul 2017 11:41
What do you mean to say, "banning the import of European produce is hitting Russians"? Do you mean that we are starving here in Russia? I live in the agricultural South of Russia. Farmers and various sanctioned food producers in Russia pray to almighty God, the sanctions to last forever. It gives them great competitive advantage in a pretty large country.

Low Rouble rate also helps a lot to export all kinds of agricultural products. As for European export producers - well we don't care. And it's strange to think that absence of French cheese or Polish apples will make us cry.

MozartDE , 31 Jul 2017 11:37
The US makes itself enemies around the world. When Russia, China and the middle east states got enough and fed up with the US, it can stop using the US dollars as reserve currency and at the moment is an economic collapse of the US inevitable. It is probably going to happen in the future and in this case

The US with its worthless currency is doomed as Britain even far more.

TragicomedyBeholder , 31 Jul 2017 11:23

"After half a year of waiting and then harsh new American sanctions, a symmetrical response would have looked weak ..."

Markov's statement in the final paragraph sums up this sad situation well.

Putin is clear-minded enough to see that this latest episode of orchestrated Russophobia for US internal political purposes is not Trump's fault. He had little choice in the matter.

Noiseformind , 31 Jul 2017 11:19

What will be the ramifications of Putin's order to reduce US embassy staff?

To improve the life quality of all American staff returning the US?

[Aug 01, 2017] Washington's Addictive Foreign-Policy Drug The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... The enthusiasm for the latest sanctions initiative ignores the longtime unimpressive record of that tactic. Some three decades ago, the seminal scholarly work of Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered , demonstrated that sanctions rarely achieve their policy goal. More recent editions of the book confirm the basic conclusion. Sanctions may inconvenience the targeted regime!and create substantial suffering for innocent people in that country!but they seldom compel the regime to capitulate or even make major concessions. That is especially true when the issue in question is a high-priority matter for the country's political leadership. ..."
"... Most worrisome of all, sanctions will only inflame Moscow and intensify an already worrisome new cold war. Russia is not likely to concede that it meddled in America's 2016 elections!and, in fact, there are serious doubts about those allegations. The chances that Russia will abandon its secessionist allies in eastern Ukraine are not much better, and there is virtually no possibility that Russia will reverse its annexation of Crimea. The chances of that happening are about the same as Israel giving up the Golan Heights or Turkey withdrawing from occupied northern Cyprus and repudiating the puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. ..."
Aug 01, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
would sign the bill!perhaps reflecting just how much proponents of a new cold war with Russia have intimidated the Trump team. The extent and virulence of anti-Russia sentiment has reached alarming levels. Members of Congress and other opinion leaders in both parties have branded the alleged Russian hacking of the 2016 election as an act of war, and one congressman even explicitly compared it to Pearl Harbor and 9-11 .

Given such hysteria and the lopsided congressional vote in favor of the sanctions legislation, Trump's reluctance to use his veto power was not necessarily a manifestation of political cowardice. Only three House members and two senators (Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders) cast negative votes. Even Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), who usually is sensible on foreign policy issues, joined the legislative lynch mob.

The enthusiasm for the latest sanctions initiative ignores the longtime unimpressive record of that tactic. Some three decades ago, the seminal scholarly work of Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott, and Kimberly Ann Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered , demonstrated that sanctions rarely achieve their policy goal. More recent editions of the book confirm the basic conclusion. Sanctions may inconvenience the targeted regime!and create substantial suffering for innocent people in that country!but they seldom compel the regime to capitulate or even make major concessions. That is especially true when the issue in question is a high-priority matter for the country's political leadership.

The track record in recent decades does very little to contradict that thesis. The United States and its allies have imposed ever-tightening sanctions on North Korea to force that country to give up its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. Pyongyang's repeated nuclear tests and its recent launches of an intercontinental ballistic missile demonstrate the utter futility of the sanctions strategy.

Washington has been equally unsuccessful in using that tactic toward another adversary, Cuba. A succession of U.S. administrations, beginning with Dwight Eisenhower's, maintained that approach for more than a half century before Barack Obama began to normalize relations with Havana in late 2014. Unfortunately, President Trump rescinded several of the beneficial and realistic changes that his predecessor had made. Yet the results of the Cuba embargo were no more impressive than the outcome of sanctions against North Korea. Washington's demands that the Castro regime stop its human-rights abuses, move toward democracy, and compensate Americans for property seized following the 1959 revolution all failed to produce any discernible results. The Castro dynasty remains in power, the Cuban regime is still a communist dictatorship, there has been no compensation for seized property, and the improvement in the treatment of political dissidents is minimal, at best.

Even the alleged success stories that sanctions proponents tout turn out to be unimpressive. The Iran agreement is a prominent example. Sanctions may have played a modest role in getting Tehran to the conference table, but the agreement occurred only when the United States and the other P5+1 powers backed off of their demand that Iran capitulate and refrain from developing any capacity to enrich uranium. The resulting agreement was very much a compromise measure, and hawks in the United States vehemently condemned it as a U.S.-led surrender to Iran.

Imposing harsh measures on Russia is especially worrisome. Moscow was quick to retaliate for congressional passage of the latest punitive package. Vladimir Putin's government immediately ordered a reduction in the size of America's embassy staff in Moscow and seized several U.S. diplomatic properties. Moreover, the argument that Russia's actions were in response to the Obama administration's similar steps in December 2016 misconstrues the situation. Putin made a point of assuring President-elect Trump that he would not retaliate for the December penalties. But imposition of the new sanctions triggered a decisive policy change.

Economic sanctions appear to be the habitual favorite tool in Washington's foreign policy tool kit. It provides the illusion of a moderate, middle course between a total reliance on diplomacy and resorting to military force. Given that tactic's pervasive lack of effectiveness, though, policymakers need to overcome their obsession. That is especially so when the underlying demands are completely unrealistic.

Sanctions will not compel North Korea to give up its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Pyongyang's leadership elite believes that it needs such capabilities to deter Washington from contemplating forcible regime change. Given U.S. actions against such nonnuclear adversaries as Serbia, Iraq, and Libya, that is not an irrational conclusion.

Likewise, new sanctions against Tehran for violating " the spirit " of the P5+1 accord is thoroughly counterproductive. Even the Trump administration had to concede , however reluctantly, that Iran has abided by the actual terms of the agreement. Imposing sanctions is not likely to cause President Rouhani's relatively moderate government to become more cooperative. Indeed, that step may strengthen the power of Iranian hardliners who wish to repudiate the agreement and move to build a nuclear deterrent.

Most worrisome of all, sanctions will only inflame Moscow and intensify an already worrisome new cold war. Russia is not likely to concede that it meddled in America's 2016 elections!and, in fact, there are serious doubts about those allegations. The chances that Russia will abandon its secessionist allies in eastern Ukraine are not much better, and there is virtually no possibility that Russia will reverse its annexation of Crimea. The chances of that happening are about the same as Israel giving up the Golan Heights or Turkey withdrawing from occupied northern Cyprus and repudiating the puppet Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Economic sanctions have the dubious quality of being simultaneously provocative and ineffectual. The latest manifestation likely will cause serious trouble for the United States on multiple fronts. Policymakers need to overcome their addiction to sanctions before it produces an immense tragedy.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books, the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.

[Aug 01, 2017] Gareth Porter on Barack Obama's policy of arming jihadists in Syria

Aug 01, 2017 | www.libertarianinstitute.org

Gareth Porter returns to the show to discuss his latest articles for the American Conservative, " How America Armed Terrorists in Syria " and " How CIA and Allies Trapped Obama in the Syrian Arms Debacle ." Scott and Gareth discuss how U.S. national security policy since Obama took office has been largely been, either directly or indirectly, in support of al-Qaeda and that unlike George W. Bush, who empowered al-Qaeda accidentally, Barack Obama did it with full understanding of the likely consequences of his policies. Gareth then explains how U.S. policy in the Middle East, and in Syria particularly, changed with the outbreak of the Arab Spring, which the U.S. saw as an opportunity to foment revolution with the goal of regime change. According to Gareth, Obama's advisors failed to warn him that arming Assad's enemies in Syria would increase the role of Hezbollah and Iran, and ultimately backfire!just another example of how the U.S. foreign policy machine is always able to rationalize their views, no matter how ill-fated, in order to advance their supposed interests. Gareth also explains why the Iran Deal pressured Obama into opposing Iran everywhere else in order to placate Saudi Arabia and many of his advisors, including David Petraeus. Finally, Scott and Gareth touch on the considerable role Israel and the U.S.'s Sunni allies in the region play in determining U.S. policy.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist on the national security state and author of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . Follow him on Twitter @GarethPorter .

- Advertisement -

Discussed on the show:

Audio Player 00:00 00:00 Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase or decrease volume.

Podcast (thescotthortonshow): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | Stitcher | RSS

[Jul 31, 2017] Any hopes of mending Russia-US ties rest on curing the worsening political schizophrenia in Washington

The US Congress feel that they own the Earth like a big plantation, and all other countries including Russia, China, Japan and "Europiean allies" are their vassals. That's typical for the elite which lost connection with the reality as the global neoliberal empire built by the USA and allies since 1980 beginning to crumbles. Same situation happened with th UK elite too. At the same time the US is still dominant in many spheres and Russia should be very careful with countermeasures. The US Congress is spoiling for a fight, or, at least, is dreaming about the return of good old days on Cold War (with now now as a designated "Evil empire"), when existence of the USSR prevented the US elite from going off rails and helped to keep vassals (aka allies) in check.
Jul 31, 2017 | www.msn.com

But he did insist Russia remained keen on "continuing cooperation in the areas that correspond to our interests", suggesting Moscow remains open to working together on Syria after agreeing a ceasefire with the US in the south of the war-torn country.

... ... ...

In response to allegations of Kremlin election hacking then US president Barack Obama in December ordered out 35 Russian diplomats and closed down two embassy summer houses that Washington said were being used by Moscow for espionage.

At the time, the Kremlin said it would put any retaliation on hold as it waited for Trump to take office.

[Jul 31, 2017] Make America Safe Put Congress On Permanent Recess (What The Sanction Bill Is Really About) by Mike Shedlock

ZeroHedge suggests that it might well be The Awan Brothers – The (Not-Russian) IT Staff Who Allegedly Hacked Congress' Computer Systems.
Jul 31, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

House Speaker Paul Ryan just bragged the House passed "one of the most expansive sanction packages in history." The bill places sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

Factor in Trump's ill-advised threats to raise tariffs on Chinese steel, and we have at hand a protectionist trade war tinder box in search of a match.

Protectionist trade war tinderbox in search of a match: EU, Russia, Brexit, Chinese Steel, Nord Stream, Trump https://t.co/DMQzgf3nji

! Mike Mish Shedlock (@MishGEA) July 26, 2017

... ... ...

Rule of Nothing

As is typically the case, and explained by the "Rule of Nothing" , the best possible outcome is for nothing to happen.

To that end, Congress may go on recess before working out the differences between the House and the Senate versions.

I propose a permanent recess before more damage is done.

historian40 , Jul 26, 2017 11:45 AM

The bi-partisan votes are only rare because they have to maintain the illusion of there being two opposing parties. When it comes to legislation to grow government intrusion, violate the Constitution, wars, etc, these "rare" votes always show up.

The First Rule -> New_Meat , Jul 26, 2017 1:05 PM

Paul Rino - How does aging on a country that has 4,000+ nuclear warheads pointed at the United States, "make our Country Safer" ???????

Mike Masr , Jul 26, 2017 12:18 PM

Russian Economy Minister Maxim Oreshkin was quoted as saying by RIA Novosti on Wednesday.

He asserted the restrictions cannot inflict substantial damage on Russia. "Our macroeconomic policy is shaped in such a way so that sanctions-related shockwaves coming from outside do not have significant impact on the Russian economy," he said.

My opinion is this does Fuck the EU! I hope the temps in the EU are unbelievably fucking cold this winter!!!

Mike Masr , Jul 26, 2017 12:39 PM

ELECTION MEDDLING BULLSHIT DEFINED

The US has been meddling and interfering in other countries elections and internal affairs for decades.

This includes US meddling in Russian elections using NGO's. Not only does the US meddle and interfere in other countries elections it overthrows democratically elected governments it doesn't like, and then installs puppet leaders. Our neocons casually refer to this as "regime change".

I can only imagine the hell that would break loose if Russia fomented, paid for, and assisted in a violent overthrow of the legitimately and democratically elected government in Mexico. Imagine Russian spymasters working from the Russian Embassy in Mexico City helping and training radicals how to use social media to bring out angry people and foment violent pubic unrest. Then Russian Duma members in Mexico City handing out tacos, and tamales emboldening and urging these angry people to riot, and overthrow the government and toss the bums out. Then Putin's executive group hand picking all the new (anti-USA) drug cartel junta puppet leaders of Mexico and a Russian senator, Ivan MiKainlev in Mexico City stating on RT, there are no drug cartels here!

On the other side of the world Obama's neocon warmongers spent billions doing exactly this. Instead of drug cartels it was Banderist Neo-Nazis. Obama and our neocons, including John McCain intentionally caused all of this fucking mess, civil war and horrific death in Ukraine on Russia's border and then placed all the blame for it on Putin and Russia. WTF!!!

Thanks to John McCain and our evil fucking neocons - the regime change policy implemented by Obama, Clinton and Nuland's minions, like Geoffrey Pyatt, the Ukraine today is totally fucked. It is now a banana republic embroiled in a civil war. For the US and NATO the golden prize of this violent undemocratic regime change was supposed to be the Crimea. This scheme did not play out as intended. No matter what sanctions the warmongering neocons place on Russia they will NEVER give back the Crimea!

Our neocon fuck heads spent billions of our hard earned taxpayer dollars to create pain, suffering, death and a civil war inside Ukraine on Russia's border!

This is a case of don't do what we do [meddle and interfere], only do what we tell you to do! The moral of the story here is its perfectly okay when we do it. We don't like it when we think it's been done to us!

It's hypocrisy and duplicity at its finest!

Tech Camp NGO operating out of US Embassy in Kiev (using social media to help bring out radicals-

cause civil war-pre Maidan 2013)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9hOl8TuBUM

Nuland talks about $5 billion spent on Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaR1_an9CnQ

Neocons -Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt in Kiev's Maidan Square

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVs2tcSyyuA

Nuland plotting on intercepted phone call the hand picked post coop Junta leaders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o

US Support of Banderist Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-RyOaFwcEw

RocketScience , Jul 26, 2017 12:50 PM

Mike Masr gets it.

Three congressmen get it: Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and John Ducan.

The hard truth is the media/entertainment complex in coordination with the deep state bureaucrats are still running the country.

http://www.militaryvotescount.com/2017/07/09/remember-when-the-u-s-inter...

Youri Carma , Jul 26, 2017 3:11 PM

Sanctions are an act of war in order to provoke a hot expansion of that war.

[Jul 31, 2017] US committed to path of conflict with Russia, tensions higher than in Cold War by Paul Craig Roberts

Jul 31, 2017 | www.rt.com

RT Op-Edge

PCR: That's part of it. Congress gains political contributions from the American energy industry and it gains political contributions from the military-security complex because this bill is constructed to serve both interests. They're both extremely powerful interest groups. And so, the military-security complex wins by preventing the normalization of relations, which is a threat to the budget and the power of the military-security complex. And the energy companies win by having a new market for their natural gas, the liquefied natural gas that they're getting from the fracking operations that are doing so much environmental damage in the United States. This benefits both groups. And therefore Congress – as you saw, the votes are almost unanimous, only two senators out of a hundred voted against it, and only three US representatives out of [more than] four hundred [419-3] voted against it. You can see the power of these interest groups and they put their interests ahead of normalizing relations between nuclear powers. When you have bad relations between nuclear powers like Russia and the United States, the chance of something going wrong is extremely high.

[Jul 31, 2017] Washington is spoiling for a fight. They failed with the attempt of color revolution in Russia in 2012. After that setback they organized coup d' tat in Ukraine in 2014. Just watch how they will try to derail Putin during the next elections. All means are good or them.

Jul 31, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

likbez , July 31, 2017 at 12:28 pm

Mark,

Dollar dominance is just one feature of neoliberalism. You just can't take is separately and attack it. You will be instantly crushed.

And BTW Russia is still a neoliberal country with its own set of oligarchs (some of which now will face significant losses) and after Yeltsin drunken rampage always was. Which represents the fifth column within the country. So fact they did not rebel, but this may eventually change as losses are mounted. This is the USA calculation.

It was a miracle that Russia avoided further dismembering and complete neoliberal colonization. But that's about it. Now this is not the time to test its luck again, I think. It's too early.

BTW China is also a neoliberal country as well, although deviant in its own way. Anybody who think that in case of troubles China will come to Russia help, because she will be next target of Washington, might well be a dreamer. On the contrary, Chine might try to corner Russia in prices of hydrocarbons because of sanctions. The rule of neoliberalism if that if a country is sinking, help her to sink faster.

This "deviation" from Washington consensus" in the form of more independent foreign policy and defense of national interests than are allowed by Washington -- the center of global neoliberal empire is what Russia is punished for. All those fake accusation of hacking are just a convenient pretext. That's why sanctions legislation enjoyed such a majority in Congress -- the country that challenges the US dominance in global neoliberal empire should be destroyed.

That means that Russia should be very careful not to overreact as trump cards in this geopolitical game are still in the USA hands. Especially in high technology.

Washington is spoiling for a fight. They failed with the attempt of color revolution in Russia in 2012. After that setback they organized coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014. Just watch how they will try to derail Putin during the next elections. All means are good or them.

[Jul 31, 2017] Cold War 2.0 is officially on

Jul 31, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Warren , July 31, 2017 at 10:31 am

Published on 31 Jul 2017

It is time to speak the obvious: Cold War 2.0 is officially on. Though this Cold War is different and possibly far more dangerous. The world is in uncharted waters as the Trump White House attempts to find its footing.

CrossTalking with Edward Lozansky, Mark Sleboda, and Vladimir Golstein.

[Jul 31, 2017] Russia to Strike Hard in Response to US Sanctions

Jul 31, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org
EDITORIAL | 28.07.2017

US Senate has voted on the bill containing a package of sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea. The senators have taken on great responsibility because Moscow is not going to watch the hostile action idly, it will respond. The retaliatory measures will be felt.

As Russia's Foreign Ministry announced on July 28, the decision has been taken to seize the Serebryany Bor diplomatic compound in north-west Moscow as well as the embassy's warehouse in a tit-for-tat move. A total of 35 diplomats will be sent home. The embassy staff must be reduced to 455 – the level of Russia embassy staff in Washington.

If President Trump signs the bill into law, it'll be hard to imagine Moscow cooperating with the US in the UN Security Council on the draft resolution sanctions to punish North Korea. Washington may need the Russia's support badly pretty soon.

The US space research programs will suffer a severe blow deprived of Russia RD-180 and RD-181 rocket engines they so much depend on. NASA's Atlas 5 rocket launches will be suspended.

  • The export portfolio of JSC Techsnabexport (TENEX) includes 25 contracts with a total value of about $6.5 billion concluded with 19 US companies with the supply perspectives until 2028. The volume of the agreed supplies of Russian uranium products (that is 20% of annual reactor needs at the US nuclear power plants) is 95% used. There are few actors on the world market who could substitute the Russian supplies and it takes time and effort to make new deals, if it possible at all.
  • VSMPO-AVISMA is the world's largest manufacturer of titanium products and the Russian supplier of titanium to Boeing and other US aerospace companies. It accounts for about a half of all titanium imported by the United States and over a third (35%) of titanium consumed by Boeing. The American company has investments in Russia. It has been in the country for decades. About five years ago, it announced plans to invest $27 billion over the next 30 years. In 2014, VSMPO and Boeing had signed an extension of the supply contract for titanium sheet to 2022.
  • VSMPO-AVISMA has no competitors in the world and can easily find other customers. The US partners will face a very serious problem unable to find an alternative. The suspension of titanium supplies from Russia would damage the US defense industry capabilities.

American companies operating in Russia could be targeted. They risk suffering heavy losses , especially energy giants and banking conglomerates. For instance, Caterpillar could lose orders for heavy equipment needed to build pipelines and other construction projects. US high-tech companies may be prevented from working with Russian counterparts – something they are interested in.

The issue fits into a larger geopolitical pattern. The EU reaction makes it a pro-Russian bill, pushing Europe away from the United States to Russia. Europeans get more evidence to see that Washington's high-fallutin' harangues about Atlantic solidarity are the way to promote its selfish interests. The differences between the United States and the EU undermine the G7's unity regarding Russia. The countries agreed on the link between the Minsk accords and the sanctions. Now the US is going unilateral, provoking Europeans into continuing with the North Stream 2 project to defy America and, thus, benefit Russia. According to Europeans, "America First" should not be a synonym for "Europe second" or "Europe irrelevant".

According to Wolfgang Ischinger, chairman of the Munich Security Conference, this bill "will not achieve its objectives and will instead cause new problems. Unless it undergoes significant revision, it would compromise European energy security and damage US relations with Europe. The beneficiary of such an outcome would be Russia". According to Ischinger, the North Stream-2 issue "is not a question that should be decided in Washington. It is a European issue, to be decided by Europeans based on European law and regulation". The expert believes that signed into law, the legislation would "tip the scales in favor of those who want to end Europe's participation in the existing trans-Atlantic policy approach on Russia, including the sanctions regime. If the president signs the bill in its current form, it would alienate America's important complicating our alliance at a critical moment".

So, in an effort to strike Russia the US Congress has targeted Europe and NATO solidarity.

The fraying US-Russia ties will entail fraying arms control relationship. The "Russia sanctions bill" is not the only legislation expected to become law if Presidents Trump signs it. The proposed defense budget for 2018 has taken aim at the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, as well as the Open Skies and even New START treaties. Becoming law, it would deal a major blow to the US-Russia arms-control architecture. Russia would have no choice but respond. This would lead to arms race. If the US provokes the termination of the INF Treaty, it will greatly spoil its relations with the European allies. Is it wise to develop an intermediate range missile nobody wants on its soil?

President Trump has also ordered a major review of US nuclear policy, a common move by new administrations. The mission is impossible without making clear if the US has arms control arguments with Russia in force or not. No clarity on the issue would greatly complicate military planning in general.

Russia can and will deal a heavy blow in response to the US "sanctions bill". Unlike Iran or North Korea, it can do it. This ability should not be underestimated by the president who intends to sign the bill into law. Too many times have US experts and lawmakers made calculations about how much the measures will hurt Russia without assessing the damage America will inflict on itself.

[Jul 31, 2017] In Afghanistan Russians Are Now Remembered With Love by Andre Vltchek

Jul 31, 2017 | journal-neo.org

This is not what you are supposed to be reading. All remembrances of the "Soviet Era" in Afghanistan has been boxed and then labeled as "negative", even "toxic". No discussion on the topic is allowed in 'polite circles', at least in the West and in Afghanistan itself.

Afghanistan is where the Soviet Union was tricked into, and Afghanistan is where the Communist superpower received its final blow. 'The victory of capitalism over communism', the official Western narrative shouted. A 'temporary destruction of all progressive alternatives for our humanity', replied others, but mostly under their breath.

After the horrific, brutal and humiliating period of Gorbachev/Yeltsin, Russia shrunk both geographically and demographically, while going through indescribable agony. It hemorrhaged; it was bathing in its own excrement, while the West celebrated its temporary victory, dancing in front of the world map, envisioning the re-conquest of its former colonies.

But in the end Russia survived, regained its bearings and dignity, and once again became one of the most important countries on Earth, directly antagonistic to the global Western imperialist designs.

Afghanistan has never recovered. After the last Soviet combat troops left the country in 1989, it bled terribly for years, consumed by a brutal civil war. Its progressive government had to face the monstrous terror of the Western and Saudi backed Mujahedeen, with individuals like Osama bin Laden in command of the jihadi genocide.

Socialists, Communists, secularists as well as almost all of those who were educated in the former Soviet Union or Eastern Block countries, were killed, exiled, or muzzled for decades.

Most of those who settled in the West simply betrayed; went along with the official Western narrative and dogma.

Even those individuals who still claimed to be part of the left, repeated like parrots, their preapproved fib:

"Perhaps the Soviet Union was not as bad as the Mujahedeen, Taliban, or even the West, but it was really bad enough."

I heard these lines in London and elsewhere, coming from several mouths of corrupt Afghan 'elites' and their children. From the beginning I was doubtful. And then my work, my journeys to and through Afghanistan began. I spoke to dozens of people all over the country, doing exactly what I was discouraged to do: driving everywhere without an escort or protection, stopping in the middle of godforsaken villages, entering fatal city slums infested with narcotics, approaching prominent intellectuals in Kabul, Jalalabad and elsewhere.

"Where are you from?" I was asked on many occasions.

"Russia," I'd reply. It was a gross simplification. I was born in Leningrad, now St Petersburg, but an incredible mixture of Chinese, Russian, Czech and Austrian blood circles through my veins. Still, the name "Russia" came naturally to me, in the middle of Afghan deserts and deep gorges, especially in those places where I knew that my life was hanging on a thin thread. If I were to be allowed to utter one last word in this life, "Russia" was what I wanted it to be.

But after my declaration, the faces of the Afghan people would soften, unexpectedly and suddenly. "Welcome!" I'd hear again and again. An invitation to enter humble homes would follow: an offer to rest, to eat, or to just drink a glass of water.

'Why?' I often wondered. "Why?" I finally asked my driver and interpreter, Mr. Arif, who became my dear friend.

"It's because in this country, Afghans love Russian people," he replied simply and without any hesitation.

"Afghans love Russians?" I wondered. "Do you?"

"Yes," he replied, smiling. "I do. Most of our people here do."

Two days later I was sitting inside an armored UNESCO Land Cruiser, talking to a former Soviet-trained engineer, now a simple driver, Mr. Wahed Tooryalai. He allowed me to use his name; he had no fear, just accumulated anger, which he obviously wanted to get out of his system:

"When I sleep, I still sometimes see the former Soviet Union in my dreams. After that, I wake up and feel happy for one entire month. I remember everything I saw there, until now "

I wanted to know what really made him so happy 'there'?

Mr. Wahed did not hesitate:

"People! They are so kind. They are welcoming Russians, Ukrainians I felt so much at home there. Their culture is exactly like ours. Those who say that Russians 'occupied' Afghanistan have simply sold out. The Russians did so much for Afghanistan: they built entire housing communities like 'Makroyan', they built factories, even bakeries. In places such as Kandahar, people are still eating Russian bread "

I recalled the Soviet-era water pipes that I photographed all over most of the humble Afghan countryside, as well as the elaborate water canals in and around cities like Jalalabad.

"There is so much propaganda against the Soviet Union," I said.

"Only the Mujahedeen and the West hate Russians," Mr. Wahed explained. "And those who are serving them."

Then he continued:

"Almost all poor Afghan people would never say anything bad about Russians. But the government people are with the West, as well as those Afghan elites who are now living abroad: those who are buying real estate in London and Dubai, while selling their own country those who are paid to 'create public opinion."

His words flowed effortlessly; he knew precisely what he wanted to say, and they were bitter, but it was clearly what he felt:

"Before and during the Soviet era, there were Soviet doctors here, and also Soviet teachers. Now show me one doctor or teacher from the USA or UK based in the Afghan countryside! Russians were everywhere, and I still even remember some names: Lyudmila Nikolayevna Show me one Western doctor or nurse based here now. Before, Russian doctors and nurses were working all over the country, and their salaries were so low They spent half on their own living expenses, and the other half they distributed amongst our poor Now look what the Americans and Europeans are doing: they all came here to make money!"

I recall my recent encounter with a Georgian combatant, serving under the US command at the Bagram base. Desperate, he recalled his experience to me:

"Before Bagram I served at the Leatherneck US Base, in Helmand Province. When the Americans were leaving, they even used to pull out concrete from the ground. They joked: "When we came here, there was nothing, and there will be nothing after we leave " They prohibited us from giving food to local children. What we couldn't consume, we had to destroy, but never give to local people. I still don't understand, why? Those who come from the US or Western Europe are showing so much spite for the Afghan people!"

What a contrast!

Mr. Wahed recalled how the Soviet legacy was abruptly uprooted:

"After the Taliban era, we were all poor. There was hunger; we had nothing. Then the West came and began throwing money all around the place. Karzai and the elites kept grabbing all that they could, while repeating like parrots: "The US is good!" Diplomats serving Karzai's government, the elites, they were building their houses in the US and UK, while people educated in the Soviet Union couldn't get any decent jobs. We were all blacklisted. All education had to be dictated by the West. If you were educated in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, East Germany or Bulgaria, they'd just tell you straight to your face: Out with you, Communist! At least now we are allowed to at least get some jobs We are still pure, clean, never corrupt!"

"Do people still remember?" I wonder.

"Of course they do! Go to the streets, or to a village market. Just tell them: "How are you my dear?" in Russian. They'd immediately invite you to their homes, feed you, embrace you "

I tried a few days later, in the middle of the market and it worked. I tried in a provincial town, and it worked again. I finally tried in a Taliban-infiltrated village some 60 kilometers from Kabul, and there it didn't. But I still managed to get away.

I met Mr. Shakar Karimi in Pole Charkhi Village. A local patriarch, he used to be a district chief in Nangarhar Province.

I asked him, what the best system ever implemented in modern Afghanistan was?

First he spoke about the Khan dynasty, but then referred to a left-wing Afghan leader, who was brutally tortured and murdered by Taliban after they entered Kabul in 1996:

"If they'd let Dr. Najib govern in peace, that would have been the best for Afghanistan!"

I asked him about the Soviet invasion in 1979.

"They came because they were given wrong information. The first mistake was to enter Afghanistan. The second, fatal mistake was to leave."

"What was the main difference between the Russians and Westerners during their engagement in Afghanistan?"

"The Russian people came predominately to serve, to help Afghanistan. The relationship between Russians and Afghans was always great. There was real friendship and people were interacting, even having parties together, visiting each other."

I didn't push him further; didn't ask what was happening now. It was just too obvious. "Enormous walls and high voltage wires," would be the answer. Drone zeppelins, weapons everywhere and an absolute lack of trust and the shameless division between the few super rich and the great majority of the desperately poor the most depressed country on the Asian continent.

Later I asked my comrade Arif, whether all this was really true?

"Of course!" He shouted, passionately. "100% true. The Russians built roads, they built homes for our people, and they treated Afghans so well, like their brothers. The Americans never did anything for Afghanistan, almost nothing. They only care about their own benefits."

"If there would be a referendum right now, on a simple question: 'do you want Afghanistan to be with Russia or with the United States, the great majority would vote for Russia, never for the US or Europe. And you know why? I'm Afghan: when my country is good, then I'm happy. If my country is doing bad, then I suffer! Most people here, unless they are brainwashed or corrupted by the Westerners, know perfectly well what Russia did for this country. And they know how the West injured our land."

Of course this is not what every single Afghan person thinks, but most of them definitely do. Just go and drive to each and every corner of the country, and ask. You are not supposed to, of course. You are told to be scared to come here, to roam through this "lawless" land. And you are not supposed to go directly to the people. Instead you are expected to recycle the writings of toothless, cowardly academics, as well as servile mass media reports. If you are liberal, you are at least expected to say: "there is no hope, no solution, no future."

At Goga Manda village, the fighting between the Taliban and government troops is still raging. All around the area, the remnants of rusty Soviet military hardware can be found, as well as old destroyed houses from the "Soviet era" battles.

The Taliban is positioned right behind the hills. Its fighters attack the armed forces of Afghanistan at least once a month.

Almost 16 years after the NATO invasion and consequent occupation of the country, this village, as thousands of other villages in Afghanistan, has no access to electricity, and to drinking water. There is no school within walking distance, and even a small and badly equipped medical post is far from here, some 5 kilometers away. Here, an average family of 6 has to survive on US$130 dollars per month, and that's only if some members are actually working in the city.

I ask Mr. Rahmat Gul, who used to be a teacher in a nearby town, whether the "Russian times" were better.

He hesitated for almost one minute, and then replied vaguely:

"When the Russians were here, there was lots of shooting It was real war People used to die. During the jihad period, the Mujahedeen were positioned over there they were shooting from those hills, while Soviet tanks were stationed near the river. Many civilians were caught in the crossfire."

As I got ready to ask him more questions, my interpreter began to panic:

"Let's go! Taliban is coming."

He's always calm. When he gets nervous, I know it is really time to run. We ran; just stepping on the accelerator and driving at breakneck speed towards the main road.

Before we parted, Mr. Wahed Tooryalai grabbed my hand. I knew he wanted to say something essential. I waited for him to formulate it. Then it came, in rusty but still excellent Russian:

"Sometimes I feel so hurt, so angry. Why did Gorbachev abandon us? Why? We were doing just fine. Why did he leave us? If he hadn't betrayed us, life in Afghanistan would be great. I wouldn't have to be a UN driver I used to be the deputy director of an enormous bread factory, with 300 people working there: we were building our beloved country, feeding it. I hope Putin will not leave us."

Then he looked at me, straight into my eyes, and suddenly I got goose bumps as he spoke, and my glasses got foggy:

"Please tell Mr. Putin: do hold our hand, as I'm now holding yours. Tell him what you saw in my country; tell him that we Afghans, or at least many of us, are still straight, strong and honest people. All this will end, and we will send the Americans and Europeans packing. It will happen very soon. Then please come and stand by us, by true Afghan patriots! We are here, ready and waiting. Come back, please."

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He's a creator of Vltchek's World in Word and Images , a writer of revolutionary novel Aurora and several other books . He writes especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook."
https://journal-neo.org/2017/07/29/in-afghanistan-russians-are-now-remembered-with-love/

[Jul 31, 2017] How Romney Loyalists Hijacked Trumps Foreign Policy

Notable quotes:
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Jul 31, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's America First worldview."

Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.

Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however, he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln .his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."

But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains) to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.

But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared to move.

Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any other people.

Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic threat to America.

Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.

But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of war and peace.

Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign, and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine. A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long, pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of his positions and you see you disagree on every one."

One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.

Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.

According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists, from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker, executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations, Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.

Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative, has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.

Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.

Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy. Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's national security strategy.

How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration? And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.

Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state, tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb. He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor an open ended, unresolved war.

Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .

As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:

"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves. But that's – its more of a façade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."

"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and its what we do."

"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine."

One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since 1776?

Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism? Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with the President?

On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president."

American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige, power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in. Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.

This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage.

Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and Generals, Copperhead.

Andrew , says: July 30, 2017 at 11:04 pm

This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself. And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Fran Macadam , says: July 31, 2017 at 12:36 am
Globalism is the twenty-first century euphemism for old fashioned imperialism, now on Wall Street propelled nuclear steroids.
KaneV , says: July 31, 2017 at 1:15 am
Good God how shallow is the Trump foreign policy bench that the American Con has a director writing in its defense?
reelectclaydavis , says: July 31, 2017 at 4:43 am
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a) you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible with the American interventions you oppose.
polistra , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:13 am
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker. Doesn't matter which.

The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it to do.

Dan Stewart , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:23 am
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
For Virginia , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:23 am
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year. And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's political career.

The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.

Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.

Johann , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:27 am
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
SDS , says: July 31, 2017 at 8:46 am
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that he doesn't
Kurt Gayle , says: July 31, 2017 at 9:03 am
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:

"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite – and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment.

You see, debate is – basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.

And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it – to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?

Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers.

I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change.

Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/watch-foreign-policy-in-americas-interest/

We're in a new period – a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.

Kevin , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:13 am
Shorter Ron Maxwell: good tsar, evil advisors --
Bill Smith , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:24 am
This article is sharply contradicted by an earlier and more informed article in Conservative Review, an outlet with a considerably larger audience than American Conservative. You might want to read that as a corrective to this one. You can find it here: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/trump-nat-sec-strategy-to-translate-maga-into-foreign-policy

Money quote:

A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast boilerplate is over."

Henri James , says: July 31, 2017 at 10:44 am
I do love that in all of these scenarios, Trump is just some innocent moon-eyed man child who can't possibly be expected to think on his own.
Charlie , says: July 31, 2017 at 11:27 am
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew] next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every nuance of what is said and unsaid?

When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.

Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.

David Skerry , says: July 31, 2017 at 11:51 am
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help America."

[Jul 30, 2017] The USA has no authority to find the financial institutions of other sovereign nations guilty of corruption, and order them to pay huge fines to the United States its highway robbery. But now we get down to the nub of it because of the dollars status as international reserve currency

Notable quotes:
"... Diane Johnstone peels back the way the sanctions applied by the USA are likely to be the suicide note for the USD as reserve currency: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/28/collateral-damage-u-s-sanctions-aimed-at-russia-strike-western-european-allies/ ..."
"... at present other countries have no currency to flee to when Uncle Sam starts flinging his balls about. The dollar should be only one of a basket of reserve currencies of equal status, and we might see the Chinese making overtures to boost the global valuation of the yuan, although there are good reasons why it will probably not replace the dollar in our lifetimes. No reason countries should be left without a choice, though – isn't America forever blathering on about choices and how it means freedom if you have them? ..."
"... I know only nuts advance the possibility of a return to the gold standard, but I have to say it would make the world sit up and take notice if China and Russia united in a currency union backed by gold. ..."
"... A large-volume global sell-off of American dollars would put Washington in a very difficult position indeed. A popular move to a gold-backed currency would drop the bottom out of a fiat currency like the greenback. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Cortes , July 29, 2017 at 3:00 pm

Diane Johnstone peels back the way the sanctions applied by the USA are likely to be the suicide note for the USD as reserve currency: https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/28/collateral-damage-u-s-sanctions-aimed-at-russia-strike-western-european-allies/
marknesop , July 29, 2017 at 9:04 pm
Thanks so much for that! I seem to have revealed my ignorance by asking rhetorically, earlier; "Why don't countries ordered to pay huge fines to the USA simply tell Uncle Sam to ram it up his chuff, sideways?" After all, the USA has no authority to find the financial institutions of other sovereign nations guilty of corruption, and order them to pay huge fines to the United States – it's highway robbery. But now we get down to the nub of it – because of the dollar's status as international reserve currency.

I have been saying for years that it is time for the world to dump the dollar as reserve currency, and maybe this time it will really happen. Oh, just as the reserve currency – the dollar will likely always be reserve currency, owing to the global importance of the American economy. But at present other countries have no currency to flee to when Uncle Sam starts flinging his balls about. The dollar should be only one of a basket of reserve currencies of equal status, and we might see the Chinese making overtures to boost the global valuation of the yuan, although there are good reasons why it will probably not replace the dollar in our lifetimes. No reason countries should be left without a choice, though – isn't America forever blathering on about choices and how it means freedom if you have them?

I know only nuts advance the possibility of a return to the gold standard, but I have to say it would make the world sit up and take notice if China and Russia united in a currency union backed by gold. Because although the United States is supposed to have the world's biggest gold reserves, I think many share my belief that that is all just on paper, and they really don't have more than a quarter what they say they have, perhaps less. They certainly go out of their way to squash any country which proposes trading in gold, as they did Libya and Iraq. Well, Iraq's crime was more a state-led drive to dump the greenback than it was a shift to gold, but it seemed to have the same effect.

A large-volume global sell-off of American dollars would put Washington in a very difficult position indeed. A popular move to a gold-backed currency would drop the bottom out of a fiat currency like the greenback.

yalensis , July 30, 2017 at 5:28 am
To quote that great American patriot, William Jennings Bryan:
"We shall crucify the bankers upon a cross of gold!"

[Jul 30, 2017] Lawmakers Need a Russia Sanctions Strategy with an Exit Plan

Notable quotes:
"... I've spent my entire post Soviet life believing the Jackson Vanik amendment was a hamhanded - quite literally imperialist - geopolitical tool and statement. ..."
"... So when Putin's government announced the Magnitsky Act as nothing more than a natural continuation of a US desire to wage economic warfare outside the constraints of, say, the WTO treaties it is signatory to, I agreed. ..."
"... Is this more of the same? ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

The Russia-sanctions train appears to be accelerating out of the congressional station, which makes it highly unlikely that both chambers of the Legislative Branch will want to revisit its provisions, especially when escape from Washington's heat beckons with the forthcoming summer recess. Nevertheless, it behooves members of Congress, if they are determined to continue with this course of action (and the absolute majorities voting in favor of different versions of the sanctions in both the House of Representatives and Senate, far above the number needed to override any possible presidential veto), to take a pause and consider some changes.

Radical Pragmatist , July 29, 2017 8:54 AM

Agree. This is the same open-ended congressional stupidity as the AUMF, (unbounded perpetual war).

Russia will NEVER cede back Crimea. In that context, Congress has just baked in perpetuity Cold War II with Russia. And Trump with his feckless stupidity is all in. At a time when the obsolescent and unaffordable America as Global Cop model is unwinding.

Stick a fork in America - because it's cooked...

DmitryVedeneev , July 28, 2017 10:02 AM

I've spent my entire post Soviet life believing the Jackson Vanik amendment was a hamhanded - quite literally imperialist - geopolitical tool and statement.

So when Putin's government announced the Magnitsky Act as nothing more than a natural continuation of a US desire to wage economic warfare outside the constraints of, say, the WTO treaties it is signatory to, I agreed.

Is this more of the same? That seems a statistical probability.

[Jul 30, 2017] The Real Reason for Sanctions Stubborn Russia Wont Surrender Its Sovereignty

Jul 30, 2017 | russia-insider.com
The Real Reason for Sanctions? Stubborn Russia Won't Surrender Its Sovereignty

Regime change may not be the main aim of US sanctions against Russia!but it certainly fits the pattern Paul Goncharoff 10

In the 20th century, the use of sanctions as punitive policy became more and more popular. Franklin Roosevelt tried sanctions on Japan in 1940. Dwight Eisenhower imposed them on Britain (Suez) in 1956. Jimmy Carter smacked them on the Soviet Union after its invasion (by invitation) of Afghanistan in 1980 with a wheat embargo and an Olympic boycott. Reagan used them to protest martial law in Poland. Congress also began to see the ease of using sanctions as a cheap way of expressing a hissy fit. In 1996, for example, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Panama, Vanuatu and Venezuela all were sanctioned to one or another degree by the US for their historic relations with whales and/or dolphins. All told, it is estimated that sanctions were used in less than 25 instances during the 20 th century. Since then America has imposed more than 80 new sanctions on foreign independent, sovereign countries.

Sanctions make for headlines that show political "action", they have a feel-good aura and allow politicians to feel they are being seen and headlined as doing something. Sanctions are less wimpy than word spanking an ambassador and less gory than sending in the marines. They afford immediate satisfaction of work in progress, despite the annoying details of collateral damage. The alleged Russian violations of international norms resulted in a sanctions regime progressively imposed upon Russia. However, various legal and political scholars regard sanction regimes as basic material coercion and therefore irreconcilable with international law.

Regime change may not be the main aim of sanctions, or the norm, although it seems to fit the pattern. The morality of punishing the citizens of a foreign sovereign nation is worth a thought. It seems a kinky way to win hearts and minds. No wonder that sanctions, especially unilaterally imposed ones like America's long standing on again – off again ban on trade with Cuba, Libya, Iran, or amped up sanctions against Russia might also understandably cause friction among one's own allies.

Under current sanctions the export value from Russia to the United States for the first 5 months of 2017 amounted to $3.9 billion, while import value for the same period was $4.8 billion, a negative trade balance for Russia. The total volume of trade between Russia and the United States has been declining since 2014. In 2016, the total volume amounted to $19.9 billion, which is a drop from $29.1 billion in 2014. The 28-country EU during this same period recorded its greatest increase of trade with Russia, which overtook Switzerland as the third main source of imports for the EU. Despite western economic sanctions imposed after Crimea voted to integrate with the Russian Federation, EU exports to Russia grew 24.6 percent between January and May, driven by manufactured goods and machinery, while imports, composed principally of oil and gas, surged by 37.6 percent. This illustrates that change too is reality; perceptions and assessments move on and develop. Perceptions within the EU have certainly moved on from the emotional propaganda of 2014, to a more realistic view of what is happening in Ukraine today. It would be common sense if some thought were given right from the start to defining a clear mechanism for ending sanctions; they are easier to impose than to lift, and the sanctioned regime is unlikely to make even small concessions if these are not greeted with some quid pro quo. In any event, after years of ritual sanctioning for example the decade's long 'Jackson-Vannick' cork. Eventually fatigue sets in and the sanctioned state of affairs becomes the new normal. It can even be ended, then re-branded, say to 'Magnitsky' yet the band plays on.

The fashion today is "smart" sanctions, which try to isolate and hurt the elites of a country and not the collateralized populations. This is most often viewed by their citizenry as an insult to their nation and tends to raise a consolidating grass roots patriotic response irrespective of their brand of democratic flavor.

It is troubling that those who support and impose sanctions offer only the vaguest explanations of how they expect the imposition of economic pain to result in political gain. If one recalls the 1990's and Iraq when Western ambassadors declared that sanctions should aim to harm the Iraqi population thereby forcing Saddam Hussein to heel. At that time the then US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that 500,000 children's deaths were 'worth it'. Excepting for the fact that this humanitarian disaster due to sanctions and its collateral damage did not unseat the Iraqi regime as envisioned. The ensuing 'smart' war did.

By dreaming up and using "smart" or "targeted" sanctions as ways to affect those perceived as directly responsible for disagreeing with the current status-quo, or today's flavor of what is 'normal' usually involve financial restrictions, travel bans and other inconveniences targeted at a few dozen to a few hundred individuals, companies or government entities. While it may sound like it could work, it is equally naïve. It assumes that target governments are driven entirely by the preferences of a small cabal of individuals, and that messing with their lifestyle perquisites will result in policy change. This is patently absurd, and in spite of MSM reports that may differ, even governments of an authoritarian lean are based on coalitions of social and political forces – which are often extremely broad, and shape what those governments can and cannot do.

High time a realistic assessment is made as to the quite limited capacities, not to mention legalities of engineering social and political outcomes in other sovereign governments. We need to fully appreciate the coalitions underpinning existing sovereign governments and those who are promoting alternatives to elected governments before embarking merrily on regime-change plots. It makes sense to consider how sanctions will affect these different groups and the conflicts/struggles between them. We need to be able definitively make the case of how imposing economic pain is likely to lead to changes we expect are being looked for, and whether in fact such changes are in anyone's national, economic, cultural or humanitarian interests.

These very basic assessments unsurprisingly are not being made by any state or international organization currently deploying sanctions. Sanctions therefore are being imposed based on fuzzy wishful thinking and not on defined outcomes. Given the real and often severe damage inflicted on target societies, that is highly irresponsible, frequently counter-productive, not legally justifiable and, for a policy often justified by appealing to some brand of morality, is simply unethical.

[Jul 30, 2017] The U.S. Sanctions Bill Is a Win for Russia by Angela Stent

Notable quotes:
"... The initial euphoria in some Russian circles that under Trump the Kremlin and the White House would enter into a new, friendly, pragmatic relationship, has evaporated. Putin may feel that he has to demonstrate that Russia cannot continue to respond passively to perceived insults from the United States... ..."
"... Moreover, German officials, echoed by Russians, have suggested that real agenda behind the sanctions is to boost U.S. natural gas exports to Europe. ..."
"... Let's see: "Hussein must go", "Gaddafi must go". Now "Assad must go". That is very much influencing the election and putting pressure on leaders of independent country, which is illegal, according to international law. ..."
"... The fact that the US has the UN in their pocket does not mean it's gonna be forever. ..."
"... Color revolutions in Ukraine in 1990, and 2014? Scores of CIA/FBI agents in Kiev aiding to violently oust a democratically elected president in 2014; he had to flee for his life. ..."
"... ...and on that note, isn't it interesting that Minsk II itself was incorporated by unanimous Security Council vote into UNSC Resolution 2202, yet the US speaks so casually about tossing it to the winds to placate Ukraine, after it itself voted for it and after it understood that Ukraine will never comply. ..."
"... The US uses UN resolutions like a street pimp uses 15 year old runaways ..."
"... Actually there are 1700 american diplomatic stuff in Russia and the stuff will be cut to 455. This is more like 73 per cent reduction not 60 per cent mentioned in the article. Moreover this is roughly the percentage of US diplomatic personnel spying on Russia or trying to influence Russian election. ..."
"... The real reason for all this is to increase American exports of LNG. But LNG costs a lot more which drives up the price of everything made in Europe. And by forcing Russia to export more gas to China, the US reduces the cost of energy to China. So now Europe is at even more of a disadvantage vs Chinese manufacturing. Basically this is a Lose-Lose-Lose situation for Europe. ..."
"... Once the US loses its dollar as the international trading currency, it will actually have to earn the monies used to purchase foreign goods. Now it is being printed out of thin air. Once that happens, inflation will skyrocket, severally taking down the US economy. Only a matter of time... ..."
"... It has been printed out of air since 1972. Most transactions are denominated in it because this nation has been politically stable for much of its existence. If we collapse everyone collapses. ..."
"... Johnny-boy, according to American MSM Russia quite easily outmaneuvers CIA and FBI cyber-security and gets to decide who becomes the President of the United States. Isn't it why the Congress passed the sanctions? ..."
"... It's the US and most specifically, the neocon PNAC-positive subculture and its unwitting supporters, that cannot tolerate an independent Russia (or any country of consequence for that matter) and resorts to any and all tools in its toolkit to assuage its intolerance, coup d'etats, election-meddling, blatant propaganda, sparking and fueling wars, civil and otherwise, endless sanctions (the kid sister to embargoes which are acts of war). ..."
"... Give the author some slack. Would she fail to repeat the mandatory russophobic Credo - her article would be censored in any politically approved media. She knows she is lying, it is just a required ticked to be printed in NI or any American media ..."
"... reminder the West backed the infinitely more corrupt Yeltsin regime in the nineties, which was basically a get rich quick scheme for Russian jews (OY VEY ANTI-SEMITISM ALERT). ..."
"... America ultimately does not care about corruption (Washington is incredibly corrupt - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ ... - there are plenty of allies like Columbia, Turkey, Pakistan, etc where every evil Russia is accused of finds even greater expression. Washington does not care about 'unilateral border changes' either, since it unilaterally changed the borders of Yugoslavia and her successor states for geopolitical advantage, tolerates NATO ally Turkey meddling in Cyprus and Syria, illegally occupies Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, illegally invaded Iraq, and protects Israeli land grabs in the Golan and so on. ..."
"... Russian corruption and foreign policy is a 'problem' for neocon trolls like Karol because Russia is sovereign, unlike the tame regimes that run Western Europe. A political elite at odds with Washington is intolerable for the Globo-homo Internationale. .. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

The surprise about the Russian Foreign Ministry's announcement of Russian sanctions on U.S. diplomats and embassy properties is that they did not come sooner. The usual practice during the Cold War and after was that any diplomatic expulsion on either side was met with a symmetrical response. Indeed, in December, after the Obama administration expelled thirty-five Russian diplomats and closed down two embassy compounds to punish Russia for its interference in the 2016 election, Foreign Minister Lavrov appeared the next day on television brandishing a list of thirty-five American diplomats whom he advised President Putin to expel. But Putin surprised the world by announcing, "While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we're not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy." Clearly the Kremlin believed that once President Trump took office the sanctions would be rescinded and relations would improve, so why not be magnanimous?

...The downturn in relations is largely for domestic reasons on both sides. The incessant stream of investigations into ties between the U.S. president's family and close advisors and different Russian individuals!plus the 2016 election!has made Russia a toxic subject in Washington, DC. In an unusual alliance between congressional Republicans and Democrats, the Senate passed by 98–2 a bill codifying and expanding existing sanctions, which were initially imposed under Obama after the annexation of Crimea by executive order, because they want to remove from Trump the ability to lift these sanctions unilaterally. Congress would now have to approve any modification of the sanctions regime. This kind of legislation is a blunt instrument. Once passed, as the history of the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment shows (it remained in place for thirty-eight years), it will probably stay on the books for longer than necessary and remove the flexibility and leverage that a president could have in dealing with Russia.

Domestic factors have also influenced Russia's response. Russian nationalism has become a potent force. Putin faces re-election in March and, while his popularity remains high, his appeal rests largely on his foreign-policy accomplishments, showing that Russia is a respected world power and that he is a strong leader. The initial euphoria in some Russian circles that under Trump the Kremlin and the White House would enter into a new, friendly, pragmatic relationship, has evaporated. Putin may feel that he has to demonstrate that Russia cannot continue to respond passively to perceived insults from the United States...

...The U.S. sanctions bill, designed to hurt Russia, may have unintended consequences for the United States. As currently written, it will not only continue to penalize Russia but will also penalize American and European businesses because of its restrictions on energy projects that involve Russian companies. Specifically, the bill seeks to prevent the construction of the Nord Stream Two gas pipeline that would export Russian gas under the Baltic Sea to Europe. Germany supports the pipeline as the most cost-effective way to meet future gas demand, as do most,but certainly not all, of its EU partners. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, has warned that the sanction bill "could have unintended unilateral effects that impact the EU's energy security interests." He added that "if our concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within a matter of days." Moreover, German officials, echoed by Russians, have suggested that real agenda behind the sanctions is to boost U.S. natural gas exports to Europe. Some EU officials have warned that the EU may rethink its own sanctions regime, carefully designed with the Obama administration, if the United States moves forward with the bill. This, of course, would be good news for the Kremlin.

Angela Stent directs the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown University and is the author of The Limits of Partnership: U.S-Russian Relations in the Twenty-First Century .

Mr Russian , July 29, 2017 12:41 AM

"The irony, of course, is that Russia has brought this upon itself through its actions in Ukraine and during the U.S. election campaign."
The irony is that the author does not see (or pretends not to see) that the US does the same thing (and even worse).

Let's see: "Hussein must go", "Gaddafi must go". Now "Assad must go". That is very much influencing the election and putting pressure on leaders of independent country, which is illegal, according to international law. I'm not even gonna count how many countries were bombed "in the name of democracy", which is also illegal. The fact that the US has the UN in their pocket does not mean it's gonna be forever.

Willem Post -> Mr Russian , July 29, 2017 9:25 AM

Mr. Russian,

Exactly correct. How many times did the US interfere by installing friendly Juntas, in south and middle America? Several dozen times? The various "Color Revolutions" financed with US money to add former soviet states the EU/US/NATO orbit, so the EU could sell goods and services to them instead of Russia, and so NATO could supply them with arms instead of Russia?

Color revolutions in Ukraine in 1990, and 2014? Scores of CIA/FBI agents in Kiev aiding to violently oust a democratically elected president in 2014; he had to flee for his life.

Russia peacefully annexed Crimea AFTER the vast majority of the Crimean population voted for it, including many Ukrainians and some Tartars living in Crimea; population 65% ethnic Russian, 25% Ukrainian, 10% Tartar.

The CIA installing the Shah in Iran?

Serbian American , July 29, 2017 5:56 PM

Every time we (USA) do something based on lies and propaganda is a good news for Russia. Which is exactly how every time Soviet Union did something based on lies and propaganda was a good news for USA.

Also, how funny ... most of establishment politicians in USA keep pointing out a Russian "annexation" of Crimea. Yet, none of them have any problem with Bill Clinton using military force, bombing Yugoslavia for 70 days and recognizing independence of Kosovo. Let me just remind you which laws and chapters BiIl Clinton violated: USA Constitution, NATO chapter, Helsinki agreement, War Powers resolution ...

Michael DeStefano -> Serbian American , July 30, 2017 12:00 AM

....and UN Res. 1244 but that was just a convenience to wipe the egg off of Clinton's face on day 78, AFTER he himself insisted on pushing it through.

...and on that note, isn't it interesting that Minsk II itself was incorporated by unanimous Security Council vote into UNSC Resolution 2202, yet the US speaks so casually about tossing it to the winds to placate Ukraine, after it itself voted for it and after it understood that Ukraine will never comply.

The US uses UN resolutions like a street pimp uses 15 year old runaways ,

Robert Gowland -> Serbian American , July 29, 2017 6:11 PM

Well, once Russia starts writing larger checks than Riyadh is writing today the US politicians will suddenly "discover a discrepancy" - until then we'll have a (unjust) status quo. "FOLLOW THE MONEY"!

Donald Fbulu , July 28, 2017 10:51 PM

Actually there are 1700 american diplomatic stuff in Russia and the stuff will be cut to 455. This is more like 73 per cent reduction not 60 per cent mentioned in the article. Moreover this is roughly the percentage of US diplomatic personnel spying on Russia or trying to influence Russian election.

Politolog Externista -> Donald Fbulu , July 29, 2017 7:07 PM

murrican hypocrisy knows no bounds. Whatever they accuse others of they do worse, but there is no proof their accusations have any factual basis, only hoping that 100 times repeated lie becomes fact. USA the nazi-like empire, where facts don't matter as much as wishful thinking.

TheOtherDonald -> Guest , July 29, 2017 9:42 AM

Good post, and most of what you said is true. The real reason for all this is to increase American exports of LNG. But LNG costs a lot more which drives up the price of everything made in Europe. And by forcing Russia to export more gas to China, the US reduces the cost of energy to China. So now Europe is at even more of a disadvantage vs Chinese manufacturing. Basically this is a Lose-Lose-Lose situation for Europe.

Namey McName -> Guest , July 28, 2017 10:35 PM

Knock yourself out, Boris. You may see yourself in competition with the US, but there really is no competition. You will return to the failed Soviet policies, and we will continue to advance.

Duendao Namey -> McName , July 29, 2017 12:50 AM

The only thing that advances in US Is the trillions of it's debt.

TheOtherDonald -> Duendao , July 29, 2017 9:44 AM

And our debt is already so large that we cannot even pay the interest on it if interest rates were to rise to what they were in the Jimmy Carter Administration. We are a failed nation unless we can keep interest rates low.

siberiankitten -> TheOtherDonald , July 29, 2017 9:04 PM

30 year Treasuries yield indicates that the market is not freakinf out. And under the current interest rates servicing the debt is cheaper than under Reagan

Namey McName -> Duendao , July 29, 2017 4:23 PM

So, who cares if the debt is rising, and how do you think that it harms the US?

Allan -> Namey McName , July 29, 2017 7:29 PM

You will care, among every one else who lives in the USofA. Once the US loses its dollar as the international trading currency, it will actually have to earn the monies used to purchase foreign goods. Now it is being printed out of thin air. Once that happens, inflation will skyrocket, severally taking down the US economy. Only a matter of time...

Namey McName -> Allan , July 30, 2017 2:23 AM

It has been printed out of air since 1972. Most transactions are denominated in it because this nation has been politically stable for much of its existence. If we collapse everyone collapses.

That debt out there keeps the world under control. It is the greenback in your pocket, but it's not worth anything. Every currency traded on the open market works the same way. What matter is debt to GDP, and ours is fairly low still. Japan has ten times the debt to GDP ratio. The yen is still worth money.

Allan -> Namey McName , July 30, 2017 11:17 AM

Certainly, we have been printing money for a long time. Other nations could not get away with such practices as hyper inflation would surely follow. The fact that the US controls the IMF, World Bank and, pretty much the world's money supply, allows us to set the interest rates to artificially ridiculously low levels in order to service our outstanding debt levels with minimum costs. If/when the US dollar loses its special status to a basket of international currencies we'll lose our ability to set conditions for the world financial markets.

That is why the emerging Chinese-led BRICS banking system appears to be a deadly threat to the US economy and, in turn, to its world hegemony.

Just this week CIA head, Mike Pompeo, declared China as the #1 threat to the US. When asked, he further indicated that it was the Chinese economic progress that threatened the US. Christine Legarde, head of IMF, backed this up by predicting that the IMF could move to Bejing within 5 years. The writings are on the wall....

Mr Russian -> Namey McName , July 29, 2017 12:19 AM

Johnny-boy, according to American MSM Russia quite easily outmaneuvers CIA and FBI cyber-security and gets to decide who becomes the President of the United States. Isn't it why the Congress passed the sanctions?

Also Russia is the best supplier of natural gas to the EU. In fact it's so good that the Congress tries to use dirty tricks that might delay Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
You are right the US is in no position to compete with Russia, hence the hysteria in American establishment.

Michael DeStefano -> Namey McName , July 29, 2017 9:48 AM

Intelligent talking points met with sophomoric cookie cutter drivel. That's the extent of your understanding of the universe I'm afraid.

It's the US and most specifically, the neocon PNAC-positive subculture and its unwitting supporters, that cannot tolerate an independent Russia (or any country of consequence for that matter) and resorts to any and all tools in its toolkit to assuage its intolerance, coup d'etats, election-meddling, blatant propaganda, sparking and fueling wars, civil and otherwise, endless sanctions (the kid sister to embargoes which are acts of war).

You reap what you sow, kiddo. No excuses. Problem is, they drag most Americans into it with no true understanding of their motives or the consequences. It's THEY who should be sanctioned. Quarantined, even better.

Michael DeStefano , July 29, 2017 12:19 AM

The irony, dear author, is...that the US, just as it did in Syria by arming salafist jihadis to pressure Assad to step down and turned Syria into a nightmare, it fomented, backed, trained and financed the European banderite-fascist equivalent of Middle Eastern salafist jihadis to overthrow a duly-elected, OSCE sanctioned president and instead of insisting new elections occur in six months time as the EU had so laboriously negotiated, subverted democracy in the name of hegemonic dreams, shot itself in the foot, slipped in its own poo, hoisted itself by its own petard, singlehandedly resurrected the cold war and worse and still can't come to grips with its own culpability in it all.

THAT madam, is the irony of it all.

The Arioch -> Michael DeStefano , July 29, 2017 11:28 AM

Give the author some slack. Would she fail to repeat the mandatory russophobic Credo - her article would be censored in any politically approved media. She knows she is lying, it is just a required ticked to be printed in NI or any American media

Michael DeStefano The Arioch , July 30, 2017 12:58 AM

That's entirely true. Woe is the state of journalism today. Big Brother or one of his other brothers watches over them all.

Michael DeStefano Namey McName , July 30, 2017 2:06 AM

Ask Sessions. I suppose he should just emulate the democrats and their neocon cohorts by building cases on innuendo and speculation provided by a coterie of 'anonymous sources' and no proof of consequence and have their faithful media editors redact any news to the contrary.

A free press does not mean the freedom to press your agenda by any and all means available, in case you weren't aware.

I regret that I have to give you rudimentary lessons in civics but apparently, someone has to.

Politolog Externista Namey McName , July 29, 2017 7:00 PM

Messing in your politics ? You were supposed to vote in Hitlery and you got Trump. These politicians mean that meddling is having RT and Sputnik in English so you can form an opinion different than ordained by the deep state oligarchy. They want to punish you for not having Hitlery as president. It is very disturbing when a warmoínger, mass murderer, friend of now slain Al-Baghdadi who is photographed with McCain is somehow a positive person. USA is trying to meddle in politics of each country because they think might makes right. If EU peoples throw your NATO out and become independent, no more US vassals, seeking their own interests not US first EU last, because USA is the land of evil and of corruption to the bone. Your evil drives sane people from you. The wicked love you, the sane are disgusted. Nobody likes imperialist yanks. Nobody likes their terrorist friends. No Obama or Trump or swamp.

The Arioch -> Namey McName , July 29, 2017 11:48 AM

The million barrels question is how prevent american messing in the rest of the world's politics and elections... Which punishment to DC regime would be enough to bring freedom to the world?

Mark Thomason , July 30, 2017 11:34 AM

The US Embargo Act of 1807 did great damage to Northeast shipping interests, and commerce more generally. However, it became a huge boost to Northeast manufacturing interests. The US economy diversified, and new businesses were established to do what had been imported. Prices were higher at first, and quality was down at first, but the Embargo Act effectively protected the start up of the US post-colonial economy.

Western experts have long maintained that Russia needs to diversify its economy, away from exports of oil, gas, and raw materials, into the sort of manufacturing that would displace imports. That is harder for Putin to control and loot, and generally a lot harder to do than Putin's political machine has been able to do.

Now we are in effect giving them that. We've imposed on them their Embargo Act advantage, and are forcing them to do what we know they should do to be stronger against us.

This may hurt them in the short term, but it will hurt us in the long term, and we've been saying this for a long time now.

enoch arden -> Mark Thomason , July 30, 2017 4:31 PM

Quite true. The Russian farmers are going to erect a statue of Obama for the sanctions which greatly boosted the Russian agriculture by restricting import. The same effect will be on the industrial production. The only class in Russia who will lose on that are the local Compradors doing business on import and promoting the foreign control over the Russian market,

Wyrdless -> Karol Czenko , July 29, 2017 2:20 PM

The poles just opened a new LNG terminal to import US LNG.

They want options and i imagine know what it's like more than most to be under Russian influence

Che Lemur -> Karol Czenko , July 29, 2017 7:55 PM

reminder the West backed the infinitely more corrupt Yeltsin regime in the nineties, which was basically a get rich quick scheme for Russian jews (OY VEY ANTI-SEMITISM ALERT).

America ultimately does not care about corruption (Washington is incredibly corrupt - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ ... - there are plenty of allies like Columbia, Turkey, Pakistan, etc where every evil Russia is accused of finds even greater expression. Washington does not care about 'unilateral border changes' either, since it unilaterally changed the borders of Yugoslavia and her successor states for geopolitical advantage, tolerates NATO ally Turkey meddling in Cyprus and Syria, illegally occupies Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, illegally invaded Iraq, and protects Israeli land grabs in the Golan and so on.

Russian corruption and foreign policy is a 'problem' for neocon trolls like Karol because Russia is sovereign, unlike the tame regimes that run Western Europe. A political elite at odds with Washington is intolerable for the Globo-homo Internationale. ..

The rule of law and corruption have consistently improved under Putin, who reformed an oligarchic state into a illiberal democracy WITH corruption problems (understandable after 70 years of Soviet mismanagement and a decade of robber baron capitalism - eliminating social habits takes time). The worst nightmare for the US is actually a Russia free of corruption.

[Jul 30, 2017] Are the Latest Russia Sanctions Really About Forcing US LNG on Europe?

Notable quotes:
"... Of course they are; and it's so bloody transparent that nobody is fooled. Please check the link below: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/eu-ready-retaliate-if-us-imposes-new-russia-sanctions/ri20467 ..."
"... The U.S. is waging full scale war against Russia; economic sanctions are war and Japan attacked Pearl Harbour for almost identical sanctions on oil and energy imports. Vladimir Putin is the Cool Hand Luke of Russia; let hope the outcome is not like the movie. The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant; let's just see how it plays out ..."
"... The Western, eastern stuff is irrelevant. Russia isn't the aggressor in the situation. Putin will enjoy a population much more willing to stand against U.S. aggression which is largely dependent on an ignorant U.S. population. ..."
"... Merkel will be under pressure as these sanctions are simply a tax on EU citizens and corporations to support American corporate profits without providing better products. Given the EU political structure and the lack of a "cool" President, I suspect the next Congressional delegation will be shocked to find they aren't well received. ..."
"... I personally doubt that the Blob/US financial interests are 'jealous' of them -- they just think that Russia, like other countries, should kowtow to them, and allow them to buy whatever part of the Russian society and economy and land they like. ..."
"... I had thought of it the other way around: that the insistence on unprofitable fracking was to support America as a world power. Got to have some way to bribe Europe away from the Russians. Is there actually enough gas to do that? I know there's quite a bit. ..."
"... The Dragon in the Sea ..."
Jul 26, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

Anti Schmoo , July 26, 2017 at 5:17 am

Are the Latest Russia Sanctions Really About Forcing US LNG on Europe?

Of course they are; and it's so bloody transparent that nobody is fooled. Please check the link below: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/eu-ready-retaliate-if-us-imposes-new-russia-sanctions/ri20467

Anti Schmoo , July 26, 2017 at 5:30 am

The U.S. is waging full scale war against Russia; economic sanctions are war and Japan attacked Pearl Harbour for almost identical sanctions on oil and energy imports. Vladimir Putin is the Cool Hand Luke of Russia; let hope the outcome is not like the movie. The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant; let's just see how it plays out

Anti Schmoo , July 26, 2017 at 5:34 am

I dare say, Russia is more self sufficient than the U.S. and almost every other country on the planet. Do the research; it's very enlightening.
The U.S. is a very jealous hegemon and can't bear this reality

Foppe , July 26, 2017 at 6:31 am

It's also got half the population, and a far less diversified economy (fwtw), so it's not exactly a apples to apples comparison.

Anti Schmoo , July 26, 2017 at 8:43 am

Have you ever thought to question your comparitive references? Most views of Russia are western-centric in the extreme. Russia is not western or European in any sense of that reality; Russia is a very different culture/s and sees things drastically different than the western-centric POV. Just sayin

NotTimothyGeithner , July 26, 2017 at 9:14 am

The Western, eastern stuff is irrelevant. Russia isn't the aggressor in the situation. Putin will enjoy a population much more willing to stand against U.S. aggression which is largely dependent on an ignorant U.S. population.

Merkel will be under pressure as these sanctions are simply a tax on EU citizens and corporations to support American corporate profits without providing better products. Given the EU political structure and the lack of a "cool" President, I suspect the next Congressional delegation will be shocked to find they aren't well received.

Foppe , July 26, 2017 at 10:38 am

I'm confused. Who was it who brought up "Russia is more self-sufficient than the US and almost every other country on the planet? That implies that you feel self-sufficiency (with respect to certain metrics) is something that one should value. Let's say other people do not share that meta value: does that then mean they are wrong?

I personally doubt that the Blob/US financial interests are 'jealous' of them -- they just think that Russia, like other countries, should kowtow to them, and allow them to buy whatever part of the Russian society and economy and land they like.

Mel , July 26, 2017 at 10:08 am

I had thought of it the other way around: that the insistence on unprofitable fracking was to support America as a world power. Got to have some way to bribe Europe away from the Russians. Is there actually enough gas to do that? I know there's quite a bit.

Damson , July 27, 2017 at 1:13 am

Yes indeed.

It's looking like quite the little diplomatic spat between the EU and Capitol Hill.

Here's the Russian envoy to the EU on talks to ban funding by EU banks for US business, if the US law is declared invalid in the EU :
http://tass.com/politics/957927

Note the bill bans not just business with Russians in Europe, but also Eurasia.

OBOR is clearly a target too.

So are the Chinese going to pipe up?

For this is nothing less than gloves – off imperialism .

timbers , July 26, 2017 at 6:38 am

Anyone know if it's possible the German's will act w/o the EU? In other words, unilaterally?

I'm asking because the article says EU may not be the "required" unanimous in responding to the U.S. sanctions & LNG so there may not be an official EU retaliation (though it seems there was much stronger opposition to the EU imposing Russian sanctions in 2014 in the first place but supposedly that was a "unanimous" decision).

Will Germany be a total puppet to the U.S.? Or might it start to move towards Russia which seems to be in Germany's business interest?

Ignacio , July 26, 2017 at 7:52 am

Germany wants to ensure stable gas supply for as long as possible. A pipeline thas goes through the sea and does not depend on third countries that migth disconnect the pipeline (like Ukrania) allows for a durable contract. So the US is not only intefering with russian interests but with german ones. I don't think Germany considers US shale LNG supply a robust enough alternative competitive in price and duration with russian gas. My guess is that in this case, Germany won't be a total puppet.

No spine no pain , July 26, 2017 at 9:05 am

Anti Schmoo put it very well "The E.U. seems to have had a recent spinal transplant"

EU has been following every global US initiative enthusiastically even though it only hurts Europeans: wars and invasions, TTIP, TiSA, CETA etc.

On top of being emasculated and spineless with regards to national and continental interests the current leaders of EU are neoliberals so they don't care about a new 'market solution' for gas. Will subsidize the higher prices for companies while the citizens pay the price.

Mel , July 26, 2017 at 11:30 am

:) q.v. Frank Herbert's very old novel The Dragon in the Sea (aka Under Pressure .) Being by Frank Herbert, it's about psychology, but it's also about petroleum pirating by submarine. Yeah, I guess the price per barrel must have been pretty high.

Harry , July 26, 2017 at 7:28 pm

The pipelines that go under the sea have lower capacities. They work to reduce the impact of ukrainians et al blackmailing gas supplies. They do not eliminate the need to route gas overland.

ZeWorldIsMine , July 26, 2017 at 6:52 am

Sadly, Sigmar Gabriel's word means nothing.

He's an opportunitist and may advocate something one day and oppose it the next day.
He is absolutely not trustworthy. A total pushover.
And I wouldn't expect much from the rest of the german government, too.

The german media could pick it up and put pressure on politicians.
But due to the pathetic state the germain mainstream media are in (with exceptions),
I expect they'll just stop bringing up this issue and let people forget about it.

Maybe other european countries will be more resistant, maybe

Clive , July 26, 2017 at 7:25 am

Plus Japan -- a big LNG importer historically as it has no conventional energy sources of its own -- is going to lessen its LNG demand as the nuclear restart gathers pace. Whatever you might think of the safety aspects, Japan has 50+gW of embedded nuclear generating capacity with a residual economic life of 20+ years on average. It is simply inconceivable that this plant, much of which, unlike Fukushima which was end-of-life, is mid-life and has decades of viable reactor runtimes available, will be mothballed and decommissioned without generating another kW of power ever again.

The LNG glut will only continue and probably get noticeably worse once all, or at least the vast majority, of Japanese reactors are brought back on line, which will be 5 years from now at the outer limit. Cutting off Russian gas into Europe (and the rest of the world) will be a big plus for the US. LNG liquefaction plant is a massive capital outlay, has big fixed costs and is highly operationally geared, so even small reductions below peak output have a big hit on plant profitability. It is those "wheels" the US plant operators will want to keep turning. Conversely, the regasification plants (based in EU countries) don't need to operate flat out, they're designed to have peaks and troughs as LNG consignments come in and get processed, then sit around for a bit waiting for the next one. Which, again, is why the US is bothered about restricting Russian supply, the EU not so much.

rjs , July 26, 2017 at 8:24 am

there is no surplus US LNG to be forced on Europe, it's a myth we are still importing more natural gas from Canada than we are exporting to Mexico and liquifying for export moreover, our own natural gas production has been falling year over year for 15 months straight i wrote about exactly this situation two weeks ago:
http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/great-us-natural-gas-exports-myth-6112
all the data is included. you can repost it if you want.
we are contracting to sell US natural gas at below the cost of US production, and it's gonna come back and bite US natgas users big time when a shortage develops here..

ambrit , July 26, 2017 at 8:39 am

IS natgas users would be anyone who uses American electricity, right? Another 'regressive' tax on the way. Really, this is not New Cold War oriented, but Class War materiel.
Time for work.

rjs , July 26, 2017 at 10:10 am

there's been a gradual shift back to coal for generating over the past half year or so whether that's because of price or because the utilities see what's coming i couldn't tell you..

Yves Smith Post author , July 26, 2017 at 5:43 pm

See the comments above, the US is flaring a ton of gas now due to supposedly to lack of delivery mechanisms.

rjs , July 26, 2017 at 6:24 pm

maybe i'm projecting too much, but i see us heading down the same path that Australia took


How energy-rich Australia exported its way into an energy crisis
- Australia exported 62% of its gas production last year, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Yet its policy makers didn't ensure enough gas would remain at home. As exports increased from new LNG facilities in eastern Australia, some state governments let aging coal plants close and accelerated a push toward renewable energy for environmental concerns. That left the regions more reliant on gas for power, especially when intermittent sources such as wind and solar weren't sufficient. Shortages drove domestic gas prices earlier this year in some markets in eastern Australia to as high as $17 per million British thermal units for smaller gas users such as manufacturers. On the spot market, gas prices have gone from below $1 in 2014 to roughly $7 today .. In March, Australia's largest aluminum smelter cut production and laid off workers because it said it couldn't secure enough cheap energy.

the problem is that we are are contracting to export natural gas at today's low prices, which wont pay for tomorrow's production..

Carolinian , July 26, 2017 at 8:36 am

Perhaps the most interesting and depressing thing is that 419 to 3 vote. Who were these heroes who dared to defy the Blob?

Clearly defeating Hillary was not enough. TPTB will have their war with Russia–cold or hot–or bust.

NotTimothyGeithner , July 26, 2017 at 9:35 am

The U.S. much like Team Blue hid behind our "cool" President and 9/11 for so long, no one knows how to act. This is a trade war where we picked a fight with our most loyal vassals on behalf of one industry which needs to be replaced anyway. Do you remember Hollande? He joined with Obama against "OMG Russia." Macron's honey moon is over.

Vatch , July 26, 2017 at 10:00 am

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll413.xml

The 3 no voters were Justin Amash of Michigan, John Duncan of Tennessee, and Thomas Massie of Kentucky. All are Republicans.

Carolinian , July 26, 2017 at 11:20 am

Thanks.

p7b , July 26, 2017 at 9:27 am

One aspect of the US natgas pipeline situation !

Due to resignations early in the Trump administration, and refusal of the Senate to approve new FERC nominees, the FERC, whose approval is needed for building interstate energy transport infrastructure, now lacks a quorum (having only 1 of the minimum 3 members out of 5 total). A number of pipeline projects originating in marcellus were approved around end of 2016 prior to the resignations, and are due to come on line in 2018, but many dozens more are now awaiting permitting -- both for domestic use and to transport to LNG export, as the piece above states.

The other interesting thing is that in the past, the explicit strategy of the US was to use domestic natgas domestically, but no longer, it seems.

Pipelines would raise prices at the wellhead and lower prices elsewhere in the country. If the lack of approval goes on for a few more years, it may have an impact on: the battle between natgas and wind for the medium-term dominance of newly added utility scale electric generation in the US, and the timing of how fast we can retire coal electric.

Lastly, besides Russia, Qatar is also a major natgas exporter to Europe, so they'll get their gas either way, they'll just pay more. A points of reference there -- I belive Germany is currently using coal as its main domestic baseload electric fuel – as prices were relatively high until recently, they're using NG for home heating only. Now everyone needs to retire coal for obvious reasons.

JohnnyGL , July 26, 2017 at 10:28 am

Jamming up FERC shouldn't be underestimated. They've got a huge amount of discretionary authority to blast through state and local laws and regulations at will. It's amazing how the oil/gas industry gets 1-stop shopping for all it's regulatory requirements.

oh , July 26, 2017 at 10:15 am

It's sickening to see how much power the Petroleum companies have over Congress. Bribes work well in our country. We need a wholesale re-haul of CON gress.

TheCatSaid , July 26, 2017 at 10:19 am

Regarding possible EU development of a spine, a recent George Webb video from just about 3 days ago said he's been told by some of his IC sources that Germany has been printing DMs on the quiet. I take this with a pinch of salt but it's intriguing nonetheless. If true, Germany must also be looking at the IT issue as well.

yan , July 26, 2017 at 11:14 am

EU is still threatening to cancel Poland voting rights for 1 year, even after the President vetoed the legislation regarding judiciary reform (which was to my understanding the main bone, albeit the country is keen on going full Adolph). Maybe it has something to do with this?

vidimi , July 26, 2017 at 11:25 am

i thought the president signed the bill despite saying he would veto it?

vidimi , July 26, 2017 at 11:23 am

thanks for this article, it's really a remarkable powerplay. the stakes are so high that it's unfathomable that it doesn't backfire spectacularly. this looks like an exercise in hubris that future historians will be long discussing.

more than forcing the EU to use american LNG, it is an attempt to force the EU to back american efforts to replace assad in syria. remember, syria is what stands in the way between bahraini/saudi gas and oil pipelines to europe.

the US is already at war against russia, they just haven't yet started shooting at each other. but also, any chinese silk road to europe will have to use russian assets and infrastructure, so this, potentially, affects them, too.

dcblogger , July 26, 2017 at 2:46 pm

Trump Is Being Moved Aside So That Conflict with Russia Can Proceed
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/26/trump-moved-aside-conflict-russia-can-proceed/

Rosario , July 26, 2017 at 3:54 pm

All stupidity with the Russia hysteria aside this may be all the faster at forcing a move to renewables in the US. NG is the bounciest of all carbon based fuels WRT price. Once they start pumping US NG into more foreign markets the price will climb, which will squeeze utilities that have moved en mass into NG based generation and prove that renewables are even more cost effective. Petty politics may end up having a silver lining 5 years down the road, and at this point I am open to any route to renewables, even the sloppiest, unintentional ones.

Synapsid , July 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm

Rosario,

If exporting US NG causes its price to rise domestically, utilities that had been using coal can shift back to it. That happened recently.

Rosario , July 26, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Sure, but the ball is in another (higher) cup as the cost graphs go. I suspect it is going to get increasingly difficult to transition back and forth with the lowering costs of renewables. Also, coal is not getting any cheaper to extract and it definitely hasn't reduced its externalities. We'll see, big utilities move in herds and it takes years to make a full transition. They may flood back to coal, and build new plants (I doubt it), but they will eventually get burnt and have to swing back again. In the absence of purposeful national level policy (what I prefer) this is the only way the market based approach will turn away from fossil fuels.

Olaf Lukk , July 26, 2017 at 4:02 pm

"Instruments of political sanctions should not be connected with economic interests"?

This echoes the rationalizations of Wall Street when they crashed the economy in '08. Let's not let politics interfere with the right to make money?

The sanctions against Russia were put in place in response to its annexation of Crimea and its support of insurrection in Eastern Ukraine. They have been extended, and expanded, in response to Russian meddling in the recent presidential election. To what extent their cyber warfare had an effect is debatable, but Trump's stonewalling on the issue practically guaranteed the lopsided vote on the latest sanctions.

The LNG issue has some valid points, but it ignores an issue which I have not seen addressed on Naked Capitalism: Just how much is Trump- and those in his administration (infested with alumni of the vampire squid)- beholden to Putin and his fellow oligarchs?

Trump appears to be the Pied Piper of Putin Patsies. I can't help but wonder why.

Yves Smith Post author , July 26, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Crimea was not "annexed". The US destabilized Ukraine. The government in Kiev came in as a result of a coup even thought elections were scheduled for a mere six weeks later and Yanukovich would clearly have been voted out. The new government tore up the current constitution and went through no legal process whatsoever to do that. That is not the behavior of a legitimate government.

Even though neo-Nazis are a very small percentage of the voters, they got 15% of government positions. The head of the defense department gave a speech in which he encouraged ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians of Russian origin, saying that any soldiers who removed them could keep their property.

Crimea petitioned to join Russia after a referendum that approved of that move by a large margin. The US used precisely the same mechanism with Kosovo. Are you about to call that an annexation?

We have repeatedly discussed how the idea that Russia has influence over Trump is nonsense.

Better trolls, please.

GeorgW , July 26, 2017 at 8:26 pm

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-what-does-russiagate-look-like-to-russians-w493462# -Amazed, that you never linked this

Yves Smith Post author , July 27, 2017 at 12:33 am

I'm not omniscient and I've been unable to read for more than a week due to an eye injury, as Lambert told readers.

Lambert Strether , July 27, 2017 at 12:47 am

Did you suggest it at the time? The newsflow is a gusher right now. It's simply not possible to give notice to everything. So do feel free to stifle your amazement.

Adding, it is a very good story (although I'm not a Russia hand). So readers may enjoy it even at this late date which was, I take it, the real point of your comment.

TheCatSaid , July 26, 2017 at 9:48 pm

Plus the assertion of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election was never proven–it was only asserted and repeated ad nauseum. Recent investigations have shown that in fact the DNC and Podesta emails were insider leaks, they were not outsider hacks. The technical analysis showed evidence that Russian "footprints" had been specifically inserted to cause Russia to be blamed.

In contrast the US has a well-established track record of meddling in other countries elections and setting up regime change in various ways. Ukraine is one example, as Yves described. There are many others, think of the US-sponsored coups in Latin America. They seem to be trying to pull off another coup in Venezuela since their 2002 attempt didn't work out. And Obama didn't hesitate to publicly endorse Macron just a couple days before the French election.

jo6pac , July 26, 2017 at 10:11 pm

Thank You, Thank You

Lambert Strether , July 27, 2017 at 12:52 am

> the Pied Piper

Highly unfortunate, then, that the Clinton campaign maneuvered to have Trump as their opponent, using just that phrase ("Pied Piper") .

clarky90 , July 26, 2017 at 9:16 pm

"the latest US sanctions against Russia, which passed the House today by a 419-3 margin ".

and

"Republicans and Democrats agreed almost unanimously, by 97 votes to 2 , to impose new sanctions on Russia in the Senate on Wednesday"

I have been a member of many organizations, and do not recall seeing this kind of "unanimity" when voting on significant and controversial resolutions. Clearly, a majority of US Americans want peace, particularly with Russia (a Christian democracy). How and why did the People's Representatives/Senators find the "courage" to vote against the People's wishes??? Hmmmmmmmm?

To put the vote into a context, 77 years ago; on

" ..July 14–15, 1940 – Rigged elections held in Latvia and the other Baltic states. Only one pre-approved list of candidates was allowed for elections for the "People's Parliament". The ballots held following instructions: "Only the list of the Latvian Working People's Bloc must be deposited in the ballot box. The ballot must be deposited without any changes." The alleged voter activity index was 97.6% . Most notably, the complete election results were published in Moscow 12 hours before the election closed. Soviet electoral documents found later substantiated that the results were completely fabricated. Tribunals were set up to punish "traitors to the people." those who had fallen short of the "political duty" of voting Latvia into the USSR. Those who failed to have their passports stamped for so voting were allowed to be shot in the back of the head.

July 21, 1940 – The fraudulently installed Saeima meets for the first time. It has only one piece of business!a petition to join the Soviet Union. (The consideration of such an action was denied throughout the election.) The petition carried unanimously. .."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Latvia_in_1940

Is the Neo-NKVD whipping the Senate and USA House members into voting in the "correct" way?

It is the nearly 100% vote that bothers me- Not what I would expect in a free and open minded democracy.

Olaf Lukk , July 29, 2017 at 4:03 am

So the US congress voted almost unanimously to impose sanctions because they were worried that otherwise, they would be shot in the back of the head?

Makes perfect sense to me!

Mark W. , July 27, 2017 at 1:10 am

Read Petrodollar Warfare and The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony for a start and a lot of this will become more clear. The Iraq war, the U.S. instigated coup in Ukraine, U.S. backed attempt at regime change in Syria and the demonization of Russia all concern oil supplies and who will be allowed to supply what to whom, and more importantly in what currency such sales will be denominated. All of this stuff is about trying to maintain the dollar's reserve currency status. Isn't this becoming clear by now. Americans are still trying to understand why they invaded Iraq. Was it WMDs, Al Qaeda, to bring freedom and democracy to the towel heads? Hussein decided in 2000 that Iraqi oil sales would be denominated in Euros, three years later he was conveniently dead.

Yves Smith Post author , July 27, 2017 at 3:09 am

While I agree that the US has hegemonic aspirations, the petrodollar thesis is all wet.

Since the 1600s at least, countries have pursued mercantilist policies. That means first of all that they like running trade surpluses. That allows them to have more jobs than their own economies would support, keeping their citizens happy. They can also be net savers without having a drag on the domestic economy.

But who will be the chump that exports jobs and has crappy growth to accommodate the mercantlists? The US has signed up for that role, in large measure because the US cares more about the 1%, the 0.1%, and the interest of US multinationals than its citizens.

As long as everyone else wants to run trade surpluses and we are the only big player willing to run sustained trade deficits, the dollar will remain the reserve currency. China has absolutely zero interest in running trade deficits despite pining after the cachet of having the reserve currency. The Eurozone maybe could have been a contender, but not with Germany being fiercely mercantlist and Germany's insistence on not rebalancing within the Eurozone creating perceived breakup risk.

mark , July 27, 2017 at 3:19 am

@Yves
In order to answer your question to German language readers in the article.
There are several differences this time compared to previous instances of perhaps controversial US-policy in Europe.
First of all the official positions of the German and Austrian government as well as the EU-Commission are in harsh opposition to the bill while previously only opposition politicians or fringe business interests voiced negative opinions.
Secondly the issue has been spread around in the relevant German business press a great deal, yesterday alone about a dozen news agency reports were published, all with pretty much the same tone and content. It has also been picked up by the op-ed pages in the papers today. This is in stark contrast to previous instances like a leader from Die Linke blaming the refugee crisis on US wars in 2015, Nato expansion to the east and troop build up in the Baltic or the planned upgrade of US nuclear weapons stationed in Germany. All three topics are out of mainstream discussion and anyone bringing up a negative opinion, like the mentioned politician from Die Linke, is ridiculed.
Thirdly while the EU needs the approval of all members to establish sanctions it could do a great deal to prosecute a trade war via executive decisions by the EU-Commission alone. While there has been no official indication how the threatened retaliation is going to look like several simple measures come to mind. For instance the EU could suspend the EU-US privacy shield agreement thereby increasing the cost of doing business in the EU for US companies by a significant amount, it would also be likely that cartell/market dominance investigations might result in harsher fines for US companies and more restricted mergers, something which has been brought up by EU officials sometime ago is to require all foreign or only US banking and maybe other financial institutions to be seperate concerns with full capitalisation and no dependencies on the US-holdings.

To summarise: it looks like a significant amount of the German "business community" is not amused and views the bill as a direct attack on its interests and tries to use their influence with the goverment against it. This raises the likelihood of something more than mere talk to above 0%. In any case the image of the US has taken another hit, this time with a group of people with mostly very positive opinions about close US-German relations.

Yves Smith Post author , July 27, 2017 at 5:51 am

This is VERY helpful. Thanks so much!

Damson , July 27, 2017 at 5:04 pm

Of course, the gas suppliers won't necessarily be in US – others plan to benefit from the Russian sanctions :

http://m.dw.com/en/eu-to-cut-gas-dependency-on-russia-with-israel-pipeline/a-38269274

What do people think the Syria carve – up is really about?

vidimi , July 26, 2017 at 11:23 am

thanks for this article, it's really a remarkable powerplay. the stakes are so high that it's unfathomable that it doesn't backfire spectacularly. this looks like an exercise in hubris that future historians will be long discussing.

more than forcing the EU to use american LNG, it is an attempt to force the EU to back american efforts to replace assad in syria. remember, syria is what stands in the way between bahraini/saudi gas and oil pipelines to europe.

the US is already at war against russia, they just haven't yet started shooting at each other. but also, any chinese silk road to europe will have to use russian assets and infrastructure, so this, potentially, affects them, too.

dcblogger , July 26, 2017 at 2:46 pm

Trump Is Being Moved Aside So That Conflict with Russia Can Proceed
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/26/trump-moved-aside-conflict-russia-can-proceed/

Rosario , July 26, 2017 at 3:54 pm

All stupidity with the Russia hysteria aside this may be all the faster at forcing a move to renewables in the US. NG is the bounciest of all carbon based fuels WRT price. Once they start pumping US NG into more foreign markets the price will climb, which will squeeze utilities that have moved en mass into NG based generation and prove that renewables are even more cost effective. Petty politics may end up having a silver lining 5 years down the road, and at this point I am open to any route to renewables, even the sloppiest, unintentional ones.

Synapsid , July 26, 2017 at 6:43 pm

Rosario,

If exporting US NG causes its price to rise domestically, utilities that had been using coal can shift back to it. That happened recently.

Rosario , July 26, 2017 at 7:43 pm

Sure, but the ball is in another (higher) cup as the cost graphs go. I suspect it is going to get increasingly difficult to transition back and forth with the lowering costs of renewables. Also, coal is not getting any cheaper to extract and it definitely hasn't reduced its externalities. We'll see, big utilities move in herds and it takes years to make a full transition. They may flood back to coal, and build new plants (I doubt it), but they will eventually get burnt and have to swing back again. In the absence of purposeful national level policy (what I prefer) this is the only way the market based approach will turn away from fossil fuels.

Olaf Lukk , July 26, 2017 at 4:02 pm

"Instruments of political sanctions should not be connected with economic interests"?

This echoes the rationalizations of Wall Street when they crashed the economy in '08. Let's not let politics interfere with the right to make money?

The sanctions against Russia were put in place in response to its annexation of Crimea and its support of insurrection in Eastern Ukraine. They have been extended, and expanded, in response to Russian meddling in the recent presidential election. To what extent their cyber warfare had an effect is debatable, but Trump's stonewalling on the issue practically guaranteed the lopsided vote on the latest sanctions.

The LNG issue has some valid points, but it ignores an issue which I have not seen addressed on Naked Capitalism: Just how much is Trump- and those in his administration (infested with alumni of the vampire squid)- beholden to Putin and his fellow oligarchs?

Trump appears to be the Pied Piper of Putin Patsies. I can't help but wonder why.

Yves Smith Post author , July 26, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Crimea was not "annexed". The US destabilized Ukraine. The government in Kiev came in as a result of a coup even thought elections were scheduled for a mere six weeks later and Yanukovich would clearly have been voted out. The new government tore up the current constitution and went through no legal process whatsoever to do that. That is not the behavior of a legitimate government.

Even though neo-Nazis are a very small percentage of the voters, they got 15% of government positions. The head of the defense department gave a speech in which he encouraged ethnic cleansing of Ukrainians of Russian origin, saying that any soldiers who removed them could keep their property.

Crimea petitioned to join Russia after a referendum that approved of that move by a large margin. The US used precisely the same mechanism with Kosovo. Are you about to call that an annexation?

We have repeatedly discussed how the idea that Russia has influence over Trump is nonsense.

Better trolls, please.

[Jul 30, 2017] Russia sanctions fuel new Cold War

Notable quotes:
"... Whatever you think of Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump, for that matter, they are the presidents of the world's nuclear superpowers. Piling sanctions on Russia means escalating tensions. And that's extremely dangerous. ..."
"... Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ..."
"... Democratic lawmakers rightly deride Republicans for their "climate change denial," but both parties are locked into a kind of "nuclear war denial" in relation to Russia. The latest sanctions bill is part of an obsession with denouncing Russia that leaves scant room for considering how to reduce the dangers of nuclear war between the two countries. ..."
"... Norman Solomon is an author and a co-founder of RootsAction.org , an online activist group. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.usatoday.com
Whatever you think of Putin or Trump, they're presidents of nuclear superpowers: Opposing view

The drive to put more sanctions on Russia might feel good. But fueling a new Cold War can only propel the United States in the wrong direction. It's time to turn away from a collision course, not step on the gas.

Whatever you think of Vladimir Putin, or Donald Trump, for that matter, they are the presidents of the world's nuclear superpowers. Piling sanctions on Russia means escalating tensions. And that's extremely dangerous.

When this year began, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved its risk-estimate Doomsday Clock closer to apocalyptic midnight than at any time since 1953. "The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon," the Bulletin 's expert panel warned.

If new sanctions target Russia, the predictable results will include angry responses from the Kremlin and more polarized attitudes in both countries -- damaging the prospects for any détente while boosting a spiral of mutual hostility.

Democratic lawmakers rightly deride Republicans for their "climate change denial," but both parties are locked into a kind of "nuclear war denial" in relation to Russia. The latest sanctions bill is part of an obsession with denouncing Russia that leaves scant room for considering how to reduce the dangers of nuclear war between the two countries.

On Russia sanctions, applaud Congress

Such a war would be horrific. "A war fought with the deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals would leave Earth virtually uninhabitable," according to Steven Starr, a former member of the Physicians for Social Responsibility national board.

In a warning last winter, former Defense secretary William Perry said, "We're going back to the kind of dangers we had during the Cold War." Those concerns are even more relevant and urgent now: "We are starting a new Cold War. We seem to be sleepwalking into this new nuclear arms race ."

While parading for sanctions against Russia, the sleepwalkers on Capitol Hill are endangering the future of humanity.

Norman Solomon is an author and a co-founder of RootsAction.org , an online activist group.

[Jul 30, 2017] Obama chickens come home to roost

In December, President Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and seized two estates, one on Long Island and one on Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, in response to Russia's interference in the presidential election the month before. Moscow did not respond at that time. it waited till 8 month till the end of July.
The Russian foreign ministry now demanded that Washington cut its diplomatic presence in Russia by September to 455 -- the same number Moscow has in the US.
Jul 30, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

Putin, Responding to Sanctions, Expels 755 U.S. Diplomats - The New York Times By NEIL MacFARQUHARJ

MOSCOW - President Vladimir V. Putin announced on Sunday that 755 American diplomats would be expelled from Russia by Sept. 1

... ... ...

Speaking in a television interview on the Rossiya 1 network, Mr. Putin said that Russia's patience in waiting for improved relations with the United States had worn out.

"We waited for quite some time that maybe something will change for the better, had such hope that the situation will somehow change, but, judging by everything, if it changes, it will not be soon,"

[Jul 30, 2017] The Kosovo area had been part of Serbia for over 1000 years. Serbia did not agree to its dismemberment, but was bombed into submission with B-52s by NATO under Bill Clinton. If Oligarch mercenaries would have entered Crimea it would have been just as bad as Donetsk, etc., with thousands killed

Jul 30, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
The U.S. Sanctions Bill Is a Win for Russia The National Interest

АТО Willem Post , July 29, 2017 10:36 AM

Willem Post: "Russia peacefully annexed Crimea"

Haha! You should listen to Poo teen (aka Putin) speach when he rcognized that "green humans" in Crimea were Russian armed forces soldiers. And that so-called voting was a farce under the Russians machine guns.

And don't forget: according to Ukrainian laws

no part of the country can decide its parting without a vouting of the whole country

Willem Post АТО , July 29, 2017 5:01 PM

ATO,
Is that happened regarding Kosovo?

The Parliament, egged on by the US and EU, declared the Kosovo area independent. And much later that was ratified by popular vote to "make it look legal".

Kosovo's population were ethnic Albanians, who are Muslim. The EU foolishly applauded creating a Muslim State in the Middle of East Europe.

The Kosovo area had been part of Serbia for over 1000 years. Serbia did not agree to its dismemberment, but was bombed into submission with B-52s by NATO under Bill Clinton.

Crimea already was an independent state within Ukraine with its own parliament. The popular vote to be annexed by Russia took place in peace because Russia had adequate Green men to keep the peace and keep Ukraine armed forces on their bases, so they could not interfere.

Russia can have 22,000 armed services troops in Crimea, per Russia-Ukraine agreement. Russia never exceeded that number, as it was not necessary, i.e., there was no military invasion and voters were not herded to the polls to vote by guns.

Oligarch mercenaries would have entered Crimea, and it would have been just as bad as Donetsk, etc., with thousands killed.

[Jul 30, 2017] The likeliest and most obvious choice for Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting a war in the Middle East

Notable quotes:
"... With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

DannyMarcus > , July 30, 2017 at 12:49 pm GMT

@Diversity Heretic

My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences.

I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."

The likeliest and most obvious choice for Trump on how to escape the Mueller trap seems to have eluded Pat Buchanan: starting a war in the Middle East to overshadow or bury all investigations into the president's wrongdoings. Engineering a war with Iran would fit the bill perfectly.

With Trump quite clearly only concerned with his own well-being, the diversion of a patriotic war is the prime choice in times of trouble. The only question that remains is how will his generals will look at the option of getting involved in yet another ruinous war. A war that could have very dangerous implications and unpredictable outcomes.

[Jul 30, 2017] Mainstream News Manipulation of US Public

McGovern thinks that it was Brennan boys who hacked into DNC as a part of conspiracy to implicate Russia and to secure Hillary win. One of the resons was probably that DNC servers were not well protected and there were other hacks, about whihc NSA know. So the sad state of DNC internet security needed to be swiped under the carpet and that's why CrowdStike was hired.
NSA created 7 million lines of code for penetration and that includes those that were pablished by Wikileaks and designed to imitate that attackers are coming (and using the language) from: China, North Korea, Iran and Russia.
Also NSA probably intercepts and keeps all Internet communications for a month or two so if it was a hack NSA knows who did it and what was stolen
But the most unexplainable part was that fact that FBI was denied accessing the evidence. I always think that thye can dictate that they need to see in such cases, but obviously this was not the case.
Notable quotes:
"... She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands. ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Anna C 1 month ago

LEGAL, WIKIMEDIA V. NSA Discussing fake news and the NSA lawsuit at Yale | https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/06/16/fake-news-nsa-lawsuit-yale/

Tracy Spose 1 month ago

Love the rest of the talk, but no way did Hillary win. No way did she get the popular vote.

The woman was calling for war and reinstating the draft on men and women. She couldn't pack a school gymnasium while Trumps rallies were packed with 10's of thousands.

[Jul 30, 2017] Rumors have started about a 2nd Special Prosecutor to investigate the DNC hack

At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]
If Trump wants to survive he should FIGHT! He call out the Deep State explicitly, using the words "Deep State." and explaining machinations to the public. This creates a risk for his life, but still this is the only way he can avoid slow strangulation by Muller.
Notable quotes:
"... In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State." ..."
"... Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump should pardon whoever - case closed. ..."
"... Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.] ..."
"... Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....] ..."
Jul 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

RobinG , July 30, 2017 at 4:19 pm GMT

AT LAST .

HOUSE (20 MOC's signed) CALL TO INVESTIGATE CLINTON & DNC

US House Judiciary Committee requests DoJ appoint second Special Prosecutor (PDF)

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/072717_HJC-Letter-to-AG-DAG.pdf

RobinG , July 30, 2017 at 7:41 am GMT

@Art Trump should FIGHT!

In explicit terms Trump should call out the Deep State – he should use the words "Deep State."

Mueller is Deep Sate - he is an elite - if he comes up with things that have nothing to do with Russia and the election - Trump should pardon whoever - case closed.

Trump should say that right now - put the onus on Mueller to do the right thing and not take down the election over small nothings.

Peace --- Art

... ... ...

Murmurs have started about a 2nd Special Prosecuter – to investigate the DNC. At the moment, the talk is about DNC scuttling Bernie. But if it gets going, how long before they get to DNC/Crowdstrike/Ukraine .? [And then there's DWS and the Awan bros.]

Lee Stranahan names names [Clinton, McCain, CIA, the Media, Soros....]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4q-sHJCGCk

LEE STRANAHAN: ALEX JONES INFOWARS

[Jul 30, 2017] The Establishment's Russia Fixation Takes A Dark Turn An Interview With Stephen F. Cohen

Jun 21, 2017 | www.youtube.com

TYT Politics Reporter Michael Tracey ( https://Twitter.com/mtracey ) sits down with NYU & Princeton Professor, Stephen F. Cohen, to discuss the establishments response to the Russia investigation. What role has the establishment played in the Russia hysteria?

Don't forget to tell us your thoughts in the comment section below!

***

Follow Our Incredible Reporting Team On The Road!

Subscribe to TYT Politics on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/TYTPolitics Like TYT Politics on Facebook: http://facebook.com/TYTPolitics Follow TYT Politics on Twitter: http://twitter.com/TYTPolitics

[Jul 29, 2017] Russia puts the USA on notice that it must reduce its Embassy personnel to the same manning levels as serve at the Russian Embassy in Washington

Notable quotes:
"... About time that Russia retaliated, the US interprets restraint and patience with weakness. Trump is beholden to the US Deep State with respective to US imperial and aggressive foreign policy. As much as Trump would like to reset relations with Russia and establish a modus vivendi with Russia. The US Deep State will simply not allow it, far too many people in the US political, military, intelligence, media, academia and think tank establishment have vested financial and career interests in maintaining enmity with Russia. ..."
Jul 29, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

July 28, 2017

Warren , July 28, 2017 at 3:51 am

Russia has retaliated to new US sanctions by telling Washington to cut its diplomatic staff to 455 and barring the use of some properties.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40751973

About time that Russia retaliated, the US interprets restraint and patience with weakness. Trump is beholden to the US Deep State with respective to US imperial and aggressive foreign policy. As much as Trump would like to reset relations with Russia and establish a modus vivendi with Russia. The US Deep State will simply not allow it, far too many people in the US political, military, intelligence, media, academia and think tank establishment have vested financial and career interests in maintaining enmity with Russia.

marknesop , July 28, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Meanwhile, Russia puts the USA on notice that it must reduce its Embassy personnel to the same manning levels as serve at the Russian Embassy in Washington – 455.

Washington of course refuses to say how many people work at the US Embassy in Russia: state secret, you know, national security, could affect the lives of Americans. But Tefft is reported to be not at all happy, while Russian sources say 'hundreds' will have to leave.

[Jul 29, 2017] Collateral Damage

Notable quotes:
"... République en marche ..."
Jul 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

Do they know what they are doing? When the U.S. Congress adopts draconian sanctions aimed mainly at disempowering President Trump and ruling out any move to improve relations with Russia, do they realize that the measures amount to a declaration of economic war against their dear European "friends"?

Whether they know or not, they obviously don't care. U.S. politicians view the rest of the world as America's hinterland, to be exploited, abused and ignored with impunity.

The Bill H.R. 3364 "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act" was adopted on July 25 by all but three members of the House of Representatives. An earlier version was adopted by all but two Senators. Final passage at veto-overturning proportions is a certainty.

This congressional temper tantrum flails in all directions. The main casualties are likely to be America's dear beloved European allies, notably Germany and France. Who also sometimes happen to be competitors, but such crass considerations don't matter in the sacred halls of the U.S. Congress, totally devoted to upholding universal morality.

Economic "Soft Power" Hits Hard

Under U.S. sanctions, any EU nation doing business with Russia may find itself in deep trouble. In particular, the latest bill targets companies involved in financing Nord Stream 2, a pipeline designed to provide Germany with much needed natural gas from Russia.

By the way, just to help out, American companies will gladly sell their own fracked natural gas to their German friends, at much higher prices.

That is only one way in which the bill would subject European banks and enterprises to crippling restrictions, lawsuits and gigantic fines.

While the U.S. preaches "free competition", it constantly takes measures to prevent free competition at the international level.

Following the July 2015 deal ensuring that Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, international sanctions were lifted, but the United States retained its own previous ones. Since then, any foreign bank or enterprise contemplating trade with Iran is apt to receive a letter from a New York group calling itself "United Against Nuclear Iran" which warns that "there remain serious legal, political, financial and reputational risks associated with doing business in Iran, particularly in sectors of the Iranian economy such as oil and gas". The risks cited include billions of dollars of (U.S.) fines, surveillance by "a myriad of regulatory agencies", personal danger, deficiency of insurance coverage, cyber insecurity, loss of more lucrative business, harm to corporate reputation and a drop in shareholder value.

The United States gets away with this gangster behavior because over the years it has developed a vast, obscure legalistic maze, able to impose its will on the "free world" economy thanks to the omnipresence of the dollar, unrivaled intelligence gathering and just plain intimidation.

European leaders reacted indignantly to the latest sanctions. The German foreign ministry said it was "unacceptable for the United States to use possible sanctions as an instrument to serve the interest of U.S. industry". The French foreign ministry denounced the "extraterritoriality" of the U.S. legislation as unlawful, and announced that "To protect ourselves against the extraterritorial effects of US legislation, we will have to work on adjusting our French and European laws".

In fact, bitter resentment of arrogant U.S. imposition of its own laws on others has been growing in France, and was the object of a serious parliamentary report delivered to the French National Assembly foreign affairs and finance committees last October 5, on the subject of "the extraterritoriality of American legislation".

Extraterritoriality

The chairman of the commission of enquiry, long-time Paris representative Pierre Lellouche, summed up the situation as follows:

"The facts are very simple. We are confronted with an extremely dense wall of American legislation whose precise intention is to use the law to serve the purposes of the economic and political imperium with the idea of gaining economic and strategic advantages. As always in the United States, that imperium, that normative bulldozer operates in the name of the best intentions in the world since the United States considers itself a 'benevolent power', that is a country that can only do good."

Always in the name of "the fight against corruption" or "the fight against terrorism", the United States righteously pursues anything legally called a "U.S. person", which under strange American law can refer to any entity doing business in the land of the free, whether by having an American subsidiary, or being listed on the New York stock exchange, or using a U.S.-based server, or even by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise can avoid.

In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine billion dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S. sanctions. The transactions were perfectly legal under French law. But because they dealt in dollars, payments transited by way of the United States, where diligent computer experts could find the needle in the haystack. European banks are faced with the choice between prosecution, which entails all sorts of restrictions and punishments before a verdict is reached, or else, counseled by expensive U.S. corporate lawyers, and entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers urge the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences.

Alstom, a major multinational corporation whose railroad section produces France's high speed trains, is a jewel of French industry. In 2014, under pressure from U.S. accusations of corruption (probably bribes to officials in a few developing countries), Alstom sold off its electricity branch to General Electric.

The underlying accusation is that such alleged "corruption" by foreign firms causes U.S. firms to lose markets. That is possible, but there is no practical reciprocity here. A whole range of U.S. intelligence agencies, able to spy on everyone's private communications, are engaged in commercial espionage around the world. As an example, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, devoted to this task, operates with 200 employees on an annual budget of over $30 million. The comparable office in Paris employs five people.

This was the situation as of last October. The latest round of sanctions can only expose European banks and enterprises to even more severe consequences, especially concerning investments in the vital Nord Stream natural gas pipeline.

This bill is just the latest in a series of U.S. legislative measures tending to break down national legal sovereignty and create a globalized jurisdiction in which anyone can sue anyone else for anything, with ultimate investigative capacity and enforcement power held by the United States.

Wrecking the European Economy

Over a dozen European Banks (British, German, French, Dutch, Swiss) have run afoul of U.S. judicial moralizing, compared to only one U.S. bank: JP Morgan Chase.

The U.S. targets the European core countries, while its overwhelming influence in the northern rim – Poland, the Baltic States and Sweden – prevents the European Union from taking any measures (necessarily unanimous) contrary to U.S. interests.

By far the biggest catch in Uncle Sam's financial fishing expedition is Deutsche Bank. As Pierre Lellouche warned during the final hearing of the extraterritorial hearings last October, U.S. pursuits against Deutsche Bank risk bringing down the whole European banking system. Although it had already paid hundreds of millions of dollars to the State of New York, Deutsche Bank was faced with a "fine of 14 billion dollars whereas it is worth only five and a half. In other words, if this is carried out, we risk a domino effect, a major financial crisis in Europe."

In short, U.S. sanctions amount to a sword of Damocles threatening the economies of the country's main trading partners. This could be a Pyrrhic victory, or more simply, the blow that kills the goose that lays the golden eggs. But hurrah, America would be the winner in a field of ruins.

Former justice minister Elisabeth Guigou called the situation shocking, and noted that France had told the U.S. Embassy that the situation is " insupportable " and insisted that "we must be firm".

Jacques Myard said that "American law is being used to gain markets and eliminate competitors. We should not be naïve and wake up to what is happening."

This enquiry marked a step ahead in French awareness and resistance to a new form of "taxation without representation" exercised by the United States against its European satellites. They committee members all agreed that something must be done.

That was last October. In June, France held parliamentary elections. The commission chairman, Pierre Lellouche (Republican), the rapporteur Karine Berger (Socialist), Elisabeth Guigou (a leading Socialist) and Jacques Myard (Republican) all lost their seats to inexperienced newcomers recruited into President Emmanuel Macron's République en marche party. The newcomers are having a hard time finding their way in parliamentary life and have no political memory, for instance of the Rapport on Extraterritoriality.

As for Macron, as minister of economics, in 2014 he went against earlier government rulings by approving the GE purchase of Alstom. He does not appear eager to do anything to anger the United States.

However, there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.

exiled off mainstreet > , July 29, 2017 at 4:40 am GMT

It looks like the rest of the world is going to have to bring down the economic yankee imperium or be destroyed themselves.

Randal > , July 29, 2017 at 9:01 am GMT

there are some things that are so blatantly unfair that they cannot go on forever.

LOL! Naïve, I think. As long as European countries (and the UK) are prepared to carry on acting as Washington's bitches, Washington will go on treating them as such.

The political, media and business elites need to be thoroughly cleansed of US apologists. That won't be easy, especially when Europe and the UK are in the grip of an ideologically anti-nationalist culture that is essentially treasonous and utterly lacking in national self-respect.

Ending NATO and suppressing the US-backed anti-Russian propaganda that keeps Europe and the UK subordinate would be the bare minimum first steps, along with cooperating with China and Russia to promote and use financial systems independent of the dollar.

or even by simply trading in dollars, which is something that no large international enterprise can avoid

The countries that are regularly targeted for US bullying are building structures that avoid vulnerability. European countries and the UK need to join with them in doing so (though it's unlikely they will be trusted very far given their track records of collaboration with Washington).

Also companies that decline to deal in the US market should be protected and supported, on national security grounds. It should be straightforwardly illegal in all sovereign countries for the US to try to impose its laws on any company merely for dealing in dollars, and the US should be held directly responsible when its courts seek to do so. US extraterritoriality has always been a gross intrusion into and threat to national sovereignty.

In 2014, France's leading bank, BNP-Paribas, agreed to pay a whopping fine of nearly nine billion dollars, basically for having used dollar transfers in deals with countries under U.S. sanctions.

Ideally this kind of extortion will be to some extent counterbalanced by retaliatory extractions from US business assets such as Google and Facebook.

entering into the obscure "plea bargain" culture of the U.S. judicial system, unfamiliar to Europeans. Just like the poor wretch accused of robbing a convenience store, the lawyers urge the huge European enterprises to plea guilty in order to escape much worse consequences

The US plea bargain system is a disgrace to any kind of concept of justice and basically means that no US confessions or guilty pleas can be regarded as meaningful, and nor should any sovereign country agree to extradition of its own citizens to the US. It is basically a system of organised blackmail, coerced confessions and corruption of witnesses.

El Dato > , July 29, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT

Well, Europe could consider all of these payouts to the US as "reparations for Nazi atrocities". This will make it go down easier, after all who wouldn't want to enslave himself to Yankees to repair Nazi atrocities?

Meanwhile, self-flaggelation goes on

Anonymous, July 29, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT

Western European allies?

Nice choice of words, but fiction-supporting. Under-surerainty would be a better fit.

[Jul 29, 2017] Ray McGovern The Deep State Assault on Elected Government Must Be Stopped

Highly recommended!
Ray McGovern raise important fact: DNC hide evidence from FBI outsourcing everything to CrowdStrike. This is the most unexplainable fact in the whole story. One hypotheses that Ray advanced here that there was so many hacks into DNC that they wanted to hide.
Another important point is CIA role in elections, and specifically John O. Brennan behaviour. Brennan's 25 years with the CIA included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst and as station chief in Saudi Arabia.
McGovern thing that Brennon actually controlled Obama. And in his opinion Brennan was the main leaker of Trump surveillance information.
Notable quotes:
"... Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong. ..."
Apr 2, 2017 | www.youtube.com

Greg Rhodes 3 months ago

I really like Ray... I watch and listen , he seems to use logic, reason and facts in his assessments.. I'm surprised CIA and the deep state allow him to operate ... stay safe Ray...
Robert Eargle 2 months ago

McGovern, you idiot. To try to put Trump on Hillary's level is complete stupidity. The war with Russia or nothing was avoided with a Trump victory. Remember the NATO build up on the Russian border preparing for a Hillary win? Plus, if Hillary won, justice and law in the USA would be over with forever. The Germans dont know sht about the USA to say their little cute phrase. Trump is a very calm mannered man and his hands on the nuke button is an issue only to those who watch the fake MSM. And no the NSA has not released anything either. Wrong on that point too.

Manley Nelson 2 months ago

The German expression of USA having a choice between cholera and plague is ignorant. McGovern is wrong ....everyone knew HRC was a criminal. McGovern is wrong... Jill Stein in not trustworthy. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote away from Trump. If Jill Stein or HRC were elected their would be no environment left to save. Do really think the Deep State cares about the environment. Trump is our only chance to damage Deep State. McGovern is wrong... DNC were from Seth Rich, inside DNC. Murdered for it. McGovern is wrong... i could go on and on but suffice it to say his confidence is way to high. He is wrong.

Rodger Asai 3 months ago

Another month or so and the DHS may offer a color-coding system to help the sheeple understand various levels of confidence. Green - Moderate Confidence Blue - High Confidence Yellow - Very High Confidence Orange - Extremely High Confidence Red - Based on Actual Fact

The last category may be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

KELLI2L2 3 months ago

As it turned out Jill Stein was a bad choice too... Recount debacle.

midnighfairy 1 month ago

I want Hilary to pay for her lies

[Jul 29, 2017] Did Russiagate begin as a Clinton campaign conspiracy? New forensic research suggests it by Alexander Mercouris

Now the most strange event: why investigation was outsourced go dubious security firm CrowdStrike, and FBI was completely excluded, falls in place.
Notable quotes:
"... That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack. ..."
"... copied (not hacked) ..."
"... what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. ..."
"... The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll. ..."
"... "The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling." ..."
"... The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI. ..."
"... We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack. ..."
"... someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election. ..."
"... This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence. ..."
"... As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that the Russians were responsible. ..."
"... Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer, and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack."" ..."
"... This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in effect a fraud. ..."
"... Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably have quickly exposed the fraud. ..."
"... in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack. ..."
"... "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion. ..."
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded. ..."
Jul 26, 2017 | theduran.com

Forensic report by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity implies that DNC/Podesta hacks and "Guccifer 2.0' personas were concocted to discredit Wikileaks in advance of publication of the DNC/Podesta emails and to cast suspicion on Russia.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ("VIPS"), one of the most formidable commentary groups in the world, which includes such heavyweights as William Binney, the former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, the former top CIA analyst Ray McGovern, and many others, has published another in its highly enlightening series of public memoranda addressed to the President of the United States.

... ... ...

The Key Event

July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is many times faster than what is physically possible with a hack.

It thus appears that the purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device. Moreover, the forensics performed on the metadata reveal there was a subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack." This was all performed in the East Coast time zone .

.the independent forensic work just completed focused on data copied (not hacked) by a shadowy persona named "Guccifer 2.0." The forensics reflect what seems to have been a desperate effort to "blame the Russians" for publishing highly embarrassing DNC emails three days before the Democratic convention last July. Since the content of the DNC emails reeked of pro-Clinton bias, her campaign saw an overriding need to divert attention from content to provenance – as in, who "hacked" those DNC emails? The campaign was enthusiastically supported by a compliant "mainstream" media; they are still on a roll.

"The Russians" were the ideal culprit. And, after WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016, "We have emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication," her campaign had more than a month before the convention to insert its own "forensic facts" and prime the media pump to put the blame on "Russian meddling."

. The purported "hack" of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 was not a hack, by Russia or anyone else. Rather it originated with a copy (onto an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example) by an insider. The data was leaked after being doctored with a cut-and-paste job to implicate Russia. We do not know who or what the murky Guccifer 2.0 is. You may wish to ask the FBI.

In what I am now going to say I am going to join up the dots in a way that takes me beyond me what the VIPS actually say. If by doing so I am misunderstanding and misrepresenting the new evidence and I apologise in advance and I would ask them to correct me.

Briefly, the scenario suggested by the new evidence is explained by the VIPS by reference to a brief chronology in this way

The Time Sequence

  • June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish "emails related to Hillary Clinton."
  • June 15, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announces that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians.
  • June 15, 2016: On the same day, "Guccifer 2.0" affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the "hack;" claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."

We do not think that the June 12 & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to "show" that it came from a Russian hack.

I have always expressed doubts that "Guccifer 2.0" has any connection either to Russian intelligence or to Wikileaks or was actually the source of the emails published by Wikileaks..

What this scenario seems to be suggesting is that following the revelation by Julian Assange on 12th June 2016 in a British television interview that Wikileaks was about to publish damaging emails about Hillary Clinton someone within the DNC who was presumably anxious to protect the Hillary Clinton campaign set about creating a false trail so that the leak of the emails would be blamed not on a DNC insider but on the Russians. That way it was hoped that the focus would be not on the content of the emails themselves but on Russian meddling in the election.

This was done by concocting a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to create the impression that the emails were stolen not by a leak but by way of a hack, and by setting up this persona to make him look like a front for Russian intelligence.

Here I should say that I have always thought "Guccifer 2.0" to be a far too crude and obvious persona to be a front for Russian intelligence. Also I have never understood why – assuming it really was Russian intelligence which stole the emails – they would want to create such a persona at all. Surely by doing so they would be merely providing more clues leading back to themselves?

As well as concocting "Guccifer 2.0" – who interestingly has had only an ephemeral twitter presence since these events – Crowdstrike was brought in to provide a report further claiming that the emails were stolen by way of a hack rather than a leak and to say that the Russians were responsible.

Lastly, a further attempt was made on 5th July 2016 – the "key event" which is the focus of the VIPS memorandum, and which is the subject of the latest forensic examination – to link the fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona to the theft of data from the DNC's computer, and to do so in a way that also pointed to the Russians through a "subsequent synthetic insertion – a cut-and-paste job using a Russian template, with the clear aim of attributing the data to a "Russian hack.""

This is an extremely disturbing scenario if it is true. It would mean that there is someone within the DNC who is perfectly aware that the whole Russiagate conspiracy is fake, and who has in fact deliberately concocted it, making the Russiagate scandal in effect a fraud.

Moreover whoever that person is, he or she is clearly a person possessed great resources and influence: having access to the DNC's computer, able to concoct a fake "Guccifer 2.0" persona at short notice, able to bring in Crowdstrike to lend credence to the fraud, in possession of malware necessary to lay a false trail pointing to Russia, and – most worrying of all – able to dissuade the FBI from carrying out its own forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers, which had it been carried out would presumably have quickly exposed the fraud.

The last point of course goes directly to the one which people like Daniel Lazare and "richardstevenhack"have made: in the absence of a proper examination of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers by the FBI we cannot be sure that there ever was a hack. If the scenario that appears to be set out in the VIPS memorandum is true then it would seem that there never was a hack and that the evidence that there was is concocted.

Before proceeding further I should say that there might be contrary arguments to this scenario. "Guccifer 2.0" might be the creation not of someone engaged in a cover-up on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign, but of the original leaker seeking to cover his tracks by throwing suspicion onto Russia. Alternatively it may be that "Guccifer 2.0" is the concoction of some opportunistic narcissist within the DNC, out to claim credit for the leak of emails which had nothing to do with him. Unfortunately there are such people, and they are often the cause of huge confusion.

What however argues against these alternative theories is the involvement of Crowdstrike, as well as the FBI's willingness to be persuaded to accept Crowdstrike's report rather than carry out its forensic examination of the DNC's and John Podesta's computers. Perhaps whoever it was who concocted "Guccifer 2.0" was simply lucky that neither the DNC nor John Podesta nor the FBI seem to have been keen on a proper investigation. However on the face of it that does seem rather unlikely.

Of course it is also open to anyone who does not agree with the scenario outlined by VIPS to contest the conclusions of their forensic investigation. However if that is to be done successfully then whoever will do it will have to match the expertise in this field of people like William Binney and Skip Folden. That does look like a rather tall order.

At a relatively early stage of the Russiagate scandal I said that the true scandal – which the concocted Russiagate scandal seemed intended to conceal – was the illegal surveillance of US citizens during the election.

If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded.

That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis.

Far more evidence is needed if what is still only a possibility is to be accepted as true, but the fact remains that unless I have misunderstood them completely the highly experienced and professional people who make up VIPS have just published a memorandum which points in that direction.

[Jul 29, 2017] Trump Faces Down the CIA and Co-Opts the Pentagon on Syria (for the time being) by Glen Ford

Notable quotes:
"... Trump this summer defied the War Party and its corporate media mouthpieces, negotiating a cease-fire with the Russians in several regions of Syria, to be followed by additional truces, and ending the CIA's not-so-covert role as Grandmaster of Islamic Jihad. It seemed...unreal. ..."
"... Peace-loving people around the world held their breath, waiting for the War Party's revenge. ..."
"... Back in late March, the Trump administration had signaled its abandonment of regime change, with both UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson indicating that Syrian President Assad's ouster was no longer a priority for the United States. But, within a week, Trump was hurling Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase, purportedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons incident that only a fool or a U.S. corporate media hack would blame on Syria. ..."
"... Then, two months later, on June 26, in a bizarre episode even for Trump, the administration charged the Syria military with preparing to launch another chemical weapons attack , for which the Assad government would "pay a heavy price." Strangely, the White House seemed to have failed to notify either the Pentagon or the State Department about the Syria threat, or the proposed retaliation. ..."
"... Stranger still, Trump issued his weaponized rant during the same period when his administration must have been deeply engaged in negotiations on a cease-fire with the Russians. We at Black Agenda Report wondered whether Trump had gone " play-crazy " – "acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon." ..."
"... The demons at the Washington Post and the New York Times have only one explanation for all earthly phenomena, including the termination of the CIA's jihadist overseer duties in Syria: Trump is "colluding" with the Russians. The Times moaned that "the decision is bound to be welcomed by the Russians." The WP whined that "the Russian government had long opposed the program, seeing it as an assault on its interests." Neither paper is concerned that the CIA project violates international laws against unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, as well as U.S. laws against giving material assistance to al Qaida, a prime beneficiary of CIA weapons, or that half a million Syrians have died, as a result. ..."
"... Despite his apparent vow of semi-silence on the CIA front, Trump could not resist a Twitter retort . "The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad," he wrote, effectively declassifying the now-defunct (are we sure?) CIA terror campaign. ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

The crazed, racist, stupid, boorish man in the White House "this summer defied the War Party and its corporate media mouthpieces, negotiating a cease-fire with the Russians in several regions of Syria, and possibly ending the CIA's not-so-covert role as Grandmaster of Islamic Jihad." Which makes him less dangerous to the human species than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

"Donald Trump has taken the strangest, messiest route imaginable towards fulfilling his campaign pledge to curtail Washington's urge to regime change, and to ease tensions with Russia."

It's not like Donald Trump to "stifle" himself, as TV's Archie Bunker used to say, but the president has been relatively subdued about his decision, reportedly made last month, to terminate the CIA program that has armed, trained, directed and protected jihadist fighters in Syria. Trump's uncharacteristic reticence on the matter is understandable, given the agency's homicidal culture and history.

It is also likely that Trump's gaggle of White House generals, led by Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis and national security advisor H.R. McMaster, have kept the Pentagon in check, preventing a reprise of the mutiny that sabotaged President Obama's cease-fire and intelligence-sharing agreement with Russian forces in Syria, on September 17 of last year. In a blatant rebellion against civilian authority, U.S. warplanes killed 100 Syrian soldiers at Deir Ez-Zor, allowing ISIS to overrun half the city. The next week, with Secretary of Defense Ash Carter at his side, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Senate Armed Services Committee, "The U.S. military role will not include intelligence sharing with the Russians." The Pentagon had "punked" lame duck President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, John Kerry.

"Trump this summer defied the War Party and its corporate media mouthpieces, negotiating a cease-fire with the Russians in several regions of Syria."

Donald Trump took note, and surrounded himself with generals before setting foot in the White House, perhaps to shield his presidency from falling prey to its own " Seven Days In May "-type scenario. Or, maybe Trump the Bully just likes the company of other crude and stupid men. At any rate, Trump this summer defied the War Party and its corporate media mouthpieces, negotiating a cease-fire with the Russians in several regions of Syria, to be followed by additional truces, and ending the CIA's not-so-covert role as Grandmaster of Islamic Jihad. It seemed...unreal.

Peace-loving people around the world held their breath, waiting for the War Party's revenge. Trump seemed to hold his breath -- and his tongue -- too, playing down the cease-fire arrangement, even as French President Emanuel Macron stood at his side in Paris, July 13, telling the press: "No matter who they are, we want to build an inclusive and sustainable political solution. Against that background, I do not require Assad's departure. This is no longer a prerequisite for France to work on that, because I can only tell you that, for seven years, we did not have an embassy in Damascus, and still we have no solution."

Trump was remarkably low-key in Paris: "We are working on a second ceasefire in a very rough part of Syria," he said. "If we get that and a few more, all of a sudden, you're going to have no bullets firing in Syria, and that is a wonderful thing."

People around the world held their breath, waiting for the War Party's revenge."

Back in late March, the Trump administration had signaled its abandonment of regime change, with both UN Ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson indicating that Syrian President Assad's ouster was no longer a priority for the United States. But, within a week, Trump was hurling Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase, purportedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons incident that only a fool or a U.S. corporate media hack would blame on Syria.

Then, two months later, on June 26, in a bizarre episode even for Trump, the administration charged the Syria military with preparing to launch another chemical weapons attack , for which the Assad government would "pay a heavy price." Strangely, the White House seemed to have failed to notify either the Pentagon or the State Department about the Syria threat, or the proposed retaliation.

Stranger still, Trump issued his weaponized rant during the same period when his administration must have been deeply engaged in negotiations on a cease-fire with the Russians. We at Black Agenda Report wondered whether Trump had gone " play-crazy " – "acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon."

Neither paper is concerned that the CIA project violates international laws against unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, or that half a million Syrians have died, as a result."

Or, maybe the outburst was prompted by an aborted attempt to scuttle the talks with the Russians. Or, maybe Trump just had to shout the demons out of his system. Who knows?

The demons at the Washington Post and the New York Times have only one explanation for all earthly phenomena, including the termination of the CIA's jihadist overseer duties in Syria: Trump is "colluding" with the Russians. The Times moaned that "the decision is bound to be welcomed by the Russians." The WP whined that "the Russian government had long opposed the program, seeing it as an assault on its interests." Neither paper is concerned that the CIA project violates international laws against unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, as well as U.S. laws against giving material assistance to al Qaida, a prime beneficiary of CIA weapons, or that half a million Syrians have died, as a result.

Despite his apparent vow of semi-silence on the CIA front, Trump could not resist a Twitter retort . "The Amazon Washington Post fabricated the facts on my ending massive, dangerous, and wasteful payments to Syrian rebels fighting Assad," he wrote, effectively declassifying the now-defunct (are we sure?) CIA terror campaign.

Donald Trump has taken the strangest, messiest, "play-crazy" (or just plain crazy) route imaginable towards fulfilling his campaign pledge to curtail Washington's urge to regime change, and to ease tensions with Russia. His presidency has been six months of pain and confusion.

But, if Hillary Clinton had been elected, we might all be dead.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected] . - Glen Ford's blog

See also - Former CIA Director Calls For A Coup

[Jul 28, 2017] Should Russia provide cutting-edge weapons to India?

Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman | Jul 27, 2017 1:05:02 PM | 110

J Swift | Jul 26, 2017 11:22:12 AM | 59

Why not? Russia does not have that many customers, it needs an independent arms industry and spreading the costs by deals with China and India allows to be military competitive with USA in spite of 10-fold gap in military spending.

Because the spending gap is so large, USA does not really have a problem with matching the technologies, in fact usually it is a pioneer, and there is no problem in reverse engineering what they did not engineer. Where USA has a problem, this is because some new technologies subvert shield/sword balance required by American military doctrine. For example, the first strike doctrine requires anti-missile weapon to mop up the hopefully few missiles that can reach USA after that first strike.

Landing vehicles that can execute a series of turns at highly supersonic speed can be reproduced by USA, but that would verge on pointless. What is important to improve the missile defense so it can cope with missiles that behave in that nasty way, and here there is a potential of improving the sword, the landing vehicles, faster than the shield.

BTW, I do not follow the sword/shield logic on tank warfare. Reactive armor stopped being adequate with the new generation of anti-tank weapons, and countermeasures seem very much attuned to technology aspects that can change in few years.

So tanks may join chariots as a military idea that had its day, but that day is gone (the last time chariots had a positive impact on battles was nearly 100 years ago.

check "tachanka", although "technicals" share the spirit, heavy machine gun type weapon mounted on a cheap civilian vehicle).

[Jul 28, 2017] The new sanctions expose that the US political establishment, spearheaded by the intelligence agencies is opposed to any shift away from the anti-Russia policy developed under the Obama administration.

Notable quotes:
"... The near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress (all "no" votes in the House were from Republicans) testifies to the degree to which the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies directly control the institutions of the state and the personnel that compose them."*** ..."
"... By far the new U.S. bill place the most distressing question mark on the pipeline to northern Europe known as Nord Stream II. Five of Europe's biggest energy companies are all signed on to partner Gazprom in pumping gas westwards. ..."
"... "The Europeans intensely dislike U.S. extraterritoriality, and this will widen the breach between the EU and U.S.," Sir Lyne says. "For the Russians, that is a silver lining." ..."
"... All the Europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy ..."
"... American politicians are also under the bizarre delusion that they can replace Russia's piped gas with LNG exports. This delusion is something else. America imports natural gas! It would have to take a major consumption hit, thereby driving up prices since demand will remain, to supply the EU with 150+ billion cubic meters of gas per year that currently comes from Russia. The USA consumed about 780 bcm of gas in 2016. It does not have a spare 150 bcm to sell. ..."
"... As I alluded yesterday, the USA has staked out a position from which it cannot back away, one which is of surpassing stupidity, because it has accustomed itself to being obeyed and fancies itself such a clever manipulator that it will always get its way. It is critical now that Europe actually stand together and speak with one voice; otherwise, America will begin probing for lack of resolve and unlimbering its divide-and-conquer game. ..."
"... It will also be pretty funny if Russia struggled and pleaded and accepted all manner of small-minded insults just to get into the World Trade Organization, only to see it collapse only a few years later. Because I'm pretty sure what America is trying to pull off here is in gross violation of WTO rules as well. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , July 26, 2017 at 9:32 am

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/26/pers-j26.html

"The new sanctions expose the essential issues behind the "election hacking" campaign of the US media and political establishment, spearheaded by the intelligence agencies that are opposed to any shift away from the anti-Russia policy developed under the Obama administration.

**** The near-unanimous vote in both houses of Congress (all "no" votes in the House were from Republicans) testifies to the degree to which the CIA, NSA and other spy agencies directly control the institutions of the state and the personnel that compose them."***

Northern Star , July 26, 2017 at 9:53 am
http://www.newsweek.com/how-do-sanctions-work-new-us-bill-targets-russia-and-europe-nervous-642136

"One key question now is how Europe will react," Sir Lyne says. "Over Ukraine, the US and EU marched in step. That is not the case now; and the new bill has the potential to make Europe pay a much higher price than the US."

The EU has never been more dependent on Russian gas, according to Bloomberg, as Russia's state-run gas monopoly Gazprom now pumps over a third (34 percent) of Russia's gas. At present, Gazprom has put the kibosh on one pipeline to the EU, known as South Stream but agreed one that will bring gas on the EU's borders, to Turkey.

By far the new U.S. bill place the most distressing question mark on the pipeline to northern Europe known as Nord Stream II. Five of Europe's biggest energy companies are all signed on to partner Gazprom in pumping gas westwards.

Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell, Austria's OMV, France's Engie and Germany's Uniper and Wintershall have agreed to work with Gazprom on the pipeline, collectively covering around half of the nearly $11 billion cost.

The European Commission President Jean Claude-Juncker warned Wednesday that Brussels needs to act "within days" if the U.S. does provide Europe with reassurance that the sanctions will not jeopardize EU interests. A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity told European news site EUobserver, that the European companies would likely not be punished by the U.S. as part of the sanctions but called the situation a "risk" regardless.

"The Europeans intensely dislike U.S. extraterritoriality, and this will widen the breach between the EU and U.S.," Sir Lyne says. "For the Russians, that is a silver lining."

All the europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy

marknesop , July 26, 2017 at 6:31 pm
All the Europeans need do is tell Uncle Sam to go fuck himself with his sanctions That will pull the rug out from under the American psychos behind the rabid sanction lunacy

Of course that is not going to happen, at least not publicly – there will be no outward sign of European rebellion, because that would be 'playing into Putin's hands', and the European elite still loathes Putin enough to not want to be seen doing that. At the same time, Uncle Sam does not want to back down, and an arrangement – even secret – that America would not apply the sanctions to European companies would completely nullify their effect. European companies would simply ignore them and carry on with their plans. So the possibility they might be invoked has to stay, with all the attendant fury that is likely to cause. Juicy as a mango, I think. Official America has been a bully for so long that it's the only problem-solving approach it remembers.

The question that keeps nagging at the corner of my mind, though, is "What if the USA were successful at stopping the construction of Nord Stream II and Russia ceased transit through Ukraine anyway?" After all, this whole effort is focused on forcing Russia to continue transiting a big part of Europe's gas supplies through Ukraine, both to keep Ukraine viable by forcing Russia to engage with it despite its objectionable ideological government, and to keep Ukraine as a bargaining chip to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier.

Washington's assumption is that Russia will continue to transit gas through Ukraine if its alternatives are removed – after all, it's just a big gas station, and it can't live without its gas sales to Europe. But what if, once again, Washington guessed wrong? If I were running Russia – let's pretend, because I'm not – I would orchestrate a series of 'rebel' sabotage attacks on Naftogaz's pipeline network, blowing up substantial parts of it, and then use that as a reason to cease transit of gas through the line: it's just not safe. I would then maximize transit through existing pipelines except Ukraine, perhaps accelerating the completion of Turkish Stream, and publicly and loudly blame any shortfall on American meddling – if Nord Stream had been twinned, you wouldn't have this problem. If it were managed correctly and everything went according to plan, I think it would resonate.

Also, Russia has reduced its dependence on energy exports. It might be worth it to allow a scenario in which Washington got the opportunity to make up for Russian shortfalls, because it would be a complete failure – the export capability is just not there, and if they redoubled their efforts they would lose money like crazy because they could not do it for Russia's prices. Either they would flop at the delivery end, or the Europeans would squeal like pigs because their gas rates went out of sight, or Uncle Sam would take a bath on American exports. Those are the only possible scenarios, it should be emphasized.

kirill , July 26, 2017 at 7:01 pm
We have clear evidence that the politicians in the USA do not have a grip on Russia's economy and exports dependence. By 2019 Russia will have a massive gas pipeline to China. Gas for this pipeline has to come from somewhere and filling it up with Banderastan transit gas would be a good start to put the USA and its EU colony in its place. According to the most recent Awara Group report, the fraction of oil and gas industry in Russia is down to 8% of GDP. Not only is Russia not dependent on oil and gas for its GDP, it will lose nothing by shifting supply away from the EU.

American politicians are also under the bizarre delusion that they can replace Russia's piped gas with LNG exports. This delusion is something else. America imports natural gas! It would have to take a major consumption hit, thereby driving up prices since demand will remain, to supply the EU with 150+ billion cubic meters of gas per year that currently comes from Russia. The USA consumed about 780 bcm of gas in 2016. It does not have a spare 150 bcm to sell.

Northern Star , July 27, 2017 at 11:20 am
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/euro-j27.html

"The European powers reacted sharply yesterday to the US House of Representatives' passage of a bill imposing sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea, indicating that it was unacceptable to European interests and that the European Union (EU) was preparing retaliatory measures."

"Angry commentary over the sanctions bill in the German press underscore that influential forces in the German ruling class see the sanctions bill as yet further evidence of hostile US intent towards Germany and Europe.
"What is particularly dangerous is that supporters of Russia sanctions in Washington are not only trying to put Putin and Trump in the same bag, but also helping the US economy against foreign competition," wrote the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Under the bill, the daily added, "Europeans would be forced to burn less Russian natural gas and more American liquefied natural gas. This is an unfriendly act, especially against Germany."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung wrote that, "with all due respect for the Senate and its ambition to tie President Donald Trump's hands on Russia policy, the draft law is unacceptable from a European perspective. First, it breaks the diplomatic alliance between Europe and the United States in deciding on sanctions against Russia. The argument that America is promoting Europe's energy security is also quite insolent. That is Europe's responsibility. This is how you lose friends."

The question that is emerging is whether the US-EU military rivalry and bitter trade conflicts will now coalesce and escalate into a catastrophic breakdown in US-EU relations!in the form of a trade war that would bring the world economy to its knees, or of outright military conflict."

Hmmm .So the RWETA is born.. Russia &Western EuropeTrade Allliance

marknesop , July 27, 2017 at 5:37 pm
Why make it more complicated than it is? The French are in the lead for once – such sanctions are a violation of international law. Consequently no other nations are obligated to abide by them. If America levied a massive fine against BASF Wintershall, and that company simply ignored it, what would America do? Start booting out German companies in the USA? Melt BMW's and pour them down the drains in the street?

As I alluded yesterday, the USA has staked out a position from which it cannot back away, one which is of surpassing stupidity, because it has accustomed itself to being obeyed and fancies itself such a clever manipulator that it will always get its way. It is critical now that Europe actually stand together and speak with one voice; otherwise, America will begin probing for lack of resolve and unlimbering its divide-and-conquer game.

The really funny part in this, from my viewpoint, is the way the Europeans blame Trump and his presidency. Granted, he did frame the 'America first' policy, but that's just a convenient handle for the angry Europeans to grab. Trump entered office with the declared intention of mending the damaged relationship with Russia, and it was the Democrats who created an hysterical firestorm of accusation that Russia had greased Trump's way into office. It has been ideologues outside Trump's circle who crafted the sanctions legislation with a view to preventing him from lifting the sanctions under his own recognizance.

It will also be pretty funny if Russia struggled and pleaded and accepted all manner of small-minded insults just to get into the World Trade Organization, only to see it collapse only a few years later. Because I'm pretty sure what America is trying to pull off here is in gross violation of WTO rules as well.

[Jul 28, 2017] A Ray of Hope by Paul Craig Roberts

Jul 28, 2017 | www.unz.com

Europe hosts US military bases that threaten Russia. Europe has backed Washington's wars of aggression against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Washington's air attacks on provinces of Pakistan, and Washington's use of Saudi Arabia to fight its proxie war against Yemen.

Europe has backed Washington's gratuitous economic sanctions against Iran and Russia, sanctions that have cost Europe much and Washington little.

Accustomed to having its way with Europe, Washington commits Europe without even consulting the vassal governments. Now it seems Washington's extraordinary arrogance and hubris has resulted in overreach. Confronted with a new round of sanctions against Russia, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission told Washington that the time has passed when Washington can put its interests first and Europe's last.

The new sanctions have devastating economic and political consequences for Europe. Juncker said that if Europe's "concerns are not taken into account sufficiently, we stand ready to act appropriately within a matter of days."

The German and French foreign ministries added their support to Juncker. The German foreign ministry said: "It is not in the Americans' right to judge or stipulate which way European companies may engage in cooperation with any third parties – particularly, with Russian energy companies."

The French foreign ministry said: the sanctions "contradict international law" due to their "extraterritorial reach."

Europe views the sanctions as a tool of US industrial policy that elevates US business interests over Europe's business interests.

Let's hope that Washington's arrogance will not permit Washington to back down and that Europe will give Washington the finger and disengage from the American Empire. Without Europe to host its military bases and to parrot its propaganda, Washington's ability to threaten Russia would significantly decline. Indeed, a continuation of the hostile threatening attitude toward Russia would leave Washington isolated in the world. No country wants the risk of experiencing nuclear war merely for the sake of Washington's unilateralism.

[Jul 28, 2017] The sanctions are as much against Germany as against Russia

Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

AtaBrit | Jul 27, 2017 7:18:18 AM | 101

@Julian | 58

"They need the Germans/EU to actually start a serious pushback"

Fully agree. And as another commenter here stated the sanctions are as much against Germany as against Russia.
The question in my mind is the timing and force. Germany has to maintain a cohesive Europe while managing relations and antagonisms between US and RF. RF is also mindful of this and I doubt Putin would willingly make things difficult for Merkel.

A measured, long-term approach is what we're seeing and the US sanctions are a.kid throwing his toys put of the pram ... The US wants an over-reaction to this childness.

karlof1 | Jul 27, 2017 2:30:51 PM | 114
Thanks for the replies! Lots to think and write about, so hard to focus.

Seems to me the newest sanctions are also a test to see if the EU Parliament and EC will remain corrupted and thus bow down and allow the sanctions to ruin EU's economy.

The only way out I can see is for the EU to call-out all the Big Lies upon which the entire sanctions regime is based beginning with the still referred to Big Lie that Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 instead of the proven truth--Georgia attacked South Ossetia. Then there are the tremendous number of Big Lies aimed at Iran, which began in 1979, but which were greatly escalated by BushCo and its Greater Zion project.

Opening an aggressive investigation into Clinton Foundation illegalities within EU would also help. Logic suggests Europeans must switch sides at some point, overthrowing the Atlanticists and embrace Eurasianism and its Multipolar Alliance. Unfortunately, I believe the EU's corrupted beyond all hope and it will submit-- again . It seems there's only one real Champion of European Independence and it's Vladimir Putin.

[Jul 28, 2017] Perhaps Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

Highly recommended!
The problem is that that appointing a Special Prosecutor was a special operation directed against Trump. So Session behavior was the behavior of enabler of this special operation. Whether he did so because he was afraid of of being tarred and feathered with Russian connections himself, or he simply behayed Trump is unknown. But reclusing himself in such a critical for Trump Presidency matter is probably betrayal in any case.
Notable quotes:
"... The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself back into the Russia investigation. ..."
"... For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with something to hide. ..."
"... Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation. ..."
"... I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already been gone through thoroughly, he is clean. ..."
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

different clue -> Kooshy... Kooshy, 25 July 2017 at 08:52 PM

The only reason I can think of for Trump to want Sessions removed from the Attorney Generalship is so Trump can get another Attorney General who can be said to be unconnected to Russian-whatever, and can therefore DE-recuse himself back into the Russia investigation.

Trump would then want his new Attorney General to fire Mueller and fire whomever Mueller reports to. I can't think of any other reason why Trump would want Sessions removed.

For someone with nothing to hide, Trump sure behaves like someone with something to hide. The problem here is that Trump has such a trashy personality and such all-around trashy behavior that pure spite and irritation for no good reason at all is just as good a motive for Trump to want Sessions gone.

Sessions won't want to go. He has a legal-ideological mission at Justice. He won't resign. He will tough it out in place as long as he can.

Hopefully some thread of this Trump bussiness will be wound around some thread of the Democrats's bussiness, giving Mueller a plausibly defensible reason to pull some Democratic affairs into this Trump investigation.

bks -> different clue... 25 July 2017 at 09:52 PM

Perhaps Trump asked sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions refused?

different clue -> bks ... 26 July 2017 at 12:23 AM

bks,

That could be, but we will never know as long as Sessions remains AG. Because Sessions will remain focused on the DoJ mission, and not get involved in a spat-fight with Trump.

Also, if indeed Trump did ask Sessions to fire Mueller and Sessions declined to do so; perhaps Sessions has given Trump reason to understand that firing Sessions would play right into the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative which the Remove Trump forces are engineering.

And perhaps Sessions will have given Trump reason to understand further that even having given Sessions the reQUEST to fire Mueller could in itself further the "Obstruction of Justice" narrative. But in the event of imparting that further level of understanding unto the Trumpster, Sessions will then have followed up by reassuring Trump that as long as Trump does not fire Sessions, no one need ever know that Trump asked Sessions to fire Mueller. In the event of all these dominoes having fallen "just so" in a private discussion between these two men, Sessions will have reassured Trump that "no one need ever know about the request" . . . for as long as Sessions remains AG without being fired.

This is all pure speculation following on from your speculative question. We of the Great Uncleared will never know what has or hasn't been said behind the locked doors of steel and oak.

Kooshy -> different clue...25 July 2017 at 11:29 PM

I agree with the first part of your comment, but IMO the reason he wants Muller (or any Special investigator) removed is that he don't want his past business dealing and tax returns to be investigated, IMO they are scared of old days business deals, write off etc. and i think that's what Demos and Borg wants to pull out in a legal public way, and not the Russian connection. IMO the real sewer lies in past business and tax deals.

ked -> Kooshy... 26 July 2017 at 02:05 PM

If the "real sewer lies in past business and tax deals" and those happen to be penetrated by "the Russian connection", what then?

LondonBob -> Kooshy... 27 July 2017 at 05:42 AM

I don't agree with any of the comment. Mueller's investigation serves the purpose of politically handicapping Trump and it looks like a classic perjury trap, they are trying to get him or his circle for obstruction of justice. Something remarkably easy to do as Martha Stewart or Frank Quattrone could attest. Trump's background will have already been gone through thoroughly, he is clean.

Sessions offered his resignation a while back after he recused himself, Trump refused. Spicer went quickly and quietly, so would Sessions if he wanted him gone.

VietnamVet said... 25 July 2017 at 06:34 PM

PT

This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride.

It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet. Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:

"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of."

Augustin L said... 25 July 2017 at 09:41 PM

John Helmer on Jared Kushner's testinomonial to stupidity and unfitness. http://johnhelmer.net/jared-kushners-testimonial-to-stupidity-and-unfitness-american-and-russian/

[Jul 28, 2017] Countdown To War On Venezuela

Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. just ordered the relatives of its embassy employees out of the country. Such is only done when imminent action is expected. ..."
"... Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked well as government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military. A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire. ..."
"... If we compare and contrast Venezuela and Russia, however, it seems clear that the difference in their economic situation is largely due to the fact that Russia got rid of oligarchs with ties to foreign interests (Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky etc.) and made sure the remaining ones couldn't interfere in domestic politics; Venezuela didn't manage to do this. ..."
"... In addition, Venezuela over-relied on high oil prices to finance social programs and economic growth, so when the oil price collapsed, so did their domestic economy; Russia was much smarter about this and has managed to successfully weather the oil price collapse; this is also because Venezuela has "extra-heavy" oil (full of sulfur, acids, salts, heavy metals, etc., requiring much higher processing costs to convert to usable fuel), so it was hit hard by the fall in oil prices. Failure to diversify the economy, in other words. Putin, in contrast, constantly talks about the need for Russia to diversify and continue technological advancement. ..."
"... People is starving. The government have admit it. There is a severe shortage of medicines, kids are dying because of that. Child mortality have increased a lot, sadly. Poverty index has also increased. ..."
"... Telesur on the food crisis - yes it exists Due to fixed prices that make it possible to reexport with a profit. ..."
"... Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war - it's regime change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business about Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with Iran - making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest." ..."
"... Wow. you surely must be missing the fact that people are being killed on the streets, dying from a lack of medicine, there is little food to be had. Lots of people leaving the country to be refuges in Brazil and Colombia ..."
"... Venezuela is going through a coup, simple as that, and Maduro and Chavez are/were no heroes. The fact that other countries tried to mess with them in the past does not change that. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

On Sunday Venezuela will hold an general election of participants of a constitutional assembly. Half of the representatives will be elected from regular electoral districts. The other half will be elected from and by eight special constituencies like "workers", "farmers", "employers", etc. The second part may be unusual but is no less democratic than the U.S. system which gives voters in rural states more weight than city dwellers.

The new assembly will formulate changes to the current constitution. Those changes will be decided on in another general vote. It is likely that the outcome will reinforce the favorite policies of a great majority of the people and of the social-democratic government under President Manduro.

The more wealthy part of the population as well as the foreign lobbies and governments have tried to prevent or sabotage the upcoming election. The U.S. has used various economic pressure points against the Venezuelan government including economic warfare with ever increasing sanctions . The opposition has held violent street rallies, attacked government institutions and supporters and called for general strikes.

But the NYT propaganda pictures of opposition rallies in the capitol Caracas show only small crowds of dozens to a few hundred of often violent youth. The opposition calls for general strikes have had little resonance as even the feverish anti-Maduro Washington Post has to concede :

In the wealthier eastern half of the city, most businesses closed to support the strike called by the opposition, which is boycotting the vote and calling for its cancellation.

The main highways of the capital city were largely closed down in the early morning , and reports surfaced of national police lobbing tear gas at strikers in the center. In the poorer neighborhoods in the west, the strike appeared less pronounced , with more businesses open and more people on the streets.

(Translation of the WaPo propagandese: "Not even the rich opposition neighborhoods of the city closed down completely. Attempts by the opposition to block central roads were prevented by the police. In the poorer parts of the city the opposition call for a strike was simply ignored.") The opposition is only active within the richer strata of the population and only in a few big cities. The poor rural areas have gained under the social-democratic governments and continue to favor it.

In an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times the "regime change" lobby of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) laid out the steps towards an upcoming war in Venezuela:

Since the plebiscite, Venezuela's opposition has taken steps toward establishing a parallel government. This might remain a symbolic initiative. But if the opposition continues down this road, it will soon be looking for international recognition and funding, and will at least implicitly be asserting the parallel government's claim to the legitimate monopoly on the use of force. After that it will seek what every government wants: weapons to defend itself. If it succeeds, Venezuela could plunge into a civil war that will make the current conflict seem like high school fisticuffs.

(The WOLA was also involved in Hillary Clinton's coup in Honduras.)

The CIA is quite open about the plans:

In one of the clearest clues yet about Washington's latest meddling in the politics of Latin America, CIA director Mike Pompeo said he was "hopeful that there can be a transition in Venezuela and we the CIA is doing its best to understand the dynamic there".

He added: "I was just down in Mexico City and in Bogota a week before last talking about this very issue, trying to help them understand the things they might do so that they can get a better outcome for their part of the world and our part of the world."

The piece notes:

In Venezuela, [the U.S. government] has sought to weaken the elected governments of both Mr Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, who was briefly ousted in a 2002 coup. Some of the effort has been in distributing funds to opposition groups through organisations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, while some has been in the form of simple propaganda.

In May 2016 unidentified US officials told reporters in a background briefing that Venezuela was descending into a deepening "crisis" that could end in violence.

We can conclude that the upcoming violence in Venezuela is not a spontaneous action of the opposition but the implementation of a plan that has been around since at least May 2016. It is likely to follow the color revolution by force script the U.S. developed and implemented in several countries over the last decade. Weapon supply and mercenary support for the opposition will come in from and through the neighboring countries the CIA head visited.

The vote to the constitutional assembly will proceed as planned. The opposition will attempt to sabotage it or, if that fails, proceed with violence. Weapons and tactical advice and support have likely already been provided through CIA channels.

The Venezuelan government is supported by a far larger constituency than the U.S. aligned right-wing opposition. The military has shown no sign of disloyalty to the government. Unless there is some unforeseeable event any attempt to overthrow the government will fail.

The U.S. can further hurt Venezuela by closing down oil imports from the country. But this will likely increase U.S. gas prices. It would create a some short term inconvenience for Venezuela, but oil is fungible and other customers will be available.

To overthrow the Venezuelan government has been tried since the first election of a somewhat socialist government in 1999. The U.S. instigated coup in 2002 failed when the people and the military stood up against the blatant interference. The "regime change" methods have since changed with the added support of a militant "democratic opposition" fed from the outside. The use of that tool had negative outcomes in Libya and Ukraine and it failed in Syria. I am confident that the government of Venezuela has analyzed those cases and prepared its own plans to counter a similar attempt.

The U.S. just ordered the relatives of its embassy employees out of the country. Such is only done when imminent action is expected.

Posted by b on July 28, 2017 at 05:52 AM | Permalink

Bebert | Jul 28, 2017 6:13:37 AM | 1

let's pray for the Venezuelan people. be strong against CIA proxy ops!

El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido.

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 6:20:54 AM | 2
b. The problem with your narrative are the parlamentary elections of 2015 where the government decidedly lost .

To go to civil war from there shows what is at stake in an oil rich country and how irresponsible the players are.

nmb | Jul 28, 2017 6:58:15 AM | 3
What really happened in Venezuela
hemendik | Jul 28, 2017 7:01:44 AM | 4
http://misionverdad.com/mv-in-english
Peter AU 1 | Jul 28, 2017 7:21:34 AM | 6
I noticed the an article in Reuters on US evacuating embassy families and took it to mean a US coup was underway. Hopefully Venezuela has some countermeasures in place.
V. Arnold | Jul 28, 2017 7:38:57 AM | 7
b, I don't see any mention of Russia's involvement in Venezuela. It's my understanding Russia has some arm's agreement with the government. Any information on that?
E | Jul 28, 2017 7:59:26 AM | 8
RT has an interview with Nicolas Maduro here: https://www.rt.com/shows/rt-interview/397785-nicolas-maduro-interview-rt/

The sound is annoying, but it is worth a listen. Maduro also makes the Ukraine-case.

Hal C | Jul 28, 2017 8:09:11 AM | 9
"The Russian state-owned Rosneft holds a 49.9 percent stake in the Venezuelan-owned, U.S.-based refiner Citgo [...] If Rosneft decides to up that to 51 then all of a sudden Citgo because subject to Russian sanctions."
link
somebody | Jul 28, 2017 8:28:30 AM | 10
3

Yep, the problem Venezuela's Minister of Economic Planning describes is that they fund subsistence goods and fix prices. So people smuggle stuff out of the country and make money on the difference to the market price.

They can't just print money and expect to get Dollar for that. That is not economic war. You seem to be able to make counterfeit dollars from Venezuelan currency though - that is the only explanation for the smuggling of currency out of the country.

It is futile to try an economy like that in a country like Venezuela. It kind of worked in the Soviet block with a tightly controlled iron curtain. People reverted a lot to exchanging goods directly there, as the planned distribution did not work. The only socialism that works is to hand the people the money to afford the market price (and to tax it from people who own more than they can spend).

Venezuela's countryside will be ok via subsistence farming. The problems in the cities must be huge.

xor | Jul 28, 2017 8:35:17 AM | 11
A couple of months ago that Brazilian far right parasite called Temer invited the US military to his country that borders Venezuela to the north. Brazil Invites US to Use Amazon Military Base
A P | Jul 28, 2017 9:06:31 AM | 12
The Venezuelan gov't probably still has a large portion of 100,000 aces up their sleeves. 100,000 Kalashnikovs sold to Venezuela in the late 2000's and a licensed factory to produce more near completion. And a significant number of Russian helicopters and other arms. I think the US-backed "opposition" knows an attempted Maidan-redux will end with a lot of dead rich Venezuelan collaborators. The gov't police are containing the "youth gangs", which will not provide the type of large scale "protester" cover the US/NATO "special forces" snipers used to kill both police and protesters in Kiev. The US/Zionist regime-change script is well known to average Venezuelans, tough to recruit dupes to march/riot on behalf of US-paid agitators.

Whoever the Venezuelan Porkyshenko and "our man Yats" are, they better look to their own safety rather than thinking the US will be able (or willing) to protect them when the SHTF. The US "diplomatic" (read CIA/black-ops command) corps pulling out means the "opposition" leaders are on their own. Funny thing about bully-cowards the US backs... they all all tough guys as long as there is a lot of dupes between them and the gunfire, but are sniveling weaklings when confronted without their CIA-paid thugs.

ger | Jul 28, 2017 9:35:19 AM | 13
Drat, if I did not know better, I would concluded the Americans are interfering in another sovereign country ... as usual. Coming soon to Venezuela, an American ass kissing oligarch stealing natural resources?

Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked well as government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military. A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire.

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 9:48:53 AM | 14
12

agree

Venezuela signs mining deal with China

A First: China and Russia Will Jointly Host International Army Games

China, Russia, Angola, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela will participate the competition.

Russia will bring its own military equipment, but the other countries will use Chinese military equipment.

New York Times: Wider U.S. Sanctions on Venezuela Risk Biting Both Countries

And this here is a very hostile article but tells you something of the likelihood Venezuelan armed forces will defect

Maduro, like Chavez before him, depends on thousands of Cuban military and intelligence officials who are in Venezuela to prop up his regime. Many of those Cubans are embedded in the Venezuelan military, working as snitches and hampering chances the armed forces could splinter and support the opposition's efforts to end Maduro's dictatorship.

The Sino Venezuelan strategic partnership

There is more.

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 10:26:49 AM | 15
Most people are ignorant about the opposition:

The Violent Past Of Leopoldo Lopez, Poster Boy For The Venezuelan Opposition

In 2002, while still serving as mayor, López participated directly in the U.S.-backed coup attempt aimed at removing democratically elected President Hugo Chávez from power. López specifically participated in the illegal detention of then-Minister of the Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín, as well as violent attacks against Caracas' Cuban Embassy that saw a group of protesters try to violently enter the building. When they could not force their entry, they cut off water and electricity to the building and smashed windows and vehicles.

Chávez pardoned López for his role in the coup in 2007 and López was only barred from holding political office from 2008 to 2014 following the revelation of his past corrupt dealings at PDVSA, as well as the discovery of his misuse of public funds while mayor.

If Lopez did this in the United States or any European country do you think he would be out of jail?

Anonymous | Jul 28, 2017 10:45:47 AM | 16
ger @13

The US is getting its ass handed to it in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, the Philippines, China, North Korea. It is acting just like its owner -- whenever Israel is frustrated it takes out its frustrations on the poor Gazans. The US takes it out on some usually hapless and defenseless country.

nonsense factory | Jul 28, 2017 11:02:53 AM | 17
@14 somebody,

I'm don't know a whole lot about the current situation in Venezuela, but I do know that the sources you reference are not going to provide independent reliable information about the sitution there; what you're linking to looks more like propaganda for domestic consumption.

If we compare and contrast Venezuela and Russia, however, it seems clear that the difference in their economic situation is largely due to the fact that Russia got rid of oligarchs with ties to foreign interests (Berezovsky, Gusinsky, Khodorkovsky etc.) and made sure the remaining ones couldn't interfere in domestic politics; Venezuela didn't manage to do this.

In addition, Venezuela over-relied on high oil prices to finance social programs and economic growth, so when the oil price collapsed, so did their domestic economy; Russia was much smarter about this and has managed to successfully weather the oil price collapse; this is also because Venezuela has "extra-heavy" oil (full of sulfur, acids, salts, heavy metals, etc., requiring much higher processing costs to convert to usable fuel), so it was hit hard by the fall in oil prices. Failure to diversify the economy, in other words. Putin, in contrast, constantly talks about the need for Russia to diversify and continue technological advancement.

The US State Department / CIA game is pretty obvious, their goal is to work with the Venezuelan plutocratic families to overthrow the government, after which the state-owned oil companies will be privatized and a controlling share >51% will be offered to Exxon or Chevron, and they'll then be called a model of humanitarian and democratic values by the State Department (now conveniently headed by Exxon's agent, Rex Tillerson). Same old repetitive bullshit, in other words. If you want more details, see Steve Coll, author also of Ghost Wars (on Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and bin Laden in the 1980s and 1990s):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvPobwco-AE

This kind of crap doesn't benefit the average American citizen in any way; all the proceeds go to Exxon's executives and their billionaire shareholders. All the money wasted on these neoliberal projects would be far better spent building out our domestic infrastructure at home.

OJS | Jul 28, 2017 11:06:14 AM | 18
b
Excellent analysis. I'm up to date another regime changes in Venezuela as I was in Ukraine (2013).

Abby Martin was in Venezuela last week interviewed the oppositions (TRNN and Telesur). Russia and China
seem to be the only major players supporting Mr Maduro for now. Thanks

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/

virgile | Jul 28, 2017 11:19:52 AM | 19
After the failure of the 'regime change' in Syria, the CIA and the neo-cons are itching to get one in Venezuela where Russia can't intervene easily. Hopefully it will fail again.
DW | Jul 28, 2017 11:28:53 AM | 20
I heard Iran and Hizbullah have a huge underground presence in Venezuela helping Maduro. Just kidding, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that in the WaPo and NYT.
somebody | Jul 28, 2017 11:30:14 AM | 21
17) None of the information is independent, reliable. All claims are based on reality, the difference is the evaluation.

You can't compare a huge country like Russia, with a new post-soviet oligarchy, and a small country like Venezuela with heavy dependence on the United States (and new dependence on China) with an old traditional oligarchy.

But whatever, Venezuela is in a constitutional crisis, a parliament opposed to the government. To solve that on the street means civil war.

falcemartello | Jul 28, 2017 11:33:21 AM | 22
Just another day at the office. Meanwhile Wasserman -Schultz and the DNC get exposed with more shenanigans with the Pakaistani IT guys . Further more to find out that Wasserman -Shchultz brother is overlooking the case. Talk about an inside job.
The Congress has just extended its act of war on Russia,Iran and North Korea but hell to quote Hitler in Drag (Hillary) What difference does it make.
How western history repeats itself as we enter this age of absurdity. We are entering a period very similar to the build up of WW1 . Is humanity that blinded?
This is all going to end very badly. Will Europe finally come out of its vassal like slumber to these vile anglo-zionist whom have poisoned western civilisation from the assassination of Lincoln and McKinley to the greatest theft of them all the 10nth crusade on the ME.
Are we all that blind. Look at Temur in Brazil knee deep in government fraud and Rouseff gets impeached on trumped up accusations along with Lulu. Are we that ignorant and self absorbed that we the sheeple not c the writing on the wall.
Chile all over again this time with boo Kissinger to lead the way.
How Ironic that Kissinger and Obama both recipients of the Nobel peace prize never get challenged on their crimes against humanity.
Sorry no its not related to the Venezuela imbroglio but they are connected to this evil BY DECEPTOION YOU MAY WAGE WAR just to coin the famous moto of the Rothschild secret service.
nonsense factory | Jul 28, 2017 11:39:56 AM | 23
@21 somebody. Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war - it's regime change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business about Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with Iran - making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest.

And this is the problem with US foreign policy these days - rather than being more competitive than China or anyone else, rather than saying we'll give you a better deal if you do business with us, it's always "do business with us on our terms or we'll stage a coup and plunge your country into civil war." You know this perfectly well, as do all the owners of the sources you reference, like the NYTimes, (notable cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with all the BS about WMDs), etc.

It's called the Tonya Harding model of economic competition - rather than being the best, the goal is to kneecap anyone who gets in the way. Second rate, isn't it?

Inkan1969 | Jul 28, 2017 11:48:18 AM | 24
"Democratic opposition" is impossible under the rules defined by this website. Any attempt to oppose the policy of a favored government is inherently branded "violent" or "terrorist".
nonsense factory | Jul 28, 2017 12:01:34 PM | 25
@24 Inkan1969

Sure, taking a helicopter and strafing government buildings as a means of "political opposition", that's not violent, that's not terrorism. Pfffffttttt... cn you imagine what people would be saying if a Muslim member of some domestic U.S. police agency did that???? FFS. Did the US State Department condemn that action? Not at all.

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 12:20:30 PM | 26
20 :-)) of course. Venezuela is part of the resistance axis .
wendy davis | Jul 28, 2017 12:22:00 PM | 27
thanks for keeping up with this, b. may i add that the misionverdad link at hemendik 4 is key to the emergency speed at which this is progressing now. this has both the misionverdad.com english exposé, but also news of an even larger Exxon 'discovery' field off the coast of VZ that's claimed by guyana. as far as i can make out, the UN case hasn't been settled yet, but you know that Tillerson's attorneys, nikki haley, et.al., w/ a bit of help from all the compromised NGOs will get it done.

will the military keep supporting the chavistas? so far they have, and have even written open letters to Trump, Pompeo, with their collective middle fingers extended.

https://cafe-babylon.net/2017/07/27/exxon-is-already-occupying-venezuela/

okie farmer | Jul 28, 2017 12:32:42 PM | 28
Maduro Calls on Trump to 'Stop Aggression Towards Venezuela'
Maduro mused that he'd cherish the opportunity to "extend (Trump) a handshake and to tell him that we're in the 21st century."
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro reiterated that his country wants to live in peace during an interview with RT Spanish Wednesday.
Faced with a new round of U.S. sanctions against 13 Venezuelan senior officials, Maduro urged U.S. President Donald Trump to exercise reason and halt his administration's interventionist policy in Venezuela.
"As president, I appeal to him, to President Donald Trump: Stop aggression towards Venezuela. Venezuela is a fundamental basis of stability in the whole Caribbean Basin," Maduro said.
Contemplating an eventual meeting with Trump, Maduro mused that he'd cherish the opportunity to "extend (Trump) a handshake and to tell him that we're in the 21st century." He added that U.S. officials should "dismiss the Monroe Doctrine" because times have changed and these times required an acceptance of "diversity and new, more advanced relationships."
Venezuela's head of state noted that U.S. foreign affairs strategists should deliberate with greater rationale and end their aggressive stance because "Venezuela wants to live in peace, it wants to live quietly."
He emphasized, however, that if the situation deteriorates beyond the harmonious confines of dialogue and peace, something that the people of Venezuela desperately want, "the Bolivarian Revolution will have to take up arms and, once again, we'll be fighting under the same flag."
Confronted by an emboldened opposition which has been documented to work closely with sanctions-wielding Washington, Maduro recalled that he'd spent almost the entire month of May "seeking direct dialogue" with them in order for Venezuelan society as a whole to "become members of the Constituent Assembly, but they refused."
Adding that his political adversaries have ventured to "the radical right," skirting even traditional allies "who voted for them," Maduro admitted that his greatest error as president was to "underestimate the opposition, their capacity to inflict damage, their malice, their capacity for violence."
Maduro also announced that Venezuela will sign new gas and oil agreements with Russia, as he emphasized the importance of maintaining good economic partnerships with major powers.
"For the second half of the year, important documents will be signed to expand bilateral investments between Russian oil and gas companies and our PDVSA," Maduro told Russia Today.
The announcement comes as the United States increasingly threatens and enacts sanctions against Venezuela. On Wednesday the U.S. Treasury Department made good on Trump threats to impose sanctions on the country if the National Constituent Assembly vote went forward on Sunday, July 30.
Maduro confirmed that despite U.S. attempts to rattle Venezuela's economy via an "indirect blockade," the country is equipped to meet all challenges. The end game of such obstruction, as was attempted in 2015 and 2016, Maduro argued, is to force Venezuela's economy to default.
Despite these attempts, he said that the country has always "paid its bills, met its obligations." In the event of a complete cutoff between Caracas and Washington, Maduro assured that "the roads leading to the west, to the south, and to the east, fortunately, will stay open for Venezuela."
Maduro explained that it is essential to maintain good relations and strong partnerships with major global economic powers like Russia and China, and that he was thankful for the solidarity expressed to Venezuela by these nations.
The president said that Russian-Venezuelan relations are "advancing at a good pace," particularly in the realm of oil, considering the significant investments that Russia has in the Orinoco oil fields.
In addition to oil trade, the two countries share a broad range of mutual cooperation encompassing over 200 agreements in fields ranging from medicine to tourism, agriculture, and mining.
james | Jul 28, 2017 12:50:38 PM | 29
thanks b.. i hope you are wrong, but 60 years of usa bullshit intervention suggests you are right! these fuckers just can't stop it.. all in the name of exxon or whatever other kleptomaniac they have yanking their strings...

many good and informative comments... thanks everyone..

i agree with @17/23 nonsense factory viewpoint.

@ 24 Inkan1969... huh? are you trying to suggest the venezuala opposition is the new improved version of the '''moderate rebels''' the usa and it's buddies support in syria? give it up.. this colour revolution, moderate rebel, opposition crap is stale..

psychohistorian | Jul 28, 2017 12:52:01 PM | 30
@ okie farmer with the report from Maduro

Thank you for that. His words are such a contrast in style with those coming from the petulant man-child the US currently calls president. I wish more Americans could see their country for the latest projection of private finance empire that it really is.

Thanks b for the depth and breadth of the journalism that you share.......I am happy and impressed that you don't just report on Syria as an earlier commenter would have you do......

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 1:06:32 PM | 31
Venezuelan here!

Hope Maduro leave the country soon or least let us to have the peace he can't provide. It is a nightmare in here, and most of it has been caused by economic policies applied by him and Hugo Chávez that basically destroyed the country economy, its productivity, while being reliant on high oil prices that didn't last enough to make a good transition towards communism but instead created the perfect storm to let people know that we don't want to elect another socialist president never again in our life.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."-JFK

Thank you for posting this article!

AriusArmenian | Jul 28, 2017 1:20:06 PM | 32
Can't the US stay out of any other people's business?
Humanity must sanction the US before it brings on even greater disasters.
I wish millions of Americans would march on Washington to end its nonsense.
psychohistorian | Jul 28, 2017 1:24:26 PM | 33
@ Enrique Mendoza who claims to live in Venezuelan

Thank you for your comment. Please share with us your social and economic background.......America is still propped up by those that think they stand to "lose" with socialistic economies....are you one of those, is my question?

i believe that the perfect storm that you are referring to was caused by the world of global private finance and not through the fault of Chavez or Maduro. And that perfect storm is now being writ large all over the world.....we will see how it plays out.

Mike Maloney | Jul 28, 2017 1:34:37 PM | 34
Good, somewhat long, article on Venezuela is Greg Grandin's " Down from the Mountain ." Grandin argues that the working class will remain loyal to the government:
Marches and countermarches are usually a signal that history is on the move, that change, of some kind, is coming. But Venezuela is in stasis. Negotiations between the government and its opponents are announced, and then called off. The Vatican says it will mediate and the Organisation of American states says it will intervene, but nothing happens. Both sides, it seems, are waiting, tremulously, for the barrios populares,filled with working-class people, to render their verdict. Anti-government forces have called on them to join their protests, and have even encouraged them to loot and riot. These calls, for the most part, have gone unanswered. As the historian Alejandro Velasco has pointed out, Chávez acknowledged these people on a primal level, recognising them as citizens with legitimate demands and fundamental rights. In exchange, they turned out again and again on the streets and at the polls to defend the Bolivarian revolution. In contrast, anti-government forces want them as shock troops to break the deadlock. Maduro may have lost their goodwill, but social gains won in the heyday of Chavismo – schools, food distribution centres, health clinics, daycare – are still functioning, however stressed, in these neighbourhoods, and while their residents may not be actively supporting the government, they aren't yet ready to overthrow it. Meanwhile Chávez, in death as in life, continues to transcend the polarisation. According to a recent poll, 79 per cent picked him as the best president the country has ever had. A slightly smaller but still large majority say he was Venezuela's most democratic and efficient leader.
Pnyx | Jul 28, 2017 1:51:06 PM | 35
I strongly hope a war can be avoided in Venezuela, but if not it will be as difficult for the u.s. to ram through a regime change as in Syria. If they insist this will be another humilation for them.
Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 1:54:48 PM | 36
@psychohistorian

I'm recently graduate myself in high school but I'll start studies in the School of Economy in here, therefore I've been studying the economy of Venezuela by at least 4 years with the resources I have (internet mostly), its history and also political science to understand the crisis in my own country, knowing that I'm prepare myself to improve my country in the future.

I believe every country always must a balance between socialism economic policies and capitalism. The thing is that every economy in the world does have capitalism as its main socioeconomic system where they use "socialist" policies published as state welfare only to improve what capitalism can't. In other words, these countries use welfare policies to improve their capitalist system, totally avoiding the philosophic and behavioral implications of having a socialist economy; they don't try to abolish the state to implement better healthcare, or abolishing the money to create foods programs.

Only Cuba and Venezuela don't have capitalist economies because the economic system was replaced by socialism.

Chávez and Maduro caused this nightmare. Both worked to destroy capitalism, they then had to afront the consequences of that; the difficulty to have commercial relations with other countries that aren't socialist at all. This wasn't a problem for Chávez at the beginning because Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves, I'd say oil market is the biggest in the world, and he used strategically to make the entire country economy reliant on oil while Venezuela oil passed to be controlled by the executive power when he nationalized the oil industry in 2003-2004. He used this economic power to replace non oil productivity with imports which caused less productivity in Venezuela, lack of investment in our industries.

This lack of investment now has its roots for the crisis happening now. Hugo Chávez and Maduro got into massive debt Venezuela can't pay back because oil income isn't enough. Imports decreased massively and there wasn't any replacement due lack of internal productivity. There you have the food and medicine shortage.

What was Maduro and Chávez problem's? They never foreseen the oil glut. They thought China economy would grow indefintly and they also thought that the US could never increase its oil productivity for energy independence. They also failed at replacing peacefully the production method because the economic crisis started before they could achieve the transition towards communism.

Bart | Jul 28, 2017 1:56:03 PM | 37
Of course the irony-adverse WaPo ignores the fact that we are again "meddling in a foreign election"
Alaric | Jul 28, 2017 2:00:47 PM | 38
Re: Enrique Mendoza

"It is a nightmare in here, and most of it has been caused by economic policies applied by him and Hugo Chávez that basically destroyed the country economy"

This is nonsense. I have family in Venezuela and I've traveled there a bit. Venezuela has always been a disaster and the country has been overly reliant on oil for a looooong time. What changed is that the small, formerly privileged middle class that is primarily composed of white people living in the nicer parts of Caracas are now suffering whereas they used to live quite well. Some of the suffering is real due shortages of certain things (corn flower, etc) but a lot more is a rollback of privilege - " oh no we can't travel to the US to shop or travel to Europe." Still more of the suffering is imaginary and simply a regurgitation of right wing Venezuelan media. The Gabby Martin Telesur video touches on this but speak with Venezuelans of the middle class and you'll hear the exact same script, a small amount of which is true but most can be debunked easily.

Desertrat | Jul 28, 2017 2:28:17 PM | 39
It's silly and unnecessary that there be any CIA involvement. Chavez began the downward path toward economic failure and Maduro threw gasoline on the ensuing fire.

When your outgo exceeds your income, economic failure is inevitable.

Like Brook Benton sang, "It's Just A Matter Of Time".

psychohistorian | Jul 28, 2017 2:43:07 PM | 40
@ Desertrat who seems to have strayed into the wrong bar

Thanks for stopping by.

I don't think you are going to find too many patrons at this bar who believe the song you are singing......don't let them doors hit you on the way out.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 2:46:19 PM | 41
@Alaric "Venezuela has always been a disaster and the country has been overly reliant on oil for a looooong time"


Venezuela has never been in the edge of a humanitarian crisis. You can read the government responses to the crisis, they have admited several times that food shortage is real and that medicine shortage is a real danger affecting even the highest govenrment officials and their family members, like the ex wife of Hugo Chávez who has needed to ask for donations for medicines that can't be found in any part of Venezuela.

You can watch all you want the telesurtv video, but that doesn't change nothing because you can talk on internet with any venezuelan and you will know the truth.

I'd suggest you to stop spreading misinformation and government propaganda if you really want to have a discussion about Venezuela.

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 2:53:04 PM | 42
It sounds like the empire is going to war with itself .
t is not just Venezuela's political stability that is at stake either. The Russian state-owned Rosneft holds a 49.9 percent stake in the Venezuelan-owned, U.S.-based refiner Citgo following a $1.5 billion loan from the Russian company. Some lawmakers say they are concerned that Russia is in a position to own a substantial stake of the U.S.-based company.

On Thursday, Treasury officials fined ExxonMobil $2 million for signing business agreements with Igor Sechin, the chief executive of Rosneft. Exxon responded by filing a legal complaint against the Treasury Department.

"This is more than just the U.S. and Venezuela," said Juan Gonzalez, a deputy assistant secretary of state under Obama. "Let says PDVSA is in a situation where it defaults, which would affect Citgo. Then Rosneft has a 49 percent stake in Citgo. If Rosneft decides to up that to 51 then all of a sudden Citgo because subject to Russian sanctions."

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 28, 2017 3:11:02 PM | 43
Thanks, b.
This latest Yankee Regime-Change Plot in Venezuela comes complete with the tr-r-aditional pre R-G contradictions which, as usual, the disgusting Jew-controlled Western MSM (led, predictably, by the Jew York Times (and Zio-Jazeera!!!)) is 'mysteriously' reluctant to explore, or even mention.

Venezuelan Democracy is either on its last legs, or it's not.
-If it is on its last legs then why not just wait for the Govt to collapse and let Venezuelans solve the problem? Why does AmeriKKKa feel obliged to take sides and interfere? How does political unrest in Venezuela suddenly become AmeriKKKa's problem? And why promote civil war as the only possible outcome/solution?

Funnily enough, BBC wasn't reporting on Venezuela today. They're using infantile MI6 NK-hater/liar Rupert Wingfield-Hayes to promote the Alternative/Fake News story from AmeriKKKa about North Korea's latest missile test on Friday "thought to have landed in Japan's exclusive economic zone" and blaming China. So NK missiles are shaping up to be the MSM's Talking Point to get Venezuela out of the Headlines when Christian Colonialism needs some time out to fine-tune the Venezuela horseshit it feeds to the MSM.
Funnilier, the early BBC report about NK missiles began with "AmeriKKKa has detected a missile launch.." with some half-assed SK & Japan confirmation drivel; but a later report begins "SK & Japan have detected a missile launch.."

Apologies for the long meandering comment but the Western MSM should be Crucified for its toxic lack of curiosity.

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 3:18:52 PM | 44
@Enrique Mendoza

If you just graduated from high school you are probably too young to know the darker side of how the world works. I highly recommend you read John Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman".

WorldBLee | Jul 28, 2017 3:19:57 PM | 45
#31: If you define doubling GDP and reducing extreme poverty by over 2/3 as destroying the economy then yes, Chavez and Maduro are 100% to blame for 'destroying' the Venezuelan economy.

This claim of destroying the economy is frequently used by US media hacks and the opposition in Venezuela, but the numbers are completely against you.

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 3:30:13 PM | 46
@45

Or that Venezuela was ranked the happiest country in South America in 2013:

You Probably Didn't Hear that Venezuela Was Again Ranked the Happiest Country in South America

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 3:41:51 PM | 47
45 Venezuelan GDP reflects the oil price - that is the problem .

GDP per capita is still quite good compared to other Latin American countries, but people must feel things are getting worse.

psychohistorian | Jul 28, 2017 3:45:17 PM | 48
@Enrique Mendoza

I would suggest you read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein to get a glimpse of how the global money folk have R2Ped most of South America.

You need to consider your values around private ownership of property, inheritance, public commons and other concepts. I encourage you to keep clear what is concept (all those "...ism"s) and what is real (private ownership of global finance) Good luck!

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 3:46:51 PM | 49
@44

You are probably too ignorant about Venezuela.


____________


#45: GDP per capital has decreased to levels as in 1960, Venezuela Central Bank figures show.

Denying the crisis won't work to argue Venezuela economy is doing well. What you say may be true UNTIL 2012 or possibly until 2013, but times have changed. Poverty index has increased a lot since then because everyone is reliant on government aids, and now the government is cutting budgets everywhere to pay back foreign debt instead of applying default on such debt to avoid cutting budgets. It isn't that difficult to see the obvious crisis.


____________

@46

Yeah, you said it. In 2013

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 3:54:16 PM | 50
@psychohistorian

Can you bring a updated table showing 2016 GDP decreasement? It is estimated that Venezuela's economy fall 19 percent in 2016. Your graphic only show information until 2015.

Alaric | Jul 28, 2017 4:45:43 PM | 51
Re: Enrique Mendoza

"Venezuela has never been in the edge of a humanitarian crisis. "

Nor is it now. Again, this is right wing propaganda. More Venezuelans than ever are eating despite shortages in some staples sometimes in some parts. Your perspective is entirely that of the smallish middle and smaller upper class in Venezuelans. People are starving yet restaurants are open in the chic parts of Venezuela? Oh sure.

Look: I don't necessarily agree with every decision made by the chavistas and I agree that mistakes were made in regards to foreign currency availability and even price controls and in creating a more hostile environment to businesses but most of these actions were attempts to deal with problems some of which do look like economic warfare to me. The market share concentration in certain consumer products (corn flour) segments (see Empresas Polar) is ideal for economic warfare.

Venezuela has long been a net importer of goods and that dependency has grown for 50 years, long before Chavez. Control of dollars is why the Chavistas have been able to control inflation on average better than their predecessors but yes it's still high. Venezuela is a small economy which sells a lot of oil in dollars. Converting said revenues to bolivares creates inflation. The country's GDP has been overly reliant on oil for long before Chavez. The steep decline in oil prices is due to economic warfare against Russia mainly by Saudi/america and friends. Problems water flow of Dams that produce power? Chavez' fault..nah

Venezuela has lots of structural problems which it long had but the only humanitarian crisis is the one being created by the right wing protesters

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 4:51:52 PM | 52
@Enrique Mendoza
You are probably too ignorant about Venezuela.

You might be right, I don't follow South America very closely. But I know enough about empire and propaganda to sniff out bullshit when I see it. And based on what you have posted, it's not like you are arguing from a position of knowledge.

There is no data for 2014, but in 2015 they were second, fifth in 2016, and last in 2017. Yet in 2017 they still ranked higher than some European countries. In 2011 they were ranked 9th in the world. My Venezuelan friends, like yourself, don't seem to like it when I mention these figures.

If you want to know a contributor to the decline, and if you are not afraid of information that challenges your narrative, read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" or "The Shock Doctrine" mentioned by psychohistorian.

Tobin Paz | Jul 28, 2017 4:57:20 PM | 53
@47

The Happiness Index doesn't take GDP into account, but I get your point. Here is how it's calculated:

How is the Happy Planet Index calculated?

Alaric | Jul 28, 2017 4:57:44 PM | 54
Oil prices are down 50% on average compared to prices in the Chavez era, at least last I looked. Therefore, Venezuelas GDP has contracted and the government has less money and fewer foreign reserves. Last I read the oil sector was 1/3 of GDP. In boom years I recall it being circa 3/4 of GDP. This
is economic warfare, pure and simple.

Venezuela has suffered every time oil prices have fallen and that includes during the 80s when the CIA/ZUSA used oil as a weapon to destroy the USSR via Saudi and the gulf monarchs.

PS: please see Yemen, Libya or Syria to see a real humanitarian crisis.

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 28, 2017 5:01:58 PM | 55
Venezuelan here!
...
Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 1:06:32 PM | 31 + + +

How does Venality make you Venezuelan?
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?
If you really believe it will make things better, please put our fears to rest by listing the anticipated improvements?

Nick | Jul 28, 2017 5:15:40 PM | 56
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable"

said the counter-revolutionary, terrorist-supporting hypocrite....speaking of freedom whilst actively backing tyranny and bloodshed all over the place.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:23:27 PM | 57
@Alaric "Nor is it now. More Venezuelans than ever are eating despite shortages in some staples sometimes in some parts. Your perspective is entirely that of the smallish middle and smaller upper class in Venezuelans. People are starving yet restaurants are open in the chic parts of Venezuela? Oh sure"

Yeah, you can see restaurants are open JUST in chic parts of Venezuela, while in your video you mentioned, they only manage to cover ONLY some parts of Caracas, and only some stores. The GOVERNMENT itself have admited the food shortage, that's why they need to distribute bags of food street by street in every town of Venezuela, because reality is that you can't buy food in the stores because there is none. I have myself doing lines for hours to buy bread that barely is produced to supply the needs of some portion of the inhabitants doing the same line I'm doing; some of them aren't even able to buy food because it runs out before the line is finished.

Again: You can watch all you want the telesurtv video, but that doesn't change nothing because you can talk on internet with any venezuelan and you will know the truth.

People is starving. The government have admit it. There is a severe shortage of medicines, kids are dying because of that. Child mortality have increased a lot, sadly. Poverty index has also increased.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:47:35 PM | 58
@Tobin Paz
But I know enough about empire and propaganda to sniff out bullshit when I see it

Yet, your own source state that Venezuela is indeed in crisis, but then I ask, why is such crisis?

I do know that oil prices have decreased along with Venezuela oil production, that Venezuela productivity has also decreased, that economic policies applied by Maduro and Hugo Chávez have created a nocive business environment that both of them didn't knew how to replace to make a successful transition towards communism. It isn't hard to understand. Even the most leftiest followers of Chávez have admited the crisis in Venezuela, some of them arguing economic warfare, others arguing poor management of the economy blaming Maduro for the crisis, but I think the last one is the most certain to be happening in here. You don't even know the contributors of this crisis.

I've already posted some information you can check by yourself, you will realize better how Venezuela's economy became this disaster.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:53:33 PM | 59
@54
This is economic warfare, pure and simple.

How come other oil producers countries haven't suffered like Venezuela?

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:57:21 PM | 60
@55
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?

Well, I know that Maduro will keep paying them money from bonds debt Venezuela acquired during Hugo Chávez era, instead of going to default and protect the people, how other countries have already done in history. It jus contradictory, defend Maduro and attack the fascist in Amerikkka

Hope Maduro leave and another revolutionary leader comes in to solve this crisis once for all, instead of making it worse.

Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:58:43 PM | 61
@Nick
said the counter-revolutionary, terrorist-supporting hypocrite....speaking of freedom whilst actively backing tyranny and bloodshed all over the place.

He was right!

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 6:26:00 PM | 62
60

Statistics are amazing stuff - Venezuela debt to GDP

It is pretty low, much lower than Germany's

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 6:39:28 PM | 63
Telesur on the food crisis - yes it exists Due to fixed prices that make it possible to reexport with a profit.
ben | Jul 28, 2017 6:48:37 PM | 64
nf @ 23 said:"@21 somebody. Civil war? That's not civil war, anymore than Syria was civil war - it's regime change supported largely by foreign powers based on economic agendas. All that business about Venezuela doing business with China, that's no different from Syria doing business with Iran - making economic deals that are in their citizen's best interest."

ger @ 13: "Drat, if I did not know better, I would concluded the Americans are interfering in another sovereign country ... as usual. Coming soon to Venezuela, an American ass kissing oligarch stealing natural resources? Is Ukraine II in the making!? Around the word the same plan has worked well as government after government has been collapsed only to be resurrected to serve their imperialist masters .....the world oligarchs that have no country but control the world's largest military. A military to protect the .1% from the 99.9% that are the new slaves of the empire. "

Worth repeating thanks. Both statements are relevant and truthful based on the empire's historical facts.

Gee, here come the trolls...

somebody | Jul 28, 2017 6:48:58 PM | 65
New York Times - Venezuelan import fraud

More financial fraud with Venezuela

ben | Jul 28, 2017 6:57:32 PM | 66
@ 65: Good sources, taken from a source that told all the American people Iraq was a real and present threat to world peace. Seriously?
somebody | Jul 28, 2017 7:09:52 PM | 67
66

In this case the New York Times says the same that the Venezuelan government says - that they are cheated.

As long as it is Venezuelans fighting each other it is civil war - that is the definition of it.

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 28, 2017 7:14:36 PM | 68
@55
Don't you understand what AmeriKKKa's Swamp wants to do to Venezuela?
...
Hope Maduro leave and another revolutionary leader comes in to solve this crisis once for all, instead of making it worse.
Posted by: Enrique Mendoza | Jul 28, 2017 5:57:21 PM | 60

Spare me the rhetoric and drivel. I posted my #55 because you were beginning to sound like a visionless (Neoliberal) twerp.

"Hope Maduro leave..." is a miserable substitute for a National Recovery plan. I asked you a question and you're deliberately evading it.

Here it is again... Please put our fears to rest by listing the anticipated improvements? Until you answer, I'm winning the bet with myself that Enrique, would be utterly clueless when asked to articulate a positive vision for Venezuela's post-Maduro future.

Ike | Jul 28, 2017 8:04:57 PM | 69
@54 enrique mendoza

"How come other oil producers countries haven't suffered like Venezuela?"

Nigeria, Iraq, Syria, Libya. They have all suffered from the curse of being rich in oil. The ones that haven't suffered, like Scotland and Norway are peopled by people of European ancestry and therefore off limits to the predatory USA , Saudi Arabia is suffering except for a wealthy elite and is probably the model the USA has in mind for Venezuela and Russia is strong enough to resist.

To all you people who hold up the marvels of capitalism. How come any country experimenting with socialism must be destroyed? The answer is really that capitalists want a free hand to pillage any developing countries economy

Alves | Jul 28, 2017 8:47:38 PM | 70
Wow. you surely must be missing the fact that people are being killed on the streets, dying from a lack of medicine, there is little food to be had. Lots of people leaving the country to be refuges in Brazil and Colombia.

Venezuela is going through a coup, simple as that, and Maduro and Chavez are/were no heroes. The fact that other countries tried to mess with them in the past does not change that.

james | Jul 28, 2017 9:21:48 PM | 71
The next thing ya know i will be reading that the butcher/tyrant maduro is murdering/starving his own people thanks the Venezuelan regime... the usa is going to or already are sending money to support the '''moderate rebels''' and on and on as the stomach turns.. i learned everything i know from the western msm, and a few stooges hanging out in an internet they claimed was located on the streets of caracas..

[Jul 28, 2017] If Russia hadn't been dragged into World War I, it's likely their country would have slowly moderized in a normal way without the mass murder of the Stalinist-Leninist years.

Jul 28, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anon , July 15, 2017

Disliking Kraut militarism has a solid basis. You don't have to despise Germans for World War II to understand their fanatical militarism in World War I was an awful mistake. Millions of innocent people were forced into the trenches to die because of German militarism, and a whole string of conservative governments toppled all over Eastern Europe because of it. Many white Europeans who had been living quiet, peaceful, traditional lives in traditional cultures had their lives ruined by death, starvation and economic chaos after World War I, and their unstable countries fell prey to coups by fanatical communists afterwards. The latter imprisoned their people inside horrific tolitalitian systems for decades. These regimes were so awful they made the monarchies that came before them look like picnics. Yes, Kraut militarism was a massive historical mistake, and it destroyed the traditional cultures and values that the Krauts themselves had cherished.

After the first half of the 20th century was over, so many ordinary citizens of Western European countries had been so maltreated that support for socialism rose up in a great wave that turned most of Europe hard left, and thus created the support necessary for putting together the European Union. This Union, led by pig-headed ideological elites, is currently letting in a flood of brown and black immigrants who are destroying European culture, peoples, laws, and religion, and these invaders cannot be dislodged. If no European Union had ever existed, individual countries would have had the legal means to fend off this wave of invaders. Most Americans are not aware that top EU officials are not elected by anyone. They are appointed by elites, yet these EU officials have the power to write laws and force them onto the ordinary European citizens without any legal means of fighting off these oppressive laws.

If Russia hadn't been dragged into World War I, it's likely their country would have slowly moderized in a normal way without the mass murder of the Stalinist-Leninist years. Even before World War I, Bismarck and German militarism tricked the French into the Franco-Prussian war and wrought havoc on France, which caused the seige of Paris and the rise of the leftist commune.

All in all, if you look at the damage caused by 'Kraut militarism,' it has killed more white Europeans in the last 150 years than from any other cause, all of it unnecessary, and the hard swing left that resulted from Kraut militarism has unleashed a wave of invading hordes that Europe is still having to battle against. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that the social catastrophe caused by countless backward immigrants will go on for many generations.

Yes, German militarism has caused a LOT of crap. They don't get a pass from me, and they shouldn't from any sensible person with a shred of intellectual honesty.

Maj. Kong > , July 16, 2017 at 1:10 am GMT

@Anon Disliking Kraut militarism has a solid basis. You don't have to despise Germans for World War II to understand their fanatical militarism in World War I was an awful mistake. Millions of innocent people were forced into the trenches to die because of German militarism, and a whole string of conservative governments toppled all over Eastern Europe because of it. Many white Europeans who had been living quiet, peaceful, traditional lives in traditional cultures had their lives ruined by death, starvation and economic chaos after World War I, and their unstable countries fell prey to coups by fanatical communists afterwards. The latter imprisoned their people inside horrific tolitalitian systems for decades. These regimes were so awful they made the monarchies that came before them look like picnics. Yes, Kraut militarism was a massive historical mistake, and it destroyed the traditional cultures and values that the Krauts themselves had cherished.

After the first half of the 20th century was over, so many ordinary citizens of Western European countries had been so maltreated that support for socialism rose up in a great wave that turned most of Europe hard left, and thus created the support necessary for putting together the European Union. This Union, led by pig-headed ideological elites, is currently letting in a flood of brown and black immigrants who are destroying European culture, peoples, laws, and religion, and these invaders cannot be dislodged. If no European Union had ever existed, individual countries would have had the legal means to fend off this wave of invaders. Most Americans are not aware that top EU officials are not elected by anyone. They are appointed by elites, yet these EU officials have the power to write laws and force them onto the ordinary European citizens without any legal means of fighting off these oppressive laws.

If Russia hadn't been dragged into World War I, it's likely their country would have slowly moderized in a normal way without the mass murder of the Stalinist-Leninist years. Even before World War I, Bismarck and German militarism tricked the French into the Franco-Prussian war and wrought havoc on France, which caused the seige of Paris and the rise of the leftist commune.

All in all, if you look at the damage caused by 'Kraut militarism,' it has killed more white Europeans in the last 150 years than from any other cause, all of it unnecessary, and the hard swing left that resulted from Kraut militarism has unleashed a wave of invading hordes that Europe is still having to battle against. Anyone with half a brain can figure out that the social catastrophe caused by countless backward immigrants will go on for many generations.

Yes, German militarism has caused a LOT of crap. They don't get a pass from me, and they shouldn't from any sensible person with a shred of intellectual honesty. Anglo policy since 1588 has been the refusal to accept a hegemon on the Continent. For good or ill, this explains nearly every single war up to the present including Brexit and the rampant "Russian interference" claims.

Germany was outcompeting Britain economically prior to 1914, the British ruling class despised them as noveau riche . Germany made two errrors, ending the Three Emperors Alliance, and embarking on a naval arms race they could not win (The UK maintained a minimal Army). Germany could have instead become the first mechanized army, as they started the auto industry, not Detroit. The 1914 invasion of France failed due to logistics failures, trucks would have solved this.

The EU is not a hard-left project, witness their insistence on privatization of state owned industries. When Greece elected a hard left government, the EU turned the screws. "Free movement of peoples" is not an inherently left/right issue. It is a globalist/nationalist issue. The USSR, and the PRC today, have something called "internal passports".

Ronnie > , July 22, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT

Gottfried has recently declared that Vladimir Putin's "aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary of his expansionist ambitions." This nonsense makes me suspicious of everything he says. Spouting the usual neocon lines about Putin make me realize that he is irrational and deluded about American actions towards Russia like many other jews are conditioned to believe.

Dan Hayes > , July 23, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT

@Ronnie Gottfried has recently declared that Vladimir Putin's "aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary of his expansionist ambitions." This nonsense makes me suspicious of everything he says. Spouting the usual neocon lines about Putin make me realize that he is irrational and deluded about American actions towards Russia like many other jews are conditioned to believe. Ronnie:

I am unaware of the validity of the Gottfried quote. If true it means that Paul has been imbibing Fox News (which he has oftentimes previously belittled as a tool of NeoCon Central.

Or maybe it's a quote out of context – or so I hope.

whoever > , Website July 23, 2017 at 4:43 pm GMT

@Dan Hayes Ronnie:

I am unaware of the validity of the Gottfried quote. If true it means that Paul has been imbibing Fox News (which he has oftentimes previously belittled as a tool of NeoCon Central.

Or maybe it's a quote out of context - or so I hope. His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary of his expansionist ambitions.
Graf 5, Line 5.

[Jul 28, 2017] Tucker and Tulsi on Syria vs CIAria

Jul 28, 2017 | www.unz.com

July 26, 2017

Priss Factor > , Website July 26, 2017 at 2:07 am GMT

Tucker and Tulsi on Syria vs CIAria

watch-v=7IGAXJNzPfU

annamaria > , July 26, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT

@Priss Factor It was Israel's active participation in the attempt at regime change in Syria, which has finished the undressing of the "most moral" state of Israel. Currently, the "chosen" are outraged that the CIA could scale down the US support for terrorists.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/26/fear-and-trepidation-in-tel-aviv-is-israel-losing-the-syria-war/

"Despite assurances to the contrary, Israel has always been involved in the Syria conflict. Israel's repeated claims that "it maintains a policy of non-intervention in Syria's civil war," only fools US mainstream media.

Not only was Israel involved in the war, it also played no role in the aid efforts, nor did it ever extend a helping hand to Syrian refugees. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have perished in the merciless war; many cities and villages were totally destroyed and millions of Syrians become refugees. While tiny and poor Lebanon has hosted over a million Syrian refugees, every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees, as well. Except Israel.

Even a symbolic government proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped ." (-- Wait when the Lobby starts squeaking that mentioning this shameful fact is antisemitic.)

Israel has major responsibility for the Syrian tragedy. Astonishingly, Israelis are planning to triple down on the support for ISIS & Co in Syria.

"Since the start of the conflict, Israel wanted to appear as if in control of the situation, at least regarding the conflict in southwestern Syria. It bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit , and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts with certain opposition groups. In recent comments before European officials, Netanyahu admitted to striking Iranian convoys in Syria [whcih is a sovereign state] "dozens of times."

But without a joint Israeli-US plan, Israel is now emerging as a weak party. Making that realization quite belatedly, Israel is becoming increasingly frustrated. ... Failing to obtain support from newly-elected President Donald Trump, Israel is now attempting to develop its own independent strategy.

On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid" to Syrian rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid ." -- See the US taxpayers' money in actions ($3 billion this year only). The "war on terror" came down to the "cash and humanitarian aid" to terrorists, delivered by Israel directly from the US taxpayers pockets to Israel's favorite head-choppers.

[Jul 28, 2017] Trump End the Syria War Now

Notable quotes:
"... Lavrov compares Obama to a small kid unable to comprehend the responsibilities of his position of a President of the US. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.unz.com
Eric Margolis July 22, 2017

Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which the US had become entangled. So far, they have been disappointed. But this week a light flashed at the end of the tunnel.

President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fuelled the bloody six-year conflict. Washington, and its allies Britain and France, have persistently denied arming Syria's jihadist rebels fighting to bring down the Russian and Iranian-backed government of President Bashar Assad.

Former President George W. Bush actively considered invading Syria around 2008 in collusion with Israel. But the Israelis then pointed out that there were no Western-friendly groups to replace Assad, only extreme militant Sunni Muslim groups. Even the usually reckless Bush called off the invasion of Syria.

By contrast, Barack Obama gave a green light to the CIA to arm, train and logistically support anti-Assad jihadist rebels in Syria. Arms poured in from Lebanon and, later, Turkey, paid for by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. Small numbers of US, British and French advisors went to Syria to teach the jihadists how to use mortars, explosives, and anti-tank weapons. The media's claim that the fighting in Syria was due to a spontaneous popular uprising was false. The repressive Assad government was widely unpopular but the uprising was another CIA 'color-style' operation.

The object of this operation was to overthrow President Assad and his Shiite-leaning regime, which was supported by Iran, a bogeyman to all the US-backed feudal Arab oil monarchies. Syria was also to be punished because it refused Washington's demands to sever ties with Iran and accept US tutelage.

Then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed the covert war against Syria, arranging massive shipments of arms and munitions to the rebels from Kadaffi-era arms stores in Libya, and from Egypt, Croatia, likely Serbia, Bulgaria and Azerbaijan. Once again, the Gulf Arabs paid the bill.

The offensive against Syria was accompanied by a powerful barrage of anti-Assad propaganda from the US and British media. From the background, Israel and its partisans beat the war drum against the Assad government.

The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. That is, some 11 million Syrians, or 61% of the population, driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

Two of Syria's greatest and oldest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, have been pounded into ruins. Jihadist massacres and Russian and American air strikes have ravaged once beautiful, relatively prosperous Syria. Its ancient Christian peoples are fleeing for their lives before US and Saudi takfiri religious fanatics.

Just when it appeared the jihadists were closing in on Damascus, limited but effective Russian military intervention abruptly changed the course of the war. The Syrian Army was able to regain the military initiative and push back the jihadists. Intermixed with so-called 'takfiri' rebels are some 3,000 ISIS jihadists who were originally armed and equipped by US advisors but have now run amok. They are under fierce western air attack in Syria and Iraq and are splintering.

Russia and the US have been inching toward a major war over Syria. In fact, US intervention has been far more extensive than generally believed, as this writer has been reporting for the past five years. Turkish media linked to the government in Ankara has just revealed that the US has at least ten small military bases in northern Syria being used to support rebel jihadist forces.

Randal > , July 22, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT

But this week a light flashed at the end of the tunnel.

President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fuelled the bloody six-year conflict.

That's fine, but the problem is that Trump's track record so far makes it impossible to give him unalloyed credit for this. At the moment it has to be counted as just another "up" moment in the rollercoaster ride that has been the Trump presidency so far. Will it foreshadow further moves towards sanity in foreign policy? Or will it just be followed by another literally stupid lurch back to the neocon-driven norm?

Looked at optimistically, you can read it as a sign that the underlying sensibleness of the patriotic "America first" noninterventionist approach (as opposed to the usual Israel/Saudi first, or US-uber-alles militarism, or "humanitarian interventionism" approach) is finally prevailing, or at least as a sign of a reduction in the US regime drive towards direct confrontation of Russia.

But looked at pessimistically, it's just an admission of the already obvious failure of one particular interventionist approach and its termination in favour of alternative approaches to the same ends, which will be followed by some idiocy such as another childish murder of Syrian conscripts when Trump is shown some more emotionally manipulative photographs.

Time will tell.

SND > , July 23, 2017 at 4:28 am GMT

Former President George W. Bush actively considered invading Syria around 2008 in collusion with Israel. But the Israelis then pointed out that there were no Western-friendly groups to replace Assad, only extreme militant Sunni Muslim groups. Even the usually reckless Bush called off the invasion of Syria.

You mean the Israeli government's desire that the US fragment Middle Eastern Arab states for Israel's hegemonic purposes is actually a concern for "Western-friendly groups?" And the repeated Israeli statements that "ISIS would be better than Assad" means they totally changed their mind since Bush days? Something doesn't smell quite right here.

WorkingClass > , July 23, 2017 at 4:29 am GMT

President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fueled the bloody six-year conflict.

Trump has decided. Perhaps. But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump decides?

Thank you for this concise summation of Imperial Washington's war against Syria.

jilles dykstra > , July 23, 2017 at 6:25 am GMT

The great thing resulting from the election of Trump is that it made quite clear how undemocratic the USA is, and how Israel influences, tries to determine, USA foreign policy.
Trump and Putin agree on a partial cease fire in Syria, who objects ?: Netanyahu.
What media continue accusing Trump on collusion with the enemy, Russia ?
CNN, Washpost and NYT.
I hope Trump survives the Cold Civil War.
Kennedy did not.

Ace > , July 23, 2017 at 8:47 am GMT

@Randal


But this week a light flashed at the end of the tunnel.

President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fuelled the bloody six-year conflict.

That's fine, but the problem is that Trump's track record so far makes it impossible to give him unalloyed credit for this. At the moment it has to be counted as just another "up" moment in the rollercoaster ride that has been the Trump presidency so far. Will it foreshadow further moves towards sanity in foreign policy? Or will it just be followed by another literally stupid lurch back to the neocon-driven norm?

Looked at optimistically, you can read it as a sign that the underlying sensibleness of the patriotic "America first" noninterventionist approach (as opposed to the usual Israel/Saudi first, or US-uber-alles militarism, or "humanitarian interventionism" approach) is finally prevailing, or at least as a sign of a reduction in the US regime drive towards direct confrontation of Russia.

But looked at pessimistically, it's just an admission of the already obvious failure of one particular interventionist approach and its termination in favour of alternative approaches to the same ends, which will be followed by some idiocy such as another childish murder of Syrian conscripts when Trump is shown some more emotionally manipulative photographs.

Time will tell. The goal of supporting the Kurds is still a priority, to advance Israel's fall back position of partition. It would prefer the chaos of a regime run by jihadi scum (not going to happen thanks to V. Putin) but either way we'll do Israel's bidding.

Mr. Margolis is must read for me but I wonder at his embrace of the "repressive," "unpopular" Assad regime view. I don't get that impression and it is certainly not the view of Eva Bartlett or Vanessa Beeley. The chemical weapons stuff is complete garbage as Margolis knows.

Miro23 > , July 23, 2017 at 9:01 am GMT

The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. That is, some 11 million Syrians, or 61% of the population, driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

You can lay all this at the door of Israel, US Neo-cons and their Congressional and MSM collaborators + treasonous leaders like Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Same for the Iraq war (duck shoot) with its WMD lies and the MSM 9/11 trigger "Event".

The US as an Israeli colony is a disaster for the people of Iraq, Libya and Syria and it's also the worst news for the 98% of Gentiles in the US who have now lost their country to these Zionist freaks.

Greg Bacon > , Website July 23, 2017 at 9:08 am GMT

To claim that Israel got Bush the Mad to back off from invading Syria because they were concerned about moderate head choppers being the only ones who would fill the power vacuum is laughable.

Israel has supported these thugs many times with medical care, money, shelter in the stolen Golan and most importantly, their MSM buddies printing all those stories about how Assad must go.

Israel had been directing its colony, the formerly free USA, to bust up Syria and murder Assad and that we have been faithfully trying to do, but that damned Putin got in the way, so sic the MSM on him and his buddy Trump.

The illegal war against Syria is far from over, Israel is PO that Syria hasn't been destroyed and they will not take lightly some chump like Trump interfering with their plans.

Michael Kenny > , July 23, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

As so often, the weakness of the argument is obvious in the first sentence: "Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which the US had become entangled". I can't say I recall any such vow. Trump is a master of doubletalk. He says everything and the contrary of everything. Mr Margolis, and others, heard what they wanted to hear and believed what they wanted to believe. Quite simply, they fell into the trap Trump set for them. Even if Trump wasn't the most pro-Israel president in US history, the Israel Lobby is there to see that US foreign policy suits Israel's interests. Israel sees Iran as its principal enemy. Putin has snuggled up to Iran and is propping up Iran's "ally", Assad. Israel thus needs to get both Assad and Putin out of Syria. By failing to stand up to Putin in Ukraine, Obama allowed him to discredit the US as Europe's, and by extension, Israel's protector and to discredit NATO as the instrument of that protection. For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel without the use of bases in Europe. Thus, Trump has to restore US and NATO credibility and the only way to do that is to get Putin out of Ukraine and, ideally, out of power. The simplest way to do that is to fight him in Syria, where he's bogged down and cornered and cannot escape unless the US capitulates. Thus, arming or not arming this or that Syrian group is totally irrelevant. It just shows that the US can turn the heat up and down on Putin at will. I can't imagine, therefore, why US neocons would be "furious". The longer Putin is bogged down in Syria, the better. The last thing Trump needs is to have anything he does, whether in Syria or Ukraine, billed as a "retreat" in regard to Putin. That will simply inflame Russiagate.

DESERT FOX > , July 23, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

Trumps word means nothing, and he never said a thing about the pentagram ending their support of isis aka al ciada, so this is much ado about nothing, the Zionists want war and war they shall have until Zionist Israel destroys America.

Zionist Israel and the U.S. and Britain created isis aka al ciada and anyone who thinks they have given up on regime change and the greater Israel plan in the Mideast is sadly mistaken. America is under Zionist control.

Che Guava > , July 23, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

Russiagate, what a nonsensical concept. Constantly shifting narrative.

OMG, they hacked voting machines!

OMG, they hacked DNC servers!

OMG, someone talked to a Russian!

It is so stupid.

DaveE > , July 23, 2017 at 3:14 pm GMT

Could it be that Trump is waking up? In spite of all his bluster during the campaign, it's become obvious that Mr. Trump doesn't have the foggiest idea how government and politics actually works. It's just a LITTLE different than running a real-estate operation.

My opinion is that that Trump, being the very insecure egotist that he is, is beginning, just barely, to realize what people actually expect, not what the neocon con-artists and rigged "opinion polls" tell him the story is.

Is Trump, maybe, just kinda sorta maybe, waking up to slimeballs like his dirty little son-in-law he so fervently followed in the past?

Anyway, Trump has been scoring big lately with his chat with Putin and this kick to the neocons' sensitive area.

Let's all write the guy and tell him he's on the right track. I'm sure the "opinion polls" will tell him just the opposite, since they're nothing more than some Jew in an office in Brooklyn telling us what we believe.

Che Guava > , July 23, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny You are so clearly a harmful propagandist on so many levels that I need not to pointing it out.

I am knowing that you are to making one or two of good points at times, but only to draw to all of your lies and stupid assumptions.

Essentially, to making EU= NATO=zionism is the great thing to you, hate Russia is your cause.

Your 'Michael Kenny' is as much a pseudonym as mine. It is obvious. At least, when I am posting, it is from the heart of the person behind the pseudonym and of goodwill or to informing. Reading yours, it is very difficult to see any good intentions.

Many others here are to having critical faculties. They also will be seeing you for what you are, just a nasty and cheap propagandist, with posts that are always being too long.

Are you on some kind of 'net agent of influence programme? Sure is looking like it.

Joe Hide > , July 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

The evidence seems to support the view that an informational war, with some actual murders, is taking place within and between, the CIA, FBI, NSA, other U.S. agencies and institutions. Also this happened in Russia but as Putin survived and consolidated power, it's much less so now. It is probably happening in many countries. I have come to the conclusion that these "hidden wars" within seemingly unified groups is part and parcel of human nature. The bad guy deceivers normally have a huge advantage in that they become much more skilled at deceiving. Their great disadvantage is that they eventually go so obviously nuts that nobody believes them anymore!

Randal > , July 23, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

Their great disadvantage is that they eventually go so obviously nuts that nobody believes them anymore!

And yet John McCain and Lindsey Graham keep on getting re-elected, usually by huge margins.

Bruce Marshall > , July 23, 2017 at 4:37 pm GMT

Where is the "Special Prosecutor" on this?

Assange: 'CIA Not Only Armed Syria's Insurgents–It Paid Their Salaries'

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=57076

Father Coughlin > , July 23, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT

Since the Resistance has relentlessly played the bogus Russia narrative to a point where it is hampering him from getting anything done (thus jeopardizing his reelection, if not some crazy impeachment attempt), Trump's only choice, according to Jiu-Jitsu, is to flip the script and make the Left the pro-War party.

Go!

Sean > , July 23, 2017 at 5:45 pm GMT

http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/disaster-area/
Some years ago I had the pleasure of coming across a book by the aged doyen of "oriental studies," Bernard Lewis. Titled What Went Wrong and first published in 2002, it tried to explain how and why the brilliant civilization of the Middle Ages had declined until, finally, it reached the point where the epithet "Arab" is positive only when applied to a horse.

Though I read it twice, I still do not know.

nsa > , July 23, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

Must be tough typing out a couple thousand word screed re the destruction of the ME without mentioning the vile jooies and their total domination of American foreign policy in the area. The US Knesset on the Potomac is now actually trying to pass a law outlawing any criticism of the bloodthirsty Izzies ..with very stiff fines for offenders. Need any more evidence?

Greg Bacon > , Website July 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny As so often, the weakness of the argument is obvious in the first sentence: "Many Americans voted for Donald Trump because he vowed to end the foreign conflicts in which the US had become entangled". I can't say I recall any such vow. Trump is a master of doubletalk. He says everything and the contrary of everything. Mr Margolis, and others, heard what they wanted to hear and believed what they wanted to believe. Quite simply, they fell into the trap Trump set for them. Even if Trump wasn't the most pro-Israel president in US history, the Israel Lobby is there to see that US foreign policy suits Israel's interests. Israel sees Iran as its principal enemy. Putin has snuggled up to Iran and is propping up Iran's "ally", Assad. Israel thus needs to get both Assad and Putin out of Syria. By failing to stand up to Putin in Ukraine, Obama allowed him to discredit the US as Europe's, and by extension, Israel's protector and to discredit NATO as the instrument of that protection. For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel without the use of bases in Europe. Thus, Trump has to restore US and NATO credibility and the only way to do that is to get Putin out of Ukraine and, ideally, out of power. The simplest way to do that is to fight him in Syria, where he's bogged down and cornered and cannot escape unless the US capitulates. Thus, arming or not arming this or that Syrian group is totally irrelevant. It just shows that the US can turn the heat up and down on Putin at will. I can't imagine, therefore, why US neocons would be "furious". The longer Putin is bogged down in Syria, the better. The last thing Trump needs is to have anything he does, whether in Syria or Ukraine, billed as a "retreat" in regard to Putin. That will simply inflame Russiagate. For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel without the use of bases in Europe.

Why should the USA defend Israel from its horrible choices, especially being an Apartheid nightmare?

Why should we defend a nation that has attacked our ships, bases and personnel numerous times?

Why should we defend a nation that has control of our economy thru their choke-hold on the FED and Treasury?

Why should we defend a nation that acts like a spoiled child anytime it doesn't get it's way and goes on murderous rampages against the world's biggest concentration camp, Gaza?

Why should we defend a nation that attacked us on 9/11, then had their MSM whores blame the Muslim world?

http://www.911history.de/aaannxyz_ch01_en.html

Art > , July 23, 2017 at 8:34 pm GMT

The illness of McCain will give the prospects for cooperation between the US and Russian a big boost.

Here is an interesting article on the subject.

Dismantling McCain's Disastrous Legacy Should Now Be Trump's Top Priority

By Tom Luongo

The Arizona senator's absence creates a unique opportunity for President Trump to alter the course of our foreign and domestic policy. From Iraq to Libya, Syria to Afghanistan and right up to Russia's borders in Ukraine, McCain's bloody paw prints are all over more than a decade of American foreign policy blunders.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=20873

exiled off mainstreet > , July 23, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT

@Greg Bacon The attempted sinking of the USS Liberty in 1967 and the actions of the US government since reveal 50 years of the Israeli tail wagging the yankee dog. It is unprecedented in history for an auxilliary satellite state to so dominate the foreign policy actions of what should be the dominant power. Whether or not 9-11 was a conspiracy is interesting but not dispositive, since whatever its cause, whether or not intentionally planned or simply allowed to happen, as I suspect, the event was used as a Reichstag fire event by the yankee regime and its Israeli patrons to brush aside any remaining opposition to the neocon project. By the way, I am totally convinced that the anthrax attacks occurring in the wake of 9-11 were to secure this result.

annamaria > , July 23, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke Who exactly is the US at war against in Syria and why is it going on?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-military-bases-in-syria-their-precise-location-is-known/5600527 " ten U.S. bases in the Syrian provinces of Al-Hasakah, Manbij and Raqqa, as well as in the areas of Harab-Isk and Rmeilan The source also reported on the number of the U.S. servicemen deployed at these bases."
Splendid. Illegally, on a territory of the sovereign state of Syria, without any permission from the Syrian government. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-military-bases-in-syria-their-precise-location-is-known/5600527
But for the demonizers of Iran and apologists of Kievan junta, the US involvement in Syria is a clear case of bringing the "democracy on the march."

annamaria > , July 23, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT

@WorkingClass


President Trump, according to numerous reliable Washington sources, has decided to end US arms supplies and logistics support to Syria's jihadist rebels that have fueled the bloody six-year conflict.
Trump has decided. Perhaps. But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump decides?

Thank you for this concise summation of Imperial Washington's war against Syria. "But do the CIA and/or Pentagon really care what Trump decides?"
– You mean, the CIA and/or Pentagon will jump as high as the Lobby tell them to jump?

annamaria > , July 23, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT

@Miro23 "The US as an Israeli colony is a disaster for the people of Iraq, Libya, and Syria "
Agree. A minor addition: The US as an Israeli colony is a disaster for the people of the US as well.

utu > , July 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT

@Alden "in the 19th and early 20th century Jews wrote many of those books extolling the superiority of Muslim Jewish countries over us blue eyed barbarians"

Correct. But in the 2nd half of 20 c. the winds of history shifted with the creation of state of Israel and Jewish historians decided to write the history anew in which Muslims were not so good anymore. Father of Netanyahu was one of them.

Which Jewish historians do you want to believe?

annamaria > , July 23, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT

@Greg Bacon "Israel had been directing its colony, the formerly free USA, to bust up Syria and murder Assad and that we have been faithfully trying to do, but that damned Putin got in the way "
This is why the Russain Federation has been suffering the relentless barrage of demonization and economic sanctions, and this why Americans have been suffering the stupidity of the ziocon-promoted Russiangate.

annamaria > , July 23, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT

@DESERT FOX Trumps word means nothing, and he never said a thing about the pentagram ending their support of isis aka al ciada, so this is much ado about nothing, the Zionists want war and war they shall have until Zionist Israel destroys America.

Zionist Israel and the U.S. and Britain created isis aka al ciada and anyone who thinks they have given up on regime change and the greater Israel plan in the Mideast is sadly mistaken. America is under Zionist control. " the Zionists want war and war they shall have until Zionist Israel destroys America."

True. The Jewish communities of the EU/US, UK must decide – now – whether they are with western civilization or with the mythological and barbarous dream of Eretz Israel. The US, UK, and EU have been a safe harbor for the majority of Jewish people for the last 50 years. However, the Jewish Lobby is not satisfied with such trifles as the peaceful life and security and it wants Eretz Israel; PNAC (ziocons' manifest) has been used as an ideological guise.
There were certain sane Germans who tried to stop Hitler and thus to save Germany. Some of them paid for the attempts with their lives. Where are the Jewish communities of the US, UK, and EU to stop the lunatics, all these Friends of Israel and AIPAC, these pushers towards a worldwide catastrophe? See the ziocon plan in Ukraine, which made the lives of many Jews there intolerable (welcome, neo-Nazi). What is next – the rise of antisemitism in the tolerant (for now) Europe and US?
If MSM were the honest sources of information, the westerners would have seen already the thousands and thousands of little corpses, the victims of "humanitarian interventions" of NATO/US in Libya and Syria and would already demand to hang the main war profiteers /war criminals to prevent more carnage and more war-profiteering schems.
The ongoing wars in the Middle EAst are an integral part of Eretz Israel project. Give Israel its due.

annamaria > , July 23, 2017 at 10:15 pm GMT

@Che Guava You are so clearly a harmful propagandist on so many levels that I need not to pointing it out.

I am knowing that you are to making one or two of good points at times, but only to draw to all of your lies and stupid assumptions.

Essentially, to making EU= NATO=zionism is the great thing to you, hate Russia is your cause.

Your 'Michael Kenny' is as much a pseudonym as mine. It is obvious. At least, when I am posting, it is from the heart of the person behind the pseudonym and of goodwill or to informing. Reading yours, it is very difficult to see any good intentions.

Many others here are to having critical faculties. They also will be seeing you for what you are, just a nasty and cheap propagandist, with posts that are always being too long.

Are you on some kind of 'net agent of influence programme? Sure is looking like it. Agree

annamaria > , July 23, 2017 at 10:40 pm GMT

@Bruce Marshall This is great: "CIA not only armed Syria's insurgents -- it paid their salaries."
And who are these "insurgents" – the "moderate" jihadis affiliated with ISIS and Al Qaeda?
The supposedly "manly" CIA director Mike Pompeo comes out as a banal opportunist inclined to hysterics.
Pompeo, "No one has the right to engage in the theft of secrets from America!"
Assange, "What sort of America can be "taken down" by the truth?"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-14/wikileaks-issues-response-cia-director-mike-pompeo

"Pompeo and David B. Rivkin Jr., a senior fellow at the neoconservative think-tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argued in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal that "Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed." Pompeo has also suggested that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden should be executed."

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/trumps-pro-torture-pro-israel-cia-chief

annamaria > , July 23, 2017 at 10:50 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

"For obvious reasons of geography, there's no way the US can defend Israel without the use of bases in Europe."

For obvious reasons, the sooner the US disengages from Israel, the better for the whole world.

annamaria > , July 24, 2017 at 1:13 am GMT

Paul Craig Roberts and Stephen Lendman have a word for Pompeo:

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/07/23/trumps-appointees-worse-obamas/

ZeroHedge: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-23/five-weird-conspiracy-theories-cia-director-mike-pompeo "Mike Pompeo sounds increasingly unhinged when talking about Russia, Wikileaks and the media"

anon > , Disclaimer July 24, 2017 at 1:56 am GMT

Can he ????

Here is one of the many views of this unstable man–

How the Trump regime was manufactured by a war inside the Deep State. A systemic crisis in the global Deep System has driven the violent radicalization of a Deep State faction

By Nafeez Ahmed

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-trump-regime-was-manufactured-by-a-war-inside-the-deep-state-f9e757071c70

anon > , Disclaimer July 24, 2017 at 2:02 am GMT

@annamaria http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/21/tony-thomas-syria-secret-program-cia-240818

Top general confirms end to secret U.S. program in Syria ?

Special Operations commander walked back remarks that appeared to surprise the CIA ASPEN -- U.S. Special Operations Commander Tony Thomas confirmed Friday that the U.S. had ended its covert program aiding rebel groups fighting against Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying the decision was made after assessing the years-long operation's capabilities and by no means an effort to curry favor with Assad's chief backer, Moscow. The comments appeared to take the CIA, which declined to comment, by surprise.

Thomas almost immediately tried to walk back his comments after leaving the stage, telling reporters he hadn't confirmed anything and was referring only to "public reporting."

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/21/tony-thomas-syria-secret-program-cia-240818

anonymous > , Disclaimer July 24, 2017 at 2:11 am GMT

@jilles dykstra It won't come to that right away. But it will come to that if Trump does not ultimately keep the pressure on the Assad regime, and if he ignores all the drumbeats (and survives the "impeachment").

annamaria > , July 24, 2017 at 2:51 am GMT

@anon Thank you for the interesting post.

Here is a transcript of an interview with S. Lavrov (Russian foreign minister), which should provide a lot of educational moments for the US Congresspeople and WH press corps (known as the presstitute corps): http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/video/-/asset_publisher/i6t41cq3VWP6/content/id/2821758

Try to compare Lavrov with a typical US legislator, for example, with Maxine Waters, John McCain, and Chuck Schumer, who represent three main subgroups in the US Congress. The decades of "unnatural selection" in the US government have produced a collection of intellectual and moral pygmies, unfortunately.

Lavrov has some pretty direct and well-deserved words for Obama. Thus, Lavrov compares Obama to a small kid unable to comprehend the responsibilities of his position of a President of the US.

dorkimundo > , July 24, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

It it time for the Syrian "Madman' to order another sarin gas attack against the innocent children?

annamaria > , July 24, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT

@dorkimundo It is so easy to spot a ziocon thirsty for the US resources, who is eager to see the US to waste the US limb&blood for the barbarious dream of Eretz Israel

annamaria > , July 24, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

@dorkimundo There are hundreds of thousands of innocent children that perished because of the ziocon project in the Middle East

annamaria > , July 24, 2017 at 1:37 pm GMT

@anon " dysfunctional Arab country."
It is fun to observe how Israelis of Soviet extraction feel superior to other Israelis and to everybody else. Check the level of "democracy, respect for women, free speech or press" in Afghanistan in the 80-s and compare the facts with the disaster brought upon Afghani women by US warriors.

Your bloodthirsty ideologues of Eretz Israel dream nothing more than creating the dysfunctional Arab countries next to Israel (see Oded Yinon plan); hence the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians of all ages in the Middle East.

After this holocaust of Arabs, which was designed and promoted by Israelis and Israel-firsters in the US, your apartheid state of Israel will never recover morally. You are doomed.

[Jul 28, 2017] Is Trump Entering a Kill Box

Notable quotes:
"... Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this. ..."
"... Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.unz.com
Diversity Heretic , July 28, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

My conclusion is that the Deep State is winning. Even I've getting numb and increasingly less interested in the twists and turns of who's investigating whom and why and what are the likely consequences. I'm reminded of the quote attribute to Lavrentiy Beria: "Show me the man and I will find you the crime."

jacques sheete > , July 28, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

Reports of his frustration and rage suggest that he knows he has been maneuvered, partly by his own mistakes, into a kill box from which there may be no bloodless exit.

He asked for it so he could play tough guy on the world stage. Only a fool, (especially at his age), would actually want the job, so I hope he doesn't expect any sort of pity party.

Drain the swamp? We should've flushed the bif.

Johnny Smoggins > , July 28, 2017 at 11:57 am GMT

When dealing with the left, you can never apologize and never back down. Double down and punch back twice as hard. Anyone on the alt right could have told Trump this.

Unfortunately for all his bluster about being a fighter, Trump did none of this.

Five minutes after he became president he should have been going after Obama and the Clintons and burying the Russian hacking nonsense before it had time to grow wings. He didn't and now he's paying the price.

[Jul 28, 2017] To survive Trump will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people.

Notable quotes:
"... This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride. ..."
"... "The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of." ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

VietnamVet 25 July 2017 at 06:34 PM

PT

This is the truth popping up through the cracks. It is impossible to drive Donald Trump from office without investigating the corruption and the information operation that supports the American Empire; in particular, the Clintons and Obama who are getting a free ride.

It is shocking how inept the Trump family and the Russians are. To survive they will have to cultivate the truth and speak directly to the people. It is said that cassette tapes brought down the Soviet Union. Today we have the internet.

Yesterday I read Tim Hayward's "It's Time to Raise the Level of Public Debate about Syria". Appendix 1 states the obvious:

"The truth will be what it is forever, without any input from anyone, whereas a lie becomes increasingly high maintenance in the face of simple questioning. It is endlessly difficult to maintain the back story, and then the back story's story, and so on, until the effort required to avoid self-contradiction simply becomes too much and the simple truth just comes out again, like a plant through cracked tarmac. That is why the propaganda campaign needs to be so vast and long term. It is a gargantuan feat that we only see the tip of."

[Jul 28, 2017] US Special Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volcker says that Russia is to blame for the hot war which is currently raging in the east of that country, not Ukrainian nationalists who seized power in Kiev due to Us supported coup

Jul 23, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

marknesop , , July 23, 2017 at 11:11 am

US Special Envoy to Ukraine – where the USA is determined to become the dominant decision-making body despite its not being invited to or a party to the Minsk Accords – Kurt Volcker says that Russia is to blame for the 'hot war' which is currently raging in the east of that country, and amplifies that the USA must get a lot more involved.

I nearly fell off my chair; I was that surprised.

[Jul 28, 2017] The Serbs were murdering Toms like flies back in 1999 using the Vietnam-War era vintage SA-7s. Or a good old Shilka and the radar turned on.

Notable quotes:
"... The Germans and French will not die for US hegemony schemes if it comes to that. The Brits might because they're kind of nuts about Russia - toss up, I guess. ..."
"... The interesting thing about this interview (to me) was that Mattis actually sounds like a pretty rational person in the first half of the interview, especially in regards to Russia. Then Iran and Syria comes up and he just goes off the rails. ..."
"... Thanks for that interview, Mattis is quite clear: they will keep trying regime change, nothing else. Russia is a competitor not an enemy and they are 'deconflicting'. ..."
"... because the US and world economy is so vulnerable to a sustained spike in the price of oil, the US cannot afford to mess with a country that has the power to wreck havoc on the price of this strategic commodity. ..."
"... A single Sunburn or Nour missile direct hit at Saudi Arabia's only deep water port at Ra's Tanura is enough to put all Saudi oil exports out of commission for several months. ..."
"... Given the derivatives volume, the margin calls on these might well push the Dow and S&P over the precipice and precipitate a major crash. ..."
"... During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games. But that was then. It seems with the Neocon purges at the Pentagon and State since then, the Kool-aid has made it all the way to the top, so that reason is no longer the decisive factor in the decision making process. ..."
"... And finally, methinks the implications of the mass production of the indiginized S-200 is that it will not be too long (5 to 10 years?) before Ben Gurion Airport is de facto declared a no fly zone, precipitating a significant wave of reverse migration back to New York and Florida and Europe from occupid Palestine. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | mihsislander.org

Peter AU 1 | Jul 27, 2017 1:48:23 AM | 92

ProPeace@84 - "Well, not if the ships carrying those tomahawks are hit by Yakhonts first"

I agree, but you're assuming a US Navy ship in the Persian Gulf would be launching the Tomahawks. Block IV TLAMs have a range of between 1300 and 1800 km depending on the model. They could be launched at Iran from the Mediterranean, Red Sea or Arabian Sea - well outside the 300 km range of an anti-ship Yakhont, Onyx or BrahMos. I'm guessing the US Navy would take that into consideration when they attack Iran.

"...And the Russians have also electronic countermeasures that caused that two US missiles fired from the Western Med area towards Damascus to fall into the sea back in 2013, I believe. No problem to protect Iran in the same way..."

Russia will be angry, but it will not start WW III with the US over Iran. They won't have to. An attack on Iran will push China over the edge and THEY will be perfectly willing to start WW III with the US in retaliation. Nobody talks much about that, but Iran is China's red line. They will jump in as soon as we attack Iran, guaranteed. They know they're very close to the top of the US Imaginary Enemies list and they'll be next.

Russia will voice its objections to the US/Israeli/GCC/NATO actions and indicate support for Iran and China, but won't jump in at the start. They will just say that they are perfectly willing to do so. The US will back down because we can't win either a conventional or nuclear war with China and Russia at the same time. NATO will fold because their capitals are maybe six minutes from Russia's RS-26 ICBMs. The Germans and French will not die for US hegemony schemes if it comes to that. The Brits might because they're kind of nuts about Russia - toss up, I guess.

Sadly, despite the consequences, the US will invent an excuse to attack Iran and do so. This short interview in June with James Mattis, our Defense Secretary, illustrates why. The interview was conducted in response to a request from a student (Teddy) at some random high school newspaper in Washington state. Mattis responded on a whim and talked with them for a while, taking questions. The interesting thing about this interview (to me) was that Mattis actually sounds like a pretty rational person in the first half of the interview, especially in regards to Russia. Then Iran and Syria comes up and he just goes off the rails. Poor Teddy...

Full transcript: Defense Secretary James Mattis' interview with The Islander

PavewayIV | Jul 27, 2017 1:26:55 AM | 91

Close in defences at target sites seem the best defence against cruise missile attack - Pantsir type of thing. Short range missiles and cannon. Any idea what Iran has in the way of short range defence systems? Iran seems good on the electronics side of things which is what modern war is all about.

somebody | Jul 27, 2017 2:12:47 AM | 93 #91 PW4

Thanks for that interview, Mattis is quite clear: they will keep trying regime change, nothing else. Russia is a competitor not an enemy and they are 'deconflicting'.

His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny.

Quadriad | Jul 27, 2017 5:38:48 AM | 96

I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage. Tomahawks are retard-missiles, flown in straight lines at low altitudes and at low speeds too. S-200 of any vintage is an utter overkill for the Tomahawks.

Pantsirs, Buks and Tors are borderline overkill.

All that's really needed is a good Igla or Two and well alert crew. The Serbs were murdering Toms like flies back in 1999 using the Vietnam-War era vintage SA-7s. Or a good old Shilka and the radar turned on.

Quadriad | Jul 27, 2017 5:40:56 AM | 97

straight lines - near straight lines, they do turn when they need to dodge a mountain or similar. Otherwise, not as much.

Or kill the GPS satellite and all the Tomahawks become as useless as c*** flavor lollipops. These worthless Raytheon pieces of shite probably don't even have an inertial mode.

Thank you Paveway and others for your responses on the Iran military capabilities issue.

Nuff Sed | Jul 27, 2017 6:55:19 AM | 98

I disagree that Iran is either China's or Russia's red line. Logically she should be, but she isn't. What I think has kept Uncle Scam from attacking Iran is Iran's own military strength. That is not to say that Iran is in the same league; but because the US and world economy is so vulnerable to a sustained spike in the price of oil, the US cannot afford to mess with a country that has the power to wreck havoc on the price of this strategic commodity.

A single Sunburn or Nour missile direct hit at Saudi Arabia's only deep water port at Ra's Tanura is enough to put all Saudi oil exports out of commission for several months.

Given the derivatives volume, the margin calls on these might well push the Dow and S&P over the precipice and precipitate a major crash.

And then there is this:

http://www.rense.com/general59/thesunburniransawesome.htm

During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games. But that was then. It seems with the Neocon purges at the Pentagon and State since then, the Kool-aid has made it all the way to the top, so that reason is no longer the decisive factor in the decision making process.

And finally, methinks the implications of the mass production of the indiginized S-200 is that it will not be too long (5 to 10 years?) before Ben Gurion Airport is de facto declared a no fly zone, precipitating a significant wave of reverse migration back to New York and Florida and Europe from occupid Palestine.

Nuff Said.

OJS | Jul 27, 2017 7:02:54 AM | 99

@denk 95

Nope! I'm not an Indian nor China apologist but primarily to show a new war brewing between India and China and both with Russian S-400. Russia just recently signed agreement to sell S-400 to India. You should watch this vid first (three parts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udADHfiDR80

Here another viewpoints from Pepe Escobar

China and India torn between silk roads and cocked guns (OpEdNews Op Eds 7/26/2017 at 19:32:31 )

https://www.opednews.com/articles/China-and-India-torn-betwe-by-Pepe-Escobar-Brics_China-Investment-Corp_China-Politics_Indian-Prime-Minister-Modi-170726-632.html

V. Arnold | Jul 27, 2017 7:04:23 AM | 100

Well, I certainly look forward to PW-IV's reply. I agree with you to the extent that the U.S. is highly overrated on most weapon systems.

Syria is the first time since Vietnam the U.S. has faced an equal or possibly superior (technologically) opponent. We'll most certainly see...

PavewayIV | Jul 27, 2017 11:20:35 AM | 108

OJS@81 - Re: India/China - Interesting in its own right. But ever since the U.S. MSM started weighing in with their spin, I had to tune out. I'm under constant assault by full-spectrum MSM insanity in the Middle East at the moment, and nobody cares about what the U.S. thinks about a Indian-Chinese border dispute.

Peter AU 1@92 Re: Iran short-range point defense - They have a couple of dozen old TOR-M1s and BUK clones, but nothing like Pantsirs. Since their overall network is not terribly integrated (as far as anyone knows), the older short-range equipment is of limited value. Iran relies on a kind of long-range point defense strategy along with a long-range border ring.

somebody@93 - Re Mattis "...His optimism that the American Way is the solution is quite funny." His heart is in the right place. I would simply prefer him in his old job as Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, rather than U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Quadriad@96 - "...I can't believe that someone as astute as you are is now spilling this defeatist garbage..." The war with Iran will not be decided by simple weapon superiority (or lack thereof). Iran will lose its entire air defenses in the first two weeks of an all-our war, and the U.S. will bail out before either side 'wins'.

Nuff Sed@98 - The U.S. spends $600 billion a year on the military and imports less than 12% of our oil from the Persian Gulf. Since when has the U.S. ever cared about the sacrifices of the 'little people' when pursuing its imperialistic goals? Do you think big oil interests in Washington would cry much about $200/bbl oil?

"...During Bush the Younger's tenure, Cheney, Rummy and Wolfowitz were dying to attack Iran, but cooler minds among the military brass prevailed and didn't let the children play at their war games..."

Well, we'll have to disagree on that on. The U.S. war on Iran started a couple of decades ago - we just haven't made it to Iran itself yet. I think the 'loose ends' are just about all tied up by now.

V. Arnold@100 - Our vast technical superiority in weapons has proved worthless in the longest war in U.S. history: Afghanistan. We're very good at blowing things up, that's it. If the war is about anything else, then we're usually in trouble.

[Jul 28, 2017] While Hezbollah yesterday was literary burying its fallen fighters and simultaneously moving fast towards victory over Al-Nusra terrorists in Arsal/Lebanon, Trump in DC, during a press conference with visiting Lebanese PM, Hariri, said: "Hezbollah is a menace to the Lebanese state, the Lebanese people and the entire region. The group continues to increase its military arsenal which threatens to start yet another conflict with Israel. With the support of Iran, the organization is also fueling humanitarian catastrophe in Syria."

Notable quotes:
"... What you don't see in the above video is the Saudi-backed Hariri reacting/smirking when Trump was uttering the quote above (unfortunately, with my time restrictions, I only managed to find a static-camera vid of the event). ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Taxi | Jul 27, 2017 8:14:17 AM | 102

While Hezbollah yesterday was literary burying its fallen fighters and simultaneously moving fast towards victory over Al-Nusra terrorists in Arsal/Lebanon, Trump in DC, during a press conference with visiting Lebanese PM, Hariri, said: "Hezbollah is a menace to the Lebanese state, the Lebanese people and the entire region. The group continues to increase its military arsenal which threatens to start yet another conflict with Israel. With the support of Iran, the organization is also fueling humanitarian catastrophe in Syria."

https://youtu.be/FWeN8nOEuyM

What you don't see in the above video is the Saudi-backed Hariri reacting/smirking when Trump was uttering the quote above (unfortunately, with my time restrictions, I only managed to find a static-camera vid of the event). Point is, the visual and context of the Trump-Hariri statements did not quiet match the reality on the ground in Lebanon. Street celebrations for the liberation of Arsal by Hezbollah and the Lebanese Army erupted yesterday with plenty of fireworks and cheers throughout the Lebanonland.

Much praise was heaped on Hezbollah by the eclectic Lebanese masses and media/social media for Hezbollah liberating yet another chunk of Lebanon and killing/destroying copious numbers of wahabi terrorists.

Shia Hezbollah was liberating Lebanese land and saving Lebanese Sunnis and Christians from wahabi terrorists, while Trump, to Hariri's tickled delight, was calling Hezbollah a "menace to Lebanon" before the media cameras of the world.

We're still living in the thick of political upsideownism.

And one more observation: it used to be that corruption in government was always rife and the norm, with the rarest of rare occasion where 'treason' was involved. Nowadays, well, look around and you will notice every other political now has become a shameless traitor too. Corrupt traitors left and right and East and West - they're everywhere now - running the show to the ground.

[Jul 28, 2017] Trump lost the support of the American people when he used false flag reports to justify firing rockets into Syria, and allowed USA resources to be used to assist the Saudi decimation of Yemen.

Jul 28, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca

war benefit <=domestic cost escalation | Jul 27, 2017 1:29:14 PM | 111

http://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-is-being-moved-aside-so-that-conflict-with-russia-can-proceed/5601203

Trump lost the support of the American people when he bowed to Netanyohu, backed land theft in Settlement Goland, used false flag reports to justify firing rockets into Syria, and allowed USA resources to be used to assist the Saudi decimation of Yemen.

If trump wants Americans to back his USA leadership, he needs to cut off all aid to ISRAEL, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and all other foreign interest or nations, stand down in South America particularly in Venezuela, dump the federal reserve, vacate all USA military bases in foreign places, gather and return all USA weapons, materials and supplies to American soil in USA controlled America, refuse to allow any branch of government or military to buy any object or service of any kind or to fund any NPO operating anywhere in the world but in America, bring home USA-citizen-troops and dismiss all others, consolidate all intelligence and spy agencies under one roof, and appoint to its head, someone loyal to Trump.

Without domestic American support, Trump is on his own in dealing with his problems with global Zionism and the power play over who is to call the shots within the corrupt USA.. To date 340,000,000 Americans have seen no difference in Trump's leadership from all the others. The USA remains a very small in number, very rich, group of elected and career persons who collectively enjoy get out of jail free cards and who use the power of the USA all over the world to separate Americans from their money. Everyday Americans need a platform for their elected representatives to follow. This is mine. what is yours?

[Jul 28, 2017] The Syrian army were standing up to Isis long before the Americans ever fired a missile

Jul 28, 2017 | independent.co.uk

Temporarily Sane | Jul 27, 2017 5:02:23 PM | 119

Fisk is on fire this week...

The Syrian army were standing up to Isis long before the Americans ever fired a missile

ABC News (US) refers to the SDF as "Syrian forces"; the SAA gets no mention whatsoever.

The entire Western media cabal is milking the "chicks with guns" angle for all it is worth and going by their stories nobody was fighting ISIS until the US cobbled together its SDF proxy army.

The only outfit not playing stenographer to the regime change crowd is Channel 4 who have a crew on the ground in Syria.

But even they inject DoS/Atlantic Council talking points about the "Assad regime" into their reports.

[Jul 28, 2017] Jonathan Freedland s Trump Assassination Fantasy

Notable quotes:
"... There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers. ..."
"... I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more, watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.unz.com

Jonathan Freedland's Trump Assassination Fantasy Andrew Joyce • July 25, 2017 • 1,200 Words • 42 Comments Reply

Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as " a kind of triumph ," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian , while making little original contribution to the intellectual debate over the progress of the Trump administration, have instead revealed much about the paranoid preoccupations of Freedland, the Left, and elements of the organized Jewish community.

Until recently, Freedland's rantings have been predictable. In Freedland's caricature-like portrayals, Trump emerges as a shameless, dictator-like figure who "respects no limits on his lust for power." Rarely shy of a dramatic turn of phrase, Freedland writes about his prior enthusiasm for the Constitution of the United States -- a document he sees as guaranteeing a multicultural state -- and his growing unease that this same document somehow permitted "a dangerous man" like Trump to assume office: "Trump is testing my admiration for that document -- testing it, perhaps, to destruction." Freedland has lamented that democracy in America "now stands naked -- and vulnerable."

Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle. W hile he rarely, if ever, mentions his Jewishness to the Guardian 's mass readership, in his writings at the JC Freedland is significantly less circumspect. In March, for example, he wrote in the JC that Trump "is no friend of ours and the correct Jewish stance on Trump was one of vigilant opposition."

Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not mention Jews or antisemitism. Freedland further complains that Trump "has no instinctive sensitivity for Jewish concerns. Any condemnation of antisemitism has to be either scripted for him or else extracted under pressure. More troublingly, he has an uncanny knack for speaking to and about Jews in a way that thrills antisemites." More embarrassingly for Freedland, he was one of the most vicious and persistent critics of Trump's assertion that the bomb threats called into a number of Jewish buildings were probably made by Jews. At the height of the controversy, Freedland had written:

Trump was asked in a meeting of states attorneys-general about the wave of bomb threats to Jewish community centres. According to those present, Trump speculated that, rather than taking these incidents at face value, they should consider that "sometimes it's the reverse, to make people -- or to make others -- look bad." Trump reportedly used the word "reverse" two or three times. What can this mean, except an implication that these threats to Jewish buildings were made by Jews themselves, to damage Trump? The notion of "false flag" attacks is a staple theme of the far right. In this context, it is a classic antisemitic trope: that anti-Jewish attacks are invented by cunning Jews to win underserved sympathy.

How unfortunate for Freedland that this 'classic antisemitic trope' was later very soundly confirmed.

Not one to waste his talents, Jonathan Freedland has for several years published fiction under the pseudonym Sam Bourne. His earliest pulp novels appear to have been an attempt to cash in on the success of Dan Brown's thriller formula, and the syllable similarity in the two names shouldn't be considered accidental. In these novels, one can discern Freedland/Bourne using fiction to play out personal fantasies. For example, The Righteous Men (2006) is a trashy religious thriller which derives its subject matter from Jewish folklore and has "a faction of the Christian Church" in the 'bad guy' role. The book was later followed by The Final Reckoning (2008), a revenge fantasy about a group of so-called "Holocaust survivors" who set out to assassinate former National Socialists.

To Kill The President , Freedland/Bourne's very recently published 'thriller,' has taken matters to a new extreme, blending the author's history of anti-Trump journalism with his penchant for fictional ethnic revenge fantasies. Of course, no-one in the Trump administration is named in the latest novel, but Freedland makes no attempt to disguise his meaning. In the 'feminist' plot of To Kill the President , a female White House aide (and "avowed liberal") uncovers a conspiracy to murder a recently elected populist president who unexpectedly won an election against a female Democrat who attracted criticism for being careless with her email service. The President, described as a "cheat and bigot," offends the political and media establishments with "the tweets, the lies, the grotesque misconduct, the acts of unwarranted aggression." One scene includes the President grabbing a female assistant by her genitals in the Situation Room, where staff have been summoned in the middle of the night because the President plans to launch missiles at China and North Korea.

Using a puppet then, Freedland gets to vent his spleen, casting the most vulgar accusations and insinuations against Trump without fear of a libel suit.

Freedland's portrayal of Steve Bannon is also noteworthy. The novel's President, an unstable demagogue, is ultimately a marionette dancing to the tune of a "ruthless chief strategist" with an Irish name -- in this instance Bannon becomes Crawford 'Mac' McNamara. McNamara/Bannon saunters around the White House as if he is President, talking down to women and acting every inch the alpha male. The Bannon caricature presented by Freedland has been likened to a "middle aged rock star." One senses that Freedland is made deeply uneasy by Bannon's opaque role within the White House administration, as well as his perceived masculinity -- not to mention his opposition to Muslim immigration and his generally populist attitudes. Much could be read into the fact that Freedland offers no fictional portrayal of Jared Kushner.

The novel thus offers insight into the minds of our opponents. Their fears, insecurities, and yes, their sick fantasies, are right here in black and white. But most importantly this is a work of incitement. Given the current context of increasingly violent Leftist conduct and rhetoric, To Kill The President should be interpreted as a very dangerous and deliberately targeted flirtation with the idea of political assassination. Even Mark Lawson, one of Freedland's colleagues at the Guardian , writes at the end of his review of the book: "Even committed Trump-haters may suffer struggles of conscience over what would count as a satisfactory resolution of the plot." This is a book that, ultimately, get its "thrills" from the prospect of the murder of Donald Trump.

The mainstream publication and promotion of To Kill The President should be interpreted as a stark symbol of the degradation and co-option of our cultural and political life by neurotic, twisted, and hateful elements within our gates.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative)

NoseytheDuke > , July 27, 2017 at 4:36 am GMT

There was a time when Jonathan Freedland might have been considered an embarrassment to The Guardian but nowadays The Guardian has itself become an embarrassment to Fish and Chip wrappers.

Carlton Meyer > , • Website July 27, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

Allow me to kickstart this as a JKF thread. From my blog:

Apr 6, 2014 – More Proof

I've never spent much time on the JFK assassination since the proof of a conspiracy is overwhelming. If you want more, watch this short video of JFK's Secret Service team being ordered off his limo shortly before he was shot.

Carlton Meyer > , • Website July 27, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT

And this allows me to link the most interesting video on youtube. Did James Files kill JFK? From my blog:

Jul 10, 2016 – James Files Killed JFK?

Youtube has amazing stuff, like James Files explaining how he killed JFK. This is a long interview but very detailed and believable. The first question that arises is why this guy finally talked. This is answered in this short video that you should watch first.

James Files may be phony, but he is a former CIA/US Army Special Ops guy, a known gangster, and if he is a fraud, he is first rate actor with great knowledge about the underworld who spent years preparing for this interview. I'm not sure what to think about his story, but he is an interesting and likable guy!

There are websites that attempt to dismiss Files, and even one dedicated to discrediting him: James Files Fraud. But one must ask who has the time and motivation to devote a website just to counter a youtube interview? Our CIA has thousands of people employed in counter-intelligence. They have the time, resources and media contacts to refute "conspiracy theorists" like 9-11 and JFK. This includes full time "floggers" commenting on websites and maintaining the "truth" at Wikipedia.

The Files interview is very interesting and I highly recommend watching it all, before it disappears. I recall watching a youtube interview with his prison warden that has disappeared. The warden summoned Files to his office to find out why he refused to see prominent visitors. He became convinced of Files' detailed account of shooting JFK, and was angered to learn that FBI agents had managed to interview Files in his prison without his knowledge.

exiled off mainstreet > , July 27, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT

Just like retired boxer Mike Tyson was a sort of poster boy for racism, Freedland is sort of a poster boy for anti-Semitism. He gives Nazi sympathisers the chance to say that perhaps the fuhrer wasn't totally wrong.

Wally > , • Website July 27, 2017 at 6:40 am GMT

Revealing, Jonathan Freedland supports strict Israeli immigration laws which specify JEWS ONLY, while he demands massive 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.

"Trump's 'crimes,' according to Freedland, have included the White House statement marking Holocaust Memorial Day which did not mention Jews or antisemitism."

Jonathan Freedland is the very essence of those that promote fraud for profit.

... ... ...

jilles dykstra > , July 27, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT

Kennedy was murdered two weeks after he threatened Israel not to give them weapons any more if they continued developing the atom bomb. What's new ?

Randal > , July 27, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

Freedland's opposition to the Trump administration, interpreted on the basis of his own words and arguments, is not rooted merely in generic Leftism. It also comprises an element of ethnic self-interest. Freedland perceives Trump to be obstructive to Jewish social and political objectives, and this is most apparent in his journalism for the Jewish Chronicle.

The above article can usefully be read in conjunction with the following Occidental Observer piece published on Unz.com a couple of months ago, in the runup to the recent General Election:

Fake Jews: Deceit and Double-Think in Britain's Hostile Elite

Here is an article written for the Jewish Chronicle by Daniel Finkelstein, a strongly identified Jew high in the ruling Conservative party:

Corbyn must lose -- for our sake [i.e., for the readers of the Jewish Chronicle]

The Alarmist > , July 27, 2017 at 9:07 am GMT

They did it to W as well look at it as putting the R in taRget, because there are rarely Ds in their sites in any sales volume or venue or media that matters.

TelfoedJohn > , July 27, 2017 at 10:09 am GMT

Freedland has written endlessly about how Israel needs to be supported as an independent homeland for the Jewish people. You can't even buy land if you are not Jewish in Israel.

But in the UK, he regards the independence arising from Brexit, and any lessening of immigration, as complete disasters. What would he feel if only Christians could be citizens and buy land in the UK?

Bille ones > , July 27, 2017 at 10:47 am GMT

Under a Clinton regime he would be just one more of the hundred plus dead.

annamaria > , July 27, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke True. Guardian has become the lowest of the presstitutes.

As for the ethnicity-minding Jonathan Freedland, "a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," it should be stickered to him every day that the supposedly super-moral state of Israel has not taken a single Syrian refugee fleeing the death and destruction of the ziocons' design. " every country in the region and many nations around the world have hosted Syrian refugees Except Israel. Even a symbolic government proposal to host 100 Syrian orphans was eventually dropped." https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/26/fear-and-trepidation-in-tel-aviv-is-israel-losing-the-syria-war/

How have many Syrian Anne Franks have been refused to come to Israel by the Israeli supremacists or were murdered by the Israel-friendly "moderate fighters" of ISIS/Al Qaeda variety?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/alliance-of-convenience-israel-supports-syrias-isis-terror-group/5587203

"Since the start of the conflict, Israel bombed targets in Syria as it saw fit, and casually spoke of maintaining regular contacts with certain opposition groups. On June 18, the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been giving "secret aid" to Syrian rebels, in the form of "cash and humanitarian aid."

utu > , July 27, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer How do you call the mental disorder when you make false claims that you were part of something big including being an assassin?

DaveE > , July 27, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

@Ludwig Watzal Yeah a "self-fulfilling prophecy" with a big push from outside forces . like relentless never-ending propaganda from slimeballs like Freedland. That was the author's point.

The simple, direct yet elegant style of Mr. Joyce should be studied by a few more Unz commenters.

Che Guava > , July 27, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT

Andrew,

The Guardian is the disgusting institution, it runs on a massive bequest.

One can be sure that some Soros foundation will step in when it is running out. They are sharing common goals.

Unbelievably, they had two articles of interest last week, one by the vain Hadley Freeman, an interview with her co-ethnics or co-religionists, depending on the day, it is seeming, with the Goldman family, of the other victim of wrongful death at the hands of OJ. I would recommending it for your reading. I am sure that it is easy to find. I think that the Goldman family is making big profits from OJ, but he was a creep and the cause of two wrongful deaths, so am thinking he is deserving it.

The other was about the experience of Yazidi women under IS. Full of the occasional sentence about how bad the Syrian govt. and Assad are, which I see is a lie, I have read real testimonials from real British people, not wealthy, of how kind Assad was in his opthalmolagy practice.

That was also worth reading, despite the clear propaganda parts. I am forgetting the name of the writer.

Really, the Guardian is typified by its pnrtrait photos of the writers. Freedland is one of the worst, in the sense of false consciousness.

Still, almost all of them are photographed for their portrait photos, side-on, and sneering at the reader over the shoulder, seems to being their house style.

I used to comment there at times (only a very few mths), different u-name to here, even got an editor's pick once, on worker's rights.

Their Comment is Free has the stench of somethimg out of Orwell's 1984, far from free, more mild than some of my posts here, were there, they are such hypocrites and liars, disallow things for nothing. CiF? GTFO!

Never formally banned, but never to returning. I still reading at times with great cynicism, but they are the crap.

For the lighter touch, not being a U.S.A. person, never knew much abt. American football until much later, but saw OJ in Capricorn One as a child, so he is having some connection with 'Moon landings were the fake' conspiracy theories. Amusing to me.

Mr. Joyce, thank you for interesting writing, I am reading it at your main site at times, too.

jilles dykstra > , July 27, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT

@utu Avner Cohen, 'Israel and the Bomb', New York 1998

The writer, or maybe the Israeli censor, goes to great length to hide the two week period.

jilles dykstra > , July 27, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@annamaria I suppose the Guardian changed after Soros bought it.

Moi > , July 27, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke None said it better!

for-the-record > , July 27, 2017 at 6:16 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra I suppose the Guardian changed after Soros bought it .

I don't believe that's actually correct. But until your post I wasn't aware that there was any connection, however murky, between the Guardian and Soros. The best I can find is the following, can you suggest anything more definitive?

http://russia-insider.com/en/media-criticism/uks-guardian-bed-soros-sees-russian-spies-behind-every-christmas-tree/ri18403

annamaria > , July 27, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

@Randal Freedland was piping the same hateful tune against Corbyn: https://off-guardian.org/2017/06/10/jonathan-freedlands-corbyn-apology/

yeah > , July 27, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT

Friedland, the author of the phantasy fiction in which President Trump gets killed, is a typical specimen of the "neurotic, twisted, and hateful elements within our gates".

What exactly the multi-culti, LGBTQ, identity-obsessed, ultra liberals have against Trump beats me just as much as a three-legged transgender alien might. A psychotic one can understand; a deluded soul one can pity or ignore; a fanatic of the traditional right/left variety one can plan to deal with; but how on earth does one come to terms with the nominally sane but dangerously fanatical no-holds-barred warriors from the loony left who are prepared to destroy all and everything? Intellectual battle would be about as useful as reasoning with a psychotic, and physical battle with pansies is not an enticing prospect either. Political debates and re-elections would also not resolve the matter with people who have no respect for any facts, laws, or systems other than their own. Perhaps the only solution might be to cast them off to outer space to colonize their own planet, per Stephen Hawking's prescription for the human race.

Seriously, the degree of seething hate, lying, hypocrisy, and fanaticism we see in the new breed of self-proclaimed "progressives" is cause for serious worry. I despair and beg keener minds to propose solutions.

Anonymous > , • Disclaimer July 27, 2017 at 10:42 pm GMT

Jonathan Freedland, a British-Jewish journalist infamous for hailing the demographic eclipse of the British people in their own homeland as "a kind of triumph," has devoted the last twelve months of his miserable journalistic life to neurotic attacks on the Trump presidency. His hyperbolic writings at the Guardian,

How many "British people" have requested, or demanded, his demotion from his job place at the Guardian?

The fewer they have been, the righter has he been in behaving and writing the way he has.It is happens over a non-brief time span, it means that it works. If it works, it's right.

Same as for the "neurotic". What is insanity? Only what is disliked by the crowd, or those with power. It's not this journalist's case (or he would have lost his job), so "neurotic" doesn't apply to him.

[Jul 28, 2017] The moment Trump beat the 'chosen' one was the moment the United States government entered the crisis. If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct or if I have understood it correctly then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than Russiagate

Notable quotes:
"... If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded." ..."
"... That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis ..."
"... Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack, but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence, Warner's 'choked' comment. ..."
Jul 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

h | Jul 27, 2017 10:34:06 AM | 106

karlof1 @35 - Thanks for the link to Mercouris' article. What he is realizing is what many have been alluding to for quite some time.

" If the scenario outlined by VIPS is correct – or if I have understood it correctly – then there is a far greater scandal behind the Russiagate scandal even than this, for in that case an attempt was made to swing the election through a fraud in which sections of the US's intelligence and security services appear to have colluded."

" That is a very disturbing possibility, and one which if true would mean that the political and constitutional system of the United States is in profound crisis ."

The U.S. government is in a 'profound crisis.'

It is impossible to forget that Hillary was the anointed one to follow zero. The moment the numbers came in on the eve of the election showing Trump beat the 'chosen' one was the moment the United States government entered the crisis.

What little we are slowly learning is that Zero politicized every department charged with conducting the affairs on behalf of the people. What we learned shortly after Trump took office from an investigation conducted by Sen Grassley of the Sen Judiciary committee was the tip of the iceberg, that was all of the financial settlements from the banking industry following the 2008 financial meltdown went into a DOJ slush fund that was then dispersed to support groups like Black Lives Matter, La Raza and many, many more. Sessions ended those funds from being handed out within the first couple of month's of his taking office.

It was little reported. But think about the millions upon millions in those settlements. As well, I'd be remiss not to make note, but as part of the numerous settlements, DOJ would suggest, as part of the deal, that the bank or business settling make a 'tax deductible' donation to organizations of the DOJ's choosing. This was once the Chicago way of doing business, maybe it still is.

Had the 'anointed' one won trust these groups, good or bad, would have only grown and continued their disruptive practices on the streets of anywhere USA. Had that continued cities like Baltimore, Chicago, NYC, etc would have been begging for federal help to cease such disruption aka Martial Law.

I could go on and on about the many projects/programs Zero put in place only to have the anointed one to carry them through to fruition. All such programs ended on the eve of the election.

Also take notice that there has not been a horrific shooting since at least October, maybe even September, here in the U.S. One might want to ask why?

Lastly, I couldn't figure out why Sen Warner suggested on a Sunday morning show awhile back that Zero 'choked' that is until I read the recent article by Time magazine describing the 19-Page DHS Plan to post national guardsmen at polling sites throughout the USA. It's startling to learn all of this after the fact, to say the least. But know the D's had a plan for election day, of course, first having to sell the narrative about a Russian cyber attack, but the Secretary's of State appeared to have stopped that project in its tracks...hence, Warner's 'choked' comment.

Oh, there was a plan in place alright, and we're only at the beginning of the curtain being pulled back. In the meantime those radical leaders in congress who hide behind the D or R label are more than happy to grind the people's business to a complete halt.

/div
/div

[Jul 27, 2017] The shrieking and wailing business about Russia is a sideshow; the main event, under the big top is China.

Notable quotes:
"... All of the above, EU, Japan etc. happily do business with China. Any face off exists in the feverish psyche of Western editorialists. The shrieking and wailing business about Russia is a sideshow; the main event, under the big top is China. ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

July 26, 2017

Robert Magill > , July 26, 2017 at 10:45 pm GMT

The dispute and indecisions over who rules the empire will allow for regional powers to lay claims on contested regions. The EU, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel will face off with Russia, Iran and China. No one will wait for the US to decide which power center will rule

All of the above, EU, Japan etc. happily do business with China. Any face off exists in the feverish psyche of Western editorialists. The shrieking and wailing business about Russia is a sideshow; the main event, under the big top is China.

All the rest is carnival time and we stand in the midway in awe of the carnival barker in the big hat who announces the freak show inside.

China has a hundred friends. We have two; Saudi Arabia and Israel.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

[Jul 27, 2017] Russian Officials Warn New US Sanctions Put Them in Uncharted Waters by Jason Ditz

Notable quotes:
"... Officials See US Move as Proof of 'Anti-Russian Hysteria' ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
Officials See US Move as Proof of 'Anti-Russian Hysteria' Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov was among a series of top Russian officials issuing warnings with regards to the latest round of US sanctions against Russia, which overwhelmingly passed the House and seem to have strong support in the Senate.

With US-Russian relations already at a post-Cold War low, officials are warning the US sanctions are putting them into " uncharted waters ," pushing an already unstable relationship even further with additional sanctions.

Russian officials pinned this on "anti-Russia hysteria" within the US Congress, saying that they believe President Trump, who was previously talking up a diplomatic rapprochement with Russia, had effectively been "trapped" into going along with the sanctions.

The House bill that imposes the sanctions also heavily restricts the ability of the president to unilaterally lift sanctions in the future. Indeed, that was the initial point of the bill, Democrats wanted to prevent Trump from removing any sanctions. To get it through Congress, they added sanctions on Iran and North Korea.

The Russia sanctions have not only riled Russia, but the European Union as well, with fears the US sanctions will heavily hit European energy companies that are reliant on Russia for supplies. EU officials have warned the US is likely to face a swift retaliatory move by them if the sanctions go through.

[Jul 27, 2017] The neoliberal system of governance is designed to protect the interests of the most powerful members of financial oligarchy. Trump can t challenge that, but he can expose them. What is good for Goldman Sacks is good to America slogan is here to stay

Notable quotes:
"... the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave. ..."
"... His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately. ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

jacques sheete > , July 27, 2017 at 12:31 am GMT

@Wally After only 7 months, is it really that bad for Trump's agenda? I think not.

Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave.

He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately.

The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak.

[Jul 27, 2017] Trump greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washingtons Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see

Jul 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Erebus, July 27, 2017 at 1:13 am GMT

@jacques sheete Wally, yer one of the good guys, and your faith in Trump has aspects of charm, but the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave.

He could only be a dictator in the style you're suggesting if he had the backing of the military and or the big money crowd and I just don't see it. His ability to "do good" for the American masses is as severely limited as that of all his predecessors, unfortunately.

The system was designed to protect the interests of the most powerful money bag crowd while convincing the masses that whatever is good for GM is good for the USA, so to speak. During the campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to have after the inauguration. He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him, and to bring a dozen bloody-minded executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the black flag and start cutting throats" at key Departments and Agencies.

So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope

His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.

Seamus Padraig, July 27, 2017 at 10:43 am GMT

@Erebus During the campaign, I assumed Trump had a lot more behind him than he appears to have after the inauguration. He needed to have a few key power centres four-square behind him, and to bring a dozen bloody-minded executive operators with well-considered plans to "hoist the black flag and start cutting throats" at key Departments and Agencies.

So far, it appears that instead of Seven Samurai, he brought the Seven Dwarfs. Our remaining hope is that it's all part of a "clever plan", but that hope is just a hope...

His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.

His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.

You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy') is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis!

[Jul 27, 2017] Propaganda Techniques of Empire by James Petras

Notable quotes:
"... A common technique, practiced by the imperial publicists, is to accuse the victims of the same crimes, which had been committed against them. The well documented, deliberate and sustained US-EU aerial bombardment of Syrian government soldiers, engaged in operations against ISIS-terrorist, resulted in the deaths and maiming of almost 200 Syrian troops and allowed ISIS-mercenaries to overrun their camp. In an attempt to deflect the Pentagon's role in providing air cover for the very terrorists it claims to oppose, the propaganda organs cranked out lurid, but unsubstantiated, stories of an aerial attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy, first blamed on the Syrian government and then on the Russians. ..."
Jul 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction:

Washington's quest for perpetual world power is underwritten by systematic and perpetual propaganda wars. Every major and minor war has been preceded, accompanied and followed by unremitting government propaganda designed to secure public approval, exploit victims, slander critics, dehumanize targeted adversaries and justify its allies' collaboration.

In this paper we will discuss the most common recent techniques used to support ongoing imperial wars.

Role Reversal

A common technique, practiced by the imperial publicists, is to accuse the victims of the same crimes, which had been committed against them. The well documented, deliberate and sustained US-EU aerial bombardment of Syrian government soldiers, engaged in operations against ISIS-terrorist, resulted in the deaths and maiming of almost 200 Syrian troops and allowed ISIS-mercenaries to overrun their camp. In an attempt to deflect the Pentagon's role in providing air cover for the very terrorists it claims to oppose, the propaganda organs cranked out lurid, but unsubstantiated, stories of an aerial attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy, first blamed on the Syrian government and then on the Russians. The evidence that the attack was most likely a ground-based rocket attack by ISIS terrorists did not deter the propaganda mills. This technique would turn US and European attention away from the documented criminal attack by the imperial bombers and present the victimized Syrian troops and pilots as international human rights criminals.

Hysterical Rants

Faced with world opprobrium for its wanton violation of an international ceasefire agreement in Syria, the imperial public spokespeople frequently resort to irrational outbursts at international meetings in order to intimidate wavering allies into silence and shut down any chance for reasonable debate resolving concrete issues among adversaries.

The current 'US Ranter-in-Chief' in the United Nations, is Ambassador Samantha Power, who launched a vitriolic diatribe against the Russians in order to sabotage a proposed General Assembly debate on the US deliberate violation (its criminal attack on Syrian troops) of the recent Syrian ceasefire. Instead of a reasonable debate among serious diplomats, the rant served to derail the proceedings.

Identity Politics to Neutralize Anti-Imperialist Movements

Empire is commonly identified with the race, gender, religion and ethnicity of its practioners. Imperial propagandists have frequently resorted to disarming and weakening anti-imperialist movements by co-opting and corrupting black, ethnic minority and women leaders and spokespeople. The use of such 'symbolic' tokens is based on the assumption that these are 'representatives' reflecting the true interests of so-called 'marginalized minorities' and can therefore presume to 'speak for the oppressed peoples of the world'. The promotion of such compliant and respectable 'minority members' to the elite is then propagandized as a 'revolutionary', world liberating historical event – witness the 'election' of US President Barack Obama.

The rise of Obama to the presidency in 2008 illustrates how the imperial propagandists have used identity politics to undermine class and anti-imperialist struggles.

Under Obama's historical black presidency, the US pursued seven wars against 'people of color' in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Over a million men and women of sub-Saharan black origin, whether Libyan citizens or contract workers for neighboring countries, were killed, dispossessed and driven into exile by US allies after the US-EU destroyed the Libyan state – in the name of humanitarian intervention. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs have been bombed in Yemen, Syria and Iraq under President Obama, the so-called 'historic black' president. Obama's 'predator drones' have killed hundreds of Afghan and Pakistani villagers. Such is the power of 'identity politics' that ignominious Obama was awarded the 'Nobel Peace Prize'.

Meanwhile, in the United States under Obama, racial inequalities between black and white workers (wages, unemployment, access to housing, health and educational services) have widened. Police violence against blacks intensified with total impunity for 'killer cops'. Over two million immigrant Latino workers have been expelled – breaking up hundreds of thousands of families– and accompanied by a marked increase of repression compared to earlier administrations. Millions of black and white workers' home mortgages were foreclosed while all of the corrupt banks were bailed out – at a greater rate than had occurred under white presidents.

This blatant, cynical manipulation of identity politics facilitated the continuation and deepening of imperial wars, class exploitation and racial exclusion. Symbolic representation undermined class struggles for genuine changes.

Past Suffering to Justify Contemporary Exploitation

Imperial propagandists repeatedly evoke the victims and abuses of the past in order to justify their own aggressive imperial interventions and support for the 'land grabs' and ethnic cleansing committed by their colonial allies – like Israel, among others. The victims and crimes of the past are presented as a perpetual presence to justify ongoing brutalities against contemporary subject people.

The case of US-Israeli colonization of Palestine clearly illustrates how rabid criminality, pillage, ethnic cleansing and self-enrichment can be justified and glorified through the language of past victimization. Propagandists in the US and Israel have created 'the cult of the Holocaust', worshiping a near century-old Nazi crime against Jews (as well as captive Slavs, Gypsies and other minorities) in Europe, to justify the bloody conquest and theft of Arab lands and sovereignty and engage in systematic military assaults against Lebanon and Syria. Millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians have been driven into perpetual exile. Elite, wealthy, well-organized and influential zionist Jews, with primary fealty to Israel, have successfully sabotaged every contemporary struggle for peace in the Middle East and have created real barriers for social democracy in the US through their promotion of militarism and empire building. Those claiming to represent victims of the past have become among the most oppressive of contemporary elites. Using the language of 'defense', they promote aggressive forms of expansion and pillage. They claim their monopoly on historic 'suffering' has given them a 'special dispensation' from the rules of civilized conduct: their cult of the Holocaust allows them to inflict immense pain on others while silencing any criticism with the accusation of 'anti-Semitism' and relentlessly punishing critics. Their key role in imperial propaganda warfare is based on their claims of an exclusive franchise on suffering and immunity from the norms of justice.

Entertainment Spectacles on Military Platforms

Entertainment spectacles glorify militarism. Imperial propagandists link the public to unpopular wars promoted by otherwise discredited leaders. Sports events present soldiers dressed up as war heroes with deafening, emotional displays of 'flag worship' to celebrate the ongoing overseas wars of aggression. These mind-numbing extravaganzas with crude elements of religiosity demand choreographed expressions of national allegiance from the spectators as a cover for continued war crimes abroad and the destruction of citizens' economic rights at home.

Much admired, multi-millionaire musicians and entertainers of all races and orientations, present war to the masses with a humanitarian facade. The entertainers smiling faces serve genocide just as powerfully as the President's benign and friendly face accompanies his embrace of militarism. The propagandist message for the spectator is that 'your favorite team or singer is there just for you because our noble wars and valiant warriors have made you free and now they want you to be entertained.'

The old style of blatant bellicose appeals to the public is obsolete: the new propaganda conflates entertainment with militarism, allowing the ruling elite to secure tacit support for its wars without disturbing the spectators' experience.

Conclusion

Do the Imperial Techniques of Propaganda Work?

How effective are the modern imperial propaganda techniques? The results seem to be mixed. In recent months, elite black athletes have begun protesting white racism by challenging the requirement for choreographed displays of flag worship. . . opening public controversy into the larger issues of police brutality and sustained marginalization. Identity politics, which led to the election of Obama, may be giving way to issues of class struggle, racial justice, anti-militarism and the impact of continued imperial wars. Hysterical rants may still secure international attention, but repeated performances begin to lose their impact and subject the 'ranter' to ridicule.

The cult of victimology has become less a rationale for the multi-billion dollar US-tribute to Israel, than the overwhelming political and economic influence and thuggery of billionaire Zionist fundraisers who demand US politicians' support for the state of Israel.

Brandishing identify politics may have worked the first few times, but inevitably black, Latino, immigrant and all exploited workers, all underpaid and overworked women and mothers reject the empty symbolic gestures and demand substantive socio-economic changes – and here they find common links with the majority of exploited white workers.

In other words, the existing propaganda techniques are losing their edge – the corporate media news is seen as a sham. Who follows the actor-soldiers and flag-worshipers once the game has begun?

The propagandists of empire are desperate for a new line to grab public attention and obedience. Could the recent domestic terror bombings in New York and New Jersey provoke mass hysteria and more militarization? Could they serve as cover for more wars abroad . . .?

A recent survey, published in Military Times, reported that the vast majority of active US soldiers oppose more imperial wars. They are calling for defense at home and social justice. Soldiers and veterans have even formed groups to support the protesting black athletes who have refused to participate in flag worship while unarmed black men are being killed by police in the streets. Despite the multi-billion dollar electoral propaganda, over sixty percent of the electorate reject both major party candidates. The reality principle has finally started to undermine State propaganda! (Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

[Jul 26, 2017] Lawmakers in Russia Call for Retaliation Against New US Sanctions

Big victory for neocons. Defeat of Trump administration. Looks like the neocons have numerous ways to make him cave. Huge set back for Putin as it undermine his policy of cooperating with West. It's kind of hilarious that the neocon press corp pushing Clinton's BS #Russiagate narrative has put German Poodles on the same side as Trump
Russia can't retaliate as the USA is way too strong and is spoiling for a fight. Also the USA export to Russia is not that big. This is actually more a hit on Europeans, especially Germany.
Notable quotes:
"... Sergei A. Ryabkov, the Russian deputy foreign minister, said that the new sanctions would bury any prospect of improving relations, calling the measures "beyond common sense." ..."
"... "The authors and sponsors of this bill are making a very serious step toward destruction of prospects for normalizing relations with Russia and do not conceal that that's their target," ..."
"... Mr. Trump will sign the bill because he is "a prisoner of Congress and anti-Russian hysteria," Aleksei K. Pushkov, another Russian legislator and frequent commentator on foreign relations, wrote on Twitter. He called the sanctions "a new stage of confrontation" and mused whether the restaurant chain McDonald's should be targeted in response. ..."
"... Alexis Rodzianko, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, said the lack of consultation and the cementing in place of the sanctions would put American firms at a disadvantage. ..."
"... It is considered unlikely that specific American companies would be targeted in any retaliation from Moscow, because Russia is just emerging from a recession. John F. Tefft, the American ambassador to Russia, noted recently that American firms employed about 175,000 people in the country, including many local executives. ..."
"... "The question was when would it happen," Mr. Khokhlov said. "With these sanctions now about to be converted into law, that makes it much more difficult, and you just have to realize that it is going to be for a long time." ..."
Jul 26, 2017 | www.msn.com

in response to plans for new American sanctions, while the Kremlin focused more on the damage to relations between Washington and Moscow.

Apart from demanding a tough response, many in Russia declared dead any hope for improved relations with Washington under a Trump administration, and there were suggestions that European pique over the proposed measures created an opening for an anti-American alliance.

Dmitri S. Peskov, spokesman for President Vladimir V. Putin, noted that the proposed American law was still a draft. The House and the Senate must reconcile their versions before submitting it for President Trump's signature.

Any substantial response by Mr. Putin would require more study, Mr. Peskov said. Using one of Mr. Trump's favorite adjectives in describing the law, he said, "In the meantime, it can be said that the news is quite sad with regard to Russia-U.S. relations and prospects for their development." He added that it was "no less depressing with regard to the international law and international commercial relations."

Similar sentiments emerged from several European capitals. In Paris, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that the new sanctions, targeting Iran and North Korea as well as Russia, appeared to contradict international law because of their global reach.

There is concern in Europe that the American sanctions could ripple through the energy market because they target companies that contribute to the development, maintenance or modernization of the pipelines exporting Russian energy.

That would most likely affect a hotly debated natural-gas pipeline project linking Russia with Germany, called Nord Stream 2, which is owned by the Russian state oil giant, Gazprom, but in which European firms hold financial stakes.

Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the foreign relations committee in the Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian legislature, said Moscow must respond even if it waited for the final law.

The reaction should be "painful for the Americans," he wrote on Facebook. He also suggested a temporary alliance with Europe.

Sergei A. Ryabkov, the Russian deputy foreign minister, said that the new sanctions would bury any prospect of improving relations, calling the measures "beyond common sense."

"The authors and sponsors of this bill are making a very serious step toward destruction of prospects for normalizing relations with Russia and do not conceal that that's their target," Mr. Ryabkov said, according to the Russian news agency Itar-Tass. Despite that, he added, Moscow remained ready to cooperate on shared concerns, including fighting terrorism.

Last December, former President Barack Obama ordered the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats and the closing of two Russian diplomatic estates near Washington and New York. Mr. Putin, anticipating better relations under a Trump administration, did not respond at the time. Many say they believe the Russian leader's most likely first step will mirror those actions, and Moscow has been threatening to take such measures for weeks.

The American bill, passed by a vote of 419 to 3 by the House of Representatives on Tuesday, bolsters economic sanctions against Russia that were imposed after Moscow annexed Crimea and destabilized Ukraine in 2014.

The measures reflect Congress's growing unease with Mr. Trump's relatively warm attitude toward Russia despite repeated assertions from United States intelligence agencies that Moscow hacked the American election. The law would require Mr. Trump to seek congressional approval before lifting any sanctions -- a curb on executive authority that has prompted mixed signals from the White House about whether Mr. Trump will sign any final version of the bill.

Russia, effectively ignoring the fact that its election meddling had prompted the measures, used the push for tightened sanctions as further proof that deep forces in the American government were continuing to thwart Mr. Trump's wish, expressed during the campaign, to improve ties with Moscow.

Mr. Trump will sign the bill because he is "a prisoner of Congress and anti-Russian hysteria," Aleksei K. Pushkov, another Russian legislator and frequent commentator on foreign relations, wrote on Twitter. He called the sanctions "a new stage of confrontation" and mused whether the restaurant chain McDonald's should be targeted in response.

There has been concern in the American business community that the sanctions would harm their interests. In previous rounds, Washington consulted with Europe on sanctions to ensure that everyone was on the same page. Alexis Rodzianko, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia, said the lack of consultation and the cementing in place of the sanctions would put American firms at a disadvantage.

"If there is no coordination, everyone goes their own way," he said. "We don't like them," he added, referring to the sanctions.

In response to Western sanctions in 2014, Moscow banned the import of many foods from the West, including cheese and fish. Those counter-sanctions are often lauded in Russia as helping foster agricultural development at home.

It is considered unlikely that specific American companies would be targeted in any retaliation from Moscow, because Russia is just emerging from a recession. John F. Tefft, the American ambassador to Russia, noted recently that American firms employed about 175,000 people in the country, including many local executives.

More than anything else, the proposed law left the impression that the American sanctions, whether effective or not, would endure.

"There were sort of expectations that the sanctions would be gradually lifted because there would be progress in the political settlements in Ukraine," said Oleg Khokhlov, a partner with Goltsblat BLP, the Russian arm of Berwin Leighton Paisner, a London-based law firm.

"The question was when would it happen," Mr. Khokhlov said. "With these sanctions now about to be converted into law, that makes it much more difficult, and you just have to realize that it is going to be for a long time."

[Jul 26, 2017] US Provocation and North Korea Pretext for War with China by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded. ..."
"... The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO. ..."
"... The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program. ..."
"... The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'. ..."
"... The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. ..."
"... South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down. ..."
"... The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies ..."
"... On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity. ..."
"... You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement. ..."
Apr 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction: US Empire building on a world-scale began during and shortly after WWII. Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war (providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese), backed France's re-colonization war against the Viet Minh in Indo-China and installed Japanese imperial collaborator-puppet regimes in South Korea, Taiwan and Japan.

While empire building took place with starts and stops, advances and defeats, the strategic goal remained the same: to prevent the establishment of independent communist or secular-nationalist governments and to impose vassal regimes compliant to US interests.

Bloody wars and coups ('regime changes') were the weapons of choice. Defeated European colonial regimes were replaced and incorporated as subordinate US allies.

Where possible, Washington relied on armies of mercenaries trained, equipped and directed by US 'advisors' to advance imperial conquests. Where necessary, usually if the client regime and vassal troops were unable to defeat an armed people's army, the US armed forces intervened directly.

Imperial strategists sought to intervene and brutally conquer the target nation. When they failed to achieve their 'maximum' goal, they dug in with a policy of encirclement to cut the links between revolutionary centers with adjoining movements. Where countries successfully resisted armed conquests, empire builders imposed economic sanctions and blockades to erode the economic basis of popular governments.

Empires, as the Roman sages long recognized, are not built in a day, or weeks and months. Temporary agreements and accords are signed and conveniently broken because imperial designs remain paramount.

Empires would foment internal cleavages among adversaries and coups in neighboring countries. Above all, they construct a worldwide network of military outposts, clandestine operatives and regional alliances on the borders of independent governments to curtail emerging military powers.

Following successful wars, imperial centers dominate production and markets, resources and labor. However, over time challenges would inevitably emerge from dependent and independent regimes. Rivals and competitors gained markets and increased military competence. While some vassal states sacrificed political-military sovereignty for independent economic development, others moved toward political independence.

Early and Late Contradictions of Expanding Imperialism

The dynamics of imperial states and systems contain contradictions that constantly challenge and change the contours of empire.

The US devoted immense resources to retain its military supremacy among vassals, but experienced a sharp decline in its share of world markets, especially with the rapid rise of new economic producers.

Economic competition forced the imperial centers to realign the focus of their economies – 'rent' (finance and speculation) displaced profits from trade and production. Imperial industries relocated abroad in search of cheap labor. Finance, insurance, real estate, communications, military and security industries came to dominate the domestic economy. A vicious cycle was created: with the erosion of its productive base, the Empire further increased its reliance on the military, finance capital and the import of cheap consumer goods.

Just after World War II, Washington tested its military prowess through intervention . Because of the immense popular resistance and the proximity of the USSR, and later PRC, empire building in post-colonial Asia was contained or militarily defeated. US forces temporarily recognized a stalemate in Korea after killing millions. Its defeat in China led to the flight of the 'Nationalists' to the provincial island of Taiwan. The sustained popular resistance and material support from socialist superpowers led to its retreat from Indo-China. In response, it resorted to economic sanctions to strangle the revolutionary governments.

The Growth of the Unipolar Ideology

With the growing power of overseas economic competitors and its increasing reliance on direct military intervention, the US Empire took advantage of the internal disintegration of the USSR and China's embrace of 'state capitalism' in the early 1990's and 1980s..The US expanded throughout the Baltic region, Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans – with the forced breakup of Yugoslavia. Imperial strategists envisioned 'a unipolar empire' – an imperial state without rivals. The Empire builders were free to invade, occupy and pillage independent states on any continent – even bombing a European capital, Belgrade, with total impunity. Multiple wars were launched against designated 'adversaries', who lacked strong global allies.

Countries in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa were targeted for destruction. South America was under the control of neo-liberal regimes. The former USSR was pillaged and disarmed by imperial vassals. Russia was ruled by gangster-kleptocrats allied to US stooges. China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Unlike the Roman Empire, the 1990's were not to be the prelude to an unchallenged US empire of long duration. Since the 'unipolarists' were pursuing multiple costly and destructive wars of conquest and they were unable to rely on the growth of satellites with emerging industrial economies for its profits. US global power eroded.

The Demise of Unipolarity: The 21st Century

Ten years into the 21st century, the imperial vision of an unchallenged unipolar empire was crumbling. China's 'primitive' accumulation led to advanced domestic accumulation for the Chinese people and state. China's power expanded overseas through investments, trade and acquisitions. China displaced the US as the leading trading partner in Asia and the largest importer of primary commodities from Latin America and Africa. China became the world's leading manufacturer and exporter of consumer goods to North America and the EU.

The first decade of the 21st century witnessed the overthrow or defeat of US vassal states throughout Latin America (Argentina, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Brazil) and the emergence of independent agro-mineral regimes poised to form regional trade pacts. This was a period of growing global demand for their natural resources and commodities- precisely when the US was de-industrializing and in the throes of costly disastrous wars in the Middle East.

In contrast to the growing independence of Latin America, the EU deepened its military participation in the brutal US-led overseas wars by expanding the 'mandate' of NATO. Brussels followed the unipolarist policy of systematically encircling Russia and weakening its independence via harsh sanctions. The EU's outward expansion (financed with increasing domestic austerity) heightened internal cleavages, leading to popular discontent .The UK voted in favor of a referendum to secede from the EU.

The domestic disasters of the US vassal regime in Russia, under Boris Yeltsin during the 1990″s, pushed the voters to elect a nationalist, Vladimir Putin. President Vladimir Putin's government embarked on a program to regain Russian sovereignty and its position as a global power, countering US internal intervention and pushing back against external encirclement by NATO.

Unipolarists continued to launch multiple wars of conquest in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia, costing trillions of dollars and leading to the loss of global markets and competitiveness. As the armies of the Empire expanded globally, the domestic economy (the 'Republic') contracted .The US became mired in recession and growing poverty. Unipolar politics created a growing multi-polar global economy, while rigidly imposing military priorities.

The Empire Strikes Back: The Nuclear Option

The second decade of the 21st century ushered in the demise of unipolarity to the dismay of many 'experts' and the blind denial by its political architects. The rise of a multi-polar world economy intensified the desperate imperial drive to restore unipolarity by military means, led by militarists incapable of adjusting or assessing their own policies.

Under the regime of the 'first black' US President Obama, elected on promises to 'rein in' the military, imperial policymakers intensified their pursuit of seven, new and continuing wars. To the policymakers and the propagandists in the US-EU corporate media, these were successful imperial wars, accompanied by premature declarations of victories in Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan. This triumphal delusion of success led the new Administration to launch new wars in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

As the new wave of wars and coups ('regime change') to re-impose unipolarity failed, even greater militarist policies displaced economic strategies for global dominance. The unipolarists-militarists, who direct the permanent state apparatus, continued to sacrifice markets and investments with total immunity from the disastrous consequences of their failures on the domestic economy.

A Brief Revival of Unipolarity in Latin America

Coups and power grabs have overturned independent governments in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and threatened progressive governments in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. However, the pro-imperial 'roll-back' in Latin America was neither politically nor economically sustainable and threatens to undermine any restoration of US unipolar dominance of the region.

The US has provided no economic aid or expanded access to markets to reward and support their newly acquired client regimes. Argentina's new vassal, Mauricio Macri, transferred billions of dollars to predatory Wall Street bankers and handed over access to military bases and lucrative resources without receiving any reciprocal inflows of investment capital. Indeed the servile policies of President Macri created greater unemployment and depressed living standards, leading to mass popular discontent. The unipolar empire's 'new boy' in its Buenos Aires fiefdom faces an early demise.

Likewise, widespread corruption, a deep economic depression and unprecedented double digit levels of unemployment in Brazil threaten the illicit vassal regime of Michel Temer with permanent crisis and rising class conflict.

Short-Lived Success in the Middle East

The revanchist unipolarist launch of a new wave of wars in the Middle East and North Africa seemed to succeed briefly with the devastating power of US-NATO aerial and naval bombardment .Then collapsed amidst grotesque destruction and chaos, flooding Europe with millions of refugees.

Powerful surges of resistance to the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan hastened the retreat toward a multi-polar world. Islamist insurgents drove the US into fortress garrisons and took control of the countryside and encircled cities in Afghanistan; Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Libya drove US backed regimes and mercenaries into flight.

Unipolarists and the Permanent State: Re-Group and Attack

Faced with its failures, unipolarists regrouped and implemented the most dangerous military strategy yet: the build-up of nuclear 'First-Strike' capability targeting China and Russia.

Orchestrated by US State Department political appointees, Ukraine's government was taken over by US vassals leading to the ongoing break-up of that country. Fearful of neo-fascists and Russophobes, the citizens of Crimea voted to rejoin Russia. Ethnic Russian majorities in Ukraine's Donbass region have been at war with Kiev with thousands killed and millions fleeing their homes to take refuge in Russia. The unipolarists in Washington financed and directed the Kiev coup led by kleptocrats, fascists and street mobs, immune as always from the consequences.

Meanwhile the US is increasing its number of combat troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria to buttress its unreliable allies and mercenaries.

What is crucial to understanding the rise and demise of imperial power and the euphoric unipolar declarations of the 1990's (especially during the heyday of President Clinton's bloody reign), is that at no point have military and political advances been sustained by foundational economic building blocks.

The US defeated and subsequently occupied Iraq, but it also systematically destroyed Iraq's civil society and its economy, creating fertile ground for massive ethnic cleansing, waves of refugees and the subsequent Islamist uprising that over ran vast territories. Indeed, deliberate US policies in Iraq and elsewhere created the refugee crisis that is overwhelming Europe.

A similar situation is occurring during the first two decades of this century: Military victories have installed ineffective imperial-backed unpopular leaders. Unipolarists increasingly rely on the most retrograde tribal rabble, Islamist extremists, overseas clients and paid mercenaries. The deliberate US-led assault on the very people capable of leading modern multicultural nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, is a caricature of the notorious Pol Pot assaults on Cambodia's educated classes. Of course, the US honed its special skills in 'killing the school teachers' when it trained and financed the mujahedin in Afghanistan in the 1980's.

The second weakness, which led to the collapse of the unipolar illusion, has been their inability to rethink their assumptions and re-orient and rebalance their strategic militarist paradigm from the incredible global mess they created

They steadfastly refused to work with and promote the educated economic elites in the conquered countries. To do so would have required maintaining an intact social-economic-security system in the countries they had systematically shredded. It would mean rejecting their paradigm of total war, unconditional surrender and naked, brutal military occupation in order to allow the development of viable economic allies, instead of imposing pliable but grotesquely corrupt vassal regimes.

The deeply entrenched, heavily financed and vast military-intelligence-police apparatus, numbering many millions, has formed a parallel imperial state ruling over the elected and civilian regime within the US.

The so-called 'deep state', in reality, is a ruling state run by unipolarists. It is not some 'faceless entity': It has a class, ideological and economic identity.

Despite the severe cost of losing a series of catastrophic wars and the multi-billion-dollar thefts by kleptocratic vassal regimes, the unipolarists have remained intact, even increasing their efforts to score a conquest or temporary military victory.

Let us say it, openly and clearly: The unipolarists are now engaged in blaming their terrible military and political failures on Russia and China. This is why they seek, directly and indirectly, to weaken Russia and China's 'allies abroad' and at home. Indeed their savage campaign to 'blame the Russians' for President Trump's election reflects their deep hostility to Russia and contempt for the working and lower middle class voters (the 'basket of deplorables') who voted for Trump. This elite's inability to examine its own failures and the political system's inability to remove these disastrous policymakers is a serious threat to the future of the world.

Unipolarists: Fabricating Pretexts for World War

While the unipolarist state suffered predictable military defeats and prolonged wars and reliance on unstable civilian regimes, the ideologues continue to deflect blame onto 'Russia and China as the source of all their military defeats'. The unipolarists' monomania has been transformed into a provocative large-scale offensive nuclear missile build-up in Europe and Asia, increasing the risk of a nuclear war by engaging in a deadly 'game of chicken'.

The veteran nuclear physicists in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an important description of the unipolarists' war plans. They revealed that the 'current and ongoing US nuclear program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. These new technologies increase the overall US killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces threefold'. This is exactly what an objective observer would expect of a nuclear-armed US unipolar state planning to launch a war by disarming China and Russia with a 'surprise' first strike.

The unipolar state has targeted several countries as pretexts for launching a war. The US government installed provocative missile bases in the Baltic countries and Poland. These are regimes chosen for their eagerness to violate Russia's borders or airspace and insanely willing to invite the inevitable military response and chain reaction onto their own populations. Other sites for huge US military bases and NATO expansion include the Balkans, especially the former Yugoslav provinces of Kosovo and Montenegro. These are bankrupt ethno-fascist mafia states and potential tinderboxes for NATO-provoked conflicts leading to a US first strike. This explains why the most rabid US Senate militarists have been pushing for Kosovo and Montenegro's integration into NATO.

Syria is where the unipolarists are creating a pretext for nuclear war. The US state has been sending more 'Special Forces' into highly conflictive areas to support their mercenery allies. This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally). The US plans to seize ISIS-controlled Raqqa in Northern Syria as its own base of operation with the intention of denying the Syrian government its victory over the jihadi-terrorists. The likelihood of armed 'incidents' between the US and Russia in Syria is growing to the rapturous applause of US unipolarists.

The US has financed and promoted Kurdish fighters as they seize Syrian territory from the jihadi-terrorists, especially in territories along the Turkish border. This is leading to an inevitable conflict between Turkey and the US-backed Kurds.

Another likely site for expanded war is Ukraine. After seizing power in Kiev, the klepto-fascists launched a shooting war and economic blockade against the bilingual ethnic Russian-Ukrainians of the Donbass region. Attacks by the Kiev junta, countless massacres of civilians (including the burning of scores of unarmed Russian-speaking protesters in Odessa) and the sabotage of Russian humanitarian aid shipments could provoke retaliation from Russia and invite a US military intervention via the Black Sea against Crimea.

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

The unipolarists' state apparatus has gathered its allies in Congress and the mass media to create public hysteria. Congress and the administration of President Trump have fabricated the North Korean missile program as a 'threat to the United States'. This has allowed the unipolarist state to implement an offensive military strategy to counter this phony 'threat'.

The elite have discarded all previous diplomatic negotiations and agreements with North Korea in order to prepare for war – ultimately directed at China. This is because China is the most dynamic and successful global economic challenger to US world domination. The US has 'suffered' peaceful, but humiliating, economic defeat at the hands of an emerging Asian power. China's economy has grown more than three times faster than the US for the last two decades. And China's infrastructure development bank has attracted scores of regional and European participants after a much promoted US trade agreement in Asia, developed by the Obama Administration, collapsed. Over the past decade, while salaries and wages have stagnated or regressed in the US and EU, they have tripled in China.

China's economic growth is set to surpass the US into the near and distant future if trends continue. This will inevitably lead to China replacing the US s as the world's most dynamic economic power . barring a nuclear attack by the US. It is no wonder China is embarked on a program to modernize its defensive missile systems and border and maritime security.

As the unipolarists prepare for the 'final decision' to attack China, they are systematically installing their most advanced nuclear missile strike capacity in South Korea under the preposterous pretext of countering the regime in Pyongyang. To exacerbate tensions, the US High Command has embarked on cyber-attacks against North Korea's missile program. It has been staging massive military exercises with Seoul, which provoked the North Korean military to 'test' four of its medium range ballistic missiles in the Sea of Japan. Washington has ignored the Chinese government's efforts to calm the situation and persuade the North Koreans to resist US provocations on its borders and even scale down their nuclear weapons program.

The US war propaganda machine claims that Pyongyang's nervous response to Washington's provocative military exercises (dubbed "Foal Eagle') on North Korea's border are both a 'threat' to South Korea and 'evidence of its leaders' insanity.' Ultimately, Washington intends to target China. It installed its (misnamed) Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) in South Korea .An offensive surveillance and attack system designed to target China's major cities and complement the US maritime encirclement of China and Russia. Using North Korea as a pretext, THAAD was installed in South Korea, with the capacity to reach the Chinese heartland in minutes. Its range covers over 3,000 kilometers of China's land mass. THAAD directed missiles are specifically designed to identify and destroy China's defensive missile capacity.

With the THADD installation in South Korea, Russia's Far East is now encircled by the US offensive missiles to complement the build-up in the West.

The unipolar strategists are joined by the increasingly militaristic Japanese government – a most alarming development for the Koreans and Chinese given the history of Japanese brutality in the region. The Japanese Defense Minister has proposed acquiring the capacity for a 'pre-emptive strike', an imperial replay of its invasion and enslavement of Korea and Manchuria. Japan 'points to' North Korea but really aims at China.

South Korea's deeply corrupt and blindly submissive regime immediately accepted the US/THADD system on their territory. Washington found the compliant South Korean 'deep state' willing to sacrifice its crucial economic links with Beijing: China is South Korea's biggest trading partner. In exchange for serving as a platform for future US aggression against China, South Korea has suffered losses in trade, investments and employment. Even if a new South Korea government were to reverse this policy, the US will not move its THAAD installation. China, for its part, has largely cut its economic and investment ties with some of South Korea's biggest conglomerates. Tourism, cultural and academic exchanges, commercial agreements and, most important, most of South Korean industrial exports face shut down.

In the midst of a major political scandal involving the Korean President (who faces impeachment and imprisonment), the US-Japanese military alliance has brutally sucked the hapless South Korean people into an offensive military build-up against China. In the process Seoul threatens its peaceful economic relations with China. The South Koreans are overwhelmingly 'pro-peace', but find themselves on the frontlines of a potential nuclear war.

China's response to Washington's threat is a massive buildup of its own defensive missile capacity. The Chinese now claim to have the capacity to rapidly demolish THAAD bases in South Korea if pushed by the US. China is retooling its factories to compensate for the loss of South Korean industrial imports.

Conclusion

The rise and fall of unipolar America has not displaced the permanent state apparatus as it continues to pursue its deluded strategies.

On the contrary, the unipolarists are accelerating their drive for global military conquest by targeting Russia and China, which they insist are the cause of their losing wars and global economic decline. They live on their delusions of a 'Golden Age' of the 1990's when George Bush, Sr. could devastate Iraq and Bill Clinton could bomb Yugoslavia's cities with impunity.

Gone are the days when the unipolarists could break up the USSR, finance violent breakaway former Soviet regimes in Asia and the Caucuses and run fraudulent elections for its drunken clients in Russia.

The disasters of US policies and its domestic economic decline has given way to rapid and profound changes in power relations over the last two decades, shattering any illusion of a unipolar 'American Century'.

Unipolarity remains the ideology of the permanent state security apparatus and its elites in Washington. They believe that the marriage of militarism abroad and financial control at home will allow them to regain their lost unipolar 'Garden of Eden'. China and Russia are the essential new protagonists of a multipolar world. The dynamics of necessity and their own economic growth has pushed them to successfully nurture alternative, independent states and markets.

This obvious, irreversible reality has driven the unipolarists to the mania of preparing for a global nuclear war! The pretexts are infinite and absurd; the targets are clear and global; the destructive offensive military means are available; but so are the formidable defensive and retaliatory capacities of China and Russia.

The unipolarist state's delusion of 'winning a global nuclear war' presents Americans with the critical challenge to resist or give in to an insanely dangerous empire in decline, which is willing to launch a globally destructive war.

The Alarmist , April 25, 2017 at 11:57 pm GMT \n

"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."

You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. Read More

nsa , April 26, 2017 at 2:52 am GMT \n
What's this "unipolarist" stuff ..some kind of trendy academic euphemism? A land war in Asia? Even the American public isn't that stupid.

There is zero chance of an attack on Korea .for a couple of reasons:

1) nothing in it for the jooies who need to conserve their satrap's military for an attack on Iran,

2) if feasible, would have already happened, and lastly

3) the paper tiger would lose another one.

Think about it .goodbye Seoul, goodbye 30,000 US troops, goodbye all those lucrative samsung-kia-hyundai franchises, kiss off a couple carriers from torpedos, goodbye lots of attack aircraft ..and that's all before the Chinese enter the fray. Right now the biggest problem is how to let jooie butt boy Trumpstein and his ridiculous VFW geezer generals back down without losing face. Face is everything to westerners, you know . Read More

Realist , April 26, 2017 at 8:27 am GMT \n
@nsa

Oh yes they are. Their stupidity is boundless.

Anonymous , April 26, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT \n
I kind of agree with you, I kind of don't.

No doubt the Zionists want to focus on Syria and Iran because there is a direct benefit to them there, but don't forget their goal. Their goal is total control of the world, and China and Russia stand in their way.

Using N Korea to threaten China and Russia is probably high on their to do list too.

But I do agree with you. There is no way a N Korea war would be easy or fast for America. We would probably lose 30k soldiers and many ships at least. Wr would burn through a ton of money when we are flat broke. And I doubt we can be in a 2 front war right now anyway. So probably Middle East will take the priority.

So the most plausible explanation to me is that Trump re-read one of the chapters he wrote on negotiation and tried to convince China to go to war for us. But the Chinese aren't stupid and they didn't take the bait.

China talked tough to N Korea and suspended their coal exports to make it look like they would play game, and America sent ships to threaten N Korea. But that was all Trump negotiation tactics. And Trump would be stupid to go to war and have this define his presidency.

dearieme , April 26, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT \n
"providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese"

Come off it! The Red Army assiduously avoided fighting the Japanese. Read More

Tulip , April 26, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT \n
China is not happy with North Korea either. Speculation is that China is planning an invasion with a secret green light from Washington. Even if the US went in, it may be that if China were granted basing rights in the North, or if there was an agreement for a multinational peacekeeping force, with equal US/Chinese troops, there may be a way of providing assurance to China on the national security front while getting rid of a gangster regime that threatens the security of everyone.
Robert Magill , April 26, 2017 at 5:30 pm GMT \n

China was envisioned as nothing more than a slave workshop producing cheap mass consumer goods for Americans and generating high profits for US multinational corporations and retailers like Walmart.

Walmart announced this week the planned opening of 40 new stores in China by 2020. This adds to the nearly 500 Walmart stores already operating. Very cleaver of them to sell cheap mass consumer goods made in China to Chinese customers and still generate profit. Where is the disconnect here?

The mostly likely site for starting World War III is the Korean peninsula. The unipolarists and their allies in the state apparatus have systematically built-up the conditions to trigger a war with China using the pretext of the North Korean defensive weapons program.

What happened in New York on 9/11 totally unhinged America for a generation. One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in. Russia and China could probably survive a dozen each and soldier on.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com Read More

neutral , April 26, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT \n

One small nuke landing anywhere in the US would totally do us in.

What do you mean by this ? Are you talking about most Americans leaving their cities and thus collapsing the entire economic system. Or are you saying that people will get so unhinged that it will launch all its missiles (without knowing who is responsible) and thus have more nuclear strikes hitting it ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

El Dato , April 26, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT \n

Washington intervened directly in the Chinese civil war providing arms to Chiang Kai Shek's army while the Red Army battled the Japanese

This is COMPLETELY ass-backwards and there is not enough facepalm for such a statement. The Red Army kept itself well ensconced and recruited desperate peasants while Chiang Kai Check fought against the Japanese with not a lot of support from the US, then got the cold shoulder from Churchill. After that, the Nationalist Chinese were such an utter wreck that Mao could easily clean the floor.

Any student of the Sino-Japanese war should have the basics right.

Start reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10182755/Chinas-war-With-Japan-1937-1945-the-struggle-for-survival-by-Rana-Mitter-review.html Read More

Realist , April 26, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT \n
@Robert Magill

The per cent of Americans killed on 9/11 was less than 0.000097. The per cent of Japanese killed in the 2011 Tsunami was 0.0144 with nary a whimper. The Japanese total was 148 times the US total!

The US would never survive a small nuclear attack

Astuteobservor II , April 28, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT \n
@El Dato

Start reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10182755/Chinas-war-With-Japan-1937-1945-the-struggle-for-survival-by-Rana-Mitter-review.html

from what I have read. the first half of that statement is true, while the 2nd half is wrong. 45-49, ccp got the left overs of manchuria, while the kmt got hardware and training directly from the usa.

Monty Ahwazi , April 29, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT \n
Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory calendar! Read More
The White Muslim Traditionalist , April 29, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT \n
@The Alarmist
"This means US troops will operate (illegally) face-to-face with the advancing Syrian army, who are backed by Russian military air support (legally)."
You don't seem to understand the definitions of legal and illegal in the current context: Anything the US declares legal and subject to its jurisdiction anywhere in the world is legal, otherwise it is still subject to US interpretation on its legality or not. In other words, US troops always operate legally, international law notwithstanding, and US laws have effect everywhere and at all times. What an idiotic statement.

The United States doesn't decide what is right and what is wrong.

mp , April 29, 2017 at 11:42 am GMT \n
200 Words @Monty Ahwazi Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam? How did that war work for us? Of course we are stupid and our conscious memory is hardly good for 4 years. Our distant memory is as good as every election cycle and the Vietnam war happened centuries ago on the US memory calendar! Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?

It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.

Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell (they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. Read More

mp , April 29, 2017 at 11:54 am GMT \n
@Robert Magill

Walmarts in China are not like the one's in America. I'm convinced the US stores are supported by welfare checks and food stamps. Without those, my guess is that the stores would have closed a long time ago. Also, in China you don't see half the store filled up with overweight diabetics on disability, riding around on motorized scooters, looking like land-locked Barron Harkonnens, etc.

Corvinus , April 29, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT \n
@Wizard of Oz

Exactly. The doomsday prognosticators keep up with the Fake News about the impending end of the world scenarios and they fail to materialize repeatedly.

Ludwig Von , April 29, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT \n
Just my little thought : in fact China is not going to intervene in a conflict between US-SK-Japan versus NK. It will sit back and just wait until they all are exhausted and then collect .
Agent76 , April 29, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT \n
Mar 25, 2016 Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar?

Introduction to the report: Is China Ready to Challenge the Dollar? Internationalization of the Renminbi and Its Implications for the United States.

Agent76 , April 29, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
Apr 12, 2017 China Russia Move For Gold Against Dollar Makes Them A Target By Trump

In this video we talk about all the latest breaking news regarding the financial quite feud between Russia, China and U.S. Its important to note that this move against Donald Trump and the U.S petro dollar being the world reserve currency was made before Trumps aggressive actions against a mutual ally to Russia and China.

denk , April 29, 2017 at 7:29 pm GMT \n
Uncle sham, 'Pay up or else !'

http://bit.ly/2pJezx6

hhhhhh

Wizard of Oz , April 29, 2017 at 10:20 pm GMT \n
@mp Didn't we fight China for many years in a place called Vietnam?

It was a mixed bag. Primarily Vietnam was more a Soviet ally than Chinese. You must remember that during the '60s the Chinese and Soviets were at odds, and Chinese-Vietnamese relations were not good, either. After the Americans retreated (Nixon-Kissinger's "Peace with Honor"), China and Vietnam fought some skirmishes over Vietnam's Cambodian intrigue.

Amazing, when you think about it, how Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese, and Korean brothers and cousins can't get along. If they could, it would be very difficult for the Anglo-American-Jewish alliance in the region. Think about it. Chinese are as crafty as Jews, they are patient as hell (they think in long terms), they are every bit as tribal as Jews. Plus, unlike Jews, they have demonstrated an ability to create an indigenous (i.e., non parasitic) culture. Finally, Chinese don't feel any guilt over the Jew's Holocaust Six Million shekel religion, so they can't be whipped into a subservient paroxysm over it. Maybe that makes war with them inevitable. OK until you come to "the Chinese are every bit as tribal as Jews," Whatever you might say about some 12 million Jews who; if in Israel, learn to speak a version of their old tribal language makes little sense when applied to 1.3 billion people speaking many mutually incomprehensible languages (or dialects as some prefer if you think Russian and Polish are two dialects) and with a long history of warlordism and the barbarism of the Cultural Revolution less than two generations behind them. Still I guess that it is wise to protect your IP from a Mandarin speaking Chinese employee who only became an Amrrican citizen yesterday .

[Jul 26, 2017] Muller as A bomb dropped on Trump

Notable quotes:
"... Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. ..."
"... It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. ..."
"... If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare. ..."
"... "President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports. ..."
Jul 24, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

im1dc , July 25, 2017 at 08:57 AM

Well, well the Right's mouthpieces in the media are turning against Trump

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/23/1683310/-Trump-Loses-Jennifer-Rubin-Torpedo-in-the-Water

"Trump Loses Jennifer Rubin. Torpedo in the Water"

By Next Conservatism...Sunday Jul 23, 2017...8:55 PM EST

"Jennifer Rubin's "Right Turn" column in The Washington Post was reliably partisan beyond reason during the Obama years, so it's been a shock to see her turn sane and lawyer-like in her #nevertrump position. In fact she's given up on Trump and turned naysayer against the GOP. Her prognostications for what comes next as the Mueller investigation unfolds offer a range of possibilities, all bad. Bet on this one:

..... 4. Republicans join Democrats in warning Trump not to fire Mueller. Mueller remains and keeps digging. Mueller subpoenas damaging documents; Trump refuses to comply. A court orders him to comply. He declares this a witch hunt, an attack on his family (or whatever). Then he resigns, claiming he has already made America great. He tells the country that Vice President Pence will carry on in his place. LESSON: Congress must protect Mueller and preserve the possibility that Trump may be forced to resign.

That's the most likely scenario because it's to Trump's advantage in the same way that this entire presidency has been, as a branding effort to promote his business. If he rejects subpoenas and defies the law he's doing what he promised, fighting the evil Washington machine. If he leaves before a market correction he can allege that the spike in the Dow was his work; that he delivered on his promise to drive the Supreme Court rightward; that he gave the downtrodden Conservatives voters from both parties a real alternative; and that he is their martyr, their symbol of Making America Great Again despite all the efforts of the liars and partisans who forced him out. It's a perfect narrative, assuming that his resignation actually offers him some defense against indictment, which is not guaranteed.

It leaves out what comes after, though, and that's never wise with Trump. He lives to hit back. He's already attacking the GOP for its insufficient "defense" of him in this case, demanding openly that they put him above the law. If Rubin's scenario comes true, and Trump does leave, he'll look for vengeance unfettered by whatever remains of his political restraint. A third party of Trumpist candidates hand-picked by Trump is a realistic possibility. They'll run against the enemies Trump made in the deep red districts and force the GOP to accede to a Trumpist agenda or be defeated by it completely.

If Trump is forced out he's a hot torpedo looking for a target. He'll make revenge his life's mission. Donald Jr. and his siblings will take up the mantle because there's money to be made from political warfare.

If they're kingmakers instead of kings they can shelter themselves behind Far Right candidates, take huge money from political consultancies and influence peddling, and turn Conservatism into their business. Their properties and investments won't suffer, and they'll rebuild their fortresses of hidden deals and dark money. The GOP will be a sitting duck for them. The Trumps will do with the Republican Party what they do with any distressed property: take it over or tear it down it."

im1dc , July 24, 2017 at 05:47 PM
Trump wants to fire his Appointees Price if Obamacare Repeal and Replace fail, and Sessions for not protecting Trump from the Russian collusion investigation

The Big One is coming, I sense it and then every American must decide if Trump stays or goes, no more wiggle room after that happens

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343556-cruz-being-considered-to-replace-sessions-report

"Cruz being considered to replace Sessions: report"

By Jacqueline Thomsen...07/24/17...07:57 PM EDT

"President Trump and his advisers are floating possible replacements for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the list includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), The Washington Post reports.

...Trump also slammed Sessions in a tweet Monday morning, asking why our "beleaguered A.G." wasn't investigating ties between Hillary Clinton and Russia...

...Trump associates are viewing a possible Sessions ousting as a step toward firing special counsel Robert Mueller, according to the Post."...

[Jul 26, 2017] Some internet gossip says Russia considers 722 as a declaration of war.

Jul 26, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

ProPeace | Jul 26, 2017 3:01:15 AM | 42

Some internet gossip says Russia considers 722 as a declaration of war.

@frances | Jul 25, 2017 9:35:03 Some internet gossip says Russia considers 722 as a declaration of war.

@all Isn't the Obama-care a Trojan horse imposed on the US people by the Deep State through then-puppet Obama (no longer after Nov 6 2012) in order to give enormous profits to insurance companies under the pretense of helping the poor (mind you AXA is a crucial member of the Bilbererg, many other world largest insurers, e.g. LLoyds, are part of the deep state too).

I believe that health care fake "reform" was one of the main reasons Obama was allowed to become president, or pushed forward, by the Borg, fooling the populace with "Hope and Change"...

Who's reaped the most profits from that operation?

MadMax2 | Jul 26, 2017 3:47:14 AM | 44

@Kalen 9
Ah, i dunno. Things in Russia are turning decidedly in one direction as far as I can tell. For the first time in history the Prosecutor General has just ruled against the Russian Central Bank in it's decision to place Russian Bank Yugra into administration. More to come from this i am very certain. According to many Russian economists, the Central Bank has been responsible in - unfairly - stripping many small and medium sized banks of their licenses, causing bankruptcies in many small businesses.

The Central Bank has, so far, been independent of governance in it's duty as regulator, but it appears to me that the damage of the 90's is starting to be addressed properly.

MadMax2 | Jul 26, 2017 3:47:14 AM | 44 V. Arnold | Jul 26, 2017 4:57:44 AM | 45
psychohistorian | Jul 26, 2017 2:07:47 AM | 39

I strongly believe that we will be extinct soon if we don't deal with our parasitic form (private finance/inheritance) of social organization. i don't have any kids to explain that belief to and still have a fondness for our species continuing or at least representing ourselves better in the cosmos.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ditto everything, and I agree.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
psychohistorian | Jul 26, 2017 2:29:15 AM | 41

Trump is so inexperienced (ignorant), that he has to be told what he believes.

Everytime he ad libs he gets yanked back to the "correct" position. Certainly there will be no consistency of policy until a re-education is complete; or he's impeached or killed.

At 72 yo, I can honestly say these are indeed the scariest of times to be alive.

Trumps marionette strings have been rendered invisible; much like the emperor's new clothes.

somebody | Jul 26, 2017 4:57:50 AM | 46
16 Frances

The Senate still has to agree. And as I understand Trump can veto, he just has to sell it politically.

It will probably pass defanged for US business. It will cut the link to European sanctions as Europe relies on cheap Russian gas and wants to do business with Iran.

I don't understand US interests behind this bill. There seems to be a plan to create a new US allied Polish-Baltic-Ukrainian entity out of Europe which Trump has subscribed to.

US energy companies are invested in cooperative projects with Russia, so ...

It is economic war.


Anon | Jul 26, 2017 8:58:55 AM | 53
LOL @ EU whine when Papa US sanction Russia suddenly because some billionare EU companies might get hurt... What a pack of pathetic people!
Julian | Jul 26, 2017 9:45:30 AM | 56
US Sanctions on Russia.

Should Russia respond? YES - OF COURSE.

The time to respond forcefully has finally arrived with European whinging and whining about the Sanctions.

Now is the time for Russia to actually strike back and strike back hard.

How should Russia respond?

Forcefully I'd suggest. Very forcefully. Targeted strongly against the US.

The first measures that come to mind.

Ban all US overflights of any Russian territory.

And yes, that obviously includes banning any flights to Russia by any American airlines and also banning any flights to Russia that originate in the US (by other airlines perhaps via a 3rd stopover destination).

Not sure how many US overflights of Russia there are - but I'd suggest the most likely place would be for US flights to China, South Korea & Japan.

Expelling a high number of US diplomats

Not sure how many that would be. But definitely more than the US has expelled. Perhaps 50 or 100.? Anyone know how many there are?

Confiscating US Diplomatic Property

An obvious one given the actions of the US. Go back twice as hard on this.

Expelling US NGOs

Are there any in Russia? Expel any US NGOs.

Banning imports of various US goods or slapping very punitive tariffs on these goods - 1000%?

What goods do Russia import from the US?

Maybe banning imports of Cars (if there are any, Teslas? GM-owned cars? For instance from factories in Europe/ Asia that may be owned by US companies - Ford, GM etc.),

Confiscating Oil & Gas assets

What Oil & Gas assets do the US own in Russia? There should be some confiscation here.

You know what - Russia could also target UK in this action with the same measures.

Lump the US/UK together with the hit and by doing that it ties the UK to the hip of the US and separates the EU and Europeans out.

Whatever measures Russia takes, they should take care not to target European businesses, and in particular European OWNED businesses.

It may be unfortunate, but targeting US owned car companies that may operate in Europe and export European made cars to Russia may be something worth doing to make the point to the Europeans.

If Trump signs up to these sanctions, or even if Trump is over-ridden on his veto (if he makes it), it doesn't actually matter.

If Trump is so powerless as to prove himself unable to enforce his will on the Congress then he is effectively useless - so why worry about hurting his feelings?

Definitely Russia must respond forcefully and with careful targeting against those driving these sanctions - who in particular reside in the US & UK (As we saw at the G7 meeting earlier this year).

It's time Putin. It's time.

AtaBrit | Jul 26, 2017 9:58:17 AM | 57
@ Julian | 56
Can't fault your enthusiasm. :-)
But where do you think such a response would leave Germany, and certain other European countries?
Russia needs them as they need Russia.
Julian | Jul 26, 2017 10:40:18 AM | 58
Re: Posted by: AtaBrit | Jul 26, 2017 9:58:17 AM | 57

I did say targeted - which I'm sure they will do.

They need the Germans/EU to actually start a serious pushback - and a pushback now in the midst of a German (& Austrian & Italian I might add) election campaigns can't hurt can it.

They are just off the top of my head without a moment's thought.

I'd expect those doing the counter-sanctions to have put a lot more thought in than I have and to properly target these sanctions.

Hitting the UK is something they may not have considered so closely. But they should.

An added bonus would be having the off-side Brits whinging to the EU during their Brexit negotiations about this and having the Brits telling the EU how to deal with Russia would surely drive the EU further away from the US/UK position would it not?

It also allows extreme targeting of BP does it not? Not sure if that's relevant currently, but it might be for instance.

fastfreddy | Jul 26, 2017 1:32:55 PM | 63
Alexey Pushkov wrote on Twitter: "The exceptional nation wants to block Russian gas supplies to Europe and to sell expensive shale gas from the U.S. to its European servants. That's the entire 'morality' of Congress."
paul | Jul 26, 2017 1:41:09 PM | 64
How pathetic to see the 'serious' posters here using the phrase "conspiracy theory" as a form of dismissal.

Russia continues to play weird games. An article at Sputnik suggests that Russia is getting ready to turn on Iran in favor of Putin's best friend, Netanyahu. Putin has some really weird friendships - eg. Erdogan. For sure one has to be capable of handling contradictions to engage in realpolitik at all, but a sense of decency should still be operable.

karlof1 | Jul 26, 2017 2:39:15 PM | 67
On the New Sanctions Bill, RT has several articles, this one focuses on EU reaction, https://www.rt.com/news/397566-europe-oppose-us-russia-sanctions/ Excerpt:

"Some experts, however, doubted the EU's readiness to go against its transatlantic ally. "I'm not sure if the European Union has courage to take actions against this," Dan Kovalik, an American labor rights lawyer, told RT. "I'm worried that the US is able to impose the sanctions notwithstanding the EU opposition to it."

""I'm sure this is not about protecting democracy, either the US democracy or someone else's. This is more about the US wanting more of a share of markets in Europe for its natural gas," Kovalik added. "These sanctions, which would be made permanent are really tantamount to a declaration of war against these countries, particularly Russia.""

Reaction from German Business Lobby, https://www.rt.com/business/397560-germany-eu-us-sanctions-russia/

Finnian Cunningham says bring on the sanctions; they only serve as further proof of the Rogue State nature of the Outlaw US Empire, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201707261055902033-us-russia-sanctions-absurd/

Of course, the driving force continues to be the 100% unproven allegations of Russian interference in the past US election, which are clearly bipartisan as the House bill garnered only 3 no votes.

fastfreddy | Jul 26, 2017 3:06:29 PM | 68
Without the manufactured scandal - allegations of Russian hacking/election tampering (believed to be factual by patriotic Americans everywhere) it would be difficult to increase sanctions.

Another cover story would be needed. It cannot be stated that they simply wish to impede Russia's progress on gas pipelines to Europe.

ProPeace | Jul 26, 2017 3:27:59 PM | 69
Some interesting headlines:

CIA Director admits to working with Mexico and Colombia to overthrow Maduro government in Venezuela

Paul Craig Roberts On "The Conspiracy To Remove Trump From The Presidency"

Migrant crisis: Migrant men pose for photos with underage 'girlfriends' in Finland

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's IT specialist, accused of hacking congressional computers, busted trying to flee US

="posted"> /div

/div

ProPeace | Jul 26, 2017 4:08:48 PM | 70
And an interesting read, over the weekend if you have some spare time:

The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of the American Secret Government


Exactly 70 years ago today, President Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act, creating the Department of Defense, the National Security Council, the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Sixteen years later -- just one month after the Kennedy assassination -- Truman published a bombshell in The Washington Post: "I have never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of Government so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue."

When it comes to behind-the-scenes intrigue, no one could out-sinister Allen Dulles, director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. Dulles's job, simply put, was to hijack the US government -- for the benefit of the wealthy.

What he did, and how he did it, has never been more relevant, given the state of the nation in 2017. That's why we are excerpting some revelatory chapters from David Talbot's recent Dulles biography, "The Devil's Chessboard."

The focus here is on Dulles's deeply troubling behavior around the time that John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Although Kennedy had fired him in 1961, Dulles basically kept, de facto, running the CIA anyway. And, even more ominously, after Kennedy was killed in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963, Dulles moved into The Farm, a secret CIA facility in Virginia, where he remained for the weekend -- during which time the "suspect," Lee Harvey Oswald, was shot to death in a Dallas police station, and a vast machinery was set in motion to create the "lone gunman" myth that has dominated our history books to the present.

By no coincidence, that same machinery worked to bury evidence that Oswald himself had deep connections into US intelligence.

Throughout all this, one thing is clear: Dulles was no rogue operative. He was serving the interests of America's corporate and war-making elites. And he went all out.

The "former" CIA director was so determined to control the JFK death-story spin, as Talbot chronicles below, that he even tried to strong-arm former president Truman, when the plain-spoken Missourian dropped hints that an out-of-control CIA might have been involved in Kennedy's murder.

[Jul 26, 2017] The Bulgarian revelations about the existence of a vast arms traffic to syriamilitanst set up by General David Petraeu

Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria > , July 25, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT

"The appearance of a new alliance in the Greater Middle East," by Thierry Meyssan, http://www.voltairenet.org/article197244.html
"The lying insinuations of the Washington Post were adopted by the whole of the Western Press.

Perhaps this is due to the gregarious spirit of Western journalists, but perhaps – more probably – it demonstrates that the major medias are owned by the partisans of war in the Middle East and against Russia.

The Bulgarian revelations about the existence of a vast arms traffic [to ISIS/Al Qaeda' "freedom fighters"] set up by General David Petraeus when he was still Director of the CIA, in 2012, and continued by him from his offices at the financial investment fund KKR, leave one stunned at the power of these war-makers.

At least 17 states participated in operation " Timber Sycamore ", in which Azerbaïdjan took care of the transport of 28,000 tons of weapons and Israël supplied false documents concerning their final destination.

In all likelihood, David Petraeus and KKR were helped by the Assistant Secretary General of the UNO, Jeffrey Feltman. Of course, this gigantic traffic, without precedent in History in terms of its volume, will lead to no legal action, neither in the states concerned, nor on the international stage."

"Billions of dollars' worth of arms against Syria:" http://www.voltairenet.org/article197144.html

[Jul 25, 2017] Trump Should Veto Congress Foolish New Sanctions Bill - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... No matter what the problem, no matter where on earth it occurs, the answer from Washington is always sanctions. Sanctions are supposed to force governments to change policies and do what Washington tells them or face the wrath of their people. So the goal of sanctions is to make life as miserable as possible for civilians so they will try to overthrow their governments. Foreign leaders and the elites do not suffer under sanctions. This policy would be immoral even if it did work, but it does not. ..."
"... Why is Congress so eager for more sanctions on Russia? The neocons and the media have designated Russia as the official enemy and the military industrial complex and other special interests want to continue getting rich terrifying Americans into believing the propaganda. ..."
"... Who has funded al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria for years? Saudi Arabia. Yet no one is talking about sanctions against that country. This is because sanctions are not about our security. They are about politics and special interests. ..."
"... President Trump was elected to pursue a new kind of foreign policy. If he means what he said on the campaign trail, he will veto this foolish sanctions bill and begin dismantling neocon control of his Administration. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
Ron Paul July 24, 2017 500 Words 4 Comments Reply
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=>
Remove from Library B Show Comment Next New Comment Next New Reply Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments List of Bookmarks

This week's expected House vote to add more sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea is a prime example of how little thought goes into US foreign policy. Sanctions have become kind of an automatic action the US government takes when it simply doesn't know what else to do.

No matter what the problem, no matter where on earth it occurs, the answer from Washington is always sanctions. Sanctions are supposed to force governments to change policies and do what Washington tells them or face the wrath of their people. So the goal of sanctions is to make life as miserable as possible for civilians so they will try to overthrow their governments. Foreign leaders and the elites do not suffer under sanctions. This policy would be immoral even if it did work, but it does not.

Why is Congress so eager for more sanctions on Russia? The neocons and the media have designated Russia as the official enemy and the military industrial complex and other special interests want to continue getting rich terrifying Americans into believing the propaganda.

Why, just weeks after the White House affirmed that Iran is abiding by its obligations under the nuclear treaty, does Congress pass additional sanctions anyway? Washington blames Iran for "destabilizing" Syria and Iraq by helping them fight ISIS and al-Qaeda. Does this make any sense at all?

When is the last time Iran committed a terrorist act on our soil? It hasn't. Yet we learned from the declassified 28 pages of the Congressional 9/11 report that Saudi Arabia was deeply involved in the 2001 attacks against Washington and New York. Who has funded al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria for years? Saudi Arabia. Yet no one is talking about sanctions against that country. This is because sanctions are not about our security. They are about politics and special interests.

Why is Congress poised to add yet more sanctions on North Korea? Do they want the North Korean people to suffer more than they are already suffering? North Korea's GDP is half that of Vermont – the US state with the lowest GDP! Does anyone believe they are about to invade us? There is much talk about North Korea's ballistic missile program, but little talk about 30,000 US troops and weapons on North Korea's border. For Washington, it's never a threat if we do it to the other guy.

Here's an alternative to doing the same thing over and over: Let's take US troops out of North Korea after 70 years. The new South Korean president has proposed military talks with North Korea to try and reduce tensions. We should get out of the way and let them solve their own problems. If Iran and Russia want to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda at the invitation of their ally, Syria, why stand in the way? We can't run the world. We are out of money.

President Trump was elected to pursue a new kind of foreign policy. If he means what he said on the campaign trail, he will veto this foolish sanctions bill and begin dismantling neocon control of his Administration.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)

Randal > , July 25, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT

Trump vetoing it would create yet another bubble of media and political establishment noise against him. That might even be useful if he needs a distraction from something else.

Meanwhile, what's happening with Sessions? I can understand Trump being annoyed with him for recusing himself from the Russia nonsense and allowing a special prosecutor to be set up, when arguably it would have been better to just openly laugh at the allegations from the beginning. Would there have been enough Republican traitors to get him impeached for doing so? But losing Sessions seems likely to seriously piss off another remaining chunk of his core support, unless he can find someone else who can satisfy the base and get past Congress, which seems unlikely.

[Jul 25, 2017] US sanctions have taken a big bite out of Russia's economy by John W. Schoen

Notable quotes:
"... The loss of oil revenues – a drop of as much as 60 percent, according to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report -- helped spark a collapse in Russia's currency, the ruble, sending the prices of Russian consumer goods soaring. ..."
"... The Russian economy has also been hurt by a wave of capital flight out of the country, as individual Russians sought to move money offshore and convert their shrinking rubles to dollars and euros to protect their wealth. That money flow slowed in 2014 as U.S. and European sanctions took hold. ..."
"... Though U.S. sanctions have put pressure on the Russian economy, the impact on American business has been limited because Russia makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. exports. ..."
"... A version of the measure that was fashioned by U.S. Senate and House leaders would include fines for European companies that help Russia build energy export pipelines. That would likely impact EU firms involved in an $11 billion project called Nord Stream 2, that would ship Russian natural gas across the Baltic. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.msn.com

Those 2014 U.S. sanctions were paired with related measures imposed by the European Union, which placed restrictions on business with Russia's financial, defense and energy sectors.

Today, Russia's economy is still feeling the harsh impact of those measures, which coincided with a crash in global oil prices that cut deeply into revenues from the country's main export.

The loss of oil revenues – a drop of as much as 60 percent, according to a 2017 Congressional Research Service report -- helped spark a collapse in Russia's currency, the ruble, sending the prices of Russian consumer goods soaring.

The Russian economy has also been hurt by a wave of capital flight out of the country, as individual Russians sought to move money offshore and convert their shrinking rubles to dollars and euros to protect their wealth. That money flow slowed in 2014 as U.S. and European sanctions took hold.

Though U.S. sanctions have put pressure on the Russian economy, the impact on American business has been limited because Russia makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. exports.

Only six U.S states count Russia as a significant market for goods and services. Washington, the most reliant, sells roughly 1 percent of its total exports to Russia, consisting mostly of machinery and farm products. That's half the level before the 2014 sanctions took effect.

European nations, which export greater volumes to Russia than the U.S., imposed their own set of sanctions response to the Crimean annexation.

But some European countries that rely more heavily on Russia as a trade partner are eyeing the latest U.S. sanctions warily.

A version of the measure that was fashioned by U.S. Senate and House leaders would include fines for European companies that help Russia build energy export pipelines. That would likely impact EU firms involved in an $11 billion project called Nord Stream 2, that would ship Russian natural gas across the Baltic.

[Jul 25, 2017] The Coup against Trump and His Military by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] ..."
"... Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it. ..."
"... Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair. ..."
"... Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well. ..."
"... Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. ..."
"... I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity -- ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time. ..."
"... Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor. ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
"... It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ? ..."
"... It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ? ..."
"... It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ? ..."
"... Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ? ..."
"... Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him. ..."
"... Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb ..."
"... I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness. ..."
Dec 28, 2016 | www.unz.com

Introduction

A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup' is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.

The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.

The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives, mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.

The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and legitimacy.

The Coup as 'Process'

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'.

Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies in Congress and the Judiciary.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking office in January.

While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.

Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.

Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump of

  1. being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
  2. blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.

The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass media.

In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.

Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia, the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like Jill Stein.

The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention: The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties, and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival 'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry' Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.

ORDER IT NOW

The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.

President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and place of our choosing".

Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo – and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.

Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance

Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress. He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.

Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his cabinet who had their own allied business associations.

One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL, George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions.

The Coup: Can it succeed?

In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation' on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.

If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').

He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.

(Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Kirt December 28, 2016 at 3:19 pm GMT

A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power. But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the whole system?

John Gruskos , December 28, 2016 at 4:16 pm GMT

If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Robert Magill , December 28, 2016 at 5:30 pm GMT

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations

The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids?

Replies: @Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). , @animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.

What a god-awful president.

An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Brás Cubas , December 28, 2016 at 6:17 pm GMT

Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?

Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)

Happy new year!

schmenz , December 28, 2016 at 9:05 pm GMT
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a failure.

Exactly...

Svigor , December 28, 2016 at 9:28 pm GMT

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.

On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.

And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.

The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!

This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

Replies: @Seamus Padraig

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Lieutenant Morrisseau , December 28, 2016 at 11:27 pm GMT

MAN PAD LETTER – DM 24 DEC 2016

I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws. –Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

• Replies: @Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Bruce Marshall , December 29, 2016 at 6:05 am GMT • 100 Words @Lieutenant Morrisseau MAN PAD LETTER - DM 24 DEC 2016


I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.

Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.

Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the UN.

Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.

This truly is an emergency.

TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and substantive and decent or courageous.]

IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws. --Quite possibly an impeachable offense.

"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.

If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.

Respectfully,

Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775
[email protected]
802 645 9727

The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

• Replies: @El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Mark Green says: • December 29, 2016 at 6:39 am GMT • 600 Words

This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

• Replies:

@Authenticjazzman

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist. ,

@Seamus Padraig

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead forever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,

@Rurik

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game. , @map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.

How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors. ,

@RobinG "

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile...
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

@Tomster

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Pirouette , December 29, 2016 at 7:08 am GMT

The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now be tied by all the traitors that run the US.

You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.

(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.

You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality: are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?

This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?

Max Havelaar , December 29, 2016 at 10:45 am GMT

My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.

Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

• Replies: @annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Karl , December 29, 2016 at 11:20 am GMT

the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches – it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

@Seamus Padraig
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]

There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]

In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally--you know, a kosher nostra!

mp , December 29, 2016 at 11:23 am GMT

In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups

The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic. In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for a coup.

If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.

El Dato , December 29, 2016 at 11:39 am GMT
@Bruce Marshall The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!

It needs to be published as a feature story.

Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.

Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big, and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as we speak.

Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.

BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.

Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).

What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?

Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.

Oh my.

Authenticjazzman , December 29, 2016 at 1:00 pm GMT
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine. And I thought the Two State Solution was dead. Didn't you? Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.

Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

Agent76 , December 29, 2016 at 1:59 pm GMT

D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.

Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

Skeptikal , December 29, 2016 at 3:00 pm GMT
@Robert Magill
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

I expect Obama loves his kids.

Great analysis from Petras.

So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced: "This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"

I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.

I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1 challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.

Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).

animalogic , December 29, 2016 at 3:01 pm GMT • 100 Words

@Robert Magill

Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the Camelot image?

Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/

Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL. What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.

The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless stupidity --

If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's & their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the drain if they thought it to their political advantage.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website

@Svigor

The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.

The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating" "report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.

This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject to future events.

Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.

The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent by way of silence.

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit less so.

So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about Russia.

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:25 pm GMT • 1

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications, though:

Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.

Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just more empty symbolism.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all the Zios.

They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula

Seamus Padraig says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 3:28 pm GMT

@Karl the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before Dr Stein's recount circuses.

They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.

Nothing else they try will fly.

Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.

It seems you may be on to something:

RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3] There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise (18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4] In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act#Summary

What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra!

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 4:36 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo loss!

The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's choir send to the bottom of the black sea.

Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite. Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0

The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

• Agree: Kiza • Replies: @Anonymous
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do? , @Max Havelaar A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.

Maybe the Russian FSB an get to him.

Durruti , December 29, 2016 at 4:57 pm GMT

Nice well written article by James Petras.

I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .

The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2 million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.

Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.

Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.

I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below, for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.

Respect All! Bow to None!

Merry Christmas!

God Bless!

[MORE]
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "

The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.

We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.

The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.

A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.

In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.

In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.

In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.

The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.

The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.

The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.

The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.

The United States is No longer Sovereign

The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.

The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.

For Love of Country

The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.

As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:

"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"

"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."

Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "

Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.

For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty
[email protected]

Anonymous , December 29, 2016 at 5:02 pm GMT

@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.

The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.

It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.

So, what to do?

• Replies: @Bill Jones The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.

My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?

The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?

As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.

Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:

My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.

At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.

Miro23 , December 29, 2016 at 5:31 pm GMT

If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably split the same way.

The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects, and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.

Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.

Rurik , December 29, 2016 at 5:42 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.

For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that Trump is their man.

Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.

It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own game.

Art , December 29, 2016 at 7:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace - Art

• Agree: Seamus Padraig • Replies: @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.

Francis Boyle writes:

"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.

Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Svigor , December 29, 2016 at 9:52 pm GMT

That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.

True.

alexander , December 29, 2016 at 10:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary.

Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow.

What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?

They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration.

Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

• Replies: @annamaria

"They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration."

The subtitles are quite direct in presenting the US deciders as criminal bullies: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/12/russia-obama-was-most-evil-president.html

@Tomster What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

RobinG , December 29, 2016 at 10:25 pm GMT

@Art I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.

The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.

If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!

Peace --- Art

"If we get past the inauguration ."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

• Replies: @Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

map , December 29, 2016 at 10:41 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

• Replies: @joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb , @RobinG "A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Realist , December 29, 2016 at 11:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

joe webb , December 29, 2016 at 11:35 pm GMT • 200 Words

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but

Joe Webb

• Replies: @map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

Stebbing Heuer says: • Website December 29, 2016 at 11:36 pm GMT

Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff ..like 9-11 ?

I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else.

annamaria , December 29, 2016 at 11:50 pm GMT

@Realist "The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."

You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.

There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.

The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

• Replies: @Realist Great observations. Thanks. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Art , December 30, 2016 at 1:06 am GMT • 100 Words @RobinG "If we get past the inauguration...."

Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?

Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.

A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)

Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really – how pissed off can they be?

Peace - Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

• Replies: @RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

Svigor , December 30, 2016 at 2:20 am GMT • 100 Words

Looks like I spoke too soon:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek inside the Democrat machine.

Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand!

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT

@Art Hi RobinG,

This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!

The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.

Really - how pissed off can they be?

Peace --- Art

p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.

Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

• Replies: @Art
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
anon , December 30, 2016 at 6:33 am GMT

https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .

• Replies: @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC


Realist , December 30, 2016 at 8:17 am GMT

@annamaria The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration: http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html

"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ... the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently working on."

Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical jihadis.

Great observations. Thanks.

map , December 30, 2016 at 9:16 am GMT

@joe webb masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably did not come from Trump.

As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis."

That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public opinion.

Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.

I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now.
Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains for the jews.

Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...

Joe Webb

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

• Replies: @Tomster "treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them. , @joe webb good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.

Joe Webb

Seamus Padraig says: • December 30, 2016 at 2:05 pm GMT

@anon https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf

This is a very underwhelming document.

I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks' leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.

No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?

From WikiLeaks:

"From:[email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2015-02-19 00:35 Subject: 2 things

Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd

The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.

Note the Disclaimer:

DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

• Replies: @geokat62
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ , @alexander Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years...

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back.....four times...

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.

But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?

Skeptikal , December 30, 2016 at 2:38 pm GMT • 100 Words

"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. "

The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."

A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist. A black mark on both countries' report cards.

geokat62 , December 30, 2016 at 2:52 pm GMT @Seamus Padraig
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

"Was" is the operative word:

Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker

https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:02 pm GMT

@map I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.

What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing project.

Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews. It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.

Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries. So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.

Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians, workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just to get by?

The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews, therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.

So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their pride in nationalist endeavors.

"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive the nails, throw out the trash."

Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians, while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.

RobinG , December 30, 2016 at 4:32 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "

THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more empty symbolism."
Meanwhile
The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment
The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election

Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.

Art , December 30, 2016 at 4:49 pm GMT

@RobinG Hi Art,

I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking is nil.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.

What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.

RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm GMT

@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!

Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role. And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.

Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's beginning to look that way.

Or is Trump just being a fox?

Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.

This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating. And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.

As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.

Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.

And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.

Didn't you?

Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.

This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel (which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown. Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli pressure.

Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.

Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.

Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?

Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.

Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:14 pm GMT @alexander

Dear Mr. Petras,

It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of hacking the election against Hillary. Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you seem to believe is in the offing ?

It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with Moscow. What for ?

It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ? Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining to stuff.....like 9-11 ?

Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ? They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before Trumps inauguration. Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?

What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.

Tomster , December 30, 2016 at 5:16 pm GMT

@map

The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.

alexander , December 30, 2016 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.

Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people over the last sixteen years

Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss or admit.

Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign, came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.

He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment

.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times, who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"

Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his bets.

In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although he did not state it outright.

Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close to what actually happened.

So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had him shot in the back ..four times

And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute" Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy" .

But hey, that's life in the USA .Right, Seamus ?

joe webb , December 30, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT

@map The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.

It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.

The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just triangulation against the left.

I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.

good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about
Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?

Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.

As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.

(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)

How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have ample resources and could pony up the dough.

The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on, even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion. The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.

As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.

Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like the Jews.

The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be
democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\

For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.

The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.

All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.

finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
Joe Webb

Realist , December 30, 2016 at 6:57 pm GMT • 100 Words

Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.

January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.

lavoisier says: • December 31, 2016 at 1:38 am GMT • 100 Words

@joe webb

Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.

I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.

[Jul 25, 2017] John Helmer Jared Kushner's Testimonial to Stupidity and Unfitness American and Russian

They are still digging. Getting metters of his family into the administration was aworse then a crime of the part of Trump, it was a blunder...
Jul 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

...It is more than 200 kilometres from the current Russian frontier with Belarus and the historical border with the territory which for a thousand years has been occupied by Lithuanian, Polish, German and Russian imperial as well as Soviet forces. Kushner's grandparents actually came from Navahrudak (Навагрудак), spelled in Russian as Новогрудок (Novogrudok). The meaning of the word, which was first used for the place in the 11 th century, is "new little town". When the Germans arrived in July 1941, there were 20,000 residents, 10,000 of whom, including the Kushners, were Jewish. The Kushners escaped; the majority who didn't were killed. Kushner reveals he doesn't know. His, and everyone else's mistake, is 834 kilometres off the mark.

...But Kushner admits that during the campaign he "had incoming [sic] contacts with people from approximately 15 countries." He also had "hundreds" of "calls, letters and emails from people outside the United States." He says he asked Henry Kissinger for "advice on policy for the candidate, which countries/representatives with which the campaign should engage, and what messaging would resonate." He says he spoke once for "less than a minute" with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak at an April 2016 Trump campaign speech in Washington, when the Russian was accompanied by three other foreign ambassadors; Kushner doesn't name them.

He denies any record of receiving or remembering two reported telephone calls with Kislyak between April and November, and had forgotten his name when, on November 9, an official congratulatory note arrived for Trump from President Vladimir Putin. From November 9 to January 20, Kushner says he received "over one hundred contacts from more than twenty countries They included meetings with individuals such as Jordan's King Abdullah II, Israel's Prime Bibi Netanyahu, Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Luis Videgaray Caso and many more."

A neophyte in foreign affairs as Kushner confesses himself to be, he doesn't reveal that Videgaray and he set up candidate Trump's visit to Mexico City to meet the Mexican President on August 31. The Mexican reaction to that was extremely hostile. Videgaray was forced to resign as finance minister on September 7, but promoted to foreign minister on January 4. Videgaray might be charged with colluding with the Americans to advance himself, with Kushner as co-conspirator, but no senator on the Intelligence Committee is reported to have asked Kushner about that.

Kushner may not know the nicknames of Videgaray or King Abdullah, but he certainly refers to the Israeli prime minister as Bibi, an appellation well-known to Israelis and Jews worldwide. His official name is Benjamin, and there is ample evidence that Kushner has been familiar with Netanyahu for many years. Kushner's father is also widely reported in Israel as Netanyahu's personal friend. Kushner's slip in yesterday's evidence was to reveal just how familiar he is with that foreign official, who met with Trump and Kushner for a campaign appearance in Israel in June, five months before Election Day.

The special relationship between Israel and the US cannot be collusion – that's a rule of US politics. The rule wasn't quite so fixed in the 1980s when the FBI caught US officials at spying, stealing and smuggling on behalf of Israel, and sent one of them to prison; click for details

Nor can God and the Orthodox Jewish group known as Chabad-Lubavitch be reported as colluding in Trump's victory, despite the evidence that Kushner and his wife Ivanka prayed for it at a Lubavitcher shrine on the weekend before the poll.

The Israeli and Jewish community media also claim the possibility that Kushner's pilgrimage reminded God to intervene when there was a suspected assassination attempt against Trump in Arizona at the same time.

The inadvertence of these slips in Kushner's statement reinforces his claim that he knows the difference between collusion with Russians and special relationships with Mexican, Israeli and Lubavitcher friends. The US press and the US appear convinced of the same thing.

... ... ...

Simes (Дмитрий Саймс), son of Jewish dissidents expelled from the Soviet Union to the US in 1978, is the Uriah Heep of Russian-American advisors, ingratiating themselves to both sides and making a living out of obsequious intermediation. He was Richard Nixon's factotum when the disgraced president visited Moscow. Nixon died in 1994 leaving Simes his think-tank as an inheritance. Its motto is "America's Voice for Strategic Realism". Kissinger is the honorary chairman , succeeding the American International Group (AIG) fraudster Hank Greenberg.

visitor , July 25, 2017 at 12:28 pm

Helmer provides a wealth of background about people and their role, institutions and practices. It is the kind of information that puts things in quite a different light -- and it turns out to be intriguing.

Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a serious way (gifts that should have been laden with personal symbolism for Kushner, sending that high-powered Gorkov banker, letting the ambassador pester Kushner for meetings). All for naught, due to spectacularly poor assessment of the other party by the Russians, and a clueless Trump team (with Kushner supremely ignorant of his supposedly cherished Eastern-European Jewish heritage).

The picture of that milieu full of go-betweens, cats' paws, and assorted parasites is not pretty. Contrarily to the often agape descriptions of "Putin's regime", the Russians appear to have been rather incompetent in that specific occurrence.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 25, 2017 at 2:50 pm

Creatures from the Swamp.

witters , July 25, 2017 at 5:52 pm

"Apparently, the Kremlin really wanted to get in touch with Trump -- and tried it in a serious way" – Well, I think the dirt on offer was of the wrong kind, no?
Funny you got here first "Visitor".

different clue , July 25, 2017 at 9:06 pm

Somebody is always first by definition. There was always a mad rush to be the "Me first commenter number One!" over at James Klunster's blog, for example.

Bill Smith , July 25, 2017 at 12:29 pm

"reveals just how ignorant Kushner, his legal and other advisors are of Russia"

It is a big deal that Kushner didn't know the proper spelling of the town his grandparents came from? Heck, I don't even know the name of the town my grandparents came from – much less how to spell it.

Interesting point on Mexico and Israel / collusion

For better or worse I think there are more US citizens who know who Bibi is and not many who know the nickname of the King of Jordan.

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 25, 2017 at 2:50 pm

1. I've come across the nickname Bibi so many times and I am only a casual reader of mainstream news.

Perhaps it is that many people in the mainstream media who are 'personal friends' of Bibi.

2. You know your grandparents home town either when they sat down with you and showed it to you on a map with its English spelling on an American map, or an old map with unknown words on it (a Belarussian one maybe), or they talked about it many times, so that you know, but only know how to say it (however imperfectly). Then, when it came for you to write it down the first time (or may not have to the first time, but the first time someone more familiar with the area reads it), you didn't get the spelling exactly right, and even confused it with any town.

Jamie , July 25, 2017 at 1:49 pm

I think the stupidity is anyone on the left buying into this fake McCarthyite Russia scare -- just because a racketeering war criminal lost the election. For one, Hillary took naked bribes from Russia. As Secretary of State, Hillary received millions in bribes to approve the transfer of 20% of our uranium assets to Russia:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1

And the Podesta Group, founded by John Podesta, took money from Russia's largest bank, Sherbank, just last year, to lobby for a lessening of sanctions:

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=F137350&year=2016s

Secondly, Hillary's post election pronouncements were absurd and contradictory to DNC talking points:

"If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were
connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."

– Crooked Hillary

"I would have won had I not been subjected to the unprecedented attacks by Comey and the Russians."

– Crooked Hillary

Finally, the idea that the DNC was hacked by Russia is so flimsy, it makes the Bush WMD report look like the gold standard:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/07/25/was-the-russian-hack-an-inside-job/

cj51 , July 25, 2017 at 9:04 pm

I won't reciprocate and call you stupid Jamie but you do seem ignorant of the facts:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
I thought this was well known by now.

and
"Finally, the idea that the DNC was hacked by Russia is so flimsy "
regardless of the fact that all major USA intelligence services have said Russia did hack DNC.
google "Russia hacked DNC".

likbez , July 25, 2017 at 10:08 pm

IMHO the person who cites snopes is clearly a Hillary supporter.

As for

"all major USA intelligence services have said Russia did hack DNC. Google "Russia hacked DNC"

that's a myth propagated by Hillary camp. There were handpicked analysts from three agencies who did the hatchet job as they were ordered to.

This is a recipe from Sharp's textbook ( http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12522848 ).

Such dirty tricks is how "color revolutions" are done in xUSSR space and ME, my Hillary-supporting friend.

Now it is the USA turn ;-)

Tomonthebeach , July 25, 2017 at 6:09 pm

I think that the average American reading this article would half-way through roll their eyes and say this is so micro nit-picky that there is no there there.

Arizona Slim , July 25, 2017 at 6:36 pm

That was my impression too.

Cujo359 , July 25, 2017 at 8:58 pm

No kidding. My summary of the first objection: "Kushner would certainly known that his grandfather was from Novafreakingrad, Ukraine, not Novafrakingrad, Russia if the idiot hadn't realized he was reading the wrong cyrillic alphabet."

Or something like that. I'm usually interested in trivia, but this strained my limit to the breaking point. Like Bill Smith said in his comment above, most of us would be hard pressed to know what country our forbears came from, let alone what city. I think if this is the dumbest thing Kushner writes or says while he's working for the White House, he'll be the best Director of the Office of American Innovation evah – even if every other President had at least two of them.

clarky90 , July 25, 2017 at 6:19 pm

God forbid that we talk to the Russians! Oh my. Far better to start a nuclear war that ultimately involves all of the nuclear powers, even the North Koreans. Then we can solve climate change by gifting the planet back to the extremophiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

Shake and bake. A billion years from now, Earth will be covered with multitudinous expressions of life.

Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5 years!

likbez , July 25, 2017 at 10:08 pm

"God forbid that we talk to the Russians!"

Military industrial complex needs your money my friend. Nothing personal. This is strictly business :-)

"Millions of Americans colluded with the Russians and elected DJ Trump. IMO, largely because they are sick of this constant war-mongering. The second World War only lasted for 5 years!"

The last thing MIC cares is what millions of Americans, who elected Trump, want.

Temporarily Sane , July 25, 2017 at 6:24 pm

If the members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, ostensibly on a fact finding mission re the Trump administration's alleged collusion with Russian government officials and business people, take their assignment seriously they could use Helmer's brisk, no-nonsense just the facts ma'am approach as a template for their proceedings. The key word being "if"

Reading the American and European press it's striking how the reporting on countries in the 'axis of MIC designated evildoers' is almost always grossly, or hilariously, depending on your disposition, reductionist. While Western countries have a complex and multilayered system of government administration the "evil" countries are ruled by bad dudes with one name (North Korea's Kim Jong-un excepted) – Putin, Assad, Saddam, Gadaffi – who have absolute control over civilians military alike. It really is a South Parkesque view of the world. One can imagine a Putin or Assad grimly overseeing a trembling clerk issuing licenses at a provincial DMV, because Leader Knows Best of course.

Back in the real world this cartoonish dumbing down means every action – real, alleged or made up – the West doesn't like is traced back to The Leader. If a military unit goes nuts and slaughters a bunch of non-combatants , a nasty but not uncommon occurrence in wartime, it must be because The Leader ordered it. The Syrian Arab Army, to name one example, becomes "Assad's Army" and is composed of "soldiers loyal to Bashar al-Assad". The media would never talk about a Western, or "allied" army like this.

In the transcript Helmer cites, Gorkov's gifts to Kushner, something that might only be an innocent overlooking of protocol, can easily be spun in such a way that it becomes part of that evil rascal Putin's ploy to influence an American president. That's why these committees and hearings are a joke that belong in a low-budget sequel to Dr. Strangelove. Every person with a functioning brain knows there is a double-standard at play here. Even the maniacal partisan nutjobs agitating for Cold War 2.0 would have to admit this if logic and reason still have any meaning.

likbez , July 25, 2017 at 10:21 pm
Demonization of Putin is very profitable. This new round of McCarthyism enforced on the country proved to be the strategy chosen by neoliberal elite to return Dems to power and suppress populists within the party. Smash critique of neoliberalism equating them with Russian agents, who are trying to undermine the state.

There were rumors that original McCarthyism campaign partially was designed to suppress "leaks" about export of nazy scientist and spies in the USA after WWII that Communists and Trotskyites tried to expose.

rps , July 25, 2017 at 8:17 pm

Talk about a nothing burger about Kushner and Russia other than his aficionado to be Bibi's US puppet-in-law. If Trump has any Russian connections its through his first wife Ivana Trump. According to wikipedia, Ivana Trump nee Zelníčková was born February 20, 1949 in the Moravian town of Zlín, Czechoslovakia. From 1948 to 1990, Czechoslovakia was part of the Soviet bloc. Donald Jr speaks fluent Czech.

Now the Clintons Russian connection of selling and buying 'Merica uranium/speechifer/foundation grab bag of goodies makes the Trump Russian investigation look like its run by a whole buncha nut job congress critters who fell off the turnip truck conned into playing a shell game.

[Jul 25, 2017] Color revolution against Trump was planned in Clinton circles with Soros participation by Michael Sainato

Notable quotes:
"... The Hill ..."
"... Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing. ..."
"... TheLos Angeles Times ..."
"... Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. ..."
"... On the weekend of Trump's inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's a--." ..."
Jul 18, 2017 | www.msn.com

Harris' meetings with Clinton's donors signal that they are rallying behind her as the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. Harris has emerged as a leading figure in the Trump Resistance; Politico reported that the hearings regarding Trump's connections to Russia have enabled the Democratic Party to frame her as Trump's most aggressive critic. In response to one of the hearings she was involved in, she launched the slogan "courage not courtesy." However, despite this catchy slogan, Harris has historically lacked the courage to hold her donors accountable when they have broken the law.

The nomination of Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin provoked criticisms over his tenure as CEO of OneWest Bank. In 2013, California prosecutors claimed to have discovered over 1,000 foreclosure law violations, but the California Attorney General's office failed to file any action against the bank. At the time, Kamala Harris was California's attorney general. Many questioned why Harris didn't take any action given the evidence her office uncovered.

"We went and we followed the facts and the evidence, and it's a decision my office made," Harris told The Hill . "We pursued it just like any other case. We go and we take a case wherever the facts lead us."

Harris' vague defense is insufficient. The Democratic Party has branded her as a leader of the Trump Resistance without addressing why Harris avoided a criminal investigation that involved donors to her campaign.

In 2011, Mnuchin's wife at the time, Heather Mnuchin, gave $8,750 to Harris' 2011 campaign. OneWest Bank donated $6,500 to Harris' 2011 election. Heather Mnuchin also donated $850 to Harris' 2014 election for California attorney general.

In 2014, the Center for American Progress graded California's campaign donor recusal laws a "C." The state's lax laws allowed Harris to decide not to recuse herself from deciding whether or not to prosecute OneWest Bank.

Mnuchin donated to multiple Republicans' campaigns in 2016, but Harris was the only Democrat he donated to .

Harris also has ties to billionaire Democratic Party donor George Soros, who was one of the two owners of OneWest Bank at the time. Coincidentally, before Harris passed on the opportunity to file action against OneWest Bank, Soros was pouring money into California criminal policy initiatives that Harris was pushing.

In 2011, Harris' former aide Lenore Anderson was hired as campaign manager for Californians for Safety and Justice, which was financed by Soros' Open Society Foundations. In 2014, TheLos Angeles Times reported, "The organization operates under the umbrella of a San Francisco-based nonprofit clearinghouse, which effectively shields its donor list and financial operations from public view." The report cited that since 2012 Soros had led a four-year, $16 million campaign to change California criminal policy, which Harris was deeply involved in as California attorney general. Lenore Anderson also led Vote Safe, another Soros' funded organization.

In 2014, Soros and hedge fund billionaire John Paulson sold OneWest for $3.4 billion. In 2015, Soros donated the maximum amount to Harris' Senate campaign. Also in 2015, Harris spoke at Soros' 2020 Vision Conference in San Francisco with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and at Soros' Democracy Alliance Conference .

This background information on Harris' relationship to her donors provides context as to why the Democratic establishment is rallying behind her. However, any politician that doesn't hold corporate and special interests accountable only results in more corruption.

Since Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss to Donald Trump , her donors have strategized with Democratic leadership about how to revive the failing party.

Billionaire George Soros held a closed door conference with wealthy donors in November 2016 that addressed how to "take back power" and was attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

On the weekend of Trump's inauguration, David Brock hosted a retreat for the most prolific Democratic donors to figure out how to "kick Donald Trump's a--."

On July 15, Page Six reported that Sen. Kamala Harris, a potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, met with top Clinton donors in the Hamptons.

Many figures in Clinton's inner circle attended, including Clinton's 2008 Campaign National Finance co-Chair Michael Kempner, donors Dennis Mehiel and Steven Gambrel, and Democratic National Committeeman Robert Zimmerman. Harris also attended a separate luncheon hosted by one of Clinton's top lobbyist bundlers, Liz Robbins.

[Jul 25, 2017] Oligarchs Succeed! Only the People Suffer! by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... target for military conquest ..."
"... The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' ..."
"... The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party. ..."
"... uncritical' ..."
"... critically' ..."
"... democracy succeeds ..."
"... In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. ..."
"... Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected. In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable. ..."
"... Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now. ..."
"... It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate. ..."
"... Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours." ..."
"... "A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/ ..."
"... This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard. ..."
"... A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. ..."
"... Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview ..."
May 31, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

On a scale not seen since the 'great' world depression of the 1930's, the US political system is experiencing sharp political attacks, divisions and power grabs. Executive firings, congressional investigations, demands for impeachment, witch hunts, threats of imprisonment for 'contempt of Congress' and naked power struggles have shredded the façade of political unity and consensus among competing powerful US oligarchs.

For the first time in US history, the incumbent elected president struggles on a daily basis to wield state power. The opposition-controlled state (National Public Radio) and corporate organs of mass propaganda are pitted against the presidential regime. Factions of the military elite and business oligarchy face off in the domestic and international arena. The oligarchs debate and insult each other. They falsify charges, plot and deceive. Their political acolytes, who witness these momentous conflicts, are mute, dumb and blind to the real interests at stake.

The struggle between the Presidential oligarch and the Opposition oligarchs has profound consequences for their factions and for the American people. Wars and markets, pursued by sections of the Oligarchs, have led opposing sections to seek control over the means of political manipulation (media and threats of judicial action).

Intense political competition and open political debate have nothing to do with 'democracy' as it now exists in the United States.

In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests.

What the 'Conflict' is Not About

  • The 'life and death' inter-oligarchical fight is not about peace!
  • None of the factions of the oligarchy, engaged in this struggle, is aligned with democratic or independent governments.
  • Neither side seeks to democratize the American electoral process or to dismantle the grotesque police state apparatus.
  • Neither side has any commitment to a 'new deal' for American workers and employees.
  • Neither is interested in policy changes needed to address the steady erosion of living standards or the unprecedented increase in 'premature' mortality among the working and rural classes.

Despite these similarities in their main focus of maintaining oligarchical power and policies against the interests of the larger population, there are deep divisions over the content and direction of the presidential regime and the permanent state apparatus.

What the Oligarchical Struggle is About

There are profound differences between the oligarch factions on the question of overseas wars and 'interventions'.

  • The 'opposition' (Democratic Party and some Republican elite) pursues a continuation of their policy of global wars, especially aimed at confronting Russian and China, as well as regional wars in Asia and the Middle East. There is a stubborn refusal to modify military policies, despite the disastrous consequences domestically (economic decline and increased poverty) and internationally with massive ethnic cleansing, terrorism, forced migrations of war refugees to Europe, and famine and epidemics (such as cholera and starvation in Yemen).
  • The Trump Presidency appears to favor increased military confrontation with Iran and North Korea and intervention in Syria, Venezuela and Yemen.
  • The 'Opposition' supports multilateral economic and trade agreements, (such as TTP and NAFTA), while Trump favors lucrative 'bilateral' economic agreements. Trump relies on trade and investment deals with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates and the formation of an aggressive military 'axis' (US-Saudi Arabia-Israel -Gulf Emirates) to eventually overthrow the nationalist regime in Iran and divide the country.
  • The 'Opposition' pursues wars and violent 'regime change' to replace disobedient 'tyrants' and nationalists and set up 'client governments', which will provide bases for the US military empire. Trump's regime embraces existing dictators, who can invest in his domestic infrastructure agenda.
  • The 'opposition' seeks to maximize the role of Washington's global military power. President Trump focuses on expanding the US role in the global market.

While both oligarchical factions support US imperialism, they differ in terms of its nature and means.

For the 'opposition', every country, large or small, can be a target for military conquest . Trump tends to favor the expansion of lucrative overseas markets, in addition to projecting US military dominance.

Oligarchs: Tactical Similarities

The competition among oligarchs does not preclude similarities in means and tactics. Both factions favor increased military spending, support for the Saudi war on Yemen and intervention in Venezuela. They support trade with China and international sanctions against Russia and Iran. They both display slavish deference to the State of Israel and favor the appointment of openly Zionist agents throughout the political, economic and intelligence apparatus.

These similarities are, however, subject to tactical political propaganda skirmishes. The 'Opposition' denounces any deviation in policy toward Russia as 'treason', while Trump accuses the 'Opposition' of having sacrificed American workers through NAFTA.

Whatever the tactical nuances and similarities, the savage inter-oligarchic struggle is far from a theatrical exercise. Whatever the real and feigned similarities and differences, the oligarchs' struggle for imperial and domestic power has profound consequence for the political and constitutional order.

Oligarchical Electoral Representation and the Parallel Police State

The ongoing fight between the Trump Administration and the 'Opposition' is not the typical skirmish over pieces of legislation or decisions. It is not over control of the nation's public wealth. The conflict revolves around control of the regime and the exercise of state power.

The opposition has a formidable array of forces, including the national intelligence apparatus (NSA, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, etc.) and a substantial sector of the Pentagon and defense industry. Moreover, the opposition has created new power centers for ousting President Trump, including the judiciary. This is best seen in the appointment of former FBI Chief Robert Mueller as ' Special Investigator' and key members of the Attorney General's Office, including Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein who appointed Mueller, after the Attorney General 'Jeff' Session (a Trump ally) was 'forced' to recluse himself for having 'met' with Russian diplomats in the course of fulfilling his former Congressional duties as a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This 'recusal' took significant discretionary power away from Trump's most important ally within the Judiciary.

The web of opposition power spreads and includes former police state officials including mega-security impresario, Michael Chertoff (an associate of Robert Mueller), who headed Homeland Security under GW Bush, John Brennan (CIA), James Comey (FBI) and others.

The opposition dominates the principal organs of propaganda -the press (Washington Post, Financial Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal), television and radio (ABC, NBC, CBS and PBS/ NPR), which breathlessly magnify and prosecute the President and his allies for an ever-expanding web of unsubstantiated 'crimes and misdemeanors'. Neo-conservative and liberal think tanks and foundations, academic experts and commentators have all joined the 'hysteria chorus' and feeding frenzy to oust the President.

The President has an increasingly fragile base of support in his Cabinet, family and closest advisers. He has a minority of supporters in the legislature and possibly in the Supreme Court, despite nominal majorities for the Republican Party.

The President has the passive support of his voters, but they have demonstrated little ability to mobilize in the streets. The electorate has been marginalized.

Outside of politics (the 'Swamp' as Trump termed Washington, DC) the President's trade, investment, taxation and deregulation policies are backed by the majority of investors, who have benefited from the rising stock market. However, 'money' does not appear to influence the parallel state.

The divergence between Trumps supporters in the investment community and the political power of the opposition state is one of the most extraordinary changes of our century.

Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état, he has turned to securing 'deals' with overseas allies, including billion-dollar trade and investment agreements.

The multi-billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates will delight the military-industrial complex and its hundreds of thousands of workers.

Political and diplomatic 'kowtowing' to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should please some American Zionists.

But the meetings with the EU in Brussels and with the G7 in Siciliy failed to neutralize Trump's overseas opposition.

NATO's European members did not accept Trump's demands that they increase their contribution to the alliance and they condemned his reluctance to offer unconditional US military support for new NATO members. They showed no sympathy for domestic problems.

In brief, the President's overseas supporters, meetings and agreements will have little impact on the domestic correlation of forces.

Moreover, there are long-standing ties among the various state apparatuses and spy agencies in the EU and the US, which strengthen the reach of the opposition in their attacks on Trump.

While substantive issues divide the Presidential and Opposition oligarchs, these issues are vertical , not horizontal , cleavages – a question of 'their' wars or 'ours'.

Trump intensified the ideological war with North Korea and Iran; promised to increase ground troops in Afghanistan and Syria; boosted military and advisory support for the Saudi invasion of Yemen; and increased US backing for violent demonstrations and mob attacks in Venezuela.

The opposition demands more provocations against Russia and its allies; and the continuation of former President Obama's seven wars.

While both sets of oligarchs support the ongoing wars, the major difference is over who is managing the wars and who can be held responsible for the consequences.

Both conflicting oligarchs are divided over who controls the state apparatus since their power depends on which side directs the spies and generates the fake news.

Currently, both sets of oligarchs wash each other's 'dirty linen' in public, while covering up for their collective illicit practices at home and abroad. The Trump oligarchs want to maximize economic deals through ' uncritical' support for known tyrants; the opposition ' critically' supports tyrants in exchange for access to US military bases and military support for 'interventions'. President Trump pushes for major tax cuts to benefit his oligarch allies while making massive cuts in social programs for his hapless supporters. The Opposition supports milder tax cuts and lesser reductions in social programs.

Conclusion

The battle of the oligarchs has yet to reach a decisive climax. President Trump is still the President of the United States. The Opposition forges ahead with its investigations and lurid media exposés.

The propaganda war is continuous. One day the opposition media focuses on a deported student immigrant and the next day the President features new jobs for American military industries.

The emerging left-neo-conservative academic partnership (e.g. Noam Chomsky-William Kristol) has denounced President Trump's regime as a national 'catastrophe' from the beginning. Meanwhile, Wall Street investors and libertarians join to denounce the Opposition's resistance to major tax 'reforms'.

Oligarchs of all stripes and colors are grabbing for total state power and wealth while the majority of citizens are labeled ' losers' by Trump or 'deplorables' by Madame Clinton.

The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart.

Epilogue

After the blood-letting, when and if President Trump is overthrown, the State Security functionaries in their tidy dark suits will return to their nice offices to preside over their 'normal' tasks of spying on the citizens and launching clandestine operations abroad.

The media will blow out some charming tid-bits and 'words of truth' from the new occupant of the 'Oval Office'.

The academic left will churn out some criticism against the newest 'oligarch-in-chief' or crow about how their heroic 'resistance' averted a national catastrophe.

Trump, the ex-President and his oligarch son-in-law Jared Kushner will sign new real estate deals. The Saudis will receive the hundreds of billions of dollars of US arms to re-supply ISIS or its successors and to rust in the 'vast and howling' wilderness of US-Middle East intervention. Israel will demand even more frequent 'servicing' from the new US President.

The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer! Long live the Oligarchs!

jilles dykstra > , June 1, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT

" In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests. "

Alas not just in the USA, but also in the EU. The recent French election was no more than the ruling elite's concern that Marine le Pen would be elected.
In the USA the unimaginable was the case, a political outsider was elected. The same with Brexit, also unimaginable.

So now complete confusion with the elites, what with the EU, with NATO, what with globalisation, is Russia really an enemy, can Israel continue its policies since 1948, what with immigration into Europe, and so on, and so forth.

Sergey Krieger > , June 1, 2017 at 8:45 am GMT

Democracy is a lie. It has never existed and cannot exist in society where tiny minority owes almost everything. It is illusion to keep masses preoccupied while they are being fleeced. Same everywhere now.

The Alarmist > , June 1, 2017 at 8:48 am GMT

It's a modern-day version of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar . Let's hope Trump stays away from the Senate.

The Alarmist > , June 1, 2017 at 9:04 am GMT

@The Alarmist

Following on that same note, someone should tell Hillary Rodham Clinton, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.". I guess the modern day version would be, "The fault, dear Hillary, is not in thousands of Facebook postings by a thousand Russian agents, but in your assumption that the Deep State and the MSM would drag you across the finish line to the victory you felt was rightfully yours."

Robert Magill > , June 1, 2017 at 9:24 am GMT

The triumphant editorialists will claim that 'our' unique political system, despite the 'recent turmoil', has proven that democracy succeeds . . . only the people suffer!

Long live the Oligarchs!

"A reign of witches", Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State under George Washington, aimed this jeremiad at Presidents Washington and Adams. The script is old, only the characters are new. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/04/18/we-have-always-been-a-right-wing-plutocracy/

Sergey Krieger > , June 1, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT

@The Alarmist The good thing there is no Hillary statue over there to fell under.

Vlad > , June 1, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

This is a great summary of where America is today. What could Trump do? Here is a piece of advice. He should choose one intel agency that he can trust, may be DIA or create a new one, may be even informal one to fight the leaks which are after all felony. He should confront his Republican enemies like McCain openly that it is the President that makes foreign policy not senators, he should confront Russia gate openly, by insisting he had a right to establish whatever channels he wished to, he should reopen investigation of Clinton,s emails, Clinton foundation, investigation of who leaked DNC materials in other words refocus the attention on Clinton and Dems, something he should have done from day one. He should activate the social base of supporters in a variety of ways, he should mobilize those segments of business that support him and stand to benefit from his policies. A war is war, he should stop procrastinating in a kind of dismissive defensive posture, it is time to hit back and hit hard.

jacques sheete > , June 1, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

All the yapping and whining about democracy ignores the fact that the U.S. Constitution was and is an anti-democratic document despite the populist sentiments stated in the Bill of Rights which was tacked on in as an afterthought in order to help get the constitution ratified.

The USA was never intended to be a democracy, and never was. It never really was a republic, either but in name only. And it was never really free, either. Wage and tax slaves are not free.

It was designed and has functioned always as a de facto resoligrcharum .

It is good to see, however, that more and more folks seem to be waking up to those facts though it is an agonizingly slow process

animalogic > , June 1, 2017 at 12:33 pm GMT

This is a very good, thought provoking article.

Clearly there is conflict between Oligarchs: much of conflict is tactical – as the author points out ALL the Oligarchs support US imperialism & (it's major tool) the military. However, Trump prefers a more nationalist economic approach, & bi-lateral over multi-lateral trade agreements. He was , to all appearances, more "open" to Russia than most other Elites. To what degree these are genuinely substantive issues between Oligarchs will, I suspect, be long debated.

What clouds ALL issues is Trump himself. No one can deny that he provokes a visceral, virtually psychotic hatred in many Elites (& not just Dem's but Republicans also). I also suspect that Trump could follow almost all Elite policies & he would STILL be hounded. In such a climate "issues" become mere sticks with which to HIT. (The D's would impeach him for sorcery if they could get away with it)

A couple of negative points in the article:

Surely this (at this point in time) is exaggeration ? "Given the President's domestic weakness and the imminent threat of a coup d'état "

Further, the "epilogue" in which the author argues that were Trump "overthrown" thing would return to normal quite quickly. I do not believe this. Depending on circumstances there are very good odds that not only a political, but social crisis would occur: Trump supporters are not stupid – they KNOW their guy has been treated like Shit from day one.

More positively: authorise spot ON here:

"The 'peace' movement, immigrant rights groups and 'black lives matter' activists have become mindless lackeys pulling the opposition oligarchs' wagon, while rust-belt workers, rural poor and downwardly mobile middle class employees are powerless serfs hitched to President Trump's cart."

Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

Mar 20, 2015 The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)

Daniel Sanchez combines the theories of Robert Higgs and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to form a theory of the cycle of the state.

Joseph E Fasciani > , Website June 1, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance.

Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT

May 31, 2017 A Groundbreaking Examination of How This Profoundly Altered the Nature of American Democracy

Garry Wills (born May 22, 1934) is an American author, journalist, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.

Stephen Paul Foster > , Website June 1, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT

Consider one of the most odious oligarchs of all time, Ted Kennedy. What damage he did.

See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/06/edward-teddy-kennedy-how-lecher-became.html

aandrews > , June 1, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Resoligrcharum. Definition?

jacques sheete > , June 1, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT

@aandrews

Resoligrcharum. Definition?

Republic is from res publica , "a thing of the public."

Resoligarcharum is my neologism for res oligarcharum, "a thing of the oligarchs."

PS: The antifederalists' suspicions and predictions regarding the constitution were mostly and significantly correct. They saw the fraud coming and knew how it was likely to play out. Regarding the issue of freedom, with the institution of the Federal Reserve, it's even worse than they could have imagined,

nickels > , June 1, 2017 at 9:37 pm GMT

@Agent76 Very interesting. I put his book on my 'to read' stack. This seems like a pretty reasonable narrative on how these institutions gained so much power.

Agent76 > , June 1, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT

@jacques sheete This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann

jacques sheete > , June 2, 2017 at 12:29 am GMT

@Agent76

This quote nails everything in a nutshell, "Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main ballpark." Walter Lippmann

Lippman was definitely a mixed bag, but he spoke a lot of truths. His attitude regarding intelligence testing, to name one subject, were spot on and remain so. Short summary: It's pretty much BS. Another thanks to RU. One can read a lot of Lippman's (and other great observers') stuff on another fabulous UNZ site.:

Nearly a century ago Walter Lippman warned us of the sappy and dangerous false conclusions many "high IQ" dingbats would draw. He was correct then and still is.

"One has only to read around in the literature of the subject, but more especially in the work of popularizers like McDougall and Stoddard, to see how easily the Intelligence test can be turned into an engine of cruelty, how easily in the hands of blundering or prejudiced men it could turn into a method of stamping a permanent sense of inferiority upon the soul of a child.
- Walter Lippmann, The Abuse of the Tests, The New Republic, November 15, 1922, p. 297 –

http://www.unz.org/Pub/NewRepublic-1922nov15-00297

jacques sheete > , June 2, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT

@nickels While I'm not familiar with that author, I am a huge fan of A.J. Nock.

This helps explain why I deny that the USA was never truly intended as a republic.:

The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

mises.org/daily/4254

RobinG > , June 2, 2017 at 1:00 am GMT

@The Alarmist

Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks email leaker.

On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.

Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.

The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.

Sign here:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

elderlyrstaff > , Website June 2, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT

A rather bleak outlook all-in-all. The oligarch's don't win nor do the cruise-control mob. The little guys win now as well as later. Relax and don't stress for no oligarch will escape unscathed. The BOSS always acts (Psa 73).

Dr. Doom > , June 2, 2017 at 2:47 am GMT

Democracy is the gawd that failed. It killed Ancient Athens, Rome and anyone dumb enough to allow the average person to vote himself other peoples' wages. Trump is about as masterful as any old man who has left reality behind. He might as well be doing Wrestlemania again. The "oligarchs" are the dumbest and greediest crooks Satan could dredge from the Global Sewers. Its not a swamp, its a sewer. Raw sewage is beginning to stink to high heaven. Its not a struggle between these greedy idiots, its a fractured fairy tale in a hate filled delusional book of mindless drivel being pushed by the stupidest and most arrogant gaggle of morons ever to make their nightmares the problem of people who if they wanted to could slaughter them like pork bellies by the end of business tomorrow.

This siren song of globalism is a bunch of crazy fags and delusional arrogant whores with delusions of grandeur and the IQ of a head of cabbage trying to get people to work for nothing and thank them for stealing their future. How does it end? Read the Book of Revelation. The Founding Fathers fought the forebears of these idiots at The Bank of England. They run America into the ground at the legalised counterfeiting ring laughably called The Federal Reserve Today. What if this money was real? What if these Satanists were actually smart? What if voting and caring actually mattered?

Well, then I wouldn't be here to kill you Enjoy what you laughingly call a life. Its the End of the World as you know it, but I feel fine.

Joe Levantine > , June 2, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT

" it must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who profit from the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. Thus it arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others defend him halfheartedly, so that between them he runs great danger. It is necessary, however, in order to investigate thoroughly this question, to examine whether these innovators are independent, or wether they depend upon others, that is to say, wether in order to carry out their designs they have to entreat or are able to compel. In the first case they invariably succeed ill, and accomplish nothing; but when they can depend on their own strength and are able to use force, they rarely fail. Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed

From Machiavelli's The Prince

If we are to apply these wise words to actual examples of history, it is best to compare the performance of FDR with that of Adolf Hitler. They came to power within a few weeks of each other, they inherited a chaotic situation with unemployment rates hovering around the 25%. Under Hitler, it took two years to reduce unemployment to 3% whereas after six years of the New Deal, American depression was still alive and the population still suffering from a hideous malaise. Had Donald Trump come to power on the back of a third party, preferably with its own militia, he would sail through his reform programs without a hitch. But this is the USA, the land where the founding fathers made sure that no dictator would ever come to power NOT TO PROTECT DEMOCRACY WHICH EXISTED ALL ALONG IN FORM AND NOT IN SUBSTANCE , BUT TO DEFEND AND PRESERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE PREDATORY RULING CLASS.

If we need to compare the situation of Trump with that of another democracy, we can look at the case of France under General De Gaulle. De Gaulle inherited the flawed system of the French Fourth Republic and decided to act quickly and decisively, but in order a to do so, he chose his security team from a group of extremely loyal people and never entrusted this task to the running governmental agencies. His reforms were executed in a firm and coherent way leading to the French Fifth Republic and to an economic boom coupled with an aggrandizement of French power and prestige on a grand scale. Needless to remind the reader, that under Anglo-Zionist machination, General De Gaulle decided to resign before the end of his second mandate.

Trump's success or failure depends on how much he can mobilize the American masses and how much he can clean his surroundings from the many Judases who are there only to sabotage him. Trump needs to address and engage the common person into a full galvanization of the masses to take to the street with the fury of a fanatical partisan. Trump should create his personal security apparatus and accept that no matter what he does to protect himself, he has to live with the danger of assassination. To deal with matters of state the way he dealt with his business endeavors will not lead him anywhere; this means that trying to accommodate the neo-cons and their ilk will put him in an ever weaker position.

nickels > , June 2, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Yes, E Michael Jones goes as far as to say the constitution was basically a document intended to cement the rule of the Oligarchy and the creditors and guarantee that the debtors would never attain even the slightest reprieve from their overlords.

Agent76 > , June 2, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

@jacques sheete Then there is also this man who studied human behavior and wrote the book Propaganda literally titled propaganda.

Aug 23, 2013 Edward Bernays – "Public relations" is a polite term for propaganda

Edward Bernays, "the father of public relations," recounts the origin of the term public relations. This clip comes from the documentary "Century of the Self," part 2 "The Engineering of Consent."

alan2102 > , June 2, 2017 at 6:05 pm GMT

@jacques sheete "It was designed and has functioned always as a de facto resoligrcharum"

Congratulations! It is rare that google gets completely stumped, but such is the case with "resoligrcharum". Try it. You'll see what I mean.

vx37 > , June 2, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT

In fact, it is the absence of real democracy, which permits the oligarchs to engage in serious intra-elite warfare. The marginalized, de-politicized electorate are incapable of taking advantage of the conflict to advance their own interests.

This. Prime immediate cause – television and media monopoly. The elite have used the excuse of race to shut down democracy and democratic debate. This latest, and probably final, war on democracy started in America because the elites there had the proper tool at hand: blacks. "Anti-racism" is a contrivance for exploitation, whether it's minorities feeding off the host population or elites using ethnic tensions to centralize power. It's a type of soft colonialism against those who are soft enough to accept it. The hard occupation will come later.

- – – –
"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist." – Joseph Sobran

Che Guava > , June 2, 2017 at 8:19 pm GMT

That automatically brought to my mind an image of the songbird of the Hanoi Hilton, John McCain, lurching up from his Senate seat, dagger in hand. McCain is psychologically tortured by having been a traitor to his comrades, all those years ago. I am glad that America lost in Vietnam, lbut one does not betray one's comrades.

I feel a little sorry for Trump, where he had good intentions, blocked. Installing his daughter and son-in-law as high officials was in bad taste and bad for policy. Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake, the only return was nonsensical 'Russki hacked the election' becoming more intense. Of course, the latter is very convenient for those who want never to see Russia and the USA, to have a normal and civil connection.

All of that also showed that he can't be serious about his more interesting campaign lines.

RobinG > , June 2, 2017 at 11:21 pm GMT

@Che Guava "Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."

How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) – useful idiots, ever. The plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?

Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation are what need investigating.

Agent76 > , June 3, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT

@Joseph E Fasciani

A very fine, evenly balanced analysis of the current bizarro madness that passes for authentic governance. More than most even realize with a lack of participation by most in person except for a few folks. I am not a Democrat or Republican neither party speaks for me and I also have several examples from both with their vote rigged conventions and town hall meetings.

May 18, 2016 What really happened in the Nevada Democratic Convention

Instead, the media is trying to spin it against Bernie, about the violence and them being upset. If you were present at this, wouldn't you be upset? I'm not saying threats are warranted, but at what point do the American People say enough is enough?

Che Guava > , June 3, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT

@RobinG "Magnanimous behaviour towards Hillary's clear crimes was a mistake.."

How true! Tomorrow her whining minions will (((March for Truth))) - useful idiots, ever. The plan is for protesters to spell out INVESTIGATE TRUMP on the Mall. Did they get a permit for a drone (illegal in DC limits) to shoot a photo?

Someone should photo-bomb with a big LOCK HER UP -- sign. Hillary and her Foundation are what need investigating. Thanks. I still have some hope that Prex. Trump will do some good for your country. I think that he may have the attention-span of one of the duller varieties of insect. a bee wil spend many minutes around a flower-bed, i love to watch, and not frightened, as long as I keep track of where they are..

Trump seems to have a shorter attention span than bumble-bees and similar species have on flowers.

So, his first official overseas trip is to Saudia Arabia. He makes a contract for umpteen million dollars of advanced weapons to a state that will, as much as is possible, pass the portion that is portable to IS and other al-Qaeda offshoots.

Madness.

Next stage, Israel, craven cowering acts and promises of fealty.

After that the Pope, Francesco never had any trouble with Operation Condor, never once raised his voice against it.

My opinion is that he acts mainly out of guilt

RobinG > , June 3, 2017 at 9:49 pm GMT

@Che Guava There is some hope, IF we get our act – and ourselves – together. A few people are trying to build something out of the wreckage of the *Trump and Sanders campaigns. (*Trump was a different guy in the campaign, no?)

Very important interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtnSVkm7WCg&feature=youtu.be Cynthia McKinney/Sane Progressive Interview: Deep State & Uniting for REAL Alternative Movement

Che Guava > , June 4, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

@RobinG Thanks, RobinG,

I am a long-time Cynthia Mckinney fan, at the time she was in Congress, her and Ron Paul's were the only interesting voices.

Not being a USA person, I have no say.

Her political assassination from the House was also interesting, massive money from obvious sources, so she was out.

Not so interesting since, but no wonder.

Che Guava > , June 4, 2017 at 5:26 pm GMT

@RobinG I watched the vid., McKinney's words make much sense, but the smug idiot in front of the screen, constantly stroking her own chin, posing for her webcam, ruins it.

How amateurish to have it all on a PC screen under the gaze of Ms. Vain.

RobinG > , June 4, 2017 at 10:50 pm GMT

@Che Guava LOL. It's true that Debbie has a rather annoying style, but if you can ignore that, she makes some good points. (Kind of like eating tripe.) She also has quite a loyal following, and apparently 80,000 viewers, so maybe she's gotten too comfortable in front of the camera. And actually, she's not posing for the camera. She's reading messages as they come in from viewers.

Here's her interview of Vanessa Beeley. Since we're in the throes of absurdity (yesterday's "March for Truth" was anything but) it's valuable to have honest journalism, even if it's not technically slick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8oGQ4RPFQ Vanessa Beely On White Helmets, Syria w Sane Progressive Interview

Che Guava > , June 7, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT

@RobinG Thx. Robin. I will watching it later.

I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long as I get a credit.

My own, too.

Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but I don't want to do it that way.

OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult, same kind of streaming format.

I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.

Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior, it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy.

RobinG > , June 8, 2017 at 4:58 am GMT

@Che Guava Thx. Robin. I will watching it later.

I do know how difficult video conversion and editing are, am trying to organise hours of band photos and vids onto video CDs and DVDs. If they want to upload them, it is up to them, as long as I get a credit.

My own, too.

Of course, that is old-fashioned, I know. In most cases, I have permission for uploading, but I don't want to do it that way.

OTOH, Ms. Vain didn't even switch to a direct view of Cynthia. That would not be so difficult, same kind of streaming format.

I will also to repeating, the chin stroking seems compulsive.

Have a friend who also does, and his nose, and also is someone who tries to feel very superior, it is like the symptom of a complex. Really creeps another friend out. Just makes me uneasy. Che, I'm not disagreeing with you (her solo rants when she has no guest can be especially annoying) but she did demonstrate at one point that putting the monitor with Cynthia head-on caused excessive glare.

What interests me most is the project of Cynthia, Robert Steele, and others to bridge the gap between different ideological groups, to make common cause to expose, confront, depose the Deep State. I have yet to meet anyone who shares my viewpoint entirely, but I'm happy to cooperate with almost anybody on issues I consider essential.

[Jul 25, 2017] Thomas acknowledged that American forces are fighting in a sovereign Syria, where they will likely have no ability to stay if that presence is questioned in terms of international law. Although Im sure that the State Department/Pentagon lawyers are looking for a reason to stay.

Jul 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

ghostship | Jul 23, 2017 6:03:50 AM | 62

OMG. the Washington Borg's house newspaper has woken up to Trump's surrender to Putin on Syria.
Trump's breathtaking surrender to Russia

But once again, President Trump, after extended personal contact with Vladimir Putin and the complete surrender to Russian interests in Syria, acts precisely as though he has been bought and sold by a strategic rival. The ignoble cutoff of aid to American proxies means that "Putin won in Syria," as an administration official was quoted by The Post.

Concessions without reciprocation, made against the better judgment of foreign policy advisers, smack more of payoff than outreach. If this is what Trump's version of "winning" looks like, what might further victory entail? The re- creation of the Warsaw Pact? The reversion of Alaska to Russian control?

Although this opinion article was posted a couple of days ago, there been no shitstorm near Trump about it since suggesting that Trump's one-man distraction/disinformation smokescreen is firing successfully on all cylinders.

Meanwhile, some in the US Army at least understand that once the battle to liquidate the ISIS Caliphate is other, they'll have problems remaining in Syria .

'We're bad day away from Russians asking, 'Why are you still in Syria?' – top US commander

A US special operations commander has admitted that an extended US stay in Syria runs contrary to international law and that Russia would be entirely justified in questioning its presence there.

At the Aspen Security Forum on Friday, Special Operations Command chief Army General, Raymond Thomas was asked whether American forces will remain in Syria, after Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is defeated, possibly, to support the Kurdish forces in the north of the country.

Thomas acknowledged that American forces are fighting in a sovereign Syria, where they will likely "have no ability to stay" if that presence is questioned "in terms of international law," Thomas said, replying to the Washington Post journalist's question.


Although I'm sure that the State Department/Pentagon lawyers are looking for a reason to stay.

[Jul 25, 2017] Whether or not the arming and financing of ISIS groups was "accidental" or "deliberate" remains something of an open question; most likely the actual US policy from 2011-2012 onwards was to give support to anyone trying to overthrow Assad's government regardless of affiliation.

Notable quotes:
"... "The team has carried out painstaking research cataloging serial numbers and tracing the routes. They found crates of ammunition and rockets manufactured in factories in eastern Europe. These were bought by the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia." ..."
"... The architects of this plan? Clinton & McCain seem to be right at the center of it, with plenty of neocon/neolib supporters in Congress & the State Department/CIA/Pentagon (Nuland/Morrell/Carter etc.) ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

nonsense factory | Jul 21, 2017 1:54:32 PM | 11

BBC News has a great little expose on tracking ISIS weapons captured in Mosul to their sources in Eastern Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8bwCj3lfsg
"The team has carried out painstaking research cataloging serial numbers and tracing the routes. They found crates of ammunition and rockets manufactured in factories in eastern Europe. These were bought by the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia."
Whether or not the arming and financing of ISIS groups was "accidental" or "deliberate" remains something of an open question; most likely the actual US policy from c.2011-2012 onwards was to give support to anyone trying to overthrow Assad's government regardless of affiliation.

The architects of this plan? Clinton & McCain seem to be right at the center of it, with plenty of neocon/neolib supporters in Congress & the State Department/CIA/Pentagon (Nuland/Morrell/Carter etc.)

[Jul 25, 2017] Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... "The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. 11 million Syrians driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine. ..."
"... Surely Pat means 'Israel's wars' fought & paid for by the US taxpayers. ..."
"... All immoral wars eventually end in internal decomposition , rotting away from within and in erosion of standing abroad . The doubt starts creeping in . Monolithic environment of majoritian consensus among the general public wears thin . Afghanistan war shows how disorganized thinking has become . Was it moral? Was it legal? One thing is sure that the question raised by perfectionist and constitutionalist and international lawyers was not answered by NATO or US. ..."
"... UNSC approval is necessary to make a war of choice just, but not alone sufficient. However, it does at least make a war legal. ..."
"... How many U.S. wars or military actions can honestly be called a war of defense?? I wonder how many Americans, who've engaged in this most grave offense to God, think their actions were perfectly acceptable, even noble ("thank you for your service")?? ..."
"... Absolutely not. A just and moral war is the one that is fought in defense of one's country. No American war, since the American revolution, has been moral or just. A hero is a person who gives his life defending his country. None of the Americans who died in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria died defending their country. They died destroying other countries. None of those countries was a threat to or had threatened this country. ..."
"... The Defense Department should again be called War Department since it is only good at waging wars on other countries. It can't even defend the Pentagon against a lone airplane (even accepting the official narrative about 9/11). ..."
"... The destruction and slaughter in Syria has one purpose: to create an Israeli client state and colony, probably to be initialized as an Israeli "protectorate". ..."
"... The reason the American (((media))) carry a bogus hue-and-cry against all things Russian is because Russian installations in Syria are proving difficult for Tel Aviv to expunge. Yahweh's would-be feudal lords grow impatient; the slippered foot stomps with growing demands that American peasants pay for more American mercenaries to carry out Israel's demands for wealth, power, and territory. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

"One knowledgeable official estimates that the CIA-backed fighters may have killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies," writes columnist David Ignatius.

Given that Syria's prewar population was not 10 percent of ours, this is the equivalent of a million dead and wounded Americans. What justifies America's participation in this slaughter?

Columnist Eric Margolis summarizes the successes of the six-year civil war to overthrow President Bashar Assad.

"The result of the western-engendered carnage in Syria was horrendous: at least 475,000 dead, 5 million Syrian refugees driven into exile in neighboring states (Turkey alone hosts three million), and another 6 million internally displaced. 11 million Syrians driven from their homes into wretched living conditions and near famine.

"Two of Syria's greatest and oldest cities, Damascus and Aleppo, have been pounded into ruins. Jihadist massacres and Russian and American air strikes have ravaged once beautiful, relatively prosperous Syria. Its ancient Christian peoples are fleeing for their lives before US and Saudi takfiri religious fanatics."

Realizing the futility of U.S. policy, President Trump is cutting aid to the rebels. And the War Party is beside itself. Says The Wall Street Journal:

"The only way to reach an acceptable diplomatic solution is if Iran and Russia feel they are paying too high a price for their Syria sojourn. This means more support for Mr. Assad's enemies, not cutting them off without notice. And it means building up a Middle East coalition willing to fight Islamic State and resist Iran. The U.S. should also consider enforcing 'safe zones' in Syria for anti-Assad forces."

Yet, fighting ISIS and al-Qaida in Syria, while bleeding the Assad-Iran-Russia-Hezbollah victors, is a formula for endless war and unending terrors visited upon the Syrian people.

What injury did the Assad regime, in power for half a century and having never attacked us, inflict to justify what we have helped to do to that country?

Is this war moral by our own standards?

We overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003 and Moammar Gadhafi in 2012. Yet, the fighting, killing and dying in both countries have not ceased. Estimates of the Iraq civilian and military dead run into the hundreds of thousands.

Still, the worst humanitarian disaster may be unfolding in Yemen.

After the Houthis overthrew the Saudi-backed regime and took over the country, the Saudis in 2015 persuaded the United States to support its air strikes, invasion and blockade.

By January 2016, the U.N. estimated a Yemeni civilian death toll of 10,000, with 40,000 wounded. However, the blockade of Yemen, which imports 90 percent of its food, has caused a crisis of malnutrition and impending famine that threatens millions of the poorest people in the Arab world with starvation.

No matter how objectionable we found these dictators, what vital interests of ours were so imperiled by the continued rule of Saddam, Assad, Gadhafi and the Houthis that they would justify what we have done to the peoples of those countries?

"They make a desert and call it peace," Calgacus said of the Romans he fought in the first century. Will that be our epitaph?

Among the principles for a just war, it must be waged as a last resort, to address a wrong suffered, and by a legitimate authority. Deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

The wars in Syria, Libya and Yemen were never authorized by Congress. The civilian dead, wounded and uprooted in Syria, and the malnourished millions in Yemen, represent a moral cost that seems far beyond any proportional moral gain from those conflicts.

In which of the countries we have attacked or invaded in this century -- Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen -- are the people better off than they were before we came?

And we wonder why they hate us.

"Those to whom evil is done/Do evil in return," wrote W. H. Auden in "September 1, 1939." As the peoples of Syria and the other broken and bleeding countries of the Middle East flee to Europe and America, will not some come with revenge on their minds and hatred in their hearts?

Meanwhile, as the Americans bomb across the Middle East, China rises. She began the century with a GDP smaller than Italy's and now has an economy that rivals our own.

She has become the world's first manufacturing power, laid claim to the islands of the East and South China seas, and told America to keep her warships out of the Taiwan Strait.

Xi Jinping has launched a "One Belt, One Road" policy to finance trade ports and depots alongside the military and naval bases being established in Central and South Asia.

Meanwhile, the Americans, $20 trillion in debt, running $800 billion trade deficits, unable to fix their health care system, reform their tax code, or fund an infrastructure program, prepare to fight new Middle East war.

Whom the Gods would destroy...

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

WorkingClass > , July 25, 2017 at 5:21 am GMT

Imperial Washington is in the service of evil.

Wally > , July 25, 2017 at 7:07 am GMT

Surely Pat means 'Israel's wars' fought & paid for by the US taxpayers.

Renoman > , July 25, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT

Nothing just or moral about it. The entire World thinks America is just a gang of thugs, they should get out and stay out, let Israel fight it's own bully wars on it's own for a change.

KA > , July 25, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

No not by any stretch of imagination. All immoral wars eventually end in internal decomposition , rotting away from within and in erosion of standing abroad . The doubt starts creeping in . Monolithic environment of majoritian consensus among the general public wears thin .
Afghanistan war shows how disorganized thinking has become . Was it moral? Was it legal? One thing is sure that the question raised by perfectionist and constitutionalist and international lawyers was not answered by NATO or US.

Power and sense of righteous entitlement or belief in divine guidance put America right where Soviet was in 1979. Ideology of Soviet blinded them to adjust, reload and advance . Dismissive attitude to local mores, values, and history paved the stage with failures .

Today America is looking at mirror and is seeing Soviet with uncanny resemblance both within and outside – domestic and foreign .

This article from Politico doesn't point to a result different from what awaited Soviet 's fate in
Afghanistan!- http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/24/donald-trump-afghanistan-215412

Truth, morality, and the final outcome are all tied and bound up together despite each of them belonging to different spheres . It is our understanding that these are separate that is what is wrong .

Randal > , July 25, 2017 at 11:39 am GMT

The US has not fought a just war since at least the 1990 war against Iraq, and that one was pretty dubious.

Among the principles for a just war, it must be waged as a last resort, to address a wrong suffered, and by a legitimate authority.

Since the US voluntarily waived its right to wage war without the authority of the UNSC (except in necessary defence against ongoing armed attack), the right authority for any war of choice is clearly the UNSC. For all that body's inadequacies (though in truth it's not as though other human authorities, such as the US regime itself, are any less venal and self-interestedly dishonest), it is what the US regime voluntarily signed up to, and until the US withdraws from the UN treaty it is bound, morally at least, by that commitment.

Don't like it? Fine, then campaign for the US to leave the UN and regain its freedom of action, without trying hypocritically to impose the rules of UN membership on others whilst evading them yourselves.

UNSC approval is necessary to make a war of choice just, but not alone sufficient. However, it does at least make a war legal.

Anonymous > , July 25, 2017 at 12:38 pm GMT

"The only defensible war is a war of defense."- G.K. Chesterton

How many U.S. wars or military actions can honestly be called a war of defense?? I wonder how many Americans, who've engaged in this most grave offense to God, think their actions were perfectly acceptable, even noble ("thank you for your service")??

"You were never friends of mine; depart from me, you that traffic in wrong-doing."

MEexpert > , July 25, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT

Are America's Wars Just and Moral?

Absolutely not. A just and moral war is the one that is fought in defense of one's country. No American war, since the American revolution, has been moral or just. A hero is a person who gives his life defending his country. None of the Americans who died in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria died defending their country. They died destroying other countries. None of those countries was a threat to or had threatened this country.

How could a war be moral if it is waged by dropping bombs from the safety of the sky or launching drones sitting in an air conditioned building in the Nevada desert, or ordering missiles fired from a ship miles away while the president is enjoying a chocolate cake (or whatever)? This is not war. It is pure murder.

The Defense Department should again be called War Department since it is only good at waging wars on other countries. It can't even defend the Pentagon against a lone airplane (even accepting the official narrative about 9/11).

Anonymous > , July 25, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

The destruction and slaughter in Syria has one purpose: to create an Israeli client state and colony, probably to be initialized as an Israeli "protectorate".

The reason the American (((media))) carry a bogus hue-and-cry against all things Russian is because Russian installations in Syria are proving difficult for Tel Aviv to expunge. Yahweh's would-be feudal lords grow impatient; the slippered foot stomps with growing demands that American peasants pay for more American mercenaries to carry out Israel's demands for wealth, power, and territory.

Anonym > , July 25, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

It is exceedingly strange how the USA can murder millions of people abroad with nary a question raised, and yet a person would be Hitler to the nth power to suggest a paid, bloodless mass repatriation of the non-white citizens admitted since the 1965 immigration act. We can control our demographics, we just have to want it bad enough.

Rurik > , Website July 25, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

What justifies America's participation in this slaughter?

well Pat, being as you are an overt Christian, you ought to know that the justification comes directly from the 70 million Christian Zionists here in the ZUS who support all these wars, and vote for Lindsey Graham and John McBloodstain and others in order to slaughter enough Muslims so that the Jews will return to Biblical Israel and the Christian Zionists will then be able to force the second coming of Jesus Christ and get their thousand years of rapture!

Duh

So since I know that you know this, and you know that these Christians are the voting block that the Zionists have been counting on for decades, why don't you ever write about them? Without these bloodthirsty Christians, howling for war, war, war!!! There'd be no more of these Satanic wars, and you know it.

Its ancient Christian peoples are fleeing for their lives before US and Saudi takfiri religious fanatics."

from the perspective of Lindsey Graham and McBloodstain (and their Christian voting supporters) a few slaughtered and raped and crucified Christians sacrificed for their personal prize of a thousand years of rapture is a price *"they're"* easily! willing to pay. Especially since they're just brown Christians anyways, and like the Palestinian Christians, don't really matter, do they?

What injury did the Assad regime, in power for half a century and having never attacked us, inflict to justify what we have helped to do to that country?

when you're talking about a thousand years of rapture, or in the case of the Christian preachers – getting a brand new Gulfstream! who cares?!

Is this war moral by our own standards?

if you mean Christian standards, as they're applied in the ZUS, then yes, of course!

Will that be our epitaph?

'We murdered children for Jesus Christ'

malnourished millions in Yemen, represent a moral cost that seems far beyond any proportional moral gain from those conflicts.

the gain isn't moral, rather it's measured in personal ecstasy and durational

As the peoples of Syria and the other broken and bleeding countries of the Middle East flee to Europe and America, will not some come with revenge on their minds and hatred in their hearts?

and who are the driving force behind facilitating all these Muslims into Western lands?

is not Merkel and those who will reelect her "Christian" Democrats?

are not the people who've facilitated all the Somalis into Minnesota (like the one that just shot that woman in her pajamas [three times!]) .. Christians?

and yet for all of that, I don't think I remember Pat Buchanan even once offering even tepid criticism for all the Christian who're obviously behind all these wars and horrors that he so eloquently (and myopically) bemoans.

[Jul 25, 2017] Political Islam as the way to slow down the industrialization of Arab nations

Notable quotes:
"... My suspicion is that this "reversal" was also made in the USA as a consequence of the strategy to use Islam as a "green belt" against the Soviet Union. ..."
Jul 25, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

somebody | Jul 23, 2017 6:40:48 AM | 63

Posted by: nobody | Jul 22, 2017 11:08:41 PM | 61

Yep. Made in the USA .

By the time of Richard Nixon's arrival in office in January 1969, Iran was already America's single-largest arms purchaser. Whilst this is notable in and of itself, it is vastly overshadowed by what followed. By late 1972 Nixon leveraged U.S. Middle Eastern regional policy primarily around the focal point of a militarily strong, pro-American Iran.

Sounds familiar? Iranian industrialization and westernization happened during the Shah. That is part of above story. Same story in Saudi Arabia .

In Saudi Arabia, the 1960s, and especially the 1970s, had been years of explosive development, liberal experimentation, and openness to the West. A reversal of this trend came about abruptly in 1979, the year in which the Grand Mosque in Mecca came under attack by religiously motivated critics of the monarchy, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was established.

My suspicion is that this "reversal" was also made in the USA as a consequence of the strategy to use Islam as a "green belt" against the Soviet Union.

Same "reversal" from Atatürk happened in Turkey.

[Jul 23, 2017] Emigrant Russians scientists after fleeing our benevolent Shock Treatment are still ungrateful and like to bemoan the horrors of the West insisting that contemporary US University Education Administration is Worse than under Brezhnev , and to accuse us – the West – of having sold them, the Soviets, a bag of ideological nonsense about capitalism and freedom.

Notable quotes:
"... The problems that the Communist bloc countries developed in the 80ies were problems of growth. Liberalization of the regime was under way and clearly understood as necessary by the leadership – but that process failed – because it was taken advantage of, both internally and externally. ..."
"... "In what circumstances would you want the economy to be planned, and what sort of planning do you have in mind?" ..."
"... intellectual ..."
"... Aron was in some sense a "Marxian" ..."
"... the theorists of colonialism ..."
"... "were convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values." ..."
"... Roma Città Aperta ..."
"... would have thought ..."
"... Quaderni del carcere ..."
"... "understand the world" ..."
"... "to change the world" ..."
"... America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914: The Neglected American School of Political Economy ..."
"... Securing the Fruits of Labor: The American Concept of Wealth Distribution, 1765-1900 ..."
"... Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America ..."
"... society in the process of formation ..."
"... A Hard Rain Fell: SDS and Why It Failed ..."
"... War In the Shadows, the Guerilla in History, Vol II ..."
"... Theory of the Partisan ..."
Jul 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

witters , , July 21, 2017 at 7:01 pm

It is awkward when – as has happened with me – a Russian comes to the West – fleeing our beneficient "Shock Treatment" – and then shocks one by saying in anger at my casual derogatory comment about Stalin, "Listen, Stalin wasn't all bad!"

And then goes on to bemoan the horrors of the West. He finished, in the corridor of the Department, by insisting that contemporary Westen University Education Administration was "Worse than under Brezhnev", and to accuse us – the West – of having sold them, the Soviets, a bag of ideological nonsense about capitalism and freedom.

And then invited me to his home for borsch and table tennis.

Vlade would set him straight, but I went and had the borscht and played – and lost – the table tennis.

kukuzel , , July 21, 2017 at 11:23 am

I grew up in the Communist block in the 70-ies and 80-ies. I've now lived in the US for about 20 years. Comparing the lives of the people on minimum or low wages in the US with those similarly placed in the Communist block economies is in my view indisputably in favor of the Communist bloc. Free child care, education, provided at decent quality, and practically EVERYONE owned a home – a small one, but nonetheless a normal home, that you paid off over 30 years with your state guaranteed job. No interest loans from simple savings pools managed on rotational principle at work (my parents used them extensively). Nearly everyone in the cities had a small summer cottage and a small garden that produced vegetables – for recreation and added self-sufficiency, and not to mention a boost to communities. Yeah, our family car was a Trabant – a laughable vehicle for the US consumer, even absurd by today's standards. But we didn't have and didn't need 6-lane highways either, so the Trabi was adequate. And yeah, many personal freedoms were severely limited, and there was a lack of culture of law – but that was more attributable to historic backwardness, because that culture of law is even more absent today.

As a middle class professional today in Silicon Valley earning way beyond the median income in the US, I am struggling to provide a similar level or security for my family and a similar quality of community life and good education. Bottom line, this level of security is probably only achievable for under 5% of the US households.

So yeah, I agree with the statement.

So for all those focused on the committed atrocities, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There were good things and we have lost them. Probably forever.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 11:31 am

Thanks for your comment – can you tell us a little more about which countries you lived in (and, if possible, which ones you thought worked better than others)? As I said in my post, I'm interested in learning more about the specificities of particular countries.

kukuzel , , July 21, 2017 at 2:39 pm

I grew up in Bulgaria. I also have memories from a summer camp and middle school exchange program in Czechoslovakia in the 80ies, and the standard of living and the culture of people there seemed much higher. For example, my Czech host family (the parents worked in an electronic watch factory, in a small town east of Prague – they could have been engineers possibly and not line workers as they seemed well educated) had a small two-story single family concrete house, with a small rye-grass lawn and a barbeque – luxuries that we in Bulgaria did not have. They also had a bathtub – again a luxury I was not familiar with in Bulgarian homes. I remember that the stores and pastry shops in my hosts' town looked nicer and had more and better quality items.

One other thing I remember: the bread and tap water were not as good as in Bulgaria. I guess not everything is explainable by the economic system alone :)

Nowadays reliable info about the standard of living of those times is harder and harder to find – and it seems that any info is used to ridicule it rather than try to genuinely understand how it was achieved. My relatives like to talk about it, and what they share is not all rosy. But all of the baby boomer generation who came of age in the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies managed to raise and educate 2 kids on average, and acquire a modest but adequate home – ALL. Note that people needed a special permission to acquire a second home. Homelessness and crime virtually did not exist. I think it can safely be said that 90% of society had a solid basic standard of living – no vacations on the Bahamas, no diamonds on your wife's finger and no latest model BMW in your garage, but you knew the big items were taken care of.

The problems that the Communist bloc countries developed in the 80ies were problems of growth. Liberalization of the regime was under way and clearly understood as necessary by the leadership – but that process failed – because it was taken advantage of, both internally and externally.

kukuzel , , July 21, 2017 at 2:57 pm

I want to add one more thing: today, in my observation, the generation X and millennials in Bulgaria can only afford to live on the meager incomes their jobs provide because they have a free flat or house from their parents or grandparents. Gradually home ownership levels are eroding and more and more people have to rent, just like in the mature "developed" economies. That is a time bomb that will enslave all but few.

This is one factor that I see mentioned nowhere – how Communism, given its objections to private property, actually allowed the vast majority of working people to build a base of wealth in their homes – that is to this day supporting the economic balance of the country.

There is a program under way currently in Bulgaria to upgrade the insulation of Communist era apartment blocs. There are discussions on TV and press about how many billions of euros this costs. Well, I would say – then how about putting this in perspective to the cost of actually BUILDING all of this housing fund which was done in the prior era?? Imagine the billions upon billions that were spent by this society to build 100s of thousands of units, affordable units, with green spaces around them, schools etc. Can you imagine a program of that magnitude anywhere today?

So these are the contrasts that emerge, and I would much rather have the discussion be about that – and not about the horrors of Stalinism or other Communist totalitarianism. Those should not be ever forgotten or concealed, but what would be really useful today in our Western society is the good things that Communist regimes managed to achieve – because they are very illuminating about what is economically possible to achieve.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 6:53 pm

kukuzel, thanks so much for all of this highly detailed information.

On your last point, what I actually think we should strive for is the ability not to have to choose between the two kinds of discourses you indicate. It shouldn't be a playground contest over "Well, your system's more horrible." It should be about us being able to say – for example – I want to be able to have these positive aspects from the Bulgarian communist years without having to have these negative ones.

Or to put it another way, not having to take societies as blocs.

That means having to tease apart the extent to which positive aspects were or were not achieved through means that also led to the negative aspects. But this kind of analysis has to be done anyway – even if the idea were to return to something like this or this other particular society, it would still not work without adapting the earlier model to changed circumstances.

Lee , , July 21, 2017 at 12:08 pm

The collapse of the Soviet Union was a disaster for many Russians. The one Russian family I know well were well-off prior to the collapse but for an extended period they could not provide for their two daughters so they asked my wife and I to sponsor and serve as wards for one of them who had lived with us under a student exchange program. Her mother had worked as an industrial chemist and her father had worked in IT for financial institutions. The father died a death of despair; he drank himself to death. The mother now teaches college level chem. The daughter who remained with us now works for a well known US company making films, is married and has two children. The daughter who remained in Russia is a marine biologist. This family, well educated and dedicated to their work and each other did well under the Soviet system and their lot has improved immensely under Putin.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 5:45 pm

I have read that Putin's economic policies are somewhat "right-wing" in their tendencies.

I don't know whether this is accurate although maybe some readers do. If it is, though, it would suggest that what made the difference in Russia is not so much communism versus capitalism but a strong state (Putin, communism) versus a weak state (the 90s).

Carolinian , , July 21, 2017 at 8:57 am

Thanks for this. Perhaps the latest crime of "capitalism"–40,000 civilians may have died under American and Iraqi bombs and shells as Mosul was "liberated." Rather than visit mass violence on their own people the US and Britain have turned it outward and then claimed it was unfortunately necessary.

As for the above post, I think it may be minimizing the degree to which capitalist opposition shaped communism. This Stephen Cohen article that I linked the other day suggests that the Soviets under Glasnost may have been moving toward a more democratic form of communism but that was subverted by the greed of its own oligarchs and open US support for Yeltsin who crushed democracy and wrecked the country.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/dec/13/comment.russia

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 10:45 am

The Stephen Cohen article is interesting and I'm puzzled as to why you think it is somehow incompatible with anything that I said in the post.

When you say we should emphasize more the extent to which capitalist opposition shaped communism, you fail to address my response that this argument proves too much. Every regime or institution faces some sort of opposition. This opposition partly constrains how it can act. Why couldn't you just as easily say, "Everything that Monsanto (or Uber, or Goldman, etc., etc.) does has to be understood considering that they are operating in a fearsome competitive environment, where at the first sign of weakness, their competitors were ready to crush them"?

Rossana Rossanda, who had every reason in the world to want to find extenuating circumstances for the regime she had "loved," was unable to convince herself that the argument you are proposing sufficed to conjure away the moral problem. See below (response to Ulysses) where I quote from her book at length.

I also think you are engaging in sloppy reasoning when you attribute 40,000 deaths at Mosul to "capitalism." That's the same kind of lack of concern to agents used in the Black Book when it attributes massive numbers of war deaths to "communism."

Carolinian , , July 21, 2017 at 11:22 am

If America had never invaded Iraq would those 40,000 still be alive? I'd say there's a persuasive case that they would be. And there's also a persuasive case that George W. Bush's motives had everything to do with capitalist imperatives, oil imperialism, the profits of the MIC etc.

And I'm not trying to defend Soviet communism since IMO both sides of the Cold War divide were misguided. I'm just saying that from the very beginning the attitude of the capitalist countries was that communism was something that couldn't be allowed to succeed lest the contagion spread. So it's hard for us to know how, say, Cuba might have turned out absent so much US meddling.

optimader , , July 21, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Perhaps the latest crime of "capitalism"–40,000 civilians may have died under American and Iraqi bombs and shells as Mosul was "liberated."

is this an indictment of capitalism or of US politicians delusion of "transformation" and the inertia of the MIC?
correlation is not causation File under: crimes of Stalin, Mao, PolPot and Castro

Vatch , , July 21, 2017 at 10:37 am

The Brits starved something like 30 million Indians in the 19th century,

Source, please. Note that prior to 1857, the British control over India was incomplete. Many of the famine deaths prior to that were unrelated to British rule. I think I've seen estimates that about 5 million people died in 1876 and again in 1896. I'm not defending British rule -- they had no right to be there, and they did not care about the needs of the people that they ruled. I'm just wondering about the number 30 million.

if people accurately tallied up the deaths and inefficiencies under capitalism and imperialism, Stalin and Mao were quaint.

False. In addition to what happened in Ukraine and Kazakhstan in 1931-1933, we need to consider the catastrophe of Mao's Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962. The low estimate of deaths from starvation is 30 million, and in Frank Dikötter's book Mao's Great Famine , the author estimates that at least 45 million died of starvation. That's just a 4 – 5 year period.

Carolinian , , July 21, 2017 at 11:10 am

Perhaps the Russians could claim that the 20 million plus Russians who died during WW2 were victims of capitalism not to mention all those who died in WW1. The point is that neither system has clean hands when it comes to violence. They just have different targets.

Vatch , , July 21, 2017 at 11:19 am

There's a difference between deaths in wartime and deaths in peacetime. They're equally horrible, but it's harder to pick an economic ideology to blame for wartime deaths. After all, Stalin helped start the European portion of WWII with the Molotov Von Ribbentrop Pact. So one could say that those 20 million deaths were partly caused by communism.

Carolinian , , July 21, 2017 at 11:38 am

One reason many in the West were at first complacent about Hitler coming to power was the hope that he would take out the Soviets. I'd say there's a case to be made that the whole second half of the 20th century was shaped by the Russian Revolution and the reaction to it. Hitler was always going to invade Russia. He hoped Britain and others would join him in his crusade. When WW2 was over there were many who thought we should keep going and take out the Soviets too, even if with nuclear weapons. Some people it seems still think that even though Russians are no longer communists.

So it's a power struggle of course, but in the 20th cent it was very much an ideological struggle. Perhaps anti-communism was just an excuse but having been there I'd say the Cold Warriors were true believers.

Vatch , , July 21, 2017 at 11:52 am

Hitler was always going to invade Russia.

Very likely true. But first he had to invade Poland, and he would have done that later if it had not been for his Nonaggression Pact with the Soviets. Meanwhile, if the invasion of Poland had been delayed, Britain and France would have improved their military capabilities, because they knew what Hitler was up to after he seized Czechoslovakia earlier in 1939. Stalin made it easier for Hitler in 1939.

Alex Morfesis , , July 21, 2017 at 1:43 pm

Could we just order summary execution for anyone who brings up mass deaths from the past ?? Only semi snarking

most wars seem to come from grandfathers telling their grandsons things that never were

Someone kills some trees and throws some ink on them to work on tenure 50 75..100 200 500 years after the fact

Why does anyone believe anything anyone writes or says??

The dead are dead we can't bring them back and
they won't have noticed
we avenged them because they are dead

Can we even agree on what is going on around the world today as we speak & communicate ??

Trump being investigated by the watchful eye of the fool who was filling in crossword puzzle books his first few weeks in office allowing the events of 9-11 to occur ??

How funny is that ??

We have the self proclaimed righteous (privately owned) 1$t amendment acela vanity press cutting and pasting talking points while almost never publishing the contents of the federal register or congressional research service reports and it's not just an american phenomenon most countries have "official gazettes" none of the "great and brave journalists" bother actually reporting on the business of government

The dead are dead nothing will bring them back and those who killed them are also probably dead

For those who submit and do not resist, most leadership will seem benevolent for those with other thoughts death will come sooner than originally planned

There is plenty of history when one is handed "atrocities" one should ask why this and why now ??

War is easy peace is difficult

The difficult road is less boring

Katsue , , July 21, 2017 at 12:16 pm

By the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, a European war was already unavoidable. The farce of Non-Intervention in the Spanish Civil War, the Munich Agreement, and Poland's participation in the partition of Czechoslovakia, had totally discredited Litvinov's pro-Western foreign policy.

jw , , July 21, 2017 at 12:51 pm

Sources: Late Victorian Holocausts by Mike Davis and Epidemics and History by Sheldon Watts both deal with the staggering death toll of British rule in India (roughly 30 million).

Perilous Passage by Amiya Bagchi has a more rigorous count and analysis of India, China, and other countries subjected to imperialism.

Regarding the Ukraine, the Best Sons for the Fatherland by Lynn Viola details the second civil war that was collectivization. Peasants didn't want to give up grain, so they killed Party members, killed their livestock, destroyed their equipment, etc.

I've read Dikotter. The problem with his death tolls is fertility and birth rates drop during famine. You can't extrapolate pre-famine birth rates and say "oh, these people weren't born therefore those count as deaths." They did the same thing with deaths in Kampuchea. And yes, millions did die of famine in the Ukraine and Kazkhanstan. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing this notion that Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler. They were not. It's misleading to say "Stalin killed more of his citizens than Hitler did" because most of the killings by Nazis were of Slavs. The Soviets lost well over 20 million people due to the Nazis genocidal plans.

Regarding China, you know the bloodiest civil war/famine in history? The Taiping Rebellion, which was the result of the Brits shoving opium down China's throat. Mao was no saint, but mortality rates in China were far higher before the 1949 revolution than after. See for instance Mobo Gao's the Battle for China's Past or William Hinton's Through a Glass Darkly.

Ultimately, purges and famines miss another huge source of deaths: disease. Mao's China and Stalin's Russia made astounding leaps in public health, eliminating smallpox for one. Conveniently, these millions of lives saved are ignored by Western hysterics. This isn't to say Stalinism and Maoism are desirable. It is to say that the picture requires nuance. There is a reason Mao and Stalin are still revered by millions of people in China and Russia.

Vatch , , July 21, 2017 at 2:19 pm

Thanks for the references.

"I'm disputing this notion that Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler."

I'm not sure who said that Stalin and Mao were worse than Hitler, but in my opinion they were approximately the same.

Yes, I'm aware of the Taiping Rebellion. Much more deadly than World War I.

Why are Stalin and Mao still revered by some people? Probably for similar reasons as the reverence that some Americans have for Reagan and Trump: people sometimes believe weird things. As for smallpox, that's been eliminated everywhere (we hope); not just in Russia and China.

Tim , , July 21, 2017 at 2:33 pm

Dikotter is a grotesque neoliberal apologist for imperialist drug dealers. He is also a fabulist in his treatment of the effects of heroin/opiate addiction in late 19th/early 20th century China. Given that we in the US are now experiencing a staggering public health disaster with respect to opiate consumption by the immiserated proletariat, Dikotter's attempts to minimize the impacts of opiates on Chinese public health is ghoulish at best.

Vatch , , July 21, 2017 at 2:43 pm

Well, that doesn't seem relevant to the artificial famine of the Great Leap Forward, but I'm curious. What's your source for your claim that he is an apologist for drug dealers? Did he write something bad about the opium wars? Clearly the behavior of Britain in that context was atrocious.

animalogic , , July 21, 2017 at 7:29 am

I would like to thank the author for taking such an open minded, non doctrinaire attitude to this subject.
That's not to suggest I agree with all his conclusions. Nor does the Q & A approach always prove enlightening.
"Q: Was Stalinism good?
A: No."
The question is easy & the answer is correct. Of course, there is a small wrinkle: most historians agree that it was the USSR that made the primary contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany.
Q: to what degree did "Stalinism" enable the USSR to defeat the Nazis ?
A: It's an open question. It's often forgotten that the USSR came very close to defeat in 41′-42′. In part because of Stalin's interference in military matters. But, would the USSR have had ANY chance of victory "but for" the "crash" industrialisation instituted by Stalin in the 30's ? If you allow that crash industrialisation was a necessary, (not sufficient) condition for eventuaL victory – can we give Stalin any credit ?
"Q: Is it at least true that a planned economy always fails?
A: Probably not." But is that the right question ? Isn't the right question, "to what degree/extent can an economy be planned & succeed ?" (An "economy" is almost be definition "planned". The most basic law on property, succession etc IS planning ).
Some of the author's Q & A's are very good:
"Q: Well, is it at least true that attempts to change a society consciously lead to catastrophe?

A: What does it mean for a society to change "unconsciously"? Aren't most social changes due to human decisions? Often proclamations of this sort can function as code for certain groups of people being allowed to change society in "natural" ways, free from "conscious" and "unnatural" "interference" from others." I think the author probably means "programmatically" when he says "consciously" but his point remains valid: change occurs because people have ideas which they seek to implement.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 8:48 am

A few responses: First, I agree that your question on whether the 30s industrialization was crucial is worth posing. On Stalin's interference in 1941-1942, yes, and it's also true that Stalin was initially blindsided by Hitler's attack – he was pretty faithful to Molotov-Ribbentrop while it lasted.

On "programmatic" versus "conscious," I agree that your wording is more precise, but my purpose there was to paraphrase standard ideological constructions.

The purpose of the Q & A was to illustrate how some questions can be answered even when we don't know all the historical details. I can't provide a general answer to, "To what extent can an economy be planned and succeed?" – can you? As I indicated in the article, I think the more fundamental question is in any case, "In what circumstances would you want the economy to be planned, and what sort of planning do you have in mind?"

visitor , , July 21, 2017 at 9:40 am

"In what circumstances would you want the economy to be planned, and what sort of planning do you have in mind?"

An answer was given in "Organizations", written by March and Simon in the 1950s: in case of war.

The observation that during WWII every major player (UK, USA, Germany, Japan, USSR), no matter which economic principles it followed, turned to and relied upon a planned economy, with central resource allocation, dirigiste production schedules and centrally rationed consumption, led those authors to analyze markets and planing entities, as well as participating organizations as problem-solving mechanisms geared to processing information and reducing uncertainty. Interestingly, it appears that in the USSR, WWII led to a moderate relaxation of planning in some sectors of the economy.

Basically, when the stakes are very high (of a survival nature), the resources to put into use of a massive (i.e. national) and comprehensive scale, and there is no time to let multiple entities experiment and find out a "best" approach through trial and error (through the market and its creative destruction), then a centrally planned economy is simply more effective.

I presume that once climate change will really bite and massive, survival-level solutions will be required really fast to mitigate or counter-act it, most countries will be forced to turn to a planned economy modus -- no matter what proponents of markets, four-freedoms or free trade will argue.

Vatch , , July 21, 2017 at 10:45 am

Yes, the Soviet Union contributed more to the defeat of Nazi Germany than any other country. We are entering into an area where the discussion has sometimes been very angry in the past on this site. In addition to their huge role in the defeat of the Nazis, the Soviets also enabled the Nazi invasion of Poland. Indeed, the Soviets themselves invaded half of Poland under their agreement with the Nazis.

The Soviets helped to win the war that they helped to start.

PlutoniumKun , , July 21, 2017 at 7:35 am

First off, thanks for introducing me to the concept of the 'motte and bailey' argument. Its a great description of a particular type of argument from ideologues of all types that really irritates me.

You've pointed out one of the reasons why I've never self-identified as communist, anarchist, feminist or any other of the myriad 'isms' on the left. I even hesitate sometimes at 'socialist'. There are too many assumptions built into any of those identifications which I'm not always comfortable defending.

I think that constructing an 'ideal' fair and equitable society is an impossibility. There are too many variables in history and sociology and human behavior. And democracy has a nasty habit of producing answers that idealists don't like. I see it as a process, not an end – a messy one of step by step building a world that is more equal, more fair, more environmentally sustainable, with a deeper sense of justice, while accepting that the building blocks of that society might not be very sturdy and will need constant maintenance and repair, and that sometimes you might have to step back and start again. And sometimes, really unpleasant compromises will have to be made in order to achieve a greater good.

One reason I love NC so much is that instead of starting from some sort of idealised notion of how the world should work, is that it addresses how the real world of economics and sociology actually exists, and asks us to think very hard about how to make it better. Its the articles and discussions here which have forced me to question my own assumptions and idealisms and think much harder about how a better society would actually function, not in a 'we'll all live together in co-operatives and play guitar and draw from our Universal Income and guaranteed pensions', but how it will really work.

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 8:39 am

"I think that constructing an 'ideal' fair and equitable society is an impossibility. There are too many variables in history and sociology and human behavior. And democracy has a nasty habit of producing answers that idealists don't like. I see it as a process, not an end – a messy one of step by step building a world that is more equal, more fair, more environmentally sustainable, with a deeper sense of justice, while accepting that the building blocks of that society might not be very sturdy and will need constant maintenance and repair, and that sometimes you might have to step back and start again. And sometimes, really unpleasant compromises will have to be made in order to achieve a greater good."

Excellent points! Yet your last sentence raises a serious question– greater good for who? Very often, neoliberals fudge the answer to this by reifying an abstraction they call "the economy."

"We know it's hard on the eight out of ten people in this de-industrializing nation who will see their living standards decline, but globalization is "good for the economy" in the long run."

The more honest version of this statement would replace the word "economy" with "obscenely wealthy banksters and kleptocrats, and a small number of their enablers and servants to whom they allow a bit of wealth to trickle down."

Moneta , , July 21, 2017 at 11:06 am

If you ask your children how a cake can be fairly distributed, all answers will probably be different. Now imagine this negotiation across 7 billion people.

Guess who gets to cut? Usually the one already in power or the one with a more entitled attitude. It's rarely the most fair individual who gets his/her way.

Grebo , , July 21, 2017 at 5:53 pm

You cut, I choose. Or vice versa.
Someone should work it up into an ideology.

witters , , July 21, 2017 at 7:14 pm

Actually, re the kids. If they have a handle on the idea of fairness – so 3ish and up – they are remarkably sensitive to what fairness rerquires, and how this relates to everyone arround the cake. You try it. It will be divided equally – unless, say, there is someone with an injury or medical conditon or something rather awful – and they will then give that person a bigger slice, and a smaller equal one for everyone else. I've had a fair bit of experience in this matter. (I suspect this wonderfully cheering fact it is what Jesus was reminding us of when he said "Become like little children".)

Moneta , , July 21, 2017 at 7:36 pm

Some people need more calories than others so equal
is not fair.

witters , , July 21, 2017 at 7:39 pm

It is a birthday cake, not the last piece of food on a life-boat!

Uahsenaa , , July 21, 2017 at 10:35 am

I suppose I don't disagree with your point in principle, but coming at this from the perspective of labor organizing and what have you, solidarity of purpose quite often demands a certain degree of (lax) identity signaling so you can easily identify who your comrades/fellow travelers are. A management/worker framing of the dynamics at play in any given place of employment may not perfectly reflect the nuances of that place's social organization but it does provide a handy rule of thumb for action for those who don't want to write a graduate thesis simply in order figure who's on their side and who isn't. Arnade's front row/back row works in a similar way. It's not perfect, but it's been rather effective in identifying how certain educated groups are at least complicit with the aims of plutocrats.

As for advocating for the "ideal," this could just as easily be understood as staking a strong bargaining position. You always ask for more than you think you'll get. So, that doesn't mean a group's utopian demands reflect an inability to see the practicalities of the here and now. It could just as easily mean "we know where we are, but we're always striving for better."

PlutoniumKun , , July 21, 2017 at 11:49 am

I agree with you in general, but I'd make a distinction between pressing for specific aims (for example, Union recognition), and aiming to transform society. Unity of purpose and 'signalling' is vital if people are to unite for a specific aim. But its much harder if your aim is 'an equal society'. You will spend more time arguing about what 'equal' means than actually doing things. Which is of course why the establishment loves identity politics, because it provides an infinity of possibilities for people to fall out arguing over split hairs.

Left in Wisconsin , , July 21, 2017 at 12:45 pm

Yes, there is a necessary dualism. On the one hand, as you say above, it is always a process, not an end. On the other hand, making progress against entrenched power IMO generally requires an image of a destination, even if that destination is always fragile and subject to undermining (as it will always be).

Which I suppose is the issue with communism. It is conceived of as some kind of permanent end point, a Fukuyama-esque end of history. That seems extremely dubious to me.

Moneta , , July 21, 2017 at 11:02 am

That is why I rarely reference my ideas in comments sections. When one does, many seem to think that the reference means one supports the entire philosophy of the quoted pundit and then one gets pigeonholed.

Left in Wisconsin , , July 21, 2017 at 12:51 pm

Probably so. But opponents will pigeon hole anyway. And I find being open in my politics while subjecting my ideas to scrutiny and feedback helpful.

Vikas Saini , , July 21, 2017 at 7:50 am

Lovely to find this here. Almost all the arguments have been rattling in my head for the past couple of years. Work of this sort is crucial for the next phase, so thanks! Something is in the air ..

MetalAnarchy17 , , July 21, 2017 at 7:57 am

Great article. As a first time commenter, I just want to thank you and everyone else for how far ranging and thought provoking of a Blog Naked Capitalism is.
The questions you posed are ones that I often have struggled with as a philosophically inclined leftist. As one who is as sympathetic to Anarchism as he his To Marx and his followers I have to ask, do you think Anarchist critiques of Marx (those of Bakunin and Kropotkin, for example) and Marxism are any more or less elucidating than the seemingly Liberalish ones you have mentioned (from what I've heard of Camus he was more of a liberal existentialist and not one that was ever exactly radical, but I've not read him yet so I could be very wrong). Also, do you feel that Rosa Luxembourg's critiques of Lenin were also apologetics for Marx, if not necessary the Bolshevik interpretation of Marx, or more than that.
As a side note, I also have to ask, Which students in the 60s thought the Soviet Union was the be all, end all. I always thought that the SDS and Situationist type groups were more Anarchist even if they sometimes thought they were Marxist.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 10:28 am

I agree that the anarchist critiques are worth discussing. I'm not particularly interested in liberal critiques per se , and to the extent that they get tangled up in their own mantras, they can become pretty frustrating. Aron and Furet are a bit different – both books were important historically, and both authors had read Marx very carefully. Aron was in some sense a "Marxian," and Furet at one point went to the trouble of compiling a book on everything Marx wrote about the French Revolution so people would stop reading stuff into him.

The advantage of looking at writers from far outside of the Marxist tradition is that you can sometimes find critiques that problematize features that more "inside" writers are unlikely to question. Of course, some of these critiques are more persuasive/original than others

On Rosa Luxemburg, it's true that she was pretty strongly Marxist. Her critique of Lenin, like Kautsky's, is useful in showing how Lenin's form of Marxism was fairly marginal within the intellectual Marxist world before the Russian Revolution provided Lenin with the mantle of apparent success.

When you say that many student leaders "were more anarchist even if they sometimes thought they were Marxist," I think you are onto something. However, in terms of professed beliefs, I know that the Italian students used Marxist language very heavily. Re SDS, I once met a former mid-level SDS leader who told me that when he expressed reservations about the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia, he was systematically ostracized by the high-level SDS leadership. Many of those individuals wound up in the Weather Underground.

MetalAnarchy17 , , July 21, 2017 at 11:54 am

Thanks for the response. I am always looking for historically important books to further aid my own investigations of political ideologies, their origins and their evolutions and corruptions throughout time. I'll have to check Furet and Aron out to see what they have to say.
I didn't realize that Lenin was more on the outskirts of Marxism before the October revolution took place. I always thought the he had to have had a higher profile, even before the revolution. Human history seems to have a habit of pushing formally background characters to the forefront
I'd have never thought the SDS expelled people over Prague, but then again, I haven't looked that much into the SDS history and what their changing political lines were. I guess it isn't that surprising that the SDS had more Stalinist types in their ranks that were willing to excommunicate rivals. Most socialist movements had similar issues with Stalinists in the 60s and 70s.

Left in Wisconsin , , July 21, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Aron was in some sense a "Marxian"

That's interesting. IIRC, Mirowski classifies him as a Mont Pelerin neoliberal. I always found his politics hard to decipher.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 6:31 pm

He was antifascist, anti-colonialist, and (at least in the early 50s) Keynesian. On Aron and Marx, see here (in French, sorry, that section doesn't exist in the English version).

Although I know less about his later trajectory, it may however be true that he became much more of a neoliberal as time went on. This sort of thing happens for familiar reasons – people solidify in their positions and lose initial nuances under the pressure of rhetorical combat.

ejf , , July 21, 2017 at 10:50 am

Great to see another anarchist in the hood. And you bring up some great questions. To me, Bakunin never had the philosophical grip that Marx had on capitalism. Bakunin DID ride Marx and the Communist International on the meaning of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
As for anarchists and the early Russian Revolution, have a look at "The Bolshevik Myth" by Alexander Berkman, Emma Goldman's old bo.
Having been an old New Lefty of the 60's myself, everybody I knew of or read thought that the Soviet Union was OLD, antique, almost quaint. The same went for the Communist Party USA. Then again, the New Left never had an answer for why the Berlin Wall was around. Or why power freaks like Enver Hoxha of the People Republic of Albania were given the time of day. And don't get me going on how Che Guevara, before he went off to Bolivia, organized the Cuban state sugar farms with political prisoners' free labor.

MetalAnarchy17 , , July 21, 2017 at 12:06 pm

Thanks for chiming in.
I've been meaning to read Berkman for a while, and your recommendation sounds like a great place to start. I didn't know that about Guevara, but honestly, the idea that slave labor was used in the early days of the Cuban revolution sounds like an accurate description, as sad as that is.

I remember reading The Port Huron statement in an American Political Ideas I had recently. What you say about the New left consider the USSR quaint does remind me of the tone in that and other political statements from the 60s I have read.

I am also glad to know that there are other anarchists here at Naked Capitalism

Alejandro , , July 21, 2017 at 2:18 pm

". And don't get me going on how Che Guevara, before he went off to Bolivia, organized the Cuban state sugar farms with political prisoners' free labor."

I don't subscribe to the cultish veneration of any individual, past or present, nor its flip-side of obsessive demonization of any individual, past or present. However, in the spirit of this excellent post and thread about "The Minefield of Historical Communism", I would be very much interested in your adding context to this comment, e.g., their conditions pre-revolution, their conditions at the time of your claim, and the lessons learned, that may be of value to others. As far as legacy, they certainly don't seem to export as much sugar today, but they do seem to export a lot of doctors.

Watt4Bob , , July 21, 2017 at 8:39 am

A couple of quibbles;

What would one think of someone who tried to absolve the theorists of colonialism of any responsibility for, say, British misrule in India, on the grounds that these theorists said very clearly that they wanted to help the natives to become more civilized?

First, why does a discussion of British colonial misrule immediately turn to India, as opposed to Ireland?

I'd say it is because ' the theorists of colonialism ' is at best a euphemism for 'psychopathic cheer-leaders of barbarism and genocide', and of course the Indian people are more brown than the Irish.

There are no legitimate theories of colonialism, only rationalizations for what on it's face is barbarous behavior, in short propaganda propagated by the perpetrators, not legitimate 'theorists'.

Second;

Large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy, and also elsewhere, as well as much of the leadership of the 60s student movements, were convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values. What does this imply about their powers of discernment?

This question seems to me to be part of the never-ending effort to de-legitimise all resistance to imperial capitalist barbarism by waving the Bloody-Shirt of Stalinism.

The way I remember it, the dynamism, and turmoil of the 1960's was not the result of naive, and misguided intellectuals and student leaders pushing a communist agenda, it was rather, a clear demonstration of the lengths to which the PTB will go to repress legitimate resistance to obviously barbarous imperialism abroad, and systemic racism everywhere.

Socialism does not equal Communism, does not equal Stalinism, but this is the most useful fallacy that the psychopathic cheer-leaders of barbarism and genocide have cooked up to thwart the efforts of those who would teach/preach Solidarity.

As I recall, it was very effective in the 60s, and we just witnessed its efficacy in stopping Bernie.

Lastly, and yes, this is much more than a 'quibble';

I find this baffling. It seems to suggest that left-leaning people continued to emotionally identify with the USSR well into the 80s, and to be imprisoned within the idea that it constituted a superior economic system.

I find it baffling that anybody takes this sort of bull*hit seriously.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 9:16 am

On Ireland versus India, I have no quarrel with anything you are saying. I would have been as happy to talk about Ireland as India.

When you say,

This question seems to me to be part of the never-ending effort to de-legitimise all resistance to imperial capitalist barbarism by waving the Bloody-Shirt of Stalinism.

you are engaging in a breathtaking misreading of the article. The whole point of the article is to open up ways to look radically beyond the existing system, without having to self-censor about what did and did not happen during Stalinism. I specifically reject the idea that the history of Stalinism implies that it is wrong to try to envision alternatives to capitalism.

When you say that the 1960s "was not the result of naive, and misguided intellectuals and student leaders pushing a communist agenda" you are blatantly straw-manning. I did not say that. I did say that many of the student leaders were willing to reflexively defend "really existing communism." If you doubt that this is true, read any history of the SDS leadership, don't just make peremptory statements about what you imagine the 60s "stood for."

When you claim that the article implies that "socialism equals communism," you are again responding to a thesis that it doesn't argue for, and in fact takes precisely the opposite thesis.

If you don't think that people in the PCI and PCF continued to consider the USSR a good economic model well into the 1980s, then why did those parties collapse with the Soviet Union? You can say words like bullshit all you want, but vehemence is a poor substitute for critical thinking. I've asked plenty of ex-members of those parties why they stopped believing in the possibility of radical economic change and if I get an answer, it's along the one I gave. But more often, the answer is just embarrassed silence.

Watt4Bob , , July 21, 2017 at 11:03 am

One has only to contrast this;

I've asked plenty of ex-members of those parties why they stopped believing in the possibility of radical economic change and if I get an answer, it's along the one I gave. But more often, the answer is just embarrassed silence.

With this;

Large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy, and also elsewhere, as well as much of the leadership of the 60s student movements, were convinced that were convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values.

to understand that you're trying to sell the notion that those who have striven for radical economic change are folks who, in your words, "were convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values."

This is not the case.

The notion that the USSR was a legitimate incarnation of "Left values" was set to rest with the advent of Stalinism, that is, the embarrassed silence you speak of happened in the 1930s.

Because the tactic of associating progressive activists with the evil commies has been so successful thus far, the PTB will never stop using it.

IMHO, that's exactly what you're engaged in this morning.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 11:29 am

Your claims about my intentions are false. Nor do the quotes from me that you cite back up your claims in any way.

The statement that I made about certain intellectuals in France and Italy and (e.g.) many SDS leaders is a historical claim that can be verified or disputed. Is any hope of "striving for radical economic change" dependent upon never mentioning it? Is it helpful when "striving for radical economic change" to close oneself off from learning from the past?

Let's try something else. I'm going to respond by saying something that I think is far more plausible than what you are saying.

* * * * *

"Your attempt to force anyone who wants to strive towards a radically different economic system to tread very gently whenever saying anything critical of any society that has ever called itself communist is a tried and true tactic of the PTB. By blocking thoughtful self-reflection among people interested in living in a drastically different future, it cripples their intellectual resources when trying to imagine such a future. Simultaneously, it facilitates the PTB's efforts to discredit such efforts by making statements like "they won't even come to terms with how their efforts led to disaster in the past" appear reasonable.

Because the tactic of forcing progressive activists into ideological rigidity has been so successful thus far, TPTB will never stop using it.

IMHO, that's exactly what you're doing this morning."

Now, I don't actually believe that. IMHO, through various life experiences, you have acquired the idea that open discussions of historical communism are an attempt to subvert attempts to envision another future, and you are currently engaging in pattern-matching.

Watt4Bob , , July 21, 2017 at 12:26 pm

IMHO, through various life experiences, you have acquired the idea that open discussions of historical communism are an attempt to subvert attempts to envision another future, and you are currently engaging in pattern-matching.

I disagree.

What I am currently engaged in, is explaining that there is no logical need for any person who wants to work towards a radically different economic system, to first take on the responsibility of addressing the historical failures of soviet communism.

To my knowledge, the historical failures of communism are not seriously disputed, or ignored by anyone currently working for a better economic system in the USA.

I'm not refusing to face embarrassing facts, I'm disputing the relevance of the whole topic to current political discourse.

To insist that Bernie Sanders supporters, for instance, must, in order to be taken seriously, first engage in discussion that addresses the historical failures of communism is ridiculous.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 3:31 pm

I agree with portions of this sentiment and disagree with others.

I agree that people shouldn't be held hostage to particular forms of historical inquiry. People shouldn't be forced to "take responsibility" for a position on any topic they aren't ready to.

Bernie Sanders is not proposing a radically new economy. Reforms like the ones he's proposing have actually been tried out in Western European countries. If I were claiming that no one should be allowed to support Bernie without first taking responsibility for historical communism, that would be silly – but I didn't. Suggesting that I did comes dangerously close to further straw-manning of my position.

There's a difference between saying people should be obligated to talk about a certain topic and saying that they should be allowed to talk about it without being immediately blasted as an enemy agent.

When I read an experience like that of Rossanda's below, my reaction is not, "Ooh, those communists sure were evil, ha ha ha." It's that she seems like a person who was very intelligent, who genuinely wanted to change the world for the better, and still found herself fifty years later interrogating herself, wondering how much of her life work was misguided, and whether she bears responsibility for her role in providing some measure of support for a regime that is hard to excuse.

My reaction is, "That could be me. I don't want it to be me, but who's to say that I'm any more insightful or moral than she was?" I don't want to be in the position of having provided vocal support for a political program that makes the world worse, and if I were to do so, having done it for "good motives" would be cold comfort. I'm not saying that anyone else has to learn from her experience – there's only so much time in the world, and there's a lot of history that might provide valuable lessons, not just the 20th century. But personally, I'd like to learn from her experience, and not shy away from where it leads me.

Watt4Bob , , July 21, 2017 at 6:22 pm

I believe what I've been arguing is based in the American experience, which in this particular means being immersed in a politically naive population marinated in anti-communist propaganda.

I'm not sure a citizen of any European country can appreciate the degree to which our people have been trained to believe that the impulse to join together in solidarity for any purpose, is evidence of a soft intellect or moral depravity.

Even before the fall of the USSR, any discussion of a political nature approaching a topic that could be construed as being in favor of socialism in even the most limited context was apt to be met with a chorus of derisive abuse.

I believe an invitation to discuss the reality of historical communism, in the USA at least, is most often actually a thinly veiled invitation to shut the hell up, and it has been so for close to one hundred years.

This situation has become incredibly worse in the last couple decades, this is especially evident in the disquieting popularity of the 'ideas' championed in the writings of Ayn Rand.

I hope you'll excuse my misinterpreting your intent, and understand that I've never been honestly invited to consider historical communism, I've only been invited to consider keeping my socialist ideals to myself.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 6:38 pm

Thanks, watt4bob, I appreciate this.

I am familiar with some of the American dynamics you bring up. One of my hopes is that if critically thinking people can find spaces where they discuss these sorts of ideas without fear or favor, it will gradually make it possible to develop antidotes to the kind of discussion-choking maneuvers you mention.

Mel , , July 21, 2017 at 1:10 pm

There was a time in the 1970s when the popular comic Pilote wasn't just for kids, despite running Astérix and Achille Talon . Then Jacques Lauzier ran some grueling character studies (well, at least one, among other similar stories) of French ex-Communist intellectuals facing the consequences of just such attitudes as Outis has described. Interesting to look up, if you read French, or can find a translation.

Mel , , July 21, 2017 at 2:56 pm

Gérard Lauzier . Curse those moves those lost books.

Mel , , July 21, 2017 at 3:00 pm

That's Gérard Lauzier , actually

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 8:58 am

The author's statement that "large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy, and also elsewhere, as well as much of the leadership of the 60s student movements, were convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values." is more than a little disingenuous.

The many former sessantottini that I knew in Italy, SDS leaders, and other U.S. student radicals from the sixties were all very strong supporters of the Prague uprising against Soviet domination in 1968. This includes many who self-identified as Marxist!

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 9:12 am

And of course, the author's statement appears even more of a smear when one remembers this historical reality:

"In 1969, Enrico Berlinguer, PCI deputy national secretary and later secretary general, took part in the international conference of the Communist parties in Moscow, where his delegation disagreed with the "official" political line, and refused to support the final report. Unexpectedly to his hosts, his speech challenged the Communist leadership in Moscow . He refused to "excommunicate" the Chinese communists, and directly told Leonid Brezhnev that the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact countries (which he called the "tragedy in Prague") had made clear the considerable differences within the Communist movement on fundamental questions such as national sovereignty, socialist democracy, and the freedom of culture. At the time the PCI was the largest Communist Party in a capitalist state, garnering 34.4% of the vote in the 1976 general election."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Communist_Party

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 9:41 am

I am much less monolithically critical of the PCI than you assume (see also my next post on this subject). It was much more independent of the Soviet Union than the French Communist party, and there was a lot of opposition to Prague.

I think it's probably true that at least for a while, the leadership of the PCI was more open to critical thinking about the historical role of the USSR than its broad membership was. Here is a string of excerpts from Rossanda's autobiography:

[On November 4, 1956, she woke up to tanks marching through the streets of Budapest.] This was the first time I said to myself – they hate us. Not the elites. The ordinary [Hungarian] people, the ones on our side, they hate us. [ ]
The poor and oppressed are not always in the right. But communists who are hated [by them] are always in the wrong. And this was a massive, sedimentary hatred, you don't get to this level [of hatred] without having suffered from felt oppression for a long time. In those days, all my hair turned white. Yes, it happens. [ ]
Was it therefore impossible to knock down the capitalist system, even a broken-down autocratic mess [like Russia], and build a socialist one without paying an inhuman price? [She now rehearses possible exculpatory arguments:] No, those were different times and circumstances, you have to take into account the backward circumstances in which Lenin was operating, the civil war, efforts that went nowhere, certain errors that weren't fixed, and so the skidding into authoritarianism. But even if you grant that at the beginning repression was necessary, why had it lasted so long? And even expanded? Was the dictatorship of the proletariat therefore a dictatorship like any other? No – it was not established on behalf of just a small number of people; yes – it treated human beings as tools. We debated means and ends, a debate that goes nowhere. Togliatti, writing in Nuovi Argomenti, and also Isaac Deutscher, had a different response: The repressive apparatus was an overgrowth, a massive fungus that had not infected the trunk – the revolution had been immature, things had been forced, the tree will be healed. But it had taken so long . And was it healthy even now?

Sorry, I need to take a break, will provide more of the text here later.

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 10:38 am

"It was much more independent of the Soviet Union than the French Communist party,"

Something which no one would have guessed from your original post, in which you lump together French and Italian intellectuals as "convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values."

You were free to write as long and accurate a post as you felt like writing. You chide me for "assuming" that you are monolithically critical of the PCI. Am I supposed to be a mind reader? No one reading your post would have any reason to doubt that the PCI was unwaveringly Stalinist. It was not.

Now, in this backpedaling reply, you assert that the "broad membership" of the PCI was less open to critical thinking about the USSR than its leadership. On what evidence? I lived in Italy for several years in the eighties and early nineties. I met very few members of the PCI "leadership", but many hundreds of its "broad membership." Not a single one of these PCI voters was even a little bit supportive of the U.S.S.R.! I traveled from Genoa to Palermo, and all points in between.

Now who are you asking me to believe? You, or my lying eyes?

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 11:06 am

Just in case anyone here is interested in the facts of the PCI demise, here is an important moment:

"Per decidere sulla proposta di Occhetto fu indetto un Congresso straordinario del Partito, il XIX, che si tenne a Bologna nel marzo del 1990. Tre furono le mozioni che si contrapposero:
la prima mozione, intitolata Dare vita alla fase costituente di una nuova formazione politica era quella di Occhetto, che proponeva la costruzione di una nuova formazione politica democratica, riformatrice ed aperta a componenti laiche e cattoliche, che superasse il centralismo democratico. Il 67% dei consensi ottenuti dalla mozione permise la rielezione di Occhetto alla carica di Segretario generale e la conferma della sua linea politica.
la seconda mozione, intitolata Per un vero rinnovamento del PCI e della sinistra fu sottoscritta da Ingrao e, tra gli altri, da Angius, Castellina, Chiarante e Tortorella. Il PCI, secondo i sostenitori di questa mozione, doveva si rinnovarsi, nella politica e nella organizzazione, ma senza smarrire se stesso. Questa mozione uscì sconfitta ottenendo il 30% dei consensi.
la terza mozione, intitolata Per una democrazia socialista in Europa fu presentata dal gruppo di Cossutta. Costruita su un impianto profondamente ortodosso ottenne solo il 3% dei consensi.
Il XX Congresso, tenutosi a Rimini nel febbraio del 1991, fu l'ultimo del PCI."

https://basileus88.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/correnti-interne-al-pci/

Do you notice that 3% figure at the bottom? Those would be the people that O.P. characterizes as the "broad membership" unwilling to criticize the U.S.S.R! Under what bizarre meaning of "broad" does something opposed by 97% of a given group make any sense?

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 2:01 pm

What does the quote say?

In 1991, the PCI voted to renounce "democratic centralism," i.e. the party being organized internally along Leninist grounds.

This shows that up until two years after 1989, the PCI was still nominally in favor of Leninism.

On the other hand, the major losing motion, with 30% of the vote, was that of Ingrao and others, was a vote for "the PCI to renew itself, politically and organizationally, while remaining faithful to itself."

In other words, a motion for the PCI to remain faithful to its postwar heritage lost by a crushing margin, 67-30.

If the broad membership of the PCI felt like the USSR was basically alien to their own political aspirations, why would the USSR's implosion have led to this sort of radical renunciation? Surely you don't think it was merely a coincidence that this motion passed in 1991 as opposed to, say, 1975 or 1985?

I'm open to other interpretations, but I don't see how the quote supports your argument.

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 2:59 pm

I apologize for anything that was misconstrued as invective. You appeared to claim that the broad membership of the PCI was staunchly Stalinist up until 1991. Having lived in Italy during the late 1980s myself, I knew this claim to be false.

The reason the PCI collapsed after the fall of the U.S.S.R. (and not earlier) was best explained to me by a friend who was himself a Christian Democrat, with a Communist girlfriend. He argued that the triumphalism of western capitalists in the U.S. at the "fall of communism" after 1989 created an urgent need for "re-branding" for the people, like his girlfriend, who became the new Democratic Party of the Left.

In other words, after the only major country in the world to have been at least nominally anti-capitalist collapsed, Italian communists rightly feared that their attempts– to distance themselves from the particular horrors of Stalinism– would be forgotten amidst the crowing by people like Fukuyama over "The End of History."

My main objection to what you wrote, in your original post, was that it seemed to imply that most Italian communists were like the 3% who, even in 1991, were proud to be known as Stalinist.

There's actually a pretty good discussion of this whole issue here, where, as your Rossanda quotations might suggest, we see that the Stalinist orientation of the PCI was considerably weakened after 1956.

"E la religione politica del Pci? Quella d'élite? Stalinista, sì. Almeno fino al 1956, "anno indimenticabile" e nuovo inizio, costellato di sofferenze e ambiguità."

http://salvatoreloleggio.blogspot.com/2010/10/il-pci-fu-stalinista-di-bruno.html

"Insomma la "doppiezza veritiera" di Togliatti stava in questo: immaginare il socialismo radicalmente diverso dentro due ipotesi impossibili (tali almeno fino a Gorbaciov). L'ipotesi di una cooperazione distensiva tra i blocchi. E quella di una riformabilità della casa madre sovietica. Ma è nello spazio immaginario di quella ipotesi strategica "impossibile" che il Pci – in definitiva – intimamente stalinista non fu. Fu semmai pedagogico, storicista, elitario e altresì di massa. Capace di aprire malgrado tutto l'Italia della guerra fredda al mondo. Alla cultura internazionale. All'etica dei diritti sociali e civili che inseriva i ceti subalterni nello stato.
Strana giraffa il Pci. Esteriormente stalinista, interiormente no."

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 4:49 pm

The article you linked to is quite good, thanks for sending it.

Let's see if I understand the theory you propose. It seems to suggest that the people who genuinely believed in communism felt like they had to go underground for a while until their adversaries had spent their fury, so that they could resurface later intact.

I've contemplated ideas along these lines. I think it's noteworthy that your friend was a supporter of the DC – in fact, it's the kind of theory that anticommunists often hint at, because it implies that their adversaries have "not changed" and instead have become like "sleeper cells," normal on the outside but frightening inside.

But that doesn't necessarily make it false. In fact, if a whole group of people had decided to shield each other by not talking about anything that might make their enemies suspicious, then that would explain some of the behavior that I described in one of my other responses.

Still, I have a hard time entirely making sense of it. Back before 1956, the PCI really was fairly Stalinist in its official allegiances. The "horrors of Stalinism" were much closer then, and yet the PCI did not distance itself from them at the time despite plenty of people who were willing to cast them in its teeth.

Why was Fukuyama so much more terrifying than anti-communists of the 50s?

I'll respond to another point you bring up in a separate post when I get a chance.

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 6:11 pm

"The "horrors of Stalinism" were much closer then, and yet the PCI did not distance itself from them at the time despite plenty of people who were willing to cast them in its teeth."

This is a very important point. My only information on why this was the case comes from people who were already fairly old by the 1980s. They witnessed the partigiani acting as the strongest actual resistance to the fascists– and they were reluctant to give credence to anything said against anything communist.

Only long after Mussolini's execution (yet still before the fall of Franco) were Italian communists open to seeing the events of 1956, 1968, etc. as revealing serious flaws in the Soviet system.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 6:19 pm

This certainly played a role. Consider, for example, a movie like Roma Città Aperta (1945), where communists, together with Catholics, are placed at the foundation of the new Italian identity, unified through the anti-Nazi struggle.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 1:51 pm

There is a lot of invective here, which I'm not interested in responding to.

There is, however, also some substance, which I think is worth discussing.

I don't have any particular stake in whether or not the PCI base was less skeptical of the USSR than the leadership. I'm curious about the question. Here's what evidence I have, pointing in various directions.

Let's start with the 50s. Rossanda herself didn't seriously question the USSR until 1956. In the incident with Ortese she mentions (possibly later, maybe in the 60s), she was clearly worried that Ortese's articles would lead PCI sympathizers to think negatively of the USSR. Since she herself didn't find Ortese's experiences implausible, that means that she wanted for the PCI base to think more positively of the USSR than she did. The fact that she isn't sure, in retrospect, whether she would have censored Ortese if she had had the power to do so, means that she considered maintaining this positive attitude on the part of the base to be quite important.

Moving a bit forward, according to Italian Wikipedia ,

The PCI remained faithful to the general political directives of the USSR up into the 70s and 80s, all the while developing over time an increasingly autonomous political line and full acceptance of democracy already starting at the end of Togliatti's secretaryship.

So it was complicated. I've read quite a few documents from student groups in 1968 on, and some did seem to me to leave the door open toward some sort of authoritarian political structure. I don't remember what the Red Brigades' official attitude on the USSR was, but their own political vision as per their comunicati , etc., was pretty reminiscent of Stalinism.

I don't doubt your personal experience in Italy. Here's mine (living there at various times in the 90s and 00s). I was honestly interested in the PCI experience, and I didn't take a particularly moralistic attitude toward it at all. I was hoping that Italians, given their history, would be more interested in thinking about the possibility of radically different economic systems than Americans were. I also hoped, given that I knew from having read Pasolini and others that the Italian Left had not been consistently some sort of caricature of communism, that there had been some room for criticism of the USSR, that they would not have overly identified with the fall of the Soviet Union and so would not have been unduly discouraged by its collapse.

What I found was pretty disappointing. A lot of people acted like the PCI had never existed. I talked to people who I knew had been strong supporters of the PCI back in the day (according to their friends and family), and they assumed that I could not possibly be asking about their experience in good faith. They tended to assume I was making fun of them, and for all intents and purposes acted like they were embarrassed about their communist past.

Nor could I find people interested in talking much about alternative economic systems. There were plenty of people eager to resist Berlusconi, but they were much more willing to make speeches on how he was historically unprecedented and violated all sorts of basic constitutional guarantees than to say much about radical alternatives. I would get frustrated and ask would-be left groups why they didn't talk about fundamental questions, why the sorts of discussions that had happened when the PCI was around didn't happen any more. I never got a straight answer besides, "Well, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, it all looked like an illusion." I would point out why this wasn't a sufficient argument. Shrug.

I honestly do not know what the reason was for all of this avoidance behavior. As I said in my post, the only reason I can think of is that at least on some level, many PCI members still saw the USSR as a flagship of communism. That would explain why they were so morally discouraged afterwards. But I would have thought that a lot of PCI members should have been able to see through that trap. So maybe the explanation is wrong.

But I don't know another. I would be thrilled to hear one.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 12:21 pm

Continuing from Rossanda:

Nothing stayed the same. Not even for those who insisted on seeing the secret report [of Khrushchev] as a tissue of lies – for them, the USSR was in the hands of a clique of traitors, led by Khrushchev. Others fell back on the thesis that, sure, Stalin had been a tyrant but he had been great, because the revolution had been great and its internal and external enemies great as well. What was this supposed to mean, evil but great? That much should be forgiven to greatness? That pain and horror are inevitable [byproducts]? I couldn't accept the esthetic of history. Then there were those like the French Communist Party who thought that, true or not, Khrushchev should have kept his mouth shut.

And Hungary and Poland and Czechoslovakia? There the excuse of backwardness wasn't applicable. The PCI stood fast within the trenches: yes, there had been mistakes, fault by communist governments, but the revolutions were themselves problematic, and [so] there was fault on their part, too. [ ] The PCI shifted about with a perpetual "It could have been worse" and "Let's avoid pushing things to the brink." [ ]

Leaving [the PCI] would have meant turning one's back not just on the USSR but on ourselves, and to resign ourselves to existing society. Or start over again, but very, very profoundly, abandoning this party, erase it, obliterate it – give the communists up as lost. But they weren't all nothing but Stalinism. And in any case, what had the dissident groups from the 20s on managed to accomplish? At most to leave a witness. [ ]

What the USSR had become gave me no peace, and I had difficulty finding a reasonable way to assess it. It had to be hard, even the tedious manual of the PCB didn't deny it, far from it. But why so many enemies? With the sector of society hostile to the revolution, the struggle had been cruelly resolved during the civil war. But afterward? Why so many arrested and shot among their own people? The hatred that communism had accumulated terrified me. The model of power that had made it possible to succeed had turned out to be a mortal trap. But then in what sense was it a model? Political liberalism implies social slavery and social liberalism implies political slavery? [ ]

It will soon be 50 years since that 1956 that forced me to look squarely at the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics – a name I had loved – and I still don't find a full explanation. I refuse to give in to the oft-repeated idea that without the profit motive, there is no democracy. Our [democracy] is depressing. It is. But it doesn't finish you off with two bullets to the brain in a cellar. [ ] If I talk about this, even with my closest friends, I lower my voice, I apologize, I become annoying. We in the PCI at least didn't have bloody hands. Because we had not managed to take power? No, we were different. How different? And me, what was I like? I had not cracked down on anyone, I had always covered for people. At least I think so. You would have to ask those who worked with me, who had less power or rank than I did. I never humiliated anyone. Or did I? I had a lofty idea of what I did, therefore of myself, how to exclude that I had trampled others, without even noticing?

I remember one minor episode. Anna Maria Ortese, a reserved woman, always dressed in black, her hair held tightly in a black fillet over her pretty face, spent her days in silence at the House of Culture because she didn't have a real house of her own. In one of her first reports on the Soviet Union that a weekly magazine had asked her to write, she had spoken of immense poverty and loneliness, and it sounded like an unending accusation. It was Ortese, it was her empathy with the suffering of the wretched, but it exasperated me because I suspected it was true. I ripped into her: "Don't you understand the toil, the isolation of that country? Why don't you write also that everyone has a job, everyone can go to school, everyone has health care? And don't you see that it's under attack?" We saw each other every day, we had something of a relationship, she never asked anything of me – and I hurt her. The next day, she came to my house with a ridiculous bouquet of flowers and as I opened the door, I was unable to say a word. We hugged each other, crying. With tears in my eyes, I went to find some cognac to cheer her up, she was white as a sheet. We didn't say hardly anything to one another, and we left there arm in arm. I haven't forgotten that moment. If I had had the power to repress her articles, would I have done so? Maybe I would have. I don't know. And what would I have done when faced with more serious choices?

[ ] It does not comfort me that the Black Books have manipulated numbers, that with the archives open, the number of political trials comes out to less than five million, the number shot less than a million. "Only" five million?!

Moneta , , July 21, 2017 at 9:03 am

One can't look at these philosophies without accounting for the productive capacities of the land.

Monarchs of the last couple of centuries were essentially trying to one-up each other and planning marriages according to needed and desired resources.

One can imagine that the limits were not the same in France, England and Russia.

French Monarchs were obviously in the best position resource speaking. France was one great piece of land. Russian monarchs probably had to squeeze its population way more than French royalty to maintain the same quality of life. It's no surprise that the UK ended up colonizing. How could it compete on an overpopulated island?

At the beginning of the early 1900s, Germany was hitting productive limits vs. the size of its population without the exploitative capacities of the UK or France propped up be their own colonies.

Communism would be easier to implement in a closed economy . hard to see this happening in countries that depend on imports or with colonies to exploit.

Russia was in a good position to try it enough resources to be autarkic and a population used to poor
and harsh conditions where materialism would not be receding if trying it out.

While I enjoy reading about economic and political philosophies, I find it annoying how most of the time these never account for the physical limitations that drive countries into specific directions.

Most of humanity has always been blind to 3 things:
– the planet's physical limits
– its own technological limitations in exploiting the planet's bounty at each epoch
– the problem of redistribution when a system hits a wall.

And none of the philosophies seem to address all three.

Susan the other , , July 21, 2017 at 12:21 pm

agree. ' Spring cleaning' is my favorite change metaphor. It's more benign than 'rat-killing'. But the point is always a practical one. We get rid of stuff that no longer works. That's the first step. So why won't vested interests and ideologues see the logic? Or more accurately, why are they so slow? If we do not change it is gonna go from farce to tragedy pretty fast this time.

craazyman , , July 21, 2017 at 7:36 pm

If I recall correctly your background you're far too intelligent to believe that stuff!! C'mon now. Physical limits???? In Russia??? Russia is yyyuuuuge.

Maybe this is an artifact of your MIT eduction in reductive materialism. :-)

Newton and Leibniz were very very smart guys. Engineering is pretty cool! I would not argue with things like computers and TVs and Youtube. I couldn't watch Adele and Bruce Springsteen on Youtube if it wasn't for engineers. I'm just being honest. I won't criticize engineers. But they are mostly boneheads. Hahahaha.

I'm not sure reading all these political crackpots is useful either. There's a point where things are obvious just by direct observation. I understand the impluse to expand one's mind and it's not at all obvious how to do that. The strangest thing of all though is that all this supposed erudition reduces itself to things that are completely obvious simply from solitary contemplation. Of course engineering is not that way at all.

DJG , , July 21, 2017 at 9:22 am

First, I agree with Ulysses that lumping French and Italian intellectuals together with regard to acceptance of the Soviet Union as an emanation of leftist values is dubious. Look at the differences between the traditional French Communist Party, which was more or less Stalinist, and the Italian Communist Party, which was animated by Gramsci and Berlinguer, two highly skeptical Sardinians. And that's for starters.

I recommend reading Gramsci: I am currently reading his letters from prison. He had a very broad view of politics, events, and culture. As a newspaper editor, he also wrote tremendous numbers of articles, including theatrical criticism (and he was a pretty good theater critic), all worth reading.

I note that Outis mentions Rossana Rossanda above, and I suspect that she has some skepticism about exercise of power, too.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 10:01 am

I agree with you that the French and Italian communist party experiences are extremely different. The purpose of this article was not to get too much into the details, but my subsequent post on this subject is all about the Italian situation, which is in my opinion fascinating.

Your explanation of why the PCI was different from the PCF leaves me a little unconvinced. Gramsci probably played a role, more in terms of the pattern of wide-ranging critical thought seen in the Quaderni del carcere (which I agree are well worth reading) than in anything particularly groundbreaking he did as a leader before the fascists imprisoned him. Berlinguer was a very significant figure, but I think the fact of the the PCI being less hermetically closed than the PCF predates his leadership by a couple decades.

On Rossanda's skepticism about the exercise of power, yes, that's right. I haven't finished yet, but in the next part of the excerpt quoted in my reply to Ulysses she will express sentiments along those lines.

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Thanks for the interesting passages from Rossanda. I do sincerely hope that you will find the time to also respond to the questions raised in my two comments currently under moderation.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 12:24 pm

I will – I haven't eaten anything all day, though, so thanks for being patient.

DJG , , July 21, 2017 at 12:31 pm

Outis: I eagerly await your next posting.

Some cultural differences between Italy and France that may have affected how communism evolved:
–France has strong centralizing tendencies. Until recently, Paris dominated thoroughly. Italy is indeed a federal republic, with strong decentralizing tendencies. As a friend from Piedmont said, Every village speaks its own form of the Piedmontese language. In France, the communist party seems to have wanted Stalinist centralization.
–In France, the state created lay society (the secular state). In Italy, secular society, arguably, was created by the communists. (Although the Savoys (weirdly) and the Republic of Venice also created secular states, I suppose. But they did not dominate as thoroughly as the French Republic and its message of laicité does.)
–Italian Catholicism is rather mystical and oddly unpuritanical. French Catholicism is much more rigid.
–Because the arts in Italy tend to be somewhat more democratic, communist artists existed / exist. Pasolini. Nanni Moretti. It's a long way from Jean-Paul Sartre to Nanni Moretti.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 12:49 pm

These are all great points. Yes, it's a long way from Sartre to Pasolini as well.

On Italian versus French Catholicism, I hadn't thought of this. But it also makes a great deal of sense in terms of the particular history of French Catholicism under the FR, with the clerical oath.

Michael M , , July 21, 2017 at 11:12 am

I agree with this line of thought. What's always bothered me by previous discussions of "communism" have been 1) the absence of the roots of communism, ( ie hunter gatherer societies, and the teachings of the Buddha and Christ), and 2) the cultural and tribal influences of each group attempting this quest.

To the first point, it seems to me that various religious groups within the United States have attempted their version of communism with varying degrees of success, from 1800s farming communities to self proclaimed demagogues of the Jim Jones variety. I think the notion of the battle between humanistic traits of altruism vs narcissism are instrumental in understanding the roots of the success of each group.

From my little understanding of China and Russia, both have historically had autocratic cultures for multiple reasons, so an autocratic form of top down society would be a natural progression from the then status quo.

Regarding the "Horrors of Communism" I am reminded of the types of regimes that were overthrown in the cases of the China and Russia, and how the degree of external threat to the fledgling attempts may have influenced their courses. Interesting current examples include the continually externally besieged and totalitarian regime of North Korea, as opposed to the "Communist" regime of North Vietnam. I can only wonder what will result in the United States should our Lords and Masters decide to use all means necessary to quell a popular uprising, but then the current control of the media is proving quite successful.

In any case from my perspective the more democratic and successful attempts at economic equality have been exemplified in smaller homogeneous tribal societies such various Nordic countries. My observation of history tells me that the larger the entity one tries to democratically control, the more likelihood of corruption by narcissistic players irrespective of the type of governmental system proposed.

Mattman , , July 21, 2017 at 9:24 am

Q: Are the problems of historical communism explainable in terms of the opposition that communism experienced from reactionaries?

No, but many of them ARE explained by the opposition–wars, bombings, sabotage, etc.–of international capitalism to almost every socialist experiment that has arisen, 1917-Venezuela. We'll never know about what kind of success they would have experienced in a petri dish, but we do know that when you have to devote much of your economy to building arms to defend yourself–live on the defensive–that can distort your project, distort your vision, distort your economy, make you paranoid–hey–end up making you murderous and worse. And (no small thing) that improving the lot of the great mass of people can be very handy for capitalism once you have finished the heavy lifting.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 9:49 am

See Rossana Rossanda's take on this argument below.

I actually take Venezuela's experience as supporting the point that there was historical contingency involved and therefore Stalinism was not simply historically necessary. Venezuela was geopolitically weaker than Russia and Chavez faced substantial opposition from very well-organized forces and foreign-supported forces. And still, it's completely clear that whatever else you think of Chavez and his legacy, he did not institute the sort of repression that some people claim is inseparable with communism. He came very close to losing power in 2002 (if I remember correctly, the US had even already started to recognize the coup directors as legitimate), but he held on.

edr , , July 21, 2017 at 9:28 am

"From the standpoint of living standards the Soviet Union were improvements over Imperial Russia."

This is a point I can agree with in reference to Russia. Communism served as a way to quickly sever the serf system that had partially survived in Russia into the 20th century.

However, the central planning aspect of communism is its great problem. It centralizes absolute power in a small group; the guy who said "absolute power corrupts absolutely" seems to have been absolutely correct. In Cuba, if you decided you wanted to sell sandwiches to your friends to make a little extra, that was prohibited and you would be been arrested and jailed – heard they're starting to allow some of that recently. I've heard the Russian system wasn't quite as extreme in those economic cases, don't know, although it was worse in its repressive excesses. Even the Pharaohs of Egypt didn't try to stop the bread makers and fisherman from making some extra income so their families could have socks – only Marx managed to develop a worse system. Also, communism didn't work anywhere; the experiment failed everywhere.

There is no difference between everybody working for the government and everybody working for Walmart/Amazon. .. the same dynamic is at work. Limiting government power and reach, and limiting Corporate power and reach is the only antidote to repression.

skk , , July 21, 2017 at 10:00 am

There is no difference between everybody working for the government and everybody working for Walmart/Amazon. .. the same dynamic is at work.

Well said.

Moneta , , July 21, 2017 at 10:02 am

It all depends on how you define failure. We can easily say that capitalism is failing millions in the US and billions on this planet.

Life is a cycle and maybe no system can last over the long term.

kj1313 , , July 21, 2017 at 9:33 am

Thanks for this as someone who started out as a Dem Socialist but now am becoming more open to further left positions. I agree with some of the basic philosophies of the hard left even "tankies" but I hate when they gloss over atrocities committed.

Scylla , , July 21, 2017 at 9:42 am

The way I see it, there is plenty of criticism of Stalin from the left. I think the idea that leftists refuse to criticize Stalin is a bit of a trope. However, I think it is correct to point to the lack of good information on Stalinist USSR. It is hard to logically critique something when you are drowning in propaganda and disinformation. All that being said, if the left has one flaw regarding Marxist theory and communism, it is that they often fail to apply Marxist theory TO communism (this is less of a problem among anarchists, of course).
One of the big (maybe biggest) takeaways of Marx is that class war is eternal, and that class war exists in all systems, including communism. I have been reading Marx in fits and starts for 20 years, and although I have never read any specific statement on class war in communist type societies, I have no doubt that Marx would agree. Lenin/Stalin were simply the leaders of the elite class in the Soviet Union, and like other members of the elite class, they worked to increase or cement their power at the expense of the lower classes. Class war is eternal and universal.

As far as the fall of the Soviet Union, my view is that there were many complex drivers, however the biggest one was the fundamental difference between the Soviet and American Empires. The Soviet core (Russia, basically) exploited its own resources and subsidized it's subordinate nations (such as Eastern Europe and Cuba), which weakened the Soviet Empire over time economically. The US Empire (I include western Europe as part of the core here) did the opposite, exploiting the resources of the subordinate nations on it's periphery (think Africa and South America), subsidizing and enriching itself. Of course this isn't absolute, since the US had some anomalies such as the Marshal Plan, and the Soviets did have some populations they exploited such as those in the "stan" republics, but I think it explains a lot.

AC , , July 21, 2017 at 9:51 am

Just a few quick points on some of the issues raised by the article.

All economies are planned, just depends on WHO they are designed to benefit. In the US, the DOD and associated entities are the clearest example of government directing economic resources to certain ends. Those ends happen to be the lining the pockets of well connected grifters, but its still a "planned economy".

The thing that always struck me about people who believe(d) in Communism is that it's just another form of religion. The idea of History as having end its working towards is Christian or Jewish millenarianism recast in terms of political economy. The historical determinism of Marxism is totally laughable in the face of the randomness and capriciousness of human existence.

Stalinism and Maoism replaced one set of elites with another, neither of which cared one bit about the impact their grand schemes had on the people they ruled. But at the same time the millions they murdered says more about the dangers of unquestioned top down control in any system rather than the faults of one -ism over another.

Moneta , , July 21, 2017 at 10:44 am

The capitalist system has killed millions. It's just harder to pin the mass murder on one person. The dirty jobs just get passed on along the global trade chain.

One could easily argue that many countries have been forced into bad implementations of communism because of the stronghold of existing capitalist empires on resources.

If the capitalist developed countries had been less exploitative, perhaps a gentler form of communism could have emerged.

It all starts with the distribution of resources.

skk , , July 21, 2017 at 9:55 am

Nice.

I find the stuff Marx did in the "understand the world" dept – specifically the "labour theory of value" immensely valuable and is, like Newton's work, outside of history. The equation for profit i.e. s/(s+v) all functions of time, and that it tends to zero as time tends to infinity is for the ages. And since profit is the prime motive for production in capitalism, then

His stuff on (the point is) "to change the world" ? – i.e. class struggle – is definitely best understood as history, as in history of ideologies, best to be understood as something coming from a man of his times – one can distill stuff from it to apply it to our own time but only like, say, Julius Caesar's use of chance – " the die is cast " come "Lights, Camera, Action" time.

Why did that part or not so much the "labour theory of value" part catch the imagination of the rebellious of my gen of the 60s, 70s ? That too reflects that we were partly creatures of our times.

Great to see you explore this stuff. Thanks.

Richard Barbrook , , July 21, 2017 at 10:12 am

Ante Ciliga was a Croatian communist who wrote 'The Russian Enigma' which is a smart and evocative account of his experiences there during the 1920s and 1930s.

His political conclusions are best summarised in the French title of his book: 'Au Pays du Grand Mensonge' i.e. In the Land of the Great Lie!

Here's one of its chapters:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/ciliga/1940/russian-enigma/ch09.htm

PKMKII , , July 21, 2017 at 10:24 am

If there's going to be an honest critique of "historical communism," then first we need to be honest in identifying what it is we're talking about, which in this case is really Marxist-Leninism (Stalinism just being the same but with more gulag). There's two ways of looking at M-L's record, which is, what was it's real world impact, pro and con? And, did it achieve what it set out to do? On the former, there's many well-worn arguments trotted out: rapid industrialization, extreme poverty prevention, but also the atrocities, limited civil rights, etc.The typical leftist apologia seems to hinge on pointing out the blood on the hands of capitalism, which is both valid and not. Yes, it's important to criticize the right on its tendency to either outright deny the death caused by capitalism or to ideological explain it away as the fault of something else, and to make people aware that death by capitalism usually comes in more subtle forms, but that doesn't magically make what Stalin, Mao, etc. did okay.

However, more important on the practical level is that the trend for the M-L has been in the long haul to shift towards market economies. The USSR was making motions towards this right before the sudden liberalization of their economy. China has shifted from state capitalism to state-managed capitalism, Vietnam has allowed for more market-based co-ops and small business, Cuba has set up limited markets. So M-L works for the rapid expansion period, but once that singular drive and goal gives way, the central planning needs to acquiesce to market economies.

What really should give the left the cause to abandon M-L to the historical dustbin, is on the second question. M-L gets us war communism and state capitalism, but it has failed in all cases to transition to the final stage of true communism. Give a small group of politicos absolute control over the economy while still collecting that capitalist cut off the top, of course they're not going to hand that over to the workers. It doesn't achieve its goal of workers controlling the means of production, so if the left wants that, then they need to follow the lead of the Kurds and look elsewhere.

barefoot charley , , July 21, 2017 at 10:30 am

A thoughtful friend in the 70s called Marx "a historian of the future." He created a vision, a ramp, a consolidation of dreams and efforts that converged possibilities toward realities. Like most Enlightenment/Romantic religious movements, this vision was cast as science, not faith (as, to be fair, was the book of Genesis). His aim was for something more than sociology or political science, and I think he should be both defended and criticized on those broader grounds. The ultimate question isn't whether he was right or wrong, but whether and how he moved human possibilities forward.

makedoanmend , , July 21, 2017 at 10:33 am

Leaving aside the rich and varied strands of socialism that have occurred and been acted upon (cooperatives, syndicalism, democratic socialism, or even the thoughts of Veblen) that don't involve Marx or communism, I have more than a quibble with the entire methodology employed.

It is acknowledged that the history and uniqueness of communism, let alone socialism, are not easily compressed into small tales to be stored and later related to explain very complex historical processes.

So a neat Alexandrian solution is found to cut through the numerous Gordian knots of distinct historical events and the specific people who acted upon circumstance and reacted to historical circumstance.

We are provided with "the sword" of our supposed common knowledge of human nature to explore and answer the various strands of socialist thought and action. Hell, we can ask simple questions and come up with a monosyllabic answer.

However,

1. Do we really know that much about "human nature" and especially about how human nature reacts during specific historical events of which we most of us do not have experience?

2. Is human nature always the same throughout history? How much do material circumstances of any given historical period "colour" our perception of human nature? Or is our view of human nature dictated by our material circumstances, including the political and social spheres which often cloud our view given an ongoing process of unique historical circumstances?

3. Can an approach which relies solely upon insights of human nature explain complex phenomena just because humans where involved in the phenomena? Does the conjecture of human nature provide a omniscient viewpoint?

I would suggest that socialism, like capitalism, isn't quite so easy to pigeon hole via an all encompassing theory of human nature.

I really don't have any quibbles with the article itself or of the conclusions drawn by the author. As I am not a communist , I really don't have fish to fry. Since I am nothing more more than a student of politics, I can both appreciate and critique Marx in equal measure.

I don't see socialism as an alternative to capitalism but as a manner in which I wish to strive for in my life. It's just that capitalism, especially as it is currently practised, has been planned and is being planned in such a manner that seems to ensure that the individuals and groups of individuals are being limited in the scope of their responses to life's circumstances.

Just because capitalism doesn't mostly involve central planning, as in the Soviet Unions, doesn't mean the economy/society isn't being planned with consequences that have impacts centrally upon all our lives.

And I suspect the plans aren't being planned in my interests or in the interests of most of humanity, and certainly not in the interest of many creatures and flora of which we share this plant.

Unlike Marx, I can't buy the dialectic of historical determinism, nor am I willing to be curtailed by an other imperative determinisms – such as human nature must follow upon predetermined train tracks leading in one inexorable direction.

And as always with NC, thanks for bringing these subjects into a public domain. Upon such stuff might common grounds be found.

PKMKII , , July 21, 2017 at 11:03 am

There's also the issue of whether or not "Human Nature" should be considered a singular or a plural. It's neat and convenient to think of humans as all sharing one set of underlying "code," with the differences merely being ornamentation thrown on by circumstance, but there's been a change of thinking in psychology that we really have multiple natures within the species (e.g., we are not a monolithically monogamous nor a polygamous species, but rather contain both monogamous and polygamous individual). So some people's nature is in line with capitalism, others within socialism, others with fascism, etc. Which would explain why some Russians adapted easily to neoliberal capitalism and others descended into alcoholism.

Left in Wisconsin , , July 21, 2017 at 1:31 pm

Probably even multiple natures within the individual. Plus nurture(s).

makedoanmend , , July 21, 2017 at 2:17 pm

Thanks.

I hadn't even considered this idea at all. And as a general explanation of the nature of "human nature", it's well worth exploring. Might explain much about our species.

Ta again

Alejandro , , July 21, 2017 at 5:34 pm

I may be mis-reading but this seems like pseudo-science with a taxonomy obsession with slovenly implied spillovers into id-politics as pigeonhole fetish no need to engage, just label and tuck away. " [N]eat and convenient" for the pigeonholer, but much less so for the pigeonho[led], who consequently AND inconsequentially can be easily ignored, and eventually extinguished with alcohol {either-or} opioids.

Tony Wikrent , , July 21, 2017 at 10:47 am

Michael Hudson has pointed ou t that Marxism and the classical economics of Smith/Malthus/Ricardo are but two of three schools of political economy which developed in the 18th through 19th centuries. There was a third school which congealed as first USA Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton explicitly rejected Smith and went about the task of building a new republic. It became called the American System or American School after a speech by Henry Clay in February 1832 .

Leave ideology aside and ask a plainly pragmatic and utilitarian question: which of the three schools of political economy–British, Marxist, or American–was most successful in creating a functioning national economy with a large degree of general prosperity and political freedom?

The clear answer is the American School. The major proponents of the American School were Henry C. Carey (who advised Abraham Lincoln, so get transcontinental railroads and telegraph and the USDA at the same time the Union is fighting the Confederacy), Friedrich List (who leads the unification of Germany), and E. Peshine Smith (whose ideas guide the industrialization of Japan). Why do we never hear of these economists and their American School of political economy?

In December 1993, James Fallows rattled the economics profession with an article in The Atlantic, How the World Works :

The more I had heard about List in the preceding five years, from economists in Seoul and Osaka and Tokyo, the more I had wondered why I had virtually never heard of him while studying economics in England and the United States.

Fallows goes on to describe the historical importance, not of British opium-trade apologist Adam Smith, but of the American School, in guiding the early industrial development of Tokugawa Japan, late imperial China, czarist Russia, Germany, South Korea, and other countries.

In a nutshell, the American School is the only body of economic thought which has actually resulted in national industrial development along with a large degree of general prosperity and political freedom. A partial exception is Marx, but, as Lawrence Goodwyn, the late historian of the American agrarian revolt and populist movement of the late 1800s, pointed out, no system of Marxism has been implemented without the coercive power of a red army behind it.

Here is a quote from the Dominican priest who served as chaplain to the French Resistance during World War Two:

What Carey could not forgive in the English school of political economy, which after all must historically be called the capitalist school, and what he particularly could not forgive in Ricardo and Malthus, whom Marx so profoundly respected, was that they assigned to civilization the role of pursuing not happiness but wealth and power; that they debased man by directing him toward an aim that was beneath him, since power and physical satisfaction are also the aim of the beast; that they forgot to take man and man's nature into consideration when they established their so-called laws which reduced him to the level of the beast.

The link above includes two excerpts from Carey himself that I think very concisely condemns the market fundamentalism of modern economic neoliberalism and conservatism:

Such is the course of modern political economy, which not only does not "feel the breath of the spirit" but even ignores the existence of the spirit itself, and is therefore found defining what it is pleased to call the natural rate of wages, as being "that price which is necessary to enable the laborers, one with another, to subsist and perpetuate their race without either increase or diminution" (Ricardo)!that is to say, such price as will enable some to grow rich and increase their race, while others perish of hunger, thirst, and exposure. Such are the teachings of a system that has fairly earned the title of the "dismal science."

And,

Such being the tendency of all its teachings, it is no matter of surprise that modern English political economy sees in man only an animal that will procreate, that must be fed, and that can be made to work [Carey's emphasis]!an instrument to be used by trade; that it repudiates all the distinctive qualities of man, and limits itself to the consideration of those he holds in common with the beast of burden or of prey; that it denies that the Creator meant that every man should find a place at His table, or that there exists any reason why a poor laborer, able and willing to work, should have any more right to be fed than the cotton-spinner has to find a market for his cloth; or that it assures its students that "labor is a commodity."

Why do we never hear of Carey and the American School? Why does it appear the only left alternative to laissez faire capitalism is Marx? The answer is: Carey and the American School have been written out of economic history, Here are the results of of some time spent in the stacks of the library at the University of North Carolina looking through the indexes of introductory economics textbooks. These are the number of pages on which there citations (for example, a citation in the index of pp. 145-147, is counted as three pages, not one) of Henry Carey, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Thorstein Veblen (American School); Milton Friedman, David Ricardo, Adam Smith (British school), and Karl Marx.

Joan Robinson and John Eatwell, An Introduction to Modern Economics (McGraw Hill, 1973)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 3
List 1
Friedman 1
Ricardo 18
Smith 20
Marx 28

Lloyd C. Atkinson, Economics: The Science of Choice (Richard D. Irwin, 1982)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 4
Ricardo 0
Smith 3
Marx 0

Allen W. Smith, Understanding Economics (Random House, 1986)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 1
Ricardo 0
Smith 4
Marx 3

Roger N. Waud, Economics, 3rd Edition (Harper and Row, 1986)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 9
Ricardo 6
Smith 5
Marx 7

Bradley R. Schiller, The Economy Today, 4th Edition (Random House, 1989)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 6
Ricardo 3
Smith 3
Marx 6

William J. Baumol and Alan S. Blinder, Economics: Principles and Policy, 5th Edition (Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, 1991)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 5
Ricardo 5
Smith 13
Marx 7

Paul A. Samuelson and William D. Nordhaus, Economics (McGraw Hill, 1995)
Carey 0
Hamilton 4
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 5
Ricardo 2
Smith 8
Marx 2 (plus 2 on "Marxism")

Robert J. Barro, Macroeconomics (MIT Press, 1997)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
List 0
Veblen 0
Friedman 9
Ricardo 0
Smith 0
Marx 0

Julian L. Simon, Economics Against the Grain, Volume 2 (Edward Elgar, 1998)
Carey 0
Hamilton 1
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 5
Ricardo 3
Smith 11
Marx 1

Frank Stilwell, Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas (Oxford University Press, 2006)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 11
List 1
Friedman 9
Ricardo 12
Smith 16
Marx 19

N. Gregory Mankiw, Principles of Economics, Instructor's Edition, Sixth Edition (Southwestern, 2012)
Carey 0
Hamilton 0
Veblen 0
List 0
Friedman 9
Ricardo 1
Smith 9
Marx 0

PKMKII , , July 21, 2017 at 11:13 am

In a nutshell, the American School is the only body of economic thought which has actually resulted in national industrial development along with a large degree of general prosperity and political freedom.

If we're talking about the economics of America as set up in the late 18th and 19th centuries, wouldn't we be talking about economics that include and assume the existence of slavery, and later Jim Crow laws? That doesn't strike me as being politically free.

Tony Wikrent , , July 21, 2017 at 7:45 pm

You raise a very important question; important, because it forces us to deal with the fact that human history is quite messy. When a nation of 50 million people acts, does it act in accord with the wishes and intent of all 50 people? Of course not. Look at the American Civil War, and the men who fought on the Union side. Where they all of like mind in willing to risk their limbs and lives in way because they all shared a desire and intent to destroy slavery? No. Most actually fought to preserve the Union, though there were many who fought motivated by abolitionism. Many more served because of social pressure in their towns or locales, or simply because the accompanied family members or neighborhood fronts into the army.

It is easy to be confused by American history, because at the same time that the American System was being built and practiced, the British system was competing with it for control of the domestic economy and polity. To the extent that people today mistakenly believe that the American economy was founded on the ideas of Adam Smith (it most emphatically was not: Hamilton explicitly rejected the ideas of Smith ) the British system is winning. Michael Hudson has written at least two excellent overviews of this fight within the USA between the American and British systems:

Hudson, America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914: The Neglected American School of Political Economy , ISLET, 2010, which I quote extensively in HAWB 1791 – Alexander Hamilton rejected Adam Smith. Also by Hudson: Simon Patten on Public Infrastructure and Economic Rent Capture . Another very useful book which examines the contest between the American and British schools is James L. Huston, Securing the Fruits of Labor: The American Concept of Wealth Distribution, 1765-1900 , Louisiana State University Press, 1998.

A similar contest rages in USA today (and around most of the world, for that matter). There are proponents of conservatism, mostly classical British laissez faire economics. There are proponents of libertarianism, the even more extreme Austrian school of economics (and there is a recent book out, which I have not acquired yet, Nancy MacLean's new book, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America , on James Buchanan and "public choice theory). There are proponents of neoliberalism (it is interesting to peruse this, Everyone Hates Neoliberals, So We Talked to Some , and note the astonishing lack of historical knowledge, and the complete absence of any notion of republicanism or Enlightenment political ideals). There are proponents of Marxism. Most readers of NC will probably agree that conservatism and neoliberalism are practically indistinguishable in the realm of economic policies, and have been the dominant school in our lifetimes. Conservatives and libertarians argue vehemently that the dominant school has been liberalism and Keynesianism, which they disparage as "statism." There are proponents of other economic schools as well, probably some I do not know, and perhaps even some that don't even have names yet. Out of this stew of contending interests and beliefs, how do you pick out one coherent set of ideas and attribute to it the policy direction of USA for the past half century?

In answer to your question: The simplified version of USA economic history at the period you point to is that the British system was dominant in the slave South, and fought for free trade in opposition to the American System's protective tariffs, which dominated the North.

Katsue , , July 21, 2017 at 12:39 pm

If William Hogeland's analysis in The Whiskey Rebellion is correct, one of Alexander Hamilton's major policy innovations was a deliberate exercise in rigging the economy in favour of the 1% of his day.

In his reading, Hamilton pushed for the Federal Government to assume the debts of the States in order to guarantee that bondholding speculators got paid, and to allow for the creation of a Federal tax system. The tax in question, the whiskey excise, was deliberately set up in order to drive small producers out of business and to bring the whiskey market under the control of large producers in the cities. The whole thing was a massive transfer of wealth from western farmers to Wall Street.

Tony Wikrent , , July 21, 2017 at 6:28 pm

I disagree with Hogeland completely and vehemently. He appears to have made no attempt whatsoever to understand republicanism and its place in the Enlightenment, and his understanding of political economy and matters of national and international finance are laughably facile.

Hogeland also completely ignores the crucial contribution Hamilton made in developing the constitutional theory of implied powers. As Supreme Court Justices John Marshall and Joseph Story noted, the opposing theory of enumerated powers -- which conservatives and libertarians are promoting today -- would cripple the national government.

What Hamilton actually accomplished financially, was to free the infant United States from a complete dependence on borrowing from European oligarchs, by creating a domestic system open to the much smaller fortunes of American bankers and merchants. It boggles my mind that anyone can not see or ignores this obvious historical fact.

I cannot account for the malice Hogeland and others on the left, such as Matt Stoller, bear toward Hamilton; though it is obvious to me why certain concentrations of economic wealth revile Hamilton: they have become increasingly powerful as the USA abandoned Hamiltonian political economy (such as a protective tariff) and deindustrialized and financialized. Destroy Hamitonian political economy, and the USA is destroyed from within by increasingly concentrated economic power. The left is shooting itself in the head by failing to understand Hamilton.

Tony Wikrent , , July 21, 2017 at 6:48 pm

In regards to the Whiskey Tax: I think it cannot be truly understood without the historical context of the idea of that time of a sumptuary tax. Classical republican ideology has always held that luxury was the vanguard of rot and corruption in a state. In fact, during the Constitutional Convention, it was argued that one reason a new, stronger national government was needed was so that sumptuary taxes could be imposed over the opposition of individual states.

The general view, discernible in contemporaneous literature, was that the responsibility of government should involve enough surveillance over the enterprise system to ensure the social usefulness of all economic activity. It is quite proper, said Bordley, for individuals to "choose for themselves" how they will apply their labor and their intelligence in production. But it does not follow from this that "legislators and men of influence" are freed from all responsibility for giving direction to the course of national economic development. They must, for instance, discountenance the production of unnecessary commodities of luxury when common sense indicates the need for food and other essentials. Lawmakers can fulfill their functions properly only when they "become benefactors to the publick"; in new countries they must safeguard agriculture and commerce, encourage immigration, and promote manufactures. Admittedly, liberty "is one of the most important blessings which men possess," but the idea that liberty is synonymous with complete freedom from restraint "is a most unwise, mistaken apprehension." True liberty demands a system of legislation that will lead all members of society "to unite their exertions" for the public welfare. It should therefore be the policy of government to aid and foster certain activities or kinds of business that strengthen a nation, even as it should be the duty of government to repress "those fashions, habits, and practices, which tend to weaken, impoverish, and corrupt the people." –Johnson, E.A.J., The Foundations of American Economic Freedom: Government and Enterprise in the Age of Washington (University of Minnesota Press, 1973), J194-195

Oregoncharles , , July 21, 2017 at 2:59 pm

Aside from Hamilton, Veblen is the only member of the American School I've heard of – and I took economics in college and have followed it ever since. Amazing.

edr , , July 21, 2017 at 3:21 pm

HI Tony, Thank you so much for this link, excellent !!! :

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/ :

"[Friedrich] List argued, a society's well-being and its overall wealth are determined not by what the society can buy but by what it can make."

"In strategic terms nations ended up being dependent or independent according to their ability to make things for themselves. Why were Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians subservient to England and France in the nineteenth century? Because they could not make the machines and weapons Europeans could."

In the 1500s Spain became the richest nation in Europe because it had accumulated the gold wealth of the America's. By the next century it had become among the poorest nations of Europe. Spain had so much gold it could afford to simply buy anything it wanted, until the gold ran out, while the Germans developed craft industries to supply Spain with products and became wealthy and powerful .. the Arab nations are in this situation today, so resource rich that they haven't focused on developing industry, so that when oil runs they'll be impoverished.

edr , , July 21, 2017 at 3:34 pm

Correction:

so rich that there aren't any INCENTIVES to invest time and effort in creating the necessary industries.

Sue , , July 21, 2017 at 4:08 pm

Your data does not mean a thing. Data, to be meaningful as to the reality one is trying to show, must be preceded by a true knowledgable understanding of such reality. I conducted with two other colleagues a study about 15 years ago. This study was never published as we ran out of funds and we could not complete it. Nevertheless, the evidence from most colleges was overwhelming. Marx was not read. Marx was not fairly taught. This is the way it works, in case you are not aware. That a textbook includes chapters on Marxism and socialism does not imply that they are given attention too. In a large percentage of cases, if they are included in the syllabus by the teacher or department-I am saying teacher because in some colleges the professor ends up in practice applying his own particular syllabus-they are relegated to the end of the semester, with the tacit rule, "we will get too it, if we have time". It goes without saying that very rarely "we end up having time for it". Also, our team collected recordings from actual college economics and sociology classes. I vividly remember a professor who used for his Sociology 101 class James Henslin's textbook. Henslin suggested the students to learn three sociological views, functionalism, (interaction) symbolism and marxism. The first day of class the professor put it very clearly in his own words how Marx's dismissal was in order: "We are not going to use the Marxist approach. Marx was a workers' liberator who had never worked in a plant". It was not uncommon, in practice, to obliterate Marx, despite textbooks, syllabus or otherwise. Direct readings for the economics 100s and 200s classes systematically excluded Marx works, with Smith's The Wealth of Nations as #1 reading.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 4:35 pm

Your reply involves some interesting information, but it is unnecessarily vehement and it in fact misreads pretty seriously what Tony Wikrent said.

Wikrent claims that the American School of economics is not taught in universities, and so that if you are looking for an alternative to laissez-faire, you tend to assume the only one is Marxism. All of his data is aimed, not at showing that Marxism is taught, but that Carey and the American School are not.

From my experience as well, economics professors don't teach Marx. But that doesn't invalidate Wikrent's point. Even if students never hear about Marx from their economics professor, they will still have heard of Marx as a radical economist because his existence as such is generally known in mainstream culture. Whereas, Wikrent is saying, they will not have heard of Carey and the American School in other venues, so if they don't hear about them in economics departments, it will be like they never existed.

Sue , , July 21, 2017 at 5:11 pm

True. But I could mention several important political economy schools which are ignore across the board. This is what happens when orthodoxy pervades institutions. Now, specific to the comment, when one lays data out and makes it a reflection of practice, the least one and others can do is to point out that it is only a valid partial representation of that practice (here just valid for Wikrent's particular aims) and that the full data does not reflect the entire practice -and indeed provides an illusion of it.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 5:17 pm

Yes, but please try to apply more interpretive charity. You could have made the same point by just saying, "One thing I'd like to add," and it wouldn't have come off as a personal attack.

Sue , , July 21, 2017 at 5:44 pm

I agree. Fair enough. Thanks for the article and discussion

justanotherprogressive , , July 21, 2017 at 10:49 am

Are we again looking for "the theory of everything"? You know, that one "ism" or theory or form of government that will explain everything and make everything right?

Bad news. It doesn't exist.

No "ism" or form of government will solve and explain everything. No "ism" or form of government is completely wrong and no "ism" or form of government is completely right and never has been.

I'm a student of history and I love reading how ideas got started and how civilizations fail – and I've found the two are very related .

For those who wish to call the collapse of Russia a failure of communism, I ask when was the theory of communism practiced in Russia? Certainly what Lenin and Stalin created had nothing in common with the "commune" systems (from whence Communism gets its name) the peasants put in place to protect themselves.

And Capitalism? Even Adam Smith (of whom I am no great fan) understood that Capitalism (he didn't call it that but he did lay the basis for that system) understood that all members of the system had to have the same knowledge and act morally to be able to work best in their self interest. Does what Adam Smith proposed even resemble the Capitalism we have today?

I'll ignore Marx since it is such a touchy subject today, but I will ask: When were the theories of Marx ever really put into practice within the boundaries Marx set up? Do Marxists actually understand what those boundaries are?

And Democracy? Shall we again excoriate Athens for their failures in attempting to practice the theory?

Even something as reviled as feudalism had its roots in something good. Certainly, at the time, the peasants preferred it to being the victims of the Vikings and every other attacker that came along. But those who gained power from it couldn't give it up, even when it was no longer useful for protection .

The problem isn't the "isms" or even the forms of government- each "ism" and type of government has its value in a particular setting – but that does not mean it applies to every setting. "Isms" , like all theories, have boundaries within which they work – and "isms", like theories, will fail when applied to areas outside those specific boundaries. For a quick example, Democracy works when you have an educated and involved populace who understands that in order for their form of government to survive, power must never be completely centralized – it fails when the people do not understand or recognize that boundary.

It would be much better for us all if humans if they had the ability to recognize the boundaries of their "ism" and the ability to switch to a different theory when the times demanded – but they don't. Sadly I see throughout history that there have always be those people who rise to power during an "ism" and can't let go of it, even when it doesn't work (when the "ism" or theory is used outside its specific boundaries), because of their fear of losing control. And then the societal destruction begins but that isn't the fault of the "ism" – or the form of government

Perhaps instead of just deriding those theories that aren't currently popular, we really should be asking ourselves: What are the boundaries of each "ism" and when will that "ism" work and when will it not, and how do we learn to switch between them as necessity dictates?

justanotherprogressive , , July 21, 2017 at 11:19 am

Err .my last sentence should have read: "What are the boundaries of each "ism" and when will that "ism" work and when will it not, and how do we learn to switch peacefully between them as necessity dictates?"

hemeantwell , , July 21, 2017 at 10:58 am

While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation . We're talking about questions of constrained path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist mode of thinking misses. Etc, etc.

Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism. What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.

While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously destructive opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a "Soviet Experiment" mentality. It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 1:06 pm

I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not opposed to looking at the impact of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.

Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment. When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out external pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly constrained. When discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices of the leadership elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."

I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.

I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining better society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within the constraints of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both are worth pondering.

schultzzz , , July 21, 2017 at 12:46 pm

Although I only understood 33% of this, I'm thankful for how the author points out the common forms of cherry-picking BS that both sides use when talking about communism.

If your only knowledge of communism came from the online left, you'd believe that it's never once been tried before!

They talk about it like some religious Rapture that will someday come and fix all the problems, not like a system that already has a proven track record. And it drives me nuts.

I mean, be a commie if you want to, but at least don't be a weasel about it.

Either say, "All those countries were awful dictatorships and that wasn't real communism anyway," (in which case it's on you to explain why YOUR post-revolutionary society will turn out different!) or say, "Those countries were pretty rad actually, and I own the actions of the leaders," and take the pushback that will result from THAT.

But whatever you do, please, don't just duck the issue by saying, "Well capitalism is bad too, so whatever LOL"

p.s. thanks for explaining the Motte and Bailey argument – wish I'd known about it in college!

Roland , , July 21, 2017 at 1:35 pm

I enjoyed this post, Outis, even though I'm going to be a bit critical of it. I am pleased to just to be able to talk about this stuff from time to time.

In Asimov's original Foundation stories, Hari Seldon devised an actual plan for the future history of an empire.

But historical dialectical materialism is not a plan. It is a theory which one may use to develop hypotheses.

Does Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection determine which species happen to survive? Would evolution by natural selection fail to happen, if nobody ever wrote about it?

So why would Marx's theory of class struggle alter the course of history?

If one reads the Communist Manifesto , one finds that the work is almost entirely devoted to the bourgeoisie and to the history of capitalism.

The bourgeoisie, after centuries of struggle against the nobility, the clergy, and the petty bourgeoisie, at length became the dominant class in society. Obviously the bourgeoisie didn't need Marx to help them do that!

Marx hypothesizes that for as long as the bourgeois class is what it is, and does what it does, a class struggle will result in which proletarians will assume power.

Marx points out that the vast majority of the job of obliterating private property is actually being performed by the bourgeois class themselves. Marx points out that most of the job of reducing differences between nations is actually done by the bourgoisie. Marx points that it's the bourgeoisie who dissolve traditional family institutions.

But that's observation and extrapolation, not a plan. For a revolutionary programme of the proletariat, Marx only offers a short list of points to consider.

Little of the Manifesto is devoted to the subject of the proletariat. That's not surprising, since proletarian history had scarcely begun.

For the sake of argument, ask yourself how much could one write about bourgeois history, or bourgeois political prospects, in the 12th century? At that time the Occidental bourgeoisie was in its political infancy. Few would imagine that these harried, oppressed, vulgar little burghers would eventually become the dominant class in society. I mean, the whole notion would seem "not even wrong."

It was difficult for Marx, and it is still difficult for us, to contemplate what a society would look like, or what life would feel like, if the proletariat were the politically and culturally dominant class. One only gets tantalizing glimpses, half-fanciful, such as Orwell's first impression of Barcelona.

To extend my 12th century bourgeois analogy, it would be like trying to envision Planet Bourgeois, based on a day trip to 12th century Venice.

Marx does offer brief critiques of those socialist programmes which do not focus on the proletarian class.

For our present purposes, the most interesting of them is Marx's anticipation of the welfare state, which he refers to as "bourgeois socialism."

For decades after WWII, many in the developed nations thought that the welfare states had solved the worst problems of capitalism. I used to be one of them. But it took Marx just a single page of the Communist Manifesto to raise, evaluate, and dismiss the idea.

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 2:14 pm

"But historical dialectical materialism is not a plan. It is a theory which one may use to develop hypotheses. Does Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection determine which species happen to survive? Would evolution by natural selection fail to happen, if nobody ever wrote about it?"

Well said! This is very close to the sort of defense that most MMT theorists deploy– when critics decry the possible negative consequences of "adopting" their theory. "We are not proposing, merely describing" is the refrain. I myself have never been a Marxist, yet I find the historical analysis of some Marxist scholars quite perceptive. In my former life as a medievalist I often relied heavily on excellent work, authored by conservative Catholics, without ever feeling the urge to become one myself!

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 2:27 pm

Thanks, Roland. Actually, I think your summary is pretty good, and it provides an opportunity to clarify some things.

The Hari Seldon analogy is based on an idea of Marx that was often found in communist political cultures. It's true that they didn't imagine that Marx had seen the precise path of the future with the kind of mathematical precision that Seldon was supposed to have done.

However, I think the analogy still captures some noteworthy elements of how Marx was perceived. If a key feature of Marxism is the idea that people do not understand the history they are building, then Marx's role is to bring understanding into a world where it had been lacking. Whereas the same scientific principles regulating the class struggle are supposed to have operated both before and after Marx, before humanity was in the dark, but now it can choose to see. Similarly, Seldon's psychohistory is supposed to have operated as a sort of natural principle both before and after his lifetime, but once Seldon has revealed it, it becomes possible for an appropriate elite not only to understand what is happening (the First Foundation, to some extent) but also to midwife the process of bringing a new society into existence (the Second Foundation).

All of this touches on a point I made in the article. Once you describe the role of Marx as it was often imagined within historical communist culture, it doesn't sound very Marxist. Nevertheless, people did often imagine him that way. Systems of beliefs as actually held by people can often be more complex and contradictory than their theoreticians would claim.

Kenneth Heathly Simpson , , July 21, 2017 at 1:45 pm

Greetings All and thank you,

It was a long read to get to this point in the discussion. I would like to point out that all economies are planned. The question is: what class is doing the planning? If the workers are not doing the planning, then the first step toward socialism, a workers' state, does not exist or it is degenerating rapidly. A workers' state must by it very nature be democratic when it is in formation. If history kills the worker's state, then some other class based on private property, share holding capitalism or a singular private property based on the state itself replaces the workers' rule. You cannot get to socialism with our first having a workers state and you cannot get to communism without first attaining socialism. This is basic Marxism. If you do not understand this you will end up talking endlessly but get no where with in a truly Marxist frame work.

hush/hush , , July 21, 2017 at 2:18 pm

A little outside the box but I would recommend: The English and their History, by Robert Tombs. Why? Because in Marx's own time England was the most industrialized and trade unionized country in the world and Marx spent a lot of time there proselytizing to limited effect. Tombs makes a wide ranging and sensitive study of Marx's intersection with British liberalism. It's a fascinating read!

etnograf , , July 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm

Outis, thanks for raising all of these issues for public discussion. There is no question that a solid historical consideration of the communist experience in the 20th century is critical to how we think about Marxism and many other leftist ideas and it a decidedly fraught terrain where greater nuance is desperately needed.

I am surprised that you don't mention more recent historical scholarship on the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries, however. In your brief note on what you are currently reading it seems that nearly all of the works are more than a half-century old. While such dustier tomes are often invaluable, none of them benefited from the archival access, oral histories, and other sources that have become much more widely available in the last 25 years. There was certainly a lot of dogmatic work that came out in the years after communism fell–something like Fukuyama's The End of History comes to mind as a quintessential example of that–but there were also many serious scholars who did not necessarily have a strong ax to grind for or against communism, historical or otherwise.

For example, I find the historian Stephen Kotkin's work to be quite nuanced without taking a strong ideological stance. Originally a scholar of Stalinism who wrote on the construction of a major steel plant in the Urals (Magnetic Mountain, 1995), he went on to also write books on the collapse of the Soviet Union (Armageddon Averted) and the Eastern European bloc (Uncivil Society). He has a new biography of Stalin coming out in phases, though I haven't read it yet. All of these works emphasize what was in fact the close integration in many ways of the capitalist and communist worlds. In the 1930s it was the crisis of capitalism that largely helped to preserve the appeal of communism even as it was largely American firms that were being contracted to build socialist factories and import equipment. In the later postwar years the price of oil was critical to understanding some of the early successes and later extreme difficulties of the Soviet and Eastern bloc economy. The collapse of the Eastern bloc had much to do with the comparison that socialism itself encouraged people to make with capitalism by an increasing focus on consumer goods that the communist system was woefully unable to produce.

All of this is by way of saying that the good historical work out there does not try to see the communism of the 20th century as some kind of pure or corrupted manifestation of any ideological system but, like every other kind of political upheaval, a complicated venture that was inseparable from its many contexts–chief among them its place in a world global economic system and its self-definition vis-a-vis the actually existing capitalism of its time. Susan Buck-Morss makes some of these points in her book Dreamworld and Catastrophe on the similarities between the U.S. and USSR.

In any case, I hope my brief thoughts might help move the discussion of the minefield of historical communism more firmly onto the terrain of actual history.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 2:39 pm

Thanks, etnograf. Furet's book is from 1995, and the interview with Castoriadis is from that time, but as you say, some of the other books I'm interested in are from the 50s or earlier. I enjoy reading books written in the heat of events, and so from far in the past, since you often get plunged into a worldview that is curiously alien from the present. But often modern historical scholarship is incredibly helpful, and I greatly appreciate your suggestions.

However, one thing that I hope was clear from the post is that I think that while looking into some problems requires wide and careful reading, there are some fundamental questions that it isn't wrong for people to discuss even if they aren't experts on current scholarship.

kukuzel , , July 21, 2017 at 8:42 pm

I second the thanks to Outis and also want to thank you, etnograf, for such a well-put comment and the book reference.

Sue , , July 21, 2017 at 2:39 pm

It is evident this writer has not even been close to live and understand many failed European attempts by real grassroots leftists to significantly shape socioeconomic dynamics.

A excerpt: "Large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy were convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values (this implies nothing good about the historical left"

From the very 60s and 70s a good number of activists and intellectuals in several European countries did not call the USSR communist, socialist or Marxist. There was a very clear term for the USSR regime: Sovietism.

Also what most people do not realize is that Marx was extremely generous to capitalism from many important angles. If you want me to illustrate, let me know.

Also the author would need to clarify his reference to Latin America, just in case he has forgot what took place there in the 70s and 80s.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 2:55 pm

When I mentioned Latin America, I was referring specifically to the coup against Arbenz in Guatemala (1973) and the coup against Allende in Chile (1973). I brought them up as genuine cases where attempts to carry out left-oriented reforms were thwarted by external pressures and interventions.

The fact that Marx had good things to say about capitalism and saw a key role for it in the way history moves forward is not disputed by anyone serious.

You do not understand the quote you are criticizing. If I say that large numbers of intellectuals in France and Italy saw the USSR as part of the Left, you don't achieve anything for your argument by claiming that there were "a good number" of "activists and intellectuals" who referred to the USSR's regime as "Sovietism." The two statements aren't inconsistent in any way.

Please try to read more carefully in the future.

Sue , , July 21, 2017 at 4:42 pm

"When I mentioned Latin America, I was referring specifically to the coup against Arbenz in Guatemala (1973) and the coup against Allende in Chile (1973). I brought them up as genuine cases where attempts to carry out left-oriented reforms were thwarted by external pressures and interventions"

Yes, Kissinger knows one thing or two about it. I think that makes your, "one thinks of Latin American countries that tried to institute various left-leaning social programs, and then, between economic pressure and the threat of military subversion, ended up being pushed into the arms of the USSR", much comprehensive. I appreciate it

Oregoncharles , , July 21, 2017 at 3:10 pm

"as well as much of the leadership of the 60s student movements, were convinced that the USSR was a genuine incarnation of Left values."

Why do you think it was called the "New Left"? I was there, and that's not what I remember. For one thing, most of us were very anti-authoritarian. Communism was seen archaic.

No, I wasn't a "student leader," nor was I close enough to any of the famous ones to know what they thought. But I was immersed in the zeitgeist, and that wasn't it. For one thing, the Hungarian and Tibetan uprisings were formative for a lot of us.

How old are you, Outis? Suddenly it matters.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 3:39 pm

Not old enough! But see my comments addressing this point elsewhere (do a search on this page on SDS). I can also provide more references if you're interested.

People have different experiences. I know some people who did live through that time and who were pretty radical then. According to them, as they gradually over time grudgingly accepted that the USSR/China/Cuba etc. were not everything they had imagined, their own politics became less and less radical, more "liberal" or even "neoliberal." This is a kind of trajectory that I think is not logically necessary, but important to understand.

Oregoncharles , , July 21, 2017 at 4:34 pm

I wasn't directly involved with SDS – just read about it.

I became a Green – arguably the tail of the New Left. I gather the German party has moved in a more neoliberal direction, but the US and British parties have moved the opposite way.

I attended a college whose unofficial motto was "Atheism, Communism, and Free Love." Epate les bourgeoisie, IOW. I don't remember much interest in actual communism, but I could be just projecting. Free love, now, that was another matter. But that was 50 years ago.

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 5:09 pm

So this is how one SDS leader at Stanford, Martin Bresnick, recalled his visit to Prague in 1970:

"Standing near the Charles Bridge we saw a worker whitewashing over a name that had been painted on the pedestrian side of the bridge. It was the name of Jan Palach, the young student who had burned himself to death the year before protesting the Soviet invasion. Whenever I passed by I saw that someone had again painted Palach's name on the bridge during the night and each day another worker was sent to whitewash over it.

In the evening we went to concerts at the Smetana Hall in the immense Municipal building. It is difficult to describe what music meant to the Czechs then. The audience listened to everything with the most focused attention imaginable and musicians played with a passion I had never experienced.

In Prague, in 1970, all music seemed to be a testament of freedom, filled with unspoken messages of defiance and resistance. When a work ended, the audience broke into wild applause, wept, cheered, then eagerly spoke to each other in Czech, guessing the Soviet soldiers scattered in the crowd could not understand them ."

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/prague-1970-music-in-spring/

Have to say it's hard to see much Soviet apologetics going on there!!

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 5:25 pm

Here is an excerpt from an email that a reader sent me, about an incident that happened two years before the one you describe (with the brackets to protect his privacy):

In the summer of 1968 the SDS national office in Chicago sponsored a trip to Cuba (Met in Houston Texas (Todd Gitlin was then the President of SDS) flew to Mexico City and then flew to Havana/ ended up returning via Russian Freighter to Saint Johns Canada and then drove across Canadian border back into U.S) [I and a friend] jointly decided to take advantage of this opportunity to see up-close the Cuban revolution and also meet fellow SDSers Two years earlier I had helped set-up an SDS chapter on my campus and had engaged in a series of demonstrations, and organizing activities both on and off campus, primarily around anti-war protests of one type of another. I would call my two previous years of organizing on my campus quite successful and I was personally excited about meeting other members of SDS chapters from across the country from different local campus or local community organizations, in order to swap organizing experiences and gain and exchange political insights. A significant number of SDS members who were on that trip to Cuba in the summer of 1968 had just been involved in the takeover of buildings at Columbia University (April of 1968).

That Columbia grouping would later make up a significant portion of the Weatherman faction that eventually took over and destroyed SDS.

A foreshadowing of that groupings increasingly rigid ideological politics took place during on our trip in Cuba. Shortly after arriving in Havana in mid-August of 1968 the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia and our SDS group got into a political debate about what our collective stance was toward the Russian invasion. About 6 of us condemned the invasion, while the vast majority of the approximately 45 SDSers (including most of the Columbia University faction supported the Russian invasion). The next morning when our entire group was supposed to leave Havana to begin our trip throughout Cuba–the six of us were told by a member of our SDS group that we were to stay in Havana because we were considered politically unreliable by the majority of our "comrades."

Our Cuban guides didn't appear to know what to do with us but after meeting with the Cubans and explaining our political infighting they allowed us to rejoin the trip. Needless to say most of the other SDS members were not happy to see us when we returned to the trip but there was nothing they could do about it. The supreme irony about that incident was that one of the most ideologically militant SDS members on that trip turned out to be an undercover FBI agent who later gave testimony to Congressional committee about what had taken place during that trip to Cuba.

Donald , , July 21, 2017 at 8:38 pm

I have zero first hand knowledge, but my impression is that the NewLeft romanticized Castro and Ho Chi Minh and possibly Mao, but saw the Soviet Union as a failure.

No links offhand– it's just the impression I long have had. There were exceptions– the historian who wrote some famous books o American slavery ( I am blanking on his name and his books) was an admirer of the Soviet Union. This is all very fuzzy, but I think it is correct and fits in with what others have said about New Left attitudes towards the Russian suppression of the Czech revolt.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 8:44 pm

Very funny example of synchronicity here – see my comment that posted one minute after yours.

There were also Italians who preferred China to the USSR, for example Lotta continua and Autonomia operaia.

Ulysses , , July 21, 2017 at 4:49 pm

"Why do you think it was called the "New Left"? I was there, and that's not what I remember."

Well said! This huge discrepancy between the broad generalization that "much of the leadership of the 60s student movements" were Soviet apologists, and the actual lived experience of those of us born before 1965 is jarring, to say the least.

I remember well the years 1968 to 1975. My parents were strong anti-war activists and academics, who hosted numerous student radicals at many social gatherings. I have no memory of any Soviet apologists, yet recall distinctly many condemnations of 1956, 1968, and both sides in the Cold War.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 8:39 pm

What are your recollections about attitudes toward Mao? As I recall from David Barber's book A Hard Rain Fell: SDS and Why It Failed , the Black Panthers were certainly Maoists and there were also others who preferred China to the USSR.

joe , , July 21, 2017 at 3:22 pm

i'm 48, and i grew up in rural east texas.

pre-internet, there was simply a great vacuum in marxist materials.(I looked). Late 80's one could find a lot of post-punk nihilism in the head shops and vintage record stores in houston, but nobody talked about marx or, really, even economics and politics.

Now, 35 years later, and out in the rural hill country of texas, I find that nobody wants to talk about such things .aside from those who replace discourse with simple declaratory sentences.

The Taboo larded onto all things marx is still in the process of falling away. Reckon this should be remembered and accounted for in all such discussions.

Gil , , July 21, 2017 at 3:34 pm

Marx and Engels were democrats first and then attached a theory of capitalism and socialism to their democratic beliefs. They were right that the new industrial proletariat would become the main social force in the fight for democratic rights against the autocratic and aristocratic regimes of Europe, but their theory of capitalism and socialism was mistaken.

Lenin was also a democrat for thirty years and fought for a democratic republic before the catastrophe of WWI and the Russian Revolution. Luxemburg's critique of Lenin's and Trotsky's authoritarianism identifies the tragic ideological turning point in the history of Marxism.

To find what is still useful in Marxism, go back to its democratic values, not its theory of history or theory of socialist revolution and economic planning. For Marx and Engels' role in the democratic struggle in Europe, August Nimtz's recent work is clear and straightforward. For Lenin's early democratic strategic thinking, Neil Harding's Lenin's Political Thought, Vol 1, is essential. Finally, Barrington Moore's The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy provides a better framework for understanding modern history than Marxism.

The central conflict in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries was not between capitalism and socialism but between democracy and an authoritarianism rooted in agricultural elites dependent on unfree labor. The Old Regime in Europe was finally destroyed by the Allied armies in WWII. However, the struggle for democracy is not over and Moore's title is not quite accurate.

Moore's title should have been The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Constitutional Liberalism because the United States is not a representative democracy based on one person one vote, the monstrosity of the Senate being the main expression of this undemocratic structure. The primary political goal in the United States is to establish democracy, and the history of Marxism is useful in understanding the ideological and strategic aspects of that goal because for over seventy years that was also the primary political goal of Marxism

Oregoncharles , , July 21, 2017 at 3:34 pm

I wish I had time to respond fully to this, because I think I helped trigger it in a prior discussion and because I have, let's say, extensive priors.

Let me briefly state what I failed to make clear before: I think that society evolves in much the same way that organisms do – that is, variation followed by "natural" selection. The big difference results from the mode of transmission: genetics, in the case of biology, which evolves fairly slowly; and culture, in the case of societies, which can evolve very quickly. Culture is learned, so acquired traits are retained, unlike genetics (biologists have now discovered epigenetics, a big exception to that rule), and furthermore are transmitted independent of reproduction.

Evolution, like life itself, is a feedback-controlled system that can appear to have a "mind of its own." It's in that sense that I think most social change is "unconscious," even though it depends on the conscious decisions of many participants. Note that markets, when they operate, have the same characteristic. And because it's a characteristic of life itself, they can't be eliminated, as the communist countries discovered.

On the other hand, I'm very materialist, in Marx's sense (if I understand it): livelihood and survival are the ultimate determinants of social evolution – within bounds set by the initial state (because that's how evolution works).

For me, all that goes back to a thesis I was working on in college. Unfortunately, I broke down and dropped out, not because of the thesis, so it wasn't finished, and I don't know what anthropologists presently think. Social evolution is the reason Dawkins invented the term "meme": the unit of cultural transmission.

That's what I meant when I wrote that Darwin – evolution – had superseded the dialectic.

I'll try to come back and respond to some of the economics questions (yeah, I know, everybody's holding their breath), but I right now I need to go to work.

lambert strether , , July 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm

TiSA sounds a lot like a planned economy to me.

A question of who's doing the planning, I suppose.

possum holler , , July 21, 2017 at 6:44 pm

Robert Asprey's War In the Shadows, the Guerilla in History, Vol II might be good survey reading for your project. He has a thesis of historical Leninism and Maosim as method applied in partisan struggles that might prove enlightning; especially on the Eastern Front of WWII and in Yugoslav history (Vol I is a long tactical and strategic evaluation of the conflict and police action in Vietnam that set the question Vol II tried to answer, and won't help you with your questions).

Carl Schmitt's Theory of the Partisan is a very accessible and serious theoretical look at internationalist communism, particularly during WWII. This work of Schmitt's later deeply influenced Laclau and Mouffe's work on building left populism in Latin America and Europe.

For a little lighter, but still useful, reading, Gary Brecher's The War Nerd collects his irreverent, proto-dirtbag left columns from the Russian alternative rag The Exile. Some of his work on Chechen history under Stalinism, Nepali Maoist guerillas, and Albanian bunkers might be instructive.

I'm left, but often the left has a poor understanding of itself. Asprey was a US career army officer who was deeply concerned about the Vietnam police action, Schmitt an influential Weimar and Nazi German conservative jurist and legal scholar, "Dolan" a satirist and former rhetoric professor expat from the US in '90s Russia.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , , July 21, 2017 at 6:55 pm

Thanks, these all sound worth checking out.

duck1 , , July 21, 2017 at 6:50 pm

Historical minefield, for sure. This is anecdotal about 60's 70's US new left, but I think generally accurate. One core group was the red diaper babies, children of CPUSA or sympathizers. Inheriting aspects of parents experience, frequently in the leadership of the left CIO unions. Ahead of everyone else in terms of understanding Marxism due to anti-communist era. Splits in this group vis a vis Kruschev outing Stalin.

SDS split along Progressive Labor and anti-imperialist lines. PL evolved out of Teamsters labor struggles in Minneapolis and had Trotskyist bent. The imperialism thesis derived from the Lenin work.

By the mid 70's you had a terrorist bent and what was generally conceived as a new party building movement (CP) that was Maoist oriented. The big dog in the Bay Area was the Revolutionary Union who established proletarian cred by getting the still widely available industrial jobs in the area. Then there were a bunch of sects with various core beliefs.

This is leaving aside the black struggles of the period. Naturally the polntless nature of the party building got to most people, though some still soldier on. Obviously no such group has anywhere near the influence that CPUSA had.

[Jul 23, 2017] The more I listen to Putin, the more I believe he has REAL character, something most of our politicians DO NOT have

Notable quotes:
"... Somewhat OT, but since many think Putin is part of Russia's Deep State, then perhaps we should look in on how he interacts with kids--yes, children. ..."
"... Putin casts a shadow over many men, often without really trying; rare, but not unique. Some are described as Teflon, implying they're slippery, nothing sticks, bullets glance-off. Contrastingly, Putin seems to absorb everything and feeds on it, making him stronger and resilient simultaneously, like the judo master he is. ..."
"... In one question the president vid, a student asked the reason Putin didn't use an umbrella in an outside ceremony, during a pouring down rain; he replied; "I'm not made of sugar, I won't melt." ..."
"... Re: Putin, I've seen plenty of Putin footage, and never once seen him dodge or deflect a question - it's obvious he has a firm mental grasp on almost all issues from technology, to war, to social issues, to the political mechanics of foreign states...just an incredibly broad spectrum of understanding, always displaying respect to history. What's not to admire?? The guy is more statesman than politician, hence his domestic popularity. ..."
Jul 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Jul 21, 2017 7:40:44 PM | 26

Somewhat OT, but since many think Putin is part of Russia's Deep State, then perhaps we should look in on how he interacts with kids--yes, children. Along with his annual Direct Line Q&A where he takes questions from all over Russia and from around the world, he also has an annual meet with children at one of the many special centers Russia has dedicated to them in education, sport, music, and art, where he takes their questions, and we often learn new things about the rather remarkable Russian President. This year, he's at the Sirius Educational Centre for Talented Children in Sochi. It's quite an interesting conversation and provides some comic relief. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/55114

ben | Jul 21, 2017 8:49:59 PM | 31

karlof1 @ 26: Thanks for the link. Can you picture Trump fielding questions like Putin does on a regular basis? I can't.

The more I listen to Putin, the more I believe he has REAL character, something most of our politicians DON'T have...

karlof1 | Jul 22, 2017 1:01:01 AM | 34

ben @31--

Putin casts a shadow over many men, often without really trying; rare, but not unique. Some are described as Teflon, implying they're slippery, nothing sticks, bullets glance-off. Contrastingly, Putin seems to absorb everything and feeds on it, making him stronger and resilient simultaneously, like the judo master he is.

It's easy to understand why Russians have the high degree of confidence they share in Putin, something I think even the opposition would concede.

Peter AU | Jul 22, 2017 1:54:13 AM | 36

karlof1, Ben

A short video of Putin I run onto when researching him and current Russia some time ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_ordGkDQos
Touches the kid on the shoulder, more like a father than an elite, and stands beside him for the national anthem. Perhaps I read it the wrong way, but gives some insight into Putin.

Mattose | Jul 22, 2017 4:32:17 AM | 38
I urge you all to follow this man at youtube. He and the viewers together show daily what a rotten gang of sociopates a re worldwide at work.

https://www.youtube.com/user/georgwebb/videos

V. Arnold | Jul 22, 2017 5:07:37 AM | 40
karlof1 | Jul 22, 2017 1:01:01 AM | 34

Couldn't agree more; Putin's a man of genuine character.
Oh, so lacking in the west.
The Usian's have been relegated to prisoner's of war.

V. Arnold | Jul 22, 2017 5:23:22 AM | 41

Peter AU | Jul 22, 2017 1:54:13 AM | 36

In one question the president vid, a student asked the reason Putin didn't use an umbrella in an outside ceremony, during a pouring down rain; he replied; "I'm not made of sugar, I won't melt."
Here; http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/07/putin-im-not-made-of-sugar-video.html

MadMax2 | Jul 22, 2017 6:54:34 AM | 46

@34, 36, 40
Re: Putin, I've seen plenty of Putin footage, and never once seen him dodge or deflect a question - it's obvious he has a firm mental grasp on almost all issues from technology, to war, to social issues, to the political mechanics of foreign states...just an incredibly broad spectrum of understanding, always displaying respect to history. What's not to admire?? The guy is more statesman than politician, hence his domestic popularity.

All that is out there, known to the west...ready to be discovered by all who are curious enough. Alas, the acute attention deficit issues of the common westerner coupled with the dumbing down of successive generations and the destruction of critical thought make Putin somehow easy propaganda fodder.

I have to come to MofA for a does of sanity, because to converse with my fellow westerners on a like subject in my surrounding environment is... fucking retarded.

V. Arnold | Jul 22, 2017 7:34:38 AM | 47
MadMax2 | Jul 22, 2017 6:54:34 AM | 46
I have to come to MofA for a does of sanity, because to converse with my fellow westerners on a like subject in my surrounding environment is... fucking retarded.

Mercy me, ain't it so?
Even over at Ian's (Welsh), he has to start every post about Russia's Putin with how evil he is; I've called him out on that crap; to no avail.
But, I do think the world is waking up to the vile Usaian policies across the planet. One can only hope, yes?
Just to be clear; I have no illusions regarding Pres. Putin; however; his reality based leadership is a wake up call to the planet.
It's also infinitely clear, Russia is NOT the aggresor in our present reality; but rather it's the U.S.A.!
Putin's cool hand Luke, is probably the only reason the nukes are not flying...
Yet...

[Jul 23, 2017] MoA - Murder, Spies And Weapons - Three Fascinating 'Deep State' Stories

Notable quotes:
"... Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier. ..."
"... Document hack could imperil subs in Oz, India, other countries ..."
"... The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring the words of Reagan) ..."
"... the first part of your post reaffirms my comment in the previous thread about the usa, saudi arabia/gccs and israel being the terrorists that the world would be a lot better place without... " ..."
"... in an exceptional country, there is no accountability... according to obama, you have to move on and not dwell on the past, lol... ..."
"... the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy, is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses we're all just treading water here. ..."
"... The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war crimes. ..."
"... "The team has carried out painstaking research cataloging serial numbers and tracing the routes. They found crates of ammunition and rockets manufactured in factories in eastern Europe. These were bought by the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia." ..."
"... A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel... ..."
"... I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said (of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured." ..."
"... This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over. Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution. ..."
"... Criminal activity under diplomatic cover should be prosecuted. They can pretend they didn't find out until it was too late. Or they can claim that they were letting it happen in order to track the players. Those excuses have been used for all kinds of cover for nefarious activites like Pakistan's AQ Khan NukeMart to distribute nuclear technology and materials. (See Deception and United States and the Islamc Bomb books) And there's Fast & Furious. In the end the cover comes from the political top of the trash heap. ..."
"... Sounds familiar? Iranian industrialization and westernization happened during the Shah. That is part of above story. Same story in Saudi Arabia . ..."
"... My suspicion is that this "reversal" was also made in the USA as a consequence of the strategy to use Islam as a "green belt" against the Soviet Union. ..."
Jul 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Murder, Spies And Weapons - Three Fascinating 'Deep State' Stories

350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for terrorists - Trud

Azerbaijan's Silk Way Airlines transported hundreds of tons of weapons under diplomatic cover to Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan Congo

  • the weapons and ammunition are usual from east Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine ...)
  • the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies
  • offloading during unusual "fueling stops" allowed to disguise the real addressee of the loads

With lots of details from obtained emails.

Ten thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition to al-Qaeda and other Takfiris in Syria also came first from Libya by ship, then on at least 160 big cargo flights via Saudi Arabia and Qatar to Turkey and during the last years by various ships under U.S. contracts from mostly east-European countries.

---

With all the Trump-Russia nonsense flowing around one person's involvement in the creation of the issue deserves more scrutiny:

McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

  • there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier.
  • there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
  • the issue is now in front of a British court.

---

Another Scorpene Submarine Scandal - Asia Sentinel (a bit older but it was new to me)

Document hack could imperil subs in Oz, India, other countries

  • a commercial cyber-crime case but likely with state involvement
  • French submarine sales usually include the payment of various "commissions" with kickbacks to French politicians
  • sometimes people involved in the business end up dead

Musburger | Jul 21, 2017 12:41:30 PM | 1

The first story is a muti-billion dollar illegal business network that potentially encompasses not only the CIA, but also several governments, the Clinton Foundation, David Patreus, investors (many of whom hold government positions) and God knows what else. It's possibly the greatest scam the world has ever seen.
ProPeace | Jul 21, 2017 12:48:44 PM | 3
It would be nice to have a comprehensive list of sponsors of those fake lucrative speeches such front persons and puppets as Clintons, Saakashvili, Kwaśniewski, ... have been giving. The Business Round Tables that Quigley and Sutton wrote about that live off wars and misery.
Petri Krohn | Jul 21, 2017 12:55:55 PM | 4
There is an amazing amount of detailed information from reliable sources on the U.S. sponsored, Saudi paid arms deliveries to terrorist in Syria, originating from the eastern parts of the European Union. I have collected some of the best sources here:

US covert war on Syria -> Weapon deliveries

likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 12:56:46 PM | 5
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier The third time is the Charm.I am reminded McCain can do no wrong: His service to his country (it's alleged, by aiding the enemy); The Keating Five; (I dindu nuttin wrong)

The Trump-Russia Dossier (by political treason stabbing the nominee of his own Party; ignoring the words of Reagan). McCain, once again, will be excused and forgiven. His actions were due to illness – the most aggressive cancer of the brain. How is that so?

james | Jul 21, 2017 12:58:42 PM | 6
thanks b.. the first part of your post reaffirms my comment in the previous thread about the usa, saudi arabia/gccs and israel being the terrorists that the world would be a lot better place without... "the contracts are with U.S. companies themselves hired by the CIA and/or Pentagon as well as with Saudi and Israeli companies.."
terry | Jul 21, 2017 1:00:09 PM | 7
Here is a link to The Dilyana Files – 1403 Email Attachments Posted https://www.truthleaks.org/news/343-the-dilyana-files-1403-email-attachments-posted
james | Jul 21, 2017 1:00:13 PM | 8
@5 likklemore ... in an exceptional country, there is no accountability... according to obama, you have to move on and not dwell on the past, lol...
ben | Jul 21, 2017 1:07:44 PM | 9
Thanks b, the mountain of evidence you provide daily, as proof of the corporate empire's malignancy, is therapeutic and empowering, but, until this information reaches the bulk of the U$A's masses we're all just treading water here.
WorldBLee | Jul 21, 2017 1:11:43 PM | 10
@2: The last thing McCain has to worry about is prosecution or even criticism for fomenting war crimes. The cancer is real and he will be lauded for his courage and lionized if he dies. But should he survive he will carry on as usual with no apologies and no criticism.
nonsense factory | Jul 21, 2017 1:54:32 PM | 11
BBC News has a great little expose on tracking ISIS weapons captured in Mosul to their sources in Eastern Europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8bwCj3lfsg
"The team has carried out painstaking research cataloging serial numbers and tracing the routes. They found crates of ammunition and rockets manufactured in factories in eastern Europe. These were bought by the governments of the US and Saudi Arabia."
Whether or not the arming and financing of ISIS groups was "accidental" or "deliberate" remains something of an open question; most likely the actual US policy from c.2011-2012 onwards was to give support to anyone trying to overthrow Assad's government regardless of affiliation. The architects of this plan? Clinton & McCain seem to be right at the center of it, with plenty of neocon/neolib supporters in Congress & the State Department/CIA/Pentagon (Nuland/Morrell/Carter etc.)
Oui | Jul 21, 2017 2:29:43 PM | 12
Sorry b .... the "Reason" article is complete nonsense. I've covered the details the last two weeks. The "dodgy dossier" was shared by Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd, with the British MI6 and the FBI starting in August 2016. That's why I claim it's not RussiaGate but IC-Gate. A complot by the Intelligence Community of the UK and US. McCain is just a distraction of the true effort to dump Trump.
McCain and the Trump-Russia Dossier: What Did He Know, and When? - Reason

A British spy. An Arizona senator. And one inflammatory dossier on Donald Trump. The connection between them is starting to unravel...

  • there are indications that McCain was the one who hired the company which created the infamous Steele dossier.
  • there is evidences that he distributed it to the CIA, FBI and to the media.
  • the issue is now in front of a British court.

Christopher Steele and Sir Andrew Wood worked in a British spy nest in Moscow during the Yeltsin years of the 90s.

  • Is RussiaGate Really IC-Gate
  • Did MI6/CIA Collude with Chris Steele to Entrap Trump?
  • 'Sir' Andrew Wood as spy chief in Moscow
  • Fusion GPS linked to UAE Sheikh and Rubio Donor

    Peter W. Smith Tapped Alt-Right to Access Dark Net for Clinton emails – linked to Charles C. Johnson – Stephen Bannon - Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev', "exiled" to the Ukraine

Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 21, 2017 3:02:30 PM | 13
Thanks, b. Love the lede...
350 "diplomatic" flights transporting weapons for ter'rists - Trud

What a slimy little cur John McCain (Satan's Mini-Me) turns out to be. Guess how surprised I'm not that the little skunk is up to his eyeballs in weapons proliferation & profiteering, not to mention that old Yankee favourite Gun-barrel "Diplomacy".

I suspected during the Prez Campaign that Trump had McCain well and truly scoped when he said (of Satan's Mini-Me) "I like my war "heroes" not to get captured."

This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more, but they go to all the summits, prattle about Our AmeriKKKan Friends, and then presumably laugh their asses off when the summit is over. Xi & Putin seem to truly believe that the blowback from all this Yankee Duplicity will eventually do as much harm to the American Dream as an Ru/Cn Military Solution.

psychohistorian | Jul 21, 2017 3:12:19 PM | 14
Thanks again for the excellent journalism b even though it reads like the trash on the rags in the grocery stores they make you look at while you check out.

I just hold out hope that the great unraveling continues and quickens its pace.

Curtis | Jul 21, 2017 3:32:48 PM | 15
Criminal activity under diplomatic cover should be prosecuted. They can pretend they didn't find out until it was too late. Or they can claim that they were letting it happen in order to track the players. Those excuses have been used for all kinds of cover for nefarious activites like Pakistan's AQ Khan NukeMart to distribute nuclear technology and materials. (See Deception and United States and the Islamc Bomb books) And there's Fast & Furious. In the end the cover comes from the political top of the trash heap.

The Dem/anti-Trump attempts to get dirt on Trump via Russians doesn't get play in the MSM. Nor does the content of the emails. They call the tune and the media plays on.

Curtis | Jul 21, 2017 3:38:37 PM | 16
nonsense factory 11

Thnx for the vid link. That evidence won't get to US MSM either. It makes the case for Tulsi Gabbard's efforts.

likklemore | Jul 21, 2017 4:52:05 PM | 18
@james 8
[Reported by Independent.co.uk, New York Post and the Guardian.co.uk] McCain admitted he handed the dossier to Comey."

NYPost: McCain "I gave Russia blackmail dossier on Trump to the FBI"

Senator John McCain passed documents to the FBI director, James Comey, last month alleging secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Moscow and that Russian intelligence had personally compromising material on the president-elect himself

New York Post
http://nypost.com/2017/01/11/john-mccain-i-gave-russia-blackmail-dossier-on-trump-to-fbi/

Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

Yes, there will be no accountability in the U.S. for the exceptional ones. However, the British courts setting aside "special relationships" may take a different view that McCain has a case to answer.

@kpax 17

Did I mis-read? McCain's cerebral?

Piotr Berman | Jul 21, 2017 5:46:21 PM | 19
The link suggests that the subs involved in the scandal are perhaps OK, and no hack compromised their worthiness in a possible military conflict. Neither there were any fatal accidents. The only losses in manpower (but quite a few) are among people engaged in the financial transactions that delivered them to various fleets.

Although there are possible danger to security, because bribery is used to blackmail involved in recruitment of spies.

Fidelios Automata | Jul 21, 2017 6:03:00 PM | 20
I hope the conspiracy theories are wrong, and that McInsane will soon suffer a well-deserved painful death.
BTW, I'm a long-time Arizonan, and I'm proud to say I've never voted for this traitor and have also signed the recall petitions against him.
radiator | Jul 21, 2017 6:16:53 PM | 21
I apologize for never contributing anything substantial but just emanating verbal support.
I hope this site has some mirrored archives. This is in its entirety a work of contemporary history (sorry my english's not good enough... mirror this site and give it some dumb ancestor of ours to read in 20, 50, 100 years, y'know).
I'm a broke lowlife but next time around I'll send some money.
radiator | Jul 21, 2017 6:19:21 PM | 22
damn I regret every cent I've spent on mainstream newspapers, although the last time I've done so has been years ago and maybe back then, they weren't so bad, but then again, they probably were and I just didn't notice.
Anonymous | Jul 21, 2017 7:01:32 PM | 23
The dog that didn't bark in the arms shipment story is the absense of Qatar in the list of recipient countries. It also seems that, whilst most (80%) were shipped through SA/UAE, more arms were shipped through Jordan (11%) than through Turkey (7%).

Bulgaria may also have been the location of military level training sites for foreigners. An intriguing report from June 2015 noted that an American was killed along with 2 foreigners (German and Canadian) in a grenade launcher accident of a PMC training center at Anevo, Bulgaria. The site was run by an company Algans (or Alguns).

http://sofiaglobe.com/2015/06/06/american-dies-four-injured-in-blast-at-bulgarias-vmz-sopot-ordnance-plant/

There are links to the infamous US military $500 million training program in which an unknown number of 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' were trained and all but 5 of them 'defected' to al Qaeda.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/mobbed-up-arms-dealer-in-american-anti-isis-effort-linked-to

Anonymous | Jul 21, 2017 7:14:05 PM | 24
"This story says a lot for China & Russia's approach to long-term Strategic Diplomacy. I imagine that they both know all this stuff and a helluva lot more" Hoarsewhisperer @13

The docs indicate the Balkans arm supply route took off in 2012. It will have brought in many billions of USD to the relatively poor east European countries. Before the Gulenist(?) shoot down of the Russian Su-24, Russia had been trying to get Turkey and Bulgaria interested in South Stream. I suspect Russia did indeed know the details of the arms shipment, and certainly knew about Turkey's cut of the ISIS oil sales. I suspect this deal may have been an attempt to wean the two off the terrorism funding spigot. This failed as the Bulgarian government is totally owned by the US. Erdogan's ego was manipulated by his Zionist handlers and eventually his stalling killed interest at theat time. The Russians would know this background too, but the deal had to be tried. If it had worked, then the Bulgarian arms train would possibly have been stopped and the Turkish border closed several years ago. This would have greatly cramped the capabilities of ISIS, simplifying the task of eliminating them. I suspect the Russians also knew it wouldn't pan out but it was certainly worth a shot whilst they was busily obtaining intelligence on the terrorists, and secretly negotiating the logistics, overflight access etc for what was to become its base at Hymeim.

somebody | Jul 21, 2017 7:15:18 PM | 25
23 also

Russia Hopes to Sign Agreement on Arms Re-Export From Bulgaria

The statement was followed by a publication of the Bulgarian Trud newspaper that mentioned the Arcus arms company as the producer of some arms produced in Bulgaria under Russian licenses, which were found by journalists in eastern Aleppo.
nobody | Jul 21, 2017 7:49:29 PM | 27
BBC News has a great little expose

Posted by: nonsense factory | Jul 21, 2017 1:54:32 PM | 11

Tillerson. Exxon. Petrodollar. Rockefellers.

BBC. MI6. BIS. Rothschilds.

https://youtu.be/Hgq4w4dqKsU

That's a good question.

nobody | Jul 21, 2017 8:07:41 PM | 28
Master: http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/david-rockefeller.jpg

Blaster: https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/walkingdead/images/0/0c/Armedforces.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20131116201742

Barter-Town: http://images.legalweek.com/images/IMG/277/144277/city-of-london-gherkin-finance.jpg

Mad-Max:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Vladimir_Putin_in_KGB_uniform.jpg/170px-Vladimir_Putin_in_KGB_uniform.jpg

http://madmaxmovies.com/mad-max/mad-max-cars/max-yellow-xb-interceptor-sedan/max-leaps-out-of-yellow-xb.jpg

fast freddy | Jul 21, 2017 8:20:34 PM | 29
Craven McCain has been teflon for his entire political career and he was teflon when he wrecked airplanes in the navy. McCain is just a teflon guy. Untouchable. Probably has "dossiers" on anybody that can damage him.
nobody | Jul 21, 2017 8:34:56 PM | 30

Sure, it's tempting to think this:

But we do know that Islamic Republic is a creature of the British. (Longstanding history between the worldly priests of Iran and the defunct British Empire. Read up.)

nobody | Jul 21, 2017 10:26:39 PM | 33
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480 ">https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480">https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2017-01-13/AP/Trump_Defense_Secretary_75769.jpg-2f26d.jpg&w=480

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/FEHE4E_I5FM/hqdefault.jpg

Trully, who but the ignorant make war against ALLAH?

ProPeace | Jul 22, 2017 1:06:13 AM | 35
They throw a hissy fit Neocon madness: We can't have peace in Syria, that would be giving in to Russia!

This is huge. An absolute outrage. The first real Trump concession to Putin that undermines U.S. security directly. https://t.co/h9WR4brHHK -- Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) July 19, 2017
Yeah, Right | Jul 22, 2017 6:40:44 AM | 45
@2 I have no doubt that McCain's medical condition is real. I well remember the news stories in early June when McCain put up a bizarre performance during testimony by James Comey - asking questions that simply didn't make any sense whatsoever and leaving everyone utterly gob-smacked regarding McCain's mental state.

So, yeah, brain tumour.

ghostship | Jul 23, 2017 6:03:50 AM | 62

OMG. the Washington Borg's house newspaper has woken up to Trump's surrender to Putin on Syria.
Trump's breathtaking surrender to Russia

But once again, President Trump, after extended personal contact with Vladimir Putin and the complete surrender to Russian interests in Syria, acts precisely as though he has been bought and sold by a strategic rival. The ignoble cutoff of aid to American proxies means that "Putin won in Syria," as an administration official was quoted by The Post.

Concessions without reciprocation, made against the better judgment of foreign policy advisers, smack more of payoff than outreach. If this is what Trump's version of "winning" looks like, what might further victory entail? The re- creation of the Warsaw Pact? The reversion of Alaska to Russian control?

Although this opinion article was posted a couple of days ago, there been no shitstorm near Trump about it since suggesting that Trump's one-man distraction/disinformation smokescreen is firing successfully on all cylinders.

Meanwhile, some in the US Army at least understand that once the battle to liquidate the ISIS Caliphate is other, they'll have problems remaining in Syria .

'We're bad day away from Russians asking, 'Why are you still in Syria?' – top US commander

A US special operations commander has admitted that an extended US stay in Syria runs contrary to international law and that Russia would be entirely justified in questioning its presence there.

At the Aspen Security Forum on Friday, Special Operations Command chief Army General, Raymond Thomas was asked whether American forces will remain in Syria, after Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) is defeated, possibly, to support the Kurdish forces in the north of the country.

Thomas acknowledged that American forces are fighting in a sovereign Syria, where they will likely "have no ability to stay" if that presence is questioned "in terms of international law," Thomas said, replying to the Washington Post journalist's question.


Although I'm sure that the State Department/Pentagon lawyers are looking for a reason to stay.
somebody | Jul 23, 2017 6:40:48 AM | 63
Posted by: nobody | Jul 22, 2017 11:08:41 PM | 61

Yep. Made in the USA .

By the time of Richard Nixon's arrival in office in January 1969, Iran was already America's single-largest arms purchaser. Whilst this is notable in and of itself, it is vastly overshadowed by what followed. By late 1972 Nixon leveraged U.S. Middle Eastern regional policy primarily around the focal point of a militarily strong, pro-American Iran.

Sounds familiar? Iranian industrialization and westernization happened during the Shah. That is part of above story. Same story in Saudi Arabia .

In Saudi Arabia, the 1960s, and especially the 1970s, had been years of explosive development, liberal experimentation, and openness to the West. A reversal of this trend came about abruptly in 1979, the year in which the Grand Mosque in Mecca came under attack by religiously motivated critics of the monarchy, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was established.

My suspicion is that this "reversal" was also made in the USA as a consequence of the strategy to use Islam as a "green belt" against the Soviet Union.

Same "reversal" from Atatürk happened in Turkey.

[Jul 23, 2017] Many critics of the USSR seems to fall into assessment of the Soviet Experiment mode in a careless way. It is terribly misleading to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures had on the course of the Soviet Unions development

Notable quotes:
"... While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation ..."
"... Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice ..."
"... What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. ..."
"... It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA. ..."
"... West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that made the process irreversible. ..."
Jul 21, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

hemeantwell , July 21, 2017 at 10:58 am

While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation . We're talking about questions of constrained path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist mode of thinking misses. Etc, etc.

Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.

What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.

While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously destructive opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a "Soviet Experiment" mentality.

It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , July 21, 2017 at 1:06 pm

I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not opposed to looking at the impact of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.

Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment. When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out external pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly constrained. When discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices of the leadership elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."

I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.

I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining better society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within the constraints of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both are worth pondering.

likbez , July 21, 2017 at 11:16 pm

hemeantwell,

Very good points:

"Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.

What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. "

West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic stagnation started around the same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that made the process irreversible.

The fact that neoliberalism was rising at the time means that this was the worst possible time for the USSR to implement drastic economic reforms and sure mediocre politicians like Gorbachev quickly lost control of the process. With some important help of the West.

The subsequent economic rape of Russia was incredibly brutal and most probably well coordinated by the famous three letter agencies: CIA (via USAID and "Harvard mafia") ) and MI6 and their German and French counterparts. See

Brain drain, especially to the USA and Israel was simply incredible. Which, while good for professionals leaving (although tales of Russian Ph.D swiping malls are not uncommon, especially in Israel ) , who can earn much better money abroad, is actually another form of neocolonialism for the countries affected:

Oregoncharles , July 22, 2017 at 12:57 am

It was a tragically missed opportunity to try genuine socialism. Instead of essentially selling the state enterprises to the Mafia, they could have been GIVEN, probably broken up, to the workers in them. It would have been instant worker-owned, market regulated – what? We don't have a familiar name for it, but it might be what Marx meant by "socialism."

Ironically, the Bolsheviks first set up such co-operatives, called soviets, but soon seized them in favor of state ownership. End of the socialist experiment. It's quite possible they were far more Russian than Marxist.

Moneta , July 22, 2017 at 8:14 am

The US economy hit a wall in the 70s. Instead of readjusting internally, it used its reserve currency and global exploitation to gain an extra few decades of consumerism. If exploitation is acceptable, then we could say that capitalism wins. However, capitalism will work until there is nothing left to exploit.

In the meantime, the USSR was set up in a way where it could not follow

IMO, left leaning theoretical communism would have trouble surviving when in competition with a system based on short-termism such as capitalism. This competition against short-termism would force the communist country to turn into a form of fascism just to stop the opportunists which happen to have the skills from defecting.

MikeC , July 22, 2017 at 9:51 am

While in the Peace Corps serving in Africa (after 2010), I had a former military doctor (originally from Moldavia) who I'd see due to ongoing health issues. He served in Angola as a doctor during the civil wars and had pictures of the people he helped who were injured in the war. He was hands down the most competent doctor I saw who was employed by the PC. This was by a wide margin of competence too. I had not illusions about the Peace Corps and it purpose (to put the kind face on US empire?). We'd talk quite a bit, and he was still bitter about the collapse of the Soviet Union, and Gorbachev who he blamed for its demise, due to the lower standards of living and hardships now faced by many in the Eastern bloc and in Russia itself. In all honesty, though I identify with the far Left, this was new to me since I never realized that anyone would long for those days since all I ever heard about as a youth (due to propaganda of course) was about long bread lines and the gray world of the lives of those in the Soviet Union. Kukezel's comments above, and other information I have gained over the time had somewhat expanded my ideas and understanding regarding the system, as have my growing understanding of just how unjust our system in the US is becoming more unjust year after year.

I am not knowledgeable enough, possibly not smart enough, to understand the finer points of the discussion here concerning Marx, but I do think it possible for we as a species to create better systems to organize our world other than one predicated on the profit motive. Besides being unsustainable in a world of finite resources and the possibility that we humans will destroy the possibility to exist, we need to creatively try new forms of organization. The problem with the concentration of power of present day capitalism is that it seems so adaptable to new ways to effectively change. I know some Marx but am limited, but he was very impressed with capitalism's way to adapt to preserve itself.

Unfortunately, at times I become too cynical about the ability of the human species intellect and abitlity to go beyond short-term solutions. We just may not be able to get past our limitations as a creature. In short, I just don't know if we are smart enough to do what is best for survival. Like my Peace Corps doctor, I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back to the sixties when it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought about some economic justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as it is today. I just never know if I was too blind, or deluded, at the time to see that maybe those weren't actually better times in that the system itself was built upon the same exploitation has existed in all of US history. So all this good discussion at times brings me back to the question–is our historical evolution not far enough along a continuum for us to change before it is too late? That's a bummer of a thought, I know, but the present political manifestations keep blunting any optimism I still possess.

Anon , July 22, 2017 at 7:39 pm

I too sometimes wax nostalgic for a past that will never return, back to the sixties when it seemed the distribution of wealth was more egalitarian, unions brought about some economic justice, and the concentration of power and wealth was not so dramatic as it is today.

That was "white priveledge" back then. It's passing is what led to Trump and the epidemic of homelessness.

[Jul 22, 2017] The collapse of the Eastern bloc had much to do with encouragement of consumerism and the increasing focus on consumer goods that the communist system was woefully unable to produce doomed the system

Notable quotes:
"... All of these works emphasize what was in fact the close integration in many ways of the capitalist and communist worlds. In the 1930s it was the crisis of capitalism that largely helped to preserve the appeal of communism even as it was largely American firms that were being contracted to build socialist factories and import equipment. In the later postwar years the price of oil was critical to understanding some of the early successes and later extreme difficulties of the Soviet and Eastern bloc economy. ..."
Jul 22, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

etnograf , July 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm

Outis, thanks for raising all of these issues for public discussion. There is no question that a solid historical consideration of the communist experience in the 20th century is critical to how we think about Marxism and many other leftist ideas and it a decidedly fraught terrain where greater nuance is desperately needed.

I am surprised that you don't mention more recent historical scholarship on the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc countries, however. In your brief note on what you are currently reading it seems that nearly all of the works are more than a half-century old. While such dustier tomes are often invaluable, none of them benefited from the archival access, oral histories, and other sources that have become much more widely available in the last 25 years. There was certainly a lot of dogmatic work that came out in the years after communism fell–something like Fukuyama's The End of History comes to mind as a quintessential example of that–but there were also many serious scholars who did not necessarily have a strong ax to grind for or against communism, historical or otherwise.

For example, I find the historian Stephen Kotkin's work to be quite nuanced without taking a strong ideological stance. Originally a scholar of Stalinism who wrote on the construction of a major steel plant in the Urals (Magnetic Mountain, 1995), he went on to also write books on the collapse of the Soviet Union (Armageddon Averted) and the Eastern European bloc (Uncivil Society). He has a new biography of Stalin coming out in phases, though I haven't read it yet.

All of these works emphasize what was in fact the close integration in many ways of the capitalist and communist worlds. In the 1930s it was the crisis of capitalism that largely helped to preserve the appeal of communism even as it was largely American firms that were being contracted to build socialist factories and import equipment. In the later postwar years the price of oil was critical to understanding some of the early successes and later extreme difficulties of the Soviet and Eastern bloc economy.

The collapse of the Eastern bloc had much to do with the comparison that socialism itself encouraged people to make with capitalism by an increasing focus on consumer goods that the communist system was woefully unable to produce.

All of this is by way of saying that the good historical work out there does not try to see the communism of the 20th century as some kind of pure or corrupted manifestation of any ideological system but, like every other kind of political upheaval, a complicated venture that was inseparable from its many contexts – chief among them its place in a world global economic system and its self-definition vis-a-vis the actually existing capitalism of its time. Susan Buck-Morss makes some of these points in her book Dreamworld and Catastrophe on the similarities between the U.S. and USSR.

In any case, I hope my brief thoughts might help move the discussion of the minefield of historical communism more firmly onto the terrain of actual history.

[Jul 22, 2017] USSR collapse and the evils of Yeltsin regime

Notable quotes:
"... After the processes of industrialization and urbanization had completely, there was nowhere for the economy to go, and the low growth combined with the ossification of bureacratic structures and the entrenchment of the World War II generation in power meant a lack of job opportunities. All of this contributed to the malaise that killed productivity and increased alcoholism, creating a self-feedback loop. Yeltsin and his cronies calculated that if the USSR transitioned to a capitalist economy, they stood to make a lot of money, so they met in secret and agreed to its dissolution. The public wanted reform, but they didn't want full-blown capitalism, certainly not of the variety Russia saw in the 90's. ..."
"... Especially considering the fact that Marx was arguably the greatest thinker of the modern era and his contributions were not at all limited to the 'isms' that people fought for in his name, I think a much better topic for a post would have been "common Cold War misconceptions about Russia and Marxism." ..."
Jul 22, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

John , July 22, 2017 at 4:47 am

I would rather live in Cuba than in Haiti, and the country's economic performance is all the more impressive considering the economic warfare wrought upon it by the US.

48% of Russians regret the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the second largest political party in Russia after Putin's is the Communist Party (article from The Nation circa 2012). And this isn't a political party claiming to bring about a new socialist society but rather one that promises to bring back the communism of the Brezhnev era.

Russia was a backwards country at the beginning of World War I and saw its industry annihilated by the war. The peace treaty ceded its industrial heartlands, and then it was ripped apart by the civil war of the 1920's. But this didn't compare to World War II, which wiped out an entire generation of Russians.

Yet within 12 years of the war's end, they were the first to put an object into space, and four years later they were the first to put a human into orbit. They Americans, who had been unscathed by the war, were blessed with nearly unlimited natural resources and had the most powerful economy and military in in history, saw their attempt blow up on the launchpad.

At this time in America, people actually thought socialism might win out. The Soviets certainly thought so. In the first two decades after World War II, their economy was probably the fastest growing in history. They were so confident that their system was superior that they assumed they could beat the American capitalists in every way, including providing the general populace with consumer goods. This promise, made during the "Kitchen Debates" and throughout the 60's and 70's, when the government officially embraced consumerism, was a horrible miscalculation that eventually contributed greatly to the public's discontent with the regime.

After the processes of industrialization and urbanization had completely, there was nowhere for the economy to go, and the low growth combined with the ossification of bureacratic structures and the entrenchment of the World War II generation in power meant a lack of job opportunities. All of this contributed to the malaise that killed productivity and increased alcoholism, creating a self-feedback loop. Yeltsin and his cronies calculated that if the USSR transitioned to a capitalist economy, they stood to make a lot of money, so they met in secret and agreed to its dissolution. The public wanted reform, but they didn't want full-blown capitalism, certainly not of the variety Russia saw in the 90's.

Especially considering the fact that Marx was arguably the greatest thinker of the modern era and his contributions were not at all limited to the 'isms' that people fought for in his name, I think a much better topic for a post would have been "common Cold War misconceptions about Russia and Marxism."

This is supposed to be a heterodox economics blog but it's always from the Keynesian perspective and never from the Marxist. Considering Keynes's thoughts on the Labour Party, for one, I think more perspectives are needed in informing discussion on how to approach questions of social justice. Marxian economists predicted the crisis just as well as the Keynesians. Let's listen.

[Jul 22, 2017] Robbery in broad daylight

Notable quotes:
"... On Tuesday, frustrated by the failure of a meeting the day before in Washington to make any headway on the matter, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a blunt statement . In it, the ministry warned that "if Washington does not address this and other concerns, including persistent efforts to hinder the operation of Russia's diplomatic missions, Russia has the right to take retaliatory measures in accordance with the principle of reciprocity." ..."
"... Sergey V. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said any American preconditions for the return of the diplomatic property were unacceptable. Mr. Lavrov was asked at a news conference on Monday in Minsk, Belarus, about statements emanating from Washington that the compounds should not be handed back without getting something in return. Mr. Lavrov called the seizure "robbery in broad daylight" and said Russian control over the property was enshrined in a bilateral treaty. He blamed the continuing standoff, as Russian officials often do, on "Russophobia" in Washington that he hoped would eventually wane. ..."
"... Mr. Lavrov said he was sure there must be "sensible people" in the Trump administration who would realize that the seizure of the compounds and the expulsion of the diplomats were a last-ditch attempt by the Obama administration to destroy relations in a manner that the Trump administration would find difficult to fix. ..."
Jul 22, 2017 | www.msn.com

Orginally from NYT: Russia Issues New Threats in Dispute Over Diplomatic Compounds by ANDREW E. KRAMER

© Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency A 45-acre Russian diplomatic compound near Centreville, Md., that was seized in December 2016.

After President Trump's victory in November, Michael T. Flynn, who went on to become the national security adviser for 24 days , prevailed upon President Vladimir V. Putin to refrain from retaliating , with the promise that United States policy toward Russia would be far more accommodating under a Trump administration.

Mr. Trump, at the time president-elect, praised Mr. Putin's restraint, posting on Twitter , "Great move on delay" and "I always knew he was very smart!"

But with nothing to show for the delay so far, Russian officials have been issuing repeated statements that their patience is wearing thin.

Russia began focusing attention on the two seized compounds in the lead up to the first meeting between Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7.

Both the Kremlin and the Foreign Ministry mentioned them frequently, hinting that the diplomatic retreats were perhaps something Mr. Trump could easily deliver as a friendly gesture for the first meeting. Mr. Putin did raise the issue with the American president, according to Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman.

But with Trump associates under investigation for ties with the Russians, the president is hesitant to send any signals of weakness. So it did not happen then, either. Since that meeting, the official tone has turned more belligerent, with Russia threatening to expel American diplomats to match the 35 Russian diplomatic staff members kicked out of the United States at the same time that the two compounds were seized.

On Tuesday, frustrated by the failure of a meeting the day before in Washington to make any headway on the matter, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a blunt statement . In it, the ministry warned that "if Washington does not address this and other concerns, including persistent efforts to hinder the operation of Russia's diplomatic missions, Russia has the right to take retaliatory measures in accordance with the principle of reciprocity."

The deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, told the news agency Interfax on Tuesday, "The fact that this issue hasn't been settled actually poisons the atmosphere and makes a lot of things extremely complicated."

Mr. Ryabkov and the United States under secretary of state, Thomas A. Shannon, discussed the property in talks in Washington on Monday.

Sergey V. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said any American preconditions for the return of the diplomatic property were unacceptable. Mr. Lavrov was asked at a news conference on Monday in Minsk, Belarus, about statements emanating from Washington that the compounds should not be handed back without getting something in return. Mr. Lavrov called the seizure "robbery in broad daylight" and said Russian control over the property was enshrined in a bilateral treaty. He blamed the continuing standoff, as Russian officials often do, on "Russophobia" in Washington that he hoped would eventually wane.

Mr. Lavrov said he was sure there must be "sensible people" in the Trump administration who would realize that the seizure of the compounds and the expulsion of the diplomats were a last-ditch attempt by the Obama administration to destroy relations in a manner that the Trump administration would find difficult to fix.

And on Tuesday, Mr. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said in a conference call with journalists that "our patience is still running out."

[Jul 22, 2017] Multiple and illegal US Troop Locations in Syria

Jul 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , July 21, 2017 at 7:30 am

Buttfeed via Antiwar.com: US 'Furious' Over Turkey Publishing US Troop Locations in Syria
http://news.antiwar.com/2017/07/20/us-furious-over-turkey-publishing-us-troop-locations-in-syria/

Turkey's Erdogan Denies Playing a Role in It

US military officials are reportedly furious after Turkey's state media published the locations of 10 previously undisclosed US military positions inside Syria, saying that the publication was a major security breech and endangers the lives of troops.

The list provided not only the locations of previously secret bases, but also provided estimates on the number of US troops inside. They say they got all of this information through reporting trips inside Syria and observing the facilities.

US officials see this as petty move by Turkey to spite the US for its continued support of the Kurdish YPG. Turkey considers the YPG "terrorists," and has been fighting against YPG forces further to the west, in the Afrin District of Syria .
####

I don't believe anything that Buttfeed writes. Unused toilet paper has more journalistic integrity (I know, not much!) than Buttfeed which is the go to outlet for when you need to flush some crap to the public. I do admit, they do that bit of the job very well .

Patient Observer , July 21, 2017 at 10:03 am
It would seem likely that Russia was fully aware of these "secret" basis from its surveillance capabilities. The disclosure could be of value to other armed groups and was politically embarrassing to the US coming from an ally and all.

[Jul 21, 2017] As far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes it was the choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under "market socialism"

Notable quotes:
"... society in the process of formation ..."
"... What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. ..."
Jul 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

hemeantwell , July 21, 2017 at 10:58 am

While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it "intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a society in the process of formation . We're talking about questions of constrained path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist mode of thinking misses. Etc, etc.

Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism. What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.

While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously destructive opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a "Soviet Experiment" mentality. It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.

Outis Philalithopoulos Post author , July 21, 2017 at 1:06 pm

I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not opposed to looking at the impact of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.

Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment. When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out external pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly constrained. When discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices of the leadership elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."

I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.

I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining better society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within the constraints of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both are worth pondering.

likbez , July 21, 2017 at 11:16 pm
hemeantwell,

Very good points:

"Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy under market socialism.

What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. "

West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early 70th; economic stagnation started around the4 same time, Communist Party leadership completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity played the role of catalyst that make the process irreversible.

The fact that neoliberalism was rising at the time means that this was the worst possible time for the USSR to implement drastic economic reforms and sure mediocre politicians like Gorbachev quickly lost control of the process. With some important help of the West.

The subsequent economic rape of Russia was incredibly brutal and most probably well coordinated by the famous three letter agencies: CIA (via USAID and "Harvard mafia") ), MI6 and their German and French counterparts. See

Brain drain, especially to the USA and Israel was simply incredible. Which, while good for professionals leaving (although tales of Russian Ph.D swiping malls are not uncommon, especially in Israel ) , who can earn much better money abroad, is actually another form of neocolonialism for the countries affected:

[Jul 21, 2017] Increasing desperation I would say reminiscent of Nazis increasing hopes for wunderweapons to stop the USSR. If only we could kill Putin all of our problems would be over

Notable quotes:
"... "I just find it interesting how the number of spy thrillers involving Putin's assassination has been growing since 2015 " ..."
Jul 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

marknesop , July 20, 2017 at 7:40 pm

Yes, I meant to add in my earlier comment that there is no shortage of novels in English featuring the assassination of western leaders, either – so it's not all just Putin. But I stand by the remainder of my assessment.
et Al , July 21, 2017 at 3:19 am
They could make a film on the assassination of Nemtsov and call it " NIght of The Shagall ", though I doubt it would be patch on this:
J.T. , July 21, 2017 at 5:58 am
I just find it interesting how the number of spy thrillers involving Putin's assassination has been growing since 2015
Lyttenburgh , July 21, 2017 at 8:26 am
"I just find it interesting how the number of spy thrillers involving Putin's assassination has been growing since 2015 "

Which means – they began writing somewhere in 2013-14, to get published in 2015.

As to the question: " why are thriller writers obsessed with killing Putin (or his fictional stand-in) now?". Sublimation. Acto of magic(k) (see my original article). Plus pretty much everything that Mark said.

Patient Observer , July 21, 2017 at 4:15 pm
Increasing desperation I would say reminiscent of Nazi's increasing hopes for wunderweapons to stop the USSR. If only we could kill Putin all of our problems would be over .

Lets not forget that Putin did not gain his position by his force of personality and/or ruthlessness. He was picked by a group of Russian patriots, the military, and elements of the Orthodox church who nurtured and supported him. Putin made the personal sacrifices and performed his duty for his country.

He certainly will be a tough act to follow but I think it would be a mistake to try to find another Putin. Russia is no longer a ravaged country on the verge of figurative and actual disintegration. The next leader may be more of a visionary and a spiritual force to provide more direction and purpose to a population that survived hell and now looking for a greater good. I do hope so.

Cortes , July 21, 2017 at 1:15 pm
Agreed. Perhaps symptomatic of wishful thinking as the slide away from unipolarity gathers pace?

Hasn't there been a boom in "what if" speculated scenarios by academic historians also?

yalensis , July 21, 2017 at 2:41 pm
Yes, and also a boom in ALT-History fiction genre.
I personally disapprove of all this what-if-ism as I don't think it does the human race any good to speculate on what might have been.
Also, most of the ALT-History fiction is just revanchists living out their fantasies that, e.g., the South won the Civil War; or the Nazis won WWII; or the Japanese Empire still exists (a favorite of the anime crowd too).
Pavlo Svolochenko , July 21, 2017 at 4:23 pm
And more importantly, alt-history writers are the most dreadful hacks in the business. Turtledove, Stirling, Gingrich (to name but a few) – they make fantasy writers look inspired.
Cortes , July 21, 2017 at 4:24 pm
However, Philip K. Dick was supposedly a leftist and he produced the crock of shit "The High Tower"; mind you, other novels of his are creeptastic: the scenes of "Perky Pat" haunt me like Dumas.. "Twenty Years After " [shudder x 3].

[Jul 21, 2017] The fact that the USA has to make such overt and aggressive military threats is the clearest proof that its soft power has rapidly diminished.

Notable quotes:
"... It must be borne in mind that even as Russia is wrestling with the problem of the Putin succession, which will be like juggling an unexploded bomb even in the absence of distractions, the west will be pulling out all the stops to get a neoliberal into the power position. Its window is closing even now, and if it lets another Putinesque leader assume power without a fight, it will likely be too late by the time he or she has completed his/her first term. et Al , July 21, 2017 at 3:07 am I think that the other most important strand is to have a good and deep team well in place in all aspects of government and elsewhere that sing from the same song sheet, i.e. their end goals and principles are very similar, but is fully open to constructive criticism and dialogue . This exists already but how deep and wide it is the question. I also fully agree with likebez that the USA's death spasms do pose quite a risk to Russia but we have seen so far its results have been limited ..."
"... Some, unfortunately see this as a sign of weakness, but getting in to a fight with someone larger, uglier and follows no rules is certainly not a good thing to do. It is very much a Judo (and a bit of Kung Fu) strategy of using your opponents greater weight against itself. It works in all fields from economic & political to the media. Russia hasn't created western divisions and lunacy, but it does take advantage of it by feeding it back in to the western politico-economic & media loop much as guitarists do. ..."
"... Western targeted fury towards Sputnik & RT is little more than How dare you criticize us with our own news? . Those commentators that go on the media to rant and rail do little but discredit themselves. The good news is that every mention of RT & Sputnik is free PR! The only time I look at either is when someone in the west squeals about them because I want to see what the drama is all about. ..."
"... The fact that the USA has to make such overt and aggressive military threats is the clearest proof that its soft power has rapidly diminished. ..."
"... In the last few years that he was leader of the government, before the coup, Gorbachov started to behave unilaterally and erratically. He would negotiate and cut deals on the global scale, without any input, not just from the government, but even the Central Committee of the Party. In essence, he went rogue. He did whatever he pleased, and nobody was able to stop him or to belay his disastrous decisions. This sort of thing could happen again, if Russians are not careful. There must be checks and balances on any political leader, even the most trusted. ..."
"... As for China and Russia being dependent on Western technology, not so, as amply discussed in this blog. ..."
"... Much of the appearance of support for the Western empire in Russia's near-aboard will evaporate upon realization that the good ship Empire is taking on water and the rats are in the water looking for a new ship to scramble on board. ..."
Jul 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

marknesop , July 20, 2017 at 11:16 pm

Very well said. It must be borne in mind that even as Russia is wrestling with the problem of the Putin succession, which will be like juggling an unexploded bomb even in the absence of distractions, the west will be pulling out all the stops to get a neoliberal into the power position.

Its window is closing even now, and if it lets another Putinesque leader assume power without a fight, it will likely be too late by the time he or she has completed his/her first term.

et Al , July 21, 2017 at 3:07 am
I think that the other most important strand is to have a good and deep team well in place in all aspects of government and elsewhere that sing from the same song sheet, i.e. their end goals and principles are very similar, but is fully open to constructive criticism and dialogue . This exists already but how deep and wide it is the question.

I also fully agree with likebez that the USA's death spasms do pose quite a risk to Russia but we have seen so far its results have been limited, in part due to the cool hand of Putin and the government by ignoring most provocations and selectively responding where necessary.

Some, unfortunately see this as a sign of weakness, but getting in to a fight with someone larger, uglier and follows no rules is certainly not a good thing to do. It is very much a Judo (and a bit of Kung Fu) strategy of using your opponents greater weight against itself. It works in all fields from economic & political to the media. Russia hasn't created western divisions and lunacy, but it does take advantage of it by feeding it back in to the western politico-economic & media loop much as guitarists do.

Western targeted fury towards Sputnik & RT is little more than How dare you criticize us with our own news? . Those commentators that go on the media to rant and rail do little but discredit themselves. The good news is that every mention of RT & Sputnik is free PR! The only time I look at either is when someone in the west squeals about them because I want to see what the drama is all about.

The fact that the USA has to make such overt and aggressive military threats is the clearest proof that its soft power has rapidly diminished. The thing is, they cannot just make threats and not deliver (small countries don't count) without loosing credibility either, much like the boy who cried Wolf! There are plenty of US experts who have publicly had kittens on US news channels over Trump's threat's to North Korea, so we see already that there are clear and open divisions. And we've seen him row back many of his purported plans too. Sure, he's cast off some of O-Bombers caution, for example approving a large arms package to Taiwan, but that's a long way from his early goals. He goes for the low hanging fruit, speaking of which, is this a sign of more US protectionism?

Neuters: U.S. toughens stance on foreign deals in blow to China's buying spree
https://in.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-companies-idINKBN1A532M?il=0

A secretive U.S. government panel has objected to at least nine acquisitions of U.S. companies by foreign buyers so far this year, people familiar with the matter said, a historically high number that bodes poorly for China's overseas buying spree.

The objections indicate that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews acquisitions by foreign entities for potential national security risks, is becoming more risk-averse under U.S. President Donald Trump.

It's too early to tell, but if the US and others start using 'national security' reasons more widely and casually to block buys, then they'll be undermining the WTO, a system they themselves designed.

yalensis , July 21, 2017 at 2:37 pm
I agree with likbez that the Russian Presidency has too much power as an individual; and that this creates the danger of another Gorbachov.

In the last few years that he was leader of the government, before the coup, Gorbachov started to behave unilaterally and erratically. He would negotiate and cut deals on the global scale, without any input, not just from the government, but even the Central Committee of the Party. In essence, he went rogue. He did whatever he pleased, and nobody was able to stop him or to belay his disastrous decisions. This sort of thing could happen again, if Russians are not careful. There must be checks and balances on any political leader, even the most trusted.

Patient Observer , July 21, 2017 at 4:00 pm
In my opinion, no, the West will fall far sooner than suggested. Herein lies one factor to the decline and fall:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/20/us/florida-teens-drowning-man/index.html

Irreversible and accelerating growth in debt, an infrastructure approaching a tipping point and, as alluded above, a population increasingly unfit to live in a civilized world are sufficient to ensure a relatively near-term societal failure. As for China and Russia being dependent on Western technology, not so, as amply discussed in this blog.

Much of the appearance of support for the Western empire in Russia's near-aboard will evaporate upon realization that the good ship Empire is taking on water and the rats are in the water looking for a new ship to scramble on board. All the while, the semi-conscious passengers are assured by smooth talking cruise directors that all is well and there is a limbo contest on the Fiesta deck.

[Jul 20, 2017] Fracking Around with the Russians by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking, in collusion with organizations that are seeking to encourage the production of much cleaner power. And, of course, cleaner energy is a global interest whether one believes in climate change or not, which underlines the essential hypocrisy of the U.S. media in denouncing something that just might be good for the planet purely because Russia is allegedly involved. ..."
"... And, of course, the congressmen involved in the revelation come from fracking states. If Moscow is for something then surely Washington must be against it, ignoring the fact that many genuinely patriotic Americans who care about such matters support more strict environmental regulations, no matter what the Wall Street Journal, the White House and the loony tunes in congress are saying. ..."
"... There was a lot more anti-Russian agitprop in the U.S. media during the week, part of an endless stream of titillation provided free of charge to the American public in an effort to remind everyone that Russia is the enemy and will always be the enemy. Even Donald Trump's milquetoast initiative to mend fences with Vladimir Putin cobbled together during their meeting in Hamburg has been assailed from all sides, most particularly by the usual parties who seem to be locked into an anti-Trump non-détente mindset come what may. ..."
"... Mr. Giraldi, you're missing the salient point. The rulers of the USA aren't delusional lunatics. Russia is the single largest threat to America's dream of Global Hegemony. It's refusal to kowtow to Washington, and more critically, its lending of its military power to underpin China's Silk Road Dreams guarantees their GH dream will die. ..."
"... For the rulers of the USA, that's anathema. As good as death itself. They bet Americans' well being, Brand America, its industrial and civilian infrastructure, and almost its farms, for Global Hegemony and came up craps. They'll lose the farms soon enough. ..."
"... That is why they're panicking, and why they're going to do everything they can to break their fall. Above all, they have to convince their allies to stay loyal, particularly Europe long enough to allow them to "think of something". ..."
Jul 20, 2017 | www.unz.com
Fracking Around with the Russians What will those rascals in Moscow do next? July 18, 2017 1,400 Words 112 Comments

It has been another week full of news about Russia. Americans might be surprised to learn that nearly every aspect of their lives has been somehow impacted by the insidious covert activity of a former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy. One of the latest claims is that Moscow has been covertly funding some environmental groups, most particularly those opposed to the use of fracking technologies. The allegations, which have recently surfaced in Congress , conceded that the Russians allegedly moved forward with their strategy to damage America's energy independence without leaving behind "a paper trail," thus there appears to actually be little or no supporting evidence for what is little more than a series of claims, which have been denied by the groups in question, including the highly respectable Sierra Club. Moscow has not commented.

To be sure, there is a certain logic inherent in assertions that Russia might be behind such a development as Moscow's economy runs on energy exports and high prices are good for it. Consequently, it ought not surprise anyone that Russia would seek to discredit competitive technologies that work to increase the supply of energy and thereby cause prices to fall. It's simple math, but is it true given the fact that environmental groups are widely popular due to the appeal of the product they are promoting and have their own reliable sources of income?

Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking, in collusion with organizations that are seeking to encourage the production of much cleaner power. And, of course, cleaner energy is a global interest whether one believes in climate change or not, which underlines the essential hypocrisy of the U.S. media in denouncing something that just might be good for the planet purely because Russia is allegedly involved.

And, of course, the congressmen involved in the revelation come from fracking states. If Moscow is for something then surely Washington must be against it, ignoring the fact that many genuinely patriotic Americans who care about such matters support more strict environmental regulations, no matter what the Wall Street Journal, the White House and the loony tunes in congress are saying.

There was a lot more anti-Russian agitprop in the U.S. media during the week, part of an endless stream of titillation provided free of charge to the American public in an effort to remind everyone that Russia is the enemy and will always be the enemy. Even Donald Trump's milquetoast initiative to mend fences with Vladimir Putin cobbled together during their meeting in Hamburg has been assailed from all sides, most particularly by the usual parties who seem to be locked into an anti-Trump non-détente mindset come what may.

I was particularly bemused by the comment by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in the recent election. In an interview Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."

Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.

And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports regarding the contacts of Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary. As it turns out, there may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced, and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.

Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like a quid pro quo actually took place, the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily naivete on my part nor a denial that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with adversaries and very often even with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance its own interests.

Assuming even the worst case scenario that the media has been promoting, the Trump Tower meeting appears to have involved three political aspirants who were a bit on the novice side and a Russian lawyer and lobbyist who might have been intelligence cut-outs. What did happen anyway? Apart from not reporting the encounter by the three apparent victims of the planned corruption of America's democratic process, nothing apparently happened except that the event itself has now given the esteemed Senator Charles Schumer and the Honorable Adam Schiff something new to mouth off about. Oh, and it keeps Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert, who is celebrating Russia Week on his program, employed.

Politics is a dirty business, based on power and money in these United States. Presumably back in mid-June there was enough salacious information floating around emanating from both parties to provide employment for plenty of individuals who were prepared to do whatever it would take to dig up something damaging up from any source available, including foreigners. That game was played by both sides and anyone who does not think that is so is avoiding the hard edge of the pervasive political corruption that greases the wheels in the United States.

So maybe Russia is funding some environmental groups or maybe not. And if it is, so what? I would welcome anyone who challenges fracking. And so what if a cluster of political tyros met with a couple of Russians who may or may not have been sent by Putin. Clearly, nothing came of it and meeting with a Russian and talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country.

Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence. All of which leads one to question why the U.S. media insist on holding the Russian government and its intelligence services to a higher standard than they do other countries like Israel, which persistently spy on the U.S. and regularly interfere in our political process? And what about our own government and its multitude of spy agencies? Are we always the guys in the white hats? Let's look at the actual record. CIA has done far worse far more consistently in collecting information through misdirection, influencing overseas elections and even changing regimes than have the Russians. And let's not forget the U.S. military's record on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and currently Syria. We are very good at that "regime change" sort of thing even though the results frequently turn out badly because no one in Washington seems to know what to do on day 2 after the invasion has ended with yet another "victory" and another foreign government has been consigned to the garbage heap. ← Who Is the Real Enemy? Category: Economics , Foreign Policy Tags: American Media , CIA , Environmentalism , Fracking , John Brennan , Russia , Scott Ritter

Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=>
Recently from Author Related Pieces by Author Of Related Interest What Did John Brennan and Anonymous Sources Really Say? Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous Philip Giraldi May 30, 2017 1,300 Words 101 Comments Reply The Spooks and the Hacks: Why Do They Hate Russia? John Derbyshire February 18, 2017 1,100 Words 83 Comments Reply The Fraud of the White Helmets Hollywood buys into yet another lie Philip Giraldi July 4, 2017 1,100 Words 125 Comments Reply ← Who Is the Real Enemy? Hide 112 Comments Leave a Comment 112 Comments to "Fracking Around with the Russians" Commenters to Ignore Commenters to ignore (one per line)

Save ListCancel ...to Follow Commenters to follow (one per line)

Save ListCancel Endorsed Only []

RobinG > , July 18, 2017 at 4:22 am GMT

Speaking of regime change, wasn't it Victoria Nuland and George Soros' enabling of Kiev coup that obliged the US installed puppet gov't. of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election at the behest to DNC to assist Hillary?

The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT

Yeah, it might be illustrative to consider what the entire environmental movement would look like today if it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who owned the oil in the ME.

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT

Also in this whole Russia-fracking gate, will no one in the media mention the vanglorious and incompetent sleuth, John Podesta's Machiavellian (for dummies) support for groups putting pressure on the Catholic Church ?

LauraMR > , July 18, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT

"Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence."

The arrogance of it.

It is at times like this that I can only wonder what kind of death-rattling trauma we must endure as a nation to regain a measure of rationality.

Verymuchalive > , July 18, 2017 at 8:45 am GMT

" A former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy."
Recent studies indicate that the Russian Economy is now larger than that of Germany. Current Western sanctions, far from harming the Russian economy, have been beneficial in supporting import substitution and diversification.
It is clear Giraldi doesn't read the work of his fellow columnist, Anatoly Karlin. Giraldi is still stuck in 1995. Time you caught up on your homework, Philip.

Sergey Krieger > , July 18, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

Mr. giraldi should ask can Italy or Spain afford or make what Russia can ,can France or Germany? Hence Mr. Giraldi views of what Russian economy is, are not correct.

The Alarmist > , July 18, 2017 at 9:16 am GMT

" talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country."

The Alarmist > , July 18, 2017 at 9:18 am GMT

" talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country."

There are secret laws, so one can no longer say even that with certainty. These are the same laws that make it illegal to know or merely meet a Russian.

Beckow > , July 18, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

West needs evil white people. No civilization can function without some agreed on enemy. Russia has played this role on and off for centuries. Today there is simply no other viable candidate – with the multi-cultural and religous taboos, and the need for the enemy to be credible and a bit remote. So Russia it is and probably will be for a long time, any consequences be damned.

Russia dislike also feeds well into the surviving atavistic hatreds among key groups in the West: grandkids of pogroms, endless emigres with their bitter family memories and a need to fit in, the deep seated thirst for revenge among Germans now that they are again allowed to sit at the Western table, the French and Anglo-Saxon egomania and a need to distract from their own history. And of course the Poles, they would line up to attack Russia if Al Queda would lead it. One cannot fight emotions.

The question is whether it is wise. It is close to impossible to maintain permanent hostility with Russia, so something has to give. A climb-down is very unlikely – too many powerful people are freshly invested in the struggle against 'evil Russkies'. The two other alternatives are worse: if Russia gets destroyed, West won't last long – the Russia's hinterland will get overrun by southern and eastern masses and West will be basically done for. And destroying both Russia and West in a war needs no analysis.

Could we possibly perish because Western elites were emotionally invested in Clintons getting back in the White House and the jobs-perks that would come with it? Or because some nerd named Podesta messed up his email passwords? Well, why not, after all Franz Ferdinand's driver made a bad turn and

Philip Giraldi > , July 18, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT

@Verymuchalive This analysis comes from the World Economic Forum. Russia's economy is slightly bigger than Spain's and smaller than that of Italy. It is far smaller than that of Germany and is dwarfed by the US.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/worlds-biggest-economies-in-2017/

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Mr. Giraldi, that's nominal GDP. Meaningless. Might as well cite the number of bubble gum chewers as an indicator.
On a list of countries by projected 2017 GDP (PPP), Russia places 6th, in a virtual dead heat with Germany.

On that basis, China is ahead of even the EU, with the US 2nd on a national basis, and a distant 3rd on an economic "block" basis. It is some $4T behind China, which sounds about right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Beckow > , July 18, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi The best way to compare economies is by using PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). It is not perfect, but it adjusts for currency fluctuation. By that measure, using CIA Worldbook for 2016, Russia is #6 economy in the world, slightly smaller than Germany. Spain is #16 and about half the size of Russia's economy in real terms.

The reason it is absolutely essential to adjust for currecy conversion is that otherwise you get crazy variations when e.g. dollar goes up by 30% against the euro. Or in Russia's case ruble is down almost 50% against the dollar. Those are artificial numbers – showing size in 'dollars' that are nor used in those economies is like showing US economy's performance in pesos. PPP adjusts for purchasing power.

Russia's economy is about the size of Germany, with almost twice the population. It is also one of 4-5 economies that can manufacture everything from jet planes and space rockets, to nuclear power plants and weapons. It has about 1/5 of world's total physical resources and is self-sufficient in food. It is the largest lightly populated space in the world. There are different ways we can be wrong about the realities around us, trying to have it both ways and to stay within some allowed boundaries is one of them.

Z-man > , July 18, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT

@The Alarmist As I've said many times before, one day it will be a crime, like it is in much of Europe already, to even question the numbers of the Holocaust, with SEVERE punishments maybe even death!

Z-man > , July 18, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

The Western Elites, you know who I mean, hate Putin for reestablishing and/or fostering the Christian Orthodox church in the country. 'They' just hate that!

Tom Welsh > , July 18, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT

"Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence".

Well, there almost certainly isn't any evidence. But that doesn't really matter. Regardless, the USA DOES NOT GET to "punish" Russia. There is a little legal concept called "sovereignty" that seems to have slipped the mind of Americans. Nations do not – cannot "punish" one another these days. Until, perhaps, 1939, one nation could invade another and conquer it – but today that is illegal under international law, the Nuremberg Principles, and the UN Charter. Slighter acts of war, such as sanctions, are also strictly forbidden.

Now, as we all know, the US government – like its li'l bitty buddy the Israeli government – is in the habit of completely ignoring all laws, and doing whatever it likes. But trampling the law underfoot is not a wise thing to do – one day, you yourself might need it.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

Russia's economy is slightly bigger than Spain's and smaller than that of Italy

Phil, this is dubious at best. The same as 18 trillion dollars US economy, 70% of which is FIRE, that is involved mostly in financial transactions. Even CIA's World Fact Book gives it (for 2015) as 3.8 trillion. At 2017 it is stated at 3.9 trillion which is about the size of Germany's. Using data of some supposedly "independent" (and globalist in nature) Swiss outlet on Russia is a dubious task. Big Mac Dollar was introduced for a reason.

Here is dynamics of Russia's GDP from International Monetary Fund (also globalist, but at least consistent).

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2015&ey=2022&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=94&pr1.y=12&c=922&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP&grp=0&a=

I omit here the usage of "absolute" dollars in measuring GDP–it really comes down to introducing not just Big Mac but F-35 dollars. When Spain will be able to produce what Russia produces, then maybe.

Rich > , July 18, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT

I stubbed my toe the other night because Russia moved my kitchen table.

Gg Mo > , July 18, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

2+ million Bolsheviks have immigrated to Israel from Russia since the Gravy-train collapsed in 1991, absconding with not a few billion dollars and a deep resentment . Various careerist took their policies and plans with them as well.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT

@Erebus Western economic views were "monetarised" to the point of a complete absurd at the expense of real, that is manufacturing (productive) economy. This is the view which "equates" manufacturing of jet aircraft or space station with the balance sheet of some insurance company or some bank, both of which produce only services, much of them of a virtual and dubious nature. Sadly, "making money" long ago substituted "making things" and then making money based on that. The United States in particular paid a gruesome price for this delusion by de-industrializing almost to the point of no return. In the end, nothing short of a miraculous victory of Donald Trump is a greatest testimony to a complete bankruptcy of dominant monetarist economic views. He emphasized high paying manufacturing jobs–he won.

for-the-record > , July 18, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT

@Beckow As the ultimate arbiter, we can refer to the Economist's "Big Mac Index":

THE Big Mac index was invented by The Economist in 1986 as a lighthearted guide to whether currencies are at their "correct" level. It is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity (PPP), the notion that in the long run exchange rates should move towards the rate that would equalise the prices of an identical basket of goods and services (in this case, a burger) in any two countries. For example, the average price of a Big Mac in America in July 2017 was $5.30; in China it was only $2.92 at market exchange rates. So the "raw" Big Mac index says that the yuan was undervalued by 45% at that time.

For July 2017 the Big Mac index shows the Russian ruble to be undervalued by 57%:

Actual $ exchange rate -- 60.14

Implied $ exchange rate -- 25.85

http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 1:44 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov For an in depth look at the Russian economy, have a look at: https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russian-economy-2014-2016-the-years-of-sanctions-warfare/

Amongst the conclusions:
"In fact, (the Russian economy) is the most self-sufficient and diversified economy in the world." Thank God for sanctions. Before that it was just "a gas station with nukes".

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 1:57 pm GMT

@for-the-record

As the ultimate arbiter, we can refer to the Economist's

Economist (the magazine) and real economy in the same sentence is a bad joke. Economist as "the ultimate arbiter" is altogether–beyond redemption.

For July 2017 the Big Mac index shows the Russian ruble to be undervalued by 57%:

Russian economy in general is undervalued several times–that is why for the last 20+ years virtually nobody in Western "analytical" organizations can explain what just hit them.

Pandos > , July 18, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT

@Gg Mo OH thank you Jesus!

Greg Bacon > , Website July 18, 2017 at 2:09 pm GMT

@chris

Yeah, it might be illustrative to consider what the entire environmental movement would look like today if it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who owned the oil in the ME.

The USA gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela, not the ME.

BTW, in a way, the Israelis do own most of the ME oil, thru their Wall Street confederates in control of the commodity market where the oil is sold. Sold back and forth around 15 times before it reaches the refinery, meaning the US customer is getting screwed BIG TIME by our Israeli ally.

for-the-record > , July 18, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov I think you failed to appreciate the "tongue in cheek" quality of my remark. In your rather blind haste to defend Russia, which I can well understand, you seem to miss the fact that I am essentially on your side.

As to being "several times" times undervalued, this is not at all inconsistent with the 57% undervaluation shown by the Big Mac index, which means that the ruble's "true" value is nearly 2.5 times its quoted value.

Wizard of Oz > , July 18, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Come again! Secret laws? You mean the ones Senator Caligula arranges to have carved in Esperanto on stone blocks exhibited once a week on the top of a 50 foot scaffold? You are talking about laws in the everyday dictionary or constitutionsl sense and not just some note from tbe White House?

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

The United States in particular paid a gruesome price for this delusion by de-industrializing almost to the point of no return.

Well, it had to if it was going to go for Dollar-based Hegemony. It apparently felt that it had to, and so it did.

Triffin's Dilemma states that if a single nation is the issuer of the world's reserve currency, then that nation had to run increasingly massive trade deficits to fund the world's liquidity. What better way to do that than to encourage their industry (via tax incentives) to move their industry off-shore? The captains of American industry jumped at the gift and made a LOT of money feeding China's development.

What China got way back in 2001 was the equivalent of being lent the US' credit card. They promptly traded piles of plastic toys and toasters for a modern 21st century infrastructure, a massive industrial base, and a sizeable military, raising some 1 billion of their population out of abject poverty along the way. They promised to open up their financial sector to foreign players, but shucks, that somehow never happened. Instead, the top 4 largest banks in the world are now Chinese. All state owned.
When they hand that card back in, it'll be at, or just over its limit, and overseas USM personnel will be hitch-hiking rides back to the US.

Shouldn't be long now.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

@for-the-record My point was not in "defending Russia"–my reasons are much deeper than any mere "defense". I may have missed your sarcasm on Economist, but using Ruble (or any currency in general) as an economic indicator is a tricky business. Structure of GDP and a number of enclosed technological cycles are among most important, in fact–defining, factors.

Wizard of Oz > , July 18, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT

It is quite certain that rich American environmentalists have funded speciously connected Aboriginal litigants to conduct lawfate against the potentially gigantic Galilee Basin ptoject in Queensland to export coal to India.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

@Erebus

What China got way back in 2001 was the equivalent of being lent the US' credit card. They promptly traded piles of plastic toys and toasters for a modern 21st century infrastructure, a massive industrial base, and a sizeable military, raising some 1 billion of their population out of abject poverty along the way. They promised to open up their financial sector to foreign players, but shucks, that somehow never happened. Instead, the top 4 largest banks in the world are now Chinese. All state owned.

Very true. But using term "massive industrial base" may give an aneurysm to some Wall Street economic "analysts" or create a cognitive dissonance of such a scale that will require psychiatric intervention.

for-the-record > , July 18, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Using rubles at the "official" exchange rate is of course meaningless; however, using a purchasing-power-parity adjusted exchange rate (which is what the Big Mac index is, in a certain sense) provides a very useful means for comparing levels of outputs in different countries, do you not agree?

Sergey Krieger > , July 18, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov This is not the first time Phil compared Russia to Spain or Italy. It is widespread dillusion and meme I read often. I find it in line general American policy to repeat lies and insinuations non stop be it WW2 history, Ukraine, Russian GDP,elections and so forth until it is accepted as sort of truth. Even Phil being non mainstream still repeats this nonsense comparing Russia to Spain.

Flavius > , July 18, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT

Both as a veteran and as a former cold warrior, I must say that I feel betrayed by the myopia, historical ignorance, incompetence, hubris, recklessness, sheer nuttiness of the Washington establishment's conduct towards Russia over the past 20 years – bipartisan insanity. When one thinks it can't get worse, it gets worse; or as the circa 70s Soviet saying went, things are worse today than yesterday, but better than tomorrow.
Economic numbers are relevant but ultimately beside the point when calculating one's national interest in the context of the world's major political and nuclear powers and history's most blood soaked century.
Kudos to people like Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, and Patrick Buchanan who demonstrate regularly that at least some who were there as witnesses of what was retain the good judgment to recognize the road the damn DC fools ever more insistently are taking us down; and I would add for no good reason at all, but purely out of habit and for having something to do.

Verymuchalive > , July 18, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov This was part of the argument I was trying to expose. The Russian economy is grossly undervalued and many people who should know better like Philip Giraldi tend to grossly underestimate its size, range and capabilities.
By contrast, the American economy is grossly overvalued and its capabilities grossly overestimated. You yourself gave the most absurd example: Facebook is now valued on a parity with Boeing. Purely as an advertising vehicle, which is all it is, Facebook might be worth a couple of hundred million dollars. But no more.
And the there's Twitter. Never made a profit in its 11 years. $2 billion accumulative deficits. Book worth $11 billion. You couldn't make it up.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT

@for-the-record

do you not agree?

As one of the tools of economic analysis–agree.

Mr. Hack > , July 18, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT

@RobinG For a guy that claims to 'only be interested in the facts' this 'great' investigative reporter sure likes to serve up a crock of BS for his main course. While trying to make a case that the DNC was solely responsible for installing Yanukovych's replacement, the video clip shows Nuland making a phone call to somebody (?) announcing that her choice was Vitali Klitschko oops, how did Victor Poroshenko end up running the show, and not Klitschko? Looks like this sinister Soros plot unraveled here a wee bit. Also, while trying to besmearch the good name of John McCain, he's shown on a stage with a supposed notorious 'anti-Semite'. But look, who's that third person on the stage with both McCain and Tyahnibok? Why it's Arseni Yatseniuk, a Ukrainian-Jew, of all people! What's this Ukrainian Jew doing on stage with this great anti-Semite? Maybe he's an anti-Semite too??

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov With any luck, it'll spoil their whole afternoon.

Philip Giraldi > , July 18, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Andrei and others we are really on the same side on this – no matter how one values the Russian economy it is still tiny compared to the US and Western Europe. My point is that it is ludicrous to keep calling it a threat to everyone else – it doesn't have the economic mojo to take on the world. So let's stop picking on
Russia and calling it a threat. Likewise my comment about punishing Russia – if indeed Russia has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in order. But we should be demanding evidence relating to all the allegations and even then when I am referring to punishment I am thinking in terms of sanctions and other actions, not any expansion of NATO or anything that actually threatens Russian security.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger Those are mantras. In one sense I understand that, even among people who, otherwise, would be considered "realists". It is akin to John Mearsheimer repeating non-stop his favorite mantra of Russian Armed Forces being "a mediocre army". It will take some time for a reality to sink in.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

if indeed Russia has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in order.

Agree, as strange it may sound from the man of my background. The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything at her disposal. Having said all that–I doubt strongly that Russia interfered in US elections. I make this conclusion purely on assessing the overall (much improved since mid-2000s) intellectual level of people who run Russian institutions which potentially may have interfered. I don't think those people are that stupid as to endanger US-Russian relations which are crucial for global stability, or whatever is left of it anyway.

Michael Kenny > , July 18, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

Back to "no evidence" again! "Let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong". OK. How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there. Putin doesn't deny it! By the way, from what I gather, talking with representatives of a foreign power with a view to obtaining an advantage is a federal crime and it matters not one whit whether any advantage was actually obtained or even that the "representatives" were faking. In the particular case, DNC "dirt" actually did pop up on the internet. Moreover, one of the lawyer's clients was being prosecuted for money laundering. Trump removed the federal prosecutor and the company was suddenly offered a sweet settlement deal without a guilty plea. That's a long way from "ipso facto"!

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

@Verymuchalive

You yourself gave the most absurd example: Facebook is now valued on a parity with Boeing.

Atrocious, isn't it? Boeing–a crown jewel of American (and global aerospace) industry and engineering genius and a FB. One produces technological marvels with global demand, another produces absolutely nothing, sadly, also with a global demand.

BTW, as I type this–Russia held today opening of 2017 MAKS aerospace exhibition–a real economy on display. There is only other nation in the world which can on her own produce anything comparable–and that is the US.

Longfisher > , July 18, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

Moral Equivalence? Heck no. America is the indispensable and exceptional nation.

We can commit the same sins in even greater number and magnitude than other nations yet no one can hold us accountable while we hold others accountable for identical actions.

I recently wrote a very intelligent and cogent comment on a right-wing website which suggested that viewing America as if we were indispensable and exceptional, despite the plain fact that Trump was elected precisely because we aren't either of those things and his job was to find flaws and fix them, would tend to placate Americans such that we don't get to work fixing those flaws.

Guess what, that post was deleted by moderators within seconds.

Swell-headedness and self importance seems very deeply ingrained in Americans.

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

it is ludicrous to keep calling it a threat

Mr. Giraldi, you're missing the salient point. The rulers of the USA aren't delusional lunatics. Russia is the single largest threat to America's dream of Global Hegemony. It's refusal to kowtow to Washington, and more critically, its lending of its military power to underpin China's Silk Road Dreams guarantees their GH dream will die.

For the rulers of the USA, that's anathema. As good as death itself. They bet Americans' well being, Brand America, its industrial and civilian infrastructure, and almost its farms, for Global Hegemony and came up craps. They'll lose the farms soon enough.

That is why they're panicking, and why they're going to do everything they can to break their fall. Above all, they have to convince their allies to stay loyal, particularly Europe long enough to allow them to "think of something".

They have to stop the Silk Road from coming somehow, or American power will recede to the continent, leaving them to boss Canada and Mexico around. With Russia out of the way, China's a pushover. The two together can't be overcome. It really is as simple as that.

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

Everything Putin has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.

Care to cite any of it? I have yet to see the Kremlin take a single step off the black letter law. I'd be interested if you did.

Rurik > , Website July 18, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

if indeed Russia has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in order.

Agree

when you compare how the ZUSA has intervened in other nations sovereign affairs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJVcdKxs3XA

and compare that to a Russian lawyer meeting with Trump surrogates with potential dirt on Clinton, the sheer hypocrisy is enough to benumb the mind and soul, it's so beyond egregious.

what's going on is the unipolar world of Zio-NATO demanding fealty from every last bastion of the dying multilateral international community, until it's zio-interests reign the entire length and breath of the planet, without a shred of resistance or dissent.

Sort of like the way they demanded that no one give Edward Snowden safe haven. And almost all nations kowtowed. They will not rest until their unipolar domination extends to every last bastion of human freedom from their $atanic power.

The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything at her disposal

that's laughable.

the institutions of the US were murdered on 9/11, along with all those people in the planes and towers. We are no longer a people or a nation with a legal constitution, but rather are an occupied people with a quisling government serving Israel's interests, day and night. We're about as sovereign as Palestine, but at least they have the dignity of seeing their occupation for what it is, whereas we play pretend, and act like we're still sovereign, even as our citizens are assassinated if they become inconvenient to the regime in Tel Aviv that runs things here.

http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/netanyahu-congress-600×449.jpg

if we're going to be occupied by a hostile regime that hates us and wants to use us as cannon fodder to enslave Russia and everyone else, then we ought at least be allowed the dignity of knowing it and saying it.

Rurik > , Website July 18, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.

you must be from the Kagan family of war pigs

Victoria Nuland (Nudelman), and her corpulent husband Robert Kagan

the waddling blob of lard Frederick Kagan and his war sow wife Kimberly Kagan

which one are you?

http://il6.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/11730821/thumb/1.jpg

alternatereality > , July 18, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@Pandos

OH thank you Jesus!

The lord gives and the lord takes --

Russian immigrants leaving Israel, discouraged by conversion woes

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/features/.premium-1.623745

Apr 14, 2017 Putin's Aliyah: Russian Jews leave Israel – Middle East Monitor

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170414-russian-jews-leave-israel/

(This may be one of the primary reasons for the ongoing demonization of Russia: One of zionism's foremost goals was the in-gathering of the diaspora. In the past zionists have destabilised states where Jews dwelt -- peacefully and securely -- in order to frighten Jews into leaving. If the Jews who left Russia in the 1980s are now returning, or are not integrating successfully in Israel, then similar tactics will likely be deployed.)
Putin's Aliyah: Russian Jews leave Israel According to Rozovsky, the post- 2000 immigrants, especially those who arrived following the failed

May 10, 2017 Some 17 per cent of the Jewish immigrants who came to Israel from the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s have since left, official data by

25 years later, Russian speakers still the 'other' in Israel,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/25-years-later-russian-speakers-still- ;

Sep 1, 2016 "The majority of native-born Israelis think Russian Israelis are not Jews," said Svetlova. . were forced to give up their citizenship and pension upon leaving.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT

@Rurik I may agree with you on some points but those agreements are not bases for denouncing national sovereignty as a crucial guiding principle of international relations. Yes, including USA.

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

@Greg Bacon Yeah, I know we don't get our oil in the ME, but we justify our meddling there and everywhere by trying to keep it out of the hands of our 'enemies' and flowing to our friends. even if we have to create those friends and enemies in order to create a role for ourselves.

Regarding the second point you made, I didn't know that, but somehow I'm not exactly surprised!

Beckow > , July 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi How do you "wreck an election"? I can imagine a number of ways from using violence, intimidation, media pressure, buying votes, blackmail of candidates, electoral fraud, and a few others. But none of those happened in a significant way in the 2016 elections – and the esteemed Mr. Obama went out of his way right before the elections to say that all was in order.

Now, one can argue that some of the above always happens, and that it also happened in 2016 in US (there was some violence and media manipulation, there is always some fraud ). But how can any sane person claim that it "wrecked the election"?

If one looks at any event long enough and is motivated to find 'irregularities', one can always find them. But how was 2016 different from 2012,or 2000, or 1968, or any other election year?

Rurik > , Website July 18, 2017 at 5:45 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

national sovereignty as a crucial guiding principle of international relations. Yes, including USA.

OK, but in order to expect anyone else to respect international law and the sovereignty of nations, isn't it rather incumbent upon us that we (the ZUSA) do so as well?

IOW, wouldn't it be rather silly for Israel to punish a Palestinian for failing to recognize Israel's sovereignty, when Israel doesn't even respect his right to breath, let alone have a spot on the earth that he can call his own?

Isn't it sort of a folly for the ZUSA to demand that Russia respect our sovereignty, when we relentlessly subvert her election processes and the stability of the nations on her borders, in a direct and obvious attempt to destabilize their government and society? And try to do them all manor of harm to benefit some dark and devious scheme of the (by now notorious) villains that run our government and institutions?

It seems like Jerry Sandusky demanding that Mother Theresa be more considerate to children.

or at least, that's sort of how it seems to me.

But then I'll gladly pretend that Trump is going to return to us our sovereignty, and behave within the norms of International Law, (respecting all other nation's sovereignty) and then when that happens, then I'll agree with you vis-a-vis the importance of protecting the institutions of our national sovereignty. Something I hope Trump will be able to wrest back from Tel Aviv, and we can all live happily ever after.

Anonymous > , July 18, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything at her disposal. Having said all that–I doubt strongly that Russia interfered in US elections.

The American electorate has, for 50 years, consistently elected "representatives" who, without fail, proceeded to take actions to devastate the American economy while enriching themselves and their grotesquely-corrupt monetary "supporters". With that in mind, why on earth would Russia seek to interfere in a US election? America is rapidly destroying itself -- no interference is necessary.

Anonymous > , July 18, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.

I see you are a well-paid 2nd-tier hasbara. A slicker, smoother, more practiced line of patter. But, bullshit, per the usual.

Russia has long-standing agreements with Ukraine that establish rights-of-way to its bases in Crimea. Nothing illegal was done with respect to international law. It's very typical of Israelis to squawk nastily about "international law" that does not exist.

Good to have you aboard, Moshe! We need a good token around to shill for Israel. Keep that bullshit coming!!

lavoisier > , Website July 18, 2017 at 6:22 pm GMT

Nothing at all respectable about the modern day Sierra Club.

They sold out for a big donation from a Jewish donor committed to open borders.

The environment in the United States be dammed.

It is all about the money with the modern day Sierra Club.

Nothing more disrespectful, or predictable with liberals, than that.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm GMT

@Anonymous

The American electorate has, for 50 years, consistently elected "representatives" who, without fail, proceeded to take actions to devastate the American economy while enriching themselves and their grotesquely-corrupt monetary "supporters".

True to a large degree. Yet:

With that in mind, why on earth would Russia seek to interfere in a US election? America is rapidly destroying itself -- no interference is necessary.

You could be really stunned if you think that Russia seeks destruction of the US and once real Russia's intentions are understood. This is not to speak of consequences of the US imploding–they will be global and could be simply catastrophic for all. US is a nuclear superpower and is still a crucial player in global economy. Russia sure as hell is interested in saner and, in a good geopolitical sense, national interests' defending US–but those interests certainly can not be "global" in neocon "interpretation". In the end, during campaigning Trump was saying very many right words and those words have been prepared for him by very powerful people, which testifies to the fact of some powerful forces inside US who do understand the new game. We all are currently at the point of no return, we are still balancing on it, whether we will cross into the "pass the point of NR" is yet to be seen. But US power is declining both in relative and absolute terms and this process is objective.

lavoisier > , Website July 18, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT

@Z-man Counterproductive for sure.

Criminalization of thought gives the thought more credibility.

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Why am I beginning to get the feeling that Russia is now being catapulted by the most complex algorithms to the forefront of the world economic ranking in order to make them look like the ominous opponent we've already 'agreed' to make them into?

Isn't this a bit transparent ?

lavoisier > , Website July 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm GMT

@Erebus If your analysis is correct, and it may well be, then our decline as a superpower will be the result of Jewish hegemony and the traitorous behavior of the cuckservatives.

A nation hollowed out at its core will die.

yeah > , July 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm GMT

Philip Giraldi, pretending to be so fair and reasonable, writes, ""Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence."

Punish exactly how? By making the Russians wear dunce caps? By expelling even more Russian diplomats? Or perhaps by launching a few good ones?

The stupidity, hypocrisy, and hubris of Neocons and their bedmates, the progressives, makes me gasp. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that the sanest and safest way in troubled times is for all parties to observe international law and not to renounce it.

Now what great human ideal, what dazzling symptom of moral and political greatness has been achieved by bombing silly but miserably weak countries? Is Iraq a better place for anyone now?Is Libya more democratic now? Should N. Korea be similarly treated? And of course the mother of all questions: how should Russia be punished? Will more Nato exercises in the Baltic teach the Russians better manners? What if they took it into their heads to conduct military exercises off the Gulf of Mexico? Of course, that will only prove how fiendish they are, how they "interfered" with US democracy. Interfered how? Perhaps they lifted American skirts a little too high. The US never, ever interferes with any country's political processes. The CIA exists to ensure that every US agency follows international law fully. But damn these Russians, they don't understand such noble things.

Dangerous times when hypocrisy and arrogance gets mixed up with tons of stupidity and ignorance.

Cortes > , July 18, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT

An excellent article. Thank you.

One minor quibble. The "golden shower" allegation was designed to be more embarrassing than your version of it, since the story was that the prostitutes urinated on Trump and not the other way round.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT

@Rurik

OK, but in order to expect anyone else to respect international law and the sovereignty of nations, isn't it rather incumbent upon us that we (the ZUSA) do so as well?

Yes, absolutely so.

It seems like Jerry Sandusky demanding that Mother Theresa be more considerate to children. or at least, that's sort of how it seems to me.

A good point you make but once you observe with the naked eye most of what is going on currently in terms of global power re-balancing–it is precisely about a bottom line of several guiding principles applied to everyone which should be followed–respect for sovereignty is the most important of them. It will require (and it is happening as I type is) a significant re-defining of US "exceptionalism" before new balance is achieved but it is this new balance into whose sails the winds of history are blowing. Having said all that, espionage and operations of influence will certainly not go anywhere, but the level of violence will be reduced greatly.

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT

@Cortes I knew right away that that whole golden shower story was fake because on the margins this charge had been made about Hitler also over the years.

Seems to be the standard smear against nazis, #7 in the ol' lexicon.

Priss Factor > , Website July 18, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT

former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy.

But keep in mind that it's wrong to assess Russian economy this way.

Much of Spanish or Italian economy is just tourism, wine, foods, and such stuff. Italy and Spain don't have Power Economies.

In contrast, Russia has tons of resources, big machinery, military ware, and energy.
So, it is a Power Economy. And if Russia were to enter into war-footing, these sectors could be expanded vastly, like during WWII.

anon > , July 18, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT

Wow. Just wow.

In fact:

1. Russia has been involved in financing 'green' anti EU and Ukrainian fracking for years. This is, in fact, interesting. Liquid crude oil is fungible but natural gas is very expensive to move around except in direct, physically connected pipelines. Ukraine could develop an unconventional gas and oil industry -- in theory. It has resources but not the political or economic cohesion to do anything for its economy.

2. Same with Europe. except there isn't much to develop. Romania gave it a try and could have done something at $100 oil but its project has been abandon at current prices.

3. US sanctions on Russia resulted in 'import substitution' economic development. The Ruble haircut (roughly half) has turned Russia into an agriculture export powerhouse. It's now the largest exporter of grain in the world.

4. What did we do? We 'manipulated' Russia's currency downward and luck reduced (temporarily) the value of oil exports. We pushed other countries *not* to trade with Russia. This resulted in Russia boycotting food imports, among other things. Effectively a tariff. The only negative was a real, significant, but transitory cost to Russian standard of living. I suppose the rationale was to punish Putin and cause political unrest. That worked well, no?

5. Meanwhile -- Fracking. Lets call it unconventional US Oil and Gas. The US is effectively self sufficient regarding net total trade balance of oil and gas, including refined products and basic chemicals. Not quite as obvious as it would be if every component was in exact balance. US refineries can get more out of heavy crude and well continue to import it and refine it. The US produces multi millions of bbl per day of 'liquids' -- a large quantity of which are exported. Propane, among others. Look it up if you are curious. Meanwhile, the US is the world's largest producer of natural gas.

The entire unconventional oil industry is the only large area of expansion in the US economy since 2008. It's why the US has done better than the rest of the developed world's economies since 2008. What replaced the housing bubble? I suppose nothing, but unconventional oil has come close. A problem is that the benefits are more concentrated than single family housing -- which had the advantage of being spread around fairly uniformly, with a lot going to the deplorable engaged in a segment of the skilled labor needed to pull it off.

A policy of global hegemony focused on oil is more than backwards looking. I suppose it is impossible not to fight the last war. WW 2 wasn't primarily about oil, but the popular narrative tends to seriously underestimate the extent to which it was catastrophic for Germany. Russia had it and Germany didn't. And of course -- it was fought on the Eastern Front and paid for in Russian blood. But oil was so 20th century. Would the US design a foreign policy around the 'strategic' asset of coal?

The point is that a commodity based view of global hegemony is old and wrong. US has been an 'agricultural' superpower for a century. And now we have made Russia the grain basket of the world. And now oil is effectively just another commodity. Time to get with it.

Zenarchy > , July 18, 2017 at 8:51 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack Yats is not a Jew and even Ukraine's chief rabbi has said so.
Have you even looked at him? There may be blonde and blue-eyed Jews etc, but this guy has zero Jewish features.

Anonymous > , July 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

You could be really stunned if you think that Russia seeks destruction of the US and once real Russia's intentions are understood. This is not to speak of consequences of the US imploding–they will be global and could be simply catastrophic for all.

In my opinion, it follows that both Russia and China need the USA for economic reasons -- markets, currency standard, stabilizing effect of military, etc. More correctly, they need something like the USA, so the USA serves the purpose for the meanwhile. The US is collapsing from decay, where China is on a growth spurt of yet undetermined duration, Russia on a rebirth cycle following collapse that did not destroy it.

All interesting factors. I will say I do not believe the US can engender rebirth, and its collapse will be properly calamitous. We shall see.

Patrick Armstrong > , Website July 18, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT

RUSSIA INC. Summarising three recent authorities, Wikipedia says Canada's GDP is greater than Russia's and Germany's is about two and a half times greater. There's something deeply misleading and, in fact, quite worthless about these GDP comparisons. Russia has a full-service space industry including the only other operating global satellite navigation system.

Neither Canada nor Germany does. It has an across the board sophisticated military industry which may be the world leader in electronic warfare, air defence systems, silent submarines and armoured vehicles. Neither Canada nor Germany does. It has a developed nuclear power industry with a wide range of products. Ditto.

It builds and maintains a fleet of SSBNs – some of the most complicated machinery that exists. Ditto. Its aviation industry makes everything from competitive fighter planes through innovative helicopters to passenger aircraft. Ditto.

It has a full automotive industry ranging from some of the world's most powerful heavy trucks to ordinary passenger cars. It has all the engineering and technical capacity necessary to build complex bridges, dams, roads, railways, subway stations, power stations, hospitals and everything else.

It is a major and growing food producer and is probably self-sufficient in food today. Its food export capacity is growing and it has for several years been the leading wheat exporter. It has enormous energy reserves and is a leading exporter of oil and gas. Its pharmaceutical industry is growing rapidly. It is intellectually highly competitive in STEM disciplines – a world leader in some cases.

Its computer programmers are widely respected. (Yes, there is a Russian cell phone.) It's true that many projects involve Western partners – the Sukhoy Superjet for example – but it's nonetheless the case that the manufacturing and know-how is now in Russia. Germany or Canada has some of these capabilities but few – very few – countries have all of them. In fact, counting the EU as one, Russia is one of only four.

Therefore in Russia's case, GDP rankings are not only meaningless, but laughably so. While Russians individually are not as wealthy as Canadians or Germans, the foundations of wealth are being laid and deepened every day in Russia. What of the future? Well there's a simple answer to that question – compare Russia in 2000 with Russia in 2017: all curves are up. Of course Russians support their government – why wouldn't they? It's doing what they hired it to do; we others can only dream of such governments. For what it's worth, PwC predicts Russia will be first in Europe in 2050, but, even so, I think it misses the real point: Indonesia and Brazil ahead of Russia? No way: it's not GDP/PPP that matters, it's full service. Russia is a full-service power and it won't become any less so in the next 30 years. Autarky. Very few aren't there? And in that little group of four autarkies on the planet, who's going up and who's going down? A big – fatal even – mistake to count Russia out.

https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2017/02/09/russian-federation-sitrep-9-february-2017/

Astuteobservor II > , July 18, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT

@Verymuchalive he is using gdp numbers.

anon > , July 18, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT

@chris It would have few dollars more per gallon and would have been like that since 1950

geokat62 > , July 18, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT

As it turns out, there may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced, and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.

Speaking of the Magnitsky Act, here is some late-breaking news that, if substantiated, will put a completely different spin on the bogus Russia-gate scandal:

Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya says Magnitsky act lobbyist Browder behind Trump Jr. scandal

The scandal concerning the meeting between US President Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was orchestrated by Magnitsky act lobbyist William Browder, the lawyer told RT in an exclusive interview.

"I´m ready to clarify the situation behind this mass hysteria – but only through lawyers or testifying in the Senate," Veselnitskaya told RT.

"I can only assume that the current situation that has been heated up for ten days or so by now is a a very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular manipulator – Mr. Browder. He is one of the greatest experts in the field of manipulating mass media,"Veselnitskaya said.

She went on to say that Browder, who is the founder and CEO of the Hermitage Capital investment company, orchestrated this whole disinformation campaign as revenge for the defeat he suffered in a US court in 2013 from a team of lawyers that included Veselnitskaya.

"I have absolutely no doubt that this whole information [campaign] is being spun, encouraged and organized by that very man as revenge for the defeat he suffered in court of the Southern State of New York in the 'Perezvon' company case," she said.

"He wasn't able to convince the court with his lousy human tragedy that actually never happened, about the fate of a dead man – who he only learnt about after his death."

In 2013, Veselnitskaya was one of the lawyers who represented a Cyprus-based holding company Prevezon, owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, in its defense against allegations of money laundering in a court of the Southern State of New York.

The case was settled with no admission of guilt by Prevezon.

Veselnitskaya also said she is now concerned for the safety of her family as it's been revealed that Browder's team spied on her family's activities even before her meeting with Trump Jr.

"It's been revealed that Mr. Browder and his team have been gathering information about my family," she told RT, adding, that Browder's team "found photos of my house and sent them to Kyle Parker a famous man in the House of Representatives, who worked for Mr Browder for many years – and not for any congressmen or congress as a whole."

People working for Browder also shared all her personal details with representatives of the State Department, Veselnitskaya said.

Browder has a long history of hostility against Russia. In 2013, he was sentenced in absentia to nine years in prison for tax evasion. He was also the boss of the late Russian auditor Sergey Magnitsky.

According to the 2013 court verdict, Browder together with Magnitsky failed to pay over 552 million rubles in taxes (about US$16 million). The businessman was also found guilty of illegally buying shares in the country's natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, costing Russia at least 3 billion rubles (US$100 million).

Magnitsky died in pre-trial custody in 2009. His death led to a strain in Russian-American relations. US authorities eventually imposed sanctions against Russian officials they deemed responsible for the auditor's death by issuing the so-called Magnitsky list in 2012. Browder also lobbied European states to follow Washington's lead.

The Magnitsky Act is a 2012 law that allows the United States to seize assets from a number of alleged Russian human rights abusers, as well as barring them from entering the country. Russia retaliated by prohibiting American families from adopting Russian children.

https://www.rt.com/news/396728-russian-lawyer-scandal-america/

For those who may not recall, Phil previously wrote an excellent article on the sordid Magnitsky Act affair here on Unz. IIRC, Browder managed to get Sen. McCain to stand on the floor of the senate and make a sales pitch (with fancy presentation materials) to convince the rest of the senate to vote in favour of passing the Magnitsky Act, which they did. Hopefully, this story will now begin to unravel like a ball of yarn.

Client 9 > , July 18, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

"Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking"

We've been Fracking since the early 20th century, there are always risks but overall it is a safe alternative. Time to stop getting our oil from countries who use their wealth to spread terror/sharia, whose only aim is to build a global calipahte.

Erebus > , July 19, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT

@lavoisier Well, it's not really an "analysis" as such. If one goes back to the literature of the time, one sees that Triffen's Dilemma was known to the policy makers, and was hovering overhead in the deliberations leading up to Nixon's "closing the gold window" in 1971.

Dollar Hegemony was very attractive because it offered the West the opportunity to do an end run around its military stalemate in its Great Game with the USSR. Though closing the gold window was a policy decision, the attraction was not lost on the captain's of American industry. They could count on a generation or so of extraordinary profit and scrambled on board.

It was Dollar Hegemony that underpinned the West's takedown of the USSR. By loaning the USSR "hard currency" (remember that term?), and then collapsing the prices of the stuff the USSR exported to pay back the loans, the USSR was forced into austerity, and ultimately default.
That plan is a matter of historical record, so didn't require any "analysis" on my part either. They tried the same thing again in 2014, but I suspect the Russians were ready for them this time.

As for the Jewish part, the elite in most countries are "international" in their lifestyle and outlook. Yes, Jews are over-represented there, and are possibly more "international" in outlook than goy elites, but real "Jewish hegemony" comes later with the rise of the Financial State. Having laid out the ground work in the '90s with the repeal of Glass-Steagal etc, it really takes off at the time of 9/11, which coincided with the 2nd shoe dropping on the American economy. Namely, China's ascendance to the WTO and gaining Most Favoured Nation status.

To make Dollar Hegemony work, you need a powerful, and effective military. They got the "powerful" part, in the sense that the USM is really good at blowing stuff up, but they muffed the "effective", and so here we are.

Cortes > , July 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT

@chris Chris, if memory serves, Norman Davies (in his selection of key moments and people "Europe" – a door stopper of a book) went much further in describing the sexual pathology of Hitler. I may be mistaken (won't be the first or only time) so don't sue me. Check out the relevant section of the book.
Here, dealing with President Trump, the effort appears to me to be defamatory and consistent with the seeming ongoing campaign to destabilise his presidency by actors known and unknown.

NoseytheDuke > , July 19, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT

@Flavius "DC fools ever more insistently are taking us down; and I would add for no good reason at all, but purely out of habit and for having something to do."

I can't agree with that. I would say that total global control is the ultimate motivation.

America's role is to be the persuader and enforcer until such time as relative parity is achieved and then America can be reduced to little more than a struggling entity that can be slotted in amongst the other competing economic zones (all controlled by the same interests) in a competitive race to the bottom scenario.

NoseytheDuke > , July 19, 2017 at 12:44 am GMT

@alternatereality I would think that most are emigrating to the US, no?

ChuckOrloski > , July 19, 2017 at 1:03 am GMT

Brilliant revelation, NoseyTheDuke!

Gg Mo > , July 19, 2017 at 1:05 am GMT

@alternatereality Alternative Reality Indeed.

yeah > , July 19, 2017 at 2:26 am GMT

@Patrick Armstrong A very potent and astute piece of analysis – kudos to you, sir.

Now why don't the great economists in their ivory towers get these common sense things right? An economy making everything from A to Z is way different from an economy based on wines, cheese, and chocolates. A wild thought: Perhaps common sense should be made a compulsory part of many curriculums. Yes, no?

RobinG > , July 19, 2017 at 3:05 am GMT

@geokat62 Thanks, Geo.

Here's the weekly update on #UNRIG which, due to being attacked last week by Zionist entities in US, has added a second demand – AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL.

Robert Steele Weekly Integrity Update on #UNRIG

MarkinPNW > , July 19, 2017 at 3:06 am GMT

@Rurik Rurik, shame on you for insulting pigs!

Mokiki > , July 19, 2017 at 3:09 am GMT

Why do you embrace the watermelon position that fracking is "dirty"??

RobinG > , July 19, 2017 at 4:22 am GMT

@Mr. Hack Where to begin? How about the notion that John McCain has a good name to besmirch. ("Besmearch" sounds a bit like something a James Bond villain would do, no?)

Next, why the pretense? Everyone knows that Fuktoria was speaking with U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Ross Pyatt. From Wikipedia,

"In their phone conversation, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should be in the government after Viktor Yanukovych's ouster and in what ways they might achieve that transition, with the name of Arseniy Yatsenyuk (whom Nuland refers to as "Yats") coming up several times. Specifically, the two spoke about which opposition leaders they would like to see in government, what pitches they would give each opposition leader in subsequent calls to achieve this, and strategies on how they would try to manage the 'personality problems' and conflicts between the different opposition leaders with ambitions to become president.[15][16] Yatsenyuk became prime minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014″

So, as you see, their man Yats did become prime minister. Porky, the chocolate king, subsequently became president. Maybe your hearing is bad: they ruled out Klitch from the top positions.

Ya, that's the irony, that the Nudelwoman took power by unleashing a bunch of Banderites and neo-nazis. Pretty funny, huh? BTW, are you sure Mr. Hack isn't really Mr. Hasbara?

Sergey Krieger > , July 19, 2017 at 8:50 am GMT

@Anonymous In case of USA collapse the most important question is what happens with nukes and everything related.

Mr. Hack > , July 19, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

@RobinG

So, as you see, their man Yats did become prime minister.

Yes, and millions of US citizens who voted in the last elections had their choice for president validated too. Were they all involved in some nefarious, covert act too? I replayed the video clip, and while the 'great reporter' talks about Nuland's favorite for the top Ukrainian post, photos of Klitschko were being transferred over the viewing screen. Still, it was Poroshenko and not Yatseniuk that filled the top post. In fact, Poroshenko's name was never mentioned in the nefarious phone call?? BTW, Poroshenko was elected president by way of a monitored and free election several months after the events on the Maidan had settled down.

For the record then, since you so cavalierly throw around the terms 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis', just who exactly do both Yatseniuk and Porosheno represent in your sophisticated view of contemporary Ukrainian political persuasions? Or are both of them both 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis?

Avery > , July 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack {For the record then, since you so cavalierly throw around the terms 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis', just who exactly do both Yatseniuk and Porosheno represent in your sophisticated view of contemporary Ukrainian political persuasions? Or are both of them both 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis?}

Don't know about Porkyshenko, but The Yats is a neo-Nazi*: scroll down and take a gander of The Yats giving the traditional greeting to his Nazi Master, Adolf. (right after Oleh Tyahnybok).

Heil Hitler!
Sieg Heil!

______________
*

https://off-guardian.org/2016/11/05/ukraine-fascisms-toe-hold-in-europe/

Rurik > , Website July 19, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

@MarkinPNW mea culpa

those pigs are actually very beautiful, and they have my apology for comparing them to the Kagans

Sarah Toga > , July 19, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

Phil,
What's your beef with hydraulic fracturing?

Anonymous > , July 19, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT

"One of the latest claims is that Moscow has been covertly funding some environmental groups, most particularly those opposed to the use of fracking technologies."

And Russian environmental critics of Putin, such as Evgueniya Chirikova and Nadezdha Kutepova, are notoriously sponsored by organizations linked to the US government. The moral outrage of the American establishment is totally hypocritical. Anything is right or wrong just when it serves the interests of the American establishment.

In fact, much of the Russian opposition is financed by Washington, but this has never generated any tearing of the Yankee mainstream media.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/russian-opposition-caught-filing-into-us-embassy-in-moscow/30717

Anatoly Karlin > , Website July 19, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

As a rule of thumb, nominal GDP is a superior proxy of financial strength, while PPP-adjusted GDP is better as a proxy of industrial, inc. military-industrial potential (and of real living standards in its per capita format).

In the former domain, Russia is indeed a minor; in the latter domain, it is indeed comparable to Germany.

Philip Giraldi > , July 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

@Sarah Toga http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-are-effects-fracking-environment.asp?lgl=rira-baseline-vertical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States

Mr. Hack > , July 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

@Avery

Arseniy Yatsenyuk [center], former PM of Ukraine, also NOT performing a Nazi slaute.

I take this quote directly from underneath the photo in the article that you cite. Not an expert on correct 'Nazi salutes' I'll defer to the author of this photo for his knowledge on this matter. Yatseniuk, may have showed some solidarity with rightists like Tyahnybok during the Maidan period, but he's never been known for any far right viewpoints or belonging to any far right political parties, and indeed has been referred to as a Jew on many occasions. I don't know for a fact whether or not he's Jewish, not having taken a part in either his Christian baptism, nor his Jewish Bar Mitzvah.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/fearful-of-anti-semitism-22-of-european-jews-hide-identity/

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 19, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

As a rule of thumb, nominal GDP is a superior proxy of financial strength, while PPP-adjusted GDP is better as a proxy of industrial, inc. military-industrial potential (and of real living standards in its per capita format).

Somewhat true. But while PPP is, indeed, "better" it is still highly inaccurate, and I mean highly. Reason being the "adjustment" itself, which changes dramatically across the whole spectrum of real (that is productive) economy plus calculation of costs in general–e.g. US healthcare system. While highly developed and world-class (most of the time), its "cost calculations" (through "charge masters") is ridiculous but it is this number (horrendously inflated) which goes in as part of US GDP. But here is an example which anyone will understand, since unlike financial transactions, it is an essential and extremely important service, that is healthcare. My mother just recently, in Moscow nonetheless, literally built all her teeth anew–she has now literally a new mouth. She paid 130 000 Rubles. World class dentist, excellent equipment, great service, implants etc–whole 9 yards. Now, if converted directly to US Dollar it comes up to 2167 USD. What can I do for that here, in US? I know for sure, my good acquaintance dentist offered me a single implant (and I really need it badly) of an upper tooth for a good price of 2 500 USD. Should I do to my teeth (desirable for me) what my mother did–I would end up with 20 000 + bill in the best case scenario. How do we convert that? I looked once at the cost (covered by my insurance, thankfully) of one of my CT scans–2 000 + USD. This is without "reading" it. As you may have guessed it already, the same procedure in Russia will cost much-much less, this is without counting free ones, but you have to wait there for weeks or even months. Here are simple examples of those gigantic discrepancies. Once one gets into real hi-tech manufacturing field, most (not all) Western "economists" will have their brains exploding.

Philip Giraldi > , July 19, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Andrei and Anatoly – Thanks for explaining this. I last studied economics in an introductory course taught by Milton Friedman. I came away with a "C" and forgot everything I had learned almost immediately.

Apolonius > , July 19, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny Lets punish Russia? Are you sure that you have big enough punisher?

How you people get to think and say such a things? Are you not aware that Russia can obliterate USA and western Europe in 30 mins? No anti-rocket system will help, russian missiles can change their trajectory in flight (american don´t ) -- Not adding that to defend against thousands of missiles is virtually impossible. You still writing like you have power over Russia,this is the most stupid thing you can do – but of course , you are an exceptional representative of the exceptional people You have a donkey for the president, and you blame it on Russia? Whole world is having fun watching this opera..

As to international law, USA and NATO countries are in the gravest breach of the international law, they have executed illegal war and occupation in Serbia, since 1999.(That is just first of many) Let us first punish that, together with reparations to the attacked nation, and then you can start speaking about "International law".

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 19, 2017 at 5:46 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

I came away with a "C" and forgot everything I had learned almost immediately

Very similar, albeit I scored A ("5″) IIRC on my Political Economy Of Capitalism (did less well on the same but of Socialism) in naval academy. But life forced me, eventually, especially against the collapse of the USSR and our lives being thrown in complete disarray (politely speaking), to start review and, eventually, study the subject anew.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 19, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT

@Anonymous

In my opinion, it follows that both Russia and China need the USA for economic reasons -- markets, currency standard, stabilizing effect of military, etc.

Secret to China's economic miracle are precisely these very American markets, which were opened to Chinese-made goods. Russia is far-far less, on several orders of magnitude, less dependent on US markets than China, hence Russia has much bigger room for maneuver. But in the rest, you are correct–US is too important to global economic balance, even despite being so damaging to it, to think that possible collapse could be contained. It could not be contained completely. Some sort of accommodation has to be found. What sort? I am not competent enough to be very specific, plus we will have to go into military-political aspect of that issue.

Apolonius > , July 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

@Patrick Armstrong Just to add one personal observation. I know Russia very well, lived there for 12 years, last time in 1991. Then I visited Russia several times until 2006 – improvement was visible, but nothing prepared me to the Russsia 2017! Even people on the street changed – to the positive. As to buildings, stores, it is incredible, I couldn´t recognize old Russia, everything was new, shining, smart and much better than before.

Russians are optimistic , which was impossible in nineties! It was really a shock for me, very nice shock I don´t know how to express to you this enormous surprise I never thought such transformation possible .

So speaking about Russia like about some sick giant is a very stupid thing to do. Today, Russia from the point of view of her citizens is good, and working hard for excellence. I think Western leaders still think about Russia in categories of 90´s, and that is a big mistake. They should understand once for all, that Russia has to be treated as equal, and not messed with, like in Ukraine. If they will not, I think that the Russia will pass from partner, to the Master.

anon > , July 19, 2017 at 6:59 pm GMT

Here's material for Phil Giraldi's next week's piece:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-overheard-comments-netanyahu-lashes-eus-crazy-policy-on-israel/

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 19, 2017 at 7:26 pm GMT

@Apolonius

Today, Russia from the point of view of her citizens is good, and working hard for excellence

Without any jokes, however lighthearted this my statement may appear to you, one of the fields in which Russia's greatness is unsurpassed by the US is the field of 100% cotton socks. No, I don't mean those white (and warm) cotton socks any COSTCO or department stores sell. No, I am talking about 100% cotton socks of thin and different colors (including of dressy kind) you can by in any Russian department store or Auchan. This is not the case with US anymore.

For years now I was either bringing back with me or whenever any of our friends flew to Russia and back–the request is always the same: bring 10-12 pairs of not-white thin 100% cotton socks. I gave up trying to find these socks in US long time ago now, probably circa 2008-09. Including by means of internet. This is really ridiculous in the nation which was known around the world for its superb cotton products from jeans to socks for decades. I am almost forced now to go back to Russia next year to buy socks–jokes aside, a very serious consideration among few others.

krollchem > , July 19, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Coming from a natural resource science background I would argue that GDP is not relevant to a sustainable society. The concept of GDP is based on the mythology of ever increasing growth. This has been debunked by the late Dr. Bartlett many years ago:

What is relevant is a sustainable society that maintains soil quality/fertility, water quality, and does not exceed the human carrying capacity of the land. More recently, the concept of doughnut economics encapsulates this:

Doughnut Economics – Grab a pencil, draw a doughnut!

https://theminskys.org/doughnut-economics/

https://www.kateraworth.com/animations/

Perhaps Russia can delay civilizational collapse by not following the the Western economic growth trap with the fracking, GMOs, water pollution, etc that is destroying what was once the resource rich land of America.

ps. Another quibble with GDP or PPP measurements is that it does not adequately measure WEALTH generated from the internal economy. See the automatic earth website for a different economic model.

Anonymous > , July 19, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT

@Apolonius

No anti-rocket system will help

Even a 100% accurate system can be made useless if someone sets the warhead to detonate upon hitting the ground. Hitting a rocket (which is the goal) would only result in a nearby mushroom cloud. That's quite a predicament for the operators and for the host country.

HallParvey > , July 19, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT

@Verymuchalive "You couldn't make it up."

Actually, you could. In fact, somebody did.

Bonjour

annamaria > , July 19, 2017 at 8:46 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack Why are you going on a childish offensive by defending the US-installed junta in Kiev and demanding others to provide you with evidence that the neo-nazis and Banderites have nothing to do with Yatz and Poroshenko and Nuland-Kagan?

Google "neo-Nazi parades in Ukraine" and enjoy the show. If you still have doubts about the direct responsibility of Poroschenko for the neo-Nazi presence in the government of Ukraine, read about Pravyj sector and its role in the Maidan revolution. Also, Proschenko had been in contact with the State Dept for years before the Maidan revolution. Your take on this?

The main point is the US-orchestrated regime change in Kiev. Or you want to convince the UNZ reader that Nuland was a virtual reality and nothing has changed in Ukraine since Mrs. Nuland-Kagan' and Mr. Brennan's visit to Kiev? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7

Do you realize that the US has brought a range of US officials to Kiev – including the Director of the CIA – to "improve" a democratic process there by removing a lawfully elected and acting president?

Yes, the US intervention has brought neo-Nazis and Banderites to the positions of influence in Ukraine. What could be more natural than a combination of the name "Kagan" and the word "neo-Nazis?" https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31887-the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made

Rurik > , Website July 19, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

some good news vis-à-vis Russia, Syria and the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.620196799e59

NoseytheDuke > , July 19, 2017 at 11:10 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi I found this small article to be wonderfully instructive on economics.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/

I disagree with a lot of my American friends because they cannot conceive the notion that projects designed to benefit all of society are not necessarily evil socialism.

I believe in affordable healthcare for all and think Trump could achieve this by infusing the VA Hospital system with some extra funds and by using the Cuban healthcare methodology and then offering the service to those in need and charging according to what people can afford to pay. Medical students would be selected purely on merit and would work in the hospital as orderlies, cooks, cleaners whatever while undergoing studies. Post-graduation they would work within the system at a low income for about 10 years to repay their education. Medicines would be produced within the system and any profits from R & D would be ploughed back into the system. Preventative care would also be a feature.

Private healthcare would remain untouched for those who want it and can afford it. I have it myself.

It could be done, would cost far less than thought and ALL would benefit except perhaps the greedy and immoral. America would be a better nation for it.

Mr. Hack > , July 20, 2017 at 12:00 am GMT

@annamaria I'm curious why those of your persuasion aren't at all rattled by Russia's blatant attempts to unduly influence events in Ukraine during the Maidan period:

According to government documents released by former Deputy Interior Minister Hennadiy Moskal, Russian officials served as advisers to the operations against protesters. Codenamed "Wave" and "Boomerang", the operations involved the use of snipers to disperse crowds and capture the protesters' headquarters in the House of Trade Unions. Before some police officers defected, the plans included the deployment of 22,000 combined security troops in Kiev.[84] According to the documents, the former first deputy of the Russian GRU stayed at the Kiev Hotel, played a major role in the preparations, and was paid by the Security Services of Ukraine.. agents had been stationed in Kiev throughout the Euromaidan protests, had been provided with "state telecommunications" while residing at an SBU compound, and had kept in regular contact with Ukrainian security officials. "We have substantiated grounds to consider that these very groups which were located at an SBU training ground took part in the planning and execution of activities of this so-called antiterrorist operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution

annamaria > , July 20, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT

@Mr. Hack There is a wonderful episode from a famous novel by Ukrainian writer Nikolai Gogol, where an official tells a story of an officer's widow who allegedly whipped herself with a lash.
According to your fiction (since you have completely omitted the well-established facts of Nuland-Kagan' and Brennan' presence at the key moments of the regime change in Kiev), Russians have arranged the regime change in Kiev themselves – "cut off your nose to spite your face," in short. You have also modestly omitted the fact of the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, courtesy the US State Dept and its ziocon handlers.
Here is a report from much more reliable source of information than the ziocon-controlled MSM: "Ukraine: Poland trained putchists two months in advance, " by Thierry Meyssan http://www.voltairenet.org/article183373.html
Repost: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7 https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/

Mr. Hack > , July 20, 2017 at 1:30 am GMT

since you have completely omitted the well-established facts of Nuland-Kagan' and Brennan' presence at the key moments of the regime change in Kiev

Just where have I ommitted reference to Nuland and Brennan. You must be mixing up my comments with somebody else? I've noted that both were in Kyiv, but question their ability to direct a movement that was homegrown from the very beginning and till the bitter end.

You have also modestly omitted the fact of the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, courtesy the US State Dept and its ziocon handlers.

You're right, I have for the most part omitted reference to any far right parties. Svoboda, the largest of these, barely can muster 3% support in national elections. I'd rather concentrate my purview on the other 97% of the voter base, than on a 3% minority party.

But since you've brought up what I've conveniently omitted, HOW ABOUT YOU? No comment regarding the obtrusive and deadly amalgamation of FSB personnel in Ukraine during these events? From what I've read, they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies or courses in how to create a civil society?

annamaria > , July 20, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT

" they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies"

It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA Brennan who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions against the civilian population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine. And you want to convince the UNZ readers that the Maidan was organized by Russians? What is the name of your new Prime Minister? – Mr. Groysman? "Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family " How come that the predominantly anti-semitic Ukraine has elected this nonety with the proper ethnic background? – Sure you know how to explain that this is also the Russians' fault. How about the US-enforced appointment of Misha Saakashvilli to the governorship of Ukraine's Odessa? – Kremlin's affair? Ukraine has lost its independence with the regime change in 2014.

"From what I've read " – You mean the presstituting MSM? None of the respectable sources, from consortium.com to Sic Semper Tyrannus ( http://turcopolier.typepad.com ) have ever suggested that the coup d'etat involved – in any capacity – Russian government. Keep in mind that the above-mentioned sources present the analyses of the principled and patriotic Americans who dedicated their lives to the US nationals security. For obvious reasons, they are hated by ziocons.

RobinG > , July 20, 2017 at 3:17 am GMT

@Rurik some good news vis-à-vis Russia, Syria and the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.620196799e59 Yes, indeed. You beat me to it.

" President Trump has decided to end the CIA's covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials."

Now that they've "decided," let's hope they get on with it, (and don't compensate with some other lunacy).

[Jul 20, 2017] Fracking Around with the Russians by Philip Giraldi

Notable quotes:
"... Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking, in collusion with organizations that are seeking to encourage the production of much cleaner power. And, of course, cleaner energy is a global interest whether one believes in climate change or not, which underlines the essential hypocrisy of the U.S. media in denouncing something that just might be good for the planet purely because Russia is allegedly involved. ..."
"... And, of course, the congressmen involved in the revelation come from fracking states. If Moscow is for something then surely Washington must be against it, ignoring the fact that many genuinely patriotic Americans who care about such matters support more strict environmental regulations, no matter what the Wall Street Journal, the White House and the loony tunes in congress are saying. ..."
"... There was a lot more anti-Russian agitprop in the U.S. media during the week, part of an endless stream of titillation provided free of charge to the American public in an effort to remind everyone that Russia is the enemy and will always be the enemy. Even Donald Trump's milquetoast initiative to mend fences with Vladimir Putin cobbled together during their meeting in Hamburg has been assailed from all sides, most particularly by the usual parties who seem to be locked into an anti-Trump non-détente mindset come what may. ..."
"... Mr. Giraldi, you're missing the salient point. The rulers of the USA aren't delusional lunatics. Russia is the single largest threat to America's dream of Global Hegemony. It's refusal to kowtow to Washington, and more critically, its lending of its military power to underpin China's Silk Road Dreams guarantees their GH dream will die. ..."
"... For the rulers of the USA, that's anathema. As good as death itself. They bet Americans' well being, Brand America, its industrial and civilian infrastructure, and almost its farms, for Global Hegemony and came up craps. They'll lose the farms soon enough. ..."
"... That is why they're panicking, and why they're going to do everything they can to break their fall. Above all, they have to convince their allies to stay loyal, particularly Europe long enough to allow them to "think of something". ..."
Jul 20, 2017 | www.unz.com
Fracking Around with the Russians What will those rascals in Moscow do next? July 18, 2017 1,400 Words 112 Comments

It has been another week full of news about Russia. Americans might be surprised to learn that nearly every aspect of their lives has been somehow impacted by the insidious covert activity of a former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy. One of the latest claims is that Moscow has been covertly funding some environmental groups, most particularly those opposed to the use of fracking technologies. The allegations, which have recently surfaced in Congress , conceded that the Russians allegedly moved forward with their strategy to damage America's energy independence without leaving behind "a paper trail," thus there appears to actually be little or no supporting evidence for what is little more than a series of claims, which have been denied by the groups in question, including the highly respectable Sierra Club. Moscow has not commented.

To be sure, there is a certain logic inherent in assertions that Russia might be behind such a development as Moscow's economy runs on energy exports and high prices are good for it. Consequently, it ought not surprise anyone that Russia would seek to discredit competitive technologies that work to increase the supply of energy and thereby cause prices to fall. It's simple math, but is it true given the fact that environmental groups are widely popular due to the appeal of the product they are promoting and have their own reliable sources of income?

Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking, in collusion with organizations that are seeking to encourage the production of much cleaner power. And, of course, cleaner energy is a global interest whether one believes in climate change or not, which underlines the essential hypocrisy of the U.S. media in denouncing something that just might be good for the planet purely because Russia is allegedly involved.

And, of course, the congressmen involved in the revelation come from fracking states. If Moscow is for something then surely Washington must be against it, ignoring the fact that many genuinely patriotic Americans who care about such matters support more strict environmental regulations, no matter what the Wall Street Journal, the White House and the loony tunes in congress are saying.

There was a lot more anti-Russian agitprop in the U.S. media during the week, part of an endless stream of titillation provided free of charge to the American public in an effort to remind everyone that Russia is the enemy and will always be the enemy. Even Donald Trump's milquetoast initiative to mend fences with Vladimir Putin cobbled together during their meeting in Hamburg has been assailed from all sides, most particularly by the usual parties who seem to be locked into an anti-Trump non-détente mindset come what may.

I was particularly bemused by the comment by former CIA Chief John Brennan who denounced Trump's performance during the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg over the lack of a hard line against Putin and his failure to support the "word of the U.S. intelligence community" about Russian interference in the recent election. In an interview Brennan complained "He said it's an honor to meet President Putin. An honor to meet the individual who carried out the assault against our election? To me, it was a dishonorable thing to say."

Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has demonstrated how the "word" of U.S. intel is not exactly what it might seem to be. And Brennan is not exactly a tabula rasa. As he observed in his comment, his ire derives from the claims over Russian alleged interference in the U.S. election, a narrative that Brennan himself has helped to create, to include his shady and possibly illegal contacting of foreign intelligence services to dig up dirt on the GOP presidential candidate and his associates. The dirt was dutifully provided by several European intelligence services which produced a report claiming, inter alia, that Donald Trump had urinated on a Russian prostitute in a bed previously slept in by Barack and Michelle Obama.

And along the way I have been assiduously trying to figure out the meaning of last week's reports regarding the contacts of Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort with two alleged Russian agents while reportedly seeking the dirt on Hillary. As it turns out, there may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced, and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.

Barring any new revelations backed up by actual facts revealing that something substantive like a quid pro quo actually took place, the whole affair appears to be yet another example of a politically inspired fishing expedition. This observation is not necessarily naivete on my part nor a denial that it all might have been an intelligence operation, but it is an acceptance of the fact that probing and maneuvering is all part and parcel of what intelligence agencies do when they are dealing with adversaries and very often even with friends. It does not necessarily imply that Moscow was seeking to overthrow American democracy even if it was trying to advance its own interests.

Assuming even the worst case scenario that the media has been promoting, the Trump Tower meeting appears to have involved three political aspirants who were a bit on the novice side and a Russian lawyer and lobbyist who might have been intelligence cut-outs. What did happen anyway? Apart from not reporting the encounter by the three apparent victims of the planned corruption of America's democratic process, nothing apparently happened except that the event itself has now given the esteemed Senator Charles Schumer and the Honorable Adam Schiff something new to mouth off about. Oh, and it keeps Rachel Maddow and Stephen Colbert, who is celebrating Russia Week on his program, employed.

Politics is a dirty business, based on power and money in these United States. Presumably back in mid-June there was enough salacious information floating around emanating from both parties to provide employment for plenty of individuals who were prepared to do whatever it would take to dig up something damaging up from any source available, including foreigners. That game was played by both sides and anyone who does not think that is so is avoiding the hard edge of the pervasive political corruption that greases the wheels in the United States.

So maybe Russia is funding some environmental groups or maybe not. And if it is, so what? I would welcome anyone who challenges fracking. And so what if a cluster of political tyros met with a couple of Russians who may or may not have been sent by Putin. Clearly, nothing came of it and meeting with a Russian and talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country.

Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence. All of which leads one to question why the U.S. media insist on holding the Russian government and its intelligence services to a higher standard than they do other countries like Israel, which persistently spy on the U.S. and regularly interfere in our political process? And what about our own government and its multitude of spy agencies? Are we always the guys in the white hats? Let's look at the actual record. CIA has done far worse far more consistently in collecting information through misdirection, influencing overseas elections and even changing regimes than have the Russians. And let's not forget the U.S. military's record on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and currently Syria. We are very good at that "regime change" sort of thing even though the results frequently turn out badly because no one in Washington seems to know what to do on day 2 after the invasion has ended with yet another "victory" and another foreign government has been consigned to the garbage heap. ← Who Is the Real Enemy? Category: Economics , Foreign Policy Tags: American Media , CIA , Environmentalism , Fracking , John Brennan , Russia , Scott Ritter

Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information


=>
Recently from Author Related Pieces by Author Of Related Interest What Did John Brennan and Anonymous Sources Really Say? Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous Philip Giraldi May 30, 2017 1,300 Words 101 Comments Reply The Spooks and the Hacks: Why Do They Hate Russia? John Derbyshire February 18, 2017 1,100 Words 83 Comments Reply The Fraud of the White Helmets Hollywood buys into yet another lie Philip Giraldi July 4, 2017 1,100 Words 125 Comments Reply ← Who Is the Real Enemy? Hide 112 Comments Leave a Comment 112 Comments to "Fracking Around with the Russians" Commenters to Ignore Commenters to ignore (one per line)

Save ListCancel ...to Follow Commenters to follow (one per line)

Save ListCancel Endorsed Only []

RobinG > , July 18, 2017 at 4:22 am GMT

Speaking of regime change, wasn't it Victoria Nuland and George Soros' enabling of Kiev coup that obliged the US installed puppet gov't. of Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 election at the behest to DNC to assist Hillary?

The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT

Yeah, it might be illustrative to consider what the entire environmental movement would look like today if it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who owned the oil in the ME.

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT

Also in this whole Russia-fracking gate, will no one in the media mention the vanglorious and incompetent sleuth, John Podesta's Machiavellian (for dummies) support for groups putting pressure on the Catholic Church ?

LauraMR > , July 18, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT

"Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence."

The arrogance of it.

It is at times like this that I can only wonder what kind of death-rattling trauma we must endure as a nation to regain a measure of rationality.

Verymuchalive > , July 18, 2017 at 8:45 am GMT

" A former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy."
Recent studies indicate that the Russian Economy is now larger than that of Germany. Current Western sanctions, far from harming the Russian economy, have been beneficial in supporting import substitution and diversification.
It is clear Giraldi doesn't read the work of his fellow columnist, Anatoly Karlin. Giraldi is still stuck in 1995. Time you caught up on your homework, Philip.

Sergey Krieger > , July 18, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

Mr. giraldi should ask can Italy or Spain afford or make what Russia can ,can France or Germany? Hence Mr. Giraldi views of what Russian economy is, are not correct.

The Alarmist > , July 18, 2017 at 9:16 am GMT

" talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country."

The Alarmist > , July 18, 2017 at 9:18 am GMT

" talking is not yet ipso facto a crime in this country."

There are secret laws, so one can no longer say even that with certainty. These are the same laws that make it illegal to know or merely meet a Russian.

Beckow > , July 18, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

West needs evil white people. No civilization can function without some agreed on enemy. Russia has played this role on and off for centuries. Today there is simply no other viable candidate – with the multi-cultural and religous taboos, and the need for the enemy to be credible and a bit remote. So Russia it is and probably will be for a long time, any consequences be damned.

Russia dislike also feeds well into the surviving atavistic hatreds among key groups in the West: grandkids of pogroms, endless emigres with their bitter family memories and a need to fit in, the deep seated thirst for revenge among Germans now that they are again allowed to sit at the Western table, the French and Anglo-Saxon egomania and a need to distract from their own history. And of course the Poles, they would line up to attack Russia if Al Queda would lead it. One cannot fight emotions.

The question is whether it is wise. It is close to impossible to maintain permanent hostility with Russia, so something has to give. A climb-down is very unlikely – too many powerful people are freshly invested in the struggle against 'evil Russkies'. The two other alternatives are worse: if Russia gets destroyed, West won't last long – the Russia's hinterland will get overrun by southern and eastern masses and West will be basically done for. And destroying both Russia and West in a war needs no analysis.

Could we possibly perish because Western elites were emotionally invested in Clintons getting back in the White House and the jobs-perks that would come with it? Or because some nerd named Podesta messed up his email passwords? Well, why not, after all Franz Ferdinand's driver made a bad turn and

Philip Giraldi > , July 18, 2017 at 10:45 am GMT

@Verymuchalive This analysis comes from the World Economic Forum. Russia's economy is slightly bigger than Spain's and smaller than that of Italy. It is far smaller than that of Germany and is dwarfed by the US.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/worlds-biggest-economies-in-2017/

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Mr. Giraldi, that's nominal GDP. Meaningless. Might as well cite the number of bubble gum chewers as an indicator.
On a list of countries by projected 2017 GDP (PPP), Russia places 6th, in a virtual dead heat with Germany.

On that basis, China is ahead of even the EU, with the US 2nd on a national basis, and a distant 3rd on an economic "block" basis. It is some $4T behind China, which sounds about right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Beckow > , July 18, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi The best way to compare economies is by using PPP (Purchasing Power Parity). It is not perfect, but it adjusts for currency fluctuation. By that measure, using CIA Worldbook for 2016, Russia is #6 economy in the world, slightly smaller than Germany. Spain is #16 and about half the size of Russia's economy in real terms.

The reason it is absolutely essential to adjust for currecy conversion is that otherwise you get crazy variations when e.g. dollar goes up by 30% against the euro. Or in Russia's case ruble is down almost 50% against the dollar. Those are artificial numbers – showing size in 'dollars' that are nor used in those economies is like showing US economy's performance in pesos. PPP adjusts for purchasing power.

Russia's economy is about the size of Germany, with almost twice the population. It is also one of 4-5 economies that can manufacture everything from jet planes and space rockets, to nuclear power plants and weapons. It has about 1/5 of world's total physical resources and is self-sufficient in food. It is the largest lightly populated space in the world. There are different ways we can be wrong about the realities around us, trying to have it both ways and to stay within some allowed boundaries is one of them.

Z-man > , July 18, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT

@The Alarmist As I've said many times before, one day it will be a crime, like it is in much of Europe already, to even question the numbers of the Holocaust, with SEVERE punishments maybe even death!

Z-man > , July 18, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

The Western Elites, you know who I mean, hate Putin for reestablishing and/or fostering the Christian Orthodox church in the country. 'They' just hate that!

Tom Welsh > , July 18, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT

"Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence".

Well, there almost certainly isn't any evidence. But that doesn't really matter. Regardless, the USA DOES NOT GET to "punish" Russia. There is a little legal concept called "sovereignty" that seems to have slipped the mind of Americans. Nations do not – cannot "punish" one another these days. Until, perhaps, 1939, one nation could invade another and conquer it – but today that is illegal under international law, the Nuremberg Principles, and the UN Charter. Slighter acts of war, such as sanctions, are also strictly forbidden.

Now, as we all know, the US government – like its li'l bitty buddy the Israeli government – is in the habit of completely ignoring all laws, and doing whatever it likes. But trampling the law underfoot is not a wise thing to do – one day, you yourself might need it.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 1:04 pm GMT

Russia's economy is slightly bigger than Spain's and smaller than that of Italy

Phil, this is dubious at best. The same as 18 trillion dollars US economy, 70% of which is FIRE, that is involved mostly in financial transactions. Even CIA's World Fact Book gives it (for 2015) as 3.8 trillion. At 2017 it is stated at 3.9 trillion which is about the size of Germany's. Using data of some supposedly "independent" (and globalist in nature) Swiss outlet on Russia is a dubious task. Big Mac Dollar was introduced for a reason.

Here is dynamics of Russia's GDP from International Monetary Fund (also globalist, but at least consistent).

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2015&ey=2022&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=94&pr1.y=12&c=922&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP&grp=0&a=

I omit here the usage of "absolute" dollars in measuring GDP–it really comes down to introducing not just Big Mac but F-35 dollars. When Spain will be able to produce what Russia produces, then maybe.

Rich > , July 18, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT

I stubbed my toe the other night because Russia moved my kitchen table.

Gg Mo > , July 18, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

2+ million Bolsheviks have immigrated to Israel from Russia since the Gravy-train collapsed in 1991, absconding with not a few billion dollars and a deep resentment . Various careerist took their policies and plans with them as well.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT

@Erebus Western economic views were "monetarised" to the point of a complete absurd at the expense of real, that is manufacturing (productive) economy. This is the view which "equates" manufacturing of jet aircraft or space station with the balance sheet of some insurance company or some bank, both of which produce only services, much of them of a virtual and dubious nature. Sadly, "making money" long ago substituted "making things" and then making money based on that. The United States in particular paid a gruesome price for this delusion by de-industrializing almost to the point of no return. In the end, nothing short of a miraculous victory of Donald Trump is a greatest testimony to a complete bankruptcy of dominant monetarist economic views. He emphasized high paying manufacturing jobs–he won.

for-the-record > , July 18, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT

@Beckow As the ultimate arbiter, we can refer to the Economist's "Big Mac Index":

THE Big Mac index was invented by The Economist in 1986 as a lighthearted guide to whether currencies are at their "correct" level. It is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity (PPP), the notion that in the long run exchange rates should move towards the rate that would equalise the prices of an identical basket of goods and services (in this case, a burger) in any two countries. For example, the average price of a Big Mac in America in July 2017 was $5.30; in China it was only $2.92 at market exchange rates. So the "raw" Big Mac index says that the yuan was undervalued by 45% at that time.

For July 2017 the Big Mac index shows the Russian ruble to be undervalued by 57%:

Actual $ exchange rate -- 60.14

Implied $ exchange rate -- 25.85

http://www.economist.com/content/big-mac-index

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 1:44 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov For an in depth look at the Russian economy, have a look at: https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russian-economy-2014-2016-the-years-of-sanctions-warfare/

Amongst the conclusions:
"In fact, (the Russian economy) is the most self-sufficient and diversified economy in the world." Thank God for sanctions. Before that it was just "a gas station with nukes".

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 1:57 pm GMT

@for-the-record

As the ultimate arbiter, we can refer to the Economist's

Economist (the magazine) and real economy in the same sentence is a bad joke. Economist as "the ultimate arbiter" is altogether–beyond redemption.

For July 2017 the Big Mac index shows the Russian ruble to be undervalued by 57%:

Russian economy in general is undervalued several times–that is why for the last 20+ years virtually nobody in Western "analytical" organizations can explain what just hit them.

Pandos > , July 18, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT

@Gg Mo OH thank you Jesus!

Greg Bacon > , Website July 18, 2017 at 2:09 pm GMT

@chris

Yeah, it might be illustrative to consider what the entire environmental movement would look like today if it was the Israelis and not the Arabs who owned the oil in the ME.

The USA gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria and Venezuela, not the ME.

BTW, in a way, the Israelis do own most of the ME oil, thru their Wall Street confederates in control of the commodity market where the oil is sold. Sold back and forth around 15 times before it reaches the refinery, meaning the US customer is getting screwed BIG TIME by our Israeli ally.

for-the-record > , July 18, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov I think you failed to appreciate the "tongue in cheek" quality of my remark. In your rather blind haste to defend Russia, which I can well understand, you seem to miss the fact that I am essentially on your side.

As to being "several times" times undervalued, this is not at all inconsistent with the 57% undervaluation shown by the Big Mac index, which means that the ruble's "true" value is nearly 2.5 times its quoted value.

Wizard of Oz > , July 18, 2017 at 2:32 pm GMT

@The Alarmist Come again! Secret laws? You mean the ones Senator Caligula arranges to have carved in Esperanto on stone blocks exhibited once a week on the top of a 50 foot scaffold? You are talking about laws in the everyday dictionary or constitutionsl sense and not just some note from tbe White House?

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

The United States in particular paid a gruesome price for this delusion by de-industrializing almost to the point of no return.

Well, it had to if it was going to go for Dollar-based Hegemony. It apparently felt that it had to, and so it did.

Triffin's Dilemma states that if a single nation is the issuer of the world's reserve currency, then that nation had to run increasingly massive trade deficits to fund the world's liquidity. What better way to do that than to encourage their industry (via tax incentives) to move their industry off-shore? The captains of American industry jumped at the gift and made a LOT of money feeding China's development.

What China got way back in 2001 was the equivalent of being lent the US' credit card. They promptly traded piles of plastic toys and toasters for a modern 21st century infrastructure, a massive industrial base, and a sizeable military, raising some 1 billion of their population out of abject poverty along the way. They promised to open up their financial sector to foreign players, but shucks, that somehow never happened. Instead, the top 4 largest banks in the world are now Chinese. All state owned.
When they hand that card back in, it'll be at, or just over its limit, and overseas USM personnel will be hitch-hiking rides back to the US.

Shouldn't be long now.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

@for-the-record My point was not in "defending Russia"–my reasons are much deeper than any mere "defense". I may have missed your sarcasm on Economist, but using Ruble (or any currency in general) as an economic indicator is a tricky business. Structure of GDP and a number of enclosed technological cycles are among most important, in fact–defining, factors.

Wizard of Oz > , July 18, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT

It is quite certain that rich American environmentalists have funded speciously connected Aboriginal litigants to conduct lawfate against the potentially gigantic Galilee Basin ptoject in Queensland to export coal to India.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

@Erebus

What China got way back in 2001 was the equivalent of being lent the US' credit card. They promptly traded piles of plastic toys and toasters for a modern 21st century infrastructure, a massive industrial base, and a sizeable military, raising some 1 billion of their population out of abject poverty along the way. They promised to open up their financial sector to foreign players, but shucks, that somehow never happened. Instead, the top 4 largest banks in the world are now Chinese. All state owned.

Very true. But using term "massive industrial base" may give an aneurysm to some Wall Street economic "analysts" or create a cognitive dissonance of such a scale that will require psychiatric intervention.

for-the-record > , July 18, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Using rubles at the "official" exchange rate is of course meaningless; however, using a purchasing-power-parity adjusted exchange rate (which is what the Big Mac index is, in a certain sense) provides a very useful means for comparing levels of outputs in different countries, do you not agree?

Sergey Krieger > , July 18, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov This is not the first time Phil compared Russia to Spain or Italy. It is widespread dillusion and meme I read often. I find it in line general American policy to repeat lies and insinuations non stop be it WW2 history, Ukraine, Russian GDP,elections and so forth until it is accepted as sort of truth. Even Phil being non mainstream still repeats this nonsense comparing Russia to Spain.

Flavius > , July 18, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT

Both as a veteran and as a former cold warrior, I must say that I feel betrayed by the myopia, historical ignorance, incompetence, hubris, recklessness, sheer nuttiness of the Washington establishment's conduct towards Russia over the past 20 years – bipartisan insanity. When one thinks it can't get worse, it gets worse; or as the circa 70s Soviet saying went, things are worse today than yesterday, but better than tomorrow.
Economic numbers are relevant but ultimately beside the point when calculating one's national interest in the context of the world's major political and nuclear powers and history's most blood soaked century.
Kudos to people like Phil Giraldi, Ray McGovern, and Patrick Buchanan who demonstrate regularly that at least some who were there as witnesses of what was retain the good judgment to recognize the road the damn DC fools ever more insistently are taking us down; and I would add for no good reason at all, but purely out of habit and for having something to do.

Verymuchalive > , July 18, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov This was part of the argument I was trying to expose. The Russian economy is grossly undervalued and many people who should know better like Philip Giraldi tend to grossly underestimate its size, range and capabilities.
By contrast, the American economy is grossly overvalued and its capabilities grossly overestimated. You yourself gave the most absurd example: Facebook is now valued on a parity with Boeing. Purely as an advertising vehicle, which is all it is, Facebook might be worth a couple of hundred million dollars. But no more.
And the there's Twitter. Never made a profit in its 11 years. $2 billion accumulative deficits. Book worth $11 billion. You couldn't make it up.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT

@for-the-record

do you not agree?

As one of the tools of economic analysis–agree.

Mr. Hack > , July 18, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT

@RobinG For a guy that claims to 'only be interested in the facts' this 'great' investigative reporter sure likes to serve up a crock of BS for his main course. While trying to make a case that the DNC was solely responsible for installing Yanukovych's replacement, the video clip shows Nuland making a phone call to somebody (?) announcing that her choice was Vitali Klitschko oops, how did Victor Poroshenko end up running the show, and not Klitschko? Looks like this sinister Soros plot unraveled here a wee bit. Also, while trying to besmearch the good name of John McCain, he's shown on a stage with a supposed notorious 'anti-Semite'. But look, who's that third person on the stage with both McCain and Tyahnibok? Why it's Arseni Yatseniuk, a Ukrainian-Jew, of all people! What's this Ukrainian Jew doing on stage with this great anti-Semite? Maybe he's an anti-Semite too??

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov With any luck, it'll spoil their whole afternoon.

Philip Giraldi > , July 18, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Andrei and others we are really on the same side on this – no matter how one values the Russian economy it is still tiny compared to the US and Western Europe. My point is that it is ludicrous to keep calling it a threat to everyone else – it doesn't have the economic mojo to take on the world. So let's stop picking on
Russia and calling it a threat. Likewise my comment about punishing Russia – if indeed Russia has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in order. But we should be demanding evidence relating to all the allegations and even then when I am referring to punishment I am thinking in terms of sanctions and other actions, not any expansion of NATO or anything that actually threatens Russian security.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger Those are mantras. In one sense I understand that, even among people who, otherwise, would be considered "realists". It is akin to John Mearsheimer repeating non-stop his favorite mantra of Russian Armed Forces being "a mediocre army". It will take some time for a reality to sink in.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

if indeed Russia has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in order.

Agree, as strange it may sound from the man of my background. The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything at her disposal. Having said all that–I doubt strongly that Russia interfered in US elections. I make this conclusion purely on assessing the overall (much improved since mid-2000s) intellectual level of people who run Russian institutions which potentially may have interfered. I don't think those people are that stupid as to endanger US-Russian relations which are crucial for global stability, or whatever is left of it anyway.

Michael Kenny > , July 18, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

Back to "no evidence" again! "Let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong". OK. How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there. Putin doesn't deny it! By the way, from what I gather, talking with representatives of a foreign power with a view to obtaining an advantage is a federal crime and it matters not one whit whether any advantage was actually obtained or even that the "representatives" were faking. In the particular case, DNC "dirt" actually did pop up on the internet. Moreover, one of the lawyer's clients was being prosecuted for money laundering. Trump removed the federal prosecutor and the company was suddenly offered a sweet settlement deal without a guilty plea. That's a long way from "ipso facto"!

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

@Verymuchalive

You yourself gave the most absurd example: Facebook is now valued on a parity with Boeing.

Atrocious, isn't it? Boeing–a crown jewel of American (and global aerospace) industry and engineering genius and a FB. One produces technological marvels with global demand, another produces absolutely nothing, sadly, also with a global demand.

BTW, as I type this–Russia held today opening of 2017 MAKS aerospace exhibition–a real economy on display. There is only other nation in the world which can on her own produce anything comparable–and that is the US.

Longfisher > , July 18, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

Moral Equivalence? Heck no. America is the indispensable and exceptional nation.

We can commit the same sins in even greater number and magnitude than other nations yet no one can hold us accountable while we hold others accountable for identical actions.

I recently wrote a very intelligent and cogent comment on a right-wing website which suggested that viewing America as if we were indispensable and exceptional, despite the plain fact that Trump was elected precisely because we aren't either of those things and his job was to find flaws and fix them, would tend to placate Americans such that we don't get to work fixing those flaws.

Guess what, that post was deleted by moderators within seconds.

Swell-headedness and self importance seems very deeply ingrained in Americans.

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 4:15 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

it is ludicrous to keep calling it a threat

Mr. Giraldi, you're missing the salient point. The rulers of the USA aren't delusional lunatics. Russia is the single largest threat to America's dream of Global Hegemony. It's refusal to kowtow to Washington, and more critically, its lending of its military power to underpin China's Silk Road Dreams guarantees their GH dream will die.

For the rulers of the USA, that's anathema. As good as death itself. They bet Americans' well being, Brand America, its industrial and civilian infrastructure, and almost its farms, for Global Hegemony and came up craps. They'll lose the farms soon enough.

That is why they're panicking, and why they're going to do everything they can to break their fall. Above all, they have to convince their allies to stay loyal, particularly Europe long enough to allow them to "think of something".

They have to stop the Silk Road from coming somehow, or American power will recede to the continent, leaving them to boss Canada and Mexico around. With Russia out of the way, China's a pushover. The two together can't be overcome. It really is as simple as that.

Erebus > , July 18, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

Everything Putin has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.

Care to cite any of it? I have yet to see the Kremlin take a single step off the black letter law. I'd be interested if you did.

Rurik > , Website July 18, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

if indeed Russia has deliberately gone out to wreck the US election then a response is in order.

Agree

when you compare how the ZUSA has intervened in other nations sovereign affairs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJVcdKxs3XA

and compare that to a Russian lawyer meeting with Trump surrogates with potential dirt on Clinton, the sheer hypocrisy is enough to benumb the mind and soul, it's so beyond egregious.

what's going on is the unipolar world of Zio-NATO demanding fealty from every last bastion of the dying multilateral international community, until it's zio-interests reign the entire length and breath of the planet, without a shred of resistance or dissent.

Sort of like the way they demanded that no one give Edward Snowden safe haven. And almost all nations kowtowed. They will not rest until their unipolar domination extends to every last bastion of human freedom from their $atanic power.

The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything at her disposal

that's laughable.

the institutions of the US were murdered on 9/11, along with all those people in the planes and towers. We are no longer a people or a nation with a legal constitution, but rather are an occupied people with a quisling government serving Israel's interests, day and night. We're about as sovereign as Palestine, but at least they have the dignity of seeing their occupation for what it is, whereas we play pretend, and act like we're still sovereign, even as our citizens are assassinated if they become inconvenient to the regime in Tel Aviv that runs things here.

http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/netanyahu-congress-600×449.jpg

if we're going to be occupied by a hostile regime that hates us and wants to use us as cannon fodder to enslave Russia and everyone else, then we ought at least be allowed the dignity of knowing it and saying it.

Rurik > , Website July 18, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.

you must be from the Kagan family of war pigs

Victoria Nuland (Nudelman), and her corpulent husband Robert Kagan

the waddling blob of lard Frederick Kagan and his war sow wife Kimberly Kagan

which one are you?

http://il6.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/11730821/thumb/1.jpg

alternatereality > , July 18, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@Pandos

OH thank you Jesus!

The lord gives and the lord takes --

Russian immigrants leaving Israel, discouraged by conversion woes

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish/features/.premium-1.623745

Apr 14, 2017 Putin's Aliyah: Russian Jews leave Israel – Middle East Monitor

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20170414-russian-jews-leave-israel/

(This may be one of the primary reasons for the ongoing demonization of Russia: One of zionism's foremost goals was the in-gathering of the diaspora. In the past zionists have destabilised states where Jews dwelt -- peacefully and securely -- in order to frighten Jews into leaving. If the Jews who left Russia in the 1980s are now returning, or are not integrating successfully in Israel, then similar tactics will likely be deployed.)
Putin's Aliyah: Russian Jews leave Israel According to Rozovsky, the post- 2000 immigrants, especially those who arrived following the failed

May 10, 2017 Some 17 per cent of the Jewish immigrants who came to Israel from the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s have since left, official data by

25 years later, Russian speakers still the 'other' in Israel,
http://www.timesofisrael.com/25-years-later-russian-speakers-still- ;

Sep 1, 2016 "The majority of native-born Israelis think Russian Israelis are not Jews," said Svetlova. . were forced to give up their citizenship and pension upon leaving.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT

@Rurik I may agree with you on some points but those agreements are not bases for denouncing national sovereignty as a crucial guiding principle of international relations. Yes, including USA.

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

@Greg Bacon Yeah, I know we don't get our oil in the ME, but we justify our meddling there and everywhere by trying to keep it out of the hands of our 'enemies' and flowing to our friends. even if we have to create those friends and enemies in order to create a role for ourselves.

Regarding the second point you made, I didn't know that, but somehow I'm not exactly surprised!

Beckow > , July 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi How do you "wreck an election"? I can imagine a number of ways from using violence, intimidation, media pressure, buying votes, blackmail of candidates, electoral fraud, and a few others. But none of those happened in a significant way in the 2016 elections – and the esteemed Mr. Obama went out of his way right before the elections to say that all was in order.

Now, one can argue that some of the above always happens, and that it also happened in 2016 in US (there was some violence and media manipulation, there is always some fraud ). But how can any sane person claim that it "wrecked the election"?

If one looks at any event long enough and is motivated to find 'irregularities', one can always find them. But how was 2016 different from 2012,or 2000, or 1968, or any other election year?

Rurik > , Website July 18, 2017 at 5:45 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

national sovereignty as a crucial guiding principle of international relations. Yes, including USA.

OK, but in order to expect anyone else to respect international law and the sovereignty of nations, isn't it rather incumbent upon us that we (the ZUSA) do so as well?

IOW, wouldn't it be rather silly for Israel to punish a Palestinian for failing to recognize Israel's sovereignty, when Israel doesn't even respect his right to breath, let alone have a spot on the earth that he can call his own?

Isn't it sort of a folly for the ZUSA to demand that Russia respect our sovereignty, when we relentlessly subvert her election processes and the stability of the nations on her borders, in a direct and obvious attempt to destabilize their government and society? And try to do them all manor of harm to benefit some dark and devious scheme of the (by now notorious) villains that run our government and institutions?

It seems like Jerry Sandusky demanding that Mother Theresa be more considerate to children.

or at least, that's sort of how it seems to me.

But then I'll gladly pretend that Trump is going to return to us our sovereignty, and behave within the norms of International Law, (respecting all other nation's sovereignty) and then when that happens, then I'll agree with you vis-a-vis the importance of protecting the institutions of our national sovereignty. Something I hope Trump will be able to wrest back from Tel Aviv, and we can all live happily ever after.

Anonymous > , July 18, 2017 at 5:49 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

The United Sates is a sovereign nation and has to guard her institutions with everything at her disposal. Having said all that–I doubt strongly that Russia interfered in US elections.

The American electorate has, for 50 years, consistently elected "representatives" who, without fail, proceeded to take actions to devastate the American economy while enriching themselves and their grotesquely-corrupt monetary "supporters". With that in mind, why on earth would Russia seek to interfere in a US election? America is rapidly destroying itself -- no interference is necessary.

Anonymous > , July 18, 2017 at 6:00 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny

How about punishing Russia for what it has done and is doing in Ukraine? Everything Putin has done there is totally illegal under international law and the "evidence" is already there.

I see you are a well-paid 2nd-tier hasbara. A slicker, smoother, more practiced line of patter. But, bullshit, per the usual.

Russia has long-standing agreements with Ukraine that establish rights-of-way to its bases in Crimea. Nothing illegal was done with respect to international law. It's very typical of Israelis to squawk nastily about "international law" that does not exist.

Good to have you aboard, Moshe! We need a good token around to shill for Israel. Keep that bullshit coming!!

lavoisier > , Website July 18, 2017 at 6:22 pm GMT

Nothing at all respectable about the modern day Sierra Club.

They sold out for a big donation from a Jewish donor committed to open borders.

The environment in the United States be dammed.

It is all about the money with the modern day Sierra Club.

Nothing more disrespectful, or predictable with liberals, than that.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 6:25 pm GMT

@Anonymous

The American electorate has, for 50 years, consistently elected "representatives" who, without fail, proceeded to take actions to devastate the American economy while enriching themselves and their grotesquely-corrupt monetary "supporters".

True to a large degree. Yet:

With that in mind, why on earth would Russia seek to interfere in a US election? America is rapidly destroying itself -- no interference is necessary.

You could be really stunned if you think that Russia seeks destruction of the US and once real Russia's intentions are understood. This is not to speak of consequences of the US imploding–they will be global and could be simply catastrophic for all. US is a nuclear superpower and is still a crucial player in global economy. Russia sure as hell is interested in saner and, in a good geopolitical sense, national interests' defending US–but those interests certainly can not be "global" in neocon "interpretation". In the end, during campaigning Trump was saying very many right words and those words have been prepared for him by very powerful people, which testifies to the fact of some powerful forces inside US who do understand the new game. We all are currently at the point of no return, we are still balancing on it, whether we will cross into the "pass the point of NR" is yet to be seen. But US power is declining both in relative and absolute terms and this process is objective.

lavoisier > , Website July 18, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT

@Z-man Counterproductive for sure.

Criminalization of thought gives the thought more credibility.

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi Why am I beginning to get the feeling that Russia is now being catapulted by the most complex algorithms to the forefront of the world economic ranking in order to make them look like the ominous opponent we've already 'agreed' to make them into?

Isn't this a bit transparent ?

lavoisier > , Website July 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm GMT

@Erebus If your analysis is correct, and it may well be, then our decline as a superpower will be the result of Jewish hegemony and the traitorous behavior of the cuckservatives.

A nation hollowed out at its core will die.

yeah > , July 18, 2017 at 6:58 pm GMT

Philip Giraldi, pretending to be so fair and reasonable, writes, ""Sure, let's punish Russia if it has actually done something wrong, but first let's see the evidence."

Punish exactly how? By making the Russians wear dunce caps? By expelling even more Russian diplomats? Or perhaps by launching a few good ones?

The stupidity, hypocrisy, and hubris of Neocons and their bedmates, the progressives, makes me gasp. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that the sanest and safest way in troubled times is for all parties to observe international law and not to renounce it.

Now what great human ideal, what dazzling symptom of moral and political greatness has been achieved by bombing silly but miserably weak countries? Is Iraq a better place for anyone now?Is Libya more democratic now? Should N. Korea be similarly treated? And of course the mother of all questions: how should Russia be punished? Will more Nato exercises in the Baltic teach the Russians better manners? What if they took it into their heads to conduct military exercises off the Gulf of Mexico? Of course, that will only prove how fiendish they are, how they "interfered" with US democracy. Interfered how? Perhaps they lifted American skirts a little too high. The US never, ever interferes with any country's political processes. The CIA exists to ensure that every US agency follows international law fully. But damn these Russians, they don't understand such noble things.

Dangerous times when hypocrisy and arrogance gets mixed up with tons of stupidity and ignorance.

Cortes > , July 18, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT

An excellent article. Thank you.

One minor quibble. The "golden shower" allegation was designed to be more embarrassing than your version of it, since the story was that the prostitutes urinated on Trump and not the other way round.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT

@Rurik

OK, but in order to expect anyone else to respect international law and the sovereignty of nations, isn't it rather incumbent upon us that we (the ZUSA) do so as well?

Yes, absolutely so.

It seems like Jerry Sandusky demanding that Mother Theresa be more considerate to children. or at least, that's sort of how it seems to me.

A good point you make but once you observe with the naked eye most of what is going on currently in terms of global power re-balancing–it is precisely about a bottom line of several guiding principles applied to everyone which should be followed–respect for sovereignty is the most important of them. It will require (and it is happening as I type is) a significant re-defining of US "exceptionalism" before new balance is achieved but it is this new balance into whose sails the winds of history are blowing. Having said all that, espionage and operations of influence will certainly not go anywhere, but the level of violence will be reduced greatly.

chris > , July 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT

@Cortes I knew right away that that whole golden shower story was fake because on the margins this charge had been made about Hitler also over the years.

Seems to be the standard smear against nazis, #7 in the ol' lexicon.

Priss Factor > , Website July 18, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT

former global enemy that now has an economy the size of Spain or Italy.

But keep in mind that it's wrong to assess Russian economy this way.

Much of Spanish or Italian economy is just tourism, wine, foods, and such stuff. Italy and Spain don't have Power Economies.

In contrast, Russia has tons of resources, big machinery, military ware, and energy.
So, it is a Power Economy. And if Russia were to enter into war-footing, these sectors could be expanded vastly, like during WWII.

anon > , July 18, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT

Wow. Just wow.

In fact:

1. Russia has been involved in financing 'green' anti EU and Ukrainian fracking for years. This is, in fact, interesting. Liquid crude oil is fungible but natural gas is very expensive to move around except in direct, physically connected pipelines. Ukraine could develop an unconventional gas and oil industry -- in theory. It has resources but not the political or economic cohesion to do anything for its economy.

2. Same with Europe. except there isn't much to develop. Romania gave it a try and could have done something at $100 oil but its project has been abandon at current prices.

3. US sanctions on Russia resulted in 'import substitution' economic development. The Ruble haircut (roughly half) has turned Russia into an agriculture export powerhouse. It's now the largest exporter of grain in the world.

4. What did we do? We 'manipulated' Russia's currency downward and luck reduced (temporarily) the value of oil exports. We pushed other countries *not* to trade with Russia. This resulted in Russia boycotting food imports, among other things. Effectively a tariff. The only negative was a real, significant, but transitory cost to Russian standard of living. I suppose the rationale was to punish Putin and cause political unrest. That worked well, no?

5. Meanwhile -- Fracking. Lets call it unconventional US Oil and Gas. The US is effectively self sufficient regarding net total trade balance of oil and gas, including refined products and basic chemicals. Not quite as obvious as it would be if every component was in exact balance. US refineries can get more out of heavy crude and well continue to import it and refine it. The US produces multi millions of bbl per day of 'liquids' -- a large quantity of which are exported. Propane, among others. Look it up if you are curious. Meanwhile, the US is the world's largest producer of natural gas.

The entire unconventional oil industry is the only large area of expansion in the US economy since 2008. It's why the US has done better than the rest of the developed world's economies since 2008. What replaced the housing bubble? I suppose nothing, but unconventional oil has come close. A problem is that the benefits are more concentrated than single family housing -- which had the advantage of being spread around fairly uniformly, with a lot going to the deplorable engaged in a segment of the skilled labor needed to pull it off.

A policy of global hegemony focused on oil is more than backwards looking. I suppose it is impossible not to fight the last war. WW 2 wasn't primarily about oil, but the popular narrative tends to seriously underestimate the extent to which it was catastrophic for Germany. Russia had it and Germany didn't. And of course -- it was fought on the Eastern Front and paid for in Russian blood. But oil was so 20th century. Would the US design a foreign policy around the 'strategic' asset of coal?

The point is that a commodity based view of global hegemony is old and wrong. US has been an 'agricultural' superpower for a century. And now we have made Russia the grain basket of the world. And now oil is effectively just another commodity. Time to get with it.

Zenarchy > , July 18, 2017 at 8:51 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack Yats is not a Jew and even Ukraine's chief rabbi has said so.
Have you even looked at him? There may be blonde and blue-eyed Jews etc, but this guy has zero Jewish features.

Anonymous > , July 18, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

You could be really stunned if you think that Russia seeks destruction of the US and once real Russia's intentions are understood. This is not to speak of consequences of the US imploding–they will be global and could be simply catastrophic for all.

In my opinion, it follows that both Russia and China need the USA for economic reasons -- markets, currency standard, stabilizing effect of military, etc. More correctly, they need something like the USA, so the USA serves the purpose for the meanwhile. The US is collapsing from decay, where China is on a growth spurt of yet undetermined duration, Russia on a rebirth cycle following collapse that did not destroy it.

All interesting factors. I will say I do not believe the US can engender rebirth, and its collapse will be properly calamitous. We shall see.

Patrick Armstrong > , Website July 18, 2017 at 8:58 pm GMT

RUSSIA INC. Summarising three recent authorities, Wikipedia says Canada's GDP is greater than Russia's and Germany's is about two and a half times greater. There's something deeply misleading and, in fact, quite worthless about these GDP comparisons. Russia has a full-service space industry including the only other operating global satellite navigation system.

Neither Canada nor Germany does. It has an across the board sophisticated military industry which may be the world leader in electronic warfare, air defence systems, silent submarines and armoured vehicles. Neither Canada nor Germany does. It has a developed nuclear power industry with a wide range of products. Ditto.

It builds and maintains a fleet of SSBNs – some of the most complicated machinery that exists. Ditto. Its aviation industry makes everything from competitive fighter planes through innovative helicopters to passenger aircraft. Ditto.

It has a full automotive industry ranging from some of the world's most powerful heavy trucks to ordinary passenger cars. It has all the engineering and technical capacity necessary to build complex bridges, dams, roads, railways, subway stations, power stations, hospitals and everything else.

It is a major and growing food producer and is probably self-sufficient in food today. Its food export capacity is growing and it has for several years been the leading wheat exporter. It has enormous energy reserves and is a leading exporter of oil and gas. Its pharmaceutical industry is growing rapidly. It is intellectually highly competitive in STEM disciplines – a world leader in some cases.

Its computer programmers are widely respected. (Yes, there is a Russian cell phone.) It's true that many projects involve Western partners – the Sukhoy Superjet for example – but it's nonetheless the case that the manufacturing and know-how is now in Russia. Germany or Canada has some of these capabilities but few – very few – countries have all of them. In fact, counting the EU as one, Russia is one of only four.

Therefore in Russia's case, GDP rankings are not only meaningless, but laughably so. While Russians individually are not as wealthy as Canadians or Germans, the foundations of wealth are being laid and deepened every day in Russia. What of the future? Well there's a simple answer to that question – compare Russia in 2000 with Russia in 2017: all curves are up. Of course Russians support their government – why wouldn't they? It's doing what they hired it to do; we others can only dream of such governments. For what it's worth, PwC predicts Russia will be first in Europe in 2050, but, even so, I think it misses the real point: Indonesia and Brazil ahead of Russia? No way: it's not GDP/PPP that matters, it's full service. Russia is a full-service power and it won't become any less so in the next 30 years. Autarky. Very few aren't there? And in that little group of four autarkies on the planet, who's going up and who's going down? A big – fatal even – mistake to count Russia out.

https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2017/02/09/russian-federation-sitrep-9-february-2017/

Astuteobservor II > , July 18, 2017 at 9:52 pm GMT

@Verymuchalive he is using gdp numbers.

anon > , July 18, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT

@chris It would have few dollars more per gallon and would have been like that since 1950

geokat62 > , July 18, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT

As it turns out, there may not have been any discussion of Hillary, though possibly something having to do with irregularities in DNC fundraising surfaced, and there may have been a bit more about the Magnitsky Act and adopting Russian babies.

Speaking of the Magnitsky Act, here is some late-breaking news that, if substantiated, will put a completely different spin on the bogus Russia-gate scandal:

Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya says Magnitsky act lobbyist Browder behind Trump Jr. scandal

The scandal concerning the meeting between US President Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr, and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya was orchestrated by Magnitsky act lobbyist William Browder, the lawyer told RT in an exclusive interview.

"I´m ready to clarify the situation behind this mass hysteria – but only through lawyers or testifying in the Senate," Veselnitskaya told RT.

"I can only assume that the current situation that has been heated up for ten days or so by now is a a very well-orchestrated story concocted by one particular manipulator – Mr. Browder. He is one of the greatest experts in the field of manipulating mass media,"Veselnitskaya said.

She went on to say that Browder, who is the founder and CEO of the Hermitage Capital investment company, orchestrated this whole disinformation campaign as revenge for the defeat he suffered in a US court in 2013 from a team of lawyers that included Veselnitskaya.

"I have absolutely no doubt that this whole information [campaign] is being spun, encouraged and organized by that very man as revenge for the defeat he suffered in court of the Southern State of New York in the 'Perezvon' company case," she said.

"He wasn't able to convince the court with his lousy human tragedy that actually never happened, about the fate of a dead man – who he only learnt about after his death."

In 2013, Veselnitskaya was one of the lawyers who represented a Cyprus-based holding company Prevezon, owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, in its defense against allegations of money laundering in a court of the Southern State of New York.

The case was settled with no admission of guilt by Prevezon.

Veselnitskaya also said she is now concerned for the safety of her family as it's been revealed that Browder's team spied on her family's activities even before her meeting with Trump Jr.

"It's been revealed that Mr. Browder and his team have been gathering information about my family," she told RT, adding, that Browder's team "found photos of my house and sent them to Kyle Parker a famous man in the House of Representatives, who worked for Mr Browder for many years – and not for any congressmen or congress as a whole."

People working for Browder also shared all her personal details with representatives of the State Department, Veselnitskaya said.

Browder has a long history of hostility against Russia. In 2013, he was sentenced in absentia to nine years in prison for tax evasion. He was also the boss of the late Russian auditor Sergey Magnitsky.

According to the 2013 court verdict, Browder together with Magnitsky failed to pay over 552 million rubles in taxes (about US$16 million). The businessman was also found guilty of illegally buying shares in the country's natural gas monopoly, Gazprom, costing Russia at least 3 billion rubles (US$100 million).

Magnitsky died in pre-trial custody in 2009. His death led to a strain in Russian-American relations. US authorities eventually imposed sanctions against Russian officials they deemed responsible for the auditor's death by issuing the so-called Magnitsky list in 2012. Browder also lobbied European states to follow Washington's lead.

The Magnitsky Act is a 2012 law that allows the United States to seize assets from a number of alleged Russian human rights abusers, as well as barring them from entering the country. Russia retaliated by prohibiting American families from adopting Russian children.

https://www.rt.com/news/396728-russian-lawyer-scandal-america/

For those who may not recall, Phil previously wrote an excellent article on the sordid Magnitsky Act affair here on Unz. IIRC, Browder managed to get Sen. McCain to stand on the floor of the senate and make a sales pitch (with fancy presentation materials) to convince the rest of the senate to vote in favour of passing the Magnitsky Act, which they did. Hopefully, this story will now begin to unravel like a ball of yarn.

Client 9 > , July 18, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

"Now the irony in all this is that a major producer of relatively dirty oil is being accused of targeting an even dirtier and environmentally destructive energy resource, which is fracking"

We've been Fracking since the early 20th century, there are always risks but overall it is a safe alternative. Time to stop getting our oil from countries who use their wealth to spread terror/sharia, whose only aim is to build a global calipahte.

Erebus > , July 19, 2017 at 12:27 am GMT

@lavoisier Well, it's not really an "analysis" as such. If one goes back to the literature of the time, one sees that Triffen's Dilemma was known to the policy makers, and was hovering overhead in the deliberations leading up to Nixon's "closing the gold window" in 1971.

Dollar Hegemony was very attractive because it offered the West the opportunity to do an end run around its military stalemate in its Great Game with the USSR. Though closing the gold window was a policy decision, the attraction was not lost on the captain's of American industry. They could count on a generation or so of extraordinary profit and scrambled on board.

It was Dollar Hegemony that underpinned the West's takedown of the USSR. By loaning the USSR "hard currency" (remember that term?), and then collapsing the prices of the stuff the USSR exported to pay back the loans, the USSR was forced into austerity, and ultimately default.
That plan is a matter of historical record, so didn't require any "analysis" on my part either. They tried the same thing again in 2014, but I suspect the Russians were ready for them this time.

As for the Jewish part, the elite in most countries are "international" in their lifestyle and outlook. Yes, Jews are over-represented there, and are possibly more "international" in outlook than goy elites, but real "Jewish hegemony" comes later with the rise of the Financial State. Having laid out the ground work in the '90s with the repeal of Glass-Steagal etc, it really takes off at the time of 9/11, which coincided with the 2nd shoe dropping on the American economy. Namely, China's ascendance to the WTO and gaining Most Favoured Nation status.

To make Dollar Hegemony work, you need a powerful, and effective military. They got the "powerful" part, in the sense that the USM is really good at blowing stuff up, but they muffed the "effective", and so here we are.

Cortes > , July 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT

@chris Chris, if memory serves, Norman Davies (in his selection of key moments and people "Europe" – a door stopper of a book) went much further in describing the sexual pathology of Hitler. I may be mistaken (won't be the first or only time) so don't sue me. Check out the relevant section of the book.
Here, dealing with President Trump, the effort appears to me to be defamatory and consistent with the seeming ongoing campaign to destabilise his presidency by actors known and unknown.

NoseytheDuke > , July 19, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT

@Flavius "DC fools ever more insistently are taking us down; and I would add for no good reason at all, but purely out of habit and for having something to do."

I can't agree with that. I would say that total global control is the ultimate motivation.

America's role is to be the persuader and enforcer until such time as relative parity is achieved and then America can be reduced to little more than a struggling entity that can be slotted in amongst the other competing economic zones (all controlled by the same interests) in a competitive race to the bottom scenario.

NoseytheDuke > , July 19, 2017 at 12:44 am GMT

@alternatereality I would think that most are emigrating to the US, no?

ChuckOrloski > , July 19, 2017 at 1:03 am GMT

Brilliant revelation, NoseyTheDuke!

Gg Mo > , July 19, 2017 at 1:05 am GMT

@alternatereality Alternative Reality Indeed.

yeah > , July 19, 2017 at 2:26 am GMT

@Patrick Armstrong A very potent and astute piece of analysis – kudos to you, sir.

Now why don't the great economists in their ivory towers get these common sense things right? An economy making everything from A to Z is way different from an economy based on wines, cheese, and chocolates. A wild thought: Perhaps common sense should be made a compulsory part of many curriculums. Yes, no?

RobinG > , July 19, 2017 at 3:05 am GMT

@geokat62 Thanks, Geo.

Here's the weekly update on #UNRIG which, due to being attacked last week by Zionist entities in US, has added a second demand – AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL.

Robert Steele Weekly Integrity Update on #UNRIG

MarkinPNW > , July 19, 2017 at 3:06 am GMT

@Rurik Rurik, shame on you for insulting pigs!

Mokiki > , July 19, 2017 at 3:09 am GMT

Why do you embrace the watermelon position that fracking is "dirty"??

RobinG > , July 19, 2017 at 4:22 am GMT

@Mr. Hack Where to begin? How about the notion that John McCain has a good name to besmirch. ("Besmearch" sounds a bit like something a James Bond villain would do, no?)

Next, why the pretense? Everyone knows that Fuktoria was speaking with U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Ross Pyatt. From Wikipedia,

"In their phone conversation, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should be in the government after Viktor Yanukovych's ouster and in what ways they might achieve that transition, with the name of Arseniy Yatsenyuk (whom Nuland refers to as "Yats") coming up several times. Specifically, the two spoke about which opposition leaders they would like to see in government, what pitches they would give each opposition leader in subsequent calls to achieve this, and strategies on how they would try to manage the 'personality problems' and conflicts between the different opposition leaders with ambitions to become president.[15][16] Yatsenyuk became prime minister of Ukraine on February 27, 2014″

So, as you see, their man Yats did become prime minister. Porky, the chocolate king, subsequently became president. Maybe your hearing is bad: they ruled out Klitch from the top positions.

Ya, that's the irony, that the Nudelwoman took power by unleashing a bunch of Banderites and neo-nazis. Pretty funny, huh? BTW, are you sure Mr. Hack isn't really Mr. Hasbara?

Sergey Krieger > , July 19, 2017 at 8:50 am GMT

@Anonymous In case of USA collapse the most important question is what happens with nukes and everything related.

Mr. Hack > , July 19, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

@RobinG

So, as you see, their man Yats did become prime minister.

Yes, and millions of US citizens who voted in the last elections had their choice for president validated too. Were they all involved in some nefarious, covert act too? I replayed the video clip, and while the 'great reporter' talks about Nuland's favorite for the top Ukrainian post, photos of Klitschko were being transferred over the viewing screen. Still, it was Poroshenko and not Yatseniuk that filled the top post. In fact, Poroshenko's name was never mentioned in the nefarious phone call?? BTW, Poroshenko was elected president by way of a monitored and free election several months after the events on the Maidan had settled down.

For the record then, since you so cavalierly throw around the terms 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis', just who exactly do both Yatseniuk and Porosheno represent in your sophisticated view of contemporary Ukrainian political persuasions? Or are both of them both 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis?

Avery > , July 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack {For the record then, since you so cavalierly throw around the terms 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis', just who exactly do both Yatseniuk and Porosheno represent in your sophisticated view of contemporary Ukrainian political persuasions? Or are both of them both 'Banderites' and 'neo-Nazis?}

Don't know about Porkyshenko, but The Yats is a neo-Nazi*: scroll down and take a gander of The Yats giving the traditional greeting to his Nazi Master, Adolf. (right after Oleh Tyahnybok).

Heil Hitler!
Sieg Heil!

______________
*

https://off-guardian.org/2016/11/05/ukraine-fascisms-toe-hold-in-europe/

Rurik > , Website July 19, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

@MarkinPNW mea culpa

those pigs are actually very beautiful, and they have my apology for comparing them to the Kagans

Sarah Toga > , July 19, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

Phil,
What's your beef with hydraulic fracturing?

Anonymous > , July 19, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT

"One of the latest claims is that Moscow has been covertly funding some environmental groups, most particularly those opposed to the use of fracking technologies."

And Russian environmental critics of Putin, such as Evgueniya Chirikova and Nadezdha Kutepova, are notoriously sponsored by organizations linked to the US government. The moral outrage of the American establishment is totally hypocritical. Anything is right or wrong just when it serves the interests of the American establishment.

In fact, much of the Russian opposition is financed by Washington, but this has never generated any tearing of the Yankee mainstream media.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/russian-opposition-caught-filing-into-us-embassy-in-moscow/30717

Anatoly Karlin > , Website July 19, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

As a rule of thumb, nominal GDP is a superior proxy of financial strength, while PPP-adjusted GDP is better as a proxy of industrial, inc. military-industrial potential (and of real living standards in its per capita format).

In the former domain, Russia is indeed a minor; in the latter domain, it is indeed comparable to Germany.

Philip Giraldi > , July 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

@Sarah Toga http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-are-effects-fracking-environment.asp?lgl=rira-baseline-vertical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States

Mr. Hack > , July 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

@Avery

Arseniy Yatsenyuk [center], former PM of Ukraine, also NOT performing a Nazi slaute.

I take this quote directly from underneath the photo in the article that you cite. Not an expert on correct 'Nazi salutes' I'll defer to the author of this photo for his knowledge on this matter. Yatseniuk, may have showed some solidarity with rightists like Tyahnybok during the Maidan period, but he's never been known for any far right viewpoints or belonging to any far right political parties, and indeed has been referred to as a Jew on many occasions. I don't know for a fact whether or not he's Jewish, not having taken a part in either his Christian baptism, nor his Jewish Bar Mitzvah.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/fearful-of-anti-semitism-22-of-european-jews-hide-identity/

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 19, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin

As a rule of thumb, nominal GDP is a superior proxy of financial strength, while PPP-adjusted GDP is better as a proxy of industrial, inc. military-industrial potential (and of real living standards in its per capita format).

Somewhat true. But while PPP is, indeed, "better" it is still highly inaccurate, and I mean highly. Reason being the "adjustment" itself, which changes dramatically across the whole spectrum of real (that is productive) economy plus calculation of costs in general–e.g. US healthcare system. While highly developed and world-class (most of the time), its "cost calculations" (through "charge masters") is ridiculous but it is this number (horrendously inflated) which goes in as part of US GDP. But here is an example which anyone will understand, since unlike financial transactions, it is an essential and extremely important service, that is healthcare. My mother just recently, in Moscow nonetheless, literally built all her teeth anew–she has now literally a new mouth. She paid 130 000 Rubles. World class dentist, excellent equipment, great service, implants etc–whole 9 yards. Now, if converted directly to US Dollar it comes up to 2167 USD. What can I do for that here, in US? I know for sure, my good acquaintance dentist offered me a single implant (and I really need it badly) of an upper tooth for a good price of 2 500 USD. Should I do to my teeth (desirable for me) what my mother did–I would end up with 20 000 + bill in the best case scenario. How do we convert that? I looked once at the cost (covered by my insurance, thankfully) of one of my CT scans–2 000 + USD. This is without "reading" it. As you may have guessed it already, the same procedure in Russia will cost much-much less, this is without counting free ones, but you have to wait there for weeks or even months. Here are simple examples of those gigantic discrepancies. Once one gets into real hi-tech manufacturing field, most (not all) Western "economists" will have their brains exploding.

Philip Giraldi > , July 19, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Andrei and Anatoly – Thanks for explaining this. I last studied economics in an introductory course taught by Milton Friedman. I came away with a "C" and forgot everything I had learned almost immediately.

Apolonius > , July 19, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT

@Michael Kenny Lets punish Russia? Are you sure that you have big enough punisher?

How you people get to think and say such a things? Are you not aware that Russia can obliterate USA and western Europe in 30 mins? No anti-rocket system will help, russian missiles can change their trajectory in flight (american don´t ) -- Not adding that to defend against thousands of missiles is virtually impossible. You still writing like you have power over Russia,this is the most stupid thing you can do – but of course , you are an exceptional representative of the exceptional people You have a donkey for the president, and you blame it on Russia? Whole world is having fun watching this opera..

As to international law, USA and NATO countries are in the gravest breach of the international law, they have executed illegal war and occupation in Serbia, since 1999.(That is just first of many) Let us first punish that, together with reparations to the attacked nation, and then you can start speaking about "International law".

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 19, 2017 at 5:46 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi

I came away with a "C" and forgot everything I had learned almost immediately

Very similar, albeit I scored A ("5″) IIRC on my Political Economy Of Capitalism (did less well on the same but of Socialism) in naval academy. But life forced me, eventually, especially against the collapse of the USSR and our lives being thrown in complete disarray (politely speaking), to start review and, eventually, study the subject anew.

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 19, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT

@Anonymous

In my opinion, it follows that both Russia and China need the USA for economic reasons -- markets, currency standard, stabilizing effect of military, etc.

Secret to China's economic miracle are precisely these very American markets, which were opened to Chinese-made goods. Russia is far-far less, on several orders of magnitude, less dependent on US markets than China, hence Russia has much bigger room for maneuver. But in the rest, you are correct–US is too important to global economic balance, even despite being so damaging to it, to think that possible collapse could be contained. It could not be contained completely. Some sort of accommodation has to be found. What sort? I am not competent enough to be very specific, plus we will have to go into military-political aspect of that issue.

Apolonius > , July 19, 2017 at 6:03 pm GMT

@Patrick Armstrong Just to add one personal observation. I know Russia very well, lived there for 12 years, last time in 1991. Then I visited Russia several times until 2006 – improvement was visible, but nothing prepared me to the Russsia 2017! Even people on the street changed – to the positive. As to buildings, stores, it is incredible, I couldn´t recognize old Russia, everything was new, shining, smart and much better than before.

Russians are optimistic , which was impossible in nineties! It was really a shock for me, very nice shock I don´t know how to express to you this enormous surprise I never thought such transformation possible .

So speaking about Russia like about some sick giant is a very stupid thing to do. Today, Russia from the point of view of her citizens is good, and working hard for excellence. I think Western leaders still think about Russia in categories of 90´s, and that is a big mistake. They should understand once for all, that Russia has to be treated as equal, and not messed with, like in Ukraine. If they will not, I think that the Russia will pass from partner, to the Master.

anon > , July 19, 2017 at 6:59 pm GMT

Here's material for Phil Giraldi's next week's piece:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-overheard-comments-netanyahu-lashes-eus-crazy-policy-on-israel/

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 19, 2017 at 7:26 pm GMT

@Apolonius

Today, Russia from the point of view of her citizens is good, and working hard for excellence

Without any jokes, however lighthearted this my statement may appear to you, one of the fields in which Russia's greatness is unsurpassed by the US is the field of 100% cotton socks. No, I don't mean those white (and warm) cotton socks any COSTCO or department stores sell. No, I am talking about 100% cotton socks of thin and different colors (including of dressy kind) you can by in any Russian department store or Auchan. This is not the case with US anymore.

For years now I was either bringing back with me or whenever any of our friends flew to Russia and back–the request is always the same: bring 10-12 pairs of not-white thin 100% cotton socks. I gave up trying to find these socks in US long time ago now, probably circa 2008-09. Including by means of internet. This is really ridiculous in the nation which was known around the world for its superb cotton products from jeans to socks for decades. I am almost forced now to go back to Russia next year to buy socks–jokes aside, a very serious consideration among few others.

krollchem > , July 19, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Coming from a natural resource science background I would argue that GDP is not relevant to a sustainable society. The concept of GDP is based on the mythology of ever increasing growth. This has been debunked by the late Dr. Bartlett many years ago:

What is relevant is a sustainable society that maintains soil quality/fertility, water quality, and does not exceed the human carrying capacity of the land. More recently, the concept of doughnut economics encapsulates this:

Doughnut Economics – Grab a pencil, draw a doughnut!

https://theminskys.org/doughnut-economics/

https://www.kateraworth.com/animations/

Perhaps Russia can delay civilizational collapse by not following the the Western economic growth trap with the fracking, GMOs, water pollution, etc that is destroying what was once the resource rich land of America.

ps. Another quibble with GDP or PPP measurements is that it does not adequately measure WEALTH generated from the internal economy. See the automatic earth website for a different economic model.

Anonymous > , July 19, 2017 at 7:57 pm GMT

@Apolonius

No anti-rocket system will help

Even a 100% accurate system can be made useless if someone sets the warhead to detonate upon hitting the ground. Hitting a rocket (which is the goal) would only result in a nearby mushroom cloud. That's quite a predicament for the operators and for the host country.

HallParvey > , July 19, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT

@Verymuchalive "You couldn't make it up."

Actually, you could. In fact, somebody did.

Bonjour

annamaria > , July 19, 2017 at 8:46 pm GMT

@Mr. Hack Why are you going on a childish offensive by defending the US-installed junta in Kiev and demanding others to provide you with evidence that the neo-nazis and Banderites have nothing to do with Yatz and Poroshenko and Nuland-Kagan?

Google "neo-Nazi parades in Ukraine" and enjoy the show. If you still have doubts about the direct responsibility of Poroschenko for the neo-Nazi presence in the government of Ukraine, read about Pravyj sector and its role in the Maidan revolution. Also, Proschenko had been in contact with the State Dept for years before the Maidan revolution. Your take on this?

The main point is the US-orchestrated regime change in Kiev. Or you want to convince the UNZ reader that Nuland was a virtual reality and nothing has changed in Ukraine since Mrs. Nuland-Kagan' and Mr. Brennan's visit to Kiev? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7

Do you realize that the US has brought a range of US officials to Kiev – including the Director of the CIA – to "improve" a democratic process there by removing a lawfully elected and acting president?

Yes, the US intervention has brought neo-Nazis and Banderites to the positions of influence in Ukraine. What could be more natural than a combination of the name "Kagan" and the word "neo-Nazis?" https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31887-the-ukraine-mess-that-nuland-made

Rurik > , Website July 19, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

some good news vis-à-vis Russia, Syria and the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.620196799e59

NoseytheDuke > , July 19, 2017 at 11:10 pm GMT

@Philip Giraldi I found this small article to be wonderfully instructive on economics.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/how-the-world-works/305854/

I disagree with a lot of my American friends because they cannot conceive the notion that projects designed to benefit all of society are not necessarily evil socialism.

I believe in affordable healthcare for all and think Trump could achieve this by infusing the VA Hospital system with some extra funds and by using the Cuban healthcare methodology and then offering the service to those in need and charging according to what people can afford to pay. Medical students would be selected purely on merit and would work in the hospital as orderlies, cooks, cleaners whatever while undergoing studies. Post-graduation they would work within the system at a low income for about 10 years to repay their education. Medicines would be produced within the system and any profits from R & D would be ploughed back into the system. Preventative care would also be a feature.

Private healthcare would remain untouched for those who want it and can afford it. I have it myself.

It could be done, would cost far less than thought and ALL would benefit except perhaps the greedy and immoral. America would be a better nation for it.

Mr. Hack > , July 20, 2017 at 12:00 am GMT

@annamaria I'm curious why those of your persuasion aren't at all rattled by Russia's blatant attempts to unduly influence events in Ukraine during the Maidan period:

According to government documents released by former Deputy Interior Minister Hennadiy Moskal, Russian officials served as advisers to the operations against protesters. Codenamed "Wave" and "Boomerang", the operations involved the use of snipers to disperse crowds and capture the protesters' headquarters in the House of Trade Unions. Before some police officers defected, the plans included the deployment of 22,000 combined security troops in Kiev.[84] According to the documents, the former first deputy of the Russian GRU stayed at the Kiev Hotel, played a major role in the preparations, and was paid by the Security Services of Ukraine.. agents had been stationed in Kiev throughout the Euromaidan protests, had been provided with "state telecommunications" while residing at an SBU compound, and had kept in regular contact with Ukrainian security officials. "We have substantiated grounds to consider that these very groups which were located at an SBU training ground took part in the planning and execution of activities of this so-called antiterrorist operation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution

annamaria > , July 20, 2017 at 12:59 am GMT

@Mr. Hack There is a wonderful episode from a famous novel by Ukrainian writer Nikolai Gogol, where an official tells a story of an officer's widow who allegedly whipped herself with a lash.
According to your fiction (since you have completely omitted the well-established facts of Nuland-Kagan' and Brennan' presence at the key moments of the regime change in Kiev), Russians have arranged the regime change in Kiev themselves – "cut off your nose to spite your face," in short. You have also modestly omitted the fact of the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, courtesy the US State Dept and its ziocon handlers.
Here is a report from much more reliable source of information than the ziocon-controlled MSM: "Ukraine: Poland trained putchists two months in advance, " by Thierry Meyssan http://www.voltairenet.org/article183373.html
Repost: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-14/white-house-admits-cia-director-brennan-was-secretly-kiev?page=7 https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/15/the-kagans-are-back-wars-to-follow/

Mr. Hack > , July 20, 2017 at 1:30 am GMT

since you have completely omitted the well-established facts of Nuland-Kagan' and Brennan' presence at the key moments of the regime change in Kiev

Just where have I ommitted reference to Nuland and Brennan. You must be mixing up my comments with somebody else? I've noted that both were in Kyiv, but question their ability to direct a movement that was homegrown from the very beginning and till the bitter end.

You have also modestly omitted the fact of the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine, courtesy the US State Dept and its ziocon handlers.

You're right, I have for the most part omitted reference to any far right parties. Svoboda, the largest of these, barely can muster 3% support in national elections. I'd rather concentrate my purview on the other 97% of the voter base, than on a 3% minority party.

But since you've brought up what I've conveniently omitted, HOW ABOUT YOU? No comment regarding the obtrusive and deadly amalgamation of FSB personnel in Ukraine during these events? From what I've read, they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies or courses in how to create a civil society?

annamaria > , July 20, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT

" they served up a lot more than just milk and cookies"

It was Nuland-Kagan who brought the treats to Kiev. It was the (former) Director of CIA Brennan who came to Kiev (supposedly in secret) on the eve of the Kiev' military actions against the civilian population of the pro-federalist east Ukraine. And you want to convince the UNZ readers that the Maidan was organized by Russians? What is the name of your new Prime Minister? – Mr. Groysman? "Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family " How come that the predominantly anti-semitic Ukraine has elected this nonety with the proper ethnic background? – Sure you know how to explain that this is also the Russians' fault. How about the US-enforced appointment of Misha Saakashvilli to the governorship of Ukraine's Odessa? – Kremlin's affair? Ukraine has lost its independence with the regime change in 2014.

"From what I've read " – You mean the presstituting MSM? None of the respectable sources, from consortium.com to Sic Semper Tyrannus ( http://turcopolier.typepad.com ) have ever suggested that the coup d'etat involved – in any capacity – Russian government. Keep in mind that the above-mentioned sources present the analyses of the principled and patriotic Americans who dedicated their lives to the US nationals security. For obvious reasons, they are hated by ziocons.

RobinG > , July 20, 2017 at 3:17 am GMT

@Rurik some good news vis-à-vis Russia, Syria and the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.620196799e59 Yes, indeed. You beat me to it.

" President Trump has decided to end the CIA's covert program to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels battling the government of Bashar al-Assad, a move long sought by Russia, according to U.S. officials."

Now that they've "decided," let's hope they get on with it, (and don't compensate with some other lunacy).

[Jul 20, 2017] Medvedev, by contrast, was a pushover.. Now US thriller authors want new pushover and dream about assassinating Putin

Notable quotes:
"... Kremlin's Candidate ..."
"... I suppose they forecast – and in many ways they reflect Washington's own malignant unintended-consequences thinking process – that if Putin were only removed, all the USA's troubles with Russia would be over. ..."
"... It would fall back into susceptibility to misdirection and manipulation, and the west would be able to maneuver it into self-destructive behaviors by working through its corrupt oligarchs and it would end up something like Ukraine, only bigger – nominally a state, but really a collection of fiefdoms more or less owned outright by wealthy citizens who follow their own interests and constantly inveigh against one another for influence and power. ..."
"... Putin is the only one who is predictable in that he is unpredictable, and he will reach a point nobody knows is there when he will decide to take action. Once the decision is made he seldom backs away from it, and his involvement with the business of the nation is total – there just seems to be no chink in the armor through which he can be subverted to self-interest. ..."
"... Medvedev, by contrast, was a pushover. The west simply had to flatter him on the surface that it considered him the most progressive leader of Russia ever, and loved his 'liberal reforms' which rewarded disobedience and self-interest. ..."
"... All he ever got was the occasional pat on the head, and encouragement to continue weakening political power in Russia. Of course if you completely let people have their own way without any articulate national vision, they will pursue self-interest. ..."
"... The problem of a Russian President "After Putin" is a real problem. This inevitable "change of the guard" threatens Russia's political and economic stability and the possibility of Medvedev II (a pushover), or some confrontational nationalist while both remote, can't be completely discarded. ..."
"... Another danger is too much adherence to neoliberalism. In this sense China is in a better position, They are just more flexible. They still have China Communist Party as a counterbalance to oligarchs. Which is also far from perfect and creates the constant stream of corruption. But due to this, they can be neoliberals today and not so much tomorrow. ..."
"... Absolute, unipolar hegemony of the USA, when it can essentially dictate any country its will, and unliterary declare sanctions, without much danger of blowback, is probably gradually coming to the end. Ideology in which the USA based in dominance - neoliberalism - is now discredited. That's alone dooms the empire. ..."
"... So the situation mirrors the USSR and crisis of Marxism. The signs of rot of neoliberal society inside the USA are visible. And the decimation of the "Rust Belt" and the election of Trump are two such signs. ..."
Jul 20, 2017 | russiareviewed.wordpress.com
J.T. , July 20, 2017 at 6:47 am

Um why are thriller writers obsessed with killing Putin (or his fictional stand-in) now?

https://read.amazon.com/kp/card?preview=inline&linkCode=xm2&ref_=k4w_oembed_py0SI7bB2QkFew&asin=B073RSS1MG&tag=pbs_00005-20

(In Jason Matthews's upcoming Kremlin's Candidate the characters are going to assassinate Putin, and there was a similar plotline in Ted Bell's Patriot though it was unsuccessful and I didn't mention it in the review)

marknesop , July 20, 2017 at 7:28 am
I suppose they forecast – and in many ways they reflect Washington's own malignant unintended-consequences thinking process – that if Putin were only removed, all the USA's troubles with Russia would be over.

It would fall back into susceptibility to misdirection and manipulation, and the west would be able to maneuver it into self-destructive behaviors by working through its corrupt oligarchs and it would end up something like Ukraine, only bigger – nominally a state, but really a collection of fiefdoms more or less owned outright by wealthy citizens who follow their own interests and constantly inveigh against one another for influence and power.

And I think there is a real fear this might happen; Putin cannot last forever, and the only ones I can think of who show anything like the necessary steel are Lavrov and Shoigu.

Of those, Shoigu is mostly loyal and we see little evidence of his own thinking process, merely his obedience. Lavrov is wedded to the diplomatic process, as one might expect from a lifetime diplomat.

Putin is the only one who is predictable in that he is unpredictable, and he will reach a point nobody knows is there when he will decide to take action. Once the decision is made he seldom backs away from it, and his involvement with the business of the nation is total – there just seems to be no chink in the armor through which he can be subverted to self-interest.

Medvedev, by contrast, was a pushover. The west simply had to flatter him on the surface that it considered him the most progressive leader of Russia ever, and loved his 'liberal reforms' which rewarded disobedience and self-interest.

Think tanks continued to write disparaging critiques of life in Russia, rampant corruption, loads of civic unrest, bla, bla, as if none of those reforms had ever been made.

All he ever got was the occasional pat on the head, and encouragement to continue weakening political power in Russia. Of course if you completely let people have their own way without any articulate national vision, they will pursue self-interest.

likbez, July 20, 2017 at 7:34 pm
Mark,

This is a very good, insightful comment. Medvedev was a real disaster and that can happen again.

The problem of a Russian President "After Putin" is a real problem. This inevitable "change of the guard" threatens Russia's political and economic stability and the possibility of Medvedev II (a pushover), or some confrontational nationalist while both remote, can't be completely discarded.

The President in Russia has way too much power and that while was necessary and helpful in order to rebuild Russia after Yeltsin rule eventually it might become dangerous for the society. Let's call it Gorbachov II type of danger.

Another danger is too much adherence to neoliberalism. In this sense China is in a better position, They are just more flexible. They still have China Communist Party as a counterbalance to oligarchs. Which is also far from perfect and creates the constant stream of corruption. But due to this, they can be neoliberals today and not so much tomorrow.

Russia elite needs to play its game of Putin succession very carefully, very skillfully in order not to provoke inflicting too much damage on itself, the damage Washington and it allies are still capable and willing to inflict.

The need to secure peaceful economic development for at least a couple of decades, if not more should be the cornerstone of Russian foreign policy.

The USA is way too strong now. and if you count transnational corporations (who are the real rulers in Washington, DC) it will probably remains in this position until the end of "oil age". China rise and the fact that China GDP now is exceeding the USA is a secondary factor, as China depends on the West in many key areas including technology and does not has allies like the USA, which BTW includes almost all former British empire. Plus EU with its 500 millions population.

Absolute, unipolar hegemony of the USA, when it can essentially dictate any country its will, and unliterary declare sanctions, without much danger of blowback, is probably gradually coming to the end. Ideology in which the USA based in dominance - neoliberalism - is now discredited. That's alone dooms the empire.

So the situation mirrors the USSR and crisis of Marxism. The signs of rot of neoliberal society inside the USA are visible. And the decimation of the "Rust Belt" and the election of Trump are two such signs.

But a high level of influence on the world stage (including in culture, science and technology) will continue for some time after absolute hegemony is lost.

See:

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/pentagon-study-declares-american-empire-is-collapsing-746754cdaebf"

[Jul 20, 2017] Trump orders the CIA to halt all financial, military aid for rebels in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... He's a dead man if true. ..."
"... God, are the Clintonists going to be pissed off. Their beloved leader's foreign policy achievement in tatters and Putin's interference in the election paying off at last. ..."
"... So Trump is saying he will end the CIA's covert support of Syrian militants fighting against the government. It's funny/sad seeing diehard Trump supporters latching on to this hoping it will redeem their hero. Talk is cheap and Trump does not exactly have a reliable track record when it comes to honoring his word. Even if he is serious in this instance the neocon contingent he invited into his highest levels of his administration may see things differently and push back. Whatever the case, I expect the US/EU/NATO/Israel/GCC/KSA/Turkey sponsored regime change agenda will continue. ..."
Jul 20, 2017 | moonofalabama.org
jo6pac | Jul 19, 2017 5:37:02 PM | 17

I wonder if its true, time will tell. google news carried it also.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_ciasyria-310pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.433a9b0da138

b4real | Jul 19, 2017 7:03:10 PM | 21
OT, but right up b's alley....

almasdarnews.com is saying Trump orders the CIA to halt all financial, military aid for rebels in Syria

He's a dead man if true.

Ghostship | Jul 19, 2017 7:06:50 PM | 22
>>>> jo6pac | Jul 19, 2017 5:37:02 PM | 17
I wonder if its true, time will tell. google news carried it also.

Reuters is also reporting it.

Trump ends CIA arms support for anti-Assad Syria rebels - U.S. officials

God, are the Clintonists going to be pissed off. Their beloved leader's foreign policy achievement in tatters and Putin's interference in the election paying off at last.

Meanwhile nothing on the New York Times as yet but it does have a sweet little video about life in an Ukrainian summer camp run by Nazis.

ben | Jul 19, 2017 8:20:11 PM | 29
When the U$A pulls its' troops, I'll rejoice, and give Trump the credit for making a sane decision.

@ b:With this thread you've encapsulated what's up with the U$A media. Many quotes from " think tanks", and none from the subjects themselves. AKA propaganda..

ProPeace | Jul 19, 2017 9:08:41 PM | 31
More truth about Syria coming out

Murder Of Green Berets In Jordan Exposed Secretive CIA Syria Program Details

daffyDuct | Jul 19, 2017 9:43:35 PM | 35
Uffda! Trump says "enough" in Syria!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a-move-sought-by-moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.c2915ab0578b

Temporarily Sane | Jul 19, 2017 10:00:52 PM | 36
So Trump is saying he will end the CIA's covert support of Syrian militants fighting against the government. It's funny/sad seeing diehard Trump supporters latching on to this hoping it will redeem their hero. Talk is cheap and Trump does not exactly have a reliable track record when it comes to honoring his word. Even if he is serious in this instance the neocon contingent he invited into his highest levels of his administration may see things differently and push back. Whatever the case, I expect the US/EU/NATO/Israel/GCC/KSA/Turkey sponsored regime change agenda will continue.

[Jul 20, 2017] Training Jihadists for Syria Operations: Whistleblowers Speak

Notable quotes:
"... One month before the attack at King Faisal Air Base, a Green Beret associated with covert operations in Syria spoke out to a prominent military news site called SOFREP, blowing the whistle on details surrounding the CIA's use of jihadists to overthrow Assad: ..."
"... "Nobody believes in it. You're like, 'F--k this.' Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, 'F--k it, who cares?' ..."
"... The report revealed that American Syrian rebel trainers (in Jordan and elsewhere) belonging to the Army's 5th Special Forces Group had been tasked with assisting a CIA covert mission, but they knew full well that they were being ordered by the Obama administration to train jihadists and ISIS sympathizers in the push to topple the Syrian government. ..."
Jul 20, 2017 | moonofalabama.org

ProPeace | Jul 19, 2017 9:16:28 PM | 33

Interesting part:

One month before the attack at King Faisal Air Base, a Green Beret associated with covert operations in Syria spoke out to a prominent military news site called SOFREP, blowing the whistle on details surrounding the CIA's use of jihadists to overthrow Assad:

"Nobody believes in it. You're like, 'F--k this.' Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, 'F--k it, who cares?'

The lengthy whistleblower report (member restricted) circulated widely among special forces veterans and professional analysts, but never reached a broader public audience and was ignored in mainstream press as it sat behind a members only access site founded by a well-known Navy Seal for the purpose of 'insider' news and discussion impacting the special forces community.

The report revealed that American Syrian rebel trainers (in Jordan and elsewhere) belonging to the Army's 5th Special Forces Group had been tasked with assisting a CIA covert mission, but they knew full well that they were being ordered by the Obama administration to train jihadists and ISIS sympathizers in the push to topple the Syrian government.

They warned blowback was coming as the CIA was violating America's own counter-terror laws...

[Jul 19, 2017] Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya says Magnitsky Act lobbyist Browder behind Trump Jr. scandal

Jul 19, 2017 | gravatar.com
  1. Moscow Exile says: July 19, 2017 at 2:44 am

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZlT3kaxIlgw?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

    Reply

[Jul 19, 2017] Regarding the newest row between Russia and US about US seizing Russian diplomatic compounds, why does Russia again only complain but doesn't really do anything?

Notable quotes:
"... "DAS WAR EN BEFEHL! DER ANGRIFF STEINER WAR EIN BEFEHL!" ..."
Jul 19, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

karl1haushofer , July 19, 2017 at 1:42 am

Regarding the newest row between Russia and US about US seizing Russian diplomatic compounds, why does Russia again only complain but doesn't really do anything?

If the US seizes Russian property on American soil the correct countermeasure would be to seize American property on Russian soil.

The same goes for those diplomats that the Obama administration deported. Russia has still not extradited any US diplomats in return.

Usually countries answer to provocations like these with similar actions, but Russia chooses not to.

Moscow Exile , July 19, 2017 at 2:30 am
I don't know.

Do you?

If you do know, please tell us all, because I'm sure I'm not the only person here who is losing a lot of sleep over this pressing question.

Lyttenburgh , July 19, 2017 at 3:33 am
Wow, karl! So much activity in just one day! One has to imagine you, sitting tight in the badly lit poorly airconditioned bunker beneath Helsinki, reading one newspice about Russia after another, then, with you shaly hand, taking off the glasses from your red with rage sweaty face and exploding in:

"DAS WAR EN BEFEHL! DER ANGRIFF STEINER WAR EIN BEFEHL!"

Jen , July 19, 2017 at 4:23 am
Well, Karl, it would be a dull world if everyone behaved like robots engaging in tit-4-tat behaviours that by their very nature increase the chances of all-out war and annihilation. If Russia has a choice between two actions or a choice of several actions against US provocation, why should Moscow behave the way you (and the Americans) expect?
Patient Observer , July 19, 2017 at 4:13 pm
With Matt's departure, there is apparently an opening for another resident troll.
Hoffnungstirbtzuletzt , July 19, 2017 at 11:46 am
Prof. Stephen Cohen discusses this in this week's interview on the John Batchelor show. However, he says Putin is under a great deal of pressure from the Russian public to get this sorted out. True or not, I don't know. Listen for yourself: https://audioboom.com/posts/6120078-tales-of-the-new-cold-war-will-moscow-retaliate-for-washington-property-confiscations-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton-part-2-of-2
cartman , July 19, 2017 at 2:13 pm
As soon as Mike McFaul was appointed Spaso House was hosting one kreakl after another. Confiscating that property would make it a lot more difficult to do that. Taking the Anglo-American school might cause the United States to cut back the number of embassy employees. With relations as they are, I would say that it is bloated and unnecessary.
marknesop , July 19, 2017 at 5:42 pm
They could build the American Ambassador a new residence which reflected the current state of the countries' relations; perhaps something like this . It should be on the outskirts of the city, far away from everything to minimize his meddling, and be in the center of about an acre of asphalt so that he could not leave without being spotted. Better still, just break off diplomatic relations and send him off to be the Russian Ambassador in Prague, like RFE/RL is.

The Russian government actually owns Pullman House, which serves as the residence of the Russian Ambassador to the United States, having paid $350,000.00 for it in 1913 . Spaso House, though, does not belong to the USA – the first US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, William C Bullit, 'selected' it as his official residence , and leased it for three years. I suppose the US government still pays something for using it, but the USA doesn't own it.

[Jul 19, 2017] F. William Engdahl looks at the claims that the economy of the RF is foundering

Jul 19, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Cortes , July 19, 2017 at 4:21 pm

F. William Engdahl looks at the claims that the economy of the RF is foundering:

https://journal-neo.org/2017/07/19/a-tale-of-two-nations-russia-vs-usa-economic-prospects/

His essay includes remarks about how US ratings agencies appear to be adjuvant parts of the Treasury economic warfare unit; the application of lessons learned in production of military assets to ensuring that civilian enterprises benefit from leading edge technologies to gain significant product improvement and cost reductions; and further detail on the high speed rail system being developed.

Patient Observer , July 19, 2017 at 7:41 pm
Yes well worth reading.
kirill , July 19, 2017 at 8:19 pm
Debt is not the main parameter of Uncle Scumbag's decline. It is the de-diversification and offshoring of most manufacturing. Aside from the military sector, the US civilian economy has transformed into a mercantile trickle down of cheap imports sold at high prices. Nobody has demonstrated how the downsized, right-sized, and offshored economy is supposed to be sustainable. All I see is a catabolic process where enough money keeps circulating in the system as the middle class disappears. The trickle down injection of money creates retail low wage jobs and props up consumer demand. But ultimately the consumers in the USA will become a minority. There is a clear shift of the job spectrum from well paying ones (related to manufacturing) to low wage ones (retail sector and "services"). Consumption is lubricated by debt increases both private and public (the local and federal governments in the USA are propping up consumption).

US multinationals do not care since they gain consumers abroad faster than they lose consumers at home. A globalist mega-corporation wins from the expansion of the middle class in China, India and elsewhere. These corporations are literally walking over the dead body of the USA to reach their goals.

By contrast, Russia is diversifying and de-offshoring and import substituting. As the cherry on top of this GDP growth cake, Russia has a very low debt (both public and private). Russia's growth and development is basically natural and not artificial stimulus through debt generation.

The trash talk about "Russia does not make anything" (Obama) and "Russia is a gas station posing as an economy" (McShitStain) reflects deep insecurity by US leaders.

They know that post-globalism America will be a 3rd world husk. Trump is going to have to really act like a dictator to unseat the globalist corporate interests that steer the US. I don't see this happening.

[Jul 19, 2017] Vassals sometimes behave like stooges: EU puts sanctions on Syrian scientists, military officials over non-existent gas attack and prohibit selling inflatable boats to Libya, which they destroyed

Notable quotes:
"... See what I mean? Completely £"^$&g useless. The normal rule is "If you break it, you pay for it" – but not in the rule and human right's luvvin' EU! If you break it, try and sweep it under the carpet and blame it on the dog! France, the UK, Italy & the USA destroyed Libya. The EU's Operation Triton to 'help' refugees orders its ships to sit far outside LIbyan waters, well past the danger zone within 15km of the coast where most refugees drown. Even the previous Mare Nostrum operation by the Italians wasn't so evil and heartless. You couldn't make this up and be believed. Now if I go in to a china shop ..."
Jul 19, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , July 18, 2017 at 2:28 pm

Neuters via Antiwar.com: EU puts sanctions on Syrian scientists, military officials over gas attack
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-eu-idUSKBN1A20ZI

The European Union imposed sanctions on 16 Syrian scientists and military officials on Monday for their suspected involvement in a chemical attack in northern Syria in April which killed scores of civilians.

Western intelligence agencies accuse the government of Bashar al-Assad of carrying out the attack, arguing that rebels in the area would not have had the capabilities. The international chemical weapons watchdog said in June the nerve agent sarin was used.

Syrian officials have repeatedly denied using banned toxins.
####

More at the link.

PUSSIES!

And more crap from the EU:

AFPee: via Antiwar.com: EU curbs rubber dinghy sales to Libya to stop migrants
https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-curbs-rubber-dinghy-sales-libya-stop-migrants-163741424.html

The European Union on Monday adopted limits on the export of inflatable boats to Libya in a bid to make it harder for smugglers to send migrants to Europe.

The decision by the foreign ministers of the 28 EU states, which also covers outboard motors, is the latest to help a chaotic and violence-torn Libya stem the flow of migrants to Italy, now the main route to the bloc.

"We took a decision to introduce restrictions from today onwards on the export and supply to Libya of the inflatable boats and motors," EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said
####

See what I mean? Completely £"^$&g useless. The normal rule is "If you break it, you pay for it" – but not in the rule and human right's luvvin' EU! If you break it, try and sweep it under the carpet and blame it on the dog! France, the UK, Italy & the USA destroyed Libya. The EU's Operation Triton to 'help' refugees orders its ships to sit far outside LIbyan waters, well past the danger zone within 15km of the coast where most refugees drown. Even the previous Mare Nostrum operation by the Italians wasn't so evil and heartless. You couldn't make this up and be believed. Now if I go in to a china shop

yalensis , July 18, 2017 at 3:41 pm
They say that humans are the only animals who experience a sense of shame.
Based on this, the EU simply aren't human.
If they had any human feelings, they would send luxury yachts to pick up those Libyan refugees instead of denying these huddled masses to their teeming shores.

Pottery Barn Rules.

[Jul 19, 2017] Never in the field of American conflict with Russia has so much wool pulled over the eyes been owed to so few sheep. That was during the losing presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Now, in the investigations of President Donald Trump and his family, it's a case of so many sheep producing so little wool.

Jul 19, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , July 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm

JohnHelmer.net: THE IMPROPER ASSOCIATION (MAYBE CRIME) OF VICTOR PINCHUK WITH HILLARY, BILL AND CHELSEA CLINTON, COVERED UP BY THE US MEDIA, US DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

http://johnhelmer.net/the-improper-association-maybe-crime-of-victor-pinchuk-with-hillary-bill-and-chelsea-clinton-covered-up-by-the-us-media-us-department-of-justice-and-the-international-monetary-fund/

Never in the field of American conflict with Russia has so much wool pulled over the eyes been owed to so few sheep. That was during the losing presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Now, in the investigations of President Donald Trump and his family, it's a case of so many sheep producing so little wool.

The case of the $13 million paid to the Clinton family by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk, in exchange for personal favours and escalation of the war against Russia, was reported in detail throughout 2014. Click to read the opener, and more.

Early this month there has been fresh investigation of Pinchuk's money links with the Clintons, owing to the start of Ukrainian government inquiries into the theft of billions of dollars of International Monetary Fund (IMF) loans to Ukraine – money then transferred to Ukrainian commercial banks including Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr bank, and then loaned to offshore entities controlled by Pinchuk but apparently not repaid. Theft of the IMF money was first reported here in connection with Igor Kolomoisky's operation of Privat Bank

####

More at the link. Goose & gander anyone?

[Jul 19, 2017] On Crapified News And Foreign Policy

Notable quotes:
"... The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events--particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here. ..."
"... It is more than just rise, however correctly pointed out by you, of Imperial Hubris--the whole panoply of the "tools" of military-political analysis is plain and simple wrong. This failure is based on a metaphysical mistake -- wrong reading of history, especially of the 20th Century, which led to an ultimate failure in understanding the issues of scales and proportions. What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA, not a gift to be cherished. Sand castles on the beach, however, do not live long, the high tide has arrived some time ago. ..."
"... As in the US DOJ, FBI, CIA etc., are organizations aimed directly to protect oligarchic rule, IRG protects ruling class of clerics in Iran, in both countries under guise of protecting constitution and law and order, earthly or heavenly. ..."
"... Unfortunately, "What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA," this "metaphysical mistake" had already ingrained itself into the Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history. ..."
"... While I don't disagree with you, it has to be well understood that any big "player" by 19th Century had its own version of Manifest Destiny e.g. Russia as a Third Rome. But it was namely through WW II where US could claim a "victory" over Nazism (hence a vast field of Anglo-American WW II history falsifiers) and thus realize itself as a continental power that the issue of exceptionalism really have got into over-drive and resulted in US literally running itself into the ground. When one has a political class (and population) not conditioned by continental warfare--it is almost inevitable. ..."
"... I get the impression the situation is typically less a matter of, "the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue", than certain intelligence operatives tasked with gaming the media echo chamber, feed well placed assets prioritized talking points to create the illusion of a 'thing'. ..."
"... Just look at the media shitstorm regarding Russia, different crap, same difference! ..."
Jul 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Significant parts of the Trump administration , Congress and the general Zionist borg would love to start a war between the U.S. and Iran.

A war is unlikely. Iran's geography and strategic position is unassailable. Its global political standing has increased during the last decades. Any war with Iran would be extremely costly yet unwinnable.

But with U.S. pressure again increasing on Iran it is important to learn and understand what happens inside of country. Unfortunately most reporting about politics within Iran is bit of a mess. Considers the piece below from the Washington Post. Written from Turkey by a journalist who (to my best knowledge) does not speaks Farsi nor has any special knowledge of the country: With U.S. scholar's conviction, power struggle escalates between Iran's president and hard-liners

ISTANBUL -- A high-stakes power struggle between Iran's moderate president and his hard-line opponents in the judiciary appeared to escalate with the arrest of the president's brother and the conviction of an American student for espionage this weekend -- rulings that seemed timed to embarrass the Iranian leader at home and abroad

The piece should be classic foreign reporting. But who is speaking here?

  • ... Nader Hashemi, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Denver, said ...
  • ... Khamenei said in a speech this month, according to the Center for Human Rights in Iran, an independent nonprofit based in New York
  • ... said Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington
  • ... said Behnam Ben Taleblu, an Iran analyst at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington
  • ... [a]ccording to Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow and expert on Iran at the Brookings Institution ...

There is certainly no reason to lambast the journalist, Erin Cunningham, for being lazy. Getting five telephone or email interviews and authorized quotes for the piece was surely a day's work. But how come there is no voice from Iran? The only quote from an Iranian person, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is in translation of a lobby shop in New York which does not reveal its sponsors. Is the quote correct? The other "expert" are all from outlets that are more or less adverse to Iran's system of governance.

The piece makes the recent dispute and judicial action look extraordinary and sensational. It connects it to actions in Washington DC:

The tensions come as Iran and the United States spar over the terms of a nuclear deal struck with world powers to limit Iran's nuclear weapons program.
...
The Trump administration has taken a much harsher stance on Iran, threatening to abandon the deal, and the Treasury Department on Tuesday announced new sanctions primarily targeting Iran's ballistic missile program.
...
The arrest and conviction of Wang, a 37-year-old scholar at Princeton, appeared to target Rouhani's wider foreign policy and engagement with the West. Although Wang was detained in August 2016, the timing of the verdict is suspect, analysts say.

"Why did they keep it a secret as long as they did? Timing is important," said Alex Vatanka, an Iran expert at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

Conflicts between the executive and the judiciary in Iran are legend and reoccur at least every other year. They are independent of the president being "moderate" or "hard-line" himself. Consider the obvious similarities between the above lede and this one from 2012 :

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- The head of Iran's judiciary lashed out at the country's president Wednesday, the latest salvo in an escalating political conflict that has undermined much of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's political clout

The Iranian constitution and political system is build on the principal of Vilayat-e Faqih, the guardianship of the (Islamic) jurists. The undecided question is how absolute the primacy of the jurists is supposed to be. The interpretations vary widely and often depend on the issue at hand. The executive will naturally assert primacy wherever it can, while absolute principalists in the judiciary will always assert that their jurisprudence is prime. The conflict is daily bread in Tehran and it makes no sense to sensationalize it.

The arrest of the president's brother for corruption may well be justified. It should astonish no one. It could be timed to assert pressure but we have no way to know that. It would be mere speculation to say so. Experience has show that effective coordination within the Iranian state machinery is way less than western authors tend to assume.

The U.S. student/spy had already been imprisoned for eleven months. That he was convicted now is likely not related to any Trump tantrum or epiphany. Washington's capers are less important in Tehran as the U.S. would like them to be.

All together the piece shows the typical pitfalls of U.S. reporting on Iran (and many other countries).

  • Original and relevant voices from the ground are absent. None of the people involved in the issues is questioned. "Expert" quotes from often partisan western think thanks are the sorry substitute.
  • Cultural and historic characteristics are neglected. The current dispute between Rouhani and the judiciary has its background in a century old discussion in Iran about the limits of vilayat-e faqih. (The importance of this is comparable to conflicts about "executive privilege" or "state rights vs. federal rights" in U.S. politics.) With that background the spat between Rouhani and the judiciary is simply the marking of territories for his now beginning second term.
  • Most of the issues happening in a foreign country's politics are NOT related to whatever happens in Washington DC. U.S. writers love to draw such causal connections. But not every hiccup in Moscow is in response to some fart in DC. More often then not there is no connection at all.

One original voice from within Tehran's ruling circuit would have been more valuable to the above piece than the five think tank quotes. A few more words about the historic role of the judiciary would have helped to set some perspective. Connecting the political theater in Tehran to Trump's zigzags makes it easier to write the lede. But there is no justification for it without evidentiary backing.

Despite the nitpicking I don't regard the Cunningham piece as bad at all. Each day there are way worse reports in the papers and on cable TV. It is probably the best one can do when the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue. Over the last years many experienced foreign correspondents were fired or paid to leave. Main-stream media replaced serious foreign reporting with childish "listicals", high school level "explainers" and cat pictures.

When a few dailies and news shows drive foreign policy making the lack of in-depth reporting becomes a serious issue. Members of Congress and the administration get much of their foreign policy knowledge from U.S. media reports. It is no wonder that they are clueless when those reports lack insight and details. The crapification of high decision making is probably directly related to the crapification of the news media. Trump taking his clues from Fox News (and others) is bad. Fox News (and others) having no well reported clues at all is even worse.

Posted by b on July 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Freespirit | Jul 19, 2017 12:14:14 PM | 1

Yeh, sure I am going to believe an, in effect, "ALL-AMERICAN" stooges reporting about anything stated as FACT from or about Iran

Keep in mind what ,who and Chacteristics of WHOM we are dealing with:

Perpetual WAR, ISRAEL , CHRISTIANS, JEWS, Muslims and the CONNECTION: https://boblivingstonletter.com/alerts/america-perpetual-war/

AND

Psychopathy by James Corbett: https://youtu.be/DPf5i84BqcA

AND

Trump's NEW WORLD ORDER, run by Jews, with him as Temporary Chief Stooge : http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1222

karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 12:18:08 PM | 2
Southfront has a report about a just released stink tank study: "A new study conducted by members of the U.S. military establishment has concluded that the U.S.-led international global order established after World War II is "fraying" and may even be "collapsing" as the U.S. continues to lose its position of "primacy" in world affairs." https://southfront.org/us-military-establishment-study-american-empire-collapsing/ https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358

The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events -- particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here.

Willy2 | Jul 19, 2017 12:28:28 PM | 3
- One doesn't have to occupy Iran in its entirety. One can simply occupy the Khuzestan oil province in the west of Iran to cripple the Iranian government.
Yul | Jul 19, 2017 12:42:28 PM | 4
@b

http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/page/1970219/All+Rumors+about+Hassan+Rouhani%E2%80%99s+Recently+Arrested+Brother+Hossein+Fereidoun.html

somebody | Jul 19, 2017 12:49:32 PM | 5
3
that is why Iran has specialized in all types of missiles for the last decades or so.
Pnyx | Jul 19, 2017 12:59:03 PM | 6
Important background. Thank you B.
Yul | Jul 19, 2017 1:16:32 PM | 7
@2 karlof1

Nafeez Ahmed did a good job dissecting the 145 pages report:
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/pentagon-study-declares-american-empire-is-collapsing-746754cdaebf

Mike Maloney | Jul 19, 2017 1:36:03 PM | 8
Believe it or not, NYT's Tehran correspondent, Thomas Erdbrink, is pretty good. I remember seeing a video a couple years ago where Erdbrink profiles Najiyeh Allahdad, a daughter of a martyr in the Iran-Iraq War I believe. It was very sympathetic to the revolution. In the bio of Allahad NYT published they included this:
How do you describe yourself? I'm an Iranian Muslim who uses any opportunity to improve her country and who protects her country's reputation in the world. I love life, and I love peace. I feel that what people have lost in this world is spirituality. I've devoted my life to trying to find this spirituality for myself first and then to help others enjoy it.

Have you traveled outside of Iran? Where? What did you think? I have traveled to India, China, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, the United States and Syria. I found some Eastern countries like India and China to be very civilized, but they have not used their civilization to improve their daily lives. On the other hand, I found the Western countries to be detached from their histories and stepping into a new world that has an unclear future. Some Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. seemed too dependent on Western countries and would be nothing without help from the U.S. And a country like Iraq has always been hampered by circumstances throughout its history.

There is a strong body of opinion within the U.S. national security state that believes along with b that Iran cannot be defeated militarily. Trump is doing the bidding of his buddies in Jeddah and Tel Aviv.
Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 19, 2017 1:50:12 PM | 9
A beautiful piece of analytical, sequential surgery, b.
I was watching a doco at the weekend and #Occupy was mentioned, reminding me that we can thank #Occupy for the introduction of 1%/99% into the lexicon, and the #Occupiers for the meme...

The America dream
You have to be asleep
To believe it.

Similarly, I'm grateful to Trump for linking the terms "Fake News" and "Mainstream Media" and making each an autonomic reminder of the other.

james | Jul 19, 2017 2:23:52 PM | 10
thanks b... msm is superficial at best... unfortunately they are beholden to israel's agenda which is the same as the military, financial and neo-con industries... until that changes, it will be playing fast with facts in order to perpetuate more war... good to know what the msm is really about... it isn't about anything in depth, that's for sure!
karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 2:54:20 PM | 11
Yul @7--

Thanks! I noted Southfront cited him and linked to his article.

To continue my thought on this: Garbage in leads to garbage out. In the process of propagandizing and indoctrinating the populous, you dumb them down to the point that to be effective analysts and policy makers people must be reeducated. My #1 example is Trump. He's been fed so much Crappola his entire life that it negatively affects his thought processes and judgment. At least he's willing to call such crappola for what it is, although he in turn produces his own version of it often.

A very good example of the change in the elite's philosophy from 1776 to today is found in this clause from the Outlaw US Empire's Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

And then compared to this exemplary expression of hubris from Karl Rove:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

In other words, we don't give a damn about what anybody else thinks or what the law says--pretty much the same sentiments uttered by every megalomaniac that ever existed.

How to return to the prudent, moral, and law-based philosophy penned by Jefferson that seems to guide the Multipolar Alliance? Where was it reported in the Western media that Iran sanctioned the Outlaw US Empire for its overwhelmingly obvious support for terrorism that I noted yesterday:

"In view of the overt support provided to terrorist groups by the US government and the country's military and intelligence forces and repeated confessions by American officials to having created terrorist groups and offered them all-out support, from the standpoint of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the entirety of the United States' military and intelligence forces are considered as supporters of terrorist groups in the region." http://theduran.com/us-iran-sanctions-are-a-tit-for-tat-measure-that-is-part-of-a-wider-geo-strategic-reality/

Just how many Outlaw US Empire citizens are aware of the fact that it was deemed necessary by a member of congress to introduce a bill entitled the Stop Arming Terrorists Act that affirms the Iranian Parliament's decision to sanction such behavior. And how many citizens are aware that their government's behavior flaunts numerous UNSCRs and is thus in violation of International Law--the very same International Law it championed in 1940--Atlantic Charter--which resulted in the UN Charter and UN organization? As someone who was trained to teach US History, I can tell you I was never taught a huge amount of very important facts about the Outlaw US Empire--indeed, many of my presentations and essays resulted in educating my professors! And some talk of colonizing Mars! That's a huge howler! And I haven't even touched upon Junk Economics and its related Randian Crappola.

SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 3:15:59 PM | 12
@2, karlof1
The diminishing capacity to get a proper look at global affairs is related to the rise in Imperial Hubris of the Outlaw US Empire, which I turn degrades your ability to properly respond to events--particularly those created by Empire policy. I think this is a part of what b's writing about here.

It is more than just rise, however correctly pointed out by you, of Imperial Hubris--the whole panoply of the "tools" of military-political analysis is plain and simple wrong. This failure is based on a metaphysical mistake -- wrong reading of history, especially of the 20th Century, which led to an ultimate failure in understanding the issues of scales and proportions. What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA, not a gift to be cherished. Sand castles on the beach, however, do not live long, the high tide has arrived some time ago.

TimmyB | Jul 19, 2017 3:55:08 PM | 13
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that a country's executive branch has clashed with its judiciary branch. Errr, isnt that the entire point of separating these two government functions, so they will clash instead of having the judicary act as a rubber stamp for the executive? In the US, we call it the "Separation of Powers Doctrine." What is so wrong when other countries, such as Iran, have the same policy our Founding Fathers wanted us to have?
Kalen | Jul 19, 2017 4:04:21 PM | 14
Of course there is nothing sensational to write about, everyday occurrence elbowing for influence peddling and positioning within grid of political power.
But more interesting is what such a common, for US Iran and most of other countries, occurrences really mean, namely political game within strictly limited range of moves mostly for benefit of electoral audience entertainment while constitutional and judicial framework makes sure that Deep state and Rulling elite interests, political and economic are satisfied no matter what.

As in the US DOJ, FBI, CIA etc., are organizations aimed directly to protect oligarchic rule, IRG protects ruling class of clerics in Iran, in both countries under guise of protecting constitution and law and order, earthly or heavenly.

Unfortunately, the overall collapse of civilization corrupted by money and power in a unprecedented global dimension of mass mental enslavement, extereme radical consumerism, religion,nationalism or delusional psychotic cult of globalism and suicidal growth of social cancers is ubiquitous within societies crazed by fetish of material or immaterial social products or commodities, monetizing everything including most of all human flesh, relations, culture, religion, and humanist egalitarian societies. Such a decomposing ocean of human flesh spawned an mercenary army of human looking zombies conditioned and ready to violently defend their own enslavement for whatever reason was fed into their rotten brains.


karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 4:17:43 PM | 15
SmoothieX12 @12--

Thanks for your reply! Unfortunately, "What was merely a once in a lifetime window of opportunities due to a specific combination of geopolitical, military, economic etc. factors in the immediate wake of WW II was perceived as a dialectic and inevitable march of history in favor of messianic USA," this "metaphysical mistake" had already ingrained itself into the Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history. As Hoarsewhisperer @9 intoned:

"The America dream
You have to be asleep
To believe it."

SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 5:17:29 PM | 16
@15, Karlof1
Outlaw US Empire's Mythos as Manifest Destiny and quickly found its way into all realms of discourse by the mid-1840s. The creation and perpetuation of such a grandiose mythos can only be done though lies and the deliberate falsification of history

While I don't disagree with you, it has to be well understood that any big "player" by 19th Century had its own version of Manifest Destiny e.g. Russia as a Third Rome. But it was namely through WW II where US could claim a "victory" over Nazism (hence a vast field of Anglo-American WW II history falsifiers) and thus realize itself as a continental power that the issue of exceptionalism really have got into over-drive and resulted in US literally running itself into the ground. When one has a political class (and population) not conditioned by continental warfare--it is almost inevitable.

spinworthy | Jul 19, 2017 5:43:58 PM | 18
Regarding, "crapification".

I get the impression the situation is typically less a matter of, "the editors demand a fast one on some less familiar issue", than certain intelligence operatives tasked with gaming the media echo chamber, feed well placed assets prioritized talking points to create the illusion of a 'thing'.

Any western reporting on America's/Israel's numero uno enemy du jour cannot be anything other than psyops. The strategy of 'full spectrum' BS necessitates that the media become the biggest (and most cost effective) venue for conducting psyops.

Just look at the media shitstorm regarding Russia, different crap, same difference!

karlof1 | Jul 19, 2017 6:12:07 PM | 19
SmoothieX12 @16--

"The issue of exceptionalism"

Yes, on the international stage I must agree with you, although it would've occurred earlier if the US government hadn't censored George Seldes's interview with Hindenburg shortly after the Armistice. Hindenburg: "The American infantry won the World War in battle in the Argonne." (p 24; You Can't Print That ; George Seldes; Payson & Clarke, Ltd; New York; 1929)

Arguably, however, if the interview hadn't been censored and been published as the world-wide scoop that it was, then the "Stab in the Back" propaganda charge wouldn't have had anything to uphold it and Hitler's movement wouldn't have happened, although it's very likely the Pacific War would've occurred regardless. Censorship and Propaganda always have unforeseen consequences.

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 7:00:42 PM | 20
a century old discussion

Posted by b on July 19, 2017 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Not sure where you are getting that number from. The doctrine was introduced by Khomeini, at some point after his exile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokumat-e_Islami_:_Velayat-e_Faqih_%28book_by_Khomeini%29

It is also not a "discussion", b. It is a thought-crime to criticize this doctrine in the Islamic Republic.

Laguerre | Jul 19, 2017 7:20:15 PM | 23
re 3 willy2
- One doesn't have to occupy Iran in its entirety. One can simply occupy the Khuzestan oil province in the west of Iran to cripple the iranian government.
That was what Saddam thought in 1980. I suppose that's a bit too much like ancient history for you to know anything about that war.
nobody | Jul 19, 2017 7:56:58 PM | 24
messianic USA

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Jul 19, 2017 5:17:29 PM | 16

Is it not true that (some) Russians believe that ("Holy") Russia has a messianic role to play in the history of mankind?

To what extent would you say this self perception is prevalent among the Russian people and the Russian ruling elite?

George Smiley | Jul 19, 2017 7:57:45 PM | 25
https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-trump-orders-cia-halt-financial-military-aid-rebels-syria/

WOW

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 8:05:15 PM | 26
[The New York Times] was very sympathetic to the revolution.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Jul 19, 2017 1:36:03 PM | 8

No shit. Afterall, the West provided assistance at every turn to the "revolutionaries" -- many of whom are now residents of USA -- to topple the Shah of Iran. Most of you know zip about Iran, "1953", and the role of Soviet Union, UK, France, Germany, and United State of America in the concerted effort to topple the uber nationalist Shah of Iran. You will not write our history for us, I assure you.

Curtis | Jul 19, 2017 8:06:02 PM | 27
For any planned future for Iran, look at the pictures from Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Gaza. As to the usual suspects, it's funny that they're Mideast experts but mostly connected to Israel.

George Smiley 25

The break in US support for the rebel factions is interesting in that it hasn't been public in US MSM. This includes the new coalition that doesn't want to attack Syrian government forces.

nobody | Jul 19, 2017 8:13:58 PM | 28
WOW

Posted by: George Smiley | Jul 19, 2017 7:57:45 PM | 25

Is "WOW" a neologism for Déjà vu?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment

Liam | Jul 19, 2017 9:22:07 PM | 34
Just released and there is nothing else like it - Truth of Ukraine War Revealed: Watchdog Media Releases Definitive Chronological Timeline Video of Ukrainian War From Euromaidan to MH-17 https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/07/19/truth-of-ukraine-war-revealed-watchdog-media-institute-releases-definitive-chronological-timeline-video-of-ukrainian-war-from-euromaidan-to-mh-17/
Temporarily Sane | Jul 19, 2017 10:29:27 PM | 37
@29 ben

Concise and spot-on summary that sums up the state of "journalism" in 2017.

@18 spinworthy

Remember 911 hero Ashleigh Banfield ? Her "fall from grace" is a typical example of what happens to American journalists who try to tell tell the truth about the empire's wars.

[Jul 18, 2017] Robbery in broad daylight

Notable quotes:
"... But with nothing to show for the delay so far, Russian officials have been issuing repeated statements that their patience is wearing thin. ..."
"... On Tuesday, frustrated by the failure of a meeting the day before in Washington to make any headway on the matter, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a blunt statement . In it, the ministry warned that "if Washington does not address this and other concerns, including persistent efforts to hinder the operation of Russia's diplomatic missions, Russia has the right to take retaliatory measures in accordance with the principle of reciprocity." ..."
"... Sergey V. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said any American preconditions for the return of the diplomatic property were unacceptable. Mr. Lavrov was asked at a news conference on Monday in Minsk, Belarus, about statements emanating from Washington that the compounds should not be handed back without getting something in return. Mr. Lavrov called the seizure "robbery in broad daylight" and said Russian control over the property was enshrined in a bilateral treaty. He blamed the continuing standoff, as Russian officials often do, on "Russophobia" in Washington that he hoped would eventually wane. ..."
"... Mr. Lavrov said he was sure there must be "sensible people" in the Trump administration who would realize that the seizure of the compounds and the expulsion of the diplomats were a last-ditch attempt by the Obama administration to destroy relations in a manner that the Trump administration would find difficult to fix. ..."
Jul 18, 2017 | www.msn.com

Orginally from NYT: Russia Issues New Threats in Dispute Over Diplomatic Compounds by ANDREW E. KRAMER

A 45-acre Russian diplomatic compound near Centreville, Md., that was seized in December 2016.

After President Trump's victory in November, Michael T. Flynn, who went on to become the national security adviser for 24 days , prevailed upon President Vladimir V. Putin to refrain from retaliating , with the promise that United States policy toward Russia would be far more accommodating under a Trump administration.

Mr. Trump, at the time president-elect, praised Mr. Putin's restraint, posting on Twitter , "Great move on delay" and "I always knew he was very smart!"

But with nothing to show for the delay so far, Russian officials have been issuing repeated statements that their patience is wearing thin.

Russia began focusing attention on the two seized compounds in the lead up to the first meeting between Mr. Putin and Mr. Trump at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Hamburg, Germany, on July 7.

Both the Kremlin and the Foreign Ministry mentioned them frequently, hinting that the diplomatic retreats were perhaps something Mr. Trump could easily deliver as a friendly gesture for the first meeting. Mr. Putin did raise the issue with the American president, according to Dmitri S. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman.

But with Trump associates under investigation for ties with the Russians, the president is hesitant to send any signals of weakness. So it did not happen then, either. Since that meeting, the official tone has turned more belligerent, with Russia threatening to expel American diplomats to match the 35 Russian diplomatic staff members kicked out of the United States at the same time that the two compounds were seized.

On Tuesday, frustrated by the failure of a meeting the day before in Washington to make any headway on the matter, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a blunt statement . In it, the ministry warned that "if Washington does not address this and other concerns, including persistent efforts to hinder the operation of Russia's diplomatic missions, Russia has the right to take retaliatory measures in accordance with the principle of reciprocity."

The deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, told the news agency Interfax on Tuesday, "The fact that this issue hasn't been settled actually poisons the atmosphere and makes a lot of things extremely complicated."

Mr. Ryabkov and the United States under secretary of state, Thomas A. Shannon, discussed the property in talks in Washington on Monday.

Sergey V. Lavrov, the foreign minister, said any American preconditions for the return of the diplomatic property were unacceptable. Mr. Lavrov was asked at a news conference on Monday in Minsk, Belarus, about statements emanating from Washington that the compounds should not be handed back without getting something in return. Mr. Lavrov called the seizure "robbery in broad daylight" and said Russian control over the property was enshrined in a bilateral treaty. He blamed the continuing standoff, as Russian officials often do, on "Russophobia" in Washington that he hoped would eventually wane.

Mr. Lavrov said he was sure there must be "sensible people" in the Trump administration who would realize that the seizure of the compounds and the expulsion of the diplomats were a last-ditch attempt by the Obama administration to destroy relations in a manner that the Trump administration would find difficult to fix.

And on Tuesday, Mr. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said in a conference call with journalists that "our patience is still running out."

[Jul 18, 2017] The Real Crimes of Russiagate by Patrick J. Buchanan

Any person who sites neocons like Mike Morell is very suspicious, to say the least. Pat Buchanan is no exception, for now on...
Notable quotes:
"... Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn. ..."
"... Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality. ..."
"... journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope. ..."
"... Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic? ..."
"... People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for. ..."
"... Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's. ..."
"... The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. ..."
"... Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo. ..."
"... He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc ..."
Jul 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

For a year, the big question of Russiagate has boiled down to this: Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC? And until last week, the answer was "no." As ex-CIA director Mike Morell said in March, "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all. There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark."

Well, last week, it appeared there had been a fire in Trump Tower. On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort met with Russians -- in anticipation of promised dirt on Hillary Clinton's campaign. While not a crime, this was a blunder. For Donald Jr. had long insisted there had been no collusion with the Russians. Caught in flagrante, he went full Pinocchio for four days.

And as the details of that June 9 meeting spilled out, Trump defenders were left with egg on their faces, while anti-Trump media were able to keep the spotlight laser-focused on where they want it -- Russiagate.

This reality underscores a truth of our time. In the 19th century, power meant control of the means of production; today, power lies in control of the means of communication.

Who controls the media spotlight controls what people talk about and think about. And mainstream media are determined to keep that spotlight on Trump-Russia, and as far away as possible from their agenda -- breaking the Trump presidency and bringing him down.

Almost daily, there are leaks from the investigative and security arms of the U.S. government designed to damage this president.

Just days into Trump's presidency, a rifle-shot intel community leak of a December meeting between Trump national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn and Russia's ambassador forced the firing of Flynn.

An Oval Office meeting with the Russian foreign minister in which Trump disclosed that Israeli intelligence had ferreted out evidence that ISIS was developing computer bombs to explode on airliners was leaked. This alerted ISIS, damaged the president, and imperiled Israeli intelligence sources and methods.

Some of the leaks from national security and investigative agencies are felonies, not only violations of the leaker's solemn oath to protect secrets, but of federal law. Yet the press is happy to collude with these leakers and to pay them in the coin they seek. First, by publishing the secrets the leakers want revealed. Second, by protecting them from exposure to arrest and prosecution for the crimes they are committing.

The mutual agendas of the deep-state leakers and the mainstream media mesh perfectly. Consider the original Russiagate offense. Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks. And who was the third and indispensable party in this "Tinker to Evers to Chance" double-play combination?

The media itself. While deploring Russian hacking as an "act of war" against "our democracy," the media published the fruits of the hacking. It was the media that revealed what Podesta wrote and how the DNC tilted the tables against Bernie Sanders. If the media believed Russian hacking was a crime against our democracy, why did they publish the fruits of that crime? Is it not monumental hypocrisy to denounce Russia's hacking of the computers of Democratic political leaders and institutions, while splashing the contents of the theft all over Page 1?

Not only do our Beltway media traffic in stolen secrets and stolen goods, but the knowledge that they will publish secrets and protect those who leak them is an incentive for bureaucratic disloyalty and criminality.

Our mainstream media are like the fellow who avoids the risk of stealing cars, but wants to fence them once stolen and repainted.

Some journalists know exactly who is leaking against Trump, but they are as protective of their colleagues' "sources" as of their own. Thus, the public is left in the dark as to what the real agenda is here, and who is sabotaging a president in whom they placed so much hope.

And thus does democracy die in darkness.

Do the American people not have a "right to know" who are the leakers within the government who are daily spilling secrets to destroy their president? Are the identities of the saboteurs not a legitimate subject of investigation? Ought they not be exposed and rooted out?

Where is the special prosecutor to investigate the collusion between bureaucrats and members of the press who traffic in the stolen secrets of the republic?

Bottom line: Trump is facing a stacked deck.

People inside the executive branch are daily providing fresh meat to feed the scandal. Anti-Trump media are transfixed by it. It is the Watergate of their generation. They can smell the blood in the water. The Pulitzers are calling. And they love it, for they loathe Donald Trump both for who he is and what he stands for.

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

NoseytheDuke > , July 18, 2017 at 5:27 am GMT

Pat, you are again presenting yourself to be a disinformation asset and are truly undermining your credibility here. The DNC and Podesta emails were leaked not hacked. Please write this out in full a hundred times on the blackboard or whiteboard of your choice. Maybe then it will sink in.

Priss Factor > , Website July 18, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT

There is nothing there. Let the media cry Russia Russia Russia forever. Trump can do other things. People will lose interest in this. This is different from Watergate because there really was a burglary and a coverup. There's nothing remotely like this here.

1. If Russians really did it, they did it on their own. Trump team had nothing to do with it.

2. If Russians didn't do it, this is just the media wasting its resources and energy on nothing.

Let the media keep digging and digging and digging where they is no gold. Let them be distracted by Trump does something real. Because Buchanan lived through Watergate, I think he's over-thinking this. It's like dejavu to him. Sure, the media today are more deranged than ever. Media are also more cynical and in the control of globalists.

But they got nothing on Russia. They have the cry of Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, but unless they can provide solid evidence, this is nothing.

vinteuil > , July 18, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT

Pat Buchanan does his best – but apparently he just can't bring himself to doubt the integrity of America's "intelligence" services – even after their epic failure &/or deception when it came to Iraq's non-existent WMD's.

"Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks."

What reason do we have to believe this, other than the worthless word of these perpetually lying creeps?

The Alarmist > , July 18, 2017 at 9:37 am GMT

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

No it's not. The Republic died a long time ago: The Empire is in that rough middle period where the Praetorians choose the leader who suits them most, but occasionally have an unsuitable one slip past them. This ends with the barbarians moving in to assume all the trappings of being a Roman but lead the empire to a final crushing defeat at the hands of worse barbarians.

Randal > , July 18, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

Buchanan still being too reasonable towards the enemies of US democracy (the Democrats and their neocon Republican allies trying to undermine and overthrow the elected US President), imo.

There's still no need, unless Buchanan knows something a lot more significant than what he covers here, to give any credence whatsoever to the "Russia influencing the US election" black propaganda campaign. It should still be laughed at, rather than given the slightest credibility, whilst, as Buchanan does indeed do repeatedly, turning the issue upon the true criminals – those in US government circles leaking US security information to try to influence US politics.

Did Donald Trump's campaign collude with the Russians in hacking the DNC?

Clearly not, as far as anybody knows based upon information in the public domain. There's no evidence Russia's government hacked anything anyway. A meeting by campaign representatives with Russians claiming to have dirt on Trump's rival is not evidence of collusion in hacking.

Confidential emails of the DNC and John Podesta were hacked, i.e., stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

Again, Buchanan seems to be needlessly conceding ground to known liars and deluded zealots.

If there was any attempt by Russia to "influence" the US election it was trivial, and should be put into context whenever it is mentioned. That context includes the longstanding and ongoing efforts by the US to interfere massively in other countries' (including Russia's) elections and governments, and the routine acceptance of foreign interference in US politics by Israel in particular.

If Trump and his backers really wanted to put a halt to this laughable nonsense about foreign influence, he should start a high profile investigation of the nefarious "influencing" of US politics by foreign "agents of influence" in general, specifically including Israel and staffed by men who are not sympathetic to that country.

That would quickly result in the shutting down of mainstream media complaints about foreign influence.

Gg Mo > , July 18, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

@NoseytheDuke Yup, His name was Seth Rich . (and let us never forget Michael Hastings and the Smith Mundt Modernization Act put in place for a Hillary win/steal.)

Gg Mo > , July 18, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT

Yipes -- What is the matter with Buchanan? Is he taking weird prescription drugs for Alzheimers ?
He seems to be a bit of an apologist for KNOWN liars and he doesn't seem to understand that the MSM is absolutely the mouthpiece for these agencies, populated with agents like Cooper and Mika etc etc etc

Andrei Martyanov > , Website July 18, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT

It is hard to see when this ends, or how it ends well for the country.

It already didn't end well and it pains me to say this. What it may become only is worse. At this stage I don's see any "better" scenarios. The truth has been revealed.

[Jul 18, 2017] 'Boomerangski' Returns To Bite The Clintons Zero Hedge

Jul 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
'Boomerangski' Returns To Bite The Clintons Tyler Durden Jul 17, 2017 7:32 PM 0 SHARES Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,

The strenuous effort of "Resistance" passengers in the Limousine-of-State to shove Donald Trump out of the driver's seat continues into what would normally be the news-wasteland of midsummer. Last week it was the smoking popgun of Trump Junior's meeting with a Russian lawyer purported (by British music promoter Rob Goldstein) to be associated with the "Russian Crown Prosecutor" (no such office in a country without a monarch).

The news caused the usual commotion among the very media mouthpieces who publish anti-Trump allegations as a staple for their "Resistance" readerships. By the way, this blog might be described as anti-Trump, too, in the sense that I did not vote for him and regularly inveigh against his antics as President - but neither is Clusterfuck Nation a friend of the Hillary-haunted Dem-Prog "Resistance," in case there's any confusion about where we stand. If anything, we oppose the entirety of the current political regime in our nation's capital, the matrix of rackets that is driving the aforementioned Limousine-of-State off the cliff of economic collapse. Just sayin'.

"Resistance" law professors, such as Lawrence Tribe at Harvard, were quick to holler "treason" over Junior's meet-up with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin. Well, first of all, and not to put too fine a point on it, don't you have to be at war with another nation to regard any kind of consort as "treason?" Last time I checked, we were not at war with Russia - though it sure seems like persons and parties inside the Beltway would dearly like to make that happen. You can't call it espionage either, of course, because that would purport the giving of secret information, not the receiving of political gossip.

Remember, the "Resistance" is not going for impeachment, but rather Section 4 of the 25 th Amendment. That legal nicety makes for a very neat-and-clean surgical removal of a whack-job president, without all the cumbrous evidentiary baggage and pain-in-ass due process required by impeachment. All it requires is a consensus among a very small number of high officials, who then send a note to the leaders in both houses of congress stating that said whack-job president is a menace to the polity -- and out he goes, snippety-snip like a colorectal polyp, into the hazardous waste bag of history. And you're left with a nice clean asshole, namely Vice President Mike Pence.

Insofar as Pence appears to be a kind of booby-prize for the "Resistance," that fateful reach for the 25 th Amendment hasn't happened quite yet. It is hoped, I'm sure, that the incessant piling on of new allegations about "collusion" with the Russians will get the 25thers over the finish line and into the longed-for end zone dance.

More interestingly, though, the meme that has led people to believe that any contact between Russians and Americans is ipso facto nefarious vectors into the very beating heart of the "Resistance" itself: the Clintons.

How come the Clintons have not been asked to explain why -- as reported on The Hill blog -- Bill Clinton was paid half a million dollars to give speech in Russia (surely he offered them something of value in exchange, pending the sure thing Hillary inaugural) ...

or what about the $2.35 million "contribution" that the Clinton Foundation received after Secretary of State Hillary allowed the Russians to buy a controlling stake in the Uranium One company, which owns 20 percent of US uranium supplies, with mines and refineries in Wyoming, Utah, and other states, as well as assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium producer?

Incidentally, the Clinton Foundation did not "shut down," as erroneously reported early this year. It was only its Global Initiative program that got shuttered. The $2.35 million is probably still rattling around in the Clinton Foundation's bank account.

Don't you kind of wonder what they did with it? I hope Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller wants to know.

nmewn -> 38BWD22 , Jul 17, 2017 7:50 PM

Patience Mr.Bearing, patience.

Susan Rice has implicated herself (and by extension Obama) in a felony. Comey has lied under oath and stolen government property. Lowrenta has commited obstruction of justice and the world now knows that Natalia V was given "a special visa" by the State Department... in June of 2016! ...in order to even be present at a meeting with Jr set up by an associate of FusionGPS one Ron Goldstone in which, a "former Soviet counter-intelligence officer" was present who also was allowed (even though the Alinsky press won't report it) to roam freely around the Obama WH in a group tour...cuz... RUSSIAN SPIES! ...lol.

Gardentoolnumber5 -> 38BWD22 , Jul 17, 2017 8:08 PM

"Something stinks..." Neocons

StarGate -> Jim in MN , Jul 17, 2017 5:35 PM

OBAMA White House played HOST to RUSSIAN associate of Russian Atty Natalia the same day as the Trump Tower meeting June 9, 2016 - according to Obama's White House log. Natalia's translator, Samochornov was a contractor with Obama's State Dept. Per FBI insider Obama speaks Russian.

White House visitor log: http://white-house-logs.insidegov.com/l/73080195/Rinat-Akhmetshin#Detail...

drstrangelove73 -> FrozenGoodz , Jul 17, 2017 4:27 PM

Yeah,you missed 'The Russians are coming the Russians are coming'24/7 7 days a week for 8 months now and counting,with no proof yet of any wrongdoing whatsoever nor any explanation in concrete terms of exactly how those pesky Rooskies could possibly have 'meddled in our elections' let alone any proof of same. No,just morning 'til night 'the russians are coming the Russians are coming.The left has collectively lost its mind in a very public way.How any sentient being could any longer pay them any mind is a mystery to me

[Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

Highly recommended!
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly. The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
"... : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the battle for the soul of the American Right.

To be sure, Carlson rejects the term "neoconservatism," and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest Friday.

"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means. I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.

But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions to curry favor with the White House, keep up his ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow, I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But is this assessment fair?

Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies."

Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called "Neocons May Get the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do it."

But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April 7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened. I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."

But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.

Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries. "You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person. Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country? It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast, sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.

On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision. "You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.

The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard , perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet. On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband, Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.

"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist stalwarts such as Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter than Pat Buchanan," he said last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.

Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency. He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy establishment").

Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government "may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued, "If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better."

Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, "

Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're talking about. None."

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills .

Image : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0.

[Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

Highly recommended!
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly. The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
"... : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the battle for the soul of the American Right.

To be sure, Carlson rejects the term "neoconservatism," and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest Friday.

"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means. I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.

But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions to curry favor with the White House, keep up his ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow, I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But is this assessment fair?

Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies."

Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called "Neocons May Get the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do it."

But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April 7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened. I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."

But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.

Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries. "You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person. Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country? It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast, sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.

On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision. "You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.

The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard , perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet. On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband, Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.

"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist stalwarts such as Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter than Pat Buchanan," he said last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.

Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency. He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy establishment").

Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government "may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued, "If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better."

Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, "

Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're talking about. None."

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills .

Image : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0.

[Jul 17, 2017] Tucker Carlson Goes to War Against the Neocons by Curt Mills

Highly recommended!
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly. The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
"... : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the battle for the soul of the American Right.

To be sure, Carlson rejects the term "neoconservatism," and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest Friday.

"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means. I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.

But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions to curry favor with the White House, keep up his ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow, I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But is this assessment fair?

Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies."

Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called "Neocons May Get the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do it."

But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April 7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened. I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."

But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.

Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries. "You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person. Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country? It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast, sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.

On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision. "You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.

The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard , perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet. On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband, Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.

"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist stalwarts such as Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter than Pat Buchanan," he said last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.

Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency. He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy establishment").

Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government "may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued, "If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better."

Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, "

Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're talking about. None."

Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter: @CurtMills .

Image : Flickr/Gage Skidmore. CC BY-SA 2.0.

[Jul 17, 2017] A Russian Developer Helps Out the Kremlin on Occasion. Was He a Conduit to Trump by NEIL MacFARQUHAR

They did not find anything yet, but they have money and will continue digging till the next Presidential elections. This is just a witch hunt. If, for example members of Us congress are subjected to the same level of scrutiny probably over 50% would be already charged for criminal activities ;-) Trump is still standing... BTW it would be interesting where NEIL MacFARQUHAR got all this information. Were intelligences agencies involved?
Jul 16, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from: The New York Times

MOSCOW , Russian Island, near the port city of Vladivostok in the far east, was a decaying former military base and home to a scattering of cattle when President Vladimir V. Putin suddenly envisioned it as a $1.2 billion campus where he could welcome heads of state for an Asia-Pacific conference.

That sent Kremlin officials scrambling to find a developer to transform a site lacking fresh water, a pier or roads. They rejected numerous bids before one of them took a flier on a man known mostly for his glamorous shopping malls: Aras Agalarov of the Crocus Group.

A little more than three years later, in 2012, Mr. Putin opened the spectacular Far Eastern Federal University , some 70 modern buildings built in a crescent overlooking the sparkling Pacific Ocean.

Not long after, Mr. Putin pinned a blue-ribboned state medal, the Order of Honor, on Mr. Agalarov's chest at a dazzling Kremlin ceremony. Soon, a string of demanding, more prominent projects followed: a stretch of superhighway ringing Moscow; two troubled stadiums for the 2018 World Cup, including one in a Baltic swamp.

Mr. Agalarov, 61, also worked on a project with a future president, Donald J. Trump. Last week, the Russian developer and his crooner son and heir, Emin, were thrust into the swirl of speculation about whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election.

Their names popped up in emails about arranging a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer who claimed to have incriminating information about Hillary Clinton, but the president and his son have both insisted that nothing of value was provided.

"This is obviously very high-level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump , helped along by Aras and Emin," wrote Rob Goldstone, a music producer and publicist working for Emin.

While there is no indication beyond what was said in the emails that the Agalarovs were serving as a conduit between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, wealthy and well-connected businessmen are often called on to do the bidding of the Russian government.

Kremlin analysts stress that its red, crenelated walls conceal not a well-oiled machine but a hornet's nest of interests and influences competing to dominate an Erector Set of ad hoc policies and sudden opportunities, many of them highly lucrative.

When it comes to exploiting those opportunities, the Kremlin often ignores its own bureaucrats, diplomats and other agents in favor of someone it thinks will get the job done , a charmed group whose members rise and fall in status along with their usefulness to Mr. Putin and his top aides.

In that context, analysts find it entirely plausible that the Kremlin would tap Mr. Agalarov, a construction tycoon with a web of contacts to Mr. Trump, as a way to pass information to the Trump presidential campaign.

"In a sense, almost no one is a direct agent of the Kremlin, but almost anyone can become one if the need arises," said Ekaterina Schulmann, a political scientist at the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration.

Aleksei A. Navalny, the leading opposition figure in Russia and an anticorruption campaigner, says he has no doubt that the Agalarovs would do the bidding of the Kremlin if asked.

In a blog post, Mr. Navalny refers to Yuri Chaika, the Russian state prosecutor , a position equivalent to the United States attorney general , whom Mr. Goldstone identified in his emails as the source of the information on offer at the Trump Tower meeting. Mr. Chaika, a staunch Putin loyalist, has been in that position since 2006.

In the view of Mr. Navalny, a bitter opponent of Mr. Putin, it makes perfect sense that information passed from the Kremlin through Mr. Chaika and Mr. Agalarov to Mr. Trump, as the security services could easily have used such a trusted channel to reach out to the Trump campaign.

That is no more than informed speculation, yet there are deep connections among the men. After Mr. Navalny released a documentary in 2015 accusing Mr. Chaika of corruption, for example, Mr. Agalarov rose to his defense. Writing in the newspaper Kommersant, he said the film mixed fact and fiction and echoed the work of Joseph Goebbels, the chief Nazi propagandist.

Natalia Veselnitskaya , the lawyer who met with the younger Mr. Trump, and her former husband both worked in the prosecutor's office of the Moscow region, the district surrounding the capital, and would have been under Mr. Chaika's overall umbrella.

Ms. Veselnitskaya has done some legal work connected to real estate for Mr. Agalarov's company in Russia, according to media interviews given by the family lawyer in the United States, Scott Balber.

Mr. Trump entered this circle with the 2013 Miss Universe contest, carried out with the help of lower-level bureaucrats and Mr. Agalarov, who paid $20 million to bring the pageant to his family's Moscow concert pavilion, Crocus City Hall.

It would be natural for the Kremlin, aware of that relationship, to reach down to that level to try to get something done with the Trump campaign, analysts said.

"If you are a business person, you are supposed to do something that the Kremlin asks you; you are otherwise free to pursue your own interests. That is how Russia works," said Mrs. Schulmann, noting that most would be eager to respond to any such call as an expression of loyalty.

In this particular case, the Kremlin has denied any involvement, saying it was not in touch with Mr. Agalarov and did not even know the lawyer, Ms. Veselnitskaya. It is unclear precisely what was discussed at the meeting with members of the Trump team. Participants have said that it dealt largely with an American law called the Magnitsky Act, which blacklists those suspected of human rights abuses in Russia, and a ban on the adoption of Russian children, and that nothing of significance was given to the campaign.

Mr. Agalarov, in a Russian radio interview, called the story around the meeting , that it was about information damaging to Hillary Clinton , a "fabrication."

The Crocus Group did not respond to a request to interview Mr. Agalarov.

For Mr. Agalarov, the involvement in the Trump administration's Russia scandal is at best an unwelcome diversion in a career of steady if not always spectacular success.

He was born in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, then part of the Soviet Union, where he studied computer engineering and was a member of the Baku City Committee of the Communist Party.

He went to Moscow to study, and even before the collapse of the Soviet Union began trying to fill pent-up Russian demand for Western goods, especially computers.

What started as a modest trading company grew into a business organizing trade fairs that eventually mushroomed into the Crocus Group, a real estate empire that encompasses mammoth shopping malls, a chain of hypermarkets, an exposition center, restaurants, luxury housing developments and other enterprises.

Forbes magazine puts Mr. Agalarov 51st on its list of the richest Russians, with a fortune estimated at $1.7 billion.

"He is not the biggest retail guy, but Crocus City Mall was the first luxury mall to appear in Moscow," said Darrell Stanaford, a 20-year veteran of the Russian real estate world as the former managing director in Moscow for the CBRE Group, a Los Angeles-based commercial real estate firm. "He likes the glitz. It is high-end luxury, so that is why he becomes such a good matchup for Trump."

Mr. Agalarov keeps a modest footprint on social media, mostly by standing next to his photogenic son: on their luxury Moscow golf course development, for example, or posing with Robert De Niro at the opening of one of the two Nobu restaurants in Moscow where they are partners.

Mr. Trump pops up from time to time. On his Inauguration Day, both Agalarovs posted old pictures of themselves with him, along with effusive praise for their old friend.

Aside from the 2013 Miss Universe contest, it is not known what business ties, if any, the Agalarovs have with Mr. Trump, or with any other American companies. They clearly have an affinity for the United States, however, naming one chain of shopping malls "Vegas" and another luxury residential complex "Manhattan."

In November 2013, after the buzz of the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow had subsided, Mr. Trump met privately with a group of elite Russian businessmen, including the head of Russia's state-owned Sberbank at one of the Nobu restaurants in Moscow.

The elder Mr. Agalarov had been talking with Mr. Trump about building a Trump Tower in Moscow as part of a $3 billion real estate project involving hotels, a shopping center and office space.

Sberbank was ready to make it happen. About a week after the meeting, the bank announced a "strategic cooperation agreement" with the Crocus Group to finance about 70 percent of the ambitious project, including, potentially, a building bearing the Trump name.

"It was one of the 14 buildings that we planned to build here," Mr. Agalarov's son Emin said in a March interview with Forbes, adding that if Mr. Trump "hadn't run for president, we would probably be in the construction phase today."

The Sberbank financing , reported at the time as the biggest real estate development loan the bank had made , was another measure of the Agalarovs' increasingly close connections to the centers of power in Russia.

In another indication, the Crocus Group was written into a 2014 bilateral treaty with the government of Kyrgyzstan to help that country integrate into Russia's regional alliance, the Eurasian Economic Union.

In that deal, worth $127 million, the Crocus Group was designated the "single supplier" of services to integrate the two countries' bureaucracies and reinforce the new customs common border, by, for example, building new border posts.

By naming the company in an international treaty, the Russian government avoided opening the work to competitive bidding, ensuring that the Crocus Group won the contract, Edil Baisalov, a former Kyrgyz presidential chief of staff, said in a telephone interview.

In Kyrgyzstan, he said, the apparent giveaway to Kremlin-connected insiders became known as "Crocusgate."

Mr. Agalarov mentions occasionally how difficult it is to earn money on public works, telling the newspaper Vedomosti in 2015 that he had to buy a larger Gulfstream jet to make the cross-continental trek to Vladivostok to check on progress at the Far Eastern Federal University. On that project, he said, he spent more than $100 million of his own money because the official plans skipped significant costs like roads and landscaping. He won some of it back in court.

Statements about losing money are all part of the game, analysts said, noting that construction costs on Russian infrastructure routinely run 30 percent higher than for comparable projects in Europe.

"It is showing the wounds that he got in the service of the motherland," said Ms. Schulmann, the political scientist. "You see how indifferent I am to profit when I do a service for the Kremlin. I have to make sacrifices."

Mr. Agalarov, however, was more candid than most when asked whether it is altruism that leads him to respond when the Kremlin calls. In the interview with Vedomosti, he said, "There are things that you cannot turn down."

[Jul 17, 2017] If Loving Putin Is 'Right,' I Want to Be Wrong The American Conservative

Notable quotes:
"... Putin's "aggressive behavior" in Syria was to support a secular Arab government against a bunch of Islamic thugs that included Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This may not be clear to people in the US since the US is a client state of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who want Syria to disintegrate, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Ukraine is payback for what the Western powers did in Kosovo. To spite Russia, the Western powers supported Kosovo when it broke off from Serbia, claiming they were doing it to support the right of self-determination. At that time, Putin asked whether this right would be granted to the ethnic Russian minorities all over Eastern Europe in countries like Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Needless to say, the Western powers insisted that their actions in Kosovo did not set a precedent on any kind – in other words, supporting secessionists is OK if the West does it but no one else should try that stunt! Putin decided to draw the line in Ukraine, and I for one don't blame him. ..."
"... The US and Russia have no reason to fight, and Russia can be a valuable ally against growing threats like China and Islam. But generals always fight the last war, and apparently college professors do as well. ..."
"... He has managed to outwit us on several fronts and on occasion he has even bailed us out of some tight spots. Someone will have to explain to me why in the world we were telling the Ukrainians to engage in a violent revolution over some EU Russian oil deal. If the EU wanted to wooo the Ukrainians that should have offered a better price, not one higher than their competitor. ..."
"... Pres. Putin is a shrewd political competitor.. Reason enough to admire him. That however, has nothing to do with whether or not I am a conservative. ..."
"... Everything associated with Soros or preferred by Soros is omnicidally lethal. ..."
"... Any leader who effectively rejects and repels Soros and Sorosian organizations is on the good side. Putin and Erdogan are on the good side. Recently and surprisingly, Netanyahu has joined the good side, which should create problems for neocons. ..."
"... In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos uber alles globalism. Whether Putin views himself in these grand ideological terms or if he is just a Russian looking out for the best interests of Russia, I do not know. But this is the way Russia is perceived by its vocal critics nonetheless. ..."
"... Besides the fact that genuine American conservatives should also oppose Davosian hegemony, it is not in the best interests of authentic conservatives to keep up the narrative that Russia is an inherent enemy. It is one of the main justifications for continuing the Warfare/Security State. This is evident by the fact that it seems to be Trump's suggestion of better relations with Russia more than anything else that sent the Deep State over the edge into now essentially attempting to bring about a coup. It is also not a coincidence that the ruse they are utilizing for their coup attempt furthers the narrative of Russia as the implacable bad guy. ..."
"... Speaking of murder and mayhem, before we criticize others, we should look first at our own sad recent history. We too have plenty of blood on our hands; the list is well known no need to repeat it hear. As a matter of fact the targeted countries have been penciled by neo-cons like this author who knowingly turns a blind eye on our very own problems. ..."
"... However, the facts about Putin are not agreed upon, and the author does not adumbrate any actual evidence for castigating Putin. Ukraine can be credibly read as a case for Victoria Nuland's overreach, and Putin's restraint. Likewise, a treaty between Syria and Russia make the military assistance there wholly legitimate. Putin's reputed intolerance for homosexuality withers when the record is actually examined. Finally, the benefits of rapprochement, something which would improve the lives of the peoples of both America and Russia, irrespective of minor vicissitudes of leadership, is nowhere discussed. ..."
"... There's nothing new in Gottfried's screed, which is all warmed-over Clintonian hysteria and neocon warmongering. What is new is an attempt to split what he considers to be the alt-right into two camps, and in so doing deny any place for Putin and Russia solidarity amongst Americans. Gottfried may have cast his lot with the rump of Mrs. Clinton's coterie, which makes one wonder if his posturing before the election was anything but insincere. ..."
"... Sigh .I stopped reading when I got to ."his aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria." What a total farce. But I'm sure Paul that somehow you're totally fine with aggressive behavior on the part of the US. Hypocrite much? So let's see. The CIA leads the coup in Kiev to overthrow the democratically elected Yanukovych, the newly installed US puppet ..errrr ..new President of Ukraine is hostile towards ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donestsk, those folks appeal to Putin for help and he obliges. ..."
"... Yet, of course "Russian aggression." The US sends troops in Eastern Europe on the Russian border and sends the Navy to patrol the Baltic Sea, and yet, you know, "Russian aggression." ..."
"... Russia's behavior under Putin has been restrained. There's nothing immoral about Russia's assistance to Syria especially given the fact that the Russian military is there legally with the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria in it's battle against ISIS and Al Nusra. ..."
"... As for Ukraine I had expected the Western backed coup to provoke a full on Russian invasion taking not only Crimea and Donbass but Kiev and Odessa leaving a rump Nationalist Ukrainian State in the West. ..."
"... And after how we treated Russia after the cold war, some of the actions and anger of the Russians can be understood. ..."
Jul 17, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Vladimir Putin will seem like a great guy to masses of non-establishment Right-wingers. The American Right is split between an official opposition to the Left, and a much more boisterous and genuine Right that the establishment keeps out of public view. As George Hawley points out in his study of Rightist critics of the conservative movement, these two Rights have been mortal enemies for decades; and it wouldn't surprise me if Tucker Carlson, who dwells largely in the bubble of Washington's elite, blue-blood Republican conservatism, knew nothing about the attitudes of a Right that he doesn't hang with. The only pro-Putin voices whom he's had on his program are those of two dissenting Leftists, Stephen Cohen and Oliver Stone.

It would be unfair for me to close without noting a sensible comment about Putin that I discovered where I least expected to find it, from a senior editor of Weekly Standard . Christopher Caldwell expresses eloquently in a speech at Hillsdale College why non-respectable conservatives admire Putin, warts and all. What Caldwell observes about Putin as a symbol of resistance to globalism and the cultural Left seems entirely credible; and Caldwell's remarks conclude with this noteworthy statement:

Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even here.

Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.

Howard , says: July 16, 2017 at 8:31 pm

Obviously you think you are a shining example that everyone aspires to emulate, but I've got news for you: Not all conservatives are enamored with Paul Gottfried, either.
Samson Corwell , says: July 16, 2017 at 8:34 pm
How can Putin be described as right-wing? While his administration had been repressive of the LGBT community and has reached out to the Easter Orthodox Church, but that's like Saudi Arabia, which while conservative is not the same kind of conservative as American conservatives.

The guest explained this was natural, since "President Vladimir Putin does not subscribe to their progressive worldview as Soviet leaders did."

Tucker Carlson's guest was less than intelligent.

tz , says: July 16, 2017 at 8:35 pm
If loving Netanyahu is right? Oh, lets not go there

I know the current c***servatives praise sodomy and abortion, but I don't and for that reason, have rejected Conservatism, Inc. which apparently has infected TAC, so TAC is NR-lite.

Also one can praise a specific policy and action without praising someone in general.

Janwaar Bibi , says: July 16, 2017 at 8:43 pm
His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary of his expansionist ambitions.

This is nonsense on stilts.

Putin's "aggressive behavior" in Syria was to support a secular Arab government against a bunch of Islamic thugs that included Al-Qaeda and ISIS. This may not be clear to people in the US since the US is a client state of Saudi Arabia and Israel, who want Syria to disintegrate, but it is perfectly obvious to the rest of the world.

Ukraine is payback for what the Western powers did in Kosovo. To spite Russia, the Western powers supported Kosovo when it broke off from Serbia, claiming they were doing it to support the right of self-determination. At that time, Putin asked whether this right would be granted to the ethnic Russian minorities all over Eastern Europe in countries like Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. Needless to say, the Western powers insisted that their actions in Kosovo did not set a precedent on any kind – in other words, supporting secessionists is OK if the West does it but no one else should try that stunt! Putin decided to draw the line in Ukraine, and I for one don't blame him.

The US and Russia have no reason to fight, and Russia can be a valuable ally against growing threats like China and Islam. But generals always fight the last war, and apparently college professors do as well.

Rob , says: July 16, 2017 at 8:54 pm
First, James Kirchik is a joke of a commentator etc, and his writing and punditry only works if you treat it as satire. This is the guy who advocated that the US military overthrow a Trump presidency, remember.

Second, Putin is impressive in that he reliably acts in the Russian national interest (as he and Russians see it, not as told to him by Obama). And he skillfully advances that interest. He is quite obviously a very capable statesman and administrator. Russians' quality of life has improved greatly under his tenure, and Russia's global 'importance' is greater than since the fall of the Soviet Union. I don't think I'd want to live under his rule, but I'm not Russian.

Rancor , says: July 16, 2017 at 10:20 pm
The West sort of proves what Russians suspect it of – hypocrisy. The West has limited its vocabulary to strong and vague words like democracy, freedom (of speech, religion etc.), equality, antidiscrimination. But the real logic behind those words goes against them

In western "democracy", one judge can block a president backed by 60 million people, a court that consists of 9 people can impose same sex marriage on 300 million people

According to the western "freedom" of speech, websites that discourage abortions are illegal (in France), the questioning of multiculturalism can be increasingly interpreted as unacceptable hate speech, even though it's a completely legitimate view to hold

According to western "antidiscrimination" and "equality", when a christian baker or somebody, refuses to provide service for homosexual wedding, he/she breaks the law and is being opressed through bureaucratic means

So Russians have increasingly good reasons to conclude that the West is full of hubris, but in the end will not deliver on what it claims to preach. So this sense of cultural superiority in the West over Russia, in russian eyes, is more and more hypocritical, which makes Russia with all its vices, in the end, very similar to the West, which means that Russia doesn't have to change at all, or at least that there's no country that one should look up to. Russians at least can openly discourage abortions, unlike the French

Lee , says: July 16, 2017 at 11:50 pm
His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary of his expansionist ambitions?

Anyone, who knows anything beyond what the Fake News reports about Ukraine and Syria is perfectly aware of highly pertinent facts, historical context as to Russia acting in it's National Interest. Something the US Foreign Policy apparatus fails to do on behalf of the alleged domestic population it PRETENDS to represent.

The population within US territories are strapped with the MOST AGGRESSIVE GOVERNMENT ON THE PLANET!

I mean seriously, "oops, no WMD, over there!" The hyjackers are from Saudi? Well, let's invade all those other places on flimsy to nil National Security interest.

Perhaps, the author of this "piece" should stick to Humanities.

William Dalton , says: July 17, 2017 at 12:29 am
I am not particularly invested in being an "admirer" of Vladimir Putin as a political leader, given his autocratic machinations as ruler of Russia and the likelihood that he has engaged in political assassination to solidify his hold on power, albeit more circumspectly than Barack Obama, who spoke openly about his Sunday evenings composing his "kill list".

What I am insistent upon is that Republicans recognize the value Putin has for the United States as the vehicle by which we can comfortably, perhaps even profitably, give up our role as the rulers of a global empire. We can cede to Russia our wars in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab East, we can withdraw from being co-belligerent in the military tensions between Russia and Ukraine, Russia and Georgia, Russia and any country outside our actual commitments to NATO. Putin allows us the opportunity to do this because he is willing to step in as the champion of Christians and Christian civilization in these regions, and all we have been willing to champion is our parochial self-interests – and we haven't done a very good job of that. Putin, precisely because he is seeking to advance Russia's own interests, not forfeit them again in a vainglorious attempt to resurrect the Soviet Union, is the man we want in charge in Russia. It has nothing to do with Putin modelling our preferences for a President of the United States (we can certainly still find better than Donald Trump). But he does model a sound foreign policy, even when confronted with the threat of terrorism far greater than we face.

EliteCommInc. , says: July 17, 2017 at 12:32 am
"With notable exceptions, the further one moves to the Right, the less anti-Putin people sound."

I have no small admiration for Pres Putin, reasons stated on TAC several times. None of those reasons have any impact on my conservative orthodoxy, none.
In fact, I have no idea why there would be any measure of impact on my conservatism, because I think we need to foster as healthy a relationship as possible with as many nations as possible.

If there comes a time when we have to go to war with Russia, so be it. But I don't see any evidence that such is the case. It has been utterly foolish to engage in destabilizing Syria. Our hands are full wit the mistakes in Iraq and I include Afghanistan.

I think anyone who is making contentions that Saudi Arabia is fostering terrorist against US interests needs to put up so there can be a full and fair gearing on the issue. Not the I don't Saudi Arabia Royal Family because twenty years ago, the 9/11 hijackers were mostly Muslim. Where's the case that the Saudi family knew and endorsed the matter – which would be cause for war. Not terrorist complaints because they have issues with other Middle East country someone favors. And for the record, I have yet to receive a dime from the Saudis -- so skip the mouth piece mantra.

You don't like ISIS/ISIL fine who does I am unclear. But at least have some idea from when they sprang and why. Being Sunni is hardly a rationale to advocate some pitch and post war on them.

But supporting the current exec. does not mean dancing a jig with Pres Putin. And it has little or nothing to do with being a conservative in my view. I have a healthy respect for who he and the transformative place he is taking his country.

He has managed to outwit us on several fronts and on occasion he has even bailed us out of some tight spots. Someone will have to explain to me why in the world we were telling the Ukrainians to engage in a violent revolution over some EU Russian oil deal. If the EU wanted to wooo the Ukrainians that should have offered a better price, not one higher than their competitor.

Pres. Putin is a shrewd political competitor.. Reason enough to admire him. That however, has nothing to do with whether or not I am a conservative.

Tiktaalik , says: July 17, 2017 at 12:52 am
>>His aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria suggests the need for us in the West to be wary of his expansionist ambitions.

Whether the West behaviour in the Ukraine and Syria means something? Like Kiev is many thousand km from Washington, but of course it's not expansionist, sure.

polistra , says: July 17, 2017 at 6:08 am
It's not "love", it's just a simple understanding of a simple fact. Soros is the problem. Everything associated with Soros or preferred by Soros is omnicidally lethal.

Any leader who effectively rejects and repels Soros and Sorosian organizations is on the good side. Putin and Erdogan are on the good side. Recently and surprisingly, Netanyahu has joined the good side, which should create problems for neocons.

Mark Thomason , says: July 17, 2017 at 7:25 am
Conservatives don't "like Putin."

They just don't like Hillary or Team Hillary or the current Outrage that passes for politics of those sore losers.

There is no American interest in liking Putin or any other foreign leader. We have interests, not likes. And there are interests we can advance with Putin, as well as those that oppose him.

spite , says: July 17, 2017 at 8:32 am
I am not going to ask conservatives here what they think of Kirchik, I want to ask the many liberals that comment here if they consider Kirchik a conservative. And please, I am fully aware of how a lot of liberals have this need to lecture on what a conservative should be (basically a liberal), what I want to know is if you SINCERELY believe that Kirchik is conservative.
Dan Phillips , says: July 17, 2017 at 9:34 am
As much as I hate to disagree with Prof. Gottfried, I must. Putin and Russia have to be looked at in the context of the grand scheme of things. In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos uber alles globalism. Whether Putin views himself in these grand ideological terms or if he is just a Russian looking out for the best interests of Russia, I do not know. But this is the way Russia is perceived by its vocal critics nonetheless.

Besides the fact that genuine American conservatives should also oppose Davosian hegemony, it is not in the best interests of authentic conservatives to keep up the narrative that Russia is an inherent enemy. It is one of the main justifications for continuing the Warfare/Security State. This is evident by the fact that it seems to be Trump's suggestion of better relations with Russia more than anything else that sent the Deep State over the edge into now essentially attempting to bring about a coup. It is also not a coincidence that the ruse they are utilizing for their coup attempt furthers the narrative of Russia as the implacable bad guy.

Kurt Gayle , says: July 17, 2017 at 9:36 am
Mr. Gottfried takes out of context remarks made on the May 17th Tucker Carlson Tonight show. This is what was said immediately before Carlson's guest, Eric Prince, said, "It's amazing. When I grew up in the Cold War, the left loved the U.S.S.R."

Tucker Carlson (at 0:50): "How should we see the Russians?"

Eric Prince (founder of Blackwater, a private military contracter): "The Russians suffer from Islamic terrorism as well. Whether it's attacks on their subways, their schools -- the Beslan massacre killed over 300 kids -- they suffer from it as badly as we do. So, that is actually one area of common interest that the United States, western civilization, and Russia [sic] should have with the Russians."

Carlson: "That seems an obvious point. Trump ran on that point. A lot of people thought it was common sense. Why the resistance to that among foreign policy professionals in D.C.?"

Prince: "It's amazing. When I grew up in the Cold War, the left loved the U.S.S.R."

Carlson: "Yes."

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/17/blackwater-erik-prince-democrats-loved-russia-during-cold-war

Radu Borcau , says: July 17, 2017 at 10:43 am
Indeed there is a lot East European of blood in Russia's dark past but that was mostly Stalin's blood. This author is placing an insincere equal sign between Putin and Stalin:

"I am unsettled by my fellow-Rightists who seem to have forgotten the murder and mayhem unleashed by past Russian governments against Ukrainians, Balts, Hungarians, Poles and other Central and Eastern Europeans."

Speaking of murder and mayhem, before we criticize others, we should look first at our own sad recent history. We too have plenty of blood on our hands; the list is well known no need to repeat it hear. As a matter of fact the targeted countries have been penciled by neo-cons like this author who knowingly turns a blind eye on our very own problems.

I would suggest two things:

-to the author: to read more history and write less, ideally throw away the pen.
-to TAC: do not pollute this place with such "authors".

Sophistry , says: July 17, 2017 at 10:57 am
Is it really so much Putin is loved by the right because of his social values? The Right in America likely has very little contact with Russia. Airfare is quite expensive, and there aren't really strong family ties to the region.

In contrast, the Left it appears has extensive contact with Russia. They are reporting on persecution of gays and whatnot from there.

The Right I think is more anti-Left than pro-Russia.

Dan A. Davis , says: July 17, 2017 at 12:23 pm
This last year has been most revealing. People whom I once thought were principled Conservatives have turned out, under pressure, to be bully-worshiping snobs.

It is quite devastating to see how many have fallen into the moral black hole that is Trump_vs_deep_state, and consequently how many are embracing America's historic opponent.

That so many "conservatives" are willing to burn down the United States of America in pursuit of their stated goal of destroying "libtards" and their leader, Hillary Satan, is sufficient evidence their "conservatism" has as its sole principle, resentment of those they think are laughing/sneering at them.

Rhetoric , says: July 17, 2017 at 12:32 pm
Gottfried assumes that all readers share the same view of Putin, that he is unabashed authoritarian and that his action in the Ukraine were an invasion, a grab for territory; and that in Syria, Putin's placement of Russian military force was a violation of Syria's sovereignty and an attempt to grab power. He then reasons that their support for these actions and Putin's other assumed comportment (racist, homophobic, etc.) is a misreading of true conservative principles.

It makes for a nice argument, as there appear to be two ways of viewing Putin's behavior, the correct one being a conservative rejection of racism, totalitarianism, xenophobia, etc.

However, the facts about Putin are not agreed upon, and the author does not adumbrate any actual evidence for castigating Putin. Ukraine can be credibly read as a case for Victoria Nuland's overreach, and Putin's restraint. Likewise, a treaty between Syria and Russia make the military assistance there wholly legitimate. Putin's reputed intolerance for homosexuality withers when the record is actually examined. Finally, the benefits of rapprochement, something which would improve the lives of the peoples of both America and Russia, irrespective of minor vicissitudes of leadership, is nowhere discussed.

There's nothing new in Gottfried's screed, which is all warmed-over Clintonian hysteria and neocon warmongering. What is new is an attempt to split what he considers to be the alt-right into two camps, and in so doing deny any place for Putin and Russia solidarity amongst Americans. Gottfried may have cast his lot with the rump of Mrs. Clinton's coterie, which makes one wonder if his posturing before the election was anything but insincere.

https://consortiumnews.com/ /13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

Kurt Gayle , says: July 17, 2017 at 1:09 pm
To Paul Gottfried's credit, he ends with the excellent quote from Christopher ("The French, Coming Apart" -- great, great analysis) Caldwell:

"Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even here."

In that same vein, commenter Dan Philips is 100% right: "In the grand scheme, Russia is viewed by its major detractors as an impediment to Davos über alles globalism."

Keep on impeding Davos, Mr. Putin. Don't stop! Keep impeding!

Mary Myers , says: July 17, 2017 at 1:14 pm
Apparently Prof. Gottfried is unaware of the tapped conversation between Victoria Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt where they are plotting who they will put in power after the U.S. sponsored coup in the Ukraine. Nuland has admitted that the U.S. spent $5 billion to destabilize Ukraine. U.S. meddling in on there countries' elections is more the norm for the U.S. than it is for current day Russia.

For another viewpoint on Putin I suggest that TAC publish Dr. Boyd Cathey's article, "Examining the Hatred of Putin.

Alan F , says: July 17, 2017 at 2:17 pm
Sigh .I stopped reading when I got to ."his aggressive behavior in Ukraine and Syria." What a total farce. But I'm sure Paul that somehow you're totally fine with aggressive behavior on the part of the US. Hypocrite much? So let's see. The CIA leads the coup in Kiev to overthrow the democratically elected Yanukovych, the newly installed US puppet ..errrr ..new President of Ukraine is hostile towards ethnic Russians in Crimea and Donestsk, those folks appeal to Putin for help and he obliges.

Yet, of course "Russian aggression." The US sends troops in Eastern Europe on the Russian border and sends the Navy to patrol the Baltic Sea, and yet, you know, "Russian aggression."

Quick question, how would Americans feel if the Russian navy was on patrol in the Gulf of Mexico? We'd be livid as heck and rightly so. But it's fine for us to that to them. And, last time I checked, Russia is any ally of Syria and was invited to be there by the Syrian govt. The US is there against the wishes of the Syrian govt. But, you know, "Russian aggression." The fact that the American left / GOP neocons have far more hatred for Putin than they ever did for the communist Soviet Union speaks volumes. The fact that folks like the author of this article hate Putin, while having absolutely zero problem with our number one ally, Saudi Arabia also speaks volumes. This would be the same SA that is the world's number one exporter of terrorism, that kills homosexuals for simply being homosexual and where women aren't allowed to drive cars. This is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Alan F , says: July 17, 2017 at 2:23 pm
@ Sophistry,

First off, I don't believe there is "persecution of gays" in Russia. What is there is the not allowing of kids (kids for goodness sake!) to be taught the LGBT agenda. Those are two totally different things. But for the sake of argument, let's say that there is some level of "persecution of gays." Whatever that amounts to, unquestionably it doesn't include being executed by the govt for being found to be gay. To find where that happens, one need look no further than the country that all of the Russia haters seem to have no problems with: Saudi Arabia. I'd love for you to explain to my why the same folks who hate Russia for "persecuting gays" seem to have no problem with SA. Actually, don't bother. I know full well why this is the case.

fabian , says: July 17, 2017 at 2:52 pm
Listen man, don't start with a collection of bad deeds committed by the UDSSR or Putin in the past because we can easily counter argue with a collection of bad deeds committed by the US in the present. I don't care what Putin does, he's not my government. But currently he is the only counter weight to the decay of the Western society. That's unless you turn to the radical muslims. Hopefully, not our sole alternative in the future.

On a larger scale, keep pushing Russia away and China will welcome them. Then you'll have the biggest country in the world allied with the most populous and hungry country in the world; unlimited resources, natural and human. The gravitational force they will produce will be difficult to resist unless they mess things up like we do in the US. But never bet on your adversary to be stupider than you are.

JEinCA , says: July 17, 2017 at 3:00 pm
Russia's behavior under Putin has been restrained. There's nothing immoral about Russia's assistance to Syria especially given the fact that the Russian military is there legally with the invitation of the legitimate government of Syria in it's battle against ISIS and Al Nusra.

As for Ukraine I had expected the Western backed coup to provoke a full on Russian invasion taking not only Crimea and Donbass but Kiev and Odessa leaving a rump Nationalist Ukrainian State in the West.

The Russians would have been well within their right to do as such given the existential threat that a hostile regime in Kiev poses to Russia itself. Instead Russia only took the mostly ethnic Russian Crimean peninsula and supported pro Russian rebels in Donbass. Last but not least lets recall another US backed incursion on Russia's borders when Georgia decided in 2008 to launch an offensive against its breakaway provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia killing Russian peacekeepers in the process. Had Russia been expansionist the Russians would've taken Tblisi overthrown Sakashvilli and placed a pro-Russian government there. They did not. They repelled Georgian forces from South Ossetia and Abkhazia and went home.

Think about had we been talking about dead American peacekeepers instead of Russian ones and what Washington's response would be? Or Washington's response to a theoretical Russian backed coup in Mexico? Russia has shown the utmost caution and restraint.

Jared Myers , says: July 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm
I can see how it might look like certain folks on the Right are politically "in love" with Putin, but that's not really the case. In the current polarized socio-political framework, where Russia has magically become "the enemy" (with no logic or reason behind that assumption), anyone who does not want to force a showdown with Moscow is somehow "enamored" with Putin. I consider myself more paleo-libertarian than paleo-conservative, but I will freely admit that I don't want to live in Russia or have Putin anywhere near the reigns of American power. But I also don't want nor see the need for any kind of conflict with the Russians either.
Fred Bilak , says: July 17, 2017 at 4:41 pm
Putin's Russia is a threat not because Putin is smart, clever, a former KGB agent that learned to be a master chess player of world politics, from that job or because he does loves his country and is trying to make his country a super power again to aid his people. He us all of those things for sure.

And after how we treated Russia after the cold war, some of the actions and anger of the Russians can be understood.

... ... ...

Grumpy Old Man , says: July 17, 2017 at 5:16 pm
Russia has interests, most of them in her near abroad. Putin has defended them, not always nicely. Powers aren't always nice. See: US policy in Central America. Russia's regional concerns aren't very important to the U.S.

Putin doesn't channel John Stuart Mill. Pity, that. But that's no reason to anathematize him. He does have lots of nukes, and if either side errs, which is unlikely but not impossible, catastrophe looms.

We have every reason to deal with the man soberly and without alarm or frissons of "bromance."

[Jul 17, 2017] If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton?

Notable quotes:
"... "Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. " ..."
"... "It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members of his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump. ..."
"... The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC . But outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia. ..."
"... When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and the Russia investigation is a distraction. ..."
"... "I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area. ..."
"... Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans think the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News poll. Only one in five consider it a critical security issue. ..."
"... And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by Quinnipiac University . ..."
"... More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made on the campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs for middle-class Americans. ..."
"... And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012. ..."
"... Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on China's currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare, his supporters keep saying "give him a chance." ..."
"... "I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks, the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place." ..."
"... It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately 6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run into at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally wafts in the air. ..."
"... "This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so many lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area." ..."
"... These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified as white on the 2010 census. ..."
"... Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole Russian thing that's going on. It's just politics in general." ..."
"... And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true. People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia investigation. ..."
"... "It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool in Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp. It really is a swamp."" ..."
"... If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton? ..."
"... Russian "sleepers" in Pittsburgh, Muskogee etc? ..."
Jul 17, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , July 17, 2017 at 6:35 am

"Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. "

If they keep up their obsession with Russia – YES!

Also – relevant article, which shows that this "rural/Red State American consensus", apparently, keeps up, despite the constant propaganda barrage from the mainstream biased media. Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the Vox is dye in the wool liberal outlet with handshakable agenda.

I asked Trump voters in Michigan about the Russia investigation. They said it's fake news.

"It's been nearly a year since the FBI started an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Since then, the investigation has turned toward examining links between Russia and President Donald Trump's associates and members of his campaign, and even possible obstruction of justice by Trump.

The investigation has been the go-to news item and topic of many heated conversations since last July, at least in DC . But outside of the nation's capital, many voters aren't as concerned about possible Trump ties to Russia.

When I recently visited my hometown and one other small town in Michigan that went for Trump, I talked with residents about the investigation. Nearly every single person I spoke with said the same thing: The media just needs to leave Trump alone, and the Russia investigation is a distraction.

"I'm tired of hearing about the Russia thing. Let it go and move on. The media is the one that's propagating it. They just won't let it die," said Nancy Androsky, a longtime resident whose grandchildren go to school in the area.

Conversations with residents of Linden and Argentine, which are located between the cities of Detroit and Flint, confirmed what recent polls have shown -- that Republicans don't think the Russia investigation is a big deal. More than half of Republicans think the investigation is a political distraction, according to Vox's Alexia Fernández Campbell's analysis of a June CBS News poll. Only one in five consider it a critical security issue.

And while nine out of 10 Democratic voters said that an investigation into Russian involvement in the election is somewhat or very important, only 35 percent of Republicans agreed , according to a February poll by Quinnipiac University .

More important to the residents of Linden and Argentine Township than the Russia investigation are promises Trump made on the campaign trail: building a stronger military, restricting immigration by refugees and asylum seekers, and creating jobs for middle-class Americans.

And around 60 percent of people in the two towns voted for Trump in the last election, up from the approximately 50 percent of people who voted for Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

Despite the fact that he has yet to follow through on many of his campaign promises, including softening his position on China's currency manipulation, failing to build a wall on the US-Mexico border, and struggling to repeal and replace Obamacare, his supporters keep saying "give him a chance."

"I think Trump will be a lot better than our previous president. I think he's going to get things done," said Rich Marshbanks, the owner of a local barbershop. "I think he's basically a good man. His heart's in the right place."

It's not surprising that nearly every person I talked with said they supported Trump. With a combined population of approximately 6,500 people, the towns of Linden and Argentine are stereotypical small-town America. They're the kind of place where you'll run into at least one person you know at the only grocery store in town and the smell of cow manure from nearby dairy farms occasionally wafts in the air.

"This is such a close-knit community," said Sharon Stone, the editor of the Tri-County Times, a newspaper covering several towns in the area. "They love the small hometown feel, but all of the perks of having everything available to them. We have so many lakes in this area, and there's quite a bit of money in this area."

These towns are also almost entirely white -- 96 percent of Linden residents and 97 percent of Argentine residents identified as white on the 2010 census.

Stone described the area as "passionate," but since the last election, people have become disenchanted with politics. "It's almost like they're completely fed up with politics in general on both sides," said Stone. "It's not necessarily just the whole Russian thing that's going on. It's just politics in general."

And based on the conversations I had with people in the area who agreed to talk with me, that definitely seems to be true. People said they feel ignored by the Washington establishment, hate the "liberal media," and couldn't care less about the Russia investigation.

"It's a waste of time and energy for us out here in the hinterlands for us to worry about what's going on in the cesspool in Washington," said Norman Schmidt, Argentine's treasurer who has been on the board for more than 20 years. "And it's a swamp. It really is a swamp.""

The article ends with the opinions of the locals.

moscowexile , July 17, 2017 at 7:15 am
If the Kremlin interfered in the US presidential elections, how come those wily Russkies failed to make the majority of voters at the ballot box nationwide vote for Trump yet at the same time managed to make the majority of voters in the Rust Belt and rural USA not vote for that mendacious shrew Clinton?

Russian "sleepers" in Pittsburgh, Muskogee etc?

I'm proud to be a Russkie fom Muskogee?

[Jul 16, 2017] How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth by Robert Parry

Notable quotes:
"... Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier ..."
"... it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. ..."
"... Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm

Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats.

Though it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.

[Jul 16, 2017] RussiaGate by Andrew Levine

Notable quotes:
"... When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them. ..."
"... Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control. ..."
"... For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden. ..."
"... How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free," is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance capabilities. ..."
"... The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is well established. ..."
"... Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are. ..."
"... ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

If Vladimir Putin is half as clever as his demonizers make him out to be, he must have figured out a long time ago that, to get inside Donald Trump's head, clinical psychologists with expertise treating male adolescents would be more useful than the Russian hackers, real or imaginary, that Western media obsess over.

Why even bother with hackers? The little that goes on between Trump's ears is all there in his tweets.

But, of course, if the idea is to develop capabilities for waging wars in the cyber sphere, good hackers are worth their weight in gold. If Putin isn't working on that, he is not doing his job.

These days, hackers are everywhere -- including Russia, Ukraine and other former Soviet republics. The United States has more than its fair share too, as do the UK and other Western countries. Some work for intelligence services, directly or indirectly; many, probably most, do not.

When governments do the hacking themselves, or sponsor others who do it for them, it is usually because they want to hone their countries' offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. In short, they are developing weapons and testing them.

Sometimes, though, they do more than that. The best known example occurred some ten years ago when the United States and Israel introduced the Stuxnet virus into Iran's Natanz nuclear facility, destroying roughly a fifth of that country's nuclear centrifuges by causing them to spin out of control.

Needless to say, governments are not the only players; far from it. Many, probably most, hackers are not connected, even indirectly, with state intelligence services. Some of them may be "terrorists," according to one or another understanding of that fraught and contested term. It is safe to assume that most of them are not. They hack for the fun of it or because they can.

There are legally binding, though sometimes ineffective, conventions that prohibit the use of a few especially heinous kinds of weapons -- poison gas is a well-known example. Cyber weapons are not similarly proscribed. Hackers can be, and sometimes are, subject to domestic prosecution, but, between state actors, anything goes.

In much the same vein, international law does not prohibit states from interfering in the political affairs, or elections, of other states. Insofar as sovereignty still matters in our globalized neoliberal world, meddling of that kind plainly violates the spirit of the law, but it is not legally proscribed.

For the stewards of the American empire, inconvenient international laws apply to others, not the United States. It is therefore unclear what, if anything would change if cyber weapons too were forbidden.

What is clear, however, is that, for at least the past seven decades, the United States has interfered in one way or another in nearly every election that American government officials wanted to influence – either to prevent outcomes they opposed or to secure results they favored.

No corner of the world has been immune, but since the demise of the Soviet Union made meddling in the political affairs of Russia and other former Soviet republics easier, Washington has been especially intent on throwing its weight around in that part of the world – always in ways that put Russian national interests in jeopardy.

The "digital revolution" has greatly exacerbated the problem, making meddling a lot easier than it used to be.

How proficient America's cyber warriors are at defending "the homeland," the post-9/11 term for the former "Land of the Free," is an open question. There is no doubt, however, that, at the very least, the United States leads the way in developing cyber surveillance capabilities.

It is no slouch either when it comes to hacking into well-protected industrial and government servers around the world – to spy or to meddle or, as with those centrifuges in Iran, to sabotage.

Russia can do those things too – perhaps just as well, more likely not, but certainly well enough.

It may therefore be time, now that the Cold War is back, to revive a version of the old Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, updated for the digital age.

* * *

Thanks to digitalization and the many ways in which computers nowadays are able to communicate with each other, state and non-state actors can meddle – or worse – more effectively than in the past.

Inasmuch as quality emerges out of quantity, as dialecticians inspired by Hegel would say, meddling has therefore become qualitatively more problematic than it used to be.

Thus, with Cold War insanity coming back into vogue -- promoted by the entire political class, no longer just by Clinton retainers, and by the media flacks who serve them -- meddling is taking new forms.

Some things don't change, however. As long as it keeps spending more money on "defense" than the Russians do, the United States will retain the dominant position. Despite the best efforts of Cold Warriors to scare Americans into acquiescence, everyone now concedes that this was how it was with nuclear weapons and missiles and much else during the original Cold War. It is how it is today too, now that cyber weapons are added into the mix.

Nevertheless, as in the past, the War Party's spokespersons will insist that we are not spending nearly enough. Lying through their teeth, JFK and his people concocted a "missile gap" some six decades ago. No one should be surprised, with the 2018 midterm elections looming, when a "cyber weapons gap" opens up.

The death merchants and mad dog generals must be salivating at the prospect. Silicon Valley plus the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower's euphemism for death merchants and military brass, now dominate the real economy. Over them all, there is Wall Street; a far greater menace now than in Eisenhower's time. The too-big-to-fail-or-jail miscreants there must be salivating most of all.

It was public opinion that made the original Cold War possible, and so it is again. This is why the "liberal press" has been pulling out all the stops – vilifying Russia and demonizing its President.

But there are at least two reasons why they will have a harder time getting the result they want now than their counterparts had long ago.

For one, they don't have a President on board this time, except occasionally when all the stars are lined up right. Unlike his post-War predecessors, from Truman on, Trump has no geopolitical goals. Instead, he wants to make "deals" that he thinks will make him look good, but that will only make him richer.

Trump is no more anti-imperialist than Cecil Rhodes, and he doesn't have an internationalist bone in his body. But, during the campaign, he did find it expedient to strike a kind of pre-War isolationist pose.

Since that could in principle lead him sometimes to do the right thing -- albeit for bad, even noxious reasons – there were a few observers who were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Inasmuch as the alternative was a continuation of the liberal imperialism of the Obama era, who could blame them?

What they actually did, however, was give Trump way too much credit. The man has no ideological convictions to speak of. For all practical purposes, his mind is a blank slate, susceptible to being swayed by whomever he talked to last or by the last pundit he watched on TV.

However, where Russia is concerned, he did, and still does, seem to have sounder instincts than his rivals. For Trump, instincts are all; and his instincts are dangerously off on almost everything. But not on this.

No doubt, his business involvements have a lot to do with it. So, very likely, does the fact that he could care less what others think. It probably also helps that he has no ties to the foreign policy establishment or to the so-called deep state.

Whatever the reasons, Trump does seem less in thrall to the delusions that shape this latest outbreak of Russophobia in political and media circles than other politicians at the national level. Indeed, even at this late date, he actually does seem to want to diminish, not exacerbate, tensions between the world's two major nuclear powers.

Bravo to him for that.

The other reason why Cold Warriors today have their work cut out for them, in ways that their counterparts after the Second World War did not, is that the justifications they are obliged to offer for treating Russia as an enemy are preposterous on their face.

Half a century ago, the Soviet Union was, in Churchill's words, "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma." Churchill went on to suggest that much of the mystery would dissipate if observers would think more carefully about Russia's national interests. That insight was among the first casualties of the rush to (cold) war that Churchill himself did so much to promote.

And so, an Iron Curtain descended over the Soviet Union and its "satellites," just as he said it would -- making it possible for the "free world's" propagandists to spin all kinds of yarns about Communist "subversion" and ill intent.

Cyber curtains are harder to construct. What could previously be kept opaque is therefore now ineluctably clear to anyone who cares to look.

This is why all the brouhaha over Russian meddling in the 2016 election would hardly even merit discussion, but for the fact that the stakes are so high, and because so many gullible people take it seriously.

Never mind that nothing actually came from the alleged meddling, except further confirmation of what everybody already knew: that the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, was working hard to assure that the Sanders insurgency would be defeated, and that Hillary Clinton would be the party's nominee.

Leave aside too the glaring hypocrisy of the United States, of all countries, objecting to election meddling. Evidently, the consensus view among mainstream politicians and in mainstream media circles too is that, in the United States, "what's sauce for the goose" is emphatically not also "sauce for the gander."

Forget genuinely "fake news" reports as well; for example, the claim that the Russians hacked into electoral grids in Vermont and elsewhere. There is no solid evidence for them; and, as one would expect, they disappear down the memory hole just as soon as they serve their purpose.

Reports of Russian hacking that bear on infrastructure security, financial transactions, trade, industrial processes, and other vital economic and military concerns would, if true, be genuinely worrisome were the recently revived Cold War to heat up.

With so many of the leading lights of the American political and media establishments working so diligently to make that happen, this is a cause for concern. But not even the most determined warmongers have been able to come up with a plausible story about how Russian hacking affected the election that put Donald Trump in the White House.

War Party propaganda notwithstanding, the claim that the Russians interfered with the 2016 election is hardly gospel truth. Nevertheless, it merits investigation.

The story used to be that seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that reports of Russian meddling are correct. The official line now is that only four have weighed in decisively, the four actually in the know.

Meanwhile, Putin says the Russians did not meddle; and Julian Assange has said many times that the source of the DNC documents that Wikileaks published was not the Russian state. It has become fashionable in mainstream circles to vilify Assange, but the fact remains that his integrity, and Wikileaks', is well established.

Though portrayed as the devil incarnate, Putin is a skilled and worldly statesman, intent on advancing Russia's interests, as he understands them. He is therefore a liar by vocation, just as all serious politicians are.

For profound historical reasons, slightly different, slightly less liberal and more authoritarian, norms obtain in Russia's political sphere than in most Western countries; and, needless to say, like everyone else everywhere, Putin and his constituents are creatures of their time and place.

On the whole, though, the demon of the hour seems no less governed by moral, customary or legal constraints than others in similar positions. Even in responding to events in Ukraine and Syria, he has been more scrupulously observant of international law than Barack Obama or Donald Trump.

His word may not be as good as gold, but it is a lot better than the CIA's. Indeed, when it comes to lying, the CIA is second to none. It has been known too to politicize intelligence when it suits its purposes or the purposes of the American government, insofar as the two diverge. The Bush-Cheney administration's "weapons of mass destruction" is only the best-known recent example.

I would therefore venture that of all the relevant parties weighing in, the American intelligence community is the least credible. But we are so bombarded with the party line on Russian meddling that it is hard not to succumb to the belief that there surely must be some there there. That (ultimately irrational) consideration apart, there is every reason to remain skeptical of everybody's assessments. For the time being and perhaps for some time to come, agnosticism is the only reasonable position to take.

The news that people close to Trump -- his son, his son-in-law, his campaign manager -- met with a lawyer whom they believed to be acting on behalf of the Russian government, and who probably was, changes nothing.

According to Donald Junior's emails, they did it to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.

Needless to say, "opposition research" is part of electoral politics nowadays; they all do it.

The problem in this case is the involvement of someone with ties to the Kremlin. Had the story been that Trump or someone close to him hired homegrown detectives to dig up dirt on Clinton, the news probably wouldn't even have gotten Rachel Maddow's hackles up.

Or had the famiglia arranged a meeting for the same purpose with persons connected to some other country – Israel is an obvious example, but not the only imaginable one – that would be fine too.

Apparently, it is the Russian connection that is toxic.

For the anti-Trump political class and their mainstream media friends, Junior's emails are the Holy Grail, the "smoking gun."

But all they show is that there was contact between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Except on the dubious theory that the provision of information is an emolument of the kind that the Constitution proscribes, there was nothing even remotely criminal about that meeting in Trump Tower. There was not even anything unusual; campaigns look for dirt where they can find it, and they talk to foreign sources all the time.

Trump's flacks say that the purported smoking gun is actually no big deal.

It grieves me to say it, but they are right.

What those emails provide is evidence of the stupidity of the Trump family (no surprise there!) and close Trump associates (ditto). To make anything more of it is, to say the least, a stretch.

***

Narratives that center on Russian meddling in the 2016 election are one thing; well-researched investigations of connections between Trump, the Trump family, and the Trump campaign, on the one hand, and Russian oligarchs, mobsters, spies, and assorted sleaze balls, on the other, are something else altogether.

Inasmuch as birds of a feather generally do flock together, there probably are quite a few contacts of that sort to uncover.

Unfortunately, though, in the fog of neoconservative, Russophobic propaganda that has settled in over our shores, these issues have become confounded.

On the meddling in the last election question, the jury is still out on which liars to believe. Does it really matter, though?

It does to proponents and opponents of the War Party. The former are desperate for reasons to find Putin culpable of something, anything; the latter understand the importance of not letting them have their way.

It matters too to feckless Democrats (is there any other kind?) hoping to ride anti-Trump loathing back to power in 2018. It is all they have going for them.

But it hardly matters at all for the integrity of American democracy -- notwithstanding the self-righteous blather that currently surrounds the issue.

The danger to democracy – what little of it we have -- is not coming from hackers, Russian or otherwise, government sponsored or freelance. At this historical moment, it is coming mainly from the voter suppression efforts of Republican state officials and the Trump White House.

Republican donors are culpable too. They are the ones who bankroll the governors and state legislators who are leading the charge against (small-d) democracy.

How ironic that one of the things the Russians are supposed to have hacked into are state voting rolls. It is fatally unclear why they would care about that, just as it is brutally obvious why Republicans would. But this doesn't phase the War Party's propagandists one bit.

The story they are going with for now is that Putin wants Americans to lose faith in the democratic process. Why would he even care?

During the original Cold War, when the Soviet Union was supposedly intent on world domination, there were ways of answering that question. The answers were disingenuous, to say the least, but they could at least be made to seem plausible. Good luck with that now!

In any case, if Putin really did want to undermine faith in American democracy, he would be a little late to the gate; and he would be redundant. Who needs a foreign autocrat to do what Democrats and Republicans are already doing better?

Meanwhile, even with Junior's emails, Trump is still there; and unless Republicans turn on him, which, for now, seems unlikely – or unless, more unlikely still, he decides he has had enough -- there is where he will remain.

Meanwhile too, the Democratic Party, having made itself irrelevant, is still scapegoating Russians. What a dangerous, albeit bipartisan, spectacle – unreconstructed Clintonites working side by side with the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

All this does, though, is increase the likelihood that, in the process, the world will stumble into a war that, this time around, really will be a war to end all wars.

Is there a silver lining in any of this? If there is, it is well hidden. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Andrew Levine

ANDREW LEVINE is the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

[Jul 16, 2017] Sergei Magnitsky was an accountant, not a lawyer. In no way he was a fighter for justice, he was a fighter for Browder illegal profits

Notable quotes:
"... "The Russian government's cynicism and corruption reached its pinnacle when former President Dmitry Medvedev asked Russians to come forward and fight corruption -- and a young Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky , did just that As Sergei Magnitsky's law partner , I remember arguing with him over whether his actions to expose the thefts were dangerous." ..."
"... And so Aleksashenko, it seems, believes that Magnitsky was a lawyer. He was not. Medvedev is still a prat though. Medvedev's address concerning Magnitsky was reported in English here on 23 Jan, 2013 : Magnitsky was an accountant, not a truth seeker – Medvedev ..."
"... "He was a corporate lawyer or an accountant and he defended the interests of the people who hired him. He was not a truth seeker", Medvedev told Bloomberg television. "Nevertheless, I feel pity for him as this man died in prison", the Russian PM added. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

kirill , July 16, 2017 at 7:01 am

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/theres-special-place-hell-people-screaming-confrontation-russia/ri20371

Why would an employee at Browder's company doing accounting be a lawyer? I can see a lawyer consulting on accounting laws, but accountants and lawyers are not interchangeable. Now Magnitsky is also an "activist". One does not become an "activist" after being busted by the authorities for corruption. All that Magnitsky, the corrupt accountant, was doing was accusing the authorities of being corrupt to escape the law. Thanks to NATzO propaganda and support, clowns like Magnitsky could make any sort of wild ass claim and be treated as "persecuted dissidents".

marknesop , July 16, 2017 at 8:58 am
If you read kovane's original post on Magnitsky and Browder let me see if I can find it .yes, here , he alludes that the scheme to start up shell companies in Kalmykia for the purpose of acquiring shares in Russian companies at local tax rates was Magnitsky's, as was that to hire four disabled persons so as to reap that tax benefit as well. Certainly the signatures in their workbooks are all Magnitsky's, and by their own testimonies it was a scam; they did little but empty office wastebaskets. Several other points came up subsequently, such as if Browder was so concerned about Magnitsky's safety in prison, why did he not send people to provide for his security and comfort, let the authorities know the eagle eye of the law protected Magnitsky? Although there are good reasons he could not do it himself – he was first banned from Russia and then wanted for questioning – he must have had plenty of people in Russia he could have contacted. It is far more likely that all he wanted to know about Magnitsky was that he had not talked, and all his blather about Magnitsky's plight and efforts to free him was merely to ensure his continued silence.

Magnitsky also did not work directly for Browder – he was employed by Firestone Duncan, the accounting firm Hermitage Capital engaged to do its accounting. The firm's managing partner, Jamison Firestone , is a lawyer and member of the New York bar. But Firestone himself did not hesitate to support the lie that Magnitsky was a lawyer :

"The Russian government's cynicism and corruption reached its pinnacle when former President Dmitry Medvedev asked Russians to come forward and fight corruption -- and a young Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky , did just that As Sergei Magnitsky's law partner , I remember arguing with him over whether his actions to expose the thefts were dangerous."

The rest of the article is typically-western lurid prose that reads like a detective novel. Putin has systematically crushed every single mechanism that could threaten his hold on power, he owns all the TV stations and has destroyed all opposition parties and yet American regime-change attempts to overthrow him continue to this very day. I guess they don't understand what 'hopeless' means. Either that, or Putin's grip on power is not nearly so totalitarian as they make out.

moscowexile , July 16, 2017 at 9:51 am
With that paragon of journalistic rectitude "Ekho Moskvy" one has a choice when it comes to deciding what Magnitsky's profession really was:

Сергей Магнитский был корпоративным юристом или бухгалтером, а не борцом за правду

Sergei Magnitsky was either a corporate lawyer or a bookkeeper, but he was not a fighter for justice

Then throughout the above linked article its author refers to Magnitsky as a "lawyer".

The newspaper Trud [Labour] (below) thinks the Ministry of Internal Affairs "changed" the lawyer Magnitsky into a bookkeeper:

МВД превратило юриста Магнитского в бухгалтера

"Магнитский был по образованию экономист, работал бухгалтером и аудитором. Юристом он не был. И как бухгалтер он разрабатывал схему ухода от налогов", -- сказала начальник пресс-службы СК МВД Ирина Дудукина на пресс-конференции в центральном офисе "Интерфакса".

Как утверждает Следственный комитет при МВД России, в 2002 году Сергей Магнитский включил в налоговые декларации компаний заведомо ложные сведения о наличии в штате организации не менее 50 процентов инвалидов для того, чтобы снизить платежи по налогу на прибыль в два раза. Юрист подыскал в Элисте несколько инвалидов и предложил им за относительно небольшое вознаграждение устроиться на работу в эти фирмы и стать "мертвыми душами".

"В данном случае Магнитский являлся бухгалтером и участвовал в схемах ухода от налогов, в частности. Поэтому говорить о том, что он просто выполнял волю работодателя, не будучи осведомленным о конечной цели своих действий, невозможно", -- продолжила рассказывать начальник пресс-службы СК МВД.

По мнению СК МВД, "юристом" Сергея Магнитского стали называть лишь для того, чтобы ввести в заблуждение западную общественность. "Термин „юрист" придуман для западных людей, у них он приравнен к „адвокату". Если человек -- юрист, он выполняет поручения работодателя, не будучи осведомленным об истинном характере данных действий. У нас такими правами обладают только адвокаты", -- отметила она.

"Magnitsky was an economist by education, worked as an accountant and auditor. He was not a lawyer. As an accountant he developed a scheme for evading taxation" said head of the press service of of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Ministry of Interior Affairs, Irina Dudukina at a press conference in the Central office of 'Interfax'

As claimed by the Investigative Committee of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs, in 2002 Sergei Magnitsky was involved with company tax returns, knowing that said returns contained false data concerning the presence in the staff of not less than 50 percent of employees having disabilities in order to reduce tax payments on profits twofold

"In this instance, Magnitsky was an accountant and was involved in tax evasion schemes, in particular. To say that he was just fulfilling the wishes of his employer, whilst being unaware of the ultimate goal of his employer's actions is impossible", the chief of the IC press service of the MIA continued to say.

According to the IC MIA, "Sergey Magnitsky only became known as a lawyer so as to mislead the Western public. "The term 'lawyer' was invented for Western people, who equate it with the term "advocate". If a person is a lawyer, he then performs tasks for an employer, not being knowledgeable about the true nature of these actions. We have such rights only for lawyers". she said.

"In this instance, Magnitsky was an accountant", summed up the representative of the IC MIA.

See Trud newspaper , the organ which published the above.

And then there are many Russian blogs about the myths concerning Magnitsky, one of which being that he was a lawyer and which have statements such as this:

Стандартная информационная "джинса" Браудера, активно размещаемая в последние годы в российских и зарубежных СМИ выглядит следующим образом:

"Hermitage hired the Moscow lawyer Sergei Magnitsky to investigate the scam and he publicly named a number of key Interior Ministry officials who he believed were involved. Days after going public he was arrested by the same men he had accused and was held in prison for a year. He died in November 2009 after being refused vital medication following months of increasingly brutal treatment". (британская Independent)

В подобных материалах Магнитский постоянно фигурирует как юрист. Это стало столь общепринятым утверждением, что юристом Магнитского называют даже государственные российские СМИ: "Первый канал", "Россия-1″ и РИА "Новости". Более того, в большинстве публикаций утверждается, что Магнитский был нанят Hermitage непосредственно для "расследования" дела о хищении нескольких дочерних компаний. Все это -- вранье. Но про вторую часть этого вранья будет ниже, а для начала разберемся со сферой деятельности Магнитского.

Так вот. Сергей Магнитский никакой не юрист и никогда им не был. Он закончил академию им. Плеханова по специальности "Финансы и кредит", имел аттестат аудитора и всю жизнь работал бухгалтером или аудитором. Юристом он никогда не работал и соответствующей квалификации у него не было.

The standard information actively placed in recent years in Russian and foreign media by "Jeans" Browder, is as follows:

"Hermitage hired the Moscow lawyer Sergei Magnitsky to investigate the scam and he publicly named a number of key Interior Ministry officials who he believed were involved. Days after going public he was arrested by the same men he had accused and was held in prison for a year. He died in November 2009 after being refused vital medication following months of increasingly brutal treatment". (British Independent)

In such materials it has been constantly stated that Magnitsky was a lawyer. It has become such a common statement that Magnitsky has even been labelled as a lawyer by Russian state media such as "Channel Russia-1" and RIA "Novosti". Moreover, in most publications it is alleged that Magnitsky was hired by Hermitage directly to "investigate" cases of theft amongst several subsidiaries. Everything is a lie. More about the second part of this lie is below, but first let us deal with Magnitsky.

Sergei Magnitsky was not a lawyer and never was. He graduated from the Plekhanov Academy in "finance and credit", had an auditor's certificate and worked all his life as an accountant or auditor. He never worked as a lawyer and did not possess the relevant qualifications to do so

See: Myths of the "Magnitsky case"

And there are many such links on the Russian web as the last above.Just search for Мифы "дела Магнитского".

However, that last link above continues:

Доказательства представлены ниже, нажмите для увеличения:

Evidence for this is presented below:

And below there are five photographs -- all have been deleted.

And they are deleted on all the other "Magnitsky Myth" blogs as well.

I remember these photographs. I downloaded them and posted them on other sites, this being one of them, I think.

The deleted photographs were of the qualifications that Magnitsky received from the Plekhanov Academy and of his accountancy/bookkeping qualifications.

They have all vanished.

How strange!

Nice one, Bill!

moscowexile , July 16, 2017 at 10:34 am
My criticism of what seemed to be at first sight equivocation on the part of Ekho Moskvy (see above) as regards Magnitsky's profession was misdirected.

The person who was equivocating was not the author of the Ekho Moskvy article, but cuddly little Dima, who is a lawyer as it happens -- well, they say he is.

Navalny is a corporate lawyer as well -- so they say.

Having read the article in full, right at the end it states that

Экономист Сергей Алексашенко удивлен заявлениями Дмитрия Медведева по делу Сергея Магнитского. Юрист не может себе позволять себе произносить фразы, в которых настолько нарушена любая логика, -- уверен Алексашенко.

Алексашенко добавил, что Медведеву следовало бы извиниться перед семьей Сергея Магнитского или хотя бы признаться, что премьер ничего не может сделать с бюрократией в России, но точно не обвинять погибшего юриста.

Economist Sergei Aleksashenko was surprised by Dmitry Medvedev's statements about the Sergei Magnitsky case. A lawyer cannot afford to pronounce phrases in which any form of logic is so violated, so Aleksashenko believes.

Aleksashenko added that Medvedev ought to apologize to the family of Sergei Magnitsky or at least admit that the prime minister cannot do anything about Russian bureaucracy but should definitely not blame the deceased lawyer.

And so Aleksashenko, it seems, believes that Magnitsky was a lawyer. He was not. Medvedev is still a prat though. Medvedev's address concerning Magnitsky was reported in English here on 23 Jan, 2013 : Magnitsky was an accountant, not a truth seeker – Medvedev

moscowexile , July 16, 2017 at 10:37 am
"He was a corporate lawyer or an accountant and he defended the interests of the people who hired him. He was not a truth seeker", Medvedev told Bloomberg television. "Nevertheless, I feel pity for him as this man died in prison", the Russian PM added.

What a pillock!

[Jul 16, 2017] The MSM has never found a dictator/thug/mass murder that it didnt like if said dictator/thug/mass murderer was doing its bidding. IIRC, a US favorite was Pol Pot and the Khemer Rouge – those folks made NK look positively benign.

Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Patient Observer , July 16, 2017 at 5:54 pm

I think Mark and/or others have said that Matt has latched on to NK as it is the undisputed evil in the world per the MSM. By extension, he hopes to prove that everything that the MSM states that Russian medial disputes must also be the truth.

The MSM is a prolific generator of falseshoods fashioned to create the necessary public opinion to generate a call for action in the Congress and at least apathy in the electorate. And one thing for certain, whenever the MSM starts to cry about HR abuse or evil dictators, the real reason for the negative stories is something entirely unrelated.

In the case of NK, I can only speculate. Certainly a united Korea would no longer need or welcome the ongoing US occupation. A united Korea would be far more than its historical enemy, Japan, could handle. A united Korea could be a major part of the Chinese Eurasian economic development project. In short, a united Korea is a very bad thing UNLESS a pro-US/Japanese regime can be installed. That prospect looks very unlikely as as the memory of what the US did to them is burned into their neurons and Russia nor China would allow the necessary meddling for that to occur.

The MSM has never found a dictator/thug/mass murder that it didn't like if said dictator/thug/mass murderer was doing its bidding. IIRC, a US favorite was Pol Pot and the Khemer Rouge – those folks made NK look positively benign.

Who, again, are the sociopaths? Who, Matt? Or, will you wimp out when your line of attack fails (yet again).

[Jul 16, 2017] North Korean Leadership May Be Ruthless and Reckless, But They Are Not Crazy - Antiwar.com Original

Notable quotes:
"... Mainichi Shimbun ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

North Korean Leadership May Be Ruthless and Reckless, But They Are Not Crazy

'Time is Not on Our Side': Former senior US government officials say there must be dialogue with North Korea

by Col. Ann Wright (ret.) Posted on July 15, 2017 July 14, 2017 Despite the rhetoric from the Trump administration about military confrontation with North Korea, the common theme of many U.S. experts on North Korea is that the US presidential administration MUST conduct a dialogue with North Korea – and quickly! Military confrontation is NOT an option according to the experts.

And most importantly, the new President of South Korea Moon Jae-in was elected in May 2017 on a pledge to engage in talks with North Korea and pursue diplomacy to finally officially end the Korean conflict. Nearly 80 percent of South Koreans support a resumption of long-suspended inter-Korean dialogue, according to a survey by a presidential advisory panel showed in late June.

On June 28, 2017, six former high level experienced US government officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations over the past thirty years sent a letter to President Trump stating that "Kim Jong Un is not irrational and highly values preserving his regime Talking is not a reward or a concession to Pyongyang and should not be construed as signaling acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea. It is a necessary step to establishing communication to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. The key danger today is not that North Korea would launch a surprise nuclear attack. Instead the primary danger is a miscalculation or mistake that could lead to war."

The signatories to the letter were

William J. Perry, 19th US Secretary of Defense under the Clinton administration; George P. Shultz, 60th Secretary of State under the Reagan administration and now Distinguished Fellow, Hoover institution, Stanford University; Governor Bill Richardson, US Secretary of Energy and US Ambassador to the United Nations under the Clinton administration; Robert L. Gallucci, former negotiator in the Clinton administration and now with Georgetown University; Sigfrid S. Hecker, nuclear weapons expert and the last US official to visit the North Korea nuclear facilities and now with the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University; and Retired US Senator (Republican) Richard G. Lugar, and now president the Lugar Center

Together, they wrote: "there are no good military options, and a North Korean response to a US attack would devastate North Korea and Japan. Tightening sanctions can be useful in increasing pressure on North Korea, but sanctions alone will not solve the problem. Pyongyang has shown that it can make progress on missile and nuclear technology despite its isolation. Without a diplomatic effort to stop its progress, there is little doubt that it will develop a long-range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the United States."

The experts ended their letter to President Trump by calling for quick action: "Today there is a window of opportunity to stop these programs, and it may be the last chance before North Korea acquires long-range capability. Time is not on our side. We urge you to put diplomacy at the top of the list of options on the table."

Two weeks earlier, on June 13, 2017, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and University of Chicago Korean War historian Bruce Cummings both strongly advocated for dialogue with North Korea at the Korean Peace Network's conference " Off Ramps to War " hosted by the Partnerships for International Strategies in Asia program at George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, DC.

William Perry said, "North Korean leadership may be ruthless and reckless, but they are not crazy." He added, "Why do we have a double standard for North Korea? We accept Saudi Arabia as it is with its human rights violations, but we do not accept North Korea as it is-a nuclear power. Refusing to listen to the North Koreans about their goals and needs has meant that in the seventeen years since the last relevant dialogue, the North Koreans have developed and tested nuclear weapons and intercontinental missiles."

The Bush administration's naming North Korea as part of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002 and the Obama administration's subsequent "Strategic Patience" policy were not forms of diplomacy, argued Perry, but instead were "miserable policy failures." According to Perry, the US has not had a negotiating strategy with North Korea in seventeen years, and during that time, North Korea has continued to do what the US and other major powers do not want it to do – test nuclear weapons and missiles.

Perry said that the North Korean government has three goals:

Staying in power; Gaining international respect; Improving their economy.

Perry emphasized that the North Korean government will sacrifice the last two goals – gaining international respect and improving the economy – to achieve the first goal, which is staying in power.

Because of the lack of listening to and acknowledging North Korean objectives on what its goals are – which includes signing a peace treaty to take the place of the 50+ year armistice, signing a nonaggression pact and reducing U.S.-South Korean military war games, Perry believes that the best outcome available to negotiators is to freeze the nuclear weapons and the ICBM programs, not their elimination.

Perry said he believes North Koreans would never use nuclear weapons as those weapons "are valuable only if they DON'T use them. They know the response from the US would be devastating, should North Korea explode a nuclear weapon."

University of Chicago history professor Bruce Cumings, author of The Korean War: A History , said at the symposium that the Clinton administration achieved very important goals with North Korea, including "North Korea freezing its plutonium production for eight years (1994–2002) and, in October 2000, indirectly working out a deal to buy all of North Korea's medium and long-range missiles – and signing an agreement with North Korean General Jo Myong-rok in a meeting in the White House stating that neither country would bear 'hostile intent' toward the other."

But the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Undersecretary of State John Bolton "actively sought to torpedo the Agreed Framework" and succeeded in pushing aside the agreements negotiated by the Clinton administration thereby destroying the 1994 freeze and refusing to acknowledge the Clinton-Jo pledge of "no hostile intent," particularly since the pledge was made by allowing a North Korean general inside the White House.

With President Bush's January 2002 State of the Union speech, in which he called North Korea part of an "axis of evil," the Bush administration turned its back on North Korea, abrogating the "Agreed Framework" and halting shipments of American fuel-oil permanently. In response, the North Koreans withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and restarted their plutonium-producing reactor.

As Cumings wrote for The Nation , "The simple fact is that Pyongyang would have no nuclear weapons if Clinton's agreements had been sustained."

Sheldon Richman, executive editor of The Libertarian Institute and the former senior editor at the Cato Institute agrees with Perry that North Korean leader Kim Jung UN is not crazy. "Let us dispense, once and for all, with the idea that Kim is a madman," Richman wrote at Antiwar.com . " Brutality is not madness, and a madman wouldn't be expected to capitulate to economic pressure. He shows every sign of wanting his regime to endure, which means he would not want the US military or nuclear arsenal to pulverize it. Assuming rationality in this context asserts only that Kim's means are reasonably related to his ends."

Richman underscores the rationale for the North Korean government to develop nuclear weapons against the will of the US"Kim shows every sign of having learned the lesson of recent US regime-change policies toward Iraq and Libya, neither of which were nuclear states. Same with Syria, whose regime has been targeted by the US government. The lesson is: if you want to deter a US attack, get yourself some nukes."

Robert E. Kelly, Associate Professor of International Relations in the Department of Political Science at Pusan National University, makes a similar argument. "This is not a suicidal, ideological, ISIS-like state bent on apocalyptic war but rather a post-ideological gangter-ish dictatorship looking to survive. The best way to guarantee the North's survival is nuclear deterrence It is a rational decision, given Pyongyang's goals to, 1) not change internally, and 2) not be attacked externally. This is not ideal of course. Best would be a de-nuclearized North Korea. But this is highly unlikely at this point."

Track 2 Diplomacy with North Korea continues

Japan's Asahi Shimbun newspaper reported recently that Robert Gallucci and Leon Sigal, director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council, held nuclear and missile discussions in October 2016, with North Korean Vice Foreign Minister Han Song-ryol in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia. The North Korean envoy said North Korea had communicated its desire to negotiate directly with the US without involving China, to whom 90% of its exports go.

Another Japanese newspaper, Mainichi Shimbun , reported that North Korea originally demanded Washington send to North Korea a former US President as a special envoy to resolve the case of Otto Warmbier, an American student who recently died after detention in North Korea.

According to the newspaper, Choe Son-hui, head of the North Korean Foreign Ministry's US affairs bureau, notified the US through its UN mission in May 2017. However, North Korea released Warmbier in a coma after Trump refused to send a former President and sent Joseph Yun, State Department Special Representative for North Korea Policy to North Korea instead.

Another Track 2 group met with a North Korean delegation in early June 2017. Sue Mi Terry, a Korea expert who has worked at both the CIA and the National Security Council and now is with the Bower Group Asia spoke on June 28, 2017 to NPR about meeting with North Korea officials to try to get nuclear talks back on track.

Terry said that to North Koreans, their nuclear arsenal "is a matter of survival. North Koreans have told us even in the recent meeting – and they've specifically brought up Libya – Gaddafi's case in Libya and Iraq – and said: 'Nuclear weapons is the only way for us to absolutely guarantee our survival, and this is why we're not going to give it up. We're so close to perfecting this nuclear arsenal. This is our final deterrent against the United States.' Ultimately it's about regime survival for them, and nuclear weapons guarantees it."

Terry said the North Koreans demand that the United States accept them as a nuclear power and there is "absolutely no flexibility or willingness to meet to talk about ending their nuclear program." In contrast to other experts, Terry believes it is "unrealistic for us (the US) to go from where we are to talk about peace treaty and discuss formally ending the Korean War."

She believes the solution is "continuing with maximum pressure with sanctions and trying to get China to do more. And if China does not come through, then we'll have to pursue secondary sanctions against Chinese banks and entities and see if that can get China to rein in North Korea a little bit more."

Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army/Army Reserves and retired as a Colonel. She was a US diplomat for 16 years and served in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned from the U.S. diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to President Bush's war on Iraq. She is the co-author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience .

Read more by Col. Ann Wright (ret.) America's Ready Supply of Enemies – May 11th, 2017

[Jul 16, 2017] Will the DNC lose in 2018, because theyre beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not sure if thats good or bad, but Im getting popcorn.

Notable quotes:
"... "We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter. ..."
"... "Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman. ..."
"... The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | ucgsblog.wordpress.com
ucgsblog says: July 16, 2017 at 7:21 pm Sorry about being MIA, I'm probably going to be MIA until mid-August, but in the meantime, here's an interesting article:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/message-democrats-must-more-talk-russia-122203301.html

"We know that we can be an America that works for everyone, because we believe that our diversity is our greatest strength. And we believe that when we put hope on the ballot we do well, and when we allow others to put fear in the eyes of people we don't do so hot," Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

___

"We need to be talking about impeachment constantly. If you're an elected Dem & you're not talking impeachment or 25th amendment then find a new party," Scott Dworkin, senior adviser to Democratic Coalition Against Trump, on Twitter.

___

"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize," Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.

___

"I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives," Jason Crow, Democratic candidate in Colorado's 6th Congressional District.

___

"Voters are getting plenty about the Russia story, and they don't need candidates' help making that case. I think it's a fundamental mistake to make this election a referendum on impeachment. That means it's not an election on a health care bill that will raise premiums and take more than 22 million people off of their health care," Zac Petkanas, Democratic strategist, former aide to Hillary Clinton.

___

"We will both defend the integrity of our democracy (on the Russian investigation) and we will defend access to health care for tens of millions of people. The resistance is big enough and sophisticated enough to track both of those urgent and important issues," Anna Galland, executive director of Moveon.org Civic Action.

___

"All of that (on Russia) is going to come out, and if a politician was lacking in courage and never did anything about it, I think they will pay dearly for it, and they should. But if you're a governor candidate next year, you're a lot smarter saying, 'Here's what I'm going to do about jobs and education and wages' than weighing in every day on issues outside your control." David Pepper, Ohio Democratic Party chairman.

___

"We need to be able to explain what we're for just as emphatically as who we are against. Voters need to hear you talking about them more than they hear you talking about yourself, your opponent or the president." Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana.

!!!!!!-

The only two Democrats, out of that random sample, who are going "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" I mean "Russia, Russia, Russia," are Dworkin and Galland from MoveOn. I think this blog knows quite a bit about MoveOn, so I don't need to mention it, and the only other person talking about it, is someone who is trying to make his name by impeaching Trump.

Looks like the DNC is slowly starting to realize what voters want, despite inner party special interest groups. Levin and Crow summarize mainstream Democrats, so I'll just requote them:

"We're advising groups to pay attention to Russia, but the bottom line is they're trying to take your health care away. That should be the focus. Eye on the prize I focus a lot on good-paying jobs, student loan issues, health care and the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Those are the issues that are at the top of (voters') minds. I don't think (the Russia investigation) has to interfere with our conversation about every day matters in people's lives"

Will the DNC lose in 2018, because they're beholden to inner-party special interests? Stay tuned. Say what you will about Trump, but he certainly made politics a lot more entertaining to watch. Not sure if that's good or bad, but I'm getting popcorn.

[Jul 16, 2017] Trump's Worst Collusion Isn't With Russia -- It's With Corporations

Notable quotes:
"... Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire. ..."
"... The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by over $346 billion . ..."
"... As few as 12 percent of Americans support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts. ..."
"... every single state ..."
"... Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | fpif.org

The billionaires who backed Trump are making out a lot better than Putin.

Originally published in OtherWords Print

donald-trump-der-spiegel-cover

Der Spiegel's instantly infamous Donald Trump cover.

I've always been a little skeptical that there'd be a smoking gun about the Trump campaign's alleged collusion with Russia. The latest news about Donald Trump, Jr., however, is tantalizingly close.

The short version of the story, revealed by emails the New York Times obtained, is that the president's eldest son was offered "some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" and "would be very useful to your father."

More to the point, the younger Trump was explicitly told this was "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." Donald, Jr.'s reply? "I love it."

Trump Jr. didn't just host that meeting at Trump Tower. He also brought along campaign manager Paul Manafort and top Trump confidante (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner.

We still don't have evidence they coordinated with Russian efforts to release Clinton campaign emails, spread "fake news," or hack state voting systems. But at the very least, the top members of Trump's inner circle turned up to get intelligence they knew was part of a foreign effort to meddle in the election.

Some in Washington are convinced they've heard enough already, with Virginia senator (and failed VP candidate) Tim Kaine calling the meeting " treason ."

Perhaps. But it's worth asking: Who's done the real harm here? Some argue it's not the Russians after all.

"The effects of the crime are undetectable," the legendary social critic Noam Chomsky says of the alleged Russian meddling, "unlike the massive effects of interference by corporate power and private wealth."

That's worth dwelling on.

Many leading liberals suspect , now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked with Russia to win his election. But we've long known that huge corporations and wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire.

That gambit's paying off far more handsomely for them -- and more destructively for the rest of us -- than any scheme by Putin.

The evidence is hiding in plain sight.

The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance -- while loosening regulations on insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by over $346 billion .

As few as 12 percent of Americans support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn't to voters -- it's plainly to the wealthy donors who'd get those tax cuts.

Meanwhile, majorities of Americans in every single congressional district support efforts to curb local pollution, limit carbon emissions, and transition to wind and solar. And majorities in every single state back the Paris climate agreement.

Yet even as scientists warn large parts of the planet could soon become uninhabitable, the fossil fuel-backed Trump administration has put a climate denier in charge of the EPA, pulled the U.S. out of Paris, and signed legislation to let coal companies dump toxic ash in local waterways .

Meanwhile, as the administration escalates the unpopular Afghan war once again, Kushner invited billionaire military contractors -- including Blackwater founder Erik Prince -- to advise on policy there.

Elsewhere, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other architects of the housing crash are advising Trump on financial deregulation , while student debt profiteers set policy at the Department of Education.

Chomsky complains that this sort of collusion is often "not considered a crime but the normal workings of democracy." While Trump has taken it to new heights, it's certainly a bipartisan problem.

If Trump's people did work with Russia to undermine our vote, they should absolutely be held accountable. But the politicians leading the charge don't have a snowball's chance of redeeming our democracy unless they're willing to take on the corporate conspirators much closer to home. Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[Jul 16, 2017] As Anti-Trump - Anti-Russia Campaign Fails - Yascha Mounk Feeds New Lies

Yet another classic "Yascha about Russia... " propaganda theme variation ( Gessen style Russophobia). This time he is from Germany, though. Some people would do everything to earn a living.
Notable quotes:
"... Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment. ..."
"... Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading just for its clarity and strength of argumentation. ..."
"... Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility. ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions in the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis. ..."
"... so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something. ..."
"... Nice to see at least one US Journalist take on and destroy two prominent Neocons. Here Tucker Carlson takes on Lt Col Ralph Peters and Max Boot. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/13/tucker-carlson-neocon-slayer/ ..."
"... The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies. ..."
"... One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same. ..."
"... Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev' and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after having a conviction for fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine . ..."
"... American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such circumstances, finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival. That's why we have the anti-Russia frenzy. ..."
"... That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The U.S. borg is vehemently trying to set up Russia as an enemy of the "west". Their anti-Russian propaganda has become part of the campaign against U.S. President Trump who seeks détente with Russia. It requires intense efforts to denigrate the country, its citizens and its leaders. Here is an example of how such propaganda is fabricated.

Yascha Mounk is:

a Lecturer on Political Theory at Harvard University's Government Department, a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Transatlantic Academy of the German Marshall Fund, and a Nonresident Fellow at New America's Political Reform Program.

He is a self declared liberal internationalist who has been published and quoted by lots of international media.

Yesterday Mounk tweeted this :


bigger

The Mounk tweet is a series of lies:

Need a reminder of the human cost of dictatorship? All these are journalists who criticized Putin--and died under mysterious circumstances

The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin is dully elected and not a dictator. The Russian Federation may not be a "liberal democracy", but it is a democracy. The picture is old. It shows all Russian journalists who died during their work since 1991. Most of them died as war- or crime-correspondents and were not involved in politics at all. The death of most of those journalists is not mysterious. Getting blown up by artillery during the wars in Chechnya, Yugoslavia or Ukraine is no mystery at all. Most of these journalists never criticize Putin. They were already dead before Putin had any significant political role.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) lists 82 killed Russian journalists since 1992, most of them died due to war or related to civil crimes or corruption. There are about 80 portraits of journalists in the picture Mounk tweeted.

Two recognizable portraits and names therein are of Vlad Listyev, a TV entertainment producer killed in 1995 over some controversy about lucrative advertisement on public TV. Another portrait is of Dmitry Kholodov, killed in 1994 while investigating mafia connections within the Russian military. At the time of their death Putin was a minor bureaucrat in Saint Petersburg. He did not gain power until he became acting president at the end of 1999.

According to the CPJ numbers more Russian journalists were killed during the eight years of Yeltsin's presidency (1992-2000) than in the 17 years of Putin's presidencies since. Mounk claims "All these are journalists who criticized Putin ..." when more than half of them were already dead before Putin became known and to power. It was during the time of the " Harvard boys " who robbed Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven "reforms" and criminal privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses. But there is no evidence , none at all, that Putin was ever involved in the decease of any journalist.

The first original publishing of the Mounk picture may have been as early as 2009 . A piece on journalists remembrance in Russia from 2014 already includes the pic. The reverse image search shows that the picture has been has been used by several news-outlets since.

Every aspect of the Mounk tweet is a lie.

But Mounk's lies have by now been re-tweeted over 22,000 times. Many of those who see it will believe the claims he makes. They will trust a widely publish Harvard academic. But the tweet, as well as nearly all other claims about Russia one sees in "western" media, is pure propaganda. It is like the editorial in today's New York Times that claims "Russia's oil-dependent economy [is] in trouble" while all Russian economic numbers turned positive and all indicators point to accelerating growth . It is fake news.

The anti-Russian propaganda campaign is now part of the "liberal" campaign against U.S. president Trump. It is failing . Trump's support is steady if not increasing despite daily new revelation about his (non existent) "collusion with Russia" and the (non existing) "Russian interference" in the U.S. election.

The purveyors of the propaganda stories are in despair. Each and every new fire they try to stoke dies off within a day or two. The temptation then is to invent and push ever bigger lies about Trump, Russia and their non-existing connections.

The fake news Mounk spits out, and which disqualify him as an academic, is a sign of their accelerating panic.

Posted by b on July 16, 2017 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

lysander | Jul 16, 2017 12:00:05 PM | 3
Judging by the comments in "Professor" Mounk's Twitter feed, the vast majority are pretty much wise to the deception. Whether this holds for the retweets I don't know. But I'm pretty sure we are witnessing the decay of the establishment.
Lemur | Jul 16, 2017 12:12:55 PM | 4
Reminder these journalists and academics are so evil they actually want to repeal and replace the historic American nation with a variety of mystery meat immigration (invasion).
Anon | Jul 16, 2017 12:13:05 PM | 5
Here is the best discussion of the Trump Jr. nonsense available: https://necpluribusimpar.net/trumps-collusion-russia-add-nothing-nothing-get-still-nothing/

Lemoine ( http://www.twitter.com/phl43) destroys the liberal media bullshit narrative piece by piece. I haven't found a more thorough discussion anywhere else online. It's well worth reading just for its clarity and strength of argumentation.

Anonymous | Jul 16, 2017 12:20:43 PM | 6
There are journalists killed during the 1980's in that room, too. Here is a higher resolution version:
http://newsprom.ru/i/n/845/205845/tn_205845_12517dfa330f.jpg

Apart from the two you mentioned, you can make out several other names right off the bat, like Soviet journalist Alexander Kaverznev who died in 1983 and Gennadiy Kurennoy who died together with colleague and fellow Gosteleradio SSSR journalist Viktor Nogin in an armed ambush in Yugoslavia, during the war in 1991. Also visible is Andrey Pralnikov, who died in 1997 after finally succumbing to radiation injuries he sustained in 1986 during his on-site coverage of the Chernobyl accident (he wrote a book about, too).

In short, the portraits in that room are just Soviet and Russian journalists that have died on the job, regardless of how these deaths occured, and it goes back to the 1980s at least. Quite obviously, of the actual violence-related deaths the vast majority are from the 1990's, since there's been a rather dramatic downwards trend since Putin assumed office.

On his blog (I don't know if it's still up) Fedia Kriukov did an in-depth assessment of the cases post-2000 (i.e. the ones actually "under Putin") and found that several had nothing to do with the journalists' professional activities, but were just the results of them dealing with the criminal underworld themselves, some were the results of violence not targeting them but targeting people they happened to be covering at the time (e.g. Scott in 2002 and Khasanov in 2004), some were just pure bad luck, and out of the very few that actually were clear targeted killings it always had to do with organized crime (Domnikov, Politovskaya, Klebnikov).

And this is where the aforementioned downwards trend comes in, because the only correlation between journalists being murdered and the Putin period is strongly negative, and the reason is that the chief cause of investigative journalists being murdered - rampant organized crime and corrupted local law enforcement and officials - has been tackled rather successfully since 2000.

Robert Snefjella | Jul 16, 2017 12:29:31 PM | 7
Illuminating how widely quoted and passed on is the rubbish of Yascha Mounk, and 'et al'. What does this say about the publications and outlets that give such dishonesty a megaphone? They must lose credibility.

Paul Craig Roberts has written at various times words to the effect that just about all public and private institutions in the US are now corrupt. It's hard to find examples that refute that thesis.

I interpret PCR's words to at core mean that dishonesty, including evil omission, is now in the United States pervasive, normalized, institutionalized, 'mandatory' for those who want to remain 'gainfully employed' or accepted by those institutions.

That famous quote often identified with Orwell "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act" is the opposite side of that same coin.

This culture of bs is of course much broader than the US. We have the now famous confession by Udo Ulfkotte that much German media is corrupt, CIA controlled, bought and paid for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1lWKyRI10w

Another obscure but telling example: we have in Canada a book by Dr. Chopra titled 'Corrupt to the Core', detailing the situation at Health Canada during Chopra's long employment there.

And the WHO has been a snake in the grass for example when it comes to radioactivity and human health, for two generations allowing the nuclear powers that in effect act as censoring and misleading gatekeepers for material on that subject emanating from the WHO.
http://mondediplo.com/2008/04/14who

Perhaps I am engaging in wishfukl thinking but it seems to me we are seeing more and more signs of the breakdown of that systematic and comprehensive dishonesty machine that has infiltrated so many institutions and required and rewarded dishonesty in so many people? And along with that breakdown, the declining power of even so-called 'distinguished' institutions to wield power on behalf of lies. The 'appeal to whatever authority' seems to be losing much of its previous punch.

The recent increase in disclosures and public awareness of institutionalized pedo-predation is an example. Trump's election in the face of an unprecedented media and elite hostility, and extreme by same support for Clinton, to me suggests there is more than just a leak in the disgusting dike sustaining dishonesty as default position.

And when it comes to Putin, his popularity not just in Russia has been sustained or even grown in the face of an extreme mass media demonization effort.

The process puts me in mind of that scene from the Wizard of Oz where the wicked Witch is melting away, truth/water as deadly nemesis.

dan of steele | Jul 16, 2017 12:40:25 PM | 8
so this is what Harvard has to offer. and to think having a Harvard education used to mean something.

two are the choices here, either malice or incompetence. I want to believe it is merely because he is incurious and is getting enough positive feedback from his echo chamber but fear he knows full well what he is doing.

What is the endgame? How will rotten relations with Russia improve the lives of US citizens? If not the general population, then who stands to gain?

Robert McMaster | Jul 16, 2017 12:53:28 PM | 9
Hit these academic thugs where it hurts. Cut off their funding. The main reason they do this lying is because it pays. If the only reward was doing the right thing or speaking truth, then this Harvard Hack wouldn't be bothered. So, no tenure for you buddy. No nothing. Now go write your head off.
somebody | Jul 16, 2017 12:58:15 PM | 10
List of assassinated American politicians

Nothing like good old cold war propaganda. Ah the memories ....

Has Putin stopped talking about "our American partners" yet?

Philippe Lemoine | Jul 16, 2017 1:07:26 PM | 11
Thanks to the commenter above for sharing my post and for the nice words he had about it. People here may also be interested in the 3-part series of posts I wrote about the attack in Khan Sheikhoun. The first part is here and there are links to the other parts at the bottom of the post. I think it's the most thorough discussion of this attack, but I also discuss other similar incidents. I carefully document a shocking amount of bias and incompetence on the part of journalists. I also wrote a 4-part series of posts on this whole Russia/Trump nonsense back in February, which I think is still very relevant today. The first part is here .
james | Jul 16, 2017 1:25:53 PM | 12
thanks b... fascinating how a guy from harvard is oblivious to harvards historical role here in the phase of ripping off russia during and after the transition in 1991... great quote from you here - "It was during the time of the "Harvard boys" who robbed Russia blind that most of these journalist were killed. The Russian system, thanks to the Harvard driven "reforms" and criminal privatization under Yeltsin, is a rough terrain for investigating oligarchs and mafia businesses." why would this dipshit Yascha Mounk say all this? who pays him to lie? he is completely discredited here.. someone ought to send him a link to your article so he can see what an ignoramus or con man (it is one of the other) he really is..
Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 16, 2017 1:29:51 PM | 13
The Mythbusters motto was:
"If a thing's worth doing, it's worth overdoing."

Considering that Mythbusters were in the business of exposing and/or confirming popular myths & memes, the "overdoing" aspect was typically confined to exploring the limits to which the counter argument might prove to be valid.
The derision which the program attracted from edu-phobic 'purists' was regularly discredited by fulsome praise from scientists who pointed out that Mythbusters' exploration of the counter-argument demonstrated text-book faithfulness to The Scientific Method.

I'd love to hear what Mounk tells himself in order to anesthetise his conscience when embracing The Un-scientific Method to spread infantile, un-researched crap in the name of Harvard, Science and Mounk?

Tim | Jul 16, 2017 1:30:22 PM | 14
Yascha Mounk's book is titled, Stranger in my own country - a Jewish family in modern Germany.
harrylaw | Jul 16, 2017 1:45:05 PM | 15
Nice to see at least one US Journalist take on and destroy two prominent Neocons. Here Tucker Carlson takes on Lt Col Ralph Peters and Max Boot. http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/07/13/tucker-carlson-neocon-slayer/
fast freddy | Jul 16, 2017 1:56:36 PM | 16
The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies.

One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same.

Liberal? ideals regularly featured are "Austerity For the Commons" and Tax Cuts for the rich with "Trickle Down" as the prevailing economic model for the past 40 years. And warmongering.

The MSM has never openly opposed any US war and it has, in fact, provided justification for all US invasions.

Liberal - Conservative labeling is a tool to divide the commons.

fast freddy | Jul 16, 2017 1:56:36 PM | 17
The Corporate Media is owned by 6 corporations as a result of (liberal?) Bill Clinton admin enacting Republican (with Democrat Complicity) "Media Consolidation" aka monopolies.

One Media owner is GE which also manufactures aircraft engines and weaponry and seeks government contracts for same.

Liberal? ideals regularly featured are "Austerity For the Commons" and Tax Cuts for the rich with "Trickle Down" as the prevailing economic model for the past 40 years. And warmongering.

The MSM has never openly opposed any US war and it has, in fact, provided justification for all US invasions.

Liberal - Conservative labeling is a tool to divide the commons.

stevelaudig | Jul 16, 2017 2:02:25 PM | 18
Meanwhile the list of those killed directly by the USG in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Syria. Or indirectly by arming the murderers of the Yemeni, Ukraine and on and on and on, whose names we don't and may never know. "Their name is Legion". He's a bullshit academic who should participate in the wars he wants others to fight to prove 'his theory'.. He can put his own skin in the game.
Sven Lystbak | Jul 16, 2017 2:23:35 PM | 19
It is worth noting that 10 journalists and media persons have been killed in the Ukraine since the glorious revolution in 2014 against only 2 in Russia over the same period. This of cause is of zero interest to the western MSM.
Oui | Jul 16, 2017 2:26:41 PM | 20
The WSJ held an interview with Peter W. Smith and published an article by Shane Harris on June 29 titled "GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn".

Peter Smith Tapped Alt-Right to Access Dark Net

Charles C. Johnson said he also suggested that Smith get in touch with Andrew Auernheimer, a hacker who goes by the alias 'Weev' and has collaborated with Johnson in the past. Auernheimer--who was released from federal prison in 2014 after having a conviction for fraud and hacking offenses vacated [on appeal - May 2014] and subsequently moved to Ukraine .

Oui | Jul 16, 2017 2:27:13 PM | 21
See Part 1 - GOP Operative Peter Smith's Death Ruled A Suicide
Petri Krohn | Jul 16, 2017 2:38:07 PM | 22
The conflict is not between Russia and the West. It is not even between the West and the East. It is between Modernity and Post-Modernity.
  • Russia, secular Arab Socialist Syria, and Trump present Modernity.
  • The War Party, Identity politics, transsexualism, ISIS, and The Resistance present Post-Modernity.
mh505 | Jul 16, 2017 2:42:19 PM | 23
@ 12

Interesting article on the subject :

How Harvard Lost Russia .
The best and brightest of America's premier university came to Moscow in the 1990s to teach Russians how to be capitalists. This is the inside story of how their efforts led to scandal and disgrace.

http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/1020662/How-Harvard-lost-Russia.html?ArticleId=1020662&single=true

telescope | Jul 16, 2017 2:45:54 PM | 24
American lies should be put in context. The USA is a dying country, that is all but unmanageable, in the midst of its second Civil War (fought mostly in the media now, but the erosion of country's national fabric is immense and keeps worsening). In such circumstances, finding external enemy in order to redirect the destructive energy outward is simply a matter of national survival. That's why we have the anti-Russia frenzy.

It'll fail because Russia is militarily unassailable, and because continuing with the campaign is not only not helping with the domestic politics, but is scrambling America's geopolitical calculations. It's a geopolitical dead-end.

All in all, what we are seeing in the US is a full-scale panic of the establishment, with the MSM arm simply putting it all out there, no matter how preposterous or inaccurate, in a desperate bid to salvage something that is fundamentally unsalvageable.

That's how great countries fracture and disappear. It' ugly, and will only get uglier.

ruralito | Jul 16, 2017 2:56:08 PM | 25
@6 good catch!
james | Jul 16, 2017 3:17:58 PM | 26
@16 fastfreddy.. yeah, that is worth repeating...

@ 23 mh505... thanks.. that is a good link for getting a better understanding.. i wonder how Yascha Mounk perceives all this? surely he can't be ignorant of it.. is someone paying him for his propaganda? what a waste of money it is!!!

james | Jul 16, 2017 3:24:31 PM | 27
Yascha Mounk can be contacted [email protected]
Anonymous | Jul 16, 2017 3:49:31 PM | 28
Also another thing (I'm #6) again...

So, going back to the photo. There are 8 chairs/portraits in each row, and about 10 rows, so that's roughly 80 people affiliated with journalism that have died one way or another that might or might not be connected to their work, in 37 years (if we just assume it starts at 1980, seeing as there is a 1983 case in direct view...)

Considering that we clearly have journalists that have died while reporting from combat zones (see my earlier comment) as well as journalists that have died due to injuries received while reporting from dangerous "civilian" situations, it all comes across as pretty unremarkable.

Mind you, between 1980 and 1991, the USSR was a country of nearly 300 million people, and the Russian Federation has been hovering in the 140-150 ballpark since 1991.

Mind you, that the USSR was getting increasingly lawless towards the end, and pretty much all successor states were in a state of anarchy for at least a couple of years past the Soviet demise (some longer than others, Russia longer than most thanks to Yeltsin and the total carnage that the West supported)

Mind you that multiple armed conflicts occured during this time, both domestically (Chechnya 1 and 2 for instance, in which a number of journalists were injured or killed) and in the near-abroad (the Georgian/Abkhazian/Ossetian/Ajaran conflicts, the Azeri-Armenian conflicts, the numerous Central Asian conflicts, the the brief Moldovan warm, the Yugoslav wars etc)

...All things considered, 80 journalists dead over all this time is nothing compared to say Mexico. And Russia's also known to have way more journalists per capita than most countries, which further adds to how underwhelming these statistics really are. The final nail in the coffin is, of course, that all these scary statistics sank like a rock after Putin took office and Russia has never been as peaceful, free and civilized as it is right now. But we've been through that.

Somebody should compile all the relevant information on this and make a glossy report, to be honest. I mean, it's all out there, it's just that they get away with outright lying about it because people don't bother doing any research on their own and they know it.

mh505 | Jul 16, 2017 4:03:42 PM | 29
@ 26 james

You can be entirely certain that the guy does not believe his own drivel. But: he may lose his job otherwise, which some would consider attenuating circumstances.

To me, he is not the worst among those Harvard boys. A hypocrite of a much higher magnitude has to be Jeffrey Sachs, who was among the most diligent drivers behind the destruction of post-communist Russia; yet today acts as if he never was even there. A Saulus turned Paulus, except no atonement in any way

nonsense factory | Jul 16, 2017 4:16:30 PM | 30
Did a Google News search on Yascha Mounk.
First, his publicity is based on some fairly bogus research on "millenials abandoning democracy". The WaPo ran a decent article discrediting it, worth noting since the guy seems to have a taste for spinning data for political reasons:
. . .scary-chart-about-the-future-of-democracy-is-pretty-misleading/
Second, he calls for a "Cold War mentality", putting him in with the likes of Clinton & McCain & Bush-Cheney, Gary Kasparov, etc. It's pretty boilerplate neocon/neolib thinking, here's a taste:
It's time to return to a Cold War mentality
By Yascha Mounk, Slate Mar 2017
Two years ago, when Garry Kasparov, the chess champion turned political dissident, began to warn that Vladimir Putin sought to undermine liberal democracy!not only in neighboring countries, but all over the West!he was widely written off as a crank. After Russia managed to hack the servers of the Democratic National Committee and spread fake news on an industrial scale, his warnings were finally recognized as all too prescient. But it is only over the past weeks, as journalists around the world have broken dozens of stories about Russian meddling in the democratic process, that the sheer scale of this effort has become apparent.

The last time there was such a massive PR push inside the USA on a foreign policy issue was during the 2002-2003 runup to the Iraq invasion, based on an equally bogus story as the Russia bogeyman one, i.e. Iraqi WMDs.

The fact is, a multipolar world without "American exceptionalism" will be a better deal for the average American citizen, if not for the Washington circle of trough-feeders. This is a basic truth that the neoliberal empire-builders just can't handle. Of course, the big academic institutions are on board with endless military-industrial budgets, NATO expansion, regime change. Just as academic institutions in the old Soviet Union always went along with Central Committee PR lines.

On the other hand, on domestic policy? If you look into details, Clinton and Trump are not so different here - basically it's corporate rule, Trump and Clinton have similar numbers of Goldman Sachs people on their teams. Equally disastrous policies on the fundamentals like infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, etc. We'd be better off just giving our tax dollars to China to have them rebuild our infrastructure, it's that pitiful.

Maybe Trump should just spend the next four years abroad, running around with world leaders having a good time, ignoring all the neoliberal establishment pleas for regime changes and NATO wars, completely ignoring the domestic situation? The corrupt federal government in Washington can fight itself to death, and the states can run domestic policy instead?

[Jul 16, 2017] The West, led by Hillary's husband Bill, enabled and whitewashed Russia's 1996 fraud-riddled, stolen elections, which assured that the hugely unpopular Boris Yeltsin, the creator of Russia's oligarchy remained in power

Jul 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
  1. Moscow Exile says: March 3, 2017 at 10:24 pm NATO Commander Declares Russia Meddling in US Election Could Be 'Act of War'

    Well in that case, the USA declared war on Russia as long ago as 1996:

    See: HOW THE WEST HELPED INVENT RUSSIA'S ELECTION FRAUD: OSCE WHISTLEBLOWER EXPOSES 1996 WHITEWASH
    December 2, 2011

    the West, led by Hillary's husband Bill, enabled and whitewashed Russia's 1996 fraud-riddled, stolen elections, which assured that the hugely unpopular Boris Yeltsin, "the butcher of Chechnya" and the creator of Russia's oligarchy, would remain in power for another term–thanks to the Chechens overwhelmingly "voting" "for" Yeltsin by an overwhelming 73% vote (of 1 million votes even though there were only an estimated 500,000 voting-aged people living in Chechnya at the time of the 1996 presidential elections).

    Yeltsin's Western-backed victory allowed him to pick his own successor, Vladimir Putin, in 2000–and here we are today. Among the top whitewashers of 1996's stolen elections was none other than Michael McFaul, President Obama's nominee to become the new US Ambassador to Russia.

[Jul 16, 2017] Russia Threatens Expulsions, Says Too Many US Spies in Moscow by Jason Ditz

Notable quotes:
"... Expulsions Would Be Retaliation for Last Year's US Moves ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
Expulsions Would Be Retaliation for Last Year's US Moves

July 14, 2017 July 14, 2017

Russia's Foreign Ministry has issued a statement today warning that they believe there are too many US spies operating in Moscow under diplomatic cover, and that they may decide to expel some of those "diplomats" soon in retaliation for US moves late last year.

Those US moves included the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomatic personnel, including consulate cooks, and the seizure of a pair of vacation houses belonging to the Russian government as diplomatic compounds, which the US took as part of sanctions for "election hacking" allegations.

Russia was very public in deferring the retaliations until after President Trump took office, expecting the Trump Administration to return the seized facilities. That hasn't happened, however, and patience is wearing thing, with Russia's diplomatic corps wanting to do something in retaliation.

The Foreign Ministry statement held out hopes that the US could reverse its sanctions and resolve the whole situation, but warned that time is running out, and that they'll soon feel obliged to retaliate, expelling some US diplomats.

The spy allegations are almost certainly true, as large nations commonly use their diplomatic facilities as a way to get spies into the country as employees, which also gives them diplomatic immunity if caught. The US made the same charges of the Russians in their expulsion last year.

The big question is not if the US has spies in Russia working at the embassy, but rather how effectively Russia could identify them for the sake of this expulsion. If they expel the wrong people, it's tantamount to admitting they haven't identified the right ones, and such a revelation is a big part of why nations rarely make such expulsions.

[Jul 16, 2017] The legacy media and permanent ( deep ) state are struggling to savage Trump with absurd accusations, but our cage-fighter is keeping them at bay with his smart-phone

Jul 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

annamaria > , July 15, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

@RobinG Well said. The legacy media and permanent ("deep") state are struggling to savage Trump with absurd accusations, but our cage-fighter is keeping them at bay with his smart-phone.

Meanwhile, journalist (and that's in the best sense) Lee Stranahan is building a solid case on the DNC's crimes, including collusion with a foreign government. Please share this -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfNe5WsmKwU

The MUST SEE guide to DNC/Ukraine Collusion and Election Interference Agree.

Meanwhile, here is a sensational article re "great America:" "CIA Agent Confesses On Deathbed: 'We Blew Up WTC7 On 9/11″ http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/

[Jul 16, 2017] War on Russia Is Murdering Russians - LewRockwell

Notable quotes:
"... War with Russia is a call to murder Russian people. They don't deserve our hatred. ..."
"... Those of you who are preoccupied with the narrative that Russia hacked the election, please stop discounting the millions of us who had not voted for decades that came out to prevent Mrs. Clinton from rising to such a position of power. Then stop to consider that what you want the American Government to do, create an enemy of Russia, is to create an enemy of the Russian people. You want to kill the people who I have seen in these videos for really no better reason than you don't like how an election turned out. ..."
Jul 16, 2017 | www.lewrockwell.com
War on Russia Is Murdering Russians

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

July 14, 2017 Email Print Share

Writes Bob Strodtbeck:

Dear Lew,

Several months ago you had a video of a group of young Russian women singing a Russian folk song acapella (Youtube, Russian Girls Sing Lube) which left a lasting impression on me. For the last several days I have been exploring Russian folk music for the sake of getting an idea of what these people are like. My observations are below with a link to a video by a Russian folk music group.

The point is people who have their noses twisted out of joint over the defeat of a horribly corrupt presidential candidate would choose to see people such as those I have seen in the Russian folk music videos vaporized. We have become a hideous country.

War with Russia is a call to murder Russian people. They don't deserve our hatred.

This text is from my facebook posting which also has a link to the folk music video.

I have been taking time recently to find some information on the Russian people since the American political system seems so dedicated to make war against Russia.

I have been captivated by their folk music and the love they put into it. Much of it has been acapella and beautiful. In all of those presentations I got the sense that each singer considered the song more important than their individual talent, and the sound of the group the tribute to the song.

In watching tho se videos I came to the impression that the Russian people are happy, proud and strong. This impression speaks highly of their character, as it was within the lifetime of most Americans that the Russian system collapsed and those people had the duty to rebuild their economy, culture, and faith from the rubble left by Soviet Communism. It seems to me they have done it.

The main point here is a war with Russia is a war on these courageous, warm, and resilient people. I challenge anybody who is upset with what happened in the election last November to watch any of these videos and ask yourself if you have ever been as happy as the people that are in them. I don't believe any of them care who is President of the United States or probably that Vladimir Putin is the leader of their country. After all, Putin said that Russia spans 11 time zones an most Russians live life without worrying about the government.

Those of you who are preoccupied with the narrative that Russia hacked the election, please stop discounting the millions of us who had not voted for decades that came out to prevent Mrs. Clinton from rising to such a position of power. Then stop to consider that what you want the American Government to do, create an enemy of Russia, is to create an enemy of the Russian people. You want to kill the people who I have seen in these videos for really no better reason than you don't like how an election turned out.

You think about that.

[Jul 14, 2017] Trump's Tweets Are Not Harming National Security

Notable quotes:
"... Not so long ago my wife and I, in a heated moment, canceled our subscriptions to the Washington Post and the New York Times on the same day. We stopped short of burning recent copies of both publications on a bonfire in our front yard, but were elated at ending our connection to America's leading sources of government propaganda and outrageously fake news. We toasted our liberation with a nice glass of Oregon State pinot noir. ..."
"... We had become increasingly annoyed over the constant defamation of Donald Trump as candidate and president-elect even before he was inaugurated and had a chance to do anything wrong. ..."
"... But the real reason for our removal of America's self-styled papers of record was the horrible coverage of Russia in general and what was going on in Syria in particular. That both papers kept repeating how Moscow had interfered in the election and that Syria was using chemical weapons without providing any evidence in either case had proven to be our own red line in terms of what we would allow into our house. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Not so long ago my wife and I, in a heated moment, canceled our subscriptions to the Washington Post and the New York Times on the same day. We stopped short of burning recent copies of both publications on a bonfire in our front yard, but were elated at ending our connection to America's leading sources of government propaganda and outrageously fake news. We toasted our liberation with a nice glass of Oregon State pinot noir.

We had become increasingly annoyed over the constant defamation of Donald Trump as candidate and president-elect even before he was inaugurated and had a chance to do anything wrong.

But the real reason for our removal of America's self-styled papers of record was the horrible coverage of Russia in general and what was going on in Syria in particular. That both papers kept repeating how Moscow had interfered in the election and that Syria was using chemical weapons without providing any evidence in either case had proven to be our own red line in terms of what we would allow into our house.

Not having the papers readily available has meant that we have avoided a lot of sensational journalism explaining in some detail why the United States has both a right and an obligation to be interfering militarily in every corner of the world simultaneously, and we also missed some really crazy stuff. A Washington Post opinion piece that I completely missed when it first appeared on June 23, but which I have recently discovered, was entitled "This is what foreign spies see when they read President Trump's tweets."

As presumably few Americans can appreciate that Donald Trump's tweets are actually classified documents and I was once upon a time a spy, I found the title intriguing, so I put on my tin hat and dove in. First of all, I took note of the author. She is Nada Bakos, self-described as a former "CIA analyst and targeting officer." I didn't know what a targeting officer was, but the article went on to explain it.

[Jul 14, 2017] Americas War for Global Domination by Michel Chossudovsky

While published almost 15 years ago, this artile still looks as if written yesterday. Presidents change but foreign policy does not.
Notable quotes:
"... US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people. ..."
"... The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices. ..."
"... The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea. ..."
"... The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement. ..."
"... Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era. ..."
"... The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil. ..."
"... In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses. ..."
"... The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003) ..."
"... The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994: ..."
"... We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." ..."
"... " it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." ..."
"... The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ). ..."
"... In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy. ..."
"... In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics ..."
"... Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign. ..."
"... The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists" ..."
"... In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001) ..."
"... The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. ..."
"... both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. ..."
"... The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.) ..."
"... Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office. ..."
"... The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals. ..."
"... In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress. ..."
"... Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State." ..."
"... More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order. ..."
Dec 15, 2003 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Originally published by Global Research (12/15/03)

We are the juncture of the most serious crisis in modern history.

The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure which threatens the future of humanity.

The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars on Yugoslavia (1991-2001).

The post Cold War period has also been marked by numerous US covert intelligence operations within the former Soviet Union, which were instrumental in triggering civil wars in several of the former republics including Chechnya (within the Russian Federation), Georgia and Azerbaijan. In the latter, these covert operations were launched with a view to securing strategic control over oil and gas pipeline corridors.

US military and intelligence operations in the post Cold War era were led in close coordination with the "free market reforms" imposed under IMF guidance in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and the Balkans, which resulted in the destabilization of national economies and the impoverishment of millions of people.

The World Bank sponsored privatization programmes in these countries enabled Western capital to acquire ownership and gain control of a large share of the economy of the former Eastern block countries. This process is also at the basis of the strategic mergers and/or takeovers of the former Soviet oil and gas industry by powerful Western conglomerates, through financial manipulation and corrupt political practices.

In other words, what is at stake in the US led war is the recolonization of a vast region extending from the Balkans into Central Asia.

The deployment of America's war machine purports to enlarge America's economic sphere of influence. The U.S. has established a permanent military presence not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, it has military bases in several of the former Soviet republics on China's Western frontier. In turn, since 1999, there has been a military buildup in the South China Sea.

War and Globalization go hand in hand. Militarization supports the conquest of new economic frontiers and the worldwide imposition of "free market" system.

The Next Phase of the War

The Bush administration has already identified Syria as the next stage of "the road map to war". The bombing of presumed 'terrorist bases' in Syria by the Israeli Air Force in October was intended to provide a justification for subsequent pre-emptive military interventions. Ariel Sharon launched the attacks with the approval of Donald Rumsfeld. (See Gordon Thomas, Global Outlook, No. 6, Winter 2004)

This planned extension of the war into Syria has serious implications. It means that Israel becomes a major military actor in the US-led war, as well as an 'official' member of the Anglo-American coalition.

The Pentagon views 'territorial control' over Syria, which constitutes a land bridge between Israel and occupied Iraq, as 'strategic' from a military and economic standpoint. It also constitutes a means of controlling the Iraqi border and curbing the flow of volunteer fighters, who are traveling to Baghdad to join the Iraqi resistance movement.

This enlargement of the theater of war is consistent with Ariel Sharon's plan to build a 'Greater Israel' "on the ruins of Palestinian nationalism". While Israel seeks to extend its territorial domain towards the Euphrates River, with designated areas of Jewish settlement in the Syrian heartland, Palestinians are imprisoned in Gaza and the West Bank behind an 'Apartheid Wall'.

In the meantime, the US Congress has tightened the economic sanctions on Libya and Iran. As well, Washington is hinting at the need for a 'regime change' in Saudi Arabia. Political pressures are building up in Turkey.

So, the war could indeed spill over into a much broader region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Indian sub-continent and China's Western frontier.

The "Pre-emptive" Use of Nuclear Weapons

Washington has adopted a first strike "pre-emptive" nuclear policy, which has now received congressional approval. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort as during the cold War era.

The US, Britain and Israel have a coordinated nuclear weapons policy. Israeli nuclear warheads are pointed at major cities in the Middle East. The governments of all three countries have stated quite openly, prior to the war on Iraq, that they are prepared to use nuclear weapons "if they are attacked" with so-called "weapons of mass destruction." Israel is the fifth nuclear power in the World. Its nuclear arsenal is more advanced than that of Britain.

Barely a few weeks following the entry of the US Marines into Baghdad, the US Senate Armed Services Committee gave the green light to the Pentagon to develop a new tactical nuclear bomb, to be used in conventional war theaters, "with a yield [of up to] six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb".

Following the Senate decision, the Pentagon redefined the details of its nuclear agenda in a secret meeting with senior executives from the nuclear industry and the military industrial complex held at Central Command Headquarters at the Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. The meeting was held on August 6, the day the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, 58 years ago.

The new nuclear policy explicitly involves the large defense contractors in decision-making. It is tantamount to the "privatization" of nuclear war. Corporations not only reap multibillion dollar profits from the production of nuclear bombs, they also have a direct voice in setting the agenda regarding the use and deployment of nuclear weapons.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has unleashed a major propaganda and public relations campaign with a view to upholding the use nuclear weapons for the "defense of the American Homeland."

Fully endorsed by the US Congress, the mini-nukes are considered to be "safe for civilians".

This new generation of nuclear weapons is slated to be used in the next phase of this war, in "conventional war theatres" (e.g. in the Middle East and Central Asia) alongside conventional weapons. In December 2003, the US Congress allocated $6.3 billion solely for 2004, to develop this new generation of "defensive" nuclear weapons.

The overall annual defense budget is of the order of 400 billion dollars, roughly of the same order of magnitude as the entire Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the Russian Federation.

While there is no firm evidence of the use of mini-nukes in the Iraqi and Afghan war theatres, tests conducted by Canada's Uranium Medical Research Center (UMRC), in Afghanistan confirm that recorded toxic radiation was not attributable to 'heavy metal' depleted uranium ammunition (DU), but to another unidentified form of uranium contamination:

"some form of uranium weapon had been used (...) The results were astounding: the donors presented concentrations of toxic and radioactive uranium isotopes between 100 and 400 times greater than in the Gulf War veterans tested in 1999." www.umrc.net

The Planning of War

The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil.

In September 2000, a few months before the accession of George W. Bush to the White House, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) published its blueprint for global domination under the title: "Rebuilding America's Defenses."

The PNAC is a neo-conservative think tank linked to the Defense-Intelligence establishment, the Republican Party and the powerful Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) which plays a behind-the-scenes role in the formulation of US foreign policy.

The PNAC's declared objective is quite simple - to:

"Fight and decisively win in multiple, simultaneous theater wars".

This statement indicates that the US plans to be involved simultaneously in several war theaters in different regions of the World.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had commissioned the PNAC blueprint prior to the presidential elections.

The PNAC outlines a roadmap of conquest. It calls for "the direct imposition of U.S. "forward bases" throughout Central Asia and the Middle East "with a view to ensuring economic domination of the world, while strangling any potential "rival" or any viable alternative to America's vision of a 'free market' economy" (See Chris Floyd, Bush's Crusade for empire, Global Outlook, No. 6, 2003)

The Role of "Massive Casualty Producing Events"

The PNAC blueprint also outlines a consistent framework of war propaganda. One year before 9/11, the PNAC called for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," which would serve to galvanize US public opinion in support of a war agenda. (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html )

The PNAC architects seem to have anticipated with cynical accuracy, the use of the September 11 attacks as "a war pretext incident."

The PNAC's reference to a "catastrophic and catalyzing event" echoes a similar statement by David Rockefeller to the United Nations Business Council in 1994:

"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

Similarly, in the words Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:.

" it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus [in America] on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter was one of the key architects of the Al Qaeda network, created by the CIA at the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war (1979-1989).

The "catastrophic and catalyzing event" as stated by the PNAC is an integral part of US military-intelligence planning. General Franks, who led the military campaign into Iraq, pointed recently (October 2003) to the role of a "massive casualty-producing event" to muster support for the imposition of military rule in America. (See General Tommy Franks calls for Repeal of US Constitution, November 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/EDW311A.html ).

Franks identifies the precise scenario whereby military rule will be established:

"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (Ibid)

This statement from an individual, who was actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels, suggests that the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and "Homeland Defense." Needless to say, it is also an integral part of the neoliberal agenda.

The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil are intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.

General Franks' statement reflects a consensus within the US Military as to how events ought to unfold. The "war on terrorism" is to provide a justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties."

Franks' interview suggests that an Al Qaeda sponsored terrorist attack will be used as a "trigger mechanism" for a military coup d'état in America. The PNAC's "Pearl Harbor type event" would be used as a justification for declaring a State of emergency, leading to the establishment of a military government.

In many regards, the militarisation of civilian State institutions in the US is already functional under the facade of a bogus democracy.

War Propaganda

In the wake of the September attacks on the World Trade Center, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics:

"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the world. (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.)

And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests." (Air Force Magazine, January 2003, italics added) "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing." (Adubato, op. cit. italics added) Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon's Orwellian disinformation campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."(Ibid)

Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in name, the "Office's intended functions are being carried out". (Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html , Rumsfeld's press interview can be consulted at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).

A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the Pentagon-remain actively involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". The derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties.

The Central Role of Al Qaeda in Bush's National Security Doctrine

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon's propaganda campaign.

The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":

"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction ( )

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, ( ). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

To justify pre-emptive military actions, the National Security Doctrine requires the "fabrication" of a terrorist threat, --ie. "an outside enemy." It also needs to link these terrorist threats to "State sponsorship" by the so-called "rogue states."

But it also means that the various "massive casualty-producing events" allegedly by Al Qaeda (the fabricated enemy) are part of the National Security agenda.

In the months building up to the invasion of Iraq, covert 'dirty tricks' operations were launched to produce misleading intelligence pertaining to both Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Al Qaeda, which was then fed into the news chain.

In the wake of the war, while the WMD threat has been toned down, Al Qaeda threats to 'the Homeland' continue to be repeated ad nauseam in official statements, commented on network TV and pasted on a daily basis across the news tabloids.

And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" terrorist occurrences are being upheld as a justification for the next phase of this war. The latter hinges in a very direct way:

1) the effectiveness of the Pentagon-CIA propaganda campaign, which is fed into the news chain.

2) The actual occurrence of "massive casualty producing events" as outlined in the PNAC

What this means is that actual ("massive casualty producing") terrorist events are part and parcel of military planning.

Actual Terrorist Attacks

In other words, to be "effective" the fear and disinformation campaign cannot solely rely on unsubstantiated "warnings" of future attacks, it also requires "real" terrorist occurrences or "incidents", which provide credibility to the Washington's war plans. These terrorist events are used to justify the implementation of "emergency measures" as well as "retaliatory military actions". They are required, in the present context, to create the illusion of "an outside enemy" that is threatening the American Homeland.

The triggering of "war pretext incidents" is part of the Pentagon's assumptions. In fact it is an integral part of US military history.(See Richard Sanders, War Pretext Incidents, How to Start a War, Global Outlook, published in two parts, Issues 2 and 3, 2002-2003).

In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan entitled "Operation Northwoods", to deliberately trigger civilian casualties to justify the invasion of Cuba:

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." (See the declassified Top Secret 1962 document titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba"16 (See Operation Northwoods at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NOR111A.html ).

There is no evidence that the Pentagon or the CIA played a direct role in recent terrorist attacks, including those in Indonesia (2002), India (2001), Turkey (2003) and Saudi Arabia (2003).

According to the reports, the attacks were undertaken by organizations (or cells of these organizations), which operate quite independently, with a certain degree of autonomy. This independence is in the very nature of a covert intelligence operation. The "intelligence asset" is not in direct contact with its covert sponsors. It is not necessarily cognizant of the role it plays on behalf of its intelligence sponsors.

The fundamental question is who is behind them? Through what sources are they being financed? What is the underlying network of ties?

For instance, in the case of the 2002 Bali bomb attack, the alleged terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiah had links to Indonesia's military intelligence (BIN), which in turn has links to the CIA and Australian intelligence.

The December 2001 terrorist attacks on the Indian Parliament --which contributed to pushing India and Pakistan to the brink of war-- were allegedly conducted by two Pakistan-based rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba ("Army of the Pure") and Jaish-e-Muhammad ("Army of Mohammed"), both of which according to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) are supported by Pakistan's ISI. (Council on Foreign Relations at http://www.terrorismanswers.com/groups/harakat2.html , Washington 2002).

What the CFR fails to acknowledge is the crucial relationship between the ISI and the CIA and the fact that the ISI continues to support Lashkar, Jaish and the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM), while also collaborating with the CIA (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Fabricating an Enemy, March 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301B.html )

A 2002 classified outbrief drafted to guide the Pentagon "calls for the creation of a so-called 'Proactive, Pre-emptive Operations Group' (P2OG), to launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to 'quick-response' attacks by U.S. forces." (William Arkin, The Secret War, The Los Angeles Times, 27 October 2002)

The P2OG initiative is nothing new. It essentially extends an existing apparatus of covert operations. Amply documented, the CIA has supported terrorist groups since the Cold War era. This "prodding of terrorist cells" under covert intelligence operations often requires the infiltration and training of the radical groups linked to Al Qaeda.

In this regard, covert support by the US military and intelligence apparatus has been channeled to various Islamic terrorist organizations through a complex network of intermediaries and intelligence proxies. In the course of the 1990s, agencies of the US government have collaborated with Al Qaeda in a number of covert operations, as confirmed by a 1997 report of the Republican Party Committee of the US Congress. (See US Congress, 16 January 1997, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html ). In fact during the war in Bosnia US weapons inspectors were working with Al Qaeda operatives, bringing in large amounts of weapons for the Bosnian Muslim Army.

In other words, the Clinton Administration was "harboring terrorists". Moreover, official statements and intelligence reports confirm links between US military-intelligence units and Al Qaeda operatives, as occurred in Bosnia (mid 1990s), Kosovo (1998-99) and Macedonia (2001).(See See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalisation, The Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, 2003, Chapter 3, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

The Bush Administration and NATO had links to Al Qaeda in Macedonia. And this happened barely a few weeks before September 11, 2001, Senior U.S. military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon, were fighting alongside Mujahideen in the terrorist attacks on the Macedonian Security forces. This is documented by the Macedonian press and statements made by the Macedonian authorities. (See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit). The U.S. government and the Islamic Militant Network were working hand in glove in supporting and financing the National Liberation Army (NLA), which was involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia.

In other words, the US military was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11.

Al Qaeda and Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI)

It is indeed revealing that in virtually all post 9/11 terrorist occurrences, the terrorist organization is reported (by the media and in official statements) as having "ties to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda". This in itself is a crucial piece of information. Of course, the fact that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA is neither mentioned in the press reports nor is it considered relevant to an understanding of these terrorist occurrences.

The ties of these terrorist organizations (particularly those in Asia) to Pakistan's military intelligence (ISI) is acknowledged in a few cases by official sources and press dispatches. Confirmed by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), some of these groups are said to have links to Pakistan's ISI, without identifying the nature of these links. Needless to say, this information is crucial in identifying the sponsors of these terrorist attacks. In other words, the ISI is said to support these terrorist organizations, while at same time maintaining close ties to the CIA

September 11

While Colin Powell --without supporting evidence-pointed in his February 2003 UN address to "the sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network", official documents, press and intelligence reports confirm that successive US administrations have supported and abetted the Islamic militant network. This relationship is an established fact, corroborated by numerous studies, acknowledged by Washington's mainstream think tanks.

Both Colin Powell and his Deputy Richard Armitage, who in the months leading up to the war casually accused Baghdad and other foreign governments of "harboring" Al Qaeda, played a direct role, at different points in their careers, in supporting terrorist organizations.

Both men were implicated --operating behind the scenes-- in the Irangate Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran to finance the Nicaraguan Contra paramilitary army and the Afghan Mujahideen. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda and the Bush Administration, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html )

Moreover, both Richard Armitage and Colin Powell played a role in the 9/11 cover-up. The investigations and research conducted in the last two years, including official documents, testimonies and intelligence reports, indicate that September 11 was an carefully planned intelligence operation, rather than a act conducted by a terrorist organization. (For further details, see Centre for Research on Globalization, 24 Key articles, September 2003)

The FBI confirmed in a report made public late September 2001 the role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence. According to the report, the alleged 9-11 ring leader, Mohammed Atta, had been financed from sources out of Pakistan. A subsequent intelligence report confirmed that the then head of the ISI General Mahmoud Ahmad had transferred money to Mohammed Atta. (See Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization, op.cit.)

Moreover, press reports and official statements confirm that the head of the ISI, was an official visit to the US from the 4th to 13th of September 2001. In other words, the head of Pakistan's ISI, who allegedly transferred money to the terrorists also had a close personal relationship with a number of senior Bush Administration officials, including Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, whom he met in the course of his visit to Washington. (Ibid)

The Antiwar Movement

A cohesive antiwar movement cannot be based solely on the mobilization of antiwar sentiment. It must ultimately unseat the war criminals and question their right to rule.

A necessary condition for bringing down the rulers is to weaken and eventually dismantle their propaganda campaign.

The momentum of the large anti-war rallies in the US, the European Union and around the world, should lay the foundations of a permanent network composed of tens of thousands of local level anti-war committees in neighborhoods, work places, parishes, schools, universities, etc. It is ultimately through this network that the legitimacy of those who "rule in our name" will be challenged.

To shunt the Bush Administration's war plans and disable its propaganda machine, we must reach out to our fellow citizens across the land, in the US, Europe and around the world, to the millions of ordinary people who have been misled on the causes and consequences of this war.

This also implies fully uncovering the lies behind the "war on terrorism" and revealing the political complicity of the Bush administration in the events of 9/11.

September 11 is a hoax. It's the biggest lie in US history.

Needless to say, the use of "massive casualty producing events" as pretext to wage war is a criminal act. In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Technology and author of The CIA and September 11:

"If what I say is right, the whole US government should end up behind bars."

Yet it is not sufficient to remove George W. Bush or Tony Blair, who are mere puppets. We must also address the role of the global banks, corporations and financial institutions, which indelibly stand behind the military and political actors.

Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the State Department, the White House and the US Congress) is calling the shots on US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the Texas oil giants, the defense contractors, Wall Street and the powerful media giants, operating discreetly behind the scenes, are pulling the strings. If politicians become a source of major embarrassment, they can themselves be discredited by the media, discarded and a new team of political puppets can be brought to office.

Criminalization of the State

The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are criminals.

In the US, both Republicans and Democrats share the same war agenda and there are war criminals in both parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11 cover-up and the resultant quest for world domination. All the evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalisation of the State", which includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan corridors of the US Congress.

Under the war agenda, high ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the military, the US Congress and the Judiciary have been granted the authority not only to commit criminal acts, but also to designate those in the antiwar movement who are opposed to these criminal acts as "enemies of the State."

More generally, the US military and security apparatus endorses and supports dominant economic and financial interests - i.e. the build-up, as well as the exercise, of military might enforces "free trade". The Pentagon is an arm of Wall Street; NATO coordinates its military operations with the World Bank and the IMF's policy interventions, and vice versa. Consistently, the security and defense bodies of the Western military alliance, together with the various civilian governmental and intergovernmental bureaucracies (e.g. IMF, World Bank, WTO) share a common understanding, ideological consensus and commitment to the New World Order.

To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems like WMDs) must be stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled. More generally we must reverse the "free market" reforms, dismantle the institutions of global capitalism and disarm financial markets.

The struggle must be broad-based and democratic encompassing all sectors of society at all levels, in all countries, uniting in a major thrust: workers, farmers, independent producers, small businesses, professionals, artists, civil servants, members of the clergy, students and intellectuals.

The antiwar and anti-globalisation movements must be integrated into a single worldwide movement. People must be united across sectors, "single issue" groups must join hands in a common and collective understanding on how the New World Order destroys and impoverishes.

The globalization of this struggle is fundamental, requiring a degree of solidarity and internationalism unprecedented in world history. This global economic system feeds on social divisiveness between and within countries. Unity of purpose and worldwide coordination among diverse groups and social movements is crucial. A major thrust is required which brings together social movements in all major regions of the world in a common pursuit and commitment to the elimination of poverty and a lasting world peace.

Copyright Michel Chossudovsky 2003

[Jul 14, 2017] Is Killing Leaders Useful Or Not - U.S. Centcom Can't Decide

Notable quotes:
"... Jenan Moussa interviews captured ISIS from Raqqa being held by Kurds; summarizes in series of tweets . Tunisian ISIS prisoner tells her Muslim Brotherhood encouraged Tunisians to jihad in Syria. Hey, I thought MB was just a peaceful Islamic political movement? Jenan wrote the story earlier this year about how Nusra was really in charge of Idlib, not FSA or other moderate head-chopper variants. She writes for Al AAn - full interview article here (in Arabic) ..."
"... "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." - Sun Tzu ..."
"... How is the ownership/leadership of a proxy army determined? Their rise was facilitated and funded by US allies under the watchful and approving eye of the US. My guess is the buck stops at the white house and their leadership could have been found there. ..."
"... Killing ISIS leaders? Do you mean like the Saudi, Qatari and Emirati royalty? I don't know... it seems like it would be a pretty effective. I would be willing to let CENTCOM give it a shot. Say, the top six or so layers of the ruling families and/or wealthiest/most powerful in each of those countries. I would be willing to accept significant civilian collateral damage as long as it was restricted to other assorted royals, oligarchs and their banks. Please try to avoid the 'little people', most of whom will be out in the streets celebrating the strikes. ..."
"... Assassination (extrajudicial murder) is contrary to longstanding international law and norms. It was the Israelis who deliberately pushed the envelope on this, followed by the U.S. with its overt drone program. ..."
"... Forty years ago, officially sanctioned assassination programs, revealed by Senate investigators, was considered shocking headline grabbing scandals in the U.S. Times have obviously changed, not for the better. Nowadays talk of death and killing is common in the lexicon of so-called "leaders". ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

... ... ...

Then the Micah Zenko tweet with this interview with the commander of U.S. Central Command, General Votel. Votel is the direct superior of the above Nicholson:

Q: ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi -- dead or alive? And does it matter anymore?

Votel: [..] I hope that he is (dead), frankly. [..] That said, we've been doing this long enough to know that leaders are killed and we've killed plenty of them. And that there's always somebody who is going to step up into those positions so we shouldn't think that just killing Baghdadi is the key here. He can be replaced. So in that regard, it may not matter as much. [bold added]

Nicholson says he can win the war against XYZ by killing a bunch of successive XYZ "leaders". Votel rightly says that this is clearly not so. During sixteen years of War of Terror and constant killing of various "emirs" special boilerplate statements were prepared for the typical "victory" announcements. Votel seems to have understood that such killings do not matter. His direct subordinate Nicholson did not. Shouldn't they talk to each other about such issues?

But it may well be that Votel would have sounded very different if his troops had killed Baghdadi and not a Russian(!) air strike .

Lea | Jul 14, 2017 5:17:48 PM | 1

James Mattis cannot get over it. He. Just. Cannot. His statement reads like he was on the verge of tears.

http://www.firstpost.com/world/james-mattis-cannot-confirm-whether-islamic-state-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-is-dead-3814389.html

frances | Jul 14, 2017 5:27:49 PM | 2
Must be tough to lose a guy so much was invested in, yes?
james | Jul 14, 2017 5:54:08 PM | 3
kill, or murder a leader ( not to mention numerous possible innocent people) and they get replaced with another... what part of this does the drone program, dipshits and etc in the usa not get??
JSonofa | Jul 14, 2017 6:06:43 PM | 4
Just wondering if they asked JFK first.
ben | Jul 14, 2017 7:08:14 PM | 8
b asked: "Is Killing "Leaders" Useful Or Not?" No, but, some of the ones behind the scenes, maybe.
ben | Jul 14, 2017 7:31:07 PM | 9
P.S.- "Terrorists don't all wear hijabs, many wear Brooks Bros. suits.
PavewayIV | Jul 14, 2017 6:07:19 PM | 5
Jenan Moussa interviews captured ISIS from Raqqa being held by Kurds; summarizes in series of tweets . Tunisian ISIS prisoner tells her Muslim Brotherhood encouraged Tunisians to jihad in Syria. Hey, I thought MB was just a peaceful Islamic political movement? Jenan wrote the story earlier this year about how Nusra was really in charge of Idlib, not FSA or other moderate head-chopper variants. She writes for Al AAn - full interview article here (in Arabic)
Anonymous | Jul 14, 2017 6:11:59 PM | 6
james @14

It is part of the charade in which the US claims to be attacking ISIS whilst actually supporting it.

nonsense factory | Jul 14, 2017 6:56:01 PM | 7
Killing "terrorist leaders" is only good for one thing - domestic political ratings. The politicians get to say they're winning the war on terror, you get some good PR, that's about it. It's the same as with arresting drug cartel leaders - it has zero effect on the availability of cheap cocaine in Phoenix, Arizona.

The external factors, that's what needs to be addressed. As with, for example, the drug trade in Mexico, laundering their money into Mexican banks and from there off to London and New York for a real clean-up (and a hefty percentage to Wall Street). The terrorist analogue is that many of these groups were set up and financed and armed as proxy forces for regime change; so as long as the guns & money keeps being delivered, nothing really changes. And with the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the only justification for continued bloated MIC budgets in the USA is terrorism - so they've got to keep it going. Killing the useful idiots every now and then, that's part of the game too.

michaelj72 | Jul 14, 2017 7:43:25 PM | 10
it's like with the drug cartel leaders and their subordinates and their sub-subordinates here in Mexico.....you kill one and another takes their place and so on....

But meanwhile back at the ranch, there's more violence in the area/plaza and the country as a whole because all the subordinates and of course the other cartels and their leaders and subordinates fight over the plaza/area/routes etc etc... a never ending cycle of violence.

I can't see how the strategies in either case are that much different, as you are essentially not dealing with the root causes of the appeal of ISIS nor with the causes of the drug violence which is of course dependent on addictions and governments preferring violence and force over talk/rehab/negotiations and in the case of the drugs, decriminalization/legalization.

The US can never 'win' in Afghanistan for the simple reason that it is an occupying/imperial power.

"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." - Sun Tzu

Peter AU | Jul 14, 2017 7:46:18 PM | 11
"Is Killing "Leaders" Useful Or Not"

How is the ownership/leadership of a proxy army determined? Their rise was facilitated and funded by US allies under the watchful and approving eye of the US. My guess is the buck stops at the white house and their leadership could have been found there.

PavewayIV | Jul 14, 2017 8:18:35 PM | 12
Killing ISIS leaders? Do you mean like the Saudi, Qatari and Emirati royalty? I don't know... it seems like it would be a pretty effective. I would be willing to let CENTCOM give it a shot. Say, the top six or so layers of the ruling families and/or wealthiest/most powerful in each of those countries. I would be willing to accept significant civilian collateral damage as long as it was restricted to other assorted royals, oligarchs and their banks. Please try to avoid the 'little people', most of whom will be out in the streets celebrating the strikes.

When do we let the Tomahawks fly, Mad Dog? Tell the corpse-like Votel that it's time to smoke a few top head-choppers! Riyadh, Doha, Dhubai... take your pick. Better yet, why don't we just fund a Shia insurgency in each of those countries for a little ol' fashioned regime-changin'?

jayc | Jul 14, 2017 9:04:28 PM | 15
Assassination (extrajudicial murder) is contrary to longstanding international law and norms. It was the Israelis who deliberately pushed the envelope on this, followed by the U.S. with its overt drone program.

Forty years ago, officially sanctioned assassination programs, revealed by Senate investigators, was considered shocking headline grabbing scandals in the U.S. Times have obviously changed, not for the better. Nowadays talk of death and killing is common in the lexicon of so-called "leaders".

ProPeace | Jul 14, 2017 9:25:52 PM | 16
Speaking of killing: Want To Shoot A Palestinian? Israel offers tourists the chance to be soldiers

[Jul 14, 2017] The US dilemma over Syria is that, if they stop financing the proxy forces, then Syria will establish economic cooperation with Iran. There's no doubt at all that it was the expansion of Syria-Iran economic cooperation that motivated the Syrian regime change games of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration (Israel and Saudi Arabia, too)

Notable quotes:
"... The Qatar-Saudi split has been brewing for a long time, and, despite the BS in the American media, it has nothing at all to do with who was financing ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria. ..."
"... So looking at all this, I'm guessing that the Borg State's last great hope is an American-Kurdistan client state, a big wedge in eastern Syria, northern Iraq that might just be able to block the revival of Iran-Syria economic ties - but, obviously, that would work a whole lot better if they could connect it to Jordan/Saudi Arabia, isolating Syria from Iran. This seems like a failed effort, entirely. ..."
"... From the Syrian people's viewpoint, economic cooperation with Iran and China looks like a very good deal indeed, far better than any deal the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia could offer them. The same could very well be true for Qatar, which would put some more nails in the PNAC coffin. ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
nonsense factory | Jul 13, 2017 4:46:25 PM | 11

The American Borg State dilemma over Syria is that, if they stop financing the proxy forces, then Syria will clearly re-establish economic cooperation with Iran. There's no doubt at all that it was the expansion of Syria-Iran economic cooperation that motivated the Syrian regime change games of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration (Israel and Saudi Arabia, too) - it's all detailed in the Cablegate Wikileaks releases. From 2008-2010, there's endless obsession from Washington about how to "wean Syria from Iran" and bring it into the Saudi-Isreali axis. For example, UK Telegraph 2012:

...Iran-and-Syria-lay-ambitious-plans-for-road-rail-air-and-electricity-links.html

That was the reason behind the rabid regime change effort Clinton pushed for.

Not only that, there's the other major external economic actor, China, reaching out to Iran and Syria:

http://www.trtworld.com/asia/china-russia-led-security-bloc...

The American Borg State dilemma over Syria is that, if they stop financing the proxy forces, then Syria will clearly re-establish economic cooperation with Iran. There's no doubt at all that it was the expansion of Syria-Iran economic cooperation that motivated the Syrian regime change games of Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration (Israel and Saudi Arabia, too) - it's all detailed in the Cablegate Wikileaks releases. From 2008-2010, there's endless obsession from Washington about how to "wean Syria from Iran" and bring it into the Saudi-Isreali axis. For example, UK Telegraph 2012:

...Iran-and-Syria-lay-ambitious-plans-for-road-rail-air-and-electricity-links.html

That was the reason behind the rabid regime change effort Clinton pushed for.

Not only that, there's the other major external economic actor, China, reaching out to Iran and Syria:

http://www.trtworld.com/asia/china-russia-led-security-bloc...

To top it off, there's the Qatar-Iran-Turkey pipeline issue - i.e., Qatar could sign a deal to export its gas to Europe via Iran and Turkey. Again, this is a Wikileaks Cablegate topic. Here's something from March 2009, Hillary Clinton meeting with her Bahraini friends (who dumped $32 million into the Clinton Foundation, if we want to talk about collusion with foreign entities. . .)

The meeting also included a discussion of Iran, military cooperation, and regional politics, including Qatar and the GCC plus 3 plus P5 plus 1 mechanism. Additionally, the Foreign Minister raised the Qatar-Iran-Turkey oil pipeline . . .
The Qatar-Saudi split has been brewing for a long time, and, despite the BS in the American media, it has nothing at all to do with who was financing ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria.

So looking at all this, I'm guessing that the Borg State's last great hope is an American-Kurdistan client state, a big wedge in eastern Syria, northern Iraq that might just be able to block the revival of Iran-Syria economic ties - but, obviously, that would work a whole lot better if they could connect it to Jordan/Saudi Arabia, isolating Syria from Iran. This seems like a failed effort, entirely.

From the Syrian people's viewpoint, economic cooperation with Iran and China looks like a very good deal indeed, far better than any deal the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia could offer them. The same could very well be true for Qatar, which would put some more nails in the PNAC coffin. div

Anonymous | Jul 13, 2017 5:14:03 PM | 14
One common current aim is the defeat of ISIS."

Not really. The US military strategy is to keep ISIS going as long as possible, to justify US military presense in east Syria and to allow The Kurds (TM) (Pat Pend) to acquire more turf. The US is bombing al Hasakah in east Syria whilst ISIS shells it. This largely Arab city will be ethnically cleansed courtesy of a combination of US bombing, ISIS shelling and Kurdish occupation. It is also about midway along the riverway between Deir ez Zor and al Qamishli, another SAA enclave.

[Jul 14, 2017] House Dems plan to force Russia votes

Jul 14, 2017 | www.msn.com
House Democrats announced a new strategy on Friday to force votes in an effort to highlight President Trump's possible ties to Russia.

Democrats plan to offer measures known as resolutions of inquiry that automatically trigger floor votes if they don't get action in committee within 14 legislative days.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and several other Democratic lawmakers scheduled a press conference in the Capitol to announce the plans on Friday morning.

The announcement included members of the House Financial Services, Ways and Means, Transportation and Infrastructure, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees.

Democrats are seizing on the few tools at their disposal given their limited ability to direct congressional oversight while in the minority.

Republicans are likely to consider the resolutions in committee to avoid forcing the entire House to vote on them.

Still, the votes are meant to put a spotlight on Trump as well as House Republicans, who Democrats say aren't being aggressive enough with oversight of the administration.

For instance, one resolution unveiled as part of the strategy would request documents or records from Trump relating to his abrupt firing of James Comey as FBI director in May and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' involvement in the decision.

The resolution, offered by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), will go to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.

The Judiciary panel already rejected multiple previous resolutions of inquiry earlier this year that demanded documents from the Justice Department connecting the Trump campaign with the Russian government's 2016 election interference.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) also offered a resolution of inquiry in the House Ways and Means Committee to request President Trump's tax returns from the last decade.

The party-line votes in committee to dismiss the resolutions prevented any House floor vote.

But Democrats are determined to force more votes - even if they don't go anywhere - to pressure Republicans after revelations this week involving President Trump's son.

Donald Trump Jr. released emails on Tuesday showing how he set up a meeting last year with a Russian lawyer claiming to have damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

A publicist with ties to a Trump family business partner who served as an intermediary said that it was "obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump."

[Jul 14, 2017] Ignore the Haters. Russia Is Not Our Enemy

Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | reason.com
The intelligence and military leakers and Trump's political enemies believe friendly relations with Vladimir Putin's government are dangerous. But since Russia can annihilate our country, the greater danger is not engaging with Putin.

The anti-Russia hyperventilation covers the political spectrum. Republican Sen. John McCain told an interviewer that Putin is a greater threat than ISIS, accusing Russia of trying to change election results in America, France and elsewhere. But Putin's regime is not decapitating or urging lone wolves to massacre Americans on US soil. And as for Russian manipulation, the pro-Russian candidate Marine LePen was crushed in the May presidential election in France.

Democrat Hillary Clinton accused the Trump campaign of conspiring with Russia to "weaponize" leaked information against her with the WikiLeaks' dump of John Podesta email messages. Clinton's collusion assertion is based on her questionable assumption that WikiLeaks is an agent of Russia. Since WikiLeaks operates out of an embassy in London, one might expect our British allies to have leaked Putin's instructions to Julian Assange by now.

McCain, Clinton and others are amplifying the US intelligence community's public indictment of Russia for election meddling during the closing days of the Obama administration. That report also claims that Russian agents hacked Podesta's email and released them through WikiLeaks, but does not provide hard evidence.

Intelligence community assertions should be treated with skepticism. After all, this community concluded in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. Further, a senior member of the intelligence community, James Clapper, lied to Congress in 2013 when he denied that the NSA collects data on Americans.

Even assuming the allegations are true, they do not lead to the immediate conclusion that Russia is an enemy. Friendly countries spy on one another and try to influence each other's elections all the time. President Obama called on British voters to reject Brexit, and the NSA appears to have bugged German Prime Minister Angela Merkel's mobile phone.

Israel spies on the US and tries to influence our elections. Jonathan Pollard's espionage "has few parallels" according to the CIA , which concluded he had "put at risk important U.S. intelligence and foreign policy interests." In 2012, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to scuttle President Obama's re-election effort.

Most of the intelligence community memo focuses on the activities of RT, a Russian media group that operates a cable news channel, a web site and social media properties in the US. RT is accused of spreading propaganda and fake news that impacted our election. But such media are neither new nor unique to Russia.

Our Voice of America, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and other state media have been around for decades. Among the personalities on RT America are Larry King, Jesse Ventura, and former Air America hosts Thom Hartmann and Ed Schultz – none of whom appear to be stooges for Vladimir Putin. Further, as Simon van Zuylen-Wood noted in his excellent overview of RT , the network "is watched by so few people that Nielsen doesn't bother to publish its ratings."

To be sure, Putin has some very undemocratic inclinations. But the US has maintained and continues to maintain friendly relations with despotic nations. President Richard Nixon visited China in 1971, not long after Mao Zedong killed tens of millions of people with his Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Today, there is widespread support for friendly relations with Saudi Arabia – an undemocratic nation that stones women to death for adultery.

It is also true that Russia is a rival for influence on the world stage. This perhaps is why our generals, intelligence operatives, representatives, think tanks and the media so dislike Putin. While the foreign affairs intelligentsia views the world as a power-playing chessboard, this approach to geopolitics is contrary to the interests of ordinary Americans who don't benefit from international conflicts.

When President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in the oval office a few weeks ago, he shared intelligence about a plot by Syrian-based ISIS operatives to place laptop bombs on civilian airplanes. Russia's presence in Syria may have helped thwart this plot. And it had an incentive to do so: ISIS previously downed a Russian civilian airliner in the Sinai Desert.

As president, Donald Trump has the legal right to declassify the intelligence. But some unelected bureaucrat in the US national security establishment decided that Trump's actions were inappropriate and leaked the story to The Washington Post . It is possible the leak alerted ISIS that its plot had been compromised, encouraging the terrorists to protect their bomb-building efforts from further scrutiny. The potential victims of this leak are civilian passengers of US airlines – the presumed target of the ISIS plot.

Russia also provided intelligence that, had it been handled properly by the FBI, could have prevented the Tsarnaev brothers from bombing the Boston marathon.

Rather than cooperating, however, the national security establishment not only seeks conflict with Russia, it looks for enemies around the world. Hostilities provide lucrative contracts and a sense of mission to those advancing them – but imposes huge costs on the rest of us. US troops are now engaged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

Worldwide warfare has driven national security spending toward $1 trillion a year. With a national debt approaching $20 trillion, this is a financial cost our country can ill afford. And since 2001, the US has suffered almost 7,000 deaths and over 52,000 wounded in foreign hostilities.

Democrats 50 years ago were peace organizers, fired by Martin Luther King's condemnation of the Vietnam War. And Barack Obama won the presidency promising to withdraw from Iraq.

But in their desire to rid the White House of Donald Trump, Democrats have forsaken their anti-war heritage. Instead, they are teaming up with Republican hawks and the Deep State to drive a wedge between the US and Russia.

Libertarians are the logical champions of peace and prosperity, but some have expressed sympathy for coercive US government actions to counter Russian influence. These include targeted sanctions and funding for groups in Eastern Europe that supposedly promote liberal democracy.

Although portrayed as a penalty on foreign powers, sanctions prevent US individuals and companies and individuals from doing business with those countries. A new Senate bill, S.722 , prevents US companies from working on gas pipelines between Russia and Western Europe. The bill also appropriates $500 million of US taxpayer money to a "Countering Russian Influence Fund," to be spent in Eastern Europe. The legislative language lists six possible uses for this money which sound good, but are vague and open to broad interpretation.

Libertarians recognize the state usually abuses the powers we give it. We should never advocate for restrictions on trade or appropriation of tax money for so-called democracy promotion. Peace and non-interventionism are core tenets of libertarianism that too many self-identified libertarians seem to forget. We must avoid repeating the mistakes we made in the runup to the Iraq War.

Regardless of one's position on Trump, Congress has not declared war on Russia. Russia has not invaded us. Russia is not our enemy.

[Jul 14, 2017] Russia Baiters and Putin Haters

Notable quotes:
"... "Is Russia an enemy of the United States?" NBC's Kasie Hunt demanded of Ted Cruz. Replied the runner-up for the GOP nomination, "Russia is a significant adversary. Putin is a KGB thug." ..."
"... "Why Russia is a Hostile Power" is the title of today's editorial in The Washington Post that seeks to explain why Middle America should embrace the Russophobia of our capital city: "Vladimir Putin adheres to a set of values that are antithetical to bedrock American values. He favors spheres of influence over self-determination; corruption over transparency; and repression over democracy." ..."
"... Bush I and James Baker even accused Ukrainians of "suicidal nationalism" for contemplating independence from Russia. ..."
"... As for favoring "repression over democracy," would that not apply to our NATO ally President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, and our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte? Were U.S. Cold War allies like the Shah of Iran and Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile all Jeffersonian Democrats? Have we forgotten our recent history? ..."
"... Will Magnitsky Act sanctions be slammed on China? Don't bet on it. Too much trade. Congress will do what comes naturally -- kowtow. Yet our heroic Senate voted 98-2 to slam new sanctions on Russia. ..."
"... When the Cold War ended in December 1991, the Soviet Union had dissolved into 15 nations. Moscow had given up her empire, a third of her territory, and half the population of the USSR. Marxist-Leninist ideology was dead. An epochal change had taken place. ..."
"... Yet hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin seem to exceed anything some of us remember from the worst days of the Cold War. ..."
"... Putin's Russia is called imperialist, though Estonia, next door, which Russia could swallow in one gulp, has been free for 25 years. ..."
"... Russia invaded Georgia. Well, yes, after Georgia invaded the seceded province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers. ..."
"... Russia has taken back Crimea from Ukraine. True, but only after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev replaced the elected pro-Russian regime. ..."
"... Russia has intervened to back Bashar Assad in Syria. Yes, but only after our insurgent allies collaborated with al-Qaida and ISIS to bring him down. Is Russia not allowed to support an ally, recognized by the U.N., which provides its only naval base on the Med? ..."
"... As big a clown as Trump is, just about everybody else in DC are proving to be even bigger clowns. ..."
"... Vladimir Putin is not a thug. The real political thugs reside in Congress such as McCain, Graham, Cruz, Pelosi, Schumer, just to name a few, and not to speak of the heads of the CIA, NSA and the other criminal organizations. ..."
"... Russiaphobia and Putin-hatred have reached unimaginable proportions within the Beltway. The Hartland America, however, couldn't care less. The whole Russian bashing is hypocritical and just disgusting. ..."
"... The entire Russian meddling-business is a media-spin. 95 per cent of it is anti-Trump and pro-Clinton and Obama. Didn't the US government intervene massively in the Yeltsin reelection? So far, not a single evidence proves Russian involvement in the US election. It's all baloney. ..."
"... The real reason for the Putin-bashing lies in his actions taken after he succeeds the criminal and corrupt Yeltsin gang. During the fateful 10-year term as Russia's president, an unprecedented robbery by a mafia-style network composed of the CIA, George Soros, and his Harvard-Boys together with the KGB and the Yeltsin-clan took place. ..."
"... After Putin had become President, he stopped the plundering of Russia at once and started to rebuild Russia from the scratch to its relatively political important role in international affairs. Without the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was the greatest disaster, the US political class could not act so recklessly and turn the Middle East into chaos. ..."
"... Perhaps the thugs in Washington should put their own house in order before slinging mud at other heads of state! ..."
Jul 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

"Is Russia an enemy of the United States?" NBC's Kasie Hunt demanded of Ted Cruz. Replied the runner-up for the GOP nomination, "Russia is a significant adversary. Putin is a KGB thug."

To Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine, the revelation that Donald Trump Jr., entertained an offer from the Russians for dirt on Clinton could be considered "treason."

Treason is giving aid and comfort to an enemy in a time of war.

Are we really at war with Russia? Is Russia really our enemy?

"Why Russia is a Hostile Power" is the title of today's editorial in The Washington Post that seeks to explain why Middle America should embrace the Russophobia of our capital city: "Vladimir Putin adheres to a set of values that are antithetical to bedrock American values. He favors spheres of influence over self-determination; corruption over transparency; and repression over democracy."

Yet, accommodating a sphere of influence for a great power is exactly what FDR and Churchill did with Stalin, and every president from Truman to George H. W. Bush did with the Soviet Union.

When East Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Poles rose up against Communist regimes, no U.S. president intervened. For those nations were on the other side of the Yalta line agreed to in 1945.

Bush I and James Baker even accused Ukrainians of "suicidal nationalism" for contemplating independence from Russia.

When did support for spheres of influence become un-American?

As for supporting "corruption over transparency," ex-Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili resigned in disgust as governor of Odessa in November, accusing Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, our man in Kiev, of supporting corruption.

As for favoring "repression over democracy," would that not apply to our NATO ally President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, our Arab ally Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi of Egypt, and our Philippine ally Rodrigo Duterte? Were U.S. Cold War allies like the Shah of Iran and Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile all Jeffersonian Democrats? Have we forgotten our recent history?

The Post brought up the death in prison of lawyer-activist Sergei Magnitsky in 2009. Under the Magnitsky Act of 2012, Congress voted sanctions on Russia's elites.

Yet China's lone Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, sentenced to 11 years in prison for championing democracy, died Thursday of liver cancer, with police in his hospital room. Communist dictator Xi Jinping, who makes Putin look like Justin Trudeau, would not let the dying man go.

Will Magnitsky Act sanctions be slammed on China? Don't bet on it. Too much trade. Congress will do what comes naturally -- kowtow. Yet our heroic Senate voted 98-2 to slam new sanctions on Russia.

What are the roots of this hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin, whom a Fox analyst called "as bad as Hitler"?

During the Cold War, every president sought detente with a USSR that was arguably the most blood-soaked regime of the century.

When the Cold War ended in December 1991, the Soviet Union had dissolved into 15 nations. Moscow had given up her empire, a third of her territory, and half the population of the USSR. Marxist-Leninist ideology was dead. An epochal change had taken place.

Yet hostility to Russia and hatred of Putin seem to exceed anything some of us remember from the worst days of the Cold War.

  • Putin's Russia is called imperialist, though Estonia, next door, which Russia could swallow in one gulp, has been free for 25 years.
  • Russia invaded Georgia. Well, yes, after Georgia invaded the seceded province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers.
  • Russia has taken back Crimea from Ukraine. True, but only after a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev replaced the elected pro-Russian regime.
  • Russia has intervened to back Bashar Assad in Syria. Yes, but only after our insurgent allies collaborated with al-Qaida and ISIS to bring him down. Is Russia not allowed to support an ally, recognized by the U.N., which provides its only naval base on the Med?

... ... ...

Thirdeye , July 14, 2017 at 5:29 am GMT

As big a clown as Trump is, just about everybody else in DC are proving to be even bigger clowns.

Ludwig Watzal , Website July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am GMT

Vladimir Putin is not a thug. The real political thugs reside in Congress such as McCain, Graham, Cruz, Pelosi, Schumer, just to name a few, and not to speak of the heads of the CIA, NSA and the other criminal organizations.

Russiaphobia and Putin-hatred have reached unimaginable proportions within the Beltway. The Hartland America, however, couldn't care less. The whole Russian bashing is hypocritical and just disgusting.

The entire Russian meddling-business is a media-spin. 95 per cent of it is anti-Trump and pro-Clinton and Obama. Didn't the US government intervene massively in the Yeltsin reelection? So far, not a single evidence proves Russian involvement in the US election. It's all baloney.

The real reason for the Putin-bashing lies in his actions taken after he succeeds the criminal and corrupt Yeltsin gang. During the fateful 10-year term as Russia's president, an unprecedented robbery by a mafia-style network composed of the CIA, George Soros, and his Harvard-Boys together with the KGB and the Yeltsin-clan took place.

After Putin had become President, he stopped the plundering of Russia at once and started to rebuild Russia from the scratch to its relatively political important role in international affairs. Without the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was the greatest disaster, the US political class could not act so recklessly and turn the Middle East into chaos.

Perhaps the thugs in Washington should put their own house in order before slinging mud at other heads of state!

Renoman , July 14, 2017 at 8:43 am GMT

Russia is no threat, America is the threat. The past is gone, trade with them, make deals, take their money and leave them alone. Grow up!

El Dato , July 14, 2017 at 9:47 am GMT

A disturbing item on the Magnitsky Thing: How Russia-gate Met the Magnitsky Myth

While I do think that property rights are often roadkill of the Russian Oligarchic and State 4x4s, there seem to be heard the loud banging sounds of construction behind the Magnitsky act.

El Dato , July 14, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

Tucker Carlson does a Death Star Trench Run on Ralph Peters, so-called "military expert" and Max Boot, Nazi detector extraordinaire:

Tucker Carlson, Neocon Slayer: He scores two takedowns in two days

Also drills into Democratic Congresscritter David Cicilline:

'Punish Russians for having RT?' Fox News host slams US senator over 'Russian propaganda'

Fun on Fox, who would have thunk it?

Avery , July 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT

@Ludwig Watzal

Vladimir Putin is not a thug. The real political thugs reside in Congress such as McCain, Graham, Cruz, Pelosi, Schumer, just to name a few, and not to speak of the heads of the CIA, NSA and the other criminal organizations.

Russiaphobia and Putin-hatred have reached unimaginable proportions within the Beltway. The Hartland America, however, couldn't care less. The whole Russian bashing is hypocritical and just disgusting.

The entire Russian meddling-business is a media-spin. 95 per cent of it is anti-Trump and pro-Clinton and Obama. Didn't the US government intervene massively in the Yeltsin reelection? So far, not a single evidence proves Russian involvement in the US election. It's all baloney.

The real reason for the Putin-bashing lies in his actions taken after he succeeds the criminal and corrupt Yeltsin gang. During the fateful 10-year term as Russia's president, an unprecedented robbery by a mafia-style network composed of the CIA, George Soros, and his Harvard-Boys together with the KGB and the Yeltsin-clan took place.

After Putin had become President, he stopped the plundering of Russia at once and started to rebuild Russia from the scratch to its relatively political important role in international affairs. Without the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was the greatest disaster, the US political class could not act so recklessly and turn the Middle East into chaos.

Perhaps the thugs in Washington should put their own house in order before slinging mud at other heads of state!

Well said.

btw: US has been meddling – and then some – in foreign elections for decades. The one that immediately comes to mind is Operation Ajax (1953), the combined US & UK coup against the _democratically_ elected Iranian government of Mosaddegh .

[Jul 13, 2017] Progressive Democrats Resist and Submit, Retreat and Surrender by James Petras

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Introduction

Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued the exact opposite agenda.

Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the far right.

To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent decades.

  • We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply involved.
  • We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from retreat to surrender.
  • We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace of far-right ideology and practice.

Progressives by Name and Posture

Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption and good governance, based on democratic procedures.

Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.

Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust wars.

Progressives in Historical Perspective

In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.

They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars' . Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.

Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and defended the Bill of Rights.

Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.

Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil liberties.

Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and electoral means to advance African American rights.

Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.

Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.

In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.

The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.

The Retreat of the Progressives

By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war, civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).

The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined, as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.

Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.

Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party, (their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership, neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.

Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats. These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.

The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade

Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.

Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction of Lebanon!

Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector. When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.

Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.

Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats' 'hard right' policies.

The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.

Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State. They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.

Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state decrees by the Republican Administration.

Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender

While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged' hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.

Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within': they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election, Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.

Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's 'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet and empty.

When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers, while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward the mega-swindlers.

Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate. The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the 'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.

Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.

Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).

The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.

With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.

Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate. The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral. Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda, they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.

Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.

Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate' defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.

Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'.

Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints.

The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!

Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement and betrayal!

In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.

Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!

Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!

Conclusion

Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state; from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.

Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.

Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance to mindless collaboration.

(Republished from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

Recently from Author
Of Related Interest Democrats in the Dead Zone Jeffrey St. Clair June 23, 2017 1,500 Words

WorkingClass > , July 12, 2017 at 9:21 pm GMT

But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued the exact opposite agenda.

Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party.

This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one." This should be our collective epitaph.

exiled off mainstreet > , July 12, 2017 at 11:20 pm GMT

This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.

alan2102 > , July 13, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT

EXCELLENT.

Astuteobservor II > , July 13, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

at this point, are they still progressives though? they are the new far right

CCZ > , July 13, 2017 at 5:30 am GMT

"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement and betrayal!"

Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats) take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

Carlton Meyer > , Website July 13, 2017 at 5:56 am GMT

The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:

Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!

Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)

Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.

Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.

jilles dykstra > , July 13, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist' parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?

Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.

Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.

Call me Deplorable > , July 13, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at exclusive resorts for billionaires only.

Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with Killary as the second honored guest that day.

Seamus Padraig > , July 13, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.

Properly defining the concepts would impede the system's ability to keep you confused.

Seamus Padraig > , July 13, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home and bloody imperial wars overseas.

You left out the other Roosevelt.

Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act

Hilarious!

Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!

This is a huge myth. All that really happened is that the INS changed some of its internal terminology to make it sound as though they were deporting more people: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/21/lies-damned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/?utm_term=.7f964acd9b0d

Stephen Paul Foster > , Website July 13, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

The Progressives now, failing electorally, are moving on to physical violence.

See: http://fosterspeak.blogspot.com/2017/07/trumps-would-be-assassins.html

annamaria > , July 13, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer Obama, a paragon of American scoundrel

Anonymous IV > , July 13, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig Agree on the bit about Obama as "deporter in chief." Even the LA Times had to admit this was misleading

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.

Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business. So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.

I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?

Agent76 > , July 13, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

"Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!" Nathan Meyer Rothschild

June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?

A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44864.htm

"Control the oil, and you control nations. Control the food, and you control the people." Henry Kissenger

Alfa158 > , July 13, 2017 at 5:33 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism. Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.

yeah > , July 13, 2017 at 5:46 pm GMT

Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".

The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they, the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives, and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding the whip, others to better line their pockets.

So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress, becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs. Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.

Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election time."

TheJester > , July 13, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT

Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany, on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than an empty slogan.

Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"? However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.

"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.

As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism) are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.

Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?

In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement, who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?

I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.

RobinG > , July 13, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?

Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump & Sanders") for ALL Americans:

On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched

We the People – Unity for Integrity.

The User's Guide to the 2nd American Revolution.

Death to the Deep State.

https://www.unrig.net/manifesto/

Ben Banned > , July 13, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT

Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality, the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when the system is at such extremes.

Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun to your head.

Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain militarism.

peterAUS > , July 13, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

@yeah Nice.

If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored, all the women and all the sexually different through the history".

"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".

Reg Cæsar > , July 14, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT

@CCZ

"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats) take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.

take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee

which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when it was estsblished in 1938.

[Jul 13, 2017] The Trump administration is run by Zionists, for Zionists, say an analyst.

Jul 13, 2017 | www.presstv.ir
The administration of US President Donald Trump is run by Zionists and Qatar was singled out by the White House in retaliation for refusing to engage in pro-Israeli policies, an investigative journalist in Washington says.

"I certainly hope Secretary of State Rex Tillerson acts as an honest broker in trying to get the Saudis and their Wahhabist friends in Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and their military dictator friend in Egypt, general el-Sisi, to cease and desist with this economic blockade that they have created for Qatar," said Wayne Madsen, an author and columnist specializing in intelligence and international affairs.

The top US diplomat traveled to Qatar on Tuesday as part of his Persian Gulf tour to break the five-week rift between Doha and several Arab states.

Tillerson will visit Saudi Arabia before leaving the Persian Gulf region on Thursday. He will hold a meeting with the foreign ministers of the four countries involved in the dispute on Wednesday in Riyadh.

Ahead of his Doha visit, Tillerson made a stop in Kuwait, which is still trying to mediate the dispute.

The split among the Arab states erupted in May after Trump visited Saudi Arabia and then pointing out that numerous Arab leaders had complained to him that Qatar is supporting terrorism.

"The issue is that President Trump, when he was visiting [Saudi Arabia] Trump went on to back the Saudis in this unusual tirade that the Saudis are pushing that Qatar is financing terrorists, when in fact there were no Qataris among the 9/11 hijackers, but there were Saudis among these hijackers," Madsen said during a phone interview with Press TV on Tuesday.

"So, I think what this boils down to is the fact that we now know that Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, tried to basically extort $500 million from Qatar to invest in his failed building in Manhattan," he added. "The Qataris turned him down and Jared Kushner, who is some sort of svengali over Trump, this sort of vampire that shadows Trump at every move, was likely responsible for Trump siding with the Saudis against Qatar because Qatar didn't fork over a half a billion dollars on Kushner's failed real estate venture in Manhattan."

"This goes to show that with the Trump administration, with his ambassador to Israel [David] Friedman and special envoy [Jason] Greenblatt and his other special envoy Jared Kushner, that this administration is run by Zionists, for Zionists, for the interest of Israel and against the interest of any country that refuses to engage in the criminal gangstarism of the Trump administration, and Qatar is actually no different than many countries that have now been singled out for this type of retribution and retaliation by the criminal gang that runs the White House. "

Read More:

Wayne Pacific 1 hour ago

Trump means America first, after Israel , his money, his family, his lenders, and the evil eye in London.
Howard Lewis 5 hours ago
I have found Wayne Madsen to be 1,000 times as cognizant of reality as Donald Trump and 10,000 times as cognizant as Killary Clinton or any other Bush criminal cabalist.
goldmorgs 22 hours ago
More exactly; talmudic pharisee, who obey the ruling bunch of talmudic finance pharisee goldmorgs in New Yorkrael.
In the usa, uk, nl, since recent ukraine and france absolutely and to high extent also in germany etc. the majority of the cabinet members, parliament members and CEO of the central banks, the press, the tv-channels, the big computer and internet companies and the other large institutions and companies are pharisee. Those pharisee obey and serve the goldmorgs instead of the people.

Two millenia ago Jesus has warned us with the temple cleansing and his death that the finance pharisee must be removed and kept out of (finance) power and finance business. Therefore the finance pharisee have instigated his execution.

J.J.'s_Zionist_Free_World > jsinton 20 hours ago
No, Alex Jones is a Joke, part of what they called the "Controlled Opposition" in the Book "1984" by George Orwell. Where do you live in Israel? Just Curious.
Ray at 17:49 the day before yesterday
Interesting article it's a shame that people continue in their brainwashed state and dispute when it comes to support for Israel.
Chamberlain > john at 18:03 the day before yesterday
Of course, because lobbies being legal corruption flows through them with no judicial problem.. And Zionist lobbies are the most economically powerful in US. This is how the so called "capitalist democracy" works in its fullness. That is why many capitalist countries that have not legalized lobbies, such as Brazil, for example, are at a dead-lock in their political and electoral system.

[Jul 13, 2017] Killer, kleptocrat, genius, spy the many myths of Vladimir Putin by Keith Gessen

Feb 22, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
Russia's role in Trump's election has led to a boom in Putinology. But do all these theories say more about us than Putin?

Vladimir Putin, you may have noticed, is everywhere. He has soldiers in Ukraine and Syria, troublemakers in the Baltics and Finland, and a hand in elections from the Czech Republic to France to the United States. And he is in the media. Not a day goes by without a big new article on " Putin's Revenge ", " The Secret Source of Putin's Evil ", or "10 Reasons Why Vladimir Putin Is a Terrible Human Being".

Putin's recent ubiquity has brought great prominence to the practice of Putinology. This enterprise – the production of commentary and analysis about Putin and his motivations, based on necessarily partial, incomplete and sometimes entirely false information – has existed as a distinct intellectual industry for over a decade. It kicked into high gear after the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, but in the past few months, as allegations of Russian meddling in the election of President Donald Trump have come to dominate the news, Putinology has outdone itself. At no time in history have more people with less knowledge, and greater outrage, opined on the subject of Russia's president. You might say that the reports of Trump's golden showers in a Moscow hotel room have consecrated a golden age – for Putinology.

And what does Putinology tell us? It turns out that it has produced seven distinct hypotheses about Putin. None of them is entirely wrong, but then none of them is entirely right (apart from No 7). Taken together, they tell us as much about ourselves as about Putin. They paint a portrait of an intellectual class – our own – on the brink of a nervous breakdown. But let's take them in order.

Theory 1: Putin is a genius

It's simple: while the world is playing checkers, Putin is playing chess. He seized Crimea from the Ukrainians with barely a shot fired; he got back Yalta, the favoured beach resort of Chekhov and the tsars, and all he faced as punishment were some minor sanctions. He intervened on behalf of the Assad regime in Syria, after the US, Turkey and the Saudis spent years supporting the rebels, and in short order turned the tide of the war. He has been instrumental in undermining the pro-EU consensus, financing the Eurosceptic right – and, where convenient, the Eurosceptic left – aiming apparently to dismantle the postwar international order and replace it with a series of bilateral transactional relationships in which Russia can, for the most part, be the senior partner.

Finally, he interfered in the US election, the election for the most powerful post in the world, and managed to get his man in the White House. And what were the consequences? A few diplomats expelled from the United States is a small price to pay for a potential end to US sanctions, a renewal of economic ties and joint oil-drilling in the Russian Arctic, and the de facto acknowledgment of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation.

Domestically, Putin has managed to silence or co‑opt almost all opposition. The liberals squabble among themselves on Facebook and emigrate; the far right, which hates Putin for his refusal to go full fascist and, for example, take Kiev, is kept on a tight leash; and the democratic socialist left, hobbled by the massive pseudo-left authoritarian Communist Party of the Russian Federation, is so tiny Putin can hardly even see it (and he has many eyes).

Putin during his first two terms enjoyed immense luck in the form of a worldwide commodities boom, but he could have blown that luck. Instead, he husbanded it, and Russia grew rich. Now the closest thing to a rival to Putin within his inner circle is his prime minister, the pudgy and diminutive Dmitry Medvedev, who has distinguished himself primarily as a man who enjoys playing with his iPad. The lone domestic politician who has mounted a plausible threat to Putin is Alexei Navalny, a talented Moscow-based digital populist of variable political convictions, whom the Kremlin is keeping busy with various criminal charges and house arrests .

Putin-as-evil-genius is, unquestionably, the primary theoretical view in the west of the Russian president, whether by his multitude of critics or his smattering of admirers. Those who take a more jaundiced view of Putin's political, intellectual, and military capabilities – President Barack Obama, for one – are treated as naive, soft on Putin: the sort of people who play checkers, not chess. Meanwhile, most Russian observers of Putin tend to be surprised at the western awe of his overwhelming strategic prowess. Garry Kasparov, for example, the great chess champion and not-so-great opposition politician, finds the whole thing insulting to chess.

In any case, one does wonder about this genius business. Was it really worth international isolation, increasingly bothersome sanctions and the eternal enmity of the Ukrainian people to seize a beloved but past-its-prime resort area that Russians don't even really visit any more? There was fear that the post-Maidan government of Ukraine might cancel the lease on the large Russian naval port in Sevastopol, but surely a genius might have handled the threat through something short of seizing the entire peninsula?

As for Syria, Putin may bask for now in the glory of rescuing the Assad regime, but who will celebrate this glory with him? Certainly not Sunni Muslims, whom Assad has been slaughtering – some of those who survive will soon return to their homes in the Caucasus and Central Asia, newly angry at the Russian bear. As for the disintegration of the EU, which Putin seems to seek almost above all else, is this really a winning formula for Russia? The "Hungarian Putin", Viktor Orbán, is so far well-disposed toward Russia, but what we might call the Polish Putins of the Law and Justice party are committed Russophobes. And, as one shrewd commentator has pointed out, should Putin ever succeed in installing a rightwing nationalist leader in neighbouring Germany, that German Putin may well decide to go to war with the original Putin, as German Putins have always tended to do in the past.

And even our new American Putin, Donald J Trump, may -> not be as much of a boon to Russia as he seems at first glance. For one thing, Trump's apparent romance with the Russian president has ignited a storm of Russophobia in the US, the like of which has not been seen since the early 1980s. For another, Trump is a fool. It is not the way of genius to hitch your wagon to a fool.

On the domestic front, Putin's genius now seems equally suspect. In 2011, he made the momentous decision to return to the presidency after ceding it for four years to Medvedev. The decision, announced in a humiliating manner by Medvedev himself, was soon followed by the largest protests in Moscow since the early 1990s. Putin was impressive in waiting the protests out. He did not make the mistake that Viktor Yanukovych made two years later in Ukraine by first overreacting and then, perhaps, underreacting to the situation. Instead, Putin let the protests lose steam and then picked off the protest leaders one by one with surreptitiously videotaped provocations and phony criminal charges, while Moscow itself underwent a kind of urban renaissance, complete with public parks and bike lanes, to assuage some of the anger of the creative class. But Putin did nothing to address the substance of the criticism coming from the opposition – that his political regime was corrupt, unresponsive, and that it had no vision. Instead, with the invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent nationalist mobilisation, he doubled down on the worst aspects of his reign.

Had Putin retired after 2008, as he said he would, and become a grand old man of Russian politics, there would have been statues built to him throughout the country. Under him, Russia had emerged from the chaos of the 1990s into a relative stability and prosperity. Now, however, with low oil prices, a collapsed rouble, risible counter-sanctions in place on European cheese, and a demoralised opposition, it is hard to imagine an end to the Putin era that is not violent, and whose violence does not lead to more violence. If this is genius, then it is of a very peculiar kind.

Theory 2: Putin is a nothing

The first sight many Russians got of Vladimir Putin was on New Year's Eve, 1999, when in a remarkable turn of events, a clearly ailing Boris Yeltsin, with six months left in his term, used his traditional televised end-of-year address to announce that he was resigning the presidency and handing the reins to his recently appointed, younger and more energetic prime minister.

Then Putin came on. The effect was startling. Yeltsin had looked confused and sickly. His speech was so slurred that he was hard to understand. He sat bolt upright as if wearing a brace. But this? This homunculus? Putin was tiny compared to Yeltsin, and though younger and healthier, he nonetheless managed to more closely resemble death. He spoke for a few minutes, promising on the one hand to keep Russian democracy strong, but on the other hand issuing various warnings to those who would threaten Russia – an incongruous performance. Many people didn't think it was likely that Putin would last very long in this august seat. For all his faults, Yeltsin was at least a someone: tall, with a booming voice, a former member of the Soviet Politburo. Whereas Putin? He was, people suddenly scrambled to learn, merely a colonel in the KGB. He had been sent abroad, but only barely – to the East German backwater of Dresden. He was short and had a squeaky voice and his hair was thinning. He was a nonentity even among the nonentities who remained after Yeltsin's perpetual clearing-out of his cabinets.

In a world where most people are convinced that Putin is a genius, this theory of Putin as a nobody deserves a second look. There really is an everyman quality to Putin. One of my favourite observations about him comes from a man who knew him back in St Petersburg in the 1990s. The man became a whistleblower after the successful medical supplies company he ran was asked, not long after Putin became president, to divert a portion of its earnings into the fund for "Putin's Palace", a huge complex going up on the Black Sea. But he had an interesting take on the president as he had known him before, as he told the British journalist Ben Judah :

He was an absolutely average man. His voice was average not tough, not high. He had an average personality average intelligence, not especially high intelligence. You could go out the door and find thousands and thousands of people in Russia, all of them just like Putin.

This can't be entirely right: Putin was above average in at least a few respects (he was the judo champion of Leningrad, for one). But there is insight in these words. It was part of Putin's charm that he didn't stand out. During his first interviews in office he stressed how much of a regular guy he was, how he had struggled financially during the 1990s, how much tough luck he'd had. He knew all the same jokes, had listened to all the same music and seen all the same movies, as everyone else of his generation. It is a testament to the power of Soviet culture, to both its egalitarianism and its limitations, that when Putin mentioned a line from a quasi-dissident song or movie of the 1960s or 1970s, almost everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. This did not put him out of the mainstream. He was the unremarkable only child of an unremarkable working family from Leningrad. It was almost as if the Soviet Union had coughed up, from the great mass of its humanity, this average exemplar, with his average aggressiveness, his average ignorance, his average nostalgia for the way things were.

Accounts of Putin's early years in office tend to confirm that he was something less than a colossus. He was impressed by the might of the American empire and awed by George W Bush. He was aware, too, of how limited his domestic power was. Russian politics during the Yeltsin era had been dominated by a small group of oligarchs, oil and banking titans with their own private armies. These were led not by short, skinny former colonels like Putin, but by barrel-chested former generals of the Interior Ministry and KGB. What's more, some of the oligarchs were brilliant strategists – they had survived the ruthless 1990s and emerged victorious, while Putin had muddled along as the corrupt deputy to a one-term mayor. Putin's early popularity was based on his tough attitude towards Chechens and oligarchs. He had succeeded in levelling Chechnya, but could he really win in a showdown with the oligarchs? He had no idea.

In 2003, in one of the main turning-points of his reign, it took Putin months to work up the nerve to arrest Mikhail Khodorkovsky , the country's richest man. But then he did it, and it worked. No people rose up in the streets to defend the fallen oligarch, no secret armies emerged from the forests. Putin got away with it, and he would get away with much more. He would grow into his office. Today you see tiny Putin walking through the cavernous chambers of the Kremlin during official ceremonies, and clearly his stature has not risen to the grandeur of his surroundings. But time itself has done its work. When he meets Trump, it will be his fourth US president. Numerous British prime ministers have left office, along with two French presidents and a German chancellor (whom, in a less than proud moment for the German people, Putin later hired). Putin remains. A kind of stature accrues to him just from surviving. A middling stature.

Theory 3: Putin had a stroke

This early classic of Putinology was popularised in a 2005 Atlantic article titled " The Accidental Autocrat ", which cited the work of a "behavioural research fellow" at the Naval War College in Rhode Island named Brenda L Connors. After studying film of Putin's movements, Connors concluded that he had a debilitating and likely congenital neurological deficiency, possibly caused by a stroke in utero, which prevented him from having full use of the right side of his body – which is why his left arm swings more than his right when he walks. Connors told the Atlantic that it was unlikely that Putin had ever crawled as an infant and that he still moves with his entire body, "in a head-to-tail pattern, like a fish or a reptile".

The explanatory power of this hypothesis in terms of predicting whether Putin will, for example, invade Belarus, is low, but nonetheless it is haunting. One pictures little fish-like Putin moving through the world of men and women who have use of both sides of their bodies, and he, without that ability, feeling sad.

Theory 4: Putin is a KGB agent

After his famous first meeting with Putin, the newly elected President George W Bush declared at a press conference that he had looked into the Russian's eyes and seen his soul. His advisers were mortified. "I visibly stiffened," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wrote in her memoirs. Secretary of state Colin Powell pulled his president aside. "You may have seen all that" in his eyes, Powell told W, "but I still look in his eyes and I see K-G-B. Remember," he added ominously, "there's a reason he's fluent in German." Vice President Dick Cheney felt the same way: Every time he saw Putin, he told people, "I think KGB, KGB, KGB."

And ever since then, it's been the same way. Whenever Putin tried to be nice to someone, it was because he was a KGB agent, manipulating them. And whenever he was mean – as when he introduced a dog-fearing Angela Merkel to his black labrador retriever Connie – this, too, was because he was a KGB agent, angling for psychological advantage.

That the KGB formed the bulk of Putin's professional experience is beyond doubt – he worked there from the day he graduated college in 1974 until at least August 1991. And, what is more, the KGB was not just a company, but a university: at the Higher School of the KGB, in Moscow, which Putin attended, young agents took university-level classes. It was important, the KGB higher-ups believed, that the cadres understand the world they were being trained to subvert and manipulate. It is entirely likely that Putin kept in touch with his former KGB associates after 1991, while serving in the St Petersburg mayor's office. And it is true that Putin has brought many of his former KGB colleagues with him to the highest levels of government.

And yet I can't help but find the KGB hypothesis unsatisfying. When people such as Rice and Powell and Cheney speak of Putin's KGB past, they are suggesting that he treats politics as essentially a contest in manipulation. People are either his agents, whom he is running, or his adversaries, whom he is trying to weaken. This is a ruthless worldview, but don't many people in politics act this way? Aren't there a lot of bullies who divide people into those they can control and those they can't? Isn't that how Dick Cheney operated, for example? That doesn't make it an acceptable way to go through the world. It just doesn't seem particularly unique to the KGB.

But the KGB label has other uses in western mouths. It is synecdoche for the Soviet Union, and Putin-as-Soviet-revanchist, with a hammer in one hand and a sickle in the other, is one of his chief avatars in the western press. What exactly is meant by this? Certainly not that anyone thinks Putin supports a historic union of the proletariat (the hammer) and the peasantry (the sickle), nor that he is an actual communist who wants to expropriate the bourgeoisie. Rather the USSR is meant here in its aspect as an aggressive imperial power that occupied half of eastern Europe . And it is true that Putin seems to feel about the countries on the Russian periphery that they are not full countries with rights and sovereignty – it's fair to say he is an imperialist. What is unfair (to the Soviet Union, really) is to suggest that his imperialism is specifically Soviet in nature. The Soviets did not invent imperialism; the Russian Empire, for example, whose basic geography the Soviets managed to keep intact, did not become an empire by not conquering native Arctic peoples, prosecuting brutal decades-long wars in the Caucasus, and lopping off parts of Poland. Putin is a Russian imperialist, full stop.

But finally, of course, there is a moral connotation to saying that someone is "KGB", because the Soviet KGB carried out assassinations, harassed and imprisoned dissidents, and was one of the pioneers of what came to be known as fake news. But the idea that anyone who walked its halls was pure evil is as blinkered as the KGB's own idea of itself as the one uncorrupted, "professional" institution in late Soviet life.

The KGB was a giant organisation – in the 1980s it employed hundreds of thousands of people. After it started shedding staff in the 1990s, we learned that KGB agents came in all shapes and sizes. There was Philipp Bobkov, for example, who once persecuted Soviet dissidents, but who after the Soviet Union's collapse became an employee of the media oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky and a thoughtful commentator on the old KGB. Other KGB agents went into the private sector as surveillance specialists or hired assassins. There were KGB agents who stayed on with the FSB and tried to fight organised crime. There were KGB agents who stayed on with the FSB and used their positions to abet organised crime, to murder innocent citizens, and to amass small private fortunes. There were former KGB agents who fought bravely in Chechnya and there were former KGB agents who committed war crimes there. There was Alexander Litvinenko, the KGB agent turned FSB agent who was ordered by his corrupt superiors to kill the oligarch Boris Berezovsky, and who instead of doing so went public. Eventually in fear for his life he fled the country, settling in London where he cooperated with western intelligence agencies and published numerous anti-Putin broadsides. Years later, he was poisoned by a large dose of Polonium-210 in London by another former KGB agent, Andrei Lugovoi.

Theory 5: Putin is a killer

Though I now live in New York, I was born in Russia and sometimes write about Russia. This means that people often share their opinions of Putin with me. I remember one evening in March 2006, when I was introduced to a well-known French photographer. Upon learning that I was Russian, she said, "Pou-tine?" The French pronunciation was emasculating to the Russian President, making him sound like those Canadian french fries with gravy on them. "Pou-tine," said the photographer, "is a stone-cold killer."

I had heard this opinion before from some Russian oppositionists, but it was the first time I had encountered it in New York. Perhaps because the photographer was French, or perhaps because she was a photographer, the opinion struck me as primarily aesthetic: Putin was a killer because of his cold, bloodless face, his expressionless eyes, his refusal to smile. A few months later, Litvinenko was poisoned in London, and the journalist Anna Politkovskaya was shot while returning home with some groceries in downtown Moscow. The view that Putin was a killer became much more widespread.

I have no wish to dispute that characterisation here. Putin has launched violent, deadly wars against Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine, and I agree with the recent British inquiry that concluded that Putin "probably" approved of the assassination of Litvinenko. But the launching of aggressive wars and the killing of a former operative who has defected are hardly the sort of thing that will get you kicked out of the international community.

No, there is another sense in which Putin is believed to be a murderer; it was the subject of much discussion in the United States during the strange rise of Donald Trump. During the Republican primaries, the conservative TV host Joe Scarborough, otherwise famously cosy with Trump, pressed the candidate about his sympathies for Putin – who, in Scarborough's words, "kills journalists and political opponents". A few days later, on a more prominent Sunday-morning politics programme, the former White House adviser George Stephanopoulos challenged Trump again. When Trump protested that "nobody's proven that he's killed anybody, as far as I'm concerned", Stephanopoulos confidently replied: "There have been many allegations that he was behind the killing of Anna Politkovskaya." Trump parried as best he could. But the issue obviously hasn't gone away. In an interview before the Super Bowl in early February, Trump was confronted by Fox blowhard Bill O'Reilly. "Putin's a killer," said O'Reilly, to which Trump infamously (though accurately) responded, "There are a lot of killers. We've got a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country's so innocent?"

"I don't know of any government leaders that are killers," said O'Reilly. He did not mean that he didn't know of any government leaders who had ordered the invasion of Iraq or who had signed off on dozens of drone strikes or shoot-to-kill missions such as the one that ended the life of Osama bin Laden. He meant that he didn't know of any leaders who went around killing regular folks.

The trouble with this accusation is not that it is false, but that, like most Putinology, it is sloppy. When most people accuse Putin of killing "journalists and political opponents", they mean Politkovskaya, killed in 2006, and the opposition leader and former deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov, killed in 2015. Allegations that Putin was behind the killing of Politkovskaya and Nemtsov do exist – but very few people with knowledge of the cases believe them. What they do believe is that Politkovskaya and Nemtsov were killed by associates of Ramzan Kadyrov , the violent dictator of Chechnya. In the Nemtsov case, the evidence for the involvement of people close to Kadyrov is overwhelming. In the Politkovskaya case, it is more circumstantial (and with Politkovskaya there is considerable evidence of other efforts to harm her, including an earlier poisoning attempt that looked more like a government operation), but still the most likely scenario.

And yet Kadyrov's involvement does not absolve Putin, because Kadyrov works for Putin. It has been widely reported that Putin was baffled and angry over the Nemtsov killing and refused for weeks to take Kadyrov's phone calls. On the other hand, here we are almost two years later, and Kadyrov is still in charge of Chechnya. He was put there by Putin. So if Putin did not directly order these killings – and, again, it is the consensus view among most journalists and analysts that he did not – he nonetheless continues to work with and support those who did.

With Putin the killer, we reach something like Putinology's conceptual blind spot. What we seem to be dealing with, in Russia, is neither a failed state, where the government has no power, nor a totalitarian state, where it has all the power, but something in between. Putin does not order killings, and yet killings happen. Putin ordered the takeover of Crimea, but, as best as anyone can tell, he seems not to have ordered the invasion of eastern Ukraine. That invasion appears to have been undertaken as a freelance operation by a small group of mercenaries funded by a well-connected Russian businessman. Real Russian troops came later. But if Putin isn't in charge of everything – if there are powerful forces operating outside of Putin's say-so – what's the point of Putinology? On this point, Putinology is silent.

The absolute worst crime of which Putin has been accused is the bombing of several apartment blocks in Moscow in 1999. In September of that year, with President Boris Yeltsin ill, presidential elections just around the corner, and a relatively unknown Putin recently moved from heading the FSB to running the government as Yeltsin's prime minister, two large apartment buildings blew up in Moscow, killing nearly 300 people. A few days later there was another building explosion, this time in the southern city of Volgodonsk. And a few days after that, in a bizarre incident, some men were caught by local police planting what appeared to be explosives in the basement of a building in Ryazan – the men turned out to be from the FSB. They quickly removed the apparent bomb and declared the whole thing a "training exercise" meant to test the vigilance of the populace and the police.

Though the government immediately accused Chechen terrorists of planting the bombs, and used this as justification for its invasion of Chechnya, a persistent minority has always insisted the government itself was responsible. (Litvinenko was one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of this theory.) A public commission to investigate the allegations was set up by the Soviet chemist turned dissident Sergei Kovalyov. Two members of the commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, were killed in 2003. Yushenkov was shot outside his apartment building; Shchekochikhin was poisoned.

The question of the Russian government's involvement in the bombings has remained a vexed one. The most authoritative account of the available evidence was written up a few years ago by John Dunlop of the Hoover Institute. While careful not to claim to have settled the case definitively, Dunlop argued that there is compelling evidence that the bombings were ordered by the Yeltsin inner circle and carried out by the FSB.

And yet here, too, Putin evades us. If the apartment bombings really were a palace plot, it was not Putin's palace but Yeltsin's that plotted them. And indeed the political killings that seem to characterise the Putin years also characterised the Yeltsin ones. This does not, again, absolve Putin of anything. But it points to a longer and more complex period of violence, of groups inside and outside the government employing assassination and terror as a political weapon, and not just the machinations of one evil man. If Putin, as president, is unable to stop this violence, then maybe someone else should be president; if Putin, as president, is a party to the violence, then certainly someone else should be.

But on our end, it behoves us to be judicious. The practitioners of Putinology are maddeningly imprecise, and in no area of Putinology is their imprecision more damaging. When George Stephanopoulos appears on national TV and declares that Putin ordered the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, it makes it that much harder to pin the blame on Putin for things that he did, demonstrably and undoubtedly, do.

Theory 6: Putin is a kleptocrat

Until around 2009, the complaints of Putin's liberal critics in Russia, amplified by western journalists and statesmen, centred on his abuses of human rights. He was the censor of the Russian media, the butcher of Chechnya, a total stick in the mud during our glorious invasion of Iraq, the killer of Litvinenko, and the invader of Georgia. It took the anti-corruption activist Alexei Navalny to fundamentally shift the discourse around Putin away from these abuses and towards something else: the theft of Russians' money. Navalny, a corporate lawyer and online anti-corruption activist, concluded that in contemporary Russia, human rights was not a winning issue, but money was. (He memorably dubbed Putin's United Russia a "party of crooks and thieves".) In this account, soon taken up by western Putinologists, Putin was no longer a scary monster but something simpler and more manageable: a thief.

The accusation had the virtue of being unquestionably true. Either that, or a surprising number of Putin's old friends were business geniuses, because in the period since he came to power, they had become billionaires. It was one thing for the Berezovskys and Khodorkovskys and Abramoviches to emerge from the vicious scramble of the 1990s with billions in their pockets – certainly they could not have made those billions were it not for their proximity to the Yeltsin regime, but they also had to survive the wilds of early Russian capitalism. They were geniuses of a kind. Whereas the only genius ever demonstrated by Putin's billionaire friends was befriending the future president of Russia.

If Putin liked his friends (which he seemed to) and if his friends liked lining their pockets (which they definitely did), then it followed that hitting Putin's friends in their wallets would cause Putin to pull back from some of his more outrageous foreign policy gambits, most notably in Ukraine. This was the genesis of the "targeted" sanctions imposed in 2014 by the US and EU against Putin's "inner circle".

If we do not hear so much anymore about Putin's kleptocracy, it may be because these sanctions failed to alter the behaviour of Putin on the world stage. No doubt Putin's friends, and Putin himself, did not enjoy the sanctions: Putin's friends because they were no longer allowed to travel to their favourite vacation spots in Spain; Putin because the sanctions put him beyond the pale of the international order. It was embarrassing.

But this did not stop Putin from stalling and undermining the Minsk accords meant to halt the fighting in eastern Ukraine, nor did it stop Putin from pursuing his brutal intervention in the Syrian civil war. If Putin's friends were begging him to come to his senses, he wasn't listening. More likely, Putin's friends knew that they had been the beneficiaries of his largesse, his unlikely rise to power, and that they had to support him, come what may. Kleptocrats are not the types to organise successful palace coups. For that, you need true believers. If there is a true believer among them, he has yet to show his face. In fact, it appears the closest thing to a true believer is Putin himself.

Putin lives a fairly modest day-to-day existence. Yes, he has a palace on the Black Sea, built with pilfered funds, but he doesn't actually live in it. In fact, it is unlikely that he will ever live in it. The palace is, in a way, the most hopeful thing that Putin is building – a promise of his eventual retirement, and under circumstances where he is not torn from limb to limb by a mob that has entered the Kremlin and overpowered his personal guards.

Theory 7: Putin is named Vladimir

A recent article published on the website of a respected American magazine warned readers that the end of communism "doesn't mean that Russia has dropped its primary mission of destabilising Europe", and described Putin as "a former KGB agent who, it is no accident, shares the name Vladimir Ilyich with Lenin". When it was pointed out that Putin does not, in fact, share the name Vladimir Ilyich with Lenin – his name is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin – the article was corrected to say that it is no accident that Putin shares the name Vladimir with Lenin. If it is not an accident, this may be because it is one of the most common Russian names. But still, it cannot be denied. Both Putin and Lenin are named Vladimir.

The Putin-is-named-Vladimir hypothesis is either the historic high point of Putinology, or its nadir, depending on your perspective. But the confident proclamation of expertise by someone who does not technically know Putin's name is surely a sign of something. It's a sign that most Putinology is not and has never been about Putin. In the weeks before and after the Trump inauguration, the outpouring of Putinalysis was a function of wanting to wish Trump away, to blame him on someone else. Surely we could not have elected this bigoted idiot-narcissist – surely he must have been forced on us from somewhere else.

There is no reason at this point to dispute the consensus view of most intelligence analysts that Russian agents hacked the DNC and then leaked the emails to Julian Assange; it is also a well-known fact that Putin hated Hillary Clinton.

Furthermore, it is true that the election was very close, and it did not take much to tip the result to one side. But it is also essential to remember that there was hardly anything damaging in the leaked DNC emails.

Compared to the 40-year cycle of US deindustrialisation, during which only the rich gained in wealth; the 25-year rightwing war on the Clintons; the eight-year-old Tea Party assault on facts, immigration and taxes; a tepid, centrist campaign; and a supposed late-breaking revelation from the director of the FBI about the dubious investigation of Clinton's use of a private email server – well, compared to all those factors, the leaked DNC emails must rank low on the list of reasons for Trump's victory. And yet, according to a recent report, Hillary Clinton and her campaign still blame the Russians – and, by extension, Barack Obama, who did not make a big issue of the hacks before November – for her electoral debacle. In this instance, thinking about Putin helps not to think about everything else that went wrong, and what needs to be done to fix it.

This evasion is the essence of Putinology, which seeks solace in the undeniable but faraway badness of Putin at the expense of confronting the far more uncomfortable badness in front of one's face. Putinology predates the 2016 election by a decade, and yet what we have seen in connection to Trump these past few months has been its Platonic ideal.

Here in front of us is a man – Donald J Trump – who has said countless cruel and bigoted things and proposed cruel and bigoted policies, who is a pathological liar, who has failed in almost everything he has ever tried and who surrounds himself with conmen and billionaires. And yet, day after day, there is breathless excitement over each new data point in the effort to uncover Trump's hidden connections to Russia – each one inflated by the hope that this, now, finally, will render him illegitimate, remove him from the White House, and end the liberal nightmare of having actually lost an election to this hateful dope.

If Donald Trump is impeached and imprisoned for conspiring with a foreign power to undermine American democracy, I will celebrate as much as the next American. And yet in the long run, the Russia card is not just bad politics, it is intellectual and moral bankruptcy. It is an attempt to blame the deep and abiding problems of our country on a foreign power. As some commentators have pointed out, it is a page from the playbook of none other than Putin himself.

[Jul 13, 2017] As of July 12 witch hunt continues unabated

They want to outdo Senator Joseph McCarthy (November 14, 1908 – May 2, 1957). The level of hysteria and paranoia is amazing. The only question is whether they can run it for ten years.
Obviously the author has an agenda but it's interesting how this type of fantasy continues to be 'quacked'
Notable quotes:
"... By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts. ..."
"... One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target to which high-impact states and districts in those states." ..."
Jul 13, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from: Trump-Russia investigators probe Jared Kushner-run digital operation

WASHINGTON -- Investigators at the House and Senate Intelligence committees and the Justice Department are examining whether the Trump campaign's digital operation – overseen by Jared Kushner – helped guide Russia's sophisticated voter targeting and fake news attacks on Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Congressional and Justice Department investigators are focusing on whether Trump's campaign pointed Russian cyber operatives to certain voting jurisdictions in key states – areas where Trump's digital team and Republican operatives were spotting unexpected weakness in voter support for Hillary Clinton, according to several people familiar with the parallel inquiries.

Also under scrutiny is the question of whether Trump associates or campaign aides had any role in assisting the Russians in publicly releasing thousands of emails, hacked from the accounts of top Democrats, at turning points in the presidential race, mainly through the London-based transparency web site WikiLeaks .

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told McClatchy he wants to know whether Russia's "fake or damaging news stories" were "coordinated in any way in terms of targeting or in terms of timing or in terms of any other measure with the (Trump) campaign."

By Election Day, an automated Kremlin cyberattack of unprecedented scale and sophistication had delivered critical and phony news about the Democratic presidential nominee to the Twitter and Facebook accounts of millions of voters. Some investigators suspect the Russians targeted voters in swing states, even in key precincts.

Russia's operation used computer commands knowns as "bots" to collect and dramatically heighten the reach of negative or fabricated news about Clinton, including a story in the final days of the campaign accusing her of running a pedophile ring at a Washington pizzeria .

One source familiar with Justice's criminal probe said investigators doubt Russian operatives controlling the so-called robotic cyber commands that fetched and distributed fake news stories could have independently "known where to specifically target to which high-impact states and districts in those states."

All of the sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation, led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, is confidential.

Top Democrats on the committees investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election have signaled the same.

Schiff said he wants the House panel to determine whether Trump aides helped Russia time its cyberattacks or target certain voters and whether there was "any exchange of information, any financial support funneled to organizations that were doing this kind of work."

Trump son-in-law Kushner, now a senior adviser to the president and the only current White House aide known to be deemed a "person of interest" in the Justice Department investigation, appears to be under the microscope in several respects. His real estate finances and December meetings with Russia's ambassador and the head of a sanctioned, state-controlled bank are also being examined.

Kushner's "role as a possible cut-out or conduit for Moscow's influence operations in the elections," including his niche overseeing the digital operations, will be closely looked at, said the source knowledgeable about the Justice Department inquiry.

Kushner joined Donald Trump Jr. and Trump campaign Chairman Paul Manafort at a newly disclosed June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower in New York.. The meeting, revealed by The New York Times, followed emails in which Trump Jr. was told the lawyer for the Russian government would provide him with incriminating information on Clinton and he replied "If it's what you say I love it."

That disclosure could only serve to heighten interest in whether there was digital collaboration.

Mike Carpenter, who in January left a senior Pentagon post where he worked on Russia matters, also has suspicions about collaboration between the campaign and Russia's cyber operatives.

"There appears to have been significant cooperation between Russia's online propaganda machine and individuals in the United States who were knowledgeable about where to target the disinformation," he said, without naming any American suspects.

Trump has repeatedly repudiated or equivocated about the finding of four key intelligence agencies – the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and the Directorate of National Intelligence – that Russian cyber operatives meddled with the U.S. election.

Last Friday, during their first face-to-face meeting, Trump questioned Putin about Russia's role in the election meddling and Putin denied culpability, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was present. Trump then said the two countries should find ways to move forward in their relationship, Tillerson said.

A Russian official who was at the meeting said the two sides agreed to form a working group to address cybersecurity, including interference in other countries' internal affairs. However, Trump backtracked Sunday night, saying in a tweet that he doesn't believe such an effort can happen.

As more has been learned about the breadth of the Russian cyber onslaught, congressional Democrats have shown growing resolve to demand that the Republican-controlled intelligence committees fully investigate ways in which Trump associates may have conspired with the Russians.

Among other things, congressional investigators are looking into whether Russian operatives, who successfully penetrated voting registration systems in Illinois, Arizona and possibly other states, shared any of that data with the Trump campaign, according to a report in Time.

"I get the fact that the Russian intel services could figure out how to manipulate and use the bots," Virginia Sen. Mark Warner told Pod Save America recently. "Whether they could know how to target states and levels of voters that the Democrats weren't even aware (of) really raises some questions How did they know to go to that level of detail in those kinds of jurisdictions?"

The Russians appear to have targeted women and African-Americans in two of the three decisive states, Wisconsin and Michigan, "where the Democrats were too brain dead to realize those states were even in play," Warner said.

[Jul 13, 2017] I suppose Lavrov called her a lady because hes a gentleman, but for me shes just a woman who shoots the shit that shes told and paid to shoot

Jul 13, 2017 | gravatar.com
moscowexile says: July 12, 2017 at 12:53 pm

Barbie Doll Nauert commented upon by Lavrov:

'Don't lag behind real events': Lavrov hits back after State Dept says he 'gets out ahead'

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has advised the US State Department to keep up with events after spokesperson Heather Nauert said that Lavrov "likes to talk a lot and get out ahead".

The Russian Foreign Minister was quick to retort, however.

"Nobody should get out ahead of things, but I suppose lagging behind real events does not help in a diplomat's job either."

"I don't understand how this lady can know what I like and don't like. We haven't been introduced", Lavrov said", speaking with the press following his meeting with the Belgian counterpart, Didier Reynders, in Brussels on Wednesday.

I suppose Lavrov called her "a lady" because he's a gentleman, but for me she's just a woman who shoots the shit that she's told and paid to shoot -- with a big, fixed smile on her Barbie-Doll face.

Big false smile, American know-nothing spokesperson.

[Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.

Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.

Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.

It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5L2F4ocEIZw

Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.

Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:

"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin.

As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:

"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ... and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.

The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done. I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."

Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and down in emphatic agreement.

Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.

Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.

Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.

Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.

It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5L2F4ocEIZw

Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.

Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:

"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin.

As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:

"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ... and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.

The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done. I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."

Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and down in emphatic agreement.

Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.

Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Jul 12, 2017] Stephen Cohens Remarks on Tucker Carlson Last Night Were Extraordinary

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better. ..."
"... Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'. ..."
"... It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia. ..."
"... "The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin. ..."
"... Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Cohen's appearance on Carlson's show last night demonstrated again at what a blistering pace public opinion in the West about Putin and Russia is shifting, for the better.

Cohen is always good, but last night he nailed it, calling the media's coverage of Hamburg 'pornography'.

Ahh, the power of the apt phrase.

It was just a year ago, pre-Trump, that professor Cohen was banned from all the networks, from any major media outlet, and being relentlessly pilloried by the neocon media for being a naive fool for defending Putin and Russia.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5L2F4ocEIZw

Last night he was the featured guest on the most watched news show in the country, being cheered on by the host, who has him on as a regular. And Cohen isn't remotely a conservative. He is a contributing editor at the arch-liberal Nation magazine, of which his wife is the editor. It doesn't really get pinker than that.

Some choice quotes here, but the whole thing is worth a listen:

"The first thing you notice is just how much the press is rooting for this meeting between our president and the Russian President to fail. It's a kind of pornography. Just as there's no love in pornography, there's no American national interest in this bashing of Trump and Putin.

As a historian let me tell you the headline I would write instead:

"What we witnessed today in Hamburg was a potentially historic new detente. an anti-cold-war partnership begun by Trump and Putin but meanwhile attempts to sabotage it escalate." I've seen a lot of summits between American and Russian presidents, ... and I think what we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting ... since the Cold War.

The reason is, is that the relationship with Russia is so dangerous and we have a president who might have been crippled or cowed by these Russiagate attacks ... yet he was not. He was politically courageous. It went well. They got important things done. I think maybe today we witnessed president Trump emerging as an American statesman."

Cohen goes on to say that the US should ally with Assad, Iran, and Russia to crush ISIS, with Carlson bobbing his head up and down in emphatic agreement.

Carlson tried to draw Cohen out about who exactly in Washington is so against Assad, and why, and Cohen deflected, demurring - 'I don't know - I'm not an expert'. Of course he knows, as does Carlson - it is an unholy alliance of Israel, Saudi Arabia and their neocon friends in Washington and the media who are pushing this criminal policy, who support ISIS, deliberately. But they can't say so, because, ... well, because. Ask Rupert Murdoch.

Things are getting better in the US media, but we aren't quite able to call a spade a spade in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

[Jul 12, 2017] The Trump Jr. Russia Scandal Ain t No Big Deal by Stefan Molyneux

(Video)
Notable quotes:
"... The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters. ..."
"... One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur. ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
The best analysis of what is really going on in the world is coming out of the alternative media. Molyneux is one of the heavy hitters in this world - with his 700k Youtube subscribers and similar numbers of podcast listeners, he matters.

One of his points is this: How could this possibly be a serious Russian government effort if they have a fat Brit moron convey the message over unencrypted email? Our staff of Russian-trained intelligence experts has to concur.

Say hi to Rob Goldstone. This will be over in a few days, and as before, the dummies who are chasing this idea, will just look stupider than they already do.

Save this video and watch it over your Wheaties tomorrow morning. Molyneux nails it.

https://youtu.be/wohYNCD4u-E

Tommy Jensen , 3 hours ago

Karl Rove said in the middle of year 2000 to VIP lawyers in Washington, that they no more would be occupied with analises of facts but forward with analising the reality Washington defined.

Due to the unipolar position Washington would from early year 2000 define the reality the world should face and spend (waste) their time on analising.

Molyneux is good to hear and see on many subjects, but this subect is in my opinion irrelevant, irrelevant as the Russia hacking US election is, the Assad Chemical attack, the HitlerPutin, the Crimea annexion hoax, the NK threat, man made clima change hoax, etc.

People with true intelligent capabilities should of course not spend their time on finding evidences on and document all Washington´s lies and defined realities.

Both Molyneux, RI and many others must have the right to dismiss obvious lies and propagandas, and go straight to the subject, that anybody with power that lie to us and the public should and must be removed and replaced.

Otherwise we are using our powers, intelligence and energy in an un-constructive way and we never learn, because we jump on the joke and hot air train again again.

[Jul 12, 2017] Top Russian Analyst Explains How US Relations Got So Bad

Notable quotes:
"... Sergey Markov is a one of the most influential Russian political scientists and publicists on international relations. ..."
"... He is omnipresent as a charismatic talking head on the top national TV shows, and his thinking reflects the opinions of Russia's political elites. He speaks English fluently, and writes in a lively, accessible style, unusual for academics. ..."
"... This article, exclusive to RI, gives an interesting insight into how Russian elites see US behavior. ..."
"... Russia responded by the food embargo from Russia, so the Russian producers in fact gained from the whole story, with president Obama still uttering his phrase about the Russian economy being "in tatters." ..."
"... The peak of Western sanctions against Russia during the period of "Russia Isolated" was the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. The pressure on Putin was so obvious, that he even had to leave the summit before all the other participants. ..."
"... That Western policy continued between March 2014 and autumn of 2015. Its legacy is still with us. After Donald Trump was unexpectedly elected the president in 2016, voices about the easing or even lifting the anti-Russian sanctions started to be heard in Europe and the US. But the legacy of 2014-2015 still dominates: the US requires Russia to change its policy in Ukraine (in fact, allowing the population of Donbass to be subjected to Nazi-like repressions). These requirements are unacceptable for Russia, but the West is determined not to lift sanction until its wishes (presented as "conditions of the Minsk agreement", even though Russia is not even mentioned there) are fulfilled. ..."
"... As a result, Trump was not allowed even to form his own new foreign policy team, he had to inherit that very part of Obama's foreign policy establishment, which Trump himself criticized during the elections. ..."
"... Currently, the Russia-US relations are in a state of a hiatus, a pause with no immediate end in sight. The new president of the US simply cannot conduct the Russia policy, which he had in his mind and which he promised his voters. His actions are blocked, and it is not clear how long this situation will persist. ..."
"... Very interesting assessment, but it ignores that Wall-Street starting with Clinton then re-enforced by Bush & Obama now Owns US Presidency, and Financiers do not adhere to Democratic principles, rather they are Dictators who view the public as assets to exploit, with Obama sabotaging Trump's Presidency on his way out. ..."
"... Vladimir Putin will eventually go down as 'The Shrewdest Gutsiest Moral Principled Politician of this era, with Chinese President Xi second, and US three stooges before Trump the most inept cowards or sell-outs in the history of that Nation. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com
Top Russian Analyst Explains How US Relations Got So Bad

A short history of US-Russia relations since 'Gorby-mania' Sergey Markov 15

Sergey Markov is a one of the most influential Russian political scientists and publicists on international relations.

He is omnipresent as a charismatic talking head on the top national TV shows, and his thinking reflects the opinions of Russia's political elites. He speaks English fluently, and writes in a lively, accessible style, unusual for academics.

This article, exclusive to RI, gives an interesting insight into how Russian elites see US behavior.


What would happen, if journalists from the early 2000s or even from the year 2007 (before Saakashvili's attack against South Ossetia) could by some magic gadget have access to the computer screens of their colleagues covering the recent G20 summit in Hamburg? These journalists would probably think they were transported into some kindergarten dystopia.

They would see everyone rejoicing about "the very fact" of a meeting of two middle-aged men with the most modern planes, ships and submarines at their disposal. A meeting that took place more than half of a year after they were supposed to meet as the presidents of the world's two most powerful countries. German chancellor Angela Merkel, arguably the third most powerful person in the world, says she is happy that the two men met and that they "stay in touch" (parents are usually happy about this kind of relationships between their children in a kindergarten).

The media frenzy around the meeting between these two middle-aged men looks absurd: what is there to admire and what is there to fear?

So, how did we allow the international relations to be reduced to the level when it became so difficult to organize a meeting between the presidents of Russia and the US – even on the background of the two very dangerous armed conflicts (in Syria and in Ukraine)? Why is a contact between two politicians in the epoch of modern transportation and communication – why is this contact such a problem now? Why does it take even more time and effort than the summits between Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill during the World War II, when the capitals of the Allies were divided by the Nazi-occupied Europe and the Western Pacific occupied by the Japanese militarist regime?

In this situation, a short wrap-up of the Russia-US relations from the 1980s to 2017 might do some good: at least, it partially explains today's absurdities.

The history of relationships between Russia and the US in the last 25 years is full of zigzags and its own ups and downs. From my point of view, it is possible to single out 11 stages in this relationship. Each of them left its own legacy, and those different legacies continue to make a difference in various ways until now. Let me first single out all of these stages:

"Gorbomania" Consolidation of geopolitical pluralism. Russia First Russia doesn't matter War against terror. The epoch of "color revolutions" Perezagruzka 2 ("Reload of Relations") Onslaught on Putin (the Russian president is presented as an authoritarian leader of a regional power) Russia Isolated. Sanctions Russia is back as a world power "Russian hackers": pause of uncertainty

Act 1: Gorbomania (Gorby-mania)

The period of improvement in relations, which was based on hopes connected to Gorbachev, continued from 1987 until August 1991, the time of the de facto collapse of the Soviet Union. During this period, the US supported the new foreign policy course of Mikhail Gorbachev, which was generally aimed at openness, reconciliation with the West and general liberalization of the Soviet political regime. During this period the US did not conduct a policy aimed at the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the US' political course was instead promoting the unity of the USSR. This course was explained by the fear of the Soviet Union's collapse "in a Yugoslav way," with a possible nuclear war between former constituent republics.

One of the indicators of this cautious American approach to the unity of the Soviet Union was the famous "chicken Kiev speech" of the then president George W.H.Bush (the senior). He made that speech on August 1 of 1991 in the Supreme Soviet of what was then still the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic inside the Soviet Union. This body was already showing the signs of being the future parliament of independent Ukraine, making defiant moves against Moscow. However, in his speech president Bush told the audience that the US was not supporting Kiev's independence at the moment and that Ukrainians should rather orient themselves to the policies of the leader of the Soviet Union – Mikhail Gorbachev.

However, the period of Gorbomania (Gorby-mania) came to its natural end after the liquidation of the Soviet Union and the resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev from the position of the defunct country's president. The legacy of that period was the formation in the US of a stable and wrong stereotype of what "good Russia" should look like. This mythologized stereotype presented "good Russia" as the Russia of Mikhail Gorbachev, which would make all sorts of concessions to the West, willingly leaving to the West the territories, which historically had been under its influence. So, in future Americans would support only that kind of Russia's foreign policy, which would be a complete remake of Gorbachev's approach.

Act 2. Consolidation of Geopolitical Pluralism

The second period in the history of relations took the space between August 1991 and the beginning of the year 1992. It can be summed up by the famous formula of "consolidation of geopolitical pluralism." The essence of this formula consisted in the following. The USA did bot strive to see the Soviet Union collapse, but since this collapse took place anyway, there was no way Washington could permit any kind of rebirth of a union of post-Soviet republics under the stewardship of Russia. The reason: such a rebirth would mean a new life for Russian imperialism.

One could say that this period lasted shortly, but it would also be right to say that in a lot of ways this period continues to this day. There is still a widespread opinion in the US that Washington should provide all kinds of assistance to all the neighbors of Russia in a bid to stem the growth of Russian influence there. This opinion also puts the sign of equality between Russian influence and "Russian imperialism." The theory behind this opinion is that any kind of union among the former Soviet republics with Russian participation would mean the rebirth of the Russian empire. Any Russian empire, according to this view, would make Russia an enemy of democracy and, as a consequence, an enemy of the United States. So, this view justifies any kind of assistance to any kind of anti-Russian regimes in the post-Soviet space.

In its extreme manifestation, this view inspired a policy that spurred the US to support the violent coup in Ukraine in 2014. The US also supported the subsequent policy of state terrorism led by the new regime in Kiev, that was installed as a result of the coup. In its softer forms, this policy meant American support for de-Russification in all post-Soviet countries. This support was provided despite the obvious fact that this de-Russification often took violent forms.

Act 3. "Russia First".

The third period, which could tentatively be called "Russia First" approach, consisted in the policy led by the then president Bill Clinton, the policy aimed at helping create a stable and democratic Russia. The idea was that this Russia could be an ally of the West, a kind of "kingsize Poland." This kingsize Poland was supposed to be a part of the Western coalition, even though it would have a subordinate position inside this coalition. American support for denuclearization of Ukraine (the removal of former Soviet nuclear weapons from the territories of the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan) – this American support was a part of "Russia First" policy.

In fact, Ukrainian political elites tried to retain the military nuclear capability on the territory of independent Ukraine. But Washington, represented by president Clinton and his key "ambassador-at-large" on Russia and post-Soviet space, Strobe Talbott, had a different plan. So, Washington pressured Kiev to transfer the nuclear weapons from the Ukrainian territory to Russia. This approach fitted the geopolitical interests of the United States, allowing to avert a possible conflict between Russia and Ukraine as nuclear powers. Such a conflict could have disastrous consequences for everyone. So, this policy fitted the Russian interests too.

The other distinct feature of the "Russia First" policy was the American pressure on the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other international financial organizations. The aim was to persuade these structures to provide loans to Russia, even when the economic policy of the Russian government did not fit the requirements of the IMF and similar organizations to their client countries.

The other important element of "Russia First" policy was the presence of political and economic advisers from the United States and its allied countries in Russia. These people, being citizens of their countries, influenced the decisions of the Russian government, including some key decisions. Alas, the advice of these helpers, as well as the US assistance in general, did more harm than good, often leading to failures. The idea of making Russia a stable democratic country did not work. Russia crawled from one crisis to another. In 1993 Yeltsin made a violent coup d'etat, with tanks firing at the parliament's building, the constitution being changed and new policies rammed through without consent from the parliament. The presidential election of 1996, of which Yeltsin was declared the winner, had all the indications of being falsified (the bulletins cast were later destroyed by the government). If elections had been held in a fair way, the candidate of the Communist party of Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov could have been the winner.

The crisis and the subsequent default in 1998 led the economy to a disaster. The same year IMF de facto refused to continue cooperation with Russia, stopped giving loans and predicted that the Russian economy would contract by 8 percent. This forecast revealed itself to be wrong. As soon as Russia stopped using the services of Western economic advisers, its economy started growing and added 9 percent in the course of two subsequent years.

The period of "Russia First" and its legacy are still very much alive in today's policy of the United States towards Russia. They Western elites stay convinced that at a certain moment they provided great assistance to Russia and its people, giving their valuable advice and providing billions of dollars in loans. In the Russian public opinion, however, the majority view of this period is negative. It is viewed as further proof of the West's negative influence on Russia and the anti-Russian character of its foreign policy. Russian public opinion puts on the Western advisers of the Yeltsin government part of the blame for the disaster that Russian economy had to go through in the 1990s. The majority view in Russia is that it was Yeltsin's government (and its foreign advisers) that led in the 1990s to Russia's deindustrialization, the collapse of social institutions, the decline of science and education, mass migration out of the country. At the time, the mortality rates in the country soared. The rapid deterioration of life's standards led to a lot of "premature" deaths: in 1991-1997 on the territory of the Russian Federation every year there were many more deaths registered annually than in 1990. The total number of "premature" deaths for social reasons is estimated at the level of 2 million.

In a huge chunk of Russia's public opinion the prevailing view is that this socio-economic degradation of the country was a part of a conscious effort by the West to deceive Russia and to inflict the biggest possible damage on it.

In this way, the 1990s stay the main source of the diverging mythologies still dominating the bilateral relations between Russia and the community of Western nations.

The West honestly thinks that in the 1990s it helped Russia and generally played a positive role in its development. The majority of the Russian public opinion for good reasons sticks to the view that the West in the 1990s preserved and pampered Yeltsin's corrupt regime, thus adding to the destruction of the country. An often cited argument in support of that view is the fact that the West supported Yeltsin's coup d'etat in 1993 and acquiesced to the falsification of the 1996 presidential election, which retained Yeltsin in power.

The diverging visions of the 1990s' legacy will determine the "conflict potential" of the relations between Russia and the US for many more years.

Act 4. "Russia Does Not Matter"

This period started in 1998 and continued until the year 2001. It was a reaction to the previous unsuccessful attempt to help Russia in a speedy forming of a democratic, stable and West-friendly socio-political system. The end product was a weak country with a corrupt government and a crumbling economy – a typical declining power.

This period was ushered in by an acute economic crisis of 1998, it included the beginning of the economy's regeneration in 1999-2001, Boris Yeltsin's resignation and his replacement by his younger successor Vladimir Putin.

Vladimir Putin, who was initially viewed in the US as just another opportunistic "apparatchik" brought to power by the corrupt ruling "family" in order to preserve that family's capitals and help it avoid the revenge of its enemies and Russia's people in general.

This period seats deep in Russian people's memory because it coincided with the peak of the Balkan wars with bombers from the US and other NATO countries bombing the then Yugoslav capital Belgrade and other cities of Serbia. The famous U-turn of the Washington-bound airplane of the then Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov also falls into this period. The prime minister was heading to the United States with a visit and, having learnt about the start of NATO's bombing of Serbia, Primakov decided to return back to Russia, making a U-turn over the Atlantic. Primakov decided to return without visiting Washington, even though the talks there had pivotal importance for the Russian economy.

It was then, during the bombing of Yugoslavia, that a serious change in the attitude of the public opinion to the West and especially to the United States took place. The cruel Western bombardment of Serb cities, led to the new perception of America as a hostile, aggressive and unjust country. The pro-American politicians in Russia started to be perceived as anti-Russian and generally unpatriotic.

Act 5. Russia and the US as Allies in the Fight Against International Terrorism (War On Terror)

The fifth period was ushered in by the terrorist act of 9/11 in the year 2001, when Russia and the US became allies in the fight against international terrorism. The preconditions for the alliance were created during the meeting between the Russian president Vladimir Putin and George Bush the junior in Ljubljana, the Slovenian capital, in June 2001. It was there that Bush said that he looked Putin in the eye and saw Putin's soul there. Putin's system of personal values cracked up to be remarkably akin to Bush – it was a combination of economic liberalism, social conservatism and religiosity.

Having learnt that Putin retained his Christians beliefs even inside the KGB, Bush made a conclusion that one could do business with Putin. This positive sentiment on Bush'a side got a powerful boost after the terrorist attack against the United States on 9/11 2001, when Putin became the first foreign leader who called Bush with an expression of support. Putin's support was not in words alone: on Putin's order, in 2001 all military activity of Russia was frozen for a few days, so that American armed forces could concentrate on fighting international terrorism, instead of wasting their resources on Russia.

In a few weeks the US became convinced that the brain center of the 9/11 attack was located in Afghanistan, so it was decided to crush the Taliban regime. It was then that Russia passed to the US a part of influence that Russia had over the Afghan-based Northern Alliance, a coalition of field commanders of mostly Tajik and Uzbek origin in the north of Afghanistan. As the US Airforce made its bombing strikes, all the "dirty work" of destroying the military might of Taliban on the Afghan ground was done by the Northern Alliance, with lots of help from the Russian special services and Russian army command. Most of the commanders of the Northern alliance had fought against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, but they later became allied with Russians in their fight against the Taliban.

The period of joint fight against terrorism was a great success, since the headquarters of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the regime of Taliban (but not its ideology) were liquidated. Cooperation between the Russian and American special services allowed to prevent a number of jihadist terrorist acts.

However, that anti-terrorist cooperation was quickly weakened by the desire of the United States to develop on their success in Afghanistan by toppling Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Russia condemned the preparation of that war. Bush perceived the Russian opposition to the war in Iraq as treason on Russia's side. His narrative was that Russia betrayed the anti-terrorist alliance. So, Bush thought himself in his right to terminate his obligations to Russia in the framework of the anti-terrorist alliance.

Even though the war in Iraq was recognized to have been a mistake in the United States, relations between Russia and the US (including the anti-terrorist track) never returned to the level of the period of the early days of the "War On Terror." The fact that the pretext for the war – the presumed possession by Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction – revealed itself to be a massive falsification, undermined Russia's trust in the US mainstream media and its periodic hysterias over various "mortal threats" requiring American military interventions.

In general, the period of the "war on terror" left in Russians a firm belief that partnership with the West in the anti-terrorist fight should continue. This belief was strengthened by the growth in the scope and sophistication of international terrorism. In the United States' elite too, there remained a substantial minority group which considered anti-terrorist cooperation with Russia feasible.

Act 6. Color Revolutions

Already in November 2003, the first "color revolution" won in Georgia using a rose as its symbol (the words "flower" and "color" have the same sounding in Russian). The new leader Mikheil Saakashvili, with active support from the United States, started conducting a very anti-Russian foreign policy. In 2004, another color revolution happened in Ukraine – the closest ethnic relative of Russia, in whose capital (Kiev) the proto-Russian ancient state Kievan Rus was born. The winner of the Ukrainian color revolution, Viktor Yushchenko, also took a very anti-Russian position. All of these revolution won with active support from the American government and so called "non-government" (Soros-financed NGOs) structures.

All of these revolutions had a powerful anti-Russian message and they were all supported by the US authorities, including the president of the United States. In the West, discussions about the desirability of a 'color revolution' in Russia started. Russia responded with a tough "no" to this "project for its future." Limitations on the work of American NGOs in Russia were imposed. Putin's speech of the year 2007 in Munich became the apotheosis of this Russian "no," with Putin denouncing not only the Western policy of "regime change," but also with Putin denouncing the unipolar world with the US and the EU as the undisputed pole.

The US continued their onslaught, however, and the next conflict happened in Georgia. The pro-US Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili started his military operation against what he called "pro-Russian separatists in South Ossetia," who had seceded from Georgia fearing genocide under the first Georgian ultranationalist president Zviad Gamsakhurdia back in 1991.

Saakashvili's artillery struck not only at South Ossetians, but also at the Russian peace-keeping contingent in South Ossetia. In retaliation, the Russian army intervened in South Ossetia, and soon the Georgian troops, who had already begun celebrating their conquest of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinval, were pushed back to their initial positions. The US did not have the guts to support their ally militarily and backed off. However, the red line of direct military combat between the Russian and American forces was dangerously close.

Act 7. The Politics of Reload (Perezagruzka 2)

This period, ushered in by Barack Obama's coming to power, is marked by a temporary hiatus in the information war between the two countries. Russia also joined the WTO, and it seemed that a normal dialogue was restarting. Even the arrest of 10 Russian reconnaissance operatives in the US did not lead to a cooling of relations between the two countries, but rather to a "spy exchange" and even to a certain warming of relations.

The policy of reload, started in 2009, promised great perspectives, but it was wrapped up in a rather brief period of time. Contradiction was programmed into the very structure of the "reload" strategy. The aim of the "reload" was to improve relations between the US and Russia in a bid to get Russian support for the American foreign policy initiatives. The problem consisted in the fact that not all of these foreign policy initiatives were acceptable for Russia or simply well thought through.

For example, in spring 2011 the US pushed through a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations on Libya, with Russia abstaining in the hope of giving the US a chance to resolve the Libyan problem. The result was awful: the resolution was misinterpreted to pave the way for a Western military intervention in Libya on the side of Islamist insurgents against the country's ruler, Muhammar Qaddafi. After the Western bombings and the collapse of Qaddafi's regime, Libya was plunged into the abyss of a civil war which continues to this way. Russia's decision in 2011 not to veto the US-suggested resolution at the United Nations was a serious mistake, which Moscow is determined not to repeat in future.

The first indicator of the Reload's speedy end was the American support for the protests that enveloped Moscow as a result of the opposition's defeat at the parliamentary elections of 2011. The US made clear its desire NOT to see Vladimir Putin back in the president's seat after the brief tenure of Dmitry Medvedev as the president. An important threshold was the official visit by the then US vice-president Joe Biden at the time. During his visit, Biden gave Putin an unsolicited "advice" not to present his candidacy for another term.

The conflict aggravated in 2013, when Moscow had the guts not to extradite the fugitive American whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who found himself on the Russian territory after his escape from Hong Kong putting Russia before a hard choice. The fact that Russia became the only country in the world that didn't cave in to Washington's demand for Snowden's scalp, this fact enraged Washington and in the first place the American intelligence community. After the Snowden episode the period of Reload actually came to its end.

The really important result of the Reload period was Washington's conviction that attempts to improve relations with Moscow by what the American side saw as "concessions" (even though they were not real concessions) – that these attempts are futile.

Act 8. Frontal Attack Against Russia's Interests (Putin presented as an "authoritarian leader of a regional superpower")

Here comes the 8th stage of the Russia-US relations, which lasted between 2012 and 2013. It was the time of a frontal personal attack against the Russian president Vladimir Putin. The Russian interests were attacked too.

American sanctions tied to the Magnitsky case and attempts to make an information attack against Putin's beloved project, the Sochi Olympics, were seen by many as hostile acts, the context of the Snowden scandal did not add to easing tensions.

It was then, back in the summer of 2013, that the American intelligence community, enraged by the Snowden episode, got down seriously to the project of removing the Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych. The opportunity presented itself when the controversy over the costs of Ukraine's joining the Association Agreement with the EU led to violent protests in Kiev. Western threats of personal sanctions paralyzed the will for resistance on the side of Yanukovych and Ukraine's government, oligarchs were pushed to change sides by the Western pressure. The legitimate government failed to restore order and prevent a violent "regime change", during which mass protests were "reformatted" as a violent rebellion.

The result of the 8th act was the establishment of a certain consensus in Washington. That consensus boiled down to the conviction that Russia is an enemy, and it should be treated as an enemy, with toughness sooner or later being rewarded by a victory. The outcome in Ukraine in the first days after the toppling of Yanukovych in the end of February 2014 was seen by the American elite as one such victory.

Act 9. Russia Isolated. Sanctions.

After the Ukrainian Maidan, a new low in Russia-US relations installed itself for duration. Russia reacted to the violent coup in Ukraine, with a rabidly anti-Russian regime established there, by taking back Crimea, with most of Crimeans more willing than ever to leave the newly nationalist Ukraine. The Russian leadership also supported the rebellion of the Donbass population, where the rebels were dying in an uneven fight against the Ukrainian army, with its airplanes, tanks and artillery. In response, the US started a powerful campaign against Russia. Sanctions against Russia were introduced, and the West started demanding that Russia stop its support for the movement in Donbass, which soon took the form of popular antifascist resistance.

A hybrid war, which the West accused Russia of leading, was in fact declared to Russia. Hundreds of Russian officials and business companies faced economic or visa sanctions. Ruble lost half of its value, which had a negative and a positive outcome: the negative was in a lower living standard and the positive in an increased competitive capacity of the Russian products.

Russia responded by the food embargo from Russia, so the Russian producers in fact gained from the whole story, with president Obama still uttering his phrase about the Russian economy being "in tatters."

The peak of Western sanctions against Russia during the period of "Russia Isolated" was the G20 summit in Brisbane, Australia. The pressure on Putin was so obvious, that he even had to leave the summit before all the other participants.

The result of the period was the formation of a big Euro-Atlantic anti-Russian coalition, with iron discipline inside it. The other outcome was the legacy of sanctions and other elements of a de-facto hybrid war, now seen as a legitimate method of resolving the "Russian problem."

That Western policy continued between March 2014 and autumn of 2015. Its legacy is still with us. After Donald Trump was unexpectedly elected the president in 2016, voices about the easing or even lifting the anti-Russian sanctions started to be heard in Europe and the US. But the legacy of 2014-2015 still dominates: the US requires Russia to change its policy in Ukraine (in fact, allowing the population of Donbass to be subjected to Nazi-like repressions). These requirements are unacceptable for Russia, but the West is determined not to lift sanction until its wishes (presented as "conditions of the Minsk agreement", even though Russia is not even mentioned there) are fulfilled.

Act 10. Russia is Back

The new 10th period in the history of relations between Russia and the US started to the accompaniment of the Russian fighter jets' engines, as the Russian aviation came to Syria to save president Assad from the foreign-supported insurgents. The most prominent among the insurgents were visibly unpalatable for years: they were jihadists from the so called Islamic State and Al-Qaeda. By the end of 2015 it became obvious that Russia changed the course of events in Syria, thus establishing itself as a leading world power, and not as a regional one (see the Act 8).

The result was not just the jihadists' failure to topple Assad, but a gradual reestablishment of the Syrian government's full control over the most developed regions of Syria, such as Damascus and Aleppo.

The result was the general view that "Russia is Back", by 2016 it became a generally accepted opinion. The narrative of the Western press changed dramatically: just months before it wrote about Russia as a declining power, which is isolated with its economy in Obamian "tatters," by the winter 2016/2017 the narrative changed to Russia being "an overwhelming threat." Now Russia is perceived as a mighty international force, which can force on the United States and the EU the unfavorable results of votes and elections (Brexit, Trump's election).

This view of Russia as a "reborn" power in international relations is often coupled with Putin's demonization. The view of the Russian president as an all-powerful demon, which can manipulate the results of elections and public opinion in the US, Germany and France, while easily pushing Britain into Brexit – this view will one day be viewed as a twenty first century conspiracy theory, on the par with myths about the all-controlling "elders of Zion" and similar absurdities.

The result of Act 10 is the view of Russia as a "comeback kid" on the global stage, but the actions of this resurgent power are viewed as hostile to the US.

Act 11 – the ongoing one. Russian Hackers: the Pause of Unpredictability

During his electoral campaign, Donald Trump promised to improve Russia-US relations and spoke in favor of ending the new cold war. However, despite his sensational victory at the elections, the new US president soon found himself in a situation when he simply did not have a chance to pursue his vision of foreign policy. The unprecedented pressure came from Trump's enemies and from the US establishment in general. Trump was accused of having been brought to power by Russian "super-hackers." He was constantly presented as an admirer of Putin and later as a person under Russian influence, simply because he owes his electoral victory to Russia and to Putin personally. The American president is on the brink of impeachment.

As a result, Trump was not allowed even to form his own new foreign policy team, he had to inherit that very part of Obama's foreign policy establishment, which Trump himself criticized during the elections.

Currently, the Russia-US relations are in a state of a hiatus, a pause with no immediate end in sight. The new president of the US simply cannot conduct the Russia policy, which he had in his mind and which he promised his voters. His actions are blocked, and it is not clear how long this situation will persist.

TIMELY CONCLUSIONS

So, which legacy is staying with us after all these periods of recent history?

  1. Washington is convinced that a "good Russia" is a possibility. This is the kind of Russia that cedes ground to the US on every issue. "Good Russia" is also supposed to willingly lave the territory of its historic influence. It is expected to conduct the policy against its own national interest and to follow all recommendations from abroad, even if that goes against the right of its own citizens.
  2. The US sees its aim as helping the countries around Russia in order to stem the spread of Russian influence. Russian influence is seen as negative by definition. Washington sees itself as a friend of the Russian people, not Russian state. The period of the 1990s, seen in Russia as a disaster, is admired in the US. In the US there is a widespread view of Russia as a vulnerable "giant on the feet of clay" Russia still believes it can be an ally of the US in the fight against terrorism.
  3. The US has powerful instruments of undermining Russia, the technologies of "soft power" in the first place. Washington is not prepared to any concessions towards Russia, they are viewed as a way to a dead end. Washington still sees Putin as a supernatural demon, with the media recreating that delusion Sanctions form the backbone of the US policy towards Russia Russia is seen in the US as an enemy of the US – weak or strong.
  4. Foreign policy towards Russia is still a hostage of the inner politics in the US. The "Russiagate" is seen as a way towards Trump's impeachment.

In this situation the US elite still has ahead of it the task of forming a coherent policy towards Russia.

TellTheTruth-2 , 13 hours ago

Meet the New World Order .. Once it is understood Communism and Zionism are both trees split from the same trunk and the same root system, the picture becomes clearer. Both had the same goal: World Domination. Which one won? Putin, a Christian, stopped the ZioCON/Communists looting of Russia and, when he started to prosecute them, they fled to Israel. Today they've shifted their focus to the USA and, and in addition to looting the USA, they're bringing their Iron Curtain police state down on us. Until Trump, at the risk of being called an anti-Semite, gets the courage to do what Putin did and toss the ZioCON/Communists out of the US Government, the USA will continue its' downhill slide and, if they ever get the guns, millions of Christians will die, just like they did to the Christians in Russia.

ghartwell TellTheTruth-2 , an hour ago

Good quick overview.

John C Carleton , 14 hours ago

Putin is a very influential person on the world stage at this point. But to call Trump and the German zionist collaborating cow, second and third most powerful people in the world? You do not understand they are hand puppets? And you are writing a political dissection piece?

Ivan Grozny , 7 hours ago

This article is one of the most sensible and comprehensible pieces I have ever seen! Kudos to the author! Very good, very good indeed!

William Reston , 11 hours ago

Congrats Russia-Insider, you now have two great analysts clearing up the mess and making things clear between the US and Russia - P. Goncharoff and S. Markov. I do appreciate their views and brains!

Vince Dhimos , 13 hours ago

Russophobia is racism.

Tobe Fair , 4 hours ago

Very interesting assessment, but it ignores that Wall-Street starting with Clinton then re-enforced by Bush & Obama now Owns US Presidency, and Financiers do not adhere to Democratic principles, rather they are Dictators who view the public as assets to exploit, with Obama sabotaging Trump's Presidency on his way out.

Considering US lack of any victory for the $Trillions squandered on Military Belligerence & Predation, 'Desperation' is more fitting than any Political strategy.

Vladimir Putin will eventually go down as 'The Shrewdest Gutsiest Moral Principled Politician of this era, with Chinese President Xi second, and US three stooges before Trump the most inept cowards or sell-outs in the history of that Nation.

How else could US Senate & Reps in-cahoots with Spy-services be so confident as to threaten it's newly "elected" President? Fact is, every Nation which survived US & clients' sanctions, embargoes & asset freezes (never to be returned) are Head & Shoulders above those who subjugated themselves out of fear or lack of fortitude. Enough victims who know how to fight, to outnumber gang-banging NATO and it's EU parasites. Exciting & Traumatic times ahead.

peter gill , 10 hours ago

The only thing effecting U.S. Russia relations is the Jewish lobby, both in the U.K. and the U.S. The good thing is that the world is now waking up to the word Zionist. The Jewish media up to now has had total control of world opinion. The writing is on the wall, there is other financial institutions the new world is turning to, and their options are limitless. Right now the Zionists think they can weather the storm; but if their wrong it will be the end of their monopoly. Add to that the growing backlash against Israel and the consequences of public opinion. Especially in the United States,Great Britain,Australia and of course Israel.

Jon Geissinger , 11 hours ago

The American public is asleep at the wheel, not unlike a drunk at the wheel of a 50' tractor trailer having a blackout episode or better yet, at the controls of a 10 mile long train running at 100 mph. The road/track is littered with people who are also asleep, and the end of the road/rail line is a steep cliff leading to nowhere, into the abyss. We, the U.S., are within inches of that end of the 'line', and nobody is paying attention. You will not affect the American Public unless you take things like reality TV, Dancing with the Stars or Honey Boo Boo away, and jack the price of gas up to $10 a gallon.

It does not matter if you are a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, a blind evangelical christian, or a normal run of the mill Joe the Plumber. The end result is the same, and it has been repeated over and over throughout man's history. Empires will rise and fall; their speed of ascension or decent is a factor of the technology today, the timeline is highly compressed today because of things like the internet.

Generally speaking, all we can do is just sit back for the ride, and if so inclined, prepare for the massive conflagration that will be the result of the impending crash.
Russia's star is on the rise, the United States, and those attached to it, are on the descent. Natural process of history. Get over it. Screaming for your safe space is something that was seen in the fall of Rome as well! As is the murder of the infants and unborn; all text book, checklist fall of empire.

You can sit back and ignore it, take note and watch it unfold, move to a safer location (southern hemisphere!), do as you please; the average man and woman are without any other control other than their exact location on the planet.

What the esteemed writer points out is the points of the checklist, nothing more. There was no cause and effect, it was a matter of natural process.

God is doing a thing and there is nothing you or I can do about it. Probably not even relocation!

So get over it!

William Toffan Jon Geissinger , 7 hours ago

There's nothing normal or inevitable about it, and God has nothing to do with it. We can control our fate through free will. Putin did it in Russia, so why can't the USA? True, Russians are less enamored with bread and circuses than the poorly educated average American, but just read the posts from average Americans on the internet, The times they are a changin! Social change is always brought about by a minority of people with conviction for their goals. The masses will inevitably follow. That is the real lesson of history.

Constantine William Toffan , 5 hours ago

Hope you're right. But while I also believe the US citizenry, should it rise up, could make a huge difference, not just within its homeland, but on an international scale.

The melancholic truth, however, is that the US Americans are among the most docile and subservient people collectively when it comes to politics. So while you're right about the exercise of free will (which is an important aspect of the Christian religion BTW), it seems highly unlikely that they will be galvanized for a well-directed political action.

Jon Geissinger William Toffan , 7 hours ago

History. It repeats itself. We are in another repeat of that loop. The American Public has nothing to do with it other than being unwitting victims.
THE ONLY way the American public will sit up and take notice is an actual, physical kick in the mouth; history. Beyond that, they will continue to take the BS that is dished out and say "thank you can I have another". Yes, there is a SMALL percentage of the public that is taking notice, but not enough to stop the slide, and certainly not enough to return to the Constitution and Declaration; the first American revolution was supported and enacted by 14% of the population.
The posts that you read are 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of the population. That is .0000001% of 325 million people.
There is no recovery without a collapse.

Kjell Hasthi , 14 hours ago

- Russia's decision in 2011 not to veto the US-suggested resolution at the United Nations was a serious mistake, which Moscow is determined not to repeat in future.

What matters is if Russia was in arming mode at that time. My gut feeling is Putin already had concluded there will be a WWIII, and was preparing for that. The number of nuke shelters finished by Jan 2015 is astonishing. The buildup of Putin Jugend happened before or at the time?

By 2014 NATO had been turned into a expeditionary Corps ready to fight shoeless Africans. They are adapting themselves too late, like Britain 1940

[Jul 12, 2017] The Syrian Test of the Trump-Putin Accord by Ray McGovern

Schizophrenic and very well armed America is a real danger to the world...
The USA is no longer can be considered as a country that can obey agreements and treaties signed. That means that it is pariah on international stage and only the power of Us military-industrial complex keeps other countries from spitting in the US representatives face.
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle. ..."
"... Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels." ..."
"... But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad. ..."
"... Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others. ..."
"... In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin). ..."
"... The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26: ..."
"... "My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief." ..."
"... Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners." ..."
"... Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented: ..."
"... "My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice." ..."
"... It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing. ..."
"... Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach! ..."
"... America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

The immediate prospect for significant improvement in U.S.-Russia relations now depends on something tangible: Will the forces that sabotaged previous ceasefire agreements in Syria succeed in doing so again, all the better to keep alive the "regime change" dreams of the neoconservatives and liberal interventionists?

Or will President Trump succeed where President Obama failed by bringing the U.S. military and intelligence bureaucracies into line behind a cease-fire rather than allowing insubordination to win out?

These are truly life-or-death questions for the Syrian people and could have profound repercussions across Europe, which has been destabilized by the flood of refugees fleeing the horrific violence in the six-year proxy war that has ripped Syria apart.

But you would have little inkling of this important priority from the large page-one headlines Saturday morning in the U.S. mainstream media, which continued its long obsession with the more ephemeral question of whether Russian President Vladimir Putin would confess to the sin of "interference" in the 2016 U.S. election and promise to repent.

Thus, the headlines: "Trump, Putin talk election interference" ( Washington Post ) and "Trump asks Putin About Meddling During Election" ( New York Times ). There was also the expected harrumphing from commentators on CNN and MSNBC when Putin dared to deny that Russia had interfered.

In both the big newspapers and on cable news shows, the potential for a ceasefire in southern Syria – set to go into effect on Sunday – got decidedly second billing.

Yet, the key to Putin's assessment of Donald Trump is whether the U.S. President is strong enough to make the mutually agreed-upon ceasefire stick. As Putin is well aware, to do so Trump will have to take on the same "deep-state" forces that cheerily scuttled similar agreements in the past. In other words, the actuarial tables for this cease-fire are not good; long life for the agreement will take something just short of a miracle.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will have to face down hardliners in both the Pentagon and CIA Tillerson probably expects that Defense Secretary James "Mad-Dog" Mattis and CIA Director Mike Pompeo will cooperate by ordering their troops and operatives inside Syria to restrain the U.S.-backed "moderate rebels."

But it remains to be seen if Mattis and Pompeo can control the forces their agencies have unleashed in Syria. If recent history is any guide, it would be folly to rule out another "accidental" U.S. bombing of Syrian government troops or a well-publicized "chemical attack" or some other senseless "war crime" that social media and mainstream media will immediately blame on President Bashar al-Assad.

Bitter Experience

Last fall's limited ceasefire in Syria, painstakingly worked out over 11 months by Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and approved personally by Presidents Obama and Putin, lasted only five days (from Sept. 12-17) before it was scuttled by "coalition" air strikes on well-known, fixed Syrian army positions, which killed between 64 and 84 Syrian troops and wounded about 100 others.

In public remarks bordering on the insubordinate, senior Pentagon officials a few days before the air attack on Sept. 17, showed unusually open skepticism regarding key aspects of the Kerry-Lavrov agreement – like sharing intelligence with the Russians (an important provision of the deal approved by both Obama and Putin).

The Pentagon's resistance and the "accidental" bombing of Syrian troops brought these uncharacteristically blunt words from Foreign Minister Lavrov on Russian TV on Sept. 26:

"My good friend John Kerry is under fierce criticism from the U.S. military machine. Despite the fact that, as always, [they] made assurances that the U.S. Commander in Chief, President Barack Obama, supported him in his contacts with Russia apparently the military does not really listen to the Commander in Chief."

Lavrov specifically criticized Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Joseph Dunford for telling Congress that he opposed sharing intelligence with Russia despite the fact, as Lavrov put it, "the agreements concluded on direct orders of Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama [who] stipulated that they would share intelligence." Noting this resistance inside the U.S. military bureaucracy, Lavrov added, "It is difficult to work with such partners."

Putin picked up on the theme of insubordination in an Oct. 27 speech at the Valdai International Discussion Club, in which he openly lamented:

"My personal agreements with the President of the United States have not produced results. people in Washington are ready to do everything possible to prevent these agreements from being implemented in practice."

On Syria, Putin decried the lack of a "common front against terrorism after such lengthy negotiations, enormous effort, and difficult compromises."

Lavrov's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, meanwhile, even expressed sympathy for Kerry's quixotic effort, giving him an "A" for effort.after then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter dispatched U.S. warplanes to provide an early death to the cease-fire so painstakingly worked out by Kerry and Lavrov for almost a year.

For his part, Kerry expressed regret – in words reflecting the hapless hubris befitting the chief envoy of the world's "only indispensible" country – conceding that he had been unable to "align" all the forces in play.

With the ceasefire in tatters, Kerry publicly complained on Sept. 29, 2016: "Syria is as complicated as anything I've ever seen in public life, in the sense that there are probably about six wars or so going on at the same time – Kurd against Kurd, Kurd against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sunni, Shia, everybody against ISIL, people against Assad, Nusra [Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate]. This is as mixed-up sectarian and civil war and strategic and proxies, so it's very, very difficult to be able to align forces."

Admitting Deep-State Pre-eminence

Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe , did Kerry admit that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.

"Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation [of the ceasefire agreement] extremely hard to accomplish," Kerry said. "But it could have worked. The fact is we had an agreement with Russia a joint cooperative effort.

"Now we had people in our government who were bitterly opposed to doing that," he said. "I regret that. I think that was a mistake. I think you'd have a different situation there conceivably now if we'd been able to do that."

The Globe's Viser described Kerry as frustrated. Indeed, it was a tough way for Kerry to end nearly 34 years in public office.

After Friday's discussions with President Trump, Kremlin eyes will be focused on Secretary of State Tillerson, watching to see if he has better luck than Kerry did in getting Ashton Carter's successor, James "Mad Dog" Mattis and CIA's latest captive-director Pompeo into line behind what President Trump wants to do.

As the new U.S.-Russia agreed-upon ceasefire goes into effect on Sunday, Putin will be eager to see if this time Trump, unlike Obama, can make a ceasefire in Syria stick; or whether, like Obama, Trump will be unable to prevent it from being sabotaged by Washington's deep-state actors.

The proof will be in the pudding and, clearly, much depends on what happens in the next few weeks. At this point, it will take a leap of faith on Putin's part to have much confidence that the ceasefire will hold.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected] . A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

Andrei Martyanov , Website July 11, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

Only in December 2016, in an interview with Matt Viser of the Boston Globe, did Kerry admit that his efforts to deal with the Russians had been thwarted by then-Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – as well as all those forces he found so difficult to align.

It took, actually, not even Syria but Ukraine to expose a complete incohesiveness of US power structure–it is literally not treaty-worthy. It can not be since itself is divided into parties with, sometimes, diametrically opposite views (and objectives). It is really sad and embarrassing.

Carlton Meyer , Website July 12, 2017 at 4:31 am GMT

Today was yet another corporate America Trump defamation day. Trump's son admitted that last year the Russians gave him evidence that H. Clinton did corrupt deals in Russia. What were these deals? No one cares! It does not matter, we all know she is corrupt. Clinton is not open for attack! The Trumpers committed treason by simply accepting such evidence! Impeach!

I watched part of Oliver Stone's interview. The reason Snowden remains in Russia is because the USA refuses to sign an extradition treaty with Russia. There are several Russians living in the USA wanted for looting large sums in Russia, and Putin wants justice, but they are exempt, like Hillary. Read about her Russian Uranium kickback deal, its on-line, but of no interest to our corporate media.

Not news in the USA!

Ram , July 12, 2017 at 10:06 am GMT

@Sean " Assad could not win a free election and everyone knows it. "

Just as everyone knows that Russia won the election for Trump as enunciated by the Israeli Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley.

Jon Halpenny , July 12, 2017 at 10:33 am GMT

Sean, that is pure nonsense. America wanted regime change from the get-go. Rebels in Syria got huge amounts of weapons courtesy of America and its allies. John McCain pleaded for rebels to get weapons and support. The result was Al Qaida using American TOW missiles.

[Jul 12, 2017] Trump Poland speech

Notable quotes:
"... One wonders what were the U.S. President's diplomatic goals for that little venue, if indeed he had any. ..."
"... I usually agree with Buchanan, but not on this one. The US President is not a pundit, to be " right" about his foreign policy is hardly enough. He has to be able to push it through. This requires clarity in his vision and the ability to find common ground, to influence his international partners (as Putin expresses it). He should not just go be provoking in Central Europe. If Trump is standing alone among world leaders, it is not because of righteousness, but because of incompetence. ..."
"... Trump lacks both intellectual integrity and intellectual honesty. Or any philosophically-sound ethos, for that matter. ..."
"... They've been as global as their means allowed. In the interwar and post-Cold War eras their global role has been to align with world hegemons to gain advantages over neighboring states, with results that have turned quite bad. Somehow, the lesson that it's better to have a good policy towards neighboring states rather than alignment with your neighboring states' sworn enemies seems to escape them. They don't like EU's immigration policy but with all of the Atlanticists' other imperial bullshit is just fine and dandy with them. ..."
"... Regardless of Poland's contributions to civilisation of the past, it remains a fact that today's Poland is one of the chief instigators of the "Russia is all evil, all the time" chorus. Its a great cheerleader for pushing NATO up to Russia's borders etc etc. These actions, to say the least, are fraught with danger: for Poland & what for passes for our civilisation. ..."
"... Economics & culture are of one large KNOT. It should be clear that Neo-liberalism cares nothing for families: the destruction of small business, of living wages & the general gross bias of Elites against people/families to corporations demonstrate just how elites care about families. Neoliberalism's willingness to dispense with morality in such things as advertising, movies etc if it will secure good profits has been clear for years (Of course, we as consumers, of such degenerate products are not innocent either) ..."
"... Nor does christianity fare too well in hyper-capitalist society: Jesus was pretty clear on this element: there's the problem of rich persons & the eye of needles, & that you can't follow two leaders: its Christ OR Mammon, I believe. ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

Veritatis , July 11, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

Well, I read the speech, in a version which included the chants of the crowd. It seems to me it was two speeches badly welded into one. The first, the foreign policy one, could easily be construed as anti-Rusia (pro expansive NATO). The second was a cheerleading effort, along the lines referenced by Buchanan. It spoke glowingly about Poland's nationalism (and thus was correctly read by some German friends as "anti Merkel") and more diffusely about "The West's" achievements and will to survive. The Poles present received it enthusiastically, which must have been very flattering.

Overall, a badly crafted speech, that can irritate both Russians and Germans by reminding them of past crimes and present policies where there is confrontation with the U.S. (role of NATO and refugees). One wonders what were the U.S. President's diplomatic goals for that little venue, if indeed he had any.

I usually agree with Buchanan, but not on this one. The US President is not a pundit, to be " right" about his foreign policy is hardly enough. He has to be able to push it through. This requires clarity in his vision and the ability to find common ground, to influence his international partners (as Putin expresses it). He should not just go be provoking in Central Europe. If Trump is standing alone among world leaders, it is not because of righteousness, but because of incompetence.

Anonymous, July 12, 2017 at 3:18 am GMT

Trump lacks both intellectual integrity and intellectual honesty. Or any philosophically-sound ethos, for that matter.

If Russia has a lick of good sense, they'll keep their nuclear deterrent operational, and ignore the collapsing decadent monster, the USA. They might also benefit from making it known that, say, 10% of their kick-ass nukes have "Destination Jerusalem" inscribed on the MIRV capsule.

Russia has adequate resources to be a strong economy and a businesslike, but somewhat insular, nation of dedicated Russians. You know, kinda like the USA used to be for Americans. They might greatly benefit from pursuing that route.

Sic transit, dammit, sic transit gloria mundi.

Thirdeye, July 12, 2017 at 1:33 am GMT

The Enlightenment is what made the west great. The backwards Roman Catholicism so loved by Buchanan and so many Poles undermines it. Poland never fired a shot in defense of western civilization. They waged war for hegemony of backwardness. Copernicus was a swell guy, but Poland's contribution to the ascent of the west since then has been pretty much zip. Funny how Buchanan's cogent criticism of Poland's role in starting the Second World War is forgotten in his fauning over Trump's sophomoric speech.

Families in the west are declining because of economic, more than cultural, assault. Don't worry when dysfunctional weenies voluntarily take themselves out of the gene pool.

Thirdeye, July 12, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT • 100 Words

@Anonymous

Poland never fired a shot in defense of western civilization. They waged war for hegemony of backwardness.

Essplainame, Lucy, how that's a "bad thing"?

I see you don't mind wars for hegemony of backwardness.

.Poland and their global role which they choose NOT to be a global role?

They've been as global as their means allowed. In the interwar and post-Cold War eras their global role has been to align with world hegemons to gain advantages over neighboring states, with results that have turned quite bad. Somehow, the lesson that it's better to have a good policy towards neighboring states rather than alignment with your neighboring states' sworn enemies seems to escape them. They don't like EU's immigration policy but with all of the Atlanticists' other imperial bullshit is just fine and dandy with them.

animalogic, July 12, 2017 at 7:10 am GMT

@Thirdeye

All this talk of "western civilisation"reminds me of a quote attributed to Gandhi:

"What do you think of western civilisation, Mr Gandhi ?"

"I think it would be a good idea" he replied.

Regardless of Poland's contributions to civilisation of the past, it remains a fact that today's Poland is one of the chief instigators of the "Russia is all evil, all the time" chorus. Its a great cheerleader for pushing NATO up to Russia's borders etc etc. These actions, to say the least, are fraught with danger: for Poland & what for passes for our civilisation.

As for: "Families in the west are declining because of economic, more than cultural, assault."

Economics & culture are of one large KNOT. It should be clear that Neo-liberalism cares nothing for families: the destruction of small business, of living wages & the general gross bias of Elites against people/families to corporations demonstrate just how elites care about families. Neoliberalism's willingness to dispense with morality in such things as advertising, movies etc if it will secure good profits has been clear for years (Of course, we as consumers, of such degenerate products are not innocent either)

Nor does christianity fare too well in hyper-capitalist society: Jesus was pretty clear on this element: there's the problem of rich persons & the eye of needles, & that you can't follow two leaders: its Christ OR Mammon, I believe.

Renoman, July 12, 2017 at 8:24 am GMT

Looking to Germany for leadership? Remember the Wars folks. Putin is the leader of the free World, Trump is just the tantrum throwing child of the deep state [Israel].

[Jul 12, 2017] Hilarious Trump Advisors Want Arch Russia Hawk in Putin Meeting

Notable quotes:
"... Trump may have talked about getting along with Russia during the campaign, but he has since surrounded himself with people who a.) think he is a muppet and b.) rather like the new cold war. ..."
"... The hawk they want at the meeting is none other than Fiona Hill. The Putin biographer that Trump appointed to his National Security Council. Considering the content of her book on Putin (taglined: "a multidimensional portrait of the man at war with the West") the intent may even be to slight the Russian leader. ..."
"... According to two White House aides, senior Trump administration officials have pressed for Hill the National Security Council's senior director for Europe and Russia and the author of critical psychological biography of Putin to be in the room during the president's highly anticipated meeting with Putin. ..."
"... Hill, who came to the White House from the Brookings Institution, previously served as the National Intelligence Council's top intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Her 2013 biography, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, portrayed a corrupt and Machiavellian leader attempting to balance his various public personas in an effort to hang on to power. ..."
"... More recently, Hill has downplayed expectations that Trump's public praise for Putin and his criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization might engender closer relations between the two countries. ..."
"... "I think it will come down to what it's always been," she told The Atlantic in November, "where the Russians will get all giddy with expectations, and then they'll be dashed, like, five minutes into the relationship because the U.S. and Russia just have a very hard time being on the same page." ..."
Jul 12, 2017 | russia-insider.com

What better way to nip any chances of a Russia reset in the bud

Trump may have talked about getting along with Russia during the campaign, but he has since surrounded himself with people who a.) think he is a muppet and b.) rather like the new cold war.

So when he meets the Russian president this weekend in Germany The Daily Beast reports his own aides want the biggest anti-Russia hawk among them to be in the room, ostensibly to help with "optics", but in reality to "help nudge Trump in the right direction". I.e. to make sure any prospect of Russia reset is nipped in the bud.

The hawk they want at the meeting is none other than Fiona Hill. The Putin biographer that Trump appointed to his National Security Council. Considering the content of her book on Putin (taglined: "a multidimensional portrait of the man at war with the West") the intent may even be to slight the Russian leader.

The Daily Beast:

According to two White House aides, senior Trump administration officials have pressed for Hill the National Security Council's senior director for Europe and Russia and the author of critical psychological biography of Putin to be in the room during the president's highly anticipated meeting with Putin.

If Hill is there, these officials believe, it will help the White House avoid the perception that the president is too eager to cozy up to the Kremlin. The hope is to avoid a repeat of Trump's last meeting with top Russian officials, during which he disclosed classified intelligence to two of the country's top diplomats!and was pictured by Russian state media looking particularly friendly with them.

"If she [Hill] wasn't there it would be pretty bad, this is the most momentous thing in her portfolio," said former Pentagon Russia policy chief Evelyn Farkas, who added that the only valid reason not to include Hill would be to make room for McMaster in a room with limited space.

A National Security Council official confirmed to The Daily Beast that Hill is already in Hamburg, awaiting the president's Thursday arrival. Her early presence, and ongoing efforts to include Hill in the president's meeting with Putin, signal that the administration is attempting to head off any sense that the Trump is treating the Kremlin with kid gloves during his first meeting with America's chief geopolitical antagonist.

"We've clearly had an optics problem [on this issue]," one White House official said. "This would be one small corrective."

Officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on these matters. The White House press office did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

Hill, who came to the White House from the Brookings Institution, previously served as the National Intelligence Council's top intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Her 2013 biography, Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, portrayed a corrupt and Machiavellian leader attempting to balance his various public personas in an effort to hang on to power.

Putin, has turned his skills as a former KGB officer into a unique brand of kleptocratic statecraft , wrote Hill and her co-author , Brookings' Clifford Gaddy. The Kremlin leader installed friendly officials in high-level posts with influence over key levers of the Russian economy!and ensured they remain friendly through financial inducements and more sinister, if mostly unspoken, threats.

More recently, Hill has downplayed expectations that Trump's public praise for Putin and his criticism of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization might engender closer relations between the two countries.

But while Trump has repeatedly hailed the "strong" and "brilliant" Russian leader, Hill said she expected little change in longstanding U.S.-Russia tensions.

"I think it will come down to what it's always been," she told The Atlantic in November, "where the Russians will get all giddy with expectations, and then they'll be dashed, like, five minutes into the relationship because the U.S. and Russia just have a very hard time being on the same page."

[Jul 11, 2017] Russian Lawyer Who Met With Trump Jr. I Didn t Have Clinton Info They Wanted

Looks like recent leak is another fake...
www.unz.com

MOSCOW - The Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. during the presidential campaign denied in an exclusive interview with NBC News that she had any connection to the Kremlin and insists she met with President Donald Trump's son to press her client's interest in the Magnitsky Act - not to hand over information about Hillary Clinton's campaign.

"I never had any damaging or sensitive information about Hillary Clinton. It was never my intention to have that," Natalia Veselnitskaya said.

When asked how Trump Jr. seemed to have the impression that she had information about the Democratic National Committee, she responded:

"It is quite possible that maybe they were longing for such an information. They wanted it so badly that they could only hear the thought that they wanted."

Trump Jr. has confirmed that the meeting occurred, saying in a statement to The New York Times that he attended "a short introductory meeting" with the lawyer, where the topic of conversation was primarily about adoption.

On Monday, Trump Jr. seemed to confirm that he had been offered information about Hillary or her campaign but insisted that nothing untoward in the meeting had occurred.

"Obviously I'm the first person on a campaign to ever take a meeting to hear info about an opponent... went nowhere but had to listen," he tweeted, seemingly sarcastic.

The New York Times on Monday reported that Trump Jr. was told in an email before the meeting that the information Veselnitskaya had was part of a Russian government effort to help his father's candidacy.

But Veselnitskaya flatly denied any connection to the Russian government.

[Jul 11, 2017] The Consequences of Donald Trump Jr.s Stupidity

This female lawyer probably can be characterized as anti-Russian lawyer. She is more probably MI6 asset then FSB asset ;-) (connection with William F. Browder ).
But attempts to stir the pot of Purple Color Revolution ( aka Russiagate) will continue. Neocons are pretty tenacious.
Notable quotes:
"... That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.'' ..."
"... But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy. ..."
"... But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

During a post-dinner cigar session at his elegant Cleveland mansion, Hanna reported back to McKinley on the results of his mission. Another participant recalled that the excited Hanna seemed "as keen as a razor blade.''

"Now, Major," said the political operative, addressing the governor by his Civil War title, "it's all over but the shouting. You can get both New York and Pennsylvania, but there are certain conditions." He didn't show any discomfort with the conditions, but McKinley was wary.

"What are they?" he asked. Hanna explained that Quay wanted control of all federal patronage in Pennsylvania, while others wanted to dominate government jobs in New England and Maine. But Platt wanted a bigger prize!the job of secretary of the Treasury!and he wanted a promise in writing.

McKinley stared ahead, puffing on his cigar. Then he rose from his chair, paced the room a few moments, and turned to Hanna.

"Mark," he said, "there are some things in this world that come too high. If I were to accept the nomination on those terms, the place would be worth nothing to me, and less to the people. If those are the terms, I am out of it.''

Hanna was taken aback. "Not so fast," he protested, explaining that, while it would be "damned hard" to prevail over the powerful bosses, who would surely not take kindly to a rebuff, Hanna thought it could be done and he welcomed the challenge. The men in the room pondered the situation and came up with a slogan: "The People Against the Bosses.''

McKinley ultimately beat the bosses, stirring a Washington Post reporter to write that "the big three of the Republican Party hoped to find McKinley as putty in their hands. When they failed, they vowed war on him." But now, said the reporter, their war was sputtering. "And over in the Ohio city by the lake, one Mark Hanna is laughing in his sleeve.''

This little vignette from the mists of the political past comes to mind with the latest development in the ongoing saga involving suspected Russian interference in last year's presidential campaign and the search for evidence that President Trump or his top campaign officials "colluded" with Russians to influence the electoral outcome. Now it turns out that the president's son, Donald Jr., met with a Russian lawyer, at the behest of a Russian friend, with an understanding beforehand that the lawyer could provide "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary [Clinton] and her dealings with Russia and be very useful to your father." For good measure, Donald Jr. took along his brother-in-law, Jared Kushner, a top Trump adviser, and his father's campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort.

This is no small matter, and it is certain to roil the waters of the ongoing investigations. More significantly, it will roil the political scene, contributing mightily to the deadlock crisis that has America in its grip. White House officials and Trump supporters are defending young Trump with pronouncements that nothing was amiss here; every campaign collects dirt on opponents; nothing done was against the law; we must get beyond these "gotcha" political witch hunts, etc., etc.

Meanwhile. Trump opponents see skulky tendencies, nefarious intent, moral turpitude, and likely illegality. Both sides are trotting out criminal lawyers declaring, based on their prior political proclivities, that no laws were broken!or that laws were clearly broken. The cable channels are crackling with competition over who can be more definitive and sanctimonious on the air!Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity at Fox in defending the president; or Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews in attacking him on MSNBC.

Meanwhile, the country will continue to struggle with the question of what all this Sturm und Drang actually means. What to think? Whom to believe?

Let's stipulate, for purposes of analysis, that what we see is what there is, that what we know is not a harbinger of worse to come. How should we assess what we know thus far? What should we make of that meeting with the Russian lawyer?

That it was, yes, ethically promiscuous!but, worse, incredibly stupid. One recalls the line, often incorrectly attributed to Talleyrand, in response to a burgeoning scandal at the French court: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder.''

Consider that, after months of investigation, with leaks all over the place from those conducting the probe, no serious evidence emerged of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. The collusion story was receding in the national consciousness, and even in the Washington consciousness, with questions of "obstruction of justice" supplanting collusion as the more significant avenue of inquiry. Now the question of collusion is once again in the air.

The fate of Donald Trump Jr. is a puny matter in the scheme of things, but the state of the union is a huge matter. And the young man's stupidity of a year ago will have!indeed, is already having!a significant impact on the president's leadership. He campaigned on a pledge to improve relations with Russia, with an implicit acknowledgment that the West was probably equally responsible, along with Moscow, for the growing tensions between the two nations. He was right about that. Then came the evidence of Russian meddling in the U.S. election and the allegations of collusion, and Trump's effort at improving relations was killed in the crib.

But he didn't give up. At last week's G-20 Summit in Hamburg, in a long meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump sought to get beyond the matter of Russia's U.S. political interference and take up other serious matters of mutual interest to the two countries, with a hope of easing tensions. It was an important development in a crucial area of U.S. foreign policy. Now the president is back on the defensive, his back to the wall, with his opponents positioned to immobilize him on his Russian policy.

Now let's set aside, for just a moment, the previous stipulation that what we see is all there is. It's possible, of course, that this unfortunate meeting actually was part of a much bigger conspiracy that, if disclosed in full, could engulf the administration in revelations of such magnitude as to bring down the president. It's possible, but not likely.

But, in terms of Trump's command of his policy toward Russia, it almost doesn't matter because the new revelations will constrict his range of action irrespective of what may lie behind them. The forces that have wanted to destroy the president, or at least destroy his ability to bring about a détente with Putin, are once again in the saddle. One has to wonder at, perhaps even marvel at, the timing in all this.

Actions, even more than ideas, have consequences. That's what Trump Jr., Kushner, and Manafort ignored when they accepted an invitation to meet with a Russian representative with "official documents" that could harm the candidacy of the Democratic contender.

And that's precisely what William McKinley had in mind when he said he wouldn't enter into unsavory bargains with the Eastern bosses even if it meant giving up his presidential dream. Of course, McKinley was thinking in part about his own personal code of conduct!his inability to live with a decision that was beneath his concept of rectitude. But note that he also invoked the American people when he recoiled at the thought. He wouldn't take an action that he considered inconsistent with his duty to the electorate.

That was a long time ago!and a world away. Today we have the likes of the Trumps!and, for that matter, the Clintons, who leave nearly everyone in their wake when it comes to moral and ethical laxity in matters of public policy. And so it must have seemed perfectly normal for those three men, part of Donald Trump's inner circle of campaign confidantes, to accept the idea of sitting down with someone from a foreign power and talk about how official documents from that power could help upend their opponent. Did Trump himself know about all this as it was unfolding? We don't know, but probably. In any event, it probably wasn't a crime, but it was a hell of a blunder.

... ... ...

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative. His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in November.

[Jul 11, 2017] The present state of US Russia relations can only be described as "confrontation"

Jul 11, 2017 | russiareviewed.wordpress.com
Monday evening, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center Dr. Dmitri Trenin gave a lecture at my university's school of public policy.

I won't try to give my own analysis of his remarks, but I will report them here for your reading and discussing pleasure.

Present state of U.S.-Russian relationship

According to Dr. Trenin, the present state of relations can only be described as 'confrontation' (defined here as a state of relations in which collision is possible). We no longer have a crisis in U.S.-Russian relations; since July of 2014 the two countries have settled into a new paradigm.

Trenin takes issue with those who call this the "New Cold War." He says the current confrontation differs from the old days in three distinct ways:

  • It is asymmetrical. The Cold War was fought between two superpowers/relatively equal military blocs. The "New Cold War" pits the U.S., which has a vastly greater hand than its opponent, against Russia, which does not want to lose.
  • It isn't static. During the Cold War, the Berlin wall and the division of Europe were immobile and effectively shielded each bloc from the influence of the other. In the 21st century, confrontation has spread to the information space ('propaganda'), the global economic space (sanctions), and cyberspace (hacking).
  • It is waged without mutually accepted rules and norms.
Controlling confrontation

It goes without saying that we need to do whatever it takes to minimize the danger of kinetic collison. Trenin opines that since the U.S. election, U.S.-Russian confrontation has been "put on hold", but the idea that Trump would usher in a new reset or detente should be taken with a large grain of salt. According to Trenin, the Russian government was all but bracing for a Hillary Clinton victory.

Trenin's recommendations for how to control confrontation:

  • reopening channels of communication between the U.S. and Russia
  • meetings between U.S. and Russian defense chiefs to reduce incidents between U.S. and Russian armed forces
  • Confidence-building measures (and here my notes become sloppy; it had something to do with scaling back aggressive training exercises on Russian border in anticipation of an invasion of the Baltics)
  • End the media/demonization barrage on both sides – the longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be to deescalate tensions
Future of U.S.-Russian relations

The future relationship between the U.S. and Russia lies somewhere between managed adversity and mismanaged adversity. There isn't a constituency in either country willing to work wholly to improve the relationship. However, cooperation between the U.S. and Russia is still possible in certain areas:

  • Nuclear arms proliferation – the question is whether this will remain part of the relationship or become a nonregulated strategic environment
  • space
  • combating terrorism – but Trenin thinks a Russian-U.S. coalition to fight ISIS is unlikely. The Pentagon wouldn't accept Russia as a partner. (He also mentioned that Russia wants the coalition primarily because it would give Russia status and respect. That seems simplified at best.)
  • Iran
  • trilateral discussion between U.S., Russia, and China on strategic issues. China's assumed nuclear potential is less than that of U.S./Russia, but it remains a major military power. It is in the interests of both the U.S. and Russia to strengthen stability in East Asia.
  • political transition in Syria
  • Afghanistan – mutual interest in preventing the country from becoming an ISIS romping-ground.
  • Libya – against extremists; for political settlement
  • North Pole
  • Russian Far East; Siberia

Trenin asserts that Russia has neither the will nor capacity to act as a superpower, and also that whatever future cooperation between the U.S. and Russia will have to occur within the existing framework of confrontation and adversity.

Thus concluded the lecture.


Questions from the audience

Yes, yours truly stayed for the Q&A, which tends to be the most disastrous part of any Russia-related lecture. In actuality, this particular Q&A wasn't bad!

Opinon on the recent anticorruption protests in Russia

Trenin says there are several sides to the issue (although he only explains one).

  • people in Russia are becoming less tolerant of corruption. In the recent past, corruption among officials was not seen as something completely abhorrent. Because "for the first time in their long history, the Russian people were left alone by their government."
  • The corruption material on Medvedev came from a very authoritative source: the FSB (did it? That also begs the question of why they'd pass it off to Navalny of all people – J.T.)
  • Revelations could be a manifestation of elite competition – different economic visions for Russia within the administration
  • Mass demonstrations have occurred across Russia for the first time in almost five years.
  • Russian elections are about confronting people in power, not changing them. So even though elections won't be held until 2018, it's safe to say the election year has already begun.
  • Potentially, this could become dangerous, as with anything in volatile Russia.
How will Russia and China maintain their political "friendship"?
  • The Sino-Russian partnership is best characterized as "good neighborly relations".
  • There isn't much suspicion of China in Russia, despite glaring imbalances within each country.
  • Russia is stong militarily, but lacks China's economic and demographic heft. China is an economic superpower and one of the most populous countries of the world, but lacks Russia's military might.
  • No two countries can be each other's direct equals. The key is to construct a relationship which won't lead to unilateral concessions.
  • Russia's problem is that it cannot accept any other country's leadership over its own. In Trenin's opinion, refusal to join a larger organization coupled with inability to defeat it can be costly.
  • The relationship is complicated. Trenin doubts Russia will accept Chinese leadership. Unlike the U.S., China wisely knows how to treat Russia with a modicum of care.
Population decline and demographic changes in Russia
  • One of the most important issues facing Russia today, in Trenin's opinion.
  • Due to improvements in life expectancy and birthrate, projections have become somewhat less dangerous for Russia.
  • Still, Trenin believes the real issue at hand isn't numbers, but the declining body of the workforce.
  • Ways of dealing with it: 1) Increase productivity. Currently the productivity of the average Russian worker is 25% of that of an American worker. 2) Improve healthcare. 3) "open up to others". (A few million guest workers have come to Russia from FSU countries.)
Russian economic development policy

Basically, there isn't one. Trenin says the Russian government has merely coasted on high oil prices, and when oil prices fell, the economy went into recession. He distills Putin into two things:

  • keeping Russia in one piece, and
  • restoring Russia's status in the world as a great power

Neither one dealing with economic policy. Trenin pins hope for real economic development on the post-Putin era.


There's a postscript to this little exercise in dictation that can't be resisted, and you can make of it what you will:

In the entirety of this two-hour lecture (including student questions), Trump was mentioned by name exactly one time.

I suppose I should be thankful.

[Jul 11, 2017] Blast from the Past: notes on lecture 'How to Deal with Russia: Advice for the Future President'

Jul 11, 2017 | russiareviewed.wordpress.com
Posted on May 31, 2017 by J.T. 3 Comments

Below is an unedited set of notes from a lecture given by former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack F. Matlock, Jr. sometime in Fall of 2016. This was before I started blogging about lectures seriously, so the notes may seem patchy in places.

All the usual disclaimers; shadowquoted to the max.


On allegations of Russian interference in the elections

Can Russia influence the campaign? Sure! Anybody they endorse is likely to lose votes.

Ambassador Matlock is skeptical of interference allegations.

I cannot imagine that if our election system is well managed, that any external actor can hack and change the election results.

He also believes the idea that the Russians prefer Trump is shaky. Many Russians prefer Hillary due to her predictability.

What does the new president need to understand?

U.S. foreign policy is in many respects not serving the national interest.

  • trapped in never-ending wars
  • politically split at home into two antagonistic factions
  • tied to "allies" whose interests aren't the same as ours – might be drawn into conflicts that are not in our interest
  • estranged from potential partners
  • infrastructure in need of repair – gross overspending in military, 100+ bases abroad
  • current policy threatens new nuclear arms race
Why has this happened?

U.S. foreign policy has become too concentrated on militarism and the use of force to solve problems.

The most serious threats facing the world today are:

  1. Nuclear weapons
  2. Global warming/environmental degradation
  3. failed states/terrorism
  4. Disease
  5. International crime and corruption

All are only exacerbated by military force, and none can be managed without active cooperation with Russia and china.

Ambassador Matlock says the future of the world, and indeed mankind, will not be determined by geopolitical conquest or control of territory. The greatest challenges transcend national boundaries and can only be solved through international cooperation.

How did we get off track?
  • triumphialism/unilateralism after the Cold War – the U.S. started treating Russia as a defeated nation. However, the U.S. did not defeat the USSR. The USSR collapsed due to internal pressure.
  • behavior seen abroad as imperialist
  • failure to understand others' perceptions
  • insistence on democracy promotion/regime change. If a country isn't a democracy, change the regime. This is based upon the assumption that democracy is the natural state of mankind. However, it takes time to develop democratic institutions, and the people must be ready for it.
Russian mistakes
  • overreaction to US/NATO/EU moves
  • military invention with neighbors
  • violation of prior agreements and international law
  • annexation of Crimea will be costly; Donbass fighting is a bleeding wound in Russia's most important neighbor

These mistakes have costs aside from Western sanctions.

On sanctions. They don't incentivize a Russian change in policy and allow Russians to claim that the problem lies not with their own government's policy, but with American hostility.

Mistaken ideas
  1. Control of land and people equals strength
  2. The goal should be to maximize power (power for what?)
  3. We should not think of power as a hierarchy: Do more powerful nations have rights or privileges denied others?
  4. Rivalry for control of territory benefits nobody. It damages or destroys the area fought over.
  5. Military force cannot create democracy in another country.
Priority tasks
  1. Restore nuclear cooperation with Russia and bring China into the loop.
  2. Stop military competition with China.
  3. Stop expanding the alliance system and make clear there is no blank check to defend risky behavior.
  4. With both Russia and China, seek areas where cooperation is possible to mutual benefit.

Long term:

  1. Reduce the military component in foreign policy.
  2. Withdraw from others' fights.
  3. Talk to everyone.
  4. End democracy promotion abroad, demonstrate its virtues at home.
  5. Give Russia and China incentive to feel part of the industrial/post-industrial 21st century world.
The situation is not hopeless.

Trump could be convinced he needs a different approach to be a "winner". Hillary may want to overshadow the legacy of her husband and predecessor. Just as Reagan, elected on an anticommunist platform, surprised people, so could Hillary.

Matlock concluded the lecture with the following quote from Senator J. William Fulbright:

Power confuses itself with virtue and tends also to take itself for omnipotence.


And not one lesson has been learned since.

[Jul 11, 2017] Siemens to press charges after turbines moved from Russia to Crimea

Notable quotes:
"... There's some hinky stuff going on with these turbines. I just posted Part III of my series this morning on the turbines. ..."
"... do something ..."
"... " Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination." ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al , July 10, 2017 at 2:27 pm

Neuters: Siemens to press charges after turbines moved from Russia to Crimea
https://in.reuters.com/article/ukraine-crisis-crimea-power-idINKBN19V251

Germany's Siemens said on Monday at least two of its gas turbines had been moved "against its will" from Russia to Crimea, a region subject to sanctions barring EU firms providing it with energy technology

Siemens, which has repeatedly insisted it was not aware the turbines were destined for Crimea, said it would press criminal charges against those responsible for diverting the turbines .

Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination. It said it was evaluating what additional actions were possible.

#####

Is this a PR/face saving stunt? Where exactly are they going to file charges, Moscow, Berlin or Brussels. Maybe if they string it out until after Merkel's re-election they can gently let it drop. Otherwise, they could always just f/k off and leave Russia. Now that would be good for their business. I don't see them being among approved bidders for Russian projects in future.

yalensis , July 10, 2017 at 3:25 pm

There's some hinky stuff going on with these turbines. I just posted Part III of my series this morning on the turbines.

And wouldn't you know it, Prof. Robinson posted a comment on my blog with a link to a lenta piece claiming that the turbines ARE in fact of native Russian manufacture!

(Something which I tend to doubt, but I'll look into this .)

Anyhow, now I'm as confused as a hare at a dog show, and I don't know what to believe any more. I'll continue my posts tomorrow, but taking the lenta link into account.

Bottom line: Somebody out there is lying – GASP! Either the turbines are German, or they're not! And either the Germans knew the turbines were destined for Crimea, or they didn't know! And either the Russians are lying about the turbines being of native Russian manufacture, or .

marknesop , July 10, 2017 at 8:09 pm

Perhaps they are Siemens products manufactured to Siemens specifications in Russia, under license. That's far from uncommon, although I'm not sure to what extent it is done in Russia. But we know it is, because Russia intended to buy only the first two MISTRAL Class assault carriers from France – until the US State Department stepped in and fucked everything up for everybody, including and mostly France – and build the second pair in Russia.

et Al , July 11, 2017 at 2:14 am

Thanks for that yalensis. I really should visit your blog more often!

cartman , July 11, 2017 at 7:29 am

Doesn't Russia make its own turbines for hydro plants? How different are those from natural gas ones?

marknesop , July 10, 2017 at 8:03 pm

I'm pretty confident that they are pissed off they have to do anything, just because somebody blew the whistle. They have no choice now, they have to act or it will just snowball, with hysterical reporters roaring that Siemens isn't going to do anything when are they going to do something ??

Siemens is, of course, the builder of the Velaro high-speed train used in Russia, where it is called the Sapsan , or Peregrine Falcon. Russia bought 240 trains, 1,200 cars, and – most importantly – awarded Siemens a 40-year contract for preventive and all other maintenance . I doubt very much if they will jeopardize that over a couple of gas turbines. But the yapping press must be appeased.

kirill , July 10, 2017 at 9:05 pm

Siemens has no legal case. Just like no car manufacturer controls what you do with your car (e.g. who you sell it to), Siemens has no control over its turbines in the aftermarket.

kirill , July 10, 2017 at 9:03 pm

https://ria.ru/economy/20170710/1498213204.html

"Technopromexport bought four unfinished turbine assemblies on the secondary market and had them rebuilt and modernized."

Does not sound like these are brand new, fully assembled systems. BTW, Siemens has zero control over its products after they are sold. Perhaps if Russian law recognized some contract term that resale or rebuilding was forbidden then Siemens would have a case. Siemens would have no case in Russia based on contract laws in other jurisdictions and has to lump whatever Russian law dishes out. You can see similar limitations on warranties for products in North America: different states and provinces control warranties differently. Also, I have never heard of contract terms for any non-military product that impose such draconian limitations. Russia ***bought*** these aftermarket turbines and not leased them from Siemens.

marknesop , July 10, 2017 at 11:19 pm

That sounds like an end-user agreement. Under such an agreement, the purchaser must notify the seller prior to reselling the item to any third party. That usually happens with defense-related equipment or proprietary technology which the vendor fears will be reverse-engineered. As far as I know there is no reason to believe such an agreement was in force, and if it were the entity in trouble would not be Russia, but the country which sold them to Russia. In that case it was very likely to have been Germany itself.

Lyttenburgh , July 10, 2017 at 9:04 pm

" Siemens added that it would file lawsuits to halt any further deliveries to Crimea and to return already-dispatched equipment to its original destination."

Reply

[Jul 11, 2017] A Bipartisan Vote to Put the Brakes on War by Peter Certo

Notable quotes:
"... In early 2016, Trump (correctly) summed up George W. Bush's legacy this way: "We've been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven't won anything." ..."
"... He ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being " trigger happy " -- no standard-issue gibe from a guy who also promised to bring torture back -- even while echoing progressive complaints that the $5 trillion pricetag from Bush's wars would've been better spent at home. ..."
"... And though Trump's relationship with the Russians has since acquired an unseemly cast, he once offered quite sensibly that " it's better to get along " with the world's other nuclear-armed superpower than not to. ..."
"... Since taking office, Trump's turned virtually all use of force decisions over to his generals. With the president's backing, they've ordered 4,000 new American troops back into Afghanistan, sent thousands more to Iraq and Syria, and nearly quadrupled the rate of drone strikes from the Obama administration, which was already quite prolific. ..."
"... Everywhere they go, they're escalating the brutality -- and we still ..."
"... They cratered Afghanistan with the largest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped. They've stepped up support for the brutal Saudi-led bombing of Yemen, where 11,000 have died and thousands more are at risk of dying of hunger and cholera . Meanwhile they've brought civilian casualties from our bombings in Iraq and Syria to record levels , inflicting what the UN calls a " staggering loss of civilian life ." ..."
"... Under Trump, U.S. troops have repeatedly attacked pro-Syrian forces , a line Obama never crossed, in a misguided effort to bolster Washington's favorite rebels, many of whom are fighting each other . That's ratcheting up tensions with Syria's allies, Iran and Russia, endangering Obama's hard-won diplomatic gains with Iran and even leading Russia to threaten to shoot down American planes. ..."
"... For Trump, a president lampooned as a puppet of Putin, blundering into conflict with Russia over an empty corner of eastern Syria should be an embarrassing prospect. But Trump seems blithely unaware of the whole thing. ..."
"... While Trump may be uniquely prone to careless belligerence, the problem is plainly bipartisan: He's mostly just adding ghastly additions to a war scaffolding the Obama and Bush administrations built before him. ..."
"... Trump has failed to bring any sense or strategy to America's wanton post-9/11 war-making. But precisely by putting such a sinister face on it, he might've finally inspired bipartisan action to rein in the war machine. ..."
Jul 05, 2017 | fpif.org

Originally published in OtherWords .

One of the few things I recall fondly about the Trump campaign -- a short list, I'll admit -- was the candidate's apparent glee in ridiculing the war-mongering of his rivals and predecessors.

In early 2016, Trump (correctly) summed up George W. Bush's legacy this way: "We've been in the Middle East for 15 years, and we haven't won anything."

He ridiculed Hillary Clinton for being " trigger happy " -- no standard-issue gibe from a guy who also promised to bring torture back -- even while echoing progressive complaints that the $5 trillion pricetag from Bush's wars would've been better spent at home.

And though Trump's relationship with the Russians has since acquired an unseemly cast, he once offered quite sensibly that " it's better to get along " with the world's other nuclear-armed superpower than not to.

Compared to his rivals, Politico magazine once mused, Trump was " going Code Pink " on foreign policy. But what a rose-colored lie that turned out to be.

Since taking office, Trump's turned virtually all use of force decisions over to his generals. With the president's backing, they've ordered 4,000 new American troops back into Afghanistan, sent thousands more to Iraq and Syria, and nearly quadrupled the rate of drone strikes from the Obama administration, which was already quite prolific.

Everywhere they go, they're escalating the brutality -- and we still haven't won anything.

They cratered Afghanistan with the largest non-nuclear bomb ever dropped. They've stepped up support for the brutal Saudi-led bombing of Yemen, where 11,000 have died and thousands more are at risk of dying of hunger and cholera . Meanwhile they've brought civilian casualties from our bombings in Iraq and Syria to record levels , inflicting what the UN calls a " staggering loss of civilian life ."

Things are about to get even more dangerous in Syria, as the Islamic State falters and armed factions turn on each other to claim the remains of its caliphate.

Under Trump, U.S. troops have repeatedly attacked pro-Syrian forces , a line Obama never crossed, in a misguided effort to bolster Washington's favorite rebels, many of whom are fighting each other . That's ratcheting up tensions with Syria's allies, Iran and Russia, endangering Obama's hard-won diplomatic gains with Iran and even leading Russia to threaten to shoot down American planes.

For Trump, a president lampooned as a puppet of Putin, blundering into conflict with Russia over an empty corner of eastern Syria should be an embarrassing prospect. But Trump seems blithely unaware of the whole thing.

While Trump may be uniquely prone to careless belligerence, the problem is plainly bipartisan: He's mostly just adding ghastly additions to a war scaffolding the Obama and Bush administrations built before him.

One possible solution? Revoke the congressional war authorization passed after 9/11, which gave the president authority to track down the perpetrators of those attacks. There were 19 hijackers that day, but that law's been abused to justify military action 37 times in 14 countries , the Congressional Research Service calculates.

Stunningly, on June 29, the House Appropriations Committee overwhelmingly approved an amendment from Rep. Barbara Lee to revoke that authority -- and then broke into applause . It's not law yet, but Democrat Tim Kaine and Republicans Jeff Flake and Rand Paul have voiced support for doing something similar on the Senate side.

Trump has failed to bring any sense or strategy to America's wanton post-9/11 war-making. But precisely by putting such a sinister face on it, he might've finally inspired bipartisan action to rein in the war machine.

Peter Certo is the editorial manager of the Institute for Policy Studies and the editor of Foreign Policy In Focus.

[Jul 11, 2017] Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt.

Notable quotes:
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

LondonBob > > says: Show Comment Next New Comment July 11, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT

http://mihsislander.org/2017/06/full-transcript-james-mattis-interview/

Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.

[Jul 11, 2017] Trump Proposes Joint 'Cyber Security Unit' With Russia, Then Quickly Backs Away From It

Notable quotes:
"... Less than 24 hours later, Trump decided against it, tweeting : "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't -- but a ceasefire can, & did!" ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | politics.slashdot.org
(arstechnica.com)

In a series of tweets yesterday, President Trump proposed "an impenetrable Cyber Security unit " with Putin "so that election hacking, & many other negative things, will be guarded and safe." The news came as a shock to just about everyone who got word of it, including congressional members of his own GOP party.

Less than 24 hours later, Trump decided against it, tweeting : "The fact that President Putin and I discussed a Cyber Security unit doesn't mean I think it can happen. It can't -- but a ceasefire can, & did!"

Ars Technica reports:

"It's not the dumbest idea I have ever heard, but it's pretty close," Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, said of the plan.

Senate Republican Marco Rubio of Florida tweeted that "partnering with Putin on a 'Cyber Security Unit' is akin to partnering with [Syrian President Bashar] Assad on a 'Chemical Weapons Unit."'

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that Trump and the Russian president decided at a meeting during a Group of 20 nations summit in Hamburg, Germany, to embark on a joint "cyber unit to make sure that there was absolutely no interference whatsoever, that they would work on cyber security together." But on Sunday, after it was clear that the plan was going nowhere, Trump took to Twitter and said no deal.

That didn't stop Rep. Don Beyer, a Democrat from Virginia, from introducing on Monday an amendment to the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act that would bar a US-Russian cyber accord.

He said: "Donald Trump's proposal to form a 'cyber security unit' with Putin is a terrible idea that would immediately jeopardize American cybersecurity... Trump must acknowledge that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and take strong, meaningful action to prevent it from happening again in future elections."

[Jul 11, 2017] Ambassador Nikki Haley vs. President Trump by Daniel McAdams

Notable quotes:
"... As The Hill correctly pointed out, "Haley's description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself ." ..."
"... But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check." ..."
"... It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Donald Trump came to the White House with a reputation as a top notch businessman. He built an international real estate empire and is worth billions. He then went into reality television, where his signature line as he dismissed incompetent potential employees was, "you're fired!"

On Friday, President Trump held a long-awaited face-to-face meeting with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. The meeting was scheduled to be a brief, 30 minute meet and greet, but turned into a two-plus hour substantive session producing a ceasefire agreement for parts of Syria and a plan to continue working together in the future. After the extended session, which was cordial by all accounts, President Trump said the meeting was "tremendous."

President Trump indicated that the issue of Russian interference in the US elections came up in conversation and that Putin vehemently denied it. It obviously was not a make or break issue in the conversation. President Trump's latest statement on the issue is that "we don't know for sure" who was behind any meddling.

Later on Friday, President Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, said of the Syria agreement that, "I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria."

On Sunday, President Trump Tweeted in praise of the Syria ceasefire agreement, adding that, "now it is time to move forward in working constructively with Russia!"

It suddenly appeared that the current reprise of a vintage 1950s US/Soviet face-off in relations had turned the corner back to sanity. Perhaps we will be pulling back from the edge of WWIII with thermonuclear weapons!

Then President Trump's Ambassador to the United Nations, the notorious neocon Nikki Haley, showed up on the weekend talk shows.

To CNN's Dana Bash, she directly contradicted her boss, Donald Trump, and undermined his official position regarding Russian involvement in the US election.

Said Ambassador Haley of Trump's meeting with Putin:

One, he wanted to basically look him in the eye, let him know that, yes, we know you meddled in our elections. Yes, we know you did it, cut it out. And I think President Putin did exactly what we thought he would do, which is deny it. This is Russia trying to save face. And they can't. They can't. Everybody knows that Russia meddled in our elections.

As The Hill correctly pointed out, "Haley's description runs counter to the versions offered by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson , Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Trump himself ."

But Hurricane Haley was not finished. She poured ice water on President Trump's agreement with President Putin to work together on cyber-security, telling CNN, "[w]e can't trust Russia, and we won't ever trust Russia. But you keep those that you don't trust closer so that you can always keep an eye on them and keep them in check."

It is absolutely clear that hyper-neocon Nikki Haley has gone rogue and is actively undermining the foreign policy of her boss and President, Donald Trump. From her embarrassing, foaming-at-the-mouth tirades in the UN Security Council to this latest bizarre effort to sabotage President Trump's first attempt to fulfill his campaign pledge to find a way to get along better with Russia, President Trump's own Ambassador has become the biggest enemy of his foreign policy.

Surely the President – who as an enormously successful businessman has hired and fired thousands – can see the damage she is doing to his Administration by actively undermining his foreign policy.

President Trump needs to reprise his signature television line. He needs to pick up the phone, ask for Nikki, and shout "you're FIRED!" into the telephone.

Daniel McAdams is director of the The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity . Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

Read more by Daniel McAdams Manchester Bomber Was Product of West's Libya/Syria Intervention – May 24th, 2017 Is That All There Is? Intel Community Releases Its Russia 'Hacking' Report – January 8th, 2017 McCain to Trump: Don't You Dare Make Peace With Russia! – November 16th, 2016 The End of Interventionism? – October 26th, 2016 Jennifer Rubin: Hillary Must Stop Peace With Iran at All Costs! – August 18th, 2016

[Jul 11, 2017] While Trump Talks, The Pentagon Balks by Finian Cunningham

Notable quotes:
"... I predicted in the ICH comments a few days ago that the cease fire agreement would be sabotaged, what I didn't know was that the sabotage was already happening at the moment of the Trump-Putin hand shake. These crazies in the USA will not stop, ever, they are like the black knight in monty python's holy grail bridge crossing scene. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
July 11, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - On the same day US President Donald Trump gave a historic handshake to Russian leader Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Germany, the Pentagon was hosting a meeting planning for war with Moscow.

While the event at the US military headquarters near Washington DC was made public , it was hardly reported in the Western media. The two main figures attending were Defense Secretary James Mattis and his British counterpart Michael Fallon.

The American military publication Defense One headlined the Pentagon summit: "As Trump and Putin met, US and UK defense chiefs discussed ways to deter Russia."

The phrase "ways to deter Russia," is a euphemism for war planning. It expresses a more benign, more publicly acceptable purpose to Mattis and Fallon's discussions. Especially given that the titular head of the US government, President Trump, was at the very same time extending a hand of friendship to Putin.

The publication added, with more breathlessness, that Mattis and Fallon "talked about ways NATO could improve its combat power and deter Russian aggression in Eastern Europe that even as the White House seeks to improve relations with Moscow, US and UK leaders still view Russia as a severe military threat."

... ... ...

No wonder Trump has quickly backtracked on his earlier seeming rapport with Putin. He has, for example, disavowed reports of being willing to work with Russia on cyber security after coming under fire from hawkish Congress figures and pundits.

This week, too, the US is leading the biggest-ever war maneuvers conducted by the 29-member NATO military alliance in the Black Sea. Two separate war games are being carried out on Russia's southern flank: Saber Guardian, centered around Bulgaria, and Sea Breeze, off Crimea, involving a total of 30,000 NATO troops, as well as missile destroyers, fighter jets, and amphibious Marines forces. The US Army said it showcases "the ability to mass forces at any given time anywhere in Europe."

... ... ...

This bigger picture of relentless Russophobia, gratuitous anti-Russian propaganda in the US media, and the ongoing reckless goading by NATO forces on Russia's borders is an appropriate perspective with which to assess the significance of Trump's meeting with Putin last weekend.

Yes, indeed, it was good to see Trump having enough independence of mind and personal decorum to greet Putin with respect.

But the fact remains: while Trump talked, the Pentagon balked. And not just the Pentagon. Virtually, the whole US political and media establishment.
Ominously, the American political system and its military machine seem to operate on only one gear: onward with Russophobia and aggression.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Ray Joseph Cormier 81p · 2 hours ago

Former Pentagon chief Ashton Carter said Trump's discussions in Hamburg were tantamount to chatting with "a burglar who had robbed your house."

In December 1998, Former Defence Secretary Ash Carter, Undersecretary of Defence John Deutch and Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, wrote this in Foreign Affairs Journal,

A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it.

Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks.

I find it curious it happened just like that 3 years later, and one of the co-Authors was able to control what information the 9/11 Commission was able to see?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-st...

mikel · 1 hour ago
This all goes to show how UK and US "leaders" are all living in a fantasy land. You have these two delusional Morton's discussing and planning for war with Russia. What it all boils down to is the fact that both the UK and the US are on their last legs economically and more war is the only way to keep kicking the can down the road.

They will need a scapegoat to blame the coming greater depression on, and it will conveniently be the evil Russians and the war we had to fight to "preserve our way of life". Anyone with an independent mind should wee right through that line of BS and understand that US/UK/NATO aggression is what we need to be concerned about. Not the evil "burglar" Putin.

ian · 1 hour ago
where is exactly this russian aggression all i see is US aggression
Brett Rasmussen · 1 hour ago
Orwell's Ministry of Truth at work.
Brett Rasmussen · 1 hour ago
I predicted in the ICH comments a few days ago that the cease fire agreement would be sabotaged, what I didn't know was that the sabotage was already happening at the moment of the Trump-Putin hand shake. These crazies in the USA will not stop, ever, they are like the black knight in monty python's holy grail bridge crossing scene.
Dick · 1 hour ago
I wonder if Hitler read the history of Napoleon's march into Russia before his attack on Russia, since he ultimately suffered the same fate. Hitler made the mistake of allowing the ideology of Arian superiority to override sober intelligent analysis of possible outcomes. The US is making the same mistake again by allowing the ideology of US exceptionalism to override a more sober assessment of potential outcomes with, no doubt, a similar result.

NATO promotes the idea of Russian aggression as an excuse to justify their militarising the Russian border. Who is the aggressor? Placing 5000 troops and equipment in the Baltic states as a show of force is like sending a dozen Chihuahuas to attack a bear; all they will be is an easy target if war erupts. Off course, there will not be a war, at least, not of the WW2 variety.

In a war between the US and Russia, it is Russia that has the logistical advantage via location and its primarily defensive military doctrine. The US and NATO need to stop sending in the Chihuahuas and seek a more sober policy, since it is NATO aggression that is the problem; not Russia.

DrS · 10 minutes ago
Guess who the REAL war mongers are!!! Injustice and Oppression are NEVER right. Bring on harmony, justice, peace.

Bring back care, concern, compassion, love and empathy for others regardless of culture, ethnicity and/or religion. Protect democracy, freedom, liberty, independence and sovereignty. Protect education and don't allow the MSM to continue deceit, deception, lies and propaganada.

[Jul 11, 2017] There's No Strategy Behind Trump's Wars -- Only Brute Force

Notable quotes:
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Los Angeles Times ..."
"... He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and conventional airstrikes have escalated. ..."
"... For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think again. ..."
"... Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's representatives. ..."
"... Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate self-defense. Thus they all violated international law. ..."
"... What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw power. ..."
"... Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | fpif.org
These are awesome days for headline writers. So many global settings, such an abundance of weapons, such a wealth of choices!

On the morning of April 14, the New York Times led with "A Giant U.S. Bomb Strikes ISIS Caves in Afghanistan," matched by CNN's "US Drops 'Mother of All Bombs.'" The Washington Post chose Syria, where "Errant U.S. Strike Kills 18: Victims in Syria Were Allied Forces." By mid-afternoon that same day, the Associated Press had shifted to the horn of Africa, where the "U.S. Sends Dozens of Troops to Somalia, 1st Time in Decades."

And as the Friday rush hour began in Washington, Fox News opted to head to the north Pacific, leading with an aircraft carrier: "The 'Powerful' USS Carl Vinson Steams Towards North Korea."

A few days earlier the most popular choices were various versions of CNN's "U.S. Launches Military Strike Against Syria." (That headline described something new only because the strike officially targeted a Syrian government military site, while ignoring the not-so-new reality that the U.S. has been attacking alleged ISIS targets in Syria with drones, bombing raids, and special forces for almost three years.)

A couple of weeks before that, coverage of the Trump wars focused on a devastating U.S. airstrike on Mosul, which a Los Angeles Times headline described as "One of the Deadliest Attacks on Civilians in Recent Memory." And just before that , the Bureau of Investigative Journalism highlighted "Nine Young Children Killed: The Full Details of Botched U.S. Raid in Yemen." (No headlines, however, told the full story of the U.S. role in Yemen. That one might've read "U.S.-Backed Saudi Bombing Has Killed Thousands, Worsened Famine Facing Millions in Yemen.")

Around the globe, as these headlines testify, Donald Trump has been cavalierly deploying troops and weapons, claiming such military actions are designed to send political messages.

He's threatened a preemptive strike against North Korea, considered a major escalation in Yemen, and turned loose his military commanders to bomb wherever, however, and with whatever they choose, weakening even further the already insufficient restrictions Obama had put in place to try to minimize civilian casualties. Deaths of civilians under both U.S. drones and conventional airstrikes have escalated.

For those who thought that military restraint was part of Trumpian isolationism, think again.

Raw Power

Not one of these actions was necessary. Not one will make people in this country -- let alone the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis, Somalis, or others -- any safer. Neither was any of these actions sanctioned by Congress: All violated the War Powers Act, and indeed the Constitution itself, which puts the power to declare war in the hands of the people's representatives.

Furthermore, not one of them fulfilled the minimal United Nations Charter requirements for the legal use of military force -- either Security Council authorization or immediate self-defense. Thus they all violated international law.

And even beyond the illegality, not one could claim a strategic, legitimate, or moral justification.

Of course, the U.S. has been at war in various combinations of Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya and Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and beyond since George W. Bush declared the global war on terror just after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. In some of these countries, the U.S. was at war even before that. But Trump's actions represent major escalations in every one of those devastated nations. According to the British human rights monitor AirWars, well over 1,000 civilians may have been killed by U.S.-led forces just in Iraq and Syria in March alone, the highest monthly total they've ever tracked.

What we see in these attacks is not a strategy, but a new way of communicating raw power.

How does it work? Instead of sending diplomats to help get all warring parties involved in negotiations, you drop the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat on one of the world's poorest countries. Instead of supporting UN efforts to create incremental ceasefires, you send special forces. Instead of investing money, time, and high-level attention to help shift regional conflicts from the battlefield to the negotiating table, you send armed drones to drop more bombs.

And, of course, instead of increasing funding for diplomacy, you strip 29 percent of the State Department budget, and nearly zero out humanitarian aid, and hand it all over to the Pentagon as part of a $54 billion increase in military spending.

None of this is in service of any actual policy, just a unifying theme: War trumps diplomacy. Bullies rule. It's a shock-and-awe attack -- many shock-and-awe attacks, actually -- to drive home a message aimed not only at troops on the ground or militants holed up in a cave, but also at the populations as a whole, across Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond. The goal seems to be ensuring that no question remains as to where and with whom the ultimate power resides.

It's also a message to a domestic audience here in the United States, designed to shock if not surprise: The bully in the White House is calling the shots.

Invigorating the Peace Movement

The question now isn't what Trump -- or the generals and billionaires filling his cabinet -- will do next. It's what will we do next, as opponents of these wars?

In short, we need to integrate opposition to these wars into the very core of the movements already rising so powerfully against racism, for women's and LGBTQ rights, for climate and economic justice, for Native rights, for immigrant rights and refugee protections, for Palestinian rights, and much more.

We know that some approaches from earlier efforts are needed once again. Building ties with and privileging the voices of people facing the consequences of U.S. actions, dying under the bombs or reeling under brutal sanctions, remain crucial. Lifting up anti-war veterans provides entre to important new audiences. Reminding people of how U.S. wars are too often fought for resources -- as well as for the expansion of power, for military bases, for regional and global domination, and how racism informs all of Washington's wars -- are all key to popular education.

What we do know is that everyone -- from Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, and Yemenis to those of us in this country -- needs diplomacy to win out over war. We've faced wars for decades now, but we've also had some victories where negotiations triumphed over force -- in Cuba, in Paris at the climate talks, and most especially in the Iran nuclear deal.

We know what diplomacy looks like, and we know how to fight for it.

We'll need new strategies, new tactics -- but we continue to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. Our country is waging war against peoples across the globe, indeed waging war against the earth itself. But we are still here, challenging those wars alongside those who guard the earth, who protect the water, who defend the rights of those most at risk.

The great historian Howard Zinn reminds us of it all: Our country's history began in the genocide of indigenous nations and the enslavement of Africans brought here in chains. But from that beginning it also became a country of people's movements against genocide and slavery, against racism and misogyny and Islamophobia, of movements for justice, for internationalism, and yes, for peace. Middle East expert Phyllis Bennis directs the New Internationalism project at the Institute for Policy Studies.

[Jul 11, 2017] I think that the prospects for US-Russia cooperation in Syria are not very good and the reason for that is that the U.S. and Russia are diametrically opposed on the issue of Iran and Iranian influence in the region

Notable quotes:
"... There was an agreement between Obama and Putin last year about targeting the Islamic State, but that collapsed. ..."
"... I think it's worth recalling exactly why the September agreement between Obama and Putin collapsed, right? The United States attacked and killed Syrian troops so that deal was essentially undone by the actions of the Pentagon. ..."
"... Well, but just to explain there, the Pentagon claimed that that airstrike was a mistake, but the theory around that by the Pentagon's critics is that it was not a mistake. It was a deliberate effort to sabotage this US-Russia cooperation. ..."
"... While any cease fire agreement should be welcomed, I just don't see how. I don't see any long term prospects for success there due to ... the widely divergent views on Assad and on Iran. ..."
"... Can the U.S. and Russia cooperate inside Syria if the U.S. is hellbent on confronting Iran, which by all indications from the Trump Administration that seems very likely. Is Iran possibly expendable to Moscow? ..."
"... I think the other thing that gets lost in conversation is that, especially among the foreign policy establishment that we were just talking about, is that the United States is in Syria illegally. We're not there at the invitation of The Sovereign Syrian government. We're not there on behalf of a UN mandate. And certainly operations against Assad are certainly not covered under the AUMF; the Authorization of Use of Military Force that was passed after 9/11. We're ... I just find it astounding that that never comes up. We actually have absolutely no right to be there and really we shouldn't be there, but again, if we can find a way to work with the Russians against ISIS, fine. But again, I'm deeply pessimistic about America's role in the Middle East generally and specifically in Syria. ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19511:Trump-&-Putin-Talk,-But-US-Russia-Confrontation-Lingers"therealnews.com

ARON MATE: James, you mention Syria. Let's talk about that for a second because that was another outcome of this Putin, Trump meeting. Tillerson said something interesting when he was talking about what Putin and Trump had agreed on. After the two sides reached a ceasefire in Southwestern Syria, which is come into effect. Tillerson said, "I think this is our first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria." Now perhaps he's just talking about the U.S. in terms of the U.S. under President Trump, but just recently the U.S. and Russia have tried to work together in Syria. There was an agreement between Obama and Putin last year about targeting the Islamic State, but that collapsed. I'm wondering if you can talk about that context and what test do you think this new supposed partnership inside Syria is facing?

JAMES CARDEN: Yeah. I think it's worth recalling exactly why the September agreement between Obama and Putin collapsed, right? The United States attacked and killed Syrian troops so that deal was essentially undone by the actions of the Pentagon.

AARON MATE: Well, but just to explain there, the Pentagon claimed that that airstrike was a mistake, but the theory around that by the Pentagon's critics is that it was not a mistake. It was a deliberate effort to sabotage this US-Russia cooperation.

JAMES CARDEN: Right. Well, either way, it was undone. There's no way to know whether or not it was an accident or if it was intentionally done. We have to leave that to historians, but the point is, I guess, is that it was undone. I think that the prospects for US-Russia cooperation in Syria are not very good and the reason for that is that the U.S. and Russia are diametrically opposed on the issue of Iran and Iranian influence in the region. While any cease fire agreement should be welcomed, I just don't see how. I don't see any long term prospects for success there due to ... the widely divergent views on Assad and on Iran.

AARON MATE: That's a very key point. Can the U.S. and Russia cooperate inside Syria if the U.S. is hellbent on confronting Iran, which by all indications from the Trump Administration that seems very likely. Is Iran possibly expendable to Moscow?

JAMES CARDEN: No. No, I don't think so. I think the other thing that gets lost in conversation is that, especially among the foreign policy establishment that we were just talking about, is that the United States is in Syria illegally. We're not there at the invitation of The Sovereign Syrian government. We're not there on behalf of a UN mandate. And certainly operations against Assad are certainly not covered under the AUMF; the Authorization of Use of Military Force that was passed after 9/11. We're ... I just find it astounding that that never comes up. We actually have absolutely no right to be there and really we shouldn't be there, but again, if we can find a way to work with the Russians against ISIS, fine. But again, I'm deeply pessimistic about America's role in the Middle East generally and specifically in Syria.

AARON MATE: James, I don't want to get too sidetracked on this point because it's off topic, but I want to say one thing about the U.S. role. I mean what do you say though to those who would argue, well, look if the U.S. isn't there, then they're not there to provide vital support to the Kurds when they fight ISIS in taking back Kobani 'cause without them, the Kurds could have been slaughtered.

JAMES CARDEN: The Kurds can work with the Russians. We're not the only game in town in the Middle East, but we have rather pressing issues closer to home. I don't really see why the United States needs to play such a large role in Middle East affairs.

[Jul 11, 2017] Anatoly Karlin is compulsive liar

Notable quotes:
"... Capitalizing on the fact that most of his audience on UNZ.com are Westerners with no knowledge of Russia ..."
"... In his eulogy to "unjustly" blocked "Sputnik & Pogrom" he commits an enormous number of mistakes, omissions and distortions. One has to wonder – was there anywhere a "minus" sign before his legendary IQ score number that he is so proud about? Could have explained a lot. ..."
"... "As a reminder, SiP isn't some fringe Neo-Nazi blog bedecked in swastikas and dug up from the bowels of the Internet. It is a glossy magazine with long, high-quality articles about Russian history that now garners 1.5 million monthly visits, despite many of its articles being paywalled. It has been remarkably successful at penetrating its way into the Russian elites: Alexander Voloshin, Igor Strelkov, and Ksenia Sobchak (!) are known to be readers." ..."
"... "It is highly critical of the Putin regime for what they see as its corruption, privileging of ethnic minorities, open borders with Central Asia, laxness in Ukraine, and the stiffling climate of political authoritarianism and social conservatism." ..."
"... "One can agree or disagree with these assertions to varying extents, but one cannot credibly accuse it of being an agent for Western (or Islamist) interests; in 2014, they actively supported Crimea's incorporation into Russia and the Donbass resistance," ..."
"... "This might imply that Navalny will be allowed to run after all (even though SiP has in truth been opposed to Navalny as much as Putin)." ..."
"... "First, there is a rich irony in that just a few weeks ago, Egor Prosvirnin was disinvited from the Saint-Petersburg "Geek Picnic" tech conference thanks to the no-platforming efforts of SJWs of "multinational nationality"" ..."
"... "And in general, of course, what we do in the "Satellite and Pogrom" – this is pure magic. Practical shamanism. Witchcraft. You are standing in front of the thick fog of the sociosphere, which is swirling with monsters, permeated with electrical discharges, and you try to guess the right words of the desired and one-time only working spell, to draw the right pentagram. If you are successful a cloudy fog explodes with dark energy fireworks, giving rise to thousands of reposts, hundreds of new subscribers, monstrous ..."
"... purchases, money transfers and, most importantly, an almost rock-sense of power, "I grabbed this reality by the throat, I hit, I broke through the artery and drink the sparkling blood of the noosphere." Should you say a meaningless spell – and nothing, the fog remains suction-indifferent. You picked up the wrong words and instead of flows of power from non-existence, demons materialize, with threats of violence, murders, curses, denunciations, bursting into life with a wave of hatred and insanity. ..."
"... Someday with these summons of essences from the social ether, I will end badly by either calling the creature of the highest level, which will actually kill, cripple or jail me, or I will summon one of the heavenly supreme commanders, after which all this practical magic will pass to the next level. For the time being I continue to whisper forbidden words into the swirling socio-infinity, watching flashes in response" ..."
Jul 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , July 11, 2017

Anatoly Karlin is compulsive liar.

Either this, or he is imbecile. Here you go – "two chairs dilemma" strikes again. Capitalizing on the fact that most of his audience on UNZ.com are Westerners with no knowledge of Russia , and due to the series of purges to shut all dissenting voices against him, Karlin can spout any bullshit he wants virtually without fear, that someone will call his bluff. Hmmm Does it remind you of something – or of someone?

In his eulogy to "unjustly" blocked "Sputnik & Pogrom" he commits an enormous number of mistakes, omissions and distortions. One has to wonder – was there anywhere a "minus" sign before his legendary IQ score number that he is so proud about? Could have explained a lot.

Frankly, I don't have to go out of my way here pointing out lies – just read the comments below it by Mao Cheng Ji (see his critique of Karlin's "computation" method) and this comment by user Boris N (whiny liberast with nationalist tendencies he is, but he is "insider", i.e. Russian). No, I will go after ballsy (and totally false) claims overlooked by them and others.

Quote:

"As a reminder, SiP isn't some fringe Neo-Nazi blog bedecked in swastikas and dug up from the bowels of the Internet. It is a glossy magazine with long, high-quality articles about Russian history that now garners 1.5 million monthly visits, despite many of its articles being paywalled. It has been remarkably successful at penetrating its way into the Russian elites: Alexander Voloshin, Igor Strelkov, and Ksenia Sobchak (!) are known to be readers."

Take your time, laugh out loud – we're in no hurry! Oh, and btw – if Karlin is name-dropping members of "elite" (about it – later), why he says nothing about Alexey Navalny being one of the oldest and most faithful (to the level of Ho Yay between him and Porsvirnin) readers of S&P? What – this will besmirch his favorite rag?

As for calling persons namedropped an "elite" – Karlin must be either idiotic or under influence. According to him media personalities who are/were memetic are now "national elite"? Ksenia Sobchak, who was advertised (by herself) as "Russian Paris Hilton", and who managed to become more ridiculously despised without turning into a slut? Strelkov, who failed to die gloriously like Kornilov, and who, subsequently, have to live on like any other has-been emigrant from the White Movement? Bearded "grey cardinal of the Kremlin" Voloshin, who had been exiled from the court since the second term of Putin's rule? They are "elite"?

"It is highly critical of the Putin regime for what they see as its corruption, privileging of ethnic minorities, open borders with Central Asia, laxness in Ukraine, and the stiffling climate of political authoritarianism and social conservatism."

It's A. Karlin's way of New-Speak to say, that S&P supports Navalny, ethnic strife, #путинвведивойска meme and LGBT rights. Yes, there are some serious concerns about Prosvirnin's sexual orientation, not helped in the slightest by his earlier photos and fafics.

"One can agree or disagree with these assertions to varying extents, but one cannot credibly accuse it of being an agent for Western (or Islamist) interests; in 2014, they actively supported Crimea's incorporation into Russia and the Donbass resistance,"

At the same time Prosvirnin was the guest of honor on Ukrainian media resources right after and during the so-called EuroMaida, where he handshaked and approved of the activities. Self contradiction? That's Prosvirnin's second name. But he's a person without convictions, so no surprise here.

"This might imply that Navalny will be allowed to run after all (even though SiP has in truth been opposed to Navalny as much as Putin)."

Once again – Karlin is lying . But that's not new in the slightest.

"First, there is a rich irony in that just a few weeks ago, Egor Prosvirnin was disinvited from the Saint-Petersburg "Geek Picnic" tech conference thanks to the no-platforming efforts of SJWs of "multinational nationality""

And again – Karlin is lying. He was not "disnvited" from Geek Picnic in Saint Pete. He participated there by readying a lecture . He was only disinvited from the second day of the fest . So, Karlin's attempt to see some ZOG conspiracy here is, predictably, disingenuous. Again – by now no one should be surprised by his almost compulsory lying. This, and Karlin's reliance on liberast media such as Meduza nad Do///D' TV.

S&P site is hosted in the US of A – not Russia. As you probably already know, the site is rabidly anti-Soviet, pro Russian nationalist and mostly in opposition to the government of Russian Federation. Site frequently hosted publications and open calls to change the existing constitutional structure of This Country via coups and uprisings, for Russia to start waging wars of aggression and calls for ethnic supremacy of Russians above all other people of the Federation. Gee, I wonder – why would the Office of Attorney General of RF take some action against them! [/sarcasm] And that's not counting fakes, gossip, lies and "fake news", which he, from time to time, do delete, lest his rag will lose all credibility

"Highly successful" "talented writer" Egor Prosvirnin at the dawn of his career on June 22 of 2012 actively trolled and dissed GPW veterans, by running an article (written by pig-fuhrer himself) which called the Nazi invasion of 1941 a "day of Retribution" and also "a day, when the White Europe came back to Russia". After quite predictable negative reaction of, basically, anyone sans liberasts, Prosvirnin called it "a joke". I wonder – do Tolya Karlin share his Prosvirnin's sempai sense of humor? Or is it so bad as I expect, i.e. the autists completely lacking empathy and sense of humor?

Now, allow me to quote the proud White Overlord himself:

"And in general, of course, what we do in the "Satellite and Pogrom" – this is pure magic. Practical shamanism. Witchcraft. You are standing in front of the thick fog of the sociosphere, which is swirling with monsters, permeated with electrical discharges, and you try to guess the right words of the desired and one-time only working spell, to draw the right pentagram. If you are successful a cloudy fog explodes with dark energy fireworks, giving rise to thousands of reposts, hundreds of new subscribers, monstrous reach [written in English in original – Lyt], purchases, money transfers and, most importantly, an almost rock-sense of power, "I grabbed this reality by the throat, I hit, I broke through the artery and drink the sparkling blood of the noosphere." Should you say a meaningless spell – and nothing, the fog remains suction-indifferent. You picked up the wrong words and instead of flows of power from non-existence, demons materialize, with threats of violence, murders, curses, denunciations, bursting into life with a wave of hatred and insanity.

Someday with these summons of essences from the social ether, I will end badly by either calling the creature of the highest level, which will actually kill, cripple or jail me, or I will summon one of the heavenly supreme commanders, after which all this practical magic will pass to the next level. For the time being I continue to whisper forbidden words into the swirling socio-infinity, watching flashes in response"

Very honest. Very descriptive. Despite what Tolya Karlin imagine in his imbecilic dream – Egor P. is just armchair agent provocateur, troll and Hikky with allergy to real people and physical labour. He's a attention whore, who desires bigger numbers.

Prosvirnin did conjure Cthulhu in the end. Why is he acting so surprised now? He "just failed to fit into the market" (c)

[Jul 10, 2017] They Spoke - The Unz Review

Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

The highly anticipated encounter of the two presidents went better, much better than anybody predicted. There was a lot of anxiety, and expectations were low as heavy rain clouds, especially after Trump's visit to Warsaw where he obediently repeated the Cold War platitudes dictated by his minders. Trump had been sent off to Hamburg by Washington establishment with warnings a convent novice gets before an unfortunate but unavoidable meeting with a Don Juan. They didn't trust the inexperienced youngster, and insisted he should speak with Vlad only in presence of grown ups , like Auntie Fiona (Hill) or Uncle HR (McMaster), well known for their aversion to Russians.

They warned him that, short of a nuclear strike, every other reaction will be considered betrayal of the Shining City upon a Hill. Every neocon and Cold Warrior in the West gave his advice to the President, how should he humiliate Putin and put him on his place, below the salt. They actually didn't allow Trump to have a proper meeting with Putin, with full agenda, advisers and ministers, preferably a few days long, in a Camp David format or similar.

...On Ukraine, the presidents agreed to establish a special bilateral channel of communications between the US special envoy and his Russian counterpart. They also confirmed their faith in the Minsk agreements, and this is an important diplomatic achievement for the Russians. However, these agreements did not prevent Kiev troops shelling the cities of Donbass.

[Jul 10, 2017] The Second Cold War by Steffen A. Woll

Notable quotes:
"... [AKA "Carthage"] ..."
Dec 10, 2015 | www.unz.com

In the light of the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, there has been much talk about the clouding of US-Russian relations. Some voices in the Internet's alternative media sections have conjured the possibility that these conflicts might lead to a new major war, while social networks like Twitter saw the usage of the hashtags #WorldWarIII and #WorldWar3 explode after Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 jet in the vicinity of the Syrian border. Headlines in mainstream media outlets like Foreign Policy and the Guardian also proclaimed, "Welcome to Cold War III" and asked "are we going back to the bad old days?".

This article suggests that although the ideological division of the Cold War ended de facto with the collapse of the Soviet Union, American geopolitical schemes to contain Russian power abroad have never really been abandoned. Throughout the 1990s and until today, US policymakers have been determined to wage overt or covert proxy wars with the aim of curbing its former adversary's political, economic, and military influence. Chechnya, Ukraine, and Syria are the key spots where the logic of this second Cold War is played out.

A short glance over the state of the world today and its representation in the media suffices to identify a growing number of actual and potential centers of conflicts: Civil war is raging in parts of Ukraine, military tensions are growing in the South Chinese Sea, and the Middle East is more of a mess than ever. Nonetheless, some have suggested that the actual number of armed conflicts has actually reached a historical low. But this assertion is solely based on statistical preference. It is true that interstate (conflicts between two or more states) wars are on the decline. Instead, wars today are much more likely to take the form of intrastate conflicts between governments and insurgents, rather than national armies fighting over territory. As demonstrated to an outstanding degree in Syria, these conflicts are more and more internationalized and involve a bulk of non-state actors and countries who try to reach their goals through proxies rather than direct involvement, which would require "boots on the ground."

But let's start at the end. The end of the Cold War, that is. The situation during the years of systemic antagonism between the Eastern and Western Blocs has sometimes been captured in the image of three separate "worlds": the capitalist First World, the socialist Second World, and a Third World. The latter term was not used as a marker for impoverishment and instability as it is commonly understood today, but as a postcolonial alternative "third way" for those newly independent states that struggled to avoid their renewed absorption by the two towering ideological empires. One strategy through which developing countries attempted to duck the neocolonial policies of the Cold War Blocs was by founding the informal Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) in 1961, initiated by India, Indonesia, Egypt, Ghana, and Yugoslavia. Counting 120 members as of now!in fact a large part of the global South!the movement's anti-imperialist and anti-colonial stance has lost much of its bargaining power after the end of the Cold War.

Still, the final document of the movement's 1998 summit in Durban, South Africa suggests that the end of the long-standing bipolar power configuration has by no means led to the betterment of those countries' situation. Unipolar American dominance and the collapse of the Soviet Union instigated what was understood to be "a worrisome and damaging uni-polarity in political and military terms that is conducive to further inequality and injustice and, therefore, to a more complex and disquieting world situation." This analysis turned out to be correct in many respects, particularly concerning the period of the 1990s.

While the Clinton years of domestic prosperity saw the US economy achieve the rarity of a budget surplus, the citizens of its erstwhile antagonist were (probably with the exception of Boris Yeltsin ) experiencing the more sobering effects of Russia's political and economic paradigm shift. Democratic Russia struggled to consolidate its deeply shaken economy in an environment ripe with organized crime, crippling corruption, and under the doubtful patronage of oligarchs like Boris Berezovsky who controlled the influential television channel ORT and whom Ron Unz in " Our American Pravda " described as "the puppet master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s."

The actual situation in the former Soviet heartland during the 1990s was utterly different from what American elites and media often depicted as a "golden age" of newfound democracy and a ballooning private sector. From the perspective of many US elites, the country's plundering by oligarchs, ruthless criminal gangs, kleptocratic politicians, and corrupt military officers was welcomed as a convenient, self-fulfilling mechanism to permanently destabilize its mortally wounded adversary. But Russia never completed all the stages of collapse , not least because Yeltsin's successor Vladimir Putin eventually took legal action to put such "businessmen" like Roman Abramovich and Berezovsky out of business. The latter was forced to seek refuge in London, from where he threatened to use his £850m private fortune to plot " a new Russian revolution " and violently remove his former protégé from the Kremlin.

The chaotic and aimless term of the alcoholic Yeltsin is often regarded as a chiefly positive time in which the East and the West closed ranks, although politicians and neoconservative think tanks in reality conducted the political and economic sellout of Russia during these years. The presidency of Vladimir Putin, while anything but perfect and with its own set of domestic issues, still managed to halt the nation's downward spiral in many areas. Nevertheless, it is persistently depicted by Western elites and their "Pravda" as dubious, "authoritarian," and semi-democratic at best.

Thus, in spite of Francis Fukuyama's triumphalist proclamation of the "End of History" after the fall of the Berlin wall that supposedly heralded the universal rein of liberal democracy, the legacy of the Cold War is anything but behind us. Ostensibly, the current geopolitical situation with its fragmented, oblique, and often contradictory constellations and fault lines is utterly different from the much more straightforward Cold War dualism. Of the Marxist ideology only insular traces remain today, watered down and institutionalized in China, exploited in a system of nationalistic iconography in Cuba, and arranged around an absurdly twisted personality cult in North Korea. As of 2015, Russia is an utterly capitalistic nation, highly integrated in the globalized economy and particularly interdependent with the members of the European economic zone. Its military clout and budget ( $52 billion ) are dwarfed by US military spending of $598.5 billion in 2015. Even more importantly, after 1991 Russia had to close down or abandon many of its important bases, ports and other military installations as a result of the NATO's eastward expansion.

Nevertheless, the sheer size of its territory and its command of a substantial nuclear weapon arsenal cement Russia's role as a primary threat to American national interests. This is illustrated by the fact that for three and a half decades the US has covertly supported radical Islamic movements with the goal to permanently destabilize the Russian state by entrapping it in a succession of messy and virtually unwinnable conflicts. Pursued openly during the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s, this scheme continued to be employed throughout the 1990s during both Chechen Wars, as well as in Russia's so-called "near abroad" spheres of influence: Dagestan, Ingushetia, South Ossetia, and other former Soviet vassal republics in the Caucasus, which have constantly suffered from extremists who exploit the lack of governmental pervasion in their remote mountain regions. These regions are home to over 25 million ethnic Russians and important components of the country's economy. After the Soviet-Afghan War and the CIA's buildup of Osama bin-Laden's "resistance fighters," American policymakers recognized the destabilizing potential inherent in the volatile political and sectarian configurations in the Islamic countries that encircle the post-Soviet Russian borderlands.

Hence, despite many political ceremonies, pledges of cooperation, and the opening of Moscow's first McDonalds in 1990, this policy was never fully abandoned. As a matter of fact, peaceful political coexistence and economic convergence never were the primary goals. Democratic Russia with its allies, military potential, and possible Eurasian trade agreements that threaten to isolate or hamper US hegemony was and still is considered a menace to American ambitions of unipolar, universal dominance.

Since the First Chechen War in 1994, Russia's prolonged struggle against Islamic terrorism has for the most part been disregarded by Western media. Particularly after 9/11, the "war on terror" acted like a black hole that sucked up the bulk of the Western media's attention. When the acts of terrorism on Russian soil became too horrifying to ignore!the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis and the 2004 Beslan school siege in particular!the massive death tolls were blamed on the drastic responses of Russian security forces who were not adequately prepared and overwhelmed by the vicious and meticulously planned attacks. In Beslan, the death of hundreds of innocents (186 children were murdered on their first day at school) was indirectly condoned and sardonically depicted as the consequences of the "separatist movement [and its] increasingly desperate attempts to break Russia's stranglehold on its home turf." Truly, to describe those who shoot children in front of their parents and vice versa as "separatists" and glorify them as "rebels" who act in self defense against an "authoritarian" regime demands a very special kind of callous apathy.

In a 2013 article that examined the Chechen descent of the suspects behind the Boston Marathon bombing, retired FBI agent and 2002 Time Person of the Year Coleen Rowley exposed "how the Chechen 'terrorists' proved useful to the U.S. in keeping pressure on the Russians." She explicitly refers to a 2004 Guardian piece by John Laughland, in which the author connects the anti-Russian sentiments in the BBC and CNN coverage of the Beslan massacre to the influence of one particular organization, the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya (ACPC), whose list of members reads like "a rollcall of the most prominent neoconservatives who so enthusastically (sic) support the 'war on terror,'" among them Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, James Woolsey, and Frank Gaffney. Laughland describes the ACPC as an organization that

heavily promotes the idea that the Chechen rebellion shows the undemocratic nature of Putin's Russia, and cultivates support for the Chechen cause by emphasising the seriousness of human rights violations in the tiny Caucasian republic. It compares the Chechen crisis to those other fashionable "Muslim" causes, Bosnia and Kosovo – implying that only international intervention in the Caucasus can stabilise the situation there.

There are three key elements in the organization's lobbying strategy to denigrate Russia and promote an intervention in Chechnya that serve to unmask a larger pattern behind the US foreign policy after 9/11. First, the labeling of a particular leader or government as "authoritarian" or in some other way "undemocratic" (Vladimir Putin, in this case). Second, the concept of an oppressed yet positively connoted population that strives for freedom and democracy (Chechen terrorists with ties to a-Qaeda , in this case). Finally, the stressing of "human rights violations" that warrant an intervention or economic embargo.

If all of these conditions are satisfied, the violation of the borders of a sovereign state is seen as justified (UN mandate not needed), enabling the US to emerge as a knight in shining armor and champion of human rights, bolting to the rescue of the world's downtrodden, while covertly achieving an utterly different goal: To further the logic of a second Cold War through proxy warfare and weaken Russian by diminishing its foothold in its surrounding "near abroad" regions, which in many respects represent vital interests, both economically and strategically.

Swap out names and dates and it becomes evident that the same tripartite strategy was used to justify every recent intervention of the US and other NATO members, in Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), and Syria (since 2011). Interventions that were legitimized under the banner of humanitarian relief through the removal of "authoritarian" tyrants and supposed dictators and which have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 500,000 people, in Iraq alone . When the ASPC's made its appeal regarding Chechnya in 2004, mind you, only one year had passed since the Abu Ghraib torture photos were leaked and two years since the first inmates arrived in the extralegal detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

Regarding the sweltering conflict in Ukraine's Donbass region, the key dynamics are similar. President Viktor Yanukovych, accused by the Euromaidan movement!fueled by aggressive US and EU media propaganda and enticed with promises of lucrative NATO and EU memberships!of "abusing power" and "violation of human rights," was forced to resign and replaced with a ultranationalist, anti-Russian and pro-Western government. Again, this campaign had nothing to do with actual humanitarian relief or concerns about the country's democratic integrity. Instead, the hopes of a whole generation for a better future under Western influence were exploited by US policymakers who hoped to stifle Russia's geostrategic elbowroom by ousting the naval bases of its Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea.

These bases, mostly located in the city of Sevastopol, have been the home port of the Russian navy for over 230 years, and are vital because they provide the only direct access to the Black Sea and (through the Bosporus strait in Turkey) to the Mediterranean. Any expansion of NATO towards these bases had to be regarded as a direct threat, leaving the Russian government practically no choice but to protect them with all means necessary. However, in the stories emanating from Western mainstream media, these bases were showcased as an occupation of sovereign Ukrainian territory and used as proof of Russia's aggressive, "authoritarian," and imperial aspirations. In reality, Ukraine and Russia signed a Partition Contract in 1997, in which the Ukraine agreed to lease major parts of its facilities to the Russian Black Sea Fleet until 2017, for an annual payment of $98 million.

Along the lines of the currently revitalized genre of alternate history, let's briefly indulge in the notion that we were still living in the ideologically divided world of the Cold War, in which the Warsaw Pact still existed. For a second, imagine if Mexico or Guatemala or Canada expressed their desire to join said pact and invited its troops to conduct military exercises at their shared border with the US. Even without the existence of an American naval base in that country, how do you think the US would react to such a scenario? Would it stand by idly and let itself be surrounded by its adversaries? For an even more striking parallel, take the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The American military actually has a naval base there!Guantanamo Bay, home to the infamous detention camp. Many historians see the deployment of Soviet missiles and troops on the island as the closest that humanity ever came to entering World War III and mutually assured destruction (MAD). With its support for "regime change" in Ukraine and extension of the NATO to the Russian borders, the US today is engaged in the same old Cold War superpower games that the Soviets played in Cuba 53 years ago. In fact, we should think of Ukraine as being situated in Mother Russia's "backyard."

Thousands of miles away from the coasts of North America, the Middle East is the region that Uncle Sam seems to regard as his very own backyard. Many consider George W. Bush's "War on Terror" after 9/11 and the subsequent interventions in Iraq and (to a lesser degree) Afghanistan as those catastrophic policy decisions that resulted in the sociopolitical destabilization of large parts of this region, resulting in the death, injury, and displacement of millions. In Iraq, Libya, and Syria, the spurious US rhetorical agenda of removing "tyrants" and endowing the local demographics with the liberating gift of democracy has in fact produced vast ungoverned spaces where militant groups like the al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State (also known as ISIS, ISIL, or Daesh ) were able to carve out their "caliphates" and claim other territorial prices. For a long time, the rapid expansion of the Islamic State and its death-loving, apocalyptic ideology was resisted only by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the paramilitary National Defense Forces (NDF), and Kurdish Popular Protection Units (YPG). The SAA alone has lost as much as 200,000 soldiers in its struggle against various terrorist factions since March 2011.

US politicians and media have expressed their hopes that the Russian intervention to assist the Syrian government in its resistance against these Western, Saudi, and Turkey-backed groups will result in a military and economic debacle, comparable to the Soviet-Afghan war, which lasted well over nine years. It was during the course of this brutal and protracted conflict that US policymakers realized that there was really no need to shed American blood in order to deal the death blow to the Soviet Union. They drew their lessons from the CIA's countless ventures in South American "nation building," where a government's legitimacy and an opposition's status as either terrorists or freedom fighters depended on their usefulness for American national interests, often accoutered in pithy terms like the "war on drugs."

Since the days of Pablo Escobar, however, US foreign policy has shifted its main focus towards the Middle East, where the long-term goal has been to weaken the enemies of Israel and strengthen the enemies of Iran. Other goals are to guarantee American access to oil and other natural resources, to establish military bases and consolidate the network of troops abroad, and to secure arms deals for the one-percenters who preside over what president Eisenhower cautioned his nation about in his farewell address: the "military-industrial complex." As a consequence of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Obama administration has shifted its strategy towards aerial and drone only warfare combined with the support and (illusion of) control over local militant factions.

Among the many groups fighting in Syria, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), also known as "moderate rebels," is the US faction of choice. Much like the bin Laden's Mujahideen fighters in 1980s Afghanistan, they are armed with the help of the CIA . In spite of their apparent moderation, however, a wealth of evidence suggests that this group is directly responsible for a multitude of massacres , mass executions , the ethnic cleansing of non-Sunni citizens, and eating the hearts of their fallen enemies .

The FSA has also been a suspect in the 2013 Ghouta chemical attacks, which some have claimed the US used as a false flag operation to engender international support for the violent removal of the Syrian government. The subsequent UN investigation however failed to establish any conclusive evidence concerning the perpetrator of the war crime and concluded that the sarin gas used in the attacks had most certainly been removed from government arsenals. Based on this information, US, UK, and French leaders and media outlets insisted that the Syrian government had to be the culprit, and immediately pressed the international community to support an intervention with the goal of eradicating Syria's alleged arsenal of nerve gas and other potential WMDs. This all begins to sound very familiar. Of course, they also requested the bolstering of the "moderate opposition." Interestingly, though, the official UN report , "careful not to blame either side," let on that investigators were actually being accompanied by rebel leaders at all times. Moreover, they repeatedly encountered "individuals [ ] carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated." On page 13, the report goes on to state that

[a] leader of the local opposition forces [ ] was identified and requested to take 'custody' of the Mission [ ] to ensure the security and movement of the Mission, to facilitate the access to the most critical cases/witnesses to be interviewed and sampled by the Mission [ ].

Recently, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain have protested that their "moderate rebels" were being targeted unjustly by Russian airstrikes in Syria, complaining that "from their [i.e., the Kremlin's] perspective, they're all terrorists." Sometimes, one is inclined to advise them, it can be wise and healthy to assume an outsider's perspective and check if your reality still coincides with the facts that so many know are true about the FSA. These facts can be broken down to a very short yet concise formula: If it looks like a terrorist, if it talks like a terrorist, if it behaves like a terrorist!it probably is a terrorist.

Instead, the CIA is still supplying the "activists" with outdated-yet-deadly weapons from Army surplus inventories, including hundreds of BGM-71 TOW (" T ube-launched, O ptically tracked, W ire-guided") anti-tank missile systems, which the terrorists use against hard and soft targets alike. The same weapon platform can be seen in action in a recent FSA video that shows the destruction of a Russian helicopter that was sent to extract the Russian pilots at the crash site of their downed Su-24 plane on November 24, 2015. On the same day, another US-supplied TOW missile was used in an ambush targeting a car occupied by RT news journalists Roman Kosarev, Sargon Hadaya, and TASS reporter Alexander Yelistratov in Syria's Latakia province.

The FSA and other groups, branded as "moderates" who fight against the "authoritarian" forces of tyranny (just like a certain " Saudi businessman " back in the day), function as US proxies in Syria, just like al-Qaeda did in the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan War. They are dangerously unstable pawns in a global strategy to secure American and Israeli interests in the Middle East, irrespective of the millionfold suffering and uprooting of entire societies caused by their crimes, the majority of which is directed towards other Muslims.

Commenting on the Russian military intervention at the invitation of the Syrian government, Mr. Obama said that he had no interest in turning this civil war into a proxy war between Russia and the United States, emphasizing that "this is not some superpower chessboard contest." But this is exactly what US foreign policy, both Republican and Democrat, has done, starting with the end of the Soviet Union and lasting until this very moment. The only difference now being that the Libya-proven rhetorical strategy of (illegal and mandate-less) intervention via "no-fly zones," "humanitarianism," and "regime change" did not have the desired effect in Syria because Iran, Lebanon, and Russia did not abandon their ally. Their combined effort succeeded in fending off an unprecedented onslaught of extremists that infiltrated the country, often across the Southern Turkish border, armed with the money of American taxpayers and Wahhabi sheiks.

The Syrian conflict can no longer be described as a civil war. It may have started as one during the ill-fated "Arab Spring" of 2011, when armed "protesters" (i.e., FSA terrorists) murdered several policemen and set government buildings on fire in Daraa, provoking a violent backlash from government forces. The ensuing nationwide chaos was spun by the Western mainstream media troika , namely those media outlets that serve as propaganda tools for the US political and financial elites and who fabricated the myth of the tyrant who massacred peaceful protestors!to be readily sucked up by their indoctrinated clientele.

As a result of the "moderate's" recent setbacks, the official American position, insofar as its mixed messages can be deciphered, has boiled down to a butt-hurt attitude and passive aggressive lecturing about how to distinguish between varying degrees of moderation among mass-murdering lunatics. Outmaneuvered and publicly exposed, all that is left for Mr. Obama seems to be to pick up the pieces and save some face by accepting Mr. Putin's offer to join a united front against terrorism in Syria. But such a step seems unthinkable in this ongoing Cold War between Russia and the US. Instead, the most powerful man on earth talks about climate change as the most pressing problem of our times. When it comes to ISIS, he has said he wanted to "contain" them. Meanwhile, tensions are rising as Turkish president Erdogan, on an power trip after his surprising landslide victory in November's general elections, apparently collaborated with ISIS and risked provoking an NATO Article 5 response by downing a Russian Su-24. On the other side of the equation, Russia's decision to intervene on behalf of the Syrian government reveals a twofold strategy: On the one hand, trough its direct action it positions the Putin government as being opposed to the fatal logics of proxy warfare. On the other hand, it simultaneously exposes the catastrophic flaws of Mr. Obama's strategies in Syria and the Middle East.

All these developments do not necessarily mean that we are heading for World War III!although logic dictates that it will happen at some point in the future. In reality, though, a full-on nuclear confrontation would require a massive unraveling of the still sufficiently functional channels of political cooperation and interstate diplomacy. International security and economic communities as well as overlapping alliances like the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, and BRIC all indicate a high level of international integration.

Nonetheless, the geopolitical decisions of the last years herald the start of a new period in political history that indeed corresponds to a Cold War constellation. Particularly US foreign policy is currently undergoing the revival of a more offensive realism, visible in recent demonstrations of power in NATO's Eastern border states, pushing of the TPP agreement in the Pacific economic area, and aggressive patrolling of the South Chinese Sea. In fact, the avoidance of superpower confrontation at all costs seems to increasingly take a back seat these high-risk maneuvers.

In the late 1940s the first Cold War began as a war of the words when the powers who had together defeated Nazi Germany started to level criticism at their respective global policies. With the help of their media and propaganda sources, their different stances and perspectives solidified and eventually developed into monolithic ideologies. These in turn spawned the geopolitical doctrines that warranted the replacement of any open (i.e., nuclear) confrontation with confined proxy wars as in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. A similar erosion of mutual trust, respect, and solidarity is taking place now as the outsourced US-Russian conflicts in Ukraine and Syria remain unsolved. Again, the second Cold War arises as a war of the words while negative sentiments are allowed to petrify and the glacial rhetorics of mistrust and veiled threats gradually begin to replace talk about common interests and cooperation. The influential and policy-shaping Foreign Affairs magazine already struck the right chords of the passive-aggressive Cold War parlance by titling , "Putin's Game of Chicken: And How the West Can Win."

At the end of the day, this exact attitude could be one of the reasons why the US might come out on the losing side of this conflict. Because they have not yet realized this is not a "game of chicken" anymore. In fact, this is no longer the same easy game of manipulation that the US played during the 1990s by throwing cheap shots at a collapsing state. The deployment of its air force in Syria is not least a signal to the American establishment that Russia in 2015 no longer stands at the sidelines and watches begrudgingly as the US and its allies commence their disastrous policies in the Middle East.

When Mr. Obama asserted that "this is not some superpower chessboard contest," he therefore either told a lie or he demonstrated his government's utter cluelessness with regard to the actual situation and consequences of their actions in Ukraine, Syria, the South Chinese Sea, and other hotspots of the second Cold War. Both possibilities do not bode well for the future.

Steffen A. Wöll is currently enrolled in the American Studies Master's program at Leipzig University. His research interests include foreign policy, the Middle East, popular culture, as well as radical millennialist and environmentalist movements in the US. RSS Category: Foreign Policy , History Tags: Middle East , New Cold War , Russia , Ukraine Recently from Author

KA [AKA "Carthage"] , December 10, 2015 at 7:52 am GMT

"They drew their lessons from the CIA's countless ventures in South American "nation building," where a government's legitimacy and an opposition's status as either terrorists or freedom fighters depended on their usefulness for American national interests, often accoutered in pithy terms like the "war on drugs."

Thank you. In a nutshell, the phenomenon of terrorism and self serving idea of "nation building" have been clarified .

On a different note -Memory of Checehn terrorism has become somewhat foggy distant and distorted . Checehn terrorist have always enjoyed enormous goodwill and support in Poland,US and UK . But at the onset when Dudayev was the secessionist leader , it was still a unarmed nonviolent political process with mutual (Russian and Checehnyan) disagreement .

It has been suggested that the same forces who later supported Checehn terrorism also provoked Yeltsin to mount unnecessary attacks on Chechen .

Kiza , December 10, 2015 at 9:10 am GMT

A nice article by a German (I am guessing). So different then what comes from the US.

My impression is that the Turkish military intervention under the cover of the US, UK and French airforces in Syria is imminent (within three months or less). The EU already gave Turkey Euro3B, supposedly for the refugees, but probably to pay its military for the attack on Syria.

It will be most interesting to see if the Iraqi Government will rescind the military forces agreement with US and request both Turkey and US to leave Iraq, then call Russia in to help eject the Turks from Iraq. This may complicate the Turkish military intervention in Syria, but is unlikely to stop it.

Ronald Thomas West , Website December 10, 2015 at 11:34 am GMT

When Mr. Obama asserted that "this is not some superpower chessboard contest," he therefore either told a lie or he demonstrated his government's utter cluelessness with regard to the actual situation and consequences of their actions in Ukraine, Syria, the South Chinese Sea, and other hotspots of the second Cold War

Obama is very comfortable with lying. Or better said, Obama is an accomplished liar. 'Grand Chessboard' author Brzezinski is still Obama's man on the inside:

Brzezinski in fact acted as the lead political advisor on foreign affairs to President Obama during his 2008 campaign and is still unofficially advising him on foreign policy today

http://www.mintpressnews.com/zbigniew-brzezinski-the-man-behind-obamas-foreign-policy/21369/

Good overall assessment. One improvement would be to point out a recent development with revelations it had been Erdogan's people (Turkey) carried out the 2013 Ghouta sarin gas attack in Syria (blamed on Assad) that killed well over 1,000 ordinary Syrians:

http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/12/07/send-a-letter/

Rurik , December 10, 2015 at 3:47 pm GMT

Nevertheless, the sheer size of its territory and its command of a substantial nuclear weapon arsenal cement Russia's role as a primary threat to American national interests.

national interests? or hegemonic agenda of domination of the planet? what all of this boils down to is the US and the west are today Israeli's bitch. That's why the US destroyed Iraq and that's why NATO destroyed Libya and they're working on Syria, because Saddam and Gadhafi were obstacles not friendly to Israel and because Israel wants the Golan Heights, respectively. None of these countries were any threat to America's interests. Hardly. Any suggestion that they were is ill-informed, or worse.

This is not a proxy war between the US and Russia. It's a proxy war between Israel and the rest of the planet, with Israel using the US and NATO as their proxies against Putin's Russia as the first real obstacle to their hegemonic designs. Resistance had to come from somewhere if we're not all going to live as Palestinians, and Putin was simply the blade of grass that would not bend to their will, like all the rest of them do since it's easy to destroy third world countries and send them reeling into the stone age (Afghaistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria..), or even better if they're controlled by corrupt quisling politicians to begin with (US, NATO, ). Putin may be corrupt, but he's also a nationalist and actually cares about Russia and has nukes. So that's why he is the obstacle.

what's going on now is Bibi (Zionism) and Putin (sanity and hope for the world) are pretending that this isn't a proxy war between the two of them. And the rest of the world is pretending too (like this article demonstrates). One day when Bibi and his crew decide that NATO has to go directly to war with Russia in order to achieve their goals, what I suspect will happen is that the pretense will drop, and the men and agendas behind all of these Machiavellian intrigues will be forced out into the open. And I suspect what will happen then is the threat of a kind of reverse Samson Option, with Putin (and the rest of the free world [ironically NOT the dying and corrupt west]) telling Bibi (actually the rabid, ultra-Orthodox Jews in the Knesset who tell Bibi what to do) , that if it comes to NATO vs. Russia, that the first one to go will be the state behind it all.

Sort of like in those Western movies when the good guy points his shotgun at the guts of the powerful bad guy with all his gunslingers around, and says 'you'll get it first', and then the rich and powerful bad guy says 'take it easy fellas, holster those guns'. Sort of like that I suppose.

And the world will enter into a new kind of MAD. And there will be the peace.

Giuseppe , December 10, 2015 at 5:11 pm GMT

Seymour Hersh absolutely demonstrated that the Sarin attack in Ghouta was a false flag operation, and that the chemical composition of the gas did not match that stockpiled by Syria when analyzed by the UK defense laboratory Porton Down.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

Taras Gitlerov , December 10, 2015 at 6:51 pm GMT

@KA I'm too young to remember coverage of the Chechen wars, but my local library still has several books which paint the Chechens in a sympathetic light.

The best English language book on the subject is Robert W. Schaefer's The Insurgency in Chechnya and the North Caucasus: From Gazavat to Jihad, but it's expensive and was never in wide circulation AFAIK.

There's a lot of weird things about Chechnya that aren't talked about at all aside from a handful of conspiracy theory type web sites – even though they merit interest. There's more info on runet but I'm not sure I have the chops to evaluate how good the sources are.

guest , December 10, 2015 at 7:21 pm GMT

@Bill Jones They're not counting the debt. The debt is something that's just there and never changes, except to go up. They take it as given. Imagine you've had $5,000 in credit card debt for years and receive a $100 bonus from work. You might not even think about using it to pay off your debt. You simply think, "Awesome, I have an extra $100 this week!" That's pretty much the mindset.

I'm constantly surprised when I hear people talk about the nation going broke, or specific programs, like Social Security for instance, running out of money. Hello! We've been broke for a long time. What do you think the national debt is? As far as SS is concerned, I suppose, it's pure ignorance of how things work. They think it's a self-contained system (which what they want you to think, even if that means it's doomed to go bust, because it tricks people into thinking the Welfare State is part of the social contract, or something). As for the rest of the budget, how do people not notice? Because it's turned into background noise.

Bill Jones , December 10, 2015 at 8:51 pm GMT

@guest I agree. The drive by the establishment for ever increasing immigration is driven their lust to drive wages down but also to maintain the illusion that the various State Ponzi schemes can maintain themselves.

That the idea that the US and Europe can be turned into comfortable retirement homes staffed and paid for by pleasant and obeisant, productive and well assimilated pig ignorant fleeing peasants is astonishing, yet that's what we are asked to believe.

annamaria , December 11, 2015 at 2:02 am GMT

@Rurik Thanks god that Israel is relatively close to the Russian Federation. At some point, the incessant provocations against Russia could become suicidal for the Israelis. Lets hope that Zionists value their lives more than their quest for mythical Great Israel.

annamaria , December 11, 2015 at 2:07 am GMT

@Cracker Not so simple. The empire of Federal Reserve will continue demanding a pound of flesh from everyone. The parasitoids have been quite successful at hollowing out the US and they are ready for "doing" Russia. http://thesaker.is/russia-in-an-invisible-war/

Lepanto , December 11, 2015 at 3:26 am GMT

"Of the Marxist ideology only insular traces remain today " You forgot to add the anti-white efforts on college campuses today. These are real and ever present and brush against the grain of Russian and Chinese nationalist efforts as well as a coherent American identity that transcends racial divides including HBD. Richard Rorty's essay on the "Unpatriotic Academy" is always worth re-reading: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/13/opinion/the-unpatriotic-academy.html

Drapetomaniac , December 11, 2015 at 4:47 am GMT

@Ronald Thomas West A good president is one who can lie and be believed.

Ronald Thomas West , Website December 11, 2015 at 8:32 am GMT

@Drapetomaniac

A good president is one who can lie and be believed.

No, that's merely an accomplished liar, it doesn't necessarily make a good president. Maybe you're conflating 'good' with 'effective'

Does Obama's lies about the USA upholding 'the rule of law' even as he has been much more effective at dismantling (supposedly constitutionally protected) American civil liberties than Bush Jr's administration, make him a good president? No, it simply makes him effective at dismantling civil liberties, example given.

Then, Obamacare made #1 on Moyer's lies list, ahead of Bush & Cheney:

http://billmoyers.com/content/10-big-fat-lies-and-the-liars-who-told-them/2/

Wasn't industry right there to shepherd the process of health care 'reform'? You bet they were. Did Obama's lies on healthcare reform make Obama a good president? No, it made him an effective tool for the health industry.

For those who prefer the satire:

http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/22/demons-anonymous/

Ronald Thomas West , Website December 11, 2015 at 8:49 am GMT

@Ronald Thomas West ps, I just remembered the better parody:

http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/11/16/obamas-speech-at-queensland/

Thirdeye , December 11, 2015 at 7:01 pm GMT

@Lepanto Those aren't Marxist. "Cultural Marxism" is a complete misnomer. Dividing the working classes along ethnic lines keeps them impotent. It is a ruling class strategy.

Anonymous , December 12, 2015 at 2:51 am GMT

Actually, in many ways this is a Hot War, not a Cold one

Look at the new pattern. The State Dept underwrites and supports a neo-fascist coup on Russia's border in Kiev. Putin responds by seizing Crimea and abetting the rebellion in the Donbass Region. Sanctions are enforced against Russia, Putin openly provides military assistance to Syria. Now today Putin orders immediate retaliation against any attacks against the Russian military. Meanwhile the US, UK, France and Germany begin military actions in the Syrian Theater, ultimately threatening partition.. Turkey occupies part of Iraq Iraq requests Russian aid China weighs in on the Syrian situation.

This is definitely a path towards escalation, with a genuine chance of military conflict between the Russian/ Iranian/ Syrian forces and NATO forces. That's HOT the opposite of Cold War miceo-maneuvers.

In China, following the US Pivot , and support for Tibetan and Uighur independence, China claims the S. China Sea and starts building island reefs. The US crosses over international boundaries surrounding these islands again HOT WAR escalation. ..

with a chance any of these rising conflicts could escalate into a REALLY HOT thermonuclear confrontation, just the way the Cuban Missile did

Nikolai Vladivostok , Website December 12, 2015 at 8:56 am GMT

@Giuseppe It was such a ho-hum effort; the bored, deadpan US officials barely seemed to have convinced themselves. You don't need an ingenious cloak-and-dagger operation when no one's paying attention and no one cares.

anonymous , December 13, 2015 at 5:38 pm GMT

Good article. I take it by the description that the author is a graduate student and thus relatively young. If so then they're starting out quite clear-eyed and objective, things that usually take years of living to acquire.
The US is an aggressive and expansionist empire and has been so since it consolidated itself continentally, had it's Civil War, dealt with the internal problem of the Indian population, and then embarked on foreign acquisitions starting with the Spanish-American war where it seized Spanish possessions and inserted itself into Asia via the Philippines. It's pretty much been on the march since then, always probing for weakness and opportunity to move in. It's somewhat analogous to the Austro-Hungarian empire, outwardly expansionist even as the stitches holding the seams together started to fray and weaken. They started off boldly but no one in 1914 could foresee what 1918 would look like. Unfortunately the US seems to have some inner momentum driving it thus which doesn't seem as if it's path could be altered, at least not in the short run. Many people question how much power the president actually has in being able to effect a change of course. Could be he has less than popularly supposed.
Most people agree the US is deteriorating internally. A quick and short read would be Sir John Glubb's " The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival", available free on the internet. There's many points of similarity, it'll have a familiar ring to it.

[Jul 10, 2017] John Helmer How the Russian Economy Looks If You Arent Wearing NATO Night-Fighting Goggles

Notable quotes:
"... Hellevig warns against illusions. "Russia must understand that the Russia containment strategy of the West will be there for years to come, and will only disappear the day when they gather the courage to understand that Russia has overcome. Therefore, Russia must root all its economic strategy and development efforts in a firm understanding of this reality, and never to count on West in anything. Russia must, focus on China, the East, and the rest of the world." ..."
"... When American or European voters calculate that war against Russia is threatening their interests, then there may be a change in the war policy towards Russia. For US voters to turn against war, war must hurt. ..."
"... Unfortunately, China and Russia their own home-grown warmongers whose position is continuously advanced by the kind of bellicose claptrap spewed out in documents like the two cited above. Tuchman's *The Proud Tower* and *The Guns of August* have never been more relevant than they are today, but maybe it's her anti war magnum opus, *March of Folly*, that should be required reading for all high school students going forward (I fear previous generations may already be too brainwashed to see the light). ..."
"... There is without a doubt that both China and Russia have their war parties that are impatient with the diplomatic pace of their governments. They do exert pressure towards a more belligerent pose against the US. ..."
"... Unlike the US, the war parties in those two governments do not have that much influence in making their foreign policies. Unfortunately for the US there is the so called deep state that has infiltrated every branch or our government and is always pushing for more war. ..."
"... State owned enterprises in key sectors does not sound good to you because decades of relentless junk economics and neoliberal bullshit have had a terrible effect in our perception of the reality. ..."
"... No capital controls, no industrial planning, soft banking regulations, privatized utilities, privatized infrastructures, low real estate taxes, private banking, regressive tax code. That's the receipt to create a neofeudal economy incapable of competing in the international markets. ..."
"... The point, sir, is that if your industries are overwhelmed by imports they will be destroyed, leaving you dependent on external parties. De facto colonization does not run far behind. ..."
"... Helmer's article triggered some further questions: To what extent has the effort to punish and damage Russia through the low price of oil and sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase Russia's financial, economic and military alliance with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his article posted in today's NC Links section? ..."
"... My understanding is that the current government, not their central bank, was thinking about ways to make Russia less dependent on foreign imports before 2014. Unilateral tariffs or other import restrictions were considered but not implemented because of political reasons -- They were afraid there would be a consumer backlash. US and EU sanctions solved that problem.. The Russian people were willing to make that sacrifice in the face of an attack on their sovereignty. ..."
"... ,,,During the analyzed period Russia has been constantly increasing the volumes of mineral exports and despite the fact that in general "oil" exports positively affect the amount of fiscal revenues, the observed dynamics of GDP growth was in fact negative. It means that further economic growth in Russia is not possible at the expense of its natural resources endowments. The observed over the analyzed period dynamics of macroeconomic indicators reveals that Russian economy is still substantially influenced by crude oil prices. Russia needs to diversify its economy away from oil and gas dependency, because significant volumes of "oil" exports are not favorable to the economy in terms of its strategic development. And according to the obtained results, in order to stimulate "non-oil" exports monetary authorities should depreciate national currency on the one hand, whilst on the other hand fiscal burden should be mild towards to "non-oil" producers. Consequently, Russian government should focus on export-oriented development of non-oil sectors and find an optimum ratio between "oil" and "non-oil" exports so that "oil" revenues would have supported "non-oil" exports. This allows us to conclude that crude oil will continue to play, at least in foreseeable future, a dominant role in further development of the Russian economy. ..."
"... Or did I miss a reference to a downside of kleptocracy. ..."
"... This paper addresses Russian economic development and economic policy in 2015–2016. The analysis focuses on external and domestic challenges as well as the anti-crisis policy of the Russian government. Special attention is paid to key elements of the new model of economic growth in Russia. The paper discusses economic policy priorities for sustainable growth that include budget efficiency, structural reforms and import substitution, the encouragement of entrepreneurship, the efficiency of public administration, and the modernization of the welfare state. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
... ... ...

Hellevig warns against illusions. "Russia must understand that the Russia containment strategy of the West will be there for years to come, and will only disappear the day when they gather the courage to understand that Russia has overcome. Therefore, Russia must root all its economic strategy and development efforts in a firm understanding of this reality, and never to count on West in anything. Russia must, focus on China, the East, and the rest of the world."

In war, feats of courage, while awarded medals after the event, are usually irrationally motivated when they happen. Instead of courage to understand, Hellevig may mean something more like cost-benefit analysis, as performed in the minds of voters. When American or European voters calculate that war against Russia is threatening their interests, then there may be a change in the war policy towards Russia. For US voters to turn against war, war must hurt.

Hellevig doesn't have a programme for that as much as a programme for changing hearts and minds in the policy-making centres of Moscow. Here are his recommendations:

    "All further privatization, based on the failed globalist liberal ideology, must be rejected and instead Russia must strengthen state ownership in key branches of the economy, in order to build globally competitive national champions." "Russia's highly successful import substitution program [must continue]. This is the kind of thing Russia must continue to invest in, but not forgetting to heed our advice, that state ownership must be guaranteed in the new fledgling industries." "Russia must also speed up investments in transport and other public infrastructure as well as investment in urban renewal and amelioration programs, in the way it has been done in Moscow." "Cut interest rates. In a bewildering policy motivated by inflation targeting, the Russian Central Bank has inflicted record high real interest on the economy ever since end of 2015. Presently the primary real interest rate stands at a stunning 5%. This is an unprecedented situation in a global comparison. On the contrary, the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have fought against recession by bringing the real interest rates to historical lows, even to negative territory. Without this excessive austerity the Russian economy would have fared yet much betters, especially so the consumer Both charts show that the birth rates have fallen with high real interest rates. The Central Bank therefore must take urgent measures to reduce the gap before the situation worsens further."

Who does Hellevig think, from Putin on down, believes these things, or is even willing to consider the case for them?

Sergei Glazyev is obvious, but he is window-dressing in the Kremlin wall. Not one of his policy recommendations has been adopted, nor even endorsed in public by the president; for details, click to open . Instead, Glazyev is treated to public dressing-downs from Putin's spokesman, Dmity Peskov. Glazyev, to be sure, is a prickly, vain character with a voice pitch that compares unfavourably to chalk across a blackboard. Those are not disqualifications for his ideas.

In his latest presentation on the economy, Putin sounded all of Hellevig's findings, with the exception of the imports-to-GDP ratio and surpassing Germany. However, Putin committed to none of Hellevig's recommendations. For the full text of the president's June 15 "Direct Line" broadcast, read this . Addressing the criticism of Central Bank interest rate policy – the only Russian target Hellevig explicitly attacks -- Putin agreed with the critics; he also agreed with the Central Bank.

"I very much hope that the Central Bank continues to move cautiously towards reducing the key interest rate," Putin started.

"Why has the Central Bank adopted such a cautious approach? Unfortunately, the Russian economy still depends on oil and gas. The price of natural gas depends on the price of oil, and a special formula is used to calculate it. The price of oil has recently exceeded $50, and today it is only $48, I think. The Central Bank believes that if it declines, the key interest rate would have to be adjusted. What matters most for us right now is not the key interest rate itself, but avoiding any sharp fluctuations in the key interest rate. We need to ensure a stable exchange rate for our national currency, the ruble. This is what underpins the Central Bank's cautious approach. Some may like it, others may not. I am simply trying to explain the Central Bank's logic. It deserves respect."

Left to right: Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina; Finance Minister Anton Siluanov; ex-Finance Minister, Putin adviser and patron of the other two, Alexei Kudrin, at their own SPIEF session, June 16, 2016

So who else is Hellewig addressing with the new report? The regrettable answer is noone in particular. Russia's enemies are in for a long war, Hellevig acknowledges himself. US Congress action to finalize the new sanctions bill may come this month, even before the August summer recess; for details of the new Russian targets and US weapons to be deployed, according to the new statute, read this . A veto by President Trump is unlikely because there are two-thirds majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives to override.

So Hellevig's "What Doesn't Kill You" is a report in a vacuum unless it is convincing in the domestic producers' market, and in foreign investor markets.

Sentiment for the future of the Russian economy is measurable in what Russians with cash and capital say they plan to do. If they are producing, shipping, buying and selling more, that will show in growth rates for electricity consumption, cargo tonnage moved on railroads, and the flow of cash and capital goods inward and outward. The latest measures of the electricity and rail indicators show single-digit growth upon the depressed base numbers prevailing last year. However, the numbers for capital outflow, including Russian businessmen on the run, are also growing. The closer you get to the individuals who are moving their cash abroad, the less confidence in the future you hear.

From the regular monthly polling of confidence in the future on the part of Russian businesses, it's clear there is less optimism than Hellevig's: the score last month remained negative, as it had been in April and May. The minus-1 score wasn't as bad as last December, but at minus-8 even that was nowhere near as bad as the all-time low in measured Russian business confidence – minus-20 in 2008. For more details, read this .

Source: https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/business-confidence

The sentiment of foreign investors should be estimated differently. The long money goes into Russian debt; the short or hot money is in Russian equity. Normally, they move in parallel. But for confidence in Russian bonds and confidence in Russian shares, the trend lines this year have been running in opposite directions. By the end of June, foreign buying of Russian debt issues rose sharply, compared to April and May, with an aggregate of $2.8 billion invested last month. For shares the situation has been the reverse. Funds holding Russian shares have been selling steadily for the past four months, and $1.6 billion has been withdrawn over this period, according to EPFR Global.

Guest Post , Russia on July 9, 2017 by Lambert Strether . About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism ("Because markets"). I don't much care about the "ism" that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don't much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue -- and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me -- is the tens of thousands of excess "deaths from despair," as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics -- even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton's wars created -- bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow -- currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press -- a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let's call such voices "the left." Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn't allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I've been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.

JTMcPhee , July 9, 2017 at 8:18 am

Regarding the Spirit of NATO: I'm reminded of the discussion in "The Guns of August" about the French attitude, in the generation leading up to WW I, toward the war they were planning. Lots of General Staff activity, including jockeying for position as the One who would Rule Them All, and the reliance on a supposed "national psyche" of "attack, attack, attack" to be rendered victorious by the Superior Elan of the Nation and its forces.

One view through one lens of those NATO night vision goggles: "Putin's Russia and US Defense (sic) Strategy," http://inss.ndu.edu/Portals/82/Documents/conference-reports/Putins-Russia-and-US-Defense-Strategy.pdf

And then there's this: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_56626.htm
"None so blind as those who will not see "

Olga , July 9, 2017 at 9:11 am

Don't forget the British calls (around 1910-1913) for a "little war" that would be quickly over – once we showed those Germans who's the boss Didn't quite work out that way. The viciousness with which Germany was punished after WWI hid a lot of French and British (unacknowledged) guilt. It is bloody unbelievable that 100 yrs after that war (plus WWII), the West is still warmongering. China and Russia better hurry up with that changing-the world-order project – lest there'll be nothing left to change.

JTMcPhee , July 9, 2017 at 9:35 am

But of course, out of it all, a marvelous new tradition and industrial base, Krupp and Fokker and the British and French and Scandinavian, etc. armaments industry, and the inventive new fonancialists that enabled it all and all that nationalist patriotic fervor! And Bernays, too!

"A certain amount of killing has always been a concomitant of business "

philnc , July 9, 2017 at 10:59 am

Unfortunately, China and Russia their own home-grown warmongers whose position is continuously advanced by the kind of bellicose claptrap spewed out in documents like the two cited above. Tuchman's *The Proud Tower* and *The Guns of August* have never been more relevant than they are today, but maybe it's her anti war magnum opus, *March of Folly*, that should be required reading for all high school students going forward (I fear previous generations may already be too brainwashed to see the light).

ToivoS , July 9, 2017 at 11:12 pm

There is without a doubt that both China and Russia have their war parties that are impatient with the diplomatic pace of their governments. They do exert pressure towards a more belligerent pose against the US.

Unlike the US, the war parties in those two governments do not have that much influence in making their foreign policies. Unfortunately for the US there is the so called deep state that has infiltrated every branch or our government and is always pushing for more war.

Edward E , July 9, 2017 at 12:07 pm

"China and Russia better hurry up with that changing-the world-order project"
From reading a lot of Finian Cunningham and Willem Middelkoop, it appears that is exactly what is happening.

edr , July 9, 2017 at 9:48 am

"Hellevig's point deserves repeating -- the Russian economy is far more diversified than the enemy thinks. "

Hellevig calls the west "our western partners" but Helmer above is calling who the "enemy"? and enemy to whom? From Helmer's perspective that doesn't make sense. Is Helmer American? His first paragraph is equally confusing. Is Helmer recommending that a country under Economic Threat by a Stronger power hide economic gains, or the opposite ?

Hellevig: "state ownership must be guaranteed in the new fledgling industries."

Doesn't sound like good advice to me. Some subsidies for important fledgling industries sound like a better idea, like solar for instance.

Hiho , July 9, 2017 at 11:47 am

State owned enterprises in key sectors does not sound good to you because decades of relentless junk economics and neoliberal bullshit have had a terrible effect in our perception of the reality.

The truth is that liberalized economies have never been able to compete in the world and never will be.

edt , July 9, 2017 at 1:06 pm

What's your definition of a liberalized economy?

I didn't mention anything about "key sectors" (that was a different recommendation from Hellevig).

I referred to his recommendation about "fledgling industries," which could be anything.

I guess we could all go to work for the government. That shouldn't create any problems.

edr , July 9, 2017 at 1:17 pm

What's your definition of a liberalized economy?

I didn't mention anything about "key sectors" (that was different recommendation from Hellevig).

I referred to his recommendation about "fledgling industries" which could be anything.

I guess we could all go to work for the government. That shouldn't create any problems.

JTMcPhee , July 9, 2017 at 2:09 pm

Or we can all change our names to "Galt." Voluntarily, or by corporatist/financialist fiat. Actually seems to be well under way.

Of course the Galtians do want just that precise amount of "regulation," to be provided by Philosopher Galts from within the monopoly (sic) on the use of force, just the precise amount that's needed to make the Galtian system work, and to monopolize the government-protected freedom to loot and cadge subsidies and rents from the rest of us, and make us eat their externalities

Working so well so far, isn't it? Checked the outside air temperature and habitability indexes around the place lately? But those who profit from skills at looting and rentier-ing kvetch about the "government" they pervert for personal advantage -- nice to have it both ways.

Let us mopes never try to figure out how to have a "government" that embodies both "civil" and "service," one that's not immediately captured and twisted by Kochs and Musks and other Robber Barons. So hard to do, when one has the funhouse-mirror image of the Magna Carta as one of the Holy Texts

Hiho , July 9, 2017 at 2:37 pm

No capital controls, no industrial planning, soft banking regulations, privatized utilities, privatized infrastructures, low real estate taxes, private banking, regressive tax code. That's the receipt to create a neofeudal economy incapable of competing in the international markets.

JTMcPhee , July 9, 2017 at 5:57 pm

"incapable of competing in the international markets": you say that as if it's a Bad Thing ? And that all the "competition" does not, to greater or lesser degree, manifest every one of those supposed noncompetitive "weaknesses" of failings?

reslez , July 9, 2017 at 9:05 pm

The point, sir, is that if your industries are overwhelmed by imports they will be destroyed, leaving you dependent on external parties. De facto colonization does not run far behind.

JTMcPhee , July 9, 2017 at 10:52 pm

I got what he was saying, I think, and if it was not irony, then my point is that all those bad things Hiho cites are happening everywhere, to one degree or another, under neoliberal-neocon globalization. All part of the global race to the bottom, which I believe each of the presumed "bad things" cited by Hiho are part and parcel of. With the burden of militarized attempts to achieve Full Spectrum Dominance laid on top, though it sure is not clear, given the ascendancy of post-supra-national corporations and wealth concentration in the hands of Supra-state individuals with no national ties or loyalties, "cui bono" from that effort.

One wonders who and what the Received Wisdom of pursuit of imperial autarky-hegemony and "global competitiveness"might be expected to benefit

And the outcome, the industrial output, of the global system-as-it-is seems demonstrably to be killing the habitability of the planet. And of importance to us "top predators," the "comfort" and sustainability of our own brittle species

More of the same gets you exactly what, again? Minute local short-term Elites and their self-indulgences, who seem to have the "feudalism creation" process well under way, for their personal benefit ?

RabidGandhi , July 9, 2017 at 5:12 pm

"Our Western partners" is Putin's usual formulation, as Helmer makes clear in the article. It is not Hellevig's.

Carey , July 9, 2017 at 10:51 am

FWIW, I have often found Mr. Helmer obscure and difficult to confidently parse, with enough factual errors that I do take him with a grain of salt.

Yves Smith , July 9, 2017 at 5:47 pm

You need to address this particular article and not engage in a drive-by attack. You apparently can't find anything wrong but don't like where this goes. This piece makes clear it depends on a single source and Helmer has written it up. So what, pray tell, is hard to understand about that?

Our Richard Smith writes about scammers and his articles are similarly difficult because the relations among players and mechanisms are complex. That is often why Helmer's articles are dense: he's dealing with lots of material from sources with their own motives.

JTMcPhee , July 9, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Yves, thank you for adding that. I took "Carey" to be a kind of FUD-peddling troll. Can't let people start thinking well of folks like Helmer, now can they? Got to impeach whenever there's the chance.

Of course I could have it all wrong, and "Carey" was commenting in all sincerity In faceless bitspace, it's so hard to know

ToivoS , July 9, 2017 at 11:54 pm

Glad to see you defending Helmer. He very often comes up with some pretty good insights. But my God he is sometime difficult to follow. Someone who makes the reader work that hard just might be able to use a good copy editor. But, on the other hand,he does make one think.

Chauncey Gardiner , July 9, 2017 at 2:48 pm

Helmer's article triggered some further questions: To what extent has the effort to punish and damage Russia through the low price of oil and sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase Russia's financial, economic and military alliance with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his article posted in today's NC Links section?

To what extent has the growing economic relationship between Russia and China reduced the effectiveness of US sanctions on Russia and indirectly led to derivative policy blowback with potentially damaging implications for the US, such as loss of petrodollar hegemony to the Chinese yuan? China is now putting pressure on the Saudis to accept payment for oil in yuan by using China's oil imports from Russia as negotiating leverage.

Seems like an awful lot of ignorance and miscalculation by the usual suspects to me.

ToivoSt , July 10, 2017 at 12:03 am

My understanding is that the current government, not their central bank, was thinking about ways to make Russia less dependent on foreign imports before 2014. Unilateral tariffs or other import restrictions were considered but not implemented because of political reasons -- They were afraid there would be a consumer backlash. US and EU sanctions solved that problem.. The Russian people were willing to make that sacrifice in the face of an attack on their sovereignty.

John Casey , July 10, 2017 at 1:00 pm

To what extent has the effort to punish and damage Russia through the low price of oil and sanctions pushed the Putin regime to increase Russia's financial, economic and military alliance with China mentioned by Ray McGovern in his article posted in today's NC Links section?

I'll add that -- as far as I can tell, at least -- there's almost never any news about this issue in the three chief political establishment outlets (NYT, WaPo, and WSJ). You'd think that the editors of those papers regard the nascent Russia-China strategic partnership as verboten. Something unmentionable.

I wonder why.

Damson , July 9, 2017 at 2:48 pm

Helllevig's report is unabashedly pro – Putin so that doesn't gel too well with Helmer – a consistent, if generally fair critic.

Hard to know what the essential point of Helmer's take on the report really is – a warning against perceived Russian hubris vis a vis NATO?

Wariness of Glazeyev's proposed reforms? Contrary to Helmer, I believe they have not been adopted not because they are perceived to be wrong, but because they are currently too radical for the Russian economy – still very much part of the global system. (Though the SWIFT expulsion threat was challenged vigorously, and a Sino – Russian alternative is being put in place, it would have caused havoc if it had gone ahead.)

The impression that he's a 'narcissistic' attention – w***é is a new one on me Maybe Helmer is buddies with Kudrin, your standard market ideologue and a dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal (despite his organisation of financial reserves to cushion the effects of sanctions, he is not ideologically a threat to current Western dogma.)

Or is Helmer uneasy at the prospect of major power nationalising it's central bank?

All in all, a rather rum rumination.

Best read the full report until Helmer publishes an article offering more clarity on his own perspective.

Yves Smith , July 9, 2017 at 6:02 pm

I've said in passing that the West expected its sanctions to bring Russia to its knees. They've now been on for years. Even though GDP took a hit, the impact appears to be markedly less than what we inflicted on ourselves in the financial crisis, in part because Russia engaged in a muscular response (such as improving domestic industries, like cheese making, where they had chosen before to be significantly dependent on imports). And the sanctions also didn't hurt Putin's popularity, in fact they increased it. Even the Moscow intelligensia went quiet for a good year plus. And Putin brought a big increase in living standards. The GDP reduction is a blip compared to where Russia was circa the late 1990s.

So while Helllevig may be overegging the pudding, it's accurate to say that the sanctions didn't damage Russia anywhere near as much as the West hoped.

One issue is all the reports I can find easily (thanks to Google crapification) list GDP in $ terms. I'd like to see a GDP series in rouble terms, since that's what matters to Russians, particularly since Russia isn't a huge importer.

I did find a report at Barrons which is relatively bullish on Russia, although not at bullish as Hellevig, based on World Bank forecasts:

Russia's economy can expand at a 1.3% pace in 2017 and by 1.4% in 2018 and 2019, the World Bank said Tuesday.

The ruble is strengthening today, up 0.7% against the U.S. dollar, and Russian equities are rallying in Moscow. The VanEck Vectors Russia exchange-traded fund (RSX) is higher by 0.5% this morning, as are the U.S.-traded shares of Sberbank Rossia (SBRCY). Moody's Investors Service projected slightly higher GDP growth of 1.5% this year and next, but maintained its junk rating on Russian government bonds Monday.

http://www.barrons.com/articles/russia-rallies-1-3-gdp-growth-55-oil-world-bank-says-1495548544

Thor's Hammer , July 9, 2017 at 8:59 pm

Another statistic that goes unnoticed in the USA is the extent to which Russia is an outlier among the world's major economies. Where debt/GDP ratios in the US are 107% along with basket state countries like Italy and Greece, Russia is nearly debt free at 17%!by far the lowest in the world for a major industrial power.

Looks like the military-industrial state war hawks better make sure that the US can continue to impose the dollar as the world reserve currency!–. All those new SUV's purchased with 7 year loans will get pretty thirsty if the US has to earn the money to import the fuel to run them instead of just having the FED create the money with a key stroke.

optimader , July 9, 2017 at 11:31 pm

https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/6341/1/03-Korhonen.pdf
Figure 1. Russian GDP growth, 2000–2016, percent of corresponding period of previous year
S o u r c e: Rosstat. URL: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/accounts/ (accessed:
14.12.2016).

optimader , July 9, 2017 at 11:39 pm

https://acta.mendelu.cz/media/pdf/actaun_2017065010299.pdf

Volume 65 34 Number 1, 2017
https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201765010299
THE SUCCESS OF ECONOMIC POLICIES
IN RUSSIA: DEPENDENCE ON CRUDE
OIL VS. EXPORT DIVERSIFICATION


,,,During the analyzed period Russia has been constantly increasing the volumes of mineral exports and despite the fact that in general "oil" exports positively affect the amount of fiscal revenues, the observed dynamics of GDP growth was in fact negative. It means that further economic growth in Russia is not possible at the expense of its natural resources endowments. The observed over the analyzed period dynamics of macroeconomic indicators reveals that Russian economy is still substantially influenced by crude oil prices. Russia needs to diversify its economy away from oil and gas dependency, because significant volumes of "oil" exports are not favorable to the economy in terms of its strategic development. And according to the obtained results, in order to stimulate "non-oil" exports monetary authorities should depreciate national currency on the one hand, whilst on the other hand fiscal burden should be mild towards to "non-oil" producers. Consequently, Russian government should focus on export-oriented development of non-oil sectors and find an optimum ratio between "oil" and "non-oil" exports so that "oil" revenues would have supported "non-oil" exports. This allows us to conclude that crude oil will continue to play, at least in foreseeable future, a dominant role in further development of the Russian economy.

Yves Smith , July 10, 2017 at 2:08 am

Thank you!

Optimader , July 10, 2017 at 8:57 am

Yr welcome, I'll look a little closer for gdp info later today

LifeIsLikeABeanstalk , July 9, 2017 at 6:18 pm

Given the fortuitous results the sanctions have allegedly produced are we to presume Vlad the Impaler (of Political Opponents and Truth Seeking Journalists) spent some time this past week lobbying for their continuation?

On the one hand I agree we have plenty of interests in common. And if the Russian people are content with rule by the siloviki they should be allowed that. We should think long and hard however before accepting the insinuation of their model into our own imbalanced and (hopefully) evolving system. That WAS the implication of the piece wasn't it? Or did I miss a reference to a downside of kleptocracy.

IMHO the long play is establishing ties with those who will unseat or outlast Vlad and encourage a government and economy of openness and participation.

BTW: Someone should write a piece looking at the similarities between Putin's agitation of the Orthodox Church to his own advantage and Donald's winning over of the Christian Right in this country.

witters , July 9, 2017 at 6:53 pm

"IMHO the long play is establishing ties with those who will unseat or outlast Vlad and encourage a government and economy of openness and participation."

So Regime Change and All the Openness and Participation the US always brings? And that is your Long Play?

Some people

reslez , July 9, 2017 at 9:10 pm

> Or did I miss a reference to a downside of kleptocracy.

Perhaps said reference was omitted in deference to the readership, who labor under our own journalist-persecuting kleptocracy and do not need a reminder.

Catsick , July 9, 2017 at 6:40 pm

The fall in the Russian economy was brought on by the oil price collapse not the sanctions. In a perverse kind of way the US then forced on Russia a kind of Trumpian make Russia great again set of policies through sanctions which unexpectedly led to an industrial rebirth which fully offset the oil price collapse, if the west had really wanted to undermine Russia then the best way would have been to encourage capital flight by helping the debauched overseas fantasies of the oligarchs they targeted.

RBHoughton , July 9, 2017 at 7:53 pm

I have often said that sanctions only put up prices, based on what I know has occurred historically, but Yves exposes a further risk in one of her comments. France had a share of the cheese market in Russia until she was persuaded to cease supplying. Since then domestic producers have made many of the cheeses France used to supply. That market has likely gone for France. Trade is trade, war is war. We should try not to confuse the two.

The Rev Kev , July 9, 2017 at 11:55 pm

It is worse than that. Remember those two Mistral-class ships that the French built for the Russian navy until, under pressure from NATO, they reneged on those contracts and were forced to pay a heavy penalty? Now anybody that has contracts with France, particularly military contracts, will have to wonder if France will honour those contracts if put under enough pressure.

Business hates uncertainty and so you wonder how many contracts France has lost since it proved to be an unreliable business partner.

Come to think of it, our mob has signed a $50 billion contract with France for 12 you-bewt submarines. I wonder if-

A- That was under pressure by others to compensate France for the loss of the Mistral contracts and

B- That was why the insistence of the subs being built in Adelaide. Not only for local jobs but also to ensure that there would be no future funny business about actual delivery. Hmmm

Enquiring Mind , July 9, 2017 at 10:15 pm

When I hear about Congress demanding sanctions, I visualize John McCain sputtering. So much of what passes for those great deliberations seems to be in effect more kayfabe. They produce what they think the public expects, as filtered through their minders on K Street, in the media and elsewhere.
Sanctions can be productive, when used thoughtfully and with limited scope. In the present context, there does not appear to be much thought given the ongoing "Russians Hacked, dammit" looped commentary.

optimader , July 9, 2017 at 11:27 pm

http://www.worldstopexports.com/russias-top-10-exports/
https://imrussia.org/en/analysis/politics/2454-russia's-elites-battle-over-a-shrinking-economic-pie
https://imrussia.org/en/analysis/economy/2787-sergey-aleksashenko-"the-kremlin-s-economic-policy-has-produced-no-growth-whatsoever"

optimader , July 10, 2017 at 10:30 am

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/53/1/012018/pdf
The problems and prospects of the public–private partnership in the Russian fuel and energy sector
SM Nikitenko1,3 and EV Goosen1,2
1Federal Research Center for Coal and Coal Chemistry, Siberian Branch of the
Russian Academy of Sciences, Kemerovo, Russia
2Kemerovo State University, Kemerovo, Russia
3Kemerovo Institute (Branch) of Plekhanov Russian University of Economics,
Kemerovo, Russia

optimader , July 10, 2017 at 10:34 am

https://helda.helsinki.fi/bof/bitstream/handle/123456789/14554/w2016.pdf?sequence=1

BOFIT Weekly Yearbook 2016 plenty of research here

optimader , July 10, 2017 at 10:40 am

. http://www.ersj.eu/repec/ers/papers/17_1_p29.pdf

Instruments of Marketing and Credit Support of the Large Industrial Enterprises Development: International Experience

optimader , July 10, 2017 at 10:48 am

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405473916300472

Abstract

This paper addresses Russian economic development and economic policy in 2015–2016. The analysis focuses on external and domestic challenges as well as the anti-crisis policy of the Russian government. Special attention is paid to key elements of the new model of economic growth in Russia. The paper discusses economic policy priorities for sustainable growth that include budget efficiency, structural reforms and import substitution, the encouragement of entrepreneurship, the efficiency of public administration, and the modernization of the welfare state.

[Jul 10, 2017] Trump core opinions and attitudes can reverse 180 degrees in mere hours. Thus worrying about his getting violently demised is probably unfounded. He will consistently perform for his Zionist handlers and dance for his Deep State controllers.

Notable quotes:
"... It could also be that he is just being "smart" -- saying what needs to be said ad hoc to appease -- with the intention of eventually, when the time is right, carrying out his strategic vision. We'll see. ..."
"... what about the 59 missiles its all kiss and make up? What a load of bollocks. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | sputniknews.com
Dimitri Ledkovsky · Works at It's not what you do. It's who you are. 23 hrs

It's likely that Trump is mind controlled since his seemingly core opinions and attitudes can reverse 180 degrees in mere hours. Thus worrying about his getting violently demised is probably unfounded. He will consistently perform for his Zionist handlers and dance for his Deep State controllers.

Steven Hudson · Creative Director at Neoideograms.wordpress.com

I don't know about that. His expressing contrary opinions could be interpreted as his having some independence--a hopeful thing. It could also be that he is just being "smart" -- saying what needs to be said ad hoc to appease -- with the intention of eventually, when the time is right, carrying out his strategic vision. We'll see.

Robert Smiley · West Vancouver, British Columbia 23 hrs

A case can be made that the so called deep state is committing treason on a daily basis. Unfortunately its constituent parts are stronger than the President and his allies.

Robert Sinclair

what about the 59 missiles its all kiss and make up? What a load of bollocks. They both love israel. if you look carefully you can see the strings

ARG Asia
I did know "Deep State" was powerful, but I had no idea they could do whatever they wanted and interfere in nearly every of President Trump staff members with the exemption of the former Goldman Sachs appointees. Is the US really a democracy?

Here in Asia we see the US bullying and revolver diplomacy has insulted many countries, not only the Philippines. If the US want to have a future in Asia they have to be more respectful, stop interfering in domestic issues, and stop all these regimes change attempts.

[Jul 10, 2017] Steve Bannon Is Out of Trump's Doghouse and Leading the Charge Against Mueller by Joshua Green

Muller was Bush II 9/11 coverup guy. he is vulnerable.
Trump correctly identified Muller investigation to be a "witch hunt" telling Fox News that he finds Mueller's long-standing relationship with Comey "bothersome." So there should be a central figure who organizes that the defense and Bannon with his media formidable skills is suitable for this role, because he understands the political "kitchen", while Trump does not. Actually all Trump adversaries have skeletons in the closets too, so "nuclear option" is always on the table. 9/11 provides plenty such skeletons for all leading anti-Trump figures. But in the meantime it is important to know the difference between rational political move and political suicide.
The fact that Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers now bound Muller to lekk at leakers too, not only at Trump. It he does not so he is open attacks for partisanship and carrying water for Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich ..."
"... Access Hollywood. ..."
"... Access Hollywood ..."
"... Access Hollywood ..."
"... Access Hollywood ..."
"... Access Hollywood ..."
"... by Joshua Green (July 18; Penguin Press). Copyright © 2017 by Joshua Green. ..."
"... *This article appears in the July 10, 2017, issue of ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.msn.com

For Trump, Bannon's distinctive vocabulary was another point of his appeal. Bannon gloried in the slights and scorn directed at Trump supporters, proudly insisting that elitist Clintonites looked down on them as "hobbits," "Grundoons," and -- co-opting Clinton's own ill-advised term -- "deplorables." Anyone who thought otherwise was a "mook" or a "schmendrick." And Clinton herself was the subject of a steady stream of derision, carefully pitched to Trump's own biases and insecurities and delivered with the passion of a cornerman firing up a boxer for one last grueling round in the ring. Clinton, Bannon would insist, was "a résumé," "a total phony," "terrible on the stage," "a grinder, but not smart," "a joke who hides behind a complacent media," "an apple-polisher who couldn't pass the D.C. bar exam," "thinks it's her turn" but "has never accomplished anything in her life" -- and, for good measure, was "a f---ing bull dyke."

Although Trump didn't dwell on policy details, Bannon pitched in there, too. When Trump came under fire because his campaign hadn't produced a single policy paper, Bannon arranged for Nunberg and Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit, to quickly write a white paper on Trump's immigration policies. When the campaign released it, Coulter, without disclosing her role, tweeted that it was "the greatest political document since the Magna Carta."

Bannon and Breitbart also operated as shock troops for Trump's on-and-off war with Fox News. Trump's fixation with the cable network was a powerful force throughout the campaign. Although he had appeared regularly on Fox for years and had staunch backers at the network, Sean Hannity chief among them, Fox wasn't always friendly. And Trump was stung by a humiliation he'd suffered from Rupert Murdoch. He often told intimates how, as he was preparing to launch his campaign, his daughter Ivanka had arranged a lunch with Murdoch to share the news. Soon after the three of them were seated and the waiter brought their soup, Ivanka spoke up: "My father has something to tell you."

"What's that?" Murdoch said.

"He's going to run for president."

"He's not running for president," Murdoch replied without looking up from his soup.

"No, he is!" she insisted.

Murdoch changed the subject.

Trump nursed the slight for months. "He didn't even look up from his soup!" he'd complain. Nowhere was Trump's clash with the network more pronounced than in the aftermath of the first GOP debate -- sponsored by Fox News and co-moderated by Megyn Kelly -- on August 6 in Cleveland. Trump was particularly worried about Kelly, whose show he had backed out of three days earlier, complaining to a friend that she was out to get him. (Bannon had a special loathing for Kelly, just as some Fox hosts did for him. "Bannon is human garbage," one of them told me.)

When the lights went up in Cleveland, Kelly went right after Trump, confronting him with his history of sexist statements. "You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs,' and 'disgusting animals,' " she said. "Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?"

Within minutes of the debate's end, even as Trump was still nursing his grievances on live television, reporters started to realize that the revelations of his past behavior, so bluntly excavated by Kelly, had caused an intense reaction among Republican voters -- not against Trump but against Fox News. Bannon and the Breitbart editors had the same reaction and immediately turned on Kelly with a fusillade of negative articles slamming her as a backstabbing, self-promoting betrayer of the cause. Breitbart soon became the locus of pro-Trump, anti-Fox conservative anger. Between Thursday night, when the debate took place, and Sunday evening, Breitbart published 25 stories mentioning Kelly, and the site's editor-in-chief, Alex Marlow , went on CNN to accuse Fox News of "trying to take out Donald Trump" and staging "a gotcha debate."

The intensity of Republican anger stunned Fox News executives. The debate had drawn a record 24 million viewers. Now many of them were apoplectic at the network's top talent. In a panic, Ailes called Bannon and begged him to call off the attacks. "Steve, this isn't fair, and it's killing us," Ailes said. "You have to stop it." "F--- that, that was outrageous what she did!" Bannon retorted. "She pulled every trick out of the leftist playbook."

The call ended without resolution. Bannon and Ailes would not speak again for almost a year. Even after Ailes and Trump patched up their relationship, Bannon refused to relent. In fact, Breitbart's attacks on Kelly grew uglier. "Flashback: Megyn Kelly Discusses Her Husband's Penis and Her Breasts on Howard Stern," read a Breitbart headline a week after the debate. Ailes eventually dispatched his personal lawyer, Peter Johnson Jr., to the Breitbart embassy in D.C. to deliver a message to Bannon to end the war on Kelly. When he arrived, Johnson got straight to the point: If Bannon didn't stop immediately, he would never again appear on Fox News. Bannon was incensed at the threat.

"She's pure evil," he told Johnson. "And she will turn on [Ailes] one day. We're going full-bore. We're not going to stop. I'm gonna unchain the dogs." The conversation was brief and unpleasant, and it ended with a cinematic flourish. "I want you to go back to New York and quote me to Roger," Bannon said. " 'Go f--- yourself.' "

© Provided by Daily Intelligencer

Bannon remained a loyal outsider for most of the campaign. Then in August 2016, as Trump looked to be spiraling toward a blowout loss, Rebekah Mercer, whose family put millions of dollars into both Breitbart and Trump's presidential run, helped arrange for Bannon to take over. One weakness of Trump's campaign was that it was guided almost entirely by the candidate's impulses. Bannon kept Trump focused on a clear target at which to direct his ample talent for invective: "Crooked Hillary." And he brought an encyclopedic knowledge of damaging material with which to attack her, gleaned from having masterminded Peter Schweizer's best-selling 2015 book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich (another Mercer-backed effort). The book gave Trump an overarching theme in which to fit his attacks, one that the media, thanks partly to Schweizer's and Bannon's efforts, was already predisposed to accept: that Clinton was corrupt. And because Bannon's convulsive extremism was now setting the tone, no one would hold him back. "It's not going to be a traditional campaign," he said shortly after his hiring.

It wasn't. The great test arrived on October 7, when David Fahrenthold, a reporter at the Washington Post, was leaked outtake footage from a 2005 Trump appearance on the NBC show Access Hollywood. "When you're a star, they let you do it," Trump told host Billy Bush. "You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy."

It looked like Trump had finally said something that even he couldn't rebound from, and Republican officials quickly began abandoning the campaign. "I am not going to defend Donald Trump -- not now, not in the future," Paul Ryan told his House colleagues in a private call. As New York reported , Reince Priebus urged Trump to quit or "go down with a worse election loss than Barry Goldwater's." Bannon stood firm, although even he feared Trump might be finished. Still, he told an associate, it wouldn't be a total loss. "Our backup strategy," he said of Clinton, "is to f--- her up so bad that she can't govern. If she gets 43 percent of the vote, she can't claim a mandate." Psyching himself up, he added, "My goal is that by November 8, when you hear her name, you're gonna throw up."

Trump, who never apologized for any offense, took the unprecedented step of expressing remorse about the comments on the Access Hollywood tape in a hastily produced web video. "I said it, I was wrong, and I apologize," he said to the camera. But at Bannon's urging, his apology quickly morphed into an attack on the Clintons that made it clear he would not be dropping out. "I've said some foolish things," he said, but "Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed, and intimidated his victims. We will discuss this more in the coming days. See you at the debate on Sunday." With Bannon by his side, Trump would navigate the greatest crisis of his campaign by putting his foot on the gas. When I reached Bannon to ask about the strategy for the upcoming debate, he didn't miss a beat: "Attack, attack, attack, attack."

Bannon had long believed that Bill Clinton's sexual history and Hillary's alleged complicity in covering it up was something that "has to be concentrated and brought up," as he'd once put it. His original thought was that relitigating the scandals would demoralize a younger generation of feminist women unfamiliar with the tawdry details. But with the Access Hollywood tape, Bannon saw that injecting Clinton's accusers into the race would force the media to devote attention to more than just Trump's damaging tape. The trick was to do it in a way that couldn't be ignored. Watching Bill Cosby's public evisceration by his accusers the year before, Bannon had noticed that their on-camera testimony was especially powerful because most of the victims had been assaulted decades earlier and were now elderly women and thus inherently sympathetic. Bannon thought a similar dynamic would apply to the Clinton accusers.

On Sunday afternoon, 90 minutes before the start of the debate at Washington University in St. Louis, word spread in the press corps that Trump was about to hold an event. As reporters squeezed into a conference room, Trump was seated at the center of a makeshift dais flanked by four women well known to veteran political reporters: Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathy Shelton, and Paula Jones. Willey, Broaddrick, and Jones had all accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault or harassment; in 1975, a judge had appointed Hillary Clinton, then a young lawyer, to defend a man accused of raping Shelton, who was then 12 years old.

After brief remarks from Trump, the women took turns defending him and assailing the Clintons. The shock of what was unfolding prompted frenzied live coverage on cable news. As cameras panned the room, they captured Bannon standing in the back, grinning wickedly. The brazenness of Bannon's gambit, and the visual of Trump seated among Clinton's accusers, ensured that the primary imagery on TV would cease to be the Access Hollywood footage.

A plan to seat the women at the front of the debate audience to rattle Clinton and assure them a steady presence in the camera shot had to be scuttled. In the end, it didn't matter. Bannon had always believed that Trump was his own greatest weapon. As 67 million people tuned in to the debate, Trump waited for the inevitable Access Hollywood question and sprung his counterattack. "If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse," he said. "Mine are words, and his was action. His was -- what he's done to women, there's never been anybody in the history of politics in this nation that's been so abusive to women Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them are here tonight."

Outside the campaign, the Clinton-accuser gambit was seen as a transparently cynical ploy to change the subject. But Trump's brain trust was seeing numbers that said attacking Clinton was succeeding. A smattering of public polls indicated the same thing: More respondents improved their opinion of Trump than of Clinton after watching the debate.

Then, within days of the debate, multiple women came forward to accuse Trump of having groped or kissed them without their consent . The wave of new accusers put the campaign on a war footing. The distinction they needed to draw, Bannon told staffers, was between Trump's "locker room" behavior and what he alleged was Bill Clinton's sexually violent behavior. "This has nothing to do with consensual sexual affairs and infidelities," Bannon said in a strategy meeting that week. "We're going to turn him into Bill Cosby. He's a violent sexual predator who physically abuses women who he assaults. And she takes the lead on the intimidation of the victims."

Trump seemed to relish the prospect of ramping up his attacks on Hillary. And then, with just over a week to go until Election Day, he got an unexpected boost when FBI director James Comey announced he was reopening the investigation into Clinton's private email server. Trump's internal polls, which showed him already ascending before the Comey letter, now had him turning sharply upward in every battleground state. Out on the stump, he ratcheted up his criticism of Clinton. In speeches and ads, he channeled Bannon's conspiratorial worldview, accusing Clinton of plotting "the destruction of U.S. sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers, her special-interest friends." When Trump won the election, the lesson the 45th president took away from the campaign seemed to be that if he fought hard enough, he could survive anything.

Just six months into his presidency, Trump's faith in that proposition is being tested. His brief tenure has been shot through with turmoil, his legislative agenda is teetering on the cusp of collapse, and Robert Mueller's special-counsel investigation is an ever-present source of frustration. The Associated Press revealed that Trump's anger has reached a point where he is yelling at television sets in the White House, upset by the tenor of his coverage.

For Bannon, though, things are looking up. Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord was a sign that nationalism still holds sway, as was his July speech in Poland warning of the decline of the West. The Supreme Court's decision in late June to allow the administration's travel ban to take partial effect was another victory for Bannon, its principal architect. The House just passed two immigration bills, and, White House officials say privately, Congress will soon act on four more. Bannon's feud with Kushner has quieted down. And so far, while at least ten White House officials and former aides, including Kushner, have retained lawyers in the special counsel's probe, distancing themselves from Trump, Bannon is not among them.

Instead, he's back in the bunker alongside a boss who is often angry, always under fire, and, on the matter of Russia, increasingly isolated from all but a handful of advisers and family members. Early on, Bannon's war room displayed characteristic aggression, with Kasowitz holding a press conference to slam Comey in response to the former FBI director's June 8 testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. "[It] is overwhelmingly clear that there have been and continue to be those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications," Kasowitz said. "Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers."

Many of Trump's current and former aides cheered this lunge for the jugular. "Kasowitz is a junkyard dog, exactly the guy Trump needs in his corner right now," says Barry Bennett, a former campaign adviser. In TV appearances, war-room attorney Jay Sekulow -- Trump's Lanny Davis -- suggested that Mueller is biased, a charge Trump amplified on Twitter by calling the investigation a "witch hunt" and telling Fox News that he finds Mueller's long-standing relationship with Comey "bothersome."

But those personal attacks diminished in late June, after John Dowd, a prominent Washington attorney and veteran of the Justice Department, joined Trump's defense. References to a "war room" have also been dropped for the more tempered "president's outside legal team." And on June 28, Trump's lawyers decided to postpone filing a Justice Department complaint against Comey for having helped leak memos about his conversations with Trump to reporters -- a move Bloomberg News attributed to a new attitude of "professional courtesy" toward Mueller. "It could become an adversarial relationship, but at present the legal team decided it was best to hold off and not file those complaints," says Mark Corallo, the spokesman for the legal team. Which is not to say that Bannon's bare-knuckled instincts have vanished, but rather that he's come to understand that going after Mueller personally isn't the best move -- at least right now.

Davis himself says this was a necessary course correction. "There is huge danger in attacking Mueller directly," says Davis. "[White House counsel] Don McGahn, Bannon, and the political side of the White House ought to be listening." For now, they seem to be. And at least for the time being, Trump, too, has shifted his target from Mueller and Comey to Mika Brzezinski and CNN.

One critical element of the Lanny Davis model, says Davis, is having a president who has a firm enough grasp of the legal and political stakes that he's willing to focus on his day job and let his lawyers do the talking for him. But even some of Trump's defenders admit that not only is the president unlikely to show such deference, he is never more than a bad news cycle away from firing Mueller.

"Bannon's a smart guy -- he knows the difference between success and political suicide," says Davis. "But could he even stop him?" When it came to Comey, the answer was no. As Mueller expands his team of investigators, the question now is how long Trump's advisers will be able to dissuade him from going after the special counsel. "One thing that's always dangerous is telling Donald Trump that he can't do something," says Roger Stone. "Because then he wants to do it."

If Trump were to fire Mueller , numerous Republicans say privately that they would break with the president. "It would be a repeat of the 'Saturday Night Massacre' when Nixon fired Archibald Cox," the Watergate special prosecutor, says Davis.

There's no question, though, who would lead the attack on Trump's critics if such a scenario were to unfold. "At the end of the day," says Sam Nunberg, "the question is, are we going to stand with Trump when he fires Mueller? Steve will do it."

Adapted from Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency , by Joshua Green (July 18; Penguin Press). Copyright © 2017 by Joshua Green.

*This article appears in the July 10, 2017, issue of New York Magazine.

[Jul 10, 2017] The Media Perpetuated A Clinton Lie For 9 Months. What It Means For The Russia Narrative

Notable quotes:
"... The New York Times ..."
"... the Associated Press ..."
"... The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling. ..."
"... The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess. ..."
"... Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer. ..."
"... The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. ..."
"... for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | dailycaller.com
When Hillary Clinton claimed "17 intelligence agencies" agree on Russian meddling in the third presidential debate, a host of media outlets including The New York Times rated the claim as 100 percent true. Nine months later, those same outlets say the stat is obviously false, and there's been a "simple" explanation as to why all along.

A closer look at how the claim survived and thrived over those nine months reveals a startling lack of skepticism in the press when it comes to the Russia narrative. The truth is the great majority of the 17 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community had nothing to do with the investigation and made no judgments about the matter.

"The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign," The New York Times now reports . "The rest were doing other work."

Strange admission for the paper, since its star political reporter recently reiterated the false claim as she was in the middle of writing an article characterizing President Trump as stubbornly foolish.

"The latest presidential tweets were proof to dismayed members of Mr. Trump's party that he still refuses to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help him get elected," Maggie Haberman wrote. Her story was later corrected to reflect the -- basic fact -- that only three agencies working under the Director of National Intelligence contributed to the intelligence community's conclusion.

A few days later, the Associated Press echoed that correction in a "clarification" bulletin acknowledging there's no truth to the claim the wire service had repeatedly blasted out for publication to news outlets all over the world.

The bizarrely timed corrections put the media in a bit of a truth pickle, especially after Trump drew attention to the corrections at a high-profile press conference in Poland. "They had to apologize, and they had to correct," he noted.

The New York Times, CNN and others quickly spun up articles and tweets aimed at steering the conversation away from this uncomfortable truth about their proliferation of an outright false claim, and back to the more comfortable "isn't Trump an idiot?" narrative.

"17 intel agencies or four? Either way, Russia conclusion still valid," Politifact wrote in a Thursday headline . "Trump still doesn't seem to believe his intelligence agencies," CNN blared .

The New York Times took it a step further , dismissing the truth of the claim as a "technicality" and then accusing Trump of spreading a "misleading" narrative by correcting the record. Their headline on a story about Trump calling them out for pushing a bogus claim: "Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don't Need to Agree."

Journalists eagerly tweeted out these headlines .

But that uncomfortable truth remains. The "17 intelligence agencies" embellishment is frighteningly easy to catch. A cursory glance of the DNI website would show the truth. More importantly, the sheer length of time the falsehood stood in public record at the highest echelons of media betrays an astounding lack of scrutiny on other points in the Russia narrative, which are often sourced to political operatives and anonymous "officials."

Let's look at how this happened, and what it says about the media's overall credibility in the Russia collusion narrative, from the top.

The claim can be traced straight back to candidate Clinton in the third presidential debate, remarking on Russian meddling a few weeks after the DNI released a statement on the investigation. The press didn't demonstrate any interest in the number of agencies that signed off on the Oct. 7 statement, until Clinton unleashed the "17" number in the debate (other than a CNN report incorrectly claiming there are 19 intelligence agencies).

She was clearly trying to add some umpf to the DNI assessment and pour cold water on Trump's skepticism about Russia's attempt to influence the election. She even repeated the number twice, firmly planting it in the record.

"I think that this is such an unprecedented situation," Clinton said. "We've never had a foreign government trying to interfere in our election. We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing."

Trump took the bait.

"She has no idea whether it is Russia, China or anybody else," he replied, setting off a back and forth that would be reiterated over and over in the press as evidence he was in denial about Russian meddling. "I am quoting 17, 17 -- do you doubt?" Clinton said, and Trump responded definitively: "Our country has no idea. Yeah, I doubt it. I doubt it."

With that, Hillary's claim was up and off.

Journalists highlighted the talking point on Twitter as they covered the debate. And the fact checks came rolling in. The New York Times , Politico , ABC News , Politifact and PBS all rated the claim as totally true the night of the debate. Before the night ended The New York Times was using Clinton's number with authority in its reporting, saying in a debate wrap up that Trump had "refused" to acknowledge "the unanimous conclusion of America's 17 intelligence agencies."

The following day the number popped up in reports from Politico and Defense One, quickly divorced from its context as a debate talking point and transformed into an indisputable fact attached to Trump-Russia stories.

"The Office of the Director of National Intelligence collects and coordinates for the President the information and analysis from the 17 agencies that make up U.S. national intelligence collection," a line in the Defense One report on "Trump's Denial" stated.

Politico hadn't previously used the 17 figure in reporting on Russian meddling, but now framed it as common knowledge that Clinton had to "explain" to Trump: "As Clinton tried to explain that the Russian role is the finding of 17 military and civilian intelligence agencies, Trump cut her off: 'I doubt it.'"

The fact checks continued to roll in. USA Today wrote a particularly aggressive check on the claim headlined "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking." The article confidently asserted, "Clinton is correct."

All of these "fact checks" and reports were wrong, of course, as has since been made ultra clear. As The New York Times now concedes, the truth about her claim was obviously false from the start. Any reporter capable of operating Google could have looked up a list of the intelligence agencies in question, and ruled out almost half in just minutes.

The Department of Energy, Treasury and Drug Enforcement agencies can be dismissed out of hand. The military service intelligence organizations can't legally operate on U.S. soil. Add the Coast Guard and we're tentatively at eight remaining intel agencies under DNI. The Defense Intelligence Agency is also unlikely. Geospatial intelligence? Definitely not. National recon office? Not unless a political influence campaign has something to do with a missile launch or natural disaster.

That leaves us with State Department intelligence, Department of Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and NSA. Five tops, narrowed down at the speed of common sense and Google.

Sure, the October DNI report was presented as the conclusion of the intelligence community, which does consist of 16 separate agencies headed up by the DNI. At first glance, her claim might seem perfectly reasonable to someone unfamiliar with the makeup of the intelligence community. But it's journalistic malpractice to do a fact-check level review of her claim that each agency separately reviewed and judged the campaign, without so much as hinting at the obvious likelihood that most of them weren't involved.

Nevertheless, the claim persisted.

"All 17 U.S. Intelligence agencies believe the Russians are behind that leak," ABC host George Stephanopoulos told Trump in an October interview . "Why don't you believe it?"

"[Trump] has consistently denied any link between the hackers and the Kremlin, despite 17 intelligence agencies' claims to the contrary," the Daily Beast reported that same day .

NBC News dropped Hillary's number nugget in a December report on the Obama White House asking the intelligence community for a dossier on the hacking assessment. The resulting report would be shared with the public, White House counterterrorism advisor Lisa Monaco said at the time.

"Monaco used careful language, calling it a 'full review of what happened during the 2016 election process,'" NBC reported. "But since the U.S. government has already said that all 17 intelligence agencies agree Russia was behind the hacks, Monaco's meaning was clear."

Reuters, too, touted the number in a December report that characterizes the DNI as a "17-agency strong" operation.

The declassified DNI report that followed in January provided new details on the assessment that dumped ice-cold water on the "17 intelligence agencies agree" claim. The conclusion was drawn only from the NSA, CIA and FBI, the report said. (The New York Times conceded this in a break down of the report, although the claim would later make its way back into the paper's pages.)

A few months later former national intelligence director James Clapper reiterated the truth in a high-profile congressional hearing about Russian interference, opting to correct the record without any partisan prompting.

"As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA, and the FBI -- not all 17 components of the intelligence community," he said in his opening remarks. "Those three under the aegis of my former office."

And when Democrat Sen. Al Franken reiterated the false claim later in the hearing, Clapper once again made a point of correcting the record.

"The intelligence communities have concluded -- all 17 of them -- that Russia interfered with this election," Franken said. "And we all know how that's right."

Clapper interjected: "Senator, as I pointed out in my statement, Senator Franken, it was, there were only three agencies directly involved in this assessment, plus my office."

"But all 17 signed on to that?" Franken pressed.

"Well, we didn't go through that, that process," Clapper replied, again shooting down the claim as utterly false. "This was a special situation because of the time limits we decided to restrict it to those three."

So not only was the assessment only made by three of the 16 agencies working under the DNI, but also Clapper indicated here that none of the other agencies even signed off on the report before it was released. Yes, none of them dissented. But why would they, since they didn't have independent evidence to suggest otherwise?

At this point in the life of Hillary's debate talking point, there's just no credible way to rate the claim as true. The DNI report made the truth explicit, and Clapper had now reiterated that truth in a very public setting.

Yet just a few weeks later Clinton unabashedly reiterated the "17 agencies agree" claim in an interview with the tech outlet recode, and as if on cue the media once more began spreading it around.

"Read the declassified report by the intelligence community that came out in early January," Clinton said. "17 agencies, all in agreement – which I know from my experience as a senator and secretary of state is hard to get – they concluded with 'high confidence' that the Russians ran an extensive information war against my campaign to influence voters in the election."

A little while later the bogus claim showed up in an AP report , after The Daily Caller News Foundation fact checked Clinton's claim in the interview and found it false. And then twice more in June before the "clarification" memo was published. Stephanopolous was back at it as well in a June 11 interview with Republican Sen. Mike Lee. And then that Haberman report in The New York Times on the 25th echoing the claim, which was rather strangely corrected four days later.

After all this, CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta actually accused Trump on Thursday of pushing "fake news" by saying the conclusion only came from "three or four" agencies. "Where does that number come from?" Acosta asked.

And all the time , the tweets from journos eager to harp on the Trump-Russia narrative kept coming .

The timing of the AP and NYT corrections are a bit of a mystery, but for whatever reason the press is now collectively saying Trump is correct in his push back on the "17 agencies" claim. And that's got the narrative a bit tangled. After initially doubling down on the "true" rating of Clinton's debate claim, Politifact is now bizarrely also rating the claim mostly false in a separate fact check.

So we're left with that uncomfortable truth. The establishment press uncritically "vetted" and embraced a Clinton campaign talking point designed to make Trump look foolish, divorced it of its political context and reiterated it word-of-God style for more than six months -- all the time either ignoring or missing entirely easily obtainable information proving it false -- and then suddenly reversed course on the claim weeks after it was unambiguously and authoritatively debunked.

We live in a world where r/the_donald -- a Reddit thread teeming with Trump supporters -- proved more shrewd than The New York Times and the Associated Press when vetting an important claim about the Russia investigation.

The truth about this "17 intel agencies" claim matters, not so much because of what it says about the intelligence community's conclusion on Russian meddling, but because of what it says about the establishment media's conclusion on Russian meddling.

Haberman and her ilk seem intent on casting Trump as a loner bordering on a nervous breakdown, maniacally watching the news at all hours, hollering at staff and generally acting like a buffoon. And there's the almost daily implication that Trump personally coordinated a hacking campaign with Russia, an implication grounded in no hard evidence despite a lengthy investigation.

The fact is many of these narratives bear all the same hallmarks as the "17 intelligence agencies" mess.

Sources often appear to be politically motivated, like Clinton. They show up in bizarre numbers, like "dozens" or "more than 30." Anecdotes seem almost questionable at face value. An astonishing number of hastily reported or vaguely sourced "scoops" turn out to be totally wrong when the subject of the story corrects the record.

In a report casting the White House as fraught and bordering on collapse, Haberman wrote that Trump likes to stew over cable news in a bathrobe. The White House refuted the anecdote in no uncertain terms the following day.

Based on the word of one anonymous source, The Washington Post reported that Russia had hacked the U.S. electrical grid. That was quickly proven false when the electric company, which the reporter had not bothered to contact before publishing, said in a statement the grid definitely was not hacked , and the "Russian hacker" may have been no hacker at all, but an employee who mistakenly visited an infected site on a work computer.

CNN reported that Former FBI Director James Comey would refute Trump's claim the director told him three separate times he was not personally under investigation. Comey did no such thing. In fact he corroborated Trump's account .

Just weeks after retracting a story on a wealthy Trump associate and Russia, CNN insisted for days Trump would not ask Putin about Russian meddling during their first meeting. Of course, the report depended on an anonymous source. Of course, it was wrong . One of the first things Trump did when he sat down with Putin was "press" him on the subject multiple times, according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was in the room.

We could go on, but the point remains. The media is bent on supporting already foregone conclusions about Trump and Russian meddling, no matter what they have to scoop up or parrot or claim (or ignore) to do so. Sure, it's a "basic fact" Russia meddled in the election. But for the media, it's also just a "basic fact" that Trump likely colluded with Russia, and that he should be impeached, and that his White House is on the verge of literally disappearing into a sinkhole.

The facts they use to support these conclusions might as well be irrelevant.

Follow Rachel on Twitter Send tips to rachel@ dailycallernewsfoundation.org .

[Jul 10, 2017] Trump Putin Up Against US Deep State by Finian Cunningham

Wishful thinking. What was so rational in launching Tomahawk missiles against Syrian airbase on fake charges? Even on DNC hacking charges Trump moves closer to neocon views. And Polish speach has nothing to do with detente with Russia. The fact that Haley is UN ambassador in Trump administration demonstrates that quite well.
Notable quotes:
"... Too bad Trump is a total self–seeking asshole who will do nothing to better the lives of his citizens and is merely pursuing policies of corporate cronyism for his buddies. Deep State and Trump are just as bad as each other. We seem to be doomed. ..."
"... I pretty much doubt that Trump has the stature of really Standing up against the US Deep State. Kaennedy paid with his life! „Deep State USA: Dulles, Dallas and Devilish Games": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deep-st... ..."
"... If President Trump is committed to pursue a more healthy relationship with Russia, a great first step would be to fire that ignorant, hysterical anti-Russia know-nothing Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador. If he does not do so, then his words of co-operation with Putin cannot be taken seriously. ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

It was pleasing to see Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin greet each other cordially at the G20 summit. After their breakthrough first meeting, one hopes the two leaders have a personal foundation for future cooperation.

At a later press conference in Hamburg, where the G20 summit was held, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he believed there was a chance for restoring the badly frayed US-Russia relations. He praised Trump for being thoughtful and rational. "The TV Trump is quite different from the real life one," quipped Putin.

Meanwhile, the White House issued a statement hailing the two-hour discussion ( four times longer than originally scheduled ) between the two leaders as a good start to working together on major world problems.

"No problems were solved. Nobody expected any problems to be solved in that meeting. But it was a beginning of a dialogue on some tough problem sets that we'll begin now to work on together," said HR McMaster, Trump's top national security adviser.

Trump deserves credit for the way he conducted himself. He met Putin on equal terms and with respect. "It's an honor to meet you," said the American president as he extended a handshake.

The much-anticipated encounter comes nearly seven months after Trump was inaugurated in the White House. Over that period, large sections of the US media have run an unrelenting campaign accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge and alleging that Putin ordered an interference operation in last year's US election to benefit Trump.

Apart from innuendo and anonymous US intelligence claims, recycled endlessly by dutiful news organizations, there is no evidence of either Trump-Russia collusion or Putin-sanctioned cyber hacking . Trump has dismissed the claims as "fake news", while Moscow has consistently rejected the allegations as baseless Russophobia.

... ... ...

Under immense pressure, Trump has at times appeared to buckle to the US political establishment with regard to projecting hostility towards Russia, as seen in the prosecution of the covert war in Syria and renewed sanctions on Moscow.

The day before he met Putin in Germany, Trump was in Poland where he delivered a barnstorming speech in Warsaw in which he accused Russia of "destabilizing countries", among other topics. The American president also inferred that Russia was undermining "Western civilization". It was provocative speech bordering on hackneyed Russophobia. It did not bode well for his imminent meeting with Putin. A clash seemed to be coming, just as the US media had been cajoling.

... ... ...

Immediately following the constructive meeting between the leaders, the US media started cranking up the Russophobia again. The US media are vents for Deep State hostility towards Trump and his agenda for normalizing relations with Moscow.

The New York Times reported another breathless story about Trump's election campaign having contact with "Kremlin-connected" people. CNN ran opinion pieces on how the president had fallen into a trap laid by Putin.

It is hard to stomach this outlandish confabulation that passes for journalism. And it is astounding that a friendly meeting between leaders of nuclear powers should not be received as a good development.

But it shows that Trump his up against very powerful deep forces within the US establishment who do not want a normalization with Russia. The US Deep State depends on confrontation, war and endless militarism for its existence. It also wants a world populated by vassals over which US corporations have suzerainty. An independent Russia or China or any other foreign power cannot be tolerated because that upends American ambitions for unipolar hegemony.

... ... ...

President John F Kennedy was assassinated in broad daylight by the US Deep State because he dared to seek a normalization and peaceful coexistence with Moscow. The Deep State does not want normalization or peace with Russia or anyone else for that matter because there are too many lucrative vested interests in maintaining the war machine that is American capitalism.

... ... ...

What needs to change is the US power structure through a democratic revolt. Until that happens, any president in the White House is simply a hostage to the dark forces of the Deep State.

lisacarso · 9 hours ago

Yes they are indeed. Too bad Trump is a total self–seeking asshole who will do nothing to better the lives of his citizens and is merely pursuing policies of corporate cronyism for his buddies. Deep State and Trump are just as bad as each other. We seem to be doomed.

Schlüter · 6 hours ago

I pretty much doubt that Trump has the stature of really Standing up against the US Deep State. Kaennedy paid with his life!
„Deep State USA: Dulles, Dallas and Devilish Games": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/deep-st...

follyofwar · 5 hours ago

If President Trump is committed to pursue a more healthy relationship with Russia, a great first step would be to fire that ignorant, hysterical anti-Russia know-nothing Nikki Haley as UN Ambassador. If he does not do so, then his words of co-operation with Putin cannot be taken seriously.

chris · 5 hours ago

Trump as victim? You have to be kidding.

He IS the president,he actually could get out on the White House lawn and blow the whistle,or at least 'tweet' sneakily. World leader? At least post 'Don't do stupid shit.' Obama had the temerity to refer to the Kennedy option'.This guy doesn't seem to lose any sleep over the many thousands of deaths worldwide,including Americans, giving their lives because Trump saw the job as a business opportunity.

And his dumb subjects run around blaming 'the Jews' [sounds like 1930's Germany doesn't it?]

[Jul 10, 2017] Egyptian Daily Releases Documents of Saudi Crown Prince's Support for ISIL, Al-Qaeda Egyptian Daily Releases Documents of Saudi Crown Prince's Support for ISIL, Al-Qaeda

Notable quotes:
"... The documents were revealed after a new report released by a British think tank on Wednesday said that Saudi Arabia is the "foremost" foreign funder of Islamist extremism in the UK and other western countries. ..."
"... The group estimated that the Saudi government and charities spent an estimated $4 billion exporting Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism (also practiced by ISIL and other terrorist groups), worldwide in 2015, up from $2 billion in 2007. In 2015, there were 110 mosques in the UK practicing Salafism and Wahhabism compared to 68 in 2007. The money is primarily funneled through mosques and Islamic schools in Britain, according to the report. ..."
"... Influence has also been exerted through the training of British Muslim religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in a number of the UK's independent Islamic schools ..."
"... I was wondering how long that would take....nothing like an internal feud among ex friends... ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

TJ | Jul 10, 2017 11:32:01 AM | 1

http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960418000768

Based on the documents, US Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence said that the Saudi and Abu Dhabi crown princes have established continued contacts with two Yemeni nationals, namely Ali Abkar al-Hassan and Abdollah Faisal Ahdal, who are on the US blacklist of most wanted terrorists.

The documents also revealed the detailed activities and operations of the two Yemeni nationals in support of the al-Qaeda and the ISIL as well as Saudi Intelligence Chief Khalid bin Ali bin Abdullah al-Humaidan's financial support for them.

The documents were revealed after a new report released by a British think tank on Wednesday said that Saudi Arabia is the "foremost" foreign funder of Islamist extremism in the UK and other western countries.

The Henry Jackson Society - a right-wing think tank - said that overseas funding primarily from the governments and private charities of Persian Gulf countries has a "clear and growing link" to the onslaught of violence the UK and other western states.

The group estimated that the Saudi government and charities spent an estimated $4 billion exporting Saudi Arabia's strict interpretation of Islam, known as Wahhabism (also practiced by ISIL and other terrorist groups), worldwide in 2015, up from $2 billion in 2007. In 2015, there were 110 mosques in the UK practicing Salafism and Wahhabism compared to 68 in 2007. The money is primarily funneled through mosques and Islamic schools in Britain, according to the report.

" Influence has also been exerted through the training of British Muslim religious leaders in Saudi Arabia, as well as the use of Saudi textbooks in a number of the UK's independent Islamic schools ," the report said.

Although many Western countries, including the United States, have acknowledged the threat of foreign terrorist financing, Britain "has seen far less of a response from policy makers supporting moves to tackle the challenge of foreign-funded Islamist extremism," the report said.

james | Jul 10, 2017 12:13:57 PM | 7

ot - @1 tg..

I was wondering how long that would take....nothing like an internal feud among ex friends... ""A leaked document in Qatar's embassy and a letter to Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani on October 26, 2016, show Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed's support for certain key al-Qaeda members in the Arabian Peninsula,"

[Jul 10, 2017] Political Knockout Western Media Blasts Trump After Meeting With Putin

Notable quotes:
"... The first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg evoked a wave of criticism from Western media, as a number of notable news outlets blasted the US President for his conduct during negotiations. ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | sputniknews.com

The first meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg evoked a wave of criticism from Western media, as a number of notable news outlets blasted the US President for his conduct during negotiations.

Advisers Avoid Saying If Trump Agreed With Putin Russia Did Not Meddle in US Election

At least several prominent newspapers took a dim view of President Trump's handling of this meeting, claiming that the Russian leader apparently managed to outplay and outsmart his US counterpart.

For example, Die Welt stated that it was clear to all professional observers that the meeting resulted in Trump's capitulation.

In an apparent effort to underscore Trump's relative inexperience in foreign affairs, the newspaper claims that the "political pro" Putin knocked out the newbie US President "by the book."

The article's author also emphasized the fact that Putin paused for a moment before shaking Trump's already extended hand.

The Guardian adds that while US politicians apparently felt relieved that Trump managed to avoid "a major gaffe" during the meeting, it was "hardly cause for celebration."

"It's an indication of how rapidly our standards are falling when we're reasonably pleased that President Trump has not made an obvious error," Thomas Countryman, former US acting undersecretary for arms control and international security, remarked.

[Jul 10, 2017] "Color Revolution" Comes Home Are Americans Also the Victims of "Regime Change" by Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers

Notable quotes:
"... The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been building its empire since the Civil War era , but it has been in the post-World War II period that it has perfected regime change operations. ..."
Jul 03, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca

The United States has perfected the art of regime change operations. The US is the largest empire in world history with more than 1,000 military bases and troops operating throughout the world. In addition to military force, the US uses the soft power of regime change, often through 'Color Revolutions.' The US has been building its empire since the Civil War era , but it has been in the post-World War II period that it has perfected regime change operations.

Have the people of the United States been the victims of regime change operations at home? Have the wealthiest and the security state created a government that serves them, rather than the people? To answer these questions, we begin by examining how regime change works and then look at whether those ingredients are being used domestically.

Color Revolutions and Regime Change Operations

Almost from the start, the CIA's role has been more than intelligence gathering. It has been a key player in putting in place governments friendly to the United States and conducting other operations, e.g. the CIA is currently involved in drone strikes.

One of the first regime change operations of the CIA was Operation Ajax conducted in Iran, and led by Kermit Roosevelt , the grandson of Teddy Roosevelt, who was president when the US solidified its global empire ambitions. The CIA was founded in 1947 and the regime change coup in Iran was 1953. Greg Maybury writes in "Another Splendid Little Coup ": "Placing to one side an early dress rehearsal in Syria in 1949 , the Iran coup was the first post-War exercise in regime change upon the part of Anglo-American alliance " Just this month the US government released documents showing the CIA and State Department's planning and implementation of the coup against the democratically-elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammed Mossadegh . This release supplements one from 2013 that did not reveal the full role of the US in the coup.

The Iran coup was crude compared to more modern efforts but had the ingredients that have become common – civil society protests against the government, media reports supporting the protests, agents within the government supporting the coup and replacement of the government with a US-friendly regime. The Iran coup may have been the most costly mistake in US foreign policy because it undermined a secular democratic government in Iran that could have been the example for the region. Instead the US installed the brutal Shah of Iran, whose rule ended in the 1979 revolution, in which, as Maybury reports, the US was also implicated because it felt the Shah had overstayed his welcome.

The Iran coup was perceived as a great CIA success, so it was copied in other Middle Eastern countries as well as countries in Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean. Regime change is still a major tool of US foreign policy. There is a long-term ongoing coup campaign in Venezuela, with its most recent episode last week in which a helicopter attack on the Supreme Court was tied to the US DEA and CIA . The US has allied with oligarchs, supported violent protests and provided funds for the opposition, which has also worked to undermine the Venezuelan economy -- a tactic the US has used in other coups, e.g. the coup of Allende in Chile .

The coup in Ukraine , which the media falsely calls a 'democratic revolution,' was, as the head of the 'private CIA' firm Stratfor says, " the most blatant coup in history ." The CIA and State Department played the lead roles.

Victoria Nuland , an assistant secretary of state under Clinton, bragged that the US spent $5 billion to build civil society opposition against a government that leaned toward Russia. The government funded civil society opposition through US AID, which is the open vehicle for what the CIA used to do covertly, along with the National Endowment for Democracy . This funding was used to build oppositional civil society groups and create destabilization. They focused on the issue of corruption , which exists in every government, and built it up to a centerpiece for regime change. The US allied with extremist right-wing groups in Ukraine.

The US picked the new leaders of Ukraine. This included Petro Poroshenko , whom U.S. officials refer to as "Our Ukraine (OU) insider Petro Poroshenko" in a classified diplomatic cable from 2006 . The selected Prime Minister was Arseniy Yatsenyuk . Before the coup, Victoria Nuland told the US Ambassador to Ukraine that 'Yats' should be the prime minister . And, the Finance Minister was Natalia Jaresko , a long-time State Department official who moved to Ukraine after the US-inspired coup, the Orange Revolution, to become a conduit for US funding of civil society through her hedge fund. She was a US citizen whom Poroshenko made a Ukrainian on the day she was appointed Finance Minister. To top it off, fmr. Vice President Joe Biden 's son, Hunter Biden , and fmr. Secretary of State John Kerry 's longtime financial ally, Devon Archer , were put on the board of the largest private gas corporation in the Ukraine. Yet, the US media refuses to call this complete take over of the country by the United States a coup and instead describes Russia as the aggressor.

The US has perfected regime change operations from the 1950s up through today. The standard method of operation is finding an issue to cause dissent, building opposition in a well funded civil society 'movement', manipulating the media, putting in place US friendly leaders and blaming US opposition for the coup to hide US involvement. This approach is consistent no matter which party is in power in the US.

The Kleptocratic Oligarch Coup In The United States

Let's apply the lessons from around the world to the United States. There is no question the US is an oligarchy. We say no question because recent political studies have proven it in multiple ways .

One difference in the US is that money plays an outsized influence in US elections . The wealthy can buy the government they want through campaign donations and by anonymous spending but the tools of color revolutions are still needed to legitimize the government. Legitimacy is getting harder to buy. Many realize we live in a mirage democracy . The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs reported in 2016 the extent of the loss of legitimacy of US government:

"Nine in 10 Americans lack confidence in the country's political system, and among a normally polarized electorate, there are few partisan differences in the public's lack of faith in the political parties, the nominating process, and the branches of government."

Jimmy Carter has pointed to the "unlimited bribery" of government as turning the US into an oligarchy . The government needs to use the tools of regime change at home in order to create an veneer of legitimate government.

The Donald Trump presidency, which we regularly criticize , brings a lot of these tools to the forefront because Trump beat the system and defeated the elites of both parties. As a result, Democratic Party propaganda is being used to undermine Trump not only based on his policies but also through manufactured crises such as RussiaGate. The corporate media consistently hammers home RussiaGate , despite the lack of evidence to support it. Unlike the Watergate or Iran-Contra scandals, there is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to get elected. And, the security state – the FBI and the agencies that conduct regime change operations around the world – is working to undermine Trump in a still unfolding domestic coup .

Civil society also has a strong role. John Stauber writes that :

"The professional Progressive Movement that we see reflected in the pages of The Nation magazine, in the online marketing and campaigning of MoveOn and in the speeches of Van Jones , is primarily a political public relations creation of America's richest corporate elite, the so-called 1%, who happen to bleed Blue because they have some degree of social and environmental consciousness, and don't bleed Red. But they are just as committed as the right to the overall corporate status quo, the maintenance of the American Empire, and the monopoly of the rich over the political process that serves their economic interests."

Civil society groups created or aligned with the Democratic Party are defining the new form of false-resistance as electing Democrats. The Democrats, as they have done throughout history as the oldest political party, know how to control movements and lead them into ineffectiveness to support the Democratic Party agenda. We described, in " Obamacare: The Biggest Insurance Scam in History ," how this was done skillfully during the health reform process in 2009. This new resistance is just another tool to empower the elites, not resistance to the oligarchic-kleptocrats that control both parties. In fact, a major problem in progressive advocacy is the funding ties between large non-profits and corporate interests. The corruption of money is seen in organizations that advocate for corporate-friendly policies in education , health care , energy and climate , labor , and other issues.

Color Revolution Tools Used In The US

Now the tools the US uses for regime change around the world are being used at home to funnel activist energy and efforts into the Democratic party and electoral activities. In order to resist this new "resistance" we need to be aware of it and how it operates. We need to see through propaganda, such as RussiaGate, and attempts to manipulate the masses through scripted events that are portrayed as organic, such as the recent "sit in" by Rep. John Lewis and Sen. Cory Booker on the Capitol steps, or through highly emotional cultural content that portrays the plutocratic parties as parties of the people. We have to remember that the root issue is plutocracy and the US has two plutocratic parties, often referred to as "The Duopoly."

Nonprofit industrial complex

... ... ...

The original source of this article is PopularResistance.Org Copyright © Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers , PopularResistance.Org , 2017

[Jul 10, 2017] Examining the Hatred of Vladimir Putin and Russia by Boyd D. Cathey

Notable quotes:
"... National Review Online ..."
"... Takimag.com ..."
"... [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] ..."
"... [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] ..."
"... [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] ..."
"... [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] ..."
"... [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] ..."
Jul 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

Anyone who has followed the ongoing crisis in Eastern Europe and Ukraine knows the very hostile view that the establishment news media and Washington political class have of President Vladimir Putin of Russia and his policies. In the halls of Congress and in the mainstream press!almost every night on Fox News!serious charges are proffered against Russia's president and his latest outrages. Sanctions and bellicose measures get enacted by the House and Senate overwhelmingly, with only meagre opposition and almost no serious discussion.

The mainstream American media and American political leaders seem intent to present only a one-sided, very negative picture of the Russian leader.

Various allegations are continually and repeatedly expressed.

How do these charges stand up under serious examination? What is their origin? And, what do they say about the current political and cultural environment in America and the West?

The allegations against Putin can be summarized in five major points:

Putin is a KGB thug and is surrounded by KGB thugs; Under Putin the Russian Orthodox Church continues to be controlled by KGB types; Putin wants to reassemble the old Soviet Union, and he believes that the break-up of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century; Putin is corrupt and has amassed billions of rubles personally skimmed off the top of the weak Russian economy; And he is an anti-democratic authoritarian who persecutes homosexuals, in particular.

The charges against Putin go from disingenuous to the dishonest. The "KGB thug" and the "break-up" of the USSR accusations have been addressed in a variety of well-researched books and in-depth articles. The documentation contradicts these allegations, including some charges that have been made by usually conservative voices. It is extremely curious that such ostensibly conservative publications as The New American , for example, find themselves parroting accusations first made by notorious leftwing publicists and, then, by international gay rights supporters.

On the contrary, various historians and researchers, including Professor Allen C. Lynch (in his excellent study, Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft, 2011), Professor Michael Stuermer (in his volume, Putin and the Rise of Russia, 2008), M. S. King (in The War Against Putin, 2014), Reagan ambassador to the USSR Jack Matlock, Reagan Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former Congressman Ron Paul (his web site, www.ronpaulinstitute.org , contains numerous scholarly articles defending Putin), Reagan budget director David Stockman, and conservative writer William Lind!none of these men on the Left!have pointed out that those allegations have been ripped out of context and are largely untenable. Additionally, numerous conservative religious authors have investigated and defended Putin, including Catholic journalists such as Michael Matt in The Remnant , Dr. E. Michael Jones in Culture Wars , Dr. Joseph Pearce in The St. Austin Review , and Gary Potter, and writers for conservative Protestant organizations like the Gospel Defense League . Nevertheless, the charges made against Putin are presented as fact by many Neoconservative "talking heads" on Fox (e.g., Charles Krauthammer) and on talk radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck), as well as by the Leftist establishment media. Disinformation is clearly at work here, even among some of the strongest voices on the American right.

Professor Lynch reveals in his detailed study that the evidence for the "Putin KGB thug" allegation is very thin and lacks substantial basis. First, Putin was never "head of the KGB," as some writers mistakenly (and, often, maliciously) assert. That is simply a falsehood. Rather, he served as a mid-level intelligence bureaucrat who sat at a desk in Dresden, East Germany, where he was stationed with his family for several years before returning to Leningrad. His job was to analyze data, and he had no involvement in other activities. [Lynch, pp. 19-21] Contemporary American intelligence reports confirm this fact. Indeed, this was one of the reasons that early on, during 1990 and 1991, Putin was considered a hopeful figure among the generation of younger Russians by American intelligence sources.

After the fall of Communism during the administration of Boris Yeltsin, he very briefly served at Yeltsin's request as head of the FSB intelligence service. But the FSB is not the KGB.

Lynch treats in some detail the question of Putin's supposed continued subservience to KGB ideology, with particular reference to the events surrounding the abortive Communist coup by the old hands at the KGB in August 1991. Putin, by that time, had resigned his position in the KGB and was serving as deputy mayor to pro-American Leningrad mayor, Anatoly Sobchak, one of the fiercest critics of the KGB and the old Soviet system. It was Putin who organized the local Leningrad militia to oppose the attempted KGB coup and protect Mayor Sobchak and the forces of democratic reform:

Putin played a key role in saving Leningrad for the democrats. The coup, which lasted but three days, was carried out on August 19. That same day Mayor Sobchak arrived on a flight from Moscow. The Leningrad KGB, which supported the coup, planned to arrest Sobchak immediately upon landing. Putin got word of the plan and took decisive and preemptive action: He organized a handful of loyal troops and met Sobchak at the airport, driving the car right up to the plane's exit ramp. The KGB turned back, not wishing to risk an open confrontation with Sobchak's armed entourage [led by Putin]." [Lynch, p. 34]

This signal failure in Russia's second city doomed the attempted KGB coup and assured the final collapse of the Soviet system and eventual transition of Russia away from Communism. It was Vladimir Putin, then, who was largely responsible for defeating and preventing the return of Communism in Russia. It is very hard to see how a secret supporter of the KGB would take such action, if he were actually favoring the return of Communism.

As Professor Lynch recounts:

Putin accepted the irreversibility of the Soviet Union's collapse and came to terms with the market and private property as the proper foundations of the Russian economy. [Lynch, p.28]

It is true that Putin lamented the break-up of the old Soviet Union, but not because he regretted the disappearance of the Soviets, but, rather, because of the numerous and intimate economic, linguistic, social, and cultural connections that interrelated most of the fifteen constituent republics of the old USSR. His comments on the topic were very clear, but have been selectively taken out of context by the Putin haters. [See the book-length interview with Putin, with comments from other Russian leaders, First Person: An Astonishing Frank Self-Portrait by Russia's President Vladimir Putin , New York, 2000, pp. 165-190]

Much like the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire after World War I, which left significant ethnic minorities cut off from their historic former homelands -- for example, millions of Austro-German Sudetens in Czechoslovakia, Hungarian Transylvanians in Romania, etc. -- and a number of economically non-viable states in the Balkans, the dissolution of the Soviet Union created the same situation in Eastern Europe. The present intractable crisis in Ukraine is a clear example of what can happen and has happened as a result. It was this situation that Putin rightly lamented; it was this break-up that he foresaw correctly as a tragedy.

The much-criticized!by the American press!secession of Crimea from Ukraine and its subsequent re-union with Russia clearly illustrates this. What too many so-called "experts" in America fail to understand (or, if they do, skillfully omit in their reports) is that Crimea was an integral part of Russia for hundreds of years until Communist Nikita Khrushchev sliced it off from Russia and gave it to Ukraine in 1954, despite the fact that 60% of its population is ethnically Russian and its culture and language completely Russian. [See the Wikipedia article, "Crimea"]

Moreover, the Ukrainian "oblasts," or provinces, of Lugansk and Donetsk, have a similar history and ethno-cultural make-up. They were arbitrarily added to the Ukrainian socialist republic in the 1920s after the Communist revolution, despite being historically part of Mother Russia for centuries.

Interestingly, at the same time Putin made the "break-up" of the Soviet Russia comment, he visited Poland to denounce and condemn the Communist massacre and crimes in the Katyn Forest at the beginning of World War II, as well as the horrid Soviet gulags. On more than one occasion, especially at the meetings of the international Valdai Discussion Forum in 2013 and 2014, he has harshly condemned in the strongest terms Communism and the atrocious crimes committed by Communists. In so doing, he made extensive reference to Russia's Christian heritage (also criticizing same sex marriage, abortion, and homosexuality as being "opposed to the most sacred values of our traditions").

Putin's remarks at the Valdai Forum in September 2013 , in front of representatives from most European countries, deserve extensive quoting. Here is some of what he said:

Another serious challenge to Russia's identity is linked to events taking place in the world. Here there are both foreign policy and moral aspects. We can see how many of the Euro-Atlantic countries are actually rejecting their historic roots, including the Christian values that constitute the very basis of Western civilisation. They are denying moral principles and all traditional identities: national, cultural, religious and even sexual. They are implementing policies that equate large families with same-sex partnerships, belief in God with the belief in Satan. The excesses of political correctness have reached the point where people are seriously talking about registering political parties whose aim is to promote paedophilia. People in many European countries are embarrassed or afraid to talk about their religious affiliations. Holidays are abolished or even called something different; their essence is hidden away, as is their moral foundation. And people are aggressively trying to export this model all over the world. I am convinced that this opens a direct path to degradation and primitivism, resulting in a profound demographic and moral crisis. What else but the loss of the ability to self-reproduce could act as the greatest testimony of the moral crisis facing a human society? Today almost all developed nations are no longer able to reproduce themselves, even with the help of unlawful migration. Without the values embedded in Christianity, without the standards of morality that have taken shape over millennia, people will inevitably lose their human dignity. We consider it natural and right to defend these values. One must respect every minority's right to be different, but the rights of the majority must not be put into question.

And Putin gained firm support and endorsement from that inveterate and most intransigent anti-Communist, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Before his death in 2008, Solzhenitsyn praised Putin and stated that he believed Putin's personal acceptance of Christian faith to be genuine. American ambassador William Burns visited Solzhenitsyn (April 2008) shortly prior to his death and quoted him as stating that under Putin, the nation was rediscovering what it was to be Russian and Christian. [See article at guardian.co.uk , Thursday, December 2, 2010] The great Russian anti-Communist also gave a long 2007 interview with the German magazine, Der Spiegel , saying the same thing . So, then, if the Putin-haters are correct, did Putin fool the great Solzhenitsyn who was by far the greatest and most intransigent anti-Communist of the 20 th century? Not likely.

About the personal corruption charge Lynch offers substantial detail and discusses how it got going, basically spread by Putin's liberal opponents. To those who suggest that Putin stood to make a fortune off his political choices, Lynch (and others) offers substantial documentation to the contrary:

Putin was not corrupt, at least in the conventional, venal sense. His modest and frankly unfashionable attire bespoke a seeming indifference to personal luxury. While as deputy mayor. He had acquired the use of the summer dacha of the former East German Consulate and even installed a sauna unit there, but when the house burned down in the summer of 1996, his $5,000 life's savings burned with it. To have accumulated only $5,000 in five years as deputy mayor of Russia's second-largest city and largest port, when hundreds of less well-placed Russians were enriching themselves on government pickings, implies something other than pecuniary motives behind Putin's activities ( .) In sum, Putin was honest, certainly by Russian standards. He lived simply and worked diligently. Accused by a foe of having purchased a million dollar villa in France, Putin sued for slander and won his case in court a year later. [Lynch, pp. 33, 35]

Some of the hostility towards Putin emerged when he became interim president of the Russian Federation after Boris Yeltsin stepped down in December, 1999. Putin had established himself as a loyal and forthright political leader since serving as deputy mayor for the pro-democratic Mayor Sobchak. He had also served Yeltsin faithfully.

But Putin was no Yeltsin. While initially following the Yeltsin pro-American and pro-Western lead in foreign policy, Putin was also aware that Russia was undergoing a radical transition from a decrepit and collapsed Communist state to the recovery of some of its older traditions, including a mushrooming, vibrant return to traditional Russian Orthodoxy, a faith which he has publicly and personally embraced. [See various confirming reports, including Charles Glover, "Putin and the Monk," FINANCIAL TIMES Magazine, January 25, 2013, and video clip . During the days of oppressive Communist rule, the Russian Orthodox Church, at least the official leadership, was subservient to Marxism, with many of its leaders at least mouthing Communist ideas, if not serving as agents. The former Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Alexei (who died in 2008), had been criticized as a collaborator with the Communist regime. However, the so-called "intelligence proof" that suddenly "appeared" in Estonia stating that he was a secret KGB agent has been placed in very serious doubt (see Wikipedia, "Patriarch Alexei" article). Apparently, the "documents" were most likely fabricated and not genuine. Indeed,as the Encyclopedia Britannica in its biography of him relates, Alexei was "the first patriarch in Soviet history to be chosen without government pressure; candidates were nominated from the floor, and the election was conducted by secret ballot." Not only that, after the fall of Communism, Alexei publicly denounced Communist crimes and called for the freedom of Christianity in Russia. It became something of a moot point when Alexei died in 2008; his replacement as head of the Russian church was Archbishop Kirill, someone who is known for his staunch opposition to Marxism and his defense of historic Christianity and traditional morality.

As Russian religious scholar Professor John Garrard exhaustively demonstrates in his excellent study, Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent (2008), from 1991 onwards the Russian Orthodox Church began a necessary purification, with older collaborators and Communist agents gradually stepping down or being removed. Today the Russian Orthodox Church is, by far, the most conservative, traditional and anti-Communist religious body in the world. It has gone so far as to canonize dozens of martyrs killed by the Communists and celebrate the Romanov tsar and his family who were brutally murdered by the Reds in 1918. Significantly, since 1991 over 26,000 new Christian churches have opened in Russia, and the fact that Christianity is being reborn in Russia has not gone unnoticed among some Christian writers in the America and Europe, although generally ignored by the secular press. [There are numerous articles and reports chronicling this amazing rebirth, e.g., Russia has experienced a spiritual resurrection , Catholic Herald , October 22, 2014; see also, "Faith Rising in the East, Setting in the West," January 29, 2014, Break Point Commentaries . Such a phenomena is not some Communist plot, but represents a genuine desire on the part of the Russian people to rediscover their religious roots, ironically just as a majority of American now seem to embrace same sex marriage, abortion, and the worst extremes of immorality and the rejection of traditional Christianity.

In support of his goals Putin has championed Russian laws that: (1) have practically outlawed abortion in Russia (no abortions after the 12 th week, and before that time in limited cases, and also the end of financial support for abortions, reversing a previous Soviet policy); (2) clamp down on homosexuality and homosexual propaganda---absolutely no homosexual propaganda in Russian schools, no public displays of homosexuality, with legal penalties imposed for violating these laws; (3) strongly support traditional marriage, especially religious marriage, with financial aid to married couples having more than two children; (4) have established compulsory religious instruction in all Russian schools (including instruction in different Christian confessions, in different regions of the country); (4) implement a policy instituting chaplaincy in Russian military regiments (and religious institutions now assist in helping military families); (5) have made religious holidays now official Russian state holidays; (6) have instituted a nationwide program of rebuilding churches that were destroyed by the Communists (the most notable being the historic Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow); and (7) officially support the Russian film industry in producing conservative religious and patriotic movies!interestingly, the most popular film in Russia in 2009 was the movie "Admiral," a very favorable biopic of the leader of the White Russian counter-revolutionary, Admiral Aleksandr Kolchak, who was executed by the Communists in 1920. The film was supported by the Russian cultural ministry. Can we imagine the American NEH doing anything similar in the current United States? [See reports, OneNewsNow.com , January 23, 2013; LifeSiteNews , October 26, 2011, August 1, 2013; Scott Rose, Bloomberg News , June 30, 2013; see also Garrard on some of these actions]

As American Catholic author, Mark Tooley, has written Understanding a More Religious and Assertive Russia , April 2, 2014:

Putin has formed a close association with Russian Orthodoxy, as Russian rulers typically have across centuries. He is smart to do so, as Russia has experienced somewhat of a spiritual revival . Orthodoxy is widely and understandably seen as the spiritual remedy to the cavernous spiritual vacuum left by over 70 disastrous, often murderous years of Bolshevism. Resurgent religious traditionalism has fueled Russia's new law against sexual orientation proselytism to minors and its new anti-abortion law. Both laws also respond to Russia's demographic struggle with plunging birth rates and monstrously high abortion rates that date to Soviet rule. Some American religious conservatives have looked to Russian religious leaders as allies in international cooperation on pro-family causes.

As the largest nation in the world, with historic connections to the rest of Europe, but also to Asia, Putin understood as well that Russia, despite the Communist interlude, was still a major power to be reckoned with. A reawakened Russian conservative nationalism and a return to the traditional Orthodox Christian faith did not, he initially hoped, predetermine an eventual clash with the European Union nor with the United States.

Indeed, after the 9/11 attack on the "twin towers" in New York, Putin's Russia was the first nation to offer its full support to and its cooperation with American intelligence agencies to combat terrorism and bring the culprits to justice. Having combated Chechen Islamic terrorism in the Caucasus region, Russia had experience dealing with Islamic extremism. [Lynch, pp. 100-105; Stuermer, pp. 5-6]

Nevertheless, Bush administration Neoconservatives basically kicked Russia in the teeth. With their zealous belief in liberal democracy and global equality, to be imposed on offending nations if need be , as Allan Bloom once boasted, they condescendingly refused Russian collaboration. As leading Neocon publicist and "talking head," Charles Krauthammer, expressed it, "we now live in a unipolar world in which there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States."

The Neoconservative condescension towards Russia, first after 9/11, then with the threatened placement of missiles in Poland, pushing NATO to the very borders of Russia, and finally following the bungled American diplomatic escapade in Georgia in 2008, cemented a conviction among Russians and by Vladimir Putin that the desired partnership with America was unrealizable, at least for the time being. [See Lynch, ch. 6, generally, for a thorough discussion of Russian foreign policy; Stuermer, pp. 196-199]

The desire for Russia to become a "collaborative partner" in any kind of situation resembling international parity was just not acceptable to American Neocons. Whereas Yeltsin had been welcomed in Washington as "America's poodle," willing to do America's bidding, Putin believed that the largest nation in the world, which had thrown off the Communist yoke, merited a larger role. His desire was for a real partnership. But aggressive attempts spearheaded by the United States to incorporate formerly integral parts of Russia!areas that were and continue to be considered within the Russian "sphere of influence," even if independent!into NATO, largely dashed Russian hopes for partnership with the West. [Stuermer, pp. 191-196] In 1996 the late George Kennan cautioned the American foreign policy establishment that expansion of NATO into those areas "was a strategic blunder of potentially epic proportions." Kennan warned against a foreign policy that was "utopian in its expectation, legalistic in its concept moralistic and self-righteous." [Robert Sidelsky, Kennan's Revenge: Remembering the Reasons for the Cold War The Guardian , April 23, 2014, ] Henry Kissinger echoed this warning on November 12, 2014, calling in Der Spiegel the American response to Russia " a fatal mistake ."

Perhaps it is no coincidence that many of the present-day Neocon publicists descend from immigrant Jewish Labour Zionists and inhabitants of the Russian "pale of settlement," who experienced tsarist pogroms in the late 19 th century and who later formed the vanguard of Marxist efforts to overthrow the tsar and establish a socialist state? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's mammoth study, Two Hundred Years Together (still untranslated into English, although a French edition exists: Deux Siecles Ensembles, 1795-1995 , Fayard, 2002), offers fascinating detail on this process. The Socialist internationalism manifested by those revolutionaries found its incarnation in Leon Trotsky, murdered at Stalin's orders in Mexico in 1940. Despite the supposed migration of the Neocons towards the political Right in the 1970s and 1980s, the globalist and "democratic" legacy of Trotsky remains a not-so-distant lodestar for many zealous partisans.

At times this paternal reverence continues to break forth, in unlikely sources. On National Review Online , a few years back, Neoconservative writer Stephen Schwartz wrote:

To my last breath, I will defend Trotsky who alone and pursued from country to country and finally laid low in his own blood in a hideously hot house in Mexico City, said no to Soviet coddling to Hitlerism, to the Moscow purges, and to the betrayal of the Spanish Republic, and who had the capacity to admit that he had been wrong about the imposition of a single-party state as well as about the fate of the Jewish people. To my last breath, and without apology. Let the neofascists and Stalinists in their second childhood make of it what they will." [See Professor Paul Gottfried's commentary on Takimag.com , April 17, 2007]

For the American Neocons, the emergence of a nationalist, Christian, and undemocratic Russia is perhaps too reminiscent of the "bad old days." And despite very different circumstances, a non-conforming Russian state demanding any form of parity with the world's "only remaining superpower" is out of the question.

On the contrary, Boris Yeltsin was a Neocon favorite. Yeltsin's tenure as president seemed not only to echo a second-rate "America's poodle" status, his handling of the Russian economy proved disastrous for the average Russian, but lucrative for a handful of Russian oligarchs, who in turn were connected to American business interests. Wikipedia (article on Boris Yeltsin) sums up his actions in this way:

In 1995, as Yeltsin struggled to finance Russia's growing foreign debt and gain support from the Russian business elite for his bid in the early-1996 presidential elections, the Russian president prepared for a new wave of privatization offering stock shares in some of Russia's most valuable state enterprises in exchange for bank loans. The program was promoted as a way of simultaneously speeding up privatization and ensuring the government a much-needed infusion of cash for its operating needs.

However, the deals were effectively giveaways of valuable state assets to a small group of tycoons in finance, industry, energy, telecommunications, and the media who came to be known as " oligarchs " in the mid-1990s. This was due to the fact that ordinary people sold their vouchers for cash. The vouchers were bought out by a small group of investors. By mid-1996, substantial ownership shares over major firms were acquired at very low prices by a handful of people. Boris Berezovsky , who controlled major stakes in several banks and the national media, emerged as one of Yeltsin's most prominent backers. Along with Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky , Vladimir Potanin , Vladimir Bogdanov , Rem Viakhirev , Vagit Alekperov , Alexander Smolensky , Victor Vekselberg , Mikhail Fridman and a few years later Roman Abramovich , were habitually mentioned in the media as Russia's oligarchs.

On his assumption of the presidency and his election to a full first term, Putin resolved to end this economic domination by "the oligarchs," but in so doing, he antagonized their internationalist capitalist partners in the West on Wall Street and in Bruxelles.

During his first term, Putin proved himself to be a clever and resourceful politician. He organized a powerful political base, his United Russia political party, and, like most successful political leaders, was able to parlay his economic successes and a favorable conclusion to the Chechen civil war into a strong base of support across the Russian Federation. Criticized by some domestic opponents for not following punctiliously all the hallmark benchmarks of Western-style "democracy," Putin insisted that the difficult path to Russian democracy was different than that so often pushed (and imposed) by the United States around the world. Nevertheless, the average Russian citizen experienced more real liberties and more economic freedom than at any time in Russia's long history, and the credit for that must be Putin's. [Lynch, pp. 69-74; Stuermer, pp. 199-200]

The continuing charges that Putin is corrupt and has surrounded himself with ex-KGBers have as their origin, not surprisingly, leftist and liberal domestic opponents of the Russian president in Russia, as Lynch, Paul Craig Roberts, M. S. King, and others have shown. In fact, most of Putin's advisors lack serious earlier Communist/KGB involvement. The charges, nevertheless, have been picked up by the Murdoch media and Neocon press. Just as they had lauded Yeltsin, they quickly turned on the nationalist Putin, who quickly became in the Western press a "KGB thug," "corrupt," and desirous of "restoring the old Soviet Union.

One of the major, if indirect, Russian domestic sources for the corruption charges comes via a prolific Russian politician, Boris Nemtsov. Nemtsov, identified as a "new liberal," is a longtime opponent of Vladimir Putin and a favorite of John McCain and various "mainstream conservatives." [See, "Russians React Badly to U.S. Criticism on Protests," The New York Times , January 6, 2011] Over the years he has penned a number of election broadsides and pamphlets, charging Putin with everything from feathering his own "nest" with "billions of rubles," to election fraud. [See Nemtsov, Putin: What 10 Years of Putin Have Brought , 2010] In each case, his allegations lack the kind of sources to make them creditable. It is as if Al Gore were to have written a pamphlet about George W. Bush in the 2000 election: it and its content would immediately be highly suspect.

That some supposedly conservative American publications and news sources could give these accusations credence just demonstrates the power of the liberal/left media and the international anti-Russian homosexual lobby who have tried desperately to propagate such ideas.

Although the Nemtsov origin for the constant media barrage is important, in recent months the nature of the Western opposition to Putin and Russia has been radically transformed. While Nemtsov's canards certainly have found their way into the Western press, since Russia's legal prohibitions (in early 2013) against homosexual propaganda (especially directed towards underage children) and its forthright defense of the Christian institution of marriage, the vigorous opposition to Putin has assumed a "moral" dimension, symbolized best, perhaps, by Obama's appointment of several over-the-hill, openly homosexual athletes to head the United States delegation to the Sochi Olympics in early 2014.

Such an action demonstrated both the fundamental rejection by the American leadership (and Western European leaders) of Russia's affirmation of traditional marriage and traditional Christianity, while illustrating the formal apostasy by the West from its own traditional Christian moorings.

Enter Russian-American journalist and author Masha Gessen. Numerous references to Gessen began to appear last year, and soon she was appearing as "the Russian authority" on several of the Sunday morning news programs and as a guest on the Establishment's special programs dealing with Russia and Ukraine. Repeatedly, she is identified as "the noted expert and author on Russia and Vladimir Putin." Her 2012 volume, The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin , has been cited on such programs as "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation" as critical to understanding Russia and its president. She is the most widely-quoted writer on Russia and Putin now in the West.

But just who is Masha Gessen? She is identified by the Wikipedia (not known for its right wing bias) as a Jewish lesbian activist, with dual Russian and American citizenship (how did she manage that?), who is "married" to another lesbian, with a "family," but who advocates the abolition of the "institution of marriage," itself.

She has identified herself as a violent opponent of Putin and of traditional Christianity. Yet, her book, The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin , is held up as the best volume on Russia and its president, while even her defenders (writing reviews on Amazon.com, for instance, and elsewhere) admit that her study reads like "one, long, impassioned editorial."

Let us add that Gessen is an unrelenting champion of the Russian lesbian punk rock band, "Pussy Riot," who profaned the high altar of one of the most sacred churches in Russia, the Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. Her volume, Words Will Break Cement: The Passion of Pussy Riot (2014), is a passionate apologia for that pornographic lesbian band and a vitriolic attack on both Putin and traditional Orthodox Christianity, especially the institution of marriage, which Putin strongly and publicly defends. Her attacks find their way into the whole spectrum of American opinion, including, sadly, into supposedly conservative publications. Indeed, many Neoconservatives are remarkably "soft" on issues surrounding homosexual rights. [See, for example, "Fox News Goes Gay," Christian Newswire , August 14, 2013; James Kirchick, "Out, Proud, and Loud: A GOP Nominee Breaks Boundaries," The Daily Beast , February 18, 2014; Andrew Potts, "Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer calls gay rights struggle 'heroic'," Gay Star News , January 1, 2014 ]

Gessen, then, has now become one major source for attacks as well as the "analysis" spewed out by the major networks. As one can see, the real key here increasingly is the issue of homosexuality and the fact that Putin's Russia defends traditional Christian ethics and has clamped down on gay propaganda. Gessen finds this intolerable .thus, even though her journalistic writing purports to take a researched and scholarly view of Russian affairs, her attacks, the charges of corruption and anti-democratic tendencies, are all subsumed into something much more important to this vocal activist: an all-encompassing passion to advance homosexuality worldwide and an unremitting opposition to traditional Christianity.

But it is not just a prominent and influential publicist like Masha Gessen who identifies the issue of homosexuality as central to the hatred for Putin and contemporary Russia. Gessen's views are now completely mainstream in the West, illustrated resoundingly by President Obama's naming of those gay former Olympians to represent the United States at Sochi. The gesture was unmistakable, but its symbolism indicated something more profound in the West's post-Christian mentality. Indeed, this salient aspect of what euphemistically is now called "defending human rights" underpins EU and American policies towards Russia. Such organizations as the Human Rights League, People for the American Way, and the United Nations have gotten involved on a global level, cementing this template . In the international political sphere, no clearer illustration of this pervasive influence on policy may be found than in the response of close American ally German Chancellor Angela Merkel to President Putin's criticism of the collapse of traditional Christian morality in America and Europe. As reported by The Times of London , November 30, 2014, Merkel, who had for some time urged a softer approach to Russia and continued negotiations, finally realized:

that there could be no reconciliation with Vladimir Putin when she was treated to his hardline views on gay rights.The German chancellor was deep in one of the 40 conversations she has had with the Russian president over the past year -- more than the combined total with David Cameron, François Hollande and Barack Obama -- when he began to rail against the "decadence" of the West. Nothing exemplified this "decay of values" more than the West's promotion of gay rights, Putin told her. The Kremlin and instead should adopt a policy of Cold War-style containment.

And Merkel is not alone. She joins Barack Obama and prime ministers David Cameron, Francois Hollande, and the leaders of the EU in expressing this important underlying rationale for Western policy towards Russia.

It is, then, the formal Western and American embrace of homosexuality, same sex marriage, and other deviations from traditional Christian morality as normative that has opened a steep chasm and motivates zealous proponents, for whom Vladimir Putin and a revived traditional Russia present a distinct challenge to their eventual global success.

It is, then, this rebellion against God-created human nature and against natural law, itself, that is bitterly opposed to Russia's affirmation of traditional religious belief. It is this divide now that forms the deepest basis of the profound conflict between East and West. Indeed, the world has been turned upside down, with Russia now defending Christianity, while the American and Western political and media elites viciously attack it. As Patrick Buchanan now rightly asks: "On whose side is God NOW on?"
___________________________________________________________________________________________

Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European intellectual history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in American intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish, and English on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival, and genealogical organizations. Small sections of this article were originally published on the Communities Digital News website, April 16, 2014.

Brewer , December 29, 2014 at 6:54 am GMT

Thank you Sir. It is heartening to read such a cogent defence of this remarkable leader after reading a hit piece in (of all places) the New Zealand Herald this morning.
One small observation I would like to make. The old "left" and "right" political labels seem to me no longer relevant to today's dialogue.

Since the 80s an ideology has emerged which I call "the Politics of fear". I did not coin the term, I borrowed it from a BBC documentary film series, written and produced by Adam Curtis called "The Power of Nightmares – the rise of the Politics of Fear" – which I heartily recommend to your readers.

The voice-over at the beginning of this series intones something like "our politicians once offered to make our lives better, now they promise to protect us from nightmares".

The political divide now seems to be between those who buy into the nightmares and those who do not, those who (believing in the nightmares) support military intervention and those who take a longer view.

This ideology, I believe, is the bastard child of the Israel/U.S. affaire. I say "bastard" as I do not believe that the coupling has the blessing of the majority of U.S. citizens but is, rather, the product of a rape of the American political process by the neo-con cabal, ably assisted by a captive media.

This ideology is now responsible for much of the Middle East now in smoking ruins, a circumstance that must please Israel no end. Indeed it was foretold by Oded Yinon (Sharon adviser) back in the eighties. An excerpt:

Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.

-see link below.

Putin of course is in the sights of this ideology as he has some power to check these assaults and looks like gaining a great deal more as he moves closer to China. His cardinal sin may be his support for Assad.

References:

Remarkable speech given by Putin:

Maj. Kong , December 29, 2014 at 11:42 am GMT

Putin's biggest mistake was not creating the fake two party system. America has given the world many gifts, and our system of party politics is one of the best for maintaining control of a large nation. If Vlad had followed this advice, and created the real illusion of democracy in Russia, the West would have found him much harder to oppose.

http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/till-death-berezovsky-defends-backing-putin/?_r=0

Article is by Gessen, and clearly biased against Russia, but I think the idea is still a good one.

Putin has arguably aged badly as a leader, and considers himself too indispensable, much like Jiang Zemin in China. Though by Russian standards, he's the best since Alexander II.

Dutch disease is another mark against Russia, which Putin hasn't done much about, and which arguably makes them more dependent on the West (and possibly China) than they should be.

The article above also doesn't mention Larry Summers, which is a profound insight to which particular businessmen got away with it.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2006/03/real-larry-summers-scandal.html

Maj. Kong , December 29, 2014 at 11:48 am GMT

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/harvards-best-and-brightest-aided-russias-economic-ruin/

http://www.thenation.com/article/harvard-boys-do-russia

Back from when the left was more interested in hating capitalism, than the eeevil White Christian male.

Sam J. , December 29, 2014 at 11:51 am GMT

" On his assumption of the presidency and his election to a full first term, Putin resolved to end this economic domination by "the oligarchs," but in so doing, he antagonized their internationalist capitalist partners in the West on Wall Street and in Bruxelles "

Well he won't say it but I will. The Jews. The Jews were looting Russia and anyone who stops their looting is the enemy. If the US ever stops the Jews looting of us they will try to do the same to us.

Right now the Jews control the US like they used to control Russia so they're using our money and name to attack him. Any country that is in their way will get the same.

It's possible that they mean to start a nuclear war between the US and China/Russia. The neglect of our nuclear forces and our bizarre foreign policy are part of this. Many years ago if someone would have told me that I would have thought such a thing I would have called them mad. Not now, after 9-11, where building#7, not hit by a plane, fell for around 108 feet at the same speed as a rock dropped in mid air. It's impossible for fires to have done this. Now when I see stupid things going on I at least realize that someone may have planned it that way. Our policy towards Russia is stupid and the Jews run our policy.

Fake Name , December 29, 2014 at 1:30 pm GMT

Whatever else may be said about Mr. Putin, what stands out about the man is that he is clearly and resolutely in favor of Russia, which distinguishes him starkly from the Americans' current president.

TomB , December 29, 2014 at 1:49 pm GMT

A great comment in my opinion at least. Gone wrong only at the very end seeing Putin's antipathy towards homosexuality as explaining anything. I at least haven't and don't see the Ukraine (or Georgia, or whoever else our anti-Putinista's have lept to champion) being enamored of gay rights.

So in any event that as an explanatory factor for all the anti-Putin/anti-Russian agitation seems to me to be a distraction from the only remaining one which is the neocons, pure and simple. They tried their agitation against Putin and his (rather Christian) vision of Russia first back when he took off after those oligarchs, but that mud never stuck to the wall given the blatant criminality involved on the part of those oligarchs.

Then, they tried it again with that Georgia business, with the facts again betraying them.

All this Crimean business then is just them finding yet another stalking horse. (Not, as I have said before, that I think what Putin did there is at least somewhat problematic and should have been addressed in a different way.)

Regardless, it's the neocons. Maybe not "purely" and simply, but at least Ivory-soap level purely and simply. (I.e., 99 and 44/100% pure.)

Maj. Kong , December 29, 2014 at 1:58 pm GMT

@Sam J. That's too simplistic. How do you explain the power of Saudi Arabia, which is responsible for the oil price drops. Or explain why Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is quite friendly with Putin. Ethnic animosity on the part of Eastern Europe-descended Jews in America, isn't the largest explanation, though it certainly is part of the story.

KA , December 29, 2014 at 3:40 pm GMT

@unit472 Don't we live in interesting times? We do. How long.? God knows?

West hurts the economic interests of Germany. West spies on Merkel. West has prevented Germany from doing business with Iran and now Russia It has cost Germany billions . Germany continues to carry the political, defense, and economic water for Israel.

Merkel like the abused laborer comes home drunk and beats the wife for she doesn't have the guts to stand up to the abusers outside . A pathetic moron who should have never been put on the shelf for any life.

Chiron , December 29, 2014 at 3:48 pm GMT

You left out the most important factor in this. The 800 lb gorilla or 2 ton elephant in the room. Jewish power. This has been a Jewish War on Russia from day one. Look at the cast of characters in terms of both pundits and political players.

Some say Conservatives are rattling their sabers at Putin because they hark back to the Cold War days when things were simpler. Not so. They are bitching about Putin for the same reason they bitch about Palestinians. To win Jewish support and money. Conservatives know that Jews are the most powerful people in America with a lock on many top institutions. They know that the great majority of Jews are Democrats and Liberals. They know that many Jews don't see eye-to-eye on many issues that are important to Conservatives.

So, Conservatives try to over-compensate on foreign policy to win over Jews. If Democrats are 99% pro-Israel, GOP tries to be 200% pro-Israel. If Dems have just a smidgen of sympathy for Palestinians, Republicans pretend that Palestinians are the new Nazis who must be ground to dust. If Democrats are anti-Russian, Republicans try to outdo the Democrats by making Putin out to be new Stalin-Hitler-Ming-the-Merciless.

It's all about groveling. We live in a country where a freak like Sheldon Adelson can casually say we should drop a nuke on Iran but still gets to play an important role in politics. Notice not a single Republican called out on his craziness. They are all running dog slaves of Jews, and so their foreign policy agenda is molded to pander to Jews.

Jews hate Russia because Putin has stood for majority culture, heritage, religion, patriotism, and national identity. He's been good to Jews, but he's stressed the importance of Russian identity and culture above all in Russia. He's not anti-minority, but he thinks Russians should be proudly pro-Russian. If we use the logic of Putin-ism, every European nation should stress its own national identity, culture, and heritage instead of 'diversity', 'multi-culturalism', 'white guilt', and worship of the Holocaust as the new religion. This is why Jews hate Putin. Not because Putin has been anti-Jewish -- if anything, he's been overly generous to Jews -- but because he's been pro-Russian. In the US, Jews love it when white folks praise Jews and Jewish culture/history/religion/identity(along with homosexuals) to high heaven, but they get very upset when there is even the slightest peep about white identity, white interests, white unity, and white power. And this is why Obama is with Jews on Russia. Obama has no personal animus against Putin. But as a black man as president in a white majority nation -- and as his main allies are Jews and homos, both minority elites -- , he also finds it alarming that Putin stands for majority identity, pride, unity, and power. He's afraid that the Putin bug will spread throughout Europe and then may infect white folks in the US as well.

That is why Jews have been working overtime to destroy Russia. It is why Jews have been promoting the likes of the Pussy Riot and Masha Gessen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

Friedman is above all a Jewish supremacist. Paul Krugman is above all a Jewish supremacist. They are not just some abstract 'liberals'. They are tribaliberals whose main identity is Jewish. Paul Krugman and Friedman feels more camaraderie with Jewish oligarchs in Russia than with working class Democrats or black underclass in America.

Notice that Jews bitch about the oligarchic structure of Russia but overlook the fact that Russian Jews with the aid of American Jewish 'advisers' created the new order during the Yeltsin yrs. Putin inherited this order; he didn't create it. Btw, given that US is run by the likes of Soros and Adelson, how is it not a form of oligarchy as well?

And Jews don't care about the suffering of the Russian middle class in Russia. If anything, they've feared the rise of a Russian middle class under Putin since middle class Russians would associate their improvement with Putinism. By destroying the middle class, Jews want to make Russian middle class hate Putinism and everything it stands for: nationalism, majority identity, Christianity, family values, etc.

Jews were behind foreign policy during the Clinton years and what did they do to Iraq? Sanctions killed 100,000s of women and children. Madeleine Albright is a criminal like Kaganovich, the Jewish henchman of Stalin who killed millions in Ukraine during the Great Famine.

Jews didn't care about dead Ukrainians. They didn't care about dead Iraqis. They don't give a damn about dead Palestinians. Under Obama, Jews undermined stability in Libya and Syria, creating conditions that led to deaths of over 200,000.

So why would Jews care about Russians?

Through most Jews are secular, their view of humanity is supremacist and out of the Old Book. Gentiles are seen as cannon fodder or expendable cattle in the service of Jewish supremacist power.

America is now an evil nation whose culture amounts to something like this:

It's a nation where Wall Street sharks and Las Vegas crooks can get away with just about anything.

This is a Jewish War on Russia. To be sure, Russians are also to blame for being lazy, confused, drunk, and slovenly. If Russians shape up like old Prussians, they can build a great nation. But too many are like 'white trash'.

Though Russia is facing very hard times, they can turn this into an advantage. Learn the hard lesson that it cannot depend on energy export alone. Build its own industries and form closer ties with the non-West. EU, like the US, is totally under the domination of Jewish power.

If Russians are a great people, they will use the current hardship as a key lesson and build up their nation as more of an independent power. Problem is Putin is surrounded by many fifth columnists.

The current film THE INTERVIEW is about American assassinating Kim Jong Un, but the guy whom Jews really want to assassinate is Putin. The likes of Nuland who subverted Ukraine will go to any length to destroy Russia so that Jews will take it over like Jews have taken over US and forced 'gay marriage' on it. Consider the recent Rolling Stone rape hoax article by Sabrina Rubin Erderly. She is the Victoria Nuland of American journalism. Just as Nuland hates Russia, American Jews hate white gentiles. Yet, American Conservatives are a bunch of craven toadies like Ted Cruz who line up to kiss the asses of scum like William Kristol.

We need to speak the truth. This is not a liberal vs conservative thing. It is about Jewish supremacism. As Democratic Party is essentially a Jewish party, its main goal is to further Jewish power. As GOP is eager to win over more favors and money from Jews, it goes out of way to bark rabidly at perceived enemies of Jews. GOP is a toady of Jewish power. If Jews hate Russia, let's bark at Russia, so thinks the GOP. If Jews hate Palestinians, let's dump on Palestinians and laugh at thousands of Palestinian women and children killed by Israeli bombs.

KA , December 29, 2014 at 4:12 pm GMT

@Maj. Kong "How do you explain Saudi " oil policy?

Saudi never liked Soviet or Russia. Afghanistan, Chechenya and recent threat to Sochi Olympic are the example. Does Saudi do it with any inherent power or does it engage in anti Soviet activities for that is what US wants ?

Saudi couldn't stop 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq. It couldn't stop anti Saudi rhetorics after 911 . It couldn't put pressure on US to accept Saudi initiated proposals for the Israel -Palestine peaceniks 2002 ,proposed on the basis of American position It could not make US accept the proposals that were meant to bring Hamas and PA together in 2004-2007 .

Saudi has more power than Bahrain, or Morocco, or Pakistan, but not more than that wielded by Israel or India . Saudi is dependent on US for survival. Someone always guarding against potential overthrow by public cant be dictating to the world's only military superpower and it doesn't .

Larry , December 29, 2014 at 4:38 pm GMT

WE ARE ALL RUSSIANS
ALL WHITE PEOPLE MUST ADORE & LOVE MOTHER RUSSIA.
PUTIN IS IN THE WAY OF THE JEWISH NEW WORLD ORDER.

Thanks for the great article. This hatred towards Russia is because Putin is in the way of the Jewish controlled US and NATO plan called "new world order" in which the Judaists will fulfill their prophesy to rule all mankind using their proxies USA and NATO. Putin wants to stand up and does not want Russia to become a puppet of USA and NATO, so they hate him and are telling lies against him.

So why are most whites Russian and must adore mother Russia?

Because whites are "Caucasians" and their origins have been traced to the Caucasus mountains!which are in Greater Russia! These whites (who called themselves "Aryans" but are now called "Indo-europeans" due to Nazi use of the previous word) went west and settled in a place they named Aryaland (now called Ireland). They went south and settled in a place they named Aryaan (Iran) where they mixed somewhat with darker races. They spoke a language now called PIE (Proto-Indo-European) from which Greek/Latin/Russian/Sanskrit/Persian and thence English are derived.

Their gene R1a1 is found in about 50% of the white people to this day.

See the book by Mallory: In search of the Indo-Europeans.

See the website: "The peopling of Europe"

See Wikipedia (run by Judaists themselves): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans .

That is why we must love and adore mother Russia, as we are all Russians!

Jim , December 29, 2014 at 4:39 pm GMT

@unit472 Our own leaders are just as much liars and jerks as Putin. We assured the Russians that NATO would not be expanded and then double-crossed them. We have intervened all over the world including it the Ukraine and then complain about Putin's intervention in an area that is predominantly Russian.

Our foreign policy seems to be based on Jewish tribalism rather than an intelligent evaluation of the interests of ordinary Americans.

Matra , December 29, 2014 at 7:26 pm GMT

It is Angela Merkel who is leading the EU's effort to impose sanctions on this man not the neocons.

The Americans who post here don't believe non-Americans have agency so they will not believe it. But, yes, there has been a sea change in German attitudes towards Russia. This time last year no one in Germany (and hardly anyone else in Europe) favoured Ukrainian membership of either the EU or NATO. Even after Putin took Crimea the Germans made it clear Ukraine had no future in either organisation. That is when typical Russian stupidity came into play. Undisguised Russian lies (some of it infantile trolling) about their role in the Ukrainian war and MH17 followed by bullying the Baltics, insane anti-Finnish propaganda, irresponsible talk about nuclear weapons, and aggressive probing of Scandinavian air defenses have all but destroyed Russia's image in Europe. Now even Germany's previously pro-Russian business community have, in general, turned against Russia and now support sanctions. Putin has lost Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and most of Eastern Europe but at least he's gained the undying love of Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts!

Cagey Beast , December 29, 2014 at 7:37 pm GMT

A good article with information on Putin in Leningrad during the attempted KGB coup that I hadn't heard before.The readers' comments so far haven't been up to the same level though. Too much much about Jews for one thing.

In my opinion, Putin is being targeted above all because, under his leadership, Russia is failing to submit to the "Euro-Atlantic consensus" led by Washington. President de Gaulle got himself into the same sort of trouble decades ago and they said many of the same things about him then that they say about Putin now.

De Gaulle was pushed into retirement by the original '68ers and the Euro-Atlantic consensus looked on and smiled. That turned out to be the start of a beautiful friendship between the libertine New Left and the Bilderberg types. That's roughly the same coalition who can't stand Putin and say, with some evidence, they represent our West.

PeterB , December 29, 2014 at 7:40 pm GMT

Putin is doing what he's supposed to do as president of his country; that's what he's there for. He's helped to rebuild the state up from the low point it hit just slightly more than twenty years ago, building up the economy and improving the standard of living, strengthening the state so that it can credibly deter would-be aggressors. It wasn't that long ago that they literally collapsed: incomes, pensions, jobs were wiped out and many people were pauperized; criminality and mafia-type gangs emerged, prostitution, suicide, drug use and alcoholism soared. Life expectancies dropped to shocking levels, in the 50′s for men, and families almost stopped having children. Public property, paid for by the citizenry, was privatized and looted for a pittance by the infamous oligarchs. From that they've bounced back to being a major world power. It's not Putin's role to kowtow to any foreign powers if it goes against the interests of his own country.
Much hot air has been floated about him: he's stolen billions, he's 'just like' Hitler or perhaps Stalin, he's a madman, and so on. Any American dissenting from this line is attacked by trolls claiming that they're on the payroll of Putin as if he were personally sending out envelopes full of rubles worldwide. The shrillness of the rhetoric has reached absurd levels. The gay rights angle is some really weak tea; they're grabbing at anything now, possibly out of frustration. Putin is nothing if not completely rational; all that he's done has been rational and predictable. They're not going to knuckle under to threats and bluster, that much is clear. Times have changed; it's not 1992 anymore.

Larry , December 29, 2014 at 8:52 pm GMT

PUTIN IS ALSO IN THE WAY OF ISRAEL'S TOTAL CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

I want to add another important reason the Judaists hate Russia!Israel.

The Judaists own and operate all 3 branches of our govt. and the media. The Judaists see Iran and Syria as a threat to Israel that must be eliminated, and Russia supports both of them, so they are going after Russia and Putin directly. By eliminating Putin and Russia, they believe they can then eliminate Syria and Iran, and make the middle east totally safe for Israel, where Israel can kill and terrorize the Middle East and maybe the whole world with impunity.

Mark Green , Website December 29, 2014 at 9:16 pm GMT

Russia is being targeted by Zio-Washington because of Putin's alliance with Syria and Iran. America's seething hostility towards Russia has 'Made In Israel' all over it. This is just another Israeli hit. Expect more.

Mr. Blank , December 29, 2014 at 9:18 pm GMT

@PeterB

Putin is doing what he's supposed to do as president of his country; that's what he's there for.

I agree. I'm no fan of the guy, but he is neither a monster nor a mystery. The weird hatred for him in much of the West is profoundly misplaced.

donut , December 30, 2014 at 12:11 am GMT

@TomB The fag rights hysteria is for domestic consumption.

rod1963 , December 30, 2014 at 12:36 am GMT

@Dutch Boy Yep.

But it truly baffles me that the likes of Merkel and Obama think its just fine to screw with Putin. He isn't threatening us and he isn't messing around with American interests yet we persist in demonizing him and trying to push him into a corner.

And given our track record, it won't turn out good for us or the EU if we go too far. This isn't some mud culture in the ME we're screwing with and Putin isn't some serial bulls ** t artist like our political class. It could easily go bad for us, real fast.

Sam , December 30, 2014 at 1:06 am GMT

@Chiron GREAT POST, PELTFAST.

Great article and a nice comment by Peltfast. Good!

Jeff Albertson , December 30, 2014 at 3:24 am GMT

@North Carolina Resident Wikipedia is good on most noncontroversial topics. For a more realistic assessment of foreign affairs and economics, I recommend any respectable mainstream outlet, and simply reverse their conclusions. That's how we had to make do before Al Gore invented the internet.

Anon , December 30, 2014 at 4:31 am GMT

One point I think that's being missed is that the American media and American elite are vehemently pro-Obama. They protect Obama from anything that looks like hostility and they're always careful to keep their wagons circled around him. But Putin thinks Obama is an ineffectual baboon, and what's worse, makes him look like one in public. That alone makes Putin the enemy to a lot of Americans (including Obama). I think it's not properly understood how deeply psychologically crazy the Obama cult is. It's every bit as nutty as the cult around Kim Jong-un, except that the latter has a lot more coercive state power.

axel , December 30, 2014 at 2:09 pm GMT

@unit472 Unit 472- Clearly you haven't read Putin's speeches or taken in the facts of his actions. Next to our own leaders, what Putin is saying and has been doing has been a breath of fresh. These always include fact-based- albeit blunt- narratives grounded in reality, and clear headed analyses of what Russia has been proposing and doing. Would that we had the same from our own leaders in the Administration or Congress.

Read what he is saying, and watch what he is doing, not what the mainstream media intent on demonizing him is saying he is saying and doing.

And, sorry, I'm not a paid Putin operative- I'm a loyal American concerned about the future of my country, family and the rest of the world (including Russia).

KA , December 30, 2014 at 2:37 pm GMT

@fnn Israel has the brothel capital . The most trafficked nation is Israel. The victims are from East European and African places . India has been both a victim and a perpetrator. But it is the glorious nation Israel that stands out in whole world holding the shining beacon to the girls to come and be used .

KA , December 30, 2014 at 3:34 pm GMT

"Despite having vast power, the neocons seem to be in perpetual anxiety. They're like fleas on a beautiful dog! constantly worried about being scratched off."
http://www.lewrockwell.com Can Putin secure the dog from these infestations by these tribal monolithic war mongers fleas?

Matra , December 30, 2014 at 4:08 pm GMT

Mr Cathey

Do you believe that the imprisonment of the apolitical Oleg Navalny, to get at his brother, anti-corruption campaigner Alexei, is an example of Russia's new conservative Christian values? It looks a lot more like an old Soviet tactic. Navalny is not exactly a pro-American liberal. From his Wikipedia page :

The BBC noted in a profile of Navalny that his endorsement of a political campaign called "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" and his willingness to speak at ultra-nationalist events "have caused concern among liberals."

Navalny is agitating on behalf of aggressive anti-immigration policies

As we all now know Putin is very liberal on immigration – flooding western cities with Asians.

Early in 2012 Navalny stated on Ukrainian TV that "Russian foreign policy should be maximally directed at integration with Ukraine and Belarus In fact, we're one nation. We should enhance integration."

The pro-Kremlin blogs and Putin's libertarian advocates who swoon over all Putin's other actions have been silent so far on the Navalny case.

Sam J. , December 30, 2014 at 6:24 pm GMT

@Maj. Kong Why would I have to explain the power of Saudi Arabia? They have a lot of oil. A side note. Have you ever considered the idea that the house of Saud is Jewish? Yeah I know it sounds crazy but they and Israel do seem to be together when large issues are at stake. Has there ever been a time where the Saudi's funded anyone or anything that threatened the root security of Israel? I'm not saying they are but it has crossed my mind. Now you're saying "what madness" but stranger things have happened. Like the Jewish homosexual pedophile that ran the Nazi party in the US. A story so odd I couldn't have made it up and didn't. Jews are an extremely weird people and to think in a linear Western European way about them is folly.

" explain why Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is quite friendly with Putin "

Uuhh, he's a good actor. Even better he's a psychopath. The best actors on the planet.

" Ethnic animosity on the part of Eastern Europe-descended Jews in America, isn't the largest explanation "

Doesn't matter WHERE they're from. Their Jews. Anyone who thwarts their collection of power is the enemy.

PeaceLover says,"Victoria Nulland and Geoff Pyatt are both jews."

I know. I don't get it. So? They hate Putin.

The Jews are a very strange people. Very strange. I think part of regaining control of our country is to find out why they are what they are. This is very much a Henry David Thoreau,"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.". People have commented on this constantly on how we are run by the Jews and we never seem to make headway. They run our country. They put up a Menorah on the White house lawn while we're not allowed a cross. This is the most absurd thing I can possibly imagine and shows exactly who's in charge.

I believe the Jews are what THEY say they are. Different. First. I believe the Jews are a tribe of psychopaths. Not all, maybe not even the majority but a substantial number. If you take into account this fact, the behavior of the Jews will never surprise you.

Psychopaths are a troublesome bunch. This would account for the Talmud. It's a training manual for psychopaths. You can do what you want to others but watch out for us the psychopaths/Jews. Lots of little rules as psychopaths have no inborn mental map to follow. The basic gist of the whole Talmud is that everyone will be their servants and they will own all the possessions. If that's not a psychopathic idea I don't know what is.

Maybe it's even more to it than that. I'm not sure about what I'm writing next but I'm beginning to strongly suspect it to be true. From,

http://michaelbradley.info/

He says the Jews have a high percentage of Neanderthal. That this makes them aggressive. Read his first page. It makes sense to me because the Jews in charge in many cases look like Neanderthals. I got this idea from many places http://michaelbradley.info/ being just one. He said it first of course. There's others. Look at this page on Zana who was a Neanderthal/ Homo Erectus/ ???? that had children by normal humans, then look at her children. Familiar looking?

http://gaizy.hubpages.com/hub/Mystery-Files-The-Story-of-Zana-Do-Neanderthals-Still-Walk-Amongst-us

Unfortunately some of the pictures are gone on this page.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120805192746/http://www.hominology.narod.ru/zanai.htm

Now look at Eric Hufschmid's Neanderthal page. Make sure and follow the Neanderthal index page link at the top of the page.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Neanderthals/Blame-the-Neanderthals.html

This would readily explain their complete hatred for all non-Neanderthals. They are really different.

Anonymous , December 30, 2014 at 11:29 pm GMT

@Matra Orthodox Christian churches traditionally are subordinate to the state. While the Roman Church traditionally claimed to be equal in authority to the state or sovereign. Even still, Western Christianity and conservative Christian values are not incompatible with authoritarian government and often flourished under authoritarianism.

Navalny may not be a pro-American liberal, but presumably he's supported by the US to further pro-American liberal ends. Just as the Afghan mujahideen, who weren't pro-American liberals, were supported in the 1980s by the US to further pro-American liberal foreign policy aims.

American foreign policy elites want the Russian Federation broken up and replaced with nominally independent states, with Russia proper confined to west of the Urals and north of the Caucasus and reduced to a minor state without a military-complex and command of vast resources capable of rendering it an independent power and security challenge. Russia and the other newly independent states would then be integrated under a US-NATO led Eurasian security architecture. Presumably Navalny is supported by the US in part simply because he's a dissident against the Russian state, and because his more nationalist, "little Russia" politics is regarded as amenable with these broader US foreign policy objectives for Russia and the Eurasia region, although presumably Navalny himself doesn't want this diminished and reduced role and capacity for Russia but wants it just with a much more nationalist politics.

Wally , Website December 30, 2014 at 11:54 pm GMT

What happens when Putin comes forward to repeal an Orwellian law which prevents free speech about it and then admits what thinking Russians already know about it, that being Soviet Russia's efforts in manufacturing & distributing so much of the propaganda about the impossible but profitable 'holocaust' scam?

Tread lightly Zionists / Jewish supremacists, Putin has lightning in his hands.

suggested:
'Made in Russia 'The Holocaust' Carlos Whitlock Porter'

and:

http://www.cwporter.com

The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter
MADE IN RUSSIA – THE HOLOCO$T

Not to mention Russia's efforts to cast aside the dollar as the main currency of exchange, witness their deals with China and movements in other parts of Asia and the Middle East.

Russia has reached the point of having nothing left to lose thus making the Zionist / US influence less & less a factor. If the US had significant economic investments in Russia we would have significant influence, what influence we did have has been stupidly sanctioned away. Other than bullying Europe to impose sanctions, which has hurt Europe tremendously, real US options are very limited.

I would not be the least bit surprised to see Russia directly intervene in Ukraine resulting in re-integration of the eastern Ukraine provinces back into Russia. Russia now has little to lose, so why not?

Wally , Website December 31, 2014 at 12:01 am GMT

@Jeff Albertson Seemingly endless Zionist organizations engaged in propaganda

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media

Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6175

Jewish Internet Defense Force http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force

Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189

Sam J. , December 31, 2014 at 11:22 am GMT

I found another page that has Sykes saying," "Bryan noticed some unusual features on Khwit's skull," Mark Evans narrates, "very wide eye sockets and an elevated brow ridge that could suggest ancient, as opposed to modern, human origins. And he was starting to toy with a thought-provoking alternative notion."

Sykes then shares it: "Maybe she isn't an African of recent origin at all but one from a migration out of Africa many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years ago, and she comes from a relict population "

http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/bryan-sykes-sasquatch-research/

So from Africa doesn't mean from slaves from the Black Sea and Zana's children look nothing like the Abkhazians of African descent .

Cagey Beast , December 31, 2014 at 12:14 pm GMT

I really have no idea what most of the readers' comments here are even talking about. As I scroll through them, they seem like excerpts from the dream diary of a mad anthropologist. What does all this have to do with President Vladimir Putin of Russia?

schmenz , December 31, 2014 at 8:11 pm GMT

@Matra So assuming that you read the article (there was about an hour's time lapse between my comment and your follow up) I would be interested in what would be your counter arguments to the facts printed in the article.

Anonymous , Website December 31, 2014 at 9:25 pm GMT

I inadvertently triggered the August Coup in 1991. The coup was the result of a vendetta between myself and KGB boss Vladimir Kryuchkov. An account of what really happened was published by Nezavisimaya Gazeta ten years after the coup.

http://nvo.ng.ru/spforces/2001-08-17/7_step.html

The Romanians named a car after me: the Dacia Logan. Putin has been anathematized because of his refusal to submit to Jacob Rothschild in 2003. The world is being held to ransom by the Rothschild mafia. It's as simple as that.

Truthful , January 1, 2015 at 3:12 pm GMT

@unit472 Unit472, man you do a bad job by citing totally wrong facts. Merkel was from the time she was still an opposition leader already totally pro-USA. She visited at that time Bush to give him her support for the Irak war. She has never been close to Russia or Putin: all propaganda.

The Ukraine putsch was a orchestrated CIA plot with the Ukrainian nazis. See the video of Nuland's 5 billion and the 'maidan-bullits'. Furthermore, see the video of Komoloyskyi the Ukrainian and pro-USA oligarch with his own pro Nazi militia wherein he stated the MH17 as a trifle, as a mistake shooting down the wrong plane (the wrong plane: should have been the plane of Putin) and laughing about it.

Your comment on the weapons is incorrect. Weapons are smuggled everywhere and a lot were taken from the Ukr. military as Prokoschenko himself admitted several times.

So unit472: get you act together and defend you Satan better.

Truthful , January 1, 2015 at 3:31 pm GMT

@TomB You are absolutely right in : 'A great comment in my opinion at least. Gone wrong only at the very end seeing Putin's antipathy towards homosexuality as explaining anything'.

Furthermore I would say: This is s distraction from the exceptionalism and hegemony goal of the american character and culture. The most personified by the neocons, but not only by them. A lot of the mainstream follow this goal too, because it can bring them success and profit. And this is the goal and character of an american in general: every man can become a billionaire (whatever it takes: where under the genocide of the native americans). It is the survival, which implies hegemony and exceptionalism, of the fittest!!.

Ron , January 1, 2015 at 4:48 pm GMT

@Sam J. I totally agree with you – when Lenin took over in Russia, 56 out of 59 in his governing council were Jews and the other 3 were married to Jews. Soon, nearly everyone in an important position in Russia was a Jew. Just like Germany in the thirties and in the USA today. See – https://archive.org/stream/TheRulersOfRussia-AmericanEdition-ByRevDenisFahey#page/n0/mode/2up

The Rev Denis Fahey was an Irish priest who was in Russia at the time and was shocked to see the number of Jews in administrative positions under Lenin. He wrote a book about it in 1937 that has been mostly suppressed until lately. It is called "The Rulers of Russia". He was dismissed as an anti-semite for merely pointing out the facts. Sounds familiar ?

Then under Yeltsin the so-called Jewish oligarchs looted Russian privatization with Western Jewish money and also in other Soviet countries. Now, with Putin at the helm, the Jews are having a difficult time influencing Russia so the US Neocons (mostly right-wing Jews) are angry with him. The US Jewish-controlled government, media and think-tanks are therefore going after Putin and discrediting him in many ways. The same old story – and we can suspect that it will end badly as in the past.

schmenz , January 1, 2015 at 5:38 pm GMT

@Tony Hammond Tony: I appreciate your insights, even if some of them seem to veer into the category of gossip. You lived in Russia from 1986-2009, if I'm doing the math right. That being the case you were there before the official fall of Communism and during the Yeltsin years. Given that, I am kind of surprised you did not mention anything about Mr Yeltsin the man who "gave away the store" to a number of Godzilla-sized Oligarchs, a number of whom fled to Israel when Mr Putin decided to put an end to the selling off of Russia's patrimony to International Finance.

Your charge of corruption entails his ex-wife's "reported to own 25%, etc." I'm not quite sure how that involves corruption, but for the sake of argument, let us say that it does. The next logical step would be for you to answer the question: "reported" by who? The Russian press? Your next door neighbor? Masha Gessen? I would need some more details here before pronouncing the term "corruption". The same goes for the expensive watch he owns. Details? (Last year the Obamas cost the taxpayers several Billion dollars flying them around on vacations. An envious Putin might retort "I'm the President of Russia and all I get is this nice expensive watch!")

OK, humor aside, let's get down to basics. I am a Catholic, too. I don't canonize Mr Putin. But my "sensus Catholicus" tells me that there is something potentially good happening in that once sad land and that Mr Putin may have something to do with it. I am always intrigued by the videos of the recent meeting between Putin and Pope Francis. When staring at a gorgeous icon, a gift from Putin to the Pope, Francis stands there looking confused while Putin very naturally and un-ostentatiously bends over to kiss the icon and makes the sign of the cross. It took the Pope a few moments to do likewise. A small matter? Perhaps.

It will take a long time for Russia to be freed from a century of atheism but anyone who cannot see the pendulum turning back from that despair is simply not paying attention. We Catholics, especially those of us who value our 2,000 years of tradition, have often been forgetful of the fact that today's Russia is not the Communist Russia of yore. I see a troubling attitude in far too many Catholic blogs that refuses to let go of the old anti-Communist crusade. While there is a great deal of healing still needed in Russia and even as, alas, far too many Russians and Orthodox despise Catholicism, I will continue to pray for them and hope that the machinations of our rather foul government in trying to destroy Russia will be thwarted.

anonymous , January 1, 2015 at 6:32 pm GMT

@unit472 Angela Merkel is, at the end of the day, a loyal servant of the USA. Remember she supported the Iraq invasion at a time when Gerhard Schroder opposed it. Schroder had reduced neocons in America to a blind fury because he was friendly with Russia and opposed the Iraq war. The old neocon Tom Lantos called Schroder a "prostitute" because of his Russia connections.

Neocon pawprints are all over this mess in Ukraine. Ms Nuland is married to one of the top PNAC neocons, Robert Kagan.

Anonymous , January 1, 2015 at 6:40 pm GMT

@Tony Hammond Tony, you are so right about Putin. He's nothing more than a white washed KGB thug. The ROC is a state controlled thing that is used as an active agency of espionage against the West. Toby Westerman and Cliff Kincaid have given plenty of proof Russia merely exchanged the Soviet sheepskin for a new one to cover up the wolf beneath it. What boggles my mind is that a Southern website would buy this act. During the Civil War, the Czar sent warships to Union ports to back up Lincoln's war efforts. If the Russians are "friendly" toward Southern political movements now, it's probably because they see a chance to increase their influence among gullible Americans, just like they did in the Cold War period.

Anonymous , January 1, 2015 at 9:20 pm GMT

Excellent article. Apart from political or military reasons which US and its puppets hate Russia under Putin's leadership, I can see a greater picture. We are in a Great Battle now: Devil versus God.

Make no mistake, we are witnessing a spiritual war which is most evident in our time than ever before. Everyone has to make a choice now. You can't serve both God and Devil. Putin is on God's side and I admire him for that. God bless him and every faithful Christian.

Ron Unz , January 2, 2015 at 1:50 am GMT

@Tony Hammond "Sockpuppetry" is when a single individual posts under a variety of different names and email addresses in order to pretend his views are much more widespread than they actually are.

It really isn't proper behavior for commenters on a website.

Cagey Beast , January 2, 2015 at 3:09 am GMT

In France the anti-Putin campaign of the political establishment seems to have brought together a loose, pro-Putin faction that resembles the old Free French coalition. Putin is popular with Catholic patriotic types and the old school, blue collar types from communist families who resent the New Left agenda.

The Germans seem to be going rogue too:
"The information war for Ukraine" – Satirical German program "Die Anstalt" (Eng Subs)

Die Anstalt – Ukraine Maidan with English subtitles

Kiza , January 2, 2015 at 3:41 am GMT

Unz

A master-stroke, that one. An amateur troll unit472 aka Hammond, because a professional would have used proxies for posting. Probably just a sexually frustrated loser who could not get along with magnificent Russian babes. His best is that whoever disagrees with him is a Kremlin's paid agent.

Thank you for this first class paleo-conservative article, which I almost missed due to summer holidays Downunder. I have been making the same point – that Putin and Western paleo-conservatives have much in common. If paleo-conservatives had any power in the US, there would be no conflict and no war on Russia and/or China – the World could be united around betterment for the majority (private property and private enterprise). As is, totally opposite is true: communism for the manipulators is the ruling system.

I will definitely look for more articles by Mr. Cathey. His writing is like a reminder of what being an intellectual used to mean.

Jake , January 3, 2015 at 4:07 am GMT

@unit472 I would say that if unit472 is not a mindless swallower of Leftist/Neocon bilge or a homosexual, then he is Jewish. All 3 are more than possible.

Merkel has become anti-Putin for the reasons Cathey states: she is pro-sodomite, as well as Liberal in almost every way that matters.

Anonymous , January 3, 2015 at 4:56 pm GMT

@Jay You inherited from Christians a vibrant and successful society that you and your whining comrades could never have built. You run it into the ground, because you have no morals. I would not be surprised if you were a homosexual. Atheism is a nice cop-out for them. The Russians know what to do with the likes of destroyers such as yourself.

Milton , January 3, 2015 at 6:40 pm GMT

@unit472 Unit472 is a known State Department shill. Pay no attention to this bot.

Giuseppe , January 5, 2015 at 5:40 pm GMT

An excellent, sweeping view of the disinformation about Putin that has enlightened my understanding of the situation and changed my opinion. Cathey absolutely demolishes.

Why aren't these ideas expressed in the Sunday talk shows? Why has the news profession degenerated into propaganda and jingoism? Doesn't anybody in the media bother to examine facts any more?

I can only conclude that the Empire wants an enemy, and the media happily obliges.

anon , January 5, 2015 at 9:35 pm GMT

@Tony Hammond
Quote: "He has become arrogant and has clearly developed the usual Russian mystical nationalistic mania that has blighted Russia for centuries. he has become dangerous."

That's my very impression too, and that it's got worse since the Putin's presidency got resumed in 2012. I was born in Russia but left soon after Putin had been elected the first term. Last year I was catching up on Russian and Ukrainian news and politics since I can read Russian and Ukrainian. Putin has done a good job with the country but his popularity came at an expense of spreading nationalistic mania and hate, cracking down on independent media and building a new Iron Curtain (work in progress, more laws being adopted). People still have very Soviet mentality over there, which is about claiming superiority over everybody else in the world and hatred to anything Western. This rhetorics softened down with the fall of the Soviet system but got a second life during the Putin's presidency. Including military threats (just watch that part where a man from a Russian government TV channel talks about turning Americans into radioactive dust – feels very uncomfortable to me). It's incredible how this enormous pride can get along with Christianity! Everything bad that happens to Russia is caused by the Great Evil of the West. Some nationalists even see Putin himself as too Western and a Western agent. It's a nationalistic genie out of the bottle where there is no real difference between pro-Putin and anti-Putin attitudes.

I also got very confused at first with the clever propaganda machine. People over there don't get access to word's news other then being retold by government media, unless they are curious and know foreign languages. It's like "Obama said that oil priced had been expected to drop" retold as "Obama caused the oil prices to drop". But I myself can compare the sources and see what's been "translated". What came as a surprise was a great number of "analytic" and "personal" articles and comments on the internet which were just cleverly crafted propaganda. Some is silly stuff, like: the West is poor, filthy, crazy, European children are taught to have sex with gay adults, the communist regime has been planted into Russia by America, the USSR has been destroyed by America in 1991 (who cares about the contradiction). Some are much more clever, with solid looking facts and links, when you ask "what? this is interesting, I didn't know that". And then you do fact checking and see you've been fooled and this person indeed is not some "independent blogger". And depicting the civil war in Ukraine as a "patriotic Russian war against fascism" is yet another story.

Anonymous , January 7, 2015 at 3:43 pm GMT

@Anonymous So are all the main neocons. We have been neoconned. As Russell Kirk remarked, when it comes to Israel and the US, it is hard to tell which is the dog and which is the tail. The "international Jew" is the one great taboo subject in the US and now in Europe, and for good reason.

Marcelo , January 9, 2015 at 11:48 am GMT

@Chiron Spare us of this "poor russians" drivel. Russia has persecuted religious leaders, tortured cristian priests and rabbis, when not killing them straight away for "anti-revolutionary activities", killing millions upon millions of their own people in times of peace. Watch the documentary "The Soviet Story" here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZjyyAE-78 , Russia is and has been the moral anus of the world.

AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] , January 10, 2015 at 2:58 pm GMT

Before one becomes to enamored of "conservative" Russia, bear in mind this country still has one of the world's highest abortion rates (in 2008, 44.7% of pregnancies were aborted, a rate double that of the US and liberal countries such as France or the UK). It has a very high murder rate by non-African standards – 9.2 per 100,000 people, nearly double that of the USA's 4.7. While Russians profess to be Orthodox, church attendance in Russia is comparable to that of Sweden and Germany – 30% to 40% of Russians never attend church. In Russia's traditional enemy, Catholic Poland, this figure is less than 10%. In Ukraine, it is 10% to 20%. Russia's divorce rate, 51%, is one of the world's highest (though in this state the US does worse – 53%). In Ukraine it is 42%, in Poland 27%. Etc. etc. By virtually every measure, Russia is not conservative at all. But it does dislike gays, and its ex-KGB leader says nice things about traditional values in his speeches. Does that compensate for everything else?

Odd that seemingly traditionalist Catholics are seeing in Russia some kind of savior. Even odder, some of them seem to be taking the Russian side as Russia has conflicts with truly conservative and traditional places such as its western neighbors.

Afterthought , January 15, 2015 at 6:47 am GMT

@AP Who is more staunchly fighting for the values of most conservative Catholics? Putin, or the Pope?

If your Catholic religion is more than a tribal identification, then you have to be for Putin.

AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] , January 15, 2015 at 7:26 pm GMT

@Afterthought

Who is more staunchly fighting for the values of most conservative Catholics? Putin, or the Pope?

If your Catholic religion is more than a tribal identification, then you have to be for Putin.

When Russians (including Putin, who dumped is wife and mother of his children for some young reporter he impregnated) start walking the walk instead of merely talking the talk, you might have a point. It's good that he doesn't publically denigrate traditional values and says nice things about Christianity, but that is no substitute for the real thing. And it's good that he has stood up for Christians in the Middle East. But Europe isn't Syria.

In Europe, the most devout, conservative, churchgoing people are in Poland and in western Ukraine. Within Ukraine, Putin was supporting the part of the country with the highest abortion rates, lowest church-going rates, highest murder rates, highest HIV rates, etc. etc. and trying to get this part of the country to dominate the conservative, churchgoing western part. Sorry, that's not fighting for conservative values.

The reality is that Putin doesn't fight for conservative values but for the Russian State. Sometimes, this coincides with conservative values (i.e., helping Syria, promoting the Church in Russia). Often, it does not. And despite an approach that sometimes coincides with conservatism, Russian society itself, with its massive amount of abortions, high murder rate, low rate of church attendance, high divorce rate, etc. is not very conservative across many important measures and certainly much less conservative than its western neighbors.

NWOD , January 16, 2015 at 8:42 am GMT

@unit472 Merkel never said Putin is unable to "grasp reality", she said he had a different "Weltanschauung" (which is somewhat akin to a mix of ideology and worldview). And compared to the satanic rulers of the West – he does have.

Interesting about Merkel she is probably being blackmailed by US or Israel based on data interception – why else spy on her? (NSA shares all with Mossad, confirmed courtesy of Snowden documents.)

Also interesting about Merkel, she was an avid Communist in her youth. Something not brought up nearly as often as Putin's memberships, no doubt, as she knows whose orders to obey (i.e., those who control the Western media).

And on you go to your profoundly insightful insights, garnered, no doubt, from spending many hours reading propaganda from Western media outlets who hate Putin for many of the reasons stated in this article (but most importantly, because he does not follow their orders).

NWOD , January 16, 2015 at 8:49 am GMT

@AP Superficial analysis. When considering any leader, it is imperative not to look at where his group is , but where it is heading . Putin cannot undo 80 years of Christian genocide in a few years, especially with the vast number of other problems his country faced – including the very loud, very lavishly funded (by satanists) and very aggressively supported (by the same group) "liberal" fifth column in Russia.

I don't know about your statistics, I know Russia was ruled by satanic priests for a long time and Putin is far from undoing their damage. But in the "West" the direction is unequivocally in the direction of more State-sponsored satanism and in Russia the trend has reversed. One is judged by his actions, not by the history he inherits.

AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] , January 16, 2015 at 2:35 pm GMT

@NWOD

Superficial analysis. When considering any leader, it is imperative not to look at where his group is, but where it is heading. Putin cannot undo 80 years of Christian genocide in a few years, especially with the vast number of other problems his country faced – including the very loud, very lavishly funded (by satanists) and very aggressively supported (by the same group) "liberal" fifth column in Russia.

This is an old argument, and it has some merit. The problem is that whatever direction Russia is heading, is still very far from where it ought to be. Yes, Russia's abortion rate has declined. It's still the highest in the world. :

http://liveactionnews.org/the-abortion-ripple-effect-russias-tragic-abortion-tale/

It's great that many Russian profess to be Orthodox Christians now. But church attendance is still on the same level as liberal Germany and Germany.

We can list other sins, as I have done (murder rate, HIV rate, which tells us about moral problems such as prostitution, etc.).

Opposing Russia, there are Poland and western Ukraine. Poland has the lowest abortion rate in the world, one of the lowest divorce rates, one of the lowest child-out-of-wedlock rates, etc. Western Ukraine is closer to Poland than to Russia.

So there is a real conflict between a fundamentally, genuinely conservative places and Russia, a very liberal, immoral place.

Yes, Russia was traumatized by communism. I'm sure a lot of criminals were abused as children too – that doesn't justify their crimes. That doesn't mean we take their side, rather than the victim's side. If I see a criminal in a fight with a decent person, I'm not going to take the criminal's side because he had a bad childhood, or because he's a little bit not as bad as he was a few years ago. But, it seems, as long as the criminal says some nice words, you would take his side.

Anonymous , January 17, 2015 at 4:00 pm GMT

@AP And your point is what, exactly? Russia and Russians are bad and Putin is also bad. OK, you don't like them, we get it. You have nothing to add to the discussion except to keep chiming in to trash them which moves the discussion nowhere.
You don't like Russians yet you use a Russian-sounding name for a handle. Why? Are you just another troll, "doctor"?

AP [AKA "Dr. Preobrazhensky"] , January 17, 2015 at 10:09 pm GMT

@Anonymous

And your point is what, exactly? Russia and Russians are bad and Putin is also bad. OK, you don't like them, we get it.

Nope, my point is that Russians are by most measures not conservative at all and certainly less conservative than their western neighbors and rivals, and thus that a conservative who supports Russia in its European conflicts is either ignorant or hypocritical.

Pointing out facts is not done to "trash" Russians but to provide evidence for my statements.

You are, btw, acting like someone who complains when someone cites African-American murder rates in a debate involving race. I hope you are not a self-proclaimed conservative also?

You, on the other hand, offer nothing but complaints and a personal attack in your post. Your statement about trolling is ironic.

Stephen Berk , January 26, 2015 at 1:02 am GMT

@Anonymous That's Nuland. I think it is important to distinguish between Jews and ardent neocon Zionists. Nuland and her husband, Robert Kagan, are Jewish in name only. Zionists violate virtually every moral in the Torah. Zionism is the disease. The Zionists made deals with Hitler wherein he would only permit them to leave Germany in the thirties if they went to Palestine. The Likud, whose American branch is the Neocons, is the lineal descendant of the Irgun, the Zionist terrorists who blew up the King David Hotel and conducted terrorism against innumerable Palestinians before the Zionist state came about. Their policy is total ethnic cleansing of Palestinians out of Israel, and Israel's expansion to claim all Palestinian lands stolen in the 1967 war. If you want to see the difference between Judaism and Zionism, go to the website for True Torah Jews. These are Orthodox Jews who eloquently state how modern Zionism violates every tenet of genuine Judaism, based on the Torah and the prophetic writings. Please do not confuse Judaism with the crimes of modern state terrorist Zionism.

Stephen Berk , January 26, 2015 at 1:21 am GMT

@Anonymous I object strenuously to the term "the international Jew." This smacks of Hitler buddy Henry Ford, who published the faked Protocol of the Elders of Zion in his Dearborn Independent. He also manufactured Ford trucks and tanks in Hitler's Germany, which played a key role in war against the Allies. There is no "international Jew." Jews are a very diverse ethnicity. The old saying is, "two Jews, three opinions." Please do not let your rightful dislike of the militarist, imperialist neocons and the Israeli Zionists color your opinion of all Jews. That is falling for an oversimplified stereotype. Also there are bankers of every religious and ethnic background. The main financing of Hitler by Western bankers was by elite American and British White Anglo Protestants. See Francis Donnolly's provocative documentary, "Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick."

JOe , February 13, 2015 at 2:33 pm GMT

@TomB "I at least haven't and don't see the Ukraine (or Georgia, or whoever else our anti-Putinista's have lept to champion) being enamored of gay rights. "

You are correct about Ukraine and Georgia but last year there was at least one article in the Guardian I believe quoting the LGBT advocates rooting for the coup so that the EU could impose the homosexual agenda on Ukraine.

Ace , May 17, 2015 at 7:00 pm GMT

@Sam J. We need to add another rule to Godwin's Rule. Anyone who interjects 9-11 Truth nonsense into a discussion has his internet privileges limited for six months. Only access permitted: twerking videos.

A Pseudonymic Handle , December 17, 2015 at 9:25 am GMT

I'm a cynical man. I suspect that much of the official opposition to Putin is due precisely to the fact that he has participated in the restoration of Eastern Orthodox Christianity to Russia. If he was only a closet Marxist the West and the mass media would get along fine with him.

The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] , December 25, 2015 at 7:47 pm GMT

@unit472 And yet, here we are, almost a year later and Merkel has lost her shine while Putin seems to be going from strength to strength.

A Pseudonymic Handle , December 29, 2015 at 8:15 am GMT

The American media hates Putin because Crimeans voted to join Russia and Putin agreed. This is called by American politicians and presstitutes an "invasion of Ukraine" where somehow our never ending meddling in the Middle East is rarely called such. The American media hates Putin because after the current government in Ukraine was installed by an American backed coup Eastern Ukrainians objected and decided to secede from the country, and Putin provided them with humanitarian aid. The American media hates Putin because he is more interested in defeating ISIS than Assad. And worst of all, Putin is an actual Christian who objects to rabid feminists desecrating churches which is considered by the American press to be a fundamental human right.

James , April 16, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT

@unit472 Merkel had no "axe to grind with Putin"?!!

The de-facto leader of the EU who would at the very least know of the funding of the pro-EU rebels who illegally overthrew the Ukraine's anti-EU President wouldn't have a problem when Putin helped to fight back? The leader of the organisation who is doing everything it can not just to stop the UK from leaving but even more than that behaving in such a way as to bully any other country that thinks of leaving would be quite happy that the Ukraine's pro-EU imposed government was being opposed.

It's not Boyd Cathey who is the idiot or the paid operative.

[Jul 09, 2017] The Russo-Chinese Alliance Explained

Notable quotes:
"... Wasn't it the cold war of the 80′s where Russia tried to out spend the west in getting the best military tech what bankrupted Russia? ..."
"... The childish naivete and willful ignorance of the American ruling class is astonishing. While imperial Britain's ruling class failed at preserving their position in the world, they were at least aware of what they were facing. Edwardian British leaders commonly believed that unless drastic changes were made that they would be "squeezed out" by the middle of the 20th century by Russia and the United States, which is indeed what happened. ..."
"... Russia is currently much better than China at controlling political narratives, even against overwhelmingly hostile western media. ..."
"... Economic and military strength will not mean anything if the entire region is against China, or against the West that has far more allies around the world. Beijing should not be antagonizing anyone in SEA, or Korea/Japan. It should be subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy, or it will find itself surrounded by ideological enemies no matter how rich China becomes. ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

Yet many in the West continue to base their conclusions on two false narratives:

The gross underestimation of Russia's economy and capability;

The gross overestimation of the same for China.

Objectively, the Chinese economy objectively is already the largest in the world and nobody with even a modicum of common sense denies that. But here is the catch: just the size of an economy does not determine everything. Yes, it is very important, but not all that defines the power of a nation. As Correlli Barnett's astute and empirically proven definition of power of the nation goes:

power of the nation-state by no means consists only in its armed forces, but also in its economic and technological resources; in the dexterity, foresight and resolution with which its foreign policy is conducted; in the efficiency of its social and political organization. It consists most of all in the nation itself, the people, their skills, energy, ambition, discipline, initiative; their beliefs, myths and illusions. And it consists, further, in the way all these factors are related to one another.

Barnett's concise and brilliant definition received a further (more quantifiable) expansion when Samuel Huntington recited Jeffery R. Barnett's 14 points criteria of West's global dominance by the mid-1990s in his seminal The Clash Of Civilizations . Those criteria are sound and present a good framework within which assessments and comparisons could be made. Most of those 14 points are one way or another related to technological development, moreover–they are related to what can be defined as enclosed technological cycles. The larger the number of such enclosed technological cycles, the better. For many protagonists of monetarist economy and free trade orthodoxy, the whole idea that a nation can make something from scratch may sound as anathema. Yet, only nations that can extract resources, refine them and then manufacture a finished, sometimes extremely complex, product are the ones who are real power players globally. Despite some spectacular progress China has made in the last two decades, China, for all her technological advancements still lags behind in some of the most crucial areas that define national power and this cannot be ignored. It becomes especially important when assessing the roles and weights of the parties in this fledgling Russo-Chinese alliance. Take a look at several points by Huntington-Barnett (in the order they are presented by Huntington):

9. Conducts most advanced technical research and development;

10. Controls leading edge technical education;

11. Dominates access to space;

12. Dominates aerospace industry;

13. Dominates international communications;

14. Dominates the high-tech weapons industry.

Randal , July 9, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

All these caveats are legitimate, and the points made here are all credible and convincing (except the implication that it's even theoretically possible to "convert economic power into military power without any lag", but I suspect that's a mis-communication). The piece is a useful corrective to the usual Russia-haters and denigrators who understate Russia's importance in the US-Russian-Chinese balance. And in power projection and pure military capability and technology terms, Russia is still the leader as Martyanov suggests.

But nevertheless China is the senior partner in the relationship in two ways. First it has an awful lot more economic clout (it's not even close – China's gdp is 5-6 times the size of Russia's, and its population is nearly ten times Russia's), and so long as the guns stay silent that is what get things done. Unlike Russia in Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere, China is not involved in military action against the US's proxies, and so long as it can continue to avoid major conflict in the western Pacific and in Central Asia, or in Korea, that will likely remain the case. In this situation the impact of military power is still present but it is blunted. Russia's military power has allowed it to defend its allies and some of neighbours against US attempts to subvert and overthrow them, and to make some money through sales, but that's pretty much all.

Second, China's potential is generally rightly recognised as being far greater than Russia's, and barring major and presently unforeseeable events China's military power will ultimately eclipse Russia's over the next few decades. It's only a matter of time, unless something happens to change the present direction of events.

This is not surprising, and nor is it any criticism of Russia. China's present rise is the inevitable and much delayed return to something closer to world historical normal after its disastrous failure to keep up with the European advances after the industrial revolution. It has clearly achieved "take off" in this regard and has partially recovered, but the process still has a long way to go with only the coastal regions even approaching full development. And military power necessarily lags economic power, often by decades. It takes time to build institutions, gain experience, construct large military projects such as aircraft carriers and learn how to use them, and to catch up with cutting edge military technology, and there are often no real shortcuts.

In the long run, China is a potential peer superpower competitor with the US, whereas Russia simply is not, though Russia for certain can stand up for itself. But at the moment, the vital need is for both countries to support each other, each providing what the other lacks, in order to stand up to the US's fading global dominance until the threat has passed (it may already have passed, but it would be premature and dangerous to assume so).

Anatoly Karlin , Website July 9, 2017 at 12:04 pm GMT

This makes the legitimate point that Chinese military technology lags behind Western and Russian ones.

But for how much longer? China produces far more research on any metric one cares to measure (10x gap on numbers of papers published, almost 20x gap on the Nature Index).

There remains a large gap in aerospace – China's continuous underperformance on engines is becoming a bit bizarre – but in other spheres it has converged or is close to converging (e.g., the surface navy bar aircraft carriers).

Production capacity does count in a big war and China no longer has any peers in this sphere. China can produce far, far more weapons in virtually every category than any other country. This will matter in the event of a Great Power war between China and the US. It will come off worse in the initial skirmishes but has a good chance of winning the longer war of attrition.

Incidentally, this is one case in which an alliance with Russia will be very critical. With the Straits of Malacca immediately blocked off, China will have to rely on its northern neighbor to keep its military-industrial machine going.

Randal , July 9, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra The author in fact states that the alliance exists.
He does not explain why it exists: eight years of Obama.
What Obama accomplished is that the economic centre of the world now is between Russia and China.
Trump's behaviour still can be explained from this understanding.

The author in fact states that the alliance exists.
He does not explain why it exists: eight years of Obama.

It was Clinton who was in power in the 1990s when the opportunity for a constructive relationship with Russia was thrown away by exploitative interference and ultimately the catastrophic bombing of Kosovo. It was Bush II who was in office when NATO was expanded into eastern Europe and into former Russian provinces, and even suggested by the US regime for Georgia and Ukraine, "colour revolutions" were instigated in Russian neighbours and allies such as Georgia, Ukraine and Belarus, and missile "defences" were pushed into Europe aimed directly at Russia.

All Obama did was to continue the disastrous US establishment policies towards Russia that have been in place since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The problem is not US Republicans or Democrats, or any particular office holders in the US presidency from time to time. It's a profoundly dysfunctional and delusional (and often deliberately deluded) bipartisan US foreign policy elite consensus.

Randal , July 9, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT

@Israel Shamir Excellent piece, like the previous one by Martyanov. He knows his subject perfectly. However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair - Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.

However, the biggest lag of China (comparing to Russia) is that of will. Observe the two states regarding Snowden affair – Russia took him, China was scared to.

China is absolutely correct to be cautious. It is still vulnerable to US attack and still needs time to develop, and has not yet been pushed into a corner by the US. It still can gain by appeasement.

By 2013, Russia on the other hand had already been pushed too far by the US, which had made clear with its military aggression, political interference, and even attempts to subvert and overthrow the Russian government, that Russia had little to lose by standing firm and nothing to gaining from repeating the appeasement of the 1990s.

Thorfinnsson , July 9, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

@Anatoly Karlin I am wondering if there are more critical missing components in China's military-industrial complex other than the much trumpeted example of jet engines.

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China's inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets–something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

Likewise, while China produces half of the world's steel and exports steel equivalent to the second rung producers (Japan, Russia, USA, India), the country is also the world's largest importer of specialty steels.

While China is by far the world's largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas).

There may be many other such areas that we're largely unaware of. Of course this is "normal" for a country at China's stage of development, and China is far more technically advanced than any other country I'm aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Of course in a war what's easier–import substitution for small volume high technology manufacturing, or reconstructing entire industrial sectors more or less from scratch?

No Western country at all for instance has much shipbuilding capacity to speak of, and "low-value" activities such as final assembly and textile sewing are nearly completely gone.

Combatant countries on both sides in the World Wars were effective at import substitution.

In the First World War Britain created a chemicals industry from scratch, and Germany mastered the Haber-Bosch process to synthetically produce explosives (and fertilizer). In the Second World War the USA created the world's largest tin smelting industry from scratch and a massive synthetic rubber industry. Germany in turn was able to satisfy two-thirds of its fuel needs from synthetic fuels by 1944.

High technology manufacturing can of course be substituted with less advanced manufacturing in many areas. Manual machine tools still work (especially when you have the world's largest population), and lower quality steels can substitute for high-strength materials at the cost of greater bulk.

Meanwhile how long would it take to create massive shipbuilding capacity in the United States or Europe?

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

Randal , July 9, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

@Thorfinnsson I am wondering if there are more critical missing components in China's military-industrial complex other than the much trumpeted example of jet engines.

For instance in the civilian sector much noise was made by party officials about China's inability to produce ball point pen balls and sockets--something China finally succeeded at this year after a decade. Equally odd to the jet engine debacle considering the ball point pen was invented in 1940.

Likewise, while China produces half of the world's steel and exports steel equivalent to the second rung producers (Japan, Russia, USA, India), the country is also the world's largest importer of specialty steels.

While China is by far the world's largest producer of machine tools, it bizarrely continues to produce manual machine tools which as far as I know are not even made in any other country anymore. The top tier machine tool producers are located in Japan, Germany, and Italy (South Korea is catching up fast, and while the USA is a laggard we do have Haas).

There may be many other such areas that we're largely unaware of. Of course this is "normal" for a country at China's stage of development, and China is far more technically advanced than any other country I'm aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Of course in a war what's easier--import substitution for small volume high technology manufacturing, or reconstructing entire industrial sectors more or less from scratch?

No Western country at all for instance has much shipbuilding capacity to speak of, and "low-value" activities such as final assembly and textile sewing are nearly completely gone.

Combatant countries on both sides in the World Wars were effective at import substitution.

In the First World War Britain created a chemicals industry from scratch, and Germany mastered the Haber-Bosch process to synthetically produce explosives (and fertilizer). In the Second World War the USA created the world's largest tin smelting industry from scratch and a massive synthetic rubber industry. Germany in turn was able to satisfy two-thirds of its fuel needs from synthetic fuels by 1944.

High technology manufacturing can of course be substituted with less advanced manufacturing in many areas. Manual machine tools still work (especially when you have the world's largest population), and lower quality steels can substitute for high-strength materials at the cost of greater bulk.

Meanwhile how long would it take to create massive shipbuilding capacity in the United States or Europe?

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

China is far more technically advanced than any other country I'm aware of with a comparable level of per capita income.

Surely because China is in effect a combination of the equivalent of a large first world country (the coastal regions) with an even larger developing country (the hinterlands), and it will be the degree to which the former will be able to drag up the latter that will determine the degree to which China can fulfil its colossal potential over the next few decades.

Much is made of the march of technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs, but in a new war between great powers many of the critical industrial categories would remain the same as the Second World War. Iron & steel, oil & oil refining, metalworking industries, and chemicals (i.e. explosives). China has a massive lead in three of the four categories.

A question unaddressed by rosy forecasts of US victory over China such as the recent RAND study.

The question is: can the US defeat and force a surrender on China using its existing naval and air superiorities together with economic blockade, before those factors come into play?

Andrei Martyanov , Website July 9, 2017 at 5:32 pm GMT

@utu the MS-21 is real competitor for Western aircraft

Perhaps because it will be a very Western aircraft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irkut_MC-21
The 30,000 lbf (130 kN) thrust class Pratt & Whitney PW1000G was selected in December 2009.

In August 2009, Hamilton Sundstrand, a subsidiary of United Technologies, announced it will provide electric power generation and distribution equipment for $2.3 billion over 20 years of production.[26] Rockwell Collins and its Russian partner Avionika were selected to supply the MC-21's avionics.[27] Honeywell, Thales and Elbit Systems supplies avionics with 9 X 12 in multifunction displays, electronic flight bags, synthetic vision and enhanced vision systems The MC-21 will be the first airliner with active sidesticks, supplied by UTC Aerospace Systems.

Goodrich Corporation, also a subsidiary of United Technologies, along with Aviapribor was selected to provide the flight control system actuators.[28] Zodiac Aerospace, Eaton, Meggitt and provide other components.[3] Interior furnishings will come from Zodiac Aerospace, coordinated from C&D Zodiac in Huntington Beach, California. Innovations from Zodiac Aerospace in Carson, California, will be incorporated in the water and waste systems.

OPINION: Can Russia make the MC-21 a sales success?
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/opinion-can-russia-make-the-mc-21-a-sales-success-437836/

The publicity engine was fired up once the jet had safely touched down, but the lack of pre-flight fanfare carried an echo of Soviet-era opacity and secrecy.

That is characteristic of Russia's increasingly insular geopolitical standpoint. The government is pursuing an aggressive resurrection of its commercial aviation industry to counter the influx of Western types to the country's fleets, against a backdrop of deteriorating diplomatic ties after the conflict in Ukraine, Crimea's annexation and international sanctions.

"Build it, and they will come" is a failed philosophy in post-Soviet days. The Tu-204SM and An-140 have almost vanished into obscurity, while the An-148 and An-158 have struggled to find favour among domestic airlines and have only limited international take-up, with dubious regimes. Optimism over Sukhoi's Superjet, developed largely with Western technology, has faded, its joint-venture manufacturer reabsorbed by Russia's military-industrial complex.

There has never been a question over Russia's ability to produce capable passenger aircraft. But competitiveness is a complex balance of efficiency and risk, and an aircraft that meets all the criteria of form and function on paper will not necessarily convince customers operating in the harsh light of real-world economics.

First flight, and upcoming air shows, might stir a stagnant orderbook dominated by Russian lessors. But projections of an early annual production rate of 20 aircraft – barely two weeks' work for Airbus – are hardly ambitious for a claimed rival to the A320neo. Sir, out of a huge load of vitriolic garbage you wrote in your manifestly incompetent post, I will answer only to this:

The publicity engine was fired up once the jet had safely touched down, but the lack of pre-flight fanfare carried an echo of Soviet-era opacity and secrecy.

No nation in the world today rivals the scale of fanfares the United States much touted Military-Industrial Complex uses on its technology among which such technological (and operational) disasters stand out:

1. F-35 Program–the most expensive military embarrassment in human history which for projected 1+ trillion of a life run of this aircraft delivered a mediocre at best (in reality–pathetic) performance which is already equaled by Gen. 4++ modern aircraft. Yet, the "virtues" of this lame piece of expensive mediocrity are being touted non-stop in US media.

2. Littoral Combat Ships, for a 460 million dollars a pop US Navy got itself an unreliable sitting duck with nearly zero actual combat capability. It is unconscionable that this ship-class is still being built and more are coming. Now, with attempts to "upgrade" this technological catastrophe to FFG this will be another "abomination" as Norman Polmar characterized it. But no worry, more praises are bestowed on this bizarre product and you may rest assured it will continue its production run.

3. The whole shtick in doctrinal development–a disaster which is not as pronounced for a naked public eye but even more profound and on the order of magnitude costly that all those F-35-LCS-new CVN programs combined–inability to develop realistic and proper military doctrines. You want to see a bizarre reincarnation, even more bizarre than Soviet Party Documents of 1970s, open ANY US doctrinal document (from From The Sea to any other geopolitical or military doctrine) and enjoy a mangled, politically correct, ideological to the absurd degree, mindless anti-scientific newspeak of Pax Americana and think twice after that if you want to "contribute" anything of real value to a discussion, especially by commenting on anything Russia related.

In conclusion: FYI, before West's criminal coup in Ukraine in 2014, Boeing's Moscow engineering office was company's LARGEST foreign entity with 1200 Russian engineers and technical personnel employed there. Many parts such as the wing of B-787 (among many) were designed there. And unlike what you wrote about MS-21, she is a thoroughly Russian-made bird which has practically every system Russian-designed and made doubles for internal market: be it KRET's avionics complex, to aggregates to 100% state-of-the-art Russian made PD-14. Now you may get back in your bubble.

Anonymous , July 9, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT

It is correct to say that it is not a one sided alliance and that in many many ways Russia is ahead of China.

But I don't really see the significance of the things you posted. So what if China does not have the world's most advanced military tech? America did not have the most advanced military tech either for a very long time into its history, yet America's path to Superpowerdom was set in stone much sooner than its military bonifides.

Wasn't it the cold war of the 80′s where Russia tried to out spend the west in getting the best military tech what bankrupted Russia?

To me, China merely needs a military strong enough to protect herself and nothing more, because China has no plans to engage in military adventurism ala Desert Storm.

So China put all its military resources into missile tech and things like can deny enemies the ability to hurt China. China does not have the means to go toe to toe with Western planes, so this project is on the back burner while they spend money on more important things like High Speed Rail.

To me, Russia sees itself as more of a conventional Superpower. If Russia wants to go to war anywhere on Earth, Russia will have the means to do so. China does not. It merely wants the means to defend itself.

Anonymous , July 9, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

The Russia – China alliance has always been presented negatively in the west with many reasons why it will fall apart. Including junior and senior dynamics.

To me, this alliance is neither a coming together of blood brothers nor is it merely an alliance born out of convenience. It is somewhere in between, but it is also something deeper than people understand.

The weaknesses in China; such as military tech, space, land based energy source, are perfectly complemented by Russia. Meanwhile the weaknesses of Russia; which include access to capital that the west cannot steal, a reliable customer for its energy sources, and a production base for the things Russia needs incase other countries won't trade with her, are perfectly complemented by China.

If both parties don't break the alliance, there is literally no way to kill off either country.

The One Belt One Road project is something that both countries view as vital to its future. Viewed from the Western persoective, this spells the end of Western hedgemony as the West will not be able to control Eurasia. Something that both China and Russia need merely to survive.

Rod Horner , July 9, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

@Thorfinnsson You're right, of course. None of this makes sense if you think of this "American Elite," as an elite composed of American people who are invested in the future of the American Empire. But then it's common knowledge that most of your elites are at-least dual-citizens of Israel and possibly even the true-believer "citizens of the world," with absolutely no first loyalty to speak of. The elite are pushing the American Empire into a corner for rather obvious reasons. They're selling it out to the highest bidder, and that is most likely China.

The world these "global citizens," want is always going to be one of unipolarity. One in which they can monopolize and profit with impunity. Once America is eclipsed, she'll be disposed of and parted-out just like post-Soviet Russia. Only unlike Russia, she won't have the demographic strength left to mount a recovery. It will be a series of economic looting and civil conflicts until nothing is left in North America but third-world backwaters and historic curiosities.

So on the upshot for Russia, they know with little uncertainty that the American Empire isn't long for this world. On the downside, it's being telegraphed far and wide that China is the heir apparent and the globe trotters are unlikely to dispense with their hatred for the Russian second-fiddle. And with America and Europe more or less destroyed, there will be nobody left to parlay with in order to stall the inevitable conquest of that Eurasian Empire.

Anonymous , July 9, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

@Thorfinnsson China isn't just a potential peer superpower competitor with the US .

China will eventually be as overwhelmingly powerful as the USA was from 1945-1960 and 1990-2010.

China's population is more than four times the size of America's, and over 90% of this population comes from quality stock compared to two-thirds in America (and the figure is considerably less for the next generation in America).

China's economy will thus eventually be more than four times larger than America's--a figure comparable to America's current economic predominance over Germany.

Americans are deeply deluded and in denial about what this means for the future. Americans like to claim that it was once said West Germany and Japan were on track to surpass us, but that this did not happen--completely ignoring that China has over ten times the population of Japan.

American "intellectuals" have fairy tale stories as to why China will not surpass us.

It's often claimed that China's debt burden (quite modest in international context, especially adjusted for growth rates) or its overly large state-owned sector will inevitably collapse China's economy. They like to draw a parallel to Japan's bubble economy in the late 80s, and then they repeat the fiction of the lost decades (Japan's GDP per capita has continually advanced since then).

Another widely believed in whopper is that China is dangerously politically unstable and that revolution, civil war, or some kind of social collapse is inevitable. Right. Miracles do happen of course--witness the entirely unexpected collapse of world socialism and the Soviet Union. But nations recover--Germany was on its knees after WW1, and we know what happened after that. And a Chinese collapse would not massively diminish its future potential power like the Soviet collapse, for the simple reason that China is overwhelmingly Chinese and thus the future post-communist Chinese state would not be shorn of half its demographic and economic power like post-1991 Russia.

The childish naivete and willful ignorance of the American ruling class is astonishing. While imperial Britain's ruling class failed at preserving their position in the world, they were at least aware of what they were facing. Edwardian British leaders commonly believed that unless drastic changes were made that they would be "squeezed out" by the middle of the 20th century by Russia and the United States, which is indeed what happened.

The British had the maturity to seek rapprochement with the United States and an entente with Russia, and they pursued an effort to unite the white dominions into a single imperial federation to preserve Britain's world power. The latter effort failed owing to the disastrous free trade ideology and the disastrous First World War, both of which had the effect of making the dominions politically independent and unwilling to tie themselves closely to Britain in the future.

America's ruling class, meanwhile, has denied itself the only avenue of maintaining some sort of parity with China: close association with the Russian Federation. The only politicians who have been interested in this are Donald Trump, Dana Rohrabacher, and Michael Flynn. And in any case no doubt that ship has now sailed. Actually, it makes sense for the west to not reconsile with a rising superpower like China.

In order to keep the west running, the west relies on dollar hedgemony. This means controlling the oil in the middle east and it also means neutering any alternative to the dollar which is why the west neutered Japan in the 80′s.

Merely allowing China or Russia to exist as an equal would mean the west would collapse, as our entire economy is based on finance tricks.So it is not merely about allowing a peer to come up. If the Russia – China alliance is allowed it will mean the west will fall behind.

Sergey Krieger , July 9, 2017 at 7:26 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

Russia took him, China was scared to. And without will, the weapons are of little importance.
Excellent observation!. Many people simply ignore a "kinetic" aspect of power. Chinese military is highly inexperienced and operationally are not capable of performing something akin to Russia's Syria operation. Is potential great? Yes, potential is there but much more goes into this than just the potential.

For more than 2000 years there has been potential while China has choked so many times being utterly defeated by foes with tiny fraction of population and economic wealth . This basically constitutes the world longest track record of great nation chocking and failing.

China has been in tech and weapons game long enough and the gap seems to persist despite mentioned by you tons of Soviet tech taken by China in 90′s. Someone has it and someone just does not and it is always potential. Every great power also had to sleep own dragon to become truly great. I respect Chinese culture and civilizational achievement but I just do not see China as the One knowing their history

Jason Liu , July 9, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT

I like the premise of your article, but I don't agree with your focus on the military. Economic progress does not automatically translate to a better, indigenously developed military, but it does lean that way over time.

What Beijing really lacks is any knowledge on how to project soft, cultural and diplomatic power in subtle, effective and modern ways. For example, China could never have pulled off a hack/informational subterfuge good enough to influence US elections. Not because there aren't hackers in China, but because both China's government and society lack the mindset, understanding, and experience to do something like that. If they tried, they would fail because it would be something extremely obvious and ham-fisted with no plausible deniability. Russia is currently much better than China at controlling political narratives, even against overwhelmingly hostile western media.

I often tell Chinese nationalists back home that China does not know how to play Great Game politics on the international stage, and they respond that a growing economy will fix everything. This isn't so.

Economic and military strength will not mean anything if the entire region is against China, or against the West that has far more allies around the world. Beijing should not be antagonizing anyone in SEA, or Korea/Japan. It should be subtly building a new world alignment that offers a global alternative to western liberal democracy, or it will find itself surrounded by ideological enemies no matter how rich China becomes.

The old men in charge don't seem to recognize this problem, let alone know what to do about it. This is the hurdle that must be overcome before China can be a true superpower.

Anon , July 9, 2017 at 9:04 pm GMT

@moi Whether Chou said that or not does not change the fact that the Chinese don't think in quarterly profits. They are a smart people who appreciate their history and culture.

They are a smart people who appreciate their history and culture.

Except when they don't. Remember the Culture Revolution.

[Jul 09, 2017] New Syria Ceasefire Deal May Be US Attempt to Save Rebels From Defeat by Sputnik News

Notable quotes:
"... A newly announced deal on a ceasefire in southwestern Syria may be an attempt by the United States to save the Syrian rebels from defeat, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Executive Director Daniel McAdams told Sputnik. ..."
"... McAdams suggested that the best agreement between Putin and Trump on Syria would be "a negotiated withdrawal of US forces from the country, where they illegally occupy Syrian territory." ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

A newly announced deal on a ceasefire in southwestern Syria may be an attempt by the United States to save the Syrian rebels from defeat, Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Executive Director Daniel McAdams told Sputnik.

'On the Syria "ceasefire" agreement, we need to see the fine print. But I am skeptical that yet another US "ceasefire" proposal for Syria will result in the reduction of violence in that six year war,' McAdams said on Friday. 'It seems whenever the US side experiences significant losses on the battlefield, Washington comes forward with a ceasefire proposal in a desperate attempt to save its "rebels" from defeat.'
Earlier on Friday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, after talks between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin that the United States, Russia and Jordan agreed on ceasefire in southwestern Syria starting at noon on July 9.

McAdams suggested that the best agreement between Putin and Trump on Syria would be "a negotiated withdrawal of US forces from the country, where they illegally occupy Syrian territory."

The United States and Russia have backed opposing sides in Syria's six-year-conflict, with Moscow supporting the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad and Washington backing rebel groups seeking his ouster.

Russia, Iran and Turkey are guarantors of the Syrian ceasefire regime, having signed a memorandum on the establishment of four safe zones in Syria that came into force on May 6.

Reprinted with permission from Sputnik News .

[Jul 09, 2017] Patching It Up With Putin by Patrick J. Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta. ..."
"... Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all? ..."
"... Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea. ..."
"... Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning. ..."
"... Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years. ..."
"... Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship. ..."
"... We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo. ..."
"... Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us." ..."
"... Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country? ..."
"... Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go? ..."
"... I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one. ..."
"... Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes. ..."
"... These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much. ..."
"... Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative. ..."
"... Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd. ..."
"... Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there. ..."
"... There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then. ..."
"... Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country. ..."
"... If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU. ..."
"... "Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None. ..."
"... Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people " ..."
"... I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is. ..."
"... So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game? ..."
"... . . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike. It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians. ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | www.unz.com

President Donald Trump flew off for his first meeting with Vladimir Putin -- with instructions from our foreign policy elite that he get into the Russian president's face over his hacking in the election of 2016.

Hopefully, Trump will ignore these people. For their record of failure is among the reasons Americans elected him to office.

What president, seeking to repair damaged relations with a rival superpower, would begin by reading from an indictment?

President Eisenhower did not begin his summit with Nikita Khrushchev by berating him for crushing the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, a more grievous crime then hacking the emails of John Podesta.

President Kennedy did not let Russia's emplacement of missiles in Cuba in 1962 prevent him from offering an olive branch to Moscow in his widely praised American University address of June 1963.

Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all?

Trump would do better to explore where we can work together, as in ending Syria's civil war and averting a new war in Korea.

Moreover, when it comes to interference in the internal politics of other nations to bring about "regime change," understandably, Putin might see himself as more sinned against than sinning.

Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.

Consider the behavior of post-Cold War America, after Moscow gave up its empire, pulled all its troops out of Europe, let the USSR dissolve into 15 nations and held out a hand in friendship.

We gathered all the Warsaw Pact nations and three former Russian Federation republics into a NATO alliance targeted at Russia. We put troops, ships and bases into the Baltic on the doorstep of St. Petersburg. We bombed Russia's old ally Serbia for 78 days, forcing it to surrender its birth province of Kosovo.

Among the failings of America's post-Cold War foreign policy elites are hubris, arrogance and an utter absence of that greatest of gifts that the gods can give us -- "to see ourselves as others see us."

Can we not see why the Russian people, who saw us as friends in the 1990s, no longer do so, and why Putin, a Russia-First nationalist, has an 80 percent approval rating on the issue of standing up for his country?

Looking about the world today, do we really need any more crises or quarrels? Do we not have enough on our plate? As the Buddhist saying goes, "Do not dwell in the past concentrate the mind on the present moment."

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was done cannot be undone. And Putin is not going to return Crimea to Kiev, the annexation of which was the most popular action of his long tenure as Russian president.

As D.C.'s immortal Mayor Marion Barry once said to constituents appalled by his latest episode of social misconduct: "Get over it!"

We have other fish to fry.

In Syria and Iraq, where the ISIS caliphate is in its death rattle, Russia and the U.S. both have a vital interest in avoiding any military collision, and in ending the war. This probably means the U.S. demand that Syrian President Assad be removed will have to be shelved.

Consider China. Asked by Trump to squeeze Pyongyang on its nuclear missile program, China increased trade with North Korea 37 percent in the first quarter. The Chinese are now telling us to stop sailing warships within 13 miles of its militarized islets and reefs in a South China Sea that they claim belongs to them, and demanding that we cancel our $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan.

Hong Kong's 7 million people have been told their democratic rights, secured in Great Britain's transfer of the island to China, are no longer guaranteed.

Now China is telling us to capitulate to North Korea's demand for an end to U.S. military maneuvers with South Korea and to remove the THAAD missile system the U.S. has emplaced. And Beijing is imposing sanctions on South Korea for accepting the U.S. missile system.

Meanwhile, the dispute with North Korea is going critical.

If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war.

Trump cannot allow this Beltway obsession with Putin to prevent us from closing, if we can, this breach. If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

exiled off mainstreet > , Show Comment Next New Comment July 7, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

While, as is usual, I agree with Mr. Buchanan's foreign policy views which he again effectively and convincingly expresses, I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story in light of all of the evidence to the contrary including the unexplained murder of Seth Rich and the recent accidental disclosures by CNN executives and pundits that they knew the story was a false one.

Trump himself has aptly compared the story to the false "weapons of mass destruction" story used to foment the Iraq war. Bearing in mind that the publisher of the Nazi rag Der Stuermer was convicted of war crimes at Nuremberg in 1946 for propaganda, it seems to me that the present media leaders going on about these provably false stories are themselves guilty of war crimes.

JL, July 7, 2017 at 8:28 am GMT

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.

These Americans, of which you speak, are simply angry that Trump won and are looking for someone to blame because they cannot accept what he stands for to a large portion of the electorate. Foreign powers are of course going to fight, however they can, for the candidate they feel will be the most sympathetic to their interests. For example, Clinton was the preferred candidate for Israel and their efforts showed as much.

Claiming that the Russians hacked the election, or meddled, or whatever, is an insult to Trump's supporters and voters. People like Buchanan should choose their words more carefully or they're just playing into the narrative.

Besides, if a foreign country really did manage to subvert the US' democracy to such an extent, that speaks volumes about the weakness of the US system, not its adversaries' malicious intents. Finally, to those who follow Russia closely, the idea that it could influence the politics of the world's most powerful nation, while failing to prevent the rise to power of an explicitly hostile government in its next door neighbor with whom it shares millennia of history, is patently absurd.

The Alarmist , July 7, 2017 at 10:36 am GMT

"If Kim Jong Un is as determined as he appears to be to build an ICBM with a nuclear warhead that can hit Seattle or San Francisco, we will soon be down to either accepting this or exercising a military option that could bring nuclear war."

Nukes and credible delivery systems are Kim's insurance policy he saw what happened to leaders like Saddam and Ghadaffi when the failed to go there.

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016. But what was done cannot be undone."

There is no credible evidence that the Russians "hacked" our 2016 elections, but there is evidence that DHS did. But even if the Russians did, turnabout is fair play. There is credible evidence HRC's State Department hacked Russian elections in 2012, and there was even a Time Mag cover in the '90s crowing about American influence on Russian elections back then.

Ludwig Watzal , Website July 7, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

How come that Pat Buchanan repeats the media lies that the Russians hacked US election? So far, this allegation is fact-free. Has he finally succumbed to the constant lies the corporate media are spreading? He is undoubtedly aware of Nazi-Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels saying: "One must only repeat a lie so long until the people believe it as true."

As the first pictures from this G-20-meeting show, Donald Trump was sidelined by Merkel. Autocrats like the Chinese President, Erdogan, and Russias Putin were standing next to her, Donald Trump has sidelined just before French's Macron.

It's funny that even the US political class regards Merkel as powerful. She is just a Stalinist and a political opportunist who would even sacrifice her loved ones when it would suit her career. The US should not be carried away and blinded by this made-up spin.

nickels, July 7, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT

Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'

Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings. I am truly disgusted with this country.

WorkingClass , July 7, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT

I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?

Rurik, Website July 7, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT

Were Trump to start his first summit with Putin by dressing him down, why meet with him at all?

exactly!

... ... ...

If we do not bring Russia back into the West, where do we think she will go?

the irony is that Russia today is far more expressive of the ancient values of the West than the zio-West of Merkel's Germany and Islamic France. Let along the home of Hollywood spiritual sewage spilling out of the ZUSA.

If I were the average Russian (or Ukrainian or Pole or German, et al), I'd be far more comfortable with aligning culturally with Putin's Russia than with the "West" of Hollywood and the kosher EU.

Anon, July 7, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

@WorkingClass

I have always respected Pat Buchanan. But it's time to take away his car keys. The Russians did not hack Podesta. The Podesta files were leaked. Who killed Seth Rich?

Yes, that's an odd phrase, particularly as Mr. Buchanan has expressed incredulity at this sort of accusation in the past. Perhaps he simply means that Americans' anger at Russia (which I think he exaggerates; he seems to still believe the media have some actual contact with America) is justified based on their beliefs?

Wally, July 7, 2017 at 10:51 pm GMT

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016." What hacking? Proof? None.

MarkinLA, July 8, 2017 at 4:02 am GMT

Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016.

Et Tu Pat? Pat, you are never going to get a network gig again no matter how much sphincter you lick. You know this is bogus.

El Dato, July 8, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT

@MarkinLA NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman's ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

Of these the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an independent intelligence-gathering organization, so that leaves three. Plus, this seems to have been a project run by a handpicked (read: politicized) group of analysts selected from the three agencies instead of independent analysts from three institutions reaching the same conclusion, we actually have just "one group of like-minded people "

KenH, July 8, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT

I'll echo other posters about Pat's mention of the so called "Russian hacking" of the 2016 presidential election. I don't know if Pat truly believes that or if he's throwing the loony left and neo-cons a bone on this for the appearance of objectivity and non-partisanship and/or to gain more appearances on FOX, but the claim has largely been exposed for the fraud that it is.

Let's make no mistake that neo-conservatism, liberal interventionism, Israelphilia and Russophobia rule Washington, D.C. with an iron fist. Any elected leaders who don't play ball quickly find themselves marginalized and under attack. Either Trump was playing us during the campaign with his calls for warmer relations with Russia and a more humble foreign policy or he saw the writing on the wall after taking office and surrendered without a fight.

I think Trump's loyalty to Israel trumps his loyalty to American first principles and that's not good.

Priss Factor , Website July 8, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

@JL Buchanan has a kneejerk mentality on Russia as the enemy even as he argues for peace and reconciliation.

The formative and crucial period of his life was defined by the cold war.

Bill Jones, July 8, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT

Paddy seems to take it as given that Russia hacked Podesta, despite the utter lack of evidence.

the raven, July 8, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

@KenH "Hacked the election" is a weasel phrase. You can go to shitlib sites and plenty of them think that Putin changed votes by hacking voting machines. Of course, this hasn't been alleged, let alone proved. The dishonest pundits using that phrase can claim they meant that Putin hacked the DNC emails. There's also no evidence for this, but it's hard to prove or disprove (but given that Podesta fell for a phishing scam, it could have been done by a 15 year old anywhere in the world). The only thing they can credibly claim is that Russia "interfered" in the US elections by their state media posting articles that the CIA disagrees with.

So the claim "Russia hacked the election" boils down to RT posting some stories online unflattering to Hillary. Why is Buchanan participating in this dishonest shell game?

Don Bacon, July 8, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT

from the web– No, The Russians Did Not Meddle in Our Election by Publius Tacitus

. . .Let's begin with the continued refusal of the DNC to allow DHS or FBI to examine the computer/computers of the DNC where the alleged hack supposed took place. Instead of insisting that the FBI examine their computers, the DNC turned to a private organization–CrowdStrike.
It was CrowdStrike that uncovered the "Russian hacking" of the DNC, and when the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their servers to see the evidence for themselves, it was CrowdStrike that told the FBI that it was the Russians.

Here's the problem with this: CrowdStrike's reputation is currently unraveling. Why? It seems that CrowdStrike is as politically motivated as everyone else in Washington, D.C. The company is itself an opponent of Vladimir Putin and Russia and was recently caught fabricating a report that attempted to blame Russian hacking for problems with Urkainian military technology. . .

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/07/no-the-russians-did-not-meddle-in-our-election-by-publius-tacitus.html

fuzzy, July 8, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

Hacked the election? How exactly? Go talk to Mr. Binney about it.

Avery, July 8, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

@MarkinLA { . no matter how much sphincter you lick.}

Brutal dude, brutal.

( ..well, I guess Pat asked for it: regurgitating unadulterated B____S____, to presumably appear 'balanced'.).

Bill Jones, July 8, 2017 at 9:31 pm GMT

This is worth a read

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/09/remarks-president-trump-regulatory-relief

The True and Original David, July 9, 2017 at 8:35 am GMT

@Ludwig Watzal Pat is an old USA conservative. The style of old USA conservatives is agree with the opponent on all essentials of fact and value then remonstrate defensively. Perfect example: "Yes, Putin hacked, but we have bigger fish to fry."

USA liberals were called "knee-jerkers," that is people whose liberal reaction is so automatic it is brain-free. But old USA conservatives also have their "knee-jerk": this is accepting the opponent's premises then quibbling.

"You're a racist!" "No, I'm certainly not, I swear."

"America is sexist!" "We are doing better lately. Salaries for women are showing progress."

"Putin hacked!" "Yes he did, but there are bigger fish to fry."

An old USA conservative would consider such replies as "fighting back"; but they are only whiny protests in response to blows.

The old USA conservative style is dated and being replaced by styles more adversarial. Pat the man is a decent guy and I wish him well.

Mr. Hack, July 9, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT

Should Trump bring up the email hacking in 2016, Putin could ask him to explain U.S. support for the violent coup d'etat that overthrew a democratically elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine, a land with which Russia has been intimately associated for 1,000 years.

Buchanan here exhibits his supericial knowledge of Ukrainian/Russian history. Large swaths of Ukrainian territory never were under Russian hegemony until the middle part of the 20th century, but were part and and parcel of other European states including the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Hapsburg Empire. Also, insinuating that Trump need to cower in front of Putin during a hypothetical question and answer series regarding some sort of U.S. directed plot against Russia in Ukraine is also based on fluff and inuendo, and he should know better. Any 'cookies and milk' support offered to Ukrainian patriots who paid for their new found freedom by sacrificing their lives came long after altercations had already started on the Maidan. American ingenuity could not have created a protest movement of this scope and magnitude, and Buchanan should know better:

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

"Americans are rightly angry that Russia hacked the presidential election of 2016."

Pat,

You are just echoing and lending credence to the news media, including Fox News as well as the power elite. This is not the first time you have done this.
I fail to understand why anyone would believe anything the security(spy) agencies promote. They are incessant liars, as is most of our government. People should never take anything our government says at face value .always demand proof.

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet " . I don't see why he should bow to political correctness by making a boiler plate acceptance of the discredited Russia hacking story ."

Exactly

Realist, July 9, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

@nickels Trump and his 'Russia should stop destabilizing Ukraine.'
Our entire government is nothing but a bunch of clowns standing in facade for the corprofacists pulling the strings.
I am truly disgusted with this country. "I am truly disgusted with this country."

Rightly so.

[Jul 09, 2017] Trump Meets Putin - Who Has the Upper Hand? by Daniel McAdams

Neocons have the upper hand...
Notable quotes:
"... President Trump has given a fiery speech in Poland denouncing Russian "meddling" in Ukraine and Russian support for the Syrian government. ..."
"... He also affirmed that the US would "stand firmly behind" NATO's Article 5 on mutual defense ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
Today, just one day before his long-anticipated meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin, President Trump has given a fiery speech in Poland denouncing Russian "meddling" in Ukraine and Russian support for the Syrian government.

He also affirmed that the US would "stand firmly behind" NATO's Article 5 on mutual defense . What might this mean for tomorrow's meeting? Tune in to today's Liberty Report:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/IA2TGtC6JOo


Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

[Jul 09, 2017] The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher possible nuclear conflagration and the end of civilization but the U.S. mainstream media is still slouching around in mccarthyism-ville by Robert Parry

this is pure McCarthyism, not "propaganda ville". Clapper and Brennan are the leaders of Russiagate color revolution against Trump. And there is no countervailing force.
Notable quotes:
"... It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked." ..."
"... The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear. ..."
"... On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment. ..."
"... Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected." ..."
"... When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community." ..."
"... The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme. ..."
"... Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations. ..."
"... Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council. ..."
"... But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia. ..."
"... The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. ..."
"... The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain. ..."
"... "On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths. ..."
"... As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration. ..."
"... With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville." ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
Jul 09, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

Exclusive: The stakes in U.S.-Russia relations could not be higher – possible nuclear conflagration and the end of civilization – but the U.S. mainstream media is still slouching around in "propaganda-ville," says Robert Parry.

MSM, Still Living in Propaganda-ville By Robert Parry

As much as the U.S. mainstream media wants people to believe that it is the Guardian of Truth, it is actually lost in a wilderness of propaganda and falsehoods, a dangerous land of delusion that is putting the future of humankind at risk as tension escalate with nuclear-armed Russia.

This media problem has grown over recent decades as lucrative careerism has replaced responsible professionalism. Pack journalism has always been a threat to quality reporting but now it has evolved into a self-sustaining media lifestyle in which the old motto, "there's safety in numbers," is borne out by the fact that being horrendously wrong, such as on Iraq's WMD, leads to almost no accountability because so many important colleagues were wrong as well.

Similarly, there has been no accountability after many mainstream journalists and commentators falsely stated as flat-fact that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies" concurred that Russia did "meddle" in last November's U.S. election.

For months, this claim has been the go-to put-down whenever anyone questions the groupthink of Russian venality perverting American democracy. Even the esteemed "Politifact" deemed the assertion "true." But it was never true.

It was at best a needled distortion of a claim by President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper when he issued a statement last Oct. 7 alleging Russian meddling. Because Clapper was the chief of the U.S. Intelligence Community, his opinion morphed into a claim that it represented the consensus of all 17 intelligence agencies, a dishonest twist that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton began touting.

However, for people who understand how the U.S. Intelligence Community works, the claim of a 17-agencies consensus has a specific meaning, some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE) that seeks out judgments and dissents from the various agencies.

But there was no NIE regarding alleged Russian meddling and there apparently wasn't even a formal assessment from a subset of the agencies at the time of Clapper's statement. President Obama did not order a publishable assessment until December – after the election – and it was not completed until Jan. 6, when a report from Clapper's office presented the opinions of analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency – three agencies (or four if you count the DNI's office), not 17.

Lacking Hard Evidence

The report also contained no hard evidence of a Russian "hack" and amounted to a one-sided circumstantial case at best. However, by then, the U.S. mainstream media had embraced the "all-17-intelligence-agencies" refrain and anyone who disagreed, including President Trump, was treated as delusional. The argument went: "How can anyone question what all 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed as true?"

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence)

It wasn't until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three "contributing agencies" from which analysts were "hand-picked."

The reference to "hand-picked" analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of "politicized" intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear.

On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment.

Brennan said the Jan. 6 report "followed the general model of how you want to do something like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn't a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies."

After this testimony, some of the major news organizations, which had been waving around the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme, subtly changed their phrasing to either depict Russian "meddling" as an established fact no longer requiring attribution or referred to the "unanimous judgment" of the Intelligence Community without citing a specific number.

This "unanimous judgment" formulation was deceptive, too, because it suggested that all 17 agencies were in accord albeit without exactly saying that. For a regular reader of The New York Times or a frequent viewer of CNN, the distinction would almost assuredly not be detected.

For more than a month after the Clapper-Brennan testimonies, there was no formal correction.

A Belated Correction

Finally, on June 25, the Times' hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for "still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected."

When this falsehood was called to the Times' attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence "assessment was made by four intelligence agencies -- the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community."

The Associated Press ran a similar "clarification" applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the "17-intelligence-agencies" meme.

So, you might have thought that the mainstream media was finally adjusting its reporting to conform to reality. But that would mean that one of the pillars of the Russia-gate "scandal" had crumbled, the certainty that Russia and Vladimir Putin did "meddle" in the election.

The story would have to go back to square one and the major news organizations would have to begin reporting on whether or not there ever was solid evidence to support what had become a "certainty" – and there appeared to be no stomach for such soul-searching. Since pretty much all the important media figures had made the same error, it would be much easier to simply move on as if nothing had changed.

That would mean that skepticism would still be unwelcome and curious leads would not be followed. For instance, there was a head-turning reference in an otherwise typical Washington Post take-out on June 25 accusing Russia of committing "the crime of the century." A reference, stuck deep inside the five-page opus, said, "Some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence." Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations.

Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council.

Relying on Outsiders

You might be wondering why something as important as this "crime of the century," which has pushed the world closer to nuclear annihilation, is dependent on dubious entities outside the U.S. government with possible conflicts of interest.

If the U.S. government really took this issue seriously, which it should, why didn't the FBI seize the DNC's computers and insist that impartial government experts lead the investigation? And why – given the extraordinary expertise of the NSA in computer hacking – is "some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia [coming] from another country," one that doesn't inspire the NSA's confidence?

But such pesky questions are not likely to be asked or answered by a mainstream U.S. media that displays deep-seated bias toward both Putin and Trump.

Mostly, major news outlets continue to brush aside the clarifications and return to various formulations that continue to embrace the "17-intelligence-agencies" canard, albeit in slightly different forms, such as references to the collective Intelligence Community without the specific number. Anyone who questions this established conventional wisdom is still crazy and out of step.

For instance, James Holmes of Esquire was stunned on Thursday when Trump at a news conference in Poland reminded the traveling press corps about the inaccurate reporting regarding the 17 intelligence agencies and said he still wasn't entirely sure about Russia's guilt. "In public, he's still casting doubt on the intelligence community's finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election nearly nine months after the fact," Holmes sputtered before describing Trump's comment as a "rant." So, if you thought that a chastened mainstream media might stop in the wake of the "17-intelligence-agencies" falsehood and rethink the whole Russia-gate business, you would have been sadly mistaken.

But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia.

Hating Putin

This pattern traces back to the earliest days of Vladimir Putin's presidency in 2000 when he began to rein in the U.S.-prescribed "shock therapy," which had sold off Russia's assets to well-connected insiders, making billions of dollars for the West-favored "oligarchs," even as the process threw millions of average Russian into poverty.

But the U.S. mainstream media's contempt for Putin reached new heights after he helped President Obama head off neoconservative (and liberal interventionist) demands for a full-scale U.S. military assault on Syria in August 2013 and helped bring Iran into a restrictive nuclear agreement when the neocons wanted to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.

The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain.

Nuland was heard in an intercepted pre-coup phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should become the new leaders and pondering how to "glue" or "midwife this thing."

Despite the clear evidence of U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics, the U.S. government and the mainstream media embraced the coup and accused Putin of "aggression" when ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, called the Donbas, resisted the coup regime.

When ethnic Russians and other citizens in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to reject the coup regime and rejoin Russia – a move protected by some of the 20,000 Russian troops inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement – that became a Russian "invasion." But it was the most peculiar "invasion," since there were no images of tanks crashing across borders or amphibious landing craft on Crimean beaches, because no such "invasion" had occurred.

However, in virtually every instance, the U.S. mainstream media insisted on the most extreme anti-Russian propaganda line and accused people who questioned this Official Narrative of disseminating Russian "propaganda" – or being a "Moscow stooge" or acting as a "useful fool." There was no tolerance for skepticism about whatever the State Department or the Washington think tanks were saying.

Trump Meets Putin

So, as Trump prepares for his first meeting with Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, the U.S. mainstream media has been in a frenzy, linking up its groupthinks about the Ukraine "invasion" with its groupthinks about Russia "hacking" the election.

In a July 3 editorial , The Washington Post declared, "Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr. Putin for Russia's attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump, who reaped the benefit of Russia's intervention and now faces a special counsel's investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not hesitate to be blunt.

"On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met." Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column , "Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge bstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria." Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia "invaded" Ukraine; "seized" Crimea; "meddled" in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths.

But seeing only one side to a story is where the U.S. mainstream media is at this point in history. Yes, it is possible that Russia was responsible for the Democratic hacks and did funnel the material to WikiLeaks, but evidence has so far been lacking. And, instead of presenting both sides fairly, the major media acts as if only one side deserves any respect and dissenting views must be ridiculed and condemned.

In this perverted process, collectively approved versions of complex situations congeal into conventional wisdom, which simply cannot be significantly reconsidered regardless of future revelations.

As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration.

With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in "propaganda-ville."

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

[Jul 08, 2017] Russiagate The Stink Without a Secret by Craig Murray

Neoliberal presstitutes are now completely discredited. This is just another Iraq WDM case. But people soon forgot about Iraq WDM thing. None of pressitutute went to jail for misinforming the public.
Notable quotes:
"... After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged. ..."
"... As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again. ..."
"... The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download. ..."
"... So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place? ..."
"... Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation. ..."
"... Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited. ..."
"... Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah. ..."
"... The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there. ..."
"... Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. ..."
Jul 08, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

After six solid months of coordinated allegation from the mainstream media allied to the leadership of state security institutions, not one single scrap of solid evidence for Trump/Russia election hacking has emerged.

I do not support Donald Trump. I do support truth. There is much about Trump that I dislike intensely. Neither do I support the neo-liberal political establishment in the USA. The latter's control of the mainstream media, and cunning manipulation of identity politics, seeks to portray the neo-liberal establishment as the heroes of decent values against Trump. Sadly, the idea that the neo-liberal establishment embodies decent values is completely untrue.

Truth disappeared so long ago in this witch-hunt that it is no longer even possible to define what the accusation is. Belief in "Russian hacking" of the US election has been elevated to a generic accusation of undefined wrongdoing, a vague malaise we are told is floating poisonously in the ether, but we are not allowed to analyze. What did the Russians actually do?

The original, base accusation is that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC and Podesta emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. (I can assure you that is untrue).

The authenticity of those emails is not in question. What they revealed of cheating by the Democratic establishment in biasing the primaries against Bernie Sanders, led to the forced resignation of Debbie Wasserman Shultz as chair of the Democratic National Committee. They also led to the resignation from CNN of Donna Brazile, who had passed debate questions in advance to Clinton. Those are facts. They actually happened. Let us hold on to those facts, as we surf through lies. There was other nasty Clinton Foundation and cash for access stuff in the emails, but we do not even need to go there for the purpose of this argument.

The original "Russian hacking" allegation was that it was the Russians who nefariously obtained these damning emails and passed them to WikiLeaks. The "evidence" for this was twofold. A report from private cyber security firm Crowdstrike claimed that metadata showed that the hackers had left behind clues, including the name of the founder of the Soviet security services. The second piece of evidence was that a blogger named Guccifer2 and a website called DNCLeaks appeared to have access to some of the material around the same time that WikiLeaks did, and that Guccifer2 could be Russian.

That is it. To this day, that is the sum total of actual "evidence" of Russian hacking. I won't say hang on to it as a fact, because it contains no relevant fact. But at least it is some form of definable allegation of something happening, rather than "Russian hacking" being a simple article of faith like the Holy Trinity.

But there are a number of problems that prevent this being fact at all. Nobody has ever been able to refute the evidence of Bill Binney , former Technical Director of the NSA who designed its current surveillance systems. Bill has stated that the capability of the NSA is such, that if the DNC computers had been hacked, the NSA would be able to trace the actual packets of that information as those emails traveled over the Internet, and give a precise time, to the second, for the hack. The NSA simply do not have the event – because there wasn't one. I know Bill personally and am quite certain of his integrity.

As we have been repeatedly told, "17 intelligence agencies" sign up to the "Russian hacking", yet all these king's horses and all these king's men have been unable to produce any evidence whatsoever of the purported "hack". Largely because they are not in fact trying. Here is another actual fact I wish you to hang on to: The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened. I am going to say that again.

The Democrats have refused the intelligence agencies access to their servers to discover what actually happened.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/SqIY8KvuoJo

The heads of the intelligence community have said that they regard the report from Crowdstrike – the Clinton aligned private cyber security firm – as adequate. Despite the fact that the Crowdstrike report plainly proves nothing whatsoever and is based entirely on an initial presumption there must have been a hack, as opposed to an internal download.

Not actually examining the obvious evidence has been a key tool in keeping the "Russian hacking" meme going. On 24 May the Guardian reported triumphantly , following the Washington Post, that

"Fox News falsely alleged federal authorities had found thousands of emails between Rich and WikiLeaks, when in fact law enforcement officials disputed that Rich's laptop had even been in possession of, or examined by, the FBI."

It evidently did not occur to the Guardian as troubling, that those pretending to be investigating the murder of Seth Rich have not looked at his laptop.

There is a very plain pattern here of agencies promoting the notion of a fake "Russian crime", while failing to take the most basic and obvious initial steps if they were really investigating its existence. I might add to that, there has been no contact with me at all by those supposedly investigating. I could tell them these were leaks not hacks. WikiLeaks The clue is in the name.

So those "17 agencies" are not really investigating but are prepared to endorse weird Crowdstrike claims, like the idea that Russia's security services are so amateur as to leave fingerprints with the name of their founder. If the Russians fed the material to WikiLeaks, why would they also set up a vainglorious persona like Guccifer2 who leaves obvious Russia pointing clues all over the place?

Of course we need to add from the WikiLeaks"Vault 7" leak release, information that the CIA specifically deploys technology that leaves behind fake fingerprints of a Russian computer hacking operation.

Crowdstrike have a general anti-Russian attitude. They published a report seeking to allege that the same Russian entities which "had hacked" the DNC were involved in targeting for Russian artillery in the Ukraine. This has been utterly discredited.

Some of the more crazed "Russiagate" allegations have been quietly dropped. The mainstream media are hoping we will all forget their breathless endorsement of the reports of the charlatan Christopher Steele, a former middle ranking MI6 man with very limited contacts that he milked to sell lurid gossip to wealthy and gullible corporations. I confess I rather admire his chutzpah.

Given there is no hacking in the Russian hacking story, the charges have moved wider into a vague miasma of McCarthyite anti-Russian hysteria. Does anyone connected to Trump know any Russians? Do they have business links with Russian finance?

Of course they do. Trump is part of the worldwide oligarch class whose financial interests are woven into a vast worldwide network that enslaves pretty well the rest of us. As are the Clintons and the owners of the mainstream media who are stoking up the anti-Russian hysteria. It is all good for their armaments industry interests, in both Washington and Moscow.

Trump's judgment is appalling. His sackings or inappropriate directions to people over this subject may damage him.

The old Watergate related wisdom is that it is not the crime that gets you, it is the cover-up. But there is a fundamental difference here. At the center of Watergate there was an actual burglary. At the center of Russian hacking there is a void, a hollow, and emptiness, an abyss, a yawning chasm. There is nothing there.

Those who believe that opposition to Trump justifies whipping up anti-Russian hysteria on a massive scale, on the basis of lies, are wrong. I remain positive that the movement Bernie Sanders started will bring a new dawn to America in the next few years. That depends on political campaigning by people on the ground and on social media. Leveraging falsehoods and cold war hysteria through mainstream media in an effort to somehow get Clinton back to power is not a viable alternative. It is a fantasy and even were it practical, I would not want it to succeed.

Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster, human rights activist, and former diplomat. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. The article is reprinted with permission from his website .

Read more by Craig Murray

[Jul 08, 2017] Trump says he had a tremendous meeting with Putin

AP clearly pursue a neocon line of DNC hacks and Russian meddling in the US elections.
talkingpointsmemo.com
by Associated Press

The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.

"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with Lavrov.

Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."

U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts said represents a top-level threat.

Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that was reached by Russia and the United States.

While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.

Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan - another party to the deal.

Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.

"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."

[Jul 08, 2017] The First Putin-Trump Meeting Yields Something Very Close to Nothing

Notable quotes:
"... But, seriously now, it does not really matter if these actions are just the result of imperial hubris and delusion, a complete lack of diplomatic education, the consequences of simple and straightforward human stupidity or all part of some diabolical plan to set the US on a collision course with the entire planet. ..."
"... What matters is the mind-blowing arrogance of it all, as if the USA were a white knight in shining armor worthy only of praise and adulation and as if the rest of the planet were composed of rowdy schoolchildren who needed to heed the words of their principal and start behaving or else get a good spanking from Uncle Sam. ..."
"... But, alas, it appears that many months of a sustained Neocon campaign to make darn sure that Russia and the US could never seriously collaborate have been very successful. ..."
"... So where does this all leave us, the millions of people who had at least *some* hopes about Trump being an outsider who could try to make some real changes happen and maybe liberate the United States from the Neocon regime in power here since at least Bill Clinton (if not earlier)? ..."
"... On February 14th of this year, following the anti-Flynn coup and Trump's betrayal of his friend, I wrote that "it's over folks" and "Trump betrayed us all". I took a lot of flak for writing this, especially since I had come strongly on Trump's side against Hillary during the campaign. Sadly, I believe that my conclusions in February are now proven correct. ..."
"... I understand while some will want to present this meeting as, if not a success, then at least "good start" or a "semi-success". For one thing, being the bearer of bad news never made anybody popular. Second, those who support Trump or Putin (or both) will want to show that the leader they support achieved something. Finally, if both sides report that the meeting has been a success, who are we to say otherwise? ..."
"... It has cemented Trump irrevocably in the role of clueless neocon waterboy. ..."
"... My first attempt to explain Trump's defection was to liken him to King Lear, desperately seeking validation and alienating the only ones who truly loved him. ..."
"... Hey, give it a couple of weeks (at least!) before declaring that it's Very Close to Nothing. By the way: I bet the Nazi regime in Kiev is shaking in its boots right now ..."
"... So the real boss of the European continent fears protectionism, it is therefore, according to Varoufakis, that Merkel continues the euro crisis, this makes Berlin the real capital of the continent. Not for nothing yesterday Juncker made a statement against protectionism, his mistress' voice. Merkel of course is the ally of Deep State, those who want the USA to control the world, want to impose the USA way of living on the whole world. On the other hand, Germany does want an need good trade relations with the East, Russia. ..."
"... Oh, sorry, I forgot. Poland unconditionally supports the USA and Trump! Well, good for them. They richly deserve each other. ..."
"... I get the feeling Trump and Putin themselves could actually forge a decent personal working relationship, because there would be a degree of mutual respect and Putin would eventually persuade Trump to see reason on the numerous important issues in which the Russian position is quite simply correct and the US position incorrect – Syria, Ukraine, the fantasy of "Russian interference", Korea, etc. This objective truth simply reflects the capture of US foreign policy by people who have operated it to serve interests other than those of the American nation, so that US policy has been determined not by reality and rational analysis, but ideology and dishonesty. ..."
"... However, it is ultimately of no benefit that there could be such a good personal and working relationship, because as we have seen Trump is a entirely prisoner of the very interest groups that were responsible for distorting US foreign policy in the first place. It's highly unlikely he would or could change much even if he were persuaded of the truth, and if he did make any significant changes he would be impeached or defeated at the next election and replaced by someone more in line with the poisonous US establishment views. ..."
"... Too many, too powerful US establishment groups (many of them not primarily loyal to the US) have an interest in maintaining the delusional and dysfunctional foreign policy we have seen in operation over the past three decades – inevitably, since they crafted that foreign policy foolishness. ..."
"... Another ceasefire for Israel, when they loose ground in Syria, A nice geste by Putin, to get talks started, probably. Russian diplomatic effort, which will sink in the swamp! Trump and Putin do seem to get along, but Trump is under Mike Pence's controll: War, war, and War for Israël and Exxon-mobile. ..."
"... Merkel of course is the ally of Deep State, those who want the USA to control the world, want to impose the USA way of living on the whole world. On the other hand, Germany does want an need good trade relations with the East, Russia. Being the German Kanzler is not an easy job. Germany has since 1870 been a country in difficulties, no natural borders, dependent on export. ..."
"... The nation shares a near-1,500 mile land and sea border with Russia. Stop NATO's Rick Rozoff earlier explained Ukraine is "the decisive linchpin in plans by the US and its NATO allies to effect a military cordon sanitary, severing Russia from Europe" – a sinister plot perhaps intended as prelude to nuclear war. ..."
"... Trump agreed to a ceasefire. It happened before: Obama agrees and – oops – the next day American planes bomb Syrian forces. And who ordered it, the president himself or a rogue organization inside (or outside?) Pentagon is anyone's guess. I think it's a wait&see at this point. ..."
Jul 08, 2017 | www.unz.com

First, we have the manner in which the Americans have been preparing the G20 summit. As we all know, in diplomacy actions count as much, or even more, than words. Here are just a few of the actions recently taken by the Americans in preparation for the G20 summit and Trump's first meeting with Putin (in no particular order):

Going down this list, you got to admire the American sense of timing and diplomacy

But, seriously now, it does not really matter if these actions are just the result of imperial hubris and delusion, a complete lack of diplomatic education, the consequences of simple and straightforward human stupidity or all part of some diabolical plan to set the US on a collision course with the entire planet.

What matters is the mind-blowing arrogance of it all, as if the USA were a white knight in shining armor worthy only of praise and adulation and as if the rest of the planet were composed of rowdy schoolchildren who needed to heed the words of their principal and start behaving or else get a good spanking from Uncle Sam.

If that is how Trump hopes to make "America Great Again" he might want to consider other options as this kind of attitude makes "America" (he means the USA, of course) look not "great" but arrogant, out of touch and supremely irritating. Let's take on the world, everybody at the same time seems to be the grand plan of this administration.

The result of all these "diplomatic" efforts were predicable: nothing.

Well, almost nothing. Here is what "nothing" looks in diplomatic language:

According to Foreign Minister Lavrov Presidents Trump and Putin, were "motivated by their national interests" (who would have thought?!) and they agree on a number of concrete measures:

an acceleration of the procedure to appoint new ambassadors – RU-US and US-RU they discussed the Russian diplomatic facilities seized by Obama they create a work group to discuss a number of issues including terrorism, organized crime, hacking and cybersecurity. they discussed Syria and the Ukraine and talked for 2 hours and 15 minutes.

According to RT , Russia and the US agreed on a ceasefire in the Daraa, Quneitra and As-Suwayda provinces of Syria. That is very good, of course, but this is in the one corner of Syria (southwest) where very little action is taking place (right now all the important stuff is taking place between Raqqa and Deir-Az-Sor). Oh, and there are de-escalation zones already in place in the southwest:

So unless Trump and Putin are keeping something really important secret, it seems that this summit has yielded exactly what I feared it would : nothing, or something very very close to nothing. If we find out later that in spite of everything, the two sides did discuss something of importance and agreed on something important, I will post and update here. And, believe me, nobody will be happier than me if that happens.

But, alas, it appears that many months of a sustained Neocon campaign to make darn sure that Russia and the US could never seriously collaborate have been very successful.

So where does this all leave us, the millions of people who had at least *some* hopes about Trump being an outsider who could try to make some real changes happen and maybe liberate the United States from the Neocon regime in power here since at least Bill Clinton (if not earlier)?

On February 14th of this year, following the anti-Flynn coup and Trump's betrayal of his friend, I wrote that "it's over folks" and "Trump betrayed us all". I took a lot of flak for writing this, especially since I had come strongly on Trump's side against Hillary during the campaign. Sadly, I believe that my conclusions in February are now proven correct.

I understand while some will want to present this meeting as, if not a success, then at least "good start" or a "semi-success". For one thing, being the bearer of bad news never made anybody popular. Second, those who support Trump or Putin (or both) will want to show that the leader they support achieved something. Finally, if both sides report that the meeting has been a success, who are we to say otherwise?

I don't know about anybody else, but I always have and always will call it as I see it. And what I see is simply nothing or something very close to nothing. Sorry folks, I wish I could say something else.

As for apportioning blame for this non-event, I place 100% of the guilt on the US side which did everything wrong with an almost manic determination and which will now find itself in the rather unenviable position of fighting pretty much the entire planet all on its own. Oh, sorry, I forgot. Poland unconditionally supports the USA and Trump!

Well, good for them. They richly deserve each other.

Intelligent Dasein , Website July 8, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT

I'll disagree with the Saker only to say that the meeting did not yield nothing, it yielded something far worse than nothing. It has cemented Trump irrevocably in the role of clueless neocon waterboy.

My first attempt to explain Trump's defection was to liken him to King Lear, desperately seeking validation and alienating the only ones who truly loved him. My next attempt was to liken him to King Saul, because he appears to have been rejected by God who had sustained his campaign so brilliantly. Now I've moved on to "So passes Denethor son of Ecthelion."

Kirt , July 8, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

Nothing works better for increasing your happiness and appreciation of life than minimalizing your expectations. During the Bush II regime, I counted any day when the US did not attack Iran as a very good day. Now I count any day when the US does not attack Russia, Iran or North Korea to be a very good day. Sounds to me like Putin and Trump have avoided all out war and perhaps move just a tiny bit toward mutual agreement. That's an awesomely good day.

Mao Cheng Ji , July 8, 2017 at 6:13 am GMT

Hey, give it a couple of weeks (at least!) before declaring that it's Very Close to Nothing. By the way: I bet the Nazi regime in Kiev is shaking in its boots right now

jilles dykstra , July 8, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

Half an hour was planned, it became two hours and 16 minutes. So one might conclude there was something to talk about.

Then there is the Trump Merkel difference. The USA is nearly autark, USA's export is something like five percent of national income. Germany exports, I guess, more than half its national income.

So the real boss of the European continent fears protectionism, it is therefore, according to Varoufakis, that Merkel continues the euro crisis, this makes Berlin the real capital of the continent. Not for nothing yesterday Juncker made a statement against protectionism, his mistress' voice. Merkel of course is the ally of Deep State, those who want the USA to control the world, want to impose the USA way of living on the whole world. On the other hand, Germany does want an need good trade relations with the East, Russia.

Being the German Kanzler is not an easy job. Germany has since 1870 been a country in difficulties, no natural borders, dependent on export.

Proud_Srbin , July 8, 2017 at 8:12 am GMT

Oh, sorry, I forgot. Poland unconditionally supports the USA and Trump! Well, good for them. They richly deserve each other.

=======

If the price of LNG is more expensive than ruski gas, American people can always subsidize it as a sign of goodwill and solidarity with brave polacks.

Randal , July 8, 2017 at 9:33 am GMT

I get the feeling Trump and Putin themselves could actually forge a decent personal working relationship, because there would be a degree of mutual respect and Putin would eventually persuade Trump to see reason on the numerous important issues in which the Russian position is quite simply correct and the US position incorrect – Syria, Ukraine, the fantasy of "Russian interference", Korea, etc. This objective truth simply reflects the capture of US foreign policy by people who have operated it to serve interests other than those of the American nation, so that US policy has been determined not by reality and rational analysis, but ideology and dishonesty.

However, it is ultimately of no benefit that there could be such a good personal and working relationship, because as we have seen Trump is a entirely prisoner of the very interest groups that were responsible for distorting US foreign policy in the first place. It's highly unlikely he would or could change much even if he were persuaded of the truth, and if he did make any significant changes he would be impeached or defeated at the next election and replaced by someone more in line with the poisonous US establishment views.

Too many, too powerful US establishment groups (many of them not primarily loyal to the US) have an interest in maintaining the delusional and dysfunctional foreign policy we have seen in operation over the past three decades – inevitably, since they crafted that foreign policy foolishness.

Putin, I think, knows this and hence is unlikely to make any real concessions to get agreements that will only be subverted or betrayed by the US as other interest groups within the US regime get the ear of the President or manage to subvert his policies, or by a future US regime.

Greg Bacon , Website July 8, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT

According to RT, Russia and the US agreed on a ceasefire in the Daraa, Quneitra and As-Suwayda provinces of Syria.

Wow, what a coincidence that this 'ceasefire' is adjacent to the stolen Golan, that water and oil rich part of Syria the Israelis STOLE during their 1967 War of Aggression.

This will give Israel time to get all those wounded jihadists medical care in those Golan field hospitals and at the Ziv Medical Center in Safed, Israel. And give the quisling US Congress time to reimburse Israel for all those shekels spent caring for and paying the salaries of ISIS/DAESH/al Nusra terrorists.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-risking-lives-elite-troops-save-syria-jihadis/ri11828

dykalg , July 8, 2017 at 10:21 am GMT

cheer up saker. the americans are sending an envoy to kiev tomorrow to pressure them to begin their first steps agreed to in the minsk accords. (the new york times was so upset about this that they could not write the words "minsk accords" in their page 1 article today.)
second, the intell community will be asked to justify by evidence their claim of russian hacking.
the audacity of this will leave them gob-smacked. and edgy.

Max Havelaar , July 8, 2017 at 12:44 pm GMT

Another ceasefire for Israel, when they loose ground in Syria, A nice geste by Putin, to get talks started, probably. Russian diplomatic effort, which will sink in the swamp! Trump and Putin do seem to get along, but Trump is under Mike Pence's controll: War, war, and War for Israël and Exxon-mobile.

How soon and how the Syrian slitup will be, that is the question.

Seamus Padraig , July 8, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Half an hour was planned, it became two hours and 16 minutes. So one might conclude there was something to talk about.

Then there is the Trump Merkel difference. The USA is nearly autark, USA's export is something like five percent of national income. Germany exports, I guess, more than half its national income.

So the real boss of the European continent fears protectionism, it is therefore, according to Varoufakis, that Merkel continues the euro crisis, this makes Berlin the real capital of the continent. Not for nothing yesterday Juncker made a statement against protectionism, his mistress' voice.

Merkel of course is the ally of Deep State, those who want the USA to control the world, want to impose the USA way of living on the whole world. On the other hand, Germany does want an need good trade relations with the East, Russia. Being the German Kanzler is not an easy job. Germany has since 1870 been a country in difficulties, no natural borders, dependent on export.

Being the German Kanzler is not an easy job.

No, and Merkel is clearly not up to the job. She's definitely no Bismarck!

jacques sheete , July 8, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra

Germany has since 1870 been a country in difficulties, no natural borders, dependent on export.

Not much by way of natural resources and surrounded by enemies, both near and far, too.

Agent76 , July 8, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

May 15, 2017 Ukraine: US-Installed Fascist Rule in Europe's Heartland. Will Donetsk Rejoin Russia?

The nation shares a near-1,500 mile land and sea border with Russia. Stop NATO's Rick Rozoff earlier explained Ukraine is "the decisive linchpin in plans by the US and its NATO allies to effect a military cordon sanitary, severing Russia from Europe" – a sinister plot perhaps intended as prelude to nuclear war.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukraine-us-installed-fascist-rule-in-europes-heartland-will-donetsk-rejoin-russia/5590150

Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians. Russell Bentley is a former US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.

Mao Cheng Ji , July 8, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT

@DaveE

The two most powerful nations agree to a cease fire, in less than two hours

Trump agreed to a ceasefire. It happened before: Obama agrees and – oops – the next day American planes bomb Syrian forces. And who ordered it, the president himself or a rogue organization inside (or outside?) Pentagon is anyone's guess. I think it's a wait&see at this point.

[Jul 08, 2017] Trump says he had a tremendous meeting with Putin

AP clearly pursue a neocon line of DNC hacks and Russian meddling in the US elections.
get=
The European trip to Poland and Germany has centered around the exchange with Putin, Trump's first in-person meeting as president. But both sides offered differing explanations of what took place.

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump and Putin had a "robust and lengthy" discussion about the election interference but Putin denied any involvement. His Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said Trump had accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't meddle in the U.S. election - a characterization that the U.S. disputed.

"I think the president is rightly focused on how do we move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point," said Tillerson, who took part in the meeting along with Lavrov.

Democrats seized upon Tillerson's remarks, saying that it was wrong to suggest the issue of Russia's role in the election meddling was unresolved. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "disgraceful" and said it was a "grave dereliction of duty" to give "equal credence to the findings of the American Intelligence Community and the assertion by Mr. Putin."

U.S. officials have said Russia tried to hack election systems in 21 states and sway the election for Trump, representing a level of interference in the U.S. political system that security experts said represents a top-level threat.

Trump's meeting with Putin, which was originally scheduled for 35 minutes, wrapped up after more than 2 hours, and focused heavily on a just-announced ceasefire deal for southwestern Syria that was reached by Russia and the United States.

While the U.S. and Russia have held conflicting views on Syria in the past, Tillerson said Russia had an interest in seeing the Mideast nation become a stable place.

Tillerson said details about the ceasefire still need to be worked out, but Lavrov told reporters that Russian military police will monitor the ceasefire, with a monitoring center set up in Jordan - another party to the deal.

Both the Russians and the Americans took pains to describe the meeting as "constructive," cordial and wide-ranging, covering key topics including cyber security and North Korea.

"The two leaders connected very quickly," Tillerson said. "There was a very clear positive chemistry."

[Jul 08, 2017] Susan Rice role in Russiagate

Jul 01, 2017 | www.youtube.com

SUSAN RICE GOING TO JAIL! SEE REASONS WHY -

> > > > > > > > > > >

[Jul 07, 2017] Humanity (at large and in particular, if we are talking about countries and societies) has finite resources – why waste them of useless Russophobic twats

Notable quotes:
"... Earlier this week, I stumbled upon a DailyBeast article. While reading it, I thought to myself: "If it wasn't for a weekday, I could have played a drinking game based on this article – take a shot every time it mentions "anonymous sources" and "a governmental official asked to me unnamed", and your entire company will be shit faced by the end!". But what if you replace "anonymous sources" with "spirits" and "angels"? ..."
"... "And there is quite a bit about the Universe that we don't understand, and probably never will, because the Universe is Infinite, and our lifespans are finite. So I have no issues with people believing in Magic and Magicians." ..."
"... "The gauntlet is thrown down." ..."
"... That's an excellent counterpoint, and the photo could become a silent response, because it depicts the tactic through which Mr. Putin has seen many situations pass without harm to Russia – by simply keeping his mouth shut (except for eating popcorn) and waiting rather than reacting hysterically. I don't want to say 'so many ambitions realized', because I don't believe the confusion and disarray in Europe and the building mistrust between the USA and its allies ever were ambitions of Mr. Putin. But both parties strutted and beat their chests and claimed to be united against Russia the rogue and pariah. They would teach it a lesson it would never forget. One side made all the noise. And look at the way things have shaken out. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Lyttenburgh , July 6, 2017 at 9:39 pm
This comment by UCG is too important for me to ignore it just because the discussion moved to the next page.

... ... ...

Earlier this week, I stumbled upon a DailyBeast article. While reading it, I thought to myself: "If it wasn't for a weekday, I could have played a drinking game based on this article – take a shot every time it mentions "anonymous sources" and "a governmental official asked to me unnamed", and your entire company will be shit faced by the end!". But what if you replace "anonymous sources" with "spirits" and "angels"?

You will get the exact same old, primitive, primeval worldview based on dogmas and revelations. And the fun thing is – the Ancients were far from stupid and often doubted that they have an agent of supernatural before them. In many myths and legends heroes and ordinary folks demand for such "messengers" to prove their divinity, or they know a folk method how to identify them, or, as is the case with Christianity, they always could demand such "angel" (which is the Greek for the "Messenger") to join them in prayer, to prove that they are not from the Devil. See? Even they were more skeptical and applied more "scientific" method, than what is accepted among the "thinking" masses nowadays.

"And there is quite a bit about the Universe that we don't understand, and probably never will, because the Universe is Infinite, and our lifespans are finite. So I have no issues with people believing in Magic and Magicians."

I have, as I have with all fraudsters. Humanity (at large and in particular, if we are talking about countries and societies) has finite resources – why waste them of useless twats (thank you, ME, for enriching my vocabulary!)?. ... ... ...

marknesop , July 6, 2017 at 10:52 pm

I see your post is mentioned at Johnson's Russia List, and makes a point of identifying it as a critique of Galeotti. The gauntlet is thrown down.
Lyttenburgh , July 6, 2017 at 11:02 pm
"The gauntlet is thrown down."

marknesop , July 7, 2017 at 5:42 am
That's an excellent counterpoint, and the photo could become a silent response, because it depicts the tactic through which Mr. Putin has seen many situations pass without harm to Russia – by simply keeping his mouth shut (except for eating popcorn) and waiting rather than reacting hysterically. I don't want to say 'so many ambitions realized', because I don't believe the confusion and disarray in Europe and the building mistrust between the USA and its allies ever were ambitions of Mr. Putin. But both parties strutted and beat their chests and claimed to be united against Russia the rogue and pariah. They would teach it a lesson it would never forget. One side made all the noise. And look at the way things have shaken out.

[Jul 07, 2017] U.S. MILITARY OFFICIALS THERE WAS NO CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK IN SYRIA TRUMP BOMBED SYRIA DESPITE ADVICE FROM MILITARY

Notable quotes:
"... Former top military and intelligence officials – including many who warned against the faulty Iraq intelligence in advance of the Iraq war – have long said that the claims that Assad carried out the chemical weapons attacks was bunkum. ..."
"... Hersh than notes that Trump was determined to bomb Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack that never occurred. America's top military and intelligence officials steered into him a less destructive bombing run. ..."
"... Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms that American intelligence community insiders are furious that the Trump administration has twisted the intelligence so as to claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack. And see this ..."
"... Unfortunately, none of this is new The 2013 ..."
"... And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria as a justification for war was leaked and confirmed ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.ascertainthetruth.com

SOURCE: WASHINGTON'S BLOG

A top U.S. missile and chemical weapons expert has documented for months that the Syrian government did not carry out a chemical weapons attack against civilians, and that contrary claims by the Trump White House , French intelligence services , the New York Times , CNN and other "mainstream" sources are wrong and worthless propaganda.

Former top military and intelligence officials – including many who warned against the faulty Iraq intelligence in advance of the Iraq war – have long said that the claims that Assad carried out the chemical weapons attacks was bunkum.

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the stories of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandals, which rightfully disgraced the Nixon and Bush administrations' war-fighting tactics – reported yesterday in the large German publication Weld that U.S. military officials tried to tell Trump that a chemical weapons attack never occurred at all:

On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon .

The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence . "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump."

***

In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's attack on Khan Sheikhoun . I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4 [ Here's one of the transcripts]. In an important pre-strike process known as deconfliction, U.S. and Russian officers routinely supply one another with advance details of planned flight paths and target coordinates, to ensure that there is no risk of collision or accidental encounter (the Russians speak on behalf of the Syrian military). This information is supplied daily to the American AWACS surveillance planes that monitor the flights once airborne. Deconfliction's success and importance can be measured by the fact that there has yet to be one collision, or even a near miss, among the high-powered supersonic American, Allied, Russian and Syrian fighter bombers.

Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to and from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard the AWACS plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north.

***

A high-level meeting of jihadist leaders was to take place in the building . Russian intelligence depicted the cinder-block building as a command and control center .

***

A senior adviser to the American intelligence community, who has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, told me [that] the basement was used as storage for rockets, weapons and ammunition, as well as chlorine-based decontaminants for cleansing the bodies of the dead before burial. The meeting place – a regional headquarters – was on the floor above.

***

One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure that any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership was forewarned not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning directly to the CIA "They were playing the game right," the senior adviser said. The Russian guidance noted that the jihadist meeting was coming at a time of acute pressure for the insurgents: Presumably Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were desperately seeking a path forward in the new political climate.

***

Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the high-value target. "It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the sked," the senior adviser told me. "Every operations officer in the region" – in the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, CIA and NSA – "had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the Syrian Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They're skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the mission, with the best wingman." The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given the highest possible score inside the American community.

***

"This was not a chemical weapons strike," the adviser said. "That's a fairy tale. If so, everyone involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon – you've got to make it appear like a regular 500-pound conventional bomb – would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear. Military grade sarin includes additives designed to increase toxicity and lethality. Every batch that comes out is maximized for death. That is why it is made. It is odorless and invisible and death can come within a minute. No cloud. Why produce a weapon that people can run away from?"

The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground. According to intelligence estimates, the senior adviser said, the strike itself killed up to four jihadist leaders, and an unknown number of drivers and security aides . There is no confirmed count of the number of civilians killed by the poisonous gases that were released by the secondary explosions, although opposition activists reported that there were more than 80 dead, and outlets such as CNN have put the figure as high as 92. A team from Médecins Sans Frontières, treating victims from Khan Sheikhoun at a clinic 60 miles to the north, reported that "eight patients showed symptoms – including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation – which are consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds." MSF also visited other hospitals that had received victims and found that patients there "smelled of bleach, suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine." In other words, evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms observed, which would not have been the case if the Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted – had dropped a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions. The range of symptoms is, however, consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine and the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin.

***

The adviser said "Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: 'We have a problem and let's look into it.' He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria."

***

"What doesn't occur to most Americans" the adviser said, "is if there had been a Syrian nerve gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia's strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would do that? When he's on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?"

***

Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. "He did this before he talked to anybody about it. The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in order to bomb with it." "The answer was, 'We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,' " the adviser said. " The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat [the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive to commit political suicide." Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons depots.

At this point, the adviser said, the president's national security planners were more than a little rattled : "No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn't know who the children were or how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people . But you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted to use it in Khan Sheikhoun." The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead .

Hersh than notes that Trump was determined to bomb Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack that never occurred. America's top military and intelligence officials steered into him a less destructive bombing run.

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms that American intelligence community insiders are furious that the Trump administration has twisted the intelligence so as to claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack. And see this .

Unfortunately, none of this is new The 2013 sarin attack in Syria, was also blamed by the U.S. on the Syrian government. However, the United Nations' report on the attack did NOT blame the government, and the U.N.'s human rights investigator accused the rebels – rather than the Syrian government – of carrying out the attack.

Moreover, high-level American and Turkish officials say that Turkey supplied Sarin gas to Syrian rebels in 2013 in order to frame the Syrian government to provide an excuse for regime change.

And Seymour Hersh reported that high-level American sources tell him that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.

As Hersh noted :

'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'

Indeed, it's long been known that sarin was coming through Turkey .

And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria as a justification for war was leaked and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic.

http://republicbroadcasting.org/news/u-s-military-officials-there-was-no-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-trump-bombed-syria-despite-advice-from-military/

[Jul 07, 2017] Two Impulsive Leaders Fan the Global Flames by Dilip Hiro & Tom Engelhardt

Notable quotes:
"... The Age of Aspiration: Power, Wealth, and Conflict in Globalizing India ..."
"... Trump has never exactly been an admirer of Iran. His growing hostility toward Tehran (and that of the Iranophobic generals he's appointed to key posts) has already led the U.S. military to shoot down two Iranian-made armed drones as well as a Syrian jet in 12 days. This led Moscow to switch off the hotline between its operational center at the Khmeimim Air Base in Syria and al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the major American military facility in the region. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, at the time the Syrian warplane was hit by the U.S. fighter, Russia's Aerospace Forces were carrying out missions in Syria's airspace. "However," it added, "the coalition command did not use the existing communication line to prevent incidents in Syria's airspace." ..."
"... the State Department and the Pentagon would explore ways to break Moscow's military and diplomatic alliance with Tehran in a bid to end the Syrian conflict and bolster the fight against ISIS. ..."
"... Though Flynn was soon pushed out of the White House, President Trump mirrored his views in a speech at an anti-terrorism summit of 50 leaders from Arab and other Muslim countries during his May visit to Riyadh. In it he went on to lump Iran and the Sunni jihadis together as part of the same "evil" of terrorism. ..."
"... On this issue, Iran's record speaks for itself. With cash and weapons, it has aided the Palestinian group Hamas, which is purely Sunni since there are no Shiites in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. It has maintained cordial relations with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic movement that originated in 1928 in overwhelmingly Sunni Egypt. The Saudis, once its prime financial and ideological backer, fell out with the Brotherhood's leadership in 1991 when they opposed the stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil on the eve of the First Gulf War. ..."
"... Since then, the Brotherhood has renounced violence. In June 2012, its candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the first free and fair presidential election in Egyptian history. His overthrow by Egypt's generals a year later was applauded by Riyadh, which promptly announced a $12 billion rescue package for the military regime. By contrast, Tehran condemned the military coup against the popularly elected president. ..."
"... Tellingly, Riyadh failed to persuade even the neighboring smaller monarchies of Kuwait and Oman, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to follow its lead in boycotting Qatar. In addition, no matter what Trump tweets, Riyadh has a problem increasing its pressure on Doha because of the massive American military presence in that country, a crucial element in the Pentagon's campaign against ISIS, among other things. ..."
"... In retrospect, it's clear that the four members of the anti-Qatar axis rushed into their drastic action without assessing that tiny country's strengths, including the soft power exercised by its pan-Arab al-Jazeera satellite TV network. Unsurprisingly, their governments banned al-Jazeera broadcasts and websites and closed down its bureaus. Elsewhere in the Arab world, however, that popular outlet remains easily accessible. ..."
"... So far nothing has turned out as the Saudis (or Trump) anticipated. Qatar is resisting and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has flatly refused to withdraw his troops from the emirate, increasing the Turkish military presence there instead. ..."
"... From all this, an overarching picture emerges: that the impulsive Donald Trump has met his younger counterpart, Prince Muhammad bin Salman, equally impulsive and blind to even the medium-term consequences of his aggressive initiatives. ..."
"... The shared obsession of the prince and the president with Iran, which neither of them is able to comprehend in its complexity, has the potential for creating a true global crisis. If anything, the pressure on Trump in his imagined new world order is only increasing to do the Saudis one better and push a regime-change agenda in a big way when it comes to Iran. It's a formula for disaster on a breathtaking scale. ..."
"... , is the author of ..."
"... . His latest and 36th book is ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Originally posted at TomDispatch .

Every now and then something lodges in your memory and seems to haunt you forever. In my case, it was a comment Newsweek attributed to an unnamed senior British official "close to the Bush team" before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad," he said. "Real men want to go to Tehran." At the time, it seemed to distill a mood of geopolitical elation sweeping Washington and its crew of neocons. They had, of course, been beating the drums for war with Iraq, but also dreaming of a Middle Eastern and then a global Pax Americana that would last generations. Less pithy versions of such sentiments were the coin of the realm of that moment. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, for instance, reported in March of that year that, "in February 2003, according to Ha'aretz , an Israeli newspaper, Under Secretary of State John Bolton told Israeli officials that after defeating Iraq the United States would 'deal with' Iran, Syria, and North Korea."

Fourteen years later, the U.S. has yet to make its way out of its multiple Iraqi wars, is embroiled in a Syrian conflict, and as for North Korea, well, I could tweet you a thing or two about how Washington has " dealt " with that still-nuclearizing land. And yet, it seems that, on one issue at least, those old neocon dreams may finally be coming to fruition. We may at last have a "real man" in the White House, someone truly readying himself to "go to Tehran." At least the pressures from his political backers , his Iranophobic generals , and his CIA director are on the rise, and President Trump recently aligned himself very publicly with the Saudi royals in their anti-Iranian campaign, which seems about to kick into high gear.

If we had time machines and someone could head back to March 2003 to tell those neocons and the top officials of George W. Bush's administration who that future "real man" might turn out to be, they would, of course, have laughed such a messenger out of the room in disbelief. And yet here we are in comb-over heaven, in a land whose foreign policy is increasingly done by tweet, in a country whose leaders evidently can't imagine a place in the Greater Middle East that the U.S. military shouldn't be sent into (but never out of). Meanwhile, the pressure, as TomDispatch regular Dilip Hiro, author most recently of The Age of Aspiration: Power, Wealth, and Conflict in Globalizing India , suggests in vivid detail, is only growing for a full-scale campaign for regime change in Iran, not to speak of a possible proxy war against that country in Syria. And honestly, tell me – to steal a line from another TomDispatch author – what could possibly go wrong? ~ Tom

The Enemy of My Enemy Is My ? The Saudi-American-Iranian-Russian-Qatari-Syrian Conundrum By Dilip Hiro

The Middle East. Could there be a more perilous place on Earth, including North Korea? Not likely. The planet's two leading nuclear armed powers backing battling proxies amply supplied with conventional weapons; terror groups splitting and spreading; religious-sectarian wars threatening amid a plethora of ongoing armed hostilities stretching from Syria to Iraq to Yemen. And that was before Donald Trump and his team arrived on this chaotic scene. If there is one region where a single spark might start the fire that could engulf the globe, then welcome to the Middle East.

As for sparks, they are now in ample supply. At this moment, President Trump's foreign policy agenda is a package of contradictions threatening to reach a boiling point in the region. He has allied himself firmly with Saudi Arabia even when his secretaries of state and defense seem equivocal on the subject. In the process, he's come to view a region he clearly knows little about through the Saudi royal family's paranoid eyes, believing staunchly that Shia Iran is hell-bent on controlling an Islamic world that is 85% Sunni.

Trump has never exactly been an admirer of Iran. His growing hostility toward Tehran (and that of the Iranophobic generals he's appointed to key posts) has already led the U.S. military to shoot down two Iranian-made armed drones as well as a Syrian jet in 12 days. This led Moscow to switch off the hotline between its operational center at the Khmeimim Air Base in Syria and al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the major American military facility in the region. According to the Russian Defense Ministry, at the time the Syrian warplane was hit by the U.S. fighter, Russia's Aerospace Forces were carrying out missions in Syria's airspace. "However," it added, "the coalition command did not use the existing communication line to prevent incidents in Syria's airspace."

At the same time, the incorrigibly contradictory Trump has not abandoned his wish to cultivate friendly relations with Russia whose close economic and military ties with Iran date back to 1992. The danger inherent in the rich crop of contradictions in this muddle, and Trump's fervent backing of the Saudis in their recent threats against neighboring Qatar, should be obvious to all except the narcissistic American president.

No one should be surprised by any of this once Trump inserted himself, tweets first, in the violent and crisis-ridden Middle East. After all, he possesses an extraordinary capacity to create his own reality. He seems to instinctively block out his failures, and rushes headlong to embrace anything that puts him in a positive light. Always a winner, never a loser. Such an approach seems to come easily to him, since he's a man of tactics with a notoriously short attention span, which means he's incapable of conceiving of an overarching strategy of a sort that would require concentration and the ability to hold diverse factors in mind simultaneously.

Given this, he has no problem contradicting himself or undermining aides working to find a more rational basis for his ever changing stances and desires on matters of import. These problems are compounded by his inability to connect the dots in the very complex, volatile Middle East where wars are raging in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq, or to assess how a move on one diplomatic or military front will impact a host of inter-connected issues.

The Iran Factor

Let's examine how complicated and potentially treacherous all of this is. In the early days of the Trump administration, an outline of its Middle Eastern strategy might have appeared something like this: the White House will pressure the Sunni Arab states to commit their cash and troops in a coordinated way to fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) under the leadership of the Pentagon. Along with this, the State Department and the Pentagon would explore ways to break Moscow's military and diplomatic alliance with Tehran in a bid to end the Syrian conflict and bolster the fight against ISIS.

This reflected a lamentable ignorance of the growing strength of the ties between Russia and Iran, which share borders on the Caspian Sea. This relationship dates back to August 1992 when Russian President Boris Yeltsin's government signed a contract to construct and operate two nuclear reactors near the Iranian city of Bushehr. The two countries then inked an agreement to build two new reactors at the Bushehr site , with an option for constructing six more at other locations later. These were part of a partnership agreement signed in November 2014 and overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Military cooperation between the Kremlin and Tehran can be traced back to 2007 when Iran inked a $900 million contract for five Russian S-300 long-range missile batteries. Because of United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program in 2010, those missile deliveries were suspended. However, three months before Tehran signed its landmark nuclear deal with six world powers, including Russia and the U.S., in July 2015, Moscow started shipping an upgraded version of the S-300 missiles to Iran.

In September 2015, the Kremlin intervened militarily in Syria on the side of President Bashar al-Assad. By then, Iran had long been aiding the Syrian government with weapons and armed volunteers in its five-year-old civil war. This led Moscow and Tehran to begin sharing military planning over Syria.

Two months later, Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Tehran for a summit of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum and met with Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who praised him for "neutralizing Washington's plots." Khamenei also suggested that economic relations between the two countries could "expand beyond the current level." To the delight of Iranian leaders, Putin relaxed an export ban on nuclear equipment and technology to their country.

In August 2016, Tehran let the Kremlin use Hamadan Air Base in western Iran to launch air strikes on a wide range of targets in Syria, thereby enabling the Russian air force to cut flying time and increase payloads for its bombers and fighter jets. Just as Donald Trump entered the Oval Office, Moscow-based Sputnik News reported that Tehran was considering buying Russian fighter jets, while the two countries were discussing a joint venture that would allow Iran to manufacture Russian helicopters under license.

Next, let's turn to Donald Trump. In his 2016 campaign run, Trump's animus toward Iran sharpened only after he imbibed the apocalyptic and Islamophobic views of retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn who would become his first national security adviser. In Flynn's fixation on the threat of "radical Islam," with Iran as his linchpin nation in plots against the West, he conflated Iranian-backed Shia radicalism with Sunni jihadism. In the process, to fit his rabid thinking he ignored the theological and other differences between them.

Though Flynn was soon pushed out of the White House, President Trump mirrored his views in a speech at an anti-terrorism summit of 50 leaders from Arab and other Muslim countries during his May visit to Riyadh. In it he went on to lump Iran and the Sunni jihadis together as part of the same "evil" of terrorism.

On June 7th, Trump's claim visibly shattered. On that day, six ISIS gunmen and suicide bombers, dressed as veiled women, attacked the Iranian Parliament complex and the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, killing at least 17 people and injuring more than 50. These attacks were in line with a video ISIS operatives in eastern Iraq had posted in Persian on their social media networks three months earlier, containing the threat: "We will invade Iran and return it to Sunni control."

Less than two weeks later, Iran fired six Zolfaghar ballistic missiles from its western provinces over Iraqi airspace at an ISIS command center and suicide car-bomb making facility near Syria's eastern city of Deir el-Zour, 370 miles away. It coordinated the attack with Iraq, Syria, and Russia.

ISIS Targets Shias, Whether Iranian or Saudi

Within months of declaring its caliphate in Mosul, Iraq, in June 2014, ISIS sent operatives into Iran after gaining recruits among the predominantly Sunni ethnic Kurds of that country. And well before the Obama administration geared up to help the government in Baghdad fight ISIS, Iran had trained, funded, and armed Iraqi Shia militias to push back that group.

When it came to selecting targets in the Saudi kingdom, the ISIS branch there chose mosques of the Shia minority. The first of these suicide bombings occurred in May 2015 in al-Qadeeh village in Eastern Province during Friday prayers, and left at least 21 people dead and more than 80 injured. In an online statement, ISIS took credit, claiming that "the soldiers of the Caliphate" were responsible and forecasting "dark days ahead" for the Shias.

Recently, Shias in Saudi Arabia have been alarmed by the incendiary speeches of the preachers of the Wahhabi version of Islam, the official faith of the kingdom. This sub-sect is named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab (1703-1792), who vehemently opposed the Shia practice of praying at the shrines of their saints and calling on such holy spirits to intercede on their behalf with Allah. He was convinced that there should be no intermediaries between the believer and Allah, and praying to a human being, dead or alive, however holy, was tantamount to polytheism, and therefore un-Islamic. He and his followers began demolishing Shia shrines. Today's ISIS ideologues agree with Wahhab's views on this and denounce Shias as apostates or heretics who deserve to be killed.

Within Shia Islam, there are four sub-sects, depending on how many of the 12 Imams – or religious leaders of the highest rank – a Shiite recognizes as such. Those who recognize only the first Imam Ali are called Alawis or Alevis (and live mainly in Syria and Turkey); those who do so for the first five Imams are known as Zaidis (and live mostly in Yemen). The ones who recognize seven Imams are called Seveners or Ismailis and are scattered across the Muslim world; and those who recognize all 12 Imams, labeled Twelvers, inhabit Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, and Lebanon. Twelver Shias also believe that the last Imam, the infant Muhammad al-Qassim, who disappeared around 868 AD, will return someday as al-Mahdi, or the Messiah, to bring justice to the world.

It was this aspect of Iranian Shiism that the 29-year-old Saudi Defense Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman, recently anointed Crown Prince and successor to his 81-year-old father King Salman, focused on in an interview with Dubai-based, Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV. When asked if he saw a possibility for direct talks with Iran, which he regards as the puppet-master of the Zaidi Houthi rebels in Yemen against whom he launched an American-backed war two years ago, he replied , "How can I come to an understanding with someone, or a regime, that has an anchoring belief built on an extremist ideology?"

Only a clueless person would bet on President Trump parsing Shia Islam or grasping the basic doctrine of Wahhabism. By contrast, nobody would lose a bet on him instantly tweeting the latest thought that crosses his restless mind on any Middle Eastern subject.

The Saudis Target Qatar

To complicate regional matters further, the first crisis of the post-Trump visit involved not Iran or Shias but Qatar, a tiny Sunni emirate adjoining Saudi Arabia. Its transgression in Saudi eyes? It has had the temerity to maintain normal relations with Iran across the Persian Gulf. It is worth recalling that during his trip to Riyadh, President Trump had met with Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani, the emir of Qatar. And before that meeting, he had even proudly bragged : "One of the things that we will discuss is the purchase of lots of beautiful military equipment because nobody makes it like the US," adding, "for us, that means jobs and it also means, frankly, great security back here, which we want."

A couple of weeks later, the Saudis suddenly severed Qatari diplomatic and economic ties, with the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt following suit. Saudi royals were clearly hoping to engineer a regime change in that country as a step toward the destabilization of Iran. In response, Trump promptly rushed to tweet: "During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – Look!"

Soon after he accused Qatar of being a "funder of terror at a very high level" and, backing the Saudis to the hilt, demanded that the emirate should cut off that supposed cash flow. A rejoinder came from none other than the American ambassador to Qatar, Dana Shell Smith, when she retweeted a U.S. Treasury Department statement praising Qatar for cracking down on extremist financing.

In the ensuing welter of statements and rebuttals, as the Trump administration fell into disarray over policy on Qatar, one thing remained solid: the sale of "beautiful military equipment" – up to 72 Boeing F-15 fighter jets to that emirate for $21.1 billion, a deal approved by the Obama administration in November 2016. On June 15th, Defense Secretary James Mattis signed off on a $12 billion deal for the sale of up to 36 of those fighter jets. "Our militaries are like brothers," declared a senior Qatari official in response. "America's support for Qatar is deep-rooted and not easily influenced by political changes."

In fact, military cooperation between Doha and Washington began in early 1992 in the wake of the First Gulf War. A decade later the Qatari-American military relationship received a dramatic upgrade when the Bush administration started preparing for its invasion of Iraq. Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler at the time, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, refused to let the Pentagon use the state-of-the-art operations facility at al-Kharj Air Base it had built up for air strikes against Iraq.

That was when Qatar's emir came to Washington's rescue. He allowed the Pentagon to transfer all its equipment from al-Kharj to al-Udeid Air Base , 25 miles southwest of Doha, the Qatari capital. It would become the U.S. military's key facility in the region. At the time of the latest crisis, al-Udeid held no less than 10,000 American troops and 100 Royal Air Force service personnel from Great Britain, equipped with 100 warplanes and drones . Air strikes on ISIS targets in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq are launched from this base.

In his rashness, Trump has imperiled all this, despite mediation efforts by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. His enthusiastic backing of the Saudis in their perilous quest to take on Iran, which may end up destabilizing Saudi Arabia itself, also holds the possibility of armed conflict between the planet's two leading nuclear powers.

The Saudis' Big Problem With a Tiny Neighbor

Worse yet, policymakers in Washington failed to notice a fundamental flaw in the sectarian terms in which Saudi Arabia has framed its rivalry with Iran: a stark Sunni versus Shia clash. Tehran refuses to accept such a playbook. Unlike the Saudis, its leaders constantly emphasize the common faith of all Muslims. Every year, for instance, Iran observes Islamic Unity week, a holiday meant to bridge the gap between the two birthdays of Prophet Muhammad, one accepted by Sunni scholars and the other by Shia ones.

On this issue, Iran's record speaks for itself. With cash and weapons, it has aided the Palestinian group Hamas, which is purely Sunni since there are no Shiites in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. It has maintained cordial relations with the transnational Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamic movement that originated in 1928 in overwhelmingly Sunni Egypt. The Saudis, once its prime financial and ideological backer, fell out with the Brotherhood's leadership in 1991 when they opposed the stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil on the eve of the First Gulf War.

Since then, the Brotherhood has renounced violence. In June 2012, its candidate, Mohamed Morsi, won the first free and fair presidential election in Egyptian history. His overthrow by Egypt's generals a year later was applauded by Riyadh, which promptly announced a $12 billion rescue package for the military regime. By contrast, Tehran condemned the military coup against the popularly elected president.

In March 2014, Saudi Arabia declared the Brotherhood a terrorist organization, something the U.S. has not yet done (though the Trump administration is engaged in a debate on the subject). Riyadh's hostility toward the Brotherhood stems largely from the fact that its followers are anti-monarchical, believing that ultimate power lies with the people, not a dynasty. As a result, the Sunni Brotherhood has cordial relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which held parliamentary and presidential elections even during its eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s. In the latest presidential election, conducted on the eve of Trump's arrival in Riyadh, the incumbent moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani won, decisively beating his conservative rival.

Riyadh has recently issued an aggressive list of demands on Qatar, including the closing of the influential Doha-based al-Jazeera media network, the limiting of its ties to Iran to trade alone, and the withdrawal of Turkish troops from a base on its territory. This ultimatum is set to fail on economic grounds alone. Qatar shares the North Dome-South Pars natural gas field with Iran. It is the largest field of its kind in the world. Its South Pars section, about a third of the total, lies in Iran's territorial waters. The aggregate recoverable gas reserves of this field are the equivalent of 230 billion barrels of oil, second only to Saudi Arabia's reserves of conventional oil. Income from gas and oil provides Qatar with more than three-fifths of its gross domestic product (GDP) and most of its export income. With a population of 2.4 million, Qatar has a per capita GDP of $74,667, the highest in the world. Given all this, Doha cannot afford to be adversarial towards Tehran.

Qatar's 12-year-old sovereign wealth fund, operating as the Qatar Investment Authority, has assets worth $335 billion. A third of these are invested in the emirate, but the bulk is scattered around the globe . It owns the Santa Monica-based film production company Miramax. It's the fourth largest investor in U.S. office space, mainly in New York and Los Angeles. It also owns London's tallest building, the famed Harrods stores, and a quarter of the properties in the upscale Mayfair neighborhood of London. Its Paris Saint-Germain Football Club has won four French soccer league titles and it's the largest shareholder in Germany's Volkswagen AG. Little wonder that, in response to the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, no Western leader, aside from Trump, has sided with Riyadh, which has been stunned by this diplomatic setback.

Tellingly, Riyadh failed to persuade even the neighboring smaller monarchies of Kuwait and Oman, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, to follow its lead in boycotting Qatar. In addition, no matter what Trump tweets, Riyadh has a problem increasing its pressure on Doha because of the massive American military presence in that country, a crucial element in the Pentagon's campaign against ISIS, among other things.

A Formula for Disaster

In retrospect, it's clear that the four members of the anti-Qatar axis rushed into their drastic action without assessing that tiny country's strengths, including the soft power exercised by its pan-Arab al-Jazeera satellite TV network. Unsurprisingly, their governments banned al-Jazeera broadcasts and websites and closed down its bureaus. Elsewhere in the Arab world, however, that popular outlet remains easily accessible.

As a littoral state, Qatar has a large port on the Persian Gulf. Within a week of the Riyadh-led boycott of Qatar, three ships, carrying 350 tons of fruit and vegetables, were set to leave the Iranian port of Dayyer for Doha, while five cargo planes from Iran, loaded with 450 tons of vegetables, had already landed in the Qatari capital.

So far nothing has turned out as the Saudis (or Trump) anticipated. Qatar is resisting and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has flatly refused to withdraw his troops from the emirate, increasing the Turkish military presence there instead.

From all this, an overarching picture emerges: that the impulsive Donald Trump has met his younger counterpart, Prince Muhammad bin Salman, equally impulsive and blind to even the medium-term consequences of his aggressive initiatives. In addition, in an autocratic monarchy without free speech, elections, or representative government (and with an abominable record on human rights violations), he lacks all checks and balances. The shared obsession of the prince and the president with Iran, which neither of them is able to comprehend in its complexity, has the potential for creating a true global crisis. If anything, the pressure on Trump in his imagined new world order is only increasing to do the Saudis one better and push a regime-change agenda in a big way when it comes to Iran. It's a formula for disaster on a breathtaking scale.

Dilip Hiro, a TomDispatch regular , is the author of A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Middle East . His latest and 36th book is The Age of Aspiration: Power, Wealth, and Conflict in Globalizing India .

[Jul 07, 2017] Preceding Putin Meeting, Trump Slams Russia

Jul 06, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

Russia Disagrees With Trump's Complaints About Their Behavior

President Trump is about to have one of his most crucial foreign policy tests, meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The preamble to this meeting, however, came in Poland, where the crowd wanted Trump to be hostile toward Russia, and he clearly had no intention of disappointing.

Trump declared to the crowd that the US had "demonstrated with actions" that they are committed to NATO's Article 5 collective defense, and condemned "Russian aggression," accusing Russia of destabilizing Ukraine and supporting Syria and Iran.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quick to issue a contrary statement declaring Russia's disagreement with the US assessment, saying that they don't believe Russia's actions are "destabilizing," and regretting the lack of understanding between the two countries.

Peskov expressed hope that the face-to-face meeting between Putin and Trump, expected on Friday, would hive them an opportunity to discuss actual issues and find common ground. The US is being tight-lipped about what they'd hope to get out of the meeting, though Trump declared Russia a threat to "Western civilization," so the suggestion is he's coming in with a chip on his shoulder.

[Jul 07, 2017] Was Tillerson to the right of Trump in Germany meeting

The problem if multiple personalities syndrome that Trump administration demonstrates that is mentioned below is a real one. It looks like Tilerson has its own version of foreign policy distinct from Trump. Haley also has her own definitely distinct and more neocons than Tillerson, and Tillerson did not fired her for insubordination. Yet.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump wasn't afraid to do this meeting. In this sense, even if he's a fool (which I'm not completely convinced of yet), he has some semblance here of being his own man. Also, for domestic consumption, he can say he made a deal if he wants. He walked away with some narrative. ..."
"... It seems to me that there's no reason why Putin and Trump can't keep talking as need arises if they choose to. No one is going to be friends here. But a narrative of two countries aggressively pursuing their own national interests is what Russia is now promoting. This is ground for dialog and actually some stability over time. ..."
"... Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin to see what the strength of Trump's power is - i.e. will USAF act independently again or will it obey the commander-in-chief? Putin, Trump meeting gives way to developments in Syria . A lot of the Russian takeaway will be what kind of practical trust can be forged at this level, how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta message got through to Trump himself. ..."
"... I think its clear that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition will not stop wanting Assad gone. But Russia and Iran will not allow it, arguing that Assad is needed to counter the Jihadis. This is a fundamental disagreement. ..."
"... So what can they agree on? The next logical demand of the 'Assad must go!' Coalition is some sort of division, isn't it? And whatever a division of Syria is called: "federated", "autonomous region", "safe zone" etc., it effectively means the creation of a "salafist principality"/Sunnistan - a goal which was revealed in a DIA report back in 2012. ..."
"... I think there is a full-court press to get Putin to deal. Everything has been set to make the establishment of 'Sunnistan' the least worst option (as Kissinger might say). I wrote of this here: Putin-Trump at the G-20: Birth of Sunnistan? ..."
"... How could RUSSIA - with her history - consider any backdown over Syria affecting all her allies anything but a short term Munich agreement (1938) for the space age. War between the Atlantacists and Eurasia would still be inevitable . ..."
"... more on the alleged chemical weapon attack of early april from al masdar.. OPCW ignores possibility Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was staged: diplomat and.... US refuses Russia's offer to inspect Shayrat Airbase for chemical weapons ..."
"... here's the transcript to go with your video of the Tillerson presser held today following the Putin/Trump gab - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/07/press-briefing-presidents-meetings-g20-july-7-2017 ..."
"... The Trump Administration continues to take a middle-ground approach that allows the "red scare" to continue. Some will say this is smart politics or smart negotiating or both. I think it shows a lack of will - an ambiguity that is harmful to a peaceful resolution. I think it stems from the Wahabbi-Zionist grip on US ME policy. W-Z want it ALL, so they (or their representatives) will always be ambiguous about any discussion that would leave them with something less than ALL. ..."
"... The Agreement on SW Syria was probably mostly done before the meeting. Meeting participants reviewed details of what the prepared agreement but mostly probed each other to determine how strongly held each sides views were about Syrian outcomes. ..."
"... Tillerson's blabbering about common objectives was meaningless. The Russians have long said that they believe that the Syrian people should decide the fate of Assad at some point in the future. The longstanding US position has been that Assad's removal should be sooner rather than later because free and fair elections can't be held with Assad as leader. ..."
"... Sounds quite reasonable to me. Putin/ Lavrov did the same with Obama/ Kerry, but they failed the test. They did negotiate in earnest imo, but... ..."
"... Moscow has committed far too much in Syria to 'relent'. The military, diplomatic and economic pressure on the US will increase if necessary to reach an solution. It has no choice but to agree. ..."
"... The peace deal or de-escalation with the US in southern Syria most likely has to do with US moving their operation from Tanf to Shaddadi. I had read sometime ago that Jordan wasn't happy about US using Jordan and Tanf base to attack SAA - not that Jordan would have much say in the matter. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Grieved | Jul 7, 2017 5:07:38 PM | 24

It's 2 cents day, so here's mine.

Two national leaders brought their heads of foreign ministry to an international meeting. Score 1 for diplomacy. They didn't bring their generals. And we've all seen how powerfully Russian diplomacy works. The message to the world and all stakeholders is that it keeps on working - work with it if you want to get somewhere.

Trump wasn't afraid to do this meeting. In this sense, even if he's a fool (which I'm not completely convinced of yet), he has some semblance here of being his own man. Also, for domestic consumption, he can say he made a deal if he wants. He walked away with some narrative.

It seems to me that there's no reason why Putin and Trump can't keep talking as need arises if they choose to. No one is going to be friends here. But a narrative of two countries aggressively pursuing their own national interests is what Russia is now promoting. This is ground for dialog and actually some stability over time.

I don't think anyone was looking for much out of this, and it was the wrong venue for such. But the meta-messages and to see how the leaders would interact were the key things, and personally I'm satisfied.

Grieved | Jul 7, 2017 5:50:53 PM | 25
More info coming...Tillerson says it was a good meeting that went on so long because they had so much to talk about. Very engaged: Listen: Tillerson describes meeting between Trump and Putin . The Duran's Adam Garrie picked up on the last soundbite in this clip where Tillerson says maybe Russia has the right approach to Syria and maybe we have the wrong approach. Very egalitarian view, not quite as bombshell as it sounds I think, more a way of signifying agreement on the (purported) end goals.

Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin to see what the strength of Trump's power is - i.e. will USAF act independently again or will it obey the commander-in-chief? Putin, Trump meeting gives way to developments in Syria . A lot of the Russian takeaway will be what kind of practical trust can be forged at this level, how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta message got through to Trump himself.

Jackrabbit | Jul 7, 2017 5:54:02 PM | 26
Everyone seems happy that Trump and Putin shook hands and agreed on something. But wasn't agreeing on SW Syria easy? Seems that both would want to avoid the messiness of stepped-up Israeli action.

I think its clear that the 'Assad must go!' Coalition will not stop wanting Assad gone. But Russia and Iran will not allow it, arguing that Assad is needed to counter the Jihadis. This is a fundamental disagreement.

So what can they agree on? The next logical demand of the 'Assad must go!' Coalition is some sort of division, isn't it? And whatever a division of Syria is called: "federated", "autonomous region", "safe zone" etc., it effectively means the creation of a "salafist principality"/Sunnistan - a goal which was revealed in a DIA report back in 2012.

IMO there is a high chance of cw ff leading to threat of US attack in the coming weeks. As a last-ditch effort to avoid a larger war, Putin might then relent and a allow a division that makes "Sunnistan" a reality.

I think there is a full-court press to get Putin to deal. Everything has been set to make the establishment of 'Sunnistan' the least worst option (as Kissinger might say). I wrote of this here: Putin-Trump at the G-20: Birth of Sunnistan?

Any thoughts?

ashley albanese | Jul 7, 2017 6:27:09 PM | 31

Jackrabbit 26

How could RUSSIA - with her history - consider any backdown over Syria affecting all her allies anything but a short term Munich agreement (1938) for the space age. War between the Atlantacists and Eurasia would still be inevitable .

james | Jul 7, 2017 6:46:47 PM | 32
more on the alleged chemical weapon attack of early april from al masdar.. OPCW ignores possibility Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack was staged: diplomat and.... US refuses Russia's offer to inspect Shayrat Airbase for chemical weapons
karlof1 | Jul 7, 2017 6:47:33 PM | 33
Well, it appears that the Putin/Abe meet was productive despite being delayed by the meet with Trump going long, http://tass.com/politics/955268. TASS has the most detailed report thanks to Lavrov's presser, http://tass.com/world/955288 "The situation in Syria, in Ukraine, on the Korean Peninsula, problems of cyber security, and a range of other issues were discussed in detail," he said, adding that the two leaders "agreed on a number of concrete things." Just what those "concrete things" are we'll need to wait and see.
h | Jul 7, 2017 7:28:39 PM | 37
Greived @25 here's the transcript to go with your video of the Tillerson presser held today following the Putin/Trump gab - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/07/press-briefing-presidents-meetings-g20-july-7-2017
Jackrabbit | Jul 7, 2017 7:37:40 PM | 39
Tillerson's New Conference

Tillerson's answers to question about how much Trump pressed Putin on 'Russian interference' vaguely implied that the Russians accepted responsibility as he suggested that the Russians were willing to discuss guarantees against such interference happening in the future.

The Trump Administration continues to take a middle-ground approach that allows the "red scare" to continue. Some will say this is smart politics or smart negotiating or both. I think it shows a lack of will - an ambiguity that is harmful to a peaceful resolution. I think it stems from the Wahabbi-Zionist grip on US ME policy. W-Z want it ALL, so they (or their representatives) will always be ambiguous about any discussion that would leave them with something less than ALL.

The Agreement on SW Syria was probably mostly done before the meeting. Meeting participants reviewed details of what the prepared agreement but mostly probed each other to determine how strongly held each sides views were about Syrian outcomes.

The length of time that this took shows how close to the razor's edge US-Russia relations are. Care must be taken to avoid a miscalculation.

Tillerson's blabbering about common objectives was meaningless. The Russians have long said that they believe that the Syrian people should decide the fate of Assad at some point in the future. The longstanding US position has been that Assad's removal should be sooner rather than later because free and fair elections can't be held with Assad as leader.

It seems to me that the failure to agree "next steps" coupled with a failure to agree on a future meeting is significant. And the lack of detail from the Russian side (as per karlof1 @33) also suggests that the meeting didn't go well.

smuks | Jul 7, 2017 7:48:10 PM | 41
@Grieved 25

"Ray McGovern with RT thinks the agreement in southwest Syria is a little test from Putin to see what the strength of Trump's power is ... how in control is Trump? One wonders how much of this meta message got through to Trump himself."

Sounds quite reasonable to me. Putin/ Lavrov did the same with Obama/ Kerry, but they failed the test. They did negotiate in earnest imo, but...

@Jackrabbit

Moscow has committed far too much in Syria to 'relent'. The military, diplomatic and economic pressure on the US will increase if necessary to reach an solution. It has no choice but to agree.

james | Jul 7, 2017 8:53:20 PM | 44
i think the little test concept is exactly right... usa is notorious for failing those kinds of tests..
Peter AU | Jul 7, 2017 8:57:27 PM | 46
The peace deal or de-escalation with the US in southern Syria most likely has to do with US moving their operation from Tanf to Shaddadi. I had read sometime ago that Jordan wasn't happy about US using Jordan and Tanf base to attack SAA - not that Jordan would have much say in the matter.
Anoncommentator | Jul 7, 2017 9:00:27 PM | 47
James Corbett on the CNN gif debacle: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ7KIgV2s5w
Anoncommentator | Jul 7, 2017 9:13:31 PM | 49
A reminder, and if you've never seen it, how MSM (in this case C-span) broadcasts fake news as war propaganda- footage from 1991 Gulf War. This was eye opener for me as I recall being totally sucked in at time by both the CNN and C-Span stories.

But by the time of the Syrian "boy in ambulance" Omran story last year I could correctly smell a rat:

[Jul 07, 2017] Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island

Jul 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Warren , July 7, 2017 at 8:45 am

https://www.youtube.com/embed/vyrEujl75tk

Published on 6 Jul 2017

Western powers fuel the Ukrainian conflict - and wider tensions with Russia - by treating Ukraine as a strategic prize, says Nicolai Petro, Silvia-Chandley professor of Peace Studies and Nonviolence at the University of Rhode Island

et Al , July 7, 2017 at 6:03 am

Words are much cheaper than actions

Warren , July 7, 2017 at 8:45 am

Dr Nicolai Petro is very brave to express such opinions considering where he is – Odessa. Anyone who deviates from the Banderite-Maidan propaganda line in Ukraine is censored and ostracised at best, at worst – murdered.

Bob , July 7, 2017 at 11:32 am

Odessa has a noticeable pro-Russian element as is true in some other parts of Kiev regime controlled Ukraine. Granted, folks with such views need to be careful.

[Jul 07, 2017] On Polish elite rampant russophobia

Jul 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Pavlo Svolochenko , July 6, 2017 at 2:23 pm
After all the hullaballoo, Trump's great new foreign policy initiative is . Rumsfeld's 'New Europe' doctrine, clad in a fourth-grade vocabulary.

The dittoheads on rightist forums and comment sections are now busily identifying Poland as saviour du jour of the white west, and wondering aloud about obtaining Polish citizenship.

This is what it means to be a 21st century 'nationalist' – bitch about deracination and rootless cosmopolitanism while fantasising about ditching your own country for some west Asian shithole.

kirill , July 6, 2017 at 2:40 pm
Pining to be a Pole takes the cake for inanity.
Northern Star , July 6, 2017 at 3:36 pm
I wonder if this plays a continuing role in how the Poles view the Russians today:

"Initially, the Poles established control over most of central Warsaw, but the Soviets ignored Polish attempts to establish radio contact and did not advance beyond the city limits. Intense street fighting between the Germans and Poles continued. By 14 September, Polish forces under Soviet high command occupied the east bank of the Vistula river opposite the resistance positions; but only 1,200 men made it across to the west bank, and they were not reinforced by the bulk of the Red Army. This, and the lack of Soviet air support from a base 5 minutes flying time away, led to allegations that Joseph Stalin tactically halted his forces to let the operation fail and allow the Polish resistance to be crushed. Arthur Koestler called the Soviet attitude "one of the major infamies of this war which will rank for the future historian on the same ethical level with Lidice."
Winston Churchill pleaded with Stalin and Franklin D. Roosevelt to help Britain's Polish allies, to no avail.[12] Then, without Soviet air clearance, Churchill sent over 200 low-level supply drops by the Royal Air Force, the South African Air Force, and the Polish Air Force under British High Command. Later, after gaining Soviet air clearance, the U.S. Army Air Force sent one high-level mass airdrop as part of Operation Frantic. The Soviet Union refused to allow American bombers from Western Europe to land on Soviet airfields after dropping supplies to the Poles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

davidt , July 6, 2017 at 5:00 pm
I am away from home so cannot check this, however, if you get a copy of Alexander Werth's "Russia at war" you will find an interview with Rokossovsky that he gave at the time. Much as I respect Koestler, it seems quite possible that he is mistaken.
Special_sauce , July 6, 2017 at 6:01 pm
" Much as I respect Koestler" For what? He was a "cultural warrior" beloved of Western "intellectuals", enlisted by the CIA to smear Communism. See _Who Payed the Piper_ by Frances Stonor Saunders and _The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America_ by Hugh Wilford.
davidt , July 7, 2017 at 3:44 am
The interview with Rokossovsky is substantial and is worth reading. From memory, I think he suggested that Stalin put pressure on him to try to relieve the Poles. He argued that was unable to move, and he was very critical of the Polish leadership for "revolting" when they did. Again, from memory, he compared the role of the Polish leadership with a clown who is unrolled from a carpet at a circus. The end result was tragic, however, I respect Rokossovsky.
As far as my comment about Koestler is concerned, I see Koestler as a "serious" person, quite the antithesis of someone like Galeotti. "Darkness at Noon" had an effect on me though I can now barely remember it. I retain my respect for anyone who was exceptionally lucky not to be executed by Franco. As far as your criticism that the CIA used him, why would I be surprised. (Did you really muster the energy to read your references?) There are many intelligent and informed commenters on this blog, nevertheless, I often think that many of the comments on this blog could be used in a PR campaign against Russia. Should I criticize the commenters for this reason?
Special_sauce , July 7, 2017 at 6:49 am
"I retain my respect for anyone who was exceptionally lucky not to be executed by Franco." And those who weren't so lucky?
Special_sauce , July 6, 2017 at 5:45 pm
wikipedia, lol
marknesop , July 6, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Wikipedia varies widely as to quality, often depending on how political the entry is. Since you can edit the content yourself, entries on world events are often the stages of fierce battles by the opinionated on both sides. Even history is frequently rewritten. But some entries are highly informative and carry detail you will find nowhere else.
Special_sauce , July 7, 2017 at 6:38 am
"But some entries are highly informative and carry detail you will find nowhere else."

Sure, when it comes to the history of the phonograph, or Hittite agriculture. But, when it comes to Communism, Stalin, Juche, Mao etc, it's a pack of lies.

Bob , July 7, 2017 at 11:36 am
Some good Wiki Russia related entries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfried_Strik-Strikfeldt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Alliance_of_Russian_Solidarists

kirill , July 6, 2017 at 6:34 pm
You have to understand my Ukrainian bitterness at the Poles. They fancy themselves to be some sort of Eastern (soooorrry, Central) European great power and their lording over Ukrainian lands over the last few centuries has been brutal. They would practice all sorts of Catholic Inquisition grotesquery on Ukrainians (e.g. impaling them on poles) and other torture that was also imposed on the New World aboriginals by both the Spanish and the Portuguese.

The current Polish role as US bootlick and at the same acting as if they are still lords of the region, and Ukraine in particular, is transcendentally obscene and absurd. I view the Kiev regime and the Lviv based western Banderatard slime as nothing more than the descendants of the slime that licked Polish boots in centuries past. Such comprador slime always exist and everywhere. They have the upper hand for now, but time is not on their side. They can't feed BS nazi "nationalism" to the masses indefinitely while the standard of living of the masses swirls the toilet bowl.

kirill , July 6, 2017 at 7:13 pm
If Poland bases a lot of its hate for Russia on the alleged failure to support the Warsaw uprising, then it can go and shove itself en masse where the Sun don't shine. The Polish government in exile that was orchestrating this event from abroad with the prodding of the pathological meddlers, the British, was vehemently anti-Soviet. Clue #1: Stalin was not in any alliance with the Polish government in exile even if he was in an alliance of convenience with the British and the Americans. (You know, just because I am the friend of your friend does not mean that I am your friend.) The Polish government in exile did not coordinate anything with Soviet forces and Soviet forces, you know, were actually fighting a war on the eastern front and could not willy nilly change their plans and throw around resources. Wikicrappia deliberately distorts the facts about the deployment of Soviet forces to peddle the narrative that they had it easy and could readily give assistance. Clue #2: in war time, the flexibility to facilitate surprise requests for assistance is essentially zero. It would take weeks and months to coordinate a re-allocation of resources and adjustment of war planning. Don't forget that urban warfare is one of the most costly in terms of KIA and wounded.

People's ignorance of war time realities is not an excuse for BS opinions. Stating that Soviet forces were across the Vistula river and inferring that they were able to "help" and chose not to is revisionist excrement based on pure ignorance of the audience (this narrative is of course propagated with malicious intent). You just don't foist a major urban warfare operation on any army out of the blue. To even think that you can leaves one groping for rational anchor points since it is beyond retarded. How was the Soviet Army supposed to treat this surprise call for help. If I was in Stalin's shoes I would see a very high potential for falling into a trap. The Germans were well entrenched in Warsaw so it would take considerable resources to dislodge them. That means drawing resources from other parts of the front. There was no vast pool of reserves and equipment behind the lines. Attrition affected the USSR and not just the Nazis and their allies.

Where is the culpability of the Polish government in exile? What forced them to stage this operation knowing full well that it would fail. They knew that Soviet forces would not just jump over the river at the snap of the fingers. Who are the real criminally negligent and heartless scumbags responsible? The propaganda narrative wants the bleeding heart to blame the Soviets. The bleeding heart should consider all the aspects of this event and not invoke irrelevant analogies (e.g. if your neighbour's house was burning, you would offer help. No since your house is on fire too).

rkka , July 7, 2017 at 8:56 am
"
"Initially, the Poles established control over most of central Warsaw, but the Soviets ignored Polish attempts to establish radio contact"

That's because Soviet 2nd Tank Army had run into the 4 panzer divisions of German 39th Panzer Corps, and were pretty busy fighting German tanks.

"and did not advance beyond the city limits."

Actually, 39th Panzercorps enveloped & annihilated Soviet 3rd Tank Corps (a division sized Soviet mobile unit, smaller than a panzer division actually) and drove Soviet 8th Guards Tank Corps away from Warsaw. Polish accounts never seem to mention that

"Intense street fighting between the Germans and Poles continued. By 14 September, Polish forces under Soviet high command occupied the east bank of the Vistula river opposite the resistance positions; but only 1,200 men made it across to the west bank, and they were not reinforced by the bulk of the Red Army. "

Gen-Lt Berling's 1st Polish Army had 4 rifle divisions and several artillery brigades on its order of battle, so the fact that these 1200 brave men went unsupported is due more to failures by Polish 1st Army, rather than the 'Red Army' as a whole.

"This, and the lack of Soviet air support from a base 5 minutes flying time away,"

And the fact that JG 52, the highest-scoring fighter outfit in the whole Luftwaffe had air superiority over Warsaw at the time.

"led to allegations that Joseph Stalin tactically halted his forces to let the operation fail and allow the Polish resistance to be crushed. "

Actually, that accusation was first levied by the Polish Gvt-in-exile in London, who on 4 August 1944 accused the Soviet Army of 'just standing by, passive and ostentatious, at a distance of a dozen kilometers from Warsaw'

A couple days later, 39 Panzercorps overcame the last resistance of 3rd Tank Corps 15km east of Warsaw, taking 6000 prisoners & counting 3000 Soviet dead from a force of 10,500. So, for Poles, a heavily outnumbered division-sized Soviet mechanized force suffering a 90% casualty rate counts as 'Just standing by, passive and ostentatious.' That tells you all you need to know about Polish-sourced accounts of the heavy fighting outside Warsaw in Aughst & September 1944.

"Arthur Koestler called the Soviet attitude "one of the major infamies of this war which will rank for the future historian on the same ethical level with Lidice"

Who cares what a fact-free know-nothing says? Not me.

Bob , July 7, 2017 at 11:30 am
Heinz Guderian said that the Soviets faced problems and needed to re-group. The Polish Uprising didn't coordinate with the Soviets beforehand. When the Poles appeared to be winning, propaganda from the London Polish side included the notion that they could win without the Soviets.

Stalin was a mean prick. Sovoks don't mention his decline to help the West send relief to the Poles in the uprising.

The Poles doubled dealed during the Russian Civil War in addition to having a lengthy record of aggression against Russia.

[Jul 07, 2017] Tillerson Russia Must Ensure Syria Does Not 'Illegitimately' Retake Its Territory

Trump discredited himself with the Tomahawk launches after deliberately false interpretation of Khan_sheikhoun_attack as chemical.
Jul 07, 2017 | russia-insider.com
RI Staff 13 hours ago | 5029 103

Widely reported as a US offer of cooperation on Syria given ahead of the Trump-Putin meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's recent comments on Syria are actually rather scandalous and self-righteous :

In a statement, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. is open to establishing no-fly zones in Syria in coordination with Russia as well as jointly setting up a truce monitoring and humanitarian aid delivery mechanism.

Tillerson noted that the U.S. and Russia have a variety of unresolved differences but said Syria is an opportunity for the two countries to create stability in Syria.

He said that Russia , as an ally of Syrian President Bashar Assad and a participant in the conflict, " has a responsibility to ensure that the needs of the Syrian people are met and that no faction in Syria illegitimately re-takes or occupies areas liberated from ISIS' or other terrorist groups' control." Tillerson added that Russia has "an obligation to prevent any further use of chemical weapons of any kind by the Assad regime."

What Tillerson has said here is that Syria attempting to regain control of any parts of Syria which have been taken by US-Kurdish or US-rebel forces from ISIS would be considered "illegitimate" by the US, and that Russia must ensure it does not happen.

Bizarrely the US believes it and its proxies have more legitimacy to hold Syrian territory than does the internationally recognized Syrian government which sits in its UN chair in New York.

Given such rhetoric by the "moderate" Tillerson we wonder what the US offer of cooperation on "no-fly zones" means. Neither Russia nor Syria have been talking about any such zones except in the sense of offering them to the opposition if the latter signs under Astana process and breaks off from al-Qaeda (Tahrir al-Sham).

Probably what Tillerson means is that the US is ready to cooperate on establishing no-fly zones over Syria for Syrians and Russians.

[Jul 07, 2017] What's really behind all the fake anti-Russia hysteria

Notable quotes:
"... However, in the wake of the Trump presidency, Deep State ..."
"... Whenever the Neocon cabal wants war, they pull out all the stops. However, in 2017, their New World Order ..."
"... As usual, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is coordinating the Russophobic propaganda campaign. The following data point explains why the CIA is always so effective in this endeavor and institutionally oriented to forever conduct war propaganda campaigns distinguished by extreme Russophobia. ..."
"... "General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany. In 1948, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter assumed control of the so-called Gehlen Organization." ..."
"... "excuse of the millennium" ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | stateofthenation2012.com
March 17, 2017

Why so much naked propaganda and fake news directed against Russia especially since Trump's election?

Executive Summary:

The Deep State now fears a "partnership for peace" between the United States and Russia more than anything else. It used to fear the natural alliance between Russia and Germany, since the Anglo-American domination of the world would be genuinely threatened by such a powerful geopolitical relationship. The two World Wars were engineered to pit Russia against Germany in order to preclude such a bloc from forming. The same Neocon cabal has been very busy setting up Europe for yet a third world war by manipulating Merkel's government against Putin's Kremlin. The immigrant crisis that began with the wars in the Middle East and North Africa was literally manufactured to destabilize Europe as a precursor to World War III.

However, in the wake of the Trump presidency, Deep State now has a much bigger 'problem'-the very real prospect of a United States-Russian Federation entente. For this reason, the CIA and MSM (mainstream media) have been beating the war drums like never before. Russia has, overnight, become the whipping boy for everything wrong with the Democratic Party as well as the scapegoat for every major intel security lapse in the USA. The U.S. Intelligence Community will continue to fabricate patently false stories about the Trump Administration with respect to Russia as pre-emptive strikes to make any meaningful dialogue politically precarious. At the request of the CIA, the MSM will also continue to publish fake news and naked propaganda about the same in order to greatly inflame anti-Russian sentiment.

Whenever the Neocon cabal wants war, they pull out all the stops. However, in 2017, their New World Order is under serious assault around the globe and war has become an apparent necessity. Populist movements and nationalist revolutions are springing up like mushrooms across the planet. After the controlled demolition of the global economic and financial system, the cabal considers war - World War III - as their only real option (just as they created the Great Depression to set the stage for World War II). Inciting extreme Russophobia has always been their means to starting the real big wars. WW3 will be no different, unless Trump and Putin meet in broad daylight and declare Deep State the archenemy of We the People everywhere. That's the short story, now read on for the extended back story.
________________________________________________________

The entire anti-Russian campaign is being quite deliberately orchestrated at the highest echelons of Deep State and the U.S. Intelligence Community.[1]

As usual, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is coordinating the Russophobic propaganda campaign. The following data point explains why the CIA is always so effective in this endeavor and institutionally oriented to forever conduct war propaganda campaigns distinguished by extreme Russophobia.

"General Reinhard Gehlen, former head of Nazi intelligence operations against the Soviets, was hired by the US Army and later by the CIA to operate 600 ex-Nazi agents in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany. In 1948, CIA Director Roscoe Hillenkoetter assumed control of the so-called Gehlen Organization." (Source: www.cia.gov )

... ... ...

The central organizing principle , which is always followed religiously by the secret NWO ruling cabal, concerns the strict maintenance of the perpetual war economy .

Toward that end, world peace can never be achieved. Rather, only the false notion that peace may be attained - at some magical moment in the future - is ever projected.

Consequently, the imaginary split between East and West is always exploited to the max by the ruling cabal. The East is just far and foreign enough relative to the West that it can always be successfully set up as the [fictitious] bogeyman.

... ... ... Clinton and Podesta

As always, there are several levels of intrigue going on simultaneously whenever Deep State undertakes such an all-consuming global operation as the "Russian hack" psyop. The sheer domination of the daily news cycle by "Russia this; Russia that" is always a reflection of what TPTB really do fear the most. However, there is also a purely political point being scored with this completely contrived Russophobia black op.

Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign chairman was John Podesta. Both Clinton and Podesta have gone down in U.S. presidential election history as the two of the biggest losers of all time. Bear in mind that this was Clinton's second humiliating loss after being blindsided by Barack Obama in 2008. Not only did these two very bad losers need a very good excuse for all the livid donors, they were also desperate for a story that would pacify their ultra-sensitive and still-crying liberal base.

There are actually multiple reasons why these two characters required the "excuse of the millennium" as to why they just got trounced by Trump. The very best they could come up with was the "Russian election hack". This false accusation led to the baseless conclusion that the election was hacked by the Russians and, therefore, the Democrats were powerless in defeat, even though no such thing happened.

This gave Podesta, especially, something very BIG to talk about at a time when his direct involvement with Pizzagate was being virally exposed in the worldwide Alt Media, and then to a lesser extent by the MSM. Once Pizzagate was exposed as Podesta's Achilles' heel, he became like a wounded animal thrashing about in sheer desperation. This is when the anti-Russian campaign was really racheted up because the very future of the Democratic Party was hanging in the balance as was his political fate.

PIZZAGATE : The Scandal That Will Take Down the Clintons, the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration

Clinton also needed to blame anyone but herself, being the most inferior and corrupt, caustic and unlikeable, offensive and dangerous, mean-spirited and vengeful presidential candidate in U.S history. How she ever even got the nomination can only be explained by the staunch support she received from the warmongering Neocons. They prepared her over the course of her entire career to be the POTUS who would wage war on Russia, even if it meant going nuclear on them.

Key Point: HRC was actually disqualified from holding any public office based on her own admissions of fact. ( U.S. CODE: Hillary R. Clinton is disqualified from holding any public office in the United States Government )

Most expediently, the concocted "Russian hacking" narrative by Podesta perfectly plays into the Neocon machination to provoke Russia into a regional war (e.g. Ukraine) on the way to triggering a full-scale WW3. The war propaganda also feeds into their desire for massive war profiteering in the form of gun running, human trafficking, drug smuggling, artifact black marketing, oil theft and other illicit enterprises which are easily covered up in the fog of war.

Lastly, this "Russian hacking" approach, the Neocons hope, will afford them the opportunity to again take back the Motherland from the Russian people. The Neocon cabal longs for the day when they can complete their Russia exploitation project via their oligarch agents of predatory capitalism and the draconian application of neoliberal economics. What follows is the back story to this multi-decade conspiratorial movement that has brought so much death and destruction to Russia for a century, as well as to the world-at-large. STRATFOR Chief Reveals Zio-Anglo-American Plot For World Domination

The bottom line here is that neither Clinton nor Podesta would take any blame whatsoever for their epic failure. Clinton herself had issued many anti-Russian screeds during the debates in order to smear Trump so it was a very convenient excuse when they were soundly defeated at the polls. It's a well known fact that criminally insane psychopaths will never assume responsibility for their misconduct and/or unlawful actions. When such bad actors enter politics, their incorrigible criminal behavior mixes with those of similar ilk, and then all hell can break loose as it is across America today. This link explains the surreptitious process of ponerization in much greater detail: PONERIZATION: How the American Republic was taken over by political cliques of criminally insane psychopaths

Deep State

Because of so many unanticipated eventualities, the agents of Deep State are working triple time to sow seed of chaos and confusion everywhere and anywhere. It's as though Pandora's box has been opened in every nation on Earth wherein each is now plagued with so much political pandemonium and social mayhem, economic instability and financial insecurity.

Economic Sabotage & Financial Terrorism: The Primary Weapons Deep State Will Use Against The Trump Administration

In light of this rapidly devolving predicament, it's more essential than ever for President Trump and President Putin to meet face-to-face in order to meet this extraordinary global challenge. The world is truly at a crossroad: it can follow the Neocons to more war or the righteous leaders to an enduring peace.

The current generation has never witnessed two presidents of the 2 superpowers willing to sit down with each other in a mutually respectful manner. This alone bodes well for humanity; now, if only they can be compelled by their good conscience to speak to each other as members of the universal brotherhood.

Remember, Deep State knows that it will be like the Titanic colliding with the iceberg should Trump and Putin cooperate to expose the real "Beast" that has terrorized the planet for so long. And Deep State will be the Titanic. Should enough people wake up to this unfolding reality, everything can change in a day and a night. There is nothing so strong and formidable as people power in this age of populist movements and authentic revolutions. Therefore, the real mission here is to enlighten as many people as possible before things really get so out of control that we move past the point of no return.

Trump cannot allow a fake Russian conspiracy to keep him from his stated mission. He said many times on the campaign trail that there was no reason not to make peace with Russia. And Trump asked why anyone would ever want war with the nuclear superpower. Putin is his own man and quite willing to meet with Trump. The vast majority of his people only want peace and good will between the two nations.

... ... ...

[Jul 07, 2017] Putin, Trump to meet in Germany amid a sea of disputes

Notable quotes:
"... ... The only issue where observers think a deal could be made is President Barack Obama's decision in December to shut down Russian Embassy compounds in Maryland and on Long Island, New York. The Kremlin emphasized this week that it has shown remarkable restraint by failing to respond tit-for-tat and warned that its patience is running out. ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
"If Putin comes to the conclusion that even if Russia and the U.S. reach agreement, Trump would be unable to implement it for domestic policy reasons, he would lose interest in seeking an agreement," said Dmitri Trenin, the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.

... ... ...

Russia and the U.S. have struggled to even set a specific time for Friday's meeting and the White House says there's "no specific agenda" for it. When the two presidents finally sit down for a talk, sharp differences remain on a wide range of issues, from Syria and the Ukrainian crisis to nuclear arms control.

While Trump has said the U.S. and Russia could pool efforts to fight the Islamic State group in Syria, Moscow's firm support for Syrian President Bashar Assad makes any agreement unlikely.

Moscow responded angrily when Trump ordered a missile strike on a Syrian base in April after a chemical attack blamed on Assad's forces, and was also vexed by the U.S. downing of a Syrian warplane in June. After last month's incident, the Russian military suspended a hotline with the U.S. to prevent mid-air incidents and warned that it would track U.S.-led coalition aircraft as potential targets over Syria.

And when the White House warned last week that Assad was preparing for another chemical attack and would "pay a heavy price" if he launches it, Russia responded by offering the Syrian ruler a tour of its air base.

Even though the Russian and U.S. militaries in Syria have worked out a way to avoid collisions, the situation could grow more unstable if Putin and Trump fail to get along, Trenin warned.

Bitter differences over Ukraine haven't been resolved. Some U.S. lawmakers have been pushing the White House to approve the delivery of weapons to the Ukrainian military in response to Moscow's support for separatists in eastern Ukraine - a move that would cross a red line for the Kremlin.

... The only issue where observers think a deal could be made is President Barack Obama's decision in December to shut down Russian Embassy compounds in Maryland and on Long Island, New York. The Kremlin emphasized this week that it has shown remarkable restraint by failing to respond tit-for-tat and warned that its patience is running out.

[Jul 07, 2017] Tillerson Putin Asked Trump For Proof Of Russias Interference In The 2016 Election

Trump discredited himself with the Tomahawk launches after deliberately false interpretation of Khan_sheikhoun_attack as chemical attack using zarin.
Notable quotes:
"... Putin wants to know who killed DNC email leaker Seth Rich? ..."
"... God, I hope they discussed taking down and prosecuting the Pedo elites. ..."
"... "CNN is reporting that Trump gave Alaska back to Russia during this meeting" ..."
"... when the US deep state has been neutered ??? ..."
Jul 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Update: As part of the 2+ hour discussion between presidents Trump and Putin, AP reports that the Russian president asked for "proof and evidence" of Moscow's alleged interference in the 2016 election which Russia denies . The request was made after Trump confronted Putin about Moscow's election meddling during their first face-to-face meeting in Germany on Friday, according to Rex Tillerson who was present in the meeting. The secretary of state told reporters afterward that Trump opened the conversation by "raising the concerns of the American people regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election."

Putin once again denied Russian involvement, Tillerson said, but Trump "pressed" him on the matter "on more than one occasion."

'President Putin denied such involvement as I think he has in the past,' he continued.

The Russians, speaking after the meeting, claimed that Trump accepted the denial - but Tillerson did not. Instead he said the issue may simply be an 'intractable disagreement.' Tillerson also said the Russians pushed Trump for proof and evidence of meddling, something which the president himself had doubted in public as recently as Thursday.

"The president at this point pressed him and felt like at this point, let's talk about how do we go forward,' Tillerson said.

Trump and Putin agreed to explore a "framework" around which they can work to better understand these types of cyberthreats, the U.S. diplomat said.

"The two leaders agreed that this is a substantial hindrance on the ability of us to move Russian-U.S. relationships forward and agreed to exchange further work ?regarding commitments of noninterference in the affairs of the United States and our democratic process as well as those of other countries," Tillerson said. "So more work to be done in that regard."

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, who was in the meeting, said afterward that Trump accepted Putin's assurances that Russia didn't interfere in the election. But Tillerson, who has publicly called out Russia for election interference in the past, said he was 'not dismissing the issue in any way' and did not echo that language.

The secretary of state acknowledged that Putin's insistence that Russia did not interfere would leave the two countries at an impasse, at least for now. "It's not clear to me that we will ever come to some agreed-upon resolution of that question between the two nations," he said.

"So the question is, what do we do now?"

We are confident that the US press, which will not let this topic drop, will come up with some suggestions.

* * *

Earlier

Following their first ever, 2+ hour meeting which was originally supposed to last only 30-40 minutes, the question on everyone's mind was what did the two discuss.

So, in addition to the previously discussed ceasefire agreement in Southwest Syria unexpectedly announced by the two nations, speaking at the beginning of his meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Vladimir Putin said that during his first meeting with US President Donald Trump, the two discussed Syria, Ukraine, counterterrorism, and drumroll, the "fight against cyber crime. "

"I had a very lengthy conversation with the President of the United States, there were a lot of issues such as Ukraine, Syria, other problems, some bilateral issues", according to Interfax news agency . "We again returned to the issues of fighting terrorism and cybersecurity," Putin added.

Elaborating after the meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Trump repeatedly pressed Putin on the matter over the course of their meeting (see below for details).

Putin denied Russia's involvement, and according to a parallel comment from Russia's Sergey Lavrov, " Trump accepted Putin's assurance of no election hacking ."

Or as Interfax put it:

  • TRUMP ACKNOWLEDGES ANTI-RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN U.S. ALREADY LOOKING ODD, THAT HE ACCEPTS PUTIN'S STATEMENTS ON THIS MATTER - LAVROV: IFX

However, it appears Lavrov may have taken some artistic liberty, because according to NBC's chief White House correspondent, one administration official has said Lavrov's comment is " not accurate "

Pushback already from Trump administration: one official tells @NBCNews Lavrov's "not accurate" w/this comment --> https://t.co/URIsFPQYWT

- Hallie Jackson (@HallieJackson) July 7, 2017

Additionally, Tillerson also discussed the ceasefire deal in Syria :

"A cease-fire has been entered into," U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters. This is the "first indication of the U.S. and Russia being able to work together in Syria," he said.

Until now, Putin and Trump had only spoken on the phone. They were not alone: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were also present at the talks.

* * *

Earlier, during the press photo session, Trump told the media that "President Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it's going very well."

"We've had some very, very good talks, we are going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue," Trump added, saying there are hopes of "a lot of very positive things happening."

"It's an honor to be with you, thank you," Trump concluded, offering his hand to Putin.

"I'm delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President," Putin countered. "And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result."

"Spasibo [thank you]," the US leader added in Russian. lester1 Jul 7, 2017 1:16 PM

Putin wants to know who killed DNC email leaker Seth Rich? Putin wants to know who killed DNC email leaker Seth Rich?
y3maxx lester1 Jul 7, 2017 1:22 PM
"Until now, Putin and Trump had only spoken on the phone."

CNN will jump all over this one, and Hitlary will call for another investigation.

yogibear y3maxx Jul 7, 2017 1:29 PM
Putin and Trump did what Obama could never do.

Putin and Trump did it in 2 hours!

Bathouse Barry deserved little respect. Bowing to every leader.

sixsigma cygnus... yogibear Jul 7, 2017 1:38 PM
I think a 30 minute meeting that turned into a 2 hour meeting with Putin is much better than the war with Russia that Hitlery had planned for us. Getting along with Russia is a good thing.
El Vaquero nope-1004 Jul 7, 2017 2:13 PM
That was just Kabuki theater, really. If Russia had hacked the election, the NSA and the CIA would have gone back through all of their stored data and found the evidence of it and crucified Trump and probably taken us to war.

PrayingMantis Blue Balls Jul 7, 2017 2:37 PM

... the planned 30-40-min meeting stretched to 2+ hours perhaps so they could talk about how to "carve" Syria into various "states" (since the US already has a modern airport in the Northern reaches of the beleaguered and oppressed sovereign country without the consent and permission of Syria's Al Assad >>> http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960415000266 ) ...

... and how not to hit any of their "flying objects" (jets and drones) trying to keep their respective MIC and banksters happy funding all these war toys ...

... and the oppressors, at the behest of their (((Red Shield))) masters and its BIS central banks' ownership of all worldwide central banks (with the exception of Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba), might just be pulling the necessary strings on how to divide the residual loot they'd get when Syria falls ...

... the ((( Red Shield snake ))) is poised to strike again ...

... meanwhile, attention Linux users ... "WikiLeaks Exposes CIA Targeting Linux Users With OutlawCountry Network Traffic Re-Routing Tool" ... >>> https://hothardware.com/news/wikileaks-exposes-cia-targeting-linux-users-with-outlawcountry-network-traffic-re-routing-tool ...

Ghost of PartysOver The_Juggernaut Jul 7, 2017 2:13 PM

I have said it before and will say it again, if the NeoCons and NeoLibs fail to find any Russian State Sanctioned evidence of election tampering or collusion then I would expect a trade deal with Russia within a year of two. Always better to have Boardroom Wars instead of Hot Wars. For the down voters may I remind you that Japan attacked the US, US was at war with Germany, do I need to mention Vietnam. All foes at one time and now trading partners.
CheapBastard Ghost of PartysOver Jul 7, 2017 2:25 PM
Clinton chairman John "Pizza Man" Podesta tells Trump: 'Get a grip'

Mr Podesta hit back in seven tweets, branding Mr Trump a "whack job".

"Everyone here is talking about why John Podesta refused to give the DNC server to the FBI and the CIA Disgraceful!" Mr Trump tweeted on Friday morning from Hamburg.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40533959

Screw PedoMan. He should be in jail already.

laser Ghost of PartysOver Jul 7, 2017 2:30 PM

And Japan's attack was a surprise and unprovoked. Right?
Gardentoolnumber5 laser Jul 7, 2017 4:28 PM
US canceling the 1902 trade agreement. Metal and other material embargo. Oil and gas embargo. Then the open sea policy after non-declared economic war started in '38. Kind of like bombing other countries and having the welcome mat out for them. Sanctions/embargoes are acts of war.

chiswickcat sixsigma cygnusatratus Jul 7, 2017 2:26 PM

God, I hope they discussed taking down and prosecuting the Pedo elites.
Give Me Some Truth sixsigma cygnusatratus Jul 7, 2017 2:49 PM
The sanctions against Russia (that Trump must have supported, certainly 97 senators support this) are really a form of warfare.

If Trump DID "accept Putin's Assurances" that Putin's government did NOT meddle in a U.S. election, why then the necessity of these sanctions?

HRClinton sixsigma cygnusatratus Jul 7, 2017 2:50 PM
No lasting peace or deep cooperation between the US and Russia will be permitted, until the Khazariabs approve it, bless it and put their logo (with a micro tax) on it.

El Vaquero y3maxx Jul 7, 2017 1:57 PM

I think that CNN is getting its pee-pee slapped pretty hard right now. It has incurred the wrath of the internet hate machine and its ratings are sliding into the shitter on the eve of a corporate buyout of its parent company. I'd say that there are pretty good odds that CNN will either not exist in the near future, or it will exist in name only in the same way that Communist China is no longer actually Communist.

CheapBastard Lumberjack Jul 7, 2017 2:29 PM

Putin just handed him the photos of when Bill Clinton "gave a lecture" there for $2 million innturn for Hillary's handing the Russians 20% of American uranium.

Photos probably show a dozen mixed midgets peeing on Bill as he has sex with some Russian farm animals.

Sounds like Bill.

chiswickcat lester1 Jul 7, 2017 1:44 PM
"It's an honour to be with you, thank you" - Trump to Putin. Now watch Pedo-desta and Mad Maxine claim this is 'all the proof they need' that Trump is colluding with Putin.
Barney Fife lester1 Jul 7, 2017 6:24 PM
His name was Seth Rich.
Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 1:18 PM
CNN is reporting that Trump gave Alaska back to Russia during this meeting.
Herd Redirectio... Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 1:25 PM
Should give them California from Fort Ross south, as well...
Ralph Spoilsport Herd Redirection Committee Jul 7, 2017 1:31 PM
Interesting. Spetznaz troops could clear out La Raza in no time lol.
Herd Redirectio... Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 1:38 PM
I am sure they would have a field day dealing with Hollywood's Gay Mafia as well.
CheapBastard Herd Redirection Committee Jul 7, 2017 2:31 PM
Barney Franks and Cooper Anderson would squeal for joy!
chiswickcat Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 1:57 PM
CNN also reported that Trump gave Putin the launch codes.
JustPrintMoreDuh Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 2:17 PM
Well he will likely have much more flexibility after his re-election
MaxThrust Ralph Spoilsport Jul 7, 2017 5:49 PM
"CNN is reporting that Trump gave Alaska back to Russia during this meeting"

I think this is fake news. /s/s

If Alaska becomes Russian territory again then Kim's missles will only be able to threaten Russia. How the hell will CNN beat the war drums for the MIC ?

souljaboy Jul 7, 2017 1:18 PM
I'm sure this is the kind of stuff that just kills Hillary Clinton.
chiswickcat souljaboy Jul 7, 2017 2:24 PM
...and the military industrial complex. Who do you think whispered in First Lady's ear to get meeting ended?
TILLERSON SAYS NEITHER LEADER WANTED TO STOP MEETING, U.S. FIRST LADY CAME IN AT ONE POINT TO TRY TO GET THEM TO CONCLUDE: RTRS
Anasteus TheJewsDidIT666 Jul 7, 2017 1:44 PM
Yes, indeed they have. After organizing and taking over Russia in 1917 during the Bolshevik revolution, when poor Russians had to undergo tremendous suffering caused by the most horrid scum imaginable, they now know the truth will soon come out. Everything one needs to know.
kochevnik walküre Jul 7, 2017 2:51 PM
Main activity of Ukraine is offshore banking for Nigerians
walküre kochevnik Jul 7, 2017 5:32 PM
Nigerian princes scam Americans and Brits into sending money which then gets deposited into Ukrainian banks?

Good luck with that. How safe is any of them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banks_in_Ukraine

Without the transit tolls for gas into EU, the Ukraine is a bankrupt farming nation.

EddieLomax TheJewsDidIT666 Jul 7, 2017 2:12 PM
I'd say it was more likely the people profitting from vast sums of money channelled into the US military-industrial complex. So many jobs also rely on it that it has become an impossible to kill program.

For that money the US gets a navy ready at any time to defeat imperial Japan again, and an army poised to push the Soviet hordes back in western Europe. It's absurd, like a Coyote cartoon where he is still standing but the ground beneath him has disappeared. Trump is smart, he can take on the mainstream media, the democrats and the republicans, but he cannot take on the military industrial complex at the same time and he knows it, whether he can ever or wants to is the real question.

If Trump left office with the next president no longer beholden to the military industrial complex, then he would be the greatest US president since George Washington.

ludwigvmises Jul 7, 2017 1:20 PM
So the 30 minute meeting turned into 2 hours? That's good, it means they got on well. Putin is known to cut meetings short if he finds it's a waste of time.
CheapBastard Kayman Jul 7, 2017 2:34 PM
<<So the 30 minute meeting turned into 2 hours? That's good, it means they got on well. >>

Putin and Trump enjoy talking to strong leaders, not limp wristed pussies. Even Condy Rice said Soweeto is considered a 'weak man' by foreign leaders. I guess she's being polite and at least called him a "man" instead of a tranny.

TabakLover Jul 7, 2017 1:21 PM
When will the "McCain" mindset toward Russia end? That being, if we win they lose and vice versa. Why the US and Russia could not/should not team up to stand against China and both win? We have so much more with the Russians as a people than we do with the Chinese, as do they.

Herd Redirectio... order66 Jul 7, 2017 1:32 PM

One of those forgotten episodes of history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_the_American_Revolution BTW, order66, Russia has been ruled by 'dictators' for about 700 years. I'd say Putin has another 10 to 12 years left in his rule of Russia.
seataka order66 Jul 7, 2017 1:32 PM
when the US deep state has been neutered ???
CheapBastard jm Jul 7, 2017 2:35 PM
When will Putin return my TV remote they stole during the election?

[Jul 07, 2017] Deep State Begins Anti-Russia Media Blitz Ahead Of Trump-Putin Meeting

Hacking allegations is just a projection... Remember Stixnet and Flame?
Jul 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

And so, three stories (2 anonymously sourced and one with no facts behind it) in The New York Times ( who recently retracted their "17 intelligence agencies" lie ) and CNN ( where do we start with these guys? let's just go with full retraction of an anonymously sourced lie about Scaramucci and Kushner and the Russians ) should stir up enough angst to ensure the meeting is at best awkward and at worst a lose-lose for Trump (at least in the eyes of the media).

First off we have the 'news' that hackers have reportedly been breaking into computer networks of companies operating United States nuclear power stations, energy facilities and manufacturing plants , according to a new report by The New York Times.

The origins of the hackers are not known. But the report indicated that an "advanced persistent threat" actor was responsible, which is the language security specialists often use to describe hackers backed by governments.

The two people familiar with the investigation say that, while it is still in its early stages, the hackers' techniques mimicked those of the organization known to cybersecurity specialists as "Energetic Bear," the Russian hacking group that researchers have tied to attacks on the energy sector since at least 2012.

And Bloomberg piled on...

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9533801169000550?pubid=ld-1806-5338&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Frussia-insider.com&width=686

So that's that 5 people - who know something - suspect it was the Russians that are hacking US nuclear facilities (but there's no proof).

Next we move to CNN who claim a 'current and former U.S. intelligence officials' told them that Russian spies have been stepping up their intelligence gathering efforts in the U.S. since the election, feeling emboldened by the lack of significant U.S. response to Russian election meddling .

"Russians have maintained an aggressive collection posture in the US, and their success in election meddling has not deterred them," said a former senior intelligence official familiar with Trump administration efforts.

"The concerning point with Russia is the volume of people that are coming to the US. They have a lot more intelligence officers in the US" compared to what they have in other countries, one of the former intelligence officials says.

But, according to Steve Hall, retired CIA chief of operations, the Russians could also be seeking more information on Trump's administration, which is new and still unpredictable to Moscow

So that's more anonymous sourcing about Russian spies... doing what they would normally do during a presidential transition.

And so finally, a third story - with CNN trotting out former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to pin the 'Russians did it' tail on the "this is why we lost the election" donkey...

me title=

Claiming that the Russians alone were responsible for interference ...

"As far as others doing this, well that's new to me," Clapper, who served under former President Barack Obama, said during an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room."

"We saw no evidence whatsoever that [there] was anyone involved in this other than the Russians," he said.

So in summary - 3 stories pinning Russia for shameful acts against 'Murica that just happen to hit hours before Trump shakes hands with Putin... ensuring that unless Trump slams Putin to the ground like a wrestling-CNN-logo, he will be adjudged as being soft... and therefore clearly in cahoots with the Russian leader. Seriously, do the Deep State realy think Americans are that dumb? (rhetorical question)


medium giraffe , Jul 6, 2017 9:49 PM

" Russian hackers are targeting US nuclear facilities"

Reminds me of the claim that British subs can be hacked. What? do you just fucking google for them?

So much bullshit.....

espirit -> medium giraffe , Jul 6, 2017 9:59 PM

Old saying goes: Don't piss in the well you drink out of. Scorched earth here we come.

WordSmith2013 -> espirit , Jul 6, 2017 10:02 PM

The back story to the endless propaganda about Russia is all about the GREAT GAME .

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=68902

What's really behind all the fake anti-Russia hysteria?

The "Executive Summary" says it all!

Dukes -> WordSmith2013 , Jul 6, 2017 10:10 PM

Trump and Putin should have a "beer summit". Let the shitty msm have a field day rationalizing how this time it's bad.

J S Bach -> Dukes , Jul 6, 2017 10:54 PM

Sometimes I just want to escape to the woods and never come back. This (((media world of inane contrivance))) literally makes me ill.

luky luke -> J S Bach , Jul 6, 2017 11:56 PM

The TRUTH no media will tell you about the conflict with Russia.

http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

tip_top -> J S Bach , Jul 7, 2017 12:14 AM

I'm making over $12k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,..good luck.. www.Jobzon3.com

bamawatson -> tip_top , Jul 7, 2017 1:07 AM

i made $3 a week delivering the local paper every morning in 1961 when i was ten years old. Queer professor named wallace waites would stand in his underwear behind his screen door and beckon me https://vimeo.com/221102826

((another queer professor named cloyd paskins had a heart attack. He did not die. They said he got better after working out with waites))

burtonm.walker -> bamawatson , Jul 7, 2017 3:30 AM

I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... www.jobproplan.com

doctor10 -> J S Bach , Jul 7, 2017 3:34 AM

The MIC must be realizing their line of shit is getting pretty old. Next thing you know, they'll 911 Capitol Hill...

Nexus789 -> Dukes , Jul 7, 2017 5:42 AM

The two should go and get shit faced and solve all the world's problems.

sand_puppy -> WordSmith2013 , Jul 6, 2017 10:47 PM

By "Deep State" and "The Hidden Government" we are referring to the criminal Zionist group, sometimes called just "the neocons" and sometimes the "Khazarian Mafia." (This group does NOT include the majority of American Jews, who tend to be centrist and progressive.) But it does include a smaller subset of the Jewish people. (And a few non-Jewish people like Joe Biden.)

I just came across this interview from the 1970's with H.W. Rosenthal on the Zionist group seeking to rule the world. for me it was very illuminating.

https://nesaraaustralia.wordpress.com/2013/05/09/the-harold-wallace-rose...

meditate_vigorously -> medium giraffe , Jul 7, 2017 12:54 AM

JU's don't care who gets caught in the crossfire of their internecine East/West wars. All of the rest of us are just cattle to the Chosen People.

EmergentMind -> medium giraffe , Jul 7, 2017 1:46 AM

You are "wroking" on it? Tyler, get your editorial skills up to speed, or I forget you as legit.

LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 9:51 PM

I wish we could all stop paying attention to the "war" between Trump and CNN. It's a distraction from much bigger issues. CNN is not "liberal" media. It is the Deep State, which is not liberal or conservative. And I can't help but conclude that Trump is a knowing part of this circus while he leads us into real war under cover of the media war.

null -> LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 9:58 PM

Nice try. Really, that was pretty smooth. But gotta call BS on that ... yes, implying insincerity on your part (with all due respect I suppose).

The shallow play-on-words mixing "liberal" as politically defined with "classic liberal" as in philosophy, would not fool an informed person. But again, nice obfuscation.

LetThemEatRand -> null , Jul 6, 2017 10:02 PM

"Trump just became president."

CNN's Zakaria when Trump bombed Syria.

Fake news? Liberal media?

This is all an act. A circus. A big show.

null -> LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 10:11 PM

Just admit that you are against the stated US policy which, largely because of detractors like yourself, he May Not Change Yet, duh.

No shame in disagreeing with US policy. Do not blame it on POTUS, yet, is that clear? Not yet ...

LetThemEatRand -> null , Jul 6, 2017 10:16 PM

I would say you should be more specific, but I am against almost all stated US foreign policy, so you're probably right. But if you can be more specific I'll tell you specifically if you're right about my position. Which US policy do you think I'm against? I'll give you an honest answer whether I am or not.

null -> LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 10:27 PM

No, that's totally cool! I am guessing polar-opposite, so why nitpick.

One may have to take "US interest" position because of loyalty and not because the US has necessarily acted to deserve this loyalty. The past few decades have been "rough" to say the least.

Many here totally disagree with you about US foreign policy But Hope that this POTUS can cause the US to act in a way that would Mutigate this disagreement. Some things are off the table, but many are likely On The Table with this POTUS.

meditate_vigorously -> null , Jul 7, 2017 1:00 AM

I do not presume to speak for mister LTER, but I inferred his point was, that the existence of things that are "off the table" is proof that Trump is some faction of Deep State, rather than above board on what he sold those of us who voted for him.

null -> meditate_vigorously , Jul 7, 2017 6:42 AM

So disagreement with you about One (or more) policy equals deep-state membership.

Got it ... you certainly can define it how you want.

espirit -> null , Jul 6, 2017 10:20 PM

I got the lowdown about them Rooskies prowling about the nookier plant.

Some was dressed like EPA and DHS, real lookin' badges and everything - but I could tell they wasn't real.

I'll tell the whole true story for a million dollahs.

null -> espirit , Jul 6, 2017 10:33 PM

That'd be funny if the odds were not that something like that was happening constantly ... I think all the parties have been at this dance for a long time.

August -> espirit , Jul 7, 2017 11:06 AM

Back in the day, Clint Eastwood pulled that sort of stuff off... no problem.

baghead -> LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 10:53 PM

Trump bombing syria gave the "deep state" a temporary boner,when he didn't followup with troops,they went right back to bashing him.

ISEEIT -> null , Jul 6, 2017 10:38 PM

You don't get it.

"Progressivism" is the deep state.

"Progressivism" is communism.

Nothing 'liberal' about it.

Wanna be a farm animal.....?

Then be "Progressive".

null -> ISEEIT , Jul 6, 2017 10:50 PM

I don't disagree. Yes, anti-liberal in a classical sense.

But you are talking about Statism in general at that point. And one of the Vehicles is progressivism, sure.

And sure, I will admit that some "farming" is arguably necessary for a modern society to function, that makes me a full-on animal? Not fair ...

The Wizard -> null , Jul 6, 2017 11:45 PM

The arguments here are on the definition of labels. Forget the labels it is quite an easy analysis, centralization of authority vs. decentralization of authority. Call it what you wish.

Memedada -> ISEEIT , Jul 7, 2017 8:29 AM

It is you who don't "get it".

You write like you've been conditioned to - you use the words of your masters.

But maybe you're different (I think not): can you define "progressivism" and "communism" ? I'm a supporter of neither, but I know that in order to cure a disease you have to diagnose it correctly (the reason why the disease in power have made you misdiagnose it as "communism").

meditate_vigorously -> null , Jul 7, 2017 12:57 AM

I was about to tell you to take your meds, but since you got a fair number of upvotes, I wonder what I am missing, that you failed to articulate.

null -> meditate_vigorously , Jul 7, 2017 6:09 AM

Just trying to articulate that people be-talking-crap about this POTUS for no actual reason since he has not gotten a chance to govern.

Good point about the meds ... if you just gotta project to motivate yourself to take yours, glad 2 help.

meditate_vigorously -> null , Jul 7, 2017 1:02 AM

Getting people to think of things as systems and management of systems, rather than Hegellian Dialectic (problem/solution), is the hardest part.

The TV PROGRAMMING over the last 70 years has been more than successful.

hoytmonger -> LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 10:02 PM

Trump does seem to lead the way in terms of distractions.

He's a proven big-government, tax-and-spend progressive from NYC.

He has zero respect for individual liberty or private property rights.

But the mouth breathers eat it up.

Billy the Poet -> hoytmonger , Jul 6, 2017 10:31 PM

You're free to send your global warming contribution to China and make your daughter share a locker room with trannies. No one is stopping you. Release your inner nose breather.

LetThemEatRand -> Billy the Poet , Jul 6, 2017 10:46 PM

Billy, note that the only changes Trump has made so far have been on these issues. Tranny bathrooms. Paris Accord. The exact issues that are designed to divide us. I'll give you that I'd rather have Trump dealing with these issues than Hillary, but have you noticed that the issues that actually matter because they affect us all -- moar war, moar NSA, moar Deep State, bigger military budget, moar prison industrial complex, moar debt -- are the same as they would have been under Hillary?

Billy the Poet -> LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 11:06 PM

Would the media be fracturing like it is if Hillary had won? Would the average guy have ever discovered this thing called the "deep state" if Hillary had won? Would the Clinton Global Initiative have closed up shop if Hillary had won?

LetThemEatRand -> Billy the Poet , Jul 6, 2017 11:20 PM

All good questions. I don't know, except obviously the Clinton Global Initiative would still be going strong had Hillary won.

What I do know is that we're not making any progress towards more individual freedom or less war, or less control by oligarchs/bankers, which are the issues that matter to me. And I'm still making my Obamacare premium payment every month. And my taxes are the same. And my small business red tape is the same.

As for media fracturing, MSNBC has grown in ratings and is now second only to Fox. So divide and conquer seems to be working even better now. I don't have much a dog in the fight of whether CNN specifically rates well.

Billy the Poet -> LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 11:27 PM

Top General Says Hillary No Fly Zone Means WAR With Russia

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzLeRWbVA18

On the other hand:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-prepared-to-ho...

The Wizard -> LetThemEatRand , Jul 6, 2017 11:47 PM

One of the experts on the Clinton Foundations Meet Charles Ortel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26DYq6JM3ew&feature=youtu.be

meditate_vigorously -> Billy the Poet , Jul 7, 2017 1:04 AM

I am missing where he referenced global warming. Are you a professional shill or a professional idiot?

Billy the Poet -> meditate_vigorously , Jul 7, 2017 1:27 AM

I'm the guy who is amused by your outrage.

hoytmonger -> Billy the Poet , Jul 7, 2017 5:31 AM

And you're free to have your land confiscated through eminent domain and have your grandchildren live in debt to pay for your support of the MIC.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-do...

Miss Expectations , Jul 6, 2017 9:51 PM

The lies are too damn big.

Dormouse , Jul 6, 2017 9:52 PM

How is it that Clapper isn't behind bars yet?

BlindMonkey -> Dormouse , Jul 6, 2017 9:57 PM

He is in line. The have to prosecute Jon Corzine first......

Hahahaha. I kill me...

MayIMommaDogFac... -> BlindMonkey , Jul 6, 2017 10:58 PM

FREE JON CORZINE

(sorry, can't help myself)

thinkmoretalkless -> Dormouse , Jul 6, 2017 10:30 PM

For the record, he is a verified liar

Miss Expectations , Jul 6, 2017 9:56 PM

Begin GIFing....Putin Judo video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfGYThX-sTI

max_leering -> Miss Expectations , Jul 6, 2017 10:30 PM

he'd snap trump like a twig... then fart on him

[Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America's triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser. ..."
"... Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement signals a tectonic shift to Washington's distinct detriment, a change largely due to U.S. actions that have pushed the two countries closer together. ..."
"... But there is little sign that today's U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action. Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea or in the air. ..."
"... Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China. ..."
"... A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built. ..."
"... Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea, and he may even hope that South Korea's new President will react more sensibly than his predecessor who authorized THAAD deployment, which has made the North even more nervous about a possible preemptive strike. [In a seminar on the Web in February, Professor J. J. Suh and I discussed THAAD in the historical perspective of missile defense systems.] ..."
"... Less than a month ago, Putin and Xi met in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. At that time, Putin predicted that the bilateral meeting now under way in Moscow would be "a major event in bilateral relations." ..."
"... The Russian leader added, "By tradition, we use every opportunity to meet and to discuss bilateral relations and the international agenda." ..."
"... If Sino-Russian "tradition" is meant to describe relations further back than three decades ago, Putin exaggerates. It was not always so. A half-century retrospective on the vicissitudes of Russia-Chinese relations illustrates the difficult path they have taken. More important, it suggests their current closeness is not likely to evaporate any time soon. ..."
"... Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA's principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington's advantage. ..."
"... The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called "unequal treaties" dating back to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border where islands were claimed by both sides. ..."
"... In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions. By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more immediate threat to them than the U.S., which had fought Chinese troops during the Korean War in the 1950s and refused to recognize the country's communist leadership diplomatically, maintaining the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists on Taiwan remained the legitimate government of China. ..."
"... Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit by President Richard Nixon the next year. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington. ..."
"... Triangular Diplomacy ..."
"... Washington's adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the U.S. and USSR and the Four Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution in Vietnam. ..."
"... It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects of the U.S. approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was. ..."
"... Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President Nixon's first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon. ..."
"... Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added to this rivalry as the U.S. moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the U.S. ..."
"... The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the U.S. bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time. ..."
"... We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong's and Nikita Khrushchev's successors proved to have cooler heads. The U.S., under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the U.S., China and the Soviet Union gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening. ..."
"... Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries, but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that "normalization" of relations between Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China's conditions. For their part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better relations with Washington. ..."
"... Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached "unparalleled heights." He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves. ..."
"... A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight to U.S. hegemony as the world's unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances by pressing NATO up to Russia's borders and President Obama's "pivot to Asia." ..."
"... The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia finally pushed back by approving Crimea's request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev. ..."
"... As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the U.S. government and academe continues to hold that, despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in developing good relations with the U.S. than with each other. ..."
"... The sports slogan has it that nothing is over "until the fat lady sings," but on this topic, her tones are quite clear. The day of the U.S. playing China and Russia off against each other is no more ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | www.unz.com

Top Russian and Chinese leaders are busy comparing notes, coordinating their approach to President Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg this weekend. Both sides are heralding the degree to which ties between the two countries have improved in recent years, as Chinese President Xi Jinping's visits Moscow on his way to the G20. And, they are not just blowing smoke; there is ample substance behind the rhetoric.

Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America's triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser.

Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement signals a tectonic shift to Washington's distinct detriment, a change largely due to U.S. actions that have pushed the two countries closer together.

But there is little sign that today's U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action. Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea or in the air.

Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China.

But consider this: it may soon be possible to foresee a Chinese challenge to "U.S. interests" in the South China Sea or even the Taiwan Strait in tandem with a U.S.-Russian clash in the skies over Syria or a showdown in Ukraine.

A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built.

It's almost like the old days when the U.S. military budgeted to fight wars on multiple fronts simultaneously. Recent weeks saw the following:

–The guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem on Sunday sailed within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese-claimed Triton Island in the Paracels in the South China Sea. The Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately branded this "a serious political and military provocation."

–The U.S. last week announced a $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, placed sanctions on a Chinese bank for its dealings with North Korea, and labeled China the world's worst human trafficker.

–On June 20, President Donald Trump sent off a condescending tweet intimating that, at his request, China had tried but failed to help restrain North Korea's nuclear program: "It has not worked out. At least I know China tried." (Over the centuries, the Chinese have had bad experience with Western condescension.)

Common Concern: Missile Defense

On the eve of his arrival in Moscow, Xi gave an interview to Russia's TASS news agency, in which he focused on missile defense – an issue particularly close to Vladimir Putin's heart . Xi focused on U.S. deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles to South Korea as "disrupting the strategic balance in the region" and threatening the security interests of all countries in the region, including Russia and China.

Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea, and he may even hope that South Korea's new President will react more sensibly than his predecessor who authorized THAAD deployment, which has made the North even more nervous about a possible preemptive strike. [In a seminar on the Web in February, Professor J. J. Suh and I discussed THAAD in the historical perspective of missile defense systems.]

Less than a month ago, Putin and Xi met in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. At that time, Putin predicted that the bilateral meeting now under way in Moscow would be "a major event in bilateral relations."

The Russian leader added, "By tradition, we use every opportunity to meet and to discuss bilateral relations and the international agenda."

If Sino-Russian "tradition" is meant to describe relations further back than three decades ago, Putin exaggerates. It was not always so. A half-century retrospective on the vicissitudes of Russia-Chinese relations illustrates the difficult path they have taken. More important, it suggests their current closeness is not likely to evaporate any time soon.

Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA's principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington's advantage.

The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called "unequal treaties" dating back to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border where islands were claimed by both sides.

In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions. By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more immediate threat to them than the U.S., which had fought Chinese troops during the Korean War in the 1950s and refused to recognize the country's communist leadership diplomatically, maintaining the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists on Taiwan remained the legitimate government of China.

Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit by President Richard Nixon the next year. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington.

Triangular Diplomacy

Washington's adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the U.S. and USSR and the Four Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution in Vietnam.

It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects of the U.S. approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was.

Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President Nixon's first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon.

Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added to this rivalry as the U.S. moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the U.S.

The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the U.S. bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time.

We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong's and Nikita Khrushchev's successors proved to have cooler heads. The U.S., under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the U.S., China and the Soviet Union gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening.

Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries, but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that "normalization" of relations between Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China's conditions. For their part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better relations with Washington.

A New Reality

Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached "unparalleled heights." He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves.

A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight to U.S. hegemony as the world's unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances by pressing NATO up to Russia's borders and President Obama's "pivot to Asia."

The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia finally pushed back by approving Crimea's request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev.

On the global stage, Putin fleshed out the earlier energy deal with China, including a massive 30-year natural gas contract valued at $400 billion. The move helped Putin demonstrate that the West's post-Ukraine economic sanctions posed little threat to Russia's financial survival.

As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the U.S. government and academe continues to hold that, despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in developing good relations with the U.S. than with each other.

The sports slogan has it that nothing is over "until the fat lady sings," but on this topic, her tones are quite clear. The day of the U.S. playing China and Russia off against each other is no more .

One perhaps can hope that someone in the U.S. government will inform President Trump that his Russian and Chinese counterparts are singing from essentially the same songbook, the unintended result of arrogant miscalculations by his immediate predecessors. Implications for U.S. national security are enormous.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected] . A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

[Jul 06, 2017] The Fraud of The White Helmets

Notable quotes:
"... The White Helmets ..."
"... Donald Trump called out Hillary Clinton for her buddy buddy relationship with the Saudi regime and wrote about the KSA funding terrorist groups in his books. In other words Trump was under no illusions about the direct link between Saudi cash and religious ideology and international terrorist groups. Ignorance in this area was not a problem he had. ..."
"... The war in Syria is all about Israel and teaches us our government can be purchased. What a clever investment! For chump change Uncle Sam can be convinced to spend hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, to overthrow the Syrian government, all for Israel's benefit. ..."
"... Buys into? You mean SELLS Yep. Hollywood is one of our lie factories: Hollywood, govt, media, academia, pr/marketing/ adv/polling. ..."
"... April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons. The Western media refutes their own lies. http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784  ..."
"... So is the real Trump the guy who tells Putin he has to do some look-Presidential kabuki, and bomb a Syrian airfield to get the Neocons and CIA off his back - briefly - or is he a gullible emotional dimwit who buys into the transparently ridiculous "sarin attack" bs, despite the intel community telling him it was bs? ..."
"... I thought it was common knowledge by anyone with critical thinking skills that the White Helmets are just a propaganda operation for the Salafist fanatics and not a politically neutral third party as they try to depict themselves. So this would exclude George Clowney, Justin Timbersnowflake and the rest of the left wing Hollywood morons. It's looking like we can lump our president and Nimrata Haley in with the brainless and sentimental Hollywood crowd. ..."
"... "Around half of Russia's gas and oil into the EU is transported there via pipelines that traverse Ukraine, and this is a major reason why the Obama Administration (which was in service to the owners of the U.S.-based international corporations …) started, by no later than 2011, its preparations for a coup in Ukraine, which occurred in February 2014, to overthrow the democratically elected President of Ukraine… ..."
"... Israel is currently attacking the Syrian Army and has long been assisting the so-called rebels. It wants anarchy in Syria so it can steal the remainder of the Golan territory. ..."
"... Now that would be journalism worth its salt. Absolutely. USAID started as a CIA front in Vietnam during the 60s. ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | www.unz.com
Philip Giraldi

I actually forced myself to watch the documentary The White Helmets , which is available on Netflix. It is 40 minutes long, is of high quality cinematographically speaking, and tells a very convincing tale that was promoted as "the story of real-life heroes and impossible hope." It is overall a very impressive piece of propaganda, so much so that it has won numerous awards including the Oscar for Best Documentary Short this year and the White Helmets themselves were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. More to the point, however, is the undeniable fact that the documentary has helped shape the public understanding of what is going on in Syria, delivering a Manichean tale that depicts the "rebels" as always good and Bashar al-Assad and his government as un-redeemably evil.

It has been reliably reported that celebrities like George Clooney, Justin Timberlake and Hillary Clinton really like the White Helmets documentary and have promoted it with the understanding that it represents the truth about Syria, but it is, of course, not the whole story. The film, which was made by the White Helmets themselves without any external verification of what it depicts, portrays the group as "heroic," an "impartial, life-saving rescue organization" of first responders. Excluded from the scenes of heroism under fire is the White Helmets' relationship with the al-Qaeda affiliated group Jabhat al-Nusra and its participation in the torture and execution of "rebel" opponents. Indeed, the White Helmets only operate in rebel held territory, which enables them to shape the narrative both regarding who they are and what is occurring on the ground. Because of increasing awareness of the back story, there is now a growing movement to petition the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to revoke the Oscar based on the complete and deliberate misrepresentation of what the White Helmets are all about.

Exploiting their access to the western media, the White Helmets have de facto become a major source of "eyewitness" news regarding what has been going on in those many parts of Syria where European and American journalists are quite rightly afraid to go. It is all part of a broader largely successful "rebel" effort to manufacture fake news that depicts the Damascus government as engaging in war crimes directed against civilians.

The White Helmets have certainly saved some lives under dangerous circumstances but they have also exaggerated their humanitarian role as they travel to bombing sites with their film crews trailing behind them. Once at the sites, with no independent observers, they are able to arrange or even stage what is filmed to conform to their selected narrative. They have consistently promoted tales of government atrocities against civilians to encourage outside military intervention in Syria and bring about regime change in Damascus. The White Helmets were, for example, the propagators of the totally false but propagandistically effective claims regarding the government use of so-called "barrel bombs" against civilians.

The White Helmets were a largely foreign creation that came into prominence in the aftermath of the unrest in Syria that developed as a result of the Arab Spring in 2012. They are currently largely funded by a number of non-government organizations (NGOs) as well as governments, including Britain and some European Union member states. The United States has directly provided $23 million through the USAID (US Agency for International Development) as of 2016 and almost certainly considerably more indirectly. Max Blumenthal has explored in some detail the various funding resources and relationships that the organization draws on, mostly in Europe and the United States.

Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has described how the White Helmets are not actually trained to do the complicated rescue work that they depict in their self-made videos, which have established their reputation by ostensibly showing them in action inside Syria, rescuing civilians from bombed out structures, and providing life-saving emergency medical care. As an expert in Hazardous Materials handling with New York Task Force 2 USAR team, Ritter reports that "these videos represent de facto evidence of dangerous incompetence or, worse, fraud… The bread and butter of the White Helmet's self-made reputation is the rescue of a victim-usually a small child-from beneath a pile of rubble, usually heavy reinforced concrete… The techniques used by the White Helmets are not only technically wrong, but dangerous to anyone who might actually be trapped… In my opinion, the videos are pure theater, either staged to impress an unwitting audience, or actually conducted with total disregard for the wellbeing of any real victims."

Ritter also cites the lack of training in hazardous chemicals, best observed in the videos provided by the White Helmets regarding their activity at Khan Sheikhun on April 4 th . He notes "As was the case with their 'rescues' of victims in collapsed structures, I believe the rescue efforts of the White Helmets at Khan Sheikhun were a theatrical performance designed to impress the ignorant and ill-informed… Through their actions…the White Helmets were able to breathe life into the overall narrative of a chemical weapons attack, distracting from the fact that no actual weapon existed…."

But perhaps the most serious charge against the White Helmets consists of the evidence that they actively participated in the atrocities , to include torture and murder, carried out by their al-Nusra hosts. There have been numerous photos of the White Helmets operating directly with armed terrorists and also celebrating over the bodies of execution victims and murdered Iraqi soldiers. The group has an excellent working relationship with a number of jihadi affiliates and is regarded by them as fellow "mujahideen" and "soldiers of the revolution."

So by all means let's organize to revoke the White Helmets' Oscar due to misrepresentation and fraud. It might even serve as a wake-up call to George Clooney and his fellow Hollywood snowflakes . But the bigger take-away from the tale of the White Helmets would appear to be how it is an unfortunate repeat of the bumbling by a gullible U.S. government that has wrecked the Middle East while making Americans poorer and less safe. A group of "moderates," in this case their propagandists, is supported with weapons and money to overthrow a government with which Washington has no real quarrel but it turns out the moderates are really extremists. If they succeed in changing regime in Damascus, that is when the real nightmare will begin for minorities within Syria and for the entire region, including both Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which seem intent on bringing Bashar al-Assad down. And the truly unfortunate fact is that the Israelis and Saudis apparently have convinced an ignorant Donald Trump that that is the way to go so the situation in Syria will only get worse and, unless there is a course correction, Washington will again richly deserve most of the blame.

Fiendly Neighborhood Terrorist > , Website July 4, 2017 at 5:28 am GMT

What makes Mr Giraldi imagine that the American Empire isn't an active and fully deliberate participant in the destroy-Syria operation instead of a reluctant dupe?

Carlton Meyer > , Website July 4, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT

This brave lady deserves a Pulitzer for her reporting about Syria and the White Helmets, from December 2016.

Art > , July 4, 2017 at 5:32 am GMT

And the truly unfortunate fact is that the Israelis and Saudis apparently have convinced an ignorant Donald Trump that that is the way to go so the situation in Syria will only get worse and, unless there is a course correction, Washington will again richly deserve most of the blame.

It is said that "politics makes for strange bedfellows" How is it that America is hooked up with these scumbag countries, Israel and Saudi – doing their bidding – and killing for them. Zionism and Wahhabism are evil brothers – both seekers of age old tribal glory. The good American people have nothing in common with them.

But there is something our elite share with these tribalists – the US banking system. The US money system wags the American election process. Israel, Saudi, and the US Fed/Wall Street all bank with the Rothschild money cartel.

Trump is surrounded by greedy Jew money hunger types. For reasons of Israeli and Saudi power – a blood bath in Syria is needed.

Trump is going to meet Putin who wants peace – will he back the American people who elected him, thinking he was against another war?

Hmm? We will know by the end of the week.

Peace - Art

exiled off mainstreet > , July 4, 2017 at 5:39 am GMT

The first comment has it spot on. Hollywood is complicit in this propaganda effort to give the terrorist thug element a human face. These facts are out there for anybody not totally dependent on the official power structure for their information. People like Clooney who support this are themselves tainted with the barbarism represented by this phony propaganda front, and NGO's and governments funding them are complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Clooney's pet project, Darfur and South Sudan are other failed states. Clooney has blood on his hands for having promoted their existence.

Johnny F. Ive > , July 4, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT

Trump really hasn't given us the full Hillary Clinton on Syria yet. I believe he is aware of what is going on and we will see what his policy is as his administration continues. If people don't think so we have a great opportunity to share our point of view politely with him on twitter by sending him reputable articles or videos. Maybe he wouldn't look at it but what if he ever did and it opened some questions for him? The people who tweet to him tend to be obnoxious and insane from the fake news they've ingested. If your only source of information is fake news then you aren't going to make good decisions. He inherited a mess and there are powerful forces outside of his control that control the narrative and want to control him through the narrative. The White Helmets are apart of that narrative. If we give Trump good ideas for options to move forward and he has a support base maybe he will listen to us. What do we have to lose?

Israel wants a perpetual bloodbath in Syria but if one must prevail they want the Sunni evil to prevail.

Hollywood has turned into a de-Americanized, anti-American global enterprise where most of their earnings occur overseas. Their movies are turning into two toned (amber & teal) incoherent messes for a global audience they assume are stupid. I expect before long they will make movies praising the great firewall of China and one party rule.

Interlocutor > , July 4, 2017 at 10:59 am GMT

the Israelis and Saudis apparently have convinced an ignorant Donald Trump that that is the way to go so the situation in Syria

Donald Trump called out Hillary Clinton for her buddy buddy relationship with the Saudi regime and wrote about the KSA funding terrorist groups in his books. In other words Trump was under no illusions about the direct link between Saudi cash and religious ideology and international terrorist groups. Ignorance in this area was not a problem he had.

Yet five months into his term he's schmoozing with those very same terrorist funding Saudis and the vile Israeli regime alike and threatening all out war on Syria and rattling sabers at Iran. All because the Saudis and Israelis "convinced" him it's a good idea to throw the truth out the window and unlearn what he knew and wrote about? Not a chance. I don't buy it for a second. Something else is going on here. I suspect Trump the man is nothing like Trump the politician and he played all those people who hoped he'd follow through on his campaign promises for fools.

It is time to stop making excuses for Trump and treat him like an adult. He owns his decisions and choices and is responsible for them.

annamaria > , July 4, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

@chris They shouldn't revoke the Oscar, they should just change the category to 'best propaganda' and award it directly to Pompeo at Langley.

That, however, would greatly increase the list of contenders every year. "…they should just change the category to 'best propaganda' and award it directly to Pompeo at Langley."

Neither Joanna Natasegara (producer) nor Von Einsiedel (director) have ever been in Syria. They both are opportunistic fraudsters. Among the eager supporters of White Helmets are the ever badly smelling Michael Weiss, a Jewish Russophobe of questionable integrity and Eliot Higgins, a British Russophobe famous for his spectacular ignorance and for special favors from the Atlantic Council and Department of War Studies, King's College: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/the-white-helmet-buffoons-of-khan-sheikyoun.html

Vanessa Beeley: "All of the footage used in the film was provided to the producers by the White Helmets themselves… What this film is essentially a PR cushion for a $100-$150 million covert op, which is basically an NGO front funded by USAID, the British Foreign Office, various EU member states, Qatar, and other various and sundry nations, and members of the public…"

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/03/medical-doctors-question-white-helmets-footage-al-qaeda-oscar.html

"Dr Leif Elinder, a known Swedish medical doctor: "After examination of the video material, I found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children".

"White Helmets founder Le Mesurier, who graduated from Britain's elite Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, is said to be an 'ex' British military intelligence officer involved in a number of other NATO 'humanitarian intervention' theatres of war, including Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq, as well as postings in Lebanon and Palestine. He also boasts a series of high-profile posts at the UN, EU, and UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Not to mention his connections back to the infamous Blackwater (Academi)." http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/23/exclusive-the-real-syria-civil-defence-expose-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/

Looks that the Oscar nominees should have indeed included Langley

"Al-Qaeda Gets An Oscar:" http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/02/al-qaeda-gets-an-oscar-.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/05/15/george_clooney_busted_captured_terrorist_spills

annamaria > , July 4, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

@Sherman Sherman, this article is about genocide in Syria – you know, like the genocide of Jews during the WWII. Your indecent post reminded the readers about Israelis taking dinner while the IDF ("most moral") had been slaughtering the colonized dwellers of Gaza Ghetto.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/israelis-watch-bombs-drop-on-gaza-from-front-row-seats.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/13/israel-sderot-gaza_n_5582032.html

Do you see your tribe smiling and eating and laughing while your "most moral" kills native civilians? – This is a remake of the photographs from WWII when Jews were killed by Nazis for being Jews. "Never again," indeed. A state of Israel exhibiting a moral rot.

Joe Hide > , July 4, 2017 at 12:44 pm GMT

@Interlocutor

the Israelis and Saudis apparently have convinced an ignorant Donald Trump that that is the way to go so the situation in Syria
Donald Trump called out Hillary Clinton for her buddy buddy relationship with the Saudi regime and wrote about the KSA funding terrorist groups in his books. In other words Trump was under no illusions about the direct link between Saudi cash and religious ideology and international terrorist groups. Ignorance in this area was not a problem he had.

Yet five months into his term he's schmoozing with those very same terrorist funding Saudis and the vile Israeli regime alike and threatening all out war on Syria and rattling sabers at Iran. All because the Saudis and Israelis "convinced" him it's a good idea to throw the truth out the window and unlearn what he knew and wrote about? Not a chance. I don't buy it for a second. Something else is going on here. I suspect Trump the man is nothing like Trump the politician and he played all those people who hoped he'd follow through on his campaign promises for fools.

It is time to stop making excuses for Trump and treat him like an adult. He owns his decisions and choices and is responsible for them. I appreciate your comment. If You spend a lot of time reviewing battle tactics and war strategies, and I mean in the hundreds to thousands of hours, you will possibly come to a different conclusion. Trumps actions, as presented by a very untrustworthy media, look like those of a deceiver. Or of a crazy man. Or of whatever twisted narrative they are pushing. The results of his actions (or sometimes intentional non-actions), tell a different story. Thousands of pedophiles and sex traffickers have been arrested in the last few months. The Syrian War is being won by the Good (or at least not horrible) Guys. We don't have a WW3. Political, economic, and military corruption are being exposed. Priorities are no longer men using women's bathrooms to pee in. There is a lot more good taking place even than this. Great and lasting change takes years if not generations. This is not a quick fix. We won't get everything we want. Idealism never works but Realism does. If only the bad guys deceive, then the Good Guys lose. The Good Guys, You & Me, have to come to grips with how the game is really played.

Sherman > , July 4, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

@annamaria Sherman, this article is about genocide in Syria - you know, like the genocide of Jews during the WWII. Your indecent post reminded the readers about Israelis taking dinner while the IDF ("most moral") had been slaughtering the colonized dwellers of Gaza Ghetto.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/world/middleeast/israelis-watch-bombs-drop-on-gaza-from-front-row-seats.html https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/07/13/israel-sderot-gaza_n_5582032.html
Do you see your tribe smiling and eating and laughing while your "most moral" kills native civilians? - This is a remake of the photographs from WWII when Jews were killed by Nazis for being Jews. "Never again," indeed. A state of Israel exhibiting a moral rot. You left out the part about the Nulands and the Kagans.

Sherm

anonymous > , July 4, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

It's all a propaganda fabrication, totally staged complete with them pretending to rescue children. The US has unlimited funds and doesn't miss anything in it's all-encompassing full-spectrum program of propaganda lies and deception. The movie 'Wag the Dog' was a far more realistic production than this thing is.

JoaoAlfaiate > , July 4, 2017 at 1:59 pm GMT

It's hard to celebrate July 4th knowing that our system is corrupt from top to bottom. Want to buy the destruction of Syria? No problem. $10,000,000 (or less) distributed in the right places buys a slick narrative about Syria which the msm is happy to promote Meanwhile Congress has been suborned to appropriate vast sums to fund "rebels" (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS) seeking to over throw the Syrian Gov't and establish an Islamic regime in its place.

Why replace a secular government in Syria with an extremist Sunni regime? Hilary Clinton put it this way: "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. " The war in Syria is all about Israel and teaches us our government can be purchased. What a clever investment! For chump change Uncle Sam can be convinced to spend hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, to overthrow the Syrian government, all for Israel's benefit.

bjondo > , July 4, 2017 at 2:40 pm GMT

@Priss Factor Hollywood buys into yet another lie

Buys into? You mean SELLS Yep. Hollywood is one of our lie factories: Hollywood, govt, media, academia, pr/marketing/ adv/polling.

Agent76 > , July 4, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT

No more shows actual video confirmation of the false flag footage from the staged gas attack event in Syria.

Apr 9, 2017 No More

April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons. The Western media refutes their own lies. http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784 

annamaria > , July 4, 2017 at 4:49 pm GMT

@Sherman You left out the part about the Nulands and the Kagans.

Sherm 'You left out the part about the Nulands and the Kagans.'

And you remind about them why?

Look carefully at the photograph in the following article: http://theduran.com/4-ways-russia-could-and-should-bring-about-regime-change-in-kiev/
Keep in mind that the neo-Nazis have began flourishing in Kiev since the ziocon-infested State Dept. had accomplished a regime change there in 2014.

Was not it you who enquired the UNZ readers about visiting Yad Vashem? – Well, see the amazing results that have been achieved by American/UK Jews in Ukraine. Fit perfectly Yad Vashem preaching.

"How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis: http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/foreign_policy_and_government/news.php?q=1417630958 "Rep. John Conyers wanted to block U.S. funding to neo-Nazis in Ukraine. But the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center refused to help ."

"The neo-Nazi Oleh Tyahnybok and the American Zionist Victoria Nuland, wife of Robert Kagan, are all smiles. Not since the days of the Haavara (Transfer) Agreement of August 25, 1933 between the Zionist Federation of Germany and Chancellor Adolf Hitler celebrated by the striking of a celebratory coin by the Berlin Mint (right)….:" http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/12289

Haavara (Transfer) Agreement: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/09/07/Nazi_Zionism.html

Agent76 > , July 4, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT

@annamaria Know this Annamaria, "The oppinion of 10.000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." Marcus Aurelius

Jeff Davis > , July 4, 2017 at 5:06 pm GMT

@Interlocutor

the Israelis and Saudis apparently have convinced an ignorant Donald Trump that that is the way to go so the situation in Syria
Donald Trump called out Hillary Clinton for her buddy buddy relationship with the Saudi regime and wrote about the KSA funding terrorist groups in his books. In other words Trump was under no illusions about the direct link between Saudi cash and religious ideology and international terrorist groups. Ignorance in this area was not a problem he had.

Yet five months into his term he's schmoozing with those very same terrorist funding Saudis and the vile Israeli regime alike and threatening all out war on Syria and rattling sabers at Iran. All because the Saudis and Israelis "convinced" him it's a good idea to throw the truth out the window and unlearn what he knew and wrote about? Not a chance. I don't buy it for a second. Something else is going on here. I suspect Trump the man is nothing like Trump the politician and he played all those people who hoped he'd follow through on his campaign promises for fools.

It is time to stop making excuses for Trump and treat him like an adult. He owns his decisions and choices and is responsible for them. "I don't buy it for a second. Something else is going on here."

Indeed, but what exactly? Everyone is guessing, mostly based on the hyperbolic hate-fest of the campaign, which was so extreme that both sides remain locked in the embrace of partisan passion, far from any chance at a calm assessment of reality.

And Trump is keeping everyone guessing. Until Trump can wrest control of the Executive branch from the Deep State, he will continue to be "unpredictable", forced to bob and weave and adjust, in order to counter the forces that seek to undermine his presidency.

So is the real Trump the guy who tells Putin he has to do some look-Presidential kabuki, and bomb a Syrian airfield to get the Neocons and CIA off his back - briefly - or is he a gullible emotional dimwit who buys into the transparently ridiculous "sarin attack" bs, despite the intel community telling him it was bs?

If you're anti-Trump you go for explanation number two. If you're a Neocon, or a paleo-Republican, or a Kool-Aid drenched, flag-wrapped "America, fuck yeah!" patriot then you "worship the beauty of our weapons" and don't bother to think much more about it. And if you've managed to avoid ideological brain-lock, then you're probably just scratchin' your head thinking "WTF ?"

Personally, I'm pro-Trump all the way, delighted by the shrieking of snowflakes, the deliciously loutish tweeting, the laugh-a-minute horrified old-maid moralism of the pundit class, and the return of take-it-out-and-wave-it-around flagrantly unapologetic manhood. Yee-hah! What a fabulous spectacle! And here's the best part: three and a half more years and maybe four more after that.

"Make America Great Again!", "Nuke the Swamp!", "Build the Wall!", "Get along with Russia!"

I frikkin' died and went to heaven. Bring it!

Jeff Davis > , July 4, 2017 at 5:24 pm GMT

@Joe Hide I appreciate your comment. If You spend a lot of time reviewing battle tactics and war strategies, and I mean in the hundreds to thousands of hours, you will possibly come to a different conclusion. Trumps actions, as presented by a very untrustworthy media, look like those of a deceiver. Or of a crazy man. Or of whatever twisted narrative they are pushing. The results of his actions (or sometimes intentional non-actions), tell a different story. Thousands of pedophiles and sex traffickers have been arrested in the last few months.

The Syrian War is being won by the Good (or at least not horrible) Guys. We don't have a WW3. Political, economic, and military corruption are being exposed. Priorities are no longer men using women's bathrooms to pee in. There is a lot more good taking place even than this. Great and lasting change takes years if not generations. This is not a quick fix. We won't get everything we want. Idealism never works but Realism does. If only the bad guys deceive, then the Good Guys lose. The Good Guys, You & Me, have to come to grips with how the game is really played. Damn fine reality-based comment, Joe. Kudos.

Ivy > , July 4, 2017 at 5:44 pm GMT

@Joe Hide Are you trying to distract from the white helmet article? Your comment doesn't make any sense here. The White Helmet idea selling takes on many forms. I pointed out one of those and provided another example of how Trump applies his selling to link to the current administration. What is so hard to see in that?

annamaria > , July 4, 2017 at 5:48 pm GMT

@Sherman You left out the part about the Nulands and the Kagans.

Sherm If you insist: "Reuters (finally) realize there are Nazis in Ukraine" https://off-guardian.org/2017/06/24/reuters-finally-realize-there-are-nazis-in-ukraine/

"…local authorities [in Kiev] recently voted to rename a major street after a former Nazi collaborator and anti-Semite named Roman Shukhevych."

"In 2015, Ukraine passed a law honoring the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and its military wing, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, (OUN-UPA)"
"Numerous Holocaust memorial sites – including Babi Yar, where over 33,000 Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis – have been vandalized or desecrated by anti-Semitic graffiti and swastikas."

"…the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory (UINM) is drafting a law to posthumously exonerate OUN-UPA members convicted of murdering Polish and Jewish civilians during and after the war."

"The elevation of OUN-UPA has been accompanied by a growing number of anti-Semitic incidents in Ukraine."

"A retired general affiliated with Ukraine's security services called for the destruction of the country's Jews;"

"…a Ukrainian official called Ukraine's SS Galizien division – created with the support of Heinrich Himmler – "heroes"

In the Atlantic, in 2014, Ukrainian Nazis were dismissed as a "phantom menace". Luke Harding wrote a (brilliantly argued) column in the Guardian saying that "there weren't any Nazis in Ukraine because one of the Maidan protesters was Jewish." Politico magazine mocked "Putin's Imaginary Nazis", whilst US News warned against Russia's "Neo-Nazi Propaganda". The Guardian simply headlined: "Don't believe the Russian propaganda about Ukraine's 'fascist' protesters!"
There never were Nazis in Ukraine.

Except now there are. … John Kerry and Victoria "fuck the EU" Nuland, who had actual, hands-on control of the formation of Ukraine's new government…"

KenH > , July 4, 2017 at 6:01 pm GMT

I thought it was common knowledge by anyone with critical thinking skills that the White Helmets are just a propaganda operation for the Salafist fanatics and not a politically neutral third party as they try to depict themselves. So this would exclude George Clowney, Justin Timbersnowflake and the rest of the left wing Hollywood morons. It's looking like we can lump our president and Nimrata Haley in with the brainless and sentimental Hollywood crowd.

annamaria > , July 4, 2017 at 6:29 pm GMT

@KenH I thought it was common knowledge by anyone with critical thinking skills that the White Helmets are just a propaganda operation for the Salafist fanatics and not a politically neutral third party as they try to depict themselves. So this would exclude George Clowney, Justin Timbersnowflake and the rest of the left wing Hollywood morons. It's looking like we can lump our president and Nimrata Haley in with the brainless and sentimental Hollywood crowd. "…this would exclude George Clowney, Justin Timbersnowflake and the rest of the left wing Hollywood morons."
The Clowneys & Timbersnowflakes have financial inspirations that inform their actions. These opportunists are firmly in service to the "deciders."

When oilmen meet MIC: "The Economic Motive for America's Current Wars." https://off-guardian.org/2017/07/04/the-economic-motive-for-americas-current-wars/

"Around half of Russia's gas and oil into the EU is transported there via pipelines that traverse Ukraine, and this is a major reason why the Obama Administration (which was in service to the owners of the U.S.-based international corporations …) started, by no later than 2011, its preparations for a coup in Ukraine, which occurred in February 2014, to overthrow the democratically elected President of Ukraine…

However, Obama also had come into office in 2009 hoping to overthrow Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, because, ever since at least 1949, the U.S.-Saudi oil company Aramco was trying to be allowed to build through Syria pipelines for Saudi oil and Qatari gas into the EU so as to grab that energy-market away from Russia. Consequently, "What's Behind Lower Gas-Prices and the Bombings of Syria and of Southeastern Ukraine" is a U.S.-regime effort to grab market-share in the world's largest energy-market."

Philip Giraldi > , July 4, 2017 at 7:26 pm GMT

@Anon Why would Israel be against Assad? With him, there's no chance of a peace treat and Israel keeps the Golan. Status quo and no fighting is what Israel likes. Israel is currently attacking the Syrian Army and has long been assisting the so-called rebels. It wants anarchy in Syria so it can steal the remainder of the Golan territory.

RobinG > , July 4, 2017 at 7:31 pm GMT

@Joe Hide I appreciate your comment. If You spend a lot of time reviewing battle tactics and war strategies, and I mean in the hundreds to thousands of hours, you will possibly come to a different conclusion. Trumps actions, as presented by a very untrustworthy media, look like those of a deceiver. Or of a crazy man. Or of whatever twisted narrative they are pushing. The results of his actions (or sometimes intentional non-actions), tell a different story. Thousands of pedophiles and sex traffickers have been arrested in the last few months. The Syrian War is being won by the Good (or at least not horrible) Guys. We don't have a WW3. Political, economic, and military corruption are being exposed. Priorities are no longer men using women's bathrooms to pee in. There is a lot more good taking place even than this. Great and lasting change takes years if not generations. This is not a quick fix. We won't get everything we want. Idealism never works but Realism does. If only the bad guys deceive, then the Good Guys lose. The Good Guys, You & Me, have to come to grips with how the game is really played. May I add to that, Trump is clobbering the FakeNewsMedia which, not too long ago, Ron Unz wisely identified as the appropriate first target.

CNN is just the first domino to fall, and every chip weakens the wall of deceit. (NYT admission/correction this week: 17 intel. agencies did NOT support Russian hacking allegation.) And it's rumored that Project Veritas has plenty more incriminating video ready to drop.

Seamus Padraig > , July 4, 2017 at 7:37 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer This brave lady deserves a Pulitzer for her reporting about Syria and the White Helmets, from December 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhe87r5bEE

Eva Bartlett is bad-ass. Vanessa Beeley is also an excellent source on Syria.

Moi > , July 4, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer I've seen Ms. Bartlett occasionally on RT but not any MSM outlet. She is a truth-teller.

RobinG > , July 4, 2017 at 8:00 pm GMT

@Ivy The White Helmet idea selling takes on many forms. I pointed out one of those and provided another example of how Trump applies his selling to link to the current administration. What is so hard to see in that? Joe Hide was right, your comment made no sense, and now you're doubling down on a ridiculously poor analogy.

It was the Obama regime that funded the White Helmets, years in the making, a conventional "old school" propaganda psy-op of the Deep State.

Trump, the Modern President, uses graceful arrows. That they're felt like cannonballs, hilarious.

Seamus Padraig > , July 4, 2017 at 8:01 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet The first comment has it spot on. Hollywood is complicit in this propaganda effort to give the terrorist thug element a human face. These facts are out there for anybody not totally dependent on the official power structure for their information. People like Clooney who support this are themselves tainted with the barbarism represented by this phony propaganda front, and NGO's and governments funding them are complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Clooney's pet project, Darfur and South Sudan are other failed states. Clooney has blood on his hands for having promoted their existence.

One more point about Clooney: his wife, Amal, is a human rights lawyer from Lebanon. It would be interesting to know more about her background. Maybe one of Unz's regular contributors should take on this assignment. Lebanon is a very complicated place, but it does have both pro- and anti-Syrian factions. I wonder where Amal and her family would fall on this spectrum?

Maybe Steve Sailer could do it. He did some brilliant pieces last year investigating the links of Mexican gazillionaire Carlos Slim's relatives to the old Lebanese Phalange.

Backwoods Bob > , July 4, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT

@Carlton Meyer This brave lady deserves a Pulitzer for her reporting about Syria and the White Helmets, from December 2016.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhe87r5bEE

I saw that when it first came out. The truth is always so refreshing, sensical, and fulfilling. But I knew it before the video. All anyone has to do is listen to the Syrian people themselves.

Trump pushed a lot of the right buttons during the election with the glaring exception of being Israel-first.

He knows exactly what is going on in Syria. One of the more disheartening things to listen to is people excusing him.

If I work and raise children, and it is so obvious to me then what excuses the man with the genius IQ and having this as his full time job?

Trump is a white-hat himself. Oh, those poor beautiful babies. We have to bomb Assad for the beautiful babies. There's some fake news Trump is perfectly happy with, like Syria.

Ivy > , July 4, 2017 at 9:38 pm GMT

@RobinG Joe Hide was right, your comment made no sense, and now you're doubling down on a ridiculously poor analogy.

It was the Obama regime that funded the White Helmets, years in the making, a conventional "old school" propaganda psy-op of the Deep State.

Trump, the Modern President, uses graceful arrows. That they're felt like cannonballs, hilarious. You have the wrong person if you think that I am trying to distract from column message about the White Helmets, or are reading any mention of Trump as a negative.

My comment included observations about the Hollywood nature of how White Helmets may be portrayed to the public, regardless of facts. Media have many ways to try to communicate, not all of them honorable. For entertainment, see Wag the Dog.

Maybe I need to spell it out more for you. I am not an Obama supporter, and voted for Trump. He has used his own type of first mover advantage routinely as shown in his actions. He gets attention, like he did with the campaign immigration item, and then uses that attention to further his message. Next time I'll choose some non-armaments descriptor and write more to fill in the blanks.

Stephen R. Diamond > , Website July 4, 2017 at 11:44 pm GMT

@Joe Hide

If only the bad guys deceive, then the Good Guys lose.

Remarkably smug and cynical comment. Smug: what makes you so sure that, if you need to deceive, you're (even remotely) "good"? Cynical – and self-undermining- because in sanctioning political deception, you render yourself prima facie untrustworthy.

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 12:42 am GMT

@ANON Are the children actually humans or they 4 year old size dolls? "Dr Leif Elinder, a known Swedish medical doctor: "After examination of the video material, I found that the measures inflicted upon those children, some of them lifeless, are bizarre, non-medical, non-lifesaving, and even counterproductive in terms of life-saving purposes of children."

http://www.activistpost.com/2017/03/medical-doctors-question-white-helmets-footage-al-qaeda-oscar.html

Follow the link to read more testimonials by medical doctor. What exactly do you need to clarify?

Priss Factor > , Website July 5, 2017 at 12:42 am GMT

Globalists cause wars, create refugees, and then force white nations into accepting them. Worse, 'refugee' and 'Syrian' are fluid, and any black African coming from Libya might as well be a Syrian refugee too.

White helmets or Refugee boats, globalism is one big ugly lie.

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 12:48 am GMT

@Anon Anarchy in Syria doesn't serve Israel. Anarchy anywhere doesn't serve Israel. Managed chaos is one thing, and that may be why they funded the FSA for a while, but total anarchy is dangerous. For all its faults, Israel is still a rational actor. Plus, it has no need for the rest of Golan; the heights are all that are necessary. "Anarchy in Syria doesn't serve Israel."

Then you have missed the Israeli brass' public admission that ISIS/Al Qaeda are preferable to sovereign Syria. "Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said Tuesday that Iran poses a greater threat than the Islamic State, and that if the Syrian regime were to fall, Israel would prefer that IS [Islamic State] was in control of the territory than an Iranian proxy:" http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-i-would-prefer-islamic-state-to-iran-in-syria/
More:

"Alliance of Convenience: Israel Supports Syria's ISIS Terror Group:" http://www.globalresearch.ca/alliance-of-convenience-israel-supports-syrias-isis-terror-group/5587203

"Turkey and Israel Are Directly Supporting ISIS and Al Qaeda Terrorists In Syria:" http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/09/turkey-israel-directly-supporting-isis-al-qaeda-syria.html

The evidence is clear: anarchy in Syria does serve Israel

Corporal Clegg > , July 5, 2017 at 1:56 am GMT

@JoaoAlfaiate How many stories were told by the msm about Saddam's WMD? Let's see: 1)Mobile labs for producing poison gas 2) Bio weapon spraying drones 3) Importation of Uranium from Niger 4)Aluminum tubes for centrifuges 5) Al-Libi and bio weapons training....Seems to me Uncle Shmuel and his tame press have been less than truthful about Arab countries and WMD. Why should we believe them this time?

Why should we believe them this time?

Believing pro-Assad proaganda that is false on its face seems far more stupid. Doctors Without Borders confirmed signs of Sarin, but I suppose the average Unz reader thinks they are a bunch of evil Jews too.

tmauel > , July 5, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

Amy Goodman at Democracy Now has completely sold out to the White Helmets propaganda machine which is funded by the U.S. state department. Apparently Goodman cannot bother to investigate the links to the rebels and U.S. clandestine funding of their propaganda. After all Goodman is so stuck on herself and her own star power that she doesn't care a lick about the truth.

She has consistently sold out to the democrats and their ignorant uber wealthy supporters in Hollywood.

Daves_Not_Here_Man > , July 5, 2017 at 4:55 am GMT

@Fiendly Neighborhood Terrorist Discretion being the better part of valor, I imagine Girard is soft-pedaling the degree of US complicity so as to not arouse too much cognitive dissonance in the reader and lose his main point.

One red pill per dose.

Druid > , July 5, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

@annamaria 'You left out the part about the Nulands and the Kagans.'
And you remind about them why?

Look carefully at the photograph in the following article: http://theduran.com/4-ways-russia-could-and-should-bring-about-regime-change-in-kiev/
Keep in mind that the neo-Nazis have began flourishing in Kiev since the ziocon-infested State Dept. had accomplished a regime change there in 2014.

Was not it you who enquired the UNZ readers about visiting Yad Vashem? - Well, see the amazing results that have been achieved by American/UK Jews in Ukraine. Fit perfectly Yad Vashem preaching.

"How the Israel Lobby Protected Ukrainian Neo-Nazis: http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/foreign_policy_and_government/news.php?q=1417630958 "Rep. John Conyers wanted to block U.S. funding to neo-Nazis in Ukraine. But the ADL and Simon Wiesenthal Center refused to help ."

"The neo-Nazi Oleh Tyahnybok and the American Zionist Victoria Nuland, wife of Robert Kagan, are all smiles. Not since the days of the Haavara (Transfer) Agreement of August 25, 1933 between the Zionist Federation of Germany and Chancellor Adolf Hitler celebrated by the striking of a celebratory coin by the Berlin Mint (right)....:" http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/12289

Haavara (Transfer) Agreement: http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/09/07/Nazi_Zionism.html You tell that Ziofascist, ma'am!

Esmehan > , July 5, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

Anybody remember "Zlata's Diary"? This was a piece of tearjerking propaganda supposedly written by a Bosnian Muslim girl enduring the siege of Sarajevo. Absurdly compared to Anne Frank's story, it played on Western ignorance and sentimentality. Bosnian Serbs, in reality one side in a vicious three-way conflict, became " Nazis" attacking the innocent.

Uncle Bunty > , July 5, 2017 at 10:38 am GMT

The whole notion of a 'white hat' singularity is predicated on an essential falsehood: That Syrians of every stripe have not been digging themselves, their loved ones, and even strangers out of the rubble of a thousand formerly-civilized places since America decided they wanted, and needed, more 'democrazy'.

The white hats and team shirts are both imported, along with the notion that they are 'special' or 'important' – thy're part of the money we and our governments spend to bring change to Syria, a part that doesn't buy guns. .

Seamus Padraig > , July 5, 2017 at 10:46 am GMT

@Corporal Clegg Doctors Without Borders is another ZATO psy-op not much different from the White Helmets. Why their very founder, Bernard Kouchner, went on to become France's Foreign Minister under Sarko. Talk about revolving doors!

Tallulah B > , July 5, 2017 at 10:48 am GMT

@truthtellerAryan This is acceptable. Dead Arabs – killed by other Arabs – are pefect 'thematic' material to prove the goodness and humanity of real people – in Hollywood, or Tel Aviv. Like so much of everywhere else on Earth "they've been killing each other for thousands of years" – as opposed to, merely shooting a stone thrower, dispersing rioting negroes or shooting-up the local disco.

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

@Anon None of those sources are great, but even so, none of those stories suggest that anarchy is the goal. All these sources – and many others presenting the hard facts – refute your charitable opinion of Israel, while supporting the unfortunate truth that anarchy in Syria does serve Israel and that Israel does everything in its power to generate the anarchy, including the material and logistical support for ISIS and Al Qaeda.
As for the "goal," please do not feign innocence: both PNAC and Oded Yinon plan for Eretz Israel are available online.

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT

@Corporal Clegg "Russia/Syria have several explanations, but Assad being a genocidal lispy murderer is still more easily believed than all of them."

Seems as a specter of Colin Power comes to UNZ, under pseudonym of Corporal Clegg. Or is it the morbid Cheney and his pupil Hillary Clinton? – Only a dedicated ziocon could be so rabidly hateful of Russia and Syria.
By the way, how is Assad genocidal next to the genocidal Israelis? Assad looks morally superior to the amoral supremacists and parasitoids next door.

anarchyst > , July 5, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT

@Esmehan Anybody remember "Zlata's Diary"? This was a piece of tearjerking propaganda supposedly written by a Bosnian Muslim girl enduring the siege of Sarajevo. Absurdly compared to Anne Frank's story, it played on Western ignorance and sentimentality. Bosnian Serbs, in reality one side in a vicious three-way conflict, became " Nazis" attacking the innocent. Let's not forget that Anne Frank's "diary was mostly written with a ball-point pen, NOT invented until after WW2…

vidya > , July 5, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT

Sarin is a subset of a group of compounds called organo phosphates. They are primarily used as insecticides/ pesticides(such as round up), as well as motor oil additives. If vaporized, as stored forms by a conventional explosive, exposure to any of them causes similar manifestations. Hence it is not possible to say which organo phosphorus compound one is exposed to in absence of a forensic analysis such as gas/ liquid chromatography.

Ludwig Watzal > , Website July 5, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT

It's not surprising that the largest fake-factory on earth, Hollywood, awarded an OSCAR to a fake documentary. The "White Helmets" are nothing but terrorists disguised as paramedics. After the terrorists had to leave Aleppo, the "White Helmets" also disappeared. Wherever there is a terrorist attack, the phony helpers appear. Foreign powers created the White Helmets, and with the collaboration of the mainstream media, they could succeed till they finally landed in Hollywood where they belong. Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton and George Clooney liked these hoodlums, which should not surprise anybody. At least, Hillary and her husband belong behind bars.

http://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/1531-white-helmets-oscar.html

schmenz > , July 5, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT

@Corporal Clegg Yawn.

Michael Kenny > , July 5, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

Cynical me, you may say, but I can't help suspecting that if the White Helmets had been on the same side as Vladimir Putin, there would be no crticism of them on the American internet. After all, when was the last time you saw an article criticising the Ukrainian "rebels"?

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 3:27 pm GMT

@Ludwig Watzal It's not surprising that the largest fake-factory on earth, Hollywood, awarded an OSCAR to a fake documentary. The "White Helmets" are nothing but terrorists disguised as paramedics. After the terrorists had to leave Aleppo, the "White Helmets" also disappeared. Wherever there is a terrorist attack, the phony helpers appear. Foreign powers created the White Helmets, and with the collaboration of the mainstream media, they could succeed till they finally landed in Hollywood where they belong. Unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton and George Clooney liked these hoodlums, which should not surprise anybody. At least, Hillary and her husband belong behind bars.

http://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/1531-white-helmets-oscar.html Thank you for the link. More on the same: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/24/syrian-war-propaganda-at-the-oscars/
"The White Helmets were initiated by the British military contractor James LeMesurier and is funded (about $100 million) by the different Western governments… It's a NATO ghost organization…
The "White Helmets" have no telephone number in Syria. If one wants to get in touch with them, one has to contact Al-Qaida. Their headquarter is alongside Al-Qaida's. The Real Syria Civil Defence can be reached by dialing 113 inside Syria.

… most of the group's heavy funding goes to marketing, which is run by "The Syria Campaign" based in New York. The campaign is based in New York City, and the manager is an Irish-American woman, named Anna Nolan , who has never been to Syria. Even their website is fake. They beefed it up with video footage from a documentary produced by the BBC in 2010 that showed dancing kids and education under the Assad government."

What does Mrs. Clooney do? – defending human rights? Alongside with Clintons? – Then it should be very "humanitarian."

More on the amazing Al Qaeda affiliate known as White Helmets:
"The film is as fraudulent as the group it tries to turn into heroes. The filmmakers never set foot in Syria. Their video footage takes place in southern Turkey where they show White Helmet trainees in a hotel and talking on cell phones…
The original video has the logo of Aleppo Media Center (AMC), which was created by the Syrian Expatriates Organization. Their address on K Street in Washington DC suggests this is yet another Western-funded operation similar to the Iraqi National Congress that lobbied and lied on behalf of the 2003 invasion of Iraq."

The infamous AMC: "Aleppo Media Centre' Funded By French Foreign Office, EU and US" http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/20/exclusive-aleppo-media-centre-funded-by-french-foreign-office-eu-and-us/

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

@Corporal Clegg "Believing pro-Assad proaganda that is false on its face…"
Do you have facts to prove your statement? – otherwise you are exercising in slander on behalf of the empire of Fed. Reserve (MIC, banksters, oilmen, Israel-firsters).
No need in parroting the MSM lies on UNZ.

Man on the street > , July 5, 2017 at 4:20 pm GMT

@Priss Factor I remember vividly during the Bush attempts to invade Iraq, his neocon surrogates on TV used the terms HE DID NOT SELL IT YET TO THE AMERICA PEOPLE. In other words, the propaganda and lies to the American stupid population did not reach a critical mass. "Selling" the war? What a concept. Do you think if you ask any idiot on the street if the US was invaded by a foreign power, should the president sell to the American people on the fact that our military should attack and repel the invaders? Of course not. But, in order that a President brain wash the sheeple into sending their kids to die for Israel by invading Iraq, the president must paint the Iraqi president as evil, and of course our presstitude will never tell the sheeple that our president is the evil one for invading a sovereign nation that never attacked us.

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 6:29 pm GMT

@Man on the street

"In August, families of the British soldiers killed in the Iraq War crowd-funded £150,000 (US$194,000) to bring a case for Blair's prosecution."

This is a proper step to address the terrible injustice. The US citizenry needs to collects its courage and initiate a case against Cheney & Co, i.e., against the mega-war profiteers & ziocons. https://www.rt.com/uk/395371-tony-blair-prosecution-iraq/

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 7:00 pm GMT

@SolontoCroesus First exposures seem to have a powerful impact.

In Jan 2012 Emma Alberici interviewed Sergey Lavrov, Russian foreign minister, on Australia TV. He laid out the reasons the Russian government opposed US/UN intervention in Syria, the most significant reason being the sovereignty of Syria and its government. United Nations conventions proscribe interference in the domestic affairs of member states. It was a straightforward judgment.

US claims to be the nation that "preserves the international order" by adhering to the "rule of law," but in fact, Russia seems to have been the state sustaining that value.

Lavrov and the Russian government he represents gained credibility with that interview, and nothing I have seen him or Putin say in the 5 years subsequent, has significantly contradicted that policy laid out in 2012. "US claims to be the nation that "preserves the international order" by adhering to the "rule of law…"

It does claim this fiction, but the fraud has been exposed and there is no way to "fix" the problem:

"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again"

"Over 500,000 Syrian Refugees Return To Government-Controlled Areas Of Syria" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-05/over-500000-syrian-refugees-return-government-controlled-areas-syria

"Crucial to the Western narrative of the Syrian conflict is the assertion that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator who has taken to killing his own people over the course of Syria's six-year-long conflict. … While this narrative has been pervasive in media coverage of the Syrian conflict, it is now being debunked by the very Syrian refugees.

According to a recent statement from Andrej Mahecic, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, an estimated 440,000 displaced Syrians who remained in the country have returned to their homes since the year began. In addition, 31,000 refugees in neighboring countries also returned to Syria in the first half of the year, with 260,000 having returned to Syria from other nations since 2015."

The Syrians literally vote with their feet, thus exposing the US/Israeli lies.

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 7:03 pm GMT

@Authenticjazzman She's a deranged leftist flunky working for GS towards the goal of a one-world, no borders, marxist looney-bin, such as her idiot husband and the entire ilk to which they belong: BO, BC, HRC, all of hollywood, academia, the media, clergy, justistia, etc.
I guess this sort of sums it up, without the effort of a huge research project.

Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist. Obama and Hillary are leftists and marxists? – Don't they love money more than anything else?

annamaria > , July 5, 2017 at 8:13 pm GMT

US-Israeli love fest with Daesh: http://www.voltairenet.org/article196903.html

"…since the accession to power in Beijing by President Xi Jinping, bearer of the project for the two Silk Roads, Washington has been pushing for the creation of a " Sunnistan " straddling Iraq and Syria. In order to acheive this goal, it [the US] has financed, armed and supervised Daesh in order to cut the communication route between Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad-Teheran and Beijing.
… since the beginning of the Qatar crisis, the Iraqi and Syrian armies have suddenly advanced. They have liberated the frontier territories previously held by Daesh and are now on the verge of establishing their junction (in other words, reconnecting the Silk Road). The two armies are now separated only by two hundred metres of land controlled illegally by the US army ."

The bloodshed could be ended any time if not the Israel-occupied US Congress. They need more human meat & blood. Here, James LeMesurier and Anna Nolan come up handy, fed from the $100 million fund allocated by the US/EU "deciders" to spread propaganda against Syrian sovereignty. That was a backdrop for the opportunistic Orlando von Einsiedel and Joanna Natasegara (neither of them ever visited Syria) getting happily their shekels for propagandizing fakery of "White Helmets," never mind the human cost of Daesh for Syria.

L.K > , July 5, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT

Let's be clear;

The "white helmets" are a propaganda operation backed by those countries trying to effect regime change in Syria, such as the ZUSA & ZUK, and they are also Al Qaeda's "civil defense".

I have seen various photos of their operatives in white helmet uniforms & in other photos the same individuals armed & in combat fatigues.

Independent British journalist, Vanessa Beeley, who has been to Syria has helped unmask these criminals;
SYRIA WHITE HELMETS HAND IN HAND WITH AL QAEDA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkn78q_t_Q
In this vid, we can see the white helmets together with Al Qaeda, participating in executions, etc;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLyZkPfLoG0

Priss Factor > , Website July 5, 2017 at 10:09 pm GMT

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-fake-countries-go-to-war/

Some nations are real nations with deep roots of history, ethnicity, and territory.

Other nations are fake nations, recently constructed by foreign imperialists who drew lines on the map to maximize exploitation of natural resources and labor.

Globalism seeks to weaken historical roots, ethnic ties, and territorial claims for the whole world(except for Israel) and turn even real nations into fake nations like those of Middle East and Africa.

If Soros can help it, Hungary, Czech Republic, and Poland will also become country clubs of globalist elites who replace native folks with foreign minions.

There are plenty of turncoat comprador elites even in real nations who'd gladly take 30 pieces of silver to rub shoulders with the glamorites of the world.

Montag > , July 5, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT

@exiled off mainstreet You just described exactly what is the subject matter of an independent movie and graphic novel that I'm trying in vain to get funded. Besides the obvious reasons that 95% of my media-related friends are ultra liberals (anti-truth) and the general cognitive dissonance of our society to the abject poverty of education to university debt-financed amongst young people that verges on state sponsored sleep entrainment depicted in Brave New World.

Anyway, my project has been shunned officially and unofficially; a known Hollywood actor asked me upon reading the script whether I thought it would be controversial? Hell, yes! Except why do you say that? Well you kind of lay out the plan.. It is definitely an awareness thing via social media amongst millenials recorded by Mark Dice; in short, they don't read books, they have no idea of world events, founding fathers, constitution, can't tell you what DC means in Washington, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. One young white man knew a lot; another 40 year old white woman quoted verbatim the Declaration of Independence. The rest didn't know what he was talking about.

Anyway, have a look. I don't expect you to contribute because it's DOA but wouldn't mind honest feedback, i.e., am I living in a bubble I created for myself?

https://igg.me/at/chasm-project-url/x/16732400

dcite > , July 5, 2017 at 11:58 pm GMT

@Alister

Funded by USAID……it's clear they are nothing more than a CIA front…. why no one does an in depth review of the links between USAID and the CIA…..they will find they are one and the same. It's time for UNZ to uncover the real USAID

Now that would be journalism worth its salt. Absolutely. USAID started as a CIA front in Vietnam during the 60s. Ruth Paine, "friend" of Marina Oswald, had a father named William Avery Hyde, who worked at USAID at least partly because it was tied in with the CIA So did other members of her family. I know someone who worked briefly at USAID, and would get questions from the public asking for info on projects from the 1960s. There were almost no records. We'r talking the 1960s, not the last century. There should have been the usual memos, advance reports, technical briefs, assessments, etc. Nearly nada, at least among the non-top-secret documents and archives. Only from the mid-70s on, around the time the CIA and various assassinations were looked at critically by Congress, did this agency keep good records of its activities.

RobinG > , July 6, 2017 at 12:17 am GMT

@Montag DOA? Killed my interest with reference to ZioNazi Roseanne Barr as "truth teller." Get a grip.

Erebus > , July 6, 2017 at 12:19 am GMT

For those who may remain unconvinced, Insurge Intelligence (self-described as "a crowdfunded investigative journalism project for people and planet") has acquired 1000s of documents that lift the veil on just how deeply the USM and CIA are embedded in its productions. In a word, very.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/exclusive-documents-expose-direct-us-military-intelligence-influence-on-1-800-movies-and-tv-shows-36433107c307

We live in a simulacrum created by others, in accordance with an agenda they too are following blindly.

Lawrence Fitton > , July 6, 2017 at 3:56 am GMT

isn't it rich, isn't strange, that hollywood types influence naive americans. ill-informed and over-respected types such as george clooney and justin timberlake inflate a narrative of good in the evil of the syrian war crime. why hasn't america demanded an end to extended war-making? the media. that's why.
steppenwolf sang goddam the pusher.
of thee i sing.

Ben_C > , July 6, 2017 at 3:58 am GMT

@L.K Yep…

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-white-helmets-clean-following-rebel-execution-southern-syria-18-graphic/

Don't forget this little incident:

https://rachelblevins.com/2017/06/21/gruesome-video-white-helmets-beheading-dumping-syrian-army-bodies/

Priss Factor > , Website July 6, 2017 at 6:07 am GMT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwGRvsSGbuM

ROTFL. These guys says the US policy has been anti-Iran but its follies keep aiding Iran inadvertently.

Delinquent Snail > , July 6, 2017 at 7:19 am GMT

Just because we on UNZ are not idiots (most of us) and can dismiss this bs for what it is, doesn't mean the vast majority of americans arent. People nowadays don't read anything besides social media. This country's populace just doesn't care anymore, they've given up fighting to be free. Most just want to trust big brother and uncle sam to have their back, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Years and years of tv programming (the actual shows and the subliminal messages) have robbed most americans of the will power needed to keep an out of controll government in check. They just dont care anymore. And if they start to question whats going on, they are called crazy or delusional, or (my personal favorite) a conspiracy theorist.

We need to do something. Organize and take back our nation. Remove our out of controll spy agencies, stop funding every third world nation in africa (if they cant support them selves, let them die or be someone elses problem. The money could go to so many more important things stateside), no more Foreign Military financing to other nations (if they want to buy our weapons, great! Pay US in cash, gold, silver, whatever. Just pay us. No more freebies(im looking at the 5 billion a year to isreal and Egypt)), we need to bring our soldiers home, and have them do what we pay other nations do do with the training we also provide (border security), we need to dismantle our lobbyist political environment by having all elected officials have all finacial transactions and property become public record (all of it).

We desperately need to STAND UP as a United group. I know im not the only one who feels this way, but alone i can only do so much. I've tried to spread awareness to people i know IRL, but it always spins back to either they dont care, the MSM told them the "truth" of the matter, or im crazy for not wanting perpetual war with nations 95% of americans couldnt find on a map. Thats why we as a group, the politically aware on sites such as this, need to start grouping up and using our wits and weight ro make an impact.

We all don't agree on the finer specifics of why this nation is broken, but we all agree its broken.

annamaria > , July 6, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

@dcite

Funded by USAID……it's clear they are nothing more than a CIA front…. why no one does an in depth review of the links between USAID and the CIA…..they will find they are one and the same. It's time for UNZ to uncover the real USAID
Now that would be journalism worth its salt. Absolutely. USAID started as a CIA front in Vietnam during the 60s. Ruth Paine, "friend" of Marina Oswald, had a father named William Avery Hyde, who worked at USAID at least partly because it was tied in with the CIA So did other members of her family. I know someone who worked briefly at USAID, and would get questions from the public asking for info on projects from the 1960s. There were almost no records. We'r talking the 1960s, not the last century. There should have been the usual memos, advance reports, technical briefs, assessments, etc. Nearly nada, at least among the non-top-secret documents and archives. Only from the mid-70s on, around the time the CIA and various assassinations were looked at critically by Congress, did this agency keep good records of its activities. The "1984″ has been a conduit for the US "deciders" for so long that they have lost a sense of reality (whereas a sense of decency is not familiar for them at all). Here is an amazing sample of official idiocy: http://www.globalresearch.ca/fake-news-us-backed-forces-blast-through-8th-century-syrian-wall-to-fight-isis/5597701

"The Rafiqah Wall, first constructed in the 8th century by the Abbasid dynasty, is reported to be over 12 feet high, over a meter thick and stretches over 3 miles around the old city.

… the advancement of Syrian troops made the wall a trap that could have allowed the ISIS fighters to be completely wiped out. The US-backed forces, fronted by the so-called "Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)", appeared to come to ISIS's rescue. According to a July 3, 2017 TIME article(1), ISIS fighters had taken positions there "to defend the city [sic]" and planted explosive devices at what the article described as "breaks in the wall."

On the night of July 3rd, the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), claimed that SDF had "found a way" through the historic wall at "the most heavily-fortified portion of Raqqa"; two 25 meter-long breaches had been blasted through it. The article claimed that the two "small" - almost 100-foot - gaps "will help preserve the remainder of the overall 2,500-meter wall…"

A fine example of ZUSA reasoning: call the ISIS supporters the "moderate" jihadis (SDF) and call the blast of an ancient monument a "preservation."

[Jul 06, 2017] The Western nations controlled by the One World/New World Order globalist 0.1% White Collar business and banking mafia have done everything possible to take over Russia as they drool over the massive storehouse of natural treasures Russia has. Putin and the Kremlin leaders along with the military, KGB/FSB, and the Orthodox Church have no intention of allowing this conquest to happen.

Notable quotes:
"... antagonizing both, accelerating the very process he derided. It's all so predictable, and depressing. ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer > , • Website

July 6, 2017 at 4:34 am GMT

Events this past year would make Henry Kissinger roll over in his grave, except he is somehow still alive. I remember when American diplomats and Generals were skilled and crafty. Since Bush II, they are mostly ignorant imbeciles who madly threaten and sometimes bomb other nations at will. They have a weekly meeting with the President to review the kill list of who they will assassinate each week, usually by drone but also by "Spec Ops" posted in nearly every nation. This will not end well.

Kyle McKenna > , July 6, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT

Headline this evening:

US missile shield not yet ready for North Korean nukes

Hmm, perhaps Israel could help us out? J/K..

Real Time > , July 6, 2017 at 5:02 am GMT

Have to love this guy. The Western nations controlled by the One World/New World Order globalist 0.1% White Collar business and banking mafia have done everything possible to take over Russia as they drool over the massive storehouse of natural treasures Russia has. Putin and the Kremlin leaders along with the military, KGB/FSB, and the Orthodox Church have no intention of allowing this conquest to happen. Currently NATO has moved troops and missiles up to the very frontiers of Russia. It has occupied Afghanistan and is moving further into the Balkans.

The U.S. and E.U. have deliberately fomented trouble inside Russia and former soviet republics like Georgia, Armenia, and Ukraine to install anti-Russian puppet governments to aid in undermining Russia. When Russia responds in a very careful and restrained manner as in occupying and annexing the Crimea, which was Russian for centuries before the Communists "gave" it to Ukraine a few decades ago, the West swiftly puts harsh economic and financial sanctions on Russia and conspires with the oil and gas companies to drive prices down on Russia's main sources of revenue.

In desperation Russia is forced into the arms of her old enemy China.

Now the neo cons and globalists are in an uproar over this supposed Sino-Russian Alliance--a marriage of convenience only as China needs Russia's natural resources at cheap prices and Russia needs China to "cover her back". Also China is increasingly concerned about her own national sovereignty and independence from the NWO. Now Putin has sent a very clear message to the Western bandits: "Back off".

No doubt Russia supplied the icbm to North Korea that was set off to coincide with America's Independence Day.

Putin in a recent interview also pointed out that international cooperation has kept Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Russia has land borders with both North Korea and Iran and hundreds of extra icbms and atomic warheads which they could easily disassemble and send to them.

Russia also has the largest military in Europe and the largest nuclear arsenal of any nation on earth.

The neo-cons and banksters and crapitalists better heed the signs and back off from Russia. A word to the wise is sufficient. Unfortunately I fear there are very few wise heads in the Western One World Order hierarchy or their political prostitute puppets. I hope and pray cooler, wiser heads on all sides will prevail and World War III, which would destroy all life on this planet, does not happen.

Anonymous > , July 6, 2017 at 5:53 am GMT

It's remarkable how well China and Russia complement one another in all aspects. The weakness of one partner is the strength of the other.

Neither Russia nor China could resist the West on its own, but together the West has no chance to take on both.

jilles dykstra > , July 6, 2017 at 7:03 am GMT

That the objects of PNAC's strategy, the AEI plan, began to cooperate should not surprise anyone, especially after Bush jr and Obama executed this strategy.

Prof Laslo Maracs of UVA university Amsterdam explains Trump's strategy from that he and his rich friends understand that continuing PNAC will ruin them, and the USA.

I cannot see any implications for USA security, neither Russia nor China shows any inclination to attack the USA.

Robert Magill > , July 6, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT

Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea………

Perhaps Xi has countenanced that Kim Jong- un being a titular minor deity through his grandfather, has millions of followers (believers) and must perform in ways that are hard for us to fathom. The West would do well to consider his standing at home and act accordingly.

Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China.

Perhaps this was all a sideshow for the minions at home who crave to 'study war' above all else. Trump is a deal maker and may surprise us at the G20 by pulling off the Deal of Deals.

http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

JL , July 6, 2017 at 10:10 am GMT

Candidate Trump was very clear in highlighting the stupidity of US policy pushing Russia into China's embrace. President Trump has continued with the same policy of antagonizing both, accelerating the very process he derided. It's all so predictable, and depressing.

Russia and China, on a cultural level, are rather incompatible. Russia is very much part of the West, while China is clearly East. However, on paper, each has what the other wants and needs. Russia has resources, land, and military technology, while China has manufacturing, loads of cash, and demand for Russia's military tech.

There is still a virulent strain of Sinophobia in Russia, especially in the military. It will probably take a generation, at least, to overcome this. It's not clear that it will happen at all. However, if current trends continue, it will. The other possibility is that the two are forced into a closer alliance sooner by US aggression.

Greg Bacon > , Website July 6, 2017 at 10:11 am GMT

But there is little sign that today's U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action.

What? You mean that Trump's slumlord son-in-law and his fashion model daughter, neither having any experience in creating foreign policy, don't have what it takes to deal with Russia and China in a meaningful, sensible way?

As a slumlord, Jared has that 'My way or the highway" attitude when jacking up rents and Ivanka knows that a shapely thigh can turn many a head, so they're a fine addition to his foreign policy team!

Johnny Smoggins > , July 6, 2017 at 11:56 am GMT

I can think of nothing better for world peace than a military alliance of Russia and China plus Iran to counter the axis of evil that is the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia.

[Jul 06, 2017] Neocon from WSJ push for confrontation with Russia by WSJ editorial board

They want the confrontation to solve internal problem. Also attacking weaker part of China-Russia alliance is less damaging to US economy the attacking China. Dismembering of Russia which neocons always wanted would solve some geopolitical problem facing the USA now. Especially after reckless adventure with the instigating coup in Ukraine.
As Ray McGovern stated "Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America's triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser." ... " A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built."
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian will interpret concessions as a sign of weakness. ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | nation.foxnews.com
Trump's Putin Test The Russian will interpret concessions as a sign of weakness. July 5, 2017 7:32 p.m. ET

The Russian will interpret concessions as a sign of weakness.

Donald Trump thinks of himself as a great judge of character and master deal-maker, and that could be a dangerous combination when the President meets with Vladimir Putin for the first time Friday during the G-20 meeting in Germany. The Russian strongman respects only strength, not charm, which is what Mr. Trump will have to show if he wants to help U.S. interests abroad and his own at home.

The meeting comes amid the various probes of Russian meddling into the 2016 election, and Mr. Trump's curious refusal to denounce it. There's no evidence of Trump-Russia campaign collusion, nor that Russian interference influenced the result. But the Kremlin's attempt was a deliberate affront to democracy and it has done considerable harm to Mr. Trump's Presidency. Mr. Trump should be angry at Mr. Putin on America's behalf, and his apparent insouciance has played into Democratic hands.

The irony is that on policy Mr. Trump has been tougher on Mr. Putin than either of his two predecessors. Over Kremlin objections, the U.S. President has endorsed Montenegro's entry into NATO and new NATO combat deployments in Eastern Europe. He has approved military action against Russian ally Bashar Assad in Syria even after Russian threats of retaliation.

The White House was also wise to visit Poland a day before he meets Mr. Putin. In Warsaw on Thursday he can reinforce traditional American support for Polish freedom and assert his personal and public support for NATO's Article 5 that an attack on one alliance member is an attack on all.

Perhaps most important, Mr. Trump has unleashed U.S. oil and gas production that has the potential to weaken Mr. Putin at home and in Europe. The Russian strongman needs high oil prices and wields the leverage of natural-gas supplies over Europe, and U.S. production undermines both.

Yet Mr. Putin will be looking to see if he can leverage Mr. Trump's desire for better U.S.-Russia relations to gain unilateral concessions. One Kremlin priority is easing Western sanctions for the invasion of Ukraine and President Obama's December 2016 sanctions for its election interference. The Russian foreign ministry is in particular demanding that the U.S. let Russia reopen compounds in Maryland and New York that Mr. Obama shut down.

Mr. Trump will be tempted to oblige because the compounds are ultimately of no great consequence, but the political symbolism of reopening them would still be damaging if the President gets nothing in return. Mr. Putin still denies any Russian election hacking, and to adapt Michael Corleone's line to Carlo in "The Godfather Part II," he should stop lying because it insults our intelligence. Mr. Trump should at least follow French President Emmanuel Macron's precedent and issue a face-to-face public rebuke unless Mr. Putin apologizes.

Read the full story at The Wall Street Journal

[Jul 06, 2017] Quatar did not fold: the conflect between countries_supporting juhadists continues unabated

Notable quotes:
"... Seeing the Saudis walk out of this dispute with a big black eye is good news. However, I find it difficult in the extreme to root for the MB. They are the ones who had strong organizations in Homs and Aleppo at the beginning of the Syrian "Arab Spring" and pushed the conflict into military violence. And didn't Morsi call for Egyptian volunteers to go to Syria to fight against the Assad government? That was three days before Sisi orchestrated the coup to remove Morsi. I think that was a good move as much as anyone would detest military dictatorship over a democratically elected government. ..."
"... I see much of what the Sauds have done since 1990 as a huge wastage of wealth and deep indulgence in debauchery displaying absolutely no future foresight. I thought Twilight in the Desert would have jarred them awake, but it didn't as far as I can see. ..."
"... Egypt. My understanding at the time was 2 reasons for Morsi to be tossed. For one thing he tried to gather more power for the MB and people resumed their protests since they had not bargained for that. And second, Morsi wanted to jump into the war in Syria. Those are surface reasons that made it to MSM but were not emphasized. Since social media (by many outside parties) played a big role, western interests were present (maybe including via Abedin). The anti-MB Egypt joined with the anti-Qatar states in Riyadh. Looking back I wonder if al Sisi's speech against Gulf funders of terrorism targeted Qatar or included the Saudis. ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

As MoA predicted on June 7, two days after the spat started, Qatar did not fold. It has hundreds of billions in monetary reserves, international support from its liquefied gas customers and allies, and it secured supplies and support from Turkey and Iran. It simply did not response to the "offer" in time for the ultimatum's end.

The Saudis blinked first. On Sunday the ultimatum was prolonged for two days. Yesterday Qatar responded with its own demands which were, like the "offer", designed to be refused. It also announced that it would increase its liquefied gas exports by a third which threatens to take market share and income away from the Saudis. It reminded the UAE that 80% of its electricity supplies depend on natural gas delivered from Qatar.

Today the Saudis, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain met to discuss further consequences and new measures against Qatar. The Gulf media predicted more sanctions .

But the gang of four decided to do ... nothing :

The foreign ministers of four Arab countries, meeting in Cairo, said they regretted Qatar's "negative" response to their list of demands.
...
The Saudi foreign minister said further steps would be taken against Qatar at the appropriate time , and would be in line with international law.
...
The meeting came as the deadline for Qatar to accept the list of demands or face further sanctions expired.

This is a huge embarrassment for the clown princes of the UAE and Saudi Arabia. They, Mohammad bin Zayed and Mohammad bin Salman, are the instigators of the campaign against Qatar. The meeting today had to deliver some penalty against Qatar for not giving in to any demand: some additional significant sanctions , a more intense blockade, some threat of military strikes. But the meeting came up with ... nothing.

The clown princes had shot their wad on the very first day. They could not come up with any new measures that were agreeable. Kuwait and Oman reject to push Qatar out of the Gulf Cooperation Council, the UAE would lose all its international businesses in Dubai should the Qatari gas supplies, and thereby its electricity, shut down. An additional blockade of Qatar is impossible without the agreement of the U.S. Russia and other big states.

Such a huge loss of face will have consequences. When the Saudi clown prince launched the war against Yemen he expected, and announced, that Sanaa would fall within days. Two years later Sanaa has not fallen and the Saudis are losing the war. Qatar was expected to fold within days. But it has enough capital and income to sustain the current situation for many years to come. The war against Yemen and the sanctions against Qatar were indirectly aimed against Iran- the Saudis' cpsen arch-enemy. But without investing even a dime Iran is now the winner from both conflicts. MbS, the Saudi clown prince, has twice proven to be a terrible strategist who endangers his country.

The Saudi King Salman and his son said that neither of them will take part in the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg. Rumors have it that they fear an imminent coup should one of them leave the country.

No one should be surprised if the Salman era finds a bloody end within the next week or month.

R Winner | Jul 5, 2017 3:12:20 PM | 2
The US Regime is currently:
  • Actively supporting its terrorist proxies in Syria
  • Playing chicken with China in the South China Sea
  • Getting closer and closer to war with a new nuclear power, North Korea
  • The never ending Afghanistan fiasco

Can the Saudi dictatorship be dumb enough to think the US Regime is ready or even capable of coming to the aid of a coup? One would think the US Regime would be desperate to quickly stage a coup just to get these clowns out of power and someone reliable as dictator of Saudi Arabia so they can get back to the myriad other wars they are waging or on the verge of waging.

Jackrabbit | Jul 5, 2017 3:51:38 PM | 5
Do you think the Americans are telling the Saudis to end their support for terrorism and the Saudis are just ignoring that to engaging in futile, internecine conflict? If true, I would think that the US is misguiding or angling for an opportunity to over-throw Saudi rulers (as has been mooted at MoA several times). But I read an plausible analysis (linked at MoA, I think) that speculated on MbS recognition for Israel - reasoning that that is why US supported his elevation to crown prince. In that case, I would think that US would want to guide KSA to better outcomes. Seems suspicious for this to occur just before the G-20.

Putin-Trump at G-20: Birth of Sunnistan?

Thoughts?

Mark2 | Jul 5, 2017 4:02:52 PM | 6
The clownprince can only recognize Israel if there's no opponent voice in the Arab world, Qatar wont give in but neither will Israel with their big plans. So the prince and his buddy the presidents son in law got himself in another mess just to be the next king, but people died for less, and i dont underestimate the militairy, financial and mediapower of this new alliance.
ToivoS | Jul 5, 2017 4:06:48 PM | 7
Seeing the Saudis walk out of this dispute with a big black eye is good news. However, I find it difficult in the extreme to root for the MB. They are the ones who had strong organizations in Homs and Aleppo at the beginning of the Syrian "Arab Spring" and pushed the conflict into military violence. And didn't Morsi call for Egyptian volunteers to go to Syria to fight against the Assad government? That was three days before Sisi orchestrated the coup to remove Morsi. I think that was a good move as much as anyone would detest military dictatorship over a democratically elected government.

This current conflict is producing some strange alliances but I would be very hesitant to support the MB in any case. I can see why Iran will enter an alliance of convenience with Qatar but that is for the iranians to work out, not for us to cheer on.

hopehely | Jul 5, 2017 4:09:01 PM | 8
@3
I think it is safe to assume Trump had no clue there was a large US military base in Qatar.
Well that should not be a problem, as long as his adviser knows that...that's what advisers are for after all. His adviser is IIRC general McMaster. Therefore, is it safe to assume that Mr General had no clue about it, or that Trump did not seek his advice?
the pair | Jul 5, 2017 4:09:52 PM | 9
i've been hoping for anything to take the saud family down...either a few notches or all the way. they seem headed down that path for all the reasons you mentioned here and others (e.g. being BFFs with israel is short sighted, arrogant and beyond stupid in that part of the world).

i've also wondered if the - artificial due to saudi overproduction - low price of oil will backfire...usually the only reason major events and disruptions don't occur in the "middle east" is fear of a spike in oil and gas prices. at this point even saudi "allies" would like to see that happen (and it would have the hilarious unintended effect of boosting russia to "screw your little sanctions" levels).

we'll see. it's hard to predict what will happen in a family with 100,000,000 members and a collective ingrained mental illness on the level of wahhabism.

Laguerre | Jul 5, 2017 4:32:29 PM | 10
re 1

"Unless the Saudis can reconfigure their economy and train their populous to do actual work, their kingdom will sink into the sands and die by 2100. " This is impossible. There are no other resources, and the loyalty of the people is very stretched, as b indicates.

Willy2 | Jul 5, 2017 4:35:30 PM | 11
  • But the coupe is likely to come from the ruling clan inside the Saudi "government".
  • Who will guarantee that the Muslim brotherhood who have been supported by Qatar will not turn on the government in Doha ?
Willy2 | Jul 5, 2017 4:38:45 PM | 12
I would use different words: The Saudis are NOT winning the war. A victory is not in sight. Even after a war that lasted for 2 (??) years. Indeed, highly embarrasing for the new "king" Salman and his minister of "defense".
somebody | Jul 5, 2017 4:48:17 PM | 13
Posted by: hopehely | Jul 5, 2017 4:09:01 PM | 8

Presumably the adviser was Jared Kushner and he had no clue about it or did not care.

Willy2 | Jul 5, 2017 4:51:09 PM | 14
- Also think of the embarrasment of the people in the US who have supported the saudis. Think: Jared Kushner & Steve Bannon (??).
- There's talk that the generals in the Pentagon "don't like" a new "intervention" in the Middle East.

Source:
https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/scotthortonshow/062817-mark-perry-jared-kushners-middle-east-mess/

Pvp | Jul 5, 2017 4:54:56 PM | 15
Just after the venerable Henry Jackson society named the Saudis as the prime sponsor of terrorism. Next stage in stirring a little neocon chaos in the Arab world? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40496778
Jackrabbit | Jul 5, 2017 5:22:17 PM | 17
b:
The MB do not accept the primacy of the Arab absolute monarchs. They provide an alternative way of governing by adopting some democratic participation of the people.
Yet their main support come from Qataris Wahhabi-infused Monarchy and a Sultan wannabe? Wikipedia tells me that MB believes in Jihad and Sharia Law. What a swell bunch of community organizers./sarc
somebody | Jul 5, 2017 5:33:36 PM | 18
By the way, there is a LNG price war between Qatar and the United States .
brian | Jul 5, 2017 5:41:50 PM | 19
'The military dictator of Egypt, which joined the Saudis on the issue, had led a coup against the elected MB government of his '

the reference here is to Morsi , a member of MB who ended diplomatic relations with syria, backed jihadhis flocking TO syria to kill syrians, wanted to send egypts army to invade syria and finally made governmor of Luxor a man who belonged to a party that masacred foreign tourists in 1997.

so did i miss something in Bernies umbrage at Sisi??

karlof1 | Jul 5, 2017 6:05:13 PM | 20
Laguerre @10--

Yes, I agree, but that doesn't negate the challenge to the al-Sauds if they wish to continue in control. I see much of what the Sauds have done since 1990 as a huge wastage of wealth and deep indulgence in debauchery displaying absolutely no future foresight. I thought Twilight in the Desert would have jarred them awake, but it didn't as far as I can see.

Other news of import: Press statements by Putin and Xi after their summit, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54979 Joint statement by Russia and China on North Korea, http://www.mid.ru/en/web/guest/maps/kr/-/asset_publisher/PR7UbfssNImL/content/id/2807662 and discussion of that statement, http://theduran.com/russian-chinese-joint-statement-korea/

Also, Pepe Escobar gives us insight as to Hong Kong's role in OBOR, http://www.atimes.com/article/hks-role-next-20-years-silk-road-super-connector/

And a very good article on Russia's Far East land giveaway, http://www.atimes.com/article/russia-great-land-giveaway-far-east/

virgile | Jul 5, 2017 6:08:08 PM | 21
Trump did a good "coup". Trump pumped Saudi Arabia and the UAE by assuring them of US support whatever they decide to do about stopping the funding of Al Qaeda and ISIS. Saudi Arabia thought they could get away by making tiny Qatar the scapegoat for the Islamist terrorists in the region and abroad.

They fell in one more trap that the US has been pushing them into: Libya, Syria, Yemen. All ending by weakening further the Sunni kingdom to the point that it may consider a deal with Israel in exchange of US tough measures against Shia Iran. The US has been backstabbing Saudi Arabia under Obama and under Trump for years and they don't even notice.

Of course Qatar will not yield and the pathetic MBS looks dumber than ever. Yes a coup is needed in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.. The collapse of the GCC is next.

Anonymous | Jul 5, 2017 6:14:36 PM | 22
The Saudis tried to make a public IPO of Aramco a while back. This has fizzled, probably in recognition of the fact that Saudi is almost running on empty. One reason behind the Qatar lunacy might be a wish to take over Qatar's resources to keep Saudi solvent for a while at least.
fast freddy | Jul 5, 2017 6:30:01 PM | 24
Redirect perhaps, if I may be so bold: there exists no evidence that the amalgamated USUKIS and its string of subservient allies intend to do anything to eradicate any brand of "rebel" head choppers. They snipe at them around the margins, but they also pay them, arm them, and permit them to do (oil) business and much more.

Also: The new SA Clown Prince is still entitled to all the membership benefits of the U.N. Human Rights Council even as he slaughters civilians in Yemen and publicly chops off the hands and heads of his own citizens.

mauisurfer | Jul 5, 2017 7:33:04 PM | 30
interview with Chas Freeman last week: Qatar Crisis Could Lead to War: Veteran US Diplomat

if you don't know who Chas is, please wiki was ambassador to Saudi, was Nixon's interpreter in China, that's right, he speaks mandarin and arabic not just knowledgeable, also very funny remember when AIPAC vetoed his appointment by Obama?

https://lobelog.com/qatar-crisis-could-lead-to-war-veteran-us-diplomat/

more Chas here: http://chasfreeman.net/category/speeches/

Curtis | Jul 5, 2017 8:08:35 PM | 34
@ToivoS 7

Egypt. My understanding at the time was 2 reasons for Morsi to be tossed. For one thing he tried to gather more power for the MB and people resumed their protests since they had not bargained for that. And second, Morsi wanted to jump into the war in Syria. Those are surface reasons that made it to MSM but were not emphasized. Since social media (by many outside parties) played a big role, western interests were present (maybe including via Abedin). The anti-MB Egypt joined with the anti-Qatar states in Riyadh. Looking back I wonder if al Sisi's speech against Gulf funders of terrorism targeted Qatar or included the Saudis.

MB/Morsi ran on a plank of moderation but al Sisi attacked and prosecuted them as terrorists. Sadly mucho details of this are lacking in US MSM.

Grieved | Jul 5, 2017 9:26:42 PM | 35
@18 somebody

Yes, that's exactly how that Reuters story reads to me too. The prime target is the US. Extraordinarily powerful move by Qatar, using a weapon that it knows and owns completely and in massive scale, and with an understanding of the damage it can do to its enemies. Asymmetrical warfare indeed. Priceless.

~~

I'm really hoping that over the years, as Qatar rubs shoulders with the multi-polar world, it will reform itself to renounce and atone for its former support of terrorism. As I watch its moves in this situation I'm struck with a certain admiration. It would be nice to be able to root for it someday as one of the good guys.

karlof1 | Jul 5, 2017 10:04:01 PM | 37
Here's last year's NatGas industrial review, so you can determine just how sane Qatar's move is. The link is to a modestly sized pdf file, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwit-fbqxPPUAhVSxmMKHRY1CyAQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.igu.org%2Fdownload%2Ffile%2Ffid%2F2123&usg=AFQjCNHNu-nmLpatVthD04g0UWtOuREDMw

The report's loaded with info. Production can certainly be increased, but it's all the other infrastructure that's required for the market to expand, particularly regasification terminals.

ProPeace | Jul 5, 2017 10:51:17 PM | 38
Right on time Russian-made S-300 air defense missile systems assume combat duty in Iran
Temporarily Sane | Jul 6, 2017 12:51:57 AM | 39
@17 Jackrabbit
Wikipedia tells me that MB believes in Jihad and Sharia Law. What a swell bunch of community organizers.

Well, they are Islamists after all. The Shariah (the "law" is redundant as it means God's law) and Jihad (righteous struggle) are core tenets of Islam and a practicing Muslim must follow the former and practice the latter (if and when required) or he or she isn't much of a Muslim. What these terms encompass depends on who you ask. Scholars representing the main schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali for Sunni Muslims and Twelver, Zaidiyyah, and Isma'ili for Shia Muslims) differ in their interpretations of these concepts as do traditionalists and reformers and there is no one size fits all version.

In the west these are extremely loaded terms and anyone who has a quick and easy answer as to what they "mean" likely doesn't know what they are talking about. Thankfully, we have the interwebz and a curious mind will find a wealth of information pertaining to these and other aspects of Islamic jurisprudence.

jfl | Jul 6, 2017 2:41:28 AM | 41
Erdogan: Saudi list of demands from Qatar not acceptable
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stressed that his country will remain loyal to Qatar and that a list of demands by Saudi Arabia and its allies from the Persian Gulf country are under no circumstances acceptable.

"When it comes to this list of 13 items... it's not acceptable under any circumstances," said Erdogan in an interview with France 24 television on Wednesday.

He added that such demands are the equivalent of "stripping" Qatar of its statehood.

The closing down of a Turkish military base in Qatar is one of the demands on the list. Erdogan stated the he was willing to close the base if Doha requested to do so.

"The Americans are also there, with 9,000 soldiers, and so are the French... Why are the Saudis disturbed by us and not by that? This is unacceptable," he added.

speaking to the french, not to those nasty germans ... 'Why are the Saudis disturbed by us and not by that? This is unacceptable ...' mentioning the saudis by name ... the 'loyal' erdogan lumps turkish forces with the us' forces, smells saudi blood in the water?
james | Jul 6, 2017 2:50:37 AM | 42
thanks b....

i can't believe these folks are so crazy to make unreasonable demands on others like this.. i guess it goes with the role of being clown princes or something. al a kazzam... they are supposed to snap their fingers and everyone does accordingly...

the saudi arabia regime can't die soon enough for my liking... they can take the usa regime down the toilet with them while they are at it too..

Perimetr | Jul 6, 2017 4:07:56 AM | 43
Non-negotiable, unreasonable demands are often made when war is planned and a pretext is desired.
hayder | Jul 6, 2017 4:14:35 AM | 44
"Clown Prince" - great description, fantastic.
somebody | Jul 6, 2017 8:50:46 AM | 45
17/42

b. should not use the word democratic. Neither Islam nor political Islam has a central authority, the only authority is the Koran, which is contradictory in many respects, in that sense the Muslim Brotherhood are as democratic as protestants or evangelicals whose only authority is the bible.

But you are at the mercy of the interpretation of theologians if you are one of the "people of the book" i.e. Jewish or Christian, or worse an "unbeliever". Whilst the early part of the Koran preaches some kind of religious tolerance, the latter part dating from the time of Islam's power struggles condones oppression and annihilation.

Egyptian liberals/left felt threatened by a Muslim Brotherhood power grap so they teamed up with the army. Turkish liberals/left decided against the coup and it costs them dearly in prison terms. The last elections for the referendum were in all likelyhood forged, whether Turkish people will ever again get a clean election is doubtful.

Political Islam is very much a top down affair by the "Supreme Guide" who is elected for life by his equals. So you might vote for Muslim Brotherhood officials, but the official answer to the Supreme Guide, not to you. Same applies for Iran where Khamenei controls who can stand for elections and who cannot.

Theocracy would be the word. Saudi is - still - a monarchy legitimized by theology.

virgile | Jul 6, 2017 9:18:49 AM | 46
@somebody

Sunnis and Shias differ greatly on the leadership. Sunnis have no religious hierarchy and do not look for a religious 'supreme leader'. Historically the king or the Sultan took that role. We see this in all Sunni lead countries. That is the main reason of Sunnis worldwide internal disunity and conflicts as each group decide on his leader. The Shias have always accepted the leadership of a religious man who is from the line of the prophet. Because of the unity behind a religious leader, Koran is constantly re-interpreted in the light of the modern life, while Sunnis consider the Koran as a final law and reject any interpretation as a heresy. In that sense Shias are more democratic as they accept that the country be lead by multiple entities with various authorities , president,parliament, Guardian council and a supreme leader in a complex check and balance system.
Guide: How Iran is ruled
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8051750.stm

Mina | Jul 6, 2017 12:08:15 PM | 47
Hollande and the Fr neocons have been moved to shelves. Nice speakers in this program on the KSA Qatar rivalry http://www.rfi.fr/emission/20170701-qatar-arabie-saoudite-rivalite-consequences-crise-golfe-trump
Mina | Jul 6, 2017 12:14:11 PM | 48
The Egyptians have a long memory. When the puppet Faruq was put on a throne and considered the Egyptian nationalists as his enemies more than the British, the Muslim Brothers sided with Faruq against the Nationalists.
Mina | Jul 6, 2017 12:32:49 PM | 49
Same vein, new guys get invited to radio programs https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/du-grain-moudre-dete/que-devient-letat
Cost of getting rid of 1 djihadist for the French army: 1 million dollar per head. Frankish genius.
Noirette | Jul 6, 2017 1:48:27 PM | 50
Unless the Saudis can reconfigure their economy and train their populous to do actual work, their kingdom will sink ..
karlof1 at 1

This is impossible. Laguerre at 10. > see also response from karlof1 at 20.

The curse of black gold + a rentier economy coupled with an authoritarian repressive State that enslaves the 'people.' The two are often soldered: dominating class capts the profits and co-opts slave labor, and pays off citizens with 'stipends.' Escaping or changing such a template is imho incredibly difficult or impossible in the case of KSA.

The rentier class, aka Royals and hangers-on is several tens of thousands of ppl, not detailed on wiki. (Comp. with US not the 1%, but the 20%..) In fact it is one of the problems of such arrangements, some gang of 'hangers on' has to be appeased and maintained, they have quite some power. Because the 'authoritarian' schema deploys in a clear top-down, to down further, a fixed ladder - way, and once some lower layer is stiffed, objections and obstructions may fly and richochet to the top. For the system to endure, these HAVE to be appeased.

A power sharing scheme like this also mandates that women are kept from acting in any way. The easiest and cheapest way to control half the population, plus all children, ask the MB, the Taliban, KSA.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/saudi-arabia-cancels-bonus-payment-for-state-employees-spa-says

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39683592 (reverses pay cuts)

The crazed moves of the new Prince are vain attempts to escape the self-constructed trap. Floundering, flailing, about, considering that killing others, war, (e.g. Yemen), engaging in aggro (Qatar) might help - as that might please the USA, who encourages all aggro and sells arms, etc. Won't end well for KSA for sure all Internationals are wondering who will grab what when collapse it is.

karlof1 | Jul 6, 2017 2:29:59 PM | 51
Big Time loss of face for Saudis as neither MBS or father will attend G-20, http://theduran.com/following-qatar-rebuff-saudi-king-crown-prince-stay-away-g20-summit/

Noirette @50--

Agree with your description, but think there are still ways for the Sauds to escape if they look to past examples of how authoritarians appeased their masses to stay in power--Russia's emancipation of its Serfs and Bismarck's giving Commoners a stake in the system are two that come to mind.

somebody | Jul 6, 2017 3:06:57 PM | 52
Posted by: virgile | Jul 6, 2017 9:18:49 AM | 46

My assumption is that "sunnis" and "shias" as in "religion" are independent from "political Islam".

Wilayat al-Faqih was Khomeini's idea and he was connected to the tradition of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood plus a few Iranian ideas .

Indeed, ties between the Brotherhood and Iran predate 1979. Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, believed that Sunnis and Shiites should overcome their differences to face their common enemies. So, too, did Ayatollah Khomeini, who openly advocated an alliance between the two main branches of Islam. Al Banna and Khomeini were also linked by a prominent Iranian scholar named Nawab Safawi. Khomeini was close to Safawi and al Banna also embraced the Iranian cleric. As others have written, Safawi introduced Khomeini to the Brotherhood and its political ideology.
somebody | Jul 6, 2017 3:10:21 PM | 53
add to 46)

Iranian liberals/the left did not survive the Iranian revolution, at least not in Iran.

Noirette | Jul 6, 2017 3:46:12 PM | 54
Well karlof idk one can hope, i doubt it though. To veer off, but important imho:

Another aspect that is little taken into account, is that the KSA 'export' and funding of terrorism, seen by the West as religious extremist propaganda and action (wahabism..) and/or as furnishing bodies to fight in several proxy wars - mostly against Iran, fulfills a very important function at home.

It props up the clergy - one of the pillars that control the population - giving them a 'force' to project, radiate, far, and thus keeping them quiet and on board. More importantly it provides an outlet, paid and sanctioned, for 'rebels' who are violently inclined. Rather than contest the powers at home, they can go, and be paid, to fight elsewhere. In the name of Allah (or whatever) and meanwhile their wives and children will not be punished.

In a way, the poor volunteers in the US army are in a similar spot. Outcasts at home, no future, they attain some kind of pay and status, even the possibility of marriage and children, and citizenship, to fight - for the US and 'against' various savages, infidels (aka not democratic), tow-heads, terrorists, scoundrels, etc.

Potentially dangerous, explosive, and effective young men are co-opted and paid to 'fight abroad.'

karlof1 | Jul 6, 2017 4:22:14 PM | 55
Noirette @54--

Thanks for your reply. I see most of the Saudi populous as victims of an enforced ignorance, as is the fate of far too many people globally, thanks to the Saud's rigorous Indoctrination, Propaganda, and Enforcement Systems. Absolutism is easy to maintain when zero dissent is allowed. Yet, the populous must be appeased lest it revolt because the boot cannot constantly stay pressed to the face.

What I find amusing in my old age is that Russia or China are lest likely to become Police States, while that's the exact direction the Outlaw US Empire and its vassal states are headed as their elite will never willingly cede their power or ill-gotten wealth -- it will literally need to be wrested from their cold, dead hands.

Lea | Jul 6, 2017 5:36:29 PM | 56
Posted by: somebody | Jul 6, 2017 3:10:21 PM | 53
Iranian liberals/the left did not survive the Iranian revolution, at least not in Iran.

If you're talking about the pro-Western librul "left-wing", yes, it was defeated in Iran. Bona fide Socialism, not so much. https://thesaker.is/iran-socialisms-ignored-success-story/

Peter AU | Jul 6, 2017 6:29:44 PM | 57
Looking at the wording of this, it seems the US or an American advisor is now trying to get the Saudi's out of their own mess. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-gulf-qatar-statement-idUSKBN19R356?il=0 ....Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain released a joint statement carried by the countries' state media saying their initial list of 13 demands was now void and that they would take political, economic and legal steps against Qatar.

The Qatari government sabotaged diplomatic efforts to solve the rift, the four states said, and its refusal affirmed its continuing sabotage of the region's stability and security. The measures taken by the four states were aimed at the Qatari government but not its people, they said.

Chauncey Gardiner | Jul 6, 2017 7:02:26 PM | 58
"Washington Post's Disgusting Guest List At Hamptons Party"

https://youtu.be/DBIfHyjrjkU

Curtis | Jul 6, 2017 8:41:02 PM | 59
Chauncy Gardiner 58 Birds of a feather. Strange bedfellows. etc.

[Jul 06, 2017] The Great Power Shift A Russia-China Alliance by Ray McGovern

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America's triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser. ..."
"... Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement signals a tectonic shift to Washington's distinct detriment, a change largely due to U.S. actions that have pushed the two countries closer together. ..."
"... But there is little sign that today's U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action. Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea or in the air. ..."
"... Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China. ..."
"... A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built. ..."
"... Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea, and he may even hope that South Korea's new President will react more sensibly than his predecessor who authorized THAAD deployment, which has made the North even more nervous about a possible preemptive strike. [In a seminar on the Web in February, Professor J. J. Suh and I discussed THAAD in the historical perspective of missile defense systems.] ..."
"... Less than a month ago, Putin and Xi met in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. At that time, Putin predicted that the bilateral meeting now under way in Moscow would be "a major event in bilateral relations." ..."
"... The Russian leader added, "By tradition, we use every opportunity to meet and to discuss bilateral relations and the international agenda." ..."
"... If Sino-Russian "tradition" is meant to describe relations further back than three decades ago, Putin exaggerates. It was not always so. A half-century retrospective on the vicissitudes of Russia-Chinese relations illustrates the difficult path they have taken. More important, it suggests their current closeness is not likely to evaporate any time soon. ..."
"... Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA's principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington's advantage. ..."
"... The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called "unequal treaties" dating back to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border where islands were claimed by both sides. ..."
"... In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions. By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more immediate threat to them than the U.S., which had fought Chinese troops during the Korean War in the 1950s and refused to recognize the country's communist leadership diplomatically, maintaining the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists on Taiwan remained the legitimate government of China. ..."
"... Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit by President Richard Nixon the next year. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington. ..."
"... Triangular Diplomacy ..."
"... Washington's adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the U.S. and USSR and the Four Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution in Vietnam. ..."
"... It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects of the U.S. approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was. ..."
"... Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President Nixon's first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon. ..."
"... Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added to this rivalry as the U.S. moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the U.S. ..."
"... The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the U.S. bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time. ..."
"... We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong's and Nikita Khrushchev's successors proved to have cooler heads. The U.S., under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the U.S., China and the Soviet Union gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening. ..."
"... Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries, but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that "normalization" of relations between Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China's conditions. For their part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better relations with Washington. ..."
"... Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached "unparalleled heights." He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves. ..."
"... A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight to U.S. hegemony as the world's unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances by pressing NATO up to Russia's borders and President Obama's "pivot to Asia." ..."
"... The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia finally pushed back by approving Crimea's request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev. ..."
"... As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the U.S. government and academe continues to hold that, despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in developing good relations with the U.S. than with each other. ..."
"... The sports slogan has it that nothing is over "until the fat lady sings," but on this topic, her tones are quite clear. The day of the U.S. playing China and Russia off against each other is no more ..."
Jul 06, 2017 | www.unz.com

Top Russian and Chinese leaders are busy comparing notes, coordinating their approach to President Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg this weekend. Both sides are heralding the degree to which ties between the two countries have improved in recent years, as Chinese President Xi Jinping's visits Moscow on his way to the G20. And, they are not just blowing smoke; there is ample substance behind the rhetoric.

Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America's triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser.

Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement signals a tectonic shift to Washington's distinct detriment, a change largely due to U.S. actions that have pushed the two countries closer together.

But there is little sign that today's U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action. Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea or in the air.

Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China.

But consider this: it may soon be possible to foresee a Chinese challenge to "U.S. interests" in the South China Sea or even the Taiwan Strait in tandem with a U.S.-Russian clash in the skies over Syria or a showdown in Ukraine.

A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington's behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built.

It's almost like the old days when the U.S. military budgeted to fight wars on multiple fronts simultaneously. Recent weeks saw the following:

–The guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem on Sunday sailed within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese-claimed Triton Island in the Paracels in the South China Sea. The Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately branded this "a serious political and military provocation."

–The U.S. last week announced a $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, placed sanctions on a Chinese bank for its dealings with North Korea, and labeled China the world's worst human trafficker.

–On June 20, President Donald Trump sent off a condescending tweet intimating that, at his request, China had tried but failed to help restrain North Korea's nuclear program: "It has not worked out. At least I know China tried." (Over the centuries, the Chinese have had bad experience with Western condescension.)

Common Concern: Missile Defense

On the eve of his arrival in Moscow, Xi gave an interview to Russia's TASS news agency, in which he focused on missile defense – an issue particularly close to Vladimir Putin's heart . Xi focused on U.S. deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles to South Korea as "disrupting the strategic balance in the region" and threatening the security interests of all countries in the region, including Russia and China.

Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea, and he may even hope that South Korea's new President will react more sensibly than his predecessor who authorized THAAD deployment, which has made the North even more nervous about a possible preemptive strike. [In a seminar on the Web in February, Professor J. J. Suh and I discussed THAAD in the historical perspective of missile defense systems.]

Less than a month ago, Putin and Xi met in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. At that time, Putin predicted that the bilateral meeting now under way in Moscow would be "a major event in bilateral relations."

The Russian leader added, "By tradition, we use every opportunity to meet and to discuss bilateral relations and the international agenda."

If Sino-Russian "tradition" is meant to describe relations further back than three decades ago, Putin exaggerates. It was not always so. A half-century retrospective on the vicissitudes of Russia-Chinese relations illustrates the difficult path they have taken. More important, it suggests their current closeness is not likely to evaporate any time soon.

Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA's principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington's advantage.

The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called "unequal treaties" dating back to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border where islands were claimed by both sides.

In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions. By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more immediate threat to them than the U.S., which had fought Chinese troops during the Korean War in the 1950s and refused to recognize the country's communist leadership diplomatically, maintaining the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists on Taiwan remained the legitimate government of China.

Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit by President Richard Nixon the next year. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington.

Triangular Diplomacy

Washington's adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the U.S. and USSR and the Four Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution in Vietnam.

It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects of the U.S. approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was.

Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President Nixon's first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon.

Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added to this rivalry as the U.S. moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the U.S.

The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the U.S. bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time.

We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong's and Nikita Khrushchev's successors proved to have cooler heads. The U.S., under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the U.S., China and the Soviet Union gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening.

Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries, but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that "normalization" of relations between Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China's conditions. For their part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better relations with Washington.

A New Reality

Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached "unparalleled heights." He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves.

A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight to U.S. hegemony as the world's unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances by pressing NATO up to Russia's borders and President Obama's "pivot to Asia."

The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia finally pushed back by approving Crimea's request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev.

On the global stage, Putin fleshed out the earlier energy deal with China, including a massive 30-year natural gas contract valued at $400 billion. The move helped Putin demonstrate that the West's post-Ukraine economic sanctions posed little threat to Russia's financial survival.

As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the U.S. government and academe continues to hold that, despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in developing good relations with the U.S. than with each other.

The sports slogan has it that nothing is over "until the fat lady sings," but on this topic, her tones are quite clear. The day of the U.S. playing China and Russia off against each other is no more .

One perhaps can hope that someone in the U.S. government will inform President Trump that his Russian and Chinese counterparts are singing from essentially the same songbook, the unintended result of arrogant miscalculations by his immediate predecessors. Implications for U.S. national security are enormous.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 year. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected] . A version of this article first appeared on Consortiumnews.com.

[Jul 05, 2017] I thought nothing in Russia could shock me. Then I went to a television broadcast

Neoliberal guardian presstitute in all glory... It's a real Orwellian hate hour. Those presstitutes do love Saudi monarchy, though
But with is interesting that the tone of comments recently changes and composition of audience changed too. the number of hateful comments about Russia is astounding, and suggest some manipulation of public opinion. It is plausible that some or most comments are produced by government agencies or with the help of volunteers. It is difficult to see which comments are genuine and which are generated.
Jul 05, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
greenmanilishi ladyjanegrey , 30 Jun 2017 13:23 msm ,

Guardian,Telegraph,BBC,CNN,CBS,NBC ... all the letters of the alphabet have no intention of questioning US claims of authority to invade, attack, destroy nations who they decide are to be destroyed.... Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.etc.

Bush Cameron,Obama,Clinton, ´we came , we saw, he died, ha, ha, ha´ .....

I never heard Putin say anything like that..... push back against US war mongering and UK EU support or indifference to 25 years of destruction and mayhem... not Russian tv

Kiselev -> senya, 30 Jun 2017 13:22

That why USA have 11 peaceful aircraft carriers..Because of Russia that barely have one..

GeoffP Zepp , 30 Jun 2017 13:09

Bah: that's crap. WikiLeaks is still producing relevant stuff on the DNC and HRC as it goes along, and on the military-industrial complex in general. There's nothing wrong with that - and those that think it's 'corrupted' merely because it kicked over a beloved seizure horse really need to seriously re-examine their biases. As for this:

Their main motivation seems to be that acknowledging that Putin is a vicious dictator who interfered in US election denigrates Wikileaks.

??? Who in the hell thinks that? In short: citation needed. Badly.

doskey , 30 Jun 2017 13:07
I'm sorry as much as I would like to jump on the bandwagon (and there's much wrong in Russia), but isn't this article speaking for exactly what the police accused the writer accused of - journalism?

If he indeed came on a tourist visa and does investigative work, that is in a shady area, whatever the country. If I come to the U.S. and speak to groups as the Resistance, Black Lives Matter and democratic party leaders, I'd hardly classify as a tourist, no?

lochinverboy , 30 Jun 2017 11:23
Given the truly odious regimes we do business with and never criticise, it is telling that we never hear anything positive about Russia. Nor did we when it was part of the Communist USSR. It can't be an orchestrated US led campaign of destabilisation to allow the West access to those huge oil and gas resources!!!
footbollocks Guardianangell , 30 Jun 2017 10:42
>>"Ah, yes I remember Russia invading several countries in the last, lets say 15 years. Damn, we should keep a close eye on them."
Your reply appears to be alluding to several recent US led attacks on Arab regimes. Accordingly, in so far as it engages my observation that Putin's Russia approaches a fascist dictatorship that is a threat to countries on its borders, to the EU and to liberal democracy, you suggests one of four things:
(a) The US likewise approaches a fascist dictatorship
(b) The US poses a similar threat to the EU
(c) The US poses a similar threat to liberal democracy
(d) The US poses a similar threat to the countries on Russia's borders.
Plainly, however, all of (a) to (d) are false.
I conclude that the evident pleasure you take in what seems to you to be a clever comment is smug and delusional.
Martyn Richard Jones , 30 Jun 2017 10:37

These days Russia woos like a gangster, not a lover.

That's not the impression I get, at all. I find them to be relatively restrained, thoughtful and civil. Especially given the expansionist antics that NATO has got up to over the years.

It's easy to point the finger at Moscow, a habit that is over a century old. If the west had taken Thatcher's advice over the handling of the USSR, none of this would have probably come to pass.

dorotea petesire , 30 Jun 2017 10:25
It all really boils down to what kind of facts he was after. To, me, his whole piece sounds pretty much like hate-mongering, and yes it also can be classified as propaganda. So, the dude went to Russia pretty much with an agenda of collecting facts fitting with his already planned and pre-commissioned book, and then is so much 'surprised' when the trip is classified as professional work , not tourism. And when they asked him to sign paperwork confirming that he was travelling as a pro - he called it 'fake'. Wonderful way of presenting things that rivals the tv show he is so much disgusted with. Btw, if you want to enjoy real Orwellian hate-hour - just travel to US and turn on CNN , or any other mass media tv channel.
andrewboston , 30 Jun 2017 10:23
kleptocratic clique
-- just like Trump and May
Nazi weren't a different, long extinct species, they're alive and well as Rethugricans and Torys, today, mostly.
The UK Empire and the USA Empire are among the greatest evil the world has seen.... and they need enemies to maintain war profits.
Paul4701 , 30 Jun 2017 10:19
Interesting article, but let's be honest. It has become long clear that non-Western nations can not be viewed with Western social and political goggles. Putin might not meet many of the check boxes that symbolize Western (Democratic Values), neither does the US when we take a good close look or any of the other Western countries.
Point being: hate mongering by Russian TV is being seen as scary yet most Russian view Western Media as Hate-Mongers against Russia.
Tell me: Who is right here?
Yessen Bulumbayev chris rhode , 30 Jun 2017 10:03
Nice democracy you are having - population brainwashed by corrupted, aligned with warmongering foreign policy -->
Gwydion Madawc Williams , 30 Jun 2017 09:52
Yet another article that fails to face up to the West's abysmal failure in Russia in the 1990s. Then, they thought the West was friendly to the new non-Communist Russia. A Russia that had given up its Colonial Empire than any nation in the West managed.

The Yeltsin years saw a rise in the death rate, a shrinking of the economy and vast amounts of public property pass into the hands of crooks. This happened thanks to crackpot New Right schemes that issued shares as individual property of the company workers. Outside of New Right fairy tails, it was absolutely predictable that almost all of them would be sold for immediate cash profit. And not unexpected that it was crooks who scooped the big prizes.

Setting up genuine collectives in which you can't sell your share for cash might have worked. Anathema to the New Right, even though such schemes work and there need not be anything leftist about them.

So, years of miserable failure under Yeltsin. A recovery under Putin, whom polls show to be one of the most popular Russians ever. Though coming second to Stalin, and Western 'experts' should be wondering why instead of sneering at it from what they suppose to be a position of superior wisdom.

A 'wisdom' coming mostly from the widespread influence of Trotskyists and former Trotskyists. That this view has wholly failed to work in the real world does not put them off. (See https://gwydionwilliams.com/history-and-philosophy/why-trotksys-politics-achieved-nothing-solid /)

Protestors say that this was all wrong. That the majority who still back Putin are not allowed to do this, for unexplained reasons.

General Russian intolerance for the tiny minority nostalgic for the years of Russia's decline and humiliation is regrettable. But hardly unexpected. Do you think Britons would be any more tolerant had they been though something similar? You need only look at Northern Ireland and the dominant DUP to get the answer.

Or UKIP, which surged until the Tories took over many of its policies.

Yessen Bulumbayev jadamsj , 30 Jun 2017 09:47
Don't be lazy, read the report of UN inspection group report about gas attacks in 2013, which freely available online, before making whose baseless accusations. Or just watch the video http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22424188 Carla Del Ponte ex-leading member of a UN commission of inquiry saying that rebels used sarin.
Dregsy , 30 Jun 2017 09:46
Sorry, were you there on a work visa or a holiday visa? And what was the work visa for? It sounds to me like you've been pulled up and let off lightly for doing something you know better than to do. -->
wartypig , 30 Jun 2017 09:44
The new Russia is a reflexion of western policy, the more the west interfere tne more nationalistic and oppressive they will become. It seems Mr Putin may have detractors and yes he is becoming ever more authoritarian but he still has popular support as far as I'm aware.

This is a issue that the Russian people will resolve in their own time in their own unique manner, interference simply closes ranks. There seems to be a concerted effort to demonize Russia by the western press yet the west allies its self with far more oppressive regimes, it is a glaring double standard, this alone makes me question the validity of all anti Russian articles.

Mr Putin has a habit of serving radioactive tea to his fellow citizens so if invited to dinner I would insist on a food taster, that alone wouldn't stop me going if invited, not that our secret services are beyond such nefarious activitys.

Perdito , 30 Jun 2017 09:40
Doesn't sound much different from an average episode of Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer. Mr Roxburgh should watch more TV.

As for 'teenage supporters of Alexei Navalny', here is a view from a Russian on this latest western-sponsored hero of resistance to Putin:

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/signifying-navalny/?highlight=Navalny

The fact is that four out of five Russians like the status quo, don't like being falsely accused of 'invading' Ukraine or 'stealing' Crimea, don't like Poland facilitating NATO aggression, don't like being denounced (by neocons, already) for doing the dirty work of cleaning out ISIS in Syria.

In general they don't like foreigners lecturing them on how to become more like the Europe or America which have so often tried to conquer and plunder them- unsuccessfully. They still remember what neoliberal economics did to the country after communism packed up.

They want to be Russians, and sometimes they express that preference somewhat crudely. They think it takes a strongman to hold the place together, be he Nevsky, Ivan, Peter the Great, Suvorov, Stolypin or Stalin. They judge the latest iteration of the strongman figure rather less dictatorial and punitive than his predecessors.

Since the RF is slowly and fitfully becoming more capitalist and more Christian, why not stop riling it and concentrate on the world's really bad actors- instead of portraying Putin as a modern Blofeld, because the military industrial complex needs more arms orders?

lordtruth , 30 Jun 2017 09:29
Here is someone who is basically a journalist who travels to Russia and gets a job thus breaking the laws about tourism and work that exist everywhere in the world particularly in Britian see Brexit problems He is arrested and given a small fine whats his problem?
His function as a tourist/spy journalist is to write an article attacking every aspect of Russia ,its people and government.
What is behind all this insane talk about the Russians the Russians?
Its quite simple really. America has ways believed that its destiny is to rule and control the world.
Its main enemy has always been the British which is why it supported Germany in WW1 AND The Nazis in WW2 confidently expecting Britiain to be invaded and defeated (there was no way that had America could have helped Britain if this had happened at such a late stage.
After WW2 there was Russia to contend with.Of course there was no real threat but the cold war kept the US defence industry going and gave Americans good jobs
With the collapse of the Soviet Union the full greed of America was unleashed which has resulted in an appallingly broken nation with two thirds of Americans living in appalling conditions while the rich get richer every day. In this situation there is only one thing to be done ..bring on the big Russian Bear. Nothing makes poor people forget their misery like being frightened and having someone to hate. Its true Russia also has750 nuclear missiles ready to fire at the west and that does irritate Americans but its nothing compared to America
America is trying to humiliate Russia by destroying Russias only ally in the Middle east Syria and has used the western media to use every trick to demonise Assad
Will America actually destroy the world as a result of all this? Possibly if not probably
Meanwhile the best advice is stop reading articles attacking Russia Support Putin and Assad and if you cant ,go on holiday and wait for the nuclear cloud coming soon to a town like yours....
TrueTeller , 30 Jun 2017 09:21
Let me understand something. You go to Russia and called the Russian government a kleptocracy and the police as thuggish then expect to be treated with respect and with love. Come to New York with that nonsense and you may well end up in our local hospital if you're lucky. -->
Ieuan RoeMaporix , 30 Jun 2017 09:00
RoeMaporix asked: "Does anyone over here actually like Putin?"

No doubt I'll get labelled a 'Putinbot', but I reckon there could be worse people in charge of Russia. Alas Yeltsin and his entourage encouraged the Russian mafia (oligarchs) so much that Putin had a hell of a job to try and clear up the mess he left.

It amuses me that the mafia trusted him so much that they installed him, and then he turned on them (moral: never trust a cop). Unfortunately to make any inroads into the gangster state he took over, he had to act like a gangster himself, but you only have to look at his enemies to see that out of a very bad choice, he was probably the best.

Ordinary Russians seem to like/approve of him, and that is all that matters for me, he reflects their values (unpopular as they may be in the 'liberal' west.)

He also strikes me as a very clever man who goes his own way (which are virtues I respect) who also surrounds himself with very clever advisors.

Jared Hall ngonyama , 30 Jun 2017 08:37
There's no evidence of that. Even CNN producers are saying it's bullshit now.

CNN Senior Producer Admits "Russia Story All Bullsh*t" -->

Yarkob Bauhaus , 30 Jun 2017 08:36
Yes, coupled with the pre-crime in Syria it really does sound like the drumbeat for war is starting..oh and for an excellent set of responses to the first "chemical attack" ignore the massively biased and under researched hogwash from the OPCW and check out Theodor Postol's papers, and also Sy Hersh' excellent piece in Die Welt this week..No, I won't provide links. If people are really interested in finding out the truth, a little self-reliance is necessary these days..

You're welcome

Brenda Micheletti , 30 Jun 2017 08:04
Eventually, they let me off with a small fine

You have not been in a British Cell, by the sound of it.
Navalny was posting from his cell on the internet.
Here they take your glasses away so that you cannot see.

We had enough of so much sugar pushed down our throats.
Propaganda unlimited.

Arapas , 30 Jun 2017 07:54
Tourists should walk round Red Square and go to the Bolshoi, not interview politicians or visit environmental disaster zones, or meet teenage supporters of Putin

I know of people who got barred from entering the UK, and even worse barred from entering the US because of their religion.
It is a fact that troublemakers are not welcome in any country, except Iraq and Libya.

[Jul 05, 2017] War As Foreign Policy by Lois Danks

War is the health of neoliberal state...
Notable quotes:
"... Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers, think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict. ..."
"... Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic as they pocket the profits. ..."
"... The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11. But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House, Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power. ..."
"... The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - Trump started his presidency off with an explosion! Several of them in fact - bombing Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles costing $93 million taxpayer dollars; using the Mother of all Bombs in Afghanistan; striking homes with drones in Yemen; bombing civilians and aid workers in Iraq; sending more troops to Somalia; and threatening to nuke North Korea! Some have actually said it makes him more "presidential."

Actually, this is not abnormal behavior for the USA. Trump inherited at least seven ongoing conflicts from Presidents Obama and G.W. Bush. The United States has been fighting in Afghanistan for 15 years, ever since 9/11, under both Democratic and Republican rule. Over 660,000 Afghans have been displaced. Nearly 12,000 civilians died in 2016. The U.S. pours close to $611 billion a year into its budget for weapons, equipment, soldiers and contractors, far more than any other country. It amounts to 36 percent of all global spending on "defense."

Economic distress. The worn-out, 500-year-old system of capitalism is everywhere scrambling to revive disappearing markets and hang on to threatened wealth of the very few. This creates fierce competition between major and minor imperialist powers and their pet regimes - competition that means nothing less than war. For war is the ultimate profit machine, creator of very few winners and masses of losers.

Capitalism's best solution is the self-perpetuating armaments industry. The weapon makers, think tanks and contractors that service the Pentagon and spy agencies, together with the Wall Street banks who make high-interest loans to fund wars, thrive under a foreign policy of deadly conflict. They produce things that are immediately destroyed when used, and that creates demand for more of the same.

Martin Luther King, Jr. rightly called this "the madness of militarization." Instead of spending on infrastructure and human services for the populace, our rulers promote war - to sound patriotic as they pocket the profits.

The underlying reason for economic and political instability, especially in the Middle East but also in the U.S. and everywhere else, is that capitalism no longer works and cannot survive on egalitarian principles. Revolutionary impulses against massive poverty, austerity, and repression are not going to go away. So it makes sense that militarism is top of the agenda for today's rulers.

Pentagon handed power. Trump has appointed many war generals to top positions in government and the National Security Council. Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, Marine Gen. John Kelly, and Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster have been heavily involved in nonstop, unsuccessful military conflicts for decades.

Yet Trump has authorized them to bomb whomever, wherever, and however they please, no matter the civilian casualties and chilling nuclear aspects. He has removed executive and legislative branch constraints on his favorite generals, in violation of a fundamental tenet of the Constitution - civilian control of the military.

As more and more troops are sent to Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and other "unnamed" countries, and Trump threatens North Korea, he is expanding the war machine. North Korea has been asking for a peace treaty with Washington and Seoul for 64 years but has been flatly refused. Now U.S. bases, ships and missile sites surround the area and provocative war games take place off the Korean coast every year. And the North Koreans continue to build weapons to defend themselves.

The new president's war strikes are no different from those of other presidents since 9/11. But his practice of allowing the Pentagon to decide troop deployments, while keeping the White House, Congress and the public in the dark about military actions and civilian casualty numbers, is an escalation of the unchecked, undemocratic use of executive power.

The threat of peace. The presumption of endless war by many is not surprising, because it's what this country has settled into. Trump's so-called foreign policy has no intention of ending conflicts and gaining peace. An end to hostilities would drastically damage U.S. capitalism.

Permanent conflict between those who exploit and those who rise up against repression and poverty will only be solved when the profit system is widely condemned and overturned.

Send feedback to the author at: [email protected] .

This article was first published by FSP

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

vincenr · 4 days ago

This is the punch line. This is where all the neo-conniving AIPAC slime monkeys have gotten us, a bankrupt nation! No viability! How would you like to be Netanyahu and start to realize your big bully boy Goliath just lost his other eye? You would be in a pickle as soon as everyone realizes your predicament. No subsidies to buy the expensive parts for your air force. AIPAC unable to sway anyone to do anything on your behalf . Now an experienced seriously battle hardened Hezbollah, backed by a similarly hardened SAA, on your southern border; all with new armaments. Oh boy the sleepless nights are just starting.
Guest99 · 4 days ago
Without wars, without all these big fake 'existential threats', the U.S. would have collapsed long ago.

The purpose of these wars are twofold. First and foremost, maintain the paramount prosperity of the military and the armament industry. Second, create victims for blame of America's troubles. The more the troubles, the more the enemies.

Today, the U.S. has the most enemy of any country in the world. This is why Trump gave war powers to his generals. Need more. Is there such a thing as a bubble for enemy?

maninhavana · 4 days ago
The problem is too many people are making a good living out of the system to jeopardise their fat pay cheques. Look at the millions working in academia , the surveillance,cops, prison and armament industries, the UN and EU apparatchiks and the thousands of secretaries and Armani suit sellers...all making big bucks. Even the CEO of Exxon ( no dummy obviously) must know what we know, that he is ruining the world for his grandchildren, says nothing.
Don't rock the boat just spew over the side and keep rowing is the ... I hate this word but it fits... meme.
DrS · 4 days ago
The Khazars will take down America.

Make no mistake, it has been their intention from the beginning.

tom anocu · 4 days ago
A brain rot destroying the social fabric of ameri3Ka. Has to be a pathology that comes with mother's milk to accept the bombing and death of millions and war, war, war after war. The worst part is people are helpless to do anything about it. It takes SACRIFICING time and body if necessary. Shutting the whole place down por days, weeks or months. Whatever it takes. People CAN stop wars, especially if they are the aggressors.
anon · 4 days ago
i'm authorizing all nations to bomb the united states for their war mongering crimes, if the people of the US wont stop their govt then the rest of the world must do it..
Schlüter 91p · 3 days ago
At the core of all this is the Fascism of the US Neocon Power Elite!
"A Reminder: Neocon Think Tanks and Fascism": https://wipokuli.wordpress.com/2017/06/29/a-remin...
Felix · 3 days ago
Thanks for the clip on Illinois budget issues. Since Reagan the US has been closely following the guide book for becoming a failed country. A handful of privileged folks take all the money and everyone else lives in poverty.
stan van houcke · 3 days ago
'War As Foreign Policy' This has been the case for 93 percent of the u.s. history. only 17 years since 1776 the u.s. had no war. why would this be?
barbara mullin · 3 days ago
Where would American be today, if Harry Truman hadn't reigned in General MacArthur who wanted to attack China?
dead vulcan zombie · 3 days ago
Hmm... actually, from what i recall, Trump didn't want to just keep the wars going, until after he was blackmailed by the lies which became "Russia-gate".

Upon retrospection, now that the NY times has retracted what they said about Russia-gate, it would appear that the liars behind it got what they wanted: another president committed to subordinating himself to the war-profiteering, psychopathic vampires and vultures behind the secret government.

The Trump presidency has made it all very clear who are behind the Federal government: "secret government" executives (who love to play dictators) and war-profiteers (vampires and vultures).

Jean-Louis · 2 days ago
War making is a big business. Billions upon billions are spent filling weapon manufacturing and world peace does nothing to promote war apparatus. I*n the hard news section of ICH, notice that 678 people were killed by war machinery yesterday, and that's only the tip of the iceberg as most war deaths from all the world's military are mostly kept out of the news. But most importantly, those deaths cannot forever be kept at bay in a world that is always shrinking. One day, it is my contention, as well as that of other more well-known prognosticators, that those who fight by their sword will die by their sword. Even though I am personally as agnostic as it gets, some of hose bible passages sure seem to hi the nails on the head.
joeanybody · 2 days ago
Smedley Butler called this one over eighty years ago with War Is A Racket. The biggest difference is that today the weapons are much deadlier.
maricia · 1 day ago
The rich wage wars
The poor go to die
doug · 1 day ago
The world needs hospitals, schools and clinics not more military destruction.
Rusti · 22 hours ago
See:- '''JFK to 911, Everything Is a Rich Man's Trick''', a Stunning article exposing the anti-communist motive behind the Banksters' & Billionaires' support for & creation of Hitler, Nazis , & Al CIA da terrorists & fascists around the world.
Rusti · 22 hours ago
See:-'''Blackshirts & Reds, Michael Parenti''' , ,'''The Real Causes of WW-2, Parenti''' , ,''' "Left" Anti-communism, the Unkindest Cut''', ,''' "Left" Conspiracy Phobia, Parenti'''
Rusti · 21 hours ago
See:-'''Script-Top 10 Staged Media Events''', ,'''Operation Mockingbird:- the Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA'''
Rusti · 2 hours ago
See:-'''Fascist Birch Society & Its Billionaire H.L.Hunt's Complicity in Assassination of JFK'''.(Alex Jones & the infiltrated new host of The Power Hour are mouthpieces of the Birch Society which plants damage control articles on searches of itself.) See:-'''Fascist Birch Society Ties to Western Goals-Nazis, CIA, CNP, World Anti-Communist League Death Squads, Hunt, Koch & Pew Billionaires''' , ,'''Claire Conner, Birch Society Insider Whistleblower'''

[Jul 04, 2017] I Sure Hope That I am Wrong, But by saker

Notable quotes:
"... Missile Crisis. Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally), but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course. ..."
"... In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running the White House ..."
"... Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive outcome from the meeting as "Trump caved in to Putin" and try to get a pound of political flesh out of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only "tactic", so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don't see him ever taking any independent action. ..."
"... Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it-"actions" (can't call it a "policy") towards Syria clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control. ..."
"... We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything remotely resembling any kind of vision. ..."
"... For all his intelligence, Tillerson can't even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations. ..."
"... Please don't buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector . In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. ..."
"... Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts. ..."
"... As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it's going to be all about intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached what I would call an "escape velocity" when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything to offer the Russians. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

First, we should all stop kidding ourselves, Russia and the USA do not have "disagreements". The sad and frightening reality is that we are now closer to war than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Not only are Russian and US servicemen now deployed in the same war zone (the Americans totally illegally), but unlike what happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a US President who terminally lacks the willpower to deal with the crazies on the US side, I am talking about the Neocons, of course.

In fact, under Kennedy there were no real Neocons to tackle to begin with. Now they are running the White House while Trump serves them coffee or watches TV in another room (I am joking of course, but just barely). In this context, to meet on the "sidelines" of a G20 conference is bordering on the criminally irresponsible. What the world would need is for Trump and Putin to meet in a "Camp David" like format for at least 3-5 days with all their key advisors and officials. Even if we assume 100% good will on both sides, meeting on the "sidelines" of an already big conference just won't make it possible to get anything done. In the very best of cases Lavrov and Tillerson could have done most of the hard work away from the public eye, but the truth is that the Russians say that so far the two sides have not even agreed upon an agenda.

Second, it is absolutely clear that the US Ziomedia and Congress will declare any, any, positive outcome from the meeting as "Trump caved in to Putin" and try to get a pound of political flesh out of Trump for it. So for Trump any external success will mean an internal disaster. And we already know that the man does not have what it takes to deal with such attacks. Frankly, his only "tactic", so to speak, to deal with the Neocons has been to try to appease them. So short of Trump asking for political asylum in Russia and joining Snowden somewhere in Russia, I don't see him ever taking any independent action.

Third, if we look at the people around Trump it is pretty clear that the only intelligent and rational person in the White House is Rex Tillerson. The rest of them are lunatics, maniacs and imbeciles – the current US what shall I call it-"actions" (can't call it a "policy") towards Syria clearly prove that the Executive Branch is completely out of control.

We now can clearly see that Mattis and McMaster are not these military geniuses presented to us by the Ziomedia but that, in fact, they are both phenomenally incompetent and that their views of the conflicts in Syria and even Afghanistan can only be characterized as totally lacking anything remotely resembling any kind of vision. Yet these two "geniuses" seem to be in charge.

For all his intelligence, Tillerson can't even rein in this Nikki idiot at the United Nations. We should stop kidding ourselves and stop pretending like there is anybody to talk to for the Russians. At best, they are dealing with a Kindergarten. At worst, they are dealing with an evil Kindergarten. But either way, there is nobody to talk to on the US side, much less so somebody to begin solving the many issues that need solving.

I will admit that I did have high hopes for Trump and his apparent willingness to sit down and have an adult conversation with the Russians. I was especially inspired by Trump's repeated rejection of the Ziomedia's narrative about Russia and by what appeared to me as his "no nonsense" approach towards getting things done. I wrote many articles for this blog saying that having hopes (not expectations!) for Trump was the right thing to do. And, frankly, I think that at the time it was. Last Fall I even wrote an entire chapter on this topic in the book " Russian Military Power 2017 " report. Since it is pretty well written, I actually recommend that you download and read it: it is a mix of pretty good information about the Russian Armed Forces and the garden variety nonsense about Russian hackers and their cyber-threat to US and its allies. Just set aside the clearly politically-induced nonsense and you are left with a rather well made summary of what the Russian Armed Forces are up to these days.

I have to thank the DIA for this report: it made me feel young again, like I was in the 1980s when all the students of warfare and of the Soviet military were reading these annual "Soviet Military Power" reports with great interest. But other than making some of us feel young, the real purpose of this document is clear and it is the very same one behind the Cold War era "Soviet Military Power" series: to justify an increase in "defense" (i.e. "aggression") spending by showing how scary these evil Commies/Russkies were/are.

This would all be rather funny, and nostalgic in a way, if it did not show the total lack of imagination of the folks at the Pentagon. Far from coming up with anything novel or interesting, they are bringing back into service stuff which for years had been collecting dust in the memories of now mostly retired Cold Warriors. It is rather pathetic, really.

Over the past 30 years or so, Russia went from being the Soviet Union, to being a Somalia-like "democratic hell" during the 1990s, to becoming a completely new entity – a "New Russia" which is dramatically different from the Soviet Union of the 1980s. In contrast, the US got completely stuck in its old patterns, except for this time they are "the same, but even worse". If the US did not have nukes that would almost be okay (after all, the world can let "Uncle Sam" slowly lose his sclerotic brain, who cares?) but when a nuclear superpower is acting like an out-of-control rogue state, this is very, very, scary.

So back to our G20 meeting again. The first thing which needs to be said is that Trump is weak, extremely weak: he goes in with the Ziomedia and Congress hating him and with a basically treacherous White House team clearly controlled by Pence, Kushner and the rest of the Neocon crazies. To make things worse, Trump can offer the Russians absolutely nothing they would want or need.

Please don't buy this sanctions canard. The damage these sanctions could do they have already done. The simple truth is that Russia has already survived the sanctions and come out even stronger, this is confirmed by international organizations and by the private sector . In fact, removing the sanctions right now would hurt the Russian economy far more, especially the agricultural sector, which has greatly benefited from the de-facto protectionist protection provided to the Russian economy by these sanctions. Likewise, the Russian defense industry has successfully adapted to the total severance by the Ukronazi regime of all the defense contracts with Russia and now 100% Russian military systems and parts are being produced in Russia at a cheaper price and of a higher quality. Besides, since Congress and UN Nikki have made it pretty darn clear that sanctions will remain in place until Russia agrees to return Crimea to the Ukraine, nothing will change until the current Ukraine finally breaks into three or four parts.

Trump could, in theory, offer the Russians to stop sabotaging the peace process in Syria and the Russians would surely welcome that. But since the US policy of illegal air and missile strikes combined with a deployment of US forces on the ground in Syria is failing anyway, see here and here , the Russians are going to get what they want whether the US wants it or not.

As for the Ukraine, the situation there is so bad that an increasing number of specialists are saying that even the US has lost control of Banderastan and that now it's going to be all about intra-Ukie power plays: the social, political, military, cultural and economic disaster has reached what I would call an "escape velocity" when the various processes taking place are basically chaotic, unpredictable and unmanageable. I am personally very dubious that the Americans would have anything to offer the Russians.

Mao Cheng Ji, July 3, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT

In Syria, the only problem the Pentagon has is no air superiority. Without air superiority the Pentagon is helpless. Russia could give them that, maybe partially at least, in some areas. And Ukraine - without regular cash infusions Kiev is dead. And that's what Trump could offer (maybe. He would have to grow some balls). And that's a possible deal.

Anatoly Karlin, Website July 3, 2017 at 8:30 pm GMT

Yes, this sounds about right.

Russia should use this window of opportunity to aggressively push its geopolitical interests, including in Ukraine (it is most assuredly not going to break "into three or four parts" by itself).

If Trump 2016 wins out, great. If the neocons fully reassert control, Russia is gonna get squeezed further regardless.

Dod, July 4, 2017 at 3:23 am GMT

I find it unsettling that someone whom I trusted can see "Nikki" as a person, with personal ideas. She doesn't recall her real name and her religion; how could she give a damn about whatever she spouts on orders from whoever is the object of her sycophancy?

fnn, July 4, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT

The real enemy of the US is domestic. Ex-CIA analyst Michael Scheuer thinks he is waging war against them with his tweets:

http://non-intervention.com/2789/pour-it-on-mr-trump-tweet-the-lying-bastards-and-bitches-straight-to-hell/

He may be giving Trump too much credit, but I'm in no position to judge. Nevertheless, we know who the consistent warmongers have been.

[Jul 04, 2017] US Senate Strikes for Russian Equality – The Oligarchs Targeted in New Sanctions Bill

Notable quotes:
"... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
"... The combined impact of war, sanctions, devaluation of the rouble, and the collapse of oil and other commodity prices, has been to diminish the value of most classes of Russian assets. Wealth for everyone below the millionaire level has been dwindling because home values have fallen, along with income, while debt has risen in absolute and proportional terms. According to the Credit Suisse report, "we estimate that [debt] now equals 16% of gross assets – up from 12% two years ago." ..."
"... A new study on inequality in Russia, published in February by the Analytical Centre of the Russian Government, confirms that the impacts on income, assets, and net wealth have been bad for the middle class of Russian income earners, and disastrous for the Russian poor. The divide between rich and poor has been getting worse, according to this English summary. ..."
"... So it is now the calculation of the US Senate, to be followed by the Congress and likely by the President, that Putin's greatest vulnerability in the present situation is not simply cronies like Timchenko, Kovalchuk or the Rotenbergs, but the inequality of the entire Russian oligarchical system. ..."
"... S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow. ..."
"... In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for "their closeness to the Russian regime". That's a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on July 4, 2017 by Yves Smith By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears

Not since the German government arranged for Vladimir Lenin to return to Russia, crossing German territory in a sealed train on April 16, 1917, has a foreign state at war with Russia done something as revolutionary as the US Senate did on June 15, 2017. That is when, by a vote of 98 to 2, the senators began the process of attacking the Russian oligarchs. They are the men who have dominated the Russian economy for more than twenty years, concentrating more national wealth in their hands than can be found in any other major state in the world today.

Unremarked by the senators themselves; unreported by the American press; and unnoticed, almost, in Russia, the new measure - if adopted by the full Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump - will target the oligarchs' lines of credit to international banks; the brokers, repositories and clearinghouses of their shares and bonds; their trade with the US and Europe; their US companies, bank accounts, boats on the high seas and homes abroad. If targeting the oligarchs is followed by formal sanctions, the aim will be to destroy their power at home and abroad. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation hasn't contemplated this much.

Senate Bill S. 722 started in March with Iran as its target. For short, it was called the ''Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017''. Title I of the bill and 29 pages of its provisions deal with Iran. Then Title II was added. It runs for 94 pages and targets Russia. Read the text in full here .

The Anglo-American business media have reported the bill as an escalation in US economic sanctions against Russian targets, extending beyond the oil and gas sector. The Wall Street Journal interpreted the legislation as an attempt to "wrest more control of Russia policy from the Trump administration". The Financial Times reported the bill would "tighten existing sanctions and threatens to broaden the restrictions from energy and banking to metals, mining, railways and shipping."

The newspaper failed to read the small print, noticing few of the novel details, except for one - the bill's threat to strike at European companies engaged in building and operating the new Russian gas pipeline to Germany, Nord Stream II. According to Section 232, the US will prohibit a company from "mak[ing] an investment described in subsection (b) or sells, leases, or provides to the Russian Federation, for the construction of Russian energy export pipelines, goods, services, technology, information, or support described in subsection (c)- (1) any of which has a fair market value of $1,000,000 or more; or (2) that, during a 12-month period, have an aggregate fair market value of $5,000,000 or more."

In practice, as the text of the bill continues, this is aimed at all Russian exports of energy, including pipelines under the Black Sea and in the Far East, and tanker shipping, particularly the oil and gas tanker company, Sovcomflot. Privatization of part of the state shareholding in Sovcomflot, which has been postponed for years, has been promised by federal property agency officials for later this month.

However, the Senate bill threatens to sanction any company, US or other, which makes an investment of up to $10 million "if the investment directly and significantly contributes to the ability of the Russian Federation to privatize state-owned assets in a manner that unjustly benefits- (1) officials of the Government of the Russian Federation; or (2) close associates or family members of those officials." That puts the kybosh on Gennady Timchenko, front-runner for the Sovcomflot share sale, and father-in-law of Gleb Frank, son of the chief executive of Sovcomflot, Sergei Frank. For background, read this .

But the Senate bill goes much further than attacking foreign investment in share sales for Russian state companies. It attacks the shareholding control of most of the country's resource assets – that's to say, the oligarchs. Section 241 of the new bill is entitled "Report on Oligarchs and Parastatal Entities of the Russian Federation." Read carefully .

"(a) In general.-Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a detailed report on the following:

(1) Senior foreign political figures and oligarchs in the Russian Federation, including the following:

(A) An identification of the most significant senior foreign political figures and oligarchs in the Russian Federation, as determined by their closeness to the Russian regime and their net worth.

(B) An assessment of the relationship between individuals identified under subparagraph (A) and President Vladimir Putin or other members of the Russian ruling elite.

(C) An identification of any indices of corruption with respect to those individuals.

(D) The estimated net worth and known sources of income of those individuals and their family members (including spouses, children, parents, and siblings), including assets, investments, other business interests, and relevant beneficial ownership information.

(E) An identification of the non-Russian business affiliations of those individuals.

(2) Russian parastatal entities, including an assessment of the following:

(A) The emergence of Russian parastatal entities and their role in the economy of the Russian Federation.

(B) The leadership structures and beneficial ownership of those entities.

(C) The scope of the non-Russian business affiliations of those entities."

(3) The exposure of key economic sectors of the United States to Russian politically exposed persons and parastatal entities, including, at a minimum, the banking, securities, insurance, and real estate sectors.

(4) The likely effects of imposing debt and equity restrictions on Russian parastatal entities, as well as the anticipated effects of adding Russian parastatal entities to the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.

(5) The potential impacts of imposing secondary sanctions with respect to Russian oligarchs, Russian state-owned enterprises, and Russian parastatal entities, including impacts on the entities themselves and on the economy of the Russian Federation, as well as on the economies of the United States and allies of the United States."

The senators voted in favour without deciding on a definition of Russian oligarch, corruption, "closeness to the regime", "relationship to President Vladimir Putin or other members of the Russian ruling elite", or "parastatal". Still, the meaning and intention are as clear as the US Air Force's MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator) – the bunker buster. The targeting of Section 241 includes almost every major Russian corporation, its control shareholders, associated banks, and their offshore businesses. The stated aim is nothing less than to destroy those of them who side with the Kremlin; recruit the remainder for US-backed regime change; and pit each against the other, all against the Kremlin.

Selective oligarch targeting is already in effect; click to open for the current list. Timchenko has been sanctioned by the US and the European Union since 2014. Other oligarchs also proscribed include Sergei Chemezov, head of the state asset holding, Russian Technologies (Rostec); Yury Kovalchuk of Bank Rossiya; Boris and Arkady Rotenberg, who control SMP Bank plus pipeline and infrastructure businesses, and Roman Rotenberg, Boris's son; Igor Sechin, chief executive of Rosneft; Nikolai Shamalov, also of Bank Rossiya and father of Kirill Shamalov, Putin's son-in-law; and Vladimir Yakunin, former head of state-owned Russian Railways.

The Christmas dinner which Putin has hosted each year since the war started in Ukraine identifies by name four dozen potential targets in the latest act of US war. Read the guest list for 2014 ; for 2015 ; and for 2016 .

The pre-dinner speech-making session at the Kremlin oligarch dinner, December 19, 2016. Source: http://johnhelmer.net/oligarchs-on-the-skids-president-putin-goes-down-market-for-capital-reception-next-year-labour-union-bosses/

Missing from the official sanctions lists so far, but with substantial US assets, are Anatoly Chubais, head of the state high-technology holding Rusnano; Mikhail Abyzov , financial backer of Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and minister of open government in his cabinet; and Mikhail Fridman of the Alfa Bank, LetterOne and Vimpelcom groups. Vimpelcom has been prosecuted for corruption by the US Department of Justice and fined $397.6 million, the ninth largest such penalty in US history. More recently, Alfa was targeted for allegedly operating clandestine connections with the Trump presidential campaign.

Two of the oligarchs with valuable residential assets in New York, and solid relationships with Putin, are Oleg Deripaska (lead image), who controls the state aluminium monopoly Rusal; and Roman Abramovich, the control shareholder of the Evraz steel group, which runs steel and pipemills in the US and Canada. Deripaska owns at least two homes in Manhattan, but is prevented from living there by a longstanding US visa ban which his Washington lobbyist has been unable to remove. For Deripaska's New York assets, read this ruling of April 25, 2017, by New York Supreme Court Judge Anil Singh.

Source: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=pFEUA7VGZSJVzEDl_PLUS_NHiTg==&system=prod An unredacted version of the text of the order can be read here . This reveals that Deripaska continues to be targeted by a US visa ban. One of the redactions Deripaska lawyers have obtained in the court docket reads: "Deripaska emphasizes that his access to New York is blocked because of a visa problem. Although he has been able to enter New York on a diplomatic visa, his visits to New York since 2009 have been limited to ten trips for a total of less than 30 nights. When he was directed by the court to make an effort to attend a trial as a witness in a case in New York in the Fall of2015, he applied for a visa, but his request was denied."

To view Abramovich's homes on East 75 th Street, Manhattan, click to open .

Another way to anticipate who will be informally targeted by the US shortly - formally later - is to look at the concentration of Russian wealth, and identify Russia's ultra high net worth individuals, the multi-millionaires. By world standards, the Russian count is in the top-20, but trails far behind the US, China, and several European and Pacific Rim countries.

Source: http://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/index.cfm?fileid=AD783798-ED07-E8C2-4405996B5B02A32E

But when the count is of billionaires and of concentration of national assets in their hands, Russia leads. In its latest Global Wealth Report for 2016, Credit Suisse reports: "According to our estimates, the top decile of wealth-holders owns 89% of all household wealth in Russia. This is significantly higher than any other major economic power: the corresponding figure is 78% for the United States, for example, and 73% for China. The high concentration of wealth in Russia is reflected in the fact that it has an estimated 96 billionaires – a total exceeded only by China with 244, and the USA with 582."

The combined impact of war, sanctions, devaluation of the rouble, and the collapse of oil and other commodity prices, has been to diminish the value of most classes of Russian assets. Wealth for everyone below the millionaire level has been dwindling because home values have fallen, along with income, while debt has risen in absolute and proportional terms. According to the Credit Suisse report, "we estimate that [debt] now equals 16% of gross assets – up from 12% two years ago."

"Household wealth in Russia grew rapidly in the initial years of this century, as the country boomed along with global commodity markets. Between 2000 and 2007, wealth per adult rose eightfold. Since 2007, however, growth has been slow and uneven – up 14% to date in ruble terms, but down 56% when measured in current USD, due to ruble depreciation. The USD–RUB rate rose from 25 in 2007 to 34 in mid-2014, and then shot up to 60 by the end of 2014 due to the imposition of financial sanctions. The rate was 64 in mid-2016. While household wealth per adult has risen from USD 2,940 in 2000 to USD 10,340 today, the current level is barely above that of ten years ago."

A new study on inequality in Russia, published in February by the Analytical Centre of the Russian Government, confirms that the impacts on income, assets, and net wealth have been bad for the middle class of Russian income earners, and disastrous for the Russian poor. The divide between rich and poor has been getting worse, according to this English summary.

Source: http://ac.gov.ru/files/publication/a/11944.pdf -- page 5.

So it is now the calculation of the US Senate, to be followed by the Congress and likely by the President, that Putin's greatest vulnerability in the present situation is not simply cronies like Timchenko, Kovalchuk or the Rotenbergs, but the inequality of the entire Russian oligarchical system.

In the past, there was a brief attempt by the US intelligence services to target some of the oligarchs. In 2010, when Admiral Dennis Blair was Director of National Intelligence (DNI), his annual threat assessment for the US Senate Intelligence Committee reported "[there is] a growing nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among government, organized crime, intelligence services, and big business figures. An increasing risk from Russian organized crime is that criminals and criminally linked oligarchs will enhance the ability of state or state-allied actors to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum, and precious metals markets." Implied but unnamed were Alexei Miller (Gazprom), Deripaska (aluminium), and Suleiman Kerimov (gold).

A year later, Blair's successor as DNI, Lieutenant-General James Clapper, repeated the line: "The nexus in Russian and Eurasian states among some government officials, organized crime, intelligence services, and big business figures enhances the ability of state or state-allied actors to undermine competition in gas, oil, aluminum, and precious metals markets." Read more .

The DNI annual reports were no more than that – no action was recommended, and none followed.

S.722 goes much further, codifying the existing Russian sanctions in statute which the White House cannot relieve by presidential decree; imposing new sanctions the same way; and setting up a scheme of reporting of new targets. By itself, the report process will immediately trigger informal sanctions, with or without the formal orders to follow.

In this new Senate bill, the targeting is no longer crimes committed, or even the restraint of competition, but Russian wealth itself, and the oligarchs who have most of it. That is revolutionary. So is the exception in Section 241(a)(1)(A) for "their closeness to the Russian regime". That's a call for the oligarchs to join Mikhail Khodorkovsky in open rebellion.

cocomaan , July 4, 2017 at 7:32 pm

Hell, if the DNI can do this for the Russians, imagine what we could do for America!!!!

IowanX , July 4, 2017 at 8:07 pm

Trump veto, I suspect. For "Fake News" reasons. Doubt an over-ride. Let's get this over with, and move onto common sense. American legislators are clueless as always, but the blob remains on the attack.

Biph , July 4, 2017 at 8:39 pm

It passed the Senate 98-2, I don't know why you doubt an over ride. Do you think 32 Senators will change their mind or that it won't get 2/3 of the House?

RBHoughton , July 4, 2017 at 8:11 pm

The Bill effectively requires Europe to shoot themselves in the other foot or cease using USD for exchange in Russian trade.

Europe's problem will be Poland where fear and trembling of Russia finds its European root. The Polish Government would choose poverty before Russian trade and the country has worked assiduously to build connections and friendships in the EC and parliament. In fact Poland has been America's 'foot in the door' in Europe and the first shipment of US fracked gas has already been received in that country.

If America can quickly build the LNG carriers needed for the trade there may be a prospect of keeping US fracking alive whilst diminishing Russian trade but this is contrary to European interests at a time when the neocon influence in Washington is driving many former friends away.

JTMcPhee , July 4, 2017 at 9:20 pm

And now The Koreans Have Launched An ICBM That Could Reach Sarah Palin's Porch In Alaska OMELG!!! Except the Chinese and Russians say it was only an IRBM!!!! And the Pentagram is gearing up for another "stop the WMDS how dare you not kowtow to Uncle Sam exercise!!!!"

And even my unpolitical spouse, who nonetheless grew up ducking and covering under her grade school desk, is feeling the queasy willies, and asking anxious questions, about nuclear weapons and what is going on, that I have to craft careful answers to.

Forking rotten stupid humans. Could and have screwed up a pretty lovely planet

On a local note, our "neighbors" are putting on what sounds like the start of the Tet offensive, fireworks and some gunfire, and the local cops in response to a phone call said they are not going out this national holiday celebration to enforce the law against what some Americans think of as "celebration." My dogs are going nuts from the explosions, and bits of smoldering guts from the skyrockets and "mortar-launched display shells and aerial bombs" are drifting down on our roof and cars and garden and the shade cloth we've stretched over the patio.

At least in Vietnam I could shoot back

Vatch , July 4, 2017 at 9:30 pm

Oligarchs should be targeted by the law. Few acquired their billions ethically, fairly, or as a result of activities that are useful to humanity in general. Here are some more oligarchs who should be targeted:

MyLessThanPrimeBeef , July 4, 2017 at 9:30 pm

will target the oligarchs' lines of credit to international banks; the brokers, repositories and clearinghouses of their shares and bonds; their trade with the US and Europe; their US companies, bank accounts, boats on the high seas and homes abroad . If targeting the oligarchs is followed by formal sanctions, the aim will be to destroy their power at home and abroad.

What about their football or basketball teams, or soccer clubs?

makedoanmend , July 4, 2017 at 10:41 pm

" to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression."

reminds me a bit about a UK news headline earlier this year, running along the lines of: "In order to thwart Russian aggression, we're sending UK soldiers to their border" a border 2,000+ km from the UK

We have to be more aggressive than they are in order to make them less aggressive. Are they less aggressive because we're more aggressive, or are they less aggressive because our aggression will make them more passive? The US Congress gotta know.

And when will the US Congress write a bill to support the American people against their own aggressive Oligarchs?

[Jul 04, 2017] Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell by mike

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them. ..."
"... Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security ..."
"... I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion. ..."
"... Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. ..."
"... Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman. ..."
"... Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman." ..."
"... When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika? ..."
"... Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch. ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | non-intervention.com
Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell Posted on July 1, 2017 by mike

I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump's tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented holies.

President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.

Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress. Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures, whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.

I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion.

Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. Mika and the noble steed she rides - I think his name is Joe––have been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November's election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol' unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while the rest of those demanding "equality" in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.

Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman."

When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika?

But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika, who is bent on being womanhood's role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.

Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.

These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks, and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square - which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness - but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.

As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, "Dames is trouble", and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.

[Jul 04, 2017] Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell by mike

Notable quotes:
"... President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them. ..."
"... Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security ..."
"... I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion. ..."
"... Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. ..."
"... Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman. ..."
"... Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman." ..."
"... When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika? ..."
"... Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch. ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | non-intervention.com
Pour it on, Mr. Trump, tweet the lying bastards and bitches straight to hell Posted on July 1, 2017 by mike

I have to admit that on most occasions President Trump's tweets make my day. Aside from the fact that the tweets are absolutely necessary for him to keep in touch with the voters who elected him, the tweets demonstrate that there are very few holies for him in a contemporary American society that is being overwhelmed and intellectually paralyzed with newly invented and utterly demented holies.

President Trump's tweets this week smacking Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough are a case in point. Among Trump's supporters, and most Americans with commonsense, those two zany, so-called journalists are detested. They and scores of other so-called journalists - the bespectacled nymphs of CNN, and Rachel "Here's Trump's Tax returns" Madow of MSNBC, for example - have for far too long been able to heap scorn on their opponents without feeling any need to worry about being attacked in return. Now, there ought to be no limits on the amount of scorn, bile, and lies they can dispense, but they should not expect to enjoy immunity from responses that are meant to, and hopefully will, demolish them.

Trump is now slowly destroying their sense of security, as well as that of their womanish political protectors like Senator Shumer, Speaker Ryan, the Marxist moron Senator Sanders, Senator Graham., and the rest of the girly men who are so prominent in Congress. Nowadays, clowns like Mika and Joe throw rocks, and Trump, praise God, responds by throwing boulders that reduces these creatures, whose only skill is reading the news-scripts smarter people write, to a quivering state in which they whine and whimper about how unfairly the president is using the bully pulpit to attack them.

I am especially delighted when Trump takes on the privileged and protected classes, not only journalists, but women, Blacks, and other privileged minorities of all kinds. For all of my adult life, these categories of greedy, pompous, and self-righteous folks have been demanding "full equality" in the public square. Their desire, they say, is to be treated like everyone else and not like lesser human beings. There's not a lick of truth in that assertion.

Note for example Mika Brzezinski, whose only skills seem to be to verbally scourge and lie about Trump and his family, and to exploit her late, unlamented, and war-mongering father's name. Mika and the noble steed she rides - I think his name is Joe––have been damning the president, his family members, anyone associated with him, and those who voted for him since long before last November's election. Trump now chooses to respond in kind, and ol' unhinged and stitched-up Mika is reduced to multiple on-air breakdowns, while the rest of those demanding "equality" in the public square rally to her defense because Trump had the nerve - and savvy - to tailor his truthful, if critical comments to be pertinent to a pretentious, self-important, and talentless woman.

Well, some women are spoiled, perpetually adolescent, and irresponsible bitches, but many are not. While many women can and do compete as equals - and, not infrequently, as much more than equals - in politics, the media, the public sector, the military, and in government service, others appear to be genetically destined to beat a humiliating retreat when challenged. They hide and weep in a safe-space cocoon named "I can say and do what I want, but you can't attack me because I'm a woman."

When I worked for the CIA, there were any number of brave and talented women who were extraordinarily able, competitive, and every bit the equal of any man. They were always ready go toe-to-toe with men to debate important issues, won as often as they lost, and would neither shed tears nor shrilly scream misogyny, win, lose, or draw. One sacrificed her life on the Afghan battlefield, leaving behind three young kids. All Americans should recall that it was female CIA officers that gave the girly man Clinton ten untaken chances to kill bin Laden in 1998-99, who facilitated UBL's killing in 2011, and who, since 1994, have taken untold numbers of Islamist fighters from the streets of the world, dead or alive. What risks were you taking for your country while those events were going on, Ms. Mika?

But instead of these heroic, self-confident women serving as role models, we now have the great, brave, equality-seeking Mika, who is bent on being womanhood's role model, even while she acts as a clearly aging and cowering crybaby, and is now drowning in crocodile tears because Trump thoroughly thrashed her at own game.

Likewise, we have Susan Rice -- apparently the great "unmasker" -- denying the crimes that she and others seem to have willingly committed under Thug Obama's orders, and claiming that she is under attack only because she's a woman and black. We also have Hillary Clinton, who now claims she lost the 2016 election because of rampant misogyny and Russia's evil-doing, and not because of the basic and irrefutable facts that she is a repellent semi-human being, a criminal, and a man-dependent bitch.

These three women are the Ms. Flotsam, Ms. Jetsam, and Grandma Detritus of a vast herd of child-like women, journalists, blacks, and minorities of all kinds who do not want equality in the public square - which requires courage, hard work, and a certain manliness - but rather want all the benefits that would accrue there to brave and well-balanced adults, while not recognizing the right of anyone they publicly hate, castigate, lie about, and dehumanize to respond in kind.

As Nathan Detroit, Sam Spade, or some other savant once said, "Dames is trouble", and, as I say, a whining bitch remains a whining bitch until she grows up and acts like a man.

[Jul 04, 2017] McGovern vs. Nixon has so many similarities to the 2016 Election

One similarity is the role of intelligence agencies in removal Nixon from the office...
Notable quotes:
"... The winner in 72 was impeached ..and, the winner in 2016 may well be impeached . ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

John S , July 3, 2017 at 4:06 pm

FEAR AND LOATHING ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL '72 by Hunter S. Thompson is a great, easy, blast from the past .for those of you who enjoy SHATTERED type books, I think you will enjoy this ..

McGovern vs. Nixon has so many similarities to the 2016 Election and pretty much no one under 70 will remember much of the '72 election, unless they were political junkies from "their get-go" .

Some 1972/2016 parallels and wierdities:

* The DNC was burgled by the GOP (Watergate) and in '16 hacked by the Russians (??)
* The GOP had one candidate (Nixon) while the Dems had a bunch including Muskie, Hube, Wallace and McGovern was the surprise winner
* Muskie and Jeb Bush started their primaries as For Sure Winners with lots of money
* Wallace and Trump played to the same crowd
* In October 1972 only 3% of the population thought that Watergate was a "serious problem"

* The McGovern ground game in Wisconsin was a marvel of its time (see Gene Pokorney) ..so, theoretically was Hillary's

* Although the USA was/is involved in WAR, once the main campaigning began, the WAR was not a major issue in either election

* Eagleton was a big problem for McGovern and Bill was a big problem for Hillary

* The FBI was accused of releasing Eagleton's medical records and Comey, was accused of stuff, too

* The winner in 72 was impeached ..and, the winner in 2016 may well be impeached .

At any rate, this book is an easy and prescient Summer Beach Read ..and, those who like this genre, may also "Like" Tim Crouse's THE BOYS ON THE BUS ..

50 years ago, we the reading public has to wait 1-2 years for the "Inside Scoop" books to be published .today, thanks to Lambert and so many others, we can "get the haps" pretty much simultaneously with the candidates and their staffs .

Happy 4th to Lambert and thanks for all you do four us .

shinola , July 3, 2017 at 4:41 pm

I agree with you on "Fear & Loathing " – HST is one of my all time favorite authors. I do have one minor quibble about the "under 70" remark.

IIRC, '72 was the 1st prez election in which 18, 19 & 20 year olds were allowed to vote so I would trim a few years off of that figure.

charles leseau , July 3, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Muskie and Jeb Bush started their primaries as For Sure Winners with lots of money

I knew Jeb would go nowhere once the media started ignoring him 24/7 and trotted out 12 Trump stories a day. Absolutely predicted Trump's nomination close to a year before he was actually nominated.

different clue , July 3, 2017 at 9:12 pm

JohnS,

I am only 60, but here is evidence that I remember a little from that time. There was a political saying . . . "Don't change Dicks in the middle of a screw. Nixon/ Agnew in '72!"

John S , July 3, 2017 at 9:41 pm

.shinola, if one posts here, chances are pretty good that one will know a bit about the '72 election .my current peer group of friends (68-74) had little or no memory of the '72 election as they were not "in" to politics or voting then .I wonder how many MSM or TV talkingheads are well versed in this election?

.different clue, great comment .I wonder if our current President will bring the Game of Bridge back into fashion (it was still BIG in '72) . playing Bridge in the Chevy Chase Country Club Card Room would give people a continuous opportunity to shout out their bid of :

"4 NO Trump!!!!"

even when they held 13 Spades, etc ..or, held nary an Ace or Face Card ..

Happy 4th to all .

Left in Wisconsin , July 4, 2017 at 12:38 pm

My "hippie" 7th grade social studies teacher took us on a field trip from the burbs to downtown Albany to see McGovern at a campaign rally. My first political experience.

[Jul 04, 2017] Foisting Blame for Cyber-Hacking on Russia by Gareth Porter

Notable quotes:
"... Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians. ..."
"... The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
"... So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet. ..."
"... Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered. ..."
"... "Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added] ..."
"... Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently." ..."
"... The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly. ..."
"... The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources. ..."
"... But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence. ..."
"... But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases. ..."
"... Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois. ..."
Jul 04, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
Cyber-criminal efforts to hack into U.S. government databases are epidemic, but this ugly reality is now being exploited to foist blame on Russia and fuel the New Cold War hysteria

Recent hearings by the Senate and House Intelligence Committees reflected the rising tide of Russian-election-hacking hysteria and contributed further to it. Both Democrats and Republicans on the two committees appeared to share the alarmist assumptions about Russian hacking, and the officials who testified did nothing to discourage the politicians.

On June 21, Samuel Liles, acting director of the Intelligence and Analysis Office's Cyber Division at the Department of Homeland Security, and Jeanette Manfra, acting deputy under secretary for cyber-security and communications, provided the main story line for the day in testimony before the Senate committee - that efforts to hack into election databases had been found in 21 states.

Former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap also endorsed the narrative of Russian government responsibility for the intrusions on voter registration databases.

But none of those who testified offered any evidence to support this suspicion nor were they pushed to do so. And beneath the seemingly unanimous embrace of that narrative lies a very different story.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a record of spreading false stories about alleged Russian hacking into US infrastructure , such as the tale of a Russian intrusion into the Burlington, Vermont electrical utility in December 2016 that DHS later admitted was untrue. There was another bogus DHS story about Russia hacking into a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.

So, there's a pattern here. Plus, investigators, assessing the notion that Russia hacked into state electoral databases, rejected that suspicion as false months ago. Last September, Assistant Secretary of DHS for Cybersecurity Andy Ozment and state officials explained that the intrusions were not carried out by Russian intelligence but by criminal hackers seeking personal information to sell on the Internet.

Both Ozment and state officials responsible for the state databases revealed that those databases have been the object of attempted intrusions for years. The FBI provided information to at least one state official indicating that the culprits in the hacking of the state's voter registration database were cyber-criminals.

Illinois is the one state where hackers succeeded in breaking into a voter registration database last summer. The crucial fact about the Illinois hacking, however, was that the hackers extracted personal information on roughly 90,000 registered voters, and that none of the information was expunged or altered.

The Actions of Cybercriminals

That was an obvious clue to the motive behind the hack. Assistant DHS Secretary Ozment testified before the House Subcommittee on Information Technology on Sept. 28 ( at 01:02.30 of the video ) that the apparent interest of the hackers in copying the data suggested that the hacking was "possibly for the purpose of selling personal information."

Ozment 's testimony provides the only credible motive for the large number of states found to have experienced what the intelligence community has called "scanning and probing" of computers to gain access to their electoral databases: the personal information involved – even e-mail addresses – is commercially valuable to the cybercriminal underworld.

That same testimony also explains why so many more states reported evidence of attempts to hack their electoral databases last summer and fall. After hackers had gone after the Illinois and Arizona databases, Ozment said, DHS had provided assistance to many states in detecting attempts to hack their voter registration and other databases.

"Any time you more carefully monitor a system you're going to see more bad guys poking and prodding at it," he observed, " because they're always poking and prodding." [Emphasis added]

State election officials have confirmed Ozment's observation. Ken Menzel, the general counsel for the Illinois Secretary of State, told this writer, "What's new about what happened last year is not that someone tried to get into our system but that they finally succeeded in getting in." Menzel said hackers "have been trying constantly to get into it since 2006."

And it's not just state voter registration databases that cybercriminals are after, according to Menzel. "Every governmental data base – driver's licenses, health care, you name it – has people trying to get into it," he said.

Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan told Mother Jones that her I.T. specialists had detected 193,000 distinct attempts to get into the state's website in September 2016 alone and 11,000 appeared to be trying to "do harm."

Reagan further revealed that she had learned from the FBI that hackers had gotten a user name and password for their electoral database, and that it was being sold on the "dark web" – an encrypted network used by cyber criminals to buy and sell their wares. In fact, she said, the FBI told her that the probe of Arizona's database was the work of a "known hacker" who had been closely monitored "frequently."

James Comey's Role

The sequence of events indicates that the main person behind the narrative of Russian hacking state election databases from the beginning was former FBI Director James Comey. In testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, Comey suggested that the Russian government was behind efforts to penetrate voter databases, but never said so directly.

Comey told the committee that FBI Counterintelligence was working to "understand just what mischief Russia is up to with regard to our elections." Then he referred to "a variety of scanning activities" and "attempted intrusions" into election-related computers "beyond what we knew about in July and August," encouraging the inference that it had been done by Russian agents.

The media then suddenly found unnamed sources ready to accuse Russia of hacking election data even while admitting that they lacked evidence. The day after Comey's testimony ABC headlined , "Russia Hacking Targeted Nearly Half of States' Voter Registration Systems, Successfully Infiltrating 4." The story itself revealed, however, that it was merely a suspicion held by "knowledgeable" sources.

Similarly, NBC News headline announced, "Russians Hacked Two US Voter Databases, Officials Say." But those who actually read the story closely learned that in fact none of the unnamed sources it cited were actually attributing the hacking to the Russians.

It didn't take long for Democrats to turn the Comey teaser - and these anonymously sourced stories with misleading headlines about Russian database hacking - into an established fact. A few days later, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff declared that there was "no doubt" Russia was behind the hacks on state electoral databases.

On Oct. 7, DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement that they were "not in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian government." But only a few weeks later, DHS participated with FBI in issuing a "Joint Analysis Report" on "Russian malicious cyber activity" that did not refer directly to scanning and spearphishing aimed of state electoral databases but attributed all hacks related to the election to "actors likely associated with RIS [Russian Intelligence Services]."

Suspect Claims

But that claim of a "likely" link between the hackers and Russia was not only speculative but highly suspect. The authors of the DHS-ODNI report claimed the link was "supported by technical indicators from the US intelligence community, DHS, FBI, the private sector and other entities." They cited a list of hundreds of I.P. addresses and other such "indicators" used by hackers they called "Grizzly Steppe" who were supposedly linked to Russian intelligence.

But as I reported last January, the staff of Dragos Security, whose CEO Rob Lee, had been the architect of a US government system for defense against cyber attack, pointed out that the vast majority of those indicators would certainly have produced "false positives."

Then, on Jan. 6 came the "intelligence community assessment" – produced by selected analysts from CIA, FBI and National Security Agency and devoted almost entirely to the hacking of e-mail of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta. But it included a statement that "Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple state or local election boards." Still, no evidence was evinced on this alleged link between the hackers and Russian intelligence.

Over the following months, the narrative of hacked voter registration databases receded into the background as the drumbeat of media accounts about contacts between figures associated with the Trump campaign and Russians built to a crescendo, albeit without any actual evidence of collusion regarding the e-mail disclosures.

But a June 5 story brought the voter-data story back into the headlines. The story, published by The Intercept, accepted at face value an NSA report dated May 5, 2017 , that asserted Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU, had carried out a spear-phishing attack on a US company providing election-related software and had sent e-mails with a malware-carrying word document to 122 addresses believed to be local government organizations.

But the highly classified NSA report made no reference to any evidence supporting such an attribution. The absence of any hint of signals intelligence supporting its conclusion makes it clear that the NSA report was based on nothing more than the same kind of inconclusive "indicators" that had been used to establish the original narrative of Russians hacking electoral databases.

A Checkered History

So, the history of the US government's claim that Russian intelligence hacked into election databases reveals it to be a clear case of politically motivated analysis by the DHS and the Intelligence Community. Not only was the claim based on nothing more than inherently inconclusive technical indicators but no credible motive for Russian intelligence wanting personal information on registered voters was ever suggested.

Russian intelligence certainly has an interest in acquiring intelligence related to the likely outcome of American elections, but it would make no sense for Russia's spies to acquire personal voting information about 90,000 registered voters in Illinois.

When FBI Counterintelligence chief Priestap was asked at the June 21 hearing how Moscow might use such personal data, his tortured effort at an explanation clearly indicated that he was totally unprepared to answer the question.

"They took the data to understand what it consisted of," said Priestap, "so they can affect better understanding and plan accordingly in regards to possibly impacting future election by knowing what is there and studying it."

In contrast to that befuddled non-explanation, there is highly credible evidence that the FBI was well aware that the actual hackers in the cases of both Illinois and Arizona were motivated by the hope of personal gain.

Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at [email protected] . Reprinted from Consortium News with the author's permission.

Read more by Gareth Porter Why Afghanistan? Fighting a War for the War System Itself – June 13th, 2017 The Kissinger Backchannel to Moscow – June 4th, 2017 Will Trump Agree to the Pentagon's Permanent War in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria? – May 14th, 2017 US 'Deep State' Sold Out Counter-Terrorism To Keep Itself in Business – April 23rd, 2017 New Revelations Belie Trump Claims on Syria Chemical Attack – April 14th, 2017

View all posts by Gareth Porter

[Jul 04, 2017] Why Ukranian economics now is flirting with disaster and why South Stream pipeline was derailed

fpif.org

Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's energy market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening European energy options.

The readers and commenters of this blog will be well aware, since it has been a topic of discussion for years here, that a critical underpinning of the western plan to seize Ukraine and wrest it into the western orbit was the premise that Russia would be forced by simple momentum to go along with it. As long as events continued to unfold too quickly to get ahead of, Russia would have to help supply the sinews of its own destruction. And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would help to finance Ukraine's transition to a powerful western fulcrum upon which to apply leverage against it, through continued trade with Ukraine and continued transit of Europe's energy supply through Ukraine's pipeline system.

But Russia slapped a trade embargo on most Ukrainian goods, and rescinded its tariff-free status as it became clear Brussels planned to use it to stovepipe European trade goods into the Russian market, through Ukraine – thus crushing domestic industries which would not be able to compete on economically-favorable terms. The armchair strategists nearly shit a brick when construction of the South Stream pipeline commenced, bypassing Ukraine and depriving it of about $2 billion annually in transit fees. But pressure ultimately forced Bulgaria to throw a wrench into the works, and the pipeline plans were shelved, to much victory dancing in the west. There was not quite as much happy-dancing in Bulgaria , but they were only ever a pawn anyway.

Sidebar for a moment, here; while the $2 Billion annually in transit fees is extremely important, Ukraine's pre-crisis GDP was $163 Billion. The funds realized for transit fees are important because (a) Russia has to pay them and (b) the west will have to come up with the equivalent in aid if Ukraine loses out on them. But the real value intrinsic to Ukraine as a transit country is its physical reality as an interface for Russian gas transit to Europe – what is a bridge can be easily turned into a wall. Any time Washington thinks Russia needs some more shit on its face, Ukraine can be prodded to announce a doubling of its transit fees, or to kick off some other dispute which the popular press will adroitly spin to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier. Therefore, it is essential to western strategy that significant amounts of Russian gas continue to transit Ukraine. Sufficiently so that Europe continues to evolve ever-more-desperate contingency plans in order to keep receiving gas through the country which was known to have provoked the previous shutoff of European supplies by siphoning Europe-bound gas for its own use. That's despite the assurances of Germany and western partners of Gazprom in the Nord Stream line that it will mean cheaper gas prices for Europe.

[Jul 03, 2017] What Would Putin Tell Trump by Israel Shamir

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
"... The Unz Review ..."
"... If only it were that simple – there is giant invisible elephant sitting in on that meeting – ISRAEL. Of course Putin is telling the truth. ISIS can easily be defeated by both the US and Russia working together – it is almost done now. It is 100% up to Trump - more war or a return to a measure of peace? ..."
"... You gave the American illiterate clown too much credit, credit he certainly do not deserve. If you expect him to become a fully fledge statesman like the one-in-a-century Vladimir Putin, you'll be disappointed. ..."
"... Mistakes and stupid decisions, there are many but one of his "mistakes" stands out above all: Giving the Pentagram & CIA free hand to run the US's wars as they see fit. He have now reduced himself to being a mere porch chimp, like Obongo, for his white ziocon owners. I hope Russia have back-channels to these two rough institutions because they are going to need it ..."
"... I don't know what he would tell the boob , but he should say, "Enough of the adolescent attention seeking behavior, OK?" Note to author: There is entirely too much hagiography for the USA's leading buffoon. ..."
"... Israel, you darn well know that the US (US interests, American people) have zero to gain in the Eternal Wars in the Middle East, and that all the serial aggressions over there are all to benefit Israel. Duh! Including the demand that 'Assad must go', and for Syria to come apart so Israel can pick at the carcass. ..."
"... So for Putin to tell Trump what Trump already knows is silly. We all know that the wars are all to benefit Israel, and we all know that what menaces the planet and Russia and the people of the US is the harsh reality of the Z USA. - That Zionist Jews completely dominate our media and deepstate (Pentagon, NSA, CIA, etc..). ..."
"... Let's hope Trump has enough wisdom to recognise how deep this swamp really is before it swallows him. ..."
Jul 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

Russia has had no leader equal in stature and public support to Putin since Stalin – in a recent poll for the greatest personality in history, a plurality of Russians placed Putin and Stalin at the top, preceding Pushkin, the Russian poet who occupies a place safeguarded for Shakespeare in English hearts...

They are very, very different. Their biggest difference lies in experience. Putin has led his country for (more or less) 17 years; he learned the tricks and skills of the power game the hard way, from being a frontman for the seven Jewish bankers who privatized Russia in Nineties, to a fully independent autocrat comparable to the penultimate Russian Tsar Alexander III, or to Napoleon III. He is a wise ruler, in the Confucian way, forever hiding his steel will under a velvet glove; always modest, moderate, temperate, not given to a momentary abandon of passion. He is in full control of himself, and the Sages tell us this is the most difficult and sublime subject of control. He is also a responsible and reliable statesman; his word is as good as his bond: he kept the ridiculous promises he gave to Yeltsin's family. He is also very popular with his subjects.

... ... ..

However, both leaders are severely handicapped. Trump is handicapped by the poisonous campaign insinuating that he had been elected due to Russian interference and that he is in thrall to Russia; at any conclusion short of a military strike the New York Times and CNN will smirk that he surrendered the crown jewels. Putin is handicapped by the fact that Russia is weaker than the US in every way excepting Doomsday weaponry. Russia is surrounded by US military bases; the US military budget is ten times bigger than the Russian one. Putin has very little leeway to retreat and he is likely to respond in force to a provocation.

... ... ...

Russia is a good friend of Iran and Syria, and it does not interfere with our friendship with Israel. Israelis understand that for us they are a Taiwan, while the rest of the Middle East is a China. You can do the same: make peace and friendship with Syria and Iran, while retaining friendship of Israel. They will understand; perhaps they will whine for a while, but they will eventually find a new modus vivendi.

Before getting into a war, define your objectives. If you will do this regarding Syria, you'll see that you are getting into a war for the interests of the army command, for the interests of global banking and for Israeli interests. I'd respect these interests, they are perfectly legitimate, but they aren't your interests, they aren't interests of the American people.

Generals like wars, that is their occupation; they want more wars, a bigger part of budget, more promotions. But a good ruler commands his generals, he does not follow their command. I have sent home three quarters of my generals, and my popularity did not suffer. How come? I appointed a silly-looking non-professional guy for Secretary of Defence with the brief to slim down the Army. He did it and he got all the flak. At the end, I fired him and the Army loved me even more.

You will really prosper and you will be called the best president of all time, if you will slim down your military. Russia has had many bases abroad, from Cuba to Vietnam, from Aden to the Arctic North; we disbanded them all, and we did not regret it for a day. Bases are an expensive thing, and it is better to do without them.

You know, my generals beseeched me to send troops into the Ukraine, but I didn't. We'd better spend money on the improvement of our citizens' life. Now a few million of Ukrainians have voted with their feet: they moved to live and work in Russia, because our way of life is better than theirs. And bear in mind: the Ukraine had been the richest part of the USSR in the time of the Union's breakup in 1991. Now they are quite poor. It is better to improve the economy than to fight wars.

The global bankers also like wars. I respect their wishes, but I do not intend to oblige them. The Jews like wars, but it is not necessary to grant them every wish. The US has not a single real interest to fight for Syria or Ukraine. Or for Estonia. I can promise you: our tanks will not roll into the Baltic states, though they were a part and parcel of Russia for three hundred years. Just take away the NATO bases from our vicinity. If you won't we'll have to defend ourselves.

Nixon also made a U-turn on his policy towards Russia. Instead of confrontation, he chose détente.

.... ... ..

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

This article was first published at The Unz Review .

Art Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT

Putin to Trump: You can do a U-turn on the Middle East wars your country has carried on for too long. These wars are futile. Everything you want to obtain in Syria, you can have without shooting a single bullet, without sending a single soldier.

If only it were that simple – there is giant invisible elephant sitting in on that meeting – ISRAEL. Of course Putin is telling the truth. ISIS can easily be defeated by both the US and Russia working together – it is almost done now. It is 100% up to Trump - more war or a return to a measure of peace?

Was campaign Trump telling the truth when he said America First – no more wars? We shall find out soon!

Peace - Art

p.s. I think that Trump's future depends on it – his base will desert him if he chooses Israel over America.

mikh as Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 6:56 am GMT

You gave the American illiterate clown too much credit, credit he certainly do not deserve. If you expect him to become a fully fledge statesman like the one-in-a-century Vladimir Putin, you'll be disappointed.

Mistakes and stupid decisions, there are many but one of his "mistakes" stands out above all: Giving the Pentagram & CIA free hand to run the US's wars as they see fit. He have now reduced himself to being a mere porch chimp, like Obongo, for his white ziocon owners. I hope Russia have back-channels to these two rough institutions because they are going to need it

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 7:04 am GMT

Russia is not a great country, it even is not large.
As to being great, economically it is comparable to Spain.
Its 1600 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 70ties technology, is the only greatness, these missiles guarantee the independence of Russia.
Russia has ONE aircraft carrier, the USA has dozens, as far as I know.
The capacity to retaliate is in this world the only guarantee to stay independent, as N Korea makes abundantly clear these days.
Russia is not even geographically large, it seems large on most maps, the Mercator projection, that stretches the North Pole point infinitely.
On top of that, most of N Russia, Siberia, is uninhabitable.
Global warming may change this.

Diversity Heretic Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT

I guess my first reaction is that Richard Nixon had to resign under threat of impeachment. Not sure I want to end my presidency under similar circumstances. I'm also skeptical of the claim that Nixon set the basis for prosperity. Wage stagnation began in the early 1970s, during his administration.

Robert Magill Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 9:34 am GMT

Trump and Putin may agree on the biggest possible deal that will provide both countries, China and Japan as well, a radically different future. Details follow https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/05/02/the-art-of-the-deal/

G. Mayre Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 10:49 am GMT

Putin is the only leader in the world left stupid enough to take Trump seriously and have hopes for "cooperation", when everyone else – even the likes of Duterte – are dissing on him, just waiting it out patiently until his inevitable impeachment. Speaks volumes about the desperate situation Putin is in.

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 11:57 am GMT

What Would Putin Tell Trump?

I don't know what he would tell the boob , but he should say, "Enough of the adolescent attention seeking behavior, OK?" Note to author: There is entirely too much hagiography for the USA's leading buffoon. He's a baby faced narcissistic punk who should be nowhere near the levers of power because he'll stoop to anything for a little attention. And another thing. This is entirely too melodramatic.:

The consequences can be joyous – or fatal.

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT

Jun 3, 2017 Putin defends Trump – 'Don't worry, be happy'

President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement caused anger and anxiety across the world. But is there more than meet the eye? How many critics have actually read the agreement themselves – as President Putin rightfully points out? The agreement is a framework agreement with no particular obligations. There are no guidelines as to how resources should be spent, and the resources which the US ratified are quite substantial.

The Scalpel Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra "Russia is not even geographically large "

Well it is the largest country on earth. Or maybe you are saying with respect to Russia, "You bad!" as in "You are very, very good"

Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT

Trump is surrounded by open and hidden enemies, by people who pray for his failure. He is opposed by his own secret services, by the media, by his own party. His popularity isn't certain.

So true.

If Putin were to speak his mind freely to Trump, and it is not likely, as their conversation will certainly be bugged, recorded and leaked by the NSA to the hostile media, he'd tell him:

The points you make about the current state of the world and affairs between the two countries is mostly spot on if a bit utopian but Putin should tell him these things anyway and to hell with the power of the evil Cabal --

nickels Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT

"Uh, well Volodya, let me go ask Ivanka and Jared, then I'll get back to you you know, Jared, he's a real smart guy. He's very smart, you know "

John Brown Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT

"Lenin was very, very friendly to Jews; he had many Jewish colleagues, but he never allowed them to ride upon him." No, he just let them kill millions of Russian Christians. Small detail in history, of course.

Rurik Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

What does the US want to have in Syria? You name it, you can have it, and without war, without expenditure, without trouble. And I do not mean in a part of a broken and fragmented Syria under occupation, I mean one Syria, united and complete, with its capital Damascus, and its president Bashar al Assad. There is nothing within reason that President Assad would refuse you and I'll second his promise.

Israel, you darn well know that the US (US interests, American people) have zero to gain in the Eternal Wars in the Middle East, and that all the serial aggressions over there are all to benefit Israel. Duh! Including the demand that 'Assad must go', and for Syria to come apart so Israel can pick at the carcass.

So for Putin to tell Trump what Trump already knows is silly. We all know that the wars are all to benefit Israel, and we all know that what menaces the planet and Russia and the people of the US is the harsh reality of the Z USA. - That Zionist Jews completely dominate our media and deepstate (Pentagon, NSA, CIA, etc..).

So this is the dilemma that confronts Putin, Trump, and all people of good will on the planet.

What Putin should tell Trump is to look at what Putin managed to pull off with a nation also absolutely under the thrall of antagonistic Rothschild minions, and how Putin managed (heroically) to wrest power from them. Putin is trained in Judo, which involves using your op0nents own momentum against them. That's what he did with the Jewish Oligarchs, he mollified some with kindness, and he attacked the most dangerous ones directly, throwing them all off balance and making them wonder what the next move might be, since the one certainty you're dealing with- is their own, honed to absolute lasers' perfection; self-interest.

So far Trump hasn't sent troops into Syria or bombed Iran. Hasn't downed a Russian jet or done anything so stupid that there's no turning back. We all have a shred of hope that Trump might manage to pull off a Putin, but any advise Putin could give would be great.

However, you should not allow these wonderful people to ride upon you as upon a horse.

exactly, but you have to make it look like they are right up until the point that Khodorkovsky / John Podesta is arrested on child abuse charges (or some other high ranking chump) This will send shock waves though their power structure, and have them all scrambling to protect their own arses, even as they turn on each other.

Their power is top down, yours is grass-roots up. Use that president Trump, play them as if they're Judo opponents always coming at you, and also keep in mind their galactic egos and preternatural self-interest, and somehow we might meet in the middle and toast the redemption and deliverance of mankind from the devil itself.

Rurik Website Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

please check out the lies being told as a pretext for a false flag chemical weapons attack on Syria. Putin, as usual speaks the plain truth, whereas the ZUS- as usual- speaks treacherous lies

Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT

@nickels Haha. There's a lot of truth in it.

I like Trump and he was definitely not the Deep State candidate but his knowledge is limited which puts him in a precarious position. I can only imagine how much irradiated garbage – masked as the "Truth" – he's getting fed daily. A "friendly" establishment veteran, with an intricate, detailed story, can sound very authoritative to the inexperienced.

Let's hope Trump has enough wisdom to recognise how deep this swamp really is before it swallows him. If I were him, I'd plug everyone to a Voight-Kampff test and keep a herd of hungry pigs in the WH's basement.

1Rw Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra You are wrong on every point. The US has 11 aircraft carriers, not dozens. While it's still more than Russia, it shows your ignorance. Russia is the largest country in the world, regardless of the projection, and has people living throughout its territory, even above the Arctic Circle. It's missiles are. It '70s tech, it has in fact continued upgrading its missile forces, with Bulava, Yars, and Sarmat systems being their latest SLBM, road mobile ICBM, and heavy, silk launched ICBM.

As to its economy being comparable to Spain, when was the last time Spain
- built a spaceship
- launched a nuclear submarine?
- launched a nuclear icebreaker?
- commissioned a fast beeeder reactor?
- developed a modern fighter plane?
- built a passenger jet?

Russia has done all of this in the last decade or so.

Wally Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:24 pm GMT

@mikh as And the alternative was .. Hillary.

Hillary's bus being pushed

http://cnsnews.com/s3/files/styles/content_60p/s3/woods4.jpg?itok=Z-tY9Coz

2010 Dems lost the House
2012 the Dems lost the Senate
2016 Dems lost the White House
The Democrats lost more than 1,000 seats at the federal and state level during Obama's presidency, including 9 Senate seats, 62 House seats, 12 governorships, and a startling 958 state legislative seats.

Wally Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

@jilles dykstra You're highly uninformed.

Russia's National Debt to Remain Lowest in Europe

http://www.russia-briefing.com/news/russias-national-debt-remain-lowest-europe.html/

Spain's national debt reaches highest level in over century

https://www.rt.com/business/356353-spain-debt-record-high/

NASA Data Proves Trump Right to Exit Paris Climate Accord

https://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-data-proves-trump-right-to-exit-paris-climate-accord.html

'Global Warming' Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/06/delingpole-global-warming-is-myth-58-scientific-papers-2017/

To Put America First Is to Put Our Planet's Climate First

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/16/america-first-climate/

Legates et al. (2015), for example, found that only 0.3 percent of 11,944 peer-reviewed articles on climate and related topics, published during the 21 years of 1991 to 2011, had explicitly stated that recent warming was mostly man-made.

"In the last 20 years, we have released more than a third of all the CO2 produced since the beginning of the industrial period. Yet global mean surface temperature has remained essentially constant for 20 years, a fact that has been acknowledged by the IPCC, whose models failed to predict it. NOAA's State of the Climate report for 2008 said that periods of 15 years or more without warming would indicate a discrepancy between prediction and observation – i.e., that the models were wrong. Just before the recent naturally occurring el Niño event raised global temperature, there had been 18 years and 9 months without any global warming at all."

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

@1Rw Thanks for informing me on the number of aircraft carriers.

Any globe can inform you that Russia is not large, especially not in land that can be used. On Spanish technical and military efforts, as it is already occupied by the USA it cannot defend itself against USA occupation, as Russia does.

Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 4:44 pm GMT

April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons. The Western media refutes their own lies

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2017/04/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons-prof-michel-chossudovsky/

Apr 9, 2017 No More

[Jul 03, 2017] Mohammed ben Salmane takes power at Riyadh

Notable quotes:
"... Mohammed ben Nayef Al Saoud was considered as the US's man. He has been trained first in Oregon, then later by the FBI and Scotland Yard. He obtained results in struggles against Al-Qaeda dissidents. With his removal, the hopes of the Nayef branch coming to the throne have come to an end. ..."
"... Mohammed ben Salmane does not have an academic training. At the very most, he is the holder of a baccalaureate awarded by a local school, and we do not know if you actually need to study to obtain this qualification. ..."
"... Washington had approved the chosen solution to the issue of succession. This solution had been adopted by 31 of 34 members of the allegiance council (the Family Council). It skips two generations. Henceforth, Mohammad ben Salmane is placing young people at the head of different administrations of the country, a country where the average age of the population is 27 years. ..."
Jul 03, 2017 | www.voltairenet.org

King Salmane ben Abdelaziz Al Saoud (81 years old) has removed from office 57 year old Emir Mohammed ben Nayef Al Saoud. The latter was the Crown Prince, Vice-Prime Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs, all at the same time.

De facto, the King's son, Prince Mohammed ben Salmane Al Saoud (31 years), will become the new Crown Prince.

Mohammed ben Nayef Al Saoud was considered as the US's man. He has been trained first in Oregon, then later by the FBI and Scotland Yard. He obtained results in struggles against Al-Qaeda dissidents. With his removal, the hopes of the Nayef branch coming to the throne have come to an end.

Mohammed ben Salmane does not have an academic training. At the very most, he is the holder of a baccalaureate awarded by a local school, and we do not know if you actually need to study to obtain this qualification. He made his political debut as the assistant to his father, first the Governor of Riyadh and then the Minister of Defense. When Salmane becomes king in 2015, Mohammed succeeded his father as the Minister of Defense and engaged his country's troops in the disastrous conflict in Yemen. Having royal power at his disposition, he launched a vast project for economic reform (Vision 2030), which ushered in the privatization of Aramco (the country's only source of revenue) and his country's development beyond the oil sector. He is particularly well known for his jet-set life-style and for buying a yacht, Serene, for half a billion euro.

It seems that King Salmane should shortly abdicate, leaving his son in charge. Thus the difficult question of succession is provisionally settled, in a country where up until now was governed by a rule requiring the oldest son of the dynasty's founder to accede to power. Thus the current king, King Salmane, is the 25th of Abdelaziz ben Abderrahmane Al Saoud's 53 sons.

At King Abdallah's death (January 2015), his half brother, Prince Moukrine ben Abdelaziz Al Saoud, had been appointed Crown Prince. But three months later (April 2015), he had been rudely cut out of the order of succession, something quite unprecedented. He was replaced by Prince Mohammed ben Nayef, who in turn has just been removed from the picture.

As a consolation prize, the Nayefs secured that a son-in-law of Prince Mohammed ben Nayef replaces him at the Ministry of Home Affairs. It would be a son-in-law and not a son, because Prince Mohammed ben Nayef did not have male progeny.

The next king, Mohammed, could rule for about fifty years. But were he to die, then his eldest son, also a minor, would succeed him.

Washington had approved the chosen solution to the issue of succession. This solution had been adopted by 31 of 34 members of the allegiance council (the Family Council). It skips two generations. Henceforth, Mohammad ben Salmane is placing young people at the head of different administrations of the country, a country where the average age of the population is 27 years.

[Jul 03, 2017] Erdogans Silent Backers Who Egged Turkish Leader to Attack Su24

Notable quotes:
"... Was the downing of the Russian Su-24 Erdogan's "oil revenge" for Turkey's losses from the destruction of oil smugglers' truck fleet bombed by the Russian Air Force in Syria? Or maybe it is just the tip of a very big iceberg, F. William Engdahl asks. ..."
"... Still, whatever profits Erdogan is purportedly receiving from oil smuggling it is highly unlikely that the Turkish President would sacrifice Russo-Turkish relations for some fishy business. ..."
"... My masculine intuition tells me that Recep Erdogan would never risk such a dangerous bold and illegal action against Russia on whom Turkey depends for 50% of her natural gas imports and a huge part of her tourism dollar earnings merely because the family ISIS oil business was being bombed away by Russian jets," the researcher underscores." ..."
"... Engdahl expresses his confidence that there were "clearly serious silent backers" encouraging Erdogan to launch an attack on the Russian Su-24 plane. ..."
"... Indeed, despite Ankara's hardly convincing explanation of the treacherous attack, almost all NATO leaders have sided with Turkey, justifying its "act of self-defense." ..."
"... Interestingly enough, US warmongering neocons have repeatedly called for "shooting down" Russian planes. ..."
Nov 30, 2015 | sputniknews.com

Was the downing of the Russian Su-24 Erdogan's "oil revenge" for Turkey's losses from the destruction of oil smugglers' truck fleet bombed by the Russian Air Force in Syria? Or maybe it is just the tip of a very big iceberg, F. William Engdahl asks.

... ... ...

Engdahl calls attention to reports saying that Israel's IDF was spotted messing with ISIL in the Golan Heights region. Engdahl also refers to Israeli media outlets narrating that since June 2014, Israel imported about 75 percent of its oil needs from Iraq. It still remains unclear whether the oil was transported from the Kurdish area of Iraq. Still, some independent sources claim that Iraqi oil is being smuggled by ISIL to Turkey and then redistributed to Israel via Turkey's Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

Engdahl cites Chris Dalby, an analyst with Oilprice.com, who characterized ISIL as "a largely independent financial machine" due to its numerous oil fields in Iraq and Syria.

Still, whatever profits Erdogan is purportedly receiving from oil smuggling it is highly unlikely that the Turkish President would sacrifice Russo-Turkish relations for some fishy business.

​"My masculine intuition tells me that Recep Erdogan would never risk such a dangerous bold and illegal action against Russia on whom Turkey depends for 50% of her natural gas imports and a huge part of her tourism dollar earnings merely because the family ISIS oil business was being bombed away by Russian jets," the researcher underscores."

Engdahl expresses his confidence that there were "clearly serious silent backers" encouraging Erdogan to launch an attack on the Russian Su-24 plane.

Indeed, despite Ankara's hardly convincing explanation of the treacherous attack, almost all NATO leaders have sided with Turkey, justifying its "act of self-defense."

Interestingly enough, US warmongering neocons have repeatedly called for "shooting down" Russian planes.

[Jul 03, 2017] The demise of the Caliph and the origin of the Islamic State

Notable quotes:
"... In actual fact, Daesh is a tool created by the former US National Director of Intelligence, John Negroponte, from armed groups controlled by the British MI6. While the Obama Administration had charged Negroponte with creating a "Sunnistan" to disrupt the silk route linking China to the Mediterranean via Teheran, Baghdad and Damascus, the Trump Administration denies that this entity has the trappings of a State. Operations led against the two main cities - Mosul (Iraq) and Raqqa (Syria) - should have the effect of making the devil retreat into the bottle and reducing the terrorist system to what it was at the time of Al Qaeda. ..."
Jul 03, 2017 | www.voltairenet.org

The Military Chief of the Iraqi army has announced the forthcoming liberation of Mosul. The media, tightly muzzled by strict military censorship, emphasizes the captured ruins of the Al-Nouri Mosque where the Caliph, Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi, had announced his victory. This led Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi to the conclusion that essentially, Daesh was no more.

In actual fact, Daesh is a tool created by the former US National Director of Intelligence, John Negroponte, from armed groups controlled by the British MI6. While the Obama Administration had charged Negroponte with creating a "Sunnistan" to disrupt the silk route linking China to the Mediterranean via Teheran, Baghdad and Damascus, the Trump Administration denies that this entity has the trappings of a State. Operations led against the two main cities - Mosul (Iraq) and Raqqa (Syria) - should have the effect of making the devil retreat into the bottle and reducing the terrorist system to what it was at the time of Al Qaeda.

Such unexpected declarations made by Iraqi officials seem to be in response to Washington's concern to off-set the announcement made by Moscow, that Daesh's caliph, Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi, was dead, having been killed by the Russian army.

[Jul 03, 2017] Trump May Already Be Blundering into the Next Middle East War by Jim Lobe

Tweet first, think later President...
Notable quotes:
"... After all, MbS has risen in influence in Saudi Arabia largely because of his pet foreign policy project, the war in Yemen, which, according to the latest reports, hasn't been going particularly well (unless his original idea was to completely destroy the Arab world's poorest country). He now finds himself in a very difficult spot. ..."
"... Moreover, the Saudi king just elevated the hyper-ambitious MbS to crown prince overnight, placing him next in line in the royal succession. Like Trump, the 31-year-old is falling upward more through sheer audacity than palpable successes. Unless in his new exalted position he can somehow still impose his will on Qatar - an increasingly doubtful prospect in the absence of U.S. and Western diplomatic support - MbS looks ever more like a two-time loser (in Trumpspeak), and an extremely reckless one at that. And that perception makes him even more dangerous under the circumstances. ..."
"... Tehran was also deeply offended by Trump's shocking reaction to the June 7 terrorist attack and further taken aback by Tillerson's statement of support for a "peaceful transition" of government in Iran one week later. These statements no doubt served to strengthen hardliners in Tehran who already believe the worst about U.S. intentions as well as those of its regional allies. ..."
"... At a moment of crisis a half a world away, Trump may actually welcome some serious fireworks as a useful diversion from his deepening political and legal problems at home. After all, those missiles strikes in Syria back in April gave him something of a reprieve, at least for a few days. ..."
"... Given the latest head-spinning twist in Washington's reaction to the KSA/UAE-led Qatar quarantine, it seems quite reasonable to ask how key Iranian policymakers will know who's running policy in the White House when it's faced with an incident that escalates quickly, and the Saudis, Emiratis, and Sheldon Adelson are on the phone insisting that Trump's manhood is on the line? The likelihood of miscalculation by one or more of the major players is virtually certain. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | fpif.org
Almost as shocked as Secretaries Mattis and Tillerson and National Security Adviser McMaster must have been when they first heard about Trump's tweets. Here's what the State Department spokesperson - to the extent you believe she speaks for the "administration" - said about Riyadh's and Abu Dhabi's action:
Now that it has been more than two weeks since the embargo started, we are mystified that the Gulf States have not released to the public, nor to the Qataris, the details about the claims that they are making toward Qatar. The more that time goes by the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

At this point we are left with one simple question: were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long, simmering grievances between and among the GCC countries?

(Oh, snap.)

Assuming the State Department really speaks for the US government, this rather stunning statement begs a host of rather critical questions. How exactly did the Saudis and their allies come to think that Washington would support them? Who exactly gave them that impression and under what circumstances? Or are Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) and UAE Crown Prince (and apparent MbS mentor) Mohammed bin Zayed bin Sultan Al-Nahyan (MbZ) so deluded or hubristic that they just assumed that Washington, including the Pentagon, was on board with this?

And, if so, how prone to miscalculation are they in this moment of sky-high regional tensions?

After all, MbS has risen in influence in Saudi Arabia largely because of his pet foreign policy project, the war in Yemen, which, according to the latest reports, hasn't been going particularly well (unless his original idea was to completely destroy the Arab world's poorest country). He now finds himself in a very difficult spot.

Moreover, the Saudi king just elevated the hyper-ambitious MbS to crown prince overnight, placing him next in line in the royal succession. Like Trump, the 31-year-old is falling upward more through sheer audacity than palpable successes. Unless in his new exalted position he can somehow still impose his will on Qatar - an increasingly doubtful prospect in the absence of U.S. and Western diplomatic support - MbS looks ever more like a two-time loser (in Trumpspeak), and an extremely reckless one at that. And that perception makes him even more dangerous under the circumstances.

Meanwhile in Iran

How is all this perceived in Tehran, where various competing factions may also be prone to miscalculation? What do they think U.S. policy is?

They know the Trump "administration" is united in its conviction that the Islamic Republic is irredeemably hostile to the U.S., but they also know there are degrees of difference among senior officials. Some White House officials reportedly favor "regime change" via covert action, and it was just a few days before the ISIS attack in Iran that it was disclosed that the CIA had picked Michael D'Andrea (aka The Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike), a particularly aggressive covert operator, to run the agency's Iran program.

Tehran was also deeply offended by Trump's shocking reaction to the June 7 terrorist attack and further taken aback by Tillerson's statement of support for a "peaceful transition" of government in Iran one week later. These statements no doubt served to strengthen hardliners in Tehran who already believe the worst about U.S. intentions as well as those of its regional allies.

At the same time, Tehran knows that top officials - notably Mattis (who appears to have been granted virtually unprecedented discretion in military decision-making) and McMaster - are keenly aware of the risks of getting dragged into a war with Iran (or becoming bogged down in Syria) even as they believe Washington should "push back" against Tehran's "malign" behavior in the region.

And then there's the commander-in-chief's own impulsiveness, ignorance, and macho pose. At a moment of crisis a half a world away, Trump may actually welcome some serious fireworks as a useful diversion from his deepening political and legal problems at home. After all, those missiles strikes in Syria back in April gave him something of a reprieve, at least for a few days.

Given the latest head-spinning twist in Washington's reaction to the KSA/UAE-led Qatar quarantine, it seems quite reasonable to ask how key Iranian policymakers will know who's running policy in the White House when it's faced with an incident that escalates quickly, and the Saudis, Emiratis, and Sheldon Adelson are on the phone insisting that Trump's manhood is on the line? The likelihood of miscalculation by one or more of the major players is virtually certain.

It's a very scary - but increasingly imaginable - prospect.

Jim Lobe served for some 30 years as the Washington, D.C. bureau chief for Inter Press Service and is best known for his coverage of U.S. foreign policy and the influence of the neoconservative movement.

[Jul 03, 2017] An Invisible US Hand Leading to War Turkeys Downing of a Russian Jet was an Act of Madness

www.counterpunch.org

In considering the terrifying but also sadly predictable news of a Russian fighter jet being downed by two Turkish fighters, let's start with one almost certain assumption - an assumption that no doubt is also being made by the Russian government: Turkey's action, using US-supplied F-16 planes, was taken with the full knowledge and advance support of the US. In fact, given Turkey's vassal status as a member of US-dominated NATO, it could well be that Ankara was put up to this act of brinksmanship by the US.

What makes the downing of the Russian jet, and the reported death of at least one of its two pilots (the other was reportedly captured alive by pro-turkish Turkmen fighters on the Syrian side of the Syria-Turkish border, and will presumably be returned to Russia) so dangerous is that as a member of NATO, supposedly a "mutual assistance" treaty that binds all members to come to the defense of one that is attacked, if Russia were to retaliate by downing a Turkish military plane, NATO countries including the US would be obligated to come to Turkey's defense.

[Jul 03, 2017] Was The U.S. Involved In The Turkish Attack Against The Russian Jet ?

Notable quotes:
"... The cooperation between U.S. and Turkish military and especially the air forces is quite tight. It is hard to believe that there was no communication about what was prepared to happen. ..."
"... It does not make sense to destroy the Syrian state and to just hope that the outcome would be something better than an emboldened IS or AlQaeda ruling in Damascus. That outcome is certainly not in Europe's interest. But a global coalition is not in U.S. or Turkish interests. It would end their common plans and efforts to overthrow the Syrian government and to install a "Sunni" state in Syria and Iraq as a Turkish protectorate. ..."
"... Obama continues his immensely destructive policies in the Middle East with zero regard to the all the bad outcomes these are likely to have for the people there as well as for Europe. One again wonders if all these action follow from sheer incompetence or from some devilish, ingenious strategic planning. ..."
"... Very good article. One minor quibble. While it's true that it is common practice to use the name of the head of state to denote a state's actions, the US is simply not governed by whoever is elected by its people. Since the coup in 1963 no president has really had control of the US's foreign policy. US presidents, after JFK's assassination, have essentially been the song-and-dance men for the military-industrial complex. Obama couldn't turn this ship around if he tried. Of course, he won't try. ..."
"... Erdogan's problem is clear - Russia is going after his family's business ties. Are British business ties involved, too? ..."
Nov 25, 2015 | Moon of Alabama
... ... ...

But there is also a bigger game going on and it is likely that Erdogan has a new contract and Obama's backing for this escalation. James Winnefeld, the deputy chief of General Staff of the U.S. military, was in Ankara when the incident happened. The cooperation between U.S. and Turkish military and especially the air forces is quite tight. It is hard to believe that there was no communication about what was prepared to happen.

After the Islamic State attack in France President Hollande attempted to create a global coalition against IS which would include Russia and Iran as well as the U.S. led anti-ISIS block. But such a coalition, which makes a lot of sense, would have to agree to leave Syria alone and to help Syrian ground forces to effectively fight the Islamic State. It does not make sense to destroy the Syrian state and to just hope that the outcome would be something better than an emboldened IS or AlQaeda ruling in Damascus. That outcome is certainly not in Europe's interest. But a global coalition is not in U.S. or Turkish interests. It would end their common plans and efforts to overthrow the Syrian government and to install a "Sunni" state in Syria and Iraq as a Turkish protectorate.

The Russian jet incident decreased the likelihood of such a coalition. Holland, visiting Washington yesterday, had to pull back with his plan and was again degraded to parrot Obama's "Assad must go" nonsense. Obama feels emboldened and now pushes to widen the conflict in Syria:

The Obama administration is using the current moment of extreme anger and anxiety in Europe to press allies for sharp increases in their contributions to the fight against the Islamic State. Suggestions include more strike aircraft, more intelligence-sharing, more training and equipment for local fighters, and deployment of their own special operations ­forces.
...
While new contributions would be added to anti-Islamic State campaigns across the board, the attention is clearly on Syria, marking a shift in what began as an "Iraq first" focus when Obama authorized airstrikes in the region last fall.
...
Obama, speaking beside Hollande on Tuesday, restated his insistence that Assad is part of the problem, not the solution, and that he must go.

The Obama administration is also preparing to install the Turkish dream of a "safe zone" between Aleppo and the Turkish border north of it.

Among several coalition priorities in Syria, the United States has begun a series of airstrikes in an area known as the "Mar'a line," named for a town north of Aleppo in the northwest. There, a 60-mile stretch to the Euphrates River in the east is the only remaining part of the Syria-Turkey border under Islamic State control.

The administration had delayed beginning operations in the area because U.S. aircraft were needed in operations farther east, and it has been uncertain that local opposition forces­ would be able to hold the territory if it could be cleared with airstrikes.

The increased Russian air defense and the likely increase of its deployed planes will make those "safe zone" plans impossible.

But Obama, in my conclusion, still wants to drag NATO into Syria and wants to assemble enough forces "against ISIS" to be able to overwhelm the Syrian government and its Russian protectors. If that does not work he at least hopes to give Russia the Afghanistan like "quagmire" in Syria he and other U.S. officials promised. The again increasing tensions with U.S. proxy Ukraine only help in that regard.

But there is even more to that plan. Just by chance (not) the NYT op-ed pages launch a trial balloon today for the creation of a Sunni state in east Syria and west Iraq. But that (Islamic) State is already there and the "containment" strategy Obama practices towards it guarantees that it will fester.

Obama continues his immensely destructive policies in the Middle East with zero regard to the all the bad outcomes these are likely to have for the people there as well as for Europe. One again wonders if all these action follow from sheer incompetence or from some devilish, ingenious strategic planning.

Kassandra | Nov 25, 2015 10:52:56 AM | 3

An interesting aspect of the Turkish attack:
The Russians have a technology that they recently demonstrated against the newest US missile cruiser and Israel's US jet fighters. The technology shuts down the communication systems of hostile forces, leaving them blind. He wonders if the Russian aircraft was shot down in order to encourage the Russians to use its unknown technology whenever Russian aircraft are in the vicinity of NATO and Israeli aircraft. He bets that the US has sent every Raven and ELINT specialist to the area in hopes that Russia's use of the technology will allow them to learn enough about the system to duplicate it or learn how to block it.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/24/turkey-has-destroyed-russias-delusion-of-western-cooperation-paul-craig-roberts/
Laker | Nov 25, 2015 10:59:47 AM | 4

Seems to me that whether the Obama-Bolton dream--a Sunni state in eastern Syria that serves as a "safe zone" for the empire's strike force of Salafist mercenaries--is realized depends on the Kurds. And whether Erdogan and the Kurds can work together to feed such a monster.

blowback | Nov 25, 2015 11:18:25 AM | 6

Afghanistan was not a quagmire for the Russians. In 9.5 years, they lost about 15,000 dead. That was what the number of dead the Soviet Union lost in a couple of average days while fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front. It was a drain on resources but the Soviet Union agreed to a negotiated settlement (which the Saudis and Americans promptly ignored) because of the problems with the Soviet economy.

It suited the idiots in Washington to claim that it was the war in Afghanistan that brought down the Soviet Union because it made it look like an American victory rather than a Soviet failure. The side effect of this was to persuade the jihadis that they had defeated the Soviet Union so they could go on to defeat the United States with disastrous consequences for all. As usual, the Americans continue to believe their own propaganda and are probably too stupid the realize that they and the Turkish regime probably just destroyed their last chance to have any real input into the political solution in Syria which will come about at a time that suits Russia and will almost certainly ignore any demands that Assad step down before the transition.

Lone Wolf | Nov 25, 2015 12:13:37 PM | 13

Thanks b for the info-rich summary, the links and the context.

Besides losing Russia's tourist market, Turkey just lost Russia's food imports.

Iran will replace Turkey on food import to Russia - Korotchenko on Russian State TV

harry law | Nov 25, 2015 12:21:23 PM | 16

Very good article. One minor quibble. While it's true that it is common practice to use the name of the head of state to denote a state's actions, the US is simply not governed by whoever is elected by its people. Since the coup in 1963 no president has really had control of the US's foreign policy. US presidents, after JFK's assassination, have essentially been the song-and-dance men for the military-industrial complex. Obama couldn't turn this ship around if he tried. Of course, he won't try.

Bob In Portland | Nov 25, 2015 12:14:31 PM | 14

Paul Craig Roberts said.. "Each step along the way the Russian government has held strong cards that it did not play, trusting instead to diplomacy. Diplomacy has now proven to be a deadend. If Russia does not join the real game and begin to play its strong cards, Russia will be defeated". Yes Russia does hold most of the cards, it was obvious that Turkey was facilitating Islamic state and that Saudi Arabia and Qatar provided the financial angle.
Putin acknowledged this when he accused some members of the G20 of supporting terrorism and that the US knowing all these things,yet the US still train and supply arms to the so called "moderate" terrorists [as rare as unicorns] who promptly sell them to other not so moderate terrorists yet refuse to do anything to stop them.
How the West [with a straight face]as Penelope pointed out @115 yesterday, can ask other countries to confront Islamic State when its ally and fellow NATO member's Head of National Intelligence [MIT] Hakan Fidan and one of Erdogans staunchest allies, wants Islamic state to open a consulate in Turkey, he said.. "ISIS is a reality and we have to accept that we cannot eradicate a well-organized and popular establishment such as the Islamic State; therefore I urge my western colleagues to revise their mindset about Islamic political currents, put aside their cynical mentalité and thwart Vladimir Putin's plans to crush Syrian Islamist revolutionaries," Anadolu News Agency quoted Mr. Fidan as saying on Sunday.

Fidan further added that in order to deal with the vast number of foreign Jihadists craving to travel to Syria, it is imperative that ISIS must set up a consulate or at least a political office in Istanbul. He underlined that it is Turkey's firm belief to provide medical care for all injured people fleeing Russian ruthless airstrikes regardless of their political or religious affiliation.http://www.awdnews.com/top-news/turkish-intelligence-chief-putin-s-intervention-in-syria-is-against-islam-and-international-law,-isis-is-a-reality-and-we-are-optimistic-about-the-future You just could not make this stuff up. Unbelievable.

psychohistorian | Nov 25, 2015 12:25:04 PM | 17

@14 Bob

I disagree with your assertion that the US MIC steers the ship. I posit that the global plutocrats that own private finance, all those MIC companies and a majority of our politicians steer the ship.

somebody | Nov 25, 2015 12:25:08 PM | 18

dh | Nov 25, 2015 11:50:03 AM | 8

Interesting. It certainly sounds as if Britain was on board with Turkey. I am still not sure about the plan. Did they really think Russia would cease and desist? And why undercutting Turkey with all this Reuters mumbling about the few seconds in Turkey's airspace, and the shot in Syrian airspace?

The only use of this would be destroying the chances of an agreement on Syria - or generally an agreement with Russia.

Erdogan's problem is clear - Russia is going after his family's business ties. Are British business ties involved, too?

MrBenny | Nov 25, 2015 12:33:58 PM | 19

1. The U.S. is saying they warned about the incursion to the Russians.

2. U.S. hung Turkey out to dry by leaking that the jet was hit inside Syrian airspace.

3. Obama talked about closing the borders, not a safe zone, which will not happen.

4. The Russians bombed that area with impunity last night while the Turkish Air Force remained grounded. Pound of flesh extracted. Now this is how it will likely go-in a few days, after investigations and a cool-down period, Erdogan himself will contact Putin and express his condolences and apologize for the miscalculation. Putin will accept this so he can move on to his political goals in Syria. Turkey, however is alone and isolated, and for all intents and purposes, no longer backed by NATO.

dh | Nov 25, 2015 12:36:55 PM | 20

@18 Seems to me Erdogan is using the Syrian Turkmen for a land grab. But he stops short of putting the Turkish army into Syria without NATO backing.

Not sure why Cameron is so keen to get Britain more involved. Pressure from the Friends of Israel most likely.

lysias | Nov 25, 2015 12:37:59 PM | 22

White House press release about Obama's phone call to Erdogan:
The President spoke today by phone with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey to discuss Turkey's downing of a Russian aircraft. The President expressed U.S. and NATO support for Turkey's right to defend its sovereignty. The leaders agreed on the importance of deescalating the situation and pursuing arrangements to ensure that such incidents do not happen again. They reiterated their shared commitment to efforts to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.

I read those last sentences as being about Obama scolding Erdogan.

MorningStar | Nov 25, 2015 12:38:57 PM | 23

Too little Too Late?

Moscow to deploy S-400 defense missile system to Khmeimim airbase in Syria

The Russian Air Force base in Latakia will be reinforced with S-400 SAM system, which will soon be deployed there, Russia's Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Wednesday.

"S-400 will be deployed on Khmeimim airbase in Syria," Shoigu said at a Defense Ministry meeting.

Of course if the Russians had had the integrity to fulfil the contracts they signed, to deliver the s-300 systems to both Syria and Iran, then the recent history of both those countries might have been a whole lot different.

In truth Russia has no one else but itself to blame for the Syrian quagmire it now finds itself in.

In the future it might be best for the Russians to actually fulfil the contracts they signed. Otherwise why sign them in the first place? Was it just to get some money into the current account?

[Jul 03, 2017] Internal Communications Show Syrian War Is a Lie, Russia Could Crush US Military

Jul 03, 2017 | www.ascertainthetruth.com
We know this with a degree of certainty, thanks to award-winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh, obtained perhaps the most naked evidence of hapless government duplicity resulting in an unknowable number of deaths and, astonishingly, even a preposterously harrowing likelihood of world war.

Communications between an active duty U.S. soldier and a security adviser, both unnamed by Hersh, prove the narrative proffered by corporate media and establishment politicians for months - that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had carried out a horrific and deadly chemical weapons attack against Syrian civilians in Khan Sheikhoun - was a lie.

Should that not seem impactful enough, consider it was the assertion of a gruesome chemical attack by Assad against his own civilian populace which provided the putative impetus for U.S. retaliation in the firing of 59 missiles into the sovereign nation of Syria near Khan Sheikhoun, also resulting in a wholly unjustified number of civilian casualties.

Ineffectively destroying parts of a mostly-dormant airbase and killing innocents indeed, at the time, seemed a peculiar mission accomplished as broadcast news belched repetitively - and for good reason.

Beyond the determination Assad had not gassed his own, the U.S. knew there had been no chemical weapons incident, at all - and had been privy to cooperative intelligence among the warring parties that an airstrike would be carried out against a cache of weapons - characterized as a "legitimate military target" by the active duty soldier chat protocol with the adviser.

On April 6, 2017 - Hersh reported for German outlet, Die Welt - the American soldier seemed near panic in a communiqué to the security adviser, imploring,

"We got a fuckin' problem."

"What happened?" the adviser asks. "Is it the Trump ignoring the Intel and going to try to hit the Syrians? And that we're pissing on the Russians?"

Soldier: "This is bad Things are spooling up."

Adviser: "You may not have seen trumps press conference yesterday. He's bought into the media story without asking to see the Intel. We are likely to get our asses kicked by the Russians. Fucking dangerous. Where are the godamn adults? The failure of the chain of command to tell the President the truth, whether he wants to hear it or not, will go down in history as one of our worst moments."

Soldier: "I don't know. None of this makes any sense. We KNOW that there was no chemical attack. The Syrians struck a weapons cache (a legitimate military target) and there was collateral damage. That's it. They did not conduct any sort of a chemical attack [ ]

"And now we're shoving a shit load of TLAMs (tomahawks) up their ass."

Adviser: "There has been a hidden agenda all along. This is about trying to ultimately go after Iran. What the people around Trump do not understand is that the Russians are not a paper tiger and that they have more robust military capability than we do."

Soldier: "I don't know what the Russians are going to do. They might hang back and let the Syrians defend their own borders, or they might provide some sort of tepid support, or they might blow us the fuck out of the airspace and back into Iraq. I honestly don't know what to expect right now. I feel like anything is possible. The Russian air defense system is capable of taking out our TLAMs. this is a big fucking deal we are still all systems go

Adviser: "You are so right. Russia is not going to take this lying down.

"Who is pushing this? Is it coming from [General Joseph L. Votel, Commander of United States Central Command]?"

Soldier: "I don't know. It's from someone big though. . . . This is a big fucking deal.

"It has to be POTUS.

"They [the Russians] are weighing their options. Indications are they are going to be passive supporters of Syria and not engage their systems unless their own assets are threatened..in other words, the sky is fucking blue.'"

***

In case you missed it, the unnamed security adviser brazenly suggests feckless U.S. military aggression in Syria pertains to a murky, but penultimate, goal with Iran - that, and the altogether foreboding indication Russia, a foe who should not be and the object of Western provocation, would outperform American forces should hostilities flare.

Communications between the pair of insiders continued the following day, April 7:

Adviser: "What are the Russians doing or saying Am I correct that we did little real damage to Russia or Syria?"

Soldier: "We didn't hit a damn thing, thankfully. They retrograded all their aircraft and personnel. We basically gave them a very expensive fireworks display.

"They knew where ships were and watched the entire strike from launch to end game.

"The Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth about the weapons depot strike.

"They are correct.

"I guess it really didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump. Fuck.

"No one is talking about the entire reason we're in Iraq and Syria in the first place. That mission is fucked now."

Adviser: "Are any of your colleagues pissed or is everyone going along with it and saying this is OK."

Soldier: "It's a mad house. . . .Hell we even told the Russians an hour before impact."

Adviser: "But they clearly knew it was coming."

Soldier: "Oh of course.

"Now Fox is saying we chose to hit the Syrian airfield because it is where the chemical attacks were launched from. Wow. Can't make this shit up."

Adviser: "They are. I mean, making it up."

Soldier: "It's so fuckin evil."

Adviser: "Amen!!!"

And, again, on April 8:

Soldier: "Russians are being extremely reasonable. Despite what the news is reporting they are still trying to deconflict and coordinate the air campaign."

Adviser: "I don't think the Russia yet understands how crazy Trump is over this. And I don't think we appreciate how much damage the Russians can do to us."

Adviser: "But I get the get the feeling are simply trying this approach for as long as they feel it might work. If we keep pushing this current aggressive stance they're going to hit back."

***

Die Welt ostensively withheld only information considered sensitive, including details pertaining to precise location and nature of operations - but, considering Hersh' itinerant adherence to journalistic principles, the report should be examined with more than a grain of salt.

If, indeed, the communications prove true, the documents could reveal more about censorship, a possibly-rogue media establishment, and an undeniable foolishness - and, more keenly, helplessness - in the haphazard rush to many wars in the fulfillment of anachronistic goals.

We don't need to be at war in Syria - nor should we be. And these communications prove, above all, those of us sounding the alarm for a year this addled Syrian conundrum would befall the U.S. had not done so in alarm - rather, in a growing awareness of the unscrupulous tactics possessed by an imperialist State circling the drain.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/syria-war-world-war-media/

[Jul 03, 2017] Adjustements in the Middle East by Thierry Meyssan

Notable quotes:
"... The Golan question will be particularly difficult because the Netanyahu administration - not without provocation – has declared its total annexation, while the United States and Russia reacted violently to the expulsion of the UN forces tasked with observing the disengagement (FNUOD) and its substitution by al-Qaïda [ 6 ]. However, it is not impossible that during the war on Syria, Washington or Moscow may have promised Tel-Aviv that they would not modify the status quo in the Golan. ..."
"... This project of general settlement reflects the method of businessmen Donald Trump and Jared Kushner – creating an economic situation which imposes political change. It will of necessity run into the opposition of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas), and the triangle of political Islam - Iran, Qatar and Turkey. ..."
"... All of the region's actors agree that today, Iraq and Syria form one single battlefield. But the Western powers, who are still clinging to the lies of the Bush Jr. administration (even though they admit the stupidity of the weapons of mass destruction charge against Saddam Hussein) and the romantic narrative of the " Arab Springs " (even though they admit that this movement never made any attempt to bring freedom, but on the contrary, to impose political Islam), stubbornly persist in considering them as separate. ..."
"... What is obvious for everyone in the region is that since the accession to power in Beijing by President Xi Jinping, bearer of the project for the two Silk Roads, Washington has been pushing for the creation of a "Sunnistan" straddling Iraq and Syria. In order to achieve this goal, it has financed, armed and supervised Daesh in order to cut the communication route between Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad-Teheran and Beijing. ..."
"... To make a long story short, if the Pentagon follows the orders from the White House, most of the conflict should end. There would only remain the Turkish occupation of Iraq and Syria, on the model of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, which the European Union finally accepted. The United States and Saudi Arabia, who were the enemies of Iraq and Syria, will once again become their allies. ..."
Jun 20, 2017 | www.voltairenet.org

As the Middle Eastern States split between the partisans and adversaries of clericalism, Washington, Moscow and Beijing are negotiating a new deal. Thierry Meyssan evaluates the impact of this earthquake on the Palestinian, Iraqi-Syrian and Yemeni conflicts.

The diplomatic crisis around Qatar has frozen several regional conflicts and disguised the attempts at resolution by others. No-one knows when the curtain will rise, but it should reveal a region which has been profoundly transformed.

1- The Palestinian conflict

Since the expulsion of the majority of Palestinians from their homes (the Nakhba, 15 May 1948) and the refusal by the Arab peoples to accept this ethnic cleansing, only the separate Israëlo-Egyptian peace treaty of Camp David (1978) and the promise of a two-state solution at the Oslo agreements (1993) have partially modified the situation.

However, when the secret negotiations between Iran and the United States were revealed, Saudi Arabia and Israël decided to talk in their turn. After 17 months of secret meetings, an agreement was reached between the Custodian of the two Holy Mosques and the Jewish state [ 1 ]. Israël made this a reality by the participation of Tsahal in the war in Yemen [ 2 ] and the transfer of tactical atomic bombs [ 3 ].

Let's remember that this agreement anticipated the evolution of Saudi Arabia so that its society would remain Salafist and its institutions would become secular. It also anticipated the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan (which will be the subject of a referendum in September) and the exploitation of the gas fields in the " Empty Quarter " (which straddles Saudi Arabia and Yemen, thus explaining the currrent war) and those of Ogaden (thus explaining this week's withdrawal of Qatari troops from the Djibouti frontier).

Finally, Egypt has decided to hand over the islands of Tiran and Sanafir to Saudi Arabia, as she had promised to do last year. By doing so, Riyadh has recognised de facto the Camp David agreements, which specifically manage the status of these territories. Israël confirms that it has obtained the Saudi guarantees.

Let us observe that the Egyptian decision was not taken under Saudi pressure (Riyadh had attempted, in vain, to block deliveries of oil and then a loan of 12 billion dollars), but because of the Gulf crisis. The Saudis have officialised their break with the Muslim Brotherhood, a decision which had been brewing since the transmission by President al-Sissi of documents attesting to a project for a coup d'etat by certain members of the Brotherhood against them. At first, Arabia believed it could differentiate between the good and bad Muslim Brothers. It had already accused Qatar of supporting the putschists, but the situation evolved peacefully on that occasion. As from now, Riyadh intends to fight the Brotherhood in its entirety, which will force it to review its position concerning Syria.

The transfer of these islands, which have been Egyptian since the London Convention of 1840, makes little sense other than to allow Saudi Arabia to implicitly recognise, 39 years after the fact, the Egypto-Israëli agreements of Camp David.

From its own side, Teheran has extended a welcome to the political directorate of Hamas (which is mainly composed of members of the Muslim Brotherhood) both in the name of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, and because it shares the same concept of political Islam.

The next step will be the establishment of public commercial relations between Riyadh and Tel-Aviv, as announced in The Times of 17 June (Israëli companies will be permitted to work in Arabia, and the airline company El-Al will be allowed to use Saudi airspace) [ 4 ], then the recognition of the peace initiative of Prince Abdallah (Arab League, 2002) and the establishment of diplomatic relations (Prince Walid ben Talal would become their ambassador) [ 5 ].

This project could bring peace in Palestine (recognition of a Palestinian state and compensation for the refugees), in Lebanon (withrawal from the Shebaa farms), and in Syria (cessation of support for the jihadists and withdrawal from the Golan).

The Golan question will be particularly difficult because the Netanyahu administration - not without provocation – has declared its total annexation, while the United States and Russia reacted violently to the expulsion of the UN forces tasked with observing the disengagement (FNUOD) and its substitution by al-Qaïda [ 6 ]. However, it is not impossible that during the war on Syria, Washington or Moscow may have promised Tel-Aviv that they would not modify the status quo in the Golan.

This project of general settlement reflects the method of businessmen Donald Trump and Jared Kushner – creating an economic situation which imposes political change. It will of necessity run into the opposition of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas), and the triangle of political Islam - Iran, Qatar and Turkey.

2- The Iraqi-Syrian conflict

All of the region's actors agree that today, Iraq and Syria form one single battlefield. But the Western powers, who are still clinging to the lies of the Bush Jr. administration (even though they admit the stupidity of the weapons of mass destruction charge against Saddam Hussein) and the romantic narrative of the " Arab Springs " (even though they admit that this movement never made any attempt to bring freedom, but on the contrary, to impose political Islam), stubbornly persist in considering them as separate.

We refer our readers to my book Right Before our Eyes for information on how the war began [ 7 ]. Nonetheless, from the beginning of the Qatar crisis, the war in Iraq and Syria is limited to

  • the fight against Daesh (Mossul and Rakka) and
  • the fight against Turkey (Baachiqa and Al-Bab) [ 8 ].

What is obvious for everyone in the region is that since the accession to power in Beijing by President Xi Jinping, bearer of the project for the two Silk Roads, Washington has been pushing for the creation of a "Sunnistan" straddling Iraq and Syria. In order to achieve this goal, it has financed, armed and supervised Daesh in order to cut the communication route between Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad-Teheran and Beijing.

For four months, the Trump administration has been studying and negotiating the ways in which they might modify these policies and conclude a partnership with Pekin instead of continuing the current confrontation [ 9 ].

While on the ground we see a series of contradictory events – since the beginning of the Qatar crisis, the Iraqi and Syrian armies have suddenly advanced. They have liberated the frontier territories previously held by Daesh and are now on the verge of establishing their junction (in other words, reconnecting the Silk Road). The two armies are now separated only by two hundred metres of land controlled illegally by the US army [ 10 ].

As for the combats in Southern Syria, they have miraculously come to a halt. A cease-fire has been unilaterally proclaimed by Damascus in Deraa. In reality, Moscow and Washington have given the assurance to Tel-Aviv that Syria will only allow the deployment of Russian troops, and not the Iranians or the Lebanese Hezbollah.

To make a long story short, if the Pentagon follows the orders from the White House, most of the conflict should end. There would only remain the Turkish occupation of Iraq and Syria, on the model of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus, which the European Union finally accepted. The United States and Saudi Arabia, who were the enemies of Iraq and Syria, will once again become their allies.

3- The Yemeni conflict

The Yemenis could be the ones who pay for this current evolution. While it is apparent that Saudi Arabia entered the war in order to set up a government favorable to the joint exploitation of the oil fields of the " Empty Quarter ", and for the personal glory of Prince Mohamed Ben Salman, it seems that the help given by Iran to the Houthis and to ex-President Saleh diverts the gaze of the Arab countries and the "international community" from the crimes for which they are responsible.

It's a time for taking sides, and almost everyone has opted for Saudi Arabia and against Qatar and its Turkish and Iranian allies. What was positive in Palestine, Iraq and Syria proves to be negative in Yemen.

Conclusion

Since 5 June and the rupture of diplomatic relations between Riyadh and Doha, the chancelleries are all preparing for a possible war, even if Germany is the only country to have spoken of this publicly. This situation is all the more surprising because Qatar - and not Saudi Arabia – is the observer for NATO [ 11 ].

Resignations come one after the other in Doha, from the US ambassador Dana Shell Smith to the selector of the national football team Jorge Fossati. Not only have the states aligned with Riyadh broken off their commercial relationships with the emirate, but numerous companies without any particular links with the Gulf have done the same in the face of the risk of war. This is, for example, the case of COSCO, the largest Chinese maritime company.

In any case, and despite justified historical claims, it would seem impossible for Saudi Arabia to annex Qatar when it was opposed to the annexation of Kuwaït by Iraq for the same reasons. One rule has been imposed on the world since British decolonisation – no-one has the right to touch boundaries laid by London. The unique aim of this rule is to maintain the insoluble problems for the new independent states. In this way, London maintains de facto the perpetual dependency of these states on British rule. Indeed, the pending arrival of 43,000 Pakistani and Turkish soldiers to defend Qatar should reinforce its position.

Thierry Meyssan

[Jul 03, 2017] War for Blair Mountain

Jul 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT

And where did Hitler worship get us?

Blonde hair blue eyed Waffen SS soldiers .I assume baptized Christian .being wasted by beautiful blonde haired Conservative Orthodox Christian Women Russian Snipers. This is what you will always get when you fall for the lies of the worshippers of Franco.

Hitler and Franco .enablers of the Mohammadan Gang Rape Army .Hitler's Waffen SS-Werhrmacht gang rape Army

Short tiny Andrew Anglin doesn't realize how much he has in common with the Jewish Antifas on a fundamental Level ..

War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment July 3, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT

History offers up important lessons for the Alt Right

There is a historic precedent for the Alt Right in US History:look no further than the late 19th-early 2oth Century US Labor Movement it was racially xenophobic .isolationist and economically progressive .The late 19th-early 2oth century Labor Movement gave us such wonderfull things such as The Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act and the Sihk Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act .not bad!!!

And let's honest The Alt Right kiddie brigade that worships Hitler Franco Pinochet .also swims in the sewage of JFK and Ronnie Reagan worship two scoundrels who unleashed race-replacement immigration policy on The Historic Native Born White American Working Class..

[Jul 02, 2017] Quite interesting Guardian piece encouraging to hate Russia and Putin while droning on about Hate Week in Orwell

Notable quotes:
"... "The use of fraudulent or forged documents should be-there's absolutely zero tolerance from us on this. If we find people submitting documents that are forged or fraudulent or they haven't disclosed full facts to us , we will not only refuse their application, they then risk a ban of 10 years from the UK if they make a subsequent application," Mackie said. ..."
Jul 02, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Pavlo Svolochenko ,

June 30, 2017 at 8:19 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/30/russia-putin-protests-police-arrests-tv-show?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

Dumb Guardian article or dumbest Guardian article?

marknesop , June 30, 2017 at 8:37 pm
There you go – he's received the ultimate shock; time to go home to the Pearl of Empire and spend his dotage rambling the moors in his wellies, or watching the sea thrash the Cornish coast, or something. Time to leave Russia, in any event; he's been studying it for 45 years, and this is the best he can come up with, while he plainly does not understand it. Why does he spend his time there, if everyone is a thug and a hate leader – why, in the name of God, does he spend time in a country where people live who have never heard of George Orwell?

By the bye, if you enter the UK on a visitor's visa and then work as a journalist, you might be looking at a 10-year ban on a subsequent re-application , you parrot-faced wazzock.

"The use of fraudulent or forged documents should be-there's absolutely zero tolerance from us on this. If we find people submitting documents that are forged or fraudulent or they haven't disclosed full facts to us , we will not only refuse their application, they then risk a ban of 10 years from the UK if they make a subsequent application," Mackie said.

Pavlo Svolochenko , July 1, 2017 at 3:32 am
If he didn't pad it out with invective, the article would be one or two paragraphs at most.

The undeleted comments are the real hoot – the average guardian reader appears to be a human being who failed the Turing test.

Cortes , July 1, 2017 at 6:23 am
I wonder how the comment by "timiengels" of a day ago evaded the cull:

"Quite interesting a piece encouraging to hate Russia and Putin while droning on about 'Hate Week' in Orwell."

Reply

[Jul 02, 2017] Bye-bye, Thucydides. China wont fight, Trump seeks no wars

Jul 02, 2017 | blogs.rediff.com
The proposed arms sales to Taiwan by the Trump administration and the sanctions against a Chinese bank which allegedly fuels trade with North Korea instantaneously re-kindled the revisionist opinion that a "Thucydides Trap" is inexorably playing out in the US-China relations – simply put, the danger (if not inevitability) of war between a rising China and a dominant America, such as the ancient conflict between Athens and Sparta described by the Greek historian Thucydides. Some others say (in wishful thinking, again) that the "honeymoon" between President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinipng is over. But such prognosis overlooks facts. Trump's proposed $1.42 billion arms sales do not constitute a new template in the US policy toward China. While strictly adhering to the "One China" policy, Bill Clinton administration sold $18 billion worth weapons to Taiwan, while the figure for George W. Bush was $30 billion and for Barack Obama $14 billion. Yet, there was no US-China war. Curiously, contrary to the earlier expectations (in March before the Trump-Xi summit in Florida) that Trump would surpass Obama's last arms deal with Taiwan ($1.8 billion), he actually pared off $400 million. Got it? Second, "honeymoon" presupposes a romance, which was never really there between Trump and Xi. Neither is an incorrigible romantic. What took place in Florida in April was an elaborate pantomime – Trump's mercantilistic outlook matching Xi's pragmatism; Trump's focus on "America First" levelling with Xi's perception of a "win-win" here; Trump's need of China's help to address North Korean problem prompting Xi's readiness to be helpful to the extent he can; Trump's jettisoning of Trans-Pacific Partnership making an impression on Xi, and so on.Fundamentally, neither side made concessions. Nor do they have illusions that the contradictions in US-China relations will simply wither away. Of course, the announcement in Washington on Thursday didn't take Beijing by surprise. The Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson had a measured reaction on Friday:
  • Q: The US has approved US$ 1.4 billion worth of arms sales to Taiwan, but has also emphasized that there is no change to its longstanding "one China" policy. What is China's comment on that?
  • A: On June 30, the US government announced to sell US$ 1.4 billion worth of arms to Taiwan. The Chinese side lodged representations with the US side both in Beijing and in Washington Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. By selling arms to Taiwan, the US has severely violated international law, basic norms governing international relations and the three China-US joint communiqués, and jeopardized China's sovereignty and security interests. The Chinese side firmly opposes that We strongly urge the US side to honour its solemn commitments in the three China-US joint communiqués, cancel its arms sales plan, and stop its military contact with Taiwan, so as not to cause further damage to China-US relations and bilateral cooperation in major areas.
  • Q: On Thursday, the US Treasury Department imposed sanctions on companies supporting illegal financial activities of the DPRK, including the Bank of Dandong. What is your response to that?
  • A: We have been saying that the Chinese side opposes unilateral sanctions out of the UN Security Council framework The Chinese side faithfully implements UN Security Council resolutions Chinese companies or individuals, once suspected of violating Security Council resolutions, will be investigated and treated in accordance with China's domestic laws and regulations. We strongly urge the US to immediately correct its mistake, so as not to impact bilateral cooperation on relevant issues. ( Transcript )
Basically in both cases Spokesman Lu Kang reminded the Trump administration that there is nothing like free lunch. In the case of arms sales, Beijing urged Washington not to "cause further damage to China-US relations and bilateral cooperation in major areas." (read trade, investment, military-to-military cooperation, etc.) As regards sanctions, the message is – "not to impact bilateral cooperation on relevant issues" (read North Korea).The ball is in Trump's court. In an unusually restrained editorial, Global Times calmly noted that the litmus test is that no cutting edge technology like the F-35 stealth aircraft (which Taiwan sought) is being transferred and military balance heavily favors mainland China. So, how should China respond? With muscular diplomacy? No way. Global Times says,

China must voice necessary reactions What China needs to consider is what new cards the US may hold and play against China and how capably China can maneuver the mutual retaliations China cannot remain inactive against US provocations but the manner of our reactions cannot set us too far apart from where we can stand firmly. China should seek more tangible outcomes in its engagement with the US than superficial symbols this is by no means a major test for China.

Bye-bye, Thucydides. For the foreseeable future, US will sell arms to Taiwan. China grasps that US arms sales to Taiwan is "more a political issue than a military issue and signals Washington's reiteration of its commitment to protecting Taiwan. It is also a card Washington holds against the mainland. By adjusting the scale and timing of arms sales, Washington tries to send clearer signals to Beijing." Read the editorial in Global Times here .

[Jul 02, 2017] Nikki Haley Wants Everyone to Know That She Finally Learned How to Read

Notable quotes:
"... didn't even know how to read? ..."
"... The Scorpion and the Frog ..."
Jul 02, 2017 | russia-insider.com

Nikki Haley is hooked on phonics - and bombing Iran

RI Staff 63 Haley presents book report to UN Security Council

Nikki Haley is widely considered to be the greatest diplomat to have ever lived. But did you know that up until just a few days ago, Nikki Haley didn't even know how to read?

Washington's rookie UN ambassador to the United Nations has been checkmating Russia for months, but last week she finally found the time to finish her first children's story, The Scorpion and the Frog , which tells the tale of two animal companions who are drone-bombed by the US military while attending a wedding in Afghanistan.

As you can probably imagine, Nikki is very proud of her accomplishment and wants to let everyone know that she read a story about animals and really, really enjoyed it.

But recently she's been yapping about frogs and scorpions at totally inappropriate times.

Nikki Haley literally can't stop talking about this dumb pop-up book that she read.

Even when she recites her daily prayers to Moloch at the Security Council, frog tales inevitable get added into the mix:

me title=

But as RT pointed out : "While the allusion might seem novel, it was actually used before in an op-ed by Chaim Shacham for the Miami Herald in 2015, titled 'Iran nuclear pact: Tale of the scorpion and the frog.'"

advertisement

https://lockerdome.com/lad/9533801169000550?pubid=ld-1806-5338&pubo=http%3A%2F%2Frussia-insider.com&width=731

That'll do, Nikki. That'll do.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Wvh5fFeRX5Q?wmode=transparent&jqoemcache=yraHB

advertisement

[Jul 02, 2017] Warning! The USA preparing a new chemical attack in Syria

Jul 02, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile ,

June 30, 2017 at 10:37 pm

https://www.youtube.com/embed/109ERbPA4Qs?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent


What a patronising, smirking piece of shit that spokesthing for the US government is!
marknesop , June 30, 2017 at 10:51 pm
She's just what they're looking for. They keep changing the spokesholes for the State Department pressers because they're looking for a way to defend the indefensible. If the rest of the people in the room actually are reporters who eat, sleep and breathe news, they know very well that there is – at the very least – doubt that Assad actually carried out any chemical attacks on 'his own people'. They know 'rebel' groups in Syria do possess chemical weapons, and there is considerable evidence of their staging events to pluck western heartstrings and initiate a western intervention to overthrow Assad. So when she just talks over him and repeats government talking points, they all know what she's doing. They all also know that the United States government continually claims to have irrefutable evidence of this thing and that war crime which it will not disclose. None of it, except for the shite they get from social media. You're just supposed to take their word for it.

That would be fine if they had never been caught in a lie. Or even not very often. As the situation is, well

Moscow Exile , July 1, 2017 at 12:05 am
Compare the performance of the US blonde spokeswoman with that of the Russian blonde spokeswoman.

Zakharova [09:57]:

" There are experts and they should be working. If we make conclusions that are based on politically charged motivations, then this is what we are witnessing now and shall continue to do so ".

The US journalist, in response to Zakharova's detailed criticism of the US policy of shooting first and not asking questions, namely of not using appointed specialists on the ground to check claims of who was/is responsible for chemical weapons attacks but instead just acting on what Washington thinks was/is the "reality" of the situation (and remember, there are some in Washington who claim that "reality" is their creation!), says that it is too dangerous for appointed investigators into chemical weapon usage to enter terrorist occupied zones in order to check on the facts [10:08]:

" But experts can't [get there] "

Zakharova responds [10:15]:

" But why can't they get there? Why exactly can't they get there? Is it Damascus saying that they can't go in? "

The US journalist states that Idlib is a "different situation" [10:27]

Zakharova [10:35], who now appears to be somewhat amused by the journalist's line of thought:

" So what, then, is the logic? If there is no security there, then we can make binding resolutions that are based on absolutely nothing at all? Is that correct? But that's well, that's well that's some kind of madness! "

The journalist then repeats that it still is very difficult, very dangerous, to enter the combat zones.

Zakharova replies [10:55]"

" So let's go to plan B - Colin Powell with a test-tube! Do I understand you correctly? If it's too dangerous to go there, then let's make decisions based on absolutely falsified grounds. But from our point of view, they have no basis upon which an objective opinion can be decided ".

Zakhorova then goes on to rip the US journalist's contentions apart in a manner vastly different to the way in which the US spokeswoman, Nauert, dealt with the journalist in Washington, who posed questions that she openly sneered and smirked at, as can be seen at the beginning of the clip.

Nauert , by the way, who is a former member of the Council on Foreign Relations , is married to Scott Norby, an investment banker who works at Goldman Sachs.

She is also employed by Fox News, FFS!

[Jul 02, 2017] It would seem that the CIA control of the USA media is complete

It not simply that CIA exert influence via some imbedded operatives. A more fundamental fact is that NYT and WaPo agenda is identical to CIA agenda.
Also it looks like that thanks to neocons dominance, the USA succumbs to war mentality and the press adopted the rule of war coverage for the peice time.
Notable quotes:
"... The outcome is predictable. The stories the journalists ..."
"... The mainstream media want their readers to believe that their narratives from war zones are genuine reporting. The above examples show that they are not. Their journalists ..."
"... Richard Pyle, Associated Press Saigon bureau chief during the war, described the [military press] briefings as, "the longest-playing tragicomedy in Southeast Asia's theater of the absurd." ..."
"... It would seem that the CIA control of the media is complete. What are the key phrases to bring them in and out of their trances? ..."
"... "...50 tons of flour...." Wow, how generous. And ~500.000 tons of weaponry for the Death Squads. David Gordon isn't he the one along with Judith Miller two chief propagandist of Bush'r regime for Iraq war? ..."
"... Ah, good old Michael Gordon. If memory serves, he was also as culpable for the NYT stories boosting the Iraq War as Miller was. Yet she was the only one to get fired ..."
"... Its not simply that the media is somehow being taken advantage of by a sly military, nor that there are CIA assets in the NYT and Wapo, its that both media outfits (with CNN and other companies) actively collaborate at the highest levels with AIPAC and the CIA to promote their agreed upon interpretation of current events. ..."
"... Monied interests rule and corrupt everything in order to secure their positions. So, they infiltrate government, corporations, academia. They all speak the same language and derive their belief systems from each other. To paraphrase John Ralston Saul, reality is not in the world, it's in the measurements made by professional bureaucrats. That's why you can see people bouncing between government service, board directorships, the CIA and then becoming pundits on the MSM. ..."
"... It's a circle jerk where each of the individuals know their roles, and their first rule is never turn on the system itself. ..."
"... Everything (and I mean everything) is a racket. ..."
"... The vaunted SDF is totally reliant on US support. Once that goes, so does their effectiveness. From experience, the US does not train foreign militaries to be anything more capable than a police force. The Russians on the other hand train foreign militaries to be fully capable and self supporting. ..."
"... "Syrian engineers have been trying to get one or two turbines running by cannibalizing parts from the wreckage. But with no Soviet-era parts on hand, nobody seems to think that the structure will be generating power in the months ahead, and the hazards of working in and around the dam are still significant: Last week, one newly trained Syrian demining expert was killed when he triggered an improvised explosive device. But the question foremost in the minds of Tabqa's residents is how they are going to return their lives to some semblance of normal. "There is no electricity, no food, no bread, and we need fuel for our trucks," said Khalid Mohammed Ali Tata, 54. "Also, there are no jobs." ..."
"... The unwritten story from the articles is that, had it not been for the pesky Russians interfering, the good ole' US fightin' boys would have defeated ISIS ages ago - and many of the commentators fall for this BS. ..."
"... Some time ago I ran onto a map showing oil fields and grain silos in Syria. The grain silos wre mostly in what is now the US/SDF held territory. I take it this is the main grain growing region of Syria. Now the US propaganda writers are saying they have no bread? ..."
"... Castellio - no CIA Assets at WaPo? You Sure about that? Amazon & The CIA ..."
"... The public is so inured to military action going on somewhere that the only thing that captures their attention is American casualties. People who read the NYT and Washpo know that these are fluff pieces and are aware and probably concerned that America's meddling in Syria might end badly. ..."
"... There's no groundswell of support for American involvement in Syria's civil war and the implications of an incident with Russian forces. Far from it. ..."
"... This is standard US military propaganda. It's a PR show, no doubt, but somehow I find it less reprehensible than the anonymously sourced anti-Russian and anti-Syrian pieces that dominate the NYT and WaPo on a daily basis. ..."
"... There is nothing new about this, BTW. Edward Bernays had already pulled it in 1953 in Guatemala, prior to the coup against Arbenz: journos who were walked in the "exotic jungles" with "brooding and submissive Indians", and could wear ridiculous pith helmets, ride horses through miles of plantations and drink White Label scotch served by pretty señoritas on some chosen veranda in the evening, while they watched the sunset. ..."
"... This is a most precise description of neocon U.S. foreign policy post-Libya. If the little people have grown skeptical of your fake WMD claims and they've grown inured to your cartoonish demonization of leaders you don't like, then replace the government to be regime-changed with an evil of your own creation (the Afghanistan Plan). ..."
"... Congress won't let the Pentagon attack and occupy Syria directly at Saudi's/Israel's behest? Solution: Create fake ISIS to conquer Syrian land/resources first, then get blanket Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allowing Pentagon to kick them out any time, any where. ..."
"... Then justify endless occupation thereafter with the need for humanitarian aid, training local police forces and offering follow-on U.S. military protection until things stabilize. Except they never stabilize. ..."
"... The U.S. created Mujahedin in Pakistan training camps and the Afghan Liberation Front for that exact purpose in 1978. Someone to kick the Soviets out, but evil enough to justify the U.S. going after them. Whatever the Mujahedin were in 1978 morphed into something much darker by 2001, i.e., al Qaeda and the Taliban. ..."
"... it's not simply that the military coordinates with the press, and its not simply that there are CIA assets writing for the WaPo and the NYT, it's also the case that both media outfits (with CNN and other companies) actively collaborate at the highest levels with AIPAC and the CIA to promote their agreed upon interpretation of current events. ..."
Jul 02, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
When the U.S. military takes a bunch of journalists on a press junket to a foreign country it has a certain intention and prepares every detail in advance. There will be witnesses and local people who are briefed for their two minute talk with the journalists to convey exactly what the military wants them to convey. After enjoying local flair , for ten minutes max, some U.S. diplomatic official or a general will treat the journos to some good whiskey and a genuine local steak. The official will speak a few prepared lines on the record that will reinforce the story the locals were tasked to tell.

The outcome is predictable. The stories the journalists will write will be the same.

Michael Gordon in yesterday's New York Times and David Ignatius in yesterday's Washington Post both report of their latest junket, a visit of Tabqa in Syria.

Gordon's piece: In a Desperate Syrian City, a Test of Trump's Policies

The young man unburdened himself about the dark years of living under the Islamic State as a crowd of curious onlookers gathered in front of a weathered storefront in the town marketplace. The militants, said the man, a 22-year-old named Abdul Qadir Khalil , killed many residents, doled out precious jobs and severely limited travel to and from the city. ...

He ticked off a list of the things Tabqa needs: electricity, water, fuel and a sizable bakery . Then, laughing about his new freedom to openly denounce the militants, he said, "If they ever come back, they will slaughter all of us."

The Ignatius' piece: As the Islamic State falls in Syria, one city offers a preview of the country's future

A boisterous group of young Syrian men is gathered outside a tire and vehicle-parts shop across from the warehouse. American military advisers aren't sure at first that it's safe to talk with them, but the men press eagerly toward two visiting reporters. Abdul-Qadr Khalil, 22 , dressed in a bright blue-nylon jacket, speaks for the group. He complains that there's not enough food, water, gas or bread , and there are no jobs. But he dismisses the idea that the Islamic State will ever take hold here again.

"No, never!" says Khalil, and the young men around him nod in unison. "It will be impossible to live if they come back. They will kill all of us."

... ... ...

I agree with the British general. The reporting in the Washington Post and New York Times from this military press junket is not a work of beauty but pragmatism . These highly paid journalists do not want to get their new desert dress dirty. They pragmatically repeat what the well briefed (and bribed) locals say, picture the children that make V-signs (and receive the promised candy) and they stenograph whatever the military or some diplomats say. No real reporting, no thinking and no dirty boots are required for their job.

The military wanted to convey that nearly everything is fine now in Tabqa. The people love the U.S. occupation and all that is needed now are a few billion $$$ for some minor nation building. The journalists ate up the prepared bites and transmit exactly what the military wanted them to say.

The mainstream media want their readers to believe that their narratives from war zones are genuine reporting. The above examples show that they are not. Their journalists are simple recording highly choreographed shows the Pentagon and State Department press advisors made up and the local press officers prepared in advance. A modern version of the Vietnam war's five o'clock follies .

Richard Pyle, Associated Press Saigon bureau chief during the war, described the [military press] briefings as, "the longest-playing tragicomedy in Southeast Asia's theater of the absurd."

Back then most media did not fell for the nonsense. Now they willingly join in.

JSonofa | Jul 2, 2017 3:25:32 PM 1

It would seem that the CIA control of the media is complete. What are the key phrases to bring them in and out of their trances?

Trancesentintomedication.

dh | Jul 2, 2017 3:41:08 PM | 3
Great post b. It's all orchestrated. As for "Back then most media did not fell for the nonsense" ...back then there was a protest movement.
Chauncey Gardiner | Jul 2, 2017 3:41:33 PM | 4
"...50 tons of flour...." Wow, how generous. And ~500.000 tons of weaponry for the Death Squads. David Gordon isn't he the one along with Judith Miller two chief propagandist of Bush'r regime for Iraq war?
P Walker | Jul 2, 2017 3:44:27 PM | 5
Ah, good old Michael Gordon. If memory serves, he was also as culpable for the NYT stories boosting the Iraq War as Miller was. Yet she was the only one to get fired.
Chauncey Gardiner | Jul 2, 2017 3:47:29 PM | 6
let me see...
September 8, 2002
New York Times

U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts
By Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 - More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.

In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium. American officials said several efforts to arrange the shipment of the aluminum tubes were blocked or intercepted but declined to say, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence, where they came from or how they were stopped.

The diameter, thickness and other technical specifications of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's nuclear program, officials said, and that the latest attempt to ship the material had taken place in recent months.

http://www.realdemocracy.com/abomb.htm

What can I say, Goebbels would be proud of him.

Castellio | Jul 2, 2017 3:51:04 PM | 8
Its not simply that the media is somehow being taken advantage of by a sly military, nor that there are CIA assets in the NYT and Wapo, its that both media outfits (with CNN and other companies) actively collaborate at the highest levels with AIPAC and the CIA to promote their agreed upon interpretation of current events.
P Walker | Jul 2, 2017 3:57:20 PM | 10
Monied interests rule and corrupt everything in order to secure their positions. So, they infiltrate government, corporations, academia. They all speak the same language and derive their belief systems from each other. To paraphrase John Ralston Saul, reality is not in the world, it's in the measurements made by professional bureaucrats. That's why you can see people bouncing between government service, board directorships, the CIA and then becoming pundits on the MSM.

It's a circle jerk where each of the individuals know their roles, and their first rule is never turn on the system itself.

Everything (and I mean everything) is a racket.

Anonymous | Jul 2, 2017 4:14:02 PM | 11
The Gordon piece reveals some interesting details of how the Taqba dam operation worked.

"The Tabqa operation was proposed in mid-March to Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, the commander of the American-led task force that is battling the Islamic State, by the top commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the combination of Syrian Kurds and Arab fighters who would provide the ground troops for the battle. It was approved without a single White House meeting. Just one week later, hundreds of Arab and Kurdish fighters, including many who had never flown before, were airlifted on American helicopters and Osprey planes to the southern banks of Lake Assad, across from Tabqa. Barges ferried their vehicles across the azure water while another group of Syrian fighters to the east hopped from island to island as they zipped along the Euphrates on American fast boats."

The vaunted SDF is totally reliant on US support. Once that goes, so does their effectiveness. From experience, the US does not train foreign militaries to be anything more capable than a police force. The Russians on the other hand train foreign militaries to be fully capable and self supporting.

The Taqba dam is also a poisoned chalice for the Amerians. They now 'own it':

"Syrian engineers have been trying to get one or two turbines running by cannibalizing parts from the wreckage. But with no Soviet-era parts on hand, nobody seems to think that the structure will be generating power in the months ahead, and the hazards of working in and around the dam are still significant: Last week, one newly trained Syrian demining expert was killed when he triggered an improvised explosive device. But the question foremost in the minds of Tabqa's residents is how they are going to return their lives to some semblance of normal. "There is no electricity, no food, no bread, and we need fuel for our trucks," said Khalid Mohammed Ali Tata, 54. "Also, there are no jobs."

No electricity, no food, no bread, no jobs ...

This has all the makings of a typical US tactical victory and strategic defeat.

Yonatan | Jul 2, 2017 4:22:30 PM | 12
The unwritten story from the articles is that, had it not been for the pesky Russians interfering, the good ole' US fightin' boys would have defeated ISIS ages ago - and many of the commentators fall for this BS.

I, for one, look forward to the glorious Hollywood blockbusters detailing exactly how the US defeated ISIS all on its own.

Peter AU | Jul 2, 2017 4:28:36 PM | 13
Some time ago I ran onto a map showing oil fields and grain silos in Syria. The grain silos wre mostly in what is now the US/SDF held territory. I take it this is the main grain growing region of Syria. Now the US propaganda writers are saying they have no bread?

Presidential envoy Brett McGurk visits Tabqa with two of his best/most trusted propaganda writers.... Aircraft carrier arrived off Israel... plus the recent CW crap from Spicer and UN. Yanks seem to be cooking something up.

JSonofa | Jul 2, 2017 4:47:27 PM | 15

Castellio - no CIA Assets at WaPo? You Sure about that? Amazon & The CIA

peter | Jul 2, 2017 5:03:21 PM | 16
No body bags. No problem. That's the only thing that matters to the hoi polloi in the US. That and the draft.

The public is so inured to military action going on somewhere that the only thing that captures their attention is American casualties. People who read the NYT and Washpo know that these are fluff pieces and are aware and probably concerned that America's meddling in Syria might end badly. It's hardly surprising that two different reporters at the same event posted similar accounts.

Obviously their minder explained the concerns about young minds being warped by ISIS indoctrination and it was duly reported. That's not fake news. Child soldiers in the DR Congo come to mind.

I'm sure when the SAA liberates a village there's some coverage of happy residents. I'm sure they spring for some flour too. I mean, no matter who gets those ISIS fuckers out of your hair, you're going to be happy to see them. These are filler pieces. They don't mean anything. They don't shape opinion. There's no groundswell of support for American involvement in Syria's civil war and the implications of an incident with Russian forces. Far from it.

Any embedded reporter expects and gets a high degree of skepticism from the readers. Besides, the readers are much more interested in watching Trump's meltdown in real time. They watch their healthcare under assault and somehow Syria matters fade to black. They will pay attention to any new shootdowns but don't give a fuck about the feel-good stories.

WorldBLee | Jul 2, 2017 5:27:28 PM | 18
This is standard US military propaganda. It's a PR show, no doubt, but somehow I find it less reprehensible than the anonymously sourced anti-Russian and anti-Syrian pieces that dominate the NYT and WaPo on a daily basis.
Clueless Joe | Jul 2, 2017 5:32:35 PM | 19
If that's the best that freedom of the press can bring us, then fuck freedom of the press. Mainstream media fully deserves to live the rest of the century under Stalin's rule, with the people cheering when they're shipped to gulag.
Lea | Jul 2, 2017 5:36:40 PM | 20
Cheers for your "spot the difference" piece, B. Great job.

There is nothing new about this, BTW. Edward Bernays had already pulled it in 1953 in Guatemala, prior to the coup against Arbenz: journos who were walked in the "exotic jungles" with "brooding and submissive Indians", and could wear ridiculous pith helmets, ride horses through miles of plantations and drink White Label scotch served by pretty señoritas on some chosen veranda in the evening, while they watched the sunset.

Upon return, they "knew the situation on the ground" in Guatemala.

Do these people ever read history? I mean, it's not as if a ton of books had not been published on this kind of subject. You can pull the same trick on them over and over, and do they notice a pattern or something? No.

Who are these geniuses?

PavewayIV | Jul 2, 2017 5:39:12 PM | 21
"...I mean, no matter who gets those ISIS fuckers out of your hair, you're going to be happy to see them..."

This is a most precise description of neocon U.S. foreign policy post-Libya. If the little people have grown skeptical of your fake WMD claims and they've grown inured to your cartoonish demonization of leaders you don't like, then replace the government to be regime-changed with an evil of your own creation (the Afghanistan Plan).

Congress won't let the Pentagon attack and occupy Syria directly at Saudi's/Israel's behest? Solution: Create fake ISIS to conquer Syrian land/resources first, then get blanket Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) allowing Pentagon to kick them out any time, any where.

The RoboCop AUMF. Then justify endless occupation thereafter with the need for humanitarian aid, training local police forces and offering follow-on U.S. military protection until things stabilize. Except they never stabilize.

The U.S. created Mujahedin in Pakistan training camps and the Afghan Liberation Front for that exact purpose in 1978. Someone to kick the Soviets out, but evil enough to justify the U.S. going after them. Whatever the Mujahedin were in 1978 morphed into something much darker by 2001, i.e., al Qaeda and the Taliban. I can't believe that wasn't without the help of the U.S. - we needed to create an evil, cartoonish enemy to justify military action (with or without U.S. Congressional approval). 9/11 - whether it was staged or not - ushered in the RoboCop AUMF to go after the evil guy in an Afghani cave because he orchestrated 9/11.

A long time from now, someone is going to read about this in a history book and just laugh - nobody could be so stupid as to fall for such a preposterous ruse, and certainly not over and over again.

Castellio | Jul 2, 2017 5:57:56 PM | 22
@15 JSonofa

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. There are certainly CIA assets writing both for WaPo and the NYT, and the editors and owners are aware.

It would have been better if I had written - it's not simply that the military coordinates with the press, and its not simply that there are CIA assets writing for the WaPo and the NYT, it's also the case that both media outfits (with CNN and other companies) actively collaborate at the highest levels with AIPAC and the CIA to promote their agreed upon interpretation of current events.

Jackrabbit | Jul 2, 2017 7:08:45 PM | 23
As @3 ...back then there was a protest movement.

There was a protest movement mostly because there was a draft.

[Jul 01, 2017] In Russia we have a combination of neoliberal elements with a very determined strategy to foster import substitution

Notable quotes:
"... The gist is that while Russia has a lot of problems, they made huge progress in Putin/Medvedev years, and data on alcohol, suicide, murder, deaths/births show nearly complete recovery from the collapse after the end of USSR. And the decline/recovery after the drop of oil prices and sanctions is quite remarkable. ..."
"... Russian economy and politics are run in a different way than in the West, and since many crucial numbers are hard to understand or explain, it is not easy to understand and explain them. In politics, Putin is characterized as autocrat, but more objective authors remark that he has a "light touch" compared with historical record and countries that can be used to compare. ..."
"... For example, is Putin "neoliberal"? Taxes on individuals are low, monetary policy seems tight. The response to oil shock was in a sense "shock therapy": rubble was allowed to float, lost half of its exchange value, the imports were halved, trade surplus was maintained. Most strange: ca. 100 billions of foreign debt was repaid in one year (which seems to confuse Krugman a lot). Real salaries declined quite drastically. But the largest surprise is that the employment was maintained. ..."
"... I would cite Iran as another import substitution country. Western sanctions are truly a double edge sword. They cut off a country from the international financial system. This makes many types of economic activity harder, but in the same time, it spares a country the dubious benefits that we can observe in Greece. ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Piotr Berman | Jul 1, 2017 12:33:29 PM | 52

Re: @16

Awara blog is a product of a Russian company that offers services to foreign companies engaged or interested in Russian markets, so this company has an interest in compiling as rosy picture as possible.

In one place, the author adds numbers from a table presented just above, wrongly, getting a "better result". I got an outright false statement: population of Russia is not "at all time high" but about 9 millions lower. The period of population decline was about 20 years, and it is counterfactual that it was compensated with 3 years of growth.

And it is hard to tell what does it mean that Russia has "most diversified economy".

But the general picture is consistent with what I have read before, e.g. data from trading economics.com.

The gist is that while Russia has a lot of problems, they made huge progress in Putin/Medvedev years, and data on alcohol, suicide, murder, deaths/births show nearly complete recovery from the collapse after the end of USSR. And the decline/recovery after the drop of oil prices and sanctions is quite remarkable.

Russian economy and politics are run in a different way than in the West, and since many crucial numbers are hard to understand or explain, it is not easy to understand and explain them. In politics, Putin is characterized as autocrat, but more objective authors remark that he has a "light touch" compared with historical record and countries that can be used to compare.

For example, is Putin "neoliberal"? Taxes on individuals are low, monetary policy seems tight. The response to oil shock was in a sense "shock therapy": rubble was allowed to float, lost half of its exchange value, the imports were halved, trade surplus was maintained. Most strange: ca. 100 billions of foreign debt was repaid in one year (which seems to confuse Krugman a lot). Real salaries declined quite drastically. But the largest surprise is that the employment was maintained.

Thus we have a combination of neoliberal elements with a very determined strategy to foster import substitution. Import substitution is detrimental to productivity, but when the economy is under shock, it is better to loose productivity, especially if the effect is transient, then employment, which lead to social pathologies -- and government unpopularity. Concerning popularity, the current generation of Russians know one collapse and the previous oil shock, so apparently they appreciate orderly reorientation of the economy. Import substitution can easily go wrong, Argentina is a textbook negative example, and in Venezuela it turned to be a disaster, but Russia has a much larger internal market and non-oil resources and industries.

I would cite Iran as another import substitution country. Western sanctions are truly a double edge sword. They cut off a country from the international financial system. This makes many types of economic activity harder, but in the same time, it spares a country the dubious benefits that we can observe in Greece.

[Jul 01, 2017] Seeing Russia Clearly by Paul Starobin

Highly recommended!
www.youtube.com

By Paul Starobin A s Americans cast their eyes beyond their shores, there is much that bids for their gaze: a dynamic China, steadily expanding its military reach in the South China Sea and beyond; U.S. forces in the Middle East, trying to try to deal a decisive blow to ISIS; a frayed Europe, struggling to keep its union from unraveling. But nothing rivets our minds more than Russia and its strongman leader, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. And that is unlikely to change any time soon, with the FBI in the midst of what its director publicly characterizes as an open-ended "counterintelligence" investigation of "the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election."

Not since the Cold War has Russia so fixated America and the West generally. An MSNBC anchor delivers twenty-minute monologues, cobbled from press clips, on "The Russian Connection" to the presidential contest, including suspected Kremlin links to the Trump campaign. CNN runs a documentary on Putin titled "The Most Powerful Man in the World." On the floor of the U.S. Senate, John McCain accuses his Republican colleague Rand Paul of "working for Vladimir Putin" in suggesting it might be unwise to expand the NATO alliance to cover the tiny country of Montenegro. And in the construction of Adam Schiff of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee:

I think people need to understand we are in a global war of ideas. It's not communism vs. capitalism, but it is authoritarianism vs. democracy and Putin is very much at the vanguard of that autocratic movement.

In this thinking, Russia under Putin bids to create a new global order antithetical to American and all freedom-loving interests. But is that really the case? So far, at least, no signs of a Russia-centric order have emerged. Although there are reasons to be concerned about Russia and Putin, exaggerated claims threaten to warp our understanding of the country and its true place in the global constellation. What is needed, then, is a corrective. It pays to try to arrive at a clear picture of Russia, as a basis for crafting a sound policy towards Putin and the country he leads.

A first question that might be asked is: just what is Russia? Russia needs to be apprehended, not as a spectral presence, but as an embodied one, with a history, geography, politics, economy, and culture that mark its character as well as shape and, in the end, limit its capabilities.

Vladimir Putin

Let's begin with Putin, often thought to be a prototypical Russian autocrat. Russia, it is true, has just about always been ruled by autocrats. But this rote observation is the start of a discussion of Putin, not the end of one, for there are different traditions of autocracy in Russia, some more threatening to the West and to Western values than others. In the reformist tradition, Peter the Great, as a young man, worked incognito at a Dutch shipyard to glean lessons for the fashioning of his embryonic navy, and he later built a new capital city on the marshes of the Neva to open a "window to the West." Catherine the Great courted Voltaire and Diderot, recrafted Russia's legal code with inspiration from the writings of Montesquieu and founded a society for the translation of foreign books into Russian. Alexander II freed the serfs. In the despotic tradition, Ivan the Terrible established a police-terror regiment of fierce men cloaked in black, whose numbers rode through the countryside brandishing the head of a dog on a stick-"we bite like dogs" was the grisly tiding. Joseph Stalin, the Red Czar, starved millions of peasants, constructed a massive gulag to cement his monstrous regime of fear-and in banning foreign books and tightly restricting travel, stoked a xenophobic attitude towards the West.

In the context of these traditions, Putin, the former KGB colonel, can be understood as taking over for a reformer in the Kremlin, Boris Yeltsin, who looked to the West for political and economic ideas-and bringing this turbulent and largely unpopular period of reform to a halt. And he has done so openly and unapologetically. In January 2000, just after assuming power, he told Russians in a speech published on the Kremlin's website:

It will not happen soon, if it ever happens at all, that Russia will become the second edition of say, the U.S. or Britain in which liberal values have deep historic traditions. Our state and its institutions have always played an exceptionally important role in the life of the country and its people. For Russians a strong state is not an anomaly that should be gotten rid of. Quite the contrary, they see it as a source and guarantor of order and the initiator and main driving force of any change.

For Americans, the arrival of the unknown Putin at the pinnacle of power in Russia was a source of both confusion and distress. Yeltsin was a familiar and generally well-liked figure, best known as the man who "stood on the tank" in Moscow, back in August 1991, to stare down an effort led by KGB hardliners to keep the tottering Soviet Union from collapsing. As the first president of the new Russian Federation, Yeltsin welcomed to Moscow a bevy of consultants from America, specialists in how centrally planned economies could make a "transition" to a market-based economy. To win reelection, in 1996, with the Communists threatening to retake power, he took advice from political consultants from Washington and financial assistance from the International Monetary Fund. And yet with his rule at its end, he chose as his handpicked successor a man who had devoted his career to the security services that had battled America during the Cold War.

Ordinary Russians, though, saw an entirely different picture-a picture that Washington failed to appreciate. They experienced the 1990s largely as a time of chaos, punctuated by the financial crisis of 1998, when banks collapsed and depositors lost their life's savings. (There was no deposit insurance in the new Russia.) A hated new class of oligarchs-financial and political moguls-acquired "privatized" properties for trifling sums in return for supporting Yeltsin. For the new leader, Putin, to have a law-and-order background, to vow to bring the oligarchs to heel in a reassertion of a "strong state," to declare that Russian traditions, not the West, would guide Russia's development-this was welcome news.

And so Russia got Putin, a departure from his predecessor. In keeping with the despotic tradition, menace indeed is a striking feature of Putin's rule. Critics have been driven into exile, their property confiscated, and prominent detractors, inside and outside of the country, have wound up dead-some by poison, an age-old method of assassination by Russian intelligence operatives. Investigative journalism is a dangerous pursuit; dominant state-controlled media deliver a stale diet of propaganda. Yet there is no vast penal system and ordinary Russians are free to travel abroad. Facebook, for example, is available, unlike in China, where the state exerts much stricter controls over the Internet. In Russian terms, and on the basis of what is now known, Putin ranks as a mild despot. That judgment, though, would deserve to be made harsher if Putin is indeed complicit, as critics allege, in a rash of apartment bombings in Russia in 1999, which the Kremlin blamed on Chechen terrorists and used as a justification for a war to subdue Russia's republic of Chechnya.

The imperial habit of Russia's czars is perhaps what the West fears most about Russia. Catherine the Great bit off a chunk of Poland and fulfilled the dream of Russia's rulers for access to warmwater ports by extending Russia's dominion to the coast of the Black Sea. Stalin, after World War II, with his brute folding of Eastern Europe into the sphere of Soviet domination, created an empire that surpassed the domain of any Romanov czar. Leonid Brezhnev invaded Afghanistan-disastrously, in that instance. In this tradition, Putin, eighteen years into his reign, stands as a modest empire builder. His proudest accomplishment has to be the snatching back from Ukraine of the Crimea, the peninsula on the Black Sea, strategically important for Russia as the base for its Black Sea naval fleet. The Crimea for centuries had been in Moscow's hands-it ceased to be so only in 1991, when Ukraine became an independent state, no longer a Soviet Republic, and kept possession of the territory.

Any imperialism is a cause for concern, but still it should be recognized that the imperial instinct can have a conservative rationale-to resist encroachment, to create buffer zones, to stand up for established clients, as opposed to imposing an ideology or adding new territory. Putin exhibits this reflex, in keeping with the Russian tradition of not accepting any hegemonic power, whether the British in the nineteenth century or the Americans in the twentieth, as the ordering principle for the world. He does not accept NATO's designation of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and Ukraine as future members of the alliance-hence his limited military invasion of Georgia and his establishment of a de facto Russian protectorate in the Donbass of eastern Ukraine, on Russia's border. He does not consent to American primacy in the Middle East-hence his military intervention in Syria's civil war to prop up the Assad regime, a client of Moscow's since Soviet times. In both cases, Putin is essentially saying that if Mother Russia herself cannot dominate the world, then the world should be multipolar. This attitude may be understandably irksome to the West, and to America particularly, but the leaders of China and Iran are similarly unaccepting-and for that matter, Turkey, India, Brazil, and others are not favorably disposed towards an America-centric order for the twenty-first century. At a greater volume, in a more strident manner, Putin is expressing a shared perspective.

Putin's staunch assertion of Russia's interests generally wins favor with ordinary Russians. Yeltsin grumbled about NATO but failed to halt its expansion during his rule, and he failed as well to keep NATO from bombing Serbia, Russia's traditional ally in the Balkans. But that does not mean that the era of Putin will be everlasting in Russia. Paired with Russia's tradition of autocracy is a tradition of upheaval. Ancient Muscovy was rent asunder by an anarchic Time of Troubles following the reign of Ivan the Terrible. During Catherine the Great's rule, social discontents coalesced into the Pugachev Rebellion in the region of the Don Cossacks. Czar Nicholas II was forced by the people to abdicate the throne for disastrously leading Russia into the First World War.

Putin likewise is not immune to disturbances welling up from below. He rid Russia of despised Yeltsin-era oligarchs but has created, in effect, a new class of barons, bound to him. He is widely believed by his people to have enriched his circle with the bounties of Russia's natural resources economy. Here is dry tinder for discontent. In March, the country's leading anticorruption investigator, Alexei Navalny, released a fifty-minute video displaying and documenting a bounty of assets, including a Tuscan winery and villa, said to belong to the country's prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, a Putin protégé. In just three weeks, the video, narrated in Russian with English subtitles, received more than ten million views on YouTube. Tens of thousands of Russians in over eighty cities, many of them young people, participated in protest rallies called for by Navalny.

Because Russia has failed, yet again, to develop genuine democratic institutions, there is little scope for change short of another upheaval, a popular demand for a change of regime. Putin's critics in Moscow tend to see CNN's "most powerful man in the world," not as feeling safe in his protracted rule, but as increasingly fearful of a popular uprising. They know their Russian history, how change can come like a thunderclap, and they may be right.

Russia versus China

Putin is not a superman and present-day Russia is not a superpower, even though Russia retains a nuclear arsenal that is at rough parity with America's. For one thing, Russia lacks economic heft and dynamism, vital components of true geopolitical might.

Consider a comparison with China. China is a colossus, an $11.4 trillion economy, second in the world behind the United States, with Russia, a relative pygmy, at $1.3 trillion, in twelfth place, sandwiched between South Korea and Australia. China has a population of some 1.3 billion, Russia some 145 million, and yet China has been able to amass wealth for its people at a much faster pace. Twenty-five years have passed since the establishment of the Russian Federation. In every one of those years, except one, in 2000, the rate of growth in China's economy has exceeded Russia's. In nine of these years, Russia's economy has contracted; not once for China.

Back in 1990, China accounted for a scant 3 percent slice of global manufacturing; today, the share is 25 percent. Russia, though, has not managed to shift away from a boom-and-bust economy that is heavily dependent on the extraction of natural resources like oil and gas, diamonds and nickel. It sits at the global top with Saudi Arabia as a producer and exporter of hydrocarbons, with Europe dependent on Russia for about a third of its gas supplies, but as the example of Saudi Arabia suggests, petro-powers do not get to rule the world. The Kremlin realizes this, but its top-down ("strong state") efforts to develop a hub of high-technology industry have fallen flat as ambitious and talented Russians tend to view places like Silicon Valley and Tel Aviv as more hospitable to their entrepreneurial dreams. Since the start of the Putin era, some 1.5 to 1.8 million Russians have emigrated from Russia, a brain drain of the highly skilled and the well educated. There is no Russian-manufactured product that has global cachet except maybe the Kalashnikov.

China attracted a spectacular $500 billion in direct foreign investment in the quarter century following its launch of market reforms, under Deng Xiaoping. Last year, the Chinese yuan, not the Russian ruble, joined the U.S. dollar, the euro, the yen, and the British pound in the IMF's elite basket of reserve currencies, from which member countries can draw loans. The Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges are both in the top five of global exchanges in the amount of capital raised; the Moscow exchange is a bit player. And foreign investors remain reluctant to commit large sums of capital to Russia except in the largely state-controlled oil-and-gas sector.

If these trends persist, Russia's economy could become a satellite of a Eurasian economic order centered on China, with Russia's main role to send oil and gas to China via a network of pipelines now being expanded. Already, the sparsely populated Russian far east is being colonized, de facto, by migrants from overcrowded China in search of potable water, arable land, and export-import business opportunities. Portions of this territory once belonged to China, but pre-Soviet czarist Russia, then the stronger and more vibrant force, took the land for itself. Now the tide of history runs in reverse, with Russia the diminished presence.

Soft Power

Today's Russia is not a superpower because it lacks economic bulk and vitality-and also because it is wanting in what the political scientists call soft power, a magnetism based on a culture, a way of life, that others find worthy of emulation. Here a comparison with the Russian Federation's predecessor, the Soviet Union, is instructive. It may seem impossible to recall, but the USSR once did exert a kind of global tropism, a serious challenge to the allure of the West. And the mystique of the multinational Soviet Union was tied specifically to Russia-which gave birth to the Soviet model with the Russian Revolution of October 1917.

The Revolution made Russia a lodestar for disaffected intellectuals in places like Paris and New York and for ordinary people across Africa, Asia, and South America, which the imperialist West had colonized, the riches carted away to the metropoles. From his home in Greenwich Village, Harvard graduate John Reed, a journalist and social activist, set sail across the Atlantic, bound for Petrograd to report that "great Russia was in travail, bearing a new world," as he later wrote in Ten Days That Shook the World. Reed was exhilarated to find that, in this cosmic genesis, "Old Russia was no more; human society flowed molten in primal heat, and from the tossing sea of flame was emerging the class struggle, stark and pitiless-and the fragile, slowly-cooling crusts of new planets." In this worshipful treatment, the Russian worker became the icon around which all workers of the world might finally unite against the decadent, doomed capitalism of the West. And some workers and peasants did. With the Russian example in mind, Mao Zedong was made chairman of the new Soviet Republic of China, in 1931.

Even in the early 1950s, with Lenin long dead and Stalin nearly so, the "New Faith," as Czeslaw Milosz branded the Soviet ideology in his book, The Captive Mind , still managed to entice vulnerable intellectuals. "The New Faith is a Russian creation," Milosz, who by then had defected to the West from his posting in the Moscow-dominated Polish government, stressed. And in this ordering of the galaxy, "the Center" was Moscow. In time, and all over the world, all peoples will speak "the one universal tongue, Russian," as Milosz characterized the Soviet Russian ideal. "Everything will be shaped by the Center, though individual countries will retain a few local ornaments in the way of folklore."

But as became clear only later, Russian soft power had peaked. Stalin's crimes were revealed by his successors; Russian dissidents like Alexander Solzhenitsyn spread word of the lies at the core of the New Faith. There was to be no "new world" modeled on Russia, no homage paid to Moscow as the center of the world. It was a fantasy. And when the bankrupt Soviet Union finally collapsed, Russian-language textbooks got tossed out the window from Tallinn to Tashkent.

It is this hollow legacy that post-Soviet Russia inherited. The one thing that Russia can never lose is its Russianness. Putin's Russia is trying to stitch together, maybe, a replacement model by which Russia might once again win global favor. The idea seems to be that the rich countries of the West are rotten and soulless, in thrall to civilization-killing ideas. Traditional Judeo-Christian values need to fill a secular vacuum that leaves the West prey to Islamic infiltration. Russia can wage this culture war and win it by rallying the Marine Le Pens of the West around this banner. So ideologists in Moscow would have it. It is this model, hitched to Russia's naturally authoritarian bent, that so worries folks in Washington like Rep. Schiff of California.

Some degree of worry is understandable. Putin has rehabilitated figures like the Russian aristocrat and Orthodox "religious philosopher" Ivan Ilyin, deported by the Soviet Union in the early 1920s as an enemy of Bolshevism. Ilyin believed that Russia was naturally both Orthodox and authoritarian-and had a destiny apart from the West. So, too, Putin encourages Russians to pursue an Orthodox education to give fresh spiritual life to the nation. Friends like the filmmaker Nikita Mikhalkov have promoted a kind of pan-Slavism, with Mikhalkov, on a visit to Serbia, warning of a "war against Orthodoxy."

At the same time, what most stands out in Ilyin's thinking, and in Putin's homage to the philosopher, is the need for Russia to be on guard against a predatory West that bears Russia ill will. Today's Russia is as busy trying to defend its values as it is seeking to export them. As much as anything, Putin invokes thinkers like Ilyin to justify his own iron rule, as part of a Russian continuum. He has warned his countrymen to be on guard against a "fifth column" implanted in Russia by Western politicians, "hoping to put us in a worsening social and economic situation so as to provoke public discontent."

In truth, the "new" model is a variation on an old model, fashioned in the time before the Revolution. Dostoevsky, in the nineteenth century, offered the example of Orthodox Russia as a cleansing agent for the decadent secularizing West. In its way as grandiose as the New Faith, the idea was that Russia and only Russia could save Christianity. Russia, with the fall of Constantinople, was to be a "Third Rome," a Russian monk proclaimed early in the sixteenth century.

But Russia has never been seen in the West as a Third Rome. Russia's history in the main is as an importer of ideas from the West. Even Marxism was an import. And while Putin's Kremlin has made a marriage of convenience with the Russian Orthodox Church, Russians are not untouched by the secularizing currents of Europe. There is no groundswell of religious fervor in Russia apt to inspire the Danes and Dutch, the French and Germans, to repopulate their empty cathedrals. Although a growing share of Russians identify as Orthodox Christian, on the order of 70 percent, fewer than 10 percent of Russians attend church at least once a month.

The main new idea in post-Soviet Russia-more of a sentiment, really-is nationalism. In the Soviet Union and even in the Russian empire of the Czars, ethnic Russians constituted a minority of the population. Now, for the first time ever, they are a majority, of about 80 percent, and "Russia for Russians" is a popular domestic slogan. Russia's resurgent nationalism may find acceptance among European political figures seeking to rekindle nationalist sentiments in their own lands. "Crimea was Russian. It has always been Russian," France's Le Pen told a CNN interviewer earlier this year, in support of Russia's annexation of the peninsula. "I won't hide that, in a certain sense, I admire Vladimir Putin," she told a Russian newspaper in 2011. "He makes mistakes, but who doesn't? The situation in Russia is not easy." Her party, the National Front, received a $10 million loan from a Russian bank in 2014. In Italy, the Euroskeptic Lega Nord Party headed by Matteo Salvini is cultivating ties with United Russia, the ruling pro-Putin party in the Duma.

Still, there is little evidence of a new "Putin coalition" in Europe made up of little Putins. 1 Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party, actively promotes his support for LGBT rights and distances himself from Putin. And leaders of the populist right in Poland and the Baltic states are apt to view rising nationalism in Russia as a dire threat to the existence of their much smaller countries. Although a weakening of the European Union may work to Russia's benefit, the populist forces aligned against Brussels are rooted in long-simmering political, social, and economic discontents within European nations, with the various populist movements apt to persist even in the absence of a calculated effort by Russia to bolster them.

As a political force, nationalism tends not to attract but to repel. Russia's intensified "Russianness" is mostly experienced as off-putting by its neighbors and others around the world. A Pew Research Center "global attitudes" survey of forty nations in 2015, the most recent year for which data are available, found that a median of only 30 percent of them viewed Russia favorably. For Russia to have garnered an unfavorable rating of 80 percent in Poland was perhaps not surprising, given the history of conflict between the two nations, but in France the rating was 70 percent, and so too in Germany. America also has its global image problems, but nonetheless, in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and even the Middle East (by a narrow margin), the United States was viewed more positively than was Russia in the Pew survey.

Spoiler

Russia, then, at most a middling in its store of soft power, is not apt to win any "global war of ideas." Still, there does remain a way in which Russia can be said to exert a kind of sway, and that is in a role as a spoiler of the liberal Western order. The objective would be, not to nourish emulation of Russia, but to sow mayhem in the societies of the West and profit from the discord. A West that loses faith in itself, in its political, legal, and economic institutions-this is a West that Russia might subdue or at least escape from, to pursue its own schemes elsewhere.

Several aspects of a spoiler role suggest themselves. The first is in the dark art of propaganda. Putin's Kremlin, without doubt, believes that the media sphere, as it often called in Russia, is a battleground. What counts is not objective truth per se but the narrative that can be established, hard won in the way that territory can be seized in combat. The antagonists, in this mentality, are the Western-based global news media, and the Russian-based sources of information to the global public.

In its declassified paper, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," published in January, the U.S. intelligence community devoted seven of the twenty-two pages of text to Annex A, on how "Kremlin's TV Seeks to Influence Politics, Fuel Discontent in U.S." The object of analysis was "RT America TV, a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States." The annex originally was published after the 2012 election by a unit of the CIA

Every particular of Annex A can be stipulated. English-language RT America, a wing of the Kremlin-sponsored RT (or Russia Today) global television network, dwelled on issues like "U.S. election fraud" and the Occupy Wall Street movement, the latter depicted by the channel as a fight against "the ruling class" in a political system deemed to be "corrupt and dominated by corporations." America was said to be a "surveillance state" afflicted by police brutality.

The question is how much any of this matters. America's media hardly ignore these issues. Nor do European media. Occupy Wall Street, for example, gathered considerable coverage; in November, 2011, when New York City police, in riot gear, arrived in early-morning darkness to clear Zuccotti Park of its encampment, CNN was at the scene to capture the ensuing clash. If Americans worry about a "surveillance state" it is not least because the Washington Post and the Guardian together published sensational stories based on classified documents brought to them by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, a government contractor. The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement, focused on police brutality, was a significant story for U.S. broadcasting and print outlets. RT is a bit player on this landscape. According to Annex A, RT/RT America had about half a million Twitter followers, compared to nearly seven million for CNN/CNN International.

As is so often the case with Moscow, there is nothing new here. In the summer of 1963, John F. Kennedy's Washington also was exercised about the Kremlin's targeting of America's domestic troubles. "The Soviets have engaged in a veritable barrage of broadcasting to foreign audiences on the U.S. racial crisis," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research reported in a memo sent to Secretary of State Dean Rusk. "Recurrent themes in the Soviet treatment have been: that racism is inevitable in the capitalist system and can only be eradicated along with capitalism itself," the bureau related. The racial strife was real but capitalism managed to survive.

A more serious concern is the spoiler threat presented by Russia's invasions of America's cyberspace. Russia has a vibrant culture of hackers, many possessed of an anti-American animus, fanned by Putin's labeling of the United States as a global busybody. Undoubtedly some hackers have links to the Kremlin, and investigations underway in Washington of suspected Russian operations like the breach of the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee can be expected to find stronger proof of such actions. But here, too, perspective is useful. America is the world's ripest cyber-target, also a prime focus of the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the Iranians. In 2013, before the uproar over Russian hacking, the New York Times , based on a study by an American computer security firm, identified P.L.A. Unit 61398, a Shanghai-based wing of China's People's Liberation Army, as a major source of "attacks on American corporations, organizations, and government agencies" in cyberspace. "In the Cold War, we were focused every day on the nuclear command centers around Moscow," a senior U.S. defense official told the Times . "Today, it's fair to say that we worry as much about the computer servers in Shanghai." Russia is supposedly guilty of the hack of Yahoo, North Korea of the hack of Sony Pictures. Although the Kremlin appears to have a sharper focus on America's political system as a target, there is no unique cyber threat emanating from Moscow.

The larger point is that a spoiler role is by definition of limited impact. America's political and legal institutions, its economic arrangements, its social tensions-these are organic in nature, springing for better and worse from the history and culture of the country. The Russians are not apt to have more than a marginal influence on our sprawling society of 325 million people in any of its important features.

How to Deal with Russia

So this is Russia in the here and now: a country led by a corrupt autocrat but not, by historical standards, an especially ruthless one; a country with an unstable economy deriving much of its wealth from natural resources extraction; a country that is not particularly admired around the world but is increasingly nationalistic and aspiring to be a spoiler in the domestic affairs of America and other nations of the West.

How to deal with this Russia? It is tempting to lament that America and Russia are fated never to get along, to circle each other in grim wariness. The two countries, in their fundamental natures, are a study in antonyms, as suggested by Tocqueville nearly two centuries ago, in Democracy in America:

The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centers all the authority of society in a single arm. The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude.

Should Washington's investigators produce hard proof of a Kremlin effort to tilt the results of the 2016 presidential election, and especially if proof is found of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow's efforts to interfere in the election (a possibility the FBI is examining), then U.S.-Russia relations are apt to remain politically radioactive for a very long time. The likelihood is for a more punitive tack towards Russia, beyond the sanctions already in place for the annexation of Crimea and military support for the separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.

But in the absence of such findings, decision makers must try to put relations with Russia on a less contentious footing. The answer of how to deal with Russia, to start with, is with a sense of proportion. Washington does not have limitless diplomatic and strategic resources. Its most important bilateral relationship is with Beijing because China, not Russia, is the rising power of our times. A Chinese century, as an ordering principle for the world, is conceivable for the twenty-first century; a Russian century is not. The bilateral relationships with Japan and Germany, the world's third and fourth largest economies, after the United States and China, are (at least) on a par with the importance of the Russia relationship. Russia does not merit a consuming focus.

And in this respect, Americans should rigorously ask themselves, why is there such an obsession with Russia? It might be that we are looking, at least subconsciously, for a way to avoid addressing our own glaring deficiencies. We have manufactured our own debacles over the last fifteen or so years-and have not really fixed them. Against the advice of most of the world, we invaded a country, Iraq, that had not attacked us on 9/11, and instead of implanting a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, as promised, we sowed chaos and created a new generation of Islamic terrorists. At home, our political and financial elites produced the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, causing housing prices to collapse and crushing the retirement portfolios held by millions of ordinary investors. Russia had nothing to do with either calamity.

A second principle is pragmatism. Even a belligerent Kremlin is not necessarily beyond the pale of deal-making. In 1962, Nikita Khrushchev put nuclear missiles in Cuba; the following year, with the Cuban Missile Crisis behind them, the United States and the USSR, joined by the United Kingdom, signed in Moscow the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Richard Nixon, a Cold Warrior second to none, ushered in a period of détente during his presidency. Putin twice during his reign has agreed to pacts for the United States and Russia to limit their strategic nuclear arsenals. In 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, he acquiesced to the stationing of U.S. troops in former Soviet republics in Central Asia to participate in the campaign against the Taliban in neighboring Afghanistan. Eight years later, with that war still raging, he opened Russian airspace to Afghanistan-bound flights of U.S. troops and military hardware.

Tensions between the two powers rose in April after the U.S. military conducted a cruise missile strike against a Syrian airbase to deter the Assad regime's further use of chemical weapons against Syria's own people. The Kremlin denounced the attack, and it is conceivable that Syria could become the theater for an intensified competition between Russia and America. Still, Washington gave Moscow advance warning of the strike-and Russia apparently made no attempt to shoot down the missiles.

The most promising area for deal making between the U.S. and Russia remains the combating of Islamic militancy. This is the great shared interest between the two powers. America is threatened and so is Russia, its soft southern underbelly ripe for attack and insurrection along a long arc that stretches from former Soviet Central Asia on the doorstep of China to the Caucasus Mountains by the Black Sea. There are many opportunities, including greater sharing of intelligence on Islamic terror networks and coordination of military operations against ISIS and related actors in the Middle East. Consider a parallel to the Second World War. FDR knew that Stalin was an indiscriminate murderer of Soviet citizens, and yet he made a calculated decision to work with him to vanquish Hitler. "I bank on his realism," FDR told his personal physician. On this very same basis-realism-the leaders in Washington and Moscow of today ought to be able to find common cause in waging battle against Islamic radicalism.

Washington has made several mistakes in its handling of post-Soviet Russia and, unfortunately, they cannot be entirely corrected. The first mistake was to try to make a "new" Russia, freed of Communism, in the liberal, democratic image. As the experience under Yeltsin's rule showed, the experiment failed. There was no new Russia. The lesson from this episode still applies: resist the temptation to meddle in Russia's internal affairs. This is easier said than done-the lure is apt to be irresistible for more than a few U.S. Senators (and perhaps the White House) should anti-Putin demonstrations mount in intensity. But the Kremlin would be sure to make wily use of Washington's "intrusion," even of a rhetorical kind, to discredit the Putin opposition as an instrument of an American plot to weaken Russia.

Should we Americans hope for the toppling of Putin? In our hearts, yes, because he is stifling Russia's human potential and because even as his cronies enjoy their Tuscan villas and London flats he cynically caters to the paranoiac features of the Russian national character. In our heads, though, we must understand that a successor to Putin could be as autocratic and as jingoistic as he is. It can be remembered that Russia's revolutions tend not to end well.

Washington's second mistake after the Soviet Union's collapse was to try to exploit Moscow's momentary geopolitical weakness. It was at a triumphant Washington's urging that NATO, the quintessential Cold War institution, founded in 1949 to put into practice the doctrine of containment, expanded to the borders of the new Russian Federation. George Kennan, the principal author of containment, warned that NATO expansion would prove "a tragic mistake" for Western relations with Russia. "I think the Russians will react quite adversely and it will affect their policies," he said. He was right. But to dismantle the alliance now would be seen by Moscow, correctly, as appeasement. The wise strategy is simply to focus on strengthening NATO as it is, with no further expansion. European members can be pressed, as Washington is now pressing them, to pay more for NATO's upkeep.

One Cold War was enough. No pair of nations, even as different as America and Russia, is fated for permanent rivalry. The challenge for U.S. decision makers is to focus on the real possibilities for cooperation-and to resist the phobias that are inflaming our domestic politics and keeping us from seeing Russia clearly.

This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume I, Number 2 (Summer 2017): 151–65.


Note

1 In France's presidential election, held on May 7, Marine Le Pen received only 34 percent of the vote, to 66 percent for the more establishment candidate, Emmanuel Macron. Her lopsided defeat suggested that there was no wave of enthusiasm in Europe for candidates, like Le Pen, openly expressing admiration for Vladimir Putin. (Note added to online edition of this article after conclusion of 2017 French presidential elections.) Share this article:

About The Author Paul Starobin is a former Moscow bureau chief of Business Week and has written about Russia for the Atlantic and other publications. He is the author of Madness Rules the Hour: Charleston, 1860 and the Mania for War (PublicAffairs, 2017).

[Jul 01, 2017] MUST SEE video explains the entire 17 Intelligence Agencies Russian hacking lie

Highly recommended!
Political hacks picked up be Clinton stooges in intelligence agencies and guided by Clapper produced what was required on them...
Notable quotes:
"... Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's presidency, at the risk of war with Russia. ..."
"... It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed ..."
"... As a reminder as to how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike, who had to walk back their audit conclusions on the hacks. ..."
"... Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident" of Russian election meddling. ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | theduran.com

Yesterday The Duran reported that the New York Times was finally forced to admit that the "17 US intelligence agencies" narrative is completely made up fake news.

The "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative was the core foundation for which the entire Trump-Russia collusion/cooperation/connection was built upon.

Stefan Molyneux opens the below video with the song lyrics, "When the walls come crumbling down", as the political analyst comprehensively explains the bullsh**t lie Hillary Clinton and her mainstream media cronies feed the world so as to sabotage Trump's presidency, at the risk of war with Russia.

watch-v=6vvPx7AqDl8

It is a must watch, must share video which puts yet another US Deeep State lie to bed

As a reminder as to how stupid the "17 Intelligence Agencies" Russian hacking narrative The FBI did not even get access to the DNC servers. It relied upon data provided by private security firm CrowdStrike, who had to walk back their audit conclusions on the hacks.

Below is a complete list of the 16 intelligence agencies in the US Intelligence Community, headed by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), whose statutory leadership is exercised through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), who under the Obama White House was James R. Clapper making 17 total agencies.

Why the list?

Because we are certain that the Coast Guard Intelligence Agency, Marine Corps Intelligence Agency, and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency are authorities when it comes to US election hacking, and thus should be trusted when they sign off to being "highly confident" of Russian election meddling.

The 16 members of the IC are:
Agency/Office Parent Agency Federal Department Date est.
Defense Intelligence Agency none Defense 1961
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency none Defense 1996
National Reconnaissance Office none Defense 1961
National Security Agency none Defense 1952
Military Intelligence Corps United States Army Defense 1863
Office of Naval Intelligence United States Navy Defense 1882
Twenty-Fifth Air Force United States Air Force Defense 1948
Marine Corps Intelligence United States Marine Corps Defense 1939
Coast Guard Intelligence United States Coast Guard Homeland Security 1915
Office of Intelligence and Analysis none Homeland Security 2007
Central Intelligence Agency none Independent agency 1947
Bureau of Intelligence and Research none State 1945
Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence none Treasury 2004
Office of National Security Intelligence Drug Enforcement Administration Justice 2006
Intelligence Branch Federal Bureau of Investigation Justice 2005
Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence none Energy 1977

[Jul 01, 2017] Gaius Publius An Investigation in Search of a Crime by Gaius Publius

Notable quotes:
"... Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.) ..."
"... The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined. ..."
"... And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver. ..."
"... Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet. ..."
"... It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. ..."
"... No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats. ..."
"... as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism. ..."
"... One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that ..."
"... This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more. ..."
"... In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary: ..."
"... None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed. ..."
"... If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime. ..."
"... Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug). ..."
"... Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! ..."
"... This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely. ..."
"... How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she ..."
"... OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see. ..."
"... For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source. ..."
"... As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
...Gaius quotes Matt Taibbi's line of thought that the relentless Trump investigations will eventually turn up something, most likely money laundering. However, it's not clear that that can be pinned on Trump. For real estate transactions, it is the bank, not the property owner, that is responsible for anti-money-laundering checks. So unless Trump was accepting cash or other payment outside the banking system, it's going to be hard to make that stick. The one area where he could be vulnerable is his casinos. However, if I read this history of his casinos correctly, Trump could have been pretty much out of that business since 1995 via putting the casinos in a public entity (although he could have continued to collect fees as a manager). Wikipedia hedges its bets and says Trump has been out of the picture since at least 2011 . He only gets licensing fees and has nada to do with management and operations. So even if Trump got dirty money, and in particular dirty Russian money, it's hard to see how that begins to translate into influence over his Presidency, particularly since any such shady activity took place before Trump was even semi-seriously considering a Presidential bid.

By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

http://player.theplatform.com/p/7wvmTC/MSNBCEmbeddedOffSite?guid=n_hayes_drussiafakenews_170627

Start at 2:25. Chris Hayes to Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" Note Swalwell's carefully phrased non-answers, as well as Hayes' seeming failure to know that not registering is a very common practice. (If video doesn't play in your browser, go here and listen, again starting at 2:25.)

"And most pitiful of all that I heard was the voice of the daughter of Priam, of Cassandra" - Homer, The Odyssey , Book 11 PRIAM: What noise, what shriek is this?
TROILUS: 'Tis our mad sister; I do know her voice.
It is Cassandra.
-Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida , Act II, scene 2 "I'll be your Cassandra this week." -Yours truly

So much of this story is hidden from view, and so much of the past has to be erased to conform to what's presently painted as true.

Example of the latter: Did you remember that Robert Mueller and Bush's FBI were behind the highly suspicious (and likely covered-up) 2001 anthrax investigation - Robert Mueller, today's man of absolute integrity? Did you remember that James Comey was the man behind the destruction of the mind of Jose Padilla , just so that Bush could have a terrorist he could point to having caught - James Comey, today's man of doing always what's right? If you forgot all that in the rush to canonize them, don't count on the media to remind you - they have another purpose .

Yes, I'll be your Cassandra this week, the one destined not to be believed . To what do I refer? Read on.

How Many Foreign Agents Register as Foreign Agents? A Number Far Smaller Than "All"

Today let's look at one of the original sins pointed to by those trying to take down Trump, leaving entirely aside whether Trump needs taking down (which he does). That sin - Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort's failing to register as "foreign agents" (of Turkey and Ukraine, respectively, not Russia) until very after the fact.

See the Chris Hayes video at the top for Hayes' question to Rep. Eric Swalwell about that. Hayes to Swalwell: "How long are you allowed to go before you retroactively file as a foreign agent?" What Swalwell should have answered: "Almost forever by modern American practice."

Jonathan Marshall, writing at investigative journalist Robert Parry's Consortium News, has this to say about the current crop of unregistered foreign agents (my emphasis throughout):

The Open Secret of Foreign Lobbying

The alleged hacking of the Hillary Clinton campaign's emails and the numerous contacts of Donald Trump's circle with Russian officials, oligarchs and mobsters have triggered any number of investigations into Moscow's alleged efforts to influence the 2016 election and the new administration .

In contrast, as journalist Robert Parry recently noted , American politicians and the media have been notably silent about other examples of foreign interference in U.S. national politics. In part that's because supporters of more successful foreign pressure groups have enough clout to downplay or deny their very existence . In part it's also because America's political system is so riddled with big money that jaded insiders rarely question the status quo of influence peddling by other nations .

The subject of his discussion is the 1938 Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Under the Act, failure to properly register carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and $10,000 in fines. Marshall notes that while the influence of foreign agents was of great national concern during World War I and World War II, very little is done today to require or enforce FARA registration:

Since the end of World War II, however, enforcement of the Foreign Agents Registration Act has been notably lax. Its effectiveness has been stymied by political resistance from lobby supporters as well as by the law's many loopholes - including Justice Department's admission that FARA "does not authorize the government to inspect records of those not registered under the Act."

A 2016 audit by the inspector general of the Department of Justice determined that half of FARA registrations and 62 percent of initial registrations were filed late , and 15 percent of registrants simply stopped filing for periods of six months or more. It also determined that the Department of Justice brought only seven criminal cases under FARA from 1966 to 2015, and filed no civil injunctions since 1991 .

The result - almost no one registers who doesn't want to.

Here's Russia-savvy Matt Taibbi , who is looking at the whole Russia-Trump investigation and wonders what's being investigated. Note his comments about FARA at the end of this quote:

When James Comey was fired I didn't know what to think, because so much of this story is still hidden from view .

Certainly firing an FBI director who has announced the existence of an investigation targeting your campaign is going to be improper in almost every case. And in his post-firing rants about tapes and loyalty, President Trump validated every criticism of him as an impetuous, unstable, unfit executive who additionally is ignorant of the law and lunges for authoritarian solutions in a crisis.

But it's our job in the media to be bothered by little details, and the strange timeline of the Trump-Russia investigation qualifies as a conspicuous loose end.

[So] What exactly is the FBI investigating? Why was it kept secret from other intelligence chiefs, if that's what happened? That matters, if we're trying to gauge what happened last week.

Is it a FARA (Foreign Agent Registration Act) case involving former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn or a lower-level knucklehead like Carter Page?

Since FARA is violated more or less daily in Washington and largely ignored by authorities unless it involves someone without political connections (an awful lot of important people in Washington who appear to be making fortunes lobbying for foreign countries are merely engaged in "litigation support," if you ask them), it would be somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis.

Is it something more serious than a FARA case, like money-laundering for instance, involving someone higher up in the Trump campaign? That would indeed be disturbing, and it would surely be improper – possibly even impeachable, depending upon what exactly happened behind the scenes – for Trump to get in the way of such a case playing itself out.

But even a case like that would be very different from espionage and treason . Gutting a money-laundering case involving a campaign staffer would be more like garden-variety corruption than the cloak-and-dagger nightmares currently consuming the popular imagination.

Sticking narrowly with FARA for the moment, if this were just a FARA case, it would be more than "somewhat anticlimactic to find out that this was the alleged crime underlying our current white-hot constitutional crisis." It would be, not to put to fine a point on it, highly indicative that something else is going on, that other hands are involved, just as the highly suspicious circumstances around the takedown of Eliot Spitzer indicate the presence of other hands and other actors.

My best guess, for what it's worth, is that Trump-Russia will devolve into a money-laundering case, and if it does, Trump will likely survive it, since so many others in the big money world do the same thing. But let's stick with unregistered foreign agents a bit longer.

John McCain, Randy Scheuneman and the Nation of Georgia

Do you remember the 2008 story about McCain advisor Randy Scheunemann, who claimed he no longer represented the nation of Georgia while advising the McCain campaign, even though his small (two-person) firm still retained their business?

And all this while McCain himself was trying to gin up a war between Georgia and Russia that he would benefit from politically :

In the current [2008] crisis, President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia fell into a Soviet trap by moving troops into the disputed territory of South Ossetia and raining artillery and rocket fire on the South Ossetian capital city of Tskhinvali, with a still undetermined loss of civilian life. As in 1956, the Soviets responded with overwhelming force and additional loss of life. Once again the United States could offer only words, not concrete aid to the Georgians.

It is difficult to believe that, like the Hungarians in 1956, the Georgians in 2008 could have taken such action without believing that they could expect support from the United States . Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice denies that the Bush administration was the agent provocateur in Georgia. To the contrary, a State Department source said that she explicitly warned President Saakashvili in July to avoid provoking Russia.

If this information is correct, then, by inference, John McCain emerges as the most likely suspect as agent provocateur . First, McCain had a unique and privileged pipeline to President Saakashvili (shown to the right in the photo to the right). McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, was a partner in a two-man firm that served as a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government . Scheunemann continued receiving compensation from the firm until the McCain campaign imposed new restrictions on lobbyists in mid-May. Scheunemann reportedly helped arrange a telephone conversation between McCain and Saakashvili on April 17 of this year, while he was still being paid by Georgia...

McCain has benefited politically from the crisis in Georgia. McCain's swift and belligerent response to the Soviet actions in Georgia has bolstered his shaky standing with the right-wing of the Republican Party. McCain has also used the Georgian situation to assert his credentials as the hardened warrior ready to do battle against a resurgent Russia. He has pointedly contrasted his foreign policy experience with that of his Democratic opponent Barack Obama. Since the crisis erupted, McCain has focused like a laser on Georgia, to great effect . According to a Quinnipiac University National Poll released on August 19 he has gained four points on Obama since their last poll in mid-July and leads his rival by a two to one margin as the candidate best qualified to deal with Russia.

Was Scheunemann a paid lobbyist for Georgia at the time of these events? He says no. Others aren't so sure :

Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a liberal-leaning watchdog group, said Scheunemann still has a conflict of interest because his small firm continues to represent foreign clients. The records that show Scheunemann ceased representing foreign countries as of March 1 also show his partner, Michael Mitchell, remains registered to represent the three nations. Mitchell said Tuesday that Scheunemann no longer has any role with Orion Strategies but declined to say whether Scheunemann still is receiving income or profits from the firm .

If almost no one registers under FARA who doesn't want to, what's the crime if Flynn didn't register? The answer seems to be, because he's Trump appointee Michael Flynn, and FARA is a stick his enemies can beat him with, while they're looking for something better.

The fact that FARA is a stick almost no one is beaten with, matters not at all, it seems. Not to Democratic politicians and appointees; and not to many journalists either.

An Investigation in Search of a Crime

Questioning the Michael Flynn investigation leads us (and Matt Taibbi) down a further rabbit hole, which includes two questions: what's being investigated, and how did this investigation start?

Short answer to the first question - no one knows, since unlike the Watergate break-in, this whole effort didn't start with a crime that needed investigating. It seems to have started with an investigation (how to get rid of Trump) in search of a crime. And one that still hasn't found evidence of one.

Journalist Robert Parry, who himself was a key Iran-Contra investigator, makes the same point :

In Watergate , five burglars were caught inside the DNC offices on June 17, 1972, as they sought to plant more bugs on Democratic phones. (An earlier break-in in May had installed two bugs, but one didn't work.) Nixon then proceeded to mount a cover-up of his 1972 campaign's role in funding the break-in and other abuses of power.

In Iran-Contra , Reagan secretly authorized weapons sales to Iran, which was then designated a terrorist state, without informing Congress, a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. He also kept Congress in the dark about his belated signing of a related intelligence "finding." And the creation of slush funds to finance the Nicaraguan Contras represented an evasion of the U.S. Constitution.

There was also the attendant Iran-Contra cover-up mounted both by the Reagan White House and later the George H.W. Bush White House, which culminated in Bush's Christmas Eve 1992 pardons of six Iran-Contra defendants as special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh was zeroing in on possible indictment of Bush for withholding evidence.

By contrast , Russia-gate has been a "scandal" in search of a specific crime. President Barack Obama's intelligence chieftains have alleged – without presenting any clear evidence – that the Russian government hacked into the emails of the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta and released those emails via WikiLeaks and other Internet sites. (The Russians and WikiLeaks have both denied the accusations.)

The DNC emails revealed that senior Democrats did not maintain their required independence regarding the primaries by seeking to hurt Sen. Bernie Sanders and help Clinton. The Podesta emails pulled back the curtain on Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street banks and on pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation.

Hacking into personal computers is a crime, but the U.S. government has yet to bring any formal charges against specific individuals supposedly responsible for the hacking of the Democratic emails. There also has been no evidence that Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russians in the hacking.

Lacking any precise evidence of this cyber-crime or of a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, Obama's Justice Department holdovers and now special prosecutor Robert Mueller have sought to build "process crimes," around false statements to investigators and possible obstruction of justice.

I've yet to see actual evidence of an underlying crime - lots of smoke, which is fine as a starting point, but no fire, even after months of looking (and months of official leaking about every damning thing in sight). This makes the current investigation strongly reminiscent of the Whitewater investigation, another case of Alice (sorry, Ken Starr) jumping into every hole she could find looking for a route to Wonderland. Ken Starr finally found one, perjury about a blow job. Will Mueller find something more incriminating? He's still looking too.

Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)

What Was the Sally Yates Accusation Against Flynn Really About?

Short answer to the second question of my two "further rabbit hole" questions - How did this investigation start? - may be the Sally Yates accusation that Flynn was someone who could be blackmailed.

Here's Parry on that (same link):

In the case of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's first national security adviser, acting Attorney General Sally Yates used the archaic Logan Act of 1799 to create a predicate for the FBI to interrogate Flynn about a Dec. 29, 2016 conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, i.e., after Trump's election but before the Inauguration .

Green Party leader Jill Stein and retired Lt. General Michael Flynn attending a dinner marking the RT network's 10-year anniversary in Moscow, December 2015, sitting at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Logan Act, which has never resulted in a prosecution in 218 years , was enacted during the period of the Alien and Sedition Acts to bar private citizens from negotiating on their own with foreign governments. It was never intended to apply to a national security adviser of an elected President, albeit before he was sworn in.

But it became the predicate for the FBI interrogation - and the FBI agents were armed with a transcript of the intercepted Kislyak-Flynn phone call so they could catch Flynn on any gaps in his recollection, which might have been made even hazier because he was on vacation in the Dominican Republic when Kislyak called.

Yates also concocted a bizarre argument that the discrepancies between Flynn's account of the call and the transcript left him open to Russian blackmail although how that would work – since the Russians surely assumed that Kislyak's calls would be monitored by U.S. intelligence and thus offered them no leverage with Flynn – was never explained.

Still, Flynn's failure to recount the phone call precisely and the controversy stirred up around it became the basis for an obstruction of justice investigation of Flynn and led to President Trump's firing Flynn on Feb. 13.

Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of . It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters.

"So Much of the Story Is Still Hidden From View"

I'm not taking Robert Parry as the final word on this, but he's one word on this, and his word isn't nothing. If we were looking down rabbit holes for the source of this investigation, for where all this anti-Trump action started, I don't think Yates' concerns are where it begins.

I think this story starts well before Trump took office , a rabbit hole I don't want to jump into yet, but one with John Brennan 's and James Clapper 's fingerprints - Obama's CIA director, Obama's DNI - all over it. Models of honesty all.

What's down that hole? Who knows.

What I do know is that Manafort and Flynn not registering as foreign agents puts them squarely in the mainstream of Washington political practice. The fact that these are suddenly crimes of the century makes me just a tad suspicious that, in Matt Taibbi's words, "so much of this story is still hidden from view."

I warned you - I'll be your Cassandra this week. crime

TomDority , June 30, 2017 at 6:50 am

I would think that a crime in search of an investigation would be Clinton's private server while at state and, the tie in thru the Clinton foundation .just saying.

The big story is that these chicken-little stories all seam to serve as cover for the bought-and-paid for chicken little politicians ..while those elected politicians who give a damp about their office and those they represent are sidelined.

Ed , June 30, 2017 at 9:04 am

While some might think there is some tie in with donations to the Clinton Foundation and favors granted by the political wing of the Clinton Conglomerate and the sudden dissolution of said donations after the toppling of Dame Clinton by Der Trumpf it appears all such talk originates in the fever swamp of the right wing echo chamber and it's shot caller the GRU.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:27 pm

Oh, what a load of bullcrap!

Present us evidence that the GRU has any influence, much less is the "shot-caller" with respect to the "right-wing echo chamber".

And why do you thing tyrants, despots, emirs and dictators generously donated so much to the phoney Foundation? Because they wanted to further its good works, just like the Saudis are very worried about AIDS prevention? No, they wanted to buy influence. And Clinton gave them what they wanted. And why did these same tyrants, despots, emits and dictators stop donating once Clinton lost? Because she could no longer deliver.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:12 pm

I cannot tell if Ed's comment is straight or satire or snarcasm or what. The internet is a poor place to try such things.

I am going to take it as a straight comment. The Clintons have been grooming Chelsea for public office and will try desperately to get her elected to something somewhere. That way, they will still have influence to peddle and their Family of Foundations will still be worth something.

I hope Chelsea's wanna-have political career is strangled in the cradle. And hosed down with napalm and incinerated down to some windblown ashes.

Thor's Hammer , June 30, 2017 at 9:35 am

That investigation has been firmly crammed down the rabbit hole and cemented over.

If it had taken place in a nation where laws meant anything it would have likely disclosed:

  • Clinton set up a private computer server center to control the information about her background, financial dealings, and political arrangements while serving as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
  • Obama was aware of the arrangement
  • Clinton transferred classified and top secrete documents to her private server. This is by definition theft.
  • Clinton defied subpoenas, refused to turn over documents, and destroyed evidence. This is by definition obstruction of justice.
  • In spite of being informed that the server was not secure, Clinton placed classified and sensitive national security information on the server. This is equivalent to printing the same documents on paper and walking through Central Park throwing them at the squirrels. And it fits the legal definition of treason.
  • Failure to prosecute Clinton is graphic proof that the US is not a nation of laws, but rather one where power, bribes and influence peddling determine who the law applies to.
Disturbed Voter , June 30, 2017 at 7:09 am

Corruption in high places is the norm. It is childish, all this virtue signaling. I would respect the sore losers more if they were honest they want to put Obama in as President for Life the US is Haiti now. Or the Kissinger faction of the MIC could install one of our TV generals as our version of Gen. Pinochet.

RenoDino , June 30, 2017 at 8:16 am

"None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of."

I guess this means, he needs to go, but not this way. This way is anti-democratic. But isn't that the point?

Carolinian , June 30, 2017 at 10:09 am

Did Obama "deserve getting rid of"? Oh heck yes. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Next chance: 2020.

Crazy Horse , June 30, 2017 at 12:57 pm

Since he won't be impeached, I assume Gaius meant Trump should be assassinated? In the USA every four years we have the opportunity to battle over the control of voting machine software, voter disqualification and hanging chads. But if we want to change Presidents in mid-stream the traditional method is to have them shot.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:15 pm

It was the filthy Clintonites who gave us Trump to begin with. Let Trump be smeared all over their face and shoved way deep up their noses till 2020. And if the Clintonite scum give us another Clintonite nominee in 2020, then let Trump be elected all over again. I'll vote for that.

Alice X , June 30, 2017 at 8:17 am

As regards the 2008 Georgian situation discussed here, Russia seems to have been referred to as Soviet . Twice. This happened for some years in the '90s but it is rather late to do so these days. Maybe I misunderstood something?

Vatch , June 30, 2017 at 9:50 am

You did not misunderstand; yes, the author of that article was sloppy. He was switching back and forth between events of 1956 and 2008, and he failed to adequately proofread what he wrote about 2008.

Skip in DC , June 30, 2017 at 8:39 am

Gaius offers a realistic and well-put caution for Democrats and journalists taking their eye off the ball of the Mnuchin crowd.

I've a good friend who's exasperated when I utter such blasphemies, asking how I could have missed the constant swell of opinion by Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, Joe Scarborough, Rachel Meadow, etc

When I reply that prospects outside the courts of comedians and MSNBC infotainment pundits goosing their base are different – and I'm not so sure I'd prefer a less crass and crazed President Pence armed with Trumpster strategies – I'm asked "But what about justice?!!!"

Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown.

No doubt plenty of insulating layers if money-laundering took place via real estate, though its worth plumbing those depths. But given Trump appointees' soft-ball approach to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, I'd guess that's an arena well worth the time of journalists, insulating layers or not. I recall Sheldon Adelson's disdain for the FCPA likely increasing his fervor to dump Democrats.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:30 pm

The right-on set ask "What about justice?"

Hell, let's see some evidence before we proceed to the sentence and verdict.

TheCatSaid , June 30, 2017 at 2:51 pm

And let's apply the justice to everyone , not just the "enemy camp" of whoever happens to be speaking.

And let's apply justice to those at the top first. Only after cleaning out all the top, most privileged layers, then the layers beneath them, should justice be applied to those at the bottom socio-economic layers. IOW, the opposite of the strategy we've seen applied over most of our history in many or most places.

DJG , June 30, 2017 at 9:18 am

Yves Smith: Thanks for this. Astute observations. And as I keep reminding people, you can turn on the spigot of MacCarthyism, and you may think that you can turn off that spigot, but you can't. In the case of Joe MacCarthy himself, it didn't truly end till about the time of his premature death from alcoholism.

Hence the observation above in the posting that the rightwingers will pull out the same techniques if a Democrat wins the next election.

One aspect of the now-thoroughly-rotten system in the U S of A is the constant contesting of election results. As Lambert Strether keeps writing, the electronic voting machines are a black hole, and both parties have been engaged in debasing the vote and diminishing the size of the electorate. The gravamen in both parties is that the voters don't know what they are doing and the ballots aren't being counted properly. Maybe we can do something about that

Crazy Horse , June 30, 2017 at 9:49 am

Perhaps we should look at the fairest electoral system in the world as a model. http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=8935

I'm sure readers will be shocked to learn that the electoral system referred to is that used in Venezuela in 2012. And it will be the rare person who can distinguish between a superior system for conducting an election and a result that they don't like.

Stephen Douglas , June 30, 2017 at 10:09 am

Do I need, Cassandra-like, to say this again? None of this means that Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of.

No. You didn't need to say it even once. Another interesting analysis utterly ruined by the writer's incessant feverish need to virtue signal himself as a Trump hater. Ugh!

You write an article chock-full of information clearly pointing to corruption, venality, un-democratic machinations, and still you feel the need to repeat over and over and over again that does not mean that you don't want to remove Trump. Remove him? Like how, Gaius? And why? Why not remove the people you write about in your article? Why not say 40 times you want to remove them. Undemocratically, of course. As you say in your article, be careful of how the talk about removing people one does not like.

You're a Cassandra alright. And methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Vatch , June 30, 2017 at 11:13 am

Here's another paragraph from the article:

Note that none of this means Trump doesn't deserve getting rid of. It just means that how he's gotten rid of matters. (As you ponder this, consider what you think would be fair to do to a Democratic president. I guarantee what happens to Trump will be repeated.)

This is an implicit warning about impeachment. I interpret this as a recommendation to vigorously oppose Trump's actions over the next three and a half years, and to effectively campaign against him in 2020. Trump really is a terrible President, but Mike Pence would be terrible, too. And so would Hillary Clinton, but I hope we won't have to worry about her any more.

In case you're wondering why I think that Trump is a terrible President, here's a short summary:

Scott Pruitt
Betsy DeVos
Jeff Sessions
Steven Mnuchin
Tom Price
Neil Gorsuch

There are other reasons, but that list should suffice for now.

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 11:10 am

None of the left-leaning writers who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation* have demonstrated a working knowledge of counterintelligence. I've also noticed that they correlate a lack of publicly-known evidence to an actual absence of evidence, which is the purview of the investigation. Investigators will be holding any evidence they discover close to their vests for obvious reasons, but even more so in this case because some of the evidence will have origins where sources and methods will statutorily need to be concealed.

Furthermore, many of these writers appear to be unfamiliar with the case law governing the major features of the case. Yes, money laundering may be a part of the case and a financial blog may emphasize that aspect of the case because that's what they're familiar with, but what we're fundamentally looking at is possible violations of the Espionage Act, as well as the obstruction of justice by certain players to hide their involvement. Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have. As much as I admire Gaius Publius and Matt Taibbi, and trust their reporting within their demonstrated and reliable competencies, neither have really written about intelligence activities in a thoroughgoing manner in order to be identified as journalists specializing in matters pertaining to intelligence, espionage, spies. Publius writes about political economy and Taibbi is as "Russia savvy" as your average Russian citizen; maybe less so. And being Russia savvy does not make you FSB savvy. Now if Sy Hersh wrote something about L'Affaire Russe, that would be worth seriously considering.

*I won't even address the seriousness or motives of the people on the right who have been pooh-poohing the Russia investigation. But it is curious for otherwise "GOP-savvy" lefties to align with people who spout Fox News talking points all the live long day, and who are wrong about everything, all the time, and not in a "broken clock tells correct time twice a day" sort of way.

lyman alpha blob , June 30, 2017 at 11:44 am

If they had anything concrete on Trump we've have heard about it by now. The spooks have been leaking for months – they aren't going to suddenly clam up if they've discovered something that's actually a crime.

Until someone presents actual evidence, this investigation is nothing more than Democrat payback for Benghazi, which itself was a BS investigation in search of a crime that went on for years. Unfortunately for sHillary, a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and they did manage to uncover actual criminality in her case (and brushed it right under the rug).

shinola , June 30, 2017 at 2:12 pm

Just what makes Putin "the enemy"? Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests! and in other news, the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:45 am

> Russia disseminates propaganda that (it hopes) will sway the American election in a direction more favorable to their interests!

This is what gets me. We're supposed to me a great power, and we're going nuts on this stuff. It's like an elephant panicking at the sight of a mouse. The political class has lost its grip entirely.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 30, 2017 at 2:15 pm

"but we've been hearing new evidence on a daily and weekly basis. Mueller isn't going to show his hand until the investigation has concluded,"

Ah we've been hearing new evidence, but Mueller is simultaneously keeping it secret wait did you mean we've heard new innuendos?

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 6:33 pm

Mostly it's been gumshoe reporters getting interviews. No need for inside sources for this story: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/republican-claimed-flynn-tie-clinton-emails-article-1.3289348

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:51 am

This is the story where the main source is dead?

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:49 am

> Putin must be delighted to have a vainglorious ignoramus presiding over a US government paralyzed by division

How sad, then, that the Pied Piper email showed that the Clinton campaign wanted Trump for their opponent. Or Was she Putin's stooge? Perhaps the server she left open to the world for three months with no password provided the Russkis with some kompromat ? Really, there's as much evidence for that theory as anything else

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:55 am

> so must also likewise concede that there may be more there than you suppose

So either there's something there or there isn't. That does seem to exhaust the possibilities. If only Maddow, the Clintonites, whichever factions in the intelligence community that are driving the "drip, drip, drip" of stories, the Jeff Bezos Shopper, cable, and all the access journalists writing it all up would take such a balanced perspective .

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:34 pm

OK, so you are saying that we should trust the word of anonymous leakers from the intelligence community, that is, anonymous leaks from a pack of proven perjurers, torturers, and entrapment artists, all on the basis of supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.

Because secret squirrel counterintelligence. Ah, now I get it.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 2:26 pm

We don't know who the leakers are. They're anonymous, but they willingly associate themselves with an intelligence community, the very organizations that commit perjury, that engage in torture, that do entrapment, all on a regular basis. Not to mention other crimes for which men have hung, such as gin up up evidence to drive this country towards aggressive war. So nothing to be suspicious of here.

These organizations have been leaking on a regular basis but they have not leaked evidence. That by itself is suspicious, since in a white collar crime case, a serial killer case, etc. we don't usually have a flood of anonymous leaks coming from supposed investigators.

Nor in a garden-variety criminal investigation do we have the suspect laid out in advance, and any leaks are intended to make the suspect guilty in the mind of the public, before charges or brought or a crime is determined.

ian , June 30, 2017 at 4:39 pm

For that matter, how do we know the leakers even exist? When some media outlet wants to publish some made-up story, they can just attribute it to an anonymous source.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:34 am

> name the leakers who have committed perjury, torture, and entrapment.

We can't. They're anonymous.

> Is everyone in the intelligence community a perjurer, a torturer, or engaged in entrapment?

No, just the leadership. Clapper (perjury), Mueller (entrapment), Brennan (torture). Those come to mind immediately; there are doubtless others.

WeakenedSquire , June 30, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Nope. Telling us prawns to wait until the evidence is in, or, worse, that only the specialists can be trusted, is one of the tactics of repression that the elite use while they are busy manufacturing and/or hiding said evidence. And surely by now we all know that "specialists" have no clothes.

different clue , June 30, 2017 at 9:21 pm

If you want serious analysis by seriously non-left people who have broken rocks in the quarry of intelligence, you can read Sic Semper Tyrannis. They have offered some hi-valu input on this whole "Putin diddit" deal.

They also offered some hi-valu input on the Hillary server matter. And Colonel Lang had a thing or three to say about the Clinton Family of Foundations . . . including a little-remarked-upon stealth-laundry-pipeline registered in Canada.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:35 am

Philip Giraldi at The American Conservative also does good work.

different clue , July 1, 2017 at 3:10 am

Philip Giraldi has also written guest-posts at Sic Semper Tyrannis from time to time. The name "Philip Giraldi' is one of the pickable subject-category names on the right side of the SST homepage.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:59 am

> Not a single one of these articles (or any of the cable news shows) have taken note of one of the juiciest and obscure pieces of evidence that's right there out in the open, if you'd been following this as closely as I have.

OK, what is it?

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 12:19 pm

An investigation seeking to find evidence that a pre-selected target has commited a crime is I believe called a "witch hunt".

Byron the Light Bulb , June 30, 2017 at 1:48 pm

Or, you know, probable cause to investigate based on very public admissions. Production before a grand jury is secret under penalty of criminal prosecution. Once probable cause is affirmed, then the indictments will be under seal for what could be some time. I think it's probable that there may already be indictments against some of the players. DJT may already be a John Doe. The Fed GJ's in DC are three months long, the current one wrapping up third week of August [a guess based on past experience as a 3rd party]. Expect movement early this fall.

Yves Smith Post author , June 30, 2017 at 4:27 pm

As Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz pointed out, the DOJ reports to the President. Trump was completely within his authority to give instructions to Comey and fire him. Dershowitz also points out Trump can pardon anyone, including himself. But Trump doesn't read and oddly no one seems to have clued him in on what Dershowitz has said.

Nixon was a completely different case. There had been an actual crime, a break in. Archibald Cox was an special prosecutor appointed by Congress. Firing him raised Constitutional issues.

Jay , June 30, 2017 at 6:43 pm

You mean this Alan Dershowitz? http://abovethelaw.com/2016/11/alan-dershowitz-thinks-black-lives-matter-is-anti-semitic-sticks-up-for-steve-bannon/

witters , June 30, 2017 at 8:47 pm

Yes. And?

Katje Borgesius , July 1, 2017 at 12:38 am

If you really want to go down the rabbit hole, read the complaint in "Kriss et al v. BayRock Group LLC et al" [ 1:10-cv-03959-LGS-DCF ] in NY Southern District. It's a RICO. It goes from the 46-story Trump SoHo condo-hotel on Spring Street to Iceland [?] and beyond. Then check out DJT's deposition in Trilogy Properties "LLC et al v. SB Hotel Associates LLC et al" [ 1:09cv21406 ] and his D&O doc production.

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

Yves Smith Post author , July 1, 2017 at 12:49 am

Help me. This is the best you can do?

I've said repeatedly that people should stop hyperventilating about Trump and Russia and if anything should be bothered that he was in business with a crook, as in Felix Sater. I was on this long ago. Sater is Brighton Beach mafia. That means Jewish mafia, BTW; he worked Jewish connections overseas. He's not connected to anyone of any importance in Russia. No one with any sophistication would do business with a felon who turned state's evidence. Means he can't be trusted (by upstanding people, because he's a crook, and by crooks, because he sang like a canary).

Oh, and the former employees lost that suit.

Lambert Strether , July 1, 2017 at 12:36 am

Or a fishing expedition.

sid_finster , June 30, 2017 at 2:28 pm

For "super secret" investigations, the investigators sure leak like sieves. I wonder why.

Lambert Strether , June 30, 2017 at 5:02 pm

On the latest one, " GOP Operative Sought Clinton Emails From Hackers, Implied a Connection to Flynn ," unlocked at the WSJ, the main source, long-time Republican oppo researcher Peter W. Smith, left the land of the living on May 14 of this year, at the age of 81. So, on the up side, we've finally got a source with a name. On the down side, he's dead. Do better!

[Jul 01, 2017] Deception Inside Deception The Alleged Sarin Gas Attack by Paul Craig Roberts

Jun 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

Seymour Hersh, America's most famous investigative reporter, has become persona non grata in the American Propaganda Ministry that poses as a news media but only serves to protect the US government's war lies. Among his many triumphs Hersh exposed the American My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Abu Ghraib torture prison run by the Americans in Iraq. Today his investigative reports have to be published in the London Review of Books or in the German Media.

From Hersh's latest investigative report, we learn that President Trump makes war decisions by watching staged propaganda on TV. The White Helmets, a propaganda organization for jihadists and the "Syrian opposition," found a gullible reception from the Western media for photographs and videos of alleged victims of a Syrian Army sarin gas attack on civilians in Khan Sheikhoun. Trump saw the photos on TV and despite being assured by US intelligence that there was no Syrian sarin gas attack, ordered the US military to strike a Syrian base with Tomahawk missiles. Under international law this strike was a war crime, and it was the first direct aggression against Syria by the US which previously committed aggression via proxies called "the Syrian opposition."

Reporting on his sources, Hersh writes: "In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4."

The belief that sarin gas was involved in the attack comes from what appears to be a gas cloud. Hersh was informed by US military experts that sarin is oderless and invisible and makes no cloud. What appears to have happened is that the explosion from the air attack on ISIS caused a series of secondary explosions that produced a toxic cloud formed by fertilizers and chlorine disinfectants that were stored in the building that was hit.

US officials spoke with Hersh, because they are distrubed that President Trump based a war decision on TV propaganda and refused to listen to the detailed counter-assessments of his intelligence and military services. A national security source told Hersh: "Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts. He doesn't read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He's a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: 'Do it."'

Concerns about Trump's purely emotional reaction to TV propaganda persist. Hersh reports that a senior national security adviser told him: "The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy" (the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America). The issue is, what if there's another false flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again, and harder. He's incapable of saying he made a mistake."

As we know, the White House has already released a statement predicting that Assad is preparing another chemical attack, for which, the White House promises, he will "pay a heavy price." Clearly, a false flag attack is on the way. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/06/30/washington-new-threat-against-syria-russia-iran-invitation-false-flag-operation.html

By all means, read Hersh's report: https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html It reveals a president who makes precipitious decisions likely to cause a war with Russia.

I do not doubt Sy Hersh's integrity. I accept that he has accurately reported what he was told by US officials. My suspicions about this story do not have to do with Hersh. They have to do with what Hersh was told.

Hersh's report puts Trump in a very bad light, and it puts the military/security complex, which we know has been trying to destroy Trump, in a very good light. Moreover, the story strikes me as inconsistent with the subsequent attack on the Syrian fighter-bomber by the US military. If the Tomahawk attack on the Syrian base was unjustified, what justified downing a Syrian war plane? Did Trump order this attack as well? If not, who did? Why?

If national security advisers gave Trump such excellent information about the alleged sarin gas attack, completely disproving any such attack, why was he given such bad advice about shooting down a Syrian war plane, or was it done outside of channels? The effect of the shootdown is to raise the chance of a confrontation with Russia, because Russia's response apparently has been to declare a no-fly zone over the area of Russian and Syrian operations.

How do we know that what Hersh was told was true? What if Trump was encouraged to order the Tomahawk strike as a way of interjecting the US directly into the conflict? Both the US and Israel have powerful reasons for wanting to overthrow Assad. However, ISIS, sent to do the job, has been defeated by Russia and Syria. Unless Washington can somehow get directly involved, the war is over.

The story Hersh was given also serves to damn Trump while absolving the intelligence services. Trump takes the hit for injecting the US directly into the conflict.

Hersh's story reads well, but it easily could be a false story planted on him. I am not saying that the story is false, but unless we learn more, it could be.

What we do know is that the story given to Hersh by national security officials is inconsistent with the June 26 White House announcement that the US has "identified potential preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime." The White House does not have the capability to conduct its own foreign intelligence gathering. The White House is informed by the national security and intelligence agencies.

In the story given to Hersh, these officials are emphatic that not only were chemical weapons removed from Syria, but also that Assad would not use them or be permitted by the Russians to use them even if he had them. Moreover, Hersh reports that he was told that Russia fully informed the US of the Syrian attack on ISIS in advance. The weapon was a guided bomb that Russia had suppied to Syria. Therefore, it could not have been a chemical weapon.

As US national security officials made it clear to Hersh that they do not believe Syria did or would use any chemical weapons, what is the source for the White House's announcement that preparations for another chemical attack by the Assad regime have been identified?

Who lined up UN ambassador Nikki Haley and the UK Defence Minister Michael Fallon to be ready with statements in support of the White House announcement? Haley says: "Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people." Fallon says: "we will support" future US action in response to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

How clear does an orchestration have to be before people are capable of recognizing the orchestration?

The intelligence agencies put out the story via Hersh that there were no chemical attacks, so what attacks is Niki Haley speaking about?

A reasonable conclusion is that Washington's plan to use ISIS to overthrow Syria and then start on Iran was derailed by Russian and Syrian military success against ISIS. The US then tried to partition Syria by occupying part of it, but were out-manuevered by the Russians and Syrians. This left direct US involvement as the only alternative to defeat. This direct US military involvement began with the US attack on the Syrian military base and was followed by shooting down a Syrian war plane. The next stage will be a US-staged false flag chemical attack or alleged chemical attack, and this false flag, as has already been announced, will be the excuse for larger scale US military action against Syria, which, unless the Russians abandon Syria, means conflict with Russia, Iran, and perhaps China.

http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-military-put-alert-washington-waiting-excuse-attack

[Jul 01, 2017] The dogs of war are still barking

Notable quotes:
"... Russia -- Syria's most powerful ally in the six-year conflict -- described the OPCW report as politically motivated and grounded in "doubtful data obtained from opposition" and "notorious NGOs like the White Helmets." Moscow also criticized the watchdog's methodology for gathering samples and eyewitness statements in a "neighboring country" and "not at the site of the tragedy." ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: michaelj72 | Jul 1, 2017 1:49:11 AM | 45

the dogs of war are barking

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/30/middleeast/syria-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-attack-sarin/index.html

International chemical weapons inspectors have confirmed that the nerve agent sarin was used in April's deadly chemical attack in Syria's Idlib province.

...The OPCW report comes the same week the White House issued a public warning that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would pay a "heavy price" for using chemical weapons.

....But Russia -- Syria's most powerful ally in the six-year conflict -- described the OPCW report as politically motivated and grounded in "doubtful data obtained from opposition" and "notorious NGOs like the White Helmets." Moscow also criticized the watchdog's methodology for gathering samples and eyewitness statements in a "neighboring country" and "not at the site of the tragedy."

[Jul 01, 2017] Potential conspirators of Russiagate are grilled by Try Gowdy

[Jul 01, 2017] Russia is uniquely hated, they get boutique articles to show that they are rotten to the core

Jul 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

@3, Chris Chuba

Russia is uniquely hated, they get boutique articles to show that they are rotten to the core.

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/seeing-russia-clearly/

Thank you for the link, enjoyed it thoroughly (I am not being facetious)--a great summary of the "intellectual" level of those who count themselves "elites" in the West. It is like, if to imagine, debating children.

Posted by: SmoothieX12 | Jun 30, 2017 3:39:29 PM | 13

hopehely | Jun 30, 2017 4:28:28 PM | 14
@Christian Chuba | Jun 30, 2017 2:28:05 PM | 3
For example, here is a very clever apology for how we justified not having the OPCW investigate Khan Shaykhun and the Syrian airbase

I guess by 'we' you refer to you Americans.

You obviously failed to notice that this is not an American blog, lot of us here are not US residents nor citizens, the host included. So lots of your assumptions how 'we' perceive the world affairs in general and Vladimir Putin in particular are basically wrong.

For example your offhand remark that we can debate Putinism, I find silly and a bit ignorant.

[Jul 01, 2017] Ukraine A New Plan by Hall Gardner

Some parts of US political elite is now really afraid of Russian China alliance forged by Clinton, Bush Ii and Obama adventurism. It might be too late.
Notable quotes:
"... In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany, George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past." 26 . ..."
"... In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash. 27 ..."
Jul 01, 2017 | americanaffairsjournal.org

The fighting in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine has moreover proved very costly for all sides, and rebuilding the region will prove very difficult. The specter of more intense fighting in the years ahead has been raised in the aftermath of Kiev's "creeping offensive" into the Donbass region since mid-December 2016. Kiev's military move was ostensibly intended to check supplies going to the Russian-backed autonomists (who in turn have begun to expropriate Ukrainian businesses in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions), but has nonetheless stepped deeper into the gray zone between the two sides. 6

A collapsed Donbass region that is potentially separated from a partitioned Ukraine could soon become a much larger and unstable version of Russian-backed Transnistria, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia combined. Such political and economic instability will continue to pollute the whole area with black marketeering, weapons smuggling, and other forms of criminality. A failed "state" in eastern Ukraine would not only prove very troublesome for an essentially bankrupt Kiev and the rest of the region, but for Moscow as well-as the latter, for example, will need to deal with refugees fleeing to Russia. Some 1.5 million people have already fled the country, with the vast majority (1.2 million) going to the Russian Federation-which has not necessarily accepted them with open arms. Roughly 150,000 have gone to Belarus.

7 The cost of reconstruction and development in the aftermath of the conflict will be considerable. So it should be in the common interest to bring this conflict to a close as soon as possible.

The Question of Western Europe

A general settlement between the United States, European countries, Ukraine, and Russia is crucial to prevent the further destabilization of eastern Europe that could, in turn, further antagonize western Europe. Such a destabilization would deepen the divisions between pro-NATO and pro-EU sociopolitical movements and anti-NATO and anti-EU movements on both the right and the left. In general, both left-wing and right-wing political parties in states closest to Russia (Poland, Finland, Sweden, and the Baltic states) tend to take a strong anti-Russian position, no matter whether they are for or against NATO or EU membership. But left-wing and right-wing parties in both France and Germany-the two countries that now form the core of the European Union after the UK's exit from the EU (Brexit)-tend to oppose both EU and NATO membership.

During the ongoing process of Brexit, which could take several years to complete, it is not at all clear where the European Union is heading. European financial instability means that a number of states could, in the not too distant future, opt to drop out of the European Union and even out of NATO. Here, for example, sanctions placed on Russia in the agricultural sector (coupled with a Russian ban on European imports) have ironically been hurting the Europeans much more than the Americans. The impact of EU and Russian sanctions, along with general impact of regional deindustrialization and delocalization, has been pressing agricultural producers and workers, as well as small business owners, to turn toward anti-EU anti-NATO parties on both the right and the left, particularly in France. 9

In Search of a U.S.-Russia Policy

In apparent contrast to Trump's campaign promises to forge a general rapprochement with Moscow, the United States and NATO are now backing Kiev's claims to eastern Ukraine and to the Crimea-while still keeping the door open to Kiev's membership in NATO. This policy has reversed Trump's stance during his presidential campaign, when he warned in August 2016 that U.S. efforts to regain Crimea on behalf of Ukraine against Russia could result in World War III.

On the one hand, in arguing against Trump's proclaimed efforts to make amends with Moscow, Senator John McCain and others have feared that U.S. secretary of state Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, could use his connections with Putin for the benefit of ExxonMobil. He might, they suggest, try to put an end to sanctions that had been placed by Washington on the Russian energy sector since July 2014. Eliminating sanctions would then safeguard ExxonMobil's considerable joint investment deals and potential profitability given the size of Russian reserves in the Arctic Kara Sea, western Siberia, Sakhalin island, and in the Black Sea that had been reached with Rosneft, the Russian government energy company, in 2012–13.11 The concern of those like McCain who want to sustain maximum political-economic pressure on Moscow, is that "sectoral sanctions" impacting major energy companies and banks are due to expire in December 2017-unless extended by Congress.12

On the other hand, Trump's "America First" policies are actually ideologically opposed to ExxonMobil's investments in Moscow. Trump's "economic nationalists" hope to return U.S. multinational corporate investments abroad back to the United States itself-while seeking to export U.S. shale oil and gas to Europe, for example. In effect, U.S. shale oil exporters hope to supply Poland, Ukraine, and other European countries so that these countries will be less dependent on Russian energy; Russia would have to lower prices to compete. Kiev, for example, is still dependent upon Moscow for about half of its natural gas needs.13 As opposed to the argument that the United States needs to sustain positive political and economic "linkage" with Moscow (as Henry Kissinger would argue), the United States could soon fully antagonize Moscow by becoming a direct rival for Russia's energy export markets-in a sector in which Moscow derives significant national revenues.14

The major dilemma lies in the fact that U.S. diplomacy under President Barack Obama did not go far enough to "reset" the general crisis in U.S.-Russian relations. Prior to Obama's first term, neither the United States nor the EU picked up and developed two significant proposals that might have prevented the escalation of tensions since 2014. The first proposal was Russian president Dmitri Medvedev's June 2008 call in Berlin for a new European security pact and the second was Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's call in Moscow for a new Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Pact in the aftermath of the August 2008 Georgia-Russia War. President Obama did try to reach out to Moscow once he came to power in January 2009, yet the fact that U.S.-Russia discussions did not address the issue of the uncoordinated NATO and EU "double enlargement" into the Russian-defined "near abroad" could only doom reset talks to failure.

Had the United States and EU reached out to address the issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus raised by both Russia and NATO-member Turkey, this crisis might not have escalated. Instead, the general attitude since the end of the Cold War was that NATO and the EU could somehow manage these regions without the involvement of Russia-in the false assumption that Russia would do nothing to defend its interests in its "near abroad." In effect, the general U.S. and EU attitude has been that there was no need to create a new, jointly managed, regional peace and development community under OSCE auspices that would incorporate the interests of Russia, Turkey, and other regional states.1

...the 2014 Minsk II accords between Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia (in which the United States is not a participant) were not designed to address the two elephants in the room: the questions concerning NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, plus Ukrainian demands for the return of Crimea from Russia. The focus of the Minsk discussions has been on the conflict in eastern Ukraine only-in which a total ceasefire, Ukrainian "decentralization," and direct negotiations between Kiev and the Donbass "autonomists" have been considered essential to success. Yet Kiev's promises of "decentralization" have not been constitutionally implemented and the March 2017 decision of the Ukrainian Poroshenko government to support the blockade on the Donbass region basically puts a dagger into the heart of the Minsk II accords.16 It now appears politically impossible for the government in Kiev to recognize the autonomist factions in the Donbass region, while Moscow has continued to supply autonomists with weaponry.

Given the gravity of the situation, the Minsk discussions over eastern Ukraine will soon need to be widened to include at least the United States and Turkey. This step would broaden the negotiations to include issues impacting the Black Sea and Caucasus regions, plus the Crimea. NATO-member Turkey-despite its deep domestic instability and President Erdogan's steps toward implementing an "illiberal democracy"-would need to play a key role. Given Turkey's central position in the Black Sea region, Ankara could potentially help to mediate between the United States and NATO, the EU, Ukraine, and Russia. Moscow is not the only "illiberal democracy" that Washington needs to talk to. Turkey must be included as well.17

...A general settlement with Moscow that results in Ukrainian neutrality, but allows self-defense forces and permits Moscow to retain sovereignty over Crimea, will not necessarily result in a full "capitulation"-even if Washington must lower its sights as to what can and cannot be negotiated in Moscow's view. Despite renewed conflict in eastern Ukraine since mid-December 2016, President Trump has promised to "work with Ukraine, Russia, and all other parties involved to help them restore peace along the (Russian-Ukrainian) border." 19 Yet Trump's promise to work for peace has not yet fully addressed the question of the Crimea. It has, however, been alleged that Trump officials may have been secretly attempting to make a deal with Moscow over Crimea and eastern Ukraine. That deal, somewhat like the negotiated settlement that George Kennan had sought in 1949, was leaked to the press, leading to allegations of Trump administration collusion with Moscow.

...

Even if the Minsk II accords collapse, or if the Donbass region separates from Ukraine in a future partition, the United States, Europeans, and Russia will need to find ways to limit the damage. The deployment of international peacekeepers in the Donbass region under a general OSCE mandate (going beyond OSCE observers) could help ameliorate the situation considerably, once a political settlement can be reached. At the same time, the United States, EU, Russia, and Ukraine would need to begin reconstruction efforts through the implementation of a regional peace and development community backed by U.S./NATO, EU, and Russian security supports under a general OSCE mandate.

Much like Kennan's "Plan A" with respect to Germany in 1949, a new approach to Euro-Atlantic security through engaged negotiations with Moscow would accordingly seek to establish Ukraine as a formally neutral state with limited self-defense capabilities. Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski have likewise called for establishing Ukraine as a formally neutral country that is not a member of NATO or the Russian-led CSTO. For his part, Kissinger has also argued that Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with the European Union. Yet full EU membership is not a viable option either, as even the EU association accords require that Kiev gradually adopt Common Security and Defense policies and European Defense Agency policies. The problem is that the EU Eastern Partnership program has not yet been able to develop a formula that can balance Russian security, defense, political-economic, financial, and energy interests with those of the post-Soviet eastern European countries and of the EU itself. It is therefore essential that the European Union begin to think more strategically, in cooperation with the United States, as the two coordinate their rapprochement with Moscow. 21

NATO efforts to deploy rotating forces in the Baltic states and Poland are, as noted earlier, being met by a buildup of Russian nuclear and conventional forces in northwest Russia and Kaliningrad, plus major military maneuvers planned for September 2017. Despite the fact that President Putin's proposal to restart military-to-military relations and to increase intelligence cooperation between the United States and NATO was rejected in mid-February 2017 by Trump's new defense secretary, James Mattis, a step-by-step normalization of U.S.-European-Russia relations should be considered. 22 This could be accomplished by means of setting up joint security exercises and overflights in the Baltic region and Kaliningrad, and in the Black Sea region, and in joint U.S., EU, and Russian peacekeeping operations in Donbass and the Caucasus under a general OSCE mandate, for example. The establishment of NATO-Russian confidence-building measures as soon as possible is absolutely crucial if peace is to be maintained.

Once there is progress in these areas, the United States and EU could then begin to lift sanctions on Russia, while also looking for ways to bring the United States, EU, and Russia into greater political-economic, financial, and energy cooperation. One possibility would be a three-way trade and financial commission between Ukraine, the European Union, and Russia. Another step would be to bring Moscow back into the G-8 discussions after Russian membership was suspended in March 2014. Both G-8 and EU-Russian-Ukrainian discussions could likewise lead the EU to work out a political-economic association accord that better balances Russian and Ukrainian financial, political-economic, energy, and ecological interests-after the EU's abysmal failure to do so in 2013–14.

After sanctions on Russia are put to an end, offering Russia American and European investment, as well as joint military and security cooperation, could help to draw Moscow away from too great a financial and economic dependence on Beijing. It could likewise prevent the formation of a closer Sino-Russian military alliance, somewhat reminiscent of the 1950s, but in which Russia plays a role as a junior partner. Such a strategy must not, however, alienate China, which is the main indirect beneficiary of U.S.-European-Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

The United States is no longer locked into an existential war with the Soviet Union, and it should cooperate with the Russian Federation in order to sustain peace in a number of key areas: Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program, Syria/Iraq, Islamic State, and North Korea. All these areas, among many others, need to be addressed as soon as possible through multiple forums, including the UN Security Council, the OSCE, the NATO-Russia Council, the G-8, and Contact Groups, as well as through international conferences and bilateral U.S.-Russia, U.S.-China meetings. The United States, Europeans, Japan, and Russia will also need to channel China's rise to major power status in such a way that it does not harm Russian, Japanese, or American interests.

The dilemma is that it is the rise of China with its burgeoning global political-economic influence and increasingly powerful military capabilities-combined with a close alignment with Russia as a junior partner-that now represents the primary concern causing tremors in the United States and throughout the world. Washington will need to fully engage in both bilateral and multilateral negotiations with both Beijing and Moscow if the global system is not to soon polarize into two contending alliance systems: a U.S./NATO-EU-Japanese alliance of essentially democratic states vs. a Russia/CSTO-Chinese-Iranian alliance of "illiberal democracies"-with democratic India soon forced to choose sides. 23

... ... ...

The danger is that U.S. domestic pressure to prevent the Trump administration from engaging in more substantial negotiations with Putin could lead to an even deeper crisis. The Russian Federation sees itself as being walled off in Europe, with its "near abroad" penetrated by the NATOEU "double enlargement" which, Putin fears, could lead to the breakup of the Russian-led CSTO. The breakup of the CSTO could, in turn, lead to the disaggregation of the Russian Federation itself. Certain regions in Russia are nearly bankrupt, a fact which once again caused protests in March 2017 against corruption and economic stagnation throughout the country. The fears of a potential breakup of the Russian Federation (as occurred during World War I) have led Putin to seek out strong political-economic and military ties with China in the effort to form a Eurasian Union, if not a military alliance. But unlike the relatively peaceful disaggregation of the Soviet Union, the feared disaggregation of the Russian Federation and concurrent civil war could lead to full scale Russian backlash.

In this regard, the Syrian crisis could provide the spark for an even greater conflagration. This is because Moscow fears that the potential collapse of the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad will result in the loss of Russia's position in the Middle East, while permitting pan-Sunni movements to destabilize the immediate region as well as the northern Caucasus and other predominately Muslim regions inside the Russian Federation itself. The April 2017 Trump administration decision to engage in unilateral cruise missile strikes as a means to punish the Assad regime for its use of chemical weaponry against its own population has been denounced by Moscow as yet another illegal unilateral U.S. attack against a sovereign state.

In 1998, as the Clinton administration took steps to enlarge NATO beyond eastern Germany, George Kennan forewarned: "In trying to place NATO ahead of the EU as the focal point of European unity, and at the same time in looking to Germany to be, together with the U.S., the greatest military power on the European continent, the NATO leaders are, as I see it, making a mistake of historical dimensions. They are trying to revive all the disturbing ghosts of the modern European past." 26 .

In retrospect, the largely uncoordinated and overextended enlargements of NATO and the EU have both provoked the ghosts of European nationalism and Russian revanchist backlash. 27

... ... ...

This article originally appeared in American Affairs Volume I, Number 2 (Summer 2017): 166–83.

[Jul 01, 2017] Ex-Weapons Inspector: Trumps Sarin Claims Built on Lie

Jul 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
h | Jun 30, 2017 2:35:00 PM | 5
Ex-Weapons Inspector: Trump's Sarin Claims Built on 'Lie' by Scott Ritter - http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/ex-weapons-inspector-trumps-sarin-claims-built-on-lie/

This is an excellent, excellent read which puts the propaganda BS OPCW report to shame. A must read...

james | Jun 30, 2017 2:37:15 PM | 6
@4 chet... israel is now al nusra/al qaeda air force.. that is part of it..

opcw basis is thanks the white helmets... i guess the usa/uk want some results from all the money they have given this lovely ngo who always seem imbedded with the moderate headchopper cult..

scott ridder discusses this and more here here..

Ghostship | Jun 30, 2017 2:50:01 PM | 9
Why America is killing people around the world .
h | Jun 30, 2017 3:00:03 PM | 10
Two more articles folks might be interested in -

Paul Craig Roberts has an article titled 'Washington Has Been At War For 16 Years: Why?' -

Snippet -

"There are three reasons for Washington's war, not America's war as Washington is not America, on Syria. The first reason has to do with the profits of the military/security complex."

"The military/security complex is a combination of powerful private and governmental interests that need a threat to justify an annual budget that exceeds the GDP of many countries. War gives this combination of private and governmental interests a justification for its massive budget, a budget whose burden falls on American taxpayers whose real median family income has not risen for a couple of decades while their debt burden to support their living standard has risen."

"The second reason has to do with the Neoconservative ideology of American world hegemony. According to the Neoconservatives, who most certainly are not conservative of any description, the collapse of communism and socialism means that History has chosen "Democratic Capitalism," which is neither democratic nor capitalist, as the World's Socio-Economic-Political system and it is Washington's responsibility to impose Americanism on the entire world. Countries such as Russia, China, Syria, and Iran, who reject American hegemony must be destabilized and desroyed as they stand in the way of American unilateralism."

"The Third reason has to do with Israel's need for the water resources of Southern Lebanon. Twice Israel has sent the vaunted Israeli Army to occupy Southern Lebanon, and twice the vaunted Israeli Army was driven out by Hezbollah, a militia supported by Syria and Iran."

I'd add a couple of more reasons starting with OIL! Interesting read, however.

After 16 years of offering the same amendment before House Appropriations, Del Barbara Lee was a bit surprised her amendment to sunset the 2001 AUMF easily passed out of the House Appropriations committee yesterday - http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/29/congress-vote-authorize-war-islamic-state-240095

Of course the House Leadership is going to do whatever to stop such a move, but it's looking more and more like some are readying for such a challenge.

For any who are sick to death of U.S. wars/proxy wars or CIA special ops wars, this includes all who read this blog from abroad, I might suggest getting organized and to start a massive letter writing campaign to the leadership in both the House and Senate. This presents a huge opening for the citizenry of the world to allow their voices to be heard. It would be a truly beautiful, hell, who am I kidding, it would be a truly MAGNIFICENT step made by the People of the World to tell the U.S. Congress to Repeal the 2001 AUMF.

Yeah, I realize they want to replace it with some other God Awful authorization, but that can be stopped if the masses of the world flood congress with letters and postcards. Emails won't work for numerous reasons with most important being you can't 'SEE' stacks of emails but you can 'SEE' stacks and stacks and stacks of letters.

Just a thought...

nmb | Jun 30, 2017 3:24:40 PM | 12
CIA examined the possibility of assassination of the Iranian PM Mohammad Mosaddegh before the 1953 coup

[Jun 30, 2017] What we see at present in Syria is war between USA and collaborators, as Israel, Germany, France and the Netherlands, against Russia, Assad and Iran,

Jun 30, 2017 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT

" about how a military confrontation between Russia and the United States would play out. "

Funny sentence, Syria IS a military confrontation between USA and Russia, as the Spanish Civil War was a military confrontation between Germany and Italy, with tacit USA and GB support, on the one hand, and the USSR on the other. The USA rebellion against GB long ago also was a world war, in the end the list of countries supporting the Yankees became very long.

What we see at present in Syria is war between USA and collaborators, as Israel, Germany, France and the Netherlands, against Russia, Assad and Iran, with Turkey sitting on the fence. Both sides know that all out war will be the end of the world, both sides do not want to give up.

So this may be going on indefinitely, the only solution I see is that Trump creates a normal relationship with Russia, thereafter they can divide the ME between them, as Sykes and Picott already did in 1916. In order to create a normal relationship with Russia Trump first has to win his war with Deep State.

Three CNN journalists were fired, or resigned. If this is the beginning of the end of CNN, I hope so, but am not at all sure.

peterAUS Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 8:20 am GMT

@Avery {The willpower, courage and determination of the Russian solider is stronger than his US counterparts by many orders of magnitude.}

By many orders of magnitude?

    One order of magnitude is 10. Two orders of magnitude is 100. Many is .....what 1,000?

Russian warriors are at the minimum 10X better than American warriors?

You don't actually believe that, do you?

Their leaders - both military and civilian - may be incompetent, corrupt, treasonous (e.g. USS Liberty betrayal by their Commander in Chief),etc, etc.....but American professional warriors lack neither willpower, nor courage, nor determination.

One example: the "Black Hawk Down"/Battle of Mogadishu firefight.

Their leaders sent them into a harebrained Globalist mission without proper support, but once all Hell broke loose, Americans fought with great courage and determination. Fought like lions, in fact.

The notion that Russian pros are, quote, 'many orders of magnitude' stronger in warrior quality (...and skills) is truly delusional on Saker's part. Agree, up to a point.
These debates are like those "which is better, AK or M-16 platform' .good for amateurs.

Now, it is a fact that the West, since Iraq, hasn't fought conventional war and even that was against much weaker opponent. COIN only.
Russians have fought decent conventional wars Georgia and Ukraine, against similar opponent.
I'd hazard a guess that, on operational level, Russian Command and Control is better than US.

The problem, for Russians, is quality of support/logistics and on tactical level (from division to including a battalion or, better, battlegroup).

Anyway that's all actually besides the point.

I believe we'll be looking at 'border clashes' from '1984′, done by special forces and contractors. Teams killing each other under the radar.
For a starter.

But, I believe, WHEN push comes to shove Russians will step back and mark another line in sand.
And another.
The Empire will be pushing, carefully, and Russians will be retreating, slowly ..

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 1:01 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger

Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg. Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where it may end. "USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets."
Particularly because of that: "Putin: Foreign intel services support terrorist groups on Russia's borders" https://www.rt.com/news/394518-putin-foreign-spies-support-terrorism/

If "US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria" the first response should be towards Israel. The more clarity in this regard the better. There should be the time of "harvest" for the ziocons.

Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT

not good

https://www.rt.com/usa/394474-haley-no-place-for-assad/

the zio-deepstate must be showing Trump how easily they JFK'd JFK

I suspect that Trump doesn't want to play along with their 'seven countries' narrative, and would prefer peace and prosperity as his legacy

but he's forced to play a razor's edge game as he slowly and methodically inserts personnel loyal to the US vs. the deepstate, without triggering a "heart attack" or however they'd do it.

If he can survive a year or two, and get his own people in, without causing a full-on hot war with Russia, perhaps he can prevail. But this new development is a very bad sign.

Kilo 4/11 Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT

@Sergey Krieger Imho if US indeed ever decides to strike Russian forces in Syria it would constitute the act of war and war is not limited to no theater of operations. Considering USA huge superiority in this area I do not think Russia would invest heavily over there, but instead would use this to strike where it is more important for Russia security. USA anti missiles installations around Russia borders would have been a good important targets. Around Syria as Sacker mentioned US has a lot of bases which would make fair game for Russian missile capabilities amptly shown in Syrian campaign and which imho are just a tip of the iceberg. Hopefully it won't come to this because no one knows where it may end. Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

Tom Welsh Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road. Your comment brilliantly illustrates the problems that the rest of the world has with Americans. Beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt, Russia has every right to be in Syria where the legitimate government has invited its help. The USA has no right at all to set a single foot inside Syria without the Syrian government's permission, which it emphatically does not have.

By attacking Syria – as it has done persistently for the past six years and more, through US forces, NATO forces, Israeli forces, Daesh and dozens of other alphabet terrorist soup organizations – the USA has flagrantly disobeyed the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, the whole body of international law, and – more often than not – the very US Constitution.

That any American doesn't know these things – or, knowing them, sees fit to pretend he doesn't – is an appalling testimonty to American arrogance, ignorance and stupidity.

Tom Welsh Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

@Priss Factor How is that US and EU get to do this to a nation and still give sermons about peace and human rights to the world?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cbBXk4iW5Q

When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction.

US and EU totally wrecks a nation that did NOTHING to either, but they go around promoting themselves as defenders of freedom and 'liberal global order'. "When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor to neutralize the US navy, it got punished with total destruction".

When Japan launched a sneak surprise attack on the Russian fleet in Port Arthur in 1904, it succeeded brilliantly. The Russian East fleet was crippled and Russia had to resort to sending its Baltic fleet halfway round the world – where it too was promptly sunk.

Theodore Roosevelt, who was US president at the time, was jubilant. He saw the Japanese – whom he had recently dignified with the title of "honorary Aryans" – as the essential US proxy for the conquest of Asia. And he hated the Russians.

But what of FDR – who was 22 at the time, and such a fanatic about all matters naval that he boasted of having collected thousands of books on the subject? Are we to believe he was oblivious to the highly successful tactic of launching a surprise naval attack before declaring war? Hardly.

Yet 37 years later, we are supposed to believe that, having deliberately driven Japan into a corner with the specific intention of forcing it to declare war, it never occurred to him that the Japanese – facing a far more powerful enemy than Russia in 1904, whose main fleet was hanging out halfway across the Pacific simply asking to be sunk – would use the same trick.

If so, I have a fleet of very old battleships to sell you.

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

@headrick So what if the US does launch this massive air campaign, -- then what? Is the US
army ready to occupy Syria - on the ground.- forever? IN 2006 Hezbollah kicked the
Israeli's out of Lebanon border areas. Imagine the pain inflicted on a US occupation
force who can't handle Afghanistan. And if the Russian air base is hit, they can I believe
sink a US capital ship or two, and announce, any further direct action against Russian forces in Syria will call for a full nuclear strategic response against the US. Then what does the US do? Suck up the loss of carrier or Ageis warship, of face world war III. This whole act would produce a domestic firestorm in the US, and it would not be controllable. Shiite Allies in Bahrain would attack
US assets and Bases there and in Bahrain, and they would not need Russian coaching to do it.
Hezbollah would probably begin to attacks on Israel and Israel knows how that turned out. Just more pain for Team USA. There is no follow up strategy for such a US air action against Syria/Russia/Iran. Just huge pain and an ignominious back down -or upon unchecked escalation, world war III.
Air power, without a plan for follow up ground action, is worse than pointless. It is suicidal. If the US just wants Chaos in the region, and thinks they can find Muslim proxies to do the ground work, well that was the ISIS plan, and soon there will be no ISIS, so how does the US find proxies on the ground to occupy the country? https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/29/the-next-world-war-wont-just-be-over-there/

"The Next World War Won't Just Be "Over There," by BILL WILLERS
" with every hostile American denigration of Russia, every aggressive push against Russia's borders, every move that imperils Russia's place on the world stage, the prospect of massive world war becomes increasingly plausible. And in this world made so small by terrifying, sophisticated weaponry, any powerful adversary of the US would make certain that "over there" was shared, so as to become "over here" from the US point of view, with major east coast cities certain to be prime targets. The Russians understand very well from agonizing experience what modern, catastrophic war on one's homeland is like, while we in the US do not, although we are on a path to find out. It is a path of our own creation."
Sigh.

Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 3:13 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam.

do you realize that the Soviet Union is dead and gone?

and that Russia today is acting like the only adult on the world's stage with any respect for international law, (or what's left of it, since the Z US has been waging illegal wars of aggression all over the planet, destroying nation after nation, all based on lies).

Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet as a bulwark against the rabid dog that is the ZUSA, slaughtering and displacing millions upon millions of people even as its causing the permanent destruction of Europe and N. America for all time.

what kind of future do your American grandchildren have in the ZUSA, as the immigrants pour in and the future is bankrupted to slaughter people and destroy nations that Israel doesn't like?

At least Putin's Russia is trying to protect some kind of future for the Russian people and their progeny, as the ZUSA is like a drooling beast on the world's stage, and doing all it can do destroy Western civilization in the process, and your nation's (and grandchildren's) future with it.

how anyone here at the Unz Review could still look at Russia today and see the Soviet Union!, is beyond me.

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT

The dying empire:
"The elephants did not climb up the trees. Warning them off was successful," they say." http://www.moonofalabama.org
And then they exhibit a very special Nikki Haley who was generously"cued" by Israel: https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/06/21/israel-vs-united-nations-nikki-haley-doctrine .
Syrian update: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/syrian-update-ttg.html
My sympathies for the competent American patriots shoved away from all positions of influence in the US government by ziocons (abetted by war profiteers of all stripes). http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/06/harper-mattis-walks-back-from-syria-cw-claims.html#comments
See the story of a honorable and superbly competent Col. Lang and the dumb Douglas Feith (the Idiot of a ziocon stock): http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/05/12/selective-intelligence

anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT

I'd hate to see the Trump presidency go down in the smoke of a Syrian/Russian military conflict. Voters did not want the confrontation promised by Clinton and voted for domestic issues such as re-industrialization, population stability and so on. There are just way too many unknowns involved with this potential clash for the US to risk intruding itself any more than it already has. We really don't know how all these weapon systems would work out in an actual war, short and intense or drawn out. Then there's the prospect of Americans getting killed and taken prisoner in a very public way which would drive them to ratchet things up yet higher. Same for the Russians. It's hard to see what the American endgame really is. Perhaps it's just to deny Russia and Iran any allies so perhaps chaos and the destruction of Syria as a state is a goal rather than a result.
Putin is a legalistic moderate. Were Russia to suffer a humiliating defeat directly from the Americans then it's probable he'll be succeeded by a hardliner seeking to even the score. Wars always have unintended consequences so we could end up having Cold War II for the next fifty years. Of course this might be desired since it would tie Europe to the US due to this 'threat'.

annamaria Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

"Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law! Hold your horses, Kilo 4/12. Nobody needs Ukraine but ZUSA, for the supposedly "defensive" purposes. Look at the amazing transformation of the "liberated" Ukraine after the 2014 coup d'etat: The neo-Nazis are openly in the Ukrainian government, Banderites parade Nazi collaborator Bandera in Kiev and L'viv; a proposal for federalization of Ukraine (you know, federalism, similar to the US) has been criminalized by Kiev government; a new prime-minister is certain Mr. Groysman, and the index of Ukrainian corruption is staying stubbornly high.
Considering that the USSR had amassed the neighboring lands (Polish, Rumanian, and Hungarian) to make the modern state of Ukraine, you need to decide whether you want to continue with the Soviet tradition and keep the Soviet territories or you should finally return the annexed territories to the proper owners.
It seems that you still didn't get it – in 2014, Ukraine had become a protectorate of ZUSA. There is no independent Ukraine anymore.
This is what your thuggish government in Kiev has rejected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States

Che Guava Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

@David Great article. I would be interested to read some knowledgeable reflections on the US Navy ship running into a Japanese cargo ship a week or so ago. It seems that a lot of things would have to go wrong to make that possible, indicating considerable rot in the US Navy. We haven't even heard of the ship's commander losing his commission. The container ship was going to Japan, not Japanese, Philippines flag, mainly (or all) Philippino crew.

That ship ran imto the US ship, not vice versa.

However, according to Japanese news and the captain of the cargo ship, they sounded the foghorn, tried signals, radio contact. Those giant ships are not at all agile, not designed to be. Turning radii are huge.

From the sounds of the captain's injuries, he was asleep.

The interesting question is, what the fuck were the bridge duty officer(s) and crew doing at the time, that they noticed nothing? Playing video games? Engrossed in Twit or Faescesbook? Little party? Having or seeking sex?

Even if the reports of warnings from the cargo giant are false (which I strongly doubt), if the bridge people were not behaving stupidly at the time, they would have spotted it on radar and with eyes.

I did a quick search, as said earlier, must sleeping soon, I was finding the captain's name, but not the name of whoever was in charge on the bridge. Interesting.

It is such a shame for the seven dead, I am not a fan of US imperialism, but I like many US people. Their deaths were very sad and pointless.

The clear and tragic incompetence on the bridge has some connection with the Saker's article.

Randal Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:14 pm GMT

No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark. Russia is playing its old imperial grand chessboard game and it matters not that Assad "invited" him. Think Putin was going to stay out of Syria w/o this "invitation"?

If you really believe that Russia would have any significant military involvement in Syria today in the absence of its longstanding alliance with that country and its consequent interest in protecting it from regime change then you are either profoundly stupid or profoundly ignorant. Or both, of course.

the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin

Again, you merely highlight your own lack of knowledge and pig-headed refusal to recognise any change in the world from that (presumably) of your youth.

And you talk of respecting international law!

The simple fact is that (as has been pointed out to you by several people) Russia's military presence in Syria is perfectly legal, being at the invitation of Syria's government, while the US has a long track record of contempt for international law, from the attack on Yugoslavia to the invasion of Iraq and on down to its recent murders of Syrian servicemen without even an attempt to pretend to any legal justification.

No sale and kiss my ass with the "stupidity" remark

No "stupidity" remark that I can see in the comment by Rurik to which you claim to be replying, but your subsequent determination to insist that black is in fact white on several points suggest he would have been justified in such a personal criticism.

Sean Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT

Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 No, I don't recognize that the USSR is gone, because the SAME FUCKING TROGLODYTES THAT RAN IT are running Russia today, starting with Putin, the mope that weeps over its demise. As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" and you're finding that out aren't you.

"Today Russia is the last great hope of the planet" is one of the most pathetic memes currently hiding in the guise of received wisdom. Tell that to the besieged Ukrainians of occupied Ukraine, who only want to keep their country intact, but due to Russia's total incapability of recognizing Ukrainians as a separate people with a right to self-determination and Russians' desperation to continue seeing themselves as a world power, no matter what other nation has to be crushed, continue getting killed every day by Russians and their proxies. And you talk of respecting international law!

As we said in the Marines "Payback is a motherfucker" blah blah blah

Looks like you could use a dose of Marine MG Butler's wisdom.

Knock yerself out toughie

" I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."

Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

Elder Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 7:52 pm GMT

@Kilo 4/11 Why does Russia get to strike out of theater if the U.S. hits them in Syria? We did not get to strike out of theater when Russia was supplying our enemy in North Viet Nam. Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S. Russia had better think twice and think again before going down that road.

Russia has no more right to be in Syria than the U.S.

The Russians are in Syria at the request of the sovereign nation of Syria.
The USA is in Syria as an illegal invading force providing support to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
I never would have guessed that the rot in the USA would have progressed to the point where the Russians would be 100% in the right, both legally and morally, and the USA would be 100% in the wrong, both legally and morally, but here we are.

Randal Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT

@Erebus It seems to me that if the US delivers either an ultimatum, or a direct attack on Russian assets in Syria, Russia's response will depend primarily on what it believes its allies can and will deliver. The SAA, Hezbollah, and Iraqi PMUs are already doing yeoman's service and probably can't do much more. In any case, the boots-on-the-ground part would come some time after a stand-off weapon exchange.
Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American gambit succeeds? Hard to tell. They could do a lot of damage to US assets around the Gulf in very short order. Doha and Manama are but a few minutes away as the missile flies, and those missiles could fly from anywhere along a mountainous 2500km coastline. If Iran can be counted on, the Russians can play much harder ball than on their own.

The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly. There's some pain in it for China, though not nearly as much as is sometimes assumed, but it would make any military "victory" the USM might be dreaming of Pyrrhic. In addition to losing a bunch of hardware and expensive personnel, they'd be staring at an economic catastrophe. With that, they'd also be staring at the "Decline and Fall" moment in the Zempire's timeline.

In its present domestic socio-political state, the US could simply fly apart from the combined shock. From where I sit, that looks all but inevitable.

Be that all as it may, the Kremlin had surely gamed all the possible variations to exhaustion before making their move into Syria. They committed, and since Sept 31, 2015 they've been driving, not reacting to, events. They went in fully committed to success, and they knew what ramifications their success could trigger. They must have had viable contingency Plans A thru Z in place before the ever cautious, meticulous Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.

Putin would have been confident enough that he had all bases covered to sign off on it. I'm pretty sure that none of Plans A thru Z included turning tail and running away when the American started barking.

Yes, seems to me this was a calculated gamble for the highest stakes by Putin, and I think he must have known that once he went all in there would be no further option to fold under US presure that wouldn't be disastrous for Russia and for him, personally. I suspect he decided at the time that he would take it all the way if necessary.

But that doesn't mean, of course, that he and the Russians thought they couldn't lose. Just that they thought the situation was serious enough to justify such a move, which inevitably involves a degree of risk and the highest of stakes.

What they did know, and still know, is that the costs to the US of even a "victory" in Syria could be made high enough that the US leadership would almost certainly blink first (rightly, given that the whole regime change attempt in Syria involves no vital US interests and serves the purposes of foreigners, wealthy business cliques and issue obsessives).

And so it has come to pass, so far, fortunately for humanity and for both the US and Russia. Who knows if that would still be the case if Clinton had won the election? Who really knows if it will remain the case under the highly suspect Trump?

Can Iran be depended on to commit, knowing they're next if the American gambit succeeds?

Difficult to predict in such a dramatic situation, but Iran obviously knows that it is next in the firing line after Syria goes down and Hezbollah is targeted (as the plans of the regime changers hope for). However Iran really adds little to Russia's strength overall, though as you point out they can contribute substantially in the region. On the other hand, Iran's involvement would ensure far more enthusiastic cooperation with the US by Israel and Saudi Arabia, who might otherwise balk at a direct attack on Russian forces.

The big question mark is China. Not for any military contribution, obviously, but for the fact that it can cripple the U$ system on which American military power rests, and they can do it almost instantly.

I think the record suggests China would be far too cautious to intervene directly in that way in such a situation, though I'm sure they would give Russia plenty of indirect support.

Randal Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT

@Sean Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria.

Yes that's right because history demonstrates clearly that appeasement and passive acceptance is the best way to protect yourself against ongoing lawless aggression by a major power. If nothing else, there's always that faint, fading hope that if you are meek enough you might at least be left for last, eh?

If only the Russians had had the patience and strength of mind to continue with the wisdom of the Yeltsin years, in kowtowing to the US declaration of a global US sphere of influence and a universal US right, nay duty, of regime changing interventionism

sad and scared Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 11:49 pm GMT

This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns, acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full spectrum dominance" – not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck) To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this sucker could go any way, any time.

SimplePseudonymicHandle Show Comment Next New Comment June 29, 2017 at 11:55 pm GMT

The Saker

makes a basic mistake, he assumes that the [Americans] will act like idiots and fight the kind of war the [Russia] would want to impose upon them.

And he does so in nearly every article he writes. It would be amusing except for quotes like this.

There are good points to be made. The US will have certain habits that must be deliberately deviated from. The US deploys too much and exposes its fighting style too much.

But the Saker is silly, Capital S, silly, to think that the US would fight Russia the way he imagines it.

Just the same: we must not fight. Russia and the US, must, not fight. It must not happen.

The silliest thing is all the imagining of it. We should steel all our efforts to assure this never, ever happens.

Mongrel Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 12:37 am GMT

IMO, a massive US attack to gain air superiority in Syria is completely unrealistic for the following reasons among others:

1. If an aircraft carrier takes part in the attack, if could be sunk by the Russians with moral justification. Sinking an aircraft carrier would cause the dollar to plummet by revealing the phony nature of American military might.

2. The Russians could lose their entire Syrian forces and the larger military balance would not be affected in the short run, nor would the Russian regime be threatened by internal revolution. If the US lost significant numbers of aircraft, especially F-35's and/or F-22's, it would be a US disaster. There would be no hiding from the US public that we are at war for no discernable purpose. The sleepwalking goyim could very well take their eyes off Kim Kardashian's ass and the Trump circus and wake up. The political effects are utterly unpredictable.

3. Russia and China could announce an international gold standard, effectively removing a major source of US income via dollar creation. With US inflation raging, military cutbacks would ensue, kicking off a downward spiral for the ZUSA empire.

4. War in Syria would precipitate a US financial crisis, because US markets are held aloft with smoke and mirrors. We have runaway federal debt, states about to default, a pension crisis, and a consumer debt crisis. When this thing blows, the 2000 crash will look like a picnic. Unemployment will skyrocket from an already high level, and the deep state will be fighting off multiple Occupy Wall Street-like movements. Sure hope those new surveillance tools work well, 'cause the deep state is gonna need 'em.

Of course, empires often show the brains of a dinosaur. Did the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and German empires plan to disappear when they entered WWI?

peterAUS Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 12:47 am GMT

@sad and scared This sucker (the Syrian conflict) could take all sorts of twists and turns, acquire a life of its own, and do who knows what. Since there seems to be no rational motive at play, at least on the US side, this mess defies rational analysis. What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that. What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going? It simply seems to be a psychopathic game of power, more power, and yet more power ("full spectrum dominance" - not a Hitler statement that, but officially stated US policy) Full dominance to what aim? (try raising that on mass media, good luck) To stand tall in a graveyard of humanity as the last human survivor? To add to the already long list of countries and peoples destroyed? To be acknowledged as the toughest and meanest kid on the block? I think all bets are off, this sucker could go any way, any time.

What is the US objective in Syria, after all? I doubt anyone can answer that.

Maybe .just .CONSTANT low level chaos as it is now.
Just to keep that region unstable and unusable for anyone.
Serves a couple of purposes, one of them is weakening Russia.

What benefit will accrue if Assad ends up going?

The same.
But even with Assad not going, just keeping things as they are now is good for The Empire.
Or, it is better for The Empire than it is for Russia.
Or it is less worse for The Empire than it is for Russia.

utu Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT

@Rurik


allows one a glimmer of hope
I'm clinging to it for now

he didn't do much damage to that Syrian airfield he bombed and he warned everyone over there that he was going to do it, and by doing so, he completely shut up the snake-pit, from John McBloodstain to Chucky Schumer to the length and breath of the zio-msm.

I sense he's trying to play them, and it seems at times like he's playing them like a fine fiddle.

Saying 'Assad has to go' will cause tingles and chills up their legs, and cut him some slack with the Republicucks, so perhaps he can get more of his people appointed.

So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin, they can pretend like they're enemies, while mollifying the Fiend and its minions as ISIS is routed and Syria's sovereignty and border integrity becomes more and more a reality on the ground.

At least that's my hope. Of course I could be wrong. So long as he has a back-door channel to Putin

Putin receives former U.S. diplomat Kissinger in Kremlin

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-kissinger-idUSKBN19K2QN

U.S. Retreats From Al-Tanf – Gives Up On Occupying South East Syria

http://www.moonofalabama.org

Mikel Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 1:05 am GMT

Could anyone kindly explain how the Israeli planes manage to avoid the Syrian Pantsirs and S-300s every time they enter Syrian air space and take out some target? (and one presumes that the Syrians must be waiting for the next Israeli incursion 24×7).

Thanks.

KenH Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 2:44 am GMT

Girly man Sean Spicer's pronouncement that the U.S. possesses "intelligence" to the effect that Assad is planning a chemical attack on innocents is just a bogus pretext for war. It's Iraqi weapons of mass destruction all over again.

It's designed to soften Americans up for greater illegal and unilateral military action in Syria. And if my fellow countrymen fall for it yet again just because they're enamored with Trump's hollow promises and circus like rallies then I will have absolutely no sympathy for them when the economy implodes and if somehow the war comes to U.S. soil.

Gee, who gets all the refugees when we bring hell to Syria? Not Saudi Arabia or Israel. Oh no, princess Ivanka will see to it that we get our share just as long as they're nowhere near her, Jared or any other Manhattan millionaire liberal.

Putin should announce the sale of long range nuclear missiles to the People's Republic of N. Korea. Hopefully this would give Nimrata Haley and Trump aneurysms along with the rest of the American likudniks. Then he should follow up and begin supplying the Taliban with surface to air missile batteries, anti-drone technology and advanced weaponry for combat operations.

in the middle Show Comment Next New Comment June 30, 2017 at 1:37 am GMT

@Sean Russia has made a bad mistake in appearing to side with Iran in Syria. NO! The Zios-Anglos made the mistake of siding with the terrorists in Syria.

[Jun 30, 2017] CNN is making Tucker Carlson look good!

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , June 29, 2017 at 11:54 am
I can't stand Tucker Carlson from his time as a loyal footsoldier in the ranks of the George Dubya Bush Apologist Army, but it's easy to feel in synch with him here just because CNN is so deservedly hated. Can't argue with your conclusions, either.
ucgsblog , June 29, 2017 at 2:12 pm
Then this will make you chuckle Mark – when I was discussing CNN at a meeting, one of the smarter analysts commented: "yet another reason to hate CNN is because they're making Tucker Carlson look good! Why doesn't anyone bring that up?"

The room responded with laughter. Remember the days when CNN used to claim that they're "the most trusted name in news" – well they're not doing that anymore:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/cnn-now-least-trusted-news-network-among-viewers

"In the poll published Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports, 1,000 likely voters were asked to describe their media viewing habits. Seventy-five percent said they watch at least some form of cable news each week, with 42 percent saying they most frequently watch Fox News, 35 percent usually choosing CNN, and 19 percent favoring MSNBC. An even 50 percent of frequent Fox News viewers agreed with a followup question, "Do you trust the political news you are getting?" By comparison, 43 percent of frequent MSNBC viewers and just 33 percent of those who mostly watch CNN said they trust their political news."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18088/death-spiral-along-its-credibility-cnn-ratings-john-nolte#exit-modal

"For instance, on Tuesday, over the course of the day, CNN was only able to attract a measly 670,000 viewers. For context, MSNBC nearly doubled this number; Fox News nearly tripled it. CNN has almost always lagged a bit behind MSNBC in total viewers, but not like this."

Why couldn't it be 620,000? The reason I'm asking, is because 6.2 million Americans watched Putin's interview with Megyn Kelly. I'm not yet sure about Stone's Putin Interviews – but that number also seems to be very positive and in the millions. Of course losing to Discovery Channel didn't help CNN:

"Furthermore, throughout this same quarter, CNN lost to MSNBC in total and primetime demo viewers. This is the first time since 2014 that CNN has lost that demo crown to its leftwing rival. In total viewers last quarter, among all cable news channels, Fox News placed first, MSNBC third, and CNN is all alone in tenth place, just barely ahead of Investigative Discovery, a second-tier offshoot of the Discovery Network."

I predicted this would happen back when they fucked up their coverage of the Ossetian War. Now I'm just watching the train-wreck, thinking "am I really eating the best tasting popcorn? Have I finally found it?"

marknesop , June 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I hope they are driven right out of existence – I can't wait to see Wolf Blitzer sitting on a bench outside Hope Cottage in downtown Halifax, bleary-eyed and waiting for the free soup line to open. All of a journalist's enemies should be among the corrupt mages of the state apparatus – when the common man earnestly prays for you to be brought low, you've lost your way, and are feeding on a projected image of yourself. I think it's safe to say that we have seen the most precipitous decline in ethics in journalism, this past decade, that has occurred since its humble beginnings.

[Jun 30, 2017] Russia extends countersanctions on the EU for another year, until December 2018.

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , June 30, 2017 at 6:34 pm
How long you wanna let this go on? Huh? 'Cause I can keep this up for as long as you can.

Russia extends countersanctions on the EU for another year , until December 2018. Growth for the EU for 2018 is forecast at around 1.4-1.5% . We'll see about that. It is forecast by the same sources to be 1.5-1.7% for Russia , so we'll see about that, too. I sure hope Russia can survive another year without French cheese for the kreakly. I have to say, though, that extending economic sanctions against another country when your own prognosis says their economy will do better than yours sounds fairly stupid.

[Jun 30, 2017] In effect, the sanctions have acted as a tariffs policy Russia might have introduced to enable key domestic industries to develop.

www.moonofalabama.org

Posted by: Jen | Jun 30, 2017 5:05:42 PM | 16

Christian Chuba@3:

Jon Hellevig's Awara blog has published an interesting report into the current state of Russia's economy after two years of sanctions imposed by the West: "What Does Not Kill You Will Make You Stronger – The Russian Economy 2014 – 2016, the Years of Sanctions Warfare"

https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russian-economy-2014-2016-the-years-of-sanctions-warfare/

Here's a quick rundown of the report's key findings:

KEY FINDINGS:

  • Russia's economy has successfully adjusted to dual shock of sanctions and oil price plunge
  • Minor GDP loss of -2.3% for 3 years of sanctions will be completely recovered in 2017 with expected 2-3% growth
  • Oil & gas share of GDP drops to below 10%
  • Industrial production stable 2014-2016, soars in May by +5.3%
  • Russia's economy now the most diversified in the world. Exports remain relatively undiversified, but domestic production highly diversified and self-sufficient
  • Debt Crisis predicted by Western pundits failed to materialize
  • [Central bank] reserves intact and sovereign wealth funds solid
  • Budget deficit never went below -3.9%. Tax collection soars in 2017, budget now balanced
  • Oil & gas only 17% of budget revenue (2016)
  • Inflation falls to near 4%
  • Unemployment remains low at 5% level
  • Demographic indicators reach all-time best
  • Population at 146.8 million – all-time high
  • Only clearly negative data: Salaries, disposable income and consumption. Retail sales down more than 10%

In effect, the sanctions have acted as a tariffs policy Russia might have introduced to enable key domestic industries to develop.

Mike Norman Economics blog on the Awara report has some interesting comments on Putin's economic and financial policy. Russia's Central Bank is apparently still staffed by senior officials (like Elvira Nabiullina) who adhere to a neoliberal economic approach and who maintain a high interest rate regime which might be good for pensioners' incomes but bad for people establishing small businesses and needing loan funding.

http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/awara-russian-economy-2014-2016-years.html

[Jun 30, 2017] What Does Not Kill You Will Make You Stronger – The Russian Economy 2014 – 2016, the Years of Sanctions Warfare

marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , June 29, 2017 at 11:22 am

An Awara Accounting Economic Analysis::

What Does Not Kill You Will Make You Stronger – The Russian Economy 2014 – 2016, the Years of Sanctions Warfare

This report is based on Awara Accounting's research on how the Russian economy managed in 2014 – 2016 to cope with the dual shocks of Western sanctions and the accompanying precipitous fall of the oil price.

KEY FINDINGS:

Russia's economy has successfully adjusted to dual shock of sanctions and oil price plunge
Minor GDP loss of -2.3% for 3 years of sanctions will be completely recovered in 2017 with expected 2-3% growth

Oil & gas share of GDP drops to below 10%

Industrial production stable 2014-2016, soars in May by +5.3%

Russia's economy now the most diversified in the world. Exports remain relatively undiversified, but domestic production highly diversified and self-sufficient

Debt Crisis predicted by Western pundits failed to materialize

CB reserves intact and sovereign wealth funds solid

Budget deficit never went below -3.9%. Tax collection soars in 2017, budget now balanced

Oil & gas only 17% of budget revenue (2016)

Inflation falls to near 4%

Unemployment remains low at 5% level

Demographic indicators reach all-time best

Population at 146.8 million – all-time high

Only clearly negative data: Salaries, disposable income and consumption.

Retail sales down more than 10%

Full Awara report here .

Source: Russia Insider Special Report by Awara Accounting: Russia's Economy Emerges Stronger Than Ever After Sanctions, Years 2014 – 2016

Do I detect any loud "hahaha" out there?

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

marknesop , June 29, 2017 at 12:08 pm
That's excellent news. Oh – unless you work for the State Department or the Poroshenko government. Keep those sanctions on, Washington! How's your market share doing, Europe?
kirill , June 30, 2017 at 5:58 am
I love the skewering of the idiots/propagandists who use Russia's exports profile to infer its diversification level. Since Russia has the smallest imports per GDP of any large economy on the planet, by definition it must be producing the goods and services that it consumes within its own borders. The propaganda would have everyone believe that Russia is a resource exporting banana republic that imports all of its value added goods and services.

The report also repeats the points I raise about the CBR. The CBR is acting to undermine the Russian economy since it operates on false assumptions. In particular it drinks the propaganda koolaid that Russia has an import economy due to lack of diversification. So the CBR thinks that there is more inflation pressure on the economy (i.e. via import price increases due to ruble forex drops) than there actually is. Putin is failing big time letting Nabiullina carry out her nonsensical inflation fighting prime rate policy:

Note how the CBR prime interest rate was closer to the inflation rate before the arrival of Nabiullina. Also note that the inflation rate shows no signs of instability after 2015 so there is no need for the large spread between the prime rate and the inflation rate. That is, the prime rate should be at most 4%.

[Jun 30, 2017] The Russians are coming narrative is an attempt to reassert the control by neoliberal elite after Trump election

Notable quotes:
"... i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards? ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

jfl | Jun 29, 2017 9:35:53 PM | 62

@59 ts

i think it's because the rump 'came in through the bathroom window' ... defying 'both parties'. the uniparty is trying to reassert control, somehow. what would happen if people noticed that the uniparty was not only not needed, was in fact the engine of malfeasance and misrule, what if people decided to 'do it themselves' ... platform, primaries, elections ... the whole nine yards?

so 'the Russians are coming!' anything to reassert a narrative it can control.

[Jun 30, 2017] Russia is uniquely hated by the US neoliberal elite and neocons. The key issue for them is "Putinism" which means 'sovereignty, local nationalism (for everyone), a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the Full Specturm Dominance, 'exporting democracy' (via regime change for countries that put resitiance) and the preeminence of US world hegemony

Notable quotes:
"... As I mentioned earlier, Iran is dismissed as a terrorist state, N. Korea a rogue regime, and China a growing rival. With Russia the Foreign Policy Establishment (FPE) will invest the time to write, scholarly looking articles that make it look like they have thoroughly studied Russia and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Russia is a basket case of evil. ..."
"... Because I watched Stone's interviews and read Russia insider, I can see why they view Putin as a threat. Contrary to their assertion that 'Russia has no culture or ideology to challenge the west (the U.S. FPE)'. This is an issue for them. Putinism, 'sovereignty, local nationalism (for everyone), a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the FPE, 'exporting U.S. democracy (including regime change) and the preeminence of U.S. world leadership'. ..."
"... You can debate Putinism but not merely dismiss it as thuggery which they invariably do with their tediously long articles. It doesn't look like they actually listen to Russians, it looks like they read each other's papers. ..."
"... Now I can see why Russia has abandoned the information war, they view it as a hopeless waste of resources that they can never match. ..."
"... For example, here is a very clever apology for how we justified not having the OPCW investigate Khan Shaykhun and the Syrian airbase https://tcf.org/content/commentary/havent-chemical-weapons-inspectors-gone-syrias-shayrat-air-base/ ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Christian Chuba | Jun 30, 2017 2:28:05 PM | 3

Russia is uniquely hated, they get boutique articles to show that they are rotten to the core.

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/05/seeing-russia-clearly/

As I mentioned earlier, Iran is dismissed as a terrorist state, N. Korea a rogue regime, and China a growing rival. With Russia the Foreign Policy Establishment (FPE) will invest the time to write, scholarly looking articles that make it look like they have thoroughly studied Russia and have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Russia is a basket case of evil.

These boutique articles will say a lot of condescending things but will tie into, 'Russia never had a liberal democratic tradition so of course they are governed by monsters like Putin'. I don't see the same level of care given to the rest of our enemies list. I read realclearworld.com which gives a sampling of neocon articles so I think I get a broad representation of their production.

Because I watched Stone's interviews and read Russia insider, I can see why they view Putin as a threat. Contrary to their assertion that 'Russia has no culture or ideology to challenge the West (the U.S. FPE)'. This is an issue for them. Putinism, 'sovereignty, local nationalism (for everyone), a multi-polar world, respect for the UN' vs the FPE, 'exporting U.S. democracy (including regime change) and the preeminence of U.S. world leadership'.

You can debate Putinism but not merely dismiss it as thuggery which they invariably do with their tediously long articles. It doesn't look like they actually listen to Russians, it looks like they read each other's papers.

If you take the time to read it, the author is diabolically clever in how he twists Putin's words. He refers to Russians who lost everything and were forced to leave (note, he leaves out the dreaded word 'oligarch', that is reserved for those who staid).

Now I can see why Russia has abandoned the information war, they view it as a hopeless waste of resources that they can never match.

For example, here is a very clever apology for how we justified not having the OPCW investigate Khan Shaykhun and the Syrian airbase https://tcf.org/content/commentary/havent-chemical-weapons-inspectors-gone-syrias-shayrat-air-base/

[Jun 30, 2017] Trump, MBS, and the Noxious Saudi Relationship

Notable quotes:
"... My point here is that Trump has pressed ahead with uncritical support for the Saudis because that has been the conventional hawkish position in Washington for years before he got there. He is catering to the existing warped desire to provide even more support to Riyadh than Obama did. It was conventional wisdom among many foreign policy pundits and analysts that Obama had not been "pro-Saudi" enough, and Trump apparently bought into that view. Trump's enthusiastic embrace of the Saudis is the result of endlessly berating Obama for not giving the Saudis absolutely everything they wanted. ..."
"... Until that changes and until Trump's excessive fondness for the Saudi leadership starts to become a major political problem for him, pleading with the arsonist's enabler to put out fires will have little effect. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky also judge Mohammed bin Salman's record to be very poor:

But one thing is already stunningly clear when it comes to his handling of foreign policy: In two short years, as the deputy crown prince and defense minister, MBS has driven the Kingdom into a series of royal blunders in Yemen, Qatar and Iran, and he has likely over promised what Saudi Arabia is able and willing to do on the Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking front. Far from demonstrating judgment and experience, he's proven to be reckless and impulsive, with little sense of how to link tactics and strategy. And sadly, he's managed to implicate and drag the new Trump administration into some of these misadventures, too.

Miller and Sokolsky are right about MBS' shoddy record, but their warning to the Trump administration is very likely too late. They urge the administration to rethink its position before "its Middle East policy becomes a wholly owned subsidiary of Saudi Arabia," but I fear that that already happened at the Riyadh summit. Unfortunately, some top U.S. officials are only just now realizing it and don't know how to stop it. There could be some belated efforts to undo this, but Trump isn't interested. He doesn't seem to see anything wrong with identifying the U.S. so closely with the Saudis, and he doesn't see their recklessness and destructive behavior for what they are. Since he is impulsive, careless, and has poor judgment, it isn't surprising that he has such an affinity for the aging Saudi despot and his favorite incompetent son. On top of all that, MBS is a short-sighted, foolish hard-liner on Iran, and as far as we can tell Trump is much the same, so we should expect them to be on the same page.

There's no question that every foreign policy initiative associated with MBS has "turned into a hot mess," but this has been obvious in Yemen for the last two years. If no one in the Trump administration noticed that before, what is going to make them realize it now? The authors are also right that Trump's decision "to side with Saudi Arabia in its conflict with Qatar and in Yemen is akin to pouring gasoline on a fire," but until very recently uncritical backing of the Saudis in their regional adventurism enjoyed broad bipartisan support that helped make it possible for things to get this bad. There were very few in Washington who thought that pouring gasoline on the fire was the wrong thing to do, and for more than two years the U.S. poured a lot of gas on the fire in Yemen that has been consuming thousands of lives and putting millions at risk of starvation.

My point here is that Trump has pressed ahead with uncritical support for the Saudis because that has been the conventional hawkish position in Washington for years before he got there. He is catering to the existing warped desire to provide even more support to Riyadh than Obama did. It was conventional wisdom among many foreign policy pundits and analysts that Obama had not been "pro-Saudi" enough, and Trump apparently bought into that view. Trump's enthusiastic embrace of the Saudis is the result of endlessly berating Obama for not giving the Saudis absolutely everything they wanted.

There is now more open opposition to at least some aspects of U.S. policy in Yemen, as we saw with the recent close vote on a Saudi arms sale. The Qatar crisis has prompted more criticism of the Saudis from our government than two years of destroying and starving an entire country. Yet there is still remarkably little scrutiny of the underlying U.S.-Saudi relationship despite growing evidence that the kingdom has become a regional menace and a major liability to the U.S. Until that changes and until Trump's excessive fondness for the Saudi leadership starts to become a major political problem for him, pleading with the arsonist's enabler to put out fires will have little effect.

[Jun 30, 2017] How much of a threat does Russia pose, and to whom?

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile , June 29, 2017 at 5:01 am
From Auntie BBC (which is not a state-run organization!) -

How much of a threat does Russia pose, and to whom?

Oh do tell - pleeeeease!!!!

And get this:

If Moscow could tear up the rule-book of security in post-Cold War Europe by carving off a slice of Ukraine (as it previously did in Georgia), many feared the Baltic republics – also territory of the former Soviet Union – could be next

Tearing off a slice of Georgia, eh?

According to Michael Kofman of the Wilson Center's Kennan Institute, "by 2012 Russia had reorganised its armed forces from a Soviet mass mobilisation army into a permanent standing force, and began improving quality across the board".

This was coupled with an intense regimen of snap checks on readiness and countless exercises, to the extent that "by 2014 the Russian military was markedly improved compared to its lacklustre performance in the Russia-Georgia war in 2008", he says.

Lacklustre?

So they got whupped by the US trained and equipped Georgians, did they?

All the experts I spoke to insist that the initial focus of the Russian effort has been on Ukraine, not the Baltics. Indeed, Michael Kofman argues that the war in Ukraine imposed unexpected requirements on Russia's military, which found itself lacking permanently stationed forces on the country's borders, and ill-positioned for the conflict.

The war in the Ukraine?

He means the civil war there, right?

He can't mean that Russia is waging against the Ukraine, can he?

"Russian armed forces", he says, "were, and still are, in transition".

To address the prospect of war with Ukraine in the medium to long term, he says, Russia "has spent much of the past three years repositioning units around Ukraine, building three new divisions, rebasing several brigades, and creating an entire new combined-arms army.

So now it's "the war with Ukraine" not "in the Ukraine" is it?

So he did mean above that Russia is at war with the Ukraine?

The intent is for Russian ground forces to be in place just across the border should they need to reinforce proxies in the Donbas, invade from several vectors, or simply deter Kiev from thinking it could quickly retake the separatist regions by force".

So they are at war with the Ukraine, but they are not actually in the Ukraine?

I see.

And they have "proxies" waging war for them in the Ukraine, right?

Michael Kofman notes, "Russia is a Eurasian land power, bringing a lot of firepower to the fight, but its strength shines when fighting close to home".

Well I'm so pleased you've grasped that point, Mr. Kofman!

The consensus among the experts seems to be that Ukraine was a warning bell. Russia's newfound assertiveness is not to be confused with a desire to launch a military attack westwards.
Indeed, the immediate Russian threat may come from its information warfare and cyber campaigns directed against the West. That's a battle that has already been joined. And it is one the West is equally ill-prepared for.

Well that's good news, isn't it?

By the way, when did Russia last launch an attack westwards?

1944 you say?

Well I never!

What on earth for?

What? They invaded Germany ?

You"ll be telling me next that they invaded France!

They did?

In 1814?

What the hell for?

Right! I get the picture.

The Russians are aggressive.

Clearly.

kirill , June 29, 2017 at 5:46 am
Yeah, the 7 million people in the Donbas are all Russian proxies. Gotta love the NATzO propagandist systematic omission of numbers to twist the context. In case my point is not clear, if the Donbas population was really Ukr and loyal to Kiev, then Russia would hardly be in any position to wage war there by proxy or directly. This is basically proof by induction; if Kiev loyal regions of Banderastan were as easy to disrupt like the Donbas, then all of Banderastan would be in this condition. Clearly, the narrative being peddled by the NATzO propaganda chorus is inane. The only explanation of the situation in the Donbas that fits the facts is that it is rebelling against Kiev.
marknesop , June 29, 2017 at 11:31 am
'Russia's newfound assertiveness' is no more or less than an abandonment of hope in NATO's promises and flannel, and a decision to stop backing up. It's nice of them to telegraph their moves so far in advance, though, and point to the Baltics as their designated flashpoint.
Cortes , June 30, 2017 at 1:51 pm
The Beeb definitely falls within the EU legal concept of an "emanation of the State."

[Jun 30, 2017] More clumsy comedy from the Exceptional Nation; America announces that it believes Syria has backed away from its diabolical plan to murder more women and children in another Assad-signature chemical attack

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , June 30, 2017 at 12:09 pm
More clumsy comedy from the Exceptional Nation; America announces that it believes Syria has backed away from its diabolical plan to murder more women and children in another Assad-signature chemical attack – thanks, of course, to the fact that the United States of America has the Syrian airbase from which he planned to launch it under constant surveillance, and ample punishing forces on a hair-trigger alert. Have a care, Assad, you murderer!!!

So now the absence of evidence that a chemical attack is in progress is proof that there was such a plan. In other news, Donald Trump has had to abandon his plan to sodomize the neighbours' dog. Thanks to my having the pooch under constant surveillance.

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Pavlo Svolochenko , June 30, 2017 at 7:25 pm
The blond moron has hit upon a solid tactic – issue warning, declare victory when nothing happens.

If he wants to keep this up for the rest of the war, I don't see a problem.

[Jun 30, 2017] Make No Mistake, We Are Already at War in Syria by Philip Giraldi

Jun 30, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Something peculiar happens to American presidents after they take office on January 20.

Campaign promises to right the easily perceived misdirections in foreign policy are abandoned, and the new program for dealing with the rest of the world winds up looking very much like the old one. Bill Clinton was an anti-Vietnam War draft dodger who preached the moral high ground for going to war before he turned around and got involved in the Balkans while also bombing Sudan and Afghanistan. George W. Bush promised non-interference and no nation-building overseas, but 9/11 converted him into an exemplar of how to do everything wrong as he sank into the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Barack Obama's margin of victory in 2008 was likely due to the perception that he was the peace candidate, particularly in contrast to his opponent Senator John McCain, but he wound up deeper in Afghanistan, out of, and then back into Iraq, interfering in Syria, and bringing about disastrous regime change in Libya while also allowing relations with Moscow to deteriorate. Donald Trump has surrounded himself with generals after promising no deeper involvement in foreign wars and the generals are telling him that winning wars only requires more soldiers on the ground and just a little more time and effort to stabilize things, all of which are self-serving formulae for policies that have already failed.

And then there are the perennial enemies, with Iran at the top of the list while Russia and China play supporting roles. Some would blame the foreign policy orientation on the Deep State, which certainly is suggestive, but I rather suspect that the flip-flops of recent presidents are also based on some other elements. First, none of them has been a veteran who experienced active duty, which makes war an abstraction observed second hand on PowerPoint in a briefing room rather than a reality. And second, the shaping of their views can be directly attributed to the pervasiveness of the establishment view on the appropriate role for the United States in the world.

Sometimes referred to as America's "civil religion," one can also call it "American exceptionalism" or the "leadership of the free world" or even "responsibility to protect" but the reality is that a broad consensus has developed in the United States that enables serial interventionism with hardly a squeak of protest coming from the American people.

Donald Trump has been in office for five months and it would appear that at least some of the outlines of his foreign policy are beginning to take shape, though that may be exaggeration as no one seems to be in charge. The "America First" slogan seemingly does not apply to what is developing, as actual U.S. interests do not appear to be driving what takes place, and there does not seem to be any overriding principle that shapes the responses to the many challenges confronting Washington worldwide.

The two most important observations that one might make are both quite negative. First, lamentably, the promised détente with Russia has actually gone into reverse, with the relationship between the two countries at the lowest point since the time of the late, lamented Hillary Rodham Clinton as Secretary of State. Second, we are already at war with Syria even though the media and Congress seem blissfully unaware of that fact. We are also making aggressive moves intended to create a casus belli for going to war with Iran , and are doubling down in Afghanistan with more troops on the way, so Donald Trump's pledge to avoid pointless wars and nation-building were apparently little more than glib talking points intended to make Barack Obama look bad.

The situation with Russia can be repaired as Vladimir Putin is a realist head of state of a country that is vulnerable and willing to work with Washington, but it will require an end to the constant vituperation being directed against Moscow by the media and the Democratic Party. That process could easily spin out for another year with all parties now agreeing that Russia intervened in our election even though no one has yet presented any evidence that Russia did anything at all.

Syria is more complicated. Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul have raised the alarm over American involvement in that country, declaring the U.S. military intervention to be illegal . Indeed it is, as it is a violation of the United Nations Charter and the American Constitution. No one has argued that Syria in any way threatens the United States, and the current policy is also an affront to common sense: like it or not Syria is a sovereign country in which we Americans have set up military bases and are supporting "rebels" (including jihadis and terrorists) who are seeking to overthrow the legitimate government. We have also established a so-called "de-confliction" zone in the southeast of the country to protect our proxies without the consent of the government in Damascus. All of that adds up to what is unambiguously unprovoked aggression, an act of war.

The war began in earnest when the Obama administration began building bases and sending Special Ops into Syria in the late summer of 2015, after the White House announced that it would "allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad."

That policy guaranteed escalation and direct American involvement in the conflict. In the last month, for the first time since the civil war in Syria began in 2011, the United States has directly attacked Syrian government forces or proxies four times, including two air attacks against Iranian militiamen allied to Damascus. Those moves were preceded by the April U.S. Navy launch of 59 cruise missiles in an attack directed against a Syrian air base. The recent escalation has produced a response from Russia, which decried in the strongest terms the latest of these incidents, in which a U.S. F-18 Hornet shot down a Syrian SU-22 fighter-bomber.

Moscow has now threatened to act against any U.S.-led coalition aircraft flying over western Syria, a step that could in short order lead to a Russian-U.S. war in the Middle East.

Syria is currently under attack from the air forces of sixteen nations operating within its airspace loosely affiliated with the U.S. effort to bring about regime change. When Syria resists, it is routinely accused of using "forbidden" weapons by the mouthpieces of the terrorist groups operating inside the country under the American umbrella. Currently, the White House is warning that it has "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime." UN Ambassador Nikki Haley elaborated in a tweet, " further attacks will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him "

Syria will "pay a very heavy price" if a chemical attack takes place, according to the White House statement. The U.S. warning will inevitably motivate the so-called rebels to stage an attack themselves and blame it on Damascus, as they have done in the past. It also dangerously escalates the conflict by directly targeting both Russia and Iran as Syrian "accomplices" in war crimes. It is a very dangerous move by the Trump Administration and one that apparently was not coordinated with the Defense and State Departments, which were caught flat footed by the White House announcement. The nature and credibility of the information implicating Syria has not been revealed and is being regarded as an "intelligence matter."

Much of this acting against actual U.S. interests has come about due to the "worthless ally" syndrome which has been prevalent in Washington for several decades. In the Middle East, where many of the problems begin, there is no coherent policy that has evolved beyond unconditional support for local "allies" Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Israel. This has meant in practical terms that the U.S. defers to Riyadh, Ankara, Cairo, and Tel Aviv in nearly all regional matters while it is also the guarantor of a feckless Afghan government.

So in spite of pledges to disengage from the cycle of warfare in the Middle East, the United States seems to be on course for direct involvement in a series of local conflicts with no clear "victory" and exit policy in place. Remove al-Assad and what comes next? What will the Russians do? Will America's so-called allies Turkey, Israel, and Saudi Arabia be satisfied with dismemberment of the Syrian state or will they insist on pushing on to Tehran? Who would fill that vacuum?

There are certainly other foreign policy black holes, to include the awful decision to rollback normalization with Cuba and the hot-then-cold moves against North Korea. Venezuela, a major U.S. oil supplier, is about to implode and it is not clear if the State Department has any contingency plan in place to deal with the crisis. But Russia and Syria are in a class by themselves as they have the potential to turn into Class A disasters, like Iraq or possibly even worse. And then there is Iran lurking, apparently hated by all the talking heads in Washington and inextricably linked to what is happening in Syria. It is more than capable of becoming the next catastrophe for a White House that is apparently staggering from crisis to crisis. What will Trump do? I am afraid that the lesson learned from the cruise missile attack on a Syrian base in April was that using force is popular, repeat as necessary. That would be a major mistake, but there is every sign that some of the people around Trump have their eyes on escalating and "doing something" in Syria and also against Iran for starters, and if Russia gets in the way we can deal with them too.

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

[Jun 30, 2017] Andy Haldane told BBC Newsnight that businesses had not invested enough to give the productivity improvements necessary to push up pay.

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Warren , June 30, 2017 at 3:29 pm

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TTXWBm8Xpgo?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Published on 29 Jun 2017
People in the UK feel "frustrated and squeezed" because their pay has flatlined for a decade, the Bank of England's chief economist has said.

Andy Haldane told BBC Newsnight that businesses had not invested enough to give the productivity improvements necessary to push up pay.

Newsnight is the BBC's flagship news and current affairs TV programme – with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.

[Jun 30, 2017] After Hersh Investigation, Media Connive in Propaganda War on Syria

Notable quotes:
"... But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag. ..."
"... His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed. ..."
"... The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so. ..."
"... And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats " confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances. ..."
"... There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media. ..."
"... In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net . ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

If you wish to understand the degree to which a supposedly free western media are constructing a world of half-truths and deceptions to manipulate their audiences, keeping us uninformed and pliant, then there could hardly be a better case study than their treatment of Pulitzer prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

All of these highly competitive, for-profit, scoop-seeking media outlets separately took identical decisions: first to reject Hersh's latest investigative report, and then to studiously ignore it once it was published in Germany last Sunday. They have continued to maintain an absolute radio silence on his revelations, even as over the past few days they have given a great deal of attention to two stories on the very issue Hersh's investigation addresses.

These two stories, given such prominence in the western media, are clearly intended to serve as "spoilers" to his revelations, even though none of these publications have actually informed their readers of his original investigation. We are firmly in looking-glass territory.

So what did Hersh's investigation reveal? His sources in the US intelligence establishment – people who have helped him break some of the most important stories of the past few decades, from the Mai Lai massacre by American soldiers during the Vietnam war to US abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2004 – told him the official narrative that Syria's Bashar Assad had dropped deadly sarin gas on the town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4 was incorrect. Instead, they said, a Syrian plane dropped a bomb on a meeting of jihadi fighters that triggered secondary explosions in a storage depot, releasing a toxic cloud of chemicals that killed civilians nearby.

It is an alternative narrative of these events that one might have assumed would be of intense interest to the media, given that Donald Trump approved a military strike on Syria based on the official narrative. Hersh's version suggests that Trump acted against the intelligence advice he received from his own officials, in a highly dangerous move that not only grossly violated international law but might have dragged Assad's main ally, Russia, into the fray. The Syrian arena has the potential to trigger a serious confrontation between the world's two major nuclear powers.

But, in fact, the western media were supremely uninterested in the story. Hersh, once considered the journalist's journalist, went hawking his investigation around the US and UK media to no avail. In the end, he could find a home for his revelations only in Germany, in the publication Welt am Sonntag.

There are a couple of possible, even if highly improbable, reasons all English-language publications ignored Hersh's story. Maybe they had evidence that his inside intelligence was wrong. If so, they have yet to provide it. A rebuttal would require acknowledging Hersh's story, and none seem willing to do that.

Or maybe the media thought it was old news and would no longer interest their readers. It would be difficult to sustain such an interpretation, but at least it has an air of plausibility – except for everything that has happened since Hersh published last Sunday.

His story has spawned two clear "spoiler" responses from those desperate to uphold the official narrative. Hersh's revelations may have been entirely uninteresting to the western media, but strangely they have sent Washington into crisis mode. Of course, no US official has addressed Hersh's investigation directly, which might have drawn attention to it and forced western media to reference it. Instead Washington has sought to deflect attention from Hersh's alternative narrative and shore up the official one through misdirection. That alone should raise the alarm that we are being manipulated, not informed.

The first spoiler, made in the immediate wake of Hersh's story, were statements from the Pentagon and White House warning that the US had evidence Assad was planning yet another chemical attack on his people and that Washington would respond extremely harshly if he did so.

Here is how the Guardian reported the US threats:

The US said on Tuesday that it had observed preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack at a Syrian air base allegedly involved in a sarin attack in April following a warning from the White House that the Syrian regime would 'pay a heavy price' for further use of the weapons.

And then on Friday, the second spoiler emerged. Two unnamed diplomats " confirmed " that a report by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) had found that some of the victims from Khan Sheikhoun showed signs of poisoning by sarin or sarin-like substances.

There are obvious reasons to be mightily suspicious of these stories. The findings of the OPCW were already known and had been discussed for some time – there was absolutely nothing newsworthy about them.

There are also well-known problems with the findings. There was no "chain of custody" – neutral oversight – of the bodies that were presented to the organisation in Turkey, as Scott Ritter, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, has noted . Any number of interested parties could have contaminated the bodies before they reached the OPCW. For that reason, the OPCW has not concluded that the Assad regime was responsible for the traces of sarin. In the world of real news, only such a finding – that Assad was responsible – should have made the OPCW report interesting again to the media.

Similarly, by going public with their threats against Assad, the Pentagon and White House did not increase the deterrence on Assad, making it less likely he would use gas in the future. That could have been achieved much more effectively with private warnings to the Russians, who have massive leverage over Assad. These new warnings were meant not for Assad but for western publics, to bolster the official narrative that Hersh's investigation had thrown into doubt.

In fact, the US threats increase, rather than reduce, the chances of a new chemical weapons attack. Other, anti-Assad actors now have a strong incentive to use chemical weapons in false-flag operation to implicate Assad, knowing that the US has committed itself to intervention. On any reading, the US statements were reckless – or malicious – in the extreme and likely to bring about the exact opposite of what they were supposed to achieve.

But beyond this, there was something even more troubling about these two stories. That these official claims were published so unthinkingly in major outlets is bad enough. But what is unconscionable is the media's continuing blackout of Hersh's investigation when it speaks directly to the two latest news reports.

No serious journalist could write up either story, according to any accepted norms of journalistic practice, and not make reference to Hersh's claims. They are absolutely relevant to these stories. In fact, more than that, the intelligence sources he cites are are not only relevant but are the reason these two stories have been suddenly propelled to the top of the news agenda.

Any publication that has covered either the White House-Pentagon threats or the rehashing of the OPCW report and has not mentioned Hersh's revelations is writing nothing less than propaganda in service of a western foreign policy agenda trying to bring about the illegal overthrow the Syrian government. And so far that appears to include every single US and UK mainstream newspaper and TV station. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Jonathan Cook

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are " Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and " Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair " (Zed Books). His website is www.jkcook.net .

[Jun 30, 2017] CNN is making Tucker Carlson look good!

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , June 29, 2017 at 11:54 am
I can't stand Tucker Carlson from his time as a loyal footsoldier in the ranks of the George Dubya Bush Apologist Army, but it's easy to feel in synch with him here just because CNN is so deservedly hated. Can't argue with your conclusions, either.
ucgsblog , June 29, 2017 at 2:12 pm
Then this will make you chuckle Mark – when I was discussing CNN at a meeting, one of the smarter analysts commented: "yet another reason to hate CNN is because they're making Tucker Carlson look good! Why doesn't anyone bring that up?"

The room responded with laughter. Remember the days when CNN used to claim that they're "the most trusted name in news" – well they're not doing that anymore:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/cnn-now-least-trusted-news-network-among-viewers

"In the poll published Wednesday by Rasmussen Reports, 1,000 likely voters were asked to describe their media viewing habits. Seventy-five percent said they watch at least some form of cable news each week, with 42 percent saying they most frequently watch Fox News, 35 percent usually choosing CNN, and 19 percent favoring MSNBC. An even 50 percent of frequent Fox News viewers agreed with a followup question, "Do you trust the political news you are getting?" By comparison, 43 percent of frequent MSNBC viewers and just 33 percent of those who mostly watch CNN said they trust their political news."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/18088/death-spiral-along-its-credibility-cnn-ratings-john-nolte#exit-modal

"For instance, on Tuesday, over the course of the day, CNN was only able to attract a measly 670,000 viewers. For context, MSNBC nearly doubled this number; Fox News nearly tripled it. CNN has almost always lagged a bit behind MSNBC in total viewers, but not like this."

Why couldn't it be 620,000? The reason I'm asking, is because 6.2 million Americans watched Putin's interview with Megyn Kelly. I'm not yet sure about Stone's Putin Interviews – but that number also seems to be very positive and in the millions. Of course losing to Discovery Channel didn't help CNN:

"Furthermore, throughout this same quarter, CNN lost to MSNBC in total and primetime demo viewers. This is the first time since 2014 that CNN has lost that demo crown to its leftwing rival. In total viewers last quarter, among all cable news channels, Fox News placed first, MSNBC third, and CNN is all alone in tenth place, just barely ahead of Investigative Discovery, a second-tier offshoot of the Discovery Network."

I predicted this would happen back when they fucked up their coverage of the Ossetian War. Now I'm just watching the train-wreck, thinking "am I really eating the best tasting popcorn? Have I finally found it?"

marknesop , June 29, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I hope they are driven right out of existence – I can't wait to see Wolf Blitzer sitting on a bench outside Hope Cottage in downtown Halifax, bleary-eyed and waiting for the free soup line to open. All of a journalist's enemies should be among the corrupt mages of the state apparatus – when the common man earnestly prays for you to be brought low, you've lost your way, and are feeding on a projected image of yourself. I think it's safe to say that we have seen the most precipitous decline in ethics in journalism, this past decade, that has occurred since its humble beginnings.

[Jun 30, 2017] The Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia -- an explanationwhy the ageing clown Colbert went to Russia

Notable quotes:
"... An explanation – of sorts – of why the ageing arse-clown Colbert went to Russia: ..."
"... "In total, the Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia, but the host didn't specify when these remote segments might air. The trip took months of planning, Colbert said, and yielded a week's worth of content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emmy nomination-round voting closed Monday night - just days after Colbert made his trip public, first through a snarky tweet addressed to Donald Trump. ..."
"... By planning a week's worth of content, it seems Late Show wants to make certain that its trip to Russia lands with the greatest impact - and ends with a shiny new Emmy. After all, what would bother the president more than his archenemy in late-night taking home an award that Trump never managed to win himself?" ..."
"... Poison and antidote. Hooking them up on a drug and then extorting junkies for all their money for a new dose. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh ,

June 28, 2017 at 3:43 pm
An explanation – of sorts – of why the ageing arse-clown Colbert went to Russia:

Vanity Fear: Why Stephen Colbert really went to Russia

The Late Show host is back in the U.S., with a week's worth of episodes from his trip-but there's another, bigger reason for his jaunt abroad

"In total, the Late Show team shot four or five pieces in Russia, but the host didn't specify when these remote segments might air. The trip took months of planning, Colbert said, and yielded a week's worth of content. Perhaps not coincidentally, Emmy nomination-round voting closed Monday night - just days after Colbert made his trip public, first through a snarky tweet addressed to Donald Trump.

Though we don't know when his Russia segments will air, it seems safe to assume they'll broadcast some time before final-round Emmy voting begins in August, or during the voting period itself. Colbert will host this year's Emmy ceremony in September, and after a year of hard work to overtake Jimmy Fallon in the ratings, the comedian and his team would love to walk home with some statuary as well. It's almost certain that Late Show itself will be nominated - and ambitious pieces filmed off-site could boost the host's chances of actually winning. After all, it was during his week of episodes from last year's Republican National Convention that Colbert found his groove as a network late-night host in the first place.

Colbert isn't the first late-night host to travel to Russia. Two years ago, John Oliver made waves when he interviewed Edward Snowden there. And last fall, Samantha Bee's team tracked down some Russian trolls for fascinating interviews. Outside the late-night sphere, Megyn Kelly also made the journey earlier this month for her dull interview with Vladimir Putin. Colbert's trip could carry even more weight than those of his late-night contemporaries simply because of timing - Oliver went before the presidential campaign had ramped up, and Bee went before Trump's victory.

By planning a week's worth of content, it seems Late Show wants to make certain that its trip to Russia lands with the greatest impact - and ends with a shiny new Emmy. After all, what would bother the president more than his archenemy in late-night taking home an award that Trump never managed to win himself?"

Here you go! Russia is a "commodity" on the Media market. You know – this "internationally isolated" (c) "gas station masquerading as a country" (c) that "produces nothing" (c). Here how it works. Talking heads create the illusion of "oppressive" and "forbidden" Russia, that is oh so dangerous to visit. And then they "brave" to visit it – woo-hoo! Surely, if they are so brave, that they MIRACLOUSLY survived numerous assassination attempts (remember, kids – billions of journos are killed in Russia daily!) then everything they say must be true .

Poison and antidote. Hooking them up on a drug and then extorting junkies for all their money for a new dose.

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Lyttenburgh , June 28, 2017 at 3:46 pm
Addendum.

On the previous page yalensis made a very important observation – Colbert, Oliver, Stewart etc. are court jesters of the so-called Western liberal democracy. In ages past, court jesters were (wait for it!) present at this or that feudal lord's court but they were not of the court themselves. They were anti-court, and they looked the part: instead of a crown they wore a cap with bells, instead of regal scepter and orb – a stick with pig's bladder, instead of rich vestment and mantle – an eyegouging ridiculous attire. No one could possibly mistake them for "normal" people.

That was the point. They were tolerated because they were not perceived as normal.

Modern day court jesters don't stand out. They wear suits, and ties and expensive shoes – just like the members of elite they diss/serve under. They look normal and thus are perceived as normal. Which is wrong and deceitful. People consider them "journalists" and "reporters" – which they are not. The fool's role is to embellish, to tell parables and to exaggerate – and, yes, to lie.

They are fools, all right. But how would you call the people, their enormous audience, who listen to fools and believe their every single word?

Cortes , June 28, 2017 at 4:42 pm
I beg to disagree with your penultimate paragraph.

Proper court jesters are still around and wear not the attire of the perspiring middle class.

As the best courtroom potboiler puts it: I'd like to present Prosecution Exhibit #1:

http://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2002/08/19/charlesandcamilla/

Reply

[Jun 30, 2017] As the article points out, the missile could not have reached the target from the launch point specified by the JIT in 10 seconds.

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

Correction to above translation:

The radar, according to Blok, could simply have missed the missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that the missile could have slipped through during its "turn" and have therefore left no trace on the Russian Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar would have been unable to register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that the radar station could have missed the missile", the head of Russian Aviation Regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said on Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

See also: Политическое направление: почему локатор не увидел ракету, сбившую MH17

Political direction: why the [radar] locator failed to see the missile that downed MH17

"The fact that something was not visible on the radar, doesn't mean that something was not there" - noted the Minister of Security and Justice, Stephen Blok, in answering a question from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament (the States General).

The question he was asked concerned radar data provided by Russia that showed that the radars had not detected a "Buk" missile. Bok reinforced his argument by speaking about the 360-degree sweep of a "Utes-T" radar locator, which before the crash of flight MH17 in the sky over the Donbas could have been sweeping in the opposite direction in the same way as does a lighthouse beam.

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:59 am
I wonder if Blok has ever actually observed a radar display that is tracking a Buk missile? Or any such tracking display for that matter.
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 4:25 pm
As the article points out, the missile could not have reached the target from the launch point specified by the JIT in 10 seconds. And radar does not just illuminate targets, it records having received an echo return from bouncing off something, so that as the operator you see a dot – which they referred to as a tick – which is the accumulation of 'hits' by the radar, so that you can distinguish a target from the innumerable random dots which result from the characteristic known as 'scatter'. Most radars have a feature known as history recording or target trails, in which you begin to see the contacts progress by the trail of 'hits' it leaves behind.

In any case, it is significant that the Dutch investigation team did not bother to get a radar expert to summarize its findings in that area, but a political appointee with no experience in that field.

Jen , June 28, 2017 at 7:49 pm
Doesn't the BUK missile delivery system itself also rely on radar to locate and target any objects? So had there been a team or unit of soldiers operating such a system in the area where the Dutch claim they were in, then wouldn't Russian military have been able to work out the radar frequencies the group was using and contact it?
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 10:28 pm
Well, the Russians would hardly contact this group, would they? Not knowing the SBU and their crack communications-intercept teams were listening and ready to record another admission of Russian culpability. Over several days of observations it would be possible to identify unique Buk systems by their operating frequencies, yes. Typically they are identified as operating in the band of frequencies which identify them as a Buk system, and that's good enough, but it is possible to identify one among others if you have the opportunity to match its frequencies to observation and watch it move around, although if there are several systems, their operating frequencies will all be close.

But the Dutch story is that this system was smuggled in just long enough to take the shot and then quickly smuggled out again, and that it was only one launcher and not a complete system. The radar on the launcher is highly directional, and electronic warfare systems might not pick it up unless they were along its line of sight, whereas the emitter which is usually correlated to the Buk (by electronic intercept) is the search radar, which is its own separate vehicle.

Russian electronic warfare did report several Buk systems active in the area – all Ukrainian, presumably, since the Ukrainian command insisted the rebels did not have any – the day prior to the disaster. That statement (that the rebels did not have any Buks that were captured from the Ukrainian Army) and other realities are what force the crazy story whereby Russia supposedly smuggled in a partial system, took the shot and ran for it. It's the only one they can make fit.

kirill , June 29, 2017 at 6:00 am
The Dutch are peddling one of the most inane tinfoil hat theories ever. If Russia smuggled in that single component for an in and out atrocity, then why the FCUK didn't they just help the Donbas "terrorists' fix up the system that fell into their hands that fits the same description (i.e. one lacking a separate radar unit). Hiding a few Buk missiles in the back of a truck is vastly easier than lugging around a whole mobile unit on a flatbed.

This is shit is the same "feed the retards some 'plausible' story" ploy as the Polonium murder of Litvinenko. Smearing Polonium on a Moscow circuit plane is the ultimate in inanity. Let's use an exotic murder weapon that is messy and hard to use and make sure to trace it back to ourselves. For fuck's sake, using a hand gun with a silencer is orders of magnitude easier and less traceable since throwing the gun in the river actually works and it will have negligible chance of being found by the cops unless they have a witness.

Jen , June 29, 2017 at 4:00 pm
Of course! – I hadn't thought the SBU would be monitoring communications between the rebels in Donetsk and any outside supporters. My oversight. I had in mind a hypothetical situation where the Russian military detects such a "unit", observes its activities to determine their intended objective and then warns the "unit" that it is under surveillance.
marknesop , June 28, 2017 at 3:54 pm
As I've pointed out before, any emitter with such a slow scan rate as that would be useless for air traffic control. There are radars with huge antennas and very slow scan rates, but they are high-power emitters used for Early Warning, not for controlling fast-moving aircraft and deconflicting a busy air picture at various altitudes. But the Dutch 'investigators' who are helping Ukraine wash itself out of the picture hope that you are stupid.

[Jun 30, 2017] in Lviv, ground zero for Ukrainian nationalism, where a recent survey and study found that 48 percent of undergraduates had paid bribes to get a better grade or to falsify attendance, while nearly all (the data sample was pretty small, 600) admitted to cheating on exams or tests

Jun 30, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , June 30, 2017 at 6:54 pm
As any fule kno, the way to get a good grade in higher education is to buy it.

Or so it seems in Lviv, ground zero for Ukrainian nationalism, where a recent survey and study found that 48% of undergraduates had paid bribes to get a better grade or to falsify attendance, while nearly all (the data sample was pretty small, 600) admitted to cheating on exams or tests.

Keep working on those European standards, Galicia – you're nearly there .

[Jun 30, 2017] Vladimir Putin A Suitor Spurned

Jun 28, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews reveals a pro-American Putin disdained by Washington

by Justin Raimondo Posted on June 28, 2017 June 27, 2017 Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump kept repeating a line that stuck in the Establishment's craw like a cherry pit stuck under a denture: " Wouldn't it be nice if we could get along with Russia? " Russia and specifically Russian President Vladimir Putin are consistently portrayed in the US media as implacable enemies of the US and the West: it's simply taken as the given. And yet, the biggest revelation in Oliver Stone's recent four-part series of extensive interviews with Putin is how consistently and desperately Putin has tried to get along with us. In the second interview, Stone points out that, after the 9/11 attacks, Putin was "one of the first to call [George W. Bush] and offer condolences, and Putin elaborates that more than a phone call was involved:

"Yes, we had planned military exercises of our new strategic forces for the next day. And I canceled those exercises and I wanted the president of the United States to know that. Certainly I understood that heads of state and governments in such a situation need moral support.. And we wanted to demonstrate this to President Bush."

Contrast this with the behavior of the US government when Russian cities came under attack from Chechen Islamic terrorists in the 2010 bombing of the Moscow Metro system. While there was a pro forma denunciation of the attack, the American propaganda network, "Radio Free Europe," ran a piece entitled " In Wake of Metro Bombings, Putin's War On Terror Is Under Fire ." The gist of the article is that Putin, not the terrorists, was responsible for the attacks. There is even a quote from Boris Nemtsov, the leader of a tiny opposition movement whose death two years ago was naturally blamed on Putin, implying that the whole thing was a "false flag" operation carried out by the authorities:

"'This happened right under the security services' noses,' Nemtsov said, noting that the attack at the Lubyanka metro station took place in close proximity to the headquarters of the Federal Security Service .

"Nemtsov adds that many disturbing questions remain about the attacks.

"'Nobody can explain how two female suicide bombers got to the center of Moscow. Nobody can answer how they got the explosives. Nobody can answer what the police and security services were doing to prevent this.'"

Radio Free Europe also referred to the 1999 apartment bombings that took place in Moscow and other major cities as "mysterious," bolstering the "truther" views of fringe Russian oppositionists – including exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky – that the Russian intelligence services were behind the attacks. According to the Russian "truthers," it was all a plot to hand total power to Putin.

Yet here is Putin telling Stone that allowing the US military access to Russian bases in Tajikistan in order to fight the Taliban was right and necessary because "We believe that this cooperation is in our national interest." This says something important about Putin, and his conception of how Russia's foreign policy should be run: he never allows emotions to get in the way of pursuing what he regards as his country's interests, objectively defined. And there are plenty of emotional reasons for him to obstruct the US at every turn, for as the interview continues Stone brings up Washington's "regime-change" operations aimed at the Kremlin, specifically CIA chief Bill Casey's plan to utilize Islamic radicals against the Russians after the fall of Afghanistan. Putin's reply is revealing:

"You see, the thing is, these ideas are still alive. And when those problems in the Caucasus and Chechnya emerged, unfortunately the Americans support these processes . Even though we counted on American support. We assumed that the Cold War was over but instead we witnessed the American intelligence services support terrorists. And even when we confirmed that, when we demonstrated that Al Qaeda fighters were fighting in the Caucasus, we still saw the intelligence services of the United States continue to support these fighters."

Longtime readers of Antiwar.com, and of this column, may recall this piece exposing the US-based support network enjoyed by the Caucasus "rebels" via the "American Committee for Peace in Chechnya," and the myriad connections of Metro bomber Rezvan Chitigov, a US resident with a green card , to Al Qaeda's terrorist activities in the region.

US government support to the Chechen terrorists wasn't just propagandistic: as Putin points out, they provided technical and logistical support, moving them around the battlefield. When Putin met with George W. Bush, he brought this up, and the then President said "I'll sort this out."

He never did. Instead, the CIA actually sent a letter to their Russian counterparts in response to Putin's concerns, which said, in summary: "We support all the political forces, including the opposition forces, and we're going to continue to do that." So in public, the Bush administration was bloviating about the centrality of the "war on terrorism," while they were covertly canoodling with Al Qaeda and allied forces in the Caucasus in a relentless campaign against Russia.

And the same thing is happening in Syria today, with US support to Islamist "rebels" intent on overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad. "It's a systemic mistake," says Putin, "which is repeated always. This is the same thing which happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And right now it's happening in the Middle East."

Stone presses the Russian leader for evidence of Western support to Chechen terrorists, and Putin's reply is that it was no secret, which it certainly was not. The British government granted asylum to Akhmed Zakayev, former "Prime Minister" of the breakaway Islamist "Chechen Republic of Icheria" – whose forces carried out the bloody Beslan attacks on Russian schoolchildren. The National Endowment for Democracy, the European Union, and the Norwegian government funded the "Russia-Chechen Friendship Society," which published Chechen separatist propaganda. When the Kremlin moved to shut this operation down, the Western media pointed to it as evidence of Putin's "authoritarianism," and yet imagine if the Russians started funding, say, a Texas secessionist movement in the US. American lawmakers and officials can't even meet with the Russian ambassador without being accused of "treason"! Our National Endowment for Democracy has honored the former "Foreign Minister" of the Chechen Isalmic "republic," Ilyas Akhmadov, with a fellowship, and he regularly participates in NED events. Wanted on terrorism charges in Russia, he was granted asylum by the Bush administration.

Putin's complaints about US policy are centered on three issues:

Washington's "regime change" campaign against the Kremlin. The US decision to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The eastward expansion of NATO.

These are all interconnected, but it's worth noting where and when they originated: during the presidency of George W. Bush – when the neoconservatives were in the drivers' seat. And these policies continued throughout the Obama years, with the Democrats now signing on to the Hate-on-Russia campaign and escalating it beyond anything yet seen. As Putin put it to Stone, "And there's one curious thing – the presidents of your country change, but the policy doesn't change – I mean on principled issues." That's because the national security bureaucracy – what conservatives these days are referring to as the "Deep State" ( without crediting Noam Chomsky!) – and not our elected officials are the ones really in charge.

While there's some controversy surrounding the alleged promise made to the Russians that NATO would not expand if the Kremlin agreed to allow German reunification, the fact that the agreement was verbal and not enshrined on paper doesn't obviate its significance. And there is plenty of evidence to show that there was indeed such an agreement. As Joshua Shifrinson pointed out in the Los Angeles Times :

"In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, US could make "iron-clad guarantees" that NATO would not expand 'one inch eastward.' Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to reunification talks."

Yet NATO pushed eastward without interruption during the Bush years, and this process continued under his successors, until today, with Trump in the White House, tiny Montenegro is now hailed as the latest entrant into the club – a country whose borders are ill-defined, and whose combative internal politics are a constant struggle between pro-Russian and pro-Western forces. Against whom, Putin asks, is NATO protecting its members from? Who is the "enemy"? Clearly the answer is Russia, as the alliance expands to the very gates of Moscow and Western forces engage in provocative "exercises," simulating a NATO invasion of Russian territory.

The ABM Treaty, once the cornerstone of détente, was nullified by the United States – but why? The official explanation – at least, the one given to Putin – was that the US had to build antimissile defenses against the alleged "threat" from Iran. Aside from the credibility of the contention that the Iranians were getting ready to strike Warsaw or Prague, the Iran deal, says Putin, makes this rationalization obsolete. Yet still the antimissile shield is being expanded, and the Russians are obliged to take countermeasures, lest the US gain a first strike capability.

As I pointed out in the first installment of this review, it's fascinating to see the contrast between Stone, a committed man of the left, and Putin, who's closer to being a paleoconservative than anything else. In reviewing the history of Russo-American relations since 1917, Stone avers that "The United States and the allies did nothing to help the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union was warning the world about the fascist threat in Spain and throughout Europe." He goes on to echo Stalin's complaint that the Western allies weren't doing enough to help the Soviets, who were taking the brunt of Germany's assault. Left out of his historical account is the fact that the Soviets were allied with Hitler's Germany, that the Soviets and the Germans jointly invaded and divided up Poland, and that this was the genesis of the Second World War. Just a minor oversight!

Juxtapose Stone's uncritical view of Soviet foreign policy with Putin's perspective: the Russian leader considers the Warsaw Pact a mistake. Citing the Soviet withdrawal from Austria, a move which he see as creating an "asset," and the agreement over the neutral status of Finland, Putin contends that Russia – if it had followed this course – would've been able to deal with the West "on a civilized basis. We would have been able to cooperate with them. We wouldn't have had to spend enormous resources to support their inefficient economies." Yes, Putin realizes what American policymakers don't see: that empires are a burden, not an asset.

The creation of the Warsaw Pact gave the West an "excuse," as Putin puts it, "to create NATO and launch a Cold War." And he makes a very salient point about how and why US foreign policy went off on a dangerous tangent in the post-Soviet era:

"I think that when the United States felt they were at the forefront of the so-called civilized world and when the Soviet Union collapsed, , they were under the illusion that the United States was capable of everything and they could act with impunity. And that's always a trap, because in this situation, a person and a country begins to commit mistakes. There is no need to analyze the situation. No need to think about the consequences. No need to economize. And the country becomes inefficient and one mistake follows another. And I think that's the trap the United States has found itself in."

He takes his argument further, positing that the whole society becomes infected with this unrealistic hubris, and it becomes politically necessary for the leadership to follow this irrational course to the very end.

Stone is excited by this kind of talk: he goes into a riff about how what he'd like to talk about in their next interview "is this pursuit of world domination" by the US. At which point, Putin draws back:

"Well, let's agree on something. I know how critical you are of the United States' policies. Please do not try to drag me into anti-Americanism."

I had to laugh when I heard that. It underscores Putin's view of the US, and the whole spirit of these interviews: while Putin believes that the present foreign policy of US leaders is misguided, he holds out hope that this is not a permanent condition. While Stone has this one-dimensional view of the US as the Global Villain – as if this is an inherent quality of American society, perhaps due to the nature of American capitalism – Putin sees the consequences of what calls "the logic of imperialism" as an aberration.

It's a view with which I very much concur: American imperialism is an aberration, a radical deviation from the course set for us by the Founders of this country, and completely out of character for the overwhelming majority of the American people, who just want to live in peace.

In the first installment of this series, I said that there is plenty of real news buried in these interviews, and certainly Putin's revelation that the Russians rejected Edward Snowden's first contacts with the Russians, which occurred when he was in China, qualifies. Apparently a request for asylum was made, either by Snowden or his representatives, "but I said we wanted nothing to do with that," says Putin. The Russians didn't want to aggravate their already difficult relations with the US government. And this rejection was probably due in part to the fact that "Snowden didn't want to give us any information, and he has to be credited with that," Putin continues. "But when it turned out we were not willing to do that yet, not ready, he just disappeared."

So how did Snowden wind up in Russia? As my readers may recall, he arrived at a Russian airport en route probably to Cuba or Ecuador. However, the US mobilized its European sock-puppets and blocked the route, and so he stayed in the Russian airport for weeks. He was eventually granted temporary asylum because the United States had been consistently refusing to sign an extradition treaty with Russia, despite the initiative undertaken by Moscow at the time. "And according to our law," says Putin, "Snowden didn't violate any law – he didn't commit any crime." And so with the US pointedly refusing to extradite Russians accused of crimes – such as terrorism – to Russia, "it was absolutely impossible for us to unilaterally extradite Snowden as the US was asking us to do."

Talk about blowback!

There's more news: Stone asks about the extent of Russian spying on the US, and Putin's response is quite revealing, albeit not in the way Stone or anyone else expected:

"Yes, sure, I don't have anything against their spying on us. But let me tell you something quite interesting. After radical changes – political changes – took place in Russia, we thought that we were surrounded by allies and no one else. And we also thought the United States was our ally. And this former president of the KGB, of the special services of Russia, all of a sudden he transferred to our American partners, our American friends, the old system of eavesdropping devices on the US Embassy in Moscow. And he did it unilaterally. Just all of a sudden, on a whim – as a token of trust symbolizing the transition to a new level."

There was, however, no reciprocal move from the Americans: "We never witnessed any step from the United States toward us."

Of course not.

Editorial note : This is the second of a multi-part series reviewing Oliver Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is here . You can get the book version of Stone's work here .

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

Read more by Justin Raimondo Why The Elites Hate Putin – June 29th, 2017 Who Tried to Kill Putin – Five Times? – June 25th, 2017 A Brief Missive – June 22nd, 2017 Our Rush to War in Syria – June 20th, 2017 Hodgkinson's Disease: Politics and Paranoia in the Age of Trump – June 18th, 2017

[Jun 30, 2017] Who Tried to Kill Putin – Five Times by Justin Raimondo

Jun 26, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

Oliver Stone's 'The Putin Interviews' (Part I)

Posted on June 26, 2017 June 25, 2017

Oliver Stone's series of interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin – conducted between July 2015 and February 2017 – has garnered a lot of attention, albeit in most cases not for the right reasons. In a much-noted appearance of Stephen Colbert's comedy show, the liberal host attacked Stone for not confronting the Russian leader for his alleged crimes – which simply shows that Colbert didn't bother seeing the interviews, because Stone most certainly did question Putin about this and other related matters. A review in Salon follows a similar pattern: the reviewer apparently did view at least some parts of the interviews, but predictably focused on the most superficial material: Putin loves Judo, he's not a feminist, and won't be marching in any Gay Pride events. Shocking!

In the present atmosphere of Russophobic hysteria, no honest account of what is happening in Russia or what Putin is really all about is likely to be taken at face value. What's astonishing, however, is that this four-part documentary was even made at all– and shown on Showtime, where it is currently playing. Less surprising is the fact that the interviews contain several news-making revelations that the "mainstream" media has so far largely ignored.

It gets interesting right from the beginning when Stone delves into Putin's early career. As a KGB officer stationed in East Germany, then the German Democratic Republic, he describes the GDR as entirely lacking the "spirit of innovation," a "society [that] was frozen in the 1950s." Hardly what one would expect from the caricature of a Soviet apparatchik Western profiles of Putin routinely portray. And also right from the beginning there is a tension between Stone, with his often archetypal liberal-left views, and Putin, whose perspective – if it has any American equivalent – might be called paleoconservative.

When Stone tries to identify Putin with Mikhail Gobachev, the Soviet liberal-reformist leader – "he has a resemblance to you in that he came up through that system. Very humble beginnings" – Putin rejects this outright with laconic disdain: "We all have something in common because we're human beings." Gorby, a favorite of American liberals, is seen by Putin as someone who "didn't know what [he] wanted or know how to achieve what was required."

Putin is routinely described by Western journalists as someone who wants to restore the old Soviet system, or at least restore the empire that extended over the countries of the Warsaw Pact, but what isn't recognized is that he opposed the failed coup that sought a Soviet restoration: he resigned from his KGB office when the coup plotters briefly took over. And so Stone asks him, "But in your mind, did you still believe in communism? Did you believe in the system?" Putin answers: "No, certainly not. But at the beginning I believed it and I wanted to implement it." So when did he change? "You know, regrettably, my views are not changed when I'm exposed to new ideas, but only when I'm exposed to new circumstances." Here is Putin the pragmatist, the man of action, who wants results and not theories: "The political system was stagnating," he says, "it was frozen, it was not capable of any development." Just like East Germany, which he had recently come from. And therefore he concluded that "the monopoly of one political force, of one party, is pernicious to the country."

Still, Stone insists that "these are Gorbachev's ideas, so you were influenced by Gorbachev." Yet Putin contradicts him: "These are not ideas of Gorbachev," who was merely trying to reform a system that was rotten at its very core: "The problem is this, this system was not efficient at its roots. And how can you radically change the system while preserving the country? That's something no one back then knew-including Gorbachev. And they pushed the country towards collapse."

It was the country versus the system – the latter was destroying the former. So how to preserve the Russian nation in the midst of so much turmoil? That was the problem that Russia faced as the Communist colossus was falling, and it is still the conundrum at the heart of Putin's concerns. Putin greatly resents Gorbachev because the would-be Soviet reformer was pushing the system toward its ultimate demolition without regard for the consequences.

And why was this a disastrous course in Putin's view? Not because the old Communist dream was exposed as a nightmare, but due to the fact that the nation – as opposed to the system – was dismembered. "To start with," says Putin, "the most important thing is that after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, 25 million Russians – in the blink of an eye – found themselves abroad. In another country."

Imagine waking up one morning and finding that you're not a citizen of the United States, but instead come under the control of some foreign entity that never existed in your lifetime. That's what happened in the old Soviet Union. And the consequences of that historic implosion are still reverberating some thirty years later.

A key part of the mythology surrounding Putin is that he's a power-mad dictator, the reincarnation of Stalin, and yet the facts – little known, of course, and not reported in the Western media – give us quite a different perspective. For example, I've never heard a single news story about Putin's career report the fact that he initially refused President Boris Yeltsin's first offer to appoint him Prime Minister. He didn't trust Yeltsin, with good reason, and to underscore the dangers inherent in the office at that point he says: "And there was only one thing I was thinking about back then: Where to hide my children?"

This is not someone who wants power for its own sake. Indeed, Putin comes across as a modest man, driven by a sense of patriotic duty rather than lust for power, prestige, or pelf. He looks askance at praise, such as when Stone says: "You're credited with doing many fine things in your first term. Privatization was stopped. You built up industries a real son of Russia – you should be proud. You raised the GDP," etc. etc. A Stalin type would simply have accepted this adulation, and yet Putin disputed Stone's key point:

"Well, it's not exactly like that. I didn't stop privatization. I just wanted to make it more equitable, more fair. We put an end to some schemes – manipulation schemes – which led to the creation of oligarchs. These schemes that allowed some people to become billionaires in the blink of an eye."

Here, again, we see the tension between Stone's left-wing economic views, and Putin's perspective, a theme played out in the entire course of these interviews: Putin continually insists that he is for private property, and that the "privatization" schemes he denounces were all due to the oligarchs' connections to the state apparatus, which handed them control of entire industries for pennies on the dollar. The oligarchs were made possible by government control of industry and a rigged system, the exact opposite of a market economy. Putin clearly understands this when, later in the interview, he says:

"Do you know who was not happy with the new laws [which opened up the bidding process for state-owned industries]? Those who were not true businessmen. Those who earned their millions or billions not thanks to their entrepreneurial talents, but thanks to their ability to force good relationships with the government – those people were not happy."

I said there was some real news buried in these interviews, which has gone unreported for the most part in Western media, and toward the end of the first interview there's a real shocker when Stone says:

"Five assassination attempts, I'm told. Not as much as Castro whom I interviewed – I think he must have had 50 – but there's a legitimate five that I've heard about."

Putin doesn't deny it. Instead, he talks about his discussion with Fidel Castro on the subject, who told him "Do you know why I'm still alive? Because I was always the one to deal with my security personally." However, Putin doesn't follow Castro's example. Apparently he trusts his security people: "I do my job and the security people do theirs." What's interesting is that the conversation continues along these lines, in the context of attempts on Castro's life. Stone is surprised that Putin didn't take Castro's advice on the security question, saying "Because always the first mode of assassination, from when the United States went after Castro, you try to get inside the security of the president to perform assassination." "Yes," replies Putin, "I know that. Do you know what they say among the Russian people? They say that those who are destined to be hanged are not going to drown."

While I'm not prepared to interpret this Russian proverb, or its relevance to what is an astounding revelation – five assassination attempts! – Putin's willingness to contradict or correct Stone, and the absence of any objection to this line of questioning on his part, looks very much like an endorsement of Stone's contention. To my knowledge, CBS – which owns Showtime - is the only major media outlet in this country (aside from a brief mention in Newsweek ) that reported it , and then only perfunctorily.

So who tried to kill Putin? From the context of this interview, the clear implication is that it was the US, or its agents, but we don't know that for a fact. Indeed, the whole subject is something Putin – while he doesn't deny it – doesn't want to pursue to the end. This is, I think, in large part because – and this will astonish you – he's very pro-American. This comes out in the beginning of the second interview, the next day [July 3, 2015], when, in the midst of a discussion about US intervention in Iraq in 1991, and Gorbachev's withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe, a clearly frustrated Stone – who is not getting the expected answers from Putin – explodes:

"Let's lay it on the line here. I mean, I was in the Vietnam War,. We sent 500,000 troops to Vietnam. That was outrageous and condemned by the whole world. After the détente with Gorbachev, Reagan and the United States put 500,000 troops into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait."

To this, Putin raises his eyebrows - ever so slightly – and says:

"I know that you are very critical of the American government in many dimensions. I do not always share your point of view. Despite the fact that, with regards to the American leadership, we do not always have the relationship we would like to have with them. Sometimes decisions have to be taken which are not entirely approved of in some parts of society."

After some confusion about what they're talking about – Putin is referring to the 1991 invasion of Iraq by George Herbert Walker Bush, not the invasion and subsequent occupation by his son – Putin says "President Bush was quite right to do what he did, he was cautious. He responded to aggression and then stopped when the time was right." The point here is not that Stone is wrong, but that the caricature of Putin as reflexively opposed to everything the United States does is inaccurate. Another indication of where Putin is really coming from is his habit – throughout the entire series of interviews – of referring to the US government as "our partners." This really sticks in Stone's craw, until he finally says:

"So stop referring to them as partners – 'our partners' – you've said that too much. They're being euphemistic. They're no longer partners.

" Putin : But dialogue has to be pursued further."

The Russian President maintains this tone throughout. It's almost wistful: speaking of "our partner," Putin exudes the air of a disappointed lover, one baffled by the constant rebuffs, the refusals, the outright disdain coming from the object of his affections. He constantly refers to the mutuality of interests that exists, the common goal of fighting Islamic terrorism, and he simply cannot believe that Washington continues to deny this. He just cannot understand it: why, we could be so happy together!

Indeed, Putin chides Stone more than once for his "anti-Americanism" – a charge Stone comes back to late in the interviews, and heatedly denies – and this underscores my point: here is someone who is not the enemy he is portrayed as being. Despite the coordinated campaign demonizing him in Western circles, despite the relentless eastward advance of NATO, despite the new cold war being waged at home and abroad by American politicians, Putin is stubbornly pro-American. And that is the most surprising aspect of these interviews, one I'll get into in more depth later as I continue this series.

Editorial note : This is the first part of a multi-part series on Oliver Stone's "The Putin Interviews." Future installments will continue throughout the week. Read the entire interviews, including unaired content, by buying the book.

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

[Jun 30, 2017] Why The Elites Hate Putin by Justin Raimondo

Notable quotes:
"... So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic. ..."
"... "And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people." ..."
"... it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." ..."
"... Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku." ..."
"... it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. ..."
"... Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks: ..."
"... "You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first." ..."
"... To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs. ..."
"... Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such. ..."
"... And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization. ..."
Jun 30, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

On Oliver Stone's The Putin Interviews (Part III)

by Justin Raimondo Posted on June 30, 2017 June 29, 2017 As the "Russia-gate" farce continues to dominate the American "news" media, and President Trump's foreign policy veers off in a direction many of his supporters find baffling, one wonders: what the heck happened? I thought Trump was supposed to be "Putin's puppet," as Hillary Clinton and her journalistic camarilla would have it.

The Russian president, in his extended interview with filmmaker Oliver Stone, has an explanation: "Stone: Donald Trump won. This is your fourth president, am I right? Clinton, Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, and now your fourth one. "Putin: Yes, that's true. "Stone: What changes? "Putin: Well, almost nothing."

Stone is surprised by this answer, and Putin elaborates:

"Well, life makes some changes for you. But on the whole, everywhere, especially in the United States, the bureaucracy is very strong. And bureaucracy is the one that rules the world."

This is a reiteration of something the Russian president said earlier in the context of Stone's questions about the US election. Stone asks what he thinks of the various candidates: Trump's name doesn't come up, but Stone does ask about Bernie Sanders. Putin replies:

"It's not up to us to say. It's not whether we are going to like it or not. All I can say is as follows the force of the United States bureaucracy is very great. It's immense. And there are many facts not visible about the candidates until they become president. And the moment one gets to the real work, he or she feels the burden."

So it doesn't matter who wins the presidential election, and inhabits the White House, because the national security bureaucracy is forever, and their power is – almost – unchallengeable. And so, given this, Putin's answer to Stone's somewhat tongue-in-cheek question, "Why did you hack the election?", is anti-climactic. The answer is: why would they bother? Putin dismisses the question as "a very silly statement," and then goes on to wonder why Western journalists find the prospect of getting along with Russia so problematic.

Trump and his campaign, says Putin, "understood where their voters were located" – a reference, I believe, to the surprising results in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Clinton's supporters "should have drawn conclusions from what they did, from how they did their jobs, they shouldn't have tried to shift the blame on to something outside." This is what the more perceptive progressives are saying – but then again I suppose that they, too, are "Putin's puppets."

This section of the interviews occurred in February, and so it's interesting how Putin predicted what would happen to the Trump presidency and the conduct of his foreign policy:

"And I think that Obama's outgoing team has created a minefield for the incoming president and for his team. They have created an environment which makes it difficult for the new president to make good on the promises he gave to the people."

To say the least. There is much more in this series of interviews, including some real news that has been ignored by the "mainstream" media, including:

Joint US-Russian efforts to eliminate ISIS in Syria were on the agenda even before Trump took the White House, "But at the last moment," says Putin, "I think due to some political reasons, our American partners abandoned this project." (This is yet another vindication of my theory of " libertarian realism ," by the way.) Putin tells Stone that the Ukraine snipers who shot at both the government forces and the anti-government crowds in Kiev – an event that signaled the end of the Yanukovych regime – were trained and financed in the West: "[W]e have information available to us that armed groups were trained in the Western parts of Ukraine itself, in Poland, and in a number of other places." Putin has evidence of Turkish support for ISIS : "During the G20 summit, when the journalists left the room, I took out photos and from my place where I was sitting I showed those photos [of ISIS oil being transported to Turkey] to everyone. I showed it to my counterparts. I showed them the route I mentioned earlier. And we have shown these photos to our American counterparts . Everyone knew about everything. So trying to open a door which is already open is simply senseless. It's something that is absolutely evident. So it's not about one single truck – there are thousands of trucks going through that route. It looks as if it were a living pipeline." At one point, Putin takes out his cell phone and shows Stone a video of a Russian attack on ISIS forces, remarking "By the way, they were coming from the Turkish side of the border." Putin reveals how US aid reaches jihadists: "According to the data we received, employees of the United States in Azerbaijan contacted militants from the Caucasus." In a letter from the CIA to their Russian counterparts, the Americans reiterated their alleged right to funnel aid to their clients, and the missive "even named the employee of the US Special Services who worked in the US embassy in Baku."

And then there's one specific instance in which the news is anticipated: Stone brings up the Snowden revelation that the Americans have planted malware in Japanese infrastructure capable of shutting that country down, and he speculates that Washington has surely targeted Russia in the same way. Which brings to mind a recent Washington Post story reporting that this is indeed the case .

There's a lot more in these interviews than I have space to write about: my favorites are the instances in which Stone's leftism comes up against Putin's paleoconservatism. At several points the issue of "anti-Americanism" comes up, and the debate between the two is illuminating in that it reveals the Russian leader's instinctual pro-Americanism, despite his objections to the policies of our government. I had to laugh when Putin asked Stone: "Are you a communist?" Stone denies it: "I'm a capitalist!"

There is also a lot of humor here: Stone insists on showing Putin a scene from "Dr. Strangelove," the part where the mad scientist rides a nuke, laughing maniacally. The sardonic expression on Putin's face speaks volumes. Early on, Stone asks "What is the US [foreign] policy? What is its strategy in the world as a whole?" To which Putin replies: "Certainly, I am going to reply to this question very candidly, in great detail – but only once I retire." In speaking about Washington's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty, Stone remarks:

"You know, the American Indians made treaties with the US government and they were the first to experience the treachery of the US government. You're not the first."

To which Putin replies: "We wouldn't like to be the last." And he laughs.

Putin's sense of humor is a bit dark, and things get darker still as he predicts what the consequences for Stone will be when "The Putin Interviews" is released:

"You've never been beaten before in your life?," says Putin. "Oh yes, many times," says Stone. I think Putin was talking about being physically beaten, but, anyway, the Russian leader goes on to say: "Then it's not going to be anything new, because you're going to suffer for what you're about to do." "No, I know," says Stone, "but it's worth it. It's worth it to try to bring some more peace and consciousness to the world."

Stone has been pilloried in the US media, by all usual suspects, but what's very telling is that none of his critics delve into the content of the interviews: they simply accuse Stone of being a " useful idiot ," a phrase from the lexicon of the cold war that's being revived by the liberals who used to be labeled as such.

And yet when you get down in the weeds, as I have tried to do in this series, one begins to realize the enormity of the hoax that's been perpetrated on the American people. Putin is routinely described in our media as the principal enemy of the United States: our military brass has been pushing this line, for budgetary reasons, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party has been pushing it for political reasons. And yet the lasting impression left by "The Putin Interviews" is of a man who greatly admires the United States, and sees the vast potential of détente between Moscow and Washington, a potential he would like very much to bring to realization.

What we have witnessed in the past few months, however, is that this potential benefit to both countries is being denied by some very powerful forces. The entire "Deep State" apparatus, which Putin is very much aware of, is implacably opposed to peaceful cooperation, and will do anything to stop it. But why?

There are many factors, including money – the military-industrial complex is dependent on hostility between the US and Russia, as are our parasitic "allies' in Europe – as well as cultural issues. Russia is essentially a conservative society, and our "progressive" elites hate it for that reason. Which brings us to the real reason for the Russophobia that infects the American political class, and that is Putin's commitment to the concept of national sovereignty.

Nationalism in all its forms is bitterly opposed by our elites, and this is what sets them against not only Putin but also against President Trump. Their allegiance isn't to the United States as a separate entity, but to the "Free World," whatever that may be. And their foreign allies are even more explicit about their radical internationalism, bitterly clinging to transnational institutions such as the European Union even as populist movements upend them.

This is the central issue confronting the parties and politicians of all countries, the conflict that separates the elites from the peoples they would like to rule: it is globalism versus national sovereignty. And this is not just a foreign policy question. It is a line of demarcation that puts the parties of all countries on one side of the barricades or the other.

In his famous essay, " The End of History ," neoconservative theorist Francis Fukuyama outlined the globalist project, which he saw as the inevitable outcome of human experience: a "universal homogenous State" that would extend its power across every civilized country and beyond. But of course nothing is inevitable, at least in that sense and on that scale, a fact the elites who hold this vision recognize all too well. So they are working day and night to make it a reality, moving their armies and their agents into this country and that country, encircling their enemies, and waiting for the moment to strike. And Putin, the ideologue of national sovereignty, is rightly perceived as their implacable enemy, the chief obstacle to the globalist project.

That's why they hate him. It has nothing to do with the annexation of Crimea, or the alleged "authoritarianism" of a country that now has a multi-party system a few short decades after coming out of real totalitarianism. Even if Russia were a Jeffersonian republic, and Putin the second coming of Gandhi, still they would demonize him and his country for this very reason.

As to who will win this struggle between globalism and national particularism, I would not venture a guess. What I will do, however, is to remind my readers that if ever this worldwide "homogenous State" comes into being, there will be nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, no way to escape its power.

Editorial note : This is the third and last part of a three-part series on Oliver Stone's "The Putin Interviews." The first part is here , and the second part is here . You can get the book version – which contains some material not included in the film – here .

NOTES IN THE MARGIN

You can check out my Twitter feed by going here . But please note that my tweets are sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out loud.

I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement , with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey , a Foreword by Patrick J. Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon ( ISI Books , 2008).

You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000), my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here .

Read more by Justin Raimondo Vladimir Putin: A Suitor Spurned – June 27th, 2017 Who Tried to Kill Putin – Five Times? – June 25th, 2017 A Brief Missive – June 22nd, 2017 Our Rush to War in Syria – June 20th, 2017 Hodgkinson's Disease: Politics and Paranoia in the Age of Trump – June 18th, 2017

[Jun 28, 2017] WaPo does not like Ukrainian far right

Notable quotes:
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [ ] [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity." [ ] ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
Jun 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , June 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm

Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media ™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege. Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable person, judging by his last name.

Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.

Ukraine's ultra-right militias are challenging the government to a showdown

Blah-blah-blah – evil Russia, blah-blah, and then:

"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.

The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II.

According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do.

To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."

Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:

"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.

[ ]

[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.

Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."

[ ]

In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."

P.S. Comment section is as always colorful there.

yalensis , June 16, 2017 at 3:12 pm

"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."

True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen!
It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005%
You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --
They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished --
That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".

Eric , June 17, 2017 at 2:33 am
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occured as in February 2014, become President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia, military

Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been drawn in Ukraine.

That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing you would see in a banana republic.

yalensis , June 17, 2017 at 4:36 am
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy.
In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South.
Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't quite aware. He was duped!
Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."

Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!

marknesop , June 17, 2017 at 8:15 am
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine – but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream "FASCISM!!!" But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.

The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda. Reply

[Jun 28, 2017] Putin New US sanctions harmful to relations, but Russia will deal

Notable quotes:
"... "Of course, it remains to be seen what it leads to in the end. But whatever happens, whatever decisions they take across the ocean, it will not bring us to a dead end," ..."
"... "will probably have to make some policy corrections and take some new measures," ..."
"... "to some sort of a collapse." ..."
"... "This will certainly make Russian-American relations more difficult. I believe it to be harmful," ..."
"... "We generally reject sanctions with extra-territorial effects, meaning an impact on third countries," ..."
"... The US is currently investing heavily into costly liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, which would allow it to deliver natural gas to the European market more easily. The product would compete directly with Russian-supplied gas, so undermining construction of the pipeline would give American producers an advantage in fighting for a bigger share of the European market. Read more US Senate adopts amendment on more sanctions against Russia ..."
Jun 18, 2017 | www.rt.com

New sanctions imposed on Russia by the US will certainly make relations between the countries worse, but will hardly leave Russia hamstrung, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

"Of course, it remains to be seen what it leads to in the end. But whatever happens, whatever decisions they take across the ocean, it will not bring us to a dead end," the president told Vesti on a Saturday program.

Putin was referring to the US Senate's approval of an amendment to an anti-Iran bill that would prevent US President Donald Trump from lifting current anti-Russian sanctions without congressional authorization and also impose new broad ones.

If Washington does implement the new sanctions, the Russian government "will probably have to make some policy corrections and take some new measures," Putin said, adding that this will in no way lead the country "to some sort of a collapse."

"This will certainly make Russian-American relations more difficult. I believe it to be harmful," he added.

Earlier, several European countries, including Germany, France and Austria, voiced concern over the newly proposed sanctions, which could potentially affect European companies working with Russia on joint energy projects, such as the NordStream 2 gas pipeline.

"We generally reject sanctions with extra-territorial effects, meaning an impact on third countries," German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert, told the media on Friday.

The US is currently investing heavily into costly liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure, which would allow it to deliver natural gas to the European market more easily. The product would compete directly with Russian-supplied gas, so undermining construction of the pipeline would give American producers an advantage in fighting for a bigger share of the European market. Read more US Senate adopts amendment on more sanctions against Russia

[Jun 28, 2017] Radar data debunks official MH17 findings, locator could not miss the BUK missile – Russian air regulator

Notable quotes:
"... Russian radar could not have failed to notice a projectile approaching Flight MH17, despite the claims by a Dutch minister, the head of Rosaviatsia says. The lack of radar marks shows nothing approached the plane from the east, despite official findings. ..."
"... "It is inappropriate to say that a radar station could miss the missile," the head of Russian aviation regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:08 am
WARNING!

Kremlin controlled "news" source

Radar data debunks official MH17 findings, locator could not 'miss' missile – Russian air regulator
Published time: 27 Jun, 2017 19:41

Russian radar could not have failed to notice a projectile approaching Flight MH17, despite the claims by a Dutch minister, the head of Rosaviatsia says. The lack of radar marks shows nothing approached the plane from the east, despite official findings.

Last week, the Dutch government published a series of replies by Security and Justice Minister Stef Blok, who explained to a parliamentary commission why radar data provided by Russia did not show any objects approaching the MH17 flight, including a Buk missile.

The radar, according to Blok, could simply miss a missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that a missile could slip through during its "turn" and therefore leave no trace on Russia's Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar could not register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that a radar station could miss the missile," the head of Russian aviation regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

It sneaked in while the radar antenna was looking the other way???????

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:42 am
Correction to above translation:

The radar, according to Blok, could simply have missed the missile. The minister compared the radar to a lighthouse, claiming that the missile could have slipped through during its "turn" and have therefore left no trace on the Russian Utes-T air route radar system. Blok also claimed that the radar would have been unable to register such a relatively small object as a Buk missile.

"It is inappropriate to say that the radar station could have missed the missile", the head of Russian Aviation Regulator Rosaviatsia, Oleg Storchevoy, said on Tuesday, commenting on the latest Dutch claims.

See also: Политическое направление: почему локатор не увидел ракету, сбившую MH17

Political direction: why the [radar] locator failed to see the missile that downed MH17

"The fact that something was not visible on the radar, doesn't mean that something was not there" - noted the Minister of Security and Justice, Stephen Blok, in answering a question from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the Dutch Parliament (the States General).

The question he was asked concerned radar data provided by Russia that showed that the radars had not detected a "Buk" missile. Bok reinforced his argument by speaking about the 360-degree sweep of a "Utes-T" radar locator, which before the crash of flight MH17 in the sky over the Donbas could have been sweeping in the opposite direction in the same way as does a lighthouse beam.

Moscow Exile , June 28, 2017 at 10:59 am
I wonder if Blok has ever actually observed a radar display that is tracking a Buk missile? Or any such tracking display for that matter.

[Jun 28, 2017] EBRD CORRUPTION – MI5 TRIES TO EXCHANGE BRIBES TO RUSSIAN BANKERS FOR ESPIONAGE AGAINST RUSSIAN OFFICIALS

Notable quotes:
"... The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the government-owned bank established in London in 1991 to finance market boosting projects in the former Soviet Union, has been secretly aiding UK and US intelligence services in espionage targeted at Russia. The US is a 10% shareholder in the bank, the UK holds an 8.7% stake; Russia, 4%. ..."
"... Treason against Russia was one crime Ryjenko refused to undertake, the Old Bailey testimony reveals. Also revealed, and for the first time, is EBRD's role in operating the scheme of lures and inducements MI5 proposed for Ryjenko, and other Russian nationals at the bank. "Honey traps," comments a London banking veteran, "are generally illegal. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al , June 28, 2017 at 8:39 am
JohnHelmer.net: EBRD CORRUPTION – MI5 TRIES TO EXCHANGE BRIBES TO RUSSIAN BANKERS FOR ESPIONAGE AGAINST RUSSIAN OFFICIALS

http://johnhelmer.net/ebrd-corruption-mi5-tries-to-exchange-bribes-to-russian-bankers-for-espionage-against-russian-officials/

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the government-owned bank established in London in 1991 to finance market boosting projects in the former Soviet Union, has been secretly aiding UK and US intelligence services in espionage targeted at Russia. The US is a 10% shareholder in the bank, the UK holds an 8.7% stake; Russia, 4%.

The disclosure appears in the records of a trial this month at the Central Criminal Court in London of Andrei Ryjenko (Рыженко, usually Anglicized as Ryzhenko), a senior banker at the EBRD who is a dual Russian-British citizen. Early in June, Ryjenko was convicted of taking and then laundering $3.5 million in concealed bribes for helping applications to the EBRD for loans and equity investments from two Russian oil and gas companies win approval for a total of $275 million. MI5, according to testimony in open court, offered Ryjenko the opportunity to keep his money and avoid prosecution if he agreed to spy for the British against Russian foreign intelligence service (SVR) agents who, MI5 told Ryjenko, were under cover in London. Ryjenko refused for several months. He was then arrested and subsequently tried. On June 20, Ryjenko was sentenced to six years in jail.

Treason against Russia was one crime Ryjenko refused to undertake, the Old Bailey testimony reveals. Also revealed, and for the first time, is EBRD's role in operating the scheme of lures and inducements MI5 proposed for Ryjenko, and other Russian nationals at the bank. "Honey traps," comments a London banking veteran, "are generally illegal. Otherwise, the honey wouldn't be so sweet, or entrapment worth plotting. It looks like Ryjenko trapped himself. It also looks like the bank was happy to make its money baiting the trap for MI5."

[Jun 28, 2017] Bashar al-Assad visits Russian air base in Syria after US warning

Notable quotes:
"... "I am not aware of any information about a threat that chemical weapons can be used," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. "Certainly, we consider such threats to the legitimate leadership of the Syrian Arab Republic unacceptable." ..."
"... Russian officials have privately described the war in Syria as the biggest source of tension between Moscow and Washington, and the cruise missile strike ordered by Trump in April raised the risk of confrontation between them. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | telegraph.co.uk
T he White House said late on Monday the preparations in Syria were similar to actions before an April 4 chemical attack which killed dozens of civilians and prompted US President Donald Trump to order a missile strike on a Syrian air base. B ut Russia challenged the US intelligence.

"I am not aware of any information about a threat that chemical weapons can be used," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. "Certainly, we consider such threats to the legitimate leadership of the Syrian Arab Republic unacceptable."

Russian officials have privately described the war in Syria as the biggest source of tension between Moscow and Washington, and the cruise missile strike ordered by Trump in April raised the risk of confrontation between them.

[Jun 28, 2017] WaPo does not like Ukrainian far right

Notable quotes:
"... "The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward. ..."
"... The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II. According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do. ..."
"... To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians." ..."
"... "Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution. ..."
"... [T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself. ..."
"... Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity ..."
"... In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy." ..."
"... Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occurred as in February 2014, become President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia, military ..."
"... Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been drawn in Ukraine. ..."
"... Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy. In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South. Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't quite aware. ..."
"... They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine – but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream "FASCISM!!!" ..."
"... But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'. ..."
Jun 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Lyttenburgh , June 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm

Into the breach – once more! Or – once again about honest, balanced and tolerant Western Media ™, SUDDENLY finding out that there are roving bands of neo-nazis in the Ukraine. Why this particular article is important? First of all – because it's WaPo – a fearless crusader and enabler of leakers in anything Trump+Russia related. To doubt WaPo for a certain category of the people is sacrilege. Second – because of WHO wrote this article, namely Joshua Cohen, former (?) USAID chief honcho in realization of the "economic reforms" on the territory of the former USSR – a thoroughly handshakable person, judging by his last name.

Thirdly – the amount of evidence provided in one article combined with proof links to serve as the future reference material. Links are to very-very kosher and Ukrainian sources – so you can't accuse them in good faith of being Kremlenite propaganda.

Ukraine's ultra-right militias are challenging the government to a showdown

Blah-blah-blah – evul Russia, blah-blah, and then:

"The recent brutal stabbing of a left-wing anti-war activist named Stas Serhiyenko illustrates the threat posed by these extremists. Serhiyenko and his fellow activists believe the perpetrators belonged to the neo-Nazi group C14 (whose name comes from a 14-word phrase used by white supremacists). The attack took place on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, and C14's leader published a statement that celebrated Serhiyenko's stabbing immediately afterward.

The attack on Serhiyenko is just the tip of the iceberg. More recently C14 beat up a socialist politician while other ultranationalist thugs stormed the Lviv and Kiev City Councils. Far-right and neo-Nazi groups have also assaulted or disrupted art exhibitions, anti-fascist demonstrations, a "Ukrainians Choose Peace" event, LGBT events, a social center, media organizations, court proceedings and a Victory Day march celebrating the anniversary of the end of World War II.

According to a study from activist organization Institute Respublica, the problem is not only the frequency of far-right violence, but the fact that perpetrators enjoy widespread impunity. It's not hard to understand why Kiev seems reluctant to confront these violent groups. For one thing, far-right paramilitary groups played an important role early in the war against Russian-supported separatists. Kiev also fears these violent groups could turn on the government itself - something they've done before and continue to threaten to do.

To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians."

Full stop here. First of all – "Russian propaganda" (and the Western propaganda understands by that all Russian press, except a few "brave ones" that suck foreign grants tit of theirs) claims no such a thing. Second – it is Poroshenko and his government who renames streets after Bandera and Shukhevitch. Third – in the second half of the article Mr. Cohen basically proves, that said roving bands all BUT overrun the Ukraine, while the alleged lack of support does not translate in the active resistance to them – which is what's enough for them to reign supreme:

"Indeed, the brazen willingness of Vita Zaverukha – a renowned neo-Nazi out on bail and under house arrest after killing two police officers - to post pictures of herself after storming a popular Kiev restaurant with 50 other nationalists demonstrates the far right's confidence in their immunity from government prosecution.

[ ]

[T]he government must also break any connections between law enforcement agencies and far-right organizations. The clearest example of this problem lies in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is headed by Arsen Avakov. Avakov has a long-standing relationship with the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary group that uses the SS symbol as its insignia and which, with several others, was integrated into the army or National Guard at the beginning of the war in the East. Critics have accused Avakov of using members of the group to threaten an opposition media outlet. As at least one commentator has pointed out, using the National Guard to combat ultranationalist violence is likely to prove difficult if far-right groups have become part of the Guard itself.

Avakov's Deputy Minister Vadym Troyan was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine (PU) paramilitary organization, while current Ministry of Interior official Ilya Kiva – a former member of the far-right Right Sector party whose Instagram feed is populated with images of former Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini – has called for gays "to be put to death." And Avakov himself used the PU to promote his business and political interests while serving as a governor in eastern Ukraine, and as interior minister formed and armed the extremist Azov battalion led by Andriy Biletsky, a man nicknamed the "White Chief" who called for a crusade against "Semite-led sub-humanity."

[ ]

In one notorious incident, media captured images of swastika-tattooed thugs - who police claimed were only job applicants wanting to have "fun" - giving the Nazi salute in a police building in Kiev. This cannot be allowed to go on, and it's just as important for Ukrainian democracy to cleanse extremists from law enforcement as it is to remove corrupt officials from former president Viktor Yanukovych's regime under Ukraine's "lustration" policy."

P.S. Comment section is as always colorful there.

yalensis , June 16, 2017 at 3:12 pm

"To be clear, Russian propaganda about Ukraine being overrun by Nazis or fascists is false. Far-right parties such as Svoboda or Right Sector draw little support from Ukrainians ."

True (about the level of support), but irrelevant, Mr. Cohen! It doesn't matter if these fascists enjoy an approval rating of 5% or .005% You yourself said that these perps enjoy "widespread impunity" --

They can do whatever they want, kill anybody they please, and never get punished -- That's the literal meaning of the word "impunity".

Eric , June 17, 2017 at 2:33 am
Yarosh is an MP, Parubiy would, if the same set of events occurred as in February 2014, become President, as Turchynov did. Nazi's/far right are in the SBU, Police, parts of their academia, military

Its an intentionally idiotic statement by Cohen because Ukrainian political parties can come and go at the drop of the hat. All this just means that the 2 million Nazi voters in 2012 election have chosen these newly created parties because a new line of what is " mainstream" has been drawn in Ukraine.

That's why I found it more than a little odd what is happening in France now .a new party under Macron has been created and occupies that vast majority of seats .this is the type of thing you would see in a banana republic.

yalensis , June 17, 2017 at 4:36 am
Cohen is no idiot, I think he is just covering his ass and preparing his exit strategy. In the hopes of keeping his press card after Ukraine goes totally South. Cohen always knew these guys were Nazis, now he has to pretend to his reading public that he wasn't quite aware.

He was duped! Or maybe the turning point, which got his Jewish blood boiling was Biletsky calling his ethnic group a "Semite-led sub-humanity."

Cohen: "Oh, I never realized these people could be so hateful!" – LOL!

marknesop , June 17, 2017 at 8:15 am
They always use that to pooh-pooh the suggestion that Nazism is influential in Ukraine – but look! They only get tiny levels of support in elections! That matters little when people are appointed to political positions rather than voted into them. There are so many things – the dissolving of opposition political parties, the uberpatriotic signage everywhere exhorting citizens to report their neighbours if they suspect separatist sympathies, the hit list (Mirotvorets) of those who failed to shout the government line when prompted until told to stop – that simply scream "FASCISM!!!"

But it is inconvenient for the west to see those things, because it could not acknowledge seeing them and continue to support the country and government which did them. The USA is an old hand at unseeing things which don't fit the narrative. Unfortunately, it has evolved into a nation which is good at unseeing obstacles as well; obstacles which are present and prevent it from achieving its goals. These are expected to disappear before the eraser called 'exceptionalism'.

The canard about levels of public support for Nazism in Ukraine is used to suggest that if Russia is spouting propaganda about this, then everything it says is propaganda.

[Jun 28, 2017] Trump Has Been Continuing Obamas Syria-Policy by Eric Zuesse

Jun 27, 2017 | off-guardian.org

U.S. President Donald Trump, who during the election-campaign ferociously condemned Barack Obama's foreign policies, while asserting nothing concrete of his own, has, as the U.S. President, committed himself quite clearly to continuing Obama's publicly stated policy on Syria, which policy was to place, as the first priority, the elimination of ISIS, and as the policy to follow that, the elimination and replacement of Syria's government. I have previously indicated that on June 19th "Russia Announces No-Fly Zone in Syria - War Against U.S. There" , and that the early indications are that Trump has changed his Syria-policy to accommodate Russia's demands there; but, prior to June 19th, Trump was actually following Obama's publicly stated Syria-policy.

As also will be shown here, Obama's publicly stated policy - to destroy ISIS and then to overthrow Syria's President Bashar al-Assad - was actually less extreme than his real policy, which was to overthrow Assad and to use the jihadist forces in Syria (especially Al Qaeda in Syria) to achieve that objective. Trump, at least until 19 June 2017, has been adhering to Obama's publicly stated policy. Russia's warning was for him not to adopt and continue Obama's actual policy (to overthrow Assad).

Here is the part, of the by-now-famous 12 August 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) analysis of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria, that the press (despite its extensive reporting about the document) has not yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures (which had included that document and many others), but which part of it shows even more than the part that has been reported from the document, Obama's having made an informed choice actually to protect Al Qaeda in Syria, so as to bring down and replace the Syrian government - Obama's actual prioritization (contrary to his publicly stated one) of overthrowing Assad, even above defeating the jihadists in Syria; and this was clearly also a warning by the DIA to the Commander-in-Chief, that he can have either an overthrow of Assad, or else a non-jihadist-controlled Syria, but not both, and that any attempt to bring down Assad by means of using the jihadists as a proxy army against him, would ultimately fail:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version.pdf

page 69 of 100:

D. AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq], through spokesman of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) Abu Muhammed Al Adnani, declared the Syrian regime as the spearhead of what he is naming Jibha Al Ruwafdh (forefront of the Shiites) because of its (the Syrian regime) declaration of war on the Sunnis. Additionally, he is calling on the Sunnis in Iraq, especially the tribes in the border regions (between Iraq and Syria), to wage war against the Syrian regime, regarding Syria as an infidel regime for its support to the infidel party Hezbollah, and other regimes he considers dissenters like Iran and Iraq.

E. AQI considers the Sunni issue in Iraq to be fatefully connected to the Sunni Arabs and Muslims.

page 70:

A. The [Syrian] regime will survive and have control over Syrian territory.

page 71:

B. Development of the current events into a proxy war: with support from Russia, China, and Iran, the regime is controlling the areas of influence along coastal territories (Tartus and Latakia), and is fiercely defending Homs, which is considered the primary transportation route in Syria. On the other hand, opposition forces are trying to control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor), adjacent to the western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar), in addition to neighboring Turkish borders. Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these [jihadist] efforts

And here is from the part that the press did report:

https://www.facebook.com/ayssar.midani/posts/10152479627582395

Ayssar Midani, May 23, 2015 · Paris, France:

"C: If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

The "supporting powers" are: western countries, the Gulf States and Turkey The DIA warns that the creation of such an Salafist principality would have "dire consequences" for Iraq and would possibly lead to the creation of an Islamic State and: create the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi.
These DIA folks really earned their salary.

The Obama administration, together with other supporter of the Syrian "opposition", knew that AQ was a large part of that "opposition" from the very beginning. The U.S. and others wanted a Salafist [i.e., fundamentalist Sunni] principality in east Syria to cut Syria and Lebanon off from a land route to Iran. It was warned that such a principality would create havoc in Iraq and to the return of AQ in Iraq (today the Islamic State) to Mosul and Ramadi.

I quoted from that part in December 2016 , which was the time when the two Presidents, Obama and Turkey's Erdogan, began their joint effort to relocate ISIS from Mosul Iraq, into Der Zor Syria, in order to culminate their (and the Sauds') joint plan to use ISIS so as to bring down Assad. Then, I headlined, on 30 April 2017, that they had actually completed this task of moving Iraq's ISIS into Syria, "How Obama & Erdogan Moved ISIS from Iraq to Syria, to Weaken Assad" . That's why the Syrian government is now fighting to take Der Zor back from ISIS control.

Other portions of the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures which received little or no press-coverage (and that little being only on far-right blogs - not mainstream 'news' sites) add still further to the evidence that Obama was using Al Qaeda and its friends, as a proxy army of jihadists to overthrow Syria's President Bashar al-Assad and replace him by a jihadist regime that would be loyal to America's fundamentalist-Sunni 'allies', the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, and the Thanis who own Qatar. (Of course, now, the Sauds are trying to destroy the Thanis, too.)

These unpublished or little-published portions from the Judical Watch disclosures, also add to the ample published evidence that the Obama regime was transporting (as these documents acknowledged on page 4) "weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya" which "were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria," for use by Obama's 'moderate rebels' (a.k.a.: jihadists) in Syria. Specifically:

page 4:
18 Sep 2012

2. During the immediate aftermath of, and following the uncertainty caused by, the downfall of the ((Qaddafi)) regime in October 2011 and up until early September of 2012, weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles located in Benghazi, Libya were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the ports of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The Syrian ports were chosen due to the small amounts of cargo traffic transiting these two ports. The ships used to transport the weapons were medium-sized and able to hold 10 or less shipping containers of cargo.

3. The weapons shipped from Libya to Syria during late-August 2012 [i.e., the period immediately prior to this memo] were sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125mm and 155mm howitzers missiles. The numbers for each weapon were estimated to be: 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG launchers with 300 total rounds, and approximately 400 howitzers missiles.

It's now clear that Trump (at least until June 19th) has been continuing Obama's stated policy of killing ISIS and then overthrowing Assad. But of course no one can yet know whether or not he would be continuing it in precisely the way that Hillary Clinton made clear that she would do, which is to announce a no-fly zone in Syria and thus grab control over some portion of the sovereign nation of Syria. That way would result, now after 19 June 2017 ( Russia's warning to shoot down U.S. aircraft that attack Syrian government-allied forces ), either in U.S. retreat or else shooting down Russian planes in Syria, and war between U.S. and Russia, ending in nuclear war.

When I presented, in my December 2016 report, what I referred to above as "the part of the 12 August 2012 DIA analysis of the intelligence regarding Iraq and in Syria that the press has not yet reported from the Judicial Watch FOIA disclosures," I didn't mention then that one news-medium did report a part of that section, and it was a rabidly pro-Republican site, Glenn Beck and his "The Blaze," which headlined about this matter, very appropriately, "'It Is Damn Near Criminal': Glenn Beck Says the U.S. Is Using Islamic State as a 'Pawn'," which point, Beck presented rather well in the video accompanying it. Unfortunately, however, closed-minded 'liberals' and 'progressives' paid no attention to this and to the other evils perpetrated by Obama ( such as these ). Regardless of how untrustworthy Beck is, his statements about that particular matter were actually spot-on.

Obama was using ISIS in this way, but after Russia started bombing ISIS in Syria on 30 September 2015, Obama joined in so as not to make obvious to the world that he had been protecting and even arming ISIS until that date, and that prior to Russia's bombing ISIS, the U.S. had actually ignored ISIS.

Now that ISIS in Syria seems to be on its last legs there, only Kurds and Al Qaeda in Syria ( and their backers especially the U.S. and Sauds ) remain as big threats to Syria's sovereignty, and the evidence at least till June 19th, has been that Trump definitely backs the Kurds there, and might also be backing Al Qaeda there as well. If he continues backing the Kurds and Al Qaeda there, after Russia's warning on June 19th (which the neoconservative Washington Post called only "bluffing" and the neoconservative CNBC called "bluster" ), then the U.S. will be at war not only against Russia, but also against Turkey, and also against Iran, and it would be World War III because it would be U.S.-v.-Russia. Turkey is already at war against the Kurds; and, if America is fighting for the Kurds, to break up Syria, then Turkey - a member of the NATO anti-Russia alliance - will paralyze NATO; and the U.S. will then be waging its war without NATO's support.

Trump would need to be very stupid to do such a thing. It would be an intelligence test which, if Trump fails, the world will end, in nuclear winter - with or without support from the rest of NATO. But, nonetheless, some in the American 'elite' and its employees, say that it would merely be a recognition of Russia's "bluffing" and "bluster." One wonders what objective this 'elite' believes to be worthy of taking the risk that they're wrong. What do they actually hope to 'win', fighting on the side of the Sauds (and their Israeli agents), in order to conquer Syria? Why are they so desperate, to do that?

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

Eric Blair says June 27, 2017

Moon of Alabama commented yesterday on the US and its allies defeat (so far) in S.E. Syria. At an MSM ignored DoD press conference the US military admitted as much. From MoA's article:

Q: [ ] [W]hat potential threat do you believe these Iranian backed militias and regime forces continue to pose to your forces and your partner forces in the At Tanf - Abu Kamal area?

COL. DILLON: Well if the Syrian regime - and it looks like they are making a concerted effort to move into ISIS held areas. And if they show that they can do that, that is not a bad sign. We are here to fight ISIS as a coalition, but if others want to fight ISIS and defeat them, then we absolutely have no problem with that. And as they move eastward toward Abu Kamal and to Deir Ezzour, if we - as long as we can de-conflict and make sure that we can focus on what it is we're there to do, without having any kind of strategic mishaps with the regime or with pro-regime forces or with Russians, then that is - we're perfectly happy with that.

In a later part the spokesperson also concedes that the forces in al-Tanf are now very constricted in their movement:

if the regime is - has moved into an area that is towards Abu Kamal, then we are going to be limited to how far out we do patrols [from al-Tanf] with our partner forces.

Somewhat later the point is made again and even clearer – al-Tanf is now useless and the Syrian army is free to do what it does:

COL. DILLON: So what I was saying about that is that, out of the At Tanf area, we have used that to train our partner forces and to continue to - to fight ISIS, you know, if they are in and around that area.

You know, now that the regime has moved in, and they have made some significant, you know, progress, as it looks, towards moving to Abu Kamal and perhaps Deir Ezzour, if they want to fight ISIS in Abu Kamal and they have the capacity to do so, then, you know, that - that would be welcome.

We as a coalition are not in the land-grab business. We're in the killing ISIS business, and that is what we want to do. And if - if the Syrian regime wants to do that, and they are going to, again, put forth a concerted effort and show that they are - are doing just that in Abu Kamal or Deir Ezzour or elsewhere, that means that we don't have to do that in those locations.

So I guess that - what I'm saying is, in the At Tanf area, we will continue to train our partner forces. We will continue to do patrols in and around At Tanf in the Hamad desert. But if our access to Abu Kamal is shut off because the regime is there, that's okay.

Hmm the US military standing down? I haven't looked at the entire transcript yet but this seems almost too good to be true. Of course these press conference proclamations need to be washed down with a generous helping of delicious salt. Even if the statements are sincere, the interventionists, their media "partners" and think tank propagandists will keep on pushing for "regime change" (a coup by any other name ) and the destruction of Syria.

On the bright side US/NATO uncontested domination of the globe was stopped in its tracks by the Russian military in Syria on 30.09.2015 and there is simply no way Washington can bribe, threaten or beat every nation in the world into submission.

bevin says June 26, 2017
This is a culture at the end of its tether: it simply cannot put up with dissent or contradiction, so brittle is it. It is all part of a refusal to face ugly reality, symptomatic of which is the relegation-to Die Welt's Sunday edition- of Seymour Hersh's latest investigation of US state mendacity its irresponsibility in the matter if the recent "Sarin" attack blamed on Assad.
Ray McGovern has a piece at Counterpunch today in which he reveals that "Even the London Review of Books, which published Hersh's earlier debunking of the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin-gas incident, wouldn't go out onto the limb this time despite having paid for his investigation.

"According to Hersh, the LRB did not want to be "vulnerable to criticism for seeming to take the view of the Syrian and Russia governments when it came to the April 4 bombing in Khan Sheikhoun." So much for diversity of thought in today's West."
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/26/hershs-big-scoop-bad-intel-behind-trumps-syria-attack/

captain Swing says June 27, 2017
Very interesting article from Counterpunch. Thanks.
Jerry Alatalo says June 27, 2017
bevin,
The facts Seymour Hersh's article lays out pushes one in the direction that Trump – totally ignoring his intelligence and military experts telling him their was no certainty Assad was responsible – had knowledge the event was a false flag. Trump couldn't be so stupid as to not understand what his experts were telling him. After launching the 50 Tomahawk missiles, he lied through his teeth to the world, saying "we know we have the evidence..", then UN Ambassador Nikki Haley (like Colin Powell, before the illegal Iraq War) blasted Assad falsely, held up pictures at the Security Council of dead children which were quickly plastered on the front pages of newspapers globally,, and literally warned Syria's Bashar al-Jaafari of impending war.

Hersh's article shows Trump, Haley and the U.S. administration, UK/France and other United Nations representatives were lying about "we have the evidence", and owe their citizens and the world an explanation, plus an apology. These psychopath liars are extremely dangerous and must become held to account for their deceptions.

archie1954 says June 26, 2017
If the US were to persist in this dangerous dance with the devil, I could imaging NATO being split by Turkey, refusing to get involved any further and even separately protecting Europe from Russian retaliation by entering into a defense treaty with Russia. The US then would be shouldering the whole foolish confrontation by itself and perhaps having to deal with China and North Korea at the same time. Now that would be an interesting scenario.
Michael Leigh says June 26, 2017
I think the worthy Historian, Eric Zuesse has not considered the possibility that a new midlle East regional grouping, offers the best chance of allowing the USA to gracefully avoid the ultimate failure of its Middle East policy by conceding to the combined alliance, of the major traditional Nations and their forces of the Middle East; being Egypt, Iran and Turkey.

Currently divided by a false religious and secular division, posed by primarily Great Britain and the USA, it was the British who over 100 years ago financed and invented the Sunni Wahhabi division which sunni division represents the most murderous of the current Islamic terrorist outrages financed also by the USA and Saudi Arabia throughout the region and globe.

Similarly, the Anglo-Franco financed and hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood to further frustrate and end Turkey's leadership of the declining Otterman Empire, formally lead by Turkey.

The most important factor against a new alignment of those three aforementioned regional leaders; is the current illegimate counter-alliance of " the lawless Hebrew State of Israel " and the Teflon-guarded deep state, which appears to own and really run the also infamous North America State?

[Jun 28, 2017] Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.

Notable quotes:
"... Russia and Putin weren't effective issues for Hillary, and they're not effective issues now, yet the Democratic leadership insists on flogging them. The corrupt, sclerotic, and incompetent Democratic leadership is aloof and out of touch...and needs to go. ..."
Jun 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

JohnH , June 27, 2017 at 06:27 AM

Earth to the Democratic leadership: Stop talking so much about Russia.

"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia.

Democratic leaders have been beating the drum this year over the ongoing probes into the Trump administration's potential ties to Moscow, taking every opportunity to highlight the saga and forcing floor votes designed to uncover any business dealings the president might have with Russian figures.

But rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare.
In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift.
"We can't just talk about Russia because people back in Ohio aren't really talking that much about Russia, about Putin, about Michael Flynn," Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told MSNBC Thursday. "They're trying to figure out how they're going to make the mortgage payment, how they're going to pay for their kids to go to college, what their energy bill looks like.

"And if we don't talk more about their interest than we do about how we're so angry with Donald Trump and everything that's going on," he added, "then we're never going to be able to win elections."

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/339248-dems-push-leaders-to-talk-less-about-russia

Russia and Putin weren't effective issues for Hillary, and they're not effective issues now, yet the Democratic leadership insists on flogging them. The corrupt, sclerotic, and incompetent Democratic leadership is aloof and out of touch...and needs to go.

[Jun 28, 2017] Norman Solomon: Is 'Russiagate' Collapsing as a Political Strategy? by Norman Solomon

Notable quotes:
"... By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." ..."
"... The Hill ..."
"... "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country." ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post ..."
"... Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are. ..."
"... Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill ..."
"... I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different. ..."
"... Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for. ..."
"... The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump.. ..."
"... There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too. ..."
"... The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon. ..."
"... for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either. ..."
"... The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. ..."
"... Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )? ..."
"... Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork. ..."
"... This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military. ..."
"... The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. ..."
"... To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton" ..."
"... Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo. ..."
"... Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. ..."
"... What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted? ..."
"... Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it. ..."
"... This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination. ..."
"... Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded. ..."
"... This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right. ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
By Norman Solomon, the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death."

The plan for Democrats to run against Russia may be falling apart.

  • After squandering much of the last six months on faulting Russians for the horrific presidency of Donald Trump
  • After blaming America's dire shortfalls of democracy on plutocrats in Russia more than on plutocrats in America
  • After largely marketing the brand of their own party as more anti-Russian than pro-working-people
  • After stampeding many Democratic Party-aligned organizations, pundits and activists into fixating more on Russia than on the thousand chronic cuts to democracy here at home
  • After soaking up countless hours of TV airtime and vast quantities of ink and zillions of pixels to denounce Russia in place of offering progressive remedies to the deep economic worries of American voters

Now, Democrats in Congress and other party leaders are starting to face an emerging reality: The "winning issue" of Russia is a losing issue.

The results of a reliable new nationwide poll - and what members of Congress keep hearing when they actually listen to constituents back home - cry out for a drastic reorientation of Democratic Party passions. And a growing number of Democrats in Congress are getting the message.

"Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia," The Hill reported over the weekend. In sharp contrast to their party's top spokespeople, "rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare."

The Hill coverage added: "In the wake of a string of special-election defeats, an increasing number of Democrats are calling for an adjustment in party messaging, one that swings the focus from Russia to the economy. The outcome of the 2018 elections, they say, hinges on how well the Democrats manage that shift."

Such assessments aren't just impressionistic or anecdotal. A major poll has just reached conclusions that indicate party leaders have been operating under political illusions.

Conducted last week, the Harvard-Harris national poll found a big disconnect between the Russia obsession of Democratic Party elites in Washington and voters around the country.

  • The poll "reveals the risks inherent for the Democrats, who are hoping to make big gains - or even win back the House - in 2018," The Hill reported. "The survey found that while 58 percent of voters said they're concerned that Trump may have business dealings with Moscow, 73 percent said they're worried that the ongoing investigations are preventing Congress from tackling issues more vital to them."
  • The co-director of the Harvard-Harris poll, Mark Penn, commented on the results: "While the voters have a keen interest in any Russian election interference, they are concerned that the investigations have become a distraction for the president and Congress that is hurting rather than helping the country."
  • Such incoming data are sparking more outspoken dissent from House Democrats who want to get re-elected as well as depose Republicans from majority power. In short, if you don't want a GOP speaker of the House, wise up to the politics at play across the country.

Vermont Congressman Peter Welch, a progressive Democrat, put it this way: "We should be focused relentlessly on economic improvement [and] we should stay away from just piling on the criticism of Trump, whether it's about Russia, whether it's about Comey. Because that has its own independent dynamic, it's going to happen on its own without us piling on."

Welch said, "We're much better off if we just do the hard work of coming up with an agenda. Talking about Trump and Russia doesn't create an agenda."

Creating a compelling agenda would mean rejecting what has become the rote reflex of Democratic Party leadership - keep hammering Trump as a Kremlin tool. In a typical recent comment, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi pounded away at a talking point already so worn out that it has the appearance of a bent nail: "What do the Russians have on Donald Trump?"

In contrast, another House Democrat, Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania, said: "If you see me treating Russia and criticisms of the president and things like that as a secondary matter, it's because that's how my constituents feel about it."

But ever since the election last November, Democratic congressional leaders have been placing the party's bets heavily on the Russia horse. And it's now pulling up lame.

Yes, a truly independent investigation is needed to probe charges that the Russian government interfered with the U.S. election. And investigators should also dig to find out if there's actual evidence that Trump or his campaign operatives engaged in nefarious activities before or after the election. At the same time, let's get a grip. The partisan grandstanding on Capitol Hill, by leading Republicans and Democrats, hardly qualifies as "independent."

In the top strata of the national Democratic Party, and especially for the Clinton wing of the party, blaming Russia has been of visceral importance. A recent book about Hillary Clinton's latest presidential campaign - "Shattered," by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes - includes a revealing passage. "Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up."

At that meeting, "they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument."

In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summarized the post-election approach in a Washington Post opinion piece : "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us."

Polling data now indicate how wrong such claims are.

Initially in lockstep this year, Democrats on Capitol Hill probably didn't give it a second thought if they read my article published by The Hill nearly six months ago under the headline "Democrats Are Playing With Fire on Russia." At the outset, I warned that "the most cohesive message from congressional Democrats is: blame Russia. The party leaders have doubled down on an approach that got nowhere during the presidential campaign - trying to tie the Kremlin around Donald Trump's neck."

And I added: "Still more interested in playing to the press gallery than speaking directly to the economic distress of voters in the Rust Belt and elsewhere who handed the presidency to Trump, top Democrats would much rather scapegoat Vladimir Putin than scrutinize how they've lost touch with working-class voters."

But my main emphasis in that January 9 article was that "the emerging incendiary rhetoric against Russia is extremely dangerous. It could lead to a military confrontation between two countries that each has thousands of nuclear weapons."

I noted that "enthusiasm for banging the drum against Putin is fast becoming a big part of the Democratic Party's public identity in 2017. And - insidiously - that's apt to give the party a long-term political stake in further demonizing the Russian government."

My article pointed out: "The reality is grim, and potentially catastrophic beyond comprehension. By pushing to further polarize with the Kremlin, congressional Democrats are increasing the chances of a military confrontation with Russia."

Here's a question worth pondering: How much time do members of Congress spend thinking about ways to reduce the risks of nuclear holocaust, compared to how much time they spend thinking about getting re-elected?

In political terms, The Hill 's June 24 news article headlined "Dems Push Leaders to Talk Less About Russia" should be a wakeup call. Held in the thrall of Russia-bashing incantations since early winter, some Democrats in Congress have started to realize that they must break the spell. But they will need help from constituents willing to bluntly tell them to snap out of it .

If there is to be a human future on this planet, it will require real diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia , the world's two nuclear-weapons superpowers. Meanwhile - even if the nuclear threat from continuing to escalate hostility toward Russia doesn't rank high on the list of Democrats' concerns on Capitol Hill - maybe the prospects of failure in the elections next year will compel a major change. It's time for the dangerous anti-Russia fever to break.

EndOfTheWorld , June 27, 2017 at 3:55 am

The "Russiagate" farce had its waterloo moment when three CNN faux journalists were asked kindly to resign for being too faux even for the Clinton News Network.

Yes, the Democrat politicians who have enough functioning brain cells to actually go back to their districts and meet with their random constituents can plainly see that the people want this BS to come to and end immediately if not three months ago.

Louis Fyne , June 27, 2017 at 9:29 am

CNN producer on video admitting that it's all bunk courtesy of James Okeefe. Expect Fox News to run this clip 24/7. http://www.veritaslive.com/06-26-2017/americanpravdacnn.html

shinola , June 27, 2017 at 2:23 pm

Thanks for the link – confirms what I've suspected for months. If any of y'all have about 9 minutes to spare, this vid. is really interesting (& damning).

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 11:31 am

Debates about whether the Democrat wing of the Property Party should change its PR focus from trying to manufacture Russiaphobia to pretending to care about the welfare of the working class are worse than debating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It's embarrassing to watch a highly intelligent group of people like the NC readership engage in discussions like this while ignoring the facts before them.

  • The US is not a democracy. Policies bear little or no correspondence to the desires of the vast majority of citizens while being highly correlated with the belief systems and self-interest of a tiny ruling class.
  • Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues that determine the future of the country. Rather, they are pissing contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily manipulate public opinion.
  • Regardless of which party wins, promises in party platforms are meaningless the day after the election and have little correlation to candidate behavior.
  • It follows that it matters little which candidate/figurehead is elected since they are simply entertainment, while the country continues to be governed by the banksters, war hawks, medical extortionists, and greedhead trillionaires who own it.

NC has diligently documented the bankster fraud that characterized the 2007-2008 financial meltdown. Exactly how many of the perpetrators of this massive theft went to prison?

The US has been at permanent war in the middle east for 20 years under Democrat and Republican administrations, employing fabrication of events, torture of prisoners, shock and awe bombing attacks, assassination by remote control drones, false flag attacks, and proxy funding of Islamic terrorist organizations. How many CIA torturers, generals, and politicians have been held accountable for their lies and war crimes?

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 4:18 pm

By "people who have been living in terror" I assume your mean people who find themselves on the Trump banned country list? Unjust and anti-humanitarian perhaps, but hardly equivalent to terrorism.

Terrorism is when your wedding party is bombed by a drone being piloted by a computer operator half a world away because the cyber spy satellites have detected too many cell phone conversations directed at one of the guests. Terrorism is when a delusional religious fundamentalist straps explosives to her body and blows herself up in a crowded nightclub. And terrorism is when a government funds the anti-human belief systems that lead to such mad acts.

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:10 pm

The first and foremost action should be government funded elections. Take the money out of politics. Open up ballot access. Election day should be a national holiday. Paper ballots publicly counted. Free electioneering on our public airwaves. Run off elections so that the elected truly have a mandate. The malefactors of wealth completely control the electoral process. Tall order but nothing else can be accomplished unless we take back the electoral system, foundation of democracy.

Lord Koos , June 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm

I find political strategy-speak such as "an adjustment in party messaging" to be sickening. The Democrats still seem to be talking about manipulating perception, rather than actually doing anything fundamentally different.

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:12 pm

That was absolutely Nancy Pelosi's line on CBS the other morning. We're not doing anything wrong we're just not getting our message out there. Delusional bought and paid for party hack. She has got to go.

oh , June 27, 2017 at 4:48 pm

Agree. Here's slight modification of one of you points:

  1. Elections are circuses organized for the distraction of the underclasses.
  2. They are never contested on the basis of fundamental issues that determine the future of the country.
  3. Rather, they are pissing contests between advertising agencies who employ all means at hand to temporarily manipulate public opinion while maximizing their revenue.
ChrisPacific , June 27, 2017 at 5:03 pm

All largely true; however, there remains a large contingent of non-NC readers (and traditional Democrat supporters) who remain unaware of most of this and who need to be convinced. Many of these people are our friends and relatives, and penetrating their illusions is essential if we are ever to reform the Democrat party by starving its more problematic members of voter support. The four points you mentioned, while largely accepted by NC readers, remain very much to be demonstrated when talking to these kind of people. We can't just lead with something like "Hillary is a warmongering crony capitalist who sold out the working class a long time ago." They will switch off if we do. We need to offer concrete, real-world examples that demonstrate it, along with the necessary context for them to understand the problem. If they follow along with the arguments then they will eventually reach the conclusion on their own. While this article may not be telling NC readers anything they don't already know, it's a good example of a narrative that we can use in those situations.

EoinW , June 27, 2017 at 8:23 am

Trojan Horse. It's the Guardian(and CNN) saying: "we deal with faux news the moment it happens. Look at how clean we are!" The entire MSM will jump all over this and pretend they've cleaned house, fixed the one isolated incident, therefore we can once again trust them to be the truth tellers they are. A wonderful script for the Lefties and the pseudo-Left media, like the Guardian. It's BS because they lie all the time about everything!

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:19 pm

Please don't conflate the left with the "Liberal Media". There is no left mass media in this country.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/878773715147902977

Why the Democratic party is doomed:

1. The Democratic establishment has vortexed the party's narrative energy into hysteria about Russia (a state with a lower GDP than South Korea). It is starkly obvious that were it not for this hysteria insurgent narratives of the type promoted by Bernie Sanders would rapidly dominate the party's base and its relationship with the public. Without the "We didn't lose–Russia won" narrative the party's elite and those who exist under its patronage would be purged for being electorally incompetent and ideologically passé. The collapse of the Democratic vote over the last eight years is at every level, city, state, Congressional and presidential. It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives, daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census). Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53% of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW Research).

2. The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is a political dead end. Despite vast resources, enormous incentives and a year of investigation, Democratic senators who have seen the classified intelligence at the CIA such as Senator Feinstein (as recently as March) are forced to admit that there is no evidence of collusion
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BS5amEq7Fc ]. Without collusion, we are left with the Democratic establishment blaming the public for being repelled by the words of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party establishment. Is it a problem that the public discovered what Hillary Clinton said to Goldman Sachs and what party elites said about fixing the DNC primaries against Bernie Sanders? A party elite that maintains that it is the "crime of the century" for the public and their membership to discover how they behave and what they believe invites scorn.

3. The Democrat establishment needs the support of the security sector and media barons to push this diversionary conspiracy agenda, so they ingratiate themselves with these two classes leading to further perceptions that the Democrats act on behalf of an entrenched power elite. Eventually, Trump or Pence will 'merge' with the security state leaving Democrats in a vulnerable position having talked up two deeply unaccountable traditionally Republican-aligned organizations, in particular, the CIA and the FBI, who will be turned against them. Other than domestic diversion and geopolitical destabilization the primary result of the Russian narrative is increased influence and funding for the security sector which is primarily GOP owned or aligned.

4. The twin result is to place the primary self-interest concerns of most Americans, class competition, freedom from crime and ill health and the empowerment of their children, into the shadows and project the Democrats as close to DC and media elites. This has further cemented Trump's anti-establishment positioning and fettered attacks on Trump's run away embrace of robber barons, dictators and gravitas-free buffoons like the CIA's Mike Pompeo.

5. GOP/Trump has open goals everywhere: broken promises, inequality, economy, healthcare, militarization, Goldman Sachs, Saudi Arabia & cronyism, but the Democrat establishment can't kick these goals since the Russian collusion narrative has consumed all its energy and it is entangled with many of the same groups behind Trump's policies.

6. The Democratic base should move to start a new party since the party elite shows no signs that they will give up power. This can be done quickly and cheaply as a result of the internet and databases of peoples' political preferences. This reality is proven in practice with the rapid construction of the Macron, Sanders and Trump campaigns from nothing. The existing Democratic party may well have negative reputational capital, stimulating a Macron-style clean slate approach. Regardless, in the face of such a threat, the Democratic establishment will either concede control or, as in the case of Macron, be eliminated by the new structure.

Carolinian , June 27, 2017 at 8:34 am

I agree with 6. The fact that the Dems reacted to their presidential loss by immediately accusing their opponent of treason shows how low they have sunk. Perhaps they thought they were justified in imitating Trump's own shoot from the lip style but someone has to be the adult in the room. Meanwhile the country's two leading newspapers turn themselves into social media sites. The ruling class seems to be cracking up.

Suggested name for new third party: the Not Crazy party.

fresno dan , June 27, 2017 at 9:56 am

integer June 27, 2017 at 5:16 am
Thanks for that! Again and Again and Again:
"It corresponds to the domination of Democratic decision making structures by a professional, educated, urban service class and to the shocking decline in health and longevity of white males, who together with their wives, daughters, mothers, etc. comprise 63% of the US population (2010 census). Unlike other industrialized countries US male real wages (all ethnic groups combined) have not increased since 1973. In trying to stimulate engagement of non-whites and women Democrats have aggressively promoted identity politics. This short-term tactic has led to the inevitable strategic catastrophe of the white and male super majorities responding by seeing themselves as an unserviced political identity group. Consequently in response to sotto-voce suggestions that Trump would service this group 53% of all men voted for Trump, 53% of white women and 63% of white men (PEW Research)."

Allegorio , June 27, 2017 at 5:26 pm

Identity politics is basically a divide and rule strategy to keep progressive candidates off the ballot, the real purpose of the Democratic Party establishment. That is what they are being paid for.

Tim , June 27, 2017 at 2:10 pm

The only way to create a new party of actual importance is for it to not be originated from disenfranchised republicans or disenfranchised democrats, lest it be branded as extreme by existing power structures, and be resigned to a fate similar to the libertarian and green parties, which are spoilers at best.

It would need to be a party that grows out of the moderate center. This is doable, because will all the gerrymandering they are becoming the least represented block of voters, that is compounded by the fact that in general 98% of the population are not represented by their representatives anyways. The center is open to facts and reasonable arguments as to policy solutions, such as single payer and a restructured health care industry. That is the executable path to republican and or democrat obsolescence.

John k , June 27, 2017 at 2:36 pm

The first world has had enough neolib, pendulum has started moving the other way. Macron shows the desperation to try something new without embracing right wing LePen an option not available here, so revulsion to neolib resulted in Trump..

Course, the something new macron is just neolib with a pretty face, French will be disappointed, either the left will join forces next time or French desperation will bring LE Pen to power.

Fully agree dems have hollowed themselves out enough to create a vacuum, country desperate for third party. New media is displacing corp mouthpieces, never been easier to start new. Still think take over greens, make functional, because ballot access hard to get, particularly with dems fighting tooth and nail. Come to think of it, maybe they're not completely dysfunctional, they did manage to get on the ballot in most states, not easy, and certainly dems didn't help, they hate the greens.

Dems 30, reps 30, indies 40.
Bernie heading progressive greens gets 1/3 dems, 1/6 reps, 3/4 indies? 45 in three way race is landslide.

oh , June 27, 2017 at 5:13 pm

I don't think I'd count on Bernie. He loves his committee appointments too much and will never leave the DImRats.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Just to be clear, the text in my comment above was written by Julian Assange, not me. See the link at the top of said comment.

Andrew Watts , June 27, 2017 at 5:06 pm

In response to point number six: There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.

Secondly, Macron can't be compared to Trump/Sanders. He's just neoliberalism's Potemkin village in France. Both Trump/Sanders aren't really comparable as they both contained genuine political outsiders such as Bannon in Trump's case. I wouldn't compare Melenchon to Sanders either. Melenchon kinda seems like the Le Pen of the French left. By which I mean he would govern as a authoritarian.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 9:08 pm

There are already significant legal barriers to the creation of a new party. Both parties will probably gang up on any new party development too.

Granted, however it shouldn't be forgotten that there are significant barriers to reforming the D-party too.

Lambert Strether , June 27, 2017 at 11:33 pm

Invert "legal barrier" to "asset to be seized"

fajensen , June 27, 2017 at 5:19 am

The Dims – because that's what these people truly are – will just assume that they haven't put enough effort into "Russia" and go triple- or quadruple-up on every failed candidate, strategy, platform, message, consultant, focus-group and whatever else a sane leadership should by now have been tarring, feathering and releasing the hounds upon.

Just imagine the staff meetings: 'We gotta be right eventually, because Vince Lombardi said: "Winners never quit and quitters never win"' and politics is exactly like football. "Ohhh How Deep. Surely advice like that is worth paying 50 kUSD for".

Darn , June 27, 2017 at 5:37 am

+ for Dims. The Russia thing is irresistible because it's supposed to get nationalistic rubes to turn against Trump while sucking up to the military-industrial complex. And yet, it didn't work during the campaign either.

polecat , June 27, 2017 at 11:08 am

'If you are constantly pounding the pudding, shrieking endlessly, and hysterically so, about the evils of the PUTIN and his supposed orange-coiffed minion, while refusing to look into a mirror !!! . You just might be a DIMOCRAT !"

sid_finster , June 27, 2017 at 11:14 am

Team D will continue to double down because it is in the interests of those running Team D to do so.

Ignacio , June 27, 2017 at 5:50 am

The fixation of Clintonites, or frustrated dems with russiagate is very telling and well explained here. It strikes me how the russiagate has treated so uncritically by the "liberal" press in Spain. Nobody, and I say nobody, has even thougth twice about the political risks associated with the demonization of Russia that coincides with Ukraine isues and natural gas supplies in Europe. Interestingly Germans have recently agreed with Russia a new pipeline through the Baltic sea and there is clamor against these agreement amongst other European countries that do not benefit from the pipeline, and apparently the clamor is leaded by the US (the supposedly pro Russian Trump government).

Germany's gas pact with Putin's Russia endangers Atlantic alliance

mundanomaniac , June 27, 2017 at 1:53 pm

and the German journalists, print or TV were ready 2014 like their colleges were1933, when Goebbels called . And no physical threat this time, only probe of character.
And as the Germans since long have learnt to be eager to please their masters they did the trick again, alas now, when they are the paragons of success in the west.

But the president Donald, thank God, is disclosing all veils and Putin is showing a decent kind of leader on the planet. Cheers from Bavaria's

mundo http://astromundanediary.blogspot.de/2017/06/6_18.html

Benedict@Large , June 27, 2017 at 6:02 am

So the bottom line is that Hillary, who wouldn't work for anything better than ObamaCare, is ending up sacrificing ObamaCare itself, all because she got in a powder about people not buying her messageless campaign? We are literally a handful of days away from losing not only ObamaCare, but Medicaid as well, and the Democratic establishment has no strategy except to worry that Bernie Sanders might score a few points for merely repeating back to the party's base what that base was already saying? Forty years of trying to create a "centrist" third party is in shambles, and these people still believe they are entitled to lead what little remains of the party of the working people.

No wonder we were supposed to worry about the Russians. It was the furthest place they could find from where the problem really was.

Mike , June 27, 2017 at 8:38 am

As a side note, no one is mentioning the "progressive" bloggers and news sites (Young Turks, Majority Report, I'm lookin' at ya) who jumped on this bandwagon after showing support for Sanders, then switched to standard form to oppose the "fascist" Trump. It says to me that, just like the more well-known Democratic Party fronts who could have made an effort to show independence, they are ultimately fronts, just more distantly positioned for maximum believability. It all smells, and progressives need to examine their principles before looking to these "saviors".

Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties (not just Republicans – sorry, integer)? If anything shows the necessity of party realignment (creating new ones to replace existing), this idiocy is not just a brick in the wall, but an entire edifice.

integer , June 27, 2017 at 11:23 am

Even if "evidence" would appear after all this time, do we not suspect it has been cooked in the truth-telling factories of the FBI, CIA, and NSA, all in bed with right-wing warmongers who own both parties ( not just Republicans – sorry, integer )?

Disappointed to read this, as I have never made that claim.

Mike , June 27, 2017 at 1:47 pm

Comment was to your saying the security establishment "which is primarily GOP owned or aligned". Both parties, in a sense, "own" it, and use segments of it to advantage when necessary. But further, both the parties and agencies are "owned" by the power of capital as it is currently operating, and this power behind the throne makes the security and party establishment dance. You and I are on the ground, trying to avoid the footwork.

RenoDino , June 27, 2017 at 8:42 am

http://nypost.com/2017/06/24/inside-the-shadowy-intelligence-firm-behind-the-trump-dossier/

It looks like the Fusion GPS Trump dossier, that is the basis for all of the Russian collusion accusations, is getting ready to become even more of a major embarrassment, hence all the talk about backing away from the current strategy.

Even Planned Parenthood hired this opposition research firm to get dirt on right to lifers. Your tax dollars and donations at work.

Arizona Slim , June 27, 2017 at 8:44 am

In the last six months, I have gone from being curious about Russia to learning how to speak Russian. Thanks for the inspiration, Democrats.

Andrew Watts , June 27, 2017 at 5:00 pm

Ahah! Most Americans don't learn foreign languages. This is irrefutable proof of a fifth columnist element in America plotting against Moose and Squirrel. Somebody tell the Hillary campaign!

Tertium Squid , June 27, 2017 at 8:54 am

Now I remember where I first heard of Norman Solomon. http://dilbert.com/search_results?terms=Norman+Solomon

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/162106845381/why-the-new-healthcare-bill-will-be-a-loser

Tom Stone , June 27, 2017 at 8:54 am

But, but, it was HER TURN! And her investors are really pissed off. $1.5B up in smoke and not even a blue dress to show for it.

NotTimothyGeithner , June 27, 2017 at 9:31 am

If Hillary with her celebrity and money can't win, what does it say about the potential future political dreams of the Dems who enthusiastically supported her? Or even corporate gigs? What good is a Democrat who can't deliver?

NBCNews has hired Greta, Megan Kelly, and now Hugh Hewitt. The NYT hired a host of climate change deniers.

For the Clintonistas especially, why would anyone hire them again? It's really no different on their part than the "OMG Nader" narrative. In an election with voter suppression, misleading ballots, bizarre recounts, Joe Lieberman, high youth non-Cuban Hispanic turnout for Shrub, Katherine Harris, and the fantasy of simply winning Tennessee, who did Democrats blame? A powerless figure in Nader.

sid_finster , June 27, 2017 at 11:19 am

This is one reason why russiagate is inevitable. Who wants to tell the donors that the Team D brain trust pissed away a billion and a half, with nothing to show for it? But if the election was somehow stolen (eeevil Russkies!) then it wasn't really Team D's fault you see, and then

Darius , June 27, 2017 at 1:08 pm

It also is attacking the Republicans from the right, always a Team D wet dream.

Karl Kolchak , June 27, 2017 at 2:58 pm

Problem is, anyone smart enough to earn that much dough is likely too smart to fall for the Russia stole the election BS, which is why Dumbocrats' fundraising has cratered.

John Wright , June 27, 2017 at 8:58 am

The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence. To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"

The Trump voter is probably more than a little irritated to have their voting actions viewed this way, they do not see themselves influenced by the Russians and do not understand why the Russians COULD significantly influence the election when the USA spends so much money on the CIA, FBI, NSA and US military.

The USA is also widely viewed as attempting to influence elections overseas, with none other than Senator Hillary Clinton recorded stating that 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win' in a Palestine election.

http://observer.com/2016/10/2006-audio-emerges-of-hillary-clinton-proposing-rigging-palestine-election/

Disclaimer, this link is from Trump's son-in-law's publication, but the audio has not been questioned AFAIK..

I suspect the American voter does not believe they were "played" by the Russians.

But they may believe that is what the Democrats are attempting to do with the entire Russia-gate campaign

As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign.

The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance.

Left in Wisconsin , June 27, 2017 at 1:48 pm

The entire Russia-gate issue ignores/insults the voters the Democrats hope to influence.

To some extent, the Democrats are telling the deplorable Trump voters, "The Russians influenced you to vote for Trump, someone who you have been aware of for many years, over the other well-known candidate Hillary Clinton"

I think this is not right. The Dems have no interest in the votes of the deplorables. What only matters is the meme that HRC should have won. The charitable interpretation is that DNC is still convinced that demographics are in their favor (in the long run). So they do not have to diss their corporate patrons and offer real help to real people; they just need to hold out long enough for the demographics to kick in. The meme that HRC should have won is a rationale for staying the course.

Of course, the uncharitable explanation is that they would rather lose than change.

flora , June 27, 2017 at 9:18 am

"As James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid" when running Bill Clinton's Presidential campaign. The Democrats need to see this is still good guidance."

Yes, it is. Unfortunately for the voters Bill Clinton and Obama and the Dem estab are neoliberals. Bill and O were neoliberals running in New Deal clothing. The current Dem estab is neolib. A better "message" sans better policies isn't any better than focusing on Russia, imo.

Kevin Horlock , June 27, 2017 at 9:29 am

Please just go away, Hillary and Hillary clones. When you think about it, increasing ever so slightly the risk of actual nuclear war, damaging the Democratic party, and doing untold damage to legitimate (hate to use the word anymore) "progressive" causes is more or less the end-game of all this. And all in service of, what? Vindicating the failures of the inane pundit class? (God forbid) setting up Hillary 2020? Shameful shit right there

John D. , June 27, 2017 at 10:13 am

Even on a purely political level, the whole Russiagate bullshit was doomed to failure, methinks.

Gore Vidal (among others) used to point out that the dirty little secret of America's anti-communist right was that they were actually jealous of the brutal tactics the commies could use against their dissenters and secretly – and in many cases, not so secretly – wished they could do the same thing here. It wasn't that long ago that the right wing blog-o-sphere and certain wingnut writers were all swooning over Putin's manliness (as opposed to Obama's alleged 'weakness') like a pack of horny schoolgirls. The dumb bastards were composing mash notes to the butch Mr. Putin. It was embarrassing.

So if the Dem "leadership" was hoping to turn our own home-grown reactionaries against Trump over being in bed with Putin, they should have known better. We all know the right are hypocrites. Even if there was anything to Russiagate, they wouldn't care. And the rest of us wouldn't give a shit, not if it meant ignoring every other problem that needs dealing with. Since it's all a bunch of bullshit anyway

Jonathan Holland Becnel , June 27, 2017 at 12:11 pm

Good to see this Neoliberal farce go away.

Indrid Cold , June 27, 2017 at 1:06 pm

What if "RussiaGate" was only really intended to pressure Trump hard against any diplomatic rapprochement with a country the Neocons have targeted?

Trump's foreign policy has been relentlessly steered into a direction the Clintons always intended to take it. Ticking off the last countries on Israel's 'enemy list' as compiled by the PNAC creeps. Recall the statement of Col. Wilkerson or one of those old guard people who wandered into an office in the Pentagon to find that there was a list of countries to be destroyed, starting with Iraq and ending finally with Iran. Syria and Libya were on it.

This whole thing is about a high level grand strategic plan that involves destabilizing and overthrowing governments the US and Israel find annoying and insufficiently obeisant. The ultimate goal will be breaking the Russian Federation into a bunch of independent statelets. This isn't 'conspiracy theory' – it's what Brzezinski advocated and aligns neatly with the needs of the military-industrial-financial complex and its obsession with total control over world energy supplies as a lever for domination.

Assad is really secondary to the main goals of:

  1. Getting the Russian naval presence out of the Mediterranean (note that Nuland -another PNAC operative- leverages unhappiness with the corruption in Ukraine to install a fascistic government that would certainly have seized the Russian naval assets at Sevastopol had Russia not seized the Crimea.
  2. Turning Isreal's neighbors into a collection Mad Max style bantu-stans that can be manipulated easily by Saudi -which is ironically Israel's ally.
  3. Controlling energy transit and access points.

Again, I'm not saying anything that isn't in the record.

John Wright , June 27, 2017 at 4:34 pm

Re the country list. It was Wesley Clark who saw the list of middle east/African countries the USA would attack and destroy.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/

Per Clark, "He said: "Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.""

It was all supposed to occur within 5 years, so by 2008 the dream would have been accomplished. But maybe the neocons haven't given up, not installing HRC was a downer, but maybe Trump can be pulled into line..

Thor's Hammer , June 27, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Cold, you bring up a topic often ignored that I find highly credible. The Deep State with all its power to manufacture information and create chaos has a long-standing interest in maintaining Russiaphobia. The Soviet Union was certainly the best enemy they have ever known. Without it trillions of dollars of armaments would have never been sold and billions of dollars of spy agency bureaucracies never have been funded.

The real power centers in the US are the bankster cabal, robber baron capitalists, medical extortionists, and the Homeland Insecurity war hawks. The first three have nothing to fear from a Trump presidency– indeed they probably will fare better than if the Clinton Crime Syndicate had triumphed. However (to the extent that he actually stands for anything) Trump's goal of defusing tensions with Russia and doing oil deals with them is a direct threat to the War Hawks, and more than sufficient reason to cut him off at the knees

You do fall into the trap of repeating Deep State propaganda though. Russia did not seize Crimea. Crimea has been part of the Russian sphere of influence for generations. It probably is as much Russian as Texas is American. It's temporary incorporation into Ukraine when the Soviet Union fractured probably had as much to do with Khrushchev being Ukrainian as it had to do with creating the best fit. And when the choice was put before a popular referendum in 2014, 83% of the population turned out to vote and 96.77% voted to join the Russian Federation. Try getting that kind of turn out and consensus in an American election! And even if there was plenty of arm twisting behind the scenes, its hard to believe that the result didn't represent the actual choice of the citizens.

Indrid Cold , June 27, 2017 at 10:55 pm

Re Crimea – you're correct of course. The Texas analogy is pretty good. There was no distinction between Russians and Ukrainians during the time of the Czars anyway. The territory used to be controlled by the Hellenes and then the Byzantines. The Germans wanted to annex it as part of their war goals in ww2

kurtismayfield , June 27, 2017 at 1:32 pm

This has been mission accomplished for the Dems. You just have to assume they want the country to move right.

  1. Kick the left. Always.
  2. Pretend to #resist, while really you are in it to keep the political money spigot flowing.
  3. While distracting their supporters with Russia gate/GA-06/Trump's latest twit, Medicare and ACA get gutted.
  4. Run on returning to the status quo on 2018, taking single payer will be off the table.

It's brilliant... If you know their goal is to move the country right and be a bulwark against the left.

[Jun 27, 2017] Is Russia Starting to Realize That 'Dialogue' With Washington Is a Massive Waste of Time

marknesop.wordpress.com
Putin: "If there were no situation with Crimea and other problems, they would have invented something else to contain Russia"

Evidently, Russia has finally seen the light and understands inviting U.S. officials for a discussion on the whims and airy ideas Washington conjures up out of thin air, and usually on the spur of the moment, is ineffective and a total waste of time.

As reported by AP , Russia has canceled talks that were set for this coming Friday between Russia's deputy foreign minister, Sergey Ryabkov, and the No. 3 U.S. diplomat, Thomas A. Shannon, Jr.

Ryabkov said that "the situation is not conducive to holding a round of this dialogue," criticizing the U.S. for "not having offered anything specific" to discuss.

"We have said from the very beginning of Washington's exceptionally destructive policy in regard to applying anti-Russia sanctions, that [such measures] will not and cannot have an effect desired by the US on our individuals or entities," Ryabkov told RIA Novosti Tuesday.

[Jun 27, 2017] Buffoonery and incompetence of the Trump administration

Notable quotes:
"... That said, I'm wondering if it couldn't be the other way around. A few people in intelligence agencies and US administration got wind that some rebels/group was considering a false-flag chemical attack in the near future. Having US going so public just before would make it kind of hard to convince the world, even US people, that it was really Assad who was suicidal enough to do such an attack right after getting warned. Basically, a way to tell that group to rethink its plan because it would be a far harder sell and many people would begin to doubt SAA's guilt. ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

Temporarily Sane | Jun 27, 2017 8:34:59 PM | 89

I'm with b on this one.

So just "coincidentally" all these "coincidences" are playing out a week after the US military was forced to admit humiliating defeat in Syria AND Seymour Hersh's piece detailing the appalling thuggish buffoonery and incompetence of the Trump administration was published for all to read? No way. The USG is in damage control mode and as usual many innocent people are going to die violent deaths in the name of upholding western delusions.

Peter AU | Jun 27, 2017 8:42:19 PM | 90
I missed this one earlier.

#NOTAM & navigation warnings in force around #Cyprus tomorrow - Russian Navy exercise area off the #Syria coast.
https://twitter.com/CivMilAir/status/879798755070967809

As you say Paveway, looks like something not good brewing. Makes me wonder why the white house took it upon themselves to announce it, catching the other players with their pants down.

Clueless Joe | Jun 27, 2017 8:58:02 PM | 91
Well, more or less asking the rebels to do some false-flag soon enough is the most obvious and probable explanation.

That said, I'm wondering if it couldn't be the other way around. A few people in intelligence agencies and US administration got wind that some rebels/group was considering a false-flag chemical attack in the near future. Having US going so public just before would make it kind of hard to convince the world, even US people, that it was really Assad who was suicidal enough to do such an attack right after getting warned. Basically, a way to tell that group to rethink its plan because it would be a far harder sell and many people would begin to doubt SAA's guilt.

That's a bit far-fetched and based on the possible presence of sane agents in US administration. So I give this hypothesis still a low probability.

About the US recon flights, could they be mostly monitoring that incoming Russian navy exercise? Or could they be related to the growing Turkish pressure on Afrin?

Sektion 2B | Jun 27, 2017 9:09:57 PM | 92
One desperate move the US and allies could try to make vis a vis the alleged chemical attack is to kill Assad, as they couldn't stop the SAA's advance on DAYR EL-ZOR.

[Jun 27, 2017] NATO is in a terrible position to attack by any other means than an unalerted pre-emptive nuclear strike,

Jun 27, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
marknesop , June 25, 2017 at 1:50 pm
NATO is in a terrible position to attack by any other means than an unalerted pre-emptive nuclear strike, and there is just too great a chance that a counterstrike would be launched even if Russia was pasted flat. As you say, large concentrations of troops and armor are easy targets for tactical nuclear strikes, and Russia has left nobody under any illusions as to whether it would use them to repel an invasion – of course it would. But NATO has never balked at sacrificing troops or equipment so that it can appear the victim, or so that a strawman democracy-is-the-victim meme can be raised, which compels the guardians of democracy to act.

I would say that although the west appears to badly want a major war, it is just too unlikely they would be victorious without cost for them to try it. The USA has gotten itself so deeply in debt, plus the degradation its international reputation has suffered, that a vision of a catastrophic global war all fought on someone else's turf must offer tempting memories of how the American homeland escaped two previous such wears unscathed, and was left in the de facto position of world leader. But that would be unlikely to happen again, and even the craziest Americans must know the country would pay a terrible price.

[Jun 27, 2017] What this strange USa annoncemnt about forthcoming chemical attack from Sirian foverment on ISI (althout in the past reverse was true) might mean

Notable quotes:
"... For me, this "pre blame" statement is meant to act as a blanket covering up numerous bad news erupting ..."
"... And a host of other bad news could be listed as well, one being that CNN has finally admitted that Russiagate was totally contrived to increase "ratings," with 3 key staff members either resigning or fired. It's hard to gauge how deep domestic resistance to the Republican agenda is currently given Trump's entire set of campaign points are now proven lies faster than any previous president's. ..."
"... Funny how the emphasis on children is a common thread -- yes, the media needs to shock the reader and violence against children is clearly the lever of choice. The WH statement almost sounds like a threat. ..."
"... Note the coincidence with the 3 CNN dipshits resigning over, of all things, fake news. Hopefully it spreads to the WaPo and PBS and their global equivalents. ..."
"... Or is Trump's team looking for a PR surge by attacking Syria in its typical symbolic whilst ineffective way? ..."
"... Looks like their game is lost in Syria. Unless ally Israel wants to push across the Golan and take Damascus on its own, I smell desperation too. ..."
"... Things get more partisan during elections, sanity partially returns after. Hillary not elected, mission accomplished. We'll never know if this clusterfuck is worse than what could have been. ..."
"... "This little game has been going on for 68 years. Specifically, the U.S.government has been trying to replace the Syrian government with folks who will be subservient to America since 1949 3 years after Syria became an independent nation. ..."
"... The CIA succeeded in carrying out a coup in Syria 1949. In 1957, the American president and British prime minister agreed to launch regime change again in Syria using a false flag. (False flags are not only historically documented, but presidents, prime ministers, congressmen, generals, spooks, soldiers and police have ADMITTED to planning and carrying out false flag attacks). ..."
"... In 1983, 1986, 1991, 2001, 2009 and 2012, American officials again schemed about regime change in Syria." from Zerohedge. ..."
"... So, what's happening on the battlefront to provoke this extremely clumsy false flag threat? Well, it's not good for the Outlaw US Empire and its terrorist proxies. Here's the very latest from Canthama: ..."
"... you wil find that US also orhestrated GHOUTA attack, as it used that as an excuse to attack damascus.. but such planning to manouvre the navy takes time ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

karlof1 | Jun 27, 2017 4:04:52 PM | 63

For me, this "pre blame" statement is meant to act as a blanket covering up numerous bad news erupting: Trump Care being proven to be Death Care as thousands will die prematurely when their mediocre heath care insurance gets cancelled and Medicare gets gutted, "The best estimate based on scientific studies is that about 29,000 Americans would die each year as a result," https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2017/06/26/new-comprehensive-review-finds-recent-studies-strengthen-conclusions-landmark

New Pew International Study shows 74% have No Confidence in Trump, which would likely be even more if the survey were taken today, http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26/u-s-image-suffers-as-publics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/

The recent admission covered here that the Outlaw US Empire has lost in Syria and is making the alt-media rounds.

A new study shows global carbon sinks are filled and essentially backing-up with CO2 concentrations still rapidly rising despite the leveling of emissions, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/climate/carbon-in-atmosphere-is-rising-even-as-emissions-stabilize.html

And a host of other bad news could be listed as well, one being that CNN has finally admitted that Russiagate was totally contrived to increase "ratings," with 3 key staff members either resigning or fired. It's hard to gauge how deep domestic resistance to the Republican agenda is currently given Trump's entire set of campaign points are now proven lies faster than any previous president's.

stumpy | Jun 27, 2017 4:19:44 PM | 64

Q @ 55
Chemical weapons kill babies, none of the other kinds do. P.S. Macron to craft by half.

Funny how the emphasis on children is a common thread -- yes, the media needs to shock the reader and violence against children is clearly the lever of choice. The WH statement almost sounds like a threat.

stumpy | Jun 27, 2017 4:38:23 PM | 66
Note the coincidence with the 3 CNN dipshits resigning over, of all things, fake news. Hopefully it spreads to the WaPo and PBS and their global equivalents.

Trump has some domestic victories under his belt, the Supreme Court upholding his travel ban, the CNN 3 little pigs, Modi's cameo, Obama administration under fire for allowing alleged Russian hacking to go unpunished, booming stock market, et alia...

So, thinking sideways, suppose all this good news for Trump are gifts from the PTB in advance of another retaliatory strike against the Syrian windmill? If State and DOD are not parties to the new chemical strike project, then the source is exclusive to the WH? Or is Trump's team looking for a PR surge by attacking Syria in its typical symbolic whilst ineffective way?

Looks like their game is lost in Syria. Unless ally Israel wants to push across the Golan and take Damascus on its own, I smell desperation too.

Not only in the US -- UK needs a distraction from the burning tower/£1BN bribe to Irish MPs, France has a new pretty boy who needs to prove himself a badass -- all in the face of the Qatari divorce that appears to solidify the R+6 (7?) platform for the new silk road.

stumpy | Jun 27, 2017 4:46:39 PM | 67
peter @ 65

Things get more partisan during elections, sanity partially returns after. Hillary not elected, mission accomplished. We'll never know if this clusterfuck is worse than what could have been. I don't think the term "snowflake" has been used here for weeks.

james | Jun 27, 2017 4:47:50 PM | 68
@55 quentin / @64 stumpy... i agree quentin.. it has ran thru my mind many times before.. why make this special status for chemical weapons.. all of the shit that kills people is bad.. and yeah - the combo of chemical attack murdering innocent children - that one two punch that the usa and it's headchopping friends in the west trot out gets very tiring... if any of them actually cared, they would put a stop to all their war making and leave syria alone.. alas, they are too into making war to stop.. one day this will stop but the lying msm will be long gone by then...
Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 27, 2017 4:51:32 PM | 69
Which people do you mean? Soros? Rothschild?
Come on, the politicians themselves are guilty as hell and must be brought for war tribunals.
Bush jr., Blair, Sarkozy, Obama, Hillary and so on.
Posted by: From The Hague | Jun 27, 2017 1:55:50 PM | 50

I'm not fussy. I mean every person/entity which "donates" to political parties in the West. No exceptions.

Allowing donations to political parties should be illegal because it facilitates the privateisation (Private ownership) of the parties. It has led to the delegitimisation, in the eyes of The Public, by the MSM skunks & weasels, of candidates who have not been nominated by a large, corrupt, Privately Owned, political party.

In the interim, donations to political parties should be made through a single Central Clearing House, with Rules.

1. No anonymous donations.

2. Every donor must have a valid name, address & 24/7 phone number.

3. A donor making multiple, frequent, small donations, shall be prosecuted for devious humbuggery and banned from ANY political activity for 3years and get 2 years in the jug if caught cheating on the ban.

4. The Central Clearing House shall keep a Publicly Accessible, searchable Register of each and every donation. The Register will be updated each Monday, Wednesday and Friday, and sworn to be fully up to date in the first week of every month.

etc, etc.

Peter AU | Jun 27, 2017 5:01:38 PM | 70
69 have a read through this recent article. I have often thought about the legalised corruption that is called sponsorship and consultancies, but this article stunned me as to how open the US is to all this shit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-koch-idUSKBN19I137

jawbone | Jun 27, 2017 5:04:04 PM | 71
From @21 -- AP also running stories about the US military seeing indications of a chemical weapon being prepared. How would the US military "see" such preparations? Are there 3 witches around a boiling kettle? Would not anyone preparing poison attacks do it out of sight?
Peter AU | Jun 27, 2017 5:07:07 PM | 72
The article I linked to @70 is about the Koch organisation putting its people into the Trump government to influence policy. What stunned me is how they are openly proud of their achievement in getting their people into the admin after Trump won and how open they are on doing this purely for the purpose of influencing government policy.
karlof1 | Jun 27, 2017 5:17:54 PM | 73
james @68--

Thanks for all your replies; they're nice to read! As for chemical weapons, I once argued that all weapons are chemical in their makeup and ought to be banned--isn't that what the Periodic Table qualifies, that all elements are chemical in their nature? The onset of life is now understood as a series of chemical processes (still ongoing) that allowed for complete replication and thus regeneration, which is why chemical pollutants are such a threat to life's structure. And as usual, the greatest abuser/user of chemical weapons is the accuser itself--The Outlaw US Empire.

frances | Jun 27, 2017 6:03:37 PM | 74
"This little game has been going on for 68 years. Specifically, the U.S.government has been trying to replace the Syrian government with folks who will be
subservient to America since 1949 3 years after Syria became an independent nation.

The CIA succeeded in carrying out a coup in Syria 1949. In 1957, the American president and British prime minister agreed to launch regime change again in Syria using a false flag. (False flags are not only historically documented, but presidents, prime ministers, congressmen, generals, spooks, soldiers and police have ADMITTED to planning and carrying out false flag attacks).

In 1983, 1986, 1991, 2001, 2009 and 2012, American officials again schemed about regime change in Syria." from Zerohedge.

Peter AU | Jun 27, 2017 6:18:24 PM | 75
According to a few news articles, Pentagon spokesman Naval Captain Jeff Davis has also made a statement to the press. Nothing Showing at the DOD website so I tried the US navy website.

At the moment the US navy seems pre-occupied with LGBT events.

Three latest US navy news articles...

  • Naval Intelligence Commander Keynotes LGBT Pride Event (27 June 2017)
  • Rear Adm. Robert Sharp, director of the National Maritime Intelligence-Integration Office and commander of Office of Naval Intelligence, jumped at the opportunity to speak at this year's Sixth Annual Intelligence Community (IC) Pride Summit held at FBI Headquarters.
  • Truxtun Sailors Celebrate Pride Month (26 June 2017)
  • The Cultural Diversity Education Team (CDET) aboard USS Truxtun (DDG 103) hosted a program on the ship's mess decks to celebrate Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month, June 23.
  • NAVSUP Headquarters Celebrates LGBT Pride Month 2017 (26 June 2017)
  • Naval Supply Systems Command (NAVSUP) Headquarters recognized Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month during an event with Nicole Miller, director, TransCentralPa Family, June 26.

http://www.navy.mil/listStories.asp?x=2

karlof1 | Jun 27, 2017 6:19:12 PM | 76
So, what's happening on the battlefront to provoke this extremely clumsy false flag threat? Well, it's not good for the Outlaw US Empire and its terrorist proxies. Here's the very latest from Canthama:

"News that you won't hear before few days from the two key battle fields at the moment:

"1) Ithriyah-Resafa – The situation is the following:

– ISIS defending fiercely the last 10 kms of road, the use of TOWs and VBIEDs has been huge, way higher than ISIS using at Raqqa city.
– The amount of mines and IEDs has been also a key reason for the delay in closing the gap.
– The pocket in eastern Khanaser is not defended by a large amount of ISIS terrorists, though they do have the fire power to deliver unnecessary KIA for the SAA and allies.
– Not surprisingly the final showdown is at the Ithriyah oil & gas field and the Zakia crossroad, last

"In few days we will hear from the MoD that the road is 100% safe, with that, the whole pocket will be ISIS free, and the battle for Northeastern Hama and Central Homs will seriously kick off, everything is timed and coordinated at this point, event the Desert Hawks are moving to the NE Hama area, this offensive will happen as soon as the MoD declares the road safe.

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=pt&lat=35.454937&lon=38.063507&z=13&m=b&gz=0;380056571;354423513;0;0;1155281;241908

"2) T3-T2 road and the shortest way to Der ez Zor

"The Syrian desert is seeing a classic warfare in the past few weeks, tanks battling tanks, impressive CAS and the incredible amount of TOWs use. So far the SAA and its allies have done an amazing job.

"As reported in the last few days, the Syrian High Command made the call to go for the kill on T3-T2 without clearing Bir al Jafeef pocket that was somehow slowing the advance down.

"Once the decision was made, the SAA advanced 70-90 kms and basically took control of the road up to Hamaymah village, leaving the pocket to be dealt latter, which happened today in fact. The whole area around T3 is now 100% safe, and the implications are many:
– The SAA is about to declare 100% liberated the Hail gas field.
– The SAA has now control of part of a desert road that can lead to Der ez Zor

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=pt&lat=34.996254&lon=39.583740&z=9&m=b&gz=0;389245605;345190041;0;0;10025024;3534076;12387084;6761296

"The current situation around T3-T2 is as following:
– Humaymah is reported safe, though we wont hear from MoD.
– Fight is around T2, but the critical aspect is the cut off on many desert roads from al Bukamal to T2, Iraq border and to Mayaden.

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=pt&lat=34.377446&lon=40.158119&z=12&m=b

"Future battle will toward the desert village of Faydat Bin Muwaynah.

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=pt&lat=34.564818&lon=39.975815&z=11&m=b&gz=0;397869873;344796749;0;0;1977539;2108582

"The next key component of the offensive to Der ez Zor will be inside the red triangle below, the T2 is a key corner, Faydat Bin Muwaynah is a frontline against crazy suicidal ISIS coming from Mayaden, al Hail and Doubayat gas fields are another important component, as well as the possibility to control multiple roads that reach Der ez Zor, from the busy highway bypassing al Sukhanah or desert roads.

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=pt&lat=34.655804&lon=39.803467&z=9&m=b&gz=0;389163208;343593089;13815307;0;7717895;7055401;0;3586021

"With all the above plus the real unreported progress by the SAA, there is good reason to hope for the SAA and allies to reach Der ez Zor in very few weeks and not months.

"There is no doubt that the US is struggling to adapt to this new situation, minimum to zero control of the Iraq border, the loss of initiative to control al Bukamal, the loss of initiative to delay the SAA to reach Der ez Zor.

"There is no doubt that the last possible alternative for the US to delay the SAA and allies is to use another murderous false flag in Syria so the use of cruise missiles and air attacks are wide spread on all fronts, but then they may find it harder to face AAs and RuAF/SAAF, the allied force is indeed waiting for the US to make another bad decision.

"The SAA and allies can not and will not be distracted with what the US may try to do, they will continue to press forward at high speed toward Der ez Zor while killing as many as US backed ISIS as possible."

https://syrianperspective.com/2017/06/isis-nihilists-destroy-iconic-mosul-mosque-syrian-army-enters-east-dayr-el-zor-saa-crushes-nusra-zionist-attack-on-golan-saa-separates-east-derah-from-the-west.html#6dp0wEUMB3p6l767.99

At this juncture, I don't know of anything the Evil Empire can do to thwart defeat of its plans.

Quadriad | Jun 27, 2017 6:19:23 PM | 77
#25 off mainstreet

That second paragraph about the Welt allowing this to come out mirrors my own thoughts. Furthermore, what if Macron's main assigned role is to simply keep an eye on Merkel and on her successor?

Giap | Jun 27, 2017 6:36:14 PM | 78
Melville's, Moby Dick , understood well that the United States was a mslignant enttity.
fast freddy | Jun 27, 2017 6:44:13 PM | 79
Chemicals - White Phosphorus can be used "legally" according to the doctrine of assholes whom deem it so - for ILLUMINATION purposes.

Of course, Israel and the US have blasted human beings (civilians, of course, including women and children) with it in any case using the bullshit ILLUMINATION fig leaf cover story.

It is horribly disfiguring and often deadly when it lands on someone.

ragehead | Jun 27, 2017 7:17:25 PM | 80
Thank you for the comments and thought-provoking analysis, all. My 2 cents:

I am still not sure whether the spat between KSA/Qatar is all it seems, especially now. We know that Turkey has moved troops and F-16s towards Qatar, under the pretext of defending against any KSA aggression towards Qatar. There are also several reports of Israel moving its jets to the KSA, under the pretext of defending against a possible coup (if these reports are to be believed).

My gut instinct at the time was that this was a ruse, designed to give approprite cover for moving these chess pieces towards the Persian Gulf. Erdogan flips on a dime, and I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the US giving him something he couldn't possibly refuse in exchange for some ground/air support. Qatar's opinion on that matter would be irrelevant, I think - Turkey can be either an ally or an enemy, depending on who makes the best offer.

With this recent WH announcement, I am reminded of a commentator here from a thread way back (maybe 2-3 months ago), who suggested that Trump's style involved utilizing "asymmetrical leadership to wage asymmetrical warfare". Who's behind this most recent announcement? Is the US going after Syria? Or is it Iran? Syria again? It could very well be both.

Apologies if I am ill-informed on some of my statements/assumptions here; please feel free to correct me. I am short on time these days and generally do not go outside MoA/Facebook/Reddit for news anymore.

Bless you all for doing God's work. The oft-unwritten history of the world both fascinates and terrifies me.

brian | Jun 27, 2017 7:22:30 PM | 81
you wil find that US also orhestrated GHOUTA attack, as it used that as an excuse to attack damascus.. but such planning to manouvre the navy takes time
jawbone | Jun 27, 2017 7:34:19 PM | 82
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-chemicalweap-idUSKBN19I1SP?mod=related&channelName=worldNews
The United States saw what appeared to be active Syrian preparations for a possible chemical weapons attack at Shayrat airfield, the same Syrian airfield the United States struck in April, Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said on Tuesday.

"This involved specific aircraft in a specific hangar, both of which we know to be associated with chemical weapons use," Davis said, speaking by phone from Washington.

Really? CBS Evening News also said US military reported heavy activity at air field bombed in April and overheard communications to SAA chemical weapons group.

karlof1 | Jun 27, 2017 7:35:37 PM | 83
I asked Canthama about al-Bukamal and Iraq's PMU being hindered by Iraq PM. What follows is his answer:

"Al Bukamal-al Qaim has been US point to exchange weapons, money and goods with ISIS for a long time. This is the place where most of the US/UK/Israhell weapons supply came to ISIS, visually checked by hundreds of Iraqis and widely reported since 2014. The US has also abused its luck with dozens of Helis landing and taking off near al Bukamal, all reported as covert ops but they were not.

"Iraq has a delicate situation, it curved to the US regime back in 2014, to hold ISIS in Iraq. By them US decided to push ISIS to Syria while reducing ISIS footprint in Iraq, a lot of things went wrong and ISIS became bigger than initially intended.

"Abadi has been navigating under tremendous pressure, the financial State of Iraq has difficulties due to the lower oil prices, the US manipulates weapons/hardware deliveries and last but not least the US has a strong influence in the Iraq Army.

"Having said that, the PMU has a strong influence of Iran and Hizballah, while now it belongs to the Iraq Army influence, it has no to minimum relationship with the US inside Iraq, it has been targeted by the USAF many times, the last major one near al Qaim/al Bukamal, interesting coincidence right ?

"The situation with the PMU is excellent, it is getting more power, like the IRGC in Iran, and Abadi is doing that, besides, it has so many branches that people simply can not follow it as a whole unit, several of the PMU branches are heavily present in Syria, many thousands are in fact in the Syrian desert and is supporting the border clean up process from the Syrian side, and the US can not do a thing about that.

"Abadi knows it has to balance the US pressure with the Iranian one, but it is Iraq that has a C&C in Baghdad with Syria, Russia, Iran and Hizballah.

"So, yes, Abadi says thing to calm the US down, but the PMU has life of its own, the US can not stop the PMU in cleaning up all the the Syrian-Iraqi border, it will happen in the next months for sure, up to Sinja.

"Keep in mind Mosul will be ISIS free in few days, Tal Afar will be also liberated in a month or so, than there is Hawija pocket, it will be held by the Iraqi Army, mostly, so the PMU will have the Iraq desert to play wilth, meaning Nineveh and Anbar.

"Folks are wrong to think the PMU is only a Shia force, it is primarily Shia due to the larger population in Iraq, but is has a lot of Sunnis, Yazidis, Kurds and Christians. They have turned into a formidable force, and will be used in easing down the situation with the Kurds up north later on."

https://syrianperspective.com/2017/06/isis-nihilists-destroy-iconic-mosul-mosque-syrian-army-enters-east-dayr-el-zor-saa-crushes-nusra-zionist-attack-on-golan-saa-separates-east-derah-from-the-west.html#TAovGBaUmCXfmTOl.99

[Jun 27, 2017] Fake News on Russia...CNN journalists resign

Jun 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

JohnH , June 27, 2017 at 06:45 AM

Fake News on Russia...CNN journalists resign:

"But CNN is hardly alone when it comes to embarrassing retractions regarding Russia. Over and over, U.S. major media outlets have published claims about The Russia Threat that turned out to be completely false – always in the direction of exaggerating the threat and/or inventing incriminating links between Moscow and the Trump circle. In virtually all cases, those stories involved evidence-free assertions from anonymous sources which these media outlets uncritically treated as fact, only for it to be revealed that they were entirely false.

Several of the most humiliating of these episodes have come from the Washington Post. On December 30, the paper published a blockbuster, frightening scoop that immediately and predictably went viral and generated massive traffic. Russian hackers, the paper claimed based on anonymous sources, had hacked into the "U.S. electricity grid" through a Vermont utility.

That, in turn, led MSNBC journalists, and various Democratic officials, to instantly sound the alarm that Putin was trying to deny Americans heat during the winter:

Literally every facet of that story turned out to be false."
https://theintercept.com/2017/06/27/cnn-journalists-resign-latest-example-of-media-recklessness-on-the-russia-threat/

Public perceptions of corporate media's integrity...RIP.

[Jun 27, 2017] The USA is sucessfully sabotaging Russian and try to secure its own shipping LNG to europe while Russia do not have alternative consumers comparable to EU, althout China and India shipments will grow dramatically

Notable quotes:
"... icebreaking LNG Carrier ..."
"... Yamal is projected to double Russia's share of the growing global LNG market by the time it reaches full capacity of 16.5m tonnes a year - equivalent to more than 80 per cent of China's annual demand - by 2021. Construction is three-quarters complete and production from the first phase of the project is due to commence by the end of this year. ..."
"... More than 95 per cent of Yamal's expected output has already been sold through 15 to 20 year contracts, with customers mostly in Asia and Europe. ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star , June 23, 2017 at 11:55 am
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-launches-deep-water-phase-turkstream-gas-pipeline-143410466.html

One of the best comment people on Yahoo:

"oldgeekMA 2 hours ago

Truth is Russia has been looking for an excuse to get out of the business of Shipping Natural Gas to the West and the South, altogether and these US Sanctions and EU Complaints about Gazprom Pipeline Construction, may just be the out they have been looking for. In Jan 2016, Russia completed 7 Massive High-Pressure Gas Pipelines, 2 to India and 5 to China. The ones to India make 4 total Gas Lines to India, but the 5 to China are the first time China, has had access to Russian Natural Gas. The contracts India and China signed with Gazprom are 50 years, and the price of NG starts at more than double the highest rate Gazprom charges in Europe, the icing on the cake however is that the currency is not US Paper Promissory Notes(Petro Dollars), but Gold Bullion. At full capacity those pipelines can use every single NG resource Gazprom, has at the present time, and all future NG resources. So, Gazprom would be foolish not to want to cut all off its Western and Southern pipelines off, and divert Maximum Flow East. In addition to these NG Pipelines, there are Crude Oil and Diesel pipelines under construction, going to China and India – Completion date scheduled for between November 2017 and January 2018. Chinese and Indian Construction Crews completed their internal distribution pipeline networks in 2016, and have 7 Oil Refineries in various stages of completion. -– All American III Percenter and Combat Disabled US Veteran"

Now..remind me what was this stuff about 'Murica shipping LNG to europe???
LOL!!!!

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

marknesop , June 24, 2017 at 5:27 pm
That would indeed be delightful if there were even the whiff of truth about it; but, unfortunately, there is not. Europe is still Russia's most important gas market by far. Numbers on the Russia-China gas deal are hard to come by and reporters who quote the price China will pay are just guessing because nobody has officially disclosed that figure and will not; it is strictly confidential.

However, the China-vs-EU figures are not even close; starting next year, Russia will export 30-38 BcM annually to China, and that might go as high as double as the agreement evolves. So, say 65 BcM annually, in a couple of years. That's still far less than half what Gazprom exports annually to Europe – 178.3 BcM in 2016, a significant jump over the previous year's 158.6 BcM.

Moreover, nearly all the increases in the past decade have been to imports by western Europe. Despite all the preaching in the media, the only countries which seem to be seriously trying to wean themselves off of Russian gas – with little to limited success, it must be said – are eastern European countries. One of the biggest yappers in the west is the UK but the UK went from zero imports of Russian gas in 2003 to the fourth-biggest European importer in 2013 .

That little quick-reference pocket guide is actually chock-full of useful facts which you can whip out and quote whenever some pea-brained bucket-mouthed know-nothing is trying to blizzard you with blue-sky bullshit. Here's a few:

1. All the blather and angst about reducing Europe's dependency on Russian gas imports conveniently ignores one buzzing fly in the ointment – long-term contracts. Of 178.6 BcM imported by Europe in 2013, 166 BcM of it was under 30-year contracts. By far the most of it. And you know what would happen if the EU broke a contract in order to reduce its imports, even if it could practically do so under conditions in which domestic sources of supply are rapidly drying up, which it can't. Also, contract supplies are by definition sanctions-exempt.

2. Home-grown Shale gas is not going to ride to the rescue. Even if Europe could tap supplies which are not sour with so much nitrogen that you can't even burn it, in order to reach shale gas supplies of only 28 BcM annually Europe would have to drill 800-1000 new wells every year for 10 years. Let's see that spun as fiscally viable, or sensible in any way, shape or form.

3. Blabber about the Southern Gas Corridor was always nothing more than that – supplies from Azerbaijan to Europe were never expected to total more than 30 BcM, about what Russia expects to export to China starting in 2018, and it would have taken until 2030 to reach that capacity.

4. LNG actually holds the best promise of undercutting Russian supply, and Europe's regassification terminals actually could handle more than the combined total of Russian imports now; 200 BcM. But LNG supplies to Europe depend entirely on whether they can be profitable, and all current objective studies find that Russia can keep LNG away as long as it likes, simply by consistently pricing its pipeline supplies lower than LNG. Given what it would cost Uncle Sam to get his supplies to market, Gazprom can still easily do that and turn a handsome profit.

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

Cortes , June 23, 2017 at 1:41 pm
Japanese need to diversify energy imports to benefit RF?

http://journal-neo.org/2017/06/22/japan-regards-russia-as-a-reliable-hydrocarbons-exporter/

et Al , June 24, 2017 at 11:25 am
I thought there was a plan to pipeline NG from Nakhoda to Japan? What happened to that, or was it simply to be an LNG terminal but got shifted?
marknesop , June 24, 2017 at 5:43 pm
I'm glad you brought that up; quite apart from the very interesting information contained in the article itself, it is a springboard to a larger discussion – is Russia equally committed to reducing its dependency on European pipelines as the Europeans are? Some say yes: Russia's $27 Billion icebreaking LNG Carrier project is an eye-opener which has been more or less entirely left out of energy discussions. And its target market is Asia .

Yamal is projected to double Russia's share of the growing global LNG market by the time it reaches full capacity of 16.5m tonnes a year - equivalent to more than 80 per cent of China's annual demand - by 2021. Construction is three-quarters complete and production from the first phase of the project is due to commence by the end of this year.

More than 95 per cent of Yamal's expected output has already been sold through 15 to 20 year contracts, with customers mostly in Asia and Europe.

et Al , June 25, 2017 at 8:04 am
That's hardcore! Thanks Mark. So the Chinese stepped in to take up the slack created by US sanctions against Timchenko's Novatek part of the project. Another US epic fail.

It's curious that the West's interpretation of 'globalization' hasn't turned out as expected. They saw it as western globo-corporations buying in around the world, but globalization has naturally progressed as 'multi-polarization' of global power, away from the US & the West's dominance. The Chinese stepping in is a perfect example. It shows that Russia has real options which it is building and if needs be, at some point in the future, tell the 'No thanks!'.

[Jun 27, 2017] MI5 Tries to Exchange Bribes to Russian Bankers for Espionage Against Russian Officials

russia-insider.com
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the government-owned bank established in London in 1991 to finance market boosting projects in the former Soviet Union, has been secretly aiding UK and US intelligence services in espionage targeted at Russia. The US is a 10% shareholder in the bank, the UK holds an 8.7% stake; Russia, 4%.

The disclosure appears in the records of a trial this month at the Central Criminal Court in London of Andrei Ryjenko (Рыженко, usually Anglicized as Ryzhenko), a senior banker at the EBRD who is a dual Russian-British citizen. Early in June, Ryjenko was convicted of taking and then laundering $3.5 million in concealed bribes for helping applications to the EBRD for loans and equity investments from two Russian oil and gas companies win approval for a total of $275 million. MI5, according to testimony in open court, offered Ryjenko the opportunity to keep his money and avoid prosecution if he agreed to spy for the British against Russian foreign intelligence service (SVR) agents who, MI5 told Ryjenko, were under cover in London. Ryjenko refused for several months. He was then arrested and subsequently tried. On June 20, Ryjenko was sentenced to six years in jail.

Treason against Russia was one crime Ryjenko refused to undertake, the Old Bailey testimony reveals. Also revealed, and for the first time, is EBRD's role in operating the scheme of lures and inducements MI5 proposed for Ryjenko, and other Russian nationals at the bank. "Honey traps," comments a London banking veteran, "are generally illegal. Otherwise, the honey wouldn't be so sweet, or entrapment worth plotting. It looks like Ryjenko trapped himself. It also looks like the bank was happy to make its money baiting the trap for MI5."

The EBRD spokesman, Anthony Williams, was asked to clarify the court testimony that the EBRD cooperates with MI5 to permit EBRD executives and EBRD records to be used in espionage operations against EBRD shareholders. "This refers to claims made during the trial", Williams said on Monday, "that were not deemed credible by the court and which are rejected by the EBRD. EBRD does not cooperate with MI5 and other British and US intelligence agencies."

[Jun 27, 2017] How the Internet Turned Me Into a Russia Apologist by Margaret Janssen

Jun 27, 2017 | russia-insider.com

Jun 25, 2017

I realized the United States hates Russia because Russia refuses to be a client state

It started in 2008. Before that I did not pay attention to what was happening in Russia. I saw a few headlines: Chechnya, default, wheat shipments in aid. They were the sort of thing you see on the crawl at the bottom of the screen on CNN. That was enough; I had other things to worry about.

But then my cousin said, check out this picture of a meeting between Putin and Bush in Beijing. They were in the bleachers talking about something bad – Putin looked fierce and Bush looked flummoxed. Whoa, there was a war starting? What war? Where?

Well, one thing led to another. I was curious. TV was awful and the CNN website had few facts so I started searching. European news sites were much better. The video of all those Russian tanks snaking through the Caucasus Mountains and out of the Roki tunnel to Georgia was quite impressive. Oh, crap, I thought, here we go: Armageddon. Then over the weekend all the US news outlets – when they mentioned the war during breaks from football games and the Olympics – increasingly gasped about Russian aggression and no provocation and look out, Eastern Europe, you are next.

But that didn't match what I saw on Russian, Indian, and German news. What I saw on non-US news was the Georgian soldier laughing as he filmed himself shooting holes in apartment blocks, or the shop owners in a Gori market saying bombs? What bombs? We're all still here.

Or the burned out cars, some still aflame, which had once held living families trying to flee Tshkinvali, South Ossetia. Or the people who had to bury their dead secretly in their gardens, not cemeteries, for fear of Georgian rockets. Or the woman days later who said she had seen black-skinned soldiers with American insignia included with the Georgian dead. Or the little American girl who had been visiting family there when Georgia attacked and said, Thank God the Russians were there, and FOX News immediately went to a station break and hustled her away from the cameras.

What I didn't see on non-US news was the Russian army invading Tbilisi. I predicted they would circle the capital, spike the guns in the military bases there, and go back north. And they did. I didn't see the Russian army bombing the presidential palace, although if it had been me in charge President Saakashvili would not have had a palace to sleep in. But the Russian army was more restrained than I would have been. By midweek I predicted the Russians would attack near Senaki, and sure enough they did.

How did I know? I found two maps on the web that showed where all the military bases were and where all the battles were. With one exception they correlated; that exception was where two highways crossed near Gori and there the Russians caught up with the Georgians.

So I discovered that I could tell where the Russians would go next. Once I realized what the Russians were up to, I started to laugh. I especially laughed at US news sites, which all seemed to have received the same memo: Bad Russia Invaded Poor Little Georgia for No Good Reason. Even when Saakashvili changed his story and admitted he had started the war and mowed down Russian peacekeepers to get to the Ossetians ("I lied, but I had a good reason!"), American news sites stuck to their standard story.

After the shooting stopped, I really laughed when the US military huffily demanded Russia return four Humvees the Russians had captured in battle. Either that, or pay the US $450,000. For only four crappy Humvees! We didn't even say if there was armor on them or anything. And back home we could buy them retail, drive off the lot, no haggling, for $80,000 each (2008 price). I couldn't believe the brass. If that was what the Department of Defense paid for them, then we "got took" by suppliers. Again! (The Russians kept the Humvees as war prizes, I heard later. Good luck with the gas mileage, guys.)

advertisement


So with the Georgia war I became somewhat skeptical of US-based news and very interested in Russia and its leadership. And I have learned since then that the Georgia war was not a fluke, that our media consistently gets the story wrong or only tells half of it, and that the United States government is still in the business of starting proxy wars against Russia. Forget that we "won" the Cold War according to President Reagan. We were still fighting it in 2008, only with sneak attacks and by trying to 'ring fence' Russia with military bases.

So why did we fear Russia so much we had to wrap NATO around it? It took me a while to reach a conclusion – meanwhile I watched what Medvedev and Putin were doing, read all the Russian scandals discussed at length back home, scoured all the foreign news outlets that had English language websites, and subscribed to Google news searches.

The Russians had given up communism so that couldn't be the reason. They had a lot of resources that they would not let us stripmine, and the Yukos shut-down snatched ownership from Grandpa Rothschild just as he was closing his fingers on it, so it must have been economic. Also Russia made those big oil and gas deals with China and priced them in Yuan, not dollars. Economic again.

I finally decided the United States hates Russia because Russia refuses to be a client state. And especially we hate Putin because he makes Russians uncooperative and he is so popular at home we cannot overthrow him with a color revolution. He is the pebble in our shoe, one that we keep trying to find and remove but we somehow fail to dislodge. So we look to the rest of the world as if we are performing a funny little dance while we complain about Putin.

Meanwhile our news outlets keep beating the drums about how Putin is a dictator and Russia is about to collapse, any day now, and how we should be very afraid of them because they hate us for our democracy. I wonder why our media really want us to be afraid of Russia.


Are they planning a war any time soon? Another one? That we are supposed to join and support? Don't they know we can get real news outside of the US?

American news outlets will continue to accuse RT of spreading "fake news"; but they're the ones who make RT appear as "Radio Free America" to people who are tired of the same old screeching at home.

Color me skeptical. I guess that makes me a "Russia Apologist."

[Jun 27, 2017] US may preempt an Assad chemical strike in Syria

Notable quotes:
"... USS George H.W. Bush ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | app.debka.com

Signs were gathering in Washington and the Middle East Tuesday, June 26 that the Trump administration was preparing a substantial military operation against the Syrian army and Bashar Assad's allies, such as the foreign pro-Iranian Shiite militias and Hizballah. Some US military sources suggested that an American preemptive strike was in store in the coming hours to prevent Assad's army from again resorting to chemical warfare against his people.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Monday night that the US "has identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children." He said the activities were similar to preparations taken before an April 2017 attack that killed dozens of men, women and children, and warned that if "Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."

On April 4, the Syrians launched a chemical weapons attack, which killed 87 people, including 30 children, following which the Trump administration fired scores of Tomahawk missiles against a Syrian air base.

The US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley then futher stoked the tensions by declaring on Twitter that any chemical weapons attack by Bashar-Assad's Syrian government "will be blamed on Assad but also on Russia and Iran who support him killing his own people."

Haley's tweet ended with the cliffhanger: "Stay tuned for more tomorrow."

debka file 's military sources add: An American attack on Syria, whether preemptive or punitive, may be launched from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush in the eastern Mediterranean.

It was from the decks of this vessel that US Navy fighter jets took off on June 18 to down a Syrian SU-22 fighter bomber over eastern Syrian. A repetition of a US carrier-based attack on Syria would challenge the warning Moscow issued to Washington on June 24 after the Syrian warplane was shot down:

"From now on, in areas where Russian aviation performs combat missions in the skies of Syria, any airborne objects found west of the Euphrates River, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles belonging to the international coalition, tracked by means of Russian land and air anti-aircraft defense, will be considered air targets."

That warning was intended to mark a red line against US flights crossing through central and western Syria. Posted at Latakia, on Syrian's Mediterranean coast in the west are advanced Russian anti-air S-400 and S-300 missiles.

[Jun 27, 2017] In case you did not have time to look for the widely available information on how the US has been supplying certain forces in Syria with various weaponry, including anti aircraft weapons

Jun 27, 2017 | www.unz.com

MarkinLA June 25, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT

@annamaria In case you did not have time to look for the widely available information on how the US has been supplying certain "forces" in Syria with various weaponry, including anti aircraft weapons, here is a summary: "How America Armed Terrorists in Syria: Another Middle East debacle" By GARETH PORTER • June 22, 2017
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

"The Obama administration's Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the "Global War on Terrorism"-the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates... In October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that "most" of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to "hardline Islamic jihadists"- obviously meaning al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, al Nusra. ...

In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. ... But that wasn't the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA's largesse.

The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province. According to Lister, the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13, did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them off. As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers, and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between "relatively moderate" groups and the al Nusra Front."

And more of the same CIA judged to be "relatively moderate" anti-Assad groups

These CIA assessments are always loaded with weasel words and half truths like some child admitting he stuck his hand in the cookie jar but didn't actually take one. It is all designed as a silly whitewash of their actions. Admit just enough but stop short of something illegal.

When the CIA finally had to admit they were aware of the drug dealing during the Reagan administration by the Contras, they came out with some lame report where they admitted they were aware that some elements were trafficking drugs but the CIA wasn't directly involved. Of course, the pilots flying the arms in and drugs out all had CIA connections. The DEA also never made any significant arrests.

The CIA knows there are no "relatively moderates".

Priss Factor Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:25 pm GMT

What is happening in Syria is an Extreme Steroidal version of what is happening in the West.

Westerners are told 'diversity' and 'inclusion' are highest values.

Well, Syria wouldn't have been such a powder keg if it weren't so diverse filled with so many resentments. And it was the weakening of borders and 'inclusion' of Jihadis and foreign military that made things much worse. So, much for blessings of diversity and inclusion(euphemism for intrusion and invasion).

Two sicknesses of the globalized world: Diversease and Incluenza.

[Jun 27, 2017] Retracted CNN story a boon for president at war with media

"if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck" This was a witch hunt...
Jun 27, 2017 | www.msn.com

Originally from AP.

Trump quickly took advantage with a series of tweets on Tuesday, and conservative provocateur James O'Keefe piled on by releasing a video with a CNN producer caught on camera talking about the network's Russian coverage being ratings-driven.

...Trump tweeted that "they caught Fake News CNN cold." He lumped ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times and The Washington Post together in the same "fake news" category.

...Aides also believe that highlighting media mistakes could be a useful way of questioning the credibility of much of the reporting on the scandals surrounding the White House to convince supporters that Trump was the victim of a witch hunt.

...

Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., suggested in an interview with Breitbart News that "maybe Jeff Zucker should do an on-camera briefing about CNN's fake news scandal before the White House does any more of them." CNN's White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, has been particularly vocal in protesting the administration's dwindling number of on-camera news briefings.

He also tweeted a link to the video posted by O'Keefe's Project Veritas. The hidden-camera video showed John Bonifield, an Atlanta-based producer in CNN's medical unit, talking about how the "ratings are incredible" for the network's Russian coverage. He said the network has no "smoking gun" showing wrongdoing by Trump and that "the president is probably right to say, look, you are witch-hunting me."

[Jun 27, 2017] MoA - White House Says It Will Fake Chemical Weapon Attack In Syria

Looks like after Hersh story was published trump decided to double down.
Notable quotes:
"... The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it: ..."
"... Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.) ..."
"... Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation. ..."
"... Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses. ..."
"... i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'. ..."
"... It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'. ..."
"... What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance. ..."
"... Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent. ..."
"... I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative. ..."
"... Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it. ..."
"... If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice. ..."
"... The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed. ..."
"... After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving! ..."
"... This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true. ..."
"... I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited. ..."
"... The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign. ..."
"... It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures. ..."
"... Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen. ..."
"... thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed... ..."
Jun 27, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly be to its disadvantage. The White House announcement must thereby be understood as preparation for another U.S. attack on Syria in "retaliation" for an upcoming staged "chemical weapon attack" which will be blamed on the Syrian government.

In August 2013 Syria invited inspectors of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to investigate chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian army. As soon as the inspectors arrived in Damascus a "chemical attack" was staged in Ghouta near Damascus. Lots of Jihadist video coverage of killed children was published and the "western" media blamed the incident on the Syrian government. It never explained why targeting a militarily irrelevant area with chemical weapons at the same time as inspectors arrived would have been a rational decision for a Syrian government that was just regaining control and international standing.

The "attack" was clearly staged by the opposition of the Syrian government and its foreign supporters. The Obama administration had planned to use it to launch U.S. attacks on the Syrian government but refrained from this when Russia arranged to remove Syria's strategic chemical weapons, aimed at Israel, instead.

In early 2017 the new U.S. president Trump made positive comments about the Syrian government. Assad can stay, he said. The Syrian military and its allies had gained the upper hand and were victorious on all fronts. Two days later another "chemical attack" was staged in the al-Qaeda held town of Khan Sheikhun. Lots of Jihadi video coverage of killed children, likely prepared in advance, was spilled onto the "western" public. U.S. intelligence knew that no chemical attack by the Syrian government had taken place. But the Trump administration used the incident to launch a volley of cruise missiles against a Syrian military airport. The neoconservatives were delighted. They finally had Trump where they wanted him. The media coverage changed from damming Trump for his alleged "Russian connections" to lauding his decisiveness in response to the faked attack.

Late May the new French president Macron ostensibly changed his position towards the Syrian government. The hostile position of France (and other EU countries) against the Syrian president Assad that had been eminent throughout the last six years changed on a dime :

Macron said that on Syria: "My profound conviction is that we need a political and diplomatic roadmap. We won't solve the question only with military force. That is a collective error we have made. The real change I've made on this question, is that I haven't said the deposing of Bashar al-Assad is a prerequisite for everything. Because no one has introduced me to his legitimate successor!

But Macron also added:

"I have red lines on chemical weapons and humanitarian corridors. I said it very clearly to Vladimir Putin. I will be uncompromising on that. So the use of chemical weapons will be met with a response, and even if France acts alone."

This immediately set off my warning lights:

Moon of Alabama @MoonofA - 4:28 PM - 29 May 2017
You like fakes? Tune in to Macron announcing the next False Flag chemical weapon attack in Syria.

Like all "red lines" this one Macron set was an invitation to the Takfiris to launch more fake incidents. Others had a similar reaction to Macron's (fake) turnaround.

The end of the war on Syria is in sight . One can start to tabulate the winners and losers . The U.S. military conceded that it had lost the race to occupy south-east Syria. All these turns in favor of Syria show that the war is practically won unless some of the outside sponsors of the Takfiri "rebels" again escalate.

Such an escalation is now happening. The White House claims to have information that the Syrian government is preparing a chemical weapon attack to kill "innocent children":

In an ominous statement issued with no supporting evidence or further explanation , Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the U.S. had "identified potential preparations for another chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime that would likely result in the mass murder of civilians, including innocent children."

He said the activities were similar to preparations taken before an April 2017 attack that killed dozens of men, women and children, and warned that if "Mr. Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons, he and his military will pay a heavy price."

Several State Department officials typically involved in coordinating such announcements said they were caught completely off guard by the warning, which didn't appear to be discussed in advance with other national security agencies. Typically, the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies would all be consulted before the White House issued a declaration sure to ricochet across foreign capitals.

The White House claim is of course nonsense and not supported by any evidence or logic at all. No one but the White House, not the State Department nor the Defense Department, seems to be informed about this (though that could be a ruse):

Five US defense officials said they did not know where the potential chemical attack would come from and were unaware the White House was planning a statement.

The lunatic US ambassador to the UN jumped in to make it clear that it does not matter who commits whatever crime in Syria, Takfiris, the U.S. or Israel, it will be the Syrian, Russian and Iranian governments who will held guilty of it:

Nikki Haley‏ @nikkihaley - 2:36 AM - 27 Jun 2017
Any further attacks done to the people of Syria will be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.

A U.S. bomb attack on an Islamic State used building in Mayadin, Syria, just killed 57 prisoners of the Islamic State. Will Nikki Halley hold the Syrian government responsible for this?

Take note of Trump's schedule today:

Laura Rozen‏ @lrozen 8:56 AM - 27 Jun 2017

Trump has call with France's Macron first thing this morning, before intel brief. Then meeting w Nat. Sec. adviser McMaster

Intense U.S. military reconnaissance takes place along the Syrian coast. The UK Defense Minister just announced that his government is "in full agreement" with any U.S. "retaliation" for a chemical attack in Syria. U.S. Secretary of Defense Mattis announced that the U.S. will continue to arm its Kurdish proxies in Syria even after ISIS is defeated.

During the last three days Al-Qaeda attacks on Syrian army position near the Israeli occupied Golan heights were supported by Israeli air attacks .

This all is clearly a coordinated operation by the "western" supporters of the Takfiris in Syria. Their aim is to prevent the victory of Syria and its allies. The U.S. wants to split up the country.

The announced fake "chemical attack" and the "retaliation" it is supposed to justify will likely happen in the south-west of Syria around Deraa where all recent attempts by Israel and the U.S. supported Takfiris to dislodge the Syrian government forces have failed. The provocation, now prepared and announced by Macron and the White House and supported by the UK, is probably planned to happen shortly before or during the upcoming G-20 meeting in Hamburg:

President Trump and members of his administration are requesting a full bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Germany next month.

...

While some administration officials have pressed for a quick "pull-aside" meeting at the Group of 20 summit or lower officials talking privately instead of the heads of state, Trump wants an event that includes the media and time for work sessions, according to one government official.

Trump has to make a deal (or war) with Russia and the announced fake "chemical attack" will be the pressure point against Putin. The neoconservatives in his administration want to break up Syria and Trump is tasked to get the Russian agreement for that (... or else.)

Syria insists that its has no chemical weapons nor any intention to use any indiscriminate weapon. Russia warns of any further military aggression and calls such U.S. threats unacceptable .

Posted by b on June 27, 2017 at 07:49 AM | Permalink

Dario | Jun 27, 2017 7:56:49 AM | 1
Don't you think that if the Americans really intended to make a false flag, they would never issue this warning? For me, looks like the White House, knowing of the possibility of a Pentagon faction to provoke a false flag, issued this warning as an alert to Russians and Syrians and as a vaccin, to avoid this operation.

just impressions, ideas, ideas...

Anon | Jun 27, 2017 8:01:03 AM | 2
Intresting b,- on the France connection, perhaps France are the ones feeding the false info to bomb Syria, the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support? Anyway, check EU, Western nations, Media these days and see the ugly propaganda being played out, once again the west plan, threat with illegal wars and their media is right there to help them.

Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know.

Because, after Syria, Russia like Iran and North Korea will also sooner or later be bombed. Be sure about that. These are sick lunatics ruling the American military.
Remember who rule America these days, its not Trump:

Bannon: Trump's strategy is 'let the warfighters fight the war'

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/339301-bannon-trumps-strategy-is-let-the-warfighters-fight-the-war

Laguerre | Jun 27, 2017 8:15:03 AM | 3
the sleazy Macron needs a war to get some support
Really? He's just won the elections massively. What sort of support does he need?
R Winner | Jun 27, 2017 8:17:46 AM | 4
The US Regime is obviously in panic mode. The SAA is rapidly advancing on three fronts:

1. Raqqa - The SAA is quickly moving around the hapless Kurds and moving to the area south of Raqqa. Ensuring IS is unable to execute their agreement with the US Regime to evacuate towards Deir ez-Zur.

2. Deir ez-Zur - Huge numbers of SAA are quickly approaching the defenders in Deir ez-Zur. Once Deir ez-Zur is secure, the SAA will move north to link up with the SAA forces in al Hasakah.

3. al Bukamal - The SAA and Iraq PMU are working as a unified force on both sides of the border and are preparing to surround the border city.

What this means is:

  1. The US Regime partion dreams are dead. There is no viable Kurdish 'state' other than a bunch of clowns pretending to be a new 'government' in Raqqa.
  2. The Iraq PMU are increasingly working side by side with the SAA. Any attack by the US Regime puts their bases in Iraq open to attack.
  3. The absurd threats from Saudi Arabia towards Qatar now have the various terror groups still alive in Syria attacking each other.
  4. Syria is close to a decisive military victory against the foreign terrorists. Once the SAA secures the bulk of the Eurphrates only Idlib and Daraa remain as security problems.
  5. Every day the SAA advances and IS or terrorist pockets are cleared, more and more troops are freed up and being moved to the major fronts in either Daraa or the Eurphrates.
  6. Turkey and Russia are in complete agreement on preventing any sort of Kurdish state in the north of Syria. Any attempts by the US Regime to establish some sort of giant military base backed by Kurds is going to have to fight Turkey, the SAA, Russia, and quite possibly Iraq.
  7. The success of the de-escalation zone means that the US Regime is greatly hamstrung in coming up with further faked chemical attacks. The only real options now are Idlib and Daraa.

IS is being wiped out in the eastern Syrian desert by the SAA and in the western desert of Iraq by the PMU. Those giant grey IS areas on battle maps are evaporating and at the same time the entire pretext for the US Regime to be attacking Syria.

Mike Maloney | Jun 27, 2017 8:23:41 AM | 5
Right after Khan Sheikhoun preparations were being made in the media for another false flag. Several embarrassingly weak "think" pieces were published in the NYT attempting to rationalize why Syria would use chemical weapons when it weakened the country's defenses.

Now almost three months later the White House is actually staging a roll out of the false flag. Incredible. Legacy media can't raise a ruckus because their complicit in previous false flags.

Russia on the other hand can't back down this time. To do so would be to invite perpetual rape and plunder by the U.S. and its various clients. Russia needs to make a very clear statement right now -- paratroopers dropped around Deraa -- to prevent the false flag from going forward.

blues | Jun 27, 2017 8:24:04 AM | 6
The US military generals got caught with their pants down. They are losing the war -- everything but the wastelands. For the military/intel, losing is FAILURE. They basically get fired. So they will pull any stunt to not "fail". Of course, the Russians are going to make them fail despite all their "valiant" efforts. Trump better wake up and smell the coffee, or he will wake up to a brilliant flash.
jfl | Jun 27, 2017 8:26:42 AM | 7
@1 d

i'd look to the CIA for false flags, not the pentagon. the pentagon sees itself on the receiving end of the cia's 'fun and games'.

@2 a, 'Russia is quite uninterested in defending Syria it seems, I think at least they could have shipped Syria S300 and put them right in Damascus by know'

i think so too, every time. but I've been wrong everytime so far. it's finally occurred to me that there's more going on than what i know about, and that the Russians are dealing with a fuller deck than i am. And that they've spent their lifetimes at this kind of high pressure stuff and have a far better understanding of it all than i do. but don't take my word for it ... look at the results they've gotten.

It is Trump, and his direct handlers, who have the bit in their teeth now. no one else - state, nor defense, nor the 'analysis' false-front at the CIA - wants to go near this. Trump wants to watch himself evolve as something bigger-than-life on TV, and whatever happens in what we quaintly call 'the real world' has no place in his 'thinking'.

Anon | Jun 27, 2017 8:33:44 AM | 8
Laguerre

Massivly won? Sleazy Macron won an election where huge part of France didnt even vote not only in the prez. election but in the parliamentary election.
Or please tell us why this sleazy Macron threat Syria with war all of a sudden? For what reason? This guy is globalist 101% this is what people like himself do to get support.

This guy for crying out loud just warned some weeks ago that France will respond to a chemical attack! What more proof do you need?

jfl | Jun 27, 2017 8:48:06 AM | 9
Mattis: US arms for Syrian Kurds will continue after Raqqa
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Tuesday that America will continue to provide weapons to Syrian Kurdish fighters after the battle to oust Islamic State militants from Raqqa, Syria, is over.

Mattis said the de-confliction talks continue and are happening at several military levels, to insure that aircraft and ground forces are safe.

What is in maddog's peace pipe? i guess he didn't get the memo on the upcoming retaliation for the - so far, virtual - new 'sarin attack' - which is known to be aimed at babies? not entirely clear which comes first, the attack or the 'retaliation' for it. The russians are not interested in 'deconflicting' with a lying/out-of-the-loop bunch such as the american general command. And those same generals are pushing the turks into russia's lap ... i guess when you have a crack outfit - outfit on crack? - like the saudis for allies you don't need anyone else. The kurds have sold ALL their bona fides down the euphrates with their us/saudi no-matter-what alliance.

it's hard to believe the us wehrmacht is in such obvious disarray. if the Russians wait it out, the Americans will defeat themselves in Syria. Looks like in short order, too.

MadMax2 | Jun 27, 2017 8:59:47 AM | 10
Ah, that old chestnut again...typical Zionist Hollywood formula...the good cop, bad cop routine. Trump is actually perfect for this shit, his background in shithouse primetime T.V. makes for the perfect dummy agent.
mls | Jun 27, 2017 9:07:09 AM | 11
Trump does not need a chemical weapons attack to actually take place in Syria. He may be planning to preempt such an incident. This way there will be no phony White Helmets video footage to dissect. Listen to what the British Defense Minister has to say:
British Defense Minister Michael Fallon said London would support U.S. action to prevent a chemical weapons attack but that it had not seen the intelligence on which Washington based Monday's statement.
according to Reuters here
I guess this is why Sy Hersh's most recent effort didn't get published in the US or UK...it just didn't suit the upcoming singular MSM narrative.

MadMax2 | Jun 27, 2017 9:11:09 AM | 12

Moon is precisely right. The implied assumption of WH/intel Junta is that Ivan is coward and will not stand. The implied action is that WH/intel intends attack RuF/Sy?Ir/+ forces. Assumes Iran etc will not stand. Is this an incorrect assumption set? Failure of WH strategy is thus proximate.
BRF | Jun 27, 2017 9:19:38 AM | 14
Trump is even more of a idiot than I previously thought. Now he plays patsy for the neo con's hegemonic Empire agenda in taking the blame for the Syrian air base strike on information the intelligence community now claims they had that was inconclusive that Assad did it.

Hersh is again the go to mouth piece on this one for the neo cons. If the neo cons narrative on their story of the Assad forces having used gas AGAIN hadn't fallen apart so quickly, even after their MSM backed the story to the hilt, they wouldn't be back tracking with this new line of bovine by product that Trump ordered the strike against the spy agencies best advice.

This whole show is a cock and bull offering. The neo cons are getting desperate, like a scene from Hitler's last days in the bunker when the illusion is dissolved that any further military ability is all but crushed.

So desperate they US neo con brain trust is willing to go to the poison gas well again and again with their 'tell the big lie often' meme....after all it is only the Syrian civilian population and innocent beautiful babies that will have to die this time around again. I'll give the Israelis some credit for at least having the better excuse for their aggression against the Syrian nation and people.

virgile | Jun 27, 2017 9:24:49 AM | 15
After Seymour Hersh ridiculed the White House for having 'punished' Bashar al Assad, for a crime he has not committed, it was necessary for the White House to show how 'intelligent' they are in preventing 'another' attacks. Fake face saving!
plantman | Jun 27, 2017 9:26:31 AM | 16
Mattis is clearly working secretly with the White House on a plan to counter the steady progress of the SAA. He seems strangely unprepared for recent developments on the ground. There is still a good possibility he will try something foolhardy like sending his militia at al Tanf north thru SAA lines to join the fight at Deir Ezzor.
The SAA probably won't take Raqqa, but will focus on Deir Ezzor which is only 75 miles away.

Expect the chemical attack to be in the vicinity of deir ezzor.

Amanita Amanita | Jun 27, 2017 9:33:14 AM | 17
Surely this Assad prepares killer tomatoes fairytale is a feint...more likely the spark comes from the Balts or the Balks...so much kindling.

http://app.debka.com/n/article/26116/US-may-preempt-an-Assad-chemical-strike-in-Syria

virgile | Jun 27, 2017 9:33:52 AM | 18
The recent series of failures of the US in Syria, together with a shift of Turkey on the side of Bashar al Assad's army and France's u-turn on Bashar Assad necessitated a big noise: The threat of a 'new' chemical attack that would united the "friends of Syria" again.

Another infantile drama from desperate Pentagon to show the US relevance in the region! France will not buy it and Russia will make sure that false flag wont happen again.

jfl | Jun 27, 2017 9:34:02 AM | 20
@15 virgile

yeah, but they have to pose in their photo-ops themselves. no one else wants to be seen in pictures with them in the imagined future. the rump loves it ... 'larger than life'.

well, if they shut up now and wait a bit, they can announce that they were successful in preventing the dastardly attack on the babies by 'assad' ...

on the other hand, they may well have to figure out what to do after al-cia-duh 'surprises' them with some dead babies ... they'll be shocked! never imagined that might happen! wasn't in their copy of the script ... it's all a sit-com to them ...

Out of Istanbul | Jun 27, 2017 9:54:40 AM | 21
Looks like Assad is taking a "tour" of Russia's airbase... https://twitter.com/AliHa_97/status/879685253878734849 Looks like the time frame has been moved up dramatically since b's report... AP also running stories about the US military seeing indications of a chemical weapon being prepared.
Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 27, 2017 10:12:05 AM | 22
I've got a quibble with the intro to this post. It should say...

The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing " another chemical weapon attack".

"another" is the presumptuous, Hollywood-ish weasel word intended to pre-emptively legitimise the false and unproven Yankee allegations that the Syrian Govt has conducted ANY chemical attacks. In fact, one could go farther and point out the measures taken by the Christian Colonial Clowns to AVOID producing evidence to support their past claims.

Julian | Jun 27, 2017 10:21:28 AM | 23
G20 G20 G20. If Putin wants to avoid WW3 he must get the leaders of countries like China, Germany, Turkey, Italy, Indonesia, Korea, who else? to stand up behind him and condemn this rush to war. The time has come for Merkel to make a decision - and it happens to be at her home G20 Summit. Does Mutti have the cojones???
Alaric | Jun 27, 2017 10:32:35 AM | 24
I agree with the posters of 15 and 22.

This wreaks of propaganda that is designed to counter the Sy Hersh story and leaks that just came out regarding trump ignoring Intel and attacking Syria anyway. The White House changed the narrative from did trump Le to watch out for a cutout chemo attack and its statement about future chemical strikes claims there was a first strike - it seeks to make a fallacy assumed as true.

It's the same tactc he is using regarding Russian interference. He is redirected there as well to Obama. "Why didn't Obama do anything about the leaks."

That said you can't put anything beyond the empire. SAA, Russia and friends need to be ready.

exiled off mainstreet | Jun 27, 2017 10:33:18 AM | 25
I go along with comments 14 and 15 and see it actually as a response intended to defend against the inference from the Hersh piece that Trump revealed himself to be a moron for succumbing despite the evidence to media propaganda. I think that the problem is that Trump is less than fully in control of elements of his government, possibly even Spicer, as evidenced by the failure to inform the state dept, military and others of the statement, which may not have been fully vetted. I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer's time as press secretary is limited.

The fact that the Hersh piece was published in one of Germany's ueber-establishment organs, Die Welt, is significant. It means that Germany is no longer on board, and I don't see Macron, though he is an empty suit, doing a 180 like some fear, since he takes many of his orders from Merkel.

It is seriously disconcerting that the neocons still seem to be able to rule the roost. If any "chemical" attack occurs within a few days or longer away, it will be extremely suspect.

Meanwhile, the Russia conspiracy stories in the US seem to be in the early stages of blowing up, with a CNN official being exposed as admitting it was all propaganda, and Loretta Lynch, the ex-Justice Minister, appearing to be becoming a target based on her defence of the Harpy from criminal liability for the email server during the 2016 campaign.

In light of these facts, I think the whole thing more likely shows weakness and disarray, not a serious conspiratorial threat of armageddon, though it could end up blowing up in that direction.

JaimeInTexas | Jun 27, 2017 10:38:50 AM | 27
@21

Hmmm. If the preemptive strike against an alleged chemical attack preparation takes out Assad? Just serendipity, icing on the cake? Any chance that the message is that these uSA has intelligence on Assad's movements?

x | Jun 27, 2017 10:45:17 AM | 28
And when this same old gas story loses traction it will be back to 'Barrel Bombs'...

peter | Jun 27, 2017 11:04:14 AM | 30
I suppose now that CNN has fired three journalists that Special Council Mueller will give notice to his investigators to pack it in and go home. Yep, nothing to see here folks. Sorry for wasting your time. Fat fucking chance. This cat's on a mission and won't be deterred.

It's got to be a bitch for all the former Trumpsters around here who have seen their main man morph from a swamp-draining non-interventionist into a world class warmonger with a cabinet full of world class swamp creatures.

Things certainly didn't work out as planned. Assad is in the cross hairs as is Iran and Hezbollah. It's maybe time to hope that Mueller gets enough dirt, and fast, to dethrone this dangerous president even if it leaves some egg on the face of certain Russian officials and businessmen.

jfl | Jun 27, 2017 11:27:12 AM | 31
US has seen chemical weapons activity at Syrian airbase: Pentagon
The U.S. regime has recently seen chemical weapons activity at the Shay'rat Airbase in the Homs Governorate, the Pentagon claimed, as reported by Matt Lee of the Associated Press.
this seems pretty whack. the syrians will say hey, come have a look? the us will go and say ... oops, our mistake? what's going on here? i guess it's the pentagon giving the rump a way to climb down? he can say he 'forced' an inspection? or something?
XLemming | Jun 27, 2017 11:27:39 AM | 32
@29 HW

A good start would be hanging all those responsible for war crimes... But until that happens, evil will proceed unabated

Christian Chuba | Jun 27, 2017 11:44:25 AM | 34
Since we know that Trump gets his info from his favorite cable TV programs and a select few websites and doesn't use the vast resources of the U.S. Intel community, has anyone found the original source for the new Assad allegation? It would be interesting to see what The Donald is reading nowadays.
james | Jun 27, 2017 11:49:58 AM | 35
thanks b.. no proof needed with the west... lies and insinuation of responsibility is all that is needed...

ditto many comments here..

@ 22 Hoarsewhisperer.. yeah - 'another' when they haven't verified any previously... more lies and insinuation of responsibility absent any facts... who needs facts when you want to destroy another country?

@29 quote "If people in the West don't want WW3 they're going to have to do something about the people who bribe, and own, their politicians." but hoarsewhisperer - that is what all these lies and deception are meant to do - keep the people in the west completely ignorant of the facts and reality.. dontcha know that lying to your people in the msm regularly keeps the sheeple quiet and passive? us freaks here at moa are in a real minority..

@34 chuba - they just make this shit up man... the first source i saw was from yesterday spicer idiot..

[Jun 27, 2017] I am so fucking tired of Russian hacking bullshit by now,

Jun 27, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Lyttenburgh , June 26, 2017 at 1:49 am

Level of sophistication – rock bottom Ukraine.

I'm so fucking tired of this bullshit by now, so – here you go:

[Jun 26, 2017] The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign by Patrick Martin

Jun 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.

The editorial was well-timed, coming on the morning of the same day that the US military shot down a Syrian warplane, setting off a dramatic escalation in the US conflict with Russia. The editors of the Times have the closest ties with US military and intelligence officials and no doubt were aware that something was being planned, if they were not briefed about the details.

Under the headline "Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia," the Times uses the language of war to assert: "A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be."

The Times presents zero evidence to back up a wild reference to "the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts." The editorial simply declares, "American intelligence agencies have concluded," followed by a long list of allegations:

"Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of senior officials at the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. They passed tens of thousands of emails to the website WikiLeaks, which posted them throughout the last months of the campaign in an attempt to damage the Clinton campaign.

"Even more disturbing, hackers sought access to voter databases in at least 39 states, and in some cases tried to alter or delete voter data. They also appear to have tried to take over the computers of more than 100 local election officials in the days before the November 8 vote."

Editorial page editor James Bennet presents not a single fact that supports the Times ' assertions. What is the evidence that there were "direct orders" from Putin, or that hackers linked to Russian intelligence raided Democratic email accounts and supplied material to WikiLeaks, or that (other?) hackers tried to access voter databases and the computers of local election officials? The entire mountain of accusations is suspended in air.

If one traces back the charges to their original sources, they all turn out to be factually unsupported claims by US intelligence agencies, made either in public "findings" issued in October 2016 and January 2017, or in a series of leaks from within the military-intelligence apparatus, mainly to the Times and the Washington Post .

The most recent allegations, about alleged hacking into voter databases and local election computers, are based on a National Security Agency (NSA) report leaked to The Intercept web publication, which even The Intercept admitted contained no underlying evidence to substantiate the NSA's claims.

Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.

In its brazen contempt for basic standards of evidence, the Times ignores more plausible sources of the leaked Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic Party information, such as an individual or individuals within the Democratic Party. The newspaper makes no mention of the content of the leaked emails, which document the efforts of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to sabotage the primary challenge of Bernie Sanders.

Read also: Germany falls in love with warmongering Trump

For all the rhetorical heat about a supposed Russia assault on "the integrity of American democracy," as the Times puts it, there is no such outrage over the dozens of interventions by Washington to manipulate elections all over the world.

One recent study found 81 instances-not counting outright CIA-backed military coups-in which the US government financed political parties, organized disinformation campaigns, carried out assassinations, blackmailed candidates, or otherwise sought to install its own nominees by rigging elections in countries on every continent.

One of the most flagrant such examples was the 1996 presidential election in Russia, won by the US-backed Boris Yeltsin (See: " Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin: When the White House fixed a Russian election ").

Apart from its continuous interference in elections, the US government is engaged in non-stop snooping operations against foreign governments, even those with which it is supposedly allied. Just a few years ago, it was revealed that the Obama administration had hacked-yes, HACKED-the cell phone of the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. Then-US President Obama acknowledged that the US does all sorts of "stuff" and offered a phony apology.

As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies. This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades, seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly on its editorial pages and foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable of CIA flacks such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.

The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.

The Times , channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful factions of the ruling class want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the 2014 campaign to bring down the elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime.

A recent Times article, focused on Senate passage of new sanctions against Russia, spells out the issues relatively clearly. In "Leaders Wary of Trump May Have an Ally: Congress," the Times asserts that congressional leaders, both Democratic and Republican, "are working to ensure that American foreign policy remains rooted in the trans-Atlantic alliance against traditional rivals like Russia." It praises Republican efforts to advance "an anti-Trump foreign policy" and impose sanctions against Russia for its actions in backing the Syrian government.

In the eyes of the factions of the ruling class for which the Times speaks, the problem is not that Russia is interfering with "American democracy," but that it is interfering with critical geo-strategic interests of American imperialism in Syria and the broader Middle East. The newspaper is attempting to condition American public opinion and overcome popular opposition to an escalating military confrontation with the world's second-largest nuclear power.

For the working class, the fight against the Trump administration and the fight against its opponents in the political establishment is the same fight. It is a fight against the capitalist ruling class, which is preparing to inflict on the people of the entire world a new and catastrophic world war.

[Jun 26, 2017] Trump, Qatar and the Danger of Total Confusion by Gary Leupp

Notable quotes:
"... (By the way, Trump reportedly told Israeli leaders during his trip Israel that he was "just back from the Middle East." What did Netanyahu think about that, but: Oh god this guy's ignorant how do we use this ignorance? ) ..."
"... And on June 21 State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declared that the more time passes, "the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries?" ??? ..."
"... Some people speculate that Trump in his sly wisdom is sending out contrasting messages to obtain his mysterious ends to make America great again. This gives the man too much credit. His problem is that he blabbers whatever-he thinks for the moment-makes him look tough. He projects confidence, without knowing what the hell he's talking about. He's a dangerous buffoon. ..."
"... George W. Bush by his invasion of Iraq (to better his dad) produced a mess that his successor in some respects exacerbated. While Obama withdrew from Iraq in accordance with Bush's agreement, and limited the "mission" in Afghanistan, he (or Hillary) led in the destruction of Libya, and began the grotesque involvement in the Syrian conflict. Trump does not understand the causes and effects. He's just proud that his generals dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb an ISIL camp in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Or Trump glories (echoed by Brian Williams) in that April 7 missile strike on the Syrian airfield, when supposedly 56 Tomahawk missiles destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station. "Congratulations," he tweeted, "to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in the Syria attack." Interviewed on TV he intimately associated the order to attack with the quality of this chocolate cake he was sharing with a very appreciative President Xi from China at the time. ..."
"... There have been more Syria attacks since, including one that shot down a Syrian warplane over Syria, and the one that shot down an Iranian-made drone. Trump was likely not informed in advance. Not that it would have made any difference, maybe. ..."
"... Of course the main issue remains U.S. imperialism, rooted in capitalism. The global dynamics of that can be rationally analyzed, and the president's role within the system assessed. Obama was fairly predicable. Hillary Clinton was predictable because she always articulated her hawkishness, like John McCain. Their relationships to capital and their intellectual positions (neoconservatism, "realism") were known. Trump is a new phenomenon, as someone combining Lyndon Johnson's crudity, Nixon's vindictiveness, Reagan's vapid populism, and Dubya's ignorance (but he was surrounded by Cheney's hand-picked neocons, virtually announcing plans for region-wide regime change). I'm not sure what he has in common with Bill Clinton other than promiscuity (but Clinton had no John Miller.) He's new in that he's at odds half the time with his own aides and puzzling world leaders ..."
"... British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after meeting Ronald Reagan told her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, as she tapped the side of her skull, "Peter, there's nothing there." ..."
Jun 23, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

The isolation of Qatar appears to be a major step in the Saudi plan, directed by the newly pronounced crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (the 31-year-old in charge of the Saudi war in Yemen), to provoke a general confrontation between the Sunni world (led by itself) and Shiite world (led by Iran). What has has Qatar done to offend the Saudis, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and Yemen? Its state-owned al-Jazeera network has been critical of their governments, especially during the "Arab Spring." But its real sin is its diplomatic and considerable trade relationship with Iran, with which it shares an oil field.

After the announcement by the five Arab nations on June 5 that they would break ties with Qatar, Donald Trump praised the move.

"During my recent trip to the Middle East," he tweeted on June 6. "I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!"

And later that day: "So good to see the Saudi Arabia visit with the King and 50 countries already paying off. They said they would take a hard line on funding extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!"

In other words, his visit to Riyadh (with that sword dance and all) immediately paid off in everyone taking a harder line on terrorist funding from Qatar.

(By the way, Trump reportedly told Israeli leaders during his trip Israel that he was "just back from the Middle East." What did Netanyahu think about that, but: Oh god this guy's ignorant how do we use this ignorance? )

"The nation of Qatar unfortunately has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level," Trump told reporters at the White House June 9. "So we had a decision to make, do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action. We have to stop the funding of terrorism. I decided the time had come to call on Qatar to end its funding. They have to end that funding. And their terrorist ideology." He appears to allude to conversations during his May 20-21 trip to Riyadh and taking responsibility for the decision.

But then on June 14 Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Roger Cabiness told CNN: "Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis met today with Qatari Minister of State for Defense Affairs Dr. Khalid al-Attiyah to discuss concluding steps in finalizing the Foreign Military Sales purchase of US-manufactured F-15 fighter aircraft by the State of Qatar. The $12 billion sale will give Qatar a state of the art capability and increase security cooperation and interoperability between the United States and Qatar."

And on June 21 State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert declared that the more time passes, "the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar's alleged support for terrorism or were they about the long-simmering grievances between and among the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries?" ???

* * * *

Some people speculate that Trump in his sly wisdom is sending out contrasting messages to obtain his mysterious ends to make America great again. This gives the man too much credit. His problem is that he blabbers whatever-he thinks for the moment-makes him look tough. He projects confidence, without knowing what the hell he's talking about. He's a dangerous buffoon.

But he's not responsible for the fact that George W. Bush's war on Iraq in 2003 provoked a wave of massive catastrophes in the Middle East, and ignited a period of fierce contention among Iran, Sunni Arab countries in particular Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, while encouraging Kurdish nationalism from Iraq to Syria and Turkey. And that this conflict has acquired somewhat the character of a religious struggle of the Sunni world versus Iran-backed Shiites (the Alawite-led regime in Syria, Lebanon's Hizbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite human rights activists in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia). Surely the most ardent foes of Iran want to depict all these forces as pawns of the mullahs in Tehran, and (therefore) "terrorists" as such. And the Saudi king is doing a good job convincing the president of his view that Iran is the source of all evil in the region.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington (1983-2005), once told M16 head Sir Richard Dearlove: "The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will literally be 'God help the Shia.' More than a billion Sunni have simply had enough of them." This is the kind of specifically religious sectarianism Trump is embracing, no doubt having no idea what the difference is between Sunnis and Shiites. He just knows that "Radical Ideology" he oddly refers to is funded by Qatar at a very high level and Qatar also buys billions in arms from the U.S.

Or maybe he didn't know about the arms deal. Maybe he left that to his fine generals, the detail guys.

George W. Bush by his invasion of Iraq (to better his dad) produced a mess that his successor in some respects exacerbated. While Obama withdrew from Iraq in accordance with Bush's agreement, and limited the "mission" in Afghanistan, he (or Hillary) led in the destruction of Libya, and began the grotesque involvement in the Syrian conflict. Trump does not understand the causes and effects. He's just proud that his generals dropped a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb an ISIL camp in Afghanistan.

(Think of that. The U.S. drops the biggest non-nuclear bomb ever used in the history of the world, on militants who've just recently established a presence in the country who belong to a movement that started with al-Zarqawi in Afghanistan, relocated to Iraq, spread to Syria and elsewhere, and is now again in Afghanistan. Maybe 3000 jihadis. The war against the Taliban is not going well; they gain territory year to year. The Afghan army after 16 years of training remains riddled with high desertion rates, unable to make headway against the resurgent Taliban. U.S. trains and their charges view one another with mutual contempt. Green on blue explosions occur so often all U.S. troops are on their guard against their allies. In this hopeless situation-as if to merely express the outrage of frustration-that bomb was dropped on a remote area with undetermined results, condemned strongly by former president Hamid Karzai: "I vehemently and in strongest words condemn the dropping of the latest weapon " But Trump is proud of it.)

Or Trump glories (echoed by Brian Williams) in that April 7 missile strike on the Syrian airfield, when supposedly 56 Tomahawk missiles destroyed a material storage depot, a training facility, a canteen, six MiG-23 aircraft in repair hangars and a radar station. "Congratulations," he tweeted, "to our great military men and women for representing the United States, and the world, so well in the Syria attack." Interviewed on TV he intimately associated the order to attack with the quality of this chocolate cake he was sharing with a very appreciative President Xi from China at the time.

There have been more Syria attacks since, including one that shot down a Syrian warplane over Syria, and the one that shot down an Iranian-made drone. Trump was likely not informed in advance. Not that it would have made any difference, maybe.

But once upon a time, Trump talked about cooperation with Russia against ISIL, and seemed to strongly oppose regime change as policy. He is, in the sense of destructive power, the most powerful person on earth. That he is unreadable and unpredictable, predicting "we'll solve" this or that massively complex problem (North Korea), manifestly ignorant and not interested in history, inheriting the Bush/Cheney neocon-spawned mess and now taking advice from King Salman on matters like Qatar is frightening.

* * * *

Of course the main issue remains U.S. imperialism, rooted in capitalism. The global dynamics of that can be rationally analyzed, and the president's role within the system assessed. Obama was fairly predicable. Hillary Clinton was predictable because she always articulated her hawkishness, like John McCain. Their relationships to capital and their intellectual positions (neoconservatism, "realism") were known. Trump is a new phenomenon, as someone combining Lyndon Johnson's crudity, Nixon's vindictiveness, Reagan's vapid populism, and Dubya's ignorance (but he was surrounded by Cheney's hand-picked neocons, virtually announcing plans for region-wide regime change). I'm not sure what he has in common with Bill Clinton other than promiscuity (but Clinton had no John Miller.) He's new in that he's at odds half the time with his own aides and puzzling world leaders .

I can just imagine Xi and Putin exchanging their analyses of his mind, perhaps chuckling occasionally as we do in this country when we analyze his mind. It's necessary, after all.

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher after meeting Ronald Reagan told her foreign secretary, Lord Carrington, as she tapped the side of her skull, "Peter, there's nothing there." (She has also been quoted as saying, "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears.") Lady Thatcher of course gave a well-received eulogy at Reagan's funeral pretending to believe otherwise. The point being that world leaders can like other world leaders, as the Saudi king likes Trump, even if they have nothing between their ears, especially if they think they can exploit the mental vacuum to get them to do something stupid.

Such as, join with people who "have had enough of the Shia" and are showing (in that vicious war in Yemen especially) how they want to get rid of them. Join the debate on Facebook More articles by: Gary Leupp

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan ; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan ; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900 . He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion , (AK Press). He can be reached at: [email protected]

[Jun 26, 2017] Unilateral secondary sanctions imposed by the US would, above all, fall on Chinese companies

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star , June 22, 2017 at 9:32 am
"Tillerson called on China to make greater efforts to halt "illicit" revenue streams to North Korea that allegedly help fund Pyongyang's military programs. Just last week, he told a congressional committee the Trump administration was "at a stage" where "we are going to have to start taking secondary sanctions"-that is, penalise countries and corporations that engage in economic activities with North Korea.

Unilateral "secondary sanctions" imposed by the US would, above all, fall on Chinese companies. China is, by far, North Korea's largest trading partner. US officials and the media have repeatedly accused Beijing of failing to do enough to choke off trade and finance with the Pyongyang regime. Any penalties against Chinese individuals or entities would quickly sour relations between the US and China."

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/22/usch-j22.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/06/20/532915180/why-is-china-snatching-up-australian-farmland

Next to Japan, Australia is 'Murica's biggest lapdog in the Western Pacific Aussie **elites** are obviously hungry for mucho Renminbi

Obvious question: Do any of the moron USA foreign policy makers have a grasp of freshman logic???

Northern Star , June 22, 2017 at 9:35 am
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/here-are-australias-top-10-two-way-trading-partners-2014-8#china
marknesop , June 22, 2017 at 6:55 pm
I will be extremely surprised if Washington takes any steps which result in sanctions against China. For one thing, a staggering number of American brands and corporations have factories and manufacturing assets in China , and pissing off the Chinese risks hurting the bottom line. For another, China is one of the few countries with money to lend which can match the American appetite for borrowing.

It seems patently obvious to me that countries which find themselves the target of American sanctions should immediately react by kicking out American businesses in their country and embargoing American goods for import. The United States does not make very much which is so unique and rare that you could not find it anywhere else. American businesses and corporations will react with fury to trade actions taken against them because of posturing by the government. Do I have to think of everything?

[Jun 26, 2017] The Soft Coup Under Way In Washington by David Stockman

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
"... If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad­-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information. ..."
"... Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening. ..."
"... That became more than evident­-and more than pathetic, too­-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG): ..."
"... Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going­-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to. ..."
"... To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919. ..."
"... Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America. ..."
"... But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base. ..."
"... Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda­-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran. ..."
"... So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington ­– the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs ­- was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally. ..."
"... Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere­ – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising. ..."
"... There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case? ..."
"... In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street. ..."
Jun 22, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

This article was first published by Contra Corner

Bull's eye!

"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!"

The Donald has never spoken truer words but also has never sunken lower into abject victimhood. Indeed, what is he waiting for -- handcuffs and a perp walk?

Just to be clear, "he" doesn't need to be the passive object of a "WITCH HUNT" by "they".

If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad­-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information.

Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening.

Namely, the election by the unwashed masses of an outsider and insurrectionist who could not be counted upon to serve as a "trusty" for the status quo; and whose naïve but correct instinct to seek a rapprochement with Russia was a mortal threat to the very modus operandi of the Imperial City.

Moreover, from the very beginning, the Russian interference narrative was rooted in nothing more than standard cyber noise from Moscow that pales compared to what comes out of Langley (CIA) and Ft. Meade (NSA). And we do mean irrelevant noise.

After all, it didn't take a Kremlinologist from the old Soviet days to figure out that Putin did not favor Clinton, who had likened him to Hitler. And that he welcomed Trump, who had correctly said NATO was obsolete, that he didn't want to give lethal aid to the Ukrainians, and had expressed a desire to make a deal with Putin on Syria and numerous other areas of unnecessary confrontation.

So let's start with two obvious points. Namely, that there is no "there, there" and that the president not only has the power to declassify secret documents at will but in this instance could do so without compromising intelligence community (IC) "sources and methods" in the slightest.

The latter is the case because after Snowden's revelations in June 2013, the whole world was put on notice and most especially Washington's adversaries­–that it collects in raw form every single electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related communications grids. It boils down to universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence), and acknowledgment of that fact by publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.

Nor would it jeopardize the lives of any American spy or agent (HUMINT); it would just document the unconstitutional interference in the election process that had been committed by the US intelligence agencies and political operatives in the Obama White House.

Yes, we can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing and spinning noisily that declassifying the "evidence" would amount to obstruction of justice! That is to say, since Trump's "crime" is axiomatic (i.e. his occupancy of the Oval Office), anything that gets in the way of his conviction and removal therefrom amounts to "obstruction".

Given that he is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/ mainstream media prosecution, the Donald has no chance of survival short of an aggressive offensive of the type described above.

But that's not happening because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.

That became more than evident­-and more than pathetic, too­-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG):

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"

So alone with his Twitter account, clueless advisors and pulsating rage, the Donald is instead laying the groundwork for his own demise. Were this not the White House, it would normally be the point at which they send in the men in white coats with a straight jacket.

Indeed, that's essentially what Donald's ostensible GOP allies on the Hill are actually doing. RussiaGate is self-evidently a witch-hunt like few others in American political history. Yet as the mainstream cameras and microphones were thrust at one Congressional Republican after another yesterday afternoon following Donald's outburst quoted above, there was nary an echo of the agreement.

Even Senator John Thune, an ostensible Swamp-hating conservative, had nothing but praise for Special Counsel Robert Mueller while affecting an earnest confidence that he would fairly and thoroughly get to the bottom of the matter.

No he won't!

Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going­-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to.

So he will "find" extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking and his investigatory team is being loaded up with prosecutorial killers who have proven records of thuggery when it comes to finding crimes that make for the fame and fortune of the prosecutors­-even if the crime itself never happened.

To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919.

Meanwhile, as we said the other day, the GOP elders especially could also not be clearer about what is coming down the pike.

They are not defending Trump with even a modicum of the vigor and resolve that we recall from the early days of Tricky Dick's ordeal, and, of course, he didn't survive anyway. Instead, it's as if Ryan, McConnell, et al. have offered to hold his coat, while the Donald pummels himself with a 140-character Twitter Knife that is visible to the entire world.

So there should be no doubt. A Great Big Coup is on the way. But here's the irony of the matter.

Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America.

But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base.

In any event, President Obama choose to ignore his own red line and called off the bombers. That, in turn, paved the way for Vladimir Putin to step into the breach and persuade Assad to give up all of his chemical weapons commitment he fully complied with over the course of the next year.

Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda­-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran.

So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington ­– the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs ­- was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally.

From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia and its leader.

Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere­ – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising.

So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a more fortuitous outcome -- especially after Russia moved to protect its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine, including protecting its 200-year old Naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The War Party simply characterized these actions falsely as acts of aggression by a potential sacker of the peace and territorial integrity of its European neighbors.

There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case?

In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street.

Pathetically, they still think its game on.

David Alan Stockman is an author, former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

[Jun 26, 2017] Report: Democrats Are About to Hang for Debunked Trump Dossier by The_Real_Fly

"False flag" operation charges for various "hacks" and "dossiers" now have additional validity. The DNC hack is the most prominent of them.
Notable quotes:
"... The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House. ..."
"... "These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. ..."
"... In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential. ..."
"... Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents. ..."
"... This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena. ..."
"... The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense to felonies. ..."
Jun 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

So many of you are triggered to the point of feverish insanity. What sort of subhuman will you become when Trump is vindicated from all Russian collusion claims and the DOJ starts tossing faggots into dank prison cells for ginning up fake intelligence reports to take down a President? Paul Sperry from the NY Post is out with a report tonight, stating the Senate is about to ramp up their efforts in investigating the birthplace of the debunked Trump-Russian dossier, the one thar claimed germophobe Trump enjoyed getting urinated on by Russian hookers. For democrats, this might lead to a Mortal Kombat fatality move if implicated. Criminal charges might rain fire upon them -- like the second coming of Jesus. Many of you still believe said dossier was, in fact, correct. To those people, dare I say, prove it.

The Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month threatened to subpoena the firm, Fusion GPS, after it refused to answer questions and provide records to the panel identifying who financed the error-ridden dossier, which was circulated during the election and has sparked much of the Russia scandal now engulfing the White House.

What is the company hiding? Fusion GPS describes itself as a "research and strategic intelligence firm" founded by "three former Wall Street Journal investigative reporters." But congressional sources say it's actually an opposition-research group for Democrat s, and the founders, who are more political activists than journalists, have a pro-Hillary, anti-Trump agenda. "These weren't mercenaries or hired guns," a congressional source familiar with the dossier probe said. "These guys had a vested personal and ideological interest in smearing Trump and boosting Hillary's chances of winning the White House." Fusion GPS was on the payroll of an unidentified Democratic ally of Clinton when it hired a long-retired British spy to dig up dirt on Trump. In 2012, Democrats hired Fusion GPS to uncover dirt on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

And in 2015, Democrat ally Planned Parenthood retained Fusion GPS to investigate pro-life activists protesting the abortion group. More, federal records show a key co-founder and partner in the firm was a Hillary Clinton donor and supporter of her presidential campaign.

In September 2016, while Fusion GPS was quietly shopping the dirty dossier on Trump around Washington, its co-founder and partner Peter R. Fritsch contributed at least $1,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund and the Hillary For America campaign, Federal Election Commission data show. His wife also donated money to Hillary's campaign. Property records show that in June 2016, as Clinton allies bankrolled Fusion GPS, Fritsch bought a six-bedroom, five-bathroom home in Bethesda, Md., for $2.3 million. Fritsch did not respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Fusion GPS said the firm's work is confidential.

Both partners of Fusion GPS have ties to Mexico -- with Fritsch a former Journal bureau chief in Mexico City, married to a Mexican woman who worked for Grupo Dina -- a beneficiary of NAFTA. His partner, Thomas Catan, formerly from Britain, once edited a Mexican business magazine. Perhaps we should now investigate the Democrats' ties to Mexico?

Senate investigators are demanding to see records of communications between Fusion GPS and the FBI and the Justice Department, including any contacts with former Attorney General Loretta Lynch , now under congressional investigation for possibly obstructing the Hillary Clinton email probe, and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who is under investigation by the Senate and the Justice inspector general for failing to recuse himself despite financial and political connections to the Clinton campaign through his Democrat activist wife. Senate investigators have singled out McCabe as the FBI official who negotiated with Steele. Like Fusion GPS, the FBI has failed to cooperate with congressional investigators seeking documents.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ov5gaMFmvus

I'm here for the chaos.

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

Chupacabra-322 , Jun 26, 2017 4:59 PM

Criminal at Large Loretta Lynch also had a DOJ tax payer slush fund to fund Political Leftists groups.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and a group of his colleagues are calling on the newly appointed Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to immediately investigate how US taxpayer funds are being used by the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to support Soros-backed, leftist political groups in several Eastern European countries including Macedonia and Albania. According to the letter, potentially millions of taxpayer dollars are being funneled through USAID to Soros' Open Society Foundations with the explicit goal of pushing his progressive agenda.

As Fox News pointed out, USAID gave nearly $15 million to Soros' Foundation Open Society - Macedonia, and other Soros-linked organizations in the region, in the last 4 years of Obama's presidency alone.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-16/senators-demand-investigation-t ...

Justapleb , Jun 26, 2017 2:58 PM

Why this, when Clinton committed multiple felonies with her private server conducting state department pay-to-play business for Clinton Foundation cash?

This pee-pee dossier is a side show compared to dozens of special access program intelligence documents Clinton ran through that server and we still have 30,000 emails that were deleted. Destruction of evidence under subpoena.

The FBI is obviously corrupted. Comey backed Crowd Strike on the Russian hacking hoax. Invented "intent" as a new defense to felonies. Etc.

goober -> Justapleb , Jun 26, 2017 4:31 PM

The dossier is not and was not a side show, it was a deliberate creation that failed. I hope all of these cocksuckers have their assets seized and go to jail ASAP --

I completely agree with Barnes on this one https://youtu.be/oA6FHBCWAyY Most of you are not any where near pissed off enough and you should be -- No wonder nothing much gets done and we end up with shit like this in our government when people are so fucking apathetic and acquiescent. We should all be livid and demand accountability or we certainly won't get it --

Herdee , Jun 26, 2017 2:48 PM

The Clinton influence peddling runs deep into the FBI. Nut job Comey was just the start.

RTUT , Jun 26, 2017 2:37 PM

FBI leadership is in it up to their necks too. It could not have ended up this way if they weren't.

flea , Jun 26, 2017 11:33 AM

McCain is apoplectic trying to stop the Senate from going any further. (He's on the Fusion GPS payroll)

goober -> flea , Jun 26, 2017 5:08 PM

Yes the fusion centers nationwide are all part of the Phoenix project brought to us by CIA and in more recent times the invention of DHS and all the other control mechanisms created here in USA today. The Phoenix project has morphed into the playbook of all these chicken shit worthless wars that are really just corp control and political control mechanisms for the insane psychopaths and sociopaths that have dominated Amercian governemnt for a very long time. The terrorism was a creation of these same people to be used as a tool and controlled. BHOs crew put it all on steroids for all of us to see and in a perverse way that is a very good thing indeed -- At least now many Americans see some of it. Americans are very slow to comprehend even their own demise.

All of the government agencies are well past out of control, not just the spooks. Look at what IRS did and so far giot away with ? They also need to be prosecuted and dealt with severely, but they won't unless we demand such and raise hell about all of it --

Posa , Jun 26, 2017 10:31 AM

So the entire DC Ruling Class is assembled in a circular firing squad, each faction investigating the other and threatening long prison sentences for all playerswhile the rest of America sits in mortified silence... real Banana Republic stuff... much of this overlaid with assassination talk, impeachment and vicious propaganda...

Meanwhile the ROW must be amused to watch the Pax Americana Empire self-immolate.

batushka , Jun 26, 2017 8:07 AM

From Way Back Machine:

Glenn R. Simpson is FUSION 's President and Managing Partner. Simpson has over 20 years of experience in research and investigations, including 14 years with The Wall Street Journal as the Washington bureau's lead investigative reporter. Since entering the commercial intelligence field in early 2009, he has managed complex projects in the US, Asia, the Middle East and Europe.

Simpson specializes in the banking and securities sectors. He is a seasoned expert on the relationship between government and business and in particular in financial regulation, and is well known in the capital's financial policymaking, regulatory and enforcement communities. For his articles in The Wall Street Journal and more recently for private clients, he has analyzed numerous multinational corporations including difficult international subjects such as banks in the Middle East. He is well versed in the arcana of tax havens, offshore banking, and securities and accounting fraud. He is also in expert in political influence and is widely known among Washington's top lobbyists, lawyers, journalists and lawmakers.

In addition to his long tenure in Washington, Simpson was stationed for three years in Brussels. There he developed strong knowledge of European business practices and structures as well as many contacts in the corporate world and media. His recent research work includes a matter resulting in a significant win for a major government contractor, the exposure of political corruption in Latin America and the exposure of a case of securities fraud in the UK. In December 2010, his nearly two-year investigation of a prominent family ended in a favorable client verdict worth over $70 million.

Simpson is a recipient of numerous awards for his articles, speaks frequently in academic fora and has appeared on many broadcast news programs including CNN, Nightline, Jim Lehrer NewsHour and the BBC. He is the co-author (with Larry J. Sabato) of the book, Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics (Times Books/Random House, 1996).

Peter R. Fritsch is a FUSION Partner and Project Leader. Fritsch is a multilingual investigator, writer and manager with 24 years of experience on four continents. As a reporter and bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, he led and participated in Pulitzer Prize-nominated investigations from Mexico, Brazil, Southeast Asia, Brussels and Washington, DC. He founded the WSJ's Sao Paulo bureau in 1997.

Fritsch has written widely on the global petroleum industry, guided a global team investigating the oil and natural resource industries for the WSJ, and has run top caliber corporate coverage around the world. He enjoys a large network of contacts in business, media and politics in Latin America, Asia and Europe.

His U.S. bases have included Houston, Boston and New York. While based in Singapore, he worked extensively in important emerging markets like Vietnam, Indonesia and India and oversaw newsgathering across South and Southeast Asia.

Most recently, Fritsch led the WSJ's national security and foreign affairs coverage in Washington, DC. In addition to spearheading coverage of the Pentagon and intelligence community, he has reported extensively on Iran's efforts to evade nuclear sanctions.

Fritsch's work has been recognized with several industry awards. His investigation of a Mexican corporate executive ended in the executive's eventual prosecution by Mexican authorities. He was among the first to sound the alarm regarding a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme in the Caribbean. His work in Europe included major terror finance and corporate bribery investigations.

Benjamin S. Schmidt is FUSION 's Managing Director. Schmidt is a former government intelligence analyst. Most recently, he served as Team Lead in the Middle East and Europe office of the US Department of the Treasury's Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

Over 7 years at Treasury, Schmidt ran complex transnational cases involving banking and other forms of financial activity. His work was often included in the President's Daily Brief and used to guide policy decisions with global ramifications.

Schmidt has worked extensively with Middle East governments and is schooled in identifying and mapping financial networks. He has wide knowledge of financial regulation, international monetary transfer systems and open-source corporate research. At Treasury, he collaborated with the intelligence community, regulators, policymakers and foreign partners to design economic sanctions programs, and has wide knowledge of sanctions laws.

Ben has served as a mentor to a cadre of junior Treasury investigators, instructing his partners in the art of transnational discovery. He is especially adept at devising databases and customized technological solutions to research problems. He is the recipient of several prestigious internal awards for his work and holds an MBA from the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland.

Call them: 202-558-7142

Demologos -> batushka , Jun 26, 2017 12:55 PM

Well-pedigreed spooks. Handmaidens of the Deep State.

AntiLeMaire , Jun 26, 2017 6:27 AM

Burn baby burn!

Daily Caller: Grassley: Schumer Knew Trump Was Not Under Investigation When He Publicly Claimed Otherwise http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/24/grassley-schumer-knew-trump-was-not-un...

Washington Examiner: Byron York: On Russia, a senator's deception, and a timeline of Trump frustration http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-on-russia-a-senators-decept...

Legal Insurrection: Grassley: Schumer Publicly Stated Trump Was Under Investigation Knowing Full Well It Was Untrue http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/06/grassley-schumer-publicly-stated-tr...

Breitbart: Senate Judiciary Chairman Grassley: Chuck Schumer Knew Trump Wasn't Under Investigation but Said He Was Anyway http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/23/grassley-schumer-knew...

LOL

Tarzan -> Keyser , Jun 26, 2017 8:19 AM

Funny you ask, but when the FBI doesn't cooperate with a congressional inquiry, their boss should fire them!

THE PRESIDENT is the FBI's boss!

He should immediately fire any FBI official who refuses to cooperate with a congressional investigation.

Same for the CIA, NSA, IRS, and all the other Executive branches of Government. The congress holds the purse, but the President is the person who ultimately holds oversight over these rogue branches of Government.

What the hell is he waiting for, Isn't "Your Fired" part of the mans DNA, did he not promise to drain this swamp?

Fire them!

Hata Mari -> Tarzan , Jun 26, 2017 2:56 PM

I'd actually prefer imprisonment for Contempt of Congress.

In this atmosphere, if a weasle is fired, they'll just find some other lucrative position within the weasle pack (see Wasserman-Schulz).

But imprisoned! Now there's a concept.

[Jun 26, 2017] America and China: A Quick Critique of The Thucydides Trap by Lambert Strether

Notable quotes:
"... Second, I think that USA surpassing the British Empire at the beginning of the 20th century did result in war, just not between USA and UK. I accept the interpretation that the first war with Germany and the Great Depression resulted from London's desperate maneuvering to maintain British power, particularly the dominance of the Pound as the world's reserve currency. And, of course, the debris of the first war and the Depression led to the Second World War. ..."
"... In essence, Allison's critics charge that his rising vs. ruling power paradigm is oversimplified ..."
"... I don't know the context this comes from but, on it's face, it's a bizzarely tendentious reading of ancient Greek history. Any basic reading of Thucydides and Herodotus would conclude that the Greek city-states were in an almost constant state of war with each other. Whenever one side got too powerful, the rest would gang up, back and forth and over and over. Add into that the Greek death-cult ie. the belief in the absolute value of an honorable death and you begin to see what the ancient Persians ran into in Greece: a host of cities, with professional, regularly exercised military forces and a desire to die well. ..."
"... But then, the great irony of the Kagans is how they cheered on America's own expedition to Syracuse, using Thucydides! However, this is Washington DC where reading a book, any book, makes you an intellectual. ..."
"... If Sparta had 7,000 nuclear warheads and Athens 300, and Thebes 6,000 and well you get the picture. Comparisons to bronze age states' international relations is just a wanking exercise for neocon dickheads with a classical education and no creativity. ..."
"... Those huge environmental problems China faces are in large part the product of producing the detritus of products used to sustain the 'American lifestyle' in exchange for more of what Michael Hudson succinctly describes as "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be". ..."
"... What's at stake for Western elites is not simply victory in some 'Great Game'. It is an economic relationship in which those elites can continue grabbing the world's resources and wealth by just writing more hot checks (AKA 'financial engineering', backed when required by 'sovereign debt'), more exploitation of the global economy's need for money, for a reserve currency. ..."
"... Both China and Russia know it is the resources and ability to produce real wealth – not gold-plated weapons and large bank accounts for an elite few – that is the ultimate source of national power. ..."
"... Yes and here's few articles that show what is going inside of China today. China is over 4000yrs old and they and Russia are playing the long game and Amerika is still playing quarter to quarter. ..."
"... The whole concept of the Thucydides Trap is in essence a mythological truth. Like virtually any other myth it tells small lies in the course of revealing a greater truth. Nothing is inevitable until it actually happens. ..."
"... Athens gained its empire by leading the sea contingent of Greek forces against the vastly superior forces of an invading Persian army and, against all odds, winning. This unlikely success led Athens to form the Delian League to defend against future Persian incursion. Only gradually did the Delian League become an implement of Athenian empire and even then ..."
"... The Peloponnesian War was tragic and potentially avoidable but there was a lot going on internally in the Greek world that fed it and I surely do not see anything resembling such a simple dynamic as "a rising power vs. established power." ..."
"... The outcome of the Peloponnesian War(s) were mixed. The defeat of Athens and the retreat of Sparta into its customary isolation meant the end of Greek independence. Within a generation Greece was conquered by the Macedonians, never to be independent again. But following on the triumphs of Alexander the Great, Greek culture and art has been present and incredibly important throughout the West and Near East ever since. ..."
"... Historical myopia. The Peloponnesian War wasn't a two way contest Persia was involved as a third party, first financially supporting one, then the other. It wasn't just the disaster in Syracuse that did Athens in it was the Persians paying for a Spartan fleet that could face down a weakened Athenian fleet. ..."
"... There is the problem of comparing China to Greece. China was already an Empire in 500 BC. I do think humans and society act according to clichés. "Grass is greener on the other side of the hill." Cultures move and clash. Wars are fought over resources. ..."
"... The Atlantic Alliance has seven thousand hydrogen bombs. When the West collapses due to the people withdrawing their consent to be governed due to the forever wars and austerity, it could well take the rest of the world with it. ..."
"... Essentially, the margin beyond dire necessity is what you use to project power. China is so huge that even a small margin amounts to a lot, but that's also a very shaky construct, the other aspect the quoted author points out. I wouldn't count on China becoming a full-scale world power, or even on the regime lasting much longer. They've had a remarkably good run as it is. ..."
"... There is something from ancient Greece that we might revisit – the adoption of democracy was one part of a two-part initiative. The other was the creation of theatre in which Sophocles and Euripides were able to explore the hard choices of politics and put them before the newly empowered people. We have mostly lost that today but one gets an inkling of its force in "The Trojan Women" which was filmed in 1970s ..."
"... With cheap gas from its strategic economic and military partnership with Russia, and a network of transport infrastructure transfiguring McKinder's 'world child' – from Vladivostok to Lisbon – OBOR is a geopolitical seismic game changer. ..."
"... Not for nothing are the drums of war being beaten by the Blob ..."
"... For some 70 years now the US Navy has been treating the Chinese coastline as its own personal boating lake. It is only now that the Chinese has developed its own missile defense grid and pushed them back out to sea that this whole concept of the 'Thucydides Trap' has been dredged out of the history books as a lens for viewing US/Chinese relations with. ..."
"... Sorry, but the current approach of surrounding China with US bases and parking THAAD missiles in Korea will not work to keep China down. The Chinese have already set up island bases to outflank this chain of bases and they are not going away. ..."
"... China has a great future as part of the world community but treated as a always hostile enemy may end up making the perception the reality. ..."
"... I think everyone is missing a huge point. China is not fast-rising rival like Athens, it was grown by US companies ..."
Jun 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
Posted on June 25, 2017 by Lambert Strether

Probably most readers have heard the catchphrase "the Thucydides Trap" used; unsurprisingly, since, like "The Bourne Identity," or "The Andromedra Strain" it's virulently memetic. It was popularized by Kennedy School professor, policy entrepreneur[1], and fully paid up Blob member[2] Professor Graham Allison (a fervent though maladroit self-publicist) in his book Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? . The Kennedy Center's Belfer School boosts Allison's book as follows:

Today, an irresistible rising China is on course to collide with an immovable America. The likely result of this competition was identified by the great historian Thucydides, who wrote: "It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable."

But the point of Destined for War is not to predict the future but to prevent it. Escaping Thucydides's Trap is not just a theoretical possibility. In four of the 16 cases, including three from the 20th century, imaginative statecraft averted war.

Can Washington and Beijing steer their ships of state through today's treacherous shoals? Only if they learn and apply the lessons of history.

In Destined for War , eminent Harvard scholar Graham Allison explains why Thucydides's Trap is the best lens for understanding the most critical foreign policy issue of our time.

("The best lens"? Really? How would we even know?) Allison, with less heavy breathing, explains in Foreign Policy :

[A]s China challenges America's predominance, misunderstandings about each other's actions and intentions could lead them into a deadly trap first identified by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides. As he explained, "It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable." The past 500 years have seen 16 cases in which a rising power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of these ended in war.

Of the cases in which war was averted - Spain outstripping Portugal in the late 15th century, the United States overtaking the United Kingdom at the turn of the 20th century, and Germany's rise in Europe since 1990 - the ascent of the Soviet Union is uniquely instructive today. Despite moments when a violent clash seemed certain, a surge of strategic imagination helped both sides develop ways to compete without a catastrophic conflict. In the end, the Soviet Union imploded and the Cold War ended with a whimper rather than a bang.

There are only two problems with Allison's thesis: He's wrong about Greece, and he's wrong about China. But before I get to that, two sidebars:

First, The Blob has taken to defending itself by pointing to its role in America's victory over the U.S.S.R. in the Cold War, way back in the '90s; the Belfer Center's call for "imaginative statecraft" and Allison's call for a "surge of strategic imagination" amount to a call to reinforce The Blob's hegemony on China policy based on its track record (which would be why Allison recently briefed staffers at the White House ). My concern is that the same class saying "We got this" on China also said "Hold my beer while we take down Iraq," so I'm very much in "What have you done for us lately?" mode. To be fair, Allison's faction seems determined to use the history of the Peloponnesian War to avoid conflict, while the Kagans, like the good neo-cons they are, used that same history to foment it. Bringing me to my next point:

Second, Allison seems determined to avoid war, which, given our track record setting the Middle East on fire - and the constant beating of war drums by Clintonites and others - comes as a welcome relief. Politico summarizes :

A U.S. military conflict with China would be a global disaster. But while Allison believes it is entirely possible, he does not call it inevitable. His book identifies 16 historical case studies in which an established power like Sparta (or the United States) was confronted with a fast-rising rival like Athens (or China). Twelve of those cases led to war. Four were resolved peacefully. Allison hopes that readers-including officials in the Trump administration-can draw from the latter examples. "I am writing this history to help people not make mistakes," he says.

Mistakes that could occur on the scale of World War I. Allison writes in The Atlantic (2015):

When Barack Obama meets this week with Xi Jinping during the Chinese president's first state visit to America, one item probably won't be on their agenda: the possibility that the United States and China could find themselves at war in the next decade. In policy circles, this appears as unlikely as it would be unwise.

And yet 100 years on, World War I offers a sobering reminder of man's capacity for folly. When we say that war is "inconceivable," is this a statement about what is possible in the world-or only about what our limited minds can conceive? In 1914, few could imagine slaughter on a scale that demanded a new category: world war. When war ended four years later, Europe lay in ruins: the kaiser gone, the Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved, the Russian tsar overthrown by the Bolsheviks, France bled for a generation, and England shorn of its youth and treasure. A millennium in which Europe had been the political center of the world came to a crashing halt.

And millions dead . Back to Allison on China and Greece. In essence, Allison's critics charge that his rising vs. ruling power paradigm is oversimplified (although, if Allison's intended audience was White House decision makers, especially those who fancy themselves deep thinkers, like strategist Steven Bannon, that may be a good thing).[3]

So, let's ask ourselves two questions:

1) Is China really a "rising power"? (At least as Allison understands the term as applied to Athens.)

2) Was the Peloponnesian War really a conflict between a "rising" Athens and a "ruling" Sparta?

Is China Really a "Rising Power"?

A controversial point, but the University of Pennsylvania's Arthur Waldron argues that China is not, at least, "rising" as Athens was "rising" with respect to Sparta. He writes , aggregating material that NC readers will be familiar with:

China's tremendous economic vulnerabilities have no mention in Allison's book. But they are critical to any reading of China's future. China imports a huge amount of its energy and is madly planning a vast expansion in nuclear power, including dozens of reactors at sea. She has water endowments similar to Sudan, which means nowhere near enough. The capital intensity of production is very high: In China, one standard energy unit used fully produces 33 cents of product. In India, the figure is 77 cents. Gradually climb and you get to $3 in Europe and then - in Japan - $5.55. China is poor not only because she wastes energy but water, too, while destroying her ecology in a way perhaps lacking any precedent. Figures such as these are very difficult to find: Mine come from researchers in the energy sector. Solving all of this, while making the skies blue, is a task of both extraordinary technical complexity and expense that will put China's competing special interests at one another's throats. Not solving, however, will doom China's future. Allison may know this on some level, but you have to spend a lot of time in China and talk to a lot of specialists (often in Chinese) before the enormity becomes crushingly real.

What's more, Chinese are leaving China in unprecedented numbers. The late Richard Solomon, who worked on U.S.-China relations for decades, remarked to me a few weeks before his death that "one day last year all the Chinese who could decided to move away." Why? The pollution might kill your infants; the hospitals are terrible, the food is adulterated, the system corrupt and unpredictable. Here in the Philadelphia suburbs and elsewhere, thousands of Chinese buyers are flocking to buy homes in cash. Even Xi Jinping sent his daughter to Harvard. For the first time this year, my Chinese graduate students are marrying one another and buying houses here. This is a leading indicator ..

Forget the fantasies, therefore, and look at the facts. In the decades ahead, China will have to solve immense problems simply to survive. Neither her politics nor her economy follow any rules that are known. The miracle, like the German Wirtschaftswunder and the vertical ascent of Japan, is already coming to an end. A military solution offers only worse problems.

Perhaps not war, but cultural and political synergy, is what is, in fact, "destined."

In other words, Allison's "ruling" vs. "rising" paradigm is greatly over-simplified.[4] Surely, then, China has "vulnerabilities" that are nothing at all like those of Athens?

Was the Peloponnesian War Really a Conflict Between a "Rising" Athens and a "Ruling" Sparta?

Waldron also aggregates material on a compelling alternative to Allison's paradigm (citing, ironically enough, the Kagans):

Allison's argument draws on one sentence of Thucydides's text: "What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian Power and the fear which this caused in Sparta." This lapidary summing up of an entire argument is justly celebrated. It introduced to historiography the idea that wars may have "deep causes," that resident powers are tragically fated to attack rising powers. It is brilliant and important, no question, but is it correct?

Clearly not for the Peloponnesian War. Generations of scholars have chewed over Thucydides's text . In the present day, Kagan wrote four volumes in which he modestly but decisively overturned the idea of the Thucydides Trap. Badian did the same.

The problem is that although Thucydides presents the war as started by the resident power, Sparta, out of fear of a rising Athens, he makes it clear first that Athens had an empire, from which it wished to eliminate any Spartan threat by stirring up a war and teaching the hoplite Spartans that they could never win . The Spartans, Kagan tells us, wanted no war, preemptive or otherwise. Dwelling in the deep south, they lived a simple country life that agreed with them. They used iron bars for money and lived on bean soup when not practicing fighting, their main activity. Athens's rival Corinth, which also wanted a war for her own reasons, taunted the young Spartans into unwonted bellicosity such that they would not even listen to their king, Archidamus, who spoke eloquently against war. Once started, the war was slow to catch fire. Archidamus urged the Athenians to make a small concession - withdraw the Megarian Decree, which embargoed a small, important state - and call it a day. But the Athenians rejected his entreaties. Then plague struck Athens, killing, among others, the leading citizen Pericles.

Both Kagan and Badian note that the reason that the independent states of Hellas, including Athens and Sparta, had lived in peace became clear. Although their peoples were not acquainted, their leaders formed a web of friendship that managed things. The plague eliminated Pericles, the key man in this peace-keeping mechanism. Uncontrolled popular passions took over, and the war was revived, invigorated. It would end up destroying Athens, which had started it. Preemption would have been an incomprehensible concept to the Spartans, but war was not, and when the Athenians forced them into one, they ended up victors. The whole Thucydides Trap - not clear who coined this false phrase - does not exist, even in its prime example.

("Then, as his planet killed him, it occurred to Kynes that his father and all the other scientists were wrong, that the most persistent principles of the universe were accident and error" –Frank Herbert.) Again, Allison's "ruling" vs. "rising" paradigm is greatly over-simplified, if only because Athens already had an empire.

Conclusion

In conclusion, and FWIW, I'm all for a "realist" foreign policy (which to me would involve at the very least a drastic pruning of the imperial project, since self-licking ice cream cones and blowback mean it doesn't net out positive except for a very few 10%-ers (in The Blob) and 1%-ers on up (ka-ching). And, well, the Pentagon and the arms merchants, who would otherwise have to find honest work , but you know what I mean ). I'd also be happy not to go to war with China; that would be bad, and if Allison's White House briefing reins in whatever crazypants faction is in control over there (as opposed to the different crazypants faction in control of the Clintonites), then some good will have been done in the world. And I'm all for informing realism with a careful reading of history; in fact, I don't think there's another way to be realist. I just don't think "The Thucydides Trap" is that reading.

NOTES

[1] The New Yorker : "[Allison's] book would be more persuasive, however, if he knew more about China. Allison's only informants on the subject appear to be Henry Kissinger and the late Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, both of whom he regards with awe. This leads to some odd contradictions and a number of serious historical howlers. On one page, quoting Kissinger quoting the ancient military strategist Sun Tzu, Allison assures us that China likes to outclass its enemies without using force. On a later page, he warns us that Chinese leaders may use military force 'preemptively to surprise a stronger opponent who would not have done likewise.' Allison says that he wishes, with 'my colleague Niall Ferguson,' to set up a council of historians to advise the U.S. President, and yet his own grasp of history appears to be rather shaky." "Niall Ferguson." Eeew .

[2] That is, Allison is one of the "several hundred" bureaucrats and, presumably, Flexians who form the de facto "national security directorate" identified by Michael J. Glennon .

[3] It's worth noting that Chinese President Xi Jinping has said that he doesn't believe the Thucydides Trap applies:

[T]he phrase was coined by Graham Allison, a political scientist at Harvard, in reference to an observation by the Athenian historian Thucydides that the growth in Athens' power led to the fear in Sparta and made war inevitable. Mr. Xi said on Tuesday that "there is no Thucydides Trap" and that the promotion of mutual understanding would help avoid strategic misjudgment by the United States or China.

(Then again, the Rice-Davies Rule applies, does it not?) Other Chinese officials accept the frame, but argue that the trap can be avoided ; as indeed Allison would wish to do.

[4] I'm leaving out the section where Waldron essentially accuses Allison of "appeasement." dk , June 25, 2017 at 2:19 pm

So basically, the Thucydides Trap is not a trap, it's a Thucydides Excuse.

susan the other , June 25, 2017 at 2:58 pm

+100

Thuto , June 25, 2017 at 2:34 pm

I'm not sure if the elucidation of China's vulnerabilities is meant to water down the narrative of China as a rising threat to the pre-eminence of the US as a sole imperialist power. If it is, then the warhawks in the whitehouse could read this article then think they could somehow "ask somebody to hold their beers while they deal with China", which would of course amount to a serious and potentially lethal (on both sides) miscalculation of the situation. Secondly, if outsiders could, with diligent research, become aware of these vulnerabilities, I'm pretty certain the chinese themselves are acutely aware of them and are working actively to devise mitigating strategies. My reading of the situation is that China (add to this its alliance with Russia) is every bit the rising power/threat that it's made out to be and war between the resident and the rising power will only be averted by the dynamic present in the current power struggle which previous historical standoffs lacked: by waging war on China, America would lay waste to much of its, and its western allies, industrial manufacturing infrastructure. If shenzhen lay in ruins from American bombing, wall street would bleed as companies like apple have their value wiped out by having their offshore manufacturing bases flattened. This, imho, is what will avert war between China and the US

Quentin , June 25, 2017 at 2:47 pm

Well, would't an Athenian want to put the onus on the fabricated enemy, Sparta? Maybe Thucydides would have pinpointed Russia as Sparta instead of China. No matter, I find the whole idea pretentious goofiness.

gnatt , June 25, 2017 at 2:53 pm

nothing you wrote has any bearing on the possibility of a mistake militarily between two military powers maneuvering for power in, say, the south china sea. both allison and you have gotten hung up on concepts such as "rising power" and the weak analogy to ancient greece. Xi Jinping has had himself named "core leader," the first since mao to choose that title. in trump we have the most unstable leader in my lifetime (and this has nothing to do with the warlike hillary or the deep state. this is about egomaniacal and unstable personalities, both of whom feel they have something to prove. an internally messy china is all the more reason for the leaders to look for outside victories, military or economic.if china has proved conciliatory so far in pronouncements on korea for example or in buying american beef, this doesn't mean they will back down in a direct military challenge, which given our current leader, is entirely possible. and in that he might well be backed by the blob. isn't this at least possible? if not, why not.

Lambert Strether Post author , June 25, 2017 at 11:47 pm

> nothing you wrote has any bearing on the possibility of a mistake militarily between two military powers maneuvering for power

Consider reading the post:

("Then, as his planet killed him, it occurred to Kynes that his father and all the other scientists were wrong, that the most persistent principles of the universe were accident and error" –Frank Herbert.)

After quoting Allison on how accident removed Pericles from power, "invigorating" war advocates.

I don't know where you got the idea I buy into the "rising"/'ruling" dichotomy. If I implied that, I wrote carelessly.

etudiant , June 25, 2017 at 2:57 pm

China currently enjoys the fruits of empire, global access to raw materials and markets, while bearing very little of the burdens. It is doubtful China wants to change that. Indeed, the whole China Sea brouhaha seems deliberately designed to lead the US to discourage a greater and more costly international role by China.
So I'd expect China to remain a peaceful power, increasingly focused on internal problems, which are very substantial, as Waldron highlights above.

Synoia , June 25, 2017 at 2:59 pm

How the Sparta – Athens analogy is relevant is questionable because many of the conditions are very different.

The scale of the US and China vs two very old Cit States, the degree of interconnected trade, and the cross border money flows, all very different between Sparta and Athens.

Nor is the forced (by the US) entry of China into the WTO analogous, the desire to move work to cheap Chinese labor, and China's drive to embrace the US' own trade policies for their own benefit.

In addition, modern economic belief (or dogma) embraces the item of faith that trade ties are key to ending war, by intertwining dependence among economies.

The situations are only parallel when using poor measurements.

Tony Wikrent , June 25, 2017 at 3:04 pm

First, I think I know what you mean by "the Blob" but I would be better tuned in with an explanation. Is it the Ivy League educated establishment, clustered around the Council on Foreign Relations? Is it the Eastern Establishment? Does the Blob include Silicone Valley? Does it include elements of the Deep State?

Second, I think that USA surpassing the British Empire at the beginning of the 20th century did result in war, just not between USA and UK. I accept the interpretation that the first war with Germany and the Great Depression resulted from London's desperate maneuvering to maintain British power, particularly the dominance of the Pound as the world's reserve currency. And, of course, the debris of the first war and the Depression led to the Second World War.

Third, the mention of the statistics of capital intensity of production is very interesting. Since the cutbacks in the federal bureaucracy under Reagan in USA, official national income accounting and statistics have become highly suspect, and lack the power to provide an accurate picture of economic health.

Mark P. , June 25, 2017 at 3:12 pm

In essence, Allison's critics charge that his rising vs. ruling power paradigm is oversimplified

To say the least. Allison's 'Thuycdides Trap' is his 'pop' narrative/Cliff Notes version of two rather more sophisticated analytic approaches to this general problem, both of which have occupied better minds than Allison's for decades.

One is Power Transition Theory, in the international relations realm -

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0038.xml

The other is in game theory, where there's been lots of work done on Challenger-Defender scenarios as, forex, here -

'Sequential Analysis of Deterrence Games with a Declining Status Quo'
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07388940600666022

Nobody should buy these two approaches without scepticism either. But Allison's take is, essentially, the equivalent of a Deeprak Chopra self-help book about International Relations.

ennui , June 25, 2017 at 3:16 pm

Both Kagan and Badian note that the reason that the independent states of Hellas, including Athens and Sparta, had lived in peace became clear. Although their peoples were not acquainted, their leaders formed a web of friendship that managed things.

I don't know the context this comes from but, on it's face, it's a bizzarely tendentious reading of ancient Greek history. Any basic reading of Thucydides and Herodotus would conclude that the Greek city-states were in an almost constant state of war with each other. Whenever one side got too powerful, the rest would gang up, back and forth and over and over. Add into that the Greek death-cult ie. the belief in the absolute value of an honorable death and you begin to see what the ancient Persians ran into in Greece: a host of cities, with professional, regularly exercised military forces and a desire to die well.

But then, the great irony of the Kagans is how they cheered on America's own expedition to Syracuse, using Thucydides! However, this is Washington DC where reading a book, any book, makes you an intellectual.

WobblyTelomeres , June 25, 2017 at 3:52 pm

"this is Washington DC where reading a book, any book, makes you an intellectual."

Well, THAT explains Ted Cruz.

Tom Stone , June 25, 2017 at 3:42 pm

Ennui, does Trump have an autographed copy of "My pet goat"?

I Have Strange Dreams , June 25, 2017 at 3:52 pm

If Sparta had 7,000 nuclear warheads and Athens 300, and Thebes 6,000 and well you get the picture. Comparisons to bronze age states' international relations is just a wanking exercise for neocon dickheads with a classical education and no creativity.

IowanX , June 25, 2017 at 4:47 pm

+100. Thank you IHSD, and Lambert for the post. As Tom Ricks has pointed out, our general officers are not up to snuff. Neither are our "public intellectuals" which is why sites like NC are so important!

SufferinSuccotash , June 25, 2017 at 5:41 pm

The 5th century BCE was well past the Bronze Age, but Allison still furnishes a prime example of why you should never get your history from political scientists any more than you should get it from graphic novels or Hollywood.

Steven , June 25, 2017 at 6:06 pm

This goes beyond "pretentious goofiness". It is an attempt to use history to obscure the present, not to learn from it (history). I don't pretend to be a China scholar or be able to read what's in the minds of its leaders. But it is a pretty safe bet at least some of that leadership is looking for ways to escape the exploitative relationship in which it finds itself with Western nations, especially the United States.

Those huge environmental problems China faces are in large part the product of producing the detritus of products used to sustain the 'American lifestyle' in exchange for more of what Michael Hudson succinctly describes as "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be".

What's at stake for Western elites is not simply victory in some 'Great Game'. It is an economic relationship in which those elites can continue grabbing the world's resources and wealth by just writing more hot checks (AKA 'financial engineering', backed when required by 'sovereign debt'), more exploitation of the global economy's need for money, for a reserve currency.

Both China and Russia know it is the resources and ability to produce real wealth – not gold-plated weapons and large bank accounts for an elite few – that is the ultimate source of national power.

jo6pac , June 25, 2017 at 6:11 pm

Yes and here's few articles that show what is going inside of China today. China is over 4000yrs old and they and Russia are playing the long game and Amerika is still playing quarter to quarter.

Steven , June 25, 2017 at 6:34 pm

China and Russia are playing the long game

That pretty well sums it up. Let's just hope there will be a long game. Especially with Trump, I keep hearing the lyrics of the old Joan Baez song "Blessed Are" (the stay at home millions who want leaders but get gamblers instead).

jo6pac , June 25, 2017 at 6:47 pm

Thanks as a Joan Baez lover who can't listen to her voice without crying the song nails it.

Blennylips , June 25, 2017 at 8:00 pm

Remarkable, no mention of pollution in your list some fly in that ointment!

2008, just prior to the Olympics, traveled Beijing to Urumqi by bus and train (total solar eclipse). Pollution levels mind numbing and debilitating and deadly.

way underestimated

jo6pac , June 25, 2017 at 11:33 pm

At lest China is working on it as my last link points out. Yes they have a long way to go but something tells me they will b there before Amerika and that goes for Russia also. If you look around there is even more on China and energy.

Andrew Watts , June 25, 2017 at 6:12 pm

The whole concept of the Thucydides Trap is in essence a mythological truth. Like virtually any other myth it tells small lies in the course of revealing a greater truth. Nothing is inevitable until it actually happens.

It's appealing to people who are not avid zealots of the school of historical determinism and equally repulsive to believers of that creed. It's a curious dichotomy at any rate.

hush / hush , June 25, 2017 at 7:14 pm

I find it interesting how much of the broader story of the Peloponnesian War seems to be overlooked in this whole narrative of a "Thucydides Trap":

1) Athens gained its empire by leading the sea contingent of Greek forces against the vastly superior forces of an invading Persian army and, against all odds, winning. This unlikely success led Athens to form the Delian League to defend against future Persian incursion. Only gradually did the Delian League become an implement of Athenian empire and even then

2) The "empire" was more of a treaty organization and a pretty loose and self-contradictory one. Eventually, it got to the point where Athens (mostly) built, maintained and manned the entire Greek navy while the other cities and colonies paid taxes to sustain it. When Persia's power wained Greek city states and western colonies got tired of paying Athens to maintain this huge navy (when most of the specific benefits accrued to Athens) but the Ionian colonies - many of which were actually in Asia - still feared Persian (Eastern) intervention and were content with the status quo. It was a recipe for catastrophe

3) The Peloponnesian War was tragic and potentially avoidable but there was a lot going on internally in the Greek world that fed it and I surely do not see anything resembling such a simple dynamic as "a rising power vs. established power."

4) Athens and Sparta never really beat each other and generally avoided direct engagement Athens only lost when it tried to invade and humble the powerful colony of Syracuse in today's Sicily (which paid a lot to help maintain that huge Greek navy and saw little benefit and did not fear Eastern intervention and thus became a huge thorn in Athens' side.) The Greek (Athenian) navy was destroyed in Syracuse by a combination of hubris, bad choices and acts of God. Only after Syracuse were the Spartans able to take the fight to Athens and win.

5) The outcome of the Peloponnesian War(s) were mixed. The defeat of Athens and the retreat of Sparta into its customary isolation meant the end of Greek independence. Within a generation Greece was conquered by the Macedonians, never to be independent again. But following on the triumphs of Alexander the Great, Greek culture and art has been present and incredibly important throughout the West and Near East ever since.

H. Alexander Ivey , June 25, 2017 at 9:40 pm

If I could get this kind of executive summary in Wikipedia, I would be estatic. But I don't so one day I'm going to get a complete set of Encyclopedia Brittania, hardcopy , and go back to the old days of "checking out things" at the library.

Disturbed Voter , June 25, 2017 at 7:42 pm

Historical myopia. The Peloponnesian War wasn't a two way contest Persia was involved as a third party, first financially supporting one, then the other. It wasn't just the disaster in Syracuse that did Athens in it was the Persians paying for a Spartan fleet that could face down a weakened Athenian fleet.

And Athens not only lost their early leader to plague, but had a traitor in their midst, the original sociopathic grifter Alcibiades. In what way is there a third party in this modern analogy?

Russia. Russia won't want either China or the US to be too powerful. Who is playing the role of Alcibiades?

hush / hush , June 25, 2017 at 10:21 pm

Good points. My understanding is that Persia was certainly looking for advantage but that it is not clear that their intrigue was decisive. Alcibades is an interesting character. He strikes me as a consummate opportunist less than a "sociopathic grifter" or 5th columnist.

I find it interesting that Athens had enough of a functioning and confident democracy to (effectively) ostracize Alcibades in the first place.

I can't imagine our democracy forcing any of our oligarch's to stop all involvement in politics, to preclude them from contributing money to political causes and to legally restrain them from meeting or conversing with politicians and lobbyists which was, essentially, the role ostracism was meant to play.

Maybe we should bring ostracism back! It would be revealing to see which of our "patriotic job creators" would flee America to work with the Saudis or Chinese, or any number of foreign actors with their power and prestige cut off domestically. Plague was an important factor all around. A wild card, kinda like climate change

VietnamVet , June 25, 2017 at 8:02 pm

There is the problem of comparing China to Greece. China was already an Empire in 500 BC. I do think humans and society act according to clichés. "Grass is greener on the other side of the hill." Cultures move and clash. Wars are fought over resources.

The West is a newcomer. Its culture was ascendant from the 17th to 20th century thanks to engineering and science but that advantage was sold to the Chinese so a few western oligarchs could get wealthier. The problem isn't the Chinese or the Communist Party. The Chinese are on the move like they always have been.

The Atlantic Alliance has seven thousand hydrogen bombs. When the West collapses due to the people withdrawing their consent to be governed due to the forever wars and austerity, it could well take the rest of the world with it.

Oregoncharles , June 25, 2017 at 8:09 pm

Something I've wondered about for a long time:

" China is poor not only because she wastes energy but water, too, while destroying her ecology in a way perhaps lacking any precedent. Figures such as these are very difficult to find: Mine come from researchers in the energy sector. Solving all of this, while making the skies blue, is a task of both extraordinary technical complexity and expense that will put China's competing special interests at one another's throats. Not solving, however, will doom China's future."

China has no margin; its resource base isn't up to its population, and if this is right, neither is its technological base. Granted, the Netherlands and Japan have similar ratios, but both are much smaller and less diverse, and neither is a world power in the sense China is rising toward. (frankly, I don't know how either country does it.)

Essentially, the margin beyond dire necessity is what you use to project power. China is so huge that even a small margin amounts to a lot, but that's also a very shaky construct, the other aspect the quoted author points out. I wouldn't count on China becoming a full-scale world power, or even on the regime lasting much longer. They've had a remarkably good run as it is.

RBHoughton , June 25, 2017 at 8:21 pm

There is something from ancient Greece that we might revisit – the adoption of democracy was one part of a two-part initiative. The other was the creation of theatre in which Sophocles and Euripides were able to explore the hard choices of politics and put them before the newly empowered people. We have mostly lost that today but one gets an inkling of its force in "The Trojan Women" which was filmed in 1970s

Damson , June 25, 2017 at 9:07 pm

What about OBOR, BRICS, SCO (the latter has India and Pakistan, historical foes now in the fold)?

This is where the perception of 'China rising' is coming from, as a Eurasia leader in a geopolitical shift that bypasses US maritime hegemony.

It's internal problems are significant, but no more so than the US.

Arguably considerably less so, since OBOR is a huge investment plan to project Chinese tradecraft far beyond its own borders.

With cheap gas from its strategic economic and military partnership with Russia, and a network of transport infrastructure transfiguring McKinder's 'world child' – from Vladivostok to Lisbon – OBOR is a geopolitical seismic game changer.

Not for nothing are the drums of war being beaten by the Blob .

The Rev Kev , June 25, 2017 at 9:18 pm

For some 70 years now the US Navy has been treating the Chinese coastline as its own personal boating lake. It is only now that the Chinese has developed its own missile defense grid and pushed them back out to sea that this whole concept of the 'Thucydides Trap' has been dredged out of the history books as a lens for viewing US/Chinese relations with.

Probably the Punic Wars might be a more worrying comparison when you think about it but nobody wants to talk about that because of what happened to Carthage whereas Athens was treated magnanimously by the victorious Spartans.

It is no secret that the US military have for a long time thought of themselves as the new Spartans (except for the gay bits) which may be why you see US tanks sport the Spartan Λ symbol. Culturally, however, the US is much more like the Athenians as can be seen in hush / hush's account as well as that of Kagan in this post. Sorry, but the current approach of surrounding China with US bases and parking THAAD missiles in Korea will not work to keep China down. The Chinese have already set up island bases to outflank this chain of bases and they are not going away.

Instead of dragging some ancient war out of the textbooks and forcing all current events to fit through the lens of this event (or should that be a Procrustean bed?) how about we simply see things as they are. I think that it was Bismarck that said that if you showed him a map of a country that he would tell you the foreign policy of that country. The map the Chinese are seeing is their country surrounded by hostile military bases hence their push back which we now call aggressiveness and arrogance – huh? China has a great future as part of the world community but treated as a always hostile enemy may end up making the perception the reality.

Sure hubris could turn the Chinese hostile down the track but trying to lock them up militarily will only ensure so.

surtt, June 25, 2017 at 11:54 pm
I think everyone is missing a huge point. China is not fast-rising rival like Athens, it was grown by US companies.

[Jun 26, 2017] Beijing values Pyongyang as a strategic buffer between itself and US-allied South Korea. If North Korea were to fall, it could lead to a US-allied unified Korea, with US troops right on Chinas border

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star , June 24, 2017 at 1:31 pm
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/korean-war-begins

"The result of a North Korean regime collapse would be catastrophic and may trigger a dangerous race between China and the US-ROK (Republic of Korea) forces attempting to secure strategic and symbolic locations such as the Yongbyon nuclear facility and Pyongyang," Andrew Injoo Park and Kongdan Oh wrote for the National Bureau of Asian Research.

China worries about both of those, especially the latter.

Beijing values Pyongyang as a strategic buffer between itself and US-allied South Korea. If North Korea were to fall, it could lead to a US-allied unified Korea, with US troops right on China's border."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/asia/north-korea-war-devastation/

[Jun 26, 2017] US Recklessly Provoking Russia by Stephen Lendman

Notable quotes:
"... He's pursuing the same reckless agenda as Obama, pushing the envelope toward possible direct confrontation. Despite neither country wanting war, unfolding events may cause the unthinkable to happen by accident or design. Among major powers, Russia is the world's leading peace and stability champion – America just the opposite. ..."
"... Madness defines US policy, state terror on a global scale, naked aggression its main expression, controlling planet earth, its resources and people its objective – risking potentially life-destroying nuclear war. ..."
"... On Monday, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said it "reinforced existing sanctions on Russia by designating or identifying a range of individuals and entities involved in the ongoing conflict under four Executive orders (EOs) related to Russia and Ukraine," adding: ..."
"... Fact: Russia wages peace, not war. Alone it's gone all-out to resolve things in Ukraine diplomatically, its good faith efforts sabotaged by Washington. ..."
"... Russia and America are world's apart on Syria. Moscow seeks diplomatic conflict resolution, the country's sovereignty respected, its territorial integrity preserved. ..."
"... Washington wants endless conflict, puppet governance it controls replacing overwhelmingly popular Assad, reelected president in June 2014 by an 89% majority. ..."
Jun 23, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

Instead of fulfilling a campaign promise to improve bilateral relations, Trump so far continues acting provocatively.

He's pursuing the same reckless agenda as Obama, pushing the envelope toward possible direct confrontation. Despite neither country wanting war, unfolding events may cause the unthinkable to happen by accident or design. Among major powers, Russia is the world's leading peace and stability champion – America just the opposite.

It's recklessly waging wars in multiple theaters, threatening conflicts against North Korea, Iran, and perhaps Russia the way things are going.

Madness defines US policy, state terror on a global scale, naked aggression its main expression, controlling planet earth, its resources and people its objective – risking potentially life-destroying nuclear war.

Last week, Senate members near unanimously imposed new illegal sanctions on Russia, including on its energy sector. House action awaits.

On Monday, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) said it "reinforced existing sanctions on Russia by designating or identifying a range of individuals and entities involved in the ongoing conflict under four Executive orders (EOs) related to Russia and Ukraine," adding:

"US sanctions on Russia related to the situation in eastern Ukraine will remain in place until Russia fully honors its obligations under the Minsk Agreements."

"US sanctions related to Crimea will not be lifted until Russia ends its occupation of the peninsula."

  • Fact: Russia wages peace, not war. Alone it's gone all-out to resolve things in Ukraine diplomatically, its good faith efforts sabotaged by Washington.
  • Fact: Crimea is Russian territory, its newest republic, supporting the will of its people, correcting a historic error.
  • Fact: The territory won't be handed back to US-installed putschists running Ukraine. Its people won't be betrayed for Washington or anyone else.

Russia and America are world's apart on Syria. Moscow seeks diplomatic conflict resolution, the country's sovereignty respected, its territorial integrity preserved.

Washington wants endless conflict, puppet governance it controls replacing overwhelmingly popular Assad, reelected president in June 2014 by an 89% majority.

International observers called the process open, free and fair despite ongoing war, creating enormous hardships for its people. They want no one else leading them.

They want their sovereign independence respected. They reject foreign meddling in their affairs – especially by America, NATO, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia and their rogue allies.

... ... ...

Visit Stephens website: www.stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected] . - My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html - Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

[Jun 26, 2017] US Military Officials There Was NO Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria Trump Bombed Syria DESPITE Advice From Military by George Washington

Jun 26, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

A top U.S. missile and chemical weapons expert has documented for months that the Syrian government did not carry out a chemical weapons attack against civilians, and that contrary claims by the Trump White House, French intelligence services, the New York Times, CNN and other "mainstream" sources are wrong and worthless propaganda.

Former top military and intelligence officials – including many who warned against the faulty Iraq intelligence in advance of the Iraq war – have long said that the claims that Assad carried out the chemical weapons attacks was bunkum.

Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the stories of the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam and the Iraq prison torture scandals, which rightfully disgraced the Nixon and Bush administrations' war-fighting tactics – reported yesterday in the large German publication Weld that U.S. military officials tried to tell Trump that a chemical weapons attack never occurred at all:

On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon .

The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

***

In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's attack on Khan Sheikhoun . I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4

[ Here's one of the transcripts].

In an important pre-strike process known as deconfliction, U.S. and Russian officers routinely supply one another with advance details of planned flight paths and target coordinates, to ensure that there is no risk of collision or accidental encounter (the Russians speak on behalf of the Syrian military). This information is supplied daily to the American AWACS surveillance planes that monitor the flights once airborne. Deconfliction's success and importance can be measured by the fact that there has yet to be one collision, or even a near miss, among the high-powered supersonic American, Allied, Russian and Syrian fighter bombers.

Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to and from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard the AWACS plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north.

***

A high-level meeting of jihadist leaders was to take place in the building . Russian intelligence depicted the cinder-block building as a command and control center .

***

A senior adviser to the American intelligence community, who has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, told me [that] the basement was used as storage for rockets, weapons and ammunition, as well as chlorine-based decontaminants for cleansing the bodies of the dead before burial. The meeting place – a regional headquarters – was on the floor above.

***

One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure that any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership was forewarned not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning directly to the CIA "They were playing the game right," the senior adviser said. The Russian guidance noted that the jihadist meeting was coming at a time of acute pressure for the insurgents: Presumably Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were desperately seeking a path forward in the new political climate.

***

Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the high-value target. "It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the sked," the senior adviser told me. "Every operations officer in the region" – in the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, CIA and NSA – "had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the Syrian Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They're skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the mission, with the best wingman." The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given the highest possible score inside the American community.

***

"This was not a chemical weapons strike," the adviser said. "That's a fairy tale. If so, everyone involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon – you've got to make it appear like a regular 500-pound conventional bomb – would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear. Military grade sarin includes additives designed to increase toxicity and lethality. Every batch that comes out is maximized for death. That is why it is made. It is odorless and invisible and death can come within a minute. No cloud. Why produce a weapon that people can run away from?"

The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground. According to intelligence estimates, the senior adviser said, the strike itself killed up to four jihadist leaders, and an unknown number of drivers and security aides . There is no confirmed count of the number of civilians killed by the poisonous gases that were released by the secondary explosions, although opposition activists reported that there were more than 80 dead, and outlets such as CNN have put the figure as high as 92. A team from Médecins Sans Frontières, treating victims from Khan Sheikhoun at a clinic 60 miles to the north, reported that "eight patients showed symptoms – including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation – which are consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds." MSF also visited other hospitals that had received victims and found that patients there "smelled of bleach, suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine." In other words, evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms observed, which would not have been the case if the Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted – had dropped a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions. The range of symptoms is, however, consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine and the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin.

***

The adviser said "Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: 'We have a problem and let's look into it.' He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria."

***

"What doesn't occur to most Americans" the adviser said, "is if there had been a Syrian nerve gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia's strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would do that? When he's on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?"

***

Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. "He did this before he talked to anybody about it. The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in order to bomb with it." "The answer was, 'We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,' " the adviser said. " The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat [the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive to commit political suicide." Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons depots.

At this point, the adviser said, the president's national security planners were more than a little rattled : "No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn't know who the children were or how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people . But you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted to use it in Khan Sheikhoun." The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead .

Hersh than notes that Trump was determined to bomb Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack that never occurred. America's top military and intelligence officials steered into him a less destructive bombing run.

Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi confirms that American intelligence community insiders are furious that the Trump administration has twisted the intelligence so as to claim that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack. And see this .

Unfortunately, none of this is new The 2013 sarin attack in Syria, was also blamed by the U.S. on the Syrian government. However, the United Nations' report on the attack did NOT blame the government, and the U.N.'s human rights investigator accused the rebels – rather than the Syrian government – of carrying out the attack. Moreover, high-level American and Turkish officials say that Turkey supplied Sarin gas to Syrian rebels in 2013 in order to frame the Syrian government to provide an excuse for regime change.

And Seymour Hersh reported that high-level American sources tell him that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.

As Hersh noted :

'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'

Indeed, it's long been known that sarin was coming through Turkey .

And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria as a justification for war was leaked and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic.

dot_bust , Jun 26, 2017 5:10 PM

There is one solution to the deceptive, destructive actions of the U.S. military-industrial complex:

The Treaty to Uphold Sovereignty and Peace

  • I. No nation shall openly advocate or take covert action to bring about regime change in any other nation.
  • II. No nation shall maintain military bases or any other occupying military or police force in any other nation.
  • III. No nation shall sell or provide weapons of war to any other nation's government or to groups in any other nation.
  • IV. No nation shall sell or provide radioactive materials, including plutonium and uranium, to any other nation's government or to groups in any other nation.
  • V. No nation shall attack or in any way undermine the currency of any other nation.
TeethVillage88s , Jun 26, 2017 4:20 PM

Comes to mind, treaty signed by all of Western powers, not to use war as policy:

As Secretary of State (1925-29), Frank B. Kellogg negotiated the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), for which he received the Nobel Peace Prize (Nobel Peace Prize to US Secretary of State), and shifted foreign policy away from interventionism.

Manthong -> TeethVillage88s , Jun 26, 2017 5:06 PM

Yeah, but Ivanka was moved by the virtuous White Helmet's propaganda video of that "BEAUTIFUL LITTLE BABY". Trump really disappointed a lot of us with that stupid move.

[Jun 26, 2017] ENGDAHL Trump is a Puppet of the Deep State

Jun 26, 2017 | www.podomatic.com

Little did we know at the time of this recording just how accurate our guest's comments would become. On Episode #179 of the SUNDAY WIRE, host Patrick Henningsen speaks to author and global affairs analyst, F. William Engdahl, to discuss his recent article about the new US-Israeli oil wars in the Golan Heights in Syria and how this is connected to the West's hidden agenda to create "Safe Zones" in Syria. In prophetic fashion, Engdahl then goes on to describe Donald Trump as a tool of establishment, placed into the US presidency by America's Deep State – in order to fast-track a destructive geopolitical agenda. NOTE: This interview was recorded 5 days before the US missile strikes on Syria More @21WIRE:

Listen to the full episode here: http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/04/02/episode-179-sunday-wire-war-and-peace-with-guests-f-william-engdahl-and-adam-garrie/

Read more Syria news: http://www.21stcenturywire.com/tag/syria

Support our work: http://21stcenturywire.com/support/ Follow us @21WIRE: https://twitter.com/21WIRE

[Jun 26, 2017] The West has made a BARBAROSSA-2 plan for Russia

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Moscow Exile , June 25, 2017 at 11:31 am
МРАЧНЫЕ ТЕНИ ИСТОРИИ. Запад приготовил для России План "БАРБАРОССА-2"

THE DARK SHADOWS OF HISTORY. The West has made a "BARBAROSSA-2" plan for Russia

The previous, almost forgotten, threat of a third world war has become a topic of public discussion. Several times, especially in recent years, the U.S. and Russia have been on the verge of a military confrontation in Syria. Long before the events in the Ukraine, NATO has persistently and consistently been increasing its military potential at our border. What are the possible scenarios of a military conflict? It is necessary to think about this in order to prevent the inappropriate actions of our "Western partners", who have never denied that Russia is "the main likely enemy".

... ... ...

Military analyst V.Vasilecu from Romania, a country right in the front line of the NATO anti-Russian front, in the pages of the English-language analytical cente "Catechon" argues that the aggression of the US and its allies against Russia is not a delusional scenario. The US must at any cost stop Russia, which has been changing the American-centric status quo by its actions in Syria, and before that, in the Crimea and the Ukraine. In order to preserve its hegemony, the Americans are deliberately heading for a major war.

In the opinion of Vasilescu, the main direction where the US will strike is in the he West. "The US does not plan to disembark in the Russian Far East: instead, as did Napoleon and Hitler, the US will seek to occupy Moscow, the strategically important capital of the country", he sums up. According to him, the aim of Euromaidan was initially to create a convenient springboard for aggression against Russia. Lugansk, said the analyst, is only 600 kilometres from Moscow. However, the plan for American aggression was preventively foiled after the reunification of the Crimea with Russia and the creation of people's republics in the East of the Ukraine

[Jun 26, 2017] Saudi Hijinks, US Policy Stinks

Notable quotes:
"... Trump is capricious, ignorant and impetuous. His understanding of international relations and history seems woefully inadequate. He also appears to be unscrupulous and reckless. It's all about making money that matters to him. ..."
"... From the earliest opportunity, the Saudi prince wheedled his way into Trump's court. He was greeted in the White House back in March, one of the first foreign leaders to do so. Then two months later, Trump ventured on his maiden foreign trip as president in which he made Saudi Arabia his first stop. ..."
"... The power-struggle antics among the absolute rulers of the House of Saud have promoted a prince who has a reckless outsized ego and lust for dominance. President Donald Trump seems cut from the same cloth. ..."
"... · 5 days ago ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com
The United States' decades-long "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia has always carried major downsides. Yes, the Saudis are a pillar in maintaining the American petrodollar system to prevent the collapse of the US economy; and, yes, the Saudi rulers are lavish spenders on US weapons, which props up the Pentagon military-industrial complex – another lifeline for American capitalism.

However, the Saudi rulers are also longtime sponsors of Wahhabi fundamentalism which has injected deadly sectarian poison into the Middle East region and beyond. Washington is complicit in fomenting sectarianism through its relationship with Saudi Arabia, and the price for that Faustian pact is a world in turmoil from terrorism.

Donald Trump's presidency is an unfortunate marriage of interests with Saudi Arabia. Trump is capricious, ignorant and impetuous. His understanding of international relations and history seems woefully inadequate. He also appears to be unscrupulous and reckless. It's all about making money that matters to him.

From the earliest opportunity, the Saudi prince wheedled his way into Trump's court. He was greeted in the White House back in March, one of the first foreign leaders to do so. Then two months later, Trump ventured on his maiden foreign trip as president in which he made Saudi Arabia his first stop. Trump was royally received by the House of Saud with sword-waving ceremony . And then the Saudis signed record arms deal with the US worth up to $350 billion – the biggest ever in history.

It was during Trump's Saudi visit that the policy of increased hostility towards Iran and isolation of erstwhile Saudi and American ally Qatar was hatched. This reckless, clueless embrace of Saudi Arabia by Trump has led to a dangerous escalation in tensions across the Middle East, which are seen playing out in Syria and towards Iran and Russia.

Trump the tycoon and the Saudi upstart-prince are a duo who are plunging the world into danger of all-out war. The pair are a match made in hell, both being rash and irresponsible in their behavior.

Nobody outside Saudi Arabia had heard of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman until his father become king in January 2015 on the death of King Abdullah. In the space of two years, the young prince has been made defense minister and de facto chief of Saudi's oil economy. Now, this week he has been shunted into becoming heir to the throne, sidelining his elder cousin and nephew to the king.

The precocious prince has only enjoyed this meteoric rise in the House of Saud because of his father's favoritism. Other more senior royals feel ousted and see the new Crown Prince as undeserving of his assigned authority. In short, he is out of his depth.

In the Saudi succession rules, the royal line is supposed to pass from brother to brother. There are still surviving brothers of the Saudi founding king, Ibn Saud, who have been removed from the succession. The present King Salman first broke the rules when he made his nephew Mohammed bin Nayef the Crown Prince back in April 2015. Now he has broken the rules again by making his own son the heir and unceremoniously pushing bin Nayef to the side. Such are the hijinks of despots.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is the architect behind the disastrous war in Yemen, which is turning into a Vietnam-style quagmire for Saudi Arabia, costing the kingdom billions of dollars every month. He is also reportedly the architect behind the policy of renewed hostility towards Iran. In an interview before Trump's Saudi trip, Mohammed bin Salman said he would never talk to Iran and even threatened to unleash violence on Iranian territory. That threat was followed by the deadly terror attack in Tehran on June 7 in which up to 17 people were killed by Daesh suicide squads.

The hiked-up hostile policy towards Iran has, in turn, led to Saudi Arabia blockading Qatar and causing a bitter rift in the Persian Gulf because Qatar is perceived as being too soft on Iran.

The power-struggle antics among the absolute rulers of the House of Saud have promoted a prince who has a reckless outsized ego and lust for dominance. President Donald Trump seems cut from the same cloth. Courting the young Saudi heir may be lucrative for American weapons-dealing and no doubt the Trump business brand in the oil-rich region. But the consequences of such capricious and clueless "leadership" are throwing the region and the world into increasing conflict.

This week the US State Department flatly contradicted Trump's policy of supporting the Saudi-led blockade on Qatar . It said it was mystified that the Saudis had not presented any evidence to justify the blockade. This is just one example where Trump is being made to look a total fool by following stupid Saudi policy – policy that is made by a prince who has gathered a record for disaster in several other spheres.

What a double act. Saudi despotism marries Trump cluelessness. And the world is reaping the calamity of clowns.

This article was first published by Sputnik

Gustavo Caldas · 5 days ago

An attack from Saudi Arabia to Iran will mean the demise of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia . And the intervention of the USA in support of Saudi Arabia would mean a war of the USA against the SCO (Shangai Cooperation Organization). Those are BAD odds.

guest01 · 5 days ago

Quote from article: "America's deepening and reckless military involvement in Syria is a result of Trump cozying up with the Saudi despots."

America's deepening and reckless military involvement in Syria is a result of Trump obeying Israel's orders. America's military was recklessly involved in Syria long before Trump became president. The chaos in Syria was instigated by USA. US military trained, armed and supported terrorists, bombed Syrian military and civilians and established military base in Syria during Obama presidency.

Trump is "cozying up with the Saudi despots" because he got his orders from Netanyahu and Israelis. Before he began "cozying up with the Saudi despots", Trump ordered shooting missiles into Syrian military airport because his Zionist Jewish daughter and son-in-law told him to do so. If Netanyahu and/or his Zionist Jew son-in-law Jared Kushner were to order Trump to bomb Saudi Arabia, Trump would bomb Saudi Arabia.

All along, Trump was blaming Saudis for 9/11 inside job attacks and was threatening Saudis that they should be coming up with more money to USA just as he expected NATO members to pay for US wars costs. He was badmouthing Saudis until he got his orders from Netanyahu and Israel.

Saudis are puppets of USA; Saudis do exactly what USA wants them to do and USA does exactly what Israel wants it to do. Note that the Saudi demands against Qatar are to distance itself from all who resist Israel, namely, Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and Syria. Also, Israel was very pleased that Trump signed billions of dollars worth of weapons agreement with Saudi Arabia because these weapons will be used against Israel's perceived enemies and some will be given to terrorists Israel supports in that region.

Israel rules and Trump wants to make Israel great.

[Jun 26, 2017] The Middle East back in the 1950s under the Baathists was not infected with islamic fundamentalism. It took multi-year and multi-billion Us efforts to propel politicla islam to the level of ISIS

Looks like the USA played Islam in best British "divide and conquer" traditions.
Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

kirill , June 23, 2017 at 2:12 pm

The Middle East back in the 1950s under the Baathists.

<video>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TN9_qmOekI

Compare to today under head chopping Wahabbi scum. Thanks America...

Cortes , June 23, 2017 at 4:54 pm
Truly depressing, Kirill.

I'd seen that before but thanks for re-posting.

The effort to produce the current clusterfuck has had a decades-long gestation. If one accepts that premise then the argument put forward by The Saker, for example, regarding the short term focus of western MSM in service of the long term goals of the elite becomes more comprehensible. No reason to consider thinking people in "the West " as somehow less savvy than the elites of the RF or the PRC. Short term focus is merely throwing coloured paper into the air for the distraction of the masses.

The western long term strategy has been sussed, I think.

Jen , June 24, 2017 at 5:31 am
Actually that's Egyptian President Gamal Nasser. Egypt didn't officially adopt Ba'athism as a political philosophy though I can imagine Nasser and other Egyptian politicians of his time may have been sympathetic towards it or parts of it. It was Arab nationalist and secular in character and preached religious tolerance. Ba'athism was mainly important in Syria and Iraq in the 1950s and 1960s. Of course what confuses the issue of Ba'athism is that there was a time when Egypt and Syria agreed to form a short-lived union called the United Arab Republic.
yalensis , June 24, 2017 at 10:23 am
The trend was clear, though. All the big, important Arab nations were evolving towards being modern, more secular states.
The Soviet Union was also a player at that time, supporting secular, moderate Arab nationalism.

Then the trend turned backwards toward medievalism. I believe the turning point was in the mid-1970's. A Combination of Israeli triumphalism and the U.S. (under Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski) placing their stake on Saudi Wahhabism, to counter Soviet influence.

Northern Star , June 24, 2017 at 12:14 pm
It's not only in the ME that a change has come:

Apparently in 1958 there was a high level of awareness of USA duplicity and deceit wrt the well being of the mostly impoverished masses of SA as opposed to the USA's hegemonic agenda that reflected its struggle against the 'evil commie aggressor' .at least in Venezuela

"Nixon and his wife, Patricia, had arrived in Venezuela in the course of their Latin American "goodwill tour." At the time, relations were strained between the Republican administration in Washington and Latin Americans on the left side of the political spectrum. They charged that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in focusing on cold war rivalries with the Soviet Union, had failed to address pressing economic needs in the Western Hemisphere while extending his backing to anti-communist dictatorial regimes."
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/vice-president-nixons-motorcade-attacked-in-venezuela-may-13-1958-106584 "

Good description of events:
https://carlosagaton.blogspot.com/2015/06/venezuela-en-1958-el-criminal-richard.html

Some of the footage is worth a look.but mostly jingoistic American propaganda :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Richard_Nixon%27s_motorcade#The_attack

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kc2ZdQLrSXg?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent


http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/vice-president-nixon-is-attacked

Northern Star , June 24, 2017 at 12:24 pm
In Dire Straits food and medicine shortages

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/venezuelans-suffer-deadly-scarcity-food-medicine/

Jen , June 24, 2017 at 2:56 pm
One other turning point could also have been when Egypt under Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal after British, French and Israeli attempts to seize it and use the invasion as cover to assassinate Nasser in 1956.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis

Among other things the war that followed and Nasser's crackdown on civil liberties of the Egyptian Jewish community led to thousands of those people fleeing to Israel (and perhaps giving Israel fuel for planning future attacks on the Sinai peninsula).

Another turning point was in 1973 when Arab countries imposed an oil embargo and raised oil prices after the US supported Israel in the Yom Kippur war. This was in the wake of the collapse of the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement in 1971 when the US went off the gold standard (due in part to US spending on the Vietnam War). The depreciation of the US dollar (with the price of oil tied to that) Also meant that for Middle Eastern oil producers, imports (especially food imports) became more expensive and raising the price of oil was one way of dealing with the increase in the price of grain and other global food staples.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis

kirill , June 24, 2017 at 10:24 am
Thanks for the correction. I recall that Iran was also secular and democratic (not Baathist) until Americans foisted regime change on it in 1953. America has been subverting independent democracies around the world for decades. They do this while screaming about spreading democracy. The de facto one-party state USA has a perverted idea of democracy.

[Jun 26, 2017] WaPos big scoop on alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, brought to you with the help of everyones favorite Anonymous Sources

Notable quotes:
"... My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant to be. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
J.T. , June 25, 2017 at 6:18 am
WaPo's "big scoop" on alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, brought to you with the help of everyone's favorite Anonymous Sources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/national-security/obama-putin-election-hacking/?hpid=hp_hp-banner-high_russiaobama-banner-7a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl&utm_term=.fe1f6735d9f3
yalensis , June 25, 2017 at 8:30 am
My favorite comment from a poster called "Libertarian39" dated 6/23 7:45 AM: "Obama was just feckless. And it infected his entire administration." There is a certain poetry and alliteration there, plus it's just funny, although I don't know if it was meant to be.

[Jun 26, 2017] Intelligence agency officials play big politics

Another Mayberry Machiavelli from intelligence community
Notable quotes:
"... "In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said." ..."
"... Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs" ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star , June 21, 2017 at 1:16 pm
Appears to be a moron:
"Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson from the Obama administration told the House Intelligence committee that Moscow's high-tech intrusion did not change ballots, the final count or the reporting of election results.

Johnson described the steps he took once he learned of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, his fears about an attack on the election itself and his rationale for designating U.S. election systems, including polling places and voter registration databases, as critical infrastructure in early January, two weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration.

"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-obama-homeland-security-chief-face-intelligence-panel-074831923–politics.html

Nope !! .IS a moron:

"In January 2011, Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, despite King's outspoken opposition to American interventionism during his lifetime.[28] Johnson argued that American soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq were playing the role of the Good Samaritan, consistent with King's beliefs, and that they were fighting to establish the peace for which King hoped.[29][30] Jeremy Scahill of Salon.com called Johnson's remarks "one of the most despicable attempts at revisionist use of Martin Luther King Jr. I've ever seen," while Justin Elliott (also of Salon.com) argued that based on Dr. King's opposition to the Vietnam War, he would likely have opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the covert wars in Pakistan and Yemen."

yalensis , June 21, 2017 at 3:17 pm
"Johnson provoked controversy when, according to a Department of Defense news story, he asserted in a speech at the Pentagon that deceased civil rights icon Martin Luther King, Jr., would have supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq "

He lies! My what-if machine (what I have in my basement) tells me that Dr. King would have opposed, in the most militant manner possible, the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars!

Jen , June 21, 2017 at 9:25 pm
You didn't have to consult the alternative-worlds TARDIS machine database to find out that Dr King would have opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: here's the speech he made opposing the war in Vietnam which may have made him a target for assassination.

http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_beyond_vietnam/

yalensis , June 22, 2017 at 5:33 pm
I rest my case!

https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204

marknesop , June 21, 2017 at 7:40 pm
"In 2016 the Russian government, at the direction of (President) Vladimir Putin himself, orchestrated cyberattacks on our nation for the purpose of influencing our election - plain and simple," Johnson said."

He's half-right – the idea certainly is simple. Just like him.

Modern-day political figures seem more and more like some of the characters on "WKRP In Cincinnati"; people who, as the receptionist explained "would otherwise not be able to get jobs".

[Jun 26, 2017] Times never has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

Northern Star , June 20, 2017 at 10:14 am

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/20/pers-j20.html

"As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies. This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades, seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly on its editorial pages and foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable of CIA flacks such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.

The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.

The Times, channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful factions of the ruling class want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the 2014 campaign to bring down the elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime."

FYI:

[Jun 26, 2017] Trump-Russia collusion fades from the media headlines

Jun 26, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

et Al ,

June 25, 2017 at 1:10 pm
Washington Examiner: Trump-Russia collusion fades from the media headlines
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-russia-collusion-fades-from-the-media-headlines/article/2626994

David Brooks, another columnist for the Times who spends his days Googling mental disorders to diagnose Trump with, admitted this week that it's "striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred - that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians."

Axios journalist Mike Allen writes a daily newsletter widely read in Washington and on Friday he wrote that "No evidence of collusion has emerged," which several leading Democrats have also publicly stated .

That comment came after Comey said that an entire New York Times report alleging "repeated contacts" between Trump and his associates with "senior Russian intelligence officials" was false.

"In the main, it was not true," Comey said of the Times report .

Liberal MSNBC host Chris Matthews said the theory held by Trump's opponents that his campaign colluded with Russia "came apart" with Comey's testimony
####

This is just the latest evolution of the Russia wot did it meme . Evidence that Trump is Putin's puppet/blackmail etc. has run out of steam (and is now admitted) but the Russia angle is just too good to let go.

marknesop , June 25, 2017 at 1:38 pm
And so they just amp it up a couple of more notches, which is what you do when you have no evidence. Oh, everywhere except in court, of course. Maybe that's the next step for Russia – take the west to court for defamation. At least Washington would have to admit it doesn't have any proof, and that its supposed tracings of Russian links to hackings could very possibly have originated elsewhere. Not least of all, Russia would be able to introduce the angle that Hillary's server was wide-open; a child could have hacked it, and the email disclosures all reported true information. How it looked on Clinton is not Russia's problem, and if Americans and westerners in general prefer being lied to as long as they like what they hear, maybe it's time to get that on the table.

[Jun 26, 2017] After the collapse of the USSR neoliberal vultures instantly circled the corpse and have had a feast. Geopolitical goals of the USA played important role in amplifying the scope of plunder of Russia

Notable quotes:
"... The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est. ..."
"... In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

anne -> anne... , June 25, 2017 at 04:31 PM

1994

China's experience does not show that gradual reform is superior to the shock therapy undertaken in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union....

-- Jeffrey Sachs and Wing Thye Woo

[ Of course, China's experience had already showed and continues all these years after just the opposite. This is very, very important. ]

libezkova -> anne... , June 26, 2017 at 08:09 AM
Your discussion just again had shown that there is no economics, only a political economy.

And all those neoliberal perversions, which are sold as an economic science is just an apologetics for the financial oligarchy.

Apologetics of plunder in this particular case.

In a way the USSR with its discredited communist ideology, degenerated Bolshevik leadership (just look at who was at the Politburo of CPSU at the time; people much lower in abilities then Trump :-) and inept and politically naïve Mikhail Gorbachev at the helm had chosen the most inopportune time to collapse :-)

And neoliberal vultures instantly circled the corpse and have had a feast. Geopolitical goals of the USA also played important role in amplifying the scope of plunder.

No comparison of performance of Russia vs. China makes any sense if it ignores this fact.

Paine -> anne... , June 25, 2017 at 06:30 PM
Lesson for the week

Deng ?
yes

Sachs ?
Nyet

anne -> Paine ... , June 25, 2017 at 07:11 PM
While I would argue with the economic advice given the Russian government after 1988, I am simply trying to understand the reasoning behind the advice, no more than that.
libezkova -> anne... , June 26, 2017 at 08:15 AM
The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est.

In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches.

History repeats "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."

[Jun 26, 2017] After 1991 Eastern Europe and FSU were mercilessly looted. That was tremendous one time transfer of capital (and scientists and engineers) to Western Europe and the USA. Which helped to secure Clinton prosperity period

Notable quotes:
"... If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay." ..."
"... Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. ..."
"... These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors. ..."
"... Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities. ..."
"... On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos. ..."
"... Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources. ..."
"... The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country. ..."
"... Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution. ..."
"... By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson. ..."
"... The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices." ..."
"... As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings. ..."
"... What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens. ..."
"... In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998. ..."
"... And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . . ..."
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
Jun 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

libezkova -> anne..., June 25, 2017 at 06:47 PM

After 1991 Eastern Europe and FSU were mercilessly looted. That was tremendous one time transfer of capital (and scientists and engineers) to Western Europe and the USA. Which helped to secure "Clinton prosperity period"

China were not plundered by the West. Russia and Eastern Europe were. That's the key difference.

For Russia this period was called by Anne Williamson in her testimony before the Committee on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives "The economic rape of Russia"

http://thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Economics&Finance/+Doc-Economics&Finance-GovernmentInfluence&Meddling/BankstersInRussiaAndGlobalEconomy.htm

Paul Likoudis has an interesting analysis of this event: https://paullikoudis.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/the-plunder-of-russia-in-the-1990s/

Sorry long quote

How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia by Paul Likoudis

May 4, 2000

The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy" capitalism, who participated in the looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much as the Russians did two decades ago. Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:

===

How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia

by Paul Likoudis

In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.

If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay."

Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Contagion can be read on many different levels.

At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian history from the last months of Gorbachev's rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided a modest standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist theoreticians from the West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500% inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the ownership of Russian industry to Western financiers.

Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where she reported on all things Russian for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just about everybody involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new "gangster" capitalists and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds of sources who spoke candidly, often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.

Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton, all down through the ranks of the two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some of the principal characters, of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford, Strobe Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam together in 1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S. war in Vietnam in Moscow. See especially footnote 1, page 210.)

The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report on what happened to Russia; left unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen here" better realize it can happen here.

Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin as a "democrat," the wholesale looting of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry; and what better way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation descendants of the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned industries - including the giant gas, oil, electrical, and telecommunications industries, the world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver, diamond, and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their shares of the properties to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control of the companies.

These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors.

When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national patrimony by these new gangsters early in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.

Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.

In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious metals.

This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down of American industries and mines. As Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of "closet."

What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when Western banks and corporations bought these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial production included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc., and the whole kit-and-caboodle was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.

Another Level

On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos.

Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.

Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic field of economics is not some esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von Mises, Roepke and the late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound economic principles and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.

Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the other international "lending" agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks run by the Houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.

The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country.

Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party. There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and free drinks, "who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club admitted only late in the evening."

The Third Level

At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.

Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution.

Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial houses, and his New York breakfast meeting with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.

Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of hobbling Russia.

By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.

"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving ways, her bottomless corruption and constant chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott ('Pro-Consul Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same Al Gore who'd been so quick to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit' scrawled across it - took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic house in order and cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."

The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."

As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.

What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens.

Double Effect

In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.

"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking committee hearing, the Treasury secretary should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at Treasury who was once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee on Financial Markets [a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and the Commodities & Trading Commission]. . . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it gross incompetence?

"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth of any alleged 'national security' issues that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should be their brief to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders] Aslund/Carnegie crowd and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition. On what basis did Team Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg (a man nearly as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment fund. . . .

And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . .

"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the billions lent to Yeltsin's government; it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking Committee hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation that will effectively end U.S. citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity the Russian dirty money scandal presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks with monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans engage. This data is collected and used by various government agencies, including the IRS; meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter' home, the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax obligation in that year of the sale. . . . Other data on citizens for which the government has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force, the banks. . . ."

You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared.

[Jun 26, 2017] A Combination of Historical Ignorance and Disastrous Blundering by Richard Beck

Notable quotes:
"... Trump's decision highlights a destructive and complicating feature of American foreign policy, which is the unspoken but ironclad prohibition against admitting military defeat. It's not only diplomats and congressmen who are bound by this prohibition. Growing up, I was taught in (a very good) public school that America had never lost a war, and that the only war it hadn't won outright, Vietnam, had been fought to a tragic stalemate. ..."
"... As for the Taliban and al Qaeda, both are active and thriving, a situation made worse by the fact that the country's elected government is riven with internal conflict and failing to carry out promised reforms that would shore up the country's political stability. Sixteen years on, America has accomplished none of its stated goals in Afghanistan. ..."
"... The reasons for this monumental failure are not mysterious -- they were elegantly and convincingly described in Anand Gopal's 2014 book No Good Men Among the Living. Gopal focuses not on America's successful initial effort to expel al Qaeda from Afghanistan (it was a rout), nor on its destruction of the Taliban (complete by 2002), nor even on its failure to track down Osama bin Laden (which was not of much consequence to the larger war), but on what happened afterward. ..."
"... Worse than this basic political misreading, however, was America's failure to account for the way its military presence in Afghanistan would distort the country's politics. That the appearance of the mightiest army in world history in an economically undeveloped country-one organized to a large extent around tribal allegiances-would have a seismic effect on that country's politics should not have been any kind of a surprise. ..."
"... Yet the US military was blindsided again and again by the effects of its own presence. Gopal details how in the wake of the Taliban's disappearance, anti-Taliban warlords exploited the US military's mandate to keep finding and killing terrorists even if there weren't any left to kill. ..."
"... Of course, these weren't actual terrorists -- those had already fled across the border into Pakistan or simply gone home. The people Sherzai directed the military to target were simply Sherzai's enemies. American soldiers were turned into excessively well-armed death squads and unwittingly thrust into local political disputes, with the obvious destabilizing effects down the road. ..."
"... The US army also, through a combination of historical ignorance and disastrous blundering, failed to populate Afghanistan's post-invasion government with the people who could have given it a chance at real stability. ..."
Jun 26, 2017 | nplusonemag.com

Donald Trump's administration is now engulfed by so many self-inflicted scandals, which arise on such a regular basis, that it's hard to imagine the President has any time left for governing. Nevertheless, as commander-in-chief Trump remains the leader of a military force that operates in more than a hundred countries around the globe, forcing him to act with some frequency in matters of life and death for millions of people, nearly all of them non-Americans. Since May, the military officers who serve Trump have been clamoring for an injection of new troops into Afghanistan, and last week the Pentagon announced that Trump's generals would get what they want. America has been at war in Afghanistan for nearly seventeen years (three years longer than the Vietnam War, hitherto the country's longest foreign war). The goal of this new "surge" is to address the unstable and deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, the same situation that prompted Obama to send 30,000 additional troops to that country in 2009. That the problem persists eight years down the line should tell you something about how Obama's surge went, but military advisors understandably tend to propose military solutions to the problems they confront.

Trump's decision highlights a destructive and complicating feature of American foreign policy, which is the unspoken but ironclad prohibition against admitting military defeat. It's not only diplomats and congressmen who are bound by this prohibition. Growing up, I was taught in (a very good) public school that America had never lost a war, and that the only war it hadn't won outright, Vietnam, had been fought to a tragic stalemate.

The truth, of course, is that America's defeat in Vietnam was total. The US entered the country with the goal of preventing it from unifying under a communist government; when it left the country a decade and a half later, Vietnam unified under a communist government. It doesn't get much clearer than that. But from the moment the inevitability of that defeat became obvious to Washington, the Nixon administration did everything possible to avoid calling defeat by its name, opting instead for the euphemistic phrase "peace with honor" in the 1973 speech in which Nixon announced the final withdrawal of US forces from the country.

Not much has changed over the last four decades, and while it is easy to be profligate in drawing parallels between Vietnam and the war on terror, here's one parallel it would be reckless to ignore: as in Vietnam, one of the main reasons for the duration of the war in Afghanistan is America's refusal to acknowledge that it has lost. In 2007, George W. Bush addressed the American Enterprise Institute and stated the goals of the war in Afghanistan: "to help its people defeat the terrorists" -- he meant the Taliban as well as al Qaeda-"and establish a stable, moderate, and democratic state that respects the rights of its citizens, governs its territory effectively, and is a reliable ally in this war against extremists and terrorists."

Four years later, announcing a drawdown of US troops that would conclude in 2014, Barack Obama claimed that many of these goals had been achieved or were on their way to completion, but he acknowledged one outstanding task. "The goal that we seek is achievable," he said, "and can be expressed simply: no safe haven from which al Qaeda or its affiliates can launch attacks against our homeland, our allies." Today, Afghanistan is neither stable nor moderate, and the mutual allegations of fraud that surrounded its disputed 2014 election call into question whether it is democratic. As for the Taliban and al Qaeda, both are active and thriving, a situation made worse by the fact that the country's elected government is riven with internal conflict and failing to carry out promised reforms that would shore up the country's political stability. Sixteen years on, America has accomplished none of its stated goals in Afghanistan.

The reasons for this monumental failure are not mysterious -- they were elegantly and convincingly described in Anand Gopal's 2014 book No Good Men Among the Living. Gopal focuses not on America's successful initial effort to expel al Qaeda from Afghanistan (it was a rout), nor on its destruction of the Taliban (complete by 2002), nor even on its failure to track down Osama bin Laden (which was not of much consequence to the larger war), but on what happened afterward.

Unlike the Communist Party in Vietnam forty years earlier, the Taliban was not an organization that enjoyed anything like a stable base of social or political legitimacy. It was instead made up of fanatical thugs who destroyed public life as such in Afghanistan. These thugs recognized the hopelessness of opposing the US military, and so in 2001 and 2002, they simply laid down their weapons, disbanded, and returned to their homes. Most Afghans were happy to see them go. (One of the best things about Gopal's book is that it tells the story from the perspective of the Afghans; aside from his own, American voices are largely absent from the narrative.)

Afghanistan now had a real opportunity to reorganize its system of government, but that opportunity could only succeed if the US was sufficiently careful and perceptive to respect and work with the country's underlying political complexities. It wasn't. To take just one example, the US has repeatedly made the mistake of treating the Taliban as an outside agitator in Afghan political life, citing the fact that many of its key members were educated at extremist madrassas in Pakistan. While this is true, the boys who were educated there were hardly foreigners. They were simply Afghans who had no domestic prospects for education whatsoever, as the country's civil war of 1992–1996 had resulted in the destruction of many Afghan schools. Those who returned from Pakistan and went on to make up the Taliban may have been radicalized abroad, but they were very much native sons. By failing to treat the Taliban as a homegrown political phenomenon, and by assuming that military force alone would be enough to drive it out, the US ensured that the Taliban would be able to regroup again and again.

Worse than this basic political misreading, however, was America's failure to account for the way its military presence in Afghanistan would distort the country's politics. That the appearance of the mightiest army in world history in an economically undeveloped country-one organized to a large extent around tribal allegiances-would have a seismic effect on that country's politics should not have been any kind of a surprise.

Yet the US military was blindsided again and again by the effects of its own presence. Gopal details how in the wake of the Taliban's disappearance, anti-Taliban warlords exploited the US military's mandate to keep finding and killing terrorists even if there weren't any left to kill. One of these warlords, a man named Gul Agha Sherzai, made himself wealthy by funneling supplies to the Americans and renting them land on which to build military bases.

Having embedded US military infrastructure in his territory, Sherzai put it to work. For months, his network of operatives fed the Americans intelligence on the identities and whereabouts of terrorists. Of course, these weren't actual terrorists -- those had already fled across the border into Pakistan or simply gone home. The people Sherzai directed the military to target were simply Sherzai's enemies. American soldiers were turned into excessively well-armed death squads and unwittingly thrust into local political disputes, with the obvious destabilizing effects down the road.

The US army also, through a combination of historical ignorance and disastrous blundering, failed to populate Afghanistan's post-invasion government with the people who could have given it a chance at real stability. The US pretended as though the Afghan civil war had never occurred, and allowed mujahedeen and warlords who had terrorized the country throughout the 1990s to assume positions of political power, which did not endear Afghans to their new rulers. Meanwhile blindly targeted raids often eliminated key American allies. Gopal describes one instance in damning detail, a January 2002 raid carried out by the US in Uruzgan, a province north of Kandahar, that killed "twenty-one pro-American leaders and their employees . . . the core of any future anti-Taliban leadership-stalwarts who had outlasted the Russian invasion, the civil war, and the Taliban years but would not survive their own allies." It was as if, "in a single night, masked gunman [in an American city] had wiped out the entire city council, mayor's office, and police department."

This manner of governance continued for years, and slowly the Afghan political system reorganized itself not around the needs of the Afghan people but around the distorting gravitational pull of the US military. Proximity to international aid became the key determinant of economic influence and power. Serving up enemies to American forces became the surest way to guarantee yourself a seat at the table. At no point did the US focus primarily on encouraging the development of a state that would be able to survive on its own, without enormous quantities of military and economic support from the US. And so the Taliban's insurgency thrives today, with the group controlling outright or at least seriously contesting 253 of the country's 400 districts (those numbers were reported in March by the Taliban itself, but they were described as a "conservative estimate" by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Long War Journal ). The Islamic State (IS) is now active in Afghanistan as well.

So, on the one hand, the US has a sixteen-year legacy of upending Afghan society in many different ways through the use of military force. But on the other hand, the prospect of the US leaving Afghanistan entirely does not engender the kind of wary optimism that would have been justified when the US pulled its last soldiers out of Saigon in March 1975. In that case, it was obvious the country would unify under the communist government that should have been ruling the country for years. Afghanistan has no similarly obvious organization or party ready to take the reins and usher in stability. What it has instead is a slightly more autonomous-than-usual puppet government that cannot survive on its own, plus a rebellion of authoritarian theocrats who control more than a third of the country. Forget nation-building and political miscalculations for a minute. What Afghanistan needs now, immediately, is to be protected from the terrorist groups that are running amok inside its borders. Why not just send a few thousand more troops?

There are a few problems with that line of argument. First, it sidesteps the fact that military occupations have negative consequences by definition. Whatever good an occupying army does, it also kills people, and you can't regularly kill people in a foreign country without at least semi-regularly killing the wrong people. Those killings will make people angry and scared, and they will destabilize the social and political bonds that tie a place together. That fact raises the second problem with continuing the military occupation, which is that the only way to counteract those inevitable negative consequences is to be simultaneously implementing a plan for political reconciliation and reconstruction, hoping as you go along that the positive consequences of that plan will manage to outpace the negative consequences of the occupation. Trump doesn't have such a plan. Neither did Obama, and neither did Bush. The previous two Presidents both tacitly accepted the fracturing and destabilizing of Afghanistan as a price worth paying to deny al Qaeda a base of operations, and Trump's decision to send more troops shows that he has reached the same conclusion. Our continued military presence in Afghanistan will certainly be able to disrupt the Taliban, al Qaeda, IS, and whatever new groups rise out of their ashes, but it will also entail the continued destruction of Afghan society.

The US may have had a chance to oust the Taliban and supervise the emergence of a stable democracy in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002-albeit a very, very slim one-but it blew that chance, and the US now has no prospects for improving the stability of Afghan politics through military force. It was US military aid that supported the mujahedeen in their fight against the Soviets in the first place, which led directly to the Taliban's taking power and sheltering al Qaeda. It was the invasion of Iraq that helped to birth IS, and it was the toppling of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya that turned that country into North Africa's preeminent terrorist haven. Whatever group succeeds IS as the West's terrorist bogeyman, you can bet it will have come to prominence by seizing opportunities presented to it by the US military. While the US should do all it can via diplomacy and economic assistance to promote stable government in Afghanistan, that requires a President with the capacity for thinking in diplomatic terms, a luxury we do not presently enjoy. In the absence of that luxury, the US should at the very least, finally, withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan.

Here is a good indicator of just how dire the state of America's foreign policy decision making has become: at the moment, the best prospect we have for any kind of military drawdown in the Middle East would be for Trump to belatedly act on the isolationist beliefs he expressed throughout his campaign, to choose crude, reflexive isolationism over his generals' deluded insistence that additional military force can now accomplish what it has failed to accomplish over the last fifteen years. The best we can do, in other words, is place our hopes in Steve Bannon.

If you like this article, please subscribe to n+1.

[Jun 25, 2017] The 6-year-long US intervention in Syria failed to achieve its goals, while causing death of thousand of civilians

Notable quotes:
"... Once they create a supply line Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, and if they can hold it, that's the game-over, the 6-year-long US intervention in Syria will have lost. ..."
www.moonofalabama.org

Mao Cheng Ji June 16, 2017 at 1:40 pm

Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

as for Syria, I think I saw in the news a few days ago that SAA has reached the Iranian border.

It probably doesn't constitute a supply line yet, but that's a huge advance.

Once they create a supply line Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon, and if they can hold it, that's the game-over, the 6-year-long US intervention in Syria will have lost.

[Jun 25, 2017] Putin is probably lied that Donbass is internal Ukranian problem

Notable quotes:
"... Everybody knows and particularly Putin must have known that that war is not a civil internal war. It is an irredentist war. ..."
"... The people in Donbas (or broader in South-East Ukraine) do not seem to want to overthrow Kiev and install some more "honest" regime. All they have ever wanted is to join to Russia or at least to be independent from Kiev and left alone. ..."
"... This is not a classical civil war like in Spain, Libya, Syria, etc., where the anti-government forces want to control the entire country. I'm 100% sure the Donbas people do not care what may happen to West Ukraine or in Lviv. ..."
"... Frankly speaking he [ Yanukovych] was (is) actually a soft-line Ukrainian nationalist who was friendly with Russia as long as it helped Ukraine. ..."
"... Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the eighties as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired against the righteous from every dark corner in those days. ..."
"... Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No matter what Iran does, including signing the nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling the levers in Washington) will seek to raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will stab its friends in the back (e.g., Mubarak). ..."
marknesop.wordpress.com

Boris N June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT

Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

@Felix Keverich Anatoly,

Concerning Putin's comments on Ukraine, the impression I got is that this entire moment was staged. The man from Kiev who asked question had a Russian accent, and in his reply Putin simply repeated the official Kremlin narrative: war in Donbass is an internal conflict of the Ukraine.

Needless to say I don't think Putin was sincere in all of his answers. These "phone-ins" serve to convey a certain message to the Russian public, and the message Putin wanted to convey was that of compassion, competence, stability and peace.

in his reply Putin simply repeated the official Kremlin narrative: war in Donbass is an internal conflict of the Ukraine.

Everybody knows and particularly Putin must have known that that war is not a civil internal war. It is an irredentist war.

The people in Donbas (or broader in South-East Ukraine) do not seem to want to overthrow Kiev and install some more "honest" regime. All they have ever wanted is to join to Russia or at least to be independent from Kiev and left alone.

This is not a classical civil war like in Spain, Libya, Syria, etc., where the anti-government forces want to control the entire country. I'm 100% sure the Donbas people do not care what may happen to West Ukraine or in Lviv.

Boris N Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 12:18 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig

... intervening in Ukraine before Yanukovych was overthrown ...
What are you talking about? Crimea? The Russians did not intervene until after Yanukovich was overthrown.

The Russians did not intervene until after Yanukovich was overthrown.

Frankly speaking he [ Yanukovych] was (is) actually a soft-line Ukrainian nationalist who was friendly with Russia as long as it helped Ukraine.

So it is a good thing he has been kicked off and Russia shouldn't have intervened, otherwise Russia hasn't got the Crimea, for example. But Russia should not have stopped there and should have intervened thereafter. But after having allowed to overthrow a soft-line nationalist, Putin and Co., instead of creating a really pro-Russian Ukraine, have allowed the hard-line nationalists to come to power. This obviously will remain one of the biggest fails in Russian history.

Lemurmaniac Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 12:41 pm GMT

@Seamus Padraig I agree with you.

I think Karlin is being way too negative on the SAA and on Russia's involvement in Syria.

I think he resents the fact that Putin is doing more to help Syria than Ukraine, and unfortunately, he's allowed his resentment to color his analysis.

To be sure, I think I can understand how Russian nationalists like Anatoly must feel about the situation. If I were a Russian nationalist, I would probably hold this against Putin too ('Putinsliv!').

But I'm not a Russian, so I have the luxury of being more objective about the situation. For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No matter what Iran does, including signing the nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling the levers in Washington) will seek to raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will stab its friends in the back (e.g., Mubarak).

Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the eighties as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired against the righteous from every dark corner in those days.

IMO, the reason Assad is receiving more decisive support is because the Kremlin believes its a lot harder for America to 'push back' in Syria. Conversely,a full spectrum Russian move against Ukraine would elicit consequences Russia is not willing to risk under the Putin Mindframe . (for instance, increased sanctions would mean Russia would be forced to adopt heterodox economics systematically).

Karlin has made a case why Russia should do more, but on the other hand Putin may know things he doesn't.

Andrei Martyanov Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT

@Lemurmaniac For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev.

Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.' Well, our elites are incapable of that sort of realism. The only partners they accept are ideologically colonized ones. The Russian elite should view the case of Iran as germane. No matter what Iran does, including signing the nuke deal, America (and the Zionist homunculus pulling the levers in Washington) will seek to raise their independence to the ground. Hell, America will stab its friends in the back (e.g., Mubarak).

Irrational fanaticism is a hallmark of decaying regimes. Consider the 'Satanic panic' in the eighties as the evangelicals enjoyed their last hurrah at the cultural helm. Demons conspired against the righteous from every dark corner in those days.

IMO, the reason Assad is receiving more decisive support is because the Kremlin believes its a lot harder for America to 'push back' in Syria. Conversely,a full spectrum Russian move against Ukraine would elicit consequences Russia is not willing to risk under the Putin Mindframe . (for instance, increased sanctions would mean Russia would be forced to adopt heterodox economics systematically). Karlin has made a case why Russia should do more, but on the other hand Putin may know things he doesn't.

For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.'

Putin "clings" to hope, a justifiable one, that EU, especially Germany, will put Ukraine on its books. As per "stronger line", I guess the fact that Ukrainian Armed Forces still, after two years of famous cauldrons, didn't try to mount any serious operation in Donbass should be viewed as an indication of the "much stronger line". But ignoring the whole dynamics of events in Ukraine from early 2014 has become a MO for many. People still don't get it or simply ignore (very often deliberately) the fact that Russia, from the onset, needed Crimea only–she got it. The rest was a situationally-driven, mostly reactive, approach, which, as it became very clear after 3.5 years, was largely correct. Even such evident fact of a massive (and very expensive) construction of Crimean Bridge testifies to the fact that nobody had any serious hopes for the rest of Eastern Ukraine rising up and doing anything–a correct strategic assumption.

Lemurmaniac Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 1:34 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov

For the record, I think Russia should take a much stronger line with Kiev. Putin clings to the hope he can work out some sort of grand bargain with the West in which Russia becomes a respected 'partner.'
Putin "clings" to hope, a justifiable one, that EU, especially Germany, will put Ukraine on its books. As per "stronger line", I guess the fact that Ukrainian Armed Forces still, after two years of famous cauldrons, didn't try to mount any serious operation in Donbass should be viewed as an indication of the "much stronger line". But ignoring the whole dynamics of events in Ukraine from early 2014 has become a MO for many. People still don't get it or simply ignore (very often deliberately) the fact that Russia, from the onset, needed Crimea only--she got it. The rest was a situationally-driven, mostly reactive, approach, which, as it became very clear after 3.5 years, was largely correct. Even such evident fact of a massive (and very expensive) construction of Crimean Bridge testifies to the fact that nobody had any serious hopes for the rest of Eastern Ukraine rising up and doing anything--a correct strategic assumption. There's no denying a 'northern wind' blew through the Donbass at the critical juncture, but it sought to 'stabilize' the situation rather than resolve it. From a nationalist perspective, hanging those people out to dry (refusing to recognize their sovereignty) is kind of a dick move. But Putin's super duper plan involves leaving those regions in the Ukraine to veto pro-Western moves by Kiev. Setting aside the moral issue of leaving the Eastern Ukrainians in a position of constant insecurity, it sounds good in theory. There is simply no way the West will let that stand, however. John McCain and co are not about to let Moscow back into Kiev. So, either the conflict will remain permanently frozen (with Russian leaning Ukrainians permanently alienated from Moscow and Kiev), or Kiev will kick out the Donbass and become a NATO state. Since it seems Putin's whole strategy in Ukraine is predicated on that happening, a much stronger line on whose orbit Ukraine, or at least the whole Eastern half of the country belongs to, was required from the beginning.

I don't see why it helps Russia if Germany is writing checks for Kiev. They'll certainly never write 'em for the east.

[Jun 25, 2017] The British Empire and their centuries old means of subverting nations

marknesop.wordpress.com
Warren , June 20, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Jun 20, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

https://www.youtube.com/embed/5RnmtzwIijg?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&autohide=2&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

Published on Jun 20, 2017

Lyndon LaRouche at his finest-the only statesman alive today who pulls no punches identifying the British Empire and their centuries old means of subverting nations. Here, an excerpt from a September 2009 webcast.

[Jun 25, 2017] Syria Trumps Red Line by Seymour M. Hersh

Notable quotes:
"... New York Times ..."
"... The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground. ..."
"... e reference, as those in the American intelligence community understood, and many of the inexperienced aides and family members close to Trump may not have, was to a Russian-supplied bomb with its built-in guidance system. "If you've already decided it was a gas attack, you will then inevitably read the talk about a special weapon as involving a sarin bomb," the adviser said. "Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: 'We have a problem and let's look into it.' He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria." ..."
"... There was irony in America's rush to blame Syria and criticize Russia for its support of Syria's denial of any use of gas in Khan Sheikhoun, as Ambassador Haley and others in Washington did. "What doesn't occur to most Americans" the adviser said, "is if there had been a Syrian nerve gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia's strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would do that? When he's on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?" ..."
"... Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. "He did this before he talked to anybody about it. The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in order to bomb with it." "The answer was, 'We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,'" the adviser said. "The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat [the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive to commit political suicide." Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons depots. ..."
"... The national security advisers understood their dilemma: Trump wanted to respond to the affront to humanity committed by Syria and he did not want to be dissuaded. They were dealing with a man they considered to be not unkind and not stupid, but his limitations when it came to national security decisions were severe. "Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts," the adviser said. "He doesn't read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He's a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: 'Do it."' ..."
"... On April 6, Trump convened a meeting of national security officials at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. The meeting was not to decide what to do, but how best to do it – or, as some wanted, how to do the least and keep Trump happy. ..."
"... "It was a totally Trump show from beginning to end," the senior adviser said. "A few of the president's senior national security advisers viewed the mission as a minimized bad presidential decision, and one that they had an obligation to carry out. But I don't think our national security people are going to allow themselves to be hustled into a bad decision again. If Trump had gone for option three, there might have been some immediate resignations." ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... "The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy," the senior adviser to the U.S. intelligence community told me, referring to the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America. ..."
"... The White House did not answer specific questions about the bombing of Khan Sheikhoun and the airport of Shayrat. These questions were send via e-mail to the White House on June 15 and never answered. ..."
Jun 25, 2017 | www.welt.de
President Donald Trump ignored important intelligence reports when he decided to attack Syria after he saw pictures of dying children. Seymour M. Hersh investigated the case of the alleged Sarin gas attack.

O n April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.

The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives. Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.

Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump."

Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.

The provenance of the photos was not clear and no international observers have yet inspected the site, but the immediate popular assumption worldwide was that this was a deliberate use of the nerve agent sarin, authorized by President Bashar Assad of Syria. Trump endorsed that assumption by issuing a statement within hours of the attack, describing Assad's "heinous actions" as being a consequence of the Obama administration's "weakness and irresolution" in addressing what he said was Syria's past use of chemical weapons.

To the dismay of many senior members of his national security team, Trump could not be swayed over the next 48 hours of intense briefings and decision-making. In a series of interviews, I learned of the total disconnect between the president and many of his military advisers and intelligence officials, as well as officers on the ground in the region who had an entirely different understanding of the nature of Syria's attack on Khan Sheikhoun. I was provided with evidence of that disconnect, in the form of transcripts of real-time communications, immediately following the Syrian attack on April 4. In an important pre-strike process known as deconfliction, U.S. and Russian officers routinely supply one another with advance details of planned flight paths and target coordinates, to ensure that there is no risk of collision or accidental encounter (the Russians speak on behalf of the Syrian military). This information is supplied daily to the American AWACS surveillance planes that monitor the flights once airborne. Deconfliction's success and importance can be measured by the fact that there has yet to be one collision, or even a near miss, among the high-powered supersonic American, Allied, Russian and Syrian fighter bombers.

Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to and from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard the AWACS plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north.

The Syrian target at Khan Sheikhoun, as shared with the Americans at Doha, was depicted as a two-story cinder-block building in the northern part of town. Russian intelligence, which is shared when necessary with Syria and the U.S. as part of their joint fight against jihadist groups, had established that a high-level meeting of jihadist leaders was to take place in the building, including representatives of Ahrar al-Sham and the al-Qaida-affiliated group formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra. The two groups had recently joined forces, and controlled the town and surrounding area. Russian intelligence depicted the cinder-block building as a command and control center that housed a grocery and other commercial premises on its ground floor with other essential shops nearby, including a fabric shop and an electronics store.

"The rebels control the population by controlling the distribution of goods that people need to live – food, water, cooking oil, propane gas, fertilizers for growing their crops, and insecticides to protect the crops," a senior adviser to the American intelligence community, who has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency, told me. The basement was used as storage for rockets, weapons and ammunition, as well as products that could be distributed for free to the community, among them medicines and chlorine-based decontaminants for cleansing the bodies of the dead before burial. The meeting place – a regional headquarters – was on the floor above. "It was an established meeting place," the senior adviser said. "A long-time facility that would have had security, weapons, communications, files and a map center." The Russians were intent on confirming their intelligence and deployed a drone for days above the site to monitor communications and develop what is known in the intelligence community as a POL – a pattern of life. The goal was to take note of those going in and out of the building, and to track weapons being moved back and forth, including rockets and ammunition.

One reason for the Russian message to Washington about the intended target was to ensure that any CIA asset or informant who had managed to work his way into the jihadist leadership was forewarned not to attend the meeting. I was told that the Russians passed the warning directly to the CIA "They were playing the game right," the senior adviser said. The Russian guidance noted that the jihadist meeting was coming at a time of acute pressure for the insurgents: Presumably Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham were desperately seeking a path forward in the new political climate. In the last few days of March, Trump and two of his key national security aides – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley – had made statements acknowledging that, as the New York Times put it, the White House "has abandoned the goal" of pressuring Assad "to leave power, marking a sharp departure from the Middle East policy that guided the Obama administration for more than five years." White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told a press briefing on March 31 that "there is a political reality that we have to accept," implying that Assad was there to stay.

Russian and Syrian intelligence officials, who coordinate operations closely with the American command posts, made it clear that the planned strike on Khan Sheikhoun was special because of the high-value target. "It was a red-hot change. The mission was out of the ordinary – scrub the sked," the senior adviser told me. "Every operations officer in the region" – in the Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, CIA and NSA – "had to know there was something going on. The Russians gave the Syrian Air Force a guided bomb and that was a rarity. They're skimpy with their guided bombs and rarely share them with the Syrian Air Force. And the Syrians assigned their best pilot to the mission, with the best wingman." The advance intelligence on the target, as supplied by the Russians, was given the highest possible score inside the American community.

The Execute Order governing U.S. military operations in theater, which was issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provide instructions that demarcate the relationship between the American and Russian forces operating in Syria. "It's like an ops order – 'Here's what you are authorized to do,'" the adviser said. "We do not share operational control with the Russians. We don't do combined operations with them, or activities directly in support of one of their operations. But coordination is permitted. We keep each other apprised of what's happening and within this package is the mutual exchange of intelligence. If we get a hot tip that could help the Russians do their mission, that's coordination; and the Russians do the same for us. When we get a hot tip about a command and control facility," the adviser added, referring to the target in Khan Sheikhoun, "we do what we can to help them act on it." "This was not a chemical weapons strike," the adviser said. "That's a fairy tale. If so, everyone involved in transferring, loading and arming the weapon – you've got to make it appear like a regular 500-pound conventional bomb – would be wearing Hazmat protective clothing in case of a leak. There would be very little chance of survival without such gear. Military grade sarin includes additives designed to increase toxicity and lethality. Every batch that comes out is maximized for death. That is why it is made. It is odorless and invisible and death can come within a minute. No cloud. Why produce a weapon that people can run away from?"

The target was struck at 6:55 a.m. on April 4, just before midnight in Washington. A Bomb Damage Assessment (BDA) by the U.S. military later determined that the heat and force of the 500-pound Syrian bomb triggered a series of secondary explosions that could have generated a huge toxic cloud that began to spread over the town, formed by the release of the fertilizers, disinfectants and other goods stored in the basement, its effect magnified by the dense morning air, which trapped the fumes close to the ground.

According to intelligence estimates, the senior adviser said, the strike itself killed up to four jihadist leaders, and an unknown number of drivers and security aides. There is no confirmed count of the number of civilians killed by the poisonous gases that were released by the secondary explosions, although opposition activists reported that there were more than 80 dead, and outlets such as CNN have put the figure as high as 92.

A team from Médecins Sans Frontières, treating victims from Khan Sheikhoun at a clinic 60 miles to the north, reported that "eight patients showed symptoms – including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation – which are consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds." MSF also visited other hospitals that had received victims and found that patients there "smelled of bleach, suggesting that they had been exposed to chlorine."

In other words, evidence suggested that there was more than one chemical responsible for the symptoms observed, which would not have been the case if the Syrian Air Force – as opposition activists insisted – had dropped a sarin bomb, which has no percussive or ignition power to trigger secondary explosions. The range of symptoms is, however, consistent with the release of a mixture of chemicals, including chlorine and the organophosphates used in many fertilizers, which can cause neurotoxic effects similar to those of sarin.

The internet swung into action within hours, and gruesome photographs of the victims flooded television networks and YouTube. U.S. intelligence was tasked with establishing what had happened. Among the pieces of information received was an intercept of Syrian communications collected before the attack by an allied nation. The intercept, which had a particularly strong effect on some of Trump's aides, did not mention nerve gas or sarin, but it did quote a Syrian general discussing a "special" weapon and the need for a highly skilled pilot to man the attack plane. The reference, as those in the American intelligence community understood, and many of the inexperienced aides and family members close to Trump may not have, was to a Russian-supplied bomb with its built-in guidance system. "If you've already decided it was a gas attack, you will then inevitably read the talk about a special weapon as involving a sarin bomb," the adviser said. "Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: 'We have a problem and let's look into it.' He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria."

At the UN the next day, Ambassador Haley created a media sensation when she displayed photographs of the dead and accused Russia of being complicit. "How many more children have to die before Russia cares?" she asked. NBC News, in a typical report that day, quoted American officials as confirming that nerve gas had been used and Haley tied the attack directly to Syrian President Assad. "We know that yesterday's attack was a new low even for the barbaric Assad regime," she said. There was irony in America's rush to blame Syria and criticize Russia for its support of Syria's denial of any use of gas in Khan Sheikhoun, as Ambassador Haley and others in Washington did. "What doesn't occur to most Americans" the adviser said, "is if there had been a Syrian nerve gas attack authorized by Bashar, the Russians would be 10 times as upset as anyone in the West. Russia's strategy against ISIS, which involves getting American cooperation, would have been destroyed and Bashar would be responsible for pissing off Russia, with unknown consequences for him. Bashar would do that? When he's on the verge of winning the war? Are you kidding me?"

Trump, a constant watcher of television news, said, while King Abdullah of Jordan was sitting next to him in the Oval Office, that what had happened was "horrible, horrible" and a "terrible affront to humanity." Asked if his administration would change its policy toward the Assad government, he said: "You will see." He gave a hint of the response to come at the subsequent news conference with King Abdullah: "When you kill innocent children, innocent babies – babies, little babies – with a chemical gas that is so lethal ... that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line . ... That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact ... It's very, very possible ... that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."

Within hours of viewing the photos, the adviser said, Trump instructed the national defense apparatus to plan for retaliation against Syria. "He did this before he talked to anybody about it. The planners then asked the CIA and DIA if there was any evidence that Syria had sarin stored at a nearby airport or somewhere in the area. Their military had to have it somewhere in the area in order to bomb with it." "The answer was, 'We have no evidence that Syria had sarin or used it,'" the adviser said. "The CIA also told them that there was no residual delivery for sarin at Sheyrat [the airfield from which the Syrian SU-24 bombers had taken off on April 4] and Assad had no motive to commit political suicide." Everyone involved, except perhaps the president, also understood that a highly skilled United Nations team had spent more than a year in the aftermath of an alleged sarin attack in 2013 by Syria, removing what was said to be all chemical weapons from a dozen Syrian chemical weapons depots.

At this point, the adviser said, the president's national security planners were more than a little rattled: "No one knew the provenance of the photographs. We didn't know who the children were or how they got hurt. Sarin actually is very easy to detect because it penetrates paint, and all one would have to do is get a paint sample. We knew there was a cloud and we knew it hurt people. But you cannot jump from there to certainty that Assad had hidden sarin from the UN because he wanted to use it in Khan Sheikhoun." The intelligence made clear that a Syrian Air Force SU-24 fighter bomber had used a conventional weapon to hit its target: There had been no chemical warhead. And yet it was impossible for the experts to persuade the president of this once he had made up his mind. "The president saw the photographs of poisoned little girls and said it was an Assad atrocity," the senior adviser said. "It's typical of human nature. You jump to the conclusion you want. Intelligence analysts do not argue with a president. They're not going to tell the president, 'if you interpret the data this way, I quit.'"

The national security advisers understood their dilemma: Trump wanted to respond to the affront to humanity committed by Syria and he did not want to be dissuaded. They were dealing with a man they considered to be not unkind and not stupid, but his limitations when it came to national security decisions were severe. "Everyone close to him knows his proclivity for acting precipitously when he does not know the facts," the adviser said. "He doesn't read anything and has no real historical knowledge. He wants verbal briefings and photographs. He's a risk-taker. He can accept the consequences of a bad decision in the business world; he will just lose money. But in our world, lives will be lost and there will be long-term damage to our national security if he guesses wrong. He was told we did not have evidence of Syrian involvement and yet Trump says: 'Do it."'

On April 6, Trump convened a meeting of national security officials at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. The meeting was not to decide what to do, but how best to do it – or, as some wanted, how to do the least and keep Trump happy. "The boss knew before the meeting that they didn't have the intelligence, but that was not the issue," the adviser said. "The meeting was about, 'Here's what I'm going to do,' and then he gets the options."

The available intelligence was not relevant. The most experienced man at the table was Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general who had the president's respect and understood, perhaps, how quickly that could evaporate. Mike Pompeo, the CIA director whose agency had consistently reported that it had no evidence of a Syrian chemical bomb, was not present. Secretary of State Tillerson was admired on the inside for his willingness to work long hours and his avid reading of diplomatic cables and reports, but he knew little about waging war and the management of a bombing raid. Those present were in a bind, the adviser said. "The president was emotionally energized by the disaster and he wanted options." He got four of them, in order of extremity.

  1. Option one was to do nothing. All involved, the adviser said, understood that was a non-starter.
  2. Option two was a slap on the wrist: to bomb an airfield in Syria, but only after alerting the Russians and, through them, the Syrians, to avoid too many casualties. A few of the planners called this the "gorilla option": America would glower and beat its chest to provoke fear and demonstrate resolve, but cause little significant damage.
  3. The third option was to adopt the strike package that had been presented to Obama in 2013, and which he ultimately chose not to pursue. The plan called for the massive bombing of the main Syrian airfields and command and control centers using B1 and B52 aircraft launched from their bases in the U.S.
  4. Option four was "decapitation": to remove Assad by bombing his palace in Damascus, as well as his command and control network and all of the underground bunkers he could possibly retreat to in a crisis.

"Trump ruled out option one off the bat," the senior adviser said, and the assassination of Assad was never considered. "But he said, in essence: 'You're the military and I want military action.'" The president was also initially opposed to the idea of giving the Russians advance warning before the strike, but reluctantly accepted it. "We gave him the Goldilocks option – not too hot, not too cold, but just right." The discussion had its bizarre moments. Tillerson wondered at the Mar-a-Lago meeting why the president could not simply call in the B52 bombers and pulverize the air base. He was told that B52s were very vulnerable to surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) in the area and using such planes would require suppression fire that could kill some Russian defenders. "What is that?" Tillerson asked. Well, sir, he was told, that means we would have to destroy the upgraded SAM sites along the B52 flight path, and those are manned by Russians, and we possibly would be confronted with a much more difficult situation. "The lesson here was: Thank God for the military men at the meeting," the adviser said. "They did the best they could when confronted with a decision that had already been made."

Fifty-nine Tomahawk missiles were fired from two U.S. Navy destroyers on duty in the Mediterranean, the Ross and the Porter , at Shayrat Air Base near the government-controlled city of Homs. The strike was as successful as hoped, in terms of doing minimal damage. The missiles have a light payload – roughly 220 pounds of HBX, the military's modern version of TNT. The airfield's gasoline storage tanks, a primary target, were pulverized, the senior adviser said, triggering a huge fire and clouds of smoke that interfered with the guidance system of following missiles. As many as 24 missiles missed their targets and only a few of the Tomahawks actually penetrated into hangars, destroying nine Syrian aircraft, many fewer than claimed by the Trump administration. I was told that none of the nine was operational: such damaged aircraft are what the Air Force calls hangar queens. "They were sacrificial lambs," the senior adviser said. Most of the important personnel and operational fighter planes had been flown to nearby bases hours before the raid began. The two runways and parking places for aircraft, which had also been targeted, were repaired and back in operation within eight hours or so. All in all, it was little more than an expensive fireworks display.

"It was a totally Trump show from beginning to end," the senior adviser said. "A few of the president's senior national security advisers viewed the mission as a minimized bad presidential decision, and one that they had an obligation to carry out. But I don't think our national security people are going to allow themselves to be hustled into a bad decision again. If Trump had gone for option three, there might have been some immediate resignations."

After the meeting, with the Tomahawks on their way, Trump spoke to the nation from Mar-a-Lago, and accused Assad of using nerve gas to choke out "the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many ... No child of God should ever suffer such horror." The next few days were his most successful as president. America rallied around its commander in chief, as it always does in times of war. Trump, who had campaigned as someone who advocated making peace with Assad, was bombing Syria 11 weeks after taking office, and was hailed for doing so by Republicans, Democrats and the media alike.

One prominent TV anchorman, Brian Williams of MSNBC, used the word "beautiful" to describe the images of the Tomahawks being launched at sea. Speaking on CNN, Fareed Zakaria said: "I think Donald Trump became president of the United States." A review of the top 100 American newspapers showed that 39 of them published editorials supporting the bombing in its aftermath, including the New York Times , Washington Post and Wall Street Journal .

Five days later, the Trump administration gathered the national media for a background briefing on the Syrian operation that was conducted by a senior White House official who was not to be identified. The gist of the briefing was that Russia's heated and persistent denial of any sarin use in the Khan Sheikhoun bombing was a lie because President Trump had said sarin had been used. That assertion, which was not challenged or disputed by any of the reporters present, became the basis for a series of further criticisms:

  • The continued lying by the Trump administration about Syria's use of sarin led to widespread belief in the American media and public that Russia had chosen to be involved in a corrupt disinformation and cover-up campaign on the part of Syria.
  • Russia's military forces had been co-located with Syria's at the Shayrat airfield (as they are throughout Syria), raising the possibility that Russia had advance notice of Syria's determination to use sarin at Khan Sheikhoun and did nothing to stop it.
  • Syria's use of sarin and Russia's defense of that use strongly suggested that Syria withheld stocks of the nerve agent from the UN disarmament team that spent much of 2014 inspecting and removing all declared chemical warfare agents from 12 Syrian chemical weapons depots, pursuant to the agreement worked out by the Obama administration and Russia after Syria's alleged, but still unproven, use of sarin the year before against a rebel redoubt in a suburb of Damascus.

The briefer, to his credit, was careful to use the words "think," "suggest" and "believe" at least 10 times during the 30-minute event. But he also said that his briefing was based on data that had been declassified by "our colleagues in the intelligence community." What the briefer did not say, and may not have known, was that much of the classified information in the community made the point that Syria had not used sarin in the April 4 bombing attack.

The mainstream press responded the way the White House had hoped it would: Stories attacking Russia's alleged cover-up of Syria's sarin use dominated the news and many media outlets ignored the briefer's myriad caveats. There was a sense of renewed Cold War. The New York Times , for example – America's leading newspaper – put the following headline on its account: "White House Accuses Russia of Cover-Up in Syria Chemical Attack." The Times ' account did note a Russian denial, but what was described by the briefer as "declassified information" suddenly became a "declassified intelligence report." Yet there was no formal intelligence report stating that Syria had used sarin, merely a "summary based on declassified information about the attacks," as the briefer referred to it.

The crisis slid into the background by the end of April, as Russia, Syria and the United States remained focused on annihilating ISIS and the militias of al-Qaida. Some of those who had worked through the crisis, however, were left with lingering concerns. "The Salafists and jihadists got everything they wanted out of their hyped-up Syrian nerve gas ploy," the senior adviser to the U.S. intelligence community told me, referring to the flare up of tensions between Syria, Russia and America.

"The issue is, what if there's another false flag sarin attack credited to hated Syria? Trump has upped the ante and painted himself into a corner with his decision to bomb. And do not think these guys are not planning the next faked attack. Trump will have no choice but to bomb again, and harder. He's incapable of saying he made a mistake."

The White House did not answer specific questions about the bombing of Khan Sheikhoun and the airport of Shayrat. These questions were send via e-mail to the White House on June 15 and never answered.

M. Hersh exposed the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam 1968. He uncovered the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and many other stories about war and politics

[Jun 25, 2017] How Clinton's Bankers Plundered Russia by Paul Likoudis

Notable quotes:
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
May 04, 2000 | economistsview.typepad.com

The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy" capitalism, who participated in the looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much as the Russians did two decades ago.

Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:

===

How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia

by Paul Likoudis

In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.

If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay."

Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Contagion can be read on many different levels.

At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian history from the last months of Gorbachev's rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided a modest standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist theoreticians from the West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500% inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the ownership of Russian industry to Western financiers.

Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where she reported on all things Russian for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just about everybody involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new "gangster" capitalists and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds of sources who spoke candidly, often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.

Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton, all down through the ranks of the two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some of the principal characters, of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford, Strobe Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam together in 1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S. war in Vietnam in Moscow. See especially footnote 1, page 210.)

The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report on what happened to Russia; left unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen here" better realize it can happen here.

Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin as a "democrat," the wholesale looting of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry; and what better way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation descendants of the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned industries - including the giant gas, oil, electrical, and telecommunications industries, the world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver, diamond, and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their shares of the properties to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control of the companies.

These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors.

When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national patrimony by these new gangsters early in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.

Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse.

Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.

In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious metals.

This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down of American industries and mines. As Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of "closet."

What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when Western banks and corporations bought these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial production included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc., and the whole kit-and-caboodle was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.

Another Level

On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos.

Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.

Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic field of economics is not some esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von Mises, Roepke and the late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound economic principles and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.

Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the other international "lending" agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks run by the Houses of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.

The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country.

Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party. There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and free drinks, "who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club admitted only late in the evening."

The Third Level

At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.

Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution.

Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial houses, and his New York breakfast meeting with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.

Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of hobbling Russia.

By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.

"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving ways, her bottomless corruption and constant chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott ('Pro-Consul Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same Al Gore who'd been so quick to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit' scrawled across it - took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic house in order and cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."

The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."

As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.

What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens.

Double Effect

In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.

"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking committee hearing, the Treasury secretary should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at Treasury who was once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee on Financial Markets [a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and the Commodities & Trading Commission]. . . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it gross incompetence?

"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth of any alleged 'national security' issues that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should be their brief to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders] Aslund/Carnegie crowd and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition. On what basis did Team Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg (a man nearly as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment fund. . . . And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . .

"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the billions lent to Yeltsin's government; it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking Committee hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation that will effectively end U.S. citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity the Russian dirty money scandal presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks with monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans engage. This data is collected and used by various government agencies, including the IRS; meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter' home, the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax obligation in that year of the sale. . . . Other data on citizens for which the government has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force, the banks. . . ."

You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared.

[Jun 25, 2017] Trump voters were taken for a ride. Trump proved to be even worse than Obama as for bait and switch propensity. Syria tomahawk attack proved that he is a vain and mediocre politician, inclined to theatrical gestures

Jun 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

im1dc -> Fred C. Dobbs... June 25, 2017 at 12:05 PM

No it is not possible, the Republican Party in D.C. is wholly owned by Daddy Big Bucks and Trump supporters do not see it, in fact they see the opposite b/c that's what he tweets and says when he stands before a microphone.

His behavior however tells the real story which is 'destroy the Federal Safety Net and other protections of the 99% as much and as fast as possible while I'm in office.'

Facts not Fiction.

im1dc -> im1dc... , June 25, 2017 at 12:06 PM
Correction

"Trump supporters"

Should be

Trump voters

libezkova -> im1dc... , June 25, 2017 at 04:42 PM
Trump voters were taken for a ride. He proved to be even worse than Obama as for "bait and switch" propensity.

Also while there was rumors, now it is an established fact that he is a vain and mediocre politician, inclined to theatrical gestures like his Tomahawk missile attack after a primitive "false flag" operation by Syria rebels.

https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html

[Jun 25, 2017] Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump by Paul Krugman

Notable quotes:
"... Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed. ..."
"... What the choice of Mr. Price suggests is that the Trump administration is, in fact, ready to see millions lose insurance. And many of those losers will be Trump supporters. ..."
Dec 02, 2016 | www.nytimes.com

Donald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left behind by a changing economy and society. And they're about to get their reward - the same reward that, throughout Mr. Trump's career, has come to everyone who trusted his good intentions. Think Trump University.

Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed.

The evidence of that coming betrayal is obvious in the choice of an array of pro-corporate, anti-labor figures for key positions. In particular, the most important story of the week - seriously, people, stop focusing on Trump Twitter - was the selection of Tom Price, an ardent opponent of Obamacare and advocate of Medicare privatization, as secretary of health and human services. This choice probably means that the Affordable Care Act is doomed - and Mr. Trump's most enthusiastic supporters will be among the biggest losers.

The first thing you need to understand here is that Republican talk of "repeal and replace" has always been a fraud. The G.O.P. has spent six years claiming that it will come up with a replacement for Obamacare any day now; the reason it hasn't delivered is that it can't.

Obamacare looks the way it does because it has to: You can't cover Americans with pre-existing conditions without requiring healthy people to sign up, and you can't do that without subsidies to make insurance affordable. Advertisement Continue reading the main story

Any replacement will either look a lot like Obamacare, or take insurance away from millions who desperately need it.

What the choice of Mr. Price suggests is that the Trump administration is, in fact, ready to see millions lose insurance. And many of those losers will be Trump supporters.

You can see why by looking at Census data from 2013 to 2015, which show the impact of the full implementation of Obamacare. Over that period, the number of uninsured Americans dropped by 13 million ; whites without a college degree, who voted Trump by around two to one , accounted for about eight million of that decline. So we're probably looking at more than five million Trump supporters, many of whom have chronic health problems and recently got health insurance for the first time, who just voted to make their lives nastier, more brutish, and shorter.

Why did they do it? They may not have realized that their coverage was at stake - over the course of the campaign, the news media barely covered policy at all. Or they may have believed Mr. Trump's assurances that he would replace Obamacare with something great.

Either way, they're about to receive a rude awakening, which will get even worse once Republicans push ahead with their plans to end Medicare as we know it, which seem to be on even though the president-elect had promised specifically that he would do no such thing.

And just in case you're wondering, no, Mr. Trump can't bring back the manufacturing jobs that have been lost over the past few decades. Those jobs were lost mainly to technological change, not imports, and they aren't coming back.

There will be nothing to offset the harm workers suffer when Republicans rip up the safety net.

Will there be a political backlash, a surge of buyer's remorse? Maybe. Certainly Democrats will be well advised to hammer Mr. Trump's betrayal of the working class nonstop. But we do need to consider the tactics that he will use to obscure the scope of his betrayal.

One tactic, which we've already seen with this week's ostentatious announcement of a deal to keep some Carrier jobs in America, will be to distract the nation with bright, shiny, trivial objects. True, this tactic will work only if news coverage is both gullible and innumerate.

No, Mr. Trump didn't "stand up" to Carrier - he seems to have offered it a bribe. And we're talking about a thousand jobs in a huge economy; at the rate of one Carrier-size deal a week, it would take Mr. Trump 30 years to save as many jobs as President Obama did with the auto bailout ; it would take him a century to make up for the overall loss of manufacturing jobs just since 2000.

But judging from the coverage of the deal so far, assuming that the news media will be gullible and innumerate seems like a good bet.

And if and when the reality that workers are losing ground starts to sink in, I worry that the Trumpists will do what authoritarian governments often do to change the subject away from poor performance: go find an enemy.

Remember what I said about Trump Twitter. Even as he took a big step toward taking health insurance away from millions, Mr. Trump started ranting about taking citizenship away from flag-burners. This was not a coincidence.

The point is to keep your eye on what's important. Millions of Americans have just been sucker-punched. They just don't know it yet.

[Jun 25, 2017] Andrew Bacevich "There Will Be Hell to Pay"

Notable quotes:
"... In a land that's released so much plutocratic money into politics that it's buried Washington in Koch brothers dollars , in a country where inequality has in recent years hit historic highs , Donald Trump seems to have been our own El Dorado (or perhaps El Mar-a-Lago). ..."
"... He's the destination toward which this country has evidently been traveling since, in 1991, the Soviet Union imploded and the United States, in all its triumphalist glory, became the "sole superpower" on planet Earth. ..."
"... If anything, Trump's ascendancy should have been the equivalent of a klieg light illuminating our recent American journey. His rise to well, whatever it is has lit up the highway that brought us here in a new way and, in the spirit of his coming infrastructure program for America, it turns out to have been a private toll road that wound through a landscape of Potemkin villages en route to the Oval Office. ..."
"... America's War for the Greater Middle East ..."
Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

In an age of billionaires, whether the voters who elected him thought that he was the one who could do what was needed in the nation's capital or were just giving the finger to Washington, the effect was, as Donald Trump might say, of " historic significance ." His golf courses, hotels, properties of every sort are thriving and the money from them pouring into his family's coffers.

His Mar-a-Lago club doubled its membership fee after he was elected; the new Trump hotel in Washington has become a notorious hotspot for foreign diplomats eager to curry favor with the administration; and so it goes in the new America. Already three lawsuits have been filed - by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (a watchdog outfit ), the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington D.C., and 200 Democratic congressional representatives - challenging the president for breaching the emoluments clause of the Constitution. Investigations of presidential obstruction of justice and possibly even abuse of power are evidently underway (to the accompaniment of voluminous tweets by you know who), and the president has been lawyering up bigly, as has Vice President Pence and just about everyone else in sight, including the president's personal lawyer who now has a lawyer of his own.

President Trump has, in fact, been filling in his roster of personal lawyers far more effectively than he's been able to fill basic posts in his government.

And speaking of historic significance, around him is the richest crew ever to serve in a cabinet, the sort of plutocratic A-team that gives government of, by, and for the 1% genuine meaning. Now tell me, if this isn't a classic only-in-America story, what is? Okay, maybe it's not classic classic, not unless you go back to the Gilded Age of the nineteenth century. It's certainly not the version of American promise that was in the high-school history books of my youth, but if it isn't the twenty-first-century version of the American story, then what is?

In a land that's released so much plutocratic money into politics that it's buried Washington in Koch brothers dollars , in a country where inequality has in recent years hit historic highs , Donald Trump seems to have been our own El Dorado (or perhaps El Mar-a-Lago).

He's the destination toward which this country has evidently been traveling since, in 1991, the Soviet Union imploded and the United States, in all its triumphalist glory, became the "sole superpower" on planet Earth.

If anything, Trump's ascendancy should have been the equivalent of a klieg light illuminating our recent American journey. His rise to well, whatever it is has lit up the highway that brought us here in a new way and, in the spirit of his coming infrastructure program for America, it turns out to have been a private toll road that wound through a landscape of Potemkin villages en route to the Oval Office.

One thing's for sure: wherever we've landed, it certainly isn't where the " end of history " crowd of the last years of the previous century thought we'd be when the historians finally stopped typing and "liberal Democracy" reigned supreme.

With that in mind, join Andrew Bacevich, TomDispatch regular and author of America's War for the Greater Middle East , in considering just how, at this moment, historians should start reimagining our American age amid the rubble of our previous versions of history.

[Jun 25, 2017] Macron Breaks With Previous French Policy, Says Sees No Legitimate Successor to Syria's Assad

Notable quotes:
"... "The new perspective that I have had on this subject is that I have not stated that Bashar Assad's departure is a pre-condition for everything because nobody has shown me a legitimate successor," Macron said in an interview to eight European newspapers. ..."
"... He said Assad was an enemy of the Syrian people, but not of France and that Paris' priority was a total commitment to fighting terrorist groups and ensuring the country did not become a failed state. ..."
Jun 25, 2017 | www.haaretz.com

'Assad is the enemy of the Syrian people, not of France,' Macron says in interview with European newspapers

President Emmanuel Macron said in remarks published on Wednesday that he saw no legitimate successor to Syrian President Bashar Assad and that France no longer considered his departure a pre-condition to resolving the six-year conflict.

"The new perspective that I have had on this subject is that I have not stated that Bashar Assad's departure is a pre-condition for everything because nobody has shown me a legitimate successor," Macron said in an interview to eight European newspapers.

He said Assad was an enemy of the Syrian people, but not of France and that Paris' priority was a total commitment to fighting terrorist groups and ensuring the country did not become a failed state.

His comments are in stark contrast to the previous French administration and echo Moscow's stance that there was no viable alternative to Assad.

[Jun 25, 2017] Locked Into Al-Tanf U.S. Military Concedes It Lost The Race To Occupy South-East Syria

Notable quotes:
"... SAA was supposed to be short of troops too, so the recent offensive along Iraqi border is hard to understand. I would guess the forces there are mostly PMU, as observed by the commander of Quds force of IRG. Obama, ever perceptive, tried to prevent it two years ago, but the wily Persians simply proceeded step by step. Is Obama like Aetius of American Empire? ..."
"... Again, thank you for your coverage of this war you have been, over the years, the most accurate source of information that I know of. It is impossible to get any realistic view of actual conditions in Syria from a mainstream media that now has tied itself to pure mythology. ..."
"... While your analysis is good we have to understand that the security services are deeply divided on the Syrian operation and policy in general. The key to understanding Washington is to understand the word "corrupt." Foreign policy is now made on the basis of how much money can be made by a Star Wars' cafe full of operators most of which profit from war and conflict in general and that war specifically. Unfortunately some of these characters are genuine fanatics of various stripes and that's where the danger lies. One hopes the corrupt win out. The military officers directly involved are generally usually of a different breed--they are more pragmatic and mostly interested in avoiding death. ..."
"... Kinda off topic but not sure if folks have seen this article by Seymour Hersh titled 'Trump's Red Line' - https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html It's about the alleged sarin attack by Syrian forces in Khan Sheikhoun several months back and Trump's response to it. ..."
"... ... bugger me sideways!!!... Just came across this announcement. This "Assad can stay" thing seems to have legs after all... . Macron Breaks With Previous French Policy ..."
"... This war is far from over, but Putin is certainly winning the bigger strategic game, which is burnishing his reputation as a sober, reliable partner who can be trusted to defend allies' security interests. Everywhere Putin is replacing the NWO with something new, a Eurasian world order. ..."
"... Erdogan faints after morning prayers in Istanbul As crazy as it sounds, I hope the scumbag mini-Sultan isn't about to die. The driving force that is blocking any neocon dreams of partitioning Syria is Putin and Erdogan 100 percent in agreement on no Kurdish state. If Erdogan takes a dirt nap, the US Regime could very well manage to get one of their stooges put in power and everything would go to hell again. ..."
"... The tried and true regime-change recipe is a combination of terrorism/civil unrest and economic hardship. For Iran, that likely entails Kurdish unrest/terror in western Iran and ISIS attacks from Afghanistan plus tightening economic sanctions against Iran plus rising tensions with US+allies. ..."
Jun 25, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Curtis | Jun 25, 2017 10:29:45 AM | 7
The official US tone from the DoD seems to have changed ... not that one would see that much in US MSM. I was surprised to read in a link posted by an MoA commenter a statement that said US coalition had no intentions to attack Syrian forces. If the US is backing away from regime change, what is next?

I just read this bit at American Conservative:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/
(It's a narrative of how US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar worked to put tons of arms into Syria. Old news, I know. Maybe they hoped for a destroyed state like Libya. Thankfully, Assad and the Syrian Army/People foiled those plans.)

Piotr Berman | Jun 25, 2017 10:46:40 AM | 10
Pentagon put some impressive military hardware in Tanf, but they lack the boots. They could recruit jihadists from Dara'a area and refugee camps in Jordan, but the number of those who would be "genuinely moderate" (which can be translated as "plausibly pro-American") AND would like to fight is small. If you compare to the campaign against Qaddafi, in Libya most of the army disintegrated, and rather disunited militia had at least numeric parity if not better. The terrain was very conducive to air support, and the bases in Sicily were close. EVEN in those conditions it was a prolonged affair. I guess that Americans perceived one chance, SDF. A lot of troops with reasonable performance, the ideology of the leadership "far from perfect (Communists? Agrarian anarchists?) but not the type of fanatics that starts chopping heads or stab each other the minute you look in a different direction.

SDF showed admirable attitude to inducements, but only up to a point. The goals of YPD which forms the core are not American goals. And those goals contradict core interests of Turkish government -- which is avoiding "painful concessions to PKK". Such concession could lead to a peace, but the fruits would be most probably enjoyed by a subsequent government. Kurds proved themselves to be atrocious ingrates, forming a party with expansive plans of extending popularity beyond Kurdish population and open to a coalition with other opponents of Erdogan. "Sunnistan" dominated by YPG is a "no, no, no!" for Erdogan. Thus when SDF, as instructed, jostled for the territory with the Tiger Force and got air support for that, they got into hot water.

  1. SAA negotiates for the release of their pilot, and the negotiator is ... Brigadier General Suheil al-Hassan. Or perhaps it is a tweet. I suspect that it will take a while, but the pilot will be in good health.
  2. In the meantime, Turks and their puppet force attacks the isolated Afrin, and SAA + Russians assist by joining in the blockade of Afrin. Russians play a particularly deft game, when Turks attacked Afrin before, Russians installed, by invitation, an observer post on Syrian/Turkish border. One can point to other Russian movements to prove that they have the ability to lift the blockade, but, well, they must have some reasons to do it. As Russians are not in the position to replace completely American funding and supplies, they probably will force SDF to put forth only a token effort to compete with SAA for the territory.
  3. Concentrating on the siege of Raqqa and CLOSING completely the siege is a good step in this direction. (4) Plans to send SDF troops to Tanf -- not exactly a summer holiday destination -- had to be cut short as SDF needs to maintain enough troops positioned against ISIS and also against the Turks, and possibly, against SAA and allies.

SAA was supposed to be short of troops too, so the recent offensive along Iraqi border is hard to understand. I would guess the forces there are mostly PMU, as observed by the commander of Quds force of IRG. Obama, ever perceptive, tried to prevent it two years ago, but the wily Persians simply proceeded step by step. Is Obama like Aetius of American Empire?

Banger | Jun 25, 2017 10:53:05 AM | 12
Again, thank you for your coverage of this war you have been, over the years, the most accurate source of information that I know of. It is impossible to get any realistic view of actual conditions in Syria from a mainstream media that now has tied itself to pure mythology.

While your analysis is good we have to understand that the security services are deeply divided on the Syrian operation and policy in general. The key to understanding Washington is to understand the word "corrupt." Foreign policy is now made on the basis of how much money can be made by a Star Wars' cafe full of operators most of which profit from war and conflict in general and that war specifically. Unfortunately some of these characters are genuine fanatics of various stripes and that's where the danger lies. One hopes the corrupt win out. The military officers directly involved are generally usually of a different breed--they are more pragmatic and mostly interested in avoiding death.

On the Washington side the situation

h | Jun 25, 2017 10:53:17 AM | 13
Kinda off topic but not sure if folks have seen this article by Seymour Hersh titled 'Trump's Red Line' - https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html It's about the alleged sarin attack by Syrian forces in Khan Sheikhoun several months back and Trump's response to it.
guidoamm | Jun 25, 2017 10:55:47 AM | 14
Am I mistaken in believing that the CIA and the State Department, if not NATO, may not necessarily go along with the Pentagon on this?
guidoamm | Jun 25, 2017 11:00:28 AM | 15
... bugger me sideways!!!... Just came across this announcement. This "Assad can stay" thing seems to have legs after all...
. Macron Breaks With Previous French Policy
plantman | Jun 25, 2017 11:11:56 AM | 16
Excellent, excellent coverage, but way too optimistic. I guess we'll see what happens at Deir Ezzor which I think will be the decisive battle of the war. The US needs Deir Ezzor to consolidate its terrirtorial claims in the east and to establish a Sunni-Kurdish area of control. I don't think we can exclude the possibility that the militia at al Tanf might still split Syrian army lines and head north. The there's the problem of getting the Kurds and Turks to relinquish control of the land they've captured.

This war is far from over, but Putin is certainly winning the bigger strategic game, which is burnishing his reputation as a sober, reliable partner who can be trusted to defend allies' security interests. Everywhere Putin is replacing the NWO with something new, a Eurasian world order.

Brad | Jun 25, 2017 11:12:47 AM | 17
It's still all about Iran. FSA and Kurd labeled Shia Militias as threat. US has annexed a huge chunk of Syria via Kurd and what FSA holds.
Israel appears to be gaining more of the Golan via the safe zone. Game which Putin/Lavrov are conceding.

Lots of Wahhabist Takfiri kooks run off by US from Fallujah and Sunni Triangle in Iraq which US can re organize to trouble Baghdad for years....cut out a new Takfiri kook world in Iraq
West which gives US contract to train Iraqi army Neocon Media Backing.... Maybe go back to the Al Qeada playbook now that ISUS are fleeing. Getting Sunni and Kurd to attack Shia and then blame Iran for sponsoring terror in the Mid east. The Media and Generals have already stated the agenda.

R Winner | Jun 25, 2017 11:26:39 AM | 20
Erdogan faints after morning prayers in Istanbul As crazy as it sounds, I hope the scumbag mini-Sultan isn't about to die. The driving force that is blocking any neocon dreams of partitioning Syria is Putin and Erdogan 100 percent in agreement on no Kurdish state. If Erdogan takes a dirt nap, the US Regime could very well manage to get one of their stooges put in power and everything would go to hell again.

Jackrabbit | Jun 25, 2017 11:41:03 AM | 21
I wouldn't discard your popcorn maker just yet.
  1. Seems to me that the Colonel is merely repeating what people in the military and the US public have been told: we are in Syria to fight ISIS NOT to fight the Syrian government or the Russians.
  2. Remember: Obama didn't threaten war, he threatened "costs" and a quagmire. I don't think anyone in the US wants direct conflict with Russia. USA+allies have made tremendous gains without direct conflict with Russia. Doesn't control of al Tanf mean control of a major roadway? Doesn't that impose a "cost"? Isn't that reason enough for USA to remain at al Tanf indefinitely?
  3. I can't see the US carving out a salafist principality. That was the wishes of "allies in the region" (I think that was the phrasing). Yeah, US would help, but not want to be seen as the major cause of establishing it. Now, if peace is made between Saudis and Israel, then all bets are off. Being guarantor of 'Salafist Principality' might then be positioned as part of the deal for a peace in the ME (which has supposedly been a decades-long effort). This would be negotiated with the Russians - if they balk, they would be depicted as standing in the way of ME peace.
  4. We should remember that the 'Assad must go!' effort was part of an overall anti-Iranian effort. Russia's support for Syria has blocked Syrian regime-change (for now) so the Zionist-Whabbi Alliance will adjust to this reality. I expect the focus has shifted to Iran itself (only after having tested Russian resolve) . The Zionist-Whabbi's goal is likely to regime-change Iran before it can join SCO.

The tried and true regime-change recipe is a combination of terrorism/civil unrest and economic hardship. For Iran, that likely entails Kurdish unrest/terror in western Iran and ISIS attacks from Afghanistan plus tightening economic sanctions against Iran plus rising tensions with US+allies.

[Jun 25, 2017] The Latest Escalation in Syria – What Is Really Going On - The Unz Review

Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

By now most of you have heard the latest bad news of out Syria: on June 18 th a US F/A-18E Super Hornet (1999) used a AIM-120 AMRAAM (1991) to shoot down a Syrian Air Force Su-22 (1970). Two days later, June 20 th , a US F-15E Strike Eagle shot down an Iranian IRGC Shahed 129 drone. The excuse used each time was that there was a threat to US and US supported forces. The reality is, of course, that the US are simply trying to stop the advance of the Syrian army. This was thus a typical American "show of force". Except that, of course, shooting a 47 year old Soviet era Su-22 fighter-bomber is hardly an impressive feat. Neither is shooting a unmanned drone. There is a pattern here, however, and that pattern is that all US actions so far have been solely for show: the basically failed bombing of the Syria military airbase, the bombing of the Syrian army column, the shooting down of the Syrian fighter-bomber and of the Iranian drone – all these actions have no real military value. They do, however, have a provocative value as each time all the eyes turn to Russia to see if the Russians will respond or not.

Russia did respond this time again, but in a very ambiguous and misunderstood manner. The Russians announced, amongst other measure that from now on " any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets " which I reported as " Russian MoD declares it will shoot down any aircraft flying west of the Euphrates river ". While I gave the exact Russian quote, I did not explain why I paraphrased the Russian words the way I did. Now is a good time to explain this.

First, here is the exact original Russian text :

"В районах выполнения боевых задач российской авиацией в небе Сирии любые воздушные объекты, включая самолёты и беспилотные аппараты международной коалиции, обнаруженные западнее реки Евфрат, будут приниматься на сопровождение российскими наземными и воздушными средствами противовоздушной обороны в качестве воздушных целей"

A literal translation would be:

"In areas of the combat missions of Russian aviation in the skies of Syria any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicle of the international coalition discovered to the West of the Euphrates river, will be tracked by Russian ground based an airborne assets as air targets"

So what does this exactly mean in technical-military terms?

A quick look inside a US fighter's cockpit

When an F/A-18 flies over Syria the on-board emission detectors (called radar warning receivers or RWR) inform the pilot of the kind of radar signals the aircraft is detecting. Over Syria that means that the pilot would see a lot of search radars looking in all directions trying to get a complete picture of what is happening in the Syrian skies. The US pilot will be informed that a certain number of Syrian S-300 and Russian S-400 batteries are scanning the skies and most probably see him. So far so good. If there are deconfliction zones or any type of bilateral agreements to warn each other about planned sorties then that kind of radar emissions are no big deal. Likewise US radars (ground, sea or air based) are also scanning the skies and "seeing" the Russian Aerospace Forces' aircraft on their radars and the Russians know that. In this situation neither side is treating anybody as "air targets". When a decision is made to treat an object as an "air target" a completely different type of radar signal is used and a much narrower energy beam is directed at the target which can now be tracked and engaged. The pilot is, of course, immediately informed of this. At this point the pilot is in a very uncomfortable position: he knows that he is being tracked, but he has no way of knowing if a missile has already been launched against him or not. Depending on a number of factors, an AWACS might be able to detect a missile launch, but this might not be enough and it might also be too late.

The kind of missiles fired by S-300/S-400 batteries are extremely fast, over 4,000mph (four thousand miles per hour) which means that a missile launched as far away as 120 miles will reach you in 2 minutes or that a missile launched 30 miles away will reach you in 30 seconds. And just to make things worse, the S-300 can use a special radar mode called "track via missile" where the radar emits a pulse towards the target whose reflection is then received not by the ground based radar, but by the rapidly approaching missile itself, which then sends its reading back to the ground radar which then sends guidance corrections back to the missile. Why is that bad for the aircraft? Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not. The S-300 and S-400 also have other modes, including the Seeker Aided Ground Guidance (SAGG) where the missile also computes a guidance solution (not just the ground radar) and then the two are compared and a Home On Jam (HOJ) mode when the jammed missile then homes directly on the source of the jamming (such as an onboard jamming pod). Furthermore, there are other radar modes available such as the Ground Aided Inertial (GAI) which guides the missile in the immediate proximity of the target where the missile switches on its own radar just before hitting the target. Finally, there is some pretty good evidence that the Russians have perfected a complex datalink system which allows them to fuse into one all the signals they acquire from their missiles, airborne aircraft (fighter, interceptor or AWACS) and ground radars and that means that, in theory, if a US aircraft is outside the flight envelope (reach) of the ground based missiles the signals acquired by the ground base radars could be used to fire an air-to-air missile at the US aircraft (we know that their MiG-31s are capable of such engagements, so I don't see why their much more recent Su-30/Su-35 could not). This would serve to further complicate the situational awareness of the pilot as a missile could be coming from literally any direction. At this point the only logical reaction would be for the US pilot to inform his commanders and get out, fast. Sure, in theory, he could simply continue his mission, but that would be very hard, especially if he suspects that the Syrians might have other, mobile, air defense on the way to, or near, his intended target.

Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you "you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not". How would you feel if it was you sitting in that cockpit? Would you still be thinking about executing your planned attack?

The normal US strategy is to achieve what is called "air superiority/supremacy" by completely suppressing enemy air defenses and taking control of the skies. If I am not mistaken, the last time the US fighters operated in a meaningfully contested air space was in Vietnam

By the way, these technologies are not uniquely Russian, they are well known in the West, for example the US Patriot SAM also uses TVM, but the Russians have very nicely integrated them into one formidable air defense system.

The bottom line is this: once the US aircraft is "treated like a target" he has no way of knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to live. Put differently, "treating like a target" is tantamount to somebody putting a gun to your head and letting you guess if/when he will pull the trigger.

So yes, the Russian statement most definitely was a "threat to shoot down"!

Next, a look into the Russian side of the equation

To understand why the Russians used the words "treat like an air target" rather than "will shoot down" you need to remember that Russia is still the weaker party here. There is nothing worse than not delivering on a threat. If the Russians had said "we will shoot down" and then had not done so, they would have made an empty threat. Instead, they said "will treat as an air target" because that leaves them an "out" should they decided not to pull the trigger. However, for the US Navy or Air Force pilot, these considerations are all irrelevant once his detectors report to him that he is being "painted" with the beam of an engagement radar!

So what the Russians did is to greatly unnerve the US crews without actually having to shoot down anybody. It is not a coincidence that the Americans almost immediately stopped flying West of the Euphrates river while the Australians officially decided to bow out from any further air sorties .

It cannot be overemphasized that the very last thing Russia needs is to shoot down a US aircraft over Syria which is exactly what some elements of the Pentagon seem to want. Not only is Russia the weaker side in this conflict, but the Russians also understand the wider political consequences of what would happen if they took the dramatic step to shoot down a US aircraft: a dream come true for the Neocons and a disaster for everybody else.

A quick look from the US Neoconistan and the quest for a "tepid war"

The dynamic in Syria is not fundamentally different from the dynamic in the Ukraine: the Neocons know that they have failed to achieve their primary objective: to control the entire country. They also know that their various related financial schemes have collapsed. Finally, they are fully aware that they owe this defeat to Russia and, especially, to Vladimir Putin. So they fell back on plan B. Plan B is almost as good as Plan A (full control) because Plan B has much wider consequences. Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia but stay short from a full-scale war. Ideally, Plan B should revolve around a "firm" "reaction" to the Russian "aggression" and a "defense" of the US "allies" in the region. In practical terms this simply means: get the Russians to openly send forces into Novorussia or get the Russians to take military actions against the US or its allies in Syria. Once you get this you can easily see that the latest us attacks in Syria have a minor local purpose – to scare or slow down the Syrians- and a major global purpose – to bait the Russians into using forces against the US or an ally. It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I call a "tepid" war with Russia: an escalation of tensions to levels not even seen during the Cold War, but not a full-scale "hot" WWIII either. A tepid war would finally re-grant NATO at least some kind of purpose (to protect "our European friends and allies" from the "Russian threat"): the already terminally spineless EU politicians would all be brought into an even more advanced state of subservience, the military budgets would go even higher and Trump would be able to say that he made "America" "great" again. And, who knows, maybe the Russian people would *finally* rise against Putin, you never know! (They wouldn't – but the Neocons have never been deterred from their goofy theories by such minor and altogether irrelevant things as facts or logic).

[Sidebar: I noticed this time again that each time the US tries to bait Russia into some kind of harsh reaction and Russia declines to take the bait, this triggers in immediate surge into the number of comments which vehemently complain that Russia is acting like a pussy, that Putin is a fake, that he is "in cahoots" with the US and/or Israel and that the Russians are weak or that they have "sold out". I am getting a sense that we are dealing with paid US PSYOP operatives whose mission is to use the social media to try to put the Kremlin under pressure with these endless accusations of weakness and selling-out. Since I have no interest in rewarding these folks in any way, I mostly send their recriminations where they belong: to the trash]

Does the Russian strategy work?

To reply to this, don't look at what the Russians do or do not do in the immediate aftermath of a US provocation. Take a higher level look and just see what happens in the mid to long term. Just like in a game of chess, taking the Gambit is not always the correct strategy.

I submit that to evaluate whether Putin's policies are effective or not, to see whether he has "sold out" or "caved in" you need to, for example, look at the situation in Syria (or the Ukraine, for that matter) as it was 2 years ago and then compare with what it is today. Or, alternatively, look at the situation as it is today and come back to re-visit it in 6 months.

One huge difference between the western culture and the way the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at geostrategy is that westerners always look at everything in the short term and tactical level. This is basically the single main reason why both Napoleon and Hitler lost their wars against Russia: an almost exclusive focus on the short term and tactical. In contrast, the Russians are the undisputed masters of operational art (in a purely military sense) and, just like the Chinese, they tend to always keep their eyes on the long-term horizon. Just look at the Turkish downing of a Russian Su-24: everybody bemoaned the lack of "forceful" reaction from Moscow. And then, six months later – what do we have? Exactly.

The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification, and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a "firm" response. They like to "send messages" and they firmly believe that doing something, no matter how symbolic, is better than even the appearance of doing nothing. As for the appearance of doing nothing, it is universally interpreted as a sign of weakness. Russians don't think that way. They don't care about instant gratification, they care only about one thing: victory. And if that means to look weak, that is fine. From a Russian perspective, sending "messages" or taking symbolic actions (like all 4 of the recent US attacks in Syria) are not signs of strength, but signs of weakness. Generally, the Russians don't like to use force which they consider inherently dangerous. But when they do, they never threaten or warn, they take immediate and pragmatic (non-symbolic) action which gets them closer to a specific goal.

Conclusion

The Russian reaction to the latest US attack on Syria was not designed to maximize the approval of the many Internet armchair strategists. It was designed to maximize the discomfort of the US lead "coalition" in Syria while minimizing the risks for Russia. It is precisely by using an ambiguous language which civilians would interpret in one way, and military personnel in another, that the Russians introduced a very disruptive element of unpredictability into the planning of US air operations in Syria.

The Russians are not without their own faults and bad habits and they make mistakes (recognizing the Ukronazi junta in Kiev after the coup was probably such a mistake), but it is important to differentiate between their real weaknesses and mistakes and their very carefully designed strategies. Just because they don't act in the way their putative "supporters" in the West would does not mean that they have "caved in", "blinked first" or any other such nonsense. The first step towards understanding how the Russians function is to stop expecting that they would act just like Americans would.

P.S: By the way, the Syrian pilot shot down made it out alive. Here is a photo of him following his rescue by Syrian special forces:

Andrei Martyanov Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

The modern western culture is centered on various forms of instant gratification , and that is also true for geopolitics. If the other guy does something, western leaders always deliver a "firm" response. They like to "send messages"

Excellent point. That is why "West" (US mostly) can not win a single war in 70 years.

anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

A good, interesting article. Much of what's gone on is rather opaque and it's difficult to understand what the meaning of some of these actions are such as in this shoot-down of the Syrian plane. People scratch their heads and try to come up with plausible explanations. Plain stupidity or rashness on the part of some military people? Are there American special forces disguised and embedded with some of these 'rebel' groups that they wanted to protect? Or, more sinisterly and as suggested, there's a plan afoot to ratchet up US-Russian tensions by engineering incidents that could be used to fan war hysteria and panic. A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards. It's a racket that kills the expendables. At any rate we'll need a few more pieces of the puzzle to see what the American game plan happens to be.

Exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

An excellent article, but a depressing situation. What happens if the Turks start bombing the Kurdish forces supported by the yankee imperium?

TipTipTopKek Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 4:26 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

Andrei Martyanov Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 4:59 pm GMT

@TipTipTopKek But at least it was, without denigrating a decisive role of the Soviet Union, a formal coalition victory. Plus, let's not deny US Navy its well deserved victory in the Pacific. Pacific was largely an American victory, even considering Red Army's crushing defeat of Kwantung Army in 1945. Yet, uncritical and triumphalist lessons of WW II on European Theater in WW II played as tricky of a role in US post-WW II history as did a turkey shoot against third rate Saddam's force in the Gulf in 1990-91. One can not learn properly when the lessons are wrong.

Quartermaster Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 5:23 pm GMT

Because there is no way to tell from the emissions whether a missile has been launched and is already approaching at over 4,000mph or not.

How little you know.

Just try to imagine this: you are flying, in total illegality, over hostile territory and preparing to strike a target when suddenly your radar warning receiver goes off and tells you "you got 30 seconds or (much?) less to decide whether there is a 300lbs (150kg) warhead coming at you at 4000mph (6400kmh) or not".

Hilarious. You need to give some thought to what you post.

More Saker. To paraphrase Mencken, If you don't read him, your uninformed. If do, you're misinformed.

Quartermaster Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT

@TipTipTopKek Right. Only Ivan was fighting the Germans. The Rooskis got a lot of war material from the US. The Red Army would have starved to death if not for the us. And that is far from the only thing that went from the US to Stalin.

anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 6:09 pm GMT

"Pakistan's Foreign Office has issued a statement today warning that they will not tolerate drone strikes inside their territory"

Russia should lure Pak away from US orbit , get Taliban on its side and remove Iran from Indian influence- thus getting them rid of US. Russia can engineer a new reality against Saudi Israel US . Russia can prove Afghanistan as the tomb where empire comes to rest

Philip Owen Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT

So just how cunning is Trump?

Andrei Martyanov Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm GMT

@anon

Russia should lure Pak away from US orbit

Pakistan (together with India) became full member of Shanghai Cooperation Organization last week or two. This is very significant, to put it mildly, and it is certainly some long way from "US orbit".

Begemot Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 7:44 pm GMT

@Quartermaster It is true that the Soviets got a lot of Lend-Lease from the US. Britain got much more (about 2/3′s of the total). The Red Army would not have starved to death without the US. American lend-lease made the Soviet victory over Germany easier. It didn't make it possible. Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front the Americans should be forever grateful that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in Normandy. The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.

Thirdeye Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMT

@Quartermaster So please enlighten us, O Wise One.

Sean Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT

The oh so subtle Russian triumph in Syria that Saker keeps telling us about is apparently not understood by the US forces in Syria. The Assad regieme advances is 100% due to the US not supplying the popular forces with anti aircraft weapons. Assad's pilots are brave when they know there is nothing to fear, but now know they are going to be shot out of the sky over US backed forces, so the Assad advance will halt.

Mikel Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:55 pm GMT

once the US aircraft is "treated like a target" he has no way of knowing if the Syrians, or the Russians, are just being cheeky or whether has has seconds left to live.

It doesn't look like the Israeli pilots feel that way when they bomb their targets inside Syria, which they successfully do on a regular basis.

Thirdeye Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT

@Quartermaster Through 1944, 80% of German losses were on the eastern front. That's from German records.

anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

@Sean Yes you rae correct US has not used the Nuclear bomb on Syria . That would ahve sealed Assad's fate and advanced IS if US wanted !!!!!1

Your assertion only stirs a big LOL !!

US has supplied more than enough way more than you can imagine

https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/articles/western-plot-overthrow-assad/

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/

Enlighten yourself.

Romil Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 10:19 pm GMT

@TipTipTopKek Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada, Panama (Noriega), etc.

Admittedly these wars were a little lopsided.

What is clear since Vietnam is that the USA military/ Political System is not very good at occupying a country after initial battlefield success.

Unless the chaos in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc is the intended result.

dearieme Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT

@Philip Owen Cunning as a TV celebrity.

Macon Richardson Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@Mikel You don't say where Israel is bombing in Syria and the conceits of Israel are so boring to me I don't wish to research the topic. Based on history, I assume that Israeli bombing is in the Golan area, extreme south-west Syria.

Israeli "he-man" tactics in the Golan will have no effect on the defense of Syria against ISIS and the USA. Therefore, why should the Russians or the Syrians pay any attention at all to the little circus side show the Israelis present?

As to the Ũbermenschen Israeli pilots flying kamakazi missions into Syria, ho-hum? Write up an outline of a script and we'll send it to Hollywood.

mh505 Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

@Thirdeye Who gives a damn what the "Quartermaster" thinks?

Rurik Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 4:06 pm GMT

the Syrian pilot shot down made it out alive.

good!

Mikel Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

@Macon Richardson As should be evident, all I did was provide a fact that seems to be in direct contradiction with Saker's technical explanations in this column.

That you don't have any clue of where the Israelis have been bombing, even though it has been widely reported in the media and recognized by both sides, is your problem. And, talking about soporific subjects, discussions over the Israelis/Jews being evil, good, heroic or cowards could hardly be further away from my interest.

I really have no idea about radar systems but the fact that nobody offered an explanation for this contradiction suggests that Saker may be, once again, exaggerating the Russian capabilities.

Carlton Meyer Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:15 pm GMT

While Russia may want caution, Syrian and Iranian militias don't care. ISIS is almost gone from SE Syria, so there is no need for an American base there to train anti-ISIS units. Americans have illegally invaded Syria, and the international community agrees. These militias have mortars and artillery, so can fire away and wait to see if the Americans dare counterattack by air. If they do, Russian missiles are ready for self-defense. Imagine a downed American pilot captured by ISIS.

Meanwhile, Russia shows restraint to enjoy the Qatar situation, with new Saudi demands that compensation is due and the Turkish troops must leave. These dictators have long tolerated American military bases under the assumption it meant American protection. If the USA back stabs Qatar, what will the other Gulf State tyrants think? What if Iranian troops are invited to defend Qatar?

And what about the Turks? They are itching for chance to reclaim NE Syria and its oil fields, which they say the Brits and French stole a hundred years ago. They can wipe out the Kurd forces there at the same time. They are building up forces in Syria for this move. They are just waiting for an excuse to attack.

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT

@Andrei Martyanov Let's call it a American / National-Chinese victory then.

Binding a few hundred thousands imperial troops on the mainland sure counts for something, doesn't it?

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 7:01 pm GMT

@Mikel Why should the Russians anatagonize the Israelis? It costs a lot and is politically inconvenient. Israel is nearby, Russia is not. The minute-long rush of adrenaline would certainly not be worth it.

The clusterfuck is currently such that waiting & waltzing & carrying a stick, any stick, is likely to be the best policyless policy. ( Asterixian Wars come to mind, sorry for the juvenile reference)

A writeup in Haaretz (is this a premium page that is accessible via the print menu? well, I don't care)

http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.797481

"We're working productively with Jordan, as we are working with Israel, and I'm not hiding anything from you," Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu told his country's parliament late last month. Shoygu even noted his "productive talks" with Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, with whom he speaks on the phone regularly. Arab media outlets report on continuous communication between Russian and Israeli fighter pilots, who coordinate planned flights, just as Israel coordinates its aerial and other actions in Syria with Russian command headquarters.

The "other actions" include Israel's shipments of humanitarian and military aid to the militias operating in the Syrian side of the Golan Heights, and in the Daraa area nearby. An intense battle has been underway in recent weeks in Daraa as the Syrian army tries to advance with Shi'ite militias and Iranian-backed Hezbollah to suppress the rebels. These efforts are at the heart of coordination talks between Jordan, Russia, the United States and Saudi Arabia. In some of the talks that took place in Jordan, Israelis were on hand, and in other cases coordination was by phone or through emissaries who visited Israel.

Russian1 Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 10:51 pm GMT

@Quartermaster Americans are criminals killing all over the planet. Raped many girls during the war in many countries did American soldiers and nothing has changed they did the same on Vietnam and Iraq. Just savage animals with a penchant for war and buggery.
Also Eisenhower starved to death 1.2million German soldiers and proof of that is he rerouted supplies and let them die in the open air prisons without food. A cruel nation of barbarians.
The world is at the mercy of American mafia thugs and Russia is the savior behaving with principles.

SYRIA: Faced With Massive US Escalation, How Would Russia Respond? – #WW3 – Infinite Unknown Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 11:35 pm GMT

[ ] The Saker The Unz Review [ ]

nickels Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT

The old western Shane is an example where Americans used to be able to take one on the chin for the bigger picture.
But neocons are just animals. I remember in Josephus description of the sacking of Jerusalem, the Israelis were so out of their minds that they not only burnt their own grain during the siege, but their own temple as well.

The Scalpel Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:35 am GMT

Certain sources state that a Russian S-300 shot down a US Global Hawk drone over the Mediterranean.

Avery Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT

@Begemot {Since about 2/3′s of the German army was engaged on the Russian front}

It was not 2/3rds or ~67%: it was about 80%.
Also, about 80% of Wehrmacht's best, toughest divisions were ground up on the Eastern front. At a terribly high cost to the Red Army men and materiel.

{ . that those German divisions weren't waiting for the Americans in Normandy. }

Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

{The desperate need of many Americans to appear to be indispensable is pathetic.}

Indeed.

Russia's Response to Downed Jet and Drone – Site Title Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

[ ] http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-latest-escalation-in-syria-what-is-really-going-on/ [ ]

Intelligent Dasein Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 6:32 am GMT

@anonymous

A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.

A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a racket."

The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody-not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor-could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 7:07 am GMT

If 'peaceful' countries want war the trick is to provoke the country you want to attack to make the first move.
Hitler ran into the trap when he attacked Poland in Sept 1939, after Polish provocations since the British guarantee of March 1939.
Japan ran into the trap of Roosevelt's oil boycott.
Saddam did nothing stupid enough to excuse war, therefore Sept 11 was created.
Putin is not stupid, he knows quite well that the western war mongers are waiting for the excuse to attack Russia.
Heightened tensions in Syria in my opinion have but one goal: getting an excuse to attack Russia.
Some kind of Liberty 'accident' would be great.

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 7:12 am GMT

@Quartermaster An explanation on why it is hilarious would be great.

Miro23 Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 7:23 am GMT

@Philip Owen

So just how cunning is Trump?

Maybe he's too cunning/clever by half – as in a neo-con collaborator. He was given a mandate to get out of ME conflicts and if he had done what he was elected to do, the US could be getting on with domestic affairs rather than evaluating the possibility of WW3.

Greg Bacon Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 9:55 am GMT

From an April 2003 Haaretz article.

The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.

This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

Then it was onto Libya, now Syria, then it will be onto Iran, all the glory of Apartheid Israel.

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:23 am GMT

@Avery

Even the completely bled out Wehrmacht put American troops through the ringer at the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. With notable exceptions, e.g. the heroic defense of Bastogne, GIs mostly ran as Germans advanced. The disaster was averted when skies cleared and USAF came in and saved the day.

That's in the movies.

"GIs" did not "run", indeed Patton mounted a skillfull counterattack on the move. This last show of the Wehrmacht and Party Armed Forces (who didn't let the occasion to "clean up" in the re-occupied territories pass them by) had little chance of success in any case. Germans ran out of fuel, manpower and maintained equipment while trying to get this Hitler-fairyland-push towards Anvers rolling. The Meuse was never even crossed. Yes, control of the air helped, and the extraordinarily harsh winter did the rest. It was too late in any case.

(Also, in WWII, the US air wing was the "Army Air Forces", the USAF was created 1947, but that's just nitpicking)

Now, if you want to consider a senseless WWI-style grind-war that can be considered Allied failure: Battle of Hürtgen Forest : "The over-all cost of the Siegfried Line Campaign in American personnel was close to 140,000."

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT

@The Scalpel US hasn't confirmed. They would if true.

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:42 am GMT

@El Dato Asterixian Wars from the Comic

The Alarmist Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:47 am GMT

@TipTipTopKek I once had a pretty young Russian lady ask me (in a bar in Germany, of all places) why we celebrate VE day on 8 May, to which I replied, "That's the day we (she knew I meant Americans, and by that Americans alone) won the war with a bit of help from you guys, of course." If I hadn't said it with a light-hearted smile, I probably would have been run through with a broken vodka bottle on the spot, not to send a message, but, as Saker notes, as a pragmatic response to an arrogant Westerner.

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 10:48 am GMT

@TipTipTopKek

It's been far more than 70 years since the West won a war. The Soviets won WWII, not the West.

Actually, the Soviet leadership and the Western bankers did any "winning." The rest of us lost, big time, and are still paying.

jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 11:03 am GMT

Very interesting article with too many great points to comment on all.

Some of the best points are:

Plan B is also very simple: trigger a major crisis with Russia

It helps keep dollars flowing to the Pentagon and its Israeli masters.

a dream come true for the Neocons and a disaster for everybody else.

As always.

It bears repeating here that what the Neocons really want is what I call a "tepid" war with Russia:

This also keeps the dollars flowing, keeps the usual nut cases in power and provides a huge source of distraction from the continued hosing of the American goyim,

One huge difference between the western culture and the way the Russians (or the Chinese for that matter) look at geostrategy is that westerners always look at everything in the short term and tactical level.

I've noticed that as a teen and it's still true today. Seems to have worked for the thugs in power, but not so much for the rest of us cattle. Apparently the American doofi (aka doofusses) will remain content to prance around waving their corny flags and proclaiming their "heroism" or whatever BS is fashionable at the time.

The Alarmist Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

@Romil

"Not true, the USA won a war with Grenada ."

Urgent Fury was hardly a war. Been there, done that, and hit the break at Cherry Hill for a little surfing on day 4, 'cos the Rafters and Ivan don't surf.

The Alarmist Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 11:23 am GMT

@Intelligent Dasein

"Nobody-not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor-could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody."

Oh you dear, sweet, but misguided soul. The war-profiteers and neo-cons know that when things get fiscally tight they can simply print more of the World's Indispensible Currency TM, and if it gets really bad they will simply do a cram down of the debt, because the ROW doesn't really have a say in the matter. When you owe the world $20T, it's the world that has the problem.

Max Havelaar Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 11:29 am GMT

The Russians are far better victory-strategists (long-term) than the US maddogs Trump/Mattis/McMaster. They are for show and fireworks (white-phosphorous bombs) and show theiir Satanic nature.

The final Victory strategy = turn your ennemies into friends/partners in trade.

Putin has turned Erdogan into a partner with the south-stream pipeline.
And even Qatar may join the East front (Putin gave them majort shares in Russian energy companies).

The Al Sauds and Likudi's, the Jewish extremists on Golan, are the only problems left. But even with Netanyahu, Putin is trying to get a solution, using the Russian Leviathan basin suppport.

Putin may get there in the end.

chris Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:04 pm GMT

@Rurik It's amazing how rude the reporting of the incident in the MSM has been in not reporting the fate of the pilot. The point is to underscore his insignificance; they would have much preferred he was killed.

Imperial Circular. 25/06/17. – IMPERIAL ENERGY Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

[ ] Saker is mistaken: [ ]

headrick Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT

There is no site than can come close to Saker for this ego-political military analysis.
Thanks Vin.

The Scalpel Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

@El Dato US hasn't confirmed. They would if true. They did acknowledge it in a sideways manner

Blogschätzchen des Tages 25.6.2017 | narrenspeise Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT

[ ] dritten Mal innerhalb weniger Wochen möchte ich auf einen Beitrag von The Saker zu Syrien / Russland / USA hinweisen. Er macht [ ]

anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

@Intelligent Dasein


A new cold war, properly managed, could be good for business and divert money into the connected people's bank accounts, funneling tax money upwards.
A lot of people around the internet express similar opinions, and the more obtuse of them even festoon their delivery with the same Smedley Butler quote we've all read a million times already, as if there were no limit to the number of occasions upon we needed to be re-informed that "war is a racket."

The problem is, it just isn't true. Nobody---not even the Neocons, not even government bureaucrats, not even the sleaziest defense contractor---could possibly look at America's fiscal predicament and conclude that a new Cold War is financially beneficial to anybody. Something else has to be motivating this, and that something is Boomer vanity.

These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians against the Russians. I find the whole thing quite embarrassing but also rather alarming, considering how serious the consequences could be.

However, I think it's time to retire the "war is a racket" meme. It has no explanatory power in today's world. The age of imperial expansion, of making Latin America safe for fruit companies or whatever Smedley Butler was on about, is well behind us. There is no longer any tincture of geopolitical or economic rationale in Washington's war-making. Every war we fight makes us weaker and poorer, whereas Butler's wars, however ignoble he thought the motives behind them, at least made us stronger and richer. The imperialists of yore knew what they were doing; they could point to some measure of worldly success as justification for their exploits. But nowadays we have only failures; and our imperialists, lacking the dignity even to be robber barons, have instead become dreamers and peddlers of ideology.

The Age of the Neocon Wars, c. 1990-present, is all about vanity. These are "existential" wars in the Sartrian sense, i.e. they are deliberate fabrications and extensions of identity. The Boomers are going on their penultimate journey of self-discovery, predictably wrecking everything in their path as they make burnt offerings to their insatiable egos.

that something is Boomer vanity.

These guys are just itching for one last game of Cowboys & Indians

is all about vanity

insatiable egos.

What a dumb comment. It's all reducible to the personal psychology of a particular generation, it's "all about vanity", all about "insatiable egos". We're trying to have a serious discussion about important issues and random comic book reading commenters insist on projecting their weird Freudian fantasies onto everything.
Yeah, if everyone weren't so darn vain.

El Dato Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 2:09 pm GMT

@The Scalpel But this is in California.

If it was shot down in Syria, ysure that neocons would take to the Sunday morning TV programme and basically spoil eveyone's breakfast.

Plus, Russia would certainly recount the why & wherefore of this shootdown. It would be a "message".

After all, it's not as if you could sic an S-300 missile onto a Global Hawk under a sudden panicky impulse. The Good Drone would be readily identifiable as such (high-altitude, slow, possibly with a transponder on)

KenH Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

@The Alarmist More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT

@Max Havelaar http://luftpost-kl.de/luftpost-archiv/LP_16/LP10517_250617.pdf

The document begins in german, the english original is after the german version.

jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 2:49 pm GMT

@KenH Churchill never agreed, he wanted an invasion in the Adriatic.
For FDR Stalin was Uncle Joe, never for Churchill.
FDR died before Uncle Joe showed his real nature through the Berlin blockade.
The obliteration of Dresden had not impressed him enough.

for-the-record Show Comment Next New Comment June 25, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT

@KenH More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. Stalin had been pestering Roosevelt and Churchill to do so for a long time and they both eventually complied with good ole "uncle Joe's" demand. Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

Without the D-Day invasion the Russo-German war would have likely resulted in a stalemate with Germany still holding on to some Russian territory.

More like the Russians would not have won had the U.S. not opened up a second front via the D-Day invasion. . . Germany's army group center in Russia began disintegrating shortly after the Normandy invasion and allowed Russia to permanently stay on the offensive for the remainder of the war.

On D-Day the Red Army was already beyond the frontiers of Russia, having entered northern Romania and (pre-War) Poland.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1944-06-01GerWW2BattlefrontAtlas.jpg

[Jun 25, 2017] If Russia Wants the Syria Mess, Let Them Have It by Ted Galen Carpente

Jun 25, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

U.S. leaders are-to put it mildly-indifferent to Moscow's concerns. But while Russia's Syria policy is straightforward and coherent, U.S. policy is a contradictory, incoherent mess. The Obama administration made it clear that Bashar al-Assad could not be part of any future Syrian government. At first, the Trump administration seemed inclined to reconsider that approach. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson initially indicated that Washington would no longer demand Assad's removal. But just days later, a chemical attack occurred in rebel-held town. Trump immediately blamed Assad's forces (despite conflicting evidence ) and ordered cruise-missile strikes against the Syrian air base that Washington alleged was the source of the attack. Tillerson subsequently stated that Assad must leave office before any political settlement could occur (essentially a return to the Obama policy), only to say days later that the Trump administration's policy had not changed and that regime change was not part of the agenda. By this time, intelligent observers could be excused if they were totally confused.

That is hardly the only manifestation of U.S. policy incoherence regarding Syria. Washington's attempt to calibrate support so that it strengthens so-called Syrian moderates has led to multiple embarrassing episodes. The Obama administration's program to identify and train moderate military units was a $500 million fiasco that produced only a handful of fighters-most of whom were promptly captured by or surrendered to their adversaries. Other ventures fared little better. At one point a CIA-backed Syrian faction apparently engaged in combat against another faction that the Pentagon supported . More recently, Washington has been caught in a dilemma as fellow NATO member Turkey attacked Syrian Kurdish units that were battling ISIS with American assistance.

Russia is especially mystified at the U.S. flirtation with factions that are anything but secular moderates. One of those groups is the Nusra Front, at one time Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. Former CIA Director David Petraeus openly advocated U.S. military cooperation with that organization. Other de facto U.S. rebel allies display more than few signs of being Islamists rather than moderates-even given a broad definition of the latter term. Moscow's fury reached a new level in the past few weeks as the United States has launched air strikes against militias allied with the Assad regime in southeastern Syria. Russia asserts that those forces were battling ISIS and other militant factions, and that Washington's actions play into the hands of Islamic terrorists.

Both the Kremlin and the White House need to make serious moves to defuse growing tensions before a potentially cataclysmic clash takes place between Russian and American forces in Syria. The bulk of the changes must come from the American side.

The United States should defer to Russia regarding Syria policy. Moscow has far more significant security interests at stake in Syria and the broader Middle East. Northern Syria lies barely 600 miles from the Russian frontier. Syria is some 6,000 miles from America's homeland. In the process of deferring to Russia, Washington would also off-load the responsibility and risks onto the Kremlin.

It is doubtful that any outside power can truly bring an end to the fighting in Syria, much less restore a stable, united country. Such intervention thus far has bred only resentment and terrorist retaliation. It is better if Russia incurs the risks and suffers the negative consequences of geopolitical meddling than if the United States does so. Syria could well become another Afghanistan for Russia. That would be tragic, but it is preferable to Syria becoming another Vietnam or Iraq for America. And continued U.S. meddling in Syria certainly is not worth triggering a new cold war -and perhaps a hot war-with Russia. Yet that is the perilous path our nation is following.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of ten books, the contributing editor of ten books, and the author of more than 650 articles on international affairs.

[Jun 25, 2017] US Army Preparing to Occupy Large Part of Syria

Jun 24, 2017 | en.farsnews.com

"Now that the ISIL is on the verge of full collapse and has only small parts under its hold in Raqqa and Mosul cities, the Pentagon has taken the opportunity and increased its forces in Syria to seize control of ISIL's lost lands," Andrey Kushkin said.

"The move, is exactly the one that happened in World War II. The US army delayed in opening the second front and then opened it after disintegration of territories was possible, that is why Washington has increased its forces to disintegrate the country and bring large parts of it under its control," Kushkin added.

He further added that the US, meantime, has deployed High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) in Southern Syria in order to cover vast areas of land in the region, adding that the US decision to deploy the missile systems is a clear warning to the Damascus government.

Kushkin went on to say that the US will not hesitate to use the HIMARS to show its power and underline its objectives in Syria.

He underscored that the US is serious to turn Syria into a new Afghanistan or Iraq.

Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, commenting on the US military moves, pointed to the near absence of ISIL or other terrorist groups in the vicinity of the HIMARS' staging area.

Earlier this month, the United States transferred two HIMARS multiple-launch rocket systems from Jordan. The systems were deployed at the US special operations forces base near al-Tanf located 11 miles from the Jordanian border, Sputnik reported.

Lavrov said the Russian military was analyzing the US deployment of artillery systems in Southern Syria where terrorist groups were said to be virtually absent.

"The Russian military is naturally analyzing everything that is happening in this country, including taking into account the channel that we have with the US to prevent unintentional incidents," Lavrov added.

"In this area, there are practically no Daesh (ISIL or ISIS) units and the deployment there of such serious weapons, which are not particularly suitable to combat Daesh will not ensure the stability of communication channels between government and pro-government forces in Syria and their partners in neighboring Iraq," he stressed.

[Jun 25, 2017] Everyone is focused on the war in Syria and the turmoil in Yemen and not on the going Israeli land grabs.

Notable quotes:
"... Those despicable Americans think they can enter a sovereign state, occupy it, kill Syrian soldiers and civilians with total impunity... ..."
"... Imagine if Syria invade US and occupied an area in Texas near Mexico ., then killed Americans soldiers and civilians....how would Americans and the 'international community react? ..."
"... Everyone is focused on the war in Syria and the turmoil in Yemen and not on the going Israeli land grabs. ..."
www.theamericanconservative.com
brian | Jun 25, 2017 6:21:19 PM | 50'

When Syrian government forces moved towards the al-Tanf area the U.S. military bombed them and unilaterally claimed a "deconfliction-zone", i.e occupied territory, around the station.'

Those despicable Americans think they can enter a sovereign state, occupy it, kill Syrian soldiers and civilians with total impunity...

Imagine if Syria invade US and occupied an area in Texas near Mexico ., then killed Americans soldiers and civilians....how would Americans and the 'international community react?

hose202 | Jun 25, 2017 10:05:52 PM | 59

Everyone is focused on the war in Syria and the turmoil in Yemen and not on the going Israeli land grabs.

the I hate you anti morality acts of religious groups, and the inter Muslim conflicts, but the true driver in this chaos may be the LNG business.

Investors at Sabine Pass bid to replace Russian gas sales and ramping up Iranian gas sales in European Markets with USA produced liquefied Natural Gas, which is concentrated at Sabine Pass for transport via globally capable LNG transport vessels.

Disappointing LNG market shares in Europe thus far, coupled to strong Russian competition from its under sea pipeline to Germany & NORD2 and the growing strength of SCO and Brics..may explain the next few years.

Its about competition in natural gas.. not oil..

[Jun 25, 2017] How America Armed Terrorists in Syria

Jun 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Three-term Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, a member of both the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, has proposed legislation that would prohibit any U.S. assistance to terrorist organizations in Syria as well as to any organization working directly with them. Equally important, it would prohibit U.S. military sales and other forms of military cooperation with other countries that provide arms or financing to those terrorists and their collaborators.

Gabbard's "Stop Arming Terrorists Act" challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be "relatively moderate" anti-Assad groups-meaning they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.

That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative, has actually helped build up al Qaeda's Syrian franchise al Nusra Front into the dominant threat to Assad.

The supporters of this arms-supply policy believe it is necessary as pushback against Iranian influence in Syria. But that argument skirts the real issue raised by the policy's history. The Obama administration's Syria policy effectively sold out the U.S. interest that was supposed to be the touchstone of the "Global War on Terrorism"-the eradication of al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates. The United States has instead subordinated that U.S. interest in counter-terrorism to the interests of its Sunni allies. In doing so it has helped create a new terrorist threat in the heart of the Middle East.

The policy of arming military groups committed to overthrowing the government of President Bashar al-Assad began in September 2011, when President Barack Obama was pressed by his Sunni allies-Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar-to supply heavy weapons to a military opposition to Assad they were determined to establish. Turkey and the Gulf regimes wanted the United States to provide anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels, according to a former Obama Administration official involved in Middle East issues.

Obama refused to provide arms to the opposition, but he agreed to provide covert U.S. logistical help i n carrying out a campaign of military assistance to arm opposition groups. CIA involvement in the arming of anti-Assad forces began with arranging for the shipment of weapons from the stocks of the Gaddafi regime that had been stored in Benghazi. CIA-controlled firms shipped the weapons from the military port of Benghazi to two small ports in Syria using former U.S. military personnel to manage the logistics, as investigative reporter Sy Hersh detailed in 2014 . The funding for the program came mainly from the Saudis.

A declassified October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency report revealed that the shipment in late August 2012 had included 500 sniper rifles, 100 RPG (rocket propelled grenade launchers) along with 300 RPG rounds and 400 howitzers. Each arms shipment encompassed as many as ten shipping containers, it reported, each of which held about 48,000 pounds of cargo. That suggests a total payload of up to 250 tons of weapons per shipment. Even if the CIA had organized only one shipment per month, the arms shipments would have totaled 2,750 tons of arms bound ultimately for Syria from October 2011 through August 2012. More likely it was a multiple of that figure.

The CIA's covert arms shipments from Libya came to an abrupt halt in September 2012 when Libyan militants attacked and burned the embassy annex in Benghazi that had been used to support the operation. By then, however, a much larger channel for arming anti-government forces was opening up. The CIA put the Saudis in touch with a senior Croatian official who had offered to sell large quantities of arms left over from the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. And the CIA helped them shop for weapons from arms dealers and governments in several other former Soviet bloc countries.

Flush with weapons acquired from both the CIA Libya program and from the Croatians, the Saudis and Qataris dramatically increased the number of flights by military cargo planes to Turkey in December 2012 and continued that intensive pace for the next two and a half months. The New York Times reported a total 160 such flights through mid-March 2013. The most common cargo plane in use in the Gulf, the Ilyushin IL-76 , can carry roughly 50 tons of cargo on a flight, which would indicate that as much as 8,000 tons of weapons poured across the Turkish border into Syria just in late 2012 and in 2013.

One U.S. official called the new level of arms deliveries to Syrian rebels a "cataract of weaponry." And a year-long investigation by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project revealed that the Saudis were intent on building up a powerful conventional army in Syria. The "end-use certificate" for weapons purchased from an arms company in Belgrade, Serbia, in May 2013 includes 500 Soviet-designed PG-7VR rocket launchers that can penetrate even heavily-armored tanks, along with two million rounds; 50 Konkurs anti-tank missile launchers and 500 missiles, 50 anti-aircraft guns mounted on armored vehicles, 10,000 fragmentation rounds for OG-7 rocket launchers capable of piercing heavy body armor; four truck-mounted BM-21 GRAD multiple rocket launchers, each of which fires 40 rockets at a time with a range of 12 to 19 miles, along with 20,000 GRAD rockets.

The end user document for another Saudi order from the same Serbian company listed 300 tanks, 2,000 RPG launchers, and 16,500 other rocket launchers, one million rounds for ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns, and 315 million cartridges for various other guns.

Those two purchases were only a fraction of the totality of the arms obtained by the Saudis over the next few years from eight Balkan nations. Investigators found that the Saudis made their biggest arms deals with former Soviet bloc states in 2015, and that the weapons included many that had just come off factory production lines. Nearly 40 percent of the arms the Saudis purchased from those countries, moreover, still had not been delivered by early 2017. So the Saudis had already contracted for enough weaponry to keep a large-scale conventional war in Syria going for several more years.

By far the most consequential single Saudi arms purchase was not from the Balkans, however, but from the United States. It was the December 2013 U.S. sale of 15,000 TOW anti-tank missiles to the Saudis at a cost of about $1 billion-the result of Obama's decision earlier that year to reverse his ban on lethal assistance to anti-Assad armed groups. The Saudis had agreed, moreover, that those anti-tank missiles would be doled out to Syrian groups only at U.S. discretion. The TOW missiles began to arrive in Syria in 2014 and soon had a major impact on the military balance.

This flood of weapons into Syria, along with the entry of 20,000 foreign fighters into the country-primarily through Turkey-largely defined the nature of the conflict. These armaments helped make al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, al Nusra Front (now renamed Tahrir al-Sham or Levant Liberation Organization) and its close allies by far the most powerful anti-Assad forces in Syria- and gave rise to the Islamic State .

By late 2012, it became clear to U.S. officials that the largest share of the arms that began flowing into Syria early in the year were going to the rapidly growing al Qaeda presence in the country. In October 2012, U.S. officials acknowledged off the record for the first time to the New York Times that "most" of the arms that had been shipped to armed opposition groups in Syria with U.S. logistical assistance during the previous year had gone to "hardline Islamic jihadists"- obviously meaning al Qaeda's Syrian franchise, al Nusra.

Al Nusra Front and its allies became the main recipients of the weapons because the Saudis, Turks, and Qataris wanted the arms to go to the military units that were most successful in attacking government targets. And by the summer of 2012, al Nusra Front, buttressed by the thousands of foreign jihadists pouring into the country across the Turkish border, was already taking the lead in attacks on the Syrian government in coordination with "Free Syrian Army" brigades.

In November and December 2012, al Nusra Front began establishing formal "joint operations rooms" with those calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" on several battlefronts, as Charles Lister chronicles in his book The Syrian Jihad . One such commander favored by Washington was Col. Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi, a former Syrian army officer who headed something called the Aleppo Revolutionary Military Council. Ambassador Robert Ford, who continued to hold that position even after he had been withdrawn from Syria, publicly visited Oqaidi in May 2013 to express U.S. support for him and the FSA.

But Oqaidi and his troops were junior partners in a coalition in Aleppo in which al Nusra was by far the strongest element. That reality is clearly reflected in a video in which Oqaidi describes his good relations with officials of the "Islamic State" and is shown joining the main jihadist commander in the Aleppo region celebrating the capture of the Syrian government's Menagh Air Base in September 2013.

By early 2013, in fact, the "Free Syrian Army," which had never actually been a military organization with any troops, had ceased to have any real significance in the Syria conflict. New anti-Assad armed groups had stopped using the name even as a "brand" to identify themselves, as a leading specialist on the conflict observed.

So, when weapons from Turkey arrived at the various battlefronts, it was understood by all the non-jihadist groups that they would be shared with al Nusra Front and its close allies. A report by McClatchy in early 2013, on a town in north central Syria, showed how the military arrangements between al Nusra and those brigades calling themselves "Free Syrian Army" governed the distribution of weapons. One of those units, the Victory Brigade, had participated in a "joint operations room" with al Qaeda's most important military ally, Ahrar al Sham, in a successful attack on a strategic town a few weeks earlier. A visiting reporter watched that brigade and Ahrar al Sham show off new sophisticated weapons that included Russian-made RPG27 shoulder-fired rocket-propelled anti-tank grenades and RG6 grenade launchers.

When asked if the Victory Brigade had shared its new weapons with Ahrar al Sham, the latter's spokesman responded, "Of course they share their weapons with us. We fight together."

Turkey and Qatar consciously chose al Qaeda and its closest ally, Ahrar al Sham, as the recipients of weapons systems. In late 2013 and early 2014, several truckloads of arms bound for the province of Hatay, just south of the Turkish border, were intercepted by Turkish police. They had Turkish intelligence personnel on board, according to later Turkish police court testimony . The province was controlled by Ahrar al Sham. In fact Turkey soon began to treat Ahrar al Sham as its primary client in Syria, according to Faysal Itani , a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East.

A Qatari intelligence operative who had been involved in shipping arms to extremist groups in Libya was a key figure in directing the flow of arms from Turkey into Syria. An Arab intelligence source familiar with the discussions among the external suppliers near the Syrian border in Turkey during those years told the Washington Post's David Ignatius that when one of the participants warned that the outside powers were building up the jihadists while the non-Islamist groups were withering away, the Qatari operative responded, "I will send weapons to al Qaeda if it will help."

The Qataris did funnel arms to both al Nusra Front and Ahrar al Sham, according to a Middle Eastern diplomatic source. The Obama administration's National Security Council staff proposed in 2013 that the United States signal U.S. displeasure with Qatar over its arming of extremists in both Syria and Libya by withdrawing a squadron of fighter planes from the U.S. airbase at al-Udeid, Qatar. The Pentagon vetoed that mild form of pressure, however, to protect its access to its base in Qatar.

President Obama himself confronted Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over his government's support for the jihadists at a private White House dinner in May 2013, as recounted by Hersh. "We know what you're doing with the radicals in Syria," he quotes Obama as saying to Erdogan.

The administration addressed Turkey's cooperation with the al Nusra publicly, however, only fleetingly in late 2014. Shortly after leaving Ankara, Francis Ricciardone, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey from 2011 through mid-2014, told The Daily Telegraph of London that Turkey had "worked with groups, frankly, for a period, including al Nusra."

The closest Washington came to a public reprimand of its allies over the arming of terrorists in Syria was when Vice President Joe Biden criticized their role in October 2014. In impromptu remarks at Harvard University's Kennedy School, Biden complained that "our biggest problem is our allies." The forces they had supplied with arms, he said, were "al Nusra and al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world."

Biden quickly apologized for the remarks, explaining that he didn't mean that U.S. allies had deliberately helped the jihadists. But Ambassador Ford confirmed his complaint, telling BBC , "What Biden said about the allies aggravating the problem of extremism is true."

In June 2013 Obama approved the first direct U.S. lethal military aid to rebel brigades that had been vetted by the CIA By spring 2014, the U.S.-made BGM-71E anti-tank missiles from the 15,000 transferred to the Saudis began to appear in the hands of selected anti-Assad groups. But the CIA imposed the condition that the group receiving them would not cooperate with the al Nusra Front or its allies.

That condition implied that Washington was supplying military groups that were strong enough to maintain their independence from al Nusra Front. But the groups on the CIA's list of vetted "relatively moderate" armed groups were all highly vulnerable to takeover by the al Qaeda affiliate. In November 2014, al Nusra Front troops struck the two strongest CIA-supported armed groups, Harakat Hazm and the Syrian Revolutionary Front on successive days and seized their heavy weapons, including both TOW anti-tank missiles and GRAD rockets.

In early March 2015, the Harakat Hazm Aleppo branch dissolved itself, and al Nusra Front promptly showed off photos of the TOW missiles and other equipment they had captured from it. And in March 2016, al Nusra Front troops attacked the headquarters of the 13th Division in northwestern Idlib province and seized all of its TOW missiles. Later that month, al Nusra Front released a video of its troops using the TOW missiles it had captured.

But that wasn't the only way for al Nusra Front to benefit from the CIA's largesse. Along with its close ally Ahrar al Sham, the terrorist organization began planning for a campaign to take complete control of Idlib province in the winter of 2014-15. Abandoning any pretense of distance from al Qaeda, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar worked with al Nusra on the creation of a new military formation for Idlib called the "Army of Conquest," consisting of the al Qaeda affiliate and its closest allies. Saudi Arabia and Qatar provided more weapons for the campaign, while Turkey facilitated their passage . On March 28, just four days after launching the campaign, the Army of Conquest successfully gained control of Idlib City.

The non-jihadist armed groups getting advanced weapons from the CIA assistance were not part of the initial assault on Idlib City. After the capture of Idlib the U.S.-led operations room for Syria in southern Turkey signaled to the CIA-supported groups in Idlib that they could now participate in the campaign to consolidate control over the rest of the province. According to Lister , the British researcher on jihadists in Syria who maintains contacts with both jihadist and other armed groups, recipients of CIA weapons, such as the Fursan al haq brigade and Division 13, did join the Idlib campaign alongside al Nusra Front without any move by the CIA to cut them off.

As the Idlib offensive began, the CIA-supported groups were getting TOW missiles in larger numbers, and they now used them with great effectiveness against the Syrian army tanks. That was the beginning of a new phase of the war, in which U.S. policy was to support an alliance between "relatively moderate" groups and the al Nusra Front.

The new alliance was carried over to Aleppo, where jihadist groups close to Nusra Front formed a new command called Fateh Halab ("Aleppo Conquest") with nine armed groups in Aleppo province which were getting CIA assistance. The CIA-supported groups could claim that they weren't cooperating with al Nusra Front because the al Qaeda franchise was not officially on the list of participants in the command. But as the report on the new command clearly implied , this was merely a way of allowing the CIA to continue providing weapons to its clients, despite their de facto alliance with al Qaeda.

The significance of all this is clear: by helping its Sunni allies provide weapons to al Nusra Front and its allies and by funneling into the war zone sophisticated weapons that were bound to fall into al Nusra hands or strengthen their overall military position, U.S. policy has been largely responsible for having extended al Qaeda's power across a significant part of Syrian territory. The CIA and the Pentagon appear to be ready to tolerate such a betrayal of America's stated counter-terrorism mission. Unless either Congress or the White House confronts that betrayal explicitly, as Tulsi Gabbard's legislation would force them to do, U.S. policy will continue to be complicit in the consolidation of power by al Qaeda in Syria, even if the Islamic State is defeated there.

Gareth Porter is an independent journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of numerous books, including Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare (Just World Books, 2014).

  • Stewart , says: June 22, 2017 at 3:26 pm
    America has been doing the same thing in Syria that it did in Afghanistan in the 80s when they armed and trained Bin Laden and the Mujahideen to create Al Qaeda and look what that led to 9/11 only this time their criminal actions of arming Jihadists have led to terrorist attacks in Europe.
    Centralist , says: June 22, 2017 at 4:17 pm
    I think the largest problem with US Foreign Policy is we are rather ignorant of any aspect of the Middle East or its politics even after all that time in Iraq. It is almost embarrassing the fact we are a society that seem to reward and encourage ignorance at all levels of it. At one point in time many politicians lacked formal education yet they were all highly self educated. Lincoln was a self trained lawyer from a humble background. I

    Ignorance is not a virtue unless you are Orwellian in thought.

    Johann , says: June 23, 2017 at 10:03 am
    Cutting through all the propaganda, Assad is the least bad realistic option for syria. If Assad falls, there will be true genocide.
    Steve Diamond , says: June 23, 2017 at 10:21 am
    "ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative" – That is the smartest insight of this story. US policy in the region strongly favors relatively secular dictators. Democracy is seen as a total threat to "stability," brutal US-allied regimes. The US should either stop meddling, or genuinely support democratic reform, but not lie to the American people by meddling in the name of democracy.
    Stephen J,Gray , says: June 23, 2017 at 11:26 am
    Here is an excerpt from Tulsi Gabbard's Press release.
    Why don't you publish it?

    "Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If you or I gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, we would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.[i] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, December 8, 2016,Press Release.

    https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists

    Peter , says: June 23, 2017 at 12:49 pm
    Could it get much worse? American wars in the Middle East have been a total disaster. For a while it looked as if Trump might be the game changer, someone who would finally pull us out. Instead, the situation is getting worse. ISIS is spreading like a cancer in Europe, with a flood of refugees changing the character of Europe permanently perhaps. Meanwhile, the non-Islamist groups were withering away" according to this article, because the US of all people are arming the terrorists. Geez, I wonder if that makes the US a terrorist nation? (Sadly we recently had a choice of partnering with Russia to wipe out ISIS, but we decided to play the sinister game of power politics instead. Clearly the Turks, Saudis other Sunis have been aiding and abetting ISIS in various ways. We should switch allegiance to Russia and Iran, IMO.)
    EK , says: June 23, 2017 at 12:53 pm
    So, the State Department's objective in the Middle East is to create a Sunnistan between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers controlled by radical Sunni Islamists of whatever name they chose to call themselves.

    It seems Israel has signed off on this.

    It also seems the Russians are saying "fine." But still the war goes on. Why?

    Is it absolutely necessary that Syria be destroyed as well?

    Why; is it because of Iran and it's puppets the rump of Iraq east of the Euphrates and Syria?

    If this is the final outcome envisioned of what possible relevance is Afghanistan?

    Skeptic , says: June 23, 2017 at 1:17 pm
    Peter: It already is worse.

    It would be wonderful to see some follow-on reporting by Gareth Porter. For example, on whether there was any relation between Gen. Flynn's apparent opposition to this 'strategy' and the campaign to get him out of the White House. Yeah, I know. He spoke with the Russian ambassador. Besides that.

    mark , says: June 23, 2017 at 3:23 pm
    Every terrorist attack, every child that is killed in the UK and Europe, is just a case of terrorism coming home, pigeons coming home to roost. What goes around comes around. It would be no more than justice if London/ Paris/ Brussels, let alone Riyadh and Doha, one day looked like Damascus does today. We have armed/ bankrolled/ trained this filth. They always bite the hand that feeds them.
    Sothguard , says: June 23, 2017 at 3:42 pm
    Yes. We know. The whole reason I voted for Trump, is because he looked as though he would end this conflict. But it didn't happen. And what did I really expect? No morality, no promise is solid.

    We should have banned travel and withdrawn every US and NATO force from the area, down to the last rifle. We are weakened from years of fighting and our enemies know it.

    It's time we elected a non-rich, non-politician, common man to the office of President. Somebody with outstanding morality and nothing to lose.

    Trump doesn't seem to be delivering what I want. And he's not the leader I want.

    I know what the leader I'm looking for is like. Wherever this man is, it's time he step forward. If he doesn't, then I will, but chances are it will be too late by the time I am ready. So how about one of millions of experienced adults show up for once. I'm tired of living my life, ruled by lesser men. Give me somebody to support, for God's sake.

  • [Jun 25, 2017] Iran's Missile Launch and U.S. Downing a Syrian Jet - Explained

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...On Sunday the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been broadly supporting local militias near the Golan border, paying salaries and aiding with arms and ammunition. The stated purpose is to establish a buffer that keeps the Assad regime and its supporters away from the border. Israel has always called the aid to the rebels humanitarian and says it amounts to supplying drugs, food and clothing to residents, and in giving medical care to the wounded and sick. But Jerusalem hasn't bothered to deny the new reports, which could indicate that the gamble at stake, not only on the Syrian-Iraqi border but in the Golan too, continues to increase. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    Iran's missile fire toward Syria targets is a show of strength and a message to U.S., Russia and Israel

    ...The war in Syria, which has now lasted longer than World War II, continues to metamorphose. The only thing that stays the same is that Syria remains an arena for regional and world powers fighting over status, image and influence.

    ...The Iranian missile fire on ISIS should be seen as a demonstration of power, a signal by Tehran to the Americans, Russians and also the Israelis that Iran is prepared to escalate the gamble in Syria in order to protect what it has already invested in defending its strategic interests there: support for Assad and establishing its influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

    ...Now the U.S. has also become caught up in this tension, without precision planning and perhaps without giving it enough thought. The Trump administration has no policy for Syria beyond being prepared to act more assertively than Obama did when America's might is challenged. Thus, Trump approved the Cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base two months ago, after Assad used chemical weapons in Idlib province, and Americans shot down a Syrian jet on Sunday. Trump seems not to know or care about the details. Last week he relegated the responsibility for another arena, Afghanistan, to the Pentagon, which now gets to decide how many troops are needed to strengthen the forces there.

    ...Americans are always worried about mission creep, as happened in Vietnam in the 1960s. The concern is that tactical decisions, mainly made to defend specific interests here and there, will ultimately bog America down in a major war that it doesn't want. With Trump, this is a real possibility.

    ...On Sunday the Wall Street Journal reported that Israel has been broadly supporting local militias near the Golan border, paying salaries and aiding with arms and ammunition. The stated purpose is to establish a buffer that keeps the Assad regime and its supporters away from the border. Israel has always called the aid to the rebels humanitarian and says it amounts to supplying drugs, food and clothing to residents, and in giving medical care to the wounded and sick. But Jerusalem hasn't bothered to deny the new reports, which could indicate that the gamble at stake, not only on the Syrian-Iraqi border but in the Golan too, continues to increase.

    Pierre Anonymot  | 2017-06-19 13:46

    syria/America & ISIS

    [Jun 25, 2017] Trumps Deflections and Denials on Russia Frustrate Even His Allies by MAGGIE HABERMAN

    NYT tries again to flare Russiagate... The particular pressitute assgned to this task was MAGGIE HABERMAN
    Jun 25, 2017 | www.msn.com

    But the campaign is long over. While many of Mr. Trump's allies and supporters are still reluctant to blame Russia, the American intelligence community has said that Russian interference is a fact, not an opinion. Mr. Trump's strategy of muddying his position has let the Russia issue grow , gumming up the gears in his administration's efforts to move forward with major legislation and decisions.

    "Geopolitically, it touches everything," Mr. DuHaime said.

    That includes some important decisions Mr. Trump will have to make: whether to support tougher sanctions against Russia ; to give back Russian properties seized by the Obama administration ; or to try to remove Robert S. Mueller III , the special counsel investigating whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.

    Officials in a number of states have in the meantime complained that the White House has done little to try to safeguard the 2018 and 2020 elections against potential Russian intrusions, even as evidence grows that there were efforts to tamper with voter rolls last year.

    Through it all, the president's allies continue to see Russia as a boogeyman for Democrats and a rapacious news media, an issue his core voters think is manufactured.

    "He doesn't want to be set by this narrative that the Russians hacked the election when he has to negotiate with Russia, who, by the way, sits on China's border," said Sam Nunberg, a former campaign aide to Mr. Trump. "If Putin adamantly denies that he did it, it's frankly not an issue to the president."

    [Jun 25, 2017] Election Interference Hypocrisy by Yves Engler

    Notable quotes:
    "... Ottawa has interfered in at least one recent Ukrainian election. Canada funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine's lead electoral commissioner Canadian citizenship if he did "the right thing" in the 2004-05 poll. ..."
    "... Globe and Mail ..."
    "... [Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called 'donor coordination' sessions among 20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich [winning]. ..."
    "... In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Michel Martelly to power (with about 16% of the voter, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, our representatives on an Organization of American States Mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. The Center for Economic and Policy Research explained , "the international community, led by the U.S., France, and Canada, has been intensifying the pressure on the Haitian government to allow presidential candidate Michel Martelly to proceed to the second round of elections instead of [ruling party candidate] Jude Celestin." Some Haitian officials had their U.S. visas revoked and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly's vote total wasn't increased as per the OAS recommendation. ..."
    "... The absurdity of the whole affair did not stop the Canadian government from supporting the elections and official election monitors from this country gave a thumbs-up to this farcical exercise in "democracy". Describing the fraudulent nature of the elections, Haiti Progrès ..."
    "... Washington has, of course, interfered in hundreds of elections in dozens of countries, including Italy, France, Greece, Chile, Ecuador, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Australia and, yes, Canada. ..."
    "... Northern Shadows: Canadians and Central America ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... During the 1963 election campaign Kennedy's top pollster, Lou Harris, helped Pearson get elected prime minister. Kennedy backed Harris' move, though he opposed an earlier request for the pollster to help British Labour leader Harold Wilson, which Harris then declined. Since Harris was closely associated with the US president the Liberals called Kennedy's pollster by a pseudonym. ..."
    "... The lesson? Perhaps Washington and Ottawa should treat other countries in the same way they wish to be treated. Perhaps it is time for a broader discussion about election meddling. ..."
    Jun 23, 2017 | dissidentvoice.org

    If a guy does something bad to someone else, but then complains later when another person does that same thing to him, what do we say? Stop being a hypocrite. Either you change tact or you got what you deserved.

    Does the same moral logic apply to countries?

    Purported Russian meddling in US, French and other elections has received significant attention recently. "Russian meddling abroad underscores need for electoral reform in Canada" declared a Rabble.ca headline this week while CBC noted "Russian attempts to infiltrate U.S. election systems found in 21 states: officials". An earlier Globe and Mail headline stated "Russia was warned against U.S. election meddling: ex-CIA head" while a Global News story noted "Canada should worry about Russian interference in elections: former CSIS head."

    Interference in another country's election is an act of aggression and should not happen in a just world so these accusations deserve to be aired and investigated. But, how can one take the outrage seriously when the media commentators who complain about Russia ignore clear-cut Canadian meddling elsewhere and the decades-long history of US interference in other countries' elections around the world, including in Canada.

    Ottawa has interfered in at least one recent Ukrainian election. Canada funded a leading civil society opposition group and promised Ukraine's lead electoral commissioner Canadian citizenship if he did "the right thing" in the 2004-05 poll. Ottawa also paid for 500 Canadians of Ukrainian descent to observe the elections. Three years after Globe and Mail reporter Mark MacKinnon explained :

    [Canadian ambassador to the Ukraine, Andrew Robinson] began to organize secret monthly meetings of western ambassadors, presiding over what he called 'donor coordination' sessions among 20 countries interested in seeing Mr. [presidential candidate Viktor] Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control. Canada also invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov Centre and other groups that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich [winning].

    Canada has also interfered aggressively in Haitian elections. After plotting , executing and consolidating the 2004 coup against Jean Bertrand Aristide's government, Canadian officials interceded in the first election after the coup. In 2006 Canada's then-chief electoral officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, led a team of Canadian observers to Haiti for elections that excluded the candidate – Father Gérard Jean Juste – of Haiti's most popular political party Fanmi Lavalas. With the country gripped by social upheaval after widespread fraud in the counting, including thousands of ballots found burned in a dump, Kingsley released a statement claiming, "the election was carried out with no violence or intimidation, and no accusations of fraud." Chair of the International Mission for Monitoring Haitian Elections, Kingsley's statement went on to laud Jacques Bernard, the head of the electoral council despite the fact that Bernard had already been widely derided as corrupt and biased even by other members of the coup government's electoral council.

    In the 2010 election Ottawa intervened to bring far-right president Michel Martelly to power (with about 16% of the voter, since the election was largely boycotted). Canada put up $6 million for elections that excluded Fanmi Lavalas from participating. After the first round, our representatives on an Organization of American States Mission helped force the candidate the electoral council had in second place, Jude Celestin, out of the runoff. The Center for Economic and Policy Research explained , "the international community, led by the U.S., France, and Canada, has been intensifying the pressure on the Haitian government to allow presidential candidate Michel Martelly to proceed to the second round of elections instead of [ruling party candidate] Jude Celestin." Some Haitian officials had their U.S. visas revoked and there were threats that aid would be cut off if Martelly's vote total wasn't increased as per the OAS recommendation.

    Half of the electoral council agreed to the OAS changes, but half didn't. The second round was unconstitutional, noted Haïti Liberté's Kim Ives, as "only four of the eight-member Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) have voted to proceed with the second round, one short of the five necessary. Furthermore, the first round results have not been published in the journal of record, Le Moniteur, and President Préval has not officially convoked Haitians to vote, both constitutional requirements."

    The absurdity of the whole affair did not stop the Canadian government from supporting the elections and official election monitors from this country gave a thumbs-up to this farcical exercise in "democracy". Describing the fraudulent nature of the elections, Haiti Progrès explained "the form of democracy that Washington, Paris and Ottawa want to impose on us is becoming a reality."

    Washington has, of course, interfered in hundreds of elections in dozens of countries, including Italy, France, Greece, Chile, Ecuador, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Australia and, yes, Canada.

    You haven't heard about that one?

    During the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis the Kennedy administration wanted Ottawa's immediate and unconditional support in putting the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) on high alert. Diefenbaker hesitated, unsure if Washington was telling him the full story about Soviet/Cuban plans or once again bullying the small island nation.

    Not happy with Diefenbaker's attitude during the Cuban Missile Crisis or his ambivalence towards nuclear weapons in Canada, President John F. Kennedy worked to precipitate the downfall of his minority Conservative government. Kennedy preferred Lester Pearson's Liberals who criticized Diefenbaker on Cuba and were willing to accept nuclear-armed Bomarc missiles.

    "In the fall of 1962," notes Peter McFarlane in Northern Shadows: Canadians and Central America , "the State Department began to leak insulting references about Diefenbaker to the U.S. and Canadian press." Articles highly critical of the Canadian prime minister appeared in the New York Times , Newsweek and other major US media outlets. On January 3 the outgoing commander of NATO, US General Lauris Norstad, made a surprise visit to Ottawa where he claimed Canada would not be fulfilling her commitments to the north Atlantic alliance if she did not acquire nuclear warheads. Diefenbaker believed the US general came to Canada "at the behest of President Kennedy" to set the table "for Pearson's conversion to the United States nuclear policy."

    A future prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, concurred. He asked:

    Do you think that General Norstad, the former supreme commander of allied forces in Europe, came to Ottawa as a tourist on January 3 to call publicly on the Canadian government to respect its [nuclear] commitments? Do you think it was by chance that Mr. Pearson, in his speech of January 12, was able to quote the authority of General Norstad? Do you think it was inadvertent that, on January 30, the State Department gave a statement to journalists reinforcing Mr. Pearson's claims and crudely accusing Mr. Diefenbaker of lying? you believe that it was by coincidence that this series of events ended with the fall of the [Diefenbaker] government on February 5?

    A State Department official, Willis Armstrong, described Kennedy's attitude towards the March 1963 Canadian election: "He wanted to intervene and make sure Pearson got elected. It was very evident the president was uptight about the possibility that Pearson might not win." Later Kennedy's Secretary of State Dean Rusk admitted "in a way, Diefenbaker was right, for it was true that we preferred Mike Pearson."

    During the 1963 election campaign Kennedy's top pollster, Lou Harris, helped Pearson get elected prime minister. Kennedy backed Harris' move, though he opposed an earlier request for the pollster to help British Labour leader Harold Wilson, which Harris then declined. Since Harris was closely associated with the US president the Liberals called Kennedy's pollster by a pseudonym.

    Washington may have aided Pearson's campaign in other ways. Diefenbaker wondered if the CIA was active during the 1963 election while External Affairs Minister Howard Green said a US agent attended a couple of his campaign meetings in BC.

    To Washington's delight, Pearson won the election and immediately accepted nuclear-armed Bomarc missiles.

    The lesson? Perhaps Washington and Ottawa should treat other countries in the same way they wish to be treated. Perhaps it is time for a broader discussion about election meddling.

    Yves Engler is the author of A Propaganda System: How Canada's Government, Corporations, Media and Academia Sell War and Canada in Africa: 300 years of aid and exploitation . Read other articles by Yves .

    This article was posted on Friday, June 23rd, 2017 at 7:28am and is filed under Canada , Elections , Haiti , Ukraine , US Hypocrisy .

    [Jun 25, 2017] McCarthys Downfall

    Notable quotes:
    "... Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? ..."
    Jun 25, 2017 | www.mtholyoke.edu

    Exchange between McCarthy and Welsh, June 1954

    Taken from http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html

    Despite initial popularity among his fellow party members and the American public, McCarthy's career began to decline. Even some moderate Republicans withdrew their support from him because they felt the senator was hurting the presidential administration. Despite his waning support, President Eisenhower refrained from publicly reprimanding McCarthy. Apparently, the president refused to "go into the gutter" with McCarthy by initializing a public confrontation. Doing so would only create more chaos and generate more publicity for the senator .However, it became apparent that McCarthy's end was near.
    McCarthy's First Strike
    In june 1953, J.B. Matthews was appointed as McCarthy's research director. In July, Matthews published an article called "Reds in our churches" in the conservative American Mercury. In it, Matthews referred to the Protestant clergy as " the largest single group supporting the Communist apparatus in the United States." The result was a public outrage at Matthews as well as his boss McCarthy.
    Army Investigation
    McCarthy began his investigation of the Army Signal Corps Laboratory at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey in 1953. The laboratory had employed many Jewish engineers from New York. Many of the civilian employees there were members of the left-leaning Populist Front. In fact, Julius Rosenberg once worked there. Many of the workers have been inspected and cleared by the government. The army was already reexamining the entire workforce in 1953.Nevertheless, McCarthy insisted on opening up an investigation into the matter. McCarthy eventually gave up the investigation after months of quarreling with the army.
    The Irving Peress Case

    After giving up his investigation on the Army Signal Corps, McCarthy's committee began to concentrate on Irving Peress, an Army dentist. Peress had invoked the Fifth Amendment when filling out the army's questionnaire. Even though he was put under military surveillance, Peress was still promoted to Major. The army eventually found the paperwork that called for his dismissal and Peress was quickly discharged.

    McCarthy then launched a campaign to criticize the army for allowing Peress to be promoted. When interrogating General Ralph Zwicker, the senator demanded that the general should reveal some names. Zwicker refused because he could not violate executive order. In response, McCarthy rudely insulted the general by comparing his intelligence to that of a "five year old child." McCarthy's treatment of the general generated a lot of hostility from the press and the American public.

    In retaliation for McCarthy's investigation, the Army accused McCarthy's aide Roy Cohn of trying to force the Army into giving special treatment to his friend G. David Schine.

    The Televised Hearings
    The Senate then started hearings into the Peress matter. The investigations and hearings between the Army and McCarthy was televised live to the public. For two months, Americans watched on as McCarthy bully witnesses and called "point of order" to make crude remarks.

    The climax came on June 9. Representing the Army was Joseph Welch. As the Welch was questioning Cohn, McCarthy intervened and said,

    I think we should tell him that he has in his law firm a young man named Fisher, whom he recommended, incidentally, to do work on this committee, who has been for a number of years a member of an organization which was named, oh year and years ago, as the legal bulwark of the Communist party.

    Here, McCarthy was referring to Fred Fisher, a young associate in Welch's law firm. Fisher had refused to come to the hearings because he was once affiliated with the National Lawyers Guild. In response, Welch said he did not let Fisher come to the hearing because he did not want to hurt "the lad" on national television. Welch then urged McCarthy to drop the issue. Nevertheless, McCarthy persisted in questioning Fisher's background. At this point Welch exclaimed,

    Welch: You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

    At this point, the entire American public viewed McCarthy with disdain. On television, the senator from Wisconsin came off as cruel, manipulative and reckless.

    The Final Days

    The hearings were not the only components that eroded McCarthy's credibility. Earlier in the year, the journalist Edward R. Murrow had aired a documentary that showed how McCarthy's charges were groundless and how he had used bullying techniques to harass individuals. By June, the senator's Gallup Poll ratings fell from 50% to 34%.

    On December 2, the Senate voted to censure Joe McCarthy by a margin of sixty-seven to twenty-two.

    Driven by depression from being censured, Joe McCarthy resorted to alcohol, which greatly worsen his health. On May 2, 1957, Joe McCarthy died from acute hepatitis and was buried in Appleton, Michigan.

    [Jun 25, 2017] Sen. Joe McCarthys Startling Morphine Source The Fix by Matt Harvey

    Notable quotes:
    "... During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit so little known? ..."
    "... Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views. ..."
    "... In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in 2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen communists on its faculty. ..."
    "... The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was during his lifetime. ..."
    "... Consumer Reports, ..."
    "... Ladies Home Journal ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium ..."
    "... Philadelphia Inquirer ..."
    May 13, 2013 | www.thefix.com

    During the 1950s Red Scare, America's first drug czar fed the opiate addiction of America's most feared senator. Loved or hated, McCarthy remains a legend. Why is his drug habit so little known?

    Joe McCarthy, the late senator from Wisconsin who built his reputation by whipping up the anti-Communist hysteria sweeping America at the beginning of the Cold War, has long been widely viewed as an object lesson in the abuse of power. His style of politics-demagoguery, paranoia and, worst of all, witch-hunts-has been named McCarthyism, and in recent years some politicians have emerged who would wear the label proudly. For people who have struggled with addiction, however, McCarthy-an alcoholic and opiate addict-offers a provocative question about the limits of our own anti-stigma views.

    By the peak of his power in 1953, McCarthy's allegations of "Communist subversion" had wrecked havoc on virtually every level of government-from scores of federal employees whose careers were ruined by unfounded charges of "treason" to decorated war heroes to highly respected statesmen. McCarthy even characterized the entire Democratic Party as the "party of treason."

    Not surprisingly, there is a long tradition of right-wing pols and pundits who see McCarthy as a misunderstood hero. Sen. Ted Cruz, the newly elected Tea Party Republican from Texas, has already won widespread comparisons to McCarthy for his innuendo-laced pronouncements about Democratic members of Congress and presidential appointees such as Chuck Hagel as Defense Secretary. Cruz has welcomed the criticism as "a sign that perhaps we're doing something right." In fact, McCarthy seems to be almost a role model for Cruz, who in 2010 upbraided his alma mater, Harvard Law School, for harboring a dozen communists on its faculty.

    A larger-than-life figure of enduring influence, the story of Joe McCarthy would seem to offer little in the way of surprises. The fact that he suffered from severe alcoholism is well known. But the fact that by many accounts, he was also addicted to opiates remains almost as hidden as it was during his lifetime.

    That Capitol Hill was rife with drinking and even drugging was an open secret in the 1950s, but the "private" lives of political figures remained largely unpublicized. This protected McCarthy's favorable reputation with the American public from the stinging stigma attached to alcoholism and drug addiction. (There is some speculation that his opiate addiction was the result of either treatment for "chronic pain" or treatment by sympathetic doctors to help fortify the hangover-hobbled senator to get him through the day. But he may have had a personality disorder; a friend remarked once that he "operates in his own moral universe.")

    Yet even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable of shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.

    According to the country's first de-facto drug czar, Harry Anslinger, McCarthy's addiction was enabled by the federal government. Anslinger, who served as chief of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1930 to 1962, is credited with successfully demonizing "marijuana" as causing addiction and insanity, murder and mayhem. More than any other political figure, Anslinger was responsible for criminalizing opiates and its users. And his word was gospel when it came to the country's nascent war on drugs.

    In his 1961 memoir, The Murderers, Anslinger wrote about finding out, in the 1950s, that a prominent senator (whom he left unnamed) was addicted to morphine. When confronted by Anslinger, the politician refused to stop, even daring Anslinger to reveal his addiction, saying it would cause irreparable harm to the "Free World." Anslinger responded to this gambit by securing the lawmaker a steady supply of dope from a Washington, DC, pharmacy. (Morphine taken by prescription was, then as now, legal.)

    Anslinger's acquiescence was a testament to just how feared McCarthy was in his heyday. Few dared to speak above a whisper about his evident alcoholism. "[He] went on for some time, guaranteed his morphine because it was underwritten by the Bureau," Anslinger wrote. "On the day he died I thanked God for relieving me of my burden."

    Beltway insiders guessed that the smack-addicted senator's bullying threats and bombastic appeals to patriotism-not to mention the fact that he had died in office-pointed to the late Joseph McCarthy. Anslinger, however, refused to reveal the name to reporters. The story dropped out of circulation until 1972, when a landmark study on the effects of narcotics, issued by Consumer Reports, repeated it (still with no name attached) in a chapter on "eminent narcotic addicts."

    Even in the current age of celebrity snort-and-tell publicity, when nothing seems capable of shocking, the method in which McCarthy's drugs were supplied is, well, shocking.

    During the Army-McCarthy hearings, which riveted Americans to their small black-and-white television sets in 1954, McCarthy's combustible mix of grandiosity and paranoia was on full self-destructive display. Every so often a senator on the subcommittee would remind viewers-among whom McCarthy's favorability ratings were falling by the week-of the real reason for the proceedings: an investigation of charges that McCarthy had tried to blackmail the Army into giving special favors to a McCarthy aide who had been drafted. All spring, McCarthy played to the cameras in his deep-throated baritone, using the hearings to preach "communist infiltration" at all levels of government (including the Army), and appealing to what he called the "real jury-the 16 million television viewers out there."

    But then Army chief counsel Joseph Welch confronted McCarthy over his attempt to blacken the reputation of a young Welch associate, for purportedly joining a "Communist-front" lawyers organization. When McCarthy persisted, a visibly shaken Welch famously upbraided him with these words: "Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" The packed hall burst into applause.

    By the time the gavel fell on the hearings, McCarthy could be seen desperately haranguing an empty chamber. Having finally gone too far, he was censured by a slim majority of his peers. Neither the career nor the man himself ever recovered; he died three years later. McCarthy's last years were not pretty. He was in and out of the hospital with exhaustion, broken bones, failing organs. Apt to suddenly appear on crutches, or with his arm in a sling, he fluctuated noticeably in weight. His official cause of death, "noninfectious, seldom fatal, hepatitis, cause unknown," is not consistent with the acute alcoholic's liver disease that is generally thought to have killed him.

    McCarthy's opiate addiction became public fodder only after Anslinger's death. A 1978 article in, of all places, Ladies Home Journal named McCarthy as the senator in Anslinger's autobiography. "Agents who worked under [Anslinger] claim that the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy was addicted to morphine and regularly obtained his narcotics through a druggist near the White House, authorized by Anslinger to fill the prescription," Maxine Cheshire wrote.

    Given Cheshire's credentials as a respected Washington Post reporter, the report was treated not as gossip but as news, and widely disseminated. United Press International (UPI) put it starkly, "[McCarthy] was a morphine addict who had his drugs supplied by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics for the sake of national security."

    In Flowers in the Blood: the Story of Opium , a 1981 investigation into the history of opium use, addiction and interdiction, Dean Latimer reported that the relationship between Anslinger and McCarthy was more complicated and hypocritical than Anslinger had ever let on. Just when the top drug-enforcer was supplying McCarthy with his government-approved pharmaceutical smack, the two worked hand in hand to pin the country's burgeoning heroin trade on a Communist Chinese plot, even though the trafficking was clearly a mafia-controlled operation. Such a fiction would have conveniently served the federal government's relaxed policy toward organized crime. (During his 40-year reign, FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover never even acknowledged Cosa Nostra's very existence.)

    The last mainstream mention of McCarthy's morphine addiction that this writer has uncovered dates back to 1989, when the Philadelphia Inquirer attacked scholarship supporting Cheshire's findings. By now, of course, anyone who could have authoritatively confirmed the story is long dead.

    McCarthy was undoubtedly a man who wrestled with more than his share of private demons that he was only too eager to unleash on the nation. His exploitation of his country's greatest fears have made him a polarizing figure. To most, he is a cautionary tale about the abuse of power. But to some, he is an exemplar of the principle that, as the late Arizona senator Barry Goldwater famously said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Given the current climate of polarization in our national politics, it is not surprising that McCarthy-as-myth has made a comeback.

    For the recovery community, there is a special question in the story of Joe McCarthy. Whether omitted by those who would rehabilitate him or advertised by those who would vilify him, his addiction is viewed as a shameful "scarlet letter." For those of us who view addiction as a disease to be treated with sympathy-and who reserve none of that emotion for McCarthy the demagogue-coming to terms with McCarthy the addict is, to say the least, challenging.

    Matt Harvey is an award-winning freelance journalist whose writing has appeared on AnimalNY.com , Black Book, the New York Post and the New York Press, among other publications. He lives in Manhattan.

    [Jun 25, 2017] You know there is a saying falsely attributed to Churchill: "Those who choose shame between war and shame they end up by getting both". Russia chose shame in 2014, but will inevitable get war. Or hasn't it already? The "hybrid war", you know.

    Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Boris N June 16, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

    @German_reader

    any form of military escalation would be fraught with grave risks

    You know there is a saying falsely attributed to Churchill: "Those who choose shame between war and shame they end up by getting both". Russia chose shame in 2014, but will inevitable get war. Or hasn't it already? The "hybrid war", you know.

    Or another saying: "Better a terrible end than an endless terror".

    Your views on the Syrian intervention are convincing to me, Russia should definitely avoid deeper involvement.

    You pose a false ridiculous dilemma. How can a normal honest Russian equate some ragheads with Russians and hesitate whom to help and where to intervene?

    Imagine East Germany has not united with the West Germany, but instead become a fascist country with a hostile anti-WG identity. Some people there want to WG anyway and they raise a rebellion, so the Berlin regime starts to oppress and even bomb and kill them. At the same time WG has got an opportunity to fight ISIS on the ground. So how do you think what an honest German from WG should choose having the limited military resources? To help your German brothers nearby and intervene (or occupy EG outright altogether) or to fight some damned ragheads somewhere far away in the damned desert?

    Exactly if Putin has chosen an intervention in Syria over an intervention in Ukraine he is just saying to everybody that Russians do not matter but that Muslims do. When Putin was saying he's a nationalist "of some sort" we now know of what sort of nationalists he is. Muslim and Ukrainian ones! Or more generally any nationalists who are against Russians.

    [Jun 25, 2017] The US doesnt really want to settle the Syrian war. Without permanent Jihad, how could Washington ever justify a permanent War on Terror? Ditto Ukraine: they need a constant crisis there to isolate the Europe from Russia. They did not appreciate Putins attempts at improving relations with Europe–Germany,

    Jun 25, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Seamus Padraig Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

    @Western Solidarity I will be brief here. Right now we are entering uncharted waters in Russo-American relations. What the investigations of Trump's ties to the Kremlin or at least to the Russian Mafia will reveal remains to be seen. Meanwhile the U.S. Senate is rushing to put more sanctions on Russia for alleged meddling in America's elections last year. This is simply insane. Russia and America have the two largest nuclear arsenals on earth. Russia sits at the crossroads of Asia, Europe and the Middle East and is Europe's first line of defense from invasion from the Orient or Moslem Middle East.

    Russia's help is need to settle the Syrian civil war, end the Ukrainian crisis, keep Iran nuclear free, de=fang North Korea and curb China's growing appetite and ambition for worldwide resources, markets and "adventures". The U.S. should be working with Russia to manage these issues and make Western solidarity not just a slogan but a reality. Instead the Congress is going all out to alienate and aggravate the Russian Bear. I fear that one day President Putin will tire of the persecution of Russia and her proud people and the demonization of his regime and give orders to send long range nuclear missiles and atomic warheads to both North Korea and Iran.

    Russia shares borders with both and could easily ship these weapons in piecemeal by train, truck, ship and plane to the tyrants in power in those countries and send technicians to assemble them and train the North Koreans and Iranians on how to use them.

    This is I know a nightmare scenario, but it could easily occur. At that point two of America's closest dependents, Israel and Japan, would be directly threatened by virulent dictators. How would America react?

    What could or would the U.S. President do to "retaliate"? This is very, very serious and Congress needs to stop playing games and realize it is vital to America's peace and security to be friends or at least neutral with Russia and work with them on areas of common agreement and need such as stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, settling ongoing wars, stopping the migrant invasion of Europe, etc., etc. Otherwise it could literally come to World War II and the end of the planet. No joking matter my friends.

    Russia's help is need to settle the Syrian civil war, end the Ukrainian crisis, keep Iran nuclear free, de=fang North Korea and curb China's growing appetite and ambition for worldwide resources, markets and "adventures".

    Except that the US doesn't really want to settle the Syrian war. Without permanent Jihad, how could Washington ever justify a permanent 'War on Terror'? Ditto Ukraine: they need a constant crisis there to isolate the Europe from Russia. They did not appreciate Putin's attempts at improving relations with Europe–Germany, especially–since coming to power in 1999. The Norks' nukes don't threaten Russia in the slightest–Russia has more than enough of a deterrent to handle such a small, isolated country. And Iran and Russia now have quite goods relations, and Iran still doesn't have a bomb. As far as China's resource appetites are concerned, well, that actually benefits Russia, as China is now one of their largest customers, both for natural resources as well as defense/aerospace technology.

    [Jun 25, 2017] Trump vision might crystallized as a fight against the Muslim Brotherhood and support for Izrael. While Obama supported it and tolerated its agents in the government, such as Huma Abedin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's vision which was spelled out during the campaign: an end to Islamic terrorism, thus détente with Russia who is fighting same, plus support for Isr. Imho, somehow this all cristallized into "against the Muslim Brotherhood." (See DT's speech in KSA. And that is why he first tweeted his approval of the crack-down on Qatar, cos MB.) ..."
    "... The MB was declared a 'terrorist organisation' by Russia (2003), Syria and Egypt (2013), KSA, Bahrein, UAE (2014.) ..."
    "... Ted Cruz (USA) tried to effect same and failed, though I didn't really follow that (?) The opposition was Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Clinton machine, (Dems - muslims are cute bunnies), various Muslim 'inclusive' orgs etc. McCain was/is pro-MB?, the cut is not uniquely along pol. partisan lines. The tribes need to be better defined. A gingerly neo-con-neo lib marriage. France is also split on this matter, but in another way, with Socialists, or what used to be the Socialists, against the MB ( go figure >see Laguerre at 14.) ..."
    "... Momo - Mohamed bin Salman is kind of a stupid crazy fool, and also the type who does not see things through, it is busy work for show etc. His rise to power is a prototypcial symptom of a 'failed state/régime.' And Qatar knows where its red line is. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Noirette | Jun 24, 2017 1:44:23 PM | 83

    Trump's vision which was spelled out during the campaign: an end to Islamic terrorism, thus détente with Russia who is fighting same, plus support for Isr. Imho, somehow this all cristallized into "against the Muslim Brotherhood." (See DT's speech in KSA. And that is why he first tweeted his approval of the crack-down on Qatar, cos MB.)

    The MB was declared a 'terrorist organisation' by Russia (2003), Syria and Egypt (2013), KSA, Bahrein, UAE (2014.)

    Ted Cruz (USA) tried to effect same and failed, though I didn't really follow that (?) The opposition was Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Clinton machine, (Dems - muslims are cute bunnies), various Muslim 'inclusive' orgs etc. McCain was/is pro-MB?, the cut is not uniquely along pol. partisan lines. The tribes need to be better defined. A gingerly neo-con-neo lib marriage. France is also split on this matter, but in another way, with Socialists, or what used to be the Socialists, against the MB ( go figure >see Laguerre at 14.)

    The rapprochement between Isr. and KSA which will soon become official -- it will be strong -- (I believe they have been meeting in secret for at least a year) hinges on this point as well. (Many of these changes pre-date Trump, or rather stem from similar causes that saw Trump elected.)

    All this gets very complicated, cracks and fissures and new alliances, new compositions, but as b writes "but there is also danger in such a fight."

    Imho, though, this major Gulfies acrimonious upset will be absorbed and resolved soonish.

    Momo - Mohamed bin Salman is kind of a stupid crazy fool, and also the type who does not see things through, it is busy work for show etc. His rise to power is a prototypcial symptom of a 'failed state/régime.' And Qatar knows where its red line is.

    In fact the US priority has been to weaken the GCC so they stop funding Sunni Islamists in the region. - virgile at 76 post is sorta along this line as well.

    [Jun 25, 2017] The story about about the legendary Qatari pipeline is probably British fake

    Notable quotes:
    "... A pipeline through Syria would have been a great boost to national economy for a number of years & could raise a port of the country to one of global importance, just at a time that Turkey started turning the spigot of Euphrates off ..."
    "... Consider that Qatar would have been a captive ally for Syria, a commodity rather in short supply for that country. The best part of it is, perhaps, that Syria presumably had a natural aversion to the transit fees. ..."
    "... There is another interesting story in this regard, which is to do with (at least) three rounds of exploration for gas in Saudi Arabia, all failed, and the special need for gas to service its petrochemical industry. If memory serves, the reason is they want to upgrade the heavy crude portion of their production, which has steadily been growing, and which the Saudis might have to sell as bunker oil at great discount, if they fail to find gas. ..."
    "... the Qataris were told in no uncertain terms that their gas 'had to remain in the peninsula' (Arabian subcontinent) for consumption, to serve the oil sector. ..."
    "... If this is right (honestly, I do not know), it might explain quite a bit about the rivalries of the extremist Moslem clergy, and their activities both within the Moslem world and abroad, why not, even developments in Europe & the States. ..."
    Jun 25, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    atVec | Jun 23, 2017 10:14:39 PM 52

    |Jen@31 writes about the legendary Qatari pipeline. That story made its appearance early in the conflict, and if anybody knows its origin, I would be keen to be let know.
    That story goes that Assad would not let Qatar have its pipeline because, presumably, Russians wanted to retain their stranglehold on European gas supplies.

    The subtext is that those Russians must be very hard task masters and Assad, the lowliest of low lives, a terrified thug. And when the troubles started, Assad did not go back to the Qataris to discuss the matter over.

    Sorry, I cannot square that.

    A pipeline through Syria would have been a great boost to national economy for a number of years & could raise a port of the country to one of global importance, just at a time that Turkey started turning the spigot of Euphrates off (this is a sense I have, do not know if it is right) & a protracted drought and economic hardship all hit the country at the same time.

    Consider that Qatar would have been a captive ally for Syria, a commodity rather in short supply for that country. The best part of it is, perhaps, that Syria presumably had a natural aversion to the transit fees.

    There is another interesting story in this regard, which is to do with (at least) three rounds of exploration for gas in Saudi Arabia, all failed, and the special need for gas to service its petrochemical industry. If memory serves, the reason is they want to upgrade the heavy crude portion of their production, which has steadily been growing, and which the Saudis might have to sell as bunker oil at great discount, if they fail to find gas.

    The story was run in the English papers of the Gulf circa 2012, whereby the Qataris were told in no uncertain terms that their gas 'had to remain in the peninsula' (Arabian subcontinent) for consumption, to serve the oil sector.

    Once I chanced on an article on the educational proclivities of the thousands of the Saudi princes. Any guess? Yes, a good portion of them goes in for religious studies! Somehow I do not think they aspire to be lowly priests; but if not, where might they wish to have their sees? What if the other principalities of the Gulf have nobilities with similar outlooks & hopes?

    If this is right (honestly, I do not know), it might explain quite a bit about the rivalries of the extremist Moslem clergy, and their activities both within the Moslem world and abroad, why not, even developments in Europe & the States.

    Regards, Vec.

    Lozion | Jun 23, 2017 10:24:34 PM | 53

    @36 & @31 I think you are both right. The Pipelinistan angle is a major part of this feud.

    A probable change of heart from Qatar who has seen the light that no regime change will happen in Syria therefore making a Fars --> Iraq --> Syria -> Lebanon LNG pipeline a realistic endeavor is causing panic in KSA/US/IS who are trying to pressure Qatar to back-off from any deals with Iran..

    If Turkey is firm on protecting Qatar then the ultimatum will come to pass and be null and void..

    Don Bass | Jun 24, 2017 1:34:34 AM | 57

    @ Vic

    Y'know, when I read a comment such as yours: "~ I don't reckon its got anything to do with a pipeline ~" I immediately think of that old trope: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubts"

    Vic: instead of visiting here to blatantly display your ignorance, how about more usefully spending that typing time to research the topic, hmmm?

    The Imperial drive to crush Syria has been in play since the early 1980s, when Assad senior was in power.

    Here's a link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/1983-cia-document-reveals-plan-to-destroy-syria-foreshadows-current-crisis/5577785

    And another http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/07/57-years-ago-u-s-britain-approved-use-islamic-extremists-topple-syrian-government.html

    And another http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

    And here's your bonus link, cause I'm feeling the karma burst of sharing http://humansarefree.com/2014/09/exposing-covert-origins-of-isis.html

    Now, go and do your homework: you may be able to raise your F to a C, for a pass grade, once you've done some actual reading on the topic.

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
    "... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
    "... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
    "... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
    "... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
    "... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
    "... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program , which should be read with the current book.)

    The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.

    Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.

    Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert constitutional order.

    As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."

    Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally." Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.

    Hating the US

    There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the US.

    Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.

    Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.

    Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters into the equation in determining foreign policy.

    In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American population.

    Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."

    Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.

    Nazi Influences

    Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.

    That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic, which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.

    This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam. Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency, simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.

    That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented. This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."

    'Anti-Partisan' Lessons

    It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps and forests of Russia.'"

    Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.

    Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same). 'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the Nazi period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear political will.'"

    This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo Military Commissions.

    Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine "existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure (VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure" meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.

    "The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing" enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."

    Lauding Petraeus

    Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled, The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as they preferred to call it.

    But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix program."

    He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program, supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation would develop in practice."

    It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that expand the number of fighters.

    Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles.

    The Bloody Reality

    One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears" as proof of six people killed.

    The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.

    "How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."

    This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine writes.

    A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971, describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the South Vietnamese government.

    But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.

    Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels of CIA involvement.

    Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    CIA Crimes

    Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."

    "Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.

    Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.

    This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.

    Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely.

    Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at ConsortiumNews.com .

    Read more by Todd E. Pierce Inciting Wars the American Way – August 14th, 2016 Chicago Police Adopt Israeli Tactics – December 13th, 2015 US War Theories Target Dissenters – September 13th, 2015 Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War – September 1st, 2015 Has the US Constitution Been Lost to Military Rule?– January 4th, 2015

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
    "... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
    "... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
    "... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
    "... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
    "... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
    "... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program , which should be read with the current book.)

    The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.

    Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.

    Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert constitutional order.

    As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."

    Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally." Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.

    Hating the US

    There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the US.

    Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.

    Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.

    Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters into the equation in determining foreign policy.

    In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American population.

    Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."

    Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.

    Nazi Influences

    Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.

    That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic, which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.

    This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam. Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency, simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.

    That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented. This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."

    'Anti-Partisan' Lessons

    It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps and forests of Russia.'"

    Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.

    Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same). 'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the Nazi period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear political will.'"

    This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo Military Commissions.

    Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine "existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure (VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure" meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.

    "The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing" enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."

    Lauding Petraeus

    Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled, The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as they preferred to call it.

    But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix program."

    He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program, supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation would develop in practice."

    It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that expand the number of fighters.

    Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles.

    The Bloody Reality

    One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears" as proof of six people killed.

    The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.

    "How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."

    This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine writes.

    A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971, describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the South Vietnamese government.

    But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.

    Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels of CIA involvement.

    Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    CIA Crimes

    Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."

    "Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.

    Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.

    This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.

    Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely.

    Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at ConsortiumNews.com .

    Read more by Todd E. Pierce Inciting Wars the American Way – August 14th, 2016 Chicago Police Adopt Israeli Tactics – December 13th, 2015 US War Theories Target Dissenters – September 13th, 2015 Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War – September 1st, 2015 Has the US Constitution Been Lost to Military Rule?– January 4th, 2015

    [Jun 24, 2017] The United States and Iran Two Tracks to Establish Hegemony by James Petras

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran ..."
    "... And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing. ..."
    Jun 10, 2017 | unz.com

    Introduction

    US policy in the Middle East and South Asia is shaped by several basic considerations:

    1. US Imperialism is the force of global domination
    2. US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran.
    3. The return of Iran to the status of puppet regime will advance Washington's ultimate goal of encircling and isolating Russia and China.
    4. The US overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran will facilitate Israel's final seizure of Palestine, including Jerusalem, and establish Tel Aviv as the dominant regional power in the Middle East.

    Washington's 'Two Track' Policy for Domination

    US strategic planners rely on a two-track policy , combining and blending military and ideological weapons.

    Its military strategy relies on slicing up the Middle East - 'salami tactics' – invading and conquering of each and every country and government, which shares the Islamic Republic of Iran's policy of national sovereignty and independence. US military success or failure depends on its alliances in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. The US, Saudi Arabia and Israel all sponsor terrorist groups which have attacked Iran's scientists, its elected representatives and military leaders, as well as its sacred sites – inside Iran as well as abroad.

    The political and ideological strategy involves the penetration and organization of domestic forces to destabilize and weaken Iran's internal security, defense capability and overseas alliances.

    Ideological warfare involves: (1) exploiting regional, ethnic, class and religious differences to undermine stability and fragment the country; and (2) converting legitimate social critics and political opposition parties into imperial collaborators.

    Ideological attacks are designed to attract Iranian writers, academics, intellectuals and artists who choose to ignore the history of US imperialism in fomenting bloody coups (Mossadegh 1954), launching proxy wars via Saddam Hussain's invasion (1980- 88) and the terrorist attacks by Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as the terrorists backed by Iraq's former dictator.

    US propaganda intervention in Iran's electoral process has been designed to promote a so-called "color revolution" regime change favored by neo-liberal, pro-West parties and candidates who seek US sponsorship in their ascent to power. The imperial collaborators and various Western 'human rights' NGOs hide the sordid history of Washington's overt and proxy wars/coups and occupations in Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Palestine.

    In order to intimidate and weaken overseas and domestic allies; and the (4) financing and arming of terrorists from Europe, the Middle East and North Africa to attack the Islamic Republic.

    Linguistic and Conceptual Perversions

    Imperial warfare depends on perverting political language and concepts. The US refers to invasion, which have killed and maimed millions of Muslims and Christians in Iraq (2003-2017) and Syria (2011-2017) as 'humanitarian interventions'. In reality its policy described an ongoing 'holocaust' – the massive genocidal violation of the human rights of scores of millions of people to sovereignty, peace and security of home, life, limb, culture and faith.

    The millions of victims of the West's current holocaust in the Middle East reject and scorn Washington's imperialist claim of defending 'democratic values' and its so called 'responsibility to protect (R2P) ' as pronounced by a series of US Administrations through their mouthpieces in the United Nations.

    In contrast, US support for the Saudi monarch's brutal bombing and blockade of Yemen has led to an entire population facing starvation and a massive, cholera epidemic, which now threatens over 26 million Yeminis. The campaign against Yemen by the brutal Saudis and their US-EU allies is the very definition of crimes against humanity and international law.

    Sanctions: A Tool of Conquest

    US sanctions against Iraq, Syria, Iran and Yemen have been designed to starve working people into submission while capturing the support of some middle class consumers. US policy of invading Libya and brutally murdering President Gadhafi and his family members was designed to systematically destroy a prosperous, independent republic and turn it into a backward, impoverished fiefdom of tribal warlords, exploited by Western oil companies. Saudi Arabia joined the European Union in financing terrorists, many trained in the destroyed remnants of Libya, who later killed innocent civilians in Paris, Nice, London, Manchester and other parts of Europe.

    The strategic goal of the US invasion of Iraq, Syria and Yemen has been to violently divide these independent republics and turn them into ethnically cleansed, impoverished, mini-states – in the imperial tradition of 'divide and conquer'. Such tribal fiefdoms are easily dominated by imperial powers.

    Regional and Global Strategy

    Washington's imperial strategists have arrived at the conclusion that they cannot conquer independent states, like Iran, in a single attack, given its size, defense capability, internal cohesion and regional alliances.

    Their strategy is to surround Iran by destroying its allies, one nation at a time.

    The first phase of the US invasion, occupation and systematic destruction of Iraq and its entire governmental infrastructure was designed to overthrow the Baathist state, then neutralize the Shi'a militia and impose a servile client regime in Baghdad. The second step was to encourage Sunni tribal warlords to seize control of central Iraq. The third step was to arm the Kurds to form a mini-state in northern Iraq (so-called "Kurdistan"). This would entail large-scale ethnic cleansing, the total destruction of Iraq's ancient Christian community, the extermination of its multiethnic modern educated, scientific, cultural and technocratic work force. In other words, the US strategy was to obliterate any remnant of the Iraqi Republic in its war to 'remake the Middle East'.

    After Iraq and Libya, the next target for US-EU aggression has been the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, Iran's ally. The EU, USA, Saudi Arabia and Turkey sponsored an invasion by mercenary Salafi forces under a network of Daesh-ISIS-al Queda terrorists. Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have provided military, logistical and financial support to the terrorists.

    After Syria, the fourth target of Anglo-American-Saudi-Israeli military strategy would be to undermine the national sovereignty of Lebanon and destroy the armed political Hezbollah Party, the powerful Lebanese resistance organization (allied with Iran). It was consistent with this strategy for the West to support Israel's brutal air and ground attacks against the civilian population and infrastructure of Beirut, Lebanese port cities and villages. Tens of thousands of Lebanese Christians were not spared the Israeli terror bombing campaign.

    If a Lebanese campaign were successful and Hezbollah was destroyed, the 'final' Israeli conquest of Palestine, the fifth objective, could commence: US and world Zionism would unconditionally celebrate Israel's massive ethnic purge of Palestine's native peoples and finish off the total confiscation of the homes, mosques, churches, land and resources of millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians and other peoples. This would create history's first 'pure Jewish' state.

    The sixth imperial objective would be to disarm Iran's military and security structure and weaken its economy in order to isolate the Islamic Republic and undermine its Middle Eastern alliances. This strategic objective explains why Washington promotes its one-sided nuclear arms agreement with Iran, while the nuclear-armed Israel is excluded! Despite Iran's abiding by the terms of the agreement, there have been no reciprocal lifting of economic sanctions or the normalization of trade and diplomatic relations.

    Iran Counters the US Global Military Threat

    Iran responded by developing economic, technical and military agreements with Russia and China in order to counter the US-Israeli-Saudi threats and sanctions. Russia provides advanced defensive weapons systems. China signs large-scale, long-term trade agreements while including Iran in its huge Central Asian infrastructure projects. Most importantly, Iran has succeeded in defending the legitimate government of Syria, while aiding Iraq and Yemen.

    Iran undermined official US sanctions by signing multi-billion dollar agreements with the giant Boeing Corporation for the purchase of passenger airplanes as well as developing further agreements with US banks and agro-business exporters and oil companies. These profitable agreements with the US agro-business export sector can weaken the Pentagon-Zionist sanctions.

    Iran has the diplomatic support of the Non-Aligned Movement opposing Israeli-US Zionist military threats.

    Iran's principled opposition to Saudi Arabia's massive arms purchases, as well as the Kingdom's vicious alliance with Israel and its genocidal assault against the Yemeni people, has gained the support of world public opinion – especially the masses of independent Muslims throughout the world.

    Iran's educational, scientific, military and political-electoral advances provide the basis for national security, economic growth, cultural enrichment, international alliances and the deepening of social democracy for its people. It provides an alternative independent vision for many millions of Muslims living under harsh monarchies, military dictators and imperial oppression.

    Conclusion

    Since the US and its allies launched their 'hot war' by surrounding, threatening and destabilizing Iran, Washington's strategy has suffered serious military defeats and political retreats.

    Iraq is no longer encircled by the US. Shia-based militias have regional control, especially south of Baghdad and beyond. Syria, Iran's ally, has fought hard to finally liberate many towns, cities and territory taken by the terrorist mercenaries despite the EU-US-Saudi-Israel's initial advances.

    Rival rebel forces and mercenary gangsters besiege the US puppet governments in Libya, Somalia and South Sudan. The classic CIA term, 'blowback', means these terrorists are now turning their guns on the West.

    Washington has lost control of Afghanistan. Over a third of the Afghan military and police recruits defect to the resistance fighters. The central 'government' in Kabul influences less than a quarter of the country

    Despite spending trillions of dollars on wars and propaganda over the past two decades, US military strategy to encircle and conquer Iran has been a military, diplomatic and economic failure. The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.

    Despite US congressional, Presidential and Pentagon support for Israel's Jewish colonization of Palestine, more countries, trade unions and social movements, around the world, support the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel than ever before. Manu are speaking up despite government threats to outlaw 'criticism of Israel' as a 'hate crime'.

    The turmoil and deep political divisions in the United States between the oligarchs allied to President Trump and the opposition oligarchs have created a profound institutional crisis, which has undermined domestic governance and disrupted US global alliances, US-EU relations and US-Asian trade links.

    Despite the bizarre and often theatrical presentation by the US mass media, the American Congress and President Trump are fighting over fundamental issues, including control of the national security agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc.), foreign and military policy, the economy and environmental agenda, the federal budget, judiciary and the Presidency.

    The political crisis has paralyzed the capacity of the US to start new wars and negotiate international agreements. President Trump is facing a serious coup d'état involving the political-intelligence elite, with the military looking warily on the chaos. The masses are increasingly polarized or disgusted.

    In an attempt to deflect from his domestic problems, President Trump deepened the US alliance with Saudi Arabia and reiterated threats against Iran. Nevertheless he declined pressure to move the US embassy to Israel. The inconsistent and ad hoc nature of current US policy alienates friends and foes – with no redeeming features.

    The domestic opposition demands an end of President Trump's diplomatic overtures to Russia. It uses the fake pretext of Russian interference in the US presidential election to move toward the president's impeachment.

    The US faces a CLANDESTINE CIVIL WAR among its elite!

    A financial bubble accompanies the American domestic political crisis. The economic elite, the banks and stock market have benefited through speculation, despite or because of, the paralysis among rival political oligarchs!

    The emergence of Trump's so-called 'national-capitalist ideology' means a decline in US multi-lateral agreements, such as NATO, the EU, NAFTA and the Trans-

    Pacific Trade Partnership (TPP). This explains Trump's effort to renegotiate bilateral agreements, which have failed

    Trump's stated policy objectives have fallen between two chairs: the multi-lateral agreements have not been replaced by lucrative bilateral deals. Trump relies on big business offerings and 'nationalist' ideology to minimize his diplomatic failures and ideological isolation. Trump wants to win contracts for greater US exports and investment. This has been weakened by the previous administration's pursuit of economic sanctions and expanding wars, as well as his feckless propaganda.

    The Trump regime is full of contradictions: It threatens to end the nuclear agreement with Iran but allows Boeing to sell billions of dollars of civilian aircraft to Teheran. It signs a $300 billion dollar arms sales agreement with Saudi Arabia (business for the for military industries) while losing political influence in the US, where the Saudis are widely despised.

    At least, Trump does not blather on about humanitarian wars; he would prefer signing business deals. He mentions the need for 'regime change' in Syria and sending more troops to Afghanistan but does little to implement these goals.

    President Trump is fighting for his own political (and personal) survival and to prevent his impeachment (via a Congressional coup). His strongest defense would be to strengthen the domestic economy and show some overseas economic successes.

    Essentially, Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.

    Trump would like to balkanize Syria, while avoiding new troop commitments to Afghanistan. He would prefer profitable trade relations with Russia and China and perhaps, Iran, over war.

    The impediments to any Trump policy success are massive: Trump's Administration includes zealous neo-conservative Russophobes and Zionist-Iranophobes. These are militarists who would provoke eventual armed conflict with Moscow and Teheran. Their current focus is on expanding the war in Syria, sending more US troops to Afghanistan and forging deeper ties with Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    The current internal political contradictions between the Trump regime and the 'Deep' State apparatus, and between the Trump-allied business elite and the Zionist-neoconservative warmongers, preclude the development of a consequential Trump foreign policy.

    In the meantime, domestic political warfare and the deepening divisions between the US and EU will create opportunities for Russia, China and Iran to join together in historic economic political and alliances, which might help re-balance a world on the brink of 'world war', economic collapse and environmental disaster.

    The divisions among NATO countries undermine the establishment of a united front for greater imperial wars. The fragmentation of the European Union (Brexit, the collapse of Greece, the EU-sponsored putsch in Ukraine) lessens its global economic influence. The division between the US Presidential regime and the Opposition Security State apparatus paralyzes the US push for new imperial wars.

    Divisions and conflicts within the imperial camp presents favorable opportunities for anti-imperialist countries in the Middle East, like Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

    The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on peaceful co-existence and greater economic co-operation.

    This essay is dedicated to the memory of the innocent martyrs of the recent brutal terrorist attacks against the Iranian Parliament and the holy shrine and to honor the brave survivors and family members of the victims.

    Republished from James Petras website

    James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He is the author of 63 books published in 29 languages, and over 560 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, Journal of Contemporary Asia, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Partisan Review, Temps Moderne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. His publishers have included Random House, John Wiley, Westview, Routledge, Macmillan, Verso, Zed Books and Pluto Books. He is winner of the Life Time Career Award, Marxist Section, of the American Sociology Association, the Robert Kenny Award for Best Book, 2002, and the Best Dissertation, Western Political Science Association in 1968. Some recent titles include Unmasking Globalization: Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century (2001); co-author The Dynamics of Social Change in Latin America (2000), Unmasking Globalisation (2001), System in Crisis (2003), co-author Social Movements and State Power (2003), co-author Empire With Imperialism (2005), co-author) Multinationals on Trial (2006). His most recent title, The Power of Israel in the United States (Clarity Press, Inc. 2006), has been acquired for Japanese, German, Italian, Indonesian and Arabic editions.He received his MA and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. Among his books:

    Joe Levantine Show Comment Next New Comment June 23, 2017 at 8:51 am GMT

    Jun 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A perfect article beyond any possible comments. Mr. Petras hits a perfect score as he often does. A dispassionate, lucid and thorough analysis of the greater geopolitical world that could teach the half brained and crooked congressional representatives a great many lessons.

    jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:12 am GMT

    A very good description of the present world.
    Alas western media present a quite different picture.

    disturbed_robot Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:14 am GMT

    Mr. Petras, my hats off to you. This is the most to-the-point, honest assessment of what's going on I've read in a long time.

    My only complaint is the use of the term "Middle East". We should all drop this British colonial era term and just call it what it is: Southwest Asia. Please don't take that as being nit-picky and looking for fault (not my intention at all) your article is brilliant. But we have to start somewhere.

    jilles dykstra Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

    @Joe Levantine Is it possible that many representatives know quite well what's going on, but have reasons, their own political survival, to pretend they do not know ?
    Senator Hollings just dared to speak the truth shortly before he resigned, in 2004.

    Hans Vogel Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 7:14 am GMT

    With respect to Israel's supposedly assigned role, I beg to differ. The US, like Russia and Iran, is an assimilative empire, established on the basis of welcoming and incorporating any group or individual willing to adopt the imperial culture and language. In other words, these are non-exclusive states. Israel, on the other hand, is built on rigid and comprehensive racial and religious exclusiveness. Only jews can join. Israel is the quintessential nation state, built on an antiquated, romantic 19th-century idea. The self-defeating and ultimately untenable model of the nation state was demonstrated unequivocally in 1945, but ignoring historical proof, Israel resuscitated it in 1948. Therefore, it would seem to me Israel can never become the dominant force in the Middle East. Even if it somehow succeeds in attaining this position, it will definitely be of a very short duration. It is a bit like what Guizot once remarked: you can do anything with a bayonet, except sit on it.

    Durruti Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 10:27 am GMT

    A Nicely Written Article by Petras:

    1. Could have used a bit of information on the Rothschilds and other dominant Jewish Banking Family Oligarchs, including their role in the assassination of John F. Kennedy (the last Constitutional President of the United States ), on November 22, 1963, in the Coup D'etat in Dallas, (the first successful Modern Arab Spring ).

    2. Could have benefitted by references to the horrors of Vietnam and Indonesia (1965), 9/11, and the attack on the Liberty, among other dark pages of recent history, which would have taken a sentence.

    3. Could have used a bit of a VISION advocacy of how to Cure this Zionist imperialist plague so nicely described by Petras. The Restoration of the Republic, destroyed on November 22, 1963, is the Revolutionary Cure so ignored by the earnest and not so earnest critics of the Zionist New World Order.

    Oh for our own Decembrists!

    God Bless America! Restore the Republic!

    Durruti for The Anarchist Collective

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 11:07 am GMT

    The strategic Russo-Chinese economic alliance may create a new global economy based on peaceful co-existence and greater economic co-operation.

    Let's hope so.

    I, for one, am more than fed up with the one trick parasite, gangster politics.

    Sergey Krieger Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 11:16 am GMT

    As USA internal rot accelerates she is becoming increasingly erratic and desperate in her international policy. It increasingly looks like biten by white shark seal trashing desperately in the water while life along with blood leaving it's body. Others should keep their cool and patiently wait.

    dearieme Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

    "2) US imperial policy in the Middle East focuses on encircling, destroying and dismantling Iran's allies (Syria, Lebanon (Hezbollah), Iraq (Shi'a Militia), Qatar and Yemen with the intent of overthrowing the government and installing a client regime in Teheran."

    And yet the US destroyed Iran's most useful enemy, Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes I wonder whether US foreign policy has any guiding intelligence at all. Maybe it consists only of stupid, reckless flailing.

    fnn Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 2:19 pm GMT

    How many Americans and Europeans realize that all Islamic terrorism in the West is Sunni and none of it is Shia, and that all the demonization of Iran and Hezbollah is solely for the benefit of Israel?

    Rurik Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 24, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

    Excellent article and analysis

    kudos and gratitude

    If I were to offer any suggestion, I'd just prefer that the author amend the abbreviation of the US to the Z US (Zionist occupied US), as all of the things he mentions that the US is doing, are all in direct contravention of the principles and interests and people of the actual US, and are, rather, all being done to benefit the most sinister and intractable enemy of the of the US (and so many others including Iran); the Z US.

    The American people have suffered thousands of casualties and its domestic economy is in permanent crisis with massive unemployment, poverty, recession and stagnation.

    Trump's economic agenda depends on his avoiding politically and militarily costly wars. That was one of his campaign promises that resonated with the nation's core electorate.

    I spell out my case for calling it the ZUS here:

    (which I invite the moderators to including under a blue 'more' link so as not to clutter up the comment section)

    saying US, by which I do not mean ordinary US people then the rotten elite running the show.

    I sort of know that, but I hope you (and others) can understand why that distinction is so important to us genuine Americans who're horrified at the conduct of the US government on the world's stage.

    The interests of the US government vs. the people of the US, could not be more diametrically opposed. They're looting our Treasury and our future to fund eternal wars for Israel- that do nothing but destroy any kind of long-term hope for this country. They're creating hatred for the American people that will reverberate over generations. They're systematically dismantling our sacred codified rights (earned in blood) going all the way back to the Magna Carta. They assassinate our citizens if they prove inconvenient to the regime, when they aren't burning them alive at places like Waco or the World Trade Center. There seems to be nothing too demonic that this government will do to us American citizens if they suspect that by doing so it will somehow augment their power to dominate us even more.

    Today in America is much like the Russians during the Bolshevik / Soviet regime. Our government is our most intractable and dangerous enemy on the planet. We Americans have nothing to fear from Russia or Iran. That's laughable. But we have everything to fear from Washington DC. The drooling fiend that inhabits those think tanks and J-Street and K-Street and CFR and PNAC and CIA and all the other acronyms of Satan are our worst enemy on this planet, just as they threaten and menace the rest of the people of the planet, intending to use our children as cannon fodder even as they commit endless atrocities and war crimes in our name.

    So I guess my point is just that the interests of the US [zio-government], vs. the interests of the US people are so wildly at odds, that it would be nice if others could see this as glaringly as those of us American citizens, watching with horror- as our government perpetrates monstrous crimes all over the globe, and here at home.

    The banking cartels are not run by patriotic American citizens, they're run by our enemies.

    The Pentagon is not run by patriotic American citizens, it's run by our enemies.

    the FBI and CIA and DEA and NSA are all operated by the enemies of the American people.

    the media are the most sinister and committed enemy we have. No one hates our guts more.

    the universities are nothing but kosher Marxist indoctrination centers, telling our young people (among other things) that the "US" liberated the people of Kosovo. (is that what happened?). They tell our students that our participation in the world wars was honorable and noble. They tell them that what we are doing in the Middle East today is honorable and noble. They even are attempting to make any criticism of Israel a crime on the universities and campuses. Outlawing any expression of support for the BDS movement. Does that sound like our universities are run by and for Americans?!

    there are two entities here in the good ol' US of A. There is the ZUSA, that is an enemy to all of mankind, including the people of the US. And then there are the people of the US; represented by those who still cling to quaint notions like the Rule of Law, and our traditions like freedom of speech and fair play. People like Michael Hastings. People like Seth Rich. People like Pat Tillman or Ron Paul or all of his supporters. People like the ones that voted for Obama to end the wars, and who voted for Trump to end the wars. People like Ken O'keefe, who are Americans to the core, and still represent the spirit of what being an American was all about, until our nation was hijacked in 1913 for the greater glory of $atan.

    the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has lost its meaning with the demise of SU. Also, the Demoncrats have a natural propensity to package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the Republicans are much less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or against us, no matter whether what we do is legal or illegal. Therefore, it was a perfect little war for the Clintons:
    1) breath a new life into NATO,
    2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
    3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).

    sounds like a perfectly excellent analysis to me.

    I remember how we scrambled at the time to make sense of it. WTF were they up to?!

    why were they bombing a nation that had been 'our' ally during WWII, and seemingly so that some KLA terrorists could lay claim to their ancient and sacred lands? Hard won from the same Muslim hoards that had drenched Kosovo in Christian, Serbian blood for centuries.

    Some of us figured it was kind of a payback for Palestine. 'Yes, we zio-scum are ravaging your people in Palestine, but as payback, we'll give you Kosovo!

    We even wondered if there wasn't some secret, high-level negotiations going on between the representatives of Islam and the Zionists. 'OK, what do you want for Palestine?' / 'We'll take Kosovo'.

    Then there was general Clarks quote regarding the necessity of bombing Serbia:

    "Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."

    - General Wesley Clark

    so it's been a conundrum, but your analysis sounds like the best so far.

    travelling NGO EcoSystem

    :-)

    Yes we see it all over the place. But also please keep in mind that the original NGO that $ubverted and corrupted is the one that took control of the US.

    The actions of the 'US' (ZUSA) today are no more a representation of the people of the US, than those in Kyiv or Kabul represent the typical Ukrainian or Afghan.

    Washington DC no more represents the 300+ million people here than did the actions of Mubarak represented the Egyptian people, or Yeltsin represented the Russian people, or Tony Blair represented the people of England.

    We have all of us been NGO'd by the Fiend, and none more so than us here in the US, where they declare from their pulpits that there is 'zero daylight between Israel and the ZUSA!'

    So it stings to read about how this or that benefits the US, when all the benefits are going to the very same Beast that is drooling its putrid saliva all over US too.

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Saudi-Qatar spat - the reconciliation offer to be refused>. Qater will move closer to Turkey

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... "In my view this is a deep power struggle between Qatar and Saudi Arabia that has little to do with stated reasons regarding Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The action to isolate Qatar was clearly instigated during US President Trump's recent visit in Riyadh where he pushed the unfortunate idea of a Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to oppose Iranian influence in the region. ..."
    "... Moreover, Qatar was acting increasingly independent of the heavy Wahhabite hand of Saudi Arabia and threatening Saudi domination over the Gulf States. Kuwait, Oman, as well as non-Gulf Turkey were coming closer to Qatar and even Pakistan now may think twice about joining a Saudi-led "Arab NATO". Bin Salman has proven a disaster as a defense strategist, as proven in the Yemen debacle. ..."
    "... Kuwait and Oman are urgently trying to get Saudi to backdown on this, but that is unlikely as behind Saudi Arabia stands the US and promises of tens of billions of dollars in US arms. ..."
    "... This foolish US move to use their proxy, in this case Riyadh, to discipline those not "behaving" according to Washington wishes, could well be the turning point, the point of collapse of US remaining influence in the entire Middle East in the next several years." ..."
    "... KSA could not have taken this course of action all by itself. Someone somewhere must be egging them on. But who? The US seems to have no interest in a Saudi-Qatari conflict. Israel might, but only if said conflict is resolved in Saudi favor. ..."
    "... I am therefore coming to the conclusion that there is no longer clear leadership of US policy and there are different factions within the US government. The white house and CIA are supporting the Saudis while the Pentagon supports Qatar. This is just a hunch, but it seems like it could make sense. Perhaps this is what happens when a government is in a state of decompensation. ..."
    "... It is mind boggling that a fundamental reshaping of the Middle East was most likely put in motion by Trump completely oblivious of what he was doing shooting from the hip on his Saudi trip. ..."
    "... Outside of an outright invasion of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see this as a once in a life time geopolitical gift to Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iran. ..."
    "... Now when July 3 comes and goes, Saudi Arabia will look completely impotent in the eyes of the countries in the region. ..."
    "... Gaddafi's speech to the Arab League in Syria 2008 was so prescient ..."
    "... "We [the Arabs] are the enemies of one another I'm sad to say, we deceive one another, we gloat at the misfortune of one another, and we conspire against one another, and an Arab's enemy is another Arab's friend. ..."
    "... I quite like the WWI parallel. Trump as Kaiser Wilhelm? There certainly are some striking similarities in character. ..."
    "... "...gifted, with a quick understanding, sometimes brilliant, with a taste for the modern,-technology, industry, science -- but at the same time superficial, hasty, restless, unable to relax, without any deeper level of seriousness, without any desire for hard work or drive to see things through to the end, without any sense of sobriety, for balance and boundaries, or even for reality and real problems, uncontrollable and scarcely capable of learning from experience, desperate for applause and success, -- as Bismarck said early on in his life, he wanted every day to be his birthday-romantic, sentimental and theatrical, unsure and arrogant, with an immeasurably exaggerated self-confidence and desire to show off, a juvenile cadet, who never took the tone of the officers' mess out of his voice, and brashly wanted to play the part of the supreme warlord, full of panicky fear of a monotonous life without any diversions, and yet aimless, pathological in his hatred against his English mother." ..."
    "... It also stands to reason if you simply consider Saudi's importance regionally: A lot is made of Iran's threat to Saudi influence, but Turkey - thanks in part to considerable investment by Qatar currently while investment from elsewhere has reduced massively -- is also very threatening to Saudi's influence, especially on the religious front. ..."
    "... Iran representing Shia interests in the region and Turkey representing Sunni interests is not a difficult future to imagine. It would of course grate with Saudi Arabia given that it had poured vast amounts of money into the Turkish economy and the diyanet. ..."
    "... Hassan Nasrallah has given his annual International Al-Quds Day speech with plenty of fire aimed at the usual suspects. The Daily Star reports: 'Nasrallah accused Saudi Arabia of "paving way for Israel" in the region. ..."
    "... Actually, I hope for many more benefits will show up from this quarrel than improved profits for Iranian produce growers. It is worthwhile to observe that Dubai, a component emirate of UAE, has gigantic economic links with Iran, which must be tolerated by overlords from Abu Dhabi: they had to bail out their cousins after real estate collapse, so they have big money stake in Dubai being prosperous. Potentially, Dubai and especially the hapless vegetable and dairy producers in KSA can lose a bundle (the latter had to invest a lot in farms for Qatari market, it is not like letting cows graze on abundant grasslands plus planting cucumbers and waiting for the rain to water them). Aljazeera and Muslim Brotherhood are more irritating to KSA and UAE than an occasional polite missive to Iran. ..."
    "... Qatar opened the Middle East's first centre for clearing transactions in the Chinese yuan on Tuesday, saying it would boost trade and investment between China and Gulf Arab economies. ..."
    "... The only hope for Saudi Arabia is to re-denominate oil sales in multiple currencies such as the WTO drawing rights, of course based on another formula, perhaps based on the countries that purchase the most oil. This would be the only way for the royalty to gain longevity as rulers of the country. Any other scenario spells disaster. ..."
    Jun 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Pft | Jun 23, 2017 8:43:28 PM | 45
    William Engdahls views. "In my view this is a deep power struggle between Qatar and Saudi Arabia that has little to do with stated reasons regarding Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The action to isolate Qatar was clearly instigated during US President Trump's recent visit in Riyadh where he pushed the unfortunate idea of a Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to oppose Iranian influence in the region.

    The Saudi move, clearly instigated by Prince Bin Salman, Minister of Defense, was not about going against terrorism. If it were about terrorism, bin Salman would have to arrest himself and most of his Saudi cabinet as one of the largest financiers of terrorism in the world, and shut all Saudi-financed madrasses around the world, from Pakistan to Bosnia-Herzgovina to Kosovo. Another factor according to informed sources in Holland is that Washington wanted to punish Qatar for seeking natural gas sales with China priced not in US dollars but in Renminbi. That apparently alarmed Washington, as Qatar is the world's largest LNG exporter and most to Asia.

    Moreover, Qatar was acting increasingly independent of the heavy Wahhabite hand of Saudi Arabia and threatening Saudi domination over the Gulf States. Kuwait, Oman, as well as non-Gulf Turkey were coming closer to Qatar and even Pakistan now may think twice about joining a Saudi-led "Arab NATO". Bin Salman has proven a disaster as a defense strategist, as proven in the Yemen debacle.

    As to the future, it appears that Qatar is not about to rollover and surrender in face of Saudi actions. Already Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani is moving to establish closer ties with Iran, with Turkey that might include Turkish military support, and most recently with Russia.

    Kuwait and Oman are urgently trying to get Saudi to backdown on this, but that is unlikely as behind Saudi Arabia stands the US and promises of tens of billions of dollars in US arms.

    This foolish US move to use their proxy, in this case Riyadh, to discipline those not "behaving" according to Washington wishes, could well be the turning point, the point of collapse of US remaining influence in the entire Middle East in the next several years."

    lysander | Jun 23, 2017 7:43:17 PM | 42
    KSA could not have taken this course of action all by itself. Someone somewhere must be egging them on. But who? The US seems to have no interest in a Saudi-Qatari conflict. Israel might, but only if said conflict is resolved in Saudi favor.

    I am therefore coming to the conclusion that there is no longer clear leadership of US policy and there are different factions within the US government. The white house and CIA are supporting the Saudis while the Pentagon supports Qatar. This is just a hunch, but it seems like it could make sense. Perhaps this is what happens when a government is in a state of decompensation.

    R Winner | Jun 23, 2017 1:41:04 PM | 4

    It is mind boggling that a fundamental reshaping of the Middle East was most likely put in motion by Trump completely oblivious of what he was doing shooting from the hip on his Saudi trip.

    Outside of an outright invasion of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see this as a once in a life time geopolitical gift to Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iran.

    Juggs | Jun 23, 2017 2:24:33 PM | 9
    Now when July 3 comes and goes, Saudi Arabia will look completely impotent in the eyes of the countries in the region.

    I wonder if there is some sort of interest between Russia, Turkey, Qatar, and Iran on a coup in Saudi Arabia. I can't imagine it would be that difficult. I know it is not Putin's policy to play these types of games like the US Regime, but one has to assume that people are just fucking done with the clowns running Saudi Arabia.

    harrylaw | Jun 23, 2017 2:36:39 PM | 10
    Gaddafi's speech to the Arab League in Syria 2008 was so prescient..

    "We [the Arabs] are the enemies of one another I'm sad to say, we deceive one another, we gloat at the misfortune of one another, and we conspire against one another, and an Arab's enemy is another Arab's friend.

    Along comes a foreign power, occupies an Arab country [Iraq] and hangs its President,and we all sit on the sidelines laughing. Any one of you might be next, yes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZZvPlGCt_8

    okie farmer | Jun 23, 2017 2:37:39 PM | 11
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/close-al-jazeera-saudi-arabia-issues-qatar-with-13-demands-to-end-blockade
    Qatar given 10 days to meet 13 sweeping demands by Saudi Arabia
    Gulf dispute deepens as allies issue ultimatum for ending blockade that includes closing al-Jazeera and cutting back ties with Iran
    Juggs | Jun 23, 2017 2:41:55 PM | 13
    Peter AU "Is Qatar, like Turkey, already heading for a multi-polar world? For 25 years, the US was the only game in town, but with Russia's move into Syria there are now options."

    Hard to see the world heading in that direction:

    • Russia and China will no longer allow the US Regime to use the same tactics to start wars against Iraq and Libya anymore.
    • China is methodically closing off the South China Sea to the US Regime
    • The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is starting to increase their shared defense
    • Europe is openly talking about creating its own independent defense force

    I wonder if Qatar is already in talks with China about joining the Silk Road Initiative now that it is openly moving into the Russia and Iran sphere.

    karlof1 | Jun 23, 2017 3:06:36 PM | 16
    Juggs 13--

    "I wonder if Qatar is already in talks with China about joining the Silk Road Initiative..."

    You'll find the answer's yes as Pepe explains, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201706161054701807-west-cannot-smell-what-eurasia-cooking/ and http://www.atimes.com/article/blood-tracks-new-silk-roads/

    dh | Jun 23, 2017 3:20:35 PM | 19
    @17 The best is yet to come. There's a chance Netanyahu will fly into Riyadh to tell everybody what to do. I'm sure he wants what's best for the region.
    L'Akratique | Jun 23, 2017 3:29:54 PM | 20
    I quite like the WWI parallel. Trump as Kaiser Wilhelm? There certainly are some striking similarities in character.

    Quote from Thomas Nipperdey:

    "...gifted, with a quick understanding, sometimes brilliant, with a taste for the modern,-technology, industry, science -- but at the same time superficial, hasty, restless, unable to relax, without any deeper level of seriousness, without any desire for hard work or drive to see things through to the end, without any sense of sobriety, for balance and boundaries, or even for reality and real problems, uncontrollable and scarcely capable of learning from experience, desperate for applause and success, -- as Bismarck said early on in his life, he wanted every day to be his birthday-romantic, sentimental and theatrical, unsure and arrogant, with an immeasurably exaggerated self-confidence and desire to show off, a juvenile cadet, who never took the tone of the officers' mess out of his voice, and brashly wanted to play the part of the supreme warlord, full of panicky fear of a monotonous life without any diversions, and yet aimless, pathological in his hatred against his English mother."

    cankles | Jun 23, 2017 4:05:49 PM | 25
    @Laguerre #23
    I have difficulty in seeing a relationship with the Silk Road Initiative, other than that Qatar exports a lot of LNG to China.

    China Eyes Qatar in its Quest to Build a New Silk Road

    Last month at the China-Arab Cooperation Forum in Doha, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi postulated that Qatar should take part in the realization of China's Silk Road Initiatives.
    Laguerre | Jun 23, 2017 4:42:05 PM | 27
    @cankles | Jun 23, 2017 4:05:49 PM | 25

    Yeah, you're right. I hadn't looked into the question sufficiently. Of course the Chinese are looking for more external finance for the project. They don't want to be the only ones who pay. Fat chance, though. The Qataris have been in austerity since the decline in the oil price. Someone I know who works in the Qatar Museum has seen all her colleagues let go. And now the crisis with Saudi.

    The Qataris may even have signed contracts with China. But if you know anything about the Gulf, there's a wide gap between signing a contract, and actually getting paid. It depends upon how the prince concerned feels about the project when the question of payment comes up. A company I worked for in the 80s took two years to get payment, even though they were experts in Gulfi relations.

    AtaBrit | Jun 23, 2017 4:51:40 PM | 28
    Great piece.

    The issue of the threat regarding the Turkish base didn't surprise me much, though. I think it's clear that if MB is the target, then of course Turkey has to become a target, and Qatar - Turkey ties have to be broken. It stands to reason.

    It also stands to reason if you simply consider Saudi's importance regionally: A lot is made of Iran's threat to Saudi influence, but Turkey - thanks in part to considerable investment by Qatar currently while investment from elsewhere has reduced massively -- is also very threatening to Saudi's influence, especially on the religious front.

    Iran representing Shia interests in the region and Turkey representing Sunni interests is not a difficult future to imagine. It would of course grate with Saudi Arabia given that it had poured vast amounts of money into the Turkish economy and the diyanet.

    On a slightly different note there's a scandal going on in western Turkey, in Duzce, at the moment because the local authority has unveiled a statue of Rabia - the four fingered Muslim Brotherhood salute! :-)

    Mina | Jun 23, 2017 5:09:45 PM | 29
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/271450/World/Region/UN-blames-warring-sides-for-Yemens-cholera-catastr.aspx
    let's blame underfed guys in skirts for fun
    karlof1 | Jun 23, 2017 5:16:47 PM | 30
    Hassan Nasrallah has given his annual International Al-Quds Day speech with plenty of fire aimed at the usual suspects. The Daily Star reports: 'Nasrallah accused Saudi Arabia of "paving way for Israel" in the region.

    '"It's unfortunate that Saudi Arabia is the head of terrorism and today it's holding its neighbors accountable for supporting terrorism," Nasrallah said, hinting to the recent economic sanctions against Qatar.' https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2017/Jun-23/410688-nasrallah-says-regional-conflicts-seek-to-serve-israel-interest.ashx

    Al-Manar provides this report, http://english.almanar.com.lb/292250

    Unfortunately, I cannot locate an English language transcript, although one might become available eventually as is usually the case.

    Piotr Berman | Jun 23, 2017 6:42:14 PM | 36
    Piotr Berman

    Aljazeera evil? Are you joking? ....

    @Anon | Jun 23, 2017 3:47:56 PM | 24

    You did not address the argument I made, namely, that Aljazeera editors apparently belong to "Muslims, who immediately set out to support it [Darwinian theory of evolution] unaware of the blasphemy and error in it." These guys pretend to be nice Wahhabis, dressing in dishdashas, their womenfolks in abayas, but in fact they spread heretical and blasphemous doctrines. However, I am more of a Khazar than a Wahhabi and I do not treat this argument seriously.

    It is the fact that compared to other government supported TV/online venues, say RT or PressTV, Aljazeera is well written and edited, has plenty of valuable material, etc. It is a worthwhile place to check when you want to get a composite picture on some issues. And it irritates KSA potentates in a myriad of ways, precisely because it targets "politically engaged Muslim".

    It is a good example that pluralism has inherent positive aspects, devils that quarrel are better than "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."

    ====

    Actually, I hope for many more benefits will show up from this quarrel than improved profits for Iranian produce growers. It is worthwhile to observe that Dubai, a component emirate of UAE, has gigantic economic links with Iran, which must be tolerated by overlords from Abu Dhabi: they had to bail out their cousins after real estate collapse, so they have big money stake in Dubai being prosperous. Potentially, Dubai and especially the hapless vegetable and dairy producers in KSA can lose a bundle (the latter had to invest a lot in farms for Qatari market, it is not like letting cows graze on abundant grasslands plus planting cucumbers and waiting for the rain to water them). Aljazeera and Muslim Brotherhood are more irritating to KSA and UAE than an occasional polite missive to Iran.

    One pattern in Syrian civil war were persistent and bloody feuds between jihadists that formed roughly four groups:

    1. "salafi", presumably funded by KSA,
    2. "brothers", presumably funded by Qatar and Turkey,
    3. al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/something new that was forcing the first two groups to surrender some weapons (and money?),
    4. and ISIS that had more complex sources (or more hidden).

    Medium term strategy of Syrian government and allies for the near future is to "de-escalate" in the western part of the country and finish off ISIS, partitioning hitherto ISIS territories in some satisfactory way, while maintaining some type of truce with the Kurds. Then finish off the jihadists, except those most directly protected by Turkey. Finally, take care of the Kurds. Some sufficiently safe federalism can be part of the solution, but nothing that would lead to enclaves with their own military forces and their own foreign policy, like Iraqi Kurdistan.

    That requires the opposing parties to exhibit somewhat suicidal behavior. A big time official feud between "brothers" and "salafi + Kurds" (a pair that shares some funding but with scant mutual affection" can help a lot. Most of all, a big time feud between Turkey and KSA can stabilize the situation in which jihadists from Idlib and northern Hama observe a truce/de-escalation, while their colleagues from south Syria get clobbered, and definitely will induce them to refrain from attacking Syrian government while it is busy against ISIS. After Erdogan was prevented from marching onto Raqqa, he has two options: "Sunnistan" in eastern Syria under domination of YPG or a much smaller YPG dominated territory that can be subsequently digested. Option one is a true nightmare for Erdogan, more than a mere paranoia. However, Erdogan is also "pan-Sunni" Islamist, so he could be tempted to backstab infidels from Damascus, as he was doing before. An open feud with Sunnistan sponsors should help him to choose.

    likklemore | Jun 23, 2017 6:49:14 PM | 37
    Cankles @ 25 Is that really you? If so, you should know -

    Look behind the curtain. This has to do with maintaining the price of oil in US$.

    Qatar launches first Chinese yuan clearing hub in Middle East .

    Qatar opened the Middle East's first centre for clearing transactions in the Chinese yuan on Tuesday, saying it would boost trade and investment between China and Gulf Arab economies.

    "The launch of the region's first renminbi clearing center in Doha creates the necessary platform to realise the full potential of Qatar and the region's trade relationship with China," Qatar's central bank governor Sheikh Abdullah bin Saud al-Thani said at a ceremony.

    "It will facilitate greater cross-border renminbi investment and financing business, and promote greater trade and economic links between China and the region, paving the way for better financial cooperation and enhancing the pre-eminence of Qatar as a financial hub in MENA (Middle East and North Africa)."
    Industrial and Commercial Bank of China's (ICBC) Doha branch is the clearing bank for the centre, which intends to serve companies from around the Middle East.

    A clearing bank can handle all parts of a currency transaction from when a commitment is made until it is settled, reducing costs and time taken for trading.

    The centre "will improve the ease of transactions between companies in the region and China by allowing them to settle their trade directly in renminbi, drawing increased trade through Qatar and boosting bilateral and economic collaboration between Qatar and China," said ICBC chairman Jiang Jianqing.

    At present, Qatar and the Gulf's other wealthy oil and gas exporters use the U.S. dollar much more than the yuan. Most of their currencies are pegged to the dollar, and most of their huge foreign currency reserves are denominated in dollars.

    Laguerre @27

    Date of article April 24, 2017

    In April 2015, Qatar opened Qatar Renminbi Centre (QRC), the region's first clearing centre for the Chinese currency. This allows for trades priced in RMB to be cleared locally in Qatar rather than in other centres such as Shanghai or Hong Kong.ICBC has since become the designated clearance bank servicing the QRC, which has handled more than 350bn yuan ($52.6bn) since its inception.
    http://emerge85.io/blog/the-middle-kingdoms-big-four-and-the-gulf

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    Trending and not very far to seeing what is now held under the table. Oil will also be priced in RMB because KSA, to maintain their share of exports to China, will need to get on board. For now, it's been reaffirmed, SA does the whipping and USA protects the Royals.

    rawdawgbugfalo | Jun 23, 2017 6:54:19 PM | 38
    Well said, I still think this is all dreamlike. Having natural gas and sharing it with Iran is a mf.

    Qatar: Is it about Trump, Israel or Nascent Influence? http://wsenmw.blogspot.com/2017/06/qatar-is-it-about-trump-israel-or.html

    Piotr Berman | Jun 23, 2017 7:34:43 PM | 40
    About Sunni-Shia split. My impression is that this is mostly KSA + UAE obsession. For example, there is a substantial Shia minority in Pakistan, but the dominant thinking among the Sunnis seems to be "Muslim solidarity". There is a minority that is virulently anti-Shia, but they are politically isolated and despised exactly on the account of breaking that solidarity. After all, Pakistan forms the boundary of the Umma with non-Muslim India. I base that opinion on comments in online Pakistani newspapers, and what I have heard from an acquaintance who was a religiously conservative Sunni Pakistani. To him, the attack on Yemen by KSA was wrong "because they are Muslim". So even if Pakistan is to a certain extend in Saudi pocket, and its deep state has an extremist Sunni component, overt siding against "fellow Muslim" is out of the question.

    Egypt is another case. One can find rather isolated anti-Shia outbursts, like writings of some fossils in Al-Azhar (who are responsible for the state religion), but the government steers away from that, and in spite of hefty subsidies, it joined Yemen war only symbolically and for a very short time (unlike Sudan that really needs the cash for its mercenaries). As you move further away from the Persian Gulf, the indifference to the "split" increases. As far as Qatar and Aljazeera are concerned, probably no one detests them more than Egyptian elite, as they were valiantly fighting Muslim Brotherhood for the sake of progress with some occasional large massacres (killing several hundreds of protesters, issuing hundreds of death penalties to participants in a single protest, in absentia! incredible idiocy+cruelty). That explains why al-Sisi joined KSA against Qatar.

    However, the civil war in Libya that embroils Egypt is a classic case of unexpected alliances. Egypt with a help from Russia, KSA and UAE supports the "eastern government" that bases legitimacy on democratic parliament re-assembled in Tobruq on Egyptian border, and dominated by military strongman Haftar. The latter has the best chance of all people to become a military strongman of all Libya, but apparently has meager popularity and thus, too few troops. He patched that problem by an alliance with a Salafi group that had a numerous militia, currently partitioned into smaller units and incorporated into Haftar's brigades. Even with that, his progress on the ground is very, very gradual. Against him is the government in Tripolis, legitimized by a more fresh parliament and UN/EU, plus a military force that includes several militias. Part of the parliamentary support stems from Muslim Brotherhood, and some part of military support comes from Salafi militias. There are also aspects of a "war of all against all", seems that Saharan tribes collected a lot of fresh blood feuds.

    Thus Qatari+Turkish support for Tripoli government is aligned with EU, and Egyptian support for Tobruq government is aligned with Russia and KSA.

    Dusty | Jun 23, 2017 7:38:26 PM | 41
    I thought I might just throw this out there and see what sticks. US policy is based on power and control. Saudi Arabia has been a good ally but it does not serve use policy or strategic goals any longer. Not really. I think the grand prize for destabilizing the middle east is Saudi Arabia. It would be the only way to truly control the development of other nations or more specifically, to control their rivalries and save the the US from complete economic breakdown. The Saudi's are being plumbed by the best of them, telling them they are you friends, we have your back and so long as Saudi Arabia loses more money and keeps lossing money in needless wars etc.

    The only hope for Saudi Arabia is to re-denominate oil sales in multiple currencies such as the WTO drawing rights, of course based on another formula, perhaps based on the countries that purchase the most oil. This would be the only way for the royalty to gain longevity as rulers of the country. Any other scenario spells disaster. Of course, it would be a rough go for them for a while, but in the end, a slight change in outlook and the unfair advantage given to the US would go a long way, economically to stabilizing large blocks of countries. They also could of course change their outlook on the world, but that is certainly a difficult challenge. If the Muslim world came together based on their similarities, they could be a very powerful block.

    The US no longer has the financial velocity it once maintained and this is much more due to insane ideas about being a hegemon. I never thought revolution would be possible in the US, but it is coming and it won't take much. The country does not appear to have intelligence peddle back a number of policies, drunk on its own poison, it makes capitalism look disgusting. A new business model is needed, one that developes mutual trade based on respect from within the exchange itself. Saudi Arabia needs to cultivate multi-channel support for its biggest resource so that when the returns are no longer there, they will have also developed multiple avenues to prosperity. Just a thought.

    [Jun 24, 2017] US invaded Syria conducting military operations in sovereign land and airspace of Syria without the permission of the Syrian government. Unlike Russia, from which Syria officially requested military assistance.

    Jun 24, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Avery

    { .. the Russian invasion of Ukraine,}

    There was no so-called 'invasion' of Ukraine by Russia.
    There was however an illegal invasion of the sovereign state of Iraq – 7,000 away from US – by US and UK ( .admitted as being illegal by Lord Prescott), resulting in its total destruction as a functioning State, and causing the deaths of something like 500,000 Iraqis, most of them civilians. The bloody aftermath of that criminal, illegal act by US&UK continues to this day. Death, destruction, dislocation.

    US has also invaded another sovereign State, Syria: US troops and air force are present and conducting military operations in sovereign land and airspace of Syria. All without the permission of the Syrian government. Unlike Russia, from which Syria officially requested military assistance.

    So stop lecturing anybody about the so-called 'invasion' of Ukraine by RF.

    { after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea }

    You can't, quote, 'grab' something that belongs to you.
    Crimea has been part of Russia for 200+ years.
    In 1954 Soviet dictator Khrushchev "gave" Crimea to Ukraine SSR, without asking the residents of Crimea.

    After the dissolution of USSR, residents of Crimea held declarations and referendums:

    1992: Crimea declared Independence. Kiev ignored it.
    1994: Autonomy referendum. Passed by ~80%. Kiev ignored it.

    After the 2014 neo-Nazi putsch in Kiev, the neo-Nazi Azov battalion and other neo-Nazi gangs started murdering ethnic Russians, e.g. the Odessa Massacre. Not wanting a replay of Operation Barbarossa in Crimea, its residents held a referendum in 2014 to re-join Russia: passed by 96%+.
    Done. Thank you very much.

    By comparison, BREXIT passed 52% to 48%.
    So that somehow has more "legality" ?

    btw: most of so-called 'Ukraine' are Russian lands attached* to Ukraine by various Russian Tsars and dictators. In time, they will all be promptly returned to Mother Russia.

    Say, do you remember when US deceitfully grabbed the territory of Hawaii?

    _______

    *

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2014/05/20140504

    Cyrano June 22, 2017 at 10:17 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Mr. Hack
    The only thing that Russia wanted from Ukraine is not to allow themselves to become threat to Russia by joining NATO. Ukraine, having wasted all other options for normal development, couldn't resist taking the offer of cashing in on becoming a threat to Russia. Ukraine tries to justify this based on some past historical grievances from the 1930's.
    What total lunacy and hippocracy. Do I really need to remind you that before 2014 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine, NATO membership was not a popular option for most Ukrainians. But now, after the deceitful land grab by Russia of Crimea and three years of proxy directed war in Donbas orchestrated in Moscow, most Ukrainians now look favorably towards NATO membership. Latest polls show that 55.9% o Ukrainians now favor NATO integration (I think that pre 2014 it was less than 15%) and 66.4% now favor EU integration. You reap what you sew, Putinista fanboys. Bye, bye 'NovoRossiya'!

    http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2017/06/17/7147228/

    How can you steal something that's yours? Think of Crimea as the wedding ring. Once the marriage was dissolved – the ring goes back to its rightful owner. At the time Khruschev gifted Crimea to Ukraine, no one in their wildest dreams imagined that Russia and Ukraine would one day go their separate ways. Crimea was to be part of Ukraine only as long as Ukraine was part of the same country as Russia. Otherwise, Russia would have never agreed to cede Crimea. I guess following the marriage analogy, NovoRossiya would be the dowry. Ukraine can lose that too if they don't smarten up.

    [Jun 24, 2017] This theme of alleged failure of Russian state relative to the West is very common. But then what is considered a successful society?

    Notable quotes:
    "... For example, let's take Japan, Germany or South Korea. On the face of it, you could argue that they have been extremely successful societies in terms of industrial development, standard of living, etc. But, all three of them are actually dying as communities, if we consider their population decline. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | unz.com

    Simpleguest says: June 24, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @Priss Factor

    The greatest mistake of all is thinking western model (in your particular case, the american model) will make russians better, or even being adopted by russians... While Russia can have a good work ethic, it's laughable to wish them to adopt Protestant-Work-Ethic (that by itself also has too much of a strong individual feeling that leads into complete atomized individuals as follows from the Great Generation to the Baby Boomers and the latter's legacy to the decline, lack of self-dependency and selfishness of later generations if it's not controlled).

    I didn't say Russia should become like the US. I said Russians need to assess the reasons as to why they've comparatively failed in relation to other nations. Russians need to learn lessons from US, Germany, Japan, France, and etc., but of course, Russians must find their own way to fix the problems.

    Still, the Big Questions must be asked as to WHY.

    Japan asked this question when confronted with the Western threat in the 19th century. It wondered why the West made so many advances whereas Asia failed to. So, it went about reforms.

    Of course, Russia has also raised this question, but it is such an underachiever given all the potentials.

    Russia needed a Putin because things got so out of hand. Now, they must look to themselves to deal with the big challenges.

    " I said Russians need to assess the reasons as to why they've comparatively failed in relation to other nations. etc"

    This theme of alleged "failure" of Russian state relative to the West is very common. But then what is considered a "successful" society?

    For example, let's take Japan, Germany or South Korea. On the face of it, you could argue that they have been extremely successful societies in terms of industrial development, standard of living, etc. But, all three of them are actually dying as communities, if we consider their population decline. Therefore, based on this criteria, let's call it a "sustainable existence" criteria, they might prove a failures in the end.

    If we apply this same criteria to say, Roma people (gypsies), then they appear the big winners.

    Anyway, have a nice weekend.

    [Jun 24, 2017] Obama Ordered Cyberweapons Implanted Into Russias Infrastructure by Jason Ditz

    Jun 23, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    Former Official: Implants Designed to 'Cause Them Pain and Discomfort'

    A new report from the Washington Post today quoted a series of Obama Administration officials reiterating their official narrative on Russia's accused hacking of the 2016 election. While most of the article is simply rehashes and calls for sanctions, they also revealed a secret order by President Obama in the course of "retaliation" for the alleged hacking.

    This previously secret order involved having US intelligence design and implant a series of cyberweapons into Russia's infrastructure systems, with officials saying they are meant to be activated remotely to hit the most important networks in Russia and are designed to " cause them pain and discomfort ."

    The US has, of course, repeatedly threatened "retaliatory" cyberattacks against Russia, and promised to knock out broad parts of their economy in doing so. These appear to be the first specific plans to have actually infiltrate Russian networks and plant such weapons to do so.

    Despite the long-standing nature of the threats, by the end of Obama's last term in office this was all still in the "planning" phases. It's not totally clear where this effort has gone from there, but officials say that the intelligence community, once given Obama's permission, did not need further approval from Trump to continue on with it, and he'd have actually had to issue a countermanding order, something they say he hasn't.

    The details are actually pretty scant on how far along the effort is, but the goal is said to be for the US to have the ability to retaliate at a moment's notice the next time they have a cyberattack they intend to blame on Russia.

    Unspoken in this lengthy report, which quotes unnamed former Obama Administration officials substantially, advocating the effort, is that in having reported that such a program exists, they've tipped off Russia about the threat.

    This is, however, reflective of the priority of the former administration, which is to continuing hyping allegations that Russia got President Trump elected, a priority that's high enough to sacrifice what was supposed to be a highly secretive cyberattack operation.

    [Jun 24, 2017] The Criminal Laws of Counterinsurgency by Todd E. Pierce

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. ..."
    "... As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance." ..."
    "... Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles. ..."
    "... This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency ..."
    "... But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong. ..."
    "... Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences. ..."
    "... Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely. ..."
    Jun 24, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Douglas Valentine has once again added to the store of knowledge necessary for American citizens to understand how the U.S. government actually works today, in his most recent book entitled The CIA As Organized Crime . (Valentine previously wrote The Phoenix Program , which should be read with the current book.)

    The US "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.

    Princeton University political theorist Sheldon Wolin described the US political system in place by 2003 as "inverted totalitarianism." He reaffirmed that in 2009 after seeing a year of the Obama administration. Correctly identifying the threat against constitutional governance is the first step to restore it, and as Wolin understood, substantive constitutional government ended long before Donald Trump campaigned. He's just taking unconstitutional governance to the next level in following the same path as his recent predecessors. However, even as some elements of the "deep state" seek to remove Trump, the President now has many "deep state" instruments in his own hands to be used at his unreviewable discretion.

    Many "never-Trumpers" of both parties see the deep state's national security bureaucracy as their best hope to destroy Trump and thus defend constitutional government, but those hopes are misguided. After all, the deep state's bureaucratic leadership has worked arduously for decades to subvert constitutional order.

    As Michael Glennon, author of National Security and Double Government, pointed out in a June 2017 Harper's essay, if "the president maintains his attack, splintered and demoralized factions within the bureaucracy could actually support - not oppose - many potential Trump initiatives, such as stepped-up drone strikes, cyberattacks, covert action, immigration bans, and mass surveillance."

    Glennon noted that the propensity of "security managers" to back policies which ratchet up levels of security "will play into Trump's hands, so that if and when he finally does declare victory, a revamped security directorate could emerge more menacing than ever, with him its devoted new ally." Before that happens, it is incumbent for Americans to understand what Valentine explains in his book of CIA methods of "population control" as first fully developed in the Vietnam War's Phoenix Program.

    Hating the US

    There also must be the realization that our "national security" apparatchiks - principally but not solely the CIA - have served to exponentially increase the numbers of those people who hate the US.

    Some of these people turn to terrorism as an expression of that hostility. Anyone who is at all familiar with the CIA and Al Qaeda knows that the CIA has been Al Qaeda's most important "combat multiplier" since 9/11, and the CIA can be said to have birthed ISIS as well with the mistreatment of incarcerated Iraqi men in US prisons in Iraq.

    Indeed, by following the model of the Phoenix Program, the CIA must be seen in the Twenty-first Century as a combination of the ultimate "Murder, Inc.," when judged by the CIA's methods such as drone warfare and its victims; and the Keystone Kops, when the multiple failures of CIA policies are considered. This is not to make light of what the CIA does, but the CIA's misguided policies and practices have served to generate wrath, hatred and violence against Americans, which we see manifested in cities such as San Bernardino, Orlando, New York and Boston.

    Pointing out the harm to Americans is not to dismiss the havoc that Americans under the influence of the CIA have perpetrated on foreign populations. But "morality" seems a lost virtue today in the US, which is under the influence of so much militaristic war propaganda that morality no longer enters into the equation in determining foreign policy.

    In addition to the harm the CIA has caused to people around the world, the CIA works tirelessly at subverting its own government at home, as was most visible in the spying on and subversion of the torture investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The subversion of democracy also includes the role the CIA plays in developing and disseminating war propaganda as "information warfare," upon the American people. This is what the Rand Corporation under the editorship of Zalmay Khalilzad has described as "conditioning the battlefield," which begins with the minds of the American population.

    Douglas Valentine discusses and documents the role of the CIA in disseminating pro-war propaganda and disinformation as complementary to the violent tactics of the Phoenix Program in Vietnam. Valentine explains that "before Phoenix was adopted as the model for policing the American empire, many US military commanders in Vietnam resisted the Phoenix strategy of targeting civilians with Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police."

    Military Commanders considered that type of program a flagrant violation of the Law of War. "Their main job is to zap the in-betweeners – you know, the people who aren't all the way with the government and aren't all the way with the Viet Cong either. They figure if you zap enough in-betweeners, people will begin to get the idea," according to one quote from The Phoenix Program referring to the unit tasked with much of the Phoenix operations.

    Nazi Influences

    Comparing the Phoenix Program and its operatives to "Einsatzgruppen-style 'special forces' and Gestapo-style secret police" is not a distortion of the strategic understanding of each. Both programs were extreme forms of repression operating under martial law principles where the slightest form of dissent was deemed to represent the work of the "enemy." Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood describes German "Security Warfare" as practiced in World War II, which can be seen as identical in form to the Phoenix Program as to how the enemy is defined as anyone who is "potentially" a threat, deemed either "partizans" or terrorists.

    That the Germans included entire racial categories in that does not change the underlying logic, which was, anyone deemed an internal enemy in a territory in which their military operated had to be "neutralized" by any means necessary. The US military and the South Vietnamese military governments operated under the same principles but not based on race, rather the perception that certain areas and villages were loyal to the Viet Cong.

    This repressive doctrine was also not unique to the Nazis in Europe and the US military in Vietnam. Similar though less sophisticated strategies were used against the American Indians and by the imperial powers of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, including by the US in its newly acquired territories of the Philippines and in the Caribbean. This "imperial policing," i.e., counterinsurgency, simply moved to more manipulative and, in ways, more violent levels.

    That the US drew upon German counterinsurgency doctrine, as brutal as it was, is well documented. This is shown explicitly in a 2011 article published in the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies entitled German Counterinsurgency Revisited by Charles D. Melson. He wrote that in 1942, Nazi commander Heinrich Himmler named a deputy for "anti-bandit warfare," (Bevollmachtigter fur die Bandenkampfung im Osten), SS-General von dem Bach, whose responsibilities expanded in 1943 to head all SS and police anti-bandit units and operations. He was one of the architects of the Einsatzguppen "concept of anti-partisan warfare," a German predecessor to the "Phoenix Program."

    'Anti-Partisan' Lessons

    It wasn't a coincidence that this "anti-partisan" warfare concept should be adopted by US forces in Vietnam and retained to the present day. Melson pointed out that a "post-war German special forces officer described hunter or ranger units as 'men who knew every possible ruse and tactic of guerrilla warfare. They had gone through the hell of combat against the crafty partisans in the endless swamps and forests of Russia.'"

    Consequently, "The German special forces and reconnaissance school was a sought after posting for North Atlantic Treaty Organization special operations personnel," who presumably included members of the newly created US Army Special Forces soldiers, which was in part headquartered at Bad Tolz in Germany, as well as CIA paramilitary officers.

    Just as with the later Phoenix Program to the present-day US global counterinsurgency, Melson wrote that the "attitude of the [local] population and the amount of assistance it was willing to give guerilla units was of great concern to the Germans. Different treatment was supposed to be accorded to affected populations, bandit supporters, and bandits, while so-called population and resource control measures for each were noted (but were in practice, treated apparently one and the same). 'Action against enemy agitation' was the psychological or information operations of the Nazi period. The Nazis believed that, 'Because of the close relationship of guerilla warfare and politics, actions against enemy agitation are a task that is just as important as interdiction and combat actions. All means must be used to ward off enemy influence and waken and maintain a clear political will.'"

    This is typical of any totalitarian system – a movement or a government – whether the process is characterized as counterinsurgency or internal security. The idea of any civilian collaboration with the "enemy" is the basis for what the US government charges as "conspiracy" in the Guantanamo Military Commissions.

    Valentine explains the Phoenix program as having been developed by the CIA in 1967 to combine "existing counterinsurgency programs in a concerted effort to 'neutralize' the Vietcong infrastructure (VCI)." He explained further that "neutralize" meant "to kill, capture, or make to defect." "Infrastructure" meant civilians suspected of supporting North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers. Central to the Phoenix program was that its targets were civilians, making the operation a violation of the Geneva Conventions which guaranteed protection to civilians in time of war.

    "The Vietnam's War's Silver Lining: A Bureaucratic Model for Population Control Emerges" is the title of Chapter 3. Valentine writes that the "CIA's Phoenix program changed how America fights its wars and how the public views this new type of political and psychological warfare, in which civilian casualties are an explicit objective." The intent of the Phoenix program evolved from "neutralizing" enemy leaders into "a program of systematic repression for the political control of the South Vietnamese people. It sought to accomplish this through a highly bureaucratized system of disposing of people who could not be ideologically assimilated." The CIA claimed a legal basis for the program in "emergency decrees" and orders for "administrative detention."

    Lauding Petraeus

    Valentine refers to a paper by David Kilcullen entitled Countering Global Insurgency. Kilcullen is one of the so-called "counterinsurgency experts" whom General David Petraeus gathered together in a cell to promote and refine "counterinsurgency," or COIN, for the modern era. Fred Kaplan, who is considered a "liberal author and journalist" at Slate, wrote a panegyric to these cultists entitled, The Insurgents: David Petraeus and the Plot to Change the American Way of War. The purpose of this cell was to change the practices of the US military into that of "imperial policing," or COIN, as they preferred to call it.

    But Kilcullen argued in his paper that "The 'War on Terrorism'" is actually a campaign to counter a global insurgency. Therefore, Kilcullen argued, "we need a new paradigm, capable of addressing globalised insurgency." His "disaggregation strategy" called for "actions to target the insurgent infrastructure that would resemble the unfairly maligned (but highly effective) Vietnam-era Phoenix program."

    He went on, "Contrary to popular mythology, this was largely a civilian aid and development program, supported by targeted military pacification operations and intelligence activity to disrupt the Viet Cong Infrastructure. A global Phoenix program (including the other key elements that formed part of the successful Vietnam CORDS system) would provide a useful start point to consider how Disaggregation would develop in practice."

    It is readily apparent that, in fact, a Phoenix-type program is now US global policy and - just like in Vietnam - it is applying "death squad" strategies that eliminate not only active combatants but also civilians who simply find themselves in the same vicinity, thus creating antagonisms that expand the number of fighters.

    Corraborative evidence of Valentine's thesis is, perhaps surprisingly, provided by the CIA's own website where a number of redacted historical documents have been published. Presumably, they are documents first revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. A few however are copies of news articles once available to the public but now archived by the CIA which has blacked-out portions of the articles.

    The Bloody Reality

    One "sanitized" article - approved for release in 2011 - is a partially redacted New Times article of Aug. 22, 1975, by Michael Drosnin. The article recounts a story of a US Army counterintelligence officer "who directed a small part of a secret war aimed not at the enemy's soldiers but at its civilian leaders." He describes how a CIA-directed Phoenix operative dumped a bag of "eleven bloody ears" as proof of six people killed.

    The officer, who recalled this incident in 1971, said, "It made me sick. I couldn't go on with what I was doing in Vietnam. . . . It was an assassination campaign . . . my job was to identify and eliminate VCI, the Viet Cong 'infrastructure' – the communist's shadow government. I worked directly with two Vietnamese units, very tough guys who didn't wear uniforms . . . In the beginning they brought back about 10 percent alive. By the end they had stopped taking prisoners.

    "How many VC they got I don't know. I saw a hell of a lot of dead bodies. We'd put a tag on saying VCI, but no one really knew – it was just some native in black pajamas with 16 bullet holes."

    This led to an investigation by New Times in a day when there were still "investigative reporters," and not the government sycophants of today. Based on firsthand accounts, their investigation concluded that Operation Phoenix was the "only systematized kidnapping, torture and assassination program ever sponsored by the United States government. . . . Its victims were noncombatants." At least 40,000 were murdered, with "only" about 8,000 supposed Viet Cong political cadres targeted for execution, with the rest civilians (including women and children) killed and "later conveniently labeled VCI. Hundreds of thousands were jailed without trial, often after sadistic abuse." The article notes that Phoenix was conceived, financed, and directed by the Central Intelligence Agency, as Mr. Valentine writes.

    A second article archived by the CIA was by the Christian Science Monitor, dated Jan. 5, 1971, describing how the Saigon government was "taking steps that could help eliminate one of the most glaring abuses of its controversial Phoenix program, which is aimed against the Viet Cong political and administrative apparatus." Note how the Monitor shifted blame away from the CIA and onto the South Vietnamese government.

    But the article noted that one of the most persistent criticisms of Phoenix was that it resulted "in the arrest and imprisonment of many innocent civilians." These were called "Class C Communist offenders," some of whom may actually have been forced to commit such "belligerent acts" as digging trenches or carrying rice. It was those alleged as the "hard core, full-time cadre" who were deemed to make up the "shadow government" designated as Class A and B Viet Cong.

    Yet "security committees" throughout South Vietnam, under the direction of the CIA, sentenced at least 10,000 "Class C civilians" to prison each year, far more than Class A and B combined. The article stated, "Thousands of these prisoners are never brought to court trial, and thousands of other have never been sentenced." The latter statement would mean they were just held in "indefinite detention," like the prisoners held at Guantanamo and other US detention centers with high levels of CIA involvement.

    Not surprisingly to someone not affiliated with the CIA, the article found as well that "Individual case histories indicate that many who have gone to prison as active supporters of neither the government nor the Viet Cong come out as active backers of the Viet Cong and with an implacable hatred of the government." In other words, the CIA and the COIN enthusiasts are achieving the same results today with the prisons they set up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    CIA Crimes

    Valentine broadly covers the illegalities of the CIA over the years, including its well-documented role in facilitating the drug trade over the years. But, in this reviewer's opinion, his most valuable contribution is his description of the CIA's participation going back at least to the Vietnam War in the treatment of what the US government today calls "unlawful combatants."

    "Unlawful combatants" is a descriptive term made up by the Bush administration to remove people whom US officials alleged were "terrorists" from the legal protections of the Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Law and thus to justify their capture or killing in the so-called "Global War on Terror." Since the US government deems them "unlawful" – because they do not belong to an organized military structure and do not wear insignia – they are denied the "privilege" of belligerency that applies to traditional soldiers. But – unless they take a "direct part in hostilities" – they would still maintain their civilian status under the law of war and thus not lose the legal protection due to civilians even if they exhibit sympathy or support to one side in a conflict.

    Ironically, by the Bush administration's broad definition of "unlawful combatants," CIA officers and their support structure also would fit the category. But the American public is generally forgiving of its own war criminals though most self-righteous and hypocritical in judging foreign war criminals. But perhaps given sufficient evidence, the American public could begin to see both the immorality of this behavior and its counterproductive consequences.

    This is not to condemn all CIA officers, some of whom acted in good faith that they were actually defending the United States by acquiring information on a professed enemy in the tradition of Nathan Hale. But it is to harshly condemn those CIA officials and officers who betrayed the United States by subverting its Constitution, including waging secret wars against foreign countries without a declaration of war by Congress. And it decidedly condemns the CIA war criminals who acted as a law unto themselves in the torture and murder of foreign nationals, as Valentine's book describes.

    Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English: "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything." That sums up the CIA leadership entirely.

    Douglas Valentine's book is a thorough documentation of that fact and it is essential reading for all Americans if we are to have any hope for salvaging a remnant of representative government.

    Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. This originally appeared at ConsortiumNews.com .

    Read more by Todd E. Pierce Inciting Wars the American Way – August 14th, 2016 Chicago Police Adopt Israeli Tactics – December 13th, 2015 US War Theories Target Dissenters – September 13th, 2015 Ron Paul and Lost Lessons of War – September 1st, 2015 Has the US Constitution Been Lost to Military Rule?– January 4th, 2015

    [Jun 23, 2017] Highly Graphic Video's – White Helmets Film Themselves Participating in Beheading's of Syrian Soldiers

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Liam | Jun 22, 2017 10:49:07 AM | 15

    Highly Graphic Video's – White Helmets Film Themselves Participating in Beheading's of Syrian Soldiers

    https://clarityofsignal.com/2017/06/21/highly-graphic-videos-white-helmets-film-themselves-participating-in-beheadings-of-syrian-soldiers/

    Direct Terrorist Collusion: Over One Dozen Videos Capture White Helmets Working Side-By-Side With Terrorist Groups in Syria

    [Jun 23, 2017] King Faisal, supporter of Palestine, became too demanding in 1974. He was killed in 1975

    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA As Organized Crime ..."
    "... It's pretty obvious that Trump is picking his friends in the ME based on his attitude towards Iran and a seeming desire to do Israel's bidding. For all his faults Obama chose to keep Israel at arm's length and ramrodded a nuclear deal with Iran that was intended to bring that country in from the cold and open opportunities for commerce that had been shut down by years of sanctions. ..."
    "... In his zeal to undo all of Obama's initiatives Trump has placed the US in an intractable position in the ME. The scope of his long term plans will become more evident as the IS is driven out of Raqqa and Mosul. A lot of posters have postulated that he intends to grab a chunk of eastern Syria and western Iraq and engineer the geography so that Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon is minimized. They are very likely right. ..."
    "... The saving grace might be Mueller and his posse of investigators. They are going to forensically break down any dealings that Trump and Kushner had with foreign entities before and during the presidential campaign. There may be reasons for transition type meetings with foreign diplomats but the meetings with bankers and businessmen that were so blithely left off the required documentation when applying for security clearances will come under full scrutiny in a very focused way. This focus on his foreign dealings is apparently what has been causing Trump to act in such an unhinged fashion. He's too frazzled by his domestic problems to concentrate on his foreign policy. That's because he's corrupt and it's going to be fully exposed. ..."
    "... That was a good point that Putin raised with Kelly in her interview. It's one thing to point a finger at any Russian affects on elections when the US does it on such a massive scale. I wish he would release a white paper documenting this especially US efforts in Ukraine as well as Russia (to include NED and IRI). ..."
    Jun 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    fastfreddy | Jun 22, 2017 9:49:27 AM | 10
    King Faisal, supporter of Palestine, became too demanding in 1974. He was killed in 1975. Official story - One of Faisal's nephews, after returning to SA from a trip to the US, shot and killed his uncle king. Official Story - nephew was beheaded.

    This craven batch of successors are kin and they do what is required of them by the west.

    Of course, human rights issues are a sick joke. SA is member of the UN Human Rights Committee!

    jfl | Jun 22, 2017 9:50:11 AM | 11
    @8

    that's a farsnews article i saw at sf ...

    Nearly 3.3 million Yemeni people, including 2.1 million children, are currently suffering from acute malnutrition. The Al-Saud aggression has also taken a heavy toll on the country's facilities and infrastructure, destroying many hospitals, schools, and factories.

    The WHO now classifies Yemen as one of the worst humanitarian emergencies in the world alongside Syria, South Sudan, Nigeria and Iraq.

    humanitarian emergency? where's the r2p nato crowd? right 2 protect/resources 2 plunder - either way it's got saudi arabia written all over it. so how come nato hasn't bombed saudi arabia yet? syria, south sudan, nigeria, and iraq ... at least 3 of the four are directly attributable to the usofa. so who's the world's leading terrorist?
    Don Wiscacho | Jun 22, 2017 10:37:05 AM | 12
    Set the clock ticking on the al-Saud clan

    Universally, every citizen of Saudi Arabia that I've ever talked to has unreserved hatred for "their" royals. I assume that only members of that family feel differently. Even people from the elite who have benefited from the monarchy harbor no love. The masses of poor in the country absolutely despise these clowns.

    Let's run down a quick list of MSB's achievements:

    1. Cakewalk war in Yemen to reinstall compliant dictator -- current clusterfuck
    2. 'Prosperity by Austerity' economic plan -- incipient clusterfuck
    3. Cutting in the Royal Line -- probable clusterfuck
    4. Hoes before Bros coddling up to Israel against Iran -- guaranteed clusterfuck

    I'm not sure it's popcorn time just yet, but if I were a Saudi Prince, I'd be moving all my non-earned cash to Swiss accounts

    Ghostship | Jun 22, 2017 10:42:47 AM | 13
    One man becomes ill for some unknown reason while imprisoned in a foreign country, is repatriated on "compassonate grounds" and then dies, and the whole world is supposed to be shocked and upset. What b reports above..............

    karlof1 | Jun 22, 2017 11:01:24 AM | 16
    I see the Sauds as trashmen: Their job is to take US trash-cash in payment for their hydrocarbons and recycle it via weapons and T-bond purchases--which are also trash.
    political fiction | Jun 22, 2017 11:12:12 AM | 18
    @8
    There is also a possibility that Israel is preparing an attack against Iran. The whole situation around Qatar and Saudi Arabia is quite suspicious. Dispute among family members? Gulf states are infiltrated by the CIA, they have no an independent foreign policy. So, what is going on? Maybe a big war is coming. Qatar is located near Iran so Iran can heavily damage Qatari infrastructure if war break out. Because of that Qatar pretends to be Saudi's enemy.

    It can be a really big war. Turkish army at the same time could try to attack Aleppo. US troops from bases in Jordan can move towards Deir Ezzor. At the end of the day Turkey seizes Aleppo and Idlib Governorate (Ottoman Empire), Kurdistan is created (from Raqqa through Deir Ezzor to Kirkuk and Iran), Iranian facilities and plants don't exist anymore (regime change also possible), the Golan Height and part of Syria are under Israeli control. The dissolution of Syria - that was the plan from the very beginning. Today this sounds rather as a political fiction (because of Russia), nonetheless something strange is looming on the horizon there.

    Michael | Jun 22, 2017 11:14:18 AM | 20
    @Don Wiscacho | Jun 22, 2017 10:37:05 AM | 12

    If you've been following the "economic stimulation" plan in US infrastructure, Orange One may provide the Wahabis a stake in the privatized road and infrastructure in the US. As he flees the desert wasteland after the oil markets crash, he will be able to own a "piece of the rock" and continue to bilk Americans out of their livelihood in into perpetuity via tolls, and could retire in splendor in Beverly Hills or Palm Beach. It's the "free market" at work.

    xxx 21
    @ karlof1 | Jun 22, 2017 11:01:24 AM | 16

    Exactly. I would add that they also use some of that "trash-cash" to pay idiots all over the world to follow their satanic wahabi cult.

    Anonymous | Jun 22, 2017 11:34:05 AM | 22
    A report of the Russians using an S-300 to shoot down a US Global Hawk over the eastern Med. US and Russian military are silent. There is a report that a Global Hawk has crashed .... in California.

    https://z5h64q92x9.net/proxy_u/ru-en.en/colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3497216.html

    Anonymous | Jun 22, 2017 11:39:17 AM | 23
    Normally the US comes to the rescue of ISIS in Syria. Now it looks like ISIS is coming to the rescue of US forces. There is a report that ISIS is trying to break the recently created SAA/Hezbollah/Iranian buffer zone east of the US base near al Tanf. The US forces were there supposedly to attack ISIS. The buffer zone removed that and effectively any need for the forces to be there in the first place. ISIS trying to break the buffer in order to allow the US forces to attack ISIS - a self-licking kebab.

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/pictures-isis-storms-iraqi-border-crossing-near-us-military-base-map-update/

    Anonymous | Jun 22, 2017 11:46:17 AM | 24
    Back in the days, the Syrians offered to interrogate (presumably at 'enhanced' level) some people renditioned from Afghanistan that were sold to the US as members of whichever Islamic group the US was supposed to be fighting at the time. The Syrians presumably did this to try to get in the good books of the US (as did Iran when it captured al Qaeda operatives escaping Afghanistan into Iran). The Syrians interrogated these people and concluded they were innocent. I believe the US still has these innocent people in their Gulag at Guantanamo.
    Laguerre | Jun 22, 2017 11:52:38 AM | 25
    I have a strong feeling that it's Saudi that will go bang first. Austerity on the Saudis just doesn't work. It's only the money which is keeping the tribes loyal to the Najdis. If Al Saud can't pay (or if the Kinsey consultants are advising him not to pay (as if they would understand the politics of Saudi)), why should all the others stick with the Sauds? I was very struck by the photo of what the Saudis have down to the Shi'ite town of Awamiyyah in the Eastern Province. They've walled it off with those 4m high concrete blocks, with only one checkpoint for going in or out. It's a complete siege. MbS must be getting more and more paranoiac, and now he's carried out his coup to take over the King.
    james | Jun 22, 2017 12:15:53 PM | 28
    the usa as torture supporter? why am i not surprised? they have been torturing the planet literally and figuratively for quite a few years... the revelations of manning was enough of an eye opener for anyone paying attention.. the thought that they would change their ways is a joke...

    @25 laguerre... yeah, those pics of the shite town in saudi arabia stuck in my mind as well.. things ain't well in the saudi headchopper/torture paradise that the usa/isael and etc have sidled up with.. this new kid as the head of the saudi money dictatorship ain't all that inspiring either..

    Jackrabbit | Jun 22, 2017 12:16:05 PM | 29
    As perceptive as he is, b stll can't bring himself to see that Trump is a Clinton protege and Sanders was a Clinton sheep-dog.
    >> How Things Work: Betrayal by Faux Populist Leaders

    >> Taken In: Fake News Distracts Us From Fake Election

    Martin Finnucane | Jun 22, 2017 12:18:53 PM | 30
    @karlof1 #16

    Their job is to take US trash-cash in payment for their hydrocarbons and recycle it via weapons and T-bond purchases--which are also trash.

    Sounds like you may appreciate a tidying up. I will be happy to take any such trash off your hands. I will collect any such cash and Treasury notes that you may have in your possession or about your premises. I will be in-and-out in a flash, so that you and your family will barely know that I was there. Then neither I nor your trash will be a nuisance in any way. I provide this service free of charge. (And even if I did charge, what form would payment take?) How's that for trash man?

    Don Wiscacho | Jun 22, 2017 12:22:52 PM | 31
    Michael @20

    I haven't heard about cutting the Wahhabis in on road privatization in the US but it wouldn't surprise me in the least. Donald and MBS in many ways are cut from a similar cloth. Birds of a feather...

    Thucydides | Jun 22, 2017 12:33:49 PM | 32
    @18 @political fiction

    They need Idlip and Aleppo if they want a land connection between Israel and the EU. Lebanon will be fragmentized and Hezbollah destroyed (Balkanization).

    Jackrabbit | Jun 22, 2017 12:35:34 PM |
    political fiction @18

    Yes, there is something fishy with the Qatar-Saudi spat. It may well be that they want to remove themselves as a target as you speculate.

    My first thought was that (any) conflict in the Gulf is an excuse to add military resources. Also, Iran's support for the Qatari's could be spun as "aggression" and used to unite Sunnis under Saudi leadership (we see the setting up of a false choice all the time: your with *us* or you're with the 'terrorists') . I wrote about it here: Saudi-Qatar: Gambit du Roi .

    nonsense factory | Jun 22, 2017 1:05:53 PM | 34
    That WSJ-UAE-CIA arms deal story is pretty enlightening:
    Two other Denx partners - ex-CIA employees Gary Bernsten and Scott Modell - told the AP that Solomon was involved in discussing proposed deals with Azima at the same time he continued to cultivate the businessman as a source for his stories for the Journal. . .

    In an April 2015 email, Azima wrote to Solomon about a proposal for a $725 million air-operations, surveillance and reconnaissance support contract with the United Arab Emirates that would allow planes to spy on activity inside nearby Iran. Solomon was supposed to ferry the proposal to UAE government representatives at a lunch the following day, the email said.

    "We all wish best of luck to Jay on his first defense sale," Azima wrote to Solomon, Bernsten and Modell.

    Under the proposed UAE deal, Azima's firms were to manage specially equipped surveillance planes to monitor activity in Iran, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

    UAE has long-standing ties to various covert and overt U.S.-led operations in the region. Just another puppet client state of the empire. See 2003-2010, Wikileaks (search for "MbZ", State Department code for UAE's clown prince)
    2003 UAE POISED FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION OPPORTUNITIES"

    This one in particular:
    2010 https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10ABUDHABI69_a.html

    (S/NF) The UAE is one of our closest partners in the Middle East and one of our most useful friends worldwide.
    -- Al-Dhafra Air Force Base is the high altitude ISR hub for the AOR, and supports 50 percent of aerial refueling in the AOR.
    -- Ports in Dubai and Fujairah are the logistics backbone for the U.S. Fifth. Jebel Ali (Dubai) is the most frequented USN liberty port after Norfolk.
    -- Minhad Air Base is a critical hub for Coalition/ISAF partners in Afghanistan, including the Australians, Dutch, Canadians, Brits and Kiwis.
    -- The UAE is a cash customer with FMS [foreign military sales] sales in excess of $11 billion. Commercial sales have an equivalent value. An additional $12 billion of FMS cases are in development with approximately the same volume of commercial sales in the works.
    -- The UAE recently purchased nine Patriot batteries, and expects to move forward on the purchase of THAAD as the first non US customer.
    -- The UAE currently commands CJTF-152 (Arabian Gulf) and maintains an active exercise schedule with U.S. (Red Flag) and other multi-lateral partners.
    -- The UAE recently hosted an AFCENT survey team to consider U.S. access to Liwa (Safran) Air Base in support of contingency operations.
    -- Additionally, the UAE is considering hosting the Regional Integrated Air and Missile Defense Center of Excellence.
    Mina | Jun 22, 2017 1:33:32 PM | 35
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/271442/World/Region/Erdogan-spokesman-says-Turkey-and-Russia-to-deploy.aspx
    BRF | Jun 22, 2017 1:48:47 PM | 36
    Not really much new about CIA instigated torture, the purpose of which as Orwell truly determined is only to torture. The rest of western intrigue in the Middle East and various other locales around the world is all part of the business plan. That plan "is to inventory and control: all finances, land, water, plants, animals, minerals, energy, means of production, construction, transportation, information, education, policing, human habitation and all humans on this planet" - Rosa Koire

    karlof1 | Jun 22, 2017 2:12:22 PM | 39
    Martin Finnucane @30--

    "Sounds like you may appreciate a tidying up." Certainly, but not the sort you proposed. More like a complete game-changer of the sort outlined in this fine overview, https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/06/20/leading-multipolar-revolution-how-russia-china-creating-new-world-order.html

    ex-SA @21--

    I refrained from mentioning the Wahhabbi trash cult; but yes, like Hitlerism, it too must go into the dustbin. It appears that trash cult is interwoven into Zionist and Outlaw US Empire philosophies since all three promote a terroristic, oligarchic elite rule and policy toward neighbors and share their own version of Manifest Destiny stemming from their common Abrahamic roots.

    The author of the linked article easily presumes the Outlaw US Empire will continue to use terrorists as its preferred foreign policy tool for the foreseeable future since it shows no signs of terminating its announced goal of Full Spectrum Domination, a policy energetically opposed by the SCO and suite of other organizations the author lists. Just as Hitlerian Germany and Tojo's Japan were doomed to failure in WW2 due to the overwhelming amount of resources available to United Nations forces, the Outlaw US Empire is doomed to defeat thanks to the overwhelming resource base of the Multipolar Alliance and its superior Win-Win philosophy of relations.

    Brad | Jun 22, 2017 2:30:13 PM | 40
    Old Saudi King and Queen oil fields are water/gas injection. The coastal desalination plants are key to keeping these old Fields producing.

    Iran's Ballistic Missile strike on ISUS in Deir Ezzor from 100s klms away - Iran to Syria. ...proves Iran can strike Gulf states along with ships in the Persian Gulf.

    If Saudi go to war with Iran...they can kiss the desalination and power plants goodbye. The old oil fields would collapse, the end of Idiot Arabia.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2017 2:50:04 PM | 41
    In a thread with the the word "Torture" in its title, shouldn't we be exploring the role torture plays in radicalising Ter'rists? Wasn't one of History's recent Ter'rist masterminds water-boarded umpteen dozen times to tip him over the edge? The only thing we know for certain about torture is that it's a great way to extract false confessions. Can it also be used to inspire false beliefs - keeping in mind that torture is conducted in a Totally Controlled Environment in which the victim "knows" only what the torturer wants/needs him to know?

    I don't buy all the Jew-controlled MSM's horseshit about people being radicalised by hare-brained hokum on the www, or the ravings of a local imam.
    There's got to be more to it...

    karlof1 | Jun 22, 2017 3:42:22 PM | 46
    Hoarsewhisperer @40--

    Yes, very valid points. Given the vast amount of torture that allegedly occurred in Vietnam during its very long war for independence, what became of all the potential terrorists? What of all those tortured within Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. Then of course, we have the longstanding Gulag System begun by Tsars and expanded by War Communism; Solzhenitsyn never mentions anyone being radicalized by their Gulag time in his trilogy on the subject. If torture breeds terrorists, then South America ought to be awash with them thanks to the decades of Outlaw US Empire directed torture there.

    In a very high-profile film seen by many millions, Luke Skywalker gets radicalized by the presumed torture and subsequent immolation of his kin and becomes what the Galactic Empire/ Outlaw US Empire would consider a terrorist. His own personal torture is knowing his father is his enemy, yet he cannot kill him since he senses redemption within him. More Hollywood; the Outlaw Josey Wales continues his fight against what he perceives as terrorist Red Legs well after the Civil War ends, while the Red Legs and their government connections consider Josey to be a terrorist--radicalized twice through massacres.

    So, is the torture something seen/witnessed, personally experienced, or both? Can a system be terroristic, such as slavery, colonialism, debt peonage, apartheid, and thus provide the required radicalization to resist/destroy them--such resistance being seen by the system's controllers as terrorism? Just how fine a line is there between the genuine Freedom Fighter and Terrorist? Within the Outlaw US Empire, the Black Panther Movement certainly sew themselves as genuine Freedom Fighters, but Hoover, Nixon, and such clearly saw them as terrorist threats to their system of control--Nelson Mandela was named a terrorist for that very reason by Reagan while calling al-Ciada Freedom Fighters.

    As a former teacher, I like to fallback on a truism brought forth by Rodgers, Hammerstein, and Logan in the Broadway musical South Pacific tune You've Got to Be Carefully Taught, which the Powers That Be tried to get them to drop, thus providing further incentive to include it--lyrics here, http://www.metrolyrics.com/youve-got-to-be-carefully-taught-lyrics-south-pacific.html So, unless you can become enlightened like Lt. Cable in the musical or myself, you're very likely to hate/stigmatize those you were socialized--taught, indoctrinated, through delivery systems like church, school, propaganda, etc. Yet another question: What differs between a Banzai Charge and a coordinated assault by several people wearing bomb belts--are they both terrorist acts or just one?

    Peter AU | Jun 22, 2017 3:47:20 PM | 48
    Part of the Saudi Qatar spat seems to be a re-alignment of Saudi and GCC behind the SDF-Kurd plus ISIS with haircut - and whatever the US call their proxies in the south. Moving from outing the Syrian government to a land grab for whatever they can, with a land bridge to Jordan and a focus on Iran?
    Laguerre | Jun 22, 2017 4:37:53 PM | 49
    I am not sure that I want to do a Debs-style rant on Saudi Arabia (not to criticise Debs, whose rants I greatly appreciate), but I increasingly think that Saudi is in serious danger of implosion.

    Passing over the 18th century Saudi empire, the point where the Saudis made the alliance with Muhammad ibn Abd ul-Wahhab, the real Saudi state began in 1908, when Ibn Saud, Abd al-Aziz Al Sa'ud, took the Dasmak fort in Riyadh. After the WW1, where he was not particularly supported by the Brits, he launched a successful war of conquest, supported by a bunch of jihadis, called muhajirun. These jihadis were later suppressed by violence in the 1930s. In 1925 they took Mecca from the Hussainis (Faisal and Lawrence's lot), and spread out to the borders of Yemen, including Najran by 1935. Note that the state was, and is, called in Arabic, al-mamlaka al-'arabiyya al-sa'udiyya, the Arab Kingdom of Al Sa'ud. There is no sense of nationality; it is what the Saudi family has conquered. They've since tried to introduce the notion of nationality, with doubtful success.

    In the old days, that is late antiquity and medieval Islamic times, the way you got the loyalty of the tribes was by simply paying them in gold. Which has only been repeated in the oil-rich today.

    What you have today in what is called Saudi Arabia, is a number of peoples who haven't been integrated into a nation, but been paid to keep quiet, under the domination of the Najdis from Riyadh. The Hijazis in the west aren't particularly wahhabi, but accept the situation. The Najranis are Isma'ilis,and had a small revolt in 2000 according to the War Nerd. The Shi'a in the east are sitting on the only oil-fields, and are the greatest problem for the Saudi regime, as mentioned above.

    However we now have the new young punk, Muhammad ibn Salman, who now has control of his father (who has perhaps dementia), and has appointed himself crown prince. He has already launched one war against Yemen, and a second quasi-war against Qatar, apart from the Saudi activities in Syria. He's quite like Saddam, it can't end well. The weak point is the loyalty of the Saudi people. Why stick with Riyadh if they're not paying? Mbs wants to introduce efficiency savings, under the advice of Kinsey, without apparently any idea of how Saudi works.

    karlof1 | Jun 22, 2017 4:41:01 PM | 50
    A new twist may soon allow SCO and CSTO members Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan troops into Syria in the form of Peace Keepers. From Ria Novosti--Sputnik in Russian:

    "The head of the State Duma Defense Committee, Vladimir Shamanov, confirmed to RIA Novosti that Russia is negotiating with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan to send their military to Syria." SCO and CSTO have a heavy anti-terrorism emphasis, and including troops from those nations would provide excellent training for the new Daesh offensive likely to emerge from Afghanistan. Apparently, Turkey agrees with the proposal and has provided its own related to Idlib, https://ria.ru/syria/20170622/1497104098.html

    fast freddy | Jun 22, 2017 4:48:38 PM | 51
    If you are born into a society wherein headchopping is the standard for capital punishment, then it would seem to be a normal act to you. (Also the chopping off of hands, noses, etc.) Now if you are also very poor (which is generally the case) then a representative of the CIA, for example could entice you with a fat paycheck like you've never seen ($400 per month). You might also be inclined to perform other tasks for bonus money. Further - important inspiration is derived from religious and cultural differences btw you and your designated foes.

    The extraction of false confessions does serve to legitimize torture, because a false confession is as good as a legitimate confession when the goal from the start is to uphold a pre-determined false narrative.

    karlof1 | Jun 22, 2017 4:53:07 PM | 52
    Laguerre @48--

    Andrew Korybko has a different view of what MBS's rise means for Russia and China, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201706211054852980-saudi-shake-up-russia-china/ The ties already made between the three make it a curious dance to watch.

    Alaric | Jun 22, 2017 4:55:40 PM | 53
    Hmm..

    I wonder how long it will be before we see a provocation against Iran or against the SAA in Syria by the new King to be. I suspect even neocons would be delighted if the Russians or Syrians shot down a UAE, Kuwaiti or Saudi plane. That makes we wonder if Iran will not reply to the new idiot king via more support for the houthi.

    brian | Jun 22, 2017 6:36:57 PM | 56
    Amnesty and its mouthpiece Kreasechan try to outdo HRW & Ken in their support for the jihadis war on syrians
    kristyan benedict‏Verified account @KreaseChan 11h11 hours ago

    In an alternative universe, Russia slams Syrian warplane's attacks on civilians as violation of international law

    http://tass.com/politics/952763 https://twitter.com/tassagency_en/status/877853678908182528

    Curtis | Jun 22, 2017 7:33:57 PM | 57
    The Yemen program sounds like the one run in Afghanistan sort of like a dragnet run by corrupt allies who may be paid "per head." And it's cheaper than paid trip to Gitmo.
    ben | Jun 22, 2017 7:36:49 PM | 58
    Hoarsewhisper @ 40 speculated:"There's got to be more to it..."

    Bingo! This might have something to do with it..

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/military-coups-regime-change-the-cia-has-interfered-in-over-81-foreign-elections/5567422

    jfl | Jun 22, 2017 8:36:41 PM | 60
    @40 hoarse, 'keeping in mind that torture is conducted in a Totally Controlled Environment in which the victim "knows" only what the torturer wants/needs him to know?'

    that's always struck me about the caliph of the islamic state, abu bakr al-baghdadi . He is acknowledged to have been held by the cia - after his stint at abu ghraib - in a prison camp in iraq ... camp bucca, 'along with other future leaders of ISIL' ... that's where he 'got the idea' of the islamic state itself.

    I think al-Baghdadi and isis are much more closely tied to the usofa than is generally acknowledged.

    jfl | Jun 22, 2017 8:48:12 PM | 61
    @54 karlof

    i've never taken Korybko - or sputnik - as anything other than a propaganda trumpet. he does remind of 'inconvenient' facts from time to time ...

    [T]he $65 billion in deals that King Salman signed in Beijing include a plan to construct a Chinese drone factory in the Kingdom, which shows that Saudi Arabia's August 2016 purchase of this technology from China was successful in serving as the foundation for an expanded military partnership.
    what the hell is china doing, selling drones ... building factories to build drones, and 65 billion worth of other projects ... in saudi arabia?

    doing a takeover ... via chinese 'entrepreneurs', xi's cronies ... a la greece?

    China has long begun an investment plan for Greece that allows Athens to pay salaries, maintain the infrastructures and sustain the impact of debt repayment plans as well as interests. China has capital to invest, trade empowerments to be created and a new Silk Road to be implemented, with Greece being one of the terminals where to channel Beijing's global investments. In 2015, the Chinese giant Cosco bought most of the Piraeus port for a total of 368.5 million Euros, 280 million of which were cashed in Athens for 51% of the port area and the other 88 million will be delivered after five years for the acquisition of a further 6%, but only for completed compulsory infrastructure investments. On June 17, with reference to the port of Piraeus, Cosco, the Piraeus port authority, and the port of Shanghai concluded an agreement that provides for a great collaboration between the Chinese and the Greek ports, effectively transforming Piraeus in a freight hub from the gigantic port of the Far East.

    China's interests in Greece are several and multi-faceted, and the crisis can only help investments by lowering their costs. The Beijing funds are interested in strategic sectors of the Greek economy, which – for Chinese companies – are very attractive assets, by reason of the weak local competition due to the devastation of the Greek state system and the impoverishment of local entrepreneurship. Beijing's interests span from boating, tourism, road and port networks to real estate – anywhere big Chinese companies and funds from the central state can find a place to become sector leaders.

    Dalian Wanda, one of the Chinese investment giants, is interested in many areas of the Greek economy, and is ready to invest in less strategic, but equally profitable sectors such as football. The same fund owns a third of Atletico Madrid.

    jfl | Jun 22, 2017 9:38:58 PM | 62
    @40 hoarse

    there's a review of douglas valentine's The CIA As Organized Crime at The Criminal 'Laws' of Counterinsurgency

    The U.S. "deep state" – of which the CIA is an integral part – is an open secret now and the Phoenix Program (assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information) has been its means of controlling populations. Consequently, knowing the deep state's methods is the only hope of building a democratic opposition to the deep state and to restore as much as possible the Constitutional system we had in previous centuries, as imperfect as it was.
    douglas valentine has apparently tied the historical knot between today's assassinations, death squads, torture, mass detentions, exploitation of information and that of vietnam. that's important. the fact that it's been going on for so long points to it's structural significance : it's built-in to the us system at this point, and will remain so, unless and until it's 'built-out' by ordinary americans, ourselves.

    the present structure is rotten, incapable of reform

    Talleyrand is credited with saying, "They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." Reportedly, that was borrowed from a 1796 letter by a French naval officer, which stated, in the original language: Personne n'est corrigé; personne n'a su ni rien oublier ni rien appendre. In English:

    "Nobody has been corrected; no one has known to forget, nor yet to learn anything."

    That sums up the CIA leadership entirely.

    smuks | Jun 22, 2017 10:25:17 PM | 63
    @Laguerre 48, jfl 60

    I was equally pessimistic about Saudi A. for years, but have become somewhat doubtful now.

    Beijing and Riyadh have a long-running (hidden) strategic partnership, with the Saudis buying Chinese missiles, China investing, and both (together with Russia) engineering the fall of the oil price in 2014.

    Europe and Russia don't want the kingdom to implode, as this would destabilize the entire region, uproot millions more and probably cause jihadis everywhere to run amok. China & other Asian states don't want oil to rise dramatically. The only major power which wouldn't be affected by the turmoil, and would benefit from a higher oil price, is the US.

    If both China/ Russia and Europe support MbS in his attempts to reform the country, shouldn't this be enough for him to have a chance of success? I sure hope so, though it's hard to tell. At the very least we should see some serious efforts to modernize KSA society and economy.

    Greece seems to be increasingly swarming with Chinese tourists. The country has basically nothing but logistics and tourism to offer, and China has seized the crisis opportunity to get a foot in the European door. A bit vulture fund style I guess, but Athens had little choice, and Tsipras & colleagues had this planned long before coming to power imo.

    Ghostship | Jun 22, 2017 10:34:19 PM | 64
    Alaric | Jun 22, 2017 4:55:40 PM | 52
    ...if Iran will not reply to the new idiot king via more support for the houthi.

    What support for the Houthi? You give too much credence to the MSM and their sources in Washington and you're expecting other cultures to be as arrogant, ignorant and stupid as the American one.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 23, 2017 12:50:22 AM | 65
    Thanks to james, karlof1, ben, jfl et al for broadening the spectrum of a torture discussion; and fast freddy for making sure that the $$$ factor isn't overlooked...

    Posted by: jfl | Jun 22, 2017 8:36:41 PM | 59
    (Totally Controlled Environment)

    I threw that in because the torturers have control over the range and mix of techniques to be used. Good Cop / Bad Cop is a successful and evergreen interrogation style. And in a TC Environment, with psychiatrists and psychologists on the team, it's possible that the geniuses have developed a production-line method of fast-tracking and exploiting the onset of Stockholm Syndrome to enhance the Good Cop / Bad Cop experience.

    jfl | Jun 23, 2017 1:51:08 AM | 66
    @62 smuks
    Beijing and Riyadh have a long-running (hidden) strategic partnership, with the Saudis ... [and chinese] ... both (together with Russia) engineering the fall of the oil price in 2014.
    have you got any proof at all, even speculation as to why, the russians engineered the fall of the oil price in 2014? i think it was the saudis and us who engineered the fall of the oil price in 2014, to the detriment of russia.
    If both China/ Russia and Europe support MbS in his attempts to reform the country, shouldn't this be enough for him to have a chance of success?
    The country has basically nothing but ... [oil] ... to offer, and China has seized the crisis opportunity to get a foot in the ... [middle eastern oilpatch] ... door. A bit vulture fund style I guess, but ... [riyadh] ... had little choice, ... [mbs] & colleagues had [not had] this planned ... before coming to power, imo.
    Mina | Jun 23, 2017 4:22:01 AM | 68
    sovereignty? what sovereignty? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40378221 KSA asks Qatar to become a province just like Bahrein was force to some years ago!
    harrylaw | Jun 23, 2017 5:14:47 AM | 69
    Who are the idiots here.... The United States has told Turkey it will take back weapons supplied to the Kurdish YPG militia in northern Syria after the defeat of Islamic State, Ankara said on Thursday, seeking to address Turkish concerns about arming Kurds on its border.

    Turkish defense ministry sources said U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also promised his Turkish counterpart to provide a monthly list of weapons handed to the YPG, saying the first inventory had already been sent to Ankara. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-usa-idUSKBN19D10J
    It beggars belief that an arrangement like this could be thought about, let alone work.

    The US to the Kurds 'you fight and die for our objectives, then we throw you under the bus' the Kurds 'OK boss'. This is what US policy in the Middle East consists of. You could not make it up.

    Mina | Jun 23, 2017 6:25:47 AM | 70
    A Marshall plan spend on Afghanistan. Not on hunger in Africa. http://www.atimes.com/article/fear-loathing-afghan-silk-road/
    jfl | Jun 23, 2017 7:48:06 AM | 75
    i now it's been published here many times before, but it should be periodically published here, i think ...

    Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List

    by William Blum – Published February 2013

    Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

    1. 1949-1960s China
    2. 1949-53 Albania
    3. 1950s East Germany
    4. 1953 Iran *
    5. 1954 Guatemala *
    6. mid-1950s Costa Rica
    7. 1956-7 Syria
    8. 1957 Egypt
    9. 1957-8 Indonesia
    10. 1953-64 British Guiana *
    11. 1963 Iraq *
    12. 1945-73 North Vietnam
    13. 1955-70 Cambodia *
    14. 1958-60 Laos * * *
    15. 1960-63 Ecuador *
    16. 1960 Congo *
    17. 1965 France
    18. 1962-64 Brazil *
    19. 1963 Dominican Republic *
    20. 1959-present Cuba
    21. 1964 Bolivia *
    22. 1965 Indonesia *
    23. 1966 Ghana *
    24. 1964 Chile-73 *
    25. 1967 Greece *
    26. 1970-71 Costa Rica
    27. 1971 Bolivia *
    28. 1973-75 Australia *
    29. 1975, 1980s Angola
    30. 1975 Zaire
    31. 1974-76 Portugal *
    32. 1976-80 Jamaica *
    33. 1979-81 Seychelles
    34. 1981-82 Chad *
    35. 1983 Grenada *
    36. 1982-84 South Yemen
    37. 1982-84 Suriname
    38. 1987 Fiji *
    39. 1980 Libyas
    40. 1981-90 Nicaragua *
    41. 1989 Panama *
    42. 1990 Bulgaria *
    43. 1991 Albania *
    44. 1991 Iraq
    45. 1980 Afghanistans *
    46. 1993 Somalia
    47. 1999-2000 Yugoslavia *
    48. 2000 Ecuador *
    49. 2001 Afghanistan *
    50. 2002 Venezuela *
    51. 2003 Iraq *
    52. 2004 Haiti *
    53. 2007-present Somalia
    54. 2009 Honduras
    55. 2011 Libya *
    56. 2012 Syria
    57. 2014 Ukraine *

    37 of 57 'successful', 65% (counting all 3 of the 'victories' over lao)

    is there a year since 1945 that the usofa has not been engaged in overthrowing other peoples' politics somewhere around the world ?

    i don't see one.

    Piotr Berman | Jun 23, 2017 10:40:01 AM | 80
    ex-SA @77

    stile (noun) an arrangement of steps that allows people but not animals to climb over a fence or wall

    What does it have to do with substance?

    More seriously, I do not see the Canadian exercise in rhetoric as brainwashing. Kids should know that there is no connection between the validity of an argument and the polish in its presentation. OTOH, this is information that should be withheld from the future sheeple, so it should be restricted to special programs for the future helpers of the ruling class.

    peter | Jun 23, 2017 11:52:16 AM | 82
    It's pretty obvious that Trump is picking his friends in the ME based on his attitude towards Iran and a seeming desire to do Israel's bidding. For all his faults Obama chose to keep Israel at arm's length and ramrodded a nuclear deal with Iran that was intended to bring that country in from the cold and open opportunities for commerce that had been shut down by years of sanctions.

    In his zeal to undo all of Obama's initiatives Trump has placed the US in an intractable position in the ME. The scope of his long term plans will become more evident as the IS is driven out of Raqqa and Mosul. A lot of posters have postulated that he intends to grab a chunk of eastern Syria and western Iraq and engineer the geography so that Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon is minimized. They are very likely right.

    Because of his problems at home Trump has delegated his ME and other foreign policy to his generals. It's probably a good thing that there are old Pentagon hands that deal with reality and recognize that there's only so much the US can do given the circumstances. It's not so long ago that the "surge" in Iraq resulted in stop-loss reenlistment and numerous deployments of state reserves that must have come as the rudest of shocks to enlistees who thought they were joining to go play with tanks at some base every other weekend. These Pentagon folks realize that to fully meet the expectations of the Saudis and Israelis they would have to instigate a buildup that would mirror those of the two Iraq Wars. With the possibility of hostilities in the far western Pacific the options for the ME aren't very appealing. The American people don't give a fuck about Syria and might get irate if they see the country moving towards war.

    The saving grace might be Mueller and his posse of investigators. They are going to forensically break down any dealings that Trump and Kushner had with foreign entities before and during the presidential campaign. There may be reasons for transition type meetings with foreign diplomats but the meetings with bankers and businessmen that were so blithely left off the required documentation when applying for security clearances will come under full scrutiny in a very focused way. This focus on his foreign dealings is apparently what has been causing Trump to act in such an unhinged fashion. He's too frazzled by his domestic problems to concentrate on his foreign policy. That's because he's corrupt and it's going to be fully exposed.

    if his dodgy business dealings abroad weren't enough the emoluments clause is waiting to bite him in the ass. There are already several lawsuits in the works and more to come. His brazen milking of his position will be the end of him if the Russian connection isn't. Other presidents would at least wait till their terms were over to cash in on on multi-million dollar book deals and 400 grand speeches. With the sole exception of Jimmy Carter. Trump couldn't wait even months before he started leveraging his position for personal gain.

    But still the focus of this and most threads is what a despicable evil man Obama was and how Trump's shortcomings all have their roots in the can of worms left by the previous administrations. Well, Obama is gone now and so is Clinton and the Chief Executive has the power to set things right. It ain't happening and it's time to put responsibility where it belongs. Trump's made Iran the new Public Enemy #1 and speaks of cancelling the nuclear deal. He's called climate change a hoax and and pulled out of the Paris Accord. He's taking away healthcare for the hoi polloi because it was Obama that provided it. He's undone the Cuba initiative. The joke in DC is that he's going to hunt down the Thanksgiving turkeys that Obama pardoned and kill them. But still whenever the subject of American impropriety rises the peanut gallery starts in with how it was all Obama and Trump's not so bad. Well, guess what sport fans, Trump is a crooked son of a bitch who wants to run a kleptocracy and can't understand why all these people are gunning for him. He will find out though when Flynn starts to testify. Because that motherfucker has flipped. Flynn is the key and will bring down the whole rotten structure.

    Curtis | Jun 23, 2017 11:58:59 AM | 83
    ben 57
    That was a good point that Putin raised with Kelly in her interview. It's one thing to point a finger at any Russian affects on elections when the US does it on such a massive scale. I wish he would release a white paper documenting this especially US efforts in Ukraine as well as Russia (to include NED and IRI).
    CarlD | Jun 23, 2017 12:16:25 PM | 85
    @74

    Quite a few missing 1949 Haiti*, 1986 Haiti*, 1989*Haiti,, 1992

    hopehely | Jun 23, 2017 12:40:59 PM | 87
    @85
    Torture and suffering is the crucial and integral part of Christianity. Do you realize that the cross is a torture device? And that the word 'passion' in Passion of Christ means a suffering, not a lust or a drive? Not to mention the Inquisition....

    Penelope | Jun 23, 2017 7:24:15 PM | 91
    Regarding torture. It's been persistently reported in booklength works for more than a decade that the purpose is not to elicit information. This makes sense. Really, can you imagine that so many people have such valuable info? Rather, we're told that they're tortured to see if they can be made to confess to falsity-- that is, as a way to further the technology of breaking people down. Also, sometimes individuals can be made into "split personalities"-- that is, they can be programmed to commit acts not of their own volition, upon receiving a stimulus-- like Sirhan Sirhan or like the 1962 version of the Manchurian Candidate with Laurence Harvey.

    Ah, who knows what evil can lurk in the minds of oligarchs and their lackeys? It makes me feel unclean to contemplate it.

    [Jun 22, 2017] What is Thucydidess Trap, and how does it inform U.S.-China relations in the 21st century

    Nuclear weapons changes the situation and that makes all those Thucydides Trap considerations pretty shaky indeed... Displacement of the British empire by the USA is another counterexample.
    Jun 22, 2017 | www.quora.com
    What is Thucydides's Trap, and how does it inform U.S.-China relations in the 21st century? The Thucydides Trap: Are the U.S. and China Headed for War? Harold Kingsberg , Reader Updated Oct 20, 2015 · Upvoted by Marc Bodnick , Former Stanford PhD student in Politics The Thucydides Trap is a term coined by Graham T. Allison, a Harvard professor and recognized US national security and defense policy expert. The concept itself comes from, fittingly, Thucydides, a Greek historian from about 2400 years ago who wrote a book entitled The History of the Peloponnesian War , generally regarded as the first work of history as we'd recognize it.[1] Thucydides argued that the cause of the Peloponnesian War was "the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta." In other words, as one power rises, an already established power gets nervous and gears up for war, with this devolving into a vicious cycle that eventually results in war.

    Now, if we apply the Thucydides Trap to the US-China relationship, China is the counterpart of Athens, the US is the counterpart of Sparta, and there's going to inevitably be war between the two. And certainly, there are people in the US who feel that the rise of China is a direct threat to the dominance of the US and we should all gear up for war because... well, mostly yellow peril.

    Thirty years ago, there was another East Asian power on the rapid economic rise. It owned a massive chunk of US debt, it was buying up US property left, right and center, it had a well-funded military and a history of using it. Of course, as Japan is in its third Lost Decade, it's fairly clear to see that Japan's meteoric rise came crashing to a halt, and most of the comments made about how the Japanese would eat the US' lunch now seem dated in the extreme. Which is to say that the Thucydides Trap requires the continued rise of the emerging power. It is not difficult to imagine China continuing to rise; however, it is also not difficult to imagine China stalling out for a few years. It is this latter possibility that makes the Thucydides Trap eminently avoidable.

    China's economy has boomed in a frankly unparalleled way since Deng Xiaoping introduced the socialist market economy. Much of this growth has been genuine. Some of it has been anything but. The latter is most evidently seen in China's ghost cities, which the government keeps erecting. Ordos, in Inner Mongolia, is probably the most famous of these, but the basic problem is that the city was erected with the idea that people would flock to it and that didn't happen.[2] This constitutes a pretty stunning waste of resources, and it's not a tenable strategy for long-term growth. Similarly, when the Shanghai Stock Exchange tanked in August of 2015, the Chinese government's management of the situation was to pour money into it – again, not a viable strategy for maintaining a robust market economy in the long-term. It's clear that the Chinese government has done something right these past few decades, but it's increasingly unclear if the Chinese government can continue that record of success for very much longer.

    There's also another problem China's looking at that makes the parallel to Japan even more pronounced: an aging population. China's attempts at controlling demography have been deeply problematic and left it with serious issues. Mao Zedong's attempts to boost the population beyond sustainable levels was overly successful and led to problems, but the subsequent walking back of Mao's demography with the One Child Policy has led to a gender imbalance and a smaller younger generation than the older one. This is the exact opposite of what you want in an age pyramid, because the elderly produce less than do young adults, and consume considerably more health care (among other things). This is a problem that Japan has been trying to figure out for years, and they've had no success. Singapore has had issues reversing their own highly successful demographic programs. China may figure out how to crack the tough nut, but it's not going to have an easy time of it.

    This is all very well-known to the people at the helm of American foreign policy, so it's quite unlikely that they're going to fall into the Thucydides Trap, simply because they're going to be a little leery of China's continued rapid growth. Yes, the IMF cites China as having a larger economy (based on GDP PPP) than the US', but when you look at it per capita, China lags Turkmenistan. It's therefore a country still punching well below its weight. Now, it's true that if China continues to rise, it may yet get the US nervous – but most economists predict a slowdown in China, so we're a ways from that happening, anyway. Most of the people worrying about China's rise would worry about any Asian country doing well, even an ally's.

    However, the slowdown in the Chinese economy does cause issues of its own. Like many other governments facing economic worries, the Chinese government has engaged in some nationalist saber-rattling and expansionism in recent years. Combine this with Japan's recent law allowing the JSDF to be deployed away from Japan, and Japan being a key US ally, and you're looking at a very uncomfortable situation. The majority of analysts don't expect a war between Japan and China over the Senkaku/Diayou Islands, but then, most didn't expect a war between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands, either.[3] So long as it all remains just talk, this is fine, but if either side actually does something, that could destabilize quickly, and the US isn't about to hang Japan out to dry. This is known by all parties, and seeing as how war would be terrible for everyone's bottom line, everyone's generally trying to avoid it while still getting a little bump in the polls all the same. This isn't so much the Thucydides Trap so much as it is a rough analogue of what's going in with Russia and Ukraine or what happened with Russia and Georgia back in 2008. Thus, in many ways, the continued rise of China is a preferable outcome from the perspective of a US foreign policy analyst.[4] Now, you can argue that this is another manifestation of Thucydides' Trap, but frankly, I don't think that doing so is a valuable exercise. Thucydides was specifically referring to the continuing rise of one country causing another to react with great hostility, and this paragraph does not describe that in the slightest.

    And even ignoring all of the above, Thucydides lived 2400 years ago and some of the facts on the ground have changed. We spent forty years following the Second World War of the rising power not getting into a big fight with the established one,[5] the US and the UK didn't go to war during the early twentieth century and neither did the US and Japan in the back half of the twentieth century. I'm not saying that Thucydides has stopped being accurate altogether, but it was always a massive generalization and it seems to be holding less and less true the longer the Long Peace goes. The bottom line is that Daniel Defoe's more applicable than Thucydides here: the only things certain in life are death and taxes.

    [1] Yes, Herodotus is called the "Father of History," but he tended to attribute events to the wills of specific gods. Thucydides kept everything grounded in the human sphere, although precisely how much of the History is dead accurate and how much he invented is a matter of some controversy. His records of speeches – for example, Pericles' funeral oration and the Melian dialogue – are generally viewed with a little bit of suspicion.

    [2] Alternatively, one can take the view that the city was built to prop up the construction industry, but I tend to doubt that. In any event, here's a link to an article about the deserted city: Welcome to The World's Largest Ghost City: Ordos, China

    [3] And remember, that was another case of a country whose growth rate had stalled but good going up against an established power.

    [4] It would also be preferable if Japan could also get its internal issues sorted for the same reason.

    [5] Not counting proxy conflicts, of course. There were US-USSR dust-ups, but no direct fighting between the two.

    [Jun 22, 2017] Can America and China Escape Thucydidess Trap?

    Thucydides's Trap is a fake notion... This is unproven hypothesis. for example GB lost the power to the USA without major war between them.
    The Thucydides Trap is a term coined by Graham T. Allison, a Harvard professor and recognized US national security and defense policy expert. The concept itself comes from, fittingly, Thucydides, a Greek historian from about 2400 years ago who wrote a book entitled The History of the Peloponnesian War, generally regarded as the first work of history as we'd recognize it.[1] Thucydides argued that the cause of the Peloponnesian War was "the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta." In other words, as one power rises, an already established power gets nervous and gears up for war, with this devolving into a vicious cycle that eventually results in war.
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thucydides
    Notable quotes:
    "... US is too busy making sure al Qaeda is around for decades consuming trillions of US war funding. ..."
    Jun 16, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 04:33 AM

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/books/review/everything-under-the-heavens-howard-french-destined-for-war-graham-allison.html

    America's Collision Course With China
    By JUDITH SHAPIRO

    EVERYTHING UNDER THE HEAVENS
    How the Past Helps Shape China's Push for Global Power By Howard W. French

    DESTINED FOR WAR
    Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?
    By Graham Allison

    The Chinese superpower has arrived. Could America's failure to grasp this reality pull the United States and China into war? Here are two books that warn of that serious possibility. Howard W. French's "Everything Under the Heavens: How the Past Helps Shape China's Push for Global Power" does so through a deep historical and cultural study of the meaning of China's rise from the point of view of the Chinese themselves. Graham Allison's "Destined for War: Can American and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?" makes his arguments through historical case studies that illuminate the pressure toward military confrontation when a rising power challenges a dominant one. Both books urge us to be ready for a radically different world order, one in which China presides over Asia, even as Chinese politicians tell a public story about "peaceful rise." The books argue persuasively that adjusting to this global power shift will require great skill on both sides if conflagration is to be avoided.

    French says in his exhaustively researched and fascinating account of geopolitics, China style, that the Chinese era is upon us. But, he asks, "How will the coming China-driven world look?" To what extent will China support the international order that emerged when it was suffering humiliation at the hands of foreign powers? What are the drivers and motivations for the new ways China projects its power? How best should its neighbors and its rival North American superpower respond?

    French, a former reporter for The Washington Post and The New York Times, argues that China's historical and cultural legacy governs its conduct of international relations, a legacy that sits uncomfortably with the Western notions of equality and noninterference among states. China's relations with its neighbors in Japan and Southeast Asia were for millenniums governed by the concept of tian xia, which held that everything "under the heavens" belonged to the empire. A superior civilization demanded deference and tribute from vassal neighbors and did not hesitate to use military force. China's testy relationship with Vietnam became fraught whenever a Vietnamese leader dared to demand equal footing with a Chinese emperor; the Japanese claim to divine origins was unacceptable.

    When China lost its regional dominance at the hands of colonial powers and invading armies, it saw the situation as temporary. The struggle in the East China Sea over the Senkaku Islands claimed by Japan since 1895, for example, has long been a sore point in Sino-Japanese relations. But the reform-era strongman Deng Xiaoping advised China to "hide our capacities and bide our time" on this and many other issues. Hostility between China and Japan simmers in disputes over hierarchy, wartime apology and historical narrative, with the two "in a situation resembling galaxies locked in each other's gravitational fields, destined to collide repeatedly only to sail past each other after wreaking their damage." French shows convincingly that China's goal is now to displace the American barbarians and correct historic humiliations imposed by those who dethroned China from its rightful position at the center of the world.

    China's recent spectacular land grab in the South China Sea is a fait accompli, given China's superior power in the area and its assertion that the region is a core national interest. Arbitrators for the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued a 500-plus-page decision against China and in favor of the Philippines in a dispute over the definitions of islands versus rock formations; they concluded that Chinese arguments had no legal basis. But as French explains in sobering detail, China has unilaterally determined to claim much of the sea as its own. The country rejected the arbitration tribunal, knowing that its growing surface naval power and nuclear submarine capability support a highly uneven contest. Oil rigs have been established in contested waters, while artificial "islands" constructed from coral reefs are serving as military bases just miles from the Southeast Asian coastline. Similarly, China's projection of economic might through the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and One Belt, One Road initiative, which intends to bind a huge swath of Asia to China economically via new land infrastructure and consolidated control of the seas, generates "a kind of fatalism or resignation about the futility of trying to defy it." ...

    Paine -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 05:34 AM
    Raw Bait for the ignorant bellicose masses

    "China's relations with its neighbors in Japan and Southeast Asia
    were for millenniums governed by the concept of tian xia,
    which held that everything "under the heavens" belonged to the empire."

    Evil Clown talk

    anne -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 06:51 AM
    Howard French, a former reporter for The Washington Post and The New York Times, argues that China's historical and cultural legacy governs its conduct of international relations, a legacy that sits uncomfortably with the Western notions of equality and noninterference among states. China's relations with its neighbors in Japan and Southeast Asia were for millenniums governed by the concept of tian xia, which held that everything "under the heavens" belonged to the empire....

    -- Judith Shapiro

    Evil Clown talk

    -- Paine

    ilsm -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 04:19 PM
    US is too busy making sure al Qaeda is around for decades consuming trillions of US war funding.

    No time for China who spend a mere 1.7% of GDP for war!

    And who are investing in a route to negate US navy power to blockade.

    [Jun 22, 2017] Americans have a blind spot on the actions of the USA. That's natural. But that blindness produces pretty idiotic comments even from commenters that are able to discuss intelligently other topics

    Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DrDick -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 08:33 AM

    Also historically moronic, since China had become increasingly isolationist from the 16th century on. This is not to say that China has not been deliberately annoying their neighbors lately, especially in the South China Sea, however. Clearly China has been extending its influence, mostly economically, around the world, especially in Africa, for a couple of decades now, but I do not see this as any different from what we do in the same regions. It is certainly not nearly as troubling as what Russia has been doing under Putin.
    libezkova said in reply to DrDick... , June 21, 2017 at 09:09 PM
    Compare your viewpoint with Forbes:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/06/16/in-final-oliver-stone-interview-putin-predicts-when-russia-us-crisis-ends/


    In Final Oliver Stone Interview, Putin Predicts When Russia-US Crisis Ends

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.forbes.com

    But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has " no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a dictator , a war criminal and tyrant .

    "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.

    "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."

    In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig leaf.

    In a recent sanctions bill in the senate, only Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against it, making for a 97-2 landslide in favor of extra-territorial sanctions against Russian companies, namely oil and gas.

    Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the foreign policy front.

    STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.

    PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.

    They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.

    Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.

    TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't.

    PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews.

    The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.

    libezkova -> libezkova... , June 21, 2017 at 09:13 PM
    The point is the Americans have a blind spot on the actions of the USA.

    That's natural. But that produced pretty idiotic comments in this blog even from commenters that are able to discuss intelligently other topics.

    [Jun 21, 2017] Good Agent, Bad Agent Robert Mueller and 9-11

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States. ..."
    "... The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be. ..."
    "... While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention." ..."
    "... Intelligence Matters ..."
    "... Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known. ..."
    "... So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders. ..."
    www.forbes.com
    Robert Mueller, the former FBI director named special counsel for the investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election, is depicted as an iconic G-man: serious, patrician, and totally incorruptible. But in reality, it's a little different. As with FBI Agent Dale Cooper in the latest iteration of "Twin Peaks," there is a Good Mueller and a Bad Mueller. We've heard a lot about the good-guy Mueller, but nothing much about his bad side. And there is a bad side–though it's not the one that Trump supporters would have us think.

    The President's loyal minions, following a familiar pattern, have been busy building an advance smear campaign against Mueller, claiming that he has it out for the poor, innocent Donald and is determined to bring him down due to pre-existing biases. In fact, if Mueller is indeed biased, it is toward preserving the institutions of government, including the White House, as well as his beloved FBI, even at the expense of making public the full truth. At least, that's how he behaved the last time he was involved in a major national crisis–namely, the attacks of September 11, 2001.

    Mueller, a Republican, was appointed by George W. Bush to head the FBI, and took the helm on September 4, 2001, one week before the terrorist attacks. So he can hardly be blamed for the failure of the FBI (along with the CIA and other U.S. and allied intelligence agencies) to detect and respond to numerous warning signs that the attacks were coming, including the arrival of many of the future perpetrators to the United States.

    The same cannot be said for Mueller's role in the subsequent coverup of FBI and White House bungling during the run up to 9/11. Six months after the attacks, Congress convened the Joint Senate-House Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Headed by Florida Democratic Senator Bob Graham, the inquiry was more thorough and penetrating than the later official 9/11 Commission would ever be.

    Among other things, the Joint Inquiry learned of the involvement of a paid FBI informant with two of the future hijackers: Khalid Al Mindhar, who had fought for Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya and trained in Bin Laden's Afghan training camps, and Nawaf Al Hazmi, who had battle experience in Bosnia, Chechyna, and Afghanistan. According to the Joint Inquiry report, the NSA and CIA at the time had available enough information to connect the two men with Osama Bin Laden.

    The CIA, however, failed to share its information with the FBI, and did not place the two men on any watch lists. So Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi flew to Los Angeles in early 2000 (shortly after attending an Al Qaeda summit in Malaysia), and were routinely admitted into the United States on tourist visas. They traveled to San Diego, where they got Social Security cards, credits cards, and driver licenses, and bought a car, as well as a season pass to Sea World. They soon began taking flight lessons. They also had contact with a radical imam and a local Saudi national who were both being watched by the FBI. And they actually rented a room in the home of Abdusattar Shaikh, who was a retired English professor, a leader of the local mosque–and a paid informant for the FBI's San Diego office, charged with monitoring the city's Saudi community.

    As the Joint Inquiry report would reveal, by mid-2001 U.S. intelligence agencies had ample evidence of possible terrorist plans to use hijacked airplanes as bombs, but had done little to act on this threat. In July 2001, the CIA had passed on the names of Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi to the FBI office in New York–though not the office in San Diego. Shaikh had apparently done nothing to warn the Bureau about any possible danger from his tenants. And no one had warned the airlines or the FAA not to let these men get on planes. So on the morning of September 11, Al Mindhar and Al Hamzi boarded American Airlines Flight 77 at Dulles Airport and helped crash it into the Pentagon.

    While the San Diego scenario was the most extreme, there was other evidence of the FBI allowing future 9/11 perpetrators to slip through its fingers. By the time it issued its report, the Joint Inquiry had found that five of the hijackers "may have had contact with a total of 14 people who had come to the FBI's attention during counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigations prior to September 11, 2001. Four of those 14 were the focus of FBI investigations during the time that the hijackers were in the United States. Despite their proximity to FBI targets and at least one FBI source, the future hijackers successfully eluded FBI attention."

    Yet in testimony before the Joint Inquiry on June 18, 2002, FBI director Mueller said, that "while here [in America] the hijackers effectively operated without suspicion, triggering nothing that would have alerted law enforcement and doing nothing that exposed them to domestic coverage." There is no way of knowing whether Mueller was lying or just ignorant.

    Subsequently, Senator Graham set out to subpoena the informant to testify before the Joint Inquiry. The FBI refused to cooperate, blocked the Inquiry's efforts to interview the informant, and it appears to have arranged for a private attorney to represent him. Despite insisting that the informant had done nothing wrong, the Bureau at one point suggested the Inquiry give him immunity, which Graham refused to do.

    As Graham would later describe in is book Intelligence Matters, the FBI also "insisted that we could not, even in the most sanitized manner, tell the American people that an FBI informant had a relationship with two of the hijackers." The Bureau opposed public hearings on the subject and deleted any references to the situation from drafts of the Joint Inquiry's unclassified report. It took more than a year for the Bureau allow a version of the story to appear in the public report, and even then it was heavily redacted.

    Only years later, Graham writes, did information provided by FBI staffers confirm what he had long suspected: that the FBI carried out its resistance and obfuscation on direct instructions from the White House. Whether Bush and Company were eager to downplay any further connections to their friends the Saudis, or just protect itself from the fallout of such an obvious intelligence failure, will likely never be known.

    So much for Robert Mueller remaining above the political fray. And so much for the Bureau's supposed independence and incorruptibility. The latter, clearly, has always been a myth. From its earliest days it was a highly politicized–and relentlessly reactionary–agency, made all the more so by the colossal power of J. Edgar Hoover. Its mission has always been at heart a deeply reactionary one, dedicated to protecting the republic from whatever it perceived as a threat, including all forms of dissent and unrest–from communists to civil rights leaders.

    What does all this bode for the current moment? Normally, it would seem that Mueller's instinct would be to try to preserve some semblance of the current order, up to and including the presidency. But with Trump now locked in a knock down drag out struggle with the intelligence agencies–what some people like to call "the Deep State"–Mueller and his intelligence cronies may find it in the best interests of the status quo–and, of course, themselves–to throw the President under the bus and one way Mueller could do so is by cutting some sort of deal with Congress, specifically with the legislature's true power broker, Mitch McConnell, to turn on Trump and run him out of office.

    As Agent Cooper said of his own famous investigation into the death of Laura Palmer, "I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange."

    Note: More detail, and complete sources, on the FBI informant scandal and the Joint Inquiry's investigation can be found in my book The 5 Unanswered Questions About 9/11.

    [Jun 21, 2017] Yugoslavia was just another color revolution, planed and supported by usual suspects

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very likely would still exist. Ustascha fascists were exiled in Germany and there were a lot of cold war connections with German/US secret services. ..."
    "... Yugoslavia was a working country until the CIA started sowing divisions between ethnies and religions. it took a few years of firebombing churches and then mosques, and sending mortar shells into markets and setting snipers to shoot to involve every facet of yugoslavian life. ..."
    "... So it is not as some pretend that Yugos were looking for divorce. The CIA as usual looked for the misfits in Yugoslavia and led them towards the destruction of the country. ..."
    "... BND is not stupid and weapons were supplied. Genscher claimed in later interviews that they had to protect Croatia and Slovenia from Milosevic "Greater Serbia" aspirations. ..."
    "... Mr. Separovic said the West would have a moral and legal obligation to aid Croatia. 'It's Not a Gamble' ..."
    "... Same countries now supporting Ukraine to retake Donezk. ..."
    Jun 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    somebody | Jun 19, 2017 4:46:00 PM | 61
    Being a witness of the developments in ex-YU, I have to add my opinion regarding OT discussion.

    Yugoslavia was just another color revolution, planed and supported by usual suspects (MI6, CIA, ...). They had found (created) couple of useful idiots, Milošević in Serbia, Tuđman in Croatia, and Izetbegović in Bosnia, and encouraged them to create nationalist movements in their republics which eventually teared apart the country. Haven't we seen this tactic ever before, or since?! Powers to be did not like powerful, independent, socialist, not to much indebted country in the Europe since it was not good example for the wage slaves around the world, since they could start thinking that free education, health care, apartments, jobs for life, passport without visa accepted almost anywhere, ... is the human right! Does Libya ring a bell?

    All this happened between 1989 - 1995 when Yugoslavia was dismembered. What was created after that was rump YU, and should have been actually called Greater Serbia, since it was made up of only 2 (Serbia & Montenegro), out of 6 ex-YU republics. NATO bombed it in 1999 for the same reason they bombed Sadam's Iraq - they did not have any more use for their useful idiot Milošević. Both of them played their roles very good, and at the end they were awarded with a noose around their necks. And we, citizens of ex-YU, were just collateral damage, neither first nor last time in our history.

    hopehely | Jun 19, 2017 4:20:28 PM | 57

    My impression was that the industrial prosperous parts Slovenia, Croatia did not wish to pay for Albanians and the EU - Germany - Genscher - tried to cherrypick the desirable parts .

    If the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very likely would still exist. Ustascha fascists were exiled in Germany and there were a lot of cold war connections with German/US secret services.

    CarlD | Jun 19, 2017 4:58:27 PM | 62
    @57

    Yugoslavia was a working country until the CIA started sowing divisions between ethnies and religions. it took a few years of firebombing churches and then mosques, and sending mortar shells into markets and setting snipers to shoot to involve every facet of yugoslavian life.

    The US itself is composed of many faces each with its own aspiration and interpretation of the pursuit of happiness. Yet it is not breaking up. Belgium is split along linguistic fractures but is still a country. Very few countries have the uniformity of Japan and yet, they stick together.

    So it is not as some pretend that Yugos were looking for divorce. The CIA as usual looked for the misfits in Yugoslavia and led them towards the destruction of the country.

    No country is unsusceptible to fracture. Once it is deeply researched ( as per Mormon missionaries) the Empire knows exactly whom to call and to what deeds.

    One of the greatest illustrations of this is the Libya of Muammar Ghaddafi, a country whose citizens had everything they could hope for. No state gave so much to its citizens. Yet there were enough susceptible souls to start demos and marches and enough snipers to sow hatred. The rest is History. We came, we saw, he died, ha! ha! ha!

    Madeline was happy to destroy Yugoslavia and took particular relish in severing Kosovo from it.

    Whereas Crimea used to be attached to Russia since Catherine the Great, and was bestowed to Ukraine (then a member of the USSR) by Nikita (hisself an Ukrainian). It was just a symbolic gesture as the Ukraine and Russia were united at the time and most citizens were of russian Stock.

    So, the Empire ( the US and its lapdogs) did split Yugoslavia into smaller entities along ethnic and religious fractures.

    It was not a spontaneous divorce as some would like to paint it.

    anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 7:00:36 PM | 79
    @57

    "And you are all wrong. NATO did not break Yugoslav Federation."

    West Germany did (secretly) provide large scale military assistance to the Interior Ministry (secret police) of Croatia as a part of a wider policy of championing and preparing Croatian succession in early 1990. Germany's mass media made it an essential post-Cold War issue in Europe. The United States sent officials to Slovenia (I think it was the Vice President or Secretary of State) to guarantee 'American non-involvement' to Slovenia's parliament if Slovenia (illegally) seceded.

    "The member states (republics) did it because no one wanted it any more"

    Polls (whatever is the European equivalent to Gallup) in the spring of 1990 found the majority of every Republic (including Croatia) supported federal elections, which separate polls showed would have resulted in the electoral victory of a nationally popular, ethnically mixed, and centrist Yugoslav candidate (I'm forgetting his name)

    "(except perhaps Bosnia)."

    Serbia and Montenegro as well.

    "No one was happy the way the federation worked, and each of the member states had completely incompatible ideas how to make it work.
    Serbia wanted a strong centralized federation with 'one person one vote' principle applied throughout the country."

    Polls in early 1990 showed this was supported by a clear majority of every Republic. When federal elections were put up for a federal consensus vote between all of the Republics (twice in a month), Croatia and Slovenia jointly vetoed the resolution twice.

    "Croatia wanted a loose confederation, in which Serbia cannot impose its will based of being the largest and the most populous one."

    Croatia was okay, however, with illegally seceding from Yugoslavia (without a federally mandated consensus vote on the succession) and using its clear majority to 'dominate' the Serbian majority in Krajina.

    "Montenegro was a Serbia lapdog."

    Ally is a more objective word.

    "Slovenia just wanted to get out, they were fed up with the primitive and backward 'Bosnians', how they called all the rest of us."

    Slovenian and Croatian successionism were rooted in the same historical position (1968-1974, mass economic protests in their respective capitals and subsequent constitutional reform): the federal subsidy program assisting the general development of Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Montenegro were cutting into their own Republic's tax revenue (GDP) and hampering their long-term capital investments (and regional alliances with Western Europe). This was the material basis for Slovene-Croat 'nationalism.'

    "Macedonia, well nobody gave a hoot what they wanted."

    Unfortunate.

    "Serbian nationalists just wanted to annex her, together with Bosnia and 70% of Croatia to make Greater Serbia."

    This is mixing together drastically differing Serbian opinions to muddy the waters. There were nationalists in Serbia's parliament who wanted to 'annex' areas outside of Serbian majority areas in Bosnia and Croatia, but it wasn't a majority opinion, and there isn't any evidence of a plan. Serbian parliamentary opinion and popular opinion was the same in Serbia and Bosnia: hold popular referendums and mutually secede. Bosnia would lose Croatian and Serbian majority areas and mixed areas would be settled with either local agreements or inter-state border concessions. Bosnian Serbs themselves held a popular referendum in November of 1991 (after Bosnian Muslim-Croat Parties voted for a secessionist resolution of a Unitarian Bosnia in the Bosnian parliament in October). There was even a self-recognized border including only Serbian majority areas. If the Bosnian Muslim President hadn't withdrawn from the Lisbon Accords (which he did because the U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia guaranteed European-American recognition of a Unitarian Bosnia and American 'internationalization' of the conflict if Lisbon was scuttled, Bosnia unilaterally seceded, and war broke out) or seceded in April of 1992 without including these areas (and if Europe and the United States recognized Bosnian Serb succession from Bosnia), there could have been a settlement to discuss.

    "Croat Nazis wanted to annex Bosnia too, to make Greater Croatia."

    Croatia wanted to 'annex' Croatian majority areas. The majority of Bosnian Croats wanted to live in Croatia without being forced from their homes. Bosnia wanted a Unitarian State in which Islamic Government and Virtues would be 'educated to' (imposed on) Croatian and Serbian minorities (who were majorities in most of their own areas).

    "No wonder Bosnia wanted to keep Yugoslavia as it was. With such a fine neighbors, who can blame them."

    People need to stop romanticizing reactionary Islamic Governments like Bosnia.

    Quadriad | Jun 19, 2017 9:52:37 PM | 90
    "The Kosovo War part of the Wars of the Yugoslavian Succession can be more correctly characterised as a NATO production. The conflation of the Yugoslav wars and the Kosovo war leads to the misunderstanding."

    Very well said.

    But don't forget that Milosevic wiggled up to the top of the Serbian power pyramid preisely due to the Kosovo problem in the first place, in 1980s.

    Also, lest we forget that all other Republics including the "poor Bosnia" signed off on Milosevic' usage of Yugoslav troops on the streets of Belgrade to quash the anti-Milosevic riots on the 9th of March 1991.

    So, in effect, all other republics nationalists, including Alija Izetbegovic, directly enabled Milosevic' reign in Serbia to continue just months prior to the outbreak of open hostility in Slovenia and then Croatia.

    The simple truth is that they were all ex-Communist, neo-Fascist Chetniks, Ustashas and Balijas.

    Once a commie, always an autocrat.

    sejomoje | Jun 20, 2017 12:46:46 AM | 96
    OT but the Bosnian issue seems to suffer the fate of happening in pre-internet-forum times. There is a substantial, now multi-generational refugee population, because of the US's need to be seen as a White Knight, and of course the tax breaks and other incentives involved with White-Knighting. No educated expat Bosnians I know were happy with Madeline Albright's "help". They all know that NATO is evil. They all know NATO escalated the situation, on purpose. They all know that Milosevic was indeed a thug, in spite of his "useful idiotness" to whichever opposition story one chooses to believe. They all know the reality of hiding from death squads, losing their quaint hometowns, centuries of geneology, infrastructure, for "the greater good".

    There has been a rebranding of Bosnians as "militant" useful Muslims, in recent history. It's all bullshit. The Bosnians can be best described as proud country folk, far from fundamentalist in the Islamic sense. Useful idiots? Only to the thinktank-minded.

    ToivoS | Jun 20, 2017 1:05:32 AM | 101
    anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 7:00:36 PM | 79

    Good point. The breakup of Yugoslavia was orchestrated from West Germany. Genscher was the man who led that policy. Bush I and SoS Baker were taken off guard when Germany suddenly recognized the independence of Slovenia. The CIA had little to do with any of that though once the civil war broke out they became thoroughly involved. It was Bill Clinton who led US policy towards blaming Serbia for the mess and breaking that state.

    Køn | Jun 20, 2017 1:39:16 AM | 104
    Almost universally amongst post-Yugo war diaspora acquaintances of all the ethnic groups is the narrative that they feel cheated and used by their own 'elites'. That the war was hyped up by local potentates that saw an opportunity to enrich and empower themselves in a divided Yugoslavia. Some of these acquaintances are honest enough to admit that they themselves were at times swept along by this orchestrated hate.

    Amongst the pre-Yugo war diaspora (emigres to N.America) I have encountered no such introspection. They are and were always filled with nationalist and xenophobic hatred of their fellow Yugoslavians.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 3:01:59 AM | 115
    Posted by: hopehely | Jun 20, 2017 2:41:19 AM | 113

    Yugoslavia was not part of the Soviet Block. So 1989 was not the issue. I agree with Køn | 110 - the narrative is greedy local politicians turning people against each other. But these politicians react the way they think the wind blows. The wind blowing was EU membership for some without the others.

    The most likely scenario is the US pressuring Europe/Germany to extend the EU to South Eastern Europe and yes, 1989 was the trigger there.
    This for Germany is a huge issue - see Greece - as there is a paying and a receiving EU membership plus free movement means you import cultural and religious diversity. So Germany could see a profit from Slovenia and Croatia but not from Kosovo.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 3:27:26 AM | 116
    You get a pretty good overview of external forces tearing Yugoslavia apart here .
    "We discovered later that [German foreign minister] Genscher had been in daily contact with the Croatian Foreign Minister. He was encouraging the Croats to leave the federation and declare independence, while we and our allies, including the Germans [sic], were trying to fashion a joint approach."
    Køn | Jun 20, 2017 3:44:34 AM | 117
    @114 @115 etc
    I think we can neatly round this Yugo OT back into the main subject here.

    The Wars of the Yugoslavian Succession are in many ways recent history. But it is not trivial history because their significance goes far beyond simply the former Yugoslavia. The modern geopolitical monster that is NATO was largely born out of the Yugoslavian wars. Pre 1991 NATO was still largely a military alliance with a main objective of fighting a large land war with the Soviet Union. It was through the Yugo wars that NATO developed and found itself a new raison d'etre and up through the Kosovo war honed techniques that it still uses to this day in Syria and many other places.

    If we posit the counterfactual that local Yugoslavian politicians and elites combined with emigre anti-Communist nationalist Yugoslavians and reckless German foreign diplos had not started a Yugo war. Then NATO would be very different to what it is today. If NATO was very different then the geopolitical world would be very very very different.

    To give a little example. Denmark, though a longstanding member of NATO, was until the mid90's militarily committed philosophically to peacekeeping usually under the UN. But through an incident called bøllebank in Yugoslavia came to the conclusion that the Danish military should be and could be acting aggressively all around the world in the name of the 'good guys'. This was extended to eager and unquestioning participation in Kosovo and subsequently Afghanistan and Iraq. All that was needed was that Washington pointed out who the 'bad guys' were and NATO would happily start the bloodletting. And little old Denmark could now be one of the tough guys and could right the wrongs of the world by shooting and bombing lots of people.
    The Yugoslav war provided a process through which Denmark in the context of NATO could be transformed from an almost pacifist power to an overtly belligerent one. This same process worked on the USA, the UK, and all of the NATO members. The modern NATO principle of salvation by bombing was born in Yugoslavia, the same principle the Americans and their NATO allies are trying to apply today in Syria. Without a Yugoslav war, I don't think there would be Norwegian troops in AlTanf today.

    It has recently been revealed that in fact the whole 'bøllebank' incident was largely made up by some overzealous Danish soldiers who wanted some 'action' and some promotions.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 5:09:55 AM | 127
    BND is not stupid and weapons were supplied. Genscher claimed in later interviews that they had to protect Croatia and Slovenia from Milosevic "Greater Serbia" aspirations.

    The New York Times in 1991

    ZAGREB, Yugoslavia, Dec. 11- As expectations grow here that Germany will soon recognize Croatia, leaders of the republic say they assume the step will be followed by arms shipments or even Western military intervention to help in their uphill battle against the Yugoslav National Army.

    But officers serving with the European Community mission in Croatia said on Tuesday that German recognition could well prompt the Serb-dominated army to take more territory before Croatia imports better weapons.

    The military observers said German recognition, which is expected to be followed by that of Austria and perhaps some other European countries, would also ignite open warfare in Bosnia-Hercegovina, the ethnically divided republic that has until now maintained a fragile peace between its populations of Serbs, Croats and Muslims.

    From the beginning of the Yugoslav conflict, the outgunned Croatians have sought to portray themselves to the world as victims, a strategy born largely of necessity. Their national guard has fought a defensive struggle against the combined forces of the Yugoslav National Army and Serb irregulars, losing about one-third of Croatia's territory.

    In recent months, Croatia's pleas for help have found increasing resonance in Europe, particularly in Germany, where Government leaders have promised to recognize Croatia by Christmas. The European Community has criticized the Serbs, imposing economic sanctions only against Serbia and its allied republic of Montenegro.

    In an interview, Zvonimir Separovic, Croatia's Foreign Minister, spelled out his government's hopes for help that he assumes will come after European powers accept the breakaway republics of the Yugoslav federation as independent countries. "After recognition, Slovenia and Croatia will be exactly the same as Kuwait in the Persian Gulf crisis," Mr. Separovic insisted. "Aggression is not supposed to pay."

    Mr. Separovic said the West would have a moral and legal obligation to aid Croatia. 'It's Not a Gamble'

    Same countries now supporting Ukraine to retake Donezk.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 5:23:33 AM | 129
    This here is a main stream German source that probably comes close to the truth
    Der Balkankrieg war noch nicht ausgebrochen, da stellte im Mai 1991 ein Mitarbeiter von Außenminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher in einer Analyse fest: "Slowenen und Kroaten sind es leid, Zahlmeister für einen stagnierenden und perspektivlosen Wirtschaftsverbund zu sein. Es geht vor allem um einen Kampf der Marktwirtschaft gegen zentralistische Kommandowirtschaft, von demokratischem Pluralismus gegen Einparteienherrschaft, von Rechtsstaatlichkeit gegen militärische Repression." Der Gegner hieß Belgrad, hieß Präsident Slobodan Milosevic. Das Papier empfahl eine Abkehr von der Brüsseler Status-quo-Politik: "Wir sollten uns deshalb Veränderungen der heute bestehenden Grenzen im östlichen Europa nicht kategorisch entgegenstellen."

    Brief English summary: The war had not yet begun when a paper of the German exterior ministry stated that Slovenia and Croatia did not want to be held back from realizing free market reforms by the rest of the Yugoslav states. The paper recommended to change from EU status quo policies - "we should not refuse changes in today's Eastern Europe borders."

    LXV | Jun 20, 2017 5:52:12 AM | 131
    @somebody - 123 & 127

    "Breaking Yugoslavia - Western agencies and the destabilisation of Yugoslavia"

    "Another Side of the Pope: John Paul II's Balkan Legacy"

    It's all too well documented, now all that humanity needs is a renewal of the Nurnberg trials (only this time INCLUDING the real fascist masterminds). Though, in order for that to happen The Fourth Reich must first be militarily defeated...

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 8:28:48 AM | 136
    131 Actually you can trace back Yugoslav breakup to 1990 and US economic sanctions

    New York Times from November 1990: Evolution in Europe Yugoslavia Seen Breaking Up Soon

    Late last month, the House and Senate passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriation law that bars any United States loans or credits for Yugoslavia unless the assistance is directed to a republic "which has held free and fair elections and which is not engaged in systematic abuse of human rights."

    The legislation was fueled mainly by members of Congress who desire to penalize Serbia for its repression of the Kosovo Albanians.

    I do wonder what the consequences of US Russia and Iran sanctions will be. Europea business will have to jump the fence?

    Noirette | Jun 20, 2017 12:18:36 PM | 149
    It the EU had insisted they would take Yugoslavia as a whole and not in parts Yugoslavia very likely would still exist .somebody at 61 . Yes, have thought that, but who knows.

    Toivos @ 101: The breakup of Yugoslavia was orchestrated from West Germany. Genscher was the man who led that policy. Bush I and SoS Baker were taken off guard when Germany suddenly recognized the independence of Slovenia.

    Yes..... Croatia maybe in 1st place, more important imho? or at least the two (link is just msm) Here in Switz it was ALL about Croatia, huge deal.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/24/world/slovenia-and-croatia-get-bonn-s-nod.html

    Will not fight. Will not fight. (about the US <-> Syria.) Grieved at 97.

    Sounds like Beckett ;) Correct. Because these games of chicken are empty. Provocations that aren't because the illusory assumption is that the US in any case rules the roost, provocations are not pointed to a particular effect, riposte, reaction, it is all no matter (or pretty much so), in any case if locally, mildly vanquised, one retreats while declaring victory or perhaps even a 'stalemate' or 'negotiations' etc. The US is not fighting any wars to win anything like bigly territory or ressources or new slaves, women, commercial secrets, control of nodes (air hubs, water-ways, passage points, etc.) or for that matter territory, it is just keeping the MIC and home repression, scaremongering, going for now that is interesting, whom / what exactly? And why, to what purpose? Who benefits? (one pov amongst many.)

    [Jun 21, 2017] Accept it. Syria will never get Golan back. Its not right. Its not fair. But sometimes the bad guys win and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

    Jun 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Køn | Jun 20, 2017 12:55:31 AM | 99 Taxi | Jun 20, 2017 1:05:18 AM | 100

    @95 Taxi
    If the Syrians did try to liberate the occupied Golan by force, the only thing that would delay the nuclear annihilation of Damascus is if the wind happened to be blowing from the north-east. The Israelis wouldn't want any of the radioactive fallout blowing back into Israel.

    Accept it. Syria will never get Golan back. It's not right. It's not fair. But sometimes the bad guys win and there is nothing anybody can do about it.

    XXX:
    @Køn,

    You're not getting it pal: nuke Damascus or not, israel is easily and quickly destroyable now. A nuke will NOT DEFEND israeli territory. Nothing can.

    And they won't dare nuke Damascus anyway: too close to the Golan.

    It's time you faced it: there WILL BE a confrontation on the Golan and israel will pull back: unable to sacrifice tel aviv for the Golan.

    I refer you also to my earlier comment here: (comment # 47)

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/syria-summary-us-attack-fails-to-disrupt-push-to-deir-ezzor.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb09a70369970d

    [Jun 21, 2017] As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies

    Jun 21, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , June 20, 2017 at 10:14 am
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/06/20/pers-j20.html

    "As for the Times, it has no reservations about serving as a conduit for fact-free propaganda from the US intelligence agencies. This points to the newspaper's putrefaction in recent decades, seen above all in the fact that its leading personnel, particularly on its editorial pages and foreign affairs staff, consist of ex-officio spokesmen for US imperialism, including a stable of CIA flacks such as Nicholas Kristof, Roger Cohen and Thomas Friedman.

    The editorial page editor, James Bennet, is the brother of right-wing Democratic Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado and son of Douglas Bennet, a top State Department official in the Carter and Clinton administrations, whose career includes a stint heading the Agency for International Development (AID), a frequent instrument for CIA provocations.

    The Times, channeling the intelligence agencies, has a definite political agenda. Powerful factions of the ruling class want to continue and intensify the anti-Russian foreign policy adopted by the Obama administration, particularly in the wake of the 2014 campaign to bring down the elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine and install an ultra-right, pro-US stooge regime."

    FYI:
    http://freebeacon.com/issues/mexican-billionaire-carlos-slim-becomes-top-owner-of-new-york-times/
    http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-Mexican-Billionaire-Even-Ex-Presidents-Fear-Talking-About–20151201-0019.html

    [Jun 21, 2017] Trump won because his position was based on unnecessary war, non-interventionism, fiscal conservativism and anti-corruption. Then he betrayed his voters

    Jun 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    PuttingTheSlimBackIntoMuslim

    June 20, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT

    Trump won because his position was based on unnecessary war, non-interventionism, fiscal conservativism and anti-corruption.

    He entertained the masses. The race, gender, anti-SJW, and anti-immigration stuff were simply talking points. None of his policies on these sidelong issues had teeth.

    Rest assured, if Republicans had put in an honest and strong candidate true to those core issues – they would destroy the Dems because these points appeal to all voters. Instead Republicans will reflexively say the minorities are killing them when really its the piss poor leadership that they have installed in the WH over the last two decades.

    God help the world when such smart people (Republicans) resort to being sucks even when they win.

    Mika-Non Show Comment Next New Comment June 20, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT

    Trump won .because he promised to curtail immigration and enforce the law w/r/t illegals.

    The Only Answer: An Immigration Moratorium

    Sadly, the 'only answer' is a few decades late, and not gonna happen anyway.

    Yes, the Republicans are just as treasonous as the Dems, only in a slightly different way now and then. Meanwhile, the Endgame of Diversity is not Diversity. It's dead white people. All of them.

    animalogic Show Comment Next New Comment June 20, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

    This is the key quote:
    "But, ultimately, it's a question of numbers. The Ruling Class has decided America's economic future requires non-white immigrants"
    Whatever appearances suggest, mass immigration to the US is a non-partisan issue. Immigration befits ALL elites – whether economically or politically. Its affects on labour markets is wonderful: downward pressure on wages, increased unemployment & it's inevitable result on worker desperation. It's win-win & win. Naturally, Elites have NO exposure to the consequences of importing a ready made under-class.
    However unpalatable it seems, immigration is a tool of class warfare.

    Tom Welsh Show Comment Next New Comment June 20, 2017 at 9:04 am GMT

    It's funny how, in view of their "redistributionist" policies, the Democrats have consistently presided over even greater concentration of wealth and inequality of income.

    It's almost as if they didn't mean what they say.

    Although of course the Clintons are a good example of the beneficial effects of redistribution. Starting as two virtually bankrupt lawyers, they are now both multi-millionaires, possibly close to joining the billionaire club.

    So don't say that redistribution doesn't work.

    KenH Show Comment Next New Comment June 20, 2017 at 10:56 am GMT

    The first time Tammy Garnes visited a school in Cobb County, 10 years ago, she left in a hurry. It was just too white.

    "I want to surround my children with black people,"

    Blacks are racial bigots who prefer the company of their own people, too. Around 10-12 years ago 60 Minutes ran a segment about a blacks only (unofficially) suburban housing development outside of Atlanta and a couple of schools for professional blacks from other areas of the country. One of the black female residents who moved in said her son was attending a mostly white school in the Philadelphia suburbs (and doing well) but that she feared she was losing her son to white culture. She said wanted her son to have a black identity and grow up around other blacks.

    If whites had done something similar there would have been a nationwide media generated furor about "white supremacy" (since white privilege wasn't yet in vogue). It would have been denounced by politicians on both sides of the aisle and the Cheka, I mean FBI, would have investigated for civil rights violations. Eventually the all white development would have deemed illegal by the imperial federal judiciary and forced to integrate since nothing is more evil and un-American than whites wishing to live together.

    [Jun 21, 2017] Resist This the United States is at War With Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sixteen countries ..."
    "... Americans, and certainly self-identified "progressives," have to be crystal clear about this: American armed forces have no right to be in Syria, have no right to restrict the Syrian government from using any of its airspace, or to prevent it from regaining control of any of its own territory from foreign-backed jihadi armies. ..."
    "... The Syrian state and its allies (Iran and Russia), on the other hand, are engaged in the legitimate self-defense of a sovereign state, and have the right to respond with full military force to any attack on Syrian forces or any attempt by the United States to balkanize or occupy Syrian territory, or to overthrow the Syrian government. ..."
    "... precisely because it has been defeating ISIS ..."
    "... such a war is the objective ..."
    "... which is already underway, ..."
    Jun 21, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
    June 21, 2017 Resist This: the United States is at War With Syria

    by Jim Kavanagh

    Photo by Debra Sweet | CC BY 2.0

    The United States is at war with Syria. Though few Americans wanted to face it, this has been the case implicitly since the Obama administration began building bases and sending Special Ops, really-not-there, American troops, and it has been the case explicitly since August 3, 2015, when the Obama administration announced that it would "allow airstrikes to defend Syrian rebels trained by the U.S. military from any attackers, even if the enemies hail from forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad." With the U.S. Air Force-under Trump, following Obama's declared policy-shooting down a Syrian plane in Syrian airspace, this is now undeniable. The United States is overtly engaged in another aggression against a sovereign country that poses no conceivable, let alone actual or imminent, threat to the nation. This is an act of war.

    As an act of war, this is unconstitutional, and would demand a congressional declaration. Will Trump ask for this? Will any Democratic or Republican congresscritter demand it? Is the Pope a Hindu?

    Would it make any difference? Why should Trump bother? Obama set the stage when he completely ignored the War Powers Act, the Constitution, Congress, and his own Attorney General and legal advisers, and went right ahead with a war on Libya, under the theory that, if we pretend no American troops are on the ground, it isn't really a war or "hostilities" at all. Which I guess means if the Chinese Air Force starts shooting down American planes in American airspace in defense of Black Lives Matter's assault on the White House, it wouldn't really be engaging in an act of war.

    It's impossible to overstate the danger in these executive war-making prerogatives that Obama normalized-with the irresponsible connivance of his progressive groupies, who pretend not to know where this would lead: In 2012, referring to the precedent of Obama's policies, Mitt Romney said : "I don't believe at this stage, therefore, if I'm president that we need to have a war powers approval or special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now." Following Obama, for Trump, and every Republican and Democratic president, it now goes without saying.

    As an aggressive, unprovoked war, this is also illegal under international law, and all the political and military authorities undertaking it are war criminals, who would be prosecuted as such, if there were an international legal regime that had not already been undermined by the United States.

    Syria is now under explicit attack by the armed forces of the U.S., Turkey, and other NATO states. Sixteen countries have combat aircraft buzzing around Syrian airspace under the effective command of the United States, and a number of them have attacked Syria's army.

    Americans, and certainly self-identified "progressives," have to be crystal clear about this: American armed forces have no right to be in Syria, have no right to restrict the Syrian government from using any of its airspace, or to prevent it from regaining control of any of its own territory from foreign-backed jihadi armies.

    The Syrian state and its allies (Iran and Russia), on the other hand, are engaged in the legitimate self-defense of a sovereign state, and have the right to respond with full military force to any attack on Syrian forces or any attempt by the United States to balkanize or occupy Syrian territory, or to overthrow the Syrian government.

    So please, do not pretend to be shocked, shocked, if Syria and its allies fight back, inflicting American casualties. Don't pose as the morally superior victim when Americans are killed by the people they are attacking. And don't be preaching about how everyone has to support our troops in a criminal, unconstitutional, aggressive attack on a country that has not threatened ours in any way. American soldiers and pilots executing this policy are not heroes, and are not fighting to protect America or advance democracy; they are criminal aggressors and legitimate targets. In response to American aggression, the Syrian Army has every right to strike back at the American military apparatus, everywhere. Every casualty of this war, however big it gets, is the ethico-political responsibility of the attacking party – US. The first responsibility of every American is not to "support our troops," but to stop this war. Right now. Before it gets worse

    It's quite obvious, in fact, that the United States regime is deliberately making targets of its military personnel, in the hopes of provoking a response from Syrian or allied armed forces that will kill some Americans, and be used to gin up popular support for the exactly the kind of major military attack on Syria and/or Russia and/or Iran that the American people would otherwise reject with disgust. Anyone who professes concern for "our troops" should be screaming to stop that.

    It's also quite clear now, that the War on ISIS is a sham, that ISIS was always just a pretext to get the American military directly involved in attacking the Syrian army and destroying the coherence of the Syrian state. If the U.S. wanted to defeat ISIS, it could do so easily by coordinating their actions with, and not against, the forces who have been most effectively fighting it: the Syrian Arab Army, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

    Instead, it's attacking the Syrian army precisely because it has been defeating ISIS and other jihadi forces, and regaining its own territory and control of its own border with Iraq. The U.S. does not want that to happen. At the very least-if it cannot immediately engender that massive offensive to overthrow the Baathist government-the U.S. wants to control part of the border with Iraq and to occupy a swath of eastern Syria. It wants to establish permanent bases from which to provision and protect jihadi armies, achieving a de facto partitioning of the Syrian state, maintaining a constant state of armed attack against the Damascus government, and reducing Syria to a weakened, rump state that can never present any effective resistance to American, Israeli, or Saudi designs on the region.

    This is extremely dangerous, since the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians seem determined not to let this happen. Trump seems to have abrogated authority to his generals to make decisions of enormous political consequence. Perhaps that's why aggressive actions like the shoot-down of the Syrian plane have been occurring more frequently, and why it's not likely they'll abate. There's a dynamic in motion that will inevitably lead each side to confront a choice of whether to back down, in a way that's obvious, or escalate. Generals aren't good at backing down. A regional or global war is a real possibility, and becomes more likely with every such incident.

    Though most American politicians and media outlets do not want to say it (and therefore, most citizens cannot see it clearly enough), such a war is the objective of a powerful faction of the Deep State which has been persistent and determined in seeking it. If the generals are loathe to back down in a battle, the neocons are adamant about not backing down on their plans for the Middle East. They will not be stopped by anything less than overwhelming popular resistance and international pushback.

    The upside of these attacks on Syrian forces is that they wipe the lipstick off the pig of the American project in Syria. Everyone-European countries who profess concern for international law and stability, and the American people who are fed up with constant wars that have no benefit for them-can see exactly what kind of blatant aggression is unfolding, and decide whether they want to go along with it.

    In that regard, any self-identified "liberal" or "progressive" American-and particularly any such American politician-who spent (and may still spend) their political energy attacking Bush, et. al ., for that crazy war in Iraq, and who goes along with, or hesitates to immediately and energetically denounce this war, which is already underway, is a political hypocrite, resisting nothing but the obvious. Join the debate on Facebook

    [Jun 21, 2017] Russiagate is a new policy of Russian containment by the deep state

    Notable quotes:
    "... It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! ..."
    "... Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. ..."
    "... Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live? ..."
    Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> Paine ... June 21, 2017 at 08:45 AM

    "[Russiagate] is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state"

    I agree. Very precisely formulated. thank you --

    Paine June 21, 2017 at 08:06 PM

    Russia is obviously tampering as much as optimal

    Nothing new

    Hence my suggesting putin is jut acting like all great powers must act to be great powers

    ilsm Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 08:47 AM

    It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts. Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague! Reply Wednesday, June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM

    Paine -> ilsm... June 21, 2017 at 04:37 PM

    Indeed

    libezkova -> Paine ...

    "Hence my suggesting Putin is just acting like all great powers must act to be great powers "

    Wrong. Putin actually has some respect for UN. Unlike Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump. American exceptionalism is pretty toxic thing that poison the US foreign policy. Something like far right movements poison discourse in their respective countries.

    Putin slept over Obama/Nuland gambit in Ukraine. And Russia paid a huge price for that. Less then Ukrainians (who are now experiencing Central African level of poverty) but still huge.

    I think he should resist US imperial advances (sugarcoated as "export of democracy") more strongly. But that's just me.

    https://toinformistoinfluence.com/2017/06/05/transcript-putin-interview-with-megyn-kelly-of-nbc-news/

    President of Russia Vladimir Putin: They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. I have not once seen any direct proof of Russia's interference in the presidential election in the USA.

    We have talked about it with former president Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence.

    When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it.

    I have already told you, and I can say it again, that today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack.

    Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions. That's one thing. The other thing is that I am deeply convinced that no interference from the outside, in any country, even a small one, let alone in such a vast and great power as the United States, can influence the final outcome of the elections. It is not possible. Ever.

    Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election, and therefore influencing 70,000 people might not have been that hard.

    Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured in such a way that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the United States. True, isn't it?

    Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral legislation needs to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct tabulation of votes that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.

    Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want to offend anyone, but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is this really news to you?

    Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that you're not going to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials interfere in their political domestic processes.

    Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence in some way or attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.

    Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.

    Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action invites appropriate counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and other members of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.

    Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere.

    Megyn Kelly: You had said for months that Russia had nothing to do with the interference of the American election, and then this week you floated the idea of patriotic hackers doing it. Why the change and why now?

    Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy.

    There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.

    Megyn Kelly: Let's move on. A special counsel has been appointed to investigate contacts between your government and the Trump campaign. You have said that your ambassador Kislyak was just doing his job. Right? So, what exactly was discussed in those meetings?

    Vladimir Putin: There were no sessions. You see, there were no sessions. When I saw that my jaw dropped.

    Megyn Kelly: No meetings between Ambassador Kislyak and anybody from the Trump campaign?

    Vladimir Putin: No clue. I am telling you honestly. I don't know. That's an ambassador's every day, routine work. Do you think, an ambassador from any place in the world or from the US reports to me daily as to whom he meets with and what they discuss? It's just absurd. Do you even understand what you are asking me?

    Megyn Kelly: Well, you're his boss.

    Vladimir Putin: Listen, his boss is the foreign minister. Do you think I have the time to talk to our ambassadors all over the world every day? This is nonsense. Don't you understand that this is just some kind of nonsense. I don't even know with whom he met there. Had there been something out of the ordinary, something remarkable he of course would have advised the minister and the minister would have informed me. Nothing of that happened.

    ... ... ...

    Megyn Kelly: Many Americans hear the name, Vladimir Putin. And they think, "He runs a country full of corruption, a country in which journalists, who are too critical, could wind up murdered, a country in which dissidents could wind up in jail or worse." To people who believe that, what is your message?

    Vladimir Putin: I want to say that Russia is developing along a democratic path, this is without question so. No one should have any doubts about that. The fact that, amidst political rivalry and some other domestic developments, we see things happen here that are typical of other countries, I do not see anything unusual in it.

    We have rallies, opposition rallies. And people here have the right to express their point of view. However, if people, while expressing their views, break the current legislation, the effective law in place, then of course, the law enforcement agencies try to restore order.

    I am calling your attention to something that I discussed recently when on a trip to France and in my discussions with other European colleagues. Our police force, fortunately, so far, do not use batons, tear gas or any other extreme measures of instilling order, something that we often see in other countries, including in the United States.

    Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live?

    We are ready to listen to our partners, ready to listen to appraisals and assessments when it is done in a friendly manner, in order to establish contacts and create a common atmosphere and dedicate ourselves to shared values. But we absolutely will not accept when such things are used as a tool of political struggle. I want everybody to know that. This is our message.

    [Jun 21, 2017] The CIAs principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.

    Jun 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC

    , June 21, 2017 at 06:44 AM
    The New York Times steps up its anti-Russia campaign
    21/06/2017

    The CIA's principal house organ, the New York Times, published a lead editorial Sunday on the investigation into alleged Russian meddling in the 2016 US presidential election that is an incendiary and lying exercise in disinformation aimed at whipping up support for war with Russia.
    ....................

    Not a single one of the reports in the Times or Post is the product of a genuine investigation by journalists. Instead, the main reporting on the "Russian hacking" affair consists of taking dictation from unidentified intelligence officials. In not a single case did these officials offer evidence to substantiate their claims, invariably made in the form of ambiguous phrases like "we assess," "we believe," "we assess with high confidence," etc. Such claims are worth no more than previous assertions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction-a lie used to justify a war that has killed more than one million people.

    http://www.defenddemocracy.press/the-new-york-times-steps-up-its-anti-russia-campaign/

    RGC -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 06:47 AM
    Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul Buck Party Consensus on Russia and Iran Sanctions


    Investigative journalist Max Blumenthal explains that these sanctions punish Russia and Iran and unnecessarily intensifies the conflict between the US and these countries

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19337

    sanjait -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 10:55 AM
    Dead wrong about Bernie:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-russia-blackmail-links-vladimir-putin-nice-things-democratic-senator-a7647546.html

    Nice try though!

    RGC -> sanjait... , June 21, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    Thursday, June 15, 2017

    WASHINGTON, June 15 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement Thursday after he voted against a bill that would impose new sanctions on Iran and Russia:

    "I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria. I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."

    https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions

    anne -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 07:25 AM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

    June 17, 2017

    Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia

    anne -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 01:21 PM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

    June 17, 2017

    Mr. Trump's Dangerous Indifference to Russia

    A rival foreign power launched an aggressive cyberattack on the United States, interfering with the 2016 presidential election and leaving every indication that it's coming back for more - but President Trump doesn't seem to care.

    The unprecedented nature of Russia's attack is getting lost in the swirling chaos of recent weeks, but it shouldn't be. American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia took direct aim at the integrity of American democracy, and yet after almost five months in office, the commander in chief appears unconcerned with that threat to our national security. The only aspect of the Russia story that attracts his attention is the threat it poses to the perceived legitimacy of his electoral win.

    If not for the continuing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians - and whether Mr. Trump himself has obstructed that investigation - the president's indifference would be front-page news.

    So let's take a moment to recall the sheer scope and audacity of the Russian efforts.

    Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of...

    ilsm -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 04:22 PM
    Not to worry Trump is doing all Obama did and more to sell Syria to al Qaeda.

    Too busy keeping the Wahhabis happy to want to mess with Russia over a few millions Balts' desires.

    The US is not offering the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts it is already committed to the Wahhabis.

    anne -> anne... , June 21, 2017 at 01:24 PM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/17/opinion/mr-trumps-dangerous-indifference-to-russia.html

    Under direct orders from President Vladimir Putin, hackers connected to Russian military intelligence broke into the email accounts of...

    [ Interesting passage. ]

    Paine -> RGC... , June 21, 2017 at 08:45 AM
    Why critique this campaign against Russia
    As if the kremlin may to have interfered and even collaborated with trump operatives to do it

    Anything less would be dereliction of duty by a great powers leadership

    Point out the motivation

    Which is indeed a new forward policy on Russian containment by the deep state
    As we now call the corporate planted cultivated and coddled security apparatus
    With its various media cut thrus cut outs and compadres

    Yes the NYT and the WP

    Both are working with the deep state
    Once called the invisible government
    Much as they have in he past

    Why I like he color revolution analogy

    These media titans are working with the DS
    Because they want to topple trump like they wanted to topple Nixon
    And to a lesser extent wobble Reagan

    Paine -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 08:47 AM
    Typo hazard

    Russia is obviously tampering as much as optimal

    Nothing new

    Hence my suggesting putin is jut acting like all great powers must act to be great powers

    ilsm -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 04:23 PM
    It would have been appeasement for Putin to stand by and let the Hillary neocon take over America and offer the last drop of US soldiers' blood to the Balts.

    Ignoring Clinton was like letting Hitler have Prague!

    Paine -> ilsm... , June 21, 2017 at 04:37 PM

    Indeed
    anne -> Paine ... , June 21, 2017 at 09:08 AM
    Important, incisive perspective or argument, but a direction seldom taken. A Cold War sort of atmosphere makes us wary of using any such argument, and we have been forming a Cold War environment for several years now. This atmosphere by the way involves the way in which China is generally regarded, and I believe colors economic analysis even among academics.

    [Jun 21, 2017] An Assault on Language Extremism by Gregory Barrett

    Notable quotes:
    "... The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo. ..."
    "... As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome"). ..."
    "... This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West. ..."
    "... As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party. ..."
    "... Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet. ..."
    "... More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news. ..."
    "... It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media. ..."
    "... Social Democrats ..."
    "... Christian Democrats ..."
    "... The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth. ..."
    "... I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity. ..."
    Jun 19, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    We have had a certain amount of success in exposing the amorphous and mendacious term "Fake News" for what it is: a tool in a major campaign of propaganda against dissenting independent journalism and political writing, a campaign perpetrated by governments and corporate media. The wealthy and powerful forces which control both of those influential centers in the formation of public opinion were desperate to regain control of the narrative, which has been slipping away from them at an increasing velocity since the advent of social media, and since the parallel growth of a broad spectrum of information networks with absolutely no interest in currying favor with the mighty, or in defending the status quo.

    As soon as the term "Fake News" appeared, Barack Obama pounced on it, and in a joint appearance in 2016 with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin, used his worldwide microphone and bully pulpit – if only he had done so occasionally to sound the alarm about the approaching environmental crisis, or to express outrage about racism or police brutality, or to challenge war profiteers! – to announce his deep concern that "Fake News" was making it "difficult to govern" (for more on this and the struggle against corporate/government presstitute propaganda, see my article "Hope Is Our Enemy: Fighting Boiling Frog Syndrome").

    This clumsy and panicky maneuver has deservedly met with far less success than Obama's incredibly successful propaganda sally against Russia and Vladimir Putin, which has captivated the paranoid fantasies of many millions of Americans and Europeans who desperately want to believe that NATO countries are virtuous and innocent, and are threatened by ruthless and aggressive foreigners who are responsible for the spreading chaos in the West.

    As one of his final acts in office, President Chameleon slapped new sanctions on Russia and deported Russian diplomats: after eight years, his transformation from Nobel Laureate and supposed apostle of peace to McCarthyite New Cold Warrior was complete, and vast numbers of angry Hillaroids were quickly on board the Blame Russia Express, full of self-righteous anger and the conviction that someone had stolen the election and that the usual suspects were obviously the guilty party.

    Things haven't gone so well for the "Fake News" campaign, however. Too many people could and can see disturbing patterns that ring true, if they spend enough time looking at truthful, objective analysis of the world around us, and there is quite a lot of it available via the internet.

    More people are spending more and more time on the internet and social media, where presstitute media lose the natural advantages they once had in a world dominated by government-regulated, corporate-financed TV, radio, and print news.

    It turns out that many of the best-informed writers see the world utterly differently than do the corporate and government shills who determine the "news" content in mainstream media.

    Which brings us to one of the latest victims in the assault on language by the 1% and their pawns in the presstitute media: the word "extremism".

    Here in the European Union where I live, this word is currently heard so often in the traditional media – along with another victimized word being brutalized almost non-stop, "populist" – that even poorly-educated persons who aren't sure exactly what is meant can understand that they must mean something very, very bad.

    If any such confused persons should take the time to pay closer attention and attempt to ascertain what it is that makes these "extremists" and "populists" so deplorable and dangerous, they may soon notice that at least one of these words, "extremist", has a pretty nebulous field of application. According to major sources of conventional wisdom in the EU, terrorists are "extremists". But "extremism", more generally, is also applied casually to nearly any political parties and interest groups to the Left and the Right of the large (if shrinking in some countries like France) parties called "people's parties" (Volksparteien) here in Germany: the no-longer-socialist Social Democrats who are allegedly center-left, the pseudo-Christian Christian Democrats who portray themselves as center-right, and even the thoroughly compromised and faded-to-brown Green Party , which has gone to great lengths and engaged in stupendous contortions of deliberate conformism to achieve its modern status as a pillar of the established order, a long journey from its radical roots in the 1980s.

    As you may have deduced from my snarky tone, I find myself firmly ensconced among the so-called "extremists" of the Left.

    What, one may legitimately ask, are the views which have led to this branding as a dangerous individual? Do I advocate keeping a stock of Molotov Cocktails handy for quick use when the shit starts to fly? I do not.

    • Do I engage in plots to overthrow the "legitimate" government and spread chaos throughout the EU? Do I support terrorism? I do not. While I have grave reservations about the ostensible "legitimacy" of a number of the governments named, and have major issues with the extent to which they are in thrall to American imperial foreign/military policy and the destructive austerity policies of the IMF and World Bank and Big Finance, you will find no blueprints for violent revolution at my house. I pay taxes and comply with bureaucratic governmental requirements. And as far as terrorism goes, I would even argue that it is NATO countries' complicity in American imperial designs and hegemony which is the source of most terrorism and is thus, in reality, "extreme" (see my recent article "Russia Didn't Do It").
    • Am I armed? I am not. I have never owned a gun. My only weapon is the keyboard at which I now write.
    • Do I support dangerous political organizations? I support the German party "Die Linke" (The Left), which is the largest opposition party in Germany's Parliament, the Bundestag, and a full participant in the national electoral process, having won around 14% of the vote in the last election. AHHH now we're getting somewhere. "Die Linke" is accused quite regularly in the corporate and government media of being "extreme".
    • And why? What positions does the party hold which are considered dangerous?

    Okay I guess I'll have to come clean. Here are the radical, dangerous, "extremist" positions I support when I advocate more influence for this political party:

    • An end to weapons exports from Germany, especially into crisis regions, but more broadly, in principle.
    • The disbanding of NATO, which was formed as an allegedly defensive alliance against the "Warsaw Pact" or communist military bloc led by the Soviet Union – which no longer exists. An end to German participation in overseas military intervention (such as the current activity in Afghanistan).
    • A more extensive social system which builds more low-cost housing and offers greater protection for the rights of workers and less affluent citizens – rights which were scaled back by the program "Agenda 2010" to make the German economy more "competitive".
    • Active measures by government to stop the widening of the gap between rich and poor which, although not yet as profound in Germany as in the USA, is heading in the same direction.
    • Higher taxes on the wealthy.
    • A much more independent position on the world stage for Germany and the EU, with an end to EU servility to the USA.
    • Fundamental reform of the EU, with less power for Big Finance in its deliberations and economic policies, which have created great hardship in Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere.

    In addition, there is my allegedly "extreme" position on the environment, which is not so much a priority for "Die Linke" but is the most important issue of all for me personally. I am convinced that only a radical transformation of the world economy can save this planet, including most life on Earth. I believe this can only come about through an end to industrial capitalism: a ban on most fossil fuels, an end to the production of most plastics, an end to most beef production and strict organic regulation of all meat production, and worldwide mandatory measures to clean up the poisonous residue of the current system which is killing the planet. This will necessarily involve huge cuts in most military structures and war-making as well. The US military is by far the greatest polluter on Earth.

    For these views, and my concomitant rejection of the large political parties in the EU and the USA which have done almost nothing to save the planet that was not outweighed by massive destruction – parties which thus, in the name of "realism", have sold our future to the rich and may have doomed all life on this planet, as scientific opinion is near unanimous that time is short – for these views I am labeled an "extremist".

    I consider that an Orwellian assault on language. "Extremism" is what I oppose. Extreme wealth. Extreme greed. Extreme militarism. Extreme suicidal and ecocidal environmental destruction. Extreme governmental authority. Extreme stupidity.

    [Jun 21, 2017] US Attack Fails To Disrupt Push To Deir Ezzor

    Jun 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Grieved | Jun 20, 2017 1:34:43 PM | 157

    One thing I wanted to add about Russian methodology in Syria.

    The principal reason that Russia escalates in such thin layers, I suspect, is that Russia has a very well defined military doctrine - updated last year I think - that prescribes what must happen in response to various conditions. I'm no expert in any of this, but what seems clear is that Russia as a nation understands very well what lies further down the escalation trail.

    Russia has been improving its military ever since Putin came in, but in the last year or two she has very seriously geared for real war, including global nuclear conflict. According to people like Dmitri Orlov and the Saker, who understand Russian mentality, Russians don't bluff. At best, they give a fair warning, once. Then when they decide it's necessary, they act. And as Putin has said, when you know a fight is unavoidable, get the first punch in.

    So while the US is living in a Hollywood dream world, Russia is in an entirely real world, watching the US escalate as if there would be no consequences. We don't actually know what the full suite of Russian red lines are in Syria, but it seems that the Pentagon has learned enough of them to fear direct conflict. The point is precisely that Russia is not bluffing, and so she is no hurry to move along the escalation line, because there's no going back, and when she reaches a certain point, she WILL act. And the US will not like it, and the world may not survive the traumas that come out of that.

    Putin has even taken the desperate step in the last two years if addressing western news people and scolding them for not being awake to the dangers to their own populations of US actions, trying to get them to pay attention. I believe now the fight in Syria is not just against the terrorists - killing them outside Russia's borders rather than inside - but also a very real one happening with the US, greater than is really obvious. The US expected to fight Russia in Ukraine, but Russia declined the venue chosen by the enemy, and chose its own venue instead.

    It's almost discouraging to read the many comments on some of the sites out there, where people rooting for Russia actually want her to shoot down a US plane or something dramatic. They think Russia sends a message of weakness by not acting in the approved US hero manner. They fail to understand that an entirely different mind-set is at work here - one that is completely lethal beyond certain bounds, which the US keep pushing and probing.

    [Jun 21, 2017] A quick reminder, a reality check... the utter stupidity, the illegality of US Syria policy

    www.moonofalabama.org

    michaelj72 | Jun 20, 2017 2:26:54 PM | 10

    a quick reminder, a reality check... the utter stupidity, the illegality of it all

    but even talking about that only raises yawns in DC and the West, though Australia has been smart enough to stop flying in the coalition of the bribed and the bludgeoned in Syria this week

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/u-s-planes-at-risk-after-downing-of-syrian-jet/

    .....No one in Washington will care, but it is worth remembering that the U.S. has no authority to be engaged in hostilities anywhere in Syria, and our government certainly has no authority to attack Syrian government forces operating inside their own country in support for anti-regime insurgents. Obama had no right to expand the war on ISIS into Syria, and Trump has no right to involve us in a war with the Syrian government. Our Syria policy is unwise and divorced from U.S. security interests, and it is also illegal.

    [Jun 21, 2017] There is no shortage of tiresome Neocons but Lt. Col, Ralph Peterson wrote a particularly vile piece for the NY Post

    Jun 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Christian Chuba | Jun 20, 2017 1:48:32 PM | 5
    There is no shortage of tiresome Neocons but Lt. Col, Ralph Peterson wrote a particularly vile piece for the NY Post
    http://nypost.com/2017/06/19/the-stakes-in-syria-now-include-us-russia-war/
    " a Syrian aircraft struck our allies. An American jet shot it down."
    [^ not especially vile but even the Pentagon's own press release said that the Syrian aircraft was bombing NEAR SDF forces. So he is lying even if you just use Pentagon sources. ^]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "In reality, Bashar al-Assad and his backers cynically dumped the burden of wrecking ISIS on us and our local allies to concentrate on slaughtering civilians, exterminating freedom fighters and torturing thousands of prisoners to death. Now that we've done the anti-ISIS heavy lifting, they want to exclude us from the endgame and crush our Kurdish and Arab allies."
    [^ Now this IS truly vile ^]

    The NY Post is one of the cowardly who don't allow comments, I'll at least give the National Review and FOX credit for allowing online comments. I don't know if they ever read them, it doesn't look like it. Is there an infinite amount of demand for Neocon drivel? I only saw this because I see articles linked through realclearworld.com which occasionally has some articles of value along with the sewage.

    Anon | Jun 20, 2017 2:17:20 PM | 8
    mischi

    Yes of course Russians are the provoking the US in.... the Baltic sea! . Facepalm.
    The western media is so deep in its own lies and disinformation its disgusting.

    michaelj72 | Jun 20, 2017 2:26:54 PM | 10
    a quick reminder, a reality check... the utter stupidity, the illegality of it all.

    but even talking about that only raises yawns in DC and the West, though Australia has been smart enough to stop flying in the coalition of the bribed and the bludgeoned in Syria this week

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/u-s-planes-at-risk-after-downing-of-syrian-jet/

    .....No one in Washington will care, but it is worth remembering that the U.S. has no authority to be engaged in hostilities anywhere in Syria, and our government certainly has no authority to attack Syrian government forces operating inside their own country in support for anti-regime insurgents. Obama had no right to expand the war on ISIS into Syria, and Trump has no right to involve us in a war with the Syrian government. Our Syria policy is unwise and divorced from U.S. security interests, and it is also illegal.

    james | Jun 20, 2017 3:42:13 PM | 11
    ny post.. bought and paid for by zion idiots... not worth the cost for firestarter... humour maybe, lol..

    john helmer has another post up here on the freak freeland for any canucks reading here... new info from poland shows her grandfathers connections to nazi germany and how they were looking for him into the 80's... canuck gov't and media response? silence so far...

    [Jun 21, 2017] More Details Appear About US Attack Against Syrian Su-22

    Jun 20, 2017 | southfront.org

    jfl | Jun 20, 2017 7:25:08 PM | 17

    Ali Fahd's mission was to strike ISIS fighters and vehicles attempting to withdrew from Rusafah in the province of Raqqah towards Sukhnah in the province of Homs and Oqerbat in the eastern Hama countryside – near Ali Fahd's home town of Salamyiah. Connection with Ali Fahd was lost after reaching the operation area over Rusafah.

    SF was not able to receive info if Ali Fahd preformed any airstrike against ISIS before being hit. As connection was jammed it may mean Ali Fahd's warplane was downed even before dropping a single bomb. This supports the version provided by the Syrian government and the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that said Ali Fahd's Su-22M4 never attacked positions of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

    According to Ali Fahd's relative Al-Masdar News reporter, Majd Fahed, Ali Fahd was captured by the SDF and Tiger Forces Leader General Suheil Al-Hassan is negotiating with SDF in order to free Ali Fahd.

    Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 20, 2017 9:12:03 PM | 22

    @jfl | Jun 20, 2017 7:25:08 PM | 17

    It seems to me the only this guy has this information about the Syrian pilot.

    https://twitter.com/maytham956/status/876801735477559296

    Al-Masdar do not have it.

    [Jun 21, 2017] The Problem with Kurdish Independence by Daniel Larison

    Notable quotes:
    "... When I was a student at Chapel Hill in the early 70's I heard a lecture by a professor of Azeri background who predicted that the next great war, one which had the potential to be more than a regional conflict and could become a world war, would be the war for Kurdish independence. I don't believe this is a problem which will go away. The world will have to make room for an independent Kurdistan or conflict in the region will continue. ..."
    "... See what we let loose with Kosovo! On what basis can the West now deny this and refuse recognition when we stripped Serbia's heartland away from Serbia? If it does come down to war, it might be good for the Kurd's neighbors to remember that Saladin was a Kurd. ..."
    "... The US has enough problems certainly these days with the internal politics in their own country. They sure fail or make worse with neocon social engineering experiments with other countries they don't understand or have no interests in. Negative and long lasting and worse off unintended consequences abound whenever US military acting as the foreign policy arm of US affairs goes into action. ..."
    Jun 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Kurdistan4all / cc Iraqi Kurdistan will hold an independence referendum on September 25, and there is no international support for that:

    On Monday, the European Union joined the United Nations, the United States, Turkey, and Iraq to discourage Iraqi Kurds from holding an independence referendum on Sept. 25.

    That was to be expected, and won't deter regional government authorities in Erbil, said Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the Kurdistan Regional Government representative in Washington.

    The broad international opposition to a Kurdish independence referendum underscores the problem with trying to create an independent Kurdistan: the new state would be immediately isolated, it would lack recognition from most other governments, and would face intense disapproval from all of its new neighbors. Iraqi Kurdistan would forfeit the benefits of its current semi-autonomous status in exchange for a formal independence that would impose numerous costs on it. Iran isn't mentioned in the article, but their government has likewise expressed opposition to the referendum.

    Supporters of the referendum say that a vote in favor of independence isn't a declaration of independence, but for the many regional opponents of a Kurdish state it might be taken as one. It is doubtful that the Turkish and Iraqi governments would limit their opposition to rhetoric, so a new Kurdish state would find itself besieged and under attack very early on, and Iran would presumably aid the Baghdad in trying to prevent the separation of the region. The last thing the region needs is even more instability and violence, and a push for Kurdish independence would produce more of both. Contrary to the hopes of Western partition fans, Kurdish independence would spark new conflicts and complicate existing ones. It would resolve none of them.

    Pennzy SW , says: June 20, 2017 at 9:34 am
    "Contrary to the hopes of Western partition fans, Kurdish independence would spark new conflicts and complicate existing ones. It would resolve none of them. "

    You may be right about the hopes of Western partition fans, but our parasitic "friends" in the region (the Israelis and Saudis in particular) would be overjoyed to see us permanently bogged down in regional conflicts created by an independent Kurdistan.

    All the more reason for us to have nothing to do with it.

    William Dalton , says: June 20, 2017 at 10:49 am
    When I was a student at Chapel Hill in the early 70's I heard a lecture by a professor of Azeri background who predicted that the next great war, one which had the potential to be more than a regional conflict and could become a world war, would be the war for Kurdish independence. I don't believe this is a problem which will go away. The world will have to make room for an independent Kurdistan or conflict in the region will continue.
    Will Harrington , says: June 20, 2017 at 1:09 pm
    See what we let loose with Kosovo! On what basis can the West now deny this and refuse recognition when we stripped Serbia's heartland away from Serbia? If it does come down to war, it might be good for the Kurd's neighbors to remember that Saladin was a Kurd.
    jk , says: June 20, 2017 at 8:13 pm
    The US has enough problems certainly these days with the internal politics in their own country. They sure fail or make worse with neocon social engineering experiments with other countries they don't understand or have no interests in. Negative and long lasting and worse off unintended consequences abound whenever US military acting as the foreign policy arm of US affairs goes into action.

    [Jun 21, 2017] Somewhat interesting reports the Syrian plane had only been airborne about 15 minutes when it was shot down, reportedly without having delivered its bomb load

    Notable quotes:
    "... That means the American plane took off from a carrier (George HW Bush), flew over all of Russia's radar and missile sites in western Syria, shot down the Syrian Su-22 in Raqqa, and then flew right back over all the Russian anti-air sites.'; ..."
    "... Coming late to this party but everything looks very good for the balance of power to me. Iran shows not only what it can do but implies strongly what it will do, if the prompts so indicate. Russia comes down hard with Lavrov and diplomacy telling the world that international law has been broken consciously and cynically by the US, and MOD and Russian soldiers set further red lines. Syria meanwhile has not been goaded into any unwise move by this latest provocation, and continues on its campaign. With the pilot now safe - rescued from behind enemy lines by the Tigers, no less - Syria only lost one plane, while the US lost its deconflict back-channel. ..."
    "... The loss of the back channel seriously concerns the US military, because it means that they run a lethal risk of making a wrong move. Bluster is one thing but facing Russian soldiers in a real fight is their worst nightmare. This is a military event, so in this information space across the web we see additional troll forces mustered into discussion threads to cast doubt on Russia's resolve, but underneath the smoke, Russia has now parlayed its de-escalation zones - which have worked beautifully to further Syria's military edge - into all of Syria west of the Euphrates. ..."
    "... More provocations and blunders from the US will result in even more strategic losses exacted by Russia. As b has treated at length, and as commented here already, the US persists in tactics to the detriment of its strategy. It is throwing away its cards one by one in each round of betting. ..."
    Jun 21, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    brian | Jun 19, 2017 6:53:12 PM | 77
    Somewhat interesting reports the Syrian plane had only been airborne about 15 minutes when it was shot down, reportedly without having delivered its bomb load. The super hornet from an aircraft carrier had to enter and cross Syria to shoot down the Syrian bomber. This has all the appearance of premeditation, opportunistic predatory attack, starting in flight operations on the carrier, aided and abetted by AWACS identification and control assets. Seemingly the pilot has been recovered. What a story he may have to tell. The rats are leaving the regime change coalition as it flounders in their sea of lies; good thing that. Time will tell how correct these reports are.

    Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 20, 2017 8:52:43 AM | 138

    The US plane which shot down the Syrian Su-22 over Raqqa province yesterday was a carrier-based F/A-18.

    That means the American plane took off from a carrier (George HW Bush), flew over all of Russia's radar and missile sites in western Syria, shot down the Syrian Su-22 in Raqqa, and then flew right back over all the Russian anti-air sites.';
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/has-russia-just-grounded-all-americas-carrier-based-aircraft-coast-syria/ri20148#.WUfp5CeZs9o.facebook

    Grieved | Jun 19, 2017 8:27:24 PM | 84
    Coming late to this party but everything looks very good for the balance of power to me. Iran shows not only what it can do but implies strongly what it will do, if the prompts so indicate. Russia comes down hard with Lavrov and diplomacy telling the world that international law has been broken consciously and cynically by the US, and MOD and Russian soldiers set further red lines. Syria meanwhile has not been goaded into any unwise move by this latest provocation, and continues on its campaign. With the pilot now safe - rescued from behind enemy lines by the Tigers, no less - Syria only lost one plane, while the US lost its deconflict back-channel.

    The loss of the back channel seriously concerns the US military, because it means that they run a lethal risk of making a wrong move. Bluster is one thing but facing Russian soldiers in a real fight is their worst nightmare. This is a military event, so in this information space across the web we see additional troll forces mustered into discussion threads to cast doubt on Russia's resolve, but underneath the smoke, Russia has now parlayed its de-escalation zones - which have worked beautifully to further Syria's military edge - into all of Syria west of the Euphrates.

    More provocations and blunders from the US will result in even more strategic losses exacted by Russia. As b has treated at length, and as commented here already, the US persists in tactics to the detriment of its strategy. It is throwing away its cards one by one in each round of betting.

    What's remarkable to me is how thinly sliced this game of chicken can be played. Accustomed as I am to US culture, and black-white dichotomies with their shoot-em-up resolutions, I would never have thought there were so many delicate countermoves available in a structure of escalation. Russia is playing this hand out with supreme elegance, to my mind. It seems possible now that Syria can move all the way to total victory, with the US out of the country, without the Pentagon realizing it has lost - simply, it will wake up to zero cards in its hand, while Russia still holds some.

    ~~

    ps..no expert on radar either, but I gather being locked onto is being "painted", and it's what pilots dread - because there's no escape from whatever the owner of the radar decides to throw at you. Well, they wanted to play chicken, but this will cause some serious frayed nerves in USAF.

    jfl | Jun 19, 2017 8:31:57 PM | 85
    Pentagon changes disposition of US-led coalition aircraft in Syria

    DAMASCUS, SYRIA (9:40 P.M.) – The United States decided to re-position fighter jets belonging to the US-led international coalition, Pentagon's spokesman Adrian Rankine-Galloway told reporters on Monday.

    "As a result of recent clashes with Syrian pro-regime and Russian forces, we took precautions to change the disposition of the aircraft in Syria in order to continue fighting Islamic State, while maintaining safety of our pilots – considering the known threats on the battlefield," he told Interfax agency.


    can it be true that the hornet came all the way from the mediterranean and shot sown the syrian plane? how did they know it would be there when they got there? are the us now going to fly out of qatar?

    In the meantime, the U.S. are going to work with Russia through diplomatic and military channels in order to restore the incident prevention direct line, head of Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, told the press on Monday speaking at the conference of National Press club.

    is that how the us knew the where and when on the syrian plane?

    Peter AU | Jun 19, 2017 9:01:04 PM | 86
    When Russia first moved into Syria, Obama said something about Russia getting bogged down in a quagmire.
    Now it seems it is the US in a quagmire and Russia standing on solid ground. All Russia has to do is keep poking the US back into the quagmire if they try to climb out. The area east of the Euphrates seems to be the quagmire.
    While US is bogged down in that part of the world, and focusing on Russia, China, strategic partner to Russia and the only economic threat to the US is forging ahead.

    Lozion | Jun 19, 2017 9:04:38 PM | 87
    @84 Agreed.. The US's achilles heel as always been that it cannot be perceived as the aggressor under any circumstances. Russia exploits this weakness by constantly exposing its acts when breaching Intl law or conventions.
    This is a slow game but the benefits are a shifting of alliances and potential end of the status of vassalage of nations wising up to the state of dereliction of the Empire..

    Peter AU | Jun 19, 2017 11:09:39 PM | 92
    smuks | Jun 19, 2017 9:39:48 PM | 89 Sounds plausible enough and fits the maps. So technically speaking, the US excuse 'they bombed close to the SDF, endangering our allies' is even correct...

    Endangering allies? Nope. Shooting down a Syrian aircraft targeting an ISIS held town perhaps one or two k's from the Kurd frontlines is not self defence.

    Lozion | Jun 19, 2017 11:53:36 PM | 93
    Very good analysis by Mercouris of the @TheDuran_com CONFIRMED: US backs down as Russia targets US aircraft in Syria:

    http://theduran.com/us-backs-down-russia-targets-us-aircraft-syria/

    NemesisCalling | Jun 20, 2017 12:20:41 AM | 94
    @93 Lozion

    I'be been noticing that the Russian collusion narrative is losing steam here in the states. Maybe teeth are unclenching among the plebians to warrant less reckless enticement of Russia's AA systems. Among the blogospheres and message boards, I see more of a shrugged "meh" at the sight of the term "Russia" and a general acknowledgment that the narrative of the msm on Syria is completely unintelligible to the layman and therefore probably doesn't warrant getting into a war with Russia for. And let me say kudos to Oliver Stone to putting out the Putin interview. He was on that turd Colbert's Hate Show and was mocked for merely offering what he hoped was an unbiased view on Russia and what makes Putin tick. Let's hope a lot of people watch it.

    How many times have we all said, "This is it! Russia has to act now!" Strafing runs on Deir Ezzor giving way to ISIS assaults; RuF plane shot down over northern Syria; bombing runs in Syrian territory by the US. Each new incident has invoked a sudden panic, followed by breathless monitoring of current events for some days after. Meanwhile, Putin and Russia have convinced their allies to play the smart, long game, letting the event air out in the light of day so that cooler heads always seem to prevail.

    Taxi | Jun 20, 2017 12:27:20 AM | 95
    Our actions in Syria are based on israeli defense policies NOT American ones. That's why our actions in Syria are dumber than dumb as far as US interests are concerned. And if you haven't caught on why the jewish MSM and the zionist bipartisan War Party remain in a 'Russia' frenzy some six months after Trump moved into the WH, then you've been had. The whole jewish ploy is to keep up tensions with Putin so that Trump is forced to work the israel angle in Syria, an angle that is anti-Russian presence in the Levant and pro ISIS Caliphate.

    The whole point is to prevent USA working with Russia on cleaning up Syria because soon as the 'cleaning' is done, the Syrian army is heading towards the Golan to legitimately liberate it from israeli occupation - a fight that will see israel losing as tel aviv will be immediately targeted. The israelis know this and are delaying the inevitable confrontation in the Golan, in the hope that they can figure out the impossible in the meantime - the impossible being that unlike the past, the anti-israel axis in the Levant now and for the first time ever has the ability to destroy every inch of israel while taking the hits. Israel might have superior offensive weaponry, but defensively, they stand naked on the battlefield.

    Grieved | Jun 20, 2017 12:47:27 AM | 97
    without threatening to treat unauthorized planes as targets, the US markedly scaled back its flights, and publicly announced this. So the Russians have very clearly understood for months that this is an escalation that the US cannot afford to match.

    And now it has gone even further. This time the Russians have flipped the same switch of turning off the deconflict hotline, but this time they've promised to "paint" any plane that enters without authorization - to lock on it with targeting radar systems - reserving the right to take whatever action is deemed appropriate against that plane, depending on its actions.

    And the US is very scared:


    ...the US is frantically signalling to the Russians its urgent wish to de-escalate the situation. Note for example the markedly conciliatory language of White House spokesman Sean Spicer, and how he repeatedly passed up opportunities to utter words of defiance against Russia or to threaten the Russians with counter-measures during the latest White House press briefing
    [...]
    What that means is that though the Russians must act carefully so as not to provoke the US into an unnecessary confrontation which would serve no-one's interests, ultimately it is the Russians who in Syria have the whip hand.
    -- CONFIRMED: US backs down as Russia targets US aircraft in Syria

    So there we have it. As good as any laboratory test. Observation, theory, prediction and result all line up to prove the case: the US is full of bluster, playing a cowardly game of bullying, and yet cannot pass the test of being called out to fight in reality. Will not fight. Will not fight.

    And generals around the world take note of this.

    ~~

    By the way, Mercouris at the Duran often cites the excellent analysis by b at Moon of Alabama, as does Pepe Escobar in his Facebook page of important stories, for that matter. Just a note to say that we all read each other and between us we're putting together a really good picture of what's going on. I am impressed, and grateful. The truth is winning.

    sejomoje | Jun 20, 2017 12:50:04 AM | 98
    And yes, as much as Israel wishes to remain on the sidelines ideologically, they are 100% all in, behind the thinktank assessments that lead to military/CIA policy.

    It's absolutely ABSURD that Israel can bomb Syria sans scrutiny, but it is has been happening since the false "civil" war's start. Prima facie proof of the machination and its source.

    AtaBrit | Jun 20, 2017 5:33:40 AM | 130
    @frances | 49
    The West of the Euphrates comment is an interesting one. It seems that Russia is unwilling to show its hand on the Syrian Kurdish issue as yet. That they have a long history of supporting different Kuridsh factions implies that they will be happy to come to some arrangement but maybe they see the Kurds as being in too strong a negotiating position at the moment to agree to maintaining Syrian territorial integrity. So, let the US game play out a little longer and wait for the US to betray them thus weakening their stance and making them more amenable to Russian and Syrian proposals?


    @Romanoff| 124
    Yep. I saw the same. It doesn't surprise me in that I do not believe that the coalition partners have the stomach for all out war in Syria or elsewhere regionally.
    To be honest I think yet further splintering will occur especially when Germny finally moves from Incirlik to Jordan in the next couple of months.
    There are also fractures appearing on the Russian sanctions front with Germany unhappy about US's latest attempts to impose energy sanctions particularly against Nord Stream 2.

    Piotr Berman | Jun 20, 2017 7:40:38 AM | 134
    When Russia first moved into Syria, Obama said something about Russia getting bogged down in a quagmire.
    Now it seems it is the US in a quagmire and Russia standing on solid ground.

    Posted by: Peter AU | Jun 19, 2017 9:01:04 PM | 86

    This is indeed a textbook case when an intervention is "bogged down" and when it is not, and inability of "smart Americans" to tell the difference (non-smart Americans have a more obvious excuse for being clueless). To excuse Obama and parrots in the sophisticated liberal media like NYT, Russian intervention did not start very auspiciously. SAA was collapsing, slowly surrendering various positions and territories, and direct Russian help merely froze that collapse. Also, in the past USSR got bogged down in Afghanistan, and "even USA" got bogged down here and there. What would make the intervention in Syria any different?

    Superficially, Putin actually has long term strategy, and even "inept moves" are either improved or fit that strategy, while Obama for all his high IQ and cosmopolitan education did not (Trump has so-so IQ, and his knowledge of other cultures, while extensive, seems limited to casinos, luxury apartments, golf courses etc). More deeply, the conditions in Syria were more conducive for receiving outside help than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Baath party retains unshakable core support and is not riven by internal backstabbing. Majority of population prefers their rule over the alternatives that are present (as they are neither idiots nor fanatics). Thus even if Syrian military etc. was a basket full of problems, there were enough people who were fighting sufficiently well to stop the collapse after getting some help, and who could be trusted, armed and trained. And Russians knew how to do it, who can be trusted, and how to arm and train. Americans did not have such positive elements in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    There will be future books on the topic, but I would like to elaborate about inept tactics that fit long term strategy. Initial targets of Russian bombardments were making superficial sense, but did not work out. They enabled SAA attacks that turned to be futile. However, at least according to a lengthy and plausible article in Rusnext.ru, they were selected by Syrian command, and Russia made a decision of not overruling them, especially by selecting other targets. There is a whiff of excuses there, but it matches the events. And it touches a core requirement for a successful intervention: you must work through the people there, and those people must collaborate with sufficient enthusiasm to risk their lives. So you cannot treat them like dirt, savages etc. But in American thinking, how possibly you can treat savages not like savages? And you get a spiral of mutual hatred that splits the foreign helpers and local beneficiaries (interventionists and collaborators?) from top to bottom.

    Kumben | Jun 20, 2017 8:01:59 AM | 135
    Another card in the sleeve of the pro-Syria forces is the build-up of PMU on the Iraqi side of the border. Should the SDF start to advance south on the left side of the Euphrates, the PMU may roll in Syria and block any advance to the Omar oil fields and DeZ territory east of the river. For now they are just hanging over there, widening the area under Iraqi gov control, but imv their presence serves to block and eventually deal a mortal blow to the blacks from the east direction. Very interesting developments and configuration of forces during the last few weeks.

    Anon | Jun 20, 2017 11:40:38 AM | 146
    News report that US now have shot down an Iranian drone inside Syria!

    Unless Russia, Syria, Iran shoot back at these sick americans, the same sick americans will bomb Assad sooner or later.

    smuks | Jun 20, 2017 12:23:44 PM | 150

    Anon | Jun 20, 2017 12:29:40 PM | 151
    CarlD

    Yes unfortunately (Damascus will be bombed), there is no stop to the blood lust of the americans apparently, and the propaganda of the west help them justify that.

    Its clear also that Trump have zero power over these crazy generals, Mattis etcetera.
    He must have some friggin advisors that could tell him that this cant go on!

    Anon | Jun 20, 2017 12:40:56 PM | 152
    These people really are sick,
    US working to restore 'deconfliction' line with Russia over Syria
    http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2017/06/20/525953/US-Russia-deconfliction-Dunford/

    I raped your wife, but please we must keep in touch-logic!

    Well, yet more blowback from the shooting down of the Su-22, the Australians have stopped air operations over Syria for the time being . If the Russians really wanted to send a message to the Americans about how shooting down Syrian aircraft is unacceptable, then what better than to shoot down an aircraft of a lesser member of the US coalition, preferably one without nuclear weapons like the UK.
    BTW, it used to be that a NATO Article 5 response didn't cover events much outside of Europe and Turkey and I haven't heard that that's been changed.

    Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 20, 2017 12:50:52 PM | 153

    Well, yet more blowback from the shooting down of the Su-22, the Australians have stopped air operations over Syria for the time being . If the Russians really wanted to send a message to the Americans about how shooting down Syrian aircraft is unacceptable, then what better than to shoot down an aircraft of a lesser member of the US coalition, preferably one without nuclear weapons like the UK.
    BTW, it used to be that a NATO Article 5 response didn't cover events much outside of Europe and Turkey and I haven't heard that that's been changed.

    Posted by: Ghostship | Jun 20, 2017 12:50:52 PM | 153

    harrylaw | Jun 20, 2017 1:04:22 PM | 154
    This is the guy Trump has put in charge of war and peace between nuclear powers.
    "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."
    more mad dog quotes here.. http://freebeacon.com/national-security/the-best-from-mad-dog-mattis/

    Grieved | Jun 20, 2017 1:34:43 PM | 157
    One thing I wanted to add about Russian methodology in Syria.

    The principal reason that Russia escalates in such thin layers, I suspect, is that Russia has a very well defined military doctrine - updated last year I think - that prescribes what must happen in response to various conditions. I'm no expert in any of this, but what seems clear is that Russia as a nation understands very well what lies further down the escalation trail.

    Russia has been improving its military ever since Putin came in, but in the last year or two she has very seriously geared for real war, including global nuclear conflict. According to people like Dmitri Orlov and the Saker, who understand Russian mentality, Russians don't bluff. At best, they give a fair warning, once. Then when they decide it's necessary, they act. And as Putin has said, when you know a fight is unavoidable, get the first punch in.

    So while the US is living in a Hollywood dream world, Russia is in an entirely real world, watching the US escalate as if there would be no consequences. We don't actually know what the full suite of Russian red lines are in Syria, but it seems that the Pentagon has learned enough of them to fear direct conflict. The point is precisely that Russia is not bluffing, and so she is no hurry to move along the escalation line, because there's no going back, and when she reaches a certain point, she WILL act. And the US will not like it, and the world may not survive the traumas that come out of that.

    Putin has even taken the desperate step in the last two years if addressing western news people and scolding them for not being awake to the dangers to their own populations of US actions, trying to get them to pay attention. I believe now the fight in Syria is not just against the terrorists - killing them outside Russia's borders rather than inside - but also a very real one happening with the US, greater than is really obvious. The US expected to fight Russia in Ukraine, but Russia declined the venue chosen by the enemy, and chose its own venue instead.

    It's almost discouraging to read the many comments on some of the sites out there, where people rooting for Russia actually want her to shoot down a US plane or something dramatic. They think Russia sends a message of weakness by not acting in the approved US hero manner. They fail to understand that an entirely different mind-set is at work here - one that is completely lethal beyond certain bounds, which the US keep pushing and probing.

    Formerly T-Bear | Jun 20, 2017 2:04:39 PM | 158
    @ Grieved | Jun 20, 2017 1:34:43 PM | 157

    Thank you for that statement, all too often such things are ignored because they do not measure up to the favoured Hollywood scriptwriter's product. Not once have any spokesperson from the Russian Federation ever used demeaning or perjoritive remarks about any party in conflict. This is simply the mark of adults, not perpetual children and their demeaning or demonisation of those they emotionally haven't taken a liking to. Again this shows Amerikkka has ceased to be a country and has instead become a pathology, a pathology of children. Russia is showing the patience an adult shows to children, trying to avoid any action that may cause harm.

    Anon | Jun 20, 2017 2:29:55 PM | 159
    Grieved

    You cover one side very well and I agree but its also a different side that you dont touch.
    What do you think will happen if Russia, Syria, Iran dont respond to this question?
    Its like, what would you do if your neighbour keep threatening you years after years and have a history of murdering other people? Well if you do not do anything about it, you will end up dead yourself sooner or later.
    But I agree its a tough call but one shouldnt be naive that this bombing by the US will stop before they get their regime change in Syria.
    We should just accept this rouge behavior year and year? Its time someone deal with these bullies in one way or another.

    hopehely | Jun 20, 2017 3:00:09 PM | 160
    Posted by: Anon | Jun 20, 2017 1:15:42 PM | 156
    That system will not help with telling if the jet is British, Australian or American.
    Ghostship was saying that for Russians is safer to shoot down Australian than American plane.

    james | Jun 20, 2017 3:08:32 PM | 161
    @150 smuks quote "I wonder: When that happens, will Russia seek a UNSC vote to confirm that the USAF has no business in Syria?" the usa and it's puppy dog followers fall back on the un resolution to go after ISIS... that is the justification.. personally i find it a load of bs, but that is how they are justifying murdering 100 SAA members in deiz ezzor, shooting down syrian planes, iran drones and etc. etc... just a coincidence all that, i am sure, lol... fortunately russia and friends are playing the long game here.. however an accident can happen in this environment very quickly.. that is also what the west and their bullshit lies are hoping for here as well... so, we are very close to ww3 as i see it... stooge trump is essentially out of the picture too... some freak who was responsible for fallujah has his hand on the us military.. these folks are fucked in the head..

    @157 grieved... thanks for your comments... unfortunately at some point russia and friends will have to step up to the plate.. the west under the guidance of the usa - warmonger central - are not going to back down here... they don't understand the concept... a time is going to come and it is coming soon as i see it.

    Anon | Jun 20, 2017 3:20:06 PM | 162
    hophely

    You dont think modern military radar give the info of which nation a certain airplane on a map belongs to?

    james | Jun 20, 2017 3:37:24 PM | 163
    once russia shoots anything belonging to the 'coalition of isis/moderate headchoppers' the west will be '''all in'''.. doesn't matter what gets shot down... west will go on full war mode... russia and any sane individual knows this..
    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 4:41:54 PM | 164
    Posted by: ex-SA | Jun 20, 2017 11:04:41 AM | 145

    I think the problem in all the ex- "countries with central economic planning" - was the realization of the upper management that owning state property could make them rich - much richer than the 3 times the wage of a worker they got before.

    somebody | Jun 20, 2017 4:41:59 PM | 165
    Posted by: ex-SA | Jun 20, 2017 11:04:41 AM | 145

    I think the problem in all the ex- "countries with central economic planning" - was the realization of the upper management that owning state property could make them rich - much richer than the 3 times the wage of a worker they got before.

    [Jun 21, 2017] House Russia Probe Hobbled by Sharp Divide on Intelligence Panel

    Jun 21, 2017 | www.msn.com

    But Nunes complained on the radio show Monday that Democrats want to look now into accusations that Trump committed obstruction of justice because, he asserted, the probe so far has turned up "no evidence of collusion" between the president and the Russians.

    "Republicans are getting tired of what appears to be investigations without a crime," Nunes said. "If someone doesn't pull a Russian out of a hat soon," he said, people "have got to question what is going on."

    [Jun 21, 2017] Alex Jones, Megyn Kelly, and the Normalization of Conspiracy Culture by Adrienne LaFrance

    Jun 17, 2017 | www.theatlantic.com

    People who share dangerous ideas don't necessarily believe them.

    The catastrophe wasn't what it seemed. It was an inside job, people whispered. Rome didn't have to burn to the ground.

    Nearly 2,000 years ago, after the Great Fire of Rome leveled most of the city, Romans questioned whether the emperor Nero had ordered his guards to start the inferno so he could rebuild Rome the way he wanted. They said the emperor had watched the blaze from the the summit of Palatine Hill, the centermost of the seven hills of Rome, plucking his lyre in celebration as countless people died. There's no evidence of this maniacal lyre-playing, but historians today still debate whether Nero orchestrated the disaster.

    What we do know is this: Conspiracy theories flourish when people feel vulnerable. They thrive on paranoia. It has always been this way.

    So it's understandable that, at this chaotic moment in global politics, conspiracy theories seem to have seeped out from the edges of society and flooded into mainstream political discourse. They're everywhere.

    That's partly because of the richness of today's informational environment. In Nero's day, conspiracy theories were local. Today, they're global. The web has made it easier than ever for people to watch events unfold in real time. Any person with a web connection can participate in news coverage, follow contradicting reports, sift through blurry photos, and pick out ( or publish ) bad information. The democratization of internet publishing and the ceaseless news cycle work together to provide a never-ending deluge of raw material that feeds conspiracy theories of all stripes.

    From all over the world, likeminded people congregate around the same comforting lies, explanations that validate their ideas. "Things seem a whole lot simpler in the world according to conspiracy theories," writes Rob Brotherton, in his book, Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories. "The prototypical conspiracy theory is an unanswered question; it assumes nothing is as it seems; it portrays the conspirators as preternaturally competent; and as unusually evil."

    But there's a difference between people talking about outlandish theories and actually believing them to be true. "Those are two very different things," says Joseph Uscinski, a political science professor at the University of Miami and the co-author of the book American Conspiracy Theories . "There's a lot of elite discussion of conspiracy theories, but that doesn't mean that anyone's believing them any more than they did in the past. People understand what conspiracy theories are. They can understand these theories as political signals when they don't in fact believe them."

    And most people don't, Uscinski says. His data shows that belief in partisan conspiracy theories maxes out at 25 percent-and rarely reach that point. Imagine a quadrant, he says, with Republicans on the right and Democrats on the left. The top half of the quadrant is the people of either party who are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. The bottom half is the people least likely to believe them. Any partisan conspiracy theory will only resonate with people in one of the two top-half squares-because to be believable, it must affirm the political worldview of a person who is already predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories.

    "You aren't going to believe in theories that denigrate your own side, and you have to have a previous position of buying into conspiracy logic," Uscinski says.

    Since conspiracy theories are often concerned with the most visible concentration of power, the president of the United States is a frequent target. "So when a Republican is president, the accusations are about Republicans, the wealthy, and big business; and when a Democrat is president, the accusations focus on Democrats, communists, and socialists."

    "Right now," he added, "Things are little different. Because of Donald Trump."

    As it turns out, the most famous conspiracy theorist in the world is the president of the United States. Donald Trump spent years spreading birtherism, a movement founded on the idea that his predecessor was born outside the country and therefore ineligible for the nation's highest office. (Even when Trump finally admitted in September that he knew Barack Obama was born in the United States, he attempted to spark a new conspiracy .)

    Now, Trump's presidency is the focus of a range of conspiracies and cover-ups-from the very real investigation he's under to the crackpot ideas about him constantly being floated by some of his detractors on the left. Like the implication that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are involved in a money laundering scheme with the Russians, plus countless more theories about who's funneling Russian money where and to whom.

    "The left has lost its fucking mind, and you can quote me on that," Uscinski said. "They spent the last eight years chastising Republicans about being a bunch of conspiracy kooks, and they have become exactly what they swore they were not. The hypocrisy is thick and it's disgusting."

    Trump's strategy in the face of all this drama has been to treat real and fake information interchangeably and discredit any report that's unflattering to him. It's why he refers to reputable news organizations as "fake news," and why he brags about "going around" journalists by tweeting directly to the people. He wants to shorten the distance between the loony theories on the left and legitimate allegations of wrongdoing against him, making them indistinguishable.

    Pushing conspiracy theories helped win Trump the presidency, and he's now banking on the idea that they'll help him as president. He's casting himself as the victim of a new conspiracy-a "witch hunt" perpetrated by the forces that want to see him fail.

    "Donald Trump communicates through conspiracy theories," Uscinski says. "You can win the presidency on conspiracy theories, but it's very difficult to govern on them. Because conspiracy theories are for losers, and now he's a winner."

    What he means is, conspiracy theories are often a way of expressing an imbalance of power by those who perceive themselves to be the underdog. "But if you control the Supreme Court, the Senate, the House, and the White House, you can't pull that," Uscinski says. "Just like how Hillary Clinton can't, in 1998, say her husband's troubles are due to a vast right-wing conspiracy."

    Donald Trump may be the most famous conspiracy theorist in America, but a close second is the Infowars talk-radio personality Alex Jones, who has made a name for himself spewing reprehensible theories. He claimed the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax. He says 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings were carried out by the U.S. government. Jones has an online store where he peddles products like iodine to people prepping for the apocalypse.

    Jones has long been a controversial figure, but not enormously well known. That's changing. Jones was a vocal supporter of Trump, who has in turn praised Jones. "Your reputation is amazing," Trump told him in an Infowars appearance in 2015. "I will not let you down." Jones has claimed he is opening a Washington Bureau and considering applying for White House press credentials.

    The latest Jones drama is a three-parter (so far): First, the NBC News anchor Megyn Kelly announced she had interviewed Jones, and that NBC would air the segment on Sunday, June 18. Next came the backlash: People disgusted by Jones blasted Kelly and NBC, saying a man whose lies had tortured the families of murdered children should never be given such a prominent platform. Even Jones joined the fracas, saying he'd been treated unfairly in the interview. Finally, on Thursday night, Jones claimed he had secretly recorded the interview, and would release it in full. (So far, he has released what seems to be audio from a phone conversation with Kelly that took place before the interview.)

    Kelly has defended her decision to do the interview in the first place by describing Jones's popularity: "How does Jones, who traffics in these outrageous conspiracy theories, have the respect of the president of the United States and an audience of millions?" The public interest in questioning a person like Jones, she argues, eclipses any worries about normalizing his outlandish views. The questions are arguably more valuable than the answers.

    Many journalists agree with Kelly's reasoning. But it's also true, scholars say, that giving a platform to conspiracy theorists has measurable harmful effects on society. In 1995, a group of Stanford University psychologists interviewed people either right before or right after they'd viewed Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK , which was full of conspiracy theories. Brotherton, who describes the findings in Suspicious Minds, says people leaving the movie described themselves as less likely to vote in an upcoming election and less likely to volunteer or donate to a political campaign, compared with those walking in. "Merely watching the movie eroded, at least temporarily, a little of the viewer's sense of civic engagement," Brotherton writes.

    There are other examples of real-world consequences of giving platforms to conspiracy theorists, too. The conspiracy theory known as Pizzagate , which rose to prominence across websites like 4chan and niche conservative blogs, resulted in a man firing a weapon in a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor.

    The debate over Kelly's interview comes on the heels of another high-profile conspiracy theory that sent shockwaves through conservative media circles. At the center of that scandal was the TV host Sean Hannity pushing a conspiracy theory about the unsolved murder of a Democratic National Committee staff member and an explosive Fox News report about the murder that was eventually retracted.

    * * *

    There's a popular science-fiction podcast, Welcome to Night Vale , developed around the idea of life in a desert town where all conspiracy theories are true. It was first released in June 2012, the summer before a U.S. presidential election, at a moment when Trump was test-driving a new anti-Obama conspiracy. "I wonder when we will be able to see @BarackObama's college and law school applications and transcripts," he tweeted the day Night Vale launched. "Why the long wait?"

    Joseph Fink, who co-created the podcast, says conspiracy theories today are continuing to function the way they always have. Conspiracy theories are easy ways to tell difficult stories. They provide a storyline that makes a harsh or random world seem ordered. "Especially if it's ordered against you," he says. "Since, then, none of it is your fault, which is even more comforting."

    "That said, more extreme conspiracy theories are becoming more mainstream, which is obviously dangerous," Fink adds. "Conspiracy theories act in a similar way as religious stories: they give you an explanation and structure for why things are the way they are. We are in a Great Awakening of conspiracy theories, and like any massive religious movement, the same power it has to move people also is easily turned into a power to move people against other people."

    Look for the last awakening of this sort in the United States, and you'll find a sea of similarities-of course, as conspiracy theories tell us, it's easy to find connections when you go looking for them. Several scholars-people who focus on real conspiracies and people who study conspiracy theories-say the paranoia surrounding the Trump presidency evokes the tumult surrounding the Vietnam War. It's not that conspiracy theories weren't, at times, rampant before that. In the 1940s and 1950s, McCarthyism and the trial of Alger Hiss brought with them a surreal spate of hoaxes and misinformation. But it was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that set off a "general sense of suspicion" that would permeate the culture for some time, says Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination.

    "Part of that was, what occurred almost immediately after the assassination, in the years afterward, was Vietnam," Thompson said, "And over time, a complete loss of confidence in what ever the government was saying about Vietnam. That was not just from the presidency, that was from the government itself."

    This was also a period in which some of the most dramatic ideas that had been disparaged as conspiracy theories turned out to be true. "I am not a crook," Nixon had insisted. Less than a year later, he resigned. Nixon and Trump are compared not infrequently. Not all presidents are so thin-skinned and antagonistic to the press. Jennifer Senior, reviewing a recent Nixon biography, wrote that "the similarities between Nixon and Trump leap off the page like crickets." Nixon may have been increasingly paranoid in the final months of his presidency, but he didn't have access to the technology that Trump uses to showcase his conspiracy mindedness.

    "With real conspiracy theorists, there's a kind of-how to put it-almost a dialectic operative," Thompson says. "Like Trump. You have to keep making wilder and wilder pronouncements over time to hold your audience."

    I tell Thompson the idea Uscinski had shared, about how a person can win the presidency on conspiracy theories, but how they don't work so well once you're president. He seems to agree. "In a campaign, what you're trying to do is affect people's opinions that will be harvested on one day," he said. "But governing doesn't have to do with people's opinions. It has to do with facts. That's the real difference."

    When the facts are disputed, of course, you do the best you can with the evidence you can find. Josiah Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas: A Micro-Study of the Kennedy Assassination , has spent years thinking about all this. When I bring up the enormity of unknown unknowns in people's understanding of history, Thompson quotes the writer Geoffrey O'Brien: Black Deutschland by Darryl Pinckney. *

    "And that's the trouble," Thompson says. "What may appear as conspiracy theory at one point turns out to be truth at another."

    I ask Thompson how sure he is about the official explanation of the JFK assassination, that there was one gunman who fired on the president's motorcade from the Texas School Book Depository.

    Thompson believes, based on controversial acoustic evidence, that on November 22, 1963, a shot was fired from the grassy knoll at Dealey Plaza-not just from the depository. "The acoustics give us a kind of template for how the event occurred-these two flurries of shots, separated by about six seconds." (Thompson later clarified that he believes the flurries of shots were 4.6 seconds apart.) He says it was two shots in the second flurry that killed Kennedy. * *

    Thompson pauses.

    "Does that make me a conspiracy theorist?"

    He laughs.

    "After all these years? What do you think?"


    * New York Review of Books writer Geoffrey O'Brien, who first wrote the line in his review of the Darryl Pinckney novel Black Deutschland.

    ** Thompson clarified after publication that he believes the flurries of shots in the Kennedy assassination were 4.6 seconds apart, not six seconds apart. He believes Kennedy was killed by two shots in the second flurry, not by the two flurries of shots.

    [Jun 20, 2017] James Mattiss Role in Fallujah Haditha Massacre

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 7:48:37 AM | 3

    Another aggression by the US but what could you expect by an old sick f'ck warmonger like this as secretary of defence?

    "James Mattis's Role in Fallujah & Haditha Massacre,"
    https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/12/part_2_did_defense_secretary_nominee

    Its time Syria get to buy russian air-defense, US will keep bombing - they're not sane, like what happens next week? They'll bomb Assad's palace?

    And please look at the western media these days, and see the naked propaganda being typed when US once again bomb another country, illegally and then the western media backs it like the lackeys in the EU, Nato.
    Shameful being from the west days like these.

    Absolutely shameful!

    [Jun 20, 2017] General James Mattiss Role in Fallujah Haditha Massacre

    Notable quotes:
    "... The very important legal doctrine in the United States of America and around the world is the doctrine of command responsibility. If you have a large-scale atrocity that takes place, the commanding general of the operation is held responsible. ..."
    "... my hope that in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and perhaps in follow-on hearings in the House, if they occur, regarding the waiver that he's going to need to get to become secretary of defense, that James Mattis be asked to explain himself regarding the actions that we've been discussing. ..."
    news.antiwar.com

    Transcript

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : President-elect Donald Trump's pick for defense secretary, James "Mad Dog" Mattis, faces his Senate confirmation hearing today. This comes as House Democrats are threatening to revolt over the waiver needed for Mattis to serve as defense secretary, after the Trump transition team blocked him from testifying before the House Armed Services Committee. Mattis only retired from the military in 2013, meaning he needs Congress to waive rules requiring defense secretaries to be civilians for seven or more years after leaving the military. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said she'll vote against the waiver for General Mattis, saying, quote, "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule."

    AMY GOODMAN : James Mattis reportedly received his nickname "Mad Dog" Mattis after leading U.S. troops during the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. He enlisted in the Marines at 19, fought in the Persian Gulf War, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, where he served as major general. In May 2004, Mattis ordered an airstrike in a small Iraqi village that hit a wedding, killing about 42 people who were attending the wedding ceremony. Mattis went on to lead the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but the Obama administration cut short his tour over concerns General Mattis was too hawkish on Iran, reportedly calling for a series of covert actions there. Mattis has drawn criticism over his apparent celebration of killing, including saying in 2005 about the Taliban, quote, "It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them," unquote.

    For more, we go to Washington, D.C., where we're joined by Aaron Glantz, senior reporter for Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. His latest investigation , "Did defense secretary nominee James Mattis commit war crimes in Iraq?"

    If you could summarize, Aaron, again, your major findings in this piece, that we will link to, where you are asking if the defense secretary nominee is responsible for, is guilty of, should be tried for, war crimes?

    AARON GLANTZ : The very important legal doctrine in the United States of America and around the world is the doctrine of command responsibility. If you have a large-scale atrocity that takes place, the commanding general of the operation is held responsible. We held General Yamashita, who was the commanding general in the Japanese Army of a number of operations in the Philippines, under this standard back in World War II, and we executed him. And his execution was upheld by the Supreme Court. Legal scholars that I've talked to said the same standard applies to General Mattis. And so we have to look very closely at his command of the U.S. Marine Corps in Fallujah, which is an event that I covered in 2004 as an unembedded journalist. And in that battle, U.S. marines, under his command, killed so many people-one U.N. estimate says 90 percent of them were civilians-that the municipal football stadium of the city had to be turned into a graveyard. Marines shot at ambulances. Marines shot at aid workers. Marines posed with trophy photos with the dead that they had killed. All of these are things that Mattis could be tried for, potentially, for war crimes. And he is Donald Trump's nominee for secretary of defense.

    In addition, we also spoke about his role as the convening authority of trials for marines in other cases-the Haditha massacre, the Hamdania massacre-where he wiped away or granted clemency to people who were already convicted, freeing them from prison, for atrocities. And if a person in his kind of command responsibility allows others to get off the hook for war crimes, that's also something that he could be held culpable for, held accountable for. And, you know, it would be my hope that in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and perhaps in follow-on hearings in the House, if they occur, regarding the waiver that he's going to need to get to become secretary of defense, that James Mattis be asked to explain himself regarding the actions that we've been discussing.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well, is it the case that Mattis is still seen as a strong proponent of the Geneva Conventions and as an anti-torture advocate?

    AARON GLANTZ : Absolutely, absolutely. He has been very vocal in saying that he supports the Geneva Convention. He has been an advocate against torture. Donald Trump emerged from a meeting with him and began to back off his support for the practice of waterboarding, after listening to General Mattis. But you also have to look at what happens when General Mattis is in the field. And what we saw in Fallujah and in other instances in Iraq is that when General Mattis is in the field, often he allows his marines to go well beyond what is normally permitted in the law of war.

    AMY GOODMAN : Explain what you mean.

    AARON GLANTZ : Well, we've been talking about Fallujah. You mentioned a wedding party that was bombed on his call in western Iraq not long after that, where he later told a Marine historian, Bing West, that he deliberated less than 30 seconds over whether to carry it out, simply because it was in the middle of the desert. And then, you know, the Associated Press later obtained footage that showed that there was indeed a wedding party, where dozens of civilians were killed. Later, as James Mattis moved up the chain of command, was no longer a field commander in Iraq, he became a convening authority in a number of tribunals involving war crimes committed by marines in the country, including the most famous massacre that occurred during the Iraq War, the Haditha massacre, where a number of marines went on a killing spree in the town of Haditha after one of their comrades was killed. They killed dozens of people in a number of houses, and charges were brought. And as the general overseeing the entire court-martial process, General Mattis dismissed charges against three of the perpetrators, and ultimately no one charged with that massacre of dozens of Iraqis was-spent a single day in prison.

    AMY GOODMAN : Let's go to-go back a few years to 2008. Democracy Now! spoke with McClatchy journalist Leila Fadel , who traveled to Haditha to interview survivors of the massacre. I want to turn to a short video posted on the McClatchy website based on her reporting.

    LEILA FADEL : Yousef Aid Ahmed has memorized the places where his four brothers' bodies laid after they were killed by U.S. marines, he said. The family recounts that November day in 2005 and says it was a massacre of the brothers, along with 20 other people, following a roadside bomb in Haditha. Marines raided the house and shot the unarmed men in their heads in this back bedroom, the family said. Now they are angry that no one is being held accountable. Charges against six of the eight marines accused in the case were dismissed, and one marine was found not guilty on all charges.

    WIDOW : [translated] I'm angry at those who sent them innocent. They were not supposed to sent innocent.

    LEILA FADEL : The reminders of their deaths are everywhere: the white plaster that filled in the bullet holes in the wall, the dried blood that are now just faded gray spots under a new paint job on the ceiling, and the closet where one brother was shot inside and the other's corpse leaned up against the wardrobe.

    AMY GOODMAN : That's McClatchy journalist Leila Fadel. If you could take it from there, Aaron Glantz?

    AARON GLANTZ : Well, I mean, maybe the first important thing to point out is that when that massacre happened in 2005, nobody on the ground reported it. And it wasn't until the story was broken sometime later by Time magazine that the Marine Corps even investigated what happened. Then, following the investigation, charges were brought against the Marine squad that committed the crimes that were described in the video. She mentioned that charges were dismissed against six of the accused. Mattis himself was responsible for three of those dismissals. Ultimately, only one person was convicted, who was the supposed ringleader of the operation, and he did not serve one day behind bars, although he did tell the court that he regretted telling the other marines to shoot first and ask questions later.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well, Aaron, what kinds of questions do you think Mattis should be asked today at his confirmation hearing?

    AARON GLANTZ : I think he should be asked about what his marines did in Fallujah. I think that he should be asked if he was aware of the scale of civilian casualties-over 600 people killed, and, you know, official Marine Corps estimate is 220 civilians in just the first two weeks of the fighting, there was a U.N. official at the time who estimated that 90 percent of the people killed were civilians-if he's aware of those deaths, if he thinks they're proportional, if he thinks the destruction of the city was proportional to the killing of the four Blackwater security contractors. I think he should be asked about the other activities that I described-the shooting at ambulances, the shooting at aid workers, if he was aware of it. If he was aware of it, you know, how does he justify it? If he wasn't aware of it as the military commander in the field with command responsibility, does he think he should have been?

    And in these other cases-we talked about the wedding party, we talked about the Haditha massacre-there's another massacre where he was also the convening authority, the Hamdania massacre, which was broken by The Washington Post , where a group of marines pulled a disabled Iraqi out of his house, shot him four times in the face and then framed him by planting a shovel and a machine gun next to him to make him look like an insurgent. In that case, General Mattis intervened to free some of the marines from prison, granting them clemency. I think he should be asked to explain himself for his actions and how all of the actions that we've been discussing comport with his well-known advocacy for the Geneva Conventions and international law.

    AMY GOODMAN : Can you explain what's going on in the House, this kind of revolt that's taking place? Not that the Democrats are in charge, but it was announced that he was going to be visiting the House committee today before he went to his Senate confirmation hearing, and then that was canceled. There's been apparently some reports of some animosity between Mattis and the Trump transition team. Have you been following all of this?

    AARON GLANTZ : James Mattis needs to be confirmed by the Senate, right? In our system of government, presidential appointees need to be confirmed by the Senate. But because he has not been out of the military for seven years, he needs Congress to change a law-and, you know, which is something that hasn't been done since the Korean War-and allow a recently retired general to become head of the Defense Department, make an exception to our long-held belief in civilian control of the military, for him. The Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee were expecting that he would testify before the House Armed Services Committee on a hearing over whether Congress should grant that waiver. The Trump administration pulled him back, and now the members of the House on the Democratic side are very upset and saying that they may try to hold up his waiver, which would also hold up his confirmation.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well, can you explain, Aaron, the context in which this law was formulated? Why is it important that the military fall under civilian control?

    AARON GLANTZ : If you look at somebody like General Mattis, he's incredibly well respected within the military community. He's a marine's marine. They call him a warrior monk. I've received a lot of backlash for my article from members of the military who revere him. There is an idea, though, that we have in our government, that somebody like General Mattis, who, you know, as we've been talking about, in Fallujah, is a good soldier and will do anything possible to get the job done, no matter how many people end up dead, that there should be a civilian check on that in a democracy. We have made exceptions to this before. General Marshall was appointed by Harry Truman during the Korean War, and Congress granted that waiver. But it has not happened since then. And it is a big deal for Congress to consider. And the Democrats in the House said, "Look, before we approve this waiver for General Mattis, we would at least like to hear from him and be able to ask him questions."

    And there are some other questions that Democrats want to ask General Mattis, and may be asked in the Senate confirmation hearing today, that have nothing to do with the issues that we've been discussing around war crimes. He has expressed an opposition to allowing women in combat roles. He expressed opposition to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military at one point.

    AMY GOODMAN : Well, let's go to that. General Mattis co-edited the book of essays, Warriors and Citizens: American Views of Our Military . In it, he claims the 2011 repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" has had a harmful impact on the military. Mattis and his co-author, Kori Schake, write, quote, "We fear that an uninformed public is permitting political leaders to impose an accretion of social conventions that are diminishing the combat power of our military." Mattis and his co-author also claim the majority of soldiers were in favor of keeping LGBT military members in the closet. However, a Gallup poll shows that the repeal of the '94 "don't ask, don't tell" law was widely popular, with two-thirds supporting the right of gay men and lesbians to serve openly. Mattis has also questioned, as you pointed out, if women should be allowed to participate in active combat, saying he believes they're unsuited for, quote, "intimate killing," and, quote, "The idea of putting women in there is not setting them up for success." So, can you respond to all of that?

    AARON GLANTZ : Well, these are the sorts of things that Democrats and, you know, perhaps some Republicans will want to know more about, you know, whether he still believes these statements. But as you pointed out, the book that he co-edited came out very recently. The comments about women in combat also happened very recently, were given in a speech in the Marines' Memorial in San Francisco. So, these are not statements that he made in the 1980s. You know, these are statements that he made during the Obama administration. And also, you know, we have to remember that President Obama removed him early, as you mentioned at the outset, as the commanding general of Central Command because of his very hawkish position on Iran. And it's rare, you know, for a president to remove a general from a command before his term is up in that way. So, I would imagine that we might hear members of the Senate today, and perhaps, if he does appear before the House, members of the House also, asking him about, you know, some of his hawkish beliefs.

    Of course, all of this is mollified by the fact that some of the same Democrats who are very concerned about him are even more concerned about General Michael Flynn, who is Donald Trump's national security adviser designee, who doesn't have to be confirmed at all and has said that, you know, ISIS wants to drink our blood and that we're already involved in a Third World War. So, Mattis looks pretty conservative by comparison to Flynn. And that's just the world that we live in.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : And what is-Aaron, just to go back to what you said on Iran, what is Mattis's position on the Iran nuclear deal?

    AARON GLANTZ : It's been a little bit unclear. You know, he was-he's critical of it in general. The more important question, I think, for us now is, going forward-and it's the same question that we have for the Trump administration in general-you know, Donald Trump, as with many agreements signed by President Obama, has criticized it mightily. But now, you know, we're hearing that General Mattis might be of the opinion that we might want to just hold them to it very, very aggressively, rather than throwing it out. And perhaps we'll get some clarity on that during his confirmation hearing.

    AMY GOODMAN : Finally, we only have a minute, but Donald Trump has tapped physician David Shulkin to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs, currently serving in the Obama adminstration as VA undersecretary. If confirmed, he'll be the first head of the Department of Veterans Affairs to have never served in the military. Your specialty over the last years has been covering veterans, Aaron. Can you talk about Dr. Shulkin?

    AARON GLANTZ : I think the veterans' community breathed a huge sigh of relief with the appointment of Mr. Shulkin as VA secretary. This is a man who was appointed to the position of undersecretary of VA for healthcare by President Obama. He is a well-respected doctor. He's well respected in the veterans' community. As you mentioned, he's not a veteran. But veterans' groups were extremely concerned about the possibility, given Trump's campaign rhetoric, of a wholesale privatization of the VA. And they were concerned, many of them, about the floating of the name of Pete Hegseth, who founded a group funded by the Koch brothers called Concerned Veterans of America, which was advocating towards privatization. And, you know, by and large, the opinion of veterans' groups is, while some private care is welcome, especially when you can't get into the VA, that a privatization of the VA system would be a disaster for veterans. And so, with the appointment of Shulkin, it seems like Trump-you know, it's likely private care will be expanded, but possibly not at the expense of the core mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    AMY GOODMAN : Aaron Glantz, we want to thank you so much for being with us, senior reporter at Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. We'll link to your latest piece , "Did defense secretary nominee James Mattis commit war crimes in Iraq?" This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License . Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

    [Jun 20, 2017] Investigation Did Trumps Defense Secretary Nominee James Mattis Commit War Crimes in Iraq Democracy Now!

    Transcript
    Notable quotes:
    "... Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said she'll vote against the waiver for General Mattis, saying, quote, "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule." ..."
    "... James Mattis reportedly received his nickname "Mad Dog" Mattis after leading U.S. troops during the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. He enlisted in the Marines at 19, fought in the Persian Gulf War, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, where he served as major general. In May 2004, Mattis ordered an airstrike in a small Iraqi village that hit a wedding, killing about 42 people who were attending the wedding ceremony. Mattis went on to lead the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but the Obama administration cut short his tour over concerns General Mattis was too hawkish on Iran, reportedly calling for a series of covert actions there. Mattis has drawn criticism over his apparent celebration of killing, including saying in 2005 about the Taliban, quote, "It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them," unquote. ..."
    "... Well, as you mentioned, James Mattis got the nickname "Mad Dog" for his command responsibility as a general during the April 2004 siege of Fallujah. This was a battle that I covered as an unembedded journalist, where the U.S. Marine Corps killed so many people, so many civilians, that the municipal soccer stadium of that city had to be turned into a graveyard. U.S. Marines there shot at ambulances. They shot at aid workers. They cordoned off the city and prevented civilians from fleeing. Some marines posed for trophy photos with the people that they killed. ..."
    "... And what we say in the story is that all of these events that occurred in Fallujah when James Mattis was the commanding general are the same sort of events that other commanders in other countries have been convicted of war crimes for, including General Yamashita, who was a general in World War II for the Japanese, who was tried and executed by a U.S. military tribunal, and his execution was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. We found that James Mattis likely committed similar war crimes. ..."
    "... He, when that assault happened-and, importantly, he argued against the attack beforehand. And he said, very presciently, that so many civilians would be killed, that it would be ultimately damaging to the U.S. military's overall occupation effort. But once that attack was launched, that's exactly what happened. There was massive outcry across the Arab world, including in Iraq, a rise of insurgency across the country and a complete devastation of the city. I remember walking through the city shortly after the Marines pulled out, and there were rotting bodies all over the streets, because during the actual siege, U.S. Marine snipers would shoot at anyone who was outside, so people were afraid to go and bury the dead. Shopping centers were destroyed. And this gets to an important issue of disproportionality. ..."
    thesaker.is
    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. AMY GOODMAN : We move now to a hearing that's expected to happen today. Nermeen?

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : President-elect Donald Trump's pick for defense secretary, James "Mad Dog" Mattis, faces his Senate confirmation hearing today. This comes as House Democrats are threatening to revolt over the waiver needed for Mattis to serve as defense secretary, after the Trump transition team blocked him from testifying before the House Armed Services Committee. Mattis only retired from the military in 2013, meaning he needs Congress to waive rules requiring defense secretaries to be civilians for seven or more years after leaving the military. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said she'll vote against the waiver for General Mattis, saying, quote, "Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy, and I will not vote for an exception to this rule."

    AMY GOODMAN : James Mattis reportedly received his nickname "Mad Dog" Mattis after leading U.S. troops during the 2004 battle of Fallujah in Iraq. He enlisted in the Marines at 19, fought in the Persian Gulf War, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, where he served as major general. In May 2004, Mattis ordered an airstrike in a small Iraqi village that hit a wedding, killing about 42 people who were attending the wedding ceremony. Mattis went on to lead the U.S. Central Command from 2010 to 2013, but the Obama administration cut short his tour over concerns General Mattis was too hawkish on Iran, reportedly calling for a series of covert actions there. Mattis has drawn criticism over his apparent celebration of killing, including saying in 2005 about the Taliban, quote, "It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them," unquote.

    For more, we go to Washington, D.C., where we're joined by Aaron Glantz, senior reporter for Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting. His latest investigation , "Did defense secretary nominee James Mattis commit war crimes in Iraq?"

    Aaron Glantz, what did you learn?

    AARON GLANTZ : Well, as you mentioned, James Mattis got the nickname "Mad Dog" for his command responsibility as a general during the April 2004 siege of Fallujah. This was a battle that I covered as an unembedded journalist, where the U.S. Marine Corps killed so many people, so many civilians, that the municipal soccer stadium of that city had to be turned into a graveyard. U.S. Marines there shot at ambulances. They shot at aid workers. They cordoned off the city and prevented civilians from fleeing. Some marines posed for trophy photos with the people that they killed.

    And what we say in the story is that all of these events that occurred in Fallujah when James Mattis was the commanding general are the same sort of events that other commanders in other countries have been convicted of war crimes for, including General Yamashita, who was a general in World War II for the Japanese, who was tried and executed by a U.S. military tribunal, and his execution was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. We found that James Mattis likely committed similar war crimes.

    AMY GOODMAN : You covered the siege of Fallujah yourself as an unembedded reporter, Aaron. We're going to do Part 2 of this conversation after the broadcast and post it at democracynow.org. But what came of what he did there?

    AARON GLANTZ : He, when that assault happened-and, importantly, he argued against the attack beforehand. And he said, very presciently, that so many civilians would be killed, that it would be ultimately damaging to the U.S. military's overall occupation effort. But once that attack was launched, that's exactly what happened. There was massive outcry across the Arab world, including in Iraq, a rise of insurgency across the country and a complete devastation of the city. I remember walking through the city shortly after the Marines pulled out, and there were rotting bodies all over the streets, because during the actual siege, U.S. Marine snipers would shoot at anyone who was outside, so people were afraid to go and bury the dead. Shopping centers were destroyed. And this gets to an important issue of disproportionality.

    AMY GOODMAN : Ten seconds.

    AARON GLANTZ : This whole assault was launched because of the killing of four Blackwater security contractors. And, you know, in response, James Mattis leveled the city.

    AMY GOODMAN : We have to leave it there now, but we're going to continue to cover this with our web exclusive.

    [Jun 20, 2017] FOIA Request On Susan Rices Unmaskings Rejected Because Records Were Moved To Obama Library

    Obama was closely allied with intelligence services. So they now protect him and his close circle.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following: ..."
    "... Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request. ..."
    Jun 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Back in April, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for documents related to the unmasking of "the identities of any U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team" by Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Unfortunately, and quite conveniently for members of the Obama administration, Judicial Watch has been informed by the National Security Council that records related to their request can not be shared because they " have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library" and will "remain closed to the public for five years."

    Here is the full letter received from the National Secruity Council:

    "Documents from the Obama administration have been transferred to the Barack Obama Presidential Library. You may send your request to the Obama Library. However, you should be aware that under the Presidential Records Act, Presidential records remain closed to the public for five years after an administration has left office."

    Here was Judicial Watch's full request:
    1. Any and all requests for information, analyses, summaries, assessments, transcripts, or similar records submitted to any Intelligence Community member agency or any official, employee, or representative thereof by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice regarding, concerning, or related to the following:
      • Any actual or suspected effort by the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government to influence or otherwise interfere with the 2016 presidential election.
      • The alleged hacking of computer systems utilized by the Democratic National Committee and/or the Clinton presidential campaign.
      • Any actual or suspected communication between any member of the Trump presidential campaign or transition team and any official or employee of the Russian government or any individual acting on behalf of the Russian government.
      • The identities of U.S. citizens associated with the Trump presidential campaign or transition team who were identified pursuant to intelligence collection activities.
    2. Any and all records or responses received by former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council in response to any request described in part 1 of this request.
    3. Any and all records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the Department of any Intelligence Community member agency and former National Security Advisor Susan Rice and/or any member, employee, staff member, or representative of the National Security Council regarding, concerning, or related to any request described in Part 1 of this request.

    Luckily, even if the media and Democrats are unsuccessful at getting Trump impeached in the near future, 5 years is still enough time to make sure that his reputation is sufficiently tarnished that he gets booted from office in 2020. Even better, as The Hill points out today, Joe Biden appears to be getting groomed to take yet another shot at the White House in 2020 which means we may never actually get a shot at understanding exactly what happened in the months leading up to the 2016 election.

    HopefulCynical Anarchyteez , Jun 19, 2017 11:36 PM

    There is no bigger shitstain than Barack Obama. And the Deep State scum are furiously covering up his many crimes.

    tenpanhandle - HopefulCynical , Jun 19, 2017 11:42 PM

    Past president's records kept secret for 5 years. Current president's records leaked daily.

    07564111 - The_Dude , Jun 19, 2017 11:56 PM

    America has no bread yet the circus continues :D

    Who would have thought that the collapse of an 'empire' could be so fucking amusing. ;)

    philipat - peddling-fiction , Jun 20, 2017 12:29 AM

    OK, so let me see if I am understanding this correctly. All any administration has to do is obfuscate and delay FOIA requests until it leaves Office, then everything remains sealed for 5 years?

    This cannot have been the intention behind the FOIA and it make the adminstration completely untransparent and unaccountable, which of course irrespective in the case of the Obozo administration, it always was (despite the fact that this was the self-declared "most transparent administration ever"). This goes nicely along the ability of members of an old administration to decline to appear before Congressional hearings even under subpoena.

    Oh, and BTW the Presidential Library hasn't even been built yet so where are the records now? Of course, if it ever does get built on the South side of Chicago (if Chicago still exists by then) there is a very good chance that it will get burnt down and all its contents destroyed. That would be convenient wouldn't it?

    This completely wreaks of "Banana Republic". What if there is a Court Order; does this still apply?

    nmewn - Arnold , Jun 20, 2017 7:05 AM

    To be followed by...

    "Welp, looks like Elmer Fudd Moving & Storage LLC never delivered the requested documents to the Obama Bath House Library and Massage Parlor as contracted. We have spoken to our lawyers and are in the process of filing a lawsuit against the former owners of EFM&S even though they are now domiciled in the Cayman Islands."

    To which prosecutor nmewn says: "Don't bother. The mishandling, transfer, theft, tampering and/or destruction of government property is still a ten year felony. The simple fact it is admitted you entrusted that property to EFM&S LLC is all the evidence I need to proceed with the prosecution so, thanks I guess."

    Chuck Todd: "This is an outrage!"

    JRobby - Handful of Dust , Jun 20, 2017 6:28 AM

    The deep state owns both sides of the aisle.

    That is why the whole thing must be torn down and rebuilt. And it will happen again in the future.

    March in DC July 4

    Yog Soggoth - philipat , Jun 20, 2017 8:10 AM

    Obstruction of justice. Totally illegal!

    GUS100CORRINA - divingengineer , Jun 20, 2017 12:04 AM

    FOIA Request On Susan Rice's Unmaskings Rejected Because "Records Were Moved To Obama Library"

    My response: WHAT???????? I am without words!!!

    Ace006 - GUS100CORRINA , Jun 20, 2017 12:44 AM

    Let's get Susan Rice's records. I don't think she was president recently and probably doesn't have a presidential library.

    takeaction - Anarchyteez , Jun 19, 2017 11:36 PM

    Remember this....

    "Most Transparent Presidency Ever..."

    You have to see this....(Enjoy...Not Spam...Safe for Work)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg9m1F8B2_c

    [Jun 20, 2017] In Final Oliver Stone Interview, Putin Predicts When Russia-US Crisis Ends

    Notable quotes:
    "... "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him. ..."
    "... "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us." ..."
    "... PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie. ..."
    "... They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes. ..."
    "... TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't. ..."
    "... PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews. ..."
    "... The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin. ..."
    Jun 20, 2017 | www.forbes.com
    But with Trump in the White House, the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory is one reality TV show the news media can't shake. Stone's love for foreign policy intrigue at least makes him a Putin kindred spirit here. America's age old fear of the Russians, has made Putin public enemy number one and Stone his sounding board. For some unhappy campers, like John McCain, Putin has " no moral equivalent " in the United States. He's a dictator , a war criminal and tyrant .

    "You've gone through four U.S. presidents: Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump. What changes?" Stone asks him.

    "Almost nothing. Your bureaucracy is very strong and it is that bureaucracy that rules the world," he says. Then, solemnly, "There is change...when they bring us to the cemetery to bury us."

    In the last installment of the Putin interviews, the Russian leader admitted to liking Trump. "We still like him because he wants to restore relations. Relations between the two countries are going to develop," he said. It's a sentence very few in congress would say, and almost no big name politicians outside of Trump would imagine saying on television. On Russia, you scold. There is no fig leaf.

    In a recent sanctions bill in the senate, only Republicans Rand Paul and Mike Lee voted against it, making for a 97-2 landslide in favor of extra-territorial sanctions against Russian companies, namely oil and gas.

    Stone asked him why did he bother hacking the Democratic National Committee's emails if he believed nothing would change on the foreign policy front.

    STONE: Our political leadership and NATO all believe you hacked the election.

    PUTIN: We didn't hack the election at all. It would be hard to imagine any country, even Russia, being capable of seriously influencing the U.S. election. Someone hacked the DNC, but I don't think it influenced the election. What came through was not a lie.

    They were not trying to fool anybody. People who want to manipulate public opinion will blame Russia. But Trump had his finger on the pulse of the Midwest voter and knew how to pull at their hearts. Those who have been defeated shouldn't be shifting blame to someone else....We are not waiting for any revolutionary changes.

    Just then, editors cut to a video of Trump talking about Putin.

    TRUMP: I hope I get along with Putin. I hope I do. But there is a good chance that I won't.

    PUTIN: It almost feels like hatred of a certain ethnic group, like antisemitism. They are always blaming Russians, like antisemites are always blaming the Jews.

    The editors then flashed to footage of John McCain on the floor of the Senate ranting and raving about Putin. Then Joseph Biden in the Ukrainian parliament, ranting about Russia. Putin tells Stone all of this is unfortunate. He thinks their view is"old world." He reminds Stone that Russia and the U.S. were allies in World War I and World War II. It was Winston Churchill that started the Cold War from London, despite having respect for Russia's strongman leader at the time, the real dictator, Joseph Stalin.

    See:

    [Jun 20, 2017] The US intervention in EU gas market is even more pathetic than it seems

    No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be a serious exporter it is going to need about 100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years, something which is frankly not practically achievable considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at a cost of about $200 Million apiece". Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough money into them.
    Jun 20, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , June 16, 2017 at 1:30 am
    The US's intervention is even more pathetic than it seems.

    This is not a stand alone anti-Russia bill which would signal strength from the US, but an adjunct to the anti-I-ran sanctions bill that continues to seek to punish I-ran in the vague hope that it will pull the plug on the cast-iron nuclear deal it has signed with international partners. The irony there is that I-ran Air is recapitalizing with both Airbus & Boeing (also ATR), 100 odd a piece, not to mention other significant investment opportunities for western firms.

    They're quite the Gordian Tits!

    Not only is there the potential of the Levianthan gas field off Cyprus/Israel/whatever, brutal dictator Azeri gas will also be arriving in (larger, but not gigantic) quantities. Not to mention that significant buyers of LNG, like the UK, have it come straight from Qatar. Is the US prepared to sell LNG at a discount compared to Qatar that has strategic agreements and its own fundamental interests to be protected by the Western (European) states as well?

    So if this plan seems to damage not only the USA's allies but the USA itself, then what is its purpose? Stick it to Trump. Mire any plans to re-balance relations with Russia almost at any cost . It's a no brainer for Democrats as they neither hold a majority in the House or the Senate, and there seem to be enough dog whistle Republicans willing to go along with it, including those with mental problems like John 'Insane' McCaine. Ukraine is almost peripheral except as a convenient tool. It think the US accepts they've screwed the pooch on the Ukraine so its only value is to be used as a festering sore on Russia's frontier. Kiev mops up the completely free public political support whilst it is being kicked in the bollox by the same people.

    [Jun 20, 2017] After the ISIS War, a US-Russia Collision - Antiwar.com Original

    Notable quotes:
    "... what we may be witnessing now are the opening shots of its next phase - the battle for control of the territory and population liberated by the fall of Raqqa and the death of the ISIS "caliphate." ..."
    "... The question before us: After Raqqa and Mosul fall and the caliphate disappears, who inherits the ISIS estate? ..."
    Jun 20, 2017 | original.antiwar.com
    After the ISIS War, a US-Russia Collision?

    by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted on June 20, 2017 June 19, 2017 Sunday, a Navy F-18 Hornet shot down a Syrian air force jet, an act of war against a nation with which Congress has never declared or authorized a war.

    Washington says the Syrian plane was bombing U.S.-backed rebels. Damascus says its plane was attacking ISIS.

    Vladimir Putin's defense ministry was direct and blunt:

    "Repeated combat actions by U.S. aviation under the cover of counterterrorism against lawful armed forces of a country that is a member of the U.N. are a massive violation of international law and de facto a military aggression against the Syrian Arab Republic."

    An ABC report appears to back up Moscow's claims:

    "Over the last four weeks, the U.S. has conducted three air strikes on pro-regime forces backed by Iran that have moved into a deconfliction zone around the town of Tanf in southwestern Syria, where there is a coalition training base for local forces fighting ISIS."

    Russia has now declared an end to cooperation to prevent air clashes over Syria and asserted an intent to track and target aerial intruders in its area of operations west of the Euphrates.

    Such targets would be U.S. planes and surveillance drones.

    If Moscow is not bluffing, we could be headed for U.S.-Russian collision in Syria.

    Sunday's shoot-down of a hostile aircraft was the first by U.S. planes in this conflict. It follows President Trump's launch of scores of cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield in April. The U.S. said the airfield was the base of Syrian planes that used chemical weapons on civilians.

    We are getting ever deeper into this six-year sectarian and civil war. And what we may be witnessing now are the opening shots of its next phase - the battle for control of the territory and population liberated by the fall of Raqqa and the death of the ISIS "caliphate."

    The army of President Bashar Assad seeks to recapture as much lost territory as possible and they have the backing of Russia, Iranian troops, Shiite militia from Iraq and Afghanistan, and Hezbollah.

    Assad's and his allied forces opposing ISIS are now colliding with the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces opposing ISIS, which consist of Arab rebels and the Syrian Kurds of the PYD.

    But if America has decided to use its air power to shoot down Syrian planes attacking rebels we support, this could lead to a confrontation with Russia and a broader, more dangerous, and deadly war for the United States. How would we win such a war, without massive intervention? Is this where we are headed? Is this where we want to go?

    For, again, Congress has never authorized such a war, and there seems to be no vital U.S. interest involved in who controls Raqqa and neighboring lands, as long as ISIS is expelled. During the campaign, Trump even spoke of U.S.-Russian cooperation to kill ISIS.

    While in Saudi Arabia, however, he seemed to sign on to what is being hyped as an "Arab NATO," where the U.S. accepts Riyadh as the principal ally and leader of the Gulf Arabs in the regional struggle for hegemony with Shiite Iran.

    Following that Trump trip, the Saudis - backed by Egypt, the UAE and Bahrain - sealed their border with Qatar, which maintains ties to Iran. And though Qatar is also host to the largest U.S. air base in the region, al-Udeid, Trump gave the impression its isolation was his idea.

    President Trump and his country seem to be at a decision point.

    If, after the fall of ISIS in Raqqa, we are going to use U.S. power and leverage to solidify the position of Syrian rebels and Kurds, at the expense of Damascus, we could find ourselves in a collision with Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran and even Turkey. For Turkish President Erdogan looks on our Kurdish allies in Syria as Kurdish allies of the terrorist PKK inside his own country.

    During the campaign, candidate Trump won support by pledging to work with Russia to defeat our common enemy. But if, after ISIS is gone from Syria, we decide it is in our interests to confront Assad, we are going to find ourselves in a regional confrontation.

    In Iraq, the U.S. and Iran have a common foe, ISIS, and a common ally, the government in Baghdad. In Syria, we have a common foe, ISIS. But our allies are opposed by Assad, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. The question before us: After Raqqa and Mosul fall and the caliphate disappears, who inherits the ISIS estate?

    The U.S. needs now to delineate the lines of advance for Syria's Kurds, and to talk to the Russians, Syrians and Iranians.

    We cannot allow our friends in the Middle East and Persian Gulf to play our hand for us, for it is all too often in their interests to have us come fight their wars, which are not necessarily our wars.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com .

    [Jun 20, 2017] My guess is that the Americans are trying very hard to push the SDF/Kurds into conflict with the SAA, by any means necessary

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    My guess is that the Americans are trying very hard to push the SDF/Kurds into conflict with the SAA, by any means necessary. They start by singling out SDF/YPG commanders who they can hopefully manipulate into taking an openly anti-Assad stance. Perhaps encouraging them to seek Saudi contacts. The Americans will be offering money and power to these commanders. If they can find just one Barzani-like character in the YPG/SDF that might be enough.
    Failing that, the Americans can try to provoke the SAA into attacking the SDF. They might perhaps shoot down SAAF jets on the pretext of 'defending' SDF forces. The Americans will hope that the SAA will respond by attacking SDF forces in retaliation.
    It is also likely that the American 'advisors' will assemble SDF groups to venture out and hold strategic positions that are just about to be overrun by SAA. Presumably the SDF relies heavily on American intelligence about the battlefield, what with the Americans having drones, sats and planes covering the greater area. So if the Americans direct SDF to move to a location because it is supposedly free of hostiles then the SDF probably complies. They may not be aware that they are being moved directly into the way of the SAA as sacrificial lambs. But they will most likely respond with fire if fired upon, at least that is what the Americans will be counting on.

    The only way to foil the Americans is for both the SAA and SDF/YPG to make it abundantly and openly clear to each other that they will not shoot at each other no matter what.

    [Jun 20, 2017] What Caused the Russian Revolution The Nation

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.thenation.com

    javascript:void(0)

    What Caused the Russian Revolution? | The Nation --- The Sealed Train A century later, historians still disagree about what caused the Russian Revolution. By Sophie Pinkham By -- June 13, 2017 2 Comments --

    On February 23, 1917, an unseasonably warm day, women at the Vyborg cotton mills in the Russian city of Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg) marked the recently created International Women's Day. The meeting became a mass walkout; as the women headed for the Neva River, other people-men and women-joined their ranks. By noon, about 50,000 protesters were participating in a spontaneous strike. The police boarded streetcars, expelling anyone with calloused hands, and blocked the bridges across the frozen river, but the workers walked across the ice. The next day, nearly 75,000 people were on strike.

    Czar Nicholas II sent Cossack horsemen to put the rebellion down, but they simply cantered through the crowds without using their swords or whips; they had chosen not to fight the people. Workers flocked into Petrograd for a three-day general strike. Demonstrators in homemade helmets and padded jackets waved red banners demanding an end to Russia's involvement in the world war. When police arrived, the Cossacks defended the protesters.

    Revolutionary organizers were convinced that it was time to stop the strikes, believing that such action could never succeed without the support of the army. They were surprised by a mutiny in the elite Pavlovsky Regiment, whose cadets rebelled when they heard that their fellow soldiers had shot civilians. Mutiny in several other regiments ensued, with the mutineers killing their officers. By February 27, an estimated 25,000 garrison troops had defected. Workers, acting on their own, raided the armory and stormed the Kresty Prison, the courts, and the main artillery depot. The city was on fire. One English observer wrote: "As the streets cleared, little heaps, some very still, some writhing in agony, told of the toll of the machine guns."

    Protesters stormed the Tauride Palace, home of the Duma, the consolation-prize parliament formed after the 1905 revolution. Panicked liberal politicians formed a provisional committee, hoping to maintain order as the imperial administration dissolved. The revolutionaries set up the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. Orthodox Marxists did not want this workers' council to attempt to take power immediately and begin building full socialism; in their view, that would have meant skipping a stage in the revolutionary process, since parliamentary democracy-the "bourgeois phase"-had to precede communism. However, the Duma committee wasn't eager to take responsibility for the increasingly volatile situation. Its members couldn't decide on what they wanted, either, with some hoping for a social-democratic system and others a constitutional monarchy. By March 2, it was clear that the existing system was untenable. Nicholas II abdicated, passing the throne to his brother, who took fright and refused the next day. The provisional government and the workers' council settled on an uneasy system of "dual power."

    As its members hadn't been elected, the Duma committee had no claim to democratic authority, and it was clear that workers felt a greater allegiance to the Soviet. The people, most of whom had little understanding of the finer points of Marxism, wanted socialism, and quickly. From his exile in Zurich, Lenin expressed his disgust at the new arrangement. He sent a telegram to his Bolshevik comrades, declaring: "No trust in and no support for the provisional government. Kerensky especially suspect; arming the proletariat is the only guarantee no rapprochement with other parties." Lenin was virtually alone in his insistence that power pass into the hands of the workers immediately.

    For a few brief months, Russia became one of the freest countries in the world. The provisional government granted amnesty to political prisoners, abolished the death penalty, banned flogging in prisons, ended the practice of deportation to Siberia, and dissolved the czarist secret police. It proclaimed equal rights and legal status for all nationalities and religions, ending the Jewish Pale of Settlement, and granted unlimited freedom of the press and public assembly.

    Russia remained a nation at war, though the war had been the catalyst for revolution and peace was one of the primary demands of the strikers and demonstrators. The provisional government, the Petrograd Soviet, and others argued over whether the country should continue fighting the war-and, if so, on what terms. Many of the socialists had abandoned pacifism, insisting that the war had to be won and the motherland defended, and that allies could not be abandoned. Here again, Lenin was in a tiny minority. He had long called for an immediate end to the war. It was, in his view, "a struggle for markets and for the freedom to loot foreign countries," and its effect was "to deceive, disunite and slaughter the proletarians of all countries by setting the wage-slaves of one nation against those of another so as to benefit the bourgeoisie." But it wasn't peace that Lenin had in mind when he called for Russia's disengagement. Instead, he was plotting a civil war, the next step on his road map to international communism.

    O ne hundred years after the Russian Revolution, historians are still arguing about what made this seismic political shift possible. For the most part, the crises, reversals, and surprises, along with the long strings of names, places, and deaths, are consistent from one account to another. But different historians-often with distinct political allegiances-offer very different answers to the question of why many of these events happened in the way they did. How historians narrate the story of the Russian Revolution tells us much about their philosophy of history, as well as about their attitude toward the revolutionary project and the politics of the left.

    As its title suggests, Catherine Merridale's Lenin on the Train places Vladimir Ilyich at the center of the narrative, building toward his arrival at the Finland Station in April 1917. When Lenin, who had been living in Western Europe for 17 years, received the news of the February Revolution, he was desperate to return to Russia. It wasn't easy: Britain and France, which were relying on their alliance with Russia, had no wish to help a fierce opponent of the "imperialist war" return home. Lenin found that his only viable route back was through Germany, Sweden, and Finland, but traveling through Germany would leave him vulnerable to accusations that he was on the German payroll.

    In fact, he and other Russian revolutionaries were being financed by the German government, which hoped that they would destabilize Russia and weaken its military efforts. The German government was also willing to arrange for Lenin's journey back to Petrograd. With his typical pragmatism, Lenin decided to make the trip, but he insisted on a "sealed train"-a fiction that would allow him to plausibly deny charges of collusion with the German enemy. (Germany's support would remain a closely guarded secret throughout the Soviet period.)

    The Petrograd Soviet's executive committee was less than overjoyed at Lenin's return, fearing that he would further destabilize the situation. They were right. Upon his arrival in the Finland Station's waiting room, Lenin told the festive crowd, "The piratical imperialist war is the beginning of civil war throughout Europe." When he arrived at the headquarters of the Bolshevik central committee, he lectured for two hours straight, though it was already in the early morning and he'd just spent eight days on a train. Lenin denounced the provisional government and "revolutionary defencism" (the socialist argument for staying in the war). The Menshevik Nikolai Sukhanov wrote of Lenin's speech: "It seemed as if all the elements had risen from their abodes, and the spirit of universal destruction, knowing neither barriers nor doubts, neither human difficulties nor human calculations, was hovering above the heads of the bewitched disciples."

    Lenin on the Train is full of vivid details like these, taken from the memoirs and letters of Lenin's contemporaries. In keeping with her cinematic approach, Merridale presents Lenin's train ride as the starting point of everything from the "infant Soviet state to world Cold War." She quotes Winston Churchill: "Full allowance must be made for the desperate stakes to which the German war leaders were already committed. Nevertheless it was with a sense of awe that they turned upon Russia the most grisly of all weapons. They transported Lenin in a sealed truck like a plague bacillus from Switzerland to Russia." Though Merridale is sympathetic to the desire for social equality that motivated the Russian left, she writes that Churchill's bacillus comparison has its merits, and she likens the German support to today's "global games," in which great powers finance local rebellions in order to destabilize their opponents. For Merridale, the story of Lenin's train journey is partly "a parable about great-power intrigue, and one rule there is that great powers almost always get things wrong."

    Churchill's image of Lenin is clearly linked to his loathing of communism, the red plague. But the notion of Lenin, or communism, as a bacillus betrays a willful blindness to the larger constellation of factors that make profound social change possible. Merridale acknowledges as much in her book, but her narrative is nevertheless structured on the idea that Lenin brought with him a new social and political world. Lenin on the Train is often engaging and evocative, but as historical analysis, it is not entirely satisfying. Lenin was not Zeus, with the revolution bursting, fully formed, from his head. Charismatic, gifted, passionate, and ruthless though he was, Lenin was only one man, and one man is not enough to foment or sustain a revolution.

    I n The Russian Revolution , Sean McMeekin strips Lenin of his usual role as central protagonist. McMeekin writes that Lenin was merely "an afterthought" in 1905 and "barely worth the attention of tsarist police agents" until he returned to Russia in April 1917. Dismissing him as "out-of-touch," McMeekin argues that Lenin would have had "little impact on the political scene had he not been furnished with German funds to propagandize the Russian army." Lenin and the Bolsheviks, he adds, "played no role worth mentioning in the fall of the tsar."

    McMeekin's Lenin is neither brave nor diabolically clever; his main characteristic is unscrupulousness. The story of the revolution is not the story of a terrifyingly powerful Lenin, but rather of the failure of the czarist administration and the provisional government to kill him and other key revolutionaries. It is also the story of the disastrous decision by Russian liberals to convince Nicholas II to enter what would become the First World War.

    McMeekin's account of the longer-term causes of the Russian Revolution also deviates from the standard narrative. He argues that the growth of revolutionary tendencies was not primarily the result of autocracy, Russian economic backwardness, the land question, labor politics, or socialist theories. In the early years of the 20th century, McMeekin writes, Russia was expanding its territory, modernizing, and increasing its population at breakneck speed; he compares it to China in the 21st century. Though the lot of the Russian worker was difficult, it was nevertheless comparable to that of workers throughout Europe. Russia was unusual only in that it had few intermediary institutions to buffer popular resentment of the czar. The famous bread shortages of Petrograd in the winter of 1917 were "mostly mythical." Drawing on newly discovered archival sources, he even argues that in 1916–17, morale in the army was on the rise, and that Russian soldiers were better fed than their German counterparts.

    McMeekin also points out that the czarist secret police was small, though very efficient, and rather lenient. The death penalty was meted out rarely-in some cases, not even to political assassins-and most revolutionaries were sent into administrative exile, where they were free to work and agitate, albeit in Siberia. Exiles received a living allowance for clothes, food, and rent, and they could bring along family members or hire domestic servants. (Lenin brought his wife and mother along and hired a maid when he arrived.) Nothing was inevitable, in this telling; the tide could have turned at any moment. The Bolsheviks' victory was brought about by Lenin's skillful but risky effort, at a moment of Russian vulnerability, to transform the "imperialist war" into a civil war by infiltrating the armed forces and "turning the armies red," spurring mutinies and mass desertions by soldiers who took their weapons with them.

    Upon his arrival at the Finland Station, Lenin was virtually alone in his insistence that society was already passing to the second stage of the revolution, when power would be placed in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest peasants. At the time, even many of his fellow Bolsheviks thought this was madness: There was no way that Russian workers were ready to form a dictatorship of the proletariat. But Lenin was unrelenting and, with his gift for oratory, he was able to persuade many ordinary people that he was right, turning them against the provisional government. Protests and counterprotests exploded into violence. Lenin's refusal to compromise with the provisional government or the pro-war "revolutionary defencists" made the Bolsheviks the only political party offering an alternative to dual power, which came to seem like a form of impotence or treachery in its failure to end the war, food shortages, and general disorder.

    Lenin's liability was his history of German support, which Kerensky and others tried to use against him. (Indeed, throughout the Russian Revolution, Germany continued to send large sums to the revolutionaries.) Accused of treason and espionage, Lenin fled to Finland in July, and many of his comrades were imprisoned. Meanwhile, the foolish, foppish Kerensky unwittingly smoothed the way for the Bolsheviks, remaking himself as a dictator, moving into the Winter Palace, sleeping in the czar's bed, and traveling in the czar's train carriage. He reinstated the death penalty in an effort to get the armed forces under control, provoking much outrage.

    After an absurd series of scandals and intrigues involving his own generals and officers, Kerensky released most of the Bolshevik prisoners, whose comrades had already made substantial progress in indoctrinating the rank and file of the army and navy. In September, the Bolsheviks won a major electoral victory, a sign of their surging popularity. In October, Lenin returned to Petrograd in disguise and argued forcefully that the Bolsheviks should seize power before the November elections. He feared that the Bolsheviks would never be able to win an election that included peasants, who were much more likely to support the Socialist Revolutionary Party than urban workers were. Lenin's arguments prevailed, though Trotsky managed to delay the seizure of power so that it happened two weeks later, on the day of the next meeting of the Second Congress of the Soviets. The planned coup was an open secret: Kerensky begged the British to help him negotiate an armistice in the war, understanding at last that peace offered his only hope of remaining in power.

    In the early hours of October 25, 1917, armed Bolsheviks approached cadets guarding key choke points in Petrograd and told them that they were being relieved. Other Bolsheviks walked into the Central Telegraph Office and disconnected the phone lines to the Winter Palace. Kerensky sent a telegram summoning two Cossack regiments, but they refused to come to his aid; they were loyal to a general whom Kerensky had accused of treason. That same morning, Kerensky escaped Petrograd in a US embassy car. The Bolshevization of the armed forces had paid off, giving Lenin and his comrades the muscle they needed to finish off the Kerensky government.

    But the economic situation was deteriorating rapidly, with factory closures and rampant inflation. Though they hadn't liked the Kerensky government much, civil servants went on strike to protest the Bolshevik coup, shutting down the trains until January 1918. Telegraph and telephone workers walked out on November 7, with transportation workers, schoolteachers, and Moscow's municipal workers following close on their heels. On November 8, the Union of Unions called for a general strike of government employees. As McMeekin puts it, "The world's first proletarian government was thus forced to devote its primary energies to strikebreaking."

    Banks refused to release funds to the Bolsheviks; Lenin's commissars began taking bank employees hostage and demanding ransom. It was largely to break the bank strike that the Bolsheviks formed the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission to Combat Counterrevolution, Speculation, and Sabotage, better known as the Cheka, predecessor to the KGB. The Cheka was also responsible for containing the damage done by the Bolsheviks' defeat in the November 1917 elections, in which the party won only 24 percent of the vote, as opposed to 40 percent for the Socialist Revolutionaries, who had indeed maintained the loyalty of the peasants. The unfavorable result was explained away with allegations of electoral abuse and fraud, while the Cheka closed the Tauride Palace to prevent the opposition from gathering there.

    The Bolsheviks' abandonment of democratic principles and their cavalier approach to coercion and violence played a central role in their victory, at least over the short term. McMeekin's focus on historical contingency and Bolshevik ruthlessness suggests that revolution is less about large-scale historical processes and more about cold-blooded political opportunism. At times, his adamant rejection of historical determinism looks like an overcorrection for Marxist orthodoxy. No revolution is inevitable, but it feels perverse to minimize longer-term factors so energetically. McMeekin's insistence that czarist Russia was doing well economically, and that workers and peasants had no more reason for complaint than their Western European counterparts, bears an unpleasant resemblance to today's attempts to dismiss the economic and social grievances of the masses with statistics showing that the economy is still expanding. McMeekin displays plenty of sympathy for the murdered czar and his family, but less for the millions of Russians who suffered under the czarist regime.

    S .A. Smith's Russia in Revolution takes a more familiar line than McMeekin's, linking the origins of the revolution to czarist abuses. Smith emphasizes the agency of ordinary people in determining the trajectory of Russian history, devoting particular attention to workers, who did so much to further the revolution, and to the peasants, who rose up against the old order and then rebelled against the new one.

    Smith marshals extensive economic, social, and cultural evidence to help explain the nature of the social transformation that led to the revolution and then to the Soviet order. Rejecting the Western tendency to see 1917 as the precondition that made the nightmare of Stalinism inevitable, Smith reminds us of the inspiring hope of socialism, the justified rage at an unjust order, and the roads not taken that might have led to a happier result.

    If the tragedy for McMeekin is that the czarist regime and the liberal provisional government failed to stop the rise of Lenin and the Bolsheviks, the tragedy for Smith is the corruption of Russian revolutionary ideals. He takes the long view, privileging large-scale economic, social, and political trends over individual actors and contingent circumstances. He enumerates the ways in which violence was ingrained in the czarist order, especially for the lower classes. For him, as for the revolutionaries, violence wasn't only a matter of floggings or executions; it included poverty, malnutrition, workplace exploitation, preventable disease, and gender-based abuse. (His consistent attention to the experience of Russian women is laudable.)

    For Smith, the February Revolution was the result of a crisis brought about by economic and social modernization and aggravated by the world war. Even as Russia attempted to keep up with the rest of the world-and maintain its status as a great power-the social system underpinning the autocracy was eroding with the emergence of new classes like industrial workers and a professionalized middle class. While McMeekin stresses the economic gains under Nicholas II, Smith focuses on the suffering caused by the demands of wartime, which angered the workers as well as a peasantry already disappointed by earlier land reforms. In Smith's view, the failure of Russian democracy in 1917 is best explained by the willingness of moderate socialists to continue the country's involvement in World War I, in keeping with their belief that the bourgeoisie was next in line for political power. Workers and peasants were told to wait their turn. It wasn't a surprise that these latter groups welcomed the more radical Bolshevik position.

    Smith takes pains not to cast the Bolsheviks as the only perpetrators of violence in the revolution and ensuing civil war; the White armies, nationalists, peasants, and anarchist bandits also committed atrocities. In times of social disintegration, displacement, and starvation, mass violence is a familiar result and should not be viewed as the inevitable outcome of a socialist revolution. Rather than seeing Stalinism as predetermined by the Bolshevik seizure of power, Smith argues that after the Bolshevik regime began to stabilize Russian society, it veered back toward the violent, antidemocratic czarist order, itself a product of the country's distinctive geography, lack of capital, bloated bureaucracy, and religious and peasant traditions. Stalinism was thus the deformed offspring of Marxism and Russian political culture, warped by larger social, economic, and political factors that often had little to do with ideology.

    Perhaps the hardest thing to understand about Lenin and the Bolsheviks is their insouciant attitude toward mass death, despite their adherence to a utopian philosophy that sought to eradicate human suffering. Smith explains that Lenin's philosophy was far from a pure Marxism; it was rooted in the nihilist-terrorist strain of Russian revolutionary thought as well as the millenarian ideas that were popular in Russia at the turn of the century. Lenin did not seek to make the lives of those already living better; he believed that revolution would cleanse the world of injustice and create an entirely new society.

    This philosophy produced one of many historical examples indicating that while violence is often the most effective way of seizing power, antidemocratic coups do not usher in utopia; more often, they devolve into terror. Transformation born of violence is likely to end in violence. As the French socialist leader Jean Jaurès, assassinated in July 1914, warned, "If the social revolution emerges from this chaos instead of coming about as the supreme expression of progress, as a higher act of reason, justice, and wisdom, it will be part of this universal mental crisis, an excess of the contagious fury brought about by the suffering and violence of war."

    T he lessons of 1917 also testify to the risks that accompany any political position that sees progress as a by-product of history. The movement from capitalism to socialism (and vice versa) is not inevitable and can be reversed; teleological thinking leads to strategic blunders and gross misinterpretations of reality. Still, politics and economics have their patterns; if these patterns can be understood, they can be adjusted or controlled. After a long banishment, Marx is returning to mainstream political discourse, as a new generation discovers that many of his observations about the predatory logic of capitalism still hold startlingly true.

    Of the three books under review, Smith's is the most sympathetic to emancipatory politics, and it offers the most persuasive explanation of the Russian Revolution's origins and terrible failures. Smith's approach to history, with an emphasis on long-term factors and the experience of ordinary people, also feels the most relevant to our own historical moment. As in the early 20th century, we are living in an age in which mass movements and popular fury have a new currency. Politics cannot be contained in the sealed train cars of superpowers, and social movements cannot be treated as simple instruments in great games. Once again, economic inequality is a pressing political issue around the world. In American political discourse, Russia's cautionary tales are still used as blunt instruments to assert the impossibility of any kind of socialist revolution. A new generation of democratic socialists may glean more complicated lessons from 1917: not only about the dangerous magnetism of power and violence, but about the possibility of achieving a political transformation that spans continents. n

    [Jun 20, 2017] The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... For the neocons in 2016, there also was the excited expectation of a Hillary Clinton presidency to give more momentum to the expensive New Cold War. But then Trump, who had argued for a new détente with Russia, managed to eke out an Electoral College win. ..."
    May 13, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate

    Where is Stanley Kubrick when we need him? If he hadn't died in 1999, he would be the perfect director to transform today's hysteria over Russia into a theater-of-the-absurd movie reprising his Cold War classic, "Dr. Strangelove," which savagely satirized the madness of nuclear brinksmanship and the crazed ideology behind it.

    A scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.

    To prove my point, The Washington Post on Thursday published a lengthy story entitled in the print editions "Alarm at Russian in White House" about a Russian photographer who was allowed into the Oval Office to photograph President Trump's meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

    The Post cited complaints from former U.S. intelligence officials who criticized the presence of the Russian photographer as "a potential security breach" because of "the danger that a listening device or other surveillance equipment could have been brought into the Oval Office while hidden in cameras or other electronics."

    To bolster this alarm, the Post cited a Twitter comment from President Obama's last deputy CIA director, David S. Cohen, stating "No, it was not" a sound decision to admit the Russian photographer who also works for the Russian news agency, Tass, which published the photo.

    One could picture Boris and Natasha, the evil spies in the Bullwinkle cartoons, disguised as photographers slipping listening devices between the cushions of the sofas.

    Or we could hear how Russians are again threatening to "impurify all of our precious bodily fluids," as "Dr. Strangelove" character, Gen. Jack D. Ripper, warned us in the 1964 movie.

    Watching that brilliant dark comedy again might actually be a good idea to remind us how crazy Americans can get when they're pumped up with anti-Russian propaganda, as is happening again now.

    Taking Down Trump

    I realize that many Democrats, liberals and progressives hate Donald Trump so much that they believe that any pretext is justified in taking him down, even if that plays into the hands of the neoconservatives and other warmongers. Many people who detest Trump view Russia-gate as the most likely path to achieve Trump's impeachment, so this desirable end justifies whatever means.

    Boris and Natasha, the evil spies from the Rocky and Bullwinkle shows.

    Some people have told me that they even believe that it is the responsibility of the major news media, the law enforcement and intelligence communities, and members of Congress to engage in a "soft coup" against Trump – also known as a "constitutional coup" or "deep state coup" – for the "good of the country."

    The argument is that it sometimes falls to these Establishment institutions to "correct" a mistake made by the American voters, in this case, the election of a largely unqualified individual as U.S. president. It is even viewed by some anti-Trump activists as a responsibility of "responsible" journalists, government officials and others to play this "guardian" role, to not simply "resist" Trump but to remove him.

    But The New York Times and The Washington Post, in particular, have made it clear that they view Trump as a clear and present danger to the American system and thus have cast aside any pretense of neutrality.

    The Times justifies its open hostility to the President as part of its duty to protect "the truth"; the Post has adopted a slogan aimed at Trump, "Democracy Dies in Darkness." In other words, America's two most influential political newspapers are effectively pushing for a "soft coup" under the guise of defending "democracy" and "truth."

    But the obvious problem with a "soft coup" is that America's democratic process, as imperfect as it has been and still is, has held this diverse country together since 1788 with the notable exception of the Civil War.

    If Americans believe that the Washington elites are removing an elected president – even one as buffoonish as Donald Trump – it could tear apart the fabric of national unity, which is already under extraordinary stress from intense partisanship.

    That means that the "soft coup" would have to be carried out under the guise of a serious investigation into something grave enough to justify the President's removal, a removal that could be accomplished by congressional impeachment, his forced resignation, or the application of Twenty-fifth Amendment, which allows the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet to judge a President incapable of continuing in office (although that could require two-thirds votes by both houses of Congress if the President fights the maneuver).

    A Big Enough 'Scandal'

    That is where Russia-gate comes in. The gauzy allegation that Trump and/or his advisers somehow colluded with Russian intelligence officials to rig the 2016 election would probably clear the threshold for an extreme action like removing a President.

    And, given the determination of many key figures in the Establishment to get rid of Trump, it should come as no surprise that no one seems to care that no actual government-verified evidence has been revealed publicly to support any of the Russia-gate allegations.

    There's not even any public evidence from U.S. government agencies that Russia did "meddle" in the 2016 election or – even if Russia did slip Democratic emails to WikiLeaks (which WikiLeaks denies) – there has been zero evidence that the scheme resulted from collusion with Trump's campaign.

    The FBI has been investigating these suspicions for at least nine months, even reportedly securing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant against Carter Page, an American whom Trump briefly claimed as a foreign policy adviser when Trump was under fire for not having any foreign policy advisers.

    One of Page's alleged offenses was that he gave a speech to an academic conference in Moscow in July 2016 that was mildly critical of how the U.S. treated countries from the former Soviet Union. He also once lived in Russia and met with a Russian diplomat who – apparently unbeknownst to Page – had been identified by the U.S. government as a Russian intelligence officer.

    It appears that is enough, in these days of our New McCarthyism , to get an American put under a powerful counter-intelligence investigation.

    The FBI and the Department of Justice also reportedly are including as part of the Russia-gate investigation Trump's stupid campaign joke calling on the Russians to help find the tens of thousands of emails that Hillary Clinton erased from the home server that she used while Secretary of State.

    On July 27, 2016, Trump said, apparently in jest, "I will tell you this, Russia: if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

    The comment fit with Trump's puckish, provocative and often tasteless sense of humor, but was seized on by Democrats as if it were a serious suggestion – as if anyone would use a press conference to seriously urge something like that. But it now appears that the FBI is grabbing at any straw that might support its investigation.

    The (U.K.) Guardian reported this week that "Senior DoJ officials have declined to release the documents [about Trump's comment] on grounds that such disclosure could 'interfere with enforcement proceedings'. In a filing to a federal court in Washington DC, the DoJ states that 'because of the existence of an active, ongoing investigation, the FBI anticipates that it will withhold all records'.

    "The statement suggests that Trump's provocative comment last July is being seen by the FBI as relevant to its own ongoing investigation."

    The NYT's Accusations

    On Friday, in the wake of Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey and the President's characterization of Russia-gate as "a total hoax," The New York Times reprised what it called "The Trump-Russia Nexus" in a lead editorial trying to make the case of some fire behind the smoke.

    Former Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page.

    Though the Times acknowledges that there are "many unknowns" in Russia-gate and the Times can't seem to find any evidence of collusion, such as slipping a Russian data stick to WikiLeaks, the Times nevertheless treats a host of Trump advisers and family members as traitors because they've had some association with Russian officials, Russian businesses or Russian allies.

    Regarding Carter Page, the Times wrote: "American officials believe that Mr. Page, a foreign policy adviser, had contacts with Russian intelligence officials during the campaign. He also gave a pro-Russia speech in Moscow in July 2016. Mr. Page was once employed by Merrill Lynch's Moscow office, where he worked with Gazprom, a government-owned giant."

    You might want to let some of those words sink in, especially the part about Page giving "a pro-Russia speech in Moscow," which has been cited as one of the principal reasons for Page and his communications being targeted under a FISA warrant.

    I've actually read Page's speech and to call it "pro-Russia" is a wild exaggeration. It was a largely academic treatise that faulted the West's post-Cold War treatment of the nations formed from the old Soviet Union, saying the rush to a free-market system led to some negative consequences, such as the spread of corruption.

    But even if the speech were "pro-Russia," doesn't The New York Times respect the quaint American notion of free speech? Apparently not. If your carefully crafted words can be twisted into something called "pro-Russia," the Times seems to think it's okay to have the National Security Agency bug your phones and read your emails.

    The Ukraine Case

    Another Times' target was veteran political adviser Paul Manafort, who is accused of working as "a consultant for a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine and for Ukraine's former president, Viktor Yanukovych, who was backed by the Kremlin."

    New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)

    Left out of that Times formulation is the fact that the Ukrainian political party, which had strong backing from ethnic Russian Ukrainians - not just Russia– competed in a democratic process and that Yanukovych won an election that was recognized by international observers as free and fair.

    Yanukovych was then ousted in February 2014 in a violent putsch that was backed by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. The putsch, which was spearheaded by right-wing nationalists and even neo-Nazis, touched off Ukraine's civil war and the secession of Crimea, the key events in the escalation of today's New Cold War between NATO and Russia.

    Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

    Though I'm no fan of U.S. political hired-guns selling their services in foreign elections, there was nothing illegal or even unusual about Manafort advising a Ukrainian political party. What arguably was much more offensive was the U.S. support for an unconstitutional coup that removed Yanukovych even after he agreed to a European plan for early elections so he could be voted out of office peacefully.

    But the Times, the Post and virtually the entire Western mainstream media sided with the Ukrainian coup-makers and hailed Yanukovych's overthrow. That attitude has become such a groupthink that the Times has banished the thought that there was a coup .

    Still, the larger political problem confronting the United States is that the neoconservatives and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, now control nearly all the levers of U.S. foreign policy. That means they can essentially dictate how events around the world will be perceived by most Americans.

    The neocons and the liberal hawks also want to continue their open-ended wars in the Middle East by arranging the commitment of additional U.S. military forces to Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria – and perhaps a new confrontation with Iran.

    Early in Obama's second term, it became clear to the neocons that Russia was becoming the chief obstacles to their plans because President Barack Obama was working closely with President Vladimir Putin on a variety of projects that undermined neocon hopes for more war.

    Particularly, Putin helped Obama secure an agreement from Syria to surrender its chemical weapons stockpiles in 2013 and to get Iran to accept tight constraints on its nuclear program in 2014. In both cases, the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks were lusting for war.

    Immediately after the Syria chemical-weapons deal in September 2013, key U.S. neocons began focusing on Ukraine as what National Endowment for Democracy president Carl Gershman called "the biggest prize" and a first step toward unseating Putin in Moscow.

    Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders.

    Gershman's grant-giving NED stepped up its operations inside Ukraine while Assistant Secretary Nuland, the wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan, began pushing for regime change in Kiev (along with other neocons, including Sen. John McCain).

    The Ukraine coup in 2014 drove a geopolitical wedge between Obama and Putin, since the Russian president couldn't just stand by when a virulently anti-Russian regime took power violently in Ukraine, which was the well-worn route for invasions into Russia and housed Russia's Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol in Crimea.

    Rather than defend the valuable cooperation provided by Putin, Obama went with the political flow and joined in the Russia-bashing as key neocons raised their sights and put Putin in the crosshairs .

    An Unexpected Obstacle

    For the neocons in 2016, there also was the excited expectation of a Hillary Clinton presidency to give more momentum to the expensive New Cold War. But then Trump, who had argued for a new détente with Russia, managed to eke out an Electoral College win.

    Perhaps Trump could have diffused some of the hostility toward him but his narcissistic personality stopped him from extending an olive branch to the tens of millions of Americans who opposed him. He further demonstrated his political incompetence by wasting his first days in office making ridiculous claims about the size of his inaugural crowds and disputing the fact that he had lost the popular vote.

    Widespread public disgust over his behavior contributed to the determination of many Americans to "resist" his presidency at all junctures and at all costs.

    Peter Sellers playing Dr. Strangelove as he struggles to control his right arm from making a Nazi salute.

    Russia-gate, the hazy suggestion that Putin put Trump in the White House and that Trump is a Putin "puppet" (as Clinton claimed), became the principal weapon to use in destroying Trump's presidency.

    However, besides the risks to U.S. stability that would come from an Establishment-driven "soft coup," there is the additional danger of ratcheting up tensions so high with nuclear-armed Russia that this extreme Russia-bashing takes on a life – or arguably many, many deaths – of its own.

    Which is why America now might need a piercing satire of today's Russia-phobia or at least a revival of the Cold War classic, "Dr. Strangelove," subtitled "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " Watergate Redux or 'Deep State' Coup ."]

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Jun 20, 2017] Is Vladimir Putin the Number 1 Threat to America or Its Security Partner in Waiting

    Jun 14, 2017 | www.thenation.com

     Cohen's main point is one that he has often made in his weekly discussions with Batchelor: The United States is fully in a new and more dangerous Cold War with Russia, while at the same time having vital national-security interests that fully coincide with Russia's-first and foremost, the existential danger to both nations, and to the world, represented by a new kind of international terrorist movements that are in search of radioactive materials to make their bombings incalculably more lethal. A US-Russian anti-terrorism alliance is the only hope of diminishing this looming threat. Each time such an alliance has seemed politically within reach, beginning in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it has been thwarted, not the least by the US political-media establishment's demonizing of Putin as an unworthy partner for America. This is now happening again in the conflict between President Trump's stated wish "to cooperate with Russia," beginning in Syria, and the purported scandal known as "Russiagate." Given Oliver Stone's very up-close interviews with Russia's leader, Americans can now decide for themselves-apart from the mainstream media-about Putin, about where real threats lie, and about what should be their nation's priorities.

    [Jun 20, 2017] Israel had far more involvement in the US election than Russia

    Jun 20, 2017 | nation.foxnews.com
    The audience member explained that as Colbert pressed Oscar winner Stone - who was promoting his new Vladimir Putin Showtime series, "The Putin Interviews" - on his apparent sympathy for the Russian president in spite of claims about Russian interference in the US election, Stone, at a disadvantage, tried to shift the talk to Israel.

    The source said they "watched from behind [their] hands" as Stone said words to the effect of: "Israel had far more involvement in the US election than Russia."

    The "Platoon" director further challenged Colbert by saying, "Why don't you ask me about that?" - but we're told that the host shot back, "I'll ask you about that when you make a documentary about Israel!"

    [Jun 20, 2017] Israels Dirty Little Secret

    Notable quotes:
    "... At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?" ..."
    "... Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. ..."
    Jun 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    At a recent panel discussion in Washington, screenwriter, film director and producer Oliver Stone briefly addressed the issue of alleged Russian interference in the recent national election, observing that "Israel interfered in the U.S. election far more than Russia and nobody is investigating them." A few days later, in an interview with Stephen Colbert on the Late Show, Stone returned to the theme, responding to an aggressive claim that Russia had interfered in the election by challenging Colbert with "Israel had far more involvement in the U.S. election than Russia. Why don't you ask me about that?"

    Don't look for the exchange with Colbert on YouTube. CBS deleted it from its broadcast and website, demonstrating once again that the "I" word cannot be disparaged on national television. Stone was, of course, referring to the fact that the Israel Lobby, most notably acting through its American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is undeniably a foreign lobby, no less so than anyone representing the presumed interests of Russia or China. It operates with complete impunity on Capitol Hill and also at state and local levels and no one dares to require it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would permit scrutiny of its finances and also end its tax-exempt "educational" status. Nor does Congress or the media see fit to inquire into AIPAC's empowerment of candidates based on their fidelity to Israel, not to mention the direct interference in the American electoral process which surfaced most visibly in its support of candidate Mitt Romney in 2012.

    The last president that sought to compel the predecessor organization of AIPAC to register was John F. Kennedy, who also was about to take steps to rein in Israel's secret nuclear weapons program when he was assassinated, which was a lucky break for Israel, particularly as Kennedy was replaced by the passionate Zionist Lyndon Baines Johnson. Funny how things sometimes work out. The Warren Commission looked deeply into a possible Cuban connection in the shooting and came up with nothing but one has to wonder if they also investigated the possible roles of other countries. Likewise, the 9/11 Commission Report failed to examine the possible involvement of Israel in the terrorist attack in spite of a considerable body of evidence suggesting that there were a number of Israeli-sourced covert operations running in the U.S. at that time.

    Looking back from the perspective of his more than 40 years of military service, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Thomas Moorer described the consequences of Jewish power vis-à-vis U.S. policy towards Israel, stating that "I've never seen a president – I don't care who he is – stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles your mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens don't have any idea what goes on."

    He also addressed the 1967 Israeli assault on the USS Liberty, saying "Israel attempted to prevent the Liberty's radio operators from sending a call for help by jamming American emergency radio channels. [And that] Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned lifeboats at close range that had been lowered to rescue the most-seriously wounded." He concluded with "our government put Israel's interests ahead of our own? If so, Why? Does our government continue to subordinate American interests to Israeli interests?"

    It is a question that might well be asked today, as the subservience to Israeli interests is, if anything, more pervasive in 2017 Washington than it was in 2002 when Moorer spoke up. And, as in Moorer's day, much of the partiality towards Israel makes its way through congress with little or no media coverage lest anyone begin to wonder whose tail is wagging which dog. To put it succinctly, there is an Israeli hand in much of what the United States does internationally, and the involvement is not intended to do anything good for the American people.

    During the past several weeks alone there has been a flurry of legislation backed by Israel and its Lobby. One bill might actually have been written by AIPAC. It is called Senate 722, Countering Iran's Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017. The bill has 63 co-sponsors, most of whom are the usual suspects, but it also included an astonishingly large number of Democrats who describe themselves as progressive, including Corey Booker and Kamila Harris, both of whom are apparently terrified lest they say "no" to Israel. With 63 co-sponsors out of 100 senators the bill was certain to pass overwhelmingly, and it was indeed approved 98 to 2, with only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders voting "no."

    And there's more to S.722 than Iran – it's subtitle is "An act to provide congressional review and to counter Iranian and Russian governments' aggression." Much of it is designed to increase sanctions on both Iran and Russia while also limiting the White House's ability to relieve any sanctions without approval by congress. Regarding Iran, the bill mandates that "Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years thereafter, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of National Intelligence shall jointly develop and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a strategy for deterring conventional and asymmetric Iranian activities and threats that directly threaten the United States and key allies in the Middle East, North Africa, and beyond."

    ORDER IT NOW

    The premise is of course nonsensical as Iran's ability to threaten anyone, least of all the United States, is limited. It is far outgunned by its neighbors and even more so by the U.S., but it has become the enemy of choice for congress as well as for the former generals who serve as White House advisers. The animus against Iran comes directly from Israel and from the Saudi Arabians, who have managed to sell their version of developments in their part of the world through a completely acquiescent and heavily Jewish influenced western media.

    And there's more. A bill has surfaced in the House of Representatives that will require the United States to "consult" with Israel regarding any prospective arms sales to Arab countries in the Middle East. In other words, Israel will have a say, backed up undoubtedly by Congress and the media, over what the United States does in terms of its weapons sales abroad. The sponsors of the bill, one Brad Schneider of Illinois, and Claudia Tenney of New York, want "closer scrutiny of future military arms sales" to maintain the "qualitative military edge" that Israel currently enjoys.

    Schneider is, of course, Jewish and a life member of AIPAC, so it is hardly as if he is a disinterested party. Tenny runs for office in New York State, so it is hardly as if she is disinterested either, but the net result of all this is that American jobs and U.S. international security arrangements through weapons sales will be at least in part subject to Israeli veto. And you know that is precisely what will happen as Israel could give a damn what happens to the struggling American entity that it so successfully feeds off of.

    And there's still more. Bill HR 672 Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017 was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives on June 14 th . Yes, I said "unanimously." The bill requires the State Department of monitor what European nations and their police forces are doing about anti-Semitism and encourages them to adopt "a uniform definition of anti-Semitism." That means that criticism of Israel must be considered anti-Semitism and will therefore be a hate crime and prosecutable, a status that is already de facto true in Britain and France. If the Europeans don't play ball, there is the possibility of repercussions in trade negotiations. The bill was co-sponsored by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen from Florida and Nita Lowey of New York, both of whom are Jewish.

    There is also a Senate companion bill on offer in the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act of 2017. The bill will make the Anti-Semitism Envoy a full American Ambassador and will empower him or her with a full staff and a budget permitting meddling worldwide. The bill is sponsored by Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Marco Rubio of Florida. Gillibrand is unlikely to miss co-sponsoring anything relating to Israel due to her own self-interest and Rubio wants to be president real bad so he is following the money.

    And finally, the U.S. Senate has also approved a resolution celebrating the 50 th anniversary of Israel's conquest of East Jerusalem. Again, the vote was unanimous. The resolution was co-sponsored by Senators Charles Schumer and Mitch McConnell, two reptiles who give snakes a bad name and about whom the less said the better. Schumer is Jewish and has described himself as the "shomer" or guardian of Israel in the Senate. That the resolution opposes long established U.S. government policy that the occupation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank by Israel is in contravention of international law and is an impediment to any peace process with the Palestinians apparently bothered not even one Senator.

    I might note in passing that there has been no Senate resolution commemorating the 50 th anniversary of the bravery exhibited by the officers and crew of the USS Liberty as they were being slaughtered by the Israelis at the same time as Jerusalem was being "liberated." There is probably even more to say, to include secret agreements with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, but I will stop at this point with one final observation. President Donald Trump traveled to the Middle East claiming to be desirous of starting serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, but it was all a sham. Benjamin Netanyahu took him aside and came out with the usual Israeli bullshit about the Palestinians "inciting" violence and hatred of Jews and Trump bought into it. He then went to see Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and shouted at him for being a liar and opposed to peace based on what Netanyahu had told him. That is what passes for even-handed in the U.S. government, no matter who is president. A few days later the Israelis announced the building of the largest bloc of illegal new settlements on the West Bank since 1992, an action that they claim is being coordinated with Washington.

    Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon once boasted about owning the United States. I guess he was right.

    [Jun 20, 2017] Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich likened the Russia investigation to going down a rabbit hole where no crime actually has been committed but people's lives are ruined

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.msn.com
    ...Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich likened the Russia investigation to going down a rabbit hole where no crime actually has been committed but people's lives are ruined.

    Gingrich said on "This Week" Trump has "a compulsion to counterattack and is very pugnacious" even though that sometimes works to his detriment.

    Gingrich said prosecutors may not find evidence of obstruction against Trump, "but maybe there is going to be perjury. And maybe there will be – I mean, you go down the list and we have been here before. We watched Comey [when he was deputy attorney general] appoint [Chicago U.S. Attorney] Patrick Fitzgerald, who was the godfather to Comey's children and Fitzgerald knew there was no crime."

    (Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the leaking of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband Joseph C. Wilson's statements about whether Saddam Hussein obtained uranium from Niger, contradicting the Bush administration. The investigation resulted in Lewis "Scooter" Libby pleading guilty to lying to investigators.)

    Gingrich said if there is going to be an investigation into Russian influence, investigators also should look into a speech given by former President Bill Clinton for which he was paid $500,000 and the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta. who is a registered agent for a Russian bank.

    "I'm happy to look at Russia's relationship. I actually think it would be healthy to have congressional hearings on foreign influence peddling in the U.S. way beyond the Russians. I think that's important for the future of our democracy," Gingrich said.

    "No one, and Comey himself said this in his last testimony, no one has suggested that Donald Trump had anything to do with colluding with the Russians. There's not a bit of evidence he did."

    Gingrich said hires by Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller indicate he's politicizing the investigation and Comey also should be investigated, a sentiment echoed by Trump attorney Jay Sekulow on CNN's " State of the Union ."

    [Jun 20, 2017] Much of the left has gone completely bonkers on this issue. There is now an unholy alliance between the Cold War neocons in Congress and the Trump haters on the left in regard to Russia.

    Jun 20, 2017 | www.thenation.com

     Much of the left has gone completely bonkers on this issue. There is now an unholy alliance between the Cold War neocons in Congress and the Trump haters on the left in regard to Russia. Katha Pollitt's legitimate animosity toward Trump because of his attitude toward women has unfortunately clouded her judgment vis-à-vis Russia. However, there is a substantial segment of the left that wants to see better relations with Russia and is dismayed and disheartened by the relentless hyping of the alleged Russian hacking, Trump's ties with Russia, etc. The neocons are laughing all the way to a military confrontation with Russia. Bravo to Victor Navasky and Stephen F. Cohen for continuing to speak truth to hysteria. And bravo to The Nation for doing the same in its editorials.

    Peggy Karp
    sebastopol, calif.

    [Jun 19, 2017] George Washington: Special Prosecutor Mueller Is a Political Hack

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast. ..."
    "... As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive. ..."
    "... The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing. ..."
    "... New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result. ..."
    "... It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases). ..."
    "... virtuous ..."
    "... When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest priority is simply avoiding assassination. ..."
    "... I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics. ..."
    "... Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil. ..."
    "... No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020. ..."
    "... Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic things I've ever read about. ..."
    "... So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer. ..."
    "... You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted - and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen." ..."
    "... Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake. ..."
    "... The Year of Voting Dangerously ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    As Lambert pointed out via e-mail:

    There's so much bad history that's been normalized we become numb, and this is an impressive parade of horribles.

    By George Washington. Originally published at his website

    The New York Times characterizes special prosecutor Robert Mueller as being independent and fair:

    Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness.

    Let's fact-check the Times

    Anthrax Frame-Up

    Mueller presided over the incredibly flawed anthrax investigation.

    The U.S. Government Accountability Office says the FBI's investigation was "flawed and inaccurate" . The investigation was so bogus that a senator called for an "independent review and assessment of how the FBI handled its investigation in the anthrax case."

    The head of the FBI's anthrax investigation says the whole thing was a sham . He says that the FBI higher-ups "greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation", that there were "politically motivated communication embargos from FBI Headquarters".

    Moreover, the anthrax investigation head said that the FBI framed scientist Bruce Ivins. On July 6, 2006, the FBI's anthrax investigation FBI Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI's Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303, which noted:

    (j) the FBI's fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer ; and, (k) the FBI's subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence .

    Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins' guilt . These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions .

    In other words, Mueller presided over the attempt to frame an innocent man (and see this ).

    Unsure About Assassination of U.S. Citizens Living On U.S. Soil

    Rather than saying "of course not!", Mueller said that he wasn't sure whether Obama had the right to assassinate Americans living on American soil . Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley commented at the time:

    One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.

    ***

    He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: "Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution."

    Spying on Americans

    Mueller participated in one of the greatest expansions of mass surveillance in human history. As we noted in 2013:

    NBC News reports :

    NBC News has learned that under the post-9/11 Patriot Act, the government has been collecting records on every phone call made in the U.S.

    On March 2011, FBI Director Robert Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee:

    We put in place technological improvements relating to the capabilities of a database to pull together past emails and future ones as they come in so that it does not require an individualized search .

    Remember, the FBI – unlike the CIA – deals with internal matters within the borders of the United States.

    On May 1st of this year, former FBI agent Tim Clemente told CNN's Erin Burnett that all present and past phone calls were recorded :

    BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It's not a voice mail. It's just a conversation. There's no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

    CLEMENTE: "No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation . It's not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the ainvestigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

    BURNETT: "So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

    CLEMENTE: "No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not ."

    The next day, Clemente again appeared on CNN, this time with host Carol Costello, and she asked him about those remarks. He reiterated what he said the night before but added expressly that "all digital communications in the past" are recorded and stored :

    NSA whistleblowers say that this means that the NSA collects "word for word" all of our communications .

    FBI special agent – and a 2002 Time Person of the Year – Colleen Rowley writes :

    Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the lhttp://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=68066&action=editaw improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

    Torture

    FBI special agent Colleen Rowley points out :

    Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

    Iraq War

    Rowley notes :

    When you had the lead-up to the Iraq War Mueller and, of course, the CIA and all the other directors, saluted smartly and went along with what Bush wanted, which was to gin up the intelligence to make a pretext for the Iraq War. For instance, in the case of the FBI, they actually had a receipt, and other documentary proof, that one of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had not been in Prague, as Dick Cheney was alleging. And yet those directors more or less kept quiet. That included CIA, FBI, Mueller, and it included also the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey.

    Post 9/11 Round-Up

    FBI special agent Rowley also notes :

    Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists .

    9/11 Cover Up

    Rowley points out :

    The FBI and all the other officials claimed that there were no clues, that they had no warning [about 9/11] etc., and that was not the case. There had been all kinds of memos and intelligence coming in. I actually had a chance to meet Director Mueller personally the night before I testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee [he was] trying to get us on his side, on the FBI side, so that we wouldn't say anything terribly embarrassing.

    But overwhelming evidence shows that 9/11 was foreseeable . Indeed, Al Qaeda crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was itself foreseeable . Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission said that the attack was preventable .

    Rowley also said says :

    TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11.

    In addition, Rowley says that the FBI sent Soviet-style "minders" to her interviews with the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation of 9/11, to make sure that she didn't say anything the FBI didn't like. The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 confirmed that government "minders" obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this ).

    Mueller's FBI also obstructed the 9/11 investigation in many other ways. For example, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location . And see this .

    And Kristen Breitweiser – one of the four 9/11 widows instrumental in forcing the government to form the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 2001 attacks – points out :

    Mueller and other FBI officials had purposely tried to keep any incriminating information specifically surrounding the Saudis out of the Inquiry's investigative hands. To repeat, there was a concerted effort by the FBI and the Bush Administration to keep incriminating Saudi evidence out of the Inquiry's investigation. And for the exception of the 29 full pages, they succeeded in their effort.

    Conclusion

    Rather than being "above the fray", Mueller is an authoritarian and water-carrier for the status quo and the powers-that-be.

    As Coleen Rowley puts it :

    It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

    Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."

    Furzy , June 17, 2017 at 10:26 am

    Excellent run down of the 9/11 coverup:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJ342GueSUg&feature=youtu.be

    15 Years Later: Never Forget 9/11 crimes were never thoroughly investigated

    911InsideOut

    4,752 views

    Published on Aug 30, 2016
    After 15 years of meticulous research and analysis into the events and theories surrounding 9/11, this is a collection of all the best facts and evidence proving who had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crimes we witnessed on September 11th, and who ought to be investigated if we ever hope to get to the bottom of it.
    Category
    People & Blogs
    License
    Standard YouTube License

    UserFriendly , June 17, 2017 at 4:02 am

    Well of course he's an evil SOB who has done horrible things in the name of this country, but he has done them for both parties; hence the 'above the partisan fray' line. You can't be a partisan hack if you are hacking up dead bodies for both sides.

    integer , June 17, 2017 at 4:43 am

    Sigh. Yet another of the empire's eunuchs steps up to the plate. Trump will prevail.

    Yves Smith Post author , June 17, 2017 at 6:35 am

    I would not bet on that. The play seems to be to bait him into obstruction of justice or pressure him into a health crisis.

    johnnygl , June 17, 2017 at 7:41 am

    One of the lessons of the Brazilian soft coup is that you don't need the prez to commit a crime or even evidence of one. Just drive down popularity until the public finds it palatable. Dilma Rouseff lost her base and then was toast.

    As you've pointed out, yves, trump MUST hold his base to survive.

    RenoDino , June 17, 2017 at 10:44 am

    Driving down his popularity per se won't harm him. Even the elites who want him out could care less about the vox populi. They need to remind congressional Republicans there is only one party, the governing class, and supporting Trump makes them guilty by association of colluding with Russia and obstructing justice. The end game is making Republicans fall in line with the establishment thus making way for impeachment. It's their only hope and a long shot because the Republicans will be committing suicide.

    Art Eclectic , June 17, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    Republicans are on a Bataan Death March either way. They either embrace the alt-right and make that the new party standard or the alt-right destroys them. Trumps campaign was about burning down the governing class without respect for party. Not that he will be allowed to do any such thing on a grand scale, there's too much money at stake from donors who bought the governing apparatus fair and square.

    Forcing the Republicans to engage in internecine warfare is destroying them. Democrats are doing the job on their own without much help from Trump's team. Both parties are under siege, which is not a bad thing. The bad thing is the destruction of education, energy, environmental, and financial policy. Instead of draining the swamp Trump has introduced swamp sharks to the predator mix.

    RenoDino , June 17, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Totally agree and I like introduction of swamp sharks as a new predator class. I envision them as a football with fins. The policies you mentioned were already bad to begin with. Trump's tampering may make them worse at the margins.

    Waking Up , June 17, 2017 at 1:25 pm

    The One party, governing class of Democrats/Republicans made itself well known when it voted 97 to 2 in the Senate for S. 722. Statement of Purpose: To impose sanctions with respect to the Russian Federation and to combat terrorism and illicit financing.

    New sanctions on Russia is a highly bipartisan, one governing class result.

    Arizona Slim , June 17, 2017 at 8:58 am

    Pressure him into a health crisis? Hmmm, where have we seen that one before?

    Point of history: A few months after he left office (in disgrace), Nixon had a phlebitis attack and nearly died.

    And he wasn't in the best of shape before he left the White House.

    Lambert Strether , June 17, 2017 at 7:01 am

    It would be nice if the country learned the lesson that running a country* is nothing like running a business (something shallow concept of "leadership" you read about in airport bookstores - and does it remind us of something? - erases).

    It's going to be an expensive lesson though, and the political class might even double down on it; what we need is a virtuous CEO; like Zuckerberg, for example.

    * I suppose the counter-argument would be Bloomberg. Perhaps there's a scale issue.

    Lambert Strether , June 17, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    > Zuckerberg or bloomberg are virtuous? I hope you are joking or being sarcastic.

    I ladle my irony out with a shovel these days. It's the only way to cope.

    EndOfTheWorld , June 17, 2017 at 5:14 am

    When I voted for Trump, I thought he would be a fighter. I was wrong. He's not fighting for anything. Maybe his highest priority is simply avoiding assassination.

    Sometimes he will get on Twitter and say some belligerent stuff, but doesn't he realize that he has the authority to hire and fire who he wants?

    Carolinian , June 17, 2017 at 8:53 am

    I don't think any of us knew what Trump would be. But while he certainly hasn't helped himself with the tweets and pettish behavior you can really blame him for failing to drain a swamp that also includes lots of members of his own administration (Pence, Haley etc). The elite groupthink on foreign policy in particular is overwhelming. So where would he find subordinates to enact a change of course? And on domestic matters a well bribed Congress is determined to maintain failed GOP Reaganomics.

    Trump's only real accomplishment may be the defeat of Clinton which has shaken the political world. Now they are seeking to undo that as well. It's the ongoing soft coup that must be resisted or we will turn into Brazil.

    EndOfTheWorld , June 17, 2017 at 9:22 am

    Right, when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment. But he had to: otherwise they would never have let him leave the convention with the nomination.

    I would have preferred to see him select somebody like Jesse Ventura or Nomi Prins or Alex Jones as veep and let the chips fall where they may. It's not like he needs the job anyway.

    edmondo , June 17, 2017 at 10:59 am

    " when he selected Pence as veep you could already see he was giving in to the establishment.".

    No one else wanted the slot. It was considered political suicide. Haley turned him down. Joni Ernst turned him down. Ted Cruz said no. Pence only relented because he thought it would give him some national exposure when he sought the presidential nomination in 2020.

    EndOfTheWorld , June 17, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    They turned him down only because they believed he had no chance of winning. But he had to choose somebody entrenched with the Republican establishment, because as it was he barely made it out of Cleveland still the nominee.

    There were a lot of Republicans like Romney and Kasich who went to Cleveland but did not attend the convention. Obviously hoping for some kind of coup which would kick out The Donald.

    Kim Kaufman , June 17, 2017 at 6:11 pm

    Chris Christie would have done it in a heartbeat. The establishment did sort of force or trick Trump into Pence as I recall.

    Disturbed Voter , June 17, 2017 at 6:41 am

    People who want to be liked/loved are insecure demagogues. People who obey illegal orders or who initiate them, are no friend of the People. And yes, the real Deep State is bipartisan. Partisanship we see is kabuki.

    And most coverups aren't Bourne Identity, they are just an incompetent bureaucracy covering its tracks.

    RRH , June 17, 2017 at 7:46 am

    "Hope" is not "You Will" when it comes to Flynn.

    Asking organizations that knew there was no connection to make it public is not "obstruction of justice," it is exposing the deep state's intense effort to keep the level of the swamp high. Telling Comey to get on with the investigation is not obstruction, but an effort to expedite the witch hunt to it's logical conclusion so that the Administration can get on with it's agenda. Deep state's leaks are all against Trump. Statistically impossible.

    cocomaan , June 17, 2017 at 8:15 am

    Good god, had no idea Mueller was the one in charge of the anthrax investigation. That was one of the most ham-handed idiotic things I've ever read about.

    Good to see George Washington around these parts again, there's few people as passionate about politics as him!

    Katniss Everdeen , June 17, 2017 at 9:14 am

    Here's an interesting run through of mueller's handling of the anthrax investigation, among other things. A fun bit:

    So what evidence did the FBI have against Hatfill? There was none, so the agency did a Hail Mary, importing two bloodhounds from California whose handlers claimed could sniff the scent of the killer on the anthrax-tainted letters. These dogs were shown to Hatfill, who promptly petted them. When the dogs responded favorably, their handlers told the FBI that they'd "alerted" on Hatfill and that he must be the killer.

    You'd think that any good FBI agent would have kicked these quacks in the fanny and found their dogs a good home. Or at least checked news accounts of criminal cases in California where these same dogs had been used against defendants who'd been convicted - and later exonerated. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Los Angeles Times investigative reporter David Willman detailed in his authoritative book on the case, a California judge who'd tossed out a murder conviction based on these sketchy canines called the prosecution's dog handler "as biased as any witness that this court has ever seen."

    Instead, Mueller, who micromanaged the anthrax case and fell in love with the dubious dog evidence, personally assured Ashcroft and presumably George W. Bush that in Steven Hatfill the bureau had its man. Comey, in turn, was asked by a skeptical Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz if Hatfill was another Richard Jewell - the security guard wrongly accused of the Atlanta Olympics bombing. Comey replied that he was "absolutely certain" they weren't making a mistake.

    http://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/21/comey-mueller-bungled-big-anthrax-case-together/

    It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the fix is in. BTW, Hatfill got $5+ million in taxpayer money thanks to mueller / comey's dogged yet severely flawed pursuit of truth, justice and the american way.

    Alex Morfesis , June 17, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    Hold on had to open another roll to triple layer my tf hat there that's better

    If hatfill might lead to others, one has to work hard to create the legend and backstory to divert attention

    Mueller is the typical insider designed to insure only the unwashed and uninitiated are thrown into the grinder to keep the news folks busy with filling the hole between the ads

    Hatfill might not have been the direct person, but the south afrikans and boeremag around and associated with him

    And those wondrous apartheidistas were allowed to keep their toys after most of them had their "matter" dismissed

    Mueller is there to keep trump in check the investigation will go on and on and on feeding tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to a group of "approved" insiders who will occasionally on a late friday, burp out some pdf report before some major sporting event or just after some massive news story on a thursday

    "Bungling" a case is the best way to cover it up when it might lead to unexpected further investigation

    Back to the funny papers yellow kid strikes again

    teejay , June 17, 2017 at 8:59 am

    Washington Blog forgot to mention Mueller slow walking the BCCI investigation.

    https://saboteur365.wordpress.com/2017/05/17/special-prosecutor-mueller-is-the-consummate-deep-state-insider/

    http://www.blacklistednews.com/?news_id=4304

    lyman alpha blob , June 17, 2017 at 10:52 am

    Good catch – thanks for pointing that out.

    Mueller was also head of the FBI when post 9-11 it began framing impressionable young men by handing them phony weapons and then arresting them as 'terrorists' in an attempt to make it look like the spooks were keeping the country safe or some such nonsense.

    I would imagine Trump can expect the same treatment.

    Charles Yaker , June 17, 2017 at 9:59 am

    Just for the record Trump is being Trump just like Obama did what Obama wanted despite Progressive self denial.

    David Carl Grimes , June 17, 2017 at 10:33 am

    Does the obstruction of justice issue have any merit? I thought it was a nothingburger according to posts here in the NC

    Yves Smith Post author , June 17, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    Of all people, Alan Dershowitz says no because in the US the DoJ and the FBI report to the President. He can fire anyone he wants to. According to Dershowitz, he can also tell them to stop an investigation. He can also pardon anyone, including himself! The idea that they are independent is a canard the media has been selling and civics-challenged Americans have been buying.

    This is also not at all comparable to Watergate. There was an actual crime, as opposed to a protracted "Trump won when he shouldn't have! Evil Rooskies must have engineered it! And on top of that, they must have a secret handshake with Trump!" that has yet to do anything beyond hyperventilate about Trump officials knowing and meeting some Russians. And the reason firing the Watergate special prosecutor was obstruction of justice was that that that investigator, Archibald Cox, had been appointed by Congress and therefore really was independent.

    Lambert Strether , June 17, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis. Dubious, at best. Anonymous leaks from "intelligence officials" are not enough. Nor is the Steele report, such as it is.

    Parker Dooley , June 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    "To my simple mind, the charge of obstruction of justice implies that there is justice to be obstructed, i.e. that the charges of Russian collusion of Trump were made in good faith with an evidentiary basis"

    Lambert, that is not how it works for the little people. Based on the gossip about Trump's actual net worth, perhaps he has been pegged as one of "us".

    Plenue , June 17, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    Democrats have gone from "Russia did something AND WE HAVE PROOF!" to Maxine Waters admitting they don't even have evidence that any crime was committed, but they all believe that something happened, so they just have 'connect the dots' and find actual evidence. This is some real presuppositional crap here; this is the type of 'thinking' that liberals are always mocking Creationists for. Over half of year with no evidence that anything even happened isn't an investigation: it's a fishing expedition.

    Bobby Gladd , June 17, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    So many Bright Shiny Things out there for our distraction pleasure (golden shower hookers, Russian anti-Clinton email and election hacking, dirty money, Jared ). How about keeping Eyes on the Prize. General Flynn was conducting an illegal rogue solo privatized ad hoc foreign policy shop, for which he was getting handsomely compensated by foreign entities. Trump either knew it since the beginning of their relationship (and either didn't care, or winky-winky greenlighted it), or suborned it when he later found out. Then he incontrovertibly started leaning on the investigations. Obstruction of Justice, if the phrase is to have any rational meaning. Whether the only remedy for that is impeachment is a separate issue (and is probably the case where Trump is concerned, notwithstanding that he'll probably pardon Flynn and bet on not getting convicted by the Senate).

    Lambert Strether , June 17, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    Since the whole thing is such a mass of confusion and conjecture, I don't see how it's clear what can have been "obstructed" or indeed what "justice" might mean. (Rhe "Russian hacking" of votes, for example, is so ludicrous it's pointless to discuss it, even if around half of Clinton's voters believe it)

    On Flynn, who Trump heaved over the side, the alternative theory is that Flynn was opening an independent channel to the Russians, and The Blob hates that, because they want to go to war with Russia. As far as "inconvertibly," I always look adverbs like that. All I can tell is that great legal minds differ.

    Steven , June 17, 2017 at 10:51 am

    What the country and the world needs is someone who is actually serious about 'Draining the swamp' in Washington – and the editorial offices at the New York Times!

    P.S. I'm still reading Maureen Dowd's The Year of Voting Dangerously . In a 2014 article Dowd provides a catalogue of sellouts by major Democratic Party players to Hillary and the Clintons, e.g. Elizabeth Warren, when it looked like the 2016 election was going to be a sure thing for HRC. The catalogue was so precise and devastating most likely the only thing that saved Dowd's job at the NYT was the reverence for HRC's ruthless pursuit of power with which she concluded the chapter (and, of course, Dowd's prodigious talent as a writer) .

    Art Eclectic , June 17, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Draining the swamp in Washington would require removal of all sitting members of Congress. Those people ARE the swamp. They're duly elected and funded by the donor class to make business decisions that will impact revenue for the winners. We hold elections to decide which businesses we want to win. The FIRE sector famously buys both sides of the table to hedge.

    JEHR , June 17, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    A fine description!

    Michael , June 17, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    How crazy is the idea that Paul Ryan becomes Prez after the investigations conclude? We haven't done that yet if I recall correctly. Would Pence be any good as a Prez? Or would the R party clean house and force him out? Could he select a new VP then? (I don't know the answer to that one either) .

    Yves Smith Post author , June 17, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Completely batshit but the Democrats keeping the upset dialed to 11 may get us there.

    Pence was not a very good governor but he'd be celebrated for looking Presidential and not being Trump. He's also way more conservative and would get far more bills passed.

    The Dems have a much better chance with Trump in in 2018 than out. They are best served by keeping him on the defensive rather than actually succeeding in driving him out. Pence would be a much less powerful fundraising hook than Trump, for instance.

    Left in Wisconsin , June 17, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    Dems want to make same mistake nationally they made here with Walker. Instead of giving voters til the next election to make up their mind, they prematurely instigated a recall, leading to the recall election being in the middle of summer instead of Nov 2012, and they lost because a majority of voters didn't like the process.

    If they succeed in getting Trump out before 2018, there is likely to be a huge sympathy vote for Repubs when 2018 rolls around.

    gepay , June 17, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    Such is the state of political affairs that one has to wonder what, if anything, is true. Did Trump select (?) Pence as VP in order to get some cooperation from the mainsteam Republicans? If he had picked someone like Ron Paul one might have thought there was a good chance he would "drain the swamp". Goldman Sachs alumni, billionaires, and generals in his cabinet are not exactly "draining the swamp". One couldn't submit to HBO a series script with some general (affectionately lol) known as "Mad Dog" being the Sec of Def. So what part of the Powers That Be does Mueller work for? The part of which Soros is a visible element was not happy with Trump. It is possible that this whole circus is just a distraction rather than two different elements of the people who really decide things fighting. One clue is if damaging evidence comes out about either side. it is possible that the DNC and Podesta leaks were just from disillusioned Democrat (Bernie suppporters). Or they could be the evidence there is a real split.Did the revelations of former CFR (?ostracized) Steve Pieczenik of Trump being a counter coup to ;the Clintonistas have any value? FDR said, if it happens in the political world, it was planned, The only thing clear to me is when you get this kind hall of mirrors head confusion, then the CIA is at work.

    Bernard , June 17, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Trump is a businessman out to make a profit. Hillary is a con artist out to grift. otherwise, there isn't that much difference betwixt the two. Hillary is straight forward with her "scam." Trump uses Market strategy to con others . Hillary uses whatever it takes to "get" and "enjoy" Power.

    Trump's kind of business "men" hire media who enable the "Right kind" of Calvanism/American "Thinking" which has bought Congress. These grifters "use" whatever it takes to get what they want. Since everything has a price, Everything is for sale to the highest bidder . outright theft, looting and pillaging legalized by Congress. Lies, mispeaking, and others means. "Whatever it takes!," as someone said.

    we could not foresee exactly what kind of "Grifter in Chief" Trump would turn out to be until in office . The Blob has now 'ensnared" Trump as blowback for "stealing" the Presidency. Hillary as the rightful heir is doing her part with her morally indignant, empty and vacuous righteousness, as if she possessed "morals" to begin with.

    Hillary has continued to play her part in the subterfuge, though it's all out in the open, which lost her the deplorables' vote she didn't care about but she needed.

    watching people show surprise at either of these two actors shows how Americans are so easily "led/fooled" by the PR. Goebbels was just ahead of his time . St. Reagan, a Hollywood Actor, who played his "Role," proved how easy it was to "sell' us out to Big Business. Before St. Reagan, due to losing so many elections, the Republican Party just laid low and built the groundwork for the absolute oligarchy we 'enjoy" courtesy of a bought and sold highest bidder Congress we see today.

    we cant be nice or respectful to those who despoil our country or planet, for profit. a profit the 99% pay. not calling a spade a spade is how we got to this despicable situation, and allows the Scam to continue. Vichy Democrats and Corporate Republicans need to be jailed. Polite criticism wont cut it.

    "For the many, not the few" is a belief we need here in America, too. though Americans are still buying the self-hating PR so-called Leaders Thatcher, St. Reagan sold. the young don't, however, which could promise a hopeful future in England. maybe Bernie can help reconnect the Youth here in America. Obama destroyed that "Dream" in America for the Poor and Young, thank you,very much.

    Kent St. shows how the Blob responded to the Youth 50 years ago.
    power cedes nothing without unyielding force in America.

    Don Lowell , June 17, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    Nothing will happen until we get rid of fixed elections. Suppression, kicking voters off the list, gerrymandering, no paper trail voting machine's. We are screwed.

    dcblogger , June 17, 2017 at 3:55 pm

    Mueller also play a notorious role in the Starr Chamber Whitewater witch hunt. Mueller is really truly awful. In some ways it is satisfying to see all the Republican hacks turn on one another.

    Bobby Gladd , June 17, 2017 at 7:46 pm

    Busted for my typo. Fair enough. :)

    Flynn broke laws, repeatedly. I dimly recall some long ago "3rd rate burglary."

    Trump is minimally trying to interfere with justice in regard to Flynn, for whatever reasons.

    witters , June 17, 2017 at 7:58 pm

    "Robert S. Mueller III managed in a dozen years as F.B.I. director to stay above the partisan fray, carefully cultivating a rare reputation for independence and fairness."

    So he was independent and fairness? Clearly laughable nonsense.
    So he was "cultivating a rare reputation" as such?
    OK: Does that mean for the NYT that "cultivating a rare reputation for X" is what is it TO BE X?
    In that case reality has collapsed into and become mere appearance.

    (No wonder listening to Putin on Stone's movie is like listening to a different world.)

    [Jun 19, 2017] Syria and Our Illegal Acts of War The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Where is the "Resistance" now? Are they fighting against this stupid war in Syria? Protesting stupid sanctions against Cuba? Complaining about the record arms sale with Saudi Arabia (home of the 9/11 terrorists?)? Second guessing themselves with the latest bought of Russian sanctions that managed to piss off Germany and Austria and put European energy security at risk? No, they are all on MSNBC or CNN dragging out a stupid investigation all the while pushing Russia to war. ..."
    "... I'm curious if the US shoots down a Syrian jet inside Syria on behalf of "moderate rebels" it's called self defense, what Orwellian term describes if Syria or Russia shoots down of US jet inside Syria? ..."
    "... Trump's laziness/stupidity delegating all strategic aspects to the military with no higher level executive guidance to his generals along his the neocon push to war with Russia made this event inevitable in some ways. ..."
    "... Russia cannot lose face too much, nor can the US. ..."
    Jun 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    I mentioned the illegality of U.S. actions in Syria in an earlier post , but I wanted to say a bit more on that point. There has never been a Congressional vote authorizing U.S. military operations in Syria against anyone, and there has been scant debate over any of the goals that the U.S. claims to be pursuing there. The U.S. launches attacks inside Syria with no legal authority from the U.N. or Congress, and it strains credulity that any of these operations have anything to do with individual or collective self-defense. The U.S. wages war in Syria simply because it can.

    Obama expanded the war on ISIS into Syria over two years ago, and the U.S. was arming the opposition for at least more than a year before that. The U.S. has been a party to the war in Syria in one form or another for more than four years, but the underlying assumption that it is in our interest to take part in this war has not been seriously questioned by most members of Congress. The president had no authority to take the U.S. to war in Syria, and the current president still has no such authority. We are so accustomed to illegal warfare that we barely notice that the policy has never really been up for debate and has never been put to a vote. If this illegal warfare eventually leads us into a larger conflict, we will finally notice, but by then it will be too late.

    The latest episode with the Syrian jet shows the dangers that come from conducting a foreign policy unmoored from both the national interest and representative government. The Syrian jet was shot down because it was threatening rebels opposed to the Syrian government, and the U.S. is supporting those rebels up to and including destroying regime forces that attack them. The U.S. has no business supporting those rebels, and it has no right to have its military forces operating inside Syria. Shooting down a Syrian plane inside its own country under these circumstances is nothing less than an unprovoked act of war against another state. 14 Responses to Syria and Our Illegal Acts of War

  • K Street Loiterer , says: June 19, 2017 at 1:02 pm
    Along with a lot of other people who voted for Trump, I don't want us involved in the Syrian civil war. I have no idea what Trump thinks he's doing over there. Or why he is spending so much of his time and focus (and our money) on these worthless hellholes. He was supposed to get us out of there and focus on America.

    Yes, Congress should tell him to get out and stay out.

    liberal , says: June 19, 2017 at 1:14 pm
    Great, timely post. Tangling with another nuclear-armed power makes anyone with a brain in their head nervous.

    I've seen comments to the effect that "well, the Russian reaction to the cruise missile strike launched by Trump didn't involve much." Or that we ourselves wouldn't launch a nuclear attack over such small stakes, nor would Putin.

    Such commentary misses the real danger-slow escalation into a confrontation neither side is willing to back down from.

    I have kids, and while I care about (e.g.) the people in Yemen (and am sickened by both Trump's and Obama's actions there), I (like most humans) care even more about my own children. This nonsense puts them directly at risk, which really makes me angry (as if I wasn't angry enough at the blood on my hands with our actions re Yemen, etc).

    Chris Chuba , says: June 19, 2017 at 1:19 pm
    I know that Larison's point remains unchanged even if the Pentagon's account is 100% accurate but it is worth noting that it is likely fiction.

    The author of this website does a good job of coalescing sources from other locations to produce a timeline that shows that the Pentagon's account is largely fiction. Try to get over that he calls himself 'Moon of Alabama'
    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/syria-summary-us-attack-fails-to-disrupt-push-to-deir-ezzor.html

    Our MSM has not seriously questioned a Pentagon press release in 30yrs, so this gives them license to go further astray. Just look at how many times they revised the simply failed Yemeni raid story.

    We are playing a dangerous game here, I believe that our Generals really believe that the Russians will never respond to what we do. I believe that the Russians will eventually conclude that there is no point in showing restraint because it only invites further aggression.

    I just watched Oliver Stone's 'Putin' and one thing that I found striking was that Putin maintains that there is very little difference between U.S. Administrations but that he always maintains a little hope. Personally, I agree with his observation and think that he is being naive if he believes that anything will change. If he ever comes to the same conclusion then our military will be in for yet another surprise.

    Xenia Grant , says: June 19, 2017 at 2:36 pm
    The US is an imperialist country. In the days of the Cold War, the one good thing the USSR did was to be a barrier to American outreach. Too bad we don't have a good enough thorn sticking our paws and saying 'lay off and nation builders your own country!'
    No to neos , says: June 19, 2017 at 3:19 pm
    Maybe, to be good sports, the US government will allow the Russians to shoot down an American military plane over the US?
    No to neos , says: June 19, 2017 at 3:20 pm
    Whoops, should have written "Syrians to shoot down an American military plane over the US?"
    John Newman , says: June 19, 2017 at 4:18 pm
    I eagerly await the Democrat Resistance anti-war march tomorrow! Has anyone heard where it will be?
    Ken Zaretzke , says: June 19, 2017 at 4:37 pm
    Does the Defense Department have any idea of how dangerous this is? Will the ongoing demonization of Russia and Putin in the American media ensure that our military leaders will be blind to the danger? Let's hope Trump follows his Putin-respecting instincts rather than the crazy neocons who populate his administration and the Defense Department.
    jk , says: June 19, 2017 at 5:43 pm
    Where is the "Resistance" now? Are they fighting against this stupid war in Syria? Protesting stupid sanctions against Cuba? Complaining about the record arms sale with Saudi Arabia (home of the 9/11 terrorists?)? Second guessing themselves with the latest bought of Russian sanctions that managed to piss off Germany and Austria and put European energy security at risk? No, they are all on MSNBC or CNN dragging out a stupid investigation all the while pushing Russia to war.

    I'm curious if the US shoots down a Syrian jet inside Syria on behalf of "moderate rebels" it's called self defense, what Orwellian term describes if Syria or Russia shoots down of US jet inside Syria?

    Trump's laziness/stupidity delegating all strategic aspects to the military with no higher level executive guidance to his generals along his the neocon push to war with Russia made this event inevitable in some ways.

    Russia cannot lose face too much, nor can the US.

    Viriato , says: June 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm
    What's the point of a congressional vote? What difference would it make? Would Congress vote against war? No. When Congress took its war-making power seriously, did it ever once vote against war? No.
    KevinS , says: June 19, 2017 at 6:38 pm
    "I have no idea what Trump thinks he's doing over there."

    And I am sure Trump has no idea either. If a knowledgable interviewer quizzed him for more than 10 minutes about the conflict, he would melt into a mishmash of incoherent nonsense.

    oath? what oath? , says: June 19, 2017 at 7:27 pm
    "Where is the "Resistance" now? Are they fighting against this stupid war in Syria?"

    The "resistance" is more concerned with letting men use women's bathrooms and letting foreigners take our jobs than it is about civilians being killed or starved to death, or new waves of terror attacks, or a few more trillion down the toilet as Trump lets these incompetent generals take over US policy in the Middle East.

    philadelphialawyer , says: June 19, 2017 at 8:09 pm
    Trump has even less authority under international law for this latest action than he had for the missile strike after the alleged chemical weapons incident, and much less than he and Obama have for the attacks on ISIS.

    In the case of the missile strike, Trump's lawyers could at least point to the the Convention against the use of chemical weapons, and to the UNSC Resolution which threatened the use of force for repeat violations that was passed in 2013 during the first Syrian chemical warfare event. Of course, neither of those rationales really holds water without a specific UNSC Resolution authorizing the use of force, which was absent. But at least there was something.

    ISIS presents a case where a terrorist organization is using the territory of a nation, Syria, which is unable to prevent it from doing so. In such a case, the right of self defense does allow for attacks against the terrorist organization in that nation. Also, ISIS uses Syrian territory to attack Iraq, and Iraq has actually specifically "invited" the US to help it resist those attacks. There is also a case to be made, I suppose, that Syria itself has invited the US and other nations to help it defeat ISIS. And there is some UNSC language arguably authorizing such actions as well.

    But there is nothing, that I can see, in any UNSC resolution, or international law in general, remotely justifying the US in brazenly waging war against the recognized government of Syria. The Syrian air force was fighting folks in open, military rebellion against its authority. That the US supports these folks, in various ways, does not mean that the US has any kind of international legal case for taking military action against the Syrian air force.

    Similarly, Trump has very little authority under domestic US law either for this latest attack either. Both Trump and Obama stretched the AUMFs against Al Qaeda and Saddam to include attacks on ISIS. But neither of those AUMFs even remotely authorizing attacking the Syrian government.

    This case really is a new overreach for US presidents.

    Syria is not doing anything remotely "wrong," even under new-fangled notions of "R2P" and human rights interventions. No WMD is being used. The Syrian air strikes are against armed rebels, not civilians. There is not even the fake rationale of preventing a "bloodbath" that was ginned up for the UNSC against Libya. On the domestic legal front, Trump has nothing more than a bald, bare assertion of the "national interest," and raw executive authority. He has no Congressional authorization of any kind, that I can see.

    It now seems as if the POTUS can simply make war, against whomever he chooses, whenever he chooses

    Anthony Hinds , says: June 19, 2017 at 8:36 pm
    Trump promised to defeat ISIS. He said he would do this and you still voted for him. These are his quotes:

    "I would bomb the s**t out of 'em. I would just bomb those suckers. I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up every single inch-there would be nothing left." Then he followed that with saying he'd have Exxon go in there and take the oil, although the Russians and Syrians are currently making good headway toward those oil fields. That may lead to a showdown, but I think we'll end up holding short of stealing the oil.

    "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families,"

  • [Jun 19, 2017] Russia Threatens to Attack U.S. Planes in Syria Following Assad Jet Fighter Shootdown - Breitbart

    Jun 19, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Russia warned that planes from the U.S.-led coalition will be "tracked by the Russian ground and air anti-aircraft defense systems as air targets in the areas where Russian aviation is on combat missions in the Syrian sky." The threat came up just short of promising to fire on those targets.

    The Russians claimed the U.S. did not use the de-confliction hotline to warn them before shooting down the Syrian jet, and said Russian planes operating in the area could have been jeopardized. According to the Russian Defense Ministry's statement, it will no longer participate in the de-confliction hotline.

    The Associated Press notes that it made the same threat after the U.S. missile attack on a Syrian airbase in April, which would raise the question of whether anyone on Russia's end picked up the phone, literally or figuratively speaking, when the U.S. used the de-confliction system on Sunday.

    On Monday, the Syrian Democratic Forces said they will retaliate against any further attack from the Assad regime or its allies.

    "The regime's forces have mounted large-scale attacks using planes, artillery, and tanks since June 17," an SDF spokesman said, as quoted by Reuters . "If the regime continues attacking our positions in Raqqa province, we will be forced to retaliate and defend our forces."

    Reuters notes that the Syrian government has previously suggested it would focus its efforts on other parts of Raqqa during the drive to liberate it from the Islamic State, so the attack on SDF forces appears to mark a change in policy. SDF units have reportedly liberated four districts of the city from ISIS and is fighting over another three, so the Syrian attack may have been meant to stall out the SDF offensive and prevent the Kurdish-led coalition from controlling a large portion of the city.

    [Jun 19, 2017] MoA - Syria Summary - U.S. Attack Fails To Disrupt Push To Deir Ezzor

    Notable quotes:
    "... Weekend Warrior ..."
    Jun 19, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Syria Summary - U.S. Attack Fails To Disrupt Push To Deir Ezzor

    Our last summary said that the end of the war in Syria is now in sight :

    Unless the U.S. changes tact and starts a large scale attack on Syria with its own army forces the war on Syria is over.

    There are a few civilian lunatics in the White House who push for widening the war on Syria into an all out U.S.-Iran war. The military leadership is pushing back. It fears for its forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the larger area. But there are also elements within the U.S. military and the CIA that take a more aggressive pro-war position.

    Yesterday a U.S. F-18 jet shot down a Syrian air force bomber near the city of Raqqa. The U.S. Central Command ludicrously claims that this was in "self defense" of its invading forces and its Kurdish proxies (Syria Democratic Forces - SDF) within a "deconflicting zone" in the town of Jardin.

    This is a lie. Neither is there any agreed upon "deconflicting zone" in the area nor was the town of Jardin held by SDF forces at the time of the attack.

    The Syrian government as well as witnesses on the ground refute the U.S. claims. The Syrian Observatory in Britain, often cited as authoritative about events in Syria, says the U.S. jets attacked the Syrian one in support of Islamic State forces:

    A regime warplane was targeted and dropped in the skies of the al-Resafa area [...] the warplane was shot down over Al-Resafa area of which the regime forces have reached to its frontiers today, and sources suggested to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that warplanes of the International Coalition targeted it during its flight in close proximity to the airspace of the International Coalition's warplanes, which caused its debris to fall over Resafa city amid an unknown fate of its pilot, the sources confirmed that the warplane did not target the Syria Democratic Forces in their controlled areas located at the contact line with regime forces' controlled areas in the western countryside of Al-Tabaqa to the road of Al-Raqqah – Resafa.

    Here is an overview of the situation in south-east Syria:


    Map via Peto Lucem - bigger

    On the bottom left is the area of Palmyra on the right is Deir Ezzor, at the top is Raqqa. The dark areas are occupied by the Islamic State. A hundred thousand civilians and a small Syrian army garrison in Deir Ezzor is besieged by the Islamic State. The Syrian army is moving east from two directions to relieve the city. One thrust is from the Palmyra area along the road towards the north-east to Deir Ezzor. The distance still to go is about 130 kilometer and a major Islamic State held city, Al-Sukhnah, will have to be taken before the advance can proceed.

    A second thrust is from the south of Raqqa.

    UPDATE: The evil_SDOC aka Weekend Warrior created this excellent map of what reminds him of World War II "island hopping". The eastern Syrian desert has few inhabited places connected by roads which are of upmost important to control the huge areas in between. It shows the potential of the thrust axes and the importance of Resafa which was the focus of yesterday's incident.


    Map via Weekend Warrior - bigger

    [End update]

    Raqqa is currently besieged by the U.S. supported Kurdish forces of the SDF. Those forces (yellow) have taken parts of the southern bank of the Euphrates around the city of Tabqa. The Syrian army is moving to the south of these forces from west towards the east. Its current target is the town of Resafa at the crossing of road 6 and road 42. If it takes the crossing it can move south-east along the major roads towards Deir Ezzor. It will also cut off a retreat route for Islamic State forces who are fleeing south to escape the Kurdish Raqqa attack. The distance to go to Deir Ezzor is about 100 kilometer and there are no major impediments along the way. Taking the crossing is immensely important for the relieve operation of the besieged eastern city.


    bigger

    Raqqa is to beyond the upper right of this detail map of the Tabqa area. The Kurdish forces are marked in yellow, the Syrian army in red. The Syrian army was moving very fast towards the east to capture the three-way crossroads at Resafa (mid-right on the map). A few hours before the Syrian jet was shot down it had already taken the town of Jardin :

    Yusha Yuseef 🇸🇾‏Verified account @MIG29_
    Breaking , SAA Tiger Forces liberate Jaadeen جعيدين village North of Al-Easawii South #Raqqa CS
    3:36 PM - 18 Jun 2017

    The U.S. killing of the Syrian jet occurred hours later :

    Dr Abdulkarim Omar‏ abdulkarimomar1
    International coalition drops a military aircraft to the Syrian regime in the Raqqa after bombing the sites of S D Forces In the Tabqa area
    5:18 PM - 18 Jun 2017

    ---

    Yusha Yuseef 🇸🇾‏Verified account @MIG29_
    I can confirm that we lost Syrian Jet East of Rassafeh and Far of SDF Points
    No more info if US do it
    6:14 PM - 18 Jun 2017

    The U.S. now claims that the Syrian jet attacked Kurdish forces in Jardin. But there were none left there when the incident happened. The town was already confirmed to be in the hands of the Syrian army. The Syrian jet attacked Islamic State forces near Resafa. The Syrian army was in the process of taking the town Resafa from the Islamic State and to reach the crossroad that would allow it to proceed to the ISIS besieged Deir Ezzor. The Syrian air forces jet bombed Islamic State forces in Resafa. The U.S. shot the jet down falsely claiming that it attacked its Kurdish proxy forces.

    One can only interpret this as an attempt by the U.S. to prevent or hinder the Syrian forces from reliefing Deir Ezzor as soon as possible. The U.S. is, willingly or not, helping the Islamic State forces who are engaged in heavy attacks on the besieged Deir Ezzor garrison. The Russian government called the U.S. attack an "act of aggression" in "breach of international law" and in "assistance for the terrorists" of the Islamic State. It will halt its air space coordination with the U.S. operations command in Syria. Additionally:

    In the areas of combat missions of Russian air fleet in Syrian skies, any airborne objects, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles of the [US-led] international coalition, located to the west of the Euphrates River, will be tracked by Russian ground and air defense forces as air targets," the Russian Ministry of Defense stated.

    If I were a U.S. pilot, I would try to avoid the area ...

    Whatever the U.S. intent was it did not stop the Syrian army. Resafa has just now been taken (map) by the Syrian army forces. The shot down pilot, Ali Fahed, has been extracted from behind enemy lines by a team of the Syrian Tiger Force.

    ---

    Independent of the events near Raqqa the Iranian Revolutionary Guard launched medium range ballistic missiles from within Iran on Islamic State forces near Deir Ezzor in Syria. The distance was about 600 kilometers. The launch was billed as revenge for the June 7 terrorist attacks on the parliament in Tehran, Iran. The missiles hit their targets .

    The message sent with them was larger than just a pure revenge act. Iran demonstrated that it can reliable hit far away targets from within its own state. The Wahhabi Persian Golf states and all U.S. forces in the area will have to take note of this. They are not safe from Iranian retaliation even when no Iranian forces are nearby. Iran emphasized that it can repeat such attacks whenever needed:

    "The Saudis and Americans are especially receivers of this message." Said [Revolutionary Guard Gen. Ramazan] Sharif. "Obviously and clearly, some reactionary countries of the region, especially Saudi Arabia, had announced that they are trying to bring insecurity into Iran."

    ---

    As described in our last summary U.S. forces are occupying the border station of al-Tanf between Syria and Iraq in the south-east of Syria. The station and the U.S. trained Arab "rebels" there were stopped from moving further north by a Syrian army push towards the border with Iraq. From the Iraqi side militia under the command of the Prime Minister joined in and al-Tanf is now isolated. Several reports yesterday claimed that the U.S. has flown in Kurdish proxy forces from the north-east of Syria to defend al-Tanf. It obviously does not trust the Arab "rebel" forces it had trained for occupying south-east Syria. A few hundred Kurdish forces do not change the tactical situation. There is no reasonable use for those forces and the U.S. (supported) contingent will eventually have to move out and retreat towards Jordan.

    ---

    Israel has long supported al-Qaeda "rebels" in the south-west of Syria near and on the Golan heights. This has been known at least since 2014 and the Israeli support was even documented by UN observer forces in the area. But somehow U.S. media "forgot" to report it and the Israelis were reluctant to comment on it.

    That has changed. There is now a flood of reports about Israeli support and payments to "rebels" in the Golan next to the Israeli occupied parts of Syria. Few mention though that the forces Israel supports are al-Qaeda terrorists . There are also Islamic State groups in the area who "apologized" to Israel after a clash with Israeli forces. It is clear that Israel is now openly supporting the terrorists.

    Someone is intentionally pushing out these reports. I presume that Israel does this in preparation of the political landscape for an even large occupation of Syrian land. The reports compare the Israeli maneuvers with the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon in the 1980s and 90s. They neglect to tell the whole story. The Israeli occupation of south-Lebanon led to the growth of Hizubullah and the eventually defeat of the Israeli forces. By the year 2000 they had to retreat from the occupied land and Hizbullah is now Israels most feared enemy. It seems that Israel wants to repeat that experience.

    Posted by b on June 19, 2017 at 07:16 AM | Permalink

    1
    Russia MoD posted this one minute ago.

    https://www.facebook.com/Ministry-of-Defence-of-the-Russian-Federation-1492252324350852/
    ...In areas of combat missions of Russian aircraft in the skies of Syria any airborne targets, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles international coalition discovered to the West of the Euphrates river, will be accepted in support of Russian ground and air defense as air targets"...

    Out of Istanbul | Jun 19, 2017 7:44:09 AM | 2
    RT is also carrying that story as well. Every time I imagine that this hellish war and ISIS scum has a chance of coming to an end with six months, something like this happens.

    I guess the next form of posturing from the Russian side might be the downing of a US drone.

    I really hope that this doesn't snowball...

    Anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 7:48:37 AM | 3
    Another aggression by the US but what could you expect by an old sick f'ck warmonger like this as secretary of defence?

    "James Mattis's Role in Fallujah & Haditha Massacre,"
    https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/12/part_2_did_defense_secretary_nominee

    Its time Syria get to buy russian air-defense, US will keep bombing - they're not sane, like what happens next week? They'll bomb Assad's palace?

    And please look at the western media these days, and see the naked propaganda being typed when US once again bomb another country, illegally and then the western media backs it like the lackeys in the EU, Nato.
    Shameful being from the west days like these.

    Absolutely shameful!

    jfl | Jun 19, 2017 7:50:12 AM | 4
    it does sound like russia is taking a hard line right from the beginning of this new, maddog stage of now open us aggression against syria. i can't figure the wsj and the israeli report ... maybe they are trying to sprinkle israeli pixie dust - anyone the israelis help are by definition 'good guys', even if they 'were' associated with al-qaeda - and al-qaeda are the ksa's boys, israel and the ksa are reciprocally new best friends now ... but i can't see anyone but the israelis 'believing' that ... just as i cannot see anyone but maddog 'believing' that us aggression is 'defense'. and not even sohr can believe it either.

    the us is over the abyss and into the 'dark side' bigtime now, and openly so. will they send some targets for the russians to shoot down? and then what, if they do?

    Anon @ 1 nabbed it before I did. Let's see if the Russians allow the US to weasel it's way back into another deconfliction agreement. Amannews hasn't backed off the reporting about the SAA and the SDF going at it full bore, with tanks and atgms in the mix, I'm still waiting for some confirmation on that one.

    Posted by: wwinsti | Jun 19, 2017 7:51:13 AM | 5

    Anon @ 1 nabbed it before I did. Let's see if the Russians allow the US to weasel it's way back into another deconfliction agreement. Amannews hasn't backed off the reporting about the SAA and the SDF going at it full bore, with tanks and atgms in the mix, I'm still waiting for some confirmation on that one.

    Posted by: wwinsti | Jun 19, 2017 7:51:13 AM | 5

    jfl | Jun 19, 2017 7:52:51 AM | 6
    @4

    and i should add - with no effective civilian control of the us military at this point at all.

    Dean | Jun 19, 2017 8:11:59 AM | 7
    Anon@1,

    Thanks for the link. The other interesting part of the MOD announcement is that they are also resuspending the memorandum regarding flight deconfliction. The US will now be blind again to the Russian / Syrian Air forces operations. This will create a abit of panic I'm sure.

    Anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 8:16:40 AM | 8
    Dean

    Quite stupid by Russia though to claim they might shoot down the planes now, if they dont, well then US will keep bombing
    and if they do, then the snowball is rolling and Russia will get all the blame thus a conflict between Russia, US might occur, just like the ugly clientele at ISIS, Nato, EU wants though..

    jfl | Jun 19, 2017 8:24:00 AM | 9
    @8 dean 'Russia will get all the blame'

    russia will 'get all the blame' no matter what happens. has been getting all the blame for all the monstrous, inhuman acts of the 'us-coalition' since they cam to the aid of syria, at syria's request.

    the rump will 'get all the blame' when the first american zoomie bites the dust in syria, having attacked the syrians in syria. why was that again? exactly? good opportunity to try out his 'you're fired' act on the maddog. see if there's still a few miles left in that one. the us is misplaying this, not the russians.

    jfl | Jun 19, 2017 8:24:38 AM | 10
    sorry, that's @8 anonymous

    Ghostship | Jun 19, 2017 8:39:18 AM | 11

    Anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 7:48:37 AM | 3
    Its time Syria get to buy russian air-defense, US will keep bombing - they're not sane, like what happens next week? They'll bomb Assad's palace?

    Wrong. That is exactly what the US military want the Syrians to do. As soon as the Syrians use it, the Pentagon will cry aggression and the western MSM will go along with it regardless of how ridiculous that will sound to any knowledgeable person. The United States has one advantage at the moment that no other country has - the ability to reset history - through their control of global media. The aggressive acts of the US military prior to Syria shooting down an American will disappear from the pages of history and the Washington Borg will get their war with Iran and its allies and the American public will go along because Syria shooting down an American aircraft is the next "Pearl Harbour".
    Far better for the Syrians to ignore this aggression and get on and complete the task of liquidating the ISIS Caliphate as soon as possible and reveal the Washington Borg and its gangs of thugs as the ISIS supporters they are and allow them no reason to remain in Syria.
    And stop thinking like most Americans do - you don't necessarily win wars by winning battles - as any businessman will tell you, you win wars by achieving your (political) objectives. The Washington Borg/United States' objectives are regime change in Syria and war with Iran and it's possible to ensure they achieve neither but picking a fight with the US is not the way.

    Igor Bundy | Jun 19, 2017 8:45:04 AM | 12
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCo-cyWXoAAtZd4.jpg

    Syrian forces do not need to take The ISIS forcs at Al-Sukhnah, it is trapped and can be blocked from both sides, but the desert needs to be cleared off some small bands of terrorists and tribal sympathizers.. Both forces are almost 50KM from DZ and some huge operations are now in progress.. Maybe to sweep any remnants of ISIS forces that can attack the flanks.

    Mina | Jun 19, 2017 8:51:04 AM | 13
    Might be they promessed the Jordanians for big refugee camps and 'land for the Palestinians' in this area. This was a topic of breaking up UN led negociations at some point.

    Igor Bundy | Jun 19, 2017 8:57:27 AM | 14
    Okay so this is understandable since the crews for the S300 just graduated and returned to Syria, The crews for the pantzir's also graduated from the Syrian academy and the equipment was delivered many months ago..

    The big question is will Russia give the Syrians the ok to shoot unauthorized aggressor planes inside its air space.. Which means anything that is not supposed to be there.. What about tanif? Since the US like Israel uses missiles to attack a target and not bombs which also means they can hit targets inside Syria from upto 100km outside...

    snoopy007 | Jun 19, 2017 8:57:42 AM | 15
    what about this
    http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2017/06/19/525758/IRGC-Syria-Daesh
    why is no one talking about it.. including your website and comments
    is it also fake news?

    Anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 9:08:51 AM | 16
    Ghostship

    I agree mostly (Russia, Syria will be blamed no doubt) at the same time - if Syria and Russia doesnt do anything, US will keep bombing... until Assad is gone.
    Just look at North Korea, US backed off because they let US know past months that they arent putting up with this bullying and the result is pretty clear. No attack, invasion.

    stonebird | Jun 19, 2017 9:09:38 AM | 17
    The group supported by Israel are supposed to be Al-Nusra (Al Quaida offshoot anyway). This fits in with the "Newly named" HTS group that is formed around Al-Zinki (beheaders of children) who are NOT on a terrorist "watch list" and are armed by the US, "(also with Canadian "approval"). Thus ALL of them can be supplied by the US as "moderate" (headcutters) without crossing any "legal" barrier. Includes Al-Quaida I believe.

    Talking about "arms" - the ISIS members who are moving towards Deir Ezzor were reported several days ago to have "new" artillery and anti-tank missiles. Wonder where they got those? They were also seen but not attacked by US impregnated SDF forces when leaving Raqqua. The latest Syrian attack was on a second (or later) convoy of ISIS militants.

    The whole ISIS-Tabqah set up is filled with "anomalies". 1- The dam pumping area was vacated by ISIS and de-mined in exchange for a "safe" route out. The US then bombed them to hell after they were in the middle of the desert. (tell no tales?) 2- The Airbase at Tabqah, which is now only 2 km from the new Syrian lines, was apparently very quickly "useable", as the runways were only blocked by easily removable earth mounds. Not ditches. 3- The first "landing" there, was by real US forces in helicopters accompanied by some representatives of the SDF. (There have been unconfirmed reports of helicopters to evacuate "assets" from Raqqah - but I don't know if that is true or sour-grapes)
    --------
    The Israel part seems to be part of a carefully comprehensive scenario; Qatar to be isolated,(as a supporter of Palestinians and Hamas). UN and Nicky Haley. there have been three recent "reports" from UN bodies (Extrajudicial killings etc) which Israel is trying to block. Plus pressure on the UN NOT to use the word "occupation". Total media blackout.

    The "sanctions" on Iran and Russia by the US are probably designed to push for a new war. (This was mentioned as being planned for July 18 - for those who want to believe the "sooth-sayers".)

    smuks | Jun 19, 2017 9:10:08 AM | 18
    @Ghostship 11

    Agreed. With one exception: I don't think Washington/ the Neocons want to wage war against Iran *themselves* - if possible, they want to remain in second line while someone else does.

    @snoopy007 15

    It was mentioned in the comments, but not thoroughly discussed. What- or whoever was hit, the Neocons/ Saudis sure aren't happy about it.

    stonebird | Jun 19, 2017 9:21:43 AM | 19
    @Igor Bundy 12
    Al-Sukhnah
    Since the Russian have been "active" in the planning of offensives in Syria - I very much doubt that they will leave a major bloc of ISIS behind their advances. They "clean" before moving on. It might take longer but it is much surer.

    The Palmyra "front" is large (N-S) and is to prevent any lateral attacks. A previous attempt to reach Deir Ezzor by the SAA alone, ended with them retreating rapidly so avoid being cut off.

    Morongobill | Jun 19, 2017 9:30:19 AM | 20
    How has that "war to meeting political objectives" thingie been working out for the USA since after the end of WW2?

    Seems to me we just can't help ourselves, start shit and not being able to finish it, who cares seems to be the attitude as long as some make money out of it.

    Like a washed up fighter still having a good record, due to the cherry picked "tomato cans" he fights. A real opponent would
    knock his f--king ass out for all to see.

    smuks | Jun 19, 2017 9:30:24 AM | 21
    Read the Russian statement carefully:

    It says "aircraft and unmanned vehicles international coalition discovered to the West of the Euphrates river will be accepted ... as air targets" - not "shot down". This means spotted and targeted by AD radar systems, without any further action. Which can be considered an 'unfriendly act', but not a casus belli.

    I'm also wondering what's going on between SAA and SDF in the Taqba area. Surely, Damascus & allies would love to see the Kurds withdraw beyond the Euphrates, no...?

    Lea | Jun 19, 2017 9:38:37 AM | 22
    The US has done this various times: down a plane or go into some other stupid provocation, see the Russians retaliate by cutting the communication channel, then backtrack, lay low, plead to re-open the "communication channel" in "the framework of the Memorandum on the Prevention of Incidents and Ensuring Air Safety in Syria" until Russia caves, then wait some weeks and re-launch some other provocation, and so on. I hope this time, Russia has understood the US has never had the smallest intention of keeping its word. For that, you need honour. What they are trying to do is demoralize the Syrian military and the Russians.

    Meanwhile, nobody, not even the Russians bother to explain why the US should be backing "moderate rebels" (or any other kind) in a sovereign nation anyway. I mean, how much can the US get away with before it is called its real name to its face: the world's prime sponsor of terrorism?

    les7 | Jun 19, 2017 9:52:55 AM | 23
    At some point, in Syria, Putin must show that he will not be mocked. the absence of response in the face of gross, repeated intimidation does not bode well in light of the fact that the same forces that did this also advocate the possibility of a nuclear first strike on russian military facilities. they trust in they myth of American superiority and their 'sheild' to be an effective spoiler to intimidate and contain Russia. If Putin does not demonstrate in Syria or Ukraine that it will not be intimidated, then he has set up our whole world for a nuclear confrontation

    Igor Bundy | Jun 19, 2017 9:54:18 AM | 24
    stonebird , The problem with Deir Ezzor is the lack of heavy weapons and logistics like gas.. A large enough force with enough supplies to last a few weeks can easily reach DZ now and attack the small ISIS forces around the city. Once reinforcements have reached the city they can hold on indefinitely. Over 10,000 men are moving in the border region, you dont need a large force to block ISIS from Sukhnah attacking anyone and they are now behind the ISIS lines while another force is facing the front. I think we will see some multiple vector moves here to block many areas of attack. Unlike the previous attempts which were made with very few men and stretching of supply lines inside hostile areas. ISIS dont have sufficient forces anywhere else they can mass for an attack with so many areas to defend.. We will know in a few days.. I do think they will make a big push to DZ before cleansing the area as that can be done slowly without frontal attacks now that they can use 2 or 3 routes to DZ.

    Igor Bundy | Jun 19, 2017 9:59:01 AM | 25
    Lea it has to do with the Russian desire to back the rebels in the donbas.. Although it was done covertly and only small amounts of supplies, now Russia can overtly do it in a big way, by the time it is over we can see most of Ukraine minus ukiestan become another country.. Russia used the same legal standing to break up Yugoslavia to annex Crimea. Although Crimea itself was illegally annexed by Ukraine and federal cities in Crimea were never part of Ukraine ever.. To get a legal precedent started...

    Igor Bundy | Jun 19, 2017 10:01:44 AM | 26
    The Syrian army just rescued the pilot of the jet downed cowardly by NATO-ISIS coalition yesterday.

    AlaBill | Jun 19, 2017 10:09:44 AM | 27
    Great news on the rescue of the pilot. I recently saw photos of his three kids.

    jawbone | Jun 19, 2017 10:18:29 AM | 28
    Ghostship @ 11 -- The US believes in its con game: Heads US wins, tails you lose.

    So, it's simple: The US can send military forces anywhere it wishes, as it is THE Hegemon and it has a Security Council veto. No other country, other than those which act in the US interests, can do military invasions. Unless the US tricks the Sec Council into giving its permission for invasions, aka R2P, Responsibility to Protect. AKA, Right to Plunder.

    stonebird | Jun 19, 2017 10:26:46 AM | 29
    Igor Bundy
    Beg to differ, but we will see. DZ area; The key is how many people each camp has in each area. Plus how much transport they have.
    Desert warfare is; either small "guerrila" highly mobile groups such as the UK has in Syria, or larger "convoys" which can be used for frontal offensives or static defensive positions.
    Both offense and defense are vulnerable to air. (Including "drones" as used by ISIS.)

    It is likely that the US will make another attempt to define an "US occupied" area, in order to block bridges and any means for the SAA of crossing the Euphrates. On a map in "US central command" this probably looks interesting.

    Leaving the Kurds with most of the best agricultural land to the North, ISIS as a permanent guerrila force south of the Euphrates and the US in command of the crossings with strategically placed bases/airfields from which to supply them.

    The bunker mentality of the Pentagon is visible (bases) and they are working to "planning" on large maps" where their suckers (assets) can be placed.
    Assets other than fighters; The US has made a mess of the infrastructure necessary for Syria to function independently. This is clear from before Alleppo (Power plants and pumping stations, bombed by US). How will they try to "neutralise or hold oil and gas wells?

    somebody | Jun 19, 2017 10:53:15 AM | 30
    21

    SDF and SAA are clearly fighting .

    Don't know how Russian radars work, switching them on to track without action would defeat the object, no? Like making known where they are?

    Don't think necessarily Russia will shoot down the plane. Probably will be some non state actor.

    I am pretty sure SDF has lost their air force.

    RT | Jun 19, 2017 11:14:01 AM | 31
    Rather than fighting to the death in Raqqa, ISIS, who realize that their days are numbered, are being given an escape route and are most likely now embedded with SDF fighters, US advisers and surplus SDF uniforms for the moment when they are finally "defeated" (per CNN et al) by the US coalition in Dier Ezzor. Would you expect anything less from the US?

    smuks | Jun 19, 2017 11:17:58 AM | 32
    @somebody

    Quite possible they lost it. In any case, the US' room for manoeuvre is getting smaller and smaller; more and more regions and actions are 'off-limits' for it.

    I'm most certainly no 'radar expert'. In my understanding, the target radar locks on to any jets or drones west of the Euphrates now - if this direct threat to 'coalition' forces goes unchallenged, they'll have to withdraw. In which case the river would become the demarcation line again, as I had previously thought.

    Which begs the question: Is it plausible to assume that the Syrian air force may have indeed attacked SDF positions near Taqba? The Kurdish presence there is a thorn in SAA-controlled territory after all...
    (of course, the 'coalition' is so discredited now that nobody believes their claims anyway)

    smuks | Jun 19, 2017 11:22:00 AM | 33
    @RT 31

    Please remember that the SAA does the same to avoid fighting in cities and minimize civilian casualties, e.g. in Deir Hafer or Maskaneh. It's sensible to leave escape routes from urban areas.
    'Embedded with the SDF' after years of at times bitter fighting? I doubt it. If anything, ISIS fighters could change their uniforms to become part of the New FSA/ NSyA in the south.

    BraveNewWorld | Jun 19, 2017 11:24:08 AM | 34
    @13 "Might be they promessed the Jordanians for big refugee camps and 'land for the Palestinians' in this area."

    The ethnic cleansing of the Plestinians is strictly an Israeli wet dream. First it was Sinai now apparently Syria. That would be a violation of the UN Charter and abot 50 UBSC resolutions. Jordan would never go along with it because they wouldn't stab the Palestinians in the back and it would certainly mean the loss of the haram al sharif which belongs to Jordan not the Israelis or the Palestinians. It would also mean the loss of many, many other holy sites and make the Palestinians targets in Syria. But the Jews keep stroking it.

    RT | Jun 19, 2017 11:54:36 AM | 35
    @SMUKS 33

    Good point regarding escape routes, but I wonder if a significant # of loyalists still exist in Raqqa - certainly none whom the Kurds would care to save. Generally caution against underestimating the Kurd's pragmatism and strategic flexibility.

    Ghostship | Jun 19, 2017 12:04:28 PM | 36
    Anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 9:08:51 AM | 16

    It's too late for the Americans in Syria because we're now in the deep operations phase of the battle for Deir Ez-zor, which means it should be over in a few weeks and it would take the US several months to do all the SEAD crap which would most likely trigger a global war anyway and put in place the heavy forces they'd need to do anything which would be pointless because the cockroaches would have already won.
    Any diversions to deal with the Americans would increase the length of the operation and the risk of failure at this point so for now it's far better for the Russians and Syrians to ignore the Americans in their baby-buggies. Perhaps once the situation has stabilised there will be a chance for the Syrians and Russians to do something. But how long will Trump allow US forces to remain in Syria once the ISIS Caliphate is liquidated? Not long if his base have any say in the matter and as president he could remove US forces in a matter of days. After the ISIS Caliphate is liquidated, the only reason for US forces to remain in Syria is if they become involved in the fight to liquidate Al Qaeda. ROFLOL.

    TG | Jun 19, 2017 12:10:31 PM | 37
    Something else to consider: if Russia really does try to shoot down US jets, there is a big risk for Russia not just in terms of escalating a conflict with the US, but in the possibility of their vaunted air defense systems not working.

    You can read all the technical specifications you want - NOBODY knows for certain how well a complicated system operates until it is actually used in combat agains another system. Russia has been getting a lot of press about their S400 etc. anti-aircraft missile systems. Prestige, power, foreign sales... if Russia really tries to use these systems for real, and they don't work as advertised against US systems, that would be a massive loss of prestige and influence for Russia. But if they do work, then the opposite.

    Either way, if Putin does decide to 'pull the trigger,' it will be a massive gamble with repercussions far beyond what's going in in Syria. I would think that a lot of the hesitation of Russia to respond to US provocations is tied up with this matter.

    b | Jun 19, 2017 12:15:30 PM | 38
    @snoopy007

    why is no one talking about it.. including your website and comments
    is it also fake news?

    You link to a Press TV report about the Iranian missile attack on Deir Ezzor.

    "No one talks about that" except the piece here you commented on without having read it. Fuck off.

    james | Jun 19, 2017 12:26:10 PM | 39
    thanks b.. excellent post! you articulate all the key ingredients here that have yet to come to a conclusion.. the main thrust is on... the shit is hitting the fan..

    @11 ghostship.. concur fully..

    @15 snoopy007.. read much? it was discussed in this article!

    @17 stonebird quote "The "sanctions" on Iran and Russia by the US are probably designed to push for a new war." that is what all of these ''sanctions'' from the west are always designed for - war, regime change and etc... they are ongoing and early steps in the process and typically backed up by a pile of steaming bullshite..

    @22 lea... yes, to your last paragraph.. anyone paying attention can see that as clear as day..

    @23 lea.. that moment is coming fast.. i wouldn't be in a hurry for it.. and i have never gotten the sense that putin can be intimidated... crimea? what happened their? usa got caught with their pants down, as usual...

    james | Jun 19, 2017 12:27:45 PM | 40
    @37 tg.. fully agree with your last sentence..

    Just Sayin' | Jun 19, 2017 1:10:20 PM | 41
    Dean

    Quite stupid by Russia though to claim they might shoot down the planes now, if they dont, well then US will keep bombing
    and if they do, then the snowball is rolling and Russia will get all the blame thus a conflict between Russia, US might occur, just like the ugly clientele at ISIS, Nato, EU wants though..

    Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 19, 2017 8:16:40 AM | 8

    Most likely they will start with drones, publicly and loudly announcing take-outs of US drones as they occur, while ignoring ISIS-AF craft (***previously known as USAF) for the moment. Then they will probably re-iterate, each time, their determination to strictly enforce the No-Fly Zone they just announced.

    Letting everyone know what is in store, so they can't say they weren't warned.

    Starting to look even more Quagmire-ish than it was already

    Just Sayin' | Jun 19, 2017 1:11:44 PM | 42
    Quagmire - See Definition #2.

    Definition of quagmire

    1 : soft miry land that shakes or yields under the foot

    2: a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position

    Just Sayin' | Jun 19, 2017 1:15:58 PM | 43
    Either way, if Putin does decide to 'pull the trigger,' it will be a massive gamble with repercussions far beyond what's going in in Syria. I would think that a lot of the hesitation of Russia to respond to US provocations is tied up with this matter.

    Posted by: TG | Jun 19, 2017 12:10:31 PM | 37


    NATO forces currently surrounding Kaliningrad on 3 sides
    From a Murdoch rag:


    Russia lets fly over nuclear war games as Nato surrounds Baltic fleet in Kaliningrad
    Bojan Pancevski

    June 18 2017, 12:01am, The Sunday Times

    All three types of US strategic nuclear bomber, including the B-52, will be deployed
    ALAMY

    Russia's western exclave of Kaliningrad was surrounded on three sides by Nato forces yesterday at the start of an unprecedented set of summer war games.

    Operation Sabre Strike 2017 includes the first full deployment of America's strategic nuclear bombers and a simulated air assault by the Royal Marines in the Baltics.

    Russia's Baltic fleet is based in Kaliningrad and the territory also plays host to a deployment of Iskander short-range ballistic missiles with a 300-mile reach capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

    Krollchem | Jun 19, 2017 1:47:51 PM | 44
    More on the long term Israeli efforts in support of terrorists in Southern Syria front:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-06-19/israel-has-been-secretly-funding-syrian-rebels-years

    fast freddy | Jun 19, 2017 1:56:52 PM | 45
    The deployment - is to show American commitment to "ready and posture forces focused on deterring conflict", said Lieutenant-General Richard Clark, a US airforce commander.

    Operation Sabre Strike seems more likely to create conflict than to deter it.

    Kindergarten-level mentality.

    One little slip up and it's off to the races.

    fast freddy | Jun 19, 2017 2:03:12 PM | 46
    American commitment to "ready and posture forces focused on deterring conflict"

    Of course, No one could come up with this line of shit spontaneously. Not even a US Airforce commander.

    Written by the Pentagon's PR Marketing Department, no doubt.

    Not unlike "One small step for man. One giant (squelch) leap for mankind".

    Taxi | Jun 19, 2017 2:09:15 PM | 47
    I really don't think the Axis of Evil dares expand the war in Syria beyond a certain 'safe' point: Tel Aviv is irrevocably in the Axis of Resistance's cross-hairs and Iran threatened that it can destroy Tel Aviv in 8 minutes. The first sure casualty of any war expansion will be israel itself.

    All that's going on right now from the Axis of Evil's side is tactical delaying of the 'cleansing' of terrorists from Syria before the Syria army turns its full attention to liberate the Golan, as indeed Bashar and his generals have already stated. It's all tactical delays by the US (on the behest of israel) before the inevitable Golan stand-off between Syria and israel hits up.

    Even if israel sets up another 9/11 on US soil and pins it on Iran and Syria, 'touching' Damascus or Tehran in any serious way will still result in the wholesale destruction of israel and its capital, regardless of the power of israel's offensive capabilities. Israel, my friends, has an unsolvable defense problem - and all the 'David Slings' in the world will not be able to protect israel, especially that the Dimona too is high on the target list of the Axis of Resistance.

    Once the Axis of Evil runs out of proxy terrorists in Syria, that will be that. And the next battle stage will be sharply focused on the Golan. And here, again, I can't see israel going into a full thrust war over the Golan because again, Tel Aviv is the target and israel will never sacrifice Tel Aviv for the Golan. Whomever is ruling israel at the time will find some way to pull back, with security guarantees and a big fat dollars package, taking the political hit etc instead of losing tel aviv. They withdrew from Sinai, also from Lebanon, and they did it in Gaza too. They'll do it with the Golan to 'save' israel.

    An all out war over the Golan is what the Axis of Resistance wants because they know that israel will lose this war in the first 8 minutes.

    Gone are the days when Israel can start border wars, smash up what it wants then go home and take a shower. Them days are finito-Benito and forever gone.

    frances | Jun 19, 2017 2:34:21 PM | 48
    B "Someone is intentionally pushing out these reports. I presume that Israel does this in preparation of the political landscape for an even large occupation of Syrian land."
    This could explain why Trump's son-in-law is off to Israel, supposedly to work on Israel/Palestinian peace. Syrian land grabs by Israel may be a more likely topic.

    frances | Jun 19, 2017 2:38:00 PM | 49
    ""...In areas of combat missions of Russian aircraft in the skies of Syria any airborne targets, including aircraft and unmanned vehicles international coalition discovered to the West of the Euphrates river, will be accepted in support of Russian ground and air defense as air targets"...
    Posted by: anon | Jun 19, 2017 7:28:29 AM | 1

    "West of the Euphrates river" this is really troubling, to me anyway, is Russia accepting Kurdistan as a done deal?? It would be the end of Russia's control of the EU gas market...among many other things.

    James | Jun 19, 2017 2:49:19 PM | 50
    Hi b, thanks for this update


    Would be interested in what you think of the view expressed by MK Bhadrakum - that the USA /pentagon is steadily escalating its attacks on the SAA and looking to expand the war and draw in Iran and Russia. He takes the opposite view to that expressed in today's article

    http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2017/06/19/us-ratchets-up-syrian-intervention-pokes-russia-and-iran/


    Thank you :-)

    CarlD | Jun 19, 2017 2:58:48 PM | 51
    Ygor Bundy

    "Russia used the same legal standing to break up Yugoslavia to annex Crimea."

    Mein Gott! Yugoslavia never had anything to do with Crimea. So why would Russia need to break up Yugoslavia to annex Crimea?

    Yugoslavia was dismembered by the US and NATO under the guidance of Frau Madeline Albright in a bid to divide and conquer. US über alles.

    [Jun 19, 2017] Sam Adonis, El Santo and Donald Trump by Linh Dinh

    Notable quotes:
    "... So there you have it. Trump has a professional wrestling mindset. ..."
    "... 's Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog . ..."
    Jun 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Like millions of other Americans, Sam believed Trump to be genuine and uncompromising. To the San Jose Mercury News, however, Sam hinted at a deeper insight, "He's kind of embraced his position, as you like me or you don't, but I'm not changing. It is almost a professional wrestling mentality and I have a sympathy for that." So there you have it. Trump has a professional wrestling mindset.

    ... ... ...

    Jesse Ventura, a wrestler turned politician, has repeatedly pointed out the similarity between American politics and professional wrestling. In 2010, Ventura said, "Politics today is pro wrestling. It is pro wrestling, and you know what I mean by that? I mean by that that the Dems and Repubs in front of you [reporters] and in front of the public is going to tell you how they hate each other, and how they're different, but as soon as the camera is off, in the backroom, they're all going out together, and they're all buddies cutting deals. It's just like pro wrestling. In front of the public, we hate each other, we're going to rip our heads off, but in the locker room, we're all friends. I'm suggesting politics is fake."

    In 2016, Ventura told The Atlantic, "Many of these elected officials are just like wrestlers in the public and then they're the opposite in private. Case in point, do you remember a few years ago who was some congressman from Florida who voted against every gay bill and it turned out he was gay, do you remember that? Yeah, so there's a classic example of it. This guy who was gay hid the fact that he was gay, voted like he hated gays, and so he created a personality that was completely averse to what he really was. And wrestling's the same way."

    Though American politicians are phonies, and American elections are farcically rigged, Americans continue to rabidly support their favorite political puppet, whether Obama, Hillary, Sanders, Trump or whoever. Going berserk over each cartoon savior or villain, most Americans don't even know they're being force-fed lucha libre.

    Linh Dinh 's Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog .

    [Jun 18, 2017] What we see is a set of steps taken directly from Gene Sharp textbook on the subject.

    Jun 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova - June 18, 2017 at 04:24 PM "

    I like your use of color revolution analogy; it enrages liberal interventionists"

    Thank you -- But is not an analogy. What we see is a set of steps taken directly from Gene Sharp textbook on the subject.

    I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the election, by discrediting already discredited neoliberal establishment (Although, as any patriotic American, I strongly doubt they can tamper as well as we can.)

    But the set of steps we observed was the plot to appoint a Special Prosecutor, who later is expected to sink Trump. After the Special Prosecutor was appointed Russia changes does not matter, and more "elastic" charge of "obstruction of justice" can be used instead.

    Also note the heavy participation of two heads of intelligence agencies (Clapper and Brennan) and State Department officials in the plot.

    [Jun 18, 2017] Overheated topics invariably produce ill-considered books. Some people will remember the time, in the late nineteen-eighties, when Japan was about to buy up America and conquer the world.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thucydides trap* is foggy bottom 'soft porn'! Besides in 30 years the "power balance" between China and US will not favor the sea power. *even less foundation in logic than applying the 'prisoner dilemma' to the war room in "Fail Safe". ..."
    "... With Trump we have MIC goon in chief ..."
    "... To what extent will China support the international order that emerged when it was suffering humiliation at the hands of foreign powers? What are the drivers and motivations for the new ways China projects its power? How best should its neighbors and its rival North American superpower respond? ..."
    "... The book purporting to see the world thru chineses history conditioned eyes is patently ridiculous nastines ..."
    Jun 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne , June 17, 2017 at 12:01 PM
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/are-china-and-the-united-states-headed-for-war

    June 19, 2017

    Are China and the United States Headed for War?
    Professors, pundits, and journalists weigh in on a heated topic.
    By Ian Buruma

    Overheated topics invariably produce ill-considered books. Some people will remember the time, in the late nineteen-eighties, when Japan was about to buy up America and conquer the world. Many a tidy sum was made on that premise. These days, the possibility of war with China is stirring emotions and keeping publishers busy. A glance at a few new books suggests what scholars and journalists are thinking about the prospect of an Asian conflagration; the quality of their reflections is, to say the least, variable.

    The worst of the bunch, Graham Allison's "Destined for War," may also be the most influential, given that its thesis rests on a catchphrase Allison has popularized, "Thucydides's Trap." Even China's President, Xi Jinping, is fond of quoting it. "On the current trajectory," Allison contends, "war between the U.S. and China in the decades ahead is not just possible, but much more likely than currently recognized." The reason, he says, can be traced to the problem described in the fifth century B.C.E. in Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War. Sparta, as the established power, felt threatened by the rising might of Athens. In such conditions, Allison writes, "not just extraordinary, unexpected events, but even ordinary flashpoints of foreign affairs, can trigger large-scale conflict."

    Allison sees Thucydides' Trap in the wars between a rising England and the established Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century, a rising Germany versus Britain in the early twentieth century, and a rising Japan versus the United States in the nineteen-forties. Some historical tensions between rising powers and ruling ones were resolved without a catastrophic war (the Soviet challenge to U.S. dominance), but many, Allison warns, were not. And there's no disputing China's steep military and economic rise in recent decades. Its annual military budget has, for most of the past decade, increased by double digits, and the People's Liberation Army, even in its newly streamlined form, has nearly a million more active service members than the United States has. As recently as 2004, China's economy was less than half that of the United States. Today, in terms of purchasing-power parity, China has left the United States behind.

    Allison is so excited by China's swift growth that his prose often sounds like a mixture of a Thomas Friedman column and a Maoist propaganda magazine like China Reconstructs. Rome wasn't built in a day? Well, he writes, someone "clearly forgot to tell the Chinese. By 2005, the country was building the square-foot equivalent of today's Rome every two weeks."

    Allison underrates the many problems that could slow things down quite soon...

    Paine, June 17, 2017 at 01:58 PM
    This thesis assumes its conclusion. However we all can act to diffuse this arms race hype
    ilsm, June 17, 2017 at 02:57 PM
    Thucydides trap* is foggy bottom 'soft porn'! Besides in 30 years the "power balance" between China and US will not favor the sea power. *even less foundation in logic than applying the 'prisoner dilemma' to the war room in "Fail Safe".
    Paine, June 18, 2017 at 09:06 AM
    This is great game higgly piggly. Nothing more. The MIC has trump punctured with the sap can. Budgets for sharp toys will rise. With or without. Alt news on People's China
    Paine, June 18, 2017 at 09:09 AM
    The congress is supine at the feet of the MIC. Only a POTUS can hope to restrain the MIC. With the minimal help of a less then stalwart house progressive caucus. And a few dove lobby groups.

    With Trump we have MIC goon in chief

    anne , June 17, 2017 at 12:01 PM
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/books/review/everything-under-the-heavens-howard-french-destined-for-war-graham-allison.html

    June 16, 2017

    America's Collision Course With China
    By JUDITH SHAPIRO

    EVERYTHING UNDER THE HEAVENS
    How the Past Helps Shape China's Push for Global Power
    By Howard W. French

    DESTINED FOR WAR
    Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?
    By Graham Allison

    The Chinese superpower has arrived. Could America's failure to grasp this reality pull the United States and China into war? Here are two books that warn of that serious possibility. Howard W. French's "Everything Under the Heavens: How the Past Helps Shape China's Push for Global Power" does so through a deep historical and cultural study of the meaning of China's rise from the point of view of the Chinese themselves. Graham Allison's "Destined for War: Can American and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?" makes his arguments through historical case studies that illuminate the pressure toward military confrontation when a rising power challenges a dominant one. Both books urge us to be ready for a radically different world order, one in which China presides over Asia, even as Chinese politicians tell a public story about "peaceful rise." The books argue persuasively that adjusting to this global power shift will require great skill on both sides if conflagration is to be avoided.

    French says in his exhaustively researched and fascinating account of geopolitics, China style, that the Chinese era is upon us. But, he asks, "How will the coming China-driven world look?" To what extent will China support the international order that emerged when it was suffering humiliation at the hands of foreign powers? What are the drivers and motivations for the new ways China projects its power? How best should its neighbors and its rival North American superpower respond?

    French, a former reporter for The Washington Post and The New York Times, argues that China's historical and cultural legacy governs its conduct of international relations, a legacy that sits uncomfortably with the Western notions of equality and noninterference among states. China's relations with its neighbors in Japan and Southeast Asia were for millenniums governed by the concept of tian xia, which held that everything "under the heavens" belonged to the empire.

    A superior civilization demanded deference and tribute from vassal neighbors and did not hesitate to use military force. China's testy relationship with Vietnam became fraught whenever a Vietnamese leader dared to demand equal footing with a Chinese emperor; the Japanese claim to divine origins was unacceptable....

    anne - , June 17, 2017 at 12:05 PM
    American and British writing about China now, strikes me as writing about a country that is invented rather than the country I would like to think I know. I find the writing distressing, nonetheless there are the articles from the New Yorker and New York Times.
    Paine - , June 17, 2017 at 02:07 PM
    The book purporting to see the world thru chineses history conditioned eyes is patently ridiculous nastiness

    One might ask who today: Is [one] actively trying to contain the other. Who today is trying to maintain its mandate as global hegemon

    But really the problem is the clash of roving corporate sociopaths RCSs

    Let us control ours and urge the Chinese to control theirs even as we know. Both states are drastically influenced by these RCSs

    [Jun 18, 2017] Red Alert: Russian Focus Might Save Trumps

    Notable quotes:
    "... I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication. ..."
    "... Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol," because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place ..."
    "... Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero. ..."
    "... Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often, an outright, active traitor. ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Jun 18, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
    The "historic" appearances of James Comey Chameleon and Jefferson Davis Andersonville Sessions before a Senate committee have come and gone, leaving us pretty much where we were before. Trump was made to look stupid and thuggish (not exactly front-page news); his GOP apologists and enablers employed even more ludicrous justifications for said stupidity and thuggery ("Hey, the kid is still green, he didn't know he was doing anything wrong - not that he did do anything wrong, mind you."); media outlets reaped tons of ad revenue; twittery was rampant on every side. We all had a jolly good time. But as for the ostensible object of the exercise - learning more about possible Russian interference in the electoral process, and any part Trump's gang might have had in colluding with this and/or covering it up - there was not a whole lotta shaking going on.

    That's to be expected. For I don't believe we are ever going to see confirmable proof of direct collusion between the Trump gang and the Kremlin to skew the 2016 election. I don't doubt there is a myriad of ties between Trump and nefarious Russian characters, all of whom will of necessity have some connection to Putin's authoritarian regime. And there may well be underhanded Trump gang ties of corruption to the state itself. But I don't think a "smoking gun" of direct collusion with Trump's inner circle in vote tampering exists. If it did, it would be out by now. It's obvious the intelligence services and FBI were all over the Trump campaign, looking into Russian ties from many angles.

    I'm not saying the Russians didn't try to tamper with the vote. (Although, as a patriotic American, I doubt they can tamper as well as we can.) I'm not saying it's not important or not worth looking into. I'm just saying that if you put most of your focus and resources and political capital on the bet that you will find some smoking gun of direct collusion between Trump and his circle with the Russian state - evidence so direct and overwhelming that even the GOP extremists in Congress can't overlook it - then you are going to be disappointed. You will not bring down Trump, who, despite mountains of dirt thrown on him, will still walk away and claim vindication.

    Meanwhile, away from the "dramatic hearings" and the all-day permanent Red scare of the "Resistance," the Trump White House and the Congressional extremists are quietly, methodically, relentlessly transforming the United States into a hideous oligarch-owned, burned-out, broken-down, looted-out, chaos-ridden, far-right dystopia. Right now, the Senate Republicans are trying to push through, in secret, a "health-care" bill that is scarcely less draconian than the universally hated House version, and like that bill, consists of two main parts: a gargantuan tax cut for the very rich and taking away healthcare coverage for millions upon millions of ordinary citizens, including the most vulnerable people in the nation.

    And what did we hear Monday from Democratic staffers? That the Senate Democrats are NOT going to wage a fight to the death to prevent this monstrosity from being inflicted on the people; they're not "going nuclear," using every possible tactic and procedural rule to derail the Trumpcare bill, or at least stall it long enough to raise a public outcry against it. And why not? Why, because the Republicans have promised that no sanctions will be removed on Russia without the Democrats getting a chance to vote on it in the Senate. This is the kind of misplaced priority I'm talking about.

    I won't even get into the fact that progressives and liberals now venerate the intelligence services they used to rightly condemn for decades of lies and deceit and misinformation and covert murder and, yes, manipulation of our electoral process (not to mention those of other nations.) And let's put aside how every "anonymous leak" from an "intelligence source" is now treated as gospel - even though it comes from the same "intelligence sources" that anonymously leaked all that "credible" evidence of Saddam's WMD way back in caveman times. And told us that Gadafy was about to unleash genocide on his people and was sending in rape squads jacked up on Viagra, etc., only to sheepishly admit later these claims had been all false after Gadafy had been sodomized and murdered in the street by NATO-backed Islamic extremists, even as Hillary Clinton laughed out loud and declared, "We came, we saw, he DIED!"

    Let's put aside the fact that former head of the FBI - who has spent years waging war on Black Lives Matter and concocting fake terrorist plots to entrap mentally ill loners in order to garner good PR for himself - is now a liberal hero, even a "sex symbol," because he was fired by a lunatic fascist that no one with a shred of honor should have been working for in the first place.

    Let's put aside that former CIA honcho James Clapper - who has lied under oath to Congress about the CIA's Putin-style hacking of the US Senate to stop release of reports on, er, CIA torture, who lied repeatedly about Saddam's non-existent WMD when he was a key player under George W. Bush, and who is now repeatedly saying that Russians have some kind of genetic defect that makes them inherent, unredeemable scheming lowlifes - has also become a much-lauded liberal hero.

    Let's put aside the abandonment of principle and common sense the "Resistance" has shown toward the bankrupt morality and demonstrable mendacity of these men and their institutions. And how anyone who expresses the same skepticism toward these "organs" that they have been expressing for decades - no matter who is in power - is now regarded as a Putin apologist, a Kremlin stooge or, more and more often, an outright, active traitor.

    Let's put aside all this for now, disheartening as it is, and focus on this: if the intent is to bring down Trump, then there is ample material just lying there for the taking - evidence of blatant criminality and corruption that could be taken up right now, keeping Trump and his whole sick crew tied up in prosecutions, investigations, special committees and independent prosecutors out the wazoo. The man had known Mafia figures with him at his New Year's celebration in Mar-a-Lago just months ago, for God's sake. You don't have to pry piss-tapes from the Kremlin to bring down a mook like Trump.

    Of course, part of the problem is that a genuinely wide-ranging and thorough investigation of Trump's criminal corruption would doubtless expose the deep rot at the heart of our system, the incredibly complex entwining of the underworld and the "upper world": the dirty deals, the tax dodges, the sweetheart contracts, the cut-outs to maintain "deniability," the bribes, the "gifts," the special arrangements, the corporate espionage, the interpenetration of state and corporate power at every level, even in warfare and diplomacy - in short, all of the "corrupted currents" that lay behind the gilded facade maintained by our bipartisan elites and their servitors in the political-media class. If you start to pull too hard on the stinking threads of Trump's criminal entanglements, who knows what else might come undone, who else might be exposed?

    We saw during the last campaign this reluctance to really go after Trump for the string of dodgy deals and frauds he's left across a decades-long career. Every now and then there would be a quick jab, but even these would usually be obscured by Trump's artful use of blathering idiocy on Twitter. Was he defrauding veterans and cancer patients with his patently fraudulent charities? "Look there! Trump just said McCain was a loser for being captured in Vietnam!" Didn't Trump commit criminal fraud in scamming people out of millions with his fake Trump University? "Look there! Trump's tweeting racist attacks on the judge!" And so off we'd go, fixing on the galling spectacle of Trump's character, while the focus on actual crime and corruption would recede. This reluctance was evident in both the GOP primary and in the general election. I kept waiting for the gloves to come off on Trump's dirty deals, but they never really did. The focus remained on his sleazy character, not his legal dangers; and Trump had long known that the spectacular sleaziness of his character was the mainspring of his popularity, both as a celebrity and candidate. (And yes, this sleaziness and corruption was well-known even when Bill and Hillary were wrapping their arms around Donald at his wedding years before.)

    Be that as it may, there is still probably more than enough material on the surface for our elites to bring Trump down without going too deep into the corrupted currents where their own murk might be stirred up. Heck, there might even be enough honest players in the political circus to lead a multi-front attack on Trump's corruption without worrying about themselves being exposed. If you really want to bring Trump down - and in that way, cripple or at least hamper the ravages of the extremists who are using him as their tool - then it seems to me this more straightforward approach would be far more likely to succeed than waiting for some spy to come in from the cold and put incontrovertible proof of direct collusion in our hands.

    But I don't see any sign of this happening anytime soon, if ever. The focus will remain on the Russians, who despite being genetically inferior lowbrow swindlers are nevertheless capable of orchestrating practically every event in the world, including, I guess, the rise of Rupert Murdoch and the rightwing media machine, the politicised fundamentalist churches and the thousands of sinister ideological outfits bankrolled by weird billionaires, all of which have spawned an entire alternative universe in which millions of people now live, feeding on lies and smears and hatemongering that fuels their prejudices, their fears, their resentments and their anger, and corrodes their sense of commonality and community with their fellow citizens. I would venture to say that the deliberate cultivation of this vicious and violent alternative reality - along with the creation of the Electoral College in the 18th century, and the vote suppression laws passed by billionaire-funded extremists in state legislatures that disenfranchised millions of anti-Trump voters - had more to do with Trump's victory than any phishing expeditions or email leaking by the Russians.

    Again, I'm not saying that the latter didn't happen; it may well be that the people who lied to our faces about yellow cake and aluminium tubes and vials of sarin and CIA torture, the people who wage drone wars on farmers and wedding parties, the people who persecute the mentally ill for their own aggrandizement while stirring up needless fear and hatred are now being honourable and truthful in every single thing they tell us. I genuinely hope so. If they produced that smoking gun from the Kremlin tomorrow and brought Trump down, I'd be over the moon. But I don't think that is going to happen. And I fear we will find that a great deal of ruin has been done - and many more promising avenues of attack have been ignored, perhaps for good - while we chase ghosts in the shadowlands of espionage.

    But hey, don't listen to me. I not only write for a publication which was put on a McCarthyite list of "subversives" trumpeted in the Washington Post (before it had to backpedal), I actually even lived in Russia once, which as we know - in an age where Louise Mensch is regarded as a credible source by the "Resistance" and all things Russian are tainted - means I am obviously a Kremlin agent or a Putin fanboy trying to save Comrade Trump from the forces of righteousness. What's more, I know people who still live in Russia, some of whom are even - gasp! - genetically Russian. (Please don't tell liberal hero James Clapper!) So of course, all of these people must be Kremlin tools as well - even though they are putting their lives and livelihoods on the line every day fighting Putin's tyranny, with a courage I doubt we'll see from many of our "Resisters" when Trump finishes with Muslims, immigrants, African-Americans, the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the insulted and injured of every stripe and finally come for the "real" people who read the New York Times and watch Rachel Maddow. For these days it's simply impossible to be associated with Russia in any way, or to question the credibility of our security organs in the slightest, or to suggest possibly better alternatives for removing Trump's copious rump from the Oval Office, without being shunned by polite progressive society.

    So take what I say with a pinch of bread and salt. (The traditional Russian offering of welcome - oh damn, I gave myself away again!) But if the focus stays largely on Russia, don't be surprised to see Trump sitting on the White House toilet playing with his tweeter four years from now while Steven Bannon and Richard Spencer plan his re-election campaign.

    [Jun 18, 2017] MSM Fake News vs. the Truth by Joachim Hagopian

    Notable quotes:
    "... #Pizzagate ..."
    "... "Don't Let The Bastards Getcha Down." ..."
    "... http://empireexposed.blogspot.com ..."
    Dec 20, 2016 | www.lewrockwell.com
    The Information War: Western Crime Cabal and MSM "Fake News" vs. Truth from Alternative News

    Virtually every current headline unequivocally shows how US Empire and its Ministry of Propaganda are lying to the American people. Those in power have been so exposed by alt-media in 2016 that they are growing more desperate by the day. Right now their biggest lie is blaming Putin and Russia for being behind everything gone wrong in the world according to the Obama-Clinton-Bush-CIA-Rothschild crime cabal. The latest claims assert that Putin's hackers overturned the presidential election results in favor of Donald Trump and this whopper is currently being pushed as the flimsiest, last gasp excuse to spearhead its hollow "fake news" crusade in order to both outlaw the truth and derail Trump's January 20 th inauguration.

    Longtime State Department veteran psychiatrist Steve Pieczenik , CIA/NSA whistleblower William Binney, CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern, and former UK ambassador Craig Murray have all stated that there is zero evidence showing that the Russians "hacked" emails or interfered with the election outcome in any way. Credible former CIA officers emphatically state that the emails were leaked, not hacked and that Putin had nothing to do with it. The 17 US intelligence agencies remain conflicted with the verdict still out, unable to even arrive at a consensus, despite the FBI's latest cave-in to pressures to feebly present a belated united front against Russia. Flip flopper Comey's at it again. Up until a day or so ago, the FBI maintained that there was not enough evidence to conclude the Russians hacked into DNC records or emails. The Clintons, Obama and their "intelligence" minions are fast growing irrelevant and impotent as the yearend days count down. What's perfectly clear is the CIA/MSM liars are acting on orders from the Clinton et al cartel deceitfully politicizing this meme because they cannot accept the fact that Hillary lost her "anointed" election. The feds' unending war agenda may soon be collapsing.

    Before rushing to lynch mob judgment demonizing Putin once again, an important reminder worth noting is the historic track record of the Clintons, Obama, the Bushes and the CIA is that they lie all the time, both pathologically and professionally as full blown certifiable psychopaths . They all played a major part in creating and continuing to back the terrorists al Qaeda, al Nusra and ISIS in the Middle East and beyond. With perhaps the exception of the Saul Alinsky -Bill Ayers, " terrorist-inspired " community organizer and then Illinois state senator Obama, it's worth mentioning that they all bear guilt in murdering 3000 American citizens on 9/11 and then shamelessly promoting the boldface lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and direct links to terrorists. But let's not leave out Pinocchio-nosed Barrack who promised to be the most open and transparent president in US history and then proceeded to be the most secretive , least transparent, and perhaps most incompetent president in US history. But then given the mission to destroy America from within by the ruling elite that groomed and launched his meteoric rise, his puppet masters no doubt are very pleased with his record. And as far as the Central Intelligence Agency goes, as the elite's private mercenary army , from its very get-go the CIA's very purpose and everyday business have always been made of lies and propaganda .

    Instead of blindly blaming the Russians, far more credible sources have posited that at least one DNC insider – Seth Rich – leaked documents and then likely paid for it with his murdered life. Additionally, if you believe Steve Piecnezik, intelligence operatives launched a soft anti-Clinton counter-coup handing over the thousands of Clinton-Podesta emails to WikiLeaks. And now we're even learning that US Homeland Security has been trying to hack into the Georgia state election apparatus at least ten times. So all these alleged hacks and leaks seem to surfacing internally from sources within the United States, mostly from operatives working either directly inside the government or political apparatchik.

    Another relevant point worth raising is the indisputable fact that the US government is the most notoriously guilty entity in the world for constantly meddling and interfering in other sovereign nations' internal elections and affairs, engaging in crime after crime assassinating foreign leaders , and executing dozens of coups overthrowing sovereign governments. And let's face it, all the major players on the global stage are guilty of spying on one another, particularly in cyber-espionage , again with the US the main culprit. So this whole notion of using the blame game to falsely accuse other countries of the very same hideous aggressions that Washington is most guilty perpetrating for well over a century is extremely hypocritical in the least and downright diabolical to the max. Yet for centuries now this kind of duplicity and hubris is exactly how American exceptionalism has criminally operated around the globe with total impunity.

    The "blame the Russian" game is an old cold war propaganda tactic from way back. History just keeps repeating itself because the powers-that-shouldn't-be exploit and count on Americans having a short attention span. Those who witnessed or pay attention to history can recall the cold war era of the early 1950's and the Red Scare of McCarthyism when many people's lives were ruined by dishonestly branding them as so-called communists and communist sympathizers. Deep state USA is at it once again, unjustly singling out and punishing those who speak the truth online by again falsely accusing them of being agents of Russian propaganda. Blacklisting alt-media sites that legitimately report accurate accounts of news events and world developments by again falsely accusing them as "fake news" sources when the corporate media liars themselves are infamously guilty of fake news propaganda is just more of the same bogus modus operandi that the government and mainstream media have been redeploying indefinitely for decades.

    Project Mockingbird flourished throughout the cold war from the 1950's right into the 1970's and beyond when the CIA influenced if not controlled all the biggest news outlets (25 newspapers and wire agencies) using them to spread Washington's own cold war propaganda. This sinister collusion between the feds and the press resulted in the imperialistic division of two Asian ethnicities – the Koreans and Vietnamese people each split into two enemy nations fighting two costly wars killing up to over 7 million Asians (not to mention 95,000 American soldiers). And when the Senate Church Committee finally exposed Mockingbird, in 1976 then CIA director George Bush senior was forced to proclaim on paper at least its "official" end. But subsequent planting of disinformation in the foreign press that by design would then spread to the US was yet another covert means by which the deceitful CIA continued its propaganda control over both US and foreign news markets.

    This unholy nexus has also persisted right up till today through such common ties as the all-powerful Council on Foreign Relations. For many decades the CFR strategically courts and recruits prominent members from mainstream media as well as the entertainment industry for the exact same PR purpose of using them to promote deep state propaganda and collude in corrupt cover-ups to willfully deceive the American public. Then in recent years the corporatized merging of government and mass media utilizing US military, CIA and FBI liaisons in Hollywood has only consolidated power and media control into fewer and fewer hands, with 6 oligarchs in control of the 6 largest mega media giants controlling the outflow of over 90% of today's news. Virtually every TV show and film out of Hollywood now is pure deep state propaganda serving for a full century as the best recruitment venue for brainwashing the next generation of GI's dying on foreign soil battlefields. Hence, what's emerged today is a fascist government cabal maintaining illegitimate control and authority through false propaganda delivered 24/7 by deep state surrogate the mainstream media.

    But during this US presidential election year, largely due to WikiLeaks, social media and alternative and independent news, citizens of the world have discovered how corrosively evil in its criminality this existing crime cabal is, personified by the Clintons, Obama, and their minions in Washington, Wall Street and the corporate media. Over the last couple months the Clinton-Podesta connection has been directly tied to a global child sex trafficking ring operating from the " life insurance " laptop of Hillary's closest, 20-year aide- Saudi operative Huma Abedin's husband, disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner. But the pedophilia network has more recently expanded to include an infamous block of sinister pizza parlors and front offices in upscale Northwest Washington operating eerily close to the White House (perhaps even closer through DC's network of underground tunnels). Enter #Pizzagate .

    And through thousands of internet sleuths working together online 24/7, the crumbling, gaping cracks of this crime cabal wall have been exposed like never before, threatening to bring down the most powerful Luciferian worshipping pedophiles at the top of this planet's demonic food chain. And this raw naked exposure of the diabolical matrix has the guilty party – the Obamas, Bushes, and Clintons panicking and resorting to extreme desperate measures to hide and conceal the filthy truth of who and what they are. Hence, in this age of deception and culture of evil, we are now living in a new era of McCarthyism frantically unleashed to justify their latest attack campaign on steroids to censor and ban all blacklisted alternative media news sites that provide much needed counterbalancing truth to the official false narrative lies. The aim here is to eliminate and silence all truth tellers so that the evildoers – as naked and exposed as they already are, can attempt to hold onto their waning power, slipping fast now from their control.

    By deep state egregiously accusing alt-news of being "agents of Russian propaganda ," it intends to shut down America's First Amendment right to a free press – the alternative news, which regularly exposes NSM and gov.corps' propaganda lies. The totalitarian agenda now being rushed through prior to Trump becoming president has already passed " anti-Russian propaganda " bills in both chambers of Congress aimed at banning over 200 targeted alt-news sites on their bogus blacklists. Additionally, the EU has threatened further tyrannical censorship if co-opted internet ponds Facebook, Google, Twitter, Microsoft, and Reddit don't eliminate the so-called "fake news" from its social media and search engines. In effect, a final power grab is being played out right now attempting to usurp, control and silence the last voice of honest and accurate news accounting of what goes on in this world. But the crime cabal will fail as the world knows too much already.

    Since 9/11 those who question authority refusing to believe the deep state lies have been customarily discarded as " conspiracy nuts ." Though for decades this strategy was quite effective, it's now wearing thin as more people every day are beginning to realize the truth about the previously concealed criminality endlessly committed by DC puppets and their masters. As a result, deep state's agenda has been to increasingly criminalize dissidents as potential homegrown terrorists and radicalized enemies of the state. What we're currently witnessing is the systematic targeting of both dissenting individuals and alternative news organizations as "dangerously" unwanted truth tellers posing the single largest threat to the crime cabal's continued power and control.

    And with only a few remaining weeks, for that reason alone Obama and the Clintons are moving at breakneck speed to neutralize opposing forces bent on seeking justice by sending them to rot in prison. Since Soros' post-election riots have fizzled, Stein's recount failed and stealing the presidency through pro-Hillary death threats against Trump electoral voters have one by one fallen short of overturning the election, silencing alt-news and igniting a war against Russia are their last, "best shot" ploys that would manufacture the needed national crisis to prevent Trump from assuming office next month. Who knows? In the few days prior to January 20 th , a false flag perpetrated by Washington neo-crazies as a last gasp effort to blame Russia "justifying" war against the nuclear power may still be up their pathetic evil sleeve. That's how desperate these despots are, terrified their pedo-crimes will soon be their ruin.

    In the meantime, yet another draconian law HR 4919 was just passed in the House. Using the benignly logical rationale of tracking lost victims suffering from autism or dementia, deep state is now pushing for RFID chips to be implanted in all people diagnosed with autism and dementia. Similar past measures have authorized the government to round up the homeless or those afflicted with respiratory ailments during the Ebola scare. Operating under the auspices of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), in mid-August, the CDC proposed to grant itself the unlimited unconstitutional power to round up and detain citizens en masse without reason or due process, kind of like the medical bookend to the 2013 FDAA that also obliterates citizens' legal rights and civil liberties. The feds are becoming increasingly over-the- top in their totalitarian oppression, knowing that for good reason more people are opposing mandatory vaccinations for both children and adults as well as proposed mandatory microchips. Recall that a couple years ago NBC was predicting that next year every American would be micro chipped .

    Like the regretful German pastor Martin Niemoller's famous quote decrying each group targeted and taken away by the Nazis without his speaking out, after the communists, socialists, trade unionists and the Jews, by the time they came for him it was too late. How far will the government go with its growing hit list of expendable throwaways? What's to stop the deep state from making microchips mandatory for anyone diagnosed with a mental disorder? Or the entire world population for that matter?

    The insane DSM-5 has recently expanded the number of mental illnesses into absurdity, making sure to include practically anyone and everyone. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual has become the official tool and vehicle by which the government is moving to criminalize abnormality. This slippery slope may soon include every human on the planet.

    As a former diagnostic clinician, I can tell you that the criteria by which people can be diagnosed with a dangerous label from a vast array is extremely arbitrary and subjective. There's nothing scientific or foolproof about it. Mislabeling citizens who may pose "trouble or a threat" to the authoritarian state is wide open for overreaching, widespread abuse as the convenient false pretense for microchipping and controlling a growing segment of "undesirables" within the population. Branding any individual who does not trust authority figures with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" or anyone who appears "overly" health conscious and selective about what they eat as "suffering" from orthorexia nervosa could simply be deep state's way of branding us all with certifiable labels. Deep state has co-opted the psychiatric profession which is largely owned and controlled by Big Pharma, using its Diagnostic Statistical Manual's unlimited mental disorders as yet another weapon of mass destruction playbook for diabolical population control purposes.

    In recent years MSM has clearly become Washington's ministry of propaganda . And adding insult to injury, Congress is busily passing bills designed to outlaw the real truth, so as to empower its propaganda ministry to become its "truth" ministry . We are living the Orwellian nightmare come true, as " useless eating " victims of a fascist totalitarian oligarchic police state bent on perpetrating democide as well as human genocide as part of its demonic eugenics plan to drastically reduce the world pop. from 7.4 billion to anywhere from a half to one billion depending on which invasively surveilled and controlled population in human history by a centralized tyrannical government controlling a centralized financial debtor-slave system . Deep state and corporate media together engage in covert concealment of secret, heinously deplorable brutality protecting the elite's systemic criminality perpetrated we now know on a massive colossal scale.

    A century ago the ruling elite known as the internationalists envisioned a one world government. Now that same ruling elite controlled by the same tainted bloodlines are called globalists and they're rushing to suppress the truth on their way to bringing on the perfect storm that will usher in the violent tyranny of their global governance. Outside of technology that enables increasing power and control, little has otherwise changed over the course of the last century. That said, never before have more citizens of the world become aware of the treasonous and demonic crimes committed by those psychopaths in power. Before closing a final reminder warrants stating. Regardless of the figurehead occupying the White House, the same demonic power elite is still holding power over this earth. And the battle for truth, justice, and our very lives will continue after January 20 th . The doomsday clock that's been ticking under the Bush-Clinton-Obama cabal is only ticking shorter now and our struggle is hardly over.

    The Best of Joachim Hagopian

    Joachim Hagopian [ send him mail ] is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled "Don't Let The Bastards Getcha Down." It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master's degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.com .

    [Jun 18, 2017] Turning to Occupied Syria.

    Jun 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm , June 17, 2017 at 02:51 AM

    Turning to Occupied Syria.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/saudi-qatar-crisis-puts-syria-rebels-in-tricky-position/articleshow/59188782.cms

    The outsider Sunni insurgency looks like Yemen 1963 as the Saudi terror sponsors are backed into the corner.

    The Wahhabis, and Trump pursuing Obama's plot, in Riyadh are supporting radical Sunnis not blushing at their al Qaeda links.

    Opposing the Wahhabis are Russia an ally to a loose confederation of legitimate government, moderated radicals, and minorities whom would be cut off by the Sunnis, as playing Nasser/Egypt in Yemen.

    Doha's sin against Wahhab is criticizing the Sunni demolition of Arab Spring and Egypt's military dictatorship.

    While as in 1964 the Wahhabis are on the same pole as Israel.

    ilsm - , June 17, 2017 at 03:06 PM
    Given 37 years of US blundering in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean region, China don't need to worry if the dominant power [and its pentagon trough filler] were to decide to get violent.

    I read a lot of "Thucydides Trap" type fiction emanating from novelists purporting to "analyze" aspects of US foreign policy issues.

    Fiction many deliberate obfuscations and cherry picked evidence.

    I now read such tracts to sharpen my skill at observing and naming types of logical fallacy.

    Case studies, the world is not in the image of the HBS universe.

    ilsm - , June 17, 2017 at 06:54 PM
    There are problems in the world, and they suggest Einstein's observation:

    to the effect: "you cannot solve problems with the mind that created them".

    The hegemon is misguided on many levels: errant goals, strategies (cannot be good if goals wrong), and expensive tactics which goatherd can defeat. Worse the allies kept.

    [Jun 18, 2017] New video footage exposes US military helping ISIS fighters escape Syrian city of Raqqa

    Jun 18, 2017 | theduran.com
    A post via The Anti Media written by Darius Shahtahmasebi , exposes what many following the Syria "civil war" narrative have known for some time now that no civil war is really taking place, but rather a US-Saudi regime change invasion against the Assad government.

    The proxy army being used to force an Assad regime change is the Islamic State (ISIS).

    The following video, and accompanying post, shows the US military providing ISIS jihadists with a safe escape form the Syrian city of Raqqa. Needless to say it would have been drop dead simple to have bombed the convoy of ISIS jihadists as seen in the video, but this was not the goal. The goal was safe passage out of Raqqa.

    Where are the ISIS fighters escaping to?

    We venture to guess that these ISIS fighters are being sent, by US and Saudi military commanders, to territory under the control of the legally recognized government of Syria, where they will continue to fight against Assad.

    With numerous distractions unfolding on the newly released reality TV show that is "Keeping Up with the Trump Administration," it may surprise readers to learn that the U.S. is using the terror group ISIS as a pawn in its depraved foreign policy.

    Video footage obtained by Al-Masdar appears to show convoys of ISIS fighters fleeing the Syrian city of Raqqa untouched by the U.S. military, which is currently bombing that exact location. As Al-Masdar notes, despite having Kurdish and American drones hovering around the city of Raqqa, U.S. bombs are nowhere to be seen as hundreds of fighters pass safely. The release of this footage comes on the heels of accusations from both Russia and Iran that the U.S. is colluding with ISIS to allow the group's safe passage into areas controlled by the Syrian government.

    Iran claims to have direct proof but thus far has not released it. Even if Russia and Iran don't have any secret documents that directly expose this collusion, the fact remains that we don't necessarily need them .

    After all, this is exactly how ISIS grew exponentially in Syria in the first instance – as a direct result of U.S. foreign policy strategy. In 2012, a classified Defense Intelligence Agency report predicted the rise of ISIS, something actively encouraged by the U.S. establishment. The report stated :

    "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."

    Further, leaked audio of former Secretary of State John Kerry shows he knew ISIS was gaining momentum in Syria, and that in turn, the U.S. hoped this would bring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to the negotiating table.

    In recent times, the safe passage of ISIS fighters to areas under the control of the Syrian government has been an unspoken but official strategy and has been the reality on the ground in Iraq and Syria.

    Late last year, Anti-Media reported on an anonymous military-diplomatic official's claims that the United States was allowing safe passage to Syria for ISIS fighters exiting Mosul, Iraq – even though the U.S. was supposedly waging an offensive to defeat ISIS in the area. As we noted, acknowledging the admittedly undesirable, questionable nature of the anonymous source:

    " An anonymous source claiming to a Russian newspaper something as conspiratorial as the U.S. directly aiding ISIS militants may seem a bit dubious, but since the offensive was launched on Monday of this week , this has been the reality on the ground .

    " According to Army Lieutenant General Talib Shaghati , as reported by anti-Russian newspaper , the Guardian, ISIS militants are already fleeing Mosul to Syria. This was further confirmed by the Saudi foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, who said that if ISIS were forced out of Mosul, they would likely go on to Syria ."

    Not long after, ISIS launched an offensive into a very strategic area in Syria called Deir ez-Zor, battling through Syrian government defenses. The most horrifying part of this offensive was the fact that, as noted by the Guardian , the ISIS fighters who successfully broke through government defense lines in Syria were "primarily reinforcements coming over the border from Iraq's Anbar province."

    Deir ez-Zor is not outside the U.S. military's strike range capacity. This is the same city that was attacked by the American-led coalition in September of last year – an attack that targeted Syrian troops for over an hour, paving the way for a timely ISIS offensive. Yet when it comes to hundreds of reinforcements raging through the Iraqi border into Syria, the U.S. military is on a brief vacation.

    We were told Raqqa was to be ISIS' last stronghold in Syria, but this is clearly not true. In order for the U.S. to ultimately put pressure on the Syrian government, the real prize is not Raqqa but a combination of two very strategic locations that are very heavily interlinked.

    As explained by Gulf News :

    "There, a complex confrontation is unfolding, with far more geopolitical import and risk. Daesh [ISIS] is expected to make its last stand not in Raqqa but in an area that encompasses the borders with Iraq and Jordan and much of Syria's modest oil reserves, making it important in stabilising Syria and influencing its neighbouring countries.

    "Whoever lays claim to the sparsely populated area in this 21st-century version of the Great Game not only will take credit for seizing what is likely to be Daesh's last patch of a territorial caliphate in Syria, but also will play an important role in determining Syria's future and the post-war dynamics of the region."

    And this is ultimately the problem for the U.S.-led coalition of anti-Assad (and anti-Iranian) nations. The behind-closed-doors official rationale for targeting Syria's government for regime change was to undermine Iranian influence in the region, according to Hillary Clinton's email archive. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the other Gulf States have long feared that a fully dominated Shia-led bloc of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon could completely overthrow the regional balance of power. They have opposed such a development at all costs.

    As Gulf News explains, the Iranians are in the process of fully implementing this Shia bridge, known as the "Shia Crescent":

    "The contested area also includes desert regions farther south with several border crossings, among them the critical highway connecting Damascus and Baghdad - coveted by Iran as a land route to Lebanon and its ally, the Hezbollah militia."

    This is why the U.S. military has set up a training base at the Aal-Tanf border crossing. If the Syrian government were to retake the area and open it up under its control, they would be able to directly link Iran to Syria and the rest of its allies, including Iraq and Lebanon.

    This is also why the U.S. military has been engaging in illegal acts of aggression against Iranian-backed militias operating in the area - to defend this position.

    Further, the Syrian government's outpost in Deir ez-Zor is isolated , hence why these two offensives are running in tandem. They both rely on the liberation of the other to have any real value to the Syrian government and its Russian and Iranian allies.

    As fascinating as the Comey testimony spectacle has been (don't forget to tune in for tomorrow's scandal of anonymous leaks and misspelled tweets), the real scandal lies in the fact that the U.S. is now openly siding with ISIS while allowing the terrorists safe passage into parts of Syria so that these extremists can battle a secular government . The U.S. is moments away from an all-out confrontation with Iran (and Russia , a nuclear power).

    Don't expect the corporate media to report on these damning facts anytime soon, as the public continues to sleepwalk into a global powder keg of deceit, death, and destruction.

    [Jun 18, 2017] Banana republic

    Jun 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Cripes , June 17, 2017 at 2:48 am

    Surprise, surprise.

    Washington's blog does a fine job of archiving and assembling this kind of background, many pieces of which we all should remember, and make more sense together.

    [Jun 18, 2017] 'Witch Hunt' Trump takes to Twitter to lash out at '7 months of collusion probes'

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt," ..."
    Jun 18, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Donald Trump has made a series of tweets about the prolonged investigations into alleged collusion with the Russian government and obstruction of justice, which he says yielded no proof. One of the tweets refers to his firing of FBI Director James Comey. "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt," Trump tweeted, sending users and media into a guessing game of what exactly he meant.

    I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2017

    Trump appeared to be referring to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who wrote a memo recommending that Comey be fired.

    Rosenstein also appointed Robert Mueller to investigate ties between Trump's campaign and Russia.

    Mueller is said to be investigating whether Trump obstructed the course of justice in the probe into Russian interference in the US elections.

    [Jun 17, 2017] The Collapsing Social Contract by Gaius Publius

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Until elites stand down and stop the brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate the whole of the Neoliberal Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently militarized "order" to entirely suppress it. ..."
    "... Mes petits sous, mon petit cri de coeur. ..."
    "... But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points, too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm with it.) ..."
    "... American Psycho ..."
    "... The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers or, even more grandly, what success means in America. ..."
    "... unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do. ..."
    "... our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population of individualists who can't see the big picture. ..."
    "... That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel that our governments are working for us. ..."
    "... Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional, to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal. ..."
    "... "Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing, just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability. ..."
    "... Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best that can be achieved? ..."
    "... JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The "remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which has never existed. ..."
    "... Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit. Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets. ..."
    "... Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile, Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away. ..."
    "... My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. ..."
    "... The class war continues, and the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity? No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of the Obama administration and the Trump administration. ..."
    "... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens if any, are kept meticulously clean. ..."
    "... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. ..."
    "... There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game for commercial exploitation. ..."
    "... The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. ..."
    "... "Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief." ..."
    "... "Four Futures" ..."
    "... Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first. "Greed is good". ..."
    "... Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel. In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class, and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster. ..."
    Jun 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. I have been saying for some years that I did not think we would see a revolution, but more and more individuals acting out violently. That's partly the result of how community and social bonds have weakened as a result of neoliberalism but also because the officialdom has effective ways of blocking protests. With the overwhelming majority of people using smartphones, they are constantly surveilled. And the coordinated 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy Wall Street shows how the officialdom moved against non-violent protests. Police have gotten only more military surplus toys since then, and crowd-dispersion technology like sound cannons only continues to advance. The only way a rebellion could succeed would be for it to be truly mass scale (as in over a million people in a single city) or by targeting crucial infrastructure.

    By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

    "[T]he super-rich are absconding with our wealth, and the plague of inequality continues to grow. An analysis of 2016 data found that the poorest five deciles of the world population own about $410 billion in total wealth. As of June 8, 2017 , the world's richest five men owned over $400 billion in wealth. Thus, on average, each man owns nearly as much as 750 million people."
    -Paul Buchheit, Alternet

    "Congressman Steve Scalise, Three Others Shot at Alexandria, Virginia, Baseball Field"
    -NBC News, June 14, 2017

    "4 killed, including gunman, in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco"
    -ABC7News, June 14, 2017

    "Seriously? Another multiple shooting? So many guns. So many nut-bars. So many angry nut-bars with guns."
    -MarianneW via Twitter

    "We live in a world where "multiple dead" in San Francisco shooting can't cut through the news of another shooting in the same day."
    -SamT via Twitter

    "If the rich are determined to extract the last drop of blood, expect the victims to put up a fuss. And don't expect that fuss to be pretty. I'm not arguing for social war; I'm arguing for justice and peace."
    - Yours truly

    When the social contract breaks from above, it breaks from below as well.

    Until elites stand down and stop the brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate the whole of the Neoliberal Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently militarized "order" to entirely suppress it.

    As with the climate, I'm concerned about the short term for sure - the storm that kills this year, the hurricane that kills the next - but I'm also concerned about the longer term as well. If the beatings from "our betters" won't stop until our acceptance of their "serve the rich" policies improves, the beatings will never stop, and both sides will take up the cudgel.

    Then where will we be?

    America's Most Abundant Manufactured Product May Be Pain

    I look out the window and see more and more homeless people, noticeably more than last year and the year before. And they're noticeably scruffier, less "kemp,"​ if that makes sense to you (it does if you live, as I do, in a community that includes a number of them as neighbors).

    The squeeze hasn't let up, and those getting squeezed out of society have nowhere to drain to but down - physically, economically, emotionally. The Case-Deaton study speaks volumes to this point. The less fortunate economically are already dying of drugs and despair. If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just remotely maybe possible they'll also aim their anger out as well?

    The pot isn't boiling yet - these shootings are random, individualized - but they seem to be piling on top of each other. A hard-boiling, over-flowing pot may not be far behind. That's concerning as well, much moreso than even the random horrid events we recoil at today.

    Many More Ways Than One to Be a Denier

    My comparison above to the climate problem was deliberate. It's not just the occasional storms we see that matter. It's also that, seen over time, those storms are increasing, marking a trend that matters even more. As with climate, the whole can indeed be greater than its parts. There's more than one way in which to be a denier of change.

    These are not just metaphors. The country is already in a pre-revolutionary state ; that's one huge reason people chose Trump over Clinton, and would have chosen Sanders over Trump. The Big Squeeze has to stop, or this will be just the beginning of a long and painful path. We're on a track that nations we have watched - tightly "ordered" states, highly chaotic ones - have trod already. While we look at them in pity, their example stares back at us.

    Mes petits sous, mon petit cri de coeur.

    elstprof , June 16, 2017 at 3:03 am

    But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points, too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm with it.)

    "If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just remotely maybe possible they'll also aim their anger out as well?"

    Not necessarily. What Lacan called the "Big Other" is quite powerful. We internalize a lot of socio-economic junk from our cultural inheritance, especially as it's been configured over the last 40 years - our values, our body images, our criteria for judgment, our sense of what material well-being consists, etc. Ellis's American Psycho is the great satire of our time, and this time is not quite over yet. Dismemberment reigns.

    The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers or, even more grandly, what success means in America.

    The idea that agency could be a collective action of a union for a strike isn't even on the horizon. And at the same time, these same students don't bat an eye at socialism. They're willing to listen.

    But unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do.

    Moneta , June 16, 2017 at 8:08 am

    Most of the elite do not understand the money system. They do not understand how different sectors have benefitted from policies and/or subsidies that increased the money flows into these. So they think they deserve their money more than those who toiled in sectors with less support.

    Furthermore, our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population of individualists who can't see the big picture.

    jefemt , June 16, 2017 at 9:45 am

    BAU, TINA, BAU!! BOHICA!!!

    Dead Dog , June 16, 2017 at 3:09 am

    Thank you Gaius, a thoughtful post. That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel that our governments are working for us.

    Of tangential interest, Turnbull has just announced another gun amnesty targeting guns that people no longer need and a tightening of some of the ownership laws.

    RWood , June 16, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    So this inheritance matures: http://www.nature.com/news/fight-the-silencing-of-gun-research-1.22139

    willem , June 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    One problem is the use of the term "social contract", implying that there is some kind of agreement ( = consensus) on what that is. I don't remember signing any "contract".

    Fiery Hunt , June 16, 2017 at 3:17 am

    I fear for my friends, I fear for my family. They do not know how ravenous the hounds behind nor ahead are. For myself? I imagine myself the same in a Mad Max world. It will be more clear, and perception shattering, to most whose lives allow the ignoring of gradual chokeholds, be them political or economic, but those of us who struggle daily, yearly, decadely with both, will only say Welcome to the party, pals.

    Disturbed Voter , June 16, 2017 at 6:33 am

    Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional, to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal.

    Each person does what is right in their own eyes, but the net effect is impoverishment and destruction. Life is unfair, indeed. A social contract is a mutual suicide pact, whether you renegotiate it or not. This is Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club, is we don't speak of Fight Club. Go to the gym, toughen up, while you still can.

    JTMcPhee , June 16, 2017 at 6:44 am

    "Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing, just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability.

    Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best that can be achieved? Recalling that as my Contracts professor in law school emphasized over and over, in "contracts" there are no rights in the absence of effective remedies. It being a Boston law school, the notion was echoed in Torts, and in Commercial Paper and Sales and, tellingly, in Constitutional Law and Federal Jurisdiction, and even in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure. No remedy, no right. What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social contract," the "have-naught" halves?

    When honest "remedies under law" become nugatory, there's always the recourse to direct action of course with zero guarantee of redress

    sierra7 , June 16, 2017 at 11:22 am

    "What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social contract," the "have-naught" halves?" Ah yes the ultimate remedy is outright rebellion against the highest authorities .with as you say, " zero guarantee of redress."

    But, history teaches us that that path will be taken ..the streets. It doesn't (didn't) take a genius to see what was coming back in the late 1960's on .regarding the beginnings of the revolt(s) by big money against organized labor. Having been very involved in observing, studying and actually active in certain groups back then, the US was acting out in other countries particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, against any social progression, repressing, arresting (thru its surrogates) torturing, killing any individuals or groups that opposed that infamous theory of "free market capitalism". It had a very definite "creep" effect, northwards to the mainstream US because so many of our major corporations were deeply involved with our covert intelligence operatives and objectives (along with USAID and NED). I used to tell my friends about what was happening and they would look at me as if I was a lunatic. The agency for change would be "organized labor", but now, today that agency has been trashed enough where so many of the young have no clue as to what it all means. The ultimate agenda along with "globalization" is the complete repression of any opposition to the " spread of money markets" around the world". The US intends to lead; whether the US citizenry does is another matter. Hence the streets.

    Kuhio Kane , June 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The "remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which has never existed.

    bdy , June 16, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    The Social Contract, ephemeral, reflects perfectly what contracts have become. Older rulings frequently labeled clauses unconscionable - a tacit recognition that so few of the darn things are actually agreed upon. Rather, a party with resources, options and security imposes the agreement on a party in some form of crisis (nowadays the ever present crisis of paycheck to paycheck living – or worse). Never mind informational asymmetries, necessity drives us into crappy rental agreements and debt promises with eyes wide open. And suddenly we're all agents of the state.

    Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit. Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets.

    Solidarity, of course. Hard when Identity politics lubricate a labor market that insists on specialization, and talented children of privilege somehow manage to navigate the new entrepreneurism while talented others look on in frustration. The resistance insists on being leaderless (fueled in part IMHO by the uncomfortable fact that effective leaders are regularly killed or co-opted). And the overriding message of resistance is negative: "Stop it!"

    But that's where we are. Again, just my opinion: but the pivotal step away from the jackpot is to convince or coerce our wealthiest not to cash in. Stop making and saving so much stinking money, y'all.

    Moneta , June 16, 2017 at 6:54 am

    The pension system is based on profits. Nothing will change until the profits disappear and the top quintile starts falling off the treadmill.

    Susan the other , June 16, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    and there's the Karma bec. even now we see a private banking system synthesizing an economy to maintain asset values and profits and they have the nerve to blame it on social spending. I think Giaus's term 'Denier' is perfect for all those vested practitioners of profit-capitalism at any cost. They've already failed miserably. For the most part they're just too proud to admit it and, naturally, they wanna hang on to "their" money. I don't think it will take a revolution – in fact it would be better if no chaos ensued – just let these arrogant goofballs stew in their own juice a while longer. They are killing themselves.

    roadrider , June 16, 2017 at 8:33 am

    There's a social contract? Who knew?

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 8:41 am

    When I hear so much impatient and irritable complaint, so much readiness to replace what we have by guardians for us all, those supermen, evoked somewhere from the clouds, whom none have seen and none are ready to name, I lapse into a dream, as it were. I see children playing on the grass; their voices are shrill and discordant as children's are; they are restive and quarrelsome; they cannot agree to any common plan; their play annoys them; it goes poorly. And one says, let us make Jack the master; Jack knows all about it; Jack will tell us what each is to do and we shall all agree. But Jack is like all the rest; Helen is discontented with her part and Henry with his, and soon they fall again into their old state. No, the children must learn to play by themselves; there is no Jack the master. And in the end slowly and with infinite disappointment they do learn a little; they learn to forbear, to reckon with another, accept a little where they wanted much, to live and let live, to yield when they must yield; perhaps, we may hope, not to take all they can. But the condition is that they shall be willing at least to listen to one another, to get the habit of pooling their wishes. Somehow or other they must do this, if the play is to go on; maybe it will not, but there is no Jack, in or out of the box, who can come to straighten the game. -Learned Hand

    DJG , June 16, 2017 at 9:24 am

    Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile, Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away.

    My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest environmentalists.

    Meanwhile, I just got a message from my car-share service: They are cutting back on the number of cars on offer. Too much vandalism.

    Are these things caused by pressure from above? Yes, in part: The class war continues, and the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity? No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of the Obama administration and the Trump administration.

    JEHR , June 16, 2017 at 11:17 am

    DJG: My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest environmentalists.

    Yes, the trash bit is hard to understand. What does it stand for? Does it mean, We can infinitely disregard our surroundings by throwing away plastic, cardboard, metal and paper and nothing will happen? Does it mean, There is more where that came from! Does it mean, I don't care a fig for the earth? Does it mean, Human beings are stupid and, unlike pigs, mess up their immediate environment and move on? Does it mean, Nothing–that we are just nihilists waiting to die? I am so fed up with the garbage strewn on the roads and in the woods where I live; I used to pick it up and could collect as much as 9 garbage bags of junk in 9 days during a 4 kilometer walk. I don't pick up any more because I am 77 and cannot keep doing it.

    However, I am certain that strewn garbage will surely be the last national flag waving in the breeze as the anthem plays junk music and we all succumb to our terrible future.

    jrs , June 16, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    Related to this, I thought one day of who probably NEVER gets any appreciation but strives to make things nicer, anyone planning or planting the highway strips (government workers maybe although it could be convicts also unfortunately, I'm not sure). Yes highways are ugly, yes they will destroy the world, but some of the planting strips are sometimes genuinely nice. So they add some niceness to the ugly and people still litter of course.

    visitor , June 16, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens if any, are kept meticulously clean.

    Basically, the world people care about stops outside their dwellings, because they do not feel it is "theirs" or that they participate in its possession in a genuine way. It belongs to the "town administration", or to a "private corporation", or to the "government" - and if they feel they have no say in the ownership, management, regulation and benefits thereof, why should they care? Let the town administration/government/corporation do the clean-up - we already pay enough taxes/fees/tolls, and "they" are always putting up more restrictions on how to use everything, so

    In conclusion: the phenomenon of litter/trash is another manifestation of a fraying social contract.

    Big River Bandido , June 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm

    The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good.

    There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game for commercial exploitation.

    I live in NYC, and just yesterday as I attempted to refill my MetroCard, the machine told me it was expired and I had to replace it. The replacement card doesn't look at all like a MetroCard with the familiar yellow and black graphic saying "MetroCard". Instead? It's an ad. For a fucking insurance company. And so now, every single time that I go somewhere on the subway, I have to see an ad from Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

    visitor , June 16, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game for commercial exploitation.

    And as a result, people no longer care about it - they do not feel it is their commonwealth any longer.

    Did you notice whether the NYC subway got increasingly dirty/littered as the tentacles of privatization reached everywhere? Just curious.

    DJG , June 16, 2017 at 9:37 am

    The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. From Yves's posting of Yanis Varoufakis's analysis of the newest terms of the continuing destruction of Greece:

    With regard to labour market reforms, the Eurogroup welcomes the adopted legislation safeguarding previous reforms on collective bargaining and bringing collective dismissals in line with best EU practices.

    I see! "Safeguarding previous reforms on collective bargaining" refers, of course, to the 2012 removal of the right to collective bargaining and the end to trades union representation for each and every Greek worker. Our government was elected in January 2015 with an express mandate to restore these workers' and trades unions' rights. Prime Minister Tsipras has repeatedly pledged to do so, even after our falling out and my resignation in July 2015. Now, yesterday, his government consented to this piece of Eurogroup triumphalism that celebrates the 'safeguarding' of the 2012 'reforms'. In short, the SYRIZA government has capitulated on this issue too: Workers' and trades' unions' rights will not be restored. And, as if that were not bad enough, "collective dismissals" will be brought "in line with best EU practices". What this means is that the last remaining constraints on corporations, i.e. a restriction on what percentage of workers can be fired each month, is relaxed. Make no mistake: The Eurogroup is telling us that, now that employers are guaranteed the absence of trades unions, and the right to fire more workers, growth enhancement will follow suit! Let's not hold our breath!

    Daniel F. , June 16, 2017 at 10:44 am

    The so-called "Elites"? Stand down? Right. Every year I look up the cardinal topics discussed at the larger economic forums and conferences (mainly Davos and G8), and some variation of "The consequences of rising inequality" is a recurring one. Despite this, nothing ever comes out if them. I imagine they go something like this:

    • "-Oh hi Mark. Racism is bad.
    • -Definitely. So is inequality, right, Tim?
    • -Sure, wish we could do something about it. HEY GUYS, HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT MY NEW SCHEME TO BUY OUT NEW AND UPCOMING COMPANIES TO MAKE MORE MONEY?"

    A wet dream come true, both for an AnCap and a communist conspiracy theorist. I'm by no means either. However, I think capitalism has already failed and can't go on for much longer. Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief.

    I'd very much like to be proven wrong.

    Bobby Gladd , June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    "Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief." Frase's Quadrant Four. Hierarchy + Scarcity = Exterminism (From "Four Futures" )

    Archangel , June 16, 2017 at 11:33 am

    Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first. "Greed is good".

    oh , June 16, 2017 at 12:10 pm

    Our country is rife with rent seeking pigs who will stoop lower and lower to feed their greed.

    Vatch , June 16, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    In today's Links section there's this: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jun/14/tax-evaders-exposed-why-super-rich-are-even-richer-than-we-thought which has relevance for the discussion of the collapsing social contract.

    Chauncey Gardiner , June 16, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel. In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class, and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster.

    Here in the US the New Deal and other legislation helped preserve social order in the 1930s. Yves also raises an important point in her preface that can provide support for the center by those who are able to do so under the current economic framework. That glue is to participate in one's community; whether it is volunteering at a school, the local food bank, community-oriented social clubs, or in a multitude of other ways; regardless of whether your community is a small town or a large city.

    JTMcPhee , June 16, 2017 at 1:21 pm

    " Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class, and the related emergence of organized criminal networks."

    None of which applies to the Imperium, of course. There's glue, all right, but it's the kind that is used for flooring in Roach Motels (TM), and those horrific rat and mouse traps that stick the rodent to a large rectangle of plastic, where they die eventually of exhaustion and dehydration and starvation The rat can gnaw off a leg that's glued down, but then it tips over and gets glued down by the chest or face or butt

    I have to note that several people I know are fastidious about picking up trash other people "throw away." I do it, when I'm up to bending over. I used to be rude about it - one young attractive woman dumped a McDonald's bag and her ashtray out the window of her car at one of our very long Florida traffic lights. I got out of my car, used the mouth of the McDonald's bag to scoop up most of the lipsticked butts, and threw them back into her car. Speaking of mouths, that woman with the artfully painted lips sure had one on her

    [Jun 17, 2017] Clappers Unhinged Russia-Bashing by David Marks

    Notable quotes:
    "... That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia. ..."
    "... Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria. ..."
    "... Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported. ..."
    "... So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce. ..."
    "... Undiscovered Self ..."
    "... then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction ..."
    "... In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – ..."
    "... no way to bold that statement ..."
    Jun 15, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    Exclusive: Russia-gate's credibility rests heavily on ex-Director of National Intelligence Clapper who oversaw a "trust us" report, but a recent speech shows Clapper to be unhinged about Russia, as David Marks describes.

    Whatever the ultimate truth about the murky Russia-gate affair, it appears that it is Donald Trump's willingness to consider friendship and cooperation with the Russians that is driving this emotional debate.

    For some of the older U.S. intelligence and military officers, there appears to be a residual distrust and fear of Moscow, a hangover from the Cold War now transferred, perhaps almost subliminally, into the New Cold War and a sense that Russia is America's eternal enemy.

    James Clapper, President Obama's last Director of National Intelligence, is a fascinating example of how this antagonism toward Russia never seems to change, as he revealed in a June 7 speech to the Australian National Press Club.

    "The Russians are not our friends; they (Putin specifically), are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.

    In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions – expanding NATO to Russia's borders, renouncing the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and locating new missile bases in Eastern Europe. Instead, Clapper blamed the renewed arms race and resulting tensions on the Russians:

    "The Russians are embarked on a very aggressive and disturbing program to modernize their strategic forces - notably their submarine and land-based nuclear forces. They have also made big investments in their counter-space capabilities. They do all this - despite their economic challenges - with only one adversary in mind: the United States. And, just for good measure, they are also in active violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty."

    That Clapper would offer such a one-sided account of the reasons behind the worsening antagonisms and the emerging arms race – leaving out the fact that the United States, despite its own budgetary and economic problems, spends about ten times more on its military than Russia does – suggests that he is not an objective witness on anything regarding Russia.

    A Shrill Voice

    Clapper's shrill voice confirms his cold-warrior perspective, caught in the past but applying his thinking to the present, still believing that he has a special understanding of America's interests and is protecting them. Clearly, the Russians have been at the center of Clapper's frustrations for many years and Russia-gate just gives him the opportunity to rekindle anti-Moscow hysteria.

    Clapper is repeating with new gusto what he has sold to recent presidents, Republicans and Democrats, for decades. His entire attack on Trump beats the drum of Russian deviousness. Yet, Clapper ignores the context of the Russians actions.

    Time magazine cover recounting how the U.S. enabled Boris Yeltsin's reelection as Russian president in 1996.

    Way ahead of the Russians, the U.S. intelligence community mastered computer hacking and mounted the first known software attack on a country's strategic infrastructure by – along with Israel – unleashing the Stuxnet cyber-attack against Iranian centrifuges. U.S. intelligence also has a long record of subverting elections and toppling elected leaders, both before and since the computer age.

    But Clapper only sees evil in Russia, even during the 1990s when the U.S. government advisers and American political operatives were propping up President Boris Yeltsin amid the rapacious privatizing of Russia's industries and resources, which made Russian oligarchs and their U.S. advisers very rich.

    Clapper said, "Interestingly, every one of the non-acting Prime Ministers of Russia since 1992 has come from one of two domains: the oil and gas sector, or the security services. To put this in perspective, and as I have pointed out to U.S. audiences, suppose the last ten presidents of the U.S. were either CIA officers, or the Chairman of Exxon-Mobil. I think this gives you some insight into the dominant mind-set of the Russian government."

    With such remarks, Clapper acts as if he doesn't know much about recent U.S. government staffing, which has been dominated by people with backgrounds in the oil industry, leading Wall Street banks, and the intelligence community. Indeed, the man who brought Clapper from Air Force intelligence into the White House was President George H.W. Bush, former director of the CIA and an oil company executive.

    Bush's son, George W., also came from the oil industry, as did his Vice President Dick Cheney. Meanwhile, both Republican and Democratic administrations have filled senior economic policy positions from the ranks of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks. And the U.S. intelligence community has wielded broad power over the few recent U.S. presidents, such as Barack Obama, who came into the White House with more limited government and private-sector experience.

    Clapper, having been a senior executive for Booz Allen Hamilton, knows full well that giant intelligence contractors have a powerful influence in how they serve U.S. interests with an eye to profiteering from conflict. And along with Clapper, other White House advisers drift between intelligence contractors and government.

    It's also true that a U.S. president doesn't need to have previous employment within the oil sector to do its bidding. Considering the influence of the millions spent on campaign donations and lobbying by the industry, the U.S. government is easily wed to oil and gas – as well as to the military and intelligence complex – at least as much as the Russian government. Indeed, the current Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil.

    Classic Projection

    Clapper's perception of the Russians as evil for allegedly practicing the same sins as the U.S. government exemplifies classic projection of the highest order.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    In case after case, Clapper justifies painting darkness onto the Russians with half the data, while ignoring the information that cancels out his perspective. Perhaps he is representative of many in Washington who have lost their rationality and morality in defense of the greatness of the United States. His ethics become situational.

    As Director of National Intelligence, Clapper lied to Congress in 2013 about the National Security Agency's massive gathering of private data from Americans. Clapper's deception gave the final push to Edward Snowden who revealed the truth about NSA surveillance.

    Subsequently, Clapper led the charge against Snowden, while excusing his own false congressional testimony by saying, "I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful, manner."

    Despite this history, the U.S. mainstream media has treated Clapper as a great truth-teller as he adds ever more fuel to the Russia-gate fires. From his Australian speech, most news outlets highlighted his best news-bite, when he declared: "Watergate pales, really, in my view compared to what we're confronting now."

    Like other powerful government officials, Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth and transcend the law, a classic symptom of the super-patriot who thinks he knows best what's good for America, a dangerous creature that the U.S. government seems to produce in quantity.

    In that sense, Clapper has played a central role in Russia-gate. He was the official who oversaw the key Jan. 6 report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. After promising much public evidence, he released a report that amounted to "trust us."

    Clapper has since been a star congressional witness pushing Russia-gate and his confidence in Putin's guilt. But Clapper did acknowledge that the Jan. 6 report – besides containing no actual evidence – was prepared by "handpicked" analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, not from a consensus of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies as had been widely reported.

    So, as we listen to the debate on Russia-gate, Clapper and his fellow national-security-state representatives are revealing not just their political perspectives but deeply disturbed minds. Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process. They perceive themselves as the cure when they are a primary cause of the illness they denounce.

    In 1956, in the Undiscovered Self , the eminent psychiatrist Carl Jung wrote about the state of the human mind and how it affected the political world: "And just as the typical neurotic is unconscious of his shadow side, so the normal individual, like the neurotic, sees his shadow in his neighbor or in the man beyond the great divide. It has even become a political and social duty to apostrophize the capitalism of one and the communism of the other as the very devil, so to fascinate the outward eye and prevent it from looking at the individual life within.

    "We are again living in an age filled with apocalyptic images of universal destruction. What is the significance of that split, symbolized by the Iron Curtain, which divides humanity into two halves? What will become of our civilization and man himself, if the hydrogen bombs begin to go off, or if the spiritual and moral darkness of State absolutism should spread?"

    Jung's words still ring with foreboding truth.

    David Marks is a veteran documentary filmmaker and investigative reporter. His work includes films for the BBC and PBS, including Nazi Gold, on the role of Switzerland in WWII and biographies of Jimi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra.

    mike k , June 15, 2017 at 9:38 pm

    Once you clear away the cobwebs of cultural conditioning, the truth of many things becomes obvious. One does not need the authority of a Carl Jung or anyone to see what is right in front of your eyes. The amazing thing is that people can be so easily deluded to ignore the reality all around them. One of the purposes of meditation in the spiritual traditions of mankind is to clear a space in one's mind that is fresh and unconditioned. Without this cleansing of the consciousness, only those things one's conditioning permits can be seen.

    Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:16 am

    If ((("TPTB"))), even if they are only very temporary in the scheme of the time of the Universe, come here and read this, they are either too common-cored to understand the truth of it and change for the better or they are still smart enough to understand it and are laughing all the way to the temporary bank.
    If you understand reincarnation you understand that your future personalities will be in-line with the immutable Universal laws of Consciousness-Evolution and Cause & Effect and the next one, at the least, won't be so easy and pretty for you, in view of the lesson that one just isn't learning at a normal Universal standard; the laws of the Universe simply don't allow for degradation to continue unabated so that evolution can take place in the allotted time, it will provide the necessary wake-up call in all it's required force.
    Even though all of us who have made it here to read the great articles on this website know, deep down inside, that we are all equal in the grand scheme of all good thoughts, feelings and actions, we know that we are just that little bit ahead of the curve and it would behoove us to accept our and their respective positions in the curve and help them out, come what may.
    Hoota Thunk I'd see you around these parts. ;->

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:38 am

    These deviants in "intelligence" should have been brought under control long before they killed Kennedy, but they weren't. They've been allowed to self select themselves, with each generation of sociopaths cultivating an even more deranged next generation. I guess that Hoover had so much dirt on every pol ever elected to high office that few had the guts to challenge these most dangerous menaces to our freedoms and democracy. Even if a courageous president could chop off the "heads" of these traitorous agencies their conditioned subordinates would be hard to root out. You read of rumors, though I've seen no evidence but ambiguous grainy photos, that these maniacs actually practice satanic blood rituals and the like. I prefer not to believe such things, but what kind of perverted thinking motivates the very damaging policies driven by these agencies, which bring us to the brink of nuclear war for no discernible reason. How is it allowed for them to blackmail public figures like MLK, threatening to ruin his marriage and destroy his reputation unless he commits suicide? These are not "good" virtuous men. They are not protecting or upholding "American" values. They are sick control freaks.

    Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    If people like James Clapper and their statements become sources for American history in the early 21st Century, then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction.

    The decadence of Washington is obvious when a senate intelligence (?) committee invites Clapper to give evidence after his blatant lie about torture to a former convocation of the committee. The United States senate is the world's greatest deliberative body? What a crock of shit!! Who was the idiot who gave the first utterance to that meretricious nonsense?

    Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 9:50 pm

    then the works of historians should be filed under non-fiction

    Ooops: That should be "under fiction."

    Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    And only a blatant liar could characterize his lying as speaking in "the most truthful, or least untruthful" manner.

    Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:40 am

    I was absolutely amazed when I heard that. What kind of BS does he expect the world to fall for? It really shows his utter arrogance and distain for us "proles". His not being arrested for lying to Congress and the American people shows the ridiculousness of believing there is "equal justice for all" in the USA.

    Pete , June 16, 2017 at 6:52 am

    Bill, reading your comment, I am reminded of a similar assessment given Washington and it's august Senate by British MP George Galloway, during a Senate sub-committee hearing in May 2005, on his 'alleged' receipt of bribe monies from Iraq's Saddam Hussein. His absolutely devastating verbal attack upon the committee, chaired by Sen. N. Coleman, is a must view for those who haven't seen it online.

    Bill Bodden , June 15, 2017 at 10:04 pm

    In reaching that harsh judgment, Clapper ignored the U.S. government's own role in the mounting tensions –

    Gregory Barrett has an interesting recap of U.S. and Russian histories: "The Russians Didn't Do It" – https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15/the-russians-didnt-do-it/

    Helen Marshall , June 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    When I posted this on Facebook, a "liberal" friend made several angy comments about EVIL Russia and then accused me of being a traitor for "defending a sworn enemy of our country."

    In today's climate that kind of charge is not trivial. Watch out when you share it!

    Jessica K , June 15, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    Great article by Gregory Barrett from Counterpunch, thanks, Bill. Worth sending around. Send a pile of copies to Clapper. That guy is either sick or evil, maybe both. Couldn't he disappear or something? "Clap-on, clap-off, it's the Clapper!" (Preferably "clap-off".) Maybe too much Booz he's been imbibing.

    Gary Hare , June 15, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    I wouldn't single Clapper out. The entire Washington establishment, and Mainstream Media, appear unhinged, deranged, absolutely stupid. That is unless you consider why they are this way. Are they not promoting the need for more military spending, about the only thing in which the US leads the World these days. Does this not make them feel alpha, tough, patriotic and falsely proud. Classic self-delusion. Or is it cunning propaganda?
    What bothers me just as much, is that Clapper's speech was widely reported here in Australia, without a single word of criticism from Australian politicians or the media. However low the US stoops, we seem to get right down there with them.
    I watched on YouTube a segment on Colbert interviewing (there must be a better word to describe this fiasco) Oliver Stone. Colbert was infantile. The audience reminiscent of a cheer squad for a college football game. No-one was interested in what Stone had to say. Too few people realise how dangerous this empty-headed jingoism is.

    Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 am

    G'Day Gary,
    I think it is SBS that is airing The Putin Interviews starting either Sunday or Monday night, depending on your region.
    Happy viewing and ammo for counter-attacks on stupidity!
    airdates.tv at last resort in the future
    Hoota Thunk.

    Craig Watson , June 16, 2017 at 7:58 am

    All of Stone's Putin interviews were published for everyone to watch on Information Clearinghouse yesterday:

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47246.htm .

    You don't need cable TV to see them now.

    Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:43 am

    Wow. Thanks for that. I really need to send ICH some money.

    john wilson , June 16, 2017 at 5:13 am

    Obviously, Garry, they are not unhinged they are simply looking after their own interests. The removal of Trump is essential to their plans for some kind of fight with Russia, so the rubbish about Russia gate and anything else is of course, pure lies and make believe. They all wanted Hillary who was a proven war monger and who they could manipulate to do their bidding. Had she won there would probably be some kind of open conflict in Syria with the USA, Russia and Iran bu now. War makes money so any one who has the temerity to suggest peace, is a threat and has to be got rid of.

    Jessica K , June 15, 2017 at 11:38 pm

    Good observations, Gary. Unfortunately, Clapper has played a large role in the development of this Russiagate fiasco, as former head of the CIA and overseeing of the phony documents that allegedly pointed to "Russian hacking" in the election. You are right that the whole bunch of the MIC bureaucrats depend on ginning up for war. And we had a conversation on CN a couple of days ago about Colbert, who is hugely overpaid for being nothing more than snide and smarmy. That's what passes for entertainment nowadays. Google today shows all the vicious and nasty published articles about the Putin interviews, such as the tabloids Daily Mail, Daily Star, also The Guardian, and no doubt there are other polemics. Hard to contemplate that this is the 21st century when human development was supposed to be advancing due to all the amazing technology, when actually it is regressing.

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:22 am

    Clapper has been one of the guys charged with creating Karl Rove's "new realities." He thinks he's a god.

    Skip Scott , June 16, 2017 at 9:45 am

    So far he seems to be getting away with it.

    Gregory Herr , June 15, 2017 at 11:48 pm

    "Thursday's appearance by fired FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee has raised the anti-Russian hysteria in the US media to a new level. The former head of the US political police denounced supposed Russian interference in the US elections as a dire threat to American democracy. "They're going to come for whatever party they choose to try and work on behalf of," he warned. "And they will be back they are coming for America."
    None of the capitalist politicians who questioned him challenged the premise that Russia was the principal enemy of the United States, or that Russian hacking was a significant threat to the US electoral system. None of them suggested that the billions funneled into the US elections by Wall Street interests were a far greater threat to the democratic rights of the American people .

    the political issues in the anti-Russian campaign, which represents an effort by the most powerful sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, backed by the Democratic Party and the bulk of the corporate media, to force the Trump White House to adhere to the foreign policy offensive against Moscow embarked on during the second term of the Obama administration, particularly since the 2014 US-backed ultra-right coup in Ukraine.
    Those factions of the ruling class and intelligence agencies leading the anti-Russia campaign are particularly incensed that Russian intervention in Syria stymied plans to escalate the proxy civil war in that country into a full-fledged regime-change operation. They want to see Assad in Syria meet the same fate as Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Their fanatical hatred of Putin indicates that they have similar ambitions in mind for the Russian president.
    The entire framework of the anti-Russian campaign is fraudulent. The military-intelligence agencies, the Democratic Party and the media are following a well-established pattern of manufacturing phony scandals, previously a specialty of the Republican right:

    Of what does the "undermining" of US democracy by alleged Russian hacking consist? No vote totals were altered. No ballots were discarded, as in Florida in 2000 when the antidemocratic campaign was spearheaded by the US Supreme Court. Instead, truthful information was supplied anonymously to WikiLeaks, which published the material, showing that the Democratic National Committee had worked to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, and that Hillary Clinton had cozied up to Wall Street audiences and reassured them that a new Clinton administration would be in the pocket of the big financial interests

    Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent. This was after eight years during which Obama had intensified the economic stagnation, wage cutting and austerity that had been going on for decades, while overseeing a further growth in social inequality

    [The Democrats] have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia."

    https://counterinformation.wordpress.com/2017/06/13/the-russians-are-coming-the-russians-are-coming/

    george Archers , June 17, 2017 at 7:51 am

    Excuses. "Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election because she ran as the candidate of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus and made no appeal to working-class discontent." pure garbage
    Listen folks,Both parties take turns every 8 years like clock work–except one term Jimmy Carter who p!ssed off Israel firsters. Hillary was in it for the election donations collected.

    , June 15, 2017 at 11:50 pm

    Thank you for your thoughtful analysis, speaking truth to power Mr Marks, alarming how democracies are so chaotic?

    The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."

    Super patriots defying truth and transcending laws, his ethics becoming situational, which checks and balances are implemented to reign in the retired general?

    Cal , June 16, 2017 at 12:41 am

    Remember the neos and zios "Project for the New American Century that preceded the Iraq war?

    Well Clapper is with the same group-except they have a new name now still lying and lobbying for the US to control the universe

    Center for a New American Security

    https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/extending-american-power-strategies-to-expand-u-s-engagement-in-a-competitive-world-order

    irina , June 16, 2017 at 12:58 am

    Clapper said something so astounding on 'Meet the Press' on May 28th that I found the transcript and printed it out.

    In the context of Jared Kushner meeting with Sergei Kislyak, Clapper said "I will tell you that my dashboard warning
    light was clearly on and I think that was the case with all of us in the intelligence community, very concerned about
    the nature of these approaches to the Russians. If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians
    were doing to interfere with the election. And just the historical practices of the Russians, who (are) typically, ALMOST
    GENETICALLY DRIVEN TO CO-OPT, PENETRATE, GAIN FAVOR, WHATEVER, which is a typical Russian technique.
    So we were concerned."

    (Apologies for caps, no way to bold that statement and it is an extremely scary and revealing phrase.)

    Chuck Todd ignored Clapper's "genetically driven" diatribe and soldiered on, reinforcing 'the Russians did it' meme.

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:36 am

    That was quite a racist statement, was it not? If he had applied the remarks to any other distinct group of people Chuck Todd would have gone ballistic, playing the race card for all it's worth in the grand American tradition.

    Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:38 am

    no way to bold that statement

    There is. At the beginning of the text to be set in bold, type the word "strong" inside . At the end type "/strong" inside but not the quotation marks shown in this example.

    Bill Bodden , June 16, 2017 at 11:46 am

    Oops: After "inside" above there should have been a less-than sign ""

    Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 12:59 am

    The profits of War drive people like Clapper to do some hideous and unquestionable things. The beast they feed is the same beast Rumsfeld gave a speech about on 9/10/01 where he sighted the Pentagon not being able to account for 2.5 trillion dollars. If you recall last summer the DOD year ending June 2016 sighted another missing 6.5 trillion dollars this time tripling the 2001 unaccountability. This is a known unaccountability of 9 trillion dollars by the Defense Department so far this 21st Century that no one is even talking about. When a nation can spill this much coffee and not worry about it, then you know that the people spending this nations well earned capital aren't spending their own money, but they no doubt are profiting from all this saber rattling and war. Imagine the defense budgets with Russia in it's crosshairs.

    http://www.dodig.mil/pubs/documents/DODIG-2016-113.pdf

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 5:36 am

    Joe, have you seen this? https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Office_of_Naval_Intelligence

    "Also killed in the Pentagon on 9/11 were a large number of budget analysts and accountants who may have been looking into the $2.3 trillion of unaccounted military spending that Donald Rumsfeld announced on Sept 10th, 2001."[

    Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 7:20 am

    This is something to new to me, but when it comes to 911 I have seen other similar things like it, like building #7. Nice of you Gregory to share this with me, thanks.

    When it comes to 911, there are so many questions that I just wish there were somebody who could answer them. Yet, questioning any of the oddities regarding the 911 Attack will get you a 'tinfoil hat' since this is what we Americans do to each other these days over things such as assassinations or other unexplained tragedies. Like having doubts over Russia-Gate will deem you being a Trump Supporter or Putin Apologize.

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 10:50 am

    Since you bring up 9-11 and the inconsistencies in its narrative, I just want to ask the question: Why didn't that high rise tower in London collapse under its own weight like the twin towers in NYC, especially since the fire appeared to be so much more intense? It wasn't just a localised burn, the entire structure was engulfed in flames. And, no, rebar-strengthened concrete is not more resistant than steel girders to damage from high temperatures. Concrete will more likely crack than steel girders will melt in a fire. I look for the structural engineers to chime in on this one.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    My dad always told me: "Never be above the third floor in an apartment building or a hotel. The smoke will get you before the fire does." Good advice. A fire fighter's worst nightmare, a hi-rise fire. As the London fire points out, they can be death traps.

    Yeah, buildings don't just fall down. 9/11 was most definitely a controlled demolition, and if a proper investigation were conducted, "controlled demolition" would scream out at everyone with half a brain.

    If you haven't seen this half-hour video, give it a watch. It's one of my favorites because the guy is a physicist/mathematician who used to work for N.I.S.T. He had never before questioned the findings, at least until August of 2016 when he started looking at it. He couldn't believe what he found.

    Especially watch at 18:03 when he starts talking about the collapse. "Asymmetric damage does not lead to symmetric collapse. It's very difficult to get something to collapse symmetrically because it is the law of physics that things tend towards chaos. Collapsing symmetrically represents order, very strict order. It is not the nature of physics to gravitate towards order for no reason."

    And:

    "Huge chunks of steel perimeter beams flying hundreds of feet off to the side. Steel does not fly off to the side, hundreds of feet, due to gravity. Gravity works vertically, not laterally. There has to be a FORCE there pushing it to the side, otherwise it would just fall down to the ground. It would be like dropping a ball out of a window. It would just fall straight down."

    The video is called "Former NIST Employee Speaks Out On World Trade Centre Towers Collapse Investigation".

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    Here's the link:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ_jQgIEnI8

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    Other examples: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

    Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 9:50 pm

    Honestly Realist I thought the same thing when I saw that high rise ablaze. I even made mention of it to my wife, commenting to how that is the way a high rise burns, not like 911. Now, Realist how many others had the same thought, as you and I.

    Realist , June 17, 2017 at 2:27 am

    Quite a powerful video by that analyst from Wisconsin, backwardsevolution.
    I have read analyses by physicists and engineers of the collapses, mostly through PCR's website, but I had not seen that video with all the slo-mo shots parallel to computer models. Why is that production never shown on American television? Why was NIST so remiss in its analysis, as the narrator points out? Of course, we know the answers to both questions. The truth will never be admitted by any authorities in our life times, or even in our children's life times. Maybe in 50 years when all the blame can be placed on corpses that can't protest it will be. Even that will be done to usher in some new world order as the game never changes.

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:14 am

    Not a structural engineer but with knowledge and experience there. I have no prejudice as to motives and means of the WTC collapse. The WTC towers were uniformly supported by steel columns and one floor was subject to broadly distributed intense aviation fuel fire exceeding their melting point, so that floor was uniformly weakened.

    Large steel columns are severely weakened by several minutes of intense petroleum fire, as I have observed myself. When a single failure occurs, adjacent components are subjected to the additional loads which is normally within their capacities by design. When those are also much weakened they too will fail, subjecting adjacent components to even greater overloads, etc. This is called "progressive failure." So filling an entire steel-supported floor with burning aircraft fuel would soon cause the entire floor to collapse in a rapid side-to-side progressive failure.

    Because the floors are thin flat sections, not tall compared with their width, a quick lateral failure across the whole floor would cause the entire structure above to fall quite vertically until it hit the floor below. This in turn would severely overload all columns below that, causing the entire structure below to collapse. Because the entire support structure was uniform and was uniformly greatly overloaded, a near-vertical collapse is not surprising.

    Smaller structures are usually not built that way; they have strong outer walls and a few inner "bearing walls." When part of the structure collapses, often some of the bearing walls collapse but others remain standing, so that forces on the collapsing structure are asymmetrical and it falls partly to the sides.

    As to reinforced concrete columns (assuming as you suggest that these were used in the London fire), it is the concrete that provides most of the vertical support, and it does insulate the steel reinforcement rods, which mainly provide tension strength against bending loads (wind and earthquakes). The horizontal bars hold the concrete together against cracking loads during its curing and later, when it often has many small cracks. So it is not surprising that such a structure survives a fire sufficient to burn the combustibles normally inside, without a broad progressive failure.

    Also it was probably not subjected to such a large. intense, and broadly-distributed fuel fire.

    But of course it was defective in safety systems for a high-rise structure, and this is not permitted in the US or under the International Building Code so far as I know. It should have had smoke detectors, fireproof unit doors and hallways, sprinklers to suppress non-petroleum fires, non-combustible materials on all interior surfaces, and at least two "separate and independent" fireproof exit stairways. Presumably investigation will reveal the deficiencies in its construction, maintenance, and enforcement practices, if not in the building code itself.

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:40 am

    It is not necessary to remind me that there are other explanations and perhaps additional causes of the WTC fire, and that Bldg 7 apparently had intelligence offices with provision for a deliberate large fire that occurred while WTC was burning. I do not know what happened there.

    I remain skeptical that persons so long and carefully prepared to attack WTC by aircraft would have prepared a distinct method of attack requiring ability to plant explosives, etc. It is not impossible but why do both? They would probably have attacked other structures with the aircraft. Also, if another attack on the same structures was planned, there is no obvious reason to wait until after the aircraft attacks to use the other method. Also, the plane that did not hit any buildings did not correspond to any structure simultaneously destroyed by other means.

    So if there was another demolition means used simultaneously, we need evidence of that, and I have seen no convincing photos or reports of explosive residues. I have already looked at videos that do not in fact show this, but merely events not inconsistent with the aircraft-only model.

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 7:52 am

    I accept that there were motives for an attack like 911, and those parties may have been involved in the aircraft attack. But without direct evidence, our efforts are better spent investigating the sources of the aircraft attack.

    We know that AlQaeda did the attack, that KSA was fairly directly involved, that AlQaeda was grown by US warmongers attacking the USSR in Afghanistan, and that US interests wanted another Pearl Harbor. That says a lot, and suggests that there is much more to be learned about US/KSA/Israel involvement that we may hope will be exposed.

    backwardsevolution , June 17, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Sam F – had Building No. 7 not come down in exactly the same manner as the other two, I might have bought (maybe) what you just said. A really big "maybe". I think the reason the scientists at N.I.S.T. did not extend their models out past the collapse initiation stage is because they KNEW they wouldn't be able to replicate the building coming down in its own footprint. As the fellow in the video said, there would have been chaos and the building would have deviated to one side. No way it would have come straight down.

    Could be the reason they hit the buildings with the planes was precisely to provide the excuse of the "jet fuel". "Oh, yes, it was the heat from the jet fuel. Wrap it up, boys, no more questions." I wonder whether that other plane was supposed to have hit Building No. 7, but didn't make it there. "Whoops, how do we explain this? Oh, who cares, just say the fire did it. Who is going to know the difference?"

    I'm not buying any of it. Three huge buildings ALL come down on their own footprint? Yeah, right.

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    I agree, b-e, the Bldg 7 collapse is very strange and suspect; and I apologize to others for the long posts above, and do not object to anyone else's views on this.

    1. The lowest floors of Bldg 7 are not shown in any of the videos, only floors above maybe floor 3 or 6, none of which show any damage at the time that it collapsed. So the damage must have been to lower floors.
    2. It also fell quite vertically, which is odd because that implies near-simultaneous damage across an entire floor, while the only causes related to WTC N&S would be asymmetrical debris impacts from their prior collapses.
    3. There were reports of a US intelligence agency office there, equipped with devices to burn that structure if security required. I do not know about this.

    But I today reviewed many videos of the WTC collapses, and found nothing in the WTC N & S tower collapses that suggests controlled explosions; they appear to have only aircraft damage:

    4. Both collapsed first at the lowest level of the burning sections, where the aircraft and fuel hit.
    5. The structure above fell almost vertically (up to 20 degree tilt in the first collapse) with chunks and dust thrown outward from the collapsing sections only.
    6. No damage is seen to lower sections until the upper structure hits them on the way down. That is conclusive.
    7. It would be very difficult to install and detonate explosives progressively just below the falling structure as it comes down just to create that appearance, and would use many times the explosives necessary to do that to a single lower floor.
    8. So the only way planted explosives could have been significant would be if the lowest burning floor had collapsed due to explosions instead of weakened columns. But the aircraft impact floor could not have been predicted so as to put explosives there, nor could such a system have been controlled with a high temperature fire burning so long on the same floor.
    9. The temperature of a petroleum fire will collapse large steel columns in a few minutes. I saw the results when a fuel truck overturned and burned next to a very tall billboard (maybe ten floors high) supported by large steel columns near MIT in Cambridge in the 1970s (no casualties).
    10. The planes probably had at least 10,000 gal of aircraft fuel in them: the wings are mostly fuel tanks; no doubt that has been estimated.
    11. While interior materials also burn at temps higher than the melting point of steel, they wouldn't supply heat as fast as an intensive petroleum fire, likely not enough to prevent the rest of the steel cooling the heated portion.

    Anyway, backwardsevolution is an interesting tag; I've wondered whether it warns of the peril of the fittest or survival of the least fit, both very apt in our era.

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    Obviously a key to grasping 9/11 involves motive. The obvious things like expanding "security" budgets and "justifications" for war are easy. E.P. Heidner's "Collateral Damage" shows how more than two birds were killed with one stone .

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    Gregory – yep. So many lies, so many cover-ups. Divided States of Lies would be a better name. Thanks, Gregory.

    Joe Tedesky , June 16, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    I think we have seen the motive play out over these last 16 years .what do you think Gregory?

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 10:22 pm

    To the hilt, Joe and tragically so for so many.

    Gregory Herr , June 17, 2017 at 10:50 am

    A good deal of aviation fuel was likely used up in the initial explosion. Once the remaining fuel burned up there would be no source other than office furnishings for fires. There was never any large, intense, or broadly distributed fuel fire associated with the WTC. If any temperature melting points for steel were achieved (dubious), it would have been of very short duration and isolated with respect to the entire structure. My God, even the core columns disappeared .which is certainly not consistent with the already fanciful progressive destruction at rates that suggest no resistance. "Cut" beams (promptly removed and shipped out) and nanothermite residue were in evidence.

    Why do both?
    The hijacker narrative is part of the setup to assign blame and is also connected to the Pentagon, not just the WTC. The "plane crashes", in and of themselves were not sufficient to bring down the towers. Motives to bring down the towers can be discerned.
    The "parties involved", the "sources" of the attacks, certainly constitutes the crux of the matter. Let's not make assumptions about this. Evidence supporting the "official" narrative is thin to contrived to nonexistent.

    Unless and until Mr. Parry publishes an article concerned with 9/11, this is my last comment on the subject here. Discussion about 9/11 gets to be endless and prompts all sorts of abuse. I trust the many capable people who read CN can research the matter to their own satisfaction (or dissatisfaction).

    george Archers , June 17, 2017 at 7:57 am

    Joe–that hush money 2.5 trillion dollars disappeared into Israel. Payment for Sept 11 2001 bombings

    UIA , June 16, 2017 at 2:13 am

    It might as well be $200 trillion, it's a fiction and a gov fiction at that. People are missing body parts for the big oil adventure in Iraq. All the busted out US towns need new filling stations and used car lots to boom. With bad sandwiches, gas and lottery computers we can have an economy again. Supermarket is a bust. People are dying for nothing who knows where. War on terror and new scams to expand rackets. Smedley Butler called it. System is unhinged. Don't sleep much. You can't afford it.

    Make the coins with lead, so we can melt them down and make bullets to kill with to fight over what's left. Nothing is left now. News isn't fake, the money is.

    mej , June 16, 2017 at 2:51 am

    I think we will hear Clapper say, 10 years after today's kerfuffle is buried by the next scandal, "yes, I lied, but it was for a good reason!"

    Reminds me of Pres.Saakashvili after his failed war in 2008 and all the hysterical noise about Russia starting the war in Georgia. That statement helped seal his fate as the soon-to-be ex-president of Georgia.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 3:56 am

    mej – you're right.

    Wendi , June 16, 2017 at 3:20 am

    Bring back Iron Curtain discussion. Ultimately, we see it is a Mirror. Whatever dirt we say of Russians shows in fact we're looking at ourselves.

    Sillyme 2.0 , June 16, 2017 at 3:42 am

    Let me put it another way;

    We're not going to return kind for kind,
    we're going to let you think about what it means to be a human being
    in your own good time on your own good island, with good isolation from us.
    Good luck .

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 5:19 am

    Clapper is either thoroughly devious, or paranoid. In either case, any sensible president would discharge him from his office immediately.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Clapper resigned in November of 2016, his resignation took effect in January of 2017. Instead of being thoroughly discredited for lying to Congress, he's instead put on a pedestal and continually brought forward by the media as some sort of wise man.

    He sits there, all calm, all knowing, a Wilford Brimley clone, and the public eat his words up. "This man is at the end of his career, so there's no way he would be lying to us." They don't realize grandpa-types can deceive too.

    Yeah, I haven't figured him out yet, but I like your choices: either devious or paranoid. It's one or the other. Now he's off to pollute Australia.

    "In June 2017 Clapper commenced an initial four-week term at the Australian National University (ANU) National Security College in Canberra that includes public lectures on key global and national security issues. Clapper was also expected to take part in the ANU Crawford Australian Leadership Forum, the nation's pre-eminent dialogue of academics, parliamentarians and business leaders.

    In a speech at Australia's National Press Club in June, Clapper accused Trump of 'ignorance or disrespect', called the firing of FBI director James Comey 'inexcusable', and warned of an 'internal assault on our intuitions'."

    The asylum has taken over.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 am

    The secret police always gain a lot of power over time; now they are exercising their power in a big way. These are glory days for the spooks. From their secret lairs they are showing what they can do. Trump challenged them directly, as he did the media, both major political parties, and the MIC. These power centers cannot tolerate this, and are acting decisively to crush Trump. The Donald's electoral supporters are the only friends he has left, and these are a disorganized rabble, no match for the forces arrayed against them.

    It looks like Donald's days in the spotlight are turning into a deer in the headlights moment. He just doesn't have the resources to withstand the shit storm he has provoked against his presidency.

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 8:16 am

    Clapper's evil mendacity being permitted to be aired as fact is testimony to the nearly complete unhingement of a segment of the American population who have no rational understanding of what happened in this election. If the insanity unleashed by the loss of Madame Warmonger Clinton is not stopped, something very evil seems on the horizon. Russia has become the scapegoat for the madness unleashed in the US.

    In an article this morning on Zero Hedge by Daniel Henninger titled "Political Disorder Syndrome: Refusal to Reason is the New Normal", the author reports that James Hodgkinson, the shooter of Steve Scalise and four others had tweeted before the incident: "Trump is a traitor. Trump has destroyed our democracy. It's time to destroy Trump." And a production to be staged in Central Park by New York Public Theater is planned for a production of "Julius Caesar" where Caesar is presented looking like Trump and will be pulled down from a podium by men in suits and assassinated by plunging knives.

    This is beginning to look like a long, hot summer. The author of the article on Zero Hedge mentions that social media has become a marinade for psychological unhingement of much of the population, leading to "jacked-up emotional intensity". Is it possible this could happen simply because the Democrat presidential candidate lost? Or is there something else driving this insanity behind the scene? I was startled to see the number of vicious published articles about Oliver Stone's interviews with Vladimir Putin. Where's the curiosity, only knee-jerk reaction that Putin is a source of evil? The insanity, the sickness in America is becoming unnerving and I have a strange sense of foreboding.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:11 am

    Neoliberal_rationality/ will be in short supply in the days ahead. To resist being sucked in by the waves of emotional madness will be important.

    Pixy , June 16, 2017 at 9:00 am

    As a Russian I should say I agree with this Clapper person actually. Consider what he says:

    "Russia is America's enemy." – True. Russia has always stood on the way of any nation bent of world domination. Since the USA have embarked on that very mission, Russia IS their enemy.

    "The Russians are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values." – Absolutely true! Russia does oppose to what passes for democracy in USA nowadays. And it opposes to your values, but not the officially declared ones, but those that you follow unofficially: blatant racism, dividing the world on übermensch and untermensch and treating nations and countries accordingly, hypocrisy and open lies, when children in Aleppo are very-very important and every tear they cry is the reason for the Hague tribunal, while children in Mosul are apparently non-existent, and no one gives two f..ks about carpet bombings, absence of safety corridors, suffering and deaths of civilians and general state of humanitarian crisis there. This is just one, most recent example.

    USA is insulting the intelligence of the people all over the world (and I mean THE WORLD really, all 7 billion people, not just US satellites), if they think anybody but the american Joe buys into their transparent lies and double standards.

    For as long as USA will continue on this trek, Russia will oppose you and remain your enemy. And we'll see how it turns out. So far the human history teaches us that every time the übermensch eventually break their necks and diminish.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:06 am

    Yes. Good comment.

    Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Pixy,
    Thank you for saying all of this.

    MaDarby , June 16, 2017 at 9:09 am

    ""The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared."

    I have a high regard for this site and this author but I want not so much to disagree with but to deepen the discussion.

    Underlying Clapper's views are far far deeper forces than just being "stuck in Cold War mentality." Powerful forces in the US are gripped by extremist Calvinist ideology and have been sense the beginning of the US. These powerful forces supported the Nazi movement against the "godless" Soviet Union (to show just how extreme they are). Their view is that the US (them and their power) is the chosen instrument of god to rid the world of the evil devil (exceptionalism). This means taking over the world and dominating all non-Calvinest countries. It means the justification of the biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil. We see the results of this extremist religious ideology in the continuous slaughter the US has perpetrated against the rest of the world sense WWII.

    Further, neutrality in the fight against the devil himself is unacceptable as immoral and those countries trying to be neutral are just as evil as the others.

    All Clapper is doing is carrying on the fundamental views the US has held of itself as morally superior to the rest of the world the same view Roosevelt and Carter and Kennedy had much less Reagan or Lyndon Johnson.

    Nothing will change until the iron grip of extremist Calvinism, which justifies the slaughter of millions, is no longer the fundamental guiding ideology.

    You ask the fish abut the water and he responds – What water?

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:07 am

    Interesting. There is much truth in what you say.

    Linda Wood , June 16, 2017 at 10:10 am

    You describe the mindset that is used so well. But the military industrialists who use it are doing it for the trillions of dollars in defense spending. People have killed for a lot less. Clapper represents an industry. He uses the mindset you describe to explain to us why we have to accept the pouring of more trillions into the black hole of war.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:17 am

    Absolutely true Linda.

    hyperbola , June 16, 2017 at 10:27 am

    Calvinism is only half the story.

    The Revolutionary Jew and His Impact on World History
    http://www.culturewars.com/2003/RevolutionaryJew.html

    . By 1649, when Charles I went on trial, the tradition of Judaizing which had been extirpated from Spain had struck deep roots in England. The English judaizers were known as Puritans, and Cromwell as their leader was as versed in using Biblical figures as a rationalization for his crimes as he was in using Jewish spies from Spain and Portugal as agents in his ongoing war with the Catholic powers of Europe. The Puritans in England could implement the idea of revolution so readily precisely because they were Judaizers, and that is so because revolution was at its root a Jewish idea. Based on Moses' deliverance of Israel as described in the book of Exodus, the revolutionary saw a small group of chosen "saints" leading a fallen world to liberation from political oppression. Revolution was nothing if not a secularization of ideas taken from the Bible, and as history progressed the secularization of the concept would progress as well. But the total secularization of the idea in the 17th century would have made the idea totally useless to the Puritan revolutionaries. Secularization in the 17th century was synonymous with Judaizing. It meant substituting the Old Testament for the New. The concept of revolution gained legitimacy in the eyes of the Puritans precisely because of its Jewish roots. Graetz sees the attraction which Jewish ideas held for English Puritans quite clearly. The Roundheads were not inspired by the example of the suffering Christ, nor were they inspired by the medieval saints who imitated him. They needed the example of the warriors of Israel to inspire them in their equally bellicose campaigns against the Irish and the Scotch, who became liable to extermination because the Puritans saw them as Canaanites. Similarly, the King, who was an unworthy leader, like Phineas, deserved to die at the hands of the righteous, who now acted without any external authority, but, as the Jews had, on direct orders from God. "The Christian Bible," Graetz tells us,

    "with its monkish figures, its exorcists, its praying brethren, and pietistic saints, supplied no models for warriors contending with a faithless king, a false aristocracy and unholy priests. Only the great heroes of the Old Testament, with fear of God in their hearts and the sword in their hands, at once religious and national champions, could serve as models for the Puritans: the Judges, freeing the oppressed people from the yoke of foreign domination; Saul, David, and Joab routing the foes of their country; and Jehu, making an end of an idolatrous and blasphemous house-these were favorite characters with Puritan warriors. In every verse of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, they saw their own condition reflected; every psalm seemed composed for them, to teach them that, though surrounded on every side by ungodly foes, they need not fear while they trusted in God. Oliver Cromwell compared himself to the judge Gideon, who first obeyed the voice of God hesitatingly, but afterwards courageously scattered the attacking heathens; or to Judas Maccabaeus, who out of a handful of martyrs formed a host of victorious warriors."

    Chet Roman , June 16, 2017 at 9:58 am

    "Clapper may think it is his duty to a higher cause that allows him to defy the truth and transcend the law"

    "Those who angrily criticize the Russians are completely blind to their own participation in a similar destructive process"

    Interesting article but the author is giving Clapper and the rest of the "intelligence" community too much credit. There is no "higher cause" and the "Washington consensus" is not blind to their own actions. Clapper and the deep state are well aware of their self serving actions and it is motivated by money and power. What is happening is the deliberate and aggressive promotion of propaganda to the U.S. public by the intelligence agencies, patriotism has nothing to do with it.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:09 am

    Yes. The secret police are the slimiest of the slimy. To call them intelligent is absurd.

    Gregory Herr , June 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm

    I think this is accurate to a great extent. But even "wicked" people who deep down know their own black hearts allow themselves the relief of their rationalizations that is to say that in a psychotic sort of way, they sometimes allow themselves to "believe" their own shit even while knowing it's not true. It's how they are able to function.

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Thank you for your viewpoints from outside the United States, and I hope you know that people who follow and post on CN are opposed to the United States' militarism and destruction in the world, which, as you say, MaDarby, is based upon the arrogance of the US, and you say comes from Calvinism, a belief that success means you are blessed by God. That may have been a starting point when the US was formed, but now there are such forces in power play that it goes farther. We, the dissenters in the US, have a powerful armed structure that makes opposition to it very difficult. And your good points from Russia are written in a clearer way than many Americans could even write, since the educational system has been deliberately controlled to "dumb down" the citizens.

    But what to do even when we challenge this militaristic power in control? Our elections as you must know are certainly not fair and democratic. There are weapons now used against protesters so that has become increasingly difficult, as we just saw with the native peoples who opposed the Dakota oil pipeline. It looks as if the problems in the US will come to a head economically because of the enormous debt the US has allowed to get out of control, which may be the only way to stop the failing empire. We have read that Russia has paid off its debt wisely, and that's even after the bankers of the world mainly through the US in the 1990s tried to destroy Russia. But the US just keeps printing fictitious money to pay for its warmongering. And President Putin accurately stated that it is a multipolar world, no longer can one power such as the US call the shots.

    I do not think that Russia is an enemy, but that Russia has the intelligence to lead a challenge to the USA, knowing that US cannot continue its behavior. I see it more as a challenge, and in fact, China is important to that challenge. Yes, it is ignorant and arrogant that Americans are not disturbed by the merciless destruction and killing their government has done. Good points you have made, thank you.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 10:32 am

    Anyone who presents the vaguest challenge or limit to US hegemony is seen as an enemy to be dominated or destroyed. Capitalism is the cover for worship of unlimited power. This is the essence of fascism which is simply a religion of power worship. As Thrasymachus said in Plato's Republic, "Justice is the interest of the stronger." Meaning that force trumps all other considerations, and is the ultimate goal and meaning of human life. Human history has been the story of men's struggle to dominate others. The ultimate goal of this sick philosophy is for one man to dominate everyone and everything: the apotheosis of Power! One Man becomes God over everything! When Ayn Rand said that altruism is the enemy of mankind, she was voicing this deranged philosophy.

    Realist , June 16, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    Yes, there are so many riches on this planet in which all of its creatures were meant (more accurately "required") by nature to share, yet 5 men claim ownership of as much "wealth" (land, resources, means of production, etc) as another 4 billion and they do everything in their power to keep it all for themselves causing untold misery for those billions. They accomplish this by conflating the onerous realities of naked unregulated "capitalism" with the platitudes of "freedom and democracy," evidenced in the "invisible hand" of the free market clearly implied to represent "god's will" in action. So this inequitable status quo is buttressed in conventional wisdom not only by phony altruism but by the power of organised religion.

    Really, these self-anointed de-facto gods know they're just hucksters who have hoodwinked the public into subordinating their own interests to tyrants. It is arguably a dysfunctional principle hardwired into the human genome, as strong-man rule traces back to our earliest recorded history. But knowledge is power and recognising this flaw in the system that makes life a misery for so many should give us a reason and the leverage to change things.

    Aside from widespread ignorance and fear, what is it that has kept so many down for so long? Ah, yes, the principle of "divide and rule," wherein a deliberate socioeconomic gradient is maintained amongst the 99% to make us compete and fight with one another rather than challenge them. So much easier to hate your neighbor for the little more that he many have, so much more feasible to assault and steal from him than from the lords at the top.

    I could go on, but the trolls still wouldn't see it since they are too invested in their delusions and meager rewards. They are sure to have some talking points on why degrading the planet so a few pashas can shit in solid gold commodes is a simply capital idea! And how we are fools for not seeing the obvious nature of things.

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 11:04 am

    Hyperbola's point about the Old Testament domination of New Testament is interesting, carrying it through history by the Roundheads and Puritans. We certainly see plenty of that vicious Old Testament "YHWH" in the actions of Israel and its armed-to-the-teeth lackey, USA. The OT god is a god of power and hate, and we're seeing plenty of it now. Some of these Bible bangers really do believe in end times.

    Abe , June 16, 2017 at 11:41 am

    "complex conspiracy theories buttressed by the most tenuous documentation have been spun and promoted in the midst of public hearings, political rearrangements in the White House and other theatrics designed to keep the public engaged and convinced of the notion that Russia's government actually attempted to manipulate the results of America's presidential election.

    "However, the entire spectacle and the narrative driving it, is based entirely on the assumption that Russia's government believes the office of US President is of significant importance enough so as to risk meddling in it in the first place. It also means that Russia believed the office of US President was so important to influence, that the substantial political fallout and consequences if caught were worth the risk.

    "In reality, as US President Donald Trump has thoroughly demonstrated, the White House holds little to no sway regarding US foreign policy.

    "While President Trump promised during his campaign leading up to the 2016 election cooperation with Russia, a withdrawal from undermining and overthrowing the government in Damascus, Syria and a reversal of decades of US support for the government of Saudi Arabia, he now finds himself presiding over an administration continuing to build up military forces on Russia's borders in Eastern Europe, is currently and repeatedly killing Syrian soldiers in Syria and has sealed a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia amounting to over 110 billion US dollars.

    "It is clear that the foreign policy executed by US President George Bush, continued by President Barack Obama and set to continue under US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, is instead being faithfully executed by President Trump."

    US Election Meddling: Smoke and Mirrors
    By Ulson Gunnar
    landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2017/06/us-election-meddling-smoke-and-mirrors.html

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    I just listened to YouTube of the phenomenal Russian pianist, Denis Matsuev, playing Rachmaninoff's incredibly difficult Piano Concerto no. 3 with the Moscow Symphony, such talented people in the orchestra. And this mediocre bureaucrat, James Clapper, should call Russia "our enemy". I'll bet he has no appreciation for art. There has got to be a stop to this madness. The pianist was one of many Russian artists who signed a letter in support of President Putin when Crimea returned to Russia. The government of the USA is very, very sick and evil.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    David Marks – just a great article! Very well done. Thank you.

    DMarks , June 16, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    Thanks, I'm always interested in the comments provoked by my writing. A family member wrote to me: "There's no reason to give the Russian government some kind of trust, Russian policies towards gay people, the oligarchical power structure than ensures only the favored voices are heard, murdered journalists who raise criticisms against Putin, state controlled media, and the fact that Putin has turned himself into his own brand of reality TV star by staging ridiculous feats that are widely publicized in order to give him a superhero reputation these things are not the signs of a misunderstood government." I don't disagree. If I were in Russia, I could/would write an article that mirrors the one I just wrote. That's the central concept. From each side, the other side appears as the aggressors/destroyers.

    Among Europeans, there are many who feel the Russian government is at the core of the problem, rather than the people in general. The farther you get from Europe, the easier it is to smear the whole country, along with their "failed" communism. We are the sum of history and it's hard to separate cause and effect of the events that lead us here. If there wasn't the immense fear of communism at the beginning of the 20th century coming from Royals, European industrialists and US oligarchs, we might have seen what the Russian experiment would have yielded. Instead the militarists and profiteers prevailed, with mirror images on both sides from the Stalin era through the Reagan era. No matter how much they were demonized before, the defeated Nazis became partners in fighting back the Soviet world. Just that single fact shows how desperately communism needed to fail in the eyes of the capitalists.

    If we could have a re-run of the "cold-war" where no one is allowed to spend money on arms, defense, etc. (and of course no social repression) - purely an economic competition - what would happen? Well that's what the West feared and prevented - and we will never know what the outcome might have been.

    My "neurosis" is formed as an American and still I struggle not to take "our" side. To keep some balance, I avoid the pressure to become a "fan" of anyone. Unfortunately, the majority of the general public (from all political persuasions) are pressured to see conflict as a sports event. Those in power support the notion that it's the whole other "team" that is evil and by extension the demonization of their leader is acceptable. The fanatical war mongering oligarchs of both sides bring conflict to a head by lying to us about everything, helping us believe we can win the "super-war" because we are the "good guys." Clapper is simply a great example of these beasts and the extremis we have reached. Unfortunately, there is someone just like him on the other "team."

    Sam F , June 17, 2017 at 9:04 am

    Indeed the warmongers and oligarchs of the US seek to provoke and grow similar forces in other powers, because they need a foreign monster to pose as protectors and accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty. While such elements can be found in every large group, the US failure to protect democratic institutions from economic concentrations has allowed them to predominate. Russia has a much smaller military, and even China has no modern record of foreign domination, provocation, and scheming.

    This makes one consider whether the ideological vetting of the communist parties, which originally selected some rulers of present day Russia, and those of China, served their people better by excluding the worst of the warmongers. If the US cannot find better ways to protect democracy from warmongers, it will be discarded by history as less democratic than communism.

    mike k , June 16, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    Mr. Marks, I agree with most of what you said in your article, but I must respectfully disagree with what I felt was your leaning over backwards to be "objective" and "even handed." Although it is true that nobody is all good or bad in this world situation, there are sides to be taken, and values to be affirmed. The United States is far and away the major cause of the very serious and potentially life ending problems on this planet at this time. The American Empire is the number one disaster for everyone alive today. I am not even going to try to prove what I have said here. To me it is by this time too obvious to ignore. I am tired of trying to point out the obvious to those who refuse to see what is right in front of them. By the way, I am not including you in that category. You have a good grasp of what is going down, but maybe you are a little too concerned with being "even handed" for my taste.

    backwardsevolution , June 16, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    David Marks – well, it's just a very fair article. You point out Clapper's projections. I'm always floored when I hear these guys speaking about how aggressive other countries are when, if the truth were told, they're actually the aggressor and the other country is just trying to defend themselves. Yeah, the other country is on their back, being pummeled, and they're the aggressor?

    I know there are bad people in Russia too (they're everywhere), and I also know that if the U.S. wasn't the biggest bully on the block, someone else would step in and fill the vacancy. But for right now, in our current situation, the U.S. are acting like warlords, and it's just nice to have someone spell that out, point out the idiocy of people like James Clapper.

    Jessica K , June 16, 2017 at 7:56 pm

    Mr. Marks, one could say very parallel things about the US government that your family member said about Russia. The US bureaucratic leaders apparently have no desire to get their own house in order but would rather create scapegoats for their mistakes. There's no way to make exact comparisons between cultural values from one country to another, people's origins have similarities but also many differences. The US has no business deciding the gay issue for Russians, and that is especially hypocritical since the US still cannot treat its descendants of slaves equally, throwing a disproportionate number of them in prison after not even giving them opportunities as the whites. The US has a lot of housecleaning to do, but they don't really want to do it, they prefer to attack others and they never stop. And we the people can't get through to them, they don't care what we think.

    Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:42 am

    Jessica K, just to support what you are saying about our outrage over Russian backwardness with respect to gay rights, there is a writer at caucus99percent who contributes an essay nearly every day about another murder of a transgender person in the United States.

    https://caucus99percent.com/diaries

    turk151 , June 16, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    Mr. Marks,

    I sincerely appreciate the article, but my thoughts upon reading it, is that, while I agree with all of your points about Clapper, he is merely the top bureaucrat, not the agenda setter. As you can see by the comments above, while there is unanimous condemnation of the nefarious covert operations run by our government, there is a broad divergence of who sets that agenda, ranging from satanists, Calvinists, Jews, the MIC or Wall Street . However, in your follow up comment, you address a very under reported issue, which I feel is at the heart of this matter. That this stems from a fear from the Royals, who allied themselves with the Nazis to fight the communists. I believe this is the central story of the past century, yet perhaps it is still a topic that is too sensitive to discuss and does not receive nearly the coverage it deserves. I would love to more of your ideas on this subject.

    Linda Wood , June 17, 2017 at 12:55 am

    Not just the royal families of Europe, but Standard Oil, Chase Bank, and other U.S. corporations. This is the truth that is, just as you say, too sensitive to discuss, and is as you say so very clearly, the central story of the past century.

    Thank you for saying it so well.

    Bob , June 16, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    Clapper and people like him in those positions are expected to lie when asked such things. Telling the truth might see you ending up like William Colby. Once you take that oath and realize the type of people you are dealing with, lying comes much easier.

    Jamie , June 17, 2017 at 12:40 am

    "If you look at Facebook, the vast majority of the news items posted were fake. They were connected to, as we now know, the thousand Russian agents."

    – Hillary

    Andrew Nichols , June 17, 2017 at 3:20 am

    "The Russians are not our friends; they, (Putin specifically) are avowedly opposed to our democracy and values, and see us as the cause of all their frustrations," Clapper declared.

    And the Aussie pollies and media just lapped up the crap from the Clap and also from Mad Jihadi lover McCain. We in Aus really are pathetic grovellers.

    Cal , June 17, 2017 at 6:25 am

    This nails the anti Russia movement

    Zero Hedge

    Why the Elites Hate Russia

    1, Russia is an independent country. It's not possible to manipulate Russia via external remote control, like it is most countries. The Elite don't like that! Russia kicked out Soros "Open Society":

    Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution. In a statement released Monday morning, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office said two branches of Soros' charity network - the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute (OSI) - would be placed on a "stop list" of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities have been deemed "undesirable" by the Russian state.

    2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright military conflict. Some other BRICs however, that's not the case. Say what you will about Russia's military – it's on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to the US military. And that's not AN opinion, that's in the opinion of top US military commanders:

    3. Russian culture, and language, is too complex for the average "Elite" who pretends to be internationally well versed because they had a few semesters of French.

    . Plain and simple, the Elite do not control Russia.

    While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance.

    Jessica K , June 17, 2017 at 7:52 am

    Thanks, Linda, for your point about murders of gays and transgenders in the US. This country for all its vaunted proclamations about being so advanced and exceptional, has a huge amount of prejudice and ignorance among the people, who have been kept down economically so many harbor resentments.

    Your points about Russia are interesting, Cal, especially about the military. US has exploited its citizens for military service when jobs have been taken away in other fields, so that a huge number of the enlisted are just waiting to get out. I have a friend whose son-in-law has to finish his third or maybe fourth deployment to Afghanistan and he can't wait to get out. And as noted in various posts, sloppy work has been done on military equipment in US, much of which becomes wasted money. I suspect Russians have to pay more attention to the job they do because money can't be thrown around as in US, Russian defense budget is far leaner.

    Michael Kenny , June 17, 2017 at 9:37 am

    Every time I see an American article about Russiagate, I run a search for the word "Macron". I never get a hit. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate but no American author even mentions it. None even bother to refute the proposition that it does prove Russiagate. The parallels are astonishing: a populist "ranter" (Trump, Le Pen), a moderate candidate who is being discredited (Clinton, Fillon) and a dark horse (Sanders, Macron). The scam was to get Le Pen and Fillon into the second round and then discredit Fillon, in the hope that Macron's "new generation" voters would be so disgusted with the "old style" politician that they would abstain in the second round, thereby allowing Le Pen to win. The scam failed principally because the media blew the lid off the Fillon story before the first round of voting, meaning that Fillon's voters had already been driven into Macron's arms before the vote. In a ham-fisted, last-minute, panic move, the scammers tried to discredit Macron but, in their haste, made lots of mistakes and fell into a trap he had set for them. The matter is now before the French criminal courts, but three names have already become public, one Russian and two figures of the US alt-right, one of whom worked for the Trump campaign. It is therefore established that Russians, whether working for the Russian government, the Russian Mafia or someone else in Russia, and American rightwing extremists sought to rig the French presidential election. The same pattern in the US election, so logically, the same perpetrators. Thus, James Clapper's reasoning is perfectly sustainable and calling him rude names doesn't change that.

    Bill , June 17, 2017 at 11:34 am

    Is Clapper in a conspiracy with Brennan and Comey? Who else are they working with?

    Jessica K , June 17, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    Macron leaks were not any more provable than Russiagate, they were allegations. Macron is a Rothschild banker, he appeared as a politician very suddenly and is undoubtedly part of the New World Order plan for the neoliberal free market agenda manipulated by the wealthy. Obama endorsed Macron in the days preceding the French election showing that it is clear that Obama supports the neoliberal agenda of "free market" control which has stripped people of their assets and enriched the wealthy wherever it is employed. Just watch France in the next few years, there will be problems as great or greater than under Hollande. Immigrants will be brought in, hired as wage slaves, the economy will be manipulated by bankers, and the people will pay the price as usual. You are making inferences from hearsay, there is no proof of what you say. James Clapper is known to have lied in the past about domestic surveillance; he has claimed in the Russiagate investigations first one thing, then another: we have no proof but it is possible, later we know they did it (although we have no proof), once even saying that Russians are genetically prone to be dishonest, the most bizarre thing he has said. If you want to defend someone who says things like that, you put yourself in the same category of absurdity.

    TellTheTruth-2 , June 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    Let's face it .. they tried to shift from Russia to the WAR ON TERROR; but, after 15 years with no end in sight the American public got sick and tired of it and now they need to shift back to Russia so they have a bogyman they can use to scare us into supporting more guns. Econ 101 .. Guns or Butter? How about us getting some butter for a change?

    J. D. , June 17, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    Clapper's rant revealed the actual reason for the coup attempt against President Trump, which he, along with Brennan, Comey, and the Obama Dems have coordinated,. Contrast his lying depiction of Putin to the actual words of Russia's president in his interviews with Megyn Kelley and better yet, with Oliver Stone. Hopefully. Americans will get an actual chance to see and hear President Putin and not the demonized caricature they have been barraged with by the MSM.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Trump now understands that Rosenstein was Obama/Hillary mole and that he backstabbed him, but this is too late

    Notable quotes:
    "... Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey. ..."
    "... "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I. ..."
    "... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs June 17, 2017 at 01:49 AM

    Trump Attacks Rosenstein in Latest Rebuke of Justice Department

    https://nyti.ms/2tuS5hb

    NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR, CHARLIE SAVAGE and MAGGIE HABERMAN - JUNE 16

    WASHINGTON - President Trump escalated his attacks on his own Justice Department on Friday, using an early-morning Twitter rant to condemn the department's actions as "phony" and "sad!" and to challenge the integrity of the official overseeing the expanding inquiry into Russian influence of the 2016 election.

    Acknowledging for the first time publicly that he is under investigation, Mr. Trump appeared to accuse Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, of leading what the president called a "witch hunt." Mr. Rosenstein appointed a special counsel last month to conduct the investigation after Mr. Trump fired the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey.

    "I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director!" Mr. Trump wrote, apparently referring to a memo Mr. Rosenstein wrote in May that was critical of Mr. Comey's leadership at the F.B.I.

    "Witch hunt," Mr. Trump added.

    The remarkable public rebuke is the latest example of a concerted effort by Mr. Trump, the White House and its allies to undermine officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. even as the Russia investigation proceeds.

    The nation's law enforcement agency is under siege, short-staffed because of delays in filling senior positions and increasingly at odds with a president who had already engaged in a monthslong feud with the government's intelligence agencies.

    Several current and former assistant United States attorneys described a sense of listlessness and uncertainty, with some expressing hesitation about pursuing new investigations, not knowing whether there would be an appetite for them once leadership was installed in each district after Mr. Trump fired dozens of United States attorneys who were Obama-era holdovers.

    In the five weeks since Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey, he has let it be known that he has considered firing Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel leading the Russia investigation. His personal lawyer bragged about firing Preet Bharara, the former United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was let go as part of the mass dismissal of top prosecutors. Newt Gingrich, an ally of the president's, accused Mr. Mueller of being the tip of the "deep-state spear aimed at destroying" the Trump presidency. ...

    graphic: How 7 Trump Associates Have Been
    Linked to Russia https://nyti.ms/2sVvf23
    NYT - updated June 13

    ilsm , June 17, 2017 at 02:37 AM
    "witch hunt" wrongly associates this travesty with Salem hangings!

    This is more like Stalinist shows trials while the traitors ruin the branches. Or, "Beria hunts", if you wish

    libezkova , June 17, 2017 at 06:57 AM
    Neocon are determined not to allow anybody to change the US foreign policy as their well-being, as lobbyists of MIC and Israel, depends on this

    President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-global-order-myth/

    American hegemony is the neoconservatives doctrine and "the Russian threat" is an insurance of MIC $1.1 trillion annual budget.

    And DemoRats now are just another War party, a bunch of lobbyists with the only difference that they get less money from Israel, and more from MIC and Wall Street (all wars are bankers wars)

    Those "very serious guys" are determined to install President Pence and already succeeded in applointed a Special Prosecutor as the milestone of this color revolution.

    Poor Trump did not realized that he is trapped until it was too late.

    http://www.unz.com/proberts/global-order-is-an-euphemism-for-washingtons-hegemony/

    Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.

    Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.

    For example, the orchestrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conveniently overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."

    In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalism" means is American hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."

    [Jun 17, 2017] Putin Claims Russia Proposed a Cyber War Treaty In 2015 But the Obama Admin Ignored Them

    Notable quotes:
    "... American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' than the total Russian military budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker. ..."
    "... The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux based etc etc). ..."
    Jun 16, 2017 | politics.slashdot.org
    (qz.com) 182

    Posted by msmash on Friday June 16, 2017

    Russian president Vladimir Putin ( who denies any Russian part in the hacking ) claims the Obama administration ignored a proposal in 2015 that might have avoided all of this. His administration suggested working out a cyber treaty with the US but was ignored by Obama officials, Putin told film director Oliver Stone in Showtime's four-part series broadcast this week. "A year and a half ago, in fall 2015, we made proposal to our American partners that we work through these issues and conclude a treaty on the rules of behavior in this sphere," he said in Stone's documentary The Putin Interviews. "

    The American side was silent, they didn't reply to us. "

    HornWumpus ( 783565 ) , Friday June 16, 2017 @12:55PM ( #54634053 )

    Re:That's a really nice Internet you have there... ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

    Do you realize how big the NSA is?

    American three letter agencies spend more money 'cyber spying' than the total Russian military budget. Which isn't to say the Russians don't have talent or that any amount of money will turn a paper pusher into a hacker.

    The Americans didn't respond because they thought they were miles ahead. Recent releases show they _could_ just own anyone with any connected consumer device (e.g. router, PC, Mac, Android, iOS, Linux based etc etc).

    I'm thinking the OpenBSD guys are acting kind of smug, but where they owned too? I can't keep up.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Power of alt media made obvious by backfire of corporate medias fake news war

    Notable quotes:
    "... Waddell and the Atlantic, among others, like the Daily Beast - known mouthpieces for the Democratic establishment scrambling to blame Hillary Clinton's loss on everything but the kitchen sink of a horribly flawed campaign - realize to some degree the threat posed by legitimate criticism of the accepted narrative. ..."
    "... Zuckerberg's protestations and resistance to acknowledge 'fake news' as influencing the outcome of the election quickly melted under pressure from the pro-Hillary camp - and evaporated as Clintonites and a smattering of miffed Republicans switched gears and ratcheted up New Red Scare propagandizing. ..."
    "... When utterly unfounded, un-researched, and unverified reporting by the Washington Post termed the collective body of independent, right-slanted, or pro-Jill Stein media organizations as either active agents of Russia or the Putin's "useful idiots," those outlets formed an implicit bond for having been scurrilously blacklisted. ..."
    "... Once the Post's thinly-veneered paper tiger went down in flames for it being impossible to substantiate, the outlet threw journalistic integrity out the window and proffered another unprovable paragon of irresponsibility: " Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ." ..."
    Dec 17, 2016 | www.sott.net
    Power of alt media made obvious by backfire of corporate media's 'fake news' war Claire Bernish

    Free Thought Project

    As you've likely heard by now, Facebook has taken its war against 'fake news' to a whole other level - employing third party media and fact-checking organizations to judge whether news items are legitimate - to the consternation of countless users who see the platform overstepping red lines.

    Servile corporate media immediately parroted the wealth of benefits Facebook's plan will ostensibly provide, from an alert and gateway system forced onto articles deemed "disputed," to the organizations making the 'kiss of death' judgment call: Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, and ABC News.

    Anyone with passing knowledge of bias in media is probably spitting out their coffee - all four organizations are notoriously left-leaning and liberal, and the list includes no outlets with any other of myriad ideological tilts.

    Indeed, right-leaning outlets from Breitbart to the Drudge Report, as well as the sizable alternative media community - who, collectively, held to higher journalistic standards throughout the election cycle than "old media" titans like the New York Times and Washington Post - quickly condemned the unabashed bias imbued in Facebook's plan.

    Mark Zuckerberg, a large consensus concluded, just declared war on dissent - if not information, itself.

    But in an article intended to criticize purveyors of 'fake news' and applaud the social media platform's oh-so-noble efforts to strike such outlets from the American interwebs, The Atlantic's Kaveh Waddell posited, " Will Facebook's Fake News Warning Become a Badge of Honor? "

    Waddell asks this question, the reader doesn't discover until more than halfway through the article, through a lens of myopic bias - if not outright scorn - against anyone who dare question the motives of Facebook or its choice of fact-checkers.

    "There's a danger that people who are disinclined to trust traditional sources of information will treat Facebook's warnings as a badge of honor," Waddell clarifies. "If fact-checking organizations deem a story questionable, they might be more likely to read and share it, rather than less. There's reason to believe this group might think of itself as a counterculture, and take the position that anything that 'the man' rejects must have a grain of subversive truth to it."

    For a journalist in a nationally-regarded publication to display such seething condescension toward a category of people perhaps most critical to preventing a narrowing of news media to a single viewpoint is criminally self-interested, indeed - evincing the paranoia among old media to validate its reporting in the wake of horrendous election coverage.

    Regardless of his patronizing tone, Waddell's question presents what might be the thinnest silver lining to having a Facebook-approved information gatekeeper - news deemed "disputed" will be viewed by non-establishment thinkers as bearing the Scarlet Letter C - censored for being problematic for the political elite.

    In other words, this soft censorship could facilely create a Streisand Effect - whereby efforts to suppress content backfire and instead draw greater attention to something than it ever would have received otherwise.

    Waddell and the Atlantic, among others, like the Daily Beast - known mouthpieces for the Democratic establishment scrambling to blame Hillary Clinton's loss on everything but the kitchen sink of a horribly flawed campaign - realize to some degree the threat posed by legitimate criticism of the accepted narrative.

    This battle has literally nil to do with fake news - or even Russia - and everything to do with the power of dissent.

    Of course, a brazen irony in Facebook's purge of random items is CEO Mark Zuckerberg's comments on the subject prior to mass Democratic and corporate media hysteria over iterations Donald Trump won because Russia:

    "Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99 percent of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes. The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics. Overall, this makes it extremely unlikely hoaxes changed the outcome of this election in one direction or the other."
    Zuckerberg's protestations and resistance to acknowledge 'fake news' as influencing the outcome of the election quickly melted under pressure from the pro-Hillary camp - and evaporated as Clintonites and a smattering of miffed Republicans switched gears and ratcheted up New Red Scare propagandizing.

    When utterly unfounded, un-researched, and unverified reporting by the Washington Post termed the collective body of independent, right-slanted, or pro-Jill Stein media organizations as either active agents of Russia or the Putin's "useful idiots," those outlets formed an implicit bond for having been scurrilously blacklisted.

    Once the Post's thinly-veneered paper tiger went down in flames for it being impossible to substantiate, the outlet threw journalistic integrity out the window and proffered another unprovable paragon of irresponsibility: " Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ."

    This gem swears CIA officials have performed an extensive assessment of the election and can prove individuals with ties to the Russian government as responsible for submitting documents on the Democratic Party to Wikileaks for publication - an allegation Julian Assange emerged from the shadows to dispel in an interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday.

    Wikileaks - whose published documents have never been proven inauthentic - found itself on the Post's 'Russian agent blacklist.'

    In other words, by relying on user-reporting and biased outlets to flag articles means any "disputed" contents feasibly earned that label on a subjective - not hard and fast - basis.

    But should there be any labeling - read: moderate censorship - of articles and items by a social media behemoth who claims impartiality while rubbing elbows with Democratic heavy-hitters. All grumblings on Facebook's status as a public entity aside, when your platform acts as the primary news aggregator for millions, there is a staunch obligation to preserve the rights of everyone to speak their version of truth.

    To be honest, that includes outlets spewing horrendously false news items as the real thing.

    In this new age of information aptly deemed the post-truth era by the Oxford Dictionaries this year, the onus of consequence for sharing any erroneous or fabricated information falls squarely on the shoulders of the fecklessly lazy who don't bother checking sources and hyperlinks - or, in most cases, read more than the title - before disseminating information online.

    Because that basic duty was apparently too much for so many to bear, we're now all faced with the Huxleyan prospect of being spoon fed vanilla government propaganda disguised as news - while legitimate news earns the dystopic "disputed" label.

    Maybe, just maybe, Waddell and the others have it all wrong. Maybe the imminent Streisand Effect will thwart Facebook gatekeeping in its tracks. Maybe people have wearied of the perilous penchant for categorization. Maybe this Scarlet Lettering of dissenting viewpoints will disgust the wary and students of history.

    Maybe Facebook will see its fast-approaching, inevitable demise and decide the suppression of information does not a profitable business move make - or maybe the "disputed" info plot represents the ultimate poison pill.
    Comment: See also:

    [Jun 17, 2017] A Clinton Fan Manufactured Fake News That MSNBC Personalities Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks Docs by Glenn Greenwald

    Notable quotes:
    "... The phrase "Fake News" has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as "terrorism" and "hate speech"; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it. ..."
    "... That did not stop Nance, who with a firm intelligence background should have been able to easily spot the fake with "(chaos)" actually written in the side bar and "((makes air quotes))" written before the "bucket of losers" piece in the completely comical so-called transcript, from referencing the document and saying: "Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done." ..."
    "... Their Fake News tweets - warning people to view the WikiLeaks documents as fake - remain posted, with no subsequent retraction or acknowledgment of the falsehoods that they spread about the WikiLeaks archive. That includes MSNBC segments that spread this accusation. ..."
    Dec 11, 2016 | Information Clearing House

    The Intercept

    The phrase "Fake News" has exploded in usage since the election, but the term is similar to other malleable political labels such as "terrorism" and "hate speech"; because the phrase lacks any clear definition, it is essentially useless except as an instrument of propaganda and censorship. The most important fact to realize about this new term: Those who most loudly denounce Fake News are typically those most aggressively disseminating it.

    One of the most egregious examples was the recent Washington Post article hyping a new anonymous group and its disgusting blacklist of supposedly pro-Russia news outlets - a shameful article mindlessly spread by countless journalists who love to decry Fake News, despite the Post article itself being centrally based on Fake News. (The Post this week finally added a lame editor's note acknowledging these critiques; the Post editors absurdly claimed that they did not mean to "vouch for the validity" of the blacklist even though the article's key claims were based on doing exactly that).

    Now we have an even more compelling example. Back in October, when WikiLeaks was releasing emails from the John Podesta archive, Clinton campaign officials and their media spokespeople adopted a strategy of outright lying to the public, claiming - with no basis whatsoever - that the emails were doctored or fabricated and thus should be ignored . That lie - and that is what it was: a claim made with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard for its truth - was most aggressively amplified by MSNBC personalities such as Joy Ann Reid and Malcolm Nance , The Atlantic's David Frum , and Newsweek's Kurt Eichenwald .

    Clinton camp chief strategist @benensonj : "I've seen things" in Wikileaks emails "that aren't authentic" #ThisWeek https://t.co/LPQJBfACqz

    - This Week (@ThisWeekABC) October 23, 2016

    That the emails in the Wikileaks archive were doctored or faked - and thus should be disregarded - was classic Fake News, spread not by Macedonian teenagers or Kremlin operatives but by established news outlets such as MSNBC, The Atlantic, and Newsweek. And, by design, this Fake News spread like wildfire all over the internet, hungrily clicked and shared by tens of thousands of people eager to believe it was true. As a result of this deliberate disinformation campaign, anyone reporting on the contents of the emails was instantly met with claims that the documents in the archive had been proven fake.

    The most damaging such claim came from MSNBC's intelligence analyst Malcolm Nance. As I documented on October 11 , he tweeted what he - for some bizarre reason - labeled an "Official Warning." It decreed: " # PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & # blackpropaganda not even professionally done." That tweet was re-tweeted by more than 4,000 people. It was vested with added credibility by Clinton-supporting journalists like Reid and Frum ("expert to take seriously").

    All of that, in turn, led to an article in something called the "Daily News Bin" with the headline: "MSNBC intelligence expert: WikiLeaks is releasing falsified emails not really from Hillary Clinton." This classic fake news product - citing Nance and Reid among others - was shared more than 40,000 times on Facebook alone.

    Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done. https://t.co/UuJZrurHAA

    - Malcolm Nance (@MalcolmNance) October 7, 2016

    Joe, Malcolm Nance & other experts have validated these emails have been forged & altered by Russia before passing them off to Wikileaks! https://t.co/gZ7rVQ6JJp

    - VLB (@BickiDoodle) October 27, 2016

    The media ( @ABC , @CBSNews , @NBCNews and @PBS ) must heed Malcolm Nance: "You should have ZERO CONFIDENCE in the contents" of Wikileaks dumps!

    - Thomas Gordon (@EarthOrb) October 23, 2016

    Joy now discussing WikiLeaks with security expert Malcolm Nance who says we can have zero confidence in authenticity of documents. #AMJoy

    - LaurenBaratzLogsted (@LaurenBaratzL) October 22, 2016

    From the start, it was obvious that it was this accusation from Clinton supporters - not the WikiLeaks documents - that was a complete fraud, perpetrated on the public as deliberate disinformation. With regard to the claim about the Podesta emails, now we know exactly who created it in the first instance: a hard-core Clinton fanatic.

    When Nance - MSNBC's "intelligence analyst" - issued his "Official Warning," he linked to a tweet that warned: "Please be skeptical of alleged #PodestaEmails . Trumpists are dirtying docs." That tweet, in turn, linked to a tweet from an anonymous account calling itself "The Omnivore," which had posted an obviously fake transcript purporting to be a Hillary Clinton speech to Goldman Sachs. Even though that fake document was never published by WikiLeaks, that was the entire basis for the MSNBC-inspired claim that some of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored.

    But the person who created that forged Goldman Sachs transcript was not a "Trumpist" at all; he was a devoted supporter of Hillary Clinton. In the Daily Beast, the person behind the anonymous "The Omnivore" account unmasks himself as "Marco Chacon," a self-professed creator of "viral fake news" whose targets were Sanders and Trump supporters (he specialized in blatantly fake anti-Clinton frauds with the goal of tricking her opponents into citing them, so that they would be discredited). When he wasn't posting fabricated news accounts designed to make Clinton's opponents look bad, his account looked like any other standard pro-Clinton account: numerous negative items about Sanders and then Trump, with links to many Clinton-defending articles.

    In his Daily Beast article, published on November 21, Chacon describes how he manufactured the forged Goldman Sachs speech transcript. He says he did it prior to learning that the WikiLeaks releases of Podesta emails contained actual Clinton speech excerpts to Wall Street banks. But once he realized WikiLeaks had published actual Clinton transcripts, Chacon began trying to lure people he disliked - Clinton critics - into believing that his forged speeches were real, so that he could prove they were gullible and dumb.

    Sadly for Chacon, however, the people who ended up getting fooled by his Fake News items were the nation's most prominent Clinton supporters, including supposed experts and journalists from MSNBC who used his obvious fakes to try to convince the world that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and thus should be ignored. That it was pro-Clinton journalists who spread his Fake News as real now horrifies even Chacon:

    The tweet went super-viral. It started an almost trending - but still going today - hashtag #bucketoflosers. A tweet declaring it a bad forgery was picked up by Malcolm Nance, an intelligence analyst for MSNBC among others, who tweeted to be wary of the WikiLeaks release .

    That did not stop Nance, who with a firm intelligence background should have been able to easily spot the fake with "(chaos)" actually written in the side bar and "((makes air quotes))" written before the "bucket of losers" piece in the completely comical so-called transcript, from referencing the document and saying: "Official Warning: #PodestaEmails are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries & #blackpropaganda not even professionally done."

    At the end of the day, did this change anything? I don't know. I think I inadvertently hurt WikiLeaks, which I'm not proud of - but I'm not too sorry about either. I suspect that some people came to realize that they were believing in fake things.

    That last sentence - that as a result of his fraud, "some people came to realize that they were believing in fake things" - is false, at least insofar as it applies to people like Eichenwald, Frum, Nance, and Reid. Even though it was clear from the start to any rational and honest person that there was zero evidence that any of the WikiLeaks documents were doctored, and even though (as Chacon himself says) nobody minimally informed (let alone supposed "intelligence experts") should have been fooled by his blatant Fake News, none of the journalists who lied to the public about these WikiLeaks documents have even once acknowledged what they did.

    Their Fake News tweets - warning people to view the WikiLeaks documents as fake - remain posted, with no subsequent retraction or acknowledgment of the falsehoods that they spread about the WikiLeaks archive. That includes MSNBC segments that spread this accusation.

    Indeed, not only should it have been blatantly obvious that Chacon's anonymously posted document did not impugn the WikiLeaks archive, but also the slightest research would have revealed that the person who manufactured the forgery was a Clinton supporter , not a "Trumpist" or a Kremlin operative. Indeed, one of the Clinton-criticizing journalists who Chacon tried to trick, Michael Tracey, said exactly this at the time . But because his facts contradicted the MSNBC/Newsweek political agenda, they were ignored in favor of the lie that the WikiLeaks archive had been compromised and doctored:

    FYI: one of the accounts ( @OmnivoreBlog ) that circulated a fake HRC speech transcript is a pro-Clinton troll spreading disinformation. pic.twitter.com/HZ3UBm9pk8

    - Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 11, 2016

    I will be shocked if any of them now acknowledge this even with Chacon's confession. That's because MSNBC has repeatedly proven that it tolerates Fake News and outright lies from its personalities as long as those lies are in service of the right candidate (when Democrats were smearing Jill Stein as a Kremlin stooge , Reid's program aired Nance's lie to MSNBC viewers that Stein had previously hosted her own show on RT: an utter fabrication that MSNBC, to this day, has never corrected or even acknowledged despite multiple requests from FAIR ).

    On Reid's show, Malcolm Nance falsely claimed Jill Stein hosted an RT show, & they just refuse to correct/retract it. How is that allowed? https://t.co/FKb5J0HDKF

    - Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 19, 2016

    Every day, literally, you can turn on MSNBC and hear various people so righteously lamenting the spread of "Fake News." Yet MSNBC itself not only spreads Fake News but refuses to correct it when it is exposed. How do they have any credibility to denounce Fake News? They do not.

    That journalists and "experts" outright lied to the public this way in order to help their favorite candidate is obviously dangerous. This was most powerfully pointed out - ironically - by Marty Baron, executive editor of the Washington Post, who told the New York Times's Jim Rutenberg : "If you have a society where people can't agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?"

    Exactly: If you have prominent journalists telling the public to trust an anonymous group with a false McCarthyite blacklist, or telling it to ignore informative documents on the grounds that they are fake when there is zero reason to believe that they are fake, that is a direct threat to democracy. In the case of the Podesta emails, these lies were perpetrated by the very factions that have taken to most loudly victimizing themselves over the spread of Fake News.

    But the problem here goes way beyond mere hypocrisy. Complaints about Fake News are typically accompanied by calls for "solutions" that involve censorship and suppression, either by the government or tech giants such as Facebook. But until there is a clear definition of "Fake News," and until it's recognized that Fake News is being aggressively spread by the very people most loudly complaining about it, the dangers posed by these solutions will be at least as great as the problem itself.

    Note: The article was lightly edited to reflect the correct date of the Daily Beast article: November 21.

    The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Information Clearing House editorial policy.

    [Jun 17, 2017] The higher the stakes for the elite, the more you can be certain the mainstream news lie about and reports fake news produced by the goverment fakers

    www.moonofalabama.org

    According to Fox News and NBC, China flew such bomber on November 25 (Dec 5, 6 reps above), well BEFORE the Trump phone call.

    It also flew the bombers AFTER (Dec 9 rep) the Trump's phone call with the Taiwanese government. Indeed it regularly flies these bombers.

    The sightseeing flight had thereby nothing at all to do with any Trump call. Correlating the call with those flights is bogus spin.

    The headlines above are all nonsense. There is nothing "nuclear" and the flights of outdated bombers have nothing to do with any Trump call to wherever. They are #fakenews just as most of the other news we get is:

    News is fake. The higher the stakes for the ruling classes, the more you can be certain the mainstream news about it will be as fake as fuck and conversely, reports deemed fake by those same fakers should be duly considered on their merits.

    [Jun 17, 2017] The higher the stakes for the elite, the more you can be certain the mainstream news lie about and conversely, reports deemed fake by those same fakers should be duly considered on their merits.

    www.moonofalabama.org

    According to Fox News and NBC, China flew such bomber on November 25 (Dec 5, 6 reps above), well BEFORE the Trump phone call. It also flew the bombers AFTER (Dec 9 rep) the Trump's phone call with the Taiwanese government. Indeed it regularly flies these bombers. The sightseeing flight had thereby nothing at all to do with any Trump call. Correlating the call with those flights is bogus spin.

    The headlines above are all nonsense. There is nothing "nuclear" and the flights of outdated bombers have nothing to do with any Trump call to wherever. They are #fakenews just as most of the other news we get is:

    News is fake. The higher the stakes for the ruling classes, the more you can be certain the mainstream news about it will be as fake as fuck and conversely, reports deemed fake by those same fakers should be duly considered on their merits.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Are Europeans finally standing up to American economic imperialism and extra-territorial laws?

    Jun 17, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren , June 16, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    Are Europeans finally standing up to American economic imperialism and extra-territorial laws?

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/HNfFiXqGdww

    Published on Jun 15, 2017
    The new anti-Russian sanctions are outlined in an amendment to a bill imposing sanctions against Iran.

    The anti-Russian measures in the amendment involve imposing penalties on enterprises that cooperate with Russian oil and gas companies.

    READ MORE: https://on.rt.com/8eub

    marknesop , June 16, 2017 at 3:46 pm
    You know the pressure will be on now, from the State Department and other US sources, for European leaders to get their populations in line and start singing from the same song sheet again. Gonna be a tough sell in Germany, though.

    So far none of the American promises about laying waste to Russia has come about. Generally speaking I find that if you announce "THIS is going to happen", and then you have to keep coming back to it and doing more stuff to shore it up and make it happen, then your initial plan sucked.

    [Jun 17, 2017] What would US foreign policy look like under President Pence by Hady Amr and Steve Feldstein

    May 25, 2017 | thehill.com
    Among the Republican establishment, particularly the neoconservative wing, Pence has an impeccable reputation. Many describe him as a " hawk's hawk ." He was a strong proponent of the Iraq War, has vigorously stood up for a strong military and "American values" and, as vice president, has taken on an informal role as an emissary to NATO and other alliances. All of this contrasts starkly to what candidate Trump said on the campaign trail.

    Likewise, Pence's evangelical Christian faith is central to his identity. He has proudly built up a reputation as one of the most conservative lawmakers in the country and frequently describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." There is a high probability that Pence would explicitly embed religious morals in U.S. foreign policy and push an activist social conservative agenda.

    For example, as the governor of Indiana, Pence signed one of the strictest abortion provisions in the country and approved a controversial law intended to allow businesses to deny services to members of the LGBT community for religious reasons (only after intense blowback did he backtrack). Translated into the foreign policy realm, it is not hard to imagine Pence defending Christian minorities around the world, possibly to the exclusion of other religious groups.

    He will undoubtedly continue Trump's expansion of the " global gag rule ," and it is possible he may try to push a " clash of civilizations " strategy, primarily seeking alliances with countries that have a "Judeo-Christian" character.

    But a Pence presidency could also mean re-adopting a "values agenda," with a greater emphasis on human rights, democracy and development that would be closer in line with President George W. Bush's policies. Under Bush, funding for development - particularly global health programs - expanded, bringing together an unlikely coalition of secular development advocates and faith-based stakeholders.

    It is not hard to envision a similar coalition coming together under Pence's watch. A Pence presidency also may lead to a shoring-up of security and economic alliances. Just as Trump has cast the free-trade regime into jeopardy, castigated NATO (at least before an abrupt about-face last month) and signaled massive funding cuts to the Bretton Woods Institutions, Pence may reverse many of these pronouncements.

    In the current configuration of the Trump administration, three separate groups tangle for foreign policy primacy: the economic nationalists/populists led by Stephen Bannon, the military pragmatists represented by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and the economic globalists fronted by National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin.

    Under Pence, the Bannon wing would likely make a quick and graceless exit. The economic globalists and the military pragmatists would stay entrenched in strong positions, but old groups would likely return, such as the neoconservatives and religious faith leaders.

    A Pence presidency would bring big style changes. Gone would be the late night tweets and blustery rhetoric. More than likely, "America First" would gradually disappear, with a return to a more traditional form of American exceptionalism. The impulsivity, erratic swings of policy and casual disregard for intelligence and briefing material would also likely pass.

    These changes alone would considerably ease fears about an accidental stumble into a major war or nuclear confrontation. On the other hand, the divisive culture wars that have framed Pence's political career would presumably return in a major way and likely spill over into the foreign policy arena.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Limbaugh The Swamp Has Got Trump Playing the Swamps Game - Thats Not What Trump Was Elected to Do

    Notable quotes:
    "... According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation had taken on other aspects. ..."
    "... Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com ): ..."
    "... If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying. ..."
    "... They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place today. ..."
    "... Now, Obama was able to take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said, "We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And they did. ..."
    "... Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality, the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there is designed as a deterrent. ..."
    "... Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Friday on his nationally syndicated radio show, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh warned President Donald Trump of "playing the swamp's game" in governing. advertisement

    According to Limbaugh, Trump was elected to "drain the swamp," but has been bogged down in taking on the Justice Department's investigation of his alleged ties to Russia and how that investigation had taken on other aspects.

    Limbaugh argued although he was playing "the swamp's game," he had other tools at his disposal that he has yet to use.

    Partial transcript as follows (courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com ):

    He could fire Rosenstein, and he could fire Mueller. There's nothing stopping him from doing it, nothing legally. He could go to Rosenstein right now. He would be perfectly within his bounds to go to Rosenstein and say, "Look, this investigation can't be wide open for anything. You've gotta limit what these people can look for. You've gotta limit it to actual felonious crimes. You can't have them subpoenaing anybody they want financial records, text records, tax records. There has to be a limit."

    He would be perfectly within his bounds to do that because he is the executive branch. And if he wanted to fire these people, he could. When you see in the media, "There's no way he can do it," they're talking politically. But since the independent counsel, special counsel's been named, and now since they made sure to leak that Trump is under investigation, that is supposed to tie his hands, but it cannot tie his hands legally.

    If he wants to fire these people, he can. And if he wants to endure the excrement show that happens, he can. If he wants to drain the swamp, he could keep doing it. Now, the point is that once Trump's inaugurated, already under a cloud of suspicion that it limits his ability to drain the swamp because when he begins it taints what he's doing as rather than draining the swamp he's getting rid of people who could put him in trouble. That's what Josh here is saying.

    And all that is true. But it need not stop him. What is being relied on, therefore, is conventional inside-the-Beltway thinking. Look, the Constitution has devised, for every branch of the government - the Founding Fathers were smart people, folks. They anticipated that there would be a never-ending quest to consolidate power. They understood human beings.

    They understood that the executive branch was gonna try to become dictator. They understood legislative branch was gonna be trying to overthrow the executive. They understood that the judges are gonna try to trample over everybody. And so they gave every branch defense mechanisms against various forms of attack in order maintain the separation of powers. And these are still in place today.

    These various mechanisms that the branches can constitutionally use to rein in, say, an overzealous executive. Or that a president can use to rein in overzealous members of the executive branch. The executive branch cannot run anything legislatively and vice-versa. Now, Obama was able to take over the legislative branch 'cause they ceded it to him. The Democrats ran it, and they said, "We're more than happy because we believe in centralized command-and-control, and since we love Obama, since he's God, since he's Mr. Perfection, we are happy to cede our power to him." And they did.

    Republicans have no desire to cede their power to Trump. They're holding onto it so Trump's in a battle with his own party for power, and of course the DOJ is not equally powerful as the executive branch. It is part of the executive branch. It does not have independent powers. The built-in defense mechanisms are what are being employed now. Okay, we've announced the special counsel and he's announced that the president's under investigation, and so the political reality, the political consequences of using his executive power to broom all these people out of there is designed as a deterrent.

    But he could still do it. It's not constitutional or legal prohibitions stopping him. It's pure politics. And it's the politics of the swamp, folks. The swamp has got Trump playing the swamp's game right now. And that's not what Trump was elected to do, and that's not what Trump wants. Trump does not want to play the swamp's game. I think the effort to get health care passed in the House was Trump playing the swamp game. And by swamp game, I mean the traditional way to get legislation passed.

    Somebody in the House comes up with a bill working with the White House and you got people that are for it and against it. You bring the detractors up to the White House, you wine and dine 'em, you cajole 'em, you beat 'em on the head. You do whatever, you try to get the bill passed, exactly the way it's always been done in the swamp. That first health care bill that ended up not being voted on because it never had a chance, I never thought it was gonna have a chance because it was "all swamp all the time."

    Now, you might say, "Well, I mean, Rush, the swamp's the swamp. There's no other way to get a bill passed. The president's not a dictator." I understand that. But Trump has many more tools at his disposal than he is aware of. I shouldn't say that. He's got more tools at his disposal than he is using. The power vested in the president by the Constitution in the executive branch is awesome.

    Now, there are limits to it. Separation of powers. But he hasn't gotten close to utilizing it. It's just politics that is the obstacle to getting rid of Mueller since Mueller has now leaked that Trump is under investigation. You've heard the media say if he gets rid of him now that takes us right back to Nixon. It takes us back to Nixon only because the media loved getting rid of Nixon. Nobody has any evidence Trump did anything yet. There isn't a shred of evidence even now, folks. If you read the Washington Post story on the latest examples of the independent counsel looking into financial - there's no evidence of anything. It's a wild good chase.

    Trump would not be throwing out any evidence if he fired these people and shut down this investigation. If Trump thought the investigation was needlessly harming the country and derailing us at a time we needed to be focused on real dangers and enemies, he could do it. There would be hell to pay in the media, don't misunderstand. I mean, it would dwarf what's happening. But he could do it, is the point. Now, he won't probably choose to do it because of the political ramifications of it.

    But the idea that he's been hamstrung since the beginning because he was inaugurated under investigation, and at that time we didn't even know what it was. It was just the FBI looking into Russia and collusion. Some of us have known that that was bogus from the get-go. Some of us have known that it was purely manufactured, invented by the Hillary campaign 24 hours after she lost. Some of us have never believed a single word of it and would have been happy if Trump acted that way as well.

    But he didn't. Why? He's new. He wants to calm their fears. He wants to show them that the things they thought about him were not true, that the reasons they hated him were not grounded in any reality. He wanted to show them that he could work with them, be a good guy, we could all come together. I'm sure that's what he wanted to do. And of course they want no part of that 'cause they don't want any part of Donald Trump succeeding in anything, anytime, anywhere.

    Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor

    [Jun 17, 2017] Oliver Stone Undresses Putin, Shows the Man Behind the Legend by Robert Parry

    Jun 17, 2017 | russia-insider.com
    Oliver Stone Undresses Putin, Shows the Man Behind the Legend

    Oliver Stone has done something remarkable, he "tricked" Putin into revealing more of himself than the Russian leader ever intended 62

    Before we stumble into a nuclear war and end life on the planet, the American people might want to watch Oliver Stone's four-part series of interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin on "Showtime." Stone accomplishes what Western journalists should do but don't, by penetrating deeply into the personality of this historic figure.

    Typically these days, American TV news personalities use interviews with a demonized foreign leader, like Putin, to demonstrate their own "toughness" on air, hurling insulting questions at the target and pretending that this preening behavior proves their courage.

    In reality, it is bad journalism for a wide variety of reasons: The interview subject will normally retreat into canned talking points, so nothing is really learned; the TV viewer will get to see some theatrics but no insights into what makes the foreign leader tick; and – most importantly – chances of going to war with the despised leader's country increase.

    Yet, it's not all bad: the "confrontation" will boost the career prospects of the self-aggrandizing "journalist" who will add the highlights of the insult-fest to his or her video résumé.

    By coming across as unthreatening and personable – almost like the TV detective Columbo – Stone strips away many of Putin's defenses, creating a dynamic in which the Russian president struggles between his characteristic cautiousness and a willingness to be more candid.

    Putin seems to like Stone while sensing that Stone is playing him. In one of the early interviews, in July 2015, Stone asks Putin about the "ambiguity" of Josef Stalin's legacy, obviously a sensitive and complex question for a Russian who may admire Stalin's determination during World War II but abhor Stalin's excesses in annihilating political enemies.

    Stone Directs Putin

    At the start of a late interview in February 2017, Stone even acts like a director, dispatching Putin down a hallway so his entrance can be more dramatically filmed. "Pretend we haven't seen each other in months," Stone tells Putin.

    After Putin has retreated down the hallway, Stone yells, "Action! Action!" but when nothing happens, he tells the official interpreter, "Tell him 'action' in Russian."

    Then, after more delay, Stone seeks out his assistant director: "Where's my A.D.? Come on! Where's my A.D.?" before worrying that maybe Putin "went into another meeting."

    But Putin finally strolls down the hallway, carrying two cups of coffee, offering one to Stone in English, "Coffee, sir?"

    Yet, perhaps the climatic scene in this tension between "director" and "actor" comes at the end of the four-part series when Putin seems to recognize that Stone may have gotten the better of him in this friendly competition spread out in conversations from July 2015 to February 2017.

    After finishing what was meant to be the last interview (though a later one was tacked on), Putin turns to Stone and voices concern for the risks that the director is taking by undertaking this series of interviews which Putin knows – because the interviews are not openly antagonistic to Putin – will draw a hostile reaction from the mainstream U.S. media.

    At that moment, the roles get reversed. Putin, the wary subject of Stone's interviews, is being solicitous of Stone, throwing the director off-balance.

    "Thank you for your time and your questions," Putin tells Stone. "Thank you for being so thorough." Putin then adds: "Have you ever been beaten?"

    Caught off guard, Stone replies: "Beaten? Oh, yes."

    Putin: "So it's not going to be something new, because you are going to suffer for what you are doing."

    Stone: "Oh, sure, yeah. I know but it's worth it if it brings some more peace and cautiousness to the world."

    Putin: "Thank you."

    In modern America – the so-called "land of the free, home of the brave" – a new media paradigm has taken hold, in which only the official U.S. side of a story can be told; any suggestion that there might be another side of the Russia story, for instance, makes you a "Putin apologist," a "Moscow stooge" or a disseminator of "propaganda" and "fake news."

    Harsh Reviews

    And Putin was not mistaken. The early mainstream media's reaction to Stone's interview series has concentrated on attacking Stone for not being tougher on Putin, just as Putin expected.

    For instance, The New York Times headlines its review in its print editions, "Letting Vladimir Putin Talk, Unchallenged," and begins with a swipe at Stone for his "well-established revisionist views on American history and institutions." Stone is also mocked for questioning the current elite groupthink that Russia helped make "Donald J. Trump president of the United States."

    The Washington Post column by Ann Hornaday was even snarkier, entitled in print editions: "Stone drops cred to give a Russian bear hug." Although only seeing the first two segments of the four-part series, Hornaday clearly wanted Stone to perform one of those self-righteous confrontations, like all the "star journalists" do, beating their breasts and repeating the usual litany of unsubstantiated charges against Putin that pervade the major U.S. media.

    Hornaday writes: "But what might have once promised to be an explosive on-screen matching-of-wits instead arrives just in time to be colossally irrelevant: an erstwhile scoop made instantly negligible by the breaking news it's been engulfed by, and the imaginative and ideological limits of its director."

    The truth, however, is that Stone asks pretty much all the tough questions that one would pose to Putin and succeeds in drawing Putin out from his protective shell. In so doing, Stone sheds more light on the potentially existential conflict between the two nuclear-armed superpowers than anything else that I have seen.

    While the series makes some genuine news, it also allows Putin to explain his thinking regarding some of the key controversies that have stoked the New Cold War, including his reaction to the Ukraine crisis. While Putin has offered these explanations before, they will be news to many Americans because Putin's side of the story has been essentially blacked out by the major U.S. newspapers and networks.

    A Vulnerable Character

    Personally, I came away from watching "The Putin Interviews" both more and less impressed with the Russian leader. What I saw was a more vulnerable personality than I had expected, but I was impressed by Putin's grasp of global issues, including a sophisticated understanding of American power.

    Putin surely does not appear to be the diabolical monster that current American propaganda presents, which may be the greatest accomplishment of Stone's series, revealing Putin as a multi-dimensional and complex figure. You may go into the series expecting a cartoonish villain, but that is not what you'll find.

    Putin comes across as a politician and bureaucrat who found himself, somewhat unwittingly and unwillingly, thrust into a historical role at an extraordinarily challenging time for Russia.

    In the 1990s, Russians were reeling from the devastating impact of U.S.-prescribed economic "shock therapy" after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The nation's riches were sold off to well-connected thieves who became known as the "oligarchs," overnight billionaires who used their riches to gain control of the political and media levers of power. Meanwhile, average Russians fell into poverty and saw their life expectancy drop at unparalleled rates for a country not at war.

    Boris Yeltsin, the Russian Federation's first president and a corrupt drunkard who was kept in power by American manipulation of the 1996 Russian election, picked Putin, a former KGB intelligence officer and security bureaucrat, to be his prime minister in August 1999.

    To Stone, Putin explains his hesitancy to accept the promotion: "When Yeltsin offered me the job for the first time, I refused. He invited me into his office and told me he wanted to appoint me Prime Minister, and that he wanted me to run for President. I told him that was a great responsibility, and that meant I would have to change my life, and I wasn't sure I wanted to do that.

    "It's one thing when you are a bureaucrat, even a high-level one, you can almost live an ordinary life. You can see your friends, go to the cinema and the theater, and not assume personal responsibility for the fate of millions of people and for everything that is going on in the country. And to assume responsibility for Russia back then was a very difficult thing to do."

    Family Fears

    Putin continues: "Frankly speaking, I didn't know what President Yeltsin's final plans were with regard to me. And I didn't know how long I would be there. Because at any moment the President could tell me, 'You are fired.' And there was only one thing I was thinking about, 'Where to hide my children?'

    "Just imagine, if I were dismissed, I didn't have any bodyguards. Nothing. And what would I do? How would I live? How would I secure my family? And back then I decided if that was my fate, then I had to go to the end. And I didn't know beforehand that I would become President. There were no guarantees of that."

    However, at the dawn of the new Millennium, Yeltsin surprisingly announced his resignation, making Putin his heir apparent. It was a time of extraordinary crisis for Russia and Russians.

    When Stone compares the challenges that President Ronald Reagan faced in the 1980s to those that Putin confronted when he took power in 2000, Putin replied, with classic Russia whimsy, "Almost being broke and actually being broke are two entirely different things."

    Once assuming office, however, Putin set about reining in many of the oligarchs and rebuilding the Russian economy and social safety net. His success in achieving an economic turnaround and a marked improvement in the social metrics explain much of his enduring popularity with the Russian people.

    But Putin does not come off as a natural politician. When you see Putin up close for the several hours of these interviews, you can't miss his unease in the spotlight, a tight control, even a shyness. Yet, there is a winning quality from that vulnerability which seems to have further endeared him to the Russian people.

    Compared to many Western politicians, Putin also has retained a common touch. One scene shows Stone interviewing Putin as the Russian president drives his own car, something you would never see an American president doing.

    Putin also takes Stone along for a hockey match in which the now 64-year-old Putin dons a uniform and laces up skates for a wobbly performance on the ice. By his own admission, he just began skating a few years earlier and he takes a couple of falls or stumbles. Putin doesn't come across as the all-powerful autocrat of U.S. propaganda.

    At the end of part two of "The Putin Interviews," Stone even gets Putin to watch Stanley Kubrick's 1964 Cold War classic "Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb," a very dark comedy about the U.S. and the Soviet Union bumbling into a nuclear conflagration, a film that Putin hadn't seen before.

    After watching the movie with Stone, Putin reflects on its enduring message. "The thing is that since that time little has changed," Putin says. "The only difference is that the modern weapon systems have become more sophisticated, more complex. But this idea of retaliatory weapons, and the inability to control such weapon systems still hold true to this day. It has become even more difficult, more dangerous."

    Stone then gives Putin the movie's DVD case, which Putin carries into an adjoining office before realizing that it is empty. He reemerges, holding the empty case with the quip, "Typical American gift." An aide then rushes up to hand him the DVD.

    rosemerry
    Thank you. I was never anti-Russian and visited the USSR from London in 1966, finding the people there, and the visitors, worth meeting and understanding a little about. In those days the people knew that Radio Moscow and Voice of Amercia were propaganda, but ound the BBC to be more even-handed (how things have changed!) I find Putin in the interviews, plus other book including his autobiographical "First Person") streets ahead of any other present world leader, able to think through issues, get along with widely differing nations and treat all with respect and understanding. His explanations are clear and if people bother to listen, they can perhaps gain some insight into the "foreign policy" disasters o their own nations.
    WillDippel , 4 days ago

    Here are some interesting comments from Vladimir Putin about the state of what passes for democracy in the West:

    http://viableopposition.blo...

    It is becoming increasingly apparent that democratically elected governments no longer represent the interests of the voting public.

    BRCitizen (Greg) , 4 days ago

    I'm impressed that Putin would even sit for this kind of interview- not just with Oliver Stone, but with a hostile journalist representing a foreign power like Megan Kelly. I can't imagine an American president subjecting themselves to that kind of thing.

    chris_xxxx , 3 days ago

    Oliver Stone is not a presstitute which is why the interview was courteous and asked logical questions relevant to the real world, which is the opposite of what we got with Megan Kelly. The Western media are losing huge numbers of viewers and readership every year, as they are owned by a handful of large corporations. This explains why there is now a concerted effort by the puppet leaders such as Merkel, Macron and May to push for new laws to regulate the internet.

    "Anyone who relies on the Western media lives inside The Matrix." - Paul Craig Roberts

    The interviews will give the people of the world the ability to see the real Putin and not the propaganda they get in the West, with the outcome being a better understanding of Russia and its President.

    7.62x54r , 4 days ago

    Stone then gives Putin the movie's DVD case, which Putin carries into an adjoining office before realizing that it is empty. He reemerges, holding the empty case with the quip, "Typical American gift." An aide then rushes up to hand him the DVD.

    That, is the history of the US wrapped up in a anecdote. The US reciprocates nothing.

    rosemerry , 18 hours ago

    The sad thing is not only the US general negative attitude to Putin but the refusal to contemplate that perhaps Putin has a point in the many disagreements (eg encircling Russia with US and NATO bases)
    that the USA assumes it is the "good guy". Putin's point on sovereignty is worth thinking about as so many more nations join NATO whose purpose was finished with the breakdown of the
    USSR and the end of the Warsaw Pact. If Russia were an enemy, all the nukes etc parked in the member States make them vulnerable, not safe.

    rosemerry , 4 days ago

    Note that even here we have to have the hubristic American view that the USA must be right and perhaps Pres. Putin is really a trickster. Putin has already a very good autobiography in English (First Person) which is worth reading even though it is from 2000.
    Imagine an interesting setup like this with Dubya, or Trump, or either Clinton!! What would you learn?

    [Jun 17, 2017] Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to Medicate U.S. Crisis of Governance Black Agenda Report

    Jun 17, 2017 | blackagendareport.com
    Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to "Medicate" U.S. "Crisis of Governance"

    Submitted by Nellie Bailey a... on Tue, 06/13/2017 - 00:10

    facebook twitter email

    https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/327874351&color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false

    The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR.

    Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left."

    [Jun 17, 2017] Dumping the Democrats for good is the only way to resist Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left." ..."
    "... "If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy," BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy." ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | blackagendareport.com

    "Dumping the Democrats for good is the only way to resist Trump," said Black Agenda Report editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley , addressing BAR's panel at the Left Forum, in New York City. "What have they done since Election Day?" Kimberley asked. "They have refused to give even the appearance that they are willing to push for even meager reforms. We have to talk about replacing them and having a true workers party, a true peace party."

    Political Elite Use Russia-Baiting to "Medicate" U.S. "Crisis of Governance"

    The U.S. is engulfed in a "crisis of governance" that has been "intentionally misunderstood" by the corporate media and the political elite, said Danny Haiphong , a contributing political analyst at BAR. Anti-Russian hysteria has been whipped up "to medicate political consciousness." "They don't want to discuss how Russia has absolutely nothing to do with the millions of incarcerated people in the U.S., or the fact that it is the U.S. monopoly capitalist economy, not the emerging capitalist economy of Russia, which has automated many of the jobs and siphoned much of the wealth that once belonged to a privileged sector of U.S. workers," said Haiphong. "This system has run its course. War is all the system has left."

    A Real Left Would Demand Peace

    "If you are resisting Russian collusion with Trump, then what you are resisting is a fantasy," BAR executive editor Glen Ford told the opening plenary of the Left Forum. "And, if you are simply resisting Trump, the idiot in the White House, then you are simply a tool of a Democratic Party strategy."

    Ford said the nation needs a rejuvenated anti-war movement, "or else we are defenseless against this kind of strategy on the part of the Democrats, who pretend that they are an alternative to the fascist-sounding and definitely virulently white nationalist forces in the Republican Party, but are themselves intent upon a war policy that can mean the extinction of the human race."

    [Jun 17, 2017] Qatar-Saudi Catfight Unveils Western Terrorist Propaganda Outlets

    Notable quotes:
    "... Al Jazeera probably intensified the production of dirty laundry, for example about Yemen, and they have pretty good journalism -- stories are well written, illustrated, and with videos if you want to watch and listen. ..."
    "... Yemen war is bloody and totally doomed enterprise, and the best our establishment can do is to ignore it to the largest extend possible, and to resort to glib locutions like "internationally recognized government of Yemen". The importance of that phrase is that no one tries to promote "democratically elected government of Yemen" ..."
    "... But they have some less dramatic dirty laundry on Libya. There UAE and Egypt support armed opponents of the "internationally recognized government". Which is supported by Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and the West. ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The spat between Saudi Arabia and Qatar gives us some amusing entertainment. Both countries spent billions to arm and supply tens of thousands of brutal Takfiris to fight the Syrian government and people. They also spent millions to buy this or that "western" think-tank and/or writer. Now that the two Wahhabi dictatorships are fighting each other they spill the beans over each others nefarious deeds. Various "western" think-tanks and media, who avidly supported al-Qaeda, ISIS and other criminals in Syria, are the well deserved collateral casualties in this fight.

    10
    ... "dirty laundry" will not be seen by the still orthodox-neoliberal media ... Pnyx | Jun 16, 2017 7:07:03 PM | 8

    True, they would rather dwell on terrible repressions in Russia where demonstrators can get ... three weeks of jail. And in nearby Poland they are threaten with three years. While the actual jailing seems less frequent, other aspects are more disturbing, IMHO, than in Russia. However, Al Jazeera probably intensified the production of dirty laundry, for example about Yemen, and they have pretty good journalism -- stories are well written, illustrated, and with videos if you want to watch and listen.

    Which let me think about one aspect of both Yemen war and KSA-Qatar brouhaha. A while ago there were elections in Yemen and a party supportive of Hadi got most votes. However, this party is viewed as a branch of Muslim Brotherhood, and there were scant sign of Sunnis of northern Yemen supporting the invasion (I actually did not read about any). For decades KSA was funneling money to the leaders of Yemeni tribes that they view sympathetic, i.e. the Sunni tribes, but apparently the division between northern and southern Arabs (in the Arabian peninsula) is much deeper than any religious difference between the sects.

    Yemeni Sunnis are just a bit less hostile to KSA and UAE than Shia Zaidites, after all those years of being bribed.

    The south-north division of the Arabian peninsula was already noted by Roman cartographers, and persists till today. Note that southern country of Oman steers very clear of any alliance with KSA.

    Yemen war is bloody and totally doomed enterprise, and the best our establishment can do is to ignore it to the largest extend possible, and to resort to glib locutions like "internationally recognized government of Yemen". The importance of that phrase is that no one tries to promote "democratically elected government of Yemen"

    Of course, Qatar is not implicated in atrocities there, can easily get some influence if GCC war is lost (because of Islah party), unlike the situation in Syria.

    But they have some less dramatic dirty laundry on Libya. There UAE and Egypt support armed opponents of the "internationally recognized government". Which is supported by Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and the West.

    james | Jun 16, 2017 8:11:41 PM | 11
    on a related note, i see Turkey's religious affairs head slams Gulf countries' decision to add Qatar-based Egyptian Islamic theologian al-Qaradawi to terror list... meanwhile, a 1 minute interview / video here of Yusuf al-Qaradawi: Killing Of Apostates Is Essential for Islam to survive..

    i suppose this explains more on the turkey - qatar relationship... headchopper cult unites under the banner of saving islam?? too bad someone can't save islam from itself, if this is what islam amounts to.. nothing like putting a religion in the hands of religious nut jobs..

    jfl | Jun 16, 2017 9:55:00 PM | 14
    Unmentioned of course is

    1. the CIA's role of distributing the money from Qatar in cash or in form of weapons and ammo,
    2. the Turkish role as transit and safe haven country for the Jihadis and
    3. Israel's own support, with artillery and medical services, for al-Qaeda in the Golan heights.
    4. The Saudi financing of the Islamic State, claimed by several U.S. officials in various Wikileaks documents, is not mentioned at all.

    but they all will be now. maybe even some of the folks in the usa will hear about same. whether it will make any difference or not remains to be seen ... the 'strategy' of late has been to 'embrace and extend' the 'dark side'. americans seem wed to the 'long war' ... something to do with the jobs of those not working at mikey d's depending on war ... to fix that is not even on the radar screen, see the discussion of bernie sanders elsewhere. not even the 'socialist savior' can divorce himself from what is the fundamental problem.

    wasn't it mussolini who is said to have said that fascism is the fusion of the corporate and governmental spheres? someone linked to an article from 2015 from nafeez ahmed yesterday, the title does not say it all - How the CIA made Google ... it's across the board, or around the triangle ... 'intelligence', corporate vendors, policy 'makers' ... those are the people whose income is seen to be 'on the line' and who are therefore supporting the 'long war' ... the never-ending war, according to their impossible calculations.

    jfl | Jun 17, 2017 5:23:15 AM | 18
    Turkey Tries to Calm Saudi Arabia Down as the Latter Prepares a List of Grievances Against Qatar

    During his visit in London, Al Jubeir said Saudi Arabia is working with Bahrain, the UAE and Egypt to prepare a list of complaints and documented violations and then submit it to Qatar, adding he expects a positive response from Doha and that the latter will eventually realize its mistakes and will cease all forms of support for terrorism.

    i imagine that qatar is preparing its own little list on ksa, bahrain, the uae, and egypt to present at the same time?

    they're like the dirty old men in raincoats, and nothing else, in back alleys 'downtown'.

    jfl | Jun 17, 2017 6:56:58 AM | 23
    @22, '1. the CIA's role of distributing the money from Qatar [, ksa, uae, ...] in cash or in form of weapons and ammo'

    yeah, turkey's role is diverting ... but we need to keep our eyes on the prime mover, number 1, above. none of this would have gone down ... afghanistan, iraq, libya, syria, ukraine, yemen ... none of it ... if it hadn't been for number one. and number one is the engine behind it all still.

    u-s-a! u-s-a! we're number one! we're number one!

    BRF | Jun 17, 2017 9:27:47 AM | 24
    This 'spat' is typical psychological scapegoating and blame gaming among allies when their defeat is looming. The only card left to play by the western plutocrats is the Kurdish desire for nationhood which goes against the desires of the local nations. Turkey is not amused. Look to see Iraq, possibly with Syrian and Iranian help, to push back against the Israeli supported Iraqi Kurdish enclave in Iraq when the time is right.

    Anonymous | Jun 17, 2017 10:03:55 AM | 26
    "Both countries spent billions to arm and supply tens of thousands of brutal Takfiris to fight the Syrian government and people."

    Not quite true. The great majority of fighters are of Saudi Wahabbist inclination, indoctrinated by Saudi 'clerics.' And how did the weapons arriving in Qatar get to Syria? Some were probably transferred directly to al Ubeid airbase for direct air-drop by the ISIS/Kurd airforce. The great majority would go overland through ... tada ...Saudi Arabia (then Iraq/Jordan). Qatar, Jordan and Turkey are bit players/patsies. The organ grinders are the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    CNN and some its journalists are now exposed as sponsors of terrorism. What is the US government going to do about it?

    Of course, our esteemed Senator John McCain has his picture taken colluding with terrorists.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 17, 2017 10:58:08 AM | 30
    Anyone else having cognitive dissonance over this 'spat'?
    - KSA and Qatar both supported the anti-Assad jihadis

    - KSA and Qatar are both whabbi;

    - KSA previously supported Muslim Brotherhood;

    - Muslim brotherhood supports sharia law and jihad;

    - MB's democracy agenda? MB is chiefly supported by Qatar (monarchy) and Turkey (dictatorship).

    When you see Bernie, Hillary, and Trump effortlessly spouting BS, you start to question everything .

    More here: Saudi-Qatar: Gambit du Roi

    okie farmer | Jun 17, 2017 11:01:11 AM | 31
    Brotherly Qatari and Saudi members of the GCC engage in a fist fight today
    https://youtu.be/u17sHeqswf4

    virgile | Jun 17, 2017 11:04:12 AM | 32
    Turkey has fallen in yet another trap set by the USA to weaken Erdogan.
    Turkey has no more 'neighbors' friends, no more European friends, little american sympathy, and now it is about to loose his rich Gulf friends.
    Erdogan's foreign policy is close to total disaster.
    The AKP success came from the economical reforms stimulated by the EU promises of adhesion and to the smart and peaceful influence of Gulen in Turkey's institutions and foreign policy.
    Now Gulen and his allies are enemies. Turkey has gradually become a rogue state controlled exclusively by a megalomaniac man blinded by religion and money.
    After the Syria quagmire, the Qatar-Saudi conflict and its impact on Turkey's economy, may turn to be fatal to Erdogan ruling.

    Noirette | Jun 17, 2017 4:06:12 PM | 36
    Trump paid off, bribed, KSA to stop terrorism , by selling arms to them, plus investment into KSA, idk the details - KSA accepted and will obey.

    --remake with some diffs. of Roosevelt + Ibn Saud. Two pix I like:

    historic pic, 1945

    Trump on tarmac, 2017

    From the KSA pov, Wahabi crazies being all stiched up around the globe doin' the terrorist gig (plus the proxies, the poor from other places) with suicidal fanfare, rushing about, is useful .now how? Terrorists, not doing well these days, ppl are fed up w. that BS..

    When powerful forces (US..) will support you by selling you bigly blast-power, to decimate, heh, poor starving peasants in Yemen?

    The temptation then to pick a scapegoat who 'supports terrorism' is just too great, some piddling islet / group / org. has to be targetted, gotta make a show, don't cha know? Fight the 'terra' away from home.

    Qatar, with its creation of Al-Jaz, showing it is far too big for its mini-boots, a traditional smirking upstart, strutting about with impunity, with a great gas bounty, all gung-ho with the Muslim Bros, intl' acclaim, investments galore etc., splashing moolah about, more welcomed than KSA (e.g. in France, as position of women, etc.) - heh. What better target?

    frances | Jun 17, 2017 7:44:31 PM | 39
    Although unlikely, it would be amusing if support for Qatar led to an improvement in the Iran/Turkey relationship.
    Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 17, 2017 3:00:24 PM | 34

    I agree Turkey is having its problems, but the Russian pipeline is moving along and managed by Russia; Syria, Iraq and Iranian gas could all become clients of the pipeline, generating significant revenue and jobs for Turkey as its hub. Far better that Turkey looks to Russia with its sane international policies than to the the US's EU puppet.

    [Jun 17, 2017] NATO as a threat to European countries sovereinity

    Jun 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    jfl | Jun 16, 2017 9:23:45 PM | 68

    part 3 ~23:00 - 26:55

    Stone :

    But ... economically you say you are self-sufficient ... they're gone, let them have their problems. It's not going to destoy your country.

    Putin :

    Not in the least.

    Stone :

    ... and at one point you told me in our last meeting that ... I asked you, you know, what about the Russian [base at Sevastopol] ... you told me that it [Russia] wasn't threatened by the loss of the base ...

    Putin :

    It was a threat, losing this base, but it was not too sensitive. Right now we are commissioning a new military base not far from here in Novorossiysk.

    Stone :

    Even if nato made an agreement with Ukraine, I still don't see the threat to Russia ... with the new weaponry.

    Putin :

    I see a threat.

    The threat consists in the fact that once nato comes to this or that country, the political leadership of that country as a whole, along with its population, cannot influence the positions nato takes, including the decisions related to stationing the military infrastructure. Even very sensitive weapons can be deployed. I'm also talking about anti-ballistic missile systems.

    Right now a certain strengthening of American influence is being witnessed in Europe, partly due to Eastern European countries, because they are trying to resist the former dominating power of the Soviet Union. Right now it's mirrored in Russia, but sooner or later this is going to stop. Through initiating the crisis in the Ukraine, they've [the Americans] managed to stimulate such an attitude towards Russia, viewing Russia as an enemy, a possible potential aggressor.

    But very soon everyone is going to understand, that there is no threat whatsoever emanating from Russia, either to the Baltic countries, or to Eastern Europe or to Western Europe. And the stronger this misunderstanding is, the greater the desire is going to be to protect their [European] sovereignty and to fend for their national interests.

    So this constant feeling of being under pressure, let me assure you, is something no one is happy about. Sooner or later it's going to have consequences if it's going to stop. And it's better if this happens through dialogue. Certainly you can try to use North Korea or some other countries to paint a darker picture, but i think what's needed right now is the transition to a new paradigm, a new philosophy for building relations among countries.

    And this paradigm should be based on respect for the interest of othe countries, for the sovereignty of other peoples, not just trying to intimidate them using some outer threat which can only be resisted with the help of the United States. This paradigm will have to cease to exist sooner or later.

    from the outside putin can clearly see the threat to european sovereignty from nato - the fact thereof, actually ... and he can see the threat to the united states from the european backlash to the european nations' loss of severeignty to the us under nato, once that's perceived, and the same through the eu - and the rump is being very helpful there. the us is sleepwalking right into its own demise, brought about by its own arrogant stupidity ... its arrogance 'will have to cease to exist sooner or later'. and it's looking to be sooner rather than later.

    from the outside putin can clearly see the threat to european sovereignty from nato - the fact thereof, actually ... and he can see the threat to the united states from the european backlash to the european nations' loss of severeignty to the us under nato, once that's perceived, and the same through the eu - and the rump is being very helpful there. the us is sleepwalking right into its own demise, brought about by its own arrogant stupidity ... its arrogance 'will have to cease to exist sooner or later'. and it's looking to be sooner rather than later.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Sanders is with neocon lobby and supports Russian sanctions

    Jun 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    rickee | Jun 16, 2017 12:47:19 AM | 33

    @15 You mistate/misunderstood: "There was a simultaneous vote..." There was not.

    S.Amdt. 232 (increase sanctions on Russia and limit Trump) was an amendment to S. 722 (the Iranian sanctions bill).

    Sanders voted for 232 because, frankly, he's all on board the Russia-Russia-Russia hysteria and demonizing Syria. He voted against 722 for the potential damage to the multi-lateral nuclear agreement with Iran. From his senate.gov website today:

    " I am strongly supportive of the sanctions on Russia included in this bill. It is unacceptable for Russia to interfere in our elections here in the United States, or anywhere around the world. There must be consequences for such actions. I also have deep concerns about the policies and activities of the Iranian government, especially their support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria.

    I have voted for sanctions on Iran in the past, and I believe sanctions were an important tool for bringing Iran to the negotiating table. But I believe that these new sanctions could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners and Iran in 2015. That is not a risk worth taking, particularly at a time of heightened tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia and its allies. I think the United States must play a more even-handed role in the Middle East, and find ways to address not only Iran's activities, but also Saudi Arabia's decades-long support for radical extremism."

    @10 is correct: they're all in...

    [Jun 17, 2017] As Secretary of State Tillerson rightly said: The U.S. has no legal authority to attack Syrian, Iranian or Russian forces. None at all. It is invading Syria with no legitimate reason. Syria, in contrast, has the legal authority to throw the U.S. troops out

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is the caliber of the US generals. It is almost - but not quite - beyond belief. ..."
    www.unz.com
    Grieved | Jun 15, 2017 9:10:10 PM | 23

    @1, 3, 5, 8, 9 et al

    Regarding that artillery the US moved into Syria. b wrote an UPDATE to his post of 6/13 [Syria Summary - The End Of The War Is Now In Sight] offering the best analysis I've seen anywhere. Worth a quote:

    HIMARS has a range of 300 kilometers. It makes no difference from a tactical perspective if its fires from Jordan or from al-Tanf in Syria some 12 kilometers east of the border line. It is a symbolic move to "show flag" in al-Tanf but it exposes the system to a legitimate attack by Syrian, Russian and Iranian forces.

    As Secretary of State Tillerson rightly said: The U.S. has no legal authority to attack Syrian, Iranian or Russian forces. None at all. It is invading Syria with no legitimate reason. Syria, in contrast, has the legal authority to throw the U.S. troops out.

    To move the HIMARS to al-Tanf is utterly stupid grandstanding.

    This is the caliber of the US generals. It is almost - but not quite - beyond belief.

    I can only think that military officers around the world are astounded every day at the sheer incompetence of the Pentagon. It calls for a whole new take on strategy and tactics, and this new take will come back to attack the US in all the days that follow, in all the theaters into which it intrudes, from all the forces that exist, in all the world.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Pentagon Trained Syrias Al Qaeda Rebels in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Mike K. Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 12:44 pm GMT

    a few links I'd suggest are worth a look

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 12, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT

    'No More' the video shows actual confirmation of the false flag and the video footage from the scene of the staged gas attack event in Syria.

    Apr 9, 2017 No More

    April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    The Western media refutes their own lies

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

    [Jun 17, 2017] Russia, Syria and allies severed the Jordan-Daesh supply route to Deir Ezzor by restoring government control over al-Bawdah north-east of al-Tanf and bordering Iraq

    Notable quotes:
    "... Wonder what vile provocation US and its proxy armies will now dig out their sleeve. The GCC infighting also hampers the information war as Al-Jazeera is a major source for desinformation in the Arab world but also in the West. Its focus will now lay more on the co-terrorist sponsors like KSA en UAE. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    xor | Jun 9, 2017 1:23:51 PM | 12

    Russia, Syria and allies severed the Jordan-Daesh supply route to Deir Ezzor by restoring government control over al-Bawdah north-east of al-Tanf and bordering Iraq.

    Wonder what vile provocation US and its proxy armies will now dig out their sleeve. The GCC infighting also hampers the information war as Al-Jazeera is a major source for desinformation in the Arab world but also in the West. Its focus will now lay more on the co-terrorist sponsors like KSA en UAE.

    https://southfront.org/russian-military-syrian-government-forces-reached-border-with-iraq/

    [Jun 17, 2017] Iran Claims Proof Of Direct US Support For ISIS Days After Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Floats The Idea Zero Hedge

    Jun 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Iran Claims Proof Of 'Direct US Support" For ISIS Days After Congressman Dana Rohrabacher Floats The Idea ZeroPointNow Jun 12, 2017 5:19 AM 0 SHARES Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com

    Last Thursday, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher praised ISIS for coordinated terrorist attacks in Tehran which left 17 civilians dead - then suggested that the United States should support the terrorist organization in their endeavors to bring regime change to Iran, comparing the situation to working with Stalin's Russia to get Hitler.

    Rohrabacher: Isn't it a good thing for us to have Untied States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us? Isn't that a good thing? And if so, maybe this is a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another considering that you have terrorist organizations.

    Dr. Asher : Having coordinated the economic warfare plan against the Islamic State, I would not condone an attack by the Islamic State. I would be determined to destroy them.

    Three days later, Iran says that's exactly what's happening...

    Iran's Fars news agency reports that Iran possess documents claiming to prove that the United States provides "Direct" support to ISIS. According to deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces - Major General Mostafa Izadi, Iran is "facing a proxy warfare in the region as a new trick by the arrogant powers against the Islamic Republic."

    As the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution (Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei) said, we possess documents and information showing the direct supports by the US imperialism for this highly disgusting stream (the ISIL) in the region which has destroyed the Islamic countries and created a wave of massacres and clashes - Fars

    As ZeroHedge notes , Izadi's statement echoed remarks made by Iranian politician Ali Larijani last Friday - who pointed a finger directly at the United States for last week's terrorist attacks in Tehran. At a funeral ceremony for the victims, Larijani said "The United States has aligned itself with the ISIL in the region,"

    Turkey's Erdogan claimed that the US supports ISIS

    In December 2016 , Turkish President Erdogan said "he has evidence that the US supported terrorists in Syria, including ISIS."

    They were accusing us of supporting Daesh [Islamic State]," he told a press conference, according to Reuters.

    "Now they give support to terrorist groups including Daesh, YPG, PYD. It's very clear. We have confirmed evidence, with pictures, photos and videos. - Erdogan

    For years, anyone saying US UK had backed IS terror was branded a 'conspiracy theorist'. Now, Erdogan says it's true https://t.co/qE9SFBkPoQ

    - Charles Shoebridge (@ShoebridgeC) December 27, 2016

    And in July of 2016, Julian Assange made a similar claim. Additionally - according to Wikileaks and the Podesta emails, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been supporting ISIS as well.

    Hillary Clinton email reveals she knew of Saudi & Qatar government funding for ISIL (ISIS) by August 2014 https://t.co/tlWxkEZ8FN pic.twitter.com/RmaFi9lQQP

    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) June 5, 2017

    Iran hasn't said if or when they will release proof of US support for ISIS/ISIL. Better not be trolling...

    In the meantime, perhaps US politicians would be wise not to cheerlead for support of one of the most brutal organizations on the planet. If the USA is in fact funding ISIS - that entire operation needs to be shut down and those responsible held to account.

    Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow

    Calculus99 , Jun 12, 2017 11:08 AM

    Terrorism = good for a government.

    Don't you think the US and its allies with all their weapons, spying ability and cash would have been able to swat it away by now?

    Look at them with their 20 year old AK47s and 125,000 mile Toyota pickups...

    Same with the 'war' on drugs. Good for them, not good for us.

    MrBoompi , Jun 12, 2017 10:58 AM

    ISIS is not a "new trick". Formation of a rebel force to oust Assad was conceptualized around 2013, maybe earler. Since Britain was in on it, rest assured the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia were on board from the beginning. The US, having sold ISIS as a major threat for all this time throught the use of MSM propaganda, can't really admit they were lying all along, even though anyone with half a brain and a keyboard knows the truth.

    Mango327 ,

    The program is not working anymore... *SYSTEM FAILURE*

    ZIONISM, ISLAM, & THE NEW ROMAN EMPIRE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_HlS6bSP4&list=PL0PjRD0h0gUA2juWTZINke...

    apberusdisvet , Jun 12, 2017 10:14 AM

    It was obvious going back to code-named Tim Osman (Osama Bin Laden for all you proles) who was the CIA funded leader for the afgan rebels against the Russkies. Further proof was shown by USA soldiers "guarding" the poppy fields from the Taliban. Then of course, there are the many videos of the 3 day convoy of armed yellow Toyotas that, in spite of the most sophisticated satellite surveillance available, were never attacked by US planes or warships sitting just miles away off the coast.

    SoDamnMad - apberusdisvet , Jun 12, 2017 10:36 AM

    I saw a Live Leak of a long convoy of Toyotas flying the black ISIS flag while a US Army helicopter, Apache or Kiowa, flew in the opposite direction with no attack by anything. That told me years ago that we supported them to topple the Syrian governent so the Qatar pipeline could go through. All since was just bullshit by our government. Pop3y3too , Jun 12, 2017 9:29 AM

    "Isn't it a good thing to have Untied States finally backing up Sunnis"....

    Untied? More like unhinged.

    SummerSausage , Jun 12, 2017 9:19 AM

    Obama and Hillary supported ISIS with money and arms. That, after all, was why the CIA and State Department were in Benghazi - with Qatar supposedly paying for the arms shipments.

    Obama was sure to send pallets of cash to Iran before he left office.

    Iran was a secular country before the return of the exiles Islamic extremists - who, by the way, lived in Paris during their exile.

    Women wore western dress and enjoyed the freedom of western societies.

    President Trump is telling the Arab states to clean up their own mess with increasingly less help from the US. Good for Trump. Good for us.

    Evil Liberals - SummerSausage , Jun 12, 2017 10:58 AM

    "President Trump is telling the Arab states to clean up their own mess with increasingly less help from the US. Good for Trump. Good for us."

    Bullshit - SA is biggest terrorist in MENA next to US. The arms deal Trump executed with SA (who has been supporting ISIS) is an indication that Regime Change for Syria is still working.

    The US is on the Syrian border with troops and Jordanian troops and Tanks/Arty and attacking SAA affiliates - this is more proof US is helping ISIS and SA.

    Reaper , Jun 12, 2017 8:50 AM

    Why weren't any US officers punished for "mistaken" drops of supplies to ISIS? How did ISIS get all those new Toyotas? How come the US doesn't destroy ISIS convoys of oil?

    Hate Iran is an emotional argument. No true American trusts Iran is the No True Scotsman argument. Anything from Iran is bad is a genetic argument. All are fallacious. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/poster

    Truth has no ethnic origin. Please, Iran, for the betterment of America reveal any duplicitous acts of our leaders.

    gordo53 , Jun 12, 2017 8:37 AM

    The US has been covertly funding ISIS for years. ISIS is the US proxy for regime change in Syria. Remember videos of all those white Toyota pickup trucks ISIS was running around in? Guess who funded those. None other than US intelligence with a little help from our NATO friends in Turkey.

    Northern Flicker , Jun 12, 2017 7:55 AM

    Tulsi Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act has about 10 backers in Congress

    "For years, the U.S. government has been supporting armed militant groups working directly with and often under the command of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government.

    https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/gabbards-stop-arming-terrorists-act-introduced-senate

    deoxy - Northern Flicker , Jun 12, 2017 8:51 AM

    from the first hyperlink in your post, "The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Peter Welch (D-VT-AL), Barbara Lee (D-CA-13), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA-48), and Thomas Massie (R-KY-04), and supported by the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and the U.S. Peace Council."

    I never thought I'd see Barbara Lee and Dana Rohrabacher on the same side of anything.

    Gunga , Jun 12, 2017 7:30 AM

    We know the Obama administration and Hillary state department facilitated the rise of ISIS and nurtured it's growth. One question of many as we consider this crime against humanity ,,did they consider the Christian genocide in the middle east perpetrated by their ISIS project a feature or a bug ?

    RagaMuffin , Jun 12, 2017 7:19 AM

    Dana Rohrabacher is trying to legitimize prior, previously denied, US support of ISIS. Simple as that?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . , Jun 12, 2017 6:41 AM

    "If the USA is in fact funding ISIS..."

    If?

    And what about Turkey? Erdogan started the Syrian conflict with mercs.

    Got The Wrong No - . . . _ _ _ . . . , Jun 12, 2017 7:09 AM

    Wasn't ISIS Oil Convoys going in and out of Turkey?

    . . . _ _ _ . . . - Got The Wrong No , Jun 12, 2017 7:49 AM

    From Turkey to Israel. Yup.

    ross81 , Jun 12, 2017 6:11 AM

    "Isn't it a good thing for us to have United States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us?" By "us" he means Israel of course. if Washington wasn't occupied by the Jewish lobby, the likes of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria would be natural allies of the US against Wahhabi/Salafist terror and their state sponsors

    [Jun 17, 2017] Langleys Jihadists: From the Mujaheddin to ISIL

    Jun 09, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    x | Jun 9, 2017 10:47:10 AM | 6

    Trump has large investments in KSA including golf courses; Obama used 'ISIL' (rather than 'ISIS') to piss off Netanyahu, and Trump admin revered it immediately on gaining office; Benghazi '9/11' (9:40 p.m., September 11, 2012) was a botched gun running exercise by the then US 'Ambassador'; ...

    "Langleys Jihadists: From the Mujaheddin to ISIL - Wayne Madsen , #369"

    langleys-jihadists-from-the-mujaheddin-to-isil-wayne-madsen

    [Jun 17, 2017] Global Order Is An Euphemism for Washingtons Hegemony

    Notable quotes:
    "... In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism." ..."
    "... American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both. ..."
    Jun 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
    by Paul Craig Roberts

    Bacevich points out that the orchestrated attack on President Trump is based on the assumption that President Trump has launched an attack on the open, liberal, enlightened, rule of law, and democratic order that Washington has established. This liberal world order of goodness is threatened by a Trump-Putin Conspiracy.

    Bacevich, a rare honest American, says this that this characterization of America is a bullshit myth.

    For example, the orchastrated image of America as the great upholder of truth, justice, democracy, and human rights conviently overlooks Washington's "meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran [Washingtonn's 1953 overthrow of the first elected Iranian government], Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran [the Shah], Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere-many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; 'extraordinary rendition,' torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process [the evisceration of the US Constitution]."

    In other words, Washington is the opposite of how it orchestrates its portrait. There is no such thing as "liberal internationalism." All "liberal internationalsim" means is Amerian hegemony over the idiot countries that participate in "liberal internationalism."

    President Trump is in trouble, Bacevich says, because "he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony."

    American hegemony is the neoconservatives' God, and "the Russian threat" is the savior of the military/security complex's $1.1 trillion annual budget. President Trump is a threat to both.

    Here is Col. Andy Bacevich's column: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-global-order-myth/

    [Jun 17, 2017] New Book About the Deep State Plot to Demonize Russia

    Jun 17, 2017 | russia-insider.com

    With a strong endorsement from Oliver Stone Roger Harris 6

    Accused of being a "Useful Idiot or Propagandist for Russia," labor and human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik is anything but. His book, The Plot to Scapegoat Russia , rather, holds the US to the same level of scrutiny as the Russophobes insist we examine Russia. Kovalik's careful dissection of the US record makes Russia's transgressions pale in comparison.

    American exceptionalism – the conviction that our excrement smells like perfume and everyone else's stinks – is deconstructed. Kovalik documents how the US "has fought against nearly every war of liberation waged by the peoples of the Third World, and has many times partnered with right-wing fascist forces." In short, Kovalik embraces Martin Luther King's dictum: "The US is on the wrong side of world-wide revolution."

    Brought up in an anti-communist conservative Roman Catholic milieu, where he was instructed to pray for the conversion of the Russians, Kovalik now pleas that the challenges of "global warming, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, mass poverty, and constant wars" would best be addressed by mutual cooperation with a willing Russia. Like a broken clock that displays the correct time twice a day, Trump is credited for suggesting détente with Russia.

    Kovalik is sympathetic to Putin's observation that the collapse of the USSR was "the major geopolitical disaster of the [last] century." Kovalik notes the Soviet Union's many contributions, including the heavy lifting in defeating the Nazis in WWII. The Soviet Union also served as a major countervailing force moderating US militaristic adventures abroad. The US invasions of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and counting would not likely have proceeded had that force been present in more recent times.

    Likewise, the presence of the Soviet alternative goaded the US domestically to address its democratic pretensions for racial equality and such. And with the collapse of the Soviet Union, social democracies throughout the world dissolved. Ironically Putin is being subjected to worse vilification today by the US establishment than were the Soviet leaders during the Cold War.

    Kovalik emphasizes the underlying continuity among US rulers from Clinton to Bush to Obama to Trump, despite less significant differences of party allegiances and work styles. Overriding is allegiance to the US imperial project and an ever deepening neoliberal trajectory.

    Obama, Kovalik points out, had arrested more people under the 1917 Espionage Act than all of his predecessors combined. Meanwhile, Trump is carrying Obama's legacy forward. The Clintons' many wrongdoings receive a full three chapters – two for Bill and one for Hillary. Under Bill Clinton, the ideological justification of "humanitarian intervention" replaced the former use of anti-communism as the pretext for US world domination. Kovalik traces back the use of "humanitarian intervention" as a cover for Belgium's genocidal activities in the Congo from 1885 to 1908 under King Leopold. Mark Twain, incidentally one of the founders of the Anti-Imperialist League, had this to say about the king: "this bloody monster whose mate is not findable in human history will surely shame hell itself when he arrives there." Kovalik opines that modern journalists would be justified to say the same about Bill Clinton today.

    The book's subtitle, How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Russia, suggests a secret cabal concealed in the shadowy bowels of the State Department basement. The conspiracy that Kovalik reveals is far more shocking. It is composed of our leading public officials and state institutions hidden in plain sight and blatantly operating in the open, abetted by what is called the mainstream media with a little help from alternative sources (e.g., Democracy Now! on Libya and Syria).

    The CIA is not only an unreliable source (e.g. weapons of mass destruction), Kovalik demonstrates that it is also a far greater threat to US democracy than Russia. The Russian hack story is a ruse to excuse Hillary Clinton's electoral defeat, but even more it is a justification for an ever more aggressive US imperial project.

    Kovalik's The Plot to Scapegoat Russia is a worthy sequel to John Perkins' 2004 Confessions of an Economic Hit Man , though with more sophistication and political insight than the earlier title. Just released on June 6, Kovalik's book provides a most timely analysis and documentation to combat the unholy alliance of neo-conservatives and liberals fomenting heightened world tensions.

    Kovalik concludes with the admonishment that liberals have grown so apologetic about the bedrock militarism of Democrats that they don't resist it when the other party is in power. "I wring my hands over my own country, which seems more out of control and dangerous than any other in the world, and which is tapping into old Cold War fears to justify its permanent war footing."

    Meanwhile the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists have moved the doomsday clock up to two and a half minutes before midnight, the closest it has been to Armageddon since the height of the Cold War.


    Roger D. Harris is on the State Central Committee of the Peace and Freedom Party , the only ballot-qualified socialist party in California. TONY LANE , 9 hours ago

    this creature Rycroft does not speak for the UK he was speaking for his American controller this circus Pony Show, as many people in the UK are completely pissed off with this Cold War which began 72 years Ago when Europe was enjoying trade with Russia, and the US could not take it because they were not included, the world was a much better place when the US stayed on the other side of the Atlantic and minded their own business, and this US jealousy has continued until this day, and thanks to the Internet we have known that since the state of Israel was created by the ROTHSCHILD Family just who the Real enemy is, so instead of calling them by the names of the countries which are AMERICA, BRITAIN and ISRAEL, we can just them ABI,

    Carl Osgood , 10 hours ago

    The plot, however, is not American. It's the British who want war between the US and Russia and the Russians know this. Vladimir Safronkov, Russia's ambassador to the UN said so on April 12, when he confronted the British ambassador at the UN Security Council.

    Responding to Rycroft's anti-Russia diatribe, in which he had charged that Russia
    had lost all credibility in the eyes of the world because of its support
    for the "barbaric" Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, and had
    consistently "abused" its veto at the UNSC, Safronkov got right to the
    point.

    "What you are afraid of," he told Rycroft, is that "we might work with the
    United States. That's what you lose sleep over." As Rycroft looked away,
    Safronkov told him, "Look at me! I'm speaking to you! Don't look away!"
    The United Kingdom does nothing to achieve a political solution in
    Syria, he continued. On the contrary, "you invite illegal armed groups
    to London," groups that murder Christians and minorities in the Middle
    East. "You advance their interests. What are you doing" to advance a
    political solution, Safronkov asked. "Regime-change is more important to
    you" than what the majorities of the UNSC think.

    It would be more accurate to refer to the "deep state" as the British Empire
    in America, for that's what it is. American patriots would do well to recognize
    this reality and work to throw the empire out of the U.S.

    Kjell Hasthi Carl Osgood , 8 hours ago

    The deep state is global, using US as their army. The (global) Elite is in all European states, and North America, and South America, and Australia, and Singapore, and more.
    John Kerry is not Brit, but Habsburger. ECB head is an Italian. Pope is an Argentinian (that will be one center for the Elite. Peru is a Nazi center. The biggest center is Antarctica? - the Elite made an escape attempt from Earth but was forced to return by a fleet of hostile spaceships guarding Earth?)

    Tommy Jensen , 31 minutes ago

    We have just had 15 years of muslim bashing in Western media since 9/11, so now Russia is the next on the list of Western scapegoats.
    "Give me one time, give me two times, give me three times.............".
    Play Hide

    ghartwell , an hour ago

    I immediate reaction is to like/dislike this book. I want to read it/I don't want to read it. If I read it I will become depressed and angry. I will be less patient with those who do not understand as if they should have read it. So here is what I posted on my Facebook: 'Here is the overview of Russia and America's recent history that untangles the web of lies. Should one read it? Any takers?'
    https://www.amazon.com/exec...

    Walter , 8 hours ago

    Good man Dan. Your book is a must read. We need and honor authors like you.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Are the Bilderbergers looking to overthrow Trump?

    Jun 17, 2017 | thenationalsentinel.com

    Posted on June 1, 2017 by usafeaturesmedia in globalism // 1 Comment

    There is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is a fly in their ointment, and they're not going to let him spoil their party

    ( National Sentinel ) Globalism: We already know that President Donald J. Trump's message of "America first" has rattled the world's globalist elite, as past American leaders have allowed them to feed off our success and drain jobs, opportunities and treasure from our country while they distribute that wealth to other countries, so they can control them. Globalism today really is nothing less that colonialism from past centuries, only writ large and done with dollars, not military divisions.

    In any event, Trump's nose-thumbing of the G7 leaders' agenda and his [reported] plan to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords may be a bridge too far for the world's elite, many of whom are meeting in Chantilly, Va., this week – an event to which Trump did send representation .

    As reported by The Guardian , the secretive Bilderberg annual gathering of the world's governing and industrial elite "will include a 'progress report' on the Trump administration," and no one is sure if he'll get a passing grade.

    So, perhaps, Plan B is taking shape.

    As reported "exclusively" by InfoWars (yes, we know, but read on anyway), that plan may consist of "overthrowing" Trump in an extreme, last-use tactic to thwart his agenda, if talking to him and convincing him to abandon it (which he can't do because he'll lose reelection) doesn't work:

    Sources close to the elitist Bilderberg Group conference tell Infowars that globalists see their agenda as being in "deep trouble" and that Donald Trump poses a "dangerous" risk to the international order and must be brought to heel or turfed out of office.

    Over the years, Infowars has developed sources close to the conference who feed us information ahead of time as to the real agenda behind the confab, not just the vague list of topics released officially by Bilderberg.

    Given that this is the first year since both Brexit and Trump came to pass, the effort to derail both is very much the primary focus of discussion amongst globalists in attendance this week.

    One Bilderberger told the site that since Trump is "dangerously obsessed" with upsetting and derailing the current world order, it may just be that there is no other way for the globalist cabal to protect its interests than deposing, or helping to depose, a U.S. president who, for the first time in decades, isn't dancing to the same sheet of music.

    More:

    Globalists are baffled as to Trump's "erratic" style of governance and are panicked that he could undo decades of work they put in to build the new world order.

    However, Bilderbergers still think Trump can be brought to his senses and taught "how the world really works," a line that is typical of the arrogance that has come to epitomize the attitude of Bilderberg members over the years.

    Given the highly unlikely scenario of Trump taking orders from Bilderberg, the only recourse left for the elite will be to turf him out of office.

    Another Bilderberger is confident that Trump can be impeached, but only if Democrats regain control of Congress in 2018, in which case his days are "numbered".

    If the impeachment of Trump is in process by the end of 2018, globalists are confident that any effort on behalf of his administration to pull out of the Paris climate agreement and any other globalist treaties will be thwarted.

    As of this writing Trump has yet to formally announce he will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accords (or declare it a treaty and send it to the Senate, where it won't be ratified). But clearly there is the feeling among the globalist elite that Trump is a fly in their ointment, and they're not going to let him spoil their party.

    [Jun 17, 2017] Deputy AG Rosenstein sees no reason to recuse himself from Russia probe, Justice Dept. says

    In 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Rosenstein to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He did get this position.
    Rod Rosenstein - Wikipedia "President Donald Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on January 13, 2017. Rosenstein was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 25, 2017"
    On May 17, 2017, Rosenstein (who had been put in charge of the Russia probe as soon as he was confirmed, because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself after it was reported that he had failed to disclose his contacts with the Russian ambassador when asked about those during his Senate confirmation hearing[38]) appointed Robert Mueller as a special counsel to conduct the investigation into "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" as well as any matters arising directly from that investigation.[39] Rosenstein's order authorizes Mueller to bring criminal charges in the event that he discovers any federal crimes.[39]
    www.politico.com

    Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein sees no reason at this point to recuse himself from overseeing the special counsel's investigations involving President Trump and the 2016 presidential election, the Justice Department said Friday.

    [Jun 16, 2017] New Russia Sanctions Are All About Forcing the EU to Buy Overpriced US Gas

    Jun 16, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Any Darwin Awards fans out there? For those few who have never heard of them, the Darwin Awards celebrate those individuals who have rendered a significant service to mankind by taking themselves out of the global gene pool. In preparing to discuss today's subject, I am reminded of unfortunate 1999 award-winner 'James' from Missouri, who became so fixated upon his love interest that he tried to lop off his own head with a chainsaw to demonstrate his commitment to an outcome on his terms. Although he was ultimately unsuccessful on both counts, he did fatally injure himself, and died in hospital. Ashes to ashes; dust to dust.

    My intent today is to demonstrate clear destructive similarities between the above emotional decision and the equally simpleminded decision of the US Senate to impose further economic sanctions on Russia, this time explicitly tying them to penalizing of European companies which do business with Russia – moreover, in a clear attempt to stop the latter from proceeding with the Nord Stream II gas pipeline project. This, in turn, is clearly an attempt by the USA to make Europe a captive market for its own energy products, in the form of shipborne LNG. Significantly, that goal is also finally becoming clear to Europe; or at least to the parts of it that matter, such as Germany (thanks for the tip, James!) Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's energy market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening European energy options.

    The readers and commenters of this blog will be well aware, since it has been a topic of discussion for years here, that a critical underpinning of the western plan to seize Ukraine and wrest it into the western orbit was the premise that Russia would be forced by simple momentum to go along with it. As long as events continued to unfold too quickly to get ahead of, Russia would have to help supply the sinews of its own destruction. And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would help to finance Ukraine's transition to a powerful western fulcrum upon which to apply leverage against it, through continued trade with Ukraine and continued transit of Europe's energy supply through Ukraine's pipeline system. But Russia slapped a trade embargo on most Ukrainian goods, and rescinded its tariff-free status as it became clear Brussels planned to use it to stovepipe European trade goods into the Russian market, through Ukraine – thus crushing domestic industries which would not be able to compete on economically-favourable terms. The armchair strategists nearly shit a brick when construction of the South Stream pipeline commenced, bypassing Ukraine and depriving it of about $2 billion annually in transit fees. But pressure ultimately forced Bulgaria to throw a wrench into the works, and the pipeline plans were shelved, to much victory dancing in the west. There was not quite as much happy-dancing in Bulgaria , but they were only ever a pawn anyway.

    Sidebar for a moment, here; while the $2 Billion annually in transit fees is extremely important, Ukraine's pre-crisis GDP was $163 Billion. The funds realized for transit fees are important because (a) Russia has to pay them and (b) the west will have to come up with the equivalent in aid if Ukraine loses out on them. But the real value intrinsic to Ukraine as a transit country is its physical reality as an interface for Russian gas transit to Europe – what is a bridge can be easily turned into a wall.

    Any time Washington thinks Russia needs some more shit on its face, Ukraine can be prodded to announce a doubling of its transit fees, or to kick off some other dispute which the popular press will adroitly spin to make Russia appear to be an unreliable supplier. Therefore, it is essential to western strategy that significant amounts of Russian gas continue to transit Ukraine. Sufficiently so that Europe continues to evolve ever-more-desperate contingency plans in order to keep receiving gas through the country which was known to have provoked the previous shutoff of European supplies by siphoning Europe-bound gas for its own use. That's despite the assurances of Germany and western partners of Gazprom in the Nord Stream line that it will mean cheaper gas prices for Europe.

    But we knew this was coming, didn't we? Yes, we did, because as recently as last month, Democratic senator Jean Shaheen, who sits on the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on European Affairs, announced that the United States was considering involving itself in the Nord Stream II pipeline project , with a view to killing it stone dead. The purpose, as already mentioned, is to make way for LNG cargoes to Europe, cutting Russia out of the business, on the assumption that without energy sales the Russian economy will crumble and the country will collapse. Destroying Russia remains Washington's overriding strategic objective.

    So the stakes are high; high enough to provide context for Washington's bizarre and aggressive behavior, and for its continued ridiculous insistence that Russia tampered with the 2016 US presidential election. What are the chances Washington will succeed with its latest adventure in global bullying?

    Not good, according to multiple sources. Let's take a look at how Platts views the prospects; Platts, a division of S&P Global , is headquartered in London and employs over 1,000 people in more than 15 offices worldwide. These include global business centers such as New York, Shanghai and Sao Paulo, and major energy centers such as Houston, Singapore and London, where Platts is based. Having hopefully established the firm's credentials as someone who knows what they are talking about in the energy business, let's see what Platts has to say about the potential American LNG market in Europe . Mmmm .the review is mixed. At the outset, Platts is admiring of Cheniere Energy's go-to-hell expansion. But a couple of things about that are cause to curb enthusiasm. One, only 8 American LNG cargoes had gone to Europe so far; that was as of April this year, when the report was released. Of those, 4 went to Spain, 3 to Portugal and 1 to Italy. Two, the Iberian Peninsula is acknowledged by Platts as not particularly significant in terms of gauging Europe's welcome of American LNG.

    "Indeed, the fact that Portugal and Spain were the first European countries to import LNG from the US is telling The Iberian Peninsula is considered an "island market" with poor interconnection to the rest of Europe, so the delivery of US LNG into the region is not likely to be seen as a sign that it will take hold in the wider European market."

    The same passage points out that Russia does not supply the Iberian Peninsula with pipeline gas, and so is unlikely to be very concerned about the impact of US LNG on that market.

    Three, Cheniere's rapid expansion has come at a terrifying cost, and the company is currently – as of fall 2016 – overleveraged with approximately $20 Billion in long-term debt . It is unprofitable, with interest payments representing 60% of revenues, the living embodiment of 'bicycle economics'; the second you stop pedaling, you crash.

    For what it's worth, few great business breakthroughs have occurred without risk, and while Cheniere is plunging ahead with what seems like recklessness, it could just as easily pay off with complete domination of the North American export market. That's a hell of a debt load, though; not much margin for bad news. That does expose a flaw in the American strategy, as well – wrestling control of the European supply market from Russia would be frighteningly expensive.

    a little better than 3 Billion Cubic Feet (BcF) of natural gas, which is mostly methane. That equates to about .85 Billion Cubic Meters (BcM). But Europe uses about 400 BcM per year , assuming LNG could supply the whole European market, which is of course unrealistic. Especially considering the entire global LNG shipping fleet consists of about 410 vessels .

    No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be a serious exporter it is going to need about 100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years , something which is frankly not practically achievable considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at a cost of about $200 Million apiece . Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough money into them. But we've already somewhat nervously mentioned how much all this is costing – how does the likely return on investment shape up?

    Well, what the fuck? Platts comes right out and says that Russia has the option of cutting its prices to ensure it undercuts LNG costs in order to keep its share of the European market!

    "Russia clearly does have the option to undercut the US LNG price to ensure it keeps its share of its key European markets and could flood the market with cheap gas, maximizing revenues and cash flow at a time when producers worldwide are suffering from the impact of such low prices."

    So, let me get this straight. All the attempts by the west, led as usual by Washington, to force energy prices down and keep them low actually benefit Russia by putting the USA in an unacceptable profit/loss loop so that it cannot afford to sell its LNG to Europe and still make money? That appears to be pretty much how it shakes out.

    "Russia, thanks to the bearish oil price environment and an enhanced export strategy from Gazprom, increased its exports to Europe by 15% (through the Nord Stream, Yamal, and Brotherhood pipelines) to 118 Bcm, taking back its place as Europe's largest gas supplier in the process."

    Wait! I think I see a solution. All the USA needs to do is apply its global leverage to make energy costs rise!

    "But US LNG could face problems of its own – the current low prices are forcing ever growing numbers of US producers into bankruptcy. According to a recent report by Haynes and Boone, 90 gas and oil producers in the US and Canada have filed for bankruptcy between January 2015 and the start of August 2016."

    Oh, hey; I just realized – if forcing energy prices back up were an option, how is that going to hamstring an opponent who was already able to undercut you at the lower price, and still turn a profit?

    Platts closes out this dismal synopsis with the consolation prize that, while US LNG is less competitive with pipeline gas given narrow Henry Hub-NBP spreads, it is coming to Europe regardless. More of that old American can-do. It will have to be, though, on what is described as a short-run marginal cost basis. Would you feel comfortable with that forecast if you were carrying, say, $20 Billion in debt?

    And it's not just Platts who sounds a warning; Forbes has a similar, if slightly more mocking outlook of the situation .

    "Most of this is just political posturing and noise. The U.S. is not now and nor will it be in the near future a key resource for Europe's energy needs According to EIAs Annual Energy Outlook, published in April, the United States remains a net importer of fuels through 2040 in a low oil price scenario. In a high oil and gas price scenario, the United States becomes a net exporter of liquid fuels due to increased production by 2021. A lot can happen in seven years. By then, Exxon will likely be back to its deal with Rosneft in Russia's Arctic Circle."

    As well, Forbes adds the interesting perspective that foreign sales of American gas will be a tough sell domestically if the pressure remains on the American leadership to achieve greater energy self-sufficiency and reduced dependence on foreign sources. This situation can only be exacerbated by a rise in anti-American sentiment around the world, and is likely to spike if energy prices rise. But if they stay low, American LNG exports won't make any money. If they go up, pipeline gas will undercut LNG prices and make it noncompetitive. Jeez, we just seem to be going around in circles. Say, did you notice that little item in there, in which the author mentions the only possible way the USA could compete with Russia in the natural gas market in Europe would be if it had national rights to substantial supplies of gas abroad? Did that give your memory a little tickle, and make you think of Burisma Holdings, and Hunter Biden ?

    The Brookings Institute, for God's sake, warned that US LNG could not compete price-wise before the first LNG cargo ever left the USA. Given its sympathies, it seems probable it was intended as a sobering restraint meant to keep the United States from doing something stupid that might expose it to failure and even ruin; it is much less likely to have been an endorsement of Russia's global business practices.

    As so often happens, an unhealthy fixation on taking down a largely imagined enemy results in increased risk-taking and a totally unrealistic appraisal of the likelihood of success – it becomes worth doing simply to be doing something. The costs in this instance have included the alienation and infuriating of Germany, the European Union's anchor economy, and angry murmurs from the Gulf States that Washington negotiated production cuts simply to make its own product more competitive. All for nothing, as it happens, because a nation with surplus swing production can always undercut your price, and the nation with the world's lowest production costs should be last on your list of "People I Want To Start A Price War With".

    If you were opposed to official Washington's swaggering, bullying modus operandi , this whole unfolding of events probably seems pretty delicious to you. But I've saved the most delicious for last – Trump dares not make any effort to overrule the Senate vote, or get it reframed, because of the successful media campaign to portray him as Putin's secret agent. Any effort to mollify Germany's fury will be seized upon by the reality-challenged Democrats as an opportunity to further discredit the Trump government, by making it appear to be negotiating in Russia's behalf.

    You couldn't make it up. PaulR , June 15, 2017 at 5:29 pm

    One should never underestimate peoples` willingness to spend vast sums of money on worthless projects. Witness the Canadian government's recent announcement of its plans to increase defense spending by 70%.

    When the dust finally settles, the Chinese will end up on top.

    marknesop , June 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm
    I think you're probably right about that. And if it turns out to be the case, British Columbia will turn out to be the most progressive province in Canada, with its large numbers of Chinese citizens and its Chines-language television stations. At bottom I am mostly a peaceful guy and I don't really care very much who rules the world so long as it doesn't impact my lifestyle.

    Once I would have argued strongly for American global leadership, based on a perception that it offered the best chance for prosperity and enlightenment for everyone, but events since have changed my view. Now I think other countries should be left alone in terms of interference, helped where you can lend a hand, and global leadership is an unrealistic aspiration for any country led by humans, since human nature tends to favour self-interest.

    I don't know what the Liberals think they are doing, pushing what is essentially an unachievable Conservative platform where defense is concerned. To what end? So we can interfere more effectively on the USA's behalf? We have a good military. There's nothing wrong with keeping it up to date and well-supplied and trained. But a 70% increase is impractical and is only likely to incur the wrath of the non-military portion of the electorate, since the money has to come from somewhere.

    PaulR , June 15, 2017 at 5:38 pm
    I hadn't been aware of the connection between the sanctions and LNG, so thanks for pointing that out.

    Meanwhile, I read this:

    'Germany and Austria on Thursday sharply criticized the U.S. Senate's plan to add sanctions on Russia, describing it as an illegal attempt to boost U.S. gas exports and interfere in Europe's energy market. [ ]

    "We cannot accept a threat of extraterritorial sanctions, illegal under international law, against European companies that participate in developing European energy supplies," [German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern said in a joint statement]. "Europe's energy supply is Europe's business, not that of the United States of America."'

    https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/06/15/the-us-is-exposing-europes-divide-on-nord-stream-2/

    marknesop , June 15, 2017 at 5:58 pm
    After all, many other European leaders have publicly clamored for U.S. LNG imports as a way to ease their dependence on Gazprom.

    Who? The Baltics? Thanks for that. It's mostly a rehash of the other article, but it does include some interesting insights, and it has a little more credibility than ZeroHedge, although there's little in that with which I can find fault and its breaking news is usually accurate.

    That the EU's energy policies are completely outside the USA's remit is correct, but it's a surprise to hear someone of Gabriel's stature actually say it. It seems the USA has decided that forcing Germany to abandon its support for the project is worth trying. That will turn out to be a disastrous mistake, because the business community in Germany contains some of America's staunchest supporters, while anti-Americanism among the German population – especially its youth – is a growing problem. This will do nothing to help it, and it most certainly is not going to persuade Germany to order American LNG.

    I urge you to digest the Platts Report in detail, at your leisure – it's illuminating, and I'm sure you will note that Russia's LNG export capability is already far, far ahead of the USA's. So even if pipeline gas proved only competitive with LNG, why would anyone depend on supplies which have to cross the ocean rather than supplies that can come from Kaliningrad?

    PaulR , June 15, 2017 at 7:12 pm
    As if on cue, Evgeniia Chirikova denounces North Stream II in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/14/gas-pipeline-nord-stream-2-funnel-billions-putin-bypass-sanctions
    ucgsblog , June 15, 2017 at 7:23 pm
    She's funny: "How can you shout about the transition to renewable, environmentally safe energy and at the same time make plans to increase gas flows into Europe?"

    Uhh, Zhenichka, Russia is part of Europe, you can shout about it if you are increasing your energy dependence on both, and if one pipeline is simply replacing another. That's how. That was easy.

    "Five European companies are involved but for some mysterious reason, 100% of the shares belong to Gazprom."

    Because GazProm is paying $$$ for it. Zhenichka, in a Capitalist Society, those who pay for the shares, get the shares. Did I solve that mystery for you?

    marknesop , June 15, 2017 at 10:23 pm
    "Five European companies are involved but for some mysterious reason, 100% of the shares belong to Gazprom."

    There is nothing mysterious about it; in fact, it is typical Guardian dishonesty. The Nord Stream II Project originally included minority shareholders as shown here . Then Poland introduced its anti-monopoly action and announced the pipeline could not be built. The partners dropped out, and left Gazprom to take the heat alone. When Poland failed in its bid to stop the project and it became clear the EU was all out of arrows – having never had a defensible legal basis – the partners hopped back on, but as investors only. I daresay they stand to make a good return on their investment even without being shareholders. Meanwhile, American meddling is only likely to make Europeans grateful attempts to stop the pipeline failed. I would not like to see their reaction if it ever became clear their governments had committed them to paying higher gas prices just to spite Russia, particularly in view of the USA's limited ability to provide reliable and constant supply.

    The Guardian is just being a good American footsoldier, and trying to throw mud in the works for Uncle Sam.

    yalensis , June 16, 2017 at 3:37 am
    Chirikova works for the Estonian government now.
    ucgsblog , June 15, 2017 at 7:16 pm
    Beautiful article, and great timing Mark! I love it. This was one of the dumbest bills ever passed. It aimed at Russia, but it's just a take down of Germany. Reminds me of a recent Russian joke:

    Obama: "America is mighty! Because of us, Russia's Economy is in ruins!"
    Poroshenko: "not Russia's, sir. Ukraine's."
    Obama: "Who gives a shit! It's in ruins!"

    Also, here's what I'm wondering – can't Russia deliver it by truck or train? Won't that still be less expensive than delivering it by ship?

    Jen , June 15, 2017 at 8:39 pm
    Nordstream 2 is primarily a gas pipeline project under the Baltic Sea.

    The main attraction of Nordstream 2 is it avoids transit through countries where tolls and transit fees would have to be paid, whether through land-based pipes, truck or train, and all these expenses added to the eventual cost that would be paid by the end consumer (ie the general public). Plus trucks and trains can be held up or subjected to attacks and gas in land-based pipelines can be siphoned off and diverted as was being done when the gas was passing through Ukraine originally. No such problems if the gas were being delivered through underwater pipelines though we can be sure that Swedish naval submarines (how many of those are there – one?) will be watching them very closely for phantom Russian subs.

    marknesop , June 15, 2017 at 10:28 pm

    I thought you were talking about LNG, from Kaliningrad. And if so, yes; it certainly could be transported by train, and probably would be.
    Jen , June 16, 2017 at 5:46 am
    Ah, I thought UCGS' original comment referred to your original post, not the one you sent at 5:58 pm yesterday.

    Wouldn't transporting LNG by underground pipeline under its own pressure be a less risky and cheaper option than sending it by train? Trains carrying LNG can only carry so much and have to be specially adapted to transporting it. Plus they share rail networks with other trains so there are issues like how saturated the rail networks supporting LNG rail traffic, other cargo traffic and passenger traffic become, and the pressure this puts on drivers and maintenance of railway tracks, and building more rail lines in and through areas where pipelines could be laid down instead.

    marknesop , June 16, 2017 at 8:56 am
    It's possible; I'm afraid I don't know enough about it. It seems that when they speak of an LNG 'train', it refers to the liquefaction and purification facility , not a transport vehicle. In order to transport LNG it must be liquefied, which implies freezing it to below -161C. Naturally it must be maintained at a temperature which guarantees its stability as a liquid, until it is appropriate to return it to its gaseous form for use in that form. That's the purpose of the huge container vessels on an LNG tanker – you have to get it cold and then keep it cold.

    I just don't know how you would do that in a pipeline. And obviously it would be wildly impractical for a train, I don't know what the hell I thought I was talking about. It could be done, but why? You'd need a hundred miles of teeny little flatcar-sized container vessels to equal what you can transport in an LNG carrier.

    Your pipeline would have to originate at an LNG 'train' and terminate at another, somewhere else, so that the liquefaction/gasification process could be practically carried out, much as current NG pipelines use pumping stations. But you would also have to keep the LNG below -160C all the time it was in the pipeline. That's probably physically possible, too, if expense is no consideration, but it seems terribly impractical when NG already goes by pipeline safely at a fraction of what it would cost to transport LNG the same way.

    Jen , June 16, 2017 at 2:30 pm
    Ah, I see now of course you wouldn't need to transport NG in liquid form under 160C through pipelines. To transport it by ship or train though, it must be in liquefied form, presumably because as a liquid NG can be measured and quantified, and then exporters can work out how much they can charge for producing and transporting LNG. Not to mention of course that transporting commodities in gaseous form by train and ship is harder and riskier than transporting them as liquids.
    marknesop , June 16, 2017 at 3:38 pm
    As well, it needs to be liquefied in order to be compressed, to get the volumes you are looking for . One of those container vessels full of uncompressed NG wouldn't be much more than a good-sized European town would need for its barbecues.

    LNG achieves a higher reduction in volume than compressed natural gas (CNG) so that the (volumetric) energy density of LNG is 2.4 times greater than that of CNG or 60 percent that of diesel fuel. This makes LNG cost efficient to transport over long distances where pipelines do not exist. Specially designed cryogenic sea vessels (LNG carriers) or cryogenic road tankers are used for its transport. LNG is principally used for transporting natural gas to markets, where it is regasified and distributed as pipeline natural gas.

    That does highlight, as well, that if you can use road tankers there really is no reason you could not use trains. But anywhere it is practical to use trains or road transport, you would be asking yourself, "why can't I use a pipeline here?"

    et Al , June 16, 2017 at 1:30 am
    The US's intervention is even more pathetic than it seems.

    This is not a stand alone anti-Russia bill which would signal strength from the US, but an adjunct to the anti-I-ran sanctions bill that continues to seek to punish I-ran in the vague hope that it will pull the plug on the cast-iron nuclear deal it has signed with international partners. The irony there is that I-ran Air is recapitalizing with both Airbus & Boeing (also ATR), 100 odd a piece, not to mention other significant investment opportunities for western firms.

    They're quite the Gordian Tits!

    Not only is there the potential of the Levianthan gas field off Cyprus/Israel/whatever, brutal dictator Azeri gas will also be arriving in (larger, but not gigantic) quantities. Not to mention that significant buyers of LNG, like the UK, have it come straight from Qatar. Is the US prepared to sell LNG at a discount compared to Qatar that has strategic agreements and its own fundamental interests to be protected by the Western (European) states as well?

    So if this plan seems to damage not only the USA's allies but the USA itself, then what is its purpose? Stick it to Trump. Mire any plans to re-balance relations with Russia almost at any cost . It's a no brainer for Democrats as they neither hold a majority in the House or the Senate, and there seem to be enough dog whistle Republicans willing to go along with it, including those with mental problems like John 'Insane' McCaine. Ukraine is almost peripheral except as a convenient tool. It think the US accepts they've screwed the pooch on the Ukraine so its only value is to be used as a festering sore on Russia's frontier. Kiev mops up the completely free public political support whilst it is being kicked in the bollox by the same people.

    Lyttenburgh , June 16, 2017 at 9:03 am
    Whoop-whoop! A new article so soon!

    "Try to put aside, for the moment, the insufferable arrogance of American meddling in Europe's energy market, with a view to restricting its choice while – laughably – pretending it is broadening European energy options."

    "Invisible Hand of the Market" [nod, nod].

    "And a big part of that was the assumption that Russia would help to finance Ukraine's transition to a powerful western fulcrum "

    At first I read it as "western furuncle". That's what it became in the end.

    First Rule of the Ukraine: "Every Peremoga turns into Zrada".Want to hear about yet another zrada ? Russia (okay – Mikhail Friedman) bought a German firm Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk (RWE) for $5.72 blns in 2015 . Why it's important? Well, because this firm carries out the reverse gas transition to the Ukraine, thus ensuring its [ha-ha, sorry, sorry!] "Energy Independence" which was officially proclaimed in the same 2015 A.D.

    "No LNG carriers are currently registered under the US flag, and if the USA plans to be a serious exporter it is going to need about 100 new LNG carriers over the next 30 years, something which is frankly not practically achievable considering it takes about 2 years to build one, at a cost of about $200 Million apiece". Of course, miracles can be made to happen if you pour enough money into them.

    Something-something-something Elon Musk something-something Super-technologies something-something-something Innovations! Progress!

    And usual stuff, said by the people who believe that the Free Market will "Get the Things Straight" without governmental meddling. Like, Musk will invent cheap multi-use drone-rackets which will deliver gas to the clients across the Ocean. Why not?! They believe in all kinds of stupid stuff already!

    The article is fresh breeze of actual facts and hard data – not your usual hurr-durring opinion pieces, passed as "analytics" by the esteemed think-tankers.

    P.S. Mark, do you have the same e-mail address?

    marknesop , June 16, 2017 at 1:19 pm
    Thanks very much, NS!! I read a book some time ago which used newspaper and wire reports of the various times to thoroughly debunk most of the incidents of ships and aircraft 'disappearing without a trace' in the Bermuda Triangle. In incidents which resulted in total losses of the crew, the author also offered reasonable explanations for what likely happened. I have sailed through it many times myself and observed nothing untoward, although that does not mean much considering the amount of marine traffic which routinely does the same without incident.

    Owners of LNG Carriers likewise play up how safe they are, and to the best of my knowledge there has never been a serious accident. However, on the scale of supply the USA is suggesting it wishes to achieve for itself, there could be no days taken off for bad weather, and carriers would have to transit the North Atlantic in winter – which is not generally a fun place to be. Most of my concern with the shipped method is its inherent unreliability compared with pipeline gas.

    Northern Star , June 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
    "But Gazprom could block a lot of those cargoes by stepping up export volumes and selling them at prices below what can be achieved by U.S. LNG. Gazprom can export pipeline gas to Europe for $3.50 per million Btu (MMBtu) while American LNG would need prices of $4 to $5/MMbtu. Currently, Gazprom sells gas to Europe at a price of about $5.80/MMBtu on average, but could lower the price to beat U.S. LNG"

    I do not see how the USA could begin to economically prevail over the Russians in a
    "gas' war..given the above numbers.

    "Of course, viewed another way, the growing U.S. export capacity – the mere existence of a competing source of supply – should push down the price that Gazprom is able to charge, a victory for Europe and a blow to Gazprom. Without U.S. LNG, its proponents argue, Russia would not be forced to accept lower prices. "It's the start of the price war between U.S. LNG and pipeline gas," said Thierry Bros, an analyst at Société Générale, according to the WSJ."

    Moreover doesn't keeping a lid (cap) on what the Russians can charge for Gazprom gas ipso facto prevent the Americans from competitively pricing their LNG product..particularly in view of the first quote????
    Either I'm a little dense today,or the American strategy here makes no sense whasoever.!!!!

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/US-To-Undermine-Russias-Gas-Monopoly-In-Europe.html

    marknesop , June 16, 2017 at 1:51 pm
    The latter – the American strategy makes no sense, and its proponents are so high on can-do that you might have to shoot them to get them down. The USA cannot supply either the volume or the consistency of supply to snatch the gas market from Russia, and that must be evident to all but the crazy. As usual, Washington just hopes to get itself into the mix so it will have a seat at the table, because it cannot bear being left out of things and has long been of the opinion that America makes its own reality. Once again, if America owned or controlled substantial gas reserves on the continent and it were practical for the USA to run its own pipeline to Europe, it might be in with a chance if it had sufficient supply, and it is attempts to do that that we should be watching out for. There was speculation much earlier that control of substantial gas holdings was exactly what Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden were up to in Ukraine, but gas extraction is not practical there right now and id assay results had been positive you can bet there would be a lot more American pressure to bring the war to a close.

    On that note, I noticed over at Sputnik yesterday that Turchynov was pressuring Poroshenko to bag the ATO and turn it into a full-press military operation, which is just what recent reports said they did not dare to do in case the Ukrainian Army loses. The same report said Poroshenko is about to sign legislation which orders by decree that Donbas resume its place as part of Ukraine. If they say "Pound sand up your ass" as we know they will, Poroshenko may have little alternative to throwing everything he has at them. Of course, I can't find it now; I knew I should have drawn attention to it when I saw it.

    I'm sure Russia is watching carefully.

    Northern Star , June 16, 2017 at 12:49 pm
    I assume the (shipped) American LNG would have to be regasified at a european import terminal. Consulting page six at the link, is it not problematic to then transport the regasified lng product to its (receiving) nation destination. The whole scheme smacks of going around the well to get an expensive cup of water!!!!!
    http://documents.jdsupra.com/c6c4403f-ad9f-4740-b184-9fc1f88550ab.pdf
    marknesop , June 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
    The liquid LNG can only be unloaded at an LNG terminal, and so far as I am aware a feature of them is that they are connected to a gas hub, so that they can regasify the product directly into the system.
    likbez says: June 16, 2017 at 9:05 pm
    What I do not understand is why Russians can't increase natural gas consumption dramatically and need to export that much: is it so difficult to build several large chemical plants, increase usage in city transport as less polluting fuel to 100%, promote dual fuel private cars, etc.

    In this case they can export saved oil instead using regular tankers which is much simpler then LNG.

    I think the current suppression of oil prices by Wall Street (and the new US method of production using along with production of shale oil a parallel production stream of junk bonds which will never be repaid) can't last forever. "Break even" oil price for most shale wells is probably over $60 per barrel. If not $80.

    Also without capital investment the annual decline of conventional fields is around 5% a year (most of those fields are really old). Which means approximately 5 million barrels per day are taken off the market automatically each year (no OPEC action is needed), if zero capital investment are done.

    Of course Sechin is IMHO a corrupt player here, who cares mostly about his own pocketbook (and stupidly increased investment just before the crash, which later required bailout of the company by the government), but still Russian government has the means to enforce its will even on rogue players.

    [Jun 16, 2017] Bloomberg Embarrasses Itself - Insists That Russians 'Hacked 39 States'

    Jun 16, 2017 | russia-insider.com
    The Real Fly 17

    All of the 'collusion' the deep state and the left have been trying to pin on Trump just got blown up during Comey's testimony, most likely thanks to Trump's mention of the possibility of tapes. Had Trump not done that, there is a very good chance that Comey would've went all the way with his lies.

    Alas, Bloomberg is now reporting, six months after the Presidential elections, that 39 states were hacked by dastardly Russians. Here is a delicate snowflake reporting. Check the venom in his cadence and the hatred in his eyes.

    https://youtu.be/Z9DStF0Okf8

    [Jun 16, 2017] Rosenstein may need to recuse himself from Russia probe ABC News

    After backstabbing Trump, he now wants to play the game further...
    Jun 16, 2017 | www.msn.com
    WASHINGTON - U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has privately acknowledged he may need to recuse himself from matters relating to the probe into Russia and last year's U.S. election, given that he could become a potential witness in the investigation, ABC News reported on Friday, citing unnamed sources.

    ABC said Rosenstein, the No. 2 official at the Department of Justice, told Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand she would have authority over the probe if he were to step aside. Rosenstein appointed special counsel Robert Mueller last month to investigate alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election and possible collusion by President Donald Trump's campaign, and has told lawmakers he would fire him only with good cause.

    He is the department's lead official on the issue after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from any issues linked to the Russia probe. Rosenstein was also the author of a memo recommending the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey, which the White House cited along with a memo from Sessions as the reason Trump fired Comey on May 9.

    Trump, a Republican, later said that he had the Russia matter in mind when he fired Comey. The Democratic National Committee said on Friday it saw a need for Rosenstein to recuse himself, but it said control over the investigation should be given to Mueller and not another Trump appointee.

    ABC's report comes as Trump said on Friday he is personally under investigation in the widening Russia probe over Comey's firing. According to ABC, Rosenstein made the comments about his possible recusal at a recent meeting with Brand but has yet to formally ask career attorneys at the department for their opinion on the issue.

    At a Senate hearing earlier this week, Rosenstein declined to answer whether he would have a conflict of interest if he became a witness in the investigation but pledged to "do the right thing."

    [Jun 16, 2017] Man on a Wire Mike Pences Tightrope Act

    Politico is the mouth peace of conspirators -- so it looks like the the plan is President Pence.
    Jun 16, 2017 | www.politico.com
    "The truth is, you elected a man who never quits. He never backs down. He's a fighter. He's a winner," Pence said, according to an audio recording obtained by Politico Magazine . "And I'll make you a promise: No matter what Washington, D.C., might be focused on at any given moment, President Donald Trump will never stop fighting for the American people and for advancing an agenda that will make America great again!"

    His audience roared. For those who feared the GOP's once-in-a-generation opportunity for a policy renaissance was being squandered by infighting and incompetence and the creeping scent of scandal, the vice president's words, as they so often have during the early days of the Trump administration, provided temporary relief. The performance was vintage Pence. He was grandiose but grounded, hailing a host of early victories but cautioning that the biggest were yet to come; he was authoritative but deferential, speaking for the party and the government while carrying greetings from his boss. Above all, Pence was upbeat, befitting the "happy warrior" persona he has long labored to promote. "It's hard to get through all these accomplishments-unless you're watching cable news," he said, chuckling. "They never come up, except on one network!" Had Pence not nodded twice to the Beltway media's preoccupations, one would have had no inkling that Trump was enduring the most perilous stretch of his young presidency-or that Pence appeared at risk of becoming collateral damage.

    The night before, on the eve of Trump's first foreign trip-and Pence's private speech-two news outlets published a pair of eyebrow-raising stories that reflected mounting anxiety within the vice president's inner circle. The sourcing and strategy seemed clearly choreographed. First, both articles aimed to distance Pence from the chaos engulfing Trump's White House; CNN quoted "a senior administration adviser" who said Pence "looks tired" and never expected such mayhem on the job, while NBC cited "a source close to the administration" who complained of a "pattern" of Pence being kept in the dark on matters relating to the scandal-plagued former national security adviser, Mike Flynn. Second, both stories were authored by former Pence "embeds," reporters who had spent months traveling with him and are expertly sourced among the vice president's tight-knit team. And third, the news accounts cast Pence in a sympathetic light at the very moment when the D.C. media was, for the first time, beginning to hammer him. The New York Times had reported the day earlier that Flynn informed the Pence-run transition team before Inauguration Day that he was under federal investigation; the implications for Pence were staggering, and the White House categorically denied the story. But Pence had also courted trouble the week earlier by insisting that Trump's decision to fire Comey was based on the deputy attorney general's recommendation-a claim Trump promptly contradicted in an interview with NBC's Lester Holt, embarrassing the vice president and sending an awkward question echoing around Washington: Is Pence being kept out of the loop, or is he being deceitful?

    [Jun 16, 2017] Putin's not a miracle worker, but the record seems to establish he has been a solid and very competent leader

    The article of Anatoly Karlin is junk, but some responses are really interesting.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The bright idea could be:" Since we won the cold war, and we can't win any other kinds of wars, why not start a new cold war and claim some success again?" I can perfectly understand the rationale here. ..."
    "... The tide would seem to be flowing against most of Russia's worst enemies. The US and its European satellite states become economically less globally dominant with every year that passes, which is the overriding issue, and the prospects of serious economic/political/social disorder in the US and UK, and a separation of Europe from its post-WW2 US domination, seem to be becoming more realistic, and closer. ..."
    "... Anatoly has gotten noticeably more critical of Putin since he moved to Russia. He is starting to sound like jaded American Trump supporters sound about Trump. ..."
    Jun 16, 2017 | www.unz.com

    5371 Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 7:59 pm GMT

    This is a bit tendentious. He stressed that Russia's help to the people of Donbass continues and can change according to what is appropriate for a changed situation. Meanwhile, it's really strained to find something negative to say about Syria at the moment.

    Anatoly Karlin Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 9:10 pm GMT

    @German_reader (1) I supported the Syria intervention on the understanding it was a Spanish Civil War like environment for live air force training. There are some signs that ground involvement is increasing to a scale I am no longer comfortable with supporting, due to the SAA's chronic inability to improve (I was always wary about this from my earliest articles about the Syrian intervention, knowing about the history of Arab military incompetence, and it seems the more pessimistic interpretation was right).

    Not only are more and more Russian soldiers are dying there (they are formally mercenaries, but functionally many are soldiers who joined up because the pay is 3x better) but the whole operation there is vulnerable to US blackmail, because the US is militarily dominant in the region and Trump has proved to be a wildcard there despite his campaign rhetoric. Incidentally, the defeat of Islamic State won't change any of that. If anything the situation will get more dangerous, since neocons will then be able to more convincingly argue that bombing Assad would not result in Islamic State gains.

    (2) The Ukrainians should know that continuing to bombard Donetsk and Lugansk will result in serious retaliation against them. At the moment, they can do so with impunity, while the Kremlin ties the demoralized NAF's hands with its autistic focus on the Minsk Agreements. Even though Kiev has still made no moves towards fulfilling its end of the deal, the West turns a blind eye and continues to sanction Russia (and indeed to increase sanctions), so there's no even an economic case to be made here.

    It is absolutely bizarre that Russia accounted for 40% of foreign investment in Ukraine in 2016, especially considering the way it conveys its thanks .

    It is also bizarre that there are basically weekly deportation cases against Ukrainian citizens who are seeking asylum in Russia who are wanted for separatism/treason/on the Peacekeeper hit list in Ukraine. Even regardless of your stance on the Donbass conflict, I think it's safe that say that most people would agree that Russia has a significant degree of responsibility for such people. More so than for Tajik economic migrants, anyway.

    German_reader Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT

    @Anatoly Karlin

    The Ukrainians should know that continuing to bombard Donetsk and Lugansk will result in serious retaliation against them.

    But what form should that retaliation take? I mean ok, I can see how the situation might be frustrating for a Russian nationalist, but any form of military escalation would be fraught with grave risks imo.

    Your views on the Syrian intervention are convincing to me, Russia should definitely avoid deeper involvement.

    Simpleguest Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 9:56 pm GMT

    "No bold new ideas about social, economic, or foreign policy .etc"

    Russians seem incapable of thinking and acting in ordinary, mundane terms. The current Russian president had been telling the nation to gradually develop through evolution not revolutions ever since he assumed power, and yet here you are looking for "bold ideas" and "grand visions". Well, dissolving the Soviet Union was certainly one "bold idea".

    Cyrano Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT

    it is now clear that Putin does not appear to have any any new ideas, plans, or visions for the long-term future apart from hunkering down and perhaps hoping that the state apparatuses in the US and Western Europe continue degrading even faster than in Russia.

    I actually think that this is not a bad strategy. Because when it comes to having no new ideas, the west is far outperforming Russia. The perfect example of this is the starting of the cold war 2. I believe that the decision to do this might have been partially motivated by the outcome of the 1st cold war.

    The bright idea could be:" Since we won the cold war, and we can't win any other kinds of wars, why not start a new cold war and claim some success again?" I can perfectly understand the rationale here.

    If you can't win any wars of the hot type, then start a cold one and try to keep the winning record in that category. Although, I doubt it that they will be able to keep the perfect score at the end of Cold War 2.

    The quote that some attribute to Lenin that capitalists will sell them the rope with which they'll be hanged. I think that quote implies too much labor. No need to buy or sell anything to the capitalists. Just sit back and relax. They'll make the rope and they'll hang themselves with it, the way the things are going, although, since they outsourced all the manufacturing to China, it could be a Chinese made rope after all.

    Seamus Padraig Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT

    @g2k

    intervening in Ukraine before Yanukovych was overthrown

    What are you talking about? Crimea? The Russians did not intervene until after Yanukovich was overthrown.

    Randal Show Comment Next New Comment June 15, 2017 at 11:41 pm GMT

    @g2k

    It's easy to say with hindsight

    Exactly so.

    I think your criticisms are pretty unfair, given the odds and the threats Russia has been up against over the past two decades. Quite apart from the general truth that hindsight is 20/20 whereas foresight is not, most of the policies you suggest should have been done would not necessarily have succeeded, and/or would have carried serious costs and/or risks of their own, if they had been done in advance of the situations you now regard as justifying them.

    Putin's not a miracle worker, but the record seems to establish he has been a solid and very competent leader.

    The way things are at the minute, I don't think there are any better options, Foreign policy wise, than to sit and wait for better circumstances. Did they ever come up with serious alternatives to swift, visa and mastercard?

    The tide would seem to be flowing against most of Russia's worst enemies. The US and its European satellite states become economically less globally dominant with every year that passes, which is the overriding issue, and the prospects of serious economic/political/social disorder in the US and UK, and a separation of Europe from its post-WW2 US domination, seem to be becoming more realistic, and closer.

    A degree of masterly inactivity, as far as radically changing policies is concerned, seems called for.

    jimmyriddle Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 12:20 am GMT

    @Anatoly Karlin

    The SAA are winning, albeit slowly. They have cleared Aleppo province of IS, reduced rebel enclaves around Damascus and are making reasonable progress toward relieving Deir Ezzor.

    Things are looking far better than a year ago.

    neutral Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 1:09 am GMT

    @Greasy William

    Non whites do not care about Russia

    Not sure how true or not this is, but I am sure that to change their opinions would not be too hard to do. If the narrative being sold was that Putin was a racist and hated BLM, I am certain a large chunk would swallow this without giving it a second thought.

    Greasy William Show Comment Next New Comment June 16, 2017 at 3:16 am GMT

    Anatoly has gotten noticeably more critical of Putin since he moved to Russia. He is starting to sound like jaded American Trump supporters sound about Trump.

    [Jun 15, 2017] Comeys Lies of Omission by Mike Whitney

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all. ..."
    "... So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect. ..."
    "... Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey, Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out." But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why? ..."
    "... It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward." ..."
    "... Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign. ..."
    "... Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that? ..."
    "... In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director", ACLU) ..."
    "... Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor? ..."
    "... In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here's what he said: ..."
    "... because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel ..."
    "... Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old' Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took. ..."
    "... In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House. ..."
    "... Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. ..."
    "... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    "... Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on. ..."
    "... But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono? ..."
    "... Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him. ..."
    "... The endless investigations can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven, too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail. ..."
    "... It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia. It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign will of the American People. ..."
    "... If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created. ..."
    "... Presumably Comey was deeply involved in Obama's illegal spying. ..."
    "... Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so.. ..."
    "... Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares. ..."
    "... A little discouraged. Don' t think the swamp is drainable. Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances. Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about swamp. Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done. Trump underestimated deep state. They ARE in charge. What will the people do ? Become more apathetic? ..."
    "... Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging. Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens. Can't go on as is. The death by a thousand cuts. ..."
    "... In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey, Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so, and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake. ..."
    "... The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the electorate position? ..."
    "... I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion or blackmail scenario. ..."
    "... Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt. Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress. Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or Washington establishment for protection." He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI. etc etc. Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin. ..."
    "... Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree. ..."
    "... I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade" deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia, implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State require to set a soft coup into motion? ..."
    "... Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone under the guise of openness. ..."
    "... Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely political. ..."
    "... JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K mark. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

    "The Democrats are not fighting Trump over his assault on health care, his attacks on immigrants, his militaristic bullying around the world, or even his status as a minority president who can claim no mandate after losing the popular vote. Instead, they have chosen to attack Trump, the most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed to a military confrontation with Russia."

    - Patrick Martin, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming", World Socialist Web Site

    Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all.

    Last week, former FBI Director James Comey admitted publicly what he has known all along: that Trump was not a suspect in the Russia hacking probe and never has been. Here's the story from Politico:

    "Comey assured Trump he wasn't under investigation during their first meeting. He said he discussed with FBI leadership before his meeting with the president-elect whether to disclose that he wasn't personally under investigation. "That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him," Comey said." (Politico)

    So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect.

    What's going on here? Why didn't Comey clear the air earlier so the American people would know that their president wasn't in bed with a foreign power? Why did he allow this farce to continue when he knew there was no substance to the claims? Did he enjoy seeing Trump twisting in the wind or was there some more sinister "political" motive behind his omission?

    Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey, Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out." But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why?

    Comey never answered that question to Trump, but he did explain his reasoning to the Senate Intelligence Committee last week. He said he didn't want to announce that Trump was not part of the Bureau's Russia probe because "it would create a duty to correct, should that change."

    A "duty to correct"? Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? How many hours of legal brainstorming did it take to come up with that lame-ass excuse?

    Let's state the obvious: Comey wanted to maintain the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over Trump because it helped to feed the perception that Trump was a traitor who collaborated with Russia to win the election. By remaining silent, Comey helped to fuel the public hysteria and reinforce the belief that Trump was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. That is why Comey never spoke out before, it's because his silence was already achieving the result he sought which was to inflict as much damage as possible on Trump and his administration.

    Did you know that Comey was spying on Trump from Day 1?

    It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward."

    Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign.

    Isn't that what Comey was really up to?

    Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that?

    "There's one very big problem with describing Comey as some sort of civil libertarian: some facts suggest otherwise. While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention.

    On 30 December 2004, a memo addressed to James Comey was issued that superseded the infamous memo that defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure". The memo to Comey seemed to renounce torture but did nothing of the sort. The key sentence in the opinion is tucked away in footnote 8. It concludes that the new Comey memo did not change the authorizations of interrogation tactics in any earlier memos.

    In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director", ACLU)

    Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor?

    It doesn't square at all, does it? The media is obviously lying. Now ask yourself this: Can a man who rubber-stamped waterboarding be trusted? No, he can't be trusted because he's already proved himself to be inherently immoral.

    Would a man like Comey agree to use his position and authority to try to "undo" the damage he did prior to the election when he announced the FBI was reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton? In other words, was Comey being blackmailed to gather illicit material on Trump?

    I think it's very likely, although entirely unprovable. Even so, Comey has been way too eager to frame Trump for things for which he is not guilty. Why has he been so eager? Was he really just protecting himself as he says or was he gathering information to build a legal case against Trump?

    In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here's what he said:

    "My judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square. So I asked a friend of mine to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons, but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel , so I asked a close friend of mine to do it."

    Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old' Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took.

    In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House.

    Whoever wrote this script deserves an Oscar. This is really first-rate political theater.

    Now it's up to Mueller to prove that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by asking Comey to go easy on former national security advisor General Michael Flynn. (According to Comey, Trump said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.") It might sound like obstruction, but there are real problems with this type of prosecution particularly the fact that Trump denies the allegations. Also, Comey has acknowledged that Trump expressed his support for the overall goals of the investigation when he said, "that if there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that out."

    Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. Here's a short clip from an article by Professor Jonathan Turley at George Washington University who helps to clarify the point:

    "The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even a strong - case for obstruction.

    It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate. However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano .

    The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators The mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction. .

    It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.

    We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless or simply being Donald Trump." ("James Comey's testimony doesn't make the case for impeachment or obstruction against Donald Trump", USA Today)

    The fact that the obstruction charge won't stick is not going to stop Mueller from rummaging around and making Trump's life a living Hell. Heck no. He's going to dig through his old phone records, bank accounts, tax returns, shaky land deals, ex girl friends, whatever it takes. His prosecutorial tentacles will extend into every nook and cranny of Trump's private life and affairs until he latches onto some particularly sordid incident or transaction he can use he can use to disgrace, discredit, and demonize Trump to the point that impeachment proceedings seem like a welcome relief. It should be obvious by now, that the deep state elites who launched this coup are not going to be satisfied until Trump is forced from office and the results of the 2016 presidential election are wiped out.

    But, why? Why is Trump so hated by these people?

    Trump is not being attacked because of his reactionary political agenda, but because he's been deemed insufficiently hostile to Washington's sworn enemy, Russia. It's all about Russia. Trump wanted to "normalize" relations with Moscow which pitted him against the powerful US foreign policy establishment. Now Trump has to be taught a lesson. He must be crushed, humiliated and exiled. And that's probably the way this will end.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    Fran Macadam Website, June 14, 2017 at 5:04 pm GMT

    Somebody else sure is in charge of America other than 300 million ordinary Americans, though it certainly isn't Russians.

    Mike Whitney, June 15, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

    Let me get this straight: Comey leaks a memo to the NY Times saying that Trump pressured him to go easy on Flynn. He hoped that the leak would result in an "obstruction" charge against Trump. But it doesn't work.

    So, Rod Rosenstein–who has convenently replaced Sessions– talks Trump into firing Comey. Why?

    Because Rosenstein is working for the other team and he needs Trump to do something stupid that REALLY looks like obstruction, so he fires the head of the FBI. (Again, according to Salon, firing Comey was Rosenstein's idea)

    A week later, Rosenstein –without consulting Trump– appoints deep state handyman and political assassin, Bob Mueller. So, in effect, Rosenstein appointed a special prosecutor to address the appearence of obstruction that he created when he told Trump to fire Comey.
    How's that for symetry!

    Then on Tuesday, Rosenstein was asked what he would do if the president ordered him to fire Mueller. Rosenstein said, "I'm not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful and appropriate orders." He added later: "As long as I'm in this position, he's not going to be fired without good cause," which he said he would have to put in writing.

    Oh man, this thing has "set up" written all over it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven

    Countercoup, Part 5: After Comey, Sessions Hearings the #TrumpRussia Con is Failing – Rogue Money, June 15, 2017 at 5:05 am GMT

    [ ] Comey's defenders were left sputtering that the fired FBI director had repeatedly affirmed the 'fact' of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and that Comey had called Trump a liar. The President's response was to hint again that he had recordings of his conversations with Comey, to which the ex-director cockily declared 'Lordy I hope there are tapes'. This of course, is a bluff by Comey and his derp state/Trump hating media backers, since Comey's entire argument for obstruction of justice rests on his feelings/interpretations of a conversation alone with the President, rather than any actual evidence of obstructing actions by Administration officials. The only thing known for sure as of this posting is that the U.S. Secret Service says it does not have recordings of the private Trump-Comey conversation. Meaning the President may have used a personal recording device to protect himself from Comey's subsequent write up and self-serving leaked recollections of their conversation. For more on the crookedness of Comey, read this summary by Mike Whitney at Unz Review. [ ]

    utu, June 15, 2017 at 5:09 am GMT

    @Mike Whitney I can see the reason for Trump being furious with Sessions.

    Mark Green, June 15, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT

    Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on.

    Meanwhile, the broad and well-earned suspicions surrounding the Clintons and their money-laundering foundation will be moved aside and slowly forgotten, as planned.

    Trump's enemies will use this open-ended 'investigation' to cloud and sully every action the President makes. It is a legalistic act of war using the courts as cover. Disgraceful.

    But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono?

    jilles dykstra, June 15, 2017 at 6:51 am GMT

    Seen from Europe the hearings by the USA Senate seem a comedy, if it was not serious. In my view the effort is to prevent talks with Russia, in order to get a normal relation with that country. At all costs Russia must remain the dangerous enemy of the USA. Why ?

    I suppose on the on hand the desire for USA world domination, on the other hand the fear, that existed in the USA since the 1917 Lenin coup, that Europe's trade relations with the east would become more important than across the Atlantic.

    Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.

    Jim Christian, June 15, 2017 at 9:54 am GMT

    @Mike Whitney

    Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him.

    The endless investigations can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven, too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail.

    This IS manageable, Jeff Sessions needs to man up here, or another AG needs to be in his place.

    alexander, June 15, 2017 at 10:01 am GMT

    Dear Mr. Whitney,

    Thank you for a fine article. It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia. It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign will of the American People.

    If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created.

    Rather than be held to ACCOUNT for the gigantic mess they have made, the stupid wars they "lied us into", and the trillions they have pilfered from the taxpayer in the process They put on this " Comey (dog) and Mueller (pony) show to deflect from their stupendous failures and horrendous criminality.

    On day ONE of his Presidency, Donald Trump should have called in "the Marines", and started seizing assets (up ,down, left and right) to recoup the losses our nation has endured.

    The American people should be witnessing a Nuremberg like trial, today, where all our treasonous, defrauding "elites" are admonished, shamed, and sentenced before the entire world.

    LondonBob, June 15, 2017 at 10:30 am GMT

    @Mike Whitney Yes the role of Rosenstein and his background needs exploring. Firing Comey was the right thing to do I think, he and they would have worked something anyway.

    Frank Qattrone and Martha Stewart could tell you that you can do nothing wrong but they can still put you in prison. Trump needs to be careful and get some good advice, I think so far he hasn't taken this seriously enough. Seems clear Mueller has a conflict and that a special counsel was appointed on false pretext.

    LondonBob, June 15, 2017 at 10:33 am GMT

    Presumably Comey was deeply involved in Obama's illegal spying.

    Notaboutrump_but_about you voters, June 15, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

    Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so..

    Mike Whitney, June 15, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT

    Why should Trump hire his own executioner? Would you? Would you try to help the people who are trying to frame you for nothing? Comey already admitted that there wasn't even an investigation. Why wasn't there an investigation? Because they have nothing on Trump. Nothing. That's why Comey "the waterboarder" agreed to frame him on the obstruction charge. Because they have Nothing.

    Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares.

    If Congress thinks there is enough evidence here to prosecute Trump, LET THEM APPOINT THEIR OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.

    Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

    Jun 8, 2017 Comey's Testimony What's EVERYBODY Missing?

    Jason Bermas breaks down the Comey testimony, and reveals what everyone is missing!

    Jul 7, 2016 Justice Vs. "Just Us": Of Course the FBI Let Hillary off the Hook

    The only thing that surprises me is that anyone is surprised by this.

    pepperinmono, June 15, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

    A little discouraged. Don' t think the swamp is drainable. Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances. Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about swamp. Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done. Trump underestimated deep state. They ARE in charge. What will the people do ? Become more apathetic?

    Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging. Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens. Can't go on as is. The death by a thousand cuts.

    exiled off mainstreet, June 15, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT

    In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey, Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so, and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake.

    I emigrated to Canada 10 years ago, fortunately being a dual citizen. One of the major reasons I did so was the Martha Stewart case mentioned by a commenter above. I didn't think much of Martha Stewart personally, but if she could be prosecuted despite the fifth amendment for a statement made not under oath exclusively on the say-so of a government agent, then there was no longer due process in the yankee imperium.

    The fact the courts had allowed this "law" to go unchallenged was proof that the rule of law no longer obtained. That was a key factor in my deliberations about what to do. I also find it discouraging that counterpunch apparently did not see fit to publish this Whitney article, probably because it is too much on point and they don't want to fully break with the traditional left, which has destroyed itself by being taken over by fascists like the Clintons and Tony Blair. The yankee imperium needs a figure like Corbyn to put things right again, not a sell-out like Sanders.

    pepperinmono, June 15, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

    Republicans in Congress surely don't like Trump. However, they better start getting on board with him. They are tied together, whether they like it or not.

    art guerrilla Website, June 15, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

    what i find so weird, is the almost immediate flip-flop of so-called progressives/dem'rats yelling full-throatedly for violence against -not just all things t-rumpian- ALL those who fail ANY trivial PC litmus test they have their about-face on -essentially- renouncing nonviolence, adopting Empire's motto of 'might makes right', and going full berserker against the rest of the 99% is too sudden and severe to be anything but an astroturf wannabe purple revolution with hillary's puppet masters pulling the strings

    IF they were actually calling for jihad against EMPIRE, instead of their fellow pathetic nekkid apes, i could get behind that but their petulant excuses for why they should be given free reign to 'punch a nazi' (ie ANYONE who disagrees with me), the disgusting shilling for hillary/dem'rats/Empire is maddening
    .
    don't give a shit about t-rump; but they hound him out of office, i will consider that a direct assault on my small-dee democracy, that a duly elected official is run off by hijacking the mechanisms of state to pursue the agenda of the 1% is not right, though done numerous times
    .
    i think they might find that 100+ million PISSED-OFF, nothing-to-lose unemployed may consider that the straw that broke the camel's back, and soros and his cabal of deep state slime won't like the pushback when bubba gets out of the recliner
    .
    come the revolution idiot dem'rats appear to be itching for, just WHICH SIDE do stupid libtards think the police, natl guard, military, etc are going to come down on ? ? ?
    (hint: NOT the libtard side )

    SolontoCroesus, June 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney nb. from the essay:

    "Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took. In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosen berg had to step in"

    We know what you meant. They all look alike.

    JL, June 15, 2017 at 2:23 pm GMT

    The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the electorate position?

    I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion or blackmail scenario.

    nsa, June 15, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

    We here in Ft. Meade are having a good laugh. One of our assets, a shyster named Rosenstein (that's Scottish, isn't it?) gives Trumpenstein a little pinprick in the back (not even a stab) and the silly old jooie tool folds like a cheap lawn chair. No wall, no tax cuts, no ending the jooie wars for the izzies, no mass deportations, no curbing the jooie central bank .just tacky soap opera histrionics for the few interested in the doings in wash dc.

    nickels, June 15, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

    Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt. Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress. Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or Washington establishment for protection." He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI. etc etc. Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin.

    The Alarmist, June 15, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

    "Why has he been so eager?"

    Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree.

    Joe Franklin, June 15, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney Put Rosenstein under oath and ask him about any communications and agreements and meetings he may have had with Comey or Mueller before he appointed a special prosecutor. Do the same thing with Comey and Mueller in regard to Rosenstein. Trump's attorney should do these interrogations.

    Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

    @JL

    Know this and it is all NATO and their aggression in the world of the empire. Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA

    Sowhat, June 15, 2017 at 5:11 pm GMT

    I feel that, despite the exhaustive process, this one has to be played- all 19 holes. Everyone is going to demand a good stiff one at the nineteenth. Given his resume, Rosenstein was a good choice by Trump. Sessions may regret his recusal but, Rosenstein may feel that his Frosted Flakes breakfast will carry the day. One should not prejudice him. Trump may have snagged a few and ended up in a sand trap but, he's still below par and we're only on the forth fairway. I did some digging and found that Rod's from Philly. Just thought I would throw that in.
    You can't judge a book by it's cover. The guy will be a good caddy.

    anon, June 15, 2017 at 7:00 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney Trump should directly appeal to the American people( his base and large number of disaffected Clinton supporters)

    JerseyJeffersonian, June 15, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney Thank you, Mr. Whitney. This comment and comment #12 delineate the mechanics of the set-up with laser-like precision.

    We are in your debt for articulating the hinge points of this assault on the Constitutional order. I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade" deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia, implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State require to set a soft coup into motion?

    DanCT, June 15, 2017 at 9:02 pm GMT

    Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone under the guise of openness.

    Dalio may be very rich, but he's an evil man who we may assume saw in Comey a kindred spirit. Having a Ray Dalio protege leading the FBI suggests agents supported him, if that's actually the case, out of fear and not allegiance.

    Sean, June 15, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT

    Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely political.

    They want Trump to quit and are predicting impeachment in an attempt to get him to just go, but even if Trump got fed up and wanted to quit, he couldn't now, because without the protection of office, his fortune (at least) would be destroyed. As for the Russia innuendo, it is always open to Trump to humiliate Russia with a military initiative (in Syria for example), which would prove he has nothing to hide. As a major conflict with Russian proxies beckoned, the country would look askance at scarce domestic intelligence resources being used for an old tax or sexual harassment line of investigation against the sitting president. Knowing what kind of a man he is, who can doubt that Trump wouldn't hesitate to kill Russians if that is what it took to turn the heat on his opponents..

    Sam J., June 15, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT

    @Joe Franklin " Put Rosenstein under oath "

    That's a good idea. Should be public. He needs to be fired any way. The person or persons who recommended Rosenstein need to be fired also.

    annamaria, June 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm GMT

    @Fran Macadam " the Russians did not "interfere in our Democracy" either. We have no democracy."

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15/the-russians-didnt-do-it/

    Sowhat, June 15, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

    @Mike Whitney

    A week later, Rosenstein –without consulting Trump– appoints deep state handyman and political assassin, Bob Mueller

    I missed this. Is there a reference, please?

    Sowhat, June 15, 2017 at 10:10 pm GMT

    @alexander

    If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created.

    Agree

    RobinG, June 15, 2017 at 10:26 pm GMT

    @Mark Green "Ancillary targets" are American citizens. (Syria and Iran are much clearer direct targets.)

    Trump has done some great things. Recognition of Fake News and the Deep State threatened a much bigger awakening. So Trump had to be diminished. Sure, he's a mixed bag, but his defeat of Killary was a blessing. His direct communication (Twitter) and exposure of the MSM was brilliant.

    As you say, 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous. Going on the defensive is a loser's game. There must be a counter-attack. What have we got? Please, if you have something better, something simpler to put in meme and slogan, let's have it, but I see Who Killed Seth Rich as a powerful offensive. You don't even have to solve it. Just get the case broadcast. Do you know that only this week, Seth Rich's neighbor has come out as a witness? (NOT a witness of the shooting, but of the immediate aftermath, police, etc. Seth may have been totally beat down before he was shot.)

    JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K mark.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

    PLEASE SIGN. Either way, THE ANNIVERSARY LOOMS.

    RobinG, June 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm GMT

    @Jim Christian

    "..carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked "

    YES, SO TRUE!! Big mistake to let Clinton off the hook. And what was her involvement in the murder of Seth Rich? Investigate the DNC, Lynch, Comey, Clinton – all of them.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

    Appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate the murder of Seth Rich, the alleged Wikileaks email leaker.

    Sowhat, June 15, 2017 at 10:54 pm GMT

    @Sam J. "...Put Rosenstein under oath..."

    That's a good idea. Should be public. He needs to be fired any way. The person or persons who recommended Rosenstein need to be fired also. Putting him under is an excellent idea. Trump needs to hear it or read it. IMO, Rosenstein doesn't have a resumè that him suspect.

    [Jun 15, 2017] The appointment of the special prosecutor was the part of the plan of Russiagate color revolution from the very beginning

    Jun 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, June 14, 2017 at 09:00 PM

    Fred,

    "Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to obstruction of justice."

    Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched from the very beginning of this color revolution by Comey and other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to raise Russiagate or anything else to the level which allow to appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using this mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary result.

    Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge which can be used to remove any any past and future US president with guaranteed result.

    The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals within the Trump empire. Especially his son-in-law deals.

    In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously was. He can fight for survival, by unleashing some war, like Clinton did with Yugoslavia. Which probably is OK for neocons because war for them is the first, the second and the third solution to any problem. But as a result the US standing in the globe probably will be further damaged.

    BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do you understand that Hillary was a head of one of those 17 intelligence agencies in the past?

    The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's primary advisor on intelligence matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.

    Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.

    This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He proved to be not a fighter. The attempt to bring members of his family close to White house is a huge liability for him now in view of possible digging of the past of his son in law by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid Hillary hacks for the job ;-).

    But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the current vice president elevated to the new level?

    Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about civil war recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably direction of reaction is probably guessed right:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/are-we-nearing-civil-war

    Not that I trust him with such a prediction, but still this is a danger.

    [Jun 15, 2017] Many Americans know that MSM are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so they actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of spam in comments. It is dispiriting to say the least.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least. ..."
    "... That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy. ..."
    "... Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-) ..."
    "... Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis! ..."
    "... Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'. ..."
    "... the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    at Al, June 7, 2017 at 7:17 am

    Vis the Reality Winner leaking 'proof' of Russian hacking of US elections, PavewayIV's comment on Moon of Alabama says it all:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b8d28a09f7970c

    ####

    He's one of a handful of good commenters there among the nutbags, antisemites, conspiracy theorists etc. It's one of the things that really bugs me about great (supposedly) alternative news/opinion/blogs. They always get immediately contaminated by all sorts of narcissistic 'tards who just want to s/t the bed for everyone else, particularly the flyby trolls. Lots of people out there (Hello lurkers!) know that the Pork Pie News Networks are either feeding them unadulterated bs or lying by omission so actually make a real effort to find out more – whether they agree with it or not – but are faced with having to wade through rivers of f/ktard commenters. It is dispiriting to say the least.

    That may well be the idea, particularly those organizations that want to hose a and discredit alternative media sites (sic the JTRIG program and the likes of Brigade 77 and digilogues that have been running for years). If you can hack it, you probably think a) does this make sense? b) who is bono? c) timing, timing, timing.. d) is anything logically missing from the picture/story? e) if so, what conclusions can we draw from that? etc. It's not easy.

    Once upon a time we had newspaper columnists to do our thinking for us who we would religiously read. Now it is each one for themselves. What a pain in the ass. Fortunately we have the Kremlin Stooge and a bunch of other sites to help! :-)

    et Al , June 7, 2017 at 7:43 am
    'Ghostship' elucidates how Reality Winner would have access to top class info;

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c9000590970b

    ####

    My only thoughts are, wouldn't such info be compartmentalized (standard operating procedure, innit?), i.e. a 'translator' would not have free and unlimited access, but rather have access to only very specific highly secret info? If there are that many translators out there, then compartmentalization would work very well. It is totally counter intuitive, nay stupid , to allow free range to anyone but the top of the top. More people, more chance of leaks, accidents or incomptence.

    et Al , June 7, 2017 at 7:50 am
    Ah, I should have read on. PavewayIV again:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/06/do-not-trust-the-intercept-or-how-to-burn-a-source.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01bb09a3288d970d

    ####

    Don't miss the link to TTG's comment on leaks at Sic Semper Tyrannis!

    Yet again, you do not get this kind of information from the Pork Pie News Networks, the same ones who cosy up to the security services in return for juicy tidbits and also rubbish 'alternative news/websites/blogs'.

    marknesop , June 7, 2017 at 8:09 pm
    Indeed it is; Secret and Top secret information is made available to those who

    (1) are cleared to the appropriate level, and

    (2) have the need to know.

    It's "and". Not "or". Top Secret information may not be viewed by anyone with a Top Secret security clearance – only by those who need to know that information to carry out their duties related to it.

    Information may actually specify, "Top Secret – Eyes Only" in which the personnel holding a Top Secret clearance who may view the material are either listed, or it is restricted only to the addressee.

    yalensis , June 8, 2017 at 2:34 am
    I dunno, because that whole Snowden thing revealed a lot of holes in the American security apparatus. Snowden himself was surprised just how much stuff he was able to access, and he was just a contractor at the time, not even a permanent employee.
    marknesop , June 8, 2017 at 5:37 am
    Well, yes, because the notion of compartmentalized operational security and broad state electronic surveillance of the population are mutually exclusive.

    But to the very best of my knowledge Snowden did not reveal any secrets of America's defense systems, its operational structure, its past military operations or its future plans in that area, if he knew them. The damaging information he disclosed all related to American spying on foreign leaders and the American electorate

    [Jun 15, 2017] The Consent of the Governed

    www.businessinsider.com

    Last week, when former FBI Director James Comey gave his long-awaited public testimony about his apparently rough-and-tumble relationship with President Donald Trump, he painted a bleak picture. The essence of Comey's testimony was that the president asked him to drop an investigation of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn - Trump's former national security adviser - and then asked him to do so in return for keeping his job as FBI director and then fired him for not obeying his order.

    On the other hand, Comey confirmed that the president personally, as of the time of Comey's firing, was not the target of any FBI criminal investigation. It was not clear from the Comey testimony whether this exoneration was referring to salacious allegations made by a former British intelligence agent of highly inappropriate and fiercely denied personal behavior a few years ago in a Moscow hotel room or whether the exoneration was with respect to widely reported allegations that the 2016 Trump campaign may have helped Russian intelligence agents in their efforts to manipulate the outcome of the presidential election.

    Nevertheless, there is no doubt the president is now a target of a federal investigation with respect to his dealings with the then-FBI director. So, how could the tables have turned so quickly on the president, and who turned them? Here is the back story.

    Prior to the Watergate era of the mid-1970s, the generally accepted theory of management of the executive branch of government was known as the unitary executive. This theory informs that the president is the chief executive officer of the federal government and is the sole head of the executive branch. He is also the only person in the executive branch who is accountable to the voters, as he, and he alone (along with the vice president, who is largely a figurehead), has been elected by the voters.

    As such, this unitary executive theory informs, everyone in the executive branch of the federal government works at the pleasure of the president. Were this not the case, then vast areas of governance could occur and vast governmental resources could be spent by people who are unaccountable to the voters. And when the government is unaccountable to the voters, it lacks their consent. The consent of the governed is the linchpin and bedrock of popular government in America.

    There are, of course, today vast areas of government that are not responsive to the people and that lack the consent of the governed. The administrative agencies that write, interpret and enforce their own regulations and the deep state - the secret parts of the financial, intelligence and law enforcement entities of the government that never change, operate below the radar screen and have budgets that never see the light of day - defy the notion that the consent of the governed is the sole legitimate basis for government in America.

    Yet the FBI is not in the administrative state or the deep state. It is front and center as the premier law enforcement agency of the United States government. It is far from perfect, and its leaders are as fallible as the rest of us, but we have hired the folks who work there to enforce the federal laws that implicate our freedoms and our safety. And we have hired the president to exercise his discretion as to which laws shall be enforced and against whom.

    Thus, under this theory, the president is constitutionally, legally, morally and ethically free to direct any person in the executive branch as to how he wants that person to perform his or her job. And the recipient of such direction is free to resign if the direction appears unlawful. That is at least the theory of the unitary executive.

    After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI. It did so in reaction to Nixonian abuses. Thus, the post-Watergate theory of the DOJ's role articulates that federal law enforcement is independent from the president.

    The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive. Comey revealed a DOJ under former Attorney General Loretta Lynch in lockstep with the Obama White House and determined to exonerate Hillary Clinton in the espionage investigation concerning her emails, no matter the evidence. He also revealed his own view that President Trump's orders and quid pro quo offer with respect to Flynn were unlawful.
    Where does this leave us today?

    Today we have a White House under siege. The new DOJ criminal investigation that the president is no doubt the subject of will attempt to discover whether he corruptly attempted to interfere with the work of an independent FBI and whether he attempted to bribe its then-director. The White House is also the subject of five congressional investigations involving the Russians and the 2016 election, the firing of Director Comey, and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from much of this. And the investigation of Clinton is back from the grave for a third time to determine whether she was exonerated because of a lack of evidence, a lack of will or an Obama political imperative.

    These are perilous times for men and women of goodwill and intellectual honesty who are charged with enforcing our laws and running the government. The government should not be terrifying. But it must be fair and transparent. And it must always enjoy the consent of the governed. For without that consent, it is illegitimate.

    Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

    Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

    Jun 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Feb 1, 2017 Secrets Of The FBI Finally Revealed and Leaked

    In this video, we go over the latest FBI leak of thousands of documents to the intercept that revealed their secret rule book and operations. We go over what was found in those documents and the dangers of these powers that the FBI has.

    log Website, June 15, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

    Dear Judge:

    The existence of state secrets means the consent of the governed can never be informed.

    themann, June 15, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

    So when exactly did any of us, or our representatives, vote on the income tax? Because I certainly don't remember consenting to it.

    Or twelve years of public schooling.
    Or the TSA.
    Or the entire history of Civil Wrongs laws.

    Hyperventilating about the actions of one set of corrupt public officials vs. another is a bit far down the list of non consent issues any of us should be concerned about.

    Agent76, June 15, 2017 at 3:08 pm GMT

    I was expecting an article more related to this video and its content and narrative.

    Dec 3, 2012 Murray Rothbard – The Government Is Not Us

    Professor Rothard examines the irrational implications of the premise "we are the government."

    willem1, June 15, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT

    "After the Watergate era, Congress altered the public policy of the country to reflect the independence of the Department of Justice, including the FBI The Comey testimony revealed serious efforts to reject the public policy of independence and return to the unitary executive."

    The above quotes imply that these two policies are just "theories" of executive authority, and not really enshrined in hard law. However, the article is never clear on whether or not that is the case. If these are just two competing theories, and no law or clear court precedent exists, then what is the legal basis for any investigation/lawsuit? Inquiring minds want to know .

    [Jun 15, 2017] Neocons are after Trump, managed to appoint special procecutor by subterfuge and Trump now losing...

    Jun 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs, June 14, 2017 at 08:17 PM

    Special-counsel probe is examining whether Trump obstructed justice
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/mueller-probe-examining-whether-donald-trump-obstructed-justice-1497490897

    WSJ - Del Quentin Wilber, Shane Harris and Paul Sonne - June 14, 2017

    WASHINGTON-President Donald Trump's firing of former FBI Director James Comey is now a subject of the federal probe being headed by special counsel Robert Mueller, which has expanded to include whether the president obstructed justice, a person familiar with the matter said.

    Mr. Mueller is examining whether the president fired Mr. Comey as part of a broader effort to alter the direction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's probe into Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election and whether associates of Mr. Trump colluded with Moscow, the person said.

    Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Mr. Trump's personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, denounced the revelation in a statement. "The FBI leak of information regarding the president is outrageous, inexcusable and illegal," Mr. Corallo said.

    Peter Carr, a spokesman for Mr. Mueller, declined to comment. The special counsel's pursuit of an obstruction of justice probe was first reported Wednesday by the Washington Post. Mr. Mueller's team is planning to interview Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers as part of its examination of whether Mr. Trump sought to obstruct justice, the person said. The special counsel also plans to interview Rick Ledgett, who recently retired as the deputy director of the NSA, the person added.

    While Mr. Ledgett was still in office, he wrote a memo documenting a phone call that Mr. Rogers had with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. During the call, the president questioned the veracity of the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had interfered with the election and tried to persuade Mr. Rogers to say there was no evidence of collusion between his campaign and Russian officials, they said. Russia has denied any government effort to meddle in the U.S. election. Mr. Ledgett declined to comment, and officials at the NSA didn't respond to a request for comment. An aide to Mr. Coats declined to comment.

    Mr. Coats and Mr. Rogers told a Senate panel June 7 that they didn't feel pressured by Mr. Trump to intervene with Mr. Comey or push back against allegations of possible collusion between Mr. Trump's campaign and Russia. But the top national security officials declined to say what, if anything, Mr. Trump requested they do in relation to the Russia probe.

    "If the special prosecutor called upon me to meet with him to ask his questions, I said I would be willing to do that," Mr. Coats said June 7. Mr. Rogers said he would also be willing to meet with the special counsel's team.

    Mr. Comey told a Senate panel on June 8 that Mr. Trump expressed "hope" in a one-on-one Oval Office meeting that the FBI would drop its investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who resigned under pressure for making false statements about his conversations with a Russian diplomat. Mr. Trump has denied making that request.

    Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to obstruction of justice. The former FBI director also said he had furnished the special counsel with memos he wrote documenting his interactions with the president on the matter.

    At a June 13 hearing at a House of Representatives panel, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein declined to say who asked him to write a memo justifying Mr. Comey's firing. The White House initially cited that memo as the reason for the termination, and Mr. Trump later said in an NBC interview that he also was influenced by the Russia investigation. Mr. Rosenstein said he wasn't at liberty to discuss the matter.

    "The reason for that is that if it is within the scope of Director Mueller's investigation, and I've been a prosecutor for 27 years, we don't want people talking publicly about the subjects of ongoing investigations," Mr. Rosenstein said.

    libezkova - , June 14, 2017 at 09:00 PM
    Fred,

    "Mr. Comey said during the testimony that it was up to Mr. Mueller to decide whether the president's actions amounted to obstruction of justice."

    Comey probably lied. This was probably the plan hatched from the very beginning of this color revolution by Comey and other members of anti-trump conspiracy such as Brennan: to raise Russiagate or anything else to the level which allow to appoint special prosecutor and to sink Trump using this mechanism, because digging by itself produces the necessary result.

    Obstruction of justice is the easiest path to remove Trump, a no-brainer so to speak, the charge which can be used to remove any any past and future US president with guaranteed result. The other, more Trump-specific, is of financial deals within the Trump empire. Especially his son-in-law deals. In this sense Trump is now hostage like Clinton previously was. He can fight for survival, by unleashing some war, like Clinton did with Yugoslavia.

    Which probably is OK for neocons because war for them is the first, the second and the third solution to any problem. But as a result the US standing in the globe probably will be further damaged.

    BTW, in your zeal to republish this neocon propaganda, do you understand that Hillary was a head of one of those 17 intelligence agencies in the past?

    The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has ties to the Office of Strategic Services from World War II, but was transferred to State after the war. INR now reports directly to the Secretary of State, harnessing intelligence from all sources and offering independent analysis of global events and real-time insight.

    Headquarters : Washington, D.C.

    Mission : This agency serves as the Secretary of State's primary advisor on intelligence matters, and gives support to other policymakers, ambassadors, and embassy staff.

    Budget : $49 million in 2007, according to documents obtained by FAS.

    This all drama makes no sense for me. Trump folded. He proved to be not a fighter. The attempt to bring members of his family close to White house is a huge liability for him now in view of possible digging of the past of his son in law by the special Prosecutor. Who is recruiting the most rabid Hillary hacks for the job ;-).

    But the key question is what DemoRats will gain with the current vice president elevated to the new level?

    Other then a blowback from the remaining part of Trump supporters. Pat Buchanan was talking about civil war recently, which is probably exaggeration, but the probably direction of reaction is probably right:

    http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/patrick-j-buchanan/are-we-nearing-civil-war

    Not that I trust him with such a prediction, but still this is a danger.

    EMichael - , June 14, 2017 at 09:26 PM
    troll/bot
    libezkova - , June 15, 2017 at 05:29 PM
    You are a typical retired "frustrated underachiever". Nothing new here and your replies fits the pattern perfectly well.

    You probably should not comment things that you have no formal training. I do believe that you are unable to define such terms as "neocon", "Bolshevism", "Trotskyism" and "jingoism" without looking into the dictionary. Judging from your comments this is above your IQ. Of cause, such twerps as you are always lucking in Internet forums, so you are just accepted here as the necessary evil. But you do no belong here. No way. Neither in economic or political discussions.

    You can add nothing to the discussion. Actually your political position is the position of a typical neocons and as such is as close to betrayal of American Republic as one can get. If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies and wars have created. Because interests of neocons are not interests of the 300 million of US population. That's why people elected Trump with all his warts.

    It is sleazy idiots like you who get us into the current mess. And please tell your daughters that you betrayed them as well -- you endanger them and their children, if they have any. Of course for retired idiots like you nuclear holocaust does not matter. But it does matter for other people. Is it so difficult to understand?

    im1dc - , June 15, 2017 at 05:14 AM
    Trump/Putin Spin.
    JF - , June 15, 2017 at 07:50 AM
    Agree, add JohnH and you see a disinformation team. One goal is to undermine the credibility of this blog, so skipping over their entries is what I recommend, unless you want to learn fifth column techniques. Quess that is interesting, but it is trolldpm!
    JohnH - , June 15, 2017 at 08:05 AM
    The choir of losers continues to sing: 'Putin and Trump colluded' ...just like the right wing sang that Bill Clinton was guilty of all sorts of heinous crimes. And what did they finally get on Bill? Monica.
    Christopher H. - , June 15, 2017 at 09:43 AM
    They're just lone cranks. If you think they're a disinformation team, you're paranoid. There are a lot of crazy people out there. If you don't understand that fact you need to get out more.

    EMichael and PGL love to scold the cranks as much as possible b/c it makes their establishment line sound reasonable. I agree with you. I just ignore them. At least they're keeping busy instead of harassing people offline.

    Christopher H. - , June 15, 2017 at 09:54 AM
    BTW, now I think Trump is probably going down. He floats idea of firing Mueller. Mueller tells press they're investigating Trump. Meanwhile the Republicans are passing Trumpcare. Trump is moving to replace Yellen. So Mueller will have this list of things Trump and his campaign did. Will Republicans vote to remove Trump? Will it depend upon how the public reacts?
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron - , June 15, 2017 at 09:57 AM
    Perhaps they are just attempting to hasten the descent of the Democratic Party establishment consensus towards its inevitable rock bottom, the condition at which all addicts must finally arrive before they are forced to admit that they are the authors of their own failure and the only ones capable of their own rescue.
    Christopher H. - , June 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM
    To my eyes the Democratic Party establishment consensus doesn't really need much in the way of help. It's pushing on an open door.

    Their candidate for Virginia's governor voted for George W. Bush twice?

    Their candidate for New Jersey governor is a Goldman Sachs guy?

    Way to read the room.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron - , June 15, 2017 at 12:59 PM
    Exactly! I am in total agreement with you. We are both meaning the same thing, just framing it differently.
    libezkova - , June 15, 2017 at 05:30 PM
    My God, way too many neocons here.

    [Jun 15, 2017] The War Against Putin What the Government-Media Complex Isn't Telling You About Russia M. S. King 9781500316266 Amazon.com

    Notable quotes:
    "... The only difference between Obama's and McCain's foreign policy was that Obama represented the faction of America's foreign policy establishment which places an emphasis of long term "Soft Power" strategies; saving war as a last resort should their phony NGO "protests", hunger sanctions and "rebel" proxy wars fail to achieve the intended effect. ..."
    "... To put it in terms of a moderately vulgar rape analogy, Bush/Cheney/McCain are the type of Globalist rapists who prefer to violently pounce on their intended target, violating' her in the most barbaric manner. Obama on the other hand, is the charming predatory creep who slips a "date rape" drug into the unsuspecting maiden's drink. She will never suspect what is coming, until it is too late. "The other difference between Globalist "liberals and the Globalist "Neo-Cons" is that the latter are fanatically pro-Israel; even placing the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of Globalism. Though they are also pro-Israel, the "liberal" faction generally believes that Israel's frequent foreign aggression and ongoing abuse of the occupied Palestinians complicates their efforts to "work with" and subdue the numerous Arab and Muslim countries of the world. This is the true reason why CFR Globalist Jimmy Carter openly condemned Israel for "Apartheid." ..."
    Jun 15, 2017 | www.amazon.com
    By Wikileaker on January 19, 2017 Format: Paperback | Verified Purchase For those who rely on the corporate news media that further the war aims of the New World Order, this book will open your eyes!

    Long story short:
    the Russian czars resisted the NWO crime families for centuries until they succeeded installing their jewish/Bolshevik puppets and formed the USSR. The NWO was counting on the mantle passing on to Trotsky whenever Lenin exited, but instead got a rude surprise when Stalin took over. Comrade Joe wouldn't play ball -- the USSR was his personal kingdom and he wasn't taking orders. So the NWO made sure the Versailles treaty imposed such harsh terms on Germany that a second "War to End Wars" was inevitable (and to rub salt into Germany's wounds, recall that they NEVER surrendered! The Armistice was merely a ceasefire). And it didn't hurt the NWO's aims that the misery of the Great Depression (caused by their -- the "Fed's" contraction of the global money supply) set the stage for another Great War. Then they set up Hitler as Stalin's natural enemy/rival (along with their corporate servants like GM, IBM, Ford, Coca-Cola, etc.), and, as planned, they duked it out BUT Stalin came out on top. Foiled again! But the Cold War was just too lucrative a prospect for the NWO to pass up, so it was East versus West for the following 50 years. (proof positive this was the case was Eisenhower's failure to end the Cold War when Stalin gave up the ghost and Khruschev softened the USSR's stance against the West. This was a golden opportunity for world progress but the evil Dulles brothers (NWO again) wouldn't permit it). .0 out of 5 stars Vladimir the Great By k. n. kane on March 27, 2017 Format: Paperback | Verified Purchase I admire Vladimir Putin even more after reading this book and, if possible, I also despise the "Globalist" criminals even more. For generations, Russia has suffered some of the greatest "crimes against humanity" from within and without by these internationalist criminals, many of whom are born into the craft. Hopefully Mr. Putin can finally lead Russia out of the greedy clutches internationalism.

    **************************************************
    a section from chapter 14, pages 65 and 66.

    " The only difference between Obama's and McCain's foreign policy was that Obama represented the faction of America's foreign policy establishment which places an emphasis of long term "Soft Power" strategies; saving war as a last resort should their phony NGO "protests", hunger sanctions and "rebel" proxy wars fail to achieve the intended effect.

    " To put it in terms of a moderately vulgar rape analogy, Bush/Cheney/McCain are the type of Globalist rapists who prefer to violently pounce on their intended target, violating' her in the most barbaric manner. Obama on the other hand, is the charming predatory creep who slips a "date rape" drug into the unsuspecting maiden's drink. She will never suspect what is coming, until it is too late. "The other difference between Globalist "liberals and the Globalist "Neo-Cons" is that the latter are fanatically pro-Israel; even placing the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of Globalism. Though they are also pro-Israel, the "liberal" faction generally believes that Israel's frequent foreign aggression and ongoing abuse of the occupied Palestinians complicates their efforts to "work with" and subdue the numerous Arab and Muslim countries of the world. This is the true reason why CFR Globalist Jimmy Carter openly condemned Israel for "Apartheid."

    "Think of the two factions as bickering spouses who. at the end of their frequent spats, will always kiss and make up, and resume plotting against the people of the world, including their own countrymen."

    -M. S. King

    [Jun 15, 2017] The basic thread running through all of the workshops and demagogic speeches was the fiction that the Democratic Party -- a party of Wall Street and the CIA-can be transformed into a peoples party

    Jun 15, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , June 13, 2017 at 10:51 am
    "The event was a political fraud from beginning to end. The basic thread running through all of the workshops and demagogic speeches was the fiction that the Democratic Party-a party of Wall Street and the CIA-can be transformed into a "people's party."
    LOL!!! Totally spot the F on!!!!!

    "Sanders lent his support to the neo-McCarthyite campaign of the Democrats and the military-intelligence apparatus, which sees Russia as the chief obstacle to US imperialism's drive for regime change in Syria and Iran. "I find it strange we have a president who is more comfortable with autocrats and authoritarians than leaders of democratic nations," Sanders said. "Why is he enamored with Putin, a man who has suppressed democracy and destabilized democracies around the world, including our own?"

    Sanders?? No fool like an old fool and tool of TPTB

    marknesop , June 13, 2017 at 11:42 am
    Oh, I doubt he's a fool; the creed of the western political class is recognition of its own and their interests over the interests of the majority. It is technically true that Putin is destabilizing governments around the world – 'democracies', if you will – but it would presuppose that western leaders are his accomplices. Because it is through them and their crackdowns and restrictions and surveillance, which they say they must introduce for our own protection (because, you know, freedom isn't free) that discontent and destabilization are born. Reply

    [Jun 15, 2017] The War In Afghanistan Is A Racket

    Notable quotes:
    "... One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the "Islamic State" just kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S. invasion in 2001/2. ..."
    "... For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere. It is a protection racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by "Taliban". As soon as it pays the local warlords, the "Taliban" will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S. occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available. ..."
    "... That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason had to be found to continue the war. ..."
    "... It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate for Security (NDS), was the first sponsor of "ISIS" in Afghanistan. The first "ISIS" fighters were refugees of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll: ..."
    "... It is not clear if or to what extend the "ISIS" group in Afghanistan is still controlled by the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan. But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old scary graphics of the Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement. ..."
    "... The ban on "drugs" was not the real issue. It was a cover story. Why did they gift the Tailiban with $43M? This was a few months before 911. 911 was the day after the 2.3 trillion gone missing. ..."
    "... In 2000 the Taliban government had nearly eliminated the production of opium poppies in Afghanistan. Today it is the leading source of opium derivatives in the world. This reminds me of the opium wars against China in the 1820's when the Forbes and Delano family fortunes were first made. Some things do not change. ..."
    "... "...our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them..." ~ Irish-American Statesman and failed POTUS Barry O'Bama, Nov 2015, remarking on the current status of the strategy against ISIS™ ..."
    "... Contain. And it would be wrong to assume strategy has evolved much past the word contain when it comes to US strategy on and employment of the Afghani based mudjihadeen, and it's various brand names since it's migration back westward since the 80's. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    The United States will again escalate the war in Afghanistan.

    Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate the ruling Taliban for something that was planed elsewhere by a different group. Since the invasion the U.S. tried to defeat the Taliban. It has lost that fight. As soon as it leaves Afghanistan the Taliban will be back in power. But no one is willing to pull the plug on the nonsensical military approach.

    The Taliban are part of Afghanistan and a significant segment of the population supports them. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan it put the brutal and utterly corrupt warlords back into power. These were exactly the people the Taliban were created to hold down and the reason why they could take power in the first place. While demanding a strict religious life the Taliban successfully took care of local security and eliminated the lawless and corrupt rule of the warlords.

    It is no wonder then that a large part of the population wishes to have them back in power.

    The U.S. supported government in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the U.S. pays is likewise only motivated by money. It is not willing to fight. It takes high casualties during Taliban attacks and therefore avoids contact with them whenever possible. Some 60 % of the country is now more or less back under Taliban control. The government's say is restricted to the bigger cities.

    It is obvious that this trend will continued and sooner or later the Taliban will be back in power. The only sensible strategy is to negotiate with them and to find some solution that allows them to rule while they guaranteeing that no harm will emanate from Afghanistan for the rest of the world.

    But no one in the U.S. is willing to take responsibility for that. Who would want to be blamed for "neglecting" Afghanistan when another 9/11 happens - as unlikely as that might be? Therefore additional troops need to be send whenever the Taliban seem to gain the advantage over the puppet government forces.

    President Trump has punted on the issue and has given full authority to the Defense Department to continue the war in Afghanistan with as many troops as it sees fit. It is now the generals, not Trump, who will be blamed should things in Afghanistan go wrong. But the military has no idea what to do about Afghanistan.

    Yesterday the Secretary of Defense Mattis was asked during a Congress hearing what "winning" in Afghanistan would mean:

    The idea, [Mattis] said, would be to drive down the violence to a level that could be managed by Afghan government forces with the help of American and allied troops in training their Afghan counterparts, providing intelligence and delivering what Mr. Mattis called "high-end capability," an apparent allusion to air power and possibly Special Operations forces.

    The result, he said, would be an "era of frequent skirmishing," but not a situation in which the Afghan government no longer faced a mortal threat.

    Winning in Afghanistan is an "era of frequent skirmishes" in which the proxy government is continuously endangered? That does, of course, not make any sense. It is a holding strategy that will only work as long as the general framework stays the same. Should the Taliban change their strategy or a new actor come in the "holding" strategy will be finished.

    One new actor is already there. An Afghan variant of the "Islamic State" just kicked out the Taliban from the Tora Bora cave complex near the Pakistani border. Tora Bora was once though to be the retreat area of Al-Qaeda's Osama Bin-Laden and was attacked during the U.S. invasion in 2001/2.

    But who is behind the Islamic State Khorasan Province's (ISKP) in Afghanistan? Most of its fighters seem to be former Taliban who either defected in Afghanistan or were kicked out of Pakistan when the Pakistani military put pressure on their home areas. The real question now is who pays them and what do they want?

    Officially no one seems to know.

    For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere. It is a protection racket. Should the U.S. not pay, its convoys will be attacked by "Taliban". As soon as it pays the local warlords, the "Taliban" will be defeated and the area will be clear again for the trucks to pass. The money the Afghan government receives is likewise dependent on a continuation of the U.S. occupation. No one in the ruling class of Afghanistan has an interest in ending that. The government in Kabul will do nearly anything to keep its money source available.

    That may well be the reason why ISIS in Afghanistan was created. It was feared in Kabul that sooner or later the U.S. would find a compromise with the Taliban and leave the country. A new reason had to be found to continue the war.

    It is therefore not astonishing that the Afghan secret services, the National Directorate for Security (NDS), was the first sponsor of "ISIS" in Afghanistan. The first "ISIS" fighters were refugees of the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) who settled in the eastern province of Nangahar and were put on the NDS payroll:

    The most well-known case of these militants finding a welcoming home in Nangarhar is that of the Lashkar-e Islam group led by Mangal Bagh.

    ...

    Hoping to use them against Pakistan, the Afghan government started to woo some of these fighters, according to influential tribal elders involved in helping relation-building from the districts that sheltered the guest militants.

    ...

    [E]fforts by the Afghan intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security (NDS), to woo Pakistani militants in Nangarhar have not been confined to Lashkar-e Islam or to militants from Khyber. Tribal elders and ordinary residents of Achin, Nazian and Kot testify that fighters from Orakzai and Mohmand agencies belonging to different factions of the TTP have been allowed free movement across the province, as well as treatment in government hospitals.

    ...

    It was from these 'guests' that the bulk of the Nangarhar-based ISKP foot soldiers emerged, following the official announcement of IS's expansion to 'Khorasan Province.'

    It is not clear if or to what extend the "ISIS" group in Afghanistan is still controlled by the Afghan government services. Their weapon and ammunition supply is now allegedly coming from Pakistan. But what is clear is that these new participants in the war were first sponsored by the Afghan government and are now a welcome reasons for an extension of the U.S. occupation and the money flows originating from it. Meanwhile the media can reuse its old scary graphics of the Tora Bora complex and sell more advertisement.

    The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. This or that radical group will always exist in Afghanistan. The war helps the U.S. military to claim more budget and to hand out promotions. It helps the Afghan government officials and the warlords to fill their pockets. What it does not do is to better the situation of the general population of Afghanistan or of the United States.

    The war has become the proverbial self-licking-ice-cream-cone. It will unfortunately continue to be such under this and probably also the next U.S. presidents.

    Posted by b on June 14, 2017 at 02:07 PM | Permalink

    1
    The USA is now in Afghanistan for the minerals. It started out as a way of letting the CIA haul in mass amounts of money from drugs. Now it has morphed for the minerals. Afghanistan has the largest deposits of found lithium on the planet. Afghanistan is to lithium as Saudi Arabia is to oil. We are not about to abandon Afghanistan to the Chinese.

    Also, where there is lithium there is rare earth elements, which are even more valuable than lithium.

    james | Jun 14, 2017 2:36:51 PM | 2
    thanks b.. war is a racket, and there is no shortage of paper money denominated in us$ to pay to keep it going.. the justifications for it all, are beside the point..
    j | Jun 14, 2017 2:38:02 PM | 3
    some afghanis, I know from personal conversation, think part of the agenda in A. is experimentation with weapons in remote, inaccessible areas. there are multiple issues. have we kicked the Vietnam syndrome yet?
    SlapHappy | Jun 14, 2017 2:49:49 PM | 4
    That the coincidence of the heroin epidemic in the US and our invasion/occupation of Afghanistan isn't mentioned every time the problem is discussed tells you all you need to know about the veracity of the US media. We're only told the cover story for every event of consequence, while those who orchestrate and profit remain safely hidden from public scrutiny.
    folktruther | Jun 14, 2017 2:56:17 PM | 5
    But how does the war in Afghanistan differ from US war since world war 2.

    The US military is a fundamentally a business enterprise. It's function is not to win wars, but to make money. A standing army was created after world war 2 to prevent the depression which the war cured, and it has since created jobs for Americans and money for the plutocracy that has traditionally owned and ruled America.

    The idea is to create endless low intensity wars that validate the need for a enormous military budget. Afghanistan is perfect for this aim; relatively small numbers of US military that can endure,the motto being Enduring Freedom. The narcotics industry grows 90+% of the opium for the world, and fuels the prison industry in the USA, and the prison labor for the Free Market.

    Huge amounts of money are stolen from the military budget, 2.3 TRILLIONS dollars unaccountable on 9/10, 2001, growing to five trillion on Obama's shift. The banks launder hundreds of billions of drug money every year, a needed resource in financial crisis.

    Think of the Afghanistan war as a homicidal business enterprise and it makes perfect sense from a perspective of the plutocracy. And it will endure most likely until the people take the money away from the plutes, the guns away from their gunmen, and the truth away from their truthsters.

    xor | Jun 14, 2017 3:19:03 PM | 7
    For imperialist USA, it also helps to have a major military presence west of China, south of Russia and east of Iran. Those US bases serve all sorts of malicious activities.

    If the Taliban has some kind of consulary presence in Doha, then it shouldn't come to anyones surprise if much of the Afghan Daesh funding comes from Riyadh.

    Last but not least, since the US invasion of Afghanistan, the opium production reached sky-high and hasn't dwindled since so the warlords and the bureaucrats in Kabul get some US funding but a big part is also coming from opium production.

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 14, 2017 3:20:41 PM | 8
    @j, #3

    some afghanis, I know from personal conversation, think part of the agenda in A. is experimentation with weapons in remote, inaccessible areas.

    Any war is always a proving ground for new weapons systems. Look how happy Russia's Oboronexport is after Syria;) Soviet war in Afghanistan saw a test run of many Soviet PGMs (Precision Guided Munitions) both on the ground and from the air--e.g. laser and TV guided bombs. It is just the way it is.

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 14, 2017 3:26:29 PM | 9
    @2, James

    thanks b.. war is a racket, and there is no shortage of paper money denominated in us$ to pay to keep it going..

    Actually there is, and this shortage (or limit on printing) doesn't have to manifest itself through some catastrophic economic event. Simple diminished returns, or, in layman's lingo, minuscule bang for a buck will do--such as the case currently. It will not get any better. United States increasingly can not build affordable and effective weapons systems. Very expensive and, in the best case scenario, marginally "better"? Sure. Effective? Very often, no.

    jawbone | Jun 14, 2017 3:27:06 PM | 10
    Somebody (somebody | Jun 13, 2017 6:36:01 AM | 178) posted this link yesterday about Monbiot's contention that the US will not leave Afghanistan (if then?) until the Western powers have a pipeline to the West thought Afghanistan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/23/afghanistan.terrorism11

    Note the date -- The war is now 15 years and almost 15 full months old. We are not about to leave without getting something tangible, if then. Any pipeline to the West will have to be "guarded," so...when can the NATO armies leave? Is this still a major US motive?

    Mina | Jun 14, 2017 3:27:58 PM | 11
    They really have no shame http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40278385 or are they afraid he knows far too much? Hope he ll quickly give some interviews.
    Mina | Jun 14, 2017 3:32:24 PM | 12
    Other people have to cope with the Western toys for generations
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/270937/Egypt/Politics-/Terrorists-use-wartime-landmines-to-make-IEDs,-say.aspx

    Malooga | Jun 14, 2017 3:43:22 PM | 13
    The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes. (sic)

    Before I say anything critical, let me first commend you on your unparallelled body of work. That said, I am always puzzled and quite frankly concerned when the author of a premier Geo-political blog professes to find no strategic purpose behind a nation or a bloc of nation's actions. Nor is this the first time you have made such remarks. I generally chalk it up to a dry form of Northern European humor which I don't quite grasp.

    One could fairly critique such actions as "immoral," "unlikely to succeed," "distasteful my sensibilities," "temporizing," etc. But, in my humble opinion, failure to find "a real purpose" behind actions does not rise to the generally high level of your writing. I will leave it to others to elucidate both the tactics and strategy of the endless presence in an unstable centrally located territory. The answers are quite obvious.

    jawbone | Jun 14, 2017 3:48:33 PM | 14
    Arghan War now 15 years and 8 months old...typo, oops.
    j | Jun 14, 2017 3:52:52 PM | 15
    Not the most carefully phrased article on this site b.

    An Army friend clarifies that he "was never told or read in any of our briefings that we had a stated goal to eliminate the Taliban". He says they fought against the Taliban and warlords insofar as those aided Al Qaeda.

    I think your opening salve "Sixteen years ago the U.S, invaded the country and decided to eliminate the ruling Taliban for something that was planed elsewhere by a different group", is not false, but probably a bit myopic. A counterargument is that yes, but the training occurred in Afghanistan. Maybe it is more important to detail the history of U.S. aid to mujahideen prior to 9/11? Or to question whether the military approach (and civilian casualties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932014)#Afghan_protestation_of_civilian_deaths_caused_by_international_forces) gives more or less rational motive for additional attacks against U.S. targets?

    Personally, I wonder if the billions spent between Carter and Reagan aiding mujahideen would have been better spent on cancer research, but maybe that's just me.

    OJS | Jun 14, 2017 3:56:34 PM | 16
    @j

    You again did something wrong!!

    fast freddy | Jun 14, 2017 4:23:07 PM | 18
    https://www.thenation.com/article/bushs-faustian-deal-taliban/

    May 22, 2001

    ...gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the United States the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs
    that catches this administration's attention.

    The ban on "drugs" was not the real issue. It was a cover story. Why did they gift the Tailiban with $43M? This was a few months before 911. 911 was the day after the 2.3 trillion gone missing.

    ToivoS | Jun 14, 2017 5:19:30 PM | 19
    In 2001 I was quite naive. I actually supported the US war against Afghanistan then for the simple reason that the US public was lusting for war. Afghanistan seemed to be one enemy where we could let off steam without provoking some serious war elsewhere. Sort of like Reagan had to attack Grenada in order to save some face after the fiasco in Lebanon in 1982.

    It was clear that we could remove the Taliban government in a few months but it was also clear that it would be the height of stupidity to think we could occupy that country for the next 16 years. Alas, dumbo Bush decided to do just that. Afghanistan did have a traditional system with a king in Kabul that was tolerated as long as he didn't try to rule the tribal regions. The US violated that tradition and installed the puppet Karsi to rule the whole country.

    In 2000 the Taliban government had nearly eliminated the production of opium poppies in Afghanistan. Today it is the leading source of opium derivatives in the world. This reminds me of the opium wars against China in the 1820's when the Forbes and Delano family fortunes were first made. Some things do not change.

    nmb | Jun 14, 2017 5:24:34 PM | 20
    Crony Capitalism: the sole heritage of the disastrous Western invasion in Afghanistan
    karlof1 | Jun 14, 2017 5:31:20 PM | 21
    First and foremost, Afghanistan and its people had absolutely zero to do with 911. Plans to invade Afghanistan were well developed many months prior to 911--the reason for those plans is the primary foreign policy directive of the Outlaw US Empire-- Vision 2010 then reissued as Vision 2020 , which declares Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people to be its #1 goal, with Afghanistan providing the ideal geographical location to pressure both Russia and China\

    That is the fundamental reason for the Outlaw US Empire's Aggressive War Crime of invasion and unending occupation of that poor country. Nor is it going to end until the Outlaw US Empire is forced to remove itself.

    Aren Haich | Jun 14, 2017 5:40:47 PM | 22
    American involvment in Afghanistan has most likely has had 2 objectives to fulfill:
    --- War contractors:
    In old days nations went to war to plunder other countries;
    but America and Pentagon contractors have gone to war in Afghnistan to plunder the US treasury.

    --- Opium production: see
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afghanistan_opium_poppy_cultivation_1994-2007b.PNG

    virgile | Jun 14, 2017 5:56:55 PM | 23
    Russia and Iran must rejoice for the renewed US interest in Afghanistan. Both have borders with Afghanistan and will take pleasure in arming and supporting any forces that would confront and humiliate the US military.
    Mathis, get ready for a bumpy road scattered with body bags...
    We expect the US to blame Iran and Russia for the mess it is getting into.
    Perimetr | Jun 14, 2017 6:00:33 PM | 24
    "For the warlords in Afghanistan the U.S. occupation has become a huge source of money. The U.S. pays them for protecting the goods shipped in from the states and elsewhere"

    The goods happen to be $1 trillion worth of annual opium/heroin production (which when from 0 tons per annum in 2000 to 13+tons annual production today). It is shipped out to Serbia, Bulgaria, Turkey, and then sent all around the planet. Anybody see a problem with heroin in the US lately?

    The big banks take a 20% cut to launder the money. Langley uses the rest to pay its mercenary armies, to buy and control governments, to do any damn thing it wants to.

    It's all about freedom and democracy, you know.

    Jen | Jun 14, 2017 6:01:48 PM | 25
    Malooga @ 13:

    "... The war in Afghanistan has no longer a real purposes (sic)... The war helps the U.S. military to claim more budget and to hand out promotions. It helps the Afghan government officials and the warlords to fill their pockets ..."

    I think the answer is staring at both of us in our faces. The war in Afghanistan may no longer have a real geo-strategic purpose if it ever did 15 years ago but it helps to keep ageing military generals in jobs, special military projects current (and providing work for technicians and other specialists) and justify more Congress spending on the military. It also helps circulate money in Afghanistan and enables Afghan government officials and warlords to fill not just their pockets but spread largesse to their families and communities when there are no other jobs to be had because of the chaos and instability. So that's really the purpose of the war: it's an economy in itself.

    brian | Jun 14, 2017 6:01:54 PM | 26
    when americans enter a country, they turn it into an iraq or an afghanistan or a libya

    americans not only love corruption, they actively create it:'The U.S. supported government in Kabul is utterly corrupt. The Afghan military and police the U.S. pays is likewise only motivated by money'

    MadMax2 | Jun 14, 2017 6:24:52 PM | 28
    "...our goal has been first to contain and we have contained them..." ~ Irish-American Statesman and failed POTUS Barry O'Bama, Nov 2015, remarking on the current status of the strategy against ISIS™

    Contain. And it would be wrong to assume strategy has evolved much past the word contain when it comes to US strategy on and employment of the Afghani based mudjihadeen, and it's various brand names since it's migration back westward since the 80's.

    Mike Maloney | Jun 14, 2017 6:30:46 PM | 29
    I'm interested in the electoral fig leaf that justifies the occupation. There should have been parliamentary elections last October, but they were postponed because the electoral commission that was created as part of the Kerry-brokered Ghani-Abdullah power-sharing agreement deadlocked. One of the main issues, and a beef of the Abdullah camp, is that there are millions more voter registration cards than actual Afghan voters; plus, Afghan voters do not have to vote at a particular location (giving new meaning to the old crack about "Vote early vote often"). Abdullah argued that he was robbed of victory in 2014 because of this.

    In any event, the current parliament is still serving because of a presidential decree by Ghani. If electoral reform is ever agreed upon, it's a fair question if a nationwide vote can even be staged because so much of the country is controlled by the Taliban. So what happens in 2019 when it's time for the next presidential vote? Will Ghani extend his own term by decree, or will he leave that to the fraudulent parliament?

    karlof1 | Jun 14, 2017 6:32:45 PM | 30
    An important if somewhat OT item of importance regarding war and its reporting surfaced at Southfront in response to an item published by Politico that deserves attention, https://southfront.org/politico-veterans-today-southfront-turn-american-servicemembers-veterans-fifth-column/

    I'm rather tempted to comment on what at its base is an attempt to expand the scope of what's being called "Russiagate," but the comment platform is run by Discus which I will never use again due to its censorship and deep state connections. That said, reading some of the comments proves the deluded nature of Politico's readership, and provides evidence for turning the rhetorical table on it by accusing it of fomenting a Fifth Column of propagandized robots.

    Pnyx | Jun 14, 2017 6:40:04 PM | 31
    Robert Pinckney 2:15:06 PM | 1
    "We are not about to abandon Afghanistan to the Chinese." So, Mr. Wise Man. Who is "we"? Do you identify with the u.s. sucker class's interests?

    brian | Jun 14, 2017 6:46:36 PM | 32

    voting changes nothing in the USL: just the nations underwear
    Lourenzo | Jun 14, 2017 6:50:10 PM | 33
    I believe the graveyard of empires will be the cause of America's downfall.
    Just like the Macedons, the Brits and the Soviets fell.

    [Jun 15, 2017] Mattis Attacks on Syrian Forces Were Self-Defense by Jason Ditz

    Jun 13, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
    Says US Will Continue to Protect Troops Inside Syria

    Speaking about a number of recent US attacks on pro-government forces in Syria, Secretary of Defense James Mattis insisted that the attacks were simply "self-defense" aimed at protecting US ground troops positioned inside Syria, and that the US would continue to do so.

    The US has launched multiple attacks, mostly targeting Shi'ite militias in southern Syria's Daraa Province, who they accused of getting too close to a base belonging to the rebels at al-Tanf, a base at which some US forces are deployed. The militias have mostly been fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS in the area, but the US insists they were a threat to American ground troops.

    Syria's government has already addressed this claim, noting that the US troops were never invited into Syria in the first place and aren't authorized to hold that base, let alone to attack anti-ISIS forces for getting too close to their base. They've accused the US of using the strikes to prevent ISIS from losing ground to the government.

    The claims that the US are just reacting defensively ring hollow at any rate, as the Pentagon has openly confirmed in recent weeks that the US have been building up their troop numbers in southern Syria explicitly to confront the Shi'ite militias.

    [Jun 15, 2017] Keynes point. Cut the deficit in the good times, spend money in the bad times. Austerity doesnt work, and this was proved as Keynes economics brought the US out of the great depression

    Notable quotes:
    "... "This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community." ..."
    Jun 15, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , June 14, 2017 at 10:52 am
    Successive Conservative governments have forced significant cuts on county/city councils who have passed them on by reducing or stopping services. Looking at the news on Google Nudes UK we find out that there have long been significant concerns about the fire worthiness of many council run (though often privately managed) tower blocks and state housing. This will only be bad for the Conservatives however they try to spin it. It's clear proof that ass-terity kills.

    I came across a couple of articles in The London Economic that pointed out the last Labor government public spending was at a record low of 37% of GDP, the lowest of any government since 1945 and also perforating Conservative propaganda about spending. Found it:

    The London Economic: Next time someone says 'Money Tree' send them this
    http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/tle-pick/next-time-someone-says-money-tree-send/05/06/

    This underlines Keynes point. Cut the deficit in the good times, spend money in the bad times. Austerity doesn't work, and this was proved as Keynes economics brought the US out of the great depression .

    ####

    And don't forget to click through to the linked '5 Tory Narratives that simply aren't true' : http://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/economics/five-labour-narratives-simply-arent-true/31/05/

    As for Russia, it stockpiled cash from high energy sales that allowed it to weather financial crises and sanctions. So, who are the morons now?

    marknesop , June 14, 2017 at 12:28 pm
    Well, for starters, John McCain is a moron who argued strenuously , in the initial slide of the global financial crisis, for further banking-industry deregulation.

    "This legislation takes a small but important step toward eliminating the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions One principal reason banks are unable to make loans is the bewildering array of statutory and regulatory restrictions and paperwork requirements imposed by Congress and the regulatory agencies. While a case can certainly be made that every law and regulation is intended to serve a laudable purpose, the aggregate effect of the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community."

    You know, I don't believe the great majority of people are aware just what simpletons their leaders are. We tend to think they have benefited from the very best educations – which, in the main, they have – and that consequently they are a great deal smarter than everyone else; that's why they're leaders. I'm sure each has a certain sector or subject in which they are unusually bright and in which their counsel is wise and informed. But overall, they are no smarter than you or I and every bit as prone to listen to bad advice or partisan gossip if it suits what they already believe. Our statues have feet of clay.

    Speaking of McCain, remember when he exuberantly tweeted "Dear Vlad; the Arab Spring is coming to a neighbourhood near you"?

    I liked Adajo's response, albeit it came three years later: "Dear John, let's recap: Russia is stronger than ever, and Mr. Vlad dominates. You destroyed Ukraine for nothing."

    [Jun 15, 2017] Pentagon Agrees To Sell $12 Billion In F-15s To Qatar Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Read Starikov... All these recent weapons deals, and many before is nothing more than what's called Reparations and Contributions. ..."
    "... It's an old deal http://defense-update.com/20141222_qatari_patriots.html ..."
    "... You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Pentagon Agrees To Sell $12 Billion In F-15s To Qatar Tyler Durden Jun 14, 2017 4:35 PM 0 SHARES Remember when Trump called on Qatar to stop funding terrorism, claiming credit for and endorsing the decision of Gulf nations to isolate their small neighbor (where the most important US airbase in the middle east is located),even as US Cabinet officials said their blockade is hurting the campaign against ISIS. You should: it took place just 5 days ago.

    "We had a decision to make," Trump said, describing conversations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. "Do we take the easy road or do we finally take a hard but necessary action? We have to stop the funding of terrorism." Also last week, Trump triumphantly announced on twitter that "during my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look!"

    Well, Qatar funding terrorism apparently is not a problem when it comes to Qatar funding the US military industrial complex , because just two weeks after Trump signed a record, $110 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, moments ago Bloomberg reported that Qatar will also buy up to 36 F-15 jets from the Pentagon for $12 billion .... even as a political crisis in the Gulf leaves the Middle East nation isolated by its neighbors and criticized by President Donald Trump for supporting terrorism, according to three people with knowledge of the accord.

    According to the Pentagon, the sale will give Qatar a "state of the art" capability, not to mention the illusion that it can defend itself in a war with Saudi Arabia.

    If nothing else, Uncle Sam sure is an equal-opportunity arms dealer, and best of all, with the new fighter planes, Qatar will be able to at least put on a token fight when Saudi Arabia invades in hopes of sending the price of oil surging now that every other "strategy" has failed.

    To be sure, the sale comes at an opportune time: just days after Qatar put its military on the highest state of alert, and scrambled its tanks . All 16 of them. Maybe the world's wealthiest nation realized it's time beef up its defensive capabilities?

    Qatar's defense minister will meet with Pentagon chief Jim Mattis on Wednesday to seal the agreement, Bloomberg reported citing people who spoke on condition of anonymity because the sale hasn't been announced. Last year, congress approved the sale of up to 72 F-15s in an agreement valued at as much as $21 billion but that deal took place before the recent political crisis in the region.

    It is unclear what the Saudi reaction will be to the news that Trump is arming its latest nemesis. If our thesis that Riyadh is hoping for Qatar to escalate the nest leg of the conflict is correct , then the Saudis should be delighted.

    nope-1004 - Alt RightGirl , Jun 14, 2017 4:43 PM

    Oh c'mon y'all. This is nothing new. These are the same synchophants that (somehow, oops!) created ISIS and then go in and bomb them. WTF did you expect? That they'd actually do what they say?

    Cognitive Dissonance - nope-1004 , Jun 14, 2017 4:52 PM

    A big shout out to Boeing Military. Hookers and blow tonight in the exec suite. BTW these planes aren't sitting in inventory ready to be delivered. So any conflict in the next few years won't have to worry about these planes.

    That is unless the US or some other buyer agrees to step aside and allow Qatar to take their place at the end of the assembly line.

    Ahmeexnal - Cognitive Dissonance , Jun 14, 2017 4:52 PM

    Classic Sun Tzu move by Trump.

    ParkAveFlasher - Ahmeexnal , Jun 14, 2017 4:56 PM

    Now, are these the planes already parked in that airbase in Qatar that should be evac'd?

    Mr. Universe - ParkAveFlasher , Jun 14, 2017 5:00 PM

    That should about wrap it up on who is in charge of the Deep state. Backing both sides of a potential conflict and making sure everyone has enough arms to blow each to smitherines. Sounds like the old Red Shield tricks are still the best ones. Long live central bankers, after they have been thrown into a burning pit of sulfer.

    PrayingMantis - ParkAveFlasher , Jun 14, 2017 5:06 PM

    ... >>> ... " ... " We had a decision to make ," Trump said ... " ...

    ... lest we forget, Trump's a businessman ... sell to all buyers ... the (((Red Shield))) way ... and voila ... #maga profits!!! ...

    HowdyDoody - Ahmeexnal , Jun 14, 2017 5:04 PM

    They did the same with Iran and Iraq - for some, a very profitable bloodbath.

    fx - HowdyDoody , Jun 14, 2017 5:37 PM

    Absolutely. But, oh, these damned Iranians. They simply resisted the USA's boy Saddam and fought back.

    That failure to comply with OUR orders sealed his faith.

    Weapons of mass destruction. Well, we delivered them to him. chemical weapons to kill all the Iranians. So we KNEW they must have been there. We just didn't expect that he really used them all up against Iran and later on (the remaining few) against the curds. What a bastard. After all that WE did for Saddam, he didn't deliver. Fuck him.

    Speaking of non-delivery, why has our newest boy, Poroshenko, not yet taken Moscow? So, fuck him, too! And fuck the EU.

    And speaking of that, where is Monica, when one needs her? And let's have some Pizza...

    FoggyWorld - Cognitive Dissonance , Jun 14, 2017 6:29 PM

    That could happen and did on many F-18 sales where we in the US in effect packed the parts into glorified Heath kits and sent them to the buying countries who did their own labor. Also sent them the testing equipment and every other thing they needed so all we got were a few spare piece parts at a slightly lower price. The labor went to the purchasing country.

    gmj - nuubee , Jun 14, 2017 4:47 PM

    That right there is some wizard-level salesmanship. And I can assure you that these weapons systems have "ALL" of the capabilities of the ones in our US arsenal, hahaha. And furthermore, they cannot be messed with by remote control by the boys at the Pentagon, just in case things get a little messy or embarassing. Nosiree. What you see is what you get. Yes, Lord.

    omi - nuubee , Jun 14, 2017 5:41 PM

    Read Starikov... All these recent weapons deals, and many before is nothing more than what's called Reparations and Contributions.

    11th_Harmonic - nuubee , Jun 14, 2017 7:29 PM

    I'm at a loss for words anymore, so I'll just greenie your post and move the fuck on...

    Great Deceivah - nuubee , Jun 14, 2017 7:45 PM

    War is our Business and Business is GOOD!!

    Nona Yobiznes , Jun 14, 2017 4:39 PM

    Destabilize, arm both sides, and... profit!

    yrad - Nona Yobiznes , Jun 14, 2017 4:42 PM

    Rothschild playbook

    logicalman - yrad , Jun 14, 2017 5:01 PM

    Can't beat supplying boh sides in a conflict if you want to make a 'killing'!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiN1xHaNDJ0

    Got The Wrong No - logicalman , Jun 14, 2017 5:34 PM

    This deal reminds me of the Chevy Chase movie Deal Of The Century.

    PhiBetaZappa , Jun 14, 2017 4:48 PM

    There's no business like war business, there's no business we know.......

    MIC ho's gotta earn to keep pimp daddy .gov in bling.

    logicalman - PhiBetaZappa , Jun 14, 2017 5:03 PM

    Arms companies can make more money in a day of war than in a year of peace.

    serotonindumptruck , Jun 14, 2017 4:41 PM

    "By way of deception, thou shalt do war"

    --Mossad

    TheDude1224 , Jun 14, 2017 4:43 PM

    This quick money grab from Qatar is just what the government needed to help with our infrastructure problems, Obamacare, and subsidizing Elon Musk.

    Soph , Jun 14, 2017 4:43 PM

    Looks like Trump is just selling to whoever want to buy. What the hell, why not, he's shown himself to be a sell out. Might as well be the best damn arms dealer you can buy.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/

    Nightjar , Jun 14, 2017 4:44 PM

    It's an old deal http://defense-update.com/20141222_qatari_patriots.html

    Zepper , Jun 14, 2017 4:44 PM

    You know I am not a fan of the military industrial complex but you have to be in awe of these people. Trump sells 350 billion to SA which includes the best automatic self destruct fighter every engineered by the U.S. and then sells F15s to their obvious rivals in Quatar lol.

    I personally think the F15s will utterly destroy the f35s because all they have to do to down an f35 is keep it flying, it will eventual blow up on its own.

    Well like I said before, let the body count be super high... and let all the fucking crazy suicide bombers head back home to kill themselves.

    As Bernie, the man behind the man that shot up a bunch of congressmen said... Its going to be HUUUUUGE... the war thats coming that is... I wonder how many oil tankers will be sunk?

    Volaille de Bresse , Jun 14, 2017 4:50 PM

    Saudis not happy, tearing the contracts they signed with Trump in 10 9 8s... I'm sure Putin and China are gonna profit from Trump 12-bil blunder.

    decentralisedsc... , Jun 14, 2017 4:52 PM

    Almost all the world's economic and political problems revolve around the hegemony of a global corporate cartel, which is headquartered in the US because this is where their dominant military force resides. The US Constitution is therefore the "kingpin" of an all-inclusive global financial empire. These fictitious entities now own the USA and command its military infrastructure by virtue of the Federal Reserve Corporation, regulatory capture, MSM propaganda, and congressional lobbying.

    The Founders had to fight a bloody Revolutionary War to win our right to incorporate as a nation – the USA. But then, for whatever reason, our Founders granted the greediest businessmen among them unrestricted corporate charters with enough potential capital & power to compete with the individual states, smaller sovereign nations, and eventually to buy out the USA itself. The only way The People can regain our sovereignty as a constitutional republic now is to severely curtail the privileges of any corporation doing business here. To remain sovereign we have to stop granting corporate charters to just any "suit" that comes along without fulfilling a defined social value in return. The "Divine Right Of Kings" should not apply to fictitious entities just because they are "Too Big To Fail". We can't afford to privatize our Treasury to transnational banks anymore. Government must be held responsible only to the electorate, not fictitious entities; and banks must be held responsible to the government if we are ever to restore sanity, much less prosperity, to the world.

    It was a loophole in our Constitution that allowed corporate charters to be so easily obtained that a swamp of corruption inevitably flooded our entire economic system. It is a swamp that can't be drained at this point because the Constitution doesn't provide a drain. This 28 th amendment is intended to install that drain so Congress can pull the plug ASAP. As a matter of political practicality we must rely on the Article 5 option to do this, for which the electorate will need overwhelming consensus beforehand. Seriously; an Article 5 Constitutional Convention is rapidly becoming our only sensible option.

    This is what I think it will take to save the world; and nobody gets hurt: 28 th Amendment

    28 th Amendment:

    Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to:

    1, prohibitions against any corporation; a, owning another corporation; b, becoming economically indispensable or monopolistic; or c, otherwise distorting the general economy;

    2, prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of; a, government, b, education, c, news media; or d, healthcare, and

    3, provisions for; a, the auditing of standardized, current, and transparent account books; b, the establishment of state and municipal banking; and c, civil and criminal penalties to be suffered by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.

    [Jun 14, 2017] Senate Overwhelmingly Approves New Sanctions To "Punish" Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The bipartisan legislation, which passed with an overwhelming 97-2 vote, slaps new sanctions on Russia and restricts President Trump from easing them in the future without first receiving congressional approval. ..."
    "... Known as the Crapo Amendment, after Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the measure was endorsed by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland). The deal was attached to an Iran sanctions bill that is expected to pass later this week. While top Republican senators had initially wanted to give the White House space to try improving U.S.-Russia relations, but ultimately decided talks with Russia have been moving too slowly. ..."
    "... The sanctions against Russia are "in response to the violation of the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea, its brazen cyber-attacks and interference in elections, and its continuing aggression in Syria," according to the deal's sponsors. ..."
    "... The biggest neocon in Congress, John McCain, was delighted with the outcome: "We must take our own side in this fight. Not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) before the vote. "It's time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength, with resolve, with common purpose, and with action." ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    This post was originally published on this site

    The U.S. Senate on Wednesday approved new sanctions to punish Russia for "meddling" in the 2016 election.

    The bipartisan legislation, which passed with an overwhelming 97-2 vote, slaps new sanctions on Russia and restricts President Trump from easing them in the future without first receiving congressional approval. The only two senators to vote against the measure were Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY), while Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) abstained.

    Known as the Crapo Amendment, after Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the measure was endorsed by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland). The deal was attached to an Iran sanctions bill that is expected to pass later this week. While top Republican senators had initially wanted to give the White House space to try improving U.S.-Russia relations, but ultimately decided talks with Russia have been moving too slowly.

    The sanctions against Russia are "in response to the violation of the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea, its brazen cyber-attacks and interference in elections, and its continuing aggression in Syria," according to the deal's sponsors.

    The amendment also allows " broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's economy, including mining, metals, shipping and railways " and authorizes " robust assistance to strengthen democratic institutions and counter disinformation across Central and Eastern European countries that are vulnerable to Russian aggression and interference ."

    New sanctions would be imposed on " corrupt Russian actors " and those "involved in serious human rights abuses," anyone supplying weapons to the Syrian government or working with Russian defense industry or intelligence, as well as "those conducting malicious cyber activity on behalf of the Russian government" and "those involved in corrupt privatization of state-owned assets."

    The biggest neocon in Congress, John McCain, was delighted with the outcome: "We must take our own side in this fight. Not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans," said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) before the vote. "It's time to respond to Russia's attack on American democracy with strength, with resolve, with common purpose, and with action."

    As AP adds , lawmakers took action against Russia in the absence of a forceful response from President Donald Trump. While the president has sought to improve relations with Moscow and rejected the implication that Russian hacking of Democratic emails tipped the election his way, non-stop "anonymous sources" have repeatedly leaked "news" to the NYT and WaPo, suggesting Trump colluded with Russia and/or was being probed by the FBI. Following Comey's testimony, which confirmed there is no "there" there, the media attacks against Trump have shifted, and now accuse the president of obstruction of justice and interference with the FBI's investigation into Mike Flynn.

    Speaking earlier on Wednesday, Vladimir Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said told reporters the Kremlin will hold out with its reaction until the U.S. decides on new sanctions against Russia.

    "We wouldn't like to enter this sanctions spiral again. But that's not our choice." Indeed, and with the US having made Russia's choice for them, we now look for Moscow's response.

    Incidentally, earlier this week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told lawmakers that US allies around the world had asked Washington to improve relations with Russia , and warned that further measures against Moscow could hinder ongoing progress in the fight against terrorism in Syria.

    "I have yet to have a bilateral, one-on-one, a poolside conversation with a single counterpart in any country: in Europe, Middle East, even South-East Asia, that has not said to me: please, address your relationship with Russia, it has to be improved ," Tillerson said on Tuesday, testifying before the Senate appropriations subcommittee about the proposed State Department budget.

    Unfortunately, for the US Military Industrial Complex, which stands to profit only in times of (near) war, a detente with Russia, or any other nation for that matter, is not an option.

    SHsparx , Jun 14, 2017 5:35 PM

    Rand should have been POTUS.

    Pinto Currency - SHsparx , Jun 14, 2017 5:38 PM

    Russia needs to ship its palladium because London's metal market is gone sideways without it (and the bond market will dump):

    http://www.safehaven.com/article/44504/palladium-blows-the-whistle-on-th...

    PrayingMantis - Drimble Wedge , Jun 14, 2017 6:08 PM

    ... >>> ... " ... The U.S. Senate on Wednesday approved new sanctions to punish Russia for "meddling" in the 2016 election . ... " ...

    ... well, here's what the Russians said at ... http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2314.htm ... yesterday, June 13, 2017 ...

    ... >>> " US Spends $70 Billion To Influence Russian Election, Then Admits Its Own Nation Is Insane ..."

    ... the report ... " ... shockingly states that the United States has spent between $70-$100 billion to influence the election outcome in Russia ( https://www.rt.com/politics/391255-upper-house-votes-to-set/ ) ... - but then freely admits that the majority of its own American citizens are actually insane.

    ... According to this report, the Security Council today voiced "strong support" for lawmakers who are launching a dedicated commission to monitor foreign nations attempts to influence internal Russian politics and work on proposals to counter and prevent such moves - and that Speaker Valentina Matviyenko warned was a "grave threat" as up to $100 billion was sent to Russia from abroad each year "not for charity and not for social or medical aid, but for political activities". ...

    ... To the American people being able to know the truth about this "fake news" propaganda being filled into their heads, this report sadly notes, is not to be seen as nearly all of them, on an hourly basis, are pummeled with lies and hysteria falsely claiming Russia interfered in their election - when the facts, instead, prove, beyond all doubt, that the US is world's largest interferer in the elections of other nations ( http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=18700 ), including last year in Israel where the Obama regime paid over $350,000 to destroy that nations prime minister ( http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/ ).

    At the exact same time that these American people are being brainwashed into believing every lie their "fake news" propaganda media tells them, this report continues, these people remain unaware that their leftist-communist "overlords" have classified nearly all of them as being insane. ... " ...

    ... is this just a classic case of the "meddler-Pot" blame-sanctioning the "meddler-Kettle" for what the meddler-Pot had been known to do? ...

    ...

    doctor10 - PrayingMantis , Jun 14, 2017 6:11 PM

    the real "meddlers" were the DNC ...

    who is Seth Rich?

    Alt RightGirl - doctor10 , Jun 14, 2017 6:17 PM

    Those ki3sters are asking for it.

    Let's vote them out in 2018.

    And put Bernie out to pasture in a FEMA camp.

    Sanders Fraud Family: Claims of Nepotism over a "Sweetheart Deal" for Bernie Sanders' Step-Daughter

    Art Van Delay - Alt RightGirl , Jun 14, 2017 6:24 PM

    We need to keep the RINOs out of Senate

    2018 --

    fx - Art Van Delay , Jun 14, 2017 6:40 PM

    Rand Paul would have been assassinated long ago if he were elected Potus. Trump has been bought or simply tricked or forced into compliance. I suspect the tricked thingy since the Donald isn't exactly shining, intellectually, regarding most subjects other than pussies, women, real estate and immigration.

    Got The Wrong No - HockeyFool , Jun 14, 2017 5:59 PM

    The vote was 97-2. So the Republicans are also saying the Russians hacked the Election. Trump doesn't have a chance.

    ZeroIntelligence - Pinto Currency , Jun 14, 2017 5:40 PM

    Imagine if countries that had elections tampered by USCIAFBI slapped sanctions on US for a change. Wouldn't that be KOORAAZZYY?!

    GUS100CORRINA - ZeroIntelligence , Jun 14, 2017 5:59 PM

    Article Title: Senate Overwhelmingly Approves New Sanctions To "Punish" Russia

    \The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved new sanctions to punish Russia for "meddling" in the 2016 election. The bipartisan legislation, which passed with in a 97-2 vote, slaps new sanctions on Russia and restricts President Trump from easing them in the future without first receiving congressional approval.

    My Response: NOT GOOD!!! I really hate where this is headed!!!!!!!

    In a society where all lies, all deceptions, all corruptions are accepted, that society will lose control of everything. Chaos will begin to take over, and the only way that chaos will be slowed down will be when dictatorial control, or maybe even a police state is formed, where thought and behavior is fixed, and anybody out of bounds is punished. Eventually, the chaos has to be controlled. We're not headed toward socialism; we could very well be headed toward a dictatorship in our world. Is this hard to grasp?

    Remember the America that was, some of you? This is not a Christian nation; there's no such thing. It never has been a Christian nation. Even the founding fathers of America were not true Christians but they did understand that Christianity was a fixed necessity because it established divine law; and when people knew that this was law from God, it controlled their behavior. Biblical ethics, biblical patterns of morality were honored, respected, and expected. Marriage, family, virtue, work, relationships, success were all connected to noble ideals that are found in Scripture. That's long gone and unlikely to ever appear in the lifetime of anybody reading this because evil men just get worse and worse.

    Raffie - Pinto Currency , Jun 14, 2017 5:44 PM

    NJo proof so why they doing this again?

    Full Court Luge... - SHsparx , Jun 14, 2017 5:47 PM

    They'd have done the same to him. Trump should definitely listen to him on foreign policy, but the fact is the MIC is exerting MASSIVE pressure in that arena.

    FoggyWorld - Full Court Lugenpresse , Jun 14, 2017 5:56 PM

    Cutest recent trick is MacMaster just hired one of Susan Rice's closest assistants to work for him! Is anyone home at the WH?

    Got The Wrong No - Dr.Vannostrand , Jun 14, 2017 6:39 PM

    The Dem the deep state, the Media and now the Republicans by the look of this vote are all trying to Impeach him. What reality are you living in?

    Up voting yourself is part of your reality. LMAO

    ZeroIntelligence , Jun 14, 2017 5:36 PM

    I wonder if US citizens overwhelmingly approve of these sanctions.............

    Endgame Napoleon - ZeroIntelligence , Jun 14, 2017 5:55 PM

    I don't. They have not even told us why they know that Russia interfered with the election, as opposed to leaks interfering with the election. Even if they did interfere, foreign policy issues of any kind other than protecting Westerners against terrorist mass murders did not alter the outcome of the election. It was bread-and-butter issues that won it for Trump, along with resistance to the multiculturalist bashing by the ism patrol, which is really just an agressive form of snobbery.

    [Jun 14, 2017] US Senate adopts amendment on more sanctions against Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... "in response to the violation of the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea, its brazen cyber-attacks and interference in elections, and its continuing aggression in Syria," ..."
    "... "broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's economy, including mining, metals, shipping and railways" ..."
    "... "robust assistance to strengthen democratic institutions and counter disinformation across Central and Eastern European countries that are vulnerable to Russian aggression and interference." ..."
    "... "corrupt Russian actors" ..."
    "... "involved in serious human rights abuses," ..."
    "... "those conducting malicious cyber activity on behalf of the Russian government" ..."
    "... "those involved in corrupt privatization of state-owned assets." ..."
    "... "I have yet to have a bilateral, one-on-one, a poolside conversation with a single counterpart in any country: in Europe, Middle East, even South-East Asia, that has not said to me: please, address your relationship with Russia, it has to be improved," ..."
    "... "ridiculous pretexts" ..."
    "... "[Members of] Congress try to tie the president's hands, trying to remove his ability to make foreign policy, and they are doing it for a simple reason – they do not want the relations with Russia to improve," ..."
    "... "Republicans are launching a pre-emptive strike against their own president." ..."
    "... "the whole pretext of the sanctions is absurd," ..."
    "... "Nobody would go down to the Senate of the House floor and say what exactly did they do, how did they meddle in our relations, because nobody knows," ..."
    "... "an entire inter-agency intelligence community review" ..."
    "... "few hand-picked analysts who had come to this conclusion." ..."
    "... "Who is in Syria illegally occupying territory, who is violating Syrian sovereignty? The US military," he said, dubbing the sanctions "a reflection of lack of any creativity" in the Senate. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.rt.com
    A measure codifying into law the US sanctions against Russia was approved in the Senate by a veto-proof majority of 97 to 2. The amendment requires congressional review before any sanctions are lifted, and allows for new ones. Amendment 232 has been attached to Bill 722 imposing sanctions against Iran, which the Senate is currently debating.

    Known as the Crapo Amendment, after Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, the measure was endorsed by Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and ranking member Ben Cardin (D-Maryland).

    The sanctions against Russia are "in response to the violation of the territorial integrity of the Ukraine and Crimea, its brazen cyber-attacks and interference in elections, and its continuing aggression in Syria," according to the sponsors.

    The Senate adopted amendment #232 as modified (Russia sanctions) to S. 722, Iran Sanctions, 97-2.

    - Senate D Floor Watch (@DSenFloor) June 14, 2017

    Under the amendment, any executive sanctions imposed on Russia by the Obama administration cannot be lifted without congressional review.

    The amendment also allows "broad new sanctions on key sectors of Russia's economy, including mining, metals, shipping and railways" and authorizes "robust assistance to strengthen democratic institutions and counter disinformation across Central and Eastern European countries that are vulnerable to Russian aggression and interference."

    New sanctions would be imposed on "corrupt Russian actors" and those "involved in serious human rights abuses," anyone supplying weapons to the Syrian government or working with Russian defense industry or intelligence, as well as "those conducting malicious cyber activity on behalf of the Russian government" and "those involved in corrupt privatization of state-owned assets."

    Read more Tillerson says allies pleading with US to 'improve Russia relations' as Senate agrees new sanctions

    Senators Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) voted against the amendment, while Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) abstained.

    Earlier this week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told lawmakers that US allies around the world had asked Washington to improve relations with Russia, and warned that further measures against Moscow could hinder ongoing progress in the fight against terrorism in Syria.

    "I have yet to have a bilateral, one-on-one, a poolside conversation with a single counterpart in any country: in Europe, Middle East, even South-East Asia, that has not said to me: please, address your relationship with Russia, it has to be improved," Tillerson said on Tuesday, testifying before the Senate appropriations subcommittee about the proposed State Department budget.

    'Pre-emptive strike against Trump'

    The executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Daniel McAdams, told RT he believes that sanctions were imposed under "ridiculous pretexts" and are ultimately designed to hinder any attempts of the current US administration to improve Russia-US ties.

    "[Members of] Congress try to tie the president's hands, trying to remove his ability to make foreign policy, and they are doing it for a simple reason – they do not want the relations with Russia to improve," McAdams told RT. He added that by striking an agreement with the Democrats on the issue "Republicans are launching a pre-emptive strike against their own president."

    As far as the formal justification of yet another anti-Russian move is concerned, McAdams believes that "the whole pretext of the sanctions is absurd," in particular, the refrain of Russia's alleged meddling in the US elections.

    "Nobody would go down to the Senate of the House floor and say what exactly did they do, how did they meddle in our relations, because nobody knows," McAdams said.

    A US intelligence report, from which stem the bulk of allegations implicating Russia could not be regarded as "an entire inter-agency intelligence community review" as claimed, he noted, because it was compiled by a "few hand-picked analysts who had come to this conclusion."

    Citing Russia's alleged "aggression" in Syria as one of the reasons to roll over a new round of sanctions is another example of the inadequacy of the measure, McAdams argued.

    "Who is in Syria illegally occupying territory, who is violating Syrian sovereignty? The US military," he said, dubbing the sanctions "a reflection of lack of any creativity" in the Senate.

    [Jun 14, 2017] WOW: President of Russia Vladimir Putin Says US Presidents Are Puppets, Men in Dark Suits Rule Washington with The Same Orders

    Jun 14, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren , June 13, 2017 at 3:56 am

    https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/874035691570835457

    Luke Rudkowski ‏ Verified account @ Lukewearechange Jun 11

    Luke Rudkowski @Lukewearechange

    WOW: President of Russia Vladimir Putin Says US Presidents Are Puppets, 'Men in Dark Suits' Rule Washington with The Same Orders

    6:48 PM - 11 Jun 2017 · Brooklyn, NY 1,370 1,370 Retweets 1,624 1,624 likes

    [Jun 14, 2017] Are We Nearing Civil War by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Notable quotes:
    "... As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt." ..."
    "... Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded. ..."
    "... Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending? ..."
    "... since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers. ..."
    "... Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person. ..."
    "... It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible. ..."
    "... His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted. ..."
    "... "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance. ..."
    "... I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that. ..."
    "... So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him. ..."
    "... His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal. ..."
    "... Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty. ..."
    "... The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil. ..."
    Jun 14, 2017 | www.unz.com

    President Trump may be chief of state, head of government and commander in chief, but his administration is shot through with disloyalists plotting to bring him down.

    We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

    Thus far, it is a nonviolent struggle, though street clashes between pro- and anti-Trump forces are increasingly marked by fistfights and brawls. Police are having difficulty keeping people apart. A few have been arrested carrying concealed weapons.

    That the objective of this city is to bring Trump down via a deep state-media coup is no secret. Few deny it.

    Last week, fired Director of the FBI James Comey, a successor to J. Edgar Hoover, admitted under oath that he used a cutout to leak to The New York Times an Oval Office conversation with the president. Goal: have the Times story trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor to bring down the president. Comey wanted a special prosecutor to target Trump, despite his knowledge, from his own FBI investigation, that Trump was innocent of the pervasive charge that he colluded with the Kremlin in the hacking of the DNC.

    Comey's deceit was designed to enlist the police powers of the state to bring down his president. And it worked. For the special counsel named, with broad powers to pursue Trump, is Comey's friend and predecessor at the FBI, Robert Mueller.

    As Newt Gingrich said Sunday: "Look at who Mueller's starting to hire. (T)hese are people that look to me like they're setting up to go after Trump including people, by the way, who have been reprimanded for hiding from the defense information into major cases. "This is going to be a witch hunt."

    Another example. According to Daily Kos, Trump planned a swift lifting of sanctions on Russia after inauguration and a summit meeting with Vladimir Putin to prevent a second Cold War. The State Department was tasked with working out the details. Instead, says Daniel Fried, the coordinator for sanctions policy, he received "panicky" calls of "Please, my God, can you stop this?" Operatives at State, disloyal to the president and hostile to the Russia policy on which he had been elected, collaborated with elements in Congress to sabotage any detente. They succeeded.

    "It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Tom Malinowski of State, who boasted last week of his role in blocking a rapprochement with Russia. State employees sabotaged one of the principal policies for which Americans had voted, and they substituted their own.

    Not in memory have there been so many leaks to injure a president from within his own government, and not just political leaks, but leaks of confidential, classified and secret documents. The leaks are coming out of the supposedly secure investigative and intelligence agencies of the U.S. government.

    The media, the beneficiaries of these leaks, are giving cover to those breaking the law. The real criminal "collusion" in Washington is between Big Media and the deep state, colluding to destroy a president they detest and to sink the policies they oppose.

    Yet another example is the unfolding "unmasking" scandal.

    While all the evidence is not yet in, it appears an abnormal number of conversations between Trump associates and Russians were intercepted by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    On orders higher up, the conversations were transcribed, and, contrary to law, the names of Trump associates unmasked. Then those transcripts, with names revealed, were spread to all 16 agencies of the intel community at the direction of Susan Rice, and with the possible knowledge of Barack Obama, assuring some would be leaked after Trump became president. The leak of Gen. Michael Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, after Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for the hacking of the DNC, may have been a product of the unmasking operation. The media hit on Flynn cost him the National Security Council post.

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."

    FusionPoweredMeatstick June 13, 2017 at 5:45 am GMT

    Comey wanted Mueller in there, and Mueller is doing what he will, because Mueller is there primarily to PROTECT Obama and Clinton and their vast left wing cabal, just like Comey did before he was canned.

    Mucking up Trump's life and those of Trump's people in the process is merely a sweet bonus. Not to mention the excellent distraction/diversion value that provides.

    exiled off mainstreet June 13, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT

    Trump needs to go after the deep state and quit attempting to mollify it with actions such as support of Saudi terrorists. It is a fight to the finish and if the power structure wins, our days are numbered.

    Realist June 13, 2017 at 7:29 am GMT

    Most people in this country don't know what is going on and wouldn't care if they did. Trump and this country are experiencing democracy's waning time in action. And it ain't pretty.

    MEexpert June 13, 2017 at 8:09 am GMT

    Trump is surrounded by judases. His own hand-picked people are not loyal to him, including his vice-president. Trump hasn't shown any cojones that every one expected from him. One little crisis and he has surrendered himself to the neocons. Session is a weak man. He couldn't even stand up to his old buddies who showed no respect to a fellow senator.

    We are approaching something of a civil war where the capital city seeks the overthrow of the sovereign and its own restoration.

    We already have a civil war. It may be bloodless but it is a civil war which it appears Trump is destined to lose unless he shows some courage and brains to turn the scale against the insurgents.

    He should start by firing Rosenstein (sp) and Mueller and dare the congress to impeach him. He should take his case to the voters that had elected him and urge them to call on congress, especially, the Republicans to support him. He should go back to his pre-election agenda and start pulling the US out of the Middle East and make friendly overtures towards Russia. He also needs to rein in the intelligence commmunity and tell them to get off the Iran case and do some real intelligence work. Stop supporting all insurgents in the Middle East no matter what their affiliation.

    From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.

    Finally, I thought by now he should have learned that he cannot govern through the Tweeter. He needs to get off of that binge and get serious. So far he does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy. Bowing down to Israel and Saudi Arabia and do their bidding does not make a foreign policy. One is threatening him while the other is bribing him, neither is a true friend to the US. Except for the supreme court justice position, Trump has nothing to show for his domestic achievements. Republicans need to act as the majority party. They cannot let the Democrats run the congressional business.

    This cannot last for ever.

    hammerfist June 13, 2017 at 9:36 am GMT

    Great article succinct overview. It's a coup we are witnessing

    War for Blair Mountain June 13, 2017 at 9:47 am GMT

    Pat

    Trump will deal with it by bombing Iran and Syria thereby starting a war with Russia. It was always about the Democrats not being sure that Donald Trump had the vigor and enthusiasm to destroy Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel. Honestly, why is Trump worth defending?

    War for Blair Mountain June 13, 2017 at 10:04 am GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    Moreover Donald Trump is hellbent on using the Native Born White Working Class Teeanage Male Population as canon fodder Greater Israel in the Middle East. Trump is a vile, evil creature who will rot in hell for an eternity for doing this .

    The Alarmist June 13, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

    " will not relent until they see him impeached or resigning in disgrace."

    As if they're going to stop there. Those breaches of WH security a while back were the Deep State's warning shot, and you see how quickly Trump about-faced in the ME.

    KenH June 13, 2017 at 11:41 am GMT

    @MEexpert

    From the beginning I have posted on this site that Trump should cancel Obama's executive order allowing NSA to share its intelligence with other agencies unless they officially request it. I can't believe he hasn't done this.

    I agree, but I believe he's kept the EO in place since it's easier to find the leakers this way. But since they've only found Reality Winner thus far either they are progressing slowly or the people in charge of the investigation are actively sabotaging it and protecting some of the leakers.

    Trump better cancel the EO if and when the find all the leakers and if he doesn't he'll unmask himself as a fraud who's smitten by absolute government power. Defense of civil liberties has never been his strong suit.

    Anonymous June 13, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

    @exiled off mainstreet

    Kill Deep State by shutting off funding. Unclassify the whole intelligence budget. Then shut it down. Move the civilian intelligence functions to the military. Return FBI to a domestic agency covering federal crimes, not working closely with CIA or accompanying U.S. military in raids in Afghanistan and Middle East.

    OilcanFloyd June 13, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT

    Trump doesn't even have the good sense or guts to tell his air-head daughter to shut up and knit some mittens for her kids, or to have his shyster son in law get out of government, and mind his own business, which is apparently shady financial and real estate deals and supporting zion. Trump was useful to defeat Hillary, and now that he has served his purpose, the search for a real American patriot and nationalist leader needs to intensify. Trump was never that person.

    I think the nation could come unglued, but I don't see the military joining in, at least not on the side of nationalists against the government. The average American soldier seems to be a PC brainwashed, globalist stooge, and the officer class appears to be made up of weak-minded careerists and yes men, little different from the soldiers, so I don't see much help coming from them. Add that to the fact that the government is trying to pass laws giving amnesty to illegals who will join a U.S. military that already has many soldiers of foreign birth or roots, and I don't see much help coming from the military, which seems to become more distant from the population as time goes by.

    Realist June 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm GMT

    It is hard to believe how naive or stupid Trump has been. He should have fired Comey and hundreds of others in the deep state when he raised his hand from the bible.

    He should have confronted those in his party that are out to destroy him Why did he waste his time interviewing loser like Romney? Was he serious about their possible usefulness? Trump doesn't seem to know that he is under assault. He needs to start some serious ass kicking.

    His involvement in world affairs is stupid and dangerous. He is belligerent and menacing to Russia, Iran, China and middle-eastern countries that Israel doesn't like. This country's existence is at stake and needs all the attention of this administration. Our entanglement in world affairs is not warranted.

    "Trump has had many accomplishments since his election." None of significance.

    Realist June 13, 2017 at 4:26 pm GMT

    @Corvinus "Idiot."

    At least now you are signing your comments.

    gda June 13, 2017 at 5:50 pm GMT

    @MEexpert If you think he has "nothing to show for his domestic achievements" and that he "does not have any coherent domestic or foreign policy" it suggests to me that you're either a Democratic troll, not paying attention, or just plain ignorant.

    One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized as his signature achievement.

    You can easily find the myriad of other domestic and foreign policy achievements if you really want. But its clear you really don't want.

    I find it amusing that you would side with the enemy in recommending he stop tweeting. How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency, BECAUSE he couldn't stop tweeting. They ALL were just as wrong as you are now.

    bluedog June 13, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT

    @Corvinus

    And of course your guessing or assuming when you really don't know war is hell so they say, and we are masters at starting them killing little children, what was the count in Iraq 100,000 500,000 thousand and the masters said it was worth it the problem with the American people including you is its alright as long as it happens in some other country but cry a river at the thoughts it could happen here, now who's the idiot?

    MEexpert June 13, 2017 at 11:53 pm GMT

    @gda

    How many before you said he would never win the nomination, then he would never win the Presidency,

    I don't know, because I never said it. LOL. I voted for Trump. So much for your insight into my motives.

    One example – by pulling out of the Paris "Accord" he has saved the US around $100 trillion over the next 8o years, as well as at least one, if not more, percentage points in GDP growth over those years. Not to speak of millions of jobs. In 10 years time, this will no doubt be recognized as his signature achievement.

    All this is in the future and unknown. $100 trillions sounds great but who came up with this outrageous number. I am talking about now. If he ends the war, the payoff will be immediate with savings in material cost and lives.

    I want him to stop tweeting and pay attention to the consequences of his actions. I don't think he had any idea that the country he was bragging about ostracizing is the host to the largest US military base in the Middle East. Rex Tillerson had to remind him of that.

    Sandy Berger's Socks June 14, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT

    So far, Trump has not shown the requisite amount of intelligence or courage, necessary to take on, let alone defeat, the forces arrayed against him.

    His first 100 days may have sealed his fate. Rather than take the initiative, and launch investigations into Mrs. Clinton's criminal empire, keep all his promises on immigration i.e. end DACA and reinstitute internal immigration enforcement, begin building the wall, etc. He gave up all of his potential leverage and got nothing in return. So much for the Art of the Deal.

    Trump created a vacuum by failing to keep his promises, and his enemies are now using it as a snipers nest.

    Mika-Non June 14, 2017 at 6:00 am GMT

    @Travis That's the essence of it. We can't and won't have a civil war because a civil war requires at least two sides to fight it, and both political parties, all of the institutions, government apparatus, mass media, corporations, and the ruling tribe are on the same side.

    Opposing this is (or was) maybe half the population on a very good day, but what we're seeing is that even half of the population is pretty much powerless in the face of the Empire's juggernaut.

    In my view, the Republicans deserve our special ire because they were in a position to help bring about real change, with this singular opportunity, and they wanted no part of it. Fortunately, their party is toast and we'll enjoy a cataclysm before anyone takes their place. The Democrats? We knew what to expect from them, and still do. They are wrecking this nation systematically.

    Trump would have to be a canny, electrifying, compelling and savvy figure to have even a chance. He's not. We never thought he would be, mind you; we just knew he'd be better than Hillary. Meanwhile, the Empire Strikes Back. It's not going to be pretty.

    anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

    The evil empire owes the world a cold refreshing glass of schadenfreude. So, on with it then!!

    anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT
    @exiled off mainstreet Super-Mega-Evil Imperial terrorists supporting terror from all sides. You think the imperial terrorists can be defeated?

    anonymous June 14, 2017 at 12:32 pm GMT
    @MEexpert " neither is a true friend to the US" You imply that the evil empire can actually be a true friend to others which would be laughable, right? If not, how do you expect others to be just that??

    The people of the Swamp are hostage to the Devil.

    [Jun 14, 2017] Mattis Ready to Blame Russia for Qatar Diplomatic Split by Jason Ditz

    Jun 14, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
    Says He Thinks Russia Just Wants to Break All of the World's Alliances

    assume that last week's report in CNN that Russia had used "fake news" to start the controversy was true, and to elaborate on their motives for that.

    appeared only too eager to make that assumption, as requested, insisting that the he believed this reflected Russia's "shortsighted way" of thinking , and that they want to disrupt all alliances across the planet, not just alliances involving the US, or even just alliances related directly to Europe.

    The narrative blaming Russia for the Qatar split does not have any evidence to substantiate it, and Sen. Warren went out of her way to ensure none might be revealed today. It is worth pointing out, however, that President Trump personally took credit for the split himself when it first happened, crediting it to his visit to Saudi Arabia just days prior.

    Rather, it originates from Qatari state media having quoted the Qatari Emir saying something the Saudis didn't like, and subsequently attributing the quote to "hackers." US media outlets saw the word hackers, and naturally assumed Russia, and it appears that as with everything, this has quickly become something everyone is willing to assume is the case.

    Mattis went on in the course of his testimony to insist he's seen "no indication" that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to have a positive relationship with the United States, apparently taking no note of the several times when Putin literally said that around the 2016 election, and was openly courting diplomatic normalization with the US. Rather, Mattis insists Putin has " chosen to be competitive ."

    The Senate is said to be moving forward on a new round of sanctions against Russia, and some legislation to prevent the Trump Administration from easing the sanctions in any way. There appears to be little interest in gathering actual evidence against Russia to justify this move, and rather seem confident that they can just keep everyone assuming allegations in the media are true.

    [Jun 14, 2017] NBC Butchered Putins Thoughtful Responses to Megyn Kelly. Good for Ratings - and Warmongers by Gilbert Doctorow

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on. ..."
    "... In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day. ..."
    "... Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom • 6 days ago ..."
    "... "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be". ..."
    "... CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!... ..."
    "... She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... ..."
    "... Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west. ..."
    Jun 08, 2017 | russia-insider.com

    An open letter to NBC News about Megyn Kelly's manipulative and shameful interview with Vladimir Putin Thu, Jun 8, 2017 | 7080 90

    Dear NBC News Team,

    Congratulations! You have graduated from fake news to falsified news, arriving at a journalistic level that is identical to that in the Soviet Union in its heyday.

    A couple of days ago, the political talk show moderated by Vladimir Soloviev on state television channel Rossiya 1 broadcast two versions of a segment from Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir Putin last Friday in the St Petersburg on the sidelines of the International Economic Forum. One was the complete, uncut version that was aired on RT. The other was the cut-to-shreds version that you put on air for the American audience. ( Watch here, beginning 4 minutes into the program .)

    The segment was Megyn Kelly's aggressive question to Putin, asking his response to what she said was Americans' understanding of his government, namely one that murders journalists, suppresses political opposition, is rife with corruption, etc., etc. In the NBC version, Putin's answer has been cut to one empty introductory statement that "Russia is on its way to becoming a democracy" bracketed by an equally empty closing sentence. In the full, uncut version , Putin responds to Kelly's allegations point by point and then turns the question around asking what right the USA and the West have to question Russia's record when they have been actively doing much worse than what was in Kelly's charges. He asks where is Occupy Wall Street today, why US and European police use billy clubs and tear gas to break up demonstrations, when Russian police do nothing of the sort, and so on.

    In a word, you intentionally made Putin sound like an empty authoritarian, when he is in fact a very sophisticated debater who outranked your Megyn at every turn during the open panel discussion in the Forum, to the point she was the laughing stock of the day.

    Who wins from these games? You are only preconditioning the American public for the war that is coming, whether by intention or by accident. And there will be no one left to have the last laugh after the first day of that war. So you can forget about your stock options and retirement schemes, ladies and gentlemen of the News Team.

    have a nice day

    Gilbert Doctorow

    Brussels

    Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. His forthcoming book Does the United States Have a Future? will be published on 1 September 2017.

    rosewood11 6 days ago

    The thing that everyone in the American media wants to ignore is this: If any President of any nation knew that one of the candidates in the national election of his biggest rival intended to start a nuclear war with his country as soon as they were elected, do you think he might be tempted to do anything possible to avoid the war? hillary clinton intended to go to nuclear war with Russia and everybody knew it. Why wouldn't Mr. Putin be tempted to try to keep her out of office. He says he didn't do so, and because I trust him (something I'm not so stupid as to do with hillary!!!), I choose to believe him. However, I wouldn't blame him if he had pulled out all the stops to keep her out of office, and can only thank him or any other "patriotic Russian" who saved America from a fate worse than death--namely having a fourth-degree black magic witch as President!!! And that's in addition to saving the lives of millions of people on both sides of the oceans.

    You mentioned in the article that RT ran an uncut version of Megyn Kelly's interview with Vladimir Putin. I tried going to the link you provided, but the show was in Russian without subtitles. Is there a version of the full interview offered anywhere with subtitles or voice-over for those of us in the US who would like to see it? I'd like to know what else Mr. Putin said. see more

    Peter Paul 1950 rosewood11 6 days ago

    Try you tube and enter "putin megyn kelly" and you'll find dozens of clips ... and as to why Putin never intervened may become clear if you take notice of the following .... already in the beginning of 2016 the Russians must have discovered that plans existed to murder Trump ... I read a leaked message that the Russians were ready for war should that occur ... and apparently sent a secret message ... long before the election they had already figured out that Trump was going to win the election because they knew of Hillary's true intentions also ... they had no need to intervene because there are and were forces opposed to her then existing plans to ignite war ... and there must be much more to that, because Putin sent an escort to Antarctica before Kyrill even went there .... and later met the Pope in Mexico ... Kyrill went on to declare a Holy War against Terror a year ago ... a long time before the election took place .... and Kerry slipped off on election day to visit Antarctica himself ... and fell out of bed and bumped his head doing so ... see more

    Peter Paul 1950 see more

    rosewood11 Peter Paul 1950 5 days ago I agree with Astrid (below) in thanking you for the youtube hint. You mentioned the Antarctic. I notice all the globalists seem to be making that a "destination," but I've never seen Putin go himself (good!!!). Anybody know what the fascination is--Is Steve Quayle right? see more

    Peter Paul 1950 rosewood11 5 days ago

    One can't really be sure who is right and if any kind of exaggeration plays a large part of all the tales that have become more public thanks to the internet ...
    ... it's shrouded in mystery that almost anything seems to make some kind of sense ... I first heard of the Nazi connection with the discovery and founding of Newschwabenland and Project High Jump with Admiral Byrd in a private conversation decades in my younger years, but only through the internet was it possible to find out more ... everyone seem so make it a great mystery that there is something there nobody dares to make official ... even Vault 7 appears to add to all the whisperings by adding a collection of photos without comment ... much room for speculation ... but it does seem to be of some importance ... see more

    Richard Burton rosewood11 4 days ago

    Kelly is like all Yanks, she sells herself for Money. A hired serf does what its told, says what its told to say or they are out-the-door on their arse. She may be a cool smart lady but has to tow- the-line. tom 6 days ago

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

    - Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (1816)

    RussG 6 days ago

    Putin should sue NBC for falsifying his interview. And, Putin should never agree again to an interview by one of the US MSM. Vasya Pypkin 6 days ago Faked or falsified news. Could the author provide an example of similar news falsification by Soviet Union media. After many years I find that Soviet media actually was telling truth but smart assses among our population tended to believe lies by Western voices. Many who are still alive regret.

    Otherwise good article. The western media is nothing but lies cloaka. Soviet media also was not entertaining enough mostly talking about industries, crops, health and other substantial and important things while life was stable and predictable.

    Now Russian population is being constantly entertained, but there is little to report on industrial front and there is no confidence in future. Ruble is up and down and crude same. Was it worth to fjkuck up great country to have more entertainment and some artifial sausages varieties while losing what is the most important for human beings. Sorry for a rant. AMHants 6 days ago Surprise surprise, George Eliason - Op Ed News, was right, all along:

    CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!...

    http://themillenniumreport.... Nofearorfavor 5 days ago

    But we all expected this .... It is only that by law, Russia should be able to sue any newscast for editing and thus misrepresenting in particular -- the Russian president's words and thoughts, because of occupying the highest office in Russia. As Gilbert said, the gravity of what it could portend for Americans, is mounting daily...

    Rossiya 1 would perhaps be more cautious second time around ... make it a condition that what the president or any official of the Russian Federation said on tape, should be broadcast in full and no editing -- or face have their pants sued off . What a shameless and gutless excuse for a journalist this Kelly is!

    Strange Quark 5 days ago

    The West has never been a democracy! During the Cold War the so called "democracy" was just a voting facade to hide the fact that the West is OLIGARCHY. What choice do American citizens have in their elections? TWO (that is 2!) parties which both run basically the same imperialist, neocolonialist, hegemonic policy. And economic policy is also the same - neoliberal meaning privatization, outsourcing, policies that favor the rich and harm the poor... Only bloody revolutions can change things. You cannot change the system with voting pencils! Pencils have never changed anything anywhere. Robert Keith 6 days ago Megyn Kelly is, granted, a step above your run-of-the-mil, blond, airhead, TV talking head. I don't know whether President Putin suffered from the juxtaposition, what with her typical-for-TV mundane questions, but, probably not, because it allowed him to give down-to-earth answers to the questions that most Americans seem to be asking themselves, inane though they be. He is very skilled at this, because he makes himself available to his countryman in the same way on a regular basis it seems.

    If one searched elsewhere for the full video, which was available (on this blog), he came across very well, I must say. We will spare the readership any comment on the relative merits of his performance in comparison to what we night have heard from our Chief Executive.

    disqus_xp4GYx7DZk Robert Keith 6 days ago

    She's a media whore...nothing more, nothing less.... see more

    Isabella Jones 6 days ago

    Well, yes it's infuriating, but it was also so very predictable. When I complained about this wretched woman and her boring, predicted and repetitive questions leaving unasked anything to do with the forum leaders speeches and the masses of trade discussion that had happened during the meeting, I was told by many "that this is how Putin can show the West the truth".

    No - he can't, because we know they manipulate, cut, change, and frame it to make it look any way they want. Only those who need no convincing got to see the whole truth - and most of us know it already.

    The only thing to do is ignore America, treat it like the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into - and get intelligent moderators from elsewhere. see more

    Peter Isabella Jones 6 days ago

    "... the meaningless 3 rd World country it is rapidly sinking into ..."

    *Exactly* the conclusion at which the known French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd arrived in his 2001 book "Après L'Empire: essai sur la décomposition du système américain" ("After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order"). His scientific analysis was based primarily on purely demographic data, in addition to other factors: https://www.amazon.com/Afte... . An interesting reading.

    See also his 2003 interview on that topic to Neue Zürcher Zeitung, titled "Das eingebildete Imperium", https://www.nzz.ch/article8... the English translation "The Conceited Empire" is at http://www.countercurrents.... . see more

    Isabella Jones Peter 6 days ago

    Interesting. I had not heard of this man - so thank you for the link Peter. He seems to be thinking along the same lines as Dmitry Orlov, but coming from an Academic and Historian view point. Orlov just saw much of the Russian collapse - he has family in Russia, it is his native language, and he lived there during part of the 1990's if I understand him correctly. He drew a parallel between USSR and America - coming to the same conclusion as this Msr. Todd.

    We are all wondering, of course "when". ?

    It's like knowing the very obese man next door who already has heart and BP problems coupled with Diabetes, but takes no exercise and eats fast food like a hungry pig, is going to have a massive physical break down and die.

    It's just that there 's no way of predicting exactly when. Nofearorfavor Isabella Jones 5 days ago I remember when Putin agreed to be interviewed by Charlie Rose in Sep 2015, condition was that CBS produced the full 60 minutes uncut, which then ran into over 60 minutes. However found this interesting article on State of the Nation about the interview ... El Maestro wiping the floor with Rose and not doing anything to help along his flagging ratings ....now this Kelly tried to do the same and she fell flat on her face... no journalistic integrity at all ...

    http://stateofthenation2012...

    Pretty sorry ass she is ..

    L Garou 3 days ago NBC/CIA.

    Edward Mercer L Garou 2 days ago

    Clarification? see more

    L Garou Edward Mercer 2 days ago

    You can't spell M$M without the CIA.

    chris chuba 4 days ago

    My recommendation for anyone who is being interviewed for American TV is to find out how long the TV segment is and only allow the total interview time to be 1.5 times that amount to only allow reasonable editing, not the standard butchery. So in this case, a 15 minute interview would be sourced by 25 minutes, not the two hours that Putin must have given Kelly since he spent a day with her.

    In all fairness, they had to butcher the question on Russian democracy, journalist killings, etc because Kelly chose to spend 95% of the air time on moronic questions about 'election meddling' as if that deserved more than one question and the expected denial. What the heck did Kelly expect Putin to day about election meddling, yet she kept going back to it. see more

    Augustine 4 days ago

    Unlike in America, in the Soviet Union the people knew that there was no truth in the Pravda nor news in the Izvestya. Nowadays there are more Bolsheviks in New York than in St. Petersburg. see more

    Richard Burton 4 days ago

    nbc are msnbc the same degenerate-infested propaganda US/ BS.

    Putin was fantastic on Kelly's show he is greatly admired by millions and millions in the west.

    Of course the lying bums, the democrats hate it that their 'Miss Piggy' Clinton was beaten, they will keep on their crap for years, nbc and many other so-called news outlets are democrat-lapping rats who spew-out the lies, hate and shit everyday, those slime at cnn are the same pork as is the US poodle Canada's cbc. see more

    angrywhiteman 4 days ago

    More info on US democracy:

    BREAKING : This Powerful Seth Rich Video is GOING VIRAL http://truthfeed.com/breaki...

    Voter Fraud Federal Investigator Found Murdered http://yournewswire.com/vot...

    "The answer to why Seth Rich was killed, and why he gave to WikiLeaks is now out" https://kauilapele.wordpres...

    http://stateofthenation2012... see more

    Wanda Gumm 6 days ago

    Where Megyn failed, NBC succeeds in editorializing Putin as the village idiot. How long before these horse-driven dimwits drown in the cesspools they dig for others? I don't see any way out of this but war. It's not the fictitious 'deep state' Russia should be concerned with, but Trump himself. Playing the Elder.

    [Jun 14, 2017] If it looks like the Russians did it, I can guarantee you it was not the Russians

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server. ..."
    insider.foxnews.com
    Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Jen , June 8, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    Here's my good (?) deed for the day.

    Some news now trickling into the blogosphere that the Democratic National Convention paid Crowdstrike – that's the cyber-security firm headed by Dmitri Alperovich with links to the Chalupa sisters and the Ukrainian diaspora in North America – to hack into its own server.

    "DNC Russian Hackers Found!"
    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=62536

    "CONFIRMED: DNC paid the 'Russian' founder of CrowdStrike to hack its server so it could be blamed on Russia!"
    http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/06/dnc-hackers-finally-identified/

    Global Commenter , June 8, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    Earlier noted in this brilliant piece:

    http://www.eurasiareview.com/07062017-sanctioning-russia-analysis/

    Excerpt –

    "In the US, talk of a Donald Trump-Russian government collusion against Hillary Clinton gets more attention than some other possibilities. Cyber-security developer John McAfee said: "If it looks like the Russians did it, I can guarantee you it was not the Russians." There's a wave of anti-Russian sentiment, as evidenced by the lack of US mass media and body politic condemnation to former National Security Agency (NSA) Director James Clapper's bigoted anti-Russian comment.

    The subject of anti-Russian propaganda brings to mind the pro-Kiev regime leaning Atlantic Council and its cyber-security member CrowdStrike. Entities like them are silent in instances like when Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko falsely stated that Jews in Crimea are prohibited from observing their faith, since that area's reunification with Russia."

    [Jun 14, 2017] James Clapper as one of instigators of Russiagate and probably one of the architects of color revolution against Trump

    Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al , June 7, 2017 at 4:01 am

    James Clapper, former Director of the CIA who lied directly to Congress about whether it was spying on American citizens has very recently said to the Australian Press Club that "I think you compare the two, that Watergate pales, really, in my view, compared to what we're confronting now." and "Is there a smoking gun with all the smoke? I don't know the answer to that. I think it's vital, though, we find that out.".

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/07/james-clapper-says-watergate-pales-in-comparison-with-trump-and-russia-scandal?google_editors_picks=true

    You really cannot make this up and be believed.

    marknesop , June 7, 2017 at 5:47 am
    As has become textbook with modern press roll-overs, they are trying to substitute momentum for evidence, and achieve critical mass without having to cite any real facts you could hang your hat on later. Everyone involved will shake their heads as if coming out of a dream, and say, "Well, we all thought "
    J.T. , June 7, 2017 at 6:31 am
    Hence the reason why I'm barely following the 'Russiagate' coverage anymore. I realized I was being played, so I left.

    [Jun 14, 2017] To say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide for them what is good for America

    Jun 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, June 10, 2017 at 03:22 PM

    There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.

    First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic bubbles and crashes.

    FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing".

    If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real possibility and might happen within a year, or two:

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/jim-rogers-the-worst-crash-in-our-lifetime-is-coming/ar-BBCl6BS?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

    Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz : " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."

    NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping our European vassals in check.

    He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.

    The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.

    In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).

    For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization) the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.

    Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway robbery policy.

    The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late, and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.

    And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks in the past want to cling to power at all costs.

    Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian "war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))

    What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after it.

    Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.

    With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe in".

    And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled Trump election.

    Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics), who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya, Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.

    Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.

    Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.

    In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. And to this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict, and the situation looks really dangerous.

    And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.

    So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide for them what is good for America.

    The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear what they fighting for in Afghanistan.

    Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan. Or even worse then those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.

    So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?

    EMichael - , June 10, 2017 at 04:24 PM
    Do you really think there are many people that are deluded enough to not know who and what you are?

    You are a cancer on this blog.

    libezkova - , June 10, 2017 at 11:35 PM
    William S. Lind on Hillary:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-trump-can-do-for-defense/

    "In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars, wars we will lose.

    Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.

    The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states.

    The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."

    [Jun 14, 2017] Oliver Stone interview is further evidence of hostile press, but he manages to rise above it.

    Jun 14, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Carolinian , June 13, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    If not already linked

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/12/oliver-stone-reveals-a-vulnerable-putin/

    At one point Stone watches Dr. Strangelove with Putin

    After watching the movie with Stone, Putin reflects on its enduring message. "The thing is that since that time little has changed," Putin says. "The only difference is that the modern weapon systems have become more sophisticated, more complex. But this idea of retaliatory weapons, and the inability to control such weapon systems still hold true to this day. It has become even more difficult, more dangerous."

    Stone then gives Putin the movie's DVD case, which Putin carries into an adjoining office before realizing that it is empty. He reemerges, holding the empty case with the quip, "Typical American gift."

    Montanamaven , June 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    Oliver Stone interview is further evidence of hostile press, but he manages to rise above it. Oliver Stone Interview

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , June 13, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    Perhaps Nixon was not so paranoid about resisting the media, which has grown ever more powerful in the last 40 plus years, since Watergate.

    To the extent they are thought of as guarding the nation's health, who will guard the guards, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    This battle between Trump and the media is long overdue, I believe.

    Will we see a swing back by the media toward the middle? We will see.

    John , June 13, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    The media is a privatized neoliberal corporate parasite. It has only one function extracting money from the host. It is amoral and pragmatically political. It will say anything to make money.

    Huey Long , June 13, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    To the extent they are thought of as guarding the nation's health, who will guard the guards, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    I nominate George Smiley.

    Annotherone , June 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm

    We accidentally caught Stephen Colbert interviewing Oliver Stone last evening on a Late Show – I was disgusted by Colbert's treatment of Stone – also disgusting was the audience (obviously coached and organised to jeer and boo). No doubt Colbert was under orders from his corporate bosses – though maybe that's being too kind to him. Controlling the minds of the masses!

    lyman alpha blob , June 13, 2017 at 8:18 pm

    Just watched that and it was awful, but also very clarifying. Colbert's selling out just like Maddow did – she was actually pretty good on Air America a decade ago when she had a show with Daily Show creatrix Liz Winstead.

    Colbert and the audience just assume demonization of Putin is justified while being oblivious to the log (or forest might be more apt) in Uncle Sugar's eye. Wonder how they would describe him if Russian domestic security forces routinely gunned down hundreds or thousands of Russian citizens every year. Some might consider that a sign of a very oppressive government .

    Frustrating to watch people fall for this villain du jour schtick every single time.

    Plenue , June 13, 2017 at 10:26 pm

    I haven't paid attention to Colbert since 2013, when he played a role in the attempt to resuscitate Kissinger's public image (he later allowed Kissinger onto his show for a friendly interview). Oddly I can't seem to find the full video itself, but here's an ABC report on it:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaqhA5qTf7I

    So he had already sold out before he even left Comedy Central.

    Roger Smith , June 13, 2017 at 3:06 pm

    I saw a preview of this on twitter recently. There is the analogous "President" of a country, driving himself, a body guard, and Oliver Stone down the highway. It was such a typical scene, no black limos, no cargo helicopters, no long walks and slow camera pans, just some dudes in traffic. I was wondering if Seinfeld was in the back.

    [Jun 13, 2017] Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way

    Notable quotes:
    "... So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is coming. If the House of Saud, the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree about something then it is time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating catastrophe in Syria? Anything is possible. ..."
    "... The Israeli and Saudi lobbies, and associated actors, seem to have had some success. I still don't see it going much further, Trump instinctively doesn't want another Iraq on his watch whatever the likes of Mattis etc. wish to engineer. ..."
    "... what's been mostly forgotten is that Hearst and his newspapers largely opposed Washington's entry into both WWI and WWII. ' Citizen Kane' and the endless array of Hearst-bashing references ignore this neglected yet significant fact. ..."
    "... All in accord with the rest of the Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iran which Netanyahu's Israel AIPAC agent Kushner has duped the Saudis into supporting as well because of their Sunni vs Shia hatred of Iran: ..."
    "... Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is just window dressing. We're their hired help and security guard. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.unz.com
    truthtellerAryan Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:07 am GMT

    Hi PG, could our commander-in-chief have had ulterior reasons to cook up the ostracizing of Qatar?

    https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_593d6691e4b0c5a35ca06118/amp

    Mind you, we have these obese brainless stooges who would dance to any tune as long as they're assured they'll still be in power comes tomorrow. Now the assurance has also been approved by the masters, DJT is in deeply with the Ziocons . When our masters accomplish this mission, than we'll again be led to the next one. The Ayrabs don't seem to get it yet. They'll all end up in the Zionists slaughterhouse
    It seems Gen. Clark was right, just a little diversion here.
    What will become of the average Goy?

    exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT

    Let me commend Mr. Giraldi for another excellent contribution. The Saudi regime is the chief enemy of civilization and those backing it are tarred with the same brush. It is disappointing to see Trump taken in by the deep state love of the Saudi barbarians.

    Miro23 Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT

    So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is coming. If the House of Saud, the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree about something then it is time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating catastrophe in Syria? Anything is possible.

    A fine article, and the answer to all this surely lies with the US. If Trump had pulled out of Middle East conflicts (as he was elected to do), all this talk would be much less dangerous. Israel and Saudi Arabia aren't going to attack Iran on their own.

    Fran Macadam Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 8:29 am GMT

    It's The Art of the War Deal.

    LondonBob Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:44 am GMT

    The Israeli and Saudi lobbies, and associated actors, seem to have had some success. I still don't see it going much further, Trump instinctively doesn't want another Iraq on his watch whatever the likes of Mattis etc. wish to engineer.

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

    @Mark Green

    what's been mostly forgotten is that Hearst and his newspapers largely opposed Washington's entry into both WWI and WWII. ' Citizen Kane' and the endless array of Hearst-bashing references ignore this neglected yet significant fact.

    Very, very true, and funny how that works. In the same way Charles Lindbergh, because of his opposition to entering WW2, has been egregiously smeared as an "anti-Semite" and the charge still sticks to this day.

    Thanks for pointing that out, and informing us about Poo-litzer.

    RealAmerican Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

    @anon An anonymous dim-witted nincompoop attacking the honorable and brave Mr. Giraldi for speaking the truth. The definition of cowardice, I bet.

    AmericaFirstNow Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT

    All in accord with the rest of the Israeli Likudnik Oded Yinon neocon plan vs Iran which Netanyahu's Israel AIPAC agent Kushner has duped the Saudis into supporting as well because of their Sunni vs Shia hatred of Iran:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/07/13/the-unfolding-of-yinons-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-the-crisis-in-iraq-and-the-centrality-of-the-national-interest-of-israel/

    Netanyahu's Israel 1st AIPAC agent Kushner has Trump pushing Israel Lobby agenda vs Syria as well:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/

    No surprise when pandering Hillary Clinton pushed Syrian regime change for Israel's sake as well:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2016/03/22/clinton-email-shows-us-sought-syria-regime-change-for-israels-sake/

    So ISIS attacks Europe and US because of Israel:

    So no surprise when Netanyahu said US is easily manipulated at following URL:

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2010/07/18/netanyahu-us-easily-manipulated

    George Washington must be rolling in his grave for pandering US politicians who ignore his Farewell Address warning at following URL:

    http://astandforjustice.org/#washington

    Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:20 am GMT

    @exiled off mainstreet

    Let me commend Mr. Giraldi for another excellent contribution. The Saudi regime is the chief enemy of civilization and those backing it are tarred with the same brush. It is disappointing to see Trump taken in by the deep state love of the Saudi barbarians. "The Saudi regime is the chief enemy of civilization "

    Looks like you have a problem with reading comprehension. Read the first two paragraphs again, and then review who is indeed the Chief enemy of civilisation.

    AmericaFirstNow Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

    @AmericaFirstNow

    Just noticed that the youtube for Michael Scheuer's CNN interview with Smerconish about ISIS didn't go through in prior post! Following one should:
    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

    @anon

    Iran poses no threat to the Native Born White American Working Class.

    Your allegiance is to Greater Israel

    Phil and I have 0 allegiance to Israel Donald Trump's allegiance is to Greater Israel and this makes Donald Trump a GOD DAM TRAITOR!!! ...

    dearieme Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:26 am GMT

    "The United States has been using lies to go to war since 1846″: 1812.

    ANON Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT

    @Mark Green Well I have to thank you for prompting me to read up on Joseph Pulitzer"s remarkable career but I can't commend your attention to detail or recommend you as a source of accurate information to others.

    There is a slight problem about your blaming him for being (before WW1) "pro US intervention in Europe" having "demonized Imperial Germany" and then that he "helped sanitize American efforts (pre WW2) to help the British". *He died in 1911* .

    Interesting to compare Pulitzer's great career with that of another Central European Jew who immigrated with no English but built a popular newspaper empire. Both served in the armed forces of their adopted country. The other is that appalling rogue Robert Maxwell.

    AmericaFirstNow Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT

    See following article from Jewish Forward publication on how Netanyahu's Israel 1st AIPAC agent Kushner (who arranged Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel) has brought other Jewish AIPAC Israel 1sters into the White House:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/

    NoseytheDuke Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT

    @Wizard of Oz Idiot! The lie that OBL was involved in any way in 9/11 for just one. The lie that he was killed in the Delta 6 raid in Pakistan is another.

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 11:38 am GMT

    Speaking of lies, war and the media, let us not forget the blatant lying about Stalin's crimes by Walter Duranty published in the New York Times for which the scumbag was awarded a prize by Pulitzer, another Red Millionaire.

    It took the Times around half a century to begin to publicly admit to its callous malfeasance, yet apparently..

    The Pulitzer board has twice declined to withdraw the award, most recently in November 2003, finding "no clear and convincing evidence of deliberate deception" in the 1931 reporting that won the prize (see Pulitzer Board statement), and The Times does not have the award in its possession.

    - New York Times Statement About 1932 Pulitzer Prize Awarded to Walter Duranty

    http://www.nytco.com/new-york-times-statement-about-1932-pulitzer-prize-awarded-to-walter-duranty/

    Also note that in the statement, they deceitfully attempt to shift the responsibility for dirtball reporting on the effects of Soviet censorship, which though real, is no excuse for their mendacity.

    anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:28 pm GMT

    Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is just window dressing. We're their hired help and security guard.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:52 pm GMT

    Phil

    Seriously 1846 is not relevant .and anyone who thinks it is in the context of opposing the ongoing war against Christian Russia and Shia Muslim Iran is not really a serious anti-war critic ..You need to deal with the fact that many of us here on Unz Review do not suffer from even a speck of White Guilt .even Old Noam Chomsky likes his precious Israel Jew only .which is the reason why Noam and Norman Finklestien are opposed to the right of return for Palestinians

    So be a good phenomenologist and remember that context is everything

    Philip Giraldi Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

    @MSB Done! Thanks for catching it!

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

    Jun 6, 2017 America's Reign of Terror: A Nation Reaps What It Sows

    The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror. Just think about it for a minute: almost every tyranny being perpetrated against the citizenry-purportedly to keep us safe and the nation secure-has come about as a result of some threat manufactured in one way or another by the U.S. government.

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT

    Phil

    I can tell you from first hand personal family reasons that the filthy cockroach Donald Trump has very big plans to slaughter the Working Class Native Born White Christian American Male Teenager Population by using them as canon fodder for Greater Israel in a war with Shia Muslim Iran. This is Donald Trump's MAGA JOBS PROGRAM .post-Gruman Corp MAGA rally a year ago

    Trump is as much of a filthy repellent cockroach as Hillary and Bill Clinton.

    It looks like Trump's red hat MAGA HAT WEARING CHICKENHAWK WARHAWK JOCKSNIFFING White Male Voting Bloc Cucks and they are most definitely CUCKS who deserve to have the shit beat out of them .have given Trump a blank check to 1)bomb Hezzbollah in Syria and 2)bomb Shia Muslim Iran for Greater Israel

    Donald Trump+Hillary Clinton=a "cute" post-nuclear WW3 cockroach breeding pair .a 13 billion year COCKROACH RIECH!!!

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT

    @NoseytheDuke I never doubted that you think that but PG is a comparatively serious person and I wondered what he would say, choosing his words as carefully as he quite often seems to. Come to think of it I think he's been caught out being a bit careless on some of his other details this time.

    And what's your version of sbat happened at Abbotabad and why?

    nsa Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

    The jooies and their kept eunuchs in wash dc are complaining their precious US (((holocaust))) museum is only being funded with 54 million in American taxpayer funds. This underfunding is very serious as they will have to close the lampshade wing and the soap bar exhibition. Contact your congressional whore immediately and complain ..

    anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Hey Happy Guy ,
    Whats the problem. Giraldi is always whining about America and praising Iran. Why should he stay here . If he likes Iran so much he should move there . Do you think Giraldi should disclose if he has received money from any Iranian entity ??

    Wizard of Oz Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:08 pm GMT

    @NoseytheDuke Presumably you think ObL died much earlier than the Navy Seals raid. But why would Obama go along with the charade? No doubt you would say he was looking for political advantage domestically – to which of course I answer that he wouldn't be so dumb as to believe that no one would blow the whistle.

    Let's move on to whete you say the extremely long and detailed account of ObL's death in Wikipedia is wrong and say why. In particular, how come Al Qaeda and other Muslim organisations announced his death and threatened revenge?

    War for Blair Mountain Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:18 pm GMT

    @anon Well now first of all, .I want to greet you with a great big FUCK OFF!!! .Dearest Ivanka

    The target of Phil's venom are the Jewish Neocons .and non-Jewish Neocons:The homo- cannibal General Mattis .Hannibal Lectre look-a-like General McMaster in-a-flava-bean-salad with the homo General Mattis .and the filthy cockroach breeding pair Donald Trump and his cockroach husband Hillary Clinton .and the SATANIST!!! that own and run the Military Industrial Complex ..the treasonous SATANIC NON-AMERICAN-ANTI-AMERICAN CABAL spawned in Satan's personal toilet bowl in rancid rotting corpse strewn HELL!!

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT

    @Mark Green True, thank you and depressing, but hope springs eternal and I'm hoping Trump still has some independent thought and some patriotism and patriots behind him!

    Chris Mallory Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete

    Mexico had more right to Tejas than the Zionist gangsters have to Palestine.

    Neither group has any claim to the land. Mexico invited the Americans into Texas, primarily because Mexico could not deal with the Comanche who lived in Texas and raided both Texas and Mexico. Mexico then lost the war against the Texans and lost all claim to Texas.

    Much of the SW, though claimed by Mexico was controlled by either the Comanche or the Apache.

    Those tribes might have a claim, but Mexico has none.

    David Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    @Lot You're displaying poor moral character to call the author America-hating.

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT

    @AmericaFirstNow Unfortunately Mr. Scheuer hasn't been on TV much lately.

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT

    @AmericaFirstNow See following article from Jewish Forward publication on how Netanyahu's Israel 1st AIPAC agent Kushner (who arranged Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia and Israel) has brought other Jewish AIPAC Israel 1sters into the White House:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/ The infestations continue.

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

    @anonymous

    Looks like the Saudis have pretty much bought us off with their ridiculously large arms purchases and other ways of sending their billions our way. Money talks. The other stuff is just window dressing. We're their hired help and security guard.

    Ah but there's the rub, and a good one, as the die hard Zionists in the US Congress, isn't that redundant, are already complaining about the deal. http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-senate-democrats-rallying-votes-against-saudi-arms-sale
    Hopefully the rats will kill themselves!

    Theres also this from 'Up Chuck' Schumer;

    http://www.defensenews.com/articles/schumer-to-oppose-smart-bomb-sale-to-saudi-arabia

    Mark Green Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

    @ANON Joseph Pulitzer II ran the St. Louis Post Dispatch and NY World after his father's death. He was a staunch supporter of FDR.

    MarkinLA Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete Mexico lost Texas because Santa Anna made himself a dictator and caused revolts all around Mexico. The Texans just happened to win. Mexico was trying to raise an army to retake it when the US annexed Texas.

    Mexico made the stupid mistakes. Mexico knew the US wanted Texas and California. Mexico had rejected offers to buy them. Mexico should have done everything it could to avoid giving the US a chance to grab them.

    Dutch Boy Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

    @Lot Quite correct. Polk wanted to buy the eventual Mexican Cession, not conquer it.

    Santoculto Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT

    @anon Jewnonymous

    Realist Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT

    "In a 2009 State Department memo signed off on by Hillary Clinton it was stated that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.""

    Why the hell would use anything Clinton said or did to advocate a position?

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT

    @Chris Mallory You are correct that the Mexicans invited Americans into Texas, (talk about the negative effects of encouraging immigration), and Mexico may never have had much claim to the land, but they still have a more legitimate claim than the Zionist gangsters have on Palestine.

    In fact, if there were no oil in the region, I suspect the Zionists would all move to NYC!

    Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 4:53 pm GMT

    @Mark Green

    Note that the Saudi Royals 1) have totally accepted Israel, 2) have absolutely nothing negative to say (or do) regarding Israel's subjugation of Palestine, 3) are hostile to Iran (like Israel), and 4) are willing also to accept the Kingdoms's second-tier military status vis-a-vis Israel.

    For these reasons, the authoritarian, undemocratic, and terror-funding Royal Saudi family is totally 'in sync' with Zio-Washington. The Saudis are even safe from any potential US-Israeli destabilization campaign. (At least for now.)

    to understand the Saudi leadership, you need only see how they got along with Iran during the reign of the Shah; a Zio/Anglo quisling installed after the CIA putsch that removed the legitimate, democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

    Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious for its torture methods.

    Time magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[24] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963–79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails."[25]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

    it was during this reign of Zionist and Anglo terror that the corrupt House of Saud got along wonderfully with the Shah's Zio-Iran. Here you see the king of Saudi Arabia dancing for the amusement of the treacherous little Shah:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIft-_FcYQ

    - who exhorted the rulers of Saudi Arabia to embrace the cultural and spiritual sewage of the Zio-West thus:

    "Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed women and men. Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern. Otherwise I cannot guarantee you will stay on your throne."[15]

    as long as Iran was under the thrall of the Fiend, the Saudi were their bestest buddies ever. They were also bestest buddies with Israel and England and the ZUSA.

    so much treachery and evil and oppression and murder and torture.. it makes the head spin.

    anyways, what do you expect from a fiend, I guess

    so today the Saudis are still under the thrall of the same Fiend, but Iran is not. Hence Saudi Arabia assassinates Shia clerics it doesn't like, and Iran gets blamed for human rights violations.

    The lies and mendacity and treachery are nearly beyond comprehension. The Saudis toss their fellow Arabs in Palestine under the Zionist bus, and fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians and burn men alive. The stark divisions between good and evil (if there are such concepts) could hardly be more glaring.

    and yet the Zio-fiend has Trump making nice with the murderous, terrorist-funding Saudis, while saber rattling at the peaceful and civilized Iran.

    great article yet again Mr. Giraldi --

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 5:11 pm GMT

    @MarkinLA Yeah, I know all about it. At one time I was a great admirer of the Texians, and the constitution of the Texas Republic, and used to love to visit the Alamo before it was done over. Anyway my main point was not about Mexico or Texas.

    BTW, as you probably know, Davey Crockett was one of the original "Love it or Leave It" dudes and left the US in disgust (in 1836) with craven, dishonest, politicians after his stints in government including Congress and headed for Texas telling the story that if not re-elected, his constituents could go to Hell, and [he] would go to Texas.

    Rotten politicians are an original and permanent feature of American political life, it seems.

    Z-man Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    The homo- cannibal General Mattis .

    LOL!!!

    Sam McGowan Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 5:43 pm GMT

    I've been to Iran and anyone who thinks a war there would be easy has rocks in their head.

    Jake Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:09 pm GMT

    I believe Qatar has the highest per capita income (for its citizens) in the world. That can never sit well with the House of Saud.

    The British Empire made the House of Saud what it is, and the American successors of the Brits intend to keep the con game going. Wise and decent US leadership would recognize the Saudis as the worst of the Middle East and act accordingly. But the English all but created them, and we follow the English lead. And ow that the Israelis dearly love the Saudis, we can expect to see US-Israeli-Saudi mischief all over the region.

    iveritas Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT

    PG is a true and a great patriot. those who have the chutzpa to tell PG, "move to Iran", my message to you is, move to Saudi Arabia or to Israel. But then again, most likely you're already there.

    On the plus side, the personal attacks on PG are great. It means he must be doing something right.

    Not to mention, when comments take the form of personal attacks instead of arguing the principle tenants of the article, it means the other side doesn't have a defensible point of view. Which only means PG's assertions are correct and indisputable.

    I see some red-blooded Americans arguing about Texas, not being in Mexico. These people are forgetting the best form of patriotism is true understanding of our history as a nation. Ignorance and waiving a flag alone is not patriotism. Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles of our nation. Mainly, our constitution. Texas or the number of stars on our flag, etc. does not make America. America for me is the principles our founding father put forth. Which was formulated in a document far advanced for its time (even for today) in the form of our constitution.

    Anything outside of the framework of our nation, I consider false or anger-patriotism. There is a reason why media has played a role in shaping the wars of choice mentioned in this article. Because faced with true facts against the framework of our constitution, those wars are not in the best interests of the public or the country.

    Thank you, PG!

    edNels Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    Now that's something. 13 billion years of COCKROACH REICK PESTILENCE!

    Who or what is underlying the common denominator that makes it compelling to work so hard to bring about the ideal conditions for the Cockroach infestation that will grow after the Nuclear conflagration that is the fruit of Heimy science? (Poison/long half-lives.)

    Or, what is the correlation in DNA of the Cockroach and some humanoids? Ever think of that?

    God (as he may be understood,) or not, has infinity to work it out, and one lead that should be gone into could be where (from a concept called "Morphic Resonance" which posits that within DNA code there is much dormant potentiality, that also can be shown to tie together various diverse life forms.

    INO's, some of the humans are in effect analogous to David Icke's ideas about lizards, or like the Bodysnatchers concept of long ago SF movies, (the one with Kevin McCarthy in BW was good).

    The proclivities of, or the fruits of, the Drift The point aimed at by some people!

    They seem to want to reset Earth to another beginning. A CockRoach Reich!

    Thanks for the idea!

    Mark Green Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT

    @iveritas Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Here is an outstanding essay that distinguishes between patriotism and nationalism. The author is none other than Joe Sobran.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/joseph-sobran/patriotism-or-nationalism/

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT

    @Sam McGowan I don't think a shooting war on Iran is imminent; it's enough to yap about imagined threats to keep people glued to the media and thinking we need the protection of crazies. No threat, less "need" for politicians and the military.

    The more threats, the more dollars for the nut jobs amongst us.

    Civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

    H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women (1918)

    Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor produced a timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning ~38 years ago.

    A timeline of warnings since 1979. Breathless warnings that the Islamic Republic will soon be at the brink of nuclear capability have been made for decades. Here is a chronicle of predictions.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1108/Imminent-Iran-nuclear-threat-A-timeline-of-warnings-since-1979/Israel-s-one-year-timeframe-disproved-2010-11

    jacques sheete Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT

    @iveritas PG is a true and a great patriot. those who have the chutzpa to tell PG, "move to Iran", my message to you is, move to Saudi Arabia or to Israel. But then again, most likely you're already there.

    On the plus side, the personal attacks on PG are great. It means he must be doing something right.

    Not to mention, when comments take the form of personal attacks instead of arguing the principle tenants of the article, it means the other side doesn't have a defensible point of view. Which only means PG's assertions are correct and indisputable.

    I see some red-blooded Americans arguing about Texas, not being in Mexico. These people are forgetting the best form of patriotism is true understanding of our history as a nation. Ignorance and waiving a flag alone is not patriotism. Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles of our nation. Mainly, our constitution. Texas or the number of stars on our flag, etc. does not make America. America for me is the principles our founding father put forth. Which was formulated in a document far advanced for its time (even for today) in the form of our constitution.

    Anything outside of the framework of our nation, I consider false or anger-patriotism. There is a reason why media has played a role in shaping the wars of choice mentioned in this article. Because faced with true facts against the framework of our constitution, those wars are not in the best interests of the public or the country.

    Thank you, PG!

    Patriotism is defending the foundation and principles of our nation. Mainly, our constitution.

    You sound like a highly respectable sort, and I agree with a lot of your comment, but you may want to reconsider your ideas about that document. I consider it a huge link in the chain around our necks. As for the "founding fathers," they were of opposing minds and the anti-federalists had good reasons for arguing against the imposition of the constitution. They were mostly correct.

    In fact, Patrick Henry refused to attend the Constitutional Convention saying, "I smell a rat." He could have been totally anosmic and still would have been able to smell one, or more likely, quite a few.

    The document stinks, and here's why*.:

    The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.

    It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production - Vilescit origine tali. (the dice were loaded from the start)

    Albert Jay Nock, Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle
    [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson]

    https://mises.org/library/liberty-vs-constitution-early-struggle

    *My apologies to those who've seen this numerous times before, but it's a critical message and obviously must be presented to each individual as (s)he steps forward. Thanks in advance for your patience as well as your indulgence!

    truthtellerAryan Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT

    @anon

    Why doesn't Giraldi move to Iran ? Thats where his concerns and allegiance are. And maybe the source of his finances also ?

    I bet they would love a chubby bear like him. Why don't you crawl back to the ghetto that you belong? Why, after over two millennia of living in peace and prosperity in the land of Iran, the loudest voices for going to destroy Iran is coming from Joooies Iranians who have left Iran after the revolution? If they can't pinch a penny from you, you become their enemy. Has their lived such a treacherous bunch? It's greedy Zionists like you that end up putting the whole tribe in trouble

    anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/did-george-w-bush-do-all-he-could-to-prevent-911/411175/-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz obj ected that "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." Clarke responded that, "We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States." To which Wolfowitz replied, "Well, there are others that do as well, at least as much. Iraqi terrorism for example."

    and more "cording to Eichenwald's sources, "the neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the CIA had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat."

    --

    That was the lie about Laden That was the lie

    RobinG Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete Question: How does Mr. Nock define production?

    He wrote, "Not one of them represented the interest of production- " but he had just listed manufacturing as one of the represented interests. Also, in those days, did shipping include ship-building? If not, it was certainly a closely related enterprise. Anyway, you see my point. Nock made an absolute statement, but he himself contradicted it.

    Certainly the scales were weighted, but so much of the argument here is just railing against human nature. Are some people more ambitious or enterprising than others? (Let alone those who are more evil and unscrupulous.)
    Some people are very intelligently curious, but it seems rare that the scientist who makes [often labors over for years] a discovery is the one who profits from it. Not fair perhaps, but the way of business, the way of the world.

    You don't like the Constitution or the Founders? They were the ones who stepped up to take responsibility (and to press their own interests, if you will). It's hard to please everybody. So much harder now that there are so many of us. Just look at how much disagreement there is here in these comments. Can you imagine if there were another revolution, and afterwards a new convention. Do you think they'd crowdsource the new Constitution on the web? Let the computer decide? Who would program the machines?

    truthtellerAryan Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 9:06 pm GMT

    @Mark Green Hi Mark Green, well observed. The Arabs are so blinded by money, so lost in Zionist tricks, are tripping in their own stupidity. One of the largest ethnic-religious groups in the world, wealthy, but as dumb as a door nail, as Edward Said once said "they are a sorry lot ", haven't yet grasped how they're accommodating their own demise. Ironically, they're are paying for all expenses that will finish them, at least send them to dark ages.
    They don't see how they're being played by their half-brothers . I guess treachery is in the blood ..

    anon Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 9:26 pm GMT

    @Rurik

    Note that the Saudi Royals 1) have totally accepted Israel, 2) have absolutely nothing negative to say (or do) regarding Israel's subjugation of Palestine, 3) are hostile to Iran (like Israel), and 4) are willing also to accept the Kingdoms's second-tier military status vis-a-vis Israel.

    For these reasons, the authoritarian, undemocratic, and terror-funding Royal Saudi family is totally 'in sync' with Zio-Washington. The Saudis are even safe from any potential US-Israeli destabilization campaign. (At least for now.)

    to understand the Saudi leadership, you need only see how they got along with Iran during the reign of the Shah; a Zio/Anglo quisling installed after the CIA putsch that removed the legitimate, democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

    Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious for its torture methods.

    Time magazine described SAVAK as having "long been Iran's most hated and feared institution" which had "tortured and murdered thousands of the Shah's opponents."[24] The Federation of American Scientists also found it guilty of "the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners" and symbolizing "the Shah's rule from 1963–79." The FAS list of SAVAK torture methods included "electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails."[25]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

    it was during this reign of Zionist and Anglo terror that the corrupt House of Saud got along wonderfully with the Shah's Zio-Iran. Here you see the king of Saudi Arabia dancing for the amusement of the treacherous little Shah:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYIft-_FcYQ

    - who exhorted the rulers of Saudi Arabia to embrace the cultural and spiritual sewage of the Zio-West thus:

    "Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed women and men. Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern. Otherwise I cannot guarantee you will stay on your throne."[15]

    as long as Iran was under the thrall of the Fiend, the Saudi were their bestest buddies ever. They were also bestest buddies with Israel and England and the ZUSA.

    so much treachery and evil and oppression and murder and torture.. it makes the head spin.

    anyways, what do you expect from a fiend, I guess

    so today the Saudis are still under the thrall of the same Fiend, but Iran is not. Hence Saudi Arabia assassinates Shia clerics it doesn't like, and Iran gets blamed for human rights violations.

    The lies and mendacity and treachery are nearly beyond comprehension. The Saudis toss their fellow Arabs in Palestine under the Zionist bus, and fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians and burn men alive. The stark divisions between good and evil (if there are such concepts) could hardly be more glaring.

    and yet the Zio-fiend has Trump making nice with the murderous, terrorist-funding Saudis, while saber rattling at the peaceful and civilized Iran.

    great article yet again Mr. Giraldi --

    Under the quisling puppet Shah, Iran was terrorized by a CIA/Mossad run organization notorious for its torture methods.

    Lets compare to the current regime that executes Bahai school teachers. Mona Mahmoudenezhad , Bahai school teacher aged 17 years was executed along with 9 other female Bahai school teachers by the Iranian regime you are so fond of. Execution method: Public hanging from crane.

    Also denial of basic human rights : Homosexuality illegal and punishable by death penalty . 150 homosexuals executed each year in Iran .
    Prosletizing Christianity is illegal and punishable by the death penalty . Converting from Islam to Christianity is punishable by the death penalty. In court a mans testimony is given twice the weight of a womans.

    fund and foment ISIS to crucify Christians and burn men alive

    Muslims funding Muslims to kill Christians ? Nothing new . Has been going on for 1400 years.

    truthtellerAryan Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 9:53 pm GMT

    @anon It is official that loving America more than Zionists and Israel is anti-America. How embarrassing, that you see some of our cuck politicians wear flag lapels on their suits with both the Zionist and American flags as one. Treason or patriotism? We've already seen symbolically, the swearing of allegiance to this treacherous "shitty" nation by these so called " patriots "

    Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT

    the only people I'm aware of that were hanged by a crane were some homosexual rapists that raped a young boy

    something the rapists would probably get a medal for doing here in the Zio-West

    so it sounds to me like you're lying or pathetically misinformed

    "Today, there are at least 600 churches and 300,000–370,000 Christians in Iran.[1]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran

    and I understand that there is also a thriving and ancient Jewish community in Iran.

    OK, I checked and the women were hanged back in the early eighties, just following the revolution that freed Iran from decades of Zionist atrocities and rapine, and apparently they were suspected of collaborating with the Zionists somehow. But that was a long time ago, and I don't hold today's Iranian government guilty for what was done decades ago.

    the fact is that Iran has been wronged, (savaged even) by the ZUSA and Israel for a long, long time. Following their revolution that freed them from the Zio-stooge Shah, the ZUSA used their good buddy Saddam to wage a catastrophic war on Iran, and even handed Saddam some nice chemical weapons and gas to use on Iranian troops. Charming huh?

    They've been menaced by Israel for so long that it's part of the fabric of their national narrative, because it seems that the Jewish supremacists can not stand to see others thrive. It drives them whacky- it does. They must have their boot on all throats, Palestinian, Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and everybody else. Iran tells them to fuck off, and the Jewish supremacists go bonkers.

    If there's another world war, it will be forced upon the planet by Jewish, Zionist supremacists and their bought politician whores in London, Paris and DC.

    I pray God speed to Trump in ferreting these Satanic scum out of the government and halls of power here in the former (and soon to be great again) good ol' US of A.

    lavoisier Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT

    @anon The current Iranian regime is at least as ruthless and oppressive as was the regime led by the Shah. However, that regime poses no threat to the United States of America and should not be our problem. Trump is picking a fight with Iran because they threatened Israel. Again, Israel's fights should be their own fights. Leave us out.

    That being said, it is naive to dismiss how much damage we have done to countries like Iran by meddling in their internal affairs and putting in power ruthless puppets like the shah. His cruelty to his own people is what eventually led to his regime being destroyed. If you cause enough harm to people, they will seek revenge.

    If he had been more benevelont and avoided murder and mayhem, he may have been able to turn his country around. But he would also have had to work for the interests of his own people.

    ANON Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:48 pm GMT

    @Mark Green I would say "nice try" but that would be an exaggeration. The NY World closed in 1931 after being sold by the Pulitzers (plural). You would of course know that they were not Jewish but I suppose you could try making something of the fact that their mother was from a formerly slave owning Southern family..

    Rurik Show Comment Next New Comment June 13, 2017 at 10:49 pm GMT

    @anon

    this treacherous "shitty" nation
    Must be strange to totallyl obsessed and consumed with something so trivial as " a shitty nation ". But you being an Aryan I would think you would be more concerned with Germany and the fact that you will lose the Aryan homeland within a couple of generations due to almost zero native birth rate ,a soaring Muslim birhrate from your pet " refugees" and turkish laboreres, and millions more military age Muslim men ( refugees ) pouring over your borders . But don't worry , keep obsessing over Jews. By the way who perpetrated the sexual assault festival at Germanys expense on New Years Eve , Jews or Muslims ,?? Who kidnapped/groomed and pimped out 1400 native British girls in Rotherham , Muslims or Jews ??

    Muslim men ( refugees ) pouring over your borders . But don't worry , keep obsessing over Jews.

    your butt-boy George Soros just got his arse handed to him

    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-06-13/soros-s-native-hungary-approves-crackdown-on-foreign-funded-ngos

    no more kosher Muslims in Hungary

    [Jun 13, 2017] Comey s memos were exceptions to his standard operating procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president

    www.unz.com

    "Comey's memos were not contemporaneous notes done in the ordinary course of business. These were exceptions to his standard operating procedure being created as part of a deliberate plan to generate self-serving material for him to use against the president. Their "revelations" should be accorded extreme skepticism rather than evidentiary weight. He did not inform his superiors after any of the meetings or memos, because, contrary to his testimony, he knew they would have immediately created more distance between him and the president, and that would have ended the game he was playing" [Mark Penn, The Hill]. One of the more entertaining features of the current zeitgeist is that people I heartily dislike keep coming up with perceptive, well-reasoned arguments.

    "Amid Comey chaos, lessons from the history of America's secret police" [DigiBoston]. Worth noting that the FBI wasn't always iconic for liberals.

    "Why Chris Ruddy floated the idea of firing Bob Mueller" [Chris Cillizza, CNN]. "My (educated) guess is that during his visit to the White House on Monday, Ruddy heard that Trump was considering firing Mueller. Ruddy thought, rightly, that doing so would be an absolutely terrible political move. Rather than calling the President to tell him that, Ruddy took to a medium where he knew Trump would listen: TV. We know from the 2016 campaign that Trump's advisers and friends would use cable television appearances to send messages to Trump that he was simply not hearing in private conversations."

    "Russian Cyber Hacks on U.S. Electoral System Far Wider Than Previously Known" [Bloomberg].

    "Special counsel team members donated to Dems, FEC records show" [CNN] .

    [Jun 13, 2017] Bill Clintons Troika of Harvard boys (Sachs, Summers and Rubin) and Soros role in economic rape of Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Soros was deeply immersed in the quicksand of corruption which engulfed Russia in the '90s. After years of preparation, he began his big power play in May 1989, when he began funding a young Harvard economist named Jeffery Sachs to develop an economic reform plan for Poland. Soros paid Sachs and his team through his newly founded Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw. The young economist favored "shock therapy", a sudden lifting of price controls, currency controls, trade restrictions and investment barriers that would plunge the country instantly into the icy waters of free-market competition. The idea was to get the pain of the transition over with as quickly as possible. Poland implemented Sach's plan on 1 January 1990. Hyperinflation immediately soared out of control. It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain to see real change ", Soros wrote later. Ultimately, Poland's "Big Bang" was deemed a success. ..."
    "... Gorbachev set out to achieve this but he went about things the wrong way and attempted to make too many radical changes too fast. Some of his hair brained schemes (whether this was done deliberately to cripple the country or just out of stupidity) like the alcohol ban lead to major discontent and unrest. Furthermore, and far worse, Gorbachev and many in his circle somehow got into bed with Western Globalists . I don't know where and how exactly this started, and I don't have much information to source this claim, but if one looks at how the Soviet Union ended up by the 1990's it's the only logical explanation. ..."
    "... Gorbachev and his people - through a combination of idiocy, incompetency, delusions of grandeur and treachery - screwed the Soviet Union. The West moved quickly to pay off the leadership in former Soviet Republics (Ukraine in particular) to not remain in a Union State with Russia. In Russia, Yeltsin and the Jewish Oligarchy (funded by Rothschild & Globalist Kikery, just like the Communists were in the 1917 Revolution) somehow got into power after Gorbachev lost his grip on power and the rest is history. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | thebeerbarrel.net

    Ozzy Bon Halen

    From the beginning Pres Clinton chose to deal with Russia and the former Soviet States through private back channels, circumventing normal State Dept procedures. He appointed what became known as a "troika", three officials endowed with extraordinary authority over US-Russia relations. This troika included Strobe Talbott at the State Department, Lawrence Summers at the Treasury and Vice Pres Al Gore. Talbott had been Bill Clinton's roommate and fellow Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. He was the first of the troika to be appointed, and was the leader of the group. On 19 January 1993, Clinton invented a new title for Talbott, naming him Ambassador-at-large to Russia. Business Week accordingly dubbed Talbott the Clinton Admin's "Russia Policy Czar".

    To guide him through the mysterious byways of the former Soviet States, Talbott turned to a businessman with experience in the regio: George Soros. Talbott added that he considered Soros "....a National treasure".

    The period of Soros' financial and political suzerainty coincided with Russia's wholesale collapse into corruption and anarchy. David Ignatius of The Washinggton Post held the Clinton Admin largely to blame. "Let's call it Russiagate", he wrote in an article of 25 August 1999, in which he decried, "the lawlessness of modern Russia and the acquiescence of the Clinton Admin in the process of decay and decline there". Ignatius concluded, "What makes the Russian case so sad is that the Clinton Admin may have squandered one of the most precious assets imaginable, which is the idealism and goodwill of the Russian people as they emerged from 70 years of Communist Rule. The Russian debacle may haunt us for generations".

    Soros was deeply immersed in the quicksand of corruption which engulfed Russia in the '90s. After years of preparation, he began his big power play in May 1989, when he began funding a young Harvard economist named Jeffery Sachs to develop an economic reform plan for Poland. Soros paid Sachs and his team through his newly founded Stefan Batory Foundation in Warsaw. The young economist favored "shock therapy", a sudden lifting of price controls, currency controls, trade restrictions and investment barriers that would plunge the country instantly into the icy waters of free-market competition. The idea was to get the pain of the transition over with as quickly as possible. Poland implemented Sach's plan on 1 January 1990. Hyperinflation immediately soared out of control. It was very tough on the population, but people were willing to take a lot of pain to see real change ", Soros wrote later. Ultimately, Poland's "Big Bang" was deemed a success.

    Soros and Sachs went to Moscow next, seeking to persuade Gorbachev to try shock therapy in the Soviet Union. Gorbachev rejected their plan which angered soros. Later, when Gorbachev tried to secure loans from Western Lenders, Soros undermined him, denouncing the Soviet Leader. Soros' attack damaged Gorbachev's reputation in the West, impeding his access to foreign aid. As the soviet economy faltered, Gorbachev's power weakened. Kremlin hardliners attempted a coup in august 1991, setting off a chain of reactions that resulted in Gorbachev's ouster. The coup itself failed, but the soviet Union split up, and Gorbachev was obliged to resign. Boris Yeltsin became Russia's new leader.

    Yeltsin proved more cooperative than his predecessor. Now Soros and Sachs could finally get down to the serious business of implementing their shock therapy plan. Russia lifted its price controls on 2 January 1992. The life savings of ordinary Russians went up in smoke as inflation hit 2,500%. That was only the beginning. What followed was one of the greatest economic catastrophes in history.

    Over the next four years, a cabal of corrupt officials and businessman, both Russian and American, used their govt connections to hijack Russia's privatization process for their own personal gain. They bought up the Crown Jewels of Russia's Economy for a fraction of their worth in rigged elections and stole billions of dollars from foreign aid loans earmarked for economic development projects. Russia scholar Peter Reddaway estimates that between 1992 and 1996, "although 57% of Russia's firms were privatized, the State budget received only $3-5 billion for them, because they were sold at nominal prices to corrupt cliques". By 1996, a group of 7 Russian businessman had managed to gain control of 60% of Russia's natural resources, including its precious oil and gas reserves. Through their manipulations behind the scenes, , this group exercised de facto control over the Russian gov , for which reason the Russians called them the "oligarchs". It is largely due to widespread disgust with the corrupt reign of the oligarchs that so many Russians today look favorably to Putin's iron fisted but orderly rule.

    Throughout the 90s, Sachs and Soros wielded enormous influence in Russia. From 1995 to 1999, Sachs headed the Harvard Institute For International Development, through which Harvard University provided economic development assistance to needy countries. Much as Strobe Talbott delegated important aspects of US-Russia diplomacy to George Soros in the 90s, the US agency Intl Development likewise delegated to the Harvard Institute the job of overseeing Russia's transformation to a market economy. They put Sachs and his team in the position of official economic advisors to Boris Yeltsin, representing the US Govt. Russians called them the "Gavardniki"- the Harvard boys.

    The Gavardniki could make or break Russian officials by deciding who would get foreign aid grants and who would not. Their influence over Yeltsin was such that he frequently bypassed the Russian Parliament, issuing Presidential decrees to enact the Harvard team's reforms. At times, the men from Harvard would even draft Yeltsin's decrees with their own hands. All of this meddling in Russia's internal affairs might have been excusable and even commendable, had the Gavardniki proved wise and trustworthy counselors. All too often, however, they used their influence to push bad policy for selfish reasons. The Harvard Institute's Russian operations quickly became a hotbed of corruption, as its envoys exploited its access to Yeltsin and the Russian Oligarchs for personal gain.

    Jeffrey Sachs has not been accused of profiting personally from these activities. Nevertheless, the cloud of scandal which consumed the institute on his watch reflects poorly on his leadership, to say the least. Sachs resigned as director of the institute on 25 May 1999, even as the US Justice Dept were investigating their Russian operations. Harvard shut down the scandal ridden institute in January 2000, but not soon enough to avoid a Justice Dept lawsuit charging Institute personnel with fraudulent misuse of USAID funds. Harvard settled the case out of court for $26 million- a mere wrist slap considering the damage the institute had done to the Russian economy and to US-Russia relations. Oddly, Tthe Russian scandal left no perceptible marks on Prof Sachs' reputation.

    The Soros empire was short lived. By 1998 federal investigators in the US were scrutinizing billions of dollars in illegal transfers flowing out of Russia through the Bank of New York and other large banks. As the magnitude of the pilferage began leaking into Western Media, foreign aid and foreign investment slowed to a trickle. Everything finally came to a screeching halt on "Black Monday", 17 Agust 1998, when Russia was forced to devalue the ruble and default on its debt. Rep Jim Leach, head of the House Banking Committee, announced Sept 1, 1999 that that the Russia scandal could prove to be "one of the greatest social robberies in history". Based on preliminary inquiries, Leach declared that he was "very confident" that at least $100 billion had been laundered out of Russia, an unknown portion of which may have been diverted from the IMF and other foreign aid loans.

    Journalist Anne Williamson, appearing before Leach's House Banking Committee, explained to a panel of stunned congressmen how so many US taxpayer dollars had managed to go missing in Russia. She told the committee that the Clintons had managed to set up an "International Patronage Machine". Clintonites in the guise of "consultants" to the Russian Govt requested and received loans, virtually at will, through such International lending agencies as the IMF, the World Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank. Few questioned the loans, said Williamson, because the Clinton administration had designated Russian "privatization" a "national security" priority. Much of the money simpply vanished into offshore accounts or the NYSE. Other monies were invested in Russian junk bonds, privatization auctions or other lucrative schemes. A handful of inside players, Russian and American alike, got rich, while the average Russian- not too mention the US taxpayer- got fleeced.

    Soros insists that his own investments in Russia were squeaky clean. this is debatable. His privileged access to Kremlin officials and friendly oligarchs helped lubricate many deals. Williamson notes that Soros invested in Russia's second largest steel mill, Novolipetsk Kombinat, and in the Russian oil firm Sidanko. Joining Soros in these purchases were the Harvard Management Co, which invests Harvard Uni's multi-billion dollar endowment fund. Soros and Harvard Management purchased shares in Sidanko and Novolipetsk in 1995, through rigged elections. Technically speaking, the bidding was closed to foreigners. Soros and Harvard sidestepped the no foreigners rule by making their purchases through the sputnik fund - an investment group tied to the powerful, corrupt Russian Oligarch Vladimir Potanin.

    It all comes out in the karmic wash, argues Soros, because once he has executed a deal and made money, he can use his profits for the "betterment" of humanity- as he sees it.

    Angroid Mar 24, 2017
    Contrary to what most supposed "experts" in Western Media claim about that period, Russia was still a relatively wealthy country when the Soviet Union broke up. That soon changed once the Harvard Boys, Clinton Insiders, Rothschilds, Soros, Russian crooks, Jewish "Russian" crooks, Yeltsin etc got themselves into position.

    Russia was basically looted as the article described via all sorts of corrupt schemes and scams and the country was plunged into a decade of economic and social destruction, the scale of which is hard to comprehend. Entire industries disappeared, factories were gutted, salaries weren't paid for months, State assets got were stolen for chump change by oligarchs who were funded by the usual scheissters (Rothschilds, Euro nobility, Soros etc).

    The country was well on the way toward fragmentation (which is exactly what the perpetrators and their insider thieving connections were hoping for.)

    The process of destruction only really ended once Putin got into power. And that's why the media and the Western Oligarchy hate him so much.

    Ozzy Bon Halen
    Russia was basically looted as the article described
    Actually, it was a condensed chapter from a book called The Shadow Party. I couldn't find some of the info in it anywhere else on the webs, so I decided to type it in manually and post it. I heard that there is a book called Sale of The Century that's pretty good, too. I haven't gotten around to reading that one yet, though.
    rasputin
    I lived through several years of Yeltsin, and many people were literally starving -- not to death of course, but being able to afford only basic staples. But the problems didn't start with Yeltsin, it all started going to shit with Gorbachev.
    Angroid

    Afaik the Soviet Union peaked socially in the late 50's and 60's. What had basically happened was that this generation who matured by that time were tough, smart, hard working people - they had to be, since they somehow survived the Bolsheviks, WW2 etc. That generation worked miracles. They won the war, they worked incredibly hard, incredibly fast and made phenomenal progress against the odds with regards to infrastructural upgrades, technology & science, rebuilding the country etc etc.

    What happened from the 60's or so was that the leadership became old and tired, they became more out of touch with the times and the general population. Things started stagnating, corruption increased etc. By the time Gorbachev got into power the system was already in dire need of overhaul and new ways and ideas.

    Gorbachev set out to achieve this but he went about things the wrong way and attempted to make too many radical changes too fast. Some of his hair brained schemes (whether this was done deliberately to cripple the country or just out of stupidity) like the alcohol ban lead to major discontent and unrest. Furthermore, and far worse, Gorbachev and many in his circle somehow got into bed with Western Globalists . I don't know where and how exactly this started, and I don't have much information to source this claim, but if one looks at how the Soviet Union ended up by the 1990's it's the only logical explanation.

    Gorbachev and his people - through a combination of idiocy, incompetency, delusions of grandeur and treachery - screwed the Soviet Union. The West moved quickly to pay off the leadership in former Soviet Republics (Ukraine in particular) to not remain in a Union State with Russia. In Russia, Yeltsin and the Jewish Oligarchy (funded by Rothschild & Globalist Kikery, just like the Communists were in the 1917 Revolution) somehow got into power after Gorbachev lost his grip on power and the rest is history.

    rasputin

    Khruschev (a khakhol) was a disaster. Brezhnev (another khakhol) was pretty bad either. Gorbachev is from the south of Russia too, kind of a weak person who got on top as a compromise figure.

    [Jun 13, 2017] Trump advances his pawns,

    Thierry Meyssan thinks that Trump did not folded. This is a questionable assumption.
    Notable quotes:
    "... During the Summit of the Arabo-Muslim States, on 21 May in Riyadh, Donald Trump appealed to his interlocutors in general and Saudi Arabia in particular to break off all contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and to sever all ties with Islamic terrorism [ 2 ]. Aware that he was asking King Salman to give up his main army, he gifted him with a replacement arsenal worth 110 billion dollars. ..."
    "... However, it does seem possible that France and Germany are beginning to clean up their services. It will take them a while. Donald Trump has still not been able to do so in his own administration. ..."
    "... on 20 May in Jeddah, the Pentagon delivered arms to the jihadists, honouring a contract signed in the final days of the Presidential transition [ 7 ]. These new weapons include multiple rocket-launchers and Bulgarian OT-64 SKOT tanks. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.voltairenet.org

    From the 3rd conference of the Friends of Syria, on 6 July 2012 in Paris, to the investiture of President Trump, on 21 January 2017 in Washington, the United States, France and the United Kingdom never ceased organising the war against Syria, while constantly pretending to be negotiating a political resolution.

    Over the last 16 years, and particularly during his Presidential electoral campaign, Donald Trump has presented himself as a militant anti-imperialist. Contrary to what is claimed by his detractors, the fact that he is a billionaire in no way compromises his political convictions.

    Since he arrived at the White House [ 1 ], President Trump has had to fight against his own administration, of which 98% of the senior civil servants voted Hillary Clinton, and also against the allied governments of his predecessor.

    So, over the last four months, he has continued to follow his desire to liberate his country and the world by instigating a series of actions which his adversaries either deform or present as contradictory.

    During the Summit of the Arabo-Muslim States, on 21 May in Riyadh, Donald Trump appealed to his interlocutors in general and Saudi Arabia in particular to break off all contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and to sever all ties with Islamic terrorism [ 2 ]. Aware that he was asking King Salman to give up his main army, he gifted him with a replacement arsenal worth 110 billion dollars.

    Despite the bursts of generosity of the King and his court, at the end of the summit, Saudi Arabia published a declaration without prior approval by the other participants [ 3 ]. This document may be read as the announcement of the creation of an " Islamic Military Coalition ", an expansion of the " Joint Arab Forces " whom we saw at work in Yemen. But it may also serve later as a justification for Saudi occupation of regions of Syria, Iraq and elsewhere which had been liberated by Daesh.

    At the Nato summit, on 25 May in Brussels, Donald Trump invited his allies to offer a minute of silence before a fragment of the Berlin Wall and a piece of débris from the Twin Towers. Reminding them that they had accepted – in the name of Article 5 of the Treaty - the principle of the fight against terrorism during the attacks of 9/11, he obliged them to redirect the aims of the Alliance [ 4 ]. It will of course maintain its anti-Russian function, but is now dedicated to the eradication of the jihadists which it has so far been coordinating from the base at Izmir (Turkey). As well as this, he compelled them to share their information concerning terrorist organisations via a Coordinated Intelligence Cell.

    At the G7 Summit in Taormina, 26 May, Donald Trump managed to strong-arm his allies into making a declaration " against terrorism and violent extremism " [ 5 ]. In reality, his partners only accepted the agreement in order to prevent the spilling over of terrorism to the West from the areas where they organise it, finance it and supervise it. In any case, the G7 began a process aimed at drying up not only the financing of terrorism, but also that of violent extremism, in other words the Muslim Brotherhood, the source of terrorism.

    This declaration was only possible in the context of the attack in Manchester perpetrated on 22 May, by the son of an M16 double agent, both an ex-member of Mouamar Kadhafi's security services and of Al-Qaïda [ 6 ]. But it is clear that the British still have no intention of depriving themselves of the Muslim Brotherhood.

    However, it does seem possible that France and Germany are beginning to clean up their services. It will take them a while. Donald Trump has still not been able to do so in his own administration.

    Thus, on 20 May in Jeddah, the Pentagon delivered arms to the jihadists, honouring a contract signed in the final days of the Presidential transition [ 7 ]. These new weapons include multiple rocket-launchers and Bulgarian OT-64 SKOT tanks. Thierry Meyssan

    Translation Pete Kimberley

    Source Al-Watan (Syria)
    [ 1 ] " Donald Trump Inauguration Speech ", by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network , 21 January 2017.

    [ 2 ] " Donald Trump's Speech to the Arab Islamic American Summit ", by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network , 21 May 2017.

    [ 3 ] " Riyadh Declaration ", Voltaire Network , 23 May 2017.

    [ 4 ] " Remarks by Donald Trump at NATO Unveiling of the Article 5 and Berlin Wall Memorials ", by Donald Trump, Voltaire Network , 25 May 2017.

    [ 5 ] " G7 Taormina Statement on the Fight Against Terrorism and Violent Extremism ", Voltaire Network , 26 May 2017.

    [ 6 ] " Manchester Attack as MI6 Blowback ", Translation Evan Jones, Voltaire Network , 25 May 2017.

    [ 7 ] " The Pentagon is following through on arms agreements that Obama made with Jihadists ", Translation Anoosha Boralessa, Voltaire Network , 30 May 2017.

    Thierry Meyssan

    [Jun 13, 2017] Democrats hope to parlay the latest furor surrounding the Russia investigations into political victory in the Midwest

    Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    New Cold War

    "National Democrats hoping to parlay the latest furor surrounding the Russia investigations into political victory in the Midwest may want to take a different tack" [ NBC ]. "The party has targeted Iowa's 1st Congressional District, currently represented by Republican Rod Blum, as a battleground in the 2018 house race. But in the days leading up to former FBI Director James Comey's blockbuster testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, residents made it clear that while news of the scandal billowing around President Donald Trump's White House was impossible to avoid, it was far from their biggest concern. Most constituents interviewed by NBC News said that they need to see fire before they come to any conclusions about the Russia investigation and added that they are beginning to tune out news connected to it because of fatigue. Voters here are more concerned about issues like health care, veterans' benefits, Planned Parenthood and infrastructure."

    "A Shining Comey on a Hill" [ Foreign Policy ]. Help me.

    UPDATE "Virginia governor says Russia was helped by 'treasonous' Americans who gave 'these people a roadmap'" [ The Week ]. Making it all the more remarkable that some kind soul in the intelligence community hasn't risked their career to expose the traitors by coming forward with evidence (Reality Winner seems to be a kind soul, and she did risk her career, but the evidence part ) We really do need more than the word of a corrupt Clintonite - sorry for the redundancy - blowhard on this.

    Our Famously Free Press

    "And then there's the dirty little secret that every journalist knows - Trump stories drive ratings and clicks. The word 'Trump' in a headline vastly increases its chances of getting attention. (We're all guilty; see above.)" [Margeret Sullivan, WaPo ]. After shredding the notion of "balance," Sullivan considers what the press should do. For example:

    Do news sites give serious, sustained attention to policy issues as well as publishing innumerable hot takes about the ­personality-driven dust-up of the moment?

    Harvard professor Thomas E. Patterson, the study's author, sees trouble on that last point.

    "The press is focusing on personality, not substance," he said recently on public radio's "On the Media" program. And that reflects "not a partisan bias but a journalistic bias," the tendency to seek out conflict. (No mystery there - it's more interesting.)

    Trump stories are cheap to produce, because they generally don't require reporting. Or editing, apparently:

    [Jun 13, 2017] Reality Winner throw away her career and life for nothing

    Notable quotes:
    "... The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle. ..."
    "... This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool. ..."
    "... In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally. ..."
    "... He is lying about this and more because he needs a cover to avoid going after Clinton. Comey is a pathetic creature desperate to cover for someone who could have owed him a huuuuuge favor or that he could blackmail. ..."
    "... He just simply lacked the political and theatrical acumen to pull it off and was undone by the court jester – Gowdey. The shame of it all – to be annihilated by a fool and sacked by a mobsters tool. ..."
    "... I don't think he's lying. It's worse in that he believes the Russian hacking as presented to him by his subordinates and peers as true. Similar to Colin Powell believing in WMD evidence as found and presented to him. These "rational/reasonable/respected" people by their lack of critical skepticism cause more problems than the obvious and self aware snake oil salesmen. ..."
    "... Comey's testimony actually amounted to saying Trump was correct all those weeks he was insisting the FBI wasn't investigating him when he fired Comey. But the media is just barreling on ahead as if Trump hasn't been vindicated. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    XXX

    Reality Winner throw away her career and life for nothing--as that NSA memo wasn't a smoking gun and added nothing new (and further evidence that the intelligence community would label a Wikipedia article as "Top Secret")

    And Reality had awful/naive "operational security." Anyone who read a few John LeCarre/Tom Clancy novels would've done better at avoiding detection.

    JTMcPhee , June 12, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    Hey, another gal took a big risk and wound up reasonably comfortable - what was her name, oh yeah, Monica Lewinski or something

    Quentin , June 12, 2017 at 4:33 pm

    She ended up 'reasonably comfortable'? Your source?

    RUKidding , June 12, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    What? Monica has not had an easy time of it. Yes, her choice, but still.

    I don't see how you come by comparing what Monica Lewinsky did (which in no way compromised state secrets) with what Reality Winner did (I don't think she compromised state secrets, but she published what I thought was called a "Top Secret" document).

    Two entirely different things. What's the connection? That they both have lady parts?

    Seems like weird slut shaming to me.

    Alex Morfesis , June 12, 2017 at 5:39 pm

    Her father was a fairly large bundler of donations for the democratic party and her step dad was former head of voice of america she did not grow up in a family with any real financial stress and there has been no suggestion anywhere she has had to wait tables one does not get internships at the wh without some pull

    RUKidding , June 12, 2017 at 6:39 pm

    What does that have to do with what Reality Winner did? The initiating email in this thread discusses Reality Winner and the issue about her release of a top secret document.

    Somehow that devolves into some weird slut shaming of Monica Lewinsky? WTF?

    Again: why are we even discussing Monica Lewinsky in a thread that is about Reality Winner?

    Very strange vibe going on here, imo.

    Skip Intro , June 12, 2017 at 4:36 pm

    The NSA document was very important. It basically proved, according to Scott Ritter, that the NSA had no real evidence of any Russian involvement, and relied on speculation from a single source: DNC contractor CrowdStrike, which recently had to retract a similar claim about Russian hacking of Ukrainian artillery. The real story behind 'Reality Winner' remains, I am sure, unknown. This might well be a ploy to undermine the anti-Russia hype, though the media cartel has trumpeted it uncritically for the short-term rush of goosing the Comey spectacle.

    This makes the refusal of the DNC to let the FBI examine those servers even more suspect. OTOH, one can see the thought processes in the DNC: A breach was discovered. If we blame the Russians not only do we further the neo-con agenda, but we also get to call anyone who publishes or cites the material taken from the servers a Russian tool.

    In fact, if they knew they had internal leakers, it would still be worth claiming to have been hacked by the Russians, so that internally leaked material could be 'poisoned' as part of a Russian plot. Talking points to this effect were ubiquitous and apparently well coordinated, turning virtually every MSM discussion of the content of the leaks into a screed about stolen documents and Russian hackers. It also put a nice fresh coat of paint on the target painted on Assange, turning the undiscerning left against a once valuable ally.

    Kim Kaufman , June 12, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    And yet Comey said it was definitely hacked by Russians. Odd. No evidence anywhere yet. Is he lying about this? Why?

    uncle tungsten , June 12, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    He is lying about this and more because he needs a cover to avoid going after Clinton. Comey is a pathetic creature desperate to cover for someone who could have owed him a huuuuuge favor or that he could blackmail.

    He just simply lacked the political and theatrical acumen to pull it off and was undone by the court jester – Gowdey. The shame of it all – to be annihilated by a fool and sacked by a mobsters tool.

    YY , June 12, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    I don't think he's lying. It's worse in that he believes the Russian hacking as presented to him by his subordinates and peers as true. Similar to Colin Powell believing in WMD evidence as found and presented to him. These "rational/reasonable/respected" people by their lack of critical skepticism cause more problems than the obvious and self aware snake oil salesmen.

    Plenue , June 12, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    "especially the explosive testimony of former FBI director James Comey"

    I find this downright amazing. Comey's testimony actually amounted to saying Trump was correct all those weeks he was insisting the FBI wasn't investigating him when he fired Comey. But the media is just barreling on ahead as if Trump hasn't been vindicated.

    [Jun 13, 2017] BOOK The Shadow Party RichardPoe.com

    Jun 13, 2017 | www.richardpoe.com

    January 26, 2012: "I paid a huge, huge price for going after George Soros," Glenn Beck told Shadow Party co-author Richard Poe. "But I ain't dead. And quite honestly, I thought that was an option. I said on the air, at one point, if I show up dead, check Soros!" ( WATCH THE VIDEO )

    The Shadow Party shines a light on the hidden world of multibillionaire George Soros. It explains how he uses his philanthropic activities as camouflage for covert political operations in many countries.

    Soros has undermined currencies, subverted elections and overturned governments all over the world. Now he is targeting the United States.
    GLENN BECK: THE PUPPET MASTER GEORGE SOROS
    November 9-11, 2010

    In November 2010, Glenn Beck aired a three-part investigative series called "The Puppetmaster George Soros." Drawing heavily on The Shadow Party , a book by David Horowitz and Richard Poe, Beck accused billionaire George Soros of using his global network of philanthropies as a front for covert operations. He accused Soros of overthrowing governments in several countries, through economic sabotage and disruption of elections. Finally, Beck charged Soros with using these same techniques in an effort to destabilize the United States.

    [Jun 13, 2017] After US intevertions the entire Middle East situation is now a gigantic mess

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know the Saudi's are running out of oil (peak oil for them). I don't know what the Israelis are trying to do, since they have little more than a huge dessert. When the oil runs out, the Oil Kings will no longer be able to provide their subjects with a miserable "basic income". ..."
    "... For the US, it really looks like "War Is Our Only Product". It would be much nicer if the Oil Kings would just cash in their chips and get out. But NO: They have to trash the whole place first. ..."
    "... Like James says, it ain't over yet. The west employs some sneaky and nefarious trickery and, when that fails, an all-out show of R2P fireworks. Let's hope that the Pentagon can rein in the CIA and Trump can see the writing on the wall and DO THE RIGHT THING, which is really the only option. ..."
    "... I feel like my understanding of the world and the nature of empires has come of age during the Syrian War. Much like the Iran-Iraq War, it has left generations of Arabs and Persians and Druze and Kurds utterly depleted yet, in the end, hopeful for their future, having, hopefully, defeated a great evil. It doesn't mean much, but one day I hope that I can visit Syria's Monument to their fallen and offer my most grave and sincere apology as a westerner. ..."
    "... Simple version: There were many non-Syrian Kurd economic immigrants in the early 1960's that were trying to settle in Syria - no different than the millions of illegal Mexican, South American and Asian immigrants in the U.S. today. A heavy-handed Kurd census by the Syrian government in 1962 attempted to identify legal Syrian citizen Kurds from illegal immigrant Kurds. That left about 20% of the (then) Syrian Kurdish population - about 300K - stateless non-citizens. ..."
    "... Syria made a sort of botched effort in 2011 to rectify the problem for the legitimate Syrian Kurds (of the 300K) previously considered undocumented, but the status of only a few thousand was ever settled. Far more needs to be done. Despite that, there are still several hundred thousand or more illegal Kurdish immigrants inside Syria today that Syria had no legal obligation to grant citizenship. A moral obligation perhaps, but that's up to the Syrian people to decide. ..."
    "... It was western MSM that painted this as widespread Kurdish oppression by Assad's cruel regime, denying any and all Kurds their Syrian citizenship. The same western MSM that is shocked that Trump won't automatically declare citizenship to the eight million or so illegal, undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S. ..."
    "... The west has also exaggerated the Kurdish rights issues by repeatedly saying that Kurds could not use Kurdish or teach in Kurdish in schools. This is no different than Spanish-speaking immigrants in the U.S. demanding that schools teach them in Spanish and all government services be made available to them in Spanish because that's the language they want to speak, not English. Kurds were never prohibited from opening their own schools and teaching their kids in Kurdish. They wanted the Syrian government to provide these services and the Syrian government refused. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    blues | Jun 13, 2017 3:18:02 PM | 3

    Really the entire Middle East situation, everything there except perhaps Iran, is one gigantic mess that makes no sense. I know the Saudi's are running out of oil (peak oil for them). I don't know what the Israelis are trying to do, since they have little more than a huge dessert. When the oil runs out, the Oil Kings will no longer be able to provide their subjects with a miserable "basic income".

    For the US, it really looks like "War Is Our Only Product". It would be much nicer if the Oil Kings would just cash in their chips and get out. But NO: They have to trash the whole place first.

    plantman | Jun 13, 2017 4:22:05 PM | 7

    Excellent report, but a bit too optimistic, I think.

    The US will be forced to move North from al Tanf in order to connect their forces and create one large landmass consistent with the US plan to balkanize Syria and establish a giant safe zone in the east. That means the possibility of a clash between Russia and the US is now greater than ever.

    The Kurds don't really want Raqqa as part of their future homeland. It is just part of the deal they made with Washington. What they want is a contiguous state along the Turkish border.

    In a reasonable world, the end would be in sight (as you say) Unfortuantely, this is going to drag on for some time. It's not Syria's future that is playing out before our eyes, but the Empire's. That's gonna take a while.

    NemesisCalling | Jun 13, 2017 4:32:53 PM | 9
    Like James says, it ain't over yet. The west employs some sneaky and nefarious trickery and, when that fails, an all-out show of R2P fireworks. Let's hope that the Pentagon can rein in the CIA and Trump can see the writing on the wall and DO THE RIGHT THING, which is really the only option.

    I feel like my understanding of the world and the nature of empires has come of age during the Syrian War. Much like the Iran-Iraq War, it has left generations of Arabs and Persians and Druze and Kurds utterly depleted yet, in the end, hopeful for their future, having, hopefully, defeated a great evil. It doesn't mean much, but one day I hope that I can visit Syria's Monument to their fallen and offer my most grave and sincere apology as a westerner.

    May history continue to sing their praises and so let us always tell the truth about Syria.

    Thanks to b, too, for laying the truth down with great care.

    AtaBrit | Jun 13, 2017 4:46:17 PM | 11
    No one wants a Kurdish state in the region despite support from several fronts, and the Kurds are aware of this. The Syrian Kurds are in a very difficult position and not one that will be easily resolved, but they have a good negotiating hand, in my opinion. That their fate has been sealed on the basis of a tweet claiming support for Saudi (US ally) against Qatar (Jihadist financier (kurdish enemy) and ex-US ally) is stretching it ... Isn't it the case that everyone is being pressured by either the US or Saudi into showing support?
    Igor Bundy | Jun 13, 2017 5:31:50 PM | 13
    What food negotiating position does the kurds have? They hold the dams built by the Syrian state. The hold a lot of land which are not theirs only reinforcing the notion to most Syrians that the kurds are invaders. The kurds are almost the same number of other minorities in the area. And this is after ethnic cleansing the areas and driving off most CHRISTIANS from the area. If the kurds play with the dams, there will be open hostilities.. Other wise they will just sit there.. SAA just took over some of the most valuable oil and gas fields inside Syria. Syrian border guards left the buffer zone and there is hostilities between turkish fsa and ypg..

    So where would kurdish children get their certificates from? How about government services.. aka passports.. crossing borders, trade, health care, transportation... unlike the oil stealing Iraqi kurds, syrian kurds have no income or the resources to sustain a state and they have a large arab contingency inside their so called state that they failed to cleanse..

    karlof1 | Jun 13, 2017 5:41:54 PM | 14
    This isn't quite correct: "Qatari, Saudi and Turkish proxy forces, directed by the CIA, have waged a six year long war against Syria and its people."

    The Truth is this: The Outlaw US Empire waged a war of aggression against Syria by utilizing "Qatari, Saudi and Turkish proxy [terrorist] forces directed by the CIA" as its invasion forces in order to fulfill the longstanding Zionist Yinon Plan while also undermining Russia and China's Eurasian development operations in its pursuit of Unipolar Full Spectrum Domination. Every nation that supported the illegal invasion of Syria is guilty of complicity in the #1 War Crime--Waging Aggressive War--and owe Syria several Trillon$$ as reparations, while the main criminal cabal needs to be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives--although many would argue they deserve to suffer the fate of so many victims of their terrorists: beheading, immolation, or drowning. But just how far back in time do we assess guilt--GHW Bush, Carter's forming of al-Ciada, British creation of the House of Saud, Muslim Brotherhood and Israel, or ?

    But I urge caution to those thinking Daesh will be destroyed in Syria as it's already moved Eastward. The Outlaw US Empire hasn't given up on its goal to establish Full Spectrum Dominance, which is why it will never leave Afghanistan unless forced militarily (barring regime change in Depravity Central). This article by Korybko provides good background on Daesh's most likely first target--Tajikistan, http://theduran.com/tajikistan-the-next-front-in-the-iranian-saudi-proxy-war/

    Piotr Berman | Jun 13, 2017 5:47:39 PM | 15
    A remark: a "deal" to let the enemy leave the town is the standard feature of this war, and SAA uses it "all the time", most recently, in Maskaneh area as they were approaching Tabqa. It is a no-brainer: if you want to use the town, it is more valuable if it is not totally destroyed, destroying a town also consumes a lot of ammunition, and lots of lives, attackers, defenders and civilians. And it is slow.

    It becomes more problematic in the context of the end game. ISIS fighters will need to be kept in prisoners' camp at least for few years, Vietnamese "reeducation camps" come to mind. Iraq, Iran, Syria and Russia are all afraid that Americans and allies want to recycle ISIS veterans into "democratically minded troublemakers". There is also a more immediate problem of Deir ez Zor. Syria needs all the desert south of Euphrates to have a stab at some territorial integrity.

    Second remark: it is not like Wahhabi government of KSA is averse to working with Marxists. Their puppet president of Yemen was high in the hierarchy of the marxist party that ruled southern Yemen before the country was forcibly united. That said, it is not a match made in heaven. But KSA + YPG can nicely cooperate in smuggling weapons to Turkey, which is a nice ploy to close al-Jazeera. And if they are not totally pleased with each other, they do not have to be monogamous.

    PavewayIV | Jun 13, 2017 8:50:57 PM | 23
    "...As a starter the Syrian Kurds...do not have ID or passport. Damascus denied them these documents. So what would you do? They have every right to fight for its dignity...."

    Not the way I understand it - someone correct me if I am wrong, here.

    Simple version: There were many non-Syrian Kurd economic immigrants in the early 1960's that were trying to settle in Syria - no different than the millions of illegal Mexican, South American and Asian immigrants in the U.S. today. A heavy-handed Kurd census by the Syrian government in 1962 attempted to identify legal Syrian citizen Kurds from illegal immigrant Kurds. That left about 20% of the (then) Syrian Kurdish population - about 300K - stateless non-citizens.

    Many of those Kurds were, in fact, illegal economic immigrants - others were legitimate Syrian citizens but couldn't prove it. But no documented Syrian Kurds were 'stripped' of their Syrian citizenship or refused passports or IDs merely because they were Kurdish. A couple of million Kurds were recognized as legal Syrian citizens in 1962.

    Syria made a sort of botched effort in 2011 to rectify the problem for the legitimate Syrian Kurds (of the 300K) previously considered undocumented, but the status of only a few thousand was ever settled. Far more needs to be done. Despite that, there are still several hundred thousand or more illegal Kurdish immigrants inside Syria today that Syria had no legal obligation to grant citizenship. A moral obligation perhaps, but that's up to the Syrian people to decide.

    It was western MSM that painted this as widespread Kurdish oppression by Assad's cruel regime, denying any and all Kurds their Syrian citizenship. The same western MSM that is shocked that Trump won't automatically declare citizenship to the eight million or so illegal, undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.

    The west has also exaggerated the Kurdish rights issues by repeatedly saying that Kurds could not use Kurdish or teach in Kurdish in schools. This is no different than Spanish-speaking immigrants in the U.S. demanding that schools teach them in Spanish and all government services be made available to them in Spanish because that's the language they want to speak, not English. Kurds were never prohibited from opening their own schools and teaching their kids in Kurdish. They wanted the Syrian government to provide these services and the Syrian government refused.

    Syrian Kurds DO have a lot of legitimate grievances with the Syrian government, but those are different from the problem of immigrant non-Syrian stateless Kurds. The U.S. will have every right to bitch about Assad when we 'solve' the exact same problem that eight million stateless U.S. residents have today.

    [Jun 13, 2017] As early as 2011, the U.S. was arming Syrian dissidents from the arsenals in Libya, flying in weapons to Turkey to hand over to the rebels.

    Notable quotes:
    "... And the ultimate irony is that when it comes to terrorism the United States itself does not emerge without fault. As early as 2011, the U.S. was arming Syrian dissidents from the arsenals in Libya, flying in weapons to Turkey to hand over to the rebels. Many of the weapons, as well as those provided to Iraqi forces, have wound up in the hands of ISIS and al-Nusrah. U.S. advisers training rebels have conceded that it is impossible to determine the politics of many of those receiving instruction and weapons, an observation that has also been made by the Obama White House and by his State Department. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A war against Iran would be very popular both with the U.S. congress and the mainstream media, so it would be easy to sell to the American public. The terrorist attack in Tehran on June 6 th that killed 17 is being blamed in some Iranian circles on the Saudis, a not unreasonable assumption. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack but it must also be observed that both the Saudis and Israelis have good connections with the terrorist group. But if the possibility of a possible Saudi hand is true or even plausibly so, it guarantees a rise in tension and an incident at sea could easily be contrived by either side to escalate into a shooting war. The United States would almost inevitably be drawn in, particularly in light of Trump's ridiculous comment on the tragedy, tweeting that Iran is"falling victim to the evil they promote."

    There is also other considerable collateral damage to be reckoned with as a consequence of the Trump intervention even if war can be avoided. Qatar hosts the al-Udeid airbase, the largest in the Middle East, which is home to 10,000 U.S. servicemen and serves as the Combined Air and Space Operations Center for Washington and its allies in the region and beyond. Now the United States finds itself squarely in the middle of a fight between two alleged friends that it doesn't have to involve itself in, an intervention that will produce nothing but bad results. Backing Saudi Arabia in this quarrel serves no conceivable American interest, particularly if the ultimate objective is to strike at a non-threatening Iran. So the fallback position is to lie about what the support for the aggressive Saudi posturing really means – it is alleged to be about terrorism, which is always a popular excuse for government overreach.

    And the ultimate irony is that when it comes to terrorism the United States itself does not emerge without fault. As early as 2011, the U.S. was arming Syrian dissidents from the arsenals in Libya, flying in weapons to Turkey to hand over to the rebels. Many of the weapons, as well as those provided to Iraqi forces, have wound up in the hands of ISIS and al-Nusrah. U.S. advisers training rebels have conceded that it is impossible to determine the politics of many of those receiving instruction and weapons, an observation that has also been made by the Obama White House and by his State Department.

    So watch the lies if you want to know when the next war is coming. If the House of Saud, the Israelis and Donald Trump are talking trash and seem to agree about something then it is time to head for the bomb shelter. Will it be Iran or an escalating catastrophe in Syria? Anything is possible.

    [Jun 13, 2017] Clinton mafia goes va bank

    Notable quotes:
    "... Defective political judgment, the [Brookings] authors recognize, also afflicts elites: 'If anything, wealthier and better-educated voters are often more, rather than less, subject to partisanship, systematic bias, rationalization, and overconfidence in inaccurate beliefs,' they write. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Opinion: 5 alternative plutocrats to run America better than Trump" [ MarketWatch ]. Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Diane Hendricks. Well .

    "The 9th Circuit's travel ban ruling declares the president's Twitter feed is a legally binding stream of consciousness" [ Slate ]. But what if it's self-contradictory, as bullshit often is?

    "In recent months, leading Democrats from national chairman Tom Perez on down have been unleashing f-bombs, s-bombs and everything in between as they try to rally their party to 'resist.' And New York's junior senator seems to be leading the charge" [ New York Post ]. This descent to the vernacular kinda, sorta worked in 2003-2006 for "foul-mouthed bloggers of the left," as David Broder called them; profanity was a proof of authenticity, of boldness. I doubt that will work for Democrats today.

    "Trump voters are more informed about the elites than are the elites about them. Trump voters see the elites on network and cable news and late-night talk shows. They encounter them in the dominant print media. And they take in the elite sensibility through feature films, and television sitcoms and dramas. In contrast, members of the so-called knowledge class seldom acquire more than a passing acquaintance with those in "flyover country," their dismissive term for the approximately 2,600 of 3,100 counties-or 84 percent of the geographic United States- where Donald Trump bested Hillary Clinton. Knowledge of how the other half lives and thinks is one glaring hole of elite education" [ RealClearPolitics ].

    " Defective political judgment, the [Brookings] authors recognize, also afflicts elites: 'If anything, wealthier and better-educated voters are often more, rather than less, subject to partisanship, systematic bias, rationalization, and overconfidence in inaccurate beliefs,' they write.

    The Brookings fellows nevertheless insist that career politicians, party officials, policy experts, and lawyers bring knowledge of institutional arrangements, complex trade-offs, and technical detail that are essential to good government." The report: "More professionalism, less populism: How voting makes us stupid, and what to do about it" (PDF) [ Brookings Institute ].

    UPDATE "Welcome to the era of the 'bot' as political boogeyman" [Philip Bump, WaPo ]. "These stories, though, including the Daily News's, tend to be embraced for the same reason that Superman's monsters were so chilling: The threat is novel and not well understood. There's another level here, too. Assuming that vocal Trump supporters on social media are not real people reinforces an important political effect as well."

    [Jun 13, 2017] NBCs Kelly Hits Putin With a Beloved Canard by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it." ..."
    "... As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
    "... "Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. ..."
    "... "Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. " ..."
    "... The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails. ..."
    "... In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies. ..."
    "... There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike. ..."
    "... The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike. ..."
    "... Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted? ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    To prove their chops, mainstream media stars can't wait to go head-to-head with a demonized foreign leader, like Vladimir Putin, and let him have it, even if their "facts" are wrong, as Megyn Kelly showed

    NBC's Megyn Kelly wielded one of Official Washington's most beloved groupthinks to smack Russian President Vladimir Putin over his denials that he and his government were responsible for hacking Democratic emails and interfering with the U.S. presidential election.

    In her June 2 interview with Putin, Kelly noted that all "17 intelligence agencies" of the US government concurred in their conclusion of Russian guilt and how could Putin suggest that they all are "lying." It's an argument that has been used to silence skeptics for months and apparently is so useful that no one seems to care that it isn't true.

    For instance, on May 8, in testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper conceded publicly that the number of intelligence agencies involved in the assessment was three, not 17, and that the analysts assigned to the project from CIA, FBI and NSA had been "handpicked."

    On May 23, in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper's account about the three agencies involved. "It wasn't a full interagency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies," Brennan acknowledged.

    But those public admissions haven't stopped Democrats and the mainstream media from continuing to repeat the false claim. In comments on May 31, failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton repeated the canard, with a flourish, saying: "Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get."

    A couple of days later, Kelly revived the myth of the consensus among the 17 intelligence agencies in her interview with the Russian president. But Putin passed up the opportunity to correct her, replying instead:

    "They have been misled and they are not analyzing the information in its entirety. We have talked about it with former President Obama and with several other officials. No one ever showed me any direct evidence. When we spoke with President Obama about that, you know, you should probably better ask him about it – I think he will tell you that he, too, is confident of it. But when he and I talked I saw that he, too, started having doubts. At any rate, that's how I saw it."

    As I noted in a Jan. 20 article about Obama's news conference two days earlier, "Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the US intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with 'high confidence' – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.

    "At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: 'the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked .'" [Emphasis added]

    Explaining the Technology

    More importantly, Putin in his interview with Kelly points out that "today's technology" enables hacking to be "masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one can understand the origin" of the hack. "And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. Modern technology is very sophisticated and subtle and allows this to be done. And when we realize that we will get rid of all the illusions. "

    Later, when Kelly came back to the issue of hacking, Putin expanded on the difficulty in tracing the source of cyber attacks.

    "Hackers may be anywhere," Putin said. "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can.

    "Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy. There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organize some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. "

    Kelly: "Let's move on."

    However carefully Megyn Kelly and her NBC colleagues peruse The New York Times, they might well not know WikiLeaks' disclosure on March 31 of original CIA documents showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example).

    The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails.

    In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies.

    There is also the issue of the forensics. Former FBI Director James Comey displayed considerable discomfort on March 20, explaining to the House Intelligence Committee why the FBI did not insist on getting physical access to the Democratic National Committee's computers in order to do its own proper forensics, but chose to rely on the examination done by the DNC's private contractor, Crowdstrike.

    The firm itself has conflicts of interests in its links to the pro-NATO and anti-Russia think tank, the Atlantic Council, through Dmitri Alperovitch, who is an Atlantic Council senior fellow and the co-founder of Crowdstrike.

    Strange Oversight

    Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – now including a possible impeachment battle over removing the President of the United States – wouldn't it seem logical for the FBI to insist on its own forensics for this fundamental predicate of the case? Or could Comey's hesitancy to demand access to the DNC's computers be explained by a fear that FBI technicians not fully briefed on CIA/NSA/FBI Deep State programs might uncover a lot more than he wanted?

    Comey was asked again about this curious oversight on June 8 by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr:

    BURR: "And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate – did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?"

    COMEY: "In the case of the DNC, and, I believe, the DCCC, but I'm sure the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. But we didn't get direct access."

    BURR: "But no content?"

    COMEY: "Correct."

    BURR: "Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?"

    COMEY: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."

    Burr demurred on asking Comey to explain what amounts to gross misfeasance, if not worse. Perhaps, NBC could arrange for Megyn Kelly to interview Burr to ask if he has a clue as to what Putin might have been referring to when he noted, "There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia."

    Given the congressional intelligence "oversight" committees' obsequiousness and repeated "high esteem" for the "intelligence community," there seems an even chance that – no doubt because of an oversight – the CIA/FBI/NSA deep-stage troika failed to brief the Senate "oversight committee" chairman on WikiLeaks "Vault 7" disclosures – even when WikiLeaks publishes original CIA documents.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). Reprinted with permission from Consortium News .

    [Jun 13, 2017] I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brass that once the great Russian/Trump treason snipe-hunt comes up empty there can be consequnces

    Notable quotes:
    "... The wall-to-wall Russia 'scandals' being flogged by the Herbal Tea Party are providing cover a distraction that diverts the attention of the diminishing rump that is the Democratic Party base from demanding a no-holds-barred examination of why so few US citizens vote for its candidates any more. ..."
    "... Is this revenge? She's so genuinely enraged at Trump for beating her fair-and-square that she's determined to hang around and cause as much trouble for him as she can? ..."
    "... Is this truly nothing more than a case of her being so ego-crazed she just can't willingly step out of the spotlight? ..."
    "... Are there plans afoot to usher Chelsea in as the next generation of the Clinton Political dynasty to keep the money machine going? ..."
    "... Or – God help us – is she actually contemplating yet another run at the White House come 2020? I would have thought the notion insane but I'm beginning to wonder. She's no spring chicken, but, y'know, Trump's an old man, Bernie is an old man, that rotten sack of shit Reagan was an old man and senile to boot. I turn my thoughts to Washington, and there's no shortage of vicious old geezers who refuse to toddle off to their ill-earned retirement. Look at John McCain, fer Chrissakes. ..."
    Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    ex-PFC Chuck , June 12, 2017 at 5:27 pm

    The wall-to-wall Russia 'scandals' being flogged by the Herbal Tea Party are providing cover a distraction that diverts the attention of the diminishing rump that is the Democratic Party base from demanding a no-holds-barred examination of why so few US citizens vote for its candidates any more.

    Gareth , June 12, 2017 at 5:43 pm

    I wonder if it has ever occurred to the Democrat party brain trust that once the great Russian/Trump treason snipe-hunt comes up empty that there will be a whole lot of dejected resistance members out there who will finally realize either that they have been fed a load of crap or, if they truly believe the mythology, that the party leadership was too cowardly to get to the truth. Either way, good luck getting those folks all revved up for 2018.

    Code Name D , June 12, 2017 at 8:40 pm

    Worse, what is to keep Trump form going back after the for sedition. And i couldn't say i would disagree eather.

    John D. , June 12, 2017 at 6:49 pm

    What is Hillary's endgame here, anyway? I had little use for Al Gore back in 2000, but dang if his slinking offstage obediently and meekly and (above all) quietly doesn't look downright dignified compared to HRC's refusal to willfully do the same. And I'm beginning to get the feeling there's more to this than just her ego at work. The possibilities as I see 'em (feel free to add to the list if you wish):

    a.) Is this revenge? She's so genuinely enraged at Trump for beating her fair-and-square that she's determined to hang around and cause as much trouble for him as she can?

    b.) Is this truly nothing more than a case of her being so ego-crazed she just can't willingly step out of the spotlight?

    c.) Are there plans afoot to usher Chelsea in as the next generation of the Clinton Political dynasty to keep the money machine going?

    d.) Or – God help us – is she actually contemplating yet another run at the White House come 2020? I would have thought the notion insane but I'm beginning to wonder. She's no spring chicken, but, y'know, Trump's an old man, Bernie is an old man, that rotten sack of shit Reagan was an old man and senile to boot. I turn my thoughts to Washington, and there's no shortage of vicious old geezers who refuse to toddle off to their ill-earned retirement. Look at John McCain, fer Chrissakes.

    Hillary doesn't do anything unless she stands to gain something, so I assume she has her reasons for not riding off into the sunset. What are they?

    David Carl Grimes , June 12, 2017 at 8:09 pm

    I think she has to continue raising her profile and remain in public view. Otherwise her grifting machine grinds to a complete halt. All the people who depend on the Clintons are so numerous, (Podestas, Teneo, all those consultants) that they form their own ecosystem.

    [Jun 13, 2017] It's hilarious listening to NPR's wall-to-wall coverage of today's protests in Moscow and then remember that NPR maintained radio silence on Occupy Wall Street for 10 days

    Jun 13, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    allan , June 12, 2017 at 5:35 pm

    It's hilarious listening to NPR's wall-to-wall coverage of today's protests in Moscow
    and then remember that NPR maintained radio silence on Occupy Wall Street for 10 days.

    (The protests began on Sept. 17, 2011. The first mention I can find
    on the All Things Considered archive was Sept. 27 .)

    JerseyJeffersonian , June 12, 2017 at 7:59 pm

    Yet sadly, this is not at all surprising. As is always ominously intoned, "Follow the money".

    This is NPR, No Proletarian Reporting

    [Jun 12, 2017] The Evidence-Free Claims Against Trump and Syria Undermining Peace Efforts and Threatening More Wars by Robert Roth

    Notable quotes:
    "... But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. ..."
    "... There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. ..."
    "... I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting. ..."
    "... "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley ..."
    "... Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007). ..."
    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com
    3,500 Words • 19 Comments

    Disinformation and lies have been used to justify the wars on Syria that started in 2011. [1] I explored these in "What's Really Happening in Syria: A Consumer Fraud Lawyer's Mini-Primer" – "the primer" for short – which may be downloaded at http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2017/01/21/m...regon/ ) But lately I've been amazed at the extent to which our entire public discourse now rests on disinformation and lies. This is a broader problem, but it also affects the prospects for peace in Syria, one of several places where U.S./NATO activities heighten the risk of nuclear war. [2] I first became aware of that heightened risk in following US/NATO activities in Ukraine, also widely misrepresented by the media; my work on that matter is posted at https://www.newcoldwar.org/how-obamas-aggression-in-...r-war/ .

    I've been feeling pretty overwhelmed by it all lately, capped (most recently) by the third U.S. attack on Syria. As I put that together with President Trump's giving the military free rein over "tactics," it sank in that, with this delegation of authority, war-making power has now devolved from the Congress through the President to the military itself, in areas where not only Syrians but Russians, Iranians and others operate.

    In the apparent absence of an organized peace movement, the concentration of so many people on opposing Trump, rather than on opposing U.S. wars, distracts attention from this problem. Otherwise under fire from all directions, Mr. Trump gets approval – across the spectrum – when he does something awful but military, like launching cruise missiles at Syria or dropping that horrific bomb in Afghanistan. Meanwhile his attempt to reset U.S. relations and reduce tension with Russia is being used to lay the groundwork for impeachment and/or charges of treason.

    The lies about Syria have of course continued. First, Amnesty International issued " Human Slaughterhouse: Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydnaya Prison Syria ," claiming that the Syrian government executed between 5,000 and 00 s13,000 people over a five-year period. Then another chemical weapons incident, blamed without evidence on the government, was used as the excuse for a second U.S. attack on Syria. Both of these charges were widely and uncritically reported in the major media, though neither of them is credible. [3]

    Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-internati...rhouse . See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research, May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report, http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited...590306 .)

    The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g.,

    • RayMcGovern, The Syrian-Sarin "False Flag" Lesson, (December 13, 2016), http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrian-sarin-false-fla...23106/ ;
    • Daniel Lazare, Luring Trump into Mideast War (Consortium News, April 8, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/luring-trump-i...-wars/ ;
    • Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-unit...l-law/ (citing interview with former CIA officer Philip Giraldi);
    • Robert Parry, Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria (Consortium News, April 5, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-danger...syria/ ;
    • Patrick Henningsen, Reviving the 'Chemical Weapons' Lie: New US-UK Calls for Regime Change, Military Attack Against Syria ( 21st Century Wire, April 4, 2017), http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/04/04/reviving-the-...syria/ ;
    • The Saker, A Multi-level Analysis of the US attack on Syria (April 11, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46845.htm ;
    • Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_...70414/ (The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3...17.pdf and the second, an addendum to the first, is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam1...g/view );
    • aTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical...sible/ . (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the [UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/...a.html .").

    But the use of disinformation has been expanded in what I now see as an attempt to destabilize the U.S. government itself, to achieve "regime change" at home as it has been practiced in many foreign countries over the last 70 years. [4] See, for example, William Blum, Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List, Published February 2013, at http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-oth...r-list .

    It started right after the election with the attacks on General Mike Flynn. And as it has continued, the campaign to demonize Russia and Russian president Vladimir Putin has also intensified.

    Bottom line: It seems clear there is no evidence, let alone proof, that computers at the DNC were hacked at all, let alone by Russia, or that Russia tried in any way to "meddle" in the U.S. election. It has thus far made no difference that, soon after the charge of Russian interference in the last election was first made, an organization of intelligence veterans who have the expertise to know pointed out that U.S. intelligence has the capability of presenting hard evidence of any such hacking and had not done so (and, I would add, still hasn't). Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity stated bluntly: "We have gone through the various claims about hacking. For us, it is child's play to dismiss them. The email disclosures in question are the result of a leak, not a hack." They then explained the difference between leaking and hacking. [5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-...laims/ .

    There was ample justification for President Trump's firing of FBI director Comey. Ray McGovern and William Binney observed:

    The Washington establishment rejoiced last week over what seemed to be a windfall "gotcha" moment, as President Donald Trump said he had fired FBI Director James Comey over "this Russia thing, with Trump and Russia." The president labeled it a "made-up story" and, by all appearances, he is mostly correct.

    That's because Mr. Trump

    had ample reason to be fed up with Mr. Comey, in part for his lack of enthusiasm to investigate actual, provable crimes related to "Russia-gate" – like leaking information from highly sensitive intercepted communications to precipitate the demise of Trump aide Michael Flynn. [6] Trumped-up claims against Trump ( May 17, 2017), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed...y.html . For a detailed discussion, see Kenneth W. Starr, "Rosenstein's Compelling Case Against Comey," The Wall Street Journal , May 15, 2017, p. A21.

    And there was nothing unlawful, or even wrong, in his meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak at the White House. This is, after all, what foreign ministers and ambassadors do – confer with leaders of other nations – but that didn't stop the media and what James Howard Kunstler called "the Lindsey Graham wing of the DeepState" from acting "as if Trump had entertained Focalor and Vepar, the Dukes of Hell, in the Oval Office." [7] A Monster Eating the Nation, http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/monster-eati...ation/ (May 19, 2017). And see Ted Van Dyk, "Anti-Trump Democrats Invite Chaos," The Wall Street Journal , May 22, 2017, p. A21.

    Regarding the continuing investigations by the FBI, several Congressional committees, and others looking for, if not proof, at least evidence of pre-election "collusion" by Trump or his people with Russians supposedly hacking computers to influence the U.S. election, these are thus far based on no – as in zero – evidence, and it's hard to know what might be made of anything they eventually claim to find, in light of this:

    On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents - ignored by mainstream media - showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs like Cyrillic markings, for example. [8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    Or as Mr. Putin himself points out,

    today's technology is such that the final address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. And, vice versa, it is possible to set up any entity or any individual [so] that everyone will think that they are the exact source of that attack. [9] Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), Interview with Vladimr Putin by NBC News propagandist Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/valdimir-putins-televised...-2017/ .

    Granted, this can be a costly enterprise, in that "The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7″ trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines." But not to worry, "the DeepState has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for 'proving' the Russians hacked." [10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.

    Put it all together and you now have "an extraordinary proportion of our public discourse [resting] on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation." [11] Tipping over, By Patrick Lawrence, published by the American Committee for East-West Accord, May 17, 2017 – https://www.newcoldwar.org/tipping-over/ . A glaring example is the most recent baseless charge against the Assad government. Of this Patrick Lawrence writes, in part quoting Nation magazine contributing editor and Princeton University professor emeritus Stephen F. Cohen:

    The May 16 editions of the government-supervised New York Times carried a report that we-we Americans, this is all done in our names-now accuse the Assad government of running a crematory at one of its prisons to dispose of the corpses of murdered political prisoners so as to eliminate evidence of war crimes. This is based on satellite photographs in the possession of American spooks for the past three or four years released a few days prior to the next round of peace talks co-sponsored by Russia, Iran, and Turkey. Trump, a day after meeting Lavrov, sent a fairly senior State Department diplomat to the talks in Astana, the Kazakstan capital.

    I note this latest on Syria only in part because it is a here-and-now adjunct of the Russiagate insanity in Washington. It also marks a new low, and I do not say this for mere rhetorical effect, in what now passes for credible assertion in our nation's capital. Here's my favorite passage in the piece-which, had a student in one of my courses submitted it to fulfill an assignment, would have merited an 'F' and a private discussion in my office:

    "Mr. Jones acknowledged that the satellite photographs, taken over the last four years, were not definitive. But in one from 2015, he said, the buildings were covered in snow- except for one, suggesting a significant internal heat source. 'That would be consistent with a crematorium,' he said. Officials added that a discharge stack and architectural elements thought to be a firewall and air intake were also suggestive of a place to burn bodies. 'That would be consistent of a crematorium,' he said."

    Most certainly it would. And also a bakery, a heated basketball court, a machine shop, and I think you will understand: The assertion means bananas. Even the Times , to my surprise, took a step back from this silliness. The next paragraph:

    "The United Nations is scheduled to begin another round of Syria peace talks in Geneva on May 23. The timing of the accusations seemed intended to pressure Russia, Mr. Assad's principal foreign ally, into backing away from him."

    Well, half a step in the direction of reality-which is half a step more than our Pravda on the Hudson typically takes.

    [As Professor Cohen said on the evening of May 16 to Tucker Carlson on the latter's daily Fox News program:]

    "The preposterous nonsense about the Syria crematorium pushes me into positing a kind of meta-phenomenon. The Russia case is a problem, the Syria case, the Ukraine case: There is a far larger and more consequential problem running through all of these matters. It is the frightening extent to which we are succumbing to fabrication. An extraordinary proportion of our public discourse now rests on nothing but ideologically inspired disinformation."

    As Prof. Cohen has said, we're thus creating our own new national security "threat," in that, as Mr. Lawrence put it, we are watching as our 45th president is deposed. [12] Mike Whitney outlines the facts behind the entire Russiagate insanity and presents a detailed analysis connecting a great many dots with specificity in Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State ( May 19, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-cr...state/ ; and see Norman Solomon and Paul Jay (Interview), Warfare State at War with Trump as He Plans Warfare Against Iran (May 22, 2017), http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19149:Warfare-State...t-Iran .

    Andrew C. McCarthy, Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free 'Collusion with Russia' Narrative, The National Review (May 24, 2017), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447915/trump-...rative , suggests steps to resolve the matter.

    There are many sound and urgent reasons to oppose many of Mr. Trump's policies – and I do. But a constitutionally elected sitting president should not be removed from office by an orchestrated campaign of disinformation and lies. Nor should "ideologically inspired disinformation" dominate our public discourse on critical issues – in any case, but especially when the result is a heightened risk of nuclear war. [13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation, and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when...s.html ).

    Prof. Cohen, frozen out by the mainstream media, summarizes the risks we confront:

    [W]e're at, maybe, the most dangerous moment in U.S.-Russian relations, in my lifetime, and, maybe, ever. The reason is, that we're in the new Cold War, by whatever name. We have three Cold War fronts that are fought with the possibility of hot war – in the Baltic region, where NATO is carrying out an unprecedented military buildup on Russia's border, in Ukraine, where there's a civil and proxy war between Russia and the West, and, of course, in Syria, where Russian aircraft and American warplanes are flying in the same territory. Anything could happen. [14] Prof. Cohen discusses these issues with great clarity in an interview posted as Dems crippling Trump's plans to cooperate with Russia out of own ambitions (May 19, 2017) at https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/388910-trump-scand...ia-us/ .

    Looking for a little light in this deepening darkness, I find some comfort in former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin's book Return to Moscow (University of Western Australia, 2017). Mr. Kevin examines past and present attitudes toward the people of Russia and to its leaders with sympathetic eyes, and a deep understanding of Russian history and culture. Regarding the treatment of Russian president Putin in Western media, for example, Mr. Kevin observes:

    Not since Britain's concentrated personal loathing of their great strategic enemy Napoleon in the Napoleonic wars was so much animosity brought to bear on one leader. Propaganda and demeaning language against Putin became more systemic, sustained and near universal in Western foreign policy and media communities than had ever been directed against any Soviet communist leader at the height of the Cold War. This hostile campaign evoked an effective defensive global media strategy by Russia. [...] A new kind of information Cold War took shape, with – paradoxically – Western media voices more and more speaking with one disciplined Soviet-style voice, and Russian counter voices fresher, more diverse and more agile. [15] Cited from Return to Moscow . An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .

    I have been watching in some dismay as those disciplined Soviet-style voices do their best to, among other things, discredit and thwart Mr. Trump's efforts to normalize relations with Russia. This is especially troubling in the case of The New York Times , whose relentless summaries of the various investigations are routinely reprinted in local newspapers all over the country, which can't afford to follow such "news" with their own reporters. The Times ' mantra-like repetition and characterization of the activities ostensibly under serious investigation is a subtle, but effective, form of brain-washing – or as Vanessa Beeley puts it, gaslighting.

    In an insightful exploration of the psychological issues we confront in criticizing U.S. foreign policy and countering the media that support it, which I think helps explain the ease with which the current batch of lies is being successfully promulgated, Caitlin Johnstone opens with this powerful combination:

    "What we've been undergoing to a large extent is a form of psychological abuse, actually, by very narcissistic, hegemonic governments and officials for a very long time. It's a form of gaslighting where actually our own faith in our ability to judge a situation, and to some extent even our own identity, has been eroded and damaged to the point where we're effectively accepting their version of reality." ~ Vanessa Beeley

    The only thing keeping westerners from seeing through the lies that they've been told about Syria is the unquestioned assumption that their own government could not possibly be that evil. They have no trouble believing that a foreigner from a Muslim-majority country could be gratuitously using chemical weapons on children at the most strategically disastrous time possible and bombing his own civilians for no discernible reason other than perhaps sheer sadism, but the possibility that their government is making those things up in order to manufacture consent for regime change is ruled out before any critical analysis of the situation even begins. [16] You Only Hate Assad Because Your TV Told You To (May 27, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47136.htm (first published by 21wire at http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/27/syria-you-onl...ou-to/ ). I found it enormously helpful to read this piece in conjunction with Vanessa Beeley's Gaslighting: State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism (May 26, 2016), http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/26/gaslighting-s...ssism/ .

    Unless we can penetrate the resulting fog, we confront the situation described by Tony Kevin:

    Under the false and demonizing imagery of "Putin's Russia" which has now taken hold in the United States and NATO world, the West is truly "sleepwalking", as Kissinger, Gorbachev, Sakwa, Cohen and others have urgently warned, into a potential nuclear war with Russia. It is the Cuban missile crisis all over again, but actually worse now, because there are so many irresponsible minor European actors crowding onto the policy stage, and because American policy under recent U.S. presidents has been so lacking in statesmanship, consistency or historical perspective where Russia is concerned. [17] Return to Moscow , page 255, citing The Slide Toward War with Russia, editorial in the Nation , 19 October 2016, https://www.thenation.com/article/the-slide-toward-w...ussia/ , and Richard Sakwa, West could sleepwalk into a Doomsday war with Russia – it's time to wake up , The Conversation (UK), https://www.theconversation.com/west-could-sleepwalk...-59936 .

    Hopefully, the efforts of activists and analysts to make the real facts known, combined with the escalating preposterousness of what we are told to believe, will produce enough cognitive dissonance to wake us up before we sleepwalk into the end of the world. Meanwhile, if you share these concerns, stay tuned to each of the dedicated and courageous authors I've mentioned, and the sites that have posted their work, express your concerns to your federal legislators – and tell your friends!

    Robert Roth is a retired public interest lawyer. He received his law degree from Yale in 1971 and prosecuted false advertising for the attorneys general of New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007).

    References

    [1] I explored these in "What's Really Happening in Syria: A Consumer Fraud Lawyer's Mini-Primer" – "the primer" for short – which may be downloaded at http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/2017/01/21/mini-primer-on-syria-by-former-assist-attorney-general-ny-oregon/ )

    [2] I first became aware of that heightened risk in following US/NATO activities in Ukraine, also widely misrepresented by the media; my work on that matter is posted at https://www.newcoldwar.org/how-obamas-aggression-in-ukraine-risks-nuclear-war/ .

    [3] Regarding the first, as Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report pointed out, the AI report "is based on anonymous sources outside of Syria, hearsay, and the dubious use of satellite photos reminiscent of Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations in 2003." http://www.blackagendareport.com/shamnest-international-human-slaughterhouse . See further Tony Cartalucci, US Revives Discredited Syria "Slaughterhouse" Story (Global Research, May 16, 2017), Land Destroyer Report , http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-revives-discredited-syria-slaughterhouse-story/5590306 .)

    The second charge seemed preposterous to me under all the circumstances, including its predictably negative results for the Syrian government, and its reliance on "reports" from outside Syria based on hearsay from such biased sources as anti-government fighters and their media. The analyses of others confirmed and reinforced my own impression, e.g., RayMcGovern, The Syrian-Sarin "False Flag" Lesson, (December 13, 2016), http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrian-sarin-false-flag-lesson/223106/ ; Daniel Lazare, Luring Trump into Mideast War (Consortium News, April 8, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/08/luring-trump-into-mideast-wars/ ; Mike Whitney, The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia (CounterPunch, April 7, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/07/why-the-united-states-use-of-force-against-syria-violates-international-law/ (citing interview with former CIA officer Philip Giraldi); Robert Parry, Another Dangerous Rush to Judgment in Syria (Consortium News, April 5, 2017), https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/ ; Patrick Henningsen, Reviving the 'Chemical Weapons' Lie: New US-UK Calls for Regime Change, Military Attack Against Syria ( 21st Century Wire , April 4, 2017), http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/04/04/reviving-the-chemical-weapons-lie-new-us-uk-calls-for-regime-change-military-attack-against-syria/ ; The Saker, A Multi-level Analysis of the US attack on Syria (April 11, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46845.htm ; Theodore A. Postol, A Critique of 'False and Misleading' White House Claims About Syria's Use of Lethal Gas (April 14, 2017), http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/critique_white_house_fabrications_syrias_alleged_use_of_lethal_gas_20170414/ (The third of MIT Prof. Postol's reports; the first is at http://images.shoutwiki.com/acloserlookonsyria/f/f3/Postol_assessment_041117.pdf and the second, an addendum to the first, is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Vs2rjE9TdwUE9tam16a3F0Wjg/view ); andTim Hayward, Chemical attacks in Syria: Is Assad responsible? (April 15, 2017), https://timhayward.wordpress.com/2017/04/15/chemical-attacks-in-syria-is-assad-responsible/ . (Prof. Hayward recommends Prof. Postol's reports; says, "The premise of my post comes from the [UK] government's position. I aim to show that even if one suspends disbelief and grants it, their claimed conclusion still needs to be properly demonstrated"; and says further that "a fuller and more formal statement of the question that I am introducing here is to be found at: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/habakkuk-on-urgent-need-to-release-test-results-from-porton-down-on-samples-from-khan-sheikhoun-ghouta.html .").

    [4] See, for example, William Blum, Overthrowing other people's governments: The Master List, Published February 2013, at http://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list .

    [5] U.S. Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims ( December 12, 2016), https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/12/us-intel-vets-dispute-russia-hacking-claims/ .

    [6] Trumped-up claims against Trump ( May 17, 2017), http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-trump-russia-phony-20170517-story.html . For a detailed discussion, see Kenneth W. Starr, "Rosenstein's Compelling Case Against Comey," The Wall Street Journal , May 15, 2017, p. A21.

    [7] A Monster Eating the Nation , http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/monster-eating-nation/ (May 19, 2017). And see Ted Van Dyk, "Anti-Trump Democrats Invite Chaos," The Wall Street Journal , May 22, 2017, p. A21.

    [8] McGovern and Binney, op cit. McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years; he briefed the president's daily brief one-on-one to President Reagan's most senior national security officials from 1981-85. Binney worked for NSA for 36 years, retiring in 2001 as the technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and reporting; he created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    [9] Valdimir Putin's televised interview on NBC (June 4, 2017), Interview with Vladimr Putin by NBC News propagandist Megyn Kelly, text published on the website of the President of Russia, June 5, 2017 https://www.newcoldwar.org/valdimir-putins-televised-interview-on-nbc-june-5-2017/ .

    [10] McGovern and Binney, op cit.

    [11] Tipping over, By Patrick Lawrence, published by the American Committee for East-West Accord, May 17, 2017 https://www.newcoldwar.org/tipping-over/ .

    [12] Mike Whitney outlines the facts behind the entire Russiagate insanity and presents a detailed analysis connecting a great many dots with specificity in Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State ( May 19, 2017), http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/ ; and see Norman Solomon and Paul Jay (Interview), Warfare State at War with Trump as He Plans Warfare Against Iran (May 22, 2017), http://therealnews.com/t2/story:19149:Warfare-State-at-War-with-Trump-as-he-Plans-Warfare-Against-Iran .

    Andrew C. McCarthy, Fighting the Politicized, Evidence-Free 'Collusion with Russia' Narrative, The National Review (May 24, 2017), http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447915/trump-russia-collusion-john-brennan-testimony-how-fight-politicized-narrative , suggests steps to resolve the matter.

    [13] James Howard Kunstler adds that "Trump, whatever you think of him – and I've never been a fan, to put it mildly – was elected for a reason: the ongoing economic collapse of the nation, and the suffering of a public without incomes or purposeful employment." And though I've never been a fan, either, a discussion I found helpful to understanding the reasons for Trump's election was posted by John Michael Greer, "When the Shouting Stops," November 16, 2016, at http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2016/11/when-shouting-stops.html ).

    [14] Prof. Cohen discusses these issues with great clarity in an interview posted as Dems crippling Trump's plans to cooperate with Russia out of own ambitions (May 19, 2017) at https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/388910-trump-scandal-russia-us/ .

    [15] Cited from Return to Moscow. An interview with Mr. Kevin by Associate Professor Judith Armstrong, former head of European Languages Department at MelbourneUniversity, appears at https://www.youtube.com/embed/NtNjpXozRKY .

    [16] You Only Hate Assad Because Your TV Told You To (May 27, 2017), http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47136.htm (first published by 21wire at http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/05/27/syria-you-only-hate-assad-because-your-tv-told-you-to/ ). I found it enormously helpful to read this piece in conjunction with Vanessa Beeley's Gaslighting: State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism (May 26, 2016), http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/26/gaslighting-state-mind-control-and-abusive-narcissism/ .

    [17] Return to Moscow, page 255, citing The Slide Toward War with Russia, editorial in the Nation, 19 October 2016, https://www.thenation.com/article/the-slide-toward-war-with-russia/ , and Richard Sakwa, West could sleepwalk into a Doomsday war with Russia – it's time to wake up, The Conversation (UK), https://www.theconversation.com/west-could-sleepwalk-into-a-doomsday-war-with-russia-its-time-to-wake-up-59936 .

    [Jun 12, 2017] Trump Just Dropped Chemical Weapons in a Major City, 100,000 Civilians Trapped

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Anonymous June 12, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Trump Just Dropped Chemical Weapons in a Major City, 100,000 Civilians Trapped

    The Kurds are complicit in this crimes against humanity:

    Multiple reports are confirming that a US-led Coalition used white phosphorus-loaded ammunitions in heavily populated cities of Iraq and Syria. Thousands of civilians are known to be in the areas where the weapons were used according to The Washington Post.

    According to Airwars:

    "As many as 100,000 civilians trapped inside the Islamic State-held city of Raqqa are being given conflicting evacuation instructions according to Coalition statements and local reports, as US-backed ground forces finally assault the city supported by air and artillery strikes.

    Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) started their slow encirclement of Raqqa last November. Artillery and airstrikes have rained down since then killing hundreds of civilians in the near region according to monitors, though the final operation to take the city commenced officially only on June 6th. In a press release published that day, the Coalition stressed that "The SDF have encouraged civilians to depart Raqqah so that they do not become trapped, used as human shields or become targets for ISIS snipers.",,,

    [Jun 12, 2017] Trump's Blunders Fuel Mideast Conflicts

    Jun 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne , June 10, 2017 at 03:57 PM
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/06/09/trumps-blunders-fuel-mideast-conflicts/

    June 9, 2017

    Trump's Blunders Fuel Mideast Conflicts
    President Trump's simplistic siding with Saudi Arabia and Israel – and his callous reaction to a terror attack on Iran – are fueling new tensions in the Middle East, including the Qatar crisis.
    By Alastair Crooke

    Have "MbS" and "MbZ" overreached themselves? It is still early in the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, but yes, it seems so. And in so doing, the hubris of Mohammad bin Salman (MbS), the Saudi defense minister and the powerful son of Saudi King Salman, and Mohammed bin Zayed (MbZ), the crown prince of Abu Dhabi and supreme commander of the UAE Armed Forces, will change the region's geopolitical architecture.

    President's Trump's (flawed) base strategic premises (and narratives) that Iran is the ultimate source of all instability in the region, and that the smacking down of Qatar, a major patron of Palestinian Hamas, per se, was a good thing, and should be applauded, bear direct responsibility for the direction in which regional geopolitics will now flow.

    President Trump returned from his first overseas trip convinced that he had unified the United States' historic Arab allies, and dealt a strong blow against terrorism. He did neither. He has been badly informed.

    The fissure between Qatar and Saudi Arabia is an old, storied affair, which harks back to longstanding al-Saud angst at the original British decision to empower the al-Thani family in their Qatar foothold in an otherwise all-Saudi fiefdom. But if we lay aside, for a moment, the airing of the long list of Saudi and UAE contemporary complaints against Qatar, which for most part, simply serve as justification for recent action, we should return to the two principles that fundamentally shape the al-Saud mindset and strategy – and which lie at the heart of this current spat with Qatar.

    The Reactionary Saudis ....

    [ What appears to be a reasonable explanation of the dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar that President Trump has encouraged and applauded. ]

    ilsm - , June 11, 2017 at 09:58 AM
    US policy toward Iran has no strategic perspective outside what is dictated by the House of Saud. That is it has no moral foundation.

    Iran is a source of instability only in areas where Shiite majorities have no self determination and are suppressed by Wahhabi interests.

    Iran is not the source of instability in Yemen, where the Saudi intrigued with the old colonizers since the 50's to blunt Pan Arabism only recently abandoned the 'Imamate'.

    Arabian peninsula instability has to do with self determination and/or a different preference in Imam. The kind of instability Jefferson would have supported.

    The Houston Riyadh axis has no moral claim to protection by the US republic.

    While Qatar is a short flight from Iran, with near sea lanes as well.

    [Jun 12, 2017] When the US regime wants to overthrow the goverment of the next country, they are not going to be able to get the UN to go along with their plans

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US regime can 'declare' all they want. Doesn't mean shit. Anymore than the US regime making 'declarations' in the eastern Syrian desert. The facts on the ground are what matter. The pipe dream of splitting up Syria is over. Syria, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq all are united in keeping Syria 100 percent intact. What the US regime wants in northern Syria is irrelevant. ..."
    "... ISIS is the prototype of an created "enemy". It's plain, simple Hegelian dialectic: create the problem - control the reaction - implement the solution. ..."
    "... It's not inability but intention what happens in this region and soon everywhere in the world. ISIS is and was always an imperial tool in the hand of the banksters! Capice? ..."
    "... The El Qaida was a CIA asset under President Carter; El Qaida has been an asset in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere as needed since; El Qaida is a CIA asset today under many differing names; El Qaida will continue to be a CIA asset as long as there is a need to use that asset against any other entity (yet to be determined). How simple is that? It's government business, get accustomed to the blowback. ..."
    "... Terror is a construct designed and used to execute an agenda. To ignore the history of terror and terror groups and the lockstep MSM broadcasting of disinformation in convoluted and disjointed pieces - confusing name changes, amalgamation of major and minor groups; the history of the CIA and its known acts - is disinformation in and of itself. Regardless of the zeal they may have for their beliefs, it would be impossible to amass a group of mercenaries if they weren't getting a regular paycheck. You don't have to pay them much, when they come from economies where $3 per day is the typical wage for unskilled labor (if you can get it). Here's our old friend Brzezinski, inspiring peasants in 1977: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is allowed to finance it with the benediction of many Western agencies who believe they can use it as a justification to occupy more lands. During 150 years of colonization, there was no ISIS/Al Qaeda. It started to emerged after the collapse of USSR because it was impossible back those days to invade country X and Y without risking a war with USSR. ..."
    "... Many of these analyses ignore the funding that ISIS receives from KSA and Qatar, and logistical support from CIA, MI6 and Mossad. Unless we eliminate these factors ISIS will indeed be impossible to defeat. ..."
    "... Face it, armies do not just appear in the desert, they cannot survive without immense funds, supplies, logistics. The photos in German newspapers that documented the huge convoys of arms, etc, passing daily over the Turkish borders, ..."
    "... Of course there will be insurgent groups here and there (Sinai, north-east Nigeria, Marawi, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Mali, ...) that will keep on fighting with a Daesh hat on but only as long as KSA and some other (ex-)GCC countries keep paying them for it. ..."
    Jun 12, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    R Winner | Jun 11, 2017 3:29:25 AM | 4

    The problem for the US in trying to cultivate or create the next IS to be used as a pretext for further invasions and regime change in the Middle East is there is increasing fatigue and unwillingness from more and more countries of putting up with the US playing these sickening games.

    The US regime got away with it in Libya.

    The US regime has been mostly neutred in Syria.

    The next country the US regime wants to overthrow, they aren't going to be able to get the UN to go along with their plans. No one on the Security Council is going to let the US regime get away with creating or fostering the next IS and then sending in mercenaries and terrorists to 'fight IS' again.

    The US regime has to know this is now the case and, hence, the rise of the next IS is probably less likely because it would be a waste of time. Any UN supported action will be narrowly focused on quickly and efficiently destroying any new IS.

    ALAN | Jun 11, 2017 7:14:28 AM | 16
    The issue should be seen as a component of US foreign policy, that is, the possibility of using terrorism in the wars of America against rival and hostile states. I expect Russia and China to do creative work to neutralize risks in this context.

    Today it has become a reality, with Russia and China leading the world economy and politics, while one only hears the chatter from behind the Atlantic.
    Do not occupy yourself Mr E. Maganier! You are not the only one awake.

    Harry | Jun 11, 2017 7:33:15 AM | 17
    @ R Winner | 3
    E.J. Magnier is still spouting BS about Syria being split apart

    He is right, and you must have skipped last... decades? It was always a plan to Balkanize Syria and Iraq by "regime changers." The plan is not even recent, it dates decades back, just US is making it official now, they in press conference declared Raqqa after "liberation" wont be returned to Syria but ruled by the "vetted locals".

    US puppets Iraqi Barzani kurds are going to vote for independence soon, and its expected Syria's kurds will follow. Some hope the latter will come to their senses, but facts speak otherwise, and US with its proxies are quickly establishing facts on the ground. The only question now whether it will be full independence or federalized Syria with Kurds having full autonomy, i.e. de-facto independence (Russia proposed cultural autonomy, but kurds rejected). US is still pushing for Sunnistan too, but this part of plan is not going so well, but not for the lack of trying.

    Everywhere IS has been defeated, it has been permantly extinquished.

    When did Terror axis EVER permanently defeated their terrorists? Name ONE example, I'm all ears. They are useful tools, and will continue to be used as Magnier said, whether under one name or another. Its not just his opinion either, its about knowing the history and Modus operandi of terror states from the West and arab monarchies.

    R Winner | Jun 11, 2017 7:41:43 AM | 18
    @17

    The US regime can 'declare' all they want. Doesn't mean shit. Anymore than the US regime making 'declarations' in the eastern Syrian desert. The facts on the ground are what matter. The pipe dream of splitting up Syria is over. Syria, Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq all are united in keeping Syria 100 percent intact. What the US regime wants in northern Syria is irrelevant.

    And feel free to name a single area in either Syria or Iraq that has been cleared of IS that has organically regenerated IS.

    Guest #4711 | Jun 11, 2017 8:13:09 AM | 19
    "Still today the US and Europe have not learned from history and still want to occupy territory"

    And do they do instead? Isn't it exactly that? Occupying?

    Sorry, Mr. Elijah J. Magnier-Ignorance, they do it the same way today like they did it in the past. They create their own "enemy" or what so ever to have a pretext to invade other countries or do what so ever.

    • You want total control over all slaves? Create some terror events.
    • You want to get rid of cash (to get total control of ALL financial transactions)? Let rob some people by night.
    • You want to flood Europe with invaders? Create war and terror outside Europe.

    ISIS is the prototype of an created "enemy". It's plain, simple Hegelian dialectic: create the problem - control the reaction - implement the solution.

    One reason why we run always again against the wall and into the same trap is that so many "experienced" experts are not able to see through the curtain recognizing the hidden black hand. They tell us the same bullshit since decades.

    It's not inability but intention what happens in this region and soon everywhere in the world. ISIS is and was always an imperial tool in the hand of the banksters! Capice?

    Oliver K | Jun 11, 2017 8:28:07 AM | 20
    The really dangerous people come to isis only because of money and power -- take that away, only the idiots remain, and that can be managed.

    The article of Magnier seems to use the typical strategy of "ontologisation" of a conflict, in order to divert attention from the real interests.

    Sure, once the real interests (imperialism in various forms) is taken away (to a good degree at least), we still have the zombies which were created: a good dose of killing will cure that.

    Formerly T-Bear | Jun 11, 2017 8:34:41 AM | 21
    The El Qaida was a CIA asset under President Carter; El Qaida has been an asset in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere as needed since; El Qaida is a CIA asset today under many differing names; El Qaida will continue to be a CIA asset as long as there is a need to use that asset against any other entity (yet to be determined). How simple is that? It's government business, get accustomed to the blowback.
    fast freddy | Jun 11, 2017 10:12:56 AM | 27
    Terror is a construct designed and used to execute an agenda. To ignore the history of terror and terror groups and the lockstep MSM broadcasting of disinformation in convoluted and disjointed pieces - confusing name changes, amalgamation of major and minor groups; the history of the CIA and its known acts - is disinformation in and of itself. Regardless of the zeal they may have for their beliefs, it would be impossible to amass a group of mercenaries if they weren't getting a regular paycheck.

    You don't have to pay them much, when they come from economies where $3 per day is the typical wage for unskilled labor (if you can get it).

    Here's our old friend Brzezinski, inspiring peasants in 1977: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYvO3qAlyTg

    Noirette | Jun 11, 2017 10:44:06 AM | 28
    I was said to see Corbyn -bravely! huh!- spew the argument that terrorist attacks 'at home' can only be stopped / will only cease when the W puts a halt to its invasive policies in Syria (Lybia, etc. ..)

    The argument is morally repugnant, is/was promoted by US pundits (Dems, Iraq..) as 'blowback'.

    In essence it states 'well if we annihilate millions' (and it is millions) of 'them' is natural that at least a very few of them should retaliate / seek revenge, even if they are weak and not very successful! Seems to plead, not worth it to kill millions - better not! baad! - IF it leads to a few deaths on London Bridge!

    The argument is also pragmatically beyond idiotic, as E. M. shows in his piece (though that isn't his primary aim) by following the path, quote -- ISIS ideology seems coherent and powerful, capable of recruiting and reviving itself -- - Yes, for the moment, as there is money in it. Yet he slips close to the 'if the W stops attacking ' pov, if in a more realistic and subtle form, > ISIS (Daesh..) exists only as a reaction to the all-powerful US-uk-isr and allies and if these *change* the reaction will change as well!

    As for 'terrorist' attacks in the W, any reasonable grasp and analysis has to consider and try to sort out, not exhaustive:

    a) if it happened at all or was just pure flim-flam security TV theatre (some do profit / benefit)

    b) if it was the regular type of false flag (state or para-s ordered and organised, the MSM waiting in the wings)

    c) was realised thru some skewed and complicated collaboration and money channels between some gangsters, patsy dupes, or willing participants, corrupt 'security' personnel, and creative types hanging about, all in it for the money or obscure reasons

    d) was the exploitation and manipulation and guidance of 'psychotic' crazies, then claimed by X

    e) was actually non-terrorist (e.g. a train accident) but hyped as such by all the parties as that may bring fame, fortune if you stick with it (e.g. compensation from the State for your mom being killed in a terrorist plot.)

    f) other

    jfb | Jun 11, 2017 10:52:12 AM | 30
    This guy seems to ignore completely that if ISIS exists, it's because Saudi Arabia is allowed to finance it with the benediction of many Western agencies who believe they can use it as a justification to occupy more lands. During 150 years of colonization, there was no ISIS/Al Qaeda. It started to emerged after the collapse of USSR because it was impossible back those days to invade country X and Y without risking a war with USSR.
    Fidelios Automata | Jun 11, 2017 11:55:14 AM | 35
    Many of these analyses ignore the funding that ISIS receives from KSA and Qatar, and logistical support from CIA, MI6 and Mossad. Unless we eliminate these factors ISIS will indeed be impossible to defeat.
    james | Jun 11, 2017 11:59:44 AM | 36
    example of zionist money, or usa leadership - not sure what to call this - support for isis.. "United States Representative Dana Rohrabacher expressed gratitude that Islamic State radical elements assaulted the Iranian Parliament alongside Khomeini's Mausoleum in Tehran."
    can't get any more bald faced then that..
    Mina | Jun 11, 2017 12:22:31 PM | 37
    Most MSM discussing the Gulf crisis mention the WSJ article about the 1 billion dollar paid for the release of the Qatari hunter group that included royals... but no one wants to recall the actual time line.

    There was a planned swap of populations, unblockading some rebel areas in exchange for unblockading some Shiite villages. The swap started, but the buses were stopped for 24 hours and then the additional hunter group started to be part of the deal. During the time when the Shiite buses were stopped, an attack was made on these exhausted people and their kids. Maybe more details will emerge?

    Perimetr | Jun 11, 2017 12:31:38 PM | 38
    I agree with those who maintain that ISIS is essentially a mercenary construct. I like the statement by Fast Freddy @27: "Terror is a construct designed and used to execute an agenda. . . Regardless of the zeal they may have for their beliefs, it would be impossible to amass a group of mercenaries if they weren't getting a regular paycheck."

    Face it, armies do not just appear in the desert, they cannot survive without immense funds, supplies, logistics. The photos in German newspapers that documented the huge convoys of arms, etc, passing daily over the Turkish borders, these were not the works of " doctors, engineers, university degree holders and many from all walks of life". The real "credi"t goes to Langley, Qatar, and Riyadh, not "immeasurable experiences of sympathisers who chose to join the ranks".

    xor | Jun 11, 2017 12:47:19 PM | 41
    Daesh aka IS will persist but not in its current form as something that resembles a state with armies and armored vehicles. When Daesh is defeated in Syria and Iraq it will go underground and assume a role similar to what is referred to as Al Qaida with here and there suicide attacks.

    In Syria it can only be defeated with the help of Russia and Iran because the US (and its partners in crime Israel, KSA, ...) depends on it for its long term goals and also lay at the source of its inception with for example Baghdadi groomed in US prisons, the organization receiving military help with so called accidental droppings, intelligence as well as its opponents bombed by US war planes both in Syria and Iraq.

    Of course there will be insurgent groups here and there (Sinai, north-east Nigeria, Marawi, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Mali, ...) that will keep on fighting with a Daesh hat on but only as long as KSA and some other (ex-)GCC countries keep paying them for it.

    PavewayIV | Jun 11, 2017 1:10:50 PM | 42
    Robert Michels and the Iron Law of Oligarchy (1911)
    "He who says organization, says oligarchy."

    Paraphrasing Lobaczewski c. 1959:

    "Organizations and oligarchies are self-reinforcing psychopath magnets."

    PavewayIV's Magic Box of Death:

    Put a few oligarchs in a box and set on floor. Soon, hundreds of 'little people' will be attracted inside. Close box and shake vigorously. Torrents of dead 'little people' will pour out, but never any oligarchs. Repeat as often as desired. It's magic!
    Mina | Jun 11, 2017 1:13:04 PM | 43
    I am not sure it is about being paid. In the Middle East, this was indeed part of the game: most men have huge families to feed, not necessarily their own children but siblings, parents etc.

    In Europe, most attacks are not money related. Algerian and Moroccans have a number of grievances against France, to take one example. More and more in sub Saharian West Africa the same resentment is emerging: without France cozying up dictatorial states and let the tyrants have buildings in Paris richest areas, bank accounts in Switzerland, normal people would have at least enough to live. The result is that once in a while, someone just breaks down and goes for a random killing under the djihad banner.

    Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 11, 2017 5:04:07 PM | 52
    E.M. is always interesting read, although he (perhaps) is over-analyzing whole situation. Numerous commentators mentioned the role of money flowing from the KSA and the GCC. Once that flow stop no more ideology, although Andre Andre Vltchek in his last piece claim and depict different picture, namely stupidity of people.

    Now money is important but not everything. Political support and legitimization of the Death Squads is also very important. The West like to play with somebody else money, flesh and blood, while P5+1 is sitting in New York, Geneva and elsewhere and their envoys rising their hand according to realpolitiks.

    This article is penned 2013, and explains everything, i.e. the role of the US.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html


    Maintaining a stalemate should be America's objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad's forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.

    This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration's policy so far. Those who condemn the president's prudent restraint as cynical passivity must come clean with the only possible alternative: a full-scale American invasion to defeat both Mr. Assad and the extremists fighting against his regime.


    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 5:20:37 PM | 53
    @28 noirette

    apparently your 'beef' is that none of the terrorist attacks in the 'West' are real? that it is all the doing of the evil western state-terrorists who have killed the millions outside the W themselves?

    well, the proxy terrorists have killed plenty outside the west, too. the nobel peace prize laureate's boys have killed 4 or 500,000 in syria, directly or indirectly.

    whether or not the terrorist attacks in the west - which have killed a 'negligible' number of people - are attributable to western state-terrorists themselves or to their proxies, either under their direction or 'free lancing', seems immaterial to me : all the deaths are the result of western state-sponsored terror, directly or indirectly.

    so i think we agree : it is all the fruit of western state-terrorism. that's what corbyn was pointing out. i think you've discovered a distinction without a difference.

    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 5:20:37 PM | 53
    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 5:27:26 PM | 54
    @52 cg

    that's certainly the neocon, zionist, nytimes position on the never-ending war, be it in iraq or iran or wherever. and it will continue for as long as the usofa has the wherewithal to pursue it, it seems. and has seemed throughout the nobel peace prize laureate's administration. nothing seems to have changed under trump, except its intensification.

    it looks like we're in for more of the same until the defeat/collapse of the usofa.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 11, 2017 5:39:08 PM | 55
    mina:
    ... lots of poor and non poor (but poor of minds) flock on friday noon to listen for an hour or more to guys telling them that djihad is the ultimate heroic life! One doesn't exist without the other.

    Religion can calm or incite. There is much evidence to suggest that religious leaders, political leaders, and oligarchs play off each other.

    I wrote about this at MoA in September 2015 :

    'Whatever-it-takes' thinking of oligarchs and fundamentalists is too prevalent and those that support them behind Mr. Reasonable(tm) facades are dangerous.

    . . .

    A new age has dawned for humanity. We are connected to each other as never before. But oligarchs and fundamentalist 'whatever-it-takes' manipulators and their assorted puppets, sycophants, acolytes, and hangers-on would turn that promise into a nightmare for most of us as they insist on supremacy for their cult/class/race/sect/cause/etc. This is what I call The Greatest Headfake of All Time .

    fast freddy | Jun 11, 2017 5:49:05 PM | 56
    Wesley Clark seven countries in five years:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    overlaps Yinon Plan for Greater ISrael.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/

    greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

    Note that Israel has not been attacked by ISIS, IS ISIL, etc.
    Note that a number of these seven countries have already been balkanized.
    (Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen currently under way.)

    Note that "Islamic Terror" events staged or otherwise keep the public on board.

    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 5:51:48 PM | 57
    @56 ff

    succinct, straight-forward analysis.

    Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 11, 2017 5:56:50 PM | 58
    "....and it will continue for as long as the usofa has the wherewithal to pursue it...."

    This call for an end of dollar hegemony as the world's official payment currency. The pillars of the US' edifice is the dollar. It seems to me that Trump's fake weapons deals are also in direction of maintain dollar's position. Unfortunately heavy weight players in int. trade such as China, plays by the IMF rules.

    Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 11, 2017 5:59:34 PM | 59
    Putin wants to ax dollar from Russian trade

    https://www.rt.com/business/319938-putin-dollar-oil-trade/

    VietnamVet | Jun 11, 2017 6:03:57 PM | 60
    Anyone who reads Moon of Alabama and the comments are not too far from the truth. Seeing the big picture is hard. It is purposefully hidden. Oligarchs pay good money to their staff to manipulate information to keep the money flowing in their direction. In the West, the nation states are secondary to corporations and oligarch families. Russia and Iran are still sovereign nations. They are literally in a war of survival. If they can they will encourage natural rivalries between plutocrats and buy as many Boeing airplanes as they can.

    The West's biggest failing is that it believes its own propaganda. Without a conscription army, it cannot possibly win the eight wars it is fighting. The proxy forces and military contractors that the West uses instead are unreliable and dangerous. The Elite will not restore the draft because that would empower the little people and they would have to restore free education and public healthcare. Instead as democratic governments and enlightenment wither away, people are forced back to their tribal roots to survive and fundamental Abrahamic and Hindu religions take over. This assures that the world will splinter apart into ethnic tribes if the prophesized apocalypse doesn't happen first.

    An Islamic State will exist as long as the forces that gave it birth continue to exploit human beings.

    Jackrabbit | Jun 11, 2017 6:14:31 PM | 61
    ff @56

    Second jfl on your "succinct, straight-forward analysis" but I would add Sy Hersh's "The Redirection" (published in 2007!!) to your list of "must reads" because it adds the Israeli-Saudi connection AND it demonstrates real planning among states (which matched what later occurred):

    The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, largely because both countries see Iran as an existential threat. They have been involved in direct talks ...

    Nasr went on, "The Saudis have considerable financial means, and have deep relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis"-Sunni extremists who view Shiites as apostates...

    Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the covert American CIA proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan ... Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.

    This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that "they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was 'We've created this movement, and we can control it.' It's not that we don't want the Salafis to throw bombs; it's who they throw them at-Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran."

    Diana | Jun 11, 2017 6:26:28 PM | 62
    I don't know where Magnier gets his absurdly low figures for foreign fighters in Afghanistan. One study says that more than 10,000 foreigners were recruited, mainly by Pakistan. His article is very flawed in other aspects as well, mainly because he talks about personnel while ignoring the indispensable weapons, munitions, equipment and supplies such an army needs. These have been facilitated by state actors; however, those providers will likely see no benefit in continuing as long as ISIS continues to lose the military campaign.

    "Azzam's grassroots efforts and abundant war materiel attracted foreign fighters from the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Europe, and the United States to wage war against the infidels (nonbelievers) occupying Afghanistan.14 There is no consensus as to how many people traveled to Afghanistan, but estimates range from 10,000 to 35,000.15 Those who did travel to the battle were largely supported by private donations or nongovernmental Islamic organizations.16" http://foreignfighters.csis.org/history/case-studies.html

    Chauncey Gardiner | Jun 11, 2017 6:38:20 PM | 63
    British liberal/fascists Winston Churchill on Wahhabism.

    https://crimesofbritain.com/2016/12/07/winston-churchill-on-wahhabism/

    "Just like Zionism, Wahhabism was facilitated by Britain in establishing itself in the 'Middle East'. And the British continue to use both for their own ends."


    R Winner | Jun 11, 2017 7:07:22 PM | 64
    Jordanian Army shoots dead five US-backed rebels who tried to evade the Syrian Army
    In a rare development, the Jordanian Army and Syrian rebels operating under the Free Syrian Army (FSA) banner came in direct conflict with one another over the weekend on the desert border between Jordan and Syria.

    Too many other links to post of the Saudi, US regime, Turkish, and Qatar terror groups turning on each other.

    The pipelines and partion phase of Syria's war against foreign terror has ended and now the various foreign powers are starting to dispose of their proxies before they start attacking the wrong countries.

    Brian | Jun 11, 2017 7:08:20 PM | 65
    Isis will persist because the religion of peace provides a large and excellent recruitment base for terrorism
    ben | Jun 11, 2017 7:23:21 PM | 66
    V V @ 60 said:"Oligarchs pay good money to their staff to manipulate information to keep the money flowing in their direction. In the West, the nation states are secondary to corporations and oligarch families. Russia and Iran are still sovereign nations. They are literally in a war of survival".

    Great post, this excerpt stands out.

    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 7:24:46 PM | 67
    @61

    you've linked sy hersh's redirection at least 100 times by now jr, i think those who might read it have by now :)

    ben | Jun 11, 2017 7:30:58 PM | 68
    CG 2 59: Thanks for the link, an excerpt:

    "I would like to mention one crucial issue in the development of the energy industry, and the economy as a whole. It is a question of finally stopping the use of foreign currency in internal trade," said Putin at the fuel and energy presidential commission on Tuesday."

    The above is a quote from Putin, which, IMO, is critical in hobbling the Western Corporate Empire ( U$A/NATO) With those kinds of statements, he better watch his back..

    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 7:43:23 PM | 69
    @62 diana

    thanks for the link(s).

    Willy2 | Jun 11, 2017 9:05:33 PM | 70
    - The US (and "the West") (wrongfully) think(s) that by building military bases in the Middle East they're able to control events in that same Middle East.
    Lozion | Jun 11, 2017 9:07:30 PM | 71
    Daeshbags persist because of US inaction against it: Huge convoy leaves Raqqah unmolested..


    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/video-humongous-isis-convoy-allowed-escape-raqqa-fight-syrian-army-instead/


    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 9:26:49 PM | 72
    @69

    Center for Strategic and International Studies


    The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a Washington, D.C. think tank. It was founded in 1962, by Admiral Arleigh Burke and David Abshire, "at the height of the Cold War, dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people."

    it's a cold war operation ... well, there's a lot of info there anyway ...
    jfl | Jun 11, 2017 9:52:03 PM | 73
    @72

    Maria Galperin


    Program Coordinator and Research Assistant, Transnational Threats Project

    Maria Galperin is the research assistant and program coordinator for the CSIS Transnational Threats (TNT) Project, where she researches global terrorism with a primary focus on Eurasian and Middle Eastern asymmetric warfare. Prior to her duties at TNT, Ms. Galperin interned for TNT and the Cato Institute, where she focused on Russian economic history and policy. Ms. Galperin is a native Russian speaker and holds a B.A. in international relations from Anglo-American University in Prague, where she concentrated on Central Asian insurgency and terrorism.

    DavidC | Jun 11, 2017 10:08:10 PM | 74
    You can tell me he has decades of experience but I stopped reading 3 sentences in.
    psychohistorian | Jun 11, 2017 11:05:51 PM | 75
    I am encouraged by reading all the commenters that point out the obvious terrorism for money world we are allowing ourselves to live in. The elite are in a battle to maintain/expand the control of private finance controlled economies and people. I would add China North Korea to Iran and Russia that seem to be clearly support geopolitical agendas different than the West.

    And to previous thread commenters that seem to think that TINA (There Is No Alternative) to the private finance based "capitalism myth", I encourage you to study the 13 5-year plans that communist in name country, China, has executed.

    Can we at least try something other than the elite led tragedy humanity is playing out before we go extinct?

    dni | Jun 11, 2017 11:30:12 PM | 76
    digitalization not Internet. Internet is merely the messenger.. digitalization is the enabling technology.. and digitalization is a part of all communications, now days. ISIS subscribers were rarely exposed to competing propaganda; worse domestic audiences likewise were rarely exposed to competing propaganda, nearly all journalistic competition to the Intelligence Community supported agendas which seek to justify intervention, take over, invasion, regime change, privatization and the like have been drown out by the oligarch-owned media. After all the oligarchs are the customers of the IC. Conducting government in Secret and drowning out (many journalist were killed trying to cover the other side) one side of the discourse is what gave Al Queda and ISIS its access to the minds of the young.. The Internet is merely one of the many digital messengers..
    nonsense factory | Jun 12, 2017 12:42:46 AM | 77
    What would probably do the most to disrupt ISIS is if the GCC monarchies were replaced by elected local parliamentary democracy systems as quickly as possible.

    Just asking questions about that causes a crisis at the State Department, though - it's like asking them about Israeli nuclear weapons, they get all quiet.
    . . .middleeasteye.net/news/question-saudi-democracy-gives-us-state-department-pause-707102084

    Just say what you think, forget about protecting your career!

    jfl | Jun 12, 2017 1:13:51 AM | 78
    @77 nf, ' forget about protecting your career! '

    at the state department ... that's a joke, right?

    reading that article i noticed they cited mother jones ...


    In a headline to a blog post, the progressive news magazine Mother Jones quipped: "At the state department, sometimes silence speaks volumes."

    ... i don't read mother jones regularly, but i saw a piece about 'her' just this morning, When 'Mother Jones' Wasn't Russia-Bashing . apparently mother has sold out to the dnc/cia/state herself.

    not so 'progressive' any longer.

    ejm | Jun 12, 2017 1:19:51 AM | 79
    wow, all these new posters suddenly appearing to attack Magnier. hmmmm....
    Jackrabbit | Jun 12, 2017 1:57:40 AM | 80
    Wow new poster "ejm" shows up to defend Magnier. Offers nothing more than innuendo.
    paul | Jun 12, 2017 2:50:37 AM | 81
    In a way, of course, this article is right on: western colonial and neo-colonial policies are the fundamental cause of Islamic terrorism - not just western policies of regime change, but policies promoting war devastation, followed by desperate poverty and social chaos, particularly in nations like Libya and Iraq that once were relatively well off. But really, for the author to claim, as a precursor idea, that there were few international jihadists in Afghanistan? So far as I know, this claim is utter nonsense. There were many many foreign fighters in that war. The constant stream of foreign fighters into that war was one of its particular qualities, leading ultimately to the evolution of Al Queda.

    And that leads to another absurdity about this article: no acknowledgement at all that the jihadi wars (as in Syria) are basically proxy wars?!! Perhaps the author felt that to acknowledge the hidden hand of the neo-colonial West and its regional allies would be to deny the motivations of the many thousands of muslim people involved, via an analysis that takes away from them their misguided attempts to be somehow authors of their own fates and NOT mere puppets. One can understand such hesitance to see and state that the people trying not to be puppets of the West by joining ISIS are even more puppets of the west - but painful as they are, such sick ironies are essential to acknowledge.

    The West has many centuries of accumulated know-how in the craft of pulling off these kinds of divide-and-conquer manipulations, double manipulations, triple manipulations and so on. At this point in history, we global citizens - regardless of our locations and religions - are all enmeshed in a drama that is as deeply dishonest as it is horrible.

    Both Al Queda and ISIS are tools in the sick game of fostering proxy wars. When you come right down to it, so are Republicans and Democrats. Maybe the Corbyn-led Labour party can break away from this paradigm. If so that might change the world.

    Mina | Jun 12, 2017 2:53:07 AM | 82
    Jackrabbit
    Thanks for the link. I m not blaming all the imams but the use of religions by the state (hard to avoid?) And more specifically many in the middle east wonder why friday imams are not speaking of the concrete problems they have there in daily life: drugs, thefts, violence. The sense of authority in patriarchal societies is...self evident and we also havd to take into account that some persons who ve never received a minimal education are easy to convince of fantasies and manipulate.
    paul | Jun 12, 2017 3:05:24 AM | 83
    But really, at this time in history, for people to continue to claim that the consequences of Western neocolonial manipulations (such as propping up despotic regimes, using international economic institutions and policies to immiserate, etc.) and of regime change operations that leave behind writhing oceans of social chaos and violence, which in turn become breeding grounds for waves of jihadis - to claim that this is all "unintended consequences" is inane. If such a claim was ever valid (I doubt it ever was), it can't be valid now. The patterns have been too obvious for too long.

    It's like deliberately hitting your head with a hammer and then claiming that the resulting headache is an 'unintended consequence'. That could conceivably be true the first time you do it. Not thereafter.

    Happy Fathers Day 2017 Wishes | Jun 12, 2017 4:52:19 AM | 84
    Happy Father's Day means More than flowers and gifts It means saying Thank You It means saying I Love You You are the best dad, and my best friend Today is your day. Happy Fathers Day 2017 Messages
    Fathers Day Messages from Daughter
    Happy Fathers Day Quotes Images
    Happy Fathers Day 2017 Quotes | Jun 12, 2017 4:53:00 AM | 85
    You were always by my side, and I will always be by your side. Happy Father's Day to you. Funny Happy Fathers Day Images
    Best Happy Fathers Day Status
    Fathers Day Quotes from Wife for Husband
    Fathers Day Messages from Wife to Husband
    Dark side | Jun 12, 2017 7:29:25 AM | 86
    Mina #52
    Are you talking about Republican or Democrat's constituency or Americans in general?
    Dark side | Jun 12, 2017 7:30:27 AM | 87
    Ups at Mina #82
    Amanita Amanita | Jun 12, 2017 8:37:03 AM | 88
    Dear Moon

    Northen Ireland Home Rule constitutional arrangements have it that UK parliament adjudicates disputes between Sinn Fein and DUP in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the Tories rely on DUP for confidence the UK parliament can't discharge its duties in Northern Ireland with clean hands...it will have a clear conflict of interest. May is going to be legally prevented from forming government by way of DUP favour.

    The UK is therefore facing a constitutional crisis...the likes of which it has never known.

    Mina | Jun 12, 2017 9:06:17 AM | 89
    Amanita
    ..and that's wonderful news. Even the Queen has to delay her post-election speech. And the government is supposed to meet the EU in Brussels next week to start putting the divorce in practice...
    cresty | Jun 12, 2017 9:13:26 AM | 90
    @Diana | Jun 11, 2017 6:26:28 PM | 62
    My guess is that he just made a mental error and conflated the number of al qaeda in Afghanistan with the number of foreign fighters total. Or there was a mistranslation and he was talking about foreigners currently fighting for either branch of al qaeda now and back then.
    Thucydides | Jun 12, 2017 9:23:28 AM | 91
    Why did they legalize marihuana in the USA? The Pentagon is being crippled from methamphetamine epidemic raging on the middle of the USA which makes the young men unfit to serve as MEAT in the armies of the Pentagon.

    Add all the gayness to the USA.
    Add all the multiculturalism to the USA.
    Add the IPhone/Jackass generation to the USA.
    Add the fact intelligent men understand the Rothschild-Zionists their game.
    Add 100% corrupt military leaders that stay away from any battle themselves.
    Add 100% homosexual military staff that are used to take other men in the behind.
    Add 100% military leaders who are part of secret boys clubs and only promoted after homosexual sexual favors to those higher up.

    The Armies of the Pentagon have GROWN WEAK. Bring it on suckers! No one is afraid of these wimps/sissy boys.

    Looks like the Rothschild-Zionists in control of the USA made some strategic mistakes. They wanted the men in the USA to be stupid and divided. Now look at the armies of the Pentagon and start to laugh very loudly!

    james | Jun 12, 2017 11:20:43 AM | 92
    @77 nonsense factory quote "Just say what you think, forget about protecting your career!"

    that's it! unfortunately being trained to lie or obfuscate 24/7 is the critical ingredient for job applicants at the usa state dept..

    @88 Amanita Amanita.. fascinating if true.. thanks..

    fast freddy | Jun 12, 2017 12:04:31 PM | 93
    Ben 68 "It is a question of finally stopping the use of foreign currency in internal trade," said Putin."

    No matter that trillions are printed, given away, and "lost", the dollar is the supreme paper and the supreme digit. It is backed by the full faith and credit of (the extremely moral, honest and incorruptible) USofA.

    It is backed by nothing more than magical faith and magical credit.

    Anyone who disagrees has always faced dire consequences.

    There's a new rail bridge that China built which connects with Russia.
    They don't seem to understand the value of the dollar.

    nobody | Jun 12, 2017 12:12:39 PM | 94
    ISIS benefited from immeasurable experiences of sympathisers who chose to join the ranks; doctors, engineers, university degree holders and many from all walks of life, including experts with large competence in propaganda. Those served ISIS and managed to create a regular magazine, radios and short films in many languages. They integrate the widespread electronic games with pictures of battles and killing in real life. An abundance of informative materials emanates daily from ISIS through the Internet to deliver ideas and messages to every home and continent no group ever had access to before. ...

    if you run servers pushing bits of a media company they hunt you down and shut down the site, but if you are "ISIS" then you get a presence on "social media" and no one bothers you. what a strange world.

    So OP's article is addressing the obvious question of "who is helping these head choppers?" and assures us it is not "experts" of Western intelligence services but actually "sympathisers who join the ranks".

    https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai

    That could easily be a spook resume.

    fast freddy | Jun 12, 2017 12:46:16 PM | 95
    Strange that doctors, engineers and University graduates become inclined to throw away their careers and risk their lives so they can join ISIS.

    Most would come from upper class (wealthy) families with all the comfort and "indoctrination" that comes with that.

    I suppose if they were educated in the west, seeing all flat screen tv's and Wal-Marts would really piss them off.

    Mina | Jun 12, 2017 1:19:24 PM | 96
    A lot of them were educated in the West!!
    MSimon | Jun 12, 2017 1:28:22 PM | 97
    Why isn't the Israel-Europe gas pipeline not included as a driver of current events?

    I discuss that here: https://www.spartareport.com/2017/06/its-a-gas/

    MSimon | Jun 12, 2017 1:34:58 PM | 98
    Thucydides | Jun 12, 2017 9:23:28 AM

    Why is the US legalizing pot? Because Prohibition is a price support mechanism for criminals.

    We learned that from Alcohol Prohibition.

    I guess Americans are tired of its government supporting criminals.

    And then there is this.

    https://acestoohigh.com/2017/05/02/addiction-doc-says-stop-chasing-the-drug-focus-on-aces-people-can-recover/
    Addiction doc says: It's not the drugs. It's the ACEs – adverse childhood experiences

    So why are we making war on abused kids? It seems immoral to me. But that could be a personal defect.

    [Jun 12, 2017] What Happened to Russiagate by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Or, if the neocons push ahead with their ultimate "regime change" strategy of staging a "color revolution" in Moscow to overthrow Putin, the outcome might be-not the pliable new leader that the neocons would want-but an unstable Russian nationalist who might see a nuclear attack on the U.S. as the only way to protect the honor of Mother Russia. ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | Consortiumnews

    Democrats, liberals and some progressives might be feeling a little perplexed over what has happened to Russiagate, the story that pounded Donald Trump every day since his election last November-until April 4, that is.

    On April 4, Trump fully capitulated to the neoconservative bash-Russia narrative amid dubious claims about a chemical attack in Syria. On April 6, Trump fired off 59 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian airbase; he also restored the neocon demand for "regime change" in Syria; and he alleged that Russia was possibly complicit in the supposed chemical attack.

    Since Trump took those actions-in accordance with the neocon desires for more "regime change" in the Middle East and a costly New Cold War with Russia-Russiagate has almost vanished from the news.

    I did find a little story in the lower right-hand corner of page A12 of Saturday's New York Times about a still-eager Democratic congressman, Mike Quigley of Illinois, who spent a couple of days in Cyprus which attracted his interest because it is a known site for Russian money-laundering, but he seemed to leave more baffled than when he arrived.

    Yet, given all the hype and hullabaloo over Russiagate, the folks who were led to believe that the vague and amorphous allegations were "bigger than Watergate" might now be feeling a little used. It appears they may have been sucked into a conspiracy frenzy in which the Establishment exploited their enthusiasm over the "scandal" in a clever maneuver to bludgeon an out-of-step new President back into line.

    If that's indeed the case, perhaps the most significant success of the Russiagate ploy was the ouster of Trump's original National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who was seen as a key proponent of a New Détente with Russia, and his replacement by General H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon favorite, retired Gen. David Petraeus.

    McMaster was viewed as the key player in arranging the April 6 missile strike on Syria and in preparing a questionable "intelligence assessment" on April 11 to justify the rush to judgment. Although McMaster's four-page white paper has been accepted as gospel by the mainstream U.S. news media, its many weaknesses have been noted by actual experts, such as MIT national security and technology professor Theodore Postol.

    How Washington Works

    But the way Official Washington works is that Trump was made to look weak when he argued for a more cooperative and peaceful relationship with Russia. Hillary Clinton dubbed him Vladimir Putin's "puppet" and "Saturday Night Live" portrayed Trump as in thrall to a bare-chested Putin. More significantly, front-page stories every morning and cable news segments every night created the impression of a compromised U.S. President in Putin's pocket.

    Conversely, Trump was made to look strong when he fired off missiles against a Syrian airbase and talked tough about Russian guilt. Neocon commentator Charles Krauthammer praised Trump's shift as demonstrating that "America is back."

    Trump further enhanced his image for toughness when his military dropped the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), nicknamed the "mother of all bombs," on some caves in Afghanistan. While the number of casualties inflicted by the blast was unclear, Trump benefited from the admiring TV and op-ed commentaries about him finally acting "presidential."

    But the real test of political courage is to go against the grain in a way that may be unpopular in the short term but is in the best interests of the United States and the world community in the longer term.

    In that sense, Trump seeking peaceful cooperation with Russia-even amid the intense anti-Russian propaganda of the past several years-required actual courage, while launching missiles and dropping bombs might win praise but actually make the U.S. position in the world weaker.

    Trump, however, saw his fledgling presidency crumbling under the daily barrage of Russiagate, even though there was no evidence that his campaign colluded with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election and there wasn't even clear evidence that Russia was behind the disclosure of Democratic emails, via WikiLeaks, during the campaign.

    Still, the combined assault from the Democrats, the neocons and the mainstream media forced Trump to surrender his campaign goal of achieving a more positive relationship with Russia and greater big-power collaboration in the fight against terrorism.

    For Trump, the incessant chatter about Russiagate was like a dripping water torture. The thin-skinned Trump fumed at his staff and twittered messages aimed at changing the narrative, such as accusing President Obama of "wiretapping" Trump Tower. But nothing worked.

    However, once Trump waved the white flag by placing his foreign policy under the preferred banner of the neoconservatives, the Russiagate pressure stopped. The op-ed pages suddenly were hailing his "decisiveness." If you were a neocon, you might say about Russiagate: Mission accomplished!

    Russiagate's Achievements

    Besides whipping Trump into becoming a more compliant politician, Russiagate could claim some other notable achievements. For instance, it spared the national Democrats from having to confront their own failures in Campaign 2016 by diverting responsibility for the calamity of Trump's election.

    Instead of Democratic leaders taking responsibility for picking a dreadful candidate, ignoring the nation's anti-establishment mood, and failing to offer any kind of inspiring message, the national Democrats could palm off the blame on "Russia! Russia! Russia!"

    Thus, rather than looking in the mirror and trying to figure out how to correct their deep-seated problems, the national Democrats could instead focus on a quixotic tilting at Trump's impeachment.

    Many on the Left joined in this fantasy because they have been so long without a Movement that the huge post-inaugural "pussy hat" marches were a temptation that they couldn't resist. Russiagate became the fuel to keep the "Movement" bandwagon rolling. #Resistance!

    It didn't matter that the "scandal"-the belief that Russia somehow conspired with Trump to rig the U.S. presidential election-amounted to a bunch of informational dots that didn't connect.

    Russiagate also taught the American "left" to learn to love McCarthyism since "proof" of guilt pretty much amounted to having had contact with a Russian-and anyone who questioned the dubious factual basis of the "scandal" was dismissed as a "Russian propagandist" or a "Moscow stooge" or a purveyor of "fake news."

    Another Russiagate winner was the mainstream news media which got a lot of mileage-and loads of new subscription money-by pushing the convoluted conspiracy. The New York Times positioned itself as the great protector of "truth" and The Washington Post adopted a melodramatic new slogan: "Democracy Dies in Darkness." ran a front-page article touting an anonymous Internet group called PropOrNot that identified some 200 Internet news sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other major sources of independent journalism, as guilty of "Russian propaganda." Facts weren't needed; the accused had no chance for rebuttal; the accusers even got to hide in the shadows; the smear was the thing.

    The Post and the Times also conflated news outlets that dared to express skepticism toward claims from the U.S. State Department with some entrepreneurial sites that trafficked in intentionally made-up stories or "fake news" to make money.

    To the Post and Times, there appeared to be no difference between questioning the official U.S. narrative on, say, the Ukraine crisis and knowingly fabricating pretend news articles to get lots of clicks. Behind the smokescreen of Russiagate, the mainstream U.S. news media took the position that there was only one side to a story, what Official Washington chose to believe.

    While it's likely that there will be some revival of Russiagate to avoid the appearance of a completely manufactured scandal, the conspiracy theory's more significant near-term consequence could be that it has taught Donald Trump a dangerous lesson.

    If he finds himself in a tight spot, the way out is to start bombing some "enemy" halfway around the world. The next time, however, the target might not be so willing to turn the other cheek. If, say, Trump launches a preemptive strike against North Korea, the result could be a retaliatory nuclear attack against South Korea or Japan.

    Or, if the neocons push ahead with their ultimate "regime change" strategy of staging a "color revolution" in Moscow to overthrow Putin, the outcome might be-not the pliable new leader that the neocons would want-but an unstable Russian nationalist who might see a nuclear attack on the U.S. as the only way to protect the honor of Mother Russia.

    For all his faults, Trump did offer a more temperate approach toward U.S.-Russian relations, which also could have tamped down spending for nuclear and other strategic weapons and freed up some of that money for infrastructure and other needs at home. But that was before Russiagate.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, "America's Stolen Narrative," either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Jun 12, 2017] Russiagate is the way to pressure Trump into abandoning his foreign policy goals and continue Obama neocon foreign policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat. ..."
    "... The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    John Gruskos June 12, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT

    Jun 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Robert Roth is exactly right.

    The ridiculous "Russian influence" narrative is a cynical ploy to pressure Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises, and instead wage a counter productive regime change war in Syria.

    If Trump is not amenable to pressure, they establishment apparently plans to impeach Trump and use Pence as their tool instead.

    Either way, this constitutes a coup d'etat.

    The American people elected a president who promised an America First agenda, and the establishment is using the threat of an unjustifiable impeachment or unconstitutional use of the 25th amendment to nullify the results of that election.

    [Jun 12, 2017] Statement Trump is Putins puppet. is a sign of dementia or of a neoliberal MSM presstitute

    Jun 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    pgl- , June 10, 2017 at 01:47 AM

    Trump is Putin's puppet.
    ilsm, June 10, 2017 at 04:28 AM
    heh!
    Libezkova - , June 10, 2017 at 04:28 AM
    "Trump is Putin's puppet."

    Looks like you do not have enough IQ to understand that Russiagate is a typical "color revolution" scenario. I am lost. How such a post can correlate with your other posts, where you actually show understanding of complex things (your neoliberal bias notwithstanding)? Incredible! Is there two different PGL here ? Early dementia ?

    This is even not funny, because anybody with IQ above 100 understands the POTUS does not matter much in foreign policy. So for Russians the difference is close to zero and risks are high to engage is such a behavior. Actually they probably have much more serious "compromat" on Hillary and, especially, Bill, so Hillary might be preferable to them.

    Is it so difficult to understand that POTUS is just a placeholder of minor player, and other "very serious people" determine the US foreign policy.

    To say nothing about that evidence is not here, and the whole "Purple revolution" scenario with the key idea of delegitimization of Trump via Russiagate is taken directly from Gene Sharp's book.

    https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/gene-sharp-handbook-nonviolent-resistance-dictators-trump

    And Gene Sharp book is not a secret. It is the standard textbook used by the State Department for teaching such things. You can buy it from Amazon:

    [Jun 12, 2017] In Praise of Hypocrisy by Masha Gessen

    Empire of Lies is a 2008 thriller novel written by Andrew Klavan. The book takes its title from a quote by George Orwell often used by Ron Paul, "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." Masha Gessen is a part of US propaganda empire, and now trying to defend it by all means. Demonstrating the level of sophisticaion I never suspected of her. I like the term "aspirational hypocrisy", because now the USA neocon foreign policy and neocon's wars can be defined as the "Wars of aspirational hypocrisy". But this is all I like in the article. It is useful as as sample of sophisticated propaganda. That's it.
    In any case this article is nice example of "deception as an art form" and this neoliberal Masha proved to be a real artist in this art.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom. ..."
    "... One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. ..."
    "... Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers. ..."
    "... Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior. ..."
    "... In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles. ..."
    "... when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?" ..."
    "... To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy ..."
    "... No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ... ..."
    "... How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party? ..."
    Feb 18, 2017 | nyt.com

    Everybody lies. But American politics has long rested on a shared understanding of what it is acceptable to lie about, how and to whom.

    One of the many norms that Donald J. Trump has assaulted since taking office is this tradition of aspirational hypocrisy, of striving, at least rhetorically, to act in accordance with moral values - to be better. This tradition has set the standard of behavior for government officials and has shaped Americans' understanding of what their government and their country represent. Over the last four weeks, Mr. Trump has lashed out against any criticism of his behavior, because, as he never tires of pointing out, "We won."

    In requesting the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, however, Mr. Trump made his first public concession to political expectations. Hypocrisy has scored a minor victory in America. This is a good thing.

    The word "hypocrisy" was thrown around a lot during the 2016 presidential campaign. Both Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders accused their respective parties and the country's elites of hypocrisy. As the election neared, some journalists tried to turn the accusation around on Mr. Trump, taking him to task, for example, for his stand on immigration. If Mr. Trump favored such a hard line on immigration, the logic went, should he not then favor the deportation of his own wife, Melania, who was alleged to have worked while in the United States on a visitor's visa?

    The charge of hypocrisy didn't stick, not so much because it placed its proponents, unwittingly, in the distasteful position of advocating the deportation of someone for a long-ago and common transgression, but because Mr. Trump wasn't just breaking the rules of political conduct: He was destroying them. He was openly claiming that he abused the system to benefit himself. If he didn't pay his taxes and got away with it, this made him a good businessman. If he could force himself on women, that made him more of a man. He acted as though this primitive logic were obvious and shared by all.

    Fascists the world over have gained popularity by calling forth the idea that the world is rotten to the core. In "The Origins of Totalitarianism," Hannah Arendt described how fascism invites people to "throw off the mask of hypocrisy" and adopt the worldview that there is no right and wrong, only winners and losers.

    Hypocrisy can be aspirational: Political actors claim that they are motivated by ideals perhaps to a greater extent than they really are; shedding the mask of hypocrisy asserts that greed, vengeance and gratuitous cruelty aren't wrong, but are legitimate motivations for political behavior.

    In the last decade and a half, post-Communist autocrats like Vladimir V. Putin and Viktor Orban have adopted this cynical posture. They seem convinced that the entire world is driven solely by greed and hunger for power, and only the Western democracies continue to insist, hypocritically, that their politics are based on values and principles.

    This stance has breathed new life into the old Soviet propaganda tool of "whataboutism," the trick of turning any argument against the opponent. When accused of falsifying elections, Russians retort that American elections are not unproblematic; when faced with accusations of corruption, they claim that the entire world is corrupt.

    This month, Mr. Trump employed the technique of whataboutism when he was asked about his admiration for Mr. Putin, whom the host Bill O'Reilly called "a killer." "You got a lot of killers," responded Mr. Trump. "What, you think our country's so innocent?"

    To an American ear, Mr. Trump's statement was jarring - not because Americans believe their country to be "innocent" but because they have always relied on a sort of aspirational hypocrisy to understand the country. No American politician in living memory has advanced the idea that the entire world, including the United States, was rotten to the core. ...

    Hungary's PM Viktor Orban praises Trump for saying countries should put their own interests first
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/donald-trump-nationalist-hungary-pm-viktor-orban-praise-america-first-a7542361.html

    ===

    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:27 PM

    I am less worried now we got Trump and not apparatchik (experienced in deep state and catering to Jihadis) Clinton.
    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:25 PM
    The faux librul side is all Joe McCarthy phony red scaring and surveillance of the opposition activists sort of like what Army Intell did to hippies protesting the liberals' debacle in Southeast Asia.

    Deep state surveillance and trashing the Bill of Rights is a legacy of the past 8 years.

    yuan, February 18, 2017 at 09:36 PM
    it's telling that you believe genuine liberalism is positive...
    ilsm , February 18, 2017 at 04:45 AM
    Vox, what about reporting from a crystal ball requires truth?
    Peter K. - , February 18, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming! Hide under your bed.
    ilsm, February 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM
    Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate", and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried bc a Bill of rights argument would win!

    How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?

    If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 05:35 PM

    the dems' deep state have already trodden the Bill of Rights how worse can it get......

    fascism is in the US for 8 years or so.

    [Jun 11, 2017] What Trump Can Do for Defense The American Conservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having destroyed the Iraqi state? ..."
    "... 4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem, and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . . . ..."
    "... I understand you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President Donald J. Trump. ..."
    "... Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced. ..."
    "... Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East, beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan. ..."
    "... Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as an absolute disaster. ..."
    Jun 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    seydlitz89, says: July 11, 2016 at 5:55 am

    Still peddling the 4GW snake oil . . . Would there even be an ISIS without the support of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Israel . . . or without the Bush administration having destroyed the Iraqi state?

    4GW is a mantra used rather ineffectively to obscure the obvious reality of our own strategic dysfunctions . . . replacing the establishment leadership only takes care of part of the problem, and perhaps not even the worst part, which imo is conceptual . . . connected with having followed Mr. Lind and Martin van Creveld down the rabbit hole notion of the "Transformation of War" . . .

    John , says: July 11, 2016 at 8:35 am
    It's tempting to project your preferences onto Trump because there's so much blank space there in terms of policy, but Trump has in no way committed to firing half of our general officers, or a "housecleaning" that takes away enough money from the Pentagon to fund a major infrastructure program in its own right, or cancelling any weapons system currently under development.

    This is all wishful thinking, even without considering what Congress would do. I understand you have to generate content on a regular basis, and a conservative publication should at least try to find the silver linings in a Trump presidency, but you have provided me with very little foundation for why all of these (ostensibly good) things would come to pass because of President Donald J. Trump.

    An Agrarian , says: July 11, 2016 at 8:45 am
    I wish it were as simple as waltzing about the Pentagon saying "You're Fired!" There's good reasoning in the essay with which I agree; Trump seems to have the better instincts to deal with Pentagon Inc, particularly when Option 2 is Hillary.

    But. How does one reform an inherently unreformable institution? How to overcome a system rigged with flag officers and SES bureaucrats that were groomed for their true-belief in the military-industrial complex? Maybe I'm just the eternal pessimist, but knowing the Pentagon culture firsthand, I see zero chance at a "businessman-led housecleaning of the U.S. military.

    Johann , says: July 11, 2016 at 9:50 am
    "4GW does not justify big-ticket programs such as the F-35 fighter/bomber and its trillion-dollar price tag."

    I would go further and say nothing justifies the F-35. Because of its expense, it is not mass producible, and therefore not suitable for a conventional war either. The cost/aircraft would come down with mass production, but it would still be too expensive and slow to mass produce in an all-out conventional war. It would be kind of like an aerial tiger tank.

    Egypt Steve , says: July 11, 2016 at 10:28 am
    Enjoy the dream while it lasts, Mr. Lind. But be prepared for a rude awakening. Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced.
    Kurt Gayle , says: July 11, 2016 at 11:55 am
    William S. Lind contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to Pentagon reform:

    Trump: "Because Trump is anti-establishment, military reform would at least be a possibility .Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."

    Clinton: On the other hand, "So long as the establishment is in power, it [reform ] is not [possible]. In defense as in everything else, establishment leadership means more of the same. In the case of Hillary Clinton that mean[s] more wasted money."

    Lind also contrasts Trump and Clinton with respect to American interventionism:

    Trump: "He has repeatedly questioned American interventionism. He roundly condemned the idiotic and disastrous Iraq War, which suggests he would rather not repeat the experience. Of equal importance, he has called for repairing our relationship with Russia."

    Clinton: A Hillary Clinton presidency "means more wars, wars we will lose. Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria."

    However – on reading further in the Lind article – it becomes apparent that Lind's argument is not so much with endless American military interventionism as it is with the targets of endless American interventionism:

    "The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states The establishment refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war Might a Trump administration see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?"

    In other words, Lind proposes to merely redirect the current endless American military interventions away from existing nation states and towards non-state forces. Lind doesn't simply want to work with other states on a case-by-case basis when it is in the US national interest to do so - rather he wants a new "grand strategy" of an open-ended world-wide alliance with other states against non-state forces. Lind doesn't want to put a stop to endless American military interventionism, but instead to concentrate on a new kind of endless American interventionism.

    An additional point of concern in the Lind article: In asking "Might a Trump administration see the need for an alliance of all states against non-state forces?" Lind writes: "Here we have a clue: Trump has chosen as a defense advisor-the rumor mill says shadow secretary of defense-retired Army general Michael Flynn. It was an excellent choice."

    Two reference articles show why Michael Flynn would not be an "excellent choice"at all: First, in Flynn's own words on July 9th op-ed in The New York Post:

    http://nypost.com/2016/07/09/the-military-fired-me-for-calling-our-enemies-radical-jihadis/

    And secondly, in Daniel Larison's excellent "Flynn's Warped Worldview" (today in TAC):

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/flynns-warped-worldview/

    Fred Bowman , says: July 11, 2016 at 12:01 pm
    Wishful thinking, Mr. Lind even if Trump could with the election and try to make the changes you envision. Truth be told, America is now govern by the "Deep State" of which the MIC is major part of. Also, the MIC is not the least interested in ending any of these interventions wars as that would negatively impact their "gravy train".
    JohnG , says: July 11, 2016 at 2:28 pm
    I agree that we may be projecting our wishful thinking on Trump, but what is the alternative? Faced with a choice between a known bad apple and an apple that gives some vague hope, it is rational to bet on the second. Especially given that it is hard to imagine an apple more rotten than HRC, so our downside risk is limited too.

    PS I was always willing to give pres. Obama a bit of a free pass because of his refusal to implicate us any deeper in the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine. I figured the atrocity of Yemen and blunders elsewhere (Iraq, Afghanistan, relationship with SA and Turkey, the lack of resolve to draw an even clearer line in the sand on Syria, Libya, and Ukraine) were the norm given the neocon-infested foreign policy apparatus, and at least he was putting up SOME resistance. Sadly, that resounding endorsement of HRC blew it all up, he has fallen in line and we are in for some more GW-Cheney-style insanity should she prevail. Whatever respect I had for him is now gone. I was hoping he'd try to setup things so that the resistance to the neocon insanity and jingoism would grow further, not fall back, as the choice of HRC clearly indicates.

    eNostrums , says: July 11, 2016 at 3:20 pm
    "Anyone who thinks that Trump will have a positive influence on any aspect of American governance needs to have his head examined, and probably to have it replaced."

    "Positive influence" is all well and good, but we're in slow motion collapse, and it's beside the point.

    Most Trump supporters hope for negative accomplishments, catharsis: firings and prosecutions of elite miscreants, ending immigration and deporting illegals, getting out of the Middle East, beating down the GOP establishment and, with it, great swathes of Leviathan.

    I have no idea what the Clinton supporters hope for. More abortions? More government jobs? More immigrants? More gay weddings and transwhatever toilets? More dead Americans and Middle Easterners? More Wall Street bailouts? More foreign dictators and more taxpayer money to put them on the US payroll? They probably aren't thinking "more money and power for the Clintons", "more recklessness and irresponsibility", or "more scandal and embarrassment", even though that's about all they'll get.

    Stephen Johnson , says: July 11, 2016 at 3:28 pm
    While it's true this is wishful thinking, one just needs to remember the alternative. It is as certain as anything can be in this life that with Clinton we will rush full speed ahead into more of the same disasters. Trump is bad, but worse than the status quo? That's hard to imagine. Flynn, though, seems to be another neocon nut, though I'm open to any contrary evidence.
    Carl , says: July 11, 2016 at 4:13 pm
    I wish it were otherwise, but I don't even think that Trump is a serious candidate. He's done nothing to encourage his supporters, taken little to no advantage of Clinton's obvious shortcomings, and everything to provide ammunition to Clinton's legions of delusional 'liberal' fascists. This is not a Donald who wants to win.
    Hankest , says: July 11, 2016 at 5:26 pm
    "Trump is a businessman. Businessmen do not like wasting money. They want efficiency. They cut bloated staffs, fire incompetent executives, and get rid of unnecessary contractors."

    Nah.

    Here's how Trump runs his businesses, he incurs enormous debts by grossly overpaying for whatever new toy he wants. Then he incurs more debt to pay himself and his family large salaries or to pay off his personal debts. He also wastes money on the gaudy, unnecessary and tasteless "improvements" to his purchases(small e.g., gold plated fixtures in the Trump Shuttle bathrooms). Then, he doesn't pay contractors for the work they performed. And, when it all goes belly-up he leaves his foolish investors or the banks holding the bag (i.e., the enormous debt).

    More simply, going by his business record Trump actually loves debt, incompetence, overspending and obscene waste.

    sglover , says: July 12, 2016 at 12:23 am
    With this column, the 4GW hucksters have managed to get within their own OODA loop. I'm embarrassed to say that I ever paid attention to them.
    sglover , says: July 12, 2016 at 11:49 am
    I have no idea what the Clinton supporters hope for.

    Maintaining a wobbly status quo. You'll see no grand visions of anything from HRC.

    Elias , says: July 12, 2016 at 3:16 pm
    Trump dug his grave when he delved into xenophobia and ethnic chauvinism.His ranting about Mexicans and Muslims and now his new Nixonian slogan of being a tough law and order president has given enough ammunition to the Democrats to trounce him coming next election.
    Todd Pierce , says: July 12, 2016 at 10:16 pm
    I think Lind is proof of the triumph of hope over reality here; either that or that there is a sucker born every minute. I think some important facts about Flynn are missed here. Here is a statement he made to Hugh Hewitt:

    "Last, I'm going to just touch on Russia and Iran briefly. Both of these countries, I deal with in my book, because these are allies of radical Islamism, and most people don't know how they are interacting with each other. So I just wanted to touch on that."

    Today, July 12th, his book with Michael Ledeen as co-author, Field of Fight, was released. In Flynn's own words:

    "Yet, the alliance exists, and we've already dithered for many years.

    The war is on. We face a working coalition that extends from North Korea and China to Russia, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. We are under attack, not only from nation states, but also from al Qaeda, Hezbollah, ISIS, and countless other terrorist groups. Suffice to say, the same sort of cooperation binds together jihadis, Communists, and garden-variety tyrants.

    Flynn isn't an antidote to Hilary Clinton; they're equals in madness.

    A. G. Phillbin , says: July 12, 2016 at 11:50 pm
    I wouldn't even now bet on Trump being the Republican nominee - the Republican establishment may well prefer to be trounced rather than elect Trump. Look for them to give Trump the kind of "support" a rope gives a hanged man, or to change the rules so they can select another nominee, or a combination of both. Paul Ryan has been making noises about allowing delegates to vote their conscience on the 1st ballot, allowing nervous Trump delegates to jump ship. All it would take is a meeting of GOP Rules Committee, which happens just before the convention. And this is a senator who has "endorsed" Trump, even if he has also called him a "racist."
    Dakarian , says: July 13, 2016 at 12:33 am
    from sglover:
    "Maintaining a wobbly status quo. You'll see no grand visions of anything from HRC"

    Sadly I think that IS what's expected. Similar to how Trump voters don't see him so much as doing great things as much as "80% chance of failure is better than 100%", Hillary voters see it as more "keeping the plane slightly tilted down being better than blowing the plane up with dynamite."

    Both sides aren't seeing their candidate as being great. They just see the other side as an absolute disaster.

    I'll be honest, given what the GOP was giving up as alternatives and assuming that Sanders didn't have a chance in hades, Trump/Hillary was, to me, the best outcome out of the primaries. I don't support Trump but I'd take him over Rubio or Bush.

    Though note that at this point 8 years ago, I was saying "oh, Obama vs McCain. Either way, I'm happy." Then the general election campaign kicked in and I stopped being happy over the latter :/

    Sort of worried I'll see the same here, and if the rumors about Trump's shift are true, then I think that's exactly what I'll be seeing.

    Agent76 , says: October 13, 2016 at 10:35 am
    Dec 18, 2015 Donald Trump Is The Establishment Candidate

    While his rise in the polls is attributed to his challenging the establishment and the political status quo, let's look at the many ways Donald Trump, when it comes to his political positions, represents that very same status quo. From the Fed, to war, to civil liberties, the "anti-establishment"? Trump takes no positions not already endorsed by the establishment.

    https://youtu.be/vt2NPP1z-y8

    [Jun 11, 2017] The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents

    Notable quotes:
    "... Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria. ..."
    "... The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states. ..."
    "... The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz." ..."
    Jun 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, June 10, 2017 at 11:35 PM

    William S. Lind on Hillary:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-trump-can-do-for-defense/

    "In the case of Hillary Clinton, not only does that mean more wasted money, it means more wars, wars we will lose.

    Hillary is a wild-eyed interventionist. She gave us the Libyan fiasco, and had Obama been fool enough to listen to her again, we would now be at war on the ground in Syria.

    The establishment refuses to see the limits of American power, and it also refuses to compel our military to focus on war against non-state opponents, or Fourth Generation war. The Pentagon pretends its future is war against other states.

    The political and foreign-policy establishments pretend the Pentagon knows how to win. They waltz together happily, unaware theirs is a Totentanz."

    [Jun 10, 2017] Krugman is a political hack for Clinton wing of Democratic Party and as such can not see was is wrong with Dems and what needs to be done after Hillary Fiasco

    Jun 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova June 10, 2017 at 03:22 PM

    There are several problems with Krugman both as an economist and as a political commentator.

    First he does not understand that neoliberal system is inherency unstable and prone to periodic bubbles and crashes. FED plays destabilizing role by attempting to save large banks. It essentially provided insurance for reckless behaviour. This is very "Minsky" -- "stability is destabilizing". If we believe Jim Rogers, FED policies created a situation in which the next crash is a real possibility and might happen within a year, or two:

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/jim-rogers-the-worst-crash-in-our-lifetime-is-coming/ar-BBCl6BS?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

    Politically Krugman switched to neocon views and sometimes is undistinguishable from Wolfowitz : " And consider his refusal to endorse the central principle of NATO, the obligation to come to our allies' defense... What was that about? Nobody knows..."

    NATO became obsolete with the dissolution of the USSR and now serves only as an instrument of the US foreign policy -- a tool for expansion and maintenance of neoliberal empire and keeping our European vassals in check.

    He also got into Russiagate trap, which is a sign of weak intellect (dementia in cases of Hillary and McCain), or of a neocon political hack. As Krugman does not have dementia, I suspect the latter.

    The standards he tries to apply to Trump would put in jail all three previous presidents starting from "change we can believe in" bait and switch artist.

    In other words his column is highly partisan and as such represents interest only for Hillary Bots and DemoRats (which are still plentiful and control MSM).

    For people who try to find a real way out of the current difficult situation (a crisis of confidence and, possibly, the start of revolt against neoliberal elite due to side effects of globalization) the USA now have find itself, this is just a noise. Nothing constructive.

    Trump position "get what you want with the brute force; f*ck diplomacy, UN and decency" is actually an attempt to find a solution for the problems we face. Abhorrent as it is. Kind of highway robbery policy.

    The key problem is whether we should start dismantling neoliberalism before it is too late, and what should be the alternative. Krugman is useless in attempts to answer those two key questions.

    And it is unclear whether it is possible by peaceful means. Those neolib/neocon guys like Bolsheviks in the past want to cling to power at all costs.

    Another question is whether the maintenance of global neoliberal empire led by the USA is now too costly for US taxpayers and need to be reconsidered. This is the same question British empire faced in the past. Do we really need 500 or so foreign bases? Do we really need to spend half a trillion dollars annually on military? Do we need all those never ending wars as in Orwellian "war is the health of the state" quote (actually this quote is not from 1984, this is the subtitle of the essay by Randolph Bourne (1918))

    What is the real risk of WWIII with such policies? Because there is a chance that nor only the modern civilization, but all higher forms of life of Earth in general seize to exists after it.

    Concentrating of Trump "deficiencies" Krugman does not understand that Trump is just a Republican Obama -- another "clean plate" offering to the US electorate, another "bait and switch" artist.

    With just different fake slogan "Make America great again" instead of "Change we can believe in".

    And as such any critique of Trump is an implicit critique of Obama presidency, which enabled Trump election.

    Teleprompter personally was a dangerous and unqualified political hack, not that different from Trump (no foreign policy experience whatsoever; almost zero understanding of economics), who outsourced foreign policy to the despicable neocon warmonger Clinton and got us into Libya, Ukraine and Syria wars in addition to existing war in Afghanistan.

    Continuing occupation of Afghanistan (which incorrectly called war) and illegal actions in Syria (there was no UN resolution justifying the USA presence in Syria) are now becoming too costly.

    Afghan people definitely want the USA out and will fight for their freedom. Taliban has supporters in Pakistan and possibly in other Islamic countries.

    In Syria the USA now clashed with Russian interests which make it a real power keg. Add to this sociopaths in CIA like Mike "Kill-Russians" Morell and the fact that CIA is not under complete control of federal government and actually represent "state within the state" force in this conflict, and the situation looks really dangerous.

    And please note that Russia protects a secular government, and the USA supports Islamic fundamentalists in Syria, to make Israel even greater. Instead of "Making America great again". Such a betrayal of elections promises... The same policy that Hillary would adopt if she sits on the throne.

    So to say that Trump is idiot in foreign policy without saying that Obama was the same dangerous idiot, who pursued the same neocon policies is hypocritical, because they are manipulated by the same people in dark suits and are just marionettes, or, at best, minor players. Other people decide for them what is good for America.

    The US army is pretty much demoralized and even with advanced weapons and absolute air superiority can't achieve much because solders understand that they are just cannon fodder and it is unclear what they fighting for in Afghanistan.

    Because in Syria the USA support the same Islamic fundamentalists it is fighting in Afghanistan. Or even worse than those -- head choppers like guys from Al Nusra.

    So we fight secular government in Syria supporting Sunni fundamentalists (often of worst kind as KSA supported Wahhabi fighters) and simultaneously are trying to protect secular government in Afghanistan against exactly the same (or even slightly more moderate) Islamic fundamentalist forces. Is not this a definition of split personality?

    Reply Saturday, June 10, 2017 at 03:22 PM

    [Jun 10, 2017] We actually know nothing. Only rumors (aka fake news ) from neoliberal MSM.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We also know that a number of state election officials computers were hacked by Russia " ..."
    "... BTW Comey in his testimony blow up the whole neoliberal MSM narrative about Trump betrayal and Russian agents of influence. ..."
    Jun 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    kurt , June 09, 2017 at 10:53 AM

    We also know for certain that there were numerous violations of the voting rights act due to Crosscheck and other caging operations. We also know that a number of state election officials computers were hacked by Russia - and I have seen the guts of those Diabold machines and even with my limited programing skills I could hack one and cover my tracks.
    libezkova, June 09, 2017 at 10:15 PM
    "We also know that a number of state election officials computers were hacked by Russia "

    We actually know nothing. Only rumors (aka "fake news") from neoliberal MSM.

    So I assume that you have access to classified materials and was allowed to discuss them in blogs. Good for you ;-)

    BTW Comey in his testimony blow up the whole neoliberal MSM narrative about Trump betrayal and Russian agents of influence.

    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/336960-comey-rips-media-for-dead-wrong-russia-stories

    == quote ==

    New York Times responds to Comey's challenge of its story Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories MORE (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

    "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was.

    The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    [Jun 10, 2017] Mike Morells Kill-Russians Advice by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... Decision Points ..."
    "... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
    "... Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
    "... The Great War of Our Time ..."
    "... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
    "... In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion. ..."
    "... The Great War of Our Time ..."
    "... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
    "... Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton, as well. ..."
    "... As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
    "... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
    "... The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism, fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals, entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise. ..."
    "... This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed". ..."
    Aug 12, 2016 | www.commondreams.org

    Published on Friday, by Consortium News Mike Morell's Kill-Russians Advice Washington's foreign policy hot shots are flexing their rhetorical, warmongering muscles to impress Hillary Clinton, including ex-CIA acting director Morell who calls for killing Russians and Iranians by Ray McGovern

    33 Comments A closer look at the record of Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, is warranted. (Photo: AP) Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative rhetoric toward Russia and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally likely that it will succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so it behooves us to have a closer look at Morell's record.

    My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson, and the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.

    I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

    Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

    Morell: "Yeah."

    Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

    Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

    You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose? It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."

    Peabody award winner Rose - having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking Morell - performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.

    This interview , though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled to the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and on for 46 minutes).

    A Heavy Duty

    Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all" memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.

    For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points , included a passage the former president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!

    In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.

    In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."

    Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?

    High on Morell

    Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.

    So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his record.

    In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time , Morell apologized to former Secretary of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because he went out there and made this case, and we were wrong."

    It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

    It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and got promoted.

    Out of Harm's Way

    For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [non-existent] WMD.

    Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved wrong - that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth " And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.

    In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with the final bill expected to top $1 billion.

    In Morell's The Great War of Our Time , he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)

    When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.

    Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of U.S. intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President.

    'Wisdom' on China

    For those who did not make it to the very end in watching the most recent Michael-and-Charlie show, here is an example of what Morell and Rose both seem to consider trenchant analysis. Addressing the issue of U.S. relations with China, Morell described the following as a main "negative:"

    "We both have large militaries in the same place on the planet, the Pacific. What does that mean? It means you have to plan for war against each other, and we both do; it means you have to equip yourself with weapons systems for war against each other, which both of us do; and it means you have to exercise those forces for war against each other, and both of us do. And both sides see all of three of those things. That leads to a natural tension and pulls you apart. "

    Those who got to the end of Morell's book had already been able to assimilate that wisdom on page 325:

    "The negative side [regarding relations with China] includes the fact that each country needs to prepare for war against each other (because our militaries are in close proximity to each other). Each plans for such a war, each trains for it, and each must equip its forces with the modern weaponry to fight it [leading] to tension in the relationship. "

    Well, Morell is at least consistent. More telling, this gibberish is music to the ears of those whom Pope Francis, speaking to Congress last September, referred to as the "blood-drenched" arms traders. Morell seems to be counting on his deep insights being music to the ears of Hillary Clinton, as well.

    As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump, well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Let the bizarre-ness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer.

    However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS.

    Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. © 2017 Consortium News Ray McGovern Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

    Dede Aug '16

    I will watch for this creep to show up in Clinton's administration as these two seem to be peas in a pod.
    Hillary has a hard time relating to normal people on the campaign trail because her center of focus is in foreign policy. It stands to reason that she will want people with the kill instinct around her. Being a neocon at heart, her need for accurate intelligence is small and her desire has always been to go after Iran for Bibi and Russia, well, just because they are the go to enemy.
    Russia is standing in the way of taking out Assad and clearing a path through Syria to Iran.
    SuspiraDeProfundis Aug '16
    Rest assured that is a public official in Russia publicly stated to a national TV audience that Russia needed to start killing Americans so as to send a message, the western media would be in an uproar proclaiming it as a unacceptable provocation.

    Entire hours of broadcasts on multiple "News shows" would invite in pundits to make the most dire of pronouncements all concluding this showing Russia as a nation seeking war and conflict.

    A simple fact. It is the Government of the USA that is the bully here and that same Government is the greatest threat to world peace on this globe. It is the USA that heads the "Empire of Evil".

    planetearth Aug '16
    This Morell could use a little dose of his own medicine.
    Callmeskeptical Aug '16
    PonyBoy

    I say, kill Mike Morell and save our treasury trillions.

    Careful, Pony. Unless you're an FBI instigator, this suggestion could elicit a visit from that agency.

    Siouxrose1 Aug '16
    If it weren't for the CIA--an organization that passes out licenses to kill the way the old church of Rome handed out "Indulgences" to its wealthiest donors--someone like Mike Morrell would be forced to find his calling as a street smart serial killer.

    "It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."

    It's important to keep in mind that the CIA constantly manufactures false cases, false flags, bogus assassinations, and that makes lying child's play. One does it enough and their conscience (presuming they had one to begin with) goes cold and callous.

    Morrell would be just as comfortable serving Hitler as he would an American dictator or head of state.

    Siouxrose1 Aug '16
    PonyBoy Advocating violence is never wise.

    If there weren't entrenched, empowered interests BENT upon war, maniacal minds like that of Morrell would not be tolerated... nor used.

    Someone had to pretend that the false pretexts were true. Imagine if the money spent on searching for weapons they KNEW didn't exist instead went to improving life for citizens of the targeted nations? But then, there'd be no terrorism; and without terrorism, how could the now gargantuan military infrastructure aimed at controlling citizens (as the global elites tighten the fiscal screws) come into place?

    These professional cons and killers (like felons placed into jail cells where they learn from others how to improve "their craft") gained much from the writings of Goebbels. There must be an outside enemy threat made existentially real... and then, all Constitutional liberties can be rescinded under the guise of protecting citizens.

    Notice all the recent terrorist events. Some are no doubt real; but others are false flags and the net impact of all of this is that the entire world is now perceived (by the spooks and the Pentagon) as a battleground.

    And when there are vast, well-organized armies, it creates on the part of those brave enough to resist, ingenious forms of asymmetric warfare. Therefore, more and more unexpected places will indeed blow up. Meanwhile, how much $ is dumped into surveillance which NEVER stops these events? I guess the uniformed spooks are too busy in forums like this one, watching the Left (intellectuals, poets, labor leaders, and those who refuse to see things the way elites intend for citizens to see things) and/or watching porn... to notice.

    Welcome to theater of the absurd. It's everywhere these days!

    George_III Aug '16
    This bloke is a terrorist by anybody's dictionary definition. Simple.

    The last person who thought that killing Russians was a good idea ended up committing suicide just before the Russians got to his bunker in Berlin. This Morrell character would have us all commit nuclear suicide so as to fulfill his insane fantasy.

    Siouxrose1 Aug '16
    SuspiraDeProfundis Have you seen this material? It's very compelling: WORLD IS ON FIRE Dr Paul Craig Roberts
    Lorenzo_LaRue Aug '16
    PonyBoy One stupid (C)ommittee to (I)ntervene (A)nywhere dick dead, wow. How about 'kill' the Pentagon which seems to be the root of the problem? Not a person but the whole phkn deal. All those folks could 'maybe' just go 'get a life' instead of being terminal perverts.
    Callmeskeptical Aug '16
    Siouxrose1:

    Have you seen this material? It's very compelling:

    Yes. This particular interview includes much of what PCR has been discussing for the past many months. I'm surprised, though, that he left out specifically discussing the U.S. government's war against alternate currencies to the dollar that resulted in the destruction of Libya (and the death of Gaddafi) and now all of the covert and overt actions against the BRICS governments.

    Articles addressing these continuing issues are normally first published on the following sites:

    CounterPunch 3
    Global Research 1
    Paul Craig Roberts 3
    The Saker 2
    The Duran 3

    Clovis Aug '16
    Will we ever be rid of these psychopaths?
    bushrodl Aug '16
    Will the real villain please stand up? And they all stood!
    stiffupperflipflop Aug '16 1
    Dede

    He may end up paired up with Ted Cruz as Secretaries of State and Defense. Improbable? Not to me. Is anything improbable any more?

    It used to be that people in positions in the State and Defense Departments may have been murdering perceived enemies of the State, but they didn't go speaking out about it publicly. They tried to maintain the image that the USA only killed in self defense like the white hat heroes of the old cowboy movies, Roy Rogers and all like that, where the black hat bad guys always had to reach for their " shooting irons' first so they could be plugged fair and square.

    That ethic is long gone and was probably never real but the idea was maintained. But now we have President BO not exactly bragging about his "drone kill list" but not in any way distancing himself from public knowledge of it either. Kissengerian "realpolitik" and Big Henry is HRC's hero and role model so she is positioned to become the Murder Mama of the west, ready to show them Chinese and Ruskies who's ready to be fastest straight shootin'ist gun slinger in the global town Main Street with Cruz and Morrell at her flanks like the Earp Brothers at the OK Corral with Doc Holliday Kissinger limping along right there with 'em

    natureboy Aug '16
    The fact that murderous authoritarian conservatives get ahead in government and business far better than peace loving, egalitarian liberals, says a lot about the American psychic.
    Dede Aug '16
    stiffupperflipflop

    They don't feel they have to hide their true intentions like they used to.

    Hillary is barely hiding her lust for power and the wars she wants to make. The Republicans have never tried to hide it.

    Siouxrose11 Aug '16
    Clovis The issue is not so much to be rid of them, but rather not to sustain a legal, financial, cultural, political, and tactical infrastructure that REWARDS them and counts on them to effortlessly enact the dirty work of Empire.

    Essentially, the Shock Doctrine handbook might as well define "sociopath" as a required bona fide in the career search for the right candidates.

    Siouxrose11 Aug '16
    natureboy:

    says a lot about the American psychic

    To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions of influence) and why. There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths in empowered positions onto The People.

    The Page and Gilens Study made it clear that The People's Will is NOT what those in government positions institute.

    Find any long-sustained society on this planet (since the onset of patriarchy) that doesn't evidence a political/social/economic hierarchy?

    The most egalitarian nations, Europe's social Democracies have hardly achieved full Democratic representation or full equality but they go much further than "political business as usual" within the U.S.

    The bottom line is that in most nations there have been long-established family dynasties. And when 50 people hold half the nation's wealth or even half the world's wealth, there is no possible way that ordinary citizens can direct policies.

    This much concentrated wealth taints all systems of would-be Democratic representation.

    And the problem didn't arise overnight. It's been long-standing.

    Our own nation has only enjoyed short periods where power, privilege, and economic opportunity were somewhat widely shared. To the Black community that marker is yet to be realized and ditto for many Hispanics and women.

    Nonetheless, the elites like shadowy creatures built up their think tank influence in the shadows and patiently dismembered the New Deal piece by piece over the course of the past 3-4 decades.

    When processes are done by stealth and through gradual accommodation, and when the mass media's "experts" all lie about what's going on, and when false flags are used to decimate civil liberties and to justify massive crackdowns on citizens... I think those persons enacting these strategies should be held as the accountable parties... rather than those being done unto.

    I mean how different is this castigation than that which justifies the violence on the part of the white police officer when he and his gang of Neanderthals let loose with premeditated deadly force against a Black kid or man who is unarmed?

    How different is if from the mindset that knocks down the doors of families living in their own nations! In Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... and then if someone gets shot, it's the fault of those under attack?

    This is the mindset of the rapist/dominator. It has NO place in a would-be Progressive forum yet I come up against it daily. That is why I am SURE that many who post here (with regularity under a constantly changing BATTERY of screen names) are in the military or otherwise in some branch of its now farmed out "Intelligence-gathering" Hydra.

    natureboy Aug '16
    Siouxrose11 :
    natureboy:

    says a lot about the American psychic

    To the contrary, it says a lot about the Power Structure and who it invites in (to positions of influence) and why.

    There is NO logic behind posts that continually turn the problem of sociopaths in empowered positions onto The People.

    The American psyche has been shaped by oligarchy media for selfish motives. Exceptionalism, fear, propaganda and the Kardashians keep the vulnerable public in line with their corporate goals, entertained and uninformed. The Internet is changing that, as evidenced by Bernie's rise.

    sierra Aug '16
    The only word description I have of Charlie Rose is, "smarmy"......politically smarmy...ok, two words.

    peace

    sierra Aug '16
    SuspiraDeProfundis

    "Killing Russians"....wasn't that the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski's Afghanistan doctrine?

    And we all know how well that went!!!!!!!
    peace

    sierra Aug '16
    Siouxrose1 Destroy the CIA and one takes "one step" towards dismantling the National Security State and the "Deep State"
    peace
    Siouxrose11 Aug '16
    sierra How could anyone destroy the CIA? It's like roaches hiding behind the woodwork.

    Besides, any position that advocates a violent solution adds to the problem of violence in this world.

    I am waiting for Lofgren's book on the Deep State. I ordered a paperback copy back in January not realizing that it would not be published till this coming September.

    I am well-aware of the Deep State and its relationship to NSA and CIA and lots more.

    Psychedelic_Chicken Aug '16
    This CIA psychopath was the one who purportedly told pet goat Bush upon Air Force One that dark day, that the ongoing "attack" was most likely Bin Laden. Morell gave Bush the CIA's daily intelligence briefings. And this psychopath was with Obama when Bin Laden was "killed".

    But hey, I'm one of those tin foil hat wearing Truthers. Excuse me for questioning these jerks all of these years later.

    George_III Aug '16
    natureboy It's the human "psyche". Greed unifies, but ideals fragment as each idealist tries to demonstrate how perfect they are in contrast to the other idealists.

    [Jun 10, 2017] Comey and Mueller Russiagates Mythical Heroes

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities. ..."
    "... Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man." ..."
    "... Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself. ..."
    "... My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory ..."
    "... So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers. ..."
    "... He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack. ..."
    "... Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui." ..."
    "... To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11! ..."
    "... The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this. ..."
    "... March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley ..."
    "... Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked. ..."
    "... Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
    "... The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following: ..."
    Jun 10, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Mainstream commentators display amnesia when they describe former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey as stellar and credible law enforcement figures. Perhaps if they included J. Edgar Hoover, such fulsome praise could be put into proper perspective.

    Although these Hoover successors, now occupying center stage in the investigation of President Trump, have been hailed for their impeccable character by much of Official Washington, the truth is, as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush Administration (Mueller as FBI Director and James Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited plain vanilla incompetence.

    TIME Magazine would probably have not called my own disclosures a " bombshell memo " to the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry in May 2002 if it had not been for Mueller's having so misled everyone after 9/11. Although he bore no personal responsibility for intelligence failures before the attack, since he only became FBI Director a week before, Mueller denied or downplayed the significance of warnings that had poured in yet were all ignored or mishandled during the Spring and Summer of 2001.

    Bush Administration officials had circled the wagons and refused to publicly own up to what the 9/11 Commission eventually concluded, "that the system had been blinking red ." Failures to read, share or act upon important intelligence, which a FBI agent witness termed " criminal negligence " in later trial testimony, were therefore not fixed in a timely manner. (Some failures were never fixed at all.)

    Worse, Bush and Cheney used that post 9/11 period of obfuscation to "roll out" their misbegotten "war on terror," which only served to exponentially increase worldwide terrorism .

    Unfulfilled Promise

    I wanted to believe Director Mueller when he expressed some regret in our personal meeting the night before we both testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He told me he was seeking improvements and that I should not hesitate to contact him if I ever witnessed a similar situation to what was behind the FBI's pre 9/11 failures.

    A few months later, when it appeared he was acceding to Bush-Cheney's ginning up intelligence to launch the unjustified, counterproductive and illegal war on Iraq, I took Mueller up on his offer, emailing him my concerns in late February 2003. Mueller knew, for instance, that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims connecting 9/11 to Iraq were bogus yet he remained quiet. He also never responded to my email.

    Beyond ignoring politicized intelligence, Mueller bent to other political pressures. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Mueller directed the " post 9/11 round-up " of about 1,000 immigrants who mostly happened to be in the wrong place (the New York City area) at the wrong time. FBI Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seemed to be essentially P.R. purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for FBI press releases about FBI "progress" in fighting terrorism. Consequently, some of the detainees were brutalized and jailed for up to a year despite the fact that none turned out to be terrorists .

    A History of Failure

    Long before he became FBI Director, serious questions existed about Mueller's role as Acting U.S. Attorney in Boston in effectively enabling decades of corruption and covering up of the FBI's illicit deals with mobster Whitey Bulger and other "top echelon" informants who committed numerous murders and crimes. When the truth was finally uncovered through intrepid investigative reporting and persistent, honest judges, U.S. taxpayers footed a $100 million court award to the four men framed for murders committed by (the FBI-operated) Bulger gang.

    Current media applause omits the fact that former FBI Director Mueller was the top official in charge of the Anthrax terror fiasco investigation into those 2001 murders , which targeted an innocent man (Steven Hatfill) whose lawsuit eventually forced the FBI to pay $5 million in compensation. Mueller's FBI was also severely criticized by Department of Justice Inspector Generals finding the FBI overstepped the law improperly serving hundreds of thousands of "national security letters" to obtain private (and irrelevant) metadata on citizens, and for infiltrating nonviolent anti-war groups under the guise of investigating "terrorism."

    For his part, Deputy Attorney General James Comey , too, went along with the abuses of Bush and Cheney after 9/11 and signed off on a number of highly illegal programs including warrantless surveillance of Americans and torture of captives . Comey also defended the Bush Administration's three-year-long detention of an American citizen without charges or right to counsel.

    Up to the March 2004 night in Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room, both Comey and Mueller were complicit with implementing a form of martial law, perpetrated via secret Office of Legal Counsel memos mainly written by John Yoo and predicated upon Yoo's singular theories of absolute "imperial" or "war presidency" powers, and requiring Ashcroft every 90 days to renew certification of a "state of emergency."

    The Comey/Mueller Myth

    What's not well understood is that Comey's and Mueller's joint intervention to stop Bush's men from forcing the sick Attorney General to sign the certification that night was a short-lived moment. A few days later, they all simply went back to the drawing board to draft new legal loopholes to continue the same (unconstitutional) surveillance of Americans.

    The mythology of this episode, repeated endlessly throughout the press, is that Comey and Mueller did something significant and lasting in that hospital room. They didn't. Only the legal rationale for their unconstitutional actions was tweaked.

    Mueller was even okay with the CIA conducting torture programs after his own agents warned against participation. Agents were simply instructed not to document such torture, and any "war crimes files" were made to disappear. Not only did "collect it all" surveillance and torture programs continue, but Mueller's (and then Comey's) FBI later worked to prosecute NSA and CIA whistleblowers who revealed these illegalities.

    ORDER IT NOW

    Neither Comey nor Mueller - who are reported to be " joined at the hip " - deserve their current lionization among politicians and mainstream media. Instead of Jimmy Stewart-like "G-men" with reputations for principled integrity, the two close confidants and collaborators merely proved themselves, along with former CIA Director George "Slam Dunk" Tenet, reliably politicized sycophants, enmeshing themselves in a series of wrongful abuses of power along with official incompetence.

    It seems clear that based on his history and close "partnership" with Comey, called "one of the closest working relationships the top ranks of the Justice Department have ever seen," Mueller was chosen as Special Counsel not because he has integrity but because he will do what the powerful want him to do.

    Mueller didn't speak the truth about a war he knew to be unjustified. He didn't speak out against torture. He didn't speak out against unconstitutional surveillance. And he didn't tell the truth about 9/11. He is just "their man."

    Coleen Rowley , a retired FBI special agent and division legal counsel whose May 2002 memo to then-FBI Director Robert Mueller exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, was named one of TIME magazine's "Persons of the Year" in 2002. Her 2003 letter to Robert Mueller in opposition to launching the Iraq War is archived in full text on the NYT and her 2013 op-ed entitled " Questions for the FBI Nominee " was published on the day of James Comey's confirmation hearing. This piece will also be cross-posted on Rowley's Huffington Post page.

    Dan Hayes June 9, 2017 at 3:46 am GMT

    As Colleen Rowley has so thoroughly and unequivocally demonstrated here, both Comey and Mueller are living examples of the Peter Principle (that managers rise to the level of their incompetence).

    exiled off mainstreet Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT

    According to Jonathan Turley, one of the best and most respected legal experts, Comey may have violated the law using his professor friend to leak what he thought was an incriminating memorandum documenting Trump's "hope" that he would lay off Flynn because Flynn was a "good guy." Even torture advocate Dershowitz, who, for his obvious faults, is a talented lawyer, indicates that it is preposterous to call this "obstruction of justice" when Trump had the power to pardon anybody. Meanwhile, the fact that Comey didn't find it necessary to document his interrogation of the harpy on the "matter" of her email server reveals that he seemed totally willing for justice to be obstructed in a more obvious fashion if he was on board with those doing the obstructing. It also came out that some of his testimony today appears to contradict statements he made under oath to Senator Grassley in a hearing dated May 3.

    Since Mueller was apparently appointed at least in part as a result of Comey's leak, and no evidence has been shown of the phony Russia charges despite months of possibly extra-legal digging, Mueller's appointment should be cancelled and his office liquidated if that can be done in some fashion. If not, may be he should show more integrity than has heretofore been the case and liquidate the office himself.

    Bill Jones Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:18 am GMT

    Excellent piece. Not a dam word I can find fault with.

    Carlton Meyer Website Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

    My old San Fran days memory recalls that "liberal" Democrat Diane Feinstein nominated neo-nazi Republican Mueller to US Attorney for N. California. I recall some thought because her husband was under investigation for a corrupt arms deal. That's just my memory

    There are now lots of current news stories of Feinstein and open coup plotter Schumer excited about Muller's appointment to convict Trump for something. This from her own website:

    https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=FEA7C76A-E029-49AF-98F2-5446AABFAD22

    May 17 2017

    Washington-Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today released the following statement on the appointment of former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel: "The appointment of Bob Mueller as special counsel for the Russia investigation is a good first step to get to the bottom of the many questions we have about Russian interference in our election and possible ties to the president.

    "Bob was a fine U.S. attorney, a great FBI director and there's no better person who could be asked to perform this function. He is respected, he is talented and he has the knowledge and ability to do the right thing."

    I did find this from 1998:

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/U-S-Attorney-Yamaguchi-Announces-Resignation-3000301.php

    "In announcing his resignation, Yamaguchi said Attorney General Janet Reno will appoint Robert Mueller, a former federal prosecutor in San Francisco, as interim U.S. attorney. He is currently chief of the homicide division at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. Mueller has spent almost his entire career as a federal prosecutor, doing both civil and criminal work in the San Francisco district and then moving to the U.S. attorney's office in Boston. He eventually joined the Justice Department, where he was an assistant attorney general in charge of the criminal division."

    So Clinton's odd lesbian Attorney General helped boost a Republican to greater powers.

    Mueller went on to play key roles in the PanAm Lockerbie coverup and the 9-11 ruse, despite this:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/692291/posts

    "Mr. Mueller's credibility was harshly attacked in a letter made public last weekend in which a Minneapolis agent said the F.B.I. director was engaged in a public relations campaign "to protect the F.B.I. at all costs" after Sept. 11. But they said a review of his public remarks about the Sept. 11 investigation had raised uncomfortable questions about the F.B.I. director's credibility and about his ability to gather accurate information from his deputies."

    In a news conference on Wednesday that amounted to a painful mea culpa for the bureau and for his performance in the nine months since he took over the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Mueller said, "I have made mistakes occasionally in my public comments based on information or a lack of information that I subsequently got."

    He was referring specifically to a widely publicized Sept. 14 statement in which he offered assurances - later proved to be false - that the bureau had no warning that terrorists might be training in American flight schools. On Sept. 17, Mr. Mueller went further, saying he knew of "no warning signs" of any sort of attack.

    Senator Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who is on the Judiciary Committee, said his staff investigators would explore the accusations made by the Minneapolis agent, Coleen Rowley, that Mr. Mueller and other senior F.B.I. officials had intentionally shaded the truth about the investigation last summer of Zacarias Moussaoui."

    To summarize, we have a "Republican" from Northern California nominated by a "liberal" Democrat to become part of the Clinton "Justice" department who played a key role as FBI Director to cover 9-11. He now reappears from the grave with great praise from Democrats openly plotting to overthrow President Trump to investigate absurdly silly things like speaking to Russian diplomats. Let us recall Trump openly expressed doubts about the 9-11 twin towers ruse on 9-11!

    Yes, all corruption in DC eventually becomes a 9-11 thread.

    DanCT Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT

    The 911 cover up team is now about to take President Trump down over yet another false flag, and this team would include the leadership of both parties. How convenient that the Democrats are doing the dirty work so that Fox News and the rest can now engage in covering up the Republicans' behind-the-scenes role in all this.

    Also, Colleen Rowley mentions that Meuller ignored his FBI agents' warnings about not going along with CIA torture overseas, yet there is reason to believe that FBI agents were in fact sent overseas to coordinate this activity with the CIA and Mossad.

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

    March 07, 2017 CIA Leak: "Russian Election Hackers" May Work In Langley

    Attribution of cyber-intrusions and attacks is nearly impossible. A well executed attack can not be traced back to its culprit. If there are some trails that seem attributable one should be very cautions following them. They are likely faked.

    http://www.4thmedia.org/2017/03/cia-leak-russian-election-hackers-may-work-in-langley/

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 12:55 pm GMT

    Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose

    Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.

    MarkinLA Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT

    I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.

    What is wrong with this sentence?

    Che Guava Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

    This was an interesting article.

    Counterpunch does publish many interesting articles, once upon a time, I was to considering subscription to the print edition, but no credit card, and the 80 to 90% idiocy on the site, The article at the link below is not unrepresentative, though it is at the bottom end of the scale.

    https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/09/lessons-from-portlands-clashes-with-fascists

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT

    March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate

    Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-surveillance-state-behind-russia-gate/5582211

    Jan 2, 2017 CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

    It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network!

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:10 pm GMT

    @Che Guava This is another good read Che Guava. November 07, 2016 FBI Director James Comey: Hillary Should Not Face Criminal Charges

    But Who Conducted the Investigation? FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe Whose Wife Received $467,500. FBI Director James Comey (image left) decided to issue a report two days before the November election confirming that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Hillary in relation to the recent release of 650,000 Emails on October 28th.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/fbi-director-james-comey-no-evidence-of-hillary-wrong-doing-but-who-conducted-the-investigation-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-bribed-whose-wife-received-467000/5555398

    Agent76 Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT

    @Carlton Meyer This a very good read on the 9/11 event. September 07, 2016 September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?

    New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to be trucked away and shipped to China – an order that constitutes disturbing a crime scene – which is a federal crime.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414

    Julius Evola Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT

    Get a life!

    Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:15 pm GMT

    @MarkinLA I need to leak a memo (actually my own interpretation of what happened after the fact) to counter any possible lies Trump might say just in case Trump produces a tape of the meeting.

    What is wrong with this sentence? Actually what is right about your post ia that it draws attention to the likelihood that the President would have recordings of all such conversations (not ones when he says "come for a walk with me while I stretch my legs in the garden") and that, anyway, a canny fellow like Comey would assume so and, accordingly, make notes immediately afterwards to ensure that he was right on all the key points. Which all leads to the conclusion that recordings would bear out Comey.

    Priss Factor Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT

    Deep State messes up and sheeple run wild.

    Anonymous Show Comment Next New Comment June 9, 2017 at 11:34 pm GMT

    @Agent76 As a big factor in Comey's thinking just before the election when new material possibly pertinent to Clinton's irregullarities came to FBI attention would have been his own self interest it seems reasonable to suppose that both his embarrassment of Clinton by his communication to Congress and his exoneration of her were part of a process which began with "how bad could it be for me if Clinton wins [as I sulppose she will] and something really bad turns up from the investigation of the emails?". Then, given it was true, the exonerating statement is a no brainer (he restores his position as well as he can with Clinton in case she wins and he inly diminishes his credit with Trump slightly if Trumo wins).

    Mulegino1 Show Comment Next New Comment June 10, 2017 at 1:24 am GMT

    The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following:

    • Believers in the ridiculous official narrative of the 19 miracle working Jihadist amateur pilots and hydrocarbon based office fires.
    • Those who maintain that the Bush Administration was "incompetent" and that it "ignored the warnings."
    • The LIHOP crowd- Bush and Cheney deviously let it happen on purpose.

    Robert Muller's role has nothing to do with being an impartial prosecutor but about being a "fixer" in proper Washingtonian parlance. He was probably brought into the FBI to insure a foreordained "slam dunk" verdict that 19 Arab amateur pilots hijacked 4 airliners led by a deathly ill man living in a cave, performed miraculous feats of aviation which would have made Waldo Pepper envious and violated the laws of physics all in one day. Now he is serving another purpose for his string pullers in the deep state by torpedoing Trump.

    As Conan-Doyle wrote, "Whenever you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

    Office fires, nor jet fuel, nor building collapses or aircraft impacts will not cause hundreds of thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete to undergo molecular dissociation and turn into dust clouds. They generally do not cause the metal components of vehicles in the vicinity to be destroyed while their non-metallic components remain intact. Neither will conventional explosives or even nano-thermite. The destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2 and the core of WTC 6 was not caused by any of these things alone. WTC 7 may have been a case of conventional controlled demolition, but the idea that it experienced universal failure and collapsed into its footprint because of "raging fires" is too stupid for words.

    It is O'Brien holding up the three fingers and torturing Winston into seeing two – except that a good part of our public accepts their masters' voice willingly and enthusiastically, even today in 2017.

    geokat62 Show Comment Next New Comment June 10, 2017 at 2:20 am GMT

    @Mulegino1

    The 9/11 myth is a multi-layered deception. Those within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult include the following:

    Not sure anyone would accuse Philip Giraldi (former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the CIA) of someone who is "within the kosher parameters of the 9/11 cult":

    If there had been such a gathering, I would imagine that the Washington Post would have found out about it on the next day as intelligence officers are gregarious and like to talk. This has been my principal problem with the debate in some quarters about the 9/11 Commission. Their report did indeed miss many important angles in order to protect certain governmental interests, but if there had been a genuine conspiracy involving what must have been hundreds of people to demolish the Twin Towers with explosives, it surely would have leaked long ago .

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/do-high-level-leaks-suggest-a-conspiracy/

    [Jun 10, 2017] In Europe, right-wing parties are preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a welfare state but only for selected groups. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats

    Jun 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Christopher H. June 09, 2017 at 11:09 AM https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/populism-and-the-politics-of-health/

    Populism and the Politics of Health
    MARCH 14, 2017 1:43 PM
    by Paul Krugman

    ...

    This ties in with an important recent piece by Zack Beauchamp on the striking degree to which left-wing economics fails, in practice, to counter right-wing populism; basically, Sandersism has failed everywhere it has been tried. Why?

    The answer, presumably, is that what we call populism is really in large degree white identity politics, which can't be addressed by promising universal benefits. Among other things, these "populist" voters now live in a media bubble, getting their news from sources that play to their identity-politics desires, which means that even if you offer them a better deal, they won't hear about it or believe it if told. For sure many if not most of those who gained health coverage thanks to Obamacare have no idea that's what happened.

    That said, taking the benefits away would probably get their attention, and maybe even open their eyes to the extent to which they are suffering to provide tax cuts to the rich.

    In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That fundamental contradiction is now out in the open." Reply Friday, Christopher H. - , June 09, 2017 at 11:12 AM

    There has been a silence from the center left during the Corbyn campaign and now after it is over. Luckily they have Comey to talk about. I will be curious to hear from Chris Dillow.
    libezkova - , June 09, 2017 at 10:22 PM
    "In Europe, right-wing parties probably don't face the same dilemma; they're preaching herrenvolk social democracy, a welfare state but only for people who look like you. In America, however, Trump_vs_deep_state is faux populism that appeals to white identity but actually serves plutocrats. That fundamental contradiction is now out in the open"

    this is an interesting observation.

    [Jun 09, 2017] Fake news became the only type of news people are fed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Take the terror situation. There is one half-bad (others and "do nothing" approach are worse) solution for it – the so-called "Israelisation" of the UK. No one's gonna implement it. NO. ONE. No one, as well, won't go and bust illegal arms trafficers, suppliers of the IED components, liquidate "no-go" borroughs, and, most of all – go after suppliers of the ideological component for the jihad which assures shit like in attacks in Manchester and London keep happening – and will happen in the future. ..."
    "... Probably. But these are not normal times. They are extraordinary times. Yes, the Establishment corrals its wagons in a circle and squeals about Indians on the horizon, but there are fissures all over the place. Whether something will bust or not, I do not know, but what I do know is that some things are beyond control and we are passengers. ..."
    "... History is its own master and time and time again when we proclaim that everything is 'OK', the carpet is swept away from under our feet and the serious s/t hits the fan. If that happens, I hope we survive. I've got a cat to feed. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Lyttenburgh , June 7, 2017 at 7:59 am
    Et Al, it does not matter because the whole system is rigged. Yes, there are long term concerns which, if not adressed, gonna fuck all right in the arse generations of Britons to come. But they won't be adressed. The system is such that it precludes from that.

    Take the terror situation. There is one half-bad (others and "do nothing" approach are worse) solution for it – the so-called "Israelisation" of the UK. No one's gonna implement it. NO. ONE. No one, as well, won't go and bust illegal arms trafficers, suppliers of the IED components, liquidate "no-go" borroughs, and, most of all – go after suppliers of the ideological component for the jihad which assures shit like in attacks in Manchester and London keep happening – and will happen in the future.

    No one wants to go and say that the capitalist system adopted by the hopefuls in the past-war era is not sustainable for Europe anymore. There are two possible exits – either its total dismantling, or new war and plunder. But the system itself is beyond redeeming. You can't "reform it from within", because it's designed such way to prevent just such a thing.

    et Al , June 7, 2017 at 8:25 am
    The King is dead, long live the King?

    Probably. But these are not normal times. They are extraordinary times. Yes, the Establishment corrals its wagons in a circle and squeals about Indians on the horizon, but there are fissures all over the place. Whether something will bust or not, I do not know, but what I do know is that some things are beyond control and we are passengers.

    History is its own master and time and time again when we proclaim that everything is 'OK', the carpet is swept away from under our feet and the serious s/t hits the fan. If that happens, I hope we survive. I've got a cat to feed.

    [Jun 09, 2017] Busy, busy Russian hackers; theyre everywhere.

    Jun 09, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    kirill , June 7, 2017 at 5:02 pm
    Inquiry makes it sound like an actual investigation. WTF could the FBI do in a couple of days. Just look at the IPs recorded in the computer logs. Well, fuckwads and assorted sheeple, those IP numbers prove FUCK ALL.
    marknesop , June 7, 2017 at 10:45 pm
    Busy, busy Russian hackers; they're everywhere. Maybe they will hack my bank and make me a wealthy, wealthy man. I promise it wouldn't change me.

    [Jun 09, 2017] "I like him" Vladimir Putin discusses John McCain with Oliver Stone (Video)

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Carthage must be destroyed." ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | theduran.com

    In the latest video clip segment for the Showtime documentary of Vladimir Putin by Oscar ward winning director Oliver Stone, the Russian President surprisingly speaks with respect for Senator John McCain, a neocon warmonger, who consistently calls for conflict with Russia and played an integral role in the US coup in Ukraine in 2014.

    Putin told Stone in Moscow

    "Well, honestly, I like Senator McCain to a certain extent. And I'm not joking. I like him because of his patriotism, and I can relate to his consistency in fighting for the interests of his own country."

    RT reports that the Russian President compared US Senator McCain to the Ancient Roman Senator, Cato the Elder, who routinely signed off his speeches, regardless of the subject, with the phrase, "Carthage must be destroyed."

    "People with such convictions, like the Senator you mentioned, they still live in the Old World. And they're reluctant to look into the future, they are unwilling to recognize how fast the world is changing."

    "They do not see the real threat, and they cannot leave behind the past, which is always dragging them back,"

    "Unfortunately there are many senators like this in the United States."

    [Jun 09, 2017] FULL Unedited Interview of Putin TRASHING Megyn Kelly

    Jun 09, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Green Onions 19 hours ago

    OMG she can't even pretend to look smart. Should have pricked yourself with a push pin so you could keep that stupid smirk off your face Kelly.

    John B. 8 hours ago

    I hope Rachel MADdow watched that.

    Gabe B 3 hours ago

    ratchet mad cow isnt any brighter

    [Jun 09, 2017] Putin's best moments while smashing NBC's Airhead Megyn Kelly

    Jun 09, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Vera Aubert 5 days ago

    The thinking people in USA KNOW Russia had nothing to do with our elections! We hated Clinton and would have voted for an alligator if that was the only opponent to Clinton!

    See also

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9DQPXKE2yk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzJSP99a4T4

    [Jun 09, 2017] Can Qatar Negotiate a Diplomatic Resolution with Its Neighbors

    Notable quotes:
    "... This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's tweets congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. ..."
    "... Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military force. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | nationalinterest.org

    The measures that the Saudis and company are taking today are much more significant. In addition to calling their diplomats home, the anti-Qatar reprisals include an order for Saudis, Bahraini and Emirati citizens to leave Qatar in fourteen days, and for Qatari citizens to go back to their own country over the same time period. Air, sea and land routes into the Qatari peninsula are blocked, which means that the food imports that Doha relies on to feed its population will need to rely on other seaports to unload their product. Qatar Airways, one of the region's major carriers, is banned from using Gulf Arab airspace, causing multiple delays and forcing the airline to fly more circuitous paths.

    This would have been a perfect opportunity for the United States to step into the breach and offer a helping hand towards conflict resolution, which is exactly what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson offered on Monday during a press conference. Regrettably, President Donald Trump's tweets congratulating the Gulf Arabs for isolating their Qatari neighbor-while taking credit for it-has likely closed the door on any leading mediation role for Washington. It's tough to act as a mediating party between two sides when the mediator is seen as taking sides. With a single tweet, Trump managed to yet again undercut his own Secretary of State.

    We could do the easy thing and bash Trump incessantly over yet one more unwise Twitter outburst. And it would be justified: Trump failed to recognize that Washington had an opening to show its Arab partners that the United States-under a Trump administration-values diplomacy just as much military force. It would also reassure European governments that have been skittish over the last four months.

    [Jun 09, 2017] Whether the Russians did it or not, the USA has the dismal failure by the leading political party to secure their digital communications

    The USA opened this can of works with Flame and Stixnet. Now it needs to face consequences of its reckless actions.
    Both Hillary staff and DNC staff behaves like complete idiots, taking into account the level of mayhem the USA caused in other countries, including Russia. Blowback eventually came and bite their ass. In addition Hillary "private" staff was definitely incompetent.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96: ..."
    Apr 28, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    This is all really becoming exasperating!

    Incessantly reporting 24/7 on whether the Russians did it or not doesn't take into account the critical failure by a leading political party of the "free world" – a nation supposedly at the forefront of technology – to appropriately secure their digital communications along with those of a potential POTUS.

    This is a question of how US government, or a potential one, works, and how it should work in the future.

    The validity of outrage anyway vis-a-vis the Russians, is, to some extent, misplaced ( ..everyone's doin' it aren't they? For starters, recall the Time cover of' '96:

    http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html )

    [Jun 09, 2017] Saudi Arabias Coalition Could Accidentally Unleash Iran

    Diplomatically the support of KAS was alrea albatros around the Us neck. It poratiens the USA as hyprocritical and brutal opportunist, devoid of any pronciple other then desire to establish and preseve the world hegemony.
    Jun 09, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
    The Iran-Syria alliance has endured the test of war and time. In the early 1980s, Iraq and Iran were engrossed in a brutal conflict that Baghdad portrayed as a war against Iranian expansionism. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the United States formed a coalition to isolate Tehran from the Hafez al-Assad regime and invite a swift victory for Baghdad. The Syria-Iran alliance never broke, even as Syria became entrenched in its own conflict in Lebanon. In his book chronicling the alliance , Jubin Goodarzi even asserted that Hafez al-Assad turned down $2 billion offered to him by the Saudis if he reopened the trans-Syrian pipeline to Iraq. Despite intense economic and military pressure, this strategy only solidified the nascent alliance between Tehran and Damascus. This alliance has remained durable and transcended significant strategic disagreements between the two countries over the last three decades.

    Iran chooses its alliances and conflicts pragmatically, rather than ideologically. For example, the Islamic Republic historically ignored the plights of Shia minorities in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in favor of maintaining semi-cordial relations with Riyadh and Islamabad. Western analysts often portray Iran's most important alliance with Syria as that of a client and patron state. In reality, it is much closer to a genuine partnership rooted in common strategic goals, despite widely diverging ideologies. Both countries see themselves as unique partners in the "resistance" against Israel. Both also portray themselves as tolerant of religious minorities and sects in a region enveloped by Salafi extremism. Most importantly, Damascus and Tehran have always viewed a strong Arab bloc and Arab detente with Israel as an existential threat. This was true when Egypt and Syria cut diplomatic relations after the Camp David Accord, and when Arab states formed an alliance against the new Islamic Republic in Iran. Thus Tehran and Damascus see themselves as partners in a fight against an Arab bloc that is increasingly dictated by a U.S.-Saudi alliance. No amount of pressure on Iran will make the cost of Tehran's intervention in Syria too high to bear.

    Iran's experience of relative isolation during the war imposed on it by Saddam Hussein's Iraq inspired a frenzied race to develop domestic defensive and ballistic-missile capabilities. In a 2016 interview , Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif asked, "What do you expect, Iran to lie dead? You've covered the Iran–Iraq war, you remember missiles pouring on Iranian cities with chemical weapons. You remember that we didn't have any to defend ourselves." The harsh realities of the Iran-Iraq War quelled revolutionary Iran's ambitions to export its revolution and ideology. Ever since the end of the war, Tehran has instead placed an emphasis on developing strategic alliances outside of the Middle East and developing a domestic military-industrial complex. President Trump's calls to isolate Iran during his recent speech in Riyadh will only provoke a surge in Iranian military development.

    Three contemporary developments also demonstrate why an "Arab NATO" will fail at its mission: Arab Shia communities view Saudi and Wahhabi hegemony as an existential threat, the Saudi-coalition is already fractured, and China and Russia have every reason to tilt towards Tehran.

    The main threat that the Saudi-led coalition seeks to combat is the rise of Arab Shia movements and militias that it believes are loyal to Iran, especially in Iraq and Syria. As I have written before , Shia movements are not nearly as loyal to Iranian interests as often believed, but the existence of an "Arab NATO" will likely result in driving vulnerable Shia communities closer to Tehran. Powerful cleric and warlord Muqtada al-Sadr has called on Assad to resign as president, and expelled fighters found to have fought in Syria in direct opposition to Iranian policy. Several high-ranking Shia clerics in Iraq have issued fatwas forbidding their followers to participate in Syrian operations. The most senior of these clerics, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who himself is of Iranian extraction, has long been the darling of Western analysts due to his rejection of theocracy. In 2005, Thomas Friedman called for Sistani to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his quietist inclinations and role in legitimizing the new Iraqi government in the eyes of Shia. However, the rise of U.S.-backed Sunni coalitions will likely push Iraqi Shia toward institutionalized militancy if they feel their communities are under attack by Saudi-funded Sunni extremists.

    Qatari emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani allegedly stated that "there is no wisdom in harboring hostility toward Iran," but Qatar quickly claimed unconvincingly that the story was fabricated. This led Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Yemen's Western-backed government and Libya to cut off relations with Qatar and put in place an aggressive blockade on its population. Doha's open support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Riyadh's allegation that Qatar provides support for ISIS-and, more importantly, Shia protesters in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province-were used as the official excuse for severing ties. But this is clearly intended by Saudi Arabia to escalate tensions with Iran and send the message that lukewarm partners in the proxy war will not be accepted.

    ... ... ...

    An "Arab NATO" will provide little deterrence, and instead result in an arms race and a deepening of sectarian conflict in the region. It also risks dragging U.S. forces into a sectarian conflict. As former secretary of defense Robert Gates pointed out, the Saudis always want to "fight the Iranians to the last American."

    Adam Weinstein is a policy associate at the National Iranian American Council. He is a veteran of the Marine Corps where he served in Afghanistan. He has contributed to Foreign Policy, The Diplomat, CNN, and other outlets .

    John Doe • 10 hours ago

    SA is trying tp preserve waning hegemony by picking fights with anyone in sight but failing to defeat Yemen , now it's Qatar's turn with the hopes of it developing into an Iran - USA war.It won't help. The Saudis are TERRIFIED of a diplomatic rapprochement between Washington & Tehran and would start any war to prevent it.

    SweatnSteel • 4 hours ago

    As if this whole kerfuffle was strictly Riyadh's idea... Hmm.. Who else has been screaming "Iran, Iran, Iran"??

    Who else is mortified by the expansion and reinforcement of the Shia crescent now stretching from Pakistan to the Mediterranean?

    Who else indeed.. Riiiiight...


    youyeg • 39 minutes ago

    I think the best solution for Arab state is to provide more cooperation and not relying on the US and money. Nothing could come out of tension, but rise of opportunists who seek profit out of chaos.

    [Jun 09, 2017] Comey rips media for dead wrong Russia stories

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was. ..."
    "... The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia. ..."
    "... "In the main it was not true," Comey said. ..."
    Jun 09, 2017 | thehill.com
    Former FBI Director James Comey repeatedly warned Thursday that news reports based on leaks of classified information pertaining to the Russia investigation have been consistently wrong.

    In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Community, Comey said stories about Russia that are based on classified leaks have been a persistent problem for the FBI because news organizations have often received bad information.

    "There have been many, many stories based on - well, lots of stuff, but about Russia that are dead wrong," Comey said.

    Sen. Tom Cotton Tom Cotton Trump's 'infrastructure week' goes off the rails New York Times responds to Comey's challenge of its story Comey rips media for 'dead wrong' Russia stories MORE (R-Ark.) asked the former FBI director about a bombshell New York Times report from Feb. 14 titled "Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence."

    "Phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials," the Times wrote. Cotton asked Comey if that story was "almost entirely wrong," and Comey said that it was.

    The Times has run one meaningful correction to that report, saying it overstated the number of people whom the FBI has examined. The Times report did note, however, that so far intelligence officials had seen no evidence of "cooperation" between the Trump campaign and Russia.

    "But the intercepts alarmed American intelligence and law enforcement agencies, in part because of the amount of contact that was occurring while Mr. Trump was speaking glowingly about the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin," the Times wrote.

    "In the main it was not true," Comey said.

    But in an analysis of Comey's comments on Thursday evening, the Times argued that sources cited in the Feb. 14 article have vouched for the account put forth, though the newspaper's reporters were not able to contact them immediately after Comey's testimony.

    The analysis raises the possibility that Comey could have been disputing the article's characterization of Russian intelligence officials.

    Another possibility, according to the Times, is that Comey may have disputed with the newspaper's description of the evidence as "phone records and intercepted calls."

    Comey said incorrect reports are frustrating because the FBI's policy is not to comment on the media's coverage of its investigations.

    "The challenge - and I'm not picking on reporters - about writing stories about classified information, is the people talking about it often don't really know what's going on, and those of us who actually know what's going on are not talking about it," Comey said. "We don't call the press and say, 'Hey, you got that thing wrong.' "

    Trump has repeatedly railed against "fake news" and the media's reliance on unnamed sources.

    CNN this week had to issue a correction after it reported that Comey would testify that he never told Trump that he wasn't the target of an investigation.

    [Jun 08, 2017] The Qatar spat exposes Britains game of thrones in the Gulf by Paul Mason

    Notable quotes:
    "... Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than £3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth £1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government. ..."
    "... However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year. ..."
    Jun 05, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    This clash between Britain's allies in the so-called war on terror matters. If Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, there will be a break with the appeasement of jihadi-funding autocrats

    Great. Just what we need. Our self-styled key ally in the so-called war on terror – Saudi Arabia – just closed the airspace, land and sea borders with our other ally, Qatar , accusing it of supporting Isis. What's that about?

    Well, like almost everything in the region, it is about the strategic duplicity of the West, exacerbated by the childlike idiocy of the US president. Does it matter for Brits – other than those stuck at airports in the Gulf, or policy wonks obsessed with Middle Eastern conflicts?

    It matters on every street in Britain.

    Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the other Gulf monarchies, organised in the so called Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) , have a long history of backing the spread of Sunni Islamist ideology outside the region. Not just in Britain, but, for example, even in places such as rural Nigeria, where I've seen Gulf oil money used to incentivise Christians to convert, fuelling the religious conflict there.

    But the Qataris have always punched above their weight in regional affairs, and displayed a more intelligent grasp on the strategic, demographic and cultural changes sweeping the Arab world.

    It was the Qataris who set up Al Jazeera, as a counterweight to the reactionary state media across the middle east, and to challenge the US media's right to set the global narrative about the Islamic world.

    Qatar supported the short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt and still supports and shelters the leaders of the Hamas government in Gaza . In Syria, Qatar spent up to $3bn (£2.3bn) in the first two years of the civil war bankrolling the rebels – allegedly including the al-Qaida-linked group al-Nusra Front.

    The Saudis, too, bankrolled Islamist rebels , and both sides claim never to have bankrolled Isis. So what is really at stake?

    The issue torturing the Saudi monarchy is Iran. Obama made peace with Iran in 2015, in the face of Saudi and Israeli opposition. Qatar is diplomatically closer to Iran. It has also supported (outside Qatar) the spread of political Islam – that is, of parties prepared to operate within nominally democratic institutions.

    The Saudis' strategic aim, by contrast, is to end the peace deal with Iran and to stifle the emergence of political Islam full stop.

    Last month, Donald Trump took himself to Riyadh to - participate in a sword dance and glad hand the Saudi royals. And that is where the trouble escalated.

    Qatar's ruler had been reported by his own state media as warning against the escalating confrontation with Iran: "Iran represents a regional and Islamic power that cannot be ignored and it is unwise to face up against it," said a TV tickertape quoting the Emir.

    When these comments caused outrage in Riyadh , the Qataris withdrew them, claiming they had been "hacked" .

    But Trump's visit poured ethanol on to the simmering conflict. Few observers see today's move as anything other than the Saudis acting with state department backing. One Iranian official tweeted the spat was "the prelimary result of the sword dance".

    Saudi Arabia is meanwhile prosecuting a war on Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen, using more than £3bn worth of British kit sold to it since the bombing campaign began. In return, it has lavished gifts on Theresa May's ministers: Philip Hammond got a watch worth £1,950 when he visited in 2015 . In turn, Tory advisers are picking up lucrative consultancy work with the Saudi government.

    The problem remains Saudi culpability – past and present – for funding islamist terrorism. After September 11, the Saudi monarchy did begin to crack down on islamist terrorism domestically, criminalising terrorist finance. But, as a US cable released by Wikileaks shows , even as late as 2009, that "donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide".

    Since the coronation of King Salman in January 2015, there has been a programme of economic modernisation and political reforms the monarchy has tried to sell as liberalisation.

    However, Salman has also escalated the Yemen war and escalated tensions with Iran – most notably by executing a prominent Shia cleric and 46 other opponents last year.

    In Britain, when the Lib Dems in the Coalition supported airstrikes against Isis, the price they extracted was for Cameron to launch an inquiry into foreign funding of terrorism. Eighteen months on, it remains suppressed . As with the infamous Serious Fraud Office investigation into corruption at BAE , it is being buried because it would expose the past misdemeanours of the the Saudis.

    We do not know why Britain has suddenly become the target for a jihadi terror surge: five foiled attempts and three gruesomely successful ones in 70 days.

    One possible explanation is that, with the increased tempo of fighting in Mosul and towards Raqqa, it is becoming clear to the thousands of jihadi fantasists sitting in bedrooms across Europe, that their "caliphate" will soon be over.

    If so, the question arises: a) what will replace it on the ground and b) how to deal with the survivors as they fan out to do damage here?

    In both cases, it is vital that the Gulf monarchies funding the Syrian resistance are on board with the solution. And, as of today, two of the key players are waging economic war and a bitter rhetorical fight with each other.

    As for the wider world, it is Iran that emerges as the tactical victor in today's spat. Trump flew to Riyadh and the result was air transport chaos across the Gulf. Iran had an election and the moderates won.

    But there is good news. If Jeremy Corbyn is prime minister on Friday, Britain's game of thrones in the Gulf will end. The foreign policy he outlined at Chatham House represents a complete break with the appeasement of terror-funding Saudi autocrats. The strategic defence review he has promised would unlikely keep funding the Royal Navy base in Bahrain.

    Britain cannot solve the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf. But it can stop making it worse. Last December, Boris Johnson inadvertently had a go. He named the Yemen conflict as a proxy war; accusing both the Saudis and Iran of "puppeteering". He was quickly slapped down.

    Only a Labour government will stop appeasing the Saudi monarchy and reset the relationship to match Britain's strategic interest – not the interest of Britain's arms dealers and PR consultants.

    [Jun 08, 2017] Comey opted for revenge

    Jun 08, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    "In that testimony he had already disclosed that Trump demanded his "loyalty" and directly pushed him to "lift the cloud" of investigation by declaring publicly the president was not the target of the FBI probe into his campaign's Russia ties."

    Oh OK so Trump MADE the little bitch state that he (Trump) was not the target .Really!!

    "Former FBI Director James Comey says if FBI agents knew the president had asked him to drop an investigation into the former national security adviser, it would have a "real chilling effect" on their work.

    Comey says he decided not to tell agents working on the Russia investigation about what he perceived to be a request from the president to drop the probe into Michael Flynn.

    Comey says even as good as the agents are, hearing that the president asked for this could be detrimental. He says, "that's why we kept it so tight."

    Comey testiphony: speculative .conclusory ..ad hominem vague petitio principii ..et cetera..
    http://www.wben.com/articles/comey-testimony-video-clips-minute-minute-summaries

    [Jun 08, 2017] Comey apparently admit leaking stuff to New York Times

    Notable quotes:
    "... Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump. ..."
    "... Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today. ..."
    Jun 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    UPDATE 12:50 P.M. As the public part of the hearing adjourned, and Comey has completely vindicated Trump ahead of a later closed session hearing where he and senators are likely to discuss classified information he could not bring up during the televised hearing, the whole thing turned out exactly like Breitbart News Network told you it would: A giant nothing-burger.

    Except for the fact that Comey admitted he is a leaker, has a network through which he has leaked information designed to harm President Trump.

    Oh, and that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other Obama administration officials may have engaged in serious misconduct worthy of further investigation–which Comey testified about today.

    UPDATE 12:37 P.M. Their hopes and dreams dashed by Comey completely vindicating Trump in this open hearing, and instead implicating ex-Obama administration officials like Loretta Lynch–and implicating himself as an anti-Trump leaker with a network through which he has leaked damaging information against the president–the left and media are pinning everything on a last ditch line of questioning from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA).

    This line of questioning from @SenKamalaHarris regarding the Attorney General is extraordinarily important – not to be overlooked

    - Matt House (@mattwhouse) June 8, 2017

    Here's video of her comparing Trump to an armed robber though, so take whatever she says with a grain of salt:

    Sen. Kamala Harris seems to compare Trump to an armed robber saying "I hope you will give me your wallet" #ComeyTestimony pic.twitter.com/2yjfV3UyIM

    - Mike Ciandella ن (@MikeCiandella) June 8, 2017

    Meanwhile, anti-Trump Never Trumper Max Boot is in an alternate reality, saying Comey was fantastic as a witness.

    Bottom line for #ComeyDay : Comey a highly credible witness. Trump isn't. Comey makes damning accusations. Trump denials unconvincing.

    - Max Boot (@MaxBoot) June 8, 2017

    Flashback, though, to when Comey was fired and Boot with some bold predictions back on May 9:

    Congress needs to ask Comey to testify & he needs to tell all he knows about Kremlingate. If he does Trump may regret firing him.

    - Max Boot (@MaxBoot) May 10, 2017

    Don't tell Max Boot about the black helicopters coming for him. Seriously. "KREMLINGATE"? What is wrong with these people? Anyway, another wonderfully fantastic flashback of this Never Trumper from when Comey was fired in May:

    Prediction: If Democrats take control of Congress in 2018, the firing of Comey will form one of the articles of impeachment.

    - Max Boot (@MaxBoot)

    Senators should ask Comey the name of the Columbia professor and then subpoena the memos from him.

    - Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 12:21 P.M. Loretta Lynch is in serious trouble right now. Looks like the Democrats' efforts may have backfired.

    Loretta Lynch is having a surprisingly bad day in the Comey testimony

    - Chris Cillizza (@CillizzaCNN) June 8, 2017

    If it wasn't for Trump becoming president, the corruption with Obama's Department of Justice would be a major story.

    - Josh Kraushaar (@HotlineJosh) June 8, 2017

    Comey also just testified that he did not believe that Lynch could "credibly deny" the Hillary Clinton email scandal investigation, and that she had a serious conflict of interest. He also testified in exchange with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Senate Majority Whip, that it is possible a special prosecutor was needed for the email scandal. He said he considered calling for appointing a special counsel in the scandal, but decided against it.

    UPDATE 12:08 P.M. Oh my. Now confirmed leaker James Comey's leak network has been outed, or at least part of it has:

    Only in Washington: Someone nursing a pint of beer shouts out to a crowded bar: "Daniel Richman of Columbia" https://t.co/hNXVbfBe8r

    - Alexander Panetta (@Alex_Panetta) June 8, 2017

    So the collusion involves former FBI director, mainstream media, and the left-wing academy to bring down the elected president #ComeyHearing https://t.co/sVWKpajWw9

    - Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017

    And now Comey's anti-Trump leak network is confirming to the media that Comey is a leaker:

    Columbia Law Prof Daniel Richman confirms to @ZCohenCNN that he is the friend that provided excerpts of the Comey memo to reporters.

    - Ryan Nobles (@ryanobles) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 12:05 P.M. There are now serious questions being raised as to whether Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General from the Obama administration, will be subpoenaed to testify after this hearing where Comey has implicated her.

    Legit question: is Loretta Lynch going to be subpoenaed as a result of this testimony?

    - Mike Shields (@mshields007) June 8, 2017

    Meanwhile, Comey's admission he is a leaker serious hurts him. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School makes the case Comey may be in serious trouble:

    Comey admits that he leaked the internal memo through a Columbia law professor in order to force Special Counsel. Yet, that raises questions

    - Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

    Comey is doing well but leaking info runs against Comey's image, particularly in light of the leak controversy hoiunding the Administration

    - Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

    The memos could be viewed as gov't material and potential evidence . Leaking to a friend for disclosure can raise serious questions.

    - Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 12:02 P.M. Donald Trump, Jr., highlights an excellent question from Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) to Comey. Comey did not have a great answer.

    Sen Blunt: If you told Sessions you didn't want to be alone with Trump again, why did you continue to take his calls?

    - Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 12:01 P.M. From our RNC friends, here's video of Sen. Rubio crushing another leftist media narrative during his questioning of Comey.

    Basically, Comey was so concerned about President Trump's conversations with him that he alerted exactly nobody who could do anything about it. In other words, this whole thing is a giant nothing-burger. Except for Comey implicating himself as a leaker.

    UPDATE 11:58 A.M. Comey is in big trouble after this hearing. He admitted he's a leaker, and has an actual network through which he leaks information to the press. In addition, he withheld from leaking information that would have vindicated President Trump weeks ago. White House social media director Dan Scavino captures it clearly and concisely on Twitter:

    Because if it was leaked that @realDonaldTrump was personally not under investigation- it would have crushed the entire narrative. pic.twitter.com/drFcCxin5M

    - Dan Scavino Jr. (@DanScavino) June 8, 2017

    President Trump still has yet to Tweet, so no free drinks yet here at Union Pub. Looks like the owners here made a smart decision since this place is standing room only right now.

    UPDATE 11:54 A.M. Oh, man, this keeps getting better and better. Comey just shredded the Democrats AND now the fake news media.

    Oh Boy. Comey says there have been many many stories based on classified information about Russia that are just "dead wrong"

    - Maeve Reston (@MaeveReston) June 8, 2017

    I wonder if any of the media outlets that have printed repeated stories on these matters will check their reporting again or correct it if they're wrong. Not holding my breath.

    UPDATE 11:50 A.M. Comey has emerged throughout this hearing before the American people looking very much like a drama queen. One of the more memorable lines is when he says when Trump called him to ask him if he was free for dinner, he had to break a date with his wife.

    Comey says Trump called him at his desk. "Free for dinner tonight?"
    "I said yessir I had to call my wife and break a date with her."

    - Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) June 8, 2017

    That's not the only drama-filled Comey testimony:

    COMEY JUST QUOTES HENRY 11 on what he thought Trump meant: 'Will no one rid me of this toublesome priest"

    - Trip Gabriel (@tripgabriel) June 8, 2017

    Meanwhile, even CNN's Jim Acosta–a vehemently anti-Trump media figure in the heart of the opposition party's mothership CNN–is joining in on the anti-Comey fun.

    Giving info to media "like feeding seagulls at the beach?" Fact check: True.

    - Jim Acosta (@Acosta) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:48 A.M. The leaky Capitol Hill GOP swamp aides are attacking Trump, despite the fact Comey has vindicated the president and implicated himself in potentially illegal leaks.

    Senate R aide: Holding nose and defending Trump is taking a lot out of these GOP senators - and they will demand some kind of repayment

    - Glenn Thrush (@GlennThrush) June 8, 2017

    The fact that Swamp Creatures on the "Republican" side on Capitol Hill are throwing shade on their own president, and party, as the GOP and Trump likely emerge from today's masquerade mostly out of the woods is simply incredible but unsurprising. Swamp Things are going to Swamp.

    UPDATE 11:45 A.M. Comey's open admission he orchestrated a potentially illegal leak puts him in serious potential trouble, the New York Times people note. That's the story folks. He vindicated Trump, and implicated himself. Wow, what a day.

    Can't remember the last time someone in DC openly acknowledged orchestrating a leak - and without any senator having even asked.

    - Peter Baker (@peterbakernyt) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:39 A.M. CNN's Dan Merica says that President Trump's personal lawyer Marc Kasowitz will make a statement at the end of Comey's public testimony.

    Marc Kasowitz, Trump's lawyer outside the White House, will make a statement at the end of James Comey's Senate testimony

    - Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:35 A.M. As Comey continues vindicating Trump and throwing Democrats like Lynch, Obama, and Clinton under the bus–presumably accidentally–the Washington, D.C., daydrinking party scene is in full swing:

    Spotted at Duffy's Irish Pub in North DC:
    "Comey is my homey." pic.twitter.com/kvGuaqEqsd

    - Sharon Nunn (@sharonmnunn) June 8, 2017

    Her "homey" James Comey, meanwhile, has actually admitted he is a leaker.

    Flag: Comey says he had a friend of his leak the content of his memo to a reporter to hopefully prompt the appointment of a special counsel. pic.twitter.com/qICnQhI2te

    - Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) June 8, 2017

    Comey admits to @SenatorCollins that he asked a friend to leak the contents of his memo to NYT to prompt the appointment of Special Counsel.

    - Joel B. Pollak (@joelpollak) June 8, 2017

    Here's video of Comey admitting he has been leaking information to the media:

    Here's how I leaked my Trump memo after Trump's "tapes" tweet

    by: James Comey pic.twitter.com/9Z1QPPdcKD

    - Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:32 A.M. While obstruction is now off the table for Trump, as Breitbart's Joel Pollak detailed, Breitbart's John Hayward notes that obstruction is back on the table for several leading officials from now former President Barack Obama's administration. Hayward says Congress needs to investigate Loretta Lynch, the former Attorney General, as well as Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton–the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee–for obstruction of justice.

    Big takeaway from the Comey hearing: urgent need to investigate Loretta Lynch, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton for obstruction

    - John Hayward (@Doc_0) June 8, 2017

    UPDATE 11:29 A.M. Our very own Joel Pollak is out with another bombshell piece detailing how this hearing has shattered the media's and the Democrats' efforts to taint President Trump with "obstruction of justice."

    "Democrats have hinged their hopes for impeachment - and reversing the 2016 elections - on the idea that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That case has now been smashed beyond repair," Pollak writes, pointing to a Comey exchange with Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID).

    Read his whole story here .

    [Jun 08, 2017] Loretta Lynch meddled in the Clinton investigation

    Comey deflated under Loretta Lynch pressure and wrapped the investigation of favorable to Hillary terms. He assigned close to Hillary Person to lead the investigation, which suggest cover up from the very beginning of the investigation. Then he has the second thought and issued his famous statement, in which he usurped the role of justice Department official.
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Comey discussed the involvement of President Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, in the investigation of Hillary Clinton. He stated that Lynch made an odd request for how the FBI investigation should be described.

    "At one point the attorney general had directed me not to call it investigation, but instead to call it a matter, which concerned and confused me," Comey said.

    Comey added that Lynch's infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton during the campaign was the reason he decided to make a statement when the decision was made not to prosecute Hillary Clinton.

    "In a ultimately conclusive way, that was the thing that capped it for me, that I had to do something separately to protect the credibility of the investigation, which meant both the FBI and the Justice Department," Comey said.

    [Jun 08, 2017] Pot. Kettle. Black. Hilarious.

    Jun 08, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    et Al , June 8, 2017 at 4:10 am
    So, "While Trump had done nothing illegal in requesting Comey to drop the investigation, there is still the question of 'political interference' and the optics.".

    29 June 2016

    CNN: Bill Clinton meeting causes headaches for Hillary
    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.html

    #####

    Pot. Kettle. Black. Hilarious.

    [Jun 08, 2017] Books about russiphobia

    Notable quotes:
    "... For something more serious, see Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by Andrei Tsygankov. ..."
    Jun 08, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Evgeny , June 7, 2017 at 7:33 pm
    Hello Stooges!

    Have you heard of " The Plot to Scapegoat Russia How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Putin " by Kovalik Dan?

    So far I have had a cursory look on it - a few minutes of turning the pages. It doesn't look like a serious professional study, more like a light writing (albeit with numerous booknotes), and the author's focus seems to be on exposing the cases where the U.S. misbehaved in the world - so it shouldn't be critical of countries like Russia. The author cites journalists like Max Blumenthal, Robert Perry, even Paul Craig Roberts, so I guess it might be an interesting read. Perhaps I will read the book; not sure.

    Warren , June 7, 2017 at 8:16 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/N3t8ut5r_0U

    Published on 4 Jun 2017
    As Hillary Clinton blames the Kremlin for her election loss, author and attorney Dan Kovalik argues that anti-Russia sentiment is deeply embedded in the U.S. political establishment. Kovalik's new book is "The Plot to Scapegoat Russia: How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Russia."

    J.T. , June 8, 2017 at 6:28 am
    Heard of it, but I'll pass.
    For something more serious, see Russophobia: Anti-Russian Lobby and American Foreign Policy by Andrei Tsygankov.
    Andreas Umland on June 11, 2010
    Stretching "Russophobia"
    An analysis like Andrei P. Tsygankov's book was sorely needed. However, I am not sure that Tsygankov will fully reach with this text what he seemingly wanted to attain - namely, an effective, noted and, above all, consequential critique of US attitudes towards Russia during the last decade. Tsygankov has, to be sure, done a great deal of investigative work. He details many episodes that illustrate well where US policy or opinion makers have gone wrong. The book's chapters deal with, among other topics, the Chechen wars, democracy promotion, and energy policies. It is also important that this interpretation comes from a Russia-born political scientist who lives in the US and knows American discourse and politics well.

    Tsygankov's deep knowledge of both, Russian affairs as well as camps and trends in US politics, adds considerable value to this analysis.

    Yet, already the title of the book indicates where Tsygankov may be defeating his purpose. By way of classifying most of US-American critique of Russia as "Russophobia", Tsygankov goes, at least in terms of the concepts and words that he uses to interpret these phenomena, a bit too far. Tsygankov asserts that Russophobia is a major intellectual and political trend in US international thought and behaviour. He also tries to make the reader believe that there exists a broad coalition of political commentators and actors that form an anti-Russian lobby in Washington.

    It is true that there is a lot to be criticised and improved in Western approaches towards post-Soviet Russia - and towards the non-Western world, in general. US behaviour vis-à-vis, and American comments on, Russia, for the last 20 years, have all too often been characterized by incompetence and insensitivity regarding the daunting challenges and far-reaching consequences of the peculiarly post-Soviet political, cultural and economic transformation. Often, Russian-American relations have been hampered by plain inattention among US decision and opinion makers - a stunning phenomenon in view of the fact that Russia has kept being and will remain a nuclear superpower, for decades to come.

    The hundreds of stupidities that have been uttered on, and dozens of mistakes in US policies towards, Russia needed to be chronicled and deconstructed. Partly, Tsygankov has done that here with due effort, interesting results and some interpretative success.

    Yet, Tsygankov does not only talk about failures and omissions regarding Russia. He also speaks of enemies of the Russian state in the US, and their supposed alliances as well various dealings.

    Certainly, there is the occasional Russophobe in Washington and elsewhere, in the Western world. Among such personage, there are even some who are indeed engaged in an anti-Russian political lobbying of sorts.

    However, the circle of activists who truly deserve to be called "Russophobes" largely contains immigrants from the inner or outer Soviet/Russian empire. These are people who have their own reasons to be distrustful of, or even hostile towards, Russia. After the rise of Vladimir Putin and the Russian-Georgian War, many of them, I suspect, feel that they have always been right, in their anti-Russian prejudices. In any way, this is a relatively small group of people who are more interested in the past and worried about the future of their newly independent nation-states than they are concerned about the actual fate of Russia herself.

    Among those who are interested in Russia there are many, as Tsygankov aptly documents, who have recently been criticizing the Russian leadership harshly.

    Some of them have, in doing so, exerted influence on Western governments and public opinion. And partly such critique was, indeed, unjustified, unbalanced or/and counterproductive.

    But is that enough to assert that there is an "anti-Russian lobby"? What would such a lobby gain from spoiling US-Russian relationships? Who pays these lobbyists, and for what? Who, apart from a few backward-looking East European émigrés, is sufficiently interested in a new fundamental Russian-Western confrontation so as to conduct the allegedly concerted anti-Russian campaigns that Tsygankov appears to be discovering, in his book?

    [Jun 08, 2017] Hey Intercept, Something Is Very Wrong With Reality Winner and the NSA Leak

    Is not this CIA or Mossad trying to implicate Russians? why nobody asks relevant questions? Russia is way too convenient bogeyman to exclude such a possibility. Russians were under the gun already in 2016. In such circumstances they would prefer to lie low, not to do such stupid things.
    Jun 07, 2017 | www.antiwar.com
    June 7, 2017 An NSA document purporting to show Russian military hacker attempts to access a Florida company which makes voter registration software is sent anonymously to The Intercept . A low-level NSA contractor, Reality Winner, above, is arrested almost immediately. What's wrong with this picture? A lot.

    Who Benefits?

    Start with the question of who benefits – cui bono – same as detectives do when assessing a crime.

    Trump looks bad as another trickle of information comes out connecting something Russian to something 2016 election. Intelligence community (IC) looks like they are onto something, a day or so before ousted FBI Director James Comey testifies before Congress on related matters. The Intercept looks like it contributed to burning a source. Which potential leaker is going to them in the future? If potential leakers are made to think twice, another win for the IC. The FBI made an arrest right away, nearly simultaneous to the publication, with the formal charges coming barely an hour after The Intercept published. The bust is sure thing according to the very publicly released information. No Ed Snowden hiding out in Russia this time. IC looks good here. More evidence is now in the public domain that the Russians are after our election process. Seems as if the IC has been right all along.

    What Happened is Curious and Curiouser

    Now let's look at what we know so far about how this happened.

    A 25-year-old improbably-named Reality Winner leaves behind a trail long and wide on social media of anti-Trump stuff, including proclaiming herself a member of The Resistance. Never mind, she takes her Top Secret clearance with her out of the Air Force (she had been stationed with the military's 94th Intelligence Squadron out of Fort Meade, Maryland, co-located with the NSA's headquarters) and scores a job with an NSA contractor. Despite the lessons of too-much-access the Snowden episode should have taught the NSA, Winner apparently enjoys all sorts of classified documents – her Air Force expertise was in Afghan matters, so it is unclear why she would have access to info on Russia hacking of U.S. domestic companies.

    Within only about 90 days of starting her new job, she prints out the one (and only one apparently, why not more?) document in question and mails it to The Intercept. She also uses her work computer inside an NSA facility to write to the Intercept twice about this same time.

    Winner has a clearance. She was trained as a Dari, Pashto, and Farsi linguist by the Air Force. She knows how classified stuff works. She has been told repeatedly, as all persons with a clearance are, that her computer, email, printing, and phone are monitored. She mailed the document from Augusta, Georgia, the city where she lives and where the NSA facility is located. She practiced no tradecraft, did nothing to hide her actions and many things to call attention to them. It is very, very unclear why she took the actions she did under those circumstances.

    The Document

    The Intercept meanwhile drops by their friendly neighborhood NSA contact and shows them the document. NSA very publicly confirms the veracity of the document (unusual in itself, officially the Snowden and Manning documents remain unconfirmed) and then makes sure the open-court document filed is not sealed and includes the information on how the spooks know the leaked doc was printed inside the NSA facility. Winner went on to make a full confession to the FBI. The upshot? This document is not a plant. The NSA wants you to very much know it is real. The Russians certainly are messing with our election.

    But funny thing. While the leaked NSA document seems to be a big deal, at least to the general public, it sort of isn't. It shows one piece of analysis suggesting but not confirming the GRU, Russian military intelligence, tried to steal some credentials and gain access to a private company . No US sources and methods, or raw technical intel, are revealed, the crown jewel stuff. There is no evidence the hack accomplished anything at all, never mind anything nefarious. The hack took place months ago and ran its course, meaning the Russian operation was already dead. The Russians were running a run-of-the-mill spearfishing attack, potentially effective, but nothing especially sophisticated. You get similar stuff all the time trying to harvest your credit card information. The leaked document looks like a big deal but isn't.

    Another issue. The Intercept has a lot of very smart people working for it, people with real-world intelligence and tradecraft experience. People who know about microdot encoding on printed documents, one of the tells here, and people who know they don't show their whole hand when asking the NSA for a comment. The Intercept journalist volunteered to an NSA contracting company that the envelope received was postmarked to Augusta, where Winner lived and worked. Like Reality Winner and her own security training, it is very, very unclear why the Intercept took the actions it did under those circumstances.

    So For Now

    So, look, what we know about this story may represent .01% of the whole picture, and that tiny sliver of visible information is only what the government has chosen to reveal. And sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. Sometimes smart people make dumb mistakes.

    But that's not the way you place your bets, especially when dealing with the IC who are good at these kinds of games. At this very early stage I'm going to say there are too many coincidences and too many mistakes to simple shrug it all off. Too many of the benefits in this have accrued on the side of the IC than is typical when a real whistleblower shares classified documents with a journalist.

    If it frightens you that I invoke the question of the Deep State using journalists to smear the President, just forget I said anything. But if we're willing to believe the Russians somehow successfully manipulated our entire society to elect their favored candidate, then we can at least ask a few questions.

    Otherwise, if anyone hears Winner's lawyer use the word "patsy," let me know, OK?

    BONUS: Matt Cole, one of The Intercept journalists credited to this story, was also involved in the outing of source CIA officer John Kiriakou in connection with CIA torture claims. Small world!

    Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during Iraqi reconstruction in his first book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People . His latest book is Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent . Reprinted from the his blog with permission.

    [Jun 07, 2017] Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a never-ending stram of bad news about her. In no way they were fake news

    Notable quotes:
    "... I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT. ..."
    "... The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis. ..."
    "... Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her. ..."
    "... When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents. ..."
    Jun 07, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Anonymous , June 5, 2017 at 9:30 pm

    Lots of people, including myself, created FB accounts solely to post material related to the 2016 Democratic Primary and the election. I have just under 5,000 friends on FB, all of whom are "friends in Bernie."

    I posted 99% anti-Hillary material. It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime). There were also many articles about her numerous campaign promise betrayals, such as her support for bad trade deals with Colombia, South Korea, and Singapore, despite her promises to oppose these (her change of position re: Colombia was after getting a $10 million donation). These articles were all from mainstream sources, including The Nation, The Hill, even the NYT.

    The thing is, Hillary was so corrupt and her judgment and actions so bad, that there was a seemingly never-ending wealth of bad things to post about her. It wasn't fake news, it was the actual historical record of her dastardly deeds. It wasn't just I who did this. This is what folks on FB and other social media sites did throughout. She probably would refer to what we all posted as "fake news" because she psychopathically denies the truth on a continual basis.

    kimsarah , June 5, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    So please tell us your Russian connections.

    Elizabeth Burton , June 6, 2017 at 3:24 pm

    It consisted mostly of newspaper articles about many issues, ranging from her support for a right wing coup in Honduras that resulted in an escalation of violence, to her massive pay to play at the State Dept, to her disastrous regime change attempts in Libya and Syria (not to mention her support for the coup in Ukraine and the installation of a Neo Nazi regime).

    Funny you should mention. I responded to yet another episode of Russian hysteria yesterday and was immediately attacked by a Clinton cultist. Understand, this woman had no idea who I am and clearly didn't bother to find out. I said something against St. Hillary, and was therefore the enemy. Of course, the basis of her attack was that my sources of information were all "fake news."

    Keep in mind that I had not mentioned where I'd gotten my information; I simply said I had done broad research of St. Hillary's history and found it bore little to no resemblance to what the media said about her.

    When I patiently explained this (and added my journalist's credentials), the attack-cultist then switched to their second favorite: I support Trump, and am guilty of his election. I don't know how long she kept on posting her foam-mouthed mantras, because I departed using my standard response: I no longer engage in battles of facts with unarmed opponents.

    [Jun 06, 2017] US-led coalition destroys Syrian government forces within de-confliction zone - Pentagon

    Jun 06, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    OJS | Jun 6, 2017 2:46:54 PM | 70

    Breaking News!

    RT just reported: "US-led coalition destroys Syrian government forces within de-confliction zone" - Pentagon. Published time: 6 Jun, 2017 18:35. Edited time: 6 Jun, 2017 18:43

    You just cannot trust the US.

    [Jun 06, 2017] Interview to NBC by Vladimir Putin

    Cue bono is a great principle, which helps to understand a lot in the Presidential elections and aftermath.
    Jun 06, 2017 | en.kremlin.ru
    Megyn Kelly: But the other side says is it was only 70,000 votes that won Trump the election, and therefore influencing 70,000 people might not have been that hard.

    Vladimir Putin: The Constitution of the United States and the electoral legislation are structured in such a way that more electors can vote for a candidate who is backed by fewer voters. And such situations do occur in the history of the United States. True, isn't it?

    Therefore, if we were to discuss some kind of political and social justice, then probably that electoral legislation needs to be changed and bring a situation where the head of state would be elected by direct secret ballot and so there will be direct tabulation of votes that can be easily monitored. That's all there is to it. And there will be no need for those who have lost the elections to point fingers and blame their troubles on anybody.

    Now, if we turn this page over, I will tell you something that you most likely know about. I don't want to offend anyone, but the United States, everywhere, all over the world, is actively interfering in electoral campaigns in other countries. Is this really news to you?

    Just talk to people but in such a way (to the extent it is possible for you) so as to convince them that you're not going to make it public. Point your finger to any spot on the world's map, everywhere you'll hear complaints that American officials interfere in their political domestic processes.

    Therefore, if someone, and I am not saying that it's us (we did not interfere), if anybody does influence in some way or attempts to influence or somehow participates in these processes, then the United States has nothing to be offended by. Who is talking? Who is taking offense that we are interfering? You yourselves interfere all the time.

    Megyn Kelly: That sounds like a justification.

    Vladimir Putin: It does not sound like justification. It sounds like a statement of fact. Each action invites appropriate counteraction, but, again, we don't need to do that because I did not tell you this without a reason, both you personally and other members of the media, recently I was in France and I said the same things.

    Presidents come and go, and even parties come to and away from power. But the main policy tack does not change. So by and large we don't care who will be at the helm in the United States. We have a rough idea of what is going to happen. And in this regard, even if we wanted to it wouldn't make any sense for us to interfere. Vladimir Putin: It's just that the French journalists asked me about those hackers, and just like I told them, I can tell you, that hackers may be anywhere. They may be in Russia, in Asia, in America, in Latin America. There may be hackers, by the way, in the United States who very craftily and professionally passed the buck to Russia. Can't you imagine such a scenario? In the middle of an internal political fight, it was convenient for them, whatever the reason, to put out that information. And put it out they did. And, doing it, they made a reference to Russia. Can't you imagine it happening? I can. Let us recall the assassination of President Kennedy.

    There is a theory that Kennedy's assassination was arranged by the United States special services. If this theory is correct, and one cannot rule it out, so what can be easier in today's context, being able to rely on the entire technical capabilities available to special services than to organise some kind of attacks in the appropriate manner while making a reference to Russia in the process. Now, the candidate for the Democratic Party, is this candidate universally beloved in the United States? Was it such a popular person? That candidate, too, had political opponents and rivals.

    ... ... ...

    Megyn Kelly: Aren't you interested?

    Vladimir Putin: No. Because if there had been something meaningful he would have made a report to the minister, and the minister would have made a report to me. There weren't even any reports. Just every day, routine work that doesn't mean anything that may not even have any prospects.

    It's just that someone decided to find fault with it and, you know, select it as a line of attack against the current President. This isn't for us to get into, these are your domestic political squabbles. So you deal with them. Nothing to talk about.

    There was not even a specific discussion of sanctions or something else. I just find it amazing how you created a sensation where there wasn't anything at all. And proceeded to turn that sensation into a tool for fighting the sitting president. You know, you're just very resourceful people there, well done, probably your lives there are boring.

    ... ... ....

    I almost did not talk to him. I said hello, we sat next to each other, then I said goodbye and left. This sums up my entire acquaintanceship with Mr Flynn. If Mr Flynn and I had this kind of interaction, while you and I, we have spent an entire day together, and Mr Flynn was fired from his job, you then should be arrested and put in jail.

    ... ... ...

    Speaking of opposition, let us recall the movement Occupy Wall Street. Where is it now? The law enforcement agencies and special services in the US have taken it apart, into little pieces, and have dissolved it. I'm not asking you about how things stand in terms of democracy in the United States. Especially so that the electoral legislation is far from being perfect in the US. Why do you believe you are entitled to put such questions to us and, mind you, do it all the time, to moralize and to teach us how we should live?

    [Jun 06, 2017] Cyber report of cyber bullshit ?

    Emergence of cyber attack charge of a perfect false flag operation.
    Neocons and Clinton wing of Democratic Party (DemoRats) are trying to add to the momentum of rising negativity about Trump in US public opinion to make impeaching Trump possible.
    Jun 06, 2017 | politics.slashdot.org

    Dunbal ( 464142 ) * , Monday June 05, 2017 @07:48PM ( #54555483 )

    Hmmm ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

    So we go from "they hacked us" to "they tried to hack us"? Not quite the same accusation. Next it will go from "It was the Russian government" to "it was someone using an IP from Russia"...

    bmo ( 77928 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @07:59PM ( #54555565 )
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    "it was someone using an IP from Russia"...

    If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got.

    Shit coming from an IP in Russia, which could have been at the end of 7 PROXIES. Or TOR. Or whatever.

    -- BMO

    AHuxley ( 892839 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @08:32PM ( #54555801 ) Homepage Journal
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 2 )

    Re "If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got." The US has an IP range, time of day. IP ranges always point back to just a nation. Government workers always work 9 to 5 shifts in their own nation's time zones too.

    whoever57 ( 658626 ) writes: on Monday June 05, 2017 @08:47PM ( #54555919 ) Journal
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 2 )

    Government workers always work 9 to 5 shifts in their own nation's time zones too.

    That may be true, but so what? Those pimply-faced script kiddies don't necessarily work normal day shifts.

    hey! ( 33014 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:11PM ( #54556085 ) Homepage Journal
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 3 )
    If you look at the actual public evidence, that's all we've got.

    Exactly. The document in question takes a quite conclusive tone on the matter, but does not divulge any raw intelligence data or the methods used to assess that data.

    Now, either the NSA personnel who produced this document are a hell of lot less smart than you are, or the document is a fake, or there is private information that the rest of us don't have.

    dog77 ( 1005249 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:57PM ( #54556403 )
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 2 )

    Here is report from CrowdStrike on why they beleive it was the Russians: https://www.crowdstrike.com/bl... [crowdstrike.com]

    Bradbo ( 890238 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:03PM ( #54556021 )
    Re:Hmmm ( Score: 2 )

    The report doesn't say "using an IP address from Russia" -- it says it was from the Russian Military. I don't think the NSA would get the two confused. Also, the report says that at least one email account was probably compromised ("probably" being intel-speak for "very high confidence"). With a compromised email account, further phishing attacks are much more likely to be successful. So we don't know the extent of the hacking results (at least from this one report), but it was not a "attempt to hack" but a "successful hack" with unknown-as-yet damage.

    Nehmo ( 757404 ) writes: < [email protected] > on Monday June 05, 2017 @08:16PM ( #54555691 )
    Hillary lost because of RUSSIA! ( Score: 2 , Interesting)

    This is the second time Hillary failed to become "the inevitable president". Did Russia sabotage her plans last time? (Oh, Obama won the primaries. Hillary made sure she won those this time.)

    • Did Russia tell Hillary to rig the primaries to freeze our Sanders?
    • Did Russia get the DNC to provide Hillary the debate questions in advance? (She still did terrible anyway.)
    • Did Russia make Hillary collapse on their way to their car?
    • Did Russia encourage Bill to pardon Marc Rich, the billionaire donor to the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to be so confident that she could ignore the (previously Democratic) rust belt states in her campaign?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to lie about dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary, when she was a working attorney, to get a rapist a sweet plea deal and then laugh when questioned about it?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to call Bill sexual accusers "bimbos"?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to say to the bankers that she would ring China with defensive missiles?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to have Huma Aberdeen as her aide, assistant editor of a publication that believes in Muslim Sharia Law?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to say she would make a no-fly zone in Syria when Russia was already in Syria?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to laugh demonically about "came, saw, and kill" Kaddafi?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to take bribes on numerous occasions in the form of speaking fees?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to use the personal unsecured server?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to delete emails that were subpoenaed?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to have a corrupt charity?
    • Did Russia tell Hillary to call 31 million voters deplorable irredeemable racist sexist homophobic bigots?
    • Did Russia murder Seth Rich, DNC's Director of Voter Enhancement? He was the Sanders supporter who was shot 4 times while on the ground in a "botched robbery" in which nothing was taken.
    • Did Russia get the Clintons to accept a bribe on the Uranium One deal? Well, yes, they did do that one.
    najajomo ( 4890785 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @08:52PM ( #54555967 )
    I call cyber bullshit on this cyber report ... ( Score: 1 )

    I call cyber bullshit on this cyber report ...

    AHuxley ( 892839 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:17PM ( #54556129 ) Homepage Journal
    Why military intelligence? ( Score: 2 )

    Soviet "military intelligence" who normally did military spying tried to run a spy in the UK in the 1970's due to an accident of first contact. It ended in failure as the Soviet staff did not have the decades of skill to work long term with a person in the UK and all the emotional issues that result.

    The write up of Russia/the Soviet Union ever using "military intelligence" in the West for activity seems more of an older US fantasy than reality. Russia knows what its "military intelligence" can do and should not do.

    It learned that by losing one of its more productive spies in the UK in the 1970's. Losing a good spy does not get "military intelligence" a lot of other direct attempts at spying again.

    Why would the US be talking about one of the one groups in Russia that would not be used for spying in the West? Every other spy agency in the world would notice that glaring mistake too and be wondering why the most simple lack of understanding of Russian's intelligence structure would be allowed to be presented as "news"? The report does not "show the underlying "raw" intelligence on which the analysis is based". "cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion" Read down further and find the part about "not involved in vote tallying"

    From not changing votes what ever happened did not even work well "unknown whether" .. "and what potential data from the victim could have been exfiltrated" So some "spear-phishing" did not change the votes and did not seem to even get many other results. Thats using some "military intelligence". The quality of the effort was ""medium sophistication," one that "practically any hacker can pull off."" Note the use of the term "hacker". "The actual voting machines aren't going to be networked" Finally any issues got talked about as been the everyday issues of "between the setup of the computers and the poll workers using them."

    Jack Zombie ( 637548 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @10:03PM ( #54556433 )
    Misleading title; no proof given. ( Score: 2 )

    From the Intercept article linked:

    "While the document provides a rare window into the NSAâ(TM)s understanding of the mechanics of Russian hacking, it does not show the underlying âoerawâ intelligence on which the analysis is based. A U.S. intelligence officer who declined to be identified cautioned against drawing too big a conclusion from the document because a single analysis is not necessarily definitive."

    If one reads other articles by the Intercept, one finds that Glenn Greenwald, who works as editor at the Intercept and helped publicize the Snowden leaks, is of the informed opinion that Russia did not manipulate the US election, and that the whole claim was manufactured by the US intelligence, and that both political sides saw it easier to treat this well-established lie as if it was true than to publicly confront it.

    Just look for the articles by Glenn Greenwald in Intercept. He has stated this explicitly a good time before Putin said the same thing (but in Putin's mouth, it was subtle pressure against the US intelligence community to stop attacking Russia).

    lessthan0 ( 176618 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @10:41PM ( #54556651 )
    How is this new? ( Score: 2 )

    This seems like a lot of crying and hang wringing over standard operating procedures.

    Did Russia try to penetrate our voting systems? Probably.

    Did the US plant stuxnet in Iranian nuke plants? Probably Did the US hack North Korean missile tests? Probably Did the US capture German and UK government communications? Yes Does the US try to penetrate Russian systems and generally hack every government and military computer on the planet 24x7? YES!

    This is the way the world works, the way it has ALWAYS worked. It is naive and dangerous to think otherwise.

    Our best response is to harden our systems and go on with life. Complete nothing burger.

    arbiter1 ( 1204146 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @07:50PM ( #54555497 )
    Re:Leftist Media 101 ( Score: 2 )

    It was also wrote up but liberal leftist lackeys as well that can draw a conclusion using only 1 dot on page.

    DigiShaman ( 671371 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @07:56PM ( #54555537 ) Homepage
    Re:Hysteria ( Score: 4 , Insightful)

    The Rush Limbaugh theorem states that the media isn't an arm of the Democrat Party, rather, that the Democrat Party is an arm of the media. Think about it, which side is more organized and sends a cohesive voice nightly or hourly?

    Lisandro ( 799651 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @08:41PM ( #54555877 )
    Re:Russians meddled - but Clinton lost the first t ( Score: 2 )
    Look, I don't think any honest person can deny the Russians meddled in the election. The bigger question is, did they throw the American election?

    That is hard (impossible?) to answer conclusively, but they likely did not. Clinton lost the election all by herself, IMHO.

    The problem is that a) it appears that Russia did indeed meddle in US elections and b) there's an active investigation about collusion between the Trump administration and Russian officials. That is the story here.

    hey! ( 33014 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:43PM ( #54556343 ) Homepage Journal
    Re:Russians meddled - but Clinton lost the first t ( Score: 2 )

    The problem is that results like 2016 don't have any single cause. There are many things that had they been different could have changed the outcome.

    Blame isn't like a hot potato: there's plenty for everyone. Clinton has her share of the blame. Her weak and passive messaging, and her over-reliance on dubious analytics in the face of clear field intelligence were both mistakes. Absent either of them and she would have won -- it was only a matter of swinging 100,000 strategically placed votes, about 1/100th of 1% of the votes cast.

    This doesn't mean other things didn't cause her loss too, but the bottom line was that she was facing Donald Trump, a boorish reality TV clown and easily the stupidest and most ignorant man ever to win the presidency. She should have blown the doors of the election far beyond the reach of a few unlucky breaks or marginal meddling to matter.

    lucm ( 889690 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @08:26PM ( #54555757 )
    Re:Hysteria ( Score: 2 )

    Remember when the CIA planted logic flaws in some pipeline management software because they knew the Soviets would steal it? This led to the gigantic explosion of a Siberian pipeline:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk]

    Those people have suddenly become immensely skilled hackers?

    hey! ( 33014 ) , Monday June 05, 2017 @09:05PM ( #54556029 ) Homepage Journal
    Re:Hysteria ( Score: 3 )
    This continued media frenzy became tiresome some time ago. Can we move on to something new to be outraged about?

    You seem to be conflating "important" and "entertaining".

    Important stuff is often quite boring, at least at the outset before you understand what's going on.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Europe May Finally Rethink NATO Costs by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... U.S. officials (and The New York Times) have made it a practice to white-out the coup d'etat in Kiev and to begin recent European history with Russia's immediate reaction, thus the relentless presentation of these events as simply "Russian aggression," as if Russia instigated the crisis, not the U.S. ..."
    May 27, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: By dunning NATO nations to chip more money into the military alliance, President Trump may inadvertently cause some Europeans to rethink the over-the-top anti-Russian propaganda, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

    President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump traveled to Brussels, Belgium on Wednesday evening for their fourth stop on their trip abroad. President Trump met with leaders from around the world before the NATO Summit in Brussels. (White House photo)

    At that point it will become possible to see through the West's alarmist propaganda. It will also become more difficult to stoke artificial fears that Russia, for reasons known only to NATO war planners and neoconservative pundits, will attack NATO. As long as Russian hardliners do not push President Vladimir Putin aside, Moscow will continue to reject its assigned role as bête noire.

    First a request:Let me ask those of you who believe Russia is planning to invade Europe to put down the New York Times for a minute or two.Take a deep cleansing breath, and try to be open to the possibility that heightened tensions in Europe are, rather, largely a result of the ineluctable expansion of NATO eastward over the quarter-century since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

    Actually, NATO has doubled in size, despite a U.S. quid-pro-quo to expand NATO "one inch" to the east of Germany.The quid required of Russia was acquiescence to a reunited Germany within NATO and withdrawal of the 300,000-plus Russian troops stationed in East Germany.

    The U.S. reneged on its quo side of the bargain as the NATO alliance added country after country east of Germany with eyes on even more – while Russia was not strong enough to stop NATO expansion until February 2014 when, as it turned out, NATO's eyes finally proved too big for its stomach.A U.S.-led coup d'etat overthrew elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installed new, handpicked leaders in Kiev who favored NATO membership.That crossed Russia's red line; it was determined – and at that point able – to react strongly, and it did.

    These are the flat-facts, contrasting with the mainstream U.S. media's propaganda about "Russian aggression." Sadly, readers of the New York Times know little to nothing of this recent history.

    Today's Russian Challenge

    The existential threat to NATO comprises a different kind of Russian "threat," which owes much to the adroitness and sang froid of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who flat-out refuses to play his assigned role of a proper enemy – despite the Western media campaign to paint him the devil incarnate.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

    Over time, even the most sophisticated propaganda wears thin, and more and more Europeans will realize that NATO, in its present form, is an unnecessary, vestigial organ already a quarter-century beyond its expiration date – and that it can flare up painfully, like a diseased appendix.At a time when citizens of many NATO countries are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, they will be reluctant to sink still more money into rehab for a vestigial organ.

    That there are better uses for the money is already clear, and President Trump's badgering of NATO countries to contribute ever more for defense may well backfire. Some are already asking, "Defense against what?"Under the painful austerity that has been squeezing the Continent since the Wall Street crash nearly a decade ago, a critical mass of European citizens is likely to be able to distinguish reality from propaganda – and perhaps much sooner than anyone anticipates.This might eventually empower the 99 percent, who don't stand to benefit from increased military spending to fight a phantom threat, to insist that NATO leaders stop funding a Cold War bureaucracy that has long since outlived its usefulness.

    A military alliance normally dissolves when its raison d'etre – the military threat it was created to confront – dissolves.The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 – more than a quarter century ago – and with it the Warsaw Pact that was established as the military counter to NATO.

    Helpful History

    NATO's first Secretary General, Lord Ismay, who had been Winston Churchill's chief military assistant during World War II, stated that NATO's purpose was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."But a lot can change over the course of almost seven decades.

    The NATO flag is raised during the opening ceremony for Exercise Steadfast Jazz in Poland, Nov. 3, 2013. (NATO photo by British army Sgt. Ian Houlding)

    The Russians relinquished their East European empire after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and withdrew their armed forces.There no longer needed to be a concerted priority effort to "keep the Russians out," preoccupied as they were with fixing the economic and social mess they inherited when the USSR fell.

    As for "keeping the Germans down," it is not difficult to understand why the Russians, having lost 25 to 27 million in WWII, were a bit chary at the prospect of a reunited Germany.Moscow's concern was allayed somewhat by putting this new Germany under NATO command, since this sharply lessened the chance the Germans would try to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.

    But NATO became the "defensive" blob that kept growing and growing, partly because that is what bureaucracies do (unless prevented) and partly because it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their "toughness." By early 2008, NATO had already added ten new members – all of them many "inches" to the east of Germany: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

    There were rumors that Ukraine and Georgia were in queue for NATO membership, and Russian complaints were becoming louder and louder.NATO relations with Russia were going to hell in a hand basket and there was no sign the Washington policymakers gave a hoot.

    A leading advocate from the Russo-phobic crowd was the late Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser and remained in the forefront of those pressing for NATO expansion – to include Ukraine.In 1998, he wrote, "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire."

    The relentless expansion of NATO greatly bothered former Sen. Bill Bradley, a longtime expert on Russia and a sober-minded policy analyst. On Jan. 23, 2008, in a talk before the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, he sounded an almost disconsolate note, describing NATO expansion a "terribly sad thing" a "blunder of monumental proportions.

    "We had won the Cold War and we kicked them [the Russians] when they were down; we expanded NATO.In the best of circumstances it was bureaucratic inertia in NATO – people had to have a job.In the worst of circumstances it was certain irredentist East European types, who believe Russia will forever be the enemy and therefore we have to protect against the time when they might once again be aggressive, thereby creating a self-fulfilling prophesy."

    As tensions with Russia heightened late last decade, Sen. Bradley added, "Right now we are confronted with something that could have easily been avoided."

    Finally Saying Nyet

    A week after Bradley's lament, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called in U.S. Ambassador William Burns to read him the riot act.The subject line of Burns's CONFIDENTIAL cable #182 of Feb. 1, 2008, in which he reported Lavrov's remarks to Washington shows that Burns played it straight, choosing not to mince his own or Lavrov's words: "Nyet means nyet: Russia's NATO enlargement redlines."

    NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

    Here what Ambassador Burns wrote in his summary, which the public knows because the cable was among the thousands leaked to WikiLeaks by Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, for which she was imprisoned for seven years and only recently released (yet the cable has been essentially ignored by the corporate U.S. news media):

    "Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine's intent to seek a NATO Membership Action Plan at the Bucharest summit, Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains an emotional and neuralgic issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.

    "In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene. Additionally, the government of Russia and experts continue to claim that Ukrainian NATO membership would have a major impact on Russia's defense industry, Russian-Ukrainian family connections, and bilateral relations generally."

    So, it is not as though then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. policymakers were not warned, in very specific terms, of Russia's redline on Ukrainian membership in NATO. Nevertheless, on April 3, 2008, the final declaration from at a NATO summit in Bucharest asserted: "NATO welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO."

    The Ukraine Coup

    Six years later, on Feb. 22, 2014, the U.S.-pushed putsch in Ukraine, which George Friedman, then President of the think-tank STRATFOR, labeled "the most blatant coup in history," put in power a fiercely anti-Russian regime eager to join the Western alliance.

    President Barack Obama talks with President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker following a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office, Sept. 18, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    Russia's reaction was predictable – actually, pretty much predicted by the Russians themselves.But for Western media and "statesmen," the Ukrainian story begins on Feb. 23, 2014, when Putin and his advisers decided to move quickly to thwart NATO's designs on Ukraine and take back Crimea where Russia's only warm-water naval base has been located since the days of Catherine the Great.

    U.S. officials (and The New York Times) have made it a practice to white-out the coup d'etat in Kiev and to begin recent European history with Russia's immediate reaction, thus the relentless presentation of these events as simply "Russian aggression," as if Russia instigated the crisis, not the U.S.

    A particularly blatant example of this came on June 30, 2016, when then U.S. Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute spoke at a press briefing before the NATO summit in Warsaw:

    "Beginning in 2014 we're moving into a new period in NATO's long history. So the first thing that happened in 2014 that marks this change is a newly aggressive, newly assertive Russia under Vladimir Putin. So in late February, early March of 2014, the seizing, the occupying of Crimea followed quickly by the illegal political annexation of Crimea. Well, any notion of strategic partnership came to an abrupt halt in the first months of 2014."

    And so, for the nonce, Western propaganda captured the narrative.How long this distortion of history will continue is the question.The evolution of Europe as a whole (including Russia) over the past half-century, together with the profound changes that this evolution has brought, suggest that those of the European Establishment eager to inject life into the vestigial organ called NATO – whether for lucrative profits from arms sales or cushy spots in NATO's far-flung bureaucracy – are living on borrowed time.

    President Trump can keep them off balance by creating uncertainty with respect to how Washington regards its nominal NATO obligation to risk war with Russia should some loose cannon in, say, Estonia, start a shooting match with the Russians. On balance, the uncertainty that Trump has injected may be a good thing. Similarly, to the degree that his pressure for increased defense spending belatedly leads to an objective estimate of the "threat" from Russia, that may be a good thing too.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. A CIA analyst for 27 years, he specialized in Russian foreign policy. He led the CIA's Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and briefed the President's Daily Brief one-on-one during President Ronald Reagan's first term.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Trump and the Bubbles from a Sunken (Old) World

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is NATO? Originally, NATO was supposed to be a military alliance to oppose the Soviet armed forces and, later, the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Now that these two have disappeared, NATO has no real mission. What NATO still has is a huge bureaucracy. There is a lot of money to be made through NATO: salaries, contracts, investments, etc. Heck – these guys just built themselves gigantic and brand new headquarters , probably to "deter the Russian aggression", right? ..."
    "... NATO is also a huge bureaucratic lift which can pull people up to the real centers of power, including financial power. Furthermore, NATO is also a gang of people who use NATO to advance their petty career or political agenda. ..."
    "... What NATO is not is a militarily useful alliance. Oh yes, sure, the Americans can use NATO to force the Europeans to use US military hardware, that is true, but should a war break out, especially a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would push all these Eurosissies out of the way and do 90%+ of the fighting. ..."
    "... And then there is the " New Europe ": the crazies in Poland or the Baltics who are making an immense effort in trying to put the Old Europeans (who made the huge mistake of accepting them into NATO) on a collision course with Russia. ..."
    "... From a pragmatic point of view, NATO member states should have never EVER incorporated the "New Europeans" into their alliance. The same goes for the EU, of course. But in their illusions of grandeur and their petty revanchism they decided that *real* Europe needed to be joined at the hip with "New Europe" and now they are paying the price for this strategic mistake of colossal proportions. Of course, the Americans are bastards for encouraging the Eurodummies in their delusional dreams, but now that the deed is done, the Americans are doing the rational and pragmatic thing: they are letting the Eurodummies deal with their own mistakes. This is best shown by Trump's new policy about the Ukraine: he simply does not care. ..."
    "... There used to be a time when the G7 really was huge, but now with China and India missing at the table and with Russia expelled, the G7 has become just a kaffeeklatsch for ugly rich people, an occasion to reminisce about the good old days when Europe still mattered. ..."
    "... We are told that the G7 is composed of the seven major advanced economies on the planet (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), but the only real power in that list is the US. Next, it would be Germany, but Merkel's immigration policies have resulted in a EU-wide disaster and she is very much an embattled leader. She is also a prime culprit of the Ukrainian fiasco. ..."
    "... in political terms the Japanese are voiceless US subcontractors ..."
    "... in economic terms the G7 has pretty much been replaced by the G20 while in political terms the G7 is an empty shell. ..."
    "... Trump's contempt for European leaders is definitely undiplomatic and shows a basic lack of education, but it still is a contempt the European leaders richly deserve. ..."
    "... In politics, power is not absolute, but relative. Sure, the US military is basically dysfunctional and doesn't seem to be capable of frightening anybody on the US list of "enemies", but compared to Europe the US is a powerhouse. As for the Europeans, they are depending on the Americans for pretty much everything that matters. Trump understands all that and he seem to have more respect for Kim Jong-un than for Angela Merkel. I can't blame him as this is also how I feel. ..."
    "... The traditional British foreign policy has always been to fosters wars in Europe to prevent any kind of continental unity. As for the US, its main objective has always been to keep "keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". And now we see the Brits leaving the EU and the Americans pulling out well, maybe not out of Europe per se , but out of most of Europe's problems. So why are the Anglos pulling out? Is that not a clear sign that Europe is sinking? ..."
    "... But for the time being, war is far less likely than it would have been the case with Hillary. What we see is Trump making "America great again" by stepping on its allies in Europe and by contemptuously disregarding the rest of humanity. That kind of arrogant megalomania is not a pretty sight for sure – but way better than WWIII. And "better than WWIII" is all we can hope for in the foreseeable future. ..."
    "... The propaganda couched as the American Way of Life has become so all consuming that it took just one individual to march to center stage and reflect back our carefully hidden shortcomings and delusions for the fear and loathing to begin. We've been sleepwalking for a long time. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/black-magic-or-jungian-shadow/ ..."
    "... NATO gives the US a fig leaf by being a coalition of the willing for whatever merry ventures we choose to get into at any given time. ..."
    "... I'm not so sure that the West has the will, purpose, or capacity for sacrifice to prosecute a Third World War. I think the Russians are primarily preparing to defend themselves from the disorganized, spastic lashing-out of a dying West. ..."
    "... I can only hope Trump continues to treat the EU political elites as just so many gutless dogs & inept clowns: because they are ..."
    "... Start with the most elementary act of common sense: stop ALL sanctions, whether economic or political against Russia. Then fully commit to Eurasian integration. Sure, the US will SPIT, but, the EU is sinking – fast. Anyway, I'll dream on .. ..."
    "... You have entirely missed the point. We know good and well that the president alone does not get to make any important foreign policy decisions–or probably any decisions at all. We know just as well that he is expected to be a salesman promoting policies crafted by the banks, corporations and the deep state. We know. The point is that Trump is an incredibly bad spokesman! He is discrediting the empire by his very presence. ..."
    "... American land forces never were serious contented compared to USSR and with 90′s mess reversed things are back to normal state of affairs which means Russian land forces asserting normal state of dominance along Russian borders. ..."
    "... Avoiding World War III works for me. ..."
    "... Yeah, I have a problem with that one too. I don't see such chivalry coming from US – assuming 90% of the fighting to save Europe. NATO was designed with one purpose only – to defend US and no one else. Anybody who believes otherwise – doesn't live in the real world. ..."
    "... In the 68 years of NATO existence, the only country to ever invoke article 5 was – you guess it – US. Article 5 means asking for help from other NATO members to come to your defense when you are attacked. So US asked for help because they were "attacked" in Afghanistan. ..."
    "... The money Changers's propaganda has always spread lies that have been the exact opposite of their actions. Trump probably had to buy in or he wouldn't be President and his Jewish son-in-law is there on keep an eye on him. He is changing our foreign policy to the extent that he isn't pursuing regime change in Syria even though we have boots on the ground. ..."
    "... I believe that, despite the fact that we have been a fascist economic state since the Origins of the Truman Doctrine and the build up of the MIIC, Trump didn't become a billionaire because he's clueless. I'm in favor of his actions, so far. He has said screw the Globalist and screw the wasted-brains-EPA. ..."
    "... Everything in the world is controlled by Money Grabbing Economy Controllers so Trump will have issues getting his MAGA agenda but his foreign policy, despite the Syria hiccup, is acceptable. After decades of our forces killing millions of civilians, if Syria lost a few at that airbase, well.. it could have been worse. ..."
    "... Donald Trump: "Whenever you see the words 'sources say' in the fake news media, and they don't mention names it is very possible that those sources don't exist but are made up by fake news writers. #FakeNews is the enemy!" ..."
    "... Your critique of Saker's evaluation of Trump is basically grounded deeply from within the matrix, whose prisoner you seem to be. Yes, Trump is widely painted to be "a laughing stock globally, despised, cringed at, as are the people who voted for him" but no, that is the view that the mass media has been dishing out. It is not true, simply not true, even though many have swallowed it along with a whole load of marbles. ..."
    "... You are basically paraphrasing Clinton when you jeer "the people who voted for him". Yes, these "despicable folk" did vote Trump into power, and yes they might well do so again. You do not seem to understand the processes at work here: part democracy, part a revolt of the people sickened by the one-sided narrative propagated in the media. ..."
    Jun 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    First, a confession: I really don't know how the corporate media has covered the Trump trip to NATO and the G7 summit. Frankly, I don't really care – it's been a long while since I stopped listening to these imperial shills. There is a risk in completely ignoring them, and that risk is the risk to say "white" when everybody else says "black". This is a small risk – and, after all, who cares? – but today I will take it again and give you my own take on Trump's trip to Europe: I think that it was an immense success. But not necessarily for Trump as much as it was an immense success for the enemies of the Empire, like myself. Here is my own rendition on what I think has taken place.

    First, Trump was consistently rude. I cannot judge if this lack of manners is the real Trump or whether Trump was tying to send an unspoken message. For whatever this is worth, I know of only one person who had personal and private dealing with the Trump family, including The Donald Himself, and according to him, Trump is an impeccably courteous person. Whatever may be the case, whether this was nature or no so subtle "messaging", Trump truly outdid himself. He unceremoniously pushed aside the Prime Minister of Montenegro , who richly deserves being treated with utter contempt. Then he blocked out Angela Merkel during the official photo taking . He made the G7 wait for over an hour, he refused to walk to another photo op by foot.

    He didn't even bother putting on his translation headset when others were speaking and, crime of crimes, he told the NATO members states to pay more money while not saying a single word about Article 5 . It is hard to gauge what the rest of the assembled politicians really thought (prostitutes are good at hiding and repressing their own feelings), but Merkel clearly was angry and frustrated.

    Apparently, everybody hated Trump, with the sole possible exception of Marcon (but he is a high-end prostitute). As much as Obama was a charmer, Trump seems to relish the role of ruffian. But most importantly, Trump treated the EU/NATO gang with the contempt they deserve and that, frankly, I find most refreshing. Why?

    The ugly truth about NATO: Eurosissies and Eurodummies

    What is NATO? Originally, NATO was supposed to be a military alliance to oppose the Soviet armed forces and, later, the Warsaw Treaty Organization. Now that these two have disappeared, NATO has no real mission. What NATO still has is a huge bureaucracy. There is a lot of money to be made through NATO: salaries, contracts, investments, etc. Heck – these guys just built themselves gigantic and brand new headquarters , probably to "deter the Russian aggression", right?

    NATO is also a huge bureaucratic lift which can pull people up to the real centers of power, including financial power. Furthermore, NATO is also a gang of people who use NATO to advance their petty career or political agenda. At best, NATO is a gigantic fig leaf covering the obscenity of western imperialism.

    What NATO is not is a militarily useful alliance. Oh yes, sure, the Americans can use NATO to force the Europeans to use US military hardware, that is true, but should a war break out, especially a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would push all these Eurosissies out of the way and do 90%+ of the fighting. Most NATO armies are a joke anyway, but even those who are marginally better fully depend on the US for all the force multipliers (intelligence, logistics, transportation, communications, navigation, etc.).

    And then there is the " New Europe ": the crazies in Poland or the Baltics who are making an immense effort in trying to put the Old Europeans (who made the huge mistake of accepting them into NATO) on a collision course with Russia.

    From a pragmatic point of view, NATO member states should have never EVER incorporated the "New Europeans" into their alliance. The same goes for the EU, of course. But in their illusions of grandeur and their petty revanchism they decided that *real* Europe needed to be joined at the hip with "New Europe" and now they are paying the price for this strategic mistake of colossal proportions. Of course, the Americans are bastards for encouraging the Eurodummies in their delusional dreams, but now that the deed is done, the Americans are doing the rational and pragmatic thing: they are letting the Eurodummies deal with their own mistakes. This is best shown by Trump's new policy about the Ukraine: he simply does not care.

    Oh sure, he will say something about the Minsk Agreement, maybe mention Crimea, he might even say something about a Russian threat. But then he turns away and walks. And the Eurodummies are now discovering something which they should have suspected all along: the Ukraine is *their* problem now, the Americans don't care because they have nothing to lose and nothing to win either, and so besides empty words they will offer nothing. Much worse is the fact that it appears that it will be the Europeans who will end up paying most of the costs of rebuilding the Ukraine when the current Nazi regime is finally removed (but that is a topic for a future article).

    There is karmic justice at work here: all the Eurodummies will now have to deal with the fallout from the total collapse of the Ukraine, but the first ones to pay will be the Poles who tried so hard to draw NATO and the real Europe into their revanchist agenda. Besides, is it not simply justice for the Poles who for years have been ranting about a Russian threat and who for years have been supporting nationalist and even neo-Nazi movements in the Ukraine to now be faced with a deluge of problems (social, political, economic, etc.) coming from "their" Ukrainians while the Russians will be looking at this mess from the east, protected by the two Novorussian republics and formidable National and Border guards. As most Russians will, I wish the Europeans " bien du plaisir " with the upcoming waves of Ukrainian refugees and the "European values" they will bring with them.

    ... ... ...

    The sad truth is that NATO and the EU are do not deserve to be treated with any respect at all. Trump's condescension is fully deserved. Worse, the Americans don't even have to pretend to take the Europeans seriously because, for the past decade, the latter have sheepishly obeyed the most ridiculous and even self-defeating orders from the Americans.

    Truly, Victoria Nuland's famous words about the EU were expressing something of an American consensus about the Old Continent.

    The G7: "bubbles from a sunken world"

    " Bubbles from a sunken world " is not an expression I coined. It was the Russian author Ivan Solonevich who wrote that about the kind of exiled Russian aristocrats who still thought that they would one day recover all their properties seized by the Soviets in Russia. Still, this expression also applies to the G7 leaders who meet with a great deal of gravitas and pretend like they really matter. In truth, they don't. There used to be a time when the G7 really was huge, but now with China and India missing at the table and with Russia expelled, the G7 has become just a kaffeeklatsch for ugly rich people, an occasion to reminisce about the good old days when Europe still mattered.

    In reality, of course, and just like with the EU or NATO, the G7 is an anachronistic leftover of a long gone past. G7 countries are simply not the place where the real action is nowadays. But even worse than that is the fact that the leaders of the G7 suffer from the same form of senile dementia as the EU or NATO leaders which is unsurprising since they are more or less the same people: they have nothing original or new to say, nothing important for sure. They have no vision at all, very little legitimacy and even less credibility.

    Yes, sure, in France Macron did win, but only because the French establishment engaged in a massive propaganda campaign aimed at beating Marine LePen. But if you consider that only about 20% of the French voted for Macron in the first round and that he achieved that rather pitiful score even though he had the full support of the French establishment then you realize how unpopular that establishment really is with the French. While the Rothschild propaganda machine tried to present Macron like some kind of de Gaulle, most French people did see him for what he was: a hollow puppet in the hands of the transnational plutocracy. And yet, of all the leaders of the G7, Macron is undeniably the most dynamic one, not only due to his young age, but simply because he does not come across as some kind of fossil from a distant past.

    Trump and the Eurodwarves

    We are told that the G7 is composed of the seven major advanced economies on the planet (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States), but the only real power in that list is the US. Next, it would be Germany, but Merkel's immigration policies have resulted in a EU-wide disaster and she is very much an embattled leader. She is also a prime culprit of the Ukrainian fiasco.Next in line would be the UK, but the UK has just left the EU and May is presiding over a process which she herself opposes, as do the British elites. Which leaves us with Japan, Italy and Canada. Japan's past economic power is being overshadowed by China's immense economy while in political terms the Japanese are voiceless US subcontractors. Italy should not even be part of the G7, at least not in political and economic terms, because Italy is much closer to her Mediterranean neighbors such as Spain and Greece and therefore looked down with contempt by the "northerners", especially Germany. Which leaves Canada, arguably the most irrelevant and subservient country of them all (when is the last time Canada had anything of relevance to say about anything? Exactly). The bottom line is this: in economic terms the G7 has pretty much been replaced by the G20 while in political terms the G7 is an empty shell. Trump fully realizes that and that is why he does not even try to be polite with them.

    Obama was a born used car salesman: he could be charming and polite with anybody and everybody. Trump has never had any need to act in such a way and, in the case of the Europeans, he does not even feel like trying.

    Trump's contempt for European leaders is definitely undiplomatic and shows a basic lack of education, but it still is a contempt the European leaders richly deserve. Furthermore, while it is true that the AngloZionist Empire is sinking, the European part is sinking much faster than the American one. Which is unsurprising since the US is truly a very unique country.

    The American Sonderfall

    While I was writing this article, I have been listening to the press conference of Donald Trump in the Rose Garden explaining to the world that the US would now withdraw from the Paris Agreement . I don't want to discuss the merits of this agreements or the reasons behind Trump's decision, but I will stress that this places the US in direct opposition to 195 other countries who signed this treaty expecting the US to abide by its terms. 195 countries really means just about the entire planet. And yet Trump feels confident that he can afford taking a separate path and the rest of the world will have to shut up.

    Trump is right. The US is a "special case".

    There is absolutely nothing the rest of the planet can do to prevent the United States from withdrawing from this or any other agreement. The best proof of that fact can be found in the more or less official US position that it does not need a UN Security Council to impose sanctions on another nation, threaten it with military aggression or even go to war against it. Right now, the US have attacked Syria several times already and there are US forces deployed inside Syria and nobody seems to care, which is kind of ironic considering how many lawyers there are in the US and, even more so, in Congress. Yet everybody sheepishly accepts that the US is, for some reason, above the law, that laws are for "others", not for the "indispensable nation" with a "duty" and a "special responsibility" to "lead the world" (sorry, I indulge, but I just love this kind of imperialistic language!).

    In politics, power is not absolute, but relative. Sure, the US military is basically dysfunctional and doesn't seem to be capable of frightening anybody on the US list of "enemies", but compared to Europe the US is a powerhouse. As for the Europeans, they are depending on the Americans for pretty much everything that matters. Trump understands all that and he seem to have more respect for Kim Jong-un than for Angela Merkel. I can't blame him as this is also how I feel.

    The many sweet ironies of it all

    The traditional British foreign policy has always been to fosters wars in Europe to prevent any kind of continental unity. As for the US, its main objective has always been to keep "keep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down". And now we see the Brits leaving the EU and the Americans pulling out well, maybe not out of Europe per se , but out of most of Europe's problems. So why are the Anglos pulling out? Is that not a clear sign that Europe is sinking?

    One of the favorite slogans of the Ukronazis is "Україна – це Європа" (The Ukraine is Europe). Alas, as I wrote in a past article , it is Europe which "became" (like) the Ukraine: poor, corrupt, lead by hypocritical ideologues totally detached from reality and, most importantly, totally fixated on imaginary threats. The only difference between the EU leaders and their Ukronazi counterparts is that while the latter have declared that they are already fighting a Russian invasion, the former are only preparing to counter it. That's it. Other than that, I see no difference, at least none that matters. Oh, I almost forgot the Americans: they don't fight the Russians (yet?), but they are "defending" their country from the onslaught of Russian hackers and pro-Russian moles in the entourage of Donald Trump. Brilliant.

    In this world got mad, only the Russians are patiently trying to convince their western partners to return to some semblance of sanity. But, frankly, I don't think that they are very hopeful. They see how the so-called "West" is falling apart, how the ruling elites of the West appear to be hell-bent on self-destruction and they wonder: why are our "western partners" so determined to bring about their own demise and why are they blaming us for what they are doing to themselves? They also often laugh at the quasi magic powers the paranoid crazies in the West seem to ascribe to Russia. One senior US official, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, even thinks that Russians are " almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique " to subvert democracy (I can't decide if he sounds more like a Nazi racist or a clown probably a mix of both). As I said, the Russians are mostly laughing at it all, but just to make darn sure things don't turn ugly, they are also re-creating their famous "Shock Armies " (including at least one Tank Army) and doubling the size of the Russian Airborne Forces bringing them to 72,000 soldiers and generally preparing for World War 3 .

    But for the time being, war is far less likely than it would have been the case with Hillary. What we see is Trump making "America great again" by stepping on its allies in Europe and by contemptuously disregarding the rest of humanity. That kind of arrogant megalomania is not a pretty sight for sure – but way better than WWIII. And "better than WWIII" is all we can hope for in the foreseeable future.

    ... ... ...

    Randal , June 3, 2017 at 10:07 am GMT

    "Bubbles from a sunken world" is not an expression I coined.

    It's a good reapplication of it, though.

    The peoples of Europe no longer have the advantage they had from the industrial revolution they created. They are resource poor, having no great areas of territory, and that depleted by centuries of use. There is one remaining asset they could use to maintain some of their position of punching so dramatically above their weight, which has been their status in human affairs for the past few centuries at least, and that would be the cultural and genetic advantages they used to create that dominance in the first place.

    The ultimate dark joke is the fact that the said peoples of Europe are in the process of actively destroying any remnants of that final asset, through cultural degradation and mass immigration.

    In this light, we should consider to what degree the political and propaganda support for said processes of cultural degradation and mass immigration emanate from the rivals and enemies of the European peoples, with the intention of preventing forever any recovery from the disastrous, suicidal wars of the early C20th. The most obvious source of such malign influence would be the US, an offshoot of the European peoples which gained the most from the wars in question and has the most to lose from any recovery of the Old World European peoples to any position of sovereignty.

    (In this context, of course, any process that hastens the alienation of the European political classes from their comfortable and profitable subordination to the US elites, such as the events Saker describes above, can only be regarded as a useful contribution to the process of recovery of sovereignty.)

    Robert Magill , June 3, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT

    Trump is right. The US is a "special case".

    The propaganda couched as the American Way of Life has become so all consuming that it took just one individual to march to center stage and reflect back our carefully hidden shortcomings and delusions for the fear and loathing to begin. We've been sleepwalking for a long time. https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/03/20/black-magic-or-jungian-shadow/

    Seamus Padraig , June 3, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

    One senior US official, James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, even thinks that Russians are "almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique" to subvert democracy

    Sounds like a pretty good description of the Jew mafia.

    The Alarmist , June 3, 2017 at 1:46 pm GMT

    "It is hard to gauge what the rest of the assembled politicians really thought (prostitutes"

    Correct punctuation at that point in the sentence: ). They were thinking of their own prostitutes and who would pay for them if the US pulls out of NATO. NATO gives the US a fig leaf by being a coalition of the willing for whatever merry ventures we choose to get into at any given time.

    Carlton Meyer , Website June 4, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT

    Don't give Trump too much credit. After hearing his campaign rhetoric, I thought one of this first moves would be to end the ERI, a recently created $3 billion annual American military slush fund to add bases and equipment stores in Europe. Check out this Dept of Defense press release this week

    "The Defense Department's fiscal year 2018 budget request includes nearly $4.8 billion for the European Reassurance Initiative to enhance deterrence and defense and improve the readiness of forces in Europe, the U.S. European Command director of strategy, plans and policy said today. Air Force Maj. Gen. David W. Allvin held a telephone briefing with reporters, speaking from Eucom headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

    ERI funding for next fiscal year is up $1.4 billion over fiscal 2017, he said, noting that the funding increase will support the deterrence of future Russian aggression and malign influence through increased joint air, sea and land force responsiveness and expanded interoperability with combined multinational forces. 'This is one of our nation's commitments to Europe, and it demonstrates our strong dedication to the trans-Atlantic bond and the defense of our allies,' Allvin said."

    Johan Nagel , Website June 4, 2017 at 4:47 am GMT

    Eurosissies? Eurodummies? the 'journalism' here is becoming increasingly puerile, perhaps aiming for a dumbed down audience as traffic has grown?

    "Trump is an impeccably courteous person"?

    The man has a global reputation of a human pig, a racist, a misogynist, a bigot The more I see such outlandish and frankly bewildering statements on here, the more I begin to believe my own value of the site has been too quickly given and now appears misguided.

    I repeat, Trump has long ago persuaded the world that he is scum. Bush was bad enough, basically a special needs coke fiend. Yet he is one reason why the rest of the world understands how a man as sickeningly appalling as Trump could get into so called 'power'. This was not the media cleverly depicting him in a bad light, he has always behaved in the same way, always cultivated the same public image, many moons before running for president. It is not brainwashing or conditioning to find a nasty moron as putrid, it is natural to be sickened by sick souls. It is possible that the site has been co-opted, or was a tool designed to monitor and direct and feed a non mainstream audience who revel in their own arrogant assertion of exceptionalism?

    I am unsure as of yet as to why the author has gradually parted Trump and the US government from the anglozionist machine. When clearly, by every measure, that power structure owns the US government, decides its every major decision and as for Trump making any decisions that matter indeed, alleged 'experts' are focusing on how he shakes hands with other 'leaders' rather focusing on the ins and outs of what the anglozionists have organised behind the scenes of $300bn moving from KSA to the banksters.

    Trump is no leader. The more he is assumed as much the less credibility a writer enjoys. The man is a laughing stock globally, despised, cringed at, as our the people who voted for him. Nothing has changed with US policy, because it is not decided by the US government. Hilary, Obama, Trump, whoever they are Punch and Judy to draw attention, to nourish the fable of democracy, to provide a human shape to inhuman power

    By focusing on the totem with strings attached, the real show is missed http://thedissolutefox.com/brief-glimpse-true-leaders/

    jilles dykstra , June 4, 2017 at 6:39 am GMT

    het vergt ook en vooral de politieke wil om een afschrikkingsmacht op te bouwen die zich kan meten met Ruslands militaire potentieel en van Teheran tot Peking ontzag inboezemt

    This is what Brill this morning writes in the more or less leading Dutch newpaper Volkskrant.

    http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/paul-brill-van-merkel-hoef-je-op-militair-terrein-geen-krachtig-leiderschap-te-verwachten~a4498822/

    The translation: also the political will, especially, is needed to build a deterrent might that is equal to the Russian military potential and is seen with awe from Teheran to Peking. One wonders in what psychiatric institution Brill's treatment failed. Stalin died in 1953. Chrustsjow removed the Russian rockets and atomic heads from Cuba. Putin sells gas.

    jilles dykstra , June 4, 2017 at 6:48 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer We, the Dutch, in a referendum rejected the EU association treaty with Ukraine. Of course in the democratic Netherlands and the even more democratic EU it had no effect.

    But it did have a curious effect. When our prime minister Rutte, nickname Pinokkio for his lies, defended rejecting the referendum he referred to Russian vacuum bombs on Aleppo. So he confirmed what we knew, the Ukraine association is part of the war of the west against Russia. Rutte did not condemn the USA MOAB vacuum bomb east of Abottabad, Pakistan. NATO should have been dissolved in 1990, perhaps already when the Cuba crisis was solved peacefully.

    Alfa158 , June 4, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT

    I'm not so sure that the West has the will, purpose, or capacity for sacrifice to prosecute a Third World War. I think the Russians are primarily preparing to defend themselves from the disorganized, spastic lashing-out of a dying West. They need a credible nuclear force to deter the West from launching an end-of-life nuclear strike, and sufficient ground forces to protect their borders from refugees and bandit military units while the West finishes its death throes and then ( I hope) re-birth.

    animalogic , June 4, 2017 at 8:26 am GMT

    Great article. I can only hope Trump continues to treat the EU political elites as just so many gutless dogs & inept clowns: because they are . Perhaps such treatment will wake the EU up (sure: LOL !) The Saker is right about Europe's increasing insignificance but, the answers are there .

    Start with the most elementary act of common sense: stop ALL sanctions, whether economic or political against Russia. Then fully commit to Eurasian integration.
    Sure, the US will SPIT, but, the EU is sinking – fast. Anyway, I'll dream on ..

    Seamus Padraig , June 4, 2017 at 12:43 pm GMT

    Trump is no leader. The more he is assumed as much the less credibility a writer enjoys. The man is a laughing stock globally, despised, cringed at, as our the people who voted for him.

    You have entirely missed the point. We know good and well that the president alone does not get to make any important foreign policy decisions–or probably any decisions at all. We know just as well that he is expected to be a salesman promoting policies crafted by the banks, corporations and the deep state. We know. The point is that Trump is an incredibly bad spokesman! He is discrediting the empire by his very presence.

    We don't want to be admired or respected for destroying one country after the next. We don't want to be the leaders of the 'free' world. We don't want to be part of any entangling alliances, or any 'new world order'. We just want our country back . And since they won't let us simply vote to end the empire, we have no further recourse but to try and sabotage and discredit it from within. And it's working! It's working because of Trump.

    So I say: let him be as vulgar and uncouth as wants. Let him smack around the other NATO countries until they finally wake up. Let him further erode our increasingly untenable position in the middle east. Let him!

    It's all part of God's plan for man, my friend. If we have to endure a little international isolation in order to achieve our aims, well that's just fine with us. We are, after all, isolationists . We don't want empire or foreign wars. We just want our country back.

    provincial , June 4, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

    We are approaching, if not already in, the interregnum between empires. Europe has never recovered its pride since WWII the US made sure of that ..the question is whether Europe will find the leadership during this time when the US pulls out .much like the time when Rome left Britain.

    Sergey Krieger , June 4, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT

    " but should a war break out, especially a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would push all these Eurosissies out of the way and do 90%+ of the fighting."

    Knowing what we know of US military it would mean mostly bleeding and running towards the Channel losing hardware and status of so called "hyper" whatever in the process. Take away nuclear weapons and USA is clearly not a threat to Russia.

    American land forces never were serious contented compared to USSR and with 90′s mess reversed things are back to normal state of affairs which means Russian land forces asserting normal state of dominance along Russian borders.

    Fritz Pettyjohn , Website June 4, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT

    Avoiding World War III works for me.

    Thales the Milesian , June 4, 2017 at 2:57 pm GMT

    EUrabia! Evolutionary process in reverse. Except for Austria and Switzerland, the rest of them are terminally disgusting, particularly the Scandinavian harlots and the Baltic Chihuahuas. Vicky Newland was right: F *** k the EU!

    in the middle , June 4, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

    @Johan Nagel He is the President of the USA! Not of the world. So stop your ramble, and sit down. Trump kick A*s. Who cares what the 'world' thinks, we don't care who their leaders are, or who they voted for, we have Trump, and that is that!

    El Dato , June 4, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra

    Actually MOAB is just a fat airblast bomb (not thermobaric aka fuel-air, aka "vacuum bomb", why even have a MOAB? I guess "because you can"), apparently fitted with a hard cone so that it burrows a bit.

    Cyrano , June 4, 2017 at 4:57 pm GMT

    @Sergey Krieger

    " but should a war break out, especially a *real* war against Russia, the Americans would push all these Eurosissies out of the way and do 90%+ of the fighting."

    Yeah, I have a problem with that one too. I don't see such chivalry coming from US – assuming 90% of the fighting to save Europe. NATO was designed with one purpose only – to defend US and no one else. Anybody who believes otherwise – doesn't live in the real world.

    In the 68 years of NATO existence, the only country to ever invoke article 5 was – you guess it – US. Article 5 means asking for help from other NATO members to come to your defense when you are attacked. So US asked for help because they were "attacked" in Afghanistan.

    That's like me going armed into a bank and trying to rob it, and then complaining that I was "attacked" by the security guard. NATO was simply an early version of the theorem: We fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them here. "Them" in this case being the Russians, instead of the terrorists. Like the Russians were ever planning to cross the Atlantic to fight the Americans "here". Then again, when was the last time paranoia was rational anyway?

    Agent76 , June 4, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

    Jun 3, 2017 Putin defends Trump – 'Don't worry, be happy'

    President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement caused anger and anxiety across the world. But is there more than meet the eye? How many critics have actually read the agreement themselves – as President Putin rightfully points out? The agreement is a framework agreement with no particular obligations. There are no guidelines as to how resources should be spent, and the resources which the US ratified are quite substantial.

    Sowhat , June 4, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT

    The money Changers's propaganda has always spread lies that have been the exact opposite of their actions. Trump probably had to buy in or he wouldn't be President and his Jewish son-in-law is there on keep an eye on him. He is changing our foreign policy to the extent that he isn't pursuing regime change in Syria even though we have boots on the ground.

    Trump's actions are intentionally rude towards some and, contrary to belief in some circles, he's not mad, just flabergasting.

    I believe that, despite the fact that we have been a fascist economic state since the Origins of the Truman Doctrine and the build up of the MIIC, Trump didn't become a billionaire because he's clueless. I'm in favor of his actions, so far. He has said screw the Globalist and screw the wasted-brains-EPA.

    Everything in the world is controlled by Money Grabbing Economy Controllers so Trump will have issues getting his MAGA agenda but his foreign policy, despite the Syria hiccup, is acceptable. After decades of our forces killing millions of civilians, if Syria lost a few at that airbase, well.. it could have been worse.

    I don't agree with everything but the author gets a "respected" from me.

    Sowhat , June 4, 2017 at 6:48 pm GMT

    @Seamus Padraig Fully agree, Seamus. They can stick that PCWORLD compliance BS where the sun doesn't shine.

    Wally , June 4, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT

    @Johan Nagel "The man has a global reputation of a human pig, a racist, a misogynist, a bigot "

    For which there is no proof, only the elitist leftist MSM's unhinged wishful thinking. Harvard Study: Two Thirds Of Americans Believe Mainstream Media Is 'Fake News'

    https://www.prisonplanet.com/harvard-study-two-thirds-of-americans-believe-mainstream-media-is-fake-news.html

    Donald Trump: "Whenever you see the words 'sources say' in the fake news media, and they don't mention names it is very possible that those sources don't exist but are made up by fake news writers. #FakeNews is the enemy!"

    Anonymous , June 4, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT

    @Johan Nagel

    Your critique of Saker's evaluation of Trump is basically grounded deeply from within the matrix, whose prisoner you seem to be. Yes, Trump is widely painted to be "a laughing stock globally, despised, cringed at, as are the people who voted for him" but no, that is the view that the mass media has been dishing out. It is not true, simply not true, even though many have swallowed it along with a whole load of marbles.

    You are basically paraphrasing Clinton when you jeer "the people who voted for him". Yes, these "despicable folk" did vote Trump into power, and yes they might well do so again. You do not seem to understand the processes at work here: part democracy, part a revolt of the people sickened by the one-sided narrative propagated in the media.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Taken In: Fake News Distracts Us From Fake Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that Obama was (as I explained in a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was installed. ..."
    "... (she appears to be the picture of health now) ..."
    "... (along with Russians!!!!) ..."
    "... The 'fake news' frenzy is both a mechanism used to create the appearance of pressure on a faux populist President and a distraction from the the REAL news: the fake election. Seen in this light, 'fake news' was both inevitable and a smart media strategy. ..."
    "... The rot runs deep. Citizens must develop a keen understanding of history and be as discerning of their news sources as they are of their food sources. Question everything. The passage of Citizens United that allowed almost unlimited money in politics, makes the election of a 'populist outsider' is nearly impossible. But a faux populist is nearly certain to be elected. ..."
    May 31, 2017 | jackrabbit.blog
    There are numerous clues that point to the 2016 US Presidential Election as having been a set-up. Few seem willing to take a close look at these facts. But it is necessary for an understanding of the world we live in today.

    Trump's first 100 days has come and gone and he has proven to be every bit the faux populist that Obama was (as I explained in a previous post). In hind-sight we can see how a new faux populist was installed.

    Evidence

    1. Sanders as sheep-dog Black Agenda Report called Sanders a sheep-dog soon after he entered the race . Sanders made it clear from the start that he ruled out the possibility of running as an independent. That was only the first of many punches that Sanders pulled as he led his 'sheep' into the Democratic fold. Others were:

      >> "Enough with the emails!"

      >> Not pursuing Hillary's 'winning' of 6 coin tosses in Iowa;

      >> Virtually conceding the black and female vote to Hillary;

      >> Not calling Hillary out about her claim to have NEVER sold her vote;

      >> Endorsing Hillary despite learning of Hillary-DNC collusion;

      >> Continuing to help the Democratic Party reach out to Bernie supports even after the election.

      As one keen observer noted: Sanders is a Company Man .

    2. Trump as Clinton protege
      Trump knew the Clinton's for years and was very friendly with them. His daughter Ivanka is close to Chelsea. He supported Hillary's Presidential run in 2008 – even taking up the 'birther' nonsense that she started so as to weaken Obama (just as 'fake news' now weakens Trump).

      Trump has done several things that have played into the hands of his 'fake news' critics, while doing other things that have alienated his base. These "own goals" are hard to explain. Like keeping Comey in his Administration and hinting that he taped conversations with Comey, etc. Trump has effectively turned the Russian witchhunt into an investigation into obstruction of justice.

    3. Hillary – playing along
      Hillary ran a very poor campaign for someone that has been in politics for a lifetime and has the support of the sharpest minds in politics (including her husband). The NY Post deemed it, "The Worst Campaign Ever" .

      Media rumors that Hillary was ill reached a high point when she was lifted into a van on 9-11. The frenzy over Hillary's health came and went in a matter of weeks but these bogus concerns (she appears to be the picture of health now) :

      1) gave Hillary an implied excuse for having run a poor race (along with Russians!!!!) , and

      2) helped to quell partisan outrage when Trump said – within days of winning the election – that he wouldn't prosecute Hillary.

      3) Despite her character flaws, collusion with DNC, and disastrous election showing, Hillary is still on top and aids and associates (like VP Biden) make excuses for her. Why do powerful people tip-toe around the Clintons like that?

    How_to_Spot_Fake_News.pdf

    Fake News

    Why is the irresponsible journalism of 'fake news' so prevalent. Why are journalists, historians, politicians, and pundits so caught up in promoting it? In short, why has our society gone crazy?

    The 'fake news' frenzy is both a mechanism used to create the appearance of pressure on a faux populist President and a distraction from the the REAL news: the fake election. Seen in this light, 'fake news' was both inevitable and a smart media strategy.

    TRUMP COULD END THE 'FAKE NEWS' ABOUT RUSSIAN ELECTION MEDDLING BY POINTING TO OTHER COUNTRIES WHOSE MEDDLING IS MUCH MORE PERVASIVE, LIKE SAUDI ARABIA AND ISRAEL. But he doesn't.

    Implications

    The rot runs deep. Citizens must develop a keen understanding of history and be as discerning of their news sources as they are of their food sources. Question everything. The passage of Citizens United that allowed almost unlimited money in politics, makes the election of a 'populist outsider' is nearly impossible. But a faux populist is nearly certain to be elected.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Syrian Madness: Neocons The Anti-Realists by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though the mainstream U.S. media blamed almost everything on Syrian President Assad, many Syrians recognized that the Sunni extremists who emerged as the power behind the opposition were a grave threat to other Syrian religious groups, including the Shiites, Alawites and Christians - and that Assad's authoritarian but secular regime represented their best hope for survival ..."
    "... But instead of looking for a realistic political solution, the neocons and the liberal interventionists insisted on a U.S. military intervention, either covertly by arming the opposition or overtly by mounting a Libyan-style bombing campaign to destroy Assad's armed forces and open the gates of Damascus to the rebels. ..."
    "... the neocon/liberal-interventionist coalition saw a great chance to push Obama into a bombing campaign after a Sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. The war hawks and the U.S. media immediately blamed Assad despite doubts among some U.S. intelligence analysts who suspected a provocation by the rebels. ..."
    Jan 17, 2015 | consortiumnews.com

    Originally from: Neocons The 'Anti-Realists' By Robert Parry

    In Syria, which had long been near the top of the neocon/Israeli hit list for "regime change," U.S., Western and Sunni support for another "moderate opposition" led to a civil war. Soon, what "moderates" there were blended into the ranks of Islamic extremists, either the Nusra Front, the al-Qaeda affiliate, or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or simply the Islamic State, which evolved from Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq, continuing Zarqawi's hyper-brutality even after his death.

    Though the mainstream U.S. media blamed almost everything on Syrian President Assad, many Syrians recognized that the Sunni extremists who emerged as the power behind the opposition were a grave threat to other Syrian religious groups, including the Shiites, Alawites and Christians - and that Assad's authoritarian but secular regime represented their best hope for survival.[See Consortiumnews.com's " Syrian Rebels Embrace al-Qaeda. "]

    But instead of looking for a realistic political solution, the neocons and the liberal interventionists insisted on a U.S. military intervention, either covertly by arming the opposition or overtly by mounting a Libyan-style bombing campaign to destroy Assad's armed forces and open the gates of Damascus to the rebels. Under pressure from the likes of Ambassador Power and Secretary of State Clinton, Obama bowed to the demand to ship weapons to the rebels, although the CIA later discovered that many US weapons ended up in extremist hands.

    Still, with Obama dragging his feet on a larger-scale commitment, the neocon/liberal-interventionist coalition saw a great chance to push Obama into a bombing campaign after a Sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. The war hawks and the U.S. media immediately blamed Assad despite doubts among some U.S. intelligence analysts who suspected a provocation by the rebels.

    Those doubts and Obama's fear of an extremist victory led him to call off the planned bombing at the last minute, and he accepted a deal brokered by Russian President Vladimir Putin to arrange for Assad to surrender all Syria's chemical weapons, while Assad continued to deny any role in the Sarin attack. The neocons and liberal interventionists were furious at both Obama and Putin.

    [Jun 04, 2017] MUHAYSINI BOOTED OUT OF JARJANAAZ BY ENRAGED CITIZENS; SYRIAN ARMY GRINDS ISIS INTO DUST IN ALEPPO; ADRIFT IN THE NEAR EAST

    Jun 04, 2017 | syrianperspective.com

    Ziad Fadel points to After Riyadh summit, Sunni unity crumbles which informs us that kuwait, qatar, and dubai - the last the most populous of the uae, are none of them on board with the saudi leadership, or anti-iran. and somewhere i encountered a link to the intercept discussing the uae ambassador to the us' contacts with sheldon adelson's Foundation for Defense of Democracies. that can't make him - or the saudi rapprochement with zion - more popular on the arab street.

    is there a split forming in the gcc? can kuwait, qatar, and dubai see the handwriting on the wall? are they ready follow iranian pipeline routes through syria to the mediterranean and europe?

    i keep remembering - talk at least - of a turkish base in qatar. anything ever happen with that?

    Posted by: jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:40:32 PM | 14 @14 jfl

    I know very little about the Gulf dictatorships.

    With that stated, I have been hearing over and over again about how Saudi Arabia is on the verge of collapse and the Eastern half of the country is mostly Shia and are on the verge of uprising.

    If there was a time to rise up against the Saudi dictatorship it would be now with the pathetic Saudi troops getting humiliated in Yemen.

    For an event that would upturn the entire Middle East almost overnight, I am shocked it hasn't happened.

    If the Eastern Shia half of Saudi Arabia rose up and even just made the Eastern half of the country a no go zone for the current dictorship troops:

    * The Saudi regime troops would have to be immediately pulled back from Yemen.

    * Yemen would most likely take over big chunks of Southern Saudi Arabia

    * Support and funding for the Saudi backed terrorists would go away almost immediately

    * There would be no "Shia Cresent' but 'Sunni Islands' in the Middle East

    * The decades of the US regime's fostering of Sunni violent sectarianism will have been a waste and no longer viable

    * The Israeli regime would be completely isolated

    * The other Gulf dicatatorships would almost certainly immediately side with Iran

    * The huge number of US regime bases in Gulf region would have to be abanoned

    Posted by: sandra_m | Jun 3, 2017 8:59:46 PM | 18

    [Jun 04, 2017] How things work: betrayal by faux Populist leaders

    Notable quotes:
    "... Citizen's United, the 2011 law that made money speech and corporations people, means that US democracy is a sham. In our money-driven duopoly, both flavors of politician serves the money – not the people. ..."
    "... Although distrust of the political establishment is at a record high, many STILL are not cynical enough to see the games that are played. ..."
    "... (Trump supported Hillary in 2008) ..."
    "... (that is not to say that Obama wasn't keen on serving the establishment – he was) ..."
    Jun 04, 2017 | jackrabbit.blog
    In What Fascism Talk Really Accomplishes Peter Berkowitz of Stanford misses the duopoly forest for the partisan trees.

    Razzel-dazzel faux populist leaders need a reason to betray their base, excuse their caving, and otherwise toe the establishment line. I call shill opposition to a faux populist President enforcers . They are joined by apologists who try to explain away betrayals and caving on issues.

    Trump is a 'fascist' as much as Obama was a 'Muslim socialist'.

    Trump wasn't turned by the Deep State as apologists claim. He knows how faux populist politics works because he was close to the Clintons and led the 'birther movement'.

    Corruption today is as well engineered and covered-up as it was during Tamany Hall in late 1800's New York City:

    It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system The Tweed ring at its height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing and organization.

    Citizen's United, the 2011 law that made money speech and corporations people, means that US democracy is a sham. In our money-driven duopoly, both flavors of politician serves the money – not the people.

    Although distrust of the political establishment is at a record high, many STILL are not cynical enough to see the games that are played.

    Interestingly, much of the establishment games seem to center on the Clintons. The Hillary camp (Trump supported Hillary in 2008) helped to keep Obama in line, as much as the Republican opposition (that is not to say that Obama wasn't keen on serving the establishment – he was) . And Hillary's Democratic Party has been the principal force that provided Trump with excuses to betray his base.

    But here's the rub: if Bernie was a sheep-dog for Hillary and Trump's populism was sure to overcome Hillary's negatives and negativism, then what real choice did American voters have?

    Cover Photo: 1871 Cartoon by Tomas Nast depicts Tammany as a ferocious tiger killing democracy. The image of a tiger was often used to represent the Tammany Hall political movement.

    [Jun 04, 2017] France Debunks Russian Hacking Claims - Clinton Again Loses It

    Notable quotes:
    "... The "Macron attack" was very curious. Gigabytes of campaign emails were released by "the hackers" just hours before a media silence period before the election. The campaign immediately found fakes with Cyrillic markings and blamed "Russia". None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous. It was likely a planned Public Relations stunt, not a cyber attack. ..."
    "... That NYT report was complete nonsense. The "cybersecurity firm" it quoted was peddling snake oil. Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. Likewise APT's, "Advanced Persistent Threats", are not "groups" but collections of methods that can be copied and re-used by anyone. After their first occurrence "in the wild" they are no longer attributable. ..."
    "... The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack. ..."
    "... In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone." ..."
    "... Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country." ..."
    "... of the current 15 million plus followers of @HillaryClinton only 48%, or 7,605,960, are real and 8,108,833 fake. ..."
    "... For the @realDonaldTrump account Twitter Audit ..."
    "... Funny how western MSM totally block these news. But thats the propaganda we know so well from the same culprits. Clinton is also obviously mentally ill, spreading all these conspiracy theories and fake news against Russia and Trump and the equally mentally ill MSM is giving her all the space. ..."
    "... Reading this is more surprising "None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous." That has been the line of the Fr media since AFTER the election. In fact; there are orders for amphetamines paid in bitcoins and a possible allusion to a cocaine order. How can those emails be considered fakes when the rest is not? Some media are now using the mails related to the financial system of the newly set Macron party as genuine, so how do they sort them out? ..."
    "... It is a long held opinion of mine, based on what I observe over a relatively long life, that most politicians who seek high levels of power are driven by needs and desires which quite often include sociopathic needs. Many successful politicians often display other pathological tendencies (lying, misleading, manipulation of others, self-glorification, egotism and deep insecurities as well as pursuit of wealth and public acclaim). It seems politics attracts people of this kind and the atmosphere exaggerates and encourages them. ..."
    "... One other tendency also seems to stand out: attributing all manner of base and ugly intentions on others without real proof. This, I believe is founded on the real understanding of the accuser that he or she would do just that if given the chance. Look into your own heart and project onto others what you find there. It is fair to fear the worst of others but it can be catastrophic when those fears are acted upon as if the other party were guilty. Sort of, "Shoot first and ask questions later." Not the kind of neighbhour any rational person would want. Yet we choose them to lead. ..."
    "... It would be easy to place fakes if I understand the US hacking software that wikileaks published correctly. ..."
    "... Russia has a very real right wing populist movement of his own, and it is this movement that supports world wide populism including Trump . Putin calls them "patriotic hackers" and puts some distance between the Russian state and these activities (same as US think tanks are not the US state), but they get encouraged and used by the Russian state when needed like in Ukraine. ..."
    "... It is an uneasy alliance as they are a very real threat to the Russian state itself . ..."
    "... The "West" does not mind supporting Navalny in Russia who is a right wing populist himself. ..."
    "... Interestingly, Clinton's backers in the legacy media are growing tired of her "not my fault" rant. ..."
    "... A blackout shortly before elections makes sense - otherwise you do politics by rumour. No organisation is capable of deciding what is fake and what not with megabytes of emails. To put a researcher to work on it would still not solve it. So yes, Macron campaign statement "there are fakes in it" was preemptive. To hack stuff and trust someone will read it ...., well you can always hope. ..."
    "... i am so tired of this 'russia bogeyman' thing the msm has going... i am even more tired of hearing about hillary clinton.. what a hopeless person.. ..."
    "... bombing the shit out of other countries and climate control just don't go hand in hand... wonder when the puppets in europe, or the west actually recongize what a lying decietful game they are playing with people of climate control... oh yeah and walmart needs more people on the planet to generate more sales of plastic products from china.. and the beat goes on... ..."
    "... Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such. The party she represents is corrupt to the core and it is in defense mode as well over its facade of populism...who is really behind the Seth Rich murder? How fast can the Merry-Go-Round spin before big parts start flying off? I think we are about to see. AtaBrit | Jun 2, 2017 3:24:21 PM | 25 @jfl | 8 Excellent link. Cheers. There has been a palpable shift in global dynamics since Trump's tour. No question about it. I am optimistic. xor | Jun 2, 2017 3:33:58 PM | 26 Hillary Clinton really is a disgusting critter. The presstitute media bias during the election campaign probably never has been so much in favor of one person. Even Google and Facebook participated in the public manipulation and still she keeps claiming it's the other way round. And then we're not even talking about DNC whistleblower Seth Rich who was set as an example. ..."
    "... A part from Trend Micro joining the desinformation circus, it is and always delivered crappy software. ..."
    "... Mediapart has looked at the leaks deducing what everybody guessed before - that "en marche" has been financed by the finance sector. I think the media is correct in not spreading rumour about Macron being gay (or dependent on drugs) - especially as there is no confirmation the leaks are untampered with. ..."
    "... "Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. " ..."
    "... b, your ignorance is pretty much on display, here. Cyber attacks take many different forms, among which are "phishing attacks". Try to get with the program ..."
    Jun 02, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    In April the New York Times, published this bullshit: Russian Hackers Who Targeted Clinton Appear to Attack France's Macron

    The campaign of the French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron has been targeted by what appear to be the same Russian operatives responsible for hacks of Democratic campaign officials before last year's American presidential election, a cybersecurity firm warns in a new report.
    ...
    Security researchers at the cybersecurity firm, Trend Micro, said that on March 15 they spotted a hacking group they believe to be a Russian intelligence unit turn its weapons on Mr. Macron's campaign -- sending emails to campaign officials and others with links to fake websites designed to bait them into turning over passwords.

    The group began registering several decoy internet addresses last month and as recently as April 15, naming one onedrive-en-marche.fr and another mail-en-marche.fr to mimic the name of Mr. Macron's political party, En Marche.

    Those websites were registered to a block of web addresses that Trend Micro's researchers say belong to the Russian intelligence unit they refer to as Pawn Storm, but is alternatively known as Fancy Bear, APT 28 or the Sofacy Group. American and European intelligence agencies and American private security researchers determined that the group was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee last year.

    The "Macron attack" was very curious. Gigabytes of campaign emails were released by "the hackers" just hours before a media silence period before the election. The campaign immediately found fakes with Cyrillic markings and blamed "Russia". None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous. It was likely a planned Public Relations stunt, not a cyber attack.

    That NYT report was complete nonsense. The "cybersecurity firm" it quoted was peddling snake oil. Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. Likewise APT's, "Advanced Persistent Threats", are not "groups" but collections of methods that can be copied and re-used by anyone. After their first occurrence "in the wild" they are no longer attributable.

    That isn't just me saying so. It is the head of France's cyber security agency :

    The head of the French government's cyber security agency, which investigated leaks from President Emmanuel Macron's election campaign, says they found no trace of a notorious Russian hacking group behind the attack.

    In an interview in his office Thursday with The Associated Press, Guillaume Poupard said the Macron campaign hack "was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone."

    He said they found no trace that the Russian hacking group known as APT28, blamed for other attacks including on the U.S. presidential campaign, was responsible.
    ...
    Poupard says the attack's simplicity "means that we can imagine that it was a person who did this alone. They could be in any country."

    If, as the NYT claims, the authors of the attack on the Macron campaign were the same as in the Clinton case then the Clinton campaign was likely not hacked by Russians.

    That will of course not hinder Clinton to claim that "the Russians" were the ones who caused her to lose the election. Clinton has by now listed 24 guilty persons and organizations that caused her loss. She is not one of them.

    In her latest Clinton

    suggested that Russia or Trump were somehow behind a deliberate inflation of his numbers of twitter followers through the use of bots, because [Trump's] European and Middle East tour had been a flop.

    'Who is behind driving up Trump's twitter followers by the millions?' she said.

    'We know they're bots. Is it to make him look more popular than he is? Is it to influence others? What is the message behind this?

    The Clinton claim of "driving up Trump's twitter followers by the millions" is fake news based on a hoax. Twitter Audit , where Clinton got the bot numbers from (h/t @LutWitt ), says that of the current 15 million plus followers of @HillaryClinton only 48%, or 7,605,960, are real and 8,108,833 fake.

    For the @realDonaldTrump account Twitter Audit finds that 51% of its 30 million+ followers are real. Not a great margin but still better than Clinton.

    Clinton once famously said " We came, we saw, he died" and laughed (vid). She was talking about the murder of Muhammad Ghaddafi of Libya. She still does not understand why people might be turned off by her vile character. She should take more time to talk with her daughter . Chelsea for one does not like gags about killing presidents:

    Hillary Clinton lost it (vid - see her off-the-meds rants on the election starting at 12:00 min). She needs a vacation on some lone island and a long period of silences in some remote cloister. Anything she adds now only reflects badly on her.

    Stefan | Jun 2, 2017 4:14:41 AM | 2
    Chelsea's tweet is Telling us that the neocons will try to install her in the White House next. As for Hillary, someone get her an (un)padded room.
    Anonymous | Jun 2, 2017 4:25:31 AM | 3
    Funny how western MSM totally block these news. But thats the propaganda we know so well from the same culprits. Clinton is also obviously mentally ill, spreading all these conspiracy theories and fake news against Russia and Trump and the equally mentally ill MSM is giving her all the space.

    Mina | Jun 2, 2017 5:10:43 AM | 5
    The Macron team has been brilliant in manipulating the French media. When the hack happened, every single gov and non gov media was blaming the Ruskis, so that ppl voted Macron blindly thinking great he is anti "popovs". But for a guy who believes himself the new De Gaulle, they'll be suprised...
    Mina | Jun 2, 2017 5:12:54 AM | 6
    Reading this is more surprising "None of the released emails contained anything that was even remotely scandalous." That has been the line of the Fr media since AFTER the election. In fact; there are orders for amphetamines paid in bitcoins and a possible allusion to a cocaine order. How can those emails be considered fakes when the rest is not? Some media are now using the mails related to the financial system of the newly set Macron party as genuine, so how do they sort them out?
    justacynicalrealist | Jun 2, 2017 7:07:40 AM | 9
    It is a long held opinion of mine, based on what I observe over a relatively long life, that most politicians who seek high levels of power are driven by needs and desires which quite often include sociopathic needs. Many successful politicians often display other pathological tendencies (lying, misleading, manipulation of others, self-glorification, egotism and deep insecurities as well as pursuit of wealth and public acclaim). It seems politics attracts people of this kind and the atmosphere exaggerates and encourages them.

    One other tendency also seems to stand out: attributing all manner of base and ugly intentions on others without real proof. This, I believe is founded on the real understanding of the accuser that he or she would do just that if given the chance. Look into your own heart and project onto others what you find there. It is fair to fear the worst of others but it can be catastrophic when those fears are acted upon as if the other party were guilty. Sort of, "Shoot first and ask questions later." Not the kind of neighbhour any rational person would want. Yet we choose them to lead.

    crone | Jun 2, 2017 9:21:00 AM | 10
    @9

    We don't choose them to lead.

    Perimetr | Jun 2, 2017 9:54:45 AM | 11
    In regard to Japanese and German militarism, both nations have the capacity to become nuclear weapon states, and Japan is certainly poised to become one any time it so chooses. Joe Biden made this clear a year ago, when he noted that Japan could have nuclear weapons "virtually overnight" if it wanted to. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-get-nuclear-weapons-virtually-overnight-biden-tells-xi/
    somebody | Jun 2, 2017 10:56:51 AM | 13
    Posted by: Mina | Jun 2, 2017 5:12:54 AM | 6

    It would be easy to place fakes if I understand the US hacking software that wikileaks published correctly. Wikileaks kept a distance from the leak except an ambiguous comment by Assange. Since that comment Wikileaks kept quiet.

    The fact that it was published so late with nobody having the chance to look through probably means there was nothing in it, just hoping that people might assume something to be there.

    Russia has a very real right wing populist movement of his own, and it is this movement that supports world wide populism including Trump . Putin calls them "patriotic hackers" and puts some distance between the Russian state and these activities (same as US think tanks are not the US state), but they get encouraged and used by the Russian state when needed like in Ukraine.

    It is an uneasy alliance as they are a very real threat to the Russian state itself .

    "The worst thing that had happened to the leaders of the rebellion was that in the end Mr. Rutskoy and Mr. Khasbulatov, the leaders of this anti-Eltsin section, seeded control over the opposition to radical nationalists, Antisemites and paramilitaries that in the end ruled Russia in the White House and the Parliament building", he said.

    These people captured the Moscow city hall, which is right across the White House, and attempted to cease Russian television in Ostankino. The events made Boris Yeltsin convince the army to go for the operation. On October 4, he ordered the army to storm the parliamentary building. The leaders of the resistance were arrested.

    The "West" does not mind supporting Navalny in Russia who is a right wing populist himself.

    SmoothieX12 | Jun 2, 2017 10:58:26 AM | 14
    @3

    Daily Fail is a major media outlet. They ran it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4560344/Hillary-Trump-colluded-Russia-create-fake-news.html#comments

    xxx | Jun 2, 2017 11:19:01 AM | 16

    Interestingly, Clinton's backers in the legacy media are growing tired of her "not my fault" rant. The red line that she crossed was her criticism of the DNC's data analytics. This spurred a raft of recriminations: Obama starved the DNC; poor Wasserman-Schultz had nothing to work with. Hillary had the data that Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were in trouble and did nothing. The Democrats are a party in real trouble.
    Mina | Jun 2, 2017 11:29:26 AM | 17
    but the Bulgarian paper which gave the name of the so called FSB guy published some mails and pointed to the metadata as possibly leading very easily to the xerox machines used to make some of the pdf in the files there was a retweet by wl on the day after which was about a french guy who had put a link to the place where the files were pubished and immediately received a lawyer's letter anyway the frenchies don't read english, so it is not about the time between the publication and the election, but for the perfect blackout in the msm and good reactions of the culprits (we've planted fakes) and for the fact they are not interested in the internet outside french borders
    somebody | Jun 2, 2017 11:52:09 AM | 18
    Posted by: Mina | Jun 2, 2017 11:29:26 AM | 17

    A blackout shortly before elections makes sense - otherwise you do politics by rumour. No organisation is capable of deciding what is fake and what not with megabytes of emails. To put a researcher to work on it would still not solve it. So yes, Macron campaign statement "there are fakes in it" was preemptive. To hack stuff and trust someone will read it ...., well you can always hope.

    james | Jun 2, 2017 12:51:40 PM | 19
    i am so tired of this 'russia bogeyman' thing the msm has going... i am even more tired of hearing about hillary clinton.. what a hopeless person..
    Cousin Jack | Jun 2, 2017 1:51:18 PM | 20
    This is rather droll: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/vladimir-putin-russia-us-election-hacking
    james | Jun 2, 2017 2:35:50 PM | 22
    bombing the shit out of other countries and climate control just don't go hand in hand... wonder when the puppets in europe, or the west actually recongize what a lying decietful game they are playing with people of climate control... oh yeah and walmart needs more people on the planet to generate more sales of plastic products from china.. and the beat goes on...
    Heros | Jun 2, 2017 2:59:27 PM | 23
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz Uses Voice Changer To Call Law Firm Suing DNC
    "Attorney Elizabeth Lee Beck's office received a call just before 5PM on Thursday from an individual who was apparently using a 'robotic and genderless' voice changing device, sniffing around with questions about the DNC lawsuit filed over cheating in the 2016 election. The suit - based on documents released by hacker Guccifer 2.0, claims that the DNC colluded with Sec. Hillary Clinton's campaign 'to perpetrate a fraud on the public.'

    After a brief chat with the law firm's secretary, the 'mysterious' voice-masking caller concluded the call with an 'Okey dokey.'

    And whose number showed up when the law firm turned around and googled the number from the caller ID? Why, who else but Debbie Wasserman Schultz' Aventura office!"

    Jewish Israeli-US teen arrested for phoning in JCC bomb threats used voice-altering technology to make threatening calls

    Police said the resident of the southern city of Ashkelon was the subject of a months-long undercover investigation by police's Lahav 433 cyber unit and the FBI. It said in a statement that the motive behind the bomb threats was unclear. Police said he is 19 years old, but several Israeli media outlets reported him as 18.

    Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said the suspect allegedly placed dozens of threatening phone calls to public venues, synagogues and community buildings in the US, New Zealand and Australia. He also placed a threat to Delta Airlines, causing a flight in February 2015 to make an emergency landing.

    "He's the guy who was behind the JCC threats," Rosenfeld said, referring to the dozens of anonymous threats phoned in to Jewish community centers in the US over the past two months.

    The hoax calls were widely regarded as acts of anti-Semitism. The threats led to criticism of President Donald Trump's administration for not speaking out fast enough. Last month, the White House denounced the threats and rejected "anti-Semitic and hateful threats in the strongest terms."
    ...
    Rosenfeld said the man used advanced technologies to mask the origin of his calls and communications to synagogues, community buildings and public venues. He said police searched his house Thursday morning and discovered antennas and satellite equipment.

    Same tribe, same dirty tricks. They act as if all their crimes will never catch up to them.

    psychohistorian | Jun 2, 2017 3:03:42 PM | 24
    Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such. The party she represents is corrupt to the core and it is in defense mode as well over its facade of populism...who is really behind the Seth Rich murder?

    How fast can the Merry-Go-Round spin before big parts start flying off? I think we are about to see.

    AtaBrit | Jun 2, 2017 3:24:21 PM | 25
    @jfl | 8
    Excellent link. Cheers. There has been a palpable shift in global dynamics since Trump's tour. No question about it. I am optimistic.
    xor | Jun 2, 2017 3:33:58 PM | 26
    Hillary Clinton really is a disgusting critter. The presstitute media bias during the election campaign probably never has been so much in favor of one person. Even Google and Facebook participated in the public manipulation and still she keeps claiming it's the other way round. And then we're not even talking about DNC whistleblower Seth Rich who was set as an example.

    A part from Trend Micro joining the desinformation circus, it is and always delivered crappy software. Even last year their products that are supposed to protect their users against virusses and remote attacks in fact facilitated these: "PCs running Trend Micro's Windows antivirus can be hijacked, infected with malware, or wiped clean by any website, thanks to a vulnerability in the security software."

    and "Because the password manager was so badly written, Ormandy found that a malicious script could not only execute code remotely, it could also steal all passwords stored in the browser using the flaws in Trend's software – even if they are encrypted."

    Trend Micro AV gave any website command-line access to Windows PCs

    So a part from writing fake secutiry software, they also make fake statements and perform fake research.

    stumpy | Jun 2, 2017 3:56:19 PM | 27
    psychohistorian @ 24

    My thoughts, too. After juggling so many schemes and dark deals over the years, the liar's mind just cracks up. Pretty soon we'll be hearing about the skunkworks at area 51 targeting her with death rays.

    Her family should get her into a comfy retirement before she does more damage to herself and others. If her daughter wants to pick up the baton, that's fine. I hope she runs for a democrat seat.

    Anonymous | Jun 2, 2017 4:15:45 PM | 28
    Aslong as MSM gives her conspiracy theories space this maniac will live on.

    I cant believe so many people, majority of western people, believe her on Trump, Russia etcetera. Classic brainwashing.

    likklemore | Jun 2, 2017 4:19:16 PM | 29
    The Russians did it from their secure cubicles in Langley, VA. We all read Wikileaks' expose Vault 7.

    Heads Up Killary.
    Seth Conrad Rich's life may have ended by assassins. Total legacy Media blackout but They will be found.

    http://sethrich.info
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    RE: Posted by: karlof1 | Jun 2, 2017 2:30:00 PM | 21

    This Climate Change program is a money scam. Lloyd Blankfein railed against Trump as his CCE) money bowl is affected. The whole green tax, carbon emissions credit trading makes no sense whatsoever. Just another financial vehicle.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-global-warming-and-the-carbon-finance-business/5365419

    Recall the dinosaurs; they forgot to tax the autos, and the factories' carbon emissions. Oh my, look what happened to them!

    My weather guy/gal's 24-hr forecast taken from NOAA is always inaccurate. Never mind forecasting the next 30 years.

    Garbage in, garbage out. Is earth cooling or warming?

    • When promoters of Climate Change ignore the Milankovitch Cycles we are being deceived. LINK
    • Ice once covered the Equator LINK
    • USA-Canada Equator Belt LINK
    • Natural Variability LINK
    ben | Jun 2, 2017 4:21:35 PM | 30
    HRC and Trump both work for the same team. Clinton is doing her part by creating the illusion there are actually choices between the two parties with her constant whining about the election. Trump is doing his part by distracting the sheep with weird behavior, while his corporate cronies ready the American sheep for a good shearing.
    ben | Jun 2, 2017 4:26:58 PM | 31
    P.S.--Should have put the word "election" in quotes. We, in the U$A, no longer have Presidential elections, we have selections.
    psychohistorian | Jun 2, 2017 4:28:51 PM | 32
    @ Ben who wrote about American sheep.... BAAAAAA! And we/I come here and spew textual white noise while humanity enters Hospice.
    frances | Jun 2, 2017 5:19:48 PM | 33
    re: Clinton does not have a choice at this point b but to take shrill to new levels. She herself is a war criminal and she may live to be prosecuted for such.
    Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 2, 2017 3:03:42 PM | 24.

    I watched her May 31, 2017 live interview on youtube and my first thought was, "You clever rascal, you are lying as fast as you can in order to taint the jury pool." No one ever said she was stupid; evil, corrupt, soulless, yes. But never stupid.

    Anonymous | Jun 2, 2017 6:18:17 PM | 34
    Speaking on the hatred for Trump, this is another woman that is completely mentally ill: Kathy Griffin: I am the victim - not Trump!
    https://twitter.com/ABCWorldNews/status/870679050804633602
    Dr. Bill edin | Jun 2, 2017 8:54:49 PM | 35
    In that bizarre Clinton clip, where she channels Julius Caesar (whom she still hopes to be)--clapping her hands and shouting, "We came! We saw! He DIED!!!" on hearing the news that Gaddafi had been raped and gutted with a bayonet by US-supported Al-Qaeda "rebels" whom she had visited in Libya just a week before--the CBS reporter rhetorically asks her if Clinton thinks her own visit had anything to do with this event. And Clinton amazingly answers: "It did." I had to play the clip 3 X to believe it. But that's what she actually said!
    alaric | Jun 2, 2017 11:42:07 PM | 36
    Hillary appears to be quiet depressed, still, and in denial but she really can't admit the truth without completely pissing off her sponsors and future $500K a shot speaking gigs.

    She can't come out and admit that the people didn't want her because she is a corrupt corporate/wall st whore and war monger and that the Dem playbook of identity politics failed because neo-liberalism has screwed over too many people. She can't admit that she has no personality and that she comes across has cold, fake and contrived either.

    She really has no choice but to keep pointing fingers elsewhere because admitting the truth would be the end of her new career and the end of the political career she is pursuing for Chelsea.

    stumpy | Jun 3, 2017 12:00:29 AM | 37
    likklemore @ 29

    The Green Climate Fund. $100 Billion a year to sit in the World Bank while a cartel decides who to give/lend it to. Whatever the reason, Trump got this one right. I guess it depends on which flavor of green you have in mind.

    nonsense factory | Jun 3, 2017 1:17:50 AM | 38
    Ah, now that Donald Trump has gotten in bed with the Saudis, perhaps it's time to review the long collaborative history between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/trump-clinton-refuse-explain-share-address-delaware/215907/
    Looks like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are on the same page, doesn't it?
    Saunder | Jun 3, 2017 2:17:58 AM | 39
    Saying it's Russians' fault like blaming everything on Jews' – & other Putin quotes at #SPIEF
    https://mobile.twitter.com/RT_com/status/870807497283559425?p=p#
    Mina | Jun 3, 2017 5:47:12 AM | 40
    Great website http://www.photorientalist.org/
    jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:49:11 AM | 41
    Study shows massive growth of political abstention in 2016 US election
    Clinton's orientation to more affluent voters produced a dramatic shift in the landscape of American two-party politics in 2016. According to data from the American National Election Survey (ANES), the Democratic Party won a majority of votes from the wealthiest 5 percent of the white population for the first time since ANES began collecting data in 1948. Not only did the Clinton campaign win amongst the wealthiest 5 percent of whites, she won by an overwhelming margin, slightly greater than 10 percent. The Democrats won by wide margins among wealthier sections of all racial groups.

    On the other side, the poorest two-thirds of white voters supported the Republican candidate, also for the first time in the ANES poll's 70-year history. The chart below shows the shift, with the Republican margin of victory appearing higher on the Y-axis and the income percentile groups listed from left to right on the X-axis, with the wealthiest 5 percent listed on the right of each graph. The fact that the chart for 2016 has a downward trajectory highlights the degree to which the Democratic Party has become the primary party of the affluent upper-middle class.

    the 'Democrats' in the usofa are like the 'Democrats' in thailand ... they've got the plutocrat vote, and the wannabe plutocrat vote, sewed up. but that's not enough to get elected.

    the thai 'Democrats' turn to coups to stay in power ... and now, so do the american Democrats. starting off with a judicial coup, they hope.

    will they go whole hog with tanks in the streets when that fails?

    Noirette | Jun 3, 2017 10:13:16 AM | 42
    The Macron 'hack' was indeed curious. Maybe a sort of copy-cat-effort, like it has become fash to hack pol e-mails? Odd - I haven't seen what the content is, is it just a lot of rubbish, is the hack being ignored on purpose? Is all being covered up? Where is the material? Who is analysing it? Sure I could hunt it up, the point is this all sank without much of a trace The media were ordered not to publish: Independent
    Jackrabbit | Jun 3, 2017 10:43:19 AM | 43
    ben@30 nf@38

    https://jackrabbit.blog/

    somebody | Jun 3, 2017 10:48:17 AM | 44
    Posted by: Noirette | Jun 3, 2017 10:13:16 AM | 42

    You find them under #macronleaks on twitter

    Wikileaks - Assange - posted that they were looking at the stuff if they were real but did not post anything after that. Mediapart has looked at the leaks deducing what everybody guessed before - that "en marche" has been financed by the finance sector. I think the media is correct in not spreading rumour about Macron being gay (or dependent on drugs) - especially as there is no confirmation the leaks are untampered with.

    Bardi | Jun 3, 2017 2:04:18 PM | 46
    "Phishing attacks are daily occurrences, mostly by amateurs. Phishing emails are not cyber attacks. They are simply letters which attempt to get people to reveal their passwords or other secrets. They are generally not attributable at all. "

    b, your ignorance is pretty much on display, here. Cyber attacks take many different forms, among which are "phishing attacks". Try to get with the program

    Former hacker.

    jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:54:38 PM | 51
    @50 witters

    see Putin defends Trump on Climate change - 'Don't worry, be happy' .

    Putin

    1. cuts to the chase: the paris accord has no teeth
    2. notes that russia has yet to sign the accord itself
    3. points out that serious, heavy lifting is required to deal with climate change
    4. throws the rump a lifesaver ... implies that russia and the us might work together on 3.

    i always like to listen to putin. he actually says things.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 3, 2017 11:50:28 PM | 52
    i always like to listen to putin. he actually says things.
    Posted by: jfl | Jun 3, 2017 8:54:38 PM | 51

    That's true but, unlike Western leaders, Putin's most outstanding personal attribute is his firm commitment to keeping quiet when he's got nothing to say.
    Malcolm Turnbull is the perfect example... the longer his rambling speeches take to deliver, the less solid info they contain.
    It's a Neoliberal thing; long on verbosity - short on sane ideas.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Vladimir Putin Suggests to Megyn Kelly That US Hackers May Have Framed Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US Media try to manufacture a reality that pleases them (or, rather, their owners) on the basis of zero evidence. Putin laughs at this. His remarks are comical about the situation . and correct. America needs a doctor. Alternatively it needs to shoot itself in the head (the finance oligarchy) so it can grow a new one. ..."
    Jun 04, 2017 | variety.com

    "Hackers can be anywhere," Putin told Kelly. "They can be in Russia, in Asia even in America, Latin America. They can even be hackers, by the way, in the United States, who very skillfully and professionally, shifted the blame, as we say, on to Russia. Can you imagine something like that? In the midst of a political battle. By some calculations it was convenient for them to release this information, so they released it, citing Russia. Could you imagine something like that? I can."

    Ben says: June 3, 2017 at 10:18 am

    Putin is right. The US intelligence agencies need to present evidence before blaming someone.

    physicsandmathsrevision says: June 3, 2017 at 1:45 am

    The US Media try to manufacture a reality that pleases them (or, rather, their owners) on the basis of zero evidence. Putin laughs at this. His remarks are comical about the situation . and correct. America needs a doctor. Alternatively it needs to shoot itself in the head (the finance oligarchy) so it can grow a new one.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Putin Tells Oliver Stone of Surviving Assassination Attempts

    Jun 04, 2017 | www.newsweek.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin says that he's escaped multiple assassination attempts, and that he and the late Cuban leader Fidel Castro -- who also faced many attempts on his life-conversed about personal security.

    Putin makes the disclosures to American filmmaker Oliver Stone in The Putin Interviews , a four-part documentary that will air on Showtime starting June 12.In aclip from the documentary that was shown on CBS This Morning on Thursday, the director of Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July , among other films, says the American public doesn't have a full picture of Putin.

    [Jun 04, 2017] NATO votes to start by getting waist deep into the mess in Syria and Iraq to appease the US

    Jun 04, 2017 | al-monitor.com

    BraveNewWorld said...

    >"the chief member of the EU says that automatic agreement with Washington is no longer a given"

    NATO votes to start by getting waist deep into the mess in Syria and Iraq to appease the US.

    http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/05/turkey-syria-nato-joining-anti-isis-coalition.html

    [Jun 04, 2017] Russiagate is rehash of classic Cold War propaganda, a set of a lies that has been the basis for so many wars launched to stop this alleged expansionism in the past

    Jun 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs

    , June 04, 2017 at 04:23 AM
    (Is this anything?)

    Obama's Dilemma on Troop Surge in Afghanistan

    Now Vexes Trump https://nyti.ms/2sCkEsB

    NYT - MARK LANDLER and ERIC SCHMITT - JUNE 3

    WASHINGTON - A new president confronts an old war, one that bedeviled his predecessor. He is caught between seasoned military commanders, who tell him that the road to victory is to pour in more American troops, and skeptical political advisers, who argue that a major deployment is a futile exercise that will leave him politically vulnerable.

    Barack Obama in 2009. But also Donald J. Trump in 2017.

    As Mr. Trump faces his most consequential decision yet as commander in chief - whether to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, where a truck bombing on Wednesday offered a brutal reminder that the 16-year-old war is far from over - his administration is divided along familiar fault lines.

    The dispute pits two generals who had formative experiences in Afghanistan - Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster - against political aides, led by the chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who fear that sending in more troops would be a slippery slope toward nation-building.

    "They are going to be faced with the same questions we were," said David Axelrod, a former senior Obama adviser, who worried, during the 2009 debate, that the generals were boxing his boss in. "How and when does this end? Or is it an open-ended commitment of American lives and resources? What will the investment produce in the long run?"

    The White House shelved the deliberations over Afghanistan three weeks ago, after an initial Pentagon proposal to deploy up to 5,000 additional American troops ran into fierce resistance from Mr. Bannon, an ardent nationalist, and other political advisers. In the West Wing, some aides have taken to calling Afghanistan "McMaster's war."

    Undeterred, General McMaster plans to bring the debate back to the front burner this coming week, a senior administration official said. But as he does so, the Pentagon appears to be moving toward a smaller recommendation, in which America's allies would supply half the new troops. Historically, the United States has supplied about two-thirds of the soldiers in Afghanistan.

    That proposal depends on nailing down commitments from NATO and other allies - a task that former officials said had gotten harder after Mr. Trump's stormy visit to Europe, where he chided allies for not paying their fair share of the alliance's upkeep and declined to reaffirm America's commitment to mutual defense.

    "Trump has made it harder, not easier, to follow the U.S. lead," said Douglas E. Lute, a former ambassador to NATO who advised both Mr. Obama and President George W. Bush on Afghanistan. "Questioning U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's way." ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , June 04, 2017 at 04:27 AM
    ... Mr. Bannon, who was a powerful force behind Mr. Trump's decision to leave the Paris climate accord, has recovered some of his influence in the wake of that debate. Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump's son-in-law and adviser, remains a crucial voice, despite his troubles over reported links to Russia. Though he has not taken a position on troops, his aides say he views his role as making sure the president gets genuine options.

    Other officials may weigh in, too. John F. Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security and another retired general, holds weight with Mr. Trump. His son was killed in combat in Afghanistan. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson may be exerting behind-the-scenes influence already. The debate over Afghanistan abruptly slowed down after officials at the State Department expressed concern that General McMaster was "jamming through" a troop decision.

    Still, Mr. Trump's heavy reliance on military commanders risks a repeat of what some critics viewed as a weakness of the Obama administration's troop debate, even with Mrs. Clinton's participation: its overemphasis on a military solution.

    "This whole decision is being seen too narrowly, through a military prism," said Daniel F. Feldman, who served as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Mr. Obama. "It has to be seen in a more integrated way. It requires a more aggressive diplomatic component."

    (And what of Ivanka?)

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , June 04, 2017 at 04:51 AM
    (Not bloody likely.)

    A Political Solution to the Afghan War

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/a-political-solution-to-the-afghan-war/241376/

    The Atlantic - July 7, 2011

    ... But what about the political formula? How will Afghanistan be governed after we leave? Will it remain under its current constitution? What role will there be for the Taliban? How will power be shared between Kabul and the provinces? How about the most troublesome neighbor, Pakistan? What will its role be? And what can the United States do to make the answers these questions come out in a direction that does as little harm to our interests as possible? ...

    The End of Afghanistan's War

    https://www.thenation.com/article/end-afghanistans-war/

    The Nation - June 29, 2013

    If it happens, it will be because the United

    States and Pakistan agree on a role for the

    Taliban in a reshaped government in Kabul.

    ... If there is going to be a peaceful end to the war in Afghanistan unlikely as that may be, it will come when the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan all agree on a rebalancing of the government in Kabul, probably with a new constitution and probably either including the Taliban in the new regime or giving the Taliban effective control of parts of southern Afghanistan in some sort of federal system. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... , June 04, 2017 at 05:31 AM
    (Hmmm. How the US military

    probably sees Pakistan. Other

    then the place where Bin Laden hid out.)

    Military coups in Pakistan began in 1958 and there have been three successful attempts. There have also been numerous unsuccessful attempts since 1951. Since its creation in 1947, Pakistan has spent several decades under military rule (1958 – 1971, 1977 – 1988, 1999 – 2008). ... (Wikipedia)

    libezkova - , June 04, 2017 at 05:41 AM
    "Questioning U.S. leadership makes it more difficult for the allies to send troops into harm's way."

    The question to be asked is why the

    USA elite fights all this wars of neoliberal empire expansion at the expense of American people. They steal money from people. Huge amount of money. In order to help multinationals. And to create a smoke screen and justification inflate anti-Russian hysteria. Now probably 70% of Americans are adamantly anti-Russian like in good old days of Cold War. Very convenient for stealing even more money for MIC and multinationals: "stealing money as a patriotic duty"

    http://exiledonline.com/russia-blog-7-when-mother-jones-was-investigated-for-spreading-kremlin-disinformation/

    == quote ==

    Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting" - in the words of editor Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because we're free.

    Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.

    But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation" and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life. That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using "terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy run out of Moscow to weaken America.

    And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.

    Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness- a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule the world.

    Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:

    "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media.

    "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians."

    Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation" conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power . . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin agent.

    Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,

    "[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr. de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.

    " Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything must seem possible."

    It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's history.

    Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy. Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.

    PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks, to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?

    One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this - donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.

    Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens, Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line about Russian/Soviet expansionism -- a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop" this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Neocons The Anti-Realists by Robert Parry

    Notable quotes:
    "... Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting that it is ..."
    "... In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that don't measure up. ..."
    "... The primary distinction between the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons' thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington. ..."
    "... Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common people. ..."
    "... But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists, needed to have their perceptions managed. ..."
    "... At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S. mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters" but the reality was always much different ..."
    "... By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York. ..."
    "... Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "] ..."
    "... By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States, including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major news outlet. ..."
    "... The illegal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements, especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet. ..."
    "... Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance: Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael. ..."
    "... What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic) in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman) and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows. ..."
    "... The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased Zionism. ..."
    "... The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one. ..."
    "... you have to stop with this Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens. ..."
    Jun 04, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    January 17, 2015

    Special Report: America's neocons, who wield great power inside the U.S. government and media, endanger the planet by concoctingstrategies inside their heads that ignorereal-world consequences. Thus, their"regime changes" have unleashed ancient hatreds and spread chaos across the globe, as Robert Parry explains.

    Historically, one of the main threads of U.S. foreign policy was called "realism," that is the measured application of American power on behalf of definable national interests, with U.S. principles preached to others but not imposed.

    This approach traced back to the early days of the Republic when the first presidents warned of foreign "entangling alliances" and President John Quincy Adams, who was with his father at the nation's dawning, explained in 1821 that while America speaks on behalf of liberty, "she has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

    "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy."

    However, in modern times, foreign policy "realism" slid into an association with a cold calculation of power, no longer a defense of the Republic and broader national interests but of narrow, well-connected economic interests. The language of freedom was woven into a banner for greed and plunder. Liberty justified the imposition of dictatorships on troublesome populations. Instead of searching for monsters to destroy, U.S. policy often searched for monsters to install.

    In the wake of such heartless actions like imposing pliable "pro-business" dictatorships on countries such as Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia, Chile and engaging in the bloodbath of Vietnam "realism" developed a deservedly negative reputation as other supposedly more idealistic foreign policy strategies gained preeminence.

    Some of those approaches essentially turned John Quincy Adams's admonition on its head by asserting that it is America's duty to search out foreign monsters to destroy. Whether called "neoconservatism" or "liberal interventionism," this approach openly advocated U.S. interference in the affairs of other nations and took the sides of people who at least presented themselves as "pro-democracy."

    In recent years, as the ranks of the "realists" the likes of George Kennan, Henry Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft have aged and thinned, the ranks of the neocons and their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, swelled. Indeed, these "anti-realists" have now grown dominant, touting themselves as morally superior because they don't just call for human rights, they take out governments that don't measure up.

    The primary distinction between the neocons and the liberal interventionists has been the centrality of Israel in the neocons' thinking while their liberal sidekicks put "humanitarianism" at the core of their world view. But these differences are insignificant, in practice, since the liberal hawks are politically savvy enough not to hold Israel accountable for its human rights crimes and clever enough to join with the neocons in easy-to-sell "regime change" strategies toward targeted countries with weak lobbies in Washington.

    In those "regime change" cases, there is also a consensus on how to handle the targeted countries: start with "soft power" from anti-regime propaganda to funding internal opposition groups to economic sanctions to political destabilization campaigns and, then if operationally necessary and politically feasible, move to overt military interventions, applying America's extraordinary military clout.

    Moral Crusades

    These interventions are always dressed up as moral crusades the need to free some population from the clutches of a U.S.-defined "monster." There usually is some "crisis" in which the "monster" is threatening "innocent life" and triggering a "responsibility to protect" with the catchy acronym, "R2P."

    But the reality about these "anti-realists" is that their actions, in real life, almost always inflict severe harm on the country being "rescued." The crusade kills many people innocent and guilty and the resulting disorder can spread far and wide, like some contagion that cannot be contained. The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the deadly disease called chaos.

    And, it has become a very lucrative chaos for the well-connected by advancing the "dark side" of U.S. foreign policy where lots of money can be made while government secrecy prevents public scrutiny.

    As author James Risen describes in his new book, Pay Any Price , a new caste of "oligarchs" has emerged from the 9/11 "war on terror" - and the various regional wars that it has unpacked - to amass vast fortunes. He writes:"There is an entire class of wealthy company owners, corporate executives, and investors who have gotten rich by enabling the American government to turn to the dark side. The new quiet oligarchs just keep making money. They are the beneficiaries of one of the largest transfers of wealth from public to private hands in American history." [p. 56]

    And the consolidation of this wealth has further cemented the political/media influence of the "anti-realists," as the new "oligarchs" kick back portions of their taxpayer largesse into think tanks, political campaigns and media outlets. The neocons and their liberal interventionist pals now fully dominate the U.S. opinion centers, from the right-wing media to the editorial pages (and the foreign desks) of many establishment publications, including the Washington Post and the New York Times.

    By contrast, the voices of the remaining "realists" and their current unlikely allies, the anti-war activists, are rarely heard in the mainstream U.S. media anymore. To the extent that these dissidents do get to criticize U.S. meddling abroad, they are dismissed as "apologists" for whatever "monster" is currently in line for the slaughter. And, to the extent they criticize Israel, they are smeared as "anti-Semitic" and thus banished from respectable society.

    Thus, being a "realist" in today's Official Washington requires hiding one's true feelings, much as was once the case if you were a gay man and you had little choice but to keep your sexual orientation in the closet by behaving publicly like a heterosexual and surrounding yourself with straight friends.

    In many ways, that's what President Barack Obama has done. Though arguably a "closet realist," Obama staffed his original administration with foreign policy officials acceptable to the neocons and the liberal interventionists, such as Robert Gates at Defense, Hillary Clinton at State, Gen. David Petraeus as a top commander in the field.

    Even in his second term, the foreign-policy hawks have remained dominant, with people like neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland enflaming the crisis in Ukraine and UN Ambassador Samantha Power, an R2Per, pushing U.S. military intervention in Syria.

    A Slow-Motion Catastrophe

    I have personally watched today's foreign-policy pattern evolve during my 37 years in Washington - and it began innocently enough. After the Vietnam War and the disclosures about bloody CIA coups around the globe, President Jimmy Carter called for human rights to be put at the center of U.S. foreign policy. His successor, Ronald Reagan, then hijacked the human rights rhetoric while adapting to it to his anticommunist cause.

    Because Reagan's usurpation of human rights language involved support for brutal right-wing forces, such as the Guatemalan military and the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the process required an Orwellian change in what words meant. "Pro-democracy" had to become synonymous with the rights and profits of business owners, not its traditional meaning of making government work for the common people.

    But this perversion of language was not as much meant to fool the average Guatemalan or Nicaraguan, who was more likely to grasp the reality behind the word games since he or she saw the cruel facts up close; it was mostly to control the American people who, in the lexicon of Reagan's propagandists, needed to have their perceptions managed. [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Victory of Perception Management. "]

    The goal of the young neocons inside the Reagan administration the likes of Elliott Abrams and Robert Kagan (now Victoria Nuland's husband) was to line up the American public behind Reagan's aggressive foreign policy, or as the phrase of that time went, to "kick the Vietnam Syndrome," meaning to end the popular post-Vietnam resistance to more foreign wars.

    President George H.W. Bush pronounced this mission accomplished in 1991 after the end of the well-sold Persian Gulf War, declaring "we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."

    By then, the propaganda process had fallen into a predictable pattern. You pick out a target country; you demonize its leadership; you develop some "themes" that are sure to push American hot buttons, maybe fictional stories about "throwing babies out of incubators" or the terrifying prospect of "a mushroom cloud"; and it's always smart to highlight a leader's personal corruption, maybe his "designer glasses" or "a sauna in his palace."

    The point is not that the targeted leader may not be an unsavory character. Frankly, most political leaders are. Many Western leaders and their Third World allies both historically and currently have much more blood on their hands than some of the designated "monsters" that the U.S. government has detected around the world. The key is the image-making.

    What makes the process work is the application and amplification of double standards through the propaganda organs available to the U.S. government. The compliant mainstream American media can be counted on to look harshly at the behavior of some U.S. "enemy" in Venezuela, Iran, Russia or eastern Ukraine, but to take a much more kindly view of a U.S.-favored leader from Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Georgia or western Ukraine.

    While it's easy and safe career-wise for a mainstream journalist to accuse a Chavez, an Ahmadinejad, a Putin or a Yanukovych of pretty much anything, the levels of proof get ratcheted up when it's a Uribe, a Saudi King Abdullah, a Saakashvili or a Yatsenyuk not to mention a Netanyahu.

    The True Dark Side

    But here is the dark truth about this "humanitarian" interventionism: it is spinning the world into an endless cycle of violence. Rather than improving the prospects for human rights and democracy, it is destroying those goals. While the interventionist strategies have made huge fortunes for well-connected government contractors and well-placed speculators who profit off chaos, the neocons and their "human rights" buddies are creating a hell on earth for billions of others, spreading death and destitution.

    Take, for example, the beginnings of the Afghan War in the 1980s after the Soviet Union invaded to protect a communist-led regime that had sought to pull Afghanistan out of the middle ages, including granting equal rights to women. The United States responded by encouraging Islamic fundamentalism and arming the barbaric mujahedeen.

    At the time, that was considered the smart play because Islamic fundamentalism was seen as a force that could counter atheistic communism. So, starting with the Carter administration but getting dramatically ramped up by the Reagan administration, the United States threw in its lot with the extremist Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia to invest billions of dollars in supporting these Islamist militants who included one wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

    At the time, with Great Communicator Ronald Reagan leading the way, virtually the entire U.S. mainstream media and nearly every national politician hailed the mujahedeen as noble "freedom fighters" but the reality was always much different . [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com's " How US Hubris Baited Afghan Trap ."]

    By the end of the 1980s, the U.S.-Saudi "covert operation" had "succeeded" in driving the Soviet army out of Afghanistan with Kabul's communist regime ultimately overthrown and replaced by the fundamentalist Taliban, who stripped women of their rights and covered up their bodies. The Taliban also provided safe haven for bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist band, which by the 1990s had shifted its sights from Moscow to Washington and New York.

    Even though the Saudis officially broke with bin Laden after he declared his intentions to attack the United States, some wealthy Saudis and other Persian Gulf multi-millionaires, who shared bin Laden's violent form of Islamic fundamentalism, continued to fund him and his terrorists right up to and beyond al-Qaeda's attacks on 9/11.

    Then, America's fear and fury over 9/11 opened the path for the neocons to activate one of their longstanding plans, to invade and occupy Iraq, though it had nothing to do with 9/11. The propaganda machinery was cranked up and again all the "smart" people fell in line. Dissenters were dismissed as "Saddam apologists" or called "traitors." [See Consortiumnews.com's " The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War. "]

    By fall 2002, the idea of invading Iraq and removing "monster" Saddam Hussein was not just a neocon goal, it was embraced by nearly ever prominent "liberal interventionist" in the United States, including editors and columnists of the New Yorker, the New York Times and virtually every major news outlet.

    At this point, the "realists" were in near total eclipse, left to grumble futilely or grasp onto some remaining "relevance" by joining the pack, as Henry Kissinger did. The illegal U.S.-led invasion of Iraq also brushed aside the "legal internationalists" who believed that global agreements, especially prohibitions on aggressive war, were vital to building a less violent planet.

    ... ... ...

    Pablo Diablo , January 17, 2015 at 7:06 pm

    THANK YOU Robert Parry for all you have done. Money! It's always money. Wake up America. They gave us Clinton to accomplish what mean-spirited Reagan/Bush couldn't accomplish. And then they gave us Obama to continue what Bush/Cheney started.

    Debbie Menon , January 18, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    Well put Zachary Smith. Shaking these compromised criminals from their lofty posts and kicking them to the curb may seem like a monumental task, but the sea tide of change is definitely turning in our favor. There is much talk about the neocons, Israel, Zionism, and the Lobby's influence in the US government than ever before. They are everywhere! http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2015/01/18/514568obama-to-senators-choose-u-s-over-donors/

    Steve D , January 17, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    When will the neocons be brought up on crimes against humanity ? May all blowback be brought down upon them.

    Debbie Menon , January 18, 2015 at 8:42 am

    I've been asking this question since the day Obama came into office: "Can Obama Untangle the Iranian Challenge?"

    Seems like he's finally moving to clinch this foreign policy victory:

    White House, Obama to Congress on foreign policy back off:

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-to-congress-on-foreign-policy-back-off-20150116

    Joe , January 17, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    This is a good summary, necessarily burdened by the lengthy history of "neocon" madness since WWII. But of course the wrongful and ill-conceived US interventions are far more numerous even than those mentioned here.

    There will be no rational US foreign or domestic policy until democracy is restored, when the mass media and elections are protected from the control of the oligarch of economic concentrations that denies democracy to the people of the United States. This was the great oversight of our Constitution, because no such economic concentrations existed then, and amendments are desperately needed to correct this. Without them democracy, and sanity in public policy, are lost forever.

    The morally corrosive effects of government propaganda are accepted largely because the population is accustomed to lies in advertising and all business communications. The people are no longer outraged that the government does nothing to control business lies and cheating, and it is not surprising that the parties of bold government lies are the advocates of unregulated business.

    But the prospects for reform are grim. Only an era of vast suffering in the US will make the people turn off their TVs and admit the truth. One cannot wish for the suffering, but anything to hasten the deposing of oligarchy is an act of the highest patriotism.

    Debbie Menon , January 18, 2015 at 8:58 am

    I concur. The question is why a large majority of the American people go along with this entire exercise? And when did it all start? I wrote this in 2009 soon after Obama took office, it still resonates: Can Obama escape the dominating influence of AIPAC and the American Jewish/Zionist Israeli lobby?

    http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1141.html

    joe , January 18, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    The exercise of control over elections and mass media began quite early, grew as the US middle class emerged and had to rely on ever-larger newspapers for policy facts, and as political candidates relied ever more on purchased publicity and contributions from ever growing businesses seeking federal favors. By 1898 we had our first media-trumped war ("Remember the Maine") over a falsely attributed coal-gas explosion on a US warship.

    Chet Roman , January 18, 2015 at 2:26 am

    "The neocons and the liberal interventionists have become, in effect, carriers of the deadly disease called chaos."

    Chaos happens to be a strategic goal of the country to which the neocons pledge allegiance: Israel. Chaos and conflict in the ME helps Israel maintain its military superiority and offers the opportunity to expand their undefined borders to encompass the Zionist dream of Eretz Yisrael.

    What I find odd and interesting is that the neo-Nazis (who are blatantly anti-Semitic) in the Kiev government have found common cause with Jewish oligarchs, Petro Poroshenko (Valtsman) and Igor Kolomoisky. I guess power and money make strange bedfellows.

    Tsigantes , January 18, 2015 at 4:05 am

    No doubt one funds the other.

    Debbie Menon , January 20, 2015 at 2:07 pm

    The US is nailed by two prongs of the same disease; Globalism, and a massively-increased Zionism.

    Real intellectuals know this. It isn't exactly a conspiracy.

    The two most dangerous countries in the world today are the U.S. neoconed under the influence of American Zionists and I would put Israel, second to none other than the US. And, I would distinguish and separate them from Syria and Iran who are a threat to no one.

    So much for humanitarian causes. Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. Why didn't they just keep on bombing them until every single one was killed in the name of humanity?

    It would make about as much humanitarian sense.

    Now, let;s see¦. Who is next on the list?

    “Abe, bring me that book by the old man " who do we go for next?"

    The real question is who will we send to do the job? NATO or the UN? UN troops are better at rape and pillage, but NATO is much more impressive in the straight out killing line! Both are cheap and ready to go, and we will not have to do it ourselves.

    Tsigantes , January 18, 2015 at 4:02 am

    Re your penultimate paragraph, and from a European vantage point, far from 'failing to foresee' the results, it appears that the neocons understand them full well and feel confidant in their ability to control them. ISIS is understood here as a US funded and propogandised mercenary army, with non-muslim participants from all over Europe & Asia. As for the true Wahhabi fundamentalists one assumes that the logic is that they are contained inside ISIS, while carrying out US foreign policy goals.

    As for ultimate carrots, ie rewarding the fundamentalists, the New Middle East plan unveiled in 2006 by Condaleeza Rice and Olmert as NATO/ISR policy (not contradicted since then, and clearly underway) projected the division of Iraq into 3 states, one of which is Islamic State [IS} and the other Kurdistan. It also projected the division of Pakistan with the new state being Baluchistan. Thus ISIS and Al Qaeda become client states.

    Therefore there is reason to this destructive, illegal madness which has served to destroy the United States' reputation globally; the reconfiguration of the middle east serves US and Israeli oil and security interests.

    Unfortunately no such plan can be referenced concerning Russia. However events of recent years, especially 2014 and Charlie Hebdo, have served to reveal the degree to which the EU is US/ISR neocon dominated, and are absolutely NOT free nations.

    re: "What the neocons have constructed through their skilled propaganda is a grim wonderland where no one foresees the dangers of encouraging Islamist fundamentalism as a geopolitical ploy, where no one takes heed of the historic hatreds of Sunni and Shiite, where no one suspects that the U.S. military slaughtering thousands upon thousands of Muslims might provoke a backlash, where no one thinks about the consequences of overthrowing regimes in unstable regions, where no one bothers to study the bitter history of a place like Ukraine, and where no one worries about spreading turmoil to nuclear-armed Russia."

    Tsigante , January 18, 2015 at 4:16 am

    i would add to my comment above that the majority of world muslims, Sunni & Shiite, are NOT at loggerheads with each other, live next to each other and are often intermarried. This is a theological split, like Protestants (no priest=Sunni) vs Catholics (priests=Catholic).

    The exception is the 18th c local & extreme Wahhabi sect, which the British empowered when they created Saudi Arabia. Far from being closer to islamic principles, they are closer to (dare I say it) barbaric desert Arab practise, overlaid into a local form of Islam.

    In the case of Iraq the Sunni-Shiite division was political, put in place by the English again, when they empowered one group over the other as administrators.

    Branko R , January 18, 2015 at 6:24 am

    Robert's excellent summary overlooks the wars in the former Yugoslavia (Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo). The same sorts of unsavory characters were backed and whitewashed, and the same sorts of humanitarian propaganda were used.

    Alan Fendrich , January 18, 2015 at 7:23 am

    You write "Israeli war crimes." What Israeli war crimes have there been?

    Is not the real crime the Arab regimes crime against humanity? Poisoning their children in their school curriculum that Jews are dogs? And that killing Jews is good?

    Truth , January 18, 2015 at 11:20 am

    What Israeli War Crimes?

    Wow. You outed yourself right there as a Hasbarite liar.

    Zachary Smith , January 18, 2015 at 11:38 am

    What Israeli war crimes have there been?

    The very best 'spin' I can put on this statement is that you were in a coma during the recent Israeli mass murder spree in Gaza.

    The worst is that you're posting from the basement of a West Bank house on land stolen from Palestinians. If this is the case, may I suggest you read up on efficiently lying for Holy Israel. They have published several manuals for enthusiastic amateurs, and here is a link to the latest one.

    https://jewishphilosophyplace.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/luntz-presentation-9-2014.pdf

    Forgotten 1963 Survey: Majority Of Israeli Jewish Youth Could Support Genocide Against Arabs

    For some odd reason Israeli kids have managed to get radicalized early in their lives. One wonders about THEIR education – both at school and at home.

    xxxx://maxblumenthal.com/2010/08/1963-survey-majority-of-israeli-jewish-youth-could-support-genocide-against-arabs/

    K T , January 19, 2015 at 7:27 am

    It never stops boring our ears this Zionist propaganda. Which "Arabs" are you talking about you Zionist bigot? Which, Arab Jews, Christians or Muslims? Do you mean the Jewish Arabs who have historically lived in peace and protection for centuries with the Muslim Arabs before Mongoloids showed up from Eastern Europe? The ones who live now in the foremost democracy in the world Irahell? Are they the ones that do not have the right to a minimum wage?

    The "Arabs" never referred in their children's school books to Jews. They always without exception refer to them as Zionist knowing full well that the founders of the "Jewish State" were without exception atheists.

    I predict Zionist will succeed in starting a third world war between Islam and Christianity on one hand and between Eurasia and the West on the other. You have corrupted the democratic process in the West and the media belongs to you. Additionally, let us not forget that there is too much money to be made and national debts to be incurred for Zionist to worry about such an unprecedented degree of human sacrifice in the name of Moloch.

    You know what is a Freudian slip? The manifesto of the Zionist state is to extend itself from the Nile to the Euphrates and to rule the world from Jerusalem just like a Caliphate. It will be called, The State of Israel for Iraq and the Levant. I.S.I.L for short. It will never happen for the children of Moloch.

    Debbie Menon , January 18, 2015 at 2:10 pm

    Well put Zachary Smith.

    Israeli veterans have spoken out, describing a degrading culture of abuse and harassment of Palestinian children in the West Bank and Gaza. A report containing 30 veterans' testimonies details numerous cases of violence.

    Powered by NewsLook.com

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xt36xk_israeli-vets-confess-to-no-mercy-abuse-of-palestinian-terrorist-kids_news

    Mark Marx , January 19, 2015 at 11:03 am

    I agree the President should come out of the closet. An excellent summary of what I have witnessed this past half century. To the extent I fail to act to halt the mass murder, I am a silent accomplice and share in the kharma perpetrated in the name of my country. Never, never, never surrender. I never thought I would say that about the government I was raised to adore, but it appears populated by petty tyrants and hucksters. But that is the story, our history, until the Millenials rrach true majority in a generation. Let's see how the pendulum is swinging then.

    Barry , January 19, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    Come on, Robert. Overall, this was a great article. However, you have to stop with this Obama vs his Neocon/Liberal Interventionist White House staff. Why are you trying to protect Obama as if he, as President, was dragged "kicking and screaming" into Lybia, Syria, or Ukraine? He seemly clearly in favor of each of these moved just as he was clearly in favor of his drone war in Pakistan and the killing of American citizens.

    [Jun 04, 2017] Putin Interview Did Russia Interfere in the Election, Collect Info on Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes," he said. ..."
    "... "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he said. "But, I repeat, we don't even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change." ..."
    "... Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the "political direction" that the United States seems to be heading in. "It wouldn't make sense for us to interfere," he said. ..."
    Jun 04, 2017 | www.msn.com

    ...Kelly met Putin in St. Petersburg, the Russian president's hometown and his nation's onetime capital, after sharing a contentious discussion about Russia's attempts to hack the 2016 election at the St. Petersburg World International Economic Forum. Putin, a former KGB agent, has been painted as the puppet master behind the challenge on November's voting.

    U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded that Putin ordered the disruption of the election. During the interview, Putin tried to dismiss the evidence by claiming that the United States has a history of meddling in foreign elections.

    "Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal electoral processes," he said.

    Kelly pushed back at the assertion, saying it sounded like Putin's attempt to justify his government's attempts to influence elections. Putin demurred.

    "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction," he said. "But, I repeat, we don't even have to do that. Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change."

    Putin claimed that Russia has a preference in an election but only reacts to the "political direction" that the United States seems to be heading in. "It wouldn't make sense for us to interfere," he said.

    The conversation later turned to a pre-campaign dossier that was purportedly collected on Trump.

    But Putin, who once worked as a KGB recruiter, alleged that he has no knowledge of such a dossier.

    "Where would we get this information from? Why, did we have some special relationship with him?" Putin asked. "We didn't have any relationship at all. There was a time when he used to come to Moscow. But you know, I never met with him. We have a lot of Americans who visit us."

    ... ... ...

    Related: Vladimir Putin Tells Megyn Kelly: U.S. Hacker Could Have Framed Russia

    [Jun 04, 2017] Putin Russia Being Persecuted Like Jews, Megyn Kelly Needs a 'Pill' for Her Hysteria

    Jun 04, 2017 | www.newsweek.com
    Responding to Kelly's unrelenting line of questions about reports of Russian interference in the U.S. and European political systems, Putin reached for a controversial comparison, complaining that blaming Russians for the U.S. election had become a cliché tantamount to the anti-Semitic idea of "blaming the Jews."

    "This reminds me of anti-Semitism," Putin said. "The Jews are to blame for everything. An idiot cannot do anything himself, so the Jews are to blame. But we know what such attitudes lead to. They end with nothing good."

    Instead, he said, Trump's opponents had to accept the election's result.

    The tension mounted after an apparent fault in the translation track that translated Kelly's paraphrasing of Trump's comments that he thinks Russia conducted cyberattacks on his opponents, to Kelly saying "I think" Trump made that claim. "She thinks," Putin exclaimed, noting the issue required certainty.

    Putin was also riled when discussing Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's undisclosed meetings with two Trump allies-former national security adviser Mike Flynn and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. "Should we not talk about improving tensions?" Putin asked. "What should an ambassador do? That is his job. That is why he gets paid. He should hold meetings, discussing current affairs."

    Putin turned even more combative when Kelly touched on the subject of Russian foreign news coverage spreading "disinformation." Putin accused her "colleagues" of dragging Russia into their coverage unfavorably.

    [Jun 04, 2017] 'Give them a pill': Putin accuses US of hysteria over election hacking inquiry by Alec Luhn

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team during the campaign and transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you guys just can't stop". ..."
    Jun 02, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    Vladimir Putin: allegations of Russian interference in the US is 'hysteria'
    Vladimir Putin

    Russian president calls allegations of interference in US presidential election 'useless and harmful chatter' at St Petersburg economic forum Share on Facebook Close

    Vladimir Putin has said the US needs to stop the "useless and harmful chatter" about Russian interference in the presidential election, arguing that - Donald Trump 's electoral strategy was entirely responsible for his victory.

    Speaking at the St Petersburg economic forum, Putin claimed there was no concrete evidence for US intelligence agencies' allegations of Russian hacking , and said cyber specialists "can make anything up and blame anyone".

    The Russian president added that this "attempt to solve internal political issues using instruments of foreign policy" was damaging international relations.

    "The problem is not here, the problem is within American politics. Trump's team was more effective in the electoral campaign," Putin told the event's moderator, the US television presenter Megyn Kelly.

    "In all honesty, I myself sometimes thought that the guy was going too far, but it turned out he was right: he found an approach to those groups of the population and those groups of voters he counted on, and they came and voted for him," Putin said.

    Hillary Clinton's campaign team was blaming the Russians rather than admitting its own mistakes, he said.

    "It's easier to say we are not guilty, the Russians are guilty It reminds me of antisemitism: the Jews are guilty of everything," Putin said at the end of his comments, which drew titters from the audience.

    "If the information about the Democratic party favouring Clinton was true, is it really important who leaked it?" he asked, echoing his previous statements on Russian hacking.

    ... ... ...

    -- Russian officials meeting with members of Trump's team during the campaign and transition, Putin declared they had just shared "general words about building relations" and that allegations of collusion were "some kind of hysteria, and you guys just can't stop".

    "Do we need to give you a pill? Does anyone have a pill? Give them a pill, really, honestly. It's surprising," he said, raising a laugh even out of the impassive Indian PM, Narendra Modi, who was seated next to him.

    Austria's chancellor, Christian Kern, and Moldova's president, Igor Dodon, also took part in the discussion.

    Besides praising Trump's electoral campaign, Putin refused to condemn the US president's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate accord , making light of the issue and questioning whether the countries of the world were really "in a position to halt climate change".

    "Somehow we here aren't feeling that the temperature is really rising, but we should be thankful to President Trump. There was snow in Moscow today; [in St Petersburg], it's rainy and cold – now we can blame all this on him and American imperialism," Putin joked.

    Putin told Kelly, in English, "Don't worry, be happy," assuring her that the agreement would take effect in 2021, so there was still "plenty of time to reach an agreement".

    It wasn't clear what he was referring to in this comment, since the accord took effect in November 2016.

    One area where Putin was critical of Trump's policy was regarding the US president's demand that Nato members raise their military spending to 2% of GDP.

    "If they aren't planning to attack anyone, then why increase spending? That of course worries us," Putin said.

    [Jun 03, 2017] Russian President Vladimir Putin has largely resorted to irony at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) as reporters seemingly failed to come up with new questions, focusing on Moscows alleged meddling in the US elections, and Donald Trump.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Look at your colleagues, what they are doing here," Putin told NBC journalist Megyn Kelly, who was asking questions at the forum. "They are all over our domestic policy, they're sitting on our head, dangling their feet and chewing a bubble gum. Entertaining themselves. It's a systematic, rude and absolutely unceremonious interference in our domestic policies that lasts for many years, also at a diplomatic level," he said. ..."
    Jun 03, 2017 | on.rt.com

    Russian President Vladimir Putin has largely resorted to irony at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) as reporters seemingly failed to come up with new questions, focusing on Moscow's alleged meddling in the US elections, and Donald Trump. 'No secret deal'

    There have been no secret agreements between the Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislyak and the Trump administration, Putin said at Friday's Q&A session in St. Petersburg. the president told the forum, adding that he was surprised with all the fuss surrounding the work of the Russian diplomat in the US and calling anti-Moscow allegations "delirious." "It's not even clear where all the people spreading such information come from... So, the ambassador meets someone. And what is an ambassador supposed to do? It's his job, he's being paid for that. He must be meeting people, discussing pending issues, making agreements. What else is he supposed to do there? Visit some venues that would then see him fired?" Putin wondered.

    The panic surrounding some of Trump's decisions is blown way out of proportion, Putin noted at the forum. Commenting on the US president's decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, the Russian leader joked that now any weather-related issues can be blamed on

    "By the way, we should be thankful to President Trump. I've heard it has been snowing in Moscow today, and here it's raining, and terribly cold. Now we can blame it all on him and on American imperialism, hold them accountable," Putin said. "But we will not do that,"

    Those who accuse Moscow of the defeat of the US Democratic Party in last year's elections behave like those who blame the Jews for everything, the Russian president said.

    "It's easier to say that it's not our [US Democrats'] fault, but Russians' fault, say that they interfered with the elections... It reminds me of anti-Semitism, when everything is Jews' fault. Someone is a mutt, can't do a thing, but the Jews are to be blamed. But we know where such an attitude leads to, it never ends well," Putin said.

    "hysteria" which the US "fails to cease." the Russian president said.

    'Western media always meddling in Russian politics'

    The Russian president also called on the West to stop meddling in Russia's domestic policies.

    "Look at your colleagues, what they are doing here," Putin told NBC journalist Megyn Kelly, who was asking questions at the forum. "They are all over our domestic policy, they're sitting on our head, dangling their feet and chewing a bubble gum. Entertaining themselves. It's a systematic, rude and absolutely unceremonious interference in our domestic policies that lasts for many years, also at a diplomatic level," he said.

    Having called NATO "an instrument of US foreign policy," the Russian president said that the lack of "constructive dialogue" with the military alliance impedes joint efforts on fighting terrorism. Having wondered what is the purpose of the alliance if both the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are no more, the president said that the failed dialogue with NATO is not Russia's fault.

    Asked to comment on reported disagreements within the alliance, Putin commented, with irony:

    "Well, if you suggest that NATO could fall apart, then these [disagreements] would help us. But so far we don't see it coming."

    'Use Al-Qaeda today, it will be fighting you tomorrow'

    Commenting on the Syrian issue, the Russian president said that the conflict in the Middle East should "in no way be used as means to sort out [someone's] pressing political issues."

    "And we sometimes see such attempts [in Syria]," Putin said, explaining that forces within the country are being used by other foreign parties to fight Assad.

    Putin pointed out.

    The Syrian President, Bashar Assad, "might have made mistakes,"but the groups he's fighting within the country "are no angels either," Putin said, adding that the latest chemical attack in Syria was a provocation against the government.

    "Regarding the people who were killed and suffered from weapons, including chemical weapons – this information is false. As of today, we are totally convinced that it was just a provocation. Assad did not use that weapon. It was all done by the people who wanted to blame him for it," Putin said.

    Read more Putin offers Washington red pill. Washington takes the blue one

    [Jun 03, 2017] Who Will Fight For Trump - The Unz Review

    Jun 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Soon to be former Trump supporter , Show Comment Next New Comment June 3, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT

    I voted for Trump but have been very disappointed in him so far. He has done virtually nothing on immigration aside from a failed, meaningless 3 months ban on certain muslim countries. He has done nothing to end the abuse of H1b or OPT, allowing another 85,000 applications to go through this past April. He could've easily scrapped the Obama EO on OPT which extended the optional practical training for foreign grads(of any major) to nearly 3 years, a stupid program that actually gives US employers tax incentives to hire foreign grads ahead of our own grads. Instead of cancelling the fraud ridden EB-5 program, he gave it another extension, now we find out Jared Kushner's family real estate firm is actually actively selling that visa to more corrupt Chinese. Breitbart reported that border agents are saying Trump is basically continuing with the Obama admin's catch and release program at the borders. And his first budget does not even include the Wall. He extended amnesty to DACA without even using it as a bargaining chip for the wall!

    His foreign policy is even worse. He bombed Syria without any real evidence on the gas attack, and is cozying up to Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest sponsor of Islamic terror, and Israel to make unnecessary enemies of Russia, Assad and Iran. Selling over $100m of our most sophisticated weapons to Saudi Arabia was the stupidest move ever. His daughter's "Women Entrepreneur Fund" is becoming the new pay-to-play scheme in DC, replacing the Clinton Foundation. Taking $40m donation from the Arabs, a country that doesn't even allow women to drive, is a joke.

    The Healthcare "fix" actually made things worse by removing the two best provisions of ObamaCare that was essential in keeping prices low – the individual mandate and the Cadillac tax. Without the individual mandate, we'll have to let people die on the streets. We need to decouple health insurance from employment and the Cadillac Tax at least is one step towards that direction.

    Bringing in Jared and Ivanka to the WH was a complete mistake. Nobody elected those two NY liberals, along with all the wall street liberals they brought in to dominate Trump's cabinet. This article is spot on, if Trump wants his support back, he needs to send Jared and Ivanka packing, and get his Nationalist agenda back on board ASAP.

    [Jun 03, 2017] Treason To What Im With The Russians, They Hate Us Less Than The Media Does!

    Notable quotes:
    "... I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." ..."
    "... Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries. ..."
    "... I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent! ..."
    "... The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her. ..."
    "... "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt." ..."
    Jun 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Of course, this begs an obvious question. Traitor to what? In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos , history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?

    The open celebration of what any other generation would have called "treason" reveals how fully self-discrediting is the Russian "interference" narrative. John Harington famously quipped: "Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason." The "Russian interference" narrative is false because the fact it can be loudly denounced without being shut down for being the equivalent of "racist" or "xenophobic" shows Russia isn't very powerful within our government and society.

    In contrast, our government and media seem to not only tolerate openly subversive or even hostile actions by foreign governments against the United States, but celebrate them.

    Consider:

    To criticize any of these countries, or to suggest dual loyalty on the part of their supporters in this country, is political death. Of course, that is because such dual loyalty is sufficiently strong that it is dangerous to broach the topic.

    Indeed, for some in our Congress, dual loyalty would be a massive improvement.

    The only reason we can't call men like these traitors is because there's no evidence they ever considered themselves Americans in any meaningful way. What could be more ridiculous than considering Chuck Schumer "a fellow American" with some imaginary "common interest" he shares with me?

    Or take certain Main Stream Media figures. Bill Maher wants to Democrats to ask if you are with "us or the Russians". [ Maher: I want Democrats to say "You're Either With Us Or With The Russians ," by Ian Hanchett, Breitbart, May 12, 2017] Maher naturally delights in Open Borders for America and the replacement of our own population, but has spoken in the past about how "Israel faces the problem of becoming a minority Jewish state within their own country". [ Bill Maher on Israel, uncut and uncensored , by Danielle Berrin, Jewish Journal, November 29, 2017]

    It's not double loyalty; that would be giving Maher too much credit. And it's not treason, because Maher just isn't part of my people, by his own standards. When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.

    I'm with the Russians.

    After all, "treason" requires not just providing "aid and comfort" to a foreign nation, but to an enemy. Why exactly is Russia an enemy of the United States ?

    It's not Russia which makes claims on our territory . It's not Russia which funds extremist networks. It's not Russia which is deliberately sending terrorists into the West.

    Of course, there is a Trump associate who has disturbing ties with a country doing just that. The main focus of the investigation into "Russian collusion" is focusing on former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn . But Flynn's strongest ties to a foreign power seem to be to be increasingly extreme and anti-European Turkey of the autocrat Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Incredibly, Flynn even wrote an editorial demanding more support for Turkey on election day itself. [ Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support , by Michael Flynn, The Hill, November 8, 2016]

    As Turkey is quite openly facilitating the migrant invasion of Europe and helping ISIS, there's a far better case to claim our NATO "ally" is a threat than Russia. And yet Flynn's ties to Turkey go all but unmentioned outside evangelical Christian websites [ Best-selling author predicted Flynn's departure , WND, February 14, 2017]. The MSM is utterly indifferent to Flynn's ties to Erdogan, even when they seem to be utterly dedicated to destroying General Flynn personally.

    Part of it simply could be the defense industry and the "Deep State" need an enemy with a powerful conventional military to justify their wealth and power. As it can't be China (that would be racist), Russia will do.

    The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat. Russia is funding, or at least is tied to, several alternative media sources such as RT, possibly Wikileaks, Sputnik etc. Contrary to MSM claims, RT is hardly friendly to the "Alt-Right," instead promoting progressive hosts such as Thom Hartmann. But there is at least a slightly different point of view than the monolithic Narrative promoted on every late night comedy show, network news broadcast, cable news broadcast, newspaper headline, and Establishment website [ The Hard Road For Putin , by Gregory Hood, Radix, July 22, 2014].

    There is also an undeniable, and openly articulated , sense of racial hatred expressed against Russians by Jewish members of the media. Russians are hated both as a specific ethnos and as a white nation which does not seem to be fully committed to "our values," which, as defined by Weimerica's journalist class, consists of various forms of degeneracy. [ Welcome to Weimerica , by Ryan Landry, Daily Caller, May 5, 2017]. John Winthrop's "City Upon A Hill" we are not.

    It's not just idiotic but obscene that the same journalists gleefully involved in deconstructing the American identity now demand Middle America rally round the flag out of some misplaced Cold War nostalgia. Needless to say, these same journalists loved Russia back when it was Communist and killing millions of Orthodox Christians.

    For immigration patriots, it's especially obnoxious because the eradication of the American identity is a result of mass immigration. And immigration is more important than every other issue for two reasons.

    Ignoring immigration ensures no problem can ever be solved; indeed that every problem consistently gets worse.

    ORDER IT NOW

    To take just one example, Americans are sent all over the world to die because "we have to fight them there so they don't come here"; and then our government goes out of its way to bring terrorists here . And of course, as more problems are imported, the managerial class obtains more power to govern social relations and its own power grows . This is why it is hard to believe those who support Open Borders are actually working to defend the national interest in good faith.

    But the second reason is even more important:

      Immigration cuts to the heart of what a country is, of who you mean when you say "my people." Are Americans still one people? Indeed, it's hard to claim America is even a geographic expression: referring to the United States shorthand as "America" is now designated as offensive . The replacement of existing American citizens is celebrated by the media and funded by our own government.

    And even citizenship means nothing, The MSM constantly promotes Jose Antonio Vargas and his illegal friends or the protesters who parade under foreign flags not just as "Americans" but as people somehow more American than us.

    It's a strange definition of patriotism where wanting peaceful relations with Russia is "treason" but banning the American flag in public schools because it might offend Mexicans is government policy .

    Naturally, Leftist intellectuals and the reporters who parrot their ideas do have some vague idea of "American" identity-that of a "proposition" or "universal" nation which exists only to fight a global struggle for equality [ Superpowers , by James Kirkpatrick, NPI, June 24, 2013].

    But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"

    Actually, you can. If you are part of the historic American nation, one of those European-Americans who actually think of this country as a real nation with a real culture, you are in a strange way the only people left out of what it means to be a modern "American." To consider America a particular place with a specific culture and history that not everyone in the world can join simply by existing is treason to a "universal nation." Everyone in the world can be an "American," except, you know, actual Americans.

    This is why the MSM is insistent that the governing philosophy of " America First ," which should simply be a truism for any rational American government, is instead something subversive and dangerous .

    The hard truth is that "our" rulers aren't the guardians of our sovereignty, but the greatest threat to our independence.

    And this isn't an unprecedented circumstance in history. During the Napoleonic occupation of Prussia, Carl von Clausewitz violated his king's orders to join the invasion of Russia and instead joined the Tsar's forces in the hope of someday liberating his own country. After all, it wasn't Tsar Alexander that was occupying Prussia; it was Napoleon. And in the end, he won, Prussia was restored, and eventually it was Prussia that would unite all of Germany.

    The same situation applies today. Today, those actively pursuing the destruction of my people, culture and civilization aren't in Moscow. I don't even concede those are enemies at all.

    Our enemies are in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles, in "our" own media companies, government bureaucracies and intelligence agencies.

    The real America is under occupation – and resistance to collaborators is patriotism to our country. We elected Donald Trump because we thought he could help disrupt and perhaps even end that occupation so we could have a country once again.

    The attempt to destroy the President has ripped the mask off the forces behind this occupation . And we owe no loyalty to the collaborators who are trying to destroy his administration, dispossess our people, and destroy our country.

    Because in the end, "treason" to the occupation is loyalty to America.

    Mulegino1 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT

    I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism."

    Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves. Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 9:25 am GMT

    This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign at all. PeakStupidity here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone .. Buehler?

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 16, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

    "I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University." - Buckley

    We'd also be better off governed by names from the Moscow phone book than by the New York Times and Washington Post.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 17, 2017 at 3:00 am GMT

    @Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies...

    Just a reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@ http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html ):

    "It's not merely that [Jacob] Schiff wielded enormous power, but rather the fact that his actions, more so than anyone else's, fundamentally altered the course of American history. Schiff was really the first true Jewish Mega-Mogul of the whole United States (Judah Benjamin had previously run the confederacy). As the first, Schiff, more than anyone who followed him, was able to leverage his power into eternity. That is why the MVZ award must go to him .

    Schiff hated Christian Russia with a passion. He worked ceaselessly to overthrow the Romanov Dynasty and replace it with Jewish Reds / Communists. Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War. As a result, the war ended with a Japanese victory. Russia's loss was also facilitated by Schiff's boy, President (and also a former New York Governor) Teddy Roosevelt*, whose negotiating intervention clearly favored Japan over Russia

    (* Roosevelt became President after the conservative William McKinley was conveniently assassinated by aPolish[?]-American anarchist Leon Czolgosz, Teddy being conveniently Vice-President. Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy when the first false-flag incident of the USS Maine occured, later on followed by the Lusiatania – when FD Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy- and Pearl Harbour).

    "Schiff's Jewish agents in Russia skillfully used the humiliating loss of the Russo-Japanese war as an occasion to launch a Communist revolution. The bloody Revolution of 1905 ultimately failed, but the Tsar's regime was left considerably weakened. Many of the returning Russian POW's came home brainwashed after Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity. The final Bolshevik overthrow of Russia in 1917 will owe its success, in large part, to the damage done to Russia by the team of Jacob Schiff & Ted the Red Roosevelt on 1905.

    President William H. Taft proved to be a Constitutional Conservative, and not a big government "progressive" like his predecessor Teddy Roosevelt. But what really angered Jacob Schiff most of all was Taft's refusal, told to Schiff in person, to dampen trade relations with Tsarist Russia*. According to Henry Ford's sources, Schiff and his entourage left the White House saying. "This means war .

    [*Schiff imposed also the abrogation of the Russian American Trade Treaty of 1832 in 1911, first instance of 'sanctions' motivated by the 'ill-treatement' of Jews in Russia (actually of the Jews emigrated to America returning to Russia holding American passports and engaged in subversive activities)].

    "In order to oust the popular Republican Taft in 1912, Schiff and company recruited Teddy Roosevelt to run for President again, as a third party challenger. This maneuver split the Republican vote in two, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to steal the Presidency. Wilson's Jewish owned presidency would turn out to be disastrous for America, and the world (The Fed, World War I, Russian Revolution, Jewish foothold in Palestine, Depression of 1919-1920)

    As was the case during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, the chaos of World War I enabled the Communists (Bolsheviks) to stage another uprising in 1917. Leading the diabolical efforts was Jacob Schiff's loyal agent, Leon Trotsky, freshly reestablished in Russia after having hidden in Brooklyn for the past decade. The Tsar had been forced to abdicate earlier that same year. The provisional government would then be overthrown by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks.

    The following year, Schiff's agents murdered the Tsar and his entire family. The reign of terror that the Soviets then ushered in would plague humanity for decades to come. Scores of millions would be murdered! And it could never have happened without the tireless leadership of Rothschild, Schiff and their Junior partners.
    Soon after the Revolution, Schiff removed Russia (now the Soviet Union) from his "do-not-lend list".

    Just for a little 'piquant'. The granddaughter of Jacob, Dorothy, had a 'relationship' (which detractors called an 'affair') with Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    Priss Factor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:45 am GMT

    Deep State should just be called the Sewer. At least a swamp is a natural eco-system. Deep State is a man-made Sewer, the Bowel of Power.

    wayfarer , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:57 am GMT

    "Let's Connect the Dots!" https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513

    Priss Factor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman "

    ... No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.
    Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany, but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also, the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.

    Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.

    So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass control of much of Russian resources.
    And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin winning another term.

    Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland for Jewish lawyers in love'.

    So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty. They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.

    So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent, defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support for Putin in Russia.

    In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.

    Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion) than with their own hurting kind.

    These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity. Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the Glob Virus.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT

    Many USA jews, and rabbis, were against Zionism because the USA was the new Zion. Henry Ford around 1918 began to see the increase of jewish power in the USA, and began resistance.

    Around 1933 world jewry accomplished a world wide boycott of Ford cars, and Ford gave up. Trump, though he has many close jewish contacts, is not the puppet of the neocons. Hillary is. So Deep State wants to get rid of Trump,in order to continue their plans to subjugate the whole world, the globalised world, where all cultures have disappeared, the whole world one big USA clone.

    FKA Max , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:44 am GMT

    High-quality TV with Victor Davis Hanson and Tucker Carlson:

    Inside Dems' 'big lie' about Trump and Russia

    Published on May 18, 2017

    Historian dissects 'boogeyman of Russian collusion' that Democrats and the media cling to in quest to get Pres. Trump out of office #Tucker

    This is a very welcome new development for the Alt Right:

    Tucker Carlson's Reinvention
    [...]
    We've become fans of the show in this household even though we consume far more more information from the internet than cable television. He's reaching an audience which normally doesn't watch FOX News.

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-battles-of-berkeley-someone-is-going-to-get-killed-where-is-trump/#comment-1845245

    Hillary's Neoliberals

    http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/hillarys-neoliberals/

    Apart from opportunistic careerism, the subtext to this realignment is a larger issue of culture, education, and class. A mostly urban, highly educated, and high-income globalized elite often shares more cultural and political affinities with their counterparts on the other side of the aisle than they do with the lower-middle and working classes of their own countries.

    Just as Hillary Clinton may feel more comfortable with the old neoconservatives, Trump supporters have little in common with either Clintonites or neocons.

    Clinton versus Trump is a war of NPR, CBS, and the New York Times against the National Enquirer, conservative talk radio, and the Drudge Report. Clinton supporters such as former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, onetime Bush officials Hank Paulson and Brent Scowcroft, and billionaire Meg Whitman certainly have nothing in common with Republican Trump supporters such as Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh.

    Culture, not just politics, is rapidly destroying - but also rebuilding - traditional political parties.

    Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT

    @Anon

    Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews – they are staffed and manned by the imported American Rabbis of Habad. Best and the choicest pieces of Russian municipal land are given to synagogues and Jewish cultural centres for free. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-russian-scare/

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    Zogby , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:44 am GMT

    I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!

    The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her.

    Take a recent incident The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov. McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been public for weeks. Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information. Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right! Go help somebody like that

    PiltdownMan , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 10:18 am GMT

    What Putin said yesterday.

    "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

    @Wally Moscow has 92 synagogues for less than a thousand practicing Jews ....

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:25 am GMT

    @Sebastian Puettmann Don't kid youselves.
    The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.
    He is just confused.

    The Russians hate you more than Keith Olberman.

    We all hate Keith Olberman, but the Russians don't get the same cable channels. Why would they hate Keith Olberman when he doesn't even come on TV there?

    Serg Derbst , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

    I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever.

    There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc.

    I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have.

    The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

    There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army – but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism – an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

    There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans.

    Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:55 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays.

    Communist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

    The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block, and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total madness.

    "Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience to even elaborate thereon.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia. You are making several good points, but I won't hit the 'agree' button, because I agree with the Priss Factor's reply to your main points.

    Again, it is amusing that you post the same potted description of you on every post.

    If you post under a pseudonym and won't identify your 'authentic jazz', you may be wiser to drop the claims.

    Just leave the occasional incidental.

    Nice to see you making a post that makes much sense, though.

    neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT

    @Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

    Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. A typical cuckservative response, how about you respond to what this article is about. The facts are absolutely clear the greatest enemies are those that exist in America, they have been mentioned in this article, your obsession with Russia is not going to deflect from this fact.

    Its rather simple, Ukraine is not American, despite all your stupid domino theories yourwill no doubt bring up, on the other hand extremists like Olberman openly support mass non white immigration into the USA, what would any reasonable nationalist think is the bigger issue.

    Anonymous , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT

    @Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. The Russians have never been our enemies. The Soviet behemoth may have harnessed the captive Russian bear, but, to paraphrase St. Paul, "Our battle was not with flesh and blood Russians but with the the powers and principalities of international Jewry and its ugly and deadly spawn, Judeo-Communism." Once it cast off those chains, Russia became a natural ally of the American people, but not, of course, of the Atlanticist Zionist empire which the American deep state serves.

    Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Here's a 1200-page read for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.

    The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. [20 mb PDF file]d

    neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT

    @Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

    There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army - but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

    There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans. I partially agree with you on the identity thing, but on the other hand the American identity (I say this as a non American) was based on being white. There was the notable exception of the blacks, but they did not make up the majority of the population and their acceptance as being American was the exception more than the rule, their distinct culture added some spice to what was America, but nobody can seriously believe that if the USA was 90% black it would still be America.

    You also now have the situation that people arrive off planes from places like India, China or Somalia and are declared American, I find that ridiculous. Sadly this is no longer a problem only in America, its the same in Sweden, France, Germany, UK, etc, they all have made what being a people is completely meaningless.

    Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT

    @Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

    There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas .

    Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them.

    That is a very strange assertion, as are many of your others. Strong evidence has been widely reported about the gas attack while Obama was Prex of the USA having had a Turkish connection.

    Erdogan imprisoned many reporters on this and other ties with al Qaeda and the Islamic state.

    It is easy to look up.

    Assad is an idiot.

    He was a respected opthalmolagist in London for years, testimonials from former (British) patients are not hard to find. Opthalmology may not be the most demanding medical speciality, but it is up there, and is not a nest of idiots.

    If you want to see an idiot, you may try the mirror.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT

    @Serg Derbst I agree with the sentiment, but disagree with the idea that America had ever once been "one people". It was always a divided, segregated, even deeply racist society and its elites have always propagated that division as much as they have always waged war against whom ever. There have been lynch mobs and progroms not just against the usual suspects (blacks and jews), but also against Germans, Irish, Polish, Italians etc. I think there might be Anglo-American, Irish-American, Italian-American or African-American identities, but there never was a true American identity similar to what Germans, French, Russians or even Canadians have. The reason is first the divide and conquer managed by the elites and second that American society is a dog eat dog society of constant competition. Also Americans see "freedom" as being independent as individual or family, while Europeans consider "freedom" as a form of being part of and embedded in a social group, so that people tended to remain within their ethnicity. It was always more patchwork than melting pot. Historically I'm sure the Civil War with its massive massacres did its part as well.

    There has always been American patriotism based on the flag, the constitution and the army - but that is too superficial and too little to form a cultural identity. The American Dream has always just been a dream, an imagination, something unreal, and the American way of life? Consumerism, materialism, hedonism - an identity based on stuffing yourself with food and buying as many material goods as you can? Nah, that's a form of behavior formed by advertisement, but not an identity either.

    There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it. But maybe the coming massive crisis with possible famines and even civil war will create exactly that. Nothing binds people together more than common sorrow. Ask the Russians or the Germans.

    There never has been a true, culturally ingrained and psychologically deep American identity. I don't see it.

    and, with a name like Serb, I can see why. Why are you writing about something that you obviously (from your racism drivel in the 1st paragraph) know not a damn thing about?

    You are an prime example of the data points we at PeakStupidity use to prove that America and the West has arrived at a global maximum.

    Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT

    Apr 6, 2016 Fascism, American Style

    The United States of America, that dream of what a democratic republic ought to be, has become the Fascist States of America. As the 2016 elections have more than revealed, we have moved beyond the era of representative government and have entered into a new age. You can call it the age of authoritarianism. Or fascism. Or oligarchy. Either way, argues John W. Whitehead, we are being played for fools.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT

    @Mulegino1 I concur completely. The Russians are not our enemies. ....

    Orthodox Christian Russia and the United States had a true compatibility of interests, until the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Stalin was our enemy, a Roosevelt creation.
    He died in 1953, probably murdered.
    Then the threat was over, those that did nog believe it should have realised it when Chrustjow removed his rockets and atomic warheads from Cuba.
    But the USA went on with the madness of possible mutual destruction, I suppose in the hope that the cost of the war effort would cause the collapse of the USSR.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT

    @Anonymous Here's a 1200-page read for you. It's from a traditionalist Catholic perspective.

    The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and its Impact on World History by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D. [20 mb PDF file]d Did you read it ?
    If you did, is there the theory that christianity was a Roman invention, brought by Paul, to undermine jewish power ?

    countenance , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:05 pm GMT

    But can you betray a "proposition nation?" How exactly does someone turn against a "universal nation?"

    By disagreeing with the proposition.

    Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    @Seraphim @the advent of Roosevelt I and his war party of would be empire builders. Just a reminder of who made Teddy. Everybody knows by now (a short overview@http://www.tomatobubble.com/id695.html) ....

    I had never heard of that before.

    It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40 years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.

    The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly misfired on their intentions.

    So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?

    It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later but a joke version "was"founded earlier, perhaps that has a connection.

    A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.

    The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria, how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero (and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military perspective).

    Linda Green , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    @Achmed E. Newman This kind of purposeful switching of truth for lies and lies for truth, described excellently here by Mr. Kirkpatrick ( of VDare! ) is straight outta the Bible, and that's not a good sign at all. PeakStupidity here is on the search for the passage in question. Anyone, anyone ..... Buehler? Isiah 5:20:

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

    There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

    @ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all? @What has changed in 2000 years?

    A steady Judaization of Christianity. They are no more Christians.

    Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT

    Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad! Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell – Aug 8 – Charlie Rose

    John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT

    @Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

    Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.

    The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies, radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American friendship would have many other benefits – boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China, and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe.

    John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

    @Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

    There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT

    @Che Guava

    Toward that end, he personally financed, and sold bonds on behalf of, about 50% of the entire Japanese war effort during the Russo-Japanese War.
    Much of what you are saying I had read in passing (interesting post), but that is interesting to me. Do you have a pointer to something I could read on it, preferably on the 'net or a book in Japanese (also the below).
    Schiff had arranged for Communist propaganda to be given to them while in Japanese captivity.
    I had never heard of that before.

    It is irony on at least two levels, the treatment of the Japanese P.o.W.s from Manchuria, 40 years later, included much Communist indoctrination, although that was the time of the nadir of Jewish Bolshevism, I am quite sure that demoted Jewish officials would have been in charge of the Siberian prison camps where P.o.Ws from Japan were.

    The other irony is the German High Command's use of Lenin as a kind of human bomb that spectacularly misfired on their intentions.

    So, you are saying that Japan tried the same thing 12 years earlier, on a smaller scale?

    It is an interesting idea, but foundation of the JCP was later ... but a joke version "was"founded earlier, perhaps that has a connection.

    A comment not connected to this thread, some idiot on another claiming knowledge said that the victory in the Russo-Japanese war is not commemorated here. It is a lie.

    The order is, how we were victimised by cruel bombings and having soldiers imprisoned in Manchuria, how we were great to invade China and other places, the technical genius of the Mitsubisi Zero (and I am to fully agreeing with that one), the sadness of the Special Attack Forces, and how clever was Admiral Togo in the Russo-Japanese war (also to agreeing with that, just from a military perspective). You will find it in:

    Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership

    https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=0874519489

    Naomi Wiener Cohen – 1999 , p.137

    It actually refers to an article in New York Times of March 24, 1917 – "KENNAN RETELLS HISTORY Relates How Jacob H. Schiff Financed Revolution Propaganda in Czar's Army".
    @ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E05E4DB143AE433A25757C2A9659C946696D6CF&legacy=true

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:49 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!

    Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose

    https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT

    @John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. Raegan never made any mistake: 'he slept through it all'.

    Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

    @Anon Shamir is an inveterate liar and the figure of 90+ synagogues in Moscow is fraudulent. Still in denial we see.

    Mark Green , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

    Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.

    It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.

    Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast–not Russia–that gets to graze unmolested throughout Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.

    This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state. This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.

    Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed. It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.

    Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel–not Russia–that has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.

    And it is Israel–not Russia–that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.

    Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.

    Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military power.

    Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white) multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.

    Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.

    US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing venom.

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT

    @John Gruskos Trump doesn't "have" to do any such thing.

    The Russians in Syria are protecting Christians, and they are fighting against our worst enemies, radical Sunni jihadists such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    In addition to defeating Al-Qaeda and protecting Middle Eastern Christians, Russian-American friendship would have many other benefits - boosting American exports, balancing the rise of China, and cooperating to end the migrant invasion of Europe. Your benefits are to Deep State horrible losses.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

    The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence. It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.

    Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks. It really is a mental illness at this point.

    They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor, but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT

    @Linda Green Isiah 5:20:

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

    There are similar passages elsewhere but I think this is the most commonly cited. Thank you very much, Linda! I know there are plenty of search tools and places to search on-line, but I didn't have the wording right.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

    @John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in trusting members of the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal – though, I grant you, any amnesty was a bad deal for Americans. Here is more regarding Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco.

    neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT

    @John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. With that amnesty he could never win any vote California if he existed now, this the problem with all these cuck types, they all want to believe in the magic dirt of America that somehow they will have another Reagan one day, this will never happen and Reagan shares part of the blame.

    Anonymous , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 5:39 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Aug 9, 2016 Kill Russians, kill Iranians, scare Assad!

    Ex CIA deputy Mike Morell - Aug 8 - Charlie Rose

    https://youtu.be/UZK2FZGKAd0 Do you think think this middling intellect, son of an autoworker from Akron, Ohio with a degree in accounting from U. of Akron, realizes he's only a useful goyim tool and has no real power??

    jilles dykstra , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:06 pm GMT

    @Mark Green Thank you, James Kirkpatrick, for another excellent article. Some of the hyperlinks in his essay however seem not to be functioning properly.

    It's heartening to see Kirkpatrick finally explore (though gingerly) the Jewish angle to the never-ending chain of Trump-loathing 'experts' and Russia-hating politicians. Indeed, it is the Israel factor that remains the most potent as well as the most sacrosanct element in this fake drama about US secrets and 'compromised' national security.

    Indeed, it is the marauding kosher beast--not Russia--that gets to graze unmolested throughout Washington while smaller, non-threatening animals are hunted down and slaughtered.

    This top-down smoke and fog and hysteria suggests that America is no longer a sovereign state. This is true. But Russia has nothing to do with our nation's loss of self-rule. All this malarky about Putin's interference in our presidential election is a media-orchestrated farce. America should actually be aligned with Christian Russia, not engaged in damaging the Russian economy via sanctions or marching NATO up to its doorstep. But the warmongering and the deceptions about Russia, as well as the special treatment accorded Israel, continues.

    Thus the MSM shrieks endlessly about non-existent Russian subversion but deliberately looks away when Israeli interference in US elections is operating and evident and functioning as designed. It's fake news about what is fast becoming a fake, lobotomized, Zionized nation.

    Big media beats its chest over compromised US intelligence, yet it is nuclear Israel--not Russia--that has apparent access to raw US intelligence like no other foreign state.

    And it is Israel--not Russia--that routinely steers America into needless conflicts against the foes of Zionism, even though these small, distant counties (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon) seek no war with Washington and pose no threat to the American people.

    Trump, for all his subservient, pro-Israel posturing (not to mention his needless attack on Assad's Syria) remains too white, too independent, too 'old America' for his Jewish overlords or for the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. This is why Trump must go.

    Just as Mel Gibson will always be radioactive in Hollywood for making accurate remarks about Jews being in the center of most European wars, Trump let the cat out of the bag by suggesting that Washington's serial warfare in the Middle East is "not in our national interest". The truthfulness of his simple observation rendered Trump a long-term threat to Israel's special status in America as well as Israel's unannounced goal of upending and reshaping the Middle East via US military power.

    Even though Trump has recently changed course, his patriotic and nationalistic messages linger in the mind. If acted upon, Trump's campaign promises pose a threat to 1) increased (non-white) multiculturalism inside America and 2) more wars against Israel's enemies abroad. The Zions don't like this brand of nativism one bit. That political highway is reserved for Israelis, not Americans.

    Most importantly, Israel and crypto-Israelis inside Washington remain committed to smashing the alliance between Iran, Syria and Russia. This requires a subservient president. Trump's erratic conduct and rhetoric endangers this Israeli objective. This animates the anti-Trump coup now underway.

    US-based Israelis believe that VP Pence is a far more reliable Christian Zionist than the bombastic and unpredictable 'America First' president. This is why Trump is being targeted with such unceasing venom. If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
    USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
    All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.

    What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
    The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
    What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.

    Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making America great again', not very clear to me.
    A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they knew, or want.
    Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
    And hostility to establishment politicians.

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT

    I have 0 allegiance to the Maxine Waters Negro Democratic Party the party of Negros Sihks .Chinese Koreans MS-13 Mexican Zetas

    I believe in strong Native Born White American Christian Solidarity with Euro-Christian Russia

    If Donald Trump goes to war against Christian Russia .I will go into battle with Christian Russia ..against the Maxine Waters Negro Democratic Party .

    The Civil War was a terrible mistake .the Negro wasn't worth it .

    Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT

    @wayfarer "Let's Connect the Dots!"

    https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/17/lets-connect-the-dots/#more-150513 Leon Czolgosz was not Polish.

    He was a Jew whose family lived in Poland for a few generations and then moved to Anerica. He was a follower of Emma Goldberg and Alexander Berkman who thanks be to God were deported back to Russia just in time to participate in the revolution.

    Buzz Mohawk , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT

    100% Correct! Thanks go to Mr. Kirkpatrick for writing this and to Mr. Unz for putting it here.

    Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

    Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only qualification that they are not White.

    Steve Naidamast , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:38 pm GMT

    I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

    To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

    No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

    Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

    As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

    Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

    Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

    America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

    There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes .

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT

    @Wally Still in denial we see. That's not an argument. You are parroting Shamir, who said something that he never bothered to prove. Can you prove it?

    Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT

    @Achmed E. Newman I agree with your point, John, but would like to say that Ronald Reagan's mistake with the amnesty of 1986 was in trusting members of the US Congress , not so much what should have been a 1-time deal - though, I grant you, any amnesty was a bad deal for Americans. Here is more regarding Reagan's regrets on that whole fiasco. A decade before he even ran for governor Reagan was spotted by DART industries and other cut throat capitalists who wanted to reverse every gain the working class made in the 20th century.

    Reagan's backers knew that the easiest way to do this was to import millions of legal and illegal immigrants to replace Americans in every job from physician to dishwasher.

    So Reagan CLAIMED to regret his amnesty after the damage was done. There is an old French saying.

    "Don't listen to what he says, look at what he does."

    That's what I do. I look beyond the rehetoric and look at what is done. Reagan betrayed his working and middle class White voters with amnesty and making affirmative action worse.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT

    @Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

    Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. " because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine"

    Since then the UnzReview has become a platform for the Kagans' clan propaganda? The data on three (3) referenda have shown that Crimeans wanted a greater autonomy from Kiev long before the US-sponsored thugs of neo-Nazi leaning followed cookie-carrying Nuland-Kagan towards the "bright future" of today's economic and moral decline in Ukraine. Are not you longing for more auto-da-fe in Odessa, which was conducted by neo-Nazis battalion Azov in 2014? At that time the battalion was financed by an Israeli citizen and pillar of Jewish community of Ukraine Mr. Kolomojsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeguAaPYKU8
    It is understandable why Israel-firsters hate Russian federation; the russkies dared to stop the advance of ISIS in a great game for Eretz Israel and other attractive mythological trinkets of supremacist kind.
    When the US and EU are hollowed out by your insatiable tribe, where would the "eternal victims" have to go? To Rothschild bunkers?

    Alden , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:19 pm GMT

    @Zogby I believe Trump when he says he's not a Russian agent. The Russians would never employ such an erratic and unpredictable individual as an agent!

    The Russians were against Hillary, not for Trump. They couldn't be sure what Trump would do anymore than anyone else could. With Hillary they could be sure, and they had every reason to be against her.

    Take a recent incident...

    The NYT publishes a smear story accusing Trump of revealing classified information to Lavrov.

    McMaster and other American officials present in the meeting rush to deny that Trump reveal classified information, and only mentioned things about the laptop scare that had already been public for weeks.

    Putin follows by offering to send Congress the Russian transcript of the meeting to show Trump didn't reveal any classified information.

    Then Trump goes on Twitter: Of course I revealed classified information! I'm the President and it's my right!

    Go help somebody like that... Actually it's true. The president, not state or justice and certainly not the liberal press is completely in charge of foreign affairs and the President can classify or not classify any and all information.

    Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

    @Anon That's not an argument. You are parroting Shamir, who said something that he never bothered to prove. Can you prove it? I have.

    It's noted that you predictably ignored:

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    And you will most certainly ignore:

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    and:
    The Zionist attempt to control language.
    The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
    and:
    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
    and:
    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
    and:
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

    Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
    and:
    Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
    and:
    IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
    Read more: http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 7:33 pm GMT

    @Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

    To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

    No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

    Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

    As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

    Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

    Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

    America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

    There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes....

    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was.

    As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics of the people.

    American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.

    The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:30 pm GMT

    I just got out of the car after listening to the vomitorium NPR's daily short-stroke session with Brooks and Dudiowhocares how the weasel spells his fairy-sounding name. It's interesting, listening to a Jew (I could be wrong, but it's NPR, so probably not) interview a Jew pretending to be an Anglo Conservative, and a goy leftist that I find indistinguishable from a Brooklyn Jew. Anyhoo, between tossing each other off, Brooks (loyalty: Israel, his son serves in the IDF FFS) called Russia our "adversary." You know it's a lie when the media says it. Did NPR's pet "Conservatives" refer to the Soviet Union as our "adversary"?

    Media = scum. Otherwise, they couldn't get work in that business.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:42 pm GMT

    P.S., a giant AMEN to every word of this piece, Kirkpatrick. Bravo.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT

    Kneel before Zog.

    Indeed. Many years ago, I used terms like "ZOG" only with emotional trepidation. That is long since gone. Now the trepidation is entirely practical; it puts off the idiots we need to get through to. It is an entirely accurate term for the regime.

    No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.

    After Stalin, the Russians removed Jews (and many other aliens) from their former heights of power in the USSR. That didn't win them any (((friends))). More to the point, Putin brought (((the oligarchs))) to heel, and reversed all their (((important work))). That's when the (((hate))) really started for Russia.

    It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'.

    That's leftism.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

    @Wally I have.

    It's noted that you predictably ignored:

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    And you will most certainly ignore:

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    and:
    The Zionist attempt to control language.
    The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
    and:
    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
    and:
    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
    and:
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

    Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
    and:
    Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
    and:
    IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
    Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.

    Also, you dodged:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-hazards-of-military-worship/#comment-1874540

    Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

    When Bill Maher refers to "us," I know that doesn't include me or my readers, and I know "the Russians" hate me a lot less than he does.

    I'm with the Russians.

    count me as also with the Russians

    Bill Maher is a sewer rat*

    great article

    enjoyed the comments
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    *apologies to real sewer rats for the comparison

    Wally , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:23 pm GMT

    @Anon You proved nothing about 90+ synagogues in Moscow. You only parroted Shamir. For all I know the rest of your claim might be right. I don't know one way or the other whether your other links are right, nor do I care. That's why I didn't respond to them, nor am I under any compulsion to.

    Also, you dodged:

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-hazards-of-military-worship/#comment-1874540

    Because you're wrong and are too much an intellectual cripple to admit it. And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.

    I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.

    How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!!

    Wally , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:28 pm GMT

    @Anon The real reason is that the Russians are a convenient cover-up for Democratic incompetence. It is an alternate reality to convince the base and the sponsors that Hillary lost the election because she was co-opted by the Red Tide.

    Dems really think that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the DNC emails and give it to Wikileaks. It really is a mental illness at this point.

    They wanted Comey fired, but when Trump did it, it was obstruction. They wanted a Special Prosecutor, but now are worried that he may not find anything. They believe the incessant hysteria is whipping up their base and will guarantee the House in the 2018 election. Hope they crash and burn in 2018. Exactly, good point.

    Like when Zionists claim that scrutiny of the '6M Jews, 5M other & gas chambers' is hateful to Jews.
    Forgetting that making such claims in the first place is hateful to Germans and to Gentiles who Jews claim 'let it happen'.

    KenH , Show Comment Next New Comment May 19, 2017 at 11:31 pm GMT

    Count me with the Russians, too. Non self hating whites in America are stateless and behind enemy lines. We are told the nation belongs to every racial and religious group except those of the founding racial stock (Christian or not). We have laws promoting and protecting most non-white racial groups at the expense of the white majority. Our history is being rewritten to cast aspersions on our founding and villainize great white men who built America while lionizing non-whites who did next to nothing.

    (((Hollywood))) movies and television shows depict whites as either corrupt, vapid, moronic or untrustworthy compared to non-whites and generally dehumanize us and foment racial hatred against us. The golden rule in politics is that white politicians are strictly forbidden from acknowledging whites as a group let alone show any sympathy or compassion for them or working on their behalf. Donald Trump has only done so half heartedly and implicitly and he's derided as a white supremacist 24/7 and as "un-American" while facing calls to resign simply for enforcing immigration laws and failing to take a wrecking ball to the last vestiges of the old, white America.

    This is conquest and occupation, not progress as the (((authors))) of all these trends inform us. With a straight face. Everything most of us loved and held dear has been destroyed by the JOG and remade in their vile image and likeness.

    Therefore, if Putin were to invade the U.S. this would be cause for celebration for the embattled and shrinking white majority. We would have nothing to lose. This nation betrayed us long ago and no longer deserves our loyalty, support or affection.

    The pot bellied, "race doesn't matter" patriotards and antifa scumbags can have it.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:09 am GMT

    @Wally And that's why I have beaten you in every debate. The list is rather large as I'm sure you remember.

    I dodged nothing because I saw nothing.

    How's your "English Literature" class going? LOL!! You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:12 am GMT

    @Priss Factor The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays. Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

    No, Jews fell out of love with communism once they became increasingly successful with capitalism. Also, even leftist Jews came to see the failure of communism in Cuba and Vietnam. And when the truth came out about Mao's crimes and the greater success of China under capitalism, most Jews lost faith in communism.
    Some still had nostalgia for Old Idealism and did credit USSR for having defeated Nazi Germany, but few Jews were communist by the 80s when Soviet Union entered into its death throes. Also, the New Left of the 60s was more about drugs and rock n roll than revolution.

    Also, the Soviet Union became gentile-dominated by the late 30s, and after WWII, especially as Zionists in Israel chose US over USSR, Jews came under increasing suspicion and even discrimination in the communist world. Initially, Stalin installed many Jewish communists in Eastern European nations, but after the fallout over Israel, many were purged as 'Zionists'.

    So, most Jews welcomed the fall of the USSR. If anything, Jews used finance-capitalism to amass control of much of Russian resources.
    And in the 90s, most powerful Jews did everything in their power to make sure the Russian Communist Party would not be come to power. They pulled every dirty trick in the book to ensure Yeltsin winning another term.
    Those were the good ole days for Jews in Russia. And if they had been less greedy, they may have kept the power. But they grabbed too much loot and turned a blind eye to all the suffering, and this gave an opening to the Russian nationalists(mild though they may be). Mild nationalists like Putin didn't purge Jews, but he sent a message that Russia would no longer be a 'vacationland for Jewish lawyers in love'.
    So, Jews tried various means to crack Russian nationalism, neo-traditionalism, and sovereignty. They used Pussy Riot and Homomania. They didn't work.

    So, the main reason for anti-Russianism has nothing to do with communism. The problem for Jews is that Russia rejects globalism or at least globalist domination. Jewish power is centered on globalism. Nationalism is anathema to Jews because it means that the national elites should represent, defend, and serve their national masses. All nations except Israel is majority gentile. So, nationalism makes national gentile elites grow closer to national gentile masses. This accounts for mass support for Putin in Russia.

    In contrast, under globalism, the national elites serve globalist elites than their national people, and that means national leaders serve Soros and his ilk than their own folk.

    Now, you'd think that the masses would rebel against the leaders if for treason, but Public Education and Pop Culture have brainwashed tons of masses too. Look at all the white dummies in the US who support globalism that is actually hurting them. And they would rather side with Diversity(invasion) than with their own hurting kind.

    These whites attack Trump for opposing mass invasion of the US by More Diversity.
    Why would they want to invaded and be made into a minority people? They've been mentally-colonized by the Glob Virus. 60′s Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

    The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
    Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic

    Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
    desires
    Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:55 am GMT

    @ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all? "Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? "

    Here we are.

    Don't look for leadership from the Whore of Babylon.
    All of these "hierarchical" churches are pyramids of power in the Beast System.

    Authority among men is on a level field; with the Word of God- Jesus of the scriptures- as King.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:01 am GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was.
    As most people understand the term, American identity refers to the racial and cultural characteristics of the people.

    American identity has, since the nation's inception, been chiefly European and Christian. Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education) and mass replacement immigration.

    The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people. Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"

    His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens. Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths. Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.

    "Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."

    Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?

    " mass replacement immigration."

    No.

    "The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people."

    There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point is tiresome to say the least.

    Wally , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:05 am GMT

    @Anon You clearly have no interest in debate. Challenged on an intellectual debate, you wilt. Enjoy yourself. Problem is that you're not an intellectual. Not in the slightest. Dream on.

    Che Guava , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 7:02 am GMT

    @jilles dykstra If any state in the world is sovereign it is the USA.
    USA military power, and political power still enable the USA to do as it pleases.
    All other states in the world are less sovereign, just because of USA power.

    What you write about is USA democracy, is what the USA does what the USA people want ?
    The election of Trump, though he did not get the popular vote, means in my opinion that a large part of the USA population is fed up with the establishment politicians.
    What USA citizens who did not vote want, I do not know, I wonder if anyone knows.

    Just now on Belgian tv was a report on USA citizens who are pro Trump, what they mean by 'making America great again', not very clear to me.
    A USA commentator stated that many Americans do not recognise the present USA as the USA they knew, or want.
    Mentioned was socialism: the welfare state, gays, migrants.
    And hostility to establishment politicians. By definition, since the polity of the USA is controlled by the Izzies, it can not be a sovereign state.

    It is a bizarre colonial posession of Israel. So, by your argument, Israel is the only truly sovereign state.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:05 am GMT

    @Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

    The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
    Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic...

    Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
    desires...
    Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.

    Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.

    Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent to be academic hack.

    Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore.

    Eonic , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:15 am GMT

    @Wally I have.

    It's noted that you predictably ignored:

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security
    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    And you will most certainly ignore:

    Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
    and:
    The Zionist attempt to control language.
    The Israel Project's 2009 GLOBAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARY
    https://www.transcend.org/tms/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/sf-israel-projects-2009-global-language-dictionary.pdf
    and:
    The commander behind the pro-Israel student troops on U.S. college campuses
    http://www.haaretz.com/misc/article-print-page//.premium-1.709014
    and:
    Israel tech site paying "interns" to covertly plant stories in social media
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-tech-site-paying-interns-covertly-plant-stories-social-media
    and:
    Israeli students to get $2,000 to spread state propaganda on Facebook
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-students-get-2000-spread-state-propaganda-facebook

    Not to mention that every US taxpayers "loan" that 'Israel' receives has never been paid back. The Israeli Occupied Congress curiously "forgives" all these huge debts. As if it wasn't assumed at the beginning.

    Jame Bamford of Wired subsequently reported that the NSA had hired secretive contractors with extensive ties to Israeli intelligence to establish 10 to 20 wiretapping rooms at key telecommunication points throughout the country."
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-impact-of-nsa-domestic-spying-2013-6#ixzz3NxPMujNo
    and:
    Two Secretive Israeli Companies Reportedly Bugged The US Telecommunications Grid For The NSA
    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/israelis-bugged-the-us-for-the-nsa-2013-6#ixzz3NxPnnUFg
    and:
    IDF Unit 8200 Cyberwar Veterans Developed NSA Snooping Technology
    Read more:http://www.richardsilverstein.com/2013/06/08/idf-unit-8200-cyberwar-veterans-developed-nsa-snooping-technology/

    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel
    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg In view of the contents of your last link, you may be interested in this : https://eonic1.wordpress.com/2016/09/20/the-dumb-american-poem/

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT

    @Stonehands 60's Leftism isn't as innocuous as you make it seem.

    The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions. Economic Marxism was abandoned for " Cultural" Marxism under the guise of New Age or Secular Humanism (the perennial religion e.g. satanism)
    Once the God of revealed religion is abandoned ( an all-knowing Judge/Creator) for the God of "me"-then it should come as no surprise that the people- especially the women- will become weak and pathetic...

    Weak in Spirit, surrendering to material
    desires...
    Succumbing to Jewish materialism instead of overcoming vice with Christian excellence. " An all-knowing judge/creator"

    Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
    So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
    Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
    Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT

    @Corvinus Mr. Kirkpatrick stated "In an "America" which no longer has a definable culture, language, ethnos, history, identity or rule of law, what is there left to betray?"

    His proceeding argument is built on a false premise. We clearly have these things. Then, we have you doubling down. The American identity refers to a host of traits that reflect its citizens. Initially, our nation was predicated on several European ethnic groups who held different faiths. Africans were imported. Tribal groups were removed by force for white settlement. Gradually, the Germans, the Irish, the Assyrians, the Mexicans, the Vietnamese, and the Nigerians immersed themselves into what is an American. We are a nation of mutts.

    "Today, the Euro-American Christian majority has been targeted for annihilation through reproductive dysfunction (induced by brainwashing aka state-directed education)."

    Did it ever occur to you that tens of millions of whites are other than brainwashed, that they created an educational system that represents their beliefs and values?

    "...mass replacement immigration."

    No.

    "The American governing elite, plutocracy, criminal conspiracy that is government, call it what you want, seeks to genocide the American people as it urges on the corrupt European elites to do the same to their people."

    There is observably no genocide taking place here in the States. Your Alt Right talking point is tiresome to say the least. I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

    As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So ..

    Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al

    Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 12:49 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra It is clear to me now that the CIA is a fascist led organisation, my definition of fascism being 'the use of power without any ideology'. Just keeping it real from inside the D.C. operations and from folk's in power!

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 1:40 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

    As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

    Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal .Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it

    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them they would view it as genocide

    America is not a proposition nation and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day 365 days a year as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class .Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions .and Rampage 82

    Paul Kersey

    Go by Rampage 82 my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands .my cousin committed suicide three years later .Oh my God what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's

    John Derbyshire

    I was just in Book Review this morning .there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82 " go by it read it ..

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT

    The alleged patriotism of the US Congress (and Olderman, Maddow, and other hysterical "progressives") and the reality of meddling into the US affairs, as documented by the facts:
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/19/the-open-secret-of-foreign-lobbying/
    "When AIPAC director Morris Amitay was caught red-handed mishandling classified missile secrets in 1975, he could have been prosecuted under FARA. When AIPAC and an Israeli diplomat purloined the entire 300-page book of classified trade secrets compiled from 70 U.S. industry groups opposed to unilateral trade concessions for Israel in 1984, they could have been prosecuted for failing to report their clandestine subversion of due process. When in 2005 [AIPAC officials] Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman met with Israeli diplomats during efforts to pass classified information to the press they thought could trigger a U.S attack on Iran, FARA consequences would have awaited them all. However, because the U.S. Department of Justice has unilaterally abrogated its responsibility to enforce FARA, people, ideas, money and propaganda campaigns continue to secretly slosh freely between Tel Aviv and Israeli fronts in America with taxpayer funds thrown into the toxic brew."
    In short, "support the troops" by sending them to fight for Tel Aviv projects.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/05/neocons-protest-us-spying-on-israel/
    Meanwhile, the US homeland security is in the Israelis' hands.
    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2013/08/21/homeland-security-made-in-israel/
    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/US-Deputy-of-Homeland-Security-US-Israel-to-sign-automated-cyber-information-sharing-agreement-457261

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT

    @Anon The likes of Betty Friedan, Susan Sontag and Erica Jong ( assisted by the Pill and legalized abortion) led the charge through the institutions.

    Not true. The hardline feminists turned on Friedan.

    Sontag went her own way and didn't involve herself much with institutions. She was too independent to be academic hack.

    Jong was a sexual libertarian, not a PC whore. All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism.

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT

    If you have any doubts about the open genocidal intent of the Democratic Party

    Do the following thought experiment ..What would happen if Richard Spencer incessantly in his his US College Tour stated emphatically:"WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFULL IF YOUNG NATIVE BORN WHITE AMERICAN COUPLES STARTED HAVING LARGE WHITE FAMILIES .so Native Born White Americans can go back to being a 90 racial minority in America again!!!!"

    How would Melissa Harris Perry react?

    How would Maxine Waters react?

    How would the TATA Institute grads react?

    How would Ciela Munoz react?

    How would the smelly hairy bulldyke Hillary Clinton react?

    Paul Kersey

    Go buy Rampage 82 .."Oh my God what they did to that waitress" .this is what the Greek owner of the restaurant next to Walt Whitman High School said to me several years ago .the restaurant by the Colonial Era..historic grave yard that the Salvadoran youth trample over disrespectefully every morning on their way to Walt Whitman High School ..West Hills area

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:48 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

    As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

    Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ... "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."

    CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.

    "As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.

    "Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is "

    Maybe. Or maybe not.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

    America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

    Paul Kersey


    Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


    John Derbyshire


    I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."

    The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets–Anonym and Anon, for starters.

    "America is not a proposition nation "

    Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization " By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

    America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

    Paul Kersey


    Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


    John Derbyshire


    I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
    on LI.

    In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old style of hospitality featured privacy.
    The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's scope of the imagination at the time.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT

    @Wizard of Oz I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture. (A retired judge with a guilty conscious about orphanages for part Aboriginal children did much to raise this controversial interpretation in Australia.)

    As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So.....

    Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is what we are seeing as the binding forces of anti-Communism and dogmatic religion have been released and a great mixture of ideas, none of them dominant by importance or by logic, are swirling around to infiltrate the minds of an increasingly large proportion of the population who think the fairly simple rhetoric and ideas they are grabbed by are important. Great times for the Scientologists, New Ageists et al ...

    I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.

    That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

    The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:50 pm GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " An all-knowing judge/creator"

    Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
    So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
    Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
    Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician. You are correct.

    Free will is paramount.

    And with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.

    Jesus said not to fear the first death.

    Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.

    Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self- aggrandizement) or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.

    Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this message.

    But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire"; who also added the addendum:
    "ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind"

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT

    I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

    @Stonehands I grew up in Glen Cove, l remember that hideous event- it was life changing
    on LI.

    In addition, there was a mad scramble by restaurants to install windows everywhere; the old style of hospitality featured privacy.
    The thought that rampaging niggers would take advantage of these circumstances was beyond anyone's scope of the imagination at the time. As you know Glen Cove has been completely colonized by El Salavodor and Mexico

    Glen Cove used to be a beautifull North Shore Town

    I used to go to that health food store down past the firehouse that used to proudly display the great big Convederate Flag in the firetruck bays .

    Interestingly Tom Suozzi's uncle was the Mayor of Glenn Cove and got trashed by Newday for cracking down on the Mexicans and Salvadoran illegals .his nephew Tom the Cockroach is onboard with importing the nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc .and war with Christian Russia

    Congressman Tom Suozzi a creepy looking short Italian with cornrows of hairplugs and platforms in his shoes .and speaks with a lisp

    War for Blair Mountain , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT

    @Corvinus "Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class."

    The only thing creepy are your numerous sock puppets--Anonym and Anon, for starters.

    "America is not a proposition nation..."

    Regarding posterity, the concept does NOT refer exclusively to one's own children. In particular, "Novus Ordo Seclorum" reflects the intention of the Founding Fathers to install political checks and balances to safeguard against tyranny REGARDLESS of one's racial or ethnic background. It is other than accurate to state that the Founding Fathers sought to exclusively preserve a genetic legacy, i.e. Anglo-America, since there is no racial or gender criteria to adhere to the universal principles of "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" which are embedded in our representative form of government. Recall that Congress has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." By definition, naturalization extends citizenship, and all the rights and duties related to it, to those other than the "original" settlers and immigrants. The proposition remains that immigrants must meet the criteria as established by Congress to enter our shores. Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days .

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:07 pm GMT

    Meanwhile, the Zio-propagandists ignore the death of Seth Rich:
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/

    "The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.
    A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.
    But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story.
    Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked" by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:
    "Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University.
    With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible. Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?"

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

    @PiltdownMan What Putin said yesterday.


    "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans," Mr. Putin said. "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    What Putin said yesterday:

    "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    Putin was being tactful, obviously.

    Clearly, what he meant was that the US is now dominated by dangerously corrupt people. The same is true of virtually all states in all times. What is unusual about America today is the scale of harm that the US plutocracy is in a position to inflict, and is indeed inflicting, on both Americans and the world.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

    America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

    Paul Kersey


    Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


    John Derbyshire


    I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it.....

    Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus

    Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the "agent provocateur" function enabled. The AP function would explain the repeated demands to know what someone opposed to European genocide proposes to do about it: bomb throwing being, presumably, the desired response, leading to arrest and incarceration under anti-terrorism laws.

    One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated. If he were denying the Jewish Holocaust he would be censored here, or if not, probably targeted for some kind of legal sanction, as would only be right. Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT

    @Stonehands You are correct.

    Free will is paramount.

    And...with that free will we are given autonomy and responsibility for our actions.

    Jesus said not to fear the first death.

    Accounts will be settled at the final judgement.

    Your actions will be tossed into a crucible and will burn like wood, hay or stubble (self- aggrandizement)...or they will be refined like Gold if done for Jesus' sake.

    Hey man, l am just stonehands. I say crazy, ardent statements that may turn you off to this message.

    But please consider the great men of history- such as Bach- who wrote "Jesu Joy of Mans Desire"; who also added the addendum:
    "ALL MUSIC is for the greater glory of God and the refreshment of the mind" First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
    Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation, and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
    And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
    I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort at hand : Making it, the music, swing.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist.

    Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT

    @Corvinus "I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture."

    CanSpeccy employed that term with the intent of bastardizing its use for his own demonic ends.

    "As I look at the grubby state of Australian politics in which voting for people to take otber people's money for your advantage has become the game I can't help connecting it to the defeat of Communism and the end of ideological battle. Once middle class Protestants and agnostics might have been delighted by the strength of the Catholic Church in politics despite objections to a diminishing range of Papist shibboleths concerning abortion, contraception and euthanasia. Now, quite apart from the debilitating child abuse scandals the Catholic Church is reduced to being a lobbyist for public funds for its school syatems. So .."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter, even if it is not relevant here.

    "Maybe passive cultural suigenocide is..."

    Maybe. Or maybe not. "not relevant here". Fair enough unless you are willing to allow in these often discursive conversations an attempt to lead people on a path of thought which will spark tecognition – in this case perhaps of the loss of much that used to bind even if it wasn't an essential eternal part of human existence.

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT

    @Steve Naidamast I agree with the basis of the author's complaint but it is full of a lot of holes in its foundations.

    To offer the attacks on Trump as some sort of insurgency against a valid, national leader is a bit absurd.

    No arguments from me as to who makes up such an insurgency. They are all war mongers and shills for the corporations, elites, and of course, the Israelis, with a few others thrown in for good measure (ie: Saudi Arabia).

    Yet, Trump is the personification of the completely corrupt business class in the United States. His appointments to cabinet positions, his elevation of his daughter and son-in-law into governmental positions, his massive conflicts of interests that are still ongoing while in the presidency, his degenerate treatment of many who have worked for him as contractors throwing many into bankruptcy, and his inability comprehend anything that takes longer than 5 minutes to explain, among many other negatives are all severe indications of a person who has no business being the leader of a nation. I don't care who or why he was elected. The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of the US electorate.

    As for the idea of "American identity", there has only been one; that of the White elite taking what he or she wants from the everything and everyone around them. One good study of American history will provide one with more than enough evidence of this contention.

    Since its inception everything has been and still is for sale in the United States and the winners are always the highest bidders.

    Just look at who supported the presidencies in past elections going back to after the War for Southern Independence.

    America's involvement in both world wars were explicitly the result of presidents lying their way into them after promising the electorate consistently that they would keep the country out of the European conflicts. So much for honor in the presidency. Wilson at least had a reason; he thought he was Jesus Christ. FDR on the other hand simply didn't want a competitor to America in Europe and simply hated everything German in general.

    So American identity is a a lot of hogwash as most Americans identity with something that never was. Our "Founding Fathers" certainly did not create a nation that would be just one to all but one to protect the wealthy and their needs.

    There is no doubt that the US is undergoing a massive decline in its ability to govern itself while undergoing serious social deterioration. However, the seeds of this destructive, downward spiral were set in stone when a bunch of wealthy guys created a rather flimsy constitution to protect the White privileged classes.... "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of th electorate

    So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

    Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.

    You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering about.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    Wizard of Oz , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
    That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

    The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America. At least Leicester has got a lot of successful Indians has it not (many ex East Africa I believe)? By chance I had dinner tonight at a Two Fat Indians restaurant, not nearly as cheap as in the UK but also no fat Indians but a couple of gorgeous smiling smart young women from Punjab. I wouldn't want all our immigration of the relatively smart to be Chinese, though I welcome them, so it tended to confirm my relatively optimistic view about Australia's population. Clearly native white Australians are breeding almost as dysgenically as outback Aborigines and Lebanese immugrants from 40 yeats ago so I see the Chinese and Indians who have often been educated in Australia as making up for that. It is curious however that our school PISA ranking has declined in the last 10 years or so. I suspect parties of the left and teacher unions though another cause for puzzling over it is that a larger proportion of children get their education in non government schools in Australia than almost anywhere in the First World.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I think you may be overlooking CanSpeccy's use of "genocide" in the admittedly controversial and tendentious sense of cultural "genocide" which wipes out a people by wiping out its existence as a people with a shared, traditional and coherent culture.
    That, certainly. But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny.

    The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement (consistent with government directed sex "education," plus no-fault divorce and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn) as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population. Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America. "But there is also a deliberate, undeniable, cold-blooded policy aimed at the elimination of a racial group, which only liars for the promotion of genocide or the severely arithmetically challenged, such as Corvinus, deny."

    Clearly your fixation on something that does not observable exist, chiefly the extermination of whites in the "West" by elites and their toadies, is a trait of you as an aspie. I have nothing personal against your affliction. I just find it fascinating that you rinse and repeat this phenomenon.

    "The math is simple: if you have a fertility rate far below replacement "

    Another one of your obsessions. Modern married white couples rarely look at their situation in this fashion. They have children. They will take care of them as best they are able. Tens of thousands of mothers and fathers assuredly are not going to be badgered by you and your ilk into thinking about ensuring the viability of the "white race" by having more babies. Have you met your obligation here? Do you have at least five white offspring? Have you properly indoctrinated, I mean discussed, of their future duty?

    (consistent with government directed sex "education,")

    Yes, sex education. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.

    "plus no-fault divorce"

    Yes, no-fault divorce. A product of our society. The decision made by citizens. A fact of life.

    "and state-funded mass slaughter of the unborn)"

    Finally, we agree. This is a big deal.

    "as is true of Euro-Americans and Europeans in Europe, and you combine that with a policy of mass immigration, then you have replacement of the original population."

    NOT genocide. Mass immigration has been a historical and global phenomenon. Nations sent colonists to explore. The undesired and unwanted left their home countries and, as immigrants, arrived to other parts of the globe. Immigration policies were informal or formal, and they varied from nation to nation. Furthermore, there always has been some level of augmentation in a nation's population. The British helped to found the American colonies; other Europeans, along with Africans and Asians and Latin Americans, arrived there, either voluntarily or by force. The British were "replaced" in the fact they were no longer the dominant group to control the region, and that they increasingly intermarried with non-British. This ethnic "mixing" had been considered taboo in Europe (except among the elite to secure their power and authority), but in America it became the rule.

    "Hence the English, for example, are now a minority not only in my father's home town of Leicester where my ancestors lived for at least eight hundred years, but also in London, Luton, Birmingham (England's second city) where English children are not even the largest minority in elementary school, and in many other urban centers throughout Europe and North America."

    Tragic. But a fact of life. I suggest you run for political office. Make a difference in England, your home nation. Promote what you believe in.

    "Yes, there is certainly something weird about Corvy. I have sometimes wondered if he might be an early CIA implementation of an artificially intelligent (sort of) propaganda bot, with the "agent provocateur" function enabled."

    From what I've been told by a good friend who does work for this organization, the CIA has been targeting you since you were eight years old. They have a dossier on you and your family. You have been on notice for decades given your "pro-race is code for anti-humanity" mindset.

    "One has to wonder though, whether Corvy's Euro-Holocaust denial should be tolerated."

    Of course it should be "tolerated". In fact, it should be relished and replicated by other posters here to expose your lies and propaganda. There is no "Euro-Holocaust". That is Fake News. I'm sure at some point in time the CIA will engage in psycho-ops and reprogram you.

    "Why then should he be free to spew his anti-European hatred here?"

    False characterization. I am "spewing" my love for the human race. Unfortunately, there are people who are bitter and lost.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 6:23 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days.... "Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown ..wrinkly and old .the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days ."

    Are your sock puppets on eight hour or daily shifts?

    Now, regarding my posterity comment, do you have a rebuttal?

    bluedog , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:20 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus...for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.


    Post-1965 Immigration Policy is demographically and economically genocidal....Corvinus the Cockroach is very well aware of this and likes it...


    If the Chinese in China had this the of immigration policy imposed on them...they would view it as genocide...

    America is not a proposition nation...and the "AMERICA" the dainty old Queen Libertarian Cornivus pines for will be...already is Non-white racial identity politics 24 hours a day...365 days a year...as Native Born White American Males at US Universities are well aware of...

    The future for the Native Born White America Working Class....Wichita HS football field gang rape and executions....and Rampage 82...

    Paul Kersey


    Go by Rampage 82...my older late cousin was one of the White Women gang raped on the Infamous Syosset Dinner robbery gang rape by a gang of Brooklyn Jamaican Legal Immigrants..White Wives and White Fiances gang raped in front of their hudbands....my cousin committed suicide three years later....Oh my God...what they did to that poor young waitress in the kitchen...I know some of the emergency room nurses who had to administer the spermacidal foam into these White Woman's vagina's...


    John Derbyshire


    I was just in Book Review this morning....there is a ten book stack on one of the tables:"Rampage 82..."...go by it read it..... That's why militias were formed to take care of the wild dogs that roam thru society Join one today..

    geokat62 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.

    Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

    While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

    It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

    One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:

    This is America.This is ADL. (NB – disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

    The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

    For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

    If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

    https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

    More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

    Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression – promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

    While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim – i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism one cannot favour both at the same time.

    So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

    1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

    2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

    If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

    -----

    P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life."

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 9:18 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain Oh shut the fuck up you libertarian Cuck......as you sit in front of your computer in a white granny gown .....wrinkly and old....the demographic profile of a typical National Review reader these days.... Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.

    Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

    There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out, from the time of Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.

    Anon , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 9:23 pm GMT

    @Stonehands All 3 women heavily promoted cultural Marxism and were the products of the Jew commie academic system. They were mentored by the dregs of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse and neocon svengali Leo Strauss, and were responsible for the kindling of second wave feminism. Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.

    Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her. The media just needed someone as 'leader'.

    Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of long march through institutions.

    Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term 'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm GMT

    @geokat62


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.
    Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

    While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

    It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

    One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:


    This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

    The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

    For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

    If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

    https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

    More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

    Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

    While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot favour both at the same time.

    So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

    1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

    2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

    If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

    -------------

    P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life."

    while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.

    well said Geo,

    we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw

    and we all know by now the consequences of this insanity being foisted by these (often Jewish) netherworld demons

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3831991/Wheelchair-bound-woman-gang-raped-six-migrants-Swedish-asylum-centre-asking-use-toilet.html

    no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating, (with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents] who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who want to pay lower wages in general)

    but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is, at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that, but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers call all non-Jewish immigrants – invaders.

    So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife, while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.

    There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:02 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.

    Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

    Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

    I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

    Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews.

    Stonehands , Show Comment Next New Comment May 20, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT

    @Authenticjazzman First of all, myself a graduate of classical flute study with Bach as a center focus, I am most certainly more versed within his, Bach's, artistic accomplishments than you could probably imagine, and point is : He was trying to survive in an age of absolute enslavement by the aristocratic PTB, therefore he had no choice but to pen his works in a religious vein if he wanted to continue eating, and this holds true for all of the Baroque/classical composers.
    Now as to whether he believed the dogma, within which his works were set, this is up for speculation, and you, me or nobody else can state that he was or was not a pious advocate of religious ideas.
    And as far as "ALL MUSIC" being for the greater glory of God, and refreshment of the mind : I agree with the "Refreshment of the mind" aspect, however being a confirmed atheist, I am unable to go along with the "Greater glory of God" approach.
    I can say this much, when engaged within the action of performing/inprovising music within the jazz idiom, and attempting to create so-called "swinging" solos, there are no thoughts entering my mind regarding the "Greater glory of God, rather my focus is upon the moment and the effort at hand : Making it, the music, swing.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist. I own a small restaurant where l occassionally feature solo artists or duets, myself included. I have been playing classical/jazz guitar for 45 years. I recently performed for Jason Vieaux [2016 solo classical Grammy award] and friends, and one of the pieces l played was "Jesu."
    He agreed that my original transcription [key of G] and fingering were unique and pleasing to the ear and probably easier to commit to memory then the Rick Foster or Christopher Parkening renditions; we're talking non- stop double and triple stops here!

    As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but you cannot confirm it.

    Bro Methylene , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:18 am GMT

    @Sean The Russian ambassador was begging, begging for an audience with Obama in the Oval office, but didn't get it because Russia had annexed Crimea and waged a semi conventional war on Ukraine. The the Russians did not keep their idiot Assad under control.Trump granted the ambassador's request, but only did so the day after the US had bombed a Syrian airfield that the Russian expeditionary force regularly use.

    Unfortunately Trump will have to kill some Russians now . Send the delta force into Syria disguised as rebels , they may be there already, because the Trump administration has stopped announcing what troop deployments he in making in Syria and Iraq. What makes you think Assad is an idiot? He seems more intelligent than most politicians, journalists, and politicians in Washington, D.C. (I cringe at having to name the place. It's like speaking Orc-language in Rivendell.)

    Millions of Americans, having been raised on TV propaganda, still have a screaming need to feel superior to everyone – except perhaps the Israelis.

    The government of the USA has marked Putin for destruction. But I think the rest of the world is rooting for him, and the Russian people, to survive the American onslaught.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:30 am GMT

    While the "progressives" badmouth bad-bad russkies for "destroying our democracy," an obscene spectacle of persecution of the most important whistleblower of our times continues.
    "Getting Assange: the Untold Story," by JOHN PILGER
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/19/getting-assange-the-untold-story/
    "Hillary Clinton, the destroyer of Libya and, as WikiLeaks revealed last year, the secret supporter and personal beneficiary of forces underwriting ISIS, proposed, "Can't we just drone this guy." According to Australian diplomatic cables, Washington's bid to get Assange is "unprecedented in scale and nature." In Alexandria, Virginia, a secret grand jury has sought for almost seven years to contrive a crime for which Assange can be prosecuted. Assange's ability to defend himself in such a Kafkaesque world has been severely limited by the US declaring his case a state secret. In 2015, a federal court in Washington blocked the release of all information about the "national security" investigation against WikiLeaks, because it was "active and ongoing" and would harm the "pending prosecution" of Assange. The judge, Barbara J. Rothstein, said it was necessary to show "appropriate deference to the executive in matters of national security." This is a kangaroo court."

    dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:18 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " The real reason Russia is hated is because it is a media threat"

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    The "real" reason Russia is hated is because it has rejected Communism, and it does not cater to gays.

    Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show have been obliterated by the likes of the anti-communist VP.

    The Democrats were convinced that they had the election in the bag , and therefore the accomplishment of eternal one-party government. They would have legalized the illegals as a gigantic voting block,
    and the huge upset dealt to them by the deplorables has driven them off the cliff and into total
    madness.

    "Media threat" is such a vague non-descript concept that I don't have the energy or patience to even elaborate thereon.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    PS off subject but relevant : Russia has a thriving Jazz scene, and the are some monster American-style Jazz players coming out of Russia.

    Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show

    I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.

    I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?

    It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions about global Marxism.

    dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:41 am GMT

    @ThereisaGod This comment reflects the mindless nationalism of a person who has spent too much time reading mainstream Zionist propaganda.
    The USA INSTIGATED the Syrian "revolution". It armed and funded the rebels (Al Qaeda) and told them we would support them. The Assad government had NO CHOICE but to act as they did or die, handing Syria over to friends of Israel who would then set about dismantling the defences of the Shias in the region who effectively oppose the racist state of Israel.
    As this article lays out, American patriots should be supporting Russia and Assad. If these countries fall to international finance (as the entire western world has done) the Washington swamp will turn its full attention to destroying the USA in a similar manner to the Soviets destruction of Christian Russia (it's the same people, folks. The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives).

    Sean. Your comment is, umm ...... confused.

    The NeoCons are Trotsyists pretending to be Conservatives

    I hear this all the time. I know that many Trotskyists morphed into neocons but that's not quite the same as saying that Trotskyists are neocons are identical. Trotsky may have been a heretical communist but he was still a communist. Are neocons actual communists? In what way are they actual communists?

    dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

    @ThereisaGod You know your history. The people at the top of western power systems are truly diabolical. The moneychangers, the Sanhedrin and complicit gentile degenerates. What has changed in 2000 years? Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?

    Why are 'Christian' leaders silent on these issues? Are they Christians at all?

    In the West Christian leaders are not Christian in any meaningful sense of the word. They're liberals. They're not liberal Christians, they're just liberals.

    In Russia they take Christianity a bit more seriously. In Russia Christian leaders actually believe in God (which is extremely rare among western Christian leaders).

    The problem with Christianity is that once you take away belief in God what you're left with really is just liberalism.

    in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:36 am GMT

    @Sean Assad keeps treating his people like bugs, by gassing them. There were dead aplenty Russians in Afghanistan. It would not take much to get them out of Syria, which as you may recall, they only dispatched their expeditionary force to once the US had declined to get involved in. General Dempsey never thought of the effect that the US staying out would have in emboldening Russia.

    There was a program about Putin's Russia the other year in which a reporter visited the main Russia WW2 memorial museum, and to his bewilderment found the the music accompanying the Great Patriotic War presentation was the theme to the US series Dallas . Your comment is totally senseless!

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:37 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " An all-knowing judge/creator"

    Okay so this indicates that your "judge/creator" also knew the future when he created Hitler and Stalin, and he then was fully aware of their future misdeeds, atrocities.
    So why did he not rethink and say to himself :
    Maybe I will just refrain from creating these two maniacs, and spare their millions of future victims.
    Or was their, Hitlers and Stalins "free-will" more important than the lives and"free-will" of the hundreds of millions murdered through theri actions.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician. @why did he not rethink

    Did that false 'judge/creator' not know that he would be taken to task by an Authenticjazzman, the 'authentic' judge of what God should or should not do as to not displease his 'Authenticity'? So, he is not all-knowing. QED.

    in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:15 am GMT

    @John Gruskos The 1986 amnesty was Reagan's biggest mistake.

    His second biggest mistake was arming the mujahedeen. The CIA basically helped create Al-Qaeda.

    We need to learn from our mistakes, and stop supporting the radical Sunni jihadists who will commit acts of terrorism against us the first chance they get. How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please.

    in the middle , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:30 am GMT

    @Alden Id just like to point out that the reason so many Chinese are giving tech and military secrets to China is my personal bete noire affirmative action. Were it not for affirmative action those military and tech secrets would be in the hands of White Americans, not foreign spies whose only qualification that they are not White. Regardless of ethnicity, these spies deserve the death penalty, for treason to the people who gave them the welcome into our land. As for "white christian", Christianity is either underground or dying, thanks to the power of the sons of the devil, as told by Iesous Christos, (greek), (John 8:44-45 King James Version (KJV)

    44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

    So now we know that 'churchianity' has become a den of thieves, and a cave of robbers, teaching that whom Christ called sons of the devil, Churchianity teaches that they are the children of god. What a contradiction by those who profess to represent Christ!

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 11:58 am GMT

    @Anon Sontag's main place wasn't in the academia. She was essentially a person of letters.

    Friedan is credited with second-wave feminism, but it would have happened anyway without her. The media just needed someone as 'leader'.

    Jong was attacked by feminists. I'm not gonna defend her horny crap, but she' s not part of long march through institutions.

    Also, these are more the products of capitalism. They have nothing to with Marxism. This term 'cultural marxism' should really be called 'cultural consumerism'. "They have nothing to do with communism"

    Bullshit they have everything to do with communism, as all, without exception, all of these characters are hoping and waiting for the transformation of capitalism to marxism, and they, as stupid and naive as they are, they think that they will be running the show thereafter, when fact is they will be the first to be purged.

    You simply have no insight, and you are in above your head with these themes.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT

    @dfordoom


    Cummunist Russia had been , since the thirties, mecca and utopia for the US leftists and they are now out of their collective mind because their vision of world Marxism with Russia running the show
    I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians. The Russians aren't communists any more but they (quite rightly) recognise that global capitalism is every bit as evil as marxism ever was, if not more so.

    I haven't noticed any of these so-called leftists in the modern US calling for the dictatorship of the proletariat. Have you?

    It's amazing how many Americans on the right still subscribe to paranoid Cold War delusions about global Marxism. "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
    Agree.

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

    @annamaria "I don't see any evidence that those who call themselves the Left in the US today have any enthusiasm at all for Marxism. They serve the interests of global capitalism. The Russians are hated because they don't want to bow down before global capitalism and international bankers, and because Russia refuses to join in the persecution of Christians."
    Agree. " They serve the interests of global capitalism"

    Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.

    Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting and waiting for the shift to collectivism.

    Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

    I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it is fact.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

    I agree completely with this article. I am a patriot who loves this country and whose ancestors fought for it in war. The Russians are a natural ally. I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish. There are plenty of us who love America and only America. Will you reject all of us who will fight for this country?

    No, I won't reject you. That would be actual anti-Semitism, and would make no sense. But if you follow the usual pattern, and spend more time fighting critics of Jewry than you do fighting the Jews who deserve critiquing, then yeah, I've no use for you.

    Basically I expect pro-White Jews to join the White Tribe, and put the Jewish Tribe at the back of the bus, or better yet, off the bus altogether (other than some special cases, I don't even see why most of them would even need to announce (or even hold) their Jewish identity; it's not like anyone's going to put you on the rack and force you to confess it – Jewish identity is something you can reject or opt out of).

    As for those special cases: the most valuable thing a pro-White Jew can do is go into his own (former?) tribe and fight Whites' enemies there. You guys have a calling of epic importance waiting for you, if you'll have it.

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT

    We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT

    As per Christianity; you may believe there is no God (that's your faith and hope) but you cannot confirm it.

    Well put, and succinctly. Though I say that as someone who believes there is no God (and does not have any faith or hope that there is not).

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT

    @geokat62


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section.
    Hi, Aaron. Just wanted to take a crack at providing you with an explanation of where I think most people are coming from on the issue you've raised.

    While I obviously don't pretend to speak for all goyim, I can speak for myself.

    It's not that goyim are expressing "hatred towards the entire Jewish people" for who they are. I think they are probably expressing their anger towards what organized Jewry has been, and is, actually doing.

    One case in point is the big push towards diversity led by the ADL. Are you familiar with the following material they've posted on their website:


    This is America.This is ADL. (NB - disingenuously referring to 9 pictures of distinct-looking individuals)

    The United States is a vibrant mix of cultures, races, religions and ethnic groups. These differences enhance our nation's strength, beauty and collective wisdom. Together, we all weave the fabric of our pluralistic society.

    For over 100 years, the Anti-Defamation League has upheld this distinctly American concept by leading the fight against anti-Semitism, bigotry and racism. Today, ADL is the nation's premier human relations and civil rights organization.

    If your company or organization wants to be recognized as a leader in the fight to promote diversity, we invite you to become a member of ADL's Corporate Leadership Council - the nation's leading corporate diversity initiative. Additional co-branding, diversity training and recognition benefits are available to Corporate Partners.

    https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/about-adl/corporate-partners.pdf

    More and more people have come to realize that the ADL has been behind the push towards diversity. They were the ones to actually coin the phrase "Diversity Is Our Strength."

    Given the historically delicate situation of Diaspora Jewry living in host nations- i.e., the perennial risks of pogroms and other forms of repression - promoting a policy of diversity, while damaging to the host nation, made eminent sense, from their perspective.

    While this policy had been sustainable before the founding of Israel, it has since become problematic. Let me explain. While there are still goyim who think the ADL is sincere in their promotion of diversity, more and more are beginning to notice the blatant contradiction in Diaspora Jewry's position: while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME. This is becoming an untenable position in the eyes of many goyim - i.e., either one favours multiculturalism or one favours mono-culturalism... one cannot favour both at the same time.

    So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

    1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

    2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

    If they refuse to choose, because they wish to have their cake and eat it too, I'm afraid this this film will not have a happy ending.

    -------------

    P.S. I, for one, am a big fan of true diversity and sincerely embrace mono-culturalism. That's why I'm in favour of a rainbow of nations. Because, as the saying goes, "variety is the spice of life." I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren 'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have married outside our religion of birth.

    Svigor , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT

    Stop being gentle and delicate with the very creepy Corvinus for it harbors open genocidal intent towards the Historic Native Born White American Working Class.

    Agreed. Corvinus is a piece of shit. CanSpeccy makes a great point about his "hi fellow kids!" "yeah but guys where can we buy some dynamite?" federal informant type trolling.

    So if we fast forward this film, what it comes down to is this: Diaspora Jewry must make up their minds and choose one of the following options:

    1) sincerely embrace multiculturalism for all nations by insisting that Israel open its doors to all peoples of the world and let them become equal citizens; or

    2) sincerely embrace mono-culturalism for all nations (and immediately cease and desist from promoting diversity) by either assimilating or making Aliyah.

    Shit or get off the pot, as I like to say. If I may be so bold, I would strike "embrace mono-culturalism for all nations" from the list of demands. It would certainly be the right thing for Jews to do, given their embrace of ethnopatriotism for themselves, but I would be satisfied with the demand (which is non-negotiable, I agree) "immediately cease and desist from promoting the anti-ethnopatriotic agenda for non-Jewish Whites" being met.

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:43 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
    Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

    Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

    I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

    Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews.

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
    Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

    Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

    I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

    Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50′s he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath.

    Aaron8765 , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 1:56 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 oh btw there was an amusing codicil to the Kantorowicz story. At Berkeley in the 50's he and the other faculty were called to take an oath before some Govt Commission that they were not communists. Kantorowicz as a matter of principal refused to take the oath, since he believed in academic liberty, and was dismissed. In his explanation for his refusal he stated something to the effect that he was not a communist- in fact, he had shot a bunch in his youth!- but he wouldn't take the oath. 'principle' (sic)

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    I am disturbed and hurt that there is so much hatred towards the entire Jewish people in the comment section. I am Jewish.
    Most commenters, surely, do not regard "the entire Jewish people" with hatred, and most surely, would acknowledge that most Jews of their acquaintance are good people.

    Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this . Anti-European advocacy, in various forms, in the media and the movie industry, is often associated with Jewish ownership or direction and naturally provokes anger at what appears to be the anti-European racism and indeed genocidal intent toward the European people of many influential Jews.

    I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not. The European people are under a concerted assault as racial and cultural entities, a fact that is obvious to any but a propagandist for genocide or an idiot like Corvinus, and that process of European racial and cultural genocide is promoted by many Jewish-controlled or owned companies and institutions under the guise of promoting diversity, multi-culturalism, tolerance, etc. The role of Jews in that process is no doubt a problem for many loyal American and European Jews, but it is a problem that cannot simply be dismissed as evidence of universal or even widely occurring anti-Semitism.

    Of course people speak carelessly and with undue inclusiveness when they speak of the actions or beliefs of this or that group. But one has only to hear advocates of diversity, or black-lives-matter, or critics of white privilege, etc. to realize that undifferentiated condemnation of entire groups, black, white, Hispanic, Hindu or whatever is widespread, not merely a problem experienced by Jews. "Naturally, however, people react with anger when Jews engage in anti-European genocidal advocacy such as this."

    False characterization.

    "I do understand your feelings and sympathize with you, but it is surely wrong to infer that because there is push back against what some Jews do, this is evidence of irrational hatred. It is not."

    It is evidence of irrational hatred due to a belief that Jews overall engage in the purposeful destruction of cultures. There is the assumption that diversity/multi-culturalism/tolerance is the bane of existence, that the Jewish propaganda machine serves as an ethnic and societal meat grinder. Unwitting people are being brainwashed into promoting these concepts. Except you are conveniently discounting this important fact human beings have free will. Increasing numbers of people have made decisions of their own accord about these issues. They embrace these philosophies for a host of reasons. You are a snake oil salesman of how Cultural Marxism allegedly is murdering our youth. Let us assume that this Jewish menace would be neutralized. Do you not believe there would be some other group filling in for that void through their own strategies of indoctrination and mind control? Perhaps the philosophies you tout would then be force fed down the throats of the masses.

    "According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism."

    That's not what I stated. I'm not a fan shall we say of you denigrating wholesale a particular group and characterizing that same group of being a proponent of genocide. You have every liberty to protect "your own kind", just as those individuals from "your own kind" have the freedom to question the reasons why you want those protections as well as how those protections are put in place. Furthermore, don't you realize there is no such thing as "racism" and "hate speech"? It's a ruse.

    Pro-race is code for anti-humanity.

    KenH , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

    @Rurik


    while they support the promotion of diversity in their host nations, they fiercely defend the idea of an ethno-state in the ME.
    well said Geo,

    we've all seen this genocidal hag shilling for the destruction of the West

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERmOpZrKtw

    and we all know by now the consequences of this insanity being foisted by these (often Jewish) netherworld demons

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3831991/Wheelchair-bound-woman-gang-raped-six-migrants-Swedish-asylum-centre-asking-use-toilet.html

    no reasonable person blames all Jews for this evil that only a few of them are perpetrating, (with the eager assistance of many goys [homos and fat, ugly white women and other malcontents] who want the migrants to come for their own reasons, just like corporate/business interests who want to pay lower wages in general)

    but the destruction of Europe and N. America by massive and transformational immigration is, at heart- being foisted by Jewish sludge like Sheldon Adelson, who demands open borders for the US, and uses his money to buy cucks in the Republican party to ensure that he gets just that, but then also uses his ill-gotten gains to promote racial purity in Israel, where his newspapers call all non-Jewish immigrants - invaders.

    So you're right. It's the raging hypocrisy and demonic, Old Testament hatred for all non-Jewish tribes and the efforts to see all white nations founder under racial and ethnic hatred and strife, while simultaneously advocating for a racially pure state in Israel- that makes a lot of people exasperated with Jewish influence and nefarious intrigues.

    There are of course other stuff too. Fomenting and foisting wars, false flag attacks, financial swindles, cultural sewage, etc.. But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries that outs (some of) them as existential enemies.

    But I suspect one of the main reasons people are losing patience is the psychotic imperative of some Jews to advocate for massive immigration into (only) white countries

    Don't be so sure about some . One hundred percent of Jews serving in both chambers of Congress have supported efforts at granting mass amnesty of third world illegal aliens. Seventy to eighty percent consistently vote Democrat no matter how far to the left or anti-white the party becomes. Even so called conservative (or neocon) Jews like Krauthammer, Bernie Goldberg and others have voiced support for amnesty or partial amnesty.

    So it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board with America as proposition nation and the race replacement of whites while hypocritically supporting the militant racial nationalism and exclusivity of the Israeli state.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT

    it certainly seems that, based on the evidence, most of them are on board

    I can't argue with that Ken

    and you could say the same of all non-white peoples, they're mostly on board for an immigration policy that will eventually rip white nations apart and see the white people trampled under like they were in Zimbabwe, or Haiti when the whites received their comeuppance then.

    They all seem to hate us, but none more so than Jews

    but it is worth pointing out that certainly not all Jews (or other minorities) want us genocided

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)

    some can see past their blind racial hatred and envy to the day that whitey is finally ground under the mire of their collective hatred, to what comes next.

    what kind of world will it be without Western civilization and the Rule of Law?

    Zimbabwe, Palestine, Darfur, the Balkans, Drug cartels and corruption running S. America outright, India and Pakistan cutting each other's throats, cannibalism returning to Africa and Indonesian islands, New Guinea, New Zealand, etc.

    And I mention New Zealand, because the only thing protecting the white people (and the meek of all races) in places like Oceana or Latin America or Africa, the Middle East, etc is the fragile, amorphous sense of the law , that permeates the jungles and hinterlands of the planet, where some American expatriate living in Mexico is left unmolested by the cartels and corrupt governments down there. On the day that whitey is unable to protect his own families in the US, that is the day that certain ex-patriots in Mexico will find out just how loved they really are by the Mexicans, who've suffered their arrogance and relative wealth with bitter, quiet, simmering resentment.

    If your society has reached the point where your women and children are brutalized by hostile invading armies and there's nothing you can do to protect them, and the courts and authorities will not punish the orcs, then it's only a short distance until the day of Zimbabwe comes and you're run out of your home in terror for your life.

    There was a time when the whites of Zimbabwe could count on England and the rule of law to protect them. They discovered too late how wrong they were. It will be the same for all white places when the global system of the Rule of Law breaks down and we return to the law of the jungle with a vengeance.

    how well will Israel fare when there's no more white guilt to milk for funding and arms and "moral" sanction?

    already Norway and other nations are talking about BDS, in part because of the burgeoning Muslim populations in these countries.

    when Europe becomes multicultural, as that Zionist hag insists it must, how well are the Jews of the world going to prosper when the governments of Europe are Islamized?

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 We have enemies within and enemies without. Regarding our enemies without: the most dangerous are the Islamic supremacists, and China. The Chinese are a more traditional challenge, and hence more manageable. The Russians are a natural ally- and perhaps a necessary ally- against both of these threats. A traditional geopolitical analysis suggests that we always side with the weaker party- in this case the Russians- against rising/hegemonic states in Eurasia. So our foreign policy is out of joint. Why our foreign policy class insists upon supporting this policy is an interesting question- the policy is clearly in error. Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/

    "The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
    " Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
    " The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
    "Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their families"

    neutral , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 5:47 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 I don't agree with everything you say, but thanks for your thoughts on this. If that is what the ADL is supporting- and I have no reason to doubt you- then they have to be opposed vigorously. On a lighter note, assimilated Jewish Americans never call our Christian brethren 'goyim' anymore- it might be a problem, considering that 60% of us, including yours truly, have married outside our religion of birth.

    have married outside our religion of birth

    That makes no difference, since being jewish is ultimately a racial category not a religious one. You don't have to take my word for it, you can research how the state of Israel defines what a jew is, and it is not on religious grounds. In fact they use the Nuremberg race acts that defined what a jew was as their own criteria, obviously they will claim they are using it for those fleeing oppression, but anyone who is sincere about this knows it is because the Nuremberg race acts were correct in their definitions.

    Sowhat , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMT

    Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 7:17 pm GMT

    @Authenticjazzman "The fact that such a man was elected at all shows the complete degeneracy of th electorate

    So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

    Look friend you are labeling myself, my sister and my upstanding, decent, friends and family who in fact did pull the lever for DT as : Degenerate.

    You are the "degenerate" malevolent one here and you have no clue as to what you are blathering about.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa"society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    So you would have prefered BC and HRC, the paragons of decency and integrity back in the white house.

    Quite.

    Conservatives despair to find that Trump scores only a 1.5 or 2 relative to the ideal 10 they had hoped for.

    However, Hillary would have been a solid and consistent -8 (MINUS EIGHT) or worse. Every day of Trump – however betrayed Conservatives may feel relative to their ideals – is a day on which the ALL-OUT DESTRUCTION of America does not proceed with the organized, unopposed vigor that it would have done under Hillary. (Also known as Mrs. Vincent Foster #2.)

    Of course, the lackey MSM are doing their level best to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) among those opposed to the oligarchy. Their "Russia hacked the election" complex of lies (aka "narrative") would certainly have drawn admiring applause from Joseph Goebbels himself, both for the boldness of the original conception – tapping into old *conservative* mistrust of the USSR, and for the shameless repetitive execution.

    Right now, the U.S. still has remnants of the Second Amendment, which alone is the true, long-term measure of a free country. (Various states and their complicit federal judges are working hard to get rid of this final obstacle to billionaire rule and death camps.)

    Don't believe that the SECOND Amendment is the true measure of a free country? Spend 6 weeks in Canada or any other advanced country in Europe, Asia, talk to people, see what they say about sensitive subjects. Read and watch their MSM and alternative media. Ask yourself where the subject country was 100 years ago, and where it is likely to be in 100 years.

    Has free speech in the subject country been OFFICIALLY curtailed under rubrics such as "hate speech," "incitement," "libel/slander" etc.? What is the extent of INFORMAL censorship, e.g. through publishers' associations, codes of conduct, post-modern J-schools and official "certification" of "journalists," etc.?

    What do they/don't the MSM in the subject country report? Secret/informal taboos? Is there REAL criticism of the power structure? Of existing laws and institutions? Are politicians REALLY subject to the rule of law? Do they REALLY lock up corrupt politicians as the U.S. used to do? Are politicians' families exempt from public scrutiny?

    Political murder is another indication of the health or otherwise of a free society. Are mysterious deaths of politicians and their staff commonplace in the subject society? Does interest in major incidents die down after 2-3 days? Or persist for years (JFK) despite repeated attempts at whitewashing?

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 7:54 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy Waste of time, really, responding to the troll for the replacement of Euro-Americans. It only initiates another spew of hate speech. According to Corvy, there's something wrong with those who are for the survival of their own kith and kin. In fact, being against extinction of your own people is how Corvy seems to define hate speech and racism.

    Wiz Oz is not quite so crude about it, but seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

    There are something like a billion Hindus in India, so why should they occupy the tiny homeland of the English? England, it is true, ruled India for a while, no doubt over the objection of the Indian ruling class, but in doing so they merely replaced another and more exploitive alien ruling elite, and at no time attempted to settle India with millions of Europeans. Indeed they set out, from the time of Macaulay's memorandum on Indian Education, dated Feb 2nd, 1835 , to prepare India for self-government as the modern, independent, democratic nation state that it now is.

    Wiz Oz seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.

    What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

    Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint – vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are – are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT

    @Aaron8765 I appreciate the sympathy. The whole situation is a complete mess and getting worse. On a historical note, a biography just came out about Ernst Kantorowicz, a Jewish- German medievalist. You might find it interesting. His life was also discussed in a book about the great medievalists of the 20th Century- 'Medieval Lives', by Cantor. It's a fascinating book. Kantorowicz was a wealthy, assimilated Jewish- German who grew up with the Prussian upper class. He was a German officer in World War I, and after the war joined the paramilitary- right Freikorps and fought against the Communists inside Germany. As a medievalist, he was a romantic- nationalist associated with a circle of poets and scholars, and friends with Percy Ernst Schramm, who along with Kantorowicz was one of the great medievalists of his generation. Then the Nazis took power. Kantorowicz was purged from academic life. Some of his friends protected him as best they could, while others sided with the Nazis. He got out, barely, in 1938 and ended up at Berkeley, of all places, and the Institute for Advanced Study. His friend Schramm became the official historian of the Wehrmacht in WWII, and observed Hitler at first hand. After the war Schramm turned to Kantorowicz for help in reentering official, academic life (Kantorowicz helped.) The whole story is a tragic metaphor for the tragedy of the patriotic, assimilated- nationalist German Jews. Re: Kantorowicz

    Bureaucracies, governmental or academic, hate a non-conformist. I know. I worked (briefly) for three governments and also held academic appointments at three universities, the last, a tenure-track appointment, that I abandoned after three days.

    The problem for all groups in a multi-cultural society is that group interests are liable to conflict and thus generate antagonisms that often have a racial or religious aspect. For Jews, it is worse than for most because they are adherents, or associates by descent, of a religion that is fundamentally racist. Yahweh, after all, is the God of the Jews, and urges the Jews to go forth, multiply and rule over the nations of the Earth.

    Thus, when Jews succeed as they have done in large numbers in America in gaining positions of great wealth and power, and especially when they exercise that power for specifically Jewish interests such as the defense of the state of Israel, they naturally raise feelings of suspicion, fear and antagonism, as would say a bunch of Russian nationalists if they ran much of Hollywood , were among the principal peddlers of porn in America , had massive media influence , and held many seats in Congress and used their financial clout to determine who holds many of the other seats in Congress .

    None of this, of course, alters the fact that it may at times seem tough being a Jew and an American-firster.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 21, 2017 at 9:00 pm GMT

    @annamaria Treason in high places: " Not Remembering the USS Liberty," by Ray McGovern
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/not-remembering-the-uss-liberty/

    "The only investigation worth the name was led by Adm. Moorer, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Among the findings announced by the commission on October 2003:
    " Unmarked Israeli aircraft dropped napalm canisters on the USS Liberty bridge, and fired 30mm cannon and rockets into the ship; survivors estimate 30 or more sorties were flown over the ship by a minimum of 12 attacking Israeli planes.
    " The torpedo boat attack involved not only the firing of torpedoes, but machine-gunning of Liberty's firefighters and stretcher-bearers. The Israeli torpedo boats later returned to machine-gun at close range three of the Liberty's life rafts that had been lowered into the water by survivors to rescue the most seriously wounded."
    "Shortly before he died in February 2004, Adm. Moorer strongly appealed for the truth to be brought out and pointed directly at what he saw as the main obstacle: " I've never seen a President stand up to Israel. If the American people understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms." Echoing Moorer, former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck, who served many years in the Middle East, condemned Washington's attitude toward Israel as "obsequious, unctuous subservience at the cost of the lives and morale of our own service members and their families" WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national importance to Israel?

    Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation.

    Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.

    One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off – it is sometimes claimed that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.

    First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea. Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement.

    dfordoom , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT

    @Authenticjazzman " They serve the interests of global capitalism"

    Right and "global capitalism" serves the interests of global marxism, and you are unable to decifer the connections, which is your own shortcoming, and does not change the situation.

    Almost all of the honchos involved in big-money are in essence : marxists, and they are plotting and waiting for the shift to collectivism.

    Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

    I know it is very hard for most people to imagine big-time capitalists as communists, but it is fact.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz musician.

    Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.

    Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).

    The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology. They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.

    The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money.

    Achmed E. Newman , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT

    @Sowhat Jimmy, I like reading your but bluing your scripts (doesn't that usually indicate a reference or example) to send me to a VDARE donation page is tacky. JMO Mr. What, that "bluing" is called a hyperlink *. They've been around for well nigh 25 years now by my recollection. The guy's link is fine, but VDare right now is raising some money, and that "splash" page will appear on anyone's initial visit, so to speak, to the site right now. If you mash that X in the right corner, you will get directly to the article that the guy you're replying to wants you to see.

    I hope that helps I would like to AGREE with myself here too, because, as usual, I know I am right. I don't know how to do that though without joining faceboot or some such crap.

    * Here is one, just as a random example. It'd be interesting to see what happens when you single-click on it. You might as well now – it'll bug you the rest of the evening if you don't.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 2:09 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye WHY did the Israeli leadership collectively decide to attack the USS Liberty spy ship and risk serious damage to its relationship with its only superpower supporter? What did the Israelis know about the Liberty's activities? Why was this a matter of top-level national importance to Israel?

    Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation.

    Without addressing the WHY, any account of the attack itself is little more than beating around the bush. Also, it is remarkable that no consistent U.S. version of the incident has evolved despite several generations of military and secret service officials transitioning to the relative safety and anonymity of retirement since then.

    One conventional fake answer can easily be disposed off - it is sometimes claimed that the Israelis hoped to blame the sinking of the Liberty on Egypt, and cause damage to Egypt's relationship with the U.S. This version is wholly untenable.

    First, an air attack would have been plainly visible on military radar across the Red Sea. Second, then as now, the U.S. had extensive secret service contacts throughout the Egyptian government. An Egyptian air attack on the USS Liberty would most likely have leaked in advance, and certainly within hours of a putative Egyptian attack which by definition would have to involved hundreds of individuals to propose, prepare and implement. "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
    The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
    "Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
    Don't you see how the obnoxious kind – that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such – have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 11:17 am GMT

    @dfordoom


    Just why did the "moneyed" classes in Russia and in the US support the 1917 revolution, when they could have simply left things are they were.
    Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it. A revolution is a great chance to loot a country (as the Russians discovered to their cost in the 1990s).

    The "moneyed" classes do not believe in marxism because they do not believe in any ideology. They believe in money and power. Ideologies are for the rubes.

    The US is currently making a massive arms deal with the Saudis. Does this mean that the US moneyed classes have suddenly converted to Islam? No, it means they see a chance to make money. " Because they figured they could make a fast buck out of it"

    Hogwash, this idea is beyond absurd.

    What you are saying is that for the purpose of "Making a fast buck" they will support a political/economic system, namely communism, which has the goal of destroying them , in other words the chickens are voting for Colonel Sanders.

    " The monied classes do not believe in marxism" . Again hogwash, and you would be in a state of shock if you were able to engage certain billionaires in conversation regarding this issue.

    The motivation behind their fixation upon Marxism is their striving to considered as "Intellectuals", and they are plagued by inferiority complexes regarding their status as "Businessmen", whereas marxists are looked upon as : "Intellectual".

    I was never convinced that rich people were exceptionally intelligent, rather to the contrary.
    Wall street being a perfect example of stupidity prevailing amongst millionaires and billionaires.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet and pro jazz artist.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

    @annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
    The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
    "Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
    Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU?

    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years.

    yep

    also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.

    As was the Lavon affair.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

    It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 – that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
    What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

    Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French. "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."

    You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons, the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the Enlightenment.

    "English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    "One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""

    The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 5:38 pm GMT

    "Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
    Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    "Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
    Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
    Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights).
    Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values.
    Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."

    Authenticjazzman , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT

    " considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field"

    So what you are saying is that holding a "doctoral degree" in philosophy automatically transforms the individual involved into being a "Philsopher"

    This is pure unadulterated nonsense, and I personally have had the aquaintance of two persons who did indeed hold doctoral degrees in philosophy and they were both light years away from the qualification of "Philosopher".

    Homer was a"Philosopher", Marc Aurel, was a philosopher, Goethe was a philosopher, etc, but none of the BS artists in this day and age holding doctoral degrees in philosophy, could ever with a straight face claim to be a "philosopher".

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 6:41 pm GMT

    @annamaria "Somehow, endless repetition of the USS Liberty story never gets around to addressing the crucial WHY of the operation."

    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years. Second, apart from disparaging the survivors of USSLiberty, you suggest no viable explanation to the murderous attack.
    The USS Liberty story emphasizes inordinate influence of Israel-firsters on the US policies abroad and domestically. Here is a excerpt from a speech of Mr. Dershowitz (the Idiot): "People write a book called the Israel lobby and complain that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. My response to that is, that's not good enough. We should be the most powerful lobby in Washington. . . . We are entitled to use our power. We have contributed disproportionately to the success of this country. . . . We are a very influential community. We deserve our influence."
    "Israel Lobby Pays the Political Piper:" https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/21/israel-lobby-pays-the-political-piper/
    Don't you see how the obnoxious kind - that makes the Lobby, ADL, powerful warmongers among the Friends of Israel and such - have been destroying the true safe home for Jewry in the US and EU? The basic question – which remains unaddressed in the response – is very simply:

    What was the Israeli leadership trying to do by launching a combined airborne and naval attack on the USS Liberty during the Six Day War in 1967?

    You mention the Lavon affair in 1954. This scandal arose out of an attempted Israeli false-flag operation in Egypt that went spectacularly wrong.

    The Suez Crisis in 1956 was another major disaster for Israel, the UK and France.

    This experience will have informed Israeli government thinking in 1967.

    Moreover, as noted in the original post, radar technology at the time, as well simple visual identification of the attacking jet fighters and vessels precluded even a remote possibility of dressing up the attack as having been perpetrated by Egypt.

    Further, the U.S. had plenty of intelligence assets in both Egypt and Israel to find out what actually happened to the USS Liberty within hours. An operation of this magnitude involves at a minimum hundreds of people across different countries and cannot be kept completely secret.

    The Lavon affair was intended to involve small anonymous attacks against random civilian targets, but failed to achieve this relatively modest objective.

    Are we now to believe that the Israelis thought they could pull off a massive combined air-sea attack against a United States vessel on the high seas (where radar and visual observation is unobstructed) and blame it on Egypt? The very idea is insane.

    So why did Israel resort to this desperate gamble?

    Barring a collective bout of insanity throughout Israel's civilian and military leadership, the most likely explanation is that the USS Liberty itself was seen as a major and indeed mortal threat to Israel, to such an extent that the Israeli leadership decided to risk a major rift with the U.S. to eliminate the threat.

    How would the USS Liberty itself be a threat? Most likely by compiling high-grade military intelligence and passing it to Egypt and the other Arab nations. This could have occurred either pursuant to official directives from the top of the U.S. hierarchy, or perhaps because the local command went rogue.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT

    @Corvinus "and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did."

    You do realize that those traditions were a result of the combined efforts of the Britons, the Picts, the Romans, and the Anglo-Saxon tribes. Moreover, this "American experiment" was the product of the English, Greek, and Roman ways of governance, as well as the philosophies of the Enlightenment.

    "English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    Thank you for your opinion on this matter.

    "One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher.""

    The English language does not prohibit anyone from indicating that their profession is a "philosopher", considering if a person graduates from university with a doctoral degree in philosophy and instructs students in this field.

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."

    Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."

    Notice how ridiculous it sounds?

    French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 9:09 pm GMT

    @Rurik


    First, there is no "endless repetition of the USS Liberty story" by MSM: this story has been hushed for many years.
    yep

    also as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them.

    As was the Lavon affair.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

    It is the well-known modus operendi of cowards. Commit crimes and blame them on people you don't like, so that those people will be punished for it. It happens all the time in America with hate "crime" hoaxes. The most egregious example of Israeli's treachery and endemic cowardice was the false flag attack on 9/11 - that is being used even today to get Americans to mass-murder people Israel doesn't like and reduce entire nations and regions into smoking ashes.

    as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them

    This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

    However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

    In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

    Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 22, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT

    @annamaria "Support our troops!" in the time of institutionalized treason.
    Two ugly siblings or why ISIS is a best friend of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
    http://theduran.com/heres-why-saudi-arabia-and-israel-are-allies-in-all-but-name/
    "Israel and Saudi Arabia have always been enemies of secular, Arab nationalist states and federations. Whether an Arab state is Nasserist, Ba'athist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist or in the case of Gaddafi's Libya a practitioner of the post-Nassierist Third Political Theory: Israel and Saudi Arabia have sought to and in large part have succeeded, with western help, at destroying such states.
    Unlike Israel's Apartheid military state and Saudi Arabia's human rights free monarchy, the aforementioned Arab styles of government are worthy of the word modern. These are countries which had progressive mixed economies, had secular governments and societies, had full constitutional rights for religious and ethnic minorities, they championed women's rights and engaged in mass literacy programmes and infrastructural projects. ..
    Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world. Unlike in Israel, minorities have full constitutional rights and unlike in Saudi Arabia, all religions are tolerated. In Syria, women can act, speak and dress as they wish. Syria's independence has in the past thwarted Israel's ambition to annex Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and additional parts of Syria itself (Israel still occupies Syria's Golan Heights). ...
    Syria remains strongly independent and refuses to surrender its values.
    Saudi Arabia and Israel are allies in the material and psychological war against secular, modern Arab countries. It is a war which the United States has been fighting on behalf of Riyadh and Tel Aviv for decades ."

    Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.

    Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already exhausted then.

    http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-story-on-syria-forced.html

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    Syria is the last secular Arab Ba'athist state in the world.
    Modern, secular Syria TREBLED its population since 1980 even though water and land were already exhausted then.

    http://globuspallidusxi.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-real-story-on-syria-forced.html What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

    "Trump and Netanyahu to the world: WE ARE ALL WAHHABISTS NOW!"
    http://theduran.com/trump-and-netanyahu-to-the-world-we-are-all-wahhabists-now/

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 12:30 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
    This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

    However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

    In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

    Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt. " it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
    This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 1:42 am GMT

    @ "I am a philosopher."

    Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?

    At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object and purpose):

    1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
    2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
    3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
    4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
    5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
    6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).

    For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' – the definitions of the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
    *"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 – Septuagint).

    'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:45 am GMT

    @annamaria "...it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC."
    This is not true. Try do read the accounts objectively. (1) I said that "reading between the lines," one might conclude that Israel IMMEDIATELY set about containing the fall-out in Washington. Of course, such efforts (if they indeed took place) would be hugely embarrassing to Israel and would be kept top secret even years later.

    (2) You have still not given us any real theory of WHY Israel would launch a combined air/sea attack on the USS Liberty.

    The idea that Israel was at this precise moment in the middle of the Six Day War trying to pin the blame on Egypt does not hold water as explained in several posts above.

    CONCLUSION: The best working theory at present is that the USS Liberty was providing high-grade intelligence to the Arab countries fighting Israel in the Six Day War.

    If you have a better explanation consistent with the known facts, including the use of radar by the USS Liberty and airborne units in the area please share it here.

    QUESTION: What is known about LBJ's stated and actual positions vis-a-vis Israel, Egypt, other Arab countries? Post-retirement contacts by LBJ and his family?

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
    What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

    Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."

    I don't understand why you say that or why Corvinus thinks it would be silly if anyone did say in English "I am a philosopher."

    Most significant universities in the English-speaking world have a philosophy department whose faculty members would, in most cases, be prepared to assert that "I am a philosopher."

    This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

    No doubt there are plenty of bad English-speaking philosophers as there are bad English-speaking academics in every other field, but it is simply false to suggest that philosophical works in the English language are characterized by ponderous bad writing. In fact, the great English-speaking philosophers lead the world in the clarity of their analysis: David Hume , for example, or George Berkeley .

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:57 am GMT

    @Seraphim @ "I am a philosopher."

    Who is really a philosopher? What is really a philosopher? What is philosophy after all?

    At the end of 'Antiquity' (6th Century) an Armenian Christian 'Neo-Platonic' philosopher, David Anhagt (the Invincible), wrote an 'Introduction to philosophy' in which he epitomized all the current definitions of Philosophy, which by logical necessity are only six (according to the object and purpose):

    1) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things that exist as they [really] are'.
    2) 'Philosophy is the knowledge of things divine and human'.
    3) 'Philosophy is preparation for death'.
    4) 'Philosophy is becoming like the God to the best of human abilities.
    5) 'Philosophy is the art of arts and science of sciences'.
    6) 'Philosophy is love of wisdom' (filia sophias).

    For David (and all 'philosophers') philosophia is a 'care of the soul'. It starts with 'Gnoti seauton- Know thyself) and ends with 'becoming like God' (theosis) and here it coincides with the purpose of Christianity ('If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods', 'For the Son of God became man so that we might become God', 'The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life' - the definitions of the Fathers). Christianity is the 'true philosophy'. Jesus answered the Pharisees: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35)*
    *"I have said, Ye are gods; and all [of you] children of the Most High" (Psalm 81:6 - Septuagint).

    'Know thyself' because 'The Kingdom of God is within you'. David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:

    (1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?

    (2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we know of it and how?

    (3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?

    (4) What is morality?

    (5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?

    And much more.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 2:58 am GMT

    @annamaria What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

    "Trump and Netanyahu to the world: WE ARE ALL WAHHABISTS NOW!"
    http://theduran.com/trump-and-netanyahu-to-the-world-we-are-all-wahhabists-now/

    What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?

    A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person talking about running a marathon.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    Wiz Oz ... seems to think its fine for the English people of the city of Leicester to be replaced by Hindus, but being English, the nation of Shakespeare, Newton, Darwin, Sam Johnson and many other fine people, I do not.
    What many modern observers are too shy to say out loud is this:

    Cultures are NOT created equal, and it turned out that traditional English cultural notions in politics, economics and religion supplied much of the "magic sauce" that enabled the American experiment to take the world forward as and when it did.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies."

    To the soi-disant intellectual, English traditions of tolerance, openness and restraint - vague, semi-feudalistic, determinedly bourgeois, unexciting as they are - are particularly maddening as they leave no room for the concoction of "logical" systems in their own image by gaggles of Nazi-sympathizing, sex-addicted continental "philosophers."

    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher." This may be the real reason why "philosophers" writing in English strive so mightily to make their works read like bad translations from ponderous German or Gauloise-reeking French.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism

    That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers), restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law, the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.

    As for:

    privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.

    LOL

    Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They even have listening lamp posts.

    Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout, mainly protestant, Christians.

    Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom pants, and on and on.

    As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 10:51 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    What is you point, that Syria has no right for her sovereignty?
    A country at three times carrying capacity talking about "sovereignty" is like a 600 lb person talking about running a marathon. as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
    You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
    And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction.
    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT

    @CanSpeccy David Anhagt may have been at the forefront of philosophy at the end of antiquity, but things have moved on a bit since then. Today, surely, the key questions in philosophy are of the following kind:

    (1) How do we know what we know, if we know anything at all?

    (2) What is the nature of external reality, if there is an external reality, and what can we know of it and how?

    (3) If there is an external reality, how come? How did it come to exist?

    (4) What is morality?

    (5) What is free will, and does it make us morally responsible for our actions?

    And much more. All these 'moves' have been already made long before the end of Antiquity. There were the essential questions of 'philosophy' to which Plato, Aristotle and a score of 'Oriental' philosophers have offered the answers.
    Didn't a noted philosopher of the 20th century, Alfred North Whitehead, famously said that: 'The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato'?

    Corvinus , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    One of the advantages of the English language is that the language itself does not allow a person to identify his profession by saying "I am a philosopher."
    Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher."

    Notice how ridiculous it sounds?

    French does not have the same inbuilt resistance to unreality. "Moi, je suis philosophe" does not sound inherently ridiculous to a French speaker. "Try it. Try saying "I am a philosopher.""

    OK. Doctor of philosophy.

    "Notice how ridiculous it sounds?"

    No.

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 1:15 pm GMT

    The Saker publishes some interesting news re the MH17 tragedy:
    "SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] orders to destroy all evidence of the conducted special operation MH17″ http://thesaker.is/sbu-orders-to-destroy-all-evidence-of-the-conducted-special-operation-mh17/
    by Scott Humor: " If you want to know my opinion that hasn't changed since 2014. The Boeing flight MH17 was shot down by the Ukrainian air force fighter jets, but not necessarily piloted by Ukrainian pilots. It was a CIA and NATO operation to frame Russia. Most likely the Dutch government was a part of this operation. Now, they are trying to hang all the dogs on Waltzman -Poroshenko, because neither the Dutch monarchs, nor the CIA would fancy to be implicated in this crime."

    The whole edifice of sanctions against Russian federation was built on the MH17 case. A few people come to mind. First is the Secretary of State John Kerry who had proclaimed that Russians were guilty of the shooting before any investigation took place.
    Then there is a Department of War Studies, King's College London, which became famous for inviting Eliot Higgins (an expert in selling ladies underwear) to lecture the College' students on Higgins' specialty – the russophobic stuff, which was debunked on numerous occasions but which is still dear to the hearts at the Department of War Studies, King's College London. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/principal/Indexnew.aspx https://www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/warstudies/people/professors/rainsborough.aspx
    And then there is a circus of Dutch investigation: https://www.rt.com/news/375105-mh17-investigation-dutch-journalist/ and this http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/dutch-prosecutor-does-not-answer-questions-on-russian-supplied-radar-data/
    The Dutch/Ukrainian scoundrels are now facing this (which is just a beginning): https://www.rt.com/news/374893-trump-letter-mh17-investigation/ "The open letter, signed by 25 journalists, former civil aviation pilots and researchers from Germany, the Netherlands and Australia, was posted on the website of Joost Niemoller – a Dutch journalist who publicly challenged the current investigation into the ill-fated Flight MH17, which was downed over Ukraine in July 2014. "

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT

    "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"

    Newton, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, James Clerk Maxwell, Einstein - Some footnotes.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye


    as we all know, the attack on the USS Liberty was intended as a false flag attack to be blamed on Egypt in order to get America to fight Israel's wars for them
    This suggestion at least makes logical sense.

    However, the idea that Israel's entire senior leadership seriously thought they could pin a combined air/sea attack in the middle of the Red Sea on Egypt is quite outlandish, as explained in a separate post above. Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

    In fact, nobody seems to suggest that the U.S. was ACTUALLY DECEIVED for even a split second about who launched the attack.

    Reading between the lines of contemporary and later accounts, it appears that Israel took IMMEDIATE action to mitigate the fall-out in DC. This again is inconsistent with trying to pin it on Egypt.

    Given the circumstances, the Israelis must have KNOWN 100% that the attack would be traced back to them within hours at the latest.

    then why did they machine gun the lifeboats, eh?

    that in itself is a war crime you know, and the ONLY reason they would have done it is to sink the ship with ALL hands. Thereby leaving no survivors to expose the treachery.

    and they had the Johnson regime and traitor McNamara on board with their cowardly, murderous treason.

    not to mention the controlled kosher msm

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT

    @annamaria as compared to an artificial state that has been squeezing the native population and importing the (allegedly) ethnically-proper economic migrants?
    You seem have peculiar explanations to why such formerly functioning states as Iraq, Libya, and Syria should better cease to exist (along with the USSLiberty staff). According to your logic, the ongoing Syrian slaughter is a good deed because it allows for weeding out the excess of population there. The weeding out also works as a rationale for grabbing the Syrian natural resources by the "most moral" apartheid state.
    And please don't try at lecturing the readers on Israel's virtues vs the US perfidy, considering the history of betrayal of the US by Israel-firsters. Pollard and more, the despicable PNAC crowd and the ziocons' obnoxious and stupid global games against ethnically-wrong humanity. At the head of the current mess is the Israel-occupied Congress, "conditioned" for guiding the hapless host in a desired direction. You still haven't answered the question:

    What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

    As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

    Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

    Thank you.

    Rurik , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye You still haven't answered the question:

    What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

    As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

    Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

    Thank you. if you (and Annamaria) don't mind, I'll address this..

    What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

    there was a war going on between a US ally and a nation of strategic importance to the US- Israel and Egypt. The USS Liberty was a NSA intelligence ship. It was there to monitor what was going on. Duh.

    explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

    unless you an admiral in the US Navy at the time, no one knows for sure. But a lot of people have speculated that the USS Liberty was sent by the Johnson regime to get sunk by Israel and be used as a false flag to take America into war against Egypt.

    We already know for a fact that jets were scrambled to assist the USS Liberty and were called back and ordered not to assist by Johnson through Secretary of State McNamara. And not once, but twice.

    So obviously Johnson wanted her sunk. Whether or not the ship was sent there for that purpose, or whether Johnson simply decided to let the Israelis sink her once he heard about it, we'll likely never know.

    Hope that helps eagle

    annamaria , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye You still


    What was the U.S. Liberty doing in the Red Sea in 1967?

    As a U.S. citizen, I would quite like to know, even at this late stage, what our military forces were doing far from Chesapeake Bay. Perhaps the answer gives a hint as to what is happening now.

    Since you seem obsessed about the "sovereignty" of former Ottoman territories, please also explain how exactly the USS Liberty's presence was supposed to assist the "sovereignty" of Cis-Jordan (i.e. the current sovereign state of Israel).

    Thank you. Why don't you look closely into the present to understand the past?
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/05/23/truth-has-become-un-american/

    "As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war."

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 23, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    "The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato"
    Newton, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, James Clerk Maxwell, Einstein - Some footnotes. There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.
    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 12:52 am GMT

    @Seraphim There are more, but most of them are sloppy footnotes.

    but most of them are sloppy footnotes

    True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things - so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth, either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state.

    Heir Max , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT

    How does Russia ( read Putin ) embracing Christianity and encouraging it again in Russia factor in the sudden sour attitude of our progressives in the US? The LOVED the USSR.. as it was atheistic, no? But as a non-threat-Russia, and a Christian Russia, eh, not so much; especially since Russia has decided they are not so fond of the Muslim.

    Interesting times. Great article.

    Seraphim , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 11:21 am GMT

    @CanSpeccy


    but most of them are sloppy footnotes
    True. But that's true of most of what passes for thought or scholarship in every field of intellectual endeavor. Still mankind has come a long way since the time of Plato in understanding many things - so far that, in our morally unregenerate state, we appear on the brink of creating Hell on Earth, either as the result of a final global conflagration or the creation of a global slave state. You can see what sloppiness leads to.
    John Gruskos , Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 3:55 pm GMT

    @in the middle How exactly did Reagan biggest mistake was amnesty? Explain and give some examples, please. Giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants who were in America in 1986 encouraged more illegal immigrants to come, in hopes of a future amnesty.

    In 1986 there were only 1 million illegal immigrants. Now there are at least 11 million.

    CanSpeccy , Website Show Comment Next New Comment May 24, 2017 at 5:02 pm GMT

    @Seraphim You can see what sloppiness leads to.

    You can see what sloppiness leads to.

    We need to define "sloppiness" with exactitude.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment May 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT

    @CanSpeccy

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism
    That is probably the exact opposite of the fact. The English sense of tolerance, such as it is (think the burning of witches and heretics, the gaoling of or chemical castration of queers), restraint, such as it is (think football hooliganism and the crass obscenity of some BBC entertainment programming), etc. are probably the result of Britain's unique set of traditions, the common law, the breakdown of serfdom as the result of the crash in population caused by the Black Death, property law, the rights of women dating from pre-Norman times, the King's Courts that provided litigants access to a court presided over by a professional judge, English trust law, that gave rise to so many special purpose clubs and organizations from scientific societies to sporting associations and explains why nearly all the world's most popular sports were invented by the English, and Henry VIII's marital problems that largely freed Britain from the influence of the Catholic church.

    As for:

    privacy and secularism paired with traditional respect for organically grown institutions balanced by distrust of fads and "philosophies.
    LOL. Privacy? The Brits have more surveillance cameras per capita than any country on earth. They even have listening lamp posts.

    Secularism? The present archbishop of Canterbury may be of Jewish extraction and experienced as a oil company money man, but until recent times the British were, for the most part, devout, mainly protestant, Christians. Fads? Well maybe the Brits didn't trust them but they had plenty from rock and roll, flick knives, and ducks arse hair cuts, to mini-skirts, beatlemania, balsa wood airplanes, bellbottom pants, and on and on.

    As for philosophies, the British empiricists are clearly among the most important of the modern age as the British who know anything about philosophy are happy to acknowledge.

    English traditions achieved unrivaled primacy due to an innate sense of tolerance, restraint, privacy and secularism

    It may have escaped you that my earlier post referred to the time of the American Revolution, and in particular to sophisticated British traditions and conventions as they were perceived by the educated class in the colonies.

    The sad decline of Britain in the modern era, and its more colorful history in earlier ages, are neither here nor there for these purposes.

    [Jun 03, 2017] State Department was at the center of neo-McCartyism compaign against Russia by Michael Isikoff

    State department official were backstabbing Trump with impunity... Neocon cohorts recruited by Hillary such as staffers of Victoria Nuland still feel in charge... Essentially State Department was and is a neocon swamp that needs to be drained.
    The level of McCarthyism hysteria in comments is really frightening...
    Notable quotes:
    "... These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said. ..."
    "... Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said one source, who asked not to be identified. ..."
    "... These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking them in place - before Trump could lift them ..."
    "... The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering it as well.") ..."
    "... But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position on the issue. ..."
    "... In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year. ..."
    "... "I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said. ..."
    Jun 01, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

    Originally from: Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

    How the Trump administration's secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short

    In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.

    Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.

    These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia's intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.

    "There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions," said Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he received several "panicky" calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, "Please, my God, can't you stop this?"

    Fried said he grew so concerned that he contacted Capitol Hill allies - including Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., the ranking minority member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - to urge them to move quickly to pass legislation that would "codify" the sanctions in place, making it difficult for President Trump to remove them.

    Tom Malinowski, who had just stepped down as President Obama's assistant secretary of state for human rights, told Yahoo News he too joined the effort to lobby Congress after learning from former colleagues that the administration was developing a plan to lift sanctions - and possibly arrange a summit between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin - as part of an effort to achievea "grand bargain" with Moscow. "It would have been a win-win for Moscow," said Malinowski, who only days before he left office announced his own round of sanctions against senior Russian officials for human rights abuses under a law known as the Magnitsky Act.

    The previously unreported efforts by Fried and others to check the Trump administration's policy moves cast new light on the unseen tensions over Russia policy during the early days of the new administration.

    It also potentially takes on new significance for congressional and Justice Department investigators in light of reports that before the administration took office Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his chief foreign policy adviser, Michael Flynn, discussed setting up a private channel of communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak - talks that appear to have laid the groundwork for the proposals that began circulating right after the inauguration.

    A senior White House official confirmed that the administration began exploring changes in Russia sanctions as part of a broader policy review that is still ongoing. "We've been reviewing all the sanctions - and this is not exclusive to Russia," the official said. "All the sanctions regimes have mechanisms built in to alleviate them. It's been our hope that the Russians would take advantage of that" by living up to Moscow's agreement to end the Ukraine conflict, but they did not do so.

    To be sure, President Trump's interest in improving relations with Moscow was hardly a secret during last year's presidential campaign." If we can make a great deal for our country and get along with Russia, that would be a tremendous thing," Trump said in a April 28, 2016, Fox News interview ."I would love to try it."

    But there was nothing said in public about specific steps the new administration took toward reaching the kind of deal the president had talked about during the campaign - without requiring the Russians to acknowledge responsibility for the annexation of Crimea or Moscow's "influence campaign" during the 2016 election.

    Just days after President Trump took office, officials who had moved into the secretary of state's seventh-floor office sent a "tasking" order to the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs to develop a menu of options to improve relations with Russia as part of a deal in exchange for Russian cooperation in the war against the Islamic State in Syria, according to two former officials. Those options were to include sanctions relief as well as other steps that were a high priority for Moscow, including the return of two diplomatic compounds - one on Long Island and the other on Maryland's Eastern Shore - that were shut by President Obama on Dec. 29on the grounds that they were being used for espionage purposes. (The return of the compounds is again being actively considered by the administration, according to a Washington Post reportThursday. ) "Obviously, the Russians have been agitating about this," the senior White House official said when asked about the compounds, or "dachas," as the Russians call them. But it would be inaccurate to report there has been an agreement to return them without some reciprocal move on Moscow's part.

    Since this was the same State Department bureau that had helped develop the punitive measures in the first place, and actively pushed for them under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, who had just resigned, the tasking order left staffers feeling "deeply uncomfortable," said one source, who asked not to be identified.

    These concerns led some department officials to also reach out to Malinowski, an Obama political appointee who had just stepped down. Malinowski said he, like Fried, called Cardin and other congressional allies, including aides to Sen. John McCain, and urged them to codify the sanctions - effectively locking them in place - before Trump could lift them

    The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. "Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with sanctions relief," Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without "verifiable progress" by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, "we would lose all credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world," added Cardin in his own statement. (A spokesman for Cardin told Yahoo News in an emailed statement: "I can also confirm that the senator did hear from senior Obama officials encouraging him to take sanctions steps, but that he had already been considering it as well.")

    The proposed bill lost some of its urgency six days later when Flynn resigned as White House national security adviser following disclosures he had discussed political sanctions relief with Kislyak during the transition and misrepresented those talks to Vice President Mike Pence. After that, "it didn't take too long for it to become clear that if they lifted sanctions, there would be a political firestorm," Malinowski said.

    But the political battles over the issue are far from over. Cardin, McCain and Graham are separately pushing another sanctions bill - imposing tough new measures in response to Russia's election interference. The measures have so far been blocked for consideration within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by its chairman, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who says he wants to first hear the administration's position on the issue.

    In the meantime, Malinowksi said he is concerned that there may be other, less public ways the administration can undermine the Russian sanctions. He noted that much of their force results from parallel sanctions imposed by the European Union, whose members must unanimously renew them each year.

    "I had this nightmare vision of [White House senior adviser ] Steve Bannon or [National Security Council staffer] Sebastian Gorka calling in the Hungarian ambassador and telling them President Trump would not be displeased" if his country opposed the renewal of sanctions, he said.

    [Jun 03, 2017] Putin I Can Prove Trump Did Not Pass Secrets to Russia

    Jun 03, 2017 | www.newsmax.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that U.S. President Donald Trump had not passed on any secrets to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a meeting in Washington last week and that he could prove it.

    Speaking at a news conference alongside Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Putin quipped that Lavrov was remiss for not passing on what he made clear he believed were non-existent secrets.

    "I spoke to him [Lavrov] today," said Putin with a smile. "I'll be forced to issue him with a reprimand because he did not share these secrets with us. Not with me, nor with representatives of Russia's intelligence services. It was very bad of him."

    Putin, who said Moscow rated Lavrov's meeting with Trump "highly," said Russia was ready to hand a transcript of Trump's meeting with Lavrov over to U.S. lawmakers if that would help reassure them.

    A Kremlin aide, Yuri Ushakov, later told reporters that Moscow had in its possession a written record of the conversation, not an audio recording.

    Complaining about what he said were signs of "political schizophrenia" in the United States, Putin said Trump was not being allowed to do his job properly.

    "It's hard to imagine what else can these people who generate such nonsense and rubbish can dream up next," said Putin.

    "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans. Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    Two U.S. officials said on Monday that Trump had disclosed highly classified information to Lavrov about a planned Islamic State operation, plunging the White House into another controversy just months into Trump's short tenure in office.

    Russia has repeatedly said that anti-Russian politicians in the United States are using groundless fears of closer ties with Moscow to sabotage any rapprochement and damage Trump in the process.

    .

    [Jun 03, 2017] Putin We Should Be Grateful To President Trump In Moscow It's Cold And Snowing

    Jun 03, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday during a panel at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum that the US investigations into whether the Kremlin meddled in the US election are nothing more than "hysteria," and that the anti-Russia sentiment in the US was about as virulent as anti-semitism. "It's like saying everything is the Jews' fault," said Putin, who said the blame for Hillary Clinton's November loss lies squarely at the feet of the Democratic presidential candidate and members of her party, according to a report.

    "This reminds me of anti-Semitism," Putin said. "The Jews are to blame for everything. An idiot cannot do anything himself, so the Jews are to blame. But we know what such attitudes lead to. They end with nothing good."

    Putin, who was being interviewed by NBC's Megyn Kelly, brushed off questions about meetings that members of the Trump campaign - including then-Sen. Jeff Sessions - had with Russian officials such as ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

    " So our ambassador met someone. That's his job. That's why we pay him," Putin said. "So what? What's he supposed to do, hit up the bars ?"

    Putin was amused when Kelly touched on the subject of Russian foreign news coverage spreading "disinformation." Putin accused her "colleagues" of dragging Russia into their coverage unfavourably.

    "Let's end this," Putin told her. "You will feel better and we will feel better."

    Donald Trump won because he had run a more effective presidential campaign than Hillary Clinton, Putin said, adding the US intelligence agencies may have faked evidence of Russian hacking, according to Reuters. Allegations of Russian involvement were nothing more than "harmful gossip," Putin insisted, there were no "Russian fingerprints" on the alleged hacks, Reuters reported.

    Earlier this week, Putin denied the Russian state had directed any hacking operations designed to influence the U.S. election – though he did say Russian "patriots" could have been behind the plot on their own, Fox reported. Following President Donald Trump's decision Thursday to take the US out of the Paris Climate Accord talks, Putin said that there's still time to reach a deal on the 2015 pact even without the US's involvement, before adding, in English, "don't worry, be happy," according to Reuters.

    Despite the critism that has been heapened upon Trump by other world leaders since he announced his decision to leave the accord last night, Putin said that he "wouldn't blame Trump" for leaving the accord , though he hoped the White House would set its own climate rules.

    " By the way, we should be grateful to President Trump. In Moscow it's raining and cold and even, they say, some snow. Now we could blame this all on American imperialism, that it's all their fault. But we won't. "

    And though he said he hopes that US sanctions against Russia would soon be lifted, he noted that they did have some positive effects. "We had to use our brains," Putin said. "Not rely on oil and gas dollars." Allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin have dogged the new administration since before the inauguration. In recent weeks, US media have taken aim at Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, whom NBC and WaPo reported was a "person of interest" in the FBI' campaign.

    As a reminder, Kelly is set to interview Putin in St. Petersburg Friday for a Sunday night special that will air on NBC.

    mdr attitude - froze25 , Jun 2, 2017 3:41 PM

    Putin knows how to troll the MSM.

    And not even using Twitter. If he would use it, the leftards would meltdown in record time.

    MSM Finally Admits RussiaGate is Clinton's "Conspiracy Theory"

    [Jun 03, 2017] Key Takeaways From Intelligence Community Testimony On Alleged Russian Hacking

    Jun 03, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    For those disaffected Hillary snowflakes looking for some level of concrete, tangible evidence from today's Senate testimony from the "intelligence community" that "Russian Hackers" purposefully colluded with President-elect Trump to steal the 2016 election from Clinton, we have some bad news: your desire for evidence required to start World War III over your candidate's loss has still not been fulfilled. Better luck next time.

    As we suspected, today's testimony offered up by James Clapper and others of the "intelligence community" to the Senate's Armed Forces Committee has largely been nothing more than another smear campaign rife with political rhetoric but light on facts and tangible evidence.

    Asked whether Julian Assange was credible, Clapper, who ironically has lost all credibility throughout this process with his rapidly evolving story line, was quick to confirm in the negative. Per The Hill :

    When asked if Assange was credible, Clapper responded with a very noticeably annoyed look, "Not in my view."

    Navy Adm. Michael Rogers, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of National Security Agency responded, "I second those comments."

    Meanwhile, other comments aimed at Julian Assange drew some expected criticism from Wikileaks

    ... ... ...

    Clapper, apparently interviewing for a commentator spot at MSNBC, warned that hacking wasn't the extent of the efforts by Russia to meddle in the 2016 election which also included coordinated efforts from RT, and other "fake news" outlets, to exploit any "fissure they could find in our tapestry."

    " RT was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights, etc . Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it,"

    ... ... ...

    ..and warned against retaliatory efforts saying that "we and other nations conduct similar acts of espionage."

    "As I say, people in glass houses need to think about throwing rocks. This was an act of espionage. And we and other nations conduct similar acts of espionage."

    Per a note earlier this morning from The Hill , there are five key things to watch for as the hearing progresses:

    1. How many Republicans will criticize Trump's stance? - Both John McCain, who chairs the committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another member of the panel, have been vocal in their criticism of Trump's unwillingness to blindly accept the rapidly evolving "facts" presented by the "intelligence community."

    2. How strong is the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC? - After Julian Assange again appeared on Fox News earlier this week to confirm that his source was not Russia, or any "state actor" for that matter, the "intelligence community" once again changed its narrative this morning to imply that Russia hacked the DNC and John Podesta then provided that information to Wikileaks via a third party. Well, how convenient is that? We look forward to receiving some concrete, tangible evidence from Mr. Clapper on this new assertion.

    3. What evidence does the intelligence community have that Putin wanted to assist Trump? - The CIA, without supplying any evidence, reportedly believes that Russia was explicitly trying to help Trump - raising politically explosive questions about the degree to which it succeeded. Meanwhile, the White House has stopped short if that conclusion telling CNN that "President Obama and this administration is 100 percent certain in the role that Russia played in trying to sow discord and confusion and getting involved, through the cyber domain, in our electoral process." Will any actual evidence of collusion between Trump and Russian officials be presented?

    4. How much will the public get to see - and when? - Will this whole charade just be more political rhetoric , which is the only thing the "intelligence community" has provided to date, or will actual tangible evidence finally be presented to support the "Russian hacking" narrative.

    5. How much will either committee be able to do? - With a new administration taking over in 15 days will any of this actually matter or is it just a last-ditch effort to delegitimize the incoming administration?

    Of course, Trump has maintained a healthy dose of skepticism of the intelligence community's "facts." In a series of tweets earlier this week, Trump accused intelligence officials of delaying his briefing until Friday in order to build a case against Russia. He also noted comments from Wikileaks founder Julian Assange who has repeatedly said that his leaked material was not provided by the Russian government.

    spastic_colon , Jan 5, 2017 1:06 PM

    consider all of the supposed sources on the panel; the fact its even news, fake at that, is evidence enough the MSM is still over-populated with morons and sycophants.

    Tom Servo - spastic_colon , Jan 5, 2017 1:07 PM

    Clapper is already a "documented liar" - so why should we believe anything this shitbag said today?

    froze25 - xythras , Jan 5, 2017 1:11 PM

    All we need is a Closet Homosexual like Graham leading us into WW3, some body please just out this guy with a photo so we don't get into a nuclear exchange.

    Joe Davola - froze25 , Jan 5, 2017 1:16 PM

    The takeaway is that they would rather the 'election were hacked' than divulge how extensive and pervasive their big brother spying on every bit of communication traffic is. (Not that I think the election was hacked in the first place.)

    Life of Illusion - Joe Davola , Jan 5, 2017 1:24 PM

    Very long run since the 60's and now policy model broken as we witness scratch, screaming and blaming others going out the door.

    Kayman - Joe Davola , Jan 5, 2017 2:20 PM

    Who better to leave Russian fingerprints than the CIA Big slice of Yellow cake for anyone? Lie to the American people- no consequences.

    BennyBoy - Kayman , Jan 5, 2017 3:00 PM

    Fake news changed the election?

    But not the fake spews coming outta Hillary's hole?

    J S Bach - froze25 , Jan 5, 2017 1:18 PM

    " They didn't change any vote tallies," Clapper said, but "We have no way of gauging the impact that - certainly the Intelligence Community can't - the choices that the electorate made. There's no way for us to gauge."

    Hmmmm. Do they have a way of "gauging the impact" that our zio-controlled lying media may have had on the choices that the electorate made? Since this is a question of equal or greater importance, I just thought I'd ask.

    Offthebeach - J S Bach , Jan 5, 2017 2:47 PM

    They didn't change any vote tallies," Clapper said, but "We have no way of gauging .....There's no way for us to gauge."

    Well, which is it? They didn't. Definitive statement. Followed by we don't/can't know. WTF?

    Weasel.

    The Saint - froze25 , Jan 5, 2017 1:17 PM

    Clapper to MSNBC!! LOL Is that where all of Obama's moron appointments go to die?

    Freddie - froze25 , Jan 5, 2017 1:38 PM

    McCain, Graham, clapper and the rest totally involved in the genocide of Libya and Syria along with Clintons, Soros, Sid Blumenthal, Petreaus, KKR-Halliburton, Mike Morell-zio, White Helmets fraud, Nato, Epstein and the rest. They all need to be put on trial and arrested. Evil evil scum.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCTzFNrsKns&t=0s

    Tenshin Headache - , Jan 5, 2017 1:12 PM

    Because it deviates from the story line.

    JRobby - Tenshin Headache , Jan 5, 2017 1:16 PM

    In his summary remarks, Henrich spewing raw sewage out of his mouth like a fire hose. His conclusion: MORE SANCTIONS!

    And then, everyone present agreed! MORE SANCTIONS!

    Kabuki of the most perverse order.

    SoDamnMad - Tom Servo , Jan 5, 2017 1:20 PM

    "The Russians created deceptive operations within Iraq that caused the US to believe that Saddam Hussein possessed wepons of mass destruction."

    Colin Powell to the UN (must have been back in 2002-2003)

    azusgm - spastic_colon , Jan 5, 2017 1:27 PM

    "the MSM is still over-populated with morons and sycophants."

    Lindsey Graham: "I resemble that remark!"

    (What an enemy of the peace-loving people of this nation.)

    BTW, how about we spend some time focusing on the contents of the emails instead of making the narrative about the bogeyman Putin?

    Edward Bernays would be proud.

    Freddie - azusgm , Jan 5, 2017 3:08 PM

    I saw a video about JGs aka military attorneys which is what Graham was in the Navy or Naval Reserve. Supposedly they run a terror op and engage in a lot of the really dirty stuff that MIC, The Pentagram and Deep State enagge in.

    doctor10 - spastic_colon , Jan 5, 2017 3:00 PM

    the fake news about "Russian Hacking" originates from the NATO generation. They all are aware that is the first 20th century legacy institution on the chopping block.

    there simply is no need

    CheapBastard - hedgeless_horseman , Jan 5, 2017 1:16 PM

    The >$600 Billion defense industry needs an enemy, even if it needs to create one where none exists.

    11b40 - hedgeless_horseman , Jan 5, 2017 1:32 PM

    All of the MIC sweating over their trillion $ war budget. Got to keep things hot to justify the waste. To many tapped out taxpayers asking too many questions.

    logicalman - 11b40 , Jan 5, 2017 2:06 PM

    THE FUNCTION OF WASTE IN MODERN TOTALITARIANISM

    The production of weapons of mass destruction has always been associated with economic "waste." The term is pejorative, since it implies a failure of function. But no human activity can properly be considered wasteful if it achieves its contextual objective.... In the case of military "waste," there is indeed a larger social utility.... In advanced modern democratic societies, the war system ... has served as the last great safeguard against the elimination of necessary social classes. As economic productivity increases to a level further and further above that of minimum subsistence, it becomes more and more difficult for a society to maintain distribution patterns insuring the existence of "hewers of wood and drawers of water."... The arbitrary nature of war expenditures and of other military activities make them ideally suited to control these essential class relationships.... The continuance of the war system must be assured, if for no other reason, among others, than to preserve whatever quality and degree of poverty a society requires as an incentive, as well as to maintain the stability of its internal organization of power.

    The Creature from Jeckyll Island

    chunga - hedgeless_horseman , Jan 5, 2017 1:32 PM

    Still not a single one of them has the balls to mention Seth Rich or Eric Braverman. It's all fake, every bit of it.

    Tweet the shit out of it tRump, or you look fake too.

    AC_Doctor , Jan 5, 2017 1:08 PM

    Lindsey Graham and Democrat appointed Intelligence Heads is all you need to know.

    The Brown Clown and his reach arounders have only 14 more days to start a war with Russia.

    Mike Masr , Jan 5, 2017 1:17 PM

    This bullshit Russian interference narrative and politicized investigation is more sour grapes meant to discredit Donald Trump's election victory!

    * The anti-Trump protests and street riots didn't work.

    *The Jill Stein recount failed miserably and actually gave Trump more votes!

    *Death threats to intimidate the Electoral College failed.

    *Now it's the fake news that "Russia did it".

    Where is the investigation on all of this?

    It's already out from a close friend of Julian Assange that it was a disgruntled Bernie Sanders DNC insider that "leaked" the emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks and NOT Russian hacking. Maybe Seth Rich? The Obama Administration is ignoring this and continuing with its idiotic "Russia did it" narrative which is "fake news". Donald is right, not one shred of real and credible evidence.

    Assange said that a 14 year old could have hacked John Podesta's emails!

    This is just a vague circumstancial case to justify the fake Obama narrative to discredit Donald Trump's election victory.

    Fuck Obama, fuck crooked Hillary......15 more days libtards!

    aliki •Jan 5, 2017 1:09 PM take-away was simple mccain & lindsey are ass-hurt nobody picked them to play president for the next 4 years as a result, they want war with russia, iran, china, north korea id love nothing more than for trump to fire them by executive order its ironic to hear a pair of clowns say how assange has put our troops in harms-way coming from a pair of guys who never met a country they wanted to bomb & follow-up with an invasion then they talk about countries wanting to ruin our democratic process coming from the guys who had the cia train rebels to overthrow assad, overthrew saddam, tried to overthrow everyone in iran, kim-jon, stacking troops/tanks on the russian border fucking histerical the democrats have no idea why they lost the republicans have no idea why they won

    besnook , Jan 5, 2017 1:23 PM

    the usa has jumped every shark in the ocean. there are about three people who believe the russian meme and these zionazis can't stop over selling a dead meme. what are they up to? there is no election for another 2 years and trump is not going to war with russia. all they are doing to making sure their legacy depicts them as the craven fools they are.

    stant , Jan 5, 2017 1:23 PM

    1.2 billion$ went up in smoke by Hillary , = blame the rooskies . Still wont save the demo crap party, and half the repugnants

    dltff-ya , Jan 5, 2017 1:24 PM

    This is show time. Sources and Methods be damned. Kennedy showed the reconnaissance photos of Russian Missiles in Cuba. This demonstration is the super bowl. There is no tomorrow for them if they can't convince us they are not lying, so there is no point he holding back. Snowden might be an interesting source for this. His knowledge is a bit stale now, but he knows that the NSA can do, and if there is no forthcoming NSA public evidence, nothing redacted, then Clapper, et. al. lied before congress and should be prosecuted.

    Lets have a confrontation the Russian experts in public like Kennedy did over the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is the Super bowl. There is no game tomorrow for these guys if they can't produce convincing evidence now. The moment the intelligence services are invented for. is NOW. I heard nothing today but bloviating. They did not even go into that Cozy bear Fancy bear crap. That story falls apart in your hands. Now there tack is that the Russian wanted us to know it was them so they were sloppy. Clapper, Graham, and McCain can be guilty of presenting false testimony to congress, or can be put under oath and ambushed into making statements they knew were false.

    Bopper09 , Jan 5, 2017 1:29 PM

    The biggest problem today was reality. Fuck it must be hard trying to convince an entire globe that we should be going to war without any facts or truth to anything. I can't believe these clowns actually sat through this like they were somehow relevant. How doesn't someone stand up in the middle of this and just say "Come on guys, really, come on. This is absolutely ridiculous. You can't continue to make shit up. Come on. Seriously."

    Who was that ma... , Jan 5, 2017 1:32 PM

    "Older men start wars, but younger men fight them." ~ Albert Einstein

    "Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die." ~ Herbert Hoover

    "I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in." ~ George S. McGovern

    The other day, I saw one of those bumper stickers that says, "War is Not the Answer". It's a silly bumper sticker because it provides an "answer" but fails to provide the corresponding question. Yes, I know it's a Liberal thing but what they should be saying is that, Government is Not the Answer because, for government, war IS the answer. For government and for those in government, war means power, and wealth, and influence. For the rest of us, war means only death and destruction and poverty.

    Bavarian , Jan 5, 2017 1:45 PM

    OMG, he's got nothing. Clapperclaimed today thathe's "ready" to brief Trump with his evidence. We're all still waiting. I'm so glad someone is taking these intel weenies to task. They've been hiding behind their secrecy for decades saying whatever they want with zero repercussions as they always deter to need-to-know tactics to silence all questions. Well, a new day has arrived, IC. You will learnthe word ACCOUNTABILITY. You might have to look it up.

    How this guy isn't in prison is beyond me.He's a known liar in front of congress. What, did they really have the audacity of swearing him in again? He, Graham, McCain ad Ryan are all squealing like frightened rabbit being pulled out of their holes.This stance of "listen to me because I'm important" rhetoric has lost its luster. People are finally wising up to their crap. Put up or shut up, Clapper.

    AriusArmenian , Jan 5, 2017 1:53 PM

    Amazing that Trump is standing firm against the US anti-'intelligence' agencies.

    He must realize that he is in danger of being JFK'd.

    The CIA has stuck its neck way out this time.

    They must be extremely desperate.

    They want war with Russia and could well JFK Trump to get it.

    DarthVaderMentor , Jan 5, 2017 2:04 PM

    Well, that confirms it. The "Intelligence Community" leadership (and I use the term "intelligence" and "leadership" rather loosely) of Clapper, Brennan and Morel set off the alarm based on no factual evidence for political purposes, trying to trap Trump with the American flag and the red menace just like they did to GW Bush on the Iraq WMD and to the nigga with ISIS the JV team. They did this solely to help Hillary with her donors and hurt Trump.

    Time to clean out the 17 intelligence agencies and ODNI. You can't trust the analysts and there's too few in the front lines doing real HUMINT.

    Let's call the Democrats now McCarthyists!

    Vin , Jan 5, 2017 2:14 PM

    I dont' give a shit if the Russians hacked the DNC or not.

    I do care about the criminality exposed.

    LET'D TALK ABOUT THE CRIMINALITY AND PUT SOME DEMONRATS IN JAIL!

    crazybob369 , Jan 5, 2017 2:27 PM

    Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting this déjà-vu feeling all over again (to paraphrase Yogi). This ridiculous idea that the Russians somehow won the election for Trump, by hacking and other means, sounds eerily familiar to the WMDs that Iraq supposedly had, that Colon (sic)Powell, et-al, used as an excuse to lead us towar(s) thatare now going on two decades. Fine and dandy against a third world country, fighting with decades old weaponry, never mind that it's taken the life of many brave, young, gullible Americans, as well as 10's of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, but it's a whole different ball game against the Russians. Any type of conventional war against Russia is suicide (if in doubt, ask Napoleon, or Hitler) and if there is a conventional war and either side starts losing, the war goes nuclear and we are all fucked. The only saving grace is that most have us have seen this movie before and hopefully we're not stupid enough to fall for this plot the second time around, because if we do, there ain't going to be a third.

    [Jun 03, 2017] Either they dont understand the damage theyre doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt

    Jun 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, June 03, 2017 at 01:05 PM

    Another interesting quote from Putin speech:

    "What surprises me is that they are shaking up the domestic political situation using anti-Russian slogans,"

    "Either they don't understand the damage they're doing to their own country, in which case they are simply stupid, or they understand everything, in which case they are dangerous and corrupt."

    Putin I Can Prove Trump Did Not Pass Secrets to Russia

    [Jun 02, 2017] I think that the Soviet Threat, the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect by

    views Zbigniew Brzezinski through the rose glasses. In reality Zbig Russophobia was based on that same desire to dominate the globe that had driven British elite to Russophobia before. Plus desire of MIC to preserve its size and profits and return to the good old days of Cold War. The US militarism is business driven militarism, which makes it even more dangerious.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget. ..."
    "... Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected. ..."
    "... Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia. ..."
    "... The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction. ..."
    "... The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist," you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth. ..."
    "... The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon. ..."
    Jun 02, 2017 | www.unz.com
    I think that the "Soviet Threat," the basis for the Cold War, was a hoax. It was created by the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned us to no effect. The patriotic war movies, the patriotic Memorial Days and July 4ths with emotional thanks to those who died "saving our freedoms," which were never in danger from the Japanese and Germans, only from our own government, succeeded in brainwashing even National Security Advisors. Little wonder the insouciance of the American population today.

    The Cold War was an orchestration of the military/security complex, and there are many victims. Brzezinski was a victim as the Cold War was his life. JFK was a victim as he lost his life to it. The Vietnamese, who died in the millions, were victims The photo of the naked young Vietnamese girl fleeing down the road in terror from the American napham behind her made us aware that the Cold War had many innocent victims. The Soviet troops sent to Afghanistan were victims as were the Afghans themselves.

    The Soviet Threat removed itself when hardline communists arrested Soviet President Gorbachev. This ill-conceived intervention collapsed the Soviet Union. With the Soviet Threat removed, the US military/security complex no longer had a justification for its massive budget.

    Treading water while looking for a new justification for bleeding the American taxpayer, the military/security complex had President Clinton declare the US to be the World Policeman and to destroy Yugoslavia in the name of "human rights." With Israeli and neoconservative input, the military/security complex used 9/11 to create the "Muslim Terrorist Threat." This hoax has now murdered, maimed, dispossessed, and displaced millions of Muslims in seven countries.

    Despite 16 years of Washington's wars against countries ranging from North Africa to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, the "Muslim threat" does not suffice to justify the $1.1 trillion US military/security annual budget. Consequently, the Russian Threat has been resurrected.

    The Muslim Threat was never a danger to the US. It is only a danger to Washington's European vassal states, who had to accept millions of Muslim refugees from Washington's wars. However, the newly created Russian Threat is a threat to every American as well as to every European.

    Russia can bite back. For a quarter century Russia has watched Washington prepare for a paralyzing nuclear strike on Russia. Recently, the Russian High Command announced that the Russian military has concluded that Washington does intend a surprise nuclear strike against Russia.

    This dire Russian announcement received no western press coverage. No high official of any Western government, Trump included, called Putin to give reassurances that no such attack on Russia was being planned.

    So, what happens next time when a false alarm, such as the one Brzezinski received, is received by his counterpart in Moscow or the National Security Council? Will the animosities resurrected by the evil US military/security complex result in the Russians or the US believing the false signal?

    The insouciant populations of the West, including the members of the governments, do not appreciate that they are living on the edge of nuclear destruction.

    The very few of us who alert you are dismissed as "Russian agents," "anti-semites," and "conspiracy theorists." When you hear a source called a "Russian agent," an "anti-semite," or a "conspiracy theorist," you had better listen to them. These are those in the know who accept arrow slings in order to tell you the truth.

    You will never, ever, get the truth from the Western media or from any Western government. (See: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/06/02/israels-slaughter-us-sailors/ )

    The most important truth of our time is that the world lives on the knife-edge of the American military/security complex's need for an enemy in order to keep profits flowing. The brutal fact is this: For the sake of its profits, the American military/security complex has subjected the entire world to the risk of nuclear Armageddon.

    [Jun 02, 2017] Stephen F. Cohen just wants Trump and Putin to get along by Isaac Chotiner

    what is really interesting that there were only a couple of sane individuals (Jack Paper , Wilfred_Blake, PT come to mind ) and in the whole discussion thread. The level of hysteria is really incredible and remind me of Stalinist Russia. People are so brainwashed into new McCartyism, that Senator McCarthy is he would know, probably is really proud and little bit envious at the results achieved. This collective Senator McCarthy that MSM now represent proved to be more dramatically efficient
    Notable quotes:
    "... Threat. OK. Threat. That's a good word. We're in a moment when we need an American president and a Kremlin leader to act at the highest level of statesmanship. Whether they meet in summit or not is not of great importance, but we need intense negotiations to tamp down this new Cold War, particularly in Syria, but not only. Trump is being crippled by these charges, for which I can find no facts whatsoever. ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... You need Trump because he's in the White House. I didn't put him there. I didn't vote for him. Putin's in the Kremlin. I didn't put him in the Kremlin either, but we have what we have, and these guys must have a serious dialog about tamping down these cold wars, which means cooperating on various fronts. The obvious one-and they already are secretly, but it's getting torpedoed-is Syria. ..."
    "... "This assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security." ..."
    "... So we come now with this so-called Russiagate. You know what that means. It's our shorthand, right? And Trump, even if he was the most wonderfully qualified president, he is utterly crippled in his ability to do diplomacy with the Kremlin. So let me give you the counterfactual example. ..."
    "... Imagine that Kennedy had been accused of somehow being, they used to accuse him of being an agent of the Vatican, but let's say he had been accused widely of being an agent of the Kremlin. The only way he could have ended the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been to prove his loyalty by going to nuclear war with Russia. That's the situation we're in today. I mean Trump is not free to take wise advice and use whatever smarts he has to negotiate down this new and dangerous Cold War, so this assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security. That's what I meant. That's what I believe. ..."
    "... So we don't have any forensic evidence that there was a hack. There might have been. If there was a hack, we have no evidence it was the Russians, and we have an alternative explanation that it was actually a leak, that somebody inside did a Snowden, just stuck a thumb drive in and walked out with this stuff. We don't know. And when you don't know, you don't go to war. ..."
    "... On the face of it, because it so deviated from American mainstream thinking about Putin, which was that he was a demon-that's what was startling about Trump, you're absolutely right. That he alone of all the candidates, even when we had multiple ones in the Democratic and Republican primaries, so far as I recall, he alone made this statement, I think I quote exactly, "Wouldn't it be great if we cooperated with Russia?" My answer is not only great but imperative. He also said, he also said he didn't know that Putin was actually a killer of personal enemies. That is correct. There is no evidence to support those allegations. He also said that Putin is a strong leader. That is also correct. ..."
    "... I'm saying that the people with expertise and independence who examined, for example, the Litvinenko poisoning in London, find no evidence that Putin was involved. [Ed. note: A public inquiry in the United Kingdom found that Putin had "probably" approved his murder.] These are not Russians or Americans. These are just people who know about polonium. I'm saying that the newspaper in Moscow-and you're not quite correct that there's no free press in Moscow. There is a small, embattled free press in Moscow. I and my wife are very, very close, very close to the primary one, that's Novaya Gazeta ..."
    "... Wait a minute. Let me just get to the point. That notion that he had her killed and put his signature on it is beyond ridiculous. Why? The next day he comes out, there's a press conference, and he's asked about her killing and the charges that the Kremlin was behind it, and he said something that might have been, what's the word? Not politic. Not diplomatic, but it was true. Essentially, I don't remember exactly what he said. Why would we want to kill her? Nobody in Russia read her. She had no influence in Russia. ..."
    "... Why did you kill her? ..."
    "... Why would I want to kill her? What was my motive? ..."
    "... You know, Anna was a great journalist, we mourn her death, but let's be serious. She was not an influential force in Russia. ..."
    "... My view is that this Cold War is even more dangerous. As we talk today, and this was not the case in the preceding Cold War, there are three new fronts that are fraught with hot war. You know them as well as I do. The NATO military build-up is going on in the Baltic regions, particularly in the three small Baltic countries, Poland, and if we include missile defense, Romania. That's right on Russia's border, and in Ukraine. You know that story. That's a proxy civil war right on Russia's border, and then of course in Syria, where American and Russian aircraft and Syrian aircraft are flying over the same airspace. ..."
    "... And a nation, but a country that has long been deeply divided by history or by God. I mean, we're talking ethnicity, language, religion, political tilting. One part tilts toward Russia, one part tilts toward the West. Many millions of Ukrainians and Russians have intermarried over the years. This is a country that always had the potential to either break apart or launch into civil war. The events of 2014, for which both sides are highly culpable, initiated a civil war. This entourage around Putin, one segment of it was absolutely 1,000 percent convinced that NATO was headed via Kiev to Crimea. Had Crimea fallen in any way to NATO, any way, even in the shadow of NATO, Putin would have had to either go to war or resign. No Russian leader would have been able to sustain that kind of defeat. ..."
    "... I don't want to go down in a subway and get blown up. It's going to happen. The Russians are excellent at this. They've got great intelligence. We're pretty good-not as good as the Russians. We need to combine it all. I see that this kind of alliance is good; we move on then to finding the solution in Ukraine and in the Baltic region. That's what Reagan did. Do you remember that Reagan going to Geneva, I think it was November 1985? Then two years later-I think this is right-he and Gorbachev for the first time in history, Isaac, abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons. This is what I want. This is probably what's not possible. ..."
    "... I mean for Christ's sake. Have you watched Carter Page on television? ..."
    "... Correction, May 30, 2017: This article originally misstated that the Moscow hotel mentioned in the dossier was the St. Regis. It was the Ritz-Carlton. ( Return .) ..."
    "... I see little independent evidence that Putin wanted Trump specifically to be elected rather than wanting HRC not to be elected. There was no attempt at interfering with the GOP primary in Trump's favor. Any notion that Trump was groomed by Putin in some kind of long game defies reason. Simply put, no one could have had any confidence that Trump would win, ever. ..."
    "... So if both of these assumptions hold, what the Democrats are creating, essentially, is a "stab in the back" myth on which they can focus their anger while muddying issues of accountability. Putin, I think it's clear, did not think that Trump had much chance of winning. To say he got "lucky" also doesn't describe the current reality, because this issue will probably taint US-Russian relations far into the future, and in ways no one could have foreseen. ..."
    "... But then it's also possible that this will taint American politics into the distant future. The thing about stab-in-the-back myths is that they're emotional, it's extremely difficult for people to a discuss them. much less turn a contested narrative into one based upon mutual agreement. This will be true whether Trump gets impeached or serves two terms. ..."
    "... "Europeans have an opinion of Americans as people who hysterically overreact to even the smallest of problems, real, or imagined" ..."
    "... And what did exactly Putin did? Told everyone what they already knew about Hillary Clinton? American politics is all about negative ads and made up stuff about other candidates, how exactly was it news to anyone that Hillary Clinton was plotting to bring down Bernie Sanders? Did you guys never have an election before? ..."
    "... Are you saying Putin finances Antifa? Because so far they have been the biggest force behind making Trump and Alt-Right look good. That would not be impossible, some corporations did that with environmental groups and they highlight targets for them that were either competitors or themselves but to paint those corporations as victims of unreasonable radicals (hence drowning any constructive criticism). ..."
    "... His brilliant placement of several thousand Russian operatives in MI, WI and PA, who were able to bribe a significant number of voters to tip the electoral scale in Trump's favor, was simply brilliant. ..."
    "... While this guy isn't saying Trump is right, in as nice a way possible he is saying the NeoCon/NeoLibs are as much to blame and the anti-Russian hysteria is overblown, out of control and incredibly short-sighted. ..."
    "... I don't think the Russian interference amounted to a hill of beans in this election. If you think it did, you are delusional. Do you really think some person in the Midwest changed their vote because of what was in the Podesta emails? You're an idiot if you think that. ..."
    "... And let's not forget our own interference. ..."
    "... So why should Russia trust a country that reneged on its promises and expanded its way to Russia's border? ..."
    consortiumnews.com

    Stephen F. Cohen has long been one of the leading scholars of Russia and the Soviet Union. He wrote a biography of the Bolshevik revolutionary Nikolai Bukharin and is a contributing editor at the Nation, which his wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, edits and publishes. In recent years, Cohen has emerged as a more ideologically dexterous figure, ripping those he thinks are pursuing a "new Cold War" with Russia and calling for President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin to form "an alliance against international terrorism." Cohen has gone so far as to describe the investigations into the Trump campaign and Russia "the No. 1 threat to the United States today."

    ... ... ...

    I heard you recently on Fox News. You said that the "assault" on President Trump "was the No. 1 threat to the United States today." What did you mean by that?

    Threat. OK. Threat. That's a good word. We're in a moment when we need an American president and a Kremlin leader to act at the highest level of statesmanship. Whether they meet in summit or not is not of great importance, but we need intense negotiations to tamp down this new Cold War, particularly in Syria, but not only. Trump is being crippled by these charges, for which I can find no facts whatsoever.

    Wait, which charges are we talking about?

    That he is somehow in the thrall or complicity or control, under the influence of the Kremlin.

    I think it would help if he would admit what his own intelligence agencies are telling him, that Russia played some role in

    No, I don't accept that. I don't accept that at all, not for one minute.

    People in the Trump administration admit this too.

    Well they're not the brightest lights.

    And the president is?

    No. You didn't ask me that. You asked me, you said, some of the president's people. You're referring to that intel report of January, correct? The one that was produced that said Putin directed the attack on the DNC?

    I was referring to that and many news accounts that Russia was behind the hacking, yes.

    The news accounts are of no value to us. I mean you and I both know ...

    No value? None?

    No. No value. Not on face value. Just because the New York Times says that I don't know, Carter Page or [Paul] Manafort or [Michael] Flynn did something wrong, I don't accept that. I need to see the evidence.

    So then how do you know what's going on in, say, Ukraine? You're not reading "news accounts" of it?

    I read on the internet mainly. I can't read Ukrainian very well, but most of the sources coming out of Ukraine are in Russian anyway.

    So that media's OK, but the New York Times isn't?

    No. It absolutely is not OK. No, no, no, no, no, no.

    OK, let's just go back to what you were saying about Trump being hamstrung.

    You need Trump because he's in the White House. I didn't put him there. I didn't vote for him. Putin's in the Kremlin. I didn't put him in the Kremlin either, but we have what we have, and these guys must have a serious dialog about tamping down these cold wars, which means cooperating on various fronts. The obvious one-and they already are secretly, but it's getting torpedoed-is Syria.

    So we come now with this so-called Russiagate. You know what that means. It's our shorthand, right? And Trump, even if he was the most wonderfully qualified president, he is utterly crippled in his ability to do diplomacy with the Kremlin. So let me give you the counterfactual example.

    Imagine that Kennedy had been accused of somehow being, they used to accuse him of being an agent of the Vatican, but let's say he had been accused widely of being an agent of the Kremlin. The only way he could have ended the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been to prove his loyalty by going to nuclear war with Russia. That's the situation we're in today. I mean Trump is not free to take wise advice and use whatever smarts he has to negotiate down this new and dangerous Cold War, so this assault on Trump, for which as yet there are zero facts, has become a grave threat to American national security. That's what I meant. That's what I believe.

    To use your Kennedy example, there was no evidence that Kennedy was an agent of either the Vatican or the Kremlin-

    No, but Isaac you're not old enough to remember, but during the campaign, because he was the first Catholic, they all went on about he's an agent of the Vatican.

    I know that. I'm old enough to have read "news accounts" of it. Anyway, there was a hacking of the DNC and-

    Wait actually no, Isaac stop. Stop. Now, I mean we don't know that for a fact.

    That there was a hacking of the DNC?

    Yeah we do not know that for a fact.

    What do we think happened?

    Well ...

    So you're really going to argue with me that the DNC wasn't hacked?

    I'm saying I don't know that to be the case.

    OK.

    I will refer you to an alternative report and you can decide yourself.

    Can we agree on this much at least: that Trump said there was a hack, refused to say who he thought did it, encouraged the hackers to keep doing it, at the same time that he was getting intelligence reports that it was the Russians, and that he continued to talk very positively about Putin after he was told this?

    You've given me too many facts to process, but if Trump said he knew it was a hack, he was not fully informed. We just don't know it for a fact, Isaac.

    So we don't have any forensic evidence that there was a hack. There might have been. If there was a hack, we have no evidence it was the Russians, and we have an alternative explanation that it was actually a leak, that somebody inside did a Snowden, just stuck a thumb drive in and walked out with this stuff. We don't know. And when you don't know, you don't go to war.

    Let me try another tactic.

    It's not me making this stuff up. It's not my opinion. It's just out there. I read it, and I think it's credible.

    Why do you think Trump, who has essentially, as far as I can tell, no clue about what's going on anywhere and can't keep his mind on some issue for 10 minutes, has had in his head consistently time and again that we must make peace with Putin, we must come together with Putin, Putin's a good guy? What do you make of that?

    Well you have given me a kind of primitive version of what Trump said. First of all, I don't share the view that Trump's an idiot. Trump's a clever, cunning, smart man, or he wouldn't have become Donald Trump. Whether that's applicable to the presidency is a different question, but to treat him as a buffoon and an idiot is just silly.

    On the face of it, because it so deviated from American mainstream thinking about Putin, which was that he was a demon-that's what was startling about Trump, you're absolutely right. That he alone of all the candidates, even when we had multiple ones in the Democratic and Republican primaries, so far as I recall, he alone made this statement, I think I quote exactly, "Wouldn't it be great if we cooperated with Russia?" My answer is not only great but imperative. He also said, he also said he didn't know that Putin was actually a killer of personal enemies. That is correct. There is no evidence to support those allegations. He also said that Putin is a strong leader. That is also correct.

    You say there's no evidence Putin was a killer. Don't you think if Russia had a more robust free press and was more of a liberal democracy, evidence might actually emerge?

    There's no evidence. I know there are allegations, but I have looked into the three or four most famous cases. I can't look at them all because there's about 30 now, some of them withdrawn.

    So you're saying these Putin enemies who keep turning up dead in Moscow, and then those deaths are not properly investigated, there's no evidence that Putin was behind them? That's your argument?

    Not behind, that's correct. He was not behind. He didn't order the killings, yes.

    We know that because there's been a fair investigation and there's a free press to report on that? That's what you are saying?

    I'm saying that the people with expertise and independence who examined, for example, the Litvinenko poisoning in London, find no evidence that Putin was involved. [Ed. note: A public inquiry in the United Kingdom found that Putin had "probably" approved his murder.] These are not Russians or Americans. These are just people who know about polonium. I'm saying that the newspaper in Moscow-and you're not quite correct that there's no free press in Moscow. There is a small, embattled free press in Moscow. I and my wife are very, very close, very close to the primary one, that's Novaya Gazeta. That's the newspaper that employed Anna Politkovskaya and several other journalists that were assassinated.

    Who killed her?

    I mean, I don't know who killed her. They've arrested the gunman, but they never get to the contract-giver. It almost certainly came out of Chechnya, almost certainly.

    And who runs Chechnya?

    You're headed now into a complicated turf.

    You know who runs Chechnya, and you know who his patron is.

    Let me put it to you like this: On the chart of federal authority, Ramzan Kadyrov runs Chechnya, and Putin could remove him.

    OK, well, there you go.

    No, that's the beginning of the discussion. What would happen in Chechnya if Putin removed Kadyrov? He either leaves Kadyrov in power and tries to rein him in, or the Russian army tries again to occupy Chechnya, which was a catastrophe two times under Yeltsin. You can't do it. What choice does Putin have at the moment?

    Didn't Putin speak disparagingly after Anna's death and say she had "minimal influence"?

    Wait a minute. Let me just get to the point. That notion that he had her killed and put his signature on it is beyond ridiculous. Why? The next day he comes out, there's a press conference, and he's asked about her killing and the charges that the Kremlin was behind it, and he said something that might have been, what's the word? Not politic. Not diplomatic, but it was true. Essentially, I don't remember exactly what he said. Why would we want to kill her? Nobody in Russia read her. She had no influence in Russia. What he said was about 95 percent true. Very few people except the inner political class knew who Anna Politkovskaya was, just like the great majority of Americans don't know who Stephen Cohen and Isaac Chotiner are. We are known to the people who care about the things we do.

    What he was saying was, when people said, Why did you kill her? He said, Why would I want to kill her? What was my motive? He shouldn't have said it, I guess. He should have said, You know, Anna was a great journalist, we mourn her death, but let's be serious. She was not an influential force in Russia. That would have been better but he just, he's a blunt sort of guy. He said what he said.

    Let's turn to Putin and America. Why do you think we have entered a new Cold War?

    My view is that this Cold War is even more dangerous. As we talk today, and this was not the case in the preceding Cold War, there are three new fronts that are fraught with hot war. You know them as well as I do. The NATO military build-up is going on in the Baltic regions, particularly in the three small Baltic countries, Poland, and if we include missile defense, Romania. That's right on Russia's border, and in Ukraine. You know that story. That's a proxy civil war right on Russia's border, and then of course in Syria, where American and Russian aircraft and Syrian aircraft are flying over the same airspace.

    And there is the utter demonization of Putin in this country. It is just beyond anything that the American political elite ever said about Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and the rest. If you demonize the other side, it makes negotiating harder.

    You just said that Ukraine is a civil war. What was the Russian annexation of Crimea?

    There's a long history, but it is a civil war in the sense that Ukraine is a country.

    We agree on that.

    And a nation, but a country that has long been deeply divided by history or by God. I mean, we're talking ethnicity, language, religion, political tilting. One part tilts toward Russia, one part tilts toward the West. Many millions of Ukrainians and Russians have intermarried over the years. This is a country that always had the potential to either break apart or launch into civil war. The events of 2014, for which both sides are highly culpable, initiated a civil war. This entourage around Putin, one segment of it was absolutely 1,000 percent convinced that NATO was headed via Kiev to Crimea. Had Crimea fallen in any way to NATO, any way, even in the shadow of NATO, Putin would have had to either go to war or resign. No Russian leader would have been able to sustain that kind of defeat.

    Gallup did a poll afterward that 80-some percent of Crimeans wanted to be reunited with Russia.

    You're explaining the way Putin and his advisers were thinking, which I agree is important context, but that doesn't give you the right to invade a sovereign country regardless of what a Gallup poll may say.

    Isaac, come on. Great powers preach international law, and they do what they think they must.

    If a province in any country votes for independence certainly the Crimeans did. There's just no question that that was a legitimate referendum. People get a little confused about what the choice was.

    But this referendum was after the Russians had gone in.

    No, no, no. Well ... wait, wait, wait, wait. Russia was already there by treaty. There were approximately 23,000 Russian soldiers at the naval base in Crimea, at Sevastopol. It was an invasion only in the sense that they left the base on Crimea.

    [The idea of Crimea being part of Russia] was alive in Russia for years and years. Putin was never interested in it. ... That was a sleeping dog, which should not have been awakened, but the events of 2014 awakened it. Once that happened, it was close to inevitable that Russia would proceed with the annexation of Crimea, which was a part of Russia for 300 years.

    What's now Pakistan was part of India for a long time. That doesn't mean India can go in and take Lahore tomorrow.

    You know if we follow your logic, we're going to end up in Texas. We got to stay in modern history where leaders have a memory.

    You and I are going to end up in Texas?

    Well, you know what I mean. Texas wasn't always ours. The point is how far back in history do we go?

    That's my point. Anyway, what did you mean when you said leakers here had become a fourth branch of government, and one intent on undermining Trump?

    When I was asked what's driving the leaking, because you would agree that virtually every day almost there's a new news story that's based on a leak. You have to go back to when it began, which was the summer of 2016. The Clinton campaign was deeply involved. You know the story of this dossier right?

    Yes.

    The one BuzzFeed published?

    I do.

    It's the one that has urinating in the Ritz-Carlton hotel.*

    I was trying to get you to keep going without saying that, but there you go.

    Well, take it out. But there's a serious point here. CNN, where they broadcast 1,000 hours about this dossier as though it's authentic, says it won't repeat that part because it's too salacious. No, the reason is if you broadcast that part, people would realize the whole thing is bullshit.

    I don't want to go down in a subway and get blown up. It's going to happen. The Russians are excellent at this. They've got great intelligence. We're pretty good-not as good as the Russians. We need to combine it all. I see that this kind of alliance is good; we move on then to finding the solution in Ukraine and in the Baltic region. That's what Reagan did. Do you remember that Reagan going to Geneva, I think it was November 1985? Then two years later-I think this is right-he and Gorbachev for the first time in history, Isaac, abolished an entire category of nuclear weapons. This is what I want. This is probably what's not possible.

    Steve, I really appreciate you taking the time to talk with me. I hope when this is printed that you will believe it is real news and not fake news.

    No, no, no. Let me make a distinction. Opinion, what you and I think, is real news. It's our news. It's what we think. But when I read in the newspaper that Carter Page was somehow a Russian agent, I had plenty of reasons to know that that is really a super bogus report.

    [Jun 02, 2017] Forum - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... The comments under that piece are depressing. US liberals are such dumb assholes, disturbing how they're totally buying the anti-Russian narrative without any thought for the possible consequences. ..."
    "... Cohen is an intelligent, accurate commentator and historian on Russian matters. The lamestream media, including Slate as indicated by the interviewer and other articles, seem to have it in for Russia in the manner of fascist propaganda. Of course, the fact Russia has a large store of nukes, makes the prevailing propaganda meme not only criminal but nihilistically stupid. ..."
    Jun 02, 2017 | www.unz.com

    German_reader , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 1:28 am GMT

    The comments under that piece are depressing. US liberals are such dumb assholes, disturbing how they're totally buying the anti-Russian narrative without any thought for the possible consequences.

    WorkingClass , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 2:59 am GMT

    I have to wonder why SLATE published this. Too much truth!

    exiled off mainstreet , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 3:50 am GMT

    Cohen is an intelligent, accurate commentator and historian on Russian matters. The lamestream media, including Slate as indicated by the interviewer and other articles, seem to have it in for Russia in the manner of fascist propaganda. Of course, the fact Russia has a large store of nukes, makes the prevailing propaganda meme not only criminal but nihilistically stupid.

    exiled off mainstreet , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 3:52 am GMT

    @German_reader They robotically follow the party propaganda line like nihilist fascist lemmings almost like those following the prevailing view during the tausendjaehrige.

    Nobody , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 5:17 am GMT

    It wasn't too long ago that the lefties wanted to be bestest friends with the USSR. Now, Putin is our enemy.

    Eagle Eye , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT

    Breathtaking how WITHIN DAYS after November 8, 2016 all the former Russia-loving Left-Totalitarians did a smooth 180 and now spout anti-Russian rhetoric that would have seemed overwrought to Cold Warriors back in the 1950s.

    Chuck , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT

    Putin's a good goy:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/197664/holocaust-deniers-in-russia-now-face-five-years-in/

    utu , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 6:21 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye Left-Totalitarians did a smooth 180

    It is easy for them. Till June 22, 1941 all communist in America were isolationists and supported America First, Charles Lindbergh. They were writing pacifist pamphlets and composed anti-war songs, etc. And within one day they switched 180. Took them some effort to cover up traces of their isolationist and pacifist episode.

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-when-communism-inspired-americans/#comment-1855425
    "Professor Zinn, in May of 1941 your friend, Pete Seeger, produced an album called Songs for John Doe which was a collection of blue collar songs that included one called The Ballad of October 16th. [At the time, Pete Seeger had formed his first commercial band called the Almanac Singers.] That song demonstrated yours and Pete's pacifist philosophy by excoriating Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt for urging United States entry into World War II to fight Hitler. Shortly after the album's release, you and Pete were desperately trying to retrieve all the copies to take them out of circulation. Exactly what happened between May and June of 1941 to turn you from devoted anti-war activists into sabre-rattling patriots, resulting in your enlisting in the Army Air Force as a bombardier?"

    RobinG , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT

    @Eagle Eye The Clintonistas and Berniacs have shamelessly united to attack Trump, cynically using the fakest of fake news. This weekend they're marching "for Truth." If that were true, why aren't they marching to investigate Hillary and who killed Seth Rich?

    But no. On June 3 they're out to get Trump.
    "Demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election and ties to Donald Trump, his administration and his associates." https://www.marchfortruth.info/

    Meanwhile, barely a peep about illegal, unconstitutional attacks on Syria, or huge sale of arms to Saudis that will likely end up with terrorists. A better investigation would be Who Killed Seth Rich. Ask for one here:

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/appoint-special-prosecutor-investigate-murder-seth-rich-alleged-wikileaks-email-leaker

    On July 10, 2016, Seth Rich was shot twice in the early morning as he walked back to his house in Washington D.C. Immediately after the crime, the death was called an armed robbery but none of Seth Rich's belongings were taken from him.

    Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the family, said that there was evidence Seth Rich had contacted WikiLeaks and that law enforcement were covering this up. MSM is not covering this murder, instead pushing it to the side, so it is now up to us.

    The facts do not add up, law enforcement stopped covering the crime, and now it is time for us to fight for justice. Seth Rich deserves this.

    Ryan , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT

    I got the sense that the reporter was in high school or something. Totally immature.

    Agent76 , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 9:57 pm GMT

    14.05.2017 International Cyber Attack: Roots Traced to US National Security Agency

    Over 45,000 ransomware attacks have been tracked in large-scale attacks across Europe and Asia - particularly Russia and China - as well as attacks in the US and South America.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/14/international-cyber-attack-roots-traced-us-national-security-agency.html

    Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

    It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!

    Daniil Adamov , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT

    Is it just me, or is this an exceptionally awful interview?

    Whether you agree with Cohen or not (IMHO he certainly says some silly things there), the interviewer is demagogical and biased in the extreme. I suppose that's sort of the norm for them?

    By the way, is there any evidence of 1) Putin ordering someone killed or 2) The Collusion out there yet? If read uncritically, the interview gives the impression that of course there is, all those smart and good people say so. If read critically one notices that if there's any evidence of anything, it's never mentioned. But if only Russia had a more liberal media environment, then surely

    KenH , Show Comment Next New Comment June 1, 2017 at 11:59 pm GMT

    Stephen F. Cohen is one of the few honest and patriotic Jews living in America who's capably of telling the unvarnished truth. I regularly seek out his writings for an objective appraisal of U.S. – Russia relations.

    Unfortunately, there are ten Victoria Nuland's, William Kristol's and Chuck U. Schumer's to every one Stephen F. Cohen.

    [May 31, 2017] UK Government Harbored Terrorists Linked to Manchester Blast for Decades

    Notable quotes:
    "... As suspected and as was the case in virtually all recent terror attacks carried out in Europe - including both in France and Belgium - the suspect involved in the recent Manchester blast which killed 22 and injured scores more was previously known to British security and intelligence agencies. ..."
    "... the required experience for the recent Manchester attack exists in abundance within the community's Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)members. ..."
    "... LIFG is in fact a proscribed terrorist group listed as such by the United Kingdom's government in 2005, and still appears upon its list of " Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations ," found on the government's own website. ..."
    "... Indeed, a literal senior Al Qaeda-affiliate leader would head the regime put into power by US-led military operations - which included British forces. ..."
    May 25, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    UK Proscribed terrorist organization, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), maintains large presence in Manchester area and is now being linked to recent blast.

    As suspected and as was the case in virtually all recent terror attacks carried out in Europe - including both in France and Belgium - the suspect involved in the recent Manchester blast which killed 22 and injured scores more was previously known to British security and intelligence agencies.

    The Telegraph in its article, " Salman Abedi named as the Manchester suicide bomber - what we know about him ," would report:

    Salman Abedi, 22, who was reportedly known to the security services, is thought to have returned from Libya as recently as this week.

    A Thriving Terrorist Community in the Midst of Manchester

    The same Telegraph article would also admit (emphasis added):

    Among them was Abd al-Baset Azzouz , a father-of-four from Manchester, who left Britain to run a terrorist network in Libya overseen by Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's successor as leader of al-Qaeda.

    Azzouz had 200 to 300 militants under his control and was an expert in bomb-making.

    Another member of the Libyan community in Manchester, Salah Aboaoba told Channel 4 news in 2011 that he had been fund raising for LIFG while in the city. Aboaoba had claimed he had raised funds at Didsbury mosque, the same mosque attended by Abedi.

    Thus, the required experience for the recent Manchester attack exists in abundance within the community's Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)members.

    LIFG is in fact a proscribed terrorist group listed as such by the United Kingdom's government in 2005, and still appears upon its list of " Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations ," found on the government's own website.

    The accompanying government list (PDF) states explicitly regarding LIFG that:

    The LIFG seeks to replace the current Libyan regime with a hard-line Islamic state. The group is also part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement, as inspired by Al Qa'ida. The group has mounted several operations inside Libya, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Mu'ammar Qadhafi.

    LIFG also appears on the US State Department's list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations . Astoundingly, it appears under a section titled, "Delisted Foreign Terrorist Organizations," and indicates that it was removed as recently as 2015.

    Elsewhere on the US State Department's website , is a 2012 report where LIFG is described:

    On November 3, 2007, [Al Qaeda (AQ)] leader Ayman al-Zawahiri announced a formal merger between AQ and LIFG. However, on July 3, 2009, LIFG members in the United Kingdom released a statement formally disavowing any association with AQ.
    The report also makes mention of LIFG's role in US-led NATO regime change operations in Libya in 2011 (emphasis added):
    In early 2011, in the wake of the Libyan revolution and the fall of Qadhafi, LIFG members created the LIFG successor group, the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change (LIMC), and became one of many rebel groups united under the umbrella of the opposition leadership known as the Transitional National Council. Former LIFG emir and LIMC leader Abdel Hakim Bil-Hajj was appointed the Libyan Transitional Council's Tripoli military commander during the Libyan uprisings and has denied any link between his group and AQ.

    Indeed, a literal senior Al Qaeda-affiliate leader would head the regime put into power by US-led military operations - which included British forces.

    ... ... ...

    This article was first published by Land Destroyer

    In case you missed it; Colonel Gaddafi warned Tony Blair of Islamist attacks on Europe: Colonel Muammar Gaddafi issued a 'prophetic' warning to Tony Blair that jihadists would attack Europe if his regime was allowed to collapse

    [May 31, 2017] THE PRESIDENTS INFERIORITY COMPLEX , HIS ADVISORS RUSSIA-HATING OBSESSION, AND THE PUTSCH PLOTTER WITH THE ITCHY TRIGGER FING by John Helmer,

    Notable quotes:
    "... Brzezinski flattered and fawned over Carter; relentlessly conspired to undermine Vance and other rivals for Carter's attention; postured, manipulated, lied to the press, and faked to the president. ..."
    "... "it is important to recognize that Jimmy Carter was ultimately responsible for the nature of his policymaking system and for the decisions made about who would frame and articulate U.S. foreign policies." ..."
    "... "Sure, Brzezinski was a strategic thinker," one of Sexton's sources told her. "But he was frequently wrong! Vance's strategies have withstood the test of time." According to Sexton, her source was a "public official [with] in-depth familiarity with Vance's and Brzezinski's work. He agreed to be interviewed on the condition he would not be quoted on this subject." ..."
    "... Paul Henze came to Brzezinski's staff after serving as the CIA's station chief in Ethiopia in 1969 to 1972, and then in Turkey between 1974 and 1977. Henze had been one of the plotters of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974, which continues to this day. ..."
    "... The Somali invasion of Ethiopia which began in July 1977, and was known as the Ogaden war until the Somalis were defeated by the Russian and Cuban-backed Ethiopian military in March 1978, was one of the schemes Henze managed, and Brzezinski persuaded Carter to approve. By the time Henze's war was defeated, he rationalized the war-fighting strategy's continuing purpose in a memorandum since declassified and quoted by Sexton ..."
    "... Another of the Henze plots – the military putsch in Turkey in September 1980 – was Carter's and Brzezinski's scheme too. ..."
    "... Henze had started in the CIA as a specialist managing assassination gangs with pretensions to anti-communist ideology. He began with the Iron Guard of Romania, and was still running the Grey Wolves of Turkey when he moved on to the Brzezinski staff. ..."
    "... The KGB assessment was that Henze, Brzezinski and Carter had all been in on the plot, just as they had been in on the scheme to elect Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Cracow, as the Pope in October 1978. ..."
    "... Henze was joined by other CIA men on Brzezinski's staff including Donald Gregg, Fritz Ermarth, Robert Gates and Samuel Hoskinson. They were all plotters of the putsch which overthrew the President of Pakistan, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, in July 1977. Bhutto was replaced by Army General Zia ul-Haq, and subsequently hanged. Zia was killed in August 1988, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, and General Herbert Wassom, the head of US military aid mission to Pakistan. ..."
    "... How many of the putsches which CIA operation histories log in as successful, and how many of the unsuccessful attempts – Ghana and El Salvador (1979), Bolivia, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Suriname, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Iran (1980) – were engagements in acting tough and doing new big things which Brzezinski got the president to approve are questions Carter is shy to answer. ..."
    May 31, 2017 | johnhelmer.net

    The widow of Cyrus Vance, the only US Secretary of State to resign in protest against his president's actions in a hundred years, called Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor and Vance's rival, "that awful man". Not a single official of the State Department under Vance during the Carter Administration of 1977 to 1981, thought differently. Most of them had monosyllabic terms for Brzezinski. Since Brzezinski died last Friday, not a single member of his own White House staff has made a public statement in his honour, memory or defence. The mute ones include Madeleine Albright, who owed to Brzezinski her career promotion as an academic, then White House staffer, then Secretary of State herself.

    Despite the disloyalty of those closest to him, and the detestation for Bzezinski of those further away, he was, and remained, Carter's favourite. Between 1977 and 1981, Brzezinski's time with Carter, according to the White House logs, amounted to more than 20% of the president's working time. That's 12 minutes of every hour - no other official came close. On Friday, shortly after Brzezinski's death was announced by his family, Carter issued a statement extolling him as "a superb public servant inquisitive, innovative, and a natural choice as my national security advisor brilliant, dedicated, and loyal. I will miss him."

    What was this bond between them, and why does it matter now? One reason is that what they did together were the freshest American operations studied at KGB schools in Moscow by a recruit in training at the time named Vladimir Putin.

    This was the National Security Advisor's staff during the four years of Carter's term, 1977-1981.

    PRESIDENT CARTER'S RUSSIA-HATING TEAM

    A 451-page doctoral dissertation by Mary Sexton examining the relationship between Carter and Brzezinski identifies the evidence, including documents, witnesses, and independent reports which should have driven them apart. She fails to answer why that didn't happen. She concludes Brzezinski flattered and fawned over Carter; relentlessly conspired to undermine Vance and other rivals for Carter's attention; postured, manipulated, lied to the press, and faked to the president. Sexton concluded in 2009: "it is important to recognize that Jimmy Carter was ultimately responsible for the nature of his policymaking system and for the decisions made about who would frame and articulate U.S. foreign policies."

    She quoted Lloyd Butler, Carter's appointee as the White House lawyer so no Brzezinski underling, as saying he was baffled by Carter's refusal to address the troubles Brzezinski caused. "I will never understand it", Butler said in 2002. He died in 2005.

    Neither Vance in his memoirs (he died in 2002), nor his wife Grace, nor any of Vance's deputies at State, nor Carter's staff at the White House, provide an answer. In research by Betty Glad, published in November 2009, she reported "a few close aides met the emotional needs of the president", but the aides didn't tell Glad what they thought Carter's emotional needs were. Glad acknowledged that in preparing her book she was "above all indebted to Zbigniew Brzezinski who expeditiously answered my emails and was very open about his interactions with Carter."

    Glad concluded that Carter gave Brzezinski "his complete and absolute support Brzezinski was one of the few people Carter never reprimanded And Carter dismissed all criticisms of Brzezinski that might come his way." Why?

    "Carter needed and admired the strategic skills and the toughness in dealing with others that Brzezinski offered," Glad summed up, with the latter's help. The need to be tough was a recurrent theme in Brzezinski's briefings and memoranda to Carter, she added. Brzezinski made Carter feel he was "doing big things." Fighting the Russians (Soviets then) was, in the advice Brzezinski presented to Carter and repeated to Glad, was the biggest of the big things. "Brzezinski", concluded Glad, "appealed to Carter's desire to do new big things and act quickly".

    The bafflement reported by Carter subordinates and State Department officials under Vance is part truth; part cover-up by the officials; part deceit by Carter. For the answer of what bound Carter and Brzezinski together Glad doesn't uncover, nor even hint at. This is because it was a conspiracy of proxy wars, terrorism, assassinations, coups d'etat, and other black operations, still classified top secret, rationalized by Brzezinski to Carter and approved by the president, as part of a grand strategy to defeat the Kremlin. These were the acting-tough tactics which convinced Carter in secret, but which the president never admitted to in public. Not then, because the actions made Carter feel he was doing "new big things". Not since, because all of them have failed, with bloodshed and monumental losses for those whom the president and his strategist targeted, and collateral damage for the rest of the world, not least the US.

    "Sure, Brzezinski was a strategic thinker," one of Sexton's sources told her. "But he was frequently wrong! Vance's strategies have withstood the test of time." According to Sexton, her source was a "public official [with] in-depth familiarity with Vance's and Brzezinski's work. He agreed to be interviewed on the condition he would not be quoted on this subject."

    Paul Henze came to Brzezinski's staff after serving as the CIA's station chief in Ethiopia in 1969 to 1972, and then in Turkey between 1974 and 1977. Henze had been one of the plotters of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974, which continues to this day.

    The Somali invasion of Ethiopia which began in July 1977, and was known as the Ogaden war until the Somalis were defeated by the Russian and Cuban-backed Ethiopian military in March 1978, was one of the schemes Henze managed, and Brzezinski persuaded Carter to approve. By the time Henze's war was defeated, he rationalized the war-fighting strategy's continuing purpose in a memorandum since declassified and quoted by Sexton. "Much as we want the Soviets out", Henze briefed Brzezinski and Carter, "we are not going to get them out soon We should make their stay as costly as possible and the source of fundamental strain for them. We can do this in many ways, both overtly [and] covertly The Soviets are the culprits in the Horn and we should never let them or the world forget it."

    Another of the Henze plots – the military putsch in Turkey in September 1980 – was Carter's and Brzezinski's scheme too.

    Henze had started in the CIA as a specialist managing assassination gangs with pretensions to anti-communist ideology. He began with the Iron Guard of Romania, and was still running the Grey Wolves of Turkey when he moved on to the Brzezinski staff. After Carter's downfall, Henze spent years trying to cover up the role the Grey Wolves had played in the attempted assassination of Pope John-Paul II in May 1981. Henze's version of the plot was that the Kremlin and KGB had masterminded the scheme through the Bulgarian secret service. The KGB assessment was that Henze, Brzezinski and Carter had all been in on the plot, just as they had been in on the scheme to elect Cardinal Karol Wojtyła, Archbishop of Cracow, as the Pope in October 1978.

    Brzezsinski's euology at Henze's funeral in Virginia in 2011 provided the cover story that he had engaged Henze in 1977 "to assume responsibility for oversight of the radios and to coordinate more generally our efforts to prevail in the Cold War without an actual war. Paul was in his element. He mobilized his enthusiasm, his commitment, and his boundless energy not only to protect RFE [Radio Free Europe], but to develop also a broader effort to nourish the hopes of those living in the Soviet bloc, including even the Soviet Union itself, that someday they, too, would be free."

    For their combined record of violent failure, Brzezinski had this to say: "Paul proved himself to be a ferocious bureaucratic infighter and eventually the winner – though at times he was even impatient with my efforts to pursue – on the President's behalf - also some accommodation with the Soviet Union in the area of mutual arms control. But that was Paul, my fellow Cold warrior: enthusiastic, fearless, committed, principled, and relentless. A great American, an Eastern European by association, and one of the anonymous architects of the peaceful and victorious end to the Cold War."

    Henze was joined by other CIA men on Brzezinski's staff including Donald Gregg, Fritz Ermarth, Robert Gates and Samuel Hoskinson. They were all plotters of the putsch which overthrew the President of Pakistan, Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, in July 1977. Bhutto was replaced by Army General Zia ul-Haq, and subsequently hanged. Zia was killed in August 1988, along with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Arnold Raphel, and General Herbert Wassom, the head of US military aid mission to Pakistan.

    Gregg was one of the plotters of the December 12, 1979, military putsch in South Korea.

    Hoskinson was engaged in Middle Eastern attack and overthrow plots, some he endorsed and assisted, and some he would have done if he judged they had a chance of success.

    How many of the putsches which CIA operation histories log in as successful, and how many of the unsuccessful attempts – Ghana and El Salvador (1979), Bolivia, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, Suriname, Upper Volta (Burkina Faso), Iran (1980) – were engagements in acting tough and doing new big things which Brzezinski got the president to approve are questions Carter is shy to answer.

    For them, the war in Afghanistan, which they plotted with alacrity from the start of the Carter Administration, was the culminating case of what Brzezinski described in his address over Henze's corpse as the "peaceful and victorious end to the Cold War."

    These games of liquidating others in the cause of defeating the Kremlin has invigorated Carter, even today when Carter himself is on his last legs. Drawing the Russians on to the field of battle was his and Brzezinski's aim; Afghanistan, after the Soviet military intervention began in December 1979, was their main chance. Their successors in the White House have the same chance against Russian forces on the battlefields of Syria and Ukraine. Though he has tried, Brzezinski is no longer in a position to advise them that if they don't dare, they can't win. Carter is still alive to demonstrate that if they dare, they are likely to lose.

    It isn't sure that's what KGB trainee Putin scribbled down during his lectures at the Andropov Red Banner Institute in 1984. It's certain he has noted it down now.

    [May 31, 2017] Americas Iran Hysteria by Danny Sjursen

    Notable quotes:
    "... The State Department and various other government agencies regularly label Iran the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism" - and that couldn't sound more menacing or impressively official and authoritative. Yet to tag Iran as #1 on any terror list is misleading indeed. The questions worth asking are: Which terrorists? What constitutes terrorism? Do those "terror" outfits truly threaten the U.S. homeland? ..."
    "... Iran does support Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so. The Lebanon-based Hezbollah, for example, is largely fixated on Israel, but has sometimes even fought ISIS in Lebanon and Syria. In other words, Hezbollah, though it had previously attacked U.S. troops in the region, isn't sending its operatives to crash planes into American buildings. ..."
    "... Is there any country in the world that holds favorable view of Amerrican government ? Yes, there are plenty but those countries also happen to have an enemy next door which is despised or treated harshly by America . India has, do has Ukraine. Montenegro, and possibly Vietnam . ..."
    "... Libyans and Syrians before the current turmoil had very favorable attitudes to the west and US. Iranian should learn from it . ..."
    "... Question is can any country trust America ? Yes they love Hollywood and Microsoft and Facebook . But one way to look at this dichotomy is that American government doesn't live up to the virtues inherent in those innovations ..."
    "... It's not hysteria it's 'controlled agitation' by the Neocon Zionist Cabal that runs our foreign policy and not so bright generals like 'slurpy dog' Mattis. ..."
    "... Correct : Israel considers Iran to be its #1 enemy. Therefore Iran must be the #1 enemy of the USA as well. ..."
    "... The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign policy. A lot can be learned from examining the origins of and the reasons for this irrationality, and the identities of those who act to promote and sustain it and how they achieve their propagandist goals. ..."
    "... By and large, Iran's enemies in the US are also the enemies of liberty, of sovereignty and of honesty in foreign policy: the likes of John McCain, as noted, and most of the bipartisan advocates of aggressive interventionist war-making, whether the R2P "humanitarian" types of the "left" or the America-uber-alles militarists of the "right", along with the Israeli and Saudi dual loyalty or foreign loyalty types. ..."
    "... Iran is just another CIA boogie man, what have they ever done to America – NOTHING! As where America has absolutely fucked the arse off them. It always amazes me that a Country as successful as America can have so many stupid gullible Citizens. ..."
    "... It is not like we hadn't been poking the Iranians for decades before the revolutionaries took our Embassy, and we certainly have been poking them ever since, so it is hard to begrudge them for opening a little Reagan-doctrine on our US asses when we stick our noses into their neighbors' businesses while making loud noises about how we might come after them next. ..."
    "... BTW, Iran and Syria at least before we stuck our noses into it both had large Jewish and Christian communities living relatively unmolested. Who of our allies in the ME can make the same claim? ..."
    "... In sum, U.S. policy in the Middle East is confused, contradictory, counterproductive, and dangerous. ..."
    "... And another thing, too, which I don't ever recall hearing back in the Vietnam era is this robotic "muh brothers, muh mission" stuff, where everyone in a uniform is a "hero" who should be "thanked for his service," especially if he was one of the "boots on the ground." I've been there and through it, I've had this one-sided militarism up to my eyeballs at this point, and see this business of glorifying our soldiers and demonizing the countries this country is Balkanizing for Israel as unAmerican brainwashing. ..."
    "... Let's not forget that back in the Vietnam era, at a time when our military wasn't serving Israel, the father's of today's neocons were not only not serving up this militaristic jingoism, but calling the fathers of today's soldiers "baby killers." ..."
    "... Whether the Iranians have a wonderful democracy or are a horrible dictatorship is beside the point. They're going to defend themselves and will get involved in all parts of the region to prevent becoming vulnerable and thus open to attack. They have the geography, size and human resources to do so and will do so. It's arguable that they're the natural hegemon of the region and that far-away outsiders like the US can only thwart that for a limited period of time. ..."
    "... I disagree with Mr Sjursen's premise that anti-Iran hysteria is irrational. It is perfectly rational from the perspective of the political class, particularly​ our craven Congress long ago called "Israeli-occupied territory" by Pat Buchanan. Moreover, it is perfectly rational for the Israel lobby and the entire Jewish influenced​ mainstream media and neoconservative infrastructure. And let us not forget that General Butler reminded​ us that war is a racket and the military-industrial complex benefits greatly. ..."
    "... The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. ..."
    "... "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!" ..."
    "... However, when discussing the matter in general terms, it is not really credible to deny that many of the shia militias did get very substantial support (including military training and assistance, and most likely manufactured military hardware items such as the EFPs, or the designs and funding to manufacture them locally) from Iran. Iran would have been very foolish not to have done so. It was the clear intention of the US regime, if they had succeeded in imposing a compliant collaboration regime on Iraq, to attack Iran next. ..."
    "... Though of course it was the sunni insurgents funded by the US's Gulf "allies" whom the American occupiers were fighting most of the time, and Iran certainly wasn't behind them. ..."
    "... But seriously, who profited the most from the 11 trillion (your estimate, not mine) spent in those wars? You have to do forensic analysis of who actually owns the stocks in those companies to find out who has gotten the dough ..."
    "... I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we, the Elites are paying for it) ..."
    "... No country snubs the US and gets away with it! Cuba tried and has paid the penalty for 40 years. Iran tried and succeeded and the US has never forgotten. You don't insult the Mafia and get away with it. ..."
    "... Iran shows the power of the Jewish control over America Hate of Iran is what the "tribe" has overtly pushed for, but to be sure there is much much more they have slipped into our consciousness we are not so aware of. ..."
    "... The claims made about Iran (seeking nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, being likely to "dominate the region", being a threat to the US itself or even to legitimate US interests, etc) are mostly literally irrational in that they are untrue and illogical, relying upon simple falsehoods and distortions of reality. ..."
    "... But it is certainly arguably rational for those with personal loyalties to Israel or to Saudi Arabia etc, or to other enemies or rivals of Iran, or for those with personal selfish interests in promoting confrontation and war (military industrial types, bought and paid for politicians, etc) to try to persuade Americans in general, and especially American politicians and media/opinion leaders, that these irrationalities are in fact honest descriptions of reality. ..."
    "... "The brilliant George Bernard Shaw once said that one could use three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. He argued that if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi. ..."
    May 31, 2017 | www.unz.com
    ... ... ...

    It certainly is a land in which hardline fundamentalists chant "Death to America!" It's also a country with an increasingly young , educated populace that holds remarkably positive views of Americans. In fact, whatever you might imagine, Americans tend to have significantly more negative views of Iran than vice versa. Don't be shocked, but Iranians hold more positive views of the U.S. government than do the citizens of Washington's allies like Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. In reality, there's long been a worrying paradox in the region: an inverse relationship between the amiability of a government's relationship with Washington and the favorability ratings of this country among its people.

    In other words, when it comes to Iran well, it's complicated. The trouble is that Americans generally don't do nuance. We like our bad guys to be foreign and unmistakably vile, even if such a preference for digestible simplicity makes for poor policy.

    If you want to grasp this point more fully, just think about Secretary of Defense Mattis's recent statement again. He assures us that Iran's shadow hovers over every regional crisis in the Middle East, which is empirically false. Here, for instance, are just a few recent conflicts that Iran is not behind or where its role has been exaggerated:

    • The Arab Spring and the subsequent chaos in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. Iran didn't start or significantly influence the uprisings in those countries.
    • Turkey's decades-long war with separatist Kurds in its southeast provinces. Again, not Iran.
    • The ongoing spread of al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria and on the Arabian Peninsula . Iran actually abhors such groups, and certainly wasn't behind their rise.
    • Or, if you want, take Yemen, since supposed Iranian meddling in the Middle East's poorest state happens to be one of the favorite drums Washington's Iranophobic hawks like to beat . And yet a range of credible reports suggest that the much-decried collusion between Iran and the Houthi rebels, who are the focus of the Saudi war in that country, is highly exaggerated.

    Look, Iran is a significant, if often thwarted and embattled, regional power and a player, sometimes even a destabilizing one, in various regional conflagrations. It supports proxies, funds partner states, and sometimes intervenes in the region, even sending in its own military units (think Syria). Then again, so does Saudi Arabia (Yemen and, in funding terms, elsewhere), the United Arab Emirates (Yemen), Russia (Syria), and the United States (more or less everywhere). So who's destabilizing whom and why almost invariably turns out to be a matter of perspective.

    The State Department and various other government agencies regularly label Iran the world's leading "state sponsor of terrorism" - and that couldn't sound more menacing or impressively official and authoritative. Yet to tag Iran as #1 on any terror list is misleading indeed. The questions worth asking are: Which terrorists? What constitutes terrorism? Do those "terror" outfits truly threaten the U.S. homeland?

    As a start, in 2016, the State Department's annual survey of worldwide terrorism labeled ISIS - not Iran, Hezbollah, or the Houthis - as "the greatest [terror] threat globally." How do we square that "greatest sponsor" stamp with an Iran that has proven both thoroughly hostile to and deeply invested in the fight against ISIS and various al-Qaeda-linked groups in Iraq and Syria?

    Iran does support Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so. The Lebanon-based Hezbollah, for example, is largely fixated on Israel, but has sometimes even fought ISIS in Lebanon and Syria. In other words, Hezbollah, though it had previously attacked U.S. troops in the region, isn't sending its operatives to crash planes into American buildings.

    To think of it another way, more foreign ISIS volunteers hail from Belgium or the Maldives Islands than from Iran. In fact, most of the top sources of ISIS's foreign recruits (Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan) turn out to be "friendly" American "partners." From 1975 to 2015, Iranian-born terrorists inflicted zero deaths in attacks on U.S. soil. In contrast, citizens of key U.S. allies - Saudis, Egyptians, and Lebanese - killed thousands on 9/11. In fact, since then, 85% of domestic terrorists turned out to be American citizens or permanent residents. Most were American-born. Of the 13 U.S. citizens involved in such fatal terror attacks, none were Iranian-American.

    KA , May 31, 2017 at 4:03 am GMT

    The inverse relationship that you mention is the kicker here . Once the citizen of a country comes to see America through the policies of America, hatred doesn't lag far behind to show up on the dinner table discussion.

    Is there any country in the world that holds favorable view of Amerrican government ? Yes, there are plenty but those countries also happen to have an enemy next door which is despised or treated harshly by America . India has, do has Ukraine. Montenegro, and possibly Vietnam .

    Iran is not saint But so was never any country .

    Libyans and Syrians before the current turmoil had very favorable attitudes to the west and US. Iranian should learn from it .

    Question is can any country trust America ? Yes they love Hollywood and Microsoft and Facebook . But one way to look at this dichotomy is that American government doesn't live up to the virtues inherent in those innovations .

    Z-man , May 31, 2017 at 4:44 am GMT

    It's not hysteria it's 'controlled agitation' by the Neocon Zionist Cabal that runs our foreign policy and not so bright generals like 'slurpy dog' Mattis.

    ANON , May 31, 2017 at 5:47 am GMT

    Correct : Israel considers Iran to be its #1 enemy. Therefore Iran must be the #1 enemy of the USA as well.

    jilles dykstra , May 31, 2017 at 7:02 am GMT

    In 1911 GB and Russia destroyed Iran democracy, in 1953 the USA did it again. In 1979, after the USA Vietnam disaster, Islam succeeded in liberating Iran from the USA puppet Shah. Then the USA brought Saddam to power, in order to subjugate Iran.

    Three million deaths, but Saddam failed to do what he should have done. On top of the that, the sorcerer's apprentice had the idea he no longer was an apprentice, in 2000 he had the audacity to ask euro's for Iraq oil. That, some say, was his death warrant.

    The USA engineered the 'new Pearl Harbour' Sept 11, war could begin. It is still going on. So when here a USA soldier complains about Iran, I just can laugh. The Bushmen burned some 2000 tons of uranium over Iraq, that for the next 5000 years will cause cancers and birth defects.

    • W. Morgan Shuster, ´The strangling of Persia, Story of the European diplomacy and oriental intrigue that resulted in the denationalisation of twelve million Mohammedans', New York, 1912
    • Roy Mottahedeh, 'The Mantle of the Prophet, Religion and Politics in Iran', Oxford, 1985, 2000
    • Alan Friedman, 'Spider's Web, Bush, Saddam, Thatcher and the Decade of Deceit', London, 1993
    jilles dykstra , May 31, 2017 at 7:12 am GMT

    @KA I love neither Hollywood, nor Microsoft or Facebook.
    Hollywood is just USA propaganda, Microsoft is the best swindle ever, one can only escape through Linux, Facebook is a waste of time, and exhibitionism.

    I do not think there is anything wrong with USA citizens in general, all is wrong with USA society, no democracy, a moneycracy wasting USA resources in war without end.

    Maybe Trump sees how these wars ruin the USA, how Khazakstan is more and more becoming the economic centre of the world.
    There now operates the enormous train hub, connecting China by rail to Europe.

    The Berlin Baghdad railway is seen as the cause of WWI, let us hope that the China Europe railway will not cause WWIII.

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 8:37 am GMT

    Excellent stuff! A very unusually grownup and rational assessment of the situation, coming from any American.

    The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign policy. A lot can be learned from examining the origins of and the reasons for this irrationality, and the identities of those who act to promote and sustain it and how they achieve their propagandist goals.

    By and large, Iran's enemies in the US are also the enemies of liberty, of sovereignty and of honesty in foreign policy: the likes of John McCain, as noted, and most of the bipartisan advocates of aggressive interventionist war-making, whether the R2P "humanitarian" types of the "left" or the America-uber-alles militarists of the "right", along with the Israeli and Saudi dual loyalty or foreign loyalty types.

    However, lumping regionally focused nationalist organizations like Hezbollah [and Hamas] with genuine global jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda (in its proliferating forms) is deceptive, often purposely so.

    Gosh, who could it possibly be that has an interest in lying to promote this particular falsehood, and the media and political "influence" in US society to do so successfully?

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 8:54 am GMT

    The persistent and profound basic irrationality of much US elite and popular opinion on the topic of Iran has been an aspect of world affairs that I noted and wondered about a couple of decades ago or so, and I ultimately came to the conclusion that the best explanations for its existence and persistence were the toxic combination of:

    1. Undue political and media influence from Iran's regional rivals, Israel and Saudi Arabia, whose interests the paranoid US fear and hatred of Iran clearly serve;

    2. Lingering soreness about the US getting some much-deserved payback from Iranians at the time of the hostage crisis, and on several occasions since, for decades of bloody interference in Iranian affairs;

    3. Simple outrage at the sight of a medium sized developing country daring not to breathlessly ask "how high, sir?", when told to jump by Washington.

    2 & 3 mostly serve to provide ammunition for the liars and propagandists of 1 to work with.

    Renoman , May 31, 2017 at 9:38 am GMT

    Iran is just another CIA boogie man, what have they ever done to America – NOTHING! As where America has absolutely fucked the arse off them. It always amazes me that a Country as successful as America can have so many stupid gullible Citizens.

    The Alarmist , May 31, 2017 at 9:46 am GMT

    As the recipient of Iranian-sponsored hostility in Beirut in 1983, I was not well disposed toward its regime for some time thereafter, but I got over it as time went on. I think I was well over it by the time the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner while, ostensibly, it may have been in Iranian waters, killing 290 civilians.

    It is not like we hadn't been poking the Iranians for decades before the revolutionaries took our Embassy, and we certainly have been poking them ever since, so it is hard to begrudge them for opening a little Reagan-doctrine on our US asses when we stick our noses into their neighbors' businesses while making loud noises about how we might come after them next.

    BTW, Iran and Syria at least before we stuck our noses into it both had large Jewish and Christian communities living relatively unmolested. Who of our allies in the ME can make the same claim?

    mp , May 31, 2017 at 10:50 am GMT

    In sum, U.S. policy in the Middle East is confused, contradictory, counterproductive, and dangerous.

    Confused? Not when you understand just who is "managing" US foreign policy, and to what end. Contradictory? Only when considering some official statements, but those are just throw away words meant for debate by the talking legs on the news channels, or things you read about in CIA conduits such as the Washington Post–things just mean to obfuscate. Counterproductive? Depends on one's long-term goal. Dangerous. Certainly.

    DanCT , May 31, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

    I was an f.o. with recon the last six months of my tour in Vietnam (1-6/70) and thankful that, while we were occasionally inserted into hot LZ's in that time, once we were on the ground we were on our own and never trapped like sitting ducks for hours in a glorified SUV. My take is that this fellow ought to be blaming the Army and Pentagon and not Iran for setting him and his platoon up for the sort of inevitable ambush he describes.

    And another thing, too, which I don't ever recall hearing back in the Vietnam era is this robotic "muh brothers, muh mission" stuff, where everyone in a uniform is a "hero" who should be "thanked for his service," especially if he was one of the "boots on the ground." I've been there and through it, I've had this one-sided militarism up to my eyeballs at this point, and see this business of glorifying our soldiers and demonizing the countries this country is Balkanizing for Israel as unAmerican brainwashing.

    Let's not forget that back in the Vietnam era, at a time when our military wasn't serving Israel, the father's of today's neocons were not only not serving up this militaristic jingoism, but calling the fathers of today's soldiers "baby killers."

    jacques sheete , May 31, 2017 at 11:24 am GMT

    Those EFPs and the requisite training to use them were provided to Iraqi militias by the Islamic Republic of Iran. ..

    Still, there's one major problem with bold, sweeping pronouncements (laced with one's own prejudices)

    There's also a problem with stating unlikely scenarios (if not patent absurdities) as facts. What is your evidence that Iran provided EFPs and training to Iraqi militias?

    anonymous , May 31, 2017 at 12:45 pm GMT

    Mattis' statement is easily trashed as simple-minded and delusional. So what's the conclusion? That there are many who are in a position to influence policy are incompetent and downright stupid? Apparently that's the case and breathtakingly so. Everyone seems to have this huge blind spot where they automatically accept that the US has the right to travel thousands of miles around the world to engage in warfare with whatever country they please yet a country right next door has no right to get involved. It's strange to hear people whine about the Iranians getting involved in their own region by training militiamen or showing them how to build better explosive weapons, all of which is very basic low-tech stuff that could be shown on a DVD, whereas the Americans are using space-age jet fighters and tanks as well as the much touted SEAL soldiers. Want to trade weapons?

    Whether the Iranians have a wonderful democracy or are a horrible dictatorship is beside the point. They're going to defend themselves and will get involved in all parts of the region to prevent becoming vulnerable and thus open to attack. They have the geography, size and human resources to do so and will do so. It's arguable that they're the natural hegemon of the region and that far-away outsiders like the US can only thwart that for a limited period of time.

    JoaoAlfaiate , May 31, 2017 at 12:59 pm GMT

    I find it very interesting that one day the Iraqis are on the verge of making a nuclear weapon and the next day, according to the author, they are unable to make a shaped charge, technology that has been around at least since the Germans blasted their way into Fort Eben-Emael.

    John T , May 31, 2017 at 1:09 pm GMT

    I disagree with Mr Sjursen's premise that anti-Iran hysteria is irrational. It is perfectly rational from the perspective of the political class, particularly​ our craven Congress long ago called "Israeli-occupied territory" by Pat Buchanan. Moreover, it is perfectly rational for the Israel lobby and the entire Jewish influenced​ mainstream media and neoconservative infrastructure. And let us not forget that General Butler reminded​ us that war is a racket and the military-industrial complex benefits greatly.

    War for Blair Mountain , May 31, 2017 at 1:16 pm GMT

    Working Class Native Born White American Teenage Males who sign a US Army Military contract are signing their lives away to be used as canon fodder for the Jewish State of Israel wars af aggression in the Middle East You will die a very painful pointless meaningless death in some Muslim hell-hole in the Middle East It's just not worth it

    Something like 11 trillion of our tax dollars have been spent destroying the civilian populations of several Muslim Nations in the Middle East Nations that pose 0 threat to America .

    These trillions could have been spent providing free college education and job training for all you White Teenage Males thinking of signing the US Army contract .and these trillions could have spent providing you with free college education and job training many many times over .think about it

    Other young White Men sir in NCAA DIV 1 football stadiums yelling "WHAT A STUD" at the football players down on the field while you lie dying on the ground in Afghanistan your body cut in half by a rocket propelled grenade .screaming for your mother minutes later your life slips away into the coldness of eternal death .for what? Sadly a pointless meaningless death .

    WAR IS A RACKET!!!

    Agent76 , May 31, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT

    Once the Pentagon has the plan's of the Bankster's they never stop or halt with it in the Empire!

    December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

    The US Military has bases in *63* countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

    Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

    "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

    Agent76 , May 31, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT

    Jan 3, 2017 Iranian Food Tour

    If Iranians are known for their special and unique hospitality, then we shouldn't forget that food is always part of that experience!

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT

    @jacques sheete

    stating unlikely scenarios (if not patent absurdities) as facts. What is your evidence that Iran provided EFPs and training to Iraqi militias?

    At the time, when the US occupiers in Iraq were making unproven allegations of Iranian support of militias (including providing the notorious EFPs) with the likely intent of justifying acts of aggression against Iran, or other actions aiding their illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, it was both legitimate and sensible to require proof of any and all specific allegations. All the items alleged to have come from Iran (according to the US military and regime) could just as easily have come from elsewhere or been manufactured locally.

    However, when discussing the matter in general terms, it is not really credible to deny that many of the shia militias did get very substantial support (including military training and assistance, and most likely manufactured military hardware items such as the EFPs, or the designs and funding to manufacture them locally) from Iran. Iran would have been very foolish not to have done so. It was the clear intention of the US regime, if they had succeeded in imposing a compliant collaboration regime on Iraq, to attack Iran next.

    Though of course it was the sunni insurgents funded by the US's Gulf "allies" whom the American occupiers were fighting most of the time, and Iran certainly wasn't behind them.

    Agent76 , May 31, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain I can do one better than that and *All Wars are Bankers Wars* --

    Mar 25, 2016 WAR IS A LIE – David Swanson in Asheville March 25, 2016

    Pachyderm Pachyderma , May 31, 2017 at 2:40 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain You forgot to mention the 'Sikh (actually, Sikhni) Whore', Nikki Haley at the UN doing the bidding for

    But seriously, who profited the most from the 11 trillion (your estimate, not mine) spent in those wars? You have to do forensic analysis of who actually owns the stocks in those companies to find out who has gotten the dough

    jilles dykstra , May 31, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT

    @Renoman Iran liberated itself from the USA puppet shah in 1979, and since then refused to accept the USA yoke again. This of course for the USA is unforgivable.

    For the same reason for decades the USA pretended that Taiwan, Formosa, was China. Nixon accepted reality.

    The problem now is, I hope, that Trump also sees reality, that Roosevelt's plan to rule the world with Smaller Britain, Stalin and Tsjang Kai Shek, just was megalomania, ruining the USA, causing great misery in large parts of this earth.

    CNN, Washpost and NYT still do not see reality. They did not watch BBCW this morning, Khazakhstan as railway hub between China, Russia and Europe. The USA, a backwater if it continues as Obama did.

    animalogic , May 31, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

    @Randal This was a really great article: well argued, nuanced, rational. Unfortunately, none of that is a factor in US/Iran policy. Let's take this quote:

    "until Washington's policymakers change their all-Iran-all-the-time mental model, they are doomed to failure."

    I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we, the Elites are paying for it)

    So it's crazy, unprofitable to maintain the Iran-universal-bogey-man policy ? Who cares ?

    1. US elites hate Iran: 1979. That's sufficient in itself.
    2. Saudi & Israel hate Iran: "snap !"
    3. Iran is an allied with Russia: case closed --
    4. Oh, & NO ONE in the US Elite thinks about this, but Iran has a bit of oil wealth Too cynical, I know.
    TRex , May 31, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT

    No country snubs the US and gets away with it! Cuba tried and has paid the penalty for 40 years. Iran tried and succeeded and the US has never forgotten. You don't insult the Mafia and get away with it.

    Z-man , May 31, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT

    @Pachyderm Pachyderma

    You forgot to mention the 'Sikh (actually, Sikhni) Whore', Nikki Haley at the UN doing the bidding for

    Thank you for mentioning that Neo'conned' skank.

    DES , May 31, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

    Excellent points. For a more detailed analysis, I recommend "Manufactured Crisis – The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare," by Gareth Porter.

    Interesting factoid: A 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" that Iran's nuclear weapons program had been halted in the fall of 2003 and with "moderate confidence" that it had not been restarted as of mid-2007. I am not aware that this estimate has been revised or updated.

    tjm , May 31, 2017 at 4:04 pm GMT

    Iran shows the power of the Jewish control over America Hate of Iran is what the "tribe" has overtly pushed for, but to be sure there is much much more they have slipped into our consciousness we are not so aware of.

    Certainly the hate of Muslims in general (while conversely using their media to demonize anyone who questions Muslims migration, and of course always omitting the reality that Zionist wars in the Middle East are causing much of that migration of course all part of their plan), hate for Russia?Putin, American society, Jesus Christ, White Men, White boys

    The control of American society began years ago, mid 20th century, and has gotten progressively worse.

    for-the-record , May 31, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT

    @Randal The piece correctly identifies a profound, and profoundly damaging, irrationality in US elite (and manufactured popular) opinion about Iran and its place in the ME and in US foreign policy.

    I would argue, in line with your final sentence, that this irrational "bug" is very much a rational "feature". Indeed, despite what many critics maintain, US foreign policy has been eminently successful in achieving its objectives (or at least the objectives of those who effectively set such policy).

    Ernul , May 31, 2017 at 4:57 pm GMT

    Excuses, excuses, excuses by the author for the poor Iranians. When someone attacks YOUR family, friends or loved ones, what do you do? "Head in the ground" it sound like. WHO cares why they do it. Simply make them STOP and punish them for the attacks. After justice is served, only then do the bleeding hearts get to ask them WHY? "EARTH TO THE AUTHOR", we tried it their way without result so now the bleeding hearts want to give the Iranians the benefit of doubt using our children and money all over again! Send your child to fight and should he/she come back in a body bag, blame yourself. ., because we've hear and tried it your way. (DUH)

    ANON , May 31, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra What a beautiful prospect: the USA as backwater, still with elements of its natural beauty, still safe from armed invasion and even exporting half of its least employable 100 million to jobs on the new silk road

    mark willis , May 31, 2017 at 5:17 pm GMT

    The truth and facts don't matter any more in todays world. What matters is the Zionist stranglehold over American political life and media.

    What Israel wants, Israel gets. Want hundreds of billions of dollars of hard pressed US taxpayers money? No problem, well close down a few more schools and welfare programmes. Israels whores in Congress will deliver.

    Want a huge illegal nuclear arsenal with hundreds of nuclear warheads targeted at all your neighbours? No problem, we can organise that for you. Want all your military equipment provided completely free of charge? No problem, well even get our German satrap Merkel to send you half a dozen advanced Dolphin nuclear missile submarines completely free of charge.

    Want us to destroy any neighbouring country you dislike? No problem, well be your dumb muscle whenever you want – just let us know which country you want destroyed next – Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Want us to change the laws to make any criticism of Israel a criminal offence? No problem. Just let us know when you want us to lick your boots. After all, were just goyim put on this earth to serve you like domestic animals. Cant do enough to please our masters. You can always rely on us to provide you with all the money and cannon fodder you need. were just here to serve you.

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    @animalogic

    I would argue that "failure" is largely irrelevant to any Establishment policy in the US. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria - all arguably failures but who cares ? How many have actually suffered career disadvantage from such failures ? (To Elites, the US is SO profoundly rich, that it just doesn't matter: Chuck another pallet load of hundred dollar bills on the fire: it's not like we, the Elites are paying for it)

    Indeed. A result that is a bloody, costly, disastrous failure for one group (such as the American nation collectively) might well be a "no big deal" for another group (the self-serving US elites you mention) and even a heart-warming success for another (the Israel/Saudi partisans and suchlike). All at the same time.

    Randal , May 31, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT

    @for-the-record

    I would argue, in line with your final sentence, that this irrational "bug" is very much a rational "feature".

    Not going to disagree with you on that point, of course.

    The claims made about Iran (seeking nuclear weapons with aggressive intent, being likely to "dominate the region", being a threat to the US itself or even to legitimate US interests, etc) are mostly literally irrational in that they are untrue and illogical, relying upon simple falsehoods and distortions of reality.

    But it is certainly arguably rational for those with personal loyalties to Israel or to Saudi Arabia etc, or to other enemies or rivals of Iran, or for those with personal selfish interests in promoting confrontation and war (military industrial types, bought and paid for politicians, etc) to try to persuade Americans in general, and especially American politicians and media/opinion leaders, that these irrationalities are in fact honest descriptions of reality.

    That's why I noted that it is very informative, for the many who are not aware of the true situation, to examine how and by whom this false view of the world is disseminated and imposed on Americans in particular.

    Indeed, despite what many critics maintain, US foreign policy has been eminently successful in achieving its objectives (or at least the objectives of those who effectively set such policy)

    Again, absolutely agree.

    As a matter of definitional reality, government policy is not of course set in the interests of the nation, but in the interests of those with the power to influence government policy. All the more reason to regard dual and external loyalties as uniquely poisonous in such groups and individuals.

    annamaria , May 31, 2017 at 8:12 pm GMT

    @mark willis

    The truth and facts don't matter any more in todays world. What matters is the Zionist stranglehold over American political life and media. What Israel wants, Israel gets.

    Want hundreds of billions of dollars of hard pressed US taxpayers money? No problem, well close down a few more schools and welfare programmes. Israels whores in Congress will deliver. Want a huge illegal nuclear arsenal with hundreds of nuclear warheads targeted at all your neighbours? No problem, we can organise that for you. Want all your military equipment provided completely free of charge? No problem, well even get our German satrap Merkel to send you half a dozen advanced Dolphin nuclear missile submarines completely free of charge. Want us to destroy any neighbouring country you dislike? No problem, well be your dumb muscle whenever you want - just let us know which country you want destroyed next - Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran. Want us to change the laws to make any criticism of Israel a criminal offence? No problem. Just let us know when you want us to lick your boots. After all, were just goyim put on this earth to serve you like domestic animals. Cant do enough to please our masters. You can always rely on us to provide you with all the money and cannon fodder you need. were just here to serve you. Cruel but just words (from Comment section on http://thomas-l-are.blogspot.com/2017/05/what-kind-of-people.html#comment-form ):

    "The brilliant George Bernard Shaw once said that one could use three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Nazi Germany: intelligence, decency, and Nazism. He argued that if a person was intelligent, and a Nazi, he was not decent. If he was decent and a Nazi, he was not intelligent. And if he was decent and intelligent, he was not a Nazi.

    I propose we update Shaw's rather astute observations with: There are also three concepts to describe the positions of individuals in Zionist Israel: intelligence, decency, and Zionism. We can argue that if a person is intelligent, and a Zionist, he is not decent. If he is decent and a Zionist, he is not intelligent. And if he is decent and intelligent, he is not a Zionist. "

    [May 31, 2017] So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? by Vanessa Beeley

    May 31, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    Originally from: Gaslighting State Mind Control and Abusive Narcissism This article was first published by 21st Century Wire

    Exceptionalism: the condition of being different from the norm; also : a theory expounding the exceptionalism especially of a nation or region.

    May 29, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - There are many theories surrounding the origin of American exceptionalism. The most popular in US folklore, being that it describes America's unique character as a "free" nation founded on democratic ideals and civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence from British colonial rule is the foundation of this theory and has persevered throughout the often violent history of the US since its birth as a free nation.

    Over time, exceptionalism has come to represent superiority in the minds and hearts of Americans. Belief in their economic, military and ideological supremacy is what has motivated successive US governments to invest in shaping the world in their superior image with little or no regard for the destruction left in the wake of their exceptional hegemony.

    In considering itself, exceptional, the US has extricated itself from any legal obligation to adhere to either International law or even the common moral laws that should govern Humanity. The US has become exceptionally lawless and authoritarian particularly in its intolerant neo-colonialist foreign policy. The colonized have become the colonialists, concealing their brutal savagery behind a veneer of missionary zeal that they are converting the world to their form of exceptionalist Utopia.

    Such is the media & marketing apparatus that supports this superiority complex, the majority of US congress exist within its echo chamber and are willing victims of its indoctrination. The power of the propaganda vortex pulls them in and then radiates outwards, infecting all in its path. Self-extraction from this oligarchical perspective is perceived as a revolutionary act that challenges the core of US security so exceptionalism becomes the modus vivendi.

    Just as Israel considers itself 'the chosen people' from a religious perspective, the US considers itself the chosen nation to impose its version of Democratic reform and capitalist hegemony the world over. One can see why Israel and the US make such symbiotic bedfellows.

    "The fatal war for humanity is the war with Russia and China toward which Washington is driving the US and Washington's NATO and Asian puppet states. The bigotry of the US power elite is rooted in its self-righteous doctrine that stipulates America as the "indispensable country" ~ Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Drives the World Towards War.

    So why do the American people accept US criminal hegemony, domestic and foreign brutal tyranny & neo-colonialist blood-letting with scant protest? Why do the European vassal states not rise up against this authoritarian regime that flaunts international law and drags its NATO allies down the path to complete lawlessness and diplomatic ignominy?

    What is Gaslighting?

    Gaslight

    The psychological term "Gaslighting" comes from a 1944 Hollywood classic movie called Gaslight. Gaslighting describes the abuse employed by a narcissist to instil in their victim's mind, an extreme anxiety and confusion to the extent where they no longer have faith in their own powers of logic, reason and judgement. These gaslighting techniques were adopted by central intelligence agencies in the US and Europe as part of their psychological warfare methods, used primarily during torture or interrogation.

    Gaslighting as an abuser's modus operandi, involves, specifically, the withholding of factual information and its replacement with false or fictional information designed to confuse and disorientate. This subtle and Machiavellian process eventually undermines the mental stability of its victims reducing them to such a depth of insecurity and identity crisis that they become entirely dependent upon their abuser for their sense of reality and even identity.

    Gaslighting involves a step by step psychological process to manipulate and destabilize its victim. It is built up over time and consists of repetitive information feeds that enter the victim's subconscious over a period of time, until it is fully registered on the subconscious "hard disk" and cannot be overridden by the conscious floppy disk. Put more simply, it is brainwashing.

    " Overall, the main reason for gaslighting is to create a dynamic where the abuser has complete control over their victim so that they are so weak that they are very easy to manipulate." ~ Alex Myles

    Three Stages of Gaslighting: Stage One

    The first stage depends upon trust in the integrity and unimpeachable intentions of the abuser, a state of reliance that has been engendered by the abuser's artful self-promotion and ingratiating propaganda. Once this trust is gained, the abuser will begin to subtly undermine it, creating situations and environments where the victim will begin to doubt their own judgement. Eventually the victim will rely entirely upon the abuser to alleviate their uncertainty and to restore their sense of reality which is in fact that of the abuser.

    Stage Two

    The second stage, defence, is a process by which the abuser isolates the victim, not only from their own sense of identity but from the validation of their peers. They are made to feel that their opinion is worthless, discredited, down-right weird. In political circles they would be labelled a conspiracy theorist, a dissident, a terror apologist. As a consequence, the victim will withdraw from society and cease to express themselves for fear of ridicule, judgement or punishment.

    This stage can also be compared to Stockholm Syndrome where a hostage or captive is reduced,by psychological mind games, back to infantile dependency upon their captor. Narcissistic abuse bonds the victim to the aggressor via trauma. Stockholm Syndrome bonds the victim to the aggressor via regression to an infantile state where the abuser/aggressor becomes the "parent" who will rescue the victim from imminent annihilation. Both methods tap into the victim's survival mechanisms to gain and maintain control.

    Stage Three

    The final stage is depression. A life under the tyrannical rule of a narcissist drives the victim into a state of extreme confusion. They are stripped of dignity & self-reliance. They, ultimately exist in an information vacuum which is only filled by that which the abuser deems suitable or relevant. This can eventually invoke symptoms of PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]. Flashbacks, constant apprehension, hyper vigilance, mind paralysis, rage and even violence. The process is complete and the victim has been reduced to a willing accomplice in the abusers creation of a very distorted reality.

    Exceptionalism or Narcissism?

    Gaslight

    We are currently seeing the transformation of US exceptionalism into an abusive Narcissism .

    The gargantuan apparatus of mind bending and controlling is being put into hyper drive by the ruling elite. We are inundated with propaganda that challenges our sense of reality but only after being "tenderized" by the fear factor. Fear of "terror", fear of war, fear of financial insecurity, fear of gun violence, fear of our own shadow. Once we are suitably quaking in our boots, in comes the rendition of reality that relieves our anxiety. If we challenge this version of events we are labelled a conspiracy theorist, a threat to security. We are hounded, discredited, slandered and ridiculed. We are isolated and threatened.

    Wars are started in the same way. Despite the hindsight that should enable us to see it coming, the process swings into motion with resounding success. The ubiquitous dictator, the oligarch who threatens to destroy all that the US and her allies represent which of course is, freedom, equality & civil liberty all wrapped up in the Democracy shiny paper and tied with the exceptionalist ribbon.

    Next the false flag to engender fear, terror and to foment sectarian strife. The support of a "legitimate" organic, indigenous "revolution" conveniently emerging in tandem with US ambitions for imposing their model of governance upon a target nation. The arming of "freedom fighters", the securing of mercenary additions to these manufactured proxy forces. All this is sold in the name of freedom and democracy to a public that is already in a state of anxiety and insecurity, lacking in judgement or insight into any other reality but that of their "abuser".

    The NGO Complex Deployment

    Finally, the Humanitarians are deployed. The forces for "good", the vanguard of integrity and ethical intervention. The power that offers all lost souls a stake-holding in the salvation of sovereign nations that have lost their way and need rescuing. A balm for a damaged soul, to know they can leave their doubts and fears in such trustworthy hands as HRW, Amnesty International, they can assuage their deep sense of guilt at the suffering being endured by the people of far flung nations because they can depend upon the NGOs to provide absolution with minimal effort on their part. They don't realise that NGOs are an integral part of their abuser's apparatus, operating on the leash of neo-colonialist financing and influence. NGOs provide the optic through which the abuser will allow the victim to perceive their world and once absorbed into this flawed prism the victim's own cognitive dissonance will ensure they do not attempt a jail break.

    In this state of oppressed consciousness the victim accepts what they are told. They accept that the US can sell cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia that obliterate human beings and lay waste to essential civilian infrastructure in Yemen. They accept that the US financially, ideologically & militarily supports the illegal state of Israel and provides the arsenal of experimental weapons that maim and mutilate children and civilians on a scale that is unimaginable. They accept that a crippling blockade of the already impoverished and starving nation of Yemen is "necessary" to resolve the issues of sectarian divisions that only exist in the minds of their Congressional abusers.

    The majority of Americans accept mass murder under the pretext of the right to protect , because their ability to form rational and reasoned opinions has been engineered out of them. This is now the definition of US exceptionalism. It is their ability to manipulate the world into accepting their lawlessness and global hegemony agenda. In seeking to impose its own image upon our world the US has drifted so far from its founding principles, one wonders how they will ever return to them. They have employed a recognised form of torture to ensure capitulation to their mission of world domination which entails the mental, physical and spiritual torture of target civilian populations.

    In conclusion, the US has indeed achieved exceptionalism. The US has become an exceptional global executioner and persecutor of Humanity. Imperialism is a euphemism for the depths of abuse the US is inflicting upon the people of this world.

    Our only hope is to break the cycle of abuse with empathy for the victim and with appreciation for the years of brainwashing that precedes their agonizing passive-aggressive apathy towards crimes being committed in "their name".

    This was an email I received recently from one courageous young American girl whose epiphany is testament to the resilience and survival instinct of the human spirit.

    " My name is Caroline and I am a 22 year old US citizen. I only fairly recently discovered the truth about Empire/NATO's activities in Syria and Libya and so many other countries (thanks to writers like Andre Vltchek, Cory Morningstar, Forrest Palmer). I am sickened when I remember that I signed some of those Avaaz petitions and I feel horrified at knowing that I have Syrian and Libyan blood on my hands. I want to believe that I'm not "really" guilty because I really thought (as I had been told) that I was not doing something bad at the time, but still, what I did contributed to the suffering of those people and I want to do something to atone in at least some small way, even though I probably can't "make up" for what I did or erase my crime.

    If it's not too much trouble, could you please tell me what you think I should do, if there is anything?"

    She deserves an answer

    ***

    Author Vanessa Beeley is a contributor to 21WIRE, and s ince 2011, she has spent most of her time in the Middle East reporting on events there – as a independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist. She is also a member of the Steering Committee of the Syria Solidarity Movement, and a volunteer with the Global Campaign to Return to Palestine. See more of her work at her blog The Wall Will Fall .

    [May 31, 2017] Observations and Impressions from Russia by Rick Sterling

    May 30, 2017 | dissidentvoice.org
    Introduction

    For over two weeks this May, a delegation of 30 Americans visited seven regions and ten cities across Russia. Organized by Sharon Tennison of Center for Citizen Initiatives , the entire group began in Moscow with several days of meetings and visits, then broke into smaller groups going to cities including Volgograd, Kazan (Tatarstan), Krasnodar (near Black Sea), Novosibirsk (Siberia), Yekaterinburg and the Crimean cities Simferopol, Yalta and Sevastopol. After these regional visits, delegates regrouped in St Petersburg to share their experiences. Following is an informal review with conclusions based on my observations in Kazan and what I heard from others.

    Observations and Facts

    * Western sanctions have hurt sectors of Russia's economy but encouraged agricultural production.

    Exports and imports have been impacted by Western sanctions imposed in 2014. The tourist sector has been hard hit and education exchanges between Russia and the USA have been interrupted or ended. However, the sanctions have spurred investments and expansion in agricultural production. We were told that farmers are saying 'Don't lift the sanctions!"

    * Some Russian oligarchs are making major infrastructure investments.

    For example, billionaire Sergei Galitsky has developed Russia's largest retail outlet, the Magnit supermarket chain. Galitsky has invested heavily in state-of-the-art drip irrigation green houses producing massive quantities of high quality cucumbers, tomatoes and other vegetables which are distributed via the supermarkets throughout Russia.

    * There has been a resurgence of religion in Russia.

    Russian Orthodox Churches have been revitalized and gold leaf glistens on the church domes. Muslim mosques have also been refurbished and rebuilt. A brilliant new mosque is a prominent part of the Kremlin in Kazan, Tatarstan. There are many Muslim in Russia. This research puts the number at ten million though we heard estimates much higher. We saw numerous examples of interfaith unity and cooperation, with Muslim Imams working side by side with young Russian Orthodox priests. We also heard stories of how churches had been used as prisons or food warehouses during the Stalin era.

    * Russia increasingly looks east.

    The Russian emblem of a double-headed eagle looks both east and west; it is a Eur-Asian country. While Europe is still important politically and economically, Russia is increasingly looking to the east. Russia's "strategic partner" is China – economically, politically and militarily. There are increasing numbers of Chinese tourists and education exchanges with Russia. In the United Nations Security Council the two countries tend to vote together. Huge investments are planned for the transportation network dubbed the " Belt and Road Initiative " connecting Asia with Europe.

    * Russia is a capitalist country with a strong state sector.

    Government is influential or controls sectors of the economy such as public transportation, military/defense industry, resource extraction, education and health care. State owned enterprises account for nearly 40% of overall employment. They have universal health care in parallel with private education and health care facilities. Banking is a problem area with high interest rates and the failure/bankruptcy of numerous banks in the past decade. We heard complaints that foreign multinational companies can enter and control sectors of the economy, drive out Russian competitors and take the profits home.

    * There is some nostalgia for the former Soviet Union with its communist ideals.

    We met numerous people who speak fondly of the days when nobody was super-rich or horribly poor and when they believed there was a higher goal for society. We heard this from people ranging from a successful entrepreneur to an aging Soviet era rock musician. That does not mean that these people want to return to Soviet days, but that they recognize the changes in Russia have both pluses and negatives. There is widespread disapproval of the breakup of the Soviet Union and the economic chaos of the 1990's.

    * There is a range of media supporting both government and opposition parties.

    There are three major TV stations controlled by and supporting the government. Along with these, there are numerous private stations criticizing the government and supporting various opposition parties. In print media, the majority of newspapers and magazines are critical of the government.

    * Public transportation is impressive.

    The streets of Moscow are jam packed with new cars. Meanwhile, underground there is a fast, economical and efficient subway system which is the most heavily used in Europe. The Moscow metro carries 40% more passengers than the New York subway system. On major routes the trains arrive every 60 seconds. Some of the stations are over 240 feet underground with the longest escalator in Europe. Inter-city trains such as the Sapsan (Falcon) take passengers between St. Petersburg and Moscow at 200 kms per hour. Despite the speed, the train is smooth and quiet. It's an interesting way to view rural Russia as one passes ramshackle dachas, cute villages and abandoned Soviet era factories. A major new transportation project is the bridge between Krasnodar and the Crimean peninsula. This short video portrays the design.

    * Putin is popular.

    Depending on who you ask, Putin's popularity seems to range between 60 and 80%. There are two reasons: First, since he became leader the economy has stabilized, corrupt oligarchs were brought into check, and the standard of living dramatically improved. Second, Putin is credited with restoring international respect for Russia and national pride for Russian citizens. Some say "During the 1990's we were a beggar nation." Russians have a strong sense of national pride and Putin's administration has restored that. Some people think Putin deserves a break from the intense pressure and workload. That does not mean everyone likes him or is afraid to say that. Our official Moscow guide took delight in showing us the exact spot on the bridge outside the Kremlin where she believes Putin had one of his enemies assassinated. Other Russians we spoke with mock these accusations which are widely believed in the West. As to the accusations that Putin is a "dictator", about 75 students in Crimea openly laughed when they were asked about this Western belief.

    Current Political Tension

    * Russians are highly skeptical of accusations about Russian "meddling" in the U.S. election.

    One foreign policy expert, Vladimir Kozin, said "It's a fairy tale that Russia influenced the U.S. election." They contrast the unverified accusations with clear evidence of U.S. interference in past Russian elections, especially in the 1990's when the economy was privatized and crime, unemployment and chaos overwhelmed the country. The role of the U.S . in "managing" the election of Boris Yeltsin in 1995 is widely known in Russia, as is the U.S. funding of hundreds of Non Governmental Organizations in Ukraine prior to the 2013-2014 violence and coup.

    * There is a strong desire to improve relations with the U.S.

    We met numerous Russians who had participated in citizen exchanges with the U.S. in the 1990's. Almost universally these Russians had fond memories of their visits and hosts in the U.S. In other places we met people who had never met an American or English speaking person before. Typically they were cautious but very pleased to hear from American citizens who also wish to improve relations and reduce tensions.

    * Western media reports about Crimea are hugely distorted.

    CCI delegates who visited Crimea met with a broad range of citizens and elected leaders. The geography is "stunningly beautiful" with mountains dropping to beaches on the Black Sea. Not reported in the West, Crimea was part of Russia since 1783. When Crimea was administratively transferred to Ukraine in 1954, it was all part of the Soviet Union. Crimeans told the CCI delegates they were repelled by the violence and fascist elements involved in the Kiev coup. Bus convoys from Crimea were attacked with injuries and deaths following the Kiev coup. The new coup government said Russian was no longer an official language. Crimeans quickly organized and held a referendum to secede from Ukraine and "re-unify" with Russia. With 80% of registered voters participating, 96% voted to join Russia. One Crimean stated to the CCI delegates, "We would have gone to war to separate from Ukraine." Others noted the hypocrisy of the West which allows secession votes in Scotland and Catalonia, and which encouraged the secession of Croatia, but then rejects the overwhelming vote and choice of the Crimean people. Sanctions against tourism are hurting the economy of Crimea yet the public is confident in its decision. The Americans who visited Crimea were overwhelmed with the warm welcome and friendliness they received. Because of the sanctions, few Americans visit Crimea and they also received substantial media coverage. In reaction, political officials in Ukraine accused the delegates of being "enemies of the Ukrainian state" and put their names on a blacklist.

    * Russians know and fear war.

    Twenty-seven million Russians died in WW2 and that experience is seared into the Russian memory. The Nazi siege of Leningrad (now called St Petersburg) reduced the population from 3 million to 500 thousand. Walking through the cemetery of mass graves brings home the depth of suffering and resilience of Russians who somehow survived a 872 day siege on the city. Memory of the war is kept alive through commemorations with huge public participation. Citizens carry poster size photographs of their relatives who fought or died in World War 2, known as the " Immortal Regiment ". In Kazan, the march involved 120 thousand persons – 10% of the entire city population – beginning at 10 am and concluding at 9 pm. Across Russia, millions of citizens actively participate. The marches and parades marking "Victory Day" are more solemn than celebratory.

    * Russians see themselves being threatened.

    While Western media portrays Russia as "aggressive", most Russians perceive the reverse. They see the U.S. and NATO increasing military budgets, steadily expanding, moving up to the Russian border, withdrawing from or violating past treaties and conducting provocative military exercises. This map shows the situation.

    * Russians want to de-escalate international tensions.

    Former President Gorbachev said to our group "Does America want Russia to just submit? This is a country that can never submit." These words carry extra significance because it was Gorbachev who initiated the foreign policy of Perestroika which led to his own side-lining and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev has written about Perestroika as follows: "Its main outcome was the end of the Cold War. A long and potentially deadly period in world history, when the whole humankind lived under the constant threat of a nuclear disaster, came to an end." Yet we are clearly in a new Cold War and the threat has re-emerged.

    Conclusion

    Despite three years of economic sanctions, low oil prices and an intense information war in the West, Russian society appears to be doing reasonably well. Russians across the spectrum express a strong desire to build friendship and partnership with the U.S. At the same time, it seems Russians will not be intimidated. They don't want war and won't initiate it, but if attacked they will defend themselves as they have in the past.

    Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He lives in the SF Bay Area and can be contacted at [email protected] .

    Read other articles by Rick .

    [May 31, 2017] Blowing things and people up is seen as a demonstration of clarity and resolve (unless someone is doing it to us, in which case its correctly recognized as cowardly and evil) by John Quiggin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Reading the news, I find a lot of items demonstrating a scale of values that makes no sense to me. ..."
    "... The most striking recent example (on "our" side) was the instant and near-universal approval of Trump's bombing of an airfield in Syria ..."
    May 28, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

    Reading the news, I find a lot of items demonstrating a scale of values that makes no sense to me. Some are important in the grand scheme of things, some are less so, but perhaps more relevant to me. I think about writing posts but don't find the time. So here are a few examples, which you are welcome to chew over.

    • Blowing things and people up is seen as a demonstration of clarity and resolve (unless someone is doing it to us, in which case it's correctly recognized as cowardly and evil). The most striking recent example (on "our" side) was the instant and near-universal approval of Trump's bombing of an airfield in Syria , which had no effect at all on events there.

      In this case, there was some pushback , which is a sign of hope, I guess.

    • ... ... ...

    [May 30, 2017] Believing the Russian Hacking Claim by David Swanson

    Notable quotes:
    "... Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed ..."
    "... All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case. ..."
    "... There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the . . . ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... Business Standard ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence. ..."
    "... Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .) ..."
    "... Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact. ..."
    "... Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi. ..."
    May 30, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed

    When the US public was told that Spain had blown up the Maine, or Vietnam had returned fire, or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre, the claims were straightforward and disprovable.

    Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to lie that it had happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly happened. No investigation into whether anything had happened could have taken as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese attack or attacks had happened. And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened could have focused its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.

    All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election. US corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case.

    There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the . . .

    • "Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" ( Yahoo ).
    • "Russian attempts to disrupt the election" ( New York Times ).
    • "Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election" ( ABC ).
    • "Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" ( The Intercept ).
    • "a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's election-meddling" ( Time ).
    • "Russian interference in the US election" ( CNN ).
    • "Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election" ( American Constitution Society ).
    • "Russian hacking in US Election" ( Business Standard )."

    "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the New York Times , but what is "election hacking"? Its definition seems to vary widely. And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?

    The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a factual event in Wikipedia , not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted as brushed aside.

    Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence.

    Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .)

    Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the US public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.

    Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.

    A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed. There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate believers.

    Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim. This phenomenon, in my view, is as dangerous as any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.

    David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of WorldBeyondWar.org and campaign coordinator for RootsAction.org . He is the author of War Is A Lie . Reprinted from his website .

    Read more by David Swanson Iraq Has WMDs and Russia Has Invaded – September 3rd, 2014

    [May 30, 2017] Swamp Politics, Trump Style Russiagate Diverts From the Real White House Scandals by Anthony DiMaggio

    Notable quotes:
    "... As a social scientist, it's been frustrating to listen to liberals and Democratic supporters authoritatively rant about Russia stealing the U.S. election. I've seen no compelling evidence that the anti-Clinton stories covered by Wikileaks ..."
    "... Suspicion of the "Russiagate" investigation is also compounded by the fact that the Democratic Party is desperate to direct attention away from its unpopularity with the public. Gallup ..."
    "... Conceding the questionable foundation of "Russiagate" to date, however, doesn't mean we should grant the Trump administration a free pass on corruption issues and on Trump's transactional, "everything's for sale" approach to "governing." ..."
    "... While the charges associated with "Russiagate" and foreign election meddling are unsubstantiated at best, and trumped up at worst (no pun intended), there are legitimate concerns with this administration – even more so than previous ones – with its shameless attempts to combine politicking with tit-for-tat money exchanges with foreign officials. Shady business dealings were a real issue with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had monetary connections with the Russian government, receiving fees from Russian state media propaganda outlet Russia Today ..."
    May 26, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    The investigation of the Trump administration continues with the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel to the inquiry into Russia's alleged interference in the 2016 election. I've refrained from writing about "Russiagate" to this point, because of how poorly the investigation has been handled by political leaders and the media.

    Scarcely do I see a recognition from these political actors that the report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which supposedly provided evidence of Russian election meddling, provided no definitive documentation of a direct link between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The report concluded that Vladimir Putin personally ordered email hacks of the Democratic Party to uncover potentially embarrassing information on Hillary Clinton, and to boost Trump's chances of winning the election. But the report failed to flesh out specific details documenting alleged Russian efforts to influence the election.

    The public was expected to take the charges on faith. This is not to say that Russia is innocent of trying to sway the election. I have no hard evidence one way or the other on that question, but as someone who believes in evidence-based reasoning, I don't accept claims that are made without documentation.

    As a social scientist, it's been frustrating to listen to liberals and Democratic supporters authoritatively rant about Russia stealing the U.S. election. I've seen no compelling evidence that the anti-Clinton stories covered by Wikileaks had a substantive impact on voter choice. Most of these stories were inside-baseball kind of stuff, including the "revelation" that John Podesta thought Hillary Clinton has poor political instincts, that the Clinton campaign didn't like Bernie Sanders (a shocker!), that Clinton supported "open borders" free trade agreements (you don't say?), and that she delivered a Wall Street speech voicing support for adopting "public" and "private position[s]" on political issues (politicians lie?!?). In an era of superficiality in American elections, it's also fair to ask how much attention citizens pay to these kinds of stories. Election scholars have long found that much of the public votes for candidates based on extremely superficial considerations such as physical attractiveness, use of buzz words, and an amorphous belief in a candidates' "character."

    What little empirical evidence that's been presented so far raises doubts about the impact of alleged Russian spying on the election. As Harry Egan of 538 writes, despite considerable public interest in Wikileaks and the election, "Clinton's drop in the polls [in late October and early November] doesn't line up perfectly with the surge in Wikileaks interest" among the public, as seen in national google searches. "When Wikileaks had its highest search day in early October, Clinton's poll numbers were rising. They continued to go up for another two weeks, even as Wikileaks was releasing emails. That is, there isn't one pivotal 'aha!' point which shows that Wikileaks caused Clinton's numbers to drop There just isn't a clean-cut story in the data."

    The evidence that does exist suggesting that individual news stories influenced the polls cuts against the Russia-election meddling thesis. In the fall of 2016, Nate Silver summarized various election-related events and their potential impact as follows: "when a story has broken through to dominate the news cycle, it usually has moved the polls in the direction that people expected. Trump's feuds with Judge Gonzalo Curiel and the family of the American soldier Humayun Khan corresponded with periods when he declined in the polls. The first debate turned into a disaster for Trump in a way that was predictable based on instant-reaction polls. Trump's convention was a mess, whereas Clinton's was conventionally effective, and she got a much larger convention bounce. However, Clinton was hurt by her email scandal resurfacing as a major story line in July. And she declined in the polls after her 'basket of deplorables' comments and Sept. 11 health scare." Notice that none of the events cited by Silver were tied back directly to "Russiagate." It seems much more likely that the re-announcement of the FBI's Clinton email investigation in late-October was a key factor in swinging what was already a close race.

    Suspicion of the "Russiagate" investigation is also compounded by the fact that the Democratic Party is desperate to direct attention away from its unpopularity with the public. Gallup 's polling numbers for May 2017 find that just 40 percent of Americans hold a "favorable" view of the Democratic Party, compared to 39 percent sharing a favorable view of Republicans. And the Democrats' favorability numbers are in decline, falling from 45 percent in November 2016. The effort to define Democratic politics through opposition to Trump has backfired. The party has failed over the last half-year to cultivate any meaningful support from the public. The Democrats have no real identity anymore outside of resisting Trump, and this kind of "identity" is not something one can build public support around in terms of consistently winning elections. Hillary Clinton's election loss exposed the Democrats as a party that's lost touch with the public and is tone deaf to the economic troubles afflicting Americans.

    Conceding the questionable foundation of "Russiagate" to date, however, doesn't mean we should grant the Trump administration a free pass on corruption issues and on Trump's transactional, "everything's for sale" approach to "governing." Taking an open and honest look at the wheeling and dealing of the Trump administration, it would be foolish to deny that something fishy is going on in Washington. Bizarrely, and in a sign of his incompetence, Trump has gone out of his way to suggest that he has something to hide regarding the Russia investigation. What it is that he may be hiding I can't say for sure without further evidence, but his behavior up to this point screams scandal. Perhaps, like former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn, he is hiding prominent business investments with Russia. Trump has consistently and suspiciously refused to release his tax returns, fueling speculation that he's seeking to hide dubious financial connections with other countries. Trump's stubbornness extends beyond the "witch hunt" he now laments, as he refused to release these returns during the election season, prior to the emergence of "Russiagate."

    Trump's erratic moves regarding the FBI also suggest something strange is afoot. When you fire the head of the FBI, and admit in an interview with Lester Holt that it was motivated by Comey's Russia investigation, that's a red flag. When news stories report that Trump demanded the end of the Flynn investigation, and when reports suggest Comey's firing was the result of his refusal to end said investigation, that's another red flag. If nothing else, it opens Trump up to charges of obstruction of justice. And when Trump has a sit down with Russian diplomats informing them that, now that Comey's gone, it frees the president up and relieves "great pressure" on him, that's a big red flag. If Trump is innocent of dubious business or political ties to foreign governments, why is he going out of his way to play the part of a guilty man?

    While the charges associated with "Russiagate" and foreign election meddling are unsubstantiated at best, and trumped up at worst (no pun intended), there are legitimate concerns with this administration – even more so than previous ones – with its shameless attempts to combine politicking with tit-for-tat money exchanges with foreign officials. Shady business dealings were a real issue with former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who had monetary connections with the Russian government, receiving fees from Russian state media propaganda outlet Russia Today . Flynn blatantly lied about his financial ties with Russia to federal investigators. And Flynn's economic ties to Russia were no laughing matter. Such ties coexisted alongside Flynn's private sit-down with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, to discuss the lifting of U.S. sanctions against Russia.

    Flynn has now opened himself up to federal charges, specifically to violating the Logan Act, which prohibits civilians outside the Executive branch from engaging in foreign policy making. Beyond this legal infraction, though, we see the broader problem of an administration that believes policy is just another commodity to be bought and sold like any good or service on the market. Those concerned with basic ethics in government should be displeased with the ham-fisted horse trading engaged in by Flynn, who accepted money from a foreign government while promising policy reforms that would benefit said government.

    When government officials seek financial gain in exchange for policy quid-pro-quos, it raises serious ethical questions. That Trump still refuses to recognize how inappropriate Flynn's relationship was, and that he reportedly wants to bring Flynn back into the Executive fold once the investigation is over, demonstrates how oblivious he is to basic ethical considerations in government. Fynn's financial opportunism, of course, is by no means new to Washington. Other political officials regularly cash in on their business connections, as Obama recently did by giving a lucrative speech on Wall Street. But even Obama knew to give such speeches after he had served in office, rather than engaging in clumsy clientelism of the kind done by Flynn.

    The Trump administration has consistently demonstrated contempt for transparency and dismissed the need to avoid potential conflicts of interest between the Executive and lobbyists. Trump also demands that non-partisan civil servants pledge "loyalty" to him, even in adversarial cases, like when former FBI director James Comey was investigating the Executive branch with regard to Russia. In doing so, Trump demonstrates a commitment to a "fiefdom" style of politics, in which he serves as a feudal lord over political subordinates. Within this fiefdom, Trump's signaled that Washington is open for business when it comes to horse trading financial benefits for policy outcomes. His openness to using the office for financial enrichment is apparent on multiple levels, as seen in the following instances:

    • Refusing to sell off his financial investments, or at the very least put them in a blind trust, prior to serving as president. Trump instead put his children in charge of managing his assets. There is no way to guarantee that he won't be passively or actively involved in influencing future investments as president, or that Trump won't make policy decisions in the White House with the goal of enriching his already existing assets at the expense of the public good.
    • Relying on campaign advisors and other officials who express various conflicts of interest regarding personal financial gain and influence peddling. One example is Paul Manafort, the former chairman of Trump's campaign, who profited as a consultant for a pro-Russia Ukrainian political party and working for former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
    • Trump's recently announced $110 billion arms deal with the Saudi government, conveniently coupled with Saudi pledges to invest $20 billion in American "infrastructure" via the Blackstone Group, a corporation whose CEO Steve Schwarzman has close personal ties to Donald Trump, and another $100 million to Ivanka Trump's proposed "Women's Entrepreneurs Fund."

    There should be nothing shocking about the above stories coming from a president who "authored" a book titled "The Art of the Deal," and who consistently bragged that, if elected, he would run the executive via a "deal making," business approach to policy making.

    This administration demonstrates contempt for efforts to shine a light on its inappropriate "deal making." Most recently, Trump sought to block the Office of Government Ethics from securing the names of former lobbyists who secured waivers to work for the White House and other federal agencies. As the New York Times reported: "Dozens of former lobbyists and industry lawyers are working in the Trump administration, which has hired them at a much higher rate than the previous administration. Keeping the waivers confidential would make it impossible to know whether any such officials are violating federal ethics rules or have been given a pass to ignore them."

    ... ... ...

    Anthony DiMaggio is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Lehigh University. He holds a PhD in political communication, and is the author of the newly released: Selling War, Selling Hope: Presidential Rhetoric, the News Media, and U.S. Foreign Policy After 9/11 (Paperback: 2015). He can be reached at: [email protected]

    [May 30, 2017] The Deep State is the State by Ron Jacobs

    Notable quotes:
    "... For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism. ..."
    "... It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest threat to that access. ..."
    "... When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity, the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent. ..."
    "... At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government intelligence operations in the White House. ..."
    "... There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November 2016. ..."
    "... Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI, CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use the power of these agencies against their opponents. ..."
    "... When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers, especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself. ..."
    "... Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: [email protected] . ..."
    May 26, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
    The deep state is not some enigmatic entity that operates outside the US government. It is the US state itself. Like all elements of that state, the so-called deep state exists to enforce the economic supremacy of US capitalism. It does so primarily via the secret domestic and international police forces like the FBI, CIA and other intelligence agencies. The operations of these agencies run the gamut from surveillance to propaganda to covert and overt military actions. Naturally, this so-called deep state operates according to their own rules; rules which ultimately insure its continued existence and relevance. Although it can be argued that it was the 1950 National Security Directive known as NSC-68 along with the Congressional Bill creating the Central Intelligence Agency that launched the "deep state" as we understand it, a broader understanding of the "deep state" places its genesis perhaps a century prior to that date. In other words, a structure designed to maintain the economic and political domination of certain powerful US capitalists existed well back into the nineteenth century. However, the centralization of that power began in earnest in the years following World War Two.

    For those who don't know what the NSC-68 actually was, it is essentially a directive that militarized the conflict between US capitalism and Soviet communism.

    It was based on the correct understanding that US capitalism required open access to the resources and markets of the entire planet and that the Soviet Union represented the greatest threat to that access. Not only did this mean the US military would grow in size, it also ensured that the power of the intelligence sector would expand both in terms of its reach and its budget. When one recalls that this period in US history was also a period when the FBI and the US Congress were going after leftists and progressives in the name of a certain right-wing ideological purity, the power of the US secret police becomes quite apparent.

    As the 1950s turned into the 1960s, the so-called deep state's power continued to grow. Some of its better known manifestations include the failed attempt to invade revolutionary Cuba that became known as the Bay of Pigs, the use of psychoactive drugs on unsuspecting individuals as part of a mind control study, and numerous attempts to subvert governments considered anti-American. Among the latter actions one can include covert operations against the Vietnamese independence forces and the murder of the Congolese president Patrice Lumumba. In terms of the "deep state's" domestic operations, this period saw the intensification of spying on and disrupting various groups involved in the civil rights and antiwar organizing. Many elements of the domestic operation would become known as COINTELPRO and were directed by the FBI.

    Although the agencies of the so-called deep state operate as part of the US state, this does not mean that those agencies are of one mind. Indeed, like any power structure, there are various factions represented. This means that there are disagreements over policies, priorities, direction, and personnel. The only certainty is that all of its members agree on the need to maintain the supremacy of US capital in the world. At times, the seemingly absolute power of the CIA and FBI have caused the US Executive Branch to try and set up other means and methods in order to circumvent that power. Two examples of this that come quickly to mind are the establishment of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) by the Kennedy administration in 1961-1962 and the failed attempt (known as the Huston plan after its creator Tom Huston) by the Nixon White House to centralize the direction of all US government intelligence operations in the White House.

    There is no soft coup taking place in DC. The entire government has been owned by big business and the banking industry for more than a century, if not since its inception. That ownership has been dominated by the military-industrial complex since about the same time as when the aforementioned agencies were created. That is no coincidence. However, their role in the current uproar over Russia and Michael Flynn is not because they are taking over the government. It is because their current leadership represents the factions of the US establishment that were removed from power in November 2016.

    Donald Trump is not against the so-called deep state. He is against it being used against himself and his cohorts. In the world of capitalist power, the factions Trump represents are not the same factions represented by the presidents former FBI director Comey served-the factions represented by Bush and Obama. He understands that if he can install individuals in key positions at the FBI, CIA, DHS and other security and military agencies, he and his allies will be more than happy to use the power of these agencies against their opponents. Indeed, he would most likely greatly enhance those agencies' power, making a further mockery of the US Constitution. If Trump is able to get the agencies of the deep state to work for the factions he represents-either by replacing those loyal to others not named Trump or by cajoling and coercing them to change their loyalty-he will think the deep state is a great thing. In this way he is no different than every other US president. He understands that whoever controls the deep state controls the US. The struggle we are witnessing between the FBI and the Trump White House is part of a power struggle between US power elites.

    When the ruling class is in crisis, as it is now, the job of the left is not to choose one side or the other. Nor is it to accept the narrative provided by one or other faction of the rulers, especially when that narrative supports the police state. Instead, it is the Left's job to go to the root of the crisis and organize resistance to the ruling class itself.

    Join the debate on Facebook

    Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: [email protected] .

    [May 30, 2017] Democrats are falling for fake news about Russia

    A pretty accurate (for Vox ;-) description of Neo-McCarthyism hysteria that the USA currently experience...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ). ..."
    "... Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years. ..."
    "... Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter. ..."
    "... One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ). ..."
    "... "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out." ..."
    "... dezinformatsiya ..."
    "... These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. ..."
    "... The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off . ..."
    "... Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000. ..."
    "... "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite." ..."
    "... actual conspiracy. ..."
    "... For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism": ..."
    "... What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy. ..."
    "... Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives. ..."
    May 30, 2017 | www.vox.com

    President Donald Trump is about to resign as a result of the Russia scandal. Bernie Sanders and Sean Hannity are Russian agents. The Russians have paid off House Oversight Chair Jason Chaffetz to the tune of $10 million, using Trump as a go-between. Paul Ryan is a traitor for refusing to investigate Trump's Russia ties. Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand was a secret Russian agent charged with discrediting the American conservative movement.

    These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I've dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between Trump and Russia. The tone is breathless: full of unnamed intelligence sources, certainty that Trump will soon be imprisoned, and fever dream factual assertions that no reputable media outlet has managed to confirm.

    Twitter is the Russiasphere's native habitat. Louise Mensch, a former right-wing British parliamentarian and romance novelist, spreads the newest, punchiest, and often most unfounded Russia gossip to her 283,000 followers on Twitter . Mensch is backed up by a handful of allies, including former NSA spook John Schindler ( 226,000 followers ) and DC-area photographer Claude Taylor ( 159,000 followers ).

    There's also a handful of websites, like Palmer Report , that seem devoted nearly exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell funneled Russian money to Trump - a story that spread widely among the site's 70,000 Facebook fans.

    Beyond the numbers, the unfounded left-wing claims, like those on the right, are already seeping into the mainstream discourse. In March, the New York Times published an op-ed by Mensch instructing members of Congress as to how they should proceed with the Russia investigation ("I have some relevant experience," she wrote). Two months prior to that, Mensch had penned a lengthy letter to Vladimir Putin titled "Dear Mr. Putin, Let's Play Chess" - in which she claims to have discovered that Edward Snowden was part of a years-in-the-making Russian plot to discredit Hillary Clinton.

    Last Thursday, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) was forced to apologize for spreading a false claim that a New York grand jury was investigating Trump and Russia. His sources, according to the Guardian's Jon Swaine, were Mensch and Palmer:

    Members of the Russiasphere see themselves as an essential counter to a media that's been too cautious to get to the bottom of Trump's Russian ties.

    "There's good evidence that the Kremlin was planning a secret operation to put Trump in the White House back in 2014," Schindler told me. "With a few exceptions, the MSM [mainstream media] hasn't exactly covered itself in glory with Kremlingate. They were slow to ask obvious questions about Trump in 2016, and they're playing catch-up now, not always accurately."

    Experts on political misinformation see things differently. They worry that the unfounded speculation and paranoia that infect the Russiasphere risk pushing liberals into the same black hole of conspiracy-mongering and fact-free insinuation that conservatives fell into during the Obama years.

    The fear is that this pollutes the party itself, derailing and discrediting the legitimate investigation into Russia investigation. It also risks degrading the Democratic Party - helping elevate shameless hucksters who know nothing about policy but are willing to spread misinformation in the service of gaining power. We've already seen this story play out on the right, a story that ended in Trump's election.

    "One of the failures of the Republican Party is the way they let the birther movement metastasize - and that ultimately helped Donald Trump make it to the White House," says Brendan Nyhan, a professor at Dartmouth who studies the spread of false political beliefs. "We should worry about kind of pattern being repeated."

    Anatomy of a conspiracy theory

    The Russiasphere doesn't have one unifying, worked-out theory - like "9/11 was an inside job" or "Nazi gas chambers are a hoax." Instead, it's more like an attitude - a general sense that Russian influence in the United States is pervasive and undercovered by the mainstream media. Everything that happens in US politics is understood through this lens - especially actions taken by the Trump administration, which is seen as Kremlin-occupied territory.

    There are, of course, legitimate issues relating to Trump's ties to Russia - I've written about them personally over and over again . There are even legitimate reasons to believe that Trump's campaign worked with Russian hackers to undermine Hillary Clinton. That may or may not turn out to be true, but it is least plausible and somewhat supported by the available evidence .

    The Russiasphere's assertions go way beyond that.

    Take Mensch, who is probably the Russiasphere's most prominent voice. She actually did have one legitimate scoop, reporting in November that the FBI had been granted a warrant to watch email traffic between the Trump Organization and two Russian banks ( before anyone else had ). Since then, though, her ideas have taken a bit of a turn. In January, she launched a blog - Patribotics - that's exclusively dedicated to the Trump/Russia scandal. It's ... a lot.

    Liberals fall for lies for the same reasons conservatives do: partisanship

    "Sources with links to the intelligence community say it is believed that Carter Page went to Moscow in early July carrying with him a pre-recorded tape of Donald Trump offering to change American policy if he were to be elected, to make it more favorable to Putin," Mensch claimed in an April post . "In exchange, Page was authorized directly by Trump to request the help of the Russian government in hacking the election."

    Another post , allegedly based on "sources with links to the intelligence community," claimed that Trump, Mike Pence, and Paul Ryan were all going to be arrested on racketeering charges against "the Republican party" owing to collaboration with Russia.

    "Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, who was the 'Designated Survivor' at the inauguration of Donald Trump (yes, really) is likely to become President," Mensch writes.

    She's also suggested that Anthony Weiner was brought down as part of a Russian plot to put the Clinton emails back in the news:

    I can exclusively report that there is ample evidence that suggests that Weiner was sexting not with a 15 year old girl but with a hacker , working for Russia, part of the North Carolina hacking group 'Crackas With Attitude', who hacked the head of the CIA, and a great many FBI agents, police officers, and other law enforcement officials.

    And that the protests against police brutality in Ferguson were secretly a Russian plot:

    Mensch is quite combative with the press. When I asked her to email me for this piece, she refused and called me a "dickhead." But she's backed up by an array of different figures, who spend a lot of time swapping ideas on Twitter.

    One of them is Schindler, the former NSA spook. A former Naval War College professor who resigned in 2014 after a scandal in which he sent a photograph of his penis to a Twitter follower , he thinks Mensch doesn't get it right all the time. But he does think she was onto the truth about Trump and Russia "long before the MSM cared" (the two have been amiably chatting on Twitter since 2013 ).

    "Louise has no counterintelligence background, nor does she speak Russian or understand the Russians at a professional level, and that makes her analysis hit or miss sometimes," he told me. "That said, very few people pontificating on Kremlingate have those qualifications, so if that's disqualifying, pretty much everyone but me is out."

    Schindler's role in the Russiasphere is essentially as a validator, using his time working on Russia at the NSA to make the theories bandied about by Mensch seem credible. Schindler peppers his speech with terms pulled from Russian spycraft - like deza , short for dezinformatsiya (disinformation), or Chekist , a term used to describe the former spies who hold significant political positions in Putin's Russia.

    This lingo has become common among the Russiasphere, a sort of status symbol to show that its members understand the real nature of the threat. Schindler and Mensch will often refer to their enemies in the media and the Trump administration using the hashtag #TeamDeza, or accuse enemies of being Chekists.

    Claude Taylor is the third core member of the Russia sphere. He's a DC-area photographer who claims to have worked for three presidential administrations; his role is to provide inside information into the alleged legal cases against the president. He also routinely claims to have advance knowledge what's happening, even down to the precise number of grand juries impaneled and indictments that are on the way.

    These anonymous intelligence community tip-offs lead him to tweet, with certainty, that Trump is finished. His tweets routinely get thousands of retweets.

    These three - Mensch, Schindler, and Taylor - form a kind of self-reinforcing information circle, retweeting and validating one another's work on a nearly daily basis. A quick Twitter search reveals hundreds of interactions between the three on the platform in recent months, many of which reach huge audiences on Twitter (judging by the retweet and favorite counts). They're also reliably boosted by a few allies with large followings - conservative NeverTrumper Rick Wilson , the anonymous Twitter account Counterchekist , and financial analyst Eric Garland (best known as the "time for some game theory" tweetstormer.)

    The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere. It reports the same kind of extreme, thinly sourced stuff - for instance, a story titled "CIA now says there's more than one tape of Donald Trump with Russian prostitutes" - often, though not always, sourced to Mensch and company. This seems to personally irk Mensch, who has occasionally suggested the Palmer Report is ripping her off .

    Yet nonetheless, Palmer appears to have built up a real audience. According to Quantcast , a site that measures web traffic, the Palmer Report got around 400,000 visitors last month - more than GQ magazine's website. The Russian prostitute story was shared more than 41,000 times on Facebook, according to a counter on Palmer's site; another story alleging that Chaffetz was paid off by Trump and Russia got about 29,000.

    This stuff is real, and there's a huge appetite for it.

    These theories are spreading because the Russia situation is murky - and Democrats are out of power

    To understand how Democrats started falling for this stuff so quickly, I turned to three scholars: Dartmouth's Nyhan, the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler, and Temple's Kevin Arceneaux. The three of them all work in a burgeoning subfield of political science, one that focuses on how people form political beliefs - false ones, in particular. All of them were disturbed by what they're seeing from the Russiasphere.

    "I'm worried? Alarmed? Disheartened is the right word - disheartened by the degree to which the left is willing to accept conspiracy theory claims or very weakly sourced claims about Russia's influence in the White House," Reifler says.

    The basic thing you need to understand, these scholars say, is that political misinformation in America comes principally from partisanship. People's political identities are formed around membership in one of two tribes, Democratic or Republican. This filters the way they see the world.

    "Misinformation is much more likely to stick when it conforms with people's preexisting beliefs, especially those connected to social groups that they're a part of," says Arceneaux. "In politics, that plays out (usually) through partisanship: Republicans are much more likely to believe false information that confirms their worldview, and Democrats are likely to do the opposite."

    In one study , Yale's Dan Kahan gave subjects a particularly tricky math problem - phrased in terms of whether a skin cream worked. Then he gave a random subset the same problem, only phrased in terms of whether a particular piece of gun control legislation worked.

    The results were fascinating. For the people who got the skin cream problem, there was no correlation between partisanship and likelihood of getting the right answer. But when people got the same question, just about gun control, everything changed: Republicans were more likely to conclude that gun control didn't work, and Democrats the other way around. People's political biases overrode their basic mathematical reasoning skills.

    "[Some] people are willing to second-guess their gut reactions," Arceneaux says. "There just aren't that many people who are willing to do that."

    In real-life situations, where the truth is invariably much murkier than in a laboratory math problem, these biases are even more powerful. People want to believe that their side is good and the other evil - and are frighteningly willing to believe even the basest allegations against their political enemies. When your tribe is out of power, this effect makes you open to conspiracy theories. You tend to assume your political enemies have malign motives, which means you assume they're doing something evil behind the scenes.

    The specific nature of the conspiracy theories tends to be shaped by the actors in question. So because Obama was a black man with a non-Anglo name, and the Republican Party is made up mostly of white people, the popular conspiracy theories in the last administration became things like birtherism and Obama being a secret Muslim. This was helped on by a conservative mediasphere, your Rush Limbaughs and Fox Newses and Breitbarts, that had little interest in factual accuracy - alongside one Donald J. Trump.

    There have been random smatterings of this kind of thing catering to Democrats throughout the Trump administration, like the now-infamous Medium piece alleging that Trump's Muslim ban was a "trial balloon for a coup." But most conspiracy thinking has come to center on Russia, and for good reason: There's suggestive evidence of an actual conspiracy.

    We know that Trump's team has a series of shady connections to the Kremlin. Some of Trump's allies may have coordinated with Russian hackers to undermine the Clinton campaign. But we still don't know the details of what actually happened, so there's a huge audience of Democratic partisans who want someone to fill in the blanks for them.

    "Conspiracy entrepreneurs are filling the void for this kind of content," Nyhan says. "If you're among the hardcore, you can follow Louise Mensch, and the Palmer Report, and John Schindler and folks like that - and get an ongoing stream of conspiracy discourse that is making some quite outlandish claims."

    This kind of thing is poisonous. For Republicans, it made their party more vulnerable to actual penetration by hacks - the "Michele Bachmanns" and "Sean Hannitys," as Nyhan puts it. It allows unprincipled liars and the outright deluded to shape policy, which both makes your ideas much worse and discredits the good ones that remain. In the specific case of the Russia investigation, the spread of these ideas would make the president's accusations of "fake news" far more credible.

    Luckily for the Democratic Party, there isn't really a pre-built media ecosystem for amplifying this like there was for Republicans. In the absence of left-wing Limbaughs and Breitbarts, media outlets totally unconcerned with factual rigor, it's much harder for this stuff to become mainstream.

    But hard doesn't mean impossible. The most worrying sign, according to the scholars I spoke to, is that some mainstream figures and publications are starting to validate Russiasphere claims.

    For instance, after the New York Times published the Mensch piece back in March, former DNC chair Donna Brazile tweeted out the story, with a follow-up thanking Mensch for "good journalism":

    A current DNC communications staffer - Adrienne Watson - favorably retweeted a Mensch claim that the Russians had "kompromat," or blackmail, on Rep. Chaffetz:

    Two former Obama staffers, Ned Price and Eric Schultz, favorably discussed a Palmer Report story aggregating Mensch's allegations about Chaffetz ("interesting, if single-source," Price tweeted). Larry Tribe, an eminent and famous constitutional law professor at Harvard, shared the same Palmer Report story on Twitter - and even defended his decision to do so in an email to BuzzFeed 's Joseph Bernstein.

    "Some people regard a number of its stories as unreliable," Tribe wrote of Palmer. Yet he defended disseminating its work: "When I share any story on Twitter ... I do so because a particular story seems to be potentially interesting, not with the implication that I've independently checked its accuracy or that I vouch for everything it asserts."

    And Keith Olbermann made a popular video for GQ based on Taylor's allegations about imminent arrests, adding that "Claude and his sources know their stuff."

    What you've got are prominent media figures, political operatives, scholars, and even US senators being taken in by this stuff - in addition to the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of ordinary people consuming it on Twitter and Facebook. These people, too, are letting their biases trump interest in factual accuracy.

    This is the key danger: that this sort of thing becomes routine, repeated over and over again in left-leaning media outlets, to the point where accepting the Russiasphere's fact-free claims becomes a core and important part of what Democrats believe.

    "Normal people aren't reading extensively about what Louise Mensch claims someone told her about Russia," Nyhan says. "The question now is whether Democrats and their allies in the media - and other affiliated elites - will promote these conspiracy theories more aggressively."

    That's how the GOP fell for conspiracy thinking during the Obama years. There's nothing about Democratic psychology that prevents them from doing the same - which means the burden is on Democratic elites to correct it.

    Democratic partisans and liberal media outlets are the ones best positioned to push back against this kind of stuff. Rank-and-file Democrats trust them; if they're saying this stuff is ridiculous, then ordinary liberals will start to think the same thing. Even if they just ignore it, then the Russiasphere will be denied the oxygen necessary for it to move off of Twitter and into the center of the political conversation.

    "Scrutiny from trusted media sources and criticism from allied elites can help discourage this kind of behavior," Nyhan says. "It won't suppress it - there are always places it can go - but on the margin, allies can help limit the spread of conspiracy theorizing inside their party."

    So that's the key question going forward: Will the mainstreaming of the Russiasphere speed up - and birth something like a Breitbart of the left? If so, it'll create an environment where the people most willing to say the most absurd things succeed, pulling the entire Democratic Party closer to the edge - and leaving liberals trapped in the same hall of mirrors as conservatives.

    [May 30, 2017] It is estimated that over 120 ISIS rats were killed in the air raids. Over 500 are reported wounded or missing. Of the 39 pickups traveling in the convoy, 32 were confirmed destroyed.

    May 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Blanco Diablo , May 30, 2017 10:21 PM

    Bad Vlad strikes Again!!

    "Impressive, was the Russian Air Force's stunning annihilation of a huge convoy of ISIS rats leaving Al-Raqqa in order to further a plan drawn up by the United States to open highway access from Al-Raqqa to Palmyra. The plan was not to destroy more Roman ruins at the ancient city. No, all of this was a part of the project to install a vassal state that would be controlled by Kurd allies of the U.S. in order to prevent the extension of the natural gas pipeline from Iran to Syria.

    The ISIS force departed Al-Raqqa on May 25, 2017 at approximately 3:00 a.m. local time. Russia had received a heads-up from SAA-MI about both human intelligence reports and intercepted communications between American, British and Jordanian terrorist enablers in the MOK HQ near Al-Naseeb. According to my sources, the U.S. promised to keep the SAAF at bay as the large ISIS force moved south toward Palmyra. An agreement was drawn up between the RuAF and the Syrian High Command to permit only Russian aircraft to fly since Syrian aircraft could be shot down by the Americans if they were interfering in some farfetched and typically idiotic plan hatched in Jordan. With the aircraft carrying Russian insignia, there was no conceivable way the U.S. could interdict Moscow's airpower.

    That left ISIS, on May 27, 2017, as an open target on the highway south just before Qal'at Jabal Jaabir. Russian Sukhoi bombers unloaded thousands of tons of ordnance on a densely packed convoy carrying not only rodents, but large quantities of resupplies for besieged cannibals in areas, like Khunayfis, soon to be liberated by the SAA. Aerial assessments and intercepted calls by ISIS rodent officers told a story of utter devastation and complete American/British failure. It is estimated that over 120 ISIS rats were killed in the air raids. Over 500 are reported wounded or missing. Of the 39 pickups traveling in the convoy, 32 were confirmed destroyed. All pickups were armed with 23mm cannons.

    It is highly unlikely that ISIS will cooperate again with such imbeciles such as those degenerates in Jordan. It has also become quite obvious that James "Mad Dog" Mattis is a pathological liar when he states that his war against ISIS is one of "annihilation". ": Ziad@SyrPer

    [May 30, 2017] Putin Russian Meddling Is A Fiction Democrats Invented To Divert Blame For Their Defeat

    The Russia-screwed-the-Dems meme is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful that the neoliberal MSM are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia." ..."
    "... Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues." ..."
    "... It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. ..."
    May 30, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    With McCarthyism 2.0 continues to run amok in the US, spread like a virulent plague by unnamed, unknown, even fabricated sources , over in France one day after his first meeting with French president Emanuel Macron, the man who supposedly colluded with and was Trump's pre-election puppet master (but had to wait until after the election to set up back-channels with Jared Kushner) Vladimir Putin sat down for an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro in which the Russian president expressed the belief that Moscow and Western capitals "all want security, peace, safety and cooperation."

    "Therefore, we should not build up tensions or invent fictional threats from Russia, some hybrid warfare etc.," the Russian leader told his French hosts. "What is the major security problem today? Terrorism. There are bombings in Europe, in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East. This is the main concern. But no, let us keep speculating on the threat from Russia."

    Case in point, in the latest attempt to stir up an anti-Russian frenzy, America's biggest neocon, John McCain said that Russia is even more dangerous than ISIS . "You made these things up yourselves and now scare yourselves with them and even use them to plan your prospective policies. These policies have no prospects. The only possible future is in cooperation in all areas, including security issues."

    "Hacking" Clinton And the DNC

    Even with the FBI special investigation on "Russian collusion" with the Trump campaign and administration taking place in the background, Putin once again dismissed allegations of Russian meddling in last year's U.S. presidential election as "fiction" invented by Democrats to divert the blame for their defeat. Putin repeated his strong denial of Russia's involvement in the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails that yielded disclosures that proved embarrassing for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Instead, he countered that claims of Russian interference were driven by the " desire of those who lost the U.S. elections to improve their standing ."

    "They want to explain to themselves and prove to others that they had nothing to do with it, their policy was right, they have done everything well, but someone from the outside cheated them," he continued. "It's not so. They simply lost, and they must acknowledge it. " That has proven easier said than done, because half a year after the election, Hillary Clinton still blames Wikileaks and James Comey for her loss . Ironically, what Putin said next, namely that the "people who lost the vote hate to acknowledge that they indeed lost because the person who won was closer to the people and had a better understanding of what people wanted," is precisely what even Joe Biden has admitted several weeks ago , and once again yesterday . Maybe Uncle Joe is a Russian secret agent too...

    In reflecting on the ongoing scandal, which has seen constant, daily accusations of collusion and interference if no evidence (yet), Putin conceded that the damage has already been done and Russia's hopes for a new detente under Trump have been shattered by congressional and FBI investigations of the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. In the interview, Putin also said the accusations of meddling leveled at Russia have destabilized international affairs

    Going back to the hotly debated topic of "influencing" the election, Putin once again made a dangerous dose of sense when he argued that trying to influence the U.S. vote would make no sense for Moscow as a U.S. president can't unilaterally shape policies. " Russia has never engaged in that, we don't need it and it makes no sense to do it ," he said. " Presidents come and go, but policies don't change. You know why? Because the power of bureaucracy is very strong ." Especially when the bureaucracy in question is the so-called "deep state."

    Asked who could have been behind the hacking of the Democrats' emails, The Russian leader added that he agreed with Trump that it could have been anyone. "Maybe someone lying in his bed invented something or maybe someone deliberately inserted a USB with a Russian citizen's signature or anything else," Putin said. "Anything can be done in this virtual world." This echoed a remark by Trump during a September presidential debate in which he said of the DNC hacks: "It could be Russia, but it could be China, could also be lots of other people. It could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds."

    Assad, Red-Lines and Chemical Weapons

    Putin was asked about French President Emmanuel Macron's warning that any use of chemical weapons in Syria was a "red line" that would be met by reprisals, to which the Russian president said he agreed with that position. But he also reiterated Russia's view that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces weren't responsible for a fatal chemical attack in Syria in April. Putin said Russia had offered the U.S. and its allies the chance to inspect the Syrian base for traces of the chemical agent. He added that their refusal reflected a desire to justify military action against Assad. "There is no proof of Assad using chemical weapons," Putin insisted in the interview. "We firmly believe that that this is a provocation. President Assad did not use chemical weapons."

    "Moreover, I believe that this issue should be addressed on a broader scale. President Macron shares this view. No matter who uses chemical weapons against people and organizations, the international community must formulate a common policy and find a solution that would make the use of such weapons impossible for anyone," the Russian leader said.

    On NATO's Military Buildup across Russian borders

    Weighing on the outcome of the recent NATO summit, at which Russia was branded a threat to security, Putin pointed to the ambiguous signals Moscow is receiving from the alliance. "What attracted my attention is that the NATO leaders spoke at their summit about a desire to improve relations with Russia. Then why are they increasing their military spending? Whom are they planning to fight against?" Putin said, adding that Russia nevertheless "feels confident" in its own defenses. Washington's appeal to other NATO members to ramp up their military spending and alleviate the financial burden the US is forced to shoulder is "understandable" and "pragmatic," Putin said.

    But the strategy employed by the alliance against Russia is "shortsighted," the Russian president added, referring to the NATO's expanding missile defense infrastructure on Russia's doorstep and calling it "an extremely dangerous development for international security." Putin lamented that an idea of a comprehensive security system envisioned in the 1990s that would span Europe, Russia and US has never become a reality, arguing that it would have spared Russia many challenges to its security stemming from NATO. "Perhaps all this would not have happened. But it did, and we cannot rewind history, it is not a movie."

    junction -> Boris Badenov •May 30, 2017 10:03 PM

    Paging Seth Rich. Oh, he can't say anything about the reason why the Democrats lost. Maybe Hillary could try to contact him using witchcraft and the Satanist arts she follows. Then again, her old reliable is her hit team of FBI agents, not her sacrifices to Moloch.

    GooseShtepping Moron •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM

    Putin packs more truth into one newspaper interview than the entire Western media publishes in a year.

    Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:01 PM

    Who would they blame if Russia was suddenly gone?

    rejected -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:05 PM

    Iran.

    GooseShtepping Moron -> Francis Marx •May 30, 2017 10:06 PM

    Me and you, the basket of deplorables.

    Billy the Poet -> rwmctrofholz •May 30, 2017 10:25 PM

    I find this little cut and paste job to be effective when addressing this issue:

    Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections": The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution

    "DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying."

    "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."

    https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

    Yars Revenge •May 30, 2017 10:23 PM

    The Russia-screwed-the-Dems thing is obviously fantastical bullshit and it's absolutely disgraceful that the mainstream media are running this garbage 24/7 like it's the gospel truth.

    ogretown •May 30, 2017 10:43 PM

    It is glaringly obvious that the (worthless) Rats painted themselves into a small corner. Blaming the Russians is both desperate and hilarious. But who else could they blame? If instead they had started a campaign that focused on the Muslims trying to ruin America and (correctly) identified Saudi Arabia as America's greatest enemy, imagine the votes they would have received from the soft-right, independents, (relatively) sane liberals. If the (worthless) liberals opted for a moratorium on squandering any more money on the pseudo-science of global warming and insisted on a balanced panel to investigate the issue once and for all - even more votes.

    Ditto with exotic pro-globalist trade deals...instead if the (worthless) Rats would have opted for town hall discussions on how a vast international trade deal would have may be helped America, they would have been viewed as the party of balance, consideration and the thoughtful.

    But all of that means having smart and dedicated people as either part of the party or willing to trust the party - none of which exist. Instead the party of bankrupt ideals and impoverished morality finger point the Russians and try to blame it all on them.

    [May 30, 2017] When Intelligence Is Not by Patrick Armstrong

    Notable quotes:
    "... I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory. ..."
    "... intelligence sources ..."
    "... So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"? ..."
    "... four years earlier ..."
    "... many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish. ..."
    May 29, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com

    I know a lot of people on this blog have experience in the intelligence world. I would be very interested in hearing what you think of my theory.

    In my career in the Canadian government I was never formally in "intelligence" but I did participate in writing many "intelligence assessments". Facebook, Twitter and other kinds of social media didn't much exist at that time but, even if they had, I can't imagine that we would have ever used them as sources of evidence: social media is, to put it mildly, too easy to fake. In writing intelligence assessments, while we did use information gathered from intelligence sources (ie secret), probably more came from what was rather pompously called OSInt (Open Source Intelligence; in other words, stuff you don't need a security clearance to learn). What was, however, the most important part of creating an assessment was the long process of discussion in the group. Much talk and many rewrites produced a consensus opinion.

    A typical intelligence assessment would start with a question – what's going on with the economy, or political leadership or whatever of Country X – and would argue a conclusion based on facts. So: question, argument, conclusion. And usually a prediction – after all the real point of intelligence is to attempt to reduce surprises. The intelligence assessment then made its way up the chain to the higher ups; they may have ignored or disagreed with the conclusions but, as far as I know, the assessment, signed off by the group that had produced it, was not tampered with: I never heard of words being put into our mouths. The intelligence community regards tampering with an intelligence assessment to make it look as if the authors had said something different as a very serious sin. All of this is preparation to say that I know what an intelligence assessment is supposed to look like and that I have seen a lot of so-called intelligence assessments coming out of Washington that don't look like the real thing.

    Intelligence is quite difficult. I like the analogy of trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you don't know what the picture is supposed to be, you don't know how many pieces the puzzle has and you're not sure that the pieces that you have are actually from the same puzzle. Let us say, for example, that you intercept a phonecall in which the Leader of Country X is telling one of his flunkeys to do something. Surely that's a gold standard? Well, not if the Leader knew you were listening (and how would you know if he did?); nor if he's someone who changes his mind often. There are very few certainties in the business and many many opportunities for getting it wrong.

    So real raw intelligence data is difficult enough to evaluate; social media, on the other hand, has so many credibility problems that it is worthless; worthless, that is, except as evidence of itself (ie a bot campaign is evidence that somebody has taken the effort to do one). It is extremely easy to fake: a Photoshopped picture can be posted and spread everywhere in hours; bots can create the illusion of a conversation; phonecall recordings are easily stitched together: here are films of Buks, here are phonecalls. (But, oddly enough, all the radars were down for maintenance that day). It's so easy, in fact, that it's probably easier to create the fake than to prove that it is a fake. There is no place in an intelligence assessment for "evidence" from something as unreliable as social media.

    An "intelligence assessment" that uses social media is suspect.

    So why are there so many "intelligence assessments" on important issues depending on social media "evidence"?

    I first noticed social media used as evidence during the MH17 catastrophe when Marie Harf, the then US State Department spokesman, appealed to social media and "common sense" . She did so right after the Russians had posted radar evidence (she hadn't "seen any of that" said she). At the time I assumed that she was just incompetent. It was only later, when I read the "intelligence assessments" backing up the so-called Russian influence on the US election, that I began to notice the pattern.

    There are indications during the Obama Administration that the intelligence professionals were becoming restive. Here are some examples that suggest that "intelligence assessments" were either not being produced by the intelligence professionals or – see the last example – those that were were then modified to please the Boss.

    If one adds the reliance on social media to these indications, it seems a reasonable suspicion that these so-called intelligence assessments are not real intelligence assessments produced by intelligence professionals but are post facto justifications written up by people who know what the Boss wants to hear.

    We have already seen what appears to have been the first example of this with the "social media and common sense" of MH17. And, from that day to this, not a shred of Kerry's "evidence" have we seen. The long-awaited Dutch report was, as I said at the time, only a modified hangout and very far from convincing .

    Russia "invaded" Ukraine so many times it became a joke. The "evidence" was the usual social media accompanied by blurry satellite photos . So bad are the photos, in fact, that someone suggested that "Russian artillery" were actually combine harvesters . In one of the rare departures from the prescribed consensus, a former (of course) German Chief of Staff was utterly unconvinced by thse pictures and explained why . By contrast, here is a satellite photo of Russian aircraft in Syria ; others here . Sharply focussed and in colour. The "Russian invasion" photos were lower quality than the Cuban Missile Crisis photos taken six decades earlier! A hidden message? See below.

    The so-called Syrian government CW attack on Ghouta in August 2013 was similarly based on social media; heavily dependent, in fact, on "Bellingcat". Quite apart from the improbability of Assad ordering a CW attack on a suburb a short drive away from arriving international inspectors, the whole story was adequately destroyed by Seymour Hersh . (Bellingcat's "proofs", by the way, can be safely ignored – see his faked-up "evidence" that Russians attacked an aid convoy in Syria .)

    A dominant story for months has been that Russia somehow influenced the US presidential election. As ever, the Washington Post led the charge and the day after the election told us " Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House ". But when we finally saw the "secret assessments" they proved to be laughably damp squibs. The DHS/FBI report of 29 December 2016 carried this stunning disclaimer:

    This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.

    Perhaps the most ridiculous part of the DNI report of 6 January 2017 was the space – nearly half – devoted to a rant that had been published four years earlier about the Russian TV channel RT. What that had to do with the Russian state influencing the 2016 election was obscure. But, revealingly, the report included:

    We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

    In other words, DHS told us to ignore its report and the one agency in the US intelligence structure that would actually know about hacking and would have copies of everything – the NSA – wasn't very confident. Both reports were soon torn apart: John McAfee: "I can promise you if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians". ( See 10:30 ). Jeffrey Carr: " Fatally flawed ". Julian Assange: not a state actor. Even those who loath Putin trashed them . In any case, as we now know, the NSA can mimic Russians or anyone else .

    In April there was another suspiciously timed "CW attack" in Syria and, blithely ignoring that the responders didn't wear any protective gear in what was supposed to be a Sarin attack , the Western media machine wound up its sirens. The intelligence assessment that was released again referred to "credible open source reporting" and even "pro-opposition social media reports" (! – are the authors so disgusted with what they have to write that they leave gigantic hints like that in plain sight?). Then a page of so of how Moscow trying to "confuse" the world community. And so on. This "intelligence assessment" was taken apart by Theodore Postol .

    So, we have strong suggestions that the intelligence professionals are being sidelined or having their conclusions altered; we have far too much reliance of social media; is there anything else that we can see? Yes, there is: many of the "intelligence assessments" contain what look like hints by the authors that their reports are rubbish.

    • Absurdly poor quality photos (maybe they were combine harvesters!).

    • Including a photo of damage to the port engine intake which contradicts the conclusion of the MH-17 report.

    • DHS "does not provide any warranties".

    • The one agency that would know has only "moderate confidence".

    • Irrelevant rants about RT or assumed nefarious Russian intentions.

    • "Pro-opposition social media reports".

    There are too many of these, in fact, not to notice – not that the Western media has noticed, of course – they rather jump out at you once you look don't they? I don't recall inserting any little such hints into any of the intelligence assessments that I was involved in.

    In conclusion, it seems that a well-founded case can be presented that:

    Where done? By whom? That remains to be discovered. More Swamp to be drained.

    [May 29, 2017] Jared Kushner Reportedly Discussed Setting Up Secret Communication Channel With Moscow by Mary Papenfuss

    Is really Russian ambassador so negligent that he posted such an information over open channel? I doubt it. that means that Hayden may be lying and this is just a part of Purple revolution campaign of discreditation of Trump administration. Otherwise he reveals that the NSA broke Russian diplomatic communication cipher, which is biog NO-NO.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies." ..."
    "... Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community. ..."
    May 29, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    Kushner's reported actions suggest "we are in a really dark place as a society," Michael Hayden said.

    Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that the reported plan by chief White House adviser Jared Kushner's to arrange secret communications with the Russians during President Donald Trump's transition was "off the map" and like nothing he has seen in his lifetime.

    Hayden wants to chalk up the stunning plan to "naivete" rather than evil intentions - but that's not reassuring, he said in an interview on CNN.

    "Right now, I'm going with naivete, and that's not particularly comforting for me," he said. "What manner of ignorance, chaos, hubris, suspicion, contempt would you have to have to think that doing this with the Russian ambassador was a good or an appropriate idea?"

    Hayden was commenting on reports, which first appeared in The Washington Post Friday, that Kushner discussed last December establishing a secret communication channel with the Kremlin - using Russian facilities - without any monitoring by the U.S.

    Kushner discussed the idea in Trump Tower with Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador to the U.S., who was surprised by the request, the Post reported, because of security risks such an arrangement would pose to both countries.

    Kushner emerged last Thursday as a person of interest in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election.

    Without specifically mentioning the report about Kushner, Trump tweeted Sunday in an apparent response to a number of recent stories about his administration that "leaks coming out of the White House are fabricated lies."

    Kushner's reported plan is evidence of an extreme cynicism about "organs of the state," said Hayden, and a belief that government institutions only serve the self-interests of the president currently in power. The apparent implication of such a Kremlin link was that the Trump team trusted Russian agents more than the outgoing Obama administration or the U.S. intelligence community.

    "What degree of suspicion of the existing government, what degree of contempt for the administration they were replacing would be required again to think this was an acceptable course of action?" he asked.

    Hayden added: "It says an awful lot about us as a society that we could actually harbor those kinds of feelings that the organs of the state would be used by my predecessor to come after me or ... to disrupt my administration in a way that made it seem legitimate to me to use the secure communications facilities of a foreign power - a foreign power that some in government alleged you were cooperating with to affect the American election."

    It's evidence, he added, that "we are in a really dark place as a society."

    [May 29, 2017] Professor Russia Dossier Is Attempt to Destroy Trump s Presidency Before Inauguration by Stephen Cohen

    They are throwing all kind of stuff at Trump to see if anything stick...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" ..."
    "... Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow." ..."
    "... People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat." ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

    Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen said the publication of an unverified dossier of information regarding President-elect Donald Trump and Russia is the "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" before he takes office.

    Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow."

    Cohen said mainstream media figures have been calling Trump a 'puppet of the Kremlin' for some time, which he remarked started when they decided to consider him as running with "Putin" rather than "Pence".

    People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat."

    [May 29, 2017] Loesch Americans Are Tired of Being Manipulated Lied to by Mainstream Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're largely giving Democrats a pass. ..."
    "... Let's talk for a moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and 'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the right of fomenting violence. ..."
    May 29, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

    Following Montana Republican congressional candidate Greg Gianforte's alleged assault of a reporter, some in the mainstream media are trying to blame the incident on President Trump. CNN host Don Lemon argued that Trump has culpability because he's said "very horrible things" about reporters and suggested that they are the enemy of the American people. MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell said that Trump has helped whip up "hostility" toward the press, while Joe Scarborough said a "straight line" can be drawn between Trump's anti-media rhetoric and the Gianforte incident.

    On "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Dana Loesch said the agenda-driven media is focused on negatively portraying Trump, while they're largely giving Democrats a pass.

    "Let's discuss Tom Perez and his cussing crusade that he's been giving at so many different fundraisers.

    Let's talk for a moment about the California Democrat convention ... where you had a number of Democrats on stage screaming 'expletive Trump' and 'expletive Republicans.'" She said Democrats and the mainstream media then want to turn around and accuse Trump and those on the right of fomenting violence.

    Watch more above.

    [May 29, 2017] Rep Green After Reviewing Evidence I Felt Compelled to Call For Trump s Impeachment

    May 29, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Monday on MSNBC, while discussing his call on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for President Donald Trump to be impeached, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) declared he did so because he "felt compelled" after reviewing evidence.

    Green said,

    "This is not something that I wanted to do, sir, it's something that I felt compelled to do after reviewing evidence. We live in a country where we believe no police officer, no congressman, no senator and no president is above the law.

    When the President decided that he would fire the FBI director who was investigating his campaign, which means that he was investigating him, the president, when he decided to fire him and he acknowledged that he was doing it for this reason, when you couple that with the fact that he said that the Russian thing was a made-up story and he said it is a witch-hunt, and then he went on to tweet something that may be considered an intimidating statement with reference to a recording that he might have, when you combine these things you have obstruction of justice.

    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes obstruction of justice as an impeachable offense."

    [May 29, 2017] You Are Fake News -- Trump Refuses to Let CNN Reporter Ask Question

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump specifically called out BuzzFeed as a "failing pile of garbage" and CNN for building up the story after BuzzFeed first released it. ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

    During his first press conference since the election, Donald Trump got into a back-and-forth exchange with CNN reporter Jim Acosta over the news organization's coverage of the unverified report -- first posted on BuzzFeed -- claiming Trump's deep ties with Russia.

    While answering a question relating to his earlier tweet asking "Are we living in Nazi Germany," Trump specifically called out BuzzFeed as a "failing pile of garbage" and CNN for building up the story after BuzzFeed first released it.

    When Trump finished his response, Acosta could be overheard trying to ask a question. "Since you're attacking us can you give us a question? Since you are attacking our news organization can you give us a chance?" Acosta said.

    "Not you, your organization is terrible," Trump responded, telling Acosta to be quiet. "She's asking a question, don't be rude."

    Acosta however kept trying to ask his question, until Trump ended the exchange by declaring CNN to be "fake news." "No, I'm not going to give you a question. You are fake news!" he said. "Mr. President-elect that's not appropriate," Acosta said before allowing the next reporter to ask her question.

    Acosta appeared on CNN to discuss the incident.

    [May 29, 2017] The demonization of Putin is not a policy. Its an alibi for not having a policy by Stephen F. Cohen

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here's how ..."
    Jul 01, 2007 | .huffingtonpost.com/

    Originally from: Rethinking Russia A Conversation With Russia Scholar Stephen F. Cohen by Dan Kovalik

    Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.

    Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:

    Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post - wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

    And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

    What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international leader to offer help to President Bush:

    Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do," and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country, and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this - Putin gave all this - to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO country.

    However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.

    And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev (who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya - with disastrous consequences - despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.

    All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:

    If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November 2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which, by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...

    Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way. Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...

    And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument - for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not - ... but the reality is that Putin has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...

    Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...

    This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ...

    But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.

    I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping up to be a disastrous war in Europe.

    Follow Dan Kovalik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danielmkovalik

    Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here's how

    [May 29, 2017] Stephen F. Cohen - Coast to Coast AM

    May 29, 2017 | www.coasttocoastam.com
    Past Shows: US-Russia Relations/ Regenerative Medicine Wednesday April 19, 2017

    Prof. Stephen F. Cohen discussed US-Russia relations, Pres. Trump, Syria, and North Korea. Followed by Prof. Sheldon Krimsky on stem cells and GMOs.

    More

    US-Russia Relations

    Prof. Stephen F. Cohen analyzed the volatile state of US-Russia relations. Followed by writer Chris Alexander on the history of horror films.

    More

    Host: George Noory Russia & US Relations/ Synchronicity & Precognition Monday January 9, 2017

    Prof. Stephen F. Cohen discussed volatile US-Russia relations. Followed by writers Trish and Rob MacGregor on pre-cognition.

    More"

    Host: George Noory Russia & Syria/ Geoengineering Wednesday September 30, 2015

    In the first half, Professor of Russian Studies and History Emeritus at NYU, Stephen F. Cohen , reacted to Vladimir Putin's decision to get involved in the Syrian conflict and commence air strikes against ISIS forces.

    Host: George Noory Russia Watch/ Mystical Technology Tuesday March 24, 2015

    In the first half, Stephen F. Cohen , Professor of Russian Studies and History Emeritus at NYU, addressed the latest military and political developments in Russia, the threat of nuclear alerts, and the role of Putin in the ongoing geopolitical chess game.

    Host: George Noory US-Russia Relations/ Unconventional Healing Wednesday April 30, 2014

    In the first half, a leading scholar of Soviet and post-Soviet Russia, media commentator, and the author of several widely acclaimed books, Stephen F. Cohen discussed the current dynamics of the U.S. relationship with Russia.

    Host: George Noory

    [May 29, 2017] Irans Supreme Leader Saudis Are Worthless, Inept, Villainous Milk Cows for the Americans

    May 29, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei launched his latest rhetorical broadside at Iran's arch-rivals in Saudi Arabia from a ceremony commemorating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan on Saturday. Khamenei said the Saudi rulers are "worthless, inept, and villainous."

    Khamenei also insulted the Saudis as "idiots" for thinking they could purchase the friendship of "pagans and enemies" with their oil money, describing them as "milk cows for the Americans."

    Khamenei said the Muslim world is in "grave danger" because of leaders like the Saudis and their "refusal to follow the Koran and lack of belief in the truth." The Saudi monarchy is a major force in the world of Sunni Islam, while Iran's theocracy leads the Shiites, putting them on the opposite side of a religious schism that reaches back to the 7th Century.

    That ancient conflict is mixed with contemporary geopolitical concerns, such as the civil war in Yemen, which has become a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    The Supreme Leader of Iran, which supports the Shiite Houthi insurgents against the internationally recognized government of Yemen, blamed the Saudis for the continuing bloodshed in that war-torn country, as well as the oppression of Shiites by the Sunni government of Saudi Arabia's allies in Bahrain. Iran's Foreign Minister recently added another link to that chain of blame by accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of emboldening the government of Bahrain to crack down on Shiite demonstrators.

    "They act cordially towards the enemies of Islam while having the opposite behavior towards the Muslim people of Bahrain and Yemen. They will face certain downfall," Khamenei predicted.

    He blasted the Saudis for signing a multibillion-dollar arms deal with the "infidel" Americans, saying that the money should have been used to "improve the lives of their own people."

    Fox News notes that recently re-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, whose more moderate approach is frequently at odds with the "hardline" ayatollahs, has been calling for improved relations with Sunni nations.

    "We want the rule of moderation and rationality in the relations between countries and we believe that a political solution should be a priority. The countries of the region need more cooperation and consultations to resolve the crisis in the region and we are ready to cooperate in this field," Rouhani said during a telephone conversation with the Emir of Qatar.

    Rouhani's outreach to Qatar might be a little on the opportunistic side, since the emirate is currently experiencing a bit of turbulence in its relationships with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other major Saudi states. In fact, on Monday a minister from the United Arab Emirates described the rift as a "severe" crisis that could pose a "grave danger" to the future of the Gulf Cooperation Council.

    [May 29, 2017] Rep Green After Reviewing Evidence I Felt Compelled to Call For Trump s Impeachment

    May 29, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Monday on MSNBC, while discussing his call on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives for President Donald Trump to be impeached, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) declared he did so because he "felt compelled" after reviewing evidence.

    Green said,

    "This is not something that I wanted to do, sir, it's something that I felt compelled to do after reviewing evidence. We live in a country where we believe no police officer, no congressman, no senator and no president is above the law.

    When the President decided that he would fire the FBI director who was investigating his campaign, which means that he was investigating him, the president, when he decided to fire him and he acknowledged that he was doing it for this reason, when you couple that with the fact that he said that the Russian thing was a made-up story and he said it is a witch-hunt, and then he went on to tweet something that may be considered an intimidating statement with reference to a recording that he might have, when you combine these things you have obstruction of justice.

    Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America recognizes obstruction of justice as an impeachable offense."

    [May 29, 2017] Stephen Cohen Will Syrian State Collapse Fall into More Chaos If Assad Is Toppled Democracy Now! by Stephen Cohen

    Apr 13, 2017 | www.democracynow.org

    AMY GOODMAN : Finally, Stephen Cohen, how likely do you think there is right now of a direct confrontation between the U.S. and Russia?

    STEPHEN COHEN : If I knew the answer to that, I'd go to the racetrack and redeem a lot of the money I lost over the years. But I would say way too close, way too possible. The other new Cold War fronts are heating up. That's the North Baltic area, the small Baltic states and Poland, where NATO is building up beyond reason, Ukraine, where the American-supported government in Kiev is melting down. But, of course, in Syria. We have a lot of troops there. We don't know how many. They call it special op troops. But there's probably more than they've told us. American airplanes are flying. The battle for Raqqa, which is the symbolic, or real, Islamic State capital in Syria, is coming up. Both sides want to take it-the American coalition, the Russian-Syrian-Iranian coalition. Ideally, they'd cooperate and take the city together. But if they compete to take the city, you're going to have American and Russian aircraft flying in a very close area.

    Do we have 30 seconds for a final word? Jonathan was right about the Russian unwillingness to abandon Assad. But I believe, in the Russian mind-and I believe it's correct-it's a broader, more profound issue. They're not interested in Assad as a person. And they have said repeatedly, Assad can go, eventually. And they say leave it to the Syrian people. And, by the way, that's what Tillerson said about it a week ago, until he flipped-leave it to the Syrian people.

    For Russia-and try to think about this-Assad is the Syrian state. These are highly personalized states in these regions of the world. If you kill Assad-and that's what they're talking about-or arrest him, the Syrian state will collapse, just as it did in Iraq and in Libya, when we basically assassinated the leaders of those countries.

    If the Syrian state collapses, it means the Syrian Army, which is doing most of the fighting on the ground against the Islamic State, will collapse. Many will desert to the Syrian Army.

    So I would ask you, I would ask all these Americans who vilify Assad, I would ask all your listeners and viewers: If you destroy the Syrian state, who's going to do the fighting against terrorists in Syria? Do you ask-are you going to ask Russia to send troops? Are we going to send troops?

    So, for Russia-and this is the point-it's not Assad. They could give a hoot about what happens to him and their family. It's what happens to the Syrian state. And that's why they will stand with Assad until there is some kind of military victory, and then a so-called political peace process begins, and then Assad is on his own.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : Well, one last question, Stephen Cohen. As you say, if, like the Russians say, that Syrians will be able to decide, or should be able to decide, what happens to Assad-well, first of all, Assad has not ceded power to his own people for many, many years.

    STEPHEN COHEN : Yes, right.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH : There's no reason to think that his position will change. And second, I mean, it's an argument that's commonly made by the U.S. government when supporting dictatorial regimes, that that regime is the only thing standing between them and an Islamist, terrorist, extremist government.

    STEPHEN COHEN : Well, it's an old American habit. I'm older than you guys. But during the Cold War, we supported a lot of very bad leaders and said they stood between us and communism. I think-but we don't get this clarity out of Washington, we didn't get it under Obama, not getting today-that the number one threat to all of us in the world today is international terrorism.

    You know, couple weeks ago, there was the tragedy in St. Petersburg, where folks going to work, kids going to school were blown up and killed in a St. Petersburg, Russian subway.

    That could happen here very easily. You can't protect subways. You simply can't.

    The one thing the Russians have is immense experience in dealing with terrorism, inside their own country and abroad. They've had more, outside the Middle East, casualties of terrorism than any country in the world. We need an alliance with Russia. That's what this is all about. Are we going to make an alliance with Russia to war against terrorism in Syria and elsewhere, or not? That's the issue today.

    AMY GOODMAN : Well, we want to thank you, Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. And thanks so much to Jonathan Steele, former Moscow correspondent for The Guardian , chief reporter at the website Middle East Eye .

    [May 29, 2017] Wheel and Fight -- Pat Buchanans Nixon Book Provides Road Map For Trump by Peter Brimelow

    Notable quotes:
    "... If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement. ..."
    "... Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated ..."
    "... The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system ..."
    "... Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Conservative Review ..."
    "... Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems ..."
    "... Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere. ..."
    "... President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924. ..."
    "... European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor. Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses. ..."
    "... My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. ..."
    "... Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that. ..."
    May 29, 2017 | www.unz.com

    If History is "a set of lies agreed upon," as Napoleon is supposed to have said, then American politics has increasingly become a series of induced hysterias by elite agreement.

    Thus the Ruling Class's Trayvon Martin , Ferguson and Baltimore frenzies came and went, shamelessly unaffected by repeated Narrative Collapses -- inexplicable, unless you were aware of Left's amoral imperative to incite its black clients against the white American majority.

    And the current "Impeach Trump!" frenzy really has nothing to do with Russia or Comey-it's simply the latest expression of the Left's long-brewing refusal to accept defeat in the 2016 election, which it counted on to complete its coup against the Historic American Nation [ Trump Impeachment Talk Started Before He Was Even Nominated , by Peter Hassan, Daily Caller , May 17, 2017].

    It's as simple as this: If the Evil Party gets control of the House of Representatives, Trump was always going to be impeached, regardless of what he did. (Conviction, which requires 67 Senate votes, might be more difficult-although Democrats probably assume any Republican President could be guilted into capitulation, like Richard Nixon, unlike Bill Clinton ). The good news: this demystifies impeachment, which VDARE.com has long argued is not a juridical proceeding but an assertion of political control like a no-confidence motion in a Parliamentary system - and should be more broadly applied, by a patriot Congress, not just to Presidents but to bureaucrats and kritarchs .

    And the great news: we now have a road map to how a patriot President can survive a Ruling Class induced hysteria- Patrick J. Buchanan's just-published Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Broke A President And Divided America Forever .

    Buchanan's book is important and powerful-but somber: he's not joking at all with the last four words of his title, although he doesn't dwell on it. It's a theme that has increasingly appeared in his recent columns, here and here and here .

    ... ... ...

    Buchanan vividly recreates the MSM-hyped atmosphere of crisis in Washington in the fall of 1969, now completely forgotten but at the time an incipient elite coup even more serious than anything yet seen under Trump:

    Directly ahead was the largest antiwar protest in US history, October 15, when hundreds of thousands were expected on the Washington Monument grounds, within sight of the White House. Major media had become propagandists for the antiwar movement and were beating the drums for getting out of Vietnam now. It seemed as though the fate of Lyndon Johnson, his presidency broken by the Tet Offensive in 1968 and his humiliation by Gene McCarthy in New Hampshire, could be ours as well. David Broder of the Washington Post saw President Nixon's situation as did I. "It is becoming more obvious with every passing day that the men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969," wrote Broder on October 7. "The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."

    This was a particularly dangerous situation for Nixon because his Republican Party controlled neither Senate nor House. In theory, the Democrats could have wrested policy from him at any point, although in those days the prestige of the Presidency and respect for its prerogatives, sacralized by years of Democratic dominance, was still a serious inhibition.

    Contrary to his current Demon King image, Nixon had responded after his election very much as Trump (notwithstanding his more abrasive rhetoric) has done: appeasement.

    ... ... ...

    Needless to say, appeasement did not work for either man. Partly this was because both provoked a really peculiar blind personal hatred from the political class -- "for reasons I could not comprehend," says Buchanan in the case of Nixon, "given his centrist politics and even liberal policies "

    ... ... ...

    Although it's now hard to imagine, the Main Stream Media had been as generally respected as the office of the Presidency itself. Agnew and Buchanan burst that bubble for good.

    .... ... ...

    What this means in the current situation is clear: Trump must wheel and fight. And he must fight on the issue that elected him, which poses an existential threat to the American nation (and, incidentally, the GOP) that is even more serious than global Communism: mass out-of-control non-traditional immigration, which out-of-control Leftist judicial imperialists have now made unmistakably clear they intend to read into the constitution. Trump must make clear (especially to cowardly Republican Congressman) that the survival of the Historic American Nation is inextricable from his own.

    Not for the first time , I agree with Conservative Review 's Daniel Horowitz:

    As soon as the president returns home from Europe, he should call in leaders of Congress and demand that they vote on as many of these 20 immigration and homeland security ideas as possible . Specifically, they must:

      Block funding for all refugees and visas from the Middle East for the remainder of the fiscal year. Further enforce provisions of the INA that strip the courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate rejections of visas. Pass a supplemental funding bill for the border wall and the construction of a visa exit-entry tracking system, a goal Democrats officially support and that has been passed by Congress numerous times since 1996.

    In order to accomplish this or anything else, Congressional Republicans need to modify the filibuster rules. Otherwise, they face electoral oblivion. It's time they actually confront the issues of our time and harness the news cycle to pass common-sense national security bills. The president must use the bully pulpit and his status as leader of the party to craft specific proposals for the do-nothing Congress. Then, place the onus on them to act. He should give a televised address from the Oval Office outlining his response to the growing threat of homegrown terrorism and demanding action from Congress to deal with the courts.

    Or we could just use up this once-in-generation electoral mandate on naming post offices and continuing every major Obama policy.

    Even after Manchester terror, Congress silent on US problems , May 23 2017. Link in original.

    ... ... ...

    Peter Brimelow [ Email him ] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster , is now available in Kindle format.

    El Dato , May 28, 2017 at 6:42 pm GMT

    He continued Johnson's suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam, a disgustingly irresponsible ploy originally designed to shore up Democratic support in the 1968 presidential election campaign at the expense of the Americans troops fighting and dying in great numbers in the South.

    Well, start with a Gulf of Tonkin made-up "incident" and you never know how might be dying and for what. My disgust is tempered by the political background history of the whole show where Good Guys were hard to find anywhere.

    Priss Factor , May 29, 2017 at 4:22 am GMT

    WSJ's loopy version of 'nationalism' https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-nationalism-can-solve-the-crisis-of-islam-1495830440

    anon , May 29, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT

    Robert A. Caro's devastating multi-volume biography, eh?

    Given all the dirt on Johnson now out there, hagiography might be a better description.

    Anon , May 29, 2017 at 4:53 am GMT

    Nation of Immigrants = Nation of Unassimilable Foreigners

    Carlton Meyer , Website May 29, 2017 at 5:48 am GMT

    President Trump could order thousands of American soldiers deployed to existing military bases near our borders to actually defend the USA. This was the primary role of the US Army before World War II. The US Border Patrol didn't even exist until 1924.

    This would cost little and could be paid for by existing Army operational and training funding, and could be done in a matter of weeks. Congress would have no say and no permission is required. Anyone who doubts this has been confused by corporate propaganda and can learn from reading this. http://www.g2mil.com/border.htm

    jilles dykstra , May 29, 2017 at 6:37 am GMT

    http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/opinie-op-zondag-trump-is-een-blamage-voor-de-hele-vrije-wereld~a4497150/

    Dat Trump zichzelf als brexiteer ziet en het anti-Europese populisme aanmoedigt, vormt een breuk met alles waar het naoorlogse Amerika voor staat.

    The above is written by a Dutch journalist living in Berlin, Van Baar, a pro EU writer. Translation:

    That Trump sees himself as brexiteer and encourages anti European populism, is a rupture with all that post WWII USA has as values.

    Van Baar is quite right, Trump wants good relations with Russia, this does not fit in with EU expansion plans, the Ukraine association, an association with a military paragraph.

    European queen Merkel sees her chance to improve her position, as she says 'the USA no longer supports us, thus we need a stronger Europe', with Merkel as emperor. Luckily NATO is nothing without the USA military might, and European tax payers in general do not see the need for high military expenses.

    LondonBob , May 29, 2017 at 10:00 am GMT

    @anon Robert A. Caro's devastating multi-volume biography, eh?

    Given all the dirt on Johnson now out there, hagiography might be a better description.

    Jim Christian , May 29, 2017 at 10:09 am GMT

    The last volume is almost finished. Each of those books is a superb piece of research and writing. It's taken him around 35 years in total. The last volume (LBJ 1968-dead) ought to be coming out soon. And his biggest problem? Almost everyone that knew all the players is gone. Especially those who knew of LBJ's ongoing corruptions to his end.

    Parsifal , May 29, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT

    My main caveat with Mr. Brimelow's article is his sympathetic view of the Vietnam war. It was an immoral war sold on a lie no smaller than Iraq WMDs. Other than that, it's on the money, Trump really needs to come out swinging.

    War for Blair Mountain , May 29, 2017 at 11:02 am GMT

    I have always despised the English Foreigner Peter Brimelow. Brimelow is an unrepentant Cold Warrior. The Cold War which imposed the the Civil Rights Act of 1964(Maxine Waters) on us was a high speed highway-Route 1964-to the passage of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act=The Native Born White American Extermination Act.

    Donald Trump is not worth defending nor saving .

    nsa , May 29, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

    Immigration to the USA should be severely curtailed ..starting with Brits like Brimmie.

    Scratch a Brit and you always come up with an imperialist .and a delusional imperialist at that.

    All evidence points to the loss of the Vietnam War on the battlefield, and the complete collapse of the US civilian military. All evidence points to the exceptional stupidity of a land war in Asia.

    Evidence is no problem for a Brit imperialist ..just ignore it and assert we were stabbed in the back by an evil cabal in the US Knesset er Congress. As to Nixon and Buchanan ..they are relics from a bygone age when white people were 90% of the population and Americans still worked for a living i.e. growing, building, repairing something. Times change ..the white silent majority has disappeared and so will the ragtag American empire.

    [May 29, 2017] Believing The Russian Hacking Claim Zero Hedge

    May 29, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    May 27, 2017 10:25 PM 0 SHARES Authored by David Swanson via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    Government lies are common when seducing a population to support a war, but the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed,

    When the U.S. public was told that Spain had blown up theMaine,or Vietnam had returned fire, or Iraq had stockpiled weapons, or Libya was planning a massacre, the claims were straightforward and disprovable.

    Before people began referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, somebody had to lie that it had happened, and there had to be an understanding of what had supposedly happened. No investigation into whether anything had happened could have taken as its starting point the certainty that a Vietnamese attack or attacks had happened. And no investigation into whether a Vietnamese attack had happened could have focused its efforts on unrelated matters, such as whether anyone in Vietnam had ever done business with any relatives or colleagues of Robert McNamara.

    All of this is otherwise with the idea that the Russian government determined the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. U.S. corporate media reports often claim that Russia did decide the election or tried to do that or wanted to try to do that. But they also often admit to not knowing whether any such thing is the case.

    There is no established account, with or without evidence to support it, of exactly what Russia supposedly did. And yet there are countless articles casually referring, as if to established fact to the...

    "Russian influence in the 2016 presidential election" ( Yahoo ).

    "Russian attempts to disrupt the election" ( New York Times ).

    "Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election" ( ABC ).

    "Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election" ( The Intercept ).

    "a multi-pronged investigation to uncover the full extent of Russia's election-meddling" ( Time ).

    "Russian interference in the US election" ( CNN ).

    "Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election" ( American Constitution Society ).

    "Russian hacking in US Election" ( Business Standard )."

    "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking" we're told by the New York Times , but what is "election hacking"? Its definition seems to vary widely. And what evidence is there of Russia having done it?

    The "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections" even exists as a factual event in Wikipedia , not as an allegation or a theory. But the factual nature of it is not so much asserted as brushed aside.

    Former CIA Director John Brennan, in the same Congressional testimony in which he took the principled stand "I don't do evidence," testified that "the fact that the Russians tried to influence resources and authority and power, and the fact that the Russians tried to influence that election so that the will of the American people was not going to be realized by that election, I find outrageous and something that we need to, with every last ounce of devotion to this country, resist and try to act to prevent further instances of that." He provided no evidence.

    Activists have even planned "demonstrations to call for urgent investigations into Russian interference in the US election." They declare that "every day we learn more about the role Russian state-led hacking and information warfare played in the 2016 election." ( March for Truth .)

    Belief that Russia helped put Trump in the White House is steadily rising in the U.S. public. Anything commonly referred to as fact will gain credibility. People will assume that at some point someone actually established that it was a fact.

    Keeping the story in the news without evidence are articles about polling, about the opinions of celebrities, and about all kinds of tangentially related scandals, their investigations, and obstruction thereof. Most of the substance of most of the articles that lead off with reference to the "Russian influence on the election" is about White House officials having some sort of connections to the Russian government, or Russian businesses, or just Russians. It's as if an investigation of Iraqi WMD claims focused on Blackwater murders or whether Scooter Libby had taken lessons in Arabic, or whether the photo of Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands was taken by an Iraqi.

    A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed . There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate believers.

    Still, the claims about Russia are unique in their wide proliferation, broad acceptance, and status as something to be constantly referred to as though already established, constantly augmented by other Russia-related stories that add nothing to the central claim . This phenomenon, in my view, is as dangerous as any lies and fabrications coming out of the racist right.

    macki mack - john316jr , May 27, 2017 10:48 PM

    "U.S. officials supply no evidence"

    They don't need to. Their arm is long enough to do what they want.

    http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/the-long-arm-of-gover...

    IntercoursetheEU - Number 9 , May 28, 2017 12:56 AM

    Anyone with common sense would have tried to influence that election. Clinton's are crooks and we knew that anyway. Big deal

    Bumpo - IntercoursetheEU , May 28, 2017 2:07 AM

    This dude lost all credibility when he ended the article with "... racist right". Talk about no evidence. We live in an upside down world where protecting one's borders is considered racist, but blaming whitey for all the ills of the world is perfectly fine. Obama, and the Left, with their knee-jerk association of anyone who disagrees with them, are the true racists. Finding collective racism, sexism, etc so easily only proves your own mind-numbing intollerance and rabid sickness of hate and discrimination. Hillary Clinton proved it in spades at her Wellesly College Comencecunt speach. The vitriol outdoes Trump on his worst night.

    Perimetr - IntercoursetheEU , May 28, 2017 1:33 AM

    " the Russian "hacking" claims are unusual in that U.S. officials supply no evidence while the "fact" is just assumed,"

    Sorry, nothing unusual about hearing lies in the MSM

    Aussiekiwi , May 27, 2017 10:39 PM

    A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed . There is no more public evidence that Seth Rich (a Democratic National Committee staffer who was murdered last year) leaked Democratic emails than there is that the Russian government stole them. Yet both claims have passionate believers.

    Well actually there is evidence that Seth Richs was the DEM leak and not the Russians.

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/murdered-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-...

    Bubba Rum Das , May 27, 2017 10:35 PM

    Once upon a time, there was a Man named Boris, & a Woman named Natasha...

    galant , May 27, 2017 10:48 PM

    "A general trend away from empirical evidence has been extensively noted and discussed ."

    Who needs facts?

    If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. - Joseph Goebbels, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany 1933-45.

    Give Me Some Truth , May 27, 2017 10:48 PM

    Notice how no one is apparently really investigating if Assad "gassed his own people." This allegation is a big deal. Did the NYT assign five of its best international reporters to investigating the facts? Is the UN investigating? Are "intelligence" officers who dissent from the official meme being contacted?

    That is, at some point, the truth doesn't matter. Nor does any "search for the truth" seem to take place or get any publicity.

    chubbar - Give Me Some Truth , May 27, 2017 10:58 PM

    In fact the US blocked a Russian demand that an investigation be conducted by a neutral 3rd party. Anyone that really follows this story knows it wasn't Assad. The lies aren't even disguised any longer. The only people they are trying to convinceare the people who only watch CNN or MSNBC but those dolts are convinced that Hillary won the election but Russia changed the ballots so there is really no trying to reason with idiots like that.

    Bumpo - chubbar , May 28, 2017 1:44 AM

    The big question is, does Trump know the Assad gassing meme is bullshit, or is he really not that well-informed. I hope and pray he is playing 5-D chess and is just pretending in order to buy himself enough time to drain the swamp in the long run.

    GestaltNine , May 27, 2017 10:50 PM

    yeah the media in the USA is exposing itself to everyone even the most brain dead lib has got to be questioning what the heck is going on with this Russian garbage, the sheer vapid intensity is such it borders on supernatural

    indio007 , May 27, 2017 10:52 PM

    Russia interferes in elections a and people in caves on dialysis organize complicated attacks.

    Grandad Grumps , May 27, 2017 11:00 PM

    Russian Hacking = Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction = Syrian Chemical Weapons = Muslins with Box Cutters = Gulf of Tonkin = a Miracle Bullet ... the list is endless.

    lester1 , May 27, 2017 11:21 PM

    "Russia" = DNC email leaker Seth Rich --

    The deep state is terrified that investigating Seth's Murder will open up a huge can of worms! The dishonest liberal media will have lost credibility forever --

    HRH Feant2 , May 27, 2017 11:22 PM

    When I watch CNN and other people in the MSM talking about Russia I ask myself, "what the fuck are these people smoking?" You couldn't make me think the Russians were in control of Donald Trump even if you jacked me up with LSD and the strongest blunts from Colorado!

    Seriously, to watch news readers on CNN go into fits of hysteria over Russia is mind numbing.

    Can someone Fed Ex a blunt from Colorado? I don't even smoke anymore! FUCK.

    Giant Meteor - HRH Feant2 , May 27, 2017 11:28 PM

    The fuckers get fed lines, like movie actors. They are so fucking dumb, they don't even know it, (that they are dumb.) A fine example of special ops, brainwashing, probably educated in the finest elite training mills, with no emphasis on critical thnking skills nor original thoughts whatsoever ..

    Near as I can figure ..

    HRH Feant2 - Giant Meteor , May 27, 2017 11:42 PM

    I guess they are willing to be, as Gerald Celente says, presstitutes! Pay them enough and they will say anything!

    pippi68 , May 27, 2017 11:43 PM

    The dems are breaking rule #7 of their manefesto, Saul Alansky's Rule Book for radicals. 7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. We most definitely find the muh Russia charade tiresome. The dems are just too unimaginative to make up anything new for us. Hollywood too has proved itself to be out of ideas. Trump is the best amusement possible. You can't possibly guess what he's going to do or say next. Dems and neo-cons, the globalist elites, are totally predictable. They have never had such an adversary. It is a glorious show to behold!

    Small Governmen... , May 28, 2017 12:37 AM

    The stench of BS is so strong around Washington DC that I will not go there. Not even with my HAZMAT respirators that can filter out the aroma of a skunk. Skunks are no match for the stinking BS that pervades Washington DC.

    I believe this is why you never read stories about "skunk problems" in DC. The skunks have left DC.

    What remains in DC is the real stinkers. The people who would have you believe their utterly made up BS.

    [May 29, 2017] Professor Russia Dossier Is Attempt to Destroy Trump s Presidency Before Inauguration by Stephen Cohen

    They are throwing all kind of stuff at Trump to see if anything stick...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" ..."
    "... Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow." ..."
    "... People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat." ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | insider.foxnews.com

    Russian Studies Professor Stephen Cohen said the publication of an unverified dossier of information regarding President-elect Donald Trump and Russia is the "endgame in the last chapter in an attempt to destroy Trump's presidency" before he takes office.

    Cohen dismissed the dossier as "essentially tabloid stuff" that he could easily purchase from so-called Russian "private intelligence agents out to make a buck". "It's scuttlebutt, it's rumor," he said, "it's junk...[that's] seen in Moscow."

    Cohen said mainstream media figures have been calling Trump a 'puppet of the Kremlin' for some time, which he remarked started when they decided to consider him as running with "Putin" rather than "Pence".

    People are desperate to wound Trump to stop any type of detente with Russia, Cohen said, "these accusations [themselves] have become a grave American national security threat."

    [May 28, 2017] JFK had back-channels to both the Soviet Union and Cuba. Why? He didn't trust the CIA Then he was shot.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is in a very difficult place considering his relationship with the Deep State and the intelligence services. If he really wants to screw with the CIA before he meets his own destiny he should release all the JFK files that are still classified. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    Bob In Portland | May 28, 2017 1:45:10 AM | 50

    JFK had back-channels to both the Soviet Union and Cuba. Why? He didn't trust the CIA Then he was shot.

    Trump is in a very difficult place considering his relationship with the Deep State and the intelligence services. If he really wants to screw with the CIA before he meets his own destiny he should release all the JFK files that are still classified.

    [May 28, 2017] Trump Dancing with Wolves on the Titanic - The Unz Review

    May 28, 2017 | www.unz.com
    With Trump now officially joining this ugly alliance, the US will contribute the military "expertise" of a country which can't even take Mosul, mostly because its forces are hiding, literally, behind the backs of Kurdish and Arab Iraqis. To think that these three want to take on Hezbollah, Iran and Russia would be almost comical if it wasn't for the kind of appalling bloodshed that this will produce.

    Alas, just look at what the Saudis are doing to Yemen, what the Israelis did to Gaza or Lebanon or what the US did to Iraq and you will immediately get a sense of what the formation of this nefarious alliance will mean for the people of Syria and the rest of the region. The record shows that a military does not need to be skilled at real warfare to be skilled at murdering people: even though the US occupation of Iraq was, in military terms, a total disaster, it did result in almost one and a half million dead people .

    What is also clear is who the main target of this evil alliance will be: Iran, the only real democracy in the Middle-East . The pretext? Why – weapons of mass destruction, of course: the (non-existing) chemical weapons of the Syrians and the (non-existing) nuclear weapons of the Iranians. In Trump's own words : " no civilized nation can tolerate the massacre of innocents with chemical weapons " and " The United States is firmly committed to keeping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and halting their support of terrorists and militias that are causing so much suffering and chaos throughout the Middle East ". Nothing new here. As for how this evil alliance will fight when it does not have any boots worth putting on the ground? Here, again, the solution as simple as it is old: to use the ISIS/al-Qaeda takfiri crazies as cannon fodder for the US, Israel and the KSA. This is just a re-heated version of the "brilliant" Brzezinski plan on how to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Back to the future indeed. And should the "good terrorists" win, by some kind of miracle, in Syria, then turn them loose against against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against the Shias in Iraq and Iran. Who knows, with some (a lot) of luck, the Empire might even be able to re-kindle the "Caucasus Emirate" somewhere on the southern borders of Russia, right?

    Wrong.

    For one thing, the locals are not impressed. Here is what the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, had to say about this :

    "The Israelis, are betting on Isis and all this takfiri project in the region but in any case they know, the Israelis, the Americans, and all those who use the takfiris, that this is a project without any future. I tell you, and I also reassure everyone through this interview. This project has no future."

    He is right, of course. And the newly re-elected President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, openly says that the Americans are clueless :

    The problem is that the Americans do not know our region and those who advise US officials are misleading them

    It is pretty clear who these 'advisors' are: the Saudis and the Israelis. Their intentions are also clear: to get the Americans to do their dirty work for them while remaining as far back as possible. You could say that the Saudis and Israelis are trying to get the Americans to do for them what the Americans are trying to get the Kurds to do for them in Iraq: be their cannon fodder. The big difference is that the Kurds at least clearly understand what is going on whereas the Americans are, indeed, clueless.

    Not all Americans, of course. Many fully understand what is happening. A good example of this acute awareness is what b had to say on Moon of Alabama after reading the transcript of the press briefing of Secretary of Defense Mattis, General Dunford and Special Envoy McGurk on the Campaign to Defeat ISIS:

    My first thought after reading its was: "These people live in a different world. They have no idea how the real word works on the ground. What real people think, say, and are likely to do." There was no strategic thought visible. Presented were only some misguided tactical ideas.

    A senior British reporter, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, the President of Iran and a US blogger all seem to agree on one thing: there is no real US "policy" at work here, what we are seeing is a dangerous exercise in pretend-strategy which cannot result in anything but chaos and defeat.

    So why is the Trump administration plowing ahead with this nonsense?

    The reasons are most likely a combination of internal US politics and a case of " if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail ". The anti-Trump color revolution cum coup d'état which the Neocons and the US deep state started even before Trump actually got into the White House has never stopped and all the signs are that the anti-Trump forces will only rest once Trump is impeached and, possibly, removed from office. In response to this onslaught, all that Trump initially could come up with was to sacrifice his closest allies and friends (Flynn, Bannon) in the vain hope that this would appease the Neocons. Then he began to mindlessly endorse their "policies" . Predictably this has not worked either. Then Trump even tried floating the idea of having Joe Lieberman for FBI director before getting 'cold feet' and chaning his position yet again . And all the while while Trump is desperately trying to appease them, the Neocons are doubling-down, doubling-down again and then doubling-down some more. It is pretty clear by now that Trump does not have what it takes in terms of allies or even personal courage to tackle the swamp he promised to drain. As a result what we are seeing now looks like a repeat of the last couple of years of the Obama administration: a total lack of vision or even a general policy, chaos in the Executive Branch and a foreign policy characterized by a multiple personality disorder which see the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, the CIA and the White House all pursuing completley different policies in pursuit of completely different goals. In turn, each of these actors engages in what (they think) they do best: the Pentagon bombs, the State Department pretends to negotiate, the CIA engages in more or less covert operation in support of more or less "good terrorists" while the White House focuses its efforts on trying to make the President look good or, at least, in control of something.

    Truth be told, Trump has nothing at all to show so far:

    Russia : according to rumors spread by the US, former corporate executive Rex Tillerson was supposed to go to Moscow to deliver some kind of ultimatum. Thank God that did not happen. Instead Tillerson spent several hours talking to Lavrov and then a couple more talking to Putin. More recently, Lavrov was received by Tillerson in the US and, following that meeting, he also met with Trump. Following all these meetings no tangible results were announced. What does that mean? Does that mean that nothing was achieved? Not at all, what was achieved is that the Russians clearly conveyed to the Americans two basic thing: first, that there were not impressed by their sabre-rattling and, second, that as long as the US was acting as a brain-dead elephant in a porcelain store there was no point for Russian to work with the US. To his credit, Trump apparently backed down and even tried to make a few conciliatory statements. Needless to say, the US Ziomedia crucified him for being "too friendly" with The Enemy. The outcome now is, of course, better than war with Russia, but neither is it some major breakthrough as Trump had promised (and, I believe, sincerely hoped for) during his campaign.

    DPRK/PRC : what had to happen did, of course happen: all the sabre-rattling with three aircraft carriers strike groups ended up being a gigantic flop as neither the North Koreans nor the Chinese were very impressed. If anything, this big display of Cold War era hardware was correctly interpreted not as a sign of strength, but a sign of weakness. Trump wasted a lot of money and a lot of time, but he has absolutely nothing to show for it. The DPRK tested yet another intermediate range missile yesterday. Successfully, they say.

    The Ukraine : apparently Trump simply does not care about the Ukraine and, frankly, I can't blame him. Right now the situation there is so bad that no outside power can meaningfully influence the events there any more. I would argue that in this case, considering the objective circumstances, Trump did the right thing when he essentially "passed the baby" to Merkel and the EU: let them try to sort out this bloody mess as it is primarily their problem. Karma, you know.

    So, all in all, Trump has nothing to show in the foreign policy realm. He made a lot of loud statements, followed by many threats, but at the end of the day somebody apparently told him "we can't do that, Mr President" (and thank God for that anonymous hero!). Once this reality began to sink in all which was left is to create an illusion of foreign policy, a make-believe reality in which the US is still a superpower which can determine the outcome of any conflict. Considering that the AngloZionist Empire is, first and foremost, what Chris Hedges calls an " Empire of Illusions " it only makes sense for its President to focus on creating spectacles and photo opportunities. Alas, the White House is so clueless that it manages to commit major blunders even when trying to ingratiate itself with a close ally. We saw that during the recent Trump trip to Saudi Arabia when both Melania and Ivanka Trump refused to cover their heads while in Riyadh but did so when they visited the Pope in the Vatican . As the French say, this was "worse than a crime, it was a blunder" which speaks a million words about the contempt in which the American elites hold the Muslim world.

    There is another sign that the US is really scraping the bottom of the barrel: Rex Tillerson has now declared that " NATO should formally join the anti-Daesh coalition ". In military terms, NATO is worse than useless for the US: the Americans are much better off fighting by themselves than involving a large number of "pretend armies" who could barely protect themselves in a real battlefield. Oh sure, you can probably scrape a halfway decent battalion here, maybe even a regiment there, but all in all NATO forces are useless, especially for ground operations. They, just like the Saudis and Israelis, prefer to strike from the air, preferably protected by USAF AWACs, and never to get involved in the kind of ugly infantry fighting which is taking place in Syria. For all their very real faults and problems, at least the Americans do have a number of truly combat capable units, such as the Marines and some Army units, which are experienced and capable of giving the Takfiris a run for their money. But the Europeans? Forget it!

    It is really pathetic to observe the desperate efforts of the Trump Administration to create some kind of halfway credible anti-Daesh coalition while strenuously avoiding to look at the simple fact that the only parties which can field a large number of combat capable units to fight Daesh are the Iranians, Hezbollah and, potentially, the Russians. This is why Iranian President Rouhani recently declared that

    "Who fought against the terrorists? It was Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Russia. But who funded the terrorists? Those who fund terrorists cannot claim they are fighting against them" and "Who can say regional stability can be restored without Iran? Who can say the region will experience total stability without Iran?"

    In truth, even the Turks and the Kurds don't really have what it would take to defeat Daesh in Syria. But the worst mistake of the US generals is that they are still pretending as if a large and experienced infantry force like Daesh/ISIS/al-Qaeda/etc could be defeated without a major ground offensive. That won't happen.

    So Trump can dance with the Wahabis and stand in prayer at the wailing wall, but all his efforts to determine the outcome of the war in Syria are bound to fail: far from being a superpower, the US has basically become irrelevant, especially in the Middle East. This is why Russia, Iran and Turkey are now attempting to create a trilateral "US free" framework to try to change the conditions on the ground. The very best the US are still capable of is to sabotage those efforts and needlessly prolong the carnage in Syria and Iraq. That is both pathetic and deeply immoral.

    * * *

    When I saw Trump dancing with his Saudi pals I immediately thought of the movies "Dances with Wolves" and "Titanic". Empires often end in violence and chaos, but Trump has apparently decided to add a good measure of ridicule to the mix. The tragedy is that neither the United States nor the rest of the planet can afford that kind of ridicule right now, especially not the kind of ridicule which can very rapidly escalate in an orgy of violence. With the European politicians paralyzed in a state subservient stupor to the Rothschild gang, Latin America ravaged by (mostly US-instigated) crises and the rest of the planet trying to stay clear from the stumbling ex-superpower, the burden to try to contain this slow-motion train wreck falls upon Russia and China.

    As for Trump, he made a short speech before NATO leaders today. He spoke about the " threats from Russia and on NATO's eastern and southern borders ". QED.

    Avery , May 27, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

    {Tillerson was supposed to go to Moscow to deliver some kind of ultimatum.}

    What kind of so-called 'ultimatum' could Tillerson possibly deliver to Moscow? What hasn't Washington already 'ultimatumed' to Russia that has failed to force Russia to submit to Washington's will:
    1) Assault on the Ruble: failed.
    2) Engineered oil price collapse: failed.
    3) Sanctions: failed.
    4) Syria: failed.
    5) ..

    {Thank God that did not happen.}

    And as Mr. Spock said to Dr. Bones in one of the episodes " ..the Deity had nothing to do with it: it was my cross-linking to B that did it ..": Deity had nothing to do with it. It was thems 8,000 or so nuclear warheads that Russia has that did it. US issues ultimatums only to countries that can't bite back, like telling Saddam he has 48 hours to get, and then promptly invading.

    Avery , May 27, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT

    @Avery {Tillerson was supposed to go to Moscow to deliver some kind of ultimatum.}

    What kind of so-called 'ultimatum' could Tillerson possibly deliver to Moscow? What hasn't Washington already 'ultimatumed' to Russia that has failed to force Russia to submit to Washington's will:
    1) Assault on the Ruble: failed.
    2) Engineered oil price collapse: failed.
    3) Sanctions: failed.
    4) Syria: failed.
    5) ........

    And as Mr. Spock said to Dr. Bones in one of the episodes ".....the Deity had nothing to do with it: it was my cross-linking to B that did it.....": Deity had nothing to do with it. It was thems 8,000 or so nuclear warheads that Russia has that did it. US issues ultimatums only to countries that can't bite back, like telling Saddam he has 48 hours to get,...and then promptly invading.

    mh505 , May 27, 2017 at 2:59 pm GMT

    Just a little clarification: As far as is known, "b" from Moon of Alabama is not an American, nor does he live there.

    Apparently, he is a former officer of the German Bundeswehr.

    Si1ver1ock , May 27, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT

    Sadly, all too true.

    I've been waiting for someone to point out the silliness of asking Russia and China to sanction North Korea, when the US currently has sanctions on Russia and is threatening China in the South China sea. Maybe that is what Lavrov talked about with Trump.

    Seems schizophrenic somehow.

    neutral , May 27, 2017 at 10:39 pm GMT

    @Sean

    krollchem , May 28, 2017 at 1:11 am GMT

    Here is Jack Perry's take on the war against ISIS Inc:

    "If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans can agree upon, it's war. Both of them never saw a war they didn't like unless the other party started it, it's going badly, and it's an election year."

    "They want to declare war this time as opposed to just start bombing and worry about legality later. Okay, but who will they send the declaration of war to? ISIS is a non-state entity. What, will they just Twitter it out and hope ISIS cadre picks it up? In reality, what they better understand is this: When it's a non-state entity, you can't sign a cease-fire with them, either. Therefore, how will the U.S. exit this war, since cease-fires are its preferred route to getting someone else to take over the payments?"

    "let's keep in mind the U.S. government has technically been fighting ISIS via an air war for a few years now and we haven't seen the "For Sale" sign up at ISIS, Inc. so far. Let's also not forget the United States government could not find Osama bin Laden for several years, has not defeated al-Qaida for these 15 years plus since 9/11, and didn't even defeat the Taliban over in Afghanistan where the U.S. military still remains today. And now they want to mortgage our future in order to buy the ISIS Boardwalk piece on the World Monopoly board?! Excuse me, but say what?! "

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/05/jack-perry/warning-were-overdue/

    The real answer is to stop supporting the fanatical Wahhabism of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf state and shutdown their religious schools that export radical Islam:

    http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2014/11/wahhabism-isis-how-saudi-arabia-exported-main-source-global-terrorism

    See how Ramzan Kadyrov the President of Chechnya successfully reeducates Muslims who lose their way and make the mistake of listening to Wahhabist Imams:

    http://thesaker.is/ramzan-kadyrov-on-takfiri-terrorism/

    Likewise it is important to stop supporting Israel and their radical Jewish doctrine and close down their concentration camp, eliminate their chemical, biological and radiological weapons stockpiles, and close down their support for Al Qaeda and their allies including ISIS.

    Providing an apology to the sailors of the USS Liberty for their sacrifice and abandonment by the US government for the last 50 years is also in order. This shameful treatment of these US military is a major stain on America.

    Johan Nagel , Website May 28, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT

    A useful article, as is always the case with our fine Saker.

    Though I cannot understand why writers continue to follow the trawler like the seagulls waiting for the sardines, (a nod in the direction of King Eric!). Trump has been proven, as Obama was proven, and many before him, to be nominally a script reader, a totem for the masses to look towards as their 'leader' when the reality is that the government of the US especially and most obviously is merely tangible facet of a much bigger group. In short, Trump is a businessman given the chance to make a few extra millions and go down in history as a President. All he has to do is try to keep his mouth shut, make these visits to other countries for effect, make speeches given to him by others and he gets more gold and his place in history. It is all theatre

    The real power is so obviously in Israel, alongside old and new money, the military industrial complex which is spearheaded by the US and UK with the mass media another major power group and connected. Pharmaceutical and Agricultural corporations have also risen to huge prominence. Essentially, the 'government' is mainly for show.

    Trump has forged no new alliance. The KSa is run by immensely dodgy fiends who might even be Jews themselves. The two countries are an axis or seat of power in the region with the same aims, the same MO, the same funding, arming and support of the same militant groups. Anyway, much of this is outlined by the Saker.

    However, as I have seen elsewhere, this idea of the europeans being so weak and offering nothing on the power stage is either very poor reporting or some form of racism. The secret services of the Uk are involved in likely every theatre of war around the globe. They simply do not allow themselves to be so easily seen as the CIA or other military facets of the US death machine.

    I suspect the French also are very well connected and hugely involved. Behind the scenes. Mainly the Brits though. Always have been, always will be. Their bread and butter is serving interests well beyond the government, nothing to do with the people. I would also add that some of the special forces at least in the motherland (England to me) are revered as much as feared across the globe this has been confirmed to me by soldiers, not just what I have read.

    Also, still on Europe, well at least the UK Unlike the US, which managed to elect a racist, misogynist, bigot, the UK voted in enough numbers for their independence. They also have provided enough support from the people, not the Establishment to present to the world a candidate of decency, purity of heart and integrity, the likes of which have not been seen in the US, at such a high level, not anywhere else a handful of latin american countries, for many moons indeed.

    The witch hunt against him from his own party, from the Conservatives, from the mass media, from his so called 'friends' is a disgrace, yet the mere fact the people have caused such a tidal wave to even give such a man a chance, brings me pride and a slither, fast fading as it will prove, of hope

    Too many writers generalize Europe too much for me to conclude anything other than their experience of Europe comes from words on a screen rather than practical living in the countries and peoples they write of.

    NB. Also, for a bit of fun, I used a couple of introductions of characters from Dostoyevsky's The Devils, as I watched interviews with Corbyn and May last night, and tailored the text to provide Fyodor's analysis of the candidates!>> http://thedissolutefox.com/profiling-the-candidates-uk-elections-corbyn-and-may/ )

    jilles dykstra , May 28, 2017 at 7:11 am GMT

    The Dutch university professors Laslo Maracs and Wolfferen agree, Trump understands that eight years Obama cannot be continued, leads the USA to political and economic ruin.
    China and Russia were driven together, the economic centre of the world moved from the Atlantic to Central Asia.
    John Maynard Keynes already knew, 'ideas are the most powerful in the world', even obsolete ideas as the west controlling the world.
    This is the obstruction by CNN, Washpost and NYT, they do not understand that their world no longer exists.
    Trump, in the view of the mentioned profs, and in mine, is manoevring cautiously in order to change history, as Roosevelt needed some seven years to get the USA people in the mood for war, Trump maybe needs as many years to remove the mood for war from the USA.
    Trump has to move cautiously, I do not think he believes the Oswald story about the murder of Kennedy.

    animalogic , May 28, 2017 at 9:23 am GMT

    @krollchem

    Sergey Krieger , May 28, 2017 at 10:18 am GMT

    Lol, it is more like dancing with jackals.

    DanCT , May 28, 2017 at 11:00 am GMT

    Trump may be influenced by the MIC and major industry groups, but they are not the deep state, which should be narrowly defined as Israel itself, its fifth column, and those elements in gov and the media who succeeded in pulling off and covering up 911, without which we wouldn't be dealing with any of this.

    What I find alarming is Conservativism Inc's willingness to accept the preposterous official narrative about 911 while "bravely" challenging gov data and narratives in all other respects. Conservatives such as Pat Buchanan on down are willing to throw out over one thousand years of Western development regarding the rational relationship between evidence and conclusion, and not least the scientific method, to support what amounts to fantastical storytelling.

    I find it helpful to pull up Google images of these conservative opposition voices, almost invariably cowardly looking little nerds, to understand why we are being neutralized instead of organized to fight the deep state and in our efforts to restore order.

    Seamus Padraig , May 28, 2017 at 12:25 pm GMT

    @Johan Nagel A useful article, as is always the case with our fine Saker.

    Though I cannot understand why writers continue to follow the trawler like the seagulls waiting for the sardines, (a nod in the direction of King Eric!). Trump has been proven, as Obama was proven, and many before him, to be nominally a script reader, a totem for the masses to look towards as their 'leader' when the reality is that the government of the US especially and most obviously is merely tangible facet of a much bigger group. In short, Trump is a businessman given the chance to make a few extra millions and go down in history as a President. All he has to do is try to keep his mouth shut, make these visits to other countries for effect, make speeches given to him by others and he gets more gold and his place in history. It is all theatre...

    The real power is so obviously in Israel, alongside old and new money, the military industrial complex which is spearheaded by the US and UK...with the mass media another major power group and connected. Pharmaceutical and Agricultural corporations have also risen to huge prominence. Essentially, the 'government' is mainly for show.

    Trump has forged no new alliance. The KSa is run by immensely dodgy fiends who might even be Jews themselves. The two countries are an axis or seat of power in the region with the same aims, the same MO, the same funding, arming and support of the same militant groups. Anyway, much of this is outlined by the Saker.

    However, as I have seen elsewhere, this idea of the europeans being so weak and offering nothing on the power stage is either very poor reporting or some form of racism. The secret services of the Uk are involved in likely every theatre of war around the globe. They simply do not allow themselves to be so easily seen as the CIA or other military facets of the US death machine.

    I suspect the French also are very well connected and hugely involved. Behind the scenes. Mainly the Brits though. Always have been, always will be. Their bread and butter is serving interests well beyond the government, nothing to do with the people. I would also add that some of the special forces at least in the motherland (England to me) are revered as much as feared across the globe...this has been confirmed to me by soldiers, not just what I have read.

    Also, still on Europe, well at least the UK...Unlike the US, which managed to elect a racist, misogynist, bigot, the UK voted in enough numbers for their independence. They also have provided enough support from the people, not the Establishment to present to the world a candidate of decency, purity of heart and integrity, the likes of which have not been seen in the US, at such a high level, not anywhere else a handful of latin american countries, for many moons indeed.

    The witch hunt against him from his own party, from the Conservatives, from the mass media, from his so called 'friends' is a disgrace, yet the mere fact the people have caused such a tidal wave to even give such a man a chance, brings me pride and a slither, fast fading as it will prove, of hope...

    Too many writers generalize Europe too much for me to conclude anything other than their experience of Europe comes from words on a screen rather than practical living in the countries and peoples they write of.

    NB. Also, for a bit of fun, I used a couple of introductions of characters from Dostoyevsky's The Devils, as I watched interviews with Corbyn and May last night, and tailored the text to provide...Fyodor's analysis of the candidates!>> http://thedissolutefox.com/profiling-the-candidates-uk-elections-corbyn-and-may/ )

    WJ , May 28, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT

    @Sean

    WJ , May 28, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT

    @Sherman

    Hey Andrei

    Your beloved Russians are wasting money and resources they don't have propping up a despised dictator in Syria.

    This is no doubt causing anti-Russian resentment throughout the Arab world that will last for years.

    Hezbollah is also bogged down and bleeding and weakened in this fight. Ditto for their Iranian backers.

    There is no end in sight to this war and it seems like it's a bunch of bad guys killing each other off.

    annamaria , May 28, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT

    @Sean

    Z-man , May 28, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT

    @Robert Magill

    [May 27, 2017] Neoliberals tears about Hillary loss might create dragons teeth effect

    Notable quotes:
    "... One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere. ..."
    "... "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create "dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect. ..."
    "... sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of the national news media." ..."
    "... There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money (or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money (votes) he runs away from what he promised. ..."
    "... That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick. ..."
    May 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    DeDude - , May 26, 2017 at 02:41 PM

    One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election. That will help the right wing more than anything they themselves can do. She is clearly not mature enough to take any leadership role anywhere.
    libezkova - , May 26, 2017 at 07:47 PM
    "One thing we don't need are "progressives" who whine about irregularities (without proof) when they lose a close election"

    That's a very good point. I would say more: "neoliberal tears" about Hillary loss might create "dragon's teeth" effect... For example look at the Twit: "Fmr Kasich Supporter: Hostile Media Makes Me Support Trump " Chinese torture of Trump using well timed leaks also can have the same effect.

    that all means that it's not only just former #NeverHillary types who still stand by the president. Other sections of Trump voters and population in general now harbored "a uniform distrust of the national news media."

    see also http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/24/trump-nixon-watergate-culture-war

    from which this quote was taken.

    Christopher H. - , May 26, 2017 at 01:24 PM
    https://twitter.com/StephanieKelton/status/868131695215738880

    Stephanie Kelton‏ @StephanieKelton

    Stephanie Kelton Retweeted Pedro da Costa

    There should be less pushback on Trump's growth forecast, per se, and more focus on the question Growth For Whom?

    8:48 AM - 26 May 2017

    DeDude - , May 26, 2017 at 02:32 PM
    There are still a lot of morons who voted for Trump and are sure he will do the part of his promises they listened to and believed. He is brilliant at the short con. That is how he made his money (or is it failed to loss his inheritance). He promises whatever he sense that the costumer want to hear and get a signature on the deal. Then as soon as the costumer have handed over their money (votes) he runs away from what he promised.

    That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick.

    But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters realize that they have been conned. It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a stupid mistake - especially difficult for stupid people.

    libezkova - , May 26, 2017 at 08:00 PM
    "But it will almost certainly take at least a year before a large number of the Trump voters realize that they have been conned."

    Not true. I know many who already "get it " ;-)

    "That (short) con works in real estate where he really don't need to do another deal with people after he conned them. In politics he will be faced with the voters he conned in the first place, so either he chose to be a one-term president or he will realize why a one-trick pony shouldn't try to do a new trick."

    But both Bush II an Barack Obama were reelected. So "bait and switch" game might not be that fatal for politicians in the USA as it is in some other countries.

    I agree that shortermism is the name of the game.

    "It is very difficult for people to admit that they made a stupid mistake"

    Large part of "alt-right" (anti war right) already abandoned Trump. Those did it first. Paleoconservatives followed and now are one just step from open hostility mostly because of media attacks on Trump.

    Libertarians, especially former Ron Paul supporters, now are openly hostile and their critique is really biting.

    Do not know about evangelicals and other fringe groups, but I doubt that any of them still have illusions about Trump.

    IMHO, the only factor that still allows Trump to maintain his base is unending attacks of neoliberal media and this set of well coordinated leaks.

    [May 27, 2017] Dems' Trump-Russia Witch Hunt Deranged and Unjustified

    May 27, 2017 | www.newsmax.com

    ...we wouldn't be talking about this if Democrats and the media weren't lying every hour of every day about a nonexistent scandal. This bogus investigation should end forthwith, no matter who is heading it, because it is based on nothing but innuendo and partisanship. You conduct an investigation not because you want something to be true but because you have some evidence suggesting it may be. There is no such evidence here, and they've admitted it. ...

    Mimi • 7 days ago

    This Russian drum beat is getting tiresome. It is a terrible distraction to what more good and beneficial things the President is trying to implement. The devil is definitely at work in all the Democrat's hate-spewing words and deeds. Just look at their faces when they get interviewed on TV. They don't care about all the infractions Hillary was involved in - all her life, even dead bodies left in her wake. So they say.

    KrrMudgeon • 13 days ago

    "Dems' Trump-Russia Witch Hunt Deranged and Unjustified"...in other words, perfectly normal for dems.

    concernedcitizen • 13 days ago

    I would like someone on the Left to explain exactly how Russia interfered with the election. The DNC was hacked as was Podesta's emails and the information was given to wikileaks. Julian Assange himself stated that the information was not provided by Russia nor was it provided by a state agency. So, where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered with the election???

    cam • 14 days ago

    To believe that the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 Election and possible involvement of the Trump campaign with Russia is a witch hunt or "fake news" means that the 17 Intelligence Agencies, the Investigative Committees in the House and the Senate and other investigations are spending their valuable time investigating nothing is absurd. How can Trump and a few other people be right by claiming this investigation is a hoax and the hundreds of investigators be wrong!

    It has been already proven by 17 Intelligence Agencies that Russia interfered in the Election and now the investigation is into the next part - the investigation of the Trump campaign and their possible involvement with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 Election.

    It is insulting to me and other Americans that Trump considers this "fake news."

    There are facts that support these investigations and to pretend that these facts do not exist is lying!

    [May 26, 2017] This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!

    May 26, 2017 | www.politico.com
    "With all of the illegal acts that took place in the Clinton campaign & Obama Administration, there was never a special council appointed!" Trump tweeted, after an unusually quiet 24 hours online.

    He added in a second tweet: "This is the single greatest witch hunt of a politician in American history!"

    [May 25, 2017] Truth Has Become Un-American by Paul Craig Roberts

    May 25, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    ... Russia let go the Soviet empire and is glad to see it gone, as the empire was expensive and of little benefit. The Soviet Eastern European empire comprised Stalin's buffer against another Western invasion. The Warsaw Pact had no offensive meaning. It was not the beginning, as misrepresented in Washington, of Soviet world domination.

    I see a lack of clarity about the threat that Russia faces in Russian media reports and articles posted on Russian English language websites. I see a lack of clarity in Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's continued efforts to work out an accommodation with Washington. How can Lavrov work out an accommodation with Washington when Washington intends to dominate or isolate Russia?

    Lavrov and Russian media organizations do not always show awareness that it is not Washington's intention to accommodate other national interests.

    It cannot be otherwise for these three reasons:

    1. The budget for the US military/security complex is the largest in the world. It is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of many countries. It includes not only the Pentagon's budget but also the budgets of 16 US intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy, which is the location of the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant and 16 other national laboratories. When all the elements are added together, the military/security complex has annually the power and profit from $1,000 billion. An empire of this sort just doesn't give up and go away because some president or some part of the electorate want peace. The "Russian Threat" is essential to the power and profit of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 56 years ago. Just imagine how entrenched this power is now.
    2. The neoconservatives, who control both US foreign policy and the Western media's explanation of it, are mainly Jews of Zionist persuasion. Some are dual Israeli-US citizens. The neoconservatives believe that the collapse of Soviet communism means that History has chosen the United States as the socio-politico-economic system, and that the US government has the responsibility to assert the hegemony of America over the earth. Just read the neocon documents. They assert this over and over. This is what it means that America is the exceptional and indispensable nation. If you are the indispensable nation, every other nation is dispensable. If you are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. The claim that the neoconservatives make for the US is similar to the claim that Hitler made for Germany.
    3. As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel's expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government and chaos in Iraq, Washington's war on Syria, and Washington's demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war.

    For the Russian Foreign Minister to believe that it is possible to reach an accommodation with Washington, other than a Russian surrender, is nonsense. Perhaps this is Lavrov's use of diplomacy to delay the US attack while Russia prepares. Or perhaps Lavrov is just a diplomat who sticks to his last, despite the facts.

    Much of the Russian media, both in Russian and foreign language broadcasts and websites, thinks that the Western misrepresentation of Russia is just a mistake and that that facts, once they are established, can rectify the mistake. These Russian journalists don't understand that Washington could not care less about facts. Washington desperately needs an enemy, and Russia is the enemy of choice.

    The Chinese government seems to think that Wall Street and US corporations are too dependent on the cheap Chinese manufacturing labor, which keeps the US system fueled with profits, to jeopardize these profits by going to war.

    By underplaying the risk of war, Russia and China fail to mobilize world opposition to Washington's recklessness and, thereby, enable Washington's move toward war.

    The presstitutes serving the National Security State continue to drive toward conflict. Consider Newsweek's May 26, 2017, cover story with Putin on the cover and the caption: "The Plot Against America: Inside Putin's Campaign to Destroy Democracy in the U.S."

    It is difficult to imagine such ignorant nonsense from a mainstream news magazine. Democracy in America has been destroyed by special interest groups, by a US Supreme Court decision that gave the reins of power to special interest groups, and by a hoax war on terror that has destroyed the US Constitution. And here we have the presstitutes saying that Putin is destroying American democracy. Clearly, there is no extant intelligence anywhere in the Western media. The Western presstitutes are either corrupt beyond belief or ignorant beyond belief. Nothing else can be said for them.

    Consider Time magazine's cover. It depicts Trump turning the White House into the foundation for the Kremlin and St. Basil's Cathedral, which rise above the White House, symbolizing America's subservience to Russia under President Trump. This extraordinary propaganda seems to be readily accepted by the bulk of the Western populations, peoples who will die as a result of their insouciance.

    Even writers critical of Washington, such as Paul Street's recent article on CounterPunch and the English language Russian website, Strategic Culture Foundation, cannot bring themselves to state the truth that the US military/security complex needs a major enemy, has elected Russia for that role, and intends to defend this orchestration to the end of humanity on earth.

    Street writes about "How Russia Became 'Our Adversary' Again." According to Street, Russia became the enemy of choice because Russia protected part of the world's population and resources from being exploited by global capital. Russia became the number one enemy of the US also because Putin stopped the American exploitation of Russia economically. Putin is in the way of Washington's exploitation of the world.

    Much of what Street says is correct, but he is hesitant to state it in a straightforward manner. He has to dilute his message by repeating the obligatory propaganda. Street calls Trump, who originally wanted normal relations with Russia, an "orange-haired brute . . . [who admires] Putin's authoritarian manliness."

    Trump's problems originated in his goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary is the brute who intended to worsen the relations.

    Putin is a democrat, not an authoritarian. The authoritarians are in Washington. Surely Paul Street and CounterPunch know this. But Street has to protect himself from speaking some politically incorrect truths about the US and Russia by throwing in some anti-Putin propaganda and denigrating President Trump.

    That peace with Russia and China would undermine the justification of the $1,000 billion military/security budget, and that the military/security complex is the American government , is too much truth for most writers to state.

    Truth is the most rare element in the Western world, and we will not be permitted to have much of it much longer. Increasingly, truth is difficult to find. Soak it up while it is still available.

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West , How America Was Lost , and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order .

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

    [May 25, 2017] Yes, Virginia (Dare) There is a Cultural Marxism–and Its Taking Over Conservatism Inc by Paul Gottfried

    Notable quotes:
    "... Spencer's ..."
    "... Georgetown professor confronts white nationalist Richard Spencer at the gym - which terminates his membership , ..."
    "... National Review ..."
    "... French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron ..."
    "... The Closing of the American Mind ..."
    "... Gay Marriage vs. goodwill ..."
    "... National Review ..."
    "... Why John Podhoretz is Wrong on Gay Marriage ..."
    "... First Things, ..."
    "... The Power of Marriage ..."
    "... New York Times, ..."
    "... Why Putin's Defense of "Traditional Values" Is Really A War on Freedom ..."
    "... Foreign Policy, ..."
    "... National Review ..."
    "... Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom ..."
    "... , New York Post, ..."
    May 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Cultural Marxist commissars refusing to admit that dissidents are to be treated as fellow citizens is the crazed female professor who accosted the NPI's Richard Spencer while he was exercising at a Alexandria gym. She, recognizing him from coverage of the election campaign, started haranguing him and calling him a "Nazi."

    Instead of having her ejected for this behavior, the gym's management terminated Spencer's membership. [ Georgetown professor confronts white nationalist Richard Spencer at the gym - which terminates his membership , By Faiz Siddiqui May 21, 2017]

    Back in 2011 VDARE posted a commentary of mine on the legitimacy of the "Cultural Marxist" concept. (I reluctantly accepted the term only because I couldn't think of a better one.)

    As I pointed out, this ideology was very far from orthodox Marxism and was viewed by serious Marxists as a kind of bastard child. Yet many of those designated as "Cultural Marxists" still viewed themselves as classical Marxists and some still do.

    Exponents of what the Frankfurt School called "critical theory"- like Herbert Marcuse , Theodor Adorno , and Erich Fromm -- were considered by orthodox Marxists to be fake or ersatz Marxists. But they did adopt orthodox Marxist-Leninist theory in key aspects:

      Like orthodox Marxists, they viewed the bourgeoisie as a counterrevolutionary class. Like orthodox Marxists, they viewed the world, arguably simplistically, in terms of interest groups and power relationships. Like orthodox Marxists-whose break from Victorian classical liberalism in this respect was shocking in a way that is easily overlooked after the totalitarian experience of the twentieth century-they explicitly eschewed debate in favor of reviling and if possible repressing their opponents. (This is fundamental to the Marxist method: although it claims to be "scientific" , it is in fact an a priori value system that rejects debate and its concomitant, "bourgeois science".

      Hence Political Correctness-the most prominent product of "cultural Marxism" .) Like orthodox Marxist, they supported, at least in principle, a socialist i.e. government-controlled economy. Like orthodox Marxists, they inclined, in varying degrees, toward the Communist side during the Cold War. ( Marcuse , who cheered the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, was an outright Stalinist-as I can confirm from personal knowledge as his onetime student.)

    These disciples of the Frankfurt School, like Marx, were eager to replace what they defined as bourgeois society by a new social order. In this envisaged new order, humankind would experience true equality for the first time. This would be possible because, in a politically and socially reconstructed society, we would no longer be alienated from our real selves, which had been warped by the inequalities that existed until now.

    But unlike authentic Marxists, Cultural Marxists have been principally opposed to the culture of bourgeois societies -- and only secondarily to their material arrangements. Homophobia , nationalism , Christianity, masculinity , and anti-Semitism have been the prime villains in the Cultural Marxist script.

    This is especially true as one moves from the philosophy of the interwar German founders of the Frankfurt school, like Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse, to the second generation. This second generation is represented by Jürgen Habermas and most of the multicultural theorists ensconced in Western universities.

    For these more advanced Cultural Marxists, the crusade against capitalism has been increasingly subordinated to the war against "prejudice" and "discrimination." They justify the need for a centralized bureaucratic state commanding material resources not because it will bring the working class to power, but to fight "racism," "fascism," and the other residues of the Western past.

    If they can't accomplish such radical change, Cultural Marxists are happy to work toward revolutionizing our consciousness with the help of Leftist moneybags– hedge fund managers, Mark Zuckerberg etc. Ironically, nationalizing productive forces and the creation of a workers' state, i.e. the leftovers from classical Marxism, turn out to be the most expendable part of their revolutionary program, perhaps because of the collapse of the embarrassing collapse of command economies in the Soviet bloc . Instead, what is essential to Cultural Marxism is the rooting-out of bourgeois national structures, the obliteration of gender roles and the utter devastation of "the patriarchal family."

    Not only does Cultural Marxism exist, but it now appears to be taking over Conservatism Inc. Thus even with Paris burning , National Review was still attacking the Right . In the second round of the French election, Tom Rogan urged a vote for Emmanuel Macron on the grounds Marine Le Pen is insufficiently hostile to Vladimir Putin and is a "socialist" because she "supports protectionism." Macron's actual onetime membership in the Socialist Party, and his view that there was no such thing as French culture, apparently was not a problem [ French election: American Conservatives Should Support Macron , April 24, 2017].

    Conservatism Inc. goes along because these goals are partially achieved through corporate capitalists, who actively push Leftist social agendas and punish entire communities if they're insufficiently enthusiastic about gay marriage, gay scout leaders, transgendered rest rooms, sanctuary cities etc.. Wedded as it is to a clichéd defense of the "free market," the Beltway Right not only won't oppose this plutocratic agenda, but instead offers tax cuts to the wealthiest and most malevolent actors.

    It is because Cultural Marxism can co-exist with our current economic and political structure that our so-called "conservatives" are far more likely to align with the New Left than the Old Right. The behavior of our own captains of industry shows the rot is deep and that multiculturalism is very much part of American "liberal democratic" thinking, even informing our bogus conservatism. "Conservatism" is now defined as waging endless wars in the name of universalist values that any other generation would have called radically leftist. And Cultural Marxists themselves now define what we call "Western values"-for example, accepting homosexuality

    The takeover is so complete, we might even say "Cultural Marxism" has outlived its usefulness as a label or as a description of a hostile foreign ideology. Instead, we're dealing with "conservatives," who are, in many ways, more extreme and more destructive than the Frankfurt School itself.

    Many conservatives seem to believe Cultural Marxism is just a foreign eccentricity somehow smuggled into our country. Allan Bloom's " conservative " bestseller The Closing of the American Mind [ PDF ] contended that multiculturalism was just another example of "The German Connection." This is ludicrous.

    Case in point: unlike Horkheimer, or my onetime teacher Herbert Marcuse, leading writers within Conservatism Inc. are sympathetic to something like gay marriage . These include:

    Indeed, homosexual liberation is so central to modern conservatism that the Beltway Right's pundits urge American soldiers to impose it at bayonet point around the world. Kirchick complains we haven't pressed the Russian "thug" Vladimir Putin hard enough to accept such "conservative" features of public life as gay pride parades. [ Why Putin's Defense of "Traditional Values" Is Really A War on Freedom , by James Kirchick, Foreign Policy, January 3, 2014]

    Another frequent contributor to National Review , Jillian Kay Melchior, expressed concern that American withdrawal from Ukraine might expose that region to greater Russian control and thereby diminish rights for the transgendered. [ Ukrainians are still alone in their heroic fight for freedom , New York Post, October 8, 2015]

    If that's how our Respectable Right reacts to social issues, then it may be ridiculous to continue denouncing the original Cultural Marxists. Our revolutionary thinking has whizzed past those iconoclastic German Jews who created the Frankfurt Institute in the 1920s and then moved their enterprise to the US in the 1930s. Blaming these long-dead intellectuals for our present aberrations may be like blaming Nazi atrocities on Latin fascists in 1920. We're better served by examining those who selectively adopted the original model to find out what really happened.

    At this point we should ask not whether the Frankfurt School continues to cast a shadow over us but instead ask why are "conservatives" acquiescing to or even championing reforms more radical than anything one encounters in Adorno and Horkheimer?

    Admittedly, Conservatism Inc. has drifted so far to the Left that one no longer blinks in surprise when a respected conservative journalist extolls Leon Trotsky and the Communist Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Yet it's still startling to see just how far left the Beltway "Right" has moved on social issues. Even more noteworthy is how unwilling the movement is to see any contradiction between this process and the claim they are "conservatives."

    And let's not pretend that Conservatism Inc. is simply running a "Big Tent." Those who direct the top-down Beltway Right are eager to reach out to the Left, providing those they recruit share their belligerent interventionist foreign policy views and do nothing to offend neoconservative benefactors, while purging everything on their right .

    This post-Christian, post-bourgeois consensus is now centered in the US and in affiliate Western countries and transmitted through our culture industry, educational system, Deep-State bureaucracy, and Establishment political parties.

    The Beltway Right operates like front parties under the old Soviet system. Like those parties, our Establishment Right tries to "fit in" by dutifully undermining those to its the Right and slowly absorbing the social positions and heroes of the Left .

    Occasionally it catches hell for not moving fast enough to the Left. But this only bolsters the image of Conservatism, Inc. as defenders of traditional America against the Left-an image that it won't lose even as it veers farther in the direction of its supposed adversary.

    In short, Conservatism Inc. is not just a scam-but it's become a Cultural Marxist puppet. And the Dissident Right consists of those who can see through it.

    Paul Gottfried [ email him ] is a retired Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, PA. He is the author of Leo Strauss and the Conservative Movement in America .

    [May 24, 2017] Can Trump Salvage His Presidency in Syria s War by Shamus Cooke

    May 24, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
    The political noose is tightening around Trump's neck, and he's got only one way out: war. The U.S. involvement in the Syrian war is accelerating as Trump's talons dig deeper into the conflict. If he successfully clutches his prey he stands a chance of clinging to the presidency.

    The Democrats, now circling a wounded Trump, will happily feast instead on a rotting Syria: the only thing that can keep the Democrats from destroying Trump is if Trump destroys Syria.

    Trump's strategy is based on how Democrats reacted after his first attack on the Syrian government onApril 6th: they paused their toothless "resistance" to celebrate his bombing. Trump, at his most dangerous, exposed the Democrats at their weakest.

    Now Trump has struck the Syrian government again: on May 18th U.S. fighter jets attacked the Syrian military in Eastern Syria, from a new U.S. military base functioning inside Syrian territory controlled by the Syrian Kurds, where there are at least 1,000 U.S. active troops.

    Although the U.S. media underplayed Trump's recent attack -- or ignored it completely - legendary U.K. Middle East journalist Robert Fiskexplained the significance:

    " what was described by the Americans as a minor action was part of a far more important struggle between the US and the Syrian regime for control of the south-eastern frontier of Syria "

    Yes, the U.S. is already at war with the Syrian government for control of Syrian territory. The U.S. war on ISIS in Syria was never about ISIS, but about gaining a foothold directly inside Syria. Many pundits dismissed Trump's initial attack on the Syrian government as "symbolic," when in fact it began a new war. The New York Times confirms the motive of Trump's war:

    "Two competing coalitions that aim to defeat the Islamic State - one [Kurdish and U.S. fighters] backed by American air power, the other [the Syrian government] by Russian warplanes - are racing to the same goal."

    What is this goal?

    " [there is an] urgency among the competing coalitions fighting the Islamic State to be the first in southeast Syria to defeat the group [ISIS] and to occupy the power vacuum that its defeat would leave .Eastern Syria and the area around Deir al-Zour are mostly unpopulated desert, but they have Syria's modest oil reserves The area is strategically important to the United States, which wants to stabilize Iraq where it has a long-term military and political investment, and to Russia, which wants to strengthen the Syrian government's control of as much territory as possible."

    In summary: the U.S. military wants to "occupy" the "power vacuum" left by ISIS, because Syrian territory is "strategically important" to the United States.

    The war isn't about ISIS because the U.S. military isn't needed to defeat ISIS in Syria, since the group was doomed the day that Turkey decided to close ranks against them - by sealing their border with Syria - instead of openly supporting them as they had for several years.

    Consequently, the Syrian government - with Russian and Iranian support - has no problem mopping up ISIS in Syria, and they're racing to do it first before the U.S.-Kurdish alliance claims the territory for itself.

    Establishment Democrats are cheer-leadingTrump's war goals in private, which is why they're not denouncing them in public. The Democrat-friendly New York Times published a revealing op-ed entitled" A Trump Doctrine for the Middle East ?" In it the writer applauds Trump's war aims:

    "Despite the controversies at home, Mr. Trump may come away with a legacy-cementing achievement: a Trump Doctrine for the Middle East it is false that American 'soft power' is the key to stabilizing the [middle east] region. Our ideals, such as promoting democracy, will work to our advantage only if we first restore order - a project that rests on American hard power [military intervention]. What's more, the use of force is not inherently counterproductive "

    The article explains that Obama's "soft power" (the Syrian proxy war) failed and that Trump aims to "restore order" with "hard power" (direct military intervention).As Trump's bombs fall heavier Democrats will scramble to support a wider war that, crazily, increasingly threatens direct confrontation with Russia. The Russian government loudly denounced Trump's most recent bombing against the Syrian government, and sent more Russian troops to the region in response.

    The U.S. war against ISIS in Syria has always been a pretext to undermine the Syrian and Iranian governments. Robert Fisk explains:

    "Cutting Syria off from Iraq – and thus from Iran – appears to be a far more immediate operational aim of US forces in Syria than the elimination of the [ISIS] Sunni 'Caliphate' cult that Washington claims to be its principal enemy in the Middle East."

    How might this "race to defeat ISIS" end? Trump's ominous trip to Saudi Arabia gives some insight into the Trump Doctrine. Trump made an enormous arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $350 billion over 10 years, and wants the Saudis to use the money to co-lead an "Arab NATO" [military alliance]. Who will this alliance be aimed against? The Trump administration made it known that Iran was the main target, and thus Syria is the appetizer.

    In a separate article Robert Fisk discussed Trump's Saudi visit:

    "The aim, however, is simple: to prepare the Sunni Muslims [the gulf monarchy U.S. allies and others] of the Middle East for war against the Shia Muslims [Iran, Syria, Hezbollah]. With help from Israel, of course."

    This is the real reason Trump prioritized Saudi Arabia as the always-important first stop on his initial trip abroad: Trump is clearly stating his commitment to the totalitarian monarchies, who main priorities are the destruction of its regional enemies: Yemen, Syria, and Iran.

    This "Arab NATO" is meant to act as a U.S. puppet army in the way that 'official' NATO does in Europe, and the African Union's "Standby Force" does in Africa, where U.S. allies share the responsibility of repressing neighbor states who defy U.S. interests, i.e. they refuse to abandon their political-economic self determination.

    A U.S.-led "Arab NATO" wasn't previously impossible because the U.S. is universally hated across the Middle East, for its longstanding alliance with Israel combined with its recent annihilation of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. The openness in which the Gulf monarchies are trying to form this alliance shows just how distanced from and hated by their own residents, who are prevented from expressing their hatred through elections or public protest.

    The Trump-led alliance is especially foreboding because U.S. allies in the region feel deeply betrayed by Obama's Middle East approach; they want concrete assurances the betrayal won't be repeated, since U.S. allies risked a lot in regime change in Syria after Obama ensured them that regime change would be a safe bet. Trump's visit means, in practice, a fresh commitment to Assad's downfall and renewed hostilities with Iran, nuclear deal be damned.

    Trump's current war strategy in Syria is similar to President Bush Sr.'s experiment in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War: he used a no-fly zone in Kurdish-majority northern Iraq that de-facto partitioned the country, allowing the Kurds to take power where they remain in power today, as an important U.S. puppet. The partitioning of Iraq helped weaken the country prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion.

    The Syrian Kurds are now being armed with U.S. weaponry and given similar promises as their Iraqi counterparts received, but the Syrian Kurds are rightfully nervous about their new alliance.

    In their desperate fight against ISIS the Kurds have accepted an alliance with the world's military superpower: the Kurdish homeland is infested with rats and they invited a tiger to deal with the problem; but once the rats are dead the tiger will stay hungry. The Kurds also live next to another starving Tiger, the Turkish Government.

    The history of the Kurds is one of constant betrayals by larger powers. And now they are pleading on the pages of The New York Times not to be betrayed again, since they see the writing on the wall:

    " [President Trump] give us your word that evenafter Raqqa's liberation [in Syria] you will prevent attempts by Turkey to destroy what we've built here."

    Of course Trump's "word" is meaningless (and even this he won't give publicly). The Kurds are being used as battlefield pawns in a greater game. As Trump aligns with the Kurds in Syria, he simultaneously calls the Turkish Kurds "terrorists," even though the Turkish and Syrian Kurds are closely aligned ideologically and militarily.

    Like all "boots on the ground," the Kurds are most useful to the U.S. as cannon fodder, while more powerful people profit from the fighting. The political power of the Kurds pales in comparison to their enemy Turkey, whose government has long-term interests (the destruction of the Kurds) that will outlast the short-term military objectives Trump.

    The above contradictions are sharpening across the Middle East, nearing the point of yet another explosion. The Trump Doctrine is a flamethrower at a gas station that can instantly spark an even greater conflagration, beyond the horrors we've already witnessed across the Middle East. If the Trump resistance movement in the United States doesn't quickly prioritize a real anti war strategy, there will be little resistance left to speak of as we descend into war.

    [May 24, 2017] Intelligence span between the UK and the USA

    Notable quotes:
    "... Extraordinary details about the bomb used in the Manchester atrocity have been published in the New York Times, almost all of it forensic evidence gathered by the British police at the scene. ..."
    "... Suspicion on who leaked it to the US-based reporter rested on US officials, who have been feeding a series of details about the Manchester bombing to American journalists. ..."
    "... The photographs suggest the bomb was relatively sophisticated, requiring a degree of expertise. It contained a powerful explosive in a lightweight metal container. The pictures indicate it was carried in a blue rucksack made by the Karrimor outdoor company ..."
    "... The leak of the British information, as well as demonstrating a lack of respect for a US ally at an emotional time, will have hindered the investigation, where it is deemed essential to control the release of details. ..."
    May 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    somebody | May 24, 2017 12:29:45 PM | 42
    The intelligence spat between the US and Britain is interesting .

    Revenge for spying on Trump?

    But why is France involved?

    The Guardian

    Photographs of Manchester bomb parts published after leak

    New York Times publishes series of images showing remains of bomb, detonator and what appears to be rucksack • Manchester attack – latest updates

    A piece of the rucksack thought to have been used by the bomber. The pictures indicate it was carried in a blue rucksack made by the Karrimor outdoor company.

    Ewen MacAskill in London and Julian Borger in Washington

    Wednesday 24 May 2017 14.50 EDT First published on Wednesday 24 May 2017 10.41 EDT

    Extraordinary details about the bomb used in the Manchester atrocity have been published in the New York Times, almost all of it forensic evidence gathered by the British police at the scene.

    A series of photographs of the remains of the bomb, the detonator and what appeared to be a rucksack were leaked. The preliminary investigation by the police is extremely detailed, down to the belief that the killer, Salman Abedi, held the small detonator in his left hand.

    Suspicion on who leaked it to the US-based reporter rested on US officials, who have been feeding a series of details about the Manchester bombing to American journalists.

    Leaking such inside information from the investigation will add to tensions between the US and UK over the extent to which much of the investigation is being leaked by authorities in America.

    The latest revelations came hours after the home secretary, Amber Rudd, expressed irritation with the US and expressed hope that the leaks would stop.

    An image of what is believed to be the detonator, released by the New York Times.

    "The British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise. So it is irritating if it gets released from other sources and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again," the home secretary said.

    Although her language was mild, it is rare for a UK politician to issue such a rebuke to the Americans.

    Rudd called the US secretary of homeland security, John Kelly, on Tuesday to ask for the leaks to stop. UK officials were stunned and angry on Wednesday when the crime scene photographs appeared in the New York Times.

    The photographs suggest the bomb was relatively sophisticated, requiring a degree of expertise. It contained a powerful explosive in a lightweight metal container. The pictures indicate it was carried in a blue rucksack made by the Karrimor outdoor company.

    Such was the power of the blast that nuts and screws packed round the bomb penetrated doors and walls. Abedi stood in the middle of a crowd. The upper part of his body was thrown towards the entrance to the arena.

    How the Manchester attack unfolded

    It was not a crudely made bomb, as among the evidence recovered was a Yuasa 12-volt, 2.1 amp lead-acid battery, which is more expensive than normal over-the-counter ones. The detonator appeared to have a small circuit board soldered inside one end.

    There seemed to have been several options for detonating it, such as a simple manual switch or possibly remotely by a radio signal.

    The latest disclosures come on top of a series of leaks from US officials about the British investigation, including the naming of the killer.

    The leak of the British information, as well as demonstrating a lack of respect for a US ally at an emotional time, will have hindered the investigation, where it is deemed essential to control the release of details.

    UK counter-terrorism specialists said they needed to keep secret the name of any perpetrator or suspect for at least 36 hours to ensure there was an element of surprise in approaching relatives, friends and others.

    The home secretary reflected the frustration and dismay of the UK security services in a series of interviews on Wednesday morning.

    Adding to the sense of anger in the UK were further leaks from an NBC reporter who quoted US intelligence officials providing other details about the killer.

    [May 24, 2017] Back in the 1970s and 1980s when the IRA was carrying out bomb attacks in Northern Ireland and even bombed a Tory Party conference, did anyone blame Roman Catholicism as a denominator in the collective mind-set of the IRA?

    May 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Casowary Gentry | May 24, 2017 3:50:02 PM | 63

    @29
    "practical and realistic"...
    What I propose is exactly that.
    It works for Japan.
    Reagan was fond of saying to naysayers, who claimed there were no simple solutions, that there were simple solutions, just not easy ones.
    It would take courage to withstand the brickbats from certain quarters, but an unsentimental view of the various dimensions of Islam would lead to the realization that Islam itself is the problem. So called radical islam is just an unavoidable aspect of Islam itself. The religion is shot through with elements that make it absolutely incompatible with civilized societies. Islam doesn't "do" pluralism
    and it never will. The only way people who become refugees from Islamic countries will ever be free will be when they are free from Islam and that is why we in the west should exclude it from our bodies politic.

    "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

    A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

    Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

    Winston Churchill
    The River War
    1899

    Jen | May 24, 2017 5:31:36 PM | 74

    Can't believe I am seeing comments that Winston Churchill defeated Nazi Germany or that the way to end terrorism or at least eliminate most terrorism in Britain is to ban Islam.

    Back in the 1970s and 1980s when the IRA was carrying out bomb attacks in Northern Ireland and even bombed a Tory Party conference, did anyone blame Roman Catholicism as a denominator in the collective mind-set of the IRA? Did people blame Irish Catholics just for being Irish Catholics because such attacks were being carried out ostensibly in their name? Yet these attacks were probably more dangerous to most of the public by their frequency and their nature.

    Furthermore when the suicide bomber is dead and cannot speak for himself, and the whole narrative around the Manchester pop concert attack is being shaped by a government in the middle of election season, and that government's standing in opinion polls is poor due to the Prime Minister's own poor and incompetent leadership, and doubts increasing over her ability to handle Brexit, we cannot have any trust in the corporate media's claims that the attacker was connected to ISIS or this, that or the other extremist Islamist group. These claims are becoming increasingly absurd and smack of panic on the media's part, as if it realises that the more it pushes these claims, the less credibility these claims (and the media as well) has.

    Did Winston Churchill personally oversee and direct the strategies used by the Russians to defeat Nazi Germany and its allies at the Battle of Stalingrad which turned the tide of the war against Berlin? Did he liberate the death camps in Poland and stop the killing of Jews, Poles, POWs and millions of others? If Churchill defeated Nazi Germany and liberated eastern Europe, why did so much of that part of the world end up becoming a huge Communist buffer for the Soviet Union against Germany, minus its eastern Soviet-dominated part?

    Churchill was the one who wanted firebombing attacks on civilians in Nazi Germany, which were protested by General Eisenhower and others in the Allied High Command. Incidentally these attacks, far from demoralising the enemy, only strengthened Nazi resolve to fight to the death.

    From The Hague | May 24, 2017 5:38:23 PM | 76
    Jen #74
    Churchill started (10th of may 1940) when Russia had a pact with Nazi Germany.

    [May 24, 2017] The Manchester Attack - A Blowback From Britains Terror Support In Libya, Syria And Beyond

    Notable quotes:
    "... It was under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that a pipeline of Takfiri Islamist and weapons from Libya to Syria was organized. The British government surely knew and helped with this. ..."
    "... "May is predicted to win by a wide margin and there is no need to take the risk such a plan would inevitably entail." Not necessarily. News just before the Manchester attack: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/23/tory-lead-tumbling.html ..."
    "... Part of the gladio type operations is the strategy of tension. There has to be a constant pressure on the people, herding them along the narrative path and making sure that there is no wandering off of that path. For a few years it seemed the FBI was staging a new terror event in the US every 6 months, although now that has abated. Perhaps the US sheeple were getting suspicious so they offshored the false flags. ..."
    "... Was he a radicalised Islamist or was he just a radicalised Libyan. Whatever he was, the racists, Obama, Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy share in the responsibility. ..."
    "... I think in order to understand what is really going on, the "terror attacks" in Europe must be analyzed within the "Gladio" frame (the „blowback" angle is wrong and misleading in my opinion). ..."
    "... The important point is, „Gladio" cannot be dismissed (ridiculed) as just another „conspiracy theory" because of the trials in Italy and the confessions and testimonies resulting from these procedures. See also the excellent BBC- Timewatch documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHXjO8wHsA ..."
    "... Just a reminder - General Gianadelio Maletti, commander of the counter-intelligence section of the Italian military intelligence service from 1971 to 1975, testified in March 2001 (during the eighth trial regarding the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombings) that the CIA had had foreknowledge of the event. Also an Italian Senate-Commission report on the „Gladio" network, stated that "Those massacres, those bombs, those military actions had been organized, promoted or supported by men inside Italian state institutions and . by men linked to the structures of United States intelligence." ..."
    "... A key role within the criminal, subversive Gladio-network (sometimes referred to as a "state within a state" or a "shadow government") was played by a Masonic lodge: P2 (Propaganda Due) which served as a conduit for drug trafficking, money laundering, gun running activities of the CIA (including „Iran-Contra"). ..."
    "... One of Libya's most powerful armed factions has accused Britain of harbouring and supporting the terrorist group it says was behind the Manchester Arena bombing. ..."
    "... The Tobruk-led Libyan Government, which is not recognized by the United Nations but controls a large swathe of eastern Libya, said Manchester-born bomber Salman Abedi was part of a group that operated with the "prior knowledge and consent" of successive British governments. ..."
    "... "The previous British government has been pressuring in every way possible the prevalence of these groups and their control of Libya, while these groups have been destroying our cities and towns in an attempt to shape Libya into an exporter of terror to the whole planet" ..."
    "... I doubt that. But a lot of people are interested in that ISIS remains relevant. GLADIO did not have to invent communism. The war on terror has to produce its enemy. ..."
    "... The British Secret services have the ability and the resources to allow this to happen. If they knew he was a terrorist they should have kept an eye on him 24/7. They have the ability and the resources to do this. But they didn't keep him under surveillance, or maybe they did. Whatever way they allowed this bombing to happen because they could have stopped it. Perhaps even helped along the way with the radicalisation. ..."
    "... It seems that ksa and egypt want a few head scalps of qataris and turkish leaders. The leaks about the libyan background and possible MB connections of the guy.. plus the massacre 3 days ago by Farraj ppl in Brak al shatti of the Haftar ppl (supported by Egypt) seems related ..."
    "... Watch the movie called "Clean Skin" with Sean Bean. It provides one of the best interpretations of how intelligence services foster terrorism to advance the agenda of the elite that I've ever seen in a movie. I saw it on Netflix, but I'm not sure if it's still available there. ..."
    "... I also doubt that the May gang were in on the bombing - there is just too much of a risk and the fact that it occurred within a day of the poll shift is a big stretch - that anyone especially the incompetent leak ridden englander intelligence services could get such an op up and running in the space of a couple of days just doesn't ring true. ..."
    "... http://www.voltairenet.org/article196454.html Very interesting article (unfortunatly in french, should be translated shortly by site's staff) that gives a very plausible backgrounder on the Manchester attacker. In short the guy has been a western intelligence asset for a long time, was probably not a muslim radical willing to die to blow up teenagers and is likely to have been remote detonated by his handlers which incidentally allowed them to get rid of someone who probably knew to much. ..."
    "... 'We came, we conquered, he died' - are you laughing now bitch? Blood all over Cammerons, Sakozy and your hands. ..."
    "... Yesterdays news gets wrapped in todays fish. Terry Meyseein at voltairenet blew the whole charade and the anglo-zionist plot to destabilise Syria having Libya as its spear head. ..."
    "... It seems the patsy/perp's dad is an MI6 employee who once worked for the colonel in Intelligence until the brits persuaded him to attempt an assassination of the Colonel back in 1992. The englanders got him out and he has been the go to man for investigating Libyan connections to AQ & ISIS ever since. Lately he has been based in Libya where he has most likely been the point of contact between england and the UN backed universally despised in Libya, unelected 'government'. ..."
    "... Remember too that it was Libya who Churchill concentrated most of his military resources at the time when England itself was under siege and expecting a German invasion. Libya has been the target of the greedy eurotrash of england, france, germany & italy since the invention of the automobile. ..."
    May 24, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    When I first learned of yesterday's terror incident in Manchester, UK I snarked :
    Moon of Alabama‏ @MoonofA

    So another heroic "Syrian rebel" - which the British government avidly supports - blew himself up. But why in #Manchester?

    6:26 AM - 23 May 2017

    Several people attacked my over that tweet.

    How would I know it was a "Syrian rebel" who blew himself up in the Manchester Arena?

    Well, how would you know that any of the takfiri "Syrian rebels" the UK, the U.S. and their Gulf proxies support in Syria are from Syria? Many are definitely not .

    Then news appeared that the attacker's name was Abedi and that he hailed from an anti-Ghaddafi tribe in eastern Libya . It was eastern Libya from where in Macrh 2011 a tribal insurrection to overthrow the Libyan government was initiated. Weapons were flown in from Qatar and handed out to Jihadists. British special forces were on the ground to help the takfiris of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in their attacks towards the Libyan capital in western Libya. The leader of the eastern front was Abdelhakim Belhadj, a long time al-Qaeda member, After Ghaddafi was overthrown with British help al-Qaeda's flag went up over the court house of the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. The Manchester plot thickened.

    Now we read this :

    The suicide bomber who killed 22 people and injured 59 more at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester was a university dropout who may have made secret trips to Syria to train for the attack.
    ...
    UK police revealed, Mr Abedi was a 23-year-old British national of Libyan descent. He was born in Manchester and grew up alongside three siblings.

    British intelligence agents are investigating reports the football-obsessed Abedi slipped into Syria while visiting relatives in Libya several times in recent years , The Sun reports.

    more :

    Abedi born in Manchester and grew up in tight-knit Libyan community that was known for its strong opposition to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime. He had become radicalised recently - it is not entirely clear when - and had worshipped at a local mosque that has, in the past, been accused of fund-raising for jihadists.
    ...
    A group of Gaddafi dissidents, who were members of the outlawed Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), lived within close proximity to Abedi in Whalley Range.

    The Islamic State, a splinter part of al-Qaeda, has claimed responsibility for the attack in Manchester. The LIFG was aligned with al-Qaeda.

    Salman Abedi was in east-Libya when the UK bombed Libyan government troops to free the way for the onslaught of the takfiris:

    A person who said they knew Abedi from school told the Manchester Evening News: "He was a outgoing fun guy but since he went to Libya in 2011 he came back a different guy. "He used to drink, smoke weed then all of a sudden he turned religious and I've not seen him since 2012."
    ...
    "There was a black flag with Arabic writing on it on the roof [of Abedi's house in Elsmore road] for a bit, a few years ago," a neighbour told the BBC.

    It was under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that a pipeline of Takfiri Islamist and weapons from Libya to Syria was organized. The British government surely knew and helped with this.

    It is fairly obvious that the Manchester attack is a blowback of the British wars on the independent Libya under Ghaddafi and on the independent Syria under Bashar Assad. In both cases the British government supports radical Islamist takfiris to fight against the secular governments it wants to overthrow. But such extremists can never be controlled by the "west". They hate the "west" on ideological grounds and they hate what "we" do to their home countries. Any use of such forces abroad will blow back home.

    I have seen suggestions that the attack in Manchester was initiated by "deep state" Gladio forces to help Theresa May win the British election. That is possible -British secret services knew the culprit well- but it is unlikely in my view. May is predicted to win by a wide margin and there is no need to take the risk such a plan would inevitably entail. A blowback from supporting takfiri terrorists in foreign countries is the much more likely explanation.

    But don't expect the government supporting main stream media to explicitly point out that obvious connection. They are all part of the campaigns for the Takfiris when these try to overthrow this or that secular government. They are all guilty themselves of causing the Manchester attack. 1

    Over a decade ago, the UK baffled everybody by harbouring some of the worst radical Islamist preachers the world had heard of, like Abu Hamza aI-Masri and other such unsavoury sorts. Nobody understood why. It looked like over-the-top 'goody-two-shoes' politically correct tolerance. Which it wasn't. It turns out Great-Britain has purposefully been turned into one of the world's premier jihadi breeding & recruiting grounds. My, my, my...
    Peter AU | May 24, 2017 6:34:27 AM | 2
    As per usual for these attacks, the attacker had contact with/was known to security services. Another sting op allowed to run its course?
    paul | May 24, 2017 6:38:28 AM | 3
    What is most likely is that this guy is a patsy, controlled by US/Uk dark forces - oh but wait that is - OHNO!!!! - a horrible dreaded conspiracy theory!!!
    Kassandra | May 24, 2017 6:45:58 AM | 4
    "May is predicted to win by a wide margin and there is no need to take the risk such a plan would inevitably entail." Not necessarily. News just before the Manchester attack: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/23/tory-lead-tumbling.html
    jfl | May 24, 2017 6:51:23 AM | 5
    as i said to somebody on the other thread, now is the time for labour to latch hold of this glimpse of reality and push it for all they're worth against the imperialism of the 1% that is not only bankrupting but terrorizing and killing them at home in britain ... labour is desperate, i understand, they ought to try the truth ... what have they got to lose?
    Heros | May 24, 2017 6:57:22 AM | 6
    Part of the gladio type operations is the strategy of tension. There has to be a constant pressure on the people, herding them along the narrative path and making sure that there is no wandering off of that path. For a few years it seemed the FBI was staging a new terror event in the US every 6 months, although now that has abated. Perhaps the US sheeple were getting suspicious so they offshored the false flags.

    These operations can also simply be used as a diversion to abruptly divert the narrative away from some shiny object attracting the sheeple's attention. Perhaps Seth Rich assassination is the real issue, or the elites penchant for pedophilia. Who knows.

    Also, as with the budokan bombing of "the eagles of death metal" on Friday, October 13, this could have some occult significance. The significance of it being the Ariana Grande concert has not yet been exposed, but my guess that like Madonna, Gaga, Spears she is a mkultra sex kitten used to program teenage pubescent gentile girls to turn into shicksa's. This kind of shock likely serves some mind control agenda that is focused on their still developing brains and sexual preferences.

    PVP | May 24, 2017 6:59:27 AM | 7
    The Tory lead was tumbling in the days before the attack. I think peopled were starting to realise whereas Labour has good policies, STRONG AND STABLE is not really a policy at all. Whereas the press was reporting this at the weekend, now election campaigning suspended. I agree though, a bit of risk to think an inside job.
    somebody | May 24, 2017 7:09:56 AM | 8
    Actually May had just got into serious trouble on social security and Corbyn was and still is, I believe, in a pretty good position.

    May comes across as incompetent when seen close. There is a rumour that there will be no debate between May and Corbyn as May would not be able to get through without embarrassment.

    But the attack would not be aimed so much at May winning the elections, but May getting Britain to intervene in Libya - against Haftar and Russia.

    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 7:42:46 AM | 9
    Was he a radicalised Islamist or was he just a radicalised Libyan. Whatever he was, the racists, Obama, Clinton, Cameron and Sarkozy share in the responsibility.

    Why now? Perhaps the massacre At Brak al-Shatti? After all it was the militia of the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) that carried it out. You know the UN, where Britain is a permanent member of the Security Council and where nothing happens without the support of the permanent members of the Security Council.

    Was this a conspiracy involving the British Government? I very much doubt it because if it ever came out that there was a conspiracy it would destroy the political party of any politicians involved and all the people involved would be identified and prosecuted.

    Heros, you really need to get back on yours meds otherwise the men in white coats will come a'calling soon.

    E | May 24, 2017 7:42:47 AM | 10
    Connecting dots.

    This man's parents, according to the Telegraph, were refugees from Gaddafi's Libya (Tripoli) and he grew up in a "tight-knit Libyan community that was known for its strong opposition to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime." The paper also reports that he grew up in "close proximity" to a group of people with ties to al-Qaeda etc. We know that Gaddafi detested al-Qaeda.

    I wonder how long it will take for the press and the West to make the connection that the people who hated Gaddafi are also the people who explode nail bombs?

    Or am I hoping against hope for a bit of logic?

    somebody | May 24, 2017 7:56:02 AM | 11
    Posted by: Ghostship | May 24, 2017 7:42:46 AM | 9

    In all likelihood he was just suicidal and someone knew about it and used it.

    Both attacks the Libyan and the Manchester one, show that the Islamic Parties are on their last leg in Libya.

    In the case of Manchester more embarassing stuff will come out - the guy was known to secret services and had just returned from Libya. All of which will have happened under Theresa May's watch.

    Jen | May 24, 2017 8:00:02 AM | 12
    Dear B: there has been recent news about UK prime minister Theresa May flip-flopping over the issue of capping care payments to aged pensioners which calls into question her ability to handle the British departure from the EU, and how this uncertainty has affected the Conservatives' standing in recent opinion polls. Off-guardian.org also reports that huge numbers of people have attended British Labour Party rallies where Jeremy Corbyn has been giving speeches. These rallies have been ignored by the mainstream news media in the UK. So the notion that (before the Manchester attack) May would win the general election by a wide margin was already shaky.

    Another thing too: just as the suicide bomber could have been a "Syrian rebel", how do the authorities really know the his name was Salman Ramadan Abedi and that he was linked to a zillion different jihadi groups? The fellow is dead and anything that the British government says about him and his connections can't be taken seriously. The announcement by ISIS that Abedi is one of theirs might just suit the British government's agenda of pushing the public into supporting an invasion of Libya or Syria.

    E | May 24, 2017 8:01:48 AM | 13
    Ghostship @ 11

    I understand very little about UK politics. Does this, embarrassment notwithstanding, assist the Tories? Or is Labour or the Lib-Dems "stronger" on terror, immigration etc?

    x | May 24, 2017 8:10:25 AM | 14
    Did he drop his passport ID near the scene like they always do?

    Sad really, but this reminds me of the Thatcher times when the 'evil' Irish IRA, and therefore all Roman Catholics, were terrorising the British government for absolutely no rational reason at all.

    I don't even bother these days to think whether it's Blowback or False flag -- it's action research by nefarious forces.

    Strategic shocks are one way to 'control' complex chaos systems -- there is some theory to it -- but usually the only reliable aim can be to stop or divert something rather than produce some definite predetermined goal.

    The main aim, whatever side is behind it, is to scramble the msm news cycle and keep other more routine developments off the agenda.

    Hope Corbyn wins in spite of the very 'convenient' timing for a sphincter response towards the establishment and conservative agenda.

    Sell military weapons to the scorpions running Saudi Arabia and not expect a sting in the back is just plain naive.

    LXV | May 24, 2017 8:16:48 AM | 15
    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you better duck ...
    somebody | May 24, 2017 8:34:04 AM | 17
    Posted by: E | May 24, 2017 8:01:48 AM | 13

    Theresa May is supposed to be stronger on security, she used to be interior minister.

    But this happened on her watch. Voters would need to twist their heads to get around this fact. And it was not Europe but British immigration policy decades ago.

    Both Corbyn and May now talk of "coming together" in the face of crisis.

    If this was a plot to get Theresa May elected she was not in on it.

    More like Libyans not wishing to be forgotten in Trump's "fighting terrorism" agenda.

    Jackrabbit | May 24, 2017 8:41:38 AM | 18
    The attack occurred on the 4th anniversary of the Murder of British Soldier Lee Rigby

    The murder of Rigby was extraordinary and received a great deal of media coverage. The assailants railed against British actions in Muslim lands and urged British citizens to turn against their government saying:

    You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don't care about you... Do you think politicians are going to die? No, it's going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back leave our lands and you will live in peace.

    The potential link to the Rigby attack seems to be getting very little coverage.

    fastfreddy | May 24, 2017 8:49:03 AM | 19
    http://www.unilad.co.uk/news/controlled-explosion-destroys-second-device-found-near-manchester-arena/

    Anybody know by what method police would explode a bag of clothing?

    Does an nervous policeman put himself sufficiently close to a suspicious bag of clothing which may or may not contain explosives (this is unclear) to explode it?

    Does the nervous policeman bring his own explosives in order to explode a bag of clothing? (This too is unclear).

    This (controlled explosion) was a noisy and powerful-sounding explosion.

    Why the hell would they explode a bag of clothing with an apparently huge explosive device?

    fastfreddy | May 24, 2017 8:54:09 AM | 20
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6DZGENiot8

    American announcer -"Thank You for coming and having a good time tonight. Walk Slowly, there's no need to run".

    Laguerre | May 24, 2017 9:02:43 AM | 21
    As several have already said, no, May is not predicted to win by a large margin. She's run a catastrophic campaign, dictatorial and out of touch, whereas Corbyn has attracted large crowds.

    What's going to be the consequence of the Manchester affair for the election, I don't know. Should be that the right wing will get in on security. But people are losing, or have lost, confidence in the Tories for that. The Tories, even before May, have been cutting the police and the military, for so-called austerity reasons. You'd think they would have been building them up, as Thatcher did, but they haven't. They've done the opposite. After all cash in the pockets of the buddies is what government is all about for them.

    Actually, I wouldn't entirely exclude a false-flag intended to boost the right-wing in the elections. If it were one that went wrong, and killed more than intended. It must be easy for the security services to find some poor Muslim sap who's willing to be a martyr. But you're probably right that it's blow-back.

    somebody | May 24, 2017 9:02:50 AM | 22
    Theresa May seems to have cut the police force as interior minister

    So, no, she is not going to profit from this attack.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqaWWpbdw-c

    Here is alleged moment of the alleged real explosion. Would have had a much more terrifying impact and dramatic effect had Ariana been performing on stage at the time. She was not. Looks like people were in the process of getting seated when it occurred.

    Note that a second explosion which occurred later controlled by police was much louder than this one.

    Mina | May 24, 2017 9:12:38 AM | 24
    French Intr min confirmed Abadi went to Syria. If the French have any idea about it it means there is further connection with the French and Belgian cells
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/world/europe/manchester-bomber-salman-abedi.html?_r=0
    re FF. No it was at the end as they were leaving.
    Casowary Gentry | May 24, 2017 9:25:48 AM | 26
    Europe and America both need to wake up. Close all mosques and criminalize the activities of Imams. Criminalize the clandestine practice of Islam. You want to come to England or America to escape the chaos and brutality of the Islamic hell hole of a country you came from? That's just ducky, but you leave your religion and Sharia based culture at the border. It's either that solution or simply don't allow anyone from those countries and culture into the country, not even as visitors. There is no other way.
    Laguerre | May 24, 2017 9:26:29 AM | 27
    It's not only the police. It's also the National Health Service; the Tories are widely seen as undermining it, in order to be able to privatise it in the next few years. You can't get an appointment to see a doctor; the emergency depts are crowded out with long waits. People notice that. But here they are, doing a magnificent job in saving the injured from the bombing. But the Tories are seen as wanting to destroy that and install an American insurance system.
    Mina | May 24, 2017 9:32:11 AM | 28
    That's so embarrassing that only Belgium media discuss it http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3675317/Man-Hat-Belgian-terror-suspect-reveals-took-photographs-football-stadium-Manchester-Paris-terror-attacks-boasts-easily-ISIS-moves-Europe.html (from July 2016)

    http://www.demorgen.be/buitenland/-man-met-het-hoedje-was-in-manchester-is-er-een-band-met-aanslagen-in-brussel-en-parijs-b78b64d8/
    http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/1505/Monde/article/detail/3165612/2017/05/23/Mohamed-Abrini-avait-fait-des-reperages-a-Manchester.dhtml

    censored in NYT which pretends to compare the different attacks https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/23/world/europe/europe-terror-attacks.html

    x | May 24, 2017 9:52:23 AM | 29
    @26 -- "simply don't allow anyone from those countries and culture into the country"

    Yes, that might work, especially if you allow them to apply the same logic and principles to keeping out people like you from their country. UK 2nd largest arms exporter to SA & Co. Sort of comes under that faux empire elitist "we can fuck them, but they can't fuck us" theme. Now back to the practical and realistic...

    jo6pac | May 24, 2017 9:54:28 AM | 30
    O/T Ziad back after site attack.

    https://syrianperspective.com/2017/05/syrper-under-attack-by-defeated-terrorist-supporters-recovers-last-rats-leave-homs-1345-vultures-leave-al-qaaboon-syrian-army-kills-isis-minister-of-war.html

    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 10:09:43 AM | 31
    >>>> x | May 24, 2017 8:10:25 AM | 14
    Did he drop his passport ID near the scene like they always do?
    No, it was his bank card that was found in his pocket. You don't go out your front door in the UK unless you have your debit or credit card with you - they've pretty much replaced cash - I withdrew £10 from my bank account in February and it's still in my wallet. So was it planted - we'll never know but I doubt it.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    How ungrateful was the bomber, the Conservative government under the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, freed the Libyans by murdering Gaddafi and then he, the bomber, goes and does this. Theresa May must be so grateful to ISIS for claiming responsibility for this outrage so that Muslims can be blamed rather than those that were really responsble such as Obama, Clnton, Sakozy, Cameron and even Theresa May herself (under principle of collective responsibility of cabinet). If there is a conspiracy, it's just started as the coverup gets under way.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>> fastfreddy | May 24, 2017 8:49:03 AM | 19
    Anybody know by what method police would explode a bag of clothing?
    Unlikely to be police but army. After the troubles in Ireland, the UK has a well developed system for dealing with bombs using bomb disposal specialists from the Royal Engineers

    Does an nervous policeman put himself sufficiently close to a suspicious bag of clothing which may or may not contain explosives (this is unclear) to explode it?

    Does the nervous policeman bring his own explosives in order to explode a bag of clothing? (This too is unclear).

    Bomb disposal use robots to do this that can either place a small demolition charge or shoot the bomb with high velocity bullets (creates the necessary shock wave to detonate high explosives AFAIK). So nobody risked their life and even the robot is likely safe and sound back in its kennel.

    This (controlled explosion) was a noisy and powerful-sounding explosion.

    A small demolition charge fired in the open air makes a lot more noise that if it's contained. Also noise amplified by echos from surrounding buildings.

    Why the hell would they explode a bag of clothing with an apparently huge explosive device?

    Because they didn't know what was in it and they didn't know if it was booby-trapped or contained a remotely-detonated charge, so they use a few ounces of explosives to blow it apart and either detonate any high explosives or destroy any devices.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>>> fastfreddy | May 24, 2017 9:03:26 AM | 23

    Here is alleged moment of the alleged real explosion. Would have had a much more terrifying impact and dramatic effect had Ariana been performing on stage at the time. She was not. Looks like people were in the process of getting seated when it occurred.
    No, they were getting up to leave at the end of the concert. It appears the bomber walked into one of the foyers of the arena as people were leaving and detonated the bomb. So security procedures will have to be improved at the end of events like this.
    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 10:13:52 AM | 32
    >>>> Laguerre | May 24, 2017 9:13:41 AM | 25
    re FF. No it was at the end as they were leaving.

    Sorry for stepping on your toe.

    JC | May 24, 2017 10:25:28 AM | 33
    Interesting how this event pushed the "Who Killed Set Rich?" story right off the page as it was starting to get some traction, particularly after Brazille was revealed as the DNC chief making calls to get a handle on the spread.
    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 10:32:17 AM | 34
    >>>> E | May 24, 2017 8:01:48 AM | 13
    Does this, embarrassment notwithstanding, assist the Tories? Or is Labour or the Lib-Dems "stronger" on terror, immigration etc?

    It depends - if enough people join the dots back to the Conservative's involvement in regime change in Libya then maybe not - I can see the Conservative lead in the polls decreasing yet further but will it be enough to give Labour the most seats in parliament? I doubt it as the election is only two weeks away. The best that can be hoped for is that the Conservatives lose their majority in Parliament at which point it gets interesting. The whole Brexit referendum thing was to avoid a split in the Conservative Party and stop Conservative voters defecting to UKIP. The Liberals who the Conservatives will probably need to form a coalition if they only have a plurality are opposed to Brexit so will we see a Conservative-Liberal coalition? I don't think so, so that might leave a Conservative minority government with a deep fissure within and how long will that last before it splits. The Conservatives are normally very loyal to their party but it seems different with Brexit. Interesting times and anybody who claims to know what will happen at the moment is probably lying. It should be clearer in a week particularly if the Government can blame it on ISIS and, by association, Syria, Iran and Putin.

    Jackrabbit | May 24, 2017 10:49:53 AM | 35
    ff @19:
    Why the hell would they explode a bag of clothing with an apparently huge explosive device?
    Basically, the authorities are making a show of "fighting terror". Blowing things, military patrols, and vague warnings of more to come. If the bombing was related to the anniversary of the Bigby murder, then the political point has already been made. Everything else is mis-direction and distraction.
    Laguerre | May 24, 2017 10:53:31 AM | 36
    re Ghostship 34

    The most interesting thing about these present events is that the whole charge to hard Brexit could be fucked. A small Tory majority, or a minority government, is hardly the necessary support for May's Brexit policy. Unless the Tories can win on security -- and the issues have been mentioned just above -- the Brexit movement could grind to a halt, through not receiving the electoral support May was demanding. And May is not very flexible to change tack, as Cameron would have done.

    james | May 24, 2017 11:35:51 AM | 39
    thanks b... looks like you're right in your twitter supposition - the guy went to syria - one more of our '''moderate syrian rebels''' born in the uk too..

    but don't anyone in the west examine that connection...msm will happily avoid it too..

    thanks for the many informative comments/posts.. this reads straight up to me- no need for a conspiracy theory..

    @5 jfl... yeah, but being politicians - no matter what stripe,they have difficulty stating the truth.. it's too cold and unappealing generally..

    Shakesvshav | May 24, 2017 11:53:31 AM | 40
    The Tory "strong and stable" slogan, repeated over and over again Goebbels-style, is now widely derided and replaced with "weak and wobbly".
    Pnyx | May 24, 2017 12:49:53 PM | 43
    Yesterday, when was listening to so called terrorism expert explaining what to do next to confront the problem I thought the first thing to do would be to stop help this people abroad. This vulgar-Macchiavellian scheme apart from being perverse obviously does not work. So I fully agree with B.
    Mina | May 24, 2017 1:07:55 PM | 44
    Somebody
    it seems that "the day after" the Riyadh summmit is full of excitement. Aoun was the first to say that he refused to endorse the stupid final document (Iran-bad-bad-bad), then today we had the KSA/Qatar row (see on Angry Arab) and now Sudan spitting on Egypt accusing them to help the Darfur rebels. Interesting days ahead.
    Armorica | May 24, 2017 1:18:12 PM | 45
    I think in order to understand what is really going on, the "terror attacks" in Europe must be analyzed within the "Gladio" frame (the „blowback" angle is wrong and misleading in my opinion).

    The important point is, „Gladio" cannot be dismissed (ridiculed) as just another „conspiracy theory" because of the trials in Italy and the confessions and testimonies resulting from these procedures. See also the excellent BBC- Timewatch documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGHXjO8wHsA

    Just a reminder - General Gianadelio Maletti, commander of the counter-intelligence section of the Italian military intelligence service from 1971 to 1975, testified in March 2001 (during the eighth trial regarding the 1969 Piazza Fontana bombings) that the CIA had had foreknowledge of the event. Also an Italian Senate-Commission report on the „Gladio" network, stated that "Those massacres, those bombs, those military actions had been organized, promoted or supported by men inside Italian state institutions and . by men linked to the structures of United States intelligence."

    A key role within the criminal, subversive Gladio-network (sometimes referred to as a "state within a state" or a "shadow government") was played by a Masonic lodge: P2 (Propaganda Due) which served as a conduit for drug trafficking, money laundering, gun running activities of the CIA (including „Iran-Contra").

    The investigation of the activities of „P2" in the 1980s revealed a conspiratorial network of leading personnel in the POLICE, the MILITARY, the economy, Politics, the mafia and the „INTELLIGENCE" AGENCIES (not to forget – important journalists were also involved).

    The well-founded suspicion, that this secret, fascist „brotherhood" had harboured plans for a coup d'état (in case the „left" would join the government) and was heavily involved in the false-flag terror-attacks during the 1970s in Italy was later confirmed in the legal proceedings.

    In those days they used (fabricated) Neo-Nazis, „radicalized" them against the left, trained them in „terrorist" skills and gave them the material, weapons and other logistical support they needed.

    Most importantly – their crimes were instigated and covered by the very „security" forces which are supposed to protect us: the police, the interior ministry, the intelligence agencies, the military, etc. – and of course blamed on „the left" so that any coalition government with these „radicals" would be regarded as totally unacceptable.

    So assuming that these fascist, covert networks still exist in some form („the deep state"), we must realize that all information we get about the alleged „terror-incidents" is distributed & controlled by the same people who are involved in their fabrication

    Fast forward to 2017: 16 yrs after the „9/11" ZioCon Mega-PSYOP it should be clear that „Gladio B" (as Sibel Edmonds calls it) was a huge success: when you are planning to „transform" the Middle East into a cauldron of unspeakable violence and ethnic enclaves, without getting your hands (officially) dirty, Neo-Nazis are not the (proxy) weapon of choice.

    But Wahabi-indoctrinated, jobless „losers" and criminals from impoverished Muslim countries are – thanks to the boundless generosity of POTUS Donald's new best friends: the degenerated, utterly corrupt, retrograde, tyrannical Saudis. When these brain-washed kids come out of the Madrassas, they are no longer able to think for themselves so now the CIA and other experts in „covert & special operations" take over: they train them in paramilitary skills, give them weapons and use them as barbaric proxies (and pretext to intervene) against the enemy du jour (Assad).

    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 1:26:24 PM | 46
    >>>> Pnyx | May 24, 2017 12:49:53 PM | 43
    This vulgar-Macchiavellian scheme apart from being perverse obviously does not work.
    How dare you insult Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli. He had the intellect and knowledge to understand what to do.

    Clinton, probably the architect of the most recent crap has neither the intelligence nor knowledge to achieve anything but screwing up wherever she sticks her oar.

    I recently came across a post on an American liberal blog about ethical storytelling which started out using the blatant propaganda of the crematorium at Sednaya as if it were the truth. In my traditional Enlightenment view, I thought this was wrong but then I realised that was just so 20th century of me - I'd failed to grasp that for American liberal interventionists like Clinton whatever they chose to do is ethical and moral because they are the new gods who must be obeyed.

    Armorica | May 24, 2017 1:27:22 PM | 47
    Part 2

    Of course no truly religious person would murder innocent people in foreign countries, let alone chop off their heads and limbs, so (literally) empathy-killing drugs (tons of Captagon / Fenethyllin/ Amphetamines) are fed to the proxy-armies of KSA & USrael:

    http://www.konbini.com/fr/tendances-2/interview-specialiste-captagon/ ( I could not access the English version)

    French neuro-biologist Jean-Pol Tassin explains in the interview that Captagon prevents the self-regulation of the brain's neurotransmitter-system – with catastrophic consequences:

    „The chemical reward-system in our brain signals to us, in which mental and physical state we are in (whether we have „enough" of sg or „not enough" i.e. to continue or stop eating). With Captagon the tricked system always signals „full": no fear, no pain, no hunger, no need to sleep, etc. The user of the drug gets the message „everything is perfect", even when everything is wrong. This means even death (of yourself or someone else) does not matter anymore: the most basic, moral scruples and the drive for self-preservation have been deactivated.

    A feeling of invincibleness, of boundless self-confidence kicks in. There is no more pain, no more fear of death. Actions are being carried out AS IF THE PERSON WAS PROGRAMMED TO DO THEM " (MK Ultra 2.0?)

    This is a much more plausible explanation for „suicide"-bombers, crazy, out of the blue knife-attacks and the horrific barbarism in Syria than religious fanaticism, which merely serves as a cover in my opinion (and to demonize Islam and Muslims of course to the great advantage of the Zionists ...).

    So I don't believe a word they are saying about the „attacker" in Manchester and by the way I cannot follow your logic B: if the alleged perpetrator hated Gaddafi (was a sympathizer of LIFG) then why would he want „revenge" in Britain? It does not make any sense to me

    From The Hague | May 24, 2017 1:44:35 PM | 48
    Armorica #47 Of course no truly religious person would murder innocent people in foreign countries,

    Obviously Armorica never heard of jihad.

    somebody | May 24, 2017 2:04:02 PM | 49
    Posted by: Armorica | May 24, 2017 1:27:22 PM | 47

    The interview you link to explicitely says that the free will of the terrorist to do it is necessary before he takes the captagon.

    Dans l'éventualité où ils auraient pris du Captagon, ils auraient perdu leur libre arbitre pendant la durée de l'attaque et de l'effet de la drogue. Mais de toute façon, ce libre arbitre, ils l'avaient avant et après les séances de préparation des attaques. Ce n'est pas une altération des cinq sens mais c'est une altération du jugement.

    Libya is a hornet's nest. Renegade Libyan faction accuses Britain of nurturing Manchester terror attacker

    One of Libya's most powerful armed factions has accused Britain of harbouring and supporting the terrorist group it says was behind the Manchester Arena bombing.

    The Tobruk-led Libyan Government, which is not recognized by the United Nations but controls a large swathe of eastern Libya, said Manchester-born bomber Salman Abedi was part of a group that operated with the "prior knowledge and consent" of successive British governments.

    In statement released on Wednesday, the government accused Britain and other Western powers of backing jihadist extremist groups in the country trying to install a government that would turn the country into an "exporter of terror."

    "This cowardly attack was an imminent result of terrorist groups actions that have been operating for years in the UK, that include the Libyan Fighting Group which has been recruiting Libyan and Muslim youth in the UK and Europe and sending them to Libya and other countries to deliver terrorism and death," the Tobruk-based government said in a statement.

    "The previous British government has been pressuring in every way possible the prevalence of these groups and their control of Libya, while these groups have been destroying our cities and towns in an attempt to shape Libya into an exporter of terror to the whole planet".

    Salman Abedi's father, Ramadam Abedi, is believed to have been a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a group founded in 1995 to pursue the violent overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi's military dictatorship.

    The Torygraph is very much engaged in this. How come?

    somebody | May 24, 2017 2:14:40 PM | 51
    48
    nor of the crusades and the inquisition ...

    This here is CNN now .

    Abedi's travel is being scrutinized because recent intelligence obtained by the US suggests that ISIS has set up an external operations wing in Libya tasked with plotting attacks in Europe. The group has already used Libyan soil to train recruits for attacks in Tunisia. Anis Amri, the Tunisian extremist who killed 14 in Berlin last December, was reportedly in communication with the group in Libya before his attack via an encryption app.

    NATO just agreed to join the fight against terror without any boots.

    Drumming for support of a Libyan invasion instead of Syria, again?

    Armorica | May 24, 2017 2:15:31 PM | 52
    "From the Hague"

    obviously you did not comprehend the point I was making: the phony "Jihad"-label is being used to achieve 2 things:

    1) to abuse "religion" (in this case a perverted version of Islam) as a political weapon and a cover for the real motives behind the organized violence (prevent self-determination and unification of the Arabs)

    (...which has also worked extremely well for the Zionists and their original sponsors, the racist "elites" of the British Empire)

    2) to ensure absolute obedience since the brain-washed crusaders / "holy warriors" (in reality the proxies of empire)must believe they are following "God's will" so all moral scruples no longer count ...

    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 2:25:22 PM | 53
    >>>> Armorica | May 24, 2017 1:27:22 PM | 47
    So I don't believe a word they are saying about the „attacker" in Manchester and by the way I cannot follow your logic B: if the alleged perpetrator hated Gaddafi (was a sympathizer of LIFG) then why would he want „revenge" in Britain? It does not make any sense to me

    Because they hate the West as much as they hated Gaddafi.

    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 2:32:47 PM | 54
    >>>> somebody | May 24, 2017 2:14:40 PM | 51
    NATO just agreed to join the fight against terror without any boots. Drumming for support of a Libyan invasion instead of Syria, again?

    Not according to AMN

    "This means that the AWACS will not just do airspace surveillance but airspace management ," the AFP quoted a diplomat saying, asking not to be identified.

    "They are going to coordinate the flights and direct airplanes over Syria and Iraq but only for flights which are not related to bombings."

    I don't imagine the Russians will take kindly to NATO "airspace management" in Syrian airspace.

    somebody | May 24, 2017 2:36:26 PM | 56
    Posted by: Ghostship | May 24, 2017 2:25:22 PM | 53

    I doubt that. But a lot of people are interested in that ISIS remains relevant. GLADIO did not have to invent communism. The war on terror has to produce its enemy.

    Mina | May 24, 2017 2:52:43 PM | 57
    'revenge' in britain has to do with dead kids under clean bombs everyday everywhere. don't ask them for any political understanding, otherwise they would not have chosen a Salman to do just what Salman did not want him to do on that precise day.
    Mina | May 24, 2017 2:53:56 PM | 58
    Libyan invasion because it is summer and there is going to be a rate of 1000 dead at sea per day if things go on?
    dh | May 24, 2017 2:54:37 PM | 59
    @54 Could the AWACS just possibly be monitoring 'de-confliction zones'?

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/russias-no-fly-zones-in-syria-arent-a-problem-says-us-air-commander/article/2624046

    Mina | May 24, 2017 2:56:49 PM | 60
    Interesting developments in the riff between Qatar and KSA http://angryarab.blogspot.nl/2017/05/the-director-of-official-saudi-lobby-in.html
    Just Sayin' | May 24, 2017 3:34:03 PM | 61
    Interesting developments in the riff between Qatar and KSA
    http://angryarab.blogspot.nl/2017/05/the-director-of-official-saudi-lobby-in.html

    Posted by: Mina | May 24, 2017 2:56:49 PM | 60

    -------------------------

    There's a rift? How could that be!! They started a war in Syria together, They want to build a pipeline togehter,

    Surely there could be no rift between such close war-making friends?

    • " Qatari-Saudi feud out in the open".
    • " Stupid Western media theories about the origins of the Saudi-Qatari rift".

    Mr Angry certainly certainly wants credit for thinking so

    somebody | May 24, 2017 3:44:54 PM | 62
    Manchester terror attack creating a huge wave. The Guardian: Libyans in Uk warned about Manchester radicalisation for years
    Members of Britain's Libyan diaspora have said they warned UK authorities for years about Islamist radicalisation taking place in Manchester, as investigations continued into Salman Abedi's contacts before the bombing in the city.

    Salah Suhbi, an MP in Libya who grew up in Sheffield, said Libyans in Manchester had been warning about terrorist recruiters operating openly in the city.

    "Manchester has the biggest community of Libyans in Britain and they know exactly what's happening, there's a recruitment policy, we've been warning about it for years," he said. "People have been talking about this for the past three or four years, how ruthless they [the Islamist recruiters] are. These people are recruiting from the second and third generation Libyan Brits or Arab Brits."

    Britain has strong links with Libya, and the prime minister of the UN-backed Tripoli government, Fayez Sarraj, settled his family in the UK.

    Casowary Gentry | May 24, 2017 3:50:02 PM | 63
    @29
    "practical and realistic"... What I propose is exactly that. It works for Japan.

    Reagan was fond of saying to naysayers, who claimed there were no simple solutions, that there were simple solutions, just not easy ones.

    It would take courage to withstand the brickbats from certain quarters, but an unsentimental view of the various dimensions of Islam would lead to the realization that Islam itself is the problem. So called radical islam is just an unavoidable aspect of Islam itself. The religion is shot through with elements that make it absolutely incompatible with civilized societies. Islam doesn't "do" pluralism and it never will. The only way people who become refugees from Islamic countries will ever be free will be when they are free from Islam and that is why we in the west should exclude it from our bodies politic.

    "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

    A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

    Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

    Winston Churchill
    The River War
    1899

    Sam | May 24, 2017 4:11:48 PM | 64
    Al-Arabiya English on the feud. It has dramatic music and shows what a joke the arab vassals are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWSF5I4I3Lw
    Win | May 24, 2017 4:16:20 PM | 65
    "I have seen suggestions that the attack in Manchester was initiated by "deep state" Gladio forces to help Theresa May win the British election. That is possible -British secret services knew the culprit well- but it is unlikely in my view. May is predicted to win by a wide margin and there is no need to take the risk such a plan would inevitably entail. A blowback from supporting takfiri terrorists in foreign countries is the much more likely explanation."

    The British Secret services have the ability and the resources to allow this to happen. If they knew he was a terrorist they should have kept an eye on him 24/7. They have the ability and the resources to do this. But they didn't keep him under surveillance, or maybe they did. Whatever way they allowed this bombing to happen because they could have stopped it. Perhaps even helped along the way with the radicalisation.

    While May is predicted to win by a large margin, there is still the Trump and Brexit 'who would have though aye' factor. Easier to not take chances. And how the heck do you prove MI5 or 6 let it go ahead anyhow. Mainstream media would put any opposing narrative down to conspiracy theory. Secret services are more than just James Bond characters. We now need a new movie hero who depicts exactly what the OUR secret services are able to do. Not just the baddies.

    Mina | May 24, 2017 4:35:13 PM | 66
    Sam

    It seems that ksa and egypt want a few head scalps of qataris and turkish leaders. The leaks about the libyan background and possible MB connections of the guy.. plus the massacre 3 days ago by Farraj ppl in Brak al shatti of the Haftar ppl (supported by Egypt) seems related

    SlapHappy | May 24, 2017 4:36:32 PM | 67
    @ Win

    Watch the movie called "Clean Skin" with Sean Bean. It provides one of the best interpretations of how intelligence services foster terrorism to advance the agenda of the elite that I've ever seen in a movie. I saw it on Netflix, but I'm not sure if it's still available there.

    Mina | May 24, 2017 4:48:27 PM | 69
    Thinking twice i think Sam s vid is a hoax. Alarabiyya hacked too? Iranian hackers are having fun today!
    Win | May 24, 2017 4:48:47 PM | 70
    I forgot to add that Teresa May's slogan "strong and stable" leadership -- which she compares to Corbyn's "coalition of chaos," neatly fits into this British Secret Services 'done it' theory. Of course after this, people are fearful. So who would they turn to? You guessed it. The timing of the bombing is also another factor. And apparently she isn't doing as well as she thought she would. The Guardian for some strange reason is now allowing positive articles about Corbyn. Could it be they now think he is not a threat?

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/22/europe/uk-pm-theresa-may-interview/index.html

    aaaa | May 24, 2017 4:51:31 PM | 71
    @67 but that's fake melodrama and probably stole most of its information from sites like this
    From The Hague | May 24, 2017 5:28:24 PM | 73
    And Churchill in 1921 knew that murdering innocent people is central to Wahabis
    They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/47480

    somebody | May 24, 2017 5:35:21 PM | 75
    It has shaken up the elections for sure but not for Theresa May.

    Daily Telegraph Security services missed five opportunities to stop the Manchester bomber

    May was home secretary then. It is not just the chancellor who will get elected but parliament, too.

    From the Telegraph

    The general election will resume with Ukip's general election manifesto launch today
    Jen | May 24, 2017 5:48:09 PM | 77
    Furthermore Wahhabism, the religion of choice of the Saudi royal family (whose founder Ibn Saud was sponsored by the British themselves, to break Ottoman control of the eastern Mediterranean and Iraq), is not Islam.

    Who would say Opus Dei is Roman Catholicism, or that Hindutva is Hinduism?

    Churchill also advocated for the use of mustard gas against people in Iraq for daring to want their own independent state. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article999.htm

    Also quoting Daniel Pipes, a known supporter of regime change in the Middle East, does not do much for a commenter's reputation at this MoA bar.

    somebody | May 24, 2017 5:49:48 PM | 78
    Mark Curtis:The British establishment is putting our lives at risk
    Theresa May's government, as previous governments, have endangered the British public by the relationship they choose to have with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. In recent months, May has signed up Britain to a new generation of special relationships with these states, based on selling more arms and providing more training of their militaries and security forces to keep the ruling families in power. All this has been done on the quiet, with scant government or media reporting. We are set for another generation of domestic tyranny in Gulf and foreign Islamist adventures, all now helped by raising the enemy of 'Iran' – a foreign policy agenda being set by Riyadh and recently helped by President Trump's preposterous invocation of Iran as the major sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East.

    We are in serious trouble unless this all changes. Our leaders' policies are endangering us, and are among our major threats. The terrorism that we, ordinary people, face, derives from an ideology and infrastructure to which our leaders, claiming to protect us, have contributed. We desperately need another foreign policy entirely, one based on support for those promoting democracy and human rights – rather on than those with contempt for them.

    Debsisdead | May 24, 2017 5:51:43 PM | 79
    I also doubt that the May gang were in on the bombing - there is just too much of a risk and the fact that it occurred within a day of the poll shift is a big stretch - that anyone especially the incompetent leak ridden englander intelligence services could get such an op up and running in the space of a couple of days just doesn't ring true.

    That said, May is exploiting the bombing for all it's worth - relying on set pieces of her being shown acting 'in control' cranking up the threat level to the highest it has been in years and filling the streets with armed soldiers.

    My Corbyn will be lucky to get a look in for the next few weeks & by that time it will be over. The Sun/Mail readers don't listen to statistics they live off the tasty bite sized chunks of bullshit they are fed and we can expect that the lie Mr Corbyn is a friend of terrorists will be snarked into every available situation.

    I'm sure he won't give up he's not a quitter but unless something really untoward surfaces, it is all over - he's been done like a kipper.

    He will do better than any of his neoliberal Labour Party predecessors (Brown, Milliband et al) but the media right across the narrow political spectrum of english fishwraps will announce he is a failure & try to convince the party to purge him.

    From The Hague | May 24, 2017 5:53:12 PM | 80
    Jen #77
    Know nothing about Daniel Pipes. I just sought the first link for that Churchill-quote. But Wahhabism is not Islam? Tell them. (and give them a GOOD link, that will impress them!)
    Alain | May 24, 2017 6:01:03 PM | 81
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article196454.html Very interesting article (unfortunatly in french, should be translated shortly by site's staff) that gives a very plausible backgrounder on the Manchester attacker. In short the guy has been a western intelligence asset for a long time, was probably not a muslim radical willing to die to blow up teenagers and is likely to have been remote detonated by his handlers which incidentally allowed them to get rid of someone who probably knew to much.

    The operator of this website is known for his connections in the intelligence community. He does not explain how he came across this information.

    Peter AU | May 24, 2017 6:25:22 PM | 82
    It is doubtful the Manchester attack had anything to do with local UK politics. Very likely aimed at boosting NATO into the anti Syria (ISIS) coalition.
    From The Hague | May 24, 2017 6:51:45 PM | 85
    Jen #77 follow-up

    We are waiting.

    Does this link suit you?

    Do not fall victim to the false propaganda that Wahhabism doesn't represent Islam. It so does. Wahhabis don't refer to themselves as such. They call themselves Muslims. Abdul-wahhab, "founder" of Wahhabism, didn't come up with his own rules. Rather, he called to monotheism and skipping "schools of thoughts" by going directly to the Hadith and Quran. In other words, it's pure Islam. Barebones Islam. Puritan Islam. Doesn't get more "Islam" than this.
    https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/2nio9e/the_wahhabism_is_not_real_islam_fallacy_im_sorry/
    Sam | May 24, 2017 7:09:57 PM | 88
    @85 From The Hague

    Reddit?

    You are dead right, that is why the name Saudi Arabia was created by a British Officer. The purest form of Islam is one where it was a vassalage to Britain then the USA. The purest form, were the Othmanic empire and all its neighbours denounced them, and then ended up killing the leader at the time with their first uprising. The last time, the British made sure they became a success.

    For a pure form, it sure likes to enslave it self to the USA. Only thing that has kept the USA afloat has been the petrodollar. If it wasn't for that, it would have collapsed a long time ago.

    Giap | May 24, 2017 7:35:52 PM | 90
    'We came, we conquered, he died' - are you laughing now bitch? Blood all over Cammerons, Sakozy and your hands.
    Pft | May 24, 2017 7:36:54 PM | 91
    Before every election in Europe in recent years there is a terror attack that helps the war party get elected. Its false flags going viral. You can blame it on ISIS and may be right since guess who created funds snd arms ISIS. Partners.
    jfl | May 24, 2017 7:48:11 PM | 92
    @78 somebody

    that's the kind of thing that ought to be getting traction now. i saw that corbyn has instead 'united' with may in the battle of britain, or some such nonsense? if that's the case not much will change in britain. the 'socialists' of britain will get 'berned' just as were the youngsters supporting sanders in the usofa. talk of ending 'the wars' is verboten.

    falcemartello | May 24, 2017 7:58:43 PM | 93
    Yesterdays news gets wrapped in todays fish. Terry Meyseein at voltairenet blew the whole charade and the anglo-zionist plot to destabilise Syria having Libya as its spear head.

    It is amazing the dystopic dissonance that we in the west are living in. I still think it is a bit of both Gladio B and C. Western governments can no longer formulate the narrative in a way that the sheeple might follow them. The west has entered that critical 16 percent of cynicism. The tipping point. Israel,western exceptionalism and modern capitalism are all being challenged. No one expected a leader like Putin and a country like Iran to have such powerful deterrence to the cabalist plan of global governance.

    May regime has a large lead but it appears the grass roots sector of the UK population are not buying their hollow rhetoric . Meanwhile Crobyn, SNP, and the Lib Democrats are revealing the cracks in the tories politics. Hence this recent attack like the one in Paris before the Macron charade had its place. Being the cynic I am I think it is all part of the deception that we ion the west have been going thru since 9/11.

    Great work Moon of Alabama along with Voltaire Net are by far the best sites with regards to geopolitics.

    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 8:07:44 PM | 95
    >>>> From The Hague | May 24, 2017 5:28:24 PM | 73
    And Churchill in 1921 knew that murdering innocent people is central to Wahabis

    Didn't stop him doing deals with the Saudis.

    Debsisdead | May 24, 2017 8:08:02 PM | 96
    Well I fired Alain's link at #81 through google translate (I know ) here is the result

    I have no way of determining the veracity of the author, but if true and this does leak into the UK, Teresa is in more shit than a Mangere duck as they say in Aotearoa.

    It seems the patsy/perp's dad is an MI6 employee who once worked for the colonel in Intelligence until the brits persuaded him to attempt an assassination of the Colonel back in 1992. The englanders got him out and he has been the go to man for investigating Libyan connections to AQ & ISIS ever since. Lately he has been based in Libya where he has most likely been the point of contact between england and the UN backed universally despised in Libya, unelected 'government'.

    No wonder the englaander media has been whining about amerikan and french 'leaks' of the information they have shared. The amerikan stuff which has mostly been photos of blood stained bomb parts has been reprinted in the englander press. Last time I looked the French stuff was condemed but not repeated.

    Form your own opinions but it seems something is up even if this is just France's appreciation of brexit. That would indicate the truth of the subject.

    Remember too that it was Libya who Churchill concentrated most of his military resources at the time when England itself was under siege and expecting a German invasion. Libya has been the target of the greedy eurotrash of england, france, germany & italy since the invention of the automobile.

    Petri Krohn | May 24, 2017 8:34:49 PM | 98
    SAVED FROM THE MEMORY HOLE:
    The teenage Libyan rebel from Manchester - 11 June 2011

    He's a 19-year-old college student. He was raised in Britain. But his father is Libyan and is in Tripoli now. To protect them both, we're not showing his face or giving his name. But we have an exclusive video which shows his training with a unit of the rebel army called the Tripoli Brigade. His training – in Benghazi – took two months.

    Briefly back home to sit his exams – and to see his mother – he told me there were other rebel recruits from Manchester – and the west.

    "We were training on how to to use the guns and weaponry and big anti-aircraft guns, so hopefully when I do return I'll be sent to the front line with my brothers," he told me.

    Actually the Channel 4 article is yet another collection of half-truths, factoids , and lies: 1) It makes it sound like Libyans in Manchester were the victims of Gaddafi's aggression. 2) The reporter does not even ask, if the British government or the Secret Services are supporting these "rebels".

    It is still interesting though. This is why The Powers That Be have the Memory Hole. The official narrative changes. If proles were allowed to compare the old and new narrative or pieces of them side by side, they would notice it is all lies.

    Martin | May 24, 2017 8:39:56 PM | 99
    @80 from the hague
    Know nothing about anything after reading your posts
    Ghostship | May 24, 2017 8:46:55 PM | 100
    From The Hague | May 24, 2017 6:51:45 PM | 85
    Does this link suit you?
    What, to so no-name blogger on Reddit?
    Do not fall victim to the false propaganda that Wahhabism doesn't represent Islam. It so does.
    That is like saying the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Wahhabiyyah is not even recognised as one of the eight schools of Islam. Instead it's a cult/sect of Islamic Fundamentalists that has aligned itself with the al Saud family. That they're Muslims doesn't mean they're representative of any of the schools of Islam except for morons like you.

    [May 24, 2017] Fire Burn and Cauldron Bubble for Trump by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup. ..."
    "... Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, ..."
    "... So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters. ..."
    May 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    "Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble."
    The witches in Macbeth.

    President Trump's administration is now at a high boil as he faces intense heat from all sides. The Republican Party has backed away from their embattled president. US intelligence agencies are baying for his blood. The US media plays the role of the witches in 'Macbeth' as it plots against Trump.

    One increasingly hears whispers about impeachment or the wonderful 1964 film about a military coup in Washington, 'Seven Days in May.'

    As in Shakespeare's King Lear, Trump stands almost alone on a blasted heath, howling that he has been betrayed. The world watches on in dismay and shock.

    One thing is clear: the US presidency has become too powerful when far-fetched talk of possibly Russian involvement in Trump's campaign could send world financial markets into a crash dive. And when Trump's ill informed, off the cuff remarks can endanger the fragile global balance of power.

    Trump has made this huge mess and must now live with it. Yes, he is being treated unfairly by appointment of a special prosecutor when the titanic sleaze of the Clintons was never investigated. But that's what happens when you are widely detested. No mercy for Trump, a man without any mercy for others.

    Trump is not a Manchurian candidate put into office by Moscow though his bungling aides and iffy financial deals often made it appear so. His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy. Who else paid off Flynn? Disgraceful.

    But what about all the politicians and officials who took and take money from the Saudis and Gulf emirates, or Sheldon Adelson, the ardent advocate of Greater Israel? What about political payoffs to the flat-earth Republicans who now act as Israel's amen chorus in Washington?

    The growing scandals that are engulfing Trump's presidency seem likely to delay if not defeat the president's laudatory proposals to lower taxes, prune the bureaucracy, clean up intelligence, end America's foreign wars, and impose some sort of peace in the Mideast.

    By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.

    No wonder Trump stands almost alone, like Rome's Horatio at the Bridge. One increasingly hears in Washington 'what Trump needs is a little war.'

    That would quickly wrong-foot his critics and force the neocon media – Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and CNN – to back him. We already saw this happen when Trump fired salvos of cruise missiles at Syria. It would also provide welcome distraction from the investigations of Trump that are beginning.

    Trump has appeared to be pawing the ground in a desire to attack naughty North Korea or Syria, and maybe even Yemen, Somalia or Sudan. A war against any of these small nations would allow the president to don military gear and beat his chest – as did the dunce George W. Bush. Bomb the usual Arabs!

    Timur The Lame , May 21, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT

    ' As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents. more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

    Shee-it! I thought Dubya accomplished this . Apparently the M'urkan public is being defiant and really wants to flaunt it's ignorance. Well, howdee! we got us a real contest goin' on now. Trump is obviously the proverbial monkey with a machine-gun. My inner survival instincts are starting to kick in. Does anyone see this this presidency as leveling out and trying to conduct business like you know as it has been in the last 200 years?

    This is too insane. I honestly think that some kind of the fix is in. How? Don't know.

    Every (real) man for himself now.

    Cheers-

    WorkingClass , May 21, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT

    By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.

    No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.

    Hunsdon , May 21, 2017 at 9:22 pm GMT

    Eric wrote: His choice of the fanatical Islamophobe Gen. Michael Flynn was an awful blunder. Flynn was revealed to have taken money from Turkey to alter US Mideast policy.

    Hunsdon said: The notorious Islamophobe, in pay of the Next Sultan? Too delicious.

    Promintory Rider , May 21, 2017 at 11:18 pm GMT

    Hilllary is of course also widely detested. In many ways, the last election was a contest about who the American people hate more, and Hillary got the award for Most Hated. Both candidates got a large percent of their votes from people who were voting against their opponent. Outside of CA, NY, and MA, more people hated Hillary, and the Electoral College was put into place precisely to keep a big state or a couple of big states from dominating the election of a President. Even in the 1780′s, many Americans didn't want NY to have the power to pick a President on their own.

    So, it turns out that Hillary is detested by the 'wrong' people. Hillary won the vote for most hated. But she's never investigated, the Clinton's are never charged. Bill openly violated election campaigning laws in MA, but no investigation, no charges. The Clintons have become filthy rich during a life of public service, but no investigations, no charges. And if you even want to hear about it, you have to turn off the corporate press and find independent reporters.

    Thus, its not that Trust is simply the most detested. He's not. At worst, the last election said he's the second most detested person in the country. But, the "right" people all detest him. So, a small minority of government insiders and the members of the media want to run him out of town.

    There's things he's done since he's been elected that I don't like. I don't like the way that saying he was against regime change and more wars in the middle east has turned out to be a massive lie. But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.

    If not, then CA and NY and the Deep State and the Media millionaires will run this country and everyone will know that elections don't matter.

    Miro23 , May 22, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT

    But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.

    This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue by issue basis.

    If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation, or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political trouble.

    "Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on their electability.

    If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.

    balderdash , May 23, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT

    @WorkingClass


    By recklessly proposing these reforms at the same time, Trump earned the hatred of the media, federal government, all intelligence agencies, and the Israel lobby, not to mention ecologists, free-thinkers, cultured people, academia and just about everyone else who does not raise cotton or abuse animals for a living.
    No mention of the 63 millions who voted for him. Trumps enemies will make sure there is no peace until Trump is driven from office. Blowback will insure there is no peace after the coup.
    bob balkas , May 23, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT

    Few ruling classes had an opportunity to build an idyllical structure of society and governance over the last four centuries as the two ruling US classes had.

    Instead, they created numerous cliquish cliques and with political powers of each clique diminishing from the two top classes down to the last class: prisoners, indigenes, white and black trash.

    Eileen Kuch , May 23, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT

    @Miro23


    But still, this is rapidly getting to the point where the American people are going to need to speak up and tell their representatives and senators, especially the Republicans, that Trump was elected President and they don't want to see a coup remove him.
    This is exactly right, and as others have said, the place to do this is a state level by reestablishing a close contact between the public and their representatives and senators on a detailed issue by issue basis.

    If their representative is part of the chorus supporting a "Russian Hacking " investigation, or is an advocate of further wars then they have to understand that they are in real political trouble.

    "Political Trouble" is a large scale, local, well organized and continuous public attack on their electability.

    If the public are to lazy to do this then they'll deserve what they get.

    [May 24, 2017] Americas Culture War On Russia by Rod Dreher

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wish the US and Russia were more friendly, but we are hostile foreign powers to each other ..."
    "... Planned Parenthood v. Casey ..."
    May 24, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The other day on this blog, in a discussion of Team Trump'sdodgy relations with Russian officials, I described Russia as a "hostile foreign power." Some of you objected to that, saying that Russia is actually friendly. That's simply not true. I mean, I wish the US and Russia were more friendly, but we are hostile foreign powers to each other . After all, it was the United States that pushed post Cold War NATO to the Russian border. Maybe we had good reasons for that (or not), but there's no rational way for the Russians to see it other than a hostile act.

    In The Atlantic last week, Sigal Samuel wrote about Russian (and Eastern European) anxiety about America's hostility on the culture war front :

    In many Central and Eastern European countries, people are concerned about America's influence on Russia and on their own nations-and they want Russia to push back, according to a major new Pew Research Center survey.

    The results of the survey -released, by coincidence, just hours after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov visited the White House and joked about Comey's firing-reveal that in most nations with Orthodox Christian majorities, Russia is seen as an important buffer against the influence of the West. Because the study was conducted between June 2015 and July 2016, before Trump's election, it does not capture any shifts in public opinion that his administration may have provoked. Still, the survey offers illuminating insights into how America is perceived, and about how those perceptions correlate with religious identity.

    There are complex reasons why the Orthosphere nations see the West as a threat, including economic ones. However:

    But the perception of clashing values goes beyond different economic models. Pheiffer Noble added that there is a widespread sense among Russians that they are safeguarding civilization, be it through the conservative gender norms and sexual norms they advocate, the literature they produce, or the soldiers they send off to war in every generation. "In Russian culture, they have their canon, and their canon is pretty impressive," she said. "They've got Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. They've got iconography. They've got the idea of suffering as a cultural value-and they feel like they're also winning at that."

    Sergei Chapnin, the former editor of the official journal of the Russian Orthodox Church, agreed that many Russians feel their country is both integral to European culture and superior to it. (Indeed, 69 percent say their "culture is superior to others," the survey shows.) "We have a desire to cooperate with Europe and to call Europe an enemy," he said. "These exist at the same time in the mass consciousness in Russia." But he also warned that "politicians manipulate" this psychological tension, appealing sometimes to pro-Western feeling and sometimes to anti-Western feeling, in order to serve their own purposes.

    Well, sure. But that doesn't mean the psychological and cultural tensions aren't real, and important. It's very difficult for Americans to think of ourselves as anything but bearers of light and goodness to the nations of the world. Along those lines, many of us (especially secular liberals) see resistance to American values - and, more broadly, secular Western values - as a sign of irrational prejudice. The presumption that Western values are universal values is very strong.

    These values are globally powerful not so much because they are true (though they may be), but because they are borne by the most economically and culturally powerful nations on earth, especially the United States. Ryszard Legutko, the Polish Catholic political philosopher, writes about how Western liberalism has come to mimic the coercive and unjust ways of the communism it displaced in Eastern Europe. Cultural imperialism is a real thing, and it is no less imperialistic because it hides its aggressiveness from the aggressors. As Legutko puts it, "The liberal-democratic man, especially if he is an intellectual or an artist, is very reluctant to learn, but, at the same time, all too eager to teach."

    When it comes to Orthodox Christianity and Orthodox Christian peoples, many Westerners assume that the Orthodox are just like our Christians, except they use more incense and come in more pronounced ethnic flavors. I used to be this way too, before I entered Orthodoxy in 2006. At that time, a fellow convert in my parish told me to be patient, that it would take at least a decade for my mind to begin thinking like an Orthodox Christian. I didn't understand that. I thought it would simply be a matter of getting used to a few doctrinal changes, and a different way of worship. Not true. Orthodoxy is not so much a set of propositions as it is a way of being in the world - a way that has for the most part not been conditioned by the experience of modernity, as Western Christianity has.

    I'm not here to argue whether that's a good or a bad thing, though I think it's mostly a good thing. My point is that Orthodox Christian civilization is meaningfully different from Western civilization, which assumes that liberal individualism is the correct social model.

    In the US, for example, our religious culture has been dramatically shaped by Evangelical Protestantism, the Enlightenment, and capitalism - all modern phenomenon that understand religion in individualistic, voluntary terms. Orthodox cultures have a much more traditional form of Christianity and morality, and see religion in far more communal terms - as it was seen in the West prior to the Reformation and the Enlightenment. Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, has correctly described the basic principle of Western cultural life today as affirming the individual's freedom of choice, which includes diminishing the role of religion in public life. Kirill continued:

    We cannot say that we live in a completely peaceful environment. Today there are battles without roar of guns, and the enemy who threatens us does not visibly cross our borders. However, we are all involved into what the Orthodox tradition calls 'the invisible battle'. Everyone today is involved in this battle. We are offered a chaos, but we should not be bought by these recommendations and should not participate in the creation of chaos We are offered sin, a destruction of the moral foundations.

    In an academic paper about differences between the West and the Orthodox East on the meaning of human rights , law professor Mark Movsesian has written:

    The [Russian Orthodox Church's social teaching's] ambivalence about individual rights and its emphasis on the religious community reflect central themes in Orthodox thought, which distrusts Western-style individualism. It is not simply a matter of rejecting the "excesses of individualism" in the matter of Western communitarian scholars. Orthodoxy often expresses discomfort with the very idea of the autonomous individual as a rights-holder. Orthodox thought emphasizes the relational self: a person is defined by relationship to others in the body of the Church. As Daniel Payne writes, "the Orthodox tradition understands the human being ecclesially rather than individualistically." As a consequence, the tradition has a problem with the idea of individual rights in the Western manner. "[I]f there is any concept of rights in Orthodox political culture," Payne explains, it is not individual rights, but "group rights."

    Moreover, Orthodox thought conflates religious and national identities in a stronger way than in the West. To be sure, religion can serve as a marker of national and cultural identity in the West as well; consider Italy and Poland. And citizenship in Orthodox countries is not directly tied to religion; as a formal matter, one can be a Russian citizen and not an Orthodox Christian. But religion and nationality are intertwined in a particularly powerful way in the Orthodox world. In Russia, for example, it is a "widely accepted idea"-"shared by politicians, intellectuals and clergy"-that Orthodoxy is the fundamental factor in national identity. Other historical and ethnic factors pale in comparison. The same may be said for other Orthodox countries, like Greece.

    This is hard for Westerners - including Westerners like me, who have converted to Orthodoxy - to grasp. I bristle, for example, at restrictions on religious liberty in Russia, in particular on the freedom of minority forms of Christianity. But this is because I have a Westernized view of how religion relates to society. As Movsesian says elsewhere in the same law journal paper (for which there is no link), the Catholic Church's current teachingon religious liberty is also informed by modernity's individualism.

    My point in this blog entry is not to argue for the superiority of one model over the other. I think both have their strengths and weaknesses. I do want, however, to point out that when Orthodox countries reject liberal Western ideas (e.g., gay rights, religious liberty), they are not necessarily doing so out of bigotry, but because they have a fundamentally different view on what the human person is, what the church is, and what society is. They see the West's war on their traditions in the name of secular liberalism as an act of aggression - and they're right. Many of us Westerners regard our actions instead as human rights activism, as fighting for basic liberties against structures of bigotry. But doing so requires accepting the modern Western way of seeing the world as normative - and assuming so is an act of cultural imperialism.

    Hey, sometimes cultural imperialism is defensible. It was a very good thing, for example, that the colonizing British in the 19th century put an end to the ancient Indian practice of suttee(widow-burning). Even so, we should practice self-awareness when we are being cultural imperialists, and understand how our cultural hegemony appears in the eyes of other civilizations.

    Contemporary America most fundamentally operates on the principle elucidated by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinion:

    At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

    Leaving aside the legal and philosophical incoherence of this statement, and the coercion it conceals, it is nevertheless an accurate précis of the way Americans think about the relationship between society and religion, or any other source of transcendent meaning. Orthodox countries rightly reject it, because it is profoundly untrue to their own traditions and ways of living. To the Orthodox mind, what Kennedy proposes here is not liberty at all, but a form ofbondage. Again, I'm not trying to convince you that the Orthodox view is correct, but only to point out that when Orthodox countries push back against Western "human rights" activists, it is a matter not only of self-defense, but defending themselves against what they genuinely believe to be lies that will destroy the fabric of society.

    [May 23, 2017] Are they really out to get Trump by Philip Girald

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump. ..."
    "... Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office. ..."
    "... Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process. ..."
    "... Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. ..."
    "... anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism. ..."
    "... Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes. ..."
    "... The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. ..."
    "... Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. ..."
    "... Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert! ..."
    "... The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship. ..."
    "... The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment. ..."
    "... The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand. ..."
    "... What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth. ..."
    "... Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks. ..."
    "... Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him. ..."
    "... Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? " ..."
    "... If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ? ..."
    "... Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ? ..."
    "... The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ? ..."
    "... I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course? ..."
    "... "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do." Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME. ..."
    "... Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on. ..."
    "... If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that. ..."
    "... I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. ..."
    "... The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence. ..."
    "... Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications. ..."
    "... While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades. ..."
    "... The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??) ..."
    "... I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought. ..."
    "... The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump. ..."
    "... The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.unz.com
    And what if there really is a conspiracy against Donald Trump being orchestrated within the various national security agencies that are part of the United States government? The president has been complaining for months about damaging leaks emanating from the intelligence community and the failure of Congress to pay any attention to the illegal dissemination of classified information. It is quite possible that Trump has become aware that there is actually something going on and that something just might be a conspiracy to delegitimize and somehow remove him from office.

    President Trump has also been insisting that the "Russian thing" is a made-up story, a view that I happen to agree with. I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20 th . In line with that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau, which Trump has described as "showboating."

    Two well-informed observers of the situation have recently joined in the discussion, Robert Parry of Consortiumnews and former CIA senior analyst Ray McGovern of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. McGovern has noted, as have I, that there is one individual who has been curiously absent from the list of former officials who have been called in to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee. That is ex-CIA Director John Brennan, who many have long considered an extreme Obama/Hillary Clinton loyalist long rumored to be at the center of the information damaging to Team Trump sent to Washington by friendly intelligence services, including the British.

    • Ray suggests that Brennan and also Comey may been at the center of a "Deep State" combined CIA-NSA-FBI cabal working to discredit the Trump candidacy and delegitimize his presidency. Brennan in particular was uniquely well placed to fabricate the Russian hacker narrative that has been fully embraced by Congress and the media even though no actual evidence supporting that claim has yet been produced. As WikiLeaks has now revealed that the CIA had the technical ability to hack into sites surreptitiously while leaving behind footprints that would attribute the hack to someone else, including the Russians, it does not take much imagination to consider that the alleged trail to Moscow might have been fabricated. If that is so, this false intelligence has in turn proven to be of immense value to those seeking to present "proof" that the Russian government handed the presidency to Donald Trump.
    • Robert Parry asked in an article on May 10 th whether we are seeing is "Watergate redux or 'Deep State' coup?" and then followed up with a second Piece "The 'Soft Coup' of Russia-gate" on the 13 th . In other words, is this all a cover-up of wrongdoing by the White House akin to President Richard Nixon's firing of Watergate independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox and the resignations of both the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General or is it something quite different, an undermining of an elected president who has not actually committed any "high crimes and misdemeanors" to force his removal from office.

    Like Parry, I am reluctant to embrace conspiracy theories, in my case largely because I believe a conspiracy is awfully hard to sustain. The federal government leaks like a sieve and if more than two conspirators ever meet in the CIA basement it would seem to me their discussion would become public knowledge within forty-eight hours, but perhaps what we are seeing here is less a formal arrangement than a group of individuals who are loosely connected while driven by a common objective.

    Parry sees the three key players in the scheme as John Brennan of CIA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and James Comey of the FBI. Comey's role in the "coup" was key as it consisted of using his office to undercut both Hillary Clinton and Trump, neither of whom was seen as a truly suitable candidate by the Deep State. He speculates that a broken election might well have resulted in a vote in the House of Representatives to elect the new president, a process that might have produced a Colin Powell presidency as Powell actually received three votes in the Electoral College and therefore was an acceptable candidate under the rules governing the electoral process.

    Yes, the scheme is bizarre, but Parry carefully documents how Russiagate has developed and how the national security and intelligence organs have been key players as it moved along, often working by leaking classified information. And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order. Parry notes, as would I, that to date no actual evidence has been presented to support allegations that Russia sought to influence the U.S. election and/or that Trump associates were somehow coopted by Moscow's intelligence services as part of the process. Nevertheless, anyone even vaguely connected with Trump who also had contact with Russia or Russians has been regarded as a potential traitor. Carter Page, for example, who was investigated under a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant, was under suspicion because he made a speech in Moscow which was mildly critical of the west's interaction with Russia after the fall of communism.

    Parry's point is that there is a growing Washington consensus that consists of traditional liberals and progressives as well as Democratic globalist interventionists and neoconservatives who believe that Donald Trump must be removed from office no matter what it takes.

    The interventionists and neocons in particular already control most of the foreign policy mechanisms but they continue to see Trump as a possible impediment to their plans for aggressive action against a host of enemies, most particularly Russia. As they are desirous of bringing down Trump "legally" through either impeachment or Article 25 of the Constitution which permits removal for incapacity, it might be termed a constitutional coup, though the other labels cited above also fit.

    The rationale Trump haters have fabricated is simple: the president and his team colluded with the Russians to rig the 2016 election in his favor, which, if true, would provide grounds for impeachment. The driving force, in terms of the argument being made, is that removing Trump must be done "for the good of the country" and to "correct a mistake made by the American voters."

    The mainstream media is completely on board of the process, including the outlets that flatter themselves by describing their national stature, most notably the New York Times and Washington Post.

    So what is to be done? For starters, until Donald Trump has unambiguously broken a law the critics should take a valium and relax. He is an elected president and his predecessors George W. Bush and Barack Obama certainly did plenty of things that in retrospect do not bear much scrutiny. Folks like Ray McGovern and Robert Parry should be listened to even when they are being provocative in their views. They are not, to be sure, friends of the White House in any conventional way and are not apologists for those in power, quite the contrary. Ray has been strongly critical of the current foreign policy, most particularly of the expansion of various wars, claims of Damascus's use of chemical weapons, and the cruise missile attack on Syria. Robert in his latest article describes Trump as narcissistic and politically incompetent. But their legitimate concerns are that we are moving in a direction that is far more dangerous than Trump. A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do. Are They Really Out to Get Trump? Sometimes paranoia is justified

    Philip Giraldi May 16, 2017 1,600 Words

    Dan Hayes , May 16, 2017 at 4:18 am GMT

    Brennan is a particularly unsavory character. There has been some baying-at-the-moon speculation that he is a Moslem convert!

    exiled off mainstreet , May 16, 2017 at 5:26 am GMT

    The coup, if successful, would probably mean the end of what would traditionally be considered to be a republican form of government in the US and its replacement by a deep state dictatorship.

    In light of what is being used, a phony claim of Russian interference with the US political system, the danger that nuclear war might be the outcome of this coup is real.

    utu , May 16, 2017 at 5:36 am GMT

    I don't know who Robert Parry is but to me this Colin Powell stuff is pure nonsense. At the same time my answer to the question "Are They Really Out to Get Trump?" is affirmative. Republicans and Democrats want Trump out and Pence in. The operation with Flynn who allegedly deceived Pence was part of this plan. That Trump fired Flynn was his greatest mistake in this game. It was not fatal yet. This was Their plan since the election or even earlier since Republican convention: have Trump step down and have Pence take over. After April 4th it seemed that They got Trump where They wanted him to be. Trump even became presidential. The escalation of rhetoric against North Korea over following weekend and week reinforced this perception until it turned out that it was all fake. There was no fleet steaming to Korea. Media realized they were played by Trump. During this time Trump and Tillerson in particular got some breathing space. The pre-April 4 policy of agreeing with Russia on Syria continued. Apparently Russia understood that the missile attack on Syria was just part of the game. It was not personal. More recently the US agreed to safe zones plan by Russia, Syria, Iran and Turkey. One should expect a false flag of gas attack or accidental bombing by US air force of Syrian forces to happen soon – broadcasted all night before the start of the US media news cycle by BBC, so US media, all talking heads memorize all talking points.

    While it is possible that Trump behaves erratically w/o well thought out plans we must give him a benefit of doubt and assume that there is a deep reason for firing Comey. Trump is fighting for his life. While he would prefer to be presidential and enjoy easy going times and provide peace and safety for his family by know he knows that nothing will satisfy Them. They want him out! Erratic Trump and confused and chaotic WH is a meme which They and Their media want to plant and reinforce. That's why we hear about it all the time. But how to explain the firing of Comey? I would look for the answer at DOJ. Initially their hands were tied up but slowly they showed that there is new leadership at DOJ that was working for Trump for a change. Their independence of the Deep State was demonstrated by forcing Israel police to arrest Mossad operative/patsy for the wave of world wide anti-semitic hoaxes that were meant to undermine and compromise Trump. This is the proof that DOJ and part of FBI finally is strong enough and working for Trump. What next do they want to do? If they want to squash this "collusion with Russia" false narrative that is paralyzing the administration and in fact all belt way they must hit at those who originated this narrative, meaning Hillary Clinton and Obama. To do it they need to have a full control of FBI. Comey is gone. McCabe must go next. Will DOJ and new FBI go after Susan Rice, Sally Yates and Loretta Lynch? If they do this will lead to Obama. Will they go after Hillary Clinton and her emails? Will they secure Anthony Weiner computer? Does it still exist? Who will be nominated to replace Comey? What Trump will have to promise GOP to have him approved?

    The bottom line is that Trump is fighting for his life.

    jilles dykstra , May 16, 2017 at 5:51 am GMT

    Of course they are. The USA is not different from other western countries, such as GB, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, Netherlands. In each of these countries the battle is going on between the establishment, and those who want to rid themselves of this establishment.

    GB is the first country where maybe this succeeded, but, as in the USA, the GB establishment and the EU establishment do anything to prevent that things really change.

    The battle is between trying to dominate the world, neoliberalism, destruction of nation states, power of money, on the one hand, and nationalism, more or less certain jobs, rejection of wars, power of governments, on the other hand.

    In France one sees that once again the establishment won, 60% of the French still support the establishment, 40% rejects it.

    In other countries more or less the same.

    The opposing views make governing increasingly difficult, two months after the Dutch elections the efforts to contrue a government are a failure. Belgium was more than a year without a government. In Spain one government after another. The establishment now fears that Austria will turn around. Until now Brussels, by threats and cajoling, prevented a rebellion against Brussels in Poland and Hungary. The Greek rebellion failed completely.

    Anon , May 16, 2017 at 6:05 am GMT

    White House Leaks and the "Muh Russia" Seesaw

    utu , May 16, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT

    Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during last week's visit.

    John Brown , May 16, 2017 at 6:09 am GMT

    "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do" concludes the writer.

    What is amazing is that Mr Giraldi still believes the USA is a democracy. Maybe if one compares it with China. Anyway, "a soft coup" has already happened in you history -- Kennedy's assassination by the deep state- and life just went on in the "greatest democracy" in the earth.

    A "soft coup" against Donald Trump will be in fact an improvement. The "narcissist" president won't be killed. It will be a soft clean coup. Progress.

    utu , May 16, 2017 at 6:52 am GMT

    Perhaps this is the indication of where Trump and DOJ are going: Monday during the 10 p.m. ET news broadcast on Fox's Washington, D.C. affiliate WTTG, correspondent Marina Marraco said an investigation by former D.C. homicide detective Rod Wheeler found that the now-deceased Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich had been emailing with WikiLeaks.

    http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/05/15/report-investigator-says-evidence-showing-deceased-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-emailing-wikileaks/

    But the Deep State respond with: Deep State Leaks Highly Classified Info to Washington Post to Smear President Trump

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/15/deep-state-leaks-highly-classified-info-to-washington-post-to-smear-president-trump/

    The Alarmist , May 16, 2017 at 8:23 am GMT

    Despite the TV image, it is rare for a CEO to outright sack one of his top executives. The story of dinners where Comey made his pitch to stay rings true to what I have seen in real life. Trump probably asked Comey if he wouldn't be happier returning to private business where he made a boatload more money, and Comey, drunk on the power of high public office just wouldn't pull the trigger for him.

    Comey was a goner in November he just wouldn't go quietly and on his own accord, no doubt for the reasons suggested in this piece a so-called higher calling and his own inflated sense of service to his country.

    alexander , May 16, 2017 at 8:52 am GMT

    Dear Mr. Giraldi,

    Thanks for another fine article.

    Certainly writers like Robert Parry and Ray Mcgovern, as well as yourself, have earned the highest of marks from internet readers around the globe, anxious for some integrity of analysis , as they seek to understand our nation's policy decisions. As long as gentlemen like you, as well as others, keep writing , you will find your readership growing at an exponential rate.

    Having just noticed the latest by-line in Antiwar.com, I am forced to raise the question we should all be asking ourselves "Was it Russia or was it .. Seth Rich ? "

    If there was indeed a "soft coup" in our country, did it not occur at the DNC convention when our back room oligarchs decided to "putsch" Bernie Sanders out of the race, and gift the nomination to Hillary ?

    Was it not Bernie Sanders who was igniting the young progressive liberal base by the tens of millions ? Was it not Bernie who was gaining enormous momentum as the race for the nomination went on ? Was it not Bernie's "message" that began to ring true for so many voters across the country ?

    Was it not Bernie Sanders who may well have swept the DNC nomination, were it not for the "dirty pool" being played out in the back room ?.

    According to the retired homicide detective, hired by the family of Seth Rich to investigate their son's bizarre murder, it was Seth Rich who WAS in contact with Wikileaks.

    (For all those who don't know who Seth Rich was , he was the 27 year old "voter data director" at the DNC, shot to death on july 10, 2016, in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington D.C.)

    In an interview three days after Seth Rich was found dead, Julian Assange intimated, too, that Seth Rich HAD contacted Wikileaks .NOT Russia.

    The homicide detective hired by the family , also pointed out, after doing some rudimentary due diligence, that word had come down through the DC mayor's office to stymie its own detectives in the murder investigation of Mr. Rich. Strange thing, especially when we are dealing with a homicide .No, Mr Giraldi ? If the Seth Rich murder was a "botched robbery" as is claimed, why won't the DC police release Seth's laptop computer to his family ?

    We are all aware there were "shenanigans" going on in the DNC that put the kibosh on the Bernie nomination.(we all know this)

    This makes sense too, given the fact that the DNC party bosses and their oligarchs, wanted Bernie running in the general election against the Donald like they wanted a "hole in the head". What we "cannot" see ..is how decisive Bernie's margin of victory might have been, Nor can we see what "crimes" were committed to ensure Hillary's run at the W. H. It is not much of a stretch to assume Seth Rich had hard evidence, perhaps of multiple counts of treasonous fraud and other sorted felonies that would have brought down "the back room" of the DNC.

    Not good for the party..not good for its oligarchs .and not good for their Hillary anointment.

    "Russia-gate" may prove to be the most concerted effort, by the powers that be, to DEFLECT from an investigation into their OWN "real"criminality .

    How savvy and how clever they are to manipulate the public's perceptions, through Big Media, by grafting the allegations of the very crimes they may well have committed .onto Russia, the Donald, and Vladimir Putin.

    Clever, clever, clever.

    Can any of us imagine, how cold a day in hell it will be before Rachel Maddow(or any MSM "journalist") asks some basic questions about the Seth Rich laptop .or what was on it ?

    Sub zero.

    for-the-record , May 16, 2017 at 8:53 am GMT

    Mr. Giralidi,

    I would be very interested in your take on the latest impeachable "scandal", that Trump revealed unrevealable top secrets to Lavrov and Kislyak during their recent White House meeting. Among other things, how would the Washington Post know the specifics of the Trump-Lavrov conversation? Is the White House bugged? And if an intelligence source was somehow really compromised, is advertising that fact in the Washington Post (presumably on the front page) really the wisest course?

    mp , May 16, 2017 at 9:29 am GMT

    Trump has turned out to be very weak. Maybe he just doesn't believe in anything, so it doesn't matter to him. Or maybe he has some ideas, but has no clue about implementation. He's going to see the Tribe next week. That will tell us a lot, I'm thinking. But it's a lot that we probably already know or at least can guess.

    animalogic , May 16, 2017 at 10:10 am GMT

    "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."
    Until further notice, that is absolutely correct. It needs to be recalled – ad nauseam – that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians. The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.

    geokat62 , May 16, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

    A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do.

    For more dangerous to American democracy has been the ZOG engineered by the "Friends of Zion," but, unfortunately, there is little chance there will ever be a Zion-gate investigation.

    KenH , May 16, 2017 at 11:10 am GMT

    Trump was right in firing Comey. An open ended investigation that hasn't yielded a scintilla of evidence of collusion with Russia after one year is not acceptable. Such an investigation would not have been tolerated if the target was a Marxist mulatto by the name of Barack Hussein Obama. Blacks would have rioted in response while the media cheered them on.

    If there's a Constitutional crisis then it's that the deep state apparatus in the form of the various alphabet soup intelligence agencies have the power to plot a coup against a duly elected president. They need to be stripped of much of their power and reformed but it's probably already too late for that.

    I thought since Trump went from advocating a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy to loud and proud neo-conservative (in less than 100 days) that that would buy him protection from deep state machinations and endear him to the corrupt Washington, D.C. establishment. For a time he was even making "never Trumper" little (((William Kristol))) coo with delight which is no small feat. Moreover, he's a lickspittle of Israel which seems a prerequisite for a presidential candidate.

    The only thing I can think of is that even though Trump's picking up where Dubya and Obama left off on foreign policy, the deep state knows that Trump can be totally unpredictable and change on a dime. So he could go off the establishment reservation at a moment's notice which makes them apoplectic. Hence, their attempts to get him out of the way and install someone more pliant and predictable like Tom Pence.

    jilles dykstra , May 16, 2017 at 11:32 am GMT

    @animalogic "A soft coup engineered by the national security and intelligence agencies would be far more dangerous to our democracy than anything Donald Trump can do."

    Until further notice, that is absolutely correct.

    It needs to be recalled - ad nauseam - that Russia-gate, or whatever rubbish its called, is a LIE. There is NO, repeat NO evidence of ANY wrong-doing by Trump re the Russians.

    The MSM & various elements of the "establishment" should suicide NOW from pure SHAME.

    polistra , May 16, 2017 at 11:56 am GMT

    Conspiracies are NOT hard to sustain. That's an absurd statement. Deepstate has been sustaining and expanding its conspiracies for 100 years. (There is always a 'deep state' of some kind, but the current well-organized structure was created by Wilson.) A conspiracy AGAINST Deepstate is hard to sustain because Deepstate owns and monitors all public communications.

    Hobo , May 16, 2017 at 12:16 pm GMT

    While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.

    Some of the investigations have expanded their scope to include careful scrutiny of Trump's business dealings in relation to Russia. Recently FinCEN, which specializes in fighting money laundering, agreed to turn over records to the Senate Intelligence Committee in this regard. Even Sen. Linsey Graham recently stated he wanted to know more about Trump's business dealings with Russia. The possibility that this may result in a criminal investigation cannot be ruled out. The money-laundering angle is already all over the Web (ex. google: Bayrock Trump) and, one must assume, in the hands of various intelligence agencies. .This may be the basis for Trump's increasingly frantic attempts to shut down the "Russian thing" investigation.(Comey firing??)

    Dutch Public Broadcasting has recently broadcast a two part series exploring some of the connections involving Trump's business dealings with Russia.

    THE DUBIOUS FRIENDS OF DONALD TRUMP: THE RUSSIANS

    More detail and background is provided in this informative article by James S. Henry, a reputable investigative journalist:

    The Curious World of Donald Trump's Private Russian Connections

    https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/

    p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)

    Chris Bridges , May 16, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT

    Phil,

    As you know, Brennan is an extreme liberal Democrat, a creature of both Clinton and Obama. He is an utterly unprincipled old fool. He failed as a CIA operations officer and went back to Langley with his tail between his legs to become analyst. Nothing wrong with that but he nursed bitter resentment at the Clandestine Service during his whole career. He was finally allowed to go out as chief in, of all places, Riyadh. He promptly destroyed the station with his incompetence, though he earned the praise of the ambassador, as such toadies usually do. Brennan is perfectly capable of the things you describe. Washington is awash in these kinds of traitors. If Trump does not have a plan to arrest them all some dark night then he is a fool himself.

    MEexpert , May 16, 2017 at 1:19 pm GMT

    And President Barack Obama was likely the initiator, notably so when he de facto authorized the wide distribution of raw intelligence on Trump and the Russians through executive order.

    I repeat, why hasn't Trump issued an executive order cancelling Obama's executive order? He needs to stop this information sharing if he expects to remain President.

    Phil, is there any one who has Trump's ear? The mainstream media are hell bent in destroying anyone close to Trump. First, Flynn, then Steve Bannon and now Kellyanne Conway. Trump must stop these leaks from the White House. He should fire all Obama holdovers.

    utu , May 16, 2017 at 1:21 pm GMT

    @Hobo While the collusion story is an obvious canard there is another level to this "Russian thing" which may prove to be extremely damaging to Trump. And that is Trump's participation in a money-laundering operation with the Russo-jewish mafia going back decades.

    ... ... ... ...

    p.s.: Regarding the term Russo-jewish mafia, should you watch the videos and read the article you will find the players involved are almost exclusively of a certain 'tribal' persuasion. (A number have direct links to the infamous Mogilevich crime syndicate (top 10 FBI's most wanted list) and one of the principals of Bayrock was named as a major Israeli organized crime figure by the Turkish media following his arrest there.)

    Sam Shama , May 16, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT

    I recently produced my own analysis of the possibility that there is in progress a soft, or stealth or silent coup, call it what you will, underway directed against the president and that, if it exists, it is being directed by former senior officials from the Obama White House. Indeed, it is quite plausible to suggest that it was orchestrated within the Obama White House itself before the government changed hands at the inauguration on January 20th. In line with that thinking, some observers are now suggesting that Comey might well have been party to the conspiracy and his dismissal would have been perfectly justified based on his demonstrated interference in both the electoral process and in his broadening of the acceptable role of his own Bureau , which Trump has described as "showboating."

    It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered Hillary's bid, something strongly endorsed by Obama. Going with this narrative requires Obama to have engineered Hillary's departure followed by a concerted plan to unseat Trump as well, both objectives utilizing Comey! To what end? Paint chaos on the American political canvas?

    RadicalCenter , May 16, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT

    @Colleen Pater This " theory " isnt a theory its not debatable and its clear both parties and every power node in the world are signalling they will do whatever they can to help. Its really a good thing they are not fooling anyone but some maroon prog snowflakes. Trump was the howard beale last option before civil war candidate, he won fair and square , actually despite massive cheating by the other side and now they are overthrowing him in full view of the american people.Its good as long as idiots on the right still believed in democracy, that getting their candidate in would change war was averted. after thirty years of steady leftism no matter who was in power they voted trump now trumps being overthrown. They will see we dont live in a democracy we live in the matrix democracy is diversionary tactic to prevent us from killing them all. And kill them all is what we must do.

    jilles dykstra , May 16, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

    @alexander Some fine points here, Mr, Dykstra,

    I don't think, however, the notion of the "establishment" is a problem in itself. Our country has always had powerful elites, so have many other countries. The problem which presents itself today is our elites seem determined to perpetuate endless wars that cost obscene amounts of money, and do not seem to produce positive results in any of the places the wars are being fought.

    The "establishment" does not seem to care. It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending our wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed the Deep State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently of any administration in office.

    Its an insatiable appetite...that grows larger every year. Any President, elected by the people today,to end our wars will simply not be tolerated by the establishment class and the deep state it lords over. The problem is not that we have an "establishment", the problem is our establishment is addicted to war.

    Only "war" will do for them, full time, all the time..... end of story. Today, any President is given two choices once in office....make WAR..... or be impeached.

    anonymous , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

    @Anon Trump Heads to Saudi Arabia - Target Iran and Iraq?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIYy10NJcMI

    Agent76 , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

    The short answer is yes! March 31, 2017 The Surveillance State Behind Russia-Gate. Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy – and further befogged by politics – it appears House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President Trump.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-surveillance-state-behind-russia-gate/5582211

    Mar 9, 2017 BADA BING! NSA Whistleblower Confirms Trump Was Tapped!

    They're wire tapping President Trump, and Kim Kardashian, and Hulk Hogan, and you and EVERYBODY!

    https://youtu.be/tWOCLMJRQ7I

    John Jeremiah Smith , May 16, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

    It is now wholly unthinkable for our "establishment" to consider "making peace"and ending our wars. There is an addiction to "war spending" and "war profiteering" which has consumed the Deep State Apparatus, especially since 9-11, and operates almost completely independently of any administration in office.

    Precisely. Frankly, I suspect 90% of the daily brouhaha of conspiracies and collusion theories is a product solely of tawdry greed. The rich will do anything for money . anything.

    John Jeremiah Smith , May 16, 2017 at 2:41 pm GMT

    Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under investigation) and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is no case" might convince a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.

    Quite so. Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making the "investigation" of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome legalities. It was intended to produce a public reaction like "Oh, they double-checked like good investigators, and sure enough, Hillary's email operation was completely legit."

    Done clumsily, and it backfired.

    Aaron Burr , May 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

    At what point does political infighting cross the line into treason?

    There's a line somewhere between the two, obviously. Perhaps its when you break the law? Perhaps its when you leak classified documents? Or details of a key diplomatic meeting?

    John Jeremiah Smith , May 16, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

    @utu There will be no open coup. Trump will resign for health reason or in the worst case scenario will be declared unfit for health reasons. And Pence will give a speech how great Trump was and how great his ideas were and that now he as president will continue his vision. And many people will believe it.

    Sam Shama , May 16, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT

    @iffen It's quite difficult to accept this line of thought when Comey practically scuppered Hillary's bid

    There is reason to believe that Clinton's email troubles were having a major impact. Many were unconvinced by Comey's first pronouncement that there was no case there. (I thought this was the prosecutor's job anyway. People would have been skeptical of a compromised Lynch saying that there was no case, but might be persuaded by Comey.)

    Reopening the investigation in a dramatic public manner (I guess we do tell who is under investigation) and then coming back to announce, "We were correct the first time; there is no case" might convince a few thousand staggling doubters. It was very close.

    Philip Giraldi , May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT

    @Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate from the Deep State's perspective .

    In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment, one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.

    Joe Hide , May 16, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT

    It looks to me as though the "deep state" is getting progressive dementia. While inhabited by many high I.Q. players, their moves are increasingly insane. They had assumed their "Surveillance State" would become all intrusive, giving them ever greater control over us peasants. The reverse has happened, where most of the 7 billion of us have cell phones that record and display all their nefarious deeds. We have a million times more high I.Q. people than them, that increasingly are waking up and exposing those psychopaths for the pieces of garbage that they are.

    iffen , May 16, 2017 at 3:59 pm GMT

    @Sam Shama I need to understand why Phil Giraldi thinks she was considered a flawed candidate from the Deep State's perspective .

    In the minds of non-mainstream writers who constantly viewed her as the embodiment of the Establishment, one wouldn't have wagered "their" perfect candidate to be marked for removal.

    John Jeremiah Smith , May 16, 2017 at 4:03 pm GMT

    @utu

    Comey's election-eve announcement was a calculated risk, with the intention of making the "investigation" of Clinton look legitimate and professional, not just lip service to troublesome legalities.
    No. They knew then that election could not be stolen (for whatever reasons) for Clinton. The 28th October announcement by Comey was the signal to press to change the fake narrative of huge advantage in polls by Hillary and prepare the eventual excuse for Hillary why she lost.
    Boris M Garsky , May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT

    Comey was abruptly and unceremoniously fired after he stated that Clinton had forwarded thousands of e-mails containing classified information on an unsecured server to wiener and friends. Hardly covering Clintons back. The FBI investigates -- it does not prosecute -- that is the function of the attorney generals office. The AG solely has the power to convene a grand jury, not the FBI. The deputy attorney general Rosenstein writes a scathing report and recommendation to fire Comey. Trump, probably on Kushner's urging fires Comey. Comey redacts his prior statement.

    My guess is that the FBI were very close to the neocons hidden secret -- Clinton and its foundation are foreign assets and not of Russia, hence, we have the Russia-gate diversion. Unfortunately, Comey;s replacement will be toothless, merely a shelf ornament. And what happened? We hear no more of Kushners? omitting his relationship to the Rothchilds enterprises. Flynn was fired for far less. Is/ are Kushner? and/ or Rosenstein the leak(s)?

    WorkingClass , May 16, 2017 at 5:52 pm GMT

    The people pushing the big lie about Trump and Russia are legion. And they are not stupid. They are evil. They are the same people who are preparing a preemptive nuclear attack against Russia and China. They are the globalists who would institute a universal Feudalism from which there would be no escape. I have no further use for Trump. But his enemies remain enemies of the people.

    [May 23, 2017] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Trump's Military Strikes in Syria Are Reckless and Short-Sighted Defend Democracy Press

    May 23, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    07/04/2017 Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today (4/6/17) after the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government targets:

    "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

    "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder."

    [May 23, 2017] Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Trumps Military Strikes in Syria Are Reckless and Short-Sighted Defend Democracy Press

    May 23, 2017 | www.defenddemocracy.press
    07/04/2017 Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02) released the following statement today (4/6/17) after the U.S. launched military strikes on Syrian government targets:

    "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

    "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder."

    [May 23, 2017] Seth Rich, Craig Murray and the Sinister Stewards of the National Security State by Mike Whitney

    Notable quotes:
    "... Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't it? ..."
    "... Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far. ..."
    "... Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes ..."
    "... Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment proceedings? ..."
    "... Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries. ..."
    "... Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.) ..."
    "... Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
    "... This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary. ..."
    "... sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest. ..."
    "... The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono. ..."
    "... Though never a Trump fan, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to his plight. More and more, this is taking on the trappings of a coup d'etat. ..."
    "... Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around to seeing the world as they wanted it seen. ..."
    "... Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting. ..."
    "... They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players. Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical & economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them? ..."
    "... Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was. ..."
    "... The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true. ..."
    "... If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go along with the official line. ..."
    "... All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in "national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global security". ..."
    "... But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior? ..."
    "... It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the drone base in Nigeria will be in operation. ..."
    "... It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia. ..."
    "... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! ..."
    "... December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security ..."
    "... Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide." ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    May 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Why is it a "conspiracy theory" to think that a disgruntled Democratic National Committee staffer gave WikiLeaks the DNC emails, but not a conspiracy theory to think the emails were provided by Russia?

    Why?

    Which is the more likely scenario: That a frustrated employee leaked damaging emails to embarrass his bosses or a that foreign government hacked DNC computers for some still-unknown reason?

    That's a no-brainer, isn't it?

    Former-DNC employee, Seth Rich, not only had access to the emails, but also a motive. He was pissed about the way the Clinton crowd was "sandbagging" Bernie Sanders. In contrast, there's neither evidence nor motive connecting Russia to the emails. On top of that, WikiLeaks founder, Julien Assange (a man of impeccable integrity) has repeatedly denied that Russia gave him the emails which suggests the government investigation is completely misdirected. The logical course of action, would be to pursue the leads that are most likely to bear fruit, not those that originate from one's own political bias. But, of course, logic has nothing to do with the current investigation, it's all about politics and geopolitics.

    We don't know who killed Seth Rich and we're not going to speculate on the matter here. But we find it very strange that neither the media nor the FBI have pursued leads in the case that challenge the prevailing narrative on the Russia hacking issue. Why is that? Why is the media so eager to blame Russia when Rich looks like the much more probable suspect?

    And why have the mainstream news organizations put so much energy into discrediting the latest Fox News report, when– for the last 10 months– they've showed absolutely zero interest in Rich's death at all?

    According to Fox News:

    "The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks, law enforcement sources told Fox News.

    A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report detailing the contents of DNC staffer Seth Rich's computer generated within 96 hours after his murder, said Rich made contact with WikiLeaks through Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter, documentary filmmaker, and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time .

    Rod Wheeler, a retired Washington homicide detective and Fox News contributor investigating the case on behalf of the Rich family, made the WikiLeaks claim, which was corroborated by a federal investigator who spoke to Fox News .

    "I have seen and read the emails between Seth Rich and Wikileaks," the federal investigator told Fox News, confirming the MacFadyen connection. He said the emails are in possession of the FBI, while the stalled case is in the hands of the Washington Police Department." ("Family of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich blasts detective over report of WikiLeaks link", Fox News)

    Okay, so where's the computer? Who's got Rich's computer? Let's do the forensic work and get on with it.

    But the Washington Post and the other bogus news organizations aren't interested in such matters because it doesn't fit with their political agenda. They'd rather take pot-shots at Fox for running an article that doesn't square with their goofy Russia hacking story. This is a statement on the abysmal condition of journalism today. Headline news has become the province of perception mandarins who use the venue to shape information to their own malign specifications, and any facts that conflict with their dubious storyline, are savagely attacked and discredited. Journalists are no longer investigators that keep the public informed, but paid assassins who liquidate views that veer from the party-line.

    WikiLeaks never divulges the names of the people who provide them with information. Even so, Assange has not only shown an active interest in the Seth Rich case, but also offered a $20,000 reward for anyone providing information leading to the arrest and conviction of Rich's murder. Why? And why did he post a link to the Fox News article on his Twitter account on Tuesday?

    I don't know, but if I worked for the FBI or the Washington Post, I'd sure as hell be beating the bushes to find out. And not just because it might help in Rich's murder investigation, but also, because it could shed light on the Russia fiasco which is being used to lay the groundwork for impeachment proceedings. So any information that challenges the government version of events, could actually change the course of history.

    Have you ever heard of Craig Murray?

    Murray should be the government's star witness in the DNC hacking scandal, instead, no one even knows who he is. But if we trust what Murray has to say, then we can see that the Russia hacking story is baloney. The emails were "leaked" by insiders not "hacked" by a foreign government. Here's the scoop from Robert Parry at Consortium News:

    "Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, has suggested that the DNC leak came from a "disgruntled" Democrat upset with the DNC's sandbagging of the Sanders campaign and that the Podesta leak came from the U.S. intelligence community .He (Murray) appears to have undertaken a mission for WikiLeaks to contact one of the sources (or a representative) during a Sept. 25 visit to Washington where he says he met with a person in a wooded area of American University. .

    Though Murray has declined to say exactly what the meeting in the woods was about, he may have been passing along messages about ways to protect the source from possible retaliation, maybe even an extraction plan if the source was in some legal or physical danger Murray also suggested that the DNC leak and the Podesta leak came from two different sources, neither of them the Russian government.

    "The Podesta emails and the DNC emails are, of course, two separate things and we shouldn't conclude that they both have the same source," Murray said. "In both cases we're talking of a leak, not a hack, in that the person who was responsible for getting that information out had legal access to that information

    Scott Horton then asked, "Is it fair to say that you're saying that the Podesta leak came from inside the intelligence services, NSA [the electronic spying National Security Agency] or another agency?"

    "I think what I said was certainly compatible with that kind of interpretation, yeah," Murray responded. "In both cases they are leaks by Americans."

    ("A Spy Coup in America?", Robert Parry, Consortium News)

    With all the hullabaloo surrounding the Russia hacking case, you'd think that Murray's eyewitness account would be headline news, but not in Homeland Amerika where the truth is kept as far from the front page as humanly possible.

    Bottom line: The government has a reliable witness (Murray) who can positively identify the person who hacked the DNC emails and, so far, they've showed no interest in his testimony at all. Doesn't that strike you as a bit weird?

    Did you know that after a 10 month-long investigation, there's still no hard evidence that Russia hacked the 2016 elections? In fact, when the Intelligence agencies were pressed on the matter, they promised to release a report that would provide iron-clad proof of Russian meddling. On January 6, 2017, theDirector of National Intelligence, James Clapper, released that report. It was called The Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). Unfortunately, the report fell far-short of the public's expectations. Instead of a smoking gun, Clapper produced a tedious 25-page compilation of speculation, hearsay, innuendo and gobbledygook. Here's how veteran journalist Robert Parry summed it up:

    "The report contained no direct evidence that Russia delivered hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta to WikiLeaks .The DNI report as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word "assesses" .suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, "assesses" often means "guesses." ("US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack'", Robert Parry, Consortium News)

    Repeat: "the report contained no direct evidence", no "actual proof", and a heckuva a lot of "guessing". That's some "smoking gun", eh?

    If this 'thin gruel' sounds like insufficient grounds for removing a sitting president and his administration, that's because it is. But the situation is even worse than it looks, mainly because the information in the assessment is not reliable. The ICA was corrupted by higher-ups in the Intel food-chain who selected particular analysts who could be trusted to produce a document that served their broader political agenda. Think I'm kidding? Take a look at this excerpt from an article at Fox News:

    "On January 6, 2017, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) that found Russia deliberately interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump's candidacy (but) there are compelling reasons to believe this ICA was actually a politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments to ensure this one reached the bottom line conclusion that the Obama administration was looking for.

    .Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked" from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me."

    This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures. Hand-picking a handful of analysts from just three intelligence agencies to write such a controversial assessment went against standing rules to vet such analyses throughout the Intelligence Community within its existing structure. The idea of using hand-picked intelligence analysts selected through some unknown process to write an assessment on such a politically sensitive topic carries a strong stench of politicization .

    A major problem with this process is that it gave John Brennan, CIA's hyper-partisan former director, enormous influence over the drafting of the ICA. Given Brennan's scathing criticism of Mr. Trump before and after the election, he should have had no role whatsoever in the drafting of this assessment. Instead, Brennan probably selected the CIA analysts who worked on the ICA and reviewed and approved their conclusions .

    The unusual way that the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment was drafted raises major questions as to whether it was rigged by the Obama administration to produce conclusions that would discredit the election outcome and Mr. Trump's presidency ."

    ("More indications Intel assessment of Russian interference in election was rigged", Fox News)

    Repeat: "A politicized analysis that violated normal rules for crafting intelligence assessments." That says it all, doesn't it?

    Let's take a minute and review the main points in the article:

    1–Was the Intelligence Community Assessment the summary work of all 17 US Intelligence Agencies?

    No, it was not. "In his May 8 testimony to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Clapper confirmed (that) the ICA reflected the views of only three intelligence agencies - CIA, NSA and FBI – not all 17."

    2–Did any of the analysts challenge the findings in the ICA?

    No, the document failed to acknowledge any dissenting views, which suggests that the analysts were screened in order to create consensus.

    3– Were particular analysts chosen to produce the ICA?

    Yes, they were "handpicked from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" (the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.)

    4– Was their collaborative work released to the public in its original form?

    No, their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me." (Clapper) This of course suggests that the document was political in nature and crafted to deliver a particular message.

    5–Were Clapper's methods "normal" by Intelligence agency standards?

    Definitely not. "This process drastically differed from the Intelligence Community's normal procedures."

    6–Are Clapper and Brennan partisans who have expressed their opposition to Trump many times in the past calling into question their ability to be objective in executing their duties as heads of their respective agencies?

    Absolutely. Check out this clip from Monday's Arkansas online:

    "I think, in many ways, our institutions are under assault, both externally - and that's the big news here, is the Russian interference in our election system," said James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence. "I think as well our institutions are under assault internally."

    When he was asked, "Internally, from the president?" Clapper said, "Exactly." (Clapper calls Trump democracy assailant", arkansasonline)

    Brennan has made numerous similar statements. (Note: It is particularly jarring that Clapper– who oversaw the implementation of the modern surveillance police state– feels free to talk about "the assault on our institutions.")

    7–Does the ICA prove that anyone on the Trump campaign colluded with Russia or that Russia meddled in the 2016 elections?

    No, it doesn't. What it shows is that –even while Clapper and Brennan may have been trying to produce an assessment that would 'kill two birds with one stone', (incriminate Russia and smear Trump at the same time) the ICA achieved neither. So far, there's no proof of anything. Now take a look at this list I found in an article at The American Thinker:

    "12 prominent public statements by those on both sides of the aisle who reviewed the evidence or been briefed on it confirmed there was no evidence of Russia trying to help Trump in the election or colluding with him:

    The New York Times (Nov 1, 2016);
    House Speaker Paul Ryan (Feb, 26, 2017);
    Former DNI James Clapper , March 5, 2017);
    Devin Nunes Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017);
    James Comey, March 20, 2017;
    Rep. Chris Stewart, House Intelligence Committee, March 20, 2017;
    Rep. Adam Schiff, House Intelligence committee, April 2, 2017);
    Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senate Intelligence Committee, May 3, 2017);
    Sen. Joe Manchin Senate Intelligence Committee, May 8, 2017;
    James Clapper (again) (May 8, 2017);
    Rep. Maxine Waters, May 9, 2017);
    President Donald Trump,(May 9, 2017).
    Senator Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, indicated that his briefing confirmed Dianne Feinstein's view that the President was not under investigation for colluding with the Russians."
    ("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table", American Thinker)

    Keep in mind, this is a list of the people who actually "reviewed the evidence", and even they are not convinced. It just goes to show that the media blitz is not based on any compelling proof, but on the determination of behind-the-scenes elites who want to destroy their political rivals. Isn't that what's really going on?

    How does former FBI Director James Comey fit into all this?

    First of all, we need to set the record straight on Comey so readers don't get the impression that he's the devoted civil servant and all-around stand-up guy he's made out to be in the media. Here's a short clip from an article by Human Rights First that will help to put things into perspective:

    "Five former FBI agents raised concerns about his (Comey's) support for a legal memorandum justifying torture and his defense of holding an American citizen indefinitely without charge. They note that Comey concurred with a May 10, 2005, Office of Legal Counsel opinion that authorized torture. While the agents credited Comey for opposing torture tactics in combination and on policy grounds, they note that Comey still approved the legal basis for use of specific torture tactics.

    "These techniques include cramped confinement, wall-standing, water dousing, extended sleep deprivation, and waterboarding, all of which constitute torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment in contravention of domestic and international law," the letter states.

    Those signing the letter to the committee also objected to Comey's defense of detaining Americans without charge or trial and observed, "Further, Mr. Comey vigorously defended the Bush administration's decision to hold Jose Padilla, a United States citizen apprehended on U.S. soil, indefinitely without charge or trial for years in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina." ("FBI Agents Urge Senate Judiciary Committee to Question Comey on Torture, Indefinite Detention", Human Rights First)

    Get the picture?

    Comey is a vicious political opportunist who doesn't mind breaking a few legs if it'll advance his career plans. I wouldn't trust the man as far as I could throw him. Which isn't far.

    American Thinker's Clarice Feldman explains why Comey launched his counter-intel investigation in July 2016 but failed to notify Congress until March 2017, a full eight months later. Here's what she said:

    "There is only one reasonable explanation for FBI Director James Comey to be launching a counter-intel investigation in July 2016, notifying the White House and Clapper, and keeping it under wraps from congress. Comey was a participant in the intelligence gathering for political purposes - wittingly, or unwittingly." ("Russian Hacking and Collusion: Put the Cards on the Table", American Thinker)

    Are we suggesting that the heads of the so called Intelligence Community are at war with the Trump Administration and paving the way for impeachment proceedings?

    Yep, we sure are. The Russia hacking fiasco is a regime change operation no different than the CIA's 50-or-so other oustings in the last 70 years. The only difference is that this operation is on the home field which is why everyone is so flustered. These things are only suppose to happen in those "other" countries.

    Does this analysis make me a Donald Trump supporter?

    Never. The idea is ridiculous. Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is. But that doesn't mean there aren't other nefarious forces at work behind the smokescreen of democratic government. There are. In fact, this whole flap suggests that there's an alternate power-structure that operates completely off the public's radar and has the elected-government in its death-grip. This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)

    American history is not silent about the proclivities of unchecked security forces, a short list of which includes the Palmer Raids, the FBI's blackmailing of civil rights leaders, Army surveillance of the antiwar movement, the NSA's watch lists, and the CIA's waterboarding. . Who would trust the authors of past episodes of repression as a reliable safeguard against future repression?"

    ("Security Breach– Trump's tussle with the bureaucratic state", Michael J. Glennon, Harper's Magazine)

    "Who?"

    The Democrats, that's who.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    Mark Caplan , Website May 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

    Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.

    Seamus Padraig , May 19, 2017 at 1:47 pm GMT

    This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.

    In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.

    The Alarmist , May 19, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT

    As to, "Where are the journalists?" there was a classified annex to the PATRIOT that outlawed journalism. That's why you haven't seen any in the US for years. They tried to spread its reach to the world by a secret annex to FATCA, but that effort has largely been limited to the wimps in Europe.

    paraglider , May 19, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT

    sadly mike we are witnessing the several thousand strong bipartisan establishment rather destroy the united states as a governable nation instead of reforming themselves by putting the country first instead of their own venal interest.

    imo its hopeless. within a decade or two the usa is done as a superpower perhaps even a nation of the first rank. the way washington projects its power is through the us dollar as reserve currency. for now there is no substitute.

    once the dollar rallies strongly in the next few years as the euro project implodes and frightened money comes here looking for safety our exports from a high dollar will make for a profoundly deflationary evironment and doom our economy and with it out ability project power.

    our military is already a bit of a joke capable of only defeating the semi disarmed and poorly led. against true adversaries like russia and china the pentagon won't even attempt a confrontation knowing they can not win.

    forget the internecine warfare going on in america. it is cancer cells attacking the remnants of a healthy american host and the media opinion makers are rooting for cancer to win.

    watch the dollar over the next few years as it rises in value our american future will grow dimmer. by 203? it will be lights here.

    Antiwar7 , May 20, 2017 at 4:46 am GMT

    @Mark Caplan Since that Fox News blockbuster report, the Rich-family private investigator, Rod Wheeler, has disavowed and retracted the claims he had made earlier about Rich's contacts with WikiLeaks. So that's the end of that. The Rich family now has a DNC operative as their spokesperson, who is representing the family pro bono.

    anonymous , May 20, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

    Though never a Trump fan, I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to his plight. More and more, this is taking on the trappings of a coup d'etat.

    Erebus , May 20, 2017 at 4:17 pm GMT

    This largely invisible group of elites controls the likes of Brennan, Clapper and Comey. And, apparently, they have enough influence to challenge and maybe even remove an elected president from office. (We'll see.)

    Well, I'm pretty convinced they removed 2 presidents in my lifetime. The first with extreme prejudice, namely JFK, and the 2nd somewhat less extremely, namely Nixon. They then gave Reagan & Clinton a damn good scare and forced them to come around to seeing the world as they wanted it seen.

    Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.

    They're in the process of transforming themselves from subjects of conspiracy theories, to mainstream political players. Maybe it's sooner than planned, and perhaps a little more chaotically than they would have wished, but the combination of geopolitical & economic/financial pressures with the rise of the Trumpian Deplorables has forced their hand. Should they ever get to end of that process, America will be indistinguishable from Orwell's Oceania. The question is what can stop them?

    Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that there is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.

    That base is growing, thanks in very large part to the invisible group's damn-the-torpedoes onslaught. I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible.

    And then, the gates of hell break open in America.

    Corvinus , May 20, 2017 at 5:00 pm GMT

    @Seamus Padraig This is a coup. We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.

    In case there was any doubt, the constitution is now officially dead. We are a dictatorship run by the deep state.

    jakbit , May 20, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT

    are you and your readers following George Webb on youtube?

    Svigor , May 20, 2017 at 7:55 pm GMT

    Assuming this is the case, are you going to sit there and take it like an impotent chump? Or, since you are imprisoned in this cage, will you channel your inner white rage and lead the charge to rid yourself from those who control you?

    Post your address, tough guy, and we'll find out.

    Frankly, I am greatly heartened by this recent brouhaha. That "invisible group" are outing themselves. By the ferocity and volume of their totally overblown, caricaturized(sp?) accusations, they're making their existence and program pretty plain to alert citizens, and by continuing along this path they'll cause more and more of the inattentive to awaken. Now, even the likes of CNBC are suggesting that the assault on Trump looks more like a coup than partisan political infighting.

    Right; (((Big Media))) and the ruling class are spending a Hell of a lot of legitimacy on the campaign against Trump. And they've been bleeding legitimacy for years as it was.

    Whether he won the popular vote or not, it is clear that Trump has a massive voter base that knows, however vaguely, that there is an Everglades' worth of something long past rotten in DC.

    I keep trying to explain this "popular vote" thing: The Electoral College system is essentially mandatory voting: every person casts a vote via the electoral college, whether they actually fill out a ballot or not. Choosing not to fill out a ballot is a vote for "I'll go with the majority's decision." The entire population of the United States of America is represented in this process: everyone is either a proxy (voter), or has his vote cast by a proxy.

    The "popular vote" mantra is the scuzzbucket Democrat way of dismissing the legitimacy of the people who vote by proxy. It's Democrats' way of saying these people don't matter. And this from the party that claims to support mandatory voting!

    The will of the people is expressed in the Electoral College. And in the 2016 election, that will very much favored Trump over Clinton.

    Erebus , May 21, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT

    @Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."

    But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?

    There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.

    Svigor , May 21, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT

    As this seems to be addressed to me, I'll say that I did not misunderstand either the legal-constitutional concept of the Electoral College, or its workings. I know well that Trump won the election as defined by the American Constitution. Perhaps I should have said " won the popular vote count ".

    As for "I'll go with the majority's decision.", that pretty much applies to any "first past the post" electoral system.

    My point is that talk of "the popular vote" should be met with derision, not entertained or repeated.

    Random Guy , May 21, 2017 at 9:42 pm GMT

    I think your all crazy there. I was born in Canada of Scottish decent, and I won't go to the States anymore. You are a military dictatorship and gun worshipers. It's like being a dutch farmer hearing about the candle-light vigils of the NAZI's from Holland mid last century. I tell my family to stay away.

    Willem Hendrik , May 21, 2017 at 10:09 pm GMT

    America is too important to be left to Americans. You should be proud that others take an interest.

    alexander , May 22, 2017 at 7:21 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly, Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation and has never even been to DC.

    polistra , May 22, 2017 at 9:28 am GMT

    The author says that if he worked for media or FBI he'd be beating the bushes. Nope. Simple logic. If the Russian hacking version is true, there's no reason to beat the bushes. Everything coming out of media and FBI is true.

    If it's not true, then Seth Rich was killed by the Clintons, which is consistent with a 40 year history of Clinton mafia action. If you work in media or FBI, you KNOW FOR SURE that the Clintons kill their enemies. You don't want to die, so you go along with the official line.

    Those are the two possibilities. Neither one leads to public exposure of truth.

    neutral , May 22, 2017 at 11:08 am GMT

    All the neocons/SJW/neoliberals (pretty much all the same thing now) don't believe in a nation yet they still believe in "national security", I don't think it will be too long until the term is replaced with a more acceptable (according to them) "global security".

    neutral , May 22, 2017 at 11:18 am GMT

    @Corvinus "I doubt the awakening is big enough today to put a million armed Deplorables on Capital Hill, but if these invisible elites continue to flounder like this, they may awaken just enough of the population to make that possible."

    But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait? I mean, we live in a dictatorship. Our liberty has been stripped away. We have nothing left. The future for our children is grim. How much longer will the Jews and the elites and the banksters strong arm us into submission? I keep hearing how our overlords are hell bent on eradicating the white race, and that we are well on our way to becoming Brazil. What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?

    There are honestly serious questions. I would like to know your thoughts.

    jilles dykstra , May 22, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT

    It is incomprehensible to me why USA citizens who want the truth bother with details since Sept 11. Anyone with the guts to see through propaganda now knows what USA politicians and media are capable of. Even those who refuse to see Sept 11 for what it is, must see the mess the USA created, still creates, in Middle East, and North Africa, soon also in middle Africa, when the drone base in Nigeria will be in operation.

    It is quite possible that Russia tried to influence USA elections, as Obama did with the French. The difference is only that the USA is entitled to do such things, but not Russia.

    I still hope that Trump wants good, normal, relations with Russia, as long as I can keep this hope, Deep State will try to remove Trump one way or another, and will continue the anti Russian propaganda. Once Trump is removed, the war can begin. As Sol Bloom, a friend of Roosevelt, writes in his memoirs, 'the great accomplishment of Roosevelt was to prepare the USA people slowly for war'. We now can write 'the great accomplishment of CNN, Washpost and NYT, is to prepare the USA people for war against Russia'.

    jilles dykstra , May 22, 2017 at 11:37 am GMT

    @Willem Hendrik America is too important to be left to Americans. You should be proud that others take an interest.

    Anonymous White Male , May 22, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT

    "Trump might be the worst US president of all time, in fact, he probably is."

    I am no fan of Trump, but how can anyone make such a statement concerning someone that has only been in office for 4 months? I have noticed Whitney's writing before. He has ridiculous comments inserted in with lucid ones. I wonder if his residence in Washington State is the cause of his delusions?

    Che Guava , May 22, 2017 at 1:17 pm GMT

    We are now officially Turkey, where the secret police and the army high command feel entitled to 'vet' our elected leaders, and overthrow them if they deem it necessary.

    That statement is confused on so many levels. I haven't seen one convincing analysis of the recent failed coup in Turkey, but my impression is that they were Kemalists, wanting to get rid of Sultan Erdogan for very good reasons. Erdogan claims it was due to his fellow Islamist, Gulen. Point is, the coup was a massive failure, and almost certainly incited by those loyal to Erdogan, as a piece of theatre to maximise the vote for him in his referendum to assume despotic power.

    He has sacked hundreds of thousands, military, judicial, and civil service, arrested tens of thousands, closed many educational institutions. None of that in the USA.

    As a sympathizer with constitutionalist, freedom-loving, and oppressed USA people, it is clear that if Trump were at all sincere about his campaign promises, he needs to do a much better job of decapitating the political appointees in the civil service (unlike the victims in Turkey, no tears need be shed, they would all end up in other kinds of overly remunerated playtime).

    He would do well to cut fed. money for the courses in culti-Marxi, etc., and to universities emphasizing that. Since none of that is going to happen (unfortunately) there may be another key factor. Turkey was best buddies with Israel for a long time, and almost has returned to that. They were never a colony of Israel. The USA is. Witness Prex Trump's craven obsequiousness right now (or in the last 24 hours). The tail that wags the dog, indeed.

    Agent76 , May 22, 2017 at 1:35 pm GMT

    Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

    It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game!

    December 28, 2016 OUTRAGEOUS: Election hacks traced back to Obama's Department of Homeland Security

    In an unbelievable development that ought to outrage every single American, election officials in Georgia are essentially accusing the Obama administration of attempting to hack into the state's electronic balloting machines in what appears to be a naked political ploy.

    http://www.newstarget.com/2016-12-28-election-hacks-traced-back-to-obamas-department-of-homeland-security.html

    Agent76 , May 22, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT

    Jan 3, 2017 With Rule 41 the FBI Is Now Officially the Enemy of All Computer Users

    Rick Falkvinge, founder of the original pirate party and head of privacy at PrivateInternetAccess com, joins us to discuss his recent article, "Today, the FBI becomes the enemy of every computer user and every IT security professional worldwide."

    Erebus , May 22, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

    @Carlton Meyer Private investigator Rod Wheeler made a few bucks doing an investigation, but soon realized that he stirred up a high-level hornets nest. Whoever killed Rich would not hesitate to threaten Wheeler or his family or his pension. Suddenly, Wheeler recants everything that he recently put in writing, with no explanation. Soon he will claim that he never did the investigation and has never even been to DC.

    Che Guava , May 22, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT

    Must adding, another very good article from Mike Whitney.

    Assange, a man of impeccable integrity?

    It is Julian, not Julien.

    I cannot vouch for impeccable. As a hacker, sure, no approval of the fraud types (minuscule at the time, but there). Past that slight connection at second-degree of separation, he is the media figure to me. Doesn't like to wash, so a dirty hippy. Reportedly extremely smelly. I would imagine the Ecuadorian embassy has house-trained him.

    Attempts at political treatises are sub-undergraduate and pompous. Led by his penis, thus the trap in Sweden. Also done some great things, and been betrayed by MSM organisations (NYT and Guardian come to mind, in particular, the latter never shut up about the false rape charges). Now that those are over, it would be beautiful if Queen Elizabeth would grant him a pardon for his default on bail.

    geokat62 , May 22, 2017 at 3:31 pm GMT

    The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states

    That's the theory. The reality is more like:

    The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 15 battleground states

    or better still:

    The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 5 states (CO, FL, NV, OH, VA) that have been truly competitive over the last five presidential elections

    utu , May 22, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

    @anarchyst The electoral college was put in place to keep the major population centers from determining the vote. Without the electoral college, the prospective presidential candidates would only have to cater to the major population centers and could safely ignore "flyover country", as the east and west coasts would have enough "clout" to determine the direction of the vote.

    The electoral college is the "equalizer" which forces the candidates to campaign in all 50 states...

    Corvinus , May 22, 2017 at 3:57 pm GMT

    @Erebus

    What awakening will it take for YOU to leave your armchair and become a warrior?
    Being neither American, nor living anywhere near it, the only dog I have in what is still an internal American struggle is that I live on the same planet. America being what it is, it's (what I believe to be) existential struggle may well spill over its borders to impact all, in some cases violently.
    So, I throw the question (quite seriously) backatchya. Will the Deplorables put their money on the table, and at what point will they do that?
    But isn't the time now to drain this swamp? Why wait?
    The swamp's ooze has permeated all of the power structures of the body politic, and its vapours much of the society. It cannot be drained in a day, and it cannot be drained without massive dislocation of both America's geo-political position, and its national cohesion. To "drain the swamp" is to manage the dissolution of a global empire while the resulting centrifugal forces work to tear the homeland apart.

    I made a comment on another thread that expresses my view on America's situation. You may be interested.
    http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/acuckalypse-now-the-budget-betrayal-and-trump-derangement-syndrome/#comment-1865244

    jilles dykstra , May 22, 2017 at 4:12 pm GMT

    The USA electoral system dates back to the time individual states were important. The GB system, the same. The French system, to the time De Gaulle wanted powers to be able to rule the country.

    Generals fight the last war, just German generals in WWII had no experience in WWI, as had French genererals, so German tanks were more than twice as fast as French tanks, and the German system for fuelling tanks, jerrycans, was so much faster than the French system, tank lorries, with a waiting line, that France could be overrun.
    At present in Europe we see that the election system is such that the majority in countried with high unemployment, the southern countries, those in the ages of 18 to 35 or so, are contemplating rebellion.

    At the same time, the euro is the cause of the unemployment, devaluation impossible, to make the country competitive in a moment, Schäuble, a euro profiteer, is talking about 'strenghtening the euro zone'.

    Politicians fight the the last fight.

    Clark Westwood , May 22, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT

    @Erebus Since Wheeler and the Riches found the dead horse heads at the foot of their beds, things started happening...

    Kim Dotcom announced he's prepared to submit written testimony, with real evidence to Congress should they include Seth Rich's death in their probe into Russian election tampering.

    I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the @Wikileaks source. I was involved. https://t.co/MbGQteHhZM
    - Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017

    I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about #SethRich on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs to be done properly.
    - Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) May 20, 2017

    Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, , "... (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"

    Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.

    Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z
    - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017
    Most recently, he tweeted:
    Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
    - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017
    So, I'm taking heart. The swamp may be getting warm.

    [May 23, 2017] Trump Backs Sunni Radical Islam over Moderate Shi'ism

    May 23, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org

    Ironically, as Trump was praising Saudi Arabia's "efforts" against jihadist terrorism, Iran overwhelmingly re-elected moderate President Hassan Rouhani. Rouhani ran on a platform of bestowing more freedoms on the Iranian people and opening the country to the rest of the world. A day after Trump's anti-Iran speech in Riyadh, reformists won all 21 seats in Tehran's municipal election. Across the board, Iranians, particularly women and minority religious groups, enjoy many more rights than do the Saudi Arabs. Whereas in Iran, Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians can worship openly and even enjoy representation in parliament, across the Persian Gulf, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists are banned from constructing churches or temples and displaying religious symbols. Donald Trump's ignorance of Middle Eastern religions is a severe and dangerous handicap for an American president.

    While the Saudi princelings are free to get drunk, use drugs, and heinously abuse women behind their palace walls, standing immune to the whims of the mutawa religious police, the rank and file of Saudi Arabia live in a country governed by centuries-old laws embracing misogyny, public beheadings, and religious persecution. While women are banned from driving vehicles and movie theaters are prohibited in Saudi Arabia, across the Persian Gulf in Iran, women drive freely and Iran has a vibrant movie industry and numerous theaters as attested to by that nation's winning of several international film awards, including Hollywood's Oscar.

    Trump waxed on about moderate Islam in the capital city of the country that gave birth to Wahhabism. Saudi Arabia has nurtured with its financing, propaganda, government-subsidized clerics, and other support jihadist groups from Morocco to Indonesia and Fiji to Trinidad. Trump had the gall and audacity to accuse Iran of funding terrorists and promoting a "craven ideology," i.e., Shi'ism.

    Trump's speech was largely written by Stephen Miller, a right-wing strongly pro-Israel creature of Santa Monica, California and an acolyte of the Islamophobe extremist David Horowitz. Trump's speech in Riyadh did nothing to bridge the differences between Islam and his administration and everything to do with laying down a gauntlet to not only Shi'ism but the Alawite, Zaidi, Sufi, Alevi, Ibadi, Ahmadiyya, and Ismaili sects of Islam. Trump even managed to slip the phrase "Islamic extremism" into his speech rather than the less offensive "Islamist extremism". Even though a committed Islamophobe, Miller, wrote the speech, Trump's spokespeople in Saudi Arabia insisted that the president was merely "exhausted" from his trip and that is why he said "Islamic extremism".

    Trump called for the end of the Iranian and Syrian "regimes" and the international isolation of both. Trump's speech, if it had not been written by Miller, could have easily been written by any Saudi or Israeli government propagandist.

    [May 23, 2017] Partitioning Syria is now on US agenda

    May 23, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org
    In our mind, the issue is really about the formulation of "new guidelines" for the US strategy in the Middle East. The latest changes being proposed are truly dangerous. In particular, one could point to the April 2017 report by a team established by the Congressional Bipartisan Policy Center to submit recommendations for addressing the crises in the Middle East. (Seeking Stability at Sustainable Cost: Principles for a New U.S. Strategy in the Middle East. Report of the Task Force on Managing Disorder in the Middle East. April 2017).

    That paper recommends that Congress recognize that Russia's engagement in the Middle East is at odds with US interests. The Trump administration is invited to relinquish its illusions of a partnership with the Kremlin in the fight against international terrorism and to abandon its hope of sowing dissent between Moscow and Tehran.

    And the most incendiary recommendation from the Congressional Bipartisan Policy Center's Task Force on Managing Disorder in the Middle East states: "If stability proves impossible within Syria and Iraq's current cartography, the U.S. government should no longer regard questioning of national borders as a strict taboo".

    And this raises the question - directed neither toward the tacticians on the "task force" nor to Paul Ryan or Eliot Engel, but rather toward President Trump and his team - how large a component of US foreign-policy strategy is this refusal to recognize the existing state borders in the Middle East? The answer to this question will determine the potential for any real cooperation between the US and Russia in this region

    [May 23, 2017] Trump Is the Symptom, Not the Disease by Chris Hedges

    Pretty naive, but poignant rant
    Notable quotes:
    "... It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed. ..."
    "... "What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period... ..."
    "... Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info

    Forget the firing of James Comey. Forget the paralysis in Congress. Forget the idiocy of a press that covers our descent into tyranny as if it were a sports contest between corporate Republicans and corporate Democrats or a reality show starring our maniacal president and the idiots that surround him. Forget the noise.

    The crisis we face is not embodied in the public images of the politicians that run our dysfunctional government. The crisis we face is the result of a four-decade-long, slow-motion corporate coup that has rendered the citizen impotent, left us without any authentic democratic institutions and allowed corporate and military power to become omnipotent. This crisis has spawned a corrupt electoral system of legalized bribery and empowered those public figures that master the arts of entertainment and artifice. And if we do not overthrow the neoliberal , corporate forces that have destroyed our democracy we will continue to vomit up more monstrosities as dangerous as Donald Trump.

    Trump is the symptom, not the disease.

    Our descent into despotism began with the pardoning of Richard Nixon , all of whose impeachable crimes are now legal, and the extrajudicial assault, including targeted assassinations and imprisonment, carried out on dissidents and radicals, especially black radicals.

    It began with the creation of corporate-funded foundations and organizations that took control of the press, the courts, the universities, scientific research and the two major political parties. It began with empowering militarized police to kill unarmed citizens and the spread of our horrendous system of mass incarceration and the death penalty. It began with the stripping away of our most basic constitutional rights-privacy, due process, habeas corpus, fair elections and dissent.

    It began when big money was employed by political operatives such as Roger Stone, a close Trump adviser, to create negative political advertisements and false narratives to deceive the public, turning political debate into burlesque. On all these fronts we have lost. We are trapped like rats in a cage. A narcissist and imbecile may be turning the electric shocks on and off, but the problem is the corporate state, and unless we dismantle that, we are doomed.

    "What's necessary for the state is the illusion of normality, of regularity," America's best-known political prisoner, Mumia Abu-Jamal, told me last week by phone from the prison where he is incarcerated in Frackville, Pa. " In Rome, what the emperors needed was bread and circuses. In America, what we need is 'Housewives of Atlanta.' We need sports. The moral stories of good cops and evil people. Because you have that . there is no critical thinking in America during this period...

    ... ... ...

    Trump, an acute embarrassment to the corporate state and the organs of internal security, may be removed from the presidency, but such a palace coup would only further consolidate the power of the deep state and intensify internal measures of repression.

    [May 23, 2017] John Podesta Alt-Right Media Like Sean Hannity Colluding with Russia

    Compare this with his unflattering assessment of Hillary released in leaked emails from his Google account. Would it so good if hillary was elected ?
    The fact that NYT and WaPo suffered some reputational damage, if true (I think NYT time expanded its circulation during this period) is encouraging as they both were in bed with Hillary. essentially a part of Hillary campaign staff. That means more power to the Internet media. While I don't approve of Trump's cavalier joke suggesting that the Russians find and turn over the emails that were destroyed by Clinton, I think it's a very, very big stretch to combine the fact that the DNC obviously plotted to undermine Sanders with the failure of the staff to repel predictable hacking and conclude that the person at fault here is Donald Trump.
    "He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails." -- this is not a suggestion, this is "Podesta strategy", which actually was successfully implemented. russian witch hunt as the mean to distruct attention from Hillary email and DNC corruption. "Look, a squirrel" type, "turd blossom" style political hack. The extent to which that narrative is working is an indictment of the US MSM
    As for "an "echo system" ... that raised the social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats." such echo system emerge for any society in crisis. This was true for the USSR after 70th, this is true for the USA in 2010th. Neoliberal society is in crisis, both ideological, political and economical. Neoliberal globalization is under direct attack (Brexit, Trump election)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Podesta explained that it was one more example of how the Russians were "very active in propagating and distributing fake news, working with these alt-right sites in conjunction with them." He also cited an "echo system" created by the Russians that raised the social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats. ..."
    "... He pointed out that "legitimate sites" like the Washington Post ..."
    "... New York Times ..."
    "... He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails. ..."
    "... "I think if you contextualize it - if you say that 'The Russians are coming,' and 'The Russians are here' - that can give people a sense of that they need to be more careful in the way they assess what they're hearing and what they're seeing and what's being peddled," he said. ..."
    "... He described the period of leaks as "the Soviet days" and griped that the "low burn" of email stories helped revive questions about Clinton's own private emails. ..."
    "... "We hadn't put it to bed completely," he admitted. ..."
    May 23, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Hillary Clinton's former campaign chief John Podesta attacked the First Amendment rights of the free press as he continued to spin his conspiracy theory of Russia colluding with American news websites to damage Democrats.

    During a conversation with the Washington Post 's Karen Tumulty, he cited the "participation and the support of the alt-right media," naming "guys like Sean Hannity" and "disgusting" Newt Gingrich for helping spread "fake news" to hurt Democrats. He specifically criticized Hannity and Gingrich for asking questions about DNC staffer Seth Rich's murder and whether or not it had a connection with Wikileaks.

    Podesta explained that it was one more example of how the Russians were "very active in propagating and distributing fake news, working with these alt-right sites in conjunction with them." He also cited an "echo system" created by the Russians that raised the social media profile of articles that were damaging to Democrats.

    He pointed out that "legitimate sites" like the Washington Post and the New York Times suffered, as other "alt-right" websites got more traction during the election.

    Podesta blamed websites in the United States for publishing emails from Emmanuel Macron during the French presidential election to influence the outcome.

    "The first reports of them came from U.S. alt-right sites back into France," he said. "This is a global phenomena."

    He praised the French media for helping censor the information to stop it from damaging Macron's campaign.

    "I think unfortunately for us, but maybe fortunately for the world, I think the French press was more sensitive to it," he said, praising them for helping Macron "win by a landslide" after censoring their reporting on the hacked emails.

    He suggested that the American media should have done the same things with his leaked emails.

    "I didn't feel like that really happened last fall the mainstream U.S. press was much more interested in the gossip," he said.

    Podesta warned the media about Russia's efforts to use the emails to hurt Democrats, pointedly directing them to be more responsible. He suggested that the media should have helped the Clinton campaign fuel the Russian angle, instead of reporting on his emails.

    "I think if you contextualize it - if you say that 'The Russians are coming,' and 'The Russians are here' - that can give people a sense of that they need to be more careful in the way they assess what they're hearing and what they're seeing and what's being peddled," he said.

    He described the period of leaks as "the Soviet days" and griped that the "low burn" of email stories helped revive questions about Clinton's own private emails.

    "We hadn't put it to bed completely," he admitted.

    [May 23, 2017] The recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership

    Notable quotes:
    "... the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report. ..."
    "... ... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?" ..."
    May 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC -> Fred C. Dobbs, May 23, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    If Trump goes, Pence becomes president.

    Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.

    In the meantime, nothing gets fixed.

    Anyone who wants single-payer, better jobs, etc. should focus on the 2018 elections and work for people who can oust people like Nancy Pelosi in the primaries and Republicans in the general.

    libezkova, May 23, 2017 at 08:52 AM

    "Pence is worse than Trump. And he is more likely to get two terms.In the meantime, nothing gets fixed."

    True. Also the recent news as for Rich Seth murder might take Trump probe in a somewhat different direction and put additional pressure of neoliberal, Pelosi-Clinton part of the party leadership. If half of what was recently reported is true, Clapper-Brennan "Intelligence assessment" looks more and more like Warren Commission report.

    http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3559/A-Seth-Rich-Chronology-Part-1.aspx

    Also at

    http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/seth-rich-craig-murray-and-the-sinister-stewards-of-the-national-security-state/#comment-1880788

    ... Then, Newt Gingrich, on Fox News, says: " (Rich) was assassinated at 4 in the morning after having giving Wikileaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments. Nobody's investigating that. And what does that tell you about what is going on?"

    Well, we know that Kim's chances of attracting Congressional interest was just about nil, but then Sean Hannity invited Dotcom to discuss his evidence in the Seth Rich case on his shows.

    Stay tuned. Public invitation Kim Dotcom to be a guest on radio and TV. #GameChanger Buckle up destroy Trump media. Sheep that u all are!!! https://t.co/3qLwXCGl6z

    - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 20, 2017

    Most recently, he tweeted:

    Complete panic has set in at the highest levels of the Democratic Party. Any bets when the kitchen sink is dumped on my head?? https://t.co/Zt2gIX4zyq
    - Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017

    [May 23, 2017] Clapper intelligence assessment sounds a little bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission

    May 23, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Carroll Price , May 22, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT

    .Director of National Intelligence James Clapper explained in his testimony that two dozen or so "seasoned experts" were "handpicked" from the contributing agencies" and drafted the ICA "under the aegis of his former office" While Clapper claimed these analysts were given "complete independence" to reach their findings, he added that their conclusions "were thoroughly vetted and then approved by the directors of the three agencies and me."

    Sounds a bit like the Warren Commission and 9/11 Commission, with both being presented with the results of what their investigation would uncover prior to any investigation taking place.

    [May 23, 2017] Talking Tactics, Lacking Strategy - The Generals On Syria And Iraq

    May 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    LXV | May 21, 2017 4:54:59 PM | 8
    Thank you b,

    Russia has reportedly already deployed its specops units (consultants and trainers in imperial vocabulary) to Al-Sweida region, embedding them with the SAA troops headed to Al-Tanf. Hence, reading the 3 rabid animals' press conference statement regarding "de-confliction" with Russia in Southern Syria sounds more like an entreatment to me.

    Let's hope Norway grows a pair and recalls all its units from the conflict line. If the Empire wants that border crossing so badly, then they can place the ZATO generals' children to defend it!

    Ghostship | May 21, 2017 5:10:48 PM | 9
    >>>> james | May 21, 2017 3:47:28 PM | 3
    usa policy in syria is delusional

    James, you are not even close - just about the whole fucking country is delusional!
    • The Clintonists: that Comey and the Russians cost her the election - when it is all too obvious that it was her record as a politician. her policies, her campaign and greed that were responsible.
    • The Sanderists: because unless the Clintonists are put up against the proverbial wall there isn't a chance in hell that the Democrats will improve their position in the next elections.
    • The Trumpists: that Trump will deliver any real decent jobs or will adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy although as he is a grifter he might do what he said he would.
    • The regular Republicans: well, because they're Republicans.

    jfl | May 21, 2017 5:20:34 PM | 11
    a full transcript of the rump's declaration of jihad against iran from al-CIA-duh central is available from information clearing house. unbelievable. with the chameleon rump, the changes in 'protective' coloration just keep flashing. it seems to me that every possible projected member of his audience has been sickened by this performance.

    Mina | May 21, 2017 6:28:04 PM | 22
    Nice Iranian answer to Trump's stupid lies and provocation.they nicely underlined his total ignorance of diplomacy since it is usually not considered appropriate to criticize a country while in official visit somewhere. The richest man turned into a beggar and a lackey of the Saudis bowing for 370 billion dollars worth contracts...


    Where is "Iranian terrorism" in Libya and Boko Haram?

    jfl | May 21, 2017 6:56:36 PM | 24
    McGurk at the Pentagon Press Briefing Room

    During my recent trip, I again witnessed how our diplomats are fully integrated with our military colleagues around the whole of government effort to fulfill President Trump's charge to destroy ISIS and ensure it can never return. ...

    When Secretary Tillerson hosted all 68 members of our coalition in March, it was significant that he was joined throughout parts of the day by Secretary Mattis, by Secretary Mnuchin, Director Pompeo, Director Coats, and other representatives from across our interagency. This demonstrated to the coalition and to the world our united whole of government approach as directed by the president.

    Such cooperation is enabling an anaconda-like approach to suffocate ISIS of its territory, finances, propaganda and ability to move foreign fighters. ...


    ... the state department has been integrated into the wehrmacht : state, war, treasury, CIA, director of national intelligence ... one big anaconda to crush the life and breath out of those who have yet to 'see the light' ... the 'extremists', i guess, in the new salafist doctrine of the shining city on the hill in ac/dc ...

    This cooperation has enabled closer political coordination between local, regional, and national governments to help return people to their homes after the battles are won through an innovative post-conflict approach based on empowering people at the local level to restore life to their communities. And we call this stabilization ...

    Stabilization is not nation-building. ... nor is it long-term reconstruction [with] projects ... costing and often wasting billions of dollars. Instead, stabilization is a low-cost, sustainable, citizen-driven effort to identify the key projects that are essential to returning people to their homes such as water pumps, electricity nodes, grain silos, and local security structures, local police.

    This is not glamorous work, but it's working. In Iraq, 1.7 million Iraqis are now back in their homes; no longer displaced, no longer refugees or migrants seeking to flee. ...


    ... death, devastation, destruction, and deceit ... and leave it that way. let the locals cobble together what they can to keep themselves alive ... and able to extract the regions' resources for the city on the hill.

    that's the 'vision' - the 'united whole of government approach' of the usofa and its vassals in its coalition to the new american century ... at 16 or 17 years of age, now long in tooth, by the 12 year rule of the last thousand year reich.

    i think those iraqis and syrians, moving back into their homes after the usofa's firestorm has been extinguished are going to join hands and, together with the lebanese and iranians, drive the empire and it minions out of their northern half of the middle east for once and for all. and that then the ordinary arabs who've suffered under the rule of the kings and emirs and sultans, infuriated by the alliance of their rulers with the oppressors of the whole region, will do the same in the region's south.

    Debsisdead | May 21, 2017 6:58:59 PM | 25
    As sociopathic as flooding the ME with $200 billion worth of high tech armaments is, I cannot help but think that this crazy stunt will spell the end of the al-Sauds.

    They may have enough family members to man every red button on their new toys and succeed in blowing all their immediate neighbours to hell, but they don't have anything like enough trained and committed human beings to occupy the territories they will believe they have conquered. As we all know half a dozen khat fuelled Yemenis fighting with 'borrowed' munitions can run through a saudi armoured unit and still have enough left over for a good old death to israel singalong.

    I cannot see even those sunni citizens from other tribes feeling sufficiently 'proud' to join the army and help since in all likelihood the 'deal' will contain conditions that the market for crude continue to be flooded, prices kept low and Saudi austerity on target.

    This is a more like a recipe for a revolution than a strategy to dominate the region.

    Hopefully the zionists will also be flushed down the gurgler in the backwash.

    Hoarsewhisperer | May 21, 2017 8:29:27 PM | 27
    My first thought after reading its was: "These people live in a different world. They have no idea how the real word works on the ground. What real people think, say, and are likely to do." There was no strategic thought visible. Presented were only some misguided tactical ideas.

    Yep. You hit that nail squarely on the head, b.

    Clusterfucks R Us has completely lost the plot. The Yankees want everyone to start singing Happy Days Are Here Again, but 'everyone' wants an answer to the questions
    "What TF do you retards think you're doing?"

    and

    "Who TF do you think you're kidding?"

    Putin decided to let them know that he doesn't give a rat's ass what they're pretending to believe, last week, when he made an unsolicited offer to provide the Trump 'investigators' with a transcript of Trump's WH conversation with Lavrov. i.e. Vlad knew they'd ignore the offer because Yankees prefer to believe their own bullshit.
    Helluva way to win a war though.

    And I couldn't help noticing that Vlad actually chuckled when he was making the offer...

    stumpy | May 22, 2017 2:53:14 AM | 29
    james @28

    It's all a sad sad media melodrama. You may get a similar barrage of crap entertainment in the northern territories, but here it's beyond a religion. We are three or so generations into the systematic dismantling of the educational system coupled with a salacious-minded culture of gossip and under-the-table deals. The citizenry is all pretty much irrelevant to policy now, as their understanding is by and large an inch deep and a mile wide. The bright souls are few and far between, and stay down. Heroin and recreational drug use is rampant. Schools are crumbling. News is not news. People are getting sick and dying younger, and the maternal mortality rate is on par with a third-world republic. Nobody really knows what is going on. Iraq and Afghanistan vets are suiciding on a daily basis.

    Now follow the lights over the skies of Riyadh.

    Knowing how the ME is so trade-oriented, since the days of the caravanserai, the Saudi contract may easily be an economic strategy for the KSA to diversify into arms trade, so not free guns for terrorists but a new shopping mall for US hardware. Plenty of action in Africa and the Caucasus, and operates beyond US arms trade control. Business as usual, but with a large new distributor/underwriter.

    Whatever Clinton promised the Saudi princes in exchange for their generosity for the Clinton "charities", it was probably expanded with fewer strings attached by Trump, which really matters if you want to pursue influence by foreign governments on US policy and trade. The horror is that it probably sets up the endgame whereby Yemen, Syria and Iran are destroyed. Unless the R+6 get real, which they are.

    There is talk of a Russian air-assault brigade coming into the Syrian theatre to fight in the #OpLavender campaign, as well as hired guns from the Caucasus firming up in the Syrian ranks around Hama, the Turan. Iraqs PMUs look to control the Deir Ezzor-Mosul axis. Syria has friends and they all showed up for the fight.

    Trump cannot hope to juggle the moving parts on both sides here, and my guess that the Zionaudis revenge in case of betrayal will be pitted against the R+6 commitments to keep Syria intact. Trump made the deal with KSA, but also wants to party with Lavrov and Putin. Who's he gonna piss off first? Probably Russia, as his trip to Israel will complete the brainwash.

    As tortured as the Trump team is in the homeland, I would suspect a lowered tolerance for kids coming home wearing a flag under Trump, as clueless as the warmakers appear to be, as you and others have said. The cassus belli is a tough sell after Iraq and Afghanistan. No twin towers have recently collapsed. Terror in the skies is mostly authored by Delta and United.

    somebody | May 22, 2017 3:38:04 AM | 30
    Posted by: james | May 22, 2017 1:11:28 AM | 28

    There might be some truth in what they are saying

    It is a family thing. When Muslim women represent upper class families they are equal (something the Trump family can relate to). Benazir Bhutto could do it in Pakistan.

    Womens' rights in Saudi are of course abysmal. But should the Saudi economy need them they will be emancipated .

    Women's rights in Iran are not good either, by the way .

    Generally speaking, you can do a lot of things as a women in a Muslim country if your family supports you. If not, you have a big problem.

    Anon | May 22, 2017 4:25:59 AM | 31
    So Trump blast Iran while arming the ISIS-supporting sunni states, and hail women progress in the region - you cant make this up. This is yet another proof that Trump is unfortunately, really stupid and a neocon warmonger.
    He now just have to drop Russia and there is no discussion needed anymore to judge him.

    Laguerre | May 22, 2017 5:42:22 AM | 34
    There is no attack on Raqqa, because there are insufficient forces available to do it, surely? The YPG are not going to do it, much as the Peshmerga haven't entered Mosul. Nice Kurdish boys and girls are not going to die fighting their way through Raqqa and Mosul, just to hand them back to the local Arabs. It's not really about what the US might or not not be offering - genuine independence can't be offered by the US, and Turkish recalcitrance is just one of the factors.

    There is of course a Sunni Arab tribal element in the SDF, but it's not very numerous (I forget the number). And they're likely to go back to supporting Asad, once this is all over. Curious that, isn't it, Sunni Arabs supporting Asad, though not actually rare. I remember a video with interviews with some of them. They were quite clear about their views.

    blues | May 22, 2017 7:18:53 AM | 35
    "Trump & 55 Muslim-majority states sign pact pledging 34,000 troops to fight ISIS in Iraq & Syria" -- RT -- 5/22/17
    https://www.rt.com/news/389152-trump-muslim-leaders-terrorism/

    jfl | May 22, 2017 8:25:26 AM | 36
    @3, blues

    more likely 34,000 isis replacements to fight assad, hezbollah, iraqis, and iranians.

    it's all on paper. believe it when they show up.

    Laguerre | May 22, 2017 12:24:41 PM | 43
    Well, they certainly aren't going to find 34,000 troops. If they couldn't do it before, they can't now.

    In any case, the only source is the poor countries, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Pakistan, and several others. The trouble here is that they're Sunnis supposed to be fighting ISIS. Fight the heretical Shi'a they might, though in fact attempts to recruit Sudanese and Pakistanis to fight the Houthis haven't worked out.

    And who's supposed to be picking up the tab? THe Saudis and Gulfis, I imagine. I can see that happening. Wahhabis fighting Wahhabis.

    Better to take the agreement as a dead letter, to be forgotten as soon as he is home in Trump Tower, or Mar-a-lago.

    by: Laguerre | May 22, 2017 12:24:41 PM | 43

    by: Laguerre | May 22, 2017 12:24:41 PM | 43

    Christian Chuba | May 22, 2017 12:46:38 PM | 44
    GEN. DUNFORD: We don't have a government to work with and we will never work with the Assad regime.

    So when you talk to particularly the folks who will be involved n the Raqqa operation, the post-Raqqa phase, unanimously nobody wants the Syrian regime to come back , regime symbols, regime military forces. ... But as you, kind of, lift the lid over Syria, you see a lot of this happening in areas even where the opposition controls. Teacher salaries, basic worker salaries oftentimes paid by the government because it's a very centralized state. So these are things that have to be worked out, but what -- what they are unanimous about is no return of the regime.

    Fascinating.

    1. We let it slip out that the monster Assad is helping to subsidize Syrians living in rebel held areas. I thought he was starving them.

    2. We also just declared that we are annexing Raqqa on behalf of the SDF.

    3. If you read that quote it is pretty heartless. It basically says that there will be no international reconstruction money for Syria unless Assad goes. So the Syrians better do what we say or we will make them pay for the destruction of their country.

    stumpy | May 22, 2017 12:55:22 PM | 46
    Debsisdead @40

    Dead on.

    Maybe we could call it MEATO.

    50-50 odds the EU Army forms first.

    james | May 22, 2017 1:04:52 PM | 47
    @29 stumpy.. it is so sad really... the level of apathy, combined with depravity and etc. etc. that the usa has dropped to.. it might have once been a great country, but that time is now long past.. canada isn't far behind either, but at least no one was looking at us as a role model for anything other then on a humanitarian level.. and on that level we continue to disappoint as well..

    we seem to be coming down to high noon in the okay corral with regard to syria. i don't think russia is going to back down here and if as it seems the us military is in the hands of these same whack jobs who have been responsible for the deaths of syrian army people, the usa and russia are going to be meeting in syria very soon and ww3 is just around the corner... such a shame the usa has a jack in the box for president..

    @30 somebody.. i am sure there are exceptions at the top end, but generally the saudi culture is medieval or worse by the sounds of it.. iran is obviously better, but the same deal applies with regard to men having control over their wives lives in important ways.. this is an islamic thing?

    @31 anon.. i agree with you about it is over for trump...

    @36 jfl.. yeah - that is it!

    @38 ghostship.. i will grant you that the usa is in terrible shape.. they just haven't turned off the lights yet.. websites that had some shred of relevancy are typically bought out to the highest bidder and taken over as another propaganda shop.. huffington post, democracy now - they are all susceptible to this now..

    jfl | May 22, 2017 7:04:28 PM | 50
    b points up the split between the saudi-backed salafists and those backed by turkey, above.

    erdogan still dreams in technicolor, just like a saudi royal, apparently.

    strangely, this split is verified by ... john mccain ...

    on returning to the turkish embassy in ac/dc after face-time with the rump, erdogan found protestors in front thereof, and ordered his goons in suits to punish them. they did ... bad press ... erdogan now attempts to turn it around, in true neo-con fashion - not for nothing has he been watching the much admired israelis of late ...

    Ankara Summons US Ambassador Over Washington Incident


    Already last week, Washington expressed "grave concern" about the Turkish behaviour.

    The US Senator John McCain even went as far as to demand the expulsion of the Turkish ambassador.


    ... the last sentence is the tell. it's officially goodbye turkey, hello saudi arabia in ac/dc, and that goes for their respective salafist proxies as well. especially, rather.

    stumpy | May 22, 2017 9:08:23 PM | 53
    @48 Lozion, RE: Russian Forces in Syria

    Mentioned over on sst -- also:

    https://twitter.com/warsmonitoring/status/866307127777931268
    https://twitter.com/WaelHussaini/statuses/866054742430056449
    http://scofieldinstitute.org/russian-forces-arrive-southern-syria/

    People with better sources than I could probably elucidate.

    [May 22, 2017] The Russian Obsession Goes Back Decades by Jacob G. Hornberger

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president: ..."
    "... He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America. ..."
    "... He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow. ..."
    "... President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship. ..."
    "... They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor. All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here . ..."
    "... In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done. ..."
    "... Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, ..."
    "... Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA ..."
    "... By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again. ..."
    "... What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs. ..."
    "... In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment ..."
    "... For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel. ..."
    May 20, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Just consider the accusations that have been leveled at the president:

    1. He has betrayed the Constitution, which he swore to uphold.
    2. He has committed treason by befriending Russia and other enemies of America.
    3. He has subjugated America's interests to Moscow.
    4. He has been caught in fantastic lies to the American people, including personal ones, like his previous marriage and divorce.
    President Donald Trump? No, President John F. Kennedy. What lots of Americans don't realize, because it was kept secret from them for so long, is that what Trump has been enduring from the national-security establishment, the mainstream press, and the American right-wing for his outreach to, or "collusion with," Russia pales compared to what Kennedy had to endure for committing the heinous "crime" of reaching out to Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union in a spirit of peace and friendship.

    They hated him for it. They abused him. They insulted him. They belittled him. They called him naïve. They said he was a traitor. All of the nasties listed above, plus more, were contained in an advertisement and a flier that appeared in Dallas on the morning of November 22, 1963, the day that Kennedy was assassinated. They can be read here and here .

    Ever since then, some people have tried to make it seem like the advertisement and flier expressed only the feelings of extreme right-wingers in Dallas. That's nonsense. They expressed the deeply held convictions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the CIA, the conservative movement, and many people within the mainstream media and Washington establishment.

    In June 1963, Kennedy threw down the gauntlet in a speech he delivered at American University, now entitled the " Peace Speech ." It was one of the most remarkable speeches ever delivered by an American president. It was broadcast all across the communist Soviet Union, the first time that had ever been done.

    In the speech, Kennedy announced that he was bringing an end to the Cold War and the mindset of hostility toward Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union that the U.S. national-security establishment had inculcated in the minds of the American people ever since the end of World War II.

    It was a radical notion and, as Kennedy well understood, a very dangerous one insofar as he was concerned. The Cold War against America's World War II partner and ally had been used to convert the United States from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, one consisting of a vast, permanent military establishment, the CIA, and the NSA, along with their broad array of totalitarian-like powers, such as assassination, regime change, coups, invasions, torture, surveillance, and the like. Everyone was convinced that the Cold War - and the so-called threat from the international communist conspiracy that was supposedly based in Russia - would last forever, which would naturally mean permanent and ever-increasing largess for what Kennedy's predecessor, President Dwight Eisenhower, had called the "military-industrial complex."

    Suddenly, Kennedy was upending the Cold War apple cart by threatening to establish a relationship of friendship and peaceful coexistence with Russia, the rest of the Soviet Union, and Cuba.

    Kennedy knew full well that his actions were considered by some to be a grave threat to "national security." After all, don't forget that it was Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him ousted from power by the CIA and presumably targeted for assassination as part of that regime-change operation. It was Cuban leader Fidel Castro's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that made him the target of Pentagon and CIA regime-change operations, including through invasion, assassination, and sanctions. It was Congo leader's Patrice Lamumba's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted for assassination by the CIA It would be Chilean President Salvador Allende's outreach to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship that got him targeted in a CIA-instigated coup in Chile that resulted in Allende's death.

    Kennedy wasn't dumb. He knew what he was up against. He had heard Eisenhower warn the American people in his Farewell Address about the dangers to their freedom and democratic way of life posed by the military establishment. After Kennedy had read the novel Seven Days in May, which posited the danger of a military coup in America, he asked friends in Hollywood to make it into a movie to serve as a warning to the American people. In the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Pentagon and the CIA were exerting extreme pressure on Kennedy to bomb and invade Cuba, his brother Bobby told a Soviet official with whom he was negotiating that the president was under a severe threat of being ousted in a coup. And, of course, Kennedy was fully mindful of what had happened to Arbenz, Lamumba, and Castro for doing what Kennedy was now doing - reaching out to the Soviets in a spirit of friendship.

    In the eyes of the national-security establishment, one simply did not reach out to Russia, Cuba, or any other "enemy" of America. Doing so, in their eyes, made Kennedy an appeaser, betrayer, traitor, and a threat to "national security."

    Kennedy didn't stop with his Peace Speech. He also began negotiating a treaty with the Soviets to end above-ground nuclear testing, an action that incurred even more anger and ire within the Pentagon and the CIA Yes, that's right - they said that "national security" depended on the U.S. government's continuing to do what they object to North Korea doing today - conducting nuclear tests, both above ground and below ground.

    Kennedy mobilized public opinion to overcome fierce opposition in the military, CIA, Congress, and the Washington establishment to secure passage of his Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

    He then ordered a partial withdrawal of troops from Vietnam, and told close aides that he would order a complete pull-out after winning the 1964 election. In the eyes of the U.S. national-security establishment, leaving Vietnam subject to a communist takeover would pose a grave threat to national security here in the United States.

    Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, Kennedy began secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro to bring an end to America's Cold War against them. That was considered to be a grave threat to "national security" as well as a grave threat to all the military and intelligence largess that depended on the Cold War.

    By this time, Kennedy's war with the national-security establishment was in full swing. He had already vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds after its perfidious conduct in the Bay of Pigs fiasco. By this time, he had also lost all confidence in the military after it proposed an all-out surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union, much as Japan had done at Pearl Harbor, after the infamous plan known as Operation Northwoods, which proposed terrorist attacks and plane hijackings carried out by U.S. agents posing as Cuban communists, so as to provide a pretext for invading Cuba, and after the Cuban Missile Crisis, when the military establishment accused him of appeasement and treason for agreeing not to ever invade Cuba again.

    What Kennedy didn't know was that his "secret" negotiations with the Soviet and Cuban communists weren't so secret after all. As it turns out, it was a virtual certainty that the CIA (or NSA) was listening in on telephone conversations of Cuban officials at the UN in New York City, much as the CIA and NSA still do today, during which they would have learned what the president was secretly doing behind their backs.

    Kennedy's feelings toward the people who were calling him a traitor for befriending Moscow and other "enemies" of America? In response to the things that were said in that advertisement and flier about him being a traitor for befriending Russia, he told his wife Jackie on the morning he was assassinated: "We are heading into nut country today." Of course, as he well knew, the nuts weren't located only in Dallas. They were also situated throughout the U.S. national-security establishment.

    For more information, attend The Future of Freedom Foundation's one-day conference on June 3, 2017, entitled " The National Security State and JFK " at the Washington Dulles Marriott Hotel.

    Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation .

    [May 22, 2017] Trump is responsible for what the US continues to try to do in Syria and Iraq

    May 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    johnnycanuck, May 22, 2017 4:23 PM

    While you are looking over there, El Donaldo Trump is responsible for what the US continues to try to do in Syria and Iraq. You have heard of the Yinon Plan? Will America Partition Syria?

    About Turn: What's Really Behind the US' New Approach to Syria https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201705211053835649-us-syria-tactics/

    Russia Is Counting on Hezbollah to Help Spearhead Eastern Syria Offensive http://russia-insider.com/en/military/russia-counting-hezbollah-help-spe...

    El Donaldo as much as declared 'Holy' war on Iran, on behalf of the folks who funded his campaign. What a guy. Such an All American Hero.

    [May 22, 2017] Making this event even more scandalous than the war crime which it all ready objectively is, is the fact that the attack occurred inside one of the de-escalation zones

    May 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    harrylaw | May 18, 2017 4:20:26 PM | 48

    According to Syria, the casualties of the attack are as follows: A convoy of five T-62 tanks were hit by the U.S. Coalition. Two tanks were destroyed
    A Shilka was damaged. Six military personnel were killed and another three were wounded. Convoy consisted of soldiers from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), National Defence Forces (NDF), Hezbollah, and Imam Al-'Ali Battalions

    Previously under the Obama administration, the US Air Force killed 62 Syrian Arab Army soldiers near Deir ez-Zor airport in a horrific war crime.

    Making this event even more scandalous than the war crime which it all ready objectively is, is the fact that the attack occurred inside one of the 'de-escalation zones' (aka safe zones) established in Syria according to the Astana Memorandum. Russia, Turkey and Iran are guarantors of the agreement which has the backing of the United Nations, Syrian government and the apparent tacit approval of the United States. http://theduran.com/confirmed-america-attacks-syrian-arab-army-and-its-allies-a-crime-and-blunder/

    [May 22, 2017] Key points of TIME magazine cover story on the Russian takeover of America

    Notable quotes:
    "... TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article: ..."
    May 22, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Petri Krohn | May 18, 2017 8:57:21 PM | 71

    TIME magazine has just published a cover story on the Russian takeover of America: Inside Russia's Social Media War on America . The cover image shows the White House turned into the Kremlin. I will list some of the key points below with quotes from the article:

    1) Social media has become a danger to democracy.

    The vast openness and anonymity of social media has cleared a dangerous new route for antidemocratic forces. "Using these technologies, it is possible to undermine democratic government."

    2) Democratic society must isolate itself from public opinion.

    Russia may finally have gained the ability it long sought but never fully achieved in the Cold War: to alter the course of events in the U.S. by manipulating public opinion.

    3) Russia spies on you.

    The Russians "target you and see what you like, what you click on, and see if you're sympathetic or not sympathetic."

    4) America is losing the cyberwar.

    As Russia expands its cyberpropaganda efforts, the U.S. and its allies are only just beginning to figure out how to fight back.

    5) Russia has clever algorithms that America lacks.

    American researchers have found they can use mathematical formulas to segment huge populations into thousands of subgroups... Propagandists can then manually craft messages to influence them, deploying covert provocateurs, either humans or automated computer programs known as bots, in hopes of altering their behavior.

    6) Russia has huge troll farms.

    Putin dispatched his newly installed head of military intelligence, Igor Sergun, to begin repurposing cyberweapons previously used for psychological operations in war zones for use in electioneering. Russian intelligence agencies funded "troll farms," botnet spamming operations and fake news outlets as part of an expanding focus on psychological operations in cyberspace.

    7) You must trust mainstream media.

    Eager to appear more powerful than they are, the Russians would consider it a success if you questioned the truth of your news sources, knowing that Moscow might be lurking in your Facebook or Twitter feed.

    8) Russia invaded Ukraine in April 2014 .

    Putin was aiming his new weapons at the U.S. Following Moscow's April 2014 invasion of Ukraine.

    9) Hillary Clinton did not murder Seth Rich.

    That story went viral in late August, then took on a life of its own after Clinton fainted from pneumonia and dehydration at a Sept. 11 event in New York City. Elsewhere people invented stories saying Pope Francis had endorsed Trump and Clinton had murdered a DNC staffer.

    10) The evidence:

    Russia plays in every social media space. The intelligence officials have found that Moscow's agents bought ads on Facebook to target specific populations with propaganda. "They buy the ads, where it says sponsored by–they do that just as much as anybody else does," says the senior intelligence official. (A Facebook official says the company has no evidence of that occurring.) The ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner of Virginia, has said he is looking into why, for example, four of the top five Google search results the day the U.S. released a report on the 2016 operation were links to Russia's TV propaganda arm, RT. (Google says it saw no meddling in this case.) Researchers at the University of Southern California, meanwhile, found that nearly 20% of political tweets in 2016 between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21 were generated by bots of unknown origin; investigators are trying to figure out how many were Russian.

    [May 22, 2017] U.S. Attacks Syrian Government Forces - It Now Has To Make Its Choice

    Notable quotes:
    "... We know from the Wesley Clark revelations from 2003 that Syria is just one of 7 countries surrounding Israel that were targeted for either government take over or invasion. Iran is the bigger fish than Syria so Syria is the nut that needs to be cracked first. ..."
    "... If we look at the synchronized western propaganda it is also clear how each of these countries has become a target and then was forced into becoming IMF/One Bank slave states while their country was looted and their infrastructure destroyed. ..."
    "... looks like the rump is being led by neo-cons, with a ring in his nose. ..."
    "... "For the second time in as many months, the U.S. military has conducted airstrikes against pro-Assad forces in Syria," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). "The Trump Administration does not have congressional authorization to carry out military strikes against the Assad regime..." ..."
    "... From a legal point of view, you're perfectly right, as is terril. ..."
    "... But (intl.) politics isn't as sober and neutral, I'm afraid. What would happen if the Syrian govt. was given enough air defense systems and shot down those planes, or if Russia did it? Who would win the upper hand in DC, those urging restraint & negotiations or those saying 'To hell with UN & rules, they attacked our guys so we'll teach them a lesson!'? ..."
    "... International law is a good thing for sure, but it's important to know its limits and act accordingly. As Carl Schmitt said, 'the sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception' - at the global level, great powers decide themselves whether or not they honour international law. There's some incentive for them to do so most of the time, but once a conflict touches on their core interests... ..."
    "... The US is like a sociopath. It behaves badly and opportunistically when it can. The leadership of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah know this. B wrote this in his last analysis too. ..."
    "... The past years, US has attacked Iraqi troops and para military on a regular basis whenever they were taking actions the US didn't like. For example when they were heading to Ramadi to liberate it, the US simply bombed and killed a couple of dozen para military as only some supposedly 'sunni-fighers' were allowed to participate. ..."
    "... It has also regularly dropped supplies to Daesh. ..."
    "... To everyone that screams for the Russians to shoot down US planes, etc. etc. You have to realize the minute the Russians do that they will face a full court press from the US media for direct confrontation and war. Trump will be called a coward and a pawn and he'll end up being forced to start attacking Russian assets in Syria. ..."
    "... The way to look at it is 'Russian efforts are restraining the US from its desired course of action' (Libya style intervention). Instead the US is stuck trying to goad the Russians into giving them a pretext to intervene on a large scale. The Russians/Iranians/Syrians just need to keep going, take the occasional 'provocation' attempt by the US and turn the other cheek. Eventually like 'b' says, the US will simply have to leave. ..."
    "... Here's the thing. US has struck twice with total impunity in the current stage of the crisis, once here and once with the tomahawks. Russia doesn't seem to be shooting back. They can bang their shoes all day at the UN or make these grandiose proclamations about US war crimes, but they're starting to look like puppies keeping their powder dry. ..."
    "... I'm absolutely not saying that international law is meaningless, just that it has limits. If a great power (and esp. the US) violates it, there will not be any direct consequences, *but* the rest of the world will still see the act for what it is. If this happens regularly, the great power will find it ever harder to find allies on the global scene, ..."
    "... The prime example for this is the 2003 Iraq war: The US & UK govts thought that they could act with impunity. They may have been right in the short run, but in the longer run this blatant violation of the most fundamental intl. law was their downfall. Talk about a leader losing all his followers. ..."
    "... The Russians, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians know the US/UK forces are protecting that supply corridor. They know the US is reluctant to use Iraq (as much as possible) for those convoys. If the SAA wants to take Deir EzZor and al Bukamal, then it has to cut the ISIS supply lines along the southeast border from al Tanf to al Bukamal. ..."
    "... Like I said before, the U.S. are sore losers. CJTF-OIR doesn't like anyone messing with their ISIS supply corridors or their US/UK ISIS corridor 'guards'. They are running out of options, which makes them very dangerous. ..."
    "... the United States, with the help of Jordan and Turkey, was running a training base for Syrian rebels in Jordan. http://www.australiannationalreview.com/isis-members-trained-cia ..."
    "... Historically, the region (upper Mesopotamia) has always been valuable and contested, as this is where the roads running from west to east cross those running from north to south. It is the heartland of the Middle East, so to say. ..."
    "... i guess the usa has an idiot for defense secretary.. that or a very bad liar.. if someone murders mattis, it can be claimed it's self defense.. sorta like a variant on peter-logic.. "Defense Secretary James Mattis described the targeted fighters as Iran-backed, rather than backed by the Syrian government, and called the airstrike "self-defense of our forces." ..."
    May 22, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Addendum added below
    ---

    The Syrian army is on the way to liberate the ISIS besieged city of some 100,000 and garrison of Deir Ezzor in the east of the country. The U.S. has trained a few thousand "New Syrian Army" insurgents in Jordan and is reportedly prepared to march these and its own forces from Jordan through the east-Syrian desert all the way up to Raqqa and Deir Ezzor. About a year ago it occupied the al-Tanf (al-Tanaf) border station which consists of only a few buildings in the mid of the desert. The station between Syria and Iraq near the Jordan border triangle was previously held by a small ISIS group.

    A U.S. move from the south up towards the Euphrates would cut off the Syrian government from the whole south-east of the country and from its people in Deir Ezzor. While that area is sparsely populated it also has medium size oil and gas fields and is the land connection to the Syrian allies in Iraq.

    With the western part of the country relatively quiet, the Syrian government and its allies decided to finally retake the south-eastern provinces from ISIS. They want to lift the ISIS siege on Deir Ezzor and close the border between Syria and Iraq with its own forces. The move will also block any potential U.S. invasion from the south by retaking the road to al-Tanf and the Syrian-Iraqi border (red arrows). The sovereign Syrian state will not give up half of the country to an illegal occupation by ISIS or the U.S. At the same time as the eastern operations are running consolidation and clearing operations against ISIS in the middle and west of the countries will take place (green arrows).


    Map by OZ_Analysis (modified by MoA) - bigger

    Yesterday a small battalion size force (~2-300 men) of the regular Syrian army, Syrian National Defense Organization volunteers and Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces ( PMF/PMU of the Kata'ib al-Imam Ali ) marched on the road from the west towards al-Tanf. They were about 23 kilometers away from the border station when they were attack by U.S. aircraft coming in low from Jordan. The U.S. jets directly fired at the convoy, allegedly after earlier giving some "warning shots". At least one Syrian tank and several other vehicles were destroyed. Six Syrian government forces were reported killed and more were wounded.

    The U.S. command claimed that this was a "defensive" move to "protect" its soldiers at the al-Tanf station. There are U.S. and British special forces stationed near the station who lead and train the NSA contingent - all together a few 100 men.

    The U.S. attack was clearly a willful, illegal attack on Syrian ground against legitimate forces of the sovereign Syrian government. (The Iraqi PMU contingent in Syria is a legitimate allied force under control of the Iraqi prime minister.) There is no clause in international law, no UNSC resolution or anything similar, that could justify such an attack. The U.S. military has no right at all to be at al-Tanf or anywhere else in Syria. There is nothing to "defend" for it. If it dislikes regular Syrian and Iraqi forces moving in their own countries towards their own border station and retaking it from Jihadi "rebels", it can and should move out and go home. Moreover - the U.S. claims it is "fighting ISIS" in Syria. Why then is it attacking the Syrian government forces while these launch a large operation against the very same enemy?

    The coalition led by the U.S. military claimed it asked Russia to intervene and that Russia tried to deter the Syrian force to move towards al-Tanf. I am told that this claim is incorrect. Russia supports the Syrian move to the east and the retaking of the border. The move will be reinforced and continue. The revamped Syrian air defense will actively protect it. Russia will support it with its own forces if needed.

    The illegitimate occupation forces, the U.S. and British forces and their proxies, will have to move out of al-Tanf or they will have to directly fight the Syrian government forces and all its allies. They have no right to be there at all. The Iraqi PMU in Syria, some of which were hurt in yesterday's U.S. attack, are an active part of the coalition against ISIS in Iraq. If the U.S. fights it in Syria it will also have to fight it in Iraq (and elsewhere). Russia is able and willing to reinforce its own contingent in Syria to help the government to regain the Syrian east.

    The U.S. has no legitimate aim in Syria. It is somewhat tolerated in the north-east where it helps Syrian-Kurdish forces to fight ISIS and to liberate Raqqa. That does not give it ANY right to occupy Syria's east or to attack Syrian government forces. When Raqqa is done all U.S. forces in the north-east will have to again move out.

    Together with its many subordinate NATO and Gulf allies the U.S. has the military and economic power to destroy the Syrian military. It can eliminate the Syrian government under President Assad and occupy the whole country. That would be a large war which would probably escalate into a global fight against Russia, Iran and other countries. It would necessitate a several decades long follow-up occupation for "nation building" while constantly fighting against a large al-Qaeda aligned Takfiri insurgency in Syria and all its neighboring countries (especially in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey where U.S. friendly governments would fall). The war would cost several trillion U.S. dollars, a large number of casualties and cause decades long chaos in a geo-politically sensitive region.

    The U.S. has a simple choice: Either go in with full force and bear the above consequences, or concede to the sovereign Syrian government and its allies and coordinate with them to retake the country from ISIS and al-Qaeda. This will have to be done as they, not the U.S., see it proper to do. To believe that the U.S. can take the east and convert into some peaceful vassal statelet is pure fantasy. Way too many regional forces and interests are strung against that. There is little grey between these black and white alternatives.

    The only tactically thinking U.S. military and intelligence services will try to avoid to choose between these. They will use their Jihadist proxy forces in west-Syria to break their current ceasefire with the Syrian government side and launch a diversion for their moves into the Syrian east. The Syrian government would then probably have to delay its larger operations in the east.

    But that would not change the strategic situation. The choice the U.S. people and their government have to make will still be the same. The point in time to finally accept it may move out a few month while the fighting escalates and causes more damage on all sides. The choice would still be the same. It is all-in or out. The best time to take it is now.

    Addendum (6:00am):

    There are some maps flowing around which assert that Iran is seeking a military land communication route via Iraq into Syria and beyond. They show some fantasy route up north through Iraqi and Syrian Kurdish territory as the "current route" and the roads between Damascus and Baghdad as "future route". The claim is that military equipment moves along these roads.

    It is nonsense. Iran did not and does not need such land routes for military exchanges with its allies in Syria and Lebanon. Where was that Iranian land route in 2006 when the U.S. occupied Iraq while Israel attacked Lebanon? Where was that land route when ISIS occupied half of Iraq and Syria? There was no such route and Iranian support still reached Hizbullah in 2006 and later Syria. It came by air, by ship and, most important, by other means.

    By holding up such fantasy maps certain interests want to insinuate that the area is "strategically important" for the U.S. and that the U.S. must therefore occupy south-east Syria. It is true that the road network between Syria and Iraq has some economical importance. Like all roads these are used for local commerce. But history demonstrates that they are not militarily strategic asset in the sense of an essential, overarching need.

    Posted by b on May 19, 2017 at 04:02 AM | Permalink

    Mina | May 19, 2017 4:19:25 AM | 1

    White Helmets helping Hama civilians with correct application of Shari'a law (KSA/UK guaranteed?)
    https://twitter.com/BenjaminNorton/status/865033499950145538/video/1

    Anon | May 19, 2017 4:35:27 AM | 4
    And as usual, the western MSM, politicians wont condemn this violation of international law. Isnt this amazing? This really show how the propaganda in the works in the west. Really disgusting.
    harrylaw | May 19, 2017 4:43:26 AM | 5
    The US government have made it clear many times that they hardly see a difference between Islamic State fighters and the Assad "regime". That being the case it is not surprising that this incident happened.

    Could John McCains recent silence on Trump's investigation have anything to do with it? Not long ago McCain and Grayham wanted an Arab force aligned with the US to invade Syria, when asked what would happen in the event of Russia intervening he replied "they will do nothing".

    As b points out there are few options, either the Russians back Assads troops or they do nothing, thereby conceding vast swaths of Syrian territory to the terrorists, which is what General Flynn said [in a recorded interview with Mehdi Hasan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG3j8OYKgn4 the US and its allies have wanted all along. Putin must now decide is he with the US and their partition of Syria or with Assad?

    From The Hague | May 19, 2017 5:22:06 AM | 6
    The choice the U.S. people and their government have to make will still be the same.

    The U.S. people have nothing to say. And b, what do you mean with "their government"? The president? No one with power takes him seriously. The House of Representatives? Their opinion is clear:

    For six years, we have watched the Syrian regime launch wave after wave of unrelenting destruction on the people of Syria. Airstrikes, chemical weapons attacks, forced starvation, industrial-scale torture, and the deliberate targeting of hospitals, schools and marketplaces with precision bombs and crude barrel bombs are what Syrians suffer every day.

    Just last month we saw footage of entire families snuffed out by sarin gas – a chemical weapon that Assad supposedly gave up under a deal brokered by Russia and the Obama Administration.

    The number of dead is estimated at close to 500,000. Another 14 million have been driven from their homes.

    And while ISIS plays a role in the violence in Syria, it is Bashar al-Assad and his backers – among them Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah – who are the main drivers of this death and destruction. ISIS has no airplanes. No, it is Russian and Syrian fighter planes and helicopters that drop bombs on hospitals and schools. It is Hezbollah and IRGC fighters who attack cities, burn crops and prevent food, water and medical supplies from reaching vulnerable civilians.

    https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/house-passes-syria-sanctions-bill/

    Their choice will be: all-in

    Greg Bacon | May 19, 2017 5:46:03 AM | 7
    The Syrian Army was getting too close to the Pentagon's ISIS buddies and Israel was getting nervous that peace was breaking out in a part of Syria, so they just had to bomb the Syrians!!
    Perimtr | May 19, 2017 5:49:51 AM | 8
    The Russians will make it clear they are not going to quietly step out of the way for the US. Only delusional neocons are capable of convincing themselves that this would be a likely outcome in such circumstances.

    The US picked this latest point of attack because it far from Russian air defenses and it seemed likely they could get away with it. Similar interventions may continue but if so, sometime in the not too distant future, US planes will be shot down. The MSM media campaign has probably already been prepared to announce the event.

    Perimtr | May 19, 2017 5:56:43 AM | 9
    Here's the Russian response to the attack . . . "Absolutely unacceptable"
    terril | May 19, 2017 6:13:07 AM | 10
    I think everyone knows what the Russian response will be other than the non-response they have already given: nothing. The US regime knows this. The Russians know this. The Russians will not attack the terrorists invading eastern Syria as long as they have US regime clowns riding along as human shields. Putin/Lavrof: "Our American partners...blah, blah, blah..."

    The real questions is what is Iraq going to do. They have already stated that they plan on kicking the US regime troops out of Iraq. While US regime figures have talked about essentially turning Iraq into a massive US military outpost.

    Forget Putin, there is no way he is going to start bombing US regime troops.

    But the Iraqi moment of truth is what is the key question. Will they roll over and let the US start carving up Syria and next Iraq? Or will they finally show some backbond and start grounding US regime aircraft, shutting down US regime military outposts, confinging regime troops to barracks and bases, and finally kicking the US out.

    If Iraq steps up and forges ahead with Syria on securing their common border it doesn't matter what Putin and Lavrov do pussyfooting around their "American partners".

    Igor Bundy | May 19, 2017 6:19:26 AM | 11
    Americans are so arrogant and stupid that they have a hard time understanding when they have nothing to gain. Or that they have lost. That they got their asses whooped. So like a retard you have to show it multiple times before they get it. In many instances they do something because they have nothing else better to do. Does not matter the harm it does. Mostly to themselves. Didn't neaopline say when the enemy is doing stupid, dont interrupt them.

    And by the way how the US lost all its gold to France. Now it survives on faith. The world is far stupider to believe in that faith cause as those who went before them learnt, that faith got them all slaughtered.

    harrylaw..

    Hey if you want to die for Al Qaeda and ISIS so be it.. This war will take much longer but the and end result will be the same. Syrians have shown themselves to not be as stupid as americans thought they are. The last war won by Americans was ??? against people with bows and arrows..

    Heros | May 19, 2017 6:56:41 AM | 14
    We know from the Wesley Clark revelations from 2003 that Syria is just one of 7 countries surrounding Israel that were targeted for either government take over or invasion. Iran is the bigger fish than Syria so Syria is the nut that needs to be cracked first.

    If we look at the synchronized western propaganda it is also clear how each of these countries has become a target and then was forced into becoming IMF/One Bank slave states while their country was looted and their infrastructure destroyed.

    This entire IMF/BIS/WB/Central Bank controlled western "democratic" world are nothing but Rothschild's vassal states. Nato is actually Zato and is little more than the Rothschild's army.

    When we look at the situation in South East Syria, and consider that it was Jordanian jets that bombed the convoy, then we are forced to realize that this is not about carving out a US statelet, it is about carving off a big chunk of Syria for "lebensraum" for Israel.

    This is why Assad was forced to send his forces east, because attacking south towards Golan would have instantly lead to retribution by Israel, and north into Idlib would have lead to retribution from Erdogan.

    So Assad sent his army east and got spanked by Israel through her vassal Jordan anyway. The message is very clear, Assad's push to Al-Tanf would have boxed in the Israeli/Rothschild vassal armies staging in Jordan along the border and preparing to occupy south-eastern Syria on behalf of Israel.

    So all of south east Syria to the Jordanian/Iraqi border is now "reserved" by Israel for future growth. Any further attack by Assad in this region, just like his shooting down of an Israeli F16, will lead to disproportionate response by Israel's vassals. There are certainly dozens of war mongering US naval officers chomping at the bits to be the ones allowed to send in another 60 cruise missiles to take out another airfield that threatens Israel's expansion into Syria and its ultimate conquest.

    Assad will be forced to head straight to Del Ezzor leaving a long line of communications exposed to the Israel's vassal army heading north. Once this happends Assad will be boxed in in the west and will slowly be bled to death by the money changers.

    Mina | May 19, 2017 7:03:04 AM | 15
    The way French gov radio reported it yesterday was "50 pro-regime fighters killed in a IS attack"

    This is perhaps the most efficient description of the American condition that I've read here at MofA. And, in some industries at least, there's some profit made behind bankable, predictable, retarded strategy.

    One side are genocidal maniacs proven by repeated attempts at erasing history and ethnic cleansing...for the other side it's an existential war with more honourable and capable allies. With any luck, Syria, Iraq AND nato ally Turkey will be turned against ill-conceived US desires for the region.

    jfl | May 19, 2017 7:09:27 AM | 17
    so whose jets - f15s? - were they? the us' or jordan's? and whose will they be next time? does syria have the gear to defend its airspace? i imagine it requires anti-aircraft missiles. i can't imagine syrian-american 'dog fights'. or does it require the russians to do it for them?

    thanks b, for a solid summary of where we are now. looks like the rump is being led by neo-cons, with a ring in his nose. is he in ksa today? or tel aviv? betraying the american people?

    hell, murdering the syrian people! signing their death warrant.

    hillary would have done the same. sooner.

    Laguerre | May 19, 2017 7:11:09 AM | 18
    My immediate reaction to this event was that the US-funded fighters were in imminent danger of destruction and expulsion from Syria. The air-strike was intended to stop what was otherwise likely to be a victorious advance of the Syrian army. I suppose it was a red-line for the US. They weren't willing to see their so expensively trained recruits destroyed.

    Though I quite agree that it was completely illegal.

    jfl | May 19, 2017 7:18:02 AM | 20
    @10 terril

    i agree with you on the invincibility of a combined syria-iraq and with hezbollah-iranian support ... i just don't see the leadership in iraq. they're going to have a have revolution there - at least one, maybe one in iraqi kurdistan, too - first. or at the same time. I pity the iraqis, the syrians ... all the blood spilled by american neocons, for nearly 15 years in the new american century, and for that long on the other side of 2000 in iraq. There must be a war crimes tribunal for the us at the end of all this. it cannot be allowed to just walk away from crimes of this magnitude.

    Laguerre | May 19, 2017 7:19:23 AM | 21
    re Mina 1

    The video says Daraa, not Hama. I find it odd that White Helmets, even if in cahoots with Nusra, would actually allow themselves to be videoed picking up bodies executed by Nusra. It happened once before in Idlib; I would have thought they would have learned and stayed out of it. A complicated form of false flag? One faction getting back at another? I don't know.

    Mina | May 19, 2017 7:27:07 AM | 22
    The strike is a nicety made to KSA and its summit http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-saudi-arabia-iran-iraq-kurdish-population-shia-muslims-a7742276.html I bet they will announce they want peace with Israel, just to corner Syria and Lebanon.
    jfl | May 19, 2017 7:28:17 AM | 23
    @4 anon

    this is beyond propaganda ... the un, the eu/nato ... this is complicity. this is as surely aggression as the german invasion of poland. qualitatively no different. the quantity is on the way, i imagine.

    Mina | May 19, 2017 7:30:13 AM | 24
    Sorry, Daraa not Hama. The red keffiehs correspond indeed with the Beduin you find in Daraa. The WH have aknowledged their humanitarian part in it (it is in the comments posted under the video):
    http://syriacivildefense.org/sites/syriacivildefense.org/files/18%20May%202017.pdf
    They are very proud to help the local tribal customs, they tell us. Just the way KSA would argue, isn't it?
    Mina | May 19, 2017 7:31:55 AM | 25
    And just as KSA would twist it, it ends with a semi-apologize and an admonition ("2 guys have been punished for 3 months")
    jfl | May 19, 2017 7:39:49 AM | 26
    where is there any 'payoff' at all to the us for this whole brutal, vicious operation? what can possibly be gained by it? i don't see anything at all. all i can see is what is being lost by absolutely everyone.
    juliania | May 19, 2017 8:02:27 AM | 27
    I am wondering if this event could not become part of a legitimate consideration of impeachable offenses. I laud commondreams.org for featuring a prominent article this morning containing the following information:

    "For the second time in as many months, the U.S. military has conducted airstrikes against pro-Assad forces in Syria," said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). "The Trump Administration does not have congressional authorization to carry out military strikes against the Assad regime..."

    The article goes on to enlarge the indictment to include the illegitimate presence of the US in Syria as often pointed out by commenters here, and as was a factor in the election of Trump to the presidency, (and therefore also of Pence as Vice President).

    Let's create a new precedent (different from but not excluding the term 'president') and have a Brit style snap election -

    I'm voting for Congressman Lieu!

    smuks | May 19, 2017 8:08:32 AM | 28

    I'm not too keen on that, and I think neither are Putin and Lavrov.

    We can be absolutely sure that Russia et al will react, but not the blunt & brutal way. Their victimhood gives them the moral high ground, and since the US/ coalition attack was obviously illegal, they can now improve air defences, threaten retaliation in the case of a repeat and reinforce their stand in the area.

    Strategically, the attack may prove a major advantage for Damascus, just as the Hasakah incident was a tactical defeat, but a strategic gain. So let's not jump to conclusions too quickly, and wait till the dust has settled.

    Yeah, Right | May 19, 2017 8:27:39 AM | 29
    I find it so depressing to read the comments sections in MSM articles on this latest bit o' USA! USA! USA! lawlessness.

    None of the comments show even the slightest sign of registering the fact that US forces are inside Syrian territory and, as such, it is the Syrian army that is reacting defensively by marching towards those interlopers.

    al-Tanaf is on the border between Syria, Iraq and Jordan.
    It is inside Syrian territory.

    Nobody disputes either fact.

    Then this is also indisputable: the only legal response that US forces inside al-Tanaf can take on the approach of Syrian forces is to pick up their packs and take a few steps over the border into Jordan.

    Or into Iraq. Whichever takes their fancy, I don't really care either way.

    But if they insist on staying where they are then THEY are the aggressors, and any air strikes they call in is an act of aggression AGAINST the SAA and its allies. Such air strikes are not in any way, shape or form a "defensive" act.

    After all, whose f**cking country is it?

    Cousin Jack | May 19, 2017 8:29:09 AM | 30
    Fisk's take on this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-syria-airstrikes-why-bashar-al-assad-militia-convoy-iraq-border-training-camp-rebels-a7744091.html
    jfl | May 19, 2017 8:30:41 AM | 31
    Another US airstrike targets pro-government forces near Syrian crossing: video
    The U.S. Coalition carried out another airstrike against a group of pro-government Iraqi paramilitary fighters near the Syrian border-crossing, Iraq's Afaq TV reported yesterday.

    The report added that at least one Sayyed Al-Shuhada fighter was killed and another six were badly injured by the U.S. attack near Albukamal.

    The Sayyed Al-Shuhada Regiment is part of the Popular Mobilization Units (Hashd Al-Sha'abi); they have participated in several offensives that have been backed by the U.S. military.

    This attack was under reported because of the large strike by the U.S. Coalition on a Syrian military convoy near the Tanf Border-Crossing in southeast Homs.

    so was it a us plane or a 'coalition' plane. they used the danes the first time, at deir ezor, didn't they? and the brits, was it? people say they're using the jordanians this time. anyone know?
    blues | May 19, 2017 8:32:03 AM | 32
    There is absolutely no reason to assume that Russia will back down. What will the US do if Russia starts shooting down these US planes? Think the Russians are going to let the US creep through Syria into Iran, and then into Russia?
    jfl | May 19, 2017 8:35:41 AM | 33
    @28 smuks

    one would think that there'd be a call for a unsc meeting on this right away, wouldn't you? i think terril was encouraging the syrians and iraqis to meet this invasion together. they are perfectly in the right to do so. the russians need to make sure that the syrians have the means to protect themselves. the us/nato must be opposed in their invasion of syria. the us is the one trying to start ww iii, not the people trying to defend themselves from us aggression. or was it the poles who started ww ii?

    xor | May 19, 2017 8:48:04 AM | 34
    Nice piece. I do have the idea that Al Tanaf is of little strategic importance to Russia and that's why it's keeping quite (except for a condemnation by the defence ministry). Still it should be brought to UNSC (where everybody knows it will be bouced by FUKUS (and demonstrate once more FUKUS' moral deficit)).
    NemesisCalling | May 19, 2017 9:10:45 AM | 35
    Yep, it's either play the hand you're dealt and be thwarted by the emerging multi-polar world, or turn the whole table over because, Damn the consequences, "We are true believers!" I pegged Hillary as being in the latter camp. I pegged Donald as a grifter who enjoys the epicurean pleasures too much (be real: could Hillary even enjoy anything sensually other than the thrill of murderous conquest?).

    Thanks b for laying it out for us. They will stall the outcome, for sure, but these are the only choices.

    Perimtr | May 19, 2017 10:05:22 AM | 36
    jfl @20 "there must be a war crimes tribunal for the us at the end of all this. it cannot be allowed to just walk away from crimes of this magnitude."

    Who will hold the tribunal? As Paul Craig Roberts says, Washington is Sauron, and Saurin rules his minions in the West. Unless a real revolution takes place, the only way that such a judgement can come will be via a host of Russian or Chinese ICBMs/SLBMs

    Banger | May 19, 2017 10:21:49 AM | 37
    Whoever is in charge (in reality) of the U.S. military is setting policy in Syria. Who knows what the motivation is at this point except more war equals more funding. As for legality of the strike, let's be clear here, the U.S. does not accept international law and therefore there is no international law--that era is over. What we have in Syria is a strategy of tension. No side will back down, no side can negotiate because, fundamentally, the U.S. has no interest in negotiation as far as I can see. It wants continued war forever wherever it can find war. The current ruling class cannot stand without permanent war and thus the U.S. cannot afford to allow peace in the region or anywhere for that matter.
    smuks | May 19, 2017 10:39:22 AM | 38
    @jfl 33
    From a legal point of view, you're perfectly right, as is terril.

    But (intl.) politics isn't as sober and neutral, I'm afraid. What would happen if the Syrian govt. was given enough air defense systems and shot down those planes, or if Russia did it? Who would win the upper hand in DC, those urging restraint & negotiations or those saying 'To hell with UN & rules, they attacked our guys so we'll teach them a lesson!'?

    International law is a good thing for sure, but it's important to know its limits and act accordingly. As Carl Schmitt said, 'the sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception' - at the global level, great powers decide themselves whether or not they honour international law. There's some incentive for them to do so most of the time, but once a conflict touches on their core interests...

    My first (or second) thought was that Moscow would call for a UNSC emergency meeting. But maybe it wouldn't help much or even do more harm than good, since there obviously wouldn't be any resolution. This would make the attack appear 'somewhat legal', whereas as things stand it's seen as a pure and blatantly open aggression...

    The US was forced to publicly admit the presence of SF at al-Tanf. Damascus and Moscow will call for their withdrawal, which they very probably won't. For the moment this doesn't change anything, but the obvious illegality of the invasion will further reduce the US military's room for manoeuvre, so their presence inside Syria will be of little use, just as their military overweight in the region is of little use.

    Let's see if I'm right... Many folks (not only on MoA) make the mistake of overrating the importance of individual military actions, and not seeing their political-strategic implications. Russians do like playing chess, and sacrificing important pieces is among the most sophisticated moves...

    jawbone | May 19, 2017 10:49:40 AM | 39
    From the RT article linked to by Perimter @ 9 ==
    Earlier, the US-led coalition admitted striking a militia group fighting alongside Syrian government forces in southern Syria on Thursday. They said in a statement that the Syrian forces "posed a threat" to US and allied troops at Tanf base near the Syria-Iraq-Jordan border.

    The incident took place as pro-government forces reportedly entered one of the recently implemented de-escalation zones in Homs province, where they allegedly clashed with the US-backed Maghawir Al-Thawra militant group (formerly known as 'New Syrian Army').

    "We notified the coalition that we were being attacked by the Syrian Army and Iranians in this point and the coalition came and destroyed the advancing convoy," Reuters cited a militant representative as saying.

    I thought the US did not accept the de-escalation zones? So, along with their illegally just being inside Syrian borders, the US now adds to its duplicity with such hypocritial statements.

    harrylaw | May 19, 2017 10:58:07 AM | 40
    Banger@37 You are right there is no International law, at least not for the five veto wielding members of the UNSC AND their friends notably [Saudi Arabia and Israel].
    "Academic lawyers in their thousands may protest that taking military action against Iraq was illegal because it lacked proper authorisation by the Security Council, but it is of no consequence in the real world when there is no possibility of the UK, or its political leadership, being convicted for taking such action. It is meaningless to describe an action as illegal if there is no expectation that the perpetrator of the action will be convicted by a competent judicial body. In the real world, an action is legal unless a competent judicial body rules that it is illegal".

    If the other members ganged up on the US and introduced a Resolution condemning this US aggression, the US would simply veto it, and send it down the memory hole. http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/iraq/ags-legal-advice.pdf

    Bill Person | May 19, 2017 10:59:09 AM | 41
    Roll on the day, Perimtr (#36). I for one would gladly accept extinction of H. sapiens, secure in the knowledge that the cancerous US were finally eradicated from the map.
    aaaa | May 19, 2017 10:59:30 AM | 42
    @28 Putin has not been 100% right all of the time on Syria. Iran had to outmaneuver them once, their non-support of an earlier Raqqa campaign created huge problems later, and now this.

    I guess he can't be blamed for this one as USA basically violated international law to spring this 'trap', which also exposes a potential agenda (southern invasion), but I just wonder how things would be if he was more like USSR leaders, who, at least until Afghanistan, were far less murky about their strategic support.

    Mina | May 19, 2017 11:00:31 AM | 43
    What does the US get of this? Pleasing its allies, in the Gulf and in the south of Syria. Embarrassing the diplomats. Claim to be the boss.
    Petri Krohn | May 19, 2017 11:01:39 AM | 44
    DECONFLICTION ZONE ≠ DE-ESCALATION ZONE

    There seems to be a mix-up between the "deconfliction zones" and de-escalation zones, as defined in the Astana Memorandum.

    The claim that the U.S. attack on Syrian forces happened in a "deconfliction zone" comes from U.S officials. See this article on Sputnik.

    US Coalition Strike on Syrian Army Occurred Within Deconfliction Zone

    A US defense official told Sputnik that the US-led coalition struck the pro-Syrian government forces near the town of At Tanf in the area of an established deconfliction zone with Russia.

    This is not a reference to the four de-escalation zones defined in the Astana Memorandum. The "established deconfliction zone" only means that Russian and U.S. forces have agreed to not shoot at each other.

    aaaa | May 19, 2017 11:04:07 AM | 45
    @42 I'll just add that I concede that international relations are probably different now as we are entering a post-unipolar stage.
    jawbone | May 19, 2017 11:10:13 AM | 46
    Re: jfl @ 31 -- and yet another US airstrike, this time on Iraqi fighters who are...considered allies of the US in its fight against ISIS, right?

    Interesting that the US government and/or military think they can just kill willy-nilly, both friend and declared foe. Do they think this is going to create goodwill among Iraqis?

    Sheesh.

    Also, hasn't Trump proclaimed that he essentially has left strategy and tactics to the US military commanders? How far down the chain of command does that go?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/donald-trump-moab-afghanistan/

    ...President Donald Trump declined to say whether he personally signed off on the use of the GBU-43/B MOAB, also known as the "mother of all bombs," in a strike on ISIS militants in Afghanistan.

    "Everybody knows exactly what happens. So, what I do is I authorize our military," Trump said when asked whether he authorized the strike. "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing.

    Sources told CNN that Gen. John Nicholson, commander of US forces in Afghanistan, signed off on the use of the bomb. The White House was informed of the plan before the MC-130 aircraft delivered its 21,600-pound payload.

    Trump has given military commanders broader latitude to act independently on several battlefields where US forces are involved, which Trump touted as making a "tremendous difference" in the fight against ISIS.

    MadMax2 | May 19, 2017 11:18:21 AM | 47
    After all, whose f**cking country is it?
    Posted by: Yeah, Right | May 19, 2017 8:27:39 AM | 29

    Yes, the US and Nato, their media hounds, and their unmistakeable brand of effortless superiority . It is as if a nation never owned the right to defend itself.

    jawbone | May 19, 2017 11:18:31 AM | 48
    Yeah Right @ 29 -- Seems that the State Dept.'s rather amazing claim of a crematorium and about 50 hangings a day at that prison site might be tied to this new aggressiveness, altho', again, how does attacking its own ally's fighters fit into this?

    However, there seems to be a new aggressiveness in the US MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media), helpfully beating ever more loudly the drums of war. And many Americans seem to think anything is A-OK if the military force is being used "for good." Thus, the Dastardly Dictator of whatever country the US wants to invade next, etc.

    somebody | May 19, 2017 11:19:59 AM | 49
    Posted by: smuks | May 19, 2017 10:39:22 AM | 38

    The US will find it difficult to decide on ">whom to bomb .

    It seems that the assembly wants to erect bodies in support of the Syrian Regime in the province because both parties' interests overlap, with both being supported by Tehran. The leader in the Assembly and the head of "Badr Organization", Hadi Al-Amiri, insisted on this by saying that "the Syrian Government, headed by Bashar Al-Assad, invited the leaders of the Assembly to enter Syria after the emancipation of Iraq".

    The Iraqi Prime Minister, Haider Al-Abadi, issued early last March orders to his forces to attack ISIS camps within Syria He announced: "we ordered the air forces to attack the terrorist sites of ISIS in Husaibah and Al Bukamal inside the Syrian territory, which were responsible for the recent bombings in Baghdad".

    Deir ez-Zor is considered as a major strategic asset, for the one who dominates it shall hold the key to the eastern region of Syria and supplement his capital with huge oil reserves and establishes checkpoints on the road from Tehran to Damascus.

    This Daily Telegraph article from before the airstrike Syrian troops advancing towards US and British special forces

    The US has sent a clear message that any government advance towards their base will not be accepted. However, it is unclear how the special forces will react to any serious provocation.

    Russia bombed the garrison in June 2016, however no injures were reported. US jets were scrambled in response, but failed to stop the aerial raid.

    The Telegraph article is interesting for a lot of reasons - it calls Syria and Iraq "allies" which is a new development.

    Alaric | May 19, 2017 11:21:25 AM | 50
    The US is like a sociopath. It behaves badly and opportunistically when it can. The leadership of Russia, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah know this. B wrote this in his last analysis too.

    Those troops should have been accompanied by air defenses and support. Why was there none? Perhaps they were probing to see the US reaction. Perhaps this was a message from the R+3 . A US claim of self defense is an even bigger joke now if they come under attack in Syria.

    I suspect the Russians will simply provide air defenses and air support next time. I look forward to Syrian gov control of Al Tanf.

    karlof1 | May 19, 2017 11:29:01 AM | 51
    SAA isn't stopping its advance and has Truth on its side, although I now expect the commanders of the advance to be more prudent when it comes to its AAA deployment. IMO, the Outlaw US Empire will pull a Turkey and use artillery deployed in Jordan to support its terrorists across the border in Syria--"State Terrorism" as proclaimed by Syria's Jaafari, https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705191053773132-jaafari-us-strike-syria-government-terrorism/

    Sputnik has compiled all its stories on this crime under one url, https://sputniknews.com/trend/al_tanaf_us_strike_syrian_army/

    The latest cites Lavrov saying it's unclear if the deconfliction protocol was followed by Outlaw US Empire since it cited a deconfliction zone in its official lies about the crime.

    somebody | May 19, 2017 11:32:24 AM | 52
    add

    Syrian President Assad, Iraqi security advisor discuss 'direct' military cooperation

    President Assad and Fayadh discussed "practical and operational steps for military cooperation between the two armies on both sides of the border," in light of the advances made by the Iraqi forces in Mosul.

    President Assad was also quoted as saying that the progress made by both countries militarily is an "important" step towards returning "security and stability" to the region, adding that they have a common war and enemy that seeks to "divide the states of the region" through what he called terrorist groups.

    The two countries, along with Russia and Iran, share what has been called Baghdad Operation Room where they share intelligence in between them.

    xor | May 19, 2017 11:34:34 AM | 53
    @46 jawbone

    The past years, US has attacked Iraqi troops and para military on a regular basis whenever they were taking actions the US didn't like. For example when they were heading to Ramadi to liberate it, the US simply bombed and killed a couple of dozen para military as only some supposedly 'sunni-fighers' were allowed to participate.

    It has also regularly dropped supplies to Daesh. These supposed 'accidents' are well known facts for what they are in Iraq. Time will tell when they will stop sucking it up.

    From The Hague | May 19, 2017 11:37:23 AM | 54
    A UNSCR is International Law
    The Security Council determined today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS) constituted an "unprecedented" threat to international peace and security, calling upon Member States with the requisite capacity to take "all necessary measures" to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq.

    Unanimously adopting resolution 2249 (2015), the Council unequivocally condemned the terrorist attacks perpetrated by ISIL - also known as Da'esh - on 26 June in Sousse, on 10 October in Ankara, on 31 October over the Sinaï Peninsula, on 12 November in Beirut and on 13 November in Paris, among others. It expressed its deepest condolences to the victims and their families, as well as to the people and Governments of Tunisia, Turkey, Russian Federation, Lebanon and France.

    https://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm

    Ghostship | May 19, 2017 11:45:51 AM | 55
    >>>> Cousin Jack | May 19, 2017 8:29:09 AM | 30
    Fisk's take on this:
    Does Iran really need a land route to Syria? It can send material by ship avoiding the Suez Canal and nobody can legally stop it. The Straits of Gibraltar are covered by UNCLOS so civilian ships can't be touched and military ships have the right of innocent passage regardless of what they're carrying. Given how obsessed the United States is with freedom of navigation elsewhere, they can hardly support the Moroccans or Spanish intercepting any Iranian military ships passing through the Straits although that doesn't mean they won't try to come up with some feeble excuse to justify it, but I'm sure PLAN would give the Iranians a helping hand.

    This is more about stopping the New Syrian Army getting anywhere near Deir Ez-zor and attacking the SAA. If the NSA does attack the SAA are their US/UK advisers going to want to be involved?

    As for Al Tanf itself, what is to stop the Russians/Syrians/Iraqis/Iranians driving a new road across the desert from south west of Palmyra across the border into Iraq once they've secured the territory? A 180 km dirt road is all that would be needed for the summer and working from both ends it could be complete in a couple of weeks and it could be all-weather before winter.

    LXV | May 19, 2017 11:45:54 AM | 56
    Re: Addendum

    This is the prime source (sic!) of the twitted map: ...an Israeli-based political risk consultancy... Move on, nothing to see here except for a few Likudniks .

    Grieved | May 19, 2017 12:09:18 PM | 57
    Excellent article, b. World-class commentary. It captures the situation perfectly.

    Did Russia try to halt the SAA to try to prevent the US aggression? Apparently this news only comes from the US, according to the Sputnik story karlof1 linked @51. Perhaps, perhaps not. One story today at Fort Russ declares "No Such Thing as Russia Halting our Progress": Syria Slams False US Accusations, Confirms new Anti-ISIS Coordination Agreement with Russia and Iran CAVEAT: this only comes from a "Syrian security source", it's not a formal Syria announcement.

    One would have to be much closer to the chains of command (and to understand these things, which I don't), but it's an interesting question here of who blinked in this game of chicken? Did Russia counsel a small sidestep, and Syrian command not get the memo in time? Or was it a face-off all the way to the air attack? And will the response from Russia be direct or asymmetrical? I half-expect US assets to be killed on the ground one day pretty soon, without using air strikes to do it. Just the quiet over-running of an illegal presence here or there. This is the kind of message the US understands, and doesn't have to acknowledge publicly.

    Trump gave his generals free rein to act as they will. Enough rope to hang themselves? We've been waiting for the inevitable charge into a quagmire somewhere. Maybe it happens here.

    ben | May 19, 2017 12:10:11 PM | 58
    Some day maybe, we'll all be able to clearly see if the Empire and Russia are playing " Good Cop, Bad Cop" as political strategy, and behind the scenes their Oligarchs are forming an alliance. If the Russians truly want a Multi-polar world, and not just a understanding between Oligarchs, they'll have to confront the Empire's aggressions.

    We'll see...

    WG | May 19, 2017 12:14:20 PM | 59
    I think the Russian strategy for dealing with the US in Syria is similar to Muhammad Ali when he fought George Foreman in 'the rumble in the jungle'. In that fight, Ali constantly leaned on him, tiring him while he allowed Foreman to exhaust himself by absorbing his attacks and being very defensive. In the end there won't be a 'knockout' in Syria, the US is simply going to get pushed out of the ring and be forced to pack up and go home.

    In my mind this is the approach Russia has taken vs the US:

    • Keep up the diplomatic pressure
    • Keep building momentum throughout the country
    • Peel away US allies and proxies
    • Pursue stalemate in some areas while concentrating your forces elsewhere, then repeat

    To everyone that screams for the Russians to shoot down US planes, etc. etc. You have to realize the minute the Russians do that they will face a full court press from the US media for direct confrontation and war. Trump will be called a coward and a pawn and he'll end up being forced to start attacking Russian assets in Syria.

    The way to look at it is 'Russian efforts are restraining the US from its desired course of action' (Libya style intervention). Instead the US is stuck trying to goad the Russians into giving them a pretext to intervene on a large scale. The Russians/Iranians/Syrians just need to keep going, take the occasional 'provocation' attempt by the US and turn the other cheek. Eventually like 'b' says, the US will simply have to leave.

    Perimtr | May 19, 2017 12:19:01 PM | 60
    re smuks @38
    You say (I agree) that international law is meaningless given that the US considers itself to be above it. So I am a bit confused when you say "the obvious illegality of the invasion will further reduce the US military's room for manoeuvre". If the US cares nothing for illegalities, why would it be hindered by them? Not trying to pick a fight, just find this inconsistent.

    re Petri Krohn's observation at 44
    Lately I have begun to wonder about Sputnik, if it has been co-opted by Atlanticists? There seems to be an increasing number of stories being run that don't seem to serve Russian interests. The "confusion" noted by Petri may be deliberate, as this narrative muddies the waters in favor of the US.

    Gesine Hammerling | May 19, 2017 12:26:22 PM | 62

    @54: It is not. A SCR might try to interpret IL, but it does not create it. That's the job of the permanent IL commission of the UN.

    smuks | May 19, 2017 12:51:50 PM | 65
    @somebody

    That's actually a somewhat funny thing about this war: Who's allied with whom depends on which side of the border we're talking about. Shortly after the Russian air force got involved, there was a US-Russia meeting in which they basically agreed on zones of influence, with Russia keeping out of Iraq.

    So while the USAF (reluctantly) supports the ISF in its campaign against ISIS, at the same time it's an open secret(?) that both Baghdad and Damascus are allied with Tehran. I didn't know that the PMU is already inside Syria, but it makes perfect sense - and (unlike in Iraq) they're certainly not on the coalition's side there...

    @Ghostship

    So you're saying the whole Syrian war is much ado about nothing? Having a land connection is of paramount strategic importance. There's no such thing as 'freedom of navigation' for other states in waters controlled by the USN (or the PLAN, or the Russian navy for that matter), at least not when it really counts. Building another road takes time, and its border crossing would be blocked just the same.

    ben | May 19, 2017 12:53:03 PM | 66
    Wg @ 59: Good take, hope your scenario plays out..

    Also stated: "Eventually like 'b' says, the US will simply have to leave." On the other hand, maybe Russia will simply leave. The Empire has the financial resources to stay there forever, if it chooses to. Does Russia? IMO, the only thing that keeps the Empire going, is it's ability, being the reserve currency of the world, to make an unlimited pile of dollars whenever it chooses to. No other nation in the world can do that.

    stumpy | May 19, 2017 12:55:54 PM | 67
    Here's the thing. US has struck twice with total impunity in the current stage of the crisis, once here and once with the tomahawks. Russia doesn't seem to be shooting back. They can bang their shoes all day at the UN or make these grandiose proclamations about US war crimes, but they're starting to look like puppies keeping their powder dry.

    Much as we'd like the Russkies or anyone for that matter to get the US out of the AO, circumstances in the US are such that events will probably overcome the POTUS and he will be neutered of not totally neutralized. Comey was the bait. Or the deep inner meaning of all this is that Putin and Trump are in on the joke. They are the joke. Deep state has them surrounded. What a stupid time to go to Saudi Arabia.

    From The Hague | May 19, 2017 1:15:34 PM | 68
    #62 Yes, by interpreting UNSCR 2249 the US led coalition could claim they acted according to International Law. That's the reason they said that their goal of bombing pro-Syrian regime forces was: to aid the fight against ISIS.

    smuks | May 19, 2017 1:19:08 PM | 69

    @Perimetr 60 (lost an e?)

    I'm absolutely not saying that international law is meaningless, just that it has limits. If a great power (and esp. the US) violates it, there will not be any direct consequences, *but* the rest of the world will still see the act for what it is. If this happens regularly, the great power will find it ever harder to find allies on the global scene, and instead will provoke the formation of (formal or informal) coalitions among its opponents. No country is an island - all the aircraft carriers in the world don't mean much if you can't use them for lack of political support.

    The prime example for this is the 2003 Iraq war: The US & UK govts thought that they could act with impunity. They may have been right in the short run, but in the longer run this blatant violation of the most fundamental intl. law was their downfall. Talk about a leader losing all his followers.

    @WG 59, ben 66
    Nice comparison! And pretty much how I see it too. ben - no reserve currency lasts forever, and this on is on the way out.

    ALAN | May 19, 2017 1:58:49 PM | 71
    /they said that their goal of bombing pro-Syrian regime forces was: to aid the fight against ISIS/ that is why all the planet knows how US regularly dropped supplies to ISIS...
    karlof1 | May 19, 2017 2:00:03 PM | 72
    Sputnik now has a story sourced by local Syrians detailing the nature of the attack. The enemy jet did take AAA and apparently S-200s were also launched. Please go to link for the play-by-play, https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201705191053788687-syrian-convoy-airstrike-damage/

    Southfront has an article complete with maps saying the Outlaw US Empire has created its own deconfliction zone--b, you'll want to borrow the de-escalation zone map and post it as an update, https://southfront.org/us-military-declares-own-de-confliction-zone-along-syrian-iraqi-border/

    Ghostship | May 19, 2017 2:19:38 PM | 73
    >>> Alaric | May 19, 2017 11:21:25 AM | 50
    Those troops should have been accompanied by air defenses and support.
    Why? Does ISIS have an air force beyond a few quadricopter drones? The Syrians are better off without air defences because if they were ever tempted to use them and shot down an American aircraft the response would be swift and catastrophic for the Syrian forces involved, if not the Syrian state. Far better to accept the casualties as the cost of doing business and get on with the task in hand of defeating ISIS, Al Qaeda and other jihadists and preserving the Syrian state which would be the ultimate finger in the eye for the Americans. Every time a state as powerful as the United States attacks a weak state, it loses automatically in the battle for public perception, and because Putin is not going to give up on Syria the United States has lost the war for regime change already but Washington is too stupid to realise that because they only deal with the elites in certain states, the ones that have attacked the United States and its interests more than the Syrians ever have. How stupid is that?
    Køn | May 19, 2017 2:29:52 PM | 74
    When the NSA 'New-Syrian-Army' falls apart, might I suggest that the Americans name the next puppet army they try to set up 'The Completely Independent Army'... The CIA
    From The Hague | May 19, 2017 2:30:20 PM | 75
    73 the United States has lost the war for regime change already

    The United States war industry is still winning the war for power and profits.

    PavewayIV | May 19, 2017 2:48:20 PM | 76
    Funny with all this attention on al Tanf that nobody is pointing out the BS maps being circulated about. One of the major supply lines for ISIS (not FSA) is from Jordan, along the Syrian border just south of at Tanf and continuing up to al Bukamal and Deir EzZor.

    Here's a U.S. Coalition fantasy map (wishful thinking) of the situation. It shows the FSA holding everything next to the border almost up to the al Qaim border crossing - where the Euphrates crosses into Iraq. Truth is that the U.S. and their tiny FSA contingent are not present at all near the border there. It's sort of a no-man's land. They probably won't get attacked if they drive along the border, but neither will ISIS (or Jordanian supply convoys TO ISIS in al Bukamal and Deir EzZor. The U.S. and U.K. SOF presence in al Tanf is to protect that ISIS supply corridor. They don't 'fight' ISIS - they never have. There were a few fake reports of battles, but most involved transferring a huge amount of ammo and supplies to ISIS.

    The U.S. and U,K. SOF and FSA are protecting the ISIS supply corridor from Jordan, nothing eles. For obvious political reasons, they don't want to cross very far into Iraq to do this, so they can't just move the corridor across the southern border and move eastward that way.

    You can get a better idea of what I'm talking about if you look at more realistic (non-US-propaganda) maps of the area. This one linked shows ISIS controlling all the southeastern border to al Bukamal/Euphrates. Again, not completely accurate because it's more of a no-man's land. You can bet that the U.S. has constant surveillance on this area though and knows exactly when the ISIS supply convoys from Jordan are moving through that area. Now, ever hear of the U.S. bombing ANYTHING there? Of course not. Almost without exception, CJTF-OIR has ONLY been bombing oil infrastructure around Deir EzZor and al Bukamal. They have NEVER hit an ISIS supply convoy.

    The Russians, Syrians, Iraqis and Iranians know the US/UK forces are protecting that supply corridor. They know the US is reluctant to use Iraq (as much as possible) for those convoys. If the SAA wants to take Deir EzZor and al Bukamal, then it has to cut the ISIS supply lines along the southeast border from al Tanf to al Bukamal. The PMUs will be cleaning house along the Euphrates right up to al Qaim/al Bukamal, so there will be no chance for a supply from that side. The US/UK knows this and was planning on a move on al Bukamal from al Tanf out of desperation. The SAA saw the build-up and decided to close down that op AND the ISIS supply corridor once and for all before moving to Deir EzZor.

    Like I said before, the U.S. are sore losers. CJTF-OIR doesn't like anyone messing with their ISIS supply corridors or their US/UK ISIS corridor 'guards'. They are running out of options, which makes them very dangerous. They can't very well bomb the SAA in Deir EzZor again. They've run out of fake ISIS to attack the fast-moving SAA forces heading to Deir EzZor. And they don't have much international sympathy for their al Tanf occupation. Sarin false flags won't work down there. There's a huge refugee camp near there that the US/UK use to recruit and house jihadis, so they might use some kind of fake SAA attack on that to justify military action.

    The original plan of mounting an al Bukamal campaign from al Tanf isn't going to work since they can't leave al Tanf with just a few guards - they would lose it to the SAA. They are going to lose the ISIS supply corridor unless they do something drastic, so expect the worse. And rememeber: the ISIS supply corridor is really just a placeholder for the future FSA supply corridor to the Euphrates. Only other option is to have the SDF ignore Raqqa and try to take Deir EzZor/al Bukamal from the north and supply them from Kurd territory.

    Ghostship | May 19, 2017 2:58:35 PM | 77
    >>>> smuks | May 19, 2017 12:51:50 PM | 65
    So you're saying the whole Syrian war is much ado about nothing?

    Where do I say that?

    Having a land connection is of paramount strategic importance.
    Why? A land connection requires protection from everybody, even the lowest terrorist, particularly when it's so exposed crossing a desert. Just look how often ISIS block the land connection into Aleppo. It doesn't do them much good because the SAA/SAAF/RuAF are fairly proficient at cleaning them out and killing them now. The USAF could close a land connection without even raising a sweat and combined with the US Army they could put in road blocks that nobody could remove without going for full on war.
    There's no such thing as 'freedom of navigation' for other states in waters controlled by the USN (or the PLAN, or the Russian navy for that matter), at least not when it really counts.
    Once the USN oppose FON, any attempts at enforing it elsewhere are compromised. The USN could announce it's going to blockade Syria but that is an act of war that I reckon the Russians would oppose. The Russian should be to run a convoy through the blockade and see if the USN have the guts to sink the defending ships. I doubt it.
    Building another road takes time, and its border crossing would be blocked just the same.
    Are you a trained highway engineer? Well I was and building a multi-lane highway with multi-level interchanges, etc. does take time. A two-lane haul road, which is what I was thinking about over that distance in a desert working from both ends would take a couple of weeks at most. How could its border crossing be blocked since the SAA would control one side and the Iraqi army the other and unless they fall out(unlikely) there would be no reason for the border to close.

    dh | May 19, 2017 3:37:06 PM | 80
    @44 I'm thinking this recent attack had a lot to do with the de-escalation/deconfliction zones. The US got sidelined at Astana. The attack at al-Tanaf could be the US saying...'you want deconfliction?....try that for size.'

    It's probably a one off though. US/UK special forces are starting to look very exposed.

    ALAN | May 19, 2017 4:16:51 PM | 81
    the United States, with the help of Jordan and Turkey, was running a training base for Syrian rebels in Jordan. http://www.australiannationalreview.com/isis-members-trained-cia
    VietnamVet | May 19, 2017 4:22:02 PM | 82
    There is nothing at Al-Tanf except desert and the Damarcus Baghdad Road and the borders of Syria, Jordon and Iraq nearby. The probe is an attempt to reopen a Shiite landline. At the behest of Israel and the Gulf Monarchies, the Empire set up the forward operating base at Al-Tanf to keep the road cut and bombed the militias as a warning to halt. An Abrahamic regional Holy War is the most apt description of the blood flowing onto concrete and sand there. An Apocalypse is a self-fulfilling prophecy. A guarantee with an Empire that learns nothing and remembers everything.
    Curtis | May 19, 2017 4:56:27 PM | 83
    CNN's article included this:
    "The strike marks the first time that the Pentagon has offered aerial protection to its Arab proxies under assault from pro-Syrian militias -- and only the second time in the history of the six-year conflict that American warplanes have intentionally targeted Iranian proxies in Syria."

    Arab proxies? Not Syrian? Not "opposition" fighters?

    But then they add this:
    "The convoy appears to have consisted not of regular Syrian army soldiers but of international Shia militiamen."

    And later in the article, CNN repeats claims that the CIA is training "vetted" Syrian rebels.
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/us-syria-airstrikes-russia/

    And our MSM is okay with this proxy-on-proxy fight that is destroying Syria.

    smuks | May 19, 2017 5:55:51 PM | 86
    Please don't feed the troll who's trying to destroy an interesting thread. Thanks.

    @Ghostship

    The war is all about who controls eastern Syria and thus establishes a strategic axis, either West-East or North-South. If you say that doesn't matter, the war makes no sense whatsoever.

    You probably know more about road construction than I do, but very little about geostrategy it seems. Whoever controls a transport corridor holds a knife to the (economic) throat of those who depend on it. It's a prime strategic asset.
    The USN controls most sea lanes - for now; or what do you think the entire South China Sea issue is about? The Eurasian land routes on the other hand are mostly controlled by Russia and China through their armies, air force and AD. Sure, they can still be bombed, but that's only temporary and comes at a huge political cost. And here we also have the deeper reason for China's 'New Silk Road'.

    It's the old story of 'sea power vs. land power' which repeats itself throughout history, e.g. Athens/ Sparta.

    smuks | May 19, 2017 6:10:32 PM | 87
    @Paveway 76

    Actually the two maps aren't that different imho, since as you say it's mostly empty desert anyway so 'zone of control' is rather relative. But I get your point: It's all about securing the ISIS supply line from Jordan. I remember a 'New Syrian Army' attack on al-Bukamal some while back, which looked very much like a resupply op, same with the RuAF bombing of an SF base in the region.

    Actually at times I've been sitting looking at maps, thinking how nice it would be to have real-time satellite or drone pictures and see the trucks heading north...

    Now that the (illegal) presence of SF in al-Tanf has been exposed, can they still remain there, or do they have to leave? This war is strange: All warring parties know what's going on on the ground, but it doesn't really matter - what's important is only what is or isn't on the worldwide news.

    sandra_m | May 19, 2017 6:53:52 PM | 88
    Syria: Syrian forces seen in al-Tanf outskirts day after US airstrike
    karlof1 | May 19, 2017 7:03:57 PM | 89
    The advance toward al-Tanf continues. Southfront has a new article detailing SAA within 20K with aircover from RuAF Su-30s. Also provided are some unconfirmed he-said/she-said that seem semi-plausible, https://southfront.org/syrian-army-is-in-20-km-from-al-tanf-town-controlled-by-us-led-forces-reports/

    After everything the Outlaw US Empire has done over the past 6 years -- and over several decades prior--to Syria and its people -- actions very close to Genocidal in nature -- I very much doubt SAA will relent. And it appears Iraqi politicos have grown another backbone and are as resolved as their Syrian and Iranian neighbors to defeat the US/NATO/Zionist/GCC terrorists, force them to retreat from the region, thus regaining 100% sovereignty, while putting further pressure for a solution for Palestine.

    As pointed out by PavewayIV @76, the Empire has zero positive options other than complete withdrawal, which it doesn't view as positive either. It would seem the Neocons are being chocked by Trump's vow to destroy their terrorist creations. King PlayStation better watch out or he'll risk losing his kingdom.

    jfl | May 19, 2017 8:27:06 PM | 91
    @76 pw, '... the U.S. are sore losers ...'

    yeah. at home and abroad ... a coup is shaping up at home, apparently. at least the foghorns at the nytimes are sounding one out ... not the 'good guys' you had in mind ...

    Kristof notes approvingly that during the 1974 Watergate crisis, President Richard Nixon's defense secretary, James Schlesinger, ordered the military not to obey orders from the White House unless he signed off on them. Schlesinger also, in the words of Kristof, "prepared secret plans to deploy troops in Washington in the event of problems with the presidential succession."

    Kristof concludes, "This was unconstitutional. And wise." He declares that similar "unconstitutional" acts of insubordination by military officials may be justified in the present crisis. "We don't know how Trump will respond in the coming months, and let's all hope for smooth sailing. But as with Schlesinger's steps, it's wise to be prepared," he writes.

    thanks for the background. very informative. more people need to understand the DIRECT support of the usa for isis in deir ezor. i know i didn't.

    smuks | May 19, 2017 8:37:30 PM | 92
    @b - just see your addendum, and as expressed before have strong doubts.

    I don't know how supplies reached Hezbollah in 2006, probably small quantities did pass through occupied Iraq. But there's a huge strategic difference between such 'ant trails' and a fully secured (land) trade route.

    Historically, the region (upper Mesopotamia) has always been valuable and contested, as this is where the roads running from west to east cross those running from north to south. It is the heartland of the Middle East, so to say.

    Of course there's ships and planes, but they are easily spotted and intercepted, and carry high costs. A 'land bridge' is cheap and secure, and therefore a huge strategic advantage & instrument of power/ hegemony.

    Yeah, Right | May 19, 2017 8:44:26 PM | 93
    @84 Paul, the time to call out an AA system as "trash" is when it is fired and... misses. Like when the Syrians fired S-200s at some Israeli jets and... missed. Obvious trash. It is pointless calling out an AA system as "trash" merely because the operator refuses to fire the missile. There are, after all, many very good reasons why you don't want to fire your best weapon, and not just "it doesn't work".

    After all, the USA doesn't use its nukes. Neither does Russia, nor China, nor France, Britain, India, Israel, Pakistan or North Korea.

    I suppose, by Peter-logic, that must mean those nukes are "trash". PR-nonsense, and no threat to anyone.

    That must be true, because it is a demonstrable fact that since the end of WW2 nobody has used a nuke no matter how destructive they are purported to be...

    james | May 19, 2017 8:54:26 PM | 94
    i guess the usa has an idiot for defense secretary.. that or a very bad liar.. if someone murders mattis, it can be claimed it's self defense.. sorta like a variant on peter-logic.. "Defense Secretary James Mattis described the targeted fighters as Iran-backed, rather than backed by the Syrian government, and called the airstrike "self-defense of our forces."
    PavewayIV | May 19, 2017 8:55:40 PM | 95
    smuks@87 "...same with the RuAF bombing of an SF base in the region." That SF base was, in fact, (one of) the al Tanf SOF training bases for the rebranded FSA in those parts: the New Syrian Army(NSyA). Russia was pissed about the apparent support/supply lines to ISIS and previous NSyA 'visits' to the Euphrates, so bombed the al Tanf base when they knew the Americans and Brits were off somewhere else. There are several bases/camps used in the general vicinity of the al Tanf border crossing. There is no functional or occupied town of al Tanf - it was more like a farm when it existed, and is just ruins now.

    Most of the original New Syrian Army actually disbanded last year because CIA support sucked. The current invocation of the NSyA is a U.S. CIA/Saudi-created merc army. Mostly ex-FSA Syrian and Arab mercs and assorted Palestinian refugees (recruited from the nearby Jordanian camp) looking for paying work. They call themselves the Revolutionary Commando Army, but nobody else does. They're just 'the CIA mercs' to everyone else - cannon fodder for the scheduled replacement of ISIS in al Bukamal and Deir EzZor (if the U.S. can pull it off).

    Most 'members' are trained and stay in Jordan, not Syria. The forward base in al Tanf gets busy whenever they need to show how 'the rebels' are in control down there. The actual al Tanf border crossing is several km away - mostly manned by U.S./U.K and Mossad spooks. Probably a handful of NSyA hanging around for show. The crossing is officially closed, but there has always been truck traffic going back and forth. The Iraqis have their own border crossing checkpoint a few km inside their border at al Waleed.

    "...Now that the (illegal) presence of SF in al-Tanf has been exposed, can they still remain there, or do they have to leave?"

    They've been there for about a year now, since the old NSyA took the border crossing and surrounding area from ISIS. The U.S./U.K. SOF have never made a secret of being in camps there to train the NSyA or whoever they are now. Keep in mind that the tiny U.S./U.K. presence is pretty much to ward off Syrian and Russian bombing, i.e., human shields for the NSyA. MOST of the SOF guys and training facilities and logistics are in Jordan and always have been. And the idea of 'legal' presence there is kind of a toss-up. The U.S. used weasel-worded U.N. resolutions to authorize them to go anywhere on earth to fight ISIS. So 'illegal' by Syrian law and global common sense sovereignty, but perfectly legal and authorized by U.S.'s made-up UN 'laws'. In any case, the SOF guys their are CIA merc trainers and have no intention of defending al Tanf with their lives. They'll leave if too many Syrians show up - Jordan is only a ten-minute drive away.

    "...All warring parties know what's going on on the ground, but it doesn't really matter - what's important is only what is or isn't on the worldwide news..."

    You just gave all the guys in 8th PsyOps (CENTCOM) a boner - a though which I find disturbing on several levels.

    PavewayIV | May 19, 2017 9:12:20 PM | 97

    karlof1@89 "...the Empire has zero positive options other than complete withdrawal, which it doesn't view as positive either..."

    The Empire is 1) run by psychopaths and 2) beholden to their Israeli and Saudi masters - 'positive' is relative. For instance, the U.S. objective is to own the Syrian Euphrates. They can still blow the Tabqa/Euphrates dam and blame it on 'ISIS IEDs' or some such nonsense. That would pretty much clean out Raqqa, Deir EzZor and al Bukamal as well as give all the U.S. proxies an excuse to move in. Likewise, they can use the SDF to take Deir EzZor and al Bukamal. All they have to do is secretly greenlight Turkey moving on Raqqa, which would free up (at least the Arab part of) the SDF. That would make the eventual U.S. Syrian Kurd back-stabbing seem less obvious.

    Then there's always some other 'big' distraction to otherwise occupy the SAA's time. Do you think they would keep moving on Deir EzZor if, say, Israel armor crossed the Golan border steal more land on the Houran Plateau? I'm sure a suitable fake casus belli could be arranged.

    Never underestimate evil.

    From The Hague | May 19, 2017 9:15:43 PM | 98
    @96
    So the UN isn't international and a UNSCR is not an order. And UNSCR 2249 wasn't unanimously adopted?
    From The Hague | May 19, 2017 10:43:58 PM |
    @99 I mean, get real, dude.

    Say that to yourself. On reality you can learn from smuks and PavewayIV:

    "...All warring parties know what's going on on the ground, but it doesn't really matter - what's important is only what is or isn't on the worldwide news..."

    You just gave all the guys in 8th PsyOps (CENTCOM) a boner - a though which I find disturbing on several levels.

    Posted by: PavewayIV | May 19, 2017 8:55:40 PM | 95

    For your information:

    Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)

    Applied to that UNSCR:

    The US-led coalition will no doubt claim that resolution 2249 implicitly validates or confirms the legality of their current actions.
    https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-constructive-ambiguity-of-the-security-councils-isis-resolution/

    [May 22, 2017] Making Russia a scapegoat for political tension connected with the crumbling of the neoliberal society due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment of the lower 80% of population

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment. If a world war breaks out, that is it." ..."
    "... Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western working class. ..."
    May 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, May 22, 2017 at 03:58 PM

    A comment from MoA contains an insightful observation

    "Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment. If a world war breaks out, that is it."

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/the-special-council-investigation-will-be-bad-for-trump.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef01b7c8f9d50c970b

    VietnamVet | May 18, 2017 9:19:08 PM | 75

    This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment.

    If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root [causes of] despair of the western working class.

    They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.

    [May 22, 2017] Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class ..."
    May 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    VietnamVet | May 18, 2017 9:19:08 PM | 75

    This is tragic. Corporate media and the intelligence community are united in making the Russia Federation the scapegoat for the crumbling of the West that is due to austerity, inequality and impoverishment.

    If a world war breaks out, that is it. Donald Trump used alt-right messaging to get into the White House but he and his third-rate staff haven't the slightest clue of what gave rise to the deplorables in the first place and how to address the root despair of the western working class .

    They will blunder about in lost befuddlement until they vanish.

    [May 22, 2017] Manafort, Stone Give Russia Docs To Senate Intel Committee

    They can dig this dirt to years. Trump is now a hostage.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation. ..."
    "... NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort. ..."
    May 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    While Michael Flynn may refusing to comply with the Senate Intel Committee's probe of Russian interference, two other former associates of Donald Trump complied on Monday afternoon, and according to NBC , Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have turned over documents to the Senate Intelligence Committee in its Russia investigation, providing "all documents consistent with their specific request." As reported previously, the committee sent document requests to Manafort and Stone, as well as Carter Page and Mike Flynn, seeking information related to dealings with Russia. So far Page has not yet complied, while Flynn it was confirmed today, planned to plead the Fifth as a reason not to comply with a committee subpoena, citing "escalating public frenzy" as part of the ongoing probe.

    According to NBC, the committee's letter to Page asked him "to list any Russian official or business executive he met with between June 16, 2015 and Jan. 20, 2017. It also asked him to provide information about Russia-related real estate transactions during that period. And it seeks all his email or other communications during that period with Russians, or with the Trump campaign about Russia or Russians."

    While the precise contents is unknown, similar letters were sent to Manafort and Stone, who then sent the requested information to investigators by last Friday's deadline.

    "I gave them all documents that were consistent with their specific request," Stone said in an email to NBC News.

    A spokesman for Manafort, Jason Maloni, confirmed that Manafort turned over documents, adding that Manafort remains interested in cooperating with the Senate investigation.

    NBC adds that it was too early to tell whether the documents from Manafort and Stone "suggested they had fully complied with the request." In a parallel process, as part of the FBI's Russia collusion investigation, federal grand juries have issued subpoenas for records relating to both Flynn and Manafort.

    Meanwhile, Flynn's assertion of the Fifth Amendment would make it difficult for the Senate to enforce its subpoena, NBC News reported citing Senate sources: "The Senate could go to court, or go ask the Justice Department to go to court to enforce it, but either actin would require the Republicans who control the chamber to agree." Trump fired Flynn as his national security advisor in February after misleading Vice President Mike Pence and other administration officials about conversations he had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about U.S. sanctions on Russia.

    WillyGroper , May 22, 2017 4:18 PM

    if the ruskie investigation fails to unravel the deals/pay to play treason of hrc, it's a screenplay.

    Honest John , May 22, 2017 4:19 PM

    CNN led off their newscast saying that pleading the 5th is an admission of guilt. Only guilty people do it.

    How do they get away with this stuff? And people buy into it.

    dexter_morgan - Honest John , May 22, 2017 4:24 PM

    Then all of Hillary's staff is guilty on the email probe stuff, they all claimed the 5th. Didn't Loretty Lynch or Holder also plead the 5th recently?

    Grandad Grumps , May 22, 2017 4:31 PM

    This is hilarious. Is there supposed to be some connection between meeting with Russians and rigging an election?

    I am thinking that if there is to be an investigation then Congress needs to cast a wider net to include all of the past three administrations, All international banks and their legal representatives, all of Congress and everyone who has ever contributed to the DNC or RNC.

    If they are going to hunt for witches, why not make it open season on ALL witches.

    My personal preference is to be on friendly terms with both Russia and China ... not to mentioned Iran, people of all religions and the other countries that do not have BIS tied central banks. Why do we tolerate people telling us that we have to hate someone?

    [May 22, 2017] Newt Gingrich repeats Seth Rich conspiracy theory in Fox appearance by Lois Beckett

    Guardian defends Hillary. Again. They also are afraid to open the comment section on this article.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become the focus of conspiracy theorists . ..."
    "... This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice". ..."
    "... "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics." ..."
    "... The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the Washington Post reported . ..."
    May 22, 2017 | - www.theguardian.com
    Trump confidante and husband of ambassadorial nominee repeats WikiLeaks theory denounced as 'fake news' by family of murdered DNC staffer Sunday 21 May 2017, 16.48 EDT Last modified on Monday 22 May 2017

    A prominent ally of Donald Trump suggested on Sunday that the - - special counsel appointed to investigate alleged links between the president's aides and - - Russia should instead focus on the murder last year of a young Democratic staffer, Seth Rich, which has become the focus of conspiracy theorists .

    In an appearance on Fox and Friends less than two days after his wife was - - proposed as ambassador to the Holy See , Newt Gingrich – former speaker of the House, 2012 presidential candidate and a Trump confidante – publicly endorsed the conspiracy theory that Rich was "assassinated" after giving Democratic National Committee emails to WikiLeaks.

    Rich, 27, was shot dead in the early hours of 10 July 2016, as he walked home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington. In August, the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, - - insinuated that Rich had been a source. Police initially explored whether Rich's murder might be connected to robberies in the area, according to a local news report , and officials in the capital have publicly debunked other claims.

    "This is a robbery that ended tragically," Kevin Donahue, Washington's deputy mayor for public safety, told NBC News this week. "That's bad enough for our city, and I think it is irresponsible to conflate this into something that doesn't connect to anything that the detectives have found. No WikiLeaks connection."

    On Sunday, the Washington DC police public affairs office did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.

    In January, American intelligence agencies concluded with " high confidence " in a public report that Russian military intelligence was responsible for hacking the DNC and obtaining and relaying private messages to WikiLeaks, which made a series of embarrassing public disclosures. The goal, the agencies concluded, was to undermine the candidacy of Hillary Clinton and boost Trump, as well as hurt Americans' trust in their own democracy.

    This week, the Russian embassy in the UK shared the conspiracy on Twitter, CNN reported , calling Rich a murdered "WikiLeaks informer" and claiming that the British mainstream media was "so busy accusing Russian hackers to take notice".

    The Rich family has repeatedly denied that there is any evidence behind the conspiracy theories and called on Fox News to retract its coverage of their son's murder. Earlier this week, a spokesman for the family said in a statement that "anyone who continues to push this fake news story after it was so thoroughly debunked is proving to the world they have a transparent political agenda or are a sociopath".

    On Fox and Friends, Gingrich said: "We have this very strange story here of this young man who worked for the DNC who was apparently assassinated at four in the morning having given WikiLeaks something like 23,000 – I'm sorry, 53,000 – emails and 17,000 attachments.

    "Nobody's investigating that, and what does that tell you about what was going on? Because it turns out it wasn't the Russians, it was this young guy who, I suspect, who was disgusted by the corruption of the Democratic National Committee.

    "He's been killed, and apparently nothing serious has been done to investigate his murder. So, I'd like to see how [former FBI director Robert] Mueller is going to define what his assignment is, and if it's only narrowly Trump, the country will not learn what it needs to learn about foreign involvement in American politics."

    Last week, the private investigator and Fox News commentator Rod Wheeler claimed that evidence existed that Rich had been in contact with WikiLeaks. Questioned by CNN, however, he said: "I only got that [information] from the reporter at Fox News" and added that he did not have any evidence himself.

    "Using the legacy of a murder victim in such an overtly political way is morally reprehensible," a Rich family spokesman told CNN.

    The Rich family has sent Wheeler a cease-and-desist letter, threatening legal action if he continues to discuss the case, the Washington Post reported .

    [May 22, 2017] I like Ann Coulters analogy: Its as if were in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days were driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, shes getting nervous.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's a good analogy. Personally I've already jumped out, but it was easier for me because my main concern is foreign policy, where Trump has made it abundantly clear he will preside over more of the same groupthink interventionist idiocy in the service of foreign interests that has prevailed for the past two decades. I can understand the continued, increasingly desperate hope of people like Derbyshire that there might still be some chance that they might yet not be utterly betrayed, though. ..."
    "... And still, as commenter reiner Tor put it here a couple of days ago, Trump's most powerful enemies are still my enemies. Even though I don't see him as any solution, it's still impossible not to back him to some extent against the media and establishment globalist types and all the literally absurd, hysterical nonsense they keep pushing. At least, until someone actually worthwhile comes along. ..."
    May 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Randal , May 20, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, she's getting nervous.

    It's a good analogy. Personally I've already jumped out, but it was easier for me because my main concern is foreign policy, where Trump has made it abundantly clear he will preside over more of the same groupthink interventionist idiocy in the service of foreign interests that has prevailed for the past two decades. I can understand the continued, increasingly desperate hope of people like Derbyshire that there might still be some chance that they might yet not be utterly betrayed, though.

    And still, as commenter reiner Tor put it here a couple of days ago, Trump's most powerful enemies are still my enemies. Even though I don't see him as any solution, it's still impossible not to back him to some extent against the media and establishment globalist types and all the literally absurd, hysterical nonsense they keep pushing. At least, until someone actually worthwhile comes along.

    WorkingClass , May 20, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

    @Randal

    I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann, she's getting nervous.
    It's a good analogy. Personally I've already jumped out, but it was easier for me because my main concern is foreign policy, where Trump has made it abundantly clear he will preside over more of the same groupthink interventionist idiocy in the service of foreign interests that has prevailed for the past two decades. I can understand the continued, increasingly desperate hope of people like Derbyshire that there might still be some chance that they might yet not be utterly betrayed, though.

    And still, as commenter reiner Tor put it here a couple of days ago, Trump's most powerful enemies are still my enemies. Even though I don't see him as any solution, it's still impossible not to back him to some extent against the media and establishment globalist types and all the literally absurd, hysterical nonsense they keep pushing. At least, until someone actually worthwhile comes along.

    [May 21, 2017] What Obsessing About Trump Causes Us To Miss by Andrew Bacevich

    Highly recommended!
    Interesting questions ! But one can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming for the US MSM.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry? ..."
    "... How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions. ..."
    "... Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs. ..."
    "... The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? ..."
    "... Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb ..."
    "... I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven. ..."
    "... Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. ..."
    "... Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies. ..."
    "... Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict. ..."
    "... Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class? ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East. ..."
    "... Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down. ..."
    "... Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. ..."
    "... Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. ..."
    "... Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today. ..."
    May 08, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    May 8, 2017 by Yves Smith By Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is the author of America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History , now out in paperback . His next book will be an interpretive history of the United States from the end of the Cold War to the election of Donald Trump. Originally published at TomDispatch

    If only it were so. How wonderful it would be if President Trump's ascendancy had coincided with a revival of hard-hitting, deep-dive, no-holds-barred American journalism. Alas, that's hardly the case. True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he had previously sworn fealty requires something less than the sleuthing talents of a Sherlock Holmes. As for beating up on poor Sean Spicer for his latest sequence of gaffes - well, that's more akin to sadism than reporting.

    Apart from a commendable determination to discomfit Trump and members of his inner circle (select military figures excepted, at least for now), journalism remains pretty much what it was prior to November 8th of last year: personalities built up only to be torn down; fads and novelties discovered, celebrated, then mocked; "extraordinary" stories of ordinary people granted 15 seconds of fame only to once again be consigned to oblivion - all served with a side dish of that day's quota of suffering, devastation, and carnage. These remain journalism's stock-in-trade. As practiced in the United States, with certain honorable (and hence unprofitable) exceptions, journalism remains superficial, voyeuristic, and governed by the attention span of a two year old.

    As a result, all those editors, reporters, columnists, and talking heads who characterize their labors as "now more important than ever" ill-serve the public they profess to inform and enlighten. Rather than clearing the air, they befog it further. If anything, the media's current obsession with Donald Trump - his every utterance or tweet treated as "breaking news!" - just provides one additional excuse for highlighting trivia, while slighting issues that deserve far more attention than they currently receive.

    To illustrate the point, let me cite some examples of national security issues that presently receive short shrift or are ignored altogether by those parts of the Fourth Estate said to help set the nation's political agenda. To put it another way: Hey, Big Media, here are two dozen matters to which you're not giving faintly adequate thought and attention.

    1. Accomplishing the "mission" : Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S. security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well. Under what circumstances can Americans expect nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs? To put it another way, when (if ever) might U.S. forces actually come home? And if it is incumbent upon the United States to police vast swaths of the planet in perpetuity, how should momentous changes in the international order - the rise of China, for example, or accelerating climate change - affect the U.S. approach to doing so?

    2 . American military supremacy : The United States military is undoubtedly the world's finest. It's also far and away the most generously funded , with policymakers offering U.S. troops no shortage of opportunities to practice their craft. So why doesn't this great military ever win anything? Or put another way, why in recent decades have those forces been unable to accomplish Washington's stated wartime objectives? Why has the now 15-year-old war on terror failed to result in even a single real success anywhere in the Greater Middle East? Could it be that we've taken the wrong approach? What should we be doing differently?

    3. America's empire of bases : The U.S. military today garrisons the planet in a fashion without historical precedent. Successive administrations, regardless of party, justify and perpetuate this policy by insisting that positioning U.S. forces in distant lands fosters peace, stability, and security. In the present century, however, perpetuating this practice has visibly had the opposite effect. In the eyes of many of those called upon to "host" American bases, the permanent presence of such forces smacks of occupation. They resist. Why should U.S. policymakers expect otherwise?

    4. Supporting the troops : In present-day America, expressing reverence for those who serve in uniform is something akin to a religious obligation. Everyone professes to cherish America's "warriors." Yet such bountiful, if superficial, expressions of regard camouflage a growing gap between those who serve and those who applaud from the sidelines. Our present-day military system, based on the misnamed All-Volunteer Force, is neither democratic nor effective. Why has discussion and debate about its deficiencies not found a place among the nation's political priorities?

    5. Prerogatives of the commander-in-chief : Are there any military actions that the president of the United States may not order on his own authority? If so, what are they? Bit by bit, decade by decade, Congress has abdicated its assigned role in authorizing war. Today, it merely rubberstamps what presidents decide to do (or simply stays mum ). Who does this deference to an imperial presidency benefit? Have U.S. policies thereby become more prudent, enlightened, and successful?

    6. Assassin-in-chief : A policy of assassination, secretly implemented under the aegis of the CIA during the early Cold War, yielded few substantive successes. When the secrets were revealed, however, the U.S. government suffered considerable embarrassment , so much so that presidents foreswore politically motivated murder. After 9/11, however, Washington returned to the assassination business in a big way and on a global scale, using drones. Today, the only secret is the sequence of names on the current presidential hit list , euphemistically known as the White House "disposition matrix." But does assassination actually advance U.S. interests (or does it merely recruit replacements for the terrorists it liquidates)? How can we measure its costs, whether direct or indirect? What dangers and vulnerabilities does this practice invite?

    7. The war formerly known as the "Global War on Terrorism" : What precisely is Washington's present strategy for defeating violent jihadism? What sequence of planned actions or steps is expected to yield success? If no such strategy exists, why is that the case? How is it that the absence of strategy - not to mention an agreed upon definition of "success" - doesn't even qualify for discussion here?

    8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom : The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?

    9. The Gulf : Americans once believed that their prosperity and way of life depended on having assured access to Persian Gulf oil. Today, that is no longer the case. The United States is once more an oil exporter . Available and accessible reserves of oil and natural gas in North America are far greater than was once believed . Yet the assumption that the Persian Gulf still qualifies as crucial to American national security persists in Washington. Why?

    10. Hyping terrorism : Each year terrorist attacks kill far fewer Americans than do auto accidents , drug overdoses , or even lightning strikes . Yet in the allocation of government resources, preventing terrorist attacks takes precedence over preventing all three of the others combined. Why is that?

    11. Deaths that matter and deaths that don't : Why do terrorist attacks that kill a handful of Europeans command infinitely more American attention than do terrorist attacks that kill far larger numbers of Arabs? A terrorist attack that kills citizens of France or Belgium elicits from the United States heartfelt expressions of sympathy and solidarity. A terrorist attack that kills Egyptians or Iraqis elicits shrugs. Why the difference? To what extent does race provide the answer to that question?

    12. Israeli nukes : What purpose is served by indulging the pretense that Israel does not have nuclear weapons?

    13. Peace in the Holy Land : What purpose is served by indulging illusions that a "two-state solution" offers a plausible resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? As remorselessly as white settlers once encroached upon territory inhabited by Native American tribes, Israeli settlers expand their presence in the occupied territories year by year. As they do, the likelihood of creating a viable Palestinian state becomes ever more improbable. To pretend otherwise is the equivalent of thinking that one day President Trump might prefer the rusticity of Camp David to the glitz of Mar-a-Lago.

    14. Merchandizing death : When it comes to arms sales, there is no need to Make America Great Again. The U.S. ranks number one by a comfortable margin, with long-time allies Saudi Arabia and Israel leading recipients of those arms. Each year, the Saudis (per capita gross domestic product $20,000) purchase hundreds of millions of dollars of U.S. weapons. Israel (per capita gross domestic product $38,000) gets several billion dollars worth of such weaponry annually courtesy of the American taxpayer. If the Saudis pay for U.S. arms, why shouldn't the Israelis? They can certainly afford to do so.

    15. Our friends the Saudis (I) : Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, were Saudis. What does that fact signify?

    16. Our friends the Saudis (II) : If indeed Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to determine which nation will enjoy the upper hand in the Persian Gulf, why should the United States favor Saudi Arabia? In what sense do Saudi values align more closely with American values than do Iranian ones?

    17. Our friends the Pakistanis : Pakistan behaves like a rogue state. It is a nuclear weapons proliferator . It supports the Taliban. For years, it provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. Yet U.S. policymakers treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. Why? In what ways do U.S. and Pakistani interests or values coincide? If there are none, why not say so?

    18. Free-loading Europeans : Why can't Europe, " whole and free ," its population and economy considerably larger than Russia's, defend itself? It's altogether commendable that U.S. policymakers should express support for Polish independence and root for the Baltic republics. But how does it make sense for the United States to care more about the wellbeing of people living in Eastern Europe than do people living in Western Europe?

    19. The mother of all "special relationships" : The United States and the United Kingdom have a "special relationship" dating from the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Apart from keeping the Public Broadcasting Service supplied with costume dramas and stories featuring eccentric detectives, what is the rationale for that partnership today? Why should U.S. relations with Great Britain, a fading power, be any more "special" than its relations with a rising power like India? Why should the bonds connecting Americans and Britons be any more intimate than those connecting Americans and Mexicans? Why does a republic now approaching the 241st anniversary of its independence still need a "mother country"?

    20. The old nuclear disarmament razzmatazz : American presidents routinely cite their hope for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Yet the U.S. maintains nuclear strike forces on full alert, has embarked on a costly and comprehensive trillion-dollar modernization of its nuclear arsenal, and even refuses to adopt a no-first-use posture when it comes to nuclear war. The truth is that the United States will consider surrendering its nukes only after every other nation on the planet has done so first. How does American nuclear hypocrisy affect the prospects for global nuclear disarmament or even simply for the non-proliferation of such weaponry?

    21. Double standards (I) : American policymakers take it for granted that their country's sphere of influence is global, which, in turn, provides the rationale for the deployment of U.S. military forces to scores of countries. Yet when it comes to nations like China, Russia, or Iran, Washington takes the position that spheres of influence are obsolete and a concept that should no longer be applicable to the practice of statecraft. So Chinese, Russian, and Iranian forces should remain where they belong - in China, Russia, and Iran. To stray beyond that constitutes a provocation, as well as a threat to global peace and order. Why should these other nations play by American rules? Why shouldn't similar rules apply to the United States?

    22. Double standards (II) : Washington claims that it supports and upholds international law. Yet when international law gets in the way of what American policymakers want to do, they disregard it. They start wars, violate the sovereignty of other nations, and authorize agents of the United States to kidnap, imprison, torture, and kill. They do these things with impunity, only forced to reverse their actions on the rare occasions when U.S. courts find them illegal. Why should other powers treat international norms as sacrosanct since the United States does so only when convenient?

    23. Double standards (III) : The United States condemns the indiscriminate killing of civilians in wartime. Yet over the last three-quarters of a century, it killed civilians regularly and often on a massive scale. By what logic, since the 1940s, has the killing of Germans, Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Afghans, and others by U.S. air power been any less reprehensible than the Syrian government's use of "barrel bombs" to kill Syrians today? On what basis should Americans accept Pentagon claims that, when civilians are killed these days by U.S. forces, the acts are invariably accidental, whereas Syrian forces kill civilians intentionally and out of malice? Why exclude incompetence or the fog of war as explanations? And why, for instance, does the United States regularly gloss over or ignore altogether the noncombatants that Saudi forces (with U.S. assistance ) are routinely killing in Yemen?

    24. Moral obligations : When confronted with some egregious violation of human rights, members of the chattering classes frequently express an urge for the United States to "do something." Holocaust analogies sprout like dandelions. Newspaper columnists recycle copy first used when Cambodians were slaughtering other Cambodians en masse or whenever Hutus and Tutsis went at it. Proponents of action - typically advocating military intervention - argue that the United States has a moral obligation to aid those victimized by injustice or cruelty anywhere on Earth. But what determines the pecking order of such moral obligations? Which comes first, a responsibility to redress the crimes of others or a responsibility to redress crimes committed by Americans? Who has a greater claim to U.S. assistance, Syrians suffering today under the boot of Bashar al-Assad or Iraqis, their country shattered by the U.S. invasion of 2003? Where do the Vietnamese fit into the queue? How about the Filipinos, brutally denied independence and forcibly incorporated into an American empire as the nineteenth century ended? Or African-Americans, whose ancestors were imported as slaves? Or, for that matter, dispossessed and disinherited Native Americans? Is there a statute of limitations that applies to moral obligations? And if not, shouldn't those who have waited longest for justice or reparations receive priority attention?

    Let me suggest that any one of these two dozen issues - none seriously covered, discussed, or debated in the American media or in the political mainstream - bears more directly on the wellbeing of the United States and our prospects for avoiding global conflict than anything Donald Trump may have said or done during his first 100 days as president. Collectively, they define the core of the national security challenges that presently confront this country, even as they languish on the periphery of American politics.

    How much damage Donald Trump's presidency wreaks before it ends remains to be seen. Yet he himself is a transient phenomenon. To allow his pratfalls and shenanigans to divert attention from matters sure to persist when he finally departs the stage is to make a grievous error. It may well be that, as the Times insists, the truth is now more important than ever. If so, finding the truth requires looking in the right places and asking the right questions.

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 11:36 am

    Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow" has many of the answers to the questions about why the MSM is the way it is. People are hard-wired to react to sound bites, especially potential pleasure or terror. The MSM is very good at that. Populist politicians feed off of the same.

    B.J.M. , May 8, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    "What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it."

    Sorry MoiAussie, but the analysis has already been done, unfortunately nobody really cares.

    Propaganda and the Public Mind
    Necessary Illusions

    witters , May 8, 2017 at 6:01 pm

    "What would be far more useful than a specialised list of inadequately reported topics would be to analyze this MSM behaviour, explore how it comes about and how it has evolved, to reveal some of the darker connections to power, and put up some strategies for slowly reversing it. In a nutshell, how to foster thriving independent media with broad reach that expose MSM stenography and resist censorship?"

    Well, yes. Except the behaviour you are analysing is, presumably, among other things, the behaviour involved in inadequately addressing these topics.

    cat's paw , May 8, 2017 at 1:57 am

    One can sleep soundly tonight safe in the knowledge that not even the pretense of a reply to Bacevich's questions will be forthcoming.

    oho , May 8, 2017 at 8:45 am

    stop fighting about identity politics (i'm not holding my breath for either side)

    elements of both sides want to return to a non-interventionist US foreign policy, except there is always a fight about something else that serves as a distraction.. like cats and shiny toys.

    Norb , May 8, 2017 at 9:18 am

    The only thing one can do is persistently bring important issues forward to friends and colleagues. In other words, become in many respects a social pariah. Challenging the status quo by definition makes you an outsider.

    The strategic effectiveness of this dissent becomes manifest when you actually change how you live your life. You become an example for others to follow.

    Any successful movement building must follow this path. The strategic plan is to live and think like a socialist in a crumbling capitalist world. The rising levels of inequality must surely bring this about, one way or another.

    Socialism or Barbarism. How many working people could disagree with that? It needs to be repeated over and over. That spirit needs to be reflected in individual life in order to survive.

    B.J.M. , May 8, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    " But it raises the question, what can individuals do to change the behavior of the media?"

    We can continue to ignore them and opt for the following: Naked Capitalism, CounterPunch, ZeroHedge, Liberty Blitzkreig, ContraCorner, Truthout, Consortium News, The Unz Review, Tom Dispatch, Democracy Now, Pando Daily, The Intercept, etc, etc. That is the mainstream media's worst nightmare.

    The only reason to check the NYT or Washington Post is to see what meme is being promoted by the deep state; then you know what not to believe.

    I find this whole debate about fake news to be somewhat laughable. Americans have been subject to fake news for decades, they just didn't know it. Noam Chomsky has been writing about this for 40 years. His books: Propaganda and the Public Mind, Deterring Democracy, Manufacturing Consent and Necessary Illusions are all excellent and contain extensive research and details to support his claims. Of course part to the fake news strategy has been to ignore people like Chomsky. Instead we get intellectual clowns like Tom Friedman telling us how the world works.

    Now that we have some real news, the fake news mainstream media has gone into panic mode and its strategy is to label the real new as fake news. Orwell and Huxley must be rolling in their graves with laughter.

    Enjoy the show!

    optimader , May 8, 2017 at 11:18 am

    True, the big media outlets are demonstrating both energy and enterprise in exposing the ineptitude, inconsistency, and dubious ethical standards, as well as outright lies and fake news, that are already emerging as Trump era signatures. That said, pointing out that the president has (again) uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position to which he had previously sworn . "uttered a falsehood, claimed credit for a nonexistent achievement, or abandoned some position.." a new development in POTUS behavior ushered in by DTrump??

    craazyboy , May 8, 2017 at 2:05 am

    Ok, so the USG has 24 issues. Let's not be nit-picky.

    On this one, we've had a bit of progress.

    "8. The campaign formerly known as Operation Enduring Freedom: The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end? On what terms?"

    We dropped a $30 million BMF'ing bomb on an undefensible, open plain. Killed 67 trees and terrified Afgan flora from border to border. Egyptian cotton kids refuse to migrate there on their little parachute thingies because they are terrified --

    Declassified CIA leaks from the DNC indicate these trees actively made maple syrup for terrorists. This gives terrorists big muscles, like Popeye, and reduces urges to eat human organs.

    This is appreciated by other terrorists in camp and they sleep better , too.

    However, the Fava Beans and Olive Oil have been spilled. Unemployed tree hugger reporters report that the BMF'ing bomb caused the tree sap to instantly turn to maple sugar candies and the candies are now enclosed in a depleted uranium candy tins. Fake research scientists believe the bomb casing was made of the depleted uranium. Could happen, opines Krugman, now minority owner of the NYT, and seconded by Chelsea, whom did the secret HS science project back in the 90s in Yugoslavia. She drew a cute picture of Daddy on the bomb's belly, but a lot of Very Serious Men In Black Suits did everything else.

    As to when the entire Afgan issue ends, we know the war becomes fiscally irresponsible when the USG runs out of new trees to bomb and the maple sugar candies no longer can fund the onslaught.

    Krugman is working on the macro analysis and will send the Noble Prize people an advanced copy for editing, puffing up, and general focus grouping. One area of neglect is developing a universal political correctness language – the semantics are daunting and definitions have to be dynamic, yet synchronized with meanings according to domestic needs. That's a tough one.

    Then people have to learn it, instead of lazily doing what they do now. Which I think may involve much use of sign language.

    An advance against the reward money is expected, and a pic of the statues with Kruggies name on it would signal good faith and seal the deal. Bully to Trump!

    fresno dan , May 8, 2017 at 11:12 am

    craazyboy
    May 8, 2017 at 2:05 am

    "The conflict commonly referred to as the Afghanistan War is now the longest in U.S. history - having lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I, and World War II combined. What is the Pentagon's plan for concluding that conflict? When might Americans expect it to end?"

    Apparently, the Afghanistan war has ended. It makes me feel a little less stupid, although I have a lot of excess stupid in reserve, to know others missed it as well ..

    fresno dan

    After dropping its largest conventional bomb ever used in combat in Afghanistan on 13 April, the US military said the massive ordnance air blast, or Moab, was a "very clear message to Isis" that they would be "annihilated".

    Defence secretary Jim Mattis said the bomb was "necessary to break Isis". The Afghan government claimed the bomb killed 94 Isis militants, while harming no civilians.

    ======================================================================= http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/12/29/afghanistan-war-officially-ends/21004589/

    Well, looks like I missed the war ending .but with the war ended, one would think we wouldn't have to be dropping the world's biggest bomb

    optimader , May 8, 2017 at 11:22 am

    its now a police action!

    fresno dan , May 8, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    optimader
    May 8, 2017 at 11:22 am

    the military takes more and more "police actions" while the police use more and more military equipment and tactics ..
    Considering all the "surplus" stuff that goes to the police, how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???

    optimader , May 8, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    how soon before the police drop the biggest "anti-criminal suppression device" i.e., the mother of all bombs???

    low yield Neutron bomb.. don't damage what left of the domestic infrastructure, the REIT managers would go crazy!

    The backhanded criticism that the MFing bomb didn't do enough damage is related to where it was used.
    Try a barometric pressure bomb in a place like Manhattan and it would be a much different outcome than say on the other end of the spectrum, at a latitude/longitude in Nevada where the before and after pics would be identical.

    A dark side of the media criticism of the MFing Bomb is that it may well goad the MIC/Pentagon Product Managers into a do-over. Afterall, who likes their handiwork criticized?

    DTrump told them I want something big and flashy while Xi is in town and that's what they came up with..

    Back to the Product Development Group. Just need to tweak the neutron emission!
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 2:29 pm

    They are just suppressing protests. In the US they are limited to tear gas but in Afghanistan they can use MOAB since the ACLU is weak there.

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea." Mao Zedong

    The cool thing about guerilla warfare is it largely eliminates the concept of civilians since anybody could be a soldier, even children. That is why civilian casualties are frequently so low, because pretty much anybody over the age of 6 is a combatant. it also increases the enemy combatant body count which makes it clear that the government forces are winning, as was so ably shown in the Vietnam War.

    optimader , May 8, 2017 at 12:09 pm

    I'm thinking the bigMFing bomb was more a marketing theater driven initative rather than Afgan Strategic Theatre driven.

    It was so DTrump could be at the breakfast table before the President of China and to greet him with.. Wow, sorry I had to cut out before Dessert last night, had some things to take care of, how was the Chocolate cake.. the Cake?" ( he like to repeat things)

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    I view the use of MOAB on ISIS as the equivalent of giving an antibiotic shot so that the in-country Taliban immune system can wipe out the remaining ISIS bacteria. I don't think the Taliban wants ISIS there since it focuses too much US attention on the area, so they may be willing to mop up the remaining ISIS fighters.

    Dick Burkhart , May 8, 2017 at 2:21 am

    Some great questions here. Recently I was at a Town Hall with my representative to Congress and asked him if our government, or even just the Democrats, had a long term strategy for peace in the Middle East. The answer was basically, No. A few weeks later I actually got a phone call from his office on this very question, yet the answer was still basically No. He did say that Kerry had sought a UN brokered regime change in Syria (opposed by Russia), after I suggested something like this.

    However Bacevitch needs to be a little more critical about all the claims about US energy. The US may be exporting some oil and oil products, but it is importing more. We have no prospect of "energy independence" in the forseeable future, unless there is a drastic cutback in consumption. When it comes to energy forecasting, top governmental agencies have had an abysmal record. Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies.

    DanB , May 8, 2017 at 7:49 am

    "Independent experts like David Hughes and Art Berman regularly expose the wishful thinking and poor analysis of the economists at these agencies." Thanks for pointing this out.

    Toolate , May 8, 2017 at 2:24 am

    This truly is an appalling list. One wonders how many Americans have ever considered even one of these ?

    Temporarily Sane , May 8, 2017 at 2:42 am

    It's great to see people from across the ideological spectrum who served in the military, intelligence services and in various administrations, speaking out. Hindsight is 20/20as the cliche goes. Now if only people who are currently serving in those institutions would step up to the plate and speak truth to power. At what point does it become unconscionable for good people to do nothing? Or, rather, when does critical mass kick in and make resisting the insanity that reigns in our institutions more than just a flash in the pan and career suicide?

    John Wright , May 8, 2017 at 10:55 am

    The past is not encouraging, war hero Eisenhower could only warn of the MIC as he was exiting.

    The economic footprint of the MIC + think tanks + academia + security agencies is huge (maybe a trillion/year)

    A lot of people depend on the defense budget staying large as the MIC is a jobs program throughout much of the USA,.

    I remember CA Senator Boxer, one of the few senators who voted against the AUMF in Iraq, fighting to keep the local (to me) Mare Island Naval Shipyard from closing in 1996.

    The adjacent city, Vallejo, subsequently went through bankruptcy.

    One illustrative MIC family is the Kagan-Nuland family,

    Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and seemed to be in charge of stirring up trouble in the Ukraine.

    Her husband is noted neocon (he prefers "liberal interventionist") Robert Kagan of the Bookings Institution, and his brother, Frederick, is at the American Enterprise institute.

    Frederick's wife, Kimberly, heads up the "Institute for the Study of War" funded by Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp and others.

    One might suggest this family gets meaning, purpose and income through USA military action.

    One could posit there many other similar families.

    It is difficult to be optimistic that much can be done.

    Mel , May 8, 2017 at 8:46 am

    These aren't independent issues (and, ultimately, there's no reason they have to be.)
    Like, what's preventing the solution of #1 (expecting nations in these regions to assume responsibility for managing their own affairs?) #17. When the Pakistanis have to deal with huge problems on the other side of the invisible line, they aren't so reliable about sticking to the script. Especially a script that has written out all the huge problems.

    I guess that is the point. 45 seconds with this list pastes two items together and makes the framework for a story. But the run of stories that appear are like Captain America saw a bad guy and punched him in the face. Makes a good comic panel, and, when the press has been taught the true meaning of "profitable", it makes a good newspaper page too. Right.

    A working State Department could do interesting things with this list too, but - Captain America.

    oho , May 8, 2017 at 8:50 am

    the US hasn't fought a peer nation since 1945-even then the USSR did a lot of the heavy lifting. the US still hasnt beaten the Taliban.

    US full spectrum dominance could be propaganda for all we know--with our vaunted carriers and fighters sitting ducks to swarms of cheap first-world missiles.

    in any fight with China or Russia, theyd only have to play defense. The US would be the ones without home field advantage, likely in a war with limited domestic support as the fight probablyt would not be about an existential issue to the US homeland

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 11:46 am

    If a group like the Taliban has indigenous support, then you pretty much are left with destroying the village in order to save it as the only military option. Putting a corrupt mafia in charge of the country is not the appropriate alternate civilian political approach to win hearts and minds.

    In the 1990s nobody cared about the Taliban except when they were blowing up big Buddhas. Their fatal error was allowing bin-Laden to launch major attacks against the US home soil. My guess at this time is that the Taliban have been inoculated against spreading terror overseas. If the US left Afghanistan, the Taliban would probably take many of the valleys back and kick ISIS out so that they don't have to worry about the US coming back in to deal with 9/11 terrorists again. Afghanistan would probably be fairly "peaceful" at that point in a fundamental Muslim way, kind of like the fundamental Christian utopia that Mike Pence tried to create in Indiana.

    hemeantwell , May 8, 2017 at 8:55 am

    Bacevich's indictment suffers from an inability to explain how this genuflecting celebration of American intentions degenerated into what he goes on to elaborate.

    Accomplishing the "mission": Since the immediate aftermath of World War II, the United States has been committed to defending key allies in Europe and East Asia. Not long thereafter, U.S. security guarantees were extended to the Middle East as well.

    The beginning of the Cold War continues to be shrouded in assumptions about Soviet aggressiveness and American and British benevolence. Otherwise critical thinkers become kool aid dispensers when they are obliged to reference it. Bacevich skates over questions such as the division of Germany - was it because the US wanted to allow Germany to quickly reindustrialize and the Soviets were afraid of yet another invasion? - and whether city-destroying nuclear weapons would be internationally controlled or remain a US monopoly.

    Instead he invites us all to assume the Soviets were acting and the West was reacting. In my view this genuinely childish view of international relations is the template for American exceptionalism and, unless we break free of it, a logic of privileged exceptionalism will continually assert itself. The Trump era offers us a chance to raze this mythology and seriously confront how market-oriented imperatives, not devils and angels, drive international conflict.

    Whine Country , May 8, 2017 at 10:16 am

    You must have missed this yesterday:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/05/war-and-empire-the-american-way-of-life/

    Some are trying to deal with the issue you raise. Oliver Stone had a lot to say on the subject in his "Untold History of the United States".

    JEHR , May 8, 2017 at 9:10 am

    I would like to see CNN or any other channel begin a series of TV presentations where each one of these items is discussed by the relevant people. (When no officials show up for the program, then the producers will know they are on the right track.) A great idea for a series of investigative reports by journalists also.

    However, would such a program make any difference in how things are done?

    DH , May 8, 2017 at 11:48 am

    It might if the Kardashians were invited to participate in the debate.

    Lil'D , May 8, 2017 at 9:24 am

    It's systemic. Journalism is a business of delivering eyeballs to advertisers. These important issues don't sell. Get more flashy drama in the framing of the story and you might have a chance

    B.J.M. , May 8, 2017 at 3:03 pm

    exactly, it is "systemic"! Until one understands that the mainstream media's core business is not news; it is selling audiences to advertisers, one will never properly understand the problem.

    Felix_47 , May 8, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Could it be that our leadership in Washington has no idea why we are still in Afghanistan either? Could it be that our allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, like the idea of the US military sitting at the back door to Iran? Could it be that we are getting the best foreign policy Saudi and Israeli money can buy? And the MIC is glad to oblige.

    Art Eclectic , May 8, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    My assumption is that everything inexplicable is ultimately explained by money if you dug deep enough.

    JTMcPhee , May 8, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    String theory? Dark matter? Why my dog still pees right inside the patio door?

    witters , May 8, 2017 at 6:42 pm

    Why not? See Richard Rorty's "Consequences of Pragmatism".

    Susan the other , May 8, 2017 at 12:05 pm

    Well we can certainly speculate on 1 – 24. In almost every case there is an implied answer: We aren't quite finished yet establishing and maintaining our control. Over finance and power.

    And even though war is too expensive and we have resorted to a kind of high-tech guerrilla warfare, we still need boots on the ground. That is because we live in a material world and goods are manufactured, transported and trafficked.

    An even more stubborn war is going on in international finance (Hudson) – that's the one I'd like to see reporters understand. Colonel Wilkerson said it is all about finance and power and we will be in Afghanistan for 50 years. What's going on right now really seems like never ending pointlessness. So maybe we should discuss exactly what we want to achieve control for – what's the plan? In detail. Starting with the health of the planet and sustainable civilization.

    Tom Stone , May 8, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    Y U H8 'Murika?

    templar555510 , May 8, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    Andrew could have headed his piece " Analysis of an Empire ' and then added the sub-heading ' A Tale of Vested Interests ' because that is surely why these atrocities ( yes that's right ) continue ad infintum, ad nauseum . And these same interests are those that sell us soap, automobiles, liquor etc, etc, maybe not directly, but the interconnections are now so complete as to make distinctions irrelevant.

    Sluggeaux , May 8, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    Is it because a self-perpetuating top-heavy military bureaucracy was never properly demobilized after the Second World War, and only promotes the sort of sociopathic, narcissistic, borderline personalities who are relentlessly able to bully the groveling toadies and wussies who make up our perpetually campaigning political-climber class?

    Gen Dau , May 8, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    Andrew Bacevich needs to study more deeply about Syrian history and politics, since his description of Syrian president Bashar Assad as a brutal dictator fits as a description of Bashar's father Hafez Assad but is inaccurate in relation to Bashar Assad, who seems to have a rather gentle personality and is actually one of the more benign leaders in the Middle East.

    Bashar Assad had planned to be a doctor, and he studied medicine for two years in the UK before being ordered to return to Syria by his father after his elder brother died in an accident. Although there were some excesses by the police in 2011, Bashar Assad quickly relaxed some old security laws and pushed for a new democratic constitution, which was promulgated in 2012. Under that new constitution, in 2014 he ran in a free election observed by international observers against two other politicians and was reelected president. He has promised that if he loses the next election he will step down.

    Nevertheless Assad has been systematically demonized by the governments and MSM of the US, UK, and France, as well as by Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Demonization is a technique that is often used to prepare the way for regime change, and it is not based on objective analysis. Although Assad is often called a butcher who gasses his own people, experts such as Theodore Postol of MIT and others have shown that not a single allegation of gassing by the Syrian government under Assad has ever been proven. In addition, many of the excesses by the Syrian police against demonstrators in 2011 seem to have been initiated by armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in Syria, who quickly infiltrated the demonstrations.

    There have even been allegations that jihadi sharpshooters on rooftops shot demonstrators in false-flag attacks.

    Similar tactics were used in Ukraine in February 2014 by ultranationalist Right Sector sharpshooters, who were seen shooting Maidan demonstrators. The deaths of the demonstrators were then blamed on the police. In the case of Syria:

    "Syrian-based Father Frans van der Lugt was the Dutch priest murdered by a gunman in Homs . His involvement in reconciliation and peace activities never stopped him from lobbing criticisms at both sides in this conflict. But in the first year of the crisis, he penned some remarkable observations about the violence – this one in January 2012:

    "'From the start the protest movements were not purely peaceful. From the start I saw armed demonstrators marching along in the protests, who began to shoot at the police first. Very often the violence of the security forces has been a reaction to the brutal violence of the armed rebels.'

    "In September 2011 he wrote: 'From the start there has been the problem of the armed groups, which are also part of the opposition The opposition of the street is much stronger than any other opposition. And this opposition is armed and frequently employs brutality and violence, only in order then to blame the government.'"

    https://www.rt.com/op-edge/157412-syria-hidden-massacre-2011/

    For an objective overview of the context of the events of 2011 in Syria that led to the international war against the elected Syrian government, see Stephen Gowans, "The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn't."

    https://gowans.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/the-revolutionary-distemper-in-syria-that-wasnt/

    Also see Gowans' well-researched 2016 book 'Washington's Long War on Syria.' The US has been demonizing and trying to overthrow the Syrian government for several decades now, above all because it is the only remaining semi-socialist nation in the Middle East and has single-payer national health insurance, support for the elderly, and free college education for all. Assad is no saint, but he is one of the more democratic and forward-looking leaders in the Middle East today.

    Westley Wood , May 8, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    Thugs committing heinous acts "and some had opportunity to squeal " S. Crane

    [May 21, 2017] WhateverGate -- The Crazed Quest To Find Some Reason (Any Reason!) To Dump Trump by John Derbyshire

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment. Or whatever. But impeachment. ..."
    "... Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the Lobbying Disclosure Act! ..."
    "... There's a grain of truth in that. The Watergate affair was a media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964. ..."
    "... It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing too much outward enthusiasm. ..."
    "... Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us voted for him in the general. ..."
    "... The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state. They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy, the open borders and multiculturalism. ..."
    "... They really think that, the McCains and Grahams and McConnells and Ryans . Get rid of Trump, you get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state, they believe. Then we can all go back to what Orwell called "the dear old game of scratch-my-neighbor." Yep, this is the Stupid Party. ..."
    "... But whether Donald Trump is actually the right person to give us Trump_vs_deep_state is more and more in doubt. ..."
    "... Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported, comes back in ? Why no request to Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the visa lottery and restrictions on chain migration? When do we start testing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in NATO ? Why are we still at war with North Korea ( which technically we are , since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)? ..."
    "... I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann , she's getting nervous. ..."
    May 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    One of Steve Sailer's many clever commenters has brilliantly named it WhateverGate-the frantic legalistic churning about who said what to whom in President Trump's circle, and whether the thing that was or was not said warrants impeachment. Or whatever. But impeachment.

    Every week, I think things can't get any crazier-the hysteria has to burn itself out, the temperature can't get any higher, the fever has to break-and every week it's worse. Boy, they really want to get this guy. That just gives us more reasons to defend him.

    I don't even bother much any more to focus on the actual thing that President Trump or one of his colleagues is supposed to have said or done. Every time, when you look closely, it's basically nothing.

    I've been reading news and memoirs about American presidents since the Kennedy administration. I swear that every single damn thing Trump is accused of, warranting special counsels, congressional enquiries, impeachment-every single thing has been done by other recent presidents, often to a much greater degree, with little or no comment.

    Remember Barack Obama's hot-mike blooper in the 2012 campaign, telling the Russian President that, quote, "After my election I have more flexibility"? [ Obama tells Russia's Medvedev more flexibility after election , Reuters, March 26, 2012] Can you imagine how today's media would react if footage showed up of Trump doing that in last year's campaign? Can you imagine ? I can't.

    We are a big, important country with big, important things that need doing-most important of all, halting the demographic transformation that's tugging us out of the Anglosphere into the Latino-sphere and filling our country with low-skill workers just as robots are arriving to take their jobs.

    Those big, important things aren't getting done. Instead, our news outlets are shrieking about high crimes and misdemeanors in the new administration–things that, when you read about the actual details, look awful picayune.

    Sample, from today's press, concerning Michael Flynn , the national security advisor President Trump fired for supposedly lying to the Vice President about a phone conversation he'd had with the Russian Ambassador last December. To the best of my understanding, the root issue was just a difference of opinion over the parsing of what Flynn remembered having said, and the precise definition of the word "substantive," but Trump fired him anyway.

    Well, here's Eli Lake at Bloomberg News on the latest tranche of investigations into Flynn's activities:

    Flynn's legal troubles come from his failure to properly report foreign income. One source close to Flynn told me that the Justice Department had opened an investigation into Flynn after the election in November for failing to register his work on behalf of a Turkish businessman, pursuant to the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Flynn had instead reported this income through the more lax Lobbying Disclosure Act. After his resignation, Flynn registered as a foreign agent for Turkey.

    The Special Counsel Who Just Might Save Trump's Presidency, by Eli Lake, May 18, 2017

    Did you get that? Instead of registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, Flynn reported his income through the Lobbying Disclosure Act!

    High crimes! Treason! Special Prosecutor! Congressional inquiry! The Republic is in danger! Suspend habeas corpus -- This must not stand!

    And then, the whole silly Russia business. The Bloomberg guy has words about that, too:

    Flynn also failed to report with the Pentagon his payment in 2015 from Russia's propaganda network, RT, for a speech in Moscow at the network's annual gala. As I reported last month, Flynn did brief the Defense Intelligence Agency about that trip before and after he attended the RT gala. The Pentagon also renewed his top-secret security clearance after that trip.

    So obviously the rot goes deep into the Pentagon. They're covering for him! Let's have a purge of the military! Special prosecutor!

    Oh, we have a special prosecutor? Let's have another one!

    Russia, Russia, Russia. For crying out loud , Russia's just a country . We have no great differences of interest with them . What, are they trying to reclaim Alaska? First I've heard of it.

    You could make an argument, I suppose-I don't myself think it's much of an argument, but you could make it-that Russia's a military threat to Europe.

    Once again , with feeling: Europe has a population three and a half times greater than Russia's and a GDP ten times greater. Europe's two nuclear powers, Britain and France, have more than five hundred nuclear weapons between them. If the Euros can't defend themselves against Russia, there's something very badly wrong over there, beyond any ability of ours to fix–even if you could show me it's in our national interest to fix it, which you can't.

    At this point, in fact, reading the news from Europe, I think a Russian invasion and occupation of the continent would be an improvement. A Russian hegemony might at least put up some resistance to the ongoing invasion of Europe from Africa and the Middle East . It doesn't look as though the Euros themselves are up to the job.

    That aside, American citizens are free to visit Russia and talk to Russians, including Russian government employees, just as free as we are to talk to Australians, Brazilians, or Cambodians. As the Lion said on his blog :

    Do liberals who are making a big deal about the Trump-Russia thing really believe that no one involved in a presidential campaign should have ever talked to anyone from another country? How would an administration ever conduct any foreign policy if no one in the administration has ever left the United States or ever talked to a foreigner?

    And again, these standards have never been applied to other Presidents. Bill Clinton took campaign donations from the Chinese army . [ Chinagate and the Clintons, By Robert Zapesochny, American Spectator, October 6, 2016] Barack Obama groveled to the Saudis . Where were the calls for special prosecutors?

    Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, with whom Flynn had that December phone conversation, is, says the New York Post , "a suspected Kremlin spy." [ Michael Flynn won't honor subpoena to provide documents, By Bob Fredericks, May 18, 2017] Is he? Why should I care?

    I bet ol' Sergey does all the spying he can. So, I'm sure, do the ambassadors of China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Botswana. That's what ambassadors do. That's what we do in their countries. Does anyone not know this?

    "A Kremlin spy"? What is this, 1957 ? Russia's just a country . And as our own James Kirkpatrick has pointed out here at VDARE.com , it's a country run by people who hate us-the American people- less than our own elites do.

    As James also points out, if it's interference in our elections that bothers you, consider what Mexico's been doing for the last forty years: encouraging mass immigration of its own underclass into the U.S.A., lobbying through its consulates and Spanish-language TV channels for voter registration, using Mexican-owned outlets like the New York Times to demonize and discredit national conservatives.

    The founder of Christianity scoffed at those who strain at a gnat but swallow a camel. In the matter of foreign interference in our elections, the gnat here is Russia; the camel is Mexico. Our media and opinion elites have swallowed the camel.

    Unless, of course, just down the road a few months, there's going to be a hysteria-storm about Mexican interference in our elections. My advice would be: Don't hold your breath.

    All the shouting and swooning is just the rage of a dispossessed class-our political class.

    Our political and government class, I think I should say. There are tens of thousands of federal functionaries who have never stood for election to anything, but whose loyalty is to the political Establishment. Great numbers of these people settled in to their comfortable seats during the eight years of Barack Obama's administration; so to the degree that they care about party affiliation, they prefer the Democratic Party. Washington, D.C. voted 91 percent for Mrs. Clinton last November.

    Obama Holdovers, Vacant Posts Still Plague Trump - Administration housecleaning is long overdue to get agenda in motion, end damaging leaks, by Thomas Richard, LifeZette.com, May 18, 2017] Draining the swamp means getting rid of those people. They should be fired -en masse, in their hundreds and thousands, and marched out the office door by security guards before they can trash files.

    Still, a big majority of federal politicians are helping to drive the hysteria; and their rage against Trump is, as they say in D.C., bipartisan. Senator John McCain told CNN on Tuesday that President Trump's troubles are, quote , "of Watergate size and scale."

    There's a grain of truth in that. The Watergate affair was a media witch-hunt against a president the Establishment elites disliked. Nixon's offenses were of a kind the Main Stream Media had never bothered about, nor even reported, when done by Democrat presidents-like Lyndon Johnson's bugging of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

    So yes: When the political and media establishment try to drive from office a president they dislike, it is kinda like Watergate.

    It's pretty plain by now that the Republican Party Establishment is not going to forgive Donald Trump for humiliating them last year. They'll be just as happy as Democrats to see him go, if they can somehow help the Democrats force him out without showing too much outward enthusiasm.

    Last August, after Trump had clinched the Republican nomination, I reproduced a remark Peggy Noonan made in one of her columns. Here's the remark again, quote :

    From what I've seen there has been zero reflection on the part of Republican leaders on how much the base's views differ from theirs and what to do about it. The GOP is not at all refiguring its stands.

    Has there been any reflection among GOP leaders in the nine months since, about the meaning of Trump's victory? Not much that I can see.

    Sixty-three million Americans rejected establishment politics last November. They took a chance on an outsider. From a field of seventeen seasoned Republican politicians, GOP primary voters selected the one un-seasoned guy. Then sixty-three million of us voted for him in the general.

    Does the GOP get this? Have they learned anything from it? Not that I can see.

    With some exceptions, of course. GOP elder statesman Pat Buchanan spelled it out in an interview with the Daily Caller this week:

    The GOP leadership would like to go back anyway. They think if they can get rid of Trump, that will get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state. They yearn to get back to the futile wars, the free trade sucker economy, the open borders and multiculturalism.

    If they can just pull off an impeachment, the Republican party bosses believe, and install some donor-compliant drone in the White House, then we sixty-three million Trump voters will smack our foreheads with our palms and say: "Jeez, we are so dumb! Why did we let ourselves get led astray like that? Why didn't we vote for Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush in the primaries, as you wise elders wanted us to? We're sorry! We promise to follow your advice in future!"

    They really think that, the McCains and Grahams and McConnells and Ryans . Get rid of Trump, you get rid of Trump_vs_deep_state, they believe. Then we can all go back to what Orwell called "the dear old game of scratch-my-neighbor." Yep, this is the Stupid Party.

    But whether Donald Trump is actually the right person to give us Trump_vs_deep_state is more and more in doubt.

    I am of course grateful for the small mercies. Thank you for Jeff Sessions; thank you for the work you're doing on trade; thank you somewhat for Neil Gorsuch, who may yet turn and cuck on us.

    Those are small mercies, though. Where's the really big, bold swamp -draining exercise, like the one I just described? Why are we still issuing work permits to illegal aliens? Why no federal legislation to slam a mandatory ten-year sentence on any illegal who, after being deported, comes back in ? Why no request to Congress on funding for the border Wall? For an end to the visa lottery and restrictions on chain migration? When do we start testing the constitutionality of birthright citizenship? Why are we still in NATO ? Why are we still at war with North Korea ( which technically we are , since there hasn't been a peace treaty, only an armistice)?

    I like Ann Coulter's analogy: It's as if we're in Chicago, and Trump says he can get us to L.A. in six days; and then for the first three days we're driving towards New York. He can still turn around and get us to L.A. in three days. But, says Ann , she's getting nervous.

    Me too.

    John Derbyshire [ email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He's had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013 . His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com .

    [May 21, 2017] Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf. ..."
    "... A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud. ..."
    "... He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. ..."
    "... Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Speech of Lavrov at the Military Academy of the General Staff The Vineyard of the Saker

    Question: The traditional definition of war is "war is nothing more than an extension of state policy by alternate means." We usually understand "alternate means" as military violence and therefore claim that war always involves military action. Do you think it would be correct to say that the nature of war has changed in contemporary circumstances, that is, now the term includes measures for information, economic, political and psychological impact?

    Sergey Lavrov: You know, in the West they coined the term 'hybrid war.' As a matter of fact, this is the concept they seem to be forming based on their experience. Unilateral economic sanctions are definitely a declaration of war, no doubt about it. An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact. These days we talk a lot about Syria. Allegedly, there is a non-governmental organisation called the White Helmets funded by several Western countries and countries in the Persian Gulf.

    A film about this organisation won the Oscar for best documentary this year. They present themselves as a humanitarian agency helping people attacked by bombs – particularly, in Syria. On several occasions, they were caught lying and showing staged video clips. For one such clip, they painted a girl with red paint and on camera she was sitting down and allegedly suffering from Russian and Syrian bombs. Several days ago in Geneva, an American journalist presented research in which he proved that the White Helmets are fake and that they only deal with developing falsified and provocative news, while dragging Russia, Iran, the Syrian government and armed forces through the mud.

    He also proved that they are providing direct assistance to terrorists and extremists, including medical supplies and equipment, and treating injured members of extremist groups. This is just one example. But anywhere you go, when I just try talking to my Western colleagues, the White Helmets are exempt from any criticism and seem to have a monopoly on the truth. There are many other tricks like that. Certainly, in a wider perspective, cyberspace is an area where there is a material possibility to inflict potentially very serious harm. Cyber forces were created and, apparently, they have some significance. This is exactly why we need forums where these things can be discussed as a single package. The military discusses purely military issues, which now extends to cyberwars.

    Those dealing with information and sharing experience are trying to convince each other that the media must be used not for provocation but to reconcile people. When it comes to the economy, it should be understood – and many have come to realise this – that unilateral sanctions will come back like a boomerang and hit the countries that joined them, especially small countries. It is very short-sighted to impose unilateral sanctions on a country like Russia, with its huge potential, human and natural resources. By encouraging dialogue in each of these areas to build a general understanding, mutually beneficial and generally acceptable approaches, we need a forum where all these issues can be considered in their relation to each other because they all affect the general status of international relations. Except for the UN, there is no other framework like this. This is a very topical issue and we have no doubt that it will be in the centre of very heated and engaging debates for the foreseeable future.

    [May 21, 2017] This week US bombed militia in Syria linked to Iran, Trump got a medal for providing air support for al Qaeda from their contributors.

    Notable quotes:
    "... In Riyadh, Mr. Trump is viewed as a refreshing change from President Barack Obama, who was viewed with disdain in the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal that Mr. Obama brokered in 2015. ... ..."
    May 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs, May 20, 2017 at 09:46 AM

    Trump Gets a Gold Medal as Welcome From Saudi King https://nyti.ms/2rCfpc5
    NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR and PETER BAKER - MAY 20, 2017

    ... .. ...

    Flanked by Saudi military personnel standing at attention and alternating Saudi and American flags, Mr. Trump and the king exchanged a brief handshake and a few pleasantries as trumpets blared, cannons boomed and seven Saudi jets streaked through the sky, streaming red, white and blue smoke.

    "Very happy to see you," the king said. "It's a great honor," Mr. Trump replied, before he was offered a bouquet of flowers from Saudi girls.

    The two leaders posed for photos while seated in the Royal Hall at the airport's terminal before getting into a motorcade to head to a series of meetings. Aides said Mr. Trump had spent most of the flight from Washington, which took 12 hours and 20 minutes, meeting with staff, reading newspapers and working on his speech. He got very little sleep, they said.

    In Riyadh, Mr. Trump is viewed as a refreshing change from President Barack Obama, who was viewed with disdain in the wake of the Iranian nuclear deal that Mr. Obama brokered in 2015. ...

    Related:

    With Harleys and Hamburgers, Saudis Salute US on Trump's Visit https://nyti.ms/2qF569M
    NYT - BEN HUBBARD - MAY 20, 2017

    (cycle parade video at link)

    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - There was neither beer, nor tattoos nor women at the biker rally in Saudi Arabia's capital on Friday night. But among the hundreds of men riding on roaring Harley Davidsons and sporting leather vests, there was overwhelming excitement about the incoming visitor: President Trump. ...

    Saudi Arabia prepared an enormous reception for Mr. Trump, who landed in the capital, Riyadh, on Saturday morning on the first foreign trip of his presidency. Billboards with his face next to that of King Salman, the Saudi monarch, adorned highways around the capital, miles of which were lined with Saudi and American flags.

    The Saudis planned such an opulent greeting for Mr. Trump to emphasize the depth of their commitment to the United States and to persuade him to deepen the partnership to fight terrorism, confront Iran and enhance economic ties. ...

    ilsm, May 20, 2017 at 12:46 PM
    This week US bombed militia in Syria linked to Iran, Trump got a "medal" for providing air support for al Qaeda from their contributors.

    [May 21, 2017] The New Anti-Russian Hysteria by Edward S. Herman

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media (MSM). ..."
    "... Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble swallowing. ..."
    "... The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and absorption of Crimea by Russia. ..."
    "... The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S. Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and institutions. ..."
    "... RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. ..."
    "... So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump administration's hands in its dealings with Russia. ..."
    "... The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump. ..."
    Mar 27, 2017 | zcomm.org
    It is sad to see the liberals carried away on the wave of hysteria about the supposed Russian information warfare menace and possible influence over or even capture of the Trump presidency. It is also very dangerous to human welfare as it helps consolidate the power of the military-industrial complex, its war party associates, and the regressive deep state political forces that liberals claim to oppose. These political forces can fix a party line that quickly becomes an incontestible truth in the mainstream media (MSM).

    Thus, with the Soviet Union declared an "evil empire" it could be effectively tagged for crimes it did not commit (e.g., organizing the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981), and Saddam Hussein could be found allied with Al Qaeda and in possession of a large stock of weapons of mass destruction in 2003, lies that the MSM had no trouble swallowing.

    Boris Yeltsin, accommodating to U.S. advice and pressure from 1991-2000, seriously damaged his own people's well-being (Russian GDP fell 50 percent, between 1991-1998), but, while he was also creating an oligarchic and authoritarian economic and political structure he was lauded as a great democrat in the MSM. Yeltsin's election victory in 1996, greatly assisted by U.S. consultants, advice and money, and otherwise seriously corrupt, was "A Victory for Russian Democracy" (NYT, ed,, July 4, 1996). His successor, Vladimir Putin, gradually discarding the Yeltsin-era subservience, became a steadily increasing menace. His reelection in 2012, although surely less corrupt than Yeltsin's in 1996, was treated harshly in the media. No "victory for Russian democracy" here, and the lead NYT article on May 5, 2012 featured "a slap in the face" from OSCE observers, claims of no real competition, and "thousands of antigovernment protesters gathered in Moscow square to chant 'Russia without Putin'" (Ellen Barry and Michael Schwartz, "After Election, Putin Faces Challenges to Legitimacy"). There were no "challenges to legitimacy" reported in the MSM in Yeltsin's corrupt victory in 1996, although it was so corrupt that Yeltsin may actually have lost the election but for a fraudulent count (on February 20, 2012, outgoing Russian President Dmitri Medvedev shocked a small group of visitors by acknowledging that Yeltsin might really have lost the 1996 election to Communist Gennadi Zyuganov).

    The steady process of Putin demonization escalated with the Ukraine crisis of 2014 and its sequel of Kiev warfare against East Ukraine, Russian support of the Eastern Ukraine resistance, and the Crimean referendum and absorption of Crimea by Russia. This was all declared to be "aggression" by the U.S. and its allies and clients, sanctions were imposed on Russia and the U.S.-NATO buildup on the Russian borders increased. Tensions mounted further with the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines MH-17, effectively but almost surely falsely, blamed on the "pro-Russian" rebels and Russia itself (see Robert Parry, "Troubling Gaps in the New MH-17 Report," Consortiumnews.com, September 28, 2016). A further cause of demonization and anti-Russian hostility resulted from escalated Russian intervention in Syria in support of Bashar al-Saddad and against ISIS. The U.S. and its NATO and local Middle East allies had been committing aggression against Syria and in de facto alliance with ISIS and Al-Nusrah, an offshoot of Al Qaeda. Russian intervention turned the tide, the U.S. (etc) goal of removing Saddad was upset and the tacit U.S. ally, ISIS, was also severely weakened. Certainly demonic behavior. The next and ongoing phase of anti-Russian hysteria was based on Russia's purported entry into the 2016 presidential campaign and on the growing role of the CIA and other U.S. security services in hysteria-implementation, in close alliance with the MSM. In the third presidential debate, on October 19, 2016, Clinton declared that Trump would be a Putin "puppet" as president, and her campaign placed great emphasis on this. This emphasis increased after the election, with the help of the media and intelligence services as the Clinton camp sought to explain the election loss and possibly get the election result overturned in the courts or electoral college by blaming it on Russia.

    The Putin connection was given great impetus by the January 6, 2017 release of a report of the Office of Director of National Intelligence, on Background of Assessing Russian Activities and Intention in Recent U.S. Elections This short document spends about half of its space describing the Russian-sponsored RT-TV network which it seems to consider an illegitimate propaganda source as it often reports on and even criticizes U.S. policy and institutions.

    RT is allegedly part of Russia's "influence campaign," which consists of reporting on subjects that Russian leaders deem in Russia's interest. "We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump's chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect. "

    There is no semblance of proof that there was a planned "campaign" rather than the expression of opinion and associated news judgments. All the logic and proofs of a Russian "influence campaign" could be applied with at least equal force to U.S. media treatment of any Russian election.

    As regards their effort to prove that the Russians intervened more directly in the U.S. electoral process, the authors hedge by saying the report doesn't provide the "full supporting evidence," but it provides no supporting evidence-only assertions, assessments, assumptions and guesses. It states blandly that "We assess that Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2015" designed to defeat Clinton, and "to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process," but it provides no evidence whatsoever for any such order. It also provides no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC, Clinton and Podesta e-mails, or that it gave hacked information to WikiLeaks. Julian Assange and Craig Murray have repeatedly claimed that these sources were leaked by local insiders, not hacked by anybody. And veteran intelligence agency experts William Binney and Ray McGovern also contend that the WikiLeaks evidence was surely leaked, not hacked ("The Dubious Case on Russian 'Hacking'," Consortiumnews.com, January 6, 2017). It is of interest that among the intelligence agencies who signed on to the DNI document, the one with the greatest reservations-only "moderate confidence"--was the NSA, which is the agency that would most clearly be in possession of proof of Russian hacking and transmission to Wiki-Leaks as well as any "orders" from Putin.

    In the immediate aftermath of the election, Clinton blamed FBI head James Comey's reopening and then quickly closing the case on her earlier unauthorized use of a private email server, as the key factor in her election loss ("Clinton Blames FBI Director for Her Defeat," NYT, November 13, 2016). This suggests that even she and her campaigners didn't consider the alleged Russian hacking and WikiLeaks revelations as that important. But the Russian-Putin connection lived on and even escalated further.

    The MSM have given no attention to the politicization of the intelligence agencies in these cases. The more durable and important case involving Russia has been damaging to Trump and any peace prospects that his presidency might have brought. But the FBI-Clinton episode was damaging to Clinton and benefited Trump's electoral chances. One theory is that the FBI leadership favored Trump while the CIA favored Clinton. Another theory is that the intelligence agencies trusted neither candidate, so fatally injured Clinton and then turned their guns on Trump, with the FBI signing on to the joint agencies "Assessment" after having finished with Clinton. (Robert Parry, "A Spy Coup in America?" Consortiumnews.com, December 18, 2016.)

    But the CIA's hostility to Trump has been conspicuous, and their brazen intervention in the election process broke new ground in secret service politicization. Former CIA head Michael Morell had an August 5, 2016 op-ed in the New York Times entitled "I Ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton"; and former CIA boss Michael Hayden had an op-ed in the Washington Post, just days before the election, entitled "Former CIA Chief: Trump is Russia's Useful Fool" (November 3, 2016). These attacks were unrelievedly insulting to Trump and laudatory to Clinton, though interestingly there is no mention of the merits or demerits of the candidates domestic policy programs. It is explicit that Clinton's more pugnacious approach to Syria and Russia is much preferred to Trump's leanings toward negotiation and cooperation with Russia.

    So the purpose and importance of the Assessment is clear. Thin and even ludicrous though its evidence of a Putin ordered propaganda campaign and Russian e-mail hacks transmitted through WikiLeaks may be, the release and pushing into prominence of this material behind the backs of the incoming administration was a major political action by agencies in principle subordinate to the political leadership. Of course it follows similar tactics by the departing Obama administration, one of whose last acts was expelling 35 Russian Embassy personnel in retaliation for the supposed Russian hacking (which Obama didn't even believe-in his final press conference he referred to "leaks" rather than "hacking"). But the political point of the Assessment seems to have been, at minimum, to tie the Trump administration's hands in its dealings with Russia.

    This was also true of the further scandal with Michael Flynn's call from the Russian Ambassador, possibly including exchanges about future policy actions. This was quickly grasped by the outgoing Obama officials and security personnel, with the FBI interrogating Flynn and with widespread expressions of horror at Flynn's action, allegedly possibly setting him up for blackmail. But such pre-inauguration meetings with Russian diplomats have been a "common practice" according to Jack Matlock, the U.S. ambassador to Russia under Reagan and Bush, and Matlock had personally arranged such a meeting for Carter. Obama's own Russia adviser, Michael McFaul, admitted to visiting Moscow for talks with officials in 2008 even before the election. Daniel Lazare makes a good case that the illegality and blackmail threat are implausible, that the FBI's interrogation of Flynn reeks of entrapment, and he asks what is wrong with trying to reduce tensions with Russia? "Yet anti-Trump liberals are trying to convince the public that it's all 'worse than Watergate'." ("Democrats, Liberals, Catch McCarthyistic Fever," Consortiumnews.com, February 17, 2017.)

    One of the few positive features of the Trump campaign had been a refusal to demonize Putin and an indication of a desire to normalize relations with Russia. Given the growth and power of the military-industrial complex, and the security agencies, there were powerful vested interests in continued hostile relations with Russia, manifested in the Assessment and other security agency overt and covert leaks, and the cooperation of the media (as in their publication of the CIA election letters).

    Paralleling the Assessment's stress on the Russian "influence campaign," the MSM became very preoccupied with "fake news," often implicitly or explicitly tied to Russia. An awkward fact in this context is that the disclosures of Clinton, DNC, and Podesta emails allegedly hacked by Russia described facts about electoral manipulations on behalf of the Clinton campaign that might well have affected election results. The focus on the non-existent Russian hacking intrusion helped divert attention from this real electoral abuse. Official and MSM fake news helped bury real news.

    The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence campaign, that was and still is a real anti-Russian disinformation campaign, was the Washington Post's classic by Craig Timberg, "Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say" (November 24, 2016). The article features a report by an anonymous author or authors, PropOrNot, a "group that insists on public anonymity" according to the WP editors. The group claims to have found 200 websites that wittingly or unwittingly, were "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda." While smearing these websites, the "experts" refused to identify themselves allegedly out of fear of being "targeted by legions of skilled hackers."

    As Matt Taibbi says,"You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to your claims? Take a hike." ("The 'Washington Post's 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting," RollingStone.com, November 28, 2016.) But the WP welcomed and featured this smear job, which might well be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare (and they are well funded and heavily into the propaganda business).

    The NYT has run neck-and-neck with the WP in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and improper involvement with Trump. They easily confuse fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy, "Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News," February 20, 2017; analyzed, in Robert Parry, "NYT's Fake News about Fake News," Consortium news.com, February 22, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept the CIA's Assessment of the Russian hacking-transmission to WikiLeaks, the dreadfulness of the Flynn case, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and "non-partisan" investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new party line has extended widely in the liberal media (e.g., Robert Reich, Ryan Lizza, Joan Walsh, Rachel Maddow, the AlterNet website, etc.).

    On December 23, 2016 President Obama signed the Portman-Murphy "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act," which will supposedly allow this country to more effectively combat foreign (Russian, Chinese) propaganda and disinformation. It will encourage more government counter-propaganda efforts and provide funding to non-government entities that will help counter propaganda.

    It is clearly a follow-on to the claims of Russian hacking and propaganda, and may even be said to be a follow-on to the listing of 200 knowing or "useful tools" of Moscow featured in the Washington Post. Perhaps PropOrNot will qualify for a subsidy and be able to enlarge its list of 200. Liberals have been quiet on this new threat to freedom of speech, which was signed into law on a Friday, perhaps paralyzed by their fears of Russian-based fake news and propaganda. But they may wake up, even if belatedly, when Trump or one of his successors puts it to work on their own notions of fake news and propaganda.

    Z

    Edward S. Herman is an author, economist, and media analyst with a specialty in corporate and regulatory issues as well as political economy.

    [May 21, 2017] During the Cold War the story was Democracy versus the Commies, traditional "good versus evil" type of stuff. Once the USSR collapsed a new evil adversary had to be found.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels. ..."
    "... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. ..."
    May 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Punchie , Website May 18, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT

    Global neo-liberal establishment. Say it three times and click your heels.

    jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

    Neoliberalism, another word for 'money rules the world'. Draghi visited the Dutch parliament, Baudet, FVD, asked him if, since Draghi had warned Italy that leaving the euro would cost them about 100 billion euro, Ittalians debts, the Netherland would get about 100 billion if we left the euro. 100 billion is what we lent, say, Draghi. His 'answer' was that the euro is irreversible. He apparently does not know that within tn years after the dissolution of the Habsburg empire all the new states ahd created their own money.

    Since all euo zone members still have their central banks, it is quite easy to leave the euro.

    Kiza , May 18, 2017 at 6:33 am GMT

    No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

    Idiocracy it truly is.

    As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The Guardian of the Lies and so on.

    ThereisaGod , May 18, 2017 at 9:50 am GMT

    It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyaly is tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/05/16/fake-jews-deceit-and-double-think-in-britains-hostile-elite/

    jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

    @joe webb

    Agent76 , May 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT

    Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism

    Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

    Rurik , Website May 18, 2017 at 2:52 pm GMT

    a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow

    yes please! great article

    Anon , May 18, 2017 at 2:58 pm GMT

    Ramzpaul's bare-bones description of deep state.

    joe webb , May 18, 2017 at 3:32 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Oct 17, 2015 Paul Craig Roberts on the failure of Neoliberalism

    Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics. He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.

    https://youtu.be/73ipVz-6YYs

    Jake , May 18, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT

    If Hopkins continues to write in this vein, he may eventually produce a truly first rate play. Which will mark him forever as a tool of Russia and the mastermind of all EVIL , Putin.

    Rurik , Website May 18, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT

    @joe webb one of the characteristic forms of comments here is this: one or two sentences and nothing else. No sustained thought process which can relate X to Y and Z, as in multi-factor analysis, historical parallels, psychology, etc.

    Failure of intelligence. There is nothing like intelligence. (or lack thereof)

    jilles dykstra , May 18, 2017 at 5:14 pm GMT

    @Agent76 Mar 18, 2014 US support of violent neo-Nazis in Ukraine: Video Compilation

    Shocking and insightful videos detailing the neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic, ultra-nationalist movement in Ukraine. The videos examine the ongoing US support of these groups, including the Svoboda party and Right Sector.

    https://youtu.be/8-RyOaFwcEw

    RadicalCenter , May 18, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT

    @Kiza No one ever went bankrupt because he overestimated the stupidity of the US people, especially the liberal/neoliberal half. Yet, it escapes both the author and me why this dumber liberal half of Americans has the propensity to call itself "intellectual". Maybe intellectual is a synonym for stupid in the New US Speak, you know like War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

    Idiocracy it truly is.

    As to the intellectuals' media it is the usual assortment of The Jew Pork Slimes, The Washington Compost, The Independent from the Truth, The Guardian of the Lies and so on.

    Anon , May 18, 2017 at 6:28 pm GMT

    This 'impeachment' thing should really be called JEW COUP. Jews run the media and shape the Narrative. So, the Liberation of Aleppo was called the 'Fall of Aleppo'. So, Alqaeda elements in Syria were called 'moderate rebels'. So, we were fed lies about Libya to have it destroyed. And so much fuss is made about Evil Putin but we hear nothing of what Jewish oligarchs did to Russian economy in the 90s.

    Jews are so powerful they can even convince American Morons that marriage = two men buggering one another. This is not about impeachment. Jews hate Trump because he wants better ties with Russia, a nation that freed itself from total Jewish Control.

    RobinG , May 18, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT

    @El Dato So what!

    "Intelligence is just a tool to be used toward a goal, and goals are not always chosen intelligently" - Larry Niven from "Protector"

    Also,

    You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear.
    Not at all. After the awkward "russian reset" attempt by the Clinton-Obama axis of diplomacy, which somehow failed, the intolerance to all things Russian started during Snowden's "Summer of Surveillance" redpilling (i.e. 2013). Systemic shock mode was entered when the Ukraine liberation encountered unsuspected and sudden (and definitely "reactive") pushback in 2014 and Russia started supporting Syria against the ISIS "our temporary friends" clownshow in 2015.

    (The other "primary target for people's hatred and fear", the always good to amuse the hoi polloi cardboard cutout Ghaddafi had sadly shuffled of this mortal coil a bit earlier. So sad! And the bullshit of "Iran's gonna have da bomb next week, this time for sure" stuff going on since the 90s didn't get much traction anymore.)

    annamaria , May 19, 2017 at 4:26 am GMT

    @ThereisaGod It is time to start saying it out loud. The west is occupied territory and our occupiers are, unfortunately, largely Jews whose first loyally is tribal and NOT to the country in which they reside.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/05/16/fake-jews-deceit-and-double-think-in-britains-hostile-elite/

    joe webb , May 19, 2017 at 4:42 am GMT

    @Anon single factor analysis. It is not just the jews. The Dems are a coalition of blacks, jews, asians, indians, mexers, and some working class whites who have not left yet for the GOP and Trump, AND White Liberals, mostly professionals, who have sold out to globalism and its One World of Consumers.

    Yes, there is a so-called 'Liberal Coalition' of various groups. But are they equal in power and influence?

    In truth, Jews dominate. For example, Asians have no agency of their own. They just follow the narratives of other. Mexers are happy to be Guillermos and have no interest apart from tacos. Their only politics is calling whites 'gringos', blacks 'negritos', and Asians 'chinos'. Blacks are loud and vocal, but it's all about blacks. Blacks have no knowledge and interest in the larger world. They are very tribal and provincial.

    If not for Jewish Power, NO ONE would be interested in Russia. That is a Jewish thing.
    If blacks ran the Democratic Party, they would fixate on some OTHER ISSUE to get at Trump.
    Blacks jumped on the Russia bandwagon ONLY BECAUSE Jews set the template and the meme. Since that is the Anti-Trump Meme as chosen by Jews, all anti-Trumpers are parroting the same crap. But Russia became the Key Issue because Jews are obsessed with Russia and what it implies. Jews set the Narrative and others play do the Parrotive.
    The Powerful get to decide the Narrative. The less powerful just tag along like dogs and repeat the mantra set by the Powerful. They are parrots with the Parrotive.

    Also, only Jews have the direct power in media, deep state, and finance(owning all politicians through AIPAC) to pull off what is happening.

    Just think. Suppose Asians don't want to go after Trump but Jews want to. What would happen? Jews would decide, and Asians would have choice but to go along.
    Now, suppose Asians want to go after Trump, but Jews don't want to. Could Asians push for impeachment without Jewish support? NO way.

    Or suppose blacks want to go after Trump, but Jews say NO and won't give anti-Trump support in media and Deep State. Would it happen? No.
    Or suppose blacks want to work with Trump but Jews want to go after him. Would it happen? Yes, because Jews get to pull all the strings.

    So, while it is true that there is a Democratic Coalition, Jews have 1000x the power of other groups. I mean consider how most Jews and most Arabs are in the Democratic Camp, but Zionists have far more power than Palestinians/Muslims do.

    This is a Jew Coup because Jews are the single-most powerful element in Democratic Party, GOP, Congress(by buying up politicians), FED, Wall Street, and etc.

    annamaria , May 19, 2017 at 2:35 pm GMT

    @Wally Yeah, sure.

    Jewish groups get up to 97% of grants from the Homeland Security

    http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/islamophobia-shmislamophobia-97-of-homeland-security-security-grants-go-to-jewish-orgs

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Agent76 , May 19, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT

    Sep 9, 2016 US-funded Ukrainian army is terrorizing civilians. Russell Bentley is a former US marine, that now fights for the Donbass, Eastern Ukraine, against the US-funded Ukrainian army.

    https://youtu.be/92KfmGY12yQ

    El Dato , May 19, 2017 at 3:51 pm GMT

    @Ace We are awash in lies: race, racism, white privilege, constitutional America, living Constitution, propositional nation, nation of immigrants, American exceptionalism, responsibility to protect (humanitarian war), Assad the Dictator, Islamism/moderate Muslims, our ally Israel, our ally Saudi Arabia, evilevil Putin, the one and only holocaust, right-wing National Socialism, N"A"TO, evil Serbia, Islam's contribution, the Crusades, patriarchy, gender, homosexual marriage, women's suffrage, diversity, multiculturalism, open borders, welfare state, socialized medicine, objective MSM, Saint Abraham, Saint Ze-dong, Obama the natural born citizen, the administrative state, frustrated ghetto rocket scientists, indispensable nation, Gaddafi the Tyrant, Axis of Evil, Judeo-Christianity, the Three Abrahamic religions, globalism, free trade, immigrant monetary contribution doing jobs Americans​won't do, climate change, agw, alternative energy, reasonable gun control, nation building, the glass ceiling, pay inequality, vote suppression, the evil of segregation, black nationalism, private prison oppression, disparity in sentencing, Roe v. Wade, the innocence of Mumia Jaba Jabu, reparations, BLM, debt ceiling, government shutdowns, unemployment, inflation, the "Federal" Reserve, dual citizenship, the EU, refugees, metissage commercials, homosexuality in commercials, white burglars in commercials, POC in commercials. Mexico our friend, GOP principles, bipartisanship, McCarthy the Indecent, Gulf of Tonkin incident, Israel's mistake re the Liberty, the _________ Commission, St. Martin the Patriot, Robert Mueller the FBI Muslim realist, the neocon patriot, Saint Franklin, the New Deal, the "US" Chamber of Commerce Keynesianism, quantitative easing, and St. Hillary the Incorrupt.

    Oh yes. And our desperate need for Nigerians, Syrians, and Somalis​. And Hindu software engineers.

    I'm out of ideas now at which point​ one must say, "And I could go on and on."

    Ace , May 19, 2017 at 8:57 pm GMT

    @El Dato This must be the next basic text for an updated Billy Joel's "We didn't Start the Fire" (clip needs to be updated to have Snowden on 24/7 TV and no-one cares)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

    joe webb , May 20, 2017 at 4:27 am GMT

    @Agent76 Sorry joe webb I do not partake in any flavor of Kool-aid! DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949

    In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards towards Russia.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/nato-seeking-russias-destruction-since-1949/

    joe webb , May 20, 2017 at 5:06 am GMT

    @huswa That's a really interesting view about operating on principle vs. on in-group relations. Can you please reply with some relevant articles if you have them?

    I've traveled quite a lot and have seen principled people in all parts of the world. Sometimes they are really drowned out by the masses. I do not think that altruism is specific to whites. The "White Man's Burden" wasn't altruism. Colonizers weren't in it to lift up the world. They wanted money and other resources. As an example they crippled local economies t Of course, they did a lot of good

    [May 21, 2017] Orwellian nature of the USA society

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. ..."
    "... The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
    "... the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. ..."
    "... Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything ..."
    May 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova , May 20, 2017 at 03:35 PM

    Here is an interesting quote from

    http://www.unz.com/article/invasion-of-the-putin-nazis/

    Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner.

    The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule.

    The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.

    Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion.

    Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.

    [May 20, 2017] Invasion of the Putin-Nazis by C.J. Hopkins

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
    "... OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) ..."
    "... They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything. ..."
    "... whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia. ..."
    "... Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward ( as they did in the recent French election , and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists," and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this? ..."
    "... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country," and, as they say, the rest is history. ..."
    "... In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian , NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. ..."
    May 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
    So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.

    Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough.

    They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything.

    If you think I'm being hyperbolic, check out #MarchforTruth on Twitter, or its anonymous Crowdpac fundraising page , which at first glance I took for an elaborate prank, but which seems to be in deadly earnest about "restoring faith in American government," uncovering Trump's "collusion" with Russia, and reversing his "subversion of the will of the people." The plan is, on June 3, 2017, thousands of otherwise rational Americans are going to pour into the streets "demanding answers" from well, I'm not sure whom, some independent prosecutor, or congressional committee, or intelligence agency, or whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia.

    Incidentally, one of my colleagues contacted Mr. Blow directly and inquired as to whether he'd be vociferously supporting or possibly leading the March for Truth, and was chastised by Blow and his Twitter followers. I found this reaction extremely troubling, and asked my colleague to contact Mensch and suggest she check with her handlers at The Times to make sure the Russians haven't gotten to him. However, just as he was sitting down to do that, the "Comey-firing" brouhaha broke, which seems to have brought Blow back to the fold , albeit in a less hysterical manner than his Rooskie-hunting readers have grown accustomed to. We can only hope that both he and Krugman return to form in the weeks to come as Russiagate builds to its dramatic climax.

    Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward ( as they did in the recent French election , and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists," and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this?

    All joking aside, as I've written about previously , what we're dealing with here is more than just a lame attempt by the Democratic Party to blame its humiliating loss on Putin (although of course it certainly is that in part). The global neoliberal establishment is rolling out a new official narrative. It's actually just a slight variation on the one it's been selling us since 2001. I could come up with a sixteen-syllable, academic-sounding name for this narrative, but I'm trying to keep things simple these days so let's call it The Normals versus The Extremists , (the Normals being the neoliberals and the Extremists being everyone else). The goal of this narrative is to stigmatize and otherwise marginalize opposition to Neoliberalism, regardless of the nature of that opposition (i.e., whether it comes from the left, right, or from religious, environmentalist, or any other quarters). Now, as any professional storyteller will tell you, one of the most important aspects of the narrative you're trying to suck people into is to make your protagonist a likeable underdog, and then pit him or her against a much more powerful and ideally incorrigibly evil enemy. During the Cold War, this was easy to do - the story was Democracy versus the Commies , traditional "good versus evil"-type stuff.

    Once the U.S.S.R. collapsed, the concept needed major rewrites, as a new evil adversary had to be found. This (i.e., the 1990s) was a rather awkward and frustrating period. The global capitalist ruling classes, giddy with joy after having become the first ever global ideological hegemon in the history of aspiring global hegemons, got all avant-garde for a while, and thought they could do without an "enemy." This approach, as you'll recall, did not sell well.

    No one quite got why we were bombing Yugoslavia, and Bush and Baker had to break out the Hitler schtick to gin up support for rescuing the Kuwaitis from their old friend Saddam. Fortunately, in September 2001, the show runners got the break they were looking for, and the official narrative was instantly switched to Democracy versus The Islamic Terrorists . This re-brand got extremely good ratings, and would have been extended indefinitely if not for what began to unfold in the latter half of 2016. (One could go back and locate the week when the mainstream media officially switched from the " Summer of Terror " narrative they were flogging to the new "Invasion of the Putin-Nazis" narrative my guess is, it was early to mid-September.) It started with the Brexit referendum, continued with the rise of Trump, and well, I don't have to recount it, do I? You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country," and, as they say, the rest is history.

    In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian , NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. Personally, I am looking forward to the upcoming German elections this Autumn, wherein Neoliberal Party "A" is challenging Neoliberal Party "B" for the right to continue privatizing Greece (and any other formerly sovereign nations the banks can get their hands on) in a demonstration of European unity, and fiscal austerity and, you know, whatever.

    If this is the Death of Neoliberalism, just imagine what awaits us at the Resurrection.

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

    [May 20, 2017] Rosenstein Joins the Posse by Patrick J. Buchanan

    After just 100 days in the office Trump already has a special prosecutor.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency. ..."
    "... Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation. ..."
    "... Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up. ..."
    "... Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation. ..."
    "... Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat. ..."
    "... Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years. ..."
    "... Recall the famous adage that a competent district attorney could successfully indict a ham sandwich. ..."
    "... Political trials are infamously witch hunts, and there isn't a witch hunt that couldn't miraculously find any number of witches to burn. ..."
    "... One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric. ..."
    "... From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college victory last November. ..."
    "... Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until it will be too late to reverse the course. ..."
    "... "The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and could face legal sanctions. ..."
    "... If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here. Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations" of the decision raised red flags. This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America. ..."
    May 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    "With the stroke of a pen, Rod Rosenstein redeemed his reputation," writes Dana Milbank of The Washington Post .

    What had Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein done to be welcomed home by the Post like the prodigal son?

    Without consulting the White House, he sandbagged President Trump, naming a special counsel to take over the investigation of the Russia connection that could prove ruinous to this presidency.

    Rod has reinvigorated a tired 10-month investigation that failed to find any collusion between Trump and Russian hacking of the DNC. Not a single indictment had come out of the FBI investigation.

    Yet, now a new special counsel, Robert Mueller, former director of the FBI, will slow-walk his way through this same terrain again, searching for clues leading to potentially impeachable offenses. What seemed to be winding down for Trump is now only just beginning to gear up.

    Also to be investigated is whether the president tried to curtail the FBI investigation with his phone calls and Oval Office meetings with FBI Director James Comey, before abruptly firing Comey last week.

    Regarded as able and honest, Mueller will be under media pressure to come up with charges. Great and famous prosecutors are measured by whom they convict and how many scalps they take. Moreover, a burgeoning special counsel's office dredging up dirt on Trump and associates will find itself the beneficiary of an indulgent press.

    Why did Rosenstein capitulate to a Democrat-media clamor for a special counsel that could prove disastrous for the president who elevated and honored him? Surely in part, as Milbank writes, to salvage his damaged reputation.

    After being approved 94-6 by a Senate that hailed him as a principled and independent U.S. attorney for both George Bush and Barack Obama, Rosenstein found himself being pilloried for preparing the document White House aides called crucial to Trump's decision to fire Comey.

    Rosenstein had gone over to the dark side. He had, it was said, on Trump's orders, put the hit on Comey. Now, by siccing a special counsel on the president himself, Rosenstein is restored to the good graces of this city. Rosenstein just turned in his black hat for a white hat.

    Democrats are hailing both his decision to name a special counsel and the man he chose. Yet it is difficult to exaggerate the damage he has done. As did almost all of its predecessors, including those which led to the resignation of President Nixon and impeachment of Bill Clinton, Mueller's investigation seems certain to drag on for years.

    ... ... ...

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

    Wilfred , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:58 pm
    Any way we can get a Special Counsel to investigate Hillary?
    Fran Macadam , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:56 pm
    Recall the famous adage that a competent district attorney could successfully indict a ham sandwich.

    Political trials are infamously witch hunts, and there isn't a witch hunt that couldn't miraculously find any number of witches to burn.

    Cal , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:58 pm
    Trump set up his own demise -- all the Jews like Rosenstein that he has appointed would really rather have the rabid evangelical Israel supporter Pence as president.
    William Dalton , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:23 am
    The appointment of former director Mueller to take charge of an investigation too hot for Rosenstein or anyone in his department to file a report on, particularly if no prosecution will be recommended, does not presage this affair will continue interminably. Months of work have already been put into the matter by the FBI. Mueller may arrive, ask those agents for a summary of what they have unearthed, say, "I don't see anything here. Do you think further work by you will uncover more?", and if they respond, "No", Mueller might very well take what he is given, file a report saying no prosecution is warranted, just as Jim Comey did in the Clinton matter, and go home.

    The man is retired with honor. He doesn't need to make a name for himself with this or any other case. The last thing he wants to find out is that there is evidence that might result in the impeachment and criminal prosecution of the President of the United States.

    StrategyK , says: May 19, 2017 at 2:59 am
    Wasnt pat a happy supporter of the special counsel investigating Clinton? Now suddenly he is against such counsels? How about some priciples Mr buchanan?
    StrategyK , says: May 19, 2017 at 3:13 am
    And here is a hat tip for you aggrieved folks here. Trump brought this on himself. He could have avoided it all by simply letting Comey do his job. If there really is nothing in the Russia story, then Comey would have come up with nothing.

    Trump has been used to running a family business all his life and a fake TV show as well where his and only his word runs. That is not how the government functions and nor should it be. What happened to the famous negotiator? The one who could make great deals? Who would learn quickly how to navigate the waters and make things happen. This person seems non existent. Lets see some of that please.

    John Gruskos , says: May 19, 2017 at 8:57 am
    Justin Raimondo correctly explains the significance of this development:

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/18/the-special-counsel-comes-to-town-its-the-moscow-trials-revisited/

    Liam , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:16 am
    Wall Street swooned *not* because Trump's "populist" agenda is endangered but rather because Alt-Trump's bait-and-switch pro-Wall Street agenda is endangered. That Pat Buchanan cannot distinguish these is stunning to behold.
    elizabeth , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:22 am
    And if Hillary Clinton had been inaugurated in January, there wouldn't be a dozen Congressional committees pursuing specious investigations, egged on by right wing media? (Even this comment thread carries one such demand, and she is not in office.)

    This is one outcome of a poisoned body politic. Roger Ailes was there at the beginning, and we are all sickened by his legacy.

    Jack , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:40 am
    Unfortunately, Buchanan seems to have ignored the fact that Rosenstein's decision to appoint a special prosecutor was sparked by Trump's precipitous and unnecessary decision to dismiss Comey. It was a foolish decision and now he's paying a price for it.
    Dan Green , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:53 am
    One has to hand it to the Democrats. This strategy to get the ruling elite class back in both houses of congress and bring forth a shining night in armour for their next candidate is well crafted. The Clintons messed up the Obama Hope and Change Rhetoric.
    ukm1 , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:55 am
    U.S. President D.J. Trump is himself 100% responsible for the political and legal debacles where he is in now and will be in for any foreseeable future!

    From the very outset of his presidency, U.S. President D.J. Trump either hired people who were against his presidential campaign all the time of last year or cozied up to perpetual political opponents while distancing himself from the very patriotic people who gave him the electoral college victory last November.

    Like Pres. Dick Nixon did, U.S. President D.J. Trump will also politically kill himself with one political misstep after another by giving his political opponents whatever they demand until it will be too late to reverse the course.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:57 am
    John Gruskos (8:57 a.m.) is right. Justin Raimondo's column today is a "must read":

    "The real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war The reign of terror is about to begin: anyone who opposes our interventionist foreign policy is liable to be labeled a "Kremlin tool" – and could face legal sanctions.

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/05/18/the-special-counsel-comes-to-town-its-the-moscow-trials-revisited/

    Bob K. , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:05 am
    You tell it like it is, Pat! Once someone has sold his soul to the "dark side" his own reputation with it comes before the welfare of the Nation!
    David Smith , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:37 am
    What goes around, comes around. The Republicans did the same thing to Bill Clinton. Remember, if you can do it to them, they can do it to you. Be careful about the precedents you set.
    Adriana I Pena , says: May 19, 2017 at 11:57 am
    Has anyone considered that the opposition from career bureaucrats is due to their past experience as to what works and what doesn't? They can recognize a half-baked plan, concocted by someone who has only a hazy idea of what goes on (the guy who managed to admit that health care was "complicated" after touting on the campaign trail that it was easy). Add to it stubborness and unwillingness to learn, and those bureaucrats may think that they are staring at an accident waiting to happen.

    What would you do in their place?

    Mac61 , says: May 19, 2017 at 12:18 pm
    If Trump wasn't a narcissistic idiot, he could be well on the way to leading a takedown of establishment politics. Should have left Comey in to go nowhere, but Trump is a narcissistic idiot who does not read and his presidency is and will continue to be a miserable failure. Donald J. Trump is a Loser and a Laughingstock, plain and simple. There's nothing to see here.

    Does he have the ability to do better? Yes. Will he? Doubtful. Firing Comey is not impeachable or even wrong, it's just a blunder of monumental proportions. Trump's continued incompetent "explanations" of the decision raised red flags.

    This is not Trump Steaks Inc. This is the Presidency of the United States of America. He will be held to a higher standard until such time as he realizes he cannot run this world's most powerful country like some sham casino operation he let fall into bankruptcy. And @Cal, this is not a Jewish conspiracy. If you can't see that Trump is an incompetent idiot narcissist, you can't see anything.

    [May 20, 2017] Still Chasing the Wrong Rainbows by Andrew Bacevich

    Notable quotes:
    "... Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House. ..."
    "... Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows. ..."
    "... Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." ..."
    "... To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country." ..."
    May 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    So the remarks that Williams made some fifty-two years ago included the following reflection, worth pondering by present-day conservatives. "If we justify our intervention in Vietnam on the grounds that it is crucial to our national security," he said, "we will soon be able to justify using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." Furthermore, "That kind of moral arrogance-that kind of playing at being God-will destroy any chance we have to construct a good society." Then Williams added:

    Notice that I said good society. We already have a great society, and I think that may be the source of much of the trouble with our leaders. For greatness has primarily to do with size, strength, and power. But we citizens who are gathered here are primarily concerned with quality, equity, and with honoring our potential for becoming more fully and truly human.

    In 1965, confusion about the distinction between great and good found American leaders "following the wrong rainbow." President Johnson was promising Americans a "Great Society." What he was actually delivering was an unnecessary war destined to cost the country dearly and leave it bitterly divided.

    Today, in the era of Donald Trump, that confusion has returned with a vengeance. Trump for his part vows to "Make America Great Again," with greatness measured in quantitative terms: jobs, income, profits, stock prices, and trade balances. For those ordinary Americans left behind or dispossessed by the economic and social changes that have swept the United States in recent decades, the appeal of Trump's promise of greatness restored is understandable. Their resentment handed him the White House.

    Yet Trump's first hundred days in residence there offer precious little evidence that he will deliver on that promise. Neither he nor anyone else in the Republican leadership has demonstrated the requisite competence or political savvy. Furthermore, nothing that Trump has said or done since taking office suggests that he possesses the capacity or even the inclination to articulate a unifying conception of a common good . The real, although unarticulated slogan of his presidency, is one that looks to "Deepen American Divisions," with members of the fiercely anti-Trump Left, his ironic collaborators. On all sides, resentment grows.

    Meanwhile, to judge by Trump's one-and-done missile attack on Syria and the fatuous deployment of the "Mother of All Bombs" in Afghanistan, our president's approach to statecraft makes Lyndon Johnson look circumspect by comparison. Trump assured his supporters that he was going to break the hold of the foreign-policy establishment. In fact, he has embraced the establishment's penchant for "using our power for whatever we happen at the moment to want, or against whatever at the moment we do not like." U.S. national-security policy has become monumentally incoherent, with the man in charge apparently doing whatever his gut or his latest visitor at Mar-a-Lago tells him to do.

    This defines the nation's current predicament: Whatever agreement once existed on what it means to be either great or good has pretty much disappeared from American political culture. Our fragmented society pursues any number of illusory rainbows. Restoring some semblance of a common culture thereby poses a daunting challenge, even larger today than back in the Sixties when everything seemed to be coming apart at the seams. I will refrain from offering any glib advice for how to promote that restoration.

    If hardly less challenging, imparting a modicum of coherence to U.S. policy abroad may actually qualify as more urgent. After all, the impetuous Trump appears more likely than Lyndon Johnson to blow up the world.

    In that regard, the views expressed by Professor Williams back in 1965 in explaining the rationale for the "teach-ins" offer at least a place to begin. "We are trying to bring our Government back into a dialogue with its own citizens," he explained.

    We are trying to encourage Congress to meet its responsibilities and to function as a full partner in governing the country. We are trying to change our foreign policy so that it will be closer to the realities of the world and far more in keeping with our best traditions and highest ideals-and thereby make it pragmatically more effective.

    To align foreign policy with American values and with "the realities of the world," Williams believed, offered a first step toward something even bigger. Williams understood the intimate linkage between the way the United States acts abroad and what it is at home-each expressing the other. To correct the defects in U.S. foreign policy, especially its misuse of force, could "generate the kind of changes that could transform America into a more humane and creative country."

    As a place to begin, it was good advice then. It remains good advice today.

    Andrew J. Bacevich is TAC's writer-at-large.

    [May 19, 2017] The Special Counsel Comes to Town Its the Moscow Trials, Revisted by Justin Raimondo

    Robert Mueller was FBI director on September 11, 2001 (he was appointed on September 4).
    Now Russia is officially a pariah state, any contacts with Russian officials can be a career limited move.
    Notable quotes:
    "... After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real. ..."
    "... In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional committees. ..."
    "... Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    The Special Counsel Comes to Town: It's the Moscow Trials, Revisited

    The witch-hunt begins

    Donald Trump ran on a platform of improving relations with Russia: his victory was a mandate for that policy. Yet the real power in this country doesn't reside within the ballot box, and that reality was brought home when the Justice Department appointed a "special counsel" to investigate " any links and/or coordination with the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump ."

    After months of leaks coming from the intelligence agencies, who bitterly oppose the new policy, and a barrage of innuendo, smears, and character assassination in the media, the will of the people has been abrogated: the Deep State has the last word. The denizens of Langley, and the career spooks within our seventeen intelligence agencies, have exercised their veto power – a power that is not written into the Constitution, but is nevertheless very real.

    Their goal is to not only make détente with Russia impossible – and Trump's goal of "getting along with Russia" will surely not be implemented now that the regime of the special counsel has trumped him – but also to overthrow a democratically elected chief executive, and perhaps prosecute him for "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the process.

    No matter what you think of Trump, this is an ominous development for all those who care about the future of our republic. Because the warning to our politicians could not be clearer: So you want to effect a fundamental change in US foreign policy? You dare to question the permanence of NATO? Let this be a lesson to you.

    This goes way beyond the Trump administration: the potential targets of the investigation are potentially unlimited. Deputy Attorney General Ron Rosenstein's letter to the Special Counsel – Bush era FBI Director Robert Mueller – also states that the counsel's purview includes "any matters that arose directly from the investigation," as well as "any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4 (a) ," which refers to anyone who might conceivably be involved in obstructing the Special Counsel's probe.

    In short, Mueller has virtually unlimited power to expand his investigation, and, given the history of Special Counsels, you can be sure that this one will wander far afield and become a general probe into "Russian influence" on the election – a matter already taken up by at least two congressional committees.

    Any politician, especially one who supported Trump, who advocates peaceful and productive relations with Russia is a likely target. The War Party has already got Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-California) in its sights for his fearless questioning of the anti-Russian propaganda campaign.

    Furthermore, any media outlets that either supported Trump, had a good word to say about Trump, and/or dissented from the Russophobic hysteria that has gripped the "mainstream" media are liable to be scrutinized. Journalists with "Russian ties" – no matter how tenuous – will be caught up in the witch-hunt. The Washington Post gave front page prominence to a group of anonymous "researchers" that calls itself " PropOrNot ," which has compiled a lengthy list of "pro-Russian" media outlets and web sites – including the Drudge Report, and Antiwar.com.

    The dynamics of the witch-hunt will play out in the manner in which it has operated up until this point, only more so: the "mainstream" media will act as the research department of DOJ investigators, "uncovering" the "pro-Russian" network in the US, inviting Mueller to move in for the kill. Politicians, journalists, academics, and even ordinary folks will be targeted by the government in the hunt for "Putin's puppets."

    We haven't seen this kind of thing since the 1950s. Indeed, the history of these political lynchings goes all the way back to the Moscow Trials conducted by Stalin and his henchmen, who consolidated their power by prosecuting "Trotskyite wreckers" and other "enemies of the people" – to the applause of Western "liberals."

    What we are witnessing is a "regime-change" operation, such as our intelligence agencies have routinely carried out abroad, right here in the United States. Yet it is more – and worse – than that.

    This pernicious campaign is an attempt to criminalize dissent from the foreign policy "consensus." It is an effort by powerful groups within the national security bureaucracy, the media, and the military-industrial complex to stamp out any opposition to their program of perpetual war. It is, in effect, political terrorism – that is, an attempt to achieve political-ideological goals by the threat of force, i.e. the threat of State coercion. The police state methods utilized by law enforcement agencies in this country since 9/11 – universal surveillance, and the whole menu of cyber-spying techniques exposed by Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks – will be deployed. And it won't just be our own American spooks doing the eavesdropping.

    The involvement of the British and other European intelligence agencies in this regime-change operation on American soil is well-known : it was a "former" MI6 agent, one Christopher Steele , who authored and circulated the infamous "dirty dossier" on Trump. The Ukrainians, in particular, are in the forefront of this campaign: their targeting of Paul Manafort is out in the open . And a recent article in the Washington Post which relates a conversation between GOP House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan, and others, has McCarthy saying he thinks both Trump and Rep. Rohrabacher are "paid by Putin." The exchange took place on Capitol Hill, after a meeting with the Ukrainian envoy – and the Post , in a story datelined Kiev, reports that it was "recorded." So who did the recording? My bet is on the Ukrainians.

    ... ... ...

    [May 19, 2017] Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force". ..."
    "... That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections. ..."
    "... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
    "... Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs. ..."
    "... ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." ..."
    "... That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat. ..."
    "... There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova, May 19, 2017 at 10:44 AM

    Trump is just a one acute symptom of the underling crisis of the neoliberal social system, that we experience. So his removal will not solve the crisis.

    And unless some kind of New Deal Capitalism is restored there is no alternative to the neoliberalism on the horizon.

    But the question is: Can the New Deal Capitalism with its "worker aristocracy" strata and the role of organized labor as a weak but still countervailing force to corporate power be restored ? I think not.

    With the level of financialization achieved, the water is under the bridge. The financial toothpaste can't be squeezed back into the tube. That's what makes the current crisis more acute: none of the parties has any viable solution to the crisis, not the will to attempt to implement some radical changes.

    When Trump becomes president by running against the nation's neoliberal elite of both parties, it was a strong, undeniable signal that the neoliberal elite has a problem -- it lost the trust of the majority American people and is viewed now, especially Wall Street financial sharks, as an "occupying force".

    That means that we have the crisis of the elite governance or, as Marxists used to call it "a revolutionary situation" -- the situation in which the elite can't govern "as usual" and common people (let's say the bottom 80% of the USA population) do not want to live "as usual". Political Zugzwang. The anger is boiling and has became a material force in the most recent elections.

    I think Robert W. Merry analysis of the situation is pretty insightful. In his article in the American Conservative ( http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/removing-trump-wont-solve-americas-crisis/) he made the following observations:

    At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.

    ... ... ...

    The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.

    ... ... ...

    Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.

    ...Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy -- the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre."

    That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.

    ... ... ...

    There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.

    IMHO Trump betrayal of his voters under the pressure from DemoRats ("the dominant neoliberal wing of Democratic Party", aka "Clinton's wing") makes the situation even worse. a real Gordian knot. Or, in chess terminology, a Zugzwang.

    [May 19, 2017] The US hit a combination of Syrian and Iraqi Shia forces, not the SAA alone. The fact is that Syria and Iraq are attempting to reestablish road contacts with another in southern Syria territory

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US hit a combination of Syrian / Iraqi Shi'a forces, not the SAA alone. The fact is that Syria and Iraq are attempting to re-establish road contacts with another in southern Syria territory. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    karl1haushofer , May 18, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    Once again the US Air Force bombs the Syrian military while Russian S-400 remains silent:

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/us-coalition-bombs-pro-government-forces-southern-syria/ri19878

    karl1haushofer , May 18, 2017 at 2:46 pm
    I thought Russia was supposed to "strengthen" Syria's air defense capabilities after Trump bombed Syrian troops for the first time?
    Moscow Exile , May 18, 2017 at 10:19 pm
    Yeah, supposed to do

    Clear evidence, if any more were needed, of Russia's weakness and the fact that, despite all its bluster, the place is just a Third World shithole compared with the mighty West under the avuncular leadership of "Uncle Sam".

    Thanks for the timely reminder of the reality of the situation as regards Russian capabilities!

    Jen , May 18, 2017 at 3:31 pm
    Karl, please read that article properly. The US hit a combination of Syrian / Iraqi Shi'a forces, not the SAA alone. The fact is that Syria and Iraq are attempting to re-establish road contacts with another in southern Syria territory. We should be glad that the SAA has got this far in the war that it can plan for and carry out this particular project to secure Syria's southeastern borders. Russian help was absent because the Syrians did not ask for it, they believed they and the Iraqis could do it themselves. They would have prepared for the possibility of being attacked. Please give the Syrians and Iraqis some credit for having got this far despite being under US-coalition attack. (But of course you won't because Ay-rabs are brown people of low IQ in your estimation.)
    Jen , May 18, 2017 at 4:13 pm
    Plus it is not just the US involved in hitting joint Syrian-Iraqi forces at al-Tanf – there are British and Jordanian special forces there as well. So this is a major operation to clean out not just ISIS and other jihadi fighters but the foreigners embedded with them.

    Drutten , May 18, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    Be realistic for once, Russia isn't going to shoot down US (or Israeli, for that matter) aircraft unless Russia's own personnel on site are being threatened. The Russian air defense assets are there to protect Russian troops, not to cover Assads ass everywhere in every way.

    In practice, this means that they're basically never going to be used because both Israel and the US are actively discussing things with Russia and when they strike Syrian regime targets on occasion they pretty much do so with tacit Russian approval, and it means little to the Russian plan.

    Russia isn't there to provide some kind of unconditional full-on support for Assad, again, they're there to kill jihadis from the Caucasus and the Central Asian republics, help the Syrian armed forces just enough so that they do not succumb, and provide Syria with a lot of international diplomatic support in the UNSC and so on, all this in order to get some kind of political solution rolling. Russia has done Assad an incredible favor in this regard, and continue to do so despite increasingly venomous attacks from the West and the other jihadi backers. But Russia can't be expected to do everything for Assad, and they have explicitly said so.

    Drutten , May 18, 2017 at 3:21 pm
    In short, helping Syria stay afloat in the midst of this jihadi-Western onslaught is all good but Russia has its own interests to consider as well, and they have made this abundantly clear from the very beginning. The support is not unconditional and it's not something Russia's going to spend everything it has on, but the fact that they're keeping up the present level of support despite the aforementioned political/diplomatic/economical attacks that grow more vicious by the day shows that they're taking that commitment seriously.

    Now, what follows is some wishful thinking on my part Barring some kind of international agreement on a political solution soon (sounds unlikely even though there's been progress), considering the sheer amount of Chinese Uyghur jihadists in the Idlib region (some say they number in the tens of thousands!) and that China's already taken a lot of steps to stop them from returning, perhaps China could get involved and "relieve" Russia ahead. China's already been helpful in the UNSC on Syria, and their other activities seem to suggest they're somewhat interested in some kind of foreign adventure. Russia can't go on forever on its own fighting the good fight trying to stop or at least slow down the Western wrecking ball It has other issues that require a lot of attention.

    https://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js#PIX&kdntuid=1&p=156204
    et Al , May 19, 2017 at 2:46 am
    It's a lesson that the West has taken a long time learning. Again: Aircraft don't take and hold territory, soldiers do.

    It is the special foreskins who are in a weak position here so attacking the Syrian/I-racki guys is a sign of this weakness. If the sf's were heavily manned and supported they wouldn't be bothered. Instead they have to rely on the ever reliable kurds. No wonder they are skittish.

    [May 19, 2017] Removing Trump Wont Solve Americas Crisis by Robert W. Merry,

    Notable quotes:
    "... America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis. ..."
    "... Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own. ..."
    "... The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes. ..."
    "... "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary. ..."
    "... What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance. ..."
    May 19, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    America is in crisis. It is a crisis of greater magnitude than any the country has faced in its history, with the exception of the Civil War. It is a crisis long in the making-and likely to be with us long into the future. It is a crisis so thoroughly rooted in the American polity that it's difficult to see how it can be resolved in any kind of smooth or even peaceful way. Looking to the future from this particular point in time, just about every possible course of action appears certain to deepen the crisis.

    What is it? Some believe it stems specifically from the election of Donald Trump, a man supremely unfit for the presidency, and will abate when he can be removed from office. These people are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job. But that isn't the central crisis; it is merely a symptom of it, though it seems increasingly to be reaching crisis proportions of its own.

    When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that the elites are the problem. We're talking here about the elites of both parties. Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee-a woman who sought to avoid accountability as secretary of state by employing a private email server, contrary to propriety and good sense; who attached herself to a vast nonprofit "good works" institution that actually was a corrupt political machine designed to get the Clintons back into the White House while making them rich; who ran for president, and almost won, without addressing the fundamental problems of the nation and while denigrating large numbers of frustrated and beleaguered Americans as "deplorables." The unseemliness in all this was out in plain sight for everyone to see, and yet Democratic elites blithely went about the task of awarding her the nomination, even to the point of employing underhanded techniques to thwart an upstart challenger who was connecting more effectively with Democratic voters.

    At least Republican elites resisted the emergence of Trump for as long as they could. Some even attacked him vociferously. But, unlike in the Democratic Party, the Republican candidate who most effectively captured the underlying sentiment of GOP voters ended up with the nomination. The Republican elites had to give way. Why? Because Republican voters fundamentally favor vulgar, ill-mannered, tawdry politicians? No, because the elite-generated society of America had become so bad in their view that they turned to the man who most clamorously rebelled against it.

    The crisis of the elites could be seen everywhere. Take immigration policy. Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?

    So now we have some 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded, with no reasonable solution-and generating an abundance of political tension. Beyond that, we have fostered an immigration policy that now has foreign-born people in America approaching 14 percent-a proportion unprecedented in American history except for the 1920s, the last time a backlash against mass immigration resulted in curtailment legislation.

    And yet the elites never considered the importance to the country's civic health of questions related to assimilation-what's an appropriate inflow for smooth absorption. Some even equated those who raised such questions to racists and xenophobes. Meanwhile, we have "sanctuary cities" throughout Blue State America that are refusing to cooperate with federal officials seeking to enforce the immigration laws-the closest we have come as a nation to "nullification" since the actual nullification crisis of the 1830s, when South Carolina declared its right to ignore federal legislation it didn't like. (Andrew Jackson scotched the movement by threatening to hang from the nearest tree anyone involved in violence stemming from the crisis.)

    Then there is the spectacle of the country's financial elites goosing liquidity massively after the Great Recession to benefit themselves while slamming ordinary Americans with a resulting decline in Main Street capitalism. The unprecedented low interest rates over many years, accompanied by massive bond buying called "quantitative easing," proved a boon for Wall Street banks and corporate America while working families lost income from their money market funds and savings accounts. The result, says economic consultant David M. Smick, author of The Great Equalizer , was "the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind." Notice that these post-recession transactions were mostly financial transactions, divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks-the kinds of activities that spur entrepreneurial zest, generate new enterprises, and create jobs. Thus did this economic turn of events reflect the financialization of the U.S. economy-more and more rewards for moving money around and taking a cut and fewer and fewer rewards for building a business and creating jobs.

    And, though these policies were designed to boost economic growth, they have failed to do so, as America suffered through one of the longest periods of mediocre growth in its history.

    All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers, left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope.

    And if they complain they find themselves confronting the forces of political correctness, bent on shutting them up and marginalizing them in the political arena. For all the conservative and mainstream complaints against political correctness over the years, it was never clear just how much civic frustration and anger it was generating across the country until Donald Trump unfurled his attack on the phenomenon in his campaign. Again, it was ordinary Americans against the elites.

    The elites also ran American foreign policy, as they have throughout U.S. history. Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya. Many elites want further U.S. military action in Ukraine, against Iran, and to thwart China's rise in Asia. Aside from the risk of growing geopolitical blowback against America, the price tag is immense, contributing to the country's ongoing economic woes.

    When Trump, marshaling this anti-elite resentment into a powerful political wave, won the presidential election last November, it was noted that he would be a minority president in the popular vote. But then so was Nixon; so was Clinton; so was Wilson; indeed, so was Lincoln. The Trump victory constituted a political revolution.

    Now comes the counterrevolution. The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America. That's why there is so much talk about impeachment even in the absence of any evidence thus far of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why the firing of James Comey as FBI director raises the analogy of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre." That's why the demonization of Russia has reached a fevered pitch, in hopes that even minor infractions on the part of the president can be raised to levels of menace and threat.

    Ross Douthat, the conservative New York Times columnist, even suggests the elites of Washington should get rid of Trump through the use of the Constitution's 25th Amendment, which allows for the removal of the president if a majority of the cabinet informs the Congress that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and if a two-thirds vote of Congress confirms that judgment in the face of a presidential challenge. This was written of course for such circumstances of presidential incapacity as ill health or injury, but Douthat's commitment to the counterrevolution is such that he would advocate its use for mere presidential incompetence.

    Consider the story of Trump's revelation of classified information to Russia's foreign minister and ambassador to the United States. No one disputes the president's right to declassify governmental information at will, but was it wise in this instance? Certainly, it was reckless if he exposed sources and methods of intelligence gathering. But did he?

    The president and his top foreign policy advisers, who were present during the conversation, say he didn't. The media and Trump's political adversaries insist that he did, at least implicitly. We don't know. But we do know that when this story reached the pages of The Washington Post , as a result of leaks from people around Trump who want to see him crushed, it led to a feeding frenzy that probably harmed American interests far more than whatever Trump may have said to those Russians. Instead of Trump's indiscretion being confined to a single conversation with foreign officials, it now is broadcast throughout the world. Instead of, at worst, a hint of where the intelligence came from, everyone now knows it came from the Israelis. Instead of being able to at least pursue a more cooperative relationship with Russia on matters of mutual interest, Trump is once again forced back on his heels on Russian policy by government officials and their media allies-who, unlike Trump, were never elected to anything.

    Thus is the Trump crisis now superimposed upon the much broader and deeper crisis of the elites, which spawned the Trump crisis in the first place. Yes, Trump is a disaster as president. He lacks nearly all the qualities and attributes a president should have, and three and a half more years of him raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult and deepening civic rancor. It could even prove to be untenable governmentally. But trying to get rid of him before his term expires, absent a clear constitutional justification and a clear assent from the collective electorate, will simply deepen the crisis, driving the wedge further into the raw American heartland and generating growing feelings that the American system has lost its legitimacy.

    There is no way out for America at this point. Steady as she goes could prove highly problematic. A push to remove him could prove worse. Perhaps a solution will present itself. But, even if it does, it will rectify, with great societal disquiet and animosity, merely the Trump crisis. The crisis of the elites will continue, all the more intractable and ominous.

    Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative . His next book, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century , is due out from Simon & Schuster in September.

  • Mary Myers , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:24 pm
    If you want to know why things are as bad as they are and why Americans are so ignorant and dumbed down, get the video "Agenda" by Curtis Bower. It explains it all.
    Gregory , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:17 pm
    I agree with your diagnosis, even if the term "elite" is nebulous (aren't you, Mr. Merry, by virtue of your position as a D.C.-based journalist, an "elite"?). Anyway, Gilens and Page found as much.

    https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

    What are some solutions?

    Chairman Moe , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:37 pm
    Yeah this whole "elite" thing is kind of frustrating to hash out in good faith sometimes of course we want "elite" people in charge, in the sense that they're not illiterate imbeciles. The funny thing is how much "democracy" often fails those who are most wont to sing its praises. Those who identify as liberal tend to romanticize the idea of "the people" and their right to have a voice in our government, but then are sorely disappointed when those actual people exercise that voice in the real world. It's why most of the liberal social agenda of the past 50 years has been achieved through the courts, the least democratic institutions in our polity. "The people" wouldn't have voted for most of this stuff.
    Howard , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:38 am
    Since a lot of people are obviously having trouble with this concept: "Elites" are not necessarily truly unique, "brights" are not necessarily truly bright, "gnostics" do not necessarily have true knowledge, "puritans" are not necessarily truly pure, etc. What is being labeled is not what they truly are, but what they would have us believe they are; the reality is often very much the contrary.

    What characterizes "elites" is not really position or power, very much less intelligence or nobility of heart. The defining characteristic of an "elite" is arrogance.

    Devinicus , says: May 19, 2017 at 9:43 am
    Saying "elites are the problem" is NOT to say "let us eliminate all elites" (duh). It is instead to say "let us get ourselves different elites".

    A good elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the common good. A bad elite is one which uses its talents and power to pursue the good of elites alone. After deindustrialization and financialization and the Iraq War and the financial crisis and the Great Recession and the White Death combined with the ever growing wealth and power of what Richard Reeves calls the " dream hoarders ", it's pretty clear that we have bad elites.

    This is not to say that the masses are completely off the hook. A republic requires a virtuous elite AND virtuous masses. As Rod Dreher notes endlessly, the American masses aren't too virtuous nowadays, either.

    Jon S , says: May 19, 2017 at 10:48 am
    Cheap, imported labor lowers wages and improves profits. Moving manufacturing to China lowers wages and improves profits. Reducing income from savings forces people into the labor force, lowering wages and increasing profits. Labor's share of national income is at a low-point not seen since the 1920's. Corporate profitability is at an historical high point.

    I don't understand what "crisis" is being spoken of here. Isn't this exactly the scenario we have been attempting to create since Reagan? There is no crisis. This is the fruition of our conservative economic agenda. Isn't this site called "The American Conservative"?

    RRB , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:09 pm
    "Couldn't those elites see that this would happen? Did they care so little about the polity over which they held stewardship that their petty political prejudices were more important than the civic health of their nation?"

    "Over the past 25 years they got their country bogged down in persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya."

    Good points. Now you may apprehend why we simple people are not so eager to react with panic to the hysteria being drummed up by the same "elite" people and institutions that melt down every time Trump walks out of his office.

    Devinicus , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:12 pm
    Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.

    They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults [5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially in NYC and DC.

    The unparalleled expansion of the (mostly white) educated professional class in the DC area over the past generation should occupy center stage in any conservative critique of the American elite.

    Howard , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:13 pm

    if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote?

    Not at all. It makes them supremely desperate. The most important part of the election takes place before the first primary, when PACs and party officials determine what choices will be put before voters. Their candidates (from both parties) were likewise supremely unfit. I don't care much for either the Libertarians or Abe Lincoln, but Dead Abe Lincoln got one thing right: "Oh, hey America you just got screwed." Frankly, this has been going on for decades, but it is now reaching levels of abject absurdity.

    Michael Saber , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:29 pm
    I'm sorry, who's more elite than our golf club owning, billionaire President and his billionaires and investment bankers filled cabinet?
    KennethF , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm
    What Bruce said. In addition: who could possibly be so simple-minded as to believe that the removal of Trump will magically fix government? Bottom line is, Trump is dangerously incompetent. There are no doubt some in gov't who would get rid of Trump for the wrong reasons, but there are many (too many) right reasons for doing so. Some of the so-called Deep Staters will be Republicans who understand that Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" was nothing more than an empty talking point - and more importantly, that he's a threat to national security. Getting rid of Trump would be just one step toward fixing gov't, but would be significant nonetheless.
    Donald , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:34 pm
    Actually, Bruce, some of us lefties agree with much, though not all of what Merry says. The elites in both parties have failed and if you want names one can go down a long list. On foreign policy, for instance, leaders in both parties like Clinton and McCain have consistently favored more intervention and more war. The only time Trump has been popular with the elites is when he bombed Syria.

    This post was already pretty long– if Merry had gone into detail on the financial crisis and foreign policy it would have been ten times longer.

    I despise Trump too. The problem is that many of his critics are cynical opportunists.

    Concerned Citizen , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:43 pm
    Thank your for your perspective and sanity in a time of great unrest and paranoia.
    Sandra , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm
    "So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions."

    How you view the policies on pre-existing conditions depends on whether you are looking at premiums or benefits. If you are looking at premiums then removing rules on pre-existing conditions will benefit you. If you are looking at benefits no so much. You can't say that lowering premiums doesn't help working class families. There is also a fairness issue. The pre-existing exclusion only kicks in if there has been a lapse in coverage which encourages some people to not pay into the insurance pool until they get sick. How is that fair to all the folks who paid their premiums even when they didn't avail themselves of healthcare services? The proposed plan only asks those who haven't been paying into the system to pay more to make the system more fair to those who paid all along. It doesn't deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions. They can also avoid the higher payments by making sure their coverage doesn't lapse. Yes there are those who let their coverage lapse due to a financial crisis and we do need to have programs to assist those who truly can't pay.

    John D. King , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:53 pm
    Bruce's comment is nonsense. The elites are not in the least vague and unnamed, plainly referring to the mainstream "news" media and professoriate and GOP and corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor and GOP renegades (most of them warmongers) displeased by being upstaged. He purports to want "real" solutions but is quick to condemn real limits on immigration and trade deficits and racism in the guise of affirmative action and comparable ornaments of "social justice." Then, those who resent the liberal status quo and don't share Bruce's values are child-like and paranoid.
    Such arrogant and abusive views as his scarcely deserve refutation.
    Andy Lord , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm
    "The elites" aren't the problem, using the phrase "the elites" in political debate is the problem. What elites, exactly, do NOT include Trump, the nepotistic New York billionaire whose father donated a building to get him into Wharton? "Elites" is the code word used by right wing propagandists when they're trying to induce gullible or resentful citizens into acting against their own interests. Anyone using the term is dishonest.
    Dave Poteet , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:56 pm
    If being elite means wanting a President who isn't a loose cannon and acts with some decorum and respect for the office than count me in I'm an elite.
    Wes , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:13 pm
    This was really excellent and sober. Quite a nice change.
    Mark Thomason , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:25 pm
    Trump arose from America's crisis. He is a reaction to it, not the cause.

    The crisis cause is best displayed by Hillary. She was the problem. Trump just was not the cure, even though he is the reaction we got.

    gnirol , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:26 pm
    John D. King contends: " corporate chiefs eager for cheap labor " are among the elites voters shunned when voting for Pres. Trump. Um corporate chief? Donald Trump. Eager for cheap labor? Donald Trump. Elite? Donald Trump? Sending his son to an elite school that costs as much as the school that Obama sent his daughters to? Donald Trump. The only thing about Donald Trump that isn't elite is his drunken boor (even though he doesn't drink) rhetoric and social skills which he uses to mask his elitism. If you want no more than symbolic anti-elitism, Donald Trump is your man, and that's what Donald Trump supporters seem to want: the feeling that they are superior to those whom they feel have put them down for years, instead of the skills enabling them to compete with and perhaps surpass the people they deride as elite. Meanwhile the substance of Donald Trump's life has been elitism since he was in business school about a half century ago. No reason to believe that will change, is there?
    JWJ , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm
    Bob Halvorsen wrote: "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush."

    The author wrote "minority in the popular vote". To me that means LESS than 50% of the irrelevant national popular vote total. The author is NOT saying that the presidents listed did not get the most votes in the irrelevant national popular vote, just that they received less than 50% of the total.

    Nixon 1968 – 43.4%
    Clinton 1992 – 43%
    Clinton 1996 – 49.2%
    Wilson 1912 – 41.8%
    Lincoln 1860 – 39.8%

    MM , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:28 pm
    Mueller's appointment sounds promising, all powerful politicians should be investigated if there's smoke, if not fire.

    But this discussion of elites conjures up a counter-factual President Hillary, elected President with a Democratically-controlled House, Senate, and solid 5-vote majority on the Supreme Court:

    Given her campaign's numerous contacts with the Russian ambassador last year, along with an ongoing FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation, including but not limited to the Russian uranium agreement, State Dept. pressuring Kazakhstan to sign off, after which donations were made, and Bill's speaking fees going up, other pay-to-play allegations involving some very nasty governments in Africa and the Middle East

    There would be no DOJ investigation, and no Special Counsel appointed. Even had she fired Comey herself on Day One. Impossible to prove, but none of this would be happening. And I doubt the press at large would be clamoring for investigations, because there wouldn't be any leaking going on.

    If elites are good at anything, it's circumventing the rule of law by stonewalling, or burying, all investigations into wrongdoing. The Obama DOJ excelled greatly at that sort of thing

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:38 pm
    For those of us who elected Donald Trump our President, Mr. Merry, your type of analysis is the most dangerous!

    On the one hand, you point to the root of the problems: "The elites are the problem."

    You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "[1] The hollowing out of the American working class '[2] the greatest transfer of middle-class and elderly wealth to elite financial interests in the history of mankind' [3] persistent wars with hardly any stated purpose and in many instances no end in sight-Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya [4] 11 million illegal immigrants in America, a rebuke to territorial sovereignty and to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded."

    But then – having admitted that "Removing Trump Won't Solve America's Crisis" – you spout the elites' main talking point in their war to overturn the election results and to get rid of Donald Trump. You trumpet the elites' biggest lie. You say: "These people [the elites] are right about one thing: Trump is supremely unfit for his White House job."

    You are wrong, Mr. Merry. Totally wrong! President Trump is supremely qualified, and for these reasons:

    • He was the only presidential candidate with the courage to stand up and identify the real problems that have been destroying America and

    • He was the only candidate with the courage to stand up to the elites and not to back down.

    You say, Mr. Merry, that "three and a half more years of [Trump] raises the specter of more and more unnecessary tumult."

    You're wrong again. The tumult is entirely necessary. In fact the tumult is inevitable because we Americans have finally elected a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems. We have finally elected a President who has the guts to stand up to the powerful elites who created these problems. We have finally elected a President who will fight for us – fight for us and not back down!

    The elites don't like what they see. They don't like Trump and they don't like us, because we put Trump in the White House.

    Those of us who elected Donald Trump President because he fights for us are willing and able to fight for him!

    What the elites do to Trump, they do to us!

    "Tumult"? Bring it on!

    San , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:41 pm
    "The elites figure that if they can just get rid of Trump, the country can return to what they consider normalcy-the status quo ante, before the Trumpian challenge to their status as rulers of America."
    I don't agree at all with this assessment of what the "elites" want or expect.
    I believe that the strong following Bernie Sanders had–and still has– is indicative of the large numbers of Americans who find the the "status quo" a questionable way to proceed.
    This is not an endorsement of Bernie Sanders or a lamentation that he didn't get the nomination, it is just a clarification of terms of "what the elite want" i.e. you're barking up the wrong tree.
    Also not sure who you consider an elite; the whole article seems based on flimsy assumptions.
    Steve in Ohio , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    YES to what Anti Empire wrote at 10:51 am.

    I am thinking more and more that our only hope is partition. If California wants to let half of Mexico in, go for it. Just don't ask Idaho or Montana to send you water when you run out. If New England and New York want to be run by Wall Street capitalists with SJW social views, go for it. Encourage your working class and middle class people to move to the South or the Midwest and you can be just like Brazil! A nice place to vacation run by very rich people, but inhabited by mostly poor people. Another benefit of partition would be that the Ununited States would not have the size or resources to be the world's policeman. Sounds like a win for almost everybody but the neo-cons and the liberal interventionists.

    Mark , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:02 pm
    Thanks! This essay was worth the subscription price.
    EdR , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm
    To be honest, I don't really agree with the thesis of this article. The idea of elite as pejoratives seems out of place with the usage in other contexts and suggests we need a clearer articulation of what exactly it is we are angry about. This being said, regardless of where the problem lies, these so called "elites" have done an amazing job of turning the political machine to their advantage. We elected them – we elected Trump. I guess the thing I come back to is we need to stop seeking evidence of why we are right and start seeking evidence of why we are wrong – especially when it comes to candidates. I honestly don't know what this would look like or if it would be possible – but I feel like we need to change the way we know and evaluate candidates. It feels clear to me that the things we use as yardsticks fail us and warrants a re-imaging of how we determine fitness for public positions.
    Joe , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:20 pm
    19 paragraphs not a single solution. Yep, American Conservative.
    Jeremy , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:40 pm
    "Think of those who gave the country Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee "

    You mean 16 million primary voters, largely women and minorities? They're hardly elites. Your whole premise falls apart here.

    MEOW , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:43 pm
    Remove Trump? No! Push him to keep his basic promises and not grovel to the warmongers and entrenched.
    Roy Fassel , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:45 pm
    The term "elite" might well mean nothing more than "educated and knowledgeable and experienced." We can see what happens when a rich person seems uneducated in world history, uneducated in our form or government and shows no leadership qualities for running a government. He is not an elite. He is a bozo. Michael Jordan was an "elite" basketball player. Do you want anything less in the top ranks of government?

    The term "elite" has a negative tone for those who do not understand how difficult issues are. As was said "I never knew how complicated health care was." And this bozo was elected.

    Avi Marranazo , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:52 pm
    The elites who have made it their business to replace the American people, with aliens who'll vote them, are the problem.
    Nelson , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:05 pm
    You can only blame the elites so much in a democracy. We elect presidents who appoint judges that say corporations have a constitutional right to give unlimited campaign contributions to politicians who work for them. We often confuse supporting our troops for supporting whatever war they're sent to. We want to cut taxes but we also want more warplanes. We spend more than any other country on healthcare and complain about costs but we reject systems other countries use that are proven more efficient. We spend much time complaining about elites but, with few exceptions, we keep electing them.
    One Man , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm
    we Americans have finally elected a President who is not afraid to speak to America's real problems"

    Like whining to the Coast Guard about how tough life is!

    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm
    Kurt Gayle: "You correctly identify some of the main reasons why we elected Donald Trump: "

    Perfectly valid reasons. Unfortunately, a perfectly wrong candidate and a perfectly wrong party to support. For most of the issues cited (excepting immigration), you'd really want a Progressive. Trump and the GOP were never going to 'clean out the swamp' (he opened the gates to the swamp), never going to try reversing the flow of wealth away from the poor & middle classes, never de-escalate military conflict, and never going to wrest control from "financialists".

    For that work, Trump is unqualified, slow to learn and has demonstrated a disquieting disinterest in actual details.

    I agree with most of the objectives you mention, but Trump was never even close to being right person for the job. Better to wash your hands of this Administration and move on.

    rhine-gold cowboy , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:21 pm
    @ Bruce

    " The term "The Deep State" being latest iteration, allowing anybody to speculate and project their own predjudices and paranoias as to these dark and unnamed forces as well comfortably allowing us each to excuse our own failures as being secretly the fault of some vague and unnamed "them"."

    Deep State theory originated in the New Left as a response to the Kennedy assassination, for instance with the works of Carl Oglesby and Peter Dale Scott, who was using the phrase "deep politics" decades ago not the only way in which the modern GOP base has started to sound like left-wingers from the old days, but one of the more surprising.

    John F LaVoy , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:27 pm
    I could pretty readily contradict some of the article's details, but I will skip that in order to agree with the basic premise. Yes, the Trump and Bernie Sanders phenomena signify a dissatisfaction with elitism. However, solutions not only exist, but abound. One in particular presents itself as not only advisable, but as a necessary condition: I will present only that one possibility here.

    As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.

    Absent that change, there really is no hope. We might not like it, and we might be forced to revisit principles we thought inviolate, but it is a necessary condition of restoring government of, by, and for the people.

    Cash , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:37 pm
    The problem with our elites is they do well when the rest of the country is going down the drain.

    Most of the blame attaches to Republican elites but the Dems are not immune.

    Since Reagan's election and the start of the libertarian takeover of the Republican party, America has shredded the social contract we have with one another. No more we're-in-this-together. No more we-are-our-brother's-keeper.

    Instead of decent middle class jobs with all the benefits, we've moved toward a gig economy where everyone is always hustling for the next job/client. Which the New Yorker recently called the work-until-you-die economy.

    Yes, if you're talented and lucky - the Yankees bringing you up from the minors, Paramount pictures distributing the movie you financed with credit cards, your start-up getting acquired by Microsoft - it is easier than before to become successful.

    But if you're a temporary receptionist at a law firm or driving for Uber . . .

    We've wrecked all the countervailing powers that inhibited capital from overwhelming labor. The share of US income going to capital (dividends, interest, capital gains) versus labor (paychecks) has soared.

    Unions are dead. Infrastructure and other public spending is gone. NAFTA was supposed to come with support for workers whose jobs went to Mexico but Bob Dole didn't believe in coddling losers.

    For-profit education and soaring tuition with bankruptcy law no longer permitting discharge of student load debt. How are those kids ever going to afford to buy the houses older people are counting on to finance their retirements?

    Years without increases in the minimum wage. (Minimum wage is the reference wage for most other wages. Up the minimum wage and everyone earning a paycheck will soon get a raise too.)

    That's what libertarians did to the Republican party and then to America. We stopped caring about the well-being of our fellow citizens because everything is a business deal between two self-interested parties. That's how you think on Wall Street and Silicon Valley. (And in 2008-09, when Wall Street drove the economy off a cliff, ordinary Americans bailed out the bankers.)

    But if you're an out-of-work steelworker addicted to opiates? Your bad choices are not my problem.

    The poster child for elites who no longer care about ordinary Americans is Pete Peterson of Blackstone. Remember his dog and pony show about federal govt's looming fiscal crisis? His solution was to gut entitlement spending that's probably keeping a lot of people alive.

    And here's the kicker: nothing about this fiscal crisis was so severe that a solution would require billionaires like Peterson to tighten their belts.

    Trump and Sanders picked up on the rage and despair that ordinary citizens feel for our elites and what they're doing to our country. Hillary and the rest of the Republican candidates misread the mood.

    Trump is now proposing the same old Republican agenda. Tax cuts for the rich to be financed by gutting Obamacare. More deregulation and less public spending.

    Yes, America is in crisis. Support for democratic norms is razor-thin and declining.

    This country needs to recommit to a social contract. And a social safety net. We're all in this together. The rich can't do well at the expense of everyone else if this country is to live up to our ideals.

    Back in the 1950s, the head of General Motors told a congressional hearing that he always thought that what was good for GM was good for America and what was good for America was good for GM. He got laughed at. But he was right. If he's selling cars, it means people are feeling good about their prospects.

    I'm waiting for a presidential candidate who promises that the rich are going to bear the biggest share of the burden when Americans roll up our sleeves to fix our country. He'll win in a landslide.

    Alex , says: May 18, 2017 at 3:49 pm
    Finally!
    A writer with critical thinking skills!
    PRDoucette , says: May 18, 2017 at 4:06 pm
    If wealth equals power then the only way you are going to limit the power of the elites is by massive campaign reform that would curtail the influence the wealth of the elites currently has over the political process. Neither Republicans or Democrats have shown the slightest interest in meaningful campaign reform for the simple reason that it is easier fund a campaign with millions from the elites who donate directly to a campaign and indirectly through a PAC. Without meaningful campaign reform the US will slowly but surely slip from being a democracy to an oligarchy run by the elites for the benefit of the elites. The crisis in the US is that it seems most citizens seem willing to accept that because of their wealth the elites are more likely to know how to govern. Sadly these citizens are having to learn that being a wealthy elite like Trump does not automatically mean that he knows how to govern.
    Jack Everett , says: May 18, 2017 at 4:32 pm
    I agree the problem is the elites not Trump he is to stupid and psychotic to do so much damage.
    Eric R , says: May 18, 2017 at 5:10 pm
    As a moderate lifelong Republican, I was a NeverTrumper through the primaries where my guy (Rubio) did well in my state, winning the contest. Only after Trump prevailed did I go off for a few hours on a long walk to contemplate what this meant for me, my party and my nation. I concluded that Trump was a necessary evil if we were serious about giving the 100,000,000 working men and women in this country a fair shake at the American Dream. Someone had to be ballsy enough to reconstruct the Federal Bureacracy and anyone less than a guy like Trump would wilt in the heat generated by the left leaning media and left leaning Federal Bureaucracy.

    Let's face it. Had HRC won absolutely nothing would have changed except our acceptance of corruption in our body politic. I still have hope that the Federal Government can be right-sized and the power redistributed to the United States of America not DC.

    Therein lies the fight of our time. We can either concede the fight and let DC make all the decisions (including whether to fix the pot holes on my local streets)to we can ask what each citizen can do for his or her country. It's a binary choice really. You either believe that all the power should reside with the Feds and the dictates and mandates that go with power being held 1000 miles away .or you're in favor of 95% of the decisions that impact you locally and in your state.
    If you need to find out where someone sits on this issue, ask them 2 simple questions.
    1) Who is Joe Biden?

    2) Name just 2 people from all of the following: Who's your Mayor? City Council? County Commission? School Board? State Senator? State Rep? Lt. Governor? School Board?

    Ed , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:06 pm
    The Trump era will be cathartic or emetic. Government operations will be so confused and erratic that people will start to think that maybe elite rule wasn't so bad and will look forward to "the grown-ups" taking over again. Of course, every new administration now claims to be "the grown-ups" reasserting themselves - that's come to be a given - but those pretensions will be taken more seriously when the next administration takes over.

    So are the elites to blame? Well, in a way. They have their agenda, and it's not always shared by ordinary Americans. But ordinary Americans don't agree with each other all that often, and depending on what the issue is, some parts of the general public are closer to the governing elites than they are to other parts of the public. It could be that elites manage to get enough support from non-elite voters to stay in office.

    But also, competence is a factor. There are a lot of conspiracy theories about elites, but much of the energy of governing elites may go into being just well-informed enough to do a half-way credible job of staying on top of events, rather than into deep-laid plans to thwart popular wishes.

    Blueshark , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:08 pm
    "All this contributed significantly to the hollowing out of the American working class-once the central foundation of the country's economic muscle and political stability. Now these are the forgotten Americans, deplorable to Hillary Clinton and her elite followers, left without jobs and increasingly bereft of purpose and hope."

    Nice try.

    Three things led to the "hollowing out" of the American working class, and they have nothing to do with ephemeral vaporings about "divorced from the traditional American passion for building things, innovating, and taking risks."

    1. Automation – and there's just no way around that – the semi-skilled and some skilled jobs giving lower-educated workers a strong middle class life are gone.

    2. "Reagan Democrats" who've been voting staunchly Republican and stood by watching and nodding while conservatives have eviscerated and vilified union jobs that also supported a middle class lifestyle (see, e.g., "right-to-work" states).

    3. Globalization (abetted by both parties) that shipped these jobs overseas – although there's no clear solution to this in an emergent 21st-century global economy.

    Look, I grew up outside of Detroit and knew families and friends who didn't go to college, but went to work on the line and could afford a middle class life. For the reasons listed above, those days are gone forever.

    Hyperion , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Devinicus

    Who are these "elites"? This is the central question.

    They seem to be: [1] highly educated [2] in private colleges and universities [3] mainly in the Northeast [4] and as adults [5] employed primarily in professional occupations [6] geographically concentrated in the Boston-Washington corridor, especially in NYC and DC.

    Using that definition, the author of this post is an elite. But I bet he claims he is not.

    The thing is, Mr. Merry is a journalist. I'm hearing a lot about how dastardly THEY are from Trump supporters.

    Hyperion , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:15 pm

    John F LaVoy

    As long as big money can buy elections, elitists will rule and the masses will get shafted. The only way to keep that from happening in perpetuity is to establish a system of public funding for elections.

    I agree wholeheartedly. Does anyone who is not rich think that money = speech? What other democracy has an election funding system as bizarre as ours?

    Andy Lord , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm
    Trump's "populism" is based on the same old demagogue's standbys: xenophobia, scapegoating, racism, anti-intellectualism, economic anxiety, nationalism, and a yearning for an idealized past that never existed. The idea of Trump as some shirt-sleeved populist warrior who is going to correct the inequities of wealth distribution in the U.S. is too laughable to bother with. I would refer anyone to the two health care bills he has championed so far, which were poorly disguised attempts to enrich the wealthy even further, while robbing tens of millions of their ability to afford health insurance.
    Hexexis , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:08 pm
    Sorry, but the problem is not the "elite" but the "elitists": them that's curried favor-always monetary-w/ other elitists in exchange for donations at election time. With Clinton & Trump, we had two elitists that thought they deserved the pres'y & were propelled by the elitists running the campaigns & parties that hoped to gain from either of those two in the W.H.

    Meanwhile, the press worked feverishly to turn Clinton & Trump into viable candidates-w/ ancient, useless labels like "liberal," progressive"; "anti-establishment," "populist"-& convinced voters that they were the "best men" for the job.

    So I ended up voting for our state's Repo. gov.; who in turn voted for his own father, an 88-yr-old former congressman. That was effect elitists had on some of us.

    Brian W , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:13 pm
    April 25, 2017 Ex-spy admits anti-Trump dossier unverified, blames Buzzfeed for publishing

    In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10. He defends himself by saying he was betrayed by his client and that he followed proper internal channels by giving the dossier to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, to alert the U.S. government.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/

    Jeff Fine , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:47 pm
    While we may despise elites ( and just who are they?) the decision to vote for Donald Trump as a solution seems to me to be beyond stupid.
    Ellimist000 , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:00 pm
    "Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise?"

    Because the author is letting his partisanship relive him of his good sense. Or he is as numerically challenged as his president, who knows?

    These people won PLURALITIES of the popular vote. So did Hillary Clinton. They all received the most votes in an election with three or more candidates but received less votes than the total that voted for some one else. Everyone on the planet besides third-world dictators and Republicans generally describe this phenomenon as "winning an election".

    A plurality is very different from getting a minority of the vote like Trump did. I am sure that Merry knows this. If you don't believe me, go ask the folks who voted Green and Libertarian who they would have voted for as a second choice if they were forced to

    TR , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:29 pm
    Thank you, Nelson, at 3:05 p. m.

    And BTW, a lot of those immigrants (to whom I do not object) are here because of America's fascination with foreign wars and intrusions. Think "boat people," for example, or Iranian refugees or Cuban, etc., etc. Our stupidity produces moral obligations.

    David Naas , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:34 pm
    Contra the demos-fueled hissy-fit over "Elites", I have no problem with Elites running the world. For one thing, they (Elites) always have run the world, and that isn't going to change, except cosmetically.

    Nor do I have a problem with them reasonably rewarding themselves for their efforts.

    Experiments with direct participatory democracy have usually ended in the sort of lynch-mobbing which murdered Socrates.

    I have neither time nor interest in attending to every pettyfrogging detail of running a village government, let alone one of 300 million souls. Even with the Internet, "direct democracy" ends up being run by a few (reference Athens, if any doubt).

    The current outrage-aholic fixation over "elites" is not because they are Elites, but because they are INCOMPETENT Elites. It is said the Brits lost the Empire because they forgot how to govern, and now, it is our turn.

    Eric Hoffer told us how Elites fall back in 1950 (The True Believer), but we were so fat and happy we ignored what he said. Besides, he was a longshoreman, with no credentials. What did he know?

    My preference is for Them to fix Their problem, and to get back running affairs properly.

    Then I can focus on playing with my grandkids, flirting with my wife, and drinking beer in late afternoon with Old Blue at my feet.

    Selah!

    CascadeJoe , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:30 am
    Well, he talks and tweets a lot. But NAFTA is still in force (he learned of downsides of ash canning it), Iran sanctions have not been increased (maybe he thought of jobs related to jet sales important), he is talking with Russia (as opposed to talking about it), and has let all know about his aversion to gassing civilians.

    Let us continue to observe what he does, not what he tweets. I plan to come back in late July and take a look, 100 days just is too short to come to a decision.

    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:30 am
    Well, at least it wouldn't be a step backwards.
    Fran Macadam , says: May 18, 2017 at 12:33 am
    So true. Another of the few sane voices, with intellectual heft to match that sobriety. Wish Rod Dreher would read and be convinced by your salient analysis, even if against his will. I think too many conservatives genuflect to established hierarchy, whatever its faults, out of a character that is disposed to distrust change, even needed change. I myself do not buy into the reasoning, "better the devil we know." I really think only the relatively well off can sustain such a view, whether in Manhattan or connected to it via the internet in Baton Rouge. The rest of us are too desperate.

    The elites truly are the problem. Just like those who blame Russia, they won't take ownership. They will need one heckuva Homeland Security and clampdown on the population they view as intolerable, once they have their coup against democracy. It is certain to be a pyrrhic victory though, as no elites in history ever gave up their power willingly or peacefully, yet in every case they were forcibly removed in paroxysms of violence by angry mobs of citizens who lost faith in a rigged system that would not allow needed peaceful change.

    Sad!

    RomanCandle , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:45 am
    VERY well said.
    Patricus , says: May 18, 2017 at 1:58 am
    So Trump lacks all the qualities and attributes of a proper President. What exactly are those qualities beyond getting elected? Who are the great examples Trump should imitate? Let's see, the community organizer? The son of a Bush? The man from Hope? Poppy Bush? I am one who admired Reagan but he did run up the debt. The quality these people share is a ludicrous vanity. Can't understand the notion that Trump is far below the rest of these flawed human beings. He seems to be just another one. What the heck, he might turn out to be effective. It is way too early to know.
    Mark Christensen , says: May 18, 2017 at 2:43 am
    Very true. The elites want to turf Trump because he is jeopardising a model that sustains their salaries and prestige, yet of course they can still not offer an alternative to what was there before.

    The elites can't look outside the system, to something beyond the system, because that is, by definition, something they can't control or make false promises about. The deeper problem is they are unwilling to even have this conversation, for fear it would lead to a logical conclusion about the inadequacies of power.

    Rosita , says: May 18, 2017 at 6:58 am
    What a bore and a canard; Trump_vs_deep_state has shown itself in capable of competent and capable public policy; quick on the trigger to tear everything down but in coherent and undisciplined to build anything of consequence to replace it. I'll take the elites any day over nihilism and petulance. Trump is the mirror image of his voters and it gives me great satisfaction to see their political fortunes grind to dust Over their own incompetence.
    Weldon , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:12 am
    Meh. People keep screaming about a "crisis" but aren't able to actually point to one. The economy is doing well. Crime is at historic lows. There are so few actual problems that people are taking to manufacturing them (e.g. opioids).

    I think the real issue here is that the politically-powerful Baby Boom is approaching the final years of its narcissistic, navel-gazing existence, and assumes the entire world disappears when they do.

    Frank , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:14 am
    When in the history of mankind were they not?
    Chris in Appalachia , says: May 18, 2017 at 7:56 am
    This article does a good job stitching together much of the Elites' sins. It is apparent to me that the American government can't be reformed from within by electing reform candidates. If reform is possible, it can't come from the Northeast and West Coast. It will never come from a Harvard, or any other Ivy League school, graduate. It won't come from a Boston Catholic person or New York Jewish-American. It won't come from a Baby Boomer who wishes to continue to prop up the social changes they ushered in the 60s and 70s. I would expect actual reform to come from a young person in the American Heartland, which the bi-coastal elites deride as "Flyover Country." Wasn't it the "Rust Belt" who showed us the way in the 2016 election? And if and when reform (i.e. the non-violent neutering of the Elites' power abuses) comes, the reformers had better be prepared with a total package and not just one candidate. It may be a one-time opportunity, and must be executed with the utmost strategy and determination.
    Paul Roche , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:26 am
    But We Trump supporters are quite happy with his actions so far. We know the press is rigged against him. It is distressing to see the elitist Republicans attack him too though. You are right about the divide, but this may be our last best hope of taking the government back
    AleaJactaEst , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:39 am
    if President Donald J Trump IS supremely unfit to hold the office, does that not logically (in the eyes of the author)not make the xx million American people who voted for him supremely unfit to vote? Startling hubris if you ask me.
    C. L. H. Daniels , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:49 am
    Who's ready to storm the Bastille? Torches, get your torches right here!
    RRDRRD , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:49 am
    Basically agree with the author;s position but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, stop calling elitists, elites. They are not "superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities" in fact, they are frequently inferior.
    Paul Grenier , says: May 18, 2017 at 8:50 am
    When Sen. Schumer announced, on MSNBC, that a president going against the CIA is 'stupid' because 'they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you,' doesn't that scream 'crisis' from the rooftops? Since when does America, allegedly a democratic republic, assume elected presidents are the subordinates of the CIA? Well, de facto, probably for many years, but to actually openly approve of it?

    But there was no even discussion of his statement! It set off no alarm bells, no demands for reigning in the CIA ('the intelligence "community"'). Why not? Presumably because the short-term interests of too many elites aligned in this case with that of the deep state. The habit of 'whatever works for me, for the moment' won out, once again, further degrading the political culture right at its institutional heart.

    And also because Schumer is right. It isn't smart to criticize the CIA It wouldn't be good for your career, you know what I mean? ('What are ya, a Russian commie or something?').

    Merry is absolutely right. Removing Trump does nothing. It does less than nothing. It drives the disease even further into the body politic. The only solution is honesty and courage. Can we muster it?

    Linen42 , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:00 am
    So tell me, if the down trodden Working class is so distraught by the elites putting them down, why do they celebrate when the GOP House voted to take away their healthcare by removing rules on pre-existing conditions.

    Say what you will about Obama and his
    looking down on the people", but take him on his actions and he has done more to help the lower class through legislation and executive orders than any other president in the past 30 years.

    But wait, he didn't do anything about immigration. So therefore ignore all the laws, ignore the rules changed, just focus on the revamped Know Nothings afraid of 3% of the population.

    Brian W , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:08 am
    Yes indeed so and a very good article.

    May 7, 2017 It Wasn't Russia, How Erdogan Bought Trump and His Neocon Gangsters, the Kosher Nostra

    Learn who Mike Flynn and Rudy Giuliani really work for and why they are stabbing America in the back while Trump smiles.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/05/07/it-wasnt-russia-how-erdogan-bought-trump-and-his-neocon-gangsters-the-kosher-nostra/

    John Gruskos , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:10 am
    Principled opposition to President Trump's character is limited to this magazine and a tiny handful of like minded pundits and politicians.

    If Trump had run on Hillary Clinton's platform, and if he were ruling in accordance with that platform, waging a war for regime change in Syria, signing TPP or some equivalent, refusing to enforce the immigration laws, granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, and greatly increasing the number of legal immigrants, the Democrats and neocons would be praising him to the skies and supporting him to the hilt.

    If, on the other hand, someone other than Trump, Pat Buchanan for instance, had been elected on Trump's platform, the Democrats and neocons would be attacking him with all the hysterical venom they are now hurling at Trump (remember the brief deranged hysteria that followed Buchanan's 1996 primary win in New Hampshire?) – and I suspect some of those who pass for principled critics of Trump's character would be caught up in this hypothetical anti-Buchanan hysteria, because of their sheer weak-willed yearning for social acceptance.

    Howard , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:24 am
    If you want to really be serious about "fitness to lead", it has been a very long time since the USA has had a president who was fit to lead.

    The fact is, though, that the first rumblings of "impeachment" started before the Electoral College even met, back while Democrats were still hoping to nullify what happened on election night through the Electoral College.

    The whole Russian angle is simply a pretext. No one is saying that Russia hacked into the voting machines and added or subtracted votes; at most they are accused of having done the kind of thing investigative journalists are praised for having done. When, in the midst of the American election, British parliamentarians discussed banning Trump from the UK, **THAT** was much more serious and overt tampering with our election, yet no one cares about that, because the UK is the land of Peter Pan and Mary Poppins, whereas Russia is the bogeyman. Thus we see headlines about Russian jets "buzzing" the coast of Alaska, only to read further down that by "buzzing" we mean they were 20+ miles into international airspace. Apparently it's an outrage that they should come within a thousand miles of American airspace. American spy planes in the Black Sea are a different story: after all, they remained in international air space the whole time!

    It is dangerous to cast Russia unnecessarily in the role of villain, but it is even more dangerous to engineer even the softest of coups. Once that is done, there is no going back. Very likely there would be widespread protests, many of them violent, and a large portion of the public would see the de facto government as not merely corrupt and foolish, but completely invalid. The "authorities" would probably be able to crush dissent, but only by going full-on Stalin. What happens after that, who knows, but this story would not have any happy ending.

    Steve Norton , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:24 am
    As usual, Merry's insights are useful and informed.However, Clinton, warts and all, would have more likely eased the pain of many Americans. Her campaign focused too much on aggrieved minorities and not enough on the pain shared by all but her policies would have more likely checked the manic redistribution of wealth from middle class to elite, ended the health care impasse that cruelly toys with people, made education more accessible and enhanced investments in science and technology that could create jobs in the coming years. With regard to immigration, it is true that adding so many immigrants to the population at a time when decent-paying jobs were being eliminated through technology created a bad optic but the ban or removal of millions of immigrants would not really restore middle class stability. Elites in both parties have made mistakes and been entirely too attentive to those who give the most money but let's not legitimize Trump's mixture of exploiting anger with false promises and pushing policies that will make the plight of working people even more desperate. Clinton might not have shaken up an elitist system she helped create but she would not have shaken our democratic institutions and attacked an already fragile polity the way Trump has and will continue to do for another 3 and half years. Like it or not, elites and disenfranchised will eventually have to work together and Trump has set back this inevitable and urgent collaboration years, if not forever.
    Bob Halvorsen , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:30 am
    Nixon, Clinton, Wilson,Lincoln all won the popular vote. Why does this article suggest otherwise? The only presidents with a minority of the popular vote are JQ Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush.
    Michael Powe , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:38 am
    A self-described "publishing executive" who writes magazine/blog articles for a living is a member of the "elite"! Condemned out of his own mouth. By his own vanity, perhaps.

    And the case is hardly made by deliberately misstating facts.

    65 million people voted for Hillary Clinton for President. Is that 65 million "elites," or 65 million "dupes" too stupid to "see through her"? 65 million irresponsible citizens? Are these 65 million the real "deplorables"?

    I don't expect to see any mea culpa statements from the numerous conservative writers and talking heads who made excuses for Trump's selection as candidate prior to the election. Many of those excuses were promulgated through TAC. But a look in the mirror, and a conversation with that "still, small voice" could be therapeutic for many of you.

    Not Hillary Clinton, not the Democratic Party, not the 65 million "deplorables," were responsible for conservatives' decision to go with a manifestly unsuitable candidate. Once again, those declaiming most loudly about "personal responsibility" - lack it.

    mightywhig , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:46 am
    Good piece. Clearly the many leakers aren't concerned about national security consequences. This is only about bringing down Trump. After all, the journalist establishment extolled Snowden for leaking tons of classified information. Trump might help himself by being a little more "political," and learning to fight the right battles.
    SJB , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    I hope your article gains a large readership that includes the nevertrump cadre. It is probably a pipe dream to hope they would wake up and become aware of how they and their preference for Hillary look to many of the 63 million people who voted for Trump. They knew he was inexperienced, coarse, and a mixed bag. They also know he's only been in office for 4 months and the obstruction, malicious leaks, and malignant hatred of Trump began long before he took office.

    Too many in the nevertrump cadre come off as self-righteous, smug Pharisees for whom conservatism has become a religion. For some reason, they think their own character, knowledge, and judgement is impeccable with no room for correction by 63 million voters. The vox populi needs the elites to override them. Such hubris. We are well aware that they would rather have had a Hillary presidency. Are they any more mature than the Left in dealing with defeat? Apparently not.

    Glenn Reynolds (professor of law) sums up the situation this way: "The childish response of Democrats - and 'NeverTrump' Republicans - to the 2016 election has done more damage to American politics and institutions than any foreign meddling could do." It would behoove the nevertrumpers to consider what they are sowing and reaping. Has their hatred of Trump and smug self-righteousness made them deaf, dumb, and blind?

    I think Victor Davis Hanson's article (see link below) has articulated the situation best and is best read as a whole instead of excerpted. The National Review's readership fell greatly prior to the election because of the nevertrumpers pomposity, but not the readership of VDH's articles at the NRO. Perhaps instead of silently disagreeing, the vox populi need to intervene and impeach the nevertrumpers.

    The Nightmares and the Realities of Never Trump
    http://amgreatness.com/2017/05/17/nightmares-realities-never-trump/

    Trucker46 , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    You elected a chump over all the obvious reasons not to, and he iS going to go before the end of the summer, either for the reasons already in.front of us or for the new ones he will give us in.the next 60 days. Get your stupid saves out of the way now and allow the republic to recover.

    Btw the "you elected" phrase above is predicated on.the idea that the chump really won.the election, Cuz it's quite clear he may not have.

    Marianna Landrum , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:47 am
    The problem is not the elite, but a POTUS who is ignorant and arrogant,who is unqualified and inept and who is a man-child trying to be a leader. He makes his own issues by opening his mouth and saying stupid things and insisting they are true, and doing stupid things and insisting they are good. It is obvious he has no plan for anything and doesn't understand much of what is going on around him. He never talks about anything of substance; on health care, Price had to deal with details, and with the tax plan, it was Cohn who revealed that amazing one page initiative. When he does talk, he stupidly gives intel to our enemies. Trump is an idiot with a pen and that is the problem and it is a problem for this country.
    connecticut farmer , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:56 am
    Excellent article. Can it be possible that the meritocratic oligarchy which runs this country still doesn't "get it?" Do they really believe that getting rid of Trump solves the problem? Can it be possible that they still can't see that absent proof of actual malfeasance, driving Trump out of office could make things even worse, as if things aren't bad already.

    As the days and weeks go by it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is–yes.

    Tom , says: May 18, 2017 at 9:57 am
    This is, far and away, the best summary of our current situation I have read anywhere. Outstanding!

    One area around immigration could, however, be improved to truly capture why there is so much anger at the elites. On immigration, the article states: "Leave aside for purposes of discussion the debate on the merits of the issue-whether mass immigration is good for America or whether it reaches a point of economic diminishing returns and threatens to erode America's underlying culture. Whatever the merits on either side of that debate, mass immigration, accepted and even fostered by the nation's elites, has driven a powerful wedge through America. "

    While true, this still misses the main point. The point is that the nation has existing laws to control immigration. Because the elites could not change the law through the democratic process, they opted instead to just ignore the laws, with absolutely no consequences except for those who live in the communities impacted.

    In this context, the significance of the Clinton email scandal was magnified as it represented, again, the elites clearly violating the law with no consequences.

    The lawlessness aspect is a critical point that needs to be emphasized. The elite backlash is not just about policy disagreements, its about a class of people (elites) violating/ignoring the law for their own benefit and at the expense of others. The very fact that this could happen exposes how broken the system really is.

    Trucker46 , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:05 am
    And btw.. Tho the author here is a smart and good writer, this whole "elites" thing is a stupid argument.I agree that we democrats were too cowardly to nominate Bernie, whose whole message and absolute unlikelihood was most aligned with the spirit of the times. As a party we thought small and thus became small. But Hillary was so vastly superior to any of the republican candidates that the problem has nothing to do with right wing elites and everything to do with that large swath of the right wing which simply is deplorable. They are deplorable and they deserve to know that the nation as a whole knows them to.be such. There wzz a time when they knew their place– way down a hole with the boot of the nation s conscience firmly on.the top of their head. The right let them emerge from.that hole during the advent of the tea party Cuz it liked the fact that those losers were giving their movement breadth and energy.

    But don't think for a minute that those millions of prejudiced, disgusting people have been redeemed by the chumps supposed victory, they haven't. Maybe Hillary shouldn't have called them.such, idk, but the fact of their existence being a cancer in.the republic is as correct today as it was 400 years ago and in.every generation.to.follow.

    Michael , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:11 am
    With the absolute control the elites have upon the military industrial complex, the traditional media outlets, the bureaucratic "three-letter" departments of governance, as well as the powerful influence over both the judicial and legislative branches of the governmnet, it seems impossible to me that such a group could be thrown off by its citizenry by violent uprising or otherwise. Just watch some of the video of Chaffets lead intelligence committee trying to access information regarding the Clinton servers and you will begin to see the incredible scope of the problem we face in America and the world today. Just as it was God that delivered a rag-tag band of America patriots from the hands of elite-based tyranny at the founding of our country, it will take an act of God to remove the chains and shackles of the Deep State from off the necks of the American people. Unfortunately a growing number of Americans are turning their back on the only real chance of deliverance we have – He who delivered the Hebrews from the Egyptian elites can delver us also.
    BillCarson , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:11 am
    I am more than willing to fight the elites in the streets if necessary to stop them from forcing A duly elected president from office
    Don Wiley , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:18 am
    In the day when we received our news of national and international goings on via newspapers, there was a space for reflection and contemplation, and even some semblance of reasoned debate.

    That ship has sailed, never to return and we are in the day of "Amusing Ourselves to Death"

    It used to take some time and effort to form a proper mob.

    Xenon , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:31 am
    What defines this shadowy type – "elite?" Educated? Financially well off? Aren't you an elite? Or does it only apply to liberals and Democrats? How would you define yourself?
    SJB , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:31 am
    Apologies for a poorly written comment. The vox populi is a reference to a Douthat tweet: "7. But what, in the end, are elites for? What justifies their existence? Some sort of wisdom that the vox populi can lack." Douthat's article, his tweet storm, and the lack of strong repudiation from the nevertrump cadre pretty much ended my patience with all of them. It has become almost impossible to tell the difference between the hysterical Left and the outraged nevertrump cadre. This last week has been such a delightful display of how the media, establishment elites, and nevertrumpers feel about those 63 million unredeemable deplorable Americans who voted for Trump. Thank you for allowing me to comment.
    No to neos , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:35 am
    I agree with this. I voted for Trump and told my wife several times before voting, "I don't think Trump will be a good president. I'm voting for him to send a "f- you" to the elites who run this country.

    When I say elites, I don't mean only the high and mighty. In my hometown, where I have lived all my life, our city council has handed millions of tax dollars to the region's largest car dealer to expand yet again. They pledged $1 million to lure a Hobby Lobby even though it is in direct competition with a Michael's store that has been here for years. They bought property for $1 million, knocked down the building on it, prepared the site for development, then "sold" it to a developer for $10.

    That kind of favoritism has been running wild in my little town - a little town controlled entirely by people who call themselves Republicans.

    jdl51 , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:36 am
    "When a man as uncouth and reckless as Trump becomes president by running against the nation's elites, it's a strong signal that the elites are the problem."

    The problem is the industrialized disinformation machine that continues to spew hatred and lies. One side thinks it's the liberal media, and the other side thinks it's RW talk radio and Fox News. It's easy to figure out which one is the real problem. There are facts and there are internet rumors that are passed off as facts. Both can't be true. And even in the face of clear evidence, primarily one side continues to believe the rumors and lies. Can't argue with delusion.

    Bob K. , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:45 am
    Thank you, Mr. Merry,

    I have been waiting for you to step up to the plate since you took over as editor of "The American Conservative" and you have delivered!

    Anti-Empire , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:51 am
    This article makes some good points. Trump was elected fair and square and the case against him is straight out of fantasy land.
    BUT then there is the snotty rhetoric that Trump is "uncouth," the same sort of rhetoric employed by the elite New York Times.
    Frankly I do not care about Trump's table manners. I do care that he has sought detente 2.0 with Russia and has killed off the TPP, not only a lousy trade deal but also the economic limb of Hillary's military/economic assault (aka pivot) to China.
    So I dismiss charges that Trump is "unfit" or "lacks nearly all the characteristics or attributes that a president should have.". And I have little confidence in a writer who looks at things in such an arrogant way. That he is the new editor of The American Conservative is enough to make me reconsider the contributions I make to this journal. Pat Buchanan and Bill Kauffman, yes. Merry? I wonder.
    Sandra , says: May 18, 2017 at 10:54 am
    I don't think the abundance of evidence that members of the Trump team met with Russian officials during the campaign can be called "minor infractions against the president". These are certainly serious allegations. It was clear early in the Trump presidency that he was not surrounding himself with people capable of carrying out the vision he articulated in his campaign for restoring America's middle class. He made many picks from the ranks of the elites including his Vice President and Attorney General. His selection seemed to favor loyalty rather than building a team that could make the changes he campaigned on. His Treasury pick is straight from Wall Street and his foreign policy team is praised by the elites. Donald Trump is not the agent for change. You can't differentiate him from the elites because he surrounded himself with them.
    Vince Hill , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:01 am
    What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words.
    Anne M Erskine , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:04 am
    Written by a Never-Trump, this article is absolute BS concerning the fact that President Trump is "unfit" for the office of the presidency. The article is, however, absolutely correct about the elites who have thrown their middle finger in the face of WE THE PEOPLE of the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC of the USA, but WE THE PEOPLE elected President Trump to drain the swamp and he will. The true enemy of the USA is the elected class in D.C. and their cronies like Buffet, Steyer, Gates and the Soros Democrat Marxist Party and the utter traitorous actions by Obama. President Trump has to rid us of all Obamaites and has to slam the RINO traitors to the ground. President Trump is perfectly fit to be president and certainly more so than some community organizer who hates the USA and works to destroy her. Merry's hatred of President trump is boundless and shows him to be among the elites of the "media," a terrible curse on the USA. Thank God for President Trump and for FLOTUS Melanie Trump who has returned dignity, grace, class, and beauty to the White House after eight years of hate-filled, resentful, nasty, and cloddish behavior by Michelle Obama who disrespected the American people, spending millions of American posterity hard-earned money on herself and her family. Where was your article about the corruption of Obama and his breaking of our laws and his utter and disgusting spitting on his oath to our Constitution, Merry?
    Andi Payne , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:07 am
    I am still confused how a billionaire was NOT considered 'elite' to the working class.. Does this not baffle anyone? OK, I get that America on both sides, left and right, is sick of getting screwed over by the elites. But Trump is no friend to the working man. He is only helping all his billionaire elite friends and creating practices that will hurt the working class who elected him, whether via healthcare reform or promising coal miners they can have their jobs back, when everyone knows that sector is dying. The rest of the world is getting ahead of us, in technology, infrastructure, renewable energy sources, etc. The divide between conservatives and liberals has become so ridiculous that no one cares about making the US a better place. Trump's laughable campaign slogan worked miracles in convincing voters, but I think everyone has sobered up to the dangers that Trump poses in so many ways. We might be tired of politicians in Washington, but if most of us are honest, this 'shake-up' is going to do a lot of damage. Maybe it's what we need in the long run to be able to change things, but all the laws and deregulation have only made the elite stronger. It makes companies bigger, and the working man poorly treated and expendable.
    Slugger , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:07 am
    Please help me understand. What remedies are you recommending? The reason I ask is because these accusations against a class of people, the elites, rather than against specific wrongful acts smack of Mao and the Cultural Revolution to me. I sense that some wish to see professors and newspaper editors working in fields with hand tools. I may have misread this posting, but Fran Macadam's comments sound like a call for at least a sharp turn to me.
    Argon , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:17 am
    Reflecting further.

    I'm not buying the "it's the elites" problem. An 'elite', more often than not, is someone who is using power in a way we don't like, along with that person's clique. This is akin to using the term, 'activist judges'.

    Ultimately, a democracy always gets the leaders it deserves. Once in a great while, it gets better leaders than it deserves. There will always be facilitators of our worst instincts but ultimately, people have a choice. If a democracy is dysfunctional, it's not because some 'elites' or 'deep state' have taken over everything. It's because the voters kept electing idiots and representatives that didn't truly represent their interests.

    SDS , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:37 am
    Not sure if Trucker46 is serious, or auditioning to write for "the ONION" ..
    Devinicus , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:38 am
    Regarding the history of immigration in the United States, the Census Bureau says that the post-1850 peak was in 1890 when 14.8% of residents were foreign born, followed closely by 1910 when 14.7% were foreign born.

    Pew estimates that the US will break these records around 2025. Soon we'll have to go back to the mid-1700s to find a period in American history with a level of immigration we will be experiencing in the near future.

    Omar , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:40 am
    Well written article. Thank you.
    bkh , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:41 am
    -Vince Hill said: "What the elites don't understand is that there are lot more of us than of them. If they try to take the election away from the people who support President Trump. They will have a war on their hands and not a war of words."

    Those masses are not relevant to those "Elites" and are cannon fodder. The term "Deplorables" says it all. The masses are not worthy of any consideration. Those "Deplorables" are an obstacle to be eliminated for the greater good. You don't need shadow govt conspiracies to see this kind of stuff anymore. The blatant lies and manipulations from DC and the media originating from Dems and Repubs is there for all to see. The 2016 election cycle was a wake-up call. Neither candidate was fit to be a President. Both are crooked. Yet, the majority of sheep on both sides continue toward their slaughter. Trump may yet get us blown to bits, but I no longer care about saving the status quo. The majority of people have spoken in this this country and we have been broken for many Presidencies. The future of this nation, as is, is ugly, if one exists at all.

    EliteCommInc. , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:44 am
    Mr. Trump is not the issue. And from what I have come to understand about Washington language from top to bottom, his language isn't the issue either, in my view.

    Whether he is unfit cannot even be addressed though I suspect he is, if one examines the long history of the office. I don't have any doubt that Mr Trump is an effective admin as head of state. As a non-politician, there may be some issues. And his policy and social positions may not square with my own. But that alone would not make him unfit. His temperament would not take unfit either. But having to sift through the emotional tantrums of so many in leadership, influence and power to make that assessment is a very tough slog.

    Now we have a secret source that indicates a Mr. Trump did something or other in pressing for an end of needless investigations, as any CEO might, if said investigations were hindering the effectiveness of his tenure. And clearly its a disruptive fire. The seed of which were laid immediately as it became clear that Mr Trump, now Pres Trump was a contender. There was talk of impeachment before the election, and while I appreciated the "heads up", it was disappointing that the agenda for the net four years was to impeachment a man even before he took office.

    I once said that Mr Trump was be given the royal "black treatment" and I stand by those comments. Everything he does, says, is a minefield. There are no mines, but there are explosions from multiple corners. I have to say, even some of the authors on TAC are are straining credulity, credibility with their "end of the world", "doom and gloom" commentary. The minefield, once again has not evidence, but rather, so and so said thus. There's nothing documented that Pres Trump has done anything to hinder anything about Russia or Gen Flynn. This type of scrutiny makes it impossible to do one's job.

    I have been in communication for a long long time. And while my life is but a wreck at the moment. I have had some successes in competitive speech, and coaching. When I did my master's degree, I was unfit for teaching as a grad assistant. Not because of a lack of skill, knowledge or expertise, but because by every measure I had. What made the post a total disaster was the scrutiny as if I I had never done anything of the kind. If you have been teaching a while, there are things you know that a grad just have a clue about. My adviser attempted to fit my roundness into a nonexistent square peg. The entire graduate program was a disaster and a disaster in every way. They simply had no clue how to manage someone who had long past graduate level knowledge or experience. And much to failure, I did, wouldn't, couldn't communicate that fact, though given the internal politics of the place, I doubt it would have mattered. The behaviors were at best dysfunctional at worst criminal. If I wasn't already highly suspicious, by the time I left, I was certainly distrustful. I was asked if I wanted to pursue legal redress - the idea of that mess has always been a route to be avoided, save for defense. "People are people, and sometimes they just do dumb stuff," was my attitude. I was probably incorrect, dumb, innocent or malicious it was deeply beyond the pail.

    Pres. Trump has entered an arena in which he has no respite from the attack or question of every aspect of his being and on every matter. While, a Pres should expect scrutiny, what he has been subjected is over Everest unreasonable and reasoned. The constant hyperbolic crisis mongering from people who supposedly have a better temperament, judiciousness, and higher moral code is a tad bit "funny".

    No. Humorous.

    What is in play and of deep concern are the repeated manufactured crisis to disrupt his tenure Crisis mongering that began shortly after 9/11 and has progressed with increasing speed, oddly enough when actual crisis have subsided. Aside form the economy, the country faces no "real" threat beyond securing the border.

    Given our rather carelessness action in the region of the middle east, we had better obey the security protocols prior to 9/11 any of which would have prevented the attack or severely diminished its success. Checking expired passports would have been helpful – devastating to the attackers.

    In Compton, Detroit, NYC, Tallahassee, Birmingham, there are hard working folks trying to figure out how they are going to compete against the immigrant who's labor is cheaper, who doesn't contribute to the community as much as they draw. They are trying to figure out how to be fair to their issues, without starving their own. They are doing everything possible to avoid being "deplorable" and always have. And yet the representatives of their locals are about dealing with muckraking needlessly.

    -----
    "Sad!"

    Boy. it's not a good sign when you are sad. Stay fiesty!

    Those in opposition made it clear where they stood before the election. And Mr. Trump has just started to climb this long hill.

    EliteCommInc. , says: May 18, 2017 at 11:49 am
    There's no reason for the war to turn violent, we are some distance from that turn and even the suggestion is hard to hear.

    It suggests a state of threat that need not be aired. In many ways, this situation is airing out the problem, for those brave enough to acknowledge it.

    Though avoiding confrontation of any kind hasn't aided me much, I admit.

  • [May 19, 2017] Jingoism and Russophobia in NYT

    Notable quotes:
    "... One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug.... ..."
    "... Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug.... ..."
    "... Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug.... ..."
    "... WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts.... ..."
    "... Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say.... ..."
    May 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne , May 19, 2017 at 07:26 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/23/opinion/david-brooks-snap-out-of-it.html

    September 22, 2014

    Snap Out of It
    By David Brooks

    President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a lone thug sitting atop a failing regime....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/22/opinion/thomas-friedman-putin-and-the-pope.html

    October 21, 2014

    Putin and the Pope
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    One keeps surprising us with his capacity for empathy, the other by how much he has become a first-class jerk and thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/opinion/sunday/thomas-l-friedman-whos-playing-marbles-now.html

    December 20, 2014

    Who's Playing Marbles Now?
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    Let us not mince words: Vladimir Putin is a delusional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/opinion/paul-krugman-putin-neocons-and-the-great-illusion.html

    December 21, 2014

    Conquest Is for Losers: Putin, Neocons and the Great Illusion
    By Paul Krugman

    Remember, he's an ex-K.G.B. man - which is to say, he spent his formative years as a professional thug....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/thomas-friedman-czar-putins-next-moves.html

    January 27, 2015

    Czar Putin's Next Moves
    By Thomas L. Friedman

    ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be in danger....

    anne - , May 19, 2017 at 07:26 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/world/middleeast/white-house-split-on-opening-talks-with-putin.html

    September 15, 2015

    Obama Weighing Talks With Putin on Syrian Crisis
    By PETER BAKER and ANDREW E. KRAMER

    WASHINGTON - Mr. Obama views Mr. Putin as a thug, according to advisers and analysts....

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/opinion/mr-putins-mixed-messages-on-syria.html

    September 20, 2015

    Mr. Putin's Mixed Messages on Syria

    Mr. Obama considers Mr. Putin a thug, his advisers say....

    [May 19, 2017] The witch hunt is an order of magnitude worse than during the runup to the Iraq War by Lambert Strether

    Notable quotes:
    "... Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" ..."
    "... The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" [ Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens. ..."
    "... Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" ..."
    May 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Lambert Strether of Corrente

    New Cold War

    Well, this ratchets up the hysteria a notch:

    I'm genuinely amazed. The cray cray is an order of magnitude worse than the run-up to the Iraq War. Go ahead and read the article; the thesis is that Russian bots on the Twitter are a bigger threat to the United States than the fake stories the Bush White House planted in the press to start the Iraq War. As always, the scandal is what's normal. Oh, and when did James " Not Wittingly " Clapper emerge as a Hero of The Republic? Did I not get the memo? Presenting Clapper as a defender of "the very foundation of our democratic political system" (his words) is like presenting Jerry Sandusky as a defender of the value of cold showers.

    "More than 10 centrist Republicans over the past 48 hours have criticized Trump for reportedly sharing classified information with Russian officials or allegedly trying to quash an FBI investigation" [ Politico ].

    "Two moderate Senate Republicans suggest the need to consider a special prosecutor" [ WaPo ]. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). This happened well before the Rosenstein announcement; I'm guessing it was the crack in the dam.

    "4 Reasons Why Robert Mueller Is an Ideal Special Counsel" [ The Nation ]. "[Mueller] was among the individuals in the Justice Department who assembled at Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital bedside in 2004 to block the Bush White House's attempt to renew a surveillance policy that Mueller and others, including James Comey, deemed to be illegal." That's good, but 2017 – 2004 = 13 years. That's a long time for a halo to stay buffed (as we saw with Comey).

    "Unfortunately, while identifying this past week as the proverbial 'beginning of the end' for Herr Donald's presidency isn't all that hard, untangling precisely why the President won't be able to weather this storm and will eventually be abandoned by the Republican Party is a little more difficult; especially in light of the fact that partisan mainstream liberals are still shouting objectively insane conspiracy theories about Russiagate even though Trump's total lack of respect for his job and fat f*cking mouth have all but handed them his political a** on a platter" [ Nina Illingworth ]. Maybe Nina will "untangle" this in a later post.

    The headline: "Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources" [ Reuters ]. The body: "The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far." Ah, the sources are "people." Excellent. We're making real progress, here. I mean, at least they aren't dinosaurs or space aliens.

    UPDATE "The Media Elite Is Indulging Dangerous Fantasies About Removing Trump From Office"

    [ The Federalist ]. I don't often agree with the Federalist, but I think this is a good perspective. "The country is deeply divided. People have taken to attacking each other in the streets and threatening congressmen when they venture outside Washington. We're still recovering from a presidential election that actually ended marriages and tore families apart. Trump's election was, more than anything else, a giant middle finger to the political establishment, which has lost the confidence of the American people. If now seems like the right time for that establishment to launch an unconstitutional coup to remove the president through a specious application of the 25th Amendment, then I respectfully submit that you're underestimating the precariousness of national life at this moment." Another way of thinking about this: Who, exactly, makes the case to the American people? That somebody would have to be an elected official trusted by the great majority of the American people (and most definitely not a gaggle of long-faced politicians sitting at a big table). Who would that somebody be? Paul Ryan? Joe Lieberman? Jimmy Carter? Oprah? Walter Cronkite is dead. So is Mr. Rogers. So who, exactly? Some general? Which?

    "Leakers From the Deep State Need to Face Criminal Charges" [ FOX News ] and "Kucinich: 'Deep State' Trying to 'Destroy The Trump Presidency'" [ FOX News ]. I juxtapose these to show the vacuity of the term "deep state." Can you imagine FOX saying "ruling class" or "factional conflicts in the ruling class"? No?

    [May 18, 2017] The Most Important Question That No One Is Asking...

    May 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    We note that King's comments - somewhat defending President Trump - come shortly after Senator McCain's Trump-defending comments... did Trump 'cross the aisle' to the neocons?

    > > > >

    [May 17, 2017] The more you push in the particular direction using illegal means, the more are chances that the opposite result might occur

    May 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova said in reply to Christopher H.... May 17, 2017 at 08:28 PM "Trump is actually a backlash to neoliberal policies."

    Very true. "Blowback" as the "deep state" calls such things.

    It means that the more you push in the particular direction using illegal means, the more are chances that the opposite result might occur.

    The greater fuss over North Korea, the more rapidly it develops its weapons, and simultaneously grows the range of its ballistic missiles making it a real security threat for the USA, instead of a fake one -- a pretext to deploy anti-missile systems against China and Russia in South Korea.

    The more the US prolongs the illegal occupation of Afghanistan (which for some reason is called "war") the easier for Taliban is to recruit foot solders, who often lost family members from drones and will fight with double ferocity, not avoiding but sometimes seeking suicidal missions to extract the revenge.

    The more the USA tries to decapitate Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan using extra-law killings by drones, victim of which are often civilians and sometimes only civilians (when for example a wedding was hit), the easier for Al-Qaeda to grow strength in countries from Uganda to Uzbekistan because strength of Al-Qaeda is also amplified by each such killing, as well as each turn of the US imperial policy (Iraq and Libya are two examples).

    Strangely, Trump first appeared to the American electorate dressed in the garb of an paleoconservative isolationist, who questioned the relevance of NATO, thought the Iraq war was a disaster, and wanted détente with Russia.

    Fast forward 100 days, and his wardrobe change is breathtaking.

    So now it is unclear why "intelligence community" is still trying to replace him -- he is one of their own. But blowback from his impeachment (a dream of many neoliberal democrats here) might be pretty strong, if nor ferocious. A real blowback.

    In such cases an old saying is applicable: "There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your heart's desire. The other is to gain it."

    [May 17, 2017] Demonization of Russia that neoliberal DemoRats enjoy is not a policy. This is an attempt to create an alibi for Hillary fiasco

    May 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    pgl , May 17, 2017 at 11:28 AM

    Paul Ryan shows zero interest in investigating whether Trump obstructed justice or is in bed with the Russian government. Why? He needs to get these massive tax cuts for the 1% and take away from the "moochers" first.
    libezkova, May 17, 2017 at 07:12 PM
    " in bed with the Russian government."

    Are you a closet neocon ?

    libezkova, May 17, 2017 at 07:37 PM
    Demonization of Russia that people like PGL enjoy is not a policy. This is an attempt to create an alibi for Hillary fiasco.

    And as any witch hunt this is an obstacle to thinking rationally, of having a rational discourse about proper role of Russia in enhancing American national security.

    Which of cause is impossible with imperial pretension of Washington neocons.

    In any case Clinton's attempt to colonize Russia failed and after Yugoslavia war the USA neocons are responsible for the deteriorating relations.

    Taking into account complexity of modern weapon systems and the fact the USA has just 30 min and Russia 10-15 min for reacting to any emerging threat of rocket attack, my impression is that Washington is full of psychopaths, who enjoy walking on the blade edge. Kind of self-selection.

    Public is so successfully brainwashed that even mentioning the fact that Putin probably does not vivisect kittens provokes a strong negative reaction.

    Invoking Goodwin law there were already a country with the population brainwashed to the same extent.

    See Professor Stephen F. Cohen comments at

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/rethinking-russia-a-conve_b_7744498.html

    [May 17, 2017] The corporate media isnt interested in the truth or rationality. Russia is bad and needs to be destroyed is the narrative of the deep state that needs to be perpetuated.

    Hey this is blasphemous non-sense! Putin vivisects kittens for pleasure! We aren't supposed to think rationally about any of this. One of the foremost experts on Russia, Princeton's Stephen F. Cohen is rarely heard in the U.S. because the corporate media isn't interested in the truth or rationality. There is always some narrative of the deep state that needs to be perpetuated.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia. ..."
    "... Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. ..."
    "... Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post ..."
    "... And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there. ..."
    "... Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ... ..."
    "... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ... ..."
    May 17, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    Last week I had the honor of interviewing Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton University, where for many years he was director of its Russian Studies program. Professor Cohen, a long-time friend of Mikhail Gorbachev, is one of the most important Russia scholars in the world and a member of the founding board of directors of the American Committee for East-West Accord , a pro-detente organization that seeks rethinking and public discussion of U.S. policy toward Russia.

    Despite his impressive credentials and intimate knowledge of Russia and its history, you will rarely hear Cohen's voice in the mainstream press. And it is not for a lack of trying; his views, and those of others like him, are simply shut out of the media, which, along with almost every U.S. politician, has decided to vilify Russian and Putin, irrationally equating Putin with such tyrants as Adolf Hitler. As Cohen explains:

    Even Henry Kissinger - I think it was in March 2014 in the Washington Post - wrote this line: "The demonization of Putin is not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy."

    And then I wrote in reply to that: That's right, but it's much worse than that, because it's also that the demonization of Putin is an obstacle to thinking rationally, having a rational discourse or debate about American national security. And it's not just this catastrophe in Ukraine and the new Cold War; it's from there to Syria to Afghanistan, to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to fighting global terrorism. The demonization of Putin excludes a partner in the Kremlin that the U.S. needs, no matter who sits there.

    And Cohen reminds us that, quite contrary to the common, manufactured perception in this country, we have a very willing and capable potential partner in Moscow right now. As Cohen explains, "Bill Clinton said this not too long ago: To the extent that he knew and dealt with Putin directly, he never knew him to say anything that he, Putin, didn't mean, or ever to go back on his word or break a promise he made to Clinton."

    What's more, as Cohen reminds us, when the 9/11 attacks happened, Putin was the very first international leader to offer help to President Bush:

    Putin called George Bush after 9/11 and said, "George, we're with you, whatever we can do," and in fact did more to help the Americans fight a land war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban from Kabul. ... Russia still had a lot of assets in Afghanistan, including a fighting force called the Northern Alliance. It had probably better intelligence in and about Afghanistan than any country, and it had air-route transport for American forces to fight in Afghanistan. He gave all this - Putin gave all this - to the Bush administration. Putin's Kremlin, not a member of NATO, did more to help the American land war and save American lives, therefore, in Afghanistan, than any NATO country.

    However, as Cohen explains, Bush strangely repaid Putin by (1) unilaterally withdrawing from the anti-ballistic (ABM) treaty, the "bedrock" of Russia's national security, and (2) launching the second wave of NATO expansion toward Russia.

    And, as Cohen points out, this was not the only case in which the U.S. quite brazenly betrayed Russia in recent decades. Thus he notes that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all violated the very clear agreement that, in return for Gorbachev's allowing the reunification of Germany, the U.S. would not move NATO one inch further east. In addition, the U.S. undermined then-President Medvedev (who we claim to prefer to Putin) by unseating Gaddafi in Libya - with disastrous consequences - despite our promise to Russia that we would do no such thing if Russia agreed to the Security Council resolution approving the no-fly zone over Libya.

    All of this history must be considered when we view the current crisis in Ukraine, which, Cohen warns, is quickly leading to a hot war with Russia. As Cohen relates:

    If you took even the short time frame of the Ukrainian crisis and you began it in November 2013, when the then-elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, didn't actually refuse to sign the European Union's offer of a partnership with Europe. He asked for time to think about it. That brought the protesters in the streets. That led to the illegal overthrow of Yanukovych, which, by the way, Poroshenko, the current president, strangely now admits was illegal. ...

    Then comes Putin's annexation or reunification of Crimea, as Russians call it. Then already evolving now in Eastern Ukraine are protests against what's happening in Kiev, because Eastern Ukraine was the electoral base of Yanukovych. Yanukovych was its president in a fundamental way. Then comes the proxy war, with Russia helping the rebel fighters in Eastern Ukraine and the United States and NATO helping the military forces of Kiev. ...

    And so it went, on and on. Now, if you back up and ask who began the aggression, it's my argument - for which I'm called a "Putin apologist," which I am not - ... but the reality is that Putin has been mostly reactive. Let me say that again: reactive. If we had the time, I could explain to you why the reportedly benign European Union offer to Kiev in 2013 was not benign at all. No Ukrainian who wanted to survive could have accepted that. And by the way, it had clauses buried below that would've obliged Kiev to adhere to NATO military security policy. ...

    Ukraine had been on Washington's agenda for a very, very long time; it is a matter of public record. It was to that that Putin reacted. It was to the fear that the new government in Kiev, which overthrew the elected government, had NATO backing and its next move would be toward Crimea and the Russian naval base there. ... But he was reacting, and as Kiev began an all-out war against the East, calling it the "anti-terrorist operation," with Washington's blessing. ...

    This was clearly meant to be a war of destruction. ... Meanwhile, NATO began escalating its military presence. In each of these stages, a very close examination will show, as I'm sure historians will when they look back, that Putin has been primarily reactive. Now maybe his reactions have been wrong-headed. Maybe they've been too aggressive. That's something that could be discussed. ...

    But this notion that this is all Putin's aggression, or Russia's aggression, is, if not 100-percent false, let us say, for the sake of being balanced and ecumenical, it's 50-percent false. And if Washington would admit that its narrative is 50-percent false, which means Russia's narrative is 50-percent correct, that's where negotiations begin and succeed.

    I can only hope that the policy makers in this country will hear the voices of people like Professor Cohen and enter into rational negotiations with Russia in order that we may be spared what is shaping up to be a disastrous war in Europe.

    Follow Dan Kovalik on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danielmkovalik

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef

    But underlying all of this, and all the furor, is a fundamental assumption. It's a term that's used constantly in the media and by the various political pundits on the media, which is "Russia is our adversary." You have to basically assume that the adversary, Russia, has an antagonistic relationship with the United States, and then underneath all of that, then you have Flynn and Comey investigation and so on. Because if Russia isn't the great adversary, then it's unlikely there'd be such a to-do about all of this.

    You know your opponent is a great master when you realize no one on this side is addressing that assumption.

    The bystanders, like us, are all too busy trying to find out if Trump didn't do this or he did do that.

    RMO May 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    We survived the original cold war (just barely and by chance – go ahead and look up how many times we came within a gnat's eyelash of global Armageddon) w don't need another one. The Washington DC elite have gone so far round the bend that General Jack D. Ripper looks calm, sane and trustworthy by comparison.

    Chauncey Gardiner

    Thanks for this informative interview with Robert English. I too share the view that a significant opportunity was squandered in the early to mid-1990s to build a constructive relationship with Russia, with the key actors mostly those who were unable to put the Cold War behind them, and who used the opportunity to debilitate Russia economically and expand U.S. power globally; as well as US and Western European financial and economic interests to a more limited extent.

    That the Trump administration is attempting to move the needle toward a more constructive geopolitical and economic relationship with Russia is a positive development IMO, as I agree with Trump that U.S. and Russian geopolitical, economic and environmental interests are often aligned, albeit not always. However, I remain concerned about global organized crime, oligarchic political and economic control, corruption and impairment of civil liberties, issues which transcend national boundaries and are not unique to Russia; and those politicians and their sponsors in the U.S. who are seeking expanded military conflict.

    I view the conversation reflected in this interview on two levels: Those predominantly interested in preserving (the perception of) U.S. global hegemony, and those primarily seeking to disempower and replace Trump as president, although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups. In any event, there is little question who presently has the media megaphone. It has been educational to see how pervasive their narrative can be.

    [May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
    "... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
    "... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
    "... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
    "... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
    "... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
    "... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
    "... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
    "... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
    "... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
    "... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
    "... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
    "... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

    For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

    When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

    The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

    The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

    The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

    No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

    So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

    The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

    There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

    Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

    The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

    Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    " The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

    On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

    Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
    MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
    Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

    Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

    Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

    EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Avoiding the minutia.

    I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

    Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

    I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

    I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

    I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

    Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

    Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

    __________

    And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

    Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
    How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

    No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

    Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

    What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

    But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

    Good greif . . .

    Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

    Some relevant material on intel:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

    http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

    But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

    You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

    You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

    Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

    Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

    But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

    You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

    That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

    One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

    KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
    collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
    charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
    Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

    [May 16, 2017] Trump facing shark tank feeding frenzy from military industrial media

    Notable quotes:
    "... o start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. ..."
    "... There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia. ..."
    "... Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.rt.com
    There are elements of the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with Russia, Jim Jatras, former US diplomat, told RT.

    Political analyst John Bosnitch joins the discussion. US President Trump said his White House meeting last week with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov ranged from airline safety to terrorism. A Washington Post story, however, has accused the American leader of revealing classified information to Russian officials.

    RT: What's your take on it? Is the media on to something big here?

    Jim Jatras: To start with, again, this is from the Washington Post and an unnamed source. So you do have to doubt the accuracy of the information knowing the vendetta the Washington Post and other mainstream media have against the Trump administration and against President Trump personally and how much they want to disrupt any kind of cooperation with Russia against the terrorist threat. I would say that was the first thing.

    'I was in the room. It didn't happen' - National Security Advisor H.R. #McMaster https://t.co/gVIHigqXaT

    - RT America (@RT_America) 15 мая 2017 г.

    Second, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Deputy of National Security Adviser Dina Powell, who were both in the meeting, have stated since the Washington Post article appeared – there was nothing discussed with Mr. [Sergey] Lavrov and Mr. [Sergey] Kislyak that compromised what they call "sources and methods" that would lead to any kind of intelligence vulnerability on the part of the US. But rather this was all part of a discussion of common action against ISIS. Those are the first things to be noted

    Let's remember that there are elements of what we call the 'Deep State' here who are very opposed to the things Donald Trump said during the campaign. They don't want to cooperate with the Russians; they don't want improved relations with Moscow. And let's be honest, they have a very strong investment in the various jihadist groups that we have supported for the past six years trying to overthrow the legitimate government in Damascus. I am sure there are people – maybe in the National Security Council, maybe in the Staff, maybe in the State Department – who are finding some way to try and discredit the Trump administration. The question is where is the investigation into these leaks? Who is going to hold these people accountable?

    RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources.' Could it have a hidden agenda here?

    JJ: Of course. In fact, I would even go further. I wouldn't be at all surprised if President Trump timed his firing with the FBI Director James Comey – what some people even pointed out – he himself in one of his tweets says "drain the swamp." One of the first elements was getting rid of the principals of the Deep State who have been trying to hijack his policy; that he did this precisely because he was meeting with Mr. Lavrov and Mr. Kislyak the next day. He's shoving it in their face, saying: "I am moving forward with my program." And I think that's the reason we're getting this hysteria building around the Russians, the Russians, the Russians when what we need is to move forward on an America First national security policy.

    'US policy today: Aircraft, where co-pilots try to override pilots' (Op-Edge) https://t.co/x153yPtqVS

    - RT (@RT_com) 16 мая 2017 г.

    RT: Do you think mainstream media is a part of something big and controlled all over from the top?

    JJ: Absolutely. There is a whole structure of what people call the 'Deep State' establishment, the oligarchy – whatever you want to call it. Of course, the mainstream media is part of this. It includes all the Democrats, who were very easy on the Soviet Union when it was Communist. But now that it is not Communist under Russia, they have a deep, very deep hatred of Russia, and they don't want any kind of rapprochement with Russia.

    And unfortunately, there are Republicans who sympathize with this agenda, as well. I think we can say at this point that Mr. Trump is only partially in control of the apparatus of government. He does not yet have complete control and that there is a frantic effort by these elements to make sure he is not able to get control of the American government and carry out the policies he talked about.

    #Trump says he had 'absolute right' to share data on flight safety & terrorism with Russia https://t.co/U6h9FW2ZKy pic.twitter.com/eFBIRhVaI3

    - RT (@RT_com) 16 мая 2017 г.
    The 'military industrial media'

    The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media,' John Bosnitch , political analyst, told RT.

    RT: The media has run with this. Are they on to something big here?

    John Bosnitch: I wouldn't say so. I've worked in this field for three decades. I don't see a scrap of evidence here. But I do see like a shark tank of media feeding – no evidence.

    RT: Trump attacked Hillary Clinton as being unreliable with state secrets. Can the same now be said of him?

    JB: Trump is the chief executive officer of the United States of America. As the chief executive officer of the country, he has full legal and constitutional authority to use state secrets in the conduct of diplomacy. He's also the chief diplomat of the country. So there is a big difference between the chief executive officer deciding what information he can share in conducting of state policy, and Hillary Clinton deciding as a cabinet minister which laws she chooses to obey, and which ones she doesn't.

    'You cannot reset:' No way for US & Russia to start over 'with clean slate' – #Tillerson https://t.co/vC71YbLpQL

    - RT (@RT_com) 15 мая 2017 г.

    RT: The mainstream media is going on little more than 'anonymous sources'... could it have a hidden agenda here?

    JB: I don't see any other possibility, whatsoever. Let's not play the game of dividing the so-called mainstream media from its owners. The mainstream media of the US is owned lock, stock, and barrel by the military industrial complex. If you want to call it anything, you can call it the 'military media.' The military makes money by making war; they buy the media to promote war. They use the media to promote propaganda in favor of war. And that is where we get into the mess we're in today. Because we have a president who is a businessman and would prefer to make money, and would prefer to put people to work in any industry other than war. The military industrial media in the United States is depending on being able to speak to a captive audience of uninformed viewers The military controls the media because they own them.

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    [May 16, 2017] The Real Meaning of Sensitive Intelligence by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal. ..."
    "... The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. ..."
    "... McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations." ..."
    "... The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode. ..."
    "... In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting. ..."
    "... The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel. ..."
    "... And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council. ..."
    "... You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk. ..."
    "... I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others. ..."
    "... Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks. ..."
    "... And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start. ..."
    "... In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC! ..."
    "... I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything. ..."
    May 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Intelligence agencies and senior government officials tend to use a lot of jargon. Laced with acronyms, this language sometimes does not translate very well into journalese when it hits the media.

    For example, I experienced a sense of disorientation two weeks ago over the word "sensitive" as used by several senators, Sally Yates, and James Clapper during committee testimony into Russiagate. "Sensitive" has, of course, a number of meanings. But what astonished me was how quickly the media interpreted its use in the hearings to mean that the conversations and emails that apparently were recorded or intercepted involving Trump associates and assorted Russians as "sensitive contacts" meant that they were necessarily inappropriate, dangerous, or even illegal.

    When Yates and Clapper were using "sensitive" thirteen times in the 86 page transcript of the Senate hearings, they were referring to the medium rather than the message. They were both acknowledging that the sources of the information were intelligence related, sometimes referred to as "sensitive" by intelligence professionals and government insiders as a shorthand way to describe that they are "need to know" material derived from either classified "methods" or foreign-liaison partners. That does not mean that the information contained is either good or bad or even true or false, but merely a way of expressing that the information must be protected because of where it came from or how it was developed, hence the "sensitivity."

    The word also popped up this week in a Washington Post exclusive report alleging that the president had, in his recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, gone too far while also suggesting that the source of a highly classified government program might be inferred from the context of what was actually revealed. The Post describes how

    The information Trump relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said. The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said that Trump's decision to do so risks cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.

    The Post is unfortunately also providing ISIS with more information than it "needs to know" to make its story more dramatic, further compromising the source. Furthermore, it should be understood that the paper is extremely hostile to Trump, the story is as always based on anonymous sources, and the revelation comes on top of another unverifiable Post article claiming that the Russians might have sought to sneak a recording device into the White House during the visit.

    No one is denying that the president discussed ISIS in some detail with Lavrov, but National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, both of whom were present at the meeting, have denied that any sources or methods were revealed while reviewing with the Russians available intelligence. McMaster described the report as "false" and informed the Post that "The president and the foreign minister reviewed common threats from terrorist organizations to include threats to aviation. At no time were any intelligence sources or methods discussed and no military operations were disclosed that were not already known publicly." Tillerson commented that "the nature of specific threats were (sic) discussed, but they did not discuss sources, methods, or military operations."

    So the question becomes to what extent can an intelligence mechanism be identified from the information that it produces. That is, to a certain extent, a judgment call. The president is able on his own authority to declassify anything, so the legality of his sharing information with Russia cannot be challenged. What is at question is the decision-making by an inexperienced president who may have been showing off to an important foreign visitor by revealing details of intelligence that should have remained secret. The media will no doubt be seeking to magnify the potential damage done while the White House goes into damage control mode.

    The media is claiming that the specific discussion with Lavrov that is causing particular concern is related to a so-called Special Access Program , or SAP, sometimes referred to as "code word information." An SAP is an operation that generates intelligence that requires special protection because of where or how it is produced. In this case, the intelligence shared with Lavrov appears to be related to specific ISIS threats, which may include planned operations against civilian aircraft, judging from Trump's characteristically after-hours tweets defending his behavior, as well as other reporting.

    There have also been reports that the White House followed up on its Lavrov meeting with a routine review of what had taken place. Several National Security Council members observed that some of the information shared with the Russians was far too sensitive to disseminate within the U.S. intelligence community. This led to the placing of urgent calls to NSA and CIA to brief them on what had been said.

    Based on the recipients of the calls alone, one might surmise that the source of the information would appear to be either a foreign-intelligence service or a technical collection operation, or even both combined. The Post claims that the originator of the intelligence did not clear its sharing with the Russians and raises the possibility that no more information of that type will be provided at all in light of the White House's apparent carelessness in its use. The New York Times , in its own reporting of the story, initially stated that the information on ISIS did not come from an NSA or CIA operation, and later reported that the source was Israel.

    The Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov "granular" information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences. That projection may be overreach, but the fact is that the latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East while reinforcing the widely held impression that Washington does not know how to keep a secret. It will also create the impression that Donald Trump, out of ignorance or hubris, exhibits a certain recklessness in his dealing with classified information, a failing that he once attributed to his presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    And President Trump has one more thing to think about. No matter what damage comes out of the Lavrov discussion, he has a bigger problem. There are apparently multiple leakers on his National Security Council.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    This article has been updated to reflect news developments.

    Thymoleontas, says: May 16, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    " The latest gaffe from the White House could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East "

    On the other hand, it also represents closer collaboration with Russia–even if unintended–which is an improvement on the status quo ante and, not to mention, key to ending the conflict in Syria.

    Dies Irae , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:38 pm
    You have McMaster himself who categorically denies any exposure of sources and methods – he was there in person and witness to the talks – and a cloud of unknown witnesses not present speculating, without reference to McMaster or Tillerson's testimony, about what might have happened. This is the American Media in a nutshell, the Infinite Circle Jerk.
    MM , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:44 pm
    Out of my depth, but was Trump working within the framework, maybe a bit outside if the story is true, of the Joint Implementation Group the Obama administration created last year with Russia?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/07/13/Editorial-Opinion/Graphics/terms_of_reference_for_the_Joint_Implementation_Group.pdf?tid=a_inl

    Also, I recall reading that the prior administration promised Russia ISIS intel. Not sure if that ever happened, but I doubt they'd have made it public or leak anything to the press.

    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Apr 21, 2017 Ike and McCarthy: Dwight Eisenhower's Secret Campaign against Joseph McCarthy

    Author David A. Nichols reveals how President Dwight D. Eisenhower masterminded the downfall of the anti-Communist demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy.

    https://youtu.be/FAY_9aQMVbQ

    EliteCommInc , says: May 16, 2017 at 12:57 pm
    Avoiding the minutia.

    I think it should go without saying that intelligence is a sensitive business and protecting those who operate in its murky waters is important to having an effective agency.

    Of course the Pres of the US has a duty to do so.

    I have not yet read the post article. But I am doubtful that the executive had any intention of putting anyone in harms way. I am equally doubtful that this incident will. If the executive made an error in judgement, I am sure it will be dealt wit in an appropriate manner.

    I do wish he'd stop tweeting, though I get why its useful to him.

    I am more disturbed how this story got into the press. While, not an ally, I think we should in cooperation with other states. Because the Pres is not familiar with the protocols and language and I doubt any executive has been upon entering office, I have no doubt he may be reacting or overreacting to the overreaction of others.

    Here's a word. We have no business engaging n the overthrow of another government that is no threat to the US or her allies, and that includes Israel. Syria is not. And we should cease and desist getting further entangled in the messes of the previous executive, his Sec of State and those organizations who seem to e playing with the life blood of the US by engaging if unnecessary risks.

    Just another brier brushfire of a single tumble weed to add to the others in the hope that setting fires in trashcans will make the current exec go away or at least engage in a mea culpa and sign more checks in the mess that is the middle east policy objective that remains a dead end.

    __________

    And if I understand the crumbs given the data provided by the Post, the Times and this article, if one had ill will for the source of said information, they have pretty good idea where to start.

    Cachip , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:12 pm
    How do you know it wasn't intended as pure misdirection?
    Brian W , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent

    No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent, and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/500-years-of-history-shows-that-mass-spying-is-always-aimed-at-crushing-dissent/5364462

    Johann , says: May 16, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Politics is now directly endangering innocent civilians. Because of the leaks and its publication, ISIS for sure now knows that there is an information leak out of their organization. They will now re-compartmentalize and may be successful in breaking that information leak. Innocent airline passenger civilians, American, Russian, or whoever may die as a result. Russia and the US are both fighting ISIS. We are de facto allies in that fight whether some people like it or not. Time to get over it.
    EliteCommInc. , says: May 16, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    Having read the article, uhhh, excuse me, but unlike personal secrets. The purpose of intel is to use to or keep on hand for some-other date. But of that information is related to the security of our interests and certainly a cooperative relationship with Russia is in our interest. Because in the convoluted fight with ISIS/ISIL, Russia is an ally.

    What this belies is the mess of the intelligence community. If in fact, the Russians intend to take a source who provided information that was helpful to them, it would be a peculiar twist of strategic action. The response does tell us that we are in some manner in league with ISIS/ISIL or their supporters so deep that there is a need to protect them, from what is anybody's guess. Because if the information is accurate, I doubt the Russians are going to about killing the source, but rather improving their airline security.

    But if we are in fact attempting to remove Pres Assad, and are in league with ISIS/ISIL in doing so - I get why the advocates of such nonsense might be in a huff. So ISIS/ISISL our one time foe and now our sometimes friend . . .

    Good greif . . .

    Pres Trump is the least of muy concerns when it coes to security.

    Some relevant material on intel:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/327413-how-the-intel-community-was-turned-into-a-political

    http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/intelligence-failures-more-profound-than-president-admits/

    But if I were Pres Trump, I might steer clear of Russia for a while to stop feeding the beast.

    Kurt Gayle , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Philip, back on July 23, 2014, you explained in "How ISIS Evades the CIA" "the inability of the United States government to anticipate the ISIS offensive that has succeeded in taking control of a large part of Iraq." You explained why the CIA had to date had no success in infiltrating ISIS.

    You continued: "Given U.S. intelligence's probable limited physical access to any actual terrorist groups operating in Syria or Iraq any direct attempt to penetrate the organization through placing a source inside would be difficult in the extreme. Such efforts would most likely be dependent on the assistance of friendly intelligence services in Turkey or Jordan. Both Turkey and Jordan have reported that terrorists have entered their countries by concealing themselves in the large numbers of refugees that the conflict in Syria has produced, and both are concerned as they understand full well that groups like ISIS will be targeting them next. Some of the infiltrating adherents to radical groups have certainly been identified and detained by the respective intelligence services of those two countries, and undoubtedly efforts have been made to 'turn' some of those in custody to send them back into Syria (and more recently Iraq) to report on what is taking place. Depending on what arrangements might have been made to coordinate the operations, the 'take' might well be shared with the United States and other friendly governments."

    You then describe the difficulties faced by a Turkish or Jordanian agent trying to infiltrate ISIS: "But seeding is very much hit or miss, as someone who has been out of the loop of his organization might have difficulty working his way back in. He will almost certainly be regarded with some suspicion by his peers and would be searched and watched after his return, meaning that he could not take back with him any sophisticated communications devices no matter how cleverly they are concealed. This would make communicating any information obtained back to one's case officers in Jordan or Turkey difficult or even impossible."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-isis-evades-the-cia/

    Notwithstanding how "difficult or even impossible" such an operation would be - and using the New York Times as your only source for a lot of otherwise completely unsubstantiated information – and admitting that "this is sheer speculation on my part" – you say that "it is logical to assume that the countries that have provided numerous recruits for ISIS [Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia] would have used that fact as cover to carry out a seeding operation to introduce some of their own agents into the ISIS organization."

    Back to the New York Times as your only source, you say that "the Times is also reporting that Trump provided to Lavrov 'granular' information on the city in Syria where the information was collected that will possibly enable the Russians or ISIS to identify the actual source, with devastating consequences."

    But having ventured into the far reaches of that line of speculation, you do admit that "that projection may be overreach." Indeed!

    You go on to characterize the events of the White House meeting with the Russians as "the latest gaffe from the White House" – even though there is absolutely no evidence (outside of the unsubstantiated reports of the Washington Post and the New York Times) that anything to do with the meeting was a "gaffe" – and you further speculate that "it could well damage an important intelligence liaison relationship in the Middle East."

    That is, again, pure speculation on your part.

    One valuable lesson that you've taught TAC readers over the years, Philip: That we need to carefully examine the sources of information – and the sources of dis-information.

    KennethF , says: May 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
    Yet again from Giraldi: the problem isn't that the POTUS is ignorant and incompetent; we should all be more concerned that the Deep State is leaking the proof.
    collin , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:12 pm
    In general I agree with you, but the media was NEVER concerned about the treatment of sensitive material from HRC!
    charley , says: May 16, 2017 at 4:51 pm
    I think he needs to cut back on intelligence sharing with Israel. They do just what the hell they want to do with anything.
    Brad Kain , says: May 16, 2017 at 5:03 pm
    Trump has now essentially confirmed the story from the Post and contradicted the denials from McMaster – he shared specific intelligence to demonstrate his willingness to work with the Russians. Moreover, it seems that Israel was the ally that provided this intelligence. The author and others will defend this, but I can only see this as a reckless and impulsive decision that only causes Russia and our allies to trust the US less.

    [May 15, 2017] Ann Coulter Is Worried The Trump-Haters Were Right

    May 15, 2017 | dailycaller.com
    So there's no wall, and Obama's amnesties look like they are here to stay. Do you still trust Trump?

    Uhhhh. I'm not very happy with what has happened so far. I guess we have to try to push him to keep his promises. But this isn't North Korea, and if he doesn't keep his promises I'm out. This is why we voted for him. I think everyone who voted for him knew his personality was grotesque, it was the issues.

    I hate to say it, but I agree with every line in my friend Frank Bruni's op-ed in The New York Times today. Where is the great negotiation? Where is the bull in the china shop we wanted? That budget the Republicans pushed through was like a practical joke Did we win anything? And this is the great negotiator?

    You said during the election and in columns that if there is no wall it's the end of America.

    Trump was our last shot. I kind of thought it was Romney, and then lo and behold like a miracle Trump comes along. I still believe in Trump_vs_deep_state. I have no regrets for ferociously supporting him. What choice did we have?

    We had no choice. Yeah, I mean, my fingers are still crossed. It's not like I'm out yet, but boy, things don't look good. I've said to other people, "It's as if we're in Chicago and Trump tells us he's going to get us to LA in six days. But for the first three days we are driving towards New York. Yes, it is true he can still turn around and get us to LA in three days, but I'm a little nervous.

    [May 14, 2017] US intervenes in Russian politics but Moscow shrugs it off Asia Times by M.K. Bhadrakumar

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US reaction is prima facie out of sync with President Donald Trump's world view, which he has articulated repeatedly – namely, that it is not the business of the United States to be prescriptive toward other countries on how they ought to handle their domestic issues. ..."
    "... "do not transfer into an obligation to violate its own law." ..."
    Mar 28, 2017 | www.atimes.com
    he Russian-American relationship received a jolt after Washington took exception to the Kremlin's handling of protesters in many Russian cities, including Moscow, at the weekend.

    The US state department's acting spokesman, Mark Toner, told the Russian state news agency TASS in Washington that the US condemned the arrest of the demonstrators – who were protesting against endemic corruption in Russian politics – and demanded that they be released. TASS quoted him as follows:

    "The United States strongly condemns the detention of hundreds of peaceful protesters throughout Russia on Sunday. Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an affront to core democratic values. We were troubled to hear of the arrest of opposition figure Alexei Navalny upon arrival at the demonstration, as well as the police raids on the anti-corruption organization he heads. The United States will monitor this situation, and we call on the government of Russia to immediately release all peaceful protesters."

    The US reaction is prima facie out of sync with President Donald Trump's world view, which he has articulated repeatedly – namely, that it is not the business of the United States to be prescriptive toward other countries on how they ought to handle their domestic issues.

    How far the Trump administration has consciously decided to champion Navalny's political platform, as Barack Obama's administration did, is unclear. More likely, it is holding a can of worms that it has yet to figure out what to do with. Besides, Obama-era holdovers are very much still present in Trump's administration, especially in the foreign policy and intelligence establishment, and they set the pace of day-to-day work.

    Navalny is a prominent Russian opposition figure. He has been lionized in the US, although the Moscow establishment brands him as an agent of foreign powers. Indeed, Radio Liberty & Free Europe, which is US government-funded, has disseminated podcasts espousing Navalny's appeal to the Russian public and highlighting alleged corruption by high state officials. Navalny's main target in recent times has been Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who is a close associate of Putin. What needs to be factored in here is that Russia is also heading for a presidential election in March next year.

    To be sure, there is more to these matters than meets the eye. Such intrusive behaviour by the US in Russia's domestic politics has been deeply resented by the Kremlin in the past and has represented, arguably, the biggest bone of contention the Russian-American relationship during the past several years. However, it is striking that the Kremlin reaction to Toner's statement was rather muted.

    The presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov simply shrugged off the American criticism, saying that Russia's international commitments "do not transfer into an obligation to violate its own law." Peskov took the line that the protests were in violation of Russian regulations on public gatherings, which require organizers to receive permission from the authorities "to avoid schedule conflicts and overcrowding."

    Russia has been highly circumspect in its reactions to American provocations in recent months. When the Obama administration declared 35 Russian diplomats personae non gratae at the end of December, President Vladimir Putin held back from retaliating, stating: "Further steps towards the restoration of Russian-American relations will be built on the basis of the policy which the administration of President D. Trump will carry out."

    However, the Trump administration ought to know that Washington has been lionizing a controversial Russian political personality who was once found guilty of embezzlement.

    When the former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton championed anti-establishment protesters in Moscow during the December 2011 presidential election in Russia, Putin's reaction was sharper. "I looked at the first reaction of our US partners," he said then. "The first thing that the secretary of state [Clinton] did was say that they [the elections] were not honest and not fair, but she had not even yet received the material from the observers. She set the tone for some actors in our country and gave them a signal. They heard the signal and with the support of the US State Department began active work."

    In comparison, Peskov simply rejected Toner's statement as inconsequential. The Kremlin does not want to hold the Trump administration as responsible for crossing the "red line" on US-Russia relations. The door is of course open still for a US-Russian détente. Thus, Moscow will exercise strategic patience and let the Pentagon take its time to seek the Russian military's help or cooperation in Syria. Equally, it stands to reason that US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will go ahead with his planned visit to Moscow on April 12 .

    [May 14, 2017] Turkish-American relations at crossroads by M.K. Bhadrakumar

    May 14, 2017 | www.atimes.com

    When President Donald Trump receives President Recep Erdogan on Tuesday at the White House, his legendary deal-making prowess will be on trial.

    Trump has not been in a tearing hurry to receive Erdogan. During the first 100 days of his presidency, Trump received the leaders of Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan (twice), Iraq and Palestine. Yet, none of them belongs to a NATO member country and or is a crucial "swing" state in Trump's messianic war against the ISIS, as Turkey is.

    Could it be Erdogan's dalliance with the ISIS in the past that put a dampened Trump's enthusiasm for this "strongman"? But then, Saudi Arabia too was promoting al-Qaeda groups in Syria.

    Or, was it Erdogan's growing friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin that discouraged Trump? But then, Trump greeted Egypt's President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in the White House as an old ally.

    Clearly, the only good reason could be that Trump deliberately decided that there is a time for everything – even for meeting Erdogan. Trump thoughtfully let the Turkish referendum on constitutional reform run its course first. Trump now has the answer.

    Erdogan extracted a 'yes' vote in the referendum alright, and is set to concentrate executive power in his hands, but, paradoxically, he is a wounded man, having lost the referendum vote in all major cities, especially Istanbul, which has been his citadel in living memory. Erdogan barely scraped through.

    On the other hand, an invigorated German-French axis following the magnificent election victory of Emmanuel Macron means that a consolidated EU pressure is building on Erdogan to curb his authoritarian drift. Erdogan knows that a rupture of Turkey's ties to the West would have grave economic and political consequences.

    Meanwhile, if Erdogan had calculated that he could play off the US and Russia, that is also not to be. Trump simply outflanked him by opening a line to Putin regarding Syria before he met Erdogan.

    Erdogan has been naïve. The Kremlin won't risk annoying Trump. Détente with the US is an overriding concern for Russia.

    All things taken into account, therefore, Trump did the right thing to meet Erdogan in the fullness of time. Trump's decision to sign the executive order allowing the Pentagon to transfer heavy weapons to the Kurdish militia right on the eve of Erdogan's visit underscores it.

    Trump is looking for a quick victory in Raqqa. The liberation of Raqqa will be prime time news in America. Who'd pay attention anymore to "a showboat" like James Comey when the pictures are beamed from Raqqa into the living rooms in America?

    The Pentagon commanders estimate that the Kurdish militia with US air support will liberate Raqqa successfully and swiftly. Indeed, latest reports suggest that the Kurdish militia has reached within two kilometers of Raqqa city limits.

    Simply put, Erdogan who was hoping to dissuade Trump from aligning with the Kurds will now have to discuss concerns over post-liberation Raqqa. The ground beneath Erdogan's feet has dramatically shifted.

    He still can resort to strategic defiance by resorting to air strikes against the Kurdish militia, similar to the attacks staged by Turkish Air Force on April 25 on the town of Sinjar (Iraqi Kurdistan) and on targets in the Karachok Mountains (north-eastern Syria).

    However, the US and Russian deployments to the Kurdish cantons in northern Syrian show that both Washington and Moscow have factored in such a possibility and have a tacit understanding that only their physical presence might act as a deterrent against Erdogan's adventurism.

    This opens up a tantalizing prospect – US and Russia having an unwritten division of labor to "tame" Erdogan. The Russian diplomacy has shown masterly skill in shepherding Turkish policies away from covert backing for extremist groups towards new directions that help to end the fighting in Syria. The Russia-US cooperation in Syria drastically curbs Erdogan's elbow room.

    What are Erdogan's options? Trump has put him out of business since the US is no longer using Turkish proxies to push the 'regime change' agenda in Syria. The US' retrenchment affects Saudi and Qatari policies, too.

    Will Erdogan retaliate by shutting down Incirlik air base? Such a possibility exists but is unlikely. At any rate, Washington is focused on the liberation of Raqqa, and access to Incirlik is a secondary issue at the moment.

    Besides, Erdogan will be wary of provoking Trump. Apart from the discord over the extradition of Islamist preacher Fetullah Gulen, US is keeping under detention the top executive of Halkbank Mehmet Hakan Attila whom it implicates in the sensational criminal case (which is also linked to Erdogan's immediate family members) regarding abuse of the US financial system to conduct fraudulent transactions on behalf of Iranian entities.

    The bottom line is that Erdogan is running out of options and may be coming under compulsion, finally, to (re)open his own channels to the Kurdish groups. Indeed, Turkey got along well with the leadership of Iraqi Kurdistan and a similar deal can be worked out with Syrian Kurds.

    Being the consummate pragmatist that he is, Erdogan may well decide to pick up the threads of the peace process with Kurds from where he summarily left them in 2015 due to compulsions over forthcoming electoral battles culminating in the March referendum to transform Turkey into a presidential system.

    Significantly, Erdogan has reacted with extraordinary restraint to the Pentagon move to arm Kurds in Syria. He is brooding over his options. Trump can encourage him to seek a deal with Kurds. It may not be the mother of all deals, but a historic deal nonetheless, which will go a long way to stabilizing Syria and the Middle East.

    [May 14, 2017] The Russia Hacking Fiasco No Evidence Required by Mike Whitney

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. ..."
    "... And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment. ..."
    "... Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes. ..."
    "... But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling? ..."
    "... That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia. ..."
    "... For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious. ..."
    "... The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world. ..."
    "... So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. ..."
    "... Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. ..."
    May 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    There's no proof that Russia hacked the US elections. There's no proof that Russian officials or Russian agents colluded with members of the Trump campaign.

    There's no proof that Russia provided material support of any kind for the Trump campaign or that Russian agents hacked Hillary Clinton's emails or that Russian officials provided Wikileaks with emails that were intended to sabotage Hillary's chances to win the election.

    So far, no one in any of the 17 US intelligence agencies has stepped forward and verified the claims of Russian meddling or produced a scintilla of hard evidence that Russia was in anyway involved in the 2016 elections.

    No proof means no proof. It means that the people and organizations that are making these uncorroborated claims have no basis for legal action, no presumption of wrongdoing, and no grounds for prosecution. They have nothing. Zilch. Their claims, charges and accusations are like the soap bubbles we give to our children and grandchildren. The brightly-colored bubbles wobble across the sky for a minute or two and then, Poof, they vanish into the ether. The claims of Russia hacking are like these bubbles. They are empty, unsubstantiated rumors completely devoid of substance. Poof.

    It has been eight months since the inception of this unprecedentedly-pathetic and infinitely-irritating propaganda campaign, and in those eight months neither the media nor the politicos nor the Intel agents who claim to be certain that Russia meddled in US elections, have produced anything that even remotely resembles evidence. Instead, they have trotted out the same lie over and over again ad nauseam from every newspaper, every tabloid and every televised news program in the country. Over and over and over again. The media's persistence is nearly as impressive as its cynicism, which is the one quality that they seem to have mastered. The coverage has been relentless, ubiquitous, pernicious and mendacious. The only problem is that there's not a grain of truth to any of it. It is all 100 percent, unalloyed baloney.

    So it doesn't matter how many Democratic senators and congressmen disgrace themselves by lighting their hair on fire and howling about "evil Putin" or the imaginary "threats to our precious democracy". Nor does it matter how many hyperbolic articles appear in media alleging sinister activities and espionage by diabolical Moscow Central. It doesn't matter because there is have absolutely zero solid evidence to support their ludicrous and entirely politically-motivated claims.

    Whether Russia was involved in the US elections or not, is a matter of pure speculation. But speculation is not sufficient grounds for appointing a special prosecutor, nor are the lies and misinformation that appear daily in our leading newspapers, like the dissembling New York Times, the dissembling Washington Post and the dissembling Wall Street Journal. The call for a special prosecutor is not based on evidence, it is based on politics, the politics of personal destruction. The Democrats and the media want this tool so they can rummage through whatever private information or paperwork anyone in the Trump administration might possess. So while they might not dig up anything relevant to the Russia hacking investigation, they will certainly gather enough sordid or suspicious information to annihilate the people in their crosshairs. And that's precisely what the special prosecutor provision is designed to do; it provides the administration's rivals with the weapons they need to conduct a massive fishing expedition aimed at character assassination and, ultimately, impeachment.

    But, why?

    Because Donald Trump had the audacity to win an election that was earmarked for establishment favorite and globalist warmonger-in-chief, Hillary Clinton. That's what this witch hunt is all about, sour grapes.

    But why has Russia been chosen as the target in this deep state-media scam? What has Russia done to deserve all the negative press and unsupported claims of criminal meddling?

    That's easy. Just look at a map. For the last 16 years, the US has been rampaging across North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Washington intends to control critical oil and natural gas reserves in the ME, establish military bases across Central Asia, and remain the dominant player in an area of that is set to become the most populous and prosperous region of the world. It's the Great Game all over again, only this time-around, Uncle Sam is in the drivers seat not the Queen of England. But one country has upset that plan, blocked that plan, derailed that plan. Russia.

    Russia has stopped Washington's murderous marauding and genocidal depredations in Ukraine and Syria, which is why the US foreign policy establishment is so pissed-off. US elites aren't used to obstacles.

    For the last quarter of a century– since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union– the world has been Washington's oyster. If the president of the United States wanted to invade a country in the Middle East, kill a million people, and leave the place in a smoldering pile of rubble, then who could stop him? Nobody. But now that's all changed. Now evil Putin has thrown up a roadblock to US hegemony in Syria and Ukraine. Now Washington's landbridge to Central Asia has been split in two, and its plan to control vital pipeline corridors from Qatar to the EU is no longer viable. Russia has stopped Washington dead-in-its tracks and Washington is furious.

    The anti-Russia hysteria in the western media is equal to the pain the US foreign policy establishment is currently experiencing. And the reason the foreign policy establishment is in so much pain, is because they are not getting their way. It's that simple. Their global strategy is in a shambles because Russia will not let them topple the Syrian government, install their own puppet regime, redraw the map of the Middle East, run roughshod over international law, and tighten their grip on another battered war-torn part of the world.

    So now Russia must pay. Putin must be demonized and derided. The American people must be taught to hate Russia and all-things Russian. And, most of all, Russia must be blamed for anything and everything under the sun, including the firing of police-state Reichsführer, James Comey, who -- at various times in his career -- "approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration .including torture , warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." (ACLU)

    This is the ethically-challenged scalawag the Democrats are now defending tooth in nail. It's pathetic. Russia has become the all-purpose punching bag because Washington's plans for global domination have gone up in smoke. The truth is, Putin's done us all a big favor.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    [May 14, 2017] Making sense of the super fuse scare by Saker

    May 14, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Understanding counterforce strikes

    Executing a disarming counterforce strike against the USSR and, later, Russia has been an old American dream. Remember Reagan's "Star Wars" program? The idea behind it was simple: to develop the capability to intercept enough incoming Soviet warheads to protect the USA from a retaliatory Soviet counter strike. It would work something like this: destroy, say, 70% of the Soviet ICBM/SLBMs and intercept the remaining 30% before they can reach the USA. This was total nonsense both technologically (the technology did not exist) and strategically (just a few Soviet "leakers" could wipe-out entire US cities, who could take such a risk?). The more recent US deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems in Europe has exactly the same purpose – to protect the USA from a retaliatory counterstrike. Without going into complex technical discussions, let's just say that this point in time, this system would never protect the USA from anything. But in the future, we could imagine such a scenario

    1) The USA and Russia agree to further deep cuts in their nuclear strategic forces thereby dramatically reducing the total number of Russian SLBM/ICBMs.

    2) The USA deploys all around Russia anti-ballistic systems which can catch and destroy Russian missiles in the early phase of their flight towards the USA.

    3) The USA also deploys a number of systems in space or around the USA to intercept any incoming Russian warhead.

    4) The USA having a very large HTK-capable force executes a successful counterforce strike destroying 90% (or so) of the Russian capabilities and then the rest are destroyed during their flight.

    This is the dream. It will never work. Here is why:

    1) The Russians will not agree to deep cuts in their nuclear strategic forces

    2) The Russians already have deployed the capability to destroy the forward deployed US anti-ballistic system in Europe.

    3) Russian warheads and missiles are now maneuverable and can even use any trajectory, including over the South Pole, to reach the USA. New Russian missiles have a dramatically shorter and faster first stage burn period making them much harder to intercept.

    4) Russia's reliance on ballistic missiles will be gradually replaced with strategic (long-range) cruise missiles (more about that later)

    5) This scenario mistakenly assumes that the USA will know where the Russian SLBM launching submarines will be when they launch and that they will be able to engage them (more about that later)

    6) This scenario completely ignores the Russian road-mobile and rail-mobile ICBMs (more about that later)

    Understanding MIRVs

    Before explaining points 4, 5 and 6 above, I need to mention another important fact: one missile can carry either one single warhead or several (up to 12 and more). When a missile carries several independently targetable warheads it is called MIRVed as in "multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle".

    MIRVs are important for several reasons. First, one single missile with 10 warheads can, in theory, destroy 10 different targets. Alternatively, one single missile can carry, say 3-4 real warheads and 6-7 decoys. In practical terms what look like one missile on take-off can turn into 5 real warheads, all targeted at different objectives and another 5 fake decoys designed to make interception that more difficult. MIRVs, however, also present a big problem: they are lucrative targets. If with one of "my" nuclear warheards I can destroy 1 of "your" MIRVed missiles, I lose 1 warhead but you lose 10. This is one of the reasons the USA is moving away from land-based MIRVed ICBMs .

    The important consideration here is that Russia has a number of possible options to chose from and how many of her missiles will be MIRVed is impossible to predict. Besides, all US and Russian SLBMs will remain MIRVed for the foreseeable future (de-MIRVing SLBMs make no sense, really, since the entire nuclear missile carrying submarine (or SSBN) is a gigantic MIRVed launching pad by definition).

    In contrast to MIRVed missile, single warheads missiles are very bad targets to try to destroy using nuclear weapons: even if "my" missile destroys "yours" we both lost 1 missile each. What is the point? Worse, if I have to use 2 of "mine" to make really sure that "yours" is really destroyed, my strike will result in me using 2 warheads in exchange for only 1 of yours. This makes no sense at all.

    Finally, in retaliatory countervalue strikes, MIRVed ICBM/SLBMs are a formidable threat: just one single R-30 Bulava (SS-N-30) SLBM or one single R-36 Voevoda (SS-18) ICBM can destroy ten American cities. Is that a risk worth taking? Say the USA failed to destroy one single Borei-class SSBN – in theory that could mean that this one SSBN could destroy up to 200 American cities (20 SLBMs with 10 MIRVs each).

    How is that for a risk?

    [May 13, 2017] It is delicious watching these NATzO asswipes bitching about Russia building up its DEFENSIVE potential

    Notable quotes:
    "... Anyway, I don't think Trump ever understood this because he believed the big mistake of the Iraq was not winning in 12 months and taking their oil. ..."
    "... Once a nation starts thinking it's exceptional, it's screwed. It's really that simple. ..."
    "... USA made a strategic mistake in the 1990s, focusing on the destruction and the weakening of Russia after the collapse of communism and the collapse of the USSR. ..."
    "... If the US instead went the other way and supported Russia and strengthened its position in the post-Soviet space and in Eastern Europe, now US would have had a good ally in Eurasia, and not on what the Baltic dregs and torn by civil war fascist Ukraine. ..."
    "... Eurasia under the control of the United States, anyway, will not take place for any scenario, but especially now – with the loss of the state of world hegemony. Eurasia under the leadership of Germany, Poland or Ukraine is the same scenario from the category of unscientific fantasy. ..."
    "... Only now, the US should try very hard to, despite the flaws in his politics in the 1990s, to strengthen the position of Russia, and not any other player as Eurasian leader ..."
    "... I think that is the issue. I think we are also being reminded that our exceptionalism does always make us right or intimidate others to do our bidding. That in the long run, it might have been a good idea not to disrupt the lives of others merely because they disagree or live a life different from our own. It fact, needlessly destroying the life of others for the sake of whatever – in unethical, something we used to press for, despite our own imperfections. ..."
    May 13, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    It is delicious watching these NATzO asswipes bitching about Russia building up its DEFENSIVE potential. They are all sore and crapping in their panties that their grand plan to turn Russia into a banana republic has failed. Their deployment of soldiers to the Russian border is just impotent posturing and they are popping veins about Russia continuing to upgrade the readiness and capacity of its armed forces.

    You missed your chance NATzO. Should have gone for Russia's jugular back in 1998. But I think that you didn't have a chance even back then with comprador Yeltsin paving the way. You have zero chances of taking out Russia now and can only dream the retarded dream of some nuclear first strike. ASSuming that Russian ICBMs will be destroyed in their silos and not launched the moment that a first strike is detected. ASSuming that your "stealthy" B-2s and cruise missiles are totally invisible to Russian detection systems and will get to take out their targets before Russian mud hut dwellers know what hit them. All of you hubris-filled chauvinist retards are a collection of ASSes.

    Moscow Exile , May 11, 2017 at 9:01 am

    Never fear, dear Europeans. With such stalwart defenders of freedom and democracy as are soldiers of the US 173rd Air Brigade, shown below, defending Narva, you are in competent and save hands.

    Narva is an Estonian city populated mostly by ethnic Russians. That is Ivangorod fortress across the Narva river in the background.

    Ivangorod is in Russia. And according to the above map, in the Russian hinterland of the Russian/Estonian frontier there are 70,000 Russian troops.

    You cannot see any of them on the picture because they do not take to posing and bullshitting.

    Same place, another time:


    On August 21 Narva was taken. In the background is Ivangorod fortress.

    That was 1941.

    Three years later, they came back from where they had gone.

    Very unlikely that any of those in the picture came back though. Their remains are probably still pushing up daisies in Mother Russia.

    Moscow Exile , May 11, 2017 at 9:36 am
    safe FFS!!!
    Northern Star , May 11, 2017 at 9:12 am
    USA USA !!!!! , says: May 12, 2017 at 9:01 am
    "Donald Trump once seemed to understand this. Does he still?"

    It appears he never did nor cared to .. P.T. Barnum was right again . We who clamored for an alternate path stuck our jaws out in desperation and were sucker-punched again . The Donald laughing all the way as he had no intent to know, care, or understand what he was getting into or what he wanted to do.

    He just wanted to be the Boss . SO he is; and floundering by the hour. God help the United States.

    collin , says: May 12, 2017 at 10:56 am
    May I suggest taking a different course here? Why are the 'Peace' Presidents winners change when in they are in the White House? And for all the complaints of the liberal MSM, why is the MSM so pro-war? Look the peace writers on the Times are the economist, Krugman, and religious one, Douthat.

    Anyway, I don't think Trump ever understood this because he believed the big mistake of the Iraq was not winning in 12 months and taking their oil.

    Moi , says: May 12, 2017 at 2:15 pm
    Once a nation starts thinking it's exceptional, it's screwed. It's really that simple.
    Igor , says: May 12, 2017 at 2:41 pm
    USA made a strategic mistake in the 1990s, focusing on the destruction and the weakening of Russia after the collapse of communism and the collapse of the USSR.

    If the US instead went the other way and supported Russia and strengthened its position in the post-Soviet space and in Eastern Europe, now US would have had a good ally in Eurasia, and not on what the Baltic dregs and torn by civil war fascist Ukraine.

    Eurasia under the control of the United States, anyway, will not take place for any scenario, but especially now – with the loss of the state of world hegemony. Eurasia under the leadership of Germany, Poland or Ukraine is the same scenario from the category of unscientific fantasy.

    But Eurasia led by Russia – it was a very real and viable project in the 1990s, the word, alive now only in a different, less responsive to the interests of the United States, form.
    By the way, the project more attractive to US than indicated by the perspective of the hegemony of China in Eurasia.

    Only now, the US should try very hard to, despite the flaws in his politics in the 1990s, to strengthen the position of Russia, and not any other player as Eurasian leader.

    EliteCommInc. , says: May 12, 2017 at 5:57 pm
    "Once a nation starts thinking it's exceptional, it's . . ."

    Nonsense. It's perfectly well and good to be exceptional and think of oneself as such. The issue does one's exceptionalism lead to taking unnecessary risks or needlessly throwing one's weight around.

    I think that is the issue. I think we are also being reminded that our exceptionalism does always make us right or intimidate others to do our bidding. That in the long run, it might have been a good idea not to disrupt the lives of others merely because they disagree or live a life different from our own. It fact, needlessly destroying the life of others for the sake of whatever – in unethical, something we used to press for, despite our own imperfections.

    Nothing quite so empty as undermining other people to get one's way and then attempting to blackmail with the consequence of your underhanded behavior.

    [May 12, 2017] Its all about the money and power struggle within grant-sucking professional civil-rights activists crowd

    Notable quotes:
    "... The abuse of homosexuals in Chechnya has come out of the microwave reheated again today. ..."
    "... Russia reached a peace in Chechnya by letting the Chechens be masters in their own house. It is not on Russia's footsteps what Chechens choose to do with their society. Perhaps NATzO bloody hypocrites can impose order in Chechnya themselves. They can fix up their precious Saudi Arabia too, while they are it. ..."
    "... I don't claim to be as talented and well-connected as Mark Ames, but I had an expose/speculation written about the whole affair. ..."
    "... Bad stuff – Ames is disconnected from the facts on the ground and it shows. He is not present, he does no research on his own, he's either reminiscenting about good ol' days of the printed eXile when he was physically present in Russia, or trusts such rag as "NG" without second thoughts. ..."
    "... Ultimately, his two-parter is not about the issue – it's about settling scores with the NYT and Alexeyev. ..."
    May 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al , May 11, 2017 at 8:15 am

    The abuse of homosexuals in Chechnya has come out of the microwave reheated again today.

    Regardless of whether it is fact, fiction or something in between (I think we can agree that there are no 'gay concentration camps' as some of the British media proclaimed a week or so ago), it is I guess a blessing that the Ukraine, in 'Celebrating Diversity'* banned Russia from the contest. Otherwise we would have seen 'pressure on eurovision' etc. to not allow Russia because of events in Chechnya. Kiev rather ruined this latter plan, but ultimately the prepared media storm was still let go despite its main goal having already failed.

    As we have seen, this story has waxed and waned since it was first reported selectively in the western media from Novaya Gazeta, the latest recharging being the deliberate march to deliver a petition to the Kremlin, guaranteed to garner news headlines as the organizers were not interested in asking for official permission. As Mark Ames noted in a recent post at eXiled Online (not to mention the toxic, anti-semitic amoral f/tard Nikolai Alekseyev who I posted about a while ago and not long after the story broke and also saw the same sources Ames quotes), the LGBT crowd is fully signed up to the US agenda even if it means keeping silent about the plight of LGBT in US client or allied states.

    It seems to me that just about everything including the kitchen sink being thrown at Russia. Maybe the neocons and their willing idiots sense they are running out of time and it doesn't matter how outrageous the claims are, best get it in. That's the thing about pendulums. They always swing back, whether you openly recognize it happening or not.

    * This years Eurovision tag line.

    kirill , May 11, 2017 at 8:29 am
    Russia reached a peace in Chechnya by letting the Chechens be masters in their own house. It is not on Russia's footsteps what Chechens choose to do with their society. Perhaps NATzO bloody hypocrites can impose order in Chechnya themselves. They can fix up their precious Saudi Arabia too, while they are it.
    Lyttenburgh , May 11, 2017 at 7:58 pm
    I don't claim to be as talented and well-connected as Mark Ames, but I had an expose/speculation written about the whole affair.

    Tl;dr version – it's all about the money and power struggle within grant-sucking professional "civil-rights activists" crowd, this time – among teh ghays.

    The whole fervor with which both our liberasts and the Westerner decry and discuss this non-issue, based only on a ballsy claim by a shitty news rag, proves once more, that even the people, who claim to be irreligious (i.e. the aformentioned crowd) still need a prothesis for a faith. The conspiracy theories and fake news following is just the thing they want.

    Lyttenburgh , May 11, 2017 at 11:59 pm
    Update: went to the semi-revived eXiled-online, read Ames' two-parter. On the one hand – good stuff about Alexeyev the chubby arch-gay of all Rus (or so he claims). Good links about the collusion between the "professional gays" and the Western (read: USA) powers that be, replete with them shyly not yapping about the conditions of teh ghays in the countries which are "allies". and "strategic partners" of the USA.

    Bad stuff – Ames is disconnected from the facts on the ground and it shows. He is not present, he does no research on his own, he's either reminiscenting about good ol' days of the printed eXile when he was physically present in Russia, or trusts such rag as "NG" without second thoughts.

    Ultimately, his two-parter is not about the issue – it's about settling scores with the NYT and Alexeyev.

    [May 12, 2017] Rapewhistling for Hitler by Anatoly Karlin

    Essentially Hitler Germany attempt of colonization of Russian lands up to Ural mountains was to inspired by the achievements on US colonists as for Indian population with Slavs. "Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Note: I actually think it's considerably less, because sentencing for murder is range constricted by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually considered to be worse than the sexual violence one, even though there are usually far fewer of them than there are rapes ..."
    "... There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue). ..."
    May 09, 2017 | www.unz.com
    May 9, 2017 157 Comments

    About two thirds of the USSR's 27 million casualties were civilians – that is, almost 10% of its prewar population. Had those percentages been applied to Nazi Germany, it would lost 8 million people – an order of magnitude than the 400,000 civilians it lost due to Allied strategic bombing, and the 600,000 who died during the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe (the vast majority of which were carried out by local authorities, not the Red Army or the NKVD).

    About 3.3 million out of 5.7 million Soviet POWs died in Nazi custody (compared to 15% of German POWs in the half-starved USSR, and low single digit figures for Allied POWs in Nazi Germany). Had the Soviets treated its 4.2 million German POWs as harshly, with a death rate of 60%, the German number of military dead would have risen from 5.3 million to around 7.3 million. That's not far off the figure of 8.7 million Soviet military deaths (9.2 million taking into account unregistered militia in 1941).

    It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest. If we count probabilities, assuming there was a 50% chance of Nazi victory over the USSR in 1941-42, and a 50% chance of Generalplan Ost being implemented in its full scale, that translates to around 200 million times 25% equals 50 million additional deaths. This means that in the average of all possible timelines, about 75 million Soviet citizens died, or 37.5% of its prewar population. That translates to around 30 million if these percentages are applied to Germany and its East European diaspora.

    And yet for some people – for the most part, the most Rusophobic neocons and Cold Warriors, the more Nazi elements of the Alt Right, and deranged Poles and Balts who don't quite realize what Hitler had in store for them – the Soviet rape of about 2 million women in Eastern Germany at the end of the war is supposed to be a really huge, defining war crime, even something that delegitimizes the overall Soviet victory.*

    How many rapes is one death/murder "worth"? My intuition is that murder is quite a lot worse, perhaps by an order of magnitude if I had to quantify it, and I suspect that most people will agree. It just so happens that so do sentencing guidelines. The typical term for murder in the US is 30 years to life (which might functionally translate to an average of 50 years). The average term for rape is 10 years, of which about 5 are served. This is a differential of five. It also happens to be almost exactly the differential between the murder rate in the US (~5 cases / 100,000 anually) and the rate of rape and sexual assault (~30 / 100,000 annually, as per police records and self-victimization surveys). Let us then provisionally estimate that rape is on average 20% as "bad" as murder. ( Note: I actually think it's considerably less, because sentencing for murder is range constricted by biological ageing. And the homicide problem is usually considered to be worse than the sexual violence one, even though there are usually far fewer of them than there are rapes ).

    Therefore, let's say 2 million rapes translates to 400,000 deaths. Compare this to 27 million Soviet civilian deaths (of which two thirds were civilians) in a war started by Nazi Germany, or the 75 million or so Soviet deaths across all timelines. Even assuming that the worst estimates of the Red Army rapes are accurate – they were still, at most, equivalent to far less than 1% of the Nazi crimes against Russia.

    Now to be sure you can argue that not all "murders" are equal, especially in war. Direct genocide, like the gassings of Jews or the massacres of Belorussian villagers, seems to be worse than deaths incurred by incidental effects of war, such as bombings of industrial facilities or famine incurred due to the stresses of the war effort, which in turn are worse than military deaths, since society tends to consider soldiers as pretty much "fair game" (though it is questionable to what extent this can be applied to conscripts on the Eastern Front, who did not even get the theoretical possibility of opting out by applying for a "conscientious objector" status at the cost of their social reputation, as in the less "total" conflict of World War I). But there are many different types of rapes as well. There were traumatic gang rapes, to military brothels relying on considerable degrees of coercion, to women semi-voluntarily hooking up with one particular soldier in return for security, or just trading their bodies for food.

    "What the Soviet People Fought For" :

    Rape continued, and acquired an organized character. From time to time "hunting groups" ventured out of Wehrmacht positions. "We ventured out to the village near Rozhdestvenno near Gatchina," said Peter Schuber, a private who was at the Seversky airport, "We had orders to bring girls to the officers. We did the operation successfully, surrounding all the houses. We grabbed a truckload of girls. The officers held the girls all night, and gave them to us soldiers in the morning."

    In the large cities, permanent brothels were organized. This was standard Wehrmacht practice. "There were military brothels, called Puff," recalls SS officer Avenir Benningsen, "They were present on almost all fronts. Girls from all Europe, all nationalities, gathered up from all camps. By the way, the two condoms regularly handed out to men and officers were indispensable posessions." But whereas in the European countries the Wehrmacht brothels were staffed more or less voluntarily, in the USSR there were no such considerations. Girls and women were forcibly rounded up, in scenes seared into the memories of people undergoing the occupation. In Smolensk, for instance, women were dragged off by the arms, by the hair, dragged along the pavement, into the officers' brothel in one of the hotels. Those who refused to remain there were shot.

    After Red Army soldiers drove the Germans out of Kerch, they encoutered a terrible sight: "In the courtyard of the prison there was a shapeless heap of naked female bodies, horrifically mutilated by the fascists."

    So even if we are to tally sexual crimes completely separately, the rapes of the Wehrmacht carried an organized, long-term character – similar to the Japanese Army's abuse of Chinese and Korean comfort women – whereas Red Army rapes happened in a concentrated orgy of violence in the last few months of the war. That fury in turn was fueled by a regrettable but very understandable hatred for the death and devastation the Germans had wreaked in the USSR, made all the more inexplicable by the overwhelming prosperity of the Germans relative to the ramshackle poverty of Soviet life.

    Incidentally, soon after the war, as the follow-up to his " toast to the Russian people ," Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia, in which a similar number died). Why? Because the USSR was exporting grain to support its new Communist client states, including East Germany. (Functionally, Stalin agreed with the Nazis that German lives were worth more than Russian lives). This one event alone is by utilitarian metrics considerably more horrific than all the Red Army rapes in Germany.

    Parsifal , May 9, 2017 at 8:01 pm GMT

    Another excellent book that kills the "clean Wehrmacht" myth is "Third Reich at War" by Richard Evans. He shows that the German practice of taking local women to serve in brothels or simple outright rape started already in Poland in late 1939. And Evans is no Germanophobe, far from it

    Anatoly Karlin , Website May 9, 2017 at 8:56 pm GMT

    @Glossy Stalin presided over another famine that took 500,000 Russian lives (more than fifty years after the worst famine of late Imperial Russia). Why?

    I don't know where you got this idea that the famine of 1947 was caused by grain supplies to East Germany. I just hope it wasn't SiP, because it's not a good source of info about anything.

    There were famines in many countries after the war. The one in the Netherlands is famous partly because Audry Hepburn experienced it as a kid.

    It would have been surprising if there were no food shortages in the USSR then, after such an ordeal. If such a war befell the UK, there would have been a famine there too.

    Darin , May 9, 2017 at 9:50 pm GMT

    About the famine of 1947, see

    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/soviet/famine/ellman1947.pdf

    The 1947 Soviet famine and the entitlement approach to famines Michael Ellman

    This paper presents an analysis of the economics of the 1947 Soviet famine, using data from recently declassified archives. It is argued that the best estimate that can currently be given of the number of excess deaths is the range 1·0–1·5 million. The demographic loss was greater. During the famine, surplus stocks in the hands of the state seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation. The famine was a FAD2 (preventable food availability decline) famine, which occurred because a drought caused a bad harvest and hence reduced food availability, but, had the priorities of the government been different, there might have been no famine (or a much smaller one) despite the drought. The selection of victims can be understood
    in terms of the entitlement approach.

    [...]

    Conclusions

    The 1947 (more precisely 1946–8) famine was the fourth and last Soviet famine. It began in July 1946, reached its peak in February–August 1947 and then quickly dimin-ished in intensity, although there were still some famine deaths in 1948.

    The best estimate of excess deaths that can currently be given is the range 1,000,000- 1,500,000. The range is relatively wide because of the uncertain relationship between registered mortality and actual mortality. The largest number of excess deaths was in Russia, followed by Ukraine and Moldova. In percentage terms, the largest number of excess deaths was in Moldova and the smallest in Russia.

    The demographic loss was greater than the number of excess deaths since it also includes the fall in the birthrate compared with what it might have been under non-
    famine conditions. According to a present-day Russian historian, the demographic loss in Russia was three times the number of excess deaths.

    The level of grain stocks at the end of the agricultural year 1946–7 seems to have been in excess of the minimum level of stocks required to maintain the rationing system. Surplus stocks seem to have been sufficient to have fed all those who died of starvation or starvation-induced disease in the agricultural year 1946–7. This was still more the case with the victims who died in the agricultural year 1947–8.

    It is not true that the level of grain stocks in the hands of the state was constant or increased during the famine period. Stocks fell during the main famine period (the
    agricultural year 1946–7). Nor is it true that grain exports increased in the agricultural year 1946–7. They declined then.

    It is not true that the Soviet authorities paid no attention to famine relief. They did undertake some famine relief, but not enough to prevent large scale mortality from starvation and starvation-related diseases. They also permitted substantial foreign help. Nor is it true that they ignored the needs of agriculture. They increased seed loans in 1947 to enable the spring sowing to go ahead smoothly despite the shortage of seed at the farms.

    Glossy , Website May 9, 2017 at 9:53 pm GMT

    @Mr. XYZ @Anatoly Karlin: Also, a bit off-topic, but what would the Soviet Union's population have been in 1991 if it wasn't for World War II and Stalinist collectivization and famines? Would 375 million (as opposed to 290 million) be a plausible estimate for this? Or is that a bit too high?

    anon , May 9, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT

    Unlike the times of Mongol Conquests and other great invasions/wars that ancient reports are dubious and deaths are less than what historians find out, the World Wars had more accurate ways to calculate deaths and they had more accurate numbers in their reports. But then veiled interests and propaganda at that time and now are even more blatant than in ancient times, with numbers being inflated or diminished.
    .
    Take the Rape of Berlin, for example. Its numbers showed up pretty recently and only taking account the passages of one hospital counting abortions and victims of rape, using that as basis for dubious calculations to reach the 2 million number.
    .
    Or the Holodomor that accounts only ukrainian lands, sometimes ignoring the effects of famine and confiscation in other places inside Russia. Most important, the belief that the most brutal confiscations were straight out enforced instead of a consequence of farmers that were secretly getting rid of most of their grains ahead of time or some of them even destroying it and killing livestock just to not let it get into officers' hands.
    .
    Even the deaths by the secret service in disclosed documents do not mirror the exaggerate numbers gave by mainstream sources.
    .
    There's no doubt that the Soviet Union in war time, given proper research and calculations, is still a system that killed millions unjustly directly or indirectly, but mainstream media likes to inflate numbers to give an extra indignation and make sure people knows how horrible the system is. In fact, no one in World War II is exempt of a large number of deaths (again, be it direct or indirect), even victims like China where its own soldiers would raze villages and take the opportunity to throw more blame on japanese that were already condemned for their own confirmed mass killings against chinese people.

    unpc downunder , May 9, 2017 at 10:27 pm GMT

    There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

    At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.

    Hector_St_Clare , May 9, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT

    @unpc downunder There certainly are some neocon Anglos who want to demonise WWII era Russia as much as possible, even if that means making weak arguments that Stalin's treatment of foreigners was worse than Hitler's. Why? because Germany has now denounced nationalism and embraced globalism, while Russia hasn't. Also, while Stalin wasn't as nationalistic as Hitler he was a relatively nationalist despot who killed off a lot of globalist communists (like Trotsky) and still has a significant following among Russian nationalists (if anyone says Trotsky wasn't a bad man that's a tell-tale sign they are a globalist ideologue).

    At the end of the day its all about dissing nationalism and promoting liberalism and internationalism.

    James N. Kennett , May 10, 2017 at 12:01 am GMT

    @Hector_St_Clare Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?

    Daniel H , May 10, 2017 at 1:17 am GMT

    @Wally Anatoly Karlin said:

    "It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest."

    No it's not, and you have no proof.

    AP , May 10, 2017 at 3:17 am GMT

    It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population

    This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.

    Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain.

    reiner Tor , Website May 10, 2017 at 10:57 am GMT

    @James N. Kennett


    Britain actually had a famine on their watch in India during 1943-1944, wasn't that due to forcing Bengal to supply British food needs instead of to feed themselves?
    Yes, unfortunately it is true. Britain imported wheat from India so that bread need not be rationed in Britain. After the war, it was impossible to justify this action, and bread was rationed. A million Indians had died of starvation.

    All combatants in WWII committed war crimes. It is pointless to try to excuse these crimes by saying the Nazis did worse, even to the point of computing how many rapes equal one murder. We did what we did. Let us be honest about our countries' crimes, as well as those of our enemies, in the hope that we will learn never to fight each other again.

    anon , May 10, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT

    @German_reader


    Actually Churchill proposed such attack on USSR
    Churchill was out of power in 1947/48.
    Gabriel M , May 10, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT

    It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.

    Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.

    I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle – though not scale! – to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

    German_reader , May 10, 2017 at 6:14 pm GMT

    @Gabriel M


    It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population, and the helotization/expulsion of the rest.
    Interesting. The basic assumption of the WW2 liberal-democracy foundation myth is that Nazism was an 'evilness spiral', which started off with small stuff, but became inevitably more crazy and evil and would have murdered half the world had it not been stopped. I knew that mainstream zionists shared this assumption, but I hadn't realized that Russian nationalists did too.

    I'm no expert, but I tend more to the view that Nazi crimes were a product of the war, similar in principle - though not scale! - to allied war crimes, and that, had they won, they would have calmed down, much like the SU calmed down after the 1930s. I suspect a Nazi dominated Eastern Europe wouldn't have looked that much different from a Soviet dominated one (including the advantages these had over liberal democracy). A lot depends, I suppose, on the willingness of Nazis who knew Hitler was a colossal whackjob to actually do something about it.

    German_reader , May 10, 2017 at 6:27 pm GMT

    @Greasy William What do contemporary German nationalists think about Germany's borders? Do they want to regain Germany's lost territories even though Poles are also white? Are German Neo Nazis pro Russia and pro Putin like American Neo Nazis are?

    melanf , May 10, 2017 at 6:57 pm GMT

    @German_reader I actually think there were quite a lot of rapes committed by Red army soldiers at least in Hungary as well which was also regarded as a defeated enemy state by the Soviets (Romania probably much less so because they switched sides). I also seem to recall that some Yugoslav communist (Milovan Djilas) complained to the Soviets about rapes committed by Soviet soldiers in Yugoslavia, and similar in Poland.
    I've never heard of a convincing case that those rapes were ordered from above (instead of being tolerated, which seems to have been Stalin's attitude for some time). It's not like rape is an uncommon phenomenon in war after all, if you don't take disciplinary measures against it, many soldiers will do it. All the more so in a war like WW2 on the Eastern front where soldiers were brutalized and had to live with permanent expectation of their own death (iirc Soviet losses in the battle of Berlin were about as high as American losses in the entire war).

    Lex , May 11, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT

    @Nador Actually, soviets did kidnap people. For example the cousin of my grandfather was kidnapped and taken to a forced labor camp in Siberia. She was about to buy some bread when Soviet soldiers happened to be there collecting people for forced labor. She wasn't even allowed to bring proper clothes with her.

    JL , May 11, 2017 at 11:44 am GMT

    @neutral You are going to have to be more specific here, who is saying this, the neocon propaganda is mostly about how Putin kills journalists, hacks elections and forbids gay pride. Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue. The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.

    JL , May 11, 2017 at 12:03 pm GMT

    @German_reader I don't really believe anybody in the US and UK cares about German women raped by the Red army or uses that as a prominent argument against Russia. I've always had the impression that the predominant attitude towards dubious actions against German civilians during and after WW2 is "They got exactly what they deserved" (that is except in Germany itself, obviously). You can see this even in recent accounts, e.g. in Timothy Snyder's "Bloodlands" whose ultimate chapter has justification of the mass expulsions of Germans after the end of the war as a prominent theme (and Snyder after all is a prominent critic of Putin's Russia).
    It's true however that some people in the West are still pushing the "Stalin's Soviet Union just as bad or even worse than Nazi Germany" narrative, e.g. many American conservatives still throw around Robert Conquest's estimates of many millions killed by Soviet repression - estimates which have long been disproven and been shown to be much too high. That's mostly unconnected to the issue of rape in 1944/45 though.

    German_reader , May 11, 2017 at 12:24 pm GMT

    @JL It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.

    Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.

    AP , May 11, 2017 at 12:41 pm GMT

    @JL Sorry, I should have been more specific, I hear this from people on the other end of the megaphones, i.e. the normies to which I'm exposed during my brief visits to the US (I only spend a few weeks a year there). In my specific case, it's mostly East Coast liberals.

    I don't pay much attention to the US propaganda machine, so I can't name any specific sources. But, there seems to be a consensus formed between neocons, libtards, and cuckservatives vis a vis Russia. Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians." This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people. Where they come up with it, who knows?


    Since the (((neocons))) are perfectly happy with German women being raped (then and now), they are not going to raise this as an issue.
    The neocons are monsters who care only about world domination, and the submission of their subjects. To that end, they don't care about anyone raped or killed, even their own (((people))), if it furthers their goals. It's no problem for them to use this as a cudgel with which to beat on Russia. Perhaps you are confusing them with yourself, you think they have principals or that they stand for something. Just look at Ukraine, where Jewish Neocons and Nazis stand, quite literally, hand-in-hand.

    The only people that really bring up the mass rapes are those that are absolutely opposed to neocons and thus generally have very little access to the megaphones.
    Now you are going to have be a bit more specific, who are you talking about here?
    melanf , May 11, 2017 at 1:51 pm GMT

    @AP


    Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians." This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
    "Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

    A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.

    JL , May 11, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT

    @AP


    Among the ridiculous things I've heard are, "Stalin was responsible for more deaths than Hitler" (whatever that even means) and "most of the Soviet citizens killed in WW2 were Ukrainians." This is coming from college educated, 120+ IQ people.
    "Stalin responsible for more deaths than Hitler" is false but not ridiculously so. Hitler beat Stalin but about 3 million people but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.

    A lot of college educated Russians with high IQs believe nonsense also, and sometimes even about their immediate neighbor, never mind about a place on the other side of the world.

    Avery , May 11, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT

    @RadicalCenter They hate and resent the Germans so much that they are fine with honoring their rapist grandfathers and great-grandfathers. I might feel the same way if I were Russian, but I'm not and I don't.

    Russians would have done the same and worse to all of Germany, and all of western and central Europe, if they had not been so severely damaged by the Germans and then deterred and faced-off by the US.

    anon , May 11, 2017 at 3:03 pm GMT

    This is a very awkward topic as i understand both sides.

    The German attack forced the Bolsheviks to change their policy towards ethnic Russians – what would the Bolsheviks have done to the Russians over time if the Germans hadn't attacked?

    I think it's possible to guess what they would have done by what is happening in the West today – some people want a world of 85 IQ slave cattle so there's no competition.

    So what was the best out of three terrible options?

    1) German attack and victory
    2) Bolshevik victory (no war and eventual genetic mutilation of the ethnic Russians)
    3) German attack weakening Bolsheviks but not winning

    To me the correct analogy is to an autoimmune disease where the body attacks itself because of an infection – where the Bolsheviks were the infection.

    German_reader , May 11, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT

    @for-the-record


    when many cities in present-day Germany will soon have non-German majorities
    Which are the the first ones likely to be?
    szopen , May 11, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT

    @melanf


    Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
    In the case of Stalin - not millions.

    http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
    "...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people... during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below - 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people ".

    Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.

    " A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. - 26 million ."
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII - начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"

    AP , May 11, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

    @JL I'm interested in the method of accounting. Whose deaths are we are talking about here? Do, for example, German soldiers during WW2 go into the Hitler column, or the Stalin column? In light of the fact that the person making this case was not only an American, but a Jew, I told him that were the German soldiers' deaths Stalin's responsibility, then he would have to explain why that paints Stalin in a bad light.


    both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries
    Are you speaking of absolute numbers, or percentages of populations?
    AP , May 11, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT

    @melanf


    Hitler beat Stalin but both monsters killed people in the millions and both were far deadlier than anyone who came before, in centuries.
    In the case of Stalin - not millions.

    http://polit.ru/article/2007/12/11/repressii/
    "...In fact, the number of prisoners for political reasons (for "counterrevolutionary crimes") in the USSR in the period from 1921 to 1953, i.e. after 33 years was about 3.8 million people... during this period ( 1921 to 1954 ) has been convicted 3 777 380 people, including to capital punishment - 642 980, to the contents in camps and prisons for a term of 25 years and below - 2 369 220, into exile and expulsion - 765 180 people ".

    Of course it's possible to start to count "victims of famine". But in this case, Stalin will be a great humanist, in comparison with the rulers of the British Empire.

    " A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. - 26 million ."
    (ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII - начало XX в.) Книга 2)

    Remember Mahatma Gandhi: "Hitlerism and Churchillism are in fact the same thing"

    Intelligent Dasein , Website May 12, 2017 at 6:02 am GMT

    @JL It seems to me there's been a sea change in the US over the past few years and perhaps you're missing it. Liberals, who were traditionally sympathetic to Russia, are now its fiercest opponents. Some of the old themes that conservatives used during the Cold War are now popping up in propaganda directed at liberals. And, of course, most of the Cold Warrior conservatives have never changed their views, so they are essentially in cahoots. The neocons backed Clinton for President after all.

    Americans are particularly susceptible to propaganda, which is, admittedly, all-consuming and very effective. Do they really, deep down, actually care about German women raped during WW2? Most likely not, but they do to the extent that they are told to care about it and can use it for moral equivalency purposes. As for Snyder, "Bloodlands" came out pretty early on in the Ukraine crisis, before the anti-Russia campaign was in full gear. It took a little while for Jews to get on board with being on the same side as the Nazis.

    Anonymous , May 12, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT

    @AP


    It's now well known that Nazi long-term plans called for the eventual genocide of about 75% of the Soviet population
    This may be a bit of an exaggeration, though the reality is bad enough.

    Wiki says 50%-60% of Russians were to be exterminated, another 15% sent to Siberia. (so 65%-75% removed). 75% of Belarussians and 65% Ukrainians were to be removed. No food aid was the be sent to Siberia, to there would be starvation there until a "natural" self-sustaining population of 40 million or so would remain.

    [May 12, 2017] The War Party is determined to make the offensive permanent, to keep up the pressure on the ultimate targets, Russia and China, The current, rabid anti-Russian hysteria adds another layer of fake news on top of the wholly fictional U.S. War on Terror scenario

    May 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Northern Star , May 11, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    "The War Party is determined to make the offensive permanent, to keep up the pressure on the ultimate targets, Russia and China, until they break or capitulate to U.S. domination of the world. The current, rabid anti-Russian hysteria adds another layer of fake news on top of the wholly fictional U.S. "War on Terror" scenario. But these mega-lies can no longer mask the great obscenity of the 21st century: that the U.S. is allied with al-Qaida, whose jihadists act as imperialism's foot soldiers in the Middle East."

    Absolute take down of the psycho shtstains in Brussels and Washington DC

    https://www.blackagendareport.com/jail_obama_and_trump_for_war_crimes

    Time for global regime change

    ucgsblog , May 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
    They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"

    It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.

    "Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have to show that they believed it happened.

    [May 12, 2017] It doesnt say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence

    May 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Northern Star , May 11, 2017 at 3:16 pm
    "WASHINGTON DC: Six top US intelligence officials told Congress Thursday they agree with the conclusion that Russia acted to influence last year's election, countering President Donald Trump's assertions that the hacking remains an open question."

    https://tribune.com.pk/story/1407409/trumps-intel-bosses-reiterate-russia-meddled-election/

    "Asked whether they believed the intelligence community's January assessment that Russia was responsible for hacking and leaking information to influence the elections was accurate, all six spy and law enforcement bosses appearing before the panel said "yes."
    Trump's firing of FBI director 'domestic matter': Kremlin'"

    Demand these vermin proffer PROOF that Russia F'd with the 2016 election..
    Then Fire every last one of these cckskkers..declare martial law if necessary

    ucgsblog , May 12, 2017 at 2:08 pm
    They don't have to, look at the language: "Russia acted to influence"

    It doesn't say that Russia influenced, it says that Russia acted to influence. Did RT broadcast something election related? Did some funds come from Russia? If so, Russia acted to influence the election. As did France. As did the UK. As did any major power.

    "Asked whether they believed" – again they don't have to prove that it happened. They have to show that they believed it happened.

    [May 10, 2017] Will Trumps Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre? (Updated)

    Notable quotes:
    "... More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections ..."
    "... The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset. ..."
    "... I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office. ..."
    "... Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are. ..."
    "... What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods. ..."
    "... I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone. ..."
    "... All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates. ..."
    "... being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer .. ..."
    "... Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them. ..."
    "... Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes. ..."
    "... The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold. ..."
    "... fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu ..."
    "... People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury ..."
    "... I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. ..."
    "... Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam. ..."
    "... I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message. ..."
    "... If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally. ..."
    "... Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad. ..."
    "... If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( ) ..."
    May 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on May 9, 2017 by Yves Smith Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump. The question is whether this move will simply serve as the basis for sowing further doubts in the mainstream media against Trump, or will dent Trump's standing with Republicans.

    Comey made an odd practice of making moves that were arguably procedurally improper in his handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation, but some favored Clinton while others were damaging, given an impression of impartiality to the general public via getting both parties riled with Comey at various points in time. And regardless of what one thinks of his political and legal judgment, Comey had a reputation of being a straight shooter.

    And more generally, the director of the FBI is perceived to be a role above the partisan fray. Firing him is fraught with danger; it has the potential of turning into in a Nixonian Saturday Night Massacre, where the firing of special prosecutor Archibald Cox led the press and public to see Nixon as desperate to stymie an investigation into Watergate charges. It was the archetypal "the coverup is worse than the crime".

    To minimize risk, Trump's would have needed to have engaged in a whispering campaign against Comey, or least have notified some key figures in Congress that this was about to happen and give the rationale for the turfing out. And it appears he did do that to at least a degree, in that (as you will see below), Lindsay Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, made a statement supporting the firing. But given the surprised reaction in the press, it looks like any ground-sowing for this move was minimal. Caution and preparation don't rank high as Trump Administration priorities.

    More specifically, whether true or not, the Democrats are likely to use this move to claim that Comey was fired for digging too hard into Trump-Russia connections .

    We'll know more in the coming hours and days. The official story is that attorney general Jeff Session and his deputy attorney general Rosenstein wanted Comey's head. And since the FBI does report to the Department of Justice, Sessions is within his rights to demand the firing of the head of the FBI and expect the President to respect his request. So if this proves to have been a reckless move, it will reflect Trump's poor judgment in selecting Sessions as his AG, who was a controversial pick from the outset.

    From the Wall Street Journal :

    In a letter to Mr. Comey, the president wrote, "It is essential that we find new leadership for the FBI that restores public trust and confidence in its vital law enforcement mission."

    Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in a statement thanked Mr. Comey for his years of service to the country but said that a change in leadership at the bureau might be the best possible course of action.

    "Given the recent controversies surrounding the director, I believe a fresh start will serve the FBI and the nation well. I encourage the President to select the most qualified professional available who will serve our nation's interests," said Mr. Graham, a South Carolina Republican.

    Note that Sessions himself had been fired from the attorney general's office in the Clinton Administration. Clinton's attorney Janet Reno, who was the first to engage in large-scale firings of attorneys in the Department of Justice, also fired the head of the FBI. From Bloomberg :

    Comey, who has led an investigation into Russia's meddling during the 2016 election and any possible links to Trump aides and associates, is only the second FBI chief to have been fired. In 1993, President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno dismissed William Sessions.

    Trump's decision means that he will get to nominate Comey's successor while the agency is deep into the Russia inquiry. The move quickly intensified Democratic calls for a special prosecutor.

    Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Trump "has catastrophically compromised the FBI's ongoing investigation of his own White House's ties to Russia. Not since Watergate have our legal systems been so threatened, and our faith in the independence and integrity of those systems so shaken."

    The Financial Times confirms that the Trump Administration didn't lay much groundwork with Congress :

    Mr Comey's sudden dismissal shocked Republicans and Democrats. Brendan Boyle, a Democratic congressman, said the "stunning" action "shows why we must have a special prosecutor like our nation did in Watergate".

    The proof of the pudding is whether Trump and Sessions will be able to ride out demands for a special prosecutor. Given how much noise and how little signal there has been, I would have though it was possible for Trump to tough this out. With the Democrats having peripheral figures like Carter Page as their supposed smoking guns, all they had was innuendo, amplified by the Mighty Wurlitzer of the media. But that may have gotten enough to Trump and his team to distort their judgment. Stay tuned.

    Update 5/10, 12:15 AM . The Hill reports Dems ask Justice Dept, FBI to 'preserve any and all files' on Comey firing / Despite much howling for blood in the comments section, some readers there were able to provide what I was looking for, which is whether Congress had any basis for getting the info. Here are the two key remarks:

    cm , May 9, 2017 at 7:42 pm

    I support the firing of Comey, and would have supported it if done by Clinton, Obama, Sanders or Trump. His actions wrt "intent" in handling classified information, and his unilateral (in public at least) decision on leveling charges against Clinton (which was not his job) render him unfit for office.

    Anyone opposing this firing should note they share opinions w/ John McCain, which ought to give any non-neocon pause

    WeakendSquire , May 9, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    Both the Right and the Left are disinclined to believe in or care about any scandal involving Russia. And it was actually the Clinton partisans who demanded Comey's head in the first place–and we all know the Clinton history with independent prosecutors. So the Democrats who whine about this or call for an independent prosecutor just end up looking like the partisan hypocrites they are.

    What this does, after a few days, is get the Russian hacking investigation out of the news, so everyone can focus firmly on debating how many people need to lose their health care to satisfy the tax-cut gods.

    Jim Haygood , May 9, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    The Scream:

    Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-IL) made the biggest impression, going to the Senate floor about an hour after the announcement to clearly outline the stakes.

    "Any attempt to stop or undermine this FBI investigation would raise grave constitutional issues," he told colleagues.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article149589289.html#storylink=cpy

    Constitutional issues ? HA HA HA HA

    What is "Senator" Durbin doing about the war escalation in Afghanstan and Syria? My point exactly.

    We've got a problem in politics
    So few Richards, so many dicks

    screen screamer , May 9, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    Interestingly, Fed directors have a term of ten years and since Hoover, there has been only one to make it the full term. That would be Mr. Mueller who went twelve years as director directly following 911.

    I must confess that I do not know why the others were let go or retired. I think it would make an interesting study.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation

    NotTimothyGeithner , May 9, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    FBI Director is one of those jobs where if you do a good job you should suffer burnout regardless of who you are. A 10 year term is bizarre if you expect a quality job. I would expect resignation and early retirement if the job is being taken seriously. Then you have to consider the quality of staff and team work arrangements at any given time and how much workload a FBI Director or Cabinet Secretary has to deal with.

    Matt , May 9, 2017 at 8:06 pm

    I'm already seeing Twitter Dems doubling down on the Russia stuff. The Russia hysteria is setting us up so that there will be absolutely no political incentive for future Presidents to be friendly with Russia. I wonder if they don't know (or just don't care) that they aren't going to be able to put this genie back in the bottle after Trump is gone.

    jo6pac , May 9, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    Thanks I love it and they just don't care and hoping the lame stream corp. owned media will carry their propaganda. Demodogs message is we didn't fail but those looser didn't vote for us the party of corp. Amerika. Double down

    John Zelnicker , May 9, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    @Matt – I don't think the Twitter Dems can conceive of the notion that there is a genie or even a bottle in this situation. They are so caught up in the Russia!, Russia! hysteria that there is no room in their thinking for any kind of rational thought or any consideration of consequences.

    Matt , May 9, 2017 at 10:39 pm

    You're more hopeful that I am. I think the more militaristic among them are so cavalier about conflict with Russia because of the Hitler-level delusions many of them have about the military capacity of Russia.

    "Just kick in the door, and the whole rotten structure will come down"

    "We'll be greeted as liberators when we defeat the tyrant Putin!"

    Just look at that SNL sketch that aired a few months ago. They think these people are frozen, ignorant peasants.

    marym , May 9, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    Nixon Library weighs in: https://twitter.com/NixonLibrary/status/862083605081862145

    RichardNixonLibrary‏2Verified account? @NixonLibrary
    FUN FACT: President Nixon never fired the Director of the FBI #FBIDirector #notNixonian

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , May 9, 2017 at 8:37 pm

    Nixon was smart enough to avoid Russia and the USSR, and instead, worked with China that would help suppress US wages for decades.

    AbateMagicThinking but Not mone y , May 9, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Personally I would be no good at power. My reading has led me to believe that you need a very strong stomach to endure what you have to deal with, whether it be human gore, hypocrisy, or the dark side of any civilization. I don't have that stomach, and if you take Comey's words at face value neither does he.

    So I think you can take that as a thumbs-up.

    JTMcPhee , May 9, 2017 at 10:40 pm

    Nah, ask Obomber. Once you get past a little queasiness, getting "pretty good at killing folks" is a piece of cake. It's just business as usual. Ask any Civil War or WW I general officer, or Bomber Harris, or Lemay or the young guy, farm boy from Iowa who was a door gunner I knew on Vietnam. Just no problem killing gooks. His moral line was killing the water buffalo. "I know how I'd feel if someone blew away my John Deere."

    AbateMagicThinking but Not money , May 9, 2017 at 11:39 pm

    Re: The youg guy with the agricultural machinery sensibilities:

    Although he was the manipulator of terrible power, I see him as a victim (in the scheme of things), not a member of the power-elite. And the other military you mention, were they in the power-elite? Eisenhower should have been on your list, as he straddled the divide.

    Occasional Delurker , May 9, 2017 at 8:49 pm

    I'm curious how this will be interpreted by people who get their news mostly via headlines. (I also wonder what proportion of the voting population that is.)

    The headlines I've seen so far, if they give a reason, just make reference to the Clinton email investigation. I sort of think this will be interpreted by many mostly-headline news gatherers as meaning that Trump fired Comey because he did not, in fact, lock her up. Indeed, even those who dig deeper may still believe that this is the real reason.

    So, like so many things raged about in the media, I'm not sure this really hurts Trump amongst his voters. Probably helps, really.

    And for something completely different, Snowden is not a fan:

    https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/862069019301601281

    Art Eclectic , May 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    All it does is reinforce existing bias. Dems are even more convinced about Russian ties, Reps are even more concerned the wheels are off, TrumpNation is even more convinced there's an evil plot out to get their guy. And the media has a click frenzy to drive ad rates.

    Something for everyone.

    fresno dan , May 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    "Trump's sudden and unexpected firing of FBI director James Comey is likely to damage Trump."

    How neutral or unconcerned with what the Establishment views as the requisite dogma regarding Russia is Trump? Articles about Trump being unhappy about McMaster gives the impression that Trump still believe he (Trump) is the boss.

    Yes, the dems have ridiculous notions about Russians as an excuse for Hillary. But being anti Russian is in the very DNA of the repubs. Would the repubs turn on Trump because Trump isn't fervently anti Russian enough? I very much think so .they have a good repub vice president that I am sure ALL of them much prefer ..

    Huey Long , May 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    You're right, the red party is a virulently anti-red outfit. I can see the die hard GOPers turning on the Trumpster, but will his base stand for it? The Trumpster does have a bit of a cult of personality going on in some circles.

    NotTimothyGeithner , May 9, 2017 at 10:25 pm

    Its important to remember the disdain the country has for Versailles in general. Trump became President despite universal support for Hillary and to a lesser extent Jeb on the shores of the Potomac.The Republican Id is dedicated to hating Democrats. Bill Clinton and Obama could play Weekend at Bernie's with Reagan corpse and kill Social Security, and Republicans would still hate them.

    Communists and other boogeymen of the past are secondary to this drive. The Versailles Republicans, a different breed, could never deliver Republican votes outside of Northern Virginia for one simple reason their base despises Democrats more than they might hate Stalin. They will never give credit to a Democrat. Remember the liberal whining about how Republicans never gave Obama credit for his right wing policy pushes.

    The other key point to the GOP voter relationship is Trump WON. He beat Jeb and his sheepdogs and then he beat Hillary (Hillary and the Dems lost). Trump is the their winner so to speak. As long as Trump is denounced by the usual suspects for bizarre reasons, Trump will maintain his hold.

    Carolinian , May 9, 2017 at 10:13 pm

    They still have to have a case to make and there is none. Impeachment is just as much a fantasy as it was several months ago. In fact they no longer even have the argument that Trump must be stifled and prevented from doing all his crazy promises since they don't seem to be happening anyway.

    Frankly I say good for Trump rather than letting Comey go all Janet Reno on him. If this country is going to be run by the NYT and the WaPo and CNN then we are truly sunk. He had it right when he was attacking this bunch rather than kowtowing to them.

    Huey Long , May 9, 2017 at 8:57 pm

    Although the Mighty Wurlitzer is going to take this firing and run with it, I wonder if anyone's really going to care outside of folks that watch a ton of CNN and MSNBC. I think scalping him at this point in his administration is likely to generate more protests and demonstrations than not scalping him.

    Alex Morfesis , May 9, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    Well don trumpioni may have stepped in it although, maybe this has less to do with russia perhaps fbi sorta sat on gulen charter school investigation and it would certainly help emperor trompe and prince erdo relationship if Fethu found his old self on an express flight to Ankara considering the bean "kurd" thing recently added on the takeout menu

    Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce

    comey the straight shooter methynx is a bit of a "legend" but even the most slick and corrupt have certain lines they wont cross

    Huey Long , May 9, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    Can easily imagine potus & his not ready for prime time players wanting to use the hoover building as a bludgeon against people who dont fall in line the blob counterforce

    The FBI would be the preferred outfit for this sort of thing due to their many decades of experience bludgeoning those who don't fall in line.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

    alex morfesis , May 10, 2017 at 1:49 am

    oh come one now that stuff never happened all you have is proof how can that stand up to narratives

    oho , May 9, 2017 at 9:18 pm

    "Will Trump's Firing of FBI Director James Comey Be His Saturday Night Massacre?'

    It would be interesting to take a poll on what percentage of citizens know that "Saturday Night Massacre" is not a horror film.

    I'd be willing to bet a beer that this kerfuffle will be confined to the Beltway media and Sunday talk shows and will fade from the news cycle/Facebook feeds rather quickly.

    People are tapped out mentally with political talk.

    seabos84 , May 9, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    People are fed up. Savings & Loan mess & Iran Contra & & & & yawn Wall Street destroys the economy & no one goes to jail, Medical Industrial Complex management bloodsuckers insure that sickness leads to penury

    1973 was 28 years after 1945. 1973 was 44 years ago. The post WW2 psuedo consensus is looooooooong gone.

    I thought we hated Comey cuz of what he did to HRC? Today we hate Trump cuz Comey was going after the Russians? Crap I hate missing the 2 minute hate.

    rmm

    Anonymous , May 9, 2017 at 10:23 pm

    I am no fan of Comey. I think his self-righteousness makes him a dangerous FBI Director and a loose cannon. However, people who think this is going to hurt Trump are likely wrong. If Trump knows there's nothing in the Russia story, but he continues to string out the Democrats with it, then they're the ones who are going to look foolish after having invested so much political capital in it. It may be the Russian story will be proven to be nonsense about October, 2018.

    DJPS , May 9, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    Since you can't prove a negative, the innuendo can continue ad nauseam.

    John Wright , May 10, 2017 at 12:30 am

    I suspect the Democrats are unaware they are indirectly insulting the Trump voters by the Russian influence story.. They are in effect saying Trump voters were played by the "evil" Russians into voting for Trump, despite the 1Billion spend by Clinton and her considerable support in the US media. I don't imagine the Trump voters like this message.

    It is truly remarkable, the Russians spend about 10% of what the USA does on "Defense" and are able to influence a US electorate that is largely unaware and unconcerned about world affairs.

    I believe enough voters know that Clinton played fast and loose with the email server to avoid FOIA and the Clinton Foundation pulled in a lot of money from foreign governments as payment in advance to President Hillary Clinton..

    The harping on the "Russia influenced the election enough to elect Trump" will bite the Democrats as they avoid the jobs, medical and economic issues that actually influenced the voters for Trump.

    If Trump indirectly destroys both the Democratic and Republican parties, he might rank as one of our more important Presidents, quite unintentionally.

    Loblolly May 10, 2017 at 1:11 am

    That would require us to be rational actors rather than the cartoon idiots the media portrays us as.

    djrichard , May 10, 2017 at 1:25 am

    I've taken to using doge speak in my comments on Yahoo articles and WaPo articles. I figure that's about as much intelligence the publishers are investing into the articles and into the audience, that I therefore tune my intelligence accordingly.

    Kim Kaufman , May 9, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    CNN exclusive: Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation

    By Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Pamela Brown, CNN

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

    What seems to me to be most problematic for Flynn is not so much Russia but that he was getting paid by Turkey as a lobbyist while heading the NSA.

    Art Eclectic , May 9, 2017 at 10:52 pm

    Nice. Team Trump managed to get out ahead of that story with their own. That's some ninja level media mastery.

    readerOfTeaLeaves , May 9, 2017 at 11:53 pm

    The plot thickens.

    juliania , May 9, 2017 at 11:04 pm

    If it has to do with the Russian electorial witch hunt stupidity, then yes, I think Comey ought to have been fired. For crying out loud, enough already! Delicate matters are being attempted in the Middle East, and there is no sense in pursuing that craziness. I don't understand why that shouldn't be a perfectly acceptable reason to change direction and start attending to real issues with someone in the office who would support Trump's legitimate claim (and Putin's) that there was no there there.

    Wrong Letters , May 9, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    Why doesnt he fire the top 10 layers of CIA instead? They are wreaking havoc for real everywhere domestically and abroad.

    Huey Long , May 10, 2017 at 1:26 am

    I would imagine the CIA/Intel guys are way harder to get rid of. To quote the late, great Sen. Frank Church:

    If this government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology. ( )

    Toolate , May 9, 2017 at 11:27 pm

    So not one poster here thinks the Russia story has any merit whatsoever? With those odds, the contrarian in me says hmmm

    Yves Smith Post author , May 10, 2017 at 12:31 am

    Because people here are smart enough to be skeptical of hysterical MSM headlines with no real goods, you act as if you are some sort of smart contrarian, when you are just echoing a Democratic party/media narrative?

    You do not seem to recognize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea that billionaire, who was already famous in the US by virtue (among other things) of having a TV show that ran for 14 years and got billions of free media coverage during his campaign, is somehow owned by Putin, is astonishing on its face. Trump had to have been the focus of extensive Republican and Democratic party opposition research while he was campaigning.

    And perhaps most important, the night he won, Trump clearly did not expect to win. His longstanding friend Howard Stern stated a view similar to ours, that Trump ran because it would be good PR and the whole thing developed a life of its own. And before you try saying politics doesn't work that way, the UK is now on a path to Brexit for the same reasons.

    All the Dems and the media have come up with are some kinda-sorta connections to Russia. Trump as a very rich man who also has assembled a large team of political types in short order, would have people who knew people in all corners of the world. "X has done business with Y" is hardly proof o of influence, particularly with a guy like Trump, who is now famous for telling people what they want to hear in a meeting and backstabbing them the next day.

    We've been looking at this for months. The best they can come up with is:

    1. Manafort, who worked for Trump for all of four months and was fired. Plus his Russia connections are mainly through Ukraine. Podesta has strong if not stronger Russia ties, is a much more central play to Clinton and no one is making a stink about that. And that's before you get to the Clinton involvement in a yuuge uranium sale to Russia, which even the New York Times confirmed (but wrote such a weedy story that you have to read carefully to see that).

    2. Carter Page, who was even more peripheral

    3. Flynn, again not a central player, plus it appears his bigger sin involved Turkey

    4. The conversation with the Russian ambassador, which contrary to the screeching has plenty of precedent (in fact, Nixon and Reagan did far more serious meddling)

    5. The various allegations re Trump real estate and bank loans. Trump did have a really seedy Russian involved in a NYC development. One should be more worried that the guy was a crook than that he was Russian. Third tier, not even remotely in the oligarch class. There are also vague allegations re money laundering. The is crap because first, every NYC real estate player has dirty money in high end projects (see the big expose by the New York Times on the Time Warner Center, developed by the Related Companies, owned by Steve Ross). But second, the party responsible for checking where the money came from, unless it was wheelbarrows of cash, is the bank, not the real estate owner. Since the NYT expose there have been efforts to make developers/owners responsible too, but those aren't germane to Trump since they aren't/weren't in effect.

    So please do not provide no value added speculation. If you have something concrete, that would be interesting, but I've been looking and I've seen nothing of any substance.

    Huey Long , May 10, 2017 at 1:07 am

    +1 on the Time Warner Center

    Very few condos there are occupied for more than a few days per year, and most of the residents I encountered during my tenure there were not US citizens.

    We were all very entertained when the Times broke the story.

    Just FYI, Ross does not own the TWC outright, he only has a stake in the place albeit a sizable one since aquiring TIme Warner's office/studio unit.

    LT , May 10, 2017 at 1:50 am

    Trump a crook, but not any other oligarchs? The old saying goes something like behind every great fortune is a great crime.

    They clean up the image with a few rewrites and something like public office or foundations. The Presidency is Trump's ca-ching. And the pauses on the promises and the falling in line (bombs away!). He'll be right in the club.

    George Phillies , May 10, 2017 at 12:40 am

    Mr Comey also made some statements recently about Clinton emails and Mr Wiener, statements that seemed to be in need of significant reinterpretation. That might also have been the cause.

    VietnamVet , May 10, 2017 at 12:56 am

    Corporate Government messaging has fallen apart. The description of Anthony Weiner's laptop went from "explosive" to "careless but not criminal" to "just several" Clinton e-mails on it.

    Democrats are generally supported by Wall Street, GOP by military contractors; but, together they are one war party. The new Saturday Night Massacre shows that with Donald Trump's triumph, the government has split apart into nationalist and globalist factions. No doubt the James Comey firing buries the Russian interference investigation. However, with the wars in Syria and Afghanistan re-surging; this episode shows that nothing the government says or the media reports is near the truth.

    Loblolly , May 10, 2017 at 1:25 am

    This is ostensibly the full memo from Deputy AG Rosenthal recommending the removal of Director Comey.

    Link is to an imgur album consisting of three images.

    <

    [May 10, 2017] What seems to me to be most problematic for Flynn is not so much Russia but that he was getting paid by Turkey as a lobbyist while heading the NSA.

    May 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Kim Kaufman , May 9, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    CNN exclusive: Grand jury subpoenas issued in FBI's Russia investigation

    By Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Pamela Brown, CNN

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/09/politics/grand-jury-fbi-russia/index.html

    What seems to me to be most problematic for Flynn is not so much Russia but that he was getting paid by Turkey as a lobbyist while heading the NSA.

    [May 10, 2017] United to Protect Democracy filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding he cough up all e-mails, memoranda, advisory opinions and/or anything which could be viewed as legal argumentation justifying the April 7, 2017 attack on the Syrian Airbase at Al-Shu'ayraat southeast of Homs City."

    May 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Anon @6

    Impeachment over his abuse of power in the Syrian airbase cruise missile attack?

    "United to Protect Democracy (UPD) is an advocacy group whose introductory web page describes it as a "nonpartisan nonprofit" organization established to hold the President of the United States accountable "to the laws and longstanding practices that have protected our democracy through both Democratic and Republican Administrations". The governing board of UPD is made up of former Obama Administration attorneys led by legal director, Justin Florence. They have just filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration demanding he cough up all e-mails, memoranda, advisory opinions and/or anything which could be viewed as legal argumentation justifying the April 7, 2017 attack on the Syrian Airbase at Al-Shu'ayraat southeast of Homs City."

    https://syrianperspective.com/2017/05/trump-sued-by-watchdog-to-discover-legal-reasons-for-his-attack-on-syria.html

    [May 10, 2017] it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere but can this be a distraction for the establishment politicians and media?

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and Trump get a few things done? ..."
    May 10, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    james | May 10, 2017 12:21:57 PM | 30

    i can never understand why politics has to be so complex, but it is.. it could be a lot more simple.. so for those who want to understand why things happen, they have to go beyond the surface..
    • this comey guy was dishonest.. why have someone like that around?
    • mccain - he has been a warmonger for forever.. why is he and so many others still around? they sure aren't serving the public's need.. unfortunately trump isn't serving the publics needs either..

    i agree with @4 ftb.. now, just cause someone says trump is done, doesn't mean he stops doing the crazy shit he is going continue to do.. but so far, none of it amounts to a hill of beans.. i can't see him doing anything relevant at this point other then bringing more trouble to the usa.. if he would step down prematurely, it wouldn't surprise me. he is out of his league and needs to stick to twitter..

    Peter AU | May 10, 2017 2:24:06 PM | 43

    The Trump show is becoming interesting. A short time ago it looked like Trump was about to start wars everywhere. US establishment seemed to all agree that made him very presidential. A distraction for the establishment politicians and media while Tillerson and Trump get a few things done?

    In the last weeks there has been a meeting between Tillerson and Putin, Lavrov and Trump will be meeting soon. Comey in charge of the Trump/Russia investigation has now been sacked. In Syria, US has hardly moved towards Raqqa, agreed to the Russian de-escalation zones which free up Syrian forces for a drive on Deir Ezzor and possibly Raqqa. The other thing that has appeared in the news in the last couple of weeks is that the Trump white house has not approved any pentagon requests to run their so called freedom of navigation exercises against China.

    Grieved | May 10, 2017 2:56:51 PM | 47

    @43 Peter Au

    Nice observation. Personally, I still hold off any judgment on who Trump is - there simply isn't enough roller-coaster motion yet to judge where the trend lines belong.

    A lot of the things I see him get blamed for are actually only theater, including Korea - or else relatively minor actions that satisfy subordinate departments (such as the US Navy), and that appear to make waves but that don't actually capsize the big picture. It's an uncomfortable brinkmanship to watch if you believe it's real, but I'm not sure that Trump believes it's anything more than pre-negotiation sand in the eyes.

    And a lot of other things that actually do happen domestically are part of the Republican and classical conservative agenda anyway. No organized force in the US exists anymore to combat these things, certainly not the sold-out Democrats and their long co-opted unions.

    Meanwhile, as you note, the realities on the geopolitical ground globally proceed in a direction favorable to peace.

    Peter AU | May 10, 2017 3:34:24 PM | 48
    @ Greived

    Tillerson may be the one to watch to see where the Trump roller coaster is heading? Trump distracts attention allowing Tillerson to get on with what they want to do?

    menechem golani | May 10, 2017 1:55:11 PM | 39
    very said day indeed
    indeed
    for usa usa and when israel is mighty oded yinon.
    comey was the last man standing a modern day kevin costner elliot ness in a sea of nazi and evil doing al capones and ali akhbar oceans 11ish
    we champions of anti semitismus and lgbt plus minus barbera lerner spector multiculralism frankfurt school must fight for are man
    and woman and all the gender fluids in between.
    so what if comey has a 5 million dollar home in the hamptons.
    so what if he has a dossier for safe keeping and insurance .
    so what if hsbc invested in him and andrew mcabe making them future proof.
    we in the upper golan israeli oil and gas have too support and protect are assets if they be in the fbi or in the al nusra syriana.
    mcabe will do a great job smashing more phones hammer tongs and bleachbit. stabilising this situation be assured mcabae will not rest until the ratlines drugs,arms slave and live organ trades are back up to peak bush obarmee levels.

    [May 09, 2017] Is the US Preparing to Launch a Nuclear Attack Against Russia and China by Dave Hodges

    May 09, 2017 | www.thecommonsenseshow.com

    In the Russian publication, Pravada , the Russians media has recently asserted that the U.S. is engaging in proto-warfare against Russia and China on a number of fronts.

    Proto-warfare is characterized by the use of coercive methods which are designed to weaken an adversary prior to attacking the enemy. The proto-war strategies include "threats against the targeted country, economic sanctions; military encirclement around its borders. cyber-warfare, drone warfare, and use of proxy forces from within or from outside the country for political and/or military action against the local government". Presently, the United States has engaged in all of these strategies against Russia and Ukraine.

    Further, proto-wars also consist of propaganda campaigns against the targeted countries. Pravada points to the fact that the America media campaigns are unusually effective because they are waged by the five giant media conglomerates which now control 90% of the U.S. media and these media conglomerates are directly linked to the U.S. foreign-policy establishment in the Council of Foreign Relations. In other words, the bulk of the American citizens are being prepared to accept war with Russia and China. It is clear that the official news publication of the Russian government agrees with Dr. Roberts assertion.

    The Wolfowitz Doctrine

    According to the Wolfowitz Doctrine , which was constructed in 1992, the United States "must sufficiently account for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order."

    Further, the doctrine states that "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power."

    I have written about this fact repeatedly with regard to the importance of Ukraine. If Russia gains control of Ukraine, Putin will effectively control Europe's energy needs as two-thirds of the gas shipped into Europe flows through Ukraine. If Russia gains control of Ukraine, they will effectively control the economies of Europe and NATO will be irreparably damaged. This would put the Russian military on an even par with the United States and the tenets of the Wolfkowitz Doctrine cannot permit the re-establishment of the old Soviet Union to a level where its reacquisition of super-power status could challenge the United States. Before Putin is allowed to occupy Ukraine, the United States will launch a nuclear first strike against the Russians, and because the Russians are now closely aligned with the Chinese, a first strike against China will also be necessary.

    The Bilderberg Group

    Bilderberg expert, Daniel Estulin , is claiming that the Bilderbergs are interested in breaking up the alliance between China, Russia and Iran. According to Estulin, this unholy alliance is threatening Western domination of the planet. Estulin believes that this alliance will not be allowed to stand and Bilderberg interests will take action. This makes the possiblity of WW III is becoming very likely. Daniel is appearing on my talk show on June 22nd and I will question him more about this . However, and for now, Estulin remains concerned that the Bilderberg is determined to break up the re-emergence of the former Soviet empire and the dramatic increase of Chinese influence and power.

    Continuity of Government

    Recent actions within several agencies of the federal government would point to the fact that government is preparing for something very big and on the order of what Dr. Roberts is predicting.

    There are several agencies and departments within the government that are presently going through a major reorganization, a redundancy of function and in some cases, a partial geographic relocation.

    For years, the CIA has been relocating many of its operations to Denver International Airport (underground). This is not newsworthy in the sense that this does not represent a recent development which would be emblematic of a major shift in recent domestic or foreign policy. However, when considered within the context of what is happening in other agencies or departments, this move mostly likely represents the kickoff of a long range plan on the part of the agency to survive a devastating attack upon Langley.

    The FBI is presently relocating a number of agents and related personnel from Washington D.C. to the near empty federal building in Phoenix and also to Las Vegas and Houston. In at least two cases that I have been made aware of, there is a complete redundancy of Bureau duties and functions within these relocations. With all due seriousness, I have also been told that many important hard-copy records are being placed within mini-Faraday cages designed to survive and EMP attack. Stop and think for a moment, what weapon is known for generating an EMP? Why that would be a nuclear weapon.

    The State Department is presently undergoing a massive purge on multiple fronts. First, many of the independent contractors are being let go. Why? Independent contractors make wonderful whistle blowers because their careers are not necessarily invested in the long-term integrity and public appearance of the State Department . Second, many State Department functions are being geographically moved and there are also the many redundancies of functionality appearing within the State Department. For example, cubicles which formerly housed 20 employees per office, now house 40 employees. It is a commonly known fact that many workers at the State Department are disgruntled because the overcrowded working conditions have resulted in employees having to share duties and even computers with their new coworkers. This represents a clear effort to duplicate personnel functions across a wide geographic spectrum as many State Department employees have been told that they are being geographically relocated. And the relocation is so hurried, that higher ups do not have answers for their subordinates about the budgeting for the relocations. Many of the new workers hired by the State Department are NEW independent contractors, thus making it easier to compartmentalize intelligence information. In an unrelated matter, there is a major purge going on within the State Department with regard to Benghazi necessitated by the new rash of Congressional investigations on Ambassador Steven's gun running to al-Qaeda for the purposes or facilitating regime change in Libya and Syria and funding these operations with drug running and using profits derived from child sex trafficking. It is safe to say that the State Department is absolute chaos.

    In the final analysis, when a government agency or department begins to spread out its assets and begins to duplicate functions, to the detriment of their already strained budgets, these moves can only be attributed to one goal: The Continuity of Government. What is the Continuity of Government? It is a long-term evolutionary plan devised by the U.S. government to survive a nuclear attack. As Ray Charles could see, the dots are beginning to connect.

    Conclusion

    DHS and the NSA are experiencing some similar personnel moves as well. And let's not forget that the every federal agency, ranging from the National Weather Service to the USDA to DHS are arming to the teeth. Why? I can only conclude that they are preparing to fight the American people because we can safely bet that the National Weather Service and the EPA are not going to be invading Ukraine. Clearly, the federal government is preparing to survive something very big.

    It has long been my belief that WW III will be preceded by a brutal martial law designed to control the people. Martial law will be precipitated by a false flag event which will be used to justify martial law. And one can safely bet that a new false flag event will be one of massive proportions (e.g. EMP attack) because the public is much wiser to the use false flag attacks than we were on 9/11.

    Our national leaders believe they can win a nuclear war against China and Russia by attacking first, using nuclear submarines which are hard to detect and counter and then by deploying ABM's to knock down the Chinese and Russian counter response.

    Can anyone really win a nuclear war?

    Dr. Roberts raises the question as to whether anyone can really can expect to win a nuclear war with such consequences as nuclear winter, the radiating of much of the world's water table and the poisoning of livestock and crops. In a nuclear winter, the sun would be so thoroughly blocked out that nothing would grow and mass famine would result. I agree with Dr. Roberts, there are no national winners in a nuclear war.

    ... ... ...

    [May 09, 2017] These Nuclear Breakthroughs Are Endangering the World

    Notable quotes:
    "... it is pure luck that we have avoided a nuclear exchange - and that the possibility of nuclear war is greater today than it was at the height of the Cold War. ..."
    "... In January 1995, Russian early warning radar on the Kola Peninsula picked up a rocket launch from a Norwegian island that looked as if it was targeting Russia. In fact, the rocket was headed toward the North Pole, but Russian radar tagged it as a Trident II missile coming in from the North Atlantic. The scenario was plausible. While some first strike attacks envision launching a massive number of missiles, others call for detonating a large warhead over a target at about 800 miles altitude. The massive pulse of electro-magnetic radiation that such an explosion generates would blind or cripple radar systems over a broad area. That would be followed with a first strike. ..."
    "... What that means is that while the U.S. would have about 30 minutes of warning time to investigate whether an attack was really taking place, the Russians would have 15 minutes or less. ..."
    "... The U.S. Ohio class submarine is armed with 24 Trident II missiles, carrying as many as 192 warheads. The missiles can be launched in less than a minute. ..."
    "... The other element in this modernization program that has Russia and China uneasy is the decision by the Obama administration to place anti-missile systems in Europe and Asia, and to deploy Aegis ship-based anti-missile systems off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. From Moscow's perspective - and Beijing's as well - those interceptors are there to absorb the few missiles that a first strike might miss. ..."
    "... "I don't know how this is all going to end," Putin told the St. Petersburg delegates. "What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves." ..."
    "... Foreign Policy In Focus columnist Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com and middleempireseries.wordpress.com . ..."
    May 09, 2017 | fpif.org

    Writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists , Hans Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project of the Federation of American Scientists, Matthew McKinzie of the National Resources Defense Council, and physicist and ballistic missile expert Theodore Postol conclude that "Under the veil of an otherwise-legitimate warhead life-extension program," the U.S. military has vastly expanded the "killing power" of its warheads such that it can "now destroy all of Russia's ICBM silos."

    The upgrade - part of the Obama administration's $1 trillion modernization of America's nuclear forces - allows Washington to destroy Russia's land-based nuclear weapons, while still retaining 80 percent of U.S. warheads in reserve. If Russia chose to retaliate, it would be reduced to ash.

    ... ... ...

    The strategy behind a first strike - sometimes called a "counter force" attack - isn't to destroy an opponent's population centers, but to eliminate the other sides' nuclear weapons, or at least most of them. Anti-missile systems would then intercept a weakened retaliatory strike.

    The technical breakthrough that suddenly makes this a possibility is something called the "super-fuze", which allows for a much more precise ignition of a warhead. If the aim is to blow up a city, such precision is superfluous. But taking out a reinforced missile silo requires a warhead to exert a force of at least 10,000 pounds per square inch on the target.

    Up until the 2009 modernization program, the only way to do that was to use the much more powerful - but limited in numbers - W88 warhead. Fitted with the super-fuze, however, the smaller W76 can now do the job, freeing the W88 for other targets.

    Traditionally, land-based missiles are more accurate than sea-based missiles, but the former are more vulnerable to a first-strike than the latter, because submarines are good at hiding. The new super-fuze does not increase the accuracy of Trident II submarine missiles, but it makes up for that with the precision of where the weapon detonates. "In the case of the 100-kt Trident II warhead," write the three scientists, "the super-fuze triples the killing power of the nuclear force it is applied to."

    Before the super-fuze was deployed, only 20 percent of U.S. subs had the ability to destroy re-enforced missile silos. Today, all have that capacity.

    Trident II missiles typically carry from four to five warheads, but can expand that up to eight. While the missile is capable of hosting as many as 12 warheads, that configuration would violate current nuclear treaties. U.S. submarines currently deploy about 890 warheads, of which 506 are W76s and 384 are W88s.

    The land-based ICBMs are Minuteman III, each armed with three warheads - 400 in total - ranging from 300 kt to 500 kt apiece. There are also air and sea-launched nuclear tipped missiles and bombs. The Tomahawk cruise missiles that recently struck Syria can be configured to carry a nuclear warhead.

    The Technology Gap

    The super-fuze also increases the possibility of an accidental nuclear conflict.

    So far, the world has managed to avoid a nuclear war, although during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis it came distressingly close. There have also been several scary incidents when U.S. and Soviet forces went to full alert because of faulty radar images or a test tape that someone thought was real. While the military downplays these events, former Secretary of Defense William Perry argues that it is pure luck that we have avoided a nuclear exchange - and that the possibility of nuclear war is greater today than it was at the height of the Cold War.

    In part, this is because of a technology gap between the U.S. and Russia.

    In January 1995, Russian early warning radar on the Kola Peninsula picked up a rocket launch from a Norwegian island that looked as if it was targeting Russia. In fact, the rocket was headed toward the North Pole, but Russian radar tagged it as a Trident II missile coming in from the North Atlantic. The scenario was plausible. While some first strike attacks envision launching a massive number of missiles, others call for detonating a large warhead over a target at about 800 miles altitude. The massive pulse of electro-magnetic radiation that such an explosion generates would blind or cripple radar systems over a broad area. That would be followed with a first strike.

    At the time, calmer heads prevailed and the Russians called off their alert, but for a few minutes the doomsday clock moved very close to midnight.

    According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists , the 1995 crisis suggests that Russia does not have "a reliable and working global space-based satellite early warning system." Instead, Moscow has focused on building ground-based systems that give the Russians less warning time than satellite-based ones do. What that means is that while the U.S. would have about 30 minutes of warning time to investigate whether an attack was really taking place, the Russians would have 15 minutes or less.

    That, according to the magazine, would likely mean that "Russian leadership would have little choice but to pre-delegate nuclear launch authority to lower levels of command," hardly a situation that would be in the national security interests of either country.

    Or, for that matter, the world.

    A recent study found that a nuclear war between India and Pakistan using Hiroshima-sized weapons would generate a nuclear winter that would make it impossible to grow wheat in Russia and Canada and cut the Asian Monsoon's rainfall by 10 percent. The result would be up to 100 million deaths by starvation. Imagine what the outcome would be if the weapons were the size used by Russia, China, or the U.S.

    For the Russians, the upgrading of U.S. sea-based missiles with the super-fuze would be an ominous development. By "shifting the capacity to submarines that can move to missile launch positions much closer to their targets than land-based missiles," the three scientists conclude, "the U.S. military has achieved a significantly greater capacity to conduct a surprise first strike against Russian ICBM silos."

    The U.S. Ohio class submarine is armed with 24 Trident II missiles, carrying as many as 192 warheads. The missiles can be launched in less than a minute.

    The Russians and Chinese have missile-firing submarines as well, but not as many, and some are close to obsolete. The U.S. has also seeded the world's oceans and seas with networks of sensors to keep track of those subs. In any case, would the Russians or Chinese retaliate if they knew that the U.S. still retained most of its nuclear strike force? Faced with a choice committing national suicide or holding their fire, they may well choose the former.

    The other element in this modernization program that has Russia and China uneasy is the decision by the Obama administration to place anti-missile systems in Europe and Asia, and to deploy Aegis ship-based anti-missile systems off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. From Moscow's perspective - and Beijing's as well - those interceptors are there to absorb the few missiles that a first strike might miss.

    In reality, anti-missile systems are pretty iffy. Once they migrate off the drawing boards, their lethal efficiency drops rather sharply. Indeed, most of them can't hit the broad side of a barn. But that's not a chance the Chinese and the Russians can afford to take.

    Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Forum in June 2016, Russian President Valdimir Putin charged that U.S. anti-missile systems in Poland and Romania were not aimed at Iran, but at Russia and China. "The Iranian threat does not exist, but missile defense systems continue to be positioned." He added, "a missile defense system is one element of the whole system of offensive military potential."

    Unraveling Arms Accords

    The danger here is that arms agreements will begin to unravel if countries decide that they are suddenly vulnerable. For the Russians and the Chinese, the easiest solution to the American breakthrough is to build a lot more missiles and warheads, and treaties be dammed.

    The new Russian cruise missile may indeed strain the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, but it is also a natural response to what are, from Moscow's view, alarming technological advances by the U.S. Had the Obama administration reversed the 2002 decision by George W. Bush's administration to unilaterally withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the new cruise might never have been deployed.

    There are a number of immediate steps that the U.S. and the Russians could take to de-escalate the current tensions. First, taking nuclear weapons off their hair-trigger status would immediately reduce the possibility of accidental nuclear war. That could be followed by a pledge of "no first use" of nuclear weapons.

    If this does not happen, it will almost certainly result in an accelerated nuclear arms race . "I don't know how this is all going to end," Putin told the St. Petersburg delegates. "What I do know is that we will need to defend ourselves."

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

    [May 08, 2017] NYT Mag: Silicon Valley Has Been Transformed into Center of Anti-Trump Resistance

    May 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    The article , written by Farhad Manjoo, is titled "Can Facebook Fix Its Own Worst Bug?" and poses the question: "Mark Zuckerberg now acknowledges the dangerous side of the social revolution he helped start. But is the most powerful tool for connection in human history capable of adapting to the world it created?"

    The article discusses the mood in Silicon Valley days before Donald Trump's inauguration, describing the general mood as "grim." But Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was reportedly quite positive about the future, describing 2016 as an "interesting year for us [Facebook]."

    The article later describes Silicon Valley's detachment from real world events, saying, "In Silicon Valley, current events tend to fade into the background. The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war, the financial crisis and every recent presidential election occurred, for the tech industry, on some parallel but distant timeline divorced from the everyday business of digitizing the world."

    But the election of Donald Trump caused many in Silicon Valley to suddenly take notice of the political world, "Then Donald Trump won. In the 17 years I've spent covering Silicon Valley, I've never seen anything shake the place like his victory," Manjoo writes. "In the span of a few months, the Valley has been transformed from a politically disengaged company town into a center of anti-Trump resistance and fear."

    "A week after the election, one start-up founder sent me a private message on Twitter: 'I think it's worse than I thought,' he wrote. 'Originally I thought 18 months. I've cut that in half,'" Manjoo recalls. "Until what? 'Apocalypse. End of the world.'"

    The description of Silicon Valley as the "center of anti-Trump resistance" is unsurprising, Google employees and executives previously held rallies at Google offices across the United States in protest of President Trump's temporary travel halt from nations associated with terrorism.

    [May 08, 2017] NYT Mag: Silicon Valley Has Been Transformed into Center of Anti-Trump Resistance

    May 08, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    The article , written by Farhad Manjoo, is titled "Can Facebook Fix Its Own Worst Bug?" and poses the question: "Mark Zuckerberg now acknowledges the dangerous side of the social revolution he helped start. But is the most powerful tool for connection in human history capable of adapting to the world it created?"

    The article discusses the mood in Silicon Valley days before Donald Trump's inauguration, describing the general mood as "grim." But Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was reportedly quite positive about the future, describing 2016 as an "interesting year for us [Facebook]."

    The article later describes Silicon Valley's detachment from real world events, saying, "In Silicon Valley, current events tend to fade into the background. The Sept. 11 attacks, the Iraq war, the financial crisis and every recent presidential election occurred, for the tech industry, on some parallel but distant timeline divorced from the everyday business of digitizing the world."

    But the election of Donald Trump caused many in Silicon Valley to suddenly take notice of the political world, "Then Donald Trump won. In the 17 years I've spent covering Silicon Valley, I've never seen anything shake the place like his victory," Manjoo writes. "In the span of a few months, the Valley has been transformed from a politically disengaged company town into a center of anti-Trump resistance and fear."

    "A week after the election, one start-up founder sent me a private message on Twitter: 'I think it's worse than I thought,' he wrote. 'Originally I thought 18 months. I've cut that in half,'" Manjoo recalls. "Until what? 'Apocalypse. End of the world.'"

    The description of Silicon Valley as the "center of anti-Trump resistance" is unsurprising, Google employees and executives previously held rallies at Google offices across the United States in protest of President Trump's temporary travel halt from nations associated with terrorism.

    [May 08, 2017] Before calling this an act of deliberate betrayal think about bad cop/good cop ploy. DNC democrats gave us deregulation, killed GlassSteagall, refused to prosecute banksters, gave us a hokey republican health insurance plan, tried to give us TPP, continued more ME wars, screw with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what happened last November a little more likely. ..."
    "... What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material harm to millions of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different next time. And then they need to deliver. ..."
    "... Andrew Bacevich offers 24 things that the media and their very knowledgeable talking heads could be talking about instead of obsessing about Trump 24/7: ..."
    "... Our courtier press is worse than useless. The days of Walter Cronkite are but a distant memory. ..."
    May 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    JohnH -> pgl... , May 08, 2017 at 07:35 AM

    Vinyl records are back in vogue...apparently broken records are back, too, as Krugman reminds us in virtually every one of his columns these days.

    What Krugman could be writing about: "Another thing that is inexcusable from Democrats: surprise at the economic disasters that have befallen the midwestern cities and states that they used to represent.

    The wreckage that you see every day as you tour this part of the country is the utterly predictable fruit of the Democratic party's neoliberal turn. Every time our liberal leaders signed off on some lousy trade deal, figuring that working-class people had "nowhere else to go," they were making what happened last November a little more likely.

    Every time our liberal leaders deregulated banks and then turned around and told working-class people that their misfortunes were all attributable to their poor education was a lot of student loans and the right sort of college degree ... every time they did this they made the disaster a little more inevitable.

    Pretending to rediscover the exotic, newly red states of the Midwest, in the manner of the New York Times, is not the answer to this problem. Listening to the voices of the good people of Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan is not really the answer, either. Cursing those bad people for the stupid way they voted is an even lousier idea.

    What we need is for the Democratic party and its media enablers to alter course. It's not enough to hear people's voices and feel their pain; the party actually needs to change. They need to understand that the enlightened Davos ideology they have embraced over the years has done material harm to millions of their own former constituents. The Democrats need to offer something different next time. And then they need to deliver. "

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/07/obama-biography-stirs-controversy-with-tales-of-politics-sex-and-a-rising-star

    JohnH -> pgl... , May 08, 2017 at 08:22 AM
    Six ways the New York Times could make is op-ed page more representative...starting with space for supporters for the most popular politician in America: Bernie Sanders.
    https://theintercept.com/2017/05/08/six-ways-the-new-york-times-could-genuinely-make-its-op-ed-page-more-representative-of-america/

    Andrew Bacevich offers 24 things that the media and their very knowledgeable talking heads could be talking about instead of obsessing about Trump 24/7:
    https://theintercept.com/2017/05/08/six-ways-the-new-york-times-could-genuinely-make-its-op-ed-page-more-representative-of-america/

    Krugman is a broken record...

    mulp -> JohnH...

    , May 08, 2017 at 08:22 AM

    "Andrew Bacevich offers 24 things that the media and their very knowledgeable talking heads could be talking about instead of obsessing about Trump 24/7:"

    "But hiring another prominent writer whose ideology hems close to that of the nation's elites - in this case, fossil fuel corporations who are polluting the world and advocates of Western military might - is hardly adding intellectual diversity to the pages of the Times."

    So, the liberal elites are the Appalachian coal miners?

    Trump won because he appealed to the NY Times elites?

    "It could change that by hiring some of his prominent backers: philosopher Cornel West, Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara, civil rights scholar Michelle Alexander, labor organizer Jonathan Tasini, and former Nevada Assemblywoman and organizer Lucy Flores could all make strong additions."

    These people are effective because they have convinced voters to elect socialists across the
    US, just like Bernie, easily defeating the right-wingers the NY Times has attacked, like Cruz, Perry, Trump, et al?

    "The Times could fix this by hiring some of the more thoughtful Trump backers, or at least writers who have documented his appeal. For instance, there is Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who admires Trump's powers of persuasion and correctly predicted that he would be elected."

    So, if one admires the Chinese leadership for their economic policies of spreading the wealth by creating hundreds of millions of jobs paying high wages (for China) paid for with high taxes and high prices (for China), does that mean you want to live under Chinese rule?

    I admire the Chinese authoritarians for embracing Keynes and FDR and Galbraith, something you give lip service to, but actually oppose in policy.

    You are just as free lunch as Cato and Heritage and AEI and the Kochs, just picking different winners from unsustainable explosion of debt.

    BTW, I like Bacevich, except he argues that Obama had as much power as the Chinese authoritarians, and the Congress, the people, the Constitution are irrelevant.

    He argued that Obama had the power to ignore all the laws passed by Congress, and had the power to ignore all the voters, because Obama's problem was failing to do what the small number of elites wanted, elites who can't get any one elected in even the liberal elite enclaves.

    "The Times could break real ground by hiring talented millennial writers like the Washington Post's Elizabeth Bruenig or Demos's Sean McElwee. The Times could also go even younger, including the voices of Americans who are rarely heard: high-schoolers."

    Hmm, so WaPo is now in touch with the masses?

    What about NPR and PBS which has programs to train and give recording equipment to to kids so they can do reporting, and then get their stories aired? Are public broadcasting really dominating youth markets?

    As a liberal, I automatically seek to falsify claims by anyone regardless of policy position.

    I'm a Keynesian in the Galbraith mode, but I will criticize Keynesian arguments just like conservative figured out how to do, but in reducio absurdim to illustrate the weak argument by the Keynesian and logical fallacy of the conservative critique.

    "They could hire, for instance, leading climatologist James Hansen or environmental lawyer Erin Brockovich."

    Again, to people who utterly failed to get anyone elected, local, State, or Federal, to get anything done.

    Hansen has been a disaster in that he helped speed Trump into the White House by being a Don Quinto talking at oil pipelines, by inspiring tens of thousands of young people to drive gas guzzlers to anti oil pipeline protests.

    Hey, Hansen and Bernie promise the free lunch of no oil and gas wells and pipelines, but plenty of cheap gasoline for cars and trucks and SUVs and cheap heating for homes.

    Soul Super Bad -> anne... , May 08, 2017 at 07:04 AM

    The hidden persuaders exposed by Vance Packard!

    We got to get our Proud Nation back into gear; got to put the brakes on special interest; got to issue SNAP Card to each citizen; got to stop

    gaming the system -- !

    anne -> anne... , May 08, 2017 at 09:54 AM
    Proper context:

    https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.1.html

    1949

    Nineteen Eighty-four
    By George Orwell

    The Ministry of Truth-Minitrue, in Newspeak [Newspeak was the official language of Oceania. For an account of its structure and etymology see Appendix. * ]-was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston Smith stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

    WAR IS PEACE

    * https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/appendix.html

    The Ministry of Truth contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below. Scattered about London there were just three other buildings of similar appearance and size. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that from the roof of Victory Mansions you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts. The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty....

    anne , May 08, 2017 at 06:12 AM
    https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.1.html

    1949

    Nineteen Eighty-four
    By George Orwell

    The Ministry of Truth - Minitrue, in Newspeak [Newspeak was the official language of Oceania. For an account of its structure and etymology see Appendix. * ]- was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:

    WAR IS PEACE

    * https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/appendix.html

    pgl -> DrDick... , May 08, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    The problem is that they get away with this lying. Reporters - hello?!
    DrDick -> pgl... , May 08, 2017 at 08:46 AM
    Our courtier press is worse than useless. The days of Walter Cronkite are but a distant memory.

    [May 08, 2017] The cadre of leaders who had gained military experience in Spain and in the Far East was almost completely liquidated by Stalin

    May 08, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    somebody | May 7, 2017 11:23:30 AM | 82

    I think Sutton starts with Trotzky. But what he says is that Wall Street is agnostic, all they care about is making money. I think that there is no doubt about that.

    If Marine Le Pen's victory should mean capital leaves France and comes to the US they might vote Le Pen.

    On Stalin I think Khrushev has got a point

    Very grievous consequences, especially with regard to the beginning of the war, followed Stalin's annihilation of many military commanders and political workers during 1937-1941 because of his suspiciousness and through slanderous accusations. During these years repressions were instituted against certain parts of our military cadres beginning literally at the company - and battalion-commander levels and extending to higher military centers. During this time, the cadre of leaders who had gained military experience in Spain and in the Far East was almost completely liquidated.

    The policy of large-scale repression against military cadres led also to undermined military discipline, because for several years officers of all ranks and even soldiers in Party and Komsomol cells were taught to "unmask" their superiors as hidden enemies.

    (Movement in the hall.)

    It is natural that this caused a negative influence on the state of military discipline in the initial stage of the war.

    And, as you know, we had before the war excellent military cadres which were unquestionably loyal to the Party and to the Fatherland.

    There is more in his speech on Soviet lack of preparedness.

    ruralito | May 7, 2017 12:15:39 PM | 88

    Whatevs, Stalin tracked the wolf to his lair.

    https://archive.org/details/pdfy-nmIGAXUrq0OJ87zK

    Khrushchev lied : the evidence that every "revelation" of Stalin's (and Beria's) "crimes" in Nikita Khrushchev's infamous "secret speech" to the 20th party congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union on February 25, 1956, is provably false

    from p85

    As Kozhinov points out, Khrushchev's accusations here can be turned
    ■round on his own thesis. Historians do not blame President Roosevelt
    for (ailing to foresee the atlsck on Pearl Harbor. Therefore to blame Sta-
    lin for not foreseeing the precise time and place of the Nazi attack is to
    Ul prey to the "cult of personality", to believe Stalin was supposed to
    bre superhuman abilities and inexplicably failed to use them."<>

    The Soviets could not declare a mobilization because that was universally
    understood as a declaration of war. It was precisely such a mobilization
    that had set off the First World War. It would have given Hitler the op-
    poctunity to declare war, leaving the USSR vulnerable to a separate deal
    between Hitler and the Allies. And in a plan for "Operation 'Ost'" drawn
    up in 1940 German General>Major Marks make the regret^l remark that
    The Russians will not do us the favor of attacking us [fixst]."ii7

    Ihe Soviets could not rely upon British warnings* for the British clearly
    wanted to set Hider against the Soviet Union and weaken both, if not use
    die opportunity to make peace with Hitler against the Soviets, as many in
    the British establishment wanted.

    Marshal K.A. Meretskov, no admirer of Stalin, believed the situation im-
    mediately preceding the war was very complex, impossible to predict. His
    memoirs were published after Khrushchev's ouster, in 1968. Zhukov,
    who had been demoted in disgrace after the war by Stalin and had helped
    Khnishchev attack Stalin in 1957, thought the Soviet Union under Stalin
    had done everything it could to prepare for the war.

    dumbass | May 7, 2017 12:17:45 PM | 89
    I know almost nothing of this debate between Kozhinov and Khrushchev. But, this statement is ridiculous:

    >> Historians do not blame President Roosevelt for >> failing to foresee ... Pearl Harbor.

    I don't call those people "historians". I call them liars. Roosevelt did everything he could to engineer a casus belli.

    [May 08, 2017] I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall

    Notable quotes:
    "... Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe the lies. ..."
    "... As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place. ..."
    "... Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of country here)-first voters. ..."
    "... Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor are their media as useless, but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready to exploit any weaknesses they can use to their advantage. ..."
    May 08, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    David Shinn | May 7, 2017 9:36:32 AM | 75

    Listening to NPR spreading their propaganda about French elections made me want to vomit. Are the majority of western folks really as stupid as they seem to be? Judging by the crap people post on Facebook I'd say yes. The more "educated" a person is the more likely they are to believe the lies.

    Started watching 500 Nations about Europeans 'discovering' the Americas and all the brutality that came from it... had to turn it off because it isn't the sort of program a person wants to watch right before bed (unless one likes horror tales before sleep)

    All Spanish, English, French, South American, Central American and North American people should be required to watch it and contemplate our future based on this terrible past. Brutal thugs is what most of our supposed 'hero/discoverers' were, just like now.

    We continue to repeat the past, doing the same stupid crap that brought us to this moment in time when we have the ability to wipe our species off the face of the planet (as well as most other too). Will we continue on the road to mutually assured destruction, or will we try something new?

    As for the farce in France... I think Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.com has a good grasp of what the elite are trying to do. He has a series of articles postulating what he believes is the long game of the bankers and other wealthy feces, mostly using Trump as the example of how nationalist/conservatives are being set-up for a big fall. Interesting point of view that I find rather rational considering all the craziness taking place.

    His latest posting Why Trump is flipped on campaign promises

    And the post I have bookmarked Economic end game explained

    As always I appreciate everyone's contributions to MoA, Thanks

    Dave

    ralphieboy | May 7, 2017 9:53:15 AM | 76

    Every nation in Europe and the USA have at least 25-30% nativist, nationalist, (name of country here)-first voters. Trump managed to take advantage of a nearly dysfunctional electoral system, a fawning, celebrity-obsessed media and a highly disliked opposition candidate to gain enough popular votes to win. Other systems are not as dysfunctional, nor are their media as useless, but they will remain a presence on the political landscape, ready to exploit any weaknesses they can use to their advantage.

    ruralito | May 7, 2017 10:17:30 AM | 79

    @"somebody" In the depths of the Depression, Comrade Vissarionovich sought loans from Wall Street to industrialize Soviet industry. Wall Street was happy to oblige: the rest of the world was on its knees. Stalin knew what was coming; he had read Mein Kampf; he had fought the Whites. No doubt Wall Street thought they could usurp the Bolshevik revolution. They were wrong.

    See here for the antidote to Sutton's BS:
    http://www.stalinsociety.org/2016/03/04/the-real-stalin-series-part-six-industrialization/

    [May 07, 2017] Going Off the Rails by William S. Lind

    Notable quotes:
    "... Unfortunately, on the fourth issue, wars of hegemony, it appears his young administration is already going off the rails. Instead of an innovative foreign and defense policy, what we have seen so far is more of the same. Soon after his first appointments in these areas, we saw his officials race around the world to assure our allies that nothing would change. Those allies are holdovers from the Cold War, and their value is now questionable-especially if, as President Trump promised, we are going to seek better relations with Russia. ..."
    "... During his campaign, the president also said that most of our allies are freeloaders, which they are. We have committed to go to war for them, but they offer little in return. ..."
    "... The key to answering that question is first Russia, then China. Alliances with both are necessary to present an effective front against Fourth Generation War. Unlike our current allies, both have large and capable armed forces. The unique element of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy was its promise to reach out to Russia, seeking good relations at the least and perhaps even a formal accommodation. Where is that idea now? The Trump administration has taken anti-Russian positions at the UN and elsewhere. The absurd sanctions on Russia over retaking Crimea, historically a part of Russia, continue. ..."
    "... None of this adds up to the new foreign and defense policies we were promised but rather to the old counterproductive policies of the Republican establishment. We are to continue the Cold War, regarding Russia and China as rivals; keep on spending and dying in the Middle East, apparently until doomsday; and lay out a trillion dollars a year on a military that usually loses. Both military reform and a new grand strategy aimed at the Fourth Generation threat have died aborning. ..."
    May 07, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Four issues got Donald Trump elected president: immigration, free trade, political correctness, and the quest for American world hegemony along with the wars that it spawned. If he is to be reelected, he must deliver on all four.

    Unfortunately, on the fourth issue, wars of hegemony, it appears his young administration is already going off the rails. Instead of an innovative foreign and defense policy, what we have seen so far is more of the same. Soon after his first appointments in these areas, we saw his officials race around the world to assure our allies that nothing would change. Those allies are holdovers from the Cold War, and their value is now questionable-especially if, as President Trump promised, we are going to seek better relations with Russia.

    During his campaign, the president also said that most of our allies are freeloaders, which they are. We have committed to go to war for them, but they offer little in return. Most of their militaries are suited only to the parade ground, and a small parade ground at that; the entire German Army now has only 225 tanks. It would have trouble taking Luxembourg.

    President Trump was the antiwar candidate, but we hear nothing from his White House about ending the wars in Afghanistan or, more broadly, the Middle East. Go ahead and defeat ISIS, at least in the sense of preventing it from holding territory. But what then? Wiser Fourth Generation entities, or non-state forces, such as Hezbollah, will operate within hollowed-out states rather than attempt to become a state. And ISIS, like al-Qaeda, is merely one head of the Fourth Generation hydra. How do we preserve the state system itself in the face of the challenge Fourth Generation War poses?

    The key to answering that question is first Russia, then China. Alliances with both are necessary to present an effective front against Fourth Generation War. Unlike our current allies, both have large and capable armed forces. The unique element of candidate Donald Trump's foreign policy was its promise to reach out to Russia, seeking good relations at the least and perhaps even a formal accommodation. Where is that idea now? The Trump administration has taken anti-Russian positions at the UN and elsewhere. The absurd sanctions on Russia over retaking Crimea, historically a part of Russia, continue.

    None of this adds up to the new foreign and defense policies we were promised but rather to the old counterproductive policies of the Republican establishment. We are to continue the Cold War, regarding Russia and China as rivals; keep on spending and dying in the Middle East, apparently until doomsday; and lay out a trillion dollars a year on a military that usually loses. Both military reform and a new grand strategy aimed at the Fourth Generation threat have died aborning.

    Why? What has led President Trump to surrender to the establishment on foreign policy without even a fight? Several theories are in circulation. One is that the president is less comfortable with foreign-policy and defense issues than with domestic policy, knows he can't do everything, and is tired of media screams that he is going to blow up the world. He has therefore turned foreign and defense policy over to Vice President Pence, who is an establishment thinker, likely under the influence of neoconservatives. One would think that that bunch's spectacular failures under President George W. Bush would have forced them out of town. But that isn't how Washington works. Repeated policy failure is no bar to political success, especially if someone has access to gobs of money, as the neocons do.

    Another theory is that the White House has determined that the so-called deep state makes any real policy change impossible. All the Trump people think they can do is try to expose the deep state in a long-term effort to delegitimize it. If this is true, there are some facts behind it. The deep state-a conglomeration of federal employees, contractors, business allies on Wall Street, and essentially anyone who benefits from the status quo-is powerful in both foreign and defense policy circles. To talk about military reform is to threaten the single largest honey pot on earth. The status quo in foreign policy-which is to say a quest for world hegemony, for Jacobin ideas of democracy and "human rights"-has tremendous ideological backing within the State Department and much of the rest of the government, the media, and academia. Even for a president who enjoys saying, "You're fired," these are hard nuts to crack.

    But if Mr. Trump is to have a successful presidency, he must find a vise for cracking them. Turning foreign and defense policy over to the Republican establishment guarantees more failures of the kind we know all too well. We will start new wars, then lose them. If those wars are with either Russia or China, the scope of the defeats could be historic. We will pour more trillions of dollars into the sand. And the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation will grow, spread, and win.

    At home, by failing to deliver on one of his four most important campaign pledges, President Trump will weaken himself. He won the election because enough people voted against the establishment, both its Republican and Democratic wings, and those voters will not turn out again if he merely puts the Republican establishment in power. To the contrary, those voters will again seek someone who is anti-establishment, this time with the seriousness and persistence to fight the establishment and win. President Trump's success in the 2016 primaries will bring such people into the fray. And the president will, in the end, get trumped.

    William S. Lind is the author, with Lt. Col. Gregory A. Thiele, of the 4th Generation Warfare Handbook.

    [May 07, 2017] Twenty Truths about Marine Le Pen by James Petras

    Notable quotes:
    "... This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. ..."
    "... The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing. ..."
    "... And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. ..."
    "... The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think) ..."
    May 01, 2017 | www.unz.com
    87 Comments

    Introduction: Every day in unimaginable ways, prominent leaders from the left and the right, from bankers to Parisian intellectuals, are fabricating stories and pushing slogans that denigrate presidential candidate Marine Le Pen.

    They obfuscate her program, substituting the label 'extremist' for her pro-working class and anti-imperialist commitment. Fear and envy over the fact that a new leader heads a popular movement has seeped into Emmanuel "Manny" Macron's champagne-soaked dinner parties. He has good reason to be afraid: Le Pen addresses the fundamental interests of the vast- majority of French workers, farmers, public employees, unemployed and underemployed youth and older workers approaching retirement.

    The mass media, political class and judicial as well as street provocateurs savagely assault Le Pen, distorting her domestic and foreign policies. They are incensed that Le Pen pledges to remove France from NATO's integrated command – effectively ending its commitment to US directed global wars. Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine.

    Le Pen is committed to Keynesian demand-driven industrial revitalization as opposed to Emmanuel Macron's ultra-neoliberal supply-side agenda.

    Le Pen's program will raise taxes on banks and financial transactions while fining capital flight in order to continue funding France's retirement age of 62 for women and 65 for men, keeping the 35 hour work-week, and providing tax free overtime pay. She promises direct state intervention to prevent factories from relocating to low wage EU economies and firing French workers.

    Le Pen is committed to increasing public spending for childcare and for the poor and disabled. She has pledged to protect French farmers against subsidized, cheap imports.

    Marine Le Pen supports abortion rights and gay rights. She opposes the death penalty. She promises to cut taxes by 10% for low-wage workers. Marine is committed to fighting against sexism and for equal pay for women.

    Marine Le Pen will reduce migration to ten thousand people and crack down on immigrants with links to terrorists.

    Emmanuel Macron: Macro Billionaire and Micro Worker Programs

    Macron has been an investment banker serving the Rothschild and Cie Banque oligarchy, which profited from speculation and the pillage of the public treasury. Macron served in President Hollande's Economy Ministry, in charge of 'Industry and Digital Affairs' from 2014 through 2016. This was when the 'Socialist' Hollande imposed a pro-business agenda, which included a 40 billion-euro tax cut for the rich.

    Macron is tied to the Republican Party and its allied banking and business Confederations, whose demands include: raising the retirement age, reducing social spending, firing tens of thousands of public employees and facilitating the outflow of capital and the inflow of cheap imports.

    Macron is an unconditional supporter of NATO and the Pentagon. He fully supports the European Union. For their part, the EU oligarchs are thrilled with Macron's embrace of greater austerity for French workers, while the generals can expect total material support for the ongoing and future US-NATO wars on three continents.

    Propaganda, Labels and Lies

    Macron's pro-war, anti-working class and 'supply-side' economic policies leave us with only one conclusion: Marine Le Pen is the only candidate of the left. Her program and commitments are pro-labor, not 'hard' or 'far' right – and certainly not 'fascist'.

    Macron, on the other hand is a committed rightwing extremist, certainly no 'centrist', as the media and the political elite claim! One has only to look at his background in banking, his current supporters among the oligarchs and his ministerial policies when he served Francois Holland.

    The 'Macronistas' have accused Marine Le Pen of extreme 'nationalism', 'fascism', 'anti-Semitism' and 'anti-immigrant racism'. 'The French Left', or what remains of it, has blindly swallowed the oligarchs' campaign against Le Pen despite the malodorous source of these libels.

    Le Pen is above all a 'sovereigntist': 'France First'. Her fight is against the Brussels oligarchs and for the restoration of sovereignty to the French people. There is an infinite irony in labeling the fight against imperial political power as 'hard right'. It is insulting to debase popular demands for domestic democratic power over basic economic policies, fiscal spending, incomes and prices policies, budgets and deficits as 'extremist and far right'.

    Marine Le Pen has systematically transformed the leadership, social, economic program and direction of the National Front Party.

    She expelled its anti-Semites, including her own father! She transformed its policy on women's rights, abortion, gays and race. She won the support of young unemployed and employed factory workers, public employees and farmers. Young workers are three times more likely to support her national industrial revitalization program over Macron's 'free market dogma'. Le Pen has drawn support from French farmers as well as the downwardly mobile provincial middle-class, shopkeepers, clerks and tourism-based workers and business owners.

    Despite the trends among the French masses against the oligarchs, academics, intellectuals and political journalists have aped the elite's slander against Le Pen because they will not antagonize the prestigious media and their administrators in the universities. They will not acknowledge the profound changes that have occurred within the National Front under Marine Le Pen. They are masters of the 'double discourse' – speaking from the left while working with the right. They confuse the lesser evil with the greater evil.

    If Macron wins this election (and nothing is guaranteed!), he will certainly implement his 'hard' and 'extreme' neo-liberal agenda. When the French workers go on strike and demonstrators erect barricades in the streets in response to Macron's austerity, the fake-left will bleat out their inconsequential 'critique' of 'impure reason'. They will claim that they were right all along.

    If Le Pen loses this election, Macron will impose his program and ignite popular fury. Marine will make an even stronger candidate in the next election if the French oligarchs' judiciary does not imprison her for the crime of defending sovereignty and social justice.

    Altai , May 1, 2017 at 11:55 pm GMT

    This is why all the economic populists will inevitably be labelled right-wing. The 'left' is incapable of dealing with the crisis of neoliberalism, because the most effective tool of neoliberalism, mass immgration, is now held as utterly sacrosanct by them. Thus any salves by the 'left' or 'far-left' (Hi Syriza and your blanket amnesty of illegal immigrants at a time of 40% unemployment in Greece!) will be temporary at best. No amount of welfare will make up for increased unemployment, lowered wages, a lack of housing, a lack of affordable family foundation and ethnic displacement. It makes me sick when I see so-called socialists making energetic campaigns to stop failed asylum seekers being deported.

    The modern 'left' is totally anti-working class in every dimension. Only they do adore welfare as a form of charity to dull the effects of mass migration (Though it is likely now more an accelerant of it) and corporatists are fine with it because they pay less from tax increases than they make in outsourcing and insourcing.

    And the modern left is like this because it is so thoroughly middle class, there are so many reasons for this, but the reality is what it is. So they get confused and ponder why the working class is 'voting against it's own interests'. It's painful to watch. One's ethnic group having a majority and centrality in it's homeland is the most valuable thing imaginable. The wealthy whites who sneer pay an exorbitant tax to insulate their children and raise them among their own kind, but don't ever seem to realise.

    The part that irks me the most is their disdain for native working class for various, often exaggerated, PC defects and then praise newcomers who have even worse pathologies. Maybe they don't recognise it, but they hate the native working class because they are of their society and thus a threat whereas outsiders can be safely brought in like strike breakers. (They think)

    Carlton Meyer , May 2, 2017 at 4:32 am GMT

    Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:

    watch-v=p_XeQs5n5js

    wayfarer , May 2, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

    Brother Nathanael, has Marine Le Pen's back!

    jilles dykstra , May 2, 2017 at 6:07 am GMT

    The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:

    • the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
    • the German occupation was relatively benign.

    Both statements are objectively true.
    Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
    He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997
    Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
    Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.

    jilles dykstra , May 2, 2017 at 6:11 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=150&v=p_XeQs5n5js

    edNels , May 2, 2017 at 6:50 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer Like most Americans, I knew little about Le Pen, but became an admirer after seeing this short video clip of her crushing CNN's famous neocon Christiane Amanpour promoting World War III with Russia. Note Amanpour's propaganda technique of proclaiming falsehoods and then asking for a comment:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=150&v=p_XeQs5n5js

    unpc downunder , May 2, 2017 at 7:56 am GMT

    The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.

    The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?

    In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen for two reasons:

    1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists) and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote

    2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.

    Anonymous , May 2, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT

    "Le Pen rejects the oligarch-dominated European Union and its austerity programs, which have enriched bankers and multi-national corporations. Le Pen promises to convoke a national referendum over the EU – to decide French submission. Le Pen promises to end sanctions against Russia and, instead, increase trade. She will end France's intervention in Syria and establish ties with Iran and Palestine."

    Do you remember anybody from recent history who also made similar lofty promises, but found himself neutered by invisible rulers?

    France (that hypocrite nation) is a proud part of the western civilisation, which thrives on hegemony. So, LePen-the-cursed will not do anything to change that fundamental world order. Therein lies the rub.

    anonymous , May 2, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT

    Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.

    True but misleading. Most of those deaths were due to accidentally introduced diseases. North America, in particular, was largely emptied out by waves of new diseases that struck down tribes that had never seen or heard of the white man.

    Yes, there was some fighting, though much of it was factional rather than racial - eg, the abused slaves of the Aztecs sided with the Spaniards for good reason . the Spaniards, at least, weren't cannibals (except in the transubstantiational sense.) Yes, there were a few cases where - after the vast accidental wipeout - whites noticed the disease vulnerability of the natives and intentionally exploited it (smallpox tainted blankets).

    But even if none of the deliberate massacres had been done, the demographics wouldn't look much different - a Europe teeming with starving peasants simply wasn't going to stay put while the recently-emptied North America sat mostly idle. Nature abhors a vacuum and adverse-possession laws exist for a reason.

    Today, of course, whites in Europe and America contracept themselves to extinction and then bitch and moan about Moslem and Mexican invasion . silly people. At least the American Indians didn't do it to themselves.

    Avery , May 2, 2017 at 1:02 pm GMT

    @Z-man Amanpour isn't a Neocon, per say, as she isn't genetically a Jew. However since she married and had an offspring with a Jew and from this interview's tone she now qualifies. lol She is also a beast to look at or listen to. (Grin)

    jacques sheete , May 2, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT

    @jilles dykstra The antisemitism of old Le Pen was just two statements:
    - the gas chambers are just a footnote in history
    - the German occupation was relatively benign.
    Both statements are objectively true.
    Le Pen's crime is denying the unique holocaust.
    He's not the only one, a USA Indian has the same view
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997
    Ward Churchill, a professor of Boulder university, also fell into disgrace.
    Estimates of how many Indians died as a result of the coming of white man go to 100 million.

    jilles dykstra , May 2, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT

    @unpc downunder The big issue is why Le Pen's popularity seems to have tanked, even though opinion polls suggest most French people support immigration restrictionism.

    The usual explanation is MSM brainwashing, which no doubt plays a part, but if people are so easily influenced by the media, why haven't they been brainwashed into supporting more immigration?

    In my personal experience, people say they won't vote for nationalist candidates like Le Pen for two reasons:

    1. they're dejected working class people who distrust all politicians (including nationalists) and can't be persuaded to turn up and vote

    2. they're cautious middle-class people who want less immigration but are afraid politically inexperienced outsiders will mess up the economy and social services.

    [May 06, 2017] Federation Council has called the US intention to control Russian ports a declaration of war

    May 06, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile , May 5, 2017 at 6:34 am

    Federation Council has called the US intention to control Russian ports a declaration of war
    05.05.2017
    On Thursday, the US Congress approved the introduction of new restrictions against North Korea. The bill, in particular, provides the possibility of controlling of Russian ports in the far East. We are talking about Vladivostok, Nakhodka and Vanino port.

    "This bill will, I hope, never be implemented, because its implementation provides for a power scenario with forced inspection of tall ships by American warships. This kind of power scenario boggles the mind, because it is a Declaration of war" quoted Kosachev, RIA "Novosti".

    In fact, this is a major reason, namely forcibly stopping and inspecting neutral ships, why President Madison declared war against Great Britain in 1812 and why Great Britain in her turn was perilously near declaring war against the USA in 1861 following the "Trent Affair".

    Moscow Exile , May 5, 2017 at 6:36 am
    From "In fact " should not be italicized: those are words that reflect my opinion and not the proof-read by me words of the linked article above.
    kirill , May 5, 2017 at 6:54 am
    Russia needs to slap down these retarded propaganda koolaid drinkers. Clearly the exceptionalism has gone to their heads inducing substantial rot. For starters Russia needs to declare a foreign military asset free zone along its borders, well beyond the 12 nm limit. This FMAFZ is like the AZIZ but with teeth, including an explicit threat to sink any US/NATzO ship that enters it. Let NATzO bleat and wail, it does it already. Time for Russia to live up to its "badness" image and give western fuckers a serious headache. kirill , May 5, 2017 at 6:51 am
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/05/04/deep-history-us-britain-never-ending-cold-war-russia.html

    Archives reveal collusion between the Nazi Reich and its nominal enemies in the west.

    When I use "NATzO" instead of "NATO" I am being precise about the nature of this pack of hyenas who have the same agenda as the Nazi Reich against Russia. Reply

    [May 06, 2017] Americas Top Scientists Confirm U.S. Goal Now Is to Conquer Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them. ..."
    "... I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later ..."
    "... A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so. ..."
    "... Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so. ..."
    "... Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." ..."
    May 06, 2017 | www.unz.com
    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published a study, on 1 March 2017 , which opened:

    The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal. This increase in capability is astonishing - boosting the overall killing power of existing US ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three - and it creates exactly what one would expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.

    It continues:

    Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.

    This study was co-authored by America's top three scientists specializing in analysis of weaponry and especially of the geostrategic balance between nations: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and Theodore Postol. Their report continues:

    This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear strategy and intentions.
    Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability - a capability that would require Russia to undertake countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred.

    The authors explain why an accidental start of World War III or global annihilation would be likeiier from Russia than from the U.S.:

    Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States. (The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)

    In other words: whereas Trump would have about 30 minutes to determine whether Putin had launched a blitz-first-strike attack, Putin would have less than 15 minutes to determine whether Trump had - and if at the end of that period, on either side, there is no certainty that no blitz-first-strike attack had been launched by the other, then that person would be obligated to launch a blitz attack against the other, upon the assumption that not to do so would result not only in a toxic planet with nuclear winter and universal starvation, but also in a humiliating and scandalous absence of retaliation against that perpetrator, which would be a humiliation on top of an annihilation, and thus a sharing of blame along with the actual perpetrator, which sharing, for whatever term might remain during that passive party's continued existence, would probably be an unbearable shame and result quickly in suicide, if that national leader's own surviving countrymen don't execute him before he kills himself.

    Inevitably, the strictly personal morality and self-image of a nation's leader in that type of situation are factors other than the very public global consequences that will determine the person's decision; but, with only (at most) 15 minutes to decide on the Russian side, and 30 minutes to decide on the American side, there is an inestimably high chance now, that a nuclear war will terminate the lives of everyone who currently exists and who doesn't soon die from the ordinary causes before then. Even the most dire projections of the dangers from global warming come nowhere close to matching that danger.

    The question, now, then, is: How did the world come to this extraordinarily ominous stage? The co-authors repeatedly refer to the secretiveness at the top of the American government as one essential source, such as " which has largely been concealed from the general public " and " policymakers outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed ," and these passages refer to an ordinary phenomenon in conspiracies at the top of a large criminal operation such as corporate criminality, where only a very small circle of individuals, commonly a half-dozen or even less, are made aware of the operation's chief strategic objective and of the main tactical means that are being put into place so as to execute the plan. In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan. Typically in such a situation, the leader who has inherited such a plan will be assassinated if he gives any clear indication of an intention to reverse or cancel it (the key insiders are typically obsessive about 'success', especially at so late a stage in it); and, so, if Trump were to try to do that, he would almost certainly try to hide that fact until the inherited plan has already become effectively deactivated and no longer a threat.

    The key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance, on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence - the prior system, for deterrence, having been called "MAD" for Mutually Assured Destruction, the idea that if the two nuclear superpowers were to go to war against each other, then the entire world would be destroyed so catastrophically as to make any idea of a 'winner' and a 'loser' in such a conflict a grotesque distortion of the reality: that reality being mutual annihilation and an unlivable planet. A landmark event in the process of reconceptualizing such a war as being 'winnable', was the publication in 2006 of two articles in the two most prestigious journals of international relations, Foreign Affairs and International Security , both formally introducing the concept of "Nuclear Primacy" or the (alleged) desirability for the U.S. to plan a nuclear conquest of Russia . Until those two articles (both of which were co-authored by the same two authors), any such idea was considered wacky, but since then it has instead been mainstream. As the final link above (the article that's linked-to immediately before) explains, the source even prior to George W. Bush goes all the way back to 24 February 1990 when his father, then also the U.S. President, secretly initiated the operation ultimately to conquer Russia, and within that article are links to the ultimate source-documents about that origin of the path toward world-ending nuclear war; so, getting to the original causes of the steady progression after 24 February 1990 in the direction of a conquest of Russia by the U.S. (assisted by its allies) can now be addressed by historians, even though only now is it finally being revealed to the public as news, though 27 years after it had actually begun in a very fateful decision by George Herbert Walker Bush, which has already cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars for no good purpose and resulting perhaps in the ghastliest ultimate end.

    This article is being submitted for publication to all news-media without charge, in the hope that the current U.S. President will comment publicly upon it, even if only to ridicule it so as to avoid being assassinated for referring to it at all. This is an extremely dangerous time in history, and Donald Trump is now on a very hot seat, which any intelligent and accurately informed person recognizes to be the case. If ever the world needed courageous great leadership, now is the time; because, without that, we might all soon be entering hell. To avoid it, starting now 27 years after the U.S. government initiated this path, would be enormously difficult, but not yet totally impossible. This is where we are at the present time; and, ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result.

    This extreme danger is the new global reality. If the elimination of the threat does not come from the U.S. White House, the culmination of the threat will - regardless of which side strikes first. The decision - either to invade Russia, or else to cancel and condemn America's decade-plus preparation to do so - can be made only by the U.S. President. If he remains silent about the matter, then Putin can reasonably proceed on the assumption that he'll have to be the one to strike first. He didn't place himself in that position; the U.S. regime did. Let's hope that the U.S. will stand down the threat, now.

    Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

    Carlton Meyer , Website May 5, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT \n

    100 Words What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! Read More
    Intelligent Dasein , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:16 am GMT \n
    100 Words I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

    Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. Read More

    Miro23 , May 5, 2017 at 6:31 am GMT \n
    300 Words It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs – calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Read More

    van gogh , May 5, 2017 at 8:09 am GMT \n
    I was enjoying the article until I came across the paragraph mentioning "humiliation" as a factor in deciding to launch a nuclear strike. Yeah I can see the point, it's better not to get humiliated but it's okay to destroy the life in our planet in the process. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 8:14 am GMT \n
    200 Words http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/04/trump-nuclear-commanders-237956

    A global coalition of former military leaders and diplomats who had responsibility over nuclear weapons is launching a "shadow security council" to offer advice to world leaders on how to reduce what they consider to be the growing danger of a nuclear conflict fueled by the rhetoric of President Donald Trump and destabilizing moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    I wonder what these "destabilizing moves" are. Today we have launch-on-warning, precise nukes, stealth delivery services, hacks in hardware and software, weird stuff in orbit, and "missile defense against Iran" in Europe which can be repurposed in a second to attack Russia. Unless the airheads notice that the "destabilizing moves" come from the US, there won't be much progress.

    We survived the MAD phase only through tremendous luck, there were more computer errors, brown pants moments and lost nukes than one would like to think possible. Let's not waste this break that God has given us.

    Remember that once the missile is out of the silo, it can't be called back. No remote defuse, sorry. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Miro23 , May 5, 2017 at 8:19 am GMT \n
    100 Words Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.

    They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at full $ while they kept their bonuses).

    If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Read More Agree: Z-man

    Nils , May 5, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT \n
    200 Words If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.

    Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them – you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe, and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by local animosity – maritime disputes, arming India, etc).

    Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation – called living on the same planet – where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.

    Unless you don't have nuclear weapons then your country and lore is up for the taking on a whim. Read More

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 12:02 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Well. Now we know what constitutes the true Obama legacy: "The new kill capability created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred."
    This is in addition to the Obama-approved mess on the Russian borders with Ukraine ("ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result") and the Israel-pimped war in Syria where Russians have been fighting ISIS along with the legitimate government of Syria, while Israel and the US were caught on helping the ISIS- and Al Qaeda-affiliated "freedom fighters."
    Is there any honest and knowledgeable person in a vicinity of the "deciders" to explain them the consequences of a high-level radiation for their grandkids? The deciders care not about the hundreds of thousands of other-peoples' children that died as a result of US-led "humanitarian interventions," but maybe they could get some resemblance of empathy rush when picturing their own progeny hit by a nuclear force? Idiots. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Quartermaster , May 5, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT \n
    One does not "conquer" anything with nukes. All you can do is destroy. Read More
    Jake , May 5, 2017 at 12:14 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans, insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant damage to the US or the world?

    Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.

    America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.

    Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear. Read More

    Randal , May 5, 2017 at 12:53 pm GMT \n
    100 Words The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of "mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming first strike.

    So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats" Read More

    Randal , May 5, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT \n
    @Quartermaster One does not "conquer" anything with nukes. All you can do is destroy. Go tell it to the Japanese. Read More
    MarkU , May 5, 2017 at 1:25 pm GMT \n
    200 Words A great article by Eric Zuesse, the best I have seen on the subject. A devastating nuclear war is almost inevitable if the situation is allowed to persist. There were several nearly catastrophic incidents in the last cold war when warning times were much more generous. Similar incidents, in the near future would likely be game over for human civilisation and even the human race itself.

    It really doesn't matter whether the US/European oligarchy is really planning to nuke Russia and/or China or not, the situation is just as dangerous either way. The setting up of what is evidently a first strike capability while simultaneously degrading their potential opponents warning times is well nigh suicidal. One could hope that there is someone in the US/NATO military who is not too functionally autistic to see things from the other guys point of view but I doubt it. If such a person existed, they might reflect on the fact that if the roles were reversed, most of their colleagues would be clamouring for a first strike of their own before the missile "defence" is fully operational.

    Finally, it doesn't even matter whether the missile "defence" works or not. Unless both sides know it doesn't work, and can also be sure that the other side knows that it doesn't work, and also that it can't be made to work, it is just as dangerous. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Johann , May 5, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Americans, war and mass casualties perfect together. Just keep their beer, drugs and professional sports . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 1:27 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility," – yes, this is a bitter truth.
    "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite," indeed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    peterike , May 5, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT \n
    While I don't doubt that the GloboHomo Zio cabal wants very much to destroy Russia, and is crazy and blood thirsty enough to use nukes to do it, this hysteria about "ending all life on earth" is nonsense. Read More Agree: Alden Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Frankly, it's about time "compellence" replaced deterrence in dealing with Russia.

    For all his faults, Putin seems more or less sane, but he's already 64 years old. When Russia has its next succession crisis (they're good at this stuff), the new incumbent may be much less tractable and dangerous.

    The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists likes its Doomsday Clock, but the actual clock is ticking and not counting fictitious minutes before midnight. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    another fred , May 5, 2017 at 1:39 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.

    We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze" has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.

    How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? Read More

    Erebus , May 5, 2017 at 1:49 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

    Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command

    Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid of skulls. Read More

    Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:11 pm GMT \n
    @Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests is secure. Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Read More
    Pandos , May 5, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. Miro23 – Brilliant X! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Pandos , May 5, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT \n
    Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke exchange. It is their fault.

    Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration – a lie. Rip that shield from their hands. Read More

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

    Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

    In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple – unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness – once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks – there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback – in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

    As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this – it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. Read More

    Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:27 pm GMT \n
    100 Words This "investigative historian" confects his bad dream out of very little substance. Quotes from the respectable enough Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists plus a great deal of imagination and major omissions allow him to paint a fantastic picture of raving lunatics thinking of "conquering" or "invading" Russia. (Yes he did use those words despite positing a scenario in which the Dr. Strangeloves would wipe out Rusdia with a first strike! His psychic medium clearly has forgotten to consilt the ghosts of Napoleon and Hitler).

    One major omission is to note what a quick search for "super fuze" immediately discloses, namely that the US Navy's upgrade is already old news and largely complete so far as the increase in capacity that Zuesse describes is concerned.

    Another gigantic hole is the absence of mention of China. This is kid's journalism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Wizard of Oz , May 5, 2017 at 2:30 pm GMT \n
    @Erebus

    Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!

    Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command

    Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid of skulls. Useless quote without a believable source and still needs to have the context provided. Read More

    Anonymous White Male , May 5, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially."

    Do you actually believe that if the US launched a nuclear strike against Russia that there would be no US casualties? Wouldn't that "physically affect" the idiot masses that apparently you are superior to morally? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    bluedog , May 5, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT \n
    @Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. And so are we so what's your point? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Anonymous White Male , May 5, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT \n
    100 Words I don't understand how after 70 years of using "nuclear weapons" as a bludgeon to keep the mindless slaves of the West in line anyone would actually think that there is any real possibility of a nuclear war. The media has been used to induce fear in people that don't think. Start thinking! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 2:44 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.

    Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender "toilet rights".

    If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.

    If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really bothered about that either.

    Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.

    If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.

    It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated, this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the whole world, not just America. "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder "

    Apparently you haven't heard of what England, France and other colonial nations had been doing in centuries past, and heck, even up till now (Libya, anyone?).

    Americans are simply following the psychopathic instinct from their European forefathers. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @another fred Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.

    We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze" has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.

    How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? For an explanation, read my previous comment and this one.

    START treaties have limited the number of missiles on both sides, at a time when super-fusing did not exist. This means that each side had enough missiles to destroy a percentage of the missiles of the other side (probably around 40-50%), but not all of them, thus MAD. With super-fusing, the side which strikes first can destroy a much higher percentage of retaliatory missiles on fixed and mobile launchers (90-95%) and still have some left over to threaten civilians in large cities, especially if ABMD can destroy all of the remaining 5-10% of retaliatory missiles.

    The hardest to destroy will remain the submarine launched missiles, but US military feel confident that they are tracking all Russian nuclear missile submarines with their attack submarines (and all the new and noisy Chinese submarines as well) and they could destroy them all on command.

    On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more. Read More

    Wade , May 5, 2017 at 3:04 pm GMT \n
    300 Words

    In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan.

    Reading statements like this one, and other observations by Philip Giraldi, have reluctantly made me into a conspiracy minded person when it comes to politics. After all, does anyone seriously believe that the pretentious, metro-sexual Barry Obama entertained any such "Dr. Evil" like plots to concur the world prior to being sworn in as POTUS? Of course he didn't. He, even less than Trump, probably had no idea what he was getting himself into by running for president. It must've been a shocker for both of these men when they found out just how much potentially damaging intel that the CIA and NSA has on them through perfectly legal NSA spying. Would the CIA assassinate a president who got in the way of America's interests (as defined by them)? Maybe, but why would they need to?

    The Deep State is in complete control of our foreign policy now. Our democracy and freedom were already largely lost due to giant asymmetries in knowledge between the US Citizenry and elected officials on the one hand, and the Deep State on the other. "Knowledge is power" as they say. This state of affairs was gradually imposed on an unsuspecting public through such legislative gems as the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 and the Patriot Act. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Jake , May 5, 2017 at 3:05 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Pandos Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke exchange. It is their fault.

    Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration - a lie. Rip that shield from their hands. You have hit upon something that is extremely important, and studiously avoided by most: the Israeli-Saudi alliance. The worst of the Arabs are Saudi Arabians. The worst of the Sunnis are Saudi Arabians (and on average, Sunnis are worse than Shites). No doubt, the worst ruling caab in the Middle East,. whether royal family or political party (such as Likud), is the House of Saud.

    Israel plus the House of Saud, backed by Uncle Sam = potentially endless horrors Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
    200 Words One of the WWII planners was Frankfurter, also the writer of the Lend Lease Law that enabled Roosevelt to give war aid to any country.
    Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983

    After Hitler began deporting jews to concentration camps, one of them escaped, and was smuggled tot the USA, the Vichy France, Spain, Portugal route.
    This jew told Frankfurter what was going on.
    Frankfurter answered 'I do not believe one word you're saying'.

    Much later Frankfurter explained 'I did not say he was lying, I said I did not believe him'.
    In 1939 Hitler threatened jews with 'ausrottung', the exact meaning of this word then is debated, 'if they again started a world war'.

    My interpretation of the Frankfurter statements is that he had not expected Hitler to carry out his threat.

    So I am not all convinced that neocons will not start a nuclear war.
    As Jimmy Carter said 'those that cause wars, expect not to be hurt by it'. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Jake Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans, insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant damage to the US or the world?

    Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.

    America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.

    Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear. This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
    The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
    In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted." http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Read More

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 3:38 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but advancing in leaps and bouts).

    The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites" in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any given time.

    Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. Read More

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 4:00 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. "Russia is pretty fascist."

    Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land of the "chosen" handlers?
    For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
    One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
    Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665 Read More

    22pp22 , May 5, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT \n
    @Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests is secure. I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be. Read More
    SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the authors of these dire policy statements:

    Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown - For 2 Professors, Like Father, Like Son

    Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating - rather, demanding that Georgetown agree to create– the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch

    Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban." https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Read More

    Max Payne , May 5, 2017 at 4:22 pm GMT \n
    @Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

    In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

    As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something and remarket it? Read More

    jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 4:41 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Kiza Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but advancing in leaps and bouts).

    The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites" in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any given time.

    Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
    Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised from the real ones.
    Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2′s.
    Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof. Read More

    SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
    Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
    Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.

    US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
    Adolf shared that goal

    Adolf did NOT "share the goal" of "conquest and enslavement of mankind."
    Adolf's goal was nationalistic, not global; the clue is hidden in plain sight:

    National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)

    National Socialist German Workers' Party

    US agenda is (among other things) to force other nations to conduct their finances under US-Federal Reserve/fiat-currency – debt-basis; Germany under NSDAP determined to reject that system and established control of its own economy and system of finance. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Sebastian Puettmann , May 5, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @annamaria "Russia is pretty fascist."

    Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land of the "chosen" handlers?
    For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
    One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
    Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665 If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

    By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US? Read More

    reiner Tor , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:19 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Randal The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of "mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming first strike.

    So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats" ...... Even that wouldn't be enough.

    Even if the US government was installing a huge global missile system while simultaneously building a potent first-strike capability, we'd only have to worry if they also had a history of attacking many other countries without provocation. Also if their political elite was pushing for military confrontation with Russia, like proposing to implement no-fly zones in Syria where Russian planes are flying missions (legally), with some members of the US establishment (people like Senator McCain) even calling for the downing of Russian planes if needed to accomplish that. Even in that hypothetical scenario it would only be really really dangerous if in the past some random senior US general (someone like General Wesley Clark) had already proposed to attack Russian troops – otherwise we could rely on the sanity of the generals to prevent such insanity.

    Fortunately, none of the above ever happened. It's all fantasy, folks. Nothing to see here. Read More LOL: Randal Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    reiner Tor , Website May 5, 2017 at 5:27 pm GMT \n
    300 Words I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

    I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later , or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

    Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

    The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Read More

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 5:35 pm GMT \n
    200 Words "US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
    Is this "a good Russian propaganda," Sebastian? In his case you need to address your grievances directly to the US Congress.

    " Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?"
    Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic, ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement with Israeli brass.

    " maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation."
    A truly amazing observation!
    Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Che Guava , May 5, 2017 at 5:54 pm GMT \n
    100 Words I am very much appreciating this article and many comments.

    Having some military time, at peace, thankfully, and interest in arcane English words, I am knowing the diff.between material and materiel, fuze and fuse, etc.

    What this article and all of the comments are to lacking is a definition of 'super-fuze'.

    I am suspecting that it is just a mis-use of the word 'fuze'.

    If Mr. Zuess or a commentor could providing a definition, it would be an aid to comprehension. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Alden , May 5, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.

    They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at full $ while they kept their bonuses).

    If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Absolutely right. Read More

    SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 6:37 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @22pp22 I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.

    I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.

    From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:

    "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779

    Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"

    When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head, carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher - Child - British propagandists - New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.

    American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous venues –

    We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .

    As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

    The Conquest of the United States by Britain with a little help from her friends (by Stephen Sniegoski)

    and

    American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies by Ron Unz

    I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them to hate, and then kill, another entire population.

    "Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -

    Anonymous , May 5, 2017 at 6:50 pm GMT \n
    @annamaria This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan: http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
    The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
    In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted."

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Do you read the links you put in your posts? Read More

    Agent76 , May 5, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA

    DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949

    In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards towards Russia.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/25/nato-seeking-russias-destruction-since-1949/

    El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

    By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?

    But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU.

    comedygold.jpg

    NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration, imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That would be awkward.

    While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe ), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening. Read More

    El Dato , May 5, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT \n
    @utu Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski ???

    Bin Laden 6'5" Brzezinski 5'5"

    This is not Bin Laden on this picture with Brzezinski! It looks like a guy with Pakistani or Indian paratrooper markings demonstrating the use of Russian RPD machine gun.

    Monsieur Laden would probably only see visitors in one of his construction contractor offices. No need for actual guns except when striking a pose (he was partial to AKS-74U as I remember) Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    jilles dykstra , May 5, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT \n
    @El Dato

    But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU.
    comedygold.jpg

    NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration, imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That would be awkward.

    While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening. In fact NATO already trains jointly with Israel, and Israel has narrow ties with the EU.
    Israel also participates in the European Song Contest.
    El Al uses Schiphol, Amsterdam airport, as its main base in Europe. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Joe Wong , May 5, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Nils If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.

    Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them - you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe, and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by local animosity - maritime disputes, arming India, etc).

    Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation - called living on the same planet - where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.

    Unless you don't have nuclear weapons...then your country and lore is up for the taking on a whim. US is losing military ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to the Russian, while USA is losing economic ground in SE Asia, Africa, South America and North America to the Chinese, are you saying the super-fuze is a fake news? And the American understood they are being check-mated by the Russian and Chinese? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kurt van Ghoye , May 5, 2017 at 8:07 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @SolontoCroesus Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the authors of these dire policy statements:

    Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown -- For 2 Professors, Like Father, Like Son

    Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating -- rather, demanding that Georgetown agree to create-- the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch

    Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban." https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Good to know, SolontoCroesus. I'm sure we'll remember to thank that cuddly pair of parasites when they manage to kill a few tens of millions of Russians to get their 21st century war groove going. It's really too bad about Christianity having bred the spirit of vengeance out of the white man. Do Russians thirst for revenge? Does anyone? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Randal , May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

    I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

    Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

    The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Probably correct, but as the events surrounding Able Archer in 1983 highlight it's not whether the Yanks have such intentions that matters, but whether the Russians think they might have them.

    Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through?

    The ones who thought it through, like Kissinger, cautioned against it and were proved correct.

    Though in truth, when it comes to the neocon types who really knows where the incompetence ends and the evil begins? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    european born , May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
    in 1999 war against Serbia 7 smart bombs hit Bulgaria[ nato nation] why are you guys so sure if instead of Russia USA nukes Ukraine or Poland.
    [MORE] Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    jacques sheete , May 5, 2017 at 8:50 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
    Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
    Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.

    Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.

    Where did you hear that?

    FYI: "Adolph" faced some real threats, not phony ones like we use as excuses to go to war.

    Since yer on a first name basis with the dude, you oughta know the truth.

    Here's a primer.:

    " this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions "

    - Murray Rothbard 1966

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Agent76 , May 5, 2017 at 8:50 pm GMT \n
    Dec 31, 2013 Edward Bernays called it *PROPAGANDA*

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    jacques sheete , May 5, 2017 at 8:53 pm GMT \n
    @SolontoCroesus

    I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
    From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:

    "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779
    Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"

    When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head, carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher -- Child -- British propagandists -- New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.

    American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous venues --

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9r0haVPDAo

    We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .

    As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

    The Conquest of the United States by Britain ... with a little help from her friends (by Stephen Sniegoski)

    and

    American Pravda: Alexander Cockburn and the British Spies by Ron Unz

    I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them to hate, and then kill, another entire population.

    "Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -

    As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II

    WW1 as well. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:12 pm GMT \n
    @Anonymous Do you read the links you put in your posts? What's wrong with these two links?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-awful-credibility-argument-that-never-dies/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once in a while.

    By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US? This post was intended for you, Sebastian:

    "US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:" https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
    Is this "a good Russian propaganda," Sebastian? In his case you need to address your grievances directly to the US Congress.

    " Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist than the US?"
    Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic, ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement with Israeli brass. http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/

    " maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian Federation."
    A truly amazing observation!
    Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    annamaria , May 5, 2017 at 9:25 pm GMT \n
    @reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.

    I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.

    Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so.

    The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."

    Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Read More

    Realist , May 5, 2017 at 10:26 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.

    Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."

    The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards it's a snap. Read More

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Max Payne This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something and remarket it? Not exactly. The super-fuse is an envelope around the target which is underground, in which the explosion results in the destruction of the target even if the missile has not hit the ground within the radius of destruction for its potency. The optimum destruction envelope around the target looks like a church bell, as one would expect. Therefore, it is in air-burst detonation, but this is not the essence of the super-fusing technique. An air-burst too early or too late, still does not destroy the target . The essence is to "save" a missile which would have missed the target and still destroy the underground silo. A computer on-board the missile decides when to detonate the missile for its existing trajectory. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    SolontoCroesus , May 5, 2017 at 11:07 pm GMT \n
    400 Words @El Dato Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.

    Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.

    No, it's the prequel:

    Mackinder -> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)

    Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things - listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)

    In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan, Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's theories.

    http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/

    The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:

    "Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson, a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him (and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from Germany's point of view:

    It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press ** the British Empire must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.

    In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."

    Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany - and Germany alone - the "militaristic" desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the "huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction," Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal of the unalloyed virtue of American life.

    { ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
    In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of the entire world.)

    ** Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues – Read More

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:09 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Anon

    On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more.
    I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.

    How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And if so where is the intelligence value in such?

    Are you a movie script writer? Have you ever heard of counter-intelligence? Yes, maybe, never?

    Who cares if you "won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses"? You have made zero contribution to the debate on his topic and I recognise a troll who is too ready for personal insults from the peak of his/her superior knowledge which does not exist.

    My first and last answer to you, I have no time for pompous trolls currently fighting to overwhelm unz commenting section with their sewage. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:19 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @jilles dykstra "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
    Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised from the real ones.
    Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2's. Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof. I do not dispute what you wrote – the Russians would not be keeping their mobile launchers in plain sight, certainly not parading them around the country ready for photo- and video-shoot, just like the BUK battery according to the utterly ridiculous Dutch-lead Investigation of MH17 shoot-down.

    However, the issue is always – how much of "own" damage are the US/NATO leaders ready to accept? Somehow, my feeling is that if the bombs are not falling on Tel Aviv the damage becomes acceptable.

    Lately, there has been a very powerful push in the media to disapprove nuclear winter and radiation damage to the population. Some commenters here are trying the same tack. In other words, if you are not killed by the nuclear explosion, you will be ok , so say the warmongers, those who claim the destruction of the planet are fools , again so say the warmongers. I have no doubt that "someone" is trying to sell the advantages of the nuclear war to the population. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , May 5, 2017 at 11:37 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @annamaria "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."

    Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Let us look at it this way – MAD was a destruction of the two opponents, were the one which strikes first is destroyed say 60% and the one which was struck first is destroyed 90%. This is looking only at the effect of the explosions, not at any residual effects.

    With new technologies, the one which strikes first, under the best case scenario, could be destroyed only 10% or less whilst the enemy struck first is still destroyed 90%. I believe that this is the new strategic proposition acceptable to TPTB. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    KA , May 6, 2017 at 12:16 am GMT \n
    @Anon

    On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no command any more.
    I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses. How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And if so where is the intelligence value in such?

    Are you a movie script writer? I do not understand the technological side . But nobody has lost his shirt by underestimating the intelligence and morality of American leadership .
    Your question – ' have these talks been reported to the general public' tells me . What does it tell ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , May 6, 2017 at 12:41 am GMT \n
    100 Words @SolontoCroesus

    Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
    No, it's the prequel:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYRr5GtcczE

    Mackinder ---> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)

    Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things -- listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKGSq2rvucQ

    In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan, Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's theories.
    http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/
    The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:

    "Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson, a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him (and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from Germany's point of view:
    It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press** the British Empire must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
    In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
    Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany -- and Germany alone -- the "militaristic" desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the "huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction," Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal of the unalloyed virtue of American life.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaiXs_e-ekI

    { ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
    In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of the entire world.)

    **Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues -- I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.

    Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. Read More

    Seraphim , May 6, 2017 at 12:50 am GMT \n
    @22pp22 I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be. Why would you? They are sufficiently evil as they are. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Seraphim , May 6, 2017 at 12:56 am GMT \n
    @Wizard of Oz Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Again your ignorance of history tricks you into talking nonsense. Read More
    Anon 2 , May 6, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT \n
    300 Words @Carlton Meyer What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! A little history: Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia refused to withdraw from the Kaliningrad Region in the early 1990s, and to this day it effectively remains a Russian colony. Russia also initially refused to withdraw its troops from western Poland, and finally did so in stages until all troops were withdrawn by 1994-5. The conclusion is: Russia cannot be trusted, which, of course, is something that any child in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine learns based on the Russian behavior in the last 300 years.

    The area known today as Kaliningrad Oblast' was conquered by the (predominantly Germanic) Teutonic Knights in the 13th century from Sambians (related to Lithuanians) who were then effectively ethnically cleansed. The upshot is that neither Russia nor Germany can make the original claim to that piece of land (located between Poland and Lithuania). In a sane and rational world the Kaliningrad region would be demilitarized and made into an independent country (with Lithuania perhaps having the greatest claim to the territory) but when was the last time humans behaved rationally in foreign affairs?

    The U.S./NATO has over 300 military installations in Germany, incl. nuclear weapons. It makes little difference whether missiles are in western Poland or eastern Germany. The territory is so small that Berlin lies right next to the Polish border. Russia correspondingly placed Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad which are capable of hitting Berlin. So now we have a balance of terror. This seems to be the highest solution that humans in our current primitive state of consciousness are capable of. To quote Trump: sad Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Intelligent Dasein , Website May 6, 2017 at 1:54 am GMT \n
    @Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.

    In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent. This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.

    As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited $ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. I've already read the spin, thank you. My point was that I do not believe it. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Erebus , May 6, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Realist " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."

    The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards...it's a snap. The war in Afghanistan is all about preventing / disrupting Eurasian integration. Afghanistan is a good spot to do that as, in addition to being centrally located it is also militarily weak. It borders the important 'Stans into which disruption could exported, and even offers a corridor to China.

    The US saw success there, but it's fleeting. It did temporarily disrupt Eurasian integration, but this is overshadowed by its failure to set up a political structure capable of sustaining, much less expanding the disruption in its absence. Unless the US invests a politically unacceptable amount of resources, it's stuck there playing a spoiler's game and will continue to do so until something happens to oust it. Read More

    SolontoCroesus , May 6, 2017 at 2:08 am GMT \n
    @Kiza I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.

    Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. thank you for reading.

    [May 06, 2017] It Is What It Isnt: Fake News Comes of Age as Ideology Trumps Evidence by marknesop

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shaun Walker, The Guardian 's corpulent correspondent in Russia, and his sidekick Roland Oliphant claimed to have seen with their own eyes a convoy of regular Russian Army vehicles and soldiers crossing the border from Russia into Ukraine but neither of them got a photo or a video clip despite their both supposedly being journalists by profession, who understand the maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words". ..."
    "... It is at this moment that Russia and its president must address the legacy of 1917-the throngs in the streets waving red banners, dragging the emperor from his throne and pumping slugs into him and his kids. "The upcoming centennial of the 1917 revolution that toppled the czar and paved the way for Bolshevik rule promises to put the Kremlin in a tight spot," predicts the (still-) independent Moscow Times. "At the same time, the Kremlin is unwilling to unequivocally condemn the events the revolution set in motion or its Soviet past." ..."
    "... And it is Yeltsin whose deconstruction of the USSR itself is what Olga from the Volga is thankful her red-eyed grandmother did not live to see. (Putin has called it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.") ..."
    "... Fake news stories in the western media abound, although the west rarely if ever acknowledges them; when FOX News, mouthpiece of the Washington regime-changers, broadcast a story ostensibly about protests in Russia , but featuring footage of rioting in Athens ..."
    "... Al Jazeera broadcast a fake report of the fall of Tripoli in the west's successful regime-change war against Gaddafi; the supposed capture of the city by 'opposition forces' was actually put together in a studio in Doha, Qatar. ..."
    "... This post shows a story originating in the Middle East, about Russian soldiers clearing up bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops. The story was related using first-hand video and personal accounts, and was picked up by major outlets. However, the truth was that this story was completely false - fabricated and framed in such a way that it looked like real news. We'll pull on threads behind this fake news, and find just one small part of what may well be a large, international network that is feeding our Western media. ..."
    May 04, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Our deeds still travel with us from afar; and what we have been makes us what we are.

    George Eliot, Middlemarch

    We have arrived, in my opinion, upon the moment in the course of human history which marks the nadir of the journalistic profession. I cannot conceive of a situation in which the occupation could become more debased, more wretched than it has become already, and what we refer to as the 'mainstream media' no longer makes any effort to tell the truth, to substantiate what it purports to be true with hard evidence or even any evidence, or to disguise its service in the cut and thrust of political bias and character assassination.

    Shaun Walker, The Guardian 's corpulent correspondent in Russia, and his sidekick Roland Oliphant claimed to have seen with their own eyes a convoy of regular Russian Army vehicles and soldiers crossing the border from Russia into Ukraine but neither of them got a photo or a video clip despite their both supposedly being journalists by profession, who understand the maxim, "A picture is worth a thousand words". But his dinky little cell-phone camera is ever ready to do yeoman service in the pursuit of mocking Russian food on Aeroflot flights , and he has lots of time to arse about on his Facebook group dedicated to what he feels is a Russian obsession with dill . All of his complaining is backed up, it goes nearly without saying, with photographs. Yet he didn't get a picture of the stealth-invading Russian battalions even though he knew the subject was hotly debated, and proof would have made his name a household word. Well, he is a household word, although it's not "Shaun Walker". But you know what I mean.

    Or peruse this piece of rubbish . Among yearning for a repeat of the 1917 revolution on its hundredth anniversary and quoting the Moscow Times' tiresome demand for Russia to 'condemn its Soviet past'

    It is at this moment that Russia and its president must address the legacy of 1917-the throngs in the streets waving red banners, dragging the emperor from his throne and pumping slugs into him and his kids. "The upcoming centennial of the 1917 revolution that toppled the czar and paved the way for Bolshevik rule promises to put the Kremlin in a tight spot," predicts the (still-) independent Moscow Times. "At the same time, the Kremlin is unwilling to unequivocally condemn the events the revolution set in motion or its Soviet past."

    and selectively quoting Putin without context or background,

    And it is Yeltsin whose deconstruction of the USSR itself is what Olga from the Volga is thankful her red-eyed grandmother did not live to see. (Putin has called it "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.")

    so as to imply yet one more time that Putin seeks to recreate the Soviet Union, the author persists with the simpleminded meme that Putin rigged the American presidential election to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning.

    He and his fellow western journalists are aided in this bizarre allegation by the USA's intelligence agencies, who claim to have evidence that points to Russian interference. They can't show anyone, of course – everything the CIA deals with has important national security implications, and if they told the world how Putin hacked American elections, well .well, he might do it again. Or something.

    Consider. What actually happened? Information was released which reported that Mrs. Clinton was using a private email server to conduct government business, as Secretary of State for the Obama government, so as to avoid the law which required all official email traffic to be archived as government property.

    Was this true? While I can't speak to her motivation, her unauthorized use of a private server is a matter of public record, as are testimonials from State Department staff members that they mentioned repeatedly the behavior was not permitted, to which Mrs. Clinton allegedly replied that she had permission. If she said that, it was a lie.

    Then information was released which said the Democratic Party establishment was conspiring to rig the Democratic nomination for Mrs. Clinton by manipulating the process against Bernie Sanders, who enjoyed a significant following and who was assessed by polling results to have the best chance of beating Trump. Was that true? Sure was; the DNC chair, Debbie Wassserman-Shultz, resigned in disgrace – Mrs Clinton promptly promoted her to honorary chair of her presidential campaign, and President Obama rushed out a supportive statement as well, demonstrating that political heavyweights don't really care if you rig elections as long as you're not Russian.

    So what sabotaged the win Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag was the release of damaging information about her which was true and accurate. It was not a pack of lies, and the suggestion that the truth about such activities should have been kept from voters until after they had cast their ballots would be monstrous. There was absolutely no proof that Russia was responsible for releasing that information, if they even knew it, and they were pretty far down the chain of people in a position to know.

    What are the rigging methods in Russian elections of which the Kremlin is always accused by the morally-superior beacon of democracy? Ballot-stuffing. Carousel voting, a term US State Department spokeshole Jen Psaki was quite comfortable using in the most accusatory fashion, although she had to admit when questioned that she had no idea what it meant . Suppression of opposition candidates and advertising time which disproportionately favours the ruling party. If Vladimir Putin can actually tip elections in foreign countries with such confounding precision without access to any of those tools, why would he rely on such quaint and archaic blunt-instrument methods to rig elections in Russia?

    Fake news stories in the western media abound, although the west rarely if ever acknowledges them; when FOX News, mouthpiece of the Washington regime-changers, broadcast a story ostensibly about protests in Russia , but featuring footage of rioting in Athens, The Daily Telegraph set a new standard for crawling by positing that the channel had just made an innocent mistake, like Athens is a lot like Moscow and people make that mistake all the time. It then proceeded to excoriate the paranoid Russians for imagining that it was done with intent. Al Jazeera broadcast a fake report of the fall of Tripoli in the west's successful regime-change war against Gaddafi; the supposed capture of the city by 'opposition forces' was actually put together in a studio in Doha, Qatar. I've lost track of the number of accounts of Putin's fabulous stolen wealth which he has squirreled away in secret bank accounts somewhere which nobody can find or prove to exist, yet his status as one of the world's wealthiest men remains part of the argot of common wisdom.

    Well, I spent a lot longer on that than I meant to do; but, damn it, that 'Putin stole our election' nonsense just turns my teeth sideways. How could he have done that? Voting machines are not connected to the internet, and there is no realistic suggestion that Russia actually manipulated the vote count. Somebody released true information regarding unlawful and undemocratic behavior by Mrs. Clinton, but not a shred of evidence supporting Russian involvement has been produced, although the CIA maintains that it knows .

    Anyway, I wanted to take you through what is described as a step-by-step analysis of a fake news story , an example of Russian trickery, or manipulation by Putin's international minions. The author is eminently well-qualified to discuss fake news, or at least as well-qualified as one can become in the short interval since caution was thrown to the winds, and fakery in the news went from a hobby to mainstream default mode; he worked for more than three years in Pheme, a multinational online project funded by the European Commission to define, evaluate and model fake news.

    Let's take a look. The story used as an example is a clip about Russian soldiers using the Uran 6 robotic mine-clearance vehicle to demine sites in Aleppo following the victory of Syrian government forces' retaking of the city. I want you to note at the outset that the author claims the story is completely false.

    This post shows a story originating in the Middle East, about Russian soldiers clearing up bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops. The story was related using first-hand video and personal accounts, and was picked up by major outlets. However, the truth was that this story was completely false - fabricated and framed in such a way that it looked like real news. We'll pull on threads behind this fake news, and find just one small part of what may well be a large, international network that is feeding our Western media.

    Please note also the odd choice of words; " bombs left in Syria by Obama's troops". We'll see if anyone actually claims that.

    Mr. Derczynski acknowledges at the starting line that there is nothing untoward with the original clip – it probably does show Russian soldiers in the performance of their duties in Syria, and the vehicle featured probably is the Uran 6.

    Then the token jackass Ukrainian enters the fray, announcing that the item is a fake and the vehicle is actually of Croatian origin. He is quickly shot down by Marcel Sardo. I think most of us know Marcel's work, and I have found him usually pretty accurate; always, where military hardware is concerned, and he seems to be a bit of an aficionado. The author points out that while there is no reason at this point to believe anything is other than what it seems, in fact this is a common tactic, and the good-cop-bad-cop are often on the same side or are even the same person.

    Then the story is picked up by RT, a source Mr. Derczynski tells us many of the Russians he talks with don't really trust. I think you can probably imagine the Russian circles he moves in. He tells us RT claims the Uran 6 is the same robot the Russian military used to help clear Palmyra of explosives left behind by Islamic State (IS). Still possible this is a real story, he says, although he seems to believe RT is setting the stage for something.

    As an aside, Islamic State did in fact take Palmyra, and remained in control of it for long enough to do tremendous damage – some of which appeared to have been wrought just for the sheer deviltry of it and for the grief it would cause, rather than the achievement of a strategic objective. It is difficult to imagine, I think, that the inhabitants of Palmyra left explosive booby-traps for the soldiers who drove out Islamic State – since their rule was unpopular – so it does not seem too much of a stretch that the explosives and mines left behind (a matter of public record) were left by Islamic State. There is apparently nothing thus far to suggest the story is 'fake news', although the author is suspicious about the direction it is heading.

    And then, BAM! The fake hits us like a runaway locomotive.

    Sarah Abdallah joins in on Twitter, attributing the explosives left behind to 'Obama's moderate rebels'. Oh no, you don't, Sarah, you delicious-looking young female trading on your looks and flirting with the camera. This has now just become fake-news propaganda, framing the story so that it reflects badly on the Greatest Democracy That Ever Lived.

    Let's take another pause to reflect. I have no idea if Sarah Abdallah is the real thing, or a Putin shill – I'm not familiar with her and have not seen her before this. But how realistic is her attribution to 'Obama's moderate rebels' of the explosives left behind in Aleppo? Well, the Obama government was fairly well known to be arming the Syrian rebels both overtly (which it admitted) and covertly (which it did not). The U.S. government also admitted, at various points in the conflict, that it had less and less of an idea who was who and who was al Qaeda as things went along. Oftentimes the side the USA supported was blanket-referred to as 'moderate rebels' for the sake of optics, but it is well-established that the USA provided not only arms, but satellite radios which would allow rebel commanders to call in air strikes by US military aircraft . The USA wriggled and squirmed and called for endless ceasefires in Aleppo whenever the Syria government forces appeared about to exploit a vulnerability. It seems pretty clear that Washington supported anyone it thought might get the job of ousting Assad done. It is therefore quite conceivable that explosives left behind in Aleppo with the intent of killing or injuring incoming enemy forces were left behind by 'moderate rebels' . It is also quite conceivable that some, perhaps many of these 'rebels' were supported by the U.S. government.

    Other sources go on to say that departing extremist rebels placed explosives even in children's toys. I have no idea if that is accurate, but considered in the frame of the deliberate murder of many children from the buses leaving Aleppo , lured out with the promise of snacks and then blown up by a suicide bomber, I would have to say it does not seem that far-fetched.

    [May 06, 2017] What the N. Korean Crisis Is Really About by Paul Craig Roberts

    Notable quotes:
    "... People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces. ..."
    May 06, 2017 | www.unz.com
    The North Korean "crisis" is a Washington orchestration. North Korea was last at war 1950-53. N. Korea has not attacked or invaded anyone in 64 years. N. Korea lacks the military strength to attack any country, such as South Korea and Japan, that is protected by the US. Moreover, China would not permit N. Korea to start a war.

    So what is the demonization of N. Korea by the presstitutes and Trump administration about?

    It is about the same thing that the demonization of Iran was about. The "Iranian threat" was an orchestration that was used as cover to put US anti-ballistic missile bases on Russia's borders. An anti-ballistic missile (ABM) is intended to intercept and destroy nuclear-armed ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles) and prevent them from reaching their targets.

    Washington claimed that the anti-ABM bases were not directed at Russia, but were for the protection of Europe against Iran's nuclear ICBMs. Insouciant Americans might have believed this, but the Russians surely did not as Iran has neither ICBMs nor nuclear weapons. The Russian government has made it clear that Russia understands the US bases are directed at preventing a Russian retalliation against a Washington first strike.

    The Chinese government also is not stupid. The Chinese leadership understands that the reason for the N. Korean "crisis" is to provide cover for Washington to put anti-ballistic missile sites near China's border.

    In other words, Washington is creating a shield against nuclear retalliation from both Russia and China from a US nuclear strike against both countries.

    China has been more forceful in its reply to Washington's efforts than have the Russians. China has demanded an immediate halt to the US deployment of missiles in South Korea. https://www.rt.com/news/386828-china-thaad-south-korea/

    In order to keep Americans confused, Washington now calls anti-ABMs THAAD, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense. China understands that THAAD has nothing whatsoever to do with N. Korea, which borders S. Korea, making it pointless for N. Korea to attack S. Korea with ICBMs.

    THAAD in S. Korea is directed against China's retaliatory forces. It is part of Washington's preparations to nuke both Russia and China with minimal consequence to the US, although Europe would certainly be completely destroyed as THAAD or anti-ABMs are useless against Russian nuclear cruise missiles and the Russian air force.

    But no Empire has ever cared about the fate of its vassals, and Washington is uninterested in Europe's fate. Washington is interested only in its hegemony over the world.

    The question is: now that Russia and China understand that Washington is preparing for a preemptive nuclear strike against them in order to remove the two constraints on Washington's unilateral behavior, will the two countries sit there and wait for the strike?

    What would you do?

    On April 27 I posted on this website a column, "Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China." My column was a report that this was the conclusion of the Russians and Chinese themselves. I quoted Russian Lt. Gen. Viktor Poznikhir, Deputy Head of Operations of the Russian General Staff and provided links for his expression of concern such as: https://www.rt.com/news/386276-us-missile-shield-russia-strike/

    Jus' Sayin'... May 4, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT

    BTW, I agree entirely with the essential point of this essay, Mr. Roberets. It's obvious to any rational and informed person that the USA is engaged in a geopolitical strategy to surround Russia and China with a coordinated anti-ballistic-missile system. The posting of THAAD in the Korean peninsula is the latest phase of this plan. The USA's establishment seems to be planning a strategic system that they think will give the USA a first-strike capability and the flexibility to start a nuclear war with impunity. This plan is insanely dangerous and puts the entire world at risk of a nuclear conflagration.

    But the poignancy of your message is greatly diminished by the overwrought, paranoid style with which you present it.

    dearieme May 4, 2017 at 10:44 pm GMT

    Are the people who run the US really prepared to gamble on a guaranteed 100% success rate for anti-missile missiles? Won't they die too if they are wrong?

    Still, it's the simplest way to explain their very odd behaviour. Perhaps they think they can frighten the Russians and Chinese into surrender. Sounds awfully risky to me.

    KenH says: May 5, 2017 at 1:57 am GMT • 200 Words

    What I find disturbing in all this is that the U.S. has to know that they can't simultaneously neutralize Russia and China's entire nuclear arsenals and every means of delivery. But if so then this means they are ready and willing to sacrifice a portion of the American landmass and tens of millions of people to nuclear fire just to be the last man standing. Russia has "boomers" or submarines that can fire nuclear missiles from sea. I don't think the Chinese have that capability yet but I haven't been paying close attention.

    Russia has multiple ways to deliver nuclear warheads and even if our nuclear defenses are only partially breached that means a terrible loss of life. It seems the U.S. high command has war gamed every scenario imaginable and thinks we will win with "acceptable" losses which of course doesn't include they or their loved ones.

    We've become as bloodthirsty and psychopathic as the Likud party of Israel. For all intents and purposes the mover and shakers within our government are either real or honorary Likudniks.

    nickels May 5, 2017 at 3:20 pm GMT
    I have to wonder if the South Korean regime change of a few months back wasn't a CIA color revolution designed to put a puppet into government in SK that would be willing to host these missiles.
    It had all the hallmarks:
    -Fancy stage with a visual/audio propaganda machine
    -Highly coordinated crowd (lighters, etc )
    -Trumped up charges
    -Demonization of the 'Church of Eternal Life', which is basically just another wacky protestant op,not a cult. If one looks at the google search results for this church (as opposed to, say bing) it is clear that they are on google's CIA list of organizations to demonize by leading search results to propaganda sites
    -Use of the media to constantly demonize a single individual (Choi Soon) whose father was adviser to Ms Park (sounds like a pretty legit advisor to me)
    -Ms Park had expressed a desire to work with both China and the US

    In Tolkien's Silmarillion he describes the lineage of Sauron as essentially a fallen angel, aka a demon.
    There is no doubt that Washington is run by a host of people who are possessed by demons.

    As far as using real names, the reason I don't spell a full name out is not the desire to be unknown, but to avoid a search engine like google from collating everything I do online into a search result. Its one thing to be known in a certain circle of the internet, another for any bloke to pull everything together without context or participation in the actual discussions.

    Harry Huntington, May 5, 2017 at 3:35 pm GMT

    @Paul Craig Roberts

    Folks who have seriously looked at the subject cannot help but agree with you. People should recall that back in the 1950s, Henry Kissinger wrote a study of the idea of limited nuclear war. As head of Nixon's NSC, Kissinger gave us SALT I, the first and in many respects most successful nuclear arms agreement. SALT I banned ballistic missile defense. It was understood by everyone, that ballistic missile defense is not a "defensive" system, but is part of a first strike weapons package. Ballistic missile defense can never be made good enough to defend against someone else's first strike. Ballistic missile defense can, however, be expected to defend after YOU have launched your own first strike and taken out most of the other side's nuclear forces.

    Of course the Russians have not been standing still with all of this. Their S400 system has capabilities against both US stealth aircraft and ballistic missiles. The Russians make incremental changes to their systems and the Russian S500 system will have full blown ballistic missile defense capabilities. The Russians are also deploying their Topol M ICBM systems, and soon a successor, which is mobile and has multiple maneuverable warheads and penetration aids designed to defeat US ballistic missile defense systems. Most likely, as it seems is always the case, the US neocons will trust too much in US technology and will be unpleasantly surprised by the Russian response to any US nuclear first strike.

    The wildcard of course is that a nuclear war need not be fought entirely with nuclear weapons. US conventional cruise missiles can be launched to target Russian radars. Likewise, however, the Russian Kalibr cruise missiles can directly take on US ballistic missile defense by threatening both US sea based defensive systems and land based THAAD systems.

    It is easy to picture a scenario where in a crisis Russia strikes first using its conventional cruise missiles to target US ballistic missile defense sites. US sea based systems cannot engage in ballistic missile defense if they have to expend all of their missiles defending themselves from conventional attack. Similarly, a THAAD system is of limited use if Russians successfully destroy the missiles on the ground, or if they destroy the radars.

    The US was surprised when the Russians used their Kalibr missiles with great success in Syria. That success created another layer of complexity in the US planning for nuclear war.

    botazefa: May 5, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

    It is my understanding that our THAAD deployments are not particularly numerous in comparison to the existing ICBM arsenal. It is also my understanding that THAAD is not particularly accurate.

    If the author is so thin skinned that he cannot handle disagreement, then perhaps he lacks the self awareness to label dissenters as narcissists. To put it more plainly, the inability to take criticism is one of the diagnostic criteria of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. To believe that ones comments are so interesting that they invite active espionage on the part of Mossad and NATO is indicative of grandiose thinking, another diagnostic criteria of NPD.


    alexander says:

    May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @alexander

    As though perhaps in the final tally we will have hit fifty two of "their" cities and they will only have hit 20 of "ours" .like Seattle , Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Albany , Denver, Boston, Charlotte, San Francisco,Richmond, Trenton, Juneau,Wilmington, Raleigh, Concord,Providence,Detroit, Hartford and Columbia .

    Is this "victory "in your mind , Utu ?

    Can you really be suggesting this ?

    34.Mao Cheng Ji says:

    May 5, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @utu
    What is the purpose of anti-ABM installations around Russia and China? What is the purpose of claims of inflated abilities of these systems? Certainly not to prepare the first strike. It is to make Russia and China think that they will not win the first strike.

    It's exactly the opposite. Modern ABM systems are useless against the first strike with 1500 nuclear ICBMs among god knows how many decoys. They are useful, however, against a much weaker retaliation strike, provided that most of the enemy's ICBMs have been destroyed (by your first strike) inside their silos. You will probably lose a few cities, but win Total World Domination. And that's the game.

    [May 06, 2017] "Fake news" just means factual news that doesn't follow the propaganda narrative of the American establishment

    Notable quotes:
    "... Neoconesis ..."
    May 06, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    yalensis , May 5, 2017 at 2:34 pm
    This is a good post, Mark. "Fake news" just means factual news that doesn't follow the propaganda narrative of the American establishment.
    Cortes , May 5, 2017 at 4:23 pm
    I agree entirely.

    The effort to establish acceptable news for public consumption is only just gathering pace if the following piece is any guide:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/02/nyt-cheers-the-rise-of-censorship-algorithms/

    By the by, I'm increasingly impressed with the way that popular fiction is used to reinforce stereotypes helpful to the agendas of our leaders. The supposedly random selection of nefarious Russkie villains in works by the likes of Stieg Larsen, Jo Nesbo and Lee Child made me wonder if it's random at all. The other day I was reading a Lawrence Block novel, "The Burglar on the Prowl" which contains a McGuffin about Soviet repression of Latvian nationalism and began to think that perhaps there's an element of orchestration in generating stories which, oddly enough, coincide with current political orthodoxy.

    J.T. , May 5, 2017 at 7:46 pm
    Hey Cortes, you're definitely on to something.
    You should read Ted Bell's Patriot , which I reviewed here .
    Just kidding. Don't waste your time. It's 10% spy thriller and 90% Neoconesis .

    [May 05, 2017] Jared a billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby

    Some comments are over top, but the term "Kosher Nostra" is pretty interesting. Jared's father sevred a jail term...
    Notable quotes:
    "... 'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק‎). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States ..."
    "... In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs ..."
    "... Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation ..."
    "... Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard. ..."
    "... He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut. ..."
    "... They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment? ..."
    "... p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist ..."
    May 05, 2017 | ...

    wayfarer , April 20, 2017 at 10:12 pm GMT

    The problem with fiat money is that if one has enough of it, one can buy just about anything under the sun that they please, including even large parts of a country's political system and government.

    Take for example, Jared (a.k.a. billionaire arch-Zionist trust-fund baby) Kushner

    source: https://www.sott.net/article/348461-The-controversy-of-Jared-Kushner-A-suspected-gangster-within-the-Trump-White-House

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtf6TgQgWr4

    Seraphim , April 20, 2017 at 11:52 pm GMT
    @Talha Kosher Nostra!!!

    Oh man - that was awesome!!!

    Peace. It is not my invention. All From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    "Jewish-American organized crime":

    'Jewish-American organized crime emerged within the American Jewish community during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It has been referred to variously in media and popular culture as the Jewish Mob, Jewish Mafia, Kosher Mafia, Kosher Nostra, or Undzer Shtik (Yiddish: אונדזער שטיק‎). The last two of these terms refer to the Italian Cosa Nostra (Italian pronunciation: [kɔza nɔstra]); the former is a play on the word kosher, referring to Jewish dietary laws, while the latter is a direct translation of the phrase (Italian for "our thing") into Yiddish, which was at the time the predominant language of the Jewish diaspora in the United States

    In more recent years, Jewish-American organized crime has reappeared in the forms of both Israeli and Jewish-Russian mafia criminal groups, and Orthodox kidnapping gangs .

    Several notable Jewish American mobsters provided financial support for Israel through donations to Jewish organizations since the country's creation in 1948. Jewish-American gangsters used Israel's Law of Return to flee criminal charges or face deportation "

    Anonymous , April 21, 2017 at 3:31 am GMT

    @wayfarer

    Even the staff at his own Jewish day school were surprised he was accepted at Harvard.

    He was described as a lacklustre student his father bought his entry, and they were disappointed that more qualified students from his school didn't make the cut.

    Art , April 21, 2017 at 6:56 pm GMT
    @Alden

    I just read the latest ADL diktat.

    As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe. I just read the latest ADL diktat. As of today any mention of Jared Kushner is deemed anti Semitic. Consequences will be severe.

    They have good reason to hide him – he and his family have some shady business dealings – his father is a x-convict. How did he come into billions of dollars? They say that Jared inherited his money – how did that happen when his father is still living – did they get special tax treatment?

    Hmm?

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Jared Kushner is 100% Zionist

    [May 05, 2017] And in this election, the poor whites have had enough of voting for a party that mocks them, and fucks them economically

    May 05, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    ucgsblog , May 5, 2017 at 1:04 pm
    Hi Mark,

    Brilliant title and a great article!

    "It Is What It Isn't: Fake News Comes of Age as Ideology Trumps Evidence"

    Love it!

    "All of his complaining is backed up, it goes nearly without saying, with photographs. Yet he didn't get a picture of the stealth-invading Russian battalions even though he knew the subject was hotly debated, and proof would have made his name a household word. Well, he is a household word, although it's not "Shaun Walker". But you know what I mean."

    *Rimshot*

    " the author persists with the simpleminded meme that Putin rigged the American presidential election to prevent Hillary Clinton from winning So what sabotaged the win Hillary Clinton thought she had in the bag was the release of damaging information about her which was true and accurate. "

    What won the election for Trump was the Democratic Treatment of the poor white class, whose votes the Democrats took for granted. Clinton consultant, James Carville, admitted that people vote based on the economy when Bill Clinton won. But when Hillary lost, for Carville it suddenly became about Russia, Russia, Russia, akin to Jan yelling Marcia, Marcia, Marcia on the Brady Bunch. How does an analyst sink to the level of a school girl?

    Because the Democrats ignored nearly all of the warning sings, struggled internally, and needed someone to blame. Russia is an easy target for blame in US politics. Accepting responsibility for the defeat would have meant a purge of the Democratic elite from their party's leadership. When Scott Walker won Wisconsin, the Democrats ignored it. Look at the map of Wisconsin in Walker's Gubernatorial Victory in 2014, and compare that with Trump's Presidential Victory in 2016. They're almost identical. The poorer whites became, the more they voted for Trump.

    The DNC has been ignoring the Rust Belt for decades. That's how Clintons missed Obama's meteoric rise. And in this election, the poor whites have had enough of voting for a party that mocks them, and fucks them economically. They simply needed a leader that could get revenge for them on the DNC. Enter Trump. Did he bullshit? Most certainly, but they did not care. The DNC was focused on getting Virginia, Nevada, making inroads into a few other states; holding their base was simply too plebeian.

    And it was this shift that happened, rather than the leaks, rather than Russia, rather than Comey, rather than anything else, that cost the Democrats the Presidency. This simple shift of a voting block. That's why it wasn't just Pennsylvania; it was Wisconsin and Michigan: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

    "The theme expresses itself in several ways - primitive vs. advanced, tough vs. delicate, masculine vs. feminine, poor vs. rich, pure vs. decadent, traditional vs. weird. All of it is code for rural vs. urban."

    What held the rust belt states was cities like Chicago, and poor whites turning out. That didn't happen in this election, because"

    "Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

    On Cultural Integration:

    "the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us."

    An Issue with Priorities:

    "Blacks riot, Muslims set bombs, gays spread AIDS, Mexican cartels behead children, atheists tear down Christmas trees. Meanwhile, those liberal Lena Dunhams in their $5,000-a-month apartments sip wine and say, "But those white Christians are the real problem!" Terror victims scream in the street next to their own severed limbs, and the response from the elites is to cry about how men should be allowed to use women's restrooms and how it's cruel to keep chickens in cages The foundation upon which America was undeniably built - family, faith, and hard work - had been deemed unfashionable and small-minded. Those snooty elites up in their ivory tower laughed as they kicked away that foundation, and then wrote 10,000-word thinkpieces blaming the builders for the ensuing collapse."

    Most importantly, on the economy:

    "They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city, and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities, but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has utterly collapsed. See, rural jobs used to be based around one big local business - a factory, a coal mine, etc. When it dies, the town dies. Where I grew up, it was an oil refinery closing that did us in. I was raised in the hollowed-out shell of what the town had once been. The roof of our high school leaked when it rained. Cities can make up for the loss of manufacturing jobs with service jobs - small towns cannot. That model doesn't work below a certain population density."

    On hopelessness:

    "In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks. There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic. I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive.

    And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."

    This frustration was built up over decades. Not overnight. Not because of an October Surprise. Not because of leaked emails, and certainly, not because of Russia. And unless the DNC is able to grasp the basics, or the RNC fucks up the economy, Republicans will keep on winning the presidency. It's just that simple.

    Take a look at the early footage on election night. The Democrats thought they were going to win, even after the email release. Even after the scandals, they thought they had the election in the bag. And that's because you don't miss an entire electoral class overnight either. On a final note, there's no such thing as White Privilege; it's a lie made up to take away our Rights, just like certain cities took away the Rights of minorities. The Rights against search and seizure is a Right, not a Privilege.

    Cortes , May 5, 2017 at 3:45 pm
    Thanks for the link to the David Wong article. I'd read it before (possibly linked to at John Michael Greer's Archdruid Report blog) but thoroughly enjoyed reading it again.

    [May 05, 2017] Wag The Dog - How Al Qaeda Played Donald Trump And The American Media

    May 05, 2017 | www.huffingtonpost.com

    ...Once upon a time, Donald J. Trump, the New York City businessman-turned-president, berated then-President Barack Obama back in September 2013 about the fallacy of an American military strike against Syria. At that time, the United States was considering the use of force against Syria in response to allegations (since largely disproven) that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Trump, via tweet, declared "to our very foolish leader, do not attack Syria – if you do many very bad things will happen & from that fight the U.S. gets nothing!"

    ...This new policy direction lasted barely five days. Sometime in the early afternoon of April 4, 2017, troubling images and video clips began to be transmitted out of the Syrian province of Idlib by anti-government activists, including members of the so-called "White Helmets," a volunteer rescue team whose work was captured in an eponymously-named Academy Award-winning documentary film. These images showed victims in various stages of symptomatic distress, including death, from what the activists said was exposure to chemical weapons dropped by the Syrian air force on the town of Khan Sheikhoun that very morning.

    Images of these tragic deaths were immediately broadcast on American media outlets, with pundits decrying the horrific and heinous nature of the chemical attack, which was nearly unanimously attributed to the Syrian government, even though the only evidence provided was the imagery and testimony of the anti-Assad activists who, just days before, were decrying the shift in American policy regarding regime change in Syria.

    ...Such a reversal in policy fundamentals and direction in such a short period of time is stunning; Donald Trump didn't simply deviate slightly off course, but rather did a complete 180-degree turn. The previous policy of avoiding entanglement in the internal affairs of Syria in favor of defeating ISIS and improving relations with Russia had been replaced by a fervent embrace of regime change, direct military engagement with the Syrian armed forces, and a confrontational stance vis-à-vis the Russian military presence in Syria.

    Normally, such major policy change could only be explained by a new reality driven by verifiable facts. The alleged chemical weapons attack against Khan Sheikhoun was not a new reality; chemical attacks had been occurring inside Syria on a regular basis, despite the international effort to disarm Syria's chemical weapons capability undertaken in 2013 that played a central role in forestalling American military action at that time. International investigations of these attacks produced mixed results, with some being attributed to the Syrian government (something the Syrian government vehemently denies), and the majority being attributed to anti-regime fighters, in particular those affiliated with Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate.

    ...A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population.

    ...In Aleppo, the Russians discovered crude weapons production laboratories that filled mortar shells and landmines with a mix of chlorine gas and white phosphorus; after a thorough forensic investigation was conducted by military specialists, the Russians turned over samples of these weapons, together with soil samples from areas struck by weapons produced in these laboratories, to investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for further evaluation.
    ( Collapse )
    Al Nusra has a long history of manufacturing and employing crude chemical weapons; the 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta made use of low-grade Sarin nerve agent locally synthesized, while attacks in and around Aleppo in 2016 made use of a chlorine/white phosphorous blend. If the Russians are correct, and the building bombed in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017 was producing and/or storing chemical weapons, the probability that viable agent and other toxic contaminants were dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood, and further disseminated by the prevailing wind, is high.

    The counter-narrative offered by the Russians and Syrians, however, has been minimized, mocked and ignored by both the American media and the Trump administration. So, too, has the very illogic of the premise being put forward to answer the question of why President Assad would risk everything by using chemical weapons against a target of zero military value, at a time when the strategic balance of power had shifted strongly in his favor. Likewise, why would Russia, which had invested considerable political capital in the disarmament of Syria's chemical weapons capability after 2013, stand by idly while the Syrian air force carried out such an attack, especially when their was such a heavy Russian military presence at the base in question at the time of the attack?

    Such analysis seems beyond the scope and comprehension of the American fourth estate. Instead, media outlets like CNN embrace at face value anything they are told by official American sources, including a particularly preposterous insinuation that Russia actually colluded in the chemical weapons attack; the aforementioned presence of Russian officers at Al Shayrat air base has been cited as evidence that Russia had to have known about Syria's chemical warfare capability, and yet did nothing to prevent the attack.

    To sustain this illogic, the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including organizations like the "White Helmets," the Syrian-American Medical Society, the Aleppo Media Center, which have a history of providing slanted information designed to promote an anti-Assad message.

    ...Even slick media training, however, cannot gloss over basic factual inconsistencies. Early on, the anti-Assad opposition media outlets were labeling the Khan Sheikhoun incident as a "Sarin nerve agent" attack; one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a "pungent odor" and "blue-yellow" clouds, more indicative of chlorine gas.

    And while American media outlets, such as CNN, have spoken of munitions "filled to the brim" with Sarin nerve agent being used at Khan Sheikhoun, there is simply no evidence cited by any source that can sustain such an account. Heartbreaking images of victims being treated by "White Helmet" rescuers have been cited as proof of Sarin-like symptoms, the medical viability of these images is in question; there are no images taken of victims at the scene of the attack. Instead, the video provided by the "White Helmets" is of decontamination and treatment carried out at a "White Helmet" base after the victims, either dead or injured, were transported there.

    The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the "White Helmet" personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a "pungent smelling" chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.)

    ...Moreover, if Al Nusra was replicating the type of low-grade Sarin it employed at Ghouta in 2013 at Khan Sheikhoun, it is highly likely that some of the victims in question would exhibit Sarin-like symptoms. Blood samples taken from the victims could provide a more precise readout of the specific chemical exposure involved; such samples have allegedly been collected by Al Nusra-affiliated personnel, and turned over to international investigators (the notion that any serious investigatory body would allow Al Nusra to provide forensic evidence in support of an investigation where it is one of only two potential culprits is mindboggling, but that is precisely what has happened). But the Trump administration chose to act before these samples could be processed, perhaps afraid that their results would not sustain the underlying allegation of the employment of Sarin by the Syrian air force.

    Mainstream American media outlets have willingly and openly embraced a narrative provided by Al Qaeda affiliates whose record of using chemical weapons in Syria and distorting and manufacturing "evidence" to promote anti-Assad policies in the west, including regime change, is well documented. These outlets have made a deliberate decision to endorse the view of Al Qaeda over a narrative provided by Russian and Syrian government authorities without any effort to fact check either position. These actions, however, do not seem to shock the conscience of the American public; when it comes to Syria, the mainstream American media and its audience has long ago ceded the narrative to Al Qaeda and other Islamist anti-regime elements.

    The real culprits here are the Trump administration, and President Trump himself. The president's record of placing more weight on what he sees on television than the intelligence briefings he may or may not be getting, and his lack of intellectual curiosity and unfamiliarity with the nuances and complexities of both foreign and national security policy, created the conditions where the imagery of the Khan Sheikhoun victims that had been disseminated by pro-Al Nusra (i.e., Al Qaeda) outlets could influence critical life-or-death decisions.

    That President Trump could be susceptible to such obvious manipulation is not surprising, given his predilection for counter-punching on Twitter for any perceived slight; that his national security team allowed him to be manipulated thus, and did nothing to sway Trump's opinion or forestall action pending a thorough review of the facts, is scandalous. History will show that Donald Trump, his advisors and the American media were little more than willing dupes for Al Qaeda and its affiliates, whose manipulation of the Syrian narrative resulted in a major policy shift that furthers their objectives.

    [May 05, 2017] Yeah, cause nothing says resistance like Hillary working with billionaire Wall Street donors to agitate against a sitting president.

    May 05, 2017 | twitter.com

    Sarah Abdallah Independent Lebanese geopolitical commentator.

    Sarah Abdallah @sahouraxo ■ 12h

    Yeah, 'cause nothing says "resistance" like Hillary working with billionaire Wall Street donors to agitate against a sitting president.

    CNN"@CNN

    Hillary Clinton plans to launch а РАС aimed at funding "resistance" groups standing up to Pres. Trump, sources say cnn.it/2pfkOA8

    [May 05, 2017] Trump and Russia Shortest Reset Ever

    Notable quotes:
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands . ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | fpif.org

    It has all the hallmarks of a compelling thriller.

    A U.S. president willing to put his reputation on the line in the interests of peace and prosperity prepares to reach out to Russia. The Kremlin shows some cautious interest. But before the president can propose anything substantial, his opponents do everything possible to derail his efforts.

    Worse, this "deep state" of operatives within government - and political actors on the outside - leverages a full range of false accusations to smother the administration in the fog of scandal.

    Maybe Tom Clancy could have done something with this. But as presented by Donald Trump and his defenders, this plot was never particularly convincing, even going back to its origin myth in the presidential primaries in early 2016. As a candidate, Donald Trump's admiration for Vladimir Putin and his desire to improve relations with Russia seemed an unbelievable plot twist.

    After all, anti-Russian sentiment has always run strong within the Republican Party (remember Mitt Romney's assertion that Russia was America's "number one geopolitical foe"). Making nice with the Kremlin wasn't a position that could appeal necessarily to independents. And Putin was known in America largely for getting rid of his rivals and threatening countries bordering his country.

    Even following the money didn't produce much of a rationale, since Trump didn't have any substantial investments in Russia (though Russia apparently invested in him ).

    Sure, a certain far-right constituency in the United States, which has seen Russia as a valuable partner in the fight against Islam, immigrants, and "permissive" culture like gay marriage, warmed to Trump's approach. And if you dug deep enough, maybe you could find a few outliers on the left who imagined, foolishly, that Trump would push a reset button on relations with Russia that could result in nuclear disarmament, a negotiated end to the war in Syria, and free Matryoshka dolls for everyone.

    But none of this should have been sufficient reason for Trump to reverse his own negotiating principles by glad-handing the leader of a country with whom he'd be negotiating hard as president.

    Then came the WikiLeaks that hobbled the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton in particular, which Trump welcomed even as evidence mounted that the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, had Russian fingerprints all over them .

    Next up: revelations from a former British spy of more serious allegations that Russia had a file of compromising information about Trump, including tapes of a sexual nature from the future president's 2013 visit to Moscow. And now come even more tantalizing clues that the U.S. intelligence community was on the trail of a Russian transfer of funds to Trump's election campaign back in summer 2016. Since Donald Trump has never cared a whit about détente or disarmament, this emerging narrative of various quid pro quos makes much more sense.

    So far, Russiagate has forced National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign because he lied about his discussions with Russian ambassador Sergei Kisalyov. Attorney General Jeff Sessions also lied about his meetings with Russians, but so far he's merely recused himself from any investigation into the allegations of Russian involvement in the election campaign. No one within the Trump administration, including Trump himself, has yet been saddled with more serious impeachable offenses.

    The Trump administration and its followers on the right continue to push the notion that Russia has done nothing wrong. So, strangely, have some people on the left - including Stephen Cohen, most recently in The Nation . Glenn Greenwald , Robert Parry of Consortium News , and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity all question whether Russia was behind the DNC hack. It's a "witch-hunt," they say, and the Kremlin agrees .

    The counter-evidence? Julian Assange of WikiLeaks says that Russia was not the source of the hacked materials, and the Obama administration has a "reputation for manipulating intelligence for political purposes."

    Well, I wouldn't count Assange as a particularly reliable witness. And if the Obama administration was so good at manipulating intelligence for political purposes, why was it so slow off the mark in providing any of this supposedly doctored information before the election, when it would have actually counted for something politically?

    Then there's the argument that the NCCIC joint analysis report released at the end of December doesn't contain a smoking gun. Okay, perhaps - I'm no cyber expert. But if it wasn't the Russians, as the government analysis claims, then who had a motive to deep-six the Dems other than the Republicans and Russia? The skeptics are left with little more than Trump's 400-pound hacker sitting on a couch. They might as well blame gremlins or extraterrestrials.

    And please: a witch-hunt? Sorry, wrong era.

    This isn't a McCarthyite smear campaign of a handful of radicals but an effort to get to the heart of an intervention into politics by some very powerful actors. As in the Watergate scandal, the Democratic Party suffered a break-in. WikiLeaks successfully used the pilfered materials to influence the election. Russian hackers have been involved in countless hacking operations, and it goes beyond interfering only in the U.S. elections.

    Journalists have been trying to piece together a story that provides an explanation more convincing than the narrative that Trump and Putin have put out there. Sure, many people desperately want to believe that some evidence will come to light that can end the Trump nightmare. But even those who are skeptical of the stories leaked to the press so far should support an impartial investigation with real subpoena power. Better a proper investigation than continued innuendo.

    In the meantime, forget about that reset with Russia. There never was much of a chance of a Trump-led détente in the first place. Russia played the United States. The Kremlin got what it wanted - an America paralyzed by an incompetent administration at odds with more than half the country's population. And it cost a mere fraction of the price of a single nuclear warhead.

    What Russia Wants

    First of all, Russia isn't interested in taking over the world.

    Vladimir Putin isn't even interested in reconstituting the Soviet Union.

    Administering a lot of new territory is more of a headache than it's worth. The only spit of land that Russia has actually absorbed, the Crimean peninsula, has been a drain on the Russian budget , and the exclave has seen very little of the prosperity Russia promised. The other parts of the near abroad locked in "frozen conflicts" - South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria - are no great shakes economically either.

    The Kremlin is content to have a secure perimeter free from NATO interference. Of course, given NATO's perennial interest in expanding eastward, a basic conflict lies at the heart of East-West relations. Until the two sides come up with a disengagement agreement, Eastern Europe will continue to be a zone of contention, with poor Ukraine split in half like a cheap piñata.

    Putin is really more concerned about economic matters.

    When oil prices dropped, the Russian economy quickly went south as the GDP per capita suffered an astounding drop from $15,000 in 2014 to only $9,000 one year later. U.S. sanctions, imposed after Russia seized Crimea in 2014, certainly didn't help matters. Since then, Russia has boosted oil production and taken advantage of a rise in prices. Modest growth has returned. Lifting U.S. sanctions would add as much as .2 percent to Russian growth in 2017 and .5 percent in 2018. That's actually a lot of rubles.

    Putin no doubt welcomed Trump's hints that he would lift sanctions, cooperate with Russia against the Islamic State, and downplay U.S. concerns for human rights around the world. But Trump was never a reliable patsy.

    For one thing, he wasn't reliable, period. For another, he backed positions that would ultimately conflict with Russia, such as his promise to undo the nuclear agreement with Iran. If Russia were indeed behind the hack of the DNC - even if it's proved to have funneled money into the election on Trump's side - I'm not convinced that Putin ever expected Trump to win. As a canny politician, the Russian leader also would have anticipated that if Trump did manage to beat the odds, he would have to contend with a foreign policy establishment that is far from Russia-friendly.

    So, more likely, Putin simply wanted to throw the American political system into turmoil. He was hoping for, at best, a legitimation crisis that would hobble any incoming administration and make it that much more difficult for the United States to act in the world.

    As it happened, Trump won on a long shot, and the American political system has indeed been thrown into turmoil as a result of it. U.S. policy toward Russia hasn't really changed. The sanctions remain in place, Washington still expects Russia to pull out of eastern Ukraine and give back Crimea , and the usual criticisms of Russian conduct prevail at the United Nations . As with everything to do with policy, Trump was winging it. Once in power, he has fallen back on the status quo ante.

    But here's the interesting part. There's good reason to believe that, despite all the hoopla in Moscow over Trump's victory, Russia took the first steps to begin to undermine the new administration. It was only two days after the election, after all, that the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov contradicted the claim of the Trump campaign that it hadn't maintained contact with Russian officials.

    Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak also confirmed that meetings took place, though he also sought to normalize them by saying that they happen all the time with political figures. That's true, of course, but the Trump campaign was busy denying that they'd transpired in the first place.

    So, perhaps Russia didn't really expect that Trump would keep his word. Confirming that the meetings did in fact take place helped fulfill the underlying objective of destabilizing the American political system.

    And now, what can Trump do? Admitting that he's been played by Moscow would bring his administration crashing down around his head (not to mention damaging his ego). He can continue to lie, and ask his team to do the same, but only so many loyal adjutants can fall on their swords before all the blood on the floor makes governance impossible.

    So, Trump did the only thing he knew how to do: make things up. His claim that the Obama administration was spying on him - a Watergate-sized accusation - suddenly had the media in a tizzy trying to find substantiation. In a reasonable world, Trump's latest tweets would be his "Milo moment" when everyone realizes that, like the ludicrous pundit Milo Yiannopoulos, Trump is truly unhinged. Milo's book contract can be rescinded, but it's not so easy to take away Trump's presidency.

    The Future Impact of Russiagate

    Donald Trump's presidential campaign was plagued by one scandal after another. But none of the gaffes and revelations and embarrassments seemed to end Trump's political career.

    Russiagate is different. First of all, Trump is now an elected figure, not just a cartoonish candidate. Second, this scandal involves much higher stakes than insulting John McCain's war record or mocking a disabled reporter. Laws might have been broken; national security might have been breached; an election might have been compromised.

    Pursuing an investigation into Trump's possible misdeeds may have any number of unanticipated consequences. But it is not likely to precipitate a new Cold War with Russia. Such a development depends more on NATO policy in Eastern Europe, Russian actions in its near abroad, and imponderables such as the course of the war in Syria and petropolitics in Europe.

    I have lots of reasons to criticize Vladimir Putin and his attempt to push a far right-wing agenda at home and abroad. But it's absolutely critical to separate one's views about Putin and Kremlin policies from an investigation into Donald Trump's misconduct. Let me repeat: This is no witch-hunt. This is democracy in action in an effort to discover abuse of power.

    If the appointment of a special prosecutor doesn't attract bipartisan support , I will be unhappy but unsurprised. But everyone to the left of Ann Coulter should be on board. If ever there were a time for unity, it is now.

    John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands .

    [May 03, 2017] Trump and the Rush to Deploy THAAD by Raekyong Lee

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because of all these zigzags in U.S. policy, South Koreans perceive the Trump administration as irrational, self-centered, and impulsive. The demand for a large payment for THAAD has increased Moon Jae-in's skepticism of the system and boosted anti-American sentiment in the election. Moon is now openly critical of THAAD early deployment even in the face of conservative criticism. ..."
    "... The shift in Korean perceptions of the United States is driven by the complete lack of concern for procedure in the decision on THAAD. Acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn is not authorized to make such a critical decision. Also, former President Park Geun-hye agreed initially to THAAD without consulting with the National Assembly. ..."
    "... We do not know how the rapid deployment of THAAD was decided upon. Most likely it was an agreement reached between Kim Kwan-Jin, head of national security office in the Blue House, and Admiral Harry Harris, head of the US Pacific Command. Both are famous for their bellicose declarations and their close ties to military contractors. It seems less likely that Donald Trump was involved in the process. ..."
    "... But Donald Trump has just thrown oil on the fire with his recent comments that Korea had once been a part of China-according to Xi Jinping. He has eliminated all Asia experts from the State Department and has no one around him who has any expertise on the region. This lack of actual understanding combines with the astonishing capacity of the U.S. president to reverse himself on North Korea. ..."
    "... The failure of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to have dinner with acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn when he visited Korea in March only added insult to injury. ..."
    May 03, 2017 | fpif.org
    The Korean police swarmed onto the golf course in Seongju, just 300 kilometers southeast of Seoul, just before dawn on April 26. The officers pushed aside the dazed protesters and escorted a group of US Army military trailers that carried the critical parts for the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missile defense system.

    The deployment of THAAD in Korea has become extremely contentious since China expressed its strong opposition. The sudden deployment of the AN/TPY-2 radar system and two missile launchers and interceptors a week before the Korean presidential election on May 9 has created even greater controversy. It looks for all the world like a bid to make deployment a fait accompli even as the liberal candidate Moon Jae-in, who is the frontrunner in several polls, suggests that the system requires further debate.

    Although the incident did not grab the headlines around the world, it was an obvious effort to circumvent the Korean political process. It also marks a fundamental shift in Korea-US relations .

    But that's not all. President Donald Trump also went on to demand that Korea pay one billion dollars for the cost of the deployment, even though the Korean military is not actually purchasing the missile defense system and has agreed to deployment in the face of strong opposition.

    President Trump went on to condemn the KORUS Free Trade Agreement, calling it a "horrible deal" and threatening to "terminate" it. Trump has linked together security issues with trade issues in an aggressive manner, hinting that the crisis might be resolved if Seoul were more accommodating in trade negotiations.

    This mix of trade issues with security issues goes against the grain of the entire shared-values strategy that the United States has employed since the Second World War. Trump suggests, in so many words, that the military alliance is an economic exchange and that THAAD, or just about anything, can be modified or even eliminated if the price is right. Though this approach may seem like common sense to Donald Trump, the implication is that the United States military is a mercenary force whose purpose is not determined by a commitment to democracy and free markets but rather the balance in the national treasury.

    And lo and behold, on May 1, Trump stated that he would be "honored" to meet with Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea, a country that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has refused to engage in discussions, despite numerous offers by the Chinese. At other times, the Trump administration has suggested that military action against North Korea was imminent.

    Korean Politics

    Because of all these zigzags in U.S. policy, South Koreans perceive the Trump administration as irrational, self-centered, and impulsive. The demand for a large payment for THAAD has increased Moon Jae-in's skepticism of the system and boosted anti-American sentiment in the election. Moon is now openly critical of THAAD early deployment even in the face of conservative criticism.

    The shift in Korean perceptions of the United States is driven by the complete lack of concern for procedure in the decision on THAAD. Acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn is not authorized to make such a critical decision. Also, former President Park Geun-hye agreed initially to THAAD without consulting with the National Assembly.

    There has been literally no debate among legislators on THAAD. The issue is simply not a matter of a North Korean threat. China perceives THAAD as an effort to undermine its own defensive capabilities. Although experts can debate the fine points, deployment will trigger an arms race in Northeast Asia that could draw in Korea, Japan, Russia, and perhaps other nations. China currently has under 300 nuclear weapons (as opposed to the United States with almost 7,000). Worried that THAAD could neutralize this relatively small arsenal, China could increase that number to a thousand or more.

    We do not know how the rapid deployment of THAAD was decided upon. Most likely it was an agreement reached between Kim Kwan-Jin, head of national security office in the Blue House, and Admiral Harry Harris, head of the US Pacific Command. Both are famous for their bellicose declarations and their close ties to military contractors. It seems less likely that Donald Trump was involved in the process.

    But Donald Trump has just thrown oil on the fire with his recent comments that Korea had once been a part of China-according to Xi Jinping. He has eliminated all Asia experts from the State Department and has no one around him who has any expertise on the region. This lack of actual understanding combines with the astonishing capacity of the U.S. president to reverse himself on North Korea.

    A New South Korean Policy?

    A Moon administration is likely to pursue improved relations with North Korea, in contrast to the last ten years of conservative government. It will also encounter at least the same hostility that the Roh Moo-hyun administration encountered from the George W. Bush administration.

    Moon is likely to try to bring back some version of Kim Daejung's "sunshine policy," which promoted diplomatic, economic, and cultural engagement with the North. Conservatives thought they'd put a stake through the heart of this engagement policy last year when they shut down the last vestige of cooperation, the Kaesong Industrial Complex, run jointly by the North and South. Such efforts to reopen dialog with North Korea will likely be combined with a push for the transfer of operational wartime control of the military to Korea over the next few years and a Korean foreign policy that is more independent of the United States.

    In fact, Korea could well be the one of the most independent-minded of all the United States allies under a Moon administration. Obama's "strategic neglect" of North Korea and inaction in the face of nuclear tests has caused enormous frustration for South Korea. A Moon administration could forge its own policy toward the North that would be substantially different from Washington's.

    North Korea is fully aware of the manner in which outside power overthrew governments in Libya and Iraq because they lacked sufficient deterrence. As a result, Pyongyang is unlikely to make any easy compromises, especially as Kim Jung-un has staked his legitimacy on the nuclear program as an assertion of national autonomy.

    But for all the rhetoric of the need to stand up to North Korea, American engagement in Korea is in retreat. Increasingly China offers the real economic opportunities to Koreans, and Chinese language schools are popping up all over the place. By contrast, Citibank announced the closure of one-third of its branches in Korea in April, and the percentage of Americans among foreigners in Korea has declined significantly.

    Astonishingly, in the face of threats of war with North Korea, the United States not only no longer has an ambassador to the Republic of Korea -- the last ambassador Mark Lippert was asked to step down on January 19 -- there is not even a candidate. Korea was essentially left out of the conversation between Trump and Shinzo Abe at the White House in February and also between Trump and Chinese president Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. The failure of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to have dinner with acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn when he visited Korea in March only added insult to injury.

    Ultimately, the THAAD anti-missile system is part of a long-term relationship with the United States that dates back to the late nineteenth century. Overall, although North Korea is getting front-page coverage in the mainstream media, South Korea has not registered as a major player for the Trump administration. If steps are not taken to find common ground and engage Koreans about some other topic than the North Korean threat, there is a danger of a rise in anti-American sentiments and a corresponding drop in American influence.

    Raekyong Lee is president of The Tomorrow, a leading progressive think tank in Seoul, Korea, dedicated to economic and security issues. He was deeply involved in the democracy movement in the 1970s and 1980s in Korea and writes frequently about international relations and politics.

    [May 03, 2017] Trumping the Party and the Pollsters

    It is interesting to compare the dicussion in 2015 with the current situation...
    Notable quotes:
    "... While conservatism is by far the strongest predictor of support for the Tea Party movement, racial hostility also has a significant impact on support. ..."
    "... In fact, today's Republicans and Tea Party are opposed to everything Republicans were for and did from 1860 to 1990, relabeling Republicans before 1970 as RINOs. Even Reagan is a RINO, requiring a history rewrite by conservatives which Bartlett has persisted in refuting. ..."
    "... Dem hesitation to support Obomber on Iran means I DO NOT DO ANYTHING FOR DEMS in '16! ..."
    "... The rise of TrumpW! over Jeb! would flame out as a third party. ..."
    "... "Donald Trump cuts through the ideological haze of American politics and exposes its underlying truth, the truth of enjoyment. Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality. Money buys access -- why deny it?" ... "In a plutocracy, the plutocrats rule. The Republicans don't like Trump because he doesn't hide this point under flag and fetus. For him, flag and fetus are present, but incidental to his politics of truth. Those with money win. Those without it lose. Winners get to do whatever they want. Losers get done to. ... This is his politics of enjoyment." ..."
    "... Trump supporters are mad at the system. Not that they have any ideas that will improve things. They simply want to protest. They are not happy with the way things are. ..."
    "... Steve Schmidt said exactly the same thing on Maher. Our government is incompetent and people are mad. Course, no policies have as yet followed, although Trump actually said he would replace Obamacare with "something terrific"(actual quote). ..."
    "... And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character." ..."
    "... I guess it's poetic justice. When the Republican party sold its soul to the devil for Southern white voters, it not only got a whole bunch of racists but a whole bunch of Jacksonian democrats. Trump is talking like any number of Southern politicians who used to combine support for Jim Crow with populist talk and the distribution of goodies. There is, it turns out, a constituency for a left-wing way of being right wing, for adding a dollop of socialism to your nativism, which is why "keeping the government's hands off my Medicare" makes perfectly good political sense. No wonder Trump had nice things to say about single payer. ..."
    "... I'd say both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the electorate's disgust with establishment politics. Trump in particular is a comical larger-than-life figure. Heck, the Italians expressed their disgust by electing a porn star ("la ciccolina"). ..."
    "... The electorate's beliefs are not that different than the establishments on several fronts. That is the dirty secret of modern day America. Huffing and puffing with little content. ..."
    "... Trump uses Mexico as a cover for that most of the illegal immigration is coming from Asia right now (besides his clothing business........ah, people don't listen). Mexican illegal immigration is down more than the total decline since 2007 and will probably fall further. The "wall" is just a scam. I bet there are some people in Mexico who would love that wall. ..."
    "... People forget FDR was influenced by Jacksonian democracy merged in with 100 more years of industrial capitalism's failings. So FDR took nativism and socialism=the new deal. In Germany they called it National Socialism. White's get a huge lift while blacks get left behind. The historical trend of unemployment was fairly similar up until then. Then after the New Deal, it separated. ..."
    "... True, Truman integrated the national security establishment (army) right before he turned it into a huge trough (possibly by accident). ..."
    "... I hate stupid, anachronistic comments about FDR. He was faced with an enormous crisis and to use his political capital the best he could. If he had gone all in abolishing Jim Crow he would have been a one term president and the depression would worsened. Communism would have been on the table. ..."
    Aug 12, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Bruce Bartlett:

    Will Donald Trump Crack-up the Republican/Tea Party Alliance?: ... It appeared that Trump was the favored candidate of Fox News before the debate... Trump was clearly shocked by the sharpness of the questions at the debate...

    With Trump and Fox now on opposite sides and the Republican establishment eager to quash his threat to run next year as a third party candidate, which would virtually guarantee a Democratic victory, conservatives began to choose sides. Erick Erickson, a paid Fox contributor who runs the politically powerful RedState website, publicly disinvited Trump to an Atlanta gathering at which most other Republican candidates appeared.

    Of particular interest, I think, is that two of talk radio's most powerful voices, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, quickly came to Trump's defense. I suspect this was as much a market-driven decision as an honest personal one – talk radio has long catered to the more downscale, less educated wing of conservatism, where most Trump supporters dwell. Whatever else one thinks of Limbaugh and Levin, they are enormously useful allies in the sort of fight Trump is waging.

    It is too soon to know whether Trump is in this for the long haul, but I would not underestimate his ego or willingness to spend freely from his vast fortune to secure the Republican nomination. Early signs are that his support remains firm in post-debate polls and he is still leading the pack. If the Republican field stays divided, preventing consolidation around the strongest non-Trump candidate, one cannot dismiss his chances of success.

    Of more importance to me is that if the forces for and against Trump play out as they have so far, with Fox and Tea Party leaders siding with the GOP establishment while talk radio and large numbers of the Tea Party grassroots are committed to Trump, we may see the crackup of the Republican coalition that controls Congress, many state legislatures and governorships. The Tea Party will go down in history as just another populist movement that lacked staying power and Donald Trump will be its William Jennings Bryan.

    Paul Krugman:

    Tea and Trump_vs_deep_state: Memo to pollsters: while I'm having as much fun as everyone else watching the unsinkable Donald defy predictions of his assured collapse, what I really want to see at this point is a profile of his supporters. What characteristics predispose someone to like this guy, as opposed to accepting the establishment candidates? ...

    OK, here's my guess: they look a lot like Tea Party supporters. And we do know a fair bit about that group.

    First of all, Tea Party supporters are for the most part not working-class, at least in the senses that group is often defined. They're relatively affluent, and not especially lacking in college degrees.

    So what is distinctive about them? Alan Abramowitz:

    While conservatism is by far the strongest predictor of support for the Tea Party movement, racial hostility also has a significant impact on support.

    So maybe Trump's base is angry, fairly affluent white racists - sort of like The Donald himself, only not as rich? And maybe they're not being hoodwinked? ...

    Again, this is just guesswork until we have a real profile of typical Trump supporter. But for what it's worth, I think the Trump phenomenon is much more grounded in fundamentals than the commentariat yet grasps.

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 12:33 AM in Politics | Permalink Comments (75)

    Mitch said...

    I like Bruce Bartlett since he has the capacity to change his mind when confronted by facts, but what is so appealing about conservatism...that people gravitate to?

    What are they clinging to?

    I mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdcGoBOsaQM

    If they are not clinging to Jesus, then what are they clinging to?

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Mitch...

    George Wallace

    mulp -> Mitch...

    "If they are not clinging to Jesus, then what are they clinging to?"

    The promise of a free lunch. That is the thing Reagan and his economists sold America, the promise of a free lunch. If we get rid of unions, they you will be paid more and get richer because the union bosses will not be taking a big chunk of your paycheck to make themselves rich.

    If we cut taxes, you will have more money in your pocket and you will also get more free services once the private sector does what government does cheaper.

    If we deregulate the banks then your mortgage interest rates will fall below the interest rate cap imposed by the Fed and the banks will pay higher interest on your savings than the Fed allows with the interest rate cap.

    If we deregulate the banks and make loan sharking legal, you will be able to borrow money without a job or assets to get rich.

    If we eliminate capital gains taxes then the price on your house will increase to infinity even if the roof caves in because capital always gain value if the government does not tax it.

    If we get rid of the EPA, then everything will be cheaper and your getting richer from paying less will mean less pollution because pollution falls with wealth.

    If lazy incompetent government workers are fired, they will start new businesses and create wealth by creating millions of jobs - just look at K Street.

    The way to get rich is to go into debt.

    • The reason you are worse off under Republicans is because of liberals.
    • The reason you are worse off under Republicans is because of minorities.
    • The solution to every problem is more guns.
    • The solution to every problem is more prisons.
    • The solution to every problem is lower taxes.
    • The solution to every problem is less government and more prisons.
    • The solution to every problem is no accountability.

    Trump is the ultimate conservative Republican.

    Gridlock -> mulp...

    The solution to every problem is to drop more bombs or start another war. Fixed it.

    bakho said...

    Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected. The TeaParty has remained active. They are organized in opposition to Obama. The will remain in protest against the RINOs. The religious right has social organizations in the megachurches. In the Midwest, there has been infighting between mainstream GOP who run local govt and Tea Party and Religious Right.

    Mitch -> bakho...

    "Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected."

    He did? Plus what more do you want from him, besides single payer?

    Peter K. -> bakho...

    "Obama told the activists who elected him in 2008 to go home and leave politics to the elected."

    I don't buy that. He regularly says if you want a President or Congress to do something, you have to push him to do it. He absolves himself for not doing more by blaming his supporters for not pushing him more.

    Peter K. -> Peter K....

    FDR and LBJ had large Democratic majorities and progressive movements pushing them.

    mulp -> EMichael...

    Progressives pushed Republicans more than they did Democrats in the 60s of both centuries.

    In fact, today's Republicans and Tea Party are opposed to everything Republicans were for and did from 1860 to 1990, relabeling Republicans before 1970 as RINOs. Even Reagan is a RINO, requiring a history rewrite by conservatives which Bartlett has persisted in refuting.

    I grew up when the big evil agency was the Republican created ICC. Then once it was gone, it was the Republican created EPA tasked with overseeing the Republican created EIS. We have the Republican created gun control. The Republican created 14th amendment is the latest thing to come under attack. And the Voting Rights Act that would never have passed without Republicans.

    bakho -> Peter K....

    This is why 2010 was such a disaster. The OFA was nowhere to be found when it came to backing local candidates in local elections. Obama has not done party building. This is why he gets GOP Congress to thwart his policy. It is a profound lack of effort in the off years of 2010 and 14.

    DFA stuck around after 2004 and did a lot of candidate training and party building. Which is why we saw gains in 06 and a Dem Congress.

    EMichael -> bakho...

    Or it could have been an off election year that favored a GOP incensed by a black man in the White House.

    Peter K. -> EMichael...

    And/or it was the lamest recovery on record as Obama appointed Bernanke and Geither in a "unity" government strategy.

    The Fed hasn't hit their inflation ceiling target for 38 consecutive months.

    As soon as growth returned, Geithner and company turned to deficit reduction and austerity. The deficit went from 10 percent to around 2.3 percent or less now. That's austerity.

    Shouldn't do that until we have full employment and rising wages.

    There's no evidence we'd get behind the curve on inflation or that deficit reduction helps much with growth.

    Reduce the deficit and pay down the debt once the output gap is closed and inflation is above target.

    Obama screwed the pooch on macro policy and lost Congress because of it. Yeah the deficit and inflation are way down.

    Yeah Trump is leading the Republican primary as the voters are raging.

    mulp -> Peter K....

    So, why haven't progressives rallied like the Tea Party and Red State to defeat the Republicans in Congress and the State legislatures who are killing jobs left and right in attempts to create a depression so Republicans can argue they need to be given the White House and supermajorities in Congress to create wealth for all?

    Where are the progressives in Kansas? On buses out of the State abandoning Kansas to the old people soon to be on Social Security and Medicare?

    What about Texas? Where are the progressives in Texas? Hoping for an Obama military coup to send all the Republicans in Texas to gitmo?

    Mike Sparrow -> The Rage...

    Basically this. Lets note, Trump only looks good because of the insane amount of candidates so far. It doesn't start to get real until NH. Once the number consolidates down and corporate money finds homes, you will get a new lineup.

    • I can't see the zionist wing that Huckabee/Carson represent going with Trump despite his best attempts to look like it.
    • Then we have Rubio/Christie who are Bush's cousins. Once their support flows into Bush, but will be the nominee.

    The Democrats themselves, don't have any real progressives much left. Sanders is the only real one I see and he really isn't a Democrat. Everybody is waiting for Joe Biden to crash the Clinton party. If she can't rally support, that crashing may come sooner than thought.

    Eric377 -> EMichael...

    Plenty of voters might have been incensed by a black man in the White House, yet that doesn't mean the 2010 election favored them particularly. The district lines had not been redrawn for that election and demographic trends that augmented the supposedly non-conservative population continued operating. I don't know what happened exactly, but Obama was no blacker in 2010 or 2014 than in 2008 or 2012.

    ilsm -> bakho...

    OFA was a downer in '14. 19% of US voters who are tea baggers won the US house!

    Dem hesitation to support Obomber on Iran means I DO NOT DO ANYTHING FOR DEMS in '16!

    likbez -> ilsm...

    O'Bomber is a neocon. That's why such people as Hillary or Victoria Nuland got to their positions in state Department.
    http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/1400-the-bush-obama-neocon-doctrine

    ==== quote ====
    It's official: When it comes to foreign policy, Barack Obama's first term is really George W. Bush's third. Bill Kristol, son of the late neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol and editor of the Weekly Standard, declared that Obama is "a born-again neocon" during a March 30 appearance on the Fox News Channel's Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld. Kristol's remark came in the context of a discussion of Obama's consultation with Kristol and other influential columnists prior to his March 28 address to the nation about his military intervention in Libya. Gutfeld quizzed Kristol about the President's asking him for "help" with his speech. Kristol denied that Obama had sought his help. Instead, Kristol said,
    In case anyone missed the significance of Kristol's comment, Gutfeld made it clear: "We've got the drones. We've got military tribunals. We've got Gitmo. We're bombing Libya. People who voted for Obama got four more years of Bush."

    Kristol agreed, adding: "What's the joke - they told me if I voted for McCain, we'd be going to war in a third Muslim country . I voted for McCain and we're doing it."

    === end of quote ===

    In his economic policies he is a neoliberal.
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/06/23/obamas-neoliberal-endgame/
    === quote ===
    Of course, the acknowledged master of racialized triangulation is the misleader in chief, Barack Obama whose service to elites was crucially enabled by liberals besotted by the prospect of an African American presidency, enthusiastically projecting all manner of left identitarian fantasies on to him-despite all evidence that he was committed to the corporate center right governance which has been the hallmark of his administration.

    Those who had warned of this materializing hoped that the TPA, provoking Obama's shameless attacks on the Democratic labor base and sullenly dishonest smears of Elizabeth Warren, would finally open the eyes of liberals to who they were dealing with.

    No such luck. It's a safe bet that the President will have some of his waning moral authority restored by Charleston. Demands from the black lives matter movement to "respect black leadership" will be cynically exploited by a ruling elite which recognized from the very beginning the unique value of cultivating multiculturally diverse spokespersons fronting for their neoliberal product line.

    The strategy was first deployed by New York City mayor David Dinkins who was able to sell his candidacy to the establishment on the grounds that his left-liberal base, rather than rebel against his treasonous embrace of neoliberalism, would "take it from me."

    Let's hope Barack Obama's presidency will be seen as marking the zenith of this strategy.
    === end of quote ===

    Second Best said...

    'They [Tea Partiers} do not want a third party and say they usually or almost always vote Republican. The percentage holding a favorable opinion of former President George W. Bush, at 57 percent, almost exactly matches the percentage in the general public that holds an unfavorable view of him.'

    ---

    The rise of TrumpW! over Jeb! would flame out as a third party.

    mulp -> Second Best...

    Oh, I bet a lot of Tea Party people want a third party, but only if the third party wipes away every sign of Obama, Clinton, LBJ, JFK, and FDR so they will be able to retire tax free on their private Social Security and Medicare entitlements, free to enjoy their US private sector manufactured computers, flat panel TVs, GPS, and cell phones.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> e abrams...

    (You won't be hearing from them, exactly.)

    Donald Trump Defiantly Rallies a New
    'Silent Majority' http://nyti.ms/1fySKYo
    NYT - NICHOLAS FANDOS - JULY 11

    PHOENIX - Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality television star who has taken center stage in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this week, delivered a rambling monologue on Saturday, dismissing a long list of critics - including Jeb Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Macy's - while rallying what he termed a new silent majority of voters.

    Mr. Trump had less to say about immigration, the topic on which his comments have garnered so much attention, than about those who have criticized him. For more than an hour, he ticked through a list of businesses and candidates who have tried to censure him since his long-shot campaign began three weeks ago, and made light of their practices and intelligence.

    "How can I be tied with this guy?" Trump said of Mr. Bush, whom many consider the Republican front-runner. "He's terrible. He's weak on immigration."

    The speech had a distinctly celebratory air as Mr. Trump lauded the "massive" crowds he has drawn and the attention he has brought to immigration and other issues that he said "weak" politicians were afraid to address. ...

    Benedict@Large said...

    Best commentary yet.

    "Donald Trump cuts through the ideological haze of American politics and exposes its underlying truth, the truth of enjoyment. Where other candidates appeal to a fictitious unity or pretense of moral integrity, he displays the power of inequality. Money buys access -- why deny it?" ... "In a plutocracy, the plutocrats rule. The Republicans don't like Trump because he doesn't hide this point under flag and fetus. For him, flag and fetus are present, but incidental to his politics of truth. Those with money win. Those without it lose. Winners get to do whatever they want. Losers get done to. ... This is his politics of enjoyment."

    http://jdeanicite.typepad.com/i_cite/2015/08/trump-candidate-of-truth.html

    bakho said...

    Trump supporters are mad at the system. Not that they have any ideas that will improve things. They simply want to protest. They are not happy with the way things are.

    Trump gives them the, "I will fix the things that you are not happy with." He trashes the opposition. He learned it all with the WWF smack down. No other GOP pol wants to go No Holds Barred with the Donald. But the Donald's fans would love a good trash talk session.

    EMichael said...

    Steve Schmidt said exactly the same thing on Maher. Our government is incompetent and people are mad. Course, no policies have as yet followed, although Trump actually said he would replace Obamacare with "something terrific"(actual quote).

    It is the same campaign(though up a notch) as the GOP has been running for decades, and it was depicted accurately in "The American President" two decades ago:

    " I've known Bob Rumson for years, and I've been operating under the assumption that the reason Bob devotes so much time and energy to shouting at the rain was that he simply didn't get it. Well, I was wrong. Bob's problem isn't that he doesn't get it. Bob's problem is that he can't sell it! We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them.

    And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family and American values and character."

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112346/quotes

    Jim Harrison said...

    I guess it's poetic justice. When the Republican party sold its soul to the devil for Southern white voters, it not only got a whole bunch of racists but a whole bunch of Jacksonian democrats. Trump is talking like any number of Southern politicians who used to combine support for Jim Crow with populist talk and the distribution of goodies. There is, it turns out, a constituency for a left-wing way of being right wing, for adding a dollop of socialism to your nativism, which is why "keeping the government's hands off my Medicare" makes perfectly good political sense. No wonder Trump had nice things to say about single payer.

    mulp -> Jim Harrison...

    No, their doom was sealed when they caved to and hugged Grover Norquist. Grover Norquist has been promising free lunches for decades.

    Demand tax cuts to destroy government and then you will instantly become a billionaire.

    Adam Eran said...

    I'd say both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are capitalizing on the electorate's disgust with establishment politics. Trump in particular is a comical larger-than-life figure. Heck, the Italians expressed their disgust by electing a porn star ("la ciccolina").

    The Rage -> Adam Eran...

    The electorate's beliefs are not that different than the establishments on several fronts. That is the dirty secret of modern day America. Huffing and puffing with little content.

    Jim Harrison said...

    A couple of questions:' Is Trump worse than Berlusconi? Are Italians stupider than Americans? Why can't Trump win? After all, we sort of elected Bush.

    Fred C. Dobbs said...

    (Ooooh! Ooooh!)

    Donald Trump Lays Out His Plans,
    Part 1: The Economy, Immigration, Health Care Reform
    http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/08/12/donald-trump-lays-out-his-plans-part-1-economy-immigration-health-care-reform

    Fox News - August 12, 2015

    Don't miss Part 2 of Sean Hannity's interview with Donald Trump tonight on 'Hannity' at 10 ET!

    lower middle class -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    Not only will Trump get Mexico to pay for the wall with cash (or tarrifs if necessary), but he will also take our manufacturing jobs back from them because they need us.

    I wonder what the tariff will be on oil imports from Mexico?

    The Rage -> lower middle class...

    Mexico has little of our "manufacturing".

    The Rage -> Fred C. Dobbs...

    Trump uses Mexico as a cover for that most of the illegal immigration is coming from Asia right now (besides his clothing business........ah, people don't listen). Mexican illegal immigration is down more than the total decline since 2007 and will probably fall further. The "wall" is just a scam. I bet there are some people in Mexico who would love that wall.

    Lets note Bernie Sanders has rejected visa programs for legal immigrants several times on the cost reduction game they impose. Trump doesn't have that virtue.

    The Rage said...

    People forget FDR was influenced by Jacksonian democracy merged in with 100 more years of industrial capitalism's failings. So FDR took nativism and socialism=the new deal. In Germany they called it National Socialism. White's get a huge lift while blacks get left behind. The historical trend of unemployment was fairly similar up until then. Then after the New Deal, it separated.

    The progressive is more a linage from Mills with some socialism mixed in. National Socialism is more a linage from Carlyle, Ruskin and Morris.

    Mr. Bill said...

    I proclaim that Bernie Sanders has established intellectual authority. The message he brings is music to this FDR Democrat, progressive.

    Mike Sparrow -> Mr. Bill...

    Does Bernie support Jim Crow like FDR? Wilson was a "progressive" as well. The modern Democratic party didn't start until Harry Truman.....who FDR didn't want as VP.

    ilsm -> Mike Sparrow...

    True, Truman integrated the national security establishment (army) right before he turned it into a huge trough (possibly by accident).

    David said...

    I hate stupid, anachronistic comments about FDR. He was faced with an enormous crisis and to use his political capital the best he could. If he had gone all in abolishing Jim Crow he would have been a one term president and the depression would worsened. Communism would have been on the table.

    [May 02, 2017] House Oversight Committee Confirms Flynn Likely Broke Law On Overseas Payments

    Notable quotes:
    "... Chaffetz confirmed that Flynn had failed to reveal the more than $45,000 he was paid to speak at a 2015 gala for RT, the Kremlin-run TV network, as well as the money he was paid by an air freight company and a cybersecurity firm with direct connections to Russia. Chaffetz added that the White House had refused to provide his committee with information and documents related to Flynn's security clearance and payments from organizations tied to the Russian and Turkish governments. The committee made six requests, and the White House cited reasons it could not comply with each of them, Cummings said. ..."
    "... ... $45K? ... lol ... Therapist Bill makes multiple-times more in birthday-bribes from desert ragheads and <nudge-wink> so-called "speeches" ... then smiles into his retirement sunset villa at (((Epstein's))) Isla Lolita ... ..."
    Apr 26, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Former national security adviser Michael Flynn likely broke the law by failing to disclose foreign income he earned from Russia and Turkey , the heads of the House Oversight Committee said Tuesday.

    As The Washington Post reports, committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said they believe Flynn neither received permission nor fully disclosed income he earned for a speaking engagement in Russia and lobbying activities on behalf of Turkey when he applied to reinstate his security clearance, after viewing two classified memos and Flynn's disclosure form in a private briefing Tuesday morning.

    "Personally I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied with the law," Chaffetz told reporters following the briefing.

    "He was supposed to get permission, he was supposed to report it, and he didn't," Cummings said.

    Chaffetz confirmed that Flynn had failed to reveal the more than $45,000 he was paid to speak at a 2015 gala for RT, the Kremlin-run TV network, as well as the money he was paid by an air freight company and a cybersecurity firm with direct connections to Russia. Chaffetz added that the White House had refused to provide his committee with information and documents related to Flynn's security clearance and payments from organizations tied to the Russian and Turkish governments. The committee made six requests, and the White House cited reasons it could not comply with each of them, Cummings said.

    One has to wonder about the Trump team's vetting process and perhaps more notable is that now that Chaffetz is not running for re-election, he has nothing to fear from political fallout from the White House or GOP in general.

    PrayingMantis -> Ghost of Porky , Apr 25, 2017 1:02 PM

    ... $45K? ... lol ... Therapist Bill makes multiple-times more in birthday-bribes from desert ragheads and <nudge-wink> so-called "speeches" ... then smiles into his retirement sunset villa at (((Epstein's))) Isla Lolita ...

    ... and while "Flynn had failed to reveal the more than $45,000 he was paid to speak at a 2015 gala for RT, the Kremlin-run TV network", the Kremlin-friendly Klinton Krime Kartel gets to pocket more bribes while the Hilarious one, who was SoS for Obumboclot, was able to negotiate a Kremlin-reset-deal to "give" the UraniumOne mines to the Kremlin ... and gets away with it ... go figure ...

    ... fair and balanced ... /s

    Chupacabra-322 -> PrayingMantis , Apr 25, 2017 1:13 PM

    @ Praying,

    Seems as though you've given a perfect example of why the RICO "Satute" was implemented into "Law."

    Doesn't make one iota of difference as the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC. is absolutely & completely....

    Lawless.

    "What difference, at this point does it make?" -Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Psychopath Hillary Clinton.

    Never One Roach -> Chupacabra-322 , Apr 25, 2017 1:29 PM

    "breaking the law"....

    That's quaint. No one has gone to jail for the dozens of Crooked Clinton crimes. Huma, Mills, Pedopodesta and so on.

    PrayingMantis -> Chupacabra-322 , Apr 25, 2017 1:43 PM

    >>> "Doesn't make one iota of difference as the Criminal Fraud UNITED STATES, CORP. INC. is absolutely & completely....Lawless. "

    ... exactly, @Chupacabra ...

    ... and while CONgress wastes their time on piddly-little $45K, Kremlin-&-Washington-friend Turkey (who had been allegedly one of Flynn's sources of "no-no" funds), had been supplying "moderate" terrorists with "flour bags" full of C4 explosives ...

    >>> "Syrian Army Finds Turkish 'Flour' Bags Full of C4 - Turkey has been caught before using humanitarian pretexts to smuggle weapons into Syria"

    ... "... claimed that the cargo of the lorries were a 'national secret' " ... LOL!

    >>> http://russia-insider.com/en/syrian-army-finds-turkish-flour-bags-full-c4/ri19667

    Yes We Can. But... -> barysenter , Apr 25, 2017 12:12 PM

    And doubtless up next after them is Obama on 1) his using US intel to spy on opposition during an election, and 2) the demonstrably fraudulent birth certificate he trotted out several years back in response to Trump's barking at him.

    Bastiat -> Yes We Can. But Lets Not. , Apr 25, 2017 12:14 PM

    Oh yeah, sure -- like Obama or Clinton's will be held accountable for anything.

    doomchild -> barysenter , Apr 25, 2017 12:14 PM

    Clintons will not be touched.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvZ6M1dk2c4

    HRClinton -> barysenter , Apr 25, 2017 12:21 PM

    He deserves to be punished for being stupid.

    If you're going to be paid by the Russians, make sure they pay you in gold or cash deposited into an offshore safety deposit box.

    How can 'smart' people in his position be so dumb? If you're gonna be devious, be smart devious not dumb devious.

    meditate_vigorously -> barysenter , Apr 25, 2017 3:23 PM

    (((Chaffetz))) was just forced out of congress for unknown reasons (probably related to corruption or pizzagate and a brokered coverup), and there are sea sponges with a higher IQ than Cummings.

    So whatever these 2 clowns say should not be taken seriously.

    NuYawkFrankie , Apr 25, 2017 12:44 PM

    re "Personally I see no evidence or no data to support the notion that General Flynn complied with the law," Chaffetz told reporters following the briefing.

    And personally I see NO evidence nor data to support the notion that the USSA Knesset has complied with the law since - what seems like - time immemorial!

    Quite the contrary in fact - especially when. in a gross abrogation of Constitutional Duty- it comes to ' Serial Wars Of Aggression' by Presidential Edict!

    DuneCreature , Apr 25, 2017 12:25 PM

    Ooops, Flynn screwed to pooch telling Erdogan about the CIA plot to off him.

    Flynn not owned. ... Trump owned.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcd-yvudYSg

    Ya didn't collect near enough booty for that boo boo did cha, Mike?

    You should have taken the gold and retired.

    Live Hard, Some Spook Intrigue Is More Intriguing And Lucrative Than Other Spook Intrigue, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    whatamaroon , Apr 25, 2017 12:35 PM

    OT; but the clusterfuck continues. Turkey bombs US backed 'rebels' in Syria and Iraq;

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/25/turkish-jets-bomb-us-backed-forc...

    hooligan2009 , Apr 25, 2017 12:46 PM

    ponders how many other politicians, serving or sacked, have failed to disclose payments received from the dmedia, or apartheid regimes like Israel, or from libtard snowflake universities like Berkeley, or ngo companies like those run by soros or russian uranium companies to the dems/clinton etc.

    does this mean there are another 435 + 100 + 1 + 7 investigations pending for those currently (and their current aides_ serving AND another 800 investigations for ex-politicians and aides to those politicians

    DRAIN THE SWAMP has now morphed into thr need for an independent body to do the investigations into corruption, since self policing just reverts to "neener neener" finger pointing like it's some kind of political game.

    grand jury supported by a team of current/ex-fbi sleuths?

    NordikAvenger , Apr 25, 2017 12:48 PM

    Who fucking cares anymore, really? The whole enterprise is rigged and no one gets punished, ever. They are just shoving it into your face that us proles are losers and they are untouchable.

    Fucked every way you look at it.

    Mzhen , Apr 25, 2017 1:05 PM

    Chaffetz is burned out and is leaving. Or maybe he's getting out of Dodge before revelations of his own. In any case, his statements and assertions are becoming increasingly erratic.

    Since the Flynn talk in Russia occurred in 2015, and Flynn's private lobbying work related to Turkey was for a private company based in the Netherlands, the critical definitions here would be the extent to which these businesses are "tied to" the Russian and Turkish governments. Nothing comes of it.

    Emergency Ward -> Able Ape , Apr 25, 2017 1:55 PM

    ....Or taken a $100MM from the Petro-Wahhabists and another $100MM from the NY banksters. Then he would have absolute IMMUNITY.

    LA_Goldbug , Apr 25, 2017 1:34 PM

    I think this is why they are grilling him.

    Thanks "doomchild"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvZ6M1dk2c4

    GunnyG , Apr 25, 2017 1:39 PM

    Meanwhile Hillary, Podesta Lerner, Gollum at the IRS, Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and the rest of the vermin run around like nothing happened. Hang the lot of them.

    To Hell In A Ha... , Apr 25, 2017 1:58 PM

    This case showcases the complete corruption of Capitol Hill. Flynn is getting fucked while HRC, the Clinton Foundation and associated crooks and liars get a free ride. BURN IT DOWN! Rotten to the core and that includes Trump.

    Cutter , Apr 25, 2017 8:19 PM

    Said it before and will say it again. The political assassination of General Flynn is a travesty. When this is all over, he won't be charged with anything, because there is nothing to charge. At best, anything he is accused of doing is an administrative/security issue, not criminal, and most of the accusations--like violating the law in talking to the Russian Ambassador--are nonsense.

    This is just endless hyperbole from politicians trying to smear General Flynn so they can, by association, smear the President. If President Trump left office tomorrow, the press would never utter the words "General Michael Flynn" again.

    And when the dust settles, how does General Flynn, an American patriot, who served 34 years in the US Army protecting this country, get his good name back? How does he get back the respect he earned over a lifetime?

    There is no decency in this country anymore.

    [May 02, 2017] Stone/Putin: will their TV debate rival Frost/Nixon? by Editors

    Guardian was an is neoliberal swamp. Those presstitutes have no honor... They will call black white and smile.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The mistake most people make is thinking of the world as black and white. I somehow feel Oliver Stone has gotten himself into such a rut. His criticism of the US is fair enough, but he appears to think that, because Putin is critical of the US too, he is somehow unequivocally the "good guy". People have different reasons for being critical of the US, and I can tell you for free that Putin's is very different from, say, Noam Chomsky's. ..."
    "... Love Oliver Stone. While his dramatic radar has been shot-to-pieces recently (although I've yet to see 'Snowden'), his interviews and documentaries have been awesome. His book/series 'The Untold History of the United States' with Peter Kuznick is especially a must-see. ..."
    "... Robbie Mook and campaign chair, John Podesta met and assembled her communications team in their Brooklyn headquarters to 'engineer the case' and rehearse the 'pitch' to give to the press that 'Russian hacking' was to blame for the whole miserable fiasco. ..."
    "... Together with the Godless orange hooligan's bombing of Russian ally Syria recently and John Miller / John Barron 's refusal to allow Exxon Mobil a waiver on existing sanctions, the Russia narrative seems based on fantasy; a misdirection tactic to stop the pitchforks and flaming torches heading for Hillary's campaign and her neoliberal shills, operatives and 'running dogs' ..."
    "... The CIA certainly *supports* coups that are in US interests ..."
    May 02, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Film director Oliver Stone has visited the Russian president four times over the past two years, conducted a dozen interviews with him, and the results have been condensed into four hours of TV. It is being shown over four evenings from 12 to 15 June on the US cable channel Showtime , and is said to be a no-holds-barred, gloves (but not shirt) off encounter.

    ... ... ...

    How did Stone pull off such a coup? He got access to Putin when making his film about the whistleblower Edward Snowden. The two apparently got on like a dacha on fire, and these extended exchanges are the result.

    ... ... ...

    Stone is likely to be pretty well disposed towards Putin. He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Ukraine, and rejects the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential election.

    ... he reckons that the hacking allegations are fake news got up by the Democrats to delegitimise the president.

    ... he still sees the hand of the CIA in attempts to "blow up" Trump and destabilise Russia.

    WhatsMyMantra , 2 May 2017 19:09
    "Russian dissidents are American heroes, American dissidents are Russian heroes" - Penny Rimbaud

    The mistake most people make is thinking of the world as black and white. I somehow feel Oliver Stone has gotten himself into such a rut. His criticism of the US is fair enough, but he appears to think that, because Putin is critical of the US too, he is somehow unequivocally the "good guy". People have different reasons for being critical of the US, and I can tell you for free that Putin's is very different from, say, Noam Chomsky's.

    At the very least he seems to think that anything the US accuses Putin of must be false because the US are always the "bad guy". Just because he doesn't approve of the US and/or thinks they always have ulterior motives, doesn't mean that they never tell the truth, or that Putin usually does. It would be more useful if he looked scientifically for the truth rather than remaining solely partisan.

    Haigin88 , 2 May 2017 19:00
    Love Oliver Stone. While his dramatic radar has been shot-to-pieces recently (although I've yet to see 'Snowden'), his interviews and documentaries have been awesome. His book/series 'The Untold History of the United States' with Peter Kuznick is especially a must-see.

    "... He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Ukraine ...".

    As does the brilliant Robert Parry , who broke much of Iran-Contra.

    "... rejects the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential election ....".

    As does the new book, written by Hillary insiders Amie Parnes and Jonathan Allen (who got their access due to their previous book 'HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton') called 'Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton's Doomed Campaign'.

    According to them, 24 hours after Hillary's concession speech, recognising her miserable defeat to the short-fingered, orange bandit, campaign manager, Robbie Mook and campaign chair, John Podesta met and assembled her communications team in their Brooklyn headquarters to 'engineer the case' and rehearse the 'pitch' to give to the press that 'Russian hacking' was to blame for the whole miserable fiasco.

    Together with the Godless orange hooligan's bombing of Russian ally Syria recently and John Miller / John Barron 's refusal to allow Exxon Mobil a waiver on existing sanctions, the Russia narrative seems based on fantasy; a misdirection tactic to stop the pitchforks and flaming torches heading for Hillary's campaign and her neoliberal shills, operatives and 'running dogs'

    DrBrule , 2 May 2017 18:50
    I'm an alt-righter, but I quite enjoyed and respected Ollie's 'Untold History of the United States' even if I didn't agree with all of it. Most often the minority report is the more interesting. Unless it is written by John Pilger.

    You have to try and make the effort to take your blinders off and rethink your preconceptions, and my sense is that Stone does that, while remaining civil, prepared to listen to counter arguments and open to debate

    johhnyv321 , 2 May 2017 18:50
    I kinda like Putin
    DrBrule -> johhnyv321 , 2 May 2017 18:57
    I was tempted because I wanted to see him as a counter weight to the emerging global order in the West. There are issues that I think the West has mishandled or used to provoke confrontation, but Putin is basically a gangster and Russia a mafia state at the moment Reply Share
    WhatTheTruth DrBrule , 2 May 2017 19:22
    All transitions are tough. Which country that now calls herself Democratic doesn't come from using Mafia tactics to gain wealth. "Americans", originally from Europe, wiped out the Native Americans and the British gained a lot from their colonial past.

    It's easy to be nice when you have the power and know that you can use it when someone doesn't do what you ask.

    krissywilson87 , 2 May 2017 18:15
    "He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Ukraine"

    I always love this idea that the CIA is able to magic up tens of thousands of people out of nowhere and coordinate them to overthrow their government - as if there was nothing wrong with the Ukrainian government totally betraying their promises and engaging in massive corruption and Ukrainians were totally fine with it until the CIA used their mass mind control on them...

    The CIA certainly *supports* coups that are in US interests, it can't magic them up out of nowhere.

    objectinspace , 2 May 2017 17:45
    "He supports Russia's view that the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 was a CIA plot aimed at driving a wedge between Russia and Ukraine, and rejects the assertion that Russia hacked the US presidential election" and Oliver Stone's credibility is pretty shot....

    US power isn't innocent, but neither Russian. Stone, a bit like Pilger, is at a point where his desire to critique US power seems to blind him to the abuses of others.

    He is, in other words, naïve.

    [May 02, 2017] The New York Times is dead long ago. If we lived in a sane world and not one run by lawless sociopaths, the Times owners and editors would be indicted and stand trial for their aiding and abetting war crimes in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass. ..."
    "... My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world. ..."
    "... The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast. ..."
    "... When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition. ..."
    "... The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline. ..."
    "... Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke Harding. ..."
    May 02, 2017 | www.unz.com
    CCZ , September 14, 2016 at 5:43 am GMT \n
    Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns, I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.

    Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence of millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as "black and white"), an inflated concern for Muslim sensitivities ("anti-Islamaphobia"), and "immigration" (and they always called illegal aliens "undocumented" immigrants and had all of these stories about families where a parent "migrated" years ago, left behind children who "migrated" separately years later, had a spouse who also "migrated" subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how could anyone now be penalized or deported.

    Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the below:

    Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism? Even when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump to the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed "exploitation?" Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue? Whatever the racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor and working class people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and economic disparities as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers by race rather than by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than unites. The NY Times seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit To Be Racialized." Agree: Miro23

    Alden , September 14, 2016 at 6:02 am GMT \n
    Didn't the NYSlimes print Al Sharpton's garbage about the false Twana Brawley accusations as though the fraud were the truth? It was a horrible witch hunt against several White men

    My first memory of the Slimes was an adulatory article about Castro right after he took over Cuba. He was going to create paradise in the Carribean. Didn't work out that way.

    Mark Green , September 14, 2016 at 6:27 am GMT \n
    May the pretentious, power-grabbing and corrupt NY TIMES die a slow, agonizing and ignoble death.
    vetran , September 14, 2016 at 10:00 am GMT \n
    The New York Times is dead long ago, being replaced by The Jew York Times.
    Greg Bacon , Website September 14, 2016 at 10:59 am GMT \n
    If we lived in a sane world and not one run by lawless sociopaths, the Times owners and editors would be indicted and stand trial for their aiding and abetting war crimes in Iraq, Libya and Syria.
    berserker , September 14, 2016 at 12:15 pm GMT \n
    Every morning, I skim the headlines of the New Joke Times for my daily dose of humor. The only articles I bother clicking on these days – as with the BBC – appear in the Sports section. The recent profile on Kyrgios was amusing.
    - It is unfortunate that the NYT and especially, the BBC are still taken quite seriously in the developing world.
    TheJester , September 14, 2016 at 2:48 pm GMT \n
    I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

    My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

    Has this always been the case or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

    Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM.

    Anonymous Smith , September 14, 2016 at 3:36 pm GMT \n
    "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

    It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

    – David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.

    Almost Missouri , September 14, 2016 at 3:49 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    "during the current election cycle in the United States, The New York Times has so clearly abandoned all rudimentary standards of journalism and alienated its readership so badly, that it has sentenced itself to wither away into irrelevance."

    Actually, it abandoned all that a very long time ago, but better to notice late then never, I suppose.

    Miro23 , September 14, 2016 at 4:52 pm GMT \n
    For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

    That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

    One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times – apparently).

    That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

    The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100′s of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

    Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000′s. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience – basically a good party.

    Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

    The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

    Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication).

    pyrrhus , September 14, 2016 at 5:06 pm GMT \n
    Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions from Mexican criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending the "right" of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country.
    Alden , September 14, 2016 at 5:07 pm GMT \n
    @TheJester

    Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

    Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM. I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
    The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic Harper's etc.

    I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people

    Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti White. I realized that just out of college.

    The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti black rioters than the Times.

    How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally hate Whites?

    Paul Bennett , September 14, 2016 at 5:25 pm GMT \n
    I haven't seen a NYT newspaper in decades. I know the NYT has a presence on the Internet, but last I checked (years ago) their archives (the only thing the NYT retains of value) are membership only. The NYT might still be a valuable record of historical events that occurred generations past, but most everything I'm looking for has already been extracted and is publicly available elsewhere. It's simply easier to do a Google search than find it on the NYT website (only to discover that to view it requires a subscription). If the link has a NYT in it, I go on to the next.

    When it comes to contemporary news, the last place I would look is the NYT. If I want to hear official lies for myself, then cable TV is the only possible source. The 24/7 news cycle can be recorded and the misstatements extracted later. A few hours later and the news has been purged of the offense, all references removed or left dangling. The NYT is simply not useful to catch glimpses of real events as they happen.

    Finally, when it comes to analysis the NYT has, as you say, deliberately made itself more and more irrelevant. Commentary and analysis is a dime a dozen on the Internet, and almost all of it is of a higher quality than what the NYT prints. The NYT attacks only official enemies, and maintains a passionless hands-off attitude towards the crimes of their powerful allies. Now, why would I bother to read that? My time is valuable and the Internet is full of insightful analysis. Life is too short to read propaganda.

    Lawrence Fitton , September 14, 2016 at 5:52 pm GMT \n
    @Anonymous Smith

    "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

    It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."

    -- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany.

    nice post. thanks.

    i read a long article on the council of foreign relations that would interest you about 3 weeks ago. for the life of me, i can't remember the author or even the site. but, it definitely isn't a fringe site or a pajama blogger.

    i believe the group was established in the 1920′s. the piece stated that every ex-secretary of state, and all but one ex-secretary of defense has joined since the organization's founding.

    the council on foreign relations is also a proponent of a new world order. i suppose, the trilateral commission is too. megalomaniacs are always with us. but attempting to manipulate & control a world population is akin to herding cats. but these three nwo groups have influence.

    Durruti , September 14, 2016 at 6:35 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Mr. Wahlstrom,

    Nicely done. The NY Times was once regarded as America's premier News Outlet. It, was never pristine, but one could squeeze some facts out of its pages.

    Today, the Rag is excruciatingly Boring, (which is usually a by-product of propaganda organs).

    The Wall Street Journal , and Washington Post , and thousands of other print and informational medias, have declined into mind numbing and uninformative outlets.

    It is one thing for a pretend Newspaper, such as the NYT to support imperialism, and exploitation, and the rule of the Oligarchs; the NYT and the others have ever been that. But it is another for them to become (decline into), mere propaganda outlets for Government controlling Oligarchs.

    Some say, "The truth will make us free." Unfortunately, the Truth is often, and lately, increasingly Buried. It is the truth, our Liberties, that have received an Obituary. Orwell believed that sad event happened in 1984 , or, certainly, by then. I believe the obituary began, definitively, on November 22, 1963 , and expanded from there.

    For the Rebirth, we need to restore our Republic!

    Reese MacGruder , September 14, 2016 at 6:45 pm GMT \n
    I wholeheartedly agree with the main argument of the NY Times having lost all vestiges of journalistic integrity and ethical standards. They have ceased to be anything more than a combination; mouthpiece, pr flak and investigative attack dogs for the extended Clinton crime family and their friends on the left.

    That said, it's hard to see this author's work to not be his response to the Times's articles (which he includes here), which have criticized him.

    Whether valid criticism or not, it obviously is the source of Johannes Wahlstrom 's venom and it's impossible to not wonder how much of his subsequent tirade against the Times is a direct result of that animus.

    Ace , September 14, 2016 at 7:10 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @pyrrhus Of course, the NYT would have disappeared already if it weren't for cash infusions from Mexican criminal (and World's riches man) Carlos Slim, in return for relentlessly defending the "right" of Mexicans to enter the US illegally and remit cash (untaxed) back to the home country. It's amazing what roles foreigners play in our national life. We seem to lap it up.

    A digression on remittances: If we imposed a hefty tax on them I bet we'd see a whole lot of self-deportation. Punitive taxation on our own citizens is perfectly OK, such as with cigarettes, so there's no moral objection to collecting punitive income, Medicare, and employment taxes on the back end.

    Of course, the official position is that only Bureau of Prisons buses and RR cattle cars can be used to deport people, who must be rounded up Evian Gonzalez-style.

    nsa , September 14, 2016 at 7:41 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

    That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

    One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).

    That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

    The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

    Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.

    Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

    The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

    Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication). You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site "the american cuck .er conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey ..all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana.

    chris , September 14, 2016 at 7:42 pm GMT \n
    In the final stage, the gray lady is turning tricks for the .gov, and she'll do anything to survive. It's like Hillary at the 911 memorial, they're all desperately trying to keep her alive because she 's TBTF.
    dmaak112 , September 14, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT \n
    The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces.

    For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.

    I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me. I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis. I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary opinions would not appear.

    I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if you follow the line they set.

    DaveE , September 14, 2016 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
    When these vile cretins get their war with Russia, it just won't matter how many lies they told to get there. The NYT is merely one small facet of the industrial lie-machine known as Zion, for lack of a more modern term. Their job was always to lie, but not of their own volition.

    They've followed their mission-plan well. Now the BIG action is with the Mossad boys to implement the war the NYT has so feverishly set up.

    But, like a bad script waiting for the Production Dept. to catch up, they've run their course, in more ways than their tiny brains can even imagine.

    They didn't even know they were writing comedy.

    Chris Chuba , September 14, 2016 at 8:47 pm GMT \n
    200 Words NYT is now part of the U.S. Regime Media.

    The biggest story that Regime Media has failed to report is this, 'the U.S. govt is supporting Al Qaeda aligned rebels in Syria against the Assad govt'. This has been true since at least 2013 and likely true since 2012 yet it has never been reported.

    Instead, Regime Media has merely repeated the position of the U.S. State Dept. without any challenge whatsoever. What happened to the press that was suspicious of the govt narrative that existed during the Vietnam War? It evaporated in Iraq 2002 and is now just a mouthpiece of the govt. Sources exist other than the U.S. State Dept. Anyone who pays attention can easily see where our narrative falls apart.

    I won't go into details over all of the false narratives. I chose the most important example. If I sound bitter, it is because I am.

    Pedro Gama , September 14, 2016 at 8:48 pm GMT \n
    DISGUSTING -- Its becoming very obvious that the so called "mainstream" media is, IN FACT, protecting this or that Agenda ..NO WONDER people are turning to alternative media for RELYABLE information ..WHAT DISGUSTING PIECES OF SHIT -- The New York Time is part of TIME MAgazine? I am subscriber, I can tell you know .I WAS a subscriber .FUCK THEM !!
    Mike1 , September 14, 2016 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
    The decline in standards in the NYT this year has been astonishing. It is often impossible to tell if an article is in the NYT or clickbait Huffington Post if you are just offered a headline. Facts used have gone from being massaged to being outright false. What is weirder is that they don't care if what they are saying is provably false.
    Tim Rupright , September 14, 2016 at 9:50 pm GMT \n
    @TheJester I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

    My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

    Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

    Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post (and other newspapers) were certainly in the pocket of FDR and the pro-war intelligence services of both the US and of Britain since at least the late 1930s. They happily slandered any and all isolationists and planted false stories to manipulate the public just as they have done for the intervening 75 years. They are and have been for decades little more than a mouthpiece for the ruling elite. Let us hope this election finishes them off.

    res , September 14, 2016 at 11:15 pm GMT \n
    @CCZ Early this year, aggravated by the majority of the content, especially the opinion columns, I canceled delivery of and my on-line access to the New York Times.

    Both articles and opinions seemed to always emphasize racial discord (despite the presence of millions of Hispanics and Asians everything was always portrayed as "black and white"), an inflated concern for Muslim sensitivities ("anti-Islamaphobia"), and "immigration" (and they always called illegal aliens "undocumented" immigrants and had all of these stories about families where a parent "migrated" years ago, left behind children who "migrated" separately years later, had a spouse who also "migrated" subsequently, and now had American born (citizen) children, so how could anyone now be penalized or deported.

    Not that I expected my words to have any impact, but my letter of cancellation included the below:

    Is there any economic inequity or disparity that the NY Times does not attribute to racism? Even when Blacks or Latinos are "disproportionately" affected, why the seemingly immediate jump to the conclusion that racism is responsible for the numbers or the motivation for the supposed "exploitation?" Why not report on the economic inequity as an economic rather than a racial issue? Whatever the racial percentages, economic inequity and "exploitation" ultimately affects poor and working class people of all races. Why does the NY Times almost always describe social and economic disparities as a racial rather than an economic issue? Always emphasizing who suffers by race rather than by economic standing (class) is a strategy that clearly divides rather than unites. The NY Times seems to have adopted the (unacknowledged) motto "All The News That Is Fit To Be Racialized." Check out the ~5x increase in the prevalence of the word "racism" in NYT articles between 2011 and 2016:

    http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=racism

    "racist" is similar.


    Fran Macadam , September 14, 2016 at 11:37 pm GMT \n
    The comparison to Pravda is apt. As Solzhenitsyn explained, the propagandists of the old Soviet Union claimed, "we never make mistakes."

    TheBoom , September 15, 2016 at 12:03 am GMT \n
    @Alden I'm a bit older than you are. I learned how the newspapers lie and lie back in 1966. My city, San Francisco had a black riot ostensibly because a cop shot a stick up man.
    The local papers were totally in favor of the rioters and against the police. That is when I stopped believing in anything published in a newspaper or "quality" magazine like Atlantic, New Republic Harper's etc.

    I soon went to work for a government agency that was under siege by federally funded radical non profits. I saw that everything published about my agency was a total lie. I also had a friend who was a reporter for the major newspaper in those days. He told me that reporters don't really investigate and write the stories. They just re write handouts from liberal or people

    Of course I am White. From 1960 on the "quality" newspapers and magazines have been solidly anti White. I realized that just out of college.

    The Los Angeles Slimes actually instigated and then justified the Rodney King riots. The Slimes blamed everybody but the black dreck for the riot, especially the police The Wave newspapers are a chain of local community newspapers in the southern Suburbs of Los Angeles. They were mostly black at the time of the Rodney King riots. The Wave papers were a lot more pro police and anti black rioters than the Times.

    How can Whites read the news papers all their lives and not notice that the newspapers totally hate Whites? The fact that the mainstream media by and large hates whites is one of the main things about it that appeals to the whites on the left.

    annamaria , September 15, 2016 at 1:28 am GMT \n
    @TheJester I am as shocked as many others to experience the demise of the MSM in the West. I used to peruse the NYT and Washington Post on a daily basis. But, now the pandering of the NYT, WAPO, CNN, NBC, and CBS to globalization and Wall Street is so blatant that I don't bother. Indeed, if I notice their bylines, I pass.

    My foremost source of news about the world today is RT. Call it propaganda, but as the Soviets plied that trade, at least in the name of credibility you say things that are true even if you favor some coverage and slight others. The MSM has such a disdain for the truth that they have no credibility; they live in and give voice to a counterfactual, fictional world.

    Has this always been the case ... or, have I been a fool most of my life? (This is important for me to know since I'm 69.) I think there has been a fundamental change in the MSM over the years. Newspapers like the NYT and WAPO used to be owned by independent newspaper families. We also had the USG enforcing a modicum of balance in broadcast news in return for allotting space on the public airways. Now, the MSM is owned by corporations and the USG no longer cares about balance in broadcast news. The MSM voice corporate positions.

    Yes, the NYT, WAPO, etc., are now irrelevant except for the true believers who are already disposed to agree with their coverage. This is to say that the true believers also have nothing to learn from the MSM. " a text by Alex Gibney: "Johannes Wahlstrom, a Swedish journalist who helped to engineer a vilification campaign against the two women who accused Mr. Assange of sexual assaults"

    Alex Gibnev happened to be a person of easy virtues, similar to his brother-in-lies Luke Harding.

    Wizard of Oz , September 15, 2016 at 1:58 am GMT \n
    @dmaak112 The New York Times practices censorship of opinions that run contrary to their position. I had subscribed to their on-line edition. The paper would permit comments on some of the articles and opinion pieces. You're are limited to 1500 characters plus spaces. For a while, my comments were shown alongside others. Then, this September, I found that I could not make comments or even access previous comments. They had cut me off completely. I contacted them and was told that my access had suffered a glitch. They were working on it.
    I checked and saw that others were still able to comment and access this feature. But not me. I believe that the paper deliberately cut me off because I challenged their stories and analysis. I could not believe that they so wanted to control the story that they would ensure that contrary opinions would not appear.

    I have ended my subscription. For all the talk of freedom of expression, it only applies if you follow the line they set. Why might they – or at least some quite junior staff – regard you as important enough or your comments as powerful enough to engage in the censorship which they appear to deny?

    TomSchmidt , September 15, 2016 at 4:14 am GMT \n
    @Miro23 For what it's worth I have/had digital subscriptions to the Daily Telegraph, the Guardian, the Economist, Washington Post, Takimag and I also read Breitbart and UNZ Review.

    That doesn't really entitle me to speak about the digital version of the New York Times but there are some interesting things happening in online journalism.

    One thing I've noticed is that some journalists and opinion writers don't like to receive critical comments. Maybe it's a house rule that they can't reply to comments in the comments section itself (although they do on UNZ Review and it's no problem), but there's recently been a PC "safe space" type reaction where comments are either completely banned (Telegraph), mostly removed (Guardian) or very heavily censored (New York Times - apparently).

    That leaves the interesting cases of the Washington Post and Breitbart as what might be called leading online publications.

    The Washington Post has a technically great Comments system and their censorship exists but is very light, making some fascinating hyper-articles where a (generally leftist slanted) piece of journalism kicks off 100's of comments from the well informed and insightful , to rubbish and abuse. They seem to take the attitude that adults can ignore the rubbish in order to sometimes get valuable contrary/additional opinions + some real humour.

    Same at Breitbart who use the pretty good off the shelf Disqus commenting software that can handle comments fast running into the 1000's. I've sometime counted them coming in at an average of 1 per second. The effect is the same as the Washington Post but on the right of the political spectrum, with both of them being far ahead of the "safe space" crowd in terms of journalistic interest, public involvement and social experience - basically a good party.

    Takimag feels like more of a personal production of Taki Theodoracopulos aiming for a lightness that isn't quite there, but that's maybe because the current chaos in the US is not so light, and he has a very open comments system based on Disqus.

    The UNZ Review feels like a personal production of Ron Unz, with a rather clunky commenting system but for un-intimidated article quality and insightful comments (hidden among much rubbish) it is probably the best of the lot. Highly recommended and it seems to be building up fast.

    Getting back to the article, the New York Times is surely 100% dead in the water (definitive proof- Henry Kissinger thinks that it's a fine publication). I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.

    I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features.

    Found at: https://books.google.com/ngrams

    Sadly, not just the NY Times has been racialized and transgenderized and social warriorized.

    sensor operator , September 15, 2016 at 7:40 am GMT \n
    Rudyard Kipling - 'I am, by calling, a dealer in words; and words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind.'

    The other drug dealers will die and go out of business first. The newspapers have an incentive to see them die. The paid death notice.

    sensor operator , September 15, 2016 at 7:46 am GMT \n
    In his next sentence he said, "Not only do words infect, egotize, narcotize, and paralyze, but they enter into and colour the minutest cells of the brain ."

    http://www.truenorthquest.com/rudyard-kipling/

    Run your paper like a drug dealer!

    Miro23 , September 15, 2016 at 2:51 pm GMT \n
    @TomSchmidt I really love the Unz commenting system. The ability to follow a thread through linking, and to trace the history of any commenter, is superb, best I have seen anywhere, and without the "indenting" that Mars other comment systems.

    I give great credit to Unz for his somewhat open-sourced method of adding comments features. I agree, the Unz commenting system just needed some getting used to after the WaPo system and Disqus. It's very good.

    heymrguda , September 15, 2016 at 3:46 pm GMT \n
    @nsa You want to see serious heavy duty censorship, try posting comments over at the aggressively anti-trump site "the american cuck....er conservative". In between displaying saintly religiosity, they never fail to censor any comment even remotely pro trump or anti jooie hooey.....all with a patina of intellectual superiority. One of them even works at a food bank handing out cans of crap to 300 lb starving afros and white trash in some third world pisshole called Louisiana. Yes, I was (apparently) banned from commenting on that site for suggesting that several of their bloggers (some regular contributors, some not) seemed to favor a certain religious denomination as Conservatism's official religion. Didn't seem all that controversial to me. Hats off to Ron Unz for not censoring comments.
    res , September 15, 2016 at 4:31 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @CCZ Interesting that the NY Times has a publicly accessible tool that allows one to graph the newspaper's fixation on certain topics. I applied the term "transgender," those mostly men (males) identifying as women and demanding access to previously women only spaces (bathrooms and locker and shower rooms), and found an almost identical rocket ship rise in the newspaper's fixation on transgenders beginning in 2010-2011 (parallel with and to almost the same extreme heights as the words "racist" and "racism").

    Given the downward trend of using the words racist and racism until the dramatic 5X up tick in 2011, that you noted, I wonder what explains the timing of the change.

    Perhaps the NY Times owners' appointment of New Orleans born African-American / Creole / black journalist Dean Baquet as Managing Editor in September 2011 and his promotion to Executive Editor on May 14, 2014 signaled their intent to dramatically escalate the racial focus. Carlos Slim also bought into the NY Times in 2008 and increased his holdings in 2012.

    The on-line word tracing tool, Google N-Gram Viewer displays a similar dramatic recent rise in the appearance of words like racism and racist and transgender in books. Like the Chronicle.NYTLABS tool that you site, the N-Gram Viewer visually graphs the percent of books using selected words or phrases over a selected time period from the 25 million books scanned and digitized by Google. You can track the use of words in multiple languages from as early as 1700 up to 2009.

    Found at: https://books.google.com/ngrams

    Sadly, not just the NY Times has been racialized and transgenderized and social warriorized. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Transgender peaks below racism (as you noted), but the rise is much more dramatic–thanks for pointing that one out.

    Google N-Gram Viewer is great, but they don't seem to be updating it so it's less useful for tracking changes since Obama became president.

    Interesting thoughts about NYT changes as causes. I've tended to attribute the "racism" change to Obama's second term and post-Trayvon (early 2012) incitement, but you might have a better explanation. I wonder if the NYT articles database includes details like authors and section of the newspaper. It would be fascinating to see a more detailed analysis of who/what section seem to be driving the changes.

    One fear I have is that publicizing these examples of NYT word frequency will cause the Chronicle tool to disappear.

    annamaria , September 16, 2016 at 3:52 am GMT \n
    The New York Times has soiled its reputation long time ago. But to observe a vulgarization of the previously respectful New Yorker is rather painful; the nest of intellectuals has become a nest of opportunistic half-wits. The New Yorker' pandering to Clinton is beyond ridiculous.
    jeremy lansman , September 18, 2016 at 7:37 pm GMT \n
    "As a Swedish reader of The New York Times, I may be surprised that the paper has ignored election rigging in the governing party of the United States serious enough to cause its top five officials to resign." Governing partey? Now, please explain. Is that the R which is in control of the legislature, or the D in control of the WH? Not to defend the NYT, but I detect this writer has an ax to grind, so has gone a bit overboard. This comment is not a news story. Just my opinion!
    Anonymous , September 19, 2016 at 3:47 pm GMT \n
    The NYTimes receives occult payments from the Clinton foundation. In return of controlling the narrative. I have it from the inside.
    RadicalCenter , December 6, 2016 at 4:46 pm GMT \n
    @Walter Alter The news media in the US, and probably the world, has evolved into a mouthpiece for social engineering, feudal peasant ignorance, crowd control, the tyranny of political correctness, ideological speculation and self-serving congratulatory adulation of globalist liberalism. Following the dictates of the financier oligarchy, they have managed to successfully dash their hierarchical brains against the modern technological imperative and its stepchild, the Internet and peer to peer lateral communication.

    Their ideologically propelled mischaracterizations of Hillary's chances while the rest of us had mouse click access to the raw data, made it apparent EVEN TO THEMSELVES, that they are as blind as a Daniel Quayle potatoe. You seem not to know that he didn't spell the word wrong. Both versions are acceptable.

    Nice ignorant recycling of a rather stupid and childish lefty trope from the late 80s / early 90s.


    [May 01, 2017] Members of Congress Demand Trump Provide Legal Justification for Syria Attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Adam Schiff of California sent a stern letter to the White House on Tuesday, warning that Trump could be setting a dangerous precedent for conducting pre-emptive strikes and risking war with major powers, while cutting Congress out of the picture. ..."
    "... Kaine and Schiff wrote: "These assertions of authority do not provide Congress with the information it needs to exercise our constitutional responsibilities. Nor do they provide comfort to a public that fears deeper involvement in a horrific civil war at a time when the U.S. troop presence in the region is already increasing. The legal justification for an attack on the Syrian government is not an afterthought, but rather a first order consideration, and something that is vital for the American people to understand at the outset." ..."
    "... The authors also expressed concern that the Trump administration might take pre-emptive strikes against North Korea without consulting Congress. ..."
    "... But that explanation did not satisfy a number of legal scholars , who argued that Trump's strikes were illegal without authorization. "President Trump has no constitutional authority to unilaterally commit the nation to war against Syria, which is the effect of launching cruise missiles against Syria," wrote Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project. ..."
    "... Back in 2013, when President Obama was considering strikes against Assad in retaliation for using chemical weapons, Trump tweeted that Obama "must get Congressional approval," and that it would be a "big mistake if he does not." ..."
    "... Congress in 2001 passed a resolution allowing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" that were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks. And since then, the legislative branch has consistently ceded its authority in deciding to go to war. Bush and Obama have used the 2001 resolution to justify mass surveillance, bombing campaigns from Somalia to Pakistan, and prison operations from Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. ..."
    May 01, 2017 | theintercept.com
    Nearly three weeks after ordering a cruise missile attack against one of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad's airfields, Donald Trump has yet to explain how that was legal without congressional authorization.

    Two Democratic members of Congress are demanding that Trump offer some sort of legal justification beyond off-the-cuff remarks from administration officials.

    Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Rep. Adam Schiff of California sent a stern letter to the White House on Tuesday, warning that Trump could be setting a dangerous precedent for conducting pre-emptive strikes and risking war with major powers, while cutting Congress out of the picture.

    Two days after the missile strike, Trump sent Congress a notice that he had ordered it and that he had the "constitutional authority" to do so.

    Kaine and Schiff wrote: "These assertions of authority do not provide Congress with the information it needs to exercise our constitutional responsibilities. Nor do they provide comfort to a public that fears deeper involvement in a horrific civil war at a time when the U.S. troop presence in the region is already increasing. The legal justification for an attack on the Syrian government is not an afterthought, but rather a first order consideration, and something that is vital for the American people to understand at the outset."

    The authors also expressed concern that the Trump administration might take pre-emptive strikes against North Korea without consulting Congress.

    "While the President has the authority to use force to defend our service members and allies from an imminent threat, a preemptive strikes could easily spiral into a full-fledged war with a nuclear armed adversary," Kaine and Schiff wrote. "It is precisely because the decision to go to war is such a momentous one for any nation that the Constitution provides Congress alone with the power to declare war."

    Several administration officials have defended the Syria attack by saying that it is in U.S. interests to deter future chemical weapons strikes. But that is not the same thing as saying the attack was conducted in self-defense or in response to an imminent threat, which would at least resemble past presidents' justifications for not consulting Congress.

    Asked why Trump did not seek congressional authorization, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said that "when it's in the national interest of the country the president has the full authority to act."

    But that explanation did not satisfy a number of legal scholars , who argued that Trump's strikes were illegal without authorization. "President Trump has no constitutional authority to unilaterally commit the nation to war against Syria, which is the effect of launching cruise missiles against Syria," wrote Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project.

    Back in 2013, when President Obama was considering strikes against Assad in retaliation for using chemical weapons, Trump tweeted that Obama "must get Congressional approval," and that it would be a "big mistake if he does not."

    Obama did seek congressional authorization - and it was denied, although he consistently maintained that he did not need it. At the time, Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush administration, wrote that Obama's reasoning placed "no limit at all on the president's ability to use significant military force unilaterally."

    Congress in 2001 passed a resolution allowing the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" that were involved in the 9/11 terror attacks. And since then, the legislative branch has consistently ceded its authority in deciding to go to war. Bush and Obama have used the 2001 resolution to justify mass surveillance, bombing campaigns from Somalia to Pakistan, and prison operations from Afghanistan to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

    [May 01, 2017] Here is Why We Should not Laugh at Donald Trumps 100-Day Faceplant by Jon Schwarz

    Notable quotes:
    "... incredibly wrong ..."
    Apr 29, 2017 | theintercept.com

    But their elections have one critical thing in common: They both came out of NOWHERE to become president, with characteristics that previously would have throttled their chances before they delivered their first speech in Iowa.

    There's no need to recount everything from Trump's florid life and campaign that sensible people were sure disqualified him. But we've forgotten how the sensible people at first saw Obama in much the same way, and for reasons that went far beyond him being African American. He'd been a senator for just two years when he started running and would have to beat the entire party establishment. His father was Muslim. He wasn't just not named Henry Smith, his middle name was Hussein. He'd even used cocaine, and openly admitted it.

    Yet both Obama and Trump vaulted over everyone and everything into the White House. Tens of millions of Americans were willing to place their lives in the hands of political anomalies whose central pitch was that they would deliver profound change. The rise of Bernie Sanders, who's proven that you can become the most popular politician in the country without owning a comb, demonstrates the same thing.

    What does this mean?

    I'd say it means that something has gone incredibly wrong with this country's political system, that large numbers of us are desperate, and are willing to hand over power to absolutely anyone. That's brings us to the peculiar reality that it's not just Obama and Trump's elections that had something significant in common, it's likely their presidencies.

    Obama said American healthcare was in crisis and that "plans that tinker and halfway measures now belong to yesterday." Obama was also outraged by pharmaceutical companies gouging Medicare.

    According to Trump , "People all across the country are devastated" by the healthcare system, but if we put him in charge , "Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now." Trump was also infuriated by Big Pharma and just like Obama vowed to crush them.

    Yet Obama delivered a halfway measure that tinkered with the problem, and never went after drug manufacturers. Trump is now poised to give America literally the same thing.

    Obama called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake" in 2008. In 2016 Trump said NAFTA had caused "devastation" and was "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed." But Obama didn't renegotiate NAFTA. Trump just announced he's not going to pull out of it, and it seems clear the odds of any real renegotiation are slim.

    Obama attacked Wall Street, and so did Trump. Both then stocked their administrations with bankers.

    And Obama and Trump both ran against the Iraq War, and both of their constituencies understood them to mean they would rethink our entire policy toward the Middle East. Both Obama and Trump then faithfully continued the Afghanistan War, bombed Syria, and helped Saudi Arabia starve Yemen.

    ... ... ...

    "Now that we have vanquished the Dhimmicrats and cuckservatives," Steve Bannon proclaimed, "we shall -" and then tripped on his shoelaces and fell down 97 flights of stairs.

    [May 01, 2017] Noam Chomsky Abby Martin Electing The President of an Empire

    Notable quotes:
    "... To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. ..."
    "... The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism. ..."
    "... One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top. ..."
    "... Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries. ..."
    "... Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries. ..."
    "... The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked. ..."
    "... The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans ..."
    "... When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out. ..."
    YouTube

    Stefan Adler 4 days ago

    Excellent interview. Personally I've been listening to so-called alternative media for a very long time now, more or less since about I finished school (I was reading books by Erich Fromm, Hans A. Pestalozzi and others at that time) and I read occasionally alternative newspapers and magazines.

    But this has rather dramatically changed now. In fact I more or less completely abandoned the so-called mainstream media, because at least in my opinion a big part of the mass media here in Germany has begun to turn into agencies for very radical and destructive policies designed in part by Brussels and in part by the German government. It doesn't matter which political issue you look at: The so-called refugee crisis, economical topics, the rise of right wing extremism in Germany and so on: A big part of the mainstream media systematically shifts attention away from the really interesting issues.

    Take for example the stream of refugees coming to Germany and other European countries. It could have been a starting point for the German media to discuss what the real reasons for this so-called crisis are: For example the German, British, French and other weapons exports and what they are used for. Or the ecomical policies of the European Union, which severely damages the economies of countries like Senegal or Burkina Faso. But this just doesn't happen. When you turn on the publicly financed radio stations you hear them discussing technical terms of Germans policies shutting down the European borders to stop the flow of refugees, but almost no word about what this means for the desperate people who end up there. It's a very shocking experience to basically see that even publicly financed media (which we are supposed to be proud of) stay diligently within the limits of discussion, which according to Noam's and Edward Herman's work you would expect for commercial media.

    Of course you can find journalism here which does not follow these restrictions, but in case of the publicly financed radio and news programmes you mostly have to wait until late in the evening (when most of the working population doesn't watch TV or listen to radio anymore) or turn to newspapers which are sold at only very few places. The media is in a terrible condition here nowadays, at least in my opinion.

    coldflame 1 day ago

    • philosophers theory says that human cultures demonstrate severe & increasingly polarizing cycles where the rich get richer & the poor get poorer until the poor are so extremely desperate that a revolution is inevitable....Then there is a massive redistribution of wealth & things even out for awhile & then the cycle begins again.
    • It seems to me that this theory is massively sped up by technology & industry & finance abuses.
    • My guess about it is that the power-wacko-wealthy will abuse science & technology to destroy many billions of people, leaving various levels of slaves to serve them & theirs. Ultimately it won't work for them but the ego of humanity is so short-sighted & narcissistic that it's very hard to imagine otherwise. God I hope I'm wrong. We do have a chance at solving major problems of energy, extinction, food, education, so let's hope for the best.

    Siddharth Sharma 3 days ago

    Chomsky hits the nail on Bernie's campaign. The energy behind the campaign is great, but it's very likely to die after the election. Which Bernie also understands as his major hurdle. He has stated many times, about creating a political revolution, and said that Obama's biggest mistake was, that he let the mass movement that elected him die.

    Bernie wants people to be actively involved in politics, and take rational decisions. When asked how he intends to tackle Republicans while pushing for his progressive reforms, he replied(on the lines of), if his campaign was successful there won't be many Republicans to deal with. While I hope that to happen, it's rather optimistic of Bernie to think so.

    Many people are completely missing the point of his campaign, rather worshiping him as an idol, without understanding the ideals that he stands for. Sanders supporters need to be more mature and serious, as electing him President will not be a panacea; much will remain to be done.

    Callme Ishmael 5 hours ago

    Chomsky is always off the mark on American Libertarianism. To begin with, the Libertarians are not a united front. It's not a consolidated party or philosophy. It's based on the non-aggression principle, but after that, opinions vary widely. His argument about environmental destruction are countered by arguments by Libertarians about private property and prosecution of fraud and the behavior of informed consumers in a free market. The corporation itself is based on an anti-free market principle--limited liability--so the whole legal definition of a corporation is called into question by some forms of Libertarianism.

    The master-servant relationship is not advocated by most Libertarians. That's absurd. And why does he think there wouldn't be any private bus systems? And no empathy or private forms of welfare?

    One of the main arguments of Libertarians is there wouldn't be anywhere near as many impoverished people. In theory, a free market and free enterprise undermines monopoly and the power to oppress and distributes wealth more even. It's corruption through government force that enables corporations to monopolize and move wealth to the top.

    Rodrigo Rodrigues 3 days ago

    Bush destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan. Two countries.

    Obama destroyed Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine. Four countries.

    The US's military industrial complex works around any president, sadly, When President Barack Obama was announced as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize I was shocked.

    He admitted he didn't deserve the prize at the presentation. He went on to praise militarism, and gave tepid support for preventive wars, a war crime. I would like to know Chomsky's opinion on Donald Trump being a candidate .

    EnnoiaBlog 2 days ago (edited)

    "The Democrats have shifted to the right as well. Today's mainstream Democrats are pretty much what used to be called 'moderate Republicans.' -- Noam Chomsky, in interview with Abby Martin, Oct. 24ish 2015.

    MY HERO!!!!!!!

    Chris Neglia 1 day ago (edited)

    10:00 -- "If a major financial institution gets in trouble, the government will bail it out, which happens repeatedly--only during the illiberal periods [not free / rights lacking] incidentally. There were no major failures during the 50s and 60s. When the illiberal policies began to be instituted -- deregulation and so on -- then you start getting a series of financial crises and every time the public bails them out.

    >>> Well that has consequeces. For one thing that means the credit agencies understand these corporations are high value beyond the level of what they actually do because they're gonna be bailed out. So they get good credit ratings, means they can get cheap credit, means they can get cheap loans from the government, they can undertake risky transactions which are profitable because if something goes wrong the tax payer will take care of it.

    >>>> Net result is: that amounts to practically all their profits. Is that Capitalism?"

    Nailed it Noam.

    [May 01, 2017] Hidden History: The Wall Street Coup Attempt of 1933

    Notable quotes:
    "... Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler " Business Plot " Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ... ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    I wonder why this is never mentioned in history classes in the US.

    And I wonder why the US media has not frankly discussed what happened. Is it because it would embarrass powerful figures still on the scene today?

    I wonder why there is no frank discussion of the Wall Street interests who helped to finance the fascists in Europe, including the National Socialists in Germany, even during the 1940's?

    When the going gets tough, the moneyed interests seem to invariably reach for fascism to maintain the status quo.

    We keep too many things hidden 'for the sake of the system.' This obsession with secrecy is all too often the cover to hide misdeeds, incompetency, abuses of the system, and outright crimes.

    If some things cannot bear the light of day, the chances are pretty good that they can remain a festering sore and a moral hazard for the future.

    Here is a BBC documentary about what had happened.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o1KwaLa8zTQ

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o1KwaLa8zTQ

    Business Plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    1. VIDEO]

      General Smedley Butler & the Plot of 1933 · Corporate ...

      Click to view

      1:17:14

      www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3TumSVpfA
      • By Abel Danger ·
      • 3.9K views ·
      • Added Sep 27, 2013

      Mirrored from TheRapeOfJustice (exceptional channel for large library of relevant historical broadcasts and documentaries) http://www.youtube.com/user ...

    2. [PDF]

      The BBC's "Exposé" of Prescott Bush and Wall Street's ...

      valleyofsilicon.com/00_Google_resume/SmedlyButler-Coup5.pdf

      Prescott Bush and the Smedley Butler "Business Plot" Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America Nazis, he has praised Hitler, he talked last night in ...

    [May 01, 2017] Saber rattling: China and US at a dangerous military tipping point

    Notable quotes:
    "... Already there has been a blacklash. Liu Yuan, a retired Chinese general who is generally outspoken on Chinese security matters, wrote for China's state-run Global Times that the Chinese military could conduct a "surgical hard-kill operation that would destroy the target, paralyzing it and making it unable to hit back." ..."
    "... Though such military actions are unlikely, China has already forced the closing of 23 stores owned by Lotte, one of South Korea's huge family-run conglomerates (Lotte agreed to turn over a parcel of land in South Korea on which the THAAD system would be placed). State media has also encouraged Chinese citizens to boycott South Korean products, a move that, if effective, could rob major South Korean companies, like Samsung and Hyundai, of a massive consumer market. ..."
    "... THAAD is a relatively new addition to the U.S. military's missile defense arsenal. Produced by Lockheed Martin (and priced at more than $1 billion per system), THAAD consists of a battery of truck-launched interceptor missiles and a powerful X-band radar that can detect, track and target inbound missile threats. ..."
    "... In other words, THAAD can see enemy ballistic missiles coming and can knock them out of the sky as they plunge toward their targets. Unlike some missile interceptors that navigate into the proximity of a missile and then explode to destroy or deflect the incoming threat, THAAD's missiles simply slam into their targets head-on, destroying them purely through kinetic force. ..."
    "... THADD's military value is spelled out in its name. It intercepts ballistic missiles during their "terminal" phase - that is, when they have passed their apogee and begun falling toward their targets. They can intercept these missiles at very high altitudes, up to roughly 90 miles above Earth's surface. Unlike other missile defense systems, like the Patriot PAC-3 that are designed mainly to defend a particular patch of ground, THAAD's powerful AN/TPY-2 radar can both monitor and defend large areas from short- and medium-range missiles. ..."
    "... China has long vowed retaliation if the United States should deploy THAAD to South Korea, citing security concerns that center more on the radar than the interceptor missiles. THAAD's radar is powerful enough to peer into Chinese airspace, military officials there argue, allowing the United States to monitor Chinese missile tests and provide early warning of any Chinese missile launch, upsetting the strategic balance of power. ..."
    "... Radar installations in Taiwan, Japan and even Qatar already have the capacity to peer into Chinese airspace, to say nothing of the many space-based satellites that provide missile tracking and early warning capabilities to the United States. "It's not that [China's objections] are irrational, but it's more about what the deployment symbolizes than the radar's actual capability," Lewis says. ..."
    "... The United States and South Korea declared their intention to deploy THAAD to South Korea last year (and have discussed the possibility going back as far as 2013), but China's staunch opposition to the deployment and other geopolitical considerations kept the United States from doing so. ..."
    "... However, one potential negative consequence of THAAD's deployment stems from the sense of complacency that such systems can foster. THAAD can soften the effect of a missile salvo, but it's not a silver bullet for either North Korean or Chinese ballistic missile arsenals that are both growing in size and sophistication. ..."
    May 01, 2017 | www.cnbc.com
    THAAD deployment begins in South Korea on Tuesday, 7 Mar 2017

    China is lashing out at South Korea and Washington for the deployment of a powerful missile defense system known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system, or THAAD, deposited at the Osan Air Base in South Korea on Monday evening.

    The deployment of THAAD follows several ballistic missile tests by North Korea in recent months, including the launch of four missiles on Monday , three of which landed in the sea off the coast of Japan. Though THAAD would help South Korea protect itself from a North Korean missile attack, China is vocally protesting the deployment of the system, claiming it upsets the "strategic equilibrium" in the region because its radar will allow the United States to detect and track missiles launched from China.

    North Korean provocations aside, THAAD's arrival on the Korean Peninsula comes amid heightened tensions between the new U.S. administration and China, as well as uncertainty surrounding the U.S. military's commitment to its security relationships in the region and around the world. Within that context, THAAD's deployment packs a significant amount of symbolic firepower alongside its battery of interceptor missiles.

    Already there has been a blacklash. Liu Yuan, a retired Chinese general who is generally outspoken on Chinese security matters, wrote for China's state-run Global Times that the Chinese military could conduct a "surgical hard-kill operation that would destroy the target, paralyzing it and making it unable to hit back."

    Though such military actions are unlikely, China has already forced the closing of 23 stores owned by Lotte, one of South Korea's huge family-run conglomerates (Lotte agreed to turn over a parcel of land in South Korea on which the THAAD system would be placed). State media has also encouraged Chinese citizens to boycott South Korean products, a move that, if effective, could rob major South Korean companies, like Samsung and Hyundai, of a massive consumer market.

    South Korea is reportedly considering filing a complaint with the World Trade Organization over China's economic retaliation. The commercial ramifications of THAAD could still escalate further.

    What can THAAD do?

    THAAD is a relatively new addition to the U.S. military's missile defense arsenal. Produced by Lockheed Martin (and priced at more than $1 billion per system), THAAD consists of a battery of truck-launched interceptor missiles and a powerful X-band radar that can detect, track and target inbound missile threats.

    In other words, THAAD can see enemy ballistic missiles coming and can knock them out of the sky as they plunge toward their targets. Unlike some missile interceptors that navigate into the proximity of a missile and then explode to destroy or deflect the incoming threat, THAAD's missiles simply slam into their targets head-on, destroying them purely through kinetic force.

    THADD's military value is spelled out in its name. It intercepts ballistic missiles during their "terminal" phase - that is, when they have passed their apogee and begun falling toward their targets. They can intercept these missiles at very high altitudes, up to roughly 90 miles above Earth's surface. Unlike other missile defense systems, like the Patriot PAC-3 that are designed mainly to defend a particular patch of ground, THAAD's powerful AN/TPY-2 radar can both monitor and defend large areas from short- and medium-range missiles.

    There are a number of things THAAD cannot do, however. Given that its missiles do not contain a warhead, its batteries are fairly useless as an offensive weapon, a characteristic that some consider a feature from a political standpoint. In a statement announcing THAAD's deployment to South Korea, U.S Pacific Command was careful to note that "the THAAD system is a strictly defensive capability and it poses no threat to other countries in the region."

    Moreover, THAAD is not designed to destroy missiles while they are boosting skyward, nor can it shoot down something like an intercontinental-range ballistic missile, or ICBM. (Intermediate and intercontinental range missiles travel far too fast for systems like THAAD to target and intercept.) In a scenario in which North Korea or China were to launch missiles bound for targets in the United States, THAAD batteries in South Korea and Japan would not be able to target those weapons.

    A historical perspective

    China has long vowed retaliation if the United States should deploy THAAD to South Korea, citing security concerns that center more on the radar than the interceptor missiles. THAAD's radar is powerful enough to peer into Chinese airspace, military officials there argue, allowing the United States to monitor Chinese missile tests and provide early warning of any Chinese missile launch, upsetting the strategic balance of power.

    Following the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency in November, one Chinese official called the potential deployment of THAAD a " political weather vane " for the new U.S. administration and its relationship with China.

    "This marks a real act of courage on the part of the South Korean government, working with its American allies, to do what these two countries together feel is a necessary and appropriate action in the face of Chinese bullying." -Tom Karako, senior fellow, Center for Strategic and Int'l Studies

    But as Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey in California, points out, China's objection to THAAD rings somewhat hollow. Radar installations in Taiwan, Japan and even Qatar already have the capacity to peer into Chinese airspace, to say nothing of the many space-based satellites that provide missile tracking and early warning capabilities to the United States. "It's not that [China's objections] are irrational, but it's more about what the deployment symbolizes than the radar's actual capability," Lewis says.

    In other words, beyond its technical capability THAAD's deployment symbolizes further solidification of the military ties between the United States and South Korea, ties Beijing has sought to loosen for decades.

    "I think the photo op really helped seal the deal for some of the political and assurance significance," Tom Karako, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says of the video released showing the first pieces of the THAAD system rolling off the C-17 at Osan on Monday evening. "This marks a real act of courage on the part of the South Korean government, working with its American allies, to do what these two countries together feel is a necessary and appropriate action in the face of Chinese bullying."

    If THAAD is a political weather vane, Beijing now knows which way the wind is blowing. Why is this happening now?

    The United States and South Korea declared their intention to deploy THAAD to South Korea last year (and have discussed the possibility going back as far as 2013), but China's staunch opposition to the deployment and other geopolitical considerations kept the United States from doing so.

    One reason the United States and South Korea are moving to deploy THAAD now, Lewis says, is likely due to the fact that at least one of the major political stumbling blocks has been removed. South Korean president Park Geun-hye is currently embroiled in political scandal and facing impeachment, creating a unique political opportunity for the South Korean government.

    "It's very controversial, the THAAD system," Lewis says. "And whoever comes after Park will have the system in place without the responsibility of having agreed to it." What lies ahead Consequences - intended and not - from the deployment of THAAD will continue to manifest themselves over the coming weeks and months. In terms of positive fallout, U.S.-based makers of missile defense systems like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are positioned to benefit from growing ballistic missile threats across Asia, the Middle East and Europe - threats underscored by THAAD's deployment to South Korea.

    A recent note to investors by Cowen and Co. defense analyst Roman Schweizer cites both Lockheed Martin (maker of THAAD) and Raytheon (maker of various interceptor missiles, as well as components of THAAD's radar and tracking systems) as likely beneficiaries of an ongoing uptick in global defense expenditures, in large part due to their missile defense technology.

    However, one potential negative consequence of THAAD's deployment stems from the sense of complacency that such systems can foster. THAAD can soften the effect of a missile salvo, but it's not a silver bullet for either North Korean or Chinese ballistic missile arsenals that are both growing in size and sophistication.

    "They're missiles, and this is missile defense, and for a lot of people that checks all the boxes," Lewis says. "The unintended consequence I can see is that you don't want the South Korean people to think this solves the North Korean missile problem, because it doesn't."

    - By Clay Dillow, special to CNBC.com

    [Apr 30, 2017] Mounting Incitements to War With Russia The Nation

    Notable quotes:
    "...  Nation ..."
    "... do ..."
    "... The National Interest ..."
    "... The American Conservative ..."
    Apr 30, 2017 | www.thenation.com
     Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com ). This installment expands upon last week's, which focused on several highly questionable Washington narratives that imply the necessity of war with Russia. When later asked which of these allegations was the most dangerous, Cohen responds, in this installment, that their number is increasing and with them the risk of war. He itemizes the Cold War narratives, or allegations, now propounded by the US political-media establishment:

    - That Moscow's reaction to the Ukrainian crisis three years ago justifies NATO's highly provocative buildup on Russia's borders today in order to prevent the Kremlin's intended aggression against small East European states.

    - That Russian President Putin's "hijacking" of the 2016 US presidential election to put Donald Trump in the White House was "an act of war against American democracy" that requires a requisite response.

    - That Syrian President Assad's recent use of chemical weapons necessitated Trump's missile attack against Syria, whose leader is closely allied with Russia.

    - That the Kremlin is now directing a massive campaign of cyber-attacks and propaganda at elections across Europe in order to bring to power its favored candidates, such as Marine Le Pen in France, in countries allied with the United States, thereby undermining the trans-Atlantic alliance and even NATO itself.

    - And most recently, that the Kremlin is colluding with the Taliban to defeat the United States in Afghanistan.

    Cohen makes three general points about these Washington narratives:

    - Individually and collectively, they further militarize the new Cold War and generate Russophobic analyses in the American political-media establishment that incite the possibility of actual war.

    - As of now, there is still no actual evidence for several of these allegations. For example, that Putin directed a cyber-hacking operation that abetted Trump's presidential campaign or that he is doing the same on behalf of favored European candidates today. Or that Assad was behind the recent chemical-weapons episode in Syria. Or that Moscow has aggressive military intentions in Eastern Europe. Moreover, to the extent the Kremlin uses propaganda, or "soft power," on behalf of American and European candidates, this is scarcely different from decades of US meddling in elections around the world, including in Russia. In any event, the effect of "Russian propaganda" is wildly exaggerated, assuming as it does that democratic citizens are easily swayed by such "weaponized information," as though they are highly susceptible zombies. (The allegation itself reveals a kind of contempt for the political intelligence of citizens of American and other Western democracies.)

    - And third, in the past, critical, fact-checking US mainstream media acted as a filter between these kinds of politically inspired allegations and their warfare impact on policy-making. For the most part, they no longer do so but instead amplify and promote such narratives. Cohen cites several alternative media outlets that do offer trans-partisan contrarian facts and analyses, among them The Nation , The National Interest , The American Conservative , Consortiumnews , the Intercept , and Tucker Carlson's evening hour on Fox News. (Many of these alternative reports are posted at eastwestaccord.com , the website of the American Committee for East-West Accord, of which Cohen is a board member.) But they scarcely offset the almost monopolistic impact of major establishment newspapers and broadcasts "inside the beltway."

    Cohen concludes with two recent developments that are emerging as additional orthodox narratives in Washington. One involves the longstanding, and largely false, narrative that Moscow alone has prevented implementation of the Minsk Accords for resolving the Ukrainian civil and proxy war. In fact, the US-backed government in Kiev has mainly thwarted the agreement by refusing to implement its obligations. Now, despite the harm done to its own already crippled economy, Kiev is expanding its blockade of Russian-backed rebel territories to include vital energy supplies. Some observers think it is doing so to placate ultra-right forces on which it is politically dependent. Another possibility, Cohen thinks, is to provoke Putin's Kremlin into some drastic political or military action that would revive waning support for Kiev in Washington and in Europe. If so, this too could lead to a US-Russian military conflict.

    The other new allegation is that Moscow is colluding with the Taliban against the very long US war effort in Afghanistan. No doubt, Moscow, like Washington, carries on behind-the-scenes discussions with factions of the Taliban in search of a way to extricate itself from the war or to limit its broader impact. But anyone at all familiar with the Russian national-security elite knows it desperately fears an American military withdrawal from Afghanistan, which would leave Moscow alone to withstand the flow of radical jihadists and heroin into Russia through Central Asia. Indeed, the flood of cheap heroin into Russia, which Washington promised to diminish but has not, has already caused a growing epidemic of addiction and AIDS that is well beyond the government's capacity to cope with it.

    Here too, as with other bipartisan anti-Russian narratives in Washington, there are neither facts nor logic. Historically, such narratives have played a major role in the onset of war between great powers. This may now be unfolding in US-Russian relations. Very few members of Congress, the Trump administration, or the mainstream media have spoken against these warfare narratives, which continue to mount

    [Apr 30, 2017] AngloZionist Empire is at War with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... do you really mean to say that ..."
    "... I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing. ..."
    "... the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian ..."
    "... if you were Putin ..."
    "... while very much staying in ..."
    "... de facto ..."
    "... we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends ..."
    Apr 30, 2017 | www.veteransnewsnow.com
    Of course, it is rather obvious that I meant that FOR THE ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE the goal has never been the Ukraine or Novorussia, but a war on Russia. All Russia did was to recognize this reality. Again, the words " do you really mean to say that " clearly show that the author is going to twist what I said, make yet another strawman, and then indignantly denounce me for being a monster who does not care about the Ukraine or Novorussia (the rest of the comment was in the same vein: indignant denunciations of statements I never made and conclusions I never reached).

    I have already grown used to the truly remarkable level of dishonesty of the Putin-bashing crowd and by now I consider it par for the course. But I wanted to illustrate that one more time just to show that at least in certain cases an honest discussion is not the purpose at all. But I don't want to bring it all down to just a few dishonest and vociferous individuals. There are also many who are sincerely baffled, frustrated and even disappointed with Russia's apparent passivity. Here is an excerpt of an email I got this morning:

    I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing. In this case the author correctly sees that Russia and China follow a very similar policy which sure looks like an attempt to appease the US. In contrast to the previous comment, here the author is both sincere and truly distressed.

    In fact, I believe that what I am observing are three very different phenomena all manifesting themselves at the same time:

    1) An organized Putin-bashing campaign initiated by US/UK government branches tasked with manipulating the social media.
    2) A spontaneous Putin-bashing campaign lead by certain Russian National-Bolshevik circles (Limonov, Dugin & Co.).
    3) The expression of a sincere bafflement, distress and frustration by honest and well-intentioned people to whom the current Russian stance really makes no sense at all.

    The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the Russian stance to those in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first ones just makes no sense).

    Trying to make sense of an apparently illogical policy

    In my introduction above I stated that what is taking place is a war on Russia, not hot war (yet?) and not quite an old-style Cold War. In essence, what the AngloZionists are doing is pretty clear and a lot of Russian commentators have already reached that conclusion: the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian . Thus, for the Empire, "success" can never be defined as an outcome in the Ukraine because, as I said previously, this war is not about the Ukraine. For the Empire "success" is a specific outcome in Russia: regime change. Let's us look at how the Empire plans to achieve this result. A quick look at Putin's record

    As I have written in the past, unlike some other bloggers and commentators, I am neither a psychic not a prophet and I cannot tell you what Putin thinks or what he will do tomorrow.

    But what I can tell you is that which Putin has already done in the past: (in no particular order)

    Putin success

    • broken the back of the AngloZionist-backed oligarchy in Russia.
    • achieved a truly miraculous success in Chechnia (one which nobody, prophets included, had foreseen).
    • literally resurrected the Russian economy.
    • rebuilt the Russian military, security and intelligences forces.
    • severely disrupted the ability of foreign NGOs to subvert Russia.
    • done more for the de-dollarization of the planet than anybody before.
    • made Russia the clear leader of both BRICS and SCO.
    • openly challenged the informational monopoly of the western propaganda machine (with projects like RussiaToday).
    • stopped an imminent US/NATO strike on Syria by sending in a Russian Navy Expeditionary Force (which gave Syria a full radar coverage of the entire region).
    • made it possible for Assad to prevail in the Syrian civil war.
    • openly rejected the Western "universal civilizational model" and declared his support for another, a religion and tradition based one.
    • openly rejected a unipolar "New World Order" lead by the AngloZionists and declared his support for a multi-polar world order.
    • supported Assange (through RussiaToday) and protected Snowden
    • created and promoted a new alliance model between Christianity and Islam thus undermining the "clash of civilization" paradigm.
    • booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in the Caucasus (Chechnia, Ossetia).
    • booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in Central Asia (Manas base in Kyrgyzstan)
    • gave Russia the means to defend her interest in the Arctic region, including military means.
    • established a full-spectrum strategic alliance with China which is at the core of both SCO and BRICS.
    • is currently passing laws barring foreign interests from controlling the Russian media.
    • gave Iran the means to develop a much needed civilian nuclear program.
    • is working with China to create a financial system fully separated form the current AngloZionist controlled one (including trade in Rubles or Renminbi).
    • re-establised Russian political and economic support for Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua and Argentina.
    • very effectively deflated the pro-US color-coded revolution in Russia.
    • organized the " Voentorg " which armed the NAF.
    • gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.
    • sent in vitally needed humanitarian aid to Novorussia.
    • provided direct Russian fire support and possibly even air cover to NAF in key locations (the "southern cauldron" for example).
    • last but not least, he openly spoke of the need for Russia to "sovereignize" herself and to prevail over the pro-US 5th column.

    and that list goes on and on. All I am trying to illustrate is that there is a very good reason for the AngloZionist's hatred for Putin: his long record of very effectively fighting them. So unless we assume that Putin had a sudden change of heart or that he simply ran out of energy or courage, I submit that the notion that he suddenly made a 180 makes no sense. His current policies, however, do make sense, as I will try to explain now.

    If you are a "Putin betrayed Novorussia" person, please set that hypothesis aside for a moment, just for argument's sake and assume that Putin is both principled and logical. What could he be doing in the Ukraine? Can we make sense of what we observe?

    Imperatives Russia cannot ignore

    First, I consider the following sequence indisputable:

    First, Russia must prevail over the current AngloZionist war against her . What the Empire wants in Russia is regime change followed by complete absorption into the Western sphere of influence including a likely break-up of Russia. What is threatened is the very existence of the Russian civilization.

    Second, Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic regime in power in Kiev . The Ukie nationalist freaks have proven that it is impossible to negotiate with them (they have broken literally every single agreement signed so far), their hatred for Russia is total (as shown with their constant references to the use of – hypothetical – nuclear weapons against Russia). Therefore,

    Third, regime change in Kiev followed by a full de-Nazification is the only possible way for Russia to achieve her vital objectives .

    Again, and at the risk of having my words twisted and misrepresented, I have to repeat here that Novorussia is not what is at stake here. It's not even the future of the Ukraine. What is at stake here is a planetary confrontation (this is the one thesis of Dugin which Ifully agree with). The future of the planet depends on the capability of the BRICS/SCO countries to replace the AngloZionist Empire with a very different, multi-polar, international order. Russia is crucial and indispensable in this effort (any such effort without Russia is doomed to fail), and the future of Russia is now decided by what Russia will do in the Ukraine. As for the future of the Ukraine, it largely depends on what will happen to Novorussia, but not exclusively. In a paradoxical way, Novorussia is more important to Russia than to the Ukraine. Here is why:

    For the rest of the Ukraine, Novorussia is lost. Forever . Not even a joint Putin-Obama effort could prevent that. In fact, the Ukies know that and this is why they make no effort to win the hearts and minds of the local population. If fact, I am convinced that the so-called "random" or "wanton" destruction of the Novorussian industrial, economic, scientific and cultural infrastructure has been intentional act of hateful vengeance similar to the way the AngloZionists always turn to killing civilians when they fail to overcome military forces (the examples of Yugoslavia and Lebanon come to mind). Of course, Moscow can probably force the local Novorussian political leaders to sign some kind of document accepting Kiev's sovereignty, but that will be a fiction, it is way too late for that. If not de jure , then de facto , Novorussia is never going to accept Kiev's rule again and everybody knows that, in Kiev, in Novorussia and in Russia.

    What could a de facto but not de jure independence look like?

    No Ukrainian military, national guard, oligarch battalion or SBU, full economic, cultural, religious, linguistic and educational independence, locally elected officials and local media, but all that with Ukie flags, no official independence status, no Novorussian Armed Forces (they will be called something like "regional security force" or even "police force") and no Novorussian currency (though the Ruble – along with the Dollar and Euro – will be used on a daily basis). The top officials will have to be officially approved by Kiev (which Kiev will, of course, lest its impotence becomes visible). This will be a temporary, transitional and unstable arrangement, but it will be good enough to provide a face-saving way out to Kiev.

    This said, I would argue that both Kiev and Moscow have an interest in maintaining the fiction of a unitary Ukraine. For Kiev this is a way to not appear completely defeated by the accursed Moskals. But what about Russia?

    What if you were in Putin's place?

    Ask yourself the following question: if you were Putin and your goal was regime change in Kiev, would you prefer Novorussia to be part of the Ukraine or not? I would submit that having Novorussia inside is much better for the following reasons:

    1. it makes it part, even on a macro-level, of the Ukrainian processes, like national elections or national media.
    2. it begs the comparison with the conditions in the rest of the Ukraine.
    3. it makes it far easier to influence commerce, business, transportation, etc.
    4. it creates an alternative (Nazi-free) political center to Kiev.
    5. it makes it easier for Russian interests (of all kind) to penetrate into the Ukraine.
    6. it removes the possibility to put up a Cold War like "wall" or barrier on some geographical marker.
    7. it removes the accusation that Russian wants to partition the Ukraine.

    In other words, to keep Novorussia de jure , nominally, part of the Ukraine is the best way to appear to be complying with AngloZionist demands while subverting the Nazi junta in power. In a recent article I outlined what Russia could do without incurring any major consequences:

    1. Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc.
    2. Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian oppositionContinue the informational war (Russian media does a great job)
    3. Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)
    4. Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the Ukraine
    5. Disrupt as much as possible the US-EU "axis of kindness"
    6. Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financially

    In other words – give the appearance of staying out while very much staying in .

    What is the alternative anyway?

    I already hear the chorus of indignant "hurray-patriots" (that is what these folks are called in Russia) accusing me of only seeing Novorussia as a tool for Russian political goals and of ignoring the death and suffering endured by the people of Novorussia. To this I will simply reply the following:

    Does anybody seriously believe that an independent Novorussia can live in even minimal peace and security without a regime change in Kiev? If Russia cannot afford a Nazi junta in power in Kiev, can Novorussia?!

    In general, the hurray-patriots are long on what should be done now and very short any kind of mid or long term vision. Just like those who believe that Syria can be saved by sending in the Russian Air Force, the hurray-patriots believe that the crisis in the Ukraine can be solved by sending in tanks. They are a perfect example of the mindset H. L. Mencken was referring to when he wrote "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".

    The sad reality is that the mindset behind such "simple" solutions is always the same one: never negotiate, never compromise, never look long term but only to the immediate future and use force in all cases.

    But the facts are here: the US/NATO block is powerful, militarily, economically and politically and it can hurt Russia, especially over time. Furthermore, while Russia can easily defeat the Ukrainian military, this hardly would be a very meaningful "victory". Externally it would trigger a massive deterioration of the international political climate, while internally the Russians would have to suppress the Ukrainian nationalists (not all of them Nazi) by force. Could Russia do that? Again, the answer is that yes – but at what cost?

    I good friend of mine was a Colonel in the KGB Special Forces unit called "Kaskad" (which later was renamed "Vympel"). One day he told me how his father, himself a special operator for the GRU, fought against Ukrainian insurgents from the end of WWII in 1945 up to 1958: that is thirteen years! It took Stalin and Krushchev 13 years to finally crush the Ukrainian nationalist insurgents. Does anybody in his/her right mind sincerely believe that modern Russia should repeat that policies and spend years hunting down Ukrainian insurgents again?

    By the way, if the Ukrainian nationalists could fight the Soviet rule under Stalin and Krushchev for a full 13 years after the end of the war – how is it that there is no visible anti-Nazi resistance in Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrivsk or Kharkov? Yes, Luganks and Donetsk did rise up and take arms, very successfully – but the rest of the Ukraine? If you were Putin, would you be confident that Russian forces liberating these cities would receive the same welcome that they did in Crimea?

    And yet, the hurray-patriots keep pushing for more Russian intervention and further Novorussian military operations against Ukie forces. Is it not about time we begin asking who would benefit from such policies?

    It has been an old trick of the US CIA to use the social media and the blogosphere to push for nationalist extremism in Russia. A well know and respected Russian patriot and journalist – Maksim Shevchenko – had a group of people organized to track down the IP numbers of some of the most influential radical nationalist organizations, website, blogs and individual posters on the Russian Internet. Turns out that most were based in the USA, Canada and Israel. Surprise, surprise. Or, maybe, no surprise at all?

    For the AngloZionists, supporting extremists and rabid nationalists in Russia makes perfectly good sense. Either they get to influence the public opinion or they at the very least can be used to bash the regime in power. I personally see no difference between an Udaltsov or a Navalnii on one hand and a Limonov or a Dugin on the other. Their sole effect is to get people mad at the Kremlin. What the pretext for the anger is does not matter – for Navalnyi its "stolen elections" for Dugin it's "back-stabbed Novorussia". And it does not matter which of them are actually paid agents or just "useful idiots" – God be their judge – but what does matter is that the solutions they advocate are no solutions at all, just pious pretexts to bash the regime in power.

    In the meantime, not only had Putin not sold-out, back-stabbed, traded away or otherwise abandoned Novorussia, it's Poroshenko who is barely holding on to power and Banderastan which is going down the tubes. There are also plenty of people who see through this doom and gloom nonsense, both in Russia ( Yuri Baranchik ) and abroad ( M. K. Bhadrakumar ).

    But what about the oligarchs?

    I already addressed this issue in a recent post , but I think that it is important to return to this topic here and the first thing which is crucial to understand in the Russian or Ukrainian context is that oligarchs are a fact of life. This is not to say that their presence is a good thing, only that Putin and Poroshenko and, for that matter, anybody trying to get anything done over there needs to take them into account. The big difference is that while in Kiev a regime controlled by the oligarchs has been replaced by a regime of oligarchs, in Russia the oligarchy can only influence, but not control, the Kremlin. The examples, of Khodorkovsky or Evtushenkov show that the Kremlin still can, and does, smack down an oligarch when needed.

    Still, it is one thing to pick on one or two oligarchs and quite another to remove them from the Ukrainian equation: the latter is just not going to happen. So for Putin any Ukrainian strategy has to take into account the presence and, frankly, power of the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Russian counterparts.

    Rinat Leonidovych Akhmetov

    Rinat Leonidovych Akhmetov

    Putin knows that oligarchs have their true loyalty only to themselves and that their only "country" is wherever their assets happen to be. As a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for Putin this is an obvious plus, because that mindset potentially allows him to manipulate them. Any intelligence officer knows that people can be manipulated by a finite list of approaches: ideology, ego, resentment, sex, a skeleton in the closet and, of course, money. From Putin's point of view, Rinat Akhmetov , for example, is a guy who used to employ something like 200'000 people in the Donbass, who clearly can get things done, and whose official loyalty Kiev and the Ukraine is just a camouflage for his real loyalty: his money. Now, Putin does not have to like or respect Akhmetov, most intelligence officers will quietly despise that kind of person, but that also means that for Putin Akhmetov is an absolutely crucial person to talk to, explore options with and, possibly, use to achieve a Russian national strategic objective in the Donbass.

    I have already written this many times here: Russians do talk to their enemies. With a friendly smile. This is even more true for a former intelligence officer who is trained to always communicate, smile, appear to be engaging and understanding. For Putin Akhmetov is not a friend or an ally, but he is a powerful figure which can be manipulated in Russia's advantage. What I am trying to explain here is the following:

    There are numerous rumors of secret negotiations between Rinat Akhmetov and various Russian officials. Some say that Khodakovski is involved. Others mention Surkov. There is no doubt in my mind that such secret negotiations are taking place. In fact, I am sure that all the parties involved talk to all other other parties involved. Even with a disgusting, evil and vile creature like Kolomoiski. In fact, the sure signal that somebody has finally decided to take him out would be that nobody would be speaking with him any more. That will probably happen, with time, but most definitely not until his power base is sufficiently eroded.

    One Russian blogger believes that Akhmetov has already been "persuaded" (read: bought off) by Putin and that he is willing to play by the new rules which now say "Putin is boss". Maybe. Maybe not yet, but soon. Maybe never. All I am suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukie oligarchs are as logical and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia before the US armed forces entered Italy.

    But is there a 5th column in Russia?

    Yes, absolutely. First and foremost, it is found inside the Medvedev government itself and even inside the Presidential administration. Always remember that Putin was put into power by two competing forces: the secret services and big money. And yes, while it is true that Putin has tremendously weakened the "big money" component (what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists") they are still very much there, though they are more subdued, more careful and less arrogant than during the time when Medvedev was formally in charge. The big change in the recent years is that the struggle between patriots (the "Eurasian Sovereignists") and the 5th column now is in the open, but it is far from over. A nd we should never underestimate these people: they have a lot of power, a lot of money and a fantastic capability to corrupt, threaten, discredit, sabotage, cover-up, smear, etc. They are also very smart, they can hire the best professionals in the field, and they are very, very good at ugly political campaigns. For example, the 5th columnists try hard to give a voice to the National-Bolshevik opposition (both Limonov and Dugin regularly get airtime on Russian TV) and rumor has it that they finance a lot of the National-Bolshevik media (just like the Koch brothers paid for the Tea Party in the USA).

    Another problem is that while these guys are objectively doing the US CIA's bidding, there is no proof of it. As I was told many times by a wise friend: most conspiracies are really collusions and the latter are very hard to prove. But the community of interests between the US CIA and the Russian and Ukrainian oligarchy is so obvious as to be undeniable.

    The real danger for Russia

    So now we have the full picture . Again, Putin has to simultaneously contend with

    1) a strategic psyop campaign run by the US/UK & Co. which combines the corporate media's demonization of Putin and a campaign in the social media to discredit him for his passivity and lack of appropriate response to the West.
    2) a small but very vociferous group of (mostly) National-Bolsheviks (Limonov, Dugin & Co.) who have found in the Novorussian cause a perfect opportunity to bash Putin for not sharing their ideology and their "clear, simple, and wrong" "solutions".
    3) a network of powerful oligarchs who want to use the opportunity presented by the actions of first two groups to promote their own interests.
    4) a 5th column for whom all of the above is a fantastic opportunity to weaken the Eurasian Sovereignists
    5) a sense of disappointment by many sincere people who feel that Russia is acting like a passive punching-ball.
    6) an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete ( de facto and de jure ) independence from Kiev and who are sincerely convinced that any negotiations with Kiev are a prelude to a betrayal by Russia of Novorussian interest.
    7) the objective reality that Russian and Novorussian interests are not the same.
    8) the objective reality that the AngloZionist Empire is still very powerful and even potentially dangerous.

    It is very, very, hard for Putin to try to balance these forces in such a way that the resulting vector is one which is in the strategic interest of Russia. I would argue that there is simply no other solution to this conundrum other than to completely separate Russia's official (declaratory) policy and Russia's real actions. The covert help to Novorussia – the Voentorg – is an example of that, but only a limited one because what Russia must do now goes beyond covert actions: Russia must appear to be doing one thing while doing exactly the opposite. It is in Russia's strategic interest at this point in time to appear to:

    1) Support a negotiated solution along the lines of: a unitary non-aligned Ukraine, with large regional right for all regions while, at the same time, politically opposing the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc. and supporting both Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition.
    2) Give Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs a reason to if not support, then at least not oppose such a solution (for ex: by not nationalizing Akhmetov's assets in the Donbass), while at the same time making sure that there is literally enough "firepower" to keep the oligarch under control.
    3) Negotiate with the EU on the actual implementation of Ukraine's Agreement with the EU while at the same time helping the Ukraine commit economic suicide by making sure that there is just the right amount of economic strangulation applied to prevent the regime from bouncing back.
    4) Negotiate with the EU and the Junta in Kiev over the delivery of gas while at the same time making sure that the regime pays enough for it to be broke.
    5) Appear generally non-confrontational towards the USA while at the same time trying as hard as possible to create tensions between the US and the EU.
    6) Appear to be generally available and willing to do business with the AngoZionist Empire while at the same time building an alternative international systems not centered on the USA or the Dollar.

    As you see, this goes far beyond a regular covert action program. What we are dealing with is a very complex, multi-layered, program to achieve the Russian most important goal in the Ukraine (regime change and de-Nazification) while inhibiting as much as possible the AngloZionists attempts to re-created a severe and long lasting East-West crisis in which the EU would basically fuse with the USA.

    Conclusion: a key to Russian policies?

    Most of us are used to think in terms of super-power categories. After all, US President from Reagan on to Obama have all served us a diet of grand statements, almost constant military operations followed by Pentagon briefings, threats, sanctions, boycotts, etc. I would argue that this has always been the hallmark of western "diplomacy" from the Crusades to the latest bombing campaign against ISIL. Russia and China have a diametrically opposed tradition. For example, in terms of methodology Lavrov always repeats the same principle: " we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends ". The role of Russian diplomats is not to prepare for war, but to avoid it. Yes, Russia will fight, but only when diplomacy has failed. If for the US diplomacy is solely a means to deliver threats, for Russia it is a the primary tool to defuse them. It is therefore no wonder at all the the US diplomacy is primitive to the point of bordering on the comical. After all, how much sophistication is needed to say "comply or else". Any petty street thug know how to do that. Russian diplomats are much more akin to explosives disposal specialist or a mine clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful and fully focused. But most importantly, they cannot allow anybody to rush them lest the entire thing blows up.

    Russia is fully aware that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with her and that surrender is simply not an option any more (assuming it ever was). Russia also understands that she is not a real super-power or, even less so, an empire. Russia is only a very powerful country which is trying to de-fang the Empire without triggering a frontal confrontation with it. In the Ukraine, Russia sees no other solution than regime change in Kiev. To achieve this goal Russia will always prefer a negotiated solution to one obtained by force, even though if not other choice is left to her, she will use force. In other words:

    Russia's long term end goal is to bring down the AngloZionis Empire. Russia's mid term goal is to create the conditions for regime change in Kiev.Russia's short term goal is to prevent the junta from over-running Novorussia.Russia's preferred method to achieve these goals is negotiation with all parties involved . A prerequisite to achieve these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding in creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial "deep state" fully understands all this, hence the double declaration of war by Obama and Poroshenko.)

    As long as you keep these basic principles in mind, the apparent zig-zags, contradictions and passivity of Russian policies will begin to make sense.

    It is an open question whether Russia will succeed in her goals. In theory, a successful Junta attack on Novorussia could force Russia to intervene. Likewise, there is always the possibility of yet another "false flag", possibly a nuclear one. I think that the Russian policy is sound and the best realistically achievable under the current set of circumstances, but only time will tell.

    I am sorry that it took me over 6400 words to explain all that, but in a society where most "thoughts" are expressed as "tweets" and analyses as Facebook posts, it was a daunting task to try to shed some light to what is turning to be a deluge of misunderstandings and misconceptions, all made worse by the manipulation of the social media. I feel that 60'000 words would be more adequate to this task as it is far easier to just throw out a short and simple slogan than to refute its assumptions and implications.

    My hope that at least those of you who sincerely were confused by Russia's apparently illogical stance can now connect the dots and make better sense of it all.

    Kind regards to all,

    The Saker –
    http://www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

    [Apr 30, 2017] AngloZionist Empire is at War with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... do you really mean to say that ..."
    "... I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing. ..."
    "... the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian ..."
    "... if you were Putin ..."
    "... while very much staying in ..."
    "... de facto ..."
    "... we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends ..."
    Apr 30, 2017 | www.veteransnewsnow.com
    Of course, it is rather obvious that I meant that FOR THE ANGLOZIONIST EMPIRE the goal has never been the Ukraine or Novorussia, but a war on Russia. All Russia did was to recognize this reality. Again, the words " do you really mean to say that " clearly show that the author is going to twist what I said, make yet another strawman, and then indignantly denounce me for being a monster who does not care about the Ukraine or Novorussia (the rest of the comment was in the same vein: indignant denunciations of statements I never made and conclusions I never reached).

    I have already grown used to the truly remarkable level of dishonesty of the Putin-bashing crowd and by now I consider it par for the course. But I wanted to illustrate that one more time just to show that at least in certain cases an honest discussion is not the purpose at all. But I don't want to bring it all down to just a few dishonest and vociferous individuals. There are also many who are sincerely baffled, frustrated and even disappointed with Russia's apparent passivity. Here is an excerpt of an email I got this morning:

    I guess I was really hoping that perhaps Russia, China The BRICS would be a counter force. What I fail to understand is why after all the demonisation by the U.S and Europe doesn't Russia retaliate. The sanctions imposed by the West is hurting Russia and yet they still trade oil in euros/dollars and are bending over backwards to accommodate Europe. I do not understand why they do not say lift all sanctions or no gas. China also says very little against the U.S , even though they fully understand that if Russian is weakened they are next on the list. As for all the talk of lifting the sanctions on Iran that is farcical as we all know Israel will never allow them to be lifted. So why do China and Russia go along with the whole charade. Sometimes I wonder if we are all being played, and this is all one big game , which no chance of anything changing. In this case the author correctly sees that Russia and China follow a very similar policy which sure looks like an attempt to appease the US. In contrast to the previous comment, here the author is both sincere and truly distressed.

    In fact, I believe that what I am observing are three very different phenomena all manifesting themselves at the same time:

    1) An organized Putin-bashing campaign initiated by US/UK government branches tasked with manipulating the social media.
    2) A spontaneous Putin-bashing campaign lead by certain Russian National-Bolshevik circles (Limonov, Dugin & Co.).
    3) The expression of a sincere bafflement, distress and frustration by honest and well-intentioned people to whom the current Russian stance really makes no sense at all.

    The rest of this post will be entirely dedicated to try to explain the Russian stance to those in this third group (any dialog with the 2 first ones just makes no sense).

    Trying to make sense of an apparently illogical policy

    In my introduction above I stated that what is taking place is a war on Russia, not hot war (yet?) and not quite an old-style Cold War. In essence, what the AngloZionists are doing is pretty clear and a lot of Russian commentators have already reached that conclusion: the US are engaged into a war against Russia for which the US will fight to the last Ukrainian . Thus, for the Empire, "success" can never be defined as an outcome in the Ukraine because, as I said previously, this war is not about the Ukraine. For the Empire "success" is a specific outcome in Russia: regime change. Let's us look at how the Empire plans to achieve this result. A quick look at Putin's record

    As I have written in the past, unlike some other bloggers and commentators, I am neither a psychic not a prophet and I cannot tell you what Putin thinks or what he will do tomorrow.

    But what I can tell you is that which Putin has already done in the past: (in no particular order)

    Putin success

    • broken the back of the AngloZionist-backed oligarchy in Russia.
    • achieved a truly miraculous success in Chechnia (one which nobody, prophets included, had foreseen).
    • literally resurrected the Russian economy.
    • rebuilt the Russian military, security and intelligences forces.
    • severely disrupted the ability of foreign NGOs to subvert Russia.
    • done more for the de-dollarization of the planet than anybody before.
    • made Russia the clear leader of both BRICS and SCO.
    • openly challenged the informational monopoly of the western propaganda machine (with projects like RussiaToday).
    • stopped an imminent US/NATO strike on Syria by sending in a Russian Navy Expeditionary Force (which gave Syria a full radar coverage of the entire region).
    • made it possible for Assad to prevail in the Syrian civil war.
    • openly rejected the Western "universal civilizational model" and declared his support for another, a religion and tradition based one.
    • openly rejected a unipolar "New World Order" lead by the AngloZionists and declared his support for a multi-polar world order.
    • supported Assange (through RussiaToday) and protected Snowden
    • created and promoted a new alliance model between Christianity and Islam thus undermining the "clash of civilization" paradigm.
    • booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in the Caucasus (Chechnia, Ossetia).
    • booted the AngloZionists out of key locations in Central Asia (Manas base in Kyrgyzstan)
    • gave Russia the means to defend her interest in the Arctic region, including military means.
    • established a full-spectrum strategic alliance with China which is at the core of both SCO and BRICS.
    • is currently passing laws barring foreign interests from controlling the Russian media.
    • gave Iran the means to develop a much needed civilian nuclear program.
    • is working with China to create a financial system fully separated form the current AngloZionist controlled one (including trade in Rubles or Renminbi).
    • re-establised Russian political and economic support for Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Nicaragua and Argentina.
    • very effectively deflated the pro-US color-coded revolution in Russia.
    • organized the " Voentorg " which armed the NAF.
    • gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees.
    • sent in vitally needed humanitarian aid to Novorussia.
    • provided direct Russian fire support and possibly even air cover to NAF in key locations (the "southern cauldron" for example).
    • last but not least, he openly spoke of the need for Russia to "sovereignize" herself and to prevail over the pro-US 5th column.

    and that list goes on and on. All I am trying to illustrate is that there is a very good reason for the AngloZionist's hatred for Putin: his long record of very effectively fighting them. So unless we assume that Putin had a sudden change of heart or that he simply ran out of energy or courage, I submit that the notion that he suddenly made a 180 makes no sense. His current policies, however, do make sense, as I will try to explain now.

    If you are a "Putin betrayed Novorussia" person, please set that hypothesis aside for a moment, just for argument's sake and assume that Putin is both principled and logical. What could he be doing in the Ukraine? Can we make sense of what we observe?

    Imperatives Russia cannot ignore

    First, I consider the following sequence indisputable:

    First, Russia must prevail over the current AngloZionist war against her . What the Empire wants in Russia is regime change followed by complete absorption into the Western sphere of influence including a likely break-up of Russia. What is threatened is the very existence of the Russian civilization.

    Second, Russia will never be safe with a neo-Nazi russophobic regime in power in Kiev . The Ukie nationalist freaks have proven that it is impossible to negotiate with them (they have broken literally every single agreement signed so far), their hatred for Russia is total (as shown with their constant references to the use of – hypothetical – nuclear weapons against Russia). Therefore,

    Third, regime change in Kiev followed by a full de-Nazification is the only possible way for Russia to achieve her vital objectives .

    Again, and at the risk of having my words twisted and misrepresented, I have to repeat here that Novorussia is not what is at stake here. It's not even the future of the Ukraine. What is at stake here is a planetary confrontation (this is the one thesis of Dugin which Ifully agree with). The future of the planet depends on the capability of the BRICS/SCO countries to replace the AngloZionist Empire with a very different, multi-polar, international order. Russia is crucial and indispensable in this effort (any such effort without Russia is doomed to fail), and the future of Russia is now decided by what Russia will do in the Ukraine. As for the future of the Ukraine, it largely depends on what will happen to Novorussia, but not exclusively. In a paradoxical way, Novorussia is more important to Russia than to the Ukraine. Here is why:

    For the rest of the Ukraine, Novorussia is lost. Forever . Not even a joint Putin-Obama effort could prevent that. In fact, the Ukies know that and this is why they make no effort to win the hearts and minds of the local population. If fact, I am convinced that the so-called "random" or "wanton" destruction of the Novorussian industrial, economic, scientific and cultural infrastructure has been intentional act of hateful vengeance similar to the way the AngloZionists always turn to killing civilians when they fail to overcome military forces (the examples of Yugoslavia and Lebanon come to mind). Of course, Moscow can probably force the local Novorussian political leaders to sign some kind of document accepting Kiev's sovereignty, but that will be a fiction, it is way too late for that. If not de jure , then de facto , Novorussia is never going to accept Kiev's rule again and everybody knows that, in Kiev, in Novorussia and in Russia.

    What could a de facto but not de jure independence look like?

    No Ukrainian military, national guard, oligarch battalion or SBU, full economic, cultural, religious, linguistic and educational independence, locally elected officials and local media, but all that with Ukie flags, no official independence status, no Novorussian Armed Forces (they will be called something like "regional security force" or even "police force") and no Novorussian currency (though the Ruble – along with the Dollar and Euro – will be used on a daily basis). The top officials will have to be officially approved by Kiev (which Kiev will, of course, lest its impotence becomes visible). This will be a temporary, transitional and unstable arrangement, but it will be good enough to provide a face-saving way out to Kiev.

    This said, I would argue that both Kiev and Moscow have an interest in maintaining the fiction of a unitary Ukraine. For Kiev this is a way to not appear completely defeated by the accursed Moskals. But what about Russia?

    What if you were in Putin's place?

    Ask yourself the following question: if you were Putin and your goal was regime change in Kiev, would you prefer Novorussia to be part of the Ukraine or not? I would submit that having Novorussia inside is much better for the following reasons:

    1. it makes it part, even on a macro-level, of the Ukrainian processes, like national elections or national media.
    2. it begs the comparison with the conditions in the rest of the Ukraine.
    3. it makes it far easier to influence commerce, business, transportation, etc.
    4. it creates an alternative (Nazi-free) political center to Kiev.
    5. it makes it easier for Russian interests (of all kind) to penetrate into the Ukraine.
    6. it removes the possibility to put up a Cold War like "wall" or barrier on some geographical marker.
    7. it removes the accusation that Russian wants to partition the Ukraine.

    In other words, to keep Novorussia de jure , nominally, part of the Ukraine is the best way to appear to be complying with AngloZionist demands while subverting the Nazi junta in power. In a recent article I outlined what Russia could do without incurring any major consequences:

    1. Politically oppose the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc.
    2. Express political support for Novorussia and any Ukrainian oppositionContinue the informational war (Russian media does a great job)
    3. Prevent Novorussia from falling (covert military aid)
    4. Mercilessly keep up the economic pressure on the Ukraine
    5. Disrupt as much as possible the US-EU "axis of kindness"
    6. Help Crimea and Novorussia prosper economically and financially

    In other words – give the appearance of staying out while very much staying in .

    What is the alternative anyway?

    I already hear the chorus of indignant "hurray-patriots" (that is what these folks are called in Russia) accusing me of only seeing Novorussia as a tool for Russian political goals and of ignoring the death and suffering endured by the people of Novorussia. To this I will simply reply the following:

    Does anybody seriously believe that an independent Novorussia can live in even minimal peace and security without a regime change in Kiev? If Russia cannot afford a Nazi junta in power in Kiev, can Novorussia?!

    In general, the hurray-patriots are long on what should be done now and very short any kind of mid or long term vision. Just like those who believe that Syria can be saved by sending in the Russian Air Force, the hurray-patriots believe that the crisis in the Ukraine can be solved by sending in tanks. They are a perfect example of the mindset H. L. Mencken was referring to when he wrote "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong".

    The sad reality is that the mindset behind such "simple" solutions is always the same one: never negotiate, never compromise, never look long term but only to the immediate future and use force in all cases.

    But the facts are here: the US/NATO block is powerful, militarily, economically and politically and it can hurt Russia, especially over time. Furthermore, while Russia can easily defeat the Ukrainian military, this hardly would be a very meaningful "victory". Externally it would trigger a massive deterioration of the international political climate, while internally the Russians would have to suppress the Ukrainian nationalists (not all of them Nazi) by force. Could Russia do that? Again, the answer is that yes – but at what cost?

    I good friend of mine was a Colonel in the KGB Special Forces unit called "Kaskad" (which later was renamed "Vympel"). One day he told me how his father, himself a special operator for the GRU, fought against Ukrainian insurgents from the end of WWII in 1945 up to 1958: that is thirteen years! It took Stalin and Krushchev 13 years to finally crush the Ukrainian nationalist insurgents. Does anybody in his/her right mind sincerely believe that modern Russia should repeat that policies and spend years hunting down Ukrainian insurgents again?

    By the way, if the Ukrainian nationalists could fight the Soviet rule under Stalin and Krushchev for a full 13 years after the end of the war – how is it that there is no visible anti-Nazi resistance in Zaporozhie, Dnepropetrivsk or Kharkov? Yes, Luganks and Donetsk did rise up and take arms, very successfully – but the rest of the Ukraine? If you were Putin, would you be confident that Russian forces liberating these cities would receive the same welcome that they did in Crimea?

    And yet, the hurray-patriots keep pushing for more Russian intervention and further Novorussian military operations against Ukie forces. Is it not about time we begin asking who would benefit from such policies?

    It has been an old trick of the US CIA to use the social media and the blogosphere to push for nationalist extremism in Russia. A well know and respected Russian patriot and journalist – Maksim Shevchenko – had a group of people organized to track down the IP numbers of some of the most influential radical nationalist organizations, website, blogs and individual posters on the Russian Internet. Turns out that most were based in the USA, Canada and Israel. Surprise, surprise. Or, maybe, no surprise at all?

    For the AngloZionists, supporting extremists and rabid nationalists in Russia makes perfectly good sense. Either they get to influence the public opinion or they at the very least can be used to bash the regime in power. I personally see no difference between an Udaltsov or a Navalnii on one hand and a Limonov or a Dugin on the other. Their sole effect is to get people mad at the Kremlin. What the pretext for the anger is does not matter – for Navalnyi its "stolen elections" for Dugin it's "back-stabbed Novorussia". And it does not matter which of them are actually paid agents or just "useful idiots" – God be their judge – but what does matter is that the solutions they advocate are no solutions at all, just pious pretexts to bash the regime in power.

    In the meantime, not only had Putin not sold-out, back-stabbed, traded away or otherwise abandoned Novorussia, it's Poroshenko who is barely holding on to power and Banderastan which is going down the tubes. There are also plenty of people who see through this doom and gloom nonsense, both in Russia ( Yuri Baranchik ) and abroad ( M. K. Bhadrakumar ).

    But what about the oligarchs?

    I already addressed this issue in a recent post , but I think that it is important to return to this topic here and the first thing which is crucial to understand in the Russian or Ukrainian context is that oligarchs are a fact of life. This is not to say that their presence is a good thing, only that Putin and Poroshenko and, for that matter, anybody trying to get anything done over there needs to take them into account. The big difference is that while in Kiev a regime controlled by the oligarchs has been replaced by a regime of oligarchs, in Russia the oligarchy can only influence, but not control, the Kremlin. The examples, of Khodorkovsky or Evtushenkov show that the Kremlin still can, and does, smack down an oligarch when needed.

    Still, it is one thing to pick on one or two oligarchs and quite another to remove them from the Ukrainian equation: the latter is just not going to happen. So for Putin any Ukrainian strategy has to take into account the presence and, frankly, power of the Ukrainian oligarchs and their Russian counterparts.

    Rinat Leonidovych Akhmetov

    Rinat Leonidovych Akhmetov

    Putin knows that oligarchs have their true loyalty only to themselves and that their only "country" is wherever their assets happen to be. As a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for Putin this is an obvious plus, because that mindset potentially allows him to manipulate them. Any intelligence officer knows that people can be manipulated by a finite list of approaches: ideology, ego, resentment, sex, a skeleton in the closet and, of course, money. From Putin's point of view, Rinat Akhmetov , for example, is a guy who used to employ something like 200'000 people in the Donbass, who clearly can get things done, and whose official loyalty Kiev and the Ukraine is just a camouflage for his real loyalty: his money. Now, Putin does not have to like or respect Akhmetov, most intelligence officers will quietly despise that kind of person, but that also means that for Putin Akhmetov is an absolutely crucial person to talk to, explore options with and, possibly, use to achieve a Russian national strategic objective in the Donbass.

    I have already written this many times here: Russians do talk to their enemies. With a friendly smile. This is even more true for a former intelligence officer who is trained to always communicate, smile, appear to be engaging and understanding. For Putin Akhmetov is not a friend or an ally, but he is a powerful figure which can be manipulated in Russia's advantage. What I am trying to explain here is the following:

    There are numerous rumors of secret negotiations between Rinat Akhmetov and various Russian officials. Some say that Khodakovski is involved. Others mention Surkov. There is no doubt in my mind that such secret negotiations are taking place. In fact, I am sure that all the parties involved talk to all other other parties involved. Even with a disgusting, evil and vile creature like Kolomoiski. In fact, the sure signal that somebody has finally decided to take him out would be that nobody would be speaking with him any more. That will probably happen, with time, but most definitely not until his power base is sufficiently eroded.

    One Russian blogger believes that Akhmetov has already been "persuaded" (read: bought off) by Putin and that he is willing to play by the new rules which now say "Putin is boss". Maybe. Maybe not yet, but soon. Maybe never. All I am suggesting is that negotiations between the Kremlin and local Ukie oligarchs are as logical and inevitable as the US contacts with the Italian Mafia before the US armed forces entered Italy.

    But is there a 5th column in Russia?

    Yes, absolutely. First and foremost, it is found inside the Medvedev government itself and even inside the Presidential administration. Always remember that Putin was put into power by two competing forces: the secret services and big money. And yes, while it is true that Putin has tremendously weakened the "big money" component (what I call the "Atlantic Integrationists") they are still very much there, though they are more subdued, more careful and less arrogant than during the time when Medvedev was formally in charge. The big change in the recent years is that the struggle between patriots (the "Eurasian Sovereignists") and the 5th column now is in the open, but it is far from over. A nd we should never underestimate these people: they have a lot of power, a lot of money and a fantastic capability to corrupt, threaten, discredit, sabotage, cover-up, smear, etc. They are also very smart, they can hire the best professionals in the field, and they are very, very good at ugly political campaigns. For example, the 5th columnists try hard to give a voice to the National-Bolshevik opposition (both Limonov and Dugin regularly get airtime on Russian TV) and rumor has it that they finance a lot of the National-Bolshevik media (just like the Koch brothers paid for the Tea Party in the USA).

    Another problem is that while these guys are objectively doing the US CIA's bidding, there is no proof of it. As I was told many times by a wise friend: most conspiracies are really collusions and the latter are very hard to prove. But the community of interests between the US CIA and the Russian and Ukrainian oligarchy is so obvious as to be undeniable.

    The real danger for Russia

    So now we have the full picture . Again, Putin has to simultaneously contend with

    1) a strategic psyop campaign run by the US/UK & Co. which combines the corporate media's demonization of Putin and a campaign in the social media to discredit him for his passivity and lack of appropriate response to the West.
    2) a small but very vociferous group of (mostly) National-Bolsheviks (Limonov, Dugin & Co.) who have found in the Novorussian cause a perfect opportunity to bash Putin for not sharing their ideology and their "clear, simple, and wrong" "solutions".
    3) a network of powerful oligarchs who want to use the opportunity presented by the actions of first two groups to promote their own interests.
    4) a 5th column for whom all of the above is a fantastic opportunity to weaken the Eurasian Sovereignists
    5) a sense of disappointment by many sincere people who feel that Russia is acting like a passive punching-ball.
    6) an overwhelming majority of people in Novorussia who want complete ( de facto and de jure ) independence from Kiev and who are sincerely convinced that any negotiations with Kiev are a prelude to a betrayal by Russia of Novorussian interest.
    7) the objective reality that Russian and Novorussian interests are not the same.
    8) the objective reality that the AngloZionist Empire is still very powerful and even potentially dangerous.

    It is very, very, hard for Putin to try to balance these forces in such a way that the resulting vector is one which is in the strategic interest of Russia. I would argue that there is simply no other solution to this conundrum other than to completely separate Russia's official (declaratory) policy and Russia's real actions. The covert help to Novorussia – the Voentorg – is an example of that, but only a limited one because what Russia must do now goes beyond covert actions: Russia must appear to be doing one thing while doing exactly the opposite. It is in Russia's strategic interest at this point in time to appear to:

    1) Support a negotiated solution along the lines of: a unitary non-aligned Ukraine, with large regional right for all regions while, at the same time, politically opposing the regime everywhere: UN, media, public opinion, etc. and supporting both Novorussia and any Ukrainian opposition.
    2) Give Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs a reason to if not support, then at least not oppose such a solution (for ex: by not nationalizing Akhmetov's assets in the Donbass), while at the same time making sure that there is literally enough "firepower" to keep the oligarch under control.
    3) Negotiate with the EU on the actual implementation of Ukraine's Agreement with the EU while at the same time helping the Ukraine commit economic suicide by making sure that there is just the right amount of economic strangulation applied to prevent the regime from bouncing back.
    4) Negotiate with the EU and the Junta in Kiev over the delivery of gas while at the same time making sure that the regime pays enough for it to be broke.
    5) Appear generally non-confrontational towards the USA while at the same time trying as hard as possible to create tensions between the US and the EU.
    6) Appear to be generally available and willing to do business with the AngoZionist Empire while at the same time building an alternative international systems not centered on the USA or the Dollar.

    As you see, this goes far beyond a regular covert action program. What we are dealing with is a very complex, multi-layered, program to achieve the Russian most important goal in the Ukraine (regime change and de-Nazification) while inhibiting as much as possible the AngloZionists attempts to re-created a severe and long lasting East-West crisis in which the EU would basically fuse with the USA.

    Conclusion: a key to Russian policies?

    Most of us are used to think in terms of super-power categories. After all, US President from Reagan on to Obama have all served us a diet of grand statements, almost constant military operations followed by Pentagon briefings, threats, sanctions, boycotts, etc. I would argue that this has always been the hallmark of western "diplomacy" from the Crusades to the latest bombing campaign against ISIL. Russia and China have a diametrically opposed tradition. For example, in terms of methodology Lavrov always repeats the same principle: " we want to turn our enemies into neutrals, we want to turn neutrals into partner and we want to turn partners into friends ". The role of Russian diplomats is not to prepare for war, but to avoid it. Yes, Russia will fight, but only when diplomacy has failed. If for the US diplomacy is solely a means to deliver threats, for Russia it is a the primary tool to defuse them. It is therefore no wonder at all the the US diplomacy is primitive to the point of bordering on the comical. After all, how much sophistication is needed to say "comply or else". Any petty street thug know how to do that. Russian diplomats are much more akin to explosives disposal specialist or a mine clearance officer: they have to be extremely patient, very careful and fully focused. But most importantly, they cannot allow anybody to rush them lest the entire thing blows up.

    Russia is fully aware that the AngloZionist Empire is at war with her and that surrender is simply not an option any more (assuming it ever was). Russia also understands that she is not a real super-power or, even less so, an empire. Russia is only a very powerful country which is trying to de-fang the Empire without triggering a frontal confrontation with it. In the Ukraine, Russia sees no other solution than regime change in Kiev. To achieve this goal Russia will always prefer a negotiated solution to one obtained by force, even though if not other choice is left to her, she will use force. In other words:

    Russia's long term end goal is to bring down the AngloZionis Empire. Russia's mid term goal is to create the conditions for regime change in Kiev.Russia's short term goal is to prevent the junta from over-running Novorussia.Russia's preferred method to achieve these goals is negotiation with all parties involved . A prerequisite to achieve these goals by negotiations is to prevent the Empire from succeeding in creating an acute continental crisis (conversely, the imperial "deep state" fully understands all this, hence the double declaration of war by Obama and Poroshenko.)

    As long as you keep these basic principles in mind, the apparent zig-zags, contradictions and passivity of Russian policies will begin to make sense.

    It is an open question whether Russia will succeed in her goals. In theory, a successful Junta attack on Novorussia could force Russia to intervene. Likewise, there is always the possibility of yet another "false flag", possibly a nuclear one. I think that the Russian policy is sound and the best realistically achievable under the current set of circumstances, but only time will tell.

    I am sorry that it took me over 6400 words to explain all that, but in a society where most "thoughts" are expressed as "tweets" and analyses as Facebook posts, it was a daunting task to try to shed some light to what is turning to be a deluge of misunderstandings and misconceptions, all made worse by the manipulation of the social media. I feel that 60'000 words would be more adequate to this task as it is far easier to just throw out a short and simple slogan than to refute its assumptions and implications.

    My hope that at least those of you who sincerely were confused by Russia's apparently illogical stance can now connect the dots and make better sense of it all.

    Kind regards to all,

    The Saker –
    http://www.vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

    [Apr 30, 2017] Mounting Incitements to War With Russia The Nation

    Notable quotes:
    "...  Nation ..."
    "... do ..."
    "... The National Interest ..."
    "... The American Conservative ..."
    Apr 30, 2017 | www.thenation.com
     Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com ). This installment expands upon last week's, which focused on several highly questionable Washington narratives that imply the necessity of war with Russia. When later asked which of these allegations was the most dangerous, Cohen responds, in this installment, that their number is increasing and with them the risk of war. He itemizes the Cold War narratives, or allegations, now propounded by the US political-media establishment:

    - That Moscow's reaction to the Ukrainian crisis three years ago justifies NATO's highly provocative buildup on Russia's borders today in order to prevent the Kremlin's intended aggression against small East European states.

    - That Russian President Putin's "hijacking" of the 2016 US presidential election to put Donald Trump in the White House was "an act of war against American democracy" that requires a requisite response.

    - That Syrian President Assad's recent use of chemical weapons necessitated Trump's missile attack against Syria, whose leader is closely allied with Russia.

    - That the Kremlin is now directing a massive campaign of cyber-attacks and propaganda at elections across Europe in order to bring to power its favored candidates, such as Marine Le Pen in France, in countries allied with the United States, thereby undermining the trans-Atlantic alliance and even NATO itself.

    - And most recently, that the Kremlin is colluding with the Taliban to defeat the United States in Afghanistan.

    Cohen makes three general points about these Washington narratives:

    - Individually and collectively, they further militarize the new Cold War and generate Russophobic analyses in the American political-media establishment that incite the possibility of actual war.

    - As of now, there is still no actual evidence for several of these allegations. For example, that Putin directed a cyber-hacking operation that abetted Trump's presidential campaign or that he is doing the same on behalf of favored European candidates today. Or that Assad was behind the recent chemical-weapons episode in Syria. Or that Moscow has aggressive military intentions in Eastern Europe. Moreover, to the extent the Kremlin uses propaganda, or "soft power," on behalf of American and European candidates, this is scarcely different from decades of US meddling in elections around the world, including in Russia. In any event, the effect of "Russian propaganda" is wildly exaggerated, assuming as it does that democratic citizens are easily swayed by such "weaponized information," as though they are highly susceptible zombies. (The allegation itself reveals a kind of contempt for the political intelligence of citizens of American and other Western democracies.)

    - And third, in the past, critical, fact-checking US mainstream media acted as a filter between these kinds of politically inspired allegations and their warfare impact on policy-making. For the most part, they no longer do so but instead amplify and promote such narratives. Cohen cites several alternative media outlets that do offer trans-partisan contrarian facts and analyses, among them The Nation , The National Interest , The American Conservative , Consortiumnews , the Intercept , and Tucker Carlson's evening hour on Fox News. (Many of these alternative reports are posted at eastwestaccord.com , the website of the American Committee for East-West Accord, of which Cohen is a board member.) But they scarcely offset the almost monopolistic impact of major establishment newspapers and broadcasts "inside the beltway."

    Cohen concludes with two recent developments that are emerging as additional orthodox narratives in Washington. One involves the longstanding, and largely false, narrative that Moscow alone has prevented implementation of the Minsk Accords for resolving the Ukrainian civil and proxy war. In fact, the US-backed government in Kiev has mainly thwarted the agreement by refusing to implement its obligations. Now, despite the harm done to its own already crippled economy, Kiev is expanding its blockade of Russian-backed rebel territories to include vital energy supplies. Some observers think it is doing so to placate ultra-right forces on which it is politically dependent. Another possibility, Cohen thinks, is to provoke Putin's Kremlin into some drastic political or military action that would revive waning support for Kiev in Washington and in Europe. If so, this too could lead to a US-Russian military conflict.

    The other new allegation is that Moscow is colluding with the Taliban against the very long US war effort in Afghanistan. No doubt, Moscow, like Washington, carries on behind-the-scenes discussions with factions of the Taliban in search of a way to extricate itself from the war or to limit its broader impact. But anyone at all familiar with the Russian national-security elite knows it desperately fears an American military withdrawal from Afghanistan, which would leave Moscow alone to withstand the flow of radical jihadists and heroin into Russia through Central Asia. Indeed, the flood of cheap heroin into Russia, which Washington promised to diminish but has not, has already caused a growing epidemic of addiction and AIDS that is well beyond the government's capacity to cope with it.

    Here too, as with other bipartisan anti-Russian narratives in Washington, there are neither facts nor logic. Historically, such narratives have played a major role in the onset of war between great powers. This may now be unfolding in US-Russian relations. Very few members of Congress, the Trump administration, or the mainstream media have spoken against these warfare narratives, which continue to mount

    [Apr 30, 2017] Personal message from Xi Jinping to Vladimir Putin our friendship is unbreakable The Vineyard of the Saker

    Notable quotes:
    "... Currently of course we're witnessing the entire foreign policy of the United States sliding down to the floor. If we survive the experience, a useful education may occur. ..."
    "... This immense vital message tells us how USA has played China, Russia and Iran very close to each others. These three have now common interests. It's quite the same when Hitler pushed Churchill, FDR and Stalin to co-operate. ..."
    "... Will Russia and China (once again) fall for the West's trick of using sanctions. We shall see, but the track record isn't very good for them. A "rule of thumb" that Russia and China should think of is, "if a UN resolution favors the West in any way. ..."
    "... Just how many times have Western powers (especially the US) used sanctions against the interests of Russia and China. The list is almost endless. And for a country herself under idiotic Western sanctions (she would be under UN sanctions ,but for Russia and China having a UNSC veto power),Russia voting for sanctions on another country is worse than foolish. ..."
    "... China actively supports neoliberal globalisation and cannot be trusted. It has deep interconnected trade and investment relations with USA. It is highly unlikely that China will ever move against Multinational corporations or against USA. ..."
    "... I don't know how likely it is for China to move against the US, but Xi Jinping certainly knows that the US is moving against China. ..."
    Apr 30, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Anonymous on April 27, 2017 , · at 11:45 pm UTC
    The fifth column and the central bank is sufficient to break Russia's back. What good is S500 if the main enemy is within the gates.
    Valentine on April 28, 2017 , · at 4:55 am UTC
    To be fair, but there is no friendship between nations, and those that believe it needs to stop watching cartoons and live in the real world. Each country is a psychopath that only looks after its own national interests, no countries has friends.

    The only responsibility a state has is to its own people, not to other states, if one state finds it beneficial to its people to make agreements with another states they will do so, but if a better agreement comes up from another state, they will throw the previous state under the buss. There is no friendship between states, the state loyalty is to its own people. At least, a functional state, EU will often talk about "friendship" with USA, and then act as the USA state wants against the interests of the EU peoples, but this is not the behavior of a functional state, this is the behavior of a corrupt state, a functional state will dump any other state if a agreement that would more benefit its people would show up.

    And this is what Putin would do, he is not friends with China. And China is not friends with him. They have a several mutual beneficial agreements and they are both under a common threat so they work together.

    For example Russia has thrown Iran under the buss several times, when Russia allowed USA sanctions to put on Iran, when denying to sell Iran S-300 missiles after USA made them a better deal, despite Iran and Russia already having signed the agreement, Russia just threw Iran under the buss as if it was nothing, in this case, it was quite literal as well, as Iran desperately needed those missiles to ward off an attack from NATO that could have killed millions of Iranians, but Russia saw a better deal and left Iran in the dust.. Another example is that Russia constantly allows IAF to bomb Assad, when they could step in a anytime and put an end to it. But Russia and IAF has made a deal behind Assad's back. In this scenario, Russia is like a friend that has agree that it is ok for certain people to beat up her friends when they want.. As I said, states has no friends only interests.

    It is also worth to note that while China talks of "friendship" they barely do anything, Russia is fighting NATO in Syria, in Ukraine, in Donbas, in Crimea, and China is barely able to say a support word as Russia fights for her survival.

    Alexander the Great on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:25 am UTC
    Wrong .you seem to think of a state as a person. Like somehow a state makes decisions. No it is people in power who have a vested interest who make decisions under cover of a state. The State is their cover, excuse, and savior when they screw up, and the mechanism they will use to get the citizenry to pay for their mistakes. It's no different than how corporations are used and how a corporation has somehow morphed into a person. Where a corporation can be charged with a crime but the people who made the corporations decisions are innocent. Don't be fooled into thinking that those in power under cover of a state actually care about the citizenry they do not..at all care. Not one bit. Human nature is such that sociopaths and psychopaths are those that rise to power there is not a leader in all of history that did not fall under one or both. There has never been a leader who killed for his people .only for the leaders own self interest and the interests of those who keep him/her in power ..Period ..it's just the way we as humans are wired.
    Mish on April 28, 2017 , · at 8:09 am UTC
    Wrong! It's just this belief that this is "the way we, humans, are wired," that makes these things possible, and makes it possible for these things to regress further. A state really is like a person. The prevaling mores of each individual person and all the persons of the state make up the prevailing mores of the state. It works both ways. But a nation of fierce individualists and egoists will never get a government of angels who "care" for the people. A nation of insouciant, self-centred people gets a government that will manipulate these people unconscionably, while making sure they remain insouciant and self-centred. Etc. Ultimately it's just like this popular adage goes: "everything depends on you." It's hackneyed but true
    Vor on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:15 am UTC
    Generalized principles do not apply to statecraft, the 'left' constantly make such assertions about state policy as if it is uniform in every case. Much depends on the particulars of a state, there are obvious similarities & tendencies as there would be with any institution, but institutions of the same category – such as the family – differ in accordance with all the variables effecting them. So what motivates the government of Iran can not be said to be the same for the US, & then there are the internal divisions & factions. The Russia-China strategic partnership/alliance is a lot more than mere convenience or opportunism along the lines of my enemy's enemy is my friend type of logic. It is clear that Russia & China share a vision of the world, they share a commitment to establishing a multipolar world order based on principles of adherence to international law. From that perspective, it can be said that theirs is a truly principled relationship, irrespective of all the cynical machiniations that both state's governments are regularly hostage to. The Russian & Chinese leadership are obviously doing what they believe to be in the best interest of their respective societies, but it is clear that their mutual interest also happens to be harmonious & complimentary with the interests of the entire world at this point. That is how I would characterize it, it is not about holding hands & singling & dancing in a circle, but it can not be dismissed either as just momentary self-interest on the part of Russia & China to partner up at this time, because of the intensive pressure they are under from the West. Lavrov mentioned a post West world recently, well that world is not far off in the making & when it arrives we will see how the Russia-China strategic relationship evolves, that will be the test, when the external pressures are removed, will they continue on the same course? I believe they will, for the reason of shared long-term vision, China in particular has not short-term point of view, their perspective is always long-term.
    Tony Rossini on April 29, 2017 , · at 1:51 pm UTC
    Good comment Vor .that's how I see the Russian & Chinese relationship!
    Jacky on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:16 pm UTC
    "Wrong .you seem to think of a state as a person. "

    -I think you should read the comment again, that is exactly what she is NOT doing, she is criticizing the usage of the term "friendship" as friendship is a term used to describe the relationship between two or more persons, not states.

    Persons are friends, states are not friends.

    Ad on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:17 pm UTC
    It is worth pointing out that the article is speaking of the two leaders and the friendship that exists between them personally. read the first paragraph again.
    Mike on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:42 am UTC
    You are right here about China
    Unfortunately they will do only the minimum
    necessary support for Russia to be friends with them
    That could change though if China will be targeted by the US more aggressively
    Than the Chinese may get really together with the Russians to fight of the Cabal
    Ad on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:16 pm UTC
    A fairly basic realist (from a Security perspective) interpretation of a state and the manner in which they conduct their relationships. The same realist point of view that has held US foreign policy in its trend for the last 50 odd years.

    There are other methods that can be used to both inform and interpret the actions of a state in its inter-state actions.

    Regarding one of the other responses, corporations didn't 'somehow' manage to 'morph' into a person, rather the assets of a corporation had to be 'reachable' in the event some kind of restitution or damages was required for actions that went against the interests of the community or individuals with whom they came into contact with. An individual manager has little of value when compared to the damages that may be sought. It's simply that one was followed by two then three that we ended up where we are now. We want individuals to be held criminally responsible for an action but when it comes to damages we want to be able to access a corporations assets. Can't seem to have them both easily and it behooves some to dance the narrow line between the two.

    When a discussion takes place that speaks of states as 'friends' it is a simplified use of language to explain that they share common interests and seek to work together towards a shared goal. As to how a 'state' can make a decision, it is by simply adhering to internal laws, regulations and norms that have been put in place by the apparatus of government and bureaucrats (civilian or military does not matter) the world over follow. Administrative Tribunals exist in many countries to ensure that these processes are followed as they are written. It is people making decisions, but doing so within very strict confines permitted by the state as it has been created in law.

    ­
    BRF on April 29, 2017 , · at 2:40 pm UTC
    Aye, each country is dominated by its plutocrats who may or may not see a mutual advantage to working with the plutocrats that dominate another country. Behind these oligarchs sits an even greater power holding entity of an international order that can advance one set of oligarchs and hold back another. This entity is of course an international cabal of the very few bankers who have commandeered the central banks of almost all nations of this world and own the omnipotent power to create money and credit as debt all owed to themselves. These bankers certainly own the central banks of All the major political powers as represented by their national oligarchy. While these bankers must tread lightly in some jurisdictions should their looting machine apparatus become so annoying that the local oligarchs nationalize this looting system for their own survival in other jurisdictions these bankers hold full power over the political and economy so that they have become unassailable except through a popular revolution.
    Anonymous on April 27, 2017 , · at 9:35 pm UTC
    "Regardless of the circumstances, we will not change our policy of deepening and developing our strategic partnership and cooperation"

    What could those "circumstances" be? War!

    My interpretation of the statement: if any of the two countries goes to war, or is forced into a war, the other country will continue to support it economically and possibly militarily. It may very likely even increase its support in substitution of the international markets lost due to the war.

    Rikko on April 27, 2017 , · at 9:40 pm UTC
    The Chinese know which way the winds are blowing. The idea that China, with all its aspirations which inevitably collide with American imperial resistance, would abandon Putin in this critical moment in history is fanciful to say the least.

    Eurasia is a geopolitical certainty the question for us all is how we will get there.

    paul on April 27, 2017 , · at 10:19 pm UTC
    I think this column is basically nonsense. Xi wouldn't have had to send this weak message of solidarity to Putin if there weren't a real problem between them. China's geopolitical turn around since meeting with Trump has been astounding. Xi's attitude towards Obama seemed to be very challenging. His attitude around Trump and since meeting with Trump has appeared to be that of a vassal eager to please. I would say that Xi's behavior has been even more embarrassing, far more embarrassing, really, than Medvedev's puppy-like behavior when he met with Obama.

    Need I even mention that Xi seemed to have sat there with a happy smile on his face while Trump informed Xi over desert that Trump was just then in the process of bombing Xi's ally and his ally's (Russia's) ally, Syria? Not only did Xi show every sign of loving this demeaning treatment, but seemingly in response to it, he rushed home to do Trump's bidding in terms of really sticking it to North Korea.

    Xi was a bit of a mystery before his high profile meeting with Trump, just as Medvedev was before he met with Obama. No longer. The man has shown his character and it appears to be truly despicable. Say what you want about Putin, he does seem to have some guts. I would guess that no amount of 'special' messages sent from Xi to Putin will wipe away the stink of eager vassalage that Xi reeks of now. I'm sure Putin is nauseated by Xi at this point, but Putin remains, as ever, a deal-maker. If he can pretend to be best pals with Erdogan and Netanyahu, I'm sure he can do the same with Xi.

    And just as Medvedev showed Obama how eager to please Obama he was by going along with the assault on Libya, Xi seems to want to show Trump how eager to please Xi is by going along with some sort of assault on North Korea.

    Xi, we hardly knew yee.

    Marco on April 27, 2017 , · at 10:57 pm UTC
    Fairly clear that Russia and China have a mutual defense pact in the event the "balloon goes up"

    Interestingly it seems that China and North Korea also have a mutual defense treaty.

    http://www.greanvillepost.com/2017/04/27/china_nokoreadefensetreaty/

    The danger is that, whereas Kim and Xi both have control over their military, Trump does not.

    Valentine on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:44 am UTC
    Oh come on, China wont even raise its voice as Trump fires missiles at Russian troops in Syria, you think China is going to engage in a war and lose hundreds of millions of its citizens for Russia? Not a chance. The best thing Russia could hope for would be some covert support. Indeed, China might even relish the prospect of Russia and China exterminating each other in a thermonuclear war, that would leave China as the worlds new power.
    SanctuaryOne on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:38 am UTC
    Did you mean the USA there? Thermonuclear radiation and fallout has a nasty habit of not staying within geographical borders, messing up the weather, reducing populations that buy stuff and generally interfering with business.
    Robert Magill on April 27, 2017 , · at 11:21 pm UTC
    Trump is an American. He was elected president in America. As an American I understand the difficulty that imposes on him to ever stand apart from the American world view. This view sees all countries as rivals and if any nation is not beholden it is treated as enemy. It's the American way of life. This view is ingrained in us all from childhood and reiterated daily with media slanting and obfuscation. Our national mind set and resultant negative actions will lead to A. atomic exchange or B. drift to second world status.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    falcemartello on April 28, 2017 , · at 1:25 am UTC
    If you are referring to the United States of Amnesia ,i'm sure you are right on that account. It appears that pax-americana is looking more like the Rocky and Bullwinkle show. It only works for their domestic audience, and their vassal states. Any other country is no longer paying any attention. Old Slavic saying threats are more signs of weakness than strength.
    Serbian girl on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:01 am UTC
    So much for Trumps feelings of "chemistry" with Xi

    Apart from Kremlin transcript, have Chinese official channels puplished anything?

    TNY on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:06 am UTC
    Hi Serbian girl

    The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published on its website an article about Putin meeting Li Zhanshu:

    http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/web/zyxw/t1457207.shtml

    It is in Chinese. I suppose they'll soon publish translations in English and other languages – the website is in five languages.

    The article contains sentences that are very close to the transcript quoted above.

    Anonymous on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:43 am UTC
    TNY, brilliant, thanks for sharing!
    Serbian girl on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:44 am UTC
    TNY, brilliant, thanks for sharing!
    Larchmonter445 on April 28, 2017 , · at 1:41 pm UTC
    Here's a Yandex translation of the Chinese article linked above:
    Local time in 2017, 4 on 26 May, Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow Kremlin to meet with the CPC Central Committee and the Politburo, the Central Secretariat Secretary, Central Office Director Li gauntlet.

    Mr. Putin invited Mr. Li to convey his on President XI Jinping's sincere greetings and good wishes, and said that the current Russia-China high-level exchanges closely, each of the areas of mechanisms of exchange steadily, economic, cultural, local and other cooperation, the increasingly in-depth.

    The two sides in major international regional Affairs, communication and coordination fruitful. The Russian side on bilateral relations development and the two sides mutual trust and cooperation to achieve the highest level of satisfaction. The Russian side actively respond to the Chinese"one belt and one road"initiative.

    I look forward to 5 months of China to attend the"one belt and one road"international cooperation summit Forum and with President XI Jinping to meet.

    Mr. Li conveyed President XI Jinping to President Putin's cordial greetings and good wishes, and stressed that China-Russia comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership in the history of the best period, is to win-win cooperation as the core of the new national relationship model.

    Sino-Russian relations is Mature, stable, maintain a high level of development. Regardless of the international situation changes, both sides adhere to consolidate and deepen the comprehensive strategic cooperative partnership approach will not change, committed to achieve common development, revitalization of the target does not change, work together to defend International Fair justice and world peace and stability determination will not change.

    President XI Jinping look forward to Mr. President 5 months in China to attend the"one belt and one road"international cooperation summit Forum.

    Mr. Li pointed out that the CPC Central Committee and the President of Russia Executive Office of the cooperation mechanisms in the two countries respective foreign exchanges are unique, reflecting the relations between China and Russia high level and specificity.

    We would like to join the Russian side together, and jointly promote the two the Office of the exchanges and cooperation carried out in-depth, the better the service the two heads of state diplomacy and the Sino-Russian relations development the overall situation. Parties to be involved in each other's core interests and major concerns continue to support each other, on the existing basis of further deepening the areas of cooperation, the implementation of the strategic large projects, promote bilateral pragmatic cooperation to a comprehensive, wide-ranging, high-level and constantly move forward.

    On the same day, Li gauntlet with the Russian President, the Office of the Director of the watts Eno talks, and met with Russian President environmental, ecological and traffic Affairs, the Special Representative of Ivanov, will strengthen their exchanges and cooperation in-depth communication, and of common concern international and regional issues exchange of views.

    It's a bit stilted as machine translations are, but the content is very comprehensible.

    TNY on April 29, 2017 , · at 12:18 pm UTC
    The official English translation of the article is now available.

    http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjdt_665385/wshd_665389/t1457647.shtml

    TRM on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:25 am UTC
    Translated version:
    Dear Mr Trump. We know that without the US dollars as the world's reserve currency your empire crumbles. We know in Eurasia that we can do business without it. We are not going to subsidize your military so it can conquer us. Have a nice day.
    James lake on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:16 am UTC
    Messages to TrumpHillary in the White House.

    They made some speech about Russia's isolation at the UN – stating that not even China will support them.
    The White House announced this as an achievement of TrumpHillary 100 days.

    Well after this statement from Xi, the USA has achieved even greater cooperation between Russia and China.

    The great deal maker has failed again.

    WizOz on April 28, 2017 , · at 10:12 am UTC
    It is because Russia and China are the adults in the game and don't let themselves swayed by the infantile tantrums of clueless morons.
    James lake on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:23 am UTC
    Hello Saker

    Listened to you interviewed by Bonnie Faulkner on Guns and Butter
    Will you be discussing this further good points made

    Valentine on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:40 am UTC
    "Chinese President Xi Jinping sends personal message of friendship to Russian President Putin on China's behalf, scotching attempt by US to make trouble between them."

    -That is certainly a interpretation, but if you want to talk of messages, the fact that China didn't even condemn USA illegal strike against Syria would be a much greater message.

    The message being "We support you Trump, we are submissive, you can to others as you please, we wont even raise our voice"

    James lake on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:30 am UTC
    This is the latest from TrumpHillary

    Here is this news again, but as reported Moscow in English on the TASS English service:

    "President Trump has stood up to countries that have threatened our national security after years of failed diplomacy. During his first 100 days, the President has sent a message to the world with his swift and decisive order to strike the Syrian air base that launched a horrific chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians",the White House press service said in a statement.

    According to the statement, Trump "further isolated Syria and Russia at the United Nations through successful diplomacy with President Xi Jinping of China".
    In addition, Trump "imposed sanctions on Syria" and "worked to isolate North Korea".

    See: White House boasts it 'isolated Russia' at UN
    April 28, 6:07 UTC+3

    James lake on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:44 am UTC
    The Latest from Rex Tillerson

    U.S. Secretary of state Rex Tillerson has said during an interview with radio station NPR that during his visit to Russia in April, 2017, Moscow and Washington had failed to resolve any issues and no further meeting had been arranged.

    According to Tillerson, Russia needs to decide if she wants to become a "positive part of the global world order, not its undermining".

    The meeting achieved nothing as the USA are basically saying Russia has to do what they want. And Russia said no at the highest level

    Where do we go fro here?

    BobNZ on April 28, 2017 , · at 10:20 am UTC
    Russia needs to do a lot better at presenting a credible case.
    The Sarin gas attack is a good example. The most obvious culprit is the Syrian Gov, they were bombing the area, the opposition was killed and the Gov clearly has the ability to produce the gas. It is therefore on the Russian /Syrian side to produce some evidence to the contrary. There was a scenario put forward that a warehouse storing gas was hit and this warehouse was being used to
    transit the gas between Syria and Iraq. Great so they know all about it. Wheres the evidence? No evidence whatsoever was given and so how can China possibly back that scenario?
    Really Trump did the right thing by bombing Syria. The school of hard knocks. Maybe next time Russia/Syria will get their story straight.
    MarkU on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:43 am UTC
    "The Sarin gas attack is a good example. The most obvious culprit is the Syrian Gov, they were bombing the area"

    The Syrian government are far from the most obvious culprits. First off they have no motive, the consequences would have been entirely predictable and obviously contrary to their interests. Secondly it has not been demonstrated they currently even possess chemical weapons. Thirdly, there has been at least one similar attempt to frame them. Fourth, there is expert evidence that demonstrates that the incident did not happen as advertised. Lastly the US government says the Syrian government did it, and based on the events of the last few decades, the chances that they are telling the truth are vanishingly small. True there are probably a few insignificant lies that they somehow omitted to tell but nobody is infallible.

    The other side clearly had means (it is known they possess and even regularly use chemical weapons) motive (they were losing and wanted to get the US involved) and opportunity (they control the area)

    BobNZ on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:24 pm UTC
    I can accept all that, but what really happened?
    Putin tells us that the Syrians hit a rebel warehouse filled with Sarin. Assad debunks this theory and says it was all faked, never happened and no one was gassed.
    The Western public is not going to easily believe that the rebels gassed themselves.
    This event has huge media attention. Everything is at stake here. If the Russians have any intel or evidence this is the time to bring it. No use hiding behind not wanting to revel how they collect their information.
    larry, dfh on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:40 pm UTC
    Really? The right thing to violate international law and create destruction in a sovereign nation, based on absolutely no evidence? Syria is guilty because they didn't scream loud enough that they are not? None of the western leaders would listen anyway.
    The true entities violating the law are the US and Israel. Any argument presented by them can automatically be considered obfuscation and mis-direction. None of their actions are noble, and none of their concerns are sincere.
    Basil on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:58 am UTC
    I'm waiting for them to mention a Norwegian Blue parrot in one of their news releases. It's getting harder to differentiate Trump's spin doctors from Monty Python sketch writers. They both make jokes but only one is not cursed at the end. And it's this one.

    Enjoy.

    speeder on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:59 am UTC
    This I read between the lines:

    "Our friendship is unbreakable of course on our terms, which are to do with free access to last unspoilt landmass and it´s pristine nature and resources.
    We´ll build whatever infrastructure you like, and by doing that, we will spread our sphere to all Russia.
    That is our big price. While we do this, we gladly call you our "big brother" and "greatest friend of all"." China is boa constrictor

    Zut Alors -- on April 28, 2017 , · at 8:58 am UTC
    The chabad lubavitz cult of kushner/ivanka that got trump to bomb Syria, which even bibi was unable to do despite sarin/missile false flags actually believes their turkic-slav khazar rebbe schneerson was the MOLIECH (ie the Messiah, instead of Jesus Christ) and that he will be coming back during these end times. Sephardi Rabbid Ovadia dismissed shneerson as an old jew not a messiah but we have a deluded messianics all over Israel. Putin has removed their first strike delusions by simply making it clear their tribesmen in israel,NY,SF and Golders Green,London (approx 70%) will be FIRST to be targeted if their chucktodds,mahers,blitzers,madcows,etc in the owned MSM ever starts ramping up a first strike against Russia.
    WizOz on April 28, 2017 , · at 10:21 am UTC
    You may be right. Rabbi Shlomo Dovber Pinchas Lazar, the Chabad chief in Russia is a 'personal friend' of Putin and an 'Italian Jewish Orthodox' might have whispered something to the ears of the Lubavitcher in charge with the Offal Orifice.
    Jonathan David on April 28, 2017 , · at 6:44 pm UTC
    This is correct. It's actually quite amusing. The Lubavitchers have been transformed from a Jewish cult into a Christian cult.
    Anonymous on April 28, 2017 , · at 9:10 am UTC
    This was a message (warning?) for Trump, not Putin. Why otherwise publicize a supposedly personal message?
    Con on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:18 am UTC
    I first went to Zhongguo, aka China, in autumn 2002 to Shandong, Wei Fang, Shouguang. A small city but important in flower and vegetable production. So important that there is an annual flower and vegetable expo every year. I was then the first native English teacher ever at the prestigious Shouguang Yi Zhong (Yi = No. 1, Zhong = middle) Yi Zhong is the No. 1 Middle School. When I arrived it was the 1st day of the 42nd anniversary of the school and I was given a royal reception because I was the chosen companion, during the whole week of the anniversary celebration, of the Secretary of Shandong. The Supreme leader of the province
    that had, and still has, the 2nd highest GDP of the whole of China. That school had produced many party higher officials over many years in Beijing.
    That city like many cities I visited as guest of numerous officials, in the years of 2002/2003, had many Russians there too. The Russians were very conspicuous but their numbers dwindled throughout the reign of Hu Jintao. Even when Xi ascended the throne of Emperor very few Russians were around. Even in recent times in my travels up until l left in September 2017 Russians were not so common. I lived and traveled in China continuously from September 2002 to September 2017. However the Russian people most famously known during the rule of Emperor Hu were criminals that took over Sanya on Hai Nan Island. Yet it was Emperor Hu that enforced Mao's doctrines on the whole of the 'party' and Russians , other than the gangs were very inconspicuous, being quite quiet tho' still there. Emperor Hu gave the people the right to borrow from banks thereby ending the repute of the greatest savers on the planet.
    We know that the Remin Ying Hang, the Peoples' Bank, was previously run by Rothschilds of the ilk if the current Central Bankers but somehow they got deposed and replaced by Rothschilds breakaways as was the case in Russia. In fact it seems that the Rothschilds progressives in Moscow took the Peoples' Bank with them.
    I suggest that is the underlying situation between the two emerperors, Putin & Xi. I could be very wrong but having lived there and mixed it up with many chinese business people and officials over a decade and more thru the reign of 3 emperors that's my conclusion.
    I wish to ad something I've not seen shared in any news media about China. What outside China people mostly don't know is that if a start up company employs people and contributes to the local economy for a few years they receive a Zero tax bill. They must submit their monthly report to the local tax office but no tax payment is required. Not only that but their local government will promote and pay for that business to attend national expos. My friend in shenzhen who makes computer software and hardware, employs 10 people, has been sent to a huge expo in Shanghai, all expenses paid by the Shenzhen government for the 2nd year in a row. He's there now. But the government sends him, all expenses paid, to all the major expos in China as they do for all businesses including the biggest such as Huawei and Tencent. In fact the big names don't pay tax either nor do they need to pay for real estate, and more. Just thought you'd be interested to know.
    Emperor Xi needs Putin's audacity for OBOR plus the gold and all, just as Mao needed them, full circle. The last year or so the Russians were becoming conspicuous again as China's folly with the west began to wane. I taught in a big scam university there last year and there were more Russian teachers coming each year. Scam university is where students who fail the annual university entrance exam can pay a large sum to get past their failure. The university is a subsidiary of a famous university run as a business by the famous university's faculty. Such campuses are the new big biz in China internal education. Yet to be a foreign teacher in China no such chicanery is allowed, well Beijing and Shanghai are exceptions. Basically China has to have people from many countries that can actually do what they trained for because the locals who studied in China can't.
    J on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:52 pm UTC
    I agree!
    1. I prefer the exceptional america way: Hiring cheap labor from oversea, and hiding tax off shore. Hell to the local population. America has wall street to produce finical products, and has art of making people hate each other overseas so its sell killing machines are hot items for export. Chinese should do same.

    2. I also prefer American colleges charging arm and leg (some over $60,000 a year), or local community colleges who has a no drop policy to any one who passed GED (a test that eastern Europeans and east Asians can pass in their sleep), But I agree Chinese should not provide the youth who fell to pass official entrance examine a college education for a fee.

    3. I agree only exceptional American can hire talent overseas to do things the can not do, but Chinese should not resort to the same practice

    Sioxx on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:21 am UTC
    There is a prediction I slightly remember: "When China sends Troups [for support?] to Russia the end of the known World is near."

    Never thought this can come true and the more less I thought this troups can be a friendly support from China to Russia.

    eimar on April 28, 2017 , · at 11:47 am UTC
    Good clarification following Trumpet' s ' chocolate cake' idiocy.

    It seemed pretty clear to me that Xi was deflecting from, not endorsing Trumpet' s action in Syria.

    Of course Trumpet, ever one to brag, spun it in his favour.

    A transcript of an AP interview with Trumpet is revealing on a number of issues:

    https://apnews.com/c810d7de280a47e88848b0ac74690c83

    Some of those are:

    Trumpet has the vocabulary and delivery of a third-rate actor with ADD – nowhere more evident than on the subject of foreign policy.
    ( He has ' great chemistry' with just about every foreign leader – except NK' s bad- boy and Assad. But maybe that will change )

    He is at his most coherent when discussing ' deals' which result in ' savings' in the domestic sphere. A subject he is.most comfortable with and which is arguably his only ' expertise'. How that translates into overall welfare is far from clear )

    He uses this area of familiarity to self- promote.

    He is obsessed with ' bad PR' : again, much more articulate on the MSM' s hostility. ( And losing no.opportunity to question the failure of investigative agencies to pursue lines of enquiry on the DNC/ Clinton.)

    One glimmer of shrewdness beneath the bombast: the noting of the FBI – supposedly operating in ' national interest' using the services of a private firm ( Crowd strike), run by a ' rich Ukrainian'. So indicating that when it comes to attacks on his own credibility, he is not quite so ' inattentive.'

    Overall, I get the impression that foreign policy is something of ' nuisance' , to be dealt with only because of its interference with his domestic agenda.

    Let's hope he becomes disabused of that notion soon, or the neocons/ pay- for- players will continue to use state- apparatus for their own murderous ends.

    Grieved on April 28, 2017 , · at 1:24 pm UTC
    This is all good observation. I agree with your thought that Trump is a domestic president with little patience or taste for the international sphere. But it is said that a thing always happens to presidents and other national leaders, namely that the allure of the international is so strong, and it's so easy to grandstand and make popular points in this sphere, that they all become seduced away from their domestic focus.

    I continue to think that Trump's style is to surround himself with people who have ideas and schemes, and throw them all at the refrigerator, as one can with pasta to see if it's cooked. Whatever sticks to the fridge is a winner, whatever slides down to the floor is not.

    Currently of course we're witnessing the entire foreign policy of the United States sliding down to the floor. If we survive the experience, a useful education may occur. But I'm dismayed to find Trump apply this method to global security. His naivety seems as outsized as everything else about him.

    Jean-David on April 28, 2017 , · at 1:15 pm UTC
    We Quakers often say, "Speak truth to power." That used to have some effect. But things have changed for the worse. I cannot speak on behalf of Quakers, but it seems to me that power is not listening, so speaking truth to it is no more effective than speaking truth to a brick wall.
    Anonymous on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:34 pm UTC
    You might not be surprised to learn that most of the Quakers are not what they used to be either. What a corrupt world this is.
    vot tak on April 28, 2017 , · at 2:01 pm UTC
    The more I hear Assad speak, the more my respect for this man grows.

    Trump is puppet of US 'deep state,' has no 'own' foreign policy – Assad

    https://www.rt.com/usa/386395-trump-us-puppet-assad/

    "Trump pursues "no own policies" but only executes the decisions made by the "intelligence agencies, the Pentagon, the big arms manufacturers, oil companies, and financial institutions," the Syrian leader said in an exclusive interview with TeleSUR.

    "As we have seen in the past few weeks, he changed his rhetoric completely and subjected himself to the terms of the deep American state, or the deep American regime," Assad added.

    He referred to the fact that Trump came to power on a political platform promising a departure from the interventionist policy of the previous US president, Barack Obama, but soon forgot his promises and ordered a missile strike against the Syrian air base following a chemical weapons incident in Syria's Idlib province.

    The Syrian president also said that it is "a complete waste of time to make an assessment of the American president's foreign policy" as "he might say something" but what he really does depends on "what these [US military and business] institutions dictate to him."

    He also added that it "is not new" and "has been ongoing American policy for decades."

    "This is what characterizes American politicians: they lie on a daily basis That's why we shouldn't believe what the Pentagon or any other American institution says because they say things which serve their policies, not things which reflect reality and the facts on the ground," Assad told TeleSUR.

    He went on to say that the US continues to pursue its age-long policy aimed at establishing and maintaining a global hegemony by turning all countries that oppose it into war zones.

    "The United States always seeks to control all the states of the world without exception. It does not accept allies, regardless of whether they are developed states as those in the Western bloc or other states of the world," the Syrian leader explained.

    He also added that "what is happening to Syria, to Korea, to Iran, to Russia, and maybe to Venezuela now, aims at re-imposing American hegemony on the world because they believe that this hegemony is under threat now, which consequently threatens the interests of American economic and political elites."

    Assad expressed similar views in an interview with Russia's Sputnik news agency about a week ago. "The regime in the United States hasn't changed," he said, adding, "since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has been attacking different countries in different ways without taking into consideration the Security Council or the United Nations."

    He also said that for the US, "the end justifies the means, no values, no morals at all, anything could happen."

    Mathias on April 28, 2017 , · at 4:09 pm UTC
    This immense vital message tells us how USA has played China, Russia and Iran very close to each others. These three have now common interests. It's quite the same when Hitler pushed Churchill, FDR and Stalin to co-operate.

    Do you really believe that Marshal Mannerheim of Finland was great admirer of Hitler? Heck no. He actually was looking forward to have military alliance with USSR before Finno-Russo Winter War. What's even more amazing Mannerheim told to General Talvela in 1941: "Remember that Germany is our greatest threat".

    So there are always short-term alliances. What never dies out is geopolitics. On the other hand China is so immense super power and Confucianism way of focusing world that i won't see it as "new America". They understand the idea of multilateralism and multipolar global future. Last 5 000 years of history are backing my idea. For me China is stabilizing power world really needs.

    Nobody on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:47 pm UTC
    Without China's political and monetary support, Russia would not be able to confront the US/EU at the same time. Just because you don't hear or see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening. China's basically FINANCING Russia's front in Syria and Ukraine. Don't underestimate this.
    Frankie on April 28, 2017 , · at 7:06 pm UTC
    "China's basically FINANCING Russia's front in Syria and Ukraine. Don't underestimate this."

    Is there documents confirming that claim? I tend to agree with you but missing real clear evidence too.

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 28, 2017 , · at 5:53 pm UTC
    It "could" be bad news coming out of the UN. They are "debating" further sanctions, on probably the most sanctioned country on earth, North Korea. As I read in a comment on anther article, "unless they are sanctioning water and air, what is left for them to sanction in North Korea".

    Will Russia and China (once again) fall for the West's trick of using sanctions. We shall see, but the track record isn't very good for them. A "rule of thumb" that Russia and China should think of is, "if a UN resolution favors the West in any way. Its a bad one for you to support".

    Just how many times have Western powers (especially the US) used sanctions against the interests of Russia and China. The list is almost endless. And for a country herself under idiotic Western sanctions (she would be under UN sanctions ,but for Russia and China having a UNSC veto power),Russia voting for sanctions on another country is worse than foolish.

    An abstention by Russia and China isn't enough in this case. If a vote is called on more sanctions they should veto that vote. Do the UN countries "really" expect sanctions to convince North Korea to give up their only protection against US aggression. Is the level of ignorance that great in the UNSC. Russia and China if they want to vote for a UN Resolution,they need to purpose one themselves that calls for negotiations between the two sides to find a peaceful solution to the nuclear weapons question.

    Did Russia and China not learn anything from the UN sanctions against Yugoslavia,against Libya,against Iraq,against Syria,against Iran,and those already against North Korea. I hope they have. But we shall see,I'm not very confident about that.

    NIK on April 29, 2017 , · at 3:01 am UTC
    China actively supports neoliberal globalisation and cannot be trusted. It has deep interconnected trade and investment relations with USA. It is highly unlikely that China will ever move against Multinational corporations or against USA.

    The Chinese economic "miracle" happened because of the Multinational Corporations which invested in China. MNCs reduced their manufacturing costs and increased their profits by selling these products in western markets. As China offers low cost labour and has a repressed workforce, many MNCs took advantage of it.

    TNY on April 29, 2017 , · at 1:55 pm UTC
    I don't know how likely it is for China to move against the US, but Xi Jinping certainly knows that the US is moving against China. Here are a few examples.

    1. The US is deploying the THAAD anti-missile system in South Korea.
    2. The US has sold arms to Taiwan for decades.
    3. There was a toned down version of a colour revolution in a part of China, in Hong Kong, to be specific. Actually, I'm not sure it is over.

    Whatever you think of Xi and the other Chinese leaders, they aren't so dumb that they can't see these things.

    little lulu on April 29, 2017 , · at 5:27 am UTC
    I thought this statement by Xi Jinping was in response to the fact that Mr. Trump shot missiles at a Syrian air base manned by Russians while Xi Jinping was visiting him at Mar-el-Lego. That was provocative, no?

    [Apr 28, 2017] I seem to recall Ivanka telling Leslie Stahl she would be just a daughter and stay in NY. Now shes ordering up missile strikes.

    Apr 28, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Carolinian , April 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    Ivanka booed in Germany.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/25/germany-booed-ivanka-trump-and-america-doesnt-think-she-should-be-in-the-white-house/

    I seem to recall Ivanka telling Leslie Stahl she would be "just a daughter" and stay in NY. Now she's ordering up missile strikes.

    Indrid Cold , April 26, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    Princess Ivanka is just part of a cosmopolitan global aristocracy. She can change her mind anytime she likes and what are you going to do about it? Zip. Same with the Lady Chelsea.

    [Apr 28, 2017] The Final Stage of the Machiavellian Elites Takeover of America by Paul Fitzgerald & Elizabeth Gould

    Notable quotes:
    "... The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. ..."
    "... the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike. ..."
    "... The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it. ..."
    "... The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. ..."
    "... PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development." ..."
    "... Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' ..."
    "... With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite. ..."
    "... The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda. ..."
    "... Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left." ..."
    "... The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." ..."
    "... Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union. ..."
    "... Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser. ..."
    "... As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud." ..."
    www.truthdig.com

    Editor's note: This article is the last in a four-part series on Truthdig called "Universal Empire" -- an examination of the current stage of the neocon takeover of American policy that began after World War ll. Read Part 1 , Part 2 and Part 3 .

    The recent assertion by the Trump White House that Damascus and Moscow released "false narratives" to mislead the world about the April 4 sarin gas attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, is a dangerous next step in the "fake news" propaganda war launched in the final days of the Obama administration. It is a step whose deep roots in Communist Trotsky's Fourth International must be understood before deciding whether American democracy can be reclaimed.

    Muddying the waters of accountability in a way not seen since Sen. Joe McCarthy at the height of the Red Scare in the 1950s, the " Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act " signed into law without fanfare by Obama in December 2016 officially authorized a government censorship bureaucracy comparable only to George Orwell's fictional Ministry of Truth in his novel "1984." Referred to as " the Global Engagement Center ," the official purpose of this new bureaucracy is to "recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The real purpose of this Orwellian nightmare is to cook the books on anything that challenges Washington's neoconservative pro-war narrative and to intimidate, harass or jail anyone who tries. As has already been demonstrated by President Trump's firing of Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian government airbase, it is a recipe for a world war, and like it or not, that war has already begun.

    This latest attack on Russia's supposed false narrative takes us right back to 1953 and the beginnings of the cultural war between East and West. Its roots are tied to the Congress for Cultural Freedom, to James Burnham's pivot from Trotsky's Fourth International to right-wing conservatism and to the rise of the neoconservative Machiavellians as a political force. As Burnham's " The Struggle for the World " stressed, the Third World War had already begun with the 1944 Communist-led Greek sailors' revolt.

    In Burnham's Manichean thinking, the West was under siege. George Kennan's Cold War policy of containment was no different than Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. Détente with the Soviet Union amounted to surrender. Peace was only a disguise for war, and that war would be fought with politics, subversion, terrorism and psychological warfare. Soviet influence had to be rolled back wherever possible. That meant subverting the Soviet Union and its proxies and, when necessary, subverting Western democracies as well.

    The true irony of today's late-stage efforts by Washington to monopolize "truth" and attack alternate narratives isn't just in its blatant contempt for genuine free speech. The real irony is that the entire "Freedom Manifesto" employed by the United States and Britain since World War II was never free at all, but a concoction of the CIA's Psychological Strategy Board 's (PSB) comprehensive psychological warfare program waged on friend and foe alike.

    The CIA would come to view the entire program, beginning with the 1950 Berlin conference, to be a landmark in the Cold War, not just for solidifying the CIA's control over the non-Communist left and the West's "free" intellectuals, but for enabling the CIA to secretly disenfranchise Europeans and Americans from their own political culture in such a way they would never really know it.

    As historian Christopher Lasch wrote in 1969 of the CIA's cooptation of the American left,

    "The modern state is an engine of propaganda, alternately manufacturing crises and claiming to be the only instrument that can effectively deal with them. This propaganda, in order to be successful, demands the cooperation of writers, teachers, and artists not as paid propagandists or state-censored time-servers but as 'free' intellectuals capable of policing their own jurisdictions and of enforcing acceptable standards of responsibility within the various intellectual professions."

    Key to turning these "free" intellectuals against their own interests was the CIA's doctrinal program for Western cultural transformation contained in the document PSB D-33/2 . PSB D-33/2 foretells of a "long-term intellectual movement, to: break down world-wide doctrinaire thought patterns" while "creating confusion, doubt and loss of confidence" in order to "weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of neutralism and to predispose its adherents towards the spirit of the West." The goal was to "predispose local elites to the philosophy held by the planners," while employing local elites "would help to disguise the American origin of the effort so that it appears to be a native development."

    While declaring itself as an antidote to Communist totalitarianism, one internal critic of the program, PSB officer Charles Burton Marshall, viewed PSB D-33/2 itself as frighteningly totalitarian, interposing "a wide doctrinal system" that "accepts uniformity as a substitute for diversity," embracing "all fields of human thought -- all fields of intellectual interests, from anthropology and artistic creations to sociology and scientific methodology." He concluded: "That is just about as totalitarian as one can get."

    Burnham's Machiavellian elitism lurks in every shadow of the document. As recounted in Frances Stoner Saunder's "The Cultural Cold War," "Marshall also took issue with the PSB's reliance on 'non-rational social theories' which emphasized the role of an elite 'in the manner reminiscent of Pareto, Sorel, Mussolini and so on.' Weren't these the models used by James Burnham in his book the Machiavellians? Perhaps there was a copy usefully to hand when PSB D-33/2 was being drafted. More likely, James Burnham himself was usefully to hand."

    Burnham was more than just at hand when it came to secretly implanting a fascist philosophy of extreme elitism into America's Cold War orthodoxy. With "The Machiavellians," Burnham had composed the manual that forged the old Trotskyist left together with a right-wing Anglo/American elite.

    The political offspring of that volatile union would be called neoconservatism, whose overt mission would be to roll back Russian/Soviet influence everywhere. Its covert mission would be to reassert a British cultural dominance over the emerging Anglo/American Empire and maintain it through propaganda.

    Hard at work on that task since 1946 was the secret Information Research Department of the British and Commonwealth Foreign Office known as the IRD.

    Rarely spoken of in the context of CIA-funded secret operations, the IRD served as a covert anti-Communist propaganda unit from 1946 until 1977. According to Paul Lashmar and James Oliver, authors of " Britain's Secret Propaganda War ," "the vast IRD enterprise had one sole aim: To spread its ceaseless propaganda output (i.e. a mixture of outright lies and distorted facts) among top-ranking journalists who worked for major agencies and magazines, including Reuters and the BBC, as well as every other available channel. It worked abroad to discredit communist parties in Western Europe which might gain a share of power by entirely democratic means, and at home to discredit the British Left."

    IRD was to become a self-fulfilling disinformation machine for the far-right wing of the international intelligence elite, at once offering fabricated and distorted information to "independent" news outlets and then using the laundered story as "proof" of the false story's validity. One such front enterprise established with CIA money was Forum World Features, operated at one time by Burnham acolyte Brian Rossiter Crozier . Described by Burnham's biographer Daniel Kelly as a "British political analyst," in reality, the legendary Brian Crozier functioned for over 50 years as one of Britain's top propagandists and secret agents .

    If anyone today is shocked by the biased, one-sided, xenophobic rush to judgment alleging Russian influence over the 2016 presidential election, they need look no further than to Brian Crozier's closet for the blueprints. As we were told outright by an American military officer during the first war in Afghanistan in 1982, the U.S. didn't need "proof the Soviets used poison gas" and they don't need proof against Russia now. Crozier might best be described as a daydream believer, a dangerous imperialist who acts out his dreams with open eyes. From the beginning of the Cold War until his death in 2012, Crozier and his protégé Robert Moss propagandized on behalf of military dictators Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet, organized private intelligence organizations to destabilize governments in the Middle East, Asia, Latin America and Africa and worked to delegitimize politicians in Europe and Britain viewed as insufficiently anti-Communist.

    The mandate of his Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) set up in 1970 was to expose the supposed KGB campaign of worldwide subversion and put out stories smearing anyone who questioned it as a dupe, a traitor or Communist spy. Crozier regarded "The Machiavellians" as a major formative influence in his own intellectual development, and wrote in 1976 "indeed it was this book above all others that first taught me how [emphasis Crozier] to think about politics." The key to Crozier's thinking was Burnham's distinction between the "formal" meaning of political speech and the "real," a concept which was, of course, grasped only by elites. In a 1976 article, Crozier marveled at how Burnham's understanding of politics had spanned 600 years and how the use of "the formal" to conceal "the real" was no different today than when used by Dante Alighieri's "presumably enlightened Medieval mind." "The point is as valid now as it was in ancient times and in the Florentine Middle Ages, or in 1943. Overwhelmingly, political writers and speakers still use Dante's method. Depending on the degree of obfuscation required (either by circumstances or the person's character), the divorce between formal and real meaning is more of less absolute."

    But Crozier was more than just a strategic thinker. Crozier was a high-level covert political agent who put Burnham's talent for obfuscation and his Fourth International experience to use to undermine détente and set the stage for rolling back the Soviet Union.

    In a secret meeting at a City of London bank in February 1977, he even patented a private-sector operational intelligence organization known at the Sixth International (6I) to pick up where Burnham left off: politicizing and privatizing many of the dirty tricks the CIA and other intelligence services could no longer be caught doing. As he explained in his memoir "Free Agent," the name 6I was chosen "because the Fourth International split. The Fourth International was the Trotskyist one, and when it split, this meant that, on paper, there were five Internationals. In the numbers game, we would constitute the Sixth International, or '6I.' "

    Crozier's cooperation with numerous "able and diligent Congressional staffers" as well as "the remarkable General Vernon ('Dick') Walters, recently retired as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence," cemented the rise of the neoconservatives. When Carter caved in to the Team B and his neoconservative National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski's plot to lure the Soviets into their own Vietnam in Afghanistan, it fulfilled Burnham's mission and delivered the world to the Machiavellians without anyone being the wiser.

    As George Orwell wrote in his "Second Thoughts on James Burnham": "What Burnham is mainly concerned to show [in The Machiavellians] is that a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud. Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud."

    Today, Burnham's use of Dante's political treatise "De Monarchia" to explain his medieval understanding of politics might best be swapped for Dante's "Divine Comedy," a paranoid comedy of errors in which the door to Hell swings open to one and all, including the elites regardless of their status. Or as they say in Hell, " Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate ." Abandon hope all ye who enter here.

    This poart 4 of the series. For previous parts see

    1. Part 1: American Imperialism Leads the World Into Dante's Vision of Hell
    2. Part 3: How the CIA Created a Fake Western Reality for 'Unconventional Warfare'

    Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of " Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story ," " Crossing Zero: The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire " and " The Voice ." Visit their websites at invisiblehistory.com and grailwerk.com .

    [Apr 28, 2017] The US is at last facing the neocon captivity

    The new term is ZOC -- "AngloZionists occupied country."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Why did we invade Iraq ..."
    "... For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence ..."
    "... They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking ..."
    "... We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. ..."
    "... all of whom would go into the Bush administration ..."
    "... It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power" for the sake of Israel. ..."
    "... It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.) ..."
    "... of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv ..."
    "... Many writers, including Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake. ..."
    "... But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war. ..."
    "... This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't make that terrible mistake again. ..."
    May 19, 2015 | mondoweiss.net t

    The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates' embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq ?

    Last night Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here's part of the exchange:

    Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don't get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story.

    Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence

    Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there's a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it's the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it's the same group of people that don't want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don't want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They're willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking . we've got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that's the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran.

    What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. (" Errors and Lies ," which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes that Bush and Cheney "wanted a war," which is just a lie masquerading as a tautology.)

    Here are my two cents. We invaded Iraq because a powerful group of pro-Israel ideologues - the neoconservatives - who had mustered forces in Washington over the previous two decades and at last had come into the White House were able to sell a vision of transforming the Middle East that was pure wishful hokum but that they believed: that if Arab countries were converted by force into democracies, the people would embrace the change and would also accept Israel as a great neighbor. It's a variation on a neocolonialist theory that pro-Israel ideologues have believed going back to the 1940s: that Palestinians would accept a Jewish state if you got rid of their corrupt leadership and allowed the people to share in Israel's modern economic miracle.

    The evidence for this causation is at every hand.

    It is in the Clean Break plan written for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in 1996 by leading neocons Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser - all of whom would go into the Bush administration - calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein and the export of the Palestinian political problem to Jordan.

    It is in the Project for a New American Century letters written to Clinton in 1998 telling him that Saddam's WMD were a threat to Israel. (A letter surely regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens.)

    It is in the PNAC letter written to George W. Bush early in 2002 urging him to "accelerate plans for removign Saddam Hussein from power" for the sake of Israel.

    the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an "Axis of Evil." Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles - American principles - in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred.

    It is in Netanyahu testifying to Congress in 2002 t hat he promised there would be "enormous positive reverberations" throughout the region if we only removed Saddam.

    It is in Wolfowitz saying that the road to peace in the Middle East runs through Baghdad. (Possibly the stupidest thing anyone has ever said in the history of the world, including Douglas Feith.)

    It is in all the neocon tracts, from Perle and Frum's An End to Evil, to Kristol and Kaplan's The War Over Saddam, to Berman's Terror and Liberalism, saying that Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel was a reason for the U.S. to topple him.

    It is in war-supporter Tom Friedman saying that we needed to invade Iraq because of suicide bombers in Tel Aviv - and the importance of conveying to Arabs they couldn't get away with that.

    It is in the head of the 9/11 Commission, former Bush aide Philip Zelikow, saying Israel was the reason to take on Iraq back in 2002 even though Iraq was no threat to us:

    "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 – it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002. "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

    It is in Friedman saying that "elite" neoconservatives created the war in this interview with Ari Shavit back in 2003:

    It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.

    It is in Tony Judt's statement about the Israel interest in the war back in 2003:

    For many in the current US administration, a major strategic consideration was the need to destabilize and then reconfigure the Middle East in a manner thought favorable to Israel.

    And yes this goes back to rightwing Zionism. It goes back to Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol launching neoconservatism in the 1970s because they said that the dovish policies of the Democratic Party were a direct threat to Israel– an analysis continued in this day by Norman Braman, Marco Rubio's leading supporter, who says that the U.S. must be a military and economic power in order to "sustain" Israel.

    An Economist blogger wrote several years ago that if you leave out the Zionism you won't understand the Iraq war:

    Yes, it would be ridiculous, and anti-semitic, to cast the Iraq war as a conspiracy monocausally driven by a cabal of Jewish neocons and the Israeli government. But it's entirely accurate to count neoconservative policy analyses as among the important causes of the war, to point out that the pro-Israeli sympathies of Jewish neoconservatives played a role in these analyses, and to note the support of the Israeli government and public for the invasion. In fact any analysis of the war's causes that didn't take these into account would be deficient.

    Many writers, including Joe Klein , Jacob Heilbrunn, and Alan Dershowitz , have said the obvious, that neoconservatism came out of the Jewish community. And I have long written that the Jewish community needs to come to terms with the degree to which it has harbored warmongering neoconservatives, for our own sake.

    But America needs to come to terms with the extent to which it allowed rightwing Zionists to dominate discussions of going to war.

    This matter is now at the heart of the Republican embrace of the war on Iran. There is simply no other constituency in our country for that war besides rightwing Zionists. They should be called out for this role, so that we don't make that terrible mistake again. And yes: this issue is going to play out frankly in the 2016 campaign, thanks in good measure to Matthews.

    [Apr 28, 2017] Former President Obama Has a New Job Control the Official Narrative of American Exceptionalism - Truthdig

    Apr 28, 2017 | www.truthdig.com
    The ruling class is seriously rattled over its loss of control over the national political narrative-a consequence of capitalism's terminal decay and U.S. imperialism's slipping grip on global hegemony. When the Lords of Capital get rattled, their servants in the political class are tasked with rearranging the picture and reframing the national conversation. In other words, Papa Imperialism needs a new set of lies, or renewed respect for the old ones. Former president Barack Obama, the cool operator who put the U.S. back on the multiple wars track after a forced lull in the wake of George Bush's defeat in Iraq, has eagerly accepted his new assignment as Esteemed Guardian of Official Lies.

    At this stage of his career, Obama must dedicate much of his time to the maintenance of Official Lies, since they are central to his own "legacy." With the frenzied assistance of his first secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Obama launched a massive military offensive-a rush job to put the New American Century back on schedule. Pivoting to all corners of the planet, and with the general aim of isolating and intimidating Russia and China, the salient feature of Obama's offensive was the naked deployment of Islamic jihadists as foot soldiers of U.S. imperialism in Libya and Syria. It is a strategy that is morally and politically indefensible-unspeakable!-the truth of which would shatter the prevailing order in the imperial heartland, itself.

    Thus, from 2011 to when he left the White House for a Tahiti yachting vacation with music mogul David Geffen and assorted movie and media celebrities, Obama orchestrated what the late Saddam Hussein would have called "The Mother of All Lies": that the U.S. was not locked in an alliance with al-Qaida and its terrorist offshoots in Syria, a relationship begun almost 40 years earlier in Afghanistan.

    Advertisement Square, Site wide He had all the help he needed from a compliant corporate media, whose loyalty to U.S. foreign policy can always be counted on in times of war. Since the U.S. is constantly in a (self-proclaimed) state of war, corporate media collaboration is guaranteed. Outside the U.S. and European corporate media bubble, the whole world was aware that al-Qaida and the U.S. were comrades in arms. (According to a 2015 poll, 82 percent of Syrians and 85 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. created ISIS .) When Vladimir Putin told a session of the United Nations General Assembly that satellites showed lines of ISIS tankers stretching from captured Syrian oil fields "to the horizon," bound for U.S.-allied Turkey, yet untouched by American bombers, the Obama administration had no retort. Russian jets destroyed 1,000 of the tankers , forcing the Americans to mount their own, smaller raids. But, the moment soon passed into the corporate media's amnesia hole-another fact that must be shed in order to avoid unspeakable conclusions.

    Presidential candidate Donald Trump's flirtation with the idea of ending U.S. "regime change" policy in Syria-and, thereby, scuttling the alliance with Islamic jihadists-struck panic in the ruling class and in the imperial political structures that are called the Deep State, which includes the corporate media. When Trump won the general election, the imperial political class went into meltdown, blaming "The Russians"-first, for warlord Hillary Clinton's loss, and soon later for everything under the sun. The latest lie is that Moscow is sending weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the country where the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Pakistan spent billions of dollars to create the international jihadist network. Which shows that imperialists have no sense of irony, or shame. (See BAR: " The U.S., Not Russia, Arms Jihadists Worldwide .")

    After the election, lame duck President Obama was so consumed by the need to expunge all narratives that ran counter to "The Russians Did It," he twice yammered about " fake news " at a press conference in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Obama was upset, he said, "Because in an age where there's so much active misinformation and its packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television. If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won't know what to protect."

    Although now an ex-president, it is still Obama's job to protect the ruling class, and the Empire, and his role in maintaining the Empire: his legacy. To do that, one must control the narrative-the subject uppermost in his mind when he used Chicago area students as props, this week, for his first public speech since leaving the White House.

    "It used to be that everybody kind of had the same information," said Obama, at the University of Chicago affair. "We had different opinions about it, but there was a common base line of facts. The internet has in some ways accelerated this sense of people having entirely separate conversations, and this generation is getting its information through its phones. That you really don't have to confront people who have different opinions or have a different experience or a different outlook."

    Obama continued:

    "If you're liberal, you're on MSNBC, or conservative, you're on Fox News. You're reading The Wall Street Journal or you're reading The New York Times, or whatever your choices are. Or, maybe you're just looking at cat videos [laughter].

    "So, one question I have for all of you is, How do you guys get your information about the news and what's happening out there, and are there ways in which you think we could do a better job of creating a common conversation now that you've got 600 cable stations and you've got all these different news opinions-and, if there are two sets of opinions, then they're just yelling at each other, so you don't get a sense that there's an actual conversation going on. And the internet is worse. It's become more polarized."

    Obama's core concern is that there should be a "common base line of facts," which he claims used to exist "20 or 30 years ago." The internet, unregulated and cheaply accessed, is the villain, and the main source of "fake news" (from publications like BAR and the 12 other leftwing sites smeared by the Washington Post, back in November, not long after Obama complained to Merkel about "fake news").

    However, Obama tries to dress up his anti-internet "fake news" whine with a phony pitch for diversity of opinions. Is he suggesting that MSNBC viewers also watch Fox News, and that New York Times readers also peruse the Wall Street Journal? Is he saying that most people read a variety of daily newspapers "back in the day"? It is true that, generations ago, there were far more newspapers available to read, reflecting a somewhat wider ideological range of views. But most people read the ones that were closest to their own politics, just as now. Obama is playing his usual game of diversion. Non-corporate news is his target: "...the internet is worse. It's become more and more polarized."

    The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and Fox News all share the "common base line of facts" that Obama cherishes. By this, he means a common narrative, with American "exceptionalism" and intrinsic goodness at the center, capitalism and democracy as synonymous, and unity in opposition to the "common" enemy: Soviet Russians; then terrorists; now non-Soviet Russians, again.

    Ayanna Watkins, a senior at Chicago's Kenwood Academy High School, clearly understood Obama's emphasis, and eagerly agreed with his thrust. "When it comes to getting information about what's going on in the world, it's way faster on social media than it is on newscasts," she said.

    "But, on the other hand, it can be a downfall because, what if you're passing the wrong information, or the information isn't presented the way it should be? So, that causes a clash in our generation, and I think it should go back to the old school. I mean, phones, social media should be eliminated," Ms. Watkins blurted out, provoking laughter from the audience and causing the 18-year-old to "rephrase myself."

    What she really meant, she said, was that politicians should "go out to the community" so that "the community will feel more welcome."

    If she was trying to agree with Obama, Ms. Watkins had it right the first time: political counter-narratives on the internet have to go, so that Americans can share a "common base line" of information. All of it lies.

    Black Agenda Report executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].

    [Apr 27, 2017] Wall Street Journal Reports on Appearance of Private Equity Self-Dealing at Blackstone and Other Firms Nearly Four Years After We Broke the Story

    Notable quotes:
    "... iLevel gives PE firms unprecedented ability to cook the books of their portfolio companies while maintaining a facade of compliance. ..."
    "... refrain from self- dealing, usurpation of corporate opportunity and any acts that would permit them to receive an improper personal benefit or injure their constituencies ..."
    "... Fraud is the basis of the economic system in Western society in 21st Century. It is now so accepted that no prosecutions take place except for those who publicise the fact. ..."
    "... We are well aware that most corporate bankruptcies result from Fraud and so did the Greenspan Bust after 2006 which followed on from the Great Greenspan Orgy after 1999 ..."
    "... Private Equity a Formula for Fraud. Abuses in the private equity structure have long been alleged. Finally a research study adds evidence to this issue. Read the entire White Paper on Addressing financial fraud in the private equity industry. ..."
    "... Certain characteristics of the private equity industry may make it more susceptible to allegations of fraudulent activities, such as relatively long lockup periods, illiquid investments, complex transactions, broad partnership agreements, a perceived lack of transparency, inherent conflicts of interest and activist investors. ..."
    "... The corporate press seems to be embracing a "distraction first/pooh pooh later" approach. So they can say "we covered it" and "it was no big deal" at the same time. Oh, look, what is that sparkly thing over there?! ..."
    "... and just to imagine the future: PE will be in a good position, without scrutiny, to buy/invest in corporations that have won bids to go into cozy infrastructure PPPs with the government so just think of all the write-offs the LPs will get when all of those corporations downsize or go bankrupt after the government stops propping them up and after PE has taken all its up-front fees and in-house loans. ..."
    Apr 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on April 27, 2017 by Yves Smith This is priceless. Naked Capitalism beat the Journal by nearly four years reporting a "new" story.

    On top of that, the Journal isn't terribly exercised about conflicts of interest involving executives with clear legal duties to investors engaged in what looks uncomfortably like self-dealing. This complacency stands in stark contrast to press hysteria about Ivanka Trump selling schamattes out of the White House.

    From the opening paragraphs of an above-the-fold story on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today, Wall Street's New Problem: When Fund Titans Invest on the Side :

    In 2010, a firm called Swift River Investments LLC put money into a software company developed by private-equity giant Blackstone Group LP. Five years later, a company Blackstone co-owned acquired the software firm, at a price that gave Swift River a fat profit.

    Blackstone's back-and-forth involving Swift River wouldn't be notable but for one thing: Swift River invests personal wealth for Blackstone's president and chief operating officer, Hamilton "Tony" James. A brother of his runs it.

    Wall Street billionaires, their fortunes built by investing other people's money, increasingly are putting some of their own in sideline investment ventures, while continuing to operate their hedge funds or private-equity funds for clients

    In the Blackstone/Swift River matter, Blackstone said its transactions involving Mr. James's family investment firm were cleared by Blackstone's conflicts committee, and Mr. James wasn't involved in the decisions. He declined to be interviewed.

    This is far from a "new problem". We wrote specifically about Blackstone's Tony James and Swift River in 2013 in How Private Equity Executives Like Blackstone's Tony James Engage in Dubious Side Deals , as an example of the more general problem of possible self dealing. From that post :

    Today, we'll examine conflicts of interest involving principals at the private equity firms themselves. Here our object lesson is private equity kingpin Blackstone Group.

    Tony James is the chief operating officer of the Blackstone Group, overseeing the entire firm across its large range of asset management and investment banking services. James also runs the Blackstone private equity investment business, meaning he sets policy and is the final decision-maker on its day-to-day activities.

    One would expect these dual roles at Blackstone to keep James busy and give him an adequate income. But he also has a side business that he owns with his two brothers, called Swift River Investments, a "family private equity firm". In other words, James is a substantial principal in a business that could theoretically compete with Blackstone. And, while it is unlikely that Swift River has enough capital to bid against Blackstone for deals, it is nevertheless clear in one case that Swift River is deeply involved with Blackstone. Moreover, in other cases, there is considerable potential for conflicts of interest between Swift River and Blackstone and investors are powerless to police them.

    These actual and potential conflicts are particularly troublesome from a corporate governance perspective, since as a corporate officer of Blackstone, James has a duty of loyalty to Blackstone

    Let's look at the situation where we know that James put himself into a conflict of interest.

    Blackstone developed a software application internally called iLevel Solutions. Blackstone spun it out and, lo and behold, it wound up in the hands of the James brothers through Swift River. Blackstone shareholders have every reason to be concerned about possible self-dealing here. After all, why does it make any sense to sell a corporate asset to a top executive and his family members? And how could the board ever be satisfied that the price of the transaction was fair?

    But it's not just Blackstone shareholders who have reason to be troubled by an arrangement that looks an awful lot like self-dealing. Blackstone's private equity fund investors – institutions like the NYC pension system – have reason to be concerned about Swift River's investment activities.

    Of the 10 investments Swift River lists having made, five of them are privately-held oil field services companies (and the sixth is the iLevel related-party deal with Blackstone). So the James brothers like oil services companies. What's the big deal?

    Well, it turns out that Blackstone has recently gotten into the energy investment business in a big way. In August 31, 2012 SEC filing, Blackstone disclosed that it had raised $2,074,621,000 for a new fund called "Blackstone Energy Partners L.P." A clear focus of this fund is investment in energy exploration companies, as shown in a Blackstone press release issued shortly after the fund's closing, where Blackstone announced an investment in an offshore drilling company. Now, you can see where this is going. Tony James is buying oil exploration companies with his investors' money, and he happens to own a bunch of companies personally that service exploration companies.

    On the one hand, there is no evidence that James is using his Blackstone position to have the Blackstone Energy Partners companies do business with the companies he owns. On the other hand, his iLevel deal with Blackstone shows that neither James nor Blackstone appear to have any reluctance to engage in related party transactions. Moreover, independent of any oil services transactions between Blackstone and Swift River, there are other ways that James and his family benefit from the shared interests and may cross the line into "improper personal benefit". All of the information that James gets in his formal day job, such as contract, industry intelligence, and deal flow, can also be used to help Swift River. In fact, it's hard to see how James could stop that from happening even if he wanted to. How can he erect a Chinese wall in his brain?

    What makes these dealings particularly troubling is that Blackstone's fund investors are absolutely powerless to even begin to monitor any of these potential related party transactions or resource-sharing in order to ensure that they are not abusive. In fact, private equity LP investors almost always sign up to fund terms (in the super-secret limited partnership agreements that are the only state and local government contracts not subject to FOIA) where the investors agree to let the PE firm executives compete against the funds they manage. This is undoubtedly the case with Blackstone's funds, which demonstrates just how dysfunctional the entire ecosystem of private equity actually is. And remember, the dominant LP investors in private equity are your state and local governments, the universities you attended that constantly hound you for donations, and the mutual insurance companies that you theoretically own as policy holders.

    We also discussed the software company at issue, iLevel Solutions. This was the focus of that post:

    We will see that this company is built from the ground up as a vehicle to convince PE investors and the SEC that Blackstone and other PE firms have implemented robust financial controls over the companies they own. The reality, however, is the opposite: by design, iLevel gives PE firms unprecedented ability to cook the books of their portfolio companies while maintaining a facade of compliance.

    In passing, we discussed additional conflicts of interest that escaped the Journal's attention :

    iLevel has also been ingenious in its implementation of the "Wall Street Rule" – the idea that bad practices are most untouchable by regulators when they become industry standard. In that spirit, iLevel in late 2011 announced that the Carlyle Group had become a part owner of the company. This is presumably in addition to the continuing partial ownership of the Blackstone COO. Nominally, Carlyle and Blackstone are competitors, yet they teamed up on iLevel. Working together, they have been able to promote the product's adoption among a large portion of large private equity firms, including Apollo, TPG, and Cerberus, and more than 30 other firms, in addition to Blackstone and Carlyle.

    And finally, in a coup de grace of seediness, around the same time as the Carlyle deal, iLevel brought in another investor in the form of Hamilton Lane . This firm is the dominant "gatekeeper" performing due diligence and making recommendations to pension funds and other institutional investors on private equity funds. So, in its fiduciary role advising pension funds, Hamilton Lane sits in judgment of Blackstone and Carlyle. But on the side, Hamilton Lane is also in a deal with the Blackstone COO and Carlyle. Though this appears to be a material conflict of interest, it is worth noting that the conflict does not appear to be disclosed in the "Conflicts of Interest" section of Hamilton Lane's Form ADV filed with the SEC.

    The Journal's new information is that a company Blackstone "co-owned," presumably but not necessarily a portfolio company bought back ILevel from Swift River, in 2015, for $75 million. From the story:

    Blackstone said in regulatory filings that it had talked to about 20 potential investors before selecting Swift River as one of the primary 2010 buyers. It said negotiations were led by an outside investor not linked to the James family.

    If you think this "outside investor" was operating independently, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Anyone with an operating brain cell would understand which buyer was preferred and would know full well it was in their economic best interest to curry favor with Tony James.

    The other conflict of interest that was disclosed in regulatory filings involved oil-field services companies, which we flagged in 2013 as problematic. Again from the Journal:

    In the other potential conflict it cited in filings as linked to Swift River, a Blackstone business-development affiliate provided financing to an oilfield-services company in which Swift River indirectly owned a stake. Blackstone filings said Mr. James didn't work on the financing for the oilfield company, Allied-Horizontal Wireline Services LLC.

    The Journal does discuss other of private equity fund principals having their own private equity businesses on the side. Apollo founder Marc Rowan's real estate venture is supposedly kosher by virtue of him being involved only in strategy and "intended to have different durations and risk-return profiles than those made by Apollo's funds." TPG Chairman Eric Bonderman has both his own side investment firm, Wildcat Capital Management, and is also an investor in company started by a former TPG employee, Dragoneer. One result of these incestuous relationships: "Mr. Bonderman invested in Spotify both through funds that TPG manages for clients and through Dragoneer." Fortress has "handful of employees work solely on the personal financial matters of co-founders, who reimburse Fortress." That almost certainly means they get lots of free intelligence. Query also whether full overheads, like office space and the cost of admin support, are being allocated pro-rata to these staffers.

    Despite Fortress' bromides about employees being forbidden to get into conflict of interest with clients along with supposed further oversight of top people, the Journal discusses at length a "tangled situation" involving a donation pledge by a Fortress entity to Milwaukee just the Milwaukee Bucks were seeing funding from the city to help fund a new arena. The wee ethical and optical problem? Fortress Fortress co-founder and co-chairman Wesley Edens was also a co-owner of the Bucks.

    Here are some additional shortcomings with this story:

    Failure to discuss why these conflicts of interest are serious and troubling . The title of this story in the print edition is anodyne: "Fund Kings Open 'Family Offices'". The message of the entire piece is: "These firms had to reveal they have these cozy arrangements. But they all swear they have robust internal procedures, so this must be OK." Notice the failure to get a reading from an independent expert or even to consult corporate governance standards, as we did in 2013:

    From the American Bar Association (emphasis ours):

    Generally, officers owe the same fiduciary duties as directors .Officers with greater knowledge and involvement may be subject to higher standard of scrutiny and liability

    Under state corporate law, directors of solvent corporations have two basic "fiduciary" duties, the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. The duty of care, which is governed by statute in most states, usually requires that directors discharge their duties in good faith and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances and in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation. See, e.g., Or. Rev. Stat. § 60.357 (1). In some states, including Delaware, the standard of care, though essentially the same, is established by judicial decision. See, e.g., Graham v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 188 A.2d 125, 130 (Del. 1963). The duty of loyalty requires that directors act on behalf of the corporation and its shareholders and refrain from self- dealing, usurpation of corporate opportunity and any acts that would permit them to receive an improper personal benefit or injure their constituencies . See, e.g., Guth v. Loft, Inc., 5 A.2d 503, 510 (Del. 1939).

    Failure to consider whether investor disclosure was inadequate . As we indicated in 2013, limited partnership agreements have broad language waiving conflicts of interest which legitimates the mind-boggling notion of fund managers competing with their own investors. However, the SEC, which now oversees private equity firms as investment managers thanks to Dodd Frank, has taken a dim view of marketing materials that are misleading, irrespective of what the fine print in the contracts actually says. So it's not inconceivable, given that some vintage 2006 and 2007 funds are still in business, that some fund managers may have made airy assurances that are at odds with their current behavior.

    And on a common-sense basis, any limited partner ought to be upset at the idea of a personal wealth management business of private equity principals getting anywhere near their investments, given how private equity firms have been caught cheating investors in just about every creative way imaginable.

    Put it another way: if the general partners were even semi-serious about making sure everything looked kosher, they'd review these insider deals with the limited partner advisory committees of the appropriate funds. As we've discussed, the limited partner advisory committees are captured; the members are chosen so that the general partner has a large majority of friendly investors who would never cross them. But the one thing the minority of non-captured advisory committee members can do is vote with their feet on the next fundraising. But that is clearly more than the private equity kingpins are willing to hazard.

    Failure to mention that some, perhaps most, of these disclosures came about thanks to Dodd Frank, which Trump is threatening to kill . All private equity fund managers over a not-large size are required to file an annual disclosure form ADV with the SEC. Many firms have revealed in these documents that they are engaged in practices that alert parties can ascertain are not permitted by their contracts with investors. Yet even this weak protection is likely to be scotched if Trump and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling get their way.

    The Wall Street Journal exemplifies why limited partners are complacent in the face of private equity self-dealing and embezzlement. The reporters dug up some troubling material, called up the private equity firms for comment, and took their reassurances at face value. This is Potemkin journalism masquerading as the real deal. The rapid rise of a plutocracy means we need the Fourth Estate to help curb its power. Unfortunately, for the most part, vigorous journalism has become a relic.

    Paul Greenwood , April 27, 2017 at 6:07 am

    Fraud is the basis of the economic system in Western society in 21st Century. It is now so accepted that no prosecutions take place except for those who publicise the fact.

    We are well aware that most corporate bankruptcies result from Fraud and so did the Greenspan Bust after 2006 which followed on from the Great Greenspan Orgy after 1999

    rich , April 27, 2017 at 8:53 am

    Private equity refresher .

    Private Equity a Formula for Fraud. Abuses in the private equity structure have long been alleged. Finally a research study adds evidence to this issue. Read the entire White Paper on Addressing financial fraud in the private equity industry.

    "This paper addresses the more prevalent areas where private equity firms, brokers and other advisers may be subject to accusations of manipulation or fraud. Certain characteristics of the private equity industry may make it more susceptible to allegations of fraudulent activities, such as relatively long lockup periods, illiquid investments, complex transactions, broad partnership agreements, a perceived lack of transparency, inherent conflicts of interest and activist investors. Investors are scrutinizing the performance and activities of their portfolio managers, financial advisers, agents and the portfolio companies themselves. Limited partners are increasingly more critical of disclosure materials supplied by general partners and are demanding more detailed performance data.

    Stakeholders must be prepared to respond to issues that may arise at both the fund management and portfolio company level. Stakeholders must also provide careful oversight of their outside financial advisers, brokers and other agents."

    For those with brave hearts and deep pockets, joining a private equity fund as a limited partner carries with it the ultimate disclaimer, caveat emptor. The standard 2 and 20 Private Equity Fee Structure is being challenged. However, the gimmicks and tricks used to siphon off the top costs to fund a crony insider get rich scheme is expected from the "Masters of the Universe".

    http://www.batr.org/corporatocracy/061715.html

    Keep believing .wait til they start FEEding on your SS$.

    Stephen P Ruis , April 27, 2017 at 9:31 am

    Re "This complacency stands in stark contrast to press hysteria about Ivanka Trump selling schamattes out of the White House." The corporate press seems to be embracing a "distraction first/pooh pooh later" approach. So they can say "we covered it" and "it was no big deal" at the same time. Oh, look, what is that sparkly thing over there?!

    Susan the other , April 27, 2017 at 10:55 am

    and just to imagine the future: PE will be in a good position, without scrutiny, to buy/invest in corporations that have won bids to go into cozy infrastructure PPPs with the government so just think of all the write-offs the LPs will get when all of those corporations downsize or go bankrupt after the government stops propping them up and after PE has taken all its up-front fees and in-house loans.

    jerry , April 27, 2017 at 10:58 am

    "This complacency stands in stark contrast to press hysteria about Ivanka Trump selling schmattes out of the White House."

    hahaha i died at that one

    shinola , April 27, 2017 at 11:59 am

    New (to me) word learned today: "schmatte(s) – an article of clothing; garment

    jerry , April 27, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    More like low quality rags, perfect yiddish word :D

    [Apr 27, 2017] Trump administration has failed to exclude offshoring firms from qualifying for billions of dollars in federal contracts

    Hat tip 200PM Water Cooler 4-26-2017 naked capitalism
    Apr 27, 2017 | www.citizen.org

    "Despite the president having expansive executive authority to set procurement policy and past presidents using that authority to deliver on their policy commitments and goals, the Trump administration has failed to exclude offshoring firms from qualifying for billions of dollars in federal contracts" [ Public Citizen (PDF)].

    [Apr 27, 2017] Trumps neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's international economic policies also signal the transition to a new era of US unilateralism in international relations. Part of this new unilateralism is Trump's political posturing aimed at convincing his base that he is nationalist and anti-globalization. However, part of it may reflect the triumph of neocon thinking within the US. ..."
    "... Both Republicans and Democrats now believe the US has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, any time it chooses, and it has the right to pepper the globe with military bases and military personnel deployments – including ringing Russia with these. ..."
    "... Additionally, Democrats supplement the neocon rationale for intervention with the claim that the US has a right to intervene in the name of protecting democracy. That right derives from "US exceptionalism" whereby the US has a special mission to transform the world by promoting democracy, and it reinforces bi-partisan belief in unilateralism. ..."
    "... Neocon unilateralism may now be now spreading into international economic relations. As the sole global super-power, the US inevitably feels increasingly unrestrained in all areas. Economic unilateralism is also politically consistent with popular hyper-nationalist sentiment that has been encouraged on a bi-partisan basis ..."
    "... Trump's neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects enduring features of the current US polity which has entered a neocon era where tacit US global supremacy is the goal and unilateralism is a new norm. ..."
    Apr 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> Benedict@large ... , April 27, 2017 at 05:43 AM
    From one of the previous Links posts

    Trumponomics Neocon Neoliberalism Camouflaged with Anti-Globalization Circus by Thomas Palley

    https://www.socialeurope.eu/2017/04/trumps-international-economic-policy-neocon-neoliberalism-camouflaged-anti-globalization-circus/

    I think this is a pretty good summary of Trump "bait and switch" maneuver, which makes him "Republican version of Obama".

    ...A key element of Trump's political success has been his masquerade of being pro-worker, which includes posturing as anti-globalization. However, his true economic interest is the exact opposite.

    ...As part of maintaining his pro-worker masquerade, Trump will engage in an anti-globalization circus, but the bark will be worse than the bite because neoliberal globalization has increased corporate profits, in line with his economic interests.

    ...His neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects intrinsic and enduring features of the current US polity.

    ...The other side of Trump's success was his capture of the progressive critique of the neoliberal economy. For four decades, the US economy has short-changed working class voters via wage stagnation and manufacturing job loss.

    ...In this regard, his capture of the globalization and deindustrialization debate is particularly important. That is because globalization and deindustrialization are the most public face of the neoliberal economy, being where the impact on wages and jobs has been most visible and tangible.

    ...That capture enabled Trump to create a new twisted narrative about neoliberal globalization which blames "foreigners and immigrants". The Trump narrative is that the US is a victim.

    ...Bait and switch: anti-globalization bait, neoliberal switch...The bait was his critique of the economic establishment and globalization and the harm they have done to working class voters.

    ...Given his lack of any history of government service, Trump could initially get away with this pro-worker masquerade. However, the realities of Trump's economic policies have now become clear. All the evidence suggests he intends to worsen the neoliberal economy's proclivity to deliver wage stagnation and income inequality by increasing the power of business and finance, and by intimidating workers and weakening unions.

    ...As for economics, Trump's own economic interests have him identifying with corporations and capital. Globalization has been "made in the USA" for the benefit of large American multi-national corporations which have been big winners from the process. Consequently, Trump is inclined to preserve the system, though he is willing to make changes if that increases corporate profitability.

    The implication is one can expect lots of anti-globalization circus to address Trump's political needs, but he will not rock the globalization boat unless something more profitable is possible.

    ...Trump's international economic policies also signal the transition to a new era of US unilateralism in international relations. Part of this new unilateralism is Trump's political posturing aimed at convincing his base that he is nationalist and anti-globalization. However, part of it may reflect the triumph of neocon thinking within the US.

    ...Both Republicans and Democrats now believe the US has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, any time it chooses, and it has the right to pepper the globe with military bases and military personnel deployments – including ringing Russia with these.

    ...The bi-partisanship is evident in Democrats' support for the Iraq war and acceptance of the war on terror as justification for intervention anywhere. It is also evident in President Obama's continued investment in global military base expansion, expansion of NATO deployments into central Europe and the Baltics, and encouragement of the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine.

    Additionally, Democrats supplement the neocon rationale for intervention with the claim that the US has a right to intervene in the name of protecting democracy. That right derives from "US exceptionalism" whereby the US has a special mission to transform the world by promoting democracy, and it reinforces bi-partisan belief in unilateralism.

    The neocon project was originally concerned with military supremacy and targeted Russia. However, it is about US power in general, which means it potentially implicates every country and every dimension of international policy.

    Neocon unilateralism may now be now spreading into international economic relations. As the sole global super-power, the US inevitably feels increasingly unrestrained in all areas. Economic unilateralism is also politically consistent with popular hyper-nationalist sentiment that has been encouraged on a bi-partisan basis. Lastly, it also fits with the narrative constructed by Trump that "foreigners and immigrants" are responsible for US economic malaise.

    ...Trump's neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects enduring features of the current US polity which has entered a neocon era where tacit US global supremacy is the goal and unilateralism is a new norm.

    libezkova -> libezkova... Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 06:06 AM

    In other words, Democratic pundits who claimed that Trump is a neo-fascist were right, without any understanding the that Dems were major enablers of this political platform in the USA for a long time and Clinton wing is essentially identical to neocons as for foreign policy platform (but without Trump anti-globalization and isolationism smoke screen).

    So we can say that Democrats essentially got their wish: they got Hillary elected if we limit ourselves to just foreign policy issues. Because the only gap between Trump and Hillary in foreign policy issues is a sex change operation on one of them. After that everything is identical.

    Key appointees of Trump administration (General McMaster and General Mattis) are close friends of Paul Wolfowitz -- the architect of the Iraq war. You can't be more neocon that Wolfowitz.

    https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/04/26/iraq-war-architect-paul-wolfowitz-is-becoming-optimistic-on-trump/#more-44002

    Here is a telling quote from

    http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity/#sthash.11nIEp7d.dpuf


    == quote ==

    The best thing about this political moment in the U.S. (if not for the good people of Iraq) is that the rise of ISIS and the Republican candidates' embrace of the Iraq war is posing that deep and permanent question to the American public, Why did we invade Iraq? Last night Chris Matthews asked that question again and David Corn said it was about the neoconservative desire to protect Israel. Both men deserve kudos for courage. Here's part of the exchange: Matthews: Why were the people in the administration like [Paul] Wolfowitz and the others talking about going into Iraq from the very beginning, when they got into the white house long before there was a 911 long before there was WMD. It seemed like there was a deeper reason. I don't get it. It seemed like WMD was a cover story. Corn: I can explain that. For years. Paul Wolfowitz and other members of the neocon movement had talked about getting rid of Iraq and there would be democracy throughout the region that would help Israel and they came to believe actually a very bizarre conspiracy theory that al Qaeda didn't matter, that Saddam Hussein was behind all the acts of violence Matthews: The reason I go back to that is there's a consistent pattern: the people who wanted that war in the worst ways, neocons so called, Wolfowitz, certainly Cheney.. it's the same crowd of people that want us to overthrow Bashar Assad, .. it's the same group of people that don't want to negotiate at all with the Iranians, don't want any kind of rapprochement with the Iranians, they want to fight that war. They're willing to go in there and bomb. They have a consistent impulsive desire to make war on Arab and Islamic states in a neverending campaign, almost like an Orwellian campaign they will never outlive, that's why I have a problem with that thinking. we've got to get to the bottom of it. Why did they take us to Iraq, because that's the same reason they want to take us into Damascus and why they want to have permanent war with Iran. What a great exchange. And it shows up Paul Krugman, who mystifies this very issue in the New York Times. ("Errors and Lies," which poses the same question that Matthews does but concludes that Bush and Cheney "wanted a war," which is just a lie masquerading as a tautology.)

    [Apr 27, 2017] Taibbi Putin Derangement Syndrome Arrives

    Apr 27, 2017 | www.rollingstone.com

    Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria

    Michael Flynn and Donald Trump Credit: John Locher/AP
    So Michael Flynn, who was Donald Trump's national security adviser before he got busted talking out of school to Russia's ambassador, has reportedly offered to testify in exchange for immunity.

    For seemingly the 100th time, social media is exploding. This is it! The big reveal!

    Perhaps it will come off just the way people are expecting. Perhaps Flynn will get a deal, walk into the House or the Senate surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers, and unspool the whole sordid conspiracy.

    He will explain that Donald Trump, compromised by ancient deals with Russian mobsters, and perhaps even blackmailed by an unspeakable KGB sex tape, made a secret deal. He'll say Trump agreed to downplay the obvious benefits of an armed proxy war in Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia in exchange for Vladimir Putin's help in stealing the emails of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Podesta.

    I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the narrative, mainly because we haven't seen any real evidence of it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful reporters paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be true?

    What if reality does turn out to be a massive connect-the-dots image of St. Basil's Cathedral sitting atop the White House? (This was suddenly legitimate British conspiracist Louise Mensch's construction in The New York Times last week.) What if all the Glenn Beck -style far-out charts with the circles and arrows somehow all make sense?

    This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.

    Even I think there should be a legitimate independent investigation – one that, given Trump's history, might uncover all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up being uncovered on the Trump side, the public prosecution of this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.

    One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn't believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks.

    The aforementioned Mensch, a noted loon who thinks Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart but has somehow been put front and center by The Times and HBO's Real Time , has denounced an extraordinary list of Kremlin plants.

    She's tabbed everyone from Jeff Sessions ("a Russian partisan ") to Rudy Giuliani and former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom (" agents of influence ") to Glenn Greenwald (" Russian shill ") to ProPublica and Democracy Now! (also " Russian shills "), to the 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony Weiner sexted ( really , she says, a Russian hacker group called "Crackas With Attitudes") to an unnamed number of FBI agents in the New York field office (" moles "). And that's just for starters.

    Others are doing the same. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, upon seeing the strange behavior of Republican Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes, asked "what kind of dossier" the Kremlin has on Nunes.

    Dem-friendly pollster Matt McDermott wondered why reporters Michael Tracey and Zaid Jilani aren't on board with the conspiracy stories (they might be "unwitting" agents!) and noted , without irony, that Russian bots mysteriously appear every time he tweets negatively about them.

    Think about that last one. Does McDermott think Tracey and Jilani call their handlers at the sight of a scary Matt McDermott tweet and have the FSB send waves of Russian bots at him on command? Or does he think it's an automated process? What goes through the heads of such people?

    I've written a few articles on the Russia subject that have been very tame, basically arguing that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence of collusion before those of us in the media jump in the story with both feet. But even I've gotten the treatment .

    I've been "outed" as a possible paid Putin plant by the infamous "PropOrNot" group, which is supposedly dedicated to rooting out Russian "agents of influence." You might remember PropOrNot as the illustrious research team the Washington Post once relied on for a report that accused 200 alternative websites of being "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season."

    Politicians are getting into the act, too. It was one thing when Rand Paul balked at OKing the expansion of NATO to Montenegro, and John McCain didn't hesitate to say that "the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin."

    Even Bernie Sanders has himself been accused of being a Putin plant by Mensch. But even he's gotten on board of late, asking , "What do the Russians have on Mr. Trump?"

    So even people who themselves have been accused of being Russian plants are now accusing people of being Russian plants. As the Russians would say, it's enough to make your bashka hurt.

    Sanders should know better. Last week, during hearings in the Senate, multiple witnesses essentially pegged his electoral following as unwitting fellow travelers for Putin.

    Former NSA chief Keith Alexander spoke openly of how Russia used the Sanders campaign to "drive a wedge within the Democratic Party," while Dr. Thomas Rid of Kings College in London spoke of Russia's use of "unwitting agents" and "overeager journalists" to drive narratives that destabilized American politics.

    This testimony was brought out by Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. Warner has been in full-blown "precious bodily fluids" mode throughout this scandal. During an interview with The Times on the Russia subject a month back, there was a thud outside the window. "That may just be the FSB," he said. The paper was unsure if he was kidding.

    Warner furthermore told The Times that in order to get prepared for his role as an exposer of 21st-century Russian perfidy, he was "losing himself in a book about the Romanovs," and had been quizzing staffers about "Tolstoy and Nabokov."

    This is how nuts things are now: a senator brushes up on Nabokov and Tolstoy ( Tolstoy !) to get pumped to expose Vladimir Putin.

    Even the bizarre admission by FBI director (and sudden darling of the same Democrats who hated him months ago) James Comey that he didn't know anything about Russia's biggest company didn't seem to trouble Americans very much. Here's the key exchange , from a House hearing in which Jackie Speier quizzed Comey:

    SPEIER: Now, do we know who Gazprom-Media is? Do you know anything about Gazprom, director?
    COMEY: I don't.
    SPEIER: Well, it's a – it's an oil company.

    (Incidentally, Gazprom – primarily a natural-gas giant – is not really an oil company. So both Comey and Speier got it wrong.)

    As Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg noted , this exchange was terrifying to Russians. The leader of an investigation into Russian espionage not knowing what Gazprom is would be like an FSB chief not having heard of Exxon-Mobil. It's bizarre, to say the least.

    Testimony of the sort that came from Warner's committee last week is being buttressed by news stories in liberal outlets like Salon insisting that "Bernie Bros" were influenced by those same ubiquitous McDermott-chasing Russian "bots."

    These stories insist that, among other things, these evil bots pushed on the unwitting "bros" juicy "fake news" stories about Hillary being "involved with various murders and money laundering schemes."

    Some 13.2 million people voted for Sanders during the primary season last year. What percentage does any rational person really believe voted that way because of "fake news"?

    I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of factors, but mainly by long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and enthusiasm for Sanders himself.

    To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed the true DNC faith because of evil Russian propaganda is both insulting and ridiculous. It's also a testimony to the remarkable capacity for self-deception within the leadership of the Democratic Party.

    If the party's leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why some 155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they're farther along down the Purity of Essence nut-hole than Mark Warner.

    Moreover, even those who detest Trump with every fiber of their being must see the dangerous endgame implicit in this entire line of thinking. If the Democrats succeed in spreading the idea that straying from the DNC-approved candidate – in either the past or the future – is/was an act of "unwitting" cooperation with the evil Putin regime, then the entire idea of legitimate dissent is going to be in trouble.

    Imagine it's four years from now (if indeed that's when we have our next election). A Democratic candidate stands before the stump, and announces that a consortium of intelligence experts has concluded that Putin is backing the hippie/anti-war/anti-corporate opposition candidate.

    Or, even better: that same candidate reminds us "what happened last time" when people decided to vote their consciences during primary season. It will be argued, in seriousness, that true Americans will owe their votes to the non-Putin candidate. It would be a shock if some version of this didn't become an effective political trope going forward.

    But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone.

    Last week saw Donna Brazile and Dick Cheney both declare Russia's apparent hack of DNC emails an "act of war." This coupling seemed at first like political end times: as Bill Murray would say, " dogs and cats, living together ."

    But there's been remarkable unanimity among would-be enemies in the Republican and Democrat camps on this question. Suddenly everyone from Speier to McCain to Kamala Harris to Ben Cardin have decried Russia's alleged behavior during the election as real or metaphorical acts of war: a "political Pearl Harbor," as Cardin put it.

    That no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war with nuclear-powered Russia at a time when both countries have troops within "hand-grenade range " of each in Syria other is bizarre, to say the least. People are in such a fever to drag Trump to impeachment that these other considerations seem not to matter. This is what happens when people lose their heads.

    There are a lot of people who will say that these issues are of secondary importance to the more important question of whether or not we have a compromised Russian agent in the White House.

    But when it comes to Trump-Putin collusion, we're still waiting for the confirmation. As Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters put it, the proof is increasingly understood to be the thing we find later, as in, " If we do the investigations, we will find the connections ."

    But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should.

    Watch illustrator Victor Juhasz discuss what it means to draw President Donald Trump.

    [Apr 26, 2017] Trumps Aggressions in Syria Will Have Long-Term Consequences

    Hat tip to antiwar.com.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's national security and "defense" advisors are just as bad, and worse. Matthew McCaffrey at the Mises Institute explains how Trump's "economic worldview could only ever have led to militarism and conflict." So the new warmongering should be of no surprise. ..."
    "... Although while he has suggested some hints of non-interventionist thought during the campaign, now we can see the kind of influence that his entourage of military generals can have on his "thinking." ..."
    "... Reuters ..."
    "... Guardian ..."
    "... The American Conservative ..."
    "... But, James Bovard noted in this article how during that first 1991 war the U.S. military went on to intentionally bomb Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers. Those illicit actions were followed by the U.S. government's sanctions to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure. That was for the stated purpose of disabling the society as a whole as well as subverting "civilian morale," as the Air Force Col. John Warden put it, who was quoted in that Bovard article ..."
    "... The destruction of Iraqi water treatment centers and the sanctions during the 1990s led to high rates of cholera, typhoid and infant mortality, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands by the mid-1990s, from the U.S. government's first war on Iraq that then-President George H.W. Bush claimed would not be "another Vietnam." ..."
    Apr 26, 2017 | www.activistpost.com

    As I have noted in response to the latest U.S. government aggressions in the Middle East, Donald Trump's short-sighted military actions in Syria are not based on rational thought but on emotionalism, his feeling terrible about the children and other innocent victims of the chemical attack in Syria this week. But this is purely selective emotionalism, given that he doesn't seem so concerned about all the innocent victims of his own drone bombings that he has been authorizing since he was sworn in as President.

    Trump is also not concerned for the probable long-term results of his warmongering now. History indicates that the situation will only get worse from here, as we have seen with Iraq.

    And there are other examples of Trump's selective emotionalism and concern for Syrians. For example, where is Trump's concern for the innocent victims of the head-choppers and thousand-lashers in Saudi Arabia? Should he bomb the Royal Saudi King's palace? What about the starving victims of Venezuela's Maduro? Should Trump bomb Caracas? (But since when is U.S. foreign policy ever consistent?)

    As with his terrible economic advisors who have been advising Trump to support ObamaCare Lite and trillion-dollar infrastructure squandering, Trump's national security and "defense" advisors are just as bad, and worse. Matthew McCaffrey at the Mises Institute explains how Trump's "economic worldview could only ever have led to militarism and conflict." So the new warmongering should be of no surprise.

    Although while he has suggested some hints of non-interventionist thought during the campaign, now we can see the kind of influence that his entourage of military generals can have on his "thinking."

    According to Reuters , a " U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ," said that "[Syria's Bashar] Assad has repeatedly shown that he is willing to use whatever chemical weapons he has retained or reconstituted to attack and terrorize his own people," even though those who have made that assertion have not presented any evidence of it.

    In a statement rationalizing his military strikes on Syria, Trump said, "Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the life of innocent men, women and children," as a matter of proven fact. Yet, there has been no evidence provided by anyone. And the government groupies of the mainstream media do not seem to be asking why Assad would intentionally gas his own people? What did he have to gain from that? What proof has there been that Assad is the true culprit?

    Although, there have been claims of evidence made mainly by the Islamist anti-Assad rebels as pointed out by Justin Raimondo , who lists some of the hoaxes committed by those "rebels." So really, there is no reliable evidence against Assad on this recent chemical weapons attack.

    And what about the Trump drones terrorizing innocents in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere? According to the U.K. Guardian , the Tuaiman family in Yemen is typical of people in those areas who now experience the terror of Trump's escalation of drones from once a week to every day, especially given Trump's campaign threat to kill "terrorists" (in a total absence of due process), as well as their families. Trump's bombs in Syria and Iraq have already resulted in a huge increase in numbers of civilians murdered .

    And speaking of chemical warfare, I guess Trump has not learned from, or perhaps doesn't even know about all the terrible things that the U.S. military did to the people of Iraq over these past 15 years, actually 26 years now, since 1991 . As Eric Margolis referred to , the U.S. military used white phosphorus in its invasions and bombings in Iraq, especially Fallujah.

    The people of Iraq have suffered not only from the U.S. military's use of chemical weapons but from depleted uranium and other contaminants which have polluted the Iraqis' water supply since the first U.S. government war on Iraq in 1991. Kelley Beaucar Vlahos wrote for The American Conservative of "babies born with two heads, one eye in the middle of the face, missing limbs, too many limbs, brain damage, cardiac defects, abnormally large heads, eyeless, missing genitalia, riddled with tumors," and a doubled rate of childhood leukemia.

    The bombing during the 1991 first war on Iraq also negatively affected U.S. soldiers , many of whom complain of health problems now as well.

    In the current bombing of Syria that Donald Trump has initiated, the U.S. military claims that their Tomahawk missiles, profitably produced by Raytheon, have pinpoint precision, so that they will not harm civilians.

    That precision bombing technology is what we witnessed from the proud warmongers of the U.S. government's first war on Iraq in 1991:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/V30vSPFLeoE

    But, James Bovard noted in this article how during that first 1991 war the U.S. military went on to intentionally bomb Iraqi civilian water and sewage treatment centers. Those illicit actions were followed by the U.S. government's sanctions to prevent the Iraqis from rebuilding that infrastructure. That was for the stated purpose of disabling the society as a whole as well as subverting "civilian morale," as the Air Force Col. John Warden put it, who was quoted in that Bovard article.

    The destruction of Iraqi water treatment centers and the sanctions during the 1990s led to high rates of cholera, typhoid and infant mortality, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands by the mid-1990s, from the U.S. government's first war on Iraq that then-President George H.W. Bush claimed would not be "another Vietnam."

    Scott Lazarowitz is a libertarian writer and commentator. Please visit his blog .

    [Apr 26, 2017] Did Assad Order the Syrian Gas Attack

    So it looks we ended with the same neocons in Department of Defense and national security Council that would be appointed by Hillary. Paul Wolfowitz friends no more, no less.
    Which converted Trump slogan "make America great again" into standard neocons idea of "Full spectrum domination".
    Notable quotes:
    "... We also know that the Russians used a "hotline" prior to the attack to alert the United States military that the strike would be taking place against what was apparently described as an arms depot. ..."
    "... The White House also reversed itself regarding possible Syrian peace talks, declaring that Bashar al-Assad must be removed as a condition for any political settlement of the ongoing crisis. It also described Russia as complicit in protecting the Syrian president. Secretary of State Tillerson declared that bilateral relations with Moscow cannot improve as long as Russia is supporting al-Assad. The relationship with Russia is, according to President Trump , at an "all-time low." ..."
    "... Bear in mind that nearly all the information and physical evidence available from the attack site in Syria has come from anti-Assad sources linked to al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra, which controls the area. This includes the so-called White Helmets, who are opposition surrogates . The established narrative derives from this material as well as from bipartisan assertions of Assad's "certain" guilt, even from normally liberal Democrats , which are being presented as fact. ..."
    "... The four-page White House report is supplemented by commentary provided by McMaster and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (also a former general) on the day of the U.S. attack, as well as a more recent interview with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, which describes the decision-making process and the military options. Each official, as well as President Trump, took it as a given that Syria had carried out the attack. Regarding the motive for such an attack, the report claims that Damascus was seeking to halt a rebel advance. ..."
    "... "Make America Great Again" == "Full Spectrum Dominance"? ..."
    "... It does seem true that political survival demanded the about face. The only way to prove in our hysterical political climate engendered by the fury of the Clinton loss, that the President is not a Russian agent, demands a war with Russia. ..."
    "... Maybe the North Vietnamese were responsible for whatever actually happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, eh? ..."
    "... I was astonished by the speed of the US response given the fact that intel on the ground is notoriously complex. The White House coulda shoulda woulda waited two days to verify. It now may be a case of acute and toxic need to save face. ..."
    "... Great analytical piece that puts the main stream journalists to shame. Let me add one instance of suspicious reports by Al-Qaedhe affiliate: the supposed attack happened at night or early morning, according to rebel reports. "when people slept" , it was repeatedly said. Then, there is talk of "we saw a bomb dropping", or "a mushroom cloud", etc. Obviously, these observations could not happen in dark. ..."
    "... as noted in other thread (re: North Korea), this feels like Iraq v2.0, and we all know the 45th POTUS has no problem throwing the CIA and "the generals" under the bus. the phrase 'pressure from the white house' is particularly chilling. then again, when the Commander-in-Chief is a member of the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame, and reality TV game show host, who tweets and yammers incessantly about "fake news" (the ultimate false flag operation), should we not expect him "value" fake intelligence and/or alternative "facts" when it comes to waging war? who could have imagined a person of this ilk would actually be a neocon in populist/anti-establishment clothing? or maybe he is just a patsy being handled deftly by "agents" of the Military-Industrial establishment? ..."
    "... Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had WMD? ..."
    "... "It does seem true that political survival demanded the about face. The only way to prove in our hysterical political climate engendered by the fury of the Clinton loss, that the President is not a Russian agent, demands a war with Russia." ..."
    "... And it was a mistake. A deep mistake. He was winnning the Russia Manchurian candidate issue. The tide was turning even among democrats and it was beginning to sour faster each day. He should have fought it. The short term gain of turning the tables in this manner has now hemmed into the camp of interventionists. And what worse gained him but momentary praise unless he continues to bend. ..."
    "... It's pressure not from the white house, but that band of interventionists that the current executive has surrounded himself with. And it may prove his undoing.A cadre of Mr. Wolfitzs and Vice Pres Cheneys. ..."
    "... the safety of striking those munition storage bunkers without releasing sarin everywhere, why aren't they more specific about the weapon supposedly released from the aircraft? They say: ..."
    "... People who can fight a conventional army with an air force to a standstill over a period of years might have been able to capture a few poison gas munitions along the way. Not saying this happened. I am saying that given our sources of info, most of the time we don't really know what is happening. ..."
    "... ISIS and "the rebels" are rumored to be receiving chemical weapons from Turkey and perhaps Saudi Arabia. So their inability to manufacture Sarin or other chemical weapons doesn't vindicate them when they appear to have access to it via state actors. ..."
    "... They have used various chemical agennts 52 times according to the NYT. ..."
    "... Did Assad Order the Syrian Gas Attack? I really doubt. Chemical weapons are inefficient, indiscriminate, provocative ..."
    "... the "White Helmets" are a known propaganda operation by the British foreign office. ..."
    Apr 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    On the morning of April 4, a Syrian Air Force Russian-made Sukhoi-22 fighter bomber dropped or fired something at a target in rebel-held Idlib Governorate. A cloud of some chemical substance subsequently materialized and drifted to the adjacent inhabited village of Khan Shaykhun, where it killed between 50 and 100 people. We also know that the Russians used a "hotline" prior to the attack to alert the United States military that the strike would be taking place against what was apparently described as an arms depot.

    We also know about what might be considered collateral damage. The deaths and alleged use of chemical weapons were described by President Donald Trump as a "vital national-security interest" and served as the pretext for a strike by 59 U.S. cruise missiles two days later, which was directed against the Syrian air base at al-Shayrat. The U.S. attack did little damage and the base was soon again operational.

    The White House also reversed itself regarding possible Syrian peace talks, declaring that Bashar al-Assad must be removed as a condition for any political settlement of the ongoing crisis. It also described Russia as complicit in protecting the Syrian president. Secretary of State Tillerson declared that bilateral relations with Moscow cannot improve as long as Russia is supporting al-Assad. The relationship with Russia is, according to President Trump , at an "all-time low."

    The U.S. government, in support of its narrative justifying the cruise-missile attack, has issued a four-page assessment entitled "The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017." The report was issued by the National Security Council, which is part of the White House, and was authored by Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, the national-security advisor, rather than Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats. The provenance suggests that it might not be what it is touted as, a "Summary of the U.S. Intelligence Community's Assessment " It makes a number of claims, some of which might be considered fact-based, while others seem questionable.

    Bear in mind that nearly all the information and physical evidence available from the attack site in Syria has come from anti-Assad sources linked to al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra, which controls the area. This includes the so-called White Helmets, who are opposition surrogates . The established narrative derives from this material as well as from bipartisan assertions of Assad's "certain" guilt, even from normally liberal Democrats , which are being presented as fact.

    The four-page White House report is supplemented by commentary provided by McMaster and Secretary of Defense James Mattis (also a former general) on the day of the U.S. attack, as well as a more recent interview with CIA Director Mike Pompeo, which describes the decision-making process and the military options. Each official, as well as President Trump, took it as a given that Syria had carried out the attack. Regarding the motive for such an attack, the report claims that Damascus was seeking to halt a rebel advance. Others in the media have claimed that it was done to "test" the United States or intimidate the Syrian population, but some other observers find those explanations elusive. After all, Bashar al-Assad would have had no good reason to stage a chemical attack when he was winning the war, while the rebels theoretically had plenty of motivation to stage a "false flag" attack to alienate Damascus from Western Europe and the Americans.

    There is considerable repetition in the White House report describing Syrian involvement, rebel inability to mount a chemical attack, physical remains, and symptoms of the dead and injured. It says that the U.S. government is "confident" that the Syrian government carried out a chemical attack using "a neurotoxic agent like sarin against its own people" on the morning of April 4, and that it would have been impossible for the rebels to fabricate the incident because it would be too complicated for them to do so. The alleged U.S. intelligence relating to understanding the attack included Sigint, geospatial monitoring, and physiological examination. Plus "Credible open source reporting tells a clear and consistent story." This included commercial-satellite imagery, which shows the impact sites of the weapons used, and opinions registered by civilian agencies like Medecins Sans Frontieres and Amnesty International.

    The U.S. government report also maintains that Syria has violated its international obligations by retaining chemical-weapons capabilities even though it agreed to destroy all stocks in 2013. The narrative also insists that the still highly controversial attack made on Ghouta in 2013 was, in fact, carried out by Damascus. Syrian chemical-weapons experts were probably "involved in planning the [current] attack." Symptoms of the victims were consistent with exposure to sarin.

    Since the attack, per the report, the Russians and Syrians have been spinning out "false narratives" employing "multiple, conflicting accounts [of what took place] in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the international community."

    As noted above, beyond the bare bones of the Syrian attack, the U.S. retaliation, and the casualties, there is little in the incidents and the surrounding analysis that can be regarded as hard fact. Little in the National Security Council report is unassailable, and one should note that almost none of it is based on U.S. intelligence resources. The possibility that a Syrian chemical-weapons expert was "probably" involved expresses uncertainty, suggesting that an intercepted telephone call is being generously interpreted. And the geospatial monitoring is either a satellite (or even a drone) overhead, or possibly an AWACS plane operating along the nearby Turkish border, which would register the flight path of the Su-22 and the subsequent explosion(s), hardly conclusive evidence of anything beyond what we already know to be true.

    The thinness of the U.S. intelligence came through in an April 13 talk by CIA Director Mike Pompeo, who described the pressure from the White House to come up with an "assessment." As a bottom line, he commented that "Everyone saw the open-source photos, so we had reality on our side." One might observe that that reality was derived from Google satellite photography possibly adjusted by the rebels and freely interpreted by the media, not from the $80 billion per year intelligence community.

    Observers should also reexamine the assumption that rebels would be unable to either mount a chemical attack or create a "false flag" operation. There have been numerous instances of ISIS and al-Nusra use of chemicals both in Syria and Iraq, the most recent being just this past week in western Mosul. And the similar Ghouta "false flag" in 2013 almost succeeded , apparently aided by Turkish intelligence , stopped only when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper paid a surprise visit to President Obama in the Oval Office to tell him that the case against Damascus was not a "slam dunk."

    And the physical evidence that the Syrians launched a chemical attack from the air has been challenged. The only eyewitness to surface , a 14-year-old, has described how she saw a bomb drop from an airplane and hit a nearby building, which produced a mushroom cloud. It is just as the Russians and Syrians described the incident and rules out sarin, which is colorless. And then there is the testimony of Professor Theodore Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national-security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Postol has examined the evidence in the photos and concluded that the toxin was fired from the ground, not from the air, adding that no competent analyst would believe otherwise-suggesting that there was a rush to judgment. Postol concluded that "it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack."

    Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter has also disputed the findings in the White House report, noting that what evidence there is points to the use of conventional weapons by the Syrians. He also notes that the Su-22's available weapons cannot deliver a chemical or gas attack from the air, something which Donald Trump and his advisers might not have been aware of.

    And then there are the victims. The tests confirming the presence of sarin were carried out in Turkish hospitals and Ankara is far from a neutral party, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan having demanded repeatedly that al-Assad be removed.

    It is all too easy to forget that the rebels and their associates are killers, with little to differentiate them from the crimes that are being laid at Bashar al-Assad's door. Two recent examples of rebel brutality include the beheading of a child and the recent bombing of Syrian refugees waiting to cross into government-controlled territory. The latter attack killed more people-including women, children, and babies-than the incident at Khan Shaykhun, but it was not so much as mentioned by President Trump. It was only briefly reported in the U.S. media before being dropped down the memory hole, presumably because it did not fit the prevailing narrative.

    Other videos and pictures of Khan Shaykhun victims cited by the White House show survivors being assisted by alleged medical personnel, who appear not be wearing any protective garb. If the chemical agent had actually been sarin, they too would have been affected. And the symptoms of sarin are similar to the symptoms experienced with exposure to other toxins, including chlorine and smoke munitions. One survivor noted a smell of rotten food and garlic. Sarin is, in addition to being colorless, odorless.

    And then there is the question of al-Assad's chemical-weapons supply. It is now being asserted by the White House that the Syrians retained a significant capability, but that is not what Secretary of State John Kerry said in July 2014, when he claimed everything was destroyed : "We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out." The United States, working with Russia, was instrumental in destroying the Syrian chemical stockpile.

    It certainly appears that there was a rush to judgment on the part of the White House and the top presidential advisors. It is possible that al-Assad did what he has been accused of, but the Trump administration decided to assign guilt to the Syrians before they could have known with any clarity what had happened. As in the case of Iraq, the available intelligence was made to fit the preferred narrative. All that remained was to call a meeting of top advisors to determine exactly how to punish Damascus. The truth about what occurred in Syria on April 4 remains to be discovered, and is almost certainly possessed by many in the U.S. intelligence community. Perhaps someday, someone who understands what happened will feel compelled to reveal what he or she knows.

    Meanwhile, the fallout from the incident and the U.S. retaliation is severe and potentially catastrophic. As Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen, America's leading expert on Russia, put it recently :

    I think this is the most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations, at least since the Cuban missile crisis. And arguably, it's more dangerous, because it's more complex. So the question arises, naturally: Why did Trump launch 50 Tomahawk missiles at a Syrian Air Force base, when, God help us, he did kill some people, but was of no military value whatsoever? Was this meant to show 'I'm not a Kremlin agent?' Because, normally, a president would have done the following. You would go to the United Nations and ask for an investigation about what happened with those chemical weapons. And then you would decide what to do. But while having dinner at Mar-a-Lago with the leader of China, who was deeply humiliated, because he's an ally of Russia, they rushed off these Tomahawk missiles.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    EliteCommInc. , says: April 24, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    If there's a slam dunk here, it's that the US is constantly being played.
    MEOW , says: April 24, 2017 at 11:05 pm
    Who benefits? Not Syria. Not the US?
    Lee , says: April 24, 2017 at 11:11 pm
    Exactly, when was the last time US Intelligence proved valid on ANYTHING where a high level decision was made?

    Fran Macadam , says: April 25, 2017 at 3:40 am
    "Make America Great Again" == "Full Spectrum Dominance"?

    Another guy in the WH who prefers his "gut" and thereby believes he creates reality ex nihilo?

    But

    He was prescient some weeks back when he said he knew it wasn't to his political benefit to get along with Russia and that people would applaud firing on a Russian ship off the east coast, but that it wouldn't be great at all, but terrible.

    It does seem true that political survival demanded the about face. The only way to prove in our hysterical political climate engendered by the fury of the Clinton loss, that the President is not a Russian agent, demands a war with Russia.

    Since the applause for this is so great across the political spectrum, excluding present company, that is what we will get.

    bacon , says: April 25, 2017 at 3:42 am
    When did US government lying to justify some action come to be seen as unusual? Maybe the Assad government did carry out this chemical attack, but our record of being casual with the truth raises doubts. Maybe the North Vietnamese were responsible for whatever actually happened in the Gulf of Tonkin, eh?
    Douglas Burton , says: April 25, 2017 at 4:06 am
    This is a welcome contribution to the reportage of what appears to be a tragic rush to judgment. Well done!

    I was astonished by the speed of the US response given the fact that intel on the ground is notoriously complex. The White House coulda shoulda woulda waited two days to verify. It now may be a case of acute and toxic need to save face.

    Hassan , says: April 25, 2017 at 7:26 am
    Great analytical piece that puts the main stream journalists to shame. Let me add one instance of suspicious reports by Al-Qaedhe affiliate: the supposed attack happened at night or early morning, according to rebel reports. "when people slept" , it was repeatedly said. Then, there is talk of "we saw a bomb dropping", or "a mushroom cloud", etc. Obviously, these observations could not happen in dark.
    Daath , says: April 25, 2017 at 8:07 am
    There is no hard proof one way or another, but the circumstantial arguments here for the false flag theory aren't very strong.

    1. Assad is winning, so why would he have done this? This is the exact same argument that was repeatedly given after Ghouta attack, and yet the war goes on. The government won an important victory in Aleppo, but most of Syria is outside its control. Its own forces are also weak and often disloyal, so it depends on Russia, Hizbollah and Iran. These allies don't necessarily care that much about total Assad victory.

    2. Rebel chemical weapons. ISIS and apparently Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (ex-Nusra) have used chlorine and mustard gas, yes. These are considerably easier to manufacture than nerve agents. In any case, Guardian's Kareem Shaheen's on-ground report referred to meeting with Ahrar al-Sham's officials there, and that's a different bunch of Islamists. They cooperate with other throat cutters, though.

    3. Testimonies. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable (was there really a mushroom cloud or just some billowing dust?). Postol's is more interesting, but also seems compatible with air attack not using a dedicated chemical weapon dispersion device. Syrian air force's signature weapon is the barrel bomb, so assuming the use of another improvised device here isn't illogical.

    4. First responders not affected. Locals claim they were. AFAIK sarin degrades fast in heat and sunlight, so by the time photos were taken later in the day, the danger would have been much lower. This would have also been a reason to launch the attack in early morning – and the airstrike did indeed happen at 6:30am.

    5. Odorless sarin. In theory it is, yes. Impurities can impart strong smells to it, and binary sarin mixed within delivery device doesn't necessarily mix perfectly.

    6. Kerry's statement. Well, duh. Of course he said that. It was a somewhat embarrassing episode, and the deal saved face, so of course it had to be 100% successful, even if it wasn't.

    Joe the Plutocrat , says: April 25, 2017 at 8:32 am
    as noted in other thread (re: North Korea), this feels like Iraq v2.0, and we all know the 45th POTUS has no problem throwing the CIA and "the generals" under the bus. the phrase 'pressure from the white house' is particularly chilling. then again, when the Commander-in-Chief is a member of the Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame, and reality TV game show host, who tweets and yammers incessantly about "fake news" (the ultimate false flag operation), should we not expect him "value" fake intelligence and/or alternative "facts" when it comes to waging war? who could have imagined a person of this ilk would actually be a neocon in populist/anti-establishment clothing? or maybe he is just a patsy being handled deftly by "agents" of the Military-Industrial establishment?
    Jim Bovard , says: April 25, 2017 at 8:33 am
    Great piece – best thing I have seen yet on the latest Syrian uproar.
    collin , says: April 25, 2017 at 9:28 am
    Does this truth really matter in the Trump Presidency?

    He got to his sugar bombing of empty fields next to airstrips that the Russian & Syrians knew in advance of the bombing. Cable News got their fireworks show and Trump got be President. It seemed like everybody benefited except Syria.

    Hanna Khayyat , says: April 25, 2017 at 10:29 am
    Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had WMD?
      New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one." Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable. The only question remaining is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions." Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "

    Different year; different country, but for the msm in the USA, some things never change.

    EliteCommInc. , says: April 25, 2017 at 11:46 am
    "It does seem true that political survival demanded the about face. The only way to prove in our hysterical political climate engendered by the fury of the Clinton loss, that the President is not a Russian agent, demands a war with Russia."

    And it was a mistake. A deep mistake. He was winnning the Russia Manchurian candidate issue. The tide was turning even among democrats and it was beginning to sour faster each day. He should have fought it. The short term gain of turning the tables in this manner has now hemmed into the camp of interventionists. And what worse gained him but momentary praise unless he continues to bend.

    Further it plays the other edge of that sword, that he is easily turned, cowed frightened and more, he will betray those he befriends for support to so as to avoid criticism by noise makers. The fact, that we should not be in Syria in the first place should have been his foundational stance as it was during the campaign.

    That he should have weighed evidence based on disinterested parties. Because what was presented was dubious on its face. We have been down this road before and nothing about this charge made any more sense than the previous attempt to bait US involvement. As for the nonsense about the rebels not having the capabilities - excuse me - but if you have a chemical weapon on a canister all one need do is open it - these arguments are, I agree familiar to the Iraq advances for war - as if developed by a class of high school students. Photos of explosions – you have got to be kidding.

    I have some responses to the 6 counters presented.

    a. The Syrian government is winning. And the reason there is still war is because the US and others continue to foment and encourage the rebels, Known as terrorists by any other name.

    b. Rebels and chem weapons, their availability is far wider than suggested. No they could have easily released said chemicals and they didn't have to manufacture them - they were provided (a brief history):

    c. So the first respondents waited leaving people to die. I don't buy it. In addition, the gas would have spread immediately, not later in the day. As reported in drifted into the communities yet the impact is very slight.

    The entire advance here gets thinner with each defense. Oddly no one is putting those blood tests on the table. As for people choking since all bomb munitions are designed to cease life function by direct hit or secondary reaction, I have no doubt that people experienced shortness of breath.

    But most importantly, no one is disputing the Russian claim. Because if they were they would accuse Russia of using chemical weapons, after all, it was a Russian mission. That what this charge ought to be, that Russia knowingly used a chemical compound forbidden by international law.

    Make that charge and I might begin to take the advance as having some sincerity.

    It's pressure not from the white house, but that band of interventionists that the current executive has surrounded himself with. And it may prove his undoing.A cadre of Mr. Wolfitzs and Vice Pres Cheneys.

    Winston , says: April 25, 2017 at 12:01 pm
    1. The small crater in an asphalt road which you can find an image of online looks exactly like the craters left by a very common, surface-to-surface (note – NOT air-to-surface) 122mm unguided artillery rocket. 122mm debris is specifically mentioned in reports about the debris left in the crater.

    2. The US report makes no mention of the type of munition used while it claims to be certain about the specific type of aircraft used. A 122mm rocket fired from the aircraft would have been extremely obvious for many miles around. WHY no mention of the specific munition type used – rocket or gravity (dumb) bomb? A 122m surface-to-surface artillery missile SOMEHOW fired from an aircraft when a much simpler dumb bomb attack which would have been more appropriate is both unusual and suspicious.

    3. Only if the sarin weapon used was of the binary type would an attack on the airbase which launched the supposedly guilty aircraft not released sarin when all of the munition storage bunkers were destroyed as they were. If the US was that certain of even the specific sarin device type used and, therefore, the safety of striking those munition storage bunkers without releasing sarin everywhere, why aren't they more specific about the weapon supposedly released from the aircraft? They say:

    "A significant body of pro-opposition social media reports indicate that the chemical attack began in Khan Shaykhun at 6:55 a.m. local time on 4 April. Our information indicates that the chemical agent was delivered by regime Su-22 fixed-wing aircraft that took off from the regime-controlled Shayrat Airfield. These aircraft were in the vicinity of Khan Shaykhun approximately 20 minutes before reports of the chemical attack began and vacated the area shortly after the attack. Additionally, our information indicates personnel historically associated with Syria's chemical weapons program were at Shayrat Airfield in late March making preparations for an upcoming attack in Northern Syria, and they were present at the airfield on the day of the attack."

    Delivered HOW, by what kind of weapon? A 122mm rocket made only for surface-to-surface weapons systems? If they are so certain about the chemical weapons personnel at the airbase how would they not know at least that? Did the "pro-opposition" tell them about those personnel, the same people who would be most likely to launch a false flag attack?

    Donald , says: April 25, 2017 at 12:20 pm
    Daath–the point is not that we know it was a false flag attack. The point is or should be that we don't know it wasn't. We don't know much of anything besides people dying. And some of your claims are debatable anyway. Could sarin be stolen from an Assad stockpile? Why not? The rebels have done amazingly well, killing at least 100,000 armed opponents (with an amazingly low civilian death count according to the anti-Assad reporters, which as some have pointed out, means the Al Qaeda forces are among the most humane fighters in history.) People who can fight a conventional army with an air force to a standstill over a period of years might have been able to capture a few poison gas munitions along the way. Not saying this happened. I am saying that given our sources of info, most of the time we don't really know what is happening.
  • Bridger , says: April 25, 2017 at 6:37 pm
    @DAATH

    ISIS and "the rebels" are rumored to be receiving chemical weapons from Turkey and perhaps Saudi Arabia. So their inability to manufacture Sarin or other chemical weapons doesn't vindicate them when they appear to have access to it via state actors.

    They have used various chemical agennts 52 times according to the NYT.

    Dr.Diprospan , says: April 25, 2017 at 11:36 pm
    As always, a good question from Mr. Giraldi, but I would have looked at the event differently. Did Assad Order the Syrian Gas Attack? I really doubt. Chemical weapons are inefficient, indiscriminate, provocative

    Let's look at the event in the context of other events of April 2017:

    Another Russian American crew flew into space. The Exxon-Mobil oil company is negotiating with Russian partners to explore oil reserves in the Black Sea.

    The Russian national currency is rapidly strengthening. Finally, a group of Russian students whom I know well get an American visa without obstacles with the program "work and travel."

    For several years in Russia, international competitions in military equipment have been popular. Every year, the Russian military before the competitions in "Tank biathlon" and "Air darts" send an invitation to their American colleagues, but Americans always ignore the invitations.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FQdAYM4bOA
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh6ORlaURso
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r55i7Y3MkbE

    For the US military there are more interesting contests with the Russians – those that are 90 percent close to real combat conditions.

    A good excuse is already available. So 2 destroyers in the Mediterranean are ready to attack the airfield. The US warns Russia 2 hours before the launch of cruise missiles. The first destroyer fires 40 missiles and they fall unexploded in the Syrian deserts. Thus Russia demonstrates new system of EW – "Lever".

    Then the Russian military disconnects the device and allows 20 missiles from the 2nd destroyer to hit hangars with decommissioned aircraft.

    Why did Xi Jin Pinge smile so good-naturedly, tasting Donald Trump's gorgeous chocolate cake? He probably anticipated that if the Russian EW facilities prove themselves well, then, at the meeting with Putin in Moscow this summer, they will discuss a new multibillion-dollar military order while trying Russian ice cream with tea.

    EliteCommInc. , says: April 26, 2017 at 2:58 am
    "The White Helmets are among the only humanitarian workers who are able to operate in the region."

    Unfortunately Amnesty International has become an advocacy group or the rebels. They are not neutral. After Iraq, they have abandoned their neutrality for choosing sides.

    "Assad used chemical weapons in 2013."

    The rebels have been caught with their pants down on the use of chemical weapons. In fact, Turkey arrested rebels with chemical weapons. The cases of 2013 have been thoroughly dissected, fine tooth combed and it leaves advocates wanting and naked.

    In the articles I noted its clear that death is no stranger to those who prefer Pres Assad admin. Death camps, battle is always a death camp.

    Just a reminder: should advocates desire less death perhaps that y should start by advocating less unnecessary war.

    DedBrian , says: April 26, 2017 at 7:03 am
    Alex
    April 25, 2017 at 5:35 pm
    "Scott Ritter is wrong, Su-22 has B-13L rocket pod capable of delivering S-13 or similar 122mm rockets including ones with chemical warheads."

    Is that an intentional lie? No one ever heard about S-13 with chemical warhead. Not mentioning that there were never any airplane-carried rockets with chemical warheads invented in the USSR or for Soviet planes. And not mentioning that there are no B-13L on Syrian SU-22, they are equipped only with UB-32 pods with 57mm S-5 rockets.
    They are beautifully seen on many pictures including the ones from Khan Shaykhun:
    https://twitter.com/SyrianMilitary/status/830960348391948288

    Winston Snith , says: April 26, 2017 at 7:07 am
    Mary,

    the "White Helmets" are a known propaganda operation by the British foreign office.

    As for your attacks on the Syrian government – "Assad"- why do you repeat your own regime's demonization propaganda ?

    The use of poison gas is a characteristic of the American regime under Obama – check the news items – and the Jihadist paramilitaries that work for it.

    bill , says: April 26, 2017 at 8:24 am
    im pretty sure that its established that the tweets by the Jihadist " doctor"- thats the guy where the case of kidnapping against him was stopped as witnesses had vanished-were made 19 hours BEFORE the alleged attack case closed ..
    Where i live i have personal knowledge of 2 people intimately involved 1) the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights often used as a source!! by the BBC is one man who hasnt been to Syria for over a decade for this reason alone anything he says should be treated with real suspicion 2) Rev Andrew Ashdown travelled to Aleppo to see how he could help,and to comfort the ordinary people caught up in this terror- his reports from there ( and he is a friend of the local bishop) show that everything being pushed out by the mainstream media with a few occasional exceptions from Fisk et al is more or less the opposite of what is reported,THAT INDEED SYRIANS support their army,have great regard for Assad and his wife,were imprisoned in Aleppo, suffered great deprivation,torture,murder, theft,rape, kidnapping etc etc from their terrorist captors and are deeply grateful to Russia and Putin for coming to their rescue, and have never heard of the White Helmets who like the SOHR are responsible for much of the propaganda

    [Apr 26, 2017] Ron Paul on New Syria Sanctions and Still Unproven Gas Attack Claim

    With such friends like Paul Wolfowitz Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster belong to Hillary team. And Trump are strongly advised to perform sex change operation.
    Notable quotes:
    "... How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report: ..."
    "... If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013 ..."
    "... Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience. ..."
    "... If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? ..."
    Apr 25, 2017 | www.antiwar.com

    President Trump has yet to provide any credible evidence that the gas attack in Syria earlier this month was carried out by Assad, and in the meantime very serious questions about the veracity of White House claims are arising from very credible experts. Yet the Administration seems ever more determined now that it has done a 180 degree turn and demanded regime change for Syria. Late last week the White House announced sanctions on 271 Syrian scientists who Trump claims are working on chemical weapons. The proof? None.

    How to explain this sudden embrace of the neocon line on Syria and elsewhere? It might be telling that according to recent press reports the architect of the disastrous Iraq war, Paul Wolfowitz, is lending advice on the Middle East to Defense Secretary Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. They have all apparently been friends for years. More in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:

    Bill In Montgomey , a day ago

    Their last point is important: Whistleblowers needed, perhaps now more than ever.

    Kitty Antonik Wakfer , a day ago

    Virtually all those in USGov leadership roles are not interested in peace; MIC makes for favors to dispense & $contributions for re-election. But wars can't be waged if few are willing to join military & work for Dept of Defense (what a truth-twisted name!). Depopularize both military participation & "support the troops" mania.

    BrotherJonah Kitty Antonik Wakfer , 8 hours ago

    Take a day off from sanity and watch TV all day. The advertising for just about every commercial product is being taken over by militarism. Toys, breakfast cereals, restaurants, cars, beer commercials, good thing we don't have tobacco commercials anymore, or we'll have a campaign like Lucky Strike GREEN is going to War! (the tobacco company changed the color on the packets because the red dye had a lot of chromium in it and chromium was needed for aircraft parts) Rice Krispies cereal was touted as "Shot from Guns!" (Let's get the kids involved!) That last one was courtesy of my Mom and her sisters, they were kids at the time. The Recruiters are getting worse.

    Philippe Lemoine , 20 hours ago

    If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013.

    I argue that, in the case of the attack in Ghouta, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump to conclusions. Among other things, I discuss the ballistic analysis produced by Postol and Lloyd at the time, which showed that both the much-touted NYT/HRW analysis and the US intelligence were mistaken.

    I also show that, despite the fact that a lot of evidence came out that undermined the official narrative, the media never changed their stance and continued to talk as if there was no doubt that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack.

    It's more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make. The post has already been widely shared and some people have criticized it, so I will soon post a follow-up where I reply to critics and say more about the evidence that bears on the attack in Khan Sheikhoun.

    Bill In Montgomey Philippe Lemoine , 8 hours ago

    Thanks for this work.

    mdb , 18 hours ago

    Wolfowitz? The same jackass who thought Iraq could be conquered by 10,000 troops in under one hour? One of the biggest reason why US foreign policy is so recalcitrant and feckless is that former F-ups are continually called upon to lend an opinion just because they have putative experience.

    The truth about the gas attack might take some time to wiggle to the surface, especially if claims made by the administration turn out bankrupt. They will likely bury it as long as possible. The media will likely be reticent to dig, having all thrown roses at Trump's feet for a little "shock and awe". Never underestimate either the willful ignorance or the ignominious glorification (by the media) of reckless bombing under the guise of humanitarian concerns. It seems they learned not a damned thing from the debacle of Iraq. They have simply gone back to sleep since then.

    Paul talks about "sensibility and a better policy". It seems he was yet another "believer" who was duped by a man who tells lies faster than his lips can move. They had about 16 months to watch Trump put truth in a dumpster fire, and yet they STILL believed that his election would herald some utopian, isolationist, wet-dream fantasy-land where the MIC would fold up overnight and bring all the boys back home. How's that working out for the "believers"? Trust a man with no core at your own peril. The messiah complex (as a projection) really needs to die in this country...before we do some REAL damage to ourselves.

    Bill In Montgomey mdb , 9 hours ago

    Nice post. In defense of Paul, I never saw any statement of his that he was a supporter of Trump. He did say he liked SOME of the things he was saying on the campaign trail (like bring the troops home). Also, it didn't take him long to publicly criticize Trump. Contrast these critical/skeptical statements to those of other public figures. I suspect Paul's attacks on Trump will accelerate (they already have).

    Also, Paul did cite "red flags" about Trump during the campaign. I saw him on one interview criticize the proclivity of Trump to propose executive actions that seemed imperial in nature, certainly outside of the confines of a president's Constitutional role.

    Ron Paul's voice and views are more important than mine as they get heard and read by far more people. Thank goodness he is still around to offer his contrarian views.

    I'm sure Trump already doesn't like Ron Paul, and that Trump's antagonism for Paul will only grow as events transpire.

    peter brooker , 13 hours ago

    For all those deluded conspiracy theorists out there -- The mainstream news almost without exception supports accusations that Syria uses Sarin gas and that Assad kills his own citizens --

    They all agree that the 'moderate' opposition, 'free speech' community service activists, with only peaceful intentions, as they are deserve both our support and protection - but I am beginning to wonder who it is doing the fighting ? Oh, sorry -- Assad -- Sorry for my foolish mistake !

    If you do not think a concerted conspiracy is taking place, I suggest you visit the Atlantic Council website and others pushing almost identical stories -- And yes - they cover events in the Ukraine as well -- Conspiracy -- They just SUPPORT each other -- What's WRONG with that ? Just pass the hymn-sheet around -- Please feel welcome to join in the singing --

    [Apr 26, 2017] Trumponomics Neocon Neoliberalism Camouflaged with Anti-Globalization Circus by Thomas Palley

    Notable quotes:
    "... A key element of Trump's political success has been his masquerade of being pro-worker, which includes posturing as anti-globalization. ..."
    "... As part of maintaining his pro-worker masquerade, Trump will engage in an anti-globalization circus, but the bark will be worse than the bite because neoliberal globalization has increased corporate profits, in line with his economic interests. ..."
    "... His neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects intrinsic and enduring features of the current US polity. ..."
    "... Trump's political success was based on a two-sided attack on the establishment. ..."
    "... he captured the progressive critique of the neoliberal economy, especially the critique of globalization. ..."
    "... The other side of Trump's success was his capture of the progressive critique of the neoliberal economy. For four decades, the US economy has short-changed working class voters via wage stagnation and manufacturing job loss. ..."
    "... In this regard, his capture of the globalization and deindustrialization debate is particularly important. That is because globalization and deindustrialization are the most public face of the neoliberal economy, being where the impact on wages and jobs has been most visible and tangible. ..."
    "... Establishment Democrats handed Trump the opening to capture the globalization debate by pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) despite widespread voter opposition. ..."
    "... That capture enabled Trump to create a new twisted narrative about neoliberal globalization which blames "foreigners and immigrants". The Trump narrative is that the US is a victim. ..."
    "... The reality is globalization has been "Made in the USA" by corporations, for the benefit of corporations, working in tandem with Congress and successive administrations. ..."
    "... Given his lack of any history of government service, Trump could initially get away with this pro-worker masquerade. However, the realities of Trump's economic policies have now become clear. All the evidence suggests he intends to worsen the neoliberal economy's proclivity to deliver wage stagnation and income inequality by increasing the power of business and finance, and by intimidating workers and weakening unions. ..."
    "... Globalization has been "made in the USA" for the benefit of large American multi-national corporations which have been big winners from the process. ..."
    "... one can expect lots of anti-globalization circus to address Trump's political needs, but he will not rock the globalization boat unless something more profitable is possible. ..."
    "... this new unilateralism is Trump's political posturing aimed at convincing his base that he is nationalist and anti-globalization. ..."
    "... Both Republicans and Democrats now believe the US has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, any time it chooses, and it has the right to pepper the globe with military bases and military personnel deployments – including ringing Russia with these. ..."
    "... The bi-partisanship is evident in Democrats' support for the Iraq war and acceptance of the war on terror as justification for intervention anywhere. It is also evident in President Obama's continued investment in global military base expansion, expansion of NATO deployments into central Europe and the Baltics, and encouragement of the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine. ..."
    "... Additionally, Democrats supplement the neocon rationale for intervention with the claim that the US has a right to intervene in the name of protecting democracy. That right derives from "US exceptionalism" whereby the US has a special mission to transform the world by promoting democracy, and it reinforces bi-partisan belief in unilateralism. ..."
    "... Neocon unilateralism may now be now spreading into international economic relations. As the sole global super-power, the US inevitably feels increasingly unrestrained in all areas. Economic unilateralism is also politically consistent with popular hyper-nationalist sentiment that has been encouraged on a bi-partisan basis. Lastly, it also fits with the narrative constructed by Trump that "foreigners and immigrants" are responsible for US economic malaise. ..."
    "... Trump has surfaced such thinking because it plays well with his nationalist domestic political strategy, but proclivity for such thinking was already in place within the establishment. ..."
    "... Trump's neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects enduring features of the current US polity which has entered a neocon era where tacit US global supremacy is the goal and unilateralism is a new norm. ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.socialeurope.eu

    A key element of Trump's political success has been his masquerade of being pro-worker, which includes posturing as anti-globalization. However, his true economic interest is the exact opposite. That creates conflict between Trump's political and economic interests. Understanding the calculus of that conflict is critical for understanding and predicting Trump's economic policy, especially his international economic policy.

    As part of maintaining his pro-worker masquerade, Trump will engage in an anti-globalization circus, but the bark will be worse than the bite because neoliberal globalization has increased corporate profits, in line with his economic interests. He will also feed his political base's racist immigration policy as long as that does not adversely impact corporate profitability.

    Lastly, Trump expresses neocon unilateralist tendencies that play well with much of the US electorate. His neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects intrinsic and enduring features of the current US polity. That has profound implications for the international relations order, and is something many Western European governments may not yet have digested.

    How Trump succeeded

    Trump's political success was based on a two-sided attack on the establishment. First, he ratcheted up the existing Republican "illiberal" cultural values agenda into full-blown racist authoritarian nationalism. Second, he captured the progressive critique of the neoliberal economy, especially the critique of globalization.

    Trump's ratcheting-up of the illiberal cultural values agenda enabled him to displace the Republican establishment. His extremism jumped him to the front of the Republican queue, which was critical in the primary process as that process engages the most extreme voters. However, his racist nationalism also has broader political appeal because racism reaches far beyond the Republican base, while nationalism has bi-partisan establishment support.

    The other side of Trump's success was his capture of the progressive critique of the neoliberal economy. For four decades, the US economy has short-changed working class voters via wage stagnation and manufacturing job loss. That has created discontent and disappointed expectations. Trump exploited that discontent and disappointment by masquerading as a critic of the neoliberal economy and promising to make the economy work for working class Americans.

    In this regard, his capture of the globalization and deindustrialization debate is particularly important. That is because globalization and deindustrialization are the most public face of the neoliberal economy, being where the impact on wages and jobs has been most visible and tangible. By gaining credible ownership of the globalization critique (via his criticisms of off-shoring, China, and trade deals like NAFTA and TPP), Trump gained credibility for his claim to be on the side of working families.

    Establishment Democrats handed Trump the opening to capture the globalization debate by pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) despite widespread voter opposition. For this, President Obama deserves special blame.

    That capture enabled Trump to create a new twisted narrative about neoliberal globalization which blames "foreigners and immigrants". The Trump narrative is that the US is a victim. The US has supposedly negotiated weak trade agreements and foreigners have cheated on those agreements. Simultaneously, illegal immigrants have flooded in and taken US jobs and driven down wages. The reality is globalization has been "Made in the USA" by corporations, for the benefit of corporations, working in tandem with Congress and successive administrations.

    Trump's new 'blame it on "foreigners and immigrants"' narrative of globalization complements and feeds his racist nationalist cultural values agenda. With foreigners and immigrants supposedly to blame for the economic difficulties of US workers, that provides the rationale for his xenophobic policies.

    In sum, Trump succeeded by outflanking the Republican establishment with his racist nationalist values agenda, and outflanking the Democratic establishment with his anti-globalization economic rhetoric. These two political manoeuvres constituted a coherent political strategy that enabled Trump to connect with reactionary voters while masquerading as being on workers' side.

    Bait and switch: anti-globalization bait, neoliberal switch

    Trump's representation as being on the side of workers stands in complete contradiction to his own interests as a billionaire businessman whose metric of success is money and wealth, and who is devoid of charitable inclination or notions of public service. The reality is he is engaged in a skillful "bait and switch" befitting a con artist.

    The bait was his critique of the economic establishment and globalization and the harm they have done to working class voters. The switch is rather than reforming the neoliberal economy, Trump substitutes racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism, while simultaneously doubling-down on neoliberal economic policy.

    Given his lack of any history of government service, Trump could initially get away with this pro-worker masquerade. However, the realities of Trump's economic policies have now become clear. All the evidence suggests he intends to worsen the neoliberal economy's proclivity to deliver wage stagnation and income inequality by increasing the power of business and finance, and by intimidating workers and weakening unions.

    Trump's economic policy team is dominated by ex-Goldman Sachs personnel, who include Treasury Secretary Stephen Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Trump's Chief Strategist, Stephen Bannon, is also a Goldman Sachs alumnus.

    Trump's tax policy aims to cut the tax rate on corporations and wealthy individuals; his budget expenditure policy aims to slash social welfare spending and provision of public services to lower and middle class families; and all forms of regulation – consumer, labor market, business, financial, and environmental – are under profound attack.

    The one area where the masquerade continues is international economic policy. That is because Trump is compelled to balance political needs and economic interests. As for politics, Trump needs to present himself as remedying globalization's negative effects. Among working families, globalization is the most visible and economically understood issue, and Trump's critique of globalization is front and center of his pro-worker masquerade. That makes it politically essential he preserve his image as critic of globalization.

    As for economics, Trump's own economic interests have him identifying with corporations and capital. Globalization has been "made in the USA" for the benefit of large American multi-national corporations which have been big winners from the process. Consequently, Trump is inclined to preserve the system, though he is willing to make changes if that increases corporate profitability.

    The implication is one can expect lots of anti-globalization circus to address Trump's political needs, but he will not rock the globalization boat unless something more profitable is possible.

    Trump's international relations unilateralism: the neocon factor

    Trump's international economic policies also signal the transition to a new era of US unilateralism in international relations. Part of this new unilateralism is Trump's political posturing aimed at convincing his base that he is nationalist and anti-globalization. However, part of it may reflect the triumph of neocon thinking within the US.

    The neocon project derives from the belief that never again should there be a power, like the former Soviet Union, capable of rivalling the US. Originally, the neocon project represented extreme Republican thinking, but it has become mainstream thinking. Both Republicans and Democrats now believe the US has the right to intervene anywhere in the world, any time it chooses, and it has the right to pepper the globe with military bases and military personnel deployments – including ringing Russia with these.

    The bi-partisanship is evident in Democrats' support for the Iraq war and acceptance of the war on terror as justification for intervention anywhere. It is also evident in President Obama's continued investment in global military base expansion, expansion of NATO deployments into central Europe and the Baltics, and encouragement of the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine.

    Additionally, Democrats supplement the neocon rationale for intervention with the claim that the US has a right to intervene in the name of protecting democracy. That right derives from "US exceptionalism" whereby the US has a special mission to transform the world by promoting democracy, and it reinforces bi-partisan belief in unilateralism.

    The neocon project was originally concerned with military supremacy and targeted Russia. However, it is about US power in general, which means it potentially implicates every country and every dimension of international policy.

    Neocon unilateralism may now be now spreading into international economic relations. As the sole global super-power, the US inevitably feels increasingly unrestrained in all areas. Economic unilateralism is also politically consistent with popular hyper-nationalist sentiment that has been encouraged on a bi-partisan basis. Lastly, it also fits with the narrative constructed by Trump that "foreigners and immigrants" are responsible for US economic malaise.

    The importance of the neocon factor is it dramatically changes the interpretation of Trump's unilateralist international economic policy chatter. Instead of just being Trump bluster, such chatter is consistent with the neocon construction of international relations. That construction provides the over-arching frame for US foreign policy, and international economic policy must therefore conform with it. That explains why Trump's NATO strictures have raised so few ripples within Washington, and why the Washington establishment has been so quick to engage the border adjusted tax (BAT) proposal despite its unilateralist character and inconsistency with the WTO. Trump has surfaced such thinking because it plays well with his nationalist domestic political strategy, but proclivity for such thinking was already in place within the establishment.

    The implication is Trump's neocon unilateralism is not a one-off temporary political aberration. Instead, it reflects enduring features of the current US polity which has entered a neocon era where tacit US global supremacy is the goal and unilateralism is a new norm. That has bigger ramifications for the international relations order that foreign governments, including Western European governments, will need to digest.

    Filed Under: Columns & Interviews , Economy

    Thomas Palley is an independent economist living in Washington DC. He founded Economics for Democratic & Open Societies. The goal of the project is to stimulate public discussion about what kinds of economic arrangements and conditions are needed to promote democracy and open society. His numerous op-eds are posted on his website http://www.thomaspalley.com.

    [Apr 25, 2017] Gaius Publius: Hillary Clinton Explains Our North Korea, South Korea, China Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... it would have more to do with it probably leading to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean peninsula ..."
    "... 'A reunification would endow the fully up-to-date South Korean army backed by a roaring advanced economy with the one weapon it does not have: the atomic bomb.' ..."
    "... sixty-four ..."
    "... - H-bomb technology, and it took minds of the caliber of von Neumann and Teller a decade to work out how to make those. ..."
    "... Is it clear how much v Neumann had a hand in on that key problem? ..."
    Apr 25, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Yves here. Even though some may try arguing that Hillary Clinton was discussing China's view of North and South Korea in her Goldman speech, it is naive to think that it is actually different from ours, despite the regular histrionics. As an anonymous reader at DownWithTyranny pointed out:

    Again, if you review our (and their) policies since '50 and think about it for only a minute, you realize both we and the Chinese want a split Korea. And we want it for much the same reasons. The North provides an annoyance to the US which inspires fear and stupidity AND billions spent on weapons to keep certain sectors rich and occupied.

    Now that the south has emerged as an economic and manufacturing behemoth, the need to keep them separate is even more pronounced, for just the reasons enunciated.

    By Gaius Publius , a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius , Tumblr and Facebook . GP article archive here . Originally published at DownWithTyranny

    "We don't want a unified Korean peninsula We [also] don't want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb."

    -Hillary Clinton, 2013, speech to Goldman Sachs

    Our policy toward North Korea is not what most people think it is. We don't want the North Koreans to go away. In fact, we like them doing what they're doing; we just want less of it than they've been doing lately. If this sounds confusing, it's because this policy is unlike what the public has been led to assume. Thanks to something uncovered by WikiLeaks, the American public has a chance to be unconfused about what's really going on with respect to our policies in Korea.

    This piece isn't intended to criticize that policy; it may be an excellent one. I'm just want to help us understand it better.

    Our source for the U.S. government's actual Korean policy - going back decades really - is former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She resigned that position in February 2013 , and on June 4, 2013 she gave a speech at Goldman Sachs with Lloyd Blankfein present (perhaps on stage with her) in which she discussed in what sounds like a very frank manner, among many other things, the U.S. policy toward the two Korea and the relationship of that policy to China.

    That speech and two others were sent by Tony Carrk of the Clinton campaign to a number of others in the campaign, including John Podesta. WikiLeaks subsequently released that email as part of its release of other Podesta emails (source email with attachments here ). In that speech, Clinton spoke confidentially and, I believe, honestly. What she said in that speech, I take her as meaning truthfully. There's certainly no reason for her to lie to her peers, and in some cases her betters, at Goldman Sachs. The entire speech reads like elites talking with elites in a space reserved just for them.

    I'm not trying to impugn Clinton or WikiLeaks by writing this - that's not my intention at all. I just want to learn from what she has to say - from a position of knowledge - about the real U.S. policy toward North Korea. After all, if Goldman Sachs executives can be told this, it can't be that big a secret. We should be able to know it as well.

    What Clinton's Speech Tells Us about U.S. Korea Policy

    The WikiLeaks tweet is above. The entire speech, contained in the attachment to the email, is here . I've reprinted some of the relevant portions below, first quoting Ms. Clinton with some interspersed comments from me. Then, adding some thoughts about what this seems to imply about our approach to and relations with South Korea.

    The Korea section of the Goldman Sachs speech starts with a discussion of China, and then Blankfein pivots to Korea. Blankfein's whole question that leads to the Clinton quote tweeted by WikiLeaks above (my emphasis throughout):

    MR. BLANKFEIN: The Japanese - I was more surprised that it wasn't like that when you think of - all these different things. It's such a part of who they are, their response to Japan. If you bump into the Filipino fishing boats, then I think you really - while we're in the neighborhood [i.e., discussing Asia], the Chinese is going to help us or help themselves - what is helping themselves? North Korea? On the one hand they [the Chinese] wouldn't want - they don't want to unify Korea, but they can't really like a nutty nuclear power on their border. What is their interests and what are they going to help us do?

    Clinton's whole answer is reprinted in the WikiLeaks tweet attachment (click through to the tweet and expand the embedded image to read it all). The relevant portions, for my purposes, are printed below. From the rest of her remarks, the context of Blankfein's question and Clinton's answer is the threat posed by a North Korean ICBM, not unlike the situation our government faces today.

    MS. CLINTON: Well, I think [Chinese] traditional policy has been close to what you've described. We don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for the obvious economic and political reasons.

    We [also] don't want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb . So we've got a pretty good thing going with the previous North Korean leaders [Kim Il-sung and Kim Jung-il]. And then along comes the new young leader [Kim Jung-un], and he proceeds to insult the Chinese. He refuses to accept delegations coming from them. He engages in all kinds of both public and private rhetoric, which seems to suggest that he is preparing himself to stand against not only the South Koreans and the Japanese and the Americans, but also the Chinese.

    Translation - three points:

      The U.S. prefers that Korea stay divided. If Korea were to unite, South Korea would be in charge, and we don't want South Korea to become any more powerful than it already is. We also don't want the trouble North Korea causes South Korea to extend beyond the region. We want it to stay within previously defined bounds. Our arrangement with the two previous North Korean leaders met both of those objectives. North Korea's new leader, ,Kim Jung-un, is threatening that arrangement.

    It appears that China has the same interest in keeping this situation as-is that we do. That is, they want South Korea (and us) to have a Korean adversary, but they don't want the adversary acting out of acceptable bounds - coloring outside the lines laid down by the Chinese (and the U.S.), as it were. Clinton:

    So the new [Chinese] leadership basically calls him [Kim Jung-un] on the carpet. And a high ranking North Korean military official has just finished a visit in Beijing and basically told [him, as a message from the Chinese]: Cut it out. Just stop it. Who do you think you are? And you are dependent on us [the Chinese], and you know it. And we expect you to demonstrate the respect that your father and your grandfather [Kim Jung-il, Kim Il-sung] showed toward us, and there will be a price to pay if you do not.

    Now, that looks back to an important connection of what I said before. The biggest supporters of a provocative North Korea has been the PLA [the Chinese People's Liberation Army]. The deep connections between the military leadership in China and in North Korea has really been the mainstay of the relationship. So now all of a sudden new leadership with Xi and his team, and they're saying to the North Koreans - and by extension to the PLA - no. It is not acceptable. We don't need this [trouble] right now. We've got other things going on. So you're going to have to pull back from your provocative actions, start talking to South Koreans again about the free trade zones, the business zones on the border, and get back to regular order and do it quickly.

    Now, we don't care if you occasionally shoot off a missile. That's good. That upsets the Americans and causes them heartburn, but you can't keep going down a path that is unpredictable . We don't like that. That is not acceptable to us.

    So I think they're trying to reign Kim Jong in. I think they're trying to send a clear message to the North Korean military. They also have a very significant trade relationship with Seoul and they're trying to reassure Seoul that, you know, we're now on the case.

    Clinton ends with a fourth point:

      From the U.S. standpoint, the current problem is now on the Chinese to fix.

    Clinton:

    So they want to keep North Korea within their orbit. They want to keep it predictable in their view. They have made some rather significant statements recently that they would very much like to see the North Koreans pull back from their nuclear program. Because I and everybody else - and I know you had Leon Panetta here this morning. You know, we all have told the Chinese if they continue to develop this missile program and they get an ICBM that has the capacity to carry a small nuclear weapon on it, which is what they're aiming to do, we cannot abide that. Because they could not only do damage to our treaty allies, namely Japan and South Korea, but they could actually reach Hawaii and the west coast theoretically, and we're going to ring China with missile defense . We're going to put more of our fleet in the area.

    So China, come on. You either control them or we're going to have to defend against them .

    The four bullets above (three, and then one) give a very clear definition of longstanding U.S. policy toward the two Koreas. I think the only surprise in this, for us civilians, is that the U.S. doesn't want the Korean peninsula unified. So two questions: Why not? And, do the South Koreans know this? I'll offer brief answers below.

    The "Great Game" In East Asia - Keeping the Korean "Tiger" in Check

    South Korea is one of the great emerging nations in East Asia, one of the "Asian tigers," a manufacturing and economic powerhouse that's lately been turning into a technological and innovative powerhouse as well.

    For example, one of just many, from Forbes :

    Why South Korea Will Be The Next Global Hub For Tech Startups

    American business has long led the way in high tech density or the proportion of businesses that engage in activities such as Internet software and services, hardware and semiconductors. The US is fertile ground for tech start-ups with access to capital and a culture that celebrates risk taking. Other countries have made their mark on the world stage, competing to be prominent tech and innovation hubs. Israel has been lauded as a start-up nation with several hundred companies getting funded by venture capital each year. A number of these companies are now being acquired by the likes of Apple, Facebook and Google. Finland and Sweden have attracted notice by bringing us Angry Birds and Spotify among others. But a new start-up powerhouse is on the horizon – South Korea . [ ]

    In other words, South Korea has leaped beyond being a country that keeps U.S. tech CEOs wealthy - it's now taking steps that threaten that wealth itself. And not just in electronics; the biological research field - think cloning - is an area the South Koreans are trying to take a lead in as well.

    It's easy to understand Ms. Clinton's - and the business-captured American government's - interest in making sure that the U.S. CEO class isn't further threatened by a potential doubling of the capacity of the South Korean government and economy. Let them (the Koreans) manufacture to their heart's content, our policy seems to say; but to threaten our lead in billionaire-producing entrepreneurship that's a bridge too far.

    Again, this is Clinton speaking, I'm absolutely certain, on behalf of U.S. government policy makers and the elites they serve: We don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one, an already-strong South Korea would be dominant for obvious economic reasons.

    As to whether the South Koreans know that this is our policy, I'd have to say, very likely yes. After all, if Clinton is saying this to meetings of Goldman Sachs executives, it can't be that big a secret. It's just that the South Korea leadership knows better than the North Korean leader how to handle it.

    0 0 64 0 2 This entry was posted in China , Doomsday scenarios , Guest Post , Politics on April 25, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 41 comments Harshin like 1989 , April 25, 2017 at 1:00 am

    Weren't we scared shitless of the Japanese in the 80s, thinking they were gonna clean our clocks? Try not to get too worked up and overestimate the ability of a conformist society to bury us.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 25, 2017 at 2:45 am

    It's a lot more complicated than that. You forget that Japan was and is a military protectorate of the US. For instance, in the 1987 crash, the Fed called the Bank of Japan and told it to buy Treasuries. The BoJ told the Japanese banks to comply and they did.

    The US ran the yen up via the Plaza Accords in 1985. Way up. They did succeed in denting Japanese exports to the US but it did squat for increasing US exports to Japan.

    The US also forced rapid bank deregulation on Japan. It was like telling someone who ran a drayage company that they were really in the transportation business, giving them a 747, and telling them to fly it. I had Sumitomo Bank as a client when the deregulation was starting. They were (correctly) considered the best run bank in Japan. They didn't even have modern asset-liability management adequate to handle traditional retail and wholesale banking, let alone capital markets operations. The Japanese bubble and bust was in no small measure our doing.

    Larry , April 25, 2017 at 8:59 am

    While I certainly understand all of that about Japan, is it not the same case with South Korea? My understanding is that we have between 25-30,000 troops constantly stationed along the DMZ and within South Korea. I would presume we're also gladly selling the South Koreans military technology. And let's say that magically North and South Korea do reunite, what happens then with the Chinese border? Won't the Koreans still want to remain essentially a military protectorate during what would certainly be a messy reunification period so as to not have to worry about China working to undermine the process? I would say the US would have a major role in shaping how the reunification were to go and do it's best to keep the billionaire classes happy as can be.

    oho , April 25, 2017 at 10:01 am

    > I would presume we're also gladly selling the South Koreans military technology.

    There's a big govt-sponsored push to develop an indigenous Korean defense/aerospace industry. It's 0.5 – 1 generation behind the US (on paper), but more than sophisticated enough for export to developing nations.

    >won't the Koreans still want to remain essentially a military protectorate

    Not necessarily. Koreans don't view China as an existential threat/rival as US neocons do. China is Korea's #1 export market. And Korea has no existential threats in its neighborhood (ex. North Korea).

    historically, the only invaders that came from the North were the Mongols and Khitans (a Manchurian tribe) not Han Chinese. (if i recall correctly)

    PlutoniumKun , April 25, 2017 at 11:58 am

    The Koreans have a very sophisticated domestic defence industry – and its already started to annoy the US as weapons like the T-50 trainer (a sort of cheap knock-off of the F-16) is attracting sales US companies were hoping for (it might even be in with a chance of winning the competition to supply the US with new supersonic trainers). They've a new tank purpose built for fighting in mountainous regions and is probably the best in the world for that role. But most of their weaponry is still US made.

    Korea is the Poland of Asia – a country forever plagued by being sandwiched between two larger, nastier neighbours. In theory they should be friends with Japan, but old wounds haven't healed, and they are not particularly pro-Chinese historically either. They currently have a very delicate relationship with China – in theory very good, in practice, the Chinese are fond of reminding them of their weaker position, as with the current economic-boycott-in-all-but-name over the siting of THAAD missiles in Korea. I don't think they would look forward at all to the decisions required if they found themselves sharing a border with China. Like Japan, they find delegating hard geopolitical decisions to the US to be comfortable, it avoids having to face up to hard issues.

    carycat , April 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    What is not mentioned is that Japan is a bigger threat in terms of military aggression or economic competition to Korea. Plenty of Koreans still have 1st hand knowledge of how they were treated by invading Japanese troops.

    Altandmain , April 25, 2017 at 10:12 am

    I would not underestimate Japan like that.

    Eamonn Fingleton is perhaps the best writer about this.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfingleton/2015/04/01/this-is-no-april-fool-japan-is-beating-the-pants-off-the-united-states/#51d39cea5b88

    It is dumb and frankly, quite racist to assume the Japanese are conformist. Many of the top materials sciences areas are now dominated by Japan. The US continues to run a deficit on Japan.

    Oh and Japanese culture has its own following. Pokemon, Japanese anime, and a few things like Sushi are their own inventions.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 1:10 am

    Eh. This post is very much 'Department of Breaking News: Rain is Wet.'

    Two points -

    [1] The bolded quote from Forbes - But a new start-up powerhouse is on the horizon – South Korea. [ ] - very much understates the situation. For instance, some tech cognoscenti like to talk about the stacks. See forex this book -

    The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty
    By Benjamin H. Bratton
    https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/stack

    The stacks are Amazon, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Apple. There is only one non-American stack and that's Samsung. That's not a small deal. South Korea has arrived.

    [2] Gaius Publius claims: 'It's easy to understand Ms. Clinton's - and the business-captured American government's - interest in making sure that the U.S. CEO class isn't further threatened by a potential doubling of the capacity of the South Korean government and economy.'

    No. If Mrs. Clinton and the U.S. CEO class are threatened, then the one thing they won't mind is the re-unification of the two Koreas.

    That's because conservative estimates are that modernizing North Korea's economy could cost South Korea at least $500 billion. Per capita GDP in North Korea today is roughly $1,000-$1,200. Whereas South Korea's per capita GDP is $33,062, according to the World Bank.

    The cost of German reunification was a trifle by comparison.

    Colonel Smithers , April 25, 2017 at 5:01 am

    Thank you, Mark.

    With regard to reunification and its cost, around the time of Kim Il Sung's passing and the mass outpouring of grief, it was suggested that the Northerners had psychological issues and were not of a type that could fit into the South's economy / society, so reunification was best kicked permanently into the long grass.

    This sort of view has often been expressed about Ossis by Wessis in Germany. There is a joke that Wessis would like to rebuild the wall, but higher.

    Marco , April 25, 2017 at 5:35 am

    If Stuxnet could wreak havoc with Iranian nuclear infrastructure I wonder what strange and delightful memetic goodies our tech-spook chefs could cook up against an Apple rival like Samsung. The Galaxy Note S7 debacle was WEIRD.

    Colonel Smithers , April 25, 2017 at 5:43 am

    Thank you, Marco. Very good point.

    Larry , April 25, 2017 at 9:04 am

    I don't think the Galaxy Note fiasco was weird at all. The stories that emerged in the aftermath indicated that Samsung saw a gap to exploit in Apple's iPhone update cycle and they rushed their product to market with substandard QC. The battery was ultimately under physical stress that destabilized the Li batteries cells and leading to spontaneous combustion. Rushing substandard products to market to grab market isn't unique to Samsung by any stretch, but to think that America had anything to do with it is just pure speculation that ignores the reported facts.

    PlutoniumKun , April 25, 2017 at 7:00 am

    Yes, I was thinking that too, a fear of a united Korea as some sort of global competitor to the US doesn't really make sense in the short to medium term. It would certainly take up most of Koreas energies and spare resources at least 10 years to deal with it. And its hard to see how Korea's big companies would benefit so much, as they already have access to cheap manufacturing zones all over Asia. Anyway, a unified Korea would still be significantly smaller than in terms of population and economy than Japan.

    If the US establishment is really against unification (I have to say, that my interpretation of whats written is that HRC was talking more about China's views), I'd say it would have more to do with it probably leading to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean peninsula, as a unified Korea would likely pursue a more independent foreign policy.

    Bill Smith , April 25, 2017 at 7:30 am

    I agree with you that the way HRC was speaking she was giving the Chinese view.

    Our view for opposition would be a unified Korea led by what was North Korea.

    John B. , April 25, 2017 at 7:58 am

    I agree with you that Clinton was summarizing China's view, not the U.S. view, when she said, "We don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for the obvious economic and political reasons." I suspect U.S. strategists would prefer a unified, South-dominated Korea on China's border, to help contain China better. The Pentagon could hope for even more military sales to a unified Korea pressed right up against China.

    That said, getting from here to there would be so disruptive I doubt any U.S. administration would try to accomplish it. Though with Trump, who knows?

    visitor , April 25, 2017 at 9:48 am

    it would have more to do with it probably leading to the US having a weaker hold over the Korean peninsula

    South Korea has a technologically advanced economy and a modern army. It increasingly designs and produces its own fighting equipment (e.g. tanks) instead of buying them from, crucially, the USA. In several decades of hard work, it built entire industries that can provide everything that is needed: steel industry, naval yards, automobile industry, electronics, telecommunications, software, etc.

    A reunification would endow the fully up-to-date South Korean army backed by a roaring advanced economy with the one weapon it does not have: the atomic bomb.

    Neither China, nor the USA, nor Japan, nor Russia want that.

    joe defiant , April 25, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    This nails the situation IMHO. Everyone subjected to US imperialism dreams of nuclear power because the bargaining power it gives against US power. The US is doing more to promote other nations gaining nuclear weapons than it is in slowing it.

    Bill Smith , April 25, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Other countries have had nuclear weapons and given them up. No reason to believe it couldn't happen in Korea if the South ended up with the whole thing.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    Absolutely correct.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    'A reunification would endow the fully up-to-date South Korean army backed by a roaring advanced economy with the one weapon it does not have: the atomic bomb.'

    No. The Norkean nukes are simple fission weapons that would provide no real technological or strategic advantage to any future re-unified Republic of both Koreas.

    Despite what you've heard, no nation-state that seriously tried to build simple fission weapons ever failed to do so. This includes the likes of South Africa, which dismantled its weapons. Ukraine also gave up its weapons and other countries, like Sweden have curtailed such nuclear bomb programs.

    These countries did this because it's not clear that in general nukes provide a strategic advantage in international relations, unless you're in a situation where you're surrounded by enemies like Israel or Pyongyang.

    Fission weapons are simple once you've acquired the enriched uranium and plutonium. How simple can they be? So simple that in the case of the Fat Man device dropped on Nagasaki, the U.S. bomber crew kept the fissile components disassembled till they approached the target because the potential existed otherwise to go critical if there was, say, excessive air turbulence that shook the plane on the way to the target.

    Basically, the Norkeans seem to be at the stage of boosted fission weapons, where (to simplify) some fusion fuel (deuterium) is wrapped around a fission device - what Edward Teller called an "Alarm Clock" type of bomb, and Andrei Sakharov a "Sloika" or "Layer Cake" device. In other words, the Norkeans have gotten no further than pre-1953 U.S. nuclear boosted fission technology - that is, no further than the U.S. sixty-four years ago.

    Not that you want such weapons in Pyongyang's hands. Also, what makes a difference is that they can access 2017 rocket and computer guidance technology, so they can put these relatively bulky bombs atop rockets. But if you really want serious nuclear warheads of all sizes and capabilities, you need staged fusion devices - H-bomb technology, and it took minds of the caliber of von Neumann and Teller a decade to work out how to make those.

    To sum up: if South Korea wanted to build mere fission weapons of the type that Pyongyang has it could do so immediately. So could Japan and others.

    redleg , April 25, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    (Over)Reliance on electronics makes a first world economy and way of life enormously vulnerable to that old design though EMP.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 10:30 pm

    True.

    Science Officer Smirnoff , April 25, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    - H-bomb technology, and it took minds of the caliber of von Neumann and Teller a decade to work out how to make those.

    Just a footnote: S Ulam should get at least equal billing with Teller. This is a notorious case of not giving credit where credit is due. Or discredit-when the future of humanity is at stake?

    (Is it clear how much v Neumann had a hand in on that key problem?)

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 10:26 pm

    Sorry re. Ulam. I was in a hurry.

    Is it clear how much v Neumann had a hand in on that key problem?

    In the sense that all the other guys ran their maths and theories by von Neumann, and Ulam in particular was best buddies with him. When it came time in 1953, post-Ivy Mike, to do the road show presentation to the U.S. Air Force to tell them that in future H-bombs could be built small enough to make ICBMs feasible, it was von Neumann and Teller who made the presentation.

    Von Neumann also had the clout on the AEC and elsewhere by then to make it happen, too.

    Colonel Smithers , April 25, 2017 at 4:56 am

    Thank you for this clarification, Yves. Splendid, as always.

    This issue reminds me of attitudes towards Germany in / around 1989 – 90. You may recall Thatcher's trip / plea to Moscow to prevent unification. France came up with a different way of "containing" Germany I remember particular comments about the combination of wirtschaftwunder West Germany and what was then considered the Warsaw Pact / Comecon's best performer, including in intelligence, East Germany. The musings also stretched to sport, West Germany being good at football and East Germany at athletics, and, again, what a pairing that would be.

    With regard to Sumitomo, former colleagues who worked there (in the 1990s) say similar, but don't mention US interference. Did not Sumitomo and Hawai'i's Kamehameha, ahem, bail out Goldman Sachs soon after the Tequila crisis?

    Kurtismayfield , April 25, 2017 at 7:39 am

    German reunification was a threat to the other states of Europe, and history has shown that the threat was real. Look at their economic domination of the EU. I don't think a unified Korea is a threat to anyone. Perhaps the US laments that it is losing a semi-client state, and they prefer the "let's bribe the North Koreans every five years" strategy that worked with the previous regime.

    I am surprised that Russia does get more involved; there is a shared border with North Korea. Maybe they don't care if it is a Chinese client state or a neutral reunified Korea next door.

    barefoot charley , April 25, 2017 at 10:01 am

    As the great French postwar litterateur/politicien Paul Mauriac said, "I love Germany so much I'm glad there are two of them."

    Susan the other , April 25, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    From 1919 right up to Germany's blitz across Europe, Churchill was maneuvering to turn Germany's aggression eastward. I find it interesting that no one is analyzing Russia's reaction to NK's aggressiveness because it could well be that anti-Russian sentiment here in the US has considered turning NK inland, against eastern Siberia. It could also be that NK's nuclear capabilities are already neutered by Russian jamming technology. But still, the Russian have been very quiet. Allowing the reunification of the Koreas would entail a new constitution and new international treaties and agreements which would all serve to tame NK. It's just a piddly little state.

    jwwz , April 25, 2017 at 5:08 am

    Long-term, however, German reunification also provided the new Germany with cheap labor which was used to discipline its own workers and boost exports in order to undercut its neighbors/competitors, something I bet South Korean chaebol wouldn't mind.

    Reunification also brings into play proliferation issues. The ROK for many years had a nuclear arms program (enriching uranium as recently as 2000), and DPRK tech, however stone age it is in comparison, adds considerable weight to this issue. A reunified Korea with nukes is absolutely not something China or the US wants.

    Bill Smith , April 25, 2017 at 7:18 am

    Thatcher was concerned that German unification would threaten Gorbachev's political survival. Page 315, 'The President, The Pope and The Prime Minister'.

    This is explained in more details in published parts of Horst Telchuk diary (advisor to Helmut Kohl). make sure democracy takes hold in Eastern Europe before Germany unites otherwise push back on and or by the Soviet Union

    Further along in the book it says Mitterrand was passionately opposed to German unification in private but much more circumspect in public.

    Dwight , April 25, 2017 at 8:06 am

    When Clinton said "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" and "We don't want the North Koreans to cause more trouble than the system can absorb," she was speaking as the Chinese, not the U.S. Clinton switched to the third person "the Chinese" in the same paragraph, which may explain the confusion. The U.S. may fear economic competition from a unified Korea, but the main concern of the U.S. is losing a pretext for military bases on China's (and Russia's) border.

    Quite Likely , April 25, 2017 at 9:42 am

    Interesting stuff, but yeah this is pretty obviously Clinton talking about China not wanting a united Korea. Maybe she / other US policymakers have that same preference, but there's no evidence they do in this speech. It's obvious why China wouldn't want a strong American allied Korea on its border. American tech companies being concerned about South Korean competition being more of a threat if they absorbed the North is much less plausible.

    tegnost , April 25, 2017 at 11:09 am

    ok then what do clinton and goldman sachs want if she's telling the chinese view? American tech companies, indeed all american companies want to be protected from competition the world over, see the TPP, see ISDS Clinton defenders seem to be unable to see past her smartly pragmatic views into the fact that she carries water for the aforementioned goldman sachs, who if you haven't noticed basically run the gov't for both parties, and what they want is to make the most money with the least risk and they have no qualms about creating conflict, nurturing conflict, and sowing conflict if it means there is an easy competition free path to profit. Couldn't we just stop with the reading of tea leaves with clinton? All of the parsing about how she said something but that wasn't what she meant, especially when what she says is power is the most important thing, we don't care who gets hurt, unless it's one of us, the acceptable elite, who eat babies with their oatmeal. If you want to tell me what clinton thinks with citations that ould be great, but spare me the malarkey that you know what she didn't mean in her statements. Probably the main reason she lost is because she and her supporters could not say what she stood for. What does she stand for in this case?

    Painter's Drunk , April 25, 2017 at 9:48 am

    Folks:

    I think this sort policy – the policy of "Lets you and him fight" has parallels in domestic policy.

    Often referred to as "Wedge " issues. The center can much more easily control things if the proper buttons are pushed –

    This of any issue – guns, women's health, welfare, food stamps (SNAP), and so on – the list is long –

    Each side has proponents who can easily be influenced much like Pavlov's dog, to vote, contribute, and so forth. And these are deliberate manipulations to keep the center in power – nothing more.

    The elites use this power to continue the looting.

    Ask any Congress person.

    No Telling , April 25, 2017 at 10:37 am

    Enough hate to go around, so no telling.

    Teddy selling Korea to Japan, and hosing over the Czar.
    http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/121083

    China & Korea border/sea lane disputes
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/12065626/Beijing-lays-claim-to-South-Korean-waters.html
    https://chinaperspectives.revues.org/806
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paektu_Mountain
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gando_Convention

    In summary, love / hate relationships, but toward the USA it is mostly hate.

    Boris Vian , April 25, 2017 at 11:22 am

    Good article- thanks for posting this. I don't fault the strategy here, but I think that our leaders need to do more to be this open with the American public and not just bankers.

    neighbor7 , April 25, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    "I'm not trying to impugn . . . WikiLeaks by writing this."

    To even suggest the possibility, while making use of their tremendous resources, has a hint of the schizophrenia of mainstream media re Wikileaks.

    HAL , April 25, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    This seems like a strained reading of the plain text of the statements:

    Well, I think [Chinese] traditional policy has been close to what you've described. We don't want a unified Korean peninsula, because if there were one South Korea would be dominant for the obvious economic and political reasons.

    The We here clearly refers to China - China doesn't want a unified Korea because it thinks it would be one big South Korea. This is exactly the sort of groundbreaking revelation that we have all come to expect from Hillary Clinton. Then later on in that same quote, she talks about We don't mind if you shoot off the occasional missile and that's good, again, using the same rhetorical technique (where "We" is the PLA).

    Finding basically no support for your thesis in the quotes, you then tack on some nonsense about how the US elites need North Korea because Google is afraid of Naver or whatever. Japan is within missile range, has over 2x as many people and a 50% higher GDP per capita, and seems not to be much of a threat. It just doesn't make sense that the US as afraid of the competition from a unified Korea, which would have only 25m more people than South Korea, basically all of whom are starving and crazy. Look what it cost Germany to unify, with much less of a disparity.

    There are a lot of reasons why the US might favor a divided Korea: an excuse to maintain a massive military base a few hundred miles from Beijing, or military spending and warmongering generally. But none of them are supported by this primary source, which is just a bland recitation of conventional wisdom, which, along with fealty, is all you get for $250,000.

    Anon , April 25, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Agreed – my reading was also that the "we" is referring to China.

    Mark P. , April 25, 2017 at 10:28 pm

    Of course it is.

    H. Alexander Ivey , April 25, 2017 at 9:12 pm

    Well, I've seen it all. When people say Hillary meant China when she said "we" and there is no clear indication that "we" doesn't refer to the USA, when the actions of the last 50 years support the interpretation that "we" means the USA and not China, when "we" as in China would point away from the misdeeds of Hillary as SecState, then I've seen it all.

    [Apr 25, 2017] The President Formerly Known as Hitler

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). His debut novel, ZONE 23, will be published in April by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com , or at consentfactory.org . ..."
    "... Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator, national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans to support him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon. ..."
    "... One massive disadvantage to fascism is political tone-deafness. Our political leaders are too busy buying constituencies with symbolic victories, subsidies, selective military interventions, and tax preferences that they don't notice underlying wobbliness. By wobbliness, I mean debt of all sorts that's sold to foreign entities, ..."
    "... Huuge building owned by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner – who is said to be running USA White House now for the Deep State, Kosher Nostra etc – had FIVE (!) 'mysterious' fires that WERE under NY Fire Dept arson investigation ..."
    "... Well, folks, I think it's about time we all get over Trump and recognize the system for the fetid cesspool it has always been. ..."
    "... Trump's an emotional idiot who speaks before thinking, but at least he's brutally honest and trying do what he promised he would do as president doing his campaign run. ..."
    "... If Hillary, Bernie or anyone else had won we'd be fighting either WWIII with Russia over a desert landscape or we'd be suffering from yet another abysmal phyric victory in the middle east. ..."
    "... Voted for America first, got Israel first.Sad. ..."
    "... You voted, but others paid. You support from afar, but Trump is surrounded up-close by the GLOB. ..."
    "... Here's what the Trump Supporters can do. Organize something like a Tea Party rally. Protest Trump Treason. ..."
    "... Was it a con all along? It is hard for me to believe this. ..."
    "... These are people who have no problem murdering entire families by day and going home and playing with their kids at night. Did anyone really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling billionaire to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened to win a presidential election? ..."
    "... There are a lot of well-meaning Americans who will go to their early graves thinking they still have the luxury of lying about the real nature of the problem: "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep them in power". ..."
    "... My own red-pill moment came about 15 years ago, when I noticed that all the neocons behind Bush were about 90% Jewish. ..."
    "... While I loathe both him and the system, at least he made mincemeat of Hillary and the other clowns, and is now in the process of tearing down the curtain so that even the most faithful should get a glimpse and whiff of the piles of reeking compost behind it. ..."
    "... Reminds me of the Creature From Jekyll Island where the bankers feigned opposition to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act in order to dupe the electorate and get it passed. Doth the Lady protest too much during the Presidential election this last time around too? ..."
    "... Trump emphatically espoused an "Israel First" mentality during the election despite the screeching against him from that quarter. That's what I didn't like about him, that despite playing the populist anti-war chord, being Israel-first means more Balkanization wars for Israel. It's just talking out of both sides of your mouth. ..."
    "... But who knows. Trump is a wild card for me now – no telling what he is capable of with Korea and the whole Syria-Iraq ISIS/Assad/Saudi kill-a-thon in full blossom. ..."
    Apr 25, 2017 | www.unz.com
    So the President formerly known as Hitler has apparently pulled his head out of his ass and gotten with the global capitalist program. The ruling classes couldn't be more relieved, as it was beginning to look like they were going to have to carry on with their totally ridiculous "Manchurian President" propaganda indefinitely, or deal with Trump in some harsher way, which, given the paranoid mood in the country and the heavily-armed nature of a lot of his supporters, was going to get a little tricky.

    Luckily, however, H. R. McMaster, James Mattis, and the rest of the permanent members of the global capitalist war machine (better known as the United States military), as well as his bleeding heart daughter, Ivanka, were able to talk some sense into Trump, and convince him to employ about sixty cruise missiles to pointlessly obliterate a Syrian airstrip, and then drop a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb on a few dozen "terrorists" in some caves in Afghanistan. The fact that these air strikes had virtually zero military value was beside the point. The global capitalist ruling classes needed Trump to demonstrate that he is ready and willing to continue the wholesale restructuring of the Middle East that they've been carrying out since the end of the Cold War, and bomb whatever they tell him to bomb, and, basically, do what the fuck he's told when it comes to geopolitical matters. Trump, who was probably tired of losing, and being referred to as Bannon's puppet, and being accused of treason, and so on, and who never really gave two shits about the suckers he conned into voting for him anyway, had one of those Road to Damascus experiences and gave the Pentagon boys carte blanche.

    The display of overwhelming force that followed, at 08:40 EST, April 6, 2017, signaled the start of the Trumpian reign. CNN talking head Fareed Zakaria put it this way the following evening, "I think Donald Trump became president of the United States last night for the first time really as president, he talked about international norms, international rules, about America's role in enforcing justice in the world."

    This was approximately 24 hours after CNN and the other totally objective members of the mainstream media had had a chance to calm down a little, and to clean up after the orgy of obsequious cheerleading they had indulged in the previous evening. For most of the spastic talking heads who are paid to repeat whatever some producer whispers into their earpieces around the clock while making weird faces, the footage of those turgid Tomahawk missiles rising angrily out of their silos on their way to violently penetrate the enemy and explode in shuddering spasms of global corporatist power was literally orgasmic. Pent-up editorialists instantly pumped out geysers of overwhelming approval . MSNBC's Brian Williams lost it and started raving on camera about "the beauty of our fearsome armaments," and quoting Leonard Cohen, and so on. The Washington Post immediately brought in Robert Kagan to froth at the mouth about "rebalancing Syria in America's favor." And it wasn't just the US press and the corporate-owned US political establishment. The rest of the global capitalist empire (Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the European Council, Spain, Italy, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, et al.) were quick to cheer Trump's transformation into a grown-up, moderate, more or less rational, or at least obedient, globalist puppet.

    Now, I owe Trump an apology at this point, because his sudden conversion to the Globalist faith proves that he is not the total ass hat I've accused him of being for twenty five years, or at least that he is not suicidal. Prior to his soul-searching talk with Ivanka, and his chat with the generals, and to viewing the photos of those "beautiful babies" gassed by Assad in a last-ditch attempt to force the USA to invade his country and hang him to death, he (i.e., Trump, not Assad) was on the verge of a massive heart attack, or a stroke, or other medical event, or just accidentally getting shot in the head by some mentally unstable, three-named gunman. Or maybe The New York Times ' guest loony, the increasingly Strangelovian Louise Mensch , was going to uncover a grainy VHS tape of Trump and Putin in their BDSM-wear signing a pact to destroy America in the urine of a Muscovite prostitute or whatever.

    The point is, Trump was playing with fire, having misunderstood his job description. For a while there it seemed he actually believed he was going to defy the will of all those "global elites" he'd been railing against (and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep them in power). This, of course, was never going to happen. The global capitalist ruling classes can put up with a lot from a US president (who is the most powerful man in the world, after all), but there are a few lines one does not cross, and some fundamental responsibilities they need to know are going to get handled. Playing neo-nationalist grab-ass (or selling the world some Hope and Change crap) is all fine and good when you are out on the hustings, but as Obama noted on his way out of town , "reality has a way of asserting itself." Or, as corporatist puppet Chuck Schumer put it ,"you take on the intelligence community - they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but we're talking about the US military, CIA, NSA, and the rest of the military industrial complex. These are people who have no problem murdering entire families by day and going home and playing with their kids at night. Did anyone really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling billionaire to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened to win a presidential election?

    In any event, the danger has passed. Trump, having assumed the mantle of Commander in Chief of Global Capitalism's worldwide arbitrary killing machine (and with Cohn and the usual Goldman Sachs guys making sure he doesn't go nuts and start screwing around with their ongoing efforts to transform the planet into one big happy, neo-feudalist theme park prison), can relax and focus on improving his golf swing. Whatever mess he makes of the country (i.e., the United States of America, the nominally sovereign nation state that most Americans believe they live in) will be tolerated by the global capitalist establishment, as they couldn't care less about actual Americans, or Brits, or Greeks, or Syrians, or whoever. We're all just a bunch of canon fodder, and servants, and deplorables, and losers, to them.

    If it's any consolation, at least we'll be able to get back to "normality," finally. Yes, it will likely take a few weeks for liberals to fully recover from the shock of the cancellation of Holocaust Redux and the Imminent Invasion of the Putin-Nazis, but my prediction is, by sometime this Summer, we'll have returned to more or less business as usual. That is, of course, unless Putin the Evil hacks the upcoming French elections in which case, you know, End of Democracy, and Holocaust II, et cetera, again. Stay tuned to the corporate media for moment-by-moment updates on that.

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). His debut novel, ZONE 23, will be published in April by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com , or at consentfactory.org .

    TomSchmidt , April 21, 2017 at 1:06 pm GMT \n

    100 Words If it's any consolation, at least we'll be able to get back to "normality," finally. Yes, it will likely take a few weeks for liberals to fully recover from the shock of the cancellation of Holocaust Redux and the Imminent Invasion of the Putin-Nazis, but my prediction is, by sometime this Summer, we'll have returned to more or less business as usual. That is, of course, unless Putin the Evil hacks the upcoming French elections in which case, you know, End of Democracy, and Holocaust II, et cetera, again. Stay tuned to the corporate media for moment-by-moment updates on that.

    Thanks for this paragraph. None of this ends without USG bankruptcy.

    El Dato , April 21, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Buk not good enough?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-romania-usa-patriot-idUSKBN17M1PS

    Romania has announced their intent to enhance their defensive capability by procuring Patriot, a Raytheon spokesperson said . Poland expects to sign a $7.6 billion deal with Raytheon to buy eight Patriot missile defense systems by the end of this year.

    I am uttering the lefty's lament: "Why didn't I buy Raytheon shares!"

    Sean , April 21, 2017 at 8:49 pm GMT \n
    Chuck Schumer came up with a good theory over the bullet for the Warren commission.

    In the political satire film Death Race 2000 (1975), America's greatest reality television celebrity "Frankenstein", played by David Carradine is winner of a game where innocent people are killed, becomes US president and abolishes the game. Then he runs over and kills a carping TY reporter.

    See, once you are pres, you have the power to do anything at all. Sack anyone who complains , put your men in key positions, and (perhaps worst of all) audit the income tax returns of anyone outside the government who dares raise their head.

    Did anyone really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling billionaire to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened to win presidential election?

    Featured authors that I have I have read here today babble far more in their presumably considered posts than Trump does while speaking of the cuff, and to far less effec.t

    http://dukemagazine.duke.edu/article/classic-communication

    In a 140-character world, brevity is digital wit. Hence the attractiveness of the enthymeme, a type of syllogism in which the speaker intentionally withholds the premises or conclusion of an argument. The enthymeme works because of succinctness, simplicity, and the active participation of the audience, who has to supply the missing information. Aristotle noted its powerful popular appeal in democratic Athens.

    Carlton Meyer , Website April 22, 2017 at 12:23 am GMT \n
    Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator, national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans to support him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon.

    Read More Agree: Z-man

    JackOH , April 22, 2017 at 7:44 am GMT \n
    C. J., thanks. During the campaign I published a short essay locally that was mildly favorable to candidate Trump. I suggested Trump's rascally, unscripted rhetoric, his eminent outsiderness, and his personal wealth would buy him enough political space to make good changes in the Wall Street/K Street condominium that governs us. Two avid Trump supporters I know disliked my piece, I suppose for my inadequate enthusiasm. (I preferred Trump to Hillary, and voted Libertarian out of habit.)

    We got surgeon Tom Price, a water carrier for the American Medical Association, as Health and Human Services Secretary. There's a handful of the usual investment banker types in the administration, plus, of course, this most recent gratuitous and illegal bombing of Syria. Pretty much all suggest to me Trump's squandered whatever advantages he may have had as a candidate, and he'll settle in to being broker-in-chief of our council of fasces .

    One massive disadvantage to fascism is political tone-deafness. Our political leaders are too busy buying constituencies with symbolic victories, subsidies, selective military interventions, and tax preferences that they don't notice underlying wobbliness. By wobbliness, I mean debt of all sorts that's sold to foreign entities,

    White Death that's much talked about here, the effective subversion of schools, churches, and the family, etc . We end up with crisis-style decision-making as long ignored and long festering issues can no longer be ignored.

    Brabantian , Website April 22, 2017 at 8:24 am GMT \n
    Huuge building owned by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner – who is said to be running USA White House now for the Deep State, Kosher Nostra etc – had FIVE (!) 'mysterious' fires that WERE under NY Fire Dept arson investigation (squashed?) young Kushner perhaps in the mould of his father Charles (imprisoned for mafia-type crimes, ironically prosecuted by Trump supporter Chris Christie)

    Young Chabad-Mossad-Israeli-army-tied Jared Kushner overseeing Trump's White House, has profited 'bigly' by driving out elderly & low-income tenants who pay 'rent-controlled' low monthly rental amounts Suspicious fires in buildings owned by Jewish landlords are sometimes 'anti-Semitically' called 'Jewish lightning'

    http://gothamist.com/2016/07/18/kushner_184_kent_fires.php

    Mysterious Fires Plague Williamsburg [Brooklyn NY] Condo Building Owned By Trump's Son-In-Law

    Residents of a high-priced apartment building are gripped with paranoia following a series of mysterious fires The block-long rental building, 184 Kent Avenue, is a century-old warehouse that Jared Kushner, a real estate developer & Donald Trump's son-in-law, bought for $275 million & started converting to condos last April

    One resident who moved into the building 2 years ago &, like most tenants we spoke to, asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retribution, said that after Kushner & friend bought the building, many tenants had their rent increased by $400 or $500

    The building has six open Buildings Department violations Then there are the fires

    The first flared just before noon on May 27th Then, 3 weeks later to the day, basically the same thing happened The third fire was reported on June 20th The fourth occurred on June 29th A fifth small fire occurred midday the following day, June 30th

    Following the last fire, the rumour mill kicked into hyper-drive, in part because of still-limited communication from management, & the feeling among some remaining tenants that the scary conflagrations could be a tactic by Kushner & company to drive them to abandon their protected leases

    Ongoing FDNY investigation makes it "inappropriate to comment further on the cause of the recent fires."

    Fires aside, Kushner, son of real estate magnate Charles Kushner, has aggressively expanded Kushner Companies' footprint in New York City over several years, & has drawn accusations of tenant harassment. Kushner bought dozens of buildings in Manhattan & Brooklyn Forty of them came mostly emptied of rent-stabilised tenants tenants left or suffered for reasons including dust from construction, a manager who changed a front-door lock during Hurricane Sandy, chronic leaks, & ceiling collapses One building after Kushner took over, tenants reporting leaks, ceiling collapses, an electrical fire, & nearly five months without gas under Kushner management.

    Read More
    Z-man , April 22, 2017 at 9:08 am GMT \n
    Oh, I forgot to specifically name Charles Krauthammer and Zionist lap dog John Bolton who I wish extra unmentionable ill will to. LOL! Ah, the list can only grow from here so I will be disciplined and cease expanding my wish list. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    animalogic , April 22, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT \n
    We – humanity – are fucked six ways from Sunday.
    jacques sheete , April 22, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT \n
    Well, folks, I think it's about time we all get over Trump and recognize the system for the fetid cesspool it has always been.

    While I loathe both him and the system, at least he made mincemeat of Hillary and the other clowns, and is now in the process of tearing down the curtain so that even the most faithful should get a glimpse and whiff of the piles of reeking compost behind it.

    mp , April 22, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT \n
    " and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep them in power "

    Thanks for clearing that up, for us. And thanks for not using the word "ass" or "asshat" as many times as you did in your last submission. Three or four times an article is plenty.

    Agent76 , April 22, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT \n
    October 29, 2016 Video: US-NATO are Beating the Drums of War. "The US is Threatening Every Country on Planet Earth" by Michel Chossudovsky

    The military alliance claims that the measure is a response to a Russia's military build-up and increased activity around NATO's borders. The Russian president, however, has denounced NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe. President Putin has blamed the military alliance for global instability. NATO's latest venture to encircle Russia its repercussions, in this edition of the Debate.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-us-nato-are-beating-the-drums-of-war-the-us-is-threatening-every-country-on-planet-earth-michel-chossudovsky/5553678 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Anonymous White Male , April 22, 2017 at 2:54 pm GMT \n
    "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment"

    Which are, interestingly enough, disproportionately jewish.

    "(and with Cohn and the usual Goldman Sachs guys making sure he doesn't go nuts and start screwing around with their ongoing efforts to transform the planet into one big happy, neo-feudalist theme park prison)"

    Oh, I guess he is referring to "the jews".

    Agent76 , April 22, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT \n
    @Anon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUj8GHW4daY Thanks' for sharing Anon!
    Agent76 , April 22, 2017 at 3:40 pm GMT \n
    @Carlton Meyer

    Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator, national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans to support him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNl10qb1IVM Dec 7, 2016 Trump Fills the Swamp With Steven Mnuchin

    Trump has named Steven Mnuchin as his Treasury Secretary. So who is Mnuchin, and what does his background tell us about his ideology and what kind of administration Trump is assembling?

    Z-man , April 22, 2017 at 3:52 pm GMT \n
    @Intelligent Dasein Bring in Patraeus? You either need to make your sarc more explicit or get your head examined. Petraeus was skewered by the Neocons when, back in Afghanistan, he said that our support for Israel caused us much harm in the Muslim world. He was then 'caught' in a tryst with his female 'biographer' which ruined his chances of higher office at that time, to the glee of the Neocohens, so shut the f up!
    Z-man , April 22, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT \n
    @Brabantian

    Correction; Kushner, son of real estate magnate and convicted felon Charles Kushner

    Anonymous , April 22, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @naro Hopkins: "drop a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb "

    Like the rest of this article it is all garbage and a ranting . The cost of a MOAB according to the Air Force is $170,000. The ignorance of the writer is staggering.

    Hopkins: "drop a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb "

    Like the rest of this article it is all garbage and a ranting . The cost of a MOAB according to the Air Force is $170,000. The ignorance of the writer is staggering.

    The program costs $314 million. How often has this bomb been used? Rhetorical question. If a hitman is paid $100k for an operation to assassinate one (or several persons), is the overall cost of that hit the cost of the bullet? Again, rhetorical question.

    Alfa158 , April 22, 2017 at 5:14 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Anonymous
    Hopkins: "drop a $314 million Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb "

    Like the rest of this article it is all garbage and a ranting . The cost of a MOAB according to the Air Force is $170,000. The ignorance of the writer is staggering.

    The program costs $314 million. How often has this bomb been used? Rhetorical question. If a hitman is paid $100k for an operation to assassinate one (or several persons), is the overall cost of that hit the cost of the bullet? Again, rhetorical question. In my career I was involved in a few defense projects and the $314M sounds about right for a whole program for such a product. The way government programs work, they are vastly more expensive than the commercial programs I normally managed.
    The $170k cost for an individual MOAB still sounds a little low. If you add in the operational costs involved in actually getting it delivered, it would be more reasonable that it will cost at least a million to get one on that cave, but certainly not 314 million.
    As a side note one defense project I worked on was in partnership with Raytheon. This was years ago when the DOD was on a fad for " fixed cost " programs. As the costs mounted and the company burned through all the government money, and reached the point where it was spending its own money to meet the DOD's demands, Raytheon offered to let us have the whole thing ourselves. My company took over the whole thing and spent all the profits it had made on our commercial projects to pay for the DOD project. Eventually we were bought out by a famous organization that specializes in buying distressed business properties, then parting them out and reselling the pieces at a handsome profit. I don't think the DOD project ever got finished and deployed.
    Seamus Padraig , April 22, 2017 at 5:24 pm GMT \n
    400 Words @Anonymous White Male "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment"

    Which are, interestingly enough, disproportionately jewish.

    "(and with Cohn and the usual Goldman Sachs guys making sure he doesn't go nuts and start screwing around with their ongoing efforts to transform the planet into one big happy, neo-feudalist theme park prison)"

    Oh, I guess he is referring to "the jews". Even though I'm still not much of a capitalist, this is precisely why I abandoned the left. I just couldn't go through life policing my own thoughts in such a fashion. However hard I tried, I could just never quite manage to 'unsee' all those 'coincidences', such as how banking, foreign policy and the MSM are now almost completely Jew-dominated. I could never unsee how one tiny little country in the middle east–with a higher per capita income than our own!–was able to lay claim to the majority of our foreign aid (plus countless wars and Security Council vetoes) year after year after year. I just couldn't unsee how we're building monuments to the Holocaust in our own capital, even though our country had absolutely to do with it! In fact, we were at war with the very country that was. But we're supposed to feel guilty over something we never did.

    My own red-pill moment came about 15 years ago, when I noticed that all the neocons behind Bush were about 90% Jewish. That was far too high a percentage to be random. And once I started reading up on them, I was astonished at how closely they resembled the early Russian bolsheviks in their methods and worldview. I finally came to the conclusion that the Jew-mafia doesn't really care whether a system is capitalist or communist, so long as their little Jew-mafia controls it.

    Do I hate all Jews? No, of course. For example, I have immense respect for Mr. Unz because of his work through the years, culminating in the founding of this very–and very excellent–website. It may well be that the truly dangerous Jews are actually small in number; unfortunately though, it seems that they all too well how to push the buttons of most of the other Jews so as enforce the tribal mentality. Witness how they behaved during the Trump campaign (and yes, I am now over him, too): rage, desperation, hysteria! You would've thought Trump was a brownshirt or a cossack on horseback! Instead, he turned out to be just another bankster-controlled zionist.

    I have come to the conclusion that this Jew-mafia–along with their new-world-order goy allies, such as the Rockefellers–are the greatest menace our world now knows. Read More

    wayfarer , April 22, 2017 at 5:39 pm GMT \n
    The president currently known as Jared Kushner: "Make America Grovel Again!"
    Greg Bacon , Website April 22, 2017 at 5:41 pm GMT \n
    300 Words those "global elites" he'd been railing against (and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews,"

    Why of course you're not, since you're smart enough to know that referring to the ones controlling those TBTF Wall Street casinos, who get bailed out by us deplorables when their bets go bust or asking why only American or Israeli Jews are appointed to the FED, or wonder why only 'Chosen Ones' get the top US Treasury job would be career suicide, as your ability to make some shekels from writing would get deep-sixed, by the same gang you don't want to refer to.

    And that same group that we will not mention, also wields a lot of influence in the MSM, telling LIES about Russia or covering up the LIES they told before we invaded Iraq, but again, let's not mention that, as one would suffer the attack of being called all sorts of names, from the group of puppet masters that DON'T exist:

    The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.

    This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

    Priss Factor , April 22, 2017 at 5:42 pm GMT \n
    Trump has one thing in common with antifa 'leftists'. Everything is infused with Pop Culture, and narcissism rules everything. Everyone is showboating.

    Marxism + Narcissism = Narxism.

    Typical Narxist:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C93D_H4UMAAzaGB.jpg

    Radicalism is mostly an excuse to play celebrity with 15 min of fame.

    No more real systems of thoughts. Just empty slogans in service of idolatry.

    This is the age of Idology.

    Alden , April 22, 2017 at 6:22 pm GMT \n
    @mp "...and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep them in power..."

    Thanks for clearing that up, for us. And thanks for not using the word "ass" or "asshat" as many times as you did in your last submission. Three or four times an article is plenty. Still wondering what asshat means.

    Seamus Padraig , April 22, 2017 at 6:47 pm GMT \n
    @Greg Bacon those "global elites" he'd been railing against (and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews,"

    Why of course you're not, since you're smart enough to know that referring to the ones controlling those TBTF Wall Street casinos, who get bailed out by us deplorables when their bets go bust or asking why only American or Israeli Jews are appointed to the FED, or wonder why only 'Chosen Ones' get the top US Treasury job would be career suicide, as your ability to make some shekels from writing would get deep-sixed, by the same gang you don't want to refer to.

    And that same group that we will not mention, also wields a lot of influence in the MSM, telling LIES about Russia or covering up the LIES they told before we invaded Iraq, but again, let's not mention that, as one would suffer the attack of being called all sorts of names, from the group of puppet masters that DON'T exist:


    The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them, journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible.

    This is a war of an elite. [Tom] Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/white-man-s-burden-1.14110

    Yes, and notice how brazen some of them are now getting: even if you don't explicitly attack Jews, whenever you try and criticize high-finance, the mainstream media, neo-conservatism or Israel, often they will be the first to raise the issue by hollering 'anti-semite!!!' pre-emptively, as it were.

    In related news, the University of California now equates the condemnation of Israel with 'anti-semitism': https://theintercept.com/2016/03/23/university-of-california-adopts-policy-linking-anti-zionism-to-anti-semitism/

    Soon enough, we won't be allowed to say anything in meatspace anymore, unless it's to sing Hatikva .

    nsa , April 22, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Anonymous White Male "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment"

    Which are, interestingly enough, disproportionately jewish.

    "(and with Cohn and the usual Goldman Sachs guys making sure he doesn't go nuts and start screwing around with their ongoing efforts to transform the planet into one big happy, neo-feudalist theme park prison)"

    Oh, I guess he is referring to "the jews". Cowardly brainwashed Hopkins tiptoes around the jooies .the only group that cannot be depicted accurately in public. A caveat has to be added .. "some of my best friends and mentors are jooies (Linh Dinh)", "not all jooies are neocon Izzy firsters", "Unz is a good guy", etc etc. We have a first amendment here .unlike the subservient canadian colony and the hopeless euroweanies who actually prosecute "hate speech". The jooies run Trumpstein, run the media, run the banking system, run the entertainment industries and deserve all the hatred heaped on them and then some. Read More

    TG , April 22, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT \n
    "The President Formerly Known as Hitler' – brilliant.
    John Smith. , April 22, 2017 at 8:48 pm GMT \n
    Trump's an emotional idiot who speaks before thinking, but at least he's brutally honest and trying do what he promised he would do as president doing his campaign run.

    If Hillary, Bernie or anyone else had won we'd be fighting either WWIII with Russia over a desert landscape or we'd be suffering from yet another abysmal phyric victory in the middle east.

    Either way trillions of dollars are wasted bombing weddings, funerals, soldiers and Muslims while even more millions lives are dislocated and yet another quagmire of a terrorist overrun shit hole opens up right next to Europe and Russia while Turkey becomes the next national province to be shafted by ISIS on their ever expanding question of death and destruction.

    Timur The Lame , April 22, 2017 at 9:11 pm GMT \n
    The author of this article should be aware of Godwin's law. Though he technically didn't invoke it, he brought attention to his article by bringing in the most recognizable evil personified among weak minds.

    Anyone who has done any objective reading of history would find that the figure that he used as a vehicle to lubricate his rant (with which I mostly agree) was a far more an interesting and logical personage than is commonly understood by 99.999% of the world's populace.

    How is it that you can't pick up a mainstream newspaper on any given day now, 67 years after Nazism in Germany was totally eradicated without reading about some reference to either Hitler or Nazism?

    No Stalin, no Mao, No Pol Pot, no Timur The lame. It is Uncle Adi 24/7.

    When you make historical inquiry illegal ( Holohoax) , and constantly kick dead dogs ( Hitler, Nazism) people who are capable of thinking sooner or later are going to wonder what is up with this?. But they are now numerically an endangered species. The internet, the last bastion of disseminating truth unfortunately is creating more idiots than enlightened people by by a factor of 100,000 to one.

    May those mongrel dogs sleep well. In this world we have the (their) law, but in the next one we will have justice.

    Cheers-

    vinteuil , April 23, 2017 at 12:05 am GMT \n
    Voted for America first, got Israel first.Sad.
    Anon , April 23, 2017 at 12:51 am GMT \n
    @vinteuil Voted for America first, got Israel first.

    Sad.

    You voted, but others paid. You support from afar, but Trump is surrounded up-close by the GLOB.

    Priss Factor , April 23, 2017 at 12:53 am GMT \n
    @Carlton Meyer Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator, national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans to support him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNl10qb1IVM

    Here's what the Trump Supporters can do. Organize something like a Tea Party rally. Protest Trump Treason.

    Get 1/2 million people in DC and hold Trump's feet to the fire to going back on his promises.

    Hail , Website April 23, 2017 at 3:07 am GMT \n
    @Carlton Meyer Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the ring and forfeited. Crazy former enemies now praise him. A senator, national traitor, and international sociopath recently gushed like an elderly schoolgirl that we now have madmen in power while spouting off a list of lies. Trump once mocked this man for getting less than 1% of Republicans to support him for President. This nut wants to declare war on half the planet and expects Trump to start bombing more nations soon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNl10qb1IVM

    Trump didn't fail, he didn't even try. He boldly stepped into the ring and forfeited.

    Was it a con all along? It is hard for me to believe this.

    Biff , April 23, 2017 at 3:20 am GMT \n

    These are people who have no problem murdering entire families by day and going home and playing with their kids at night. Did anyone really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling billionaire to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened to win a presidential election?

    Hilarious, and definitely the money line!

    kinetic consequences - Occurrences , April 23, 2017 at 7:37 am GMT \n
    "The President Formerly Known as Hitler".

    There are a lot of well-meaning Americans who will go to their early graves thinking they still have the luxury of lying about the real nature of the problem: "and, no, I'm not referring to "the Jews," I'm referring to the global capitalist establishment and the armies they employ to keep them in power".

    Stonehands , April 23, 2017 at 8:30 am GMT \n
    @Priss Factor Here's what the Trump Supporters can do.

    Organize something like a Tea Party rally.

    Protest Trump Treason.

    Get 1/2 million people in DC and hold Trump's feet to the fire to going back on his promises. Wake up, you're a smart fella you'll never change anything in this system It can't be reformed, only smashed.

    Sean , April 23, 2017 at 10:58 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Biff
    These are people who have no problem murdering entire families by day and going home and playing with their kids at night. Did anyone really think they were going to allow some word-salad-babbling billionaire to screw around with their long-term objectives because he happened to win a presidential election?
    Hilarious, and definitely the money line!

    These are people who have no problem murdering entire families by day and going home and playing with their kids at night.

    What is that supposed to mean? Human history would look a lot different if it had been made by men who loved their own families and others' families so much, they made nothing bad happened to any family. A lot of countries have structurally interlocking group rivalries, and every individual is determined to fight for their family (often consanguineous) to an extent that is very rare in the US. Many such places are going to be at war for at least a generation. Of course other countries ,the closest first and their allies will get drawn in . The US is just a country, not somewhere that families transcend the human condition.

    JackOH , April 23, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT \n
    I have trouble imagining President Trump acquiescing happily to being a political broker-in-chief, or front man for other peoples' interests. He has more than three and a half years left of his term. Will President Trump risk personal safety and the possibility of impeachment to go for a long yardage political play that'll reassert his freedom of action? I don't have a clue, but the last week or so I've been seeing a man who immensely dislikes having been reduced to flunkiedom by our permanent government.
    Agent76 , April 23, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT \n
    @Seamus Padraig Even though I'm still not much of a capitalist, this is precisely why I abandoned the left. I just couldn't go through life policing my own thoughts in such a fashion. However hard I tried, I could just never quite manage to 'unsee' all those 'coincidences', such as how banking, foreign policy and the MSM are now almost completely Jew-dominated. I could never unsee how one tiny little country in the middle east--with a higher per capita income than our own!--was able to lay claim to the majority of our foreign aid (plus countless wars and Security Council vetoes) year after year after year. I just couldn't unsee how we're building monuments to the Holocaust in our own capital, even though our country had absolutely to do with it! In fact, we were at war with the very country that was. But we're supposed to feel guilty over something we never did.

    My own red-pill moment came about 15 years ago, when I noticed that all the neocons behind Bush were about 90% Jewish. That was far too high a percentage to be random. And once I started reading up on them, I was astonished at how closely they resembled the early Russian bolsheviks in their methods and worldview. I finally came to the conclusion that the Jew-mafia doesn't really care whether a system is capitalist or communist, so long as their little Jew-mafia controls it.

    Do I hate all Jews? No, of course. For example, I have immense respect for Mr. Unz because of his work through the years, culminating in the founding of this very--and very excellent--website. It may well be that the truly dangerous Jews are actually small in number; unfortunately though, it seems that they all too well how to push the buttons of most of the other Jews so as enforce the tribal mentality. Witness how they behaved during the Trump campaign (and yes, I am now over him, too): rage, desperation, hysteria! You would've thought Trump was a brownshirt or a cossack on horseback! Instead, he turned out to be just another bankster-controlled zionist.

    I have come to the conclusion that this Jew-mafia--along with their new-world-order goy allies, such as the Rockefellers--are the greatest menace our world now knows. This article helps keep it real. Jun. 14, 2012 These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

    That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983. But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Alden , April 23, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT \n
    @jacques sheete Well, folks, I think it's about time we all get over Trump and recognize the system for the fetid cesspool it has always been.

    While I loathe both him and the system, at least he made mincemeat of Hillary and the other clowns, and is now in the process of tearing down the curtain so that even the most faithful should get a glimpse and whiff of the piles of reeking compost behind it. Why do you loathe him? Do you believe what the liberal magazines, newspapers and TV said about him? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Backwoods Bob , April 23, 2017 at 10:30 pm GMT \n
    Reminds me of the Creature From Jekyll Island where the bankers feigned opposition to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act in order to dupe the electorate and get it passed. Doth the Lady protest too much during the Presidential election this last time around too?

    Trump emphatically espoused an "Israel First" mentality during the election despite the screeching against him from that quarter. That's what I didn't like about him, that despite playing the populist anti-war chord, being Israel-first means more Balkanization wars for Israel. It's just talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    But who knows. Trump is a wild card for me now – no telling what he is capable of with Korea and the whole Syria-Iraq ISIS/Assad/Saudi kill-a-thon in full blossom.

    Hang on to your hats. Read More

    Art , April 24, 2017 at 12:26 am GMT \n
    @Backwoods Bob Reminds me of the Creature From Jekyll Island where the bankers feigned opposition to the 1913 Federal Reserve Act in order to dupe the electorate and get it passed. Doth the Lady protest too much during the Presidential election this last time around too?

    Trump emphatically espoused an "Israel First" mentality during the election despite the screeching against him from that quarter. That's what I didn't like about him, that despite playing the populist anti-war chord, being Israel-first means more Balkanization wars for Israel. It's just talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    But who knows. Trump is a wild card for me now - no telling what he is capable of with Korea and the whole Syria-Iraq ISIS/Assad/Saudi kill-a-thon in full blossom.

    Hang on to your hats. But who knows. Trump is a wild card for me now – no telling what he is capable of with Korea and the whole Syria-Iraq ISIS/Assad/ Saudi kill-a-thon in full blossom.

    Trump has scored a ZERO when it comes to defunding ISIS. In his campaign, he talked about cutting off their money – now nothing!

    Saudi Wahhabism is responsible for ISIS and its terror.

    If anything, he has sided with the Saudis – and helped them destroy Yemen.

    This must stop if we want peace in the ME.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Trump and the Saudis must have the same bankers – what's their name – Rothschild?

    Seamus Padraig , April 24, 2017 at 12:26 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @nsa Cowardly brainwashed Hopkins tiptoes around the jooies.......the only group that cannot be depicted accurately in public. A caveat has to be added..... "some of my best friends and mentors are jooies (Linh Dinh)", "not all jooies are neocon Izzy firsters", "Unz is a good guy", etc etc. We have a first amendment here....unlike the subservient canadian colony and the hopeless euroweanies who actually prosecute "hate speech". The jooies run Trumpstein, run the media, run the banking system, run the entertainment industries......and deserve all the hatred heaped on them and then some.

    The jooies run Trumpstein, run the media, run the banking system, run the entertainment industries and deserve all the hatred heaped on them and then some.

    Fine. But not Ron Unz, who is indeed a good guy who's willing to allow his website to become a platform for helping to expose the zionists, Fedsters, et al. An honest man is still an honest man, even if he's Jewish.

    [Apr 24, 2017] The Honeymoon of the Generals

    Notable quotes:
    "... As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. ..."
    "... Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him. ..."
    "... As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us. ..."
    "... Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes ..."
    "... Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. ..."
    "... Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.) ..."
    "... What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out. ..."
    Apr 24, 2017 | antiwar.com
    Institutionalizing War and Its Generals

    Above all, President Trump did one thing decisively. He empowered a set of generals or retired generals – James "Mad Dog" Mattis as secretary of defense, H.R. McMaster as national security adviser, and John Kelly as secretary of homeland security – men already deeply implicated in America's failing wars across the Greater Middle East. Not being a details guy himself, he's then left them to do their damnedest. "What I do is I authorize my military," he told reporters recently. "We have given them total authorization and that's what they're doing and, frankly, that's why they've been so successful lately."

    As the 100-day mark of his presidency approaches, there's been no serious reassessment of America's endless wars or how to fight them (no less end them). Instead, there's been a recommitment to doing more of the familiar, more of what hasn't worked over the last decade and a half. No one should be surprised by this, given the cast of characters – men who held command posts in those unsuccessful wars and are clearly incapable of thinking about them in other terms than the ones that have been indelibly engrained in the brains of the U.S. military high command since soon after 9/11.

    That new ruling reality of our American world should, in turn, offer a hint about the nature of Donald Trump's presidency. It should be a reminder that as strange okay, bizarre as his statements, tweets, and acts may have been, as chaotic as his all-in-the-family administration is proving to be, as little as he may resemble anyone we've ever seen in the White House before, he's anything but an anomaly of history. Quite the opposite. Like those generals, he's a logical endpoint to a grim process, whether you're talking about the growth of inequality in America and the rise of plutocracy – without which a billionaire president and his billionaire cabinet would have been inconceivable – or the form that American war-making is taking under him.

    When it comes to war and the U.S. military, none of what's happened would have been conceivable without the two previous presidencies. None of it would have been possible without Congress's willingness to pump endless piles of money into the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex in the post-9/11 years; without the building up of the national security state and its 17 (yes, 17!) major intelligence outfits into an unofficial fourth branch of government; without the institutionalization of war as a permanent (yet strangely distant) feature of American life and of wars across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa that evidently can't be won or lost but only carried on into eternity. None of this would have been possible without the growing militarization of this country, including of police forces increasingly equipped with weaponry off America's distant battlefields and filled with veterans of those same wars; without a media rife with retired generals and other former commanders narrating and commenting on the acts of their successors and protégés; and without a political class of Washington pundits and politicians taught to revere that military.

    In other words, however original Donald Trump may look, he's the curious culmination of old news and a changing country. Given his bravado and braggadocio, it's easy to forget the kinds of militarized extremity that preceded him.

    After all, it wasn't Donald Trump who had the hubris, in the wake of 9/11, to declare a "Global War on Terror" against 60 countries (the " swamp " of that moment). It wasn't Donald Trump who manufactured false intelligence on the weapons of mass destruction Iraq's Saddam Hussein supposedly possessed or produced bogus claims about that autocrat's connections to al-Qaeda, and then used both to lead the United States into a war on and occupation of that country. It wasn't Donald Trump who invaded Iraq (whether he was for or against tht invasion at the time). It wasn't Donald Trump who donned a flight suit and landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of San Diego to personally declare that hostilities were at an end in Iraq just as they were truly beginning, and to do so under an inane " Mission Accomplished " banner prepared by the White House.

    It wasn't Donald Trump who ordered the CIA to kidnap terror suspects (including totally innocent individuals) off the streets of global cities as well as from the backlands of the planet and transport them to foreign prisons or CIA " black sites " where they could be tortured. It wasn't Donald Trump who caused one terror suspect to experience the sensation of drowning 83 times in a single month (even if he was inspired by such reports to claim that he would bring torture back as president).

    It wasn't Donald Trump who spent eight years in the Oval Office presiding over a global " kill list ," running " Terror Tuesday " meetings, and personally helping choose individuals around the world for the CIA to assassinate using what, in essence, was the president's own private drone force, while being praised (or criticized) for his "caution."

    It wasn't Donald Trump who presided over the creation of a secret military of 70,000 elite troops cossetted inside the larger military, special-ops personnel who, in recent years, have been dispatched on missions to a large majority of the countries on the planet without the knowledge, no less the consent, of the American people. Nor was it Donald Trump who managed to lift the Pentagon budget to $600 billion and the overall national security budget to something like a trillion dollars or more, even as America's civilian infrastructure aged and buckled .

    It wasn't Donald Trump who lost an estimated $60 billion to fraud and waste in the American "reconstruction" of Iraq and Afghanistan, or who decided to build highways to nowhere and a gas station in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan. It wasn't Donald Trump who sent in the warrior corporations to squander more in that single country than was spent on the post-World War II Marshall Plan to put all of Western Europe back on its feet. Nor did he instruct the U.S. military to dump at least $25 billion into rebuilding, retraining, and rearming an Iraqi army that would collapse in 2014 in the face of a relatively small number of ISIS militants, or at least $65 billion into an Afghan army that would turn out to be filled with ghost soldiers .

    In its history, the United States has engaged in quite a remarkable range of wars and conflicts. Nonetheless, in the last 15 years, forever war has been institutionalized as a feature of everyday life in Washington, which, in turn, has been transformed into a permanent war capital. When Donald Trump won the presidency and inherited those wars and that capital, there was, in a sense, no one left in the remarkably bankrupt political universe of Washington but those generals.

    As the chameleon he is, he promptly took on the coloration of the militarized world he had entered and appointed "his" three generals to key security posts. Anything but the norm historically, such a decision may have seemed anomalous and out of the American tradition. That, however, was only because, unlike Donald Trump, most of the rest of us hadn't caught up with where that "tradition" had actually taken us.

    The previous two presidents had played the warrior regularly, donning military outfits – in his presidential years, George W. Bush often looked like a G.I. Joe doll – and saluting the troops, while praising them to the skies, as the American people were also trained to do. In the Trump era, however, it's the warriors (if you'll excuse the pun) who are playing the president.

    It's hardly news that Donald Trump is a man in love with what works. Hence, Steve Bannon, his dream strategist while on the campaign trail, is now reportedly on the ropes as his White House counselor because nothing he's done in the first nearly 100 days of the new presidency has worked (except promoting himself ).

    Think of Trump as a chameleon among presidents and much of this makes more sense. A Republican who had been a Democrat for significant periods of his life, he conceivably could have run for president as a more nativist version of Bernie Sanders on the Democratic ticket had the political cards been dealt just a little differently. He's a man who has changed himself repeatedly to fit his circumstances and he's doing so again in the Oval Office.

    In the world of the media, it's stylish to be shocked, shocked that the president who campaigned on one set of issues and came into office still championing them is now supporting quite a different set – from China to taxes, NATO to the Export-Import Bank. But this isn't faintly strange. Donald Trump isn't either a politician or a trendsetter. If anything, he's a trend-senser. (In a similar fashion, he didn't create reality TV, nor was he at its origins. He simply perfected a form that was already in development.)

    If you want to know just where we are in an America that has been on the march toward a different sort of society and governing system for a long time now, look at him. He's the originator of nothing, but he tells you all you need to know. On war, too, think of him as a chameleon. Right now, war is working for him domestically, whatever it may be doing in the actual world, so he loves it. For the moment, those generals are indeed "his" and their wars his to embrace.

    Honeymoon of the Generals

    Normally, on entering the Oval Office, presidents receive what the media calls a "honeymoon" period. Things go well. Praise is forthcoming. Approval ratings are heart-warming.

    Donald Trump got none of this. His approval ratings quickly headed for the honeymoon cellar or maybe the honeymoon fallout shelter ; the media and he went to war; and one attempt after another to fulfill his promises – from executive orders on deportation to repealing Obamacare and building his wall – have come a cropper. His administration seems to be in eternal chaos, the cast of characters changing by the week or tweet, and few key secondary posts being filled.

    In only one area has Donald Trump experienced that promised honeymoon. Think of it as the honeymoon of the generals. He gave them that "total authorization," and the missiles left the ships, the drones flew, and the giant bomb dropped. Even when the results were disappointing, if not disastrous (as in a raid on Yemen in which a U.S. special operator was killed, children slaughtered , and nothing of value recovered), he still somehow stumbled into highly praised "presidential" moments .

    So far, in other words, the generals are the only ones who have delivered for him, big-league . As a result, he's given them yet more authority to do whatever they want, while hugging them tighter yet.

    Here's the problem, though: there's a predictable element to all of this and it doesn't work in Donald Trump's favor. America's forever wars have now been pursued by these generals and others like them for more than 15 years across a vast swath of the planet – from Pakistan to Libya (and ever deeper into Africa) – and the chaos of failing states, growing conflicts, and spreading terror movements has been the result. There's no reason to believe that further military action will, a decade and a half later, produce more positive results.

    What happens, then? What happens when the war honeymoon is over and the generals keep right on fighting their way? The last two presidents put up with permanent failing war, making the best they could of it. That's unlikely for Donald Trump. When the praise begins to die down, the criticism starts to rise, and questions are asked, watch out.

    What then? In a world of plutocrats and generals, what coloration will Donald Trump take on next? Who will be left, except Jared and Ivanka?

    Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture . He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs TomDispatch.com . His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II , as well as John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands , Nick Turse's Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead , and Tom Engelhardt's Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World .

    [Apr 24, 2017] Debunking Trumps Casus Belli

    "Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it knows." this is pretty damning statement which reminds of the Bush Ii administration Dick Cheney mafia of neocons which conrolled Bush II almost completely. Actually key figures are Trump administration such as Secretary of Defense and the head of national security council are friend of Paul Wolfowitz
    Notable quotes:
    "... Recently, with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian airfield, there has been a considerable loosening of the normal restraints that employees exercise regarding their duties. Even more than the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed skeptically by many in the community, the decision by President Trump to retaliate with force against Damascus has been met with dismay among many of those closest to the action in the Middle East. ..."
    "... The insiders note that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian forces dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. ..."
    "... Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it knows. ..."
    "... Some employees have even expressed a desire that a whistleblower might step forward to demolish the administration's casus belli , though none has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those on the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations for expanding the war, including seemingly active plans to establish no-fly zones and safe havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad must go will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid escalation of military activity that inevitably will result in conflict with Russia. ..."
    Apr 24, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Recently, with the cruise missile attacks on a Syrian airfield, there has been a considerable loosening of the normal restraints that employees exercise regarding their duties. Even more than the invasion of Iraq, which was viewed skeptically by many in the community, the decision by President Trump to retaliate with force against Damascus has been met with dismay among many of those closest to the action in the Middle East.

    Many officers have expressed frustration and anger over what has taken place-not to challenge national-security policy, which they leave up to the politicians, but because they are perceiving a tissue of lies, as in Iraq. They have expressed their concerns in very specific ways to former fellow officers and friends. For the first time, people on the inside of the process are really talking. And we have been listening, astonished at the level of anger.

    The insiders note that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate convincingly that Syrian forces dropped a chemical bomb on a civilian area. U.S. monitors, who had been warned by the Russians that an attack was coming, believe they saw from satellite images something close to the Russian account of events, with a bomb hitting the targeted warehouse, which then produced a cloud of gas. They also note that Syria had absolutely no motive for staging a chemical attack. In fact, it was quite the contrary, as Washington had earlier that week backed off from the U.S. position that President Bashar al-Assad should be removed from office. The so-called rebels, however, had plenty of motive. Many intelligence officials have concluded that the White House is lying and concealing what it knows.

    Some employees have even expressed a desire that a whistleblower might step forward to demolish the administration's casus belli , though none has yet offered to do so. Most of all, those on the ground are alarmed over ongoing preparations for expanding the war, including seemingly active plans to establish no-fly zones and safe havens. The uncompromising demand that al-Assad must go will lead, in their opinion, to a rapid escalation of military activity that inevitably will result in conflict with Russia.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Apr 24, 2017] Trump and the Thucydides Trap The American Conservative

    Apr 24, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Speaking of Zen takes, check out my latest column at The Week , which is about how Trump's sloth and incompetence could wind up saving us from war with China:

    Students of international affairs who take the long view have for some time been worried about the trajectory of U.S.-China relations. While in theory a cooperative relationship would be most beneficial to both parties, in practice dominant powers and rising challengers rarely are able to work out a fruitful accommodation. Instead, most often the two stumble into a conflict that devastates both countries' interests.

    Graham Allison calls the underlying theory - detailed in his new book - the Thucydides Trap. So long as both powers rationally assume that the dominant power aims to maintain its supremacy, even accommodative policies will be interpreted as a way to get the rising power to settle for less than it might achieve by revisionist agitations. So if the dominant power is accommodative, the rising power will take advantage, provoking a reversal by the dominant power and a confrontation. But if the dominant power is confrontational and tries to encircle the rising power, it will provoke the rising power to break out - and in the meantime the dominant power will exhaust its resources more quickly than the rising power does, accelerating the power transition.

    So how can war be avoided?

    Allison's prescription is for robust communication along with a willingness on the part of the dominant power to think big in terms of how the international order will have to change to accommodate the rising power. Rather than try to prevent or limit the power transition, the dominant power has to facilitate it, get the rising power to understand that this is in fact the policy, and thereby forge a cooperative path through the transition that gives both powers an appropriate role to their new relative power position. I've argued in this space before that Korea would be a perfect place to try to achieve those twin goals.

    The Obama administration's much-touted but never-completed "pivot" to Asia could be understood as an effort to preserve America's position within the context of partnership with China - or as an effort to contain China and maintain American supremacy. Strengthened alliances with countries like Australia and Vietnam were intended to discourage China from adventurism in its near-abroad, while the Trans-Pacific Partnership was designed to counter Chinese economic leadership in the region. On the other hand, the TPP did not explicitly exclude China, and it is plausible to think that its ultimate purpose was more to keep America in than to keep China out. Obama clearly saw a value in working with the Chinese rather than merely against them, but he also recognized that China intended to challenge America's interests in the western Pacific and aimed to counter it.

    We'll never know whether the Obama strategy would have been a way out of the Thucydides Trap, or whether it would have led us right into it. We'll never know because President Trump has trashed the strategy entirely, pulling out of the TPP , musing about abandoning the one-China policy , threatening unilateral action in Korea , and calling for tariffs on Chinese manufacturers. His initial policy mix looked like it was premised on the assumption that war was inevitable, so we might as well make it happen on our terms.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the battlefield: The Chinese realized we were bluffing.

    Our military options in Korea aren't really viable , and Trump has proved that he knows they aren't by his eagerness to get the Chinese to handle the problem - eagerness so overwhelming it has already led him to abandon a core campaign theme, confronting the Chinese on trade . Trump has already reaffirmed the one-China policy. And he has not only gratuitously insulted key allies , but demonstrated tactical incompetence in his communications about the mission of the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson . Watching Trump, America's Asian allies surely are questioning our reliability and basic competence, while the Chinese surely are far less worried that America will be able to restrain their rise even if we desire to do so.

    Normally, this would provoke the rising power to be more confrontational. But if the Chinese really understand Trump, they'll see that they could get far more by picking his pocket than by mugging him. Trump is transparently eager for a deal - almost any deal. The Chinese could probably ask for the moon and the stars - or control of the South China Sea - in exchange for minor promises - to let their currency rise a bit (which has already happened), to build a few manufacturing plants in Ohio, to get North Korea to restrain itself for a few months. Why wouldn't the Chinese try to get what they want at the table rather than taking the risk of a confrontation?

    Of course, normally a political leader would pay a gruesome price for cutting a terrible deal with a key rival. If Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton had rolled over for the Chinese, the Republican Party would go ballistic. But Donald Trump's brand is all about making America great again. His most vocal liberal critics, meanwhile, are more concerned that he's going to stumble into World War III than that he is going to be insufficiently firm in defending America's interests. While, as with Syria, they may support any military actions he does take, they are unlikely to provoke him into backing up his blustery threats with actual shows of force.

    Paradoxically, Trump could achieve by sloth and incompetence what is very difficult for dominant powers to accept: a transition out of that dominant position.

    Read the whole thing there .

    [Apr 24, 2017] You Got Trumped! Winning horse in presidential race was Trojan Zero Hedge

    Apr 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    The following artice by David Haggith was first published on The Great Recession Blog :

    Has there ever been a bigger or worse April fools joke than the spectacle this month of Donald Trump revealing the manifold ways in which he fooled the multitudes? I sympathize with the many people who hoped for a shot at changing the corrupt political-industrial establishment as they feel their opportunity evaporate around them. Their hopes were the best hope this nation had, but the head-spinning transformation of Trump has turned stomachs to where some of Trump's most ardent campaign supporters now publicly deem him Traitor Trump. The rest are simply hoping against hope that he is not. Everyone, conservative or liberal, is seriously starting to wonder what happened to Candidate Trump.

    This is what April has consistently revealed: If you voted for the Donald because you wanted to end America's endless wars for regime change and failed attempts at nation building, you got Trumped. If you thought Hillary's red reset button with Russia was a disaster and so you voted for the orange reset button as a path to peace with Russia, you got Trumped. If you voted for the Tweeter in Chief because he promised to get tough on trade with China, you got Trumped. If you voted for Trump in order to thump Fed Head Janet Yellen; she doesn't get thumped, but you got Trumped.

    Back in September when he was still just Candidate Trump, I wrote an article titled " Trump: Trojan Horse for the Establishment or Mighty Mouth for Mankind? " I knew that pointing out my deep reservations about Trump would cost me readers because I write an anti-establishment blog, and Trump was the anti-establishment candidate of choice. I published the article anyway. It not only cost me readers (from which I haven't recovered), but it also cost me websites that had been carrying my articles. Such is the pursuit of truth over popularity

    Nevertheless, I continued to write on that theme in the months that followed because I believed the warning was important and because I choose to see and describe the world as it is (as best I can) and not how I want it to be. Because I criticize any political party as readily as another, I am often seen as too conservative by liberals and too liberal by conservatives. (I don't get the benefit of club membership that gains a writer an easy loyal following.) So be it.

    Here is some of that article, which is now looking like it was spot on:

    I crave the opportunity to see an anti-establishment candidate win the election. I would exult in seeing our corrupt establishment shattered. So, while I do not like Trump the man (as it would appear he has never done anything that didn't entirely serve his own self-interest and pompous ego), I have thoroughly enjoyed seeing him upset establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats alike. (And, yes, they are "alike," so let's just call them "the establishment" because whether they are Republican or Democrat is not relevant; both parties exist to serve the same rich people and themselves either way.)

    I'll even acknowledge that perhaps it takes someone as brazen and blusterous as Trump in order to stand up to such a powerful assemblage of egoists as we have embedded in congress and in the president's administration, which now rules by decree . While I have never liked this particular publicity whore, I'd put up with his relentless boasting and forgive his audacious past if it takes that kind of brassy, risk-taking adventurer to find someone with enough spine to stand up to the intimidations of congress . Whether or not I like him is not important unless it is leading me to see flaws that may mean Trump is not what he makes himself out to be.

    From there, I pointed out such character flaws as made me believe Trump would not prove to be what he was making himself out to be. He would let his anti-establishment supporters down hard:

    Overturning a vast global establishment is the kind of battle that will take someone with unbelievable tenacity, intelligence, and courage. The opponents are rich, and you can be sure some are willing to kill to keep the status quo that is making them immensely rich (and have killed).

    Unfortunately, I have seen often in life that bellicose people are usually nowhere near as brave as they sound. People like Ike, who was strong in war and humble in attitude, are usually the ones with real courage. It is not usually the most blustery people who have the deepest strength to carry through with the right thing for the right reasons, regardless of cost to themselves.

    Trump is aptly named for how often he blows his own horn in order to create his own image; but his actions show he backed out of previous presidential races when it was clear they weren't going to be an easy win after getting lots of publicity for teasing people with the possibility that he'd run. He has also backed out of many business deals when things got rough, rather than push forward to try to make things work .

    It's his latest political actions that concern me. In the few places where we have seen Trump make actual political decisions so far, his choices have been 100% pro-establishment as I pointed out in a recent article titled " Whirled Politics: Would you rather be Trumped or Pillaried ?" I wished very much to see something different than what I am seeing.

    The article delineated a number of tell-tale signs that indicated Trump was anything but the anti-establishment candidate he was presenting himself to be. I pointed out, for example, how the Trump horse that was being brought into the city gates was filled with neocons and the Wall Street establishment, and how I believed they would come to own Trump if they didn't already. The Trump horse was brazenly anti-establishment on the outside, but almost total establishment on the inside.

    I concluded my intro to the article with this warning:

    Be careful that you don't believe something just because you want to believe it so badly. That is how the citizens of Troy were conquered in the Trojan war. I'd love to have an anti-establishment candidate roll in, too. Sadly, I don't think I do . The time to hold Trump to task is now, not after the establishment makeover turns him into their Trojan Trump card, but while they are trying so that they don't succeed.

    And I closed the article by asking,

    Is he force or farce?

    [Apr 22, 2017] Idiocy as WMD

    Apr 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
    May 13, 2012 1,000 Words

    Borges writes, "dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." As a preeminent mind, Borges rightly considers the mind to be a man's greatest asset, for without mind, a man is nothing. The more oppressive a political system, then, the greater its assault on its subjects' minds, for it's not enough for any dictator, king or totalitarian system to oppress and exploit, but it must, and I mean must, make its people idiotic as well. Every wrongful bullet is preceded and accompanied, then followed up by a series of idiotic lies, but we're so used to such a moronic diet by now, our trepanned intelligentsia don't even squirm in their tenured chairs.

    Sane men and women don't consent to kill, rob and rape, much less be killed, robbed and raped, least of all to enrich their masters , and that's why their minds must be molested as early and as much as possible. Hence our nonstop media brainwashing us from the cradle, literally, to the grave. Fixated by flickering boxes, even infants are now mind-conditioned to become scatterbrained idiots before they stagger into kindergarten, to begin a lifelong process of becoming docile and slogan-shouting Democrats and Republicans.

    Yes, savages killed, but, like apes, our ancestors, they mostly tried to intimidate and trash talk their way out of conflicts. Take the Maoris: from all accounts, they were a rather belligerent people, but their killing of each other really took off with the introduction of the musket. The greater a civilization, the greater its ability to accomplish great tasks, including massacre. A savage tribe could never imagine wiping out entire cities by defecating exploding metal from the sky, or sitting in a brightly lit and spic-and-span office stroking a joy stick to ejaculate missiles half a planet away. Drone hell fire for y'all, with sides of bank-sponsored debt slavery and austerity, plus an unlimited refill of American pop bullshit. Would you like a public suicide with that? No, sir, these savages need to take webcast courses from us sophisticates when it comes to genocide, or ecocide, or any other kind of cides you can think of. When it comes to pure, unadulterated savagery, these quaint brutes ain't got shit on us plugged-in netizens chillaxin' in that shiny upside down condo on da capital-punishment-for the-entire-world, y'all, hill.

    You'd think that a government with absolute power would not bother with expensive parades and elaborately-staged rallies in stadia, as are routine in North Korea, but such is the importance of propaganda and mind-control. America has gone way beyond Kim Jong-Un and his Nuremberg-styled pageantry, however, because the Yankee Magical Show is relentlessly pumped into our minds via television and the internet, at home, in office or even as we're walking down the street, so that we're always swarmed by sexy sale pitches, soft and hard porn, asinine righteousness and imbecilic trivia. All day long, we can stuff ourselves with unlimited kitsch. Today's urgent topic, "Sylvester Stalone Spotted in 16th Century Painting." Yesterday's, "Tom Cruise's Daughter Gets Inked." Imagine a triple-amputee Iraq vet or an unemployed mother, sitting in an about to be foreclosed home with unpaid bills scattered across her kitchen table, staring at such headlines. At 48, I'm old enough to remember when it wasn't this overwhelmingly stupid, though the dumbing down of America will only accelerate as this cornered and bankrupt country becomes ever more vicious to its citizens and foreigners alike.

    Not content to kill and loot, America must do it to pulsating music; cool, orgasmic dancing; raunchy reality shows and violence-filled Hollywood blockbusters, and these are also meant for its victims, no less. In a 1997 article published by the US Army War College, Ralph Peters gushes about a "personally intrusive" and "lethal" cultural assault as a key tactic in the American quest for global supremacy. As information master, the American Empire will destroy its "information victims." What's more, "our victims volunteer" because they are unable to resist the seductiveness of American culture.

    Defining democracy as "that deft liberal form of imperialism," Peters reveals how the word is conceived and used these days by every American leader, whether talking about Libya, Syria, Iran or America itself. Recognizing that the lumpens of his country are also victims of empire, Peters frankly acknowledges that "laid-off blue-collar worker in America and the Taliban militiaman in Afghanistan are brothers in suffering."

    Much has been made of the internet as enabling democracy and protest, but whatever utility it may have for the disenfranchised and/or rebellious, the Web is most useful to our rulers. As Dmitry Orlov points out in a recent blog, the internet is a powerful surveillance tool for the state and, what's more, it also keeps the masses distracted and pacified. Echoing Queen Victoria's remark, "Give my people plenty of beer, good and cheap beer, and you will have no revolution among them," Orlov observes that virtual sex thwarts rebellion. In sum, while the internet may empower some people, as in allowing John Michael Greer , Paul Craig Roberts or Orlov to publish their unflinching commentaries, the same internet also drowns them out with an unprecedented flood of drivel. Defending the empire, Ralph Peters cheerfully agrees, "The internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community."

    Though our only hope is to be expelled from this sick matrix, many of us will cling even more fiercely to these illusions of knowledge, love, sex and community as we blunder forward. A breathing and tactile life will become even more alien, I'm afraid. Here and there, a band of unplugged weirdos, to be hunted down and exterminated, with their demise shown on TV as warning and entertainment. Inhabiting a common waste land, we can each lounge in our private electronic ghetto. Until the juice finally runs out, that is.

    [Apr 21, 2017] The Reason Behind The Sales-Surge For Nuclear-Proof Bunkers Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... On April 17 th , Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon" , and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations: ..."
    "... March 14 th , the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada . ..."
    "... April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan ..."
    "... On April 7 th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists ..."
    "... April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border ..."
    "... April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command. ..."
    "... April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO ..."
    "... April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe ..."
    "... On April 13 th , the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB) ..."
    "... April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zo r killing hundreds of people ..."
    "... April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea ..."
    "... April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe ..."
    "... April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan . The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region". ..."
    "... April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively ..."
    "... On April 16 th , the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s. ..."
    "... or there will be WW III. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    > Authored by Eric Zuesse via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    On April 15th, Zero Hedge bannered "Doomsday Bunker Sales Soar After Trump's Military Strikes", but this growth in the market for nuclear-proof bunkers is hardly new; it started during the Obama Administration, in Obama's second term, specifically after the Russia-friendly government of Ukraine, next-door to Russia, got taken over in 2014 by a rabidly anti-Russian government that's backed by the U.S. government.

    This boom in nuclear-bunker sales is only increasing now, as the new U.S. President, Donald Trump, tries to out-do his predecessor in demonstrating his hostility toward the other nuclear superpower, Russia, and displaying his determination to overthrow the leader of any nation (such as Syria and Iran) that is at all friendly toward Russia. For earlier examples of feature-articles on this booming market for homes that allegedly would enable buyers to survive the first blast effects, and the most immediate nuclear contaminations, of a Third World War, see here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here.

    This surging demand for nuclear bunkers started right after the U.S. government arranged a coup in Ukraine that replaced the existing Moscow-friendly democratically elected President by installing a rabidly anti-Russian Prime Minister and national-security appointees from Ukraine's two nazi Parties, the Right Sector Party, and the former Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine (which the CIA renamed "Svoboda" meaning "Freedom" so as to enable it to be acceptable to the American public). Then, the intensifying U.S. effort to replace the secular pro-Russian Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad by a sectarian jihadist government that would be dependent upon the Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Turkish-U.S. alliance, has only intensified further the demand for these types of "second homes".

    Whereas all of the purchasers of these bunkers are being kept secret, the U.S. federal government provides, free-of-charge, to top officials, nuclear bunkers, so as to allow the then-dictatorship (continuation of America's current dictatorship) to function, in order, supposedly, to serve their country, which they'd already have destroyed (along with destroying the rest of the world) by their determination to conquer Russia. No one knows what the reality would actually be in such a post-WW-III world, except that there would be no functioning electrical grid, nights would be totally dark for anyone whose sole reliance is on the grid, and all rivers and other water-sources would be intensely radioactive from the fallout, so that groundwater soon would also be unusable - and, of course, the air itself would also be toxic; so, lifespans would be enormously shortened, and excruciating, not to say extremely depressing.

    No one has published a computer-model of a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, because doing that would be unacceptable to the "military-industrial complex" including the U.S. government, but in 2014 a "limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan" was computer-modeled and projected to produce global ozone-depletion and "the coldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years", which "could trigger a global nuclear famine". But such a war would be only 50 bombs instead of the 10,000+ that would be used in a WW III scenario; and, so, everyone who is paying money in order to survive WW III is simply wasting money.

    But, somehow, there are people who either want a Russia-U.S. war, or else whose preparations for it are directed at surviving in such a world, instead of at ending the current grip on political power in the United States, on the part of the people who are working to bring about this type of (end to the) world. At least the owners of the major U.S. armaments-firms, such as Raytheon Corporation, would have an explosive financial boost during the build-up toward that war, but buying bunkers in order to survive it, would seem to be a dubious follow-up to such an investment-plan. On the other hand, it might appeal to some thrill-seekers who don't even feel the need for a good computer-simulation of a post-WW-III world; maybe they've got money to burn and a craving to experience 'the ultimate thrill', and don't want unpleasant knowledge to spoil the thrill.

    After President Trump threw out his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and replaced him with the rabidly anti-Russian H.R. McMaster, and then lobbed 59 cruise missiles against the Syrian government (which is protected by the Russian government), the cacophony of press that had been calling for President Trump to be impeached and replaced by his rabidly anti-Russian Vice President Mike Pence, considerably quieted down; and, so, the Obama-Trump market for nuclear bunkers seems now to be established on very sound foundations, for the foreseeable immediate future. And, if anyone in the U.S. federal government has been planning to prepare the U.S. for a post-WW-III world, that has not been publicly announced, and no newsmedia have even been inquiring about it - so, nothing can yet be said about it.

    The general message, thus far, is that, after World War III, everyone will be on his or her own, but that the dictators will (supposedly) be in a far better position than will anyone outside that ruling group. However, if the survivors end up merely envying the dead, it will be no laughing matter, regardless of how silly those nuclear bunkers are. It would be nothing funny at all.

    On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

    March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.

    April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan

    On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists

    April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border

    April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.

    April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO

    April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe

    On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)

    April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people

    April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea

    April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe

    April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region".

    April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively

    On April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

    Mr. Humor drew attention to an article that had been published in "The Daily Beast" a year ago, on 8 April 2016, "CALL OF DUTY: The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President. Gen. James Mattis doesn't necessarily want to be president-but that's not stopping a group of billionaire donors from hatching a plan to get him there". Though none of the alleged "billionaires" were named there, one prominent voice backing Mattis for the Presidency, in that article, was Bill Kristol, the Rupert Murdoch agent who co-founded the Project for a New American Century, which was the first influential group pushing the "regime-change in Iraq" idea during the late 1990s, and which also advocated for the foreign policies that George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, have since been pursuing, each in his own way. It seems that whomever those "billionaires" were, they've now gotten their wish, with a figurehead Donald Trump as President, and James Mattis actually running foreign policy. Humor also noted that Mattis wants to boost the budget of the Pentagon by far more than the 9% that Trump has proposed. Perhaps Trump knew that even to get a 9% Pentagon increase passed this year would be almost impossible to achieve. First, the unleashed Pentagon needs to place the military into an 'emergency' situation, so as to persuade the public to clamor for a major invasion. That 'emergency' might be the immediate goal, toward which the March-April timeline of events that Humor documented is aiming.

    As regards the military comparisons of the personnel and equipment on both sides of a U.S.-Russia war, the key consideration would actually be not the 7,000 nuclear warheads that Russia has versus the 6,800 nuclear warheads that the U.S. has, but the chief motivation on each of the respective sides: conquest on the part of the U.S. aristocracy, defense on the part of the Russian aristocracy. (Obviously, the U.S. having continued its NATO military alliance after the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact military alliance ended in 1991, indicates America's aggressive intent against Russia. That became a hyper-aggressive intent when NATO absorbed Russia's former Warsaw Pact allies. NATO even brought in some parts of the former USSR itself, when in 2004, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, entered NATO, and in 2014 U.S. President Obama tried to get Ukraine into NATO, and these five countries hadn't even been Warsaw Pacters, but had instead been parts of the USSR itself. It was as if Russia had grabbed not only America's allies, but some states in the U.S. itself. This constituted extreme aggression, and shows the U.S. aristocracy's obsessive intent for global empire - to include Russia.)

    Any limited war between the two powers would become a nuclear war once the side that's losing this limited war becomes faced with the choice of either surrendering that limited territory (now likely Syria) or else going nuclear. On Russia's side, allowing such military conquest of an ally would be unacceptable; the war would then expand with the U.S. and its allies invading Russian territory for Russia's continuing refusal to accept the U.S.-Saudi and other allies' grabbing of Syria (on 'humanitarian grounds', of course - as if, for example, the Sauds aren't far more brutal than Assad). After the traditional-forces' invasion of Russia, Russia's yielding its sovereignty over its own land has never been part of Russia's culture: If Russia were to be invaded by allies of the U.S., then launching all of Russia's nuclear weapons against the U.S. and America's invasion-allies, would be a reasonably expected result. Here's how it would develop: On America's side, which (very unlike Russia) has no record of any foreign invasion against its own mainland (other than the Sauds' own 9/11 'false flag' attacks), the likely response in the event of Russia's crushing its invaders would be for the U.S. President to seek to negotiate a face-saving end to that limited war, just as the American President Richard Nixon did regarding America's invasion and occupation of Vietnam.

    However, a reasonable question can be raised as to whether, in such a situation, Russia would accept anything less than America's total surrender, much as Franklin Delano Roosevelt in WW II was determined to accept nothing less than Germany's total surrender, at the end of that war. If Trump wants to play Hitler, then Putin (acting in accord with Russian tradition) would probably play both FDR and Stalin, even if it meant the end of the world. For Russia to be conquered, especially by such intense evil as those invaders would be representing, would probably be viewed by Russians as being even worse than ending everything, and this would probably be Putin's view as well. If America did not simply capitulate, Putin would probably nuclear-blitz-attack the U.S. and its allies, rather than give Trump (or Pence) the opportunity to blitz-attack Russia and to sacrifice all of the U.S. side's invading troops in Russia so as to 'win' the overall war and finally conquer Russia. It would be like WW II, except with nuclear weapons - and thus an entirely different type of historical outcome after the war.

    Consequently, either the U.S. will cease its designs on Russia, or there will be WW III. Russia's sovereignty will never be yielded, especially not to the thuggish gang who have come to rule the U.S. (both as "Republicans" and as "Democrats"). The bipartisan neoconservative dream of America's aristocrats (world-conquest) will never be achieved. Russia will never accept it. If America's rulers continue to press it, the result will be even worse than when the Nazis tried. It's just an ugly pipe-dream, but any attempt to make it real would be even uglier. And nobody who buys a 'nuclear-proof bunker' will get what he or she thinks is being bought - safety in such a world as that. It won't exist.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Crash Overide , Apr 20, 2017 10:56 PM

    Fred Reed knocks one out of the park:

    First Transgender President: Trump Becomes Hillary http://www.unz.com/freed/first-transgender-president-trump-becomes-hillary/

    Luc X. Ifer -> Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 20, 2017 11:24 PM

    False. We have a simulation, and it is far worse than people can even imagine.

    [...

  • Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

    ...]

    http://www.nucleardarkness.org/warconsequences/hundredfiftytonessmoke/

  • Luc X. Ifer -> Luc X. Ifer , Apr 20, 2017 11:41 PM

    Another reason why USSA is in hurry to have the war with Russia ASAP is that they know that very soon - if not even now in the present, USSA ICBM defense is outdated and 100% ineficient against the newest Russian ICBMs, if by any bad chance Russia launches the 1st strike Disney Land USSA is Bye Felicia without even a chance to retaliate.

    https://www.rt.com/news/340588-hypersonic-warhead-sarmat-tested/

    winged -> Luc X. Ifer , Apr 20, 2017 11:41 PM

    If that time truly comes, make sure you know who's really responsible.

    http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

    [Apr 21, 2017] Trump has lost control over the Pentagon

    thesaker.is

    On April 17th, Scott Humor, the Research Director at the geostrategic site "The Saker," headlined "Trump has lost control over the Pentagon", and he listed (and linked-to) the following signs that Trump is following through with his promise to allow the Pentagon to control U.S. international relations:

    1. March 14th, the US National Nuclear Security Administration field tested the modernized B61-12 gravity nuclear bomb in Nevada.
    2. April 7, Liberty Passion, loaded with US military vehicles, moored at Aqaba Main Port, Jordan
    3. On April 7th the Pentagon US bombed Syria's main command center in fight against terrorists
    4. April 10, United States Deploying Forces At Syrian-Jordanian Border
    5. April 11, The US Air Force might start forcing pilots to stay in the service against their will, according to the chief of the military unit's Air Mobility Command.
    6. April 12, President Donald Trump has signed the US approval for Montenegro to join NATO
    7. April 13, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced the alliance's increased deployment in Eastern Europe
    8. On April 13th, the Pentagon bombed Afghanistan. The US military has bombed Afghanistan with its GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB)
    9. April 13, the US-led coalition bombed the IS munitions and chemical weapons depot in Deir ez-Zor killing hundreds of people
    10. April 14, The Arleigh Burke-class, guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem (DDG 63) has been deployed to the South China Sea
    11. April 14, the US sent F-35 jets to Europe
    12. April 14, Washington failed to attend the latest international conference hosted by Moscow, where 11 nations discussed ways of bringing peace to Afghanistan. The US branded it a "unilateral Russian attempt to assert influence in the region".
    13. April14, the US has positioned two destroyers armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles close enough to the North Korean nuclear test site to act preemptively
    14. April 16th, the US army makes largest deployment of troops to Somalia since the 90s.

    [Apr 21, 2017] We May Be on the Verge of a Return to the Bush Administrations Worst Abuses

    What she does not understand is that ISIS is doing for American the dirty job of torturing civilians...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    Apr 21, 2017 | fpif.org

    We May Be on the Verge of a Return to the Bush Administration's Worst Abuses

    The Trump administration may be preparing to bring back torture, extraordinary rendition, and indefinite detention - with Neil Gorsuch's help.

    By Rebecca Gordon , April 11, 2017 . Originally published in TomDispatch .

    When George W. Bush and Dick Cheney launched their forever wars - under the banner of a "Global War on Terror" - they unleashed an unholy trinity of tactics. Torture, rendition, and indefinite detention became the order of the day. After a partial suspension of these policies in the Obama years, they now appear poised for resurrection.

    For eight years under President Obama, this country's forever wars continued, although his administration retired the expression "war on terror," preferring to describe its war-making more vaguely as an effort to " degrade and destroy " violent jihadists like ISIS. Nevertheless, he made major efforts to suspend Bush-era violations of U.S. and international law, signing executive orders to that effect on the day he took office in 2009. Executive Order 13491, "Ensuring Lawful Interrogations," closed the CIA's secret torture centers - the "black sites" - and ended permission for the agency to use what had euphemistically become known as "enhanced interrogation techniques."

    On that same day in 2009, Obama issued Executive Order 13492, designed - unsuccessfully, as it turned out - to close the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, the site of apparently endless detention without charges or trials. In 2015, Congress reinforced Obama's first order in a clause for the next year's National Defense Authorization Act that limited permissible interrogation techniques to those described in the U.S. Army Field Manual section on "human intelligence collector operations."

    All of that already seems like such ancient history, especially as the first hints of the Trump era begin to appear, one in which torture, black sites, extraordinary rendition, and so much more may well come roaring back.

    ... ... ...

    Torture Redux

    It should come as no surprise to anyone who paid minimal attention to the election campaign of 2016 that Donald Trump has a passionate desire to bring back torture. In fact, he campaigned on a platform of committing war crimes of various kinds, occasionally even musing about whether the United States could use nukes against ISIS. He promised to return waterboarding to its rightful place among twenty-first-century U.S. practices and, as he so eloquently put it, "a hell of a lot worse."

    There's no reason, then, to be shocked that he's been staffing his administration with people who generally feel the same way (Secretary of Defense James "Mad Dog" Mattis being an obvious exception).

    The CIA was certainly not the only outfit engaged in torture in the Bush years, but it's the one whose practices were most thoroughly examined and publicized . Despite his enthusiasm for torture, Trump's relationship with the agency has, to say the least, been frosty. Days before his inauguration, he responded to revelations of possible Russian influence on the U.S. election by accusing its operatives of behaving like Nazis, tweeting: "Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to 'leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?"

    He quickly appointed a new director of the CIA (as hasn't been true of quite a few other positions in his administration). He chose former Congressman Mike Pompeo, whose advice about torture he has also said he would consider seriously. A polite term for Pompeo's position on the issue might be: ambiguous. During his confirmation hearings, he maintained that he would "absolutely not" reinstate waterboarding or other "enhanced techniques," even if the president ordered him to. "Moreover," he added, "I can't imagine that I would be asked that."

    However, his written replies to the Senate Intelligence Committee told quite a different, far less forthright tale. Specifically, as the British Independent reported , he wrote that if a ban on waterboarding were shown to impede the "gathering of vital intelligence," he would consider lifting it. He added that he would reopen the question of whether interrogation techniques should be limited to those found in the Army Field Manual. ("If confirmed, I will consult with experts at the Agency and at other organizations in the U.S. government on whether the Army Field Manual uniform application is an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country.")

    In other words, as the Independent observed, if the law prohibits torture, then Pompeo is prepared to work to alter the law. "If experts believed current law was an impediment to gathering vital intelligence to protect the country," Pompeo wrote to the Senate committee, "I would want to understand such impediments and whether any recommendations were appropriate for changing current law."

    Unfortunately for both the president and him, there are laws against torture that neither they nor Congress have the power to change, including the U.N. Convention against Torture, and the Geneva Conventions.

    Nor is Mike Pompeo the only Trump nominee touched by the torture taint. Take, for instance, the president's pick for the Supreme Court. From 2005 to 2006, Neil Gorsuch worked in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, the wellspring for John Yoo's and Jay Bybee's infamous " torture memos ."

    Gorsuch also assisted in drafting Bush's "signing statement" on the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. That act included an amendment introduced by Senator John McCain prohibiting the torture of detainees. As the White House didn't want its favorite interrogation methods curtailed, Gorsuch recommended putting down "a marker to the effect that McCain is best read as essentially codifying existing interrogation policies."

    In other words, the future Supreme Court nominee suggested that the McCain amendment would have no real effect, because the administration had never engaged in torture in the first place. This approach was the best strategy, he argued, to "help inoculate against the potential of having the administration criticized sometime in the future for not making sufficient changes in interrogation policy in light of the McCain portion of the amendment."

    In his brief tenure at the Office of Legal Counsel, Gorsuch provided further aid to the supporters of torture by, for example, working on government litigation to prevent the exposure of further "Darby photos." These were the shocking pictures from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison that came into the possession of U.S. Army Sergeant Joe Darby. He then passed them up the chain of command, which eventually led to the public revelation of the abuses in that U.S.-run torture palace.

    Trump's new attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is also a torture enthusiast. He was one of only nine senators to vote against the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act. The Act limited the military to the use of those interrogation methods found in the Army Field Manual. In 2015, he joined just 20 other senators in opposing an amendment to the next year's military appropriations bill, which extended the Field Manual rules to all U.S. agencies involved in interrogation, not just the military.

    Reviving the Black Sites?

    So far, President Trump hasn't had the best of luck with his executive orders. His two travel bans, meant to keep Muslims from entering the United States, are at present trapped in federal court, but worse may be in the offing.

    Trump promised during the campaign to reopen the CIA's notorious black sites and bring back torture. Shortly after the inauguration, a draft executive order surfaced that was clearly intended to do just that. It rescinded President Obama's orders 13491 and 13492 and directed the secretary of defense and the attorney general, together with "other senior national security officials," to review the interrogation policies in the Army Field Manual with a view to making "modifications in, and additions to those, policies." That would mean an end run around Congress, since it doesn't take an act of that body to rewrite part of a manual (and so reinstitute torture policy).

    It also called on the director of national intelligence, the CIA director, and the attorney general to "recommend to the president whether to reinitiate a program of interrogation of high-value alien terrorists to be operated outside the United States and whether such program should include the use of detention facilities operated by the Central Intelligence Agency." In other words, they were to consider reopening the black sites for another round of "enhanced interrogation techniques."

    As in so many such documents, that draft order included a cover-your-ass clause, in this case suggesting that "no person in the custody of the United States shall at any time be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, as proscribed by U.S. law." As we learned in the Bush years, however, such statements have no real effect because, as in a 2002 memo produced by John Yoo and Jay Bybee, "torture" can be redefined as whatever you need it to be. That memo certified that, to qualify as torture, the pain experienced by a victim would have to be like that usually associated with "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." In other words, if he didn't die or at least come close, you didn't torture him.

    After the recent draft executive order on these subjects was leaked to the media and caused a modest to-do, a later version appeared to drop the references to black sites and torture. While no final version has yet emerged, it's clear enough that the initial impulse behind the order was distinctly Trumpian and should be taken seriously.

    As soon as the draft order surfaced in the press in late January, the White House disclaimed all knowledge of it and no version of it appears on current lists of Trump executive actions since taking office. But keep in mind that presidents can issue secret executive orders that the public may never hear about - unless the news spills out from an administration whose powers of containment so far could be compared to those of a sieve.

    Déjà Vu, Rendition Edition

    Notably, neither of Obama's Inauguration Day executive orders addressed extraordinary rendition. In fact, this was a weapon he preferred to keep available.

    What is extraordinary rendition? Ordinary rendition simply means transferring someone from one legal jurisdiction to another, usually through legal extradition. Rendition becomes "extraordinary" when it happens outside the law, as when a person is sent to a country with which the United States does not have an extradition treaty, or when it is likely (or certain) that the rendered person will be tortured in another country.

    In the Bush years, the CIA ran an extraordinary rendition machine , involving the kidnapping of terror suspects (sometimes, as it turned out, quite innocent people ) off the streets of global cities as well as in the backlands of the planet, and sending them to those brutal CIA black sites or rendering them to torturing regimes around the world.

    Rendition continued in a far more limited way during Obama's presidency. For example, a 2013 Washington Post story described the rendition of three Europeans "with Somali roots" in the tiny African country of Djibouti and of an Eritrean to Nigeria. The article suggested that, in part because of congressional intransigence on closing Guantánamo and allowing the jailing and trial of suspected terrorists in U.S courts, rendition represented "one of the few alternatives" to the more extreme option of simply killing suspects outright , usually by drone.

    Recently, there was news that a Trump associate might have been involved in planning a rendition of his own. Former CIA Director James Woolsey told the Wall Street Journal that, last September, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn discussed arranging an extralegal rendition with the son-in-law of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. At the time, he was serving as an adviser to the Trump campaign. He later - briefly - served as President Trump's national security adviser.

    The target of this potential rendition? Fethullah Gulen, an Islamic cleric who has lived for decades in the United States. President Erdogan believes that Gulen was behind a 2016 coup attempt against him and has asked the U.S. to extradite him to Turkey. The Obama administration temporized on the subject, insisting on examining the actual evidence of Gulen's involvement.

    Flynn's foray may have been an instance of potential rendition-for-profit, a plan to benefit one of his consulting clients. At the time, Flynn's (now-defunct) consulting firm, the Flynn Intel Group, was working for a Dutch corporation, Inovo, with ties to Erdogan. The client reviewed a draft op-ed eventually published in the Hill in which Flynn argued that Gulen should be extradited, because he is a "radical cleric" and Turkey is "our friend." In addition to lying about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the election campaign, it turns out that Flynn was probably working as an unregistered foreign agent for Turkish interests at that time.

    Mike Pompeo also appears to be bullish on renditions. In his written testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he indicated that under him the CIA would probably continue this practice. When asked how the agency would avoid sending prisoners to countries known to engage in torture, his reply could have come straight from the Bush-Cheney playbook:

    "I understand that assurances provided by other countries have been a valuable tool for ensuring that detainees are treated humanely. In most cases other countries are likely to treat assurances provided to the United States government as an important matter."

    Asking for such assurances has in the past given the U.S. government cover for what was bound to occur in the prisons of countries known for torture. (Just ask Maher Arar rendered to Syria or Binyam Mohammed rendered to Morocco about what happened to them.)

    We'll Always Have Guantánamo

    "We'll always have Paris," Rick reminds Ilsa during their bittersweet goodbye in the classic film Casablanca . Our Guantánamo lease with Cuba (which reads, "for use as coaling [refueling] or naval stations only, and for no other purpose") is a permanent one. So it looks like we'll always have Guantánamo, with its memories of torture and murder , and its remaining 41 prisoners, undoubtedly stranded there forever.

    As it happens, Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch's fingerprints are all over the Bush administration's Guantánamo policy, too. While at the Office on Legal Counsel, he helped the administration fight a major legal challenge to that policy in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld . In that case , the government argued that detainees at Guantánamo did not have the right of habeas corpus, that the president has the authority to decide not to abide by the Geneva Conventions, and that detainees could be tried by military "commissions" in Cuba rather than by U.S. courts. Given that history, it's unlikely he'd rule in favor of any future challenge to whatever use President Trump made of the prison.

    While on the campaign trail, Trump made it clear that he would keep Guantánamo eternally open. In a November rally in Sparks, Nevada, he told a cheering crowd:

    "This morning, I watched President Obama talking about Gitmo, right, Guantánamo Bay, which by the way, which by the way, we are keeping open. Which we are keeping open and we're gonna load it up with some bad dudes, believe me, we're gonna load it up."

    In mid-February, Trump Press Secretary Sean Spicer reiterated his boss's affection for the prison, when he told the White House press corps that the president believes it serves "a very, very healthy purpose in our national security, in making sure we don't bring terrorists to our seas." Perhaps Spicer meant "our shores," but the point was made. Trump remains eager to keep the whole Guantánamo prison system - including, we can assume, indefinite detention - up and running as an alternative to bringing prisoners to the United States.

    It seems that the head of the Pentagon agrees. In December 2016, retired Marine General (now Secretary of Defense) James Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee that any detainee who "has signed up with this enemy" and is captured wherever "the president, the commander-in-chief, sends us" should know that he will be a "prisoner until the war is over." Given that our post-9/11 military conflicts are truly forever wars, in Mattis's view, pretty much anyone the U.S. captures in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, or who knows where else will face at least the possibility of spending the rest of his life in Guantánamo.

    Reading the Tea Leaves

    As far as we know, President Trump has yet to green-light his first case of torture or his first extraordinary rendition, or even to add a single prisoner to the 41 still held at Guantánamo. All we have for now are his ominous desires and promises - and those of his underlings.

    These are enough, however, to give us a clear understanding of his intentions and those of his appointees. If they can, they will resurrect the unholy trinity of torture, rendition, and indefinite detention.

    The future may not yet be inscribed in Trumpian gold anywhere, but on such matters we should believe the autocrat.

    Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular , teaches in the philosophy department at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes . Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua .

    [Apr 21, 2017] These Lawmakers Are Trying to Curb Trumps Authority to Launch a Nuclear War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Olivia Alperstein is the Deputy Director of Communications and Policy at Progressive Congress. ..."
    Apr 21, 2017 | fpif.org

    Without so much as a vote by Congress, our whole planet could be destroyed.

    By Olivia Alperstein , March 29, 2017 . Originally published in OtherWords .

    PrintFriendly and PDF Print

    (Photo: Steve Jurveston / Wikimedia Commons)

    Right now, Donald Trump could start a nuclear war on a whim, and no one could stop him.

    Under any circumstances, the prospect of nuclear war is terrifying, the deadly consequences irreversible. Yet with a single order, the president - any president - could effectively declare a nuclear war that would wipe out entire nations, including our own.

    More worrying still, our current president has shown an alarming willingness to engage in aggression instead of diplomacy - particularly towards nations like Iran and China, as well as countries whose citizens have now been banned from traveling to the U.S. under an overbroad, dog-whistle executive order.

    Trump has almost gleefully exercised his right to threaten nuclear war.

    He made boastful remarks about nuclear might throughout his campaign. And just recently, he called for a new push to put America at the " top of the pack " when it comes to nuclear weapons capability (as though we weren't already).

    Going against decades of precedent, not to mention hard-won diplomatic treaties reached with countries like Russia and Iran, Trump has enthusiastically declared that we should expand, not reduce, our nuclear arsenal.

    Already, just a tiny amount of our nuclear stockpile would be enough to blow up the world several times over. We'd probably even have enough left over to decimate most of the seven Earth-like planets in the Trappist-1 solar system that NASA recently discovered.

    Surely the horrors at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the devastation after the nuclear power plant leak at Fukushima, should warn us against the danger of nuclear fallout. The disaster at Three Mile Island wasn't exactly a small lab accident, either.

    It's almost impossible to comprehend millions of people being obliterated from the face of the earth simultaneously, in the blink of an eye. Especially at the whim of just one American who happens to have access to a certain red button.

    That's why Representative Ted Lieu and Senator Ed Markey have introduced legislation prohibiting the sitting president from unilaterally declaring nuclear war without a prior act of Congress. They call it the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017.

    "Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival," Markey warned in a joint statement introducing this legislation. Unfortunately, Trump insists on "maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict."

    "In a crisis with another nuclear-armed country," the senator went on to explain, "this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear escalation."

    As so many people have said, we only have one planet. Billions of people live here - and nowhere else in the universe.

    If we take our nation's responsibility as a leader of the free world seriously, it's our duty to protect people from the horrors of war, famine, poverty, genocide, and nuclear fallout. But there will be no place to go for any survivors of a nuclear disaster.

    I don't know about you, but I don't even watch post-apocalyptic TV shows. I certainly don't want to find myself living in the middle of one.

    No one person on this planet should be able to make a decision that will send millions of people instantaneously to their deaths. That's genocide.

    Killing off our entire planet? That's just inhuman. Olivia Alperstein is the Deputy Director of Communications and Policy at Progressive Congress.

    [Apr 21, 2017] US Rejects Exxon Mobil Bid for Waiver on Russia Sanctions - The New York Times

    Apr 21, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    HOUSTON - The Trump administration delivered a setback to Exxon Mobil on Friday, announcing that it would not grant the oil giant a waiver from sanctions against Russia that would allow drilling in the Black Sea.

    The decision, reinforcing barriers erected by the United States over Russia's intervention in Ukraine, was another sign that President Trump has been unwilling or unable to improve relations with the Kremlin early in his term, after pledging as a candidate that he would seek a thaw.

    "In consultation with President Donald J. Trump," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a terse, prepared statement, "the Treasury Department will not be issuing waivers to U.S. companies, including Exxon, authorizing drilling prohibited by current Russian sanctions."

    The prospect of a waiver had drawn denunciations from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. When news of Exxon Mobil's proposal emerged this week , Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, wrote in a Twitter post , "Are they crazy?"

    The matter was complicated by the continuing congressional scrutiny of reports of Russian intervention in support of Mr. Trump in last year's election, and by Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson's role as Exxon Mobil's chief executive until the president nominated him for his current position.

    Advertisement Continue reading the main story

    Exxon Mobil applied for the waiver in 2015, arguing that it could lose its exploration rights in the Black Sea if it did not begin drilling operations by the end of 2017 under its contract with the Russian state oil company Rosneft.

    The Obama administration did not act on the application, but Exxon Mobil hoped that the Trump administration would take a favorable view.

    The company released a brief statement on Friday that did not express regret but explained its argument in favor of the waiver.

    "We understand the statement today by Secretary Mnuchin in consultation with President Trump," the statement said. "Our 2015 application for a license under the provisions outlined in the U.S. sanctions was made to enable our company to meet its contractual obligations under a joint venture agreement in Russia, where competitor companies are authorized to undertake such work under European sanctions."

    DealBook

    DealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the conversation. Delivered weekday mornings and afternoons.

    Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box.

    Invalid email address. Please re-enter.

    You must select a newsletter to subscribe to.

    Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are already subscribed to this email.

    View all New York Times newsletters.

    United States and European sanctions were first imposed on Russia in March 2014 in response to Moscow's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. Exxon Mobil signed an expansion of its joint venture projects anyway, even after Igor I. Sechin, Rosneft's chief executive, was personally blacklisted in connection with the sanctions.

    The deal was legal, but Exxon Mobil was more fully constrained when tighter sanctions were imposed after Russia was implicated that summer in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine.

    It has become increasingly clear in recent days that relations between the United States and Russia are unlikely to improve any time soon. Mr. Tillerson has used increasingly tough talk to highlight the Trump administration's differences with Russia over its alliance with the Syrian government. He has not suggested that any sanctions be lifted, and the administration has affirmed its commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European security.

    Exxon Mobil's hopes to produce new oil in Arctic waters and in Siberian shale fields were delayed indefinitely by the toughened sanctions, which prohibited transfers of drilling technology capable of reaching oil in fields that previously had been virtually inaccessible. The company received a few exceptions to the sanctions, including a waiver in late 2014 that allowed it complete drilling of one exploration well in the frigid Kara Sea that it said would be unsafe to leave half finished. A big oil field was confirmed, but no new oil was produced and exported.

    Exxon Mobil has long argued that it was being put at a disadvantage against some of its European competitors operating in Russia. ENI, the Italian oil giant, plans to drill this year in the Black Sea, a largely untapped area with enormous oil reserve potential.

    European sanctions are somewhat weaker than those imposed by the United States since they exempted some contracts signed before the sanctions were put in place. The American sanctions drew a harder line.

    Advertisement Continue reading the main story

    Exxon Mobil's drilling rights in the Black Sea were part of a sweeping strategic partnership Exxon Mobil developed with Rosneft in 2011 while Mr. Tillerson was in charge of the American company. The agreement came at a time when the Obama administration was seeking to improve relations with Russia, and several Western oil companies expanded their operations.

    [Apr 21, 2017] How to Lose the Next War in the Middle East

    Apr 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Make no mistake: after 15 years of losing wars, spreading terror movements, and multiplying failed states across the Greater Middle East, America will fight the next versions of our ongoing wars. Not that we ever really stopped. Sure, Washington traded in George W. Bush's expansive, almost messianic attitude toward his Global War on Terror for Barack Obama's more precise, deliberate, even cautious approach to an unnamed version of the same war for hegemony in the Greater Middle East. Sure, in the process kitted-up 19 year-olds from Iowa became less ubiquitous features on Baghdad's and Kabul's busy boulevards, even if that distinction was lost on the real-life targets of America's wars - and the bystanders (call them "collateral damage") scurrying across digital drone display screens.

    It's hardly a brilliant observation to point out that, more than 15 years later, the entire region is a remarkable mess. So much worse off than Washington found it, even if all of that mess can't simply be blamed on the United States - at least not directly. It's too late now, as the Trump administration is discovering, to retreat behind two oceans and cover our collective eyes. And yet, acts that might still do some modest amount of good (resettling refugees, sending aid, brokering truces, anything within reason to limit suffering) don't seem to be on any American agenda.

    So, after 16 years of inconclusive or catastrophic regional campaigns, maybe it's time to stop dreaming about how to make things better in the Greater Middle East and try instead to imagine how to make things worse (since that's the path we often seem to take anyway). Here, then, is a little thought experiment for you: what if Washington actually wanted to lose? How might the U.S. government go about accomplishing that? Let me offer a quick (and inevitably incomplete) to-do list on the subject:

    As a start, you would drop an enlarged, conventional army into Iraq and/or Syria. This would offer a giant red, white, and blue target for all those angry, young radicalized men just dying (pardon the pun) to extinguish some new "crusader" force. It would serve as an effective religious-nationalist rallying cry (and target) throughout the region.

    Then you would create a news-magnet of a ban (or at least the appearance of one) on immigrants and visitors of every sort from predominantly Muslim countries coming to the United States. It's hardly an accident that ISIS has taken to calling the president's proposed executive order to do just that " the blessed ban " and praising Donald Trump as the "best caller to Islam." Such actions only confirm the extremist narrative: that Muslims are unwelcome in and incompatible with the West, that liberal plurality is a neo-imperial scam.

    Finally, you would feed the common perception in the region that Washington's support for Israel and assorted Arab autocrats is unconditional. To do so, you would go out of your way to hold fawning public meetings with military strongmen like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, and suggest that, when it came to Israel, you were considering changing American policy when it comes to a two-state solution and the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. Such policies would feed another ISIS narrative: U.S. support for illiberal despots and the failure of the Arab Spring is proof that practicing Muslims and peaceful Islamists will never successfully gain power through the democratic process.

    Key to such a losing strategy would be doing anything you could to reinforce ISIS's twisted narrative of an end-of-days battle between Islam and Christendom, a virtuous East versus a depraved West, an authentic Caliphate against hypocritical democracies. In what amounts to a war of ideas, pursuing such policies would all but hand victory to ISIS and other jihadi extremist groups. And so you would have successfully created a strategy for losing eternally in the Greater Middle East. And if that was the desired outcome in Washington, well, congratulations all around, but of course we all know that it wasn't.

    Let's take these three points in such a losing strategy one by one. (Of course "losing" is itself a contested term, but for our purposes, consider the U.S. to have lost as long as its military spins its wheels in a never-ending quagmire, while gradually empowering various local "adversaries.")

    Just a Few Thousand More Troops Will Get It Done

    There are already thousands of American soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Syria, to say nothing of the even more numerous troops and sailors stationed on bases in Kuwait , Bahrain, Turkey, and other states ringing America's Middle Eastern battlefields. Still, if you want to mainline into the fastest way to lose the next phase of the war on terror, just blindly acquiesce in the inevitable requests of your commanders for yet more troops and planes needed to finish the job in Syria ( and Iraq, and Afghanistan , and Yemen, and so on).

    Let's play this out. First, the worst (and most plausible) case: U.S. ground forces get sucked into an ever more complex, multi-faceted civil war - deeper and deeper still, until one day they wake up in a world that looks like Baghdad, 2007 , all over again.

    Or, lest we be accused of defeatism, consider the best case: those endlessly fortified and reinforced American forces wipe the floor with ISIS and just maybe manage to engineer the toppling of Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime as well. It's V-Day in the Middle East! And then what? What happens the day after? When and to whom do American troops turn over power?

    • The Kurds? That's a nonstarter for Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, all countries with significant Kurdish minorities.
    • The Saudis? Don't count on it. They're busy bombing Houthi Shias in Yemen (with U.S.-supplied ordnance) and grappling with the diversification of their oil-based economy in a world in which fossil fuels are struggling.
    • Russia? Fat chance. Bombing "terrorists"? Yes. Propping up an autocratic client to secure basing rights? Sure. Temporary transactional alliances of convenience in the region? Absolutely. But long-term nation-building in the heart of the Middle East? It's just not the style of Vladimir Putin's Russia, a country with its own shaky petro-economy.
    • So maybe leave Assad in power and turn the country back over to what's left of his minority, Alawite-dominated regime? That, undoubtedly, is the road to hell. After all, it was his murderous, barrel-bombing, child-gassing acts that all but caused the civil war in the first place. You can be sure that, sooner or later, Syria's majority Sunni population and its separatist Kurds would simply rebel again, while (as the last 15 years should have taught us) an even uglier set of extremists rose to the surface.

    Keep in mind as well that, when it comes to the U.S. military, the Iraqi and Afghan "surges" of 2007 and 2009 offered proof positive that more ground troops aren't a cure-all in such situations. They are a formula for expending prodigious amounts of money and significant amounts of blood, while only further alienating local populations. Meanwhile, unleashing manned and drone aircraft strikes, which occasionally kill large numbers of civilians, only add to the ISIS narrative.

    Every mass casualty civilian bombing or drone strike incident just detracts further from American regional credibility. While both air strikes and artillery barrages may hasten the offensive progress of America's Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian allies, that benefit needs to be weighed against the moral and propaganda costs of those dead women and children. For proof, see the errant bombing strike on an apartment building in Mosul last month. After all, those hundred-plus civilians are just as dead as Assad's recent victims and just as many angry, grieving family members and friends have been left behind.

    In other words, any of the familiar U.S. strategies, including focusing all efforts on ISIS or toppling Assad, or a bit of both, won't add up to a real policy for the region. No matter how the Syrian civil war shakes out, Washington will need a genuine "what next" plan. Unfortunately, if the chosen course predictably relies heavily on the military lever to shape Syria's shattered society, America's presence and actions will only (as in the past) aggravate the crisis and help rejuvenate its many adversaries.

    "The Blessed Ban"

    The Trump administration's proposed "travel ban" quickly became fodder for left-versus-right vitriol in the U.S. Here's a rundown on what it's likely to mean when it comes to foreign policy and the "next" war. First, soaring domestic fears over jihadi terror attacks in this country and the possible role of migrants and refugees in stoking them represent a potentially catastrophic over-reaction to a modest threat. Annually, from 2005 to 2015, terrorists killed an average of just seven Americans on U.S. soil. You are approximately 18,000 times more likely to die in some sort of accident than from such an attack. In addition, according to a study by the conservative Cato Institute, from 1975 to 2015 citizens of the countries included in Trump's first ban (including Iraq and Syria) killed precisely zero people in the United States. Nor has any refugee conducted a fatal domestic attack here. Finally, despite candidate and President Trump's calls for "extreme vetting" of Muslim refugees, the government already has a complex, two-year vetting process for such refugees which is remarkably "extreme."

    Those are the facts. What truly matters, however, is the effect of such a ban on the war of ideas in the Middle East. In short, it's manna from heaven for ISIS's storyline in which Americans are alleged to hate all Muslims. It tells you everything you need to know that, within days of the administration's announcement of its first ban, ISIS had taken to labeling it "blessed," just as al-Qaeda once extolled George W. Bush's 2003 "blessed invasion" of Iraq. Even Senator John McCain, a well-known hawk, worried that Trump's executive order would "probably give ISIS some more propaganda."

    Remember, while ISIS loves to claim responsibility for every attack in the West perpetrated by lost, disenfranchised, identity-seeking extremist youths, that doesn't mean the organization actually directs them. The vast majority of these killers are self-radicalized citizens, not refugees or immigrants. One of the most effective - and tragic - ways to lose this war is to prove the jihadis right.

    The Hypocrisy Trap

    Another way to feed the ISIS narrative is to bolster perceptions of diplomatic insincerity. Americans tend to be some of the least self-aware citizens on the planet. (Is it a coincidence that ours is about the only population left still questioning the existence of climate change?) Among the rare things that Democrats and Republicans agree on, however, is that America is a perennial force for good, in fact the force for good on Earth. As it happens, the rest of the world begs to differ. In Gallup global polls , the United States has, in fact, been identified as the number one threat to world peace! However uncomfortable that may be, it matters.

    One reason many Middle Easterners, in particular, believe this to be so stems from Washington's longstanding support for regional autocrats. In fiscal year 2017, Egypt's military dictator and Jordan's king will receive $1.46 and $1 billion respectively in U.S. foreign aid - nearly 7% of its total assistance budget. After leading a coup to overturn Egypt's elected government, General Sisi was officially persona non grata in the White House (though President Obama reinstated $1.3 billion in military aid in 2015). Sisi's recent visit to the Trump White House changed all that as, in a joint press conference , the president swore that he was "very much behind" Egypt and that Sisi himself had "done a fantastic job." In another indicator of future policy, the State Department dropped existing human rights conditions for the multibillion-dollar sale of F-16s to Bahrain's monarchy. All of this might be of mild interest, if it weren't for the way it bolstered ISIS claims that democracy is just an " idol ," and the democratic process a fraud that American presidents simply ignore.

    Then there's Israel, already the object of deep hatred in the region, and now clearly about to receive a blank check of support from the Trump administration. The role that Israeli leaders already play in American domestic politics is certainly striking to Arab audiences. Consider how unprecedented it was in 2015 to see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticize a sitting president before a joint session of Congress in an Israeli election year and receive multiple, bipartisan standing ovations. Even so, none of this prevented the Obama administration, domestically labeled "weak on Israel," from negotiating a record $38 billion military aid deal with that country.

    While violent Palestinian fighters are far from blameless, for 40 years Israel has increasingly created facts on the ground meant to preclude a viable Palestinian state. Netanyahu and his predecessors increased illegal settlements in the Palestinian territories, built an exclusion wall, and further divided the West Bank by constructing a network of roads meant only for the Israeli military and Jewish settlers.

    Although most world leaders, publics, and the United Nations see the Jewish settlements on the West Bank as a major impediment to peace, the current U.S. ambassador to Israel was once the president of a fundraising group supporting just such an Israeli settlement. The notion that he could be an honest broker in peace talks borders on the farcical.

    All of this, of course, matters when it comes to Washington's unending wars in the region. Even Secretary of Defense James Mattis, soon after leaving the helm of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), recognized that he "paid a military security price every day as a commander of CENTCOM because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel." So, you want to lose? Keep feeding the ISIS narrative on democracy and Israel just as the Trump administration is doing, even as it sends more troops into the region and heightens bombing and drone raids from Syria to Yemen.

    Send in the Cavalry

    If the next phase of the generational struggle for the Middle East is once again to be essentially a military one, while the Trump administration feeds every negative American stereotype in the region, then it's hard to see a future of anything but defeat. A combination of widespread American ignorance and the intellectual solace of simplistic models lead many here to ascribe jihadist terrorism to some grand, ethereal hatred of "Christendom."

    The reality is far more discomfiting. Consider, for instance, a document from "ancient" history: Osama bin Laden's 1998 fatwa against the United States. At that time, he described three tangible motives for jihad: U.S. occupation of Islam's holiest lands in the Middle East, U.S. attacks on and sanctions against Iraq, and American support for Israel's "occupation" of Jerusalem. If ISIS and al-Qaeda's center of gravity is not their fighting force but their ideology (as I believe it is), then the last thing Washington should want to do is substantiate any of these three visions of American motivation - unless, of course, the goal is to lose the war on terror across the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa.

    In that case, the solution is obvious: Washington should indeed insert more troops and set up yet more bases in the region, maintain unqualified support for right-wing Israeli governments and assorted Arab autocrats, and do its best to ban Muslim refugees from America. That, after all, represents the royal road to affirming al-Qaeda's, and now ISIS's, overarching narratives. It's a formula - already well used in the last 15 years - for playing directly into the enemy's hands and adhering to its playbook, for creating yet more failed states and terror groups throughout the region.

    When it comes to Syria in particular, there are some shockingly unexamined contradictions at the heart of Washington's reactions to its war there. President Trump, for instance, recently spoke emotionally about the "beautiful babies cruelly murdered" in Idlib, Syria. Yet, the administration's executive order on travel bans any Syrian refugees - including beautiful babies - from entering this country. If few Americans recognize the incongruity or hypocrisy of this, you can bet that isn't true in the Arab world.

    For ISIS, today's struggle in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere is part of an unremitting, apocalyptic holy war between Islam and the West. That narrative is demonstrably false. The current generation of jihadis sprang from tangible grievances and perceived humiliations perpetrated by recent Western policies. There was nothing "eternal" about it. The first recorded suicide bombings in the Middle East didn't erupt until the early 1980s. So forget the thousand-year struggle or even, in Western terms, the " clash of civilizations ." It took America's military-first policies in the region to generate what has now become perpetual war with spreading terror insurgencies.

    Want a formula for forever war? Send in the cavalry again.

    Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular , is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . He lives with his wife and four sons near Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

    [ Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

    [Apr 21, 2017] Donald Trump Ruling Class President

    Notable quotes:
    "... One of the many irritating things about the dominant United States corporate media is the way it repeatedly discovers anew things that are not remotely novel. Take its recent discovery that Donald Trump isn't really the swamp-draining populist working class champion he pretended to be on the campaign trail. ..."
    "... Christopher Hitchens usefully described the "essence of American politics" as "the manipulation of populism by elitism. That elite is most successful," Hitchens noted: ..."
    "... "which can claim the heartiest allegiance of the fickle crowd; can present itself as most 'in touch' with popular concerns; can anticipate the tides and pulses of public opinion; can, in short, be the least apparently 'elitist.' It is no great distance from Huey Long's robust cry of 'Every man a king' to the insipid 'inclusiveness' of [Bill Clinton's slogan] 'Putting People First,' but the smarter elite managers have learned in the interlude that solid, measurable pledges have to be distinguished by a reserve' tag that earmarks them for the bankrollers and backers." ..."
    "... Dressing elite class and economic interests in popular garb has always been a core function of the U.S. electoral and party system in its various iterations. Its first assignment was to rally ordinary citizens as voters for different factions of the developing nation's bourgeois class in its recurrent intra-capitalist policy struggles. ..."
    "... American capitalism has an equally evil Siamese twin called imperialism , progenitor of the giant "national security" and "foreign apparatus" that eats up the lion's share of U.S. federal discretionary spending – at no small cost to social and environmental health even as it provides s rich revenue stream for the nation's unelected dictatorship of money. "The costs of empire," Chomsky wrote nearly half a century ago , "are in general distributed over the whole of society, white its profits revert to a few within." ..."
    "... stop giving the American capitalist ruling class a free pass on Donald Trump, hoping for the neoliberal deep state" to bring about his demise from the top down ..."
    "... Trump was never really an anti-establishment candidate beyond the deceptive rhetoric he cynically employed – consistent with the longstanding fake-populist "essence of American [and bourgeois] politics" – to win enough white working class and rural votes to prevail over dismal, dollar-drenched Hillary Clinton. And you don't have to join the right-wing conspiracy mongers at Zero Hedge to agree with them that " Trump is where the elites want him" and "serves the establishment." ..."
    "... teleSur English ..."
    "... "Here there is a convergence around the system's political need for social control and its economic need to perpetuate accumulation. Unprecedented global inequalities can only be sustained by ever more repressive and ubiquitous systems of social control and repression. Yet quite apart from political considerations, the TCC has acquired a vested interest in war, conflict, and repression as a means of accumulation. CIT has revolutionized warfare and the modalities of state-organized militarized accumulation, including the military application of vast new technologies and the further fusion of private accumulation with state militarization ." ..."
    "... Trump, his team of politicized generals, and his call for a 10 percent increase in the already hyper-bloated Pentagon budget are a perfect match for the militarized accumulation strategy, with its "built-in war drive." ..."
    "... Waiting for supposedly enlightened and decent elites atop the "deep state" to dump Trump is a fool's game. As Robinson says, "Only a worldwide push back from below, and ultimately a program to redistribute wealth and power downward, can counter the upward spiral of international conflagration." Join the debate on Facebook ..."
    Apr 21, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
    The Ruling Class Reserve Tag

    One of the many irritating things about the dominant United States corporate media is the way it repeatedly discovers anew things that are not remotely novel. Take its recent discovery that Donald Trump isn't really the swamp-draining populist working class champion he pretended to be on the campaign trail.

    The evidence for this "news" is solid enough. His cabinet and top advisor circle has been chock full of ruling class swamp creatures like former Goldman Sachs President Gary Cohn (top economic adviser), longtime top Goldman Sachs partner and top executive Steve Mnuchin (Secretary of the Treasury), and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross (Secretary of Commerce). Trump has surrounded himself with super-opulent and planetarily invested financial gatekeepers – the very club he criticized Hillary Clinton for representing.

    Trump meets regularly with top corporate and financial CEOs, who have been assured that he will govern in accord with their wishes. He receives applause from business elites for his agenda of significant large scale tax cuts and deregulation for wealthy individuals and for the giant, hyper-parasitic, and largely transnational corporations they milk for obscene profits

    Trump's political strategist Steve Bannon is by numerous reports being pushed aside by Cohn and by Trump's hedge-fund financier son-in-law Jared Kushner – a longtime neoliberal Democrat – when it comes to holding the president's ear. Bannon has been reduced to bitterly cursing Kushner as a "globalist cuckservative."

    Bannon's white-nationalist "populist" bluster was of great electoral use to Trump on his path to the White House. In the real world of world capitalist power, however, the Beast of Breitbart is a liability. His self-declared nationalism does not jibe with the deeply rooted Open Door policy preferences of an American corporate and financial ruling class that has long been deeply invested across national boundaries in the world capitalist system.

    Trump, it turns out, is not the worker-friendly populist he posed as while running for president. He's not the great anti-establishment outsider determined to return "power to the people" he claimed to be in his Inauguration Address. His economic program amounts to neo-liberalism on steroids.

    You don't say! Gee, who knew? Anyone who's paid serious attention to American electoral politics and policy over the course of history, that's who. Seventeen years ago, the then still left Christopher Hitchens usefully described the "essence of American politics" as "the manipulation of populism by elitism. That elite is most successful," Hitchens noted:

    "which can claim the heartiest allegiance of the fickle crowd; can present itself as most 'in touch' with popular concerns; can anticipate the tides and pulses of public opinion; can, in short, be the least apparently 'elitist.' It is no great distance from Huey Long's robust cry of 'Every man a king' to the insipid 'inclusiveness' of [Bill Clinton's slogan] 'Putting People First,' but the smarter elite managers have learned in the interlude that solid, measurable pledges have to be distinguished by a reserve' tag that earmarks them for the bankrollers and backers."

    Democracy Imprisoned by Capitalism

    In a recent New York Times Magazine reflection on the chilling extent to which Trump's rise is consistent with dodgy, fascist-like tendencies in the long history of the American right, the prolific liberal historian Rick Perlstein notes that the irony of a "populist" president who has "placed so many bankers and billionaires in his cabinet, and has relentlessly pursued so many 1-percent-friendly policies" is "far from unique." The Orange-Tinted Beast is the latest version of what Perlstein calls "The often-cynical negotiation between populist electioneering and plutocratic governance on the right."

    Perlstein is right to note the unoriginality of the phenomenon. But why does Perlstein seem to think the "cynical negotiation" is just a Republican phenomenon? It was no less evident in the presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama than it was during the Reagan and Bush presidencies and under Trump today. That is no small part of how and why the ugly Republican right that Perlstein understandably fears gets its recurrent trips into national and state-level power.

    And just how mysterious is the tension between "populist electioneering and plutocratic governance"? From Karl Marx's time and before to the present day, bourgeois "constitutional" states practicing a strictly limited and deceptive form of "democracy" have been torn by a fundamental contradiction. On one hand, victorious candidates have to win enough popular votes to prevail in elections. They can hardly do that by proclaiming their commitment to the rule of the wealthy capitalist Few. On the other hand, they cannot garner the resources to win elections and govern effectively without the backing and cooperation of the investor/capitalist class, whose control of money and the means of production is critical to political power and policymaking.

    Thirty-three years ago, the left political scientist Charles Lindblom penned a convincing take on American power, likening the capitalist marketplace to a prison. Lindblom's analysis is aptly summarized in a recent critique of "deep state" discourse by Anthony DiMaggio :

    "U.S. corporations exercised power over communities, much like Kings do over feudal serfs, by exercising ownership over the means of production in the U.S. economy. They command worker loyalty due to their ability to hire and fire Americans and provide basic benefits such as health care or 401k and pension benefits. But corporations also possess the power to destroy people's lives via capital flight. Simply by threatening to leave a community and move factories abroad in pursuit of higher profits and weaker environmental regulations, corporations hold citizens hostage The marketplace is a prison, Lindblom warned, because these corporations ultimately control the levers of the U.S. economy, and control the life outcomes of American workers."

    Beyond the ownership and investment/disinvestment levers, concentrated capital achieves policy, cultural, and societal outcomes it prefers in numerous other ways : the buying of candidates and election through campaign donations; the flooding of government with armies of well-heeled lobbyists; the drafting and dissemination of Big Business-friendly legislation; massive investment in public relations and propaganda to influence the beliefs and values of citizens, politicians, and other "opinion-shapers"; direct "revolving door" capture of key government positions; the offer of private sector positions to public officials who reasonably expect significantly increased compensation once they exit government; the "cognitive [ideological] capture" (every bit as corrupting as bribery) of state officials, politicians, media personnel, educators, nonprofit managers, and other "influential;" the destruction and undermining of organizations (i.e., labor unions) that might offer some countervailing power to that of big business; the granting of jobs, corporate board memberships, internships, and other perks and payments to public officials' family members; the control of education and publishing; the ownership, management, and monitoring of mass media (including "entertainment" as well as public affairs news and commentary).

    The American philosopher John Dewey put things very well in 1931. He wrote that "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business" and rightly prophesized that U.S. politics would stay that way as long as power resided in "business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents, and other means of publicity and propaganda."

    Ten years later, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis made the elementary Aristotelian observation that Americans "must make our choice. We may have democracy," Brandeis wrote, "or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." That was an unwitting call for the abolition of capitalism, which is marked among other things by an inherent tendency towards the upward concentration of wealth and power.

    Let the People Be Taught

    The fundamental contradiction between bottom-up democratic pretense and top-down class-rule reality is nothing new in American history. The New England clergyman Jeremy Belknap captured the fundamental idea behind the U.S. Founders' curious notion of what they liked to call "popular government." "Let it stand as a principle," Belknap wrote to an associate in the late 1780s, "that government originates from the people, but let the people be taught that they are unable to govern themselves."

    Consistent with Belknap's advice, the U.S. Constitution was structured precisely and quite brilliantly to encode and enforce the impossibility of the Founders' ultimate nightmare: popular sovereignty . American history remains haunted by the darkly democidal enshrinement of the "first new nation's" crippling charter. The document invokes "We the people" and "the general welfare" only to set up a government dedicated to the hegemony of the propertied Few .

    A Common Masquerade

    Dressing elite class and economic interests in popular garb has always been a core function of the U.S. electoral and party system in its various iterations. Its first assignment was to rally ordinary citizens as voters for different factions of the developing nation's bourgeois class in its recurrent intra-capitalist policy struggles. Across much of the 19th century, some leading U.S. investors sought to advance their interests in the development of the domestic U.S. market and a manufacturing economy by pushing through an "American System" of government-subsidized internal improvements (transportation infrastructure above all), government central banks, and tariffs on imports. These capitalists tended to align with and fund the Whig Party and its anti-slavery successor the Republican Party. More export-, agricultural-, and free trade-oriented investors aligned with the Democratic Party.

    These not insignificant differences aside, all these bourgeois parties made feverish electoral appeals to mass constituencies in the name of "the common man" to win votes in a republic with comparatively wide (universal white male across most of the nation by the eve of the Civil War) suffrage. The competing parties needed to "masquerade as commoners" (in the words of the late and great U.S. historian Alfred F. Young ) to elected politicians pledged to the "bankrollers and backers" preferred path of capitalist development. The Hitchensian game – the "manipulation of populism by elitism" – first came into own not during the time of Huey Long but a century before in the Andrew Jacksonian so-called "age of the common man."

    "No Way to Vote Against Goldman Sachs" .

    Policy specifics and party alignments have since shifted more than once in accord with underlying political-economic and demographic factors. Still, the basic manipulative reality captured in Left political scientist Thomas Ferguson's "investment theory of [U.S. two-] party competition" has continued throughout. During the 1930s and 1940s, Ferguson has shown, the labor-allied New Deal (Franklin Roosevelt) Democratic Party rose to power with critical support from highly capital intensive multinational corporations and internationally oriented investment banks who were less concerned about wage bills than the more nationally oriented, anti-union, and protectionist industrial firms that dominated the reigning (Teddy Roosevelt, William McKinley and Howard Taft) Republican Party at the turn of the 20th century.

    The end of rapid growth and of the United States' short-lived and near-absolute post-World War II global economic hegemony during the late 1960s produced inflation and growing fiscal and trade deficits, leading to sharply raised interest rates, a strengthened dollar, and an unprecedented flow of surplus capital from industry to finance. The resulting new finance capital explosion transformed the American party system, which stabilized around 1980 with high finance atop the "hegemonic bloc" of political (as well as economic) investors. With the arch-neoliberal Clinton presidency of the 1990s , big finance capital had clearly taken over the Democratic Party as well as the Republicans, along with most of the nation's nonfinancial corporations.

    There have been differences in the investor class profiles of the two dominant parties through this century. "Defense" (military) and oil and other Big Carbon firms have tended to tilt towards the Republicans. Silicon Valley and Hollywood lean Democratic. Beneath such differences, the 1% is united in neoliberal consensus across both parties around Wall Street-led globalization and a huge Pentagon System to expand and protect global finance capitalism. Both the Republicans and the Democrats are committed to the neoliberal world-capitalist and imperial order, with big finance calling the shots while unions, the working class, and the poor are relegated to the margins.

    The two major parties have different historical, demographic, ethno-cultural, religious, and geographic profiles that matter. Still, they are united at the end of the day in their shared manipulations of carefully calibrated populist rhetoric and voter and partisan identity on behalf of the bipartisan super-rich and their global empire. As the Left author Chris Hedges noted four years ago :

    "Both sides of the political spectrum are manipulated by the same forces. If you're some right-wing Christian zealot in Georgia, then it's homosexuals and abortion and all these, you know, wedge issues that are used to whip you up emotionally. If you are a liberal in Manhattan, it's – you know, they'll be teaching creationism in your schools or whatever Yet in fact it's just a game, because whether it's Bush or whether it's Obama, Goldman Sachs always wins. There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs."

    or (Earlier) J.P. Morgan

    The Machiavellian ruling class exploitation of what is today called "identity politics" is also less than novel in the American historical experience. Fierce class conflict fueled by intense class consciousness roiled the industrializing United States across the late 19th and early 20th centuries, creating the most violent labor history in the world during those years. But great working class and farmer rebellions against the emergent new corporate plutocracy never translated into national politics thanks to the prior existence of a constitutionally mandated winner-take-all two party and elections system that channeled ballots into one of two reigning capitalist parties – aptly described by Upton Sinclair in 1904 as "two wings of the same bird of prey" – and in accord with differences of race, ethnicity, religion, and region. State and national politics and "voting behavior" were structured around ethnocultural and related geographic (sectional) factors. It's not for nothing that the Marxist American historian Alan Dawley once referred to the American ballot box as "the coffin of class consciousness." With all due respect to Eugene Debs' high water mark returns in 1912 (a mere 6% of the popular vote), there was little way to meaningfully vote against the interests of J.P. Morgan, Averill Harriman, and John Rockefeller.

    No Free Pass

    It's become fashionable on both left and right in recent years to think of Wall Street's untouchable power (along with that of Silicon Valley and the military industrial complex) as a reflection of the rule of the permanent "deep state." In its more measured and workable (non-conspiratorial) usage, the term refers to the embedded corporate and financial profit and power sectors that co-exist and merge with entrenched government institutions prominently including but not restricted to the ever-mushrooming national security state (we should include the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve alongside the Pentagon, the CIA, and the FBI) to govern the nation behind the electoral and parliamentary "marionette theater" (Mike Lofgren) of the visible state and its pseudo-democratic election rituals.

    But, with all due respect for the chilling expansion of the intertwined military, police, and surveillance states, it is hard not to sense behind the notion of the "deep state" the simple and less-than-secretive persistence of the class rule regime called capitalism. The harsh authoritarian reality of what Noam Chomsky has wryly called "really existing capitalist democracy or RECD, pronounced as 'wrecked'" lives on today as long before. .

    American capitalism has an equally evil Siamese twin called imperialism , progenitor of the giant "national security" and "foreign apparatus" that eats up the lion's share of U.S. federal discretionary spending – at no small cost to social and environmental health even as it provides s rich revenue stream for the nation's unelected dictatorship of money. "The costs of empire," Chomsky wrote nearly half a century ago , "are in general distributed over the whole of society, white its profits revert to a few within."

    It is long past time for left thinkers to stop giving the American capitalist ruling class a free pass on Donald Trump, hoping for the neoliberal deep state" to bring about his demise from the top down . Yes, the elite financial campaign finance and speech royalty data suggest that Hillary Clinton was Wall Street's preferred candidate last year. Still, Trump was never really an anti-establishment candidate beyond the deceptive rhetoric he cynically employed – consistent with the longstanding fake-populist "essence of American [and bourgeois] politics" – to win enough white working class and rural votes to prevail over dismal, dollar-drenched Hillary Clinton. And you don't have to join the right-wing conspiracy mongers at Zero Hedge to agree with them that " Trump is where the elites want him" and "serves the establishment."

    Militarized Accumulation

    A recent teleSur English reflection by the brilliant Marxian sociologist William I. Robinson notes that the transnational capitalist class (TCC) has turned to military investment as a solution to its drastic over-accumulation of capital in an increasingly unequal and poverty-ridden world. As Robinson notes :

    "Here there is a convergence around the system's political need for social control and its economic need to perpetuate accumulation. Unprecedented global inequalities can only be sustained by ever more repressive and ubiquitous systems of social control and repression. Yet quite apart from political considerations, the TCC has acquired a vested interest in war, conflict, and repression as a means of accumulation. CIT has revolutionized warfare and the modalities of state-organized militarized accumulation, including the military application of vast new technologies and the further fusion of private accumulation with state militarization ."

    " The so-called wars on drugs, terrorism, and immigrants; the construction of border walls, immigrant detention centers, and ever-growing prisons; the installation of mass surveillance systems, and the spread of private security guard and mercenary companies, have all become major sources of profit-making The class interests of the TCC, geo-politics, and economics come together around militarized accumulation. The more the global economy comes to depend on militarization and conflict the greater the drive to war and the higher the stakes for humanity after Trump's .victory, the stock price of Corrections Corporation of America soared 40 percent, given Trump's promise to deport millions Raytheon and Lockheed Martin reports spikes each time there is a new flare up in the Middle East Within an hour of the April 6 th Tomahawk missile bombardment of Syria, Raytheon's stock increased by $1 billion. Hundreds of private firms from around the world have put in bids to construct Trump's infamous border wall."

    Trump, his team of politicized generals, and his call for a 10 percent increase in the already hyper-bloated Pentagon budget are a perfect match for the militarized accumulation strategy, with its "built-in war drive."

    Waiting for supposedly enlightened and decent elites atop the "deep state" to dump Trump is a fool's game. As Robinson says, "Only a worldwide push back from below, and ultimately a program to redistribute wealth and power downward, can counter the upward spiral of international conflagration." Join the debate on Facebook

    Paul Street's latest book is They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy (Paradigm, 2014)

    [Apr 21, 2017] Americans got Republican Obama -- another master of bait and switch.

    Apr 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> jonny bakho... , April 20, 2017 at 05:58 AM
    In some ironic way, 2016 was highly
    reminiscent of LBJ's decision to quit,
    Gene McCarthy's obstreperousness, and
    Hubert Humphrey's ill-fated anointment
    as LBJ's designated successor.

    Politically, LBJ was hugely unpopular,
    whereas Obama was at his peak.

    Obama approval hits 60% as end of term
    approaches @CNNPolitics
    http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/01/16/barack-obama-legacy-jones-pkg-lead.cnn/video/playlists/obamas-best-month/

    pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 20, 2017 at 06:26 AM
    Interesting way to think of it. In 1968 - we got Nixon. I thought we could never do worse but we did in 2016.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:39 AM
    Interesting peculiar maybe, but way to think of it - not.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , April 20, 2017 at 07:40 AM
    Well, history repeats,

    sometimes as tragedy, sometimes as farce.

    And then, in 2016, we get Tom Dewey's Revenge.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 20, 2017 at 06:38 AM
    So, in your vernacular does reminiscent mean the same thing as opposite?
    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 21, 2017 at 05:44 AM
    Fred,

    "Obama approval hits 60% as end of term
    approaches @CNNPolitics "

    With 50+ approval ratings according to some polls Trump is not far. Raining Tomahawks on some ME country is "slam dunk" for approval ratings in the USA. Notwithstanding the fact that this is a war crime.

    You got what you wanted: "Republican Obama" -- another master of "bait and switch." Hell-bent of the preservation of the US neoliberal empire at the expense of American people. But who cares about American people. Let them eat cakes.

    At least in foreign policy you now actually got Hillary. all campaign promises are firmly forgotten. War drums beat is deafening. It's her policies that Trump is implementing. Why are you complaining ?

    Here is a nice touch on the recent Trump gender transformation:

    http://www.unz.com/freed/first-transgender-president-trump-becomes-hillary/

    ;-)

    [Apr 21, 2017] West does not want to investigate incident in Idlib, Russian diplomat says

    Apr 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 20, 2017 at 05:36 AM
    West does not want to investigate incident in Idlib, Russian diplomat says

    Russian Politics & Diplomacy April 20, 8:28 UTC+3


    "We guess that Americans probably have something to hide, since they persistently want to take the Shayrat airport out of the investigation," the diplomat said


    THE HAGUE, April 20. /TASS/ Western countries do not want to properly investigate the incident with the possible use of chemical weapons in the Syrian province of Idlib, Alexander Shulgin, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) told TASS.

    On Wednesday, the meeting of the OPCW Executive Council took place. During that meeting Russia and Iran submitted a revised draft proposal for the investigation of the incident in the Syrian province of Idlib.

    However, the United States opposed the visit of the Syrian Chemical Weapons Detection Mission to the Shayrat airfield, since it "has nothing to do with the situation," the diplomat said.


    The US delegation "spoke out against the involvement of any national experts in the work of the mission, they accused Russia of trying to "mix tracks and lead the investigation to a dead end."

    "But the connection between the incident in Idlib and the airfield of Shayrat was established by the Americans themselves, who stated that the Syrian planes had flown from this airfield," the Permanent Representative stressed. "Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to determine if sarin or other chemical munitions were stored there or not," he stressed.

    "Our view is that the Western countries are acting extremely inconsistently," the Russian diplomat said.

    "We guess that Americans probably have something to hide, since they persistently want to take the Shayrat airport out of the investigation. Maybe they knew from the start there was no chemical weapons there, and all this was used only as an excuse?" he added.


    On April 7, US President Donald Trump ordered a strike on Syria's Shayrat military air base located in the Homs Governorate. The attack, involving 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM), came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4. The US authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched from the Shayrat air base.

    http://tass.com/politics/942237

    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 05:51 AM
    TASS is the Russian News Agency. Somehow I do not find them all that credible.
    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:01 AM
    When the New York Times and Washington Post offer you fake news or no news, you might want to see what other sources say.

    It might be wise to check one against the other and then decide which is the more credible.

    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    Does other news sources include Faux News and Billo? Oh wait - Billo just got canned.

    BTW - we know sarin gas was used on the citizens of Syria. I guess you want to blame the French or something.

    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:24 AM
    People other than Russians have questioned the story.

    Like a prof at MIT:

    The Nerve Agent Attack that Did Not Occur:

    Analysis of the Times and Locations of Critical Events in the Alleged Nerve Agent Attack at 7 AM on April 4, 2017 in Khan Sheikhoun, Syria

    By Theodore A. Postol, professor emeritus of science, technology, and national security policy at MIT.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/67102.html

    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 06:32 AM
    Read more carefully:

    "The conclusion of this summary of data is obvious – the nerve agent attack described in the WHR did not occur as claimed. There may well have been mass casualties from some kind of poisoning event, but that event was not the one described by the WHR."

    He is not saying attack did not occur. He is only saying the way the White House reported it was not entirely accurate. Yuuuge difference. Like Sean Spicer gets the details right every time - not.

    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:42 AM
    "This means that the allegedly "high confidence" White House intelligence assessment issued on April 11 that led to the conclusion that the Syrian government was responsible for the attack is not correct.

    For such a report to be so egregiously in error, it could not possibly have followed the most simple and proven intelligence methodologies to determine the veracity of its findings.

    Since the United States justified attacking a Syrian airfield on April 7, four days before the flawed National Security Council intelligence report was released to the Congress and the public, the conclusion that follows is that the United States took military actions without the intelligence to support its decision."

    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:27 AM
    NYT Mocks Skepticism on Syria-Sarin Claims
    April 18, 2017

    Exclusive: The New York Times and other major media have ruled out any further skepticism toward the U.S. government's claim that Syrian President Assad dropped a sarin bomb on a town in Idlib province, reports Robert Parry.
    ................
    Today, however, particularly on foreign policy issues, the major U.S. news outlets, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, apparently believe there is only one side to a story, the one espoused by the U.S. government or more generically the Establishment.
    .....................
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/18/nyt-mocks-skepticism-on-syria-sarin-claims/

    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 06:35 AM
    Facts on the ground in Assad's brutal regime are confusing? Stop the presses. I blame Assad. And no - I still do not trust the Russians.
    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:44 AM
    And I would never trust your judgement.
    pgl -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 06:48 AM
    Likewise! BTW it is judgment (only 1 e).
    RGC -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 07:02 AM
    This source says G_d is on my side:

    "judgement is the form sanctioned in the Revised Version of the Bible, & the OED prefers the older & more reasonable spelling. Judgement is therefore here recommended –Fowler p. 310."

    http://www.dailywritingtips.com/judgement-or-judgment/

    RGC -> RGC... , April 20, 2017 at 02:29 PM
    And of course, that means the devil is on your side.

    Just as I suspected.

    JohnH -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 07:02 AM
    What facts on the ground? There has been no investigation...only assertions made by the usual suspects.

    A nice summary of the story:
    https://youtu.be/rkj9UCHO0Tc

    As in economics, pgl is a staunch supporter of the dominant narrative and the conventional wisdom...one of those who believed that Saddam had WMDs.

    pgl -> JohnH... , April 20, 2017 at 07:29 AM
    The dominant narrative in Moscow is TASS. I guess you work for them now. BTW - I was doubting the Saddam WMD tale back in 2002. So take your usual lies somewhere else troll.
    JohnH -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 08:08 AM
    The dominant narrative among NY elites is the NY Times, whose reporting they swallow hook, line and sinker.

    Yet you won't see any mention Theodore Postol's critique of Trump's allegations about the Syrian chemical attack. When it comes to foreign affairs, the NY Times salutes and follows the party line...as do virtually all American news outlets.
    http://fair.org/home/out-of-46-major-editorials-on-trumps-syria-strikes-only-one-opposed/

    pgl is happy to join into the groupthink no questions asked...

    pgl -> JohnH... , April 20, 2017 at 07:35 AM
    Did you check your source here? The James Corbett Report? Featured here at American Loons:

    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/06/584-james-corbett.html

    Even The Onion would not go here.

    JohnH -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 08:10 AM
    Question is, what facts in the Corbett Report were wrong? Seems to me that they pretty much nailed the contradictions and hypocrisy of the trumped up charges against Syria.
    pgl -> JohnH... , April 20, 2017 at 08:36 AM
    See below. The news today sort of debunks your apologist attitude toward Assad the Butcher.
    JohnH -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 12:26 PM
    Well, now we have the room and may have the weapon. But who done it? Colonel Mustard, Professor Plum, or Miss Scarlet?

    It is well known that the Syrian rebels also use chemical weapons.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html

    But that doesn't dissuade pgl from believing everything that Trump the compulsive liar says! Until Trump bombed Syria, libruls like pgl didn't believe a word Trump said. Now they'll believe anything!!!

    After a lifetime of watching the US start pointless and futile wars under false pretenses (Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, etc.), pgl has no hesitation about gulping down the kool aid as fast as he can! In fact, libruls like pgl seem absolutely delighted when money that could be used for socially useful purposes like education and healthcare get diverted to fight phantom enemies abroad.

    anne -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 06:33 AM
    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2017/04/krugman-elizabeth-warren-lays-out-the-reasons-democrats-should-keep-fighting.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201bb09927277970d

    April 19, 2017

    "Bernie Sanders was of course a civil rights activist in the 1960s..."

    A couple of marches does not make on Martin Luther King or John Lewis. I spent more time in the trenches than Sanders did back then...

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2017/04/links-for-04-20-17.html#comment-6a00d83451b33869e201b8d279eb0e970c

    April 20, 2017

    I guess you want to blame the French or something....

    ilsm -> pgl... , April 20, 2017 at 03:24 PM
    Like VOA which had a long agitprop piece today.

    Do you think the Sarin was stored near the planes that could get to Idlib? Or maybe those cruise missiles damaged a Sarin site?

    Why not find the igloo that help the Sarin?

    Or do you want to believe the staged vids and pix?

    OPCW said to was Sarin...... or such!

    And French are selling the US' tale like they sold killing Qaddafi and that unneeded involvement in Europe 100 years ago.

    [Apr 21, 2017] First Transgender President Trump Becomes Hillary by Fred Reed

    Apr 20, 2017 | unz.com

    Oh Lord, it's happening–the remanufacture of Trump by the Establishment. During the campaign, Trump and the Basilisk had nothing in common but their hair dye. Now, almost daily, he looks more like her.

    He gets embarrassing. Regarding the alleged gassing in Syria, quoth Donald:

    "When you kill innocent children, innocent babies - babies, little babies - with a chemical gas that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."

    God almighty. Who wrote this–a middle school girl with C's in English, or the President of the United States? Did he retire to his bedroom for a good cry?

    Apparently he ordered his missile strike without bothering to find out what happened. The usual suspects are driving him like a sports car.

    The election was a choice between fetor and a lunatic. We chose the lunatic. Whether this was better than the alternative, we will never know, but Trump is going from bad to worse, or as the Mexicans say, de Guatemala a Guatepeor.

    Does he believe this stuff? Is he naive enough to think that there was something unusually horrible about the attack? Horrible, yes, but not in the least unusual. Do you know what everyday, boring artillery does to children? Five-hundred-pound bombs? Hellfire rockets? Daily Mr. Trump's military and his allies daily drop shrapnel-producing explosives on people, cities, towns, adults, children, weddings and goatherds in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Good draft-dodger that he was, he probably has never seen any of this. Good psychopath that he may be, he may not care.

    This whole gas-attack business smells to high heaven. It looks nicely calculated to force him to attack Assad. Gas was important: Killing babies, little babies with explosives is so routine that no one cares, but we have been programmed to shudder at the thought of Gas!

    Actually artillery has killed several orders of magnitude more people, but never mind.

    Targeting children was a nice touch. Definitely a PR bonus. So Donald goes into his Poor-widdle-fings weep, while Americans weekly kill more children in three to seven countries, depending on the date.

    Is the man consciously a liar? Hasn't got sense enough to think before operating his mouth? Actually believes what he says when he says it?

    Glance at a small part of the record and focus on his changing his tune, not on whether you agree with a particular policy. Erratic, erratic, erratic. He was going to run out the illegals within two years, absurd but he said it. Going to put high tariffs on Mexican goods. Didn't. On Chinese goods. Isn't. Tear up the Iran treaty. Didn't. Declare China a currency-manipulator. Isn't. Ban Muslims. Hasn't. Promote good relations with Russia. Isn't. Get the US out of Syria. Ha. Make NATO pay for itself. Isn't. The man has the steely determination one associates with bean curd. You cannot trust anything the man says.

    Having been reprogrammed as a good neocon, bombing places he promised to get out of, looking for a fight with Russia, he is now butting heads with Fat Thing in North Korea. He his said things closely resembling, "We have run out of strategic patience with the North. If nobody else will take care of it, we will." Grrrr. Bowwow. Woof.

    The problem with growly ultimata made for television is that somebody has to back down–that is, lose face and credibility. If Trump had quietly told Fat Thing, "If you crazy bastards scrap your nuke program, we will drop the sanctions," it might have worked. But no. Negotiations would imply weakness. Thus an ultimatum.

    So now either (a) Fat Thing knuckles under, humiliating himself and possibly endangering his grasp on power or (b) Trump blinks in a humiliating display of the Empire's impotence, possibly endangering his grasp on power.

    Kim Jong Il, or Il Sung Jong, or whatever the the hell the latest one of them is called, shows not the slightest sign of backing down. So does the Donald start an utterly unpredictable war, as usual in somebody else's country, or does he weasel off, muttering, and hope nobody notices?

    Fred's Third Law of International Relations: Never butt heads with a country that has a missile named the No Dong.

    Many of us favored Trump, slightly daft though he was, because he wasn't yet Hillary, wasn't yet a neocon robot, and didn't want war with every country he had heard of, apparently meaning a good half dozen. At least he said he didn't, not yet having been told that he did. In particular, he didn't want war with Russia. But when the neocons control the media and Congress, they can convince a naive public of anything and, apparently, the President.

    Why is the Hillarification of Trump important? The necessary prior question: What is the greatest threat to the neocons' American Empire? Answer: The ongoing integration of Eurasia under Chinese hegemony. The key countries in this are China, Iran, and Russia. (Isn't it curious that, apart from the momentary distraction of North Korea, these countries have been the focus of New York's hostility?) In particular if Russia and, through it, China develop large and very profitable trade with Europe, there goes NATO and with it the Empire.

    Oops.

    Thus the eeeeeeeeeeek! furor about Russia as existential threat and so on. Thus sending a few troops to Baltic countries to "deter" Russia. This was theater. The idea that a thousand garrison troops can stop the Russian army, which hasn't gone silly as ours has, on its doorstep is loony.

    Hillary was on board with the Russia hysteria and the globalization and the immigration and so on. Trump could have screwed the whole pooch by getting along with Russia, so he had to be reconfigured. And was. A work in progress, but going well.

    ORDER IT NOW

    Too much is being asked of him. One man cannot overcome the combined hostility of the media, the political establishment, the neocons, the myriad other special interests that he has threatened. Mass immigration is a done deal. China develops and America, already developed, cannot keep up. The country disintegrates socially. Washington, always depending on war and its threat, faces a new world in which trade is the weapon, and doesn't know what to do. The culture courses. The world changes.

    Yet if only Trump showed some sign of knowing what he is doing, and could remember from day to day, if only he realized that wars are more easily started than predicted, if only he were not becoming an unbalanced Hillary.

    Yet, apparently, he is.

    (Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)

    [Apr 21, 2017] Putins Warning Full Speech 2017

    Apr 21, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Bretislav Stejskal 3 weeks ago Gerry Lamb you don't really know much now, do you. You are a little Alice in wonderland when it comes to geopolitics. Russia never ever seeked war. If you knew enough about Russia, you'd know this first. the entire western greed cannot accept the ownership of the subhuman Russians of a vast and rich land. To the Anglo-Saxons all slavs will always be lesser people. It's in them. They sponsored the fascism, comunism and pretty much every evil on this planet. Even Stalin did what he did for all patriotic reasons, while the west does it all out of a simple and pure greed.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Trumps New Foreign Policy Is the Worst of Both Worlds

    Notable quotes:
    "... The neocons, who have rarely met a slippery military slope they weren't tempted to roll down, embraced wholeheartedly both the strike and its justification. They view it as a first - but absolutely necessary - step toward a new phase of U.S. interventionism of precisely the kind that Bannon and his "nationalist" and Islamophobic allies abhor. ..."
    "... During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days - one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 75 drone strikes or raids in 74 days - about one every day. ..."
    "... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | fpif.org
    It didn't take long for Donald Trump to discover that U.S. foreign policy is about as easy to turn around as a warship in dry dock. Despite any number of promises to shake things up - during the election and even in his first days as president - Trump is falling back on some very conventional approaches to the world.

    In the last week, for instance, Trump suddenly discovered that firing a few missiles at a much-hated target - in this case, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces - can gain him plaudits from across the political spectrum. Earlier, he said he'd focus American firepower on the Islamic State, not Assad. He was cautious about intervening in the Syrian civil war.

    Now the greenhorn president is heading down a well-worn path: see a problem, fire a missile at it.

    In so doing, Trump has scotched whatever remaining hopes his administration might have had about negotiating some quick deals with Moscow. The relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin had already been heading south - as I detailed a couple weeks back in Shortest Reset Ever - but now Trump has bloodied one of Russia's most important allies. Bye bye, bromance.

    Also this week, after bashing China left and right during his campaign, Trump met with Chinese Premier Xi Jinping and discovered that, hey, maybe the two countries can get along after all. Virtually every president in recent memory has gone through a similar transformation. There are no political costs in criticizing Beijing during an election campaign. But presidents soon discover the considerable costs of not doing business with China once they occupy the Oval Office.

    So much for Trump's promise to proclaim China a currency manipulator extraordinaire.

    Meanwhile, some of the more ideological voices in the administration appear to be heading to the sidelines. Strategic adviser Steve Bannon, reportedly as a result of his clashes with Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, has lost his seat at the National Security Council and, it seems, even the trust of the president . K.T. McFarland, once the number two under the disgraced former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, is also out, and probably on her way to Singapore. The generals and the Wall Street execs seem now to have the upper hand.

    But Bannon hasn't given up, and the war at the top is far from over. Bannon loves a good fight, and he's the master of fighting dirty.

    The remaking of Donald Trump into a more conventional - and thus, predictable - president is good news in some quarters. No doubt the foreign policy establishment in Washington, which former president Barack Obama and his advisers called The Blob, is rejoicing that the new president can be weaned off his more fanatical delusions (and pumped full of The Blob's own fanatical delusions).

    But the New Donald Trump, just like the much-hyped New Coke so many years ago, is just as bad for our collective health as the old version. Don't be fooled by the ongoing Trump rebrand. The president is just finding new ways to be toxic.

    Striking Syria

    Bombardiers have a tradition of writing slogans on the bombs they drop on their enemies. Donald Trump might as well have scrawled "I'm Not Obama" on the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles U.S. forces directed at a Syrian airbase on Friday. The bombardment came in response to a chemical attack the Assad government allegedly launched a few days earlier against a town in rebel-held Idlib province that left 69 people dead.

    Trump's desire for big wins has previously kept him out of the Syrian conflict and focused instead on the Islamic State, which has been losing its grip over territory in recent months.

    But Trump also wants to demonstrate that he's bigger and better than Barack Obama: He's more popular, attracted more people to his inauguration, proposed a better health-care plan, has bigger hands, and so on. Obama failed to attack Syria after a high-profile chemical attack in 2013. Here was an opportunity for Trump to show his resolve. After sustaining non-stop attacks against his character, his policies, and his advisers over the last several months, Trump has finally hit back with the tools that, unfortunately, are now at his disposal.

    Yet it was not much of a show of force. The airbase was not damaged enough to prevent the Syrian government from restoring it to full operational status within a couple days. And Syrian forces subsequently re-bombed the very same town that had suffered the chemical attack. The Trump administration has not followed up with any other demonstrations of power, nor does it seem likely to do so.

    The problem isn't so much geopolitical, though the United States risks an outright confrontation with Russia if it escalates. Rather, the problem for Trump is domestic.

    Standard-issue hawks, like John McCain (R-AZ) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), are urging Trump to go the next step toward regime change. So are the neocons, as Jim Lobe points out :

    The neocons, who have rarely met a slippery military slope they weren't tempted to roll down, embraced wholeheartedly both the strike and its justification. They view it as a first - but absolutely necessary - step toward a new phase of U.S. interventionism of precisely the kind that Bannon and his "nationalist" and Islamophobic allies abhor.

    The nationalists and the libertarians have indeed reacted in horror. Richard Spencer, the darling of the far-right, not only condemned the attack but even suggested that he would support Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) in 2020 (presumably because she's sat down with both Assad and Trump, a tyrannical twofer). Ron Paul wrote that Trump's assertion that the missile attack was vital to U.S. national interests was "nonsense."

    Good luck trying to preserve such a fickle coalition. To do so, Trump will probably refocus his military attention, as Rex Tillerson has suggested , on the Islamic State. The limited missile strike accomplished its goal, which wasn't to cripple Syrian forces in any serious way. Rather, the attack put distance between Trump and Obama, reminded both Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un that Trump is trigger-happy when necessary, regained some credit with European allies (France, Germany, and the president of the European Council all pledged their support ), and did the minimum of damage to warn the Russians not to take Trump for granted.

    In this way, Trump is proving just as reluctant to engage in large-scale military adventures as his predecessor. Before you rejoice that the wolf has revealed his inner fleece, however, remember that the Trump administration has been in some ways more willing to use military force than the Obama administration. As Micah Zenko wrote at the CFR blog earlier this month:

    During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days - one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 75 drone strikes or raids in 74 days - about one every day.

    Moreover, as Michael Klare points out at The Nation , Trump has "stepped up the delegation of decision-making authority to senior military officers, making it easier for them to initiate combat operations in a half-dozen countries."

    It's all a question of targets. Until he attacked Syria, Trump was "bombing the shit" out of non-state actors, as he promised he would. Syria aside, he's not so interested in challenging actual states. So far, at least.

    Trump: What's Next?

    As the 100-day mark approaches for the administration, Trump's staff is reportedly desperate for a rebrand. The first months have been disastrous in so many different ways. RussiaGate remains a dark cloud over the administration. The travel ban and the health-care substitute were both high-profile disasters. The mainstream media has savaged Trump on a nearly daily basis.

    "One hundred days is the marker, and we've got essentially 2 1/2 weeks to turn everything around," one White House official told Politico . "This is going to be a monumental task."

    According to the same article, the administration is divided between those who believe that the Trump doctrine is "America First" and those who, like Communications Director Mike Dubke, argue that there is no Trump doctrine.

    When it comes to foreign policy, they're both right. The ostensible Trump doctrine is "America First," but it's not a doctrine. It's an empty slogan. At one level, every administration has adhered to some version of American exceptionalism and some effort at focusing on the U.S. economy. So, Trump's special sauce is nothing new.

    At another level, Trump has demonstrated that he will make the same concessions to international realities as his predecessors. He'll negotiate with the Chinese. He'll poke the Russian bear. He'll engage in showy military attacks. Maximum flexibility equals no doctrine.

    The new Trump, then, is the worst of both worlds: blustery nationalism plus the conventional pieties of the foreign policy establishment. It's certainly a relief that the United States won't go to war with China any time soon and the U.S. president cares about the deaths of (some) children.

    But as tensions escalate with North Korea and Trump's crude counter-terrorism campaign continues, Mr. America First seems conceptually ill equipped and all-too-committed to business as usual to push US foreign policy in a peaceful direction and make anyone sleep easy at night. John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.

    [Apr 20, 2017] The Problem is Washington, Not North Korea

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Washington has never made any effort to conceal its contempt for North Korea. In the 64 years since the war ended, the US has done everything in its power to punish, humiliate and inflict pain on the Communist country. Washington has subjected the DPRK to starvation, prevented its government from accessing foreign capital and markets, strangled its economy with crippling economic sanctions, and installed lethal missile systems and military bases on their doorstep.

    Negotiations aren't possible because Washington refuses to sit down with a country which it sees as its inferior. Instead, the US has strong-armed China to do its bidding by using their diplomats as interlocutors who are expected to convey Washington's ultimatums as threateningly as possible. The hope, of course, is that Pyongyang will cave in to Uncle Sam's bullying and do what they are told.

    But the North has never succumbed to US intimidation and there's no sign that it will. Instead, they have developed a small arsenal of nuclear weapons to defend themselves in the event that the US tries to assert its dominance by launching another war.
    There's no country in the world that needs nuclear weapons more than North Korea. Brainwashed Americans, who get their news from FOX or CNN, may differ on this point, but if a hostile nation deployed carrier strike-groups off the coast of California while conducting massive war games on the Mexican border (with the express intention of scaring the shit of people) then they might see things differently. They might see the value of having a few nuclear weapons to deter that hostile nation from doing something really stupid.

    And let's be honest, the only reason Kim Jong Un hasn't joined Saddam and Gadhafi in the great hereafter, is because (a)– The North does not sit on an ocean of oil, and (b)– The North has the capacity to reduce Seoul, Okinawa and Tokyo into smoldering debris-fields. Absent Kim's WMDs, Pyongyang would have faced a preemptive attack long ago and Kim would have faced a fate similar to Gadhafi's. Nuclear weapons are the only known antidote to US adventurism.

    The American people –whose grasp of history does not extend beyond the events of 9-11 - have no idea of the way the US fights its wars or the horrific carnage and destruction it unleashed on the North. Here's a short refresher that helps clarify why the North is still wary of the US more than 60 years after the armistice was signed. The excerpt is from an article titled "Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea", at Vox World:

    "In the early 1950s, during the Korean War, the US dropped more bombs on North Korea than it had dropped in the entire Pacific theater during World War II. This carpet bombing, which included 32,000 tons of napalm, often deliberately targeted civilian as well as military targets, devastating the country far beyond what was necessary to fight the war. Whole cities were destroyed, with many thousands of innocent civilians killed and many more left homeless and hungry .

    According to US journalist Blaine Harden: "Over a period of three years or so, we killed off - what - 20 percent of the population," Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed "everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another." After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops

    "On January 3 at 10:30 AM an armada of 82 flying fortresses loosed their death-dealing load on the city of Pyongyang Hundreds of tons of bombs and incendiary compound were simultaneously dropped throughout the city, causing annihilating fires, the transatlantic barbarians bombed the city with delayed-action high-explosive bombs which exploded at intervals for a whole day making it impossible for the people to come out onto the streets. The entire city has now been burning, enveloped in flames, for two days. By the second day, 7,812 civilians houses had been burnt down. The Americans were well aware that there were no military targets left in Pyongyang

    The number of inhabitants of Pyongyang killed by bomb splinters, burnt alive and suffocated by smoke is incalculable Some 50,000 inhabitants remain in the city which before the war had a population of 500,000." ("Americans have forgotten what we did to North Korea", Vox World)

    The United States killed over 2 million people in a country that posed no threat to US national security. Like Vietnam, the Korean War was just another muscle-flexing exercise the US periodically engages in whenever it gets bored or needs some far-flung location to try out its new weapons systems. The US had nothing to gain in its aggression on the Korean peninsula, it was mix of imperial overreach and pure unalloyed viciousness the likes of which we've seen many times in the past. According to the Asia-Pacific Journal:

    "By the fall of 1952, there were no effective targets left for US planes to hit. Every significant town, city and industrial area in North Korea had already been bombed. In the spring of 1953, the Air Force targeted irrigation dams on the Yalu River, both to destroy the North Korean rice crop and to pressure the Chinese, who would have to supply more food aid to the North. Five reservoirs were hit, flooding thousands of acres of farmland, inundating whole towns and laying waste to the essential food source for millions of North Koreans.10 Only emergency assistance from China, the USSR, and other socialist countries prevented widespread famine." ("The Destruction and Reconstruction of North Korea, 1950 – 1960", The Asia-Pacific Journal, Japan Focus)

    ORDER IT NOW

    Repeat: "Reservoirs, irrigation dams, rice crops, hydroelectric dams, population centers" all napalmed, all carpet bombed, all razed to the ground. Nothing was spared. If it moved it was shot, if it didn't move, it was bombed. The US couldn't win, so they turned the country into an uninhabitable wastelands. "Let them starve. Let them freeze.. Let them eat weeds and roots and rodents to survive. Let them sleep in the ditches and find shelter in the rubble. What do we care? We're the greatest country on earth. God bless America."

    This is how Washington does business, and it hasn't changed since the Seventh Cavalry wiped out 150 men, women and children at Wounded Knee more than century ago. The Lakota Sioux at Pine Ridge got the same basic treatment as the North Koreans, or the Vietnamese, or the Nicaraguans, or the Iraqis and on and on and on and on. Anyone else who gets in Uncle Sam's way, winds up in a world of hurt. End of story.

    The savagery of America's war against the North left an indelible mark on the psyche of the people. Whatever the cost, the North cannot allow a similar scenario to take place in the future. Whatever the cost, they must be prepared to defend themselves. If that means nukes, then so be it. Self preservation is the top priority.

    Is there a way to end this pointless standoff between Pyongyang and Washington, a way to mend fences and build trust?

    Of course there is. The US just needs to start treating the DPRK with respect and follow through on their promises. What promises?

    The promise to built the North two light-water reactors to provide heat and light to their people in exchange for an end to its nuclear weapons program. You won't read about this deal in the media because the media is just the propaganda wing of the Pentagon. They have no interest in promoting peaceful solutions. Their stock-in-trade is war, war and more war.

    The North wants the US to honor its obligations under the 1994 Agreed Framework. That's it. Just keep up your end of the goddamn deal. How hard can that be? Here's how Jimmy Carter summed it up in a Washington Post op-ed (November 24, 2010):

    " in September 2005, an agreement reaffirmed the basic premises of the 1994 accord. (The Agreed Framework) Its text included denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a pledge of non-aggression by the United States and steps to evolve a permanent peace agreement to replace the U.S.-North Korean-Chinese cease-fire that has been in effect since July 1953 . Unfortunately, no substantive progress has been made since 2005

    "This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent cease-fire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the six powers in September 2005 .

    "North Korean officials have given the same message to other recent American visitors and have permitted access by nuclear experts to an advanced facility for purifying uranium. The same officials had made it clear to me that this array of centrifuges would be 'on the table' for discussions with the United States, although uranium purification – a very slow process – was not covered in the 1994 agreements.

    " Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the 'temporary' cease-fire of 1953 . We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime."

    ("North Korea's consistent message to the U.S.", President Jimmy Carter, Washington Post)

    Most people think the problem lies with North Korea, but it doesn't. The problem lies with the United States; it's unwillingness to negotiate an end to the war, its unwillingness to provide basic security guarantees to the North, its unwillingness to even sit down with the people who –through Washington's own stubborn ignorance– are now developing long-range ballistic missiles that will be capable of hitting American cities.

    How dumb is that?

    The Trump team is sticking with a policy that has failed for 63 years and which clearly undermines US national security by putting American citizens directly at risk. AND FOR WHAT?

    To preserve the image of "tough guy", to convince people that the US doesn't negotiate with weaker countries, to prove to the world that "whatever the US says, goes"? Is that it? Is image more important than a potential nuclear disaster?

    Relations with the North can be normalized, economic ties can be strengthened, trust can be restored, and the nuclear threat can be defused. The situation with the North does not have to be a crisis, it can be fixed. It just takes a change in policy, a bit of give-and-take, and leaders that genuinely want peace more than war.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected] .

    [Apr 20, 2017] Grahams Deranged Idea for Attacking North Korea

    Notable quotes:
    "... Graham routinely supports the most irresponsible, dangerous, and immoral policies, so it is not surprising that he is in favor of doing this. ..."
    "... The senator casually contemplates a course of action that would likely lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and destabilize the region for years to come and he shrugs it off by saying the war "wouldn't be here." It doesn't shock me that a professional warmonger doesn't care about the effects of this preferred policies, but it is a bit of a surprise that he is so open about his callous disregard for the lives of civilians and soldiers in South Korea and Japan who would pay the price for the act of aggression he supports. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com

    Lindsey Graham outdoes himself in warmongering with a new call for attacking North Korea:

    "Would you be for a preemptive strike?" Today Show host Willie Geist asked the South Carolina Republican. "If that's what it would take," Graham replied resolutely.

    "It would be terrible but the war would be over here (there), wouldn't be here," Graham continued. " It would be bad for the Korean Peninsula. It would be bad for China. It would be bad for Japan, be bad for South Korea. It would be the end of North Korea. But what it would not do is hit America [bold mine-DL] and the only way it could ever come to America is with a missile."

    Graham routinely supports the most irresponsible, dangerous, and immoral policies, so it is not surprising that he is in favor of doing this. The striking thing about his answer is how cavalier he is about calling for starting a war that he admits would be disastrous for everyone in the region.

    Leave aside that he completely forgets about the tens of thousands of Americans stationed in South Korea that would come under immediate attack in retaliation for the so-called "preemptive strike" he wants. Note that the action he's talking about wouldn't actually be "preemptive," but would be an unprovoked attack and the start of a major war. Leave it to Graham to find a way to find a North Korea policy so horrible that it puts the U.S. in the wrong.

    The senator casually contemplates a course of action that would likely lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and destabilize the region for years to come and he shrugs it off by saying the war "wouldn't be here." It doesn't shock me that a professional warmonger doesn't care about the effects of this preferred policies, but it is a bit of a surprise that he is so open about his callous disregard for the lives of civilians and soldiers in South Korea and Japan who would pay the price for the act of aggression he supports.

    The next time you hear Graham feign concern for lives lost in some foreign conflict or pretend to be on the side of our allies, remember this answer and realize that his only desire is to get the U.S. into more unnecessary wars regardless of the consequences.

    Posted in foreign policy , politics . Tagged North Korea , Lindsey Graham , Japan , South Korea .

    [Apr 20, 2017] North Korea sees Trumps sabre-rattling as propaganda come true

    Notable quotes:
    "... The regime has held up Trump's actions in Syria, as well as those of his predecessors in Iraq and Afghanistan, as justification for seeking to further the North Korean nuclear weapons program, which it claims is vital for defense. "Previous US administrations have been attacking those countries who haven't gotten nuclear weapons, and the Trump administration is no different from previous US governments in pinpointing those non-nuclear states," a North Korean official told CNN. ..."
    "... Pyongyang fears that if it was not nuclear armed, it would suffer the same fate as Syria and plunge into chaos and civil war. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.cnn.com
    North Korea is a country prepared for conflict.

    Still technically at war with its southern neighbor, ordinary North Koreans are warned to be in a state of constant vigilance to threats from the outside, particularly from the US. Those fears seemed to be confirmed this month, after US President Donald Trump launched a surprise strike on a Syrian airfield and dispatched a naval battle group -- which he described as " an armada " -- to northern Asia.

    Trump's saber-rattling -- he has accused Pyongyang of "looking for trouble" -- is familiar to consumers of North Korean state media, who have been warned for decades by their leaders of imminent US attack and attempted regime change. "The aggressive acts of war on the part of the United States are getting increasingly reckless," a North Korean official told CNN in Pyongyang this week. Read More "In response, we will continue to strengthen our self-defense capability."

    Tragic history

    Looking at the country's history, paranoia over a potential US attack is understandable. It's estimated that during the Korean War, American planes dropped some 625,000 tons of bombs on North Korea -- more than during the entire Pacific theater of World War II -- including 32,000 tons of napalm. Around 600,000 North Korean and 1 million South Korean civilians were killed , along with hundreds of thousands of troops. Curtis LeMay, an air force commander at the time, estimated in 1988 that US planes killed 20% of the population "over a period of three years or so." According to Blaine Harden , author of "The Great Leader and the Fighter Pilot," Kim Jong Un, like his father and grandfather before him, "(has) kept memories of the war and the bombing terrifyingly fresh. State media warn that, sooner or later, the Americans will strike again." To this end, North Korea maintains a massive standing army of more than 1.2 million soldiers, with millions more paramilitary troops and reservists, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). South Korea also maintains a high state of alert, with more than 500,000 people in its armed forces, IISS says, plus the thousands of US troops deployed in the country.

    The North Korean constitution states that "national defense is the supreme duty and honor of citizens," and the country is governed by the "songun" -- or military-first -- policy, which places the armed forces above all else. In recent years that has meant huge investment in the development and deployment of nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles.

    Paranoia

    Intense focus on the military in a cripplingly poor country like North Korea can cause much hardship, but Pyongyang justifies its policies based on a narrative of imminent threat from foreign forces. That narrative was on clear display this week, with North Korean state media -- which usually tightly controls information about the outside world -- going big on the deployment of the USS Carl Vinson and Trump's surprise strike in Syria. USS Carl Vinson heads to Korean Peninsula

    One Pyongyang resident told CNN, "we're at the brink of war, but if that happens, we'll all go to the front lines to fight the Americans."

    The regime has held up Trump's actions in Syria, as well as those of his predecessors in Iraq and Afghanistan, as justification for seeking to further the North Korean nuclear weapons program, which it claims is vital for defense. "Previous US administrations have been attacking those countries who haven't gotten nuclear weapons, and the Trump administration is no different from previous US governments in pinpointing those non-nuclear states," a North Korean official told CNN.

    Pyongyang fears that if it was not nuclear armed, it would suffer the same fate as Syria and plunge into chaos and civil war.

    Relative calm

    South of the border, the situation is much different. On Tuesday, officials sought to reassure South Koreans that the US would not take unilateral action against North Korea without consulting Seoul. "The United States makes it clear that it will not take a new policy or measure without consultations with us," South Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck told reporters.

    Defense Ministry spokesman Moon Sang-gyun warned people against being "blinded by exaggerated assessments on the security situation of the Korean Peninsula." Moon Jae-in, leader of the opposition Democratic Party and frontrunner to be the country's next President, said on Facebook that there "should never be a pre-emptive strike without South Korean consent." "Neighboring countries are taking advantage of the absence of a president in South Korea to try to exclude us and handle issues on the Korean Peninsula according to their own understanding," Moon said.

    The country's former President, Park Geun-hye, was impeached after a corruption scandal. On the streets of Seoul, South Koreans who spoke to CNN were far less worried about a potential of war than their northern neighbors. "I do feel uneasy about North Korea provoking war," said Jeon Hyung-min, 26. "But I don't think a US strike would happen and if North Korea can judge the situation, they will not continue any armed provocation for now." Seo Deok-il, in his 70s, said he was "not anxious" about the news. "I don't think war will break out," he said. "If I was scared, I would have immigrated to another country."

    CNN's Paula Hancocks and Jeung-un Kim contributed reporting from Seoul, South Korea. Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang, North Korea. James Griffiths reported and wrote from Hong Kong.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Wonderful Job Of Throwing America Into Chaos

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    In March of last year, Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone warned the world :

    "we're going to war - either hybrid in nature...or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its 'Pravda'-like support for our 'respectable', highly aggressive government."

    And strongly rejected the establishment's "the Russians are coming" narrative shortly after the election and correctly forecast that it wouldn't be long before the deep state pushed Trump into an anti-Kremlin position...

    "As much as we may disagree with Donald Trump (and I do) he's right now target number one of the MSM propaganda -- until, that is, he changes to the anti-Kremlin track over, God knows, some kind of petty dispute cooked up by CIA, and in his hot-headed way starts fighting with the Russians ...

    I never thought I'd find myself at this point in time praying for the level-headedness of a Donald Trump . "

    Stone was correct and in a Facebook post tonight expresses his disappointment at Trump and disgust for The Deep State (and America's wilful ignorance).

    "So It Goes"

    I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired.

    It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals -- and he's being praised for it by our 'liberal' media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured bind we're in. There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they've lost their minds as they've been stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking -- 'Who benefits from this latest gas attack?' Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists who initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.

    It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with crude propagandizing about murdered babies , etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid when he's clearly winning the civil war?

    No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances -- to, once again, change the secular regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals -- next to Iran -- of the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it a State.

    Abetted by the Clintonites, they've done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes into Russia's alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly disproved by his bombing attack) -- and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh's fascinating deconstruction of this US propaganda, 'London Review of Books' December 19, 2013, "Whose sarin?"). No memory, no history, no rules -- or rather 'American rules.'

    No, this isn't an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant analyses, "Will Washington Risk WW3" and "Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road," that something far more sinister waits in the background .

    Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It's well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings's "Nation" analysis of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.

    Mike Whitney, "Will Washington Risk WW3 to Block and Emerging EU-Russia Superstate," Counterpunch, http://bit.ly/2oJ9Tpn

    Mike Whitney, "Where the Rubber Meets the Road," Counterpunch, http://bit.ly/2p574zT

    Phil Giraldi, "A World in Turmoil, Thank You Mr. Trump!" Information Clearing House, http://bit.ly/2oSCGrW

    Robert Parry, "Did Al Qaeda Fool the White House Again?" Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2nN88c0

    Robert Parry, "Neocons Have Trump on His Knees," Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2oZ5GyN

    Robert Parry, "Trump's Wag the Dog Moment," Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2okwZTE

    Robert Parry, "Mainstream Media as Arbiters of Truth," Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2oSDo8A

    Mike Whitney, "Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper," Counterpunch, http://bit.ly/2oSDEo4

    Bruce Cumings, "This is What's Really Behind North Korea's Nuclear Provocations," The Nation, http://bit.ly/2nUEroH

    Can we wake up before it's too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character in "Fort Apache," riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country, my country, my heart aches for thee.

    * * *

  • White House
  • Donald Trump
  • Iran
  • BigFatUglyBubble , Apr 19, 2017 7:31 PM

    (((deep state))) NoDecaf -> BigFatUglyBubble , Apr 19, 2017 7:37 PM

    Checking out the Berkely riots on youtube...

    I give a fuck about Trump now, but fighting with Antifa looks like a new sport.

    anyone know where the next event is going to be? Pinto Currency -> NoDecaf , Apr 19, 2017 7:47 PM

    Kushner: A Suspected Gangster Within the Whitehouse

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=71416 BLOTTO -> Pinto Currency , Apr 19, 2017 8:06 PM

    They wont stop until the 3rd Temple is built and their 'Messiah ' sits on the throne. . Oliver Stone should make a movie about that. Donald Trump -> BLOTTO , Apr 19, 2017 10:10 PM

    The Deep State will get deeper and the Swamp will get swampier, now that a true hero will retire:

    Utah Congressman Jason Chaffetz Will Retire from Politics

    http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-04-19/utah-congressman-jason-chaffet...

    stubb -> Donald Trump , Apr 19, 2017 10:22 PM

    Damn. He was one of the good guys. nunyabidnez -> Donald Trump , Apr 19, 2017 11:01 PM

    Hero? Tell me again...what did he accomplish? Theatrics One of We -> Donald Trump , Apr 19, 2017 11:10 PM

    "I have the full support of Speaker Ryan to continue as Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee." And a congressman since 2009.....heard lots of nice soundbites lately but not much oversight or reform.... BLOTTO -> Pinto Currency , Apr 19, 2017 8:07 PM

    Dp...im baked 4:20 tomorrow joego1 -> NoDecaf , Apr 19, 2017 8:16 PM

    Check the Purple network on the Soros Channel. I think the next episode is "Give a snowflake a lickin" or "Bash a geek", not sure which but should both be fun. knukles -> BigFatUglyBubble , Apr 19, 2017 7:38 PM

    My slow progressive bud went to the palm reader who looked at his hand and said "You've been masturbating". He asked her how she knew and if she could tell him anything about his future. She looked at his face and sid; "You will be masturbating for a long time" Kinda like what looks like we gonna be doing.

    Laddie -> BigFatUglyBubble , Apr 19, 2017 7:38 PM

    Yep, and Oliver is, at least PART Tribe. Ollie if you are really OK then learn: (((THE DEEP STATE))) FreeShitter -> BigFatUglyBubble , Apr 19, 2017 7:39 PM

    Balls deep... SallySnyd , Apr 19, 2017 7:33 PM

    Here is an article that looks at how Congress is begging for war with Iran:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/04/countering-iran-is-congress-begging-for.html

    One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight and win wars?

    knukles -> SallySnyd , Apr 19, 2017 7:39 PM

    In a world of infinite money, everything is possible.

    Those people are possessed. new game -> knukles , Apr 19, 2017 7:54 PM

    i've run a white flag up the pole. right under it is a skull and bones, then the the confererate and so on.

    but no stars and stripes; does that help? FIAT CON -> knukles , Apr 19, 2017 8:22 PM

    Everything is finite on this planet except the US$, I can't see how believing this will cause any trouble. /s gregga777 -> SallySnyd , Apr 19, 2017 7:44 PM

    "One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight and win wars?"

    The truth is that America, as a deliberate policy, does not win wars. Dragging out wars (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) produces far greater revenues and profits for the War Profiteers and Merchants of Death that control United States foreign policy. They all deserve bullets to the back of the neck for their evil takeover of the United States and their willingness to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to their evil, illegal and Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression.

    VIS MAIOR -> gregga777 , Apr 19, 2017 7:53 PM

    135 000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/vietnam-american-holocaust/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties ... 1000 years ban for usa on OL games and other + forever ban on all --

    they kill own 135 000 + thousand more after in usa from depresions,alchdrugs.. + 4 milions !!!! asians what fuckretard nations cancer is usa ..

    please delete usa from this planet ..PLEASE

    FIAT CON -> VIS MAIOR , Apr 19, 2017 8:25 PM

    I can't see for the life of me why the rest of the world dislikes Muricans! Sonny Brakes -> SallySnyd , Apr 19, 2017 7:55 PM

    It'll be easier to renegotiate those unfunded liabilities once those liabilities are vapourised. francis_the_won... -> SallySnyd , Apr 19, 2017 8:13 PM

    "One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight and win wars?"

    Win wars? Oh no, they don't want to win wars. That implies the war ends and that would end the gravy train for the MIC.

    Mustafa Kemal -> SallySnyd , Apr 19, 2017 8:14 PM

    "One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight and win wars?"

    I suspect that consistent with the Art of the Deal, they may make it so that we are relieved that we are only going to war with one.

    Whewww, I was a fraid we were going to war with both NK and and Russia. Thank God we are only going against NK! xrxs -> SallySnyd , Apr 19, 2017 8:20 PM

    Not sure winning is the goal. More and longer wars keep the MIC coffers filled, and then there are lots of contracts on the backend for the cleanup and administration of natural resources. GRDguy , Apr 19, 2017 7:38 PM

    When they can't make good their promises, they break them by going to war.

    Force majeure clauses are in ALL major contracts. serotonindumptruck -> GRDguy , Apr 19, 2017 7:45 PM

    "When all else fails, they take you to war." -- Gerald Celente Dude-dude , Apr 19, 2017 7:40 PM

    Oh well.. turnball the banker , Apr 19, 2017 7:45 PM

    This cunt is pretty dumb if he thinks Syria is a civil war VIS MAIOR , Apr 19, 2017 7:47 PM

    Excellent )). This exactly matches my analysis and forecast. but "democrats" dont want change him (impch) becouse he do only dirty job for neocons nazis and nwo... sad but true ))) me or you , Apr 19, 2017 7:48 PM

    Israel is pulling the strings of US Government.

    Time for the American people rise up and fight to liberate the country from the evil Jews. Sonny Brakes -> me or you , Apr 19, 2017 7:56 PM

    Crickets serotonindumptruck -> Sonny Brakes , Apr 19, 2017 8:12 PM

    Good point.

    How about we all wait until the supply chain completely breaks down and we're all ready to kill each other over a rusty, dented, Botulism-laden can of dog food. TradingTroll -> serotonindumptruck , Apr 19, 2017 9:40 PM

    There is always cannibalism to look forward to. Ots the new white meat! /sarc scaleindependent -> serotonindumptruck , Apr 19, 2017 11:06 PM

    At least I'll die without wrinkles. Reaper , Apr 19, 2017 7:52 PM

    TR paraphrased: With neo-con planning, in 9 out of 10 cases we'll and/or others will be dead and in the tenth case don't ask too many questions. Consuelo , Apr 19, 2017 7:52 PM

    26+ years since the fall & subsequent $plundering of the old Soviet Union. 26+ years of Cock-O-the-Walk, Big-Dog-on-the-Block.

    A span of time that long without a humbling has a tendency to twist the mind... iamerican4 , Apr 19, 2017 8:04 PM

    Apparently Bush's and Cheney's having done 9/11 with Vatican banker Rothschilds' tribal racist "State of Israel," Faux Zion, "escaped" Mr. Stone's analysis; just as the CIA's guilt in their adjudicated assassination of President Kennedy had been made 'settled law' in 'Hunt v. Marchetti' years before the motion picture "JFK" was produced.

    "Curious" how this other "limited hangout" ZioTalmud Hollywood Babylon (((agent of disinformation))), another movie critic also in the context of "Fort Apache" leaves out the essence of true and Godly analysis of what has befallen Isaiah's actual prophesied "Zion," America: the traitorous unadjudicated satanic perfidy of 9/11 for false-war as "golem" for False Zion and the Saudi "royal" buggers by the same Vatican banker-intermediary Deep State/Organized Crime FedScam faction all know funded Hitler, staged the Holohoax, killed John and Martin to send us as papal catspaw to Indochina, and promotes illegal and Muslim immigration.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aus0iQO_a4Y Savyindallas -> iamerican4 , Apr 19, 2017 8:43 PM

    Stone is a 911 Truther -but can't admit it. He's a coward. He was willing to jump on board the 911 truther train, but the train never left the station so he missed his chance. He wasn't willing to take a lead role on this -probably a smart decision as all 911 celebrity Truthers have been marginalized. iamerican4 -> Savyindallas , Apr 19, 2017 8:50 PM

    God Almighty, the Author of all Truth and Justice, America's Sovereign, is all a true American fears.

    None of us gets out of here alive; but those who serve and love God, ruled only by Truth and Justice, have life eternal.

    Fact. Have been "dead" - bad car wreck - and seen It. Tothguy1948 -> Savyindallas , Apr 19, 2017 11:43 PM

    well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after.

    yeah, i've come to see him as a bit of fatuous idiot in some interviews, he sure has got his own achille's heel and hasn't offered every last truth on the subject, but who has done more to popularize critical thinking and research on it than him? i'm forever grateful for that

    his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new American century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand. Kefeer , Apr 19, 2017 8:09 PM

    That is one ugly bunch! Let it Go , Apr 19, 2017 8:12 PM

    Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. To many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.

    Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control.

    http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/04/psychological-warfare-and-propaganda.html gdpetti -> Let it Go , Apr 19, 2017 8:33 PM

    And it's all connected, as all you have to do is watch the money flows in our finance based empire, such as Rolad Bernard spoke of in his interview on 'High Finance': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEpcY5JU120 stubb -> Let it Go , Apr 19, 2017 10:18 PM

    Oliver Stone is a fatuous lunatic who is very rarely right about anything. His powers of analysis and sense of perspective are only marginally better than Noam Chomsky's, an individual who should be immediately confined to a secured psychiatric facility under heavy physical and chemical restraint. In this case, however, Stone is correct. iamerican4 , Apr 19, 2017 8:16 PM

    Anyone "leaving out" Bush, Cheney, Mossad, the CIA, FBI, and NSA's having committed 9/11 while pretending to "analyze" what's going on in Syria is neither an American nor God-fearing. Savyindallas -> iamerican4 , Apr 19, 2017 8:39 PM

    There are other possibilities -they may be mentally retarded, thoroughly morally corrupt and evil - or simply a pod person sheeple -totally oblivious to realty and the truth as they are hopelessly intoxicated with the sweet smell of methane from having their head buried up their ass. peterk , Apr 19, 2017 8:50 PM

    trump is prehaps the best president for the deep state...... a president who doesnt really care about anything too much.

    hes been a carefree billionaire playboy all his life, never gets to involved in any fight, as he isnt all that bright, so he just

    moves along when things get tough.

    he betrayed the USA Angry Populi , Apr 19, 2017 8:53 PM

    Wonder what it is Mr. Oliver Stone finds so off-putting about Trump generally? Lawful borders? How would Stone like being a rancher along those borders? Not so much one guesses. order66 , Apr 19, 2017 9:32 PM

    The Deep State has Trump in a Balls Deep state. Anonymous IX , Apr 19, 2017 9:46 PM

    A very simple question.

    Why has Trump completely reneged on his promise to stay out of foreign wars and regime change? Not only Syria but Yemen. Why has Trump placed the U.S. in a needless confrontation with Russia? Before the election, he spoke about establishing strong economic relations with other countries in favor of the U.S.

    Part of making "American Great Again" involves staying out of foreign wars which do not concern us and using our monies to re-educate and protect the diminishing American worker.

    Mr. Stone is right.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Vladimir Putin humiliates BBC Reporter John Simpson

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Oct 12, 2016

    The Russian Narrative of the Post Cold War era in less than six minutes..

    The video below contains an answer from Vladimir Putin to a question from veteran BBC "journalist" John Simpson.. In less than six minutes the President of the Russian Federation explains their point of view on the post cold war era in a most devastating manner.

    It is a calm and skillful demolition of the Western narrative regarding Russia in all it's infantile and morally bankrupt depravity. Even those who disagree have the opportunity at least to hear the Russian viewpoint expressed in a succinct yet powerful way.

    The core of it is that when the USSR was dismantled the West continued with the tactics of the Cold war and continued to treat Russia as an adversary despite the end of the defining ideological difference.

    From their point of view the acquiescence of Russia to the Wests demands in terms of economic policy were met with encirclement, missile shields aimed at achieving Nuclear first strike capability and colour revolutions on their borders to replace their allies with the stooges of the West.

    The Russian narrative has two central virtues, it is simple and it is largely true although some less "helpful" facts tend to be edited from the narrative as you would expect. plemax 2 months ago (edited)

    I would say that translation is not very accurate. It's close but sounds direct. When Putin talks in Russian he doesn't sound direct. He sounds firm but rather balanced. Also, he doesn't use "I am" statements, he uses "we are" statements. English subtitles keep showing "I am". Or "listen to me" instead of "look". Putin is saying "look, we did this and that". Translation showing "listen to me, we did this and that". Things like that make a huge difference in the way people receiving an information.
    Andre Vz 2 hours ago
    Good point. I am a native Russian speaker with an English interpreter experience spawning for former military service (russian) and over a decade of first hand experience of living in US. The subtitles were quite inadequate. Smothering the actual strong points of Vladimir Putin while unnecessarily escalating the other to the point of almost sounding aggressive. I attribute it to the usual bias of western media that is bent on presenting Russia as an aggressive nation and use it as a smoke screen for all of those despicable crimes that US commits globally
    ME UK 3 months ago
    Jesus I'm a proud nationalist Brit who loves his country but hearing Putin here I'm inclined to agree with what he says. The Russians do not threaten our borders in the way NATO threatens Russian borders by placing troops within a stone's throw of their border. Then consider the might of NATO compared to Russia. I'm left siding with Putin which is quite remarkable. More and more people are beginning to question the version of the West. Why the hell can't the West team up with Russia to rid the world of terrorists wherever they rear their ugly heads. Instead we are fed the same old crap by our failed self serving liberal traitor masters. Stop voting for the same THREE failed political parties in the UK and start thinking outside the box. Together the Labour / Lib Dem and Conservative parties have engineered the whole problem and sold us all out with mass immigration and 1.8 Trillion of crippling public debt. It's utter madness. I wish we had a PM like Putin.
    Gordon Eatman 3 months ago
    Putin expresses a lot of truth. Only US can be so blind and arrogant.

    Crushonius

    what a condescending CUNT THAT REPORTER IS ?

    paul h3 months ago

    Alot of what he says makes sense.

    TheSommersonnenwende

    Listen to his United Nation speech! That will open your eyes for all time!

    yaara513 months ago

    I´m from Germany and I love you Putin -- Although German media portrays you as the devil in person I admire you, sir.

    Imran Armani 1 month ago

    Russian defense Budget 50 Million US 575 Millions --------- Proves who is aggressor

    Clar Wikk 2 months ago

    BBC globalist cucks are traitors to the west

    Ateo forever 2 months ago

    I had reservations when Putin came to power, but i since changed my mind, i have more respect for him, than any of the US presidents past and present.

    PIMP EL

    Putin is on offer the better leaders in modern politics , smart guy with no BS attitude..

    Tony G

    Whilst Putin is no saint and Russia's history is less than perfect. Their resolve is absolute. If they say they are going to do something, they do it. If they say that they will stand up to ISIS with the same aggression, they do it! This is not what most other EU countries do. What EU countries do is talk then talk some more and ultimately achieve nothing. You cannot turn the tide on ISIS unless you step away from political correctness!

    꿈을어둠 5 months ago

    I've always seen Putin as rational even if he isn't flawless. Let's face it, 90% of his bad reputation comes from american propaganda, unfortunately the US controls or has major influence on media even here in europe.

    Space oriented 5 months ago

    The US's media influence is even worse than the influence of nuclear weaponry. It seriously aggravates me.

    dinan5iver 5 months ago

    Invaded Georgia you say? If you're referring to their response to the slaughter of Russian peacekeepers and citizens carrying Russian passports in South Ossetia by the western backed sociopath Mikheil Saakashvili, then go ahead and call it an "invasion".

    Crimeans who are overwhelmingly ethnic Russians, voted in a referendum to secede from the illegitimate coup-installed Nazi regime in Kiev. There was no "invasion". By treaty agreement Russia had 24K troops stationed on the peninsula to secure their Black Sea Fleet. How'd you think that was going to go?

    He's aiding Assad you say? Why WOULD'NT Russia defend a nation to which it has been formally allied since the 1950's from US/Saudi/NATO backed crazed jihadists?

    NATO is an armed alliance that should have died with the USSR and, contrary to the first Bush administration's promise to Gorbachev not to move the alliance "one inch" toward Russia's borders in exchange for their agreement not to oppose the reunification of Germany, encircled the Russian Federation with NATO bases. And you have the nerve to call Putin an aggressor?

    Mr. Mark 4 months ago (edited)

    Simpson assumes Americans still feel threatened by Putin and the Russian Federation. In fact, we have stopped believing the lies of most of our own journalists and politicians because real data is being supplied by WikiLeaks and other honest news sources so we are more afraid of our own government than those abroad. Putin is our ally, he will get along well with Trump and I expect we will all benefit by this relationship built on mutual trust than the lies we normally expect. Simpson looks the idiot here...assuming we will think he is strong. The real strength here is Putin, his communication skills, articulate manner impress us.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Putin crushes CNN smartass Fareed Zakaria on Donald Trump and US elections

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    a really interesting, impressive reply at Zakaria provocation...


    MJ Augusto 4 months ago (edited)

    I am a true patriot. I'm America first all the way. But we've been giving Russia the short end of the stick since the end of WWII. Harry Truman started it with nuclear blackmail after we bombed Japan. Even though (yes it's true folks) the Soviets are the ones who really took the guts out of the Nazi war machine. We would have won anyway, but Russia accelerated the process in a huge way. They also invaded Japan forcing the emperors hand after we dropped the second atom bomb. During the Cuban missle crisis we really didn't have a leg to stand on in negotions. We had tactical nukes in Siberia armed and ready long before Russia put missiles in Cuba. I'm not a sympathizer, Stalin was an oppressor of human rights, and I feel communism is fundamentally flawed. But Putin is right, we've tried to force our ideas on the rest of the world and alienated most of it through out the process. Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, Cuba, and Iran during the cold war.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Only Chlorine, Not Sarin, Involved In The Khan Sheikhun Incident

    Apr 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Those who blame the Syrian government for the allegedly chemical incident in Khan Sheikhun are now pushing the analysis of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to the front. But the results of the OPCW tests are inconsistent with the observed technical and medical facts of the incident.

    The OPCW Director General Ambassador Üzümcü, a Turk, yesterday released its first results of his organization:

    The bio-medical samples collected from three victims during their autopsy were analysed at two OPCW designated laboratories. The results of the analysis indicate that the victims were exposed to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance . Bio-medical samples from seven individuals undergoing treatment at hospitals were also analysed in two other OPCW designated laboratories. Similarly, the results of these analyses indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance .

    Director-General Üzümcü stated clearly: "The results of these analyses from four OPCW designated laboratories indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance .

    That's "Sarin or Sarin- like substance" three times a row. Sarin is also mentioned in the headline. Someone is pushing that meme hard.

    But the OPCW did not conclude that a chemical attack occurred in Khan Sheikhun. It suggested nothing about the incident itself. Instead it talked about bio-medical samples - nothing more, nothing less.

    A "Sarin like substances" could be a different chemical weapon than sarin - soman is possible. But many general insecticides belong to the same chemical class as sarin and soman. They are organophosphorus compounds. (Sarin was originally developed as insecticide). All of such compounds could be a source of the exposure found by by the OPCW. These chemicals tend to degrade within hours or days. A forensic analysis will not find the original substance but only decomposition products of some organophosporus compound. That is the reason why the OPCW result is not fixed on sarin but also mentions "sarin like substances".

    The question is now where those samples come from? And what is the chain of evidence that connects the samples to the incident in question. The OPCW has not send an investigation team to Khan Sheikhun. No samples were taken by its own inspectors. While Russia and Syria have asked for OPCW inspections on the ground, Tahrir al-Sham, the renamed al-Qaeda in Syria which controls the area, has not asked for inspectors. Without its agreement any investigation mission is simply too dangerous. None of the OPCW inspectors are interested in literally losing their heads to those terrorists.

    Immediately after the incident bodies of dead and wounded were brought to Turkey where they were taken into hospital. Al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda aligned personal must have transported these. It is a three hour trip from Khan Sheikhun to the Turkish border. Unless we trust the words of al-Qaeda operatives we can not be sure that the corpses delivered were indeed from Khan Sheikhun.

    The incident happened on April 4. An immediate OPCW statement on April 4 referred to chlorine, not sarin or similar:

    The OPCW is investigating the incident in southern Idlib under the on-going mandate of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM), which is "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine , for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic".

    The UN Security Council convened on April 6 to discuss the incident. The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reported :

    Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council meeting to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons attack on April 4, stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas .

    Turkey's Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear teams (KBRN) prepared an initial report over the possible material of the alleged chemical attack, relying on the symptoms of and tests conducted on the victims and their testimonies.

    The report stated that the initial findings of the tests conducted on around 30 victims brought to Turkey for treatment pointed to a chlorine gas attack .

    Thirty victims were immediately brought to Turkey after the incident. But the Turkish doctors and CBRN specialist did not consider sarin, but chlorine gas -a much less potent chemical- to be involved. (Chlorine is not designated a chemical weapon under the various chemical warfare regulations. This fact is often obfuscated for pure propaganda reasons. ) The symptoms of chlorine ingestion and the effects of sarin exposure are quite different. It is extremely unlikely that the emergency doctors and chemical weapon specialists have misdiagnosed the issue when the patients arrived and were taken care of. The 30 casualties arriving in Turkey were not the casualties of a sarin incident.

    But the Turkish Health Ministry told a different story:

    The poison used in the deadly chemical bomb attack in a rebel-held part of northern Syria this week was the banned nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.
    ...
    "According to the results of preliminary tests," the statement said, "patients were exposed to chemical material (Sarin)."
    ...
    The Turkish statement did not elaborate on how the sarin had been identified in the assault on Tuesday, but it said some of the telling symptoms seen in the victims included " lung edema , increase in lung weight and bleeding in lungs."

    From the CDC Emergency Response Database:

    At high exposure levels, irritation of the upper respiratory tract and accumulation of fluid in the lungs (pulmonary edema) contribute to a sensation of choking.

    But that is from the CDC entry for Chlorine .

    The CDC entry for Sarin mentions "fluid accumulation in the airways" as one symptom among many more conspicuous ones. It does not mention an edema of the lungs.

    Contradicting the first Turkish reports the Turkish Health Ministry claimed "sarin" (in parenthesis?!). But the symptom it described as proof was not of sarin but of chlorine exposure.

    The Turkish Justice Minister also made a statement but that did not mention sarin at all

    Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag told reporters that "Autopsies were carried out on three of the bodies after they were brought from Idlib. The results of the autopsy confirms that chemical weapons were used," quoted by state-run Anadolu news agency.

    "This scientific investigation also confirms that Assad used chemical weapons," Bozdag added, without giving further details.
    ...
    Bozdag said autopsies were conducted with the "participation" of officials from the World Health Organization (WHO) in the southern province of Adana together with officials from Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

    But WHO immediately countered Bozdag's claims that it was involved in the postmortem, saying the organisation did not conduct autopsies, adding: "It is not our mandate."
    ...
    [It] also stressed that no samples or swabs had been taken by WHO despite claims by the Adana prosecutor that "examples" had been sent to the organisation and the OPCW.

    The Justice Minister claimed that samples had been given to the WHO and OPCW from the very first autopsies. But the WHO clearly denies that. I find no OPCW statement on this.

    In 2013 a Turkish court, under Justice Minister Bozdag, set one suspected Ahrar al Sham member free after he was caught with sarin precursors. The person was later sentenced in absentia as he had fled back to Syria. Ahrar al Sham, while not in charge, has a presence in Khan Sheikhun.

    The neuroscientist and neuro-pharmacologist Denis O'Brien, a Ph.D. with a research and teaching career in that field, analyzed the symtoms of the casualties that were depicted in the various videos coming out of Khan Sheikhun. His diagnostics and chemical-biological explanations are humorously titled Top Ten Ways to Tell When You're Being Spoofed by a False-Flag Sarin Attack .

    O'Brian notes the total absence of feces, urine, vomit and cyanosis (turning blue) in the videos. Sarin exposure causes, according to the CDC database "Nausea, vomiting (emesis), diarrhea, abdominal pain, and cramping." Sarin effected patients would spontaneously shit, peed and vomited all over. But the casualties in the videos, even the "dead" ones, have clean undies. The "clinic" in the videos has clean floors. The patients show red skin color, not oxygen deprived blue. The patients in the videos were not effected by sarin.

    Medical personal and rescue workers in the videos ( example ) and pictures also show none of the typical sarin symptoms. Sarin degrades relatively fast. Half of the potency will be gone within five hours after release (depending on environmental factors). But these rescue workers and medical personal were immediately involved with the casualties. They do not wear any reasonable protection. They would have been dead or at least effected if sarin would have been involved in any relevant concentration.

    The Turkish doctors and chemical weapon specialists who received the first patients diagnosed chlorine exposure, not sarin. The first Turkish reports to the UN speak of chlorine, not sarin. It is only the Turkish Health Minister who mentions sarin - in parentheses, but then lists a symptom of severe chlorine exposure as one of sarin. Neither the casualties nor the unprotected medical personal involved in the incident show any effect of sarin exposure.

    Fifteen days after the incident the OPCW say that samples it was given(!) "indicate exposure to Sarin or a Sarin-like substance".

    Turkey has been the supply and support lifeline for Ahrar al Sham as well as for al-Qaeda in Syria. The samples given to the OPCW were taken by Turkish personal in Turkey. The current head of the OPCW is a Turkish citizen. It is in the interest of Turkey and its terrorist clients in Syria to blame the Syrian government for chemical weapon use.

    The medical and technical evidence is not consistent with a sarin attack by the Syrian government. All of the videos and pictures of the incident were taken in al-Qaeda controlled territory. All witnesses were under al-Qaeda control. How much of the incident was staged for videos (see al-Qaeda doctor video linked above) or how many of the witnesses were told to lie is not testable under current circumstance. The Syrian government insist that it has given up all its chemical weapons. The Russian government also asserts that no chemical weapon attack took place.

    The OPCW analysis may well have found that samples it received indicated organophosphorus exposure. But the chain of evidence for these samples is very dubious.

    The observable facts of the incident on the ground do not support the conclusion that sarin was present in the Khan Sheikhun incident.

    Note: Part of the above is based on the work and tweets of Ali Ornek

    Posted by b on April 20, 2017 at 03:26 PM | Permalink

    Comments Sneed | Apr 20, 2017 3:59:29 PM | 1
    What in the world do facts have to do with it?

    xor | Apr 20, 2017 4:21:49 PM | 2
    Nice report. Although facts didn't matter with the incubator babies, Benghazi black mercenaries, WMD, ... it's good to set the record straight for those who are interested in the truth. It also proves again and again that big party politicians and main stream media are a bunch of whoring liars.

    wwinsti | Apr 20, 2017 5:09:04 PM | 3
    The Foreign minister of France is promising to release supposedly 'undeniable evidence' of Assad's involvement in the sarin gas attack.

    http://www.newstalk.com/France-to-release-evidence-Assad-ordered-chemical-attack

    There's a slight chance that this might be the radio intercept the Israeli's claim to have.

    (Hint, easily faked)

    Igor Bundy | Apr 20, 2017 5:28:52 PM | 4
    Oh I do believe the bodies will show sarin.. But they would be christian or alawite bodies.. Just like the bodies shown in ghouta who were kidnapped victims of al queda.

    Who is going to verify the bodies are actual people and who they say they are.. In many decades of knowing multi racial couples I have never seen blonde white babies as shows in al queda photos. No woman would be stupid enough to go live in such freedom loving hell hole like idlib unlike kids who think screwing dozens of jihadis are actually fun.

    karlof1 | Apr 20, 2017 5:29:07 PM | 5
    Today, TASS published a rather damning article aimed at the OPCW, http://tass.com/world/942326

    The Swedish Doctors for Human Rights whose text and video were used at the UNSC presentation on the topic report: "The response of Western media journalists have also in occasions taken a bizarre, seemingly desperate character ... Le Figaro indulges in a series of libellous statements ad-hominem against the messenger of the objective research-conclusions they dislike," which is a sure sign the Doctors are correct, http://theindicter.com/libellous-attack-by-mainstream-journalists-angered-by-swedhr-denounce-of-unethical-anti-syria-propaganda/

    The Indicter also published a witness account of the big refugee massacre bombing, testifying that at least 4 Turkish ambulances were on-site prior to the explosion, were filled with the children's bodies and took them away, probably for their organs. Canthama at SyrPers observes: "There is a REAL RISK of children organ trafficking, this has been a very common sad aspect of the war of aggression against the Syrians, many children and adults (thousands) were kidnaped and had their organs removed in Turkey and either for use inside Turkey or shipped to terrorist friendly UK, France, Germany, US, KSA, Qatar and Israhell. The UN is well aware of this illegal trade and crime, but as usual double standard is applied as if Syrians are no humans."
    [sic]

    Putin was right to publicly announce the "attack" to be a False Flag, and it looks ever more likely the Turkish government played a role and is complicit in a number of other Syria related crimes of the most vilest.

    karlof1 | Apr 20, 2017 5:33:27 PM | 6
    Igor @4--

    I wanted to post the Javad Zarif‏ statement you posted at SyrPers because of its strong condemnation of the Outlaw US Empire's alliance with terrorists, but it's not yet listed at the Iranian Foreign Ministry's website. Perhaps you could post a link to where you found it?

    Peter AU | Apr 20, 2017 5:40:50 PM | 7
    karlof1 5

    The white helmet actor that played the part of father of twins in the bombing very quickly appeared for photo shoot with Erdogan. Also Bana the seven year old tweeting from Aleppo, who miraculously escaped Aleppo and then appeared for photo shoot with Erdogan.
    It seems Turkey does play a very direct role, Erdogan personally, working directly with AQ.
    Not forgetting the direct links between Erdogan and the ISIS oil convoys.

    dh | Apr 20, 2017 5:41:52 PM | 8
    @4 Bodies Igor? You'll never know who they were or where they came from. You think some human rights group is going to Idlib to dig them up?

    jfl | Apr 20, 2017 5:49:11 PM | 9
    the us election was hacked! => the russians are coming! => assad gasses his own people!

    all have in common their shrill hysteria and faith-based appeal. they are diammetrically opposed to reality. but the people who want us to believe this nonsense will not be denied! the people who want us all to believe include all the western trans-national corporate mainstream media and, of course, the minority neo-cons for whom they shill.

    this shrill minority is bent on continuing their terrorism in syria, ukraine, libya and elsewhere. the governments of the us/nato/eu and their gcc/il proxies comprise the early 21st-century axis of evil. they will be defeated by the alliance of the rest of the countries of the world free of their dominion as the 21st-century unfolds, but their horrid reign of death, devastation, destruction, and deceit around the world, and in ukraine and mena especially, will live on in infamy, just as has that of the third reich and its axis.

    james | Apr 20, 2017 6:00:10 PM | 10
    thanks b, for articulating what the msm will not.. it doesn't serve there bosses agenda.

    look, when someone is going for your jugular, it is a case of surviving however you can.. the west is like a heroin addict looking for it's next fix. the fix is making war openly, and if they can't do that - silently.. the msm is just a stooge for them at this point..

    as for the turk throwing this out - if he hasn't gotten a promotion from king erdogan yet, i would be surprised.. what an embarrassment the turk establishment is at this point.. that means they will be used more by the west and i do wonder what this means for the turkey relationship with russia and iran at this point..

    already looks questionable when there is no chain of custody, no samples taken from the site, and no samples from the air force base that was attacked.

    Posted by: Toxik | Apr 20, 2017 6:58:50 PM | 11

    already looks questionable when there is no chain of custody, no samples taken from the site, and no samples from the air force base that was attacked.

    Posted by: Toxik | Apr 20, 2017 6:58:50 PM | 11

    karlof1 | Apr 20, 2017 7:00:22 PM | 12
    james @10--

    It may take awhile, but Erdogan and the Turks will experience blowback in a big way when the SAA and allies push the terrorists back over the border into Turkey. Hard to fathom what Putin and Lavrov think about Erdogan at this point as little is being written or said, other than the MoD's statement on the OPCW report covered by the TASS link above and Putin's call regarding the election victory on the 18th about which little was said, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/54330 And unfortunately, the remarks by Russia's OPCW rep are fully posted at the Foreign Affairs Ministry's website, although they will sometime, http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2732765

    sejomoje | Apr 20, 2017 7:21:02 PM | 13
    re: the "Blonde" babies, it looks like peroxide...or perhaps super-strong chlorine. Too orange/yellow to be real. Also the "father" isn't one of those light-eyed Syrians iykwim.

    What really clinched it for me though was the video of the already-dead children, showing no signs of chemical poisoning, lined up in a row to be filmed. As the cell phone camera panned over them, the guy realizes one of their heads is lolled to the side, not facing the camera. Instead of simply repositioning the head, he slaps it into place, very roughly.

    These dead are not mourned by the living who were there to document the event.

    sejomoje | Apr 20, 2017 7:23:01 PM | 14
    The word of the day is "organ donors".

    [Apr 20, 2017] Bill Binney explodes the Russia witchhunt

    Mar 04, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    He also exposes the NSA penchant for "swindles", such as preventing the plugging of holes in software around the world, to preserve their spying access.

    Frank Oak 3 weeks ago Big Mike's boat 200 tons coke bust n Hussien on the run as cosmic Camelots​ crimes going viral

    Marija Djuric 3 weeks ago Bill Binney should be head of the NSA

    Nancy M 3 weeks ago The Clinton campaign to divert attention to Russia instead of her myriad of crimes that were revealed during the election must be stopped and the alt media needs to start talking about her and Obama's crimes again and demand justice...control the dialogue

    John 3 weeks ago It's almost comical to hear that they lie to each other. No wonder why these retards in the mid-east and every other third world country gets the better of us.

    [Apr 20, 2017] Oliver Stone Rages Against The Deep States Wonderful Job Of Throwing America Into Chaos

    Notable quotes:
    "... I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired. ..."
    "... It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals ..."
    "... well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after. ..."
    "... his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand. ..."
    "... Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. ..."
    "... Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control. ..."
    "... We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. ..."
    Apr 20, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    In March of last year, Academy Award-winning director Oliver Stone warned the world :

    "we're going to war - either hybrid in nature...or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don't because our media is dumbed down in its 'Pravda'-like support for our 'respectable', highly aggressive government."

    And strongly rejected the establishment's "the Russians are coming" narrative shortly after the election and correctly forecast that it wouldn't be long before the deep state pushed Trump into an anti-Kremlin position...

    "As much as we may disagree with Donald Trump (and I do) he's right now target number one of the MSM propaganda -- until, that is, he changes to the anti-Kremlin track over, God knows, some kind of petty dispute cooked up by CIA, and in his hot-headed way starts fighting with the Russians ...

    I never thought I'd find myself at this point in time praying for the level-headedness of a Donald Trump . "

    Stone was correct and in a Facebook post tonight expresses his disappointment at Trump and disgust for The Deep State (and America's wilful ignorance).

    "So It Goes"

    I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America's wars, but I was wrong -- fooled again! -- as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the "evil empire" rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 -- and Bush found his 'us against the world' crusade at 9/11, in which of course we're still mired.

    It seems that Trump really has no 'there' there, far less a conscience, as he's taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals -- and he's being praised for it by our 'liberal' media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured bind we're in. There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they've lost their minds as they've been stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking -- 'Who benefits from this latest gas attack?' Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists who initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.

    It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with crude propagandizing about murdered babies , etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid when he's clearly winning the civil war?

    No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances -- to, once again, change the secular regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals -- next to Iran -- of the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it a State.

    Abetted by the Clintonites, they've done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes into Russia's alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly disproved by his bombing attack) -- and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh's fascinating deconstruction of this US propaganda, 'London Review of Books' December 19, 2013, "Whose sarin?"). No memory, no history, no rules -- or rather 'American rules.'

    No, this isn't an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant analyses, "Will Washington Risk WW3" and "Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road," that something far more sinister waits in the background .

    Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It's well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings's "Nation" analysis of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.

    Can we wake up before it's too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character in "Fort Apache," riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country, my country, my heart aches for thee.

    FIAT CON -> knukles •Apr 19, 2017 8:22 PM

    Everything is finite on this planet except the US$, I can't see how believing this will cause any trouble. /s

    gregga777 -> SallySnyd •Apr 19, 2017 7:44 PM

    "One has to wonder how many fronts Congress thinks that the American military complex can fight and win wars?"

    The truth is that America, as a deliberate policy, does not win wars. Dragging out wars (e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) produces far greater revenues and profits for the War Profiteers and Merchants of Death that control United States foreign policy. They all deserve bullets to the back of the neck for their evil takeover of the United States and their willingness to sacrifice the lives of millions of people to their evil, illegal and Unconstitutional Wars of Aggression.

    VIS MAIOR -> gregga777 •Apr 19, 2017 7:53 PM

    135 000 http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/vietnam-american-holocaust/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties ... 1000 years ban for usa on OL games and other + forever ban on all --

    they kill own 135 000 + thousand more after in usa from depresions, alchdrugs.. + 4 milions !!!! asians what fuckretard nations cancer is usa ..

    please delete usa from this planet ..PLEASE

    Tothguy1948 -> Savyindallas •Apr 19, 2017 11:43 PM

    well, he got my generation started/up to speed with JFK truth, and took a beating for it. in the eyes of the entertainment media, he was a patriotic steven spielberg before jfk, he was conspiracy theorist with a good director of photography and editing team after.

    yeah, i've come to see him as a bit of fatuous idiot in some interviews, he sure has got his own achille's heel and hasn't offered every last truth on the subject, but who has done more to popularize critical thinking and research on it than him? i'm forever grateful for that

    his general analysis for 9/11 and who benefited from it, (<<cui bono, project for new american century>>) was pointing in the right direction. he might have done more harm than good if he started speaking about thermite or whatever, or would have been dismissed as a nut out of hand.

    Let it Go •Apr 19, 2017 8:12 PM

    Stone is right enough is enough. Anyone who doesn't believe that countries use psychological warfare and propaganda to sway the opinions of people both in and outside of their country should be considered naive. To many people America is more than a little hypocritical when they criticize other countries for trying to gain influence considering our history of meddling in the affairs of other countries.

    Americans have every reason to be concerned and worried considering revelations of just how big the government intelligent agencies have grown since 9-11 and how unlimited their spying and surveillance operations have become. The article below explores this growth and questions whether we have lost control.

    http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2017/04/psychological-warfare-and-propaganda.html

    peterk •Apr 19, 2017 8:50 PM

    trump is perhaps the best president for the deep state...... a president who doesn't really care about anything too much.

    he has been a carefree billionaire playboy all his life, never gets to involved in any fight, as he isnt all that bright, so he just

    moves along when things get tough.

    he betrayed the USA

    Anonymous IX •Apr 19, 2017 9:46 PM

    A very simple question.

    Why has Trump completely reneged on his promise to stay out of foreign wars and regime change? Not only Syria but Yemen. Why has Trump placed the U.S. in a needless confrontation with Russia? Before the election, he spoke about establishing strong economic relations with other countries in favor of the U.S.

    Part of making "American Great Again" involves staying out of foreign wars which do not concern us and using our monies to re-educate and protect the diminishing American worker.

    Mr. Stone is right.

    Akhenaten II -> Anonymous IX •Apr 20, 2017 12:44 AM

    Trump works for Israel and the jewish mob. Always has.

    We were all deceived by a great, maybe brilliant, actor. The only saving grace is that this play is nearing its last act before they knock the entire theatre down, to be abandoned like the Coliseum.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Assessing Russias Military Strength

    Notable quotes:
    "... In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help to implement it. As Michael Lind writes: ..."
    "... At this point, the only locality where the US can hope to "defeat" Russia is in Syria, to reassert, even if for a little while longer, itself as "greatest military in history". But even there the window of opportunities is closing fast since the Russian conventional response in Europe would be devastating. ..."
    "... As Colonel Pat Lang's blog noted : "If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions of grandeur". ..."
    "... US Naval Institute Proceedings ..."
    "... The Unz Review ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.unz.com
    There is a popular point of view in some of Russia's political circles, especially among those who profess monarchist views and cling to a famous meme of 1913 Tsarist Russia development statistics, that WW I was started by Germany to forestall Russia's industrial development which would inevitably challenge Germany's plans on domination of Europe. A somewhat similar argument could be made for the WW II, but, in general, preventive wars are nothing new in human history. While "preventive" argument may or may not be a valid one regarding WW I, there is no doubt that it could be used, among others, when explaining the origins of a war.

    A classic example of such "preventive" war is, of course, US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the mayhem which ensued there when US, as was stated then, "prevented" Saddam from obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction, that is nuclear weapons, which, of course, he never had and wasn't intent on obtaining . It is becoming increasingly clear that "preventive war" has become a preferred instrument in the hands of Washington establishment, be it Iraq, Libya or Syria.

    But what about Russia, one may ask, or China. Are "preventive wars" against them possible? Taken at face value the question may seem strange-both China, and especially Russia are nuclear armed states which can defend themselves. They do have deterrents and that supposedly should stop any attempt on any kind of war on them. This all is true but only so far. One may consider the current geopolitical situation in which China has all but created a new alternative economic power pole , and in which the US finds herself increasingly in the position of the still extremely important but second and, eventually, even third place player in Eurasian economic development. The United States doesn't like being in second and doesn't take such a reality kindly.

    But for Washington, whose political discourse is based on American exceptionalism and foreign policy now is defined completely in terms of military power, emergence of a "peer" military power is absolutely unacceptable. While China is an economic giant and is now arguably the largest economy in the world, she still has a long way to go until she becomes a true "peer" to the United States militarily. This is not the case with Russia. It becomes also true when one begins to look at doctrinal and technological developments both in the US and Russia. The contrast is startling, even if one considers a very dubious US intelligence analysis on Russia .

    Russia's military doctrine and posture are explicitly defensive. Power Projection in Russian strategic considerations is secondary, if not tertiary, to the defense of Russia proper and her immediate geographic vicinity which can roughly be defined as about 80-85% of territory of the former USSR. This is not the case with the United States who is a consummate expeditionary power and fights wars not on own territory, and whose population and political elites are not conditioned by continental warfare.

    Arthur J. Alexander in his " Decision Making In Soviet Weapons Procurement " came up with quantification of what he called "classes of forces" (or constants) influencing aggregate defense expenditures for USSR. This quantification remains virtually unchanged for modern day Russia. To quote Alexander, two of the most "heavy" constants he mentions are: "History, culture and values–40-50 percent. International environment, threat and internal capabilities–10-30 percent" . Taken by their maxima, 50+30=80%, we get the picture. 80% of Russia's military expenditures are dictated by real military threats, which were, time after time over centuries, realized for Russia and resulted in the destruction and human losses on a scale incomprehensible for people who write US military doctrines and national security strategies. This is especially true for Neocon "strategists" who have a very vague understanding of the nature and application of military power-expeditionary warfare simply does not provide a proper angle on the issues of actual defense. The nation whose 20 th Century losses due to wars from WW I, to Civil War to WW II number roughly in 40-45 million range, would certainly try to not repeat such ordeals. Even famous Russophobe and falsifier, Richard Pipes, was forced to admit that:

    Such figures are beyond the comprehension of most Americans. But clearly a country must define "unacceptable damage" differently from the United States which has known no famines or purges, and whose deaths from all the wars waged since 1775 are estimated at 650,000-fewer casualties than Russia suffered in the 900-day siege of Leningrad in World War II alone. Such a country (Russia) tends also to assess the rewards of defense in much more realistic terms.

    In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help to implement it. As Michael Lind writes:

    The possibility of military defeat and invasion are usually left out of discussion .in the United states and Britain. The United States, if one discounts Pearl Harbor has not suffered a serious invasion from 1812; Britain, though it has been bombed from the air in the (20th century), has been free from foreign invasion even longer .Elsewhere in the world, political elites cannot as easily separate foreign policy and economics.

    Russia lives under these pressures constantly and, in fact, Russians as ethnos were formed and defined by warfare. Russia is also defined by her weapons and it is here where we may start looking for one of the most important rationales for anti-Russian hysteria in Washington which have proceeded unabated sincethe return of Crimea in 2014, in reality even earlier.

    The Western analytical and expert community failed utterly in assessing Russia's both economic and, as a consequence, military potential. The problem here is not with Russia, which offers unprecedented access to all kinds of foreigners, from businessmen and tourists to political and intelligence (overt and covert) professionals. The problem is with Western view of Russia which as late as three years ago was completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities. That is the reality not defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices.

    It took a complete and embarrassing failure of the West's economic sanctions on Russia to recognize that the actual size of Russia's economy is about that of Germany, if not larger, and that Russia was defining herself in terms of enclosed technological cycles, localization and manufacturing long before she was forced to engage in the war in Georgia in 2008. Very few people realistically care about Russia's Stock Market, the financial markets of Germany are on the order of magnitude larger, but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can. Germany doesn't have a space industry, Russia does. The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry and her military-industrial complex which dwarfs that of any "economic" competitor Western "economists" always try to compare Russia to, with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only. Third or Second World economies do not produce such weapons as Borey-class strategic missile submarines or SU-35 fighter jets, they also do not build space-stations and operate the only global alternative to US GPS, GLONASS system.

    Whether this lesson will be learned by the combined West is yet to be seen. So far, the learning process has been slow for US crowd which cheered on US deindustrialization and invented a fairy tale concept of post-industrial, that is non-productive, virtual economy.

    The Russian economy is not without problems, far from it-it still tries to break with the "heritage" of robbery and deformities of 1990s and still tries to find its way on a path different from destructive ideology of Russia's "young reformers" who still dominate policy formulation, be it from the positions of power or through such institutions as notorious High School of Economics.

    Yet, it seems this economy which was " left in tatters " or was an economy of a " gas station masquerading as a country ", is the only other economy in the world which can produce and does produce the whole spectrum of weapons ranging from small arms to state-of-the-art complex weapon and signal processing systems. No other nation with the exception of the US and Russia, not even China, can produce and procure a cutting edge military technology which has capabilities beyond the reach of everyone else.

    Here, the US establishment, also known as the Neocon interventionist cabal, it seems, has begun to wake up to actual reality, not the fictitious one that the US can allegedly create for itself. Such as the fact that Russia, in a planned and well executed manner, without any unnecessary fanfare, launched a complete upgrade of her naval nuclear deterrent with the state of the art SSBNs of Borey-class (Project 955 and 955A). Three submarines of this type are already afloat while other 5 are in a different stages of completion and this is the program which most of US Russia "analysts" were laughing at 10 years ago. They are not laughing anymore.

    Today it is US Navy which is in dire need for upgrade of its nuclear deterrent, with the youngest of Ohio-class SSBN, SSBN-743 USS Louisiana, being 20 year old. The future replacement of venerable Ohio-class SSBNs, a Columbia-class is slated to go into production in 2021 that is if the R&D will go smoothly. But one has to consider a feature which became defining of US R&D and weapons procurement practices-delays and astronomical costs of US weapons, which, despite constantly being declared "superior", "unrivaled" and "best in the world" are not such at all, especially for the prices they are offered both domestically and abroad. As in the case with above mentioned Columbia-class SSBN, the GAO expects the cost of the whole program to be slightly above 97 billion dollars and that means that the average cost for each sub of this class will be around 8.1 billion dollars. That is much more than the cost of the whole-8 advanced submarines-program of Russia's naval nuclear deterrent.

    And this single example demonstrates well an abyss in fundamental approaches to the war between US and Russia: not only do Russian weapons rival those made in US, they are much-much less expensive and they provide Russia with this proverbial bang for a buck, also known in professional circles which deal with strategy and operation's research as cost/effectiveness ratio. Here, United States is simply no competition to Russia and the gap not only remains, it widens with ever-increasing speed. As Colonel Daniel Davies admitted : " The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe ." That brings us to a second issue, of doctrines, operational concepts and weapons themselves.

    A complete inability to see the evolution of Russia's Armed Forces is another failure which not only irritated but continues to irritate US military-political establishment since it proved them completely wrong. Economic "blindness" factored in here very strongly-it was inevitable in a system that looks at the world through a grossly distorted Wall Street monetarist spyglass. Many times it was pointed out that direct linear comparison, dollar-for-dollar, of military budgets is wrong and does not reflect real military, in general, and combat, in particular, potentials in the least.

    While the US Navy was busy spending 420 million dollars per hull on its 26-ship fleet of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), Russian Navy spent two times less per unit on a frigates whose combat capabilities dwarf those of any LCS in any aspect: ASW, Air Defense and Sensors, including the ability to launch supersonic anti-shipping cruise missiles from 600 kilometers and land-attack missiles from 2500. The same goes to much smaller and even much cheaper missile corvettes of Buyan and Karakurt classes which can engage any US Navy's targets, let alone something of LCS caliber.

    Experiences with a technological embarrassment known as F-35 merely confirm the fact that US is being tangled in a bizarre combination of unrealistic doctrinal views, unachievable technological and operational requirements and, in general, a complete failure to follow Sun Tzu's popular dictums of "Know Thy Enemy" and "Know Thy Self". On both counts the US policy makers and doctrine mongers failed miserably.

    As late as two years ago a number of US Russia's military "experts" declared that Russia's ground forces return to division structure was merely "symbolic". Symbolic they were not, with Russia resurrecting both divisions and armies as appropriate operational-tactical and operational-strategic units in order for a large scale combined arms operations. While following closely the evolution of US forces within the framework of initially much touted Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), Russia never changed her focus on the large scale combined arms operations. This came as a nasty surprise on 08/08/2008 when the elements of the supposedly "backward" Russian 58 th Army demolished NATO and Israel trained, and partially equipped, Saakashivili's Army in a matter of 96 hours. Nobody celebrated this victory and Russian Army was subjected, somewhat justifiably, to scathing criticism from many quarters. But it was clear already then that combined arms operations of large army units remain a principle method of the war between peer-to-peer state actors. The issue then, in 2008, was that US didn't consider Russia a peer and even near peer "status" was grudgingly afforded due to Russia's nuclear arsenal.

    Things changed dramatically after the coup in Kiev and junta unleashing a war in Donbass. Brigade and Division size forces there engaged in a full blown combined arms warfare, including head to head armor clashes, employment, especially for LDNR forces, of full C4ISR capabilities and Net-Centric warfare principles. So much so that it created a cultural shock for US military's COIN crowd , which got used to operate in the environment of total domination over its rag-tag lightly armed guerilla formations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    And it was then, and later, in 2015, demonstrated by Russia's Syria campaign, that the realization of an inability to defeat Russia conventionally began to dawn on many in D.C. establishment. Thus the whole premise of last quarter century "Pax Americana"-alleged conventional military superiority over any adversary-was blown out of the water. American military record of the last quarter century is not impressive for a power which proclaimed herself to be a hyper-power and as having the most powerful military in history. As US Marine Corps Captain Joshua Waddle bitterly admitted :

    "Let us first begin with the fundamental underpinnings of this delusion: our measures of performance and effectiveness in recent wars. It is time that we, as professional military officers, accept the fact that we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Objective analysis of the U.S. military's effectiveness in these wars can only conclude that we were unable to translate tactical victory into operational and strategic success".

    Delusion, of course, being the fact of US expecting a decisive tactical and technological superiority on the battlefield. Overwhelming empirical evidence tells a completely different story:

    United States military in future conflicts will have to deal, in case of conventional conflict against near-peer, let alone peer, with adversary who will have C4ISR capability either approaching that or on par with that of the US. This adversary will have the ability to counter US military decision cycles (OODA loop) with equal frequency and will be able to produce better tactical, operational and strategic decisions. US real and perceived advantage in electronic means of warfare (EW) will be greatly reduced or completely suppressed by present and future EW means of adversary thus forcing US forces fight under the conditions of partial or complete electronic blindness and with partially or completely suppressed communications and computer networks. US will encounter combat technologies not only on par but often better designed and used , from armor to artillery, to hyper-sonic anti-shipping missiles, than US military ever encountered. Modern air-forces and complex advanced air defense systems will make the main pillar of US military power-its Air Force-much less effective. Last but not least, today the US military will have to deal with a grim reality of its staging areas, rear supply facilities, lines of communications being the target of massive salvos of long-range high subsonic, supersonic and hyper-sonic missiles . The US military has never encountered such paradigm in its history. Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.

    But above all, if to finally name this "peer", which is Russia, and that is who pre-occupies the minds of former and current Pentagon's and National Security brass, in case of conventional conflict Russians will be fighting in defense of their motherland. Here Russia has a track record without equals in human history. Meanwhile, if the current military trends continue, and there are no reasons for them to stop , the window of opportunities for the Neocon cabal to attack Russia conventionally and unleash a preventive war is closing really fast (if it ever existed). That is what drives to a large extent an aggressive military rhetoric and plans, such as National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster's doctrine and war mongering.

    By mid 2020s Russia's rearmament program will be largely complete, which will allow Russia's Armed Forces to field and float a technology which will completely prevent NATO from exercising any illusions about the outcome of any conventional war in Russia's geographic vicinity, including her littoral, and that will mark the end of US designs on Eurasia by military means. It wouldn't matter how many carrier battle groups US will be able to move to forward areas or how many submarines, or how many brigades it will be able to deploy around Russia it will not be able to defeat Russia conventionally. With that, especially when one considers China's growing military potential, comes the end of Pax-Bellum Americana, the one we all hoped for this election cycle.

    At this point, the only locality where the US can hope to "defeat" Russia is in Syria, to reassert, even if for a little while longer, itself as "greatest military in history". But even there the window of opportunities is closing fast since the Russian conventional response in Europe would be devastating.

    As Colonel Pat Lang's blog noted : "If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions of grandeur".

    Today, the United States in general, and her military in particular, still remain a premier geopolitical force, but increasingly they will have to content with the fact that the short-lived era of self-proclaimed superiority in every single facet of modern nation-states' activity is over, if it ever was the case to start with. Will the US "Deep State" unleash a preventive war to prevent Russia from serving US with the pink slip for its position as world's chaos-monger or will it be, rephrasing the magnificent Corelli Barnett: " US Power had quietly vanished amid stupendous events of the 21 st Century, like a ship-of-the-line going down unperceived in the smoke and confusion of battle ". This is the most important question of the 21 st Century so far, but knowing US deep state ignorance of Russia one can never discount its insanity and an acute case of sour grapes.

    Andrei Martyanov has extensive knowledge of naval issues, and has been published in US Naval Institute Proceedings . Using the handle "SmoothieX12," he has written over 130,000 words of comments at The Unz Review , overwhelmingly on Russian and military matters.

    Anonymous , April 17, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

    • 100 Words Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

    Intelligent Dasein , • Website April 17, 2017 at 5:40 am GMT
    • 400 Words I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    • Agree: Amanda , bluedog , Seamus Padraig •
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT
    • 100 Words "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..

    Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917.

    • Agree: Randal •
    Art , April 17, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT
    • 100 Words Russia said it was going to bolster Syria's air defenses.

    If true – what does this mean for Israeli air power over Syria and Lebanon?

    Hezbollah has shown, even with its air force behind it that the IDF is a paper tiger.

    Without its air forces at 100%, Israel is very vulnerable. A war would be very costly. Many Jews want to leave Israel as it is now.

    Peace - Art

    animalogic , April 17, 2017 at 7:48 am GMT
    • 100 Words The US – with its NATO dogs contributing their yaps – has driven Russia & China into an economic & strategic partnership. Such a foreign policy must rate in the top ten of historical blunders. Essentially they have given a very helpful shove towards Eurasian unity - not yet, but forseeable, perhaps probable.
    Russia & China's continuing military advances are just one side of a coin: economic integration & advance is the other.
    If or when the US loses this struggle it need look no futher than classic Greek tragedy for the first causes of its decline: HUBRIS. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT
    Hey 'Neocon Cabal' is my phrase!!!!! (wink)
    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity that scares the Americans and the Jews to death. I hope the Iranians get as many of those SAM's as they need to defend against the Zionist threat! •
    mp , April 17, 2017 at 9:52 am GMT
    • 100 Words It is one thing to let a woman "man" a game console in order to fire a missile, or pilot a killer drone, hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the action. But it's another when "boots" hit the ground. I wonder how effective our Americanized, feminized, transgendered, gay friendly, diversified Army and Navy will be when they actually have to storm a beach, somewhere, against a real army–and not some third world outpost. •
    Verymuchalive , April 17, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT
    • 200 Words This is a situation that should never have permitted to arise. The US Federal Deficit is approaching $20 trillion, 2016′s Trade Deficit is $0.5 trillion and the Accumulated Trade Deficit over the last 30 years about $10 trillion. The US is to all intents bankrupt, and bankrupt states quickly lose their empires.
    Of course, America's creditors – China, Japan etc – have rigged the financial sector so that America is still able to afford their goods. Herein, lies the solution. The US dollar is a fiat currency and will collapse sooner or later. It is in Russia and China's interests that they precipitate such a collapse ASAP, even if they themselves suffer negative economic consequences.
    Faced with an imploding economy, and a choice between minimum social welfare measures and a grotesquely expansive military, there can only be one outcome for America. The Neocons will be defanged.
    This form of economic warfare has got to be a lot safer and more effective in achieving its aims than actual warfare. I sincerely hope that the Russians and Chinese have some such plan formulated.
    The era of military confrontation should have been over with the end of the Soviet Union. The Neocons have stolen the Peace, and helped themselves to the Peace Dividend. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    reiner Tor , • Website April 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT
    I think that while it's a grave mistake for Americans to underestimate Russians, it's also a grave mistake for Russians to underestimate Americans.

    Since I cannot claim to be an expert in military technology, I always read such articles with great interest, but never know with how much grain of salt I need to take them – none? a little? a lot? a whole salt mine?

    LondonBob , April 17, 2017 at 10:09 am GMT
    • 100 Words Trump's isolationism and embrace of realpolitik is just a recognition of realities, interestingly this is a viewpoint shared in many European capitals, despite their fulminating over Trump. If Trump isn't co-opted he deserves congratulations for stymieing the traditional imperial overstretch, that is unless recent events in Syria and the Ukraine, perhaps analogous to the Boer War, don't already represent the high points of US power before inevitable decline. Avoiding a WWI type general conflagration will be achievement enough.

    We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.

    Anatoly Karlin , • Website April 17, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT
    • 400 WordsNEW! Excellent article – and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time.

    NoseytheDuke, April 17, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT
    Having read many, many of SmoothieX12′s knowledgable comments and now this article, I would imagine that his many critics have enough egg on their faces to have their eggs any way they want them, except sunny side up of course.

    Nobody should be surprised by the revelations here nor should they feel disheartened. It is doubtful that Russia has any plans or even thoughts to ever invade or harm the US. The upside could be that the Neocons and the AIPAC crowd might become so disempowered that they will be finally held to account for their many crimes and that would be good for everyone.

    AP , April 17, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Goods and services in Russia are considerably less expensive than in the West (and this includes the cost of producing fighter jets or rockets), so for such purposes GDP PPP is a better indicator than is nominal GDP. In terms of GDP PPP, Russia is of course not on par with the United States but is considerably higher than Mexico. It is in the same neighborhood as places such as Hungary.

    Russia's overall GDP PPP places it slightly below Germany – 6th place in the world:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

    Randal , April 17, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT
    @anon "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..

    Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917. I agreed with the main thrust of your comment, but I would just note that I don't agree with the last sentence:

    It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917.

    The essence of the US was always expansion by military and other means, from its settler colonial origins and the Manifest Destiny to the expansionist wars against Mexico and Spain, the Monroe Doctrine, and colonial expansions into Hawaii, the Philippines and central America, all before Wilson, who admittedly took the opportunity handed to him by the self-destructive warring of the European powers to go for the big one.

    It's just the nature of the beast.

    Lewl42, April 17, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita.

    But the US GDP is of an different structure. Compared it is overblown with pure financial sales and "hedonistic adjustments". More is blown by the culture. In the US much more everyday things relies on money. In case of case they are all worth nothing. Furthermore, if it comes to conflicts than the whole US Infrastructure has to be "revalued", and i doubt that it can withheld some stress tests.

    If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke

    No country that relies on oil ( Russia do not) has made substantial improvements. Normally they are problem states where the problems made by oil are solved by money.

    So from my point of view the opposite is true. Russia has made the big mistake to open itself to the west and was bitten. Now they readjust (with a border to china). Thank's to the US Oligarchs which thrown away that chance for they're primitive Neanderthal tribe thinking.

    reiner Tor, Website April 17, 2017 at 12:33 pm GMT
    @mp It is one thing to let a woman "man" a game console in order to fire a missile, or pilot a killer drone, hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the action. But it's another when "boots" hit the ground. I wonder how effective our Americanized, feminized, transgendered, gay friendly, diversified Army and Navy will be when they actually have to storm a beach, somewhere, against a real army--and not some third world outpost. Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". •
    alexander, April 17, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
    Thank you Mr Martyanov, for a highly informative article.

    I am always amazed at the "euphemisms" of our "belligerent war" era, and how they affix themselves, and have affixed themselves, to our mendacious and deceitful behavior.

    Take the idea of a "surge", as was used during the Iraq disaster, as a substitute for the word "escalation" because nobody was comfortable with "escalating the war" once the imminent WMD threat had proven to be phony .so our belligerent elites substituted the word "surge" to ram through funding for the escalation.

    Or lets look at the "euphemisms" of "pre-emptive war" or "preventive war". Do they not function as substitutes for what is , in reality, the greatest crime any nation on earth can commit "War of Aggression"?

    There are other areas too, where we need to take a long, hard look a this " parade of euphemisms" which is constantly inserting itself into the hearts and minds of our citizens .

    For example, lets take a look at the word "propaganda", which is a word that, for the most part, stands on its own ,yet, for arguments sake, does it not function as a "euphemism",( in our ongoing global belligerence) for FRAUD ?

    As we think about these assorted "euphemistic realities" set upon us in our tragic age..we understand the acute distinction between defining something as "war propaganda" versus "WAR FRAUD".

    "War propaganda", however desultory a term, is understood as a legitimate tool within the toolbox of belligerence whereas WAR FRAUD is implicitly understood as a CRIME..which is in need of punishment.

    Have not our euphemistic manipulations , like "preemptive war", or "preventive war",overwhelmed the integrity of our national discourse, and paved the way for heinous murderous behavior which would normally not be tolerated ?,

    Is not their primary purpose to insulate us from our own awareness of the CRIMES we have committed , and will continue to commit ?.

    What a blessing it will be for the whole wide world, once we end this " charade of euphemisms" and start calling things what they truly are.

    Erebus, April 17, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT
    Yes, thank you for an excellent summation of the situation.

    The owners of the US face an Either/Or moment. Either they abandon their ambitions of Global Hegemony, and retreat to attempt to rule over N. America (with some residual dreams of ruling C. & S. America to sweeten the pot) or they go for broke.

    Unlike Dasein, I have no doubt that any dreams of Global Hegemony will come crashing to ground if any sort of a war breaks out. Putin has made it perfectly plain. Russia will never allow itself to be invaded again. That means something, and what it means is that Russia will take the fight to the enemy when it sees its red lines crossed.

    The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired.

    No mushroom clouds or devastated cities, yet, but the Either/Or moment will become acute indeed. One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow their internationalistic instincts when that moment has passed.

    reiner Tor, Website April 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
    @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.

    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).

    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time.

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.

    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved – all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    AP, April 17, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT
    @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time. I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But –

    You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs

    Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.

    "but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can" – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment

    But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.

    iffen, April 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT
    This is an interesting and informative article.

    Can you give us your opinion of the F-35 program and to a lesser extent the LCS program? I have no doubt that we get good and reliable information in the US, but just in case, a different perspective on whether the projected capabilities are actually being met by the weapons would be nice to consider.

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT

    @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time.

    Excellent article – and congratulations on your first article here.

    Thank you.

    Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).

    Processing power in military applications is less dependent on 10 or 28 nm, than on mathematics and algorithms. Both architectures are more than sufficient for the whole spectrum of military tasks, be it signal processing or developing firing solutions.

    I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.

    Apples and oranges. Producing a state-of-the-art nuclear sub is on the order of magnitude more complex task than producing even a very good SSK. China now produces very good AIP SSKs of 039A type, she still is not capable to produce a nuke with at least third generation characteristics.

    Railguns, and associated naval EM systems

    Absolutely useless, other than to impress journalists, in combat paradigm where hyper-sonic missiles with ranges of 1000 kilometers begin to rule the day. I think 3M22 Zircon reaching Mach=8 this weekend on trials is by far more impressive and influential on the tactical and even political level than any rail-gun. Zircon is a change in combat paradigm of such a scale that it is even difficult to completely grasp it at this stage. I may elaborate on it in depth at some point of time.

    reiner Tor,Website April 17, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT
    @AP I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But -
    You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs
    Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
    "but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can" – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
    But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.

    I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran.

    Avery, April 17, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". { suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die .}

    What happens IF straight white men refuse to go and die?

    [Stunning Evidence that the Left Has Won its War on White Males]

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/stunning_evidence_that_the_left_has_won_its_war_on_white_males__comments.html

    {White males, in large numbers, are simply losing their will to live, and as a result, they are dying so prematurely and in such large numbers that a startling demographic gap has emerged. It is not just the "opioid epidemic" that is killing off white working class males, it is a spiritual crisis, and Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have the numbers to sustain this conclusion.}

    Carlton Meyer, • Website April 17, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Over the years, the Pentagon encouraged Congress to move parts of national security spending out of its budget to the extent that almost half is found outside the DOD. The USA really spends over a trillion dollars a year. For example, nuclear weapons research, testing, procurement, and maintenance is found in the Dept of Energy budget.

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/defense-budget/2016/americas-1-trillion-national-security-budget.html

    And as others have noted, GDP is a measure of activity, not prosperity. For example, mortgage refinancing creates lots of GDP, but no real wealth. Hurricanes and arson are good for GDP too!

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT
    @Z-man Hey 'Neocon Cabal' is my phrase!!!!! (wink)
    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity that scares the Americans and the Jews to death. I hope the Iranians get as many of those SAM's as they need to defend against the Zionist threat!

    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity

    It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online, well–it is a different game altogether from there.

    Randal , April 17, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT
    An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.

    But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends. Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.

    If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect, measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:

    Share of world gdp, ppp:

    US
    2020 14.878%
    2015 15.809%
    2010 16.846%
    2000 20.76%

    China
    2020 19.351%
    2015 17.082%
    2010 13.822%
    2000 7.389%

    Russia
    2020 2.836%
    2015 3.275%
    2010 3.641%
    2000 3.294%

    Source IMF per economywatch.com

    Population (2017):

    China: 1,388,232,693

    US: 326,474,013

    Russia: 143,375,006

    These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative to all rivals, for decades to come.

    To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).

    The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might be different.

    The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities.

    mushroom, April 17, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT
    When folks discuss Russia's capabilities they often forget what's blatantly obvious – which is what's not obvious, i.e. what the bear has created and is in it's hidden caves. What happened to that U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea was just a teasing mini-harbinger of this reality!

    So is the genius to create a cavity to eavesdrop, &c If you want to enjoy happy days don't mess with the bear!

    5371, April 17, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Stupid beyond belief. Countries can't go broke doing something, if they control the natural and human resources they need to accomplish it. In addition, you apparently did not read Smoothie's explanation of why just comparing the sums spent is silly. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
    @Randal I agreed with the main thrust of your comment, but I would just note that I don't agree with the last sentence:

    It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917.

    The essence of the US was always expansion by military and other means, from its settler colonial origins and the Manifest Destiny to the expansionist wars against Mexico and Spain, the Monroe Doctrine, and colonial expansions into Hawaii, the Philippines and central America, all before Wilson, who admittedly took the opportunity handed to him by the self-destructive warring of the European powers to go for the big one.

    It's just the nature of the beast. Yes but up until 1898 – the war against Spain – the US actually got something out of its wars. Wars with countries BEYOND the Americas have gained nothing for America. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    5371 , April 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
    I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. Turkey's military has a decent reputation, but I'm not sure that the reputation corresponds with reality any longer. •
    Agent76 , April 17, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT
    • 100 Words March 19, 2017 Putin Prepares For Invasion of Europe With Massive Cuts to Military Spending

    Russia announces "deepest defense budget cuts since 1990s". Putin must be stopped before it's too late. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world has enjoyed an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity. Long gone are the days of wasteful military expenditures and no-bid contracts to build airplanes and aircraft carriers that neither fly nor float.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46686.htm

    Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose

    Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    ANOSPH , April 17, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
    It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online, well--it is a different game altogether from there. Excellent article. I look forward to many more from you.

    Re: the S400, for those interested, TASS developed an excellent and visually appealing overview on the system in Russian:

    Just keep scrolling down.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
    I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. The real point is that Russia and Turkey are almost neighbors while N.K. is about 8,000 miles from the US. In other words the US could ignore Korea. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    5371 , April 17, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @reiner Tor

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    Neither France nor Germany could have stayed out once Russia was in, but then both of them had given their respective allies every encouragement to bring matters to a head. The French had a great increase in self-confidence just in the last two or three years. You are right that Serbia didn't even decide to reject the ultimatum until they heard Russia was already going ahead with pre-mobilisation. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". Hopefully at least some of those straight white males will know better. Hopefully.

    Then again people often act contrary to their best interests.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Hunsdon , April 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
    Thank you, sir. Great article. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
    • 300 WordsNEW! @Randal An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.

    But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends. Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.

    If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect, measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:

    Share of world gdp, ppp:

    US
    2020 14.878%
    2015 15.809%
    2010 16.846%
    2000 20.76%

    China
    2020 19.351%
    2015 17.082%
    2010 13.822%
    2000 7.389%


    Russia
    2020 2.836%
    2015 3.275%
    2010 3.641%
    2000 3.294%

    Source IMF per economywatch.com

    Population (2017):

    China: 1,388,232,693

    US: 326,474,013

    Russia: 143,375,006

    These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative to all rivals, for decades to come.

    To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).

    The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might be different.

    The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities.

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US "missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.

    P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological dimensions. You want to see operational dimension–look no further than Mosul which is still, after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff Academy uses virtually identical definition.

    anon , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @reiner Tor

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    That is a point I have often tried to make. Had the Tsar just told the Serbs flat out, "You guys are on your own. Comply. Or fight the Central Powers by yourself. We are out of it.",' there would never have been a 'Great' war (WW1). At most the 'war' would have been a minor brawl between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. History would have recorded it as just another Balkan skirmish. It would have been virtually forgotten today. This was the initial assumption of the Kaiser when he issued his 'blank check' of support. The Tsar would have saved millions of lives, including his own and his family too. Just nine years earlier the Tsar had fought and lost a disastrous war with Japan. That defeat led to a revolution that came within a hair of deposing him. He SHOULD have learned his lesson and avoided any future conflict like the plague. Tsar Nicolas was an incredibly stupid man. He deserves far more vilification then the Kaiser does. •
    TG , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
    • 300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.

    1. "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.

    2. In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world. But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?

    3. The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term. At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses, loading up college students with massive unpayable debt so that university administrators can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible. To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anonymouse , April 17, 2017 at 3:12 pm GMT
    @Art Russia said it was going to bolster Syria's air defenses.

    If true – what does this mean for Israeli air power over Syria and Lebanon?

    Hezbollah has shown, even with its air force behind it that the IDF is a paper tiger.

    Without its air forces at 100%, Israel is very vulnerable. A war would be very costly. Many Jews want to leave Israel as it is now.

    Peace --- Art You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit. •

    Vendetta , April 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @reiner Tor

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    Japan was certainly the greatest beneficiary of the war in economic terms. Their exports ended up tripling to fuel the demand of the wartime European economies and especially to fill in the gap for consumer goods in the East Asian markets whose normal suppliers had redirected their production for the war effort. Shipbuilding in Japan also boomed as a result of wartime demands. Pre-WWI Japan was still importing most of its major warships from Britain; post-WWI Japan was building them all on its own.

    Romania gained a lot in territory but its doubtful whether these gains were worth it in terms of the lives they cost.

    The United States certainly gained in terms of geopolitical power, but that was largely due to the same wartime economic circumstances that had benefited Japan, with the addition of supplanting Britain as the world's leading financial power. These gains, however, would have been won whether or not we'd sent 100,000 of our own to die in France, so their lives ultimately amounted to little more than a sacrifice to Woodrow Wilson's egomaniacal dreams of reshaping the world order into a utopia.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    5371 , April 17, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time. WW1, unlike Barbarossa, didn't start with a German attack on Russia, although in each case the argument was made by some (stronger in retrospective for 1941 than 1914) that Russia would be too strong to take on in a couple of years. The difference is that a number of factors – the ideological conflict, the success of "blitzkrieg", the weak Soviet performance at the start of the Finnish war – created an illusory hope of easy victory for the Germans along with the fear of later defeat. That tipped the balance in favour of attack.
    As I understand it, the claimed regular progress to smaller and smaller chip feature sizes has for some time been a matter of marketing, not reality. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    DannyMarcus , April 17, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. •
    Randal , April 17, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @AP I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But -

    You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs
    Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.

    "but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can" – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
    But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.

    Russia would crush Turkey very quickly in a straight one on one conflict, though it would struggle to physically occupy it. The only reason Turkey would have any capability to resist at all is that Turkey has full US backing, both in terms of the NATO alliance and in terms of the military systems and capabilities it fields. Russia's capabilities, in contrast, are wholly indigenous. Individually, the two countries are not remotely in the same class, militarily.

    Likewise for the US versus Iran or NK. The problem would likely not be in defeating the military forces themselves, but in occupying and holding ground longer term, and dealing with problems caused by horizontal escalation.

    These are issues not really of military capabilities, but rather of national political will to apply those capabilities ruthlessly and to inflict and to take the losses required for total victory.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    gwynedd1 , April 17, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT
    The US is not worried about Russia. They were worried about the EU and Russia with economic links to China. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Vendetta , April 17, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @5371 Turkey's military has a decent reputation, but I'm not sure that the reputation corresponds with reality any longer. Their recent mishaps in Syria certainly cast some doubts on their formidable reputation. However I would hesitate to go so far as to say that Turkey has become a paper tiger.

    I don't know if there's a more professional terminology for this, but I think there is a difference between what you might call weakness the surface level and weakness at the core.

    The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.

    America in the years before it became a permanently mobilized state was also prone to this sort of happening in the initial stages of its wars – see the rout at Kasserine Pass in World War II or the initial defeats it suffered to the North Koreans in 1950. The British made "our Italians" jokes after Kasserine, but these had a short shelf life as US performance picked up very quickly afterwards.

    The state of the Turkish military right now seems more likely to be one of surface-level weakness (which would be tempered by exposure to battle) than of core-level weakness (which would be exacerbated by it).

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Anon , April 17, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/this-cold-war-is-even-crazier-than-the-last/19689#.WPTiK9QrK4Q Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Astuteobservor II , April 17, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
    excellent first article on unz. looking forward to more. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    inertial , April 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT
    • 100 Words A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising, as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't.

    • Agree: Kiza •
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
    • 100 Words

    The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.

    Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief)
    was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.

    Gen. Waldemar Erfuth
    Wermacht Army Attache in Finish General Staff
    from book: Fighting in Hell – German Ordeal on Eastern Front

    reiner Tor , • Website April 17, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT
    @Ondrej

    The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.
    Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief)
    was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.

    Gen. Waldemar Erfuth
    Wermacht Army Attache in Finish General Staff
    from book: Fighting in Hell - German Ordeal on Eastern Front

    Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief) was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.

    When was it?

    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising, as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market.

    Try to make following thought experiment, what would happen with SP100 financial valuation of shares GN a Lockheed in case of conflict and what would be impact on with Suchoi and MIG shares and how this would impact real economy instead of economics?

    Luckily there is still plenty of people in Russian companies who were educated in economy instead of economics..

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't.

    From seeing some discussions in Russian TV channels, I can say people in Russia are in fact disgusted with part of government still trying to apply Western type of economics..

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor

    Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief) was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.
    When was it? according to book 4. March 1943

    Mannerheim in front of German General as reaction to some public speech of H. Göring before.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    bluedog , April 17, 2017 at 5:36 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
    Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US "missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.

    P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still, after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff Academy uses virtually identical definition. Very good article and David Stockman says the same thing on our GDP that its do to very creative accounting much like our BLS report . Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , April 17, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
    • 600 Words Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said – I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.

    Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in battle.

    In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum: no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies, like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?

    As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level – I remember well the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT
    • 300 WordsNEW! @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising, as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't.

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    Mind you–this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever–make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about 10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident.

    Jonathan Revusky , • Website April 17, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
    • 200 Words I think this is a good article. I say "I think so" because the truth of the matter is that I lack the detailed domain knowledge to be able to evaluate it very well.

    The comment I would make about it (which is not a critique of the article per se ) is that Russia (or the USSR speaking more precisely) did suffer a horrendous defeat from which it is still recovering - I mean, in the Cold War. However, that defeat was not military in nature. It was entirely political/psychological/ideological. (N.B. The complete neocon/zionist takeover of the U.S. and other Western countries also occurred without firing a shot, no?)

    Anyway, no grand battles occurred like Stalingrad or Kursk, yet somehow the USSR was as defeated a nation in the 1990′s as Germany was in 1945! In my view, the AngloZionists would be more interested in repeating that feat, than actually getting into a real hot war. That, also, would be their template for defeating China, as opposed to getting into some land war in Asia.

    I assume the above, because I have the tendency to think they are crazy, but not that crazy. But that said, I don't know for sure either. Maybe they really are that crazy and I just don't want to believe it. After all, it's really terrifying to think they are insane on that level.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    carlos22 , April 17, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
    • 100 Words Russia is in the position to be king maker out of China & US.

    Think about it Russia collapses & disintergrates, Siberia goes to China, which with all this land mass, energy reserves and population overtakes the US to become leading superpower. Ask yourself is that what the US wants?

    Or

    China betrays Russia, Russia then goes on to be US bitch, allows US missile defence to encircle China with US bases. China looses a key friend at the UN, when the SHTF in Tibet, Tywan or Hong Kong China finds its self alone. Is that what China wants?

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.

    Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in battle.

    In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum: no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies, like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?

    As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more.

    Superb and efficient educational system of USSR. Last generation is in their forties.
    Rules –
    1. push what you can into children when they young and train them properly
    2. Go fast, finish University in 22 – go to production and learn from olders
    3. Go trough Army service (only when you are already extremely good you are exempt)

    This gives you head start, you are conditioned to design things that work.

    Problem with many current – not only military products, that their designers often do not have idea how they are used..

    You simply can not take classes of ergonomic design and design even hammer correctly as it is often case with different innovative gadgets nowadays:-)

    Kiza , April 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
    • 300 Words @reiner Tor

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    You and your responders are obviously not Russian, because you exhibit a terribly superficial knowledge of the pre WW1 Europe and Russia. You must have learned your history in US or British schools.

    The situation in Europe in 1914 was much, much more complicated than your simple minds could comprehend. The key factor was the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the power vacuum that this has created in the Balkans. This has encouraged all European powers of the time, from U.K., through Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the way to Russia to have designs for the area. Russia actually cultivated most Serbian nationalistic groups to counter the influence of U.K. and Germany/Austria in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia just did not let its Balkan proxies, the Serbs, down when attacked by Austro-Hungary, but it was involved in what was happening in the Balkans even before the war started. Yes, there was internal opposition in Russia against getting involved in the Balkans, but the non-interventionists lost. The U.K. was trying to prop up the dying Turkish Empire to remain an enemy of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary were trying to acquire as much new territory and population in the Balkans as possible. Russia just could not allow the Catholic Austro-Hungary to strengthen further after the annexation of Bosnia in 1908. France was on the same side. And so on.

    Is it not amazing how most of Western history of WW1 starts with Archduke's assassination in Sarajevo, instead of power vacuum in Southeast Europe and aggressive imperial designs at the turn of the century? It is typical Western bullshit history. Nobody had evil intentions, everybody was just dragged into WW1.

    You can observe that today's Russians are blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution in Russia and cause Tsar family's deaths, instead of the Serbs who were defending themselves against an expansionist Catholic Empire. It is mainly the British and US "historians", and their Russian liberals who are blaming the Serbs for WW1, the same old, same old Anglo-Zionist bull.

    Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT
    @Randal An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.

    But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends. Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.

    If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect, measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:

    Share of world gdp, ppp:

    US
    2020 14.878%
    2015 15.809%
    2010 16.846%
    2000 20.76%

    China
    2020 19.351%
    2015 17.082%
    2010 13.822%
    2000 7.389%


    Russia
    2020 2.836%
    2015 3.275%
    2010 3.641%
    2000 3.294%

    Source IMF per economywatch.com

    Population (2017):

    China: 1,388,232,693

    US: 326,474,013

    Russia: 143,375,006

    These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative to all rivals, for decades to come.

    To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).

    The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might be different.

    The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities. Randal, what do you think happens if neutron star approaches red giant? US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars. Is US going to hit Russia with nice shoes, highly apprised real estate or S&P500? Creative accounting is another thing that makes US GDP larger than it really is. •

    AP , April 17, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

    Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident.

    While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion.

    Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/business/tesla-ford-general-motors-stock-market.html?_r=0

    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov •
    syd.bgd , April 17, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT
    Great article. Thanks. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures "Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita." this is very funny, how about the 20 trillions of US national debt and it is skyrocketing fast? If you only count asset without counting liability US maybe in the top 10 GDP per capita, but if you count net asset the US is in the negative GDP per capita, a broke nation. Perhaps it is American Exceptionalism logic, claiming credit where credit is not due, living in a world detached from reality.

    "If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke." this is even funnier, Russian does not use USD in Russia, nor Russian government pay its MIC in USD, meanwhile Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed, why does oil price have any relationship with Russian internal spending? Another example of "completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities" which is defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices and snakeoil economic theories and rhetoric taught in the western universities.

    Art , April 17, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Anonymouse You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit. You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.

    Pointing out the evils of Zionist Israel is not mean – it is crucial.

    Exposing Judaism and Zionism for their backward ways is the only path to a peaceful just world.

    The Kushner White House is now pushing us to war in N Korea.

    Congress must stop this – but they cannot because Jews control them also.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Good god – Trump is sending two more carrier groups to Korea!

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT
    • 100 WordsNEW! @AP

    While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion.
    Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/business/tesla-ford-general-motors-stock-market.html?_r=0

    Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:

    Faced with the choice between most expensive Tesla and new F-150 truck for free–I would choose Tesla, sell it back to dealership or would find some moron from Redmond/Kirkland area and sell Tesla to him and then would go buy F-150 and would use the rest of the money for other useful purposes, such as donating to animal shelter or will help some family in need. I certainly would make sure that I have the access to a bottle or two of really good bourbon to celebrate my new F-150. I wish, though, that Subaru made trucks.

    • Agree: AP Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Wally , April 17, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT
    • 100 Words I seriously doubt the author's statement:

    Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet

    Seriously? The technological & industrial genius of Germany could not produce it's own jet fighter?
    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.

    Laughable.

    Granted, AFAIK, it's current fighters are 'collaborative' with other Europeans.
    IOW, Germany did the heavy lifting.

    Diversity Heretic , April 17, 2017 at 8:25 pm GMT
    @anon "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..

    Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917. The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. •

    Art , April 17, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.

    Too late – Trump is sending in two more carrier groups.

    US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carriers Toward Korean Peninsula: Yonhap

    According to a report by South Korea's primary news outlet, Yonhap, the Pentagon has directed a total of three US aircraft carriers toward the Korean Peninsula, citing a South Korean government source.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-17/us-deploys-two-more-aircraft-carriers-toward-korean-peninsula-yonhap

    This is insane – another preventive war like Iraq – but on China and Russia's doorstep.

    Congress must stop this!

    Peace - Art

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT
    • 400 WordsNEW! @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.

    Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in battle.

    In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum: no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies, like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?

    As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.

    But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    Generally legitimate point but it will require a very expanded answer. I will, at some point, elaborate on it–there are some serious nuances.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Largely true. However, in serious signal processing systems such as radar, sonar, combat control (management) systems etc. the main secret are mathematics (algorithms). Just to give you an example, it was impossible for China to copy any software from any Russian-made systems. As an example, Shtil Air Defense complexes which went to China after she bought Project 956 destroyers in 1990s are defended such way that any attempt to tamper with their (and other systems') brains results in a clean slate. It is true today also, actually, especially today. China now is receiving full Russian "version" of SU-35 and of S-400, they still will not be able to copy it. Mimic somewhat? Yes. After all they do have their own S-300 knock offs. Copy? No. They will try, of course but, say, SU-35 engine and avionics is still beyond their reach.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance?

    I believe Ondrej made a good, albeit partial case, for you in his response. Let me put it this way–viewing Russia's public schools' 8-9th grade books on math and physics (and chemistry) may create a state of shock in many, even elite, US schools and not among students only I know.

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT
    NEW! @Ondrej

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more.
    Superb and efficient educational system of USSR. Last generation is in their forties.
    Rules -
    1. push what you can into children when they young and train them properly
    2. Go fast, finish University in 22 - go to production and learn from olders
    3. Go trough Army service (only when you are already extremely good you are exempt)

    This gives you head start, you are conditioned to design things that work.

    Problem with many current - not only military products, that their designers often do not have idea how they are used..

    You simply can not take classes of ergonomic design and design even hammer correctly as it is often case with different innovative gadgets nowadays:-) Some very good points you made. •

    Sam Shama , April 17, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT
    • 400 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
    Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US "missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.

    P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still, after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff Academy uses virtually identical definition.

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,

    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    AtomAnt , April 17, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
    @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising, as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't. That's just bankster propaganda. In truth, anything past 5% (generously) for the financial sector is just parasitism. The US S&P 500 hovers around 30% financial sector. That's just elites extracting resources from productive people. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    anonHUN , April 17, 2017 at 8:47 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that the old days are back.

    On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the "job" that was left unfinished in the 90′s according to their view. They want regime change in Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc. Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.

    Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
    US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.

    Verymuchalive , April 17, 2017 at 8:49 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

    Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident. The financialisation of the economy has been a disaster in most Western countries, especially for manufacturing companies. I had personal dealings with Pilkingtons, a World-leading British glass company. At the first opportunity, the Banks and other corporate investors sold it to a Japanese competitor. Pilkingtons is now a branch operation and has lost its research base.
    Mr Putin seems to realise the importance of indigenous manufacturing industry- and not only for defence- related purposes. So the capitalisation of such companies has been treated with great caution, e g Gazprom. I could be wrong, of course.
    So I must ask if you think Mr Putin has an Advanced Manufacturing Strategy in place, like Eamonn Fingleton sees in Japan, Korea, Germany etc. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT
    • 200 WordsNEW! @Wally I seriously doubt the author's statement:

    Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet ...
    Seriously? The technological & industrial genius of Germany could not produce it's own jet fighter?
    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.

    Laughable.

    Granted, AFAIK, it's current fighters are 'collaborative' with other Europeans.
    IOW, Germany did the heavy lifting.

    Germany did the heavy lifting.

    Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.

    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.

    Actually:

    Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder, so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;)

    Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT
    • 100 Words ,

    There is wisdom to the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Your WW1 rant is lacking in accurate facts and the actual facts that you refer to are misapplied subsequently your logic is flawed and you find yourself in the oft quoted IBM construct of GIGO.

    The genesis and the triggers for the eruption of WW1 are broad and complex and could generally be put in the context of the colloquial term " a perfect storm". Your Slavic tinted glasses illuminate only a tip of the tip of the iceberg as it were. I state this in the spirit of constructive criticism.

    Cheers-

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 9:14 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov Some very good points you made. Having recent experience in teaching in former socialist country and remembering and comparing with past I must say

    It is quite painful to watch horrors of destruction of once functional educational system of your own country which is trying to mimic current trends in western education.

    I guess in Russia, given by typical Slavic tendency to extremes, is even more horrible. But it looks like they do get it and they have still chance revert this trend.

    First step is always to recognize problem, which is in my opinion given by public discussions such as

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    bluedog , April 17, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Sam Shama

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,
    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    Hmm first we would have to rebuild our manufacturing sector seeing most of our goods including military are outsourced out, and I question the raw economics endowment what ever they are, and then you have to retrain the workers for the old class is gone and the new isn't all that inclined to work, and who would want to invest in a hallowed out economy, trillions in debt more trillions in future liabilities trillions in derivitives little to no natural resources left military projects milked to the bone months years overdue I'm afraid your caught in the light on the hill we are exceptional bit but I presume that's to be expected.. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT
    @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. If these countries really wanted to stop the USA, why not make the American troops leave their countries? Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Corvinus , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT
    @Diversity Heretic The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. "The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security."

    At the time, yes. In the long run, no.

    "The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan "

    Imperialistic ambitions in the Pacific by the U.S. and Japan put our nations on a path to fight.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    colm , April 17, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT
    @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    Those who fought for the Entente in the Great War fought for the sake of the Third World.

    Veterans Day should be abolished immediately. Memorial Day is enough.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Diversity Heretic The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. Yes of course, you are right. The 1898 war with Spain was 100% a war of choice for America. Without it, it was certainly possible war with Japan could have been avoided. Also agree that Puerto Rico has proven to be utterly worthless to America. Should be given its independence ASAP. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. Eu, japan, taiwaneses, south koreans Their governements are all puppets, whores of washington, the people doesnt matter, we (I am european) have no voice- All westerns politics are the same whores. Countrys and people have no value. Only globalists are going for bussines. Rusia is the great premium: The major land in the world- Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
    • 300 Words @SmoothieX12

    The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP and GNP tabulations.

    Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first and foremost and that was that.

    I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.

    Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident (USS Donald Cook).

    Cheers-

    The Alarmist , April 17, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Erebus Yes, thank you for an excellent summation of the situation.

    The owners of the US face an Either/Or moment. Either they abandon their ambitions of Global Hegemony, and retreat to attempt to rule over N. America (with some residual dreams of ruling C. & S. America to sweeten the pot) or they go for broke.

    Unlike Dasein, I have no doubt that any dreams of Global Hegemony will come crashing to ground if any sort of a war breaks out. Putin has made it perfectly plain. Russia will never allow itself to be invaded again. That means something, and what it means is that Russia will take the fight to the enemy when it sees its red lines crossed.
    The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired.

    No mushroom clouds or devastated cities, yet, but the Either/Or moment will become acute indeed. One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow their internationalistic instincts when that moment has passed.

    "The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired."

    You have nut-jobs in Congress talking out hacking being an act of war and planners talking about massive NATO reponse as being appropriate can one seriously believe the US would not repond with nukes in the event of such an attack, even though it is non-nuclear?

    Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:54 pm GMT
    My WW1 post was for Kiza. Somehow that got scrubbed Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Sam Shama

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,
    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    I will add bit of Central Europe perspective:-)

    Products of US economic endowments which I use in Europe or see some value in them:

    a) Military Complex (waste of money)
    b) Boeing (OK that is serious, not flying much lately)
    c) Hollywod movies (huge industry, some movies are good but mostly rubbish)
    d) Coca-Cola (sometimes nice – but can live without it)
    e) MacDonald (only in rush for their car ride)
    f) Microsoft Windows (I hate it)
    g) Apple products (well I have still preference for them, but they are mostly produced in China anyway)
    h) Harley-Davidson (not any value for me, but it is as American as it can be:-)

    To be honest, I am more interested if I have heated home and electricity runnig, provided in form of nuclear, gas or oil fuel from Russia + some Siemens technology provided by Germany for Electrical Grid regulation and function of PowerPlants..

    inertial , April 17, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT
    • 300 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

    Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident. You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps – all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom. Well, duh.

    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.

    In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise as much capital as they need.

    As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities. Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?

    Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an idiot.

    Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
    It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online, well--it is a different game altogether from there. Well, it shouldn't be that complicated because it has to be used rapidly. Hopefully it is easy for the user to operate it.
    Thanks for the reply. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT
    @Ondrej

    There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.
    I will add bit of Central Europe perspective:-)

    Products of US economic endowments which I use in Europe or see some value in them:

    a) Military Complex (waste of money)
    b) Boeing (OK that is serious, not flying much lately)
    c) Hollywod movies (huge industry, some movies are good but mostly rubbish)
    d) Coca-Cola (sometimes nice - but can live without it)
    e) MacDonald (only in rush for their car ride)
    f) Microsoft Windows (I hate it)
    g) Apple products (well I have still preference for them, but they are mostly produced in China anyway)
    h) Harley-Davidson (not any value for me, but it is as American as it can be:-)

    To be honest, I am more interested if I have heated home and electricity runnig, provided in form of nuclear, gas or oil fuel from Russia + some Siemens technology provided by Germany for Electrical Grid regulation and function of PowerPlants..

    You are coming as a very pragmatic sort of a man •
    Cyrano , April 17, 2017 at 10:31 pm GMT
    • 300 Words Any military conflict between Russia and US is bound to degenerate into nuclear war. That's because only degenerates can plan such event and even try to predict "survivability" of such war. I believe only recently US funded a study to explore the outcome of such conflict. You don't have to be military genius to realize that the odds are in Russia's favor.

    How so? Simple. More than half of US population lives in 30 major cities. Russia's population is much more dispersed. I think I read somewhere that during the cold war US had enough nukes to destroy every USSR city of 10 000 and more inhabitants. Still, the Russians can inflict far more casualties targeting far fewer cities than US can.

    For those who think that western weapons are superior because they are more complicated – perfection is always simple.

    One of the most symptomatic examples of what's wrong with American military technology is F35. At the end of the cold war the feeling of omnipotence has spread into their military technology. F35 was supposed to do the job of what previously used to be done by several different planes. It was supposed to be a ground support, vertical takeoff, interceptor, aircraft carrier based, bomber, air superiority fighter plane.

    While they were at it, why they didn't include in their specifications ability to fly to the moon, be used as a cargo plane, awacs, fuel refueling tanker and passenger plane. When something is designed to be universally good at different tasks it usually ends not being particularly good at any of them.

    Congratulations on your first article Andrei, keep up the good work.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    inertial , April 17, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
    @Sergey Krieger Randal, what do you think happens if neutron star approaches red giant? US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars. Is US going to hit Russia with nice shoes, highly apprised real estate or S&P500? Creative accounting is another thing that makes US GDP larger than it really is.

    US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars.

    You say it as though it's a bad thing.

    Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT
    @Art You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.

    Pointing out the evils of Zionist Israel is not mean - it is crucial.

    Exposing Judaism and Zionism for their backward ways is the only path to a peaceful just world.

    The Kushner White House is now pushing us to war in N Korea.

    Congress must stop this - but they cannot because Jews control them also.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. Good god – Trump is sending two more carrier groups to Korea!

    Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission. It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I get my blood pressure up! •
    Today,s Thought , April 17, 2017 at 10:42 pm GMT
    [ ] • 3,200 WORDS • 93 COMMENTS • REPLY [ ]
    Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    Germany did the heavy lifting.
    Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.

    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
    Actually:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Lyulka

    Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder, so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;) This reminds me of the line from 'Ice Station Zebra' by the Patrick McGoohan played character 'David Jones of MI6′, "The Russians put our (Brits) camera made by *our* German scientists and your (US) film made by *your* German scientists into their satellite made by *their* German scientists." LOL! Exaggeration of course but funny and somewhat true. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 10:53 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. There are a lot of nations wanting wars between USA, Russia and China, from top of the list is Japan, India, UK, They believe they will be the next global hegemons standing on the ashes of USA, Russia and China.

    Taiwanese are mentally colonized Japanese wannabes, they will be happy just returning to the Japanese colony status.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @inertial

    US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars.
    You say it as though it's a bad thing. No, I am just trying to look at it from the point of view currently discussed. Namely Russian GDP is being mocked as an inadequate to stand up to USA in military terms.
    I am just pointing that what GDP consists of is far more important that nominal size of it.
    Namely, Italy might have a large share of GDP coming from tourist industry and designers shoes and other garments. . How is it relevant to military power?
    US GDP also is full of basically fraudulent valuations. Tesla as it was pointed is just one example and Facebook and others are another. •
    Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that the old days are back.

    On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the "job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc. Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.

    Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
    US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small. "still 20 years behind on average?" since you are fabricating thru the thin air, why did you stop at 20 years? Why didn't you say 30 years behind, 40 years behind, ? You should know fake news is always fake new regardless it is a small fake news or a big fake news. •

    martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT
    • 200 Words good post smooty. And good coments also.I have three issues I am thinking some time ago. First: The soviet Union not colapsed, Gorbachev vas not a moron or a traitor. It was 50 years chess-game- The west is in turmoil already. Gorbachev did not do nothing without the approbation of the hundreds of specialists .The same with Trump, as USA has about more than 5 milions of people working in intel or something about. Second misread: Usa did not lost the war in Irak or Afganistan., as is said by journalists. Bush (W) said it in clair: I´ll bring the caos to irak, to stoneage.
    In Afganistan they are for 16 years for run the caos meantime. If they left , te country could go normaly, They cant afford this. Is for future desestabilization of central asia. Three: In the future war, you can see that the europeens are too sweet for go to war against Russia (Don´t talk about the gays, trans and woman of de USA Army) : What about theese 2 milions of refugees (arabs mens in militar age, all men?) All in Germany. This is not an Army for go to fight with russia? Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anatoly Karlin , • Website April 17, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT
    • 100 WordsNEW! @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 11:23 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality".

    US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality"

    That did not happen during the Korean War and Vietnam War. The straight white men stayed behind and played gook hockey games.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    DanC , April 17, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT
    If anyone is interested in the perverse incentives in place in the US military development system, which result in such spectacular failures and misallocation of resources, you could read this:

    http://chuckspinney.blogspot.ca/p/the-defense-death-spiral-why-defense.html

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT
    • 100 Words The westerns politics, that works against their own people (starting with Merkel), and are absolute whores or the globalists of washington and elsewere .. (city of London, Rotschilds, Jews,Vatican, , etc) Have learned the trick of the proxys, as they are now in Siria. And conciousness that the european people are against else war, (and dont talk about the gay-trans-woman army of the EEUU) The criminals europeans politics are getting milions of future proxy warriors from muslim countrys. Their job will be the war we are not going. They, the "refugees" will get money, drugs, guns, slave women, alcohol, and will go to war against rusia, and in europe inf they are said. cheers.
    Ahh!.. They give him the blue pill, also, (Are not than macho men?) Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Wally , April 17, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Germany did the heavy lifting.
    Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.

    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
    Actually:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Lyulka

    Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder, so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;) You really need to know what you are talking about:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

    About "Lyulka"?

    " In 1945-47 he designed the first Soviet jet engine ".

    Hoisted by your own petard.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Zzz , April 17, 2017 at 11:44 pm GMT
    @Kiza You and your responders are obviously not Russian, because you exhibit a terribly superficial knowledge of the pre WW1 Europe and Russia. You must have learned your history in US or British schools.

    The situation in Europe in 1914 was much, much more complicated than your simple minds could comprehend. The key factor was the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the power vacuum that this has created in the Balkans. This has encouraged all European powers of the time, from U.K., through Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the way to Russia to have designs for the area. Russia actually cultivated most Serbian nationalistic groups to counter the influence of U.K. and Germany/Austria in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia just did not let its Balkan proxies, the Serbs, down when attacked by Austro-Hungary, but it was involved in what was happening in the Balkans even before the war started. Yes, there was internal opposition in Russia against getting involved in the Balkans, but the non-interventionists lost. The U.K. was trying to prop up the dying Turkish Empire to remain an enemy of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary were trying to acquire as much new territory and population in the Balkans as possible. Russia just could not allow the Catholic Austro-Hungary to strengthen further after the annexation of Bosnia in 1908. France was on the same side. And so on.

    Is it not amazing how most of Western history of WW1 starts with Archduke's assassination in Sarajevo, instead of power vacuum in Southeast Europe and aggressive imperial designs at the turn of the century? It is typical Western bullshit history. Nobody had evil intentions, everybody was just dragged into WW1.

    You can observe that today's Russians are blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution in Russia and cause Tsar family's deaths, instead of the Serbs who were defending themselves against an expansionist Catholic Empire. It is mainly the British and US "historians", and their Russian liberals who are blaming the Serbs for WW1, the same old, same old Anglo-Zionist bull.

    Russians blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution

    Russian who are blaming the Serbs for WW1

    Are the same people.

    inertial , April 17, 2017 at 11:47 pm GMT
    @Sergey Krieger No, I am just trying to look at it from the point of view currently discussed. Namely Russian GDP is being mocked as an inadequate to stand up to USA in military terms.
    I am just pointing that what GDP consists of is far more important that nominal size of it.
    Namely, Italy might have a large share of GDP coming from tourist industry and designers shoes and other garments. . How is it relevant to military power?
    US GDP also is full of basically fraudulent valuations. Tesla as it was pointed is just one example and Facebook and others are another. I agree with you. I just wish that Russian GDP had a lot more of those non-military components.

    Incidentally, market cap has nothing to do with GDP. I'm pretty sure that Facebook's contribution to GDP is minuscule.

    DanC , April 17, 2017 at 11:48 pm GMT
    • 100 Words One of the most spectacular misallocation of resources has been the US Navy's insistence on building ever-more surface ships of ever-increasing complexity, while allowing their submarine fleet to languish, and neglecting missile & torpedo technology.

    The reason is career path incentives in the Navy, and in the defense contractor corporations, not in rational consideration of the directions naval warfare is developing in the rest of the world.

    I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: the first time a surface fleet, no matter how modern, how large, even a carrier group, is attacked by a well-commanded, networked battery of modern missles, like the Moskit, Onyx or BrahMos, there will be debacle of historic proportions.

    Thousands of sailors and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware will be headed to the bottom.

    Sergey Krieger , April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT
    • 100 Words @inertial I agree with you. I just wish that Russian GDP had a lot more of those non-military components.

    Incidentally, market cap has nothing to do with GDP. I'm pretty sure that Facebook's contribution to GDP is minuscule. For this I believe nationalization of what was "privatized" in 90′s is needed and new industrialization drive to become more self sufficient and less dependent upon outsiders. Finances also is a matter of concern. Russia has very good experience in how to do it. Political power will is needed though. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Mark Chapman , • Website April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT
    • 200 Words Agreed; the US Navy only continues to pursue railgun technology to use up budget dollars – a peculiarity of western defense budgeting is that if you show efficiency by using less than the full amount allocated for your operations, maintenance and R&D, your budget is likely to be cut by that much next cycle. The USN has gone back to the drawing-board on railgun development, but absent a power-supply breakthrough it is unrealistic except as a vanity project.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-railgun-dream-could-be-denied-by-two-big-problems-17301

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/this-is-why-the-navy-cant-have-nice-railguns

    An additional argument in Russia's favour is that many of its systems are built simply to be rugged and easily operated by someone with a minimum of training, like a conscript, although the top end of the air defense systems are still largely operated by specialists. Western systems often are unnecessarily complex – sometimes seemingly just to impress reviewers – and the fiasco of the F-35 nightmare serves as exemplary of what happens when corporatism gets the upper hand on government; any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard of pork-barreling and design changes.

    As far as the navy goes, I made some of the same points myself some years ago, particularly the gross discrepancy in the cost of the USN's Littoral Combat Ships compared with – in this instance – China's missile corvettes.

    https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/fall-out-and-secure-for-sea-the-2012-sino-russian-naval-exercises/comment-page-1/

    Thanks for a great piece; it was timely, informative, thought-provoking and chock-full of meaty phrases and terminology I cannot wait to borrow.

    Avery , April 18, 2017 at 12:22 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
    It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online, well--it is a different game altogether from there. {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}

    Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g. U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
    Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
    No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable conditions of real war.

    To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
    To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.

    Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
    I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s too, unofficially).

    AtomAnt , April 18, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT
    • 200 Words @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that the old days are back.

    On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the "job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc. Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.

    Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
    US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small. "Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average"

    Dude, you're delusional. The US military is to a large extent a paper tiger. Example: Aircraft carriers are not survivable against Russian or Chinese missiles and subs. They are good for bombing 3rd world countries only, like 19th century gunboats (plus fattening MIC coffers). Example: A Rand report found the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, isn't fast enough to run away".
    I would argue nothing is as important as missile technology. Russia may be leading in that.
    Furthermore, the US has lower income and less capital now than 20 years ago. Russia has a central bank focused on rational economics rather than milking the country for billionaires' sake. They insist on positive interest rates so savers get the benefit of their money. That's why Russia is growing albeit slowly while the US regresses.
    The US will find fighting Russia is not like fighting Arabs. (Remember what some Israeli general said about fighting Arabs.) The US hasn't fought without air superiority in over 74 years.
    Note the moral dimension, also. The US has to pay its military 2X the equivalent private sector wages, because no one wants to die for Lockheed Martin.

    • Agree: Kiza •
    wayfarer , April 18, 2017 at 12:32 am GMT
    SAR (search and rescue) versus SAD (search and destroy)

    "Disaster of the Kursk"

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 12:53 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Sam Shama

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,
    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    The troubles of the US of late have largely stemmed from having an insatiable parasite on its back sucking all that it can from the military and the economy in general whilst simultaneously plotting to undermine it.

    The senseless wars in the ME to provide Israel with "security", the billions of dollars in "loans" that will never be repaid, the vast amounts of military hardware worth billions declared as "scrap" and given to Israel, what a great investment it all has been.

    No doubt millions of Americans will welcome more degradation of their cities and infrastructure in order to field a larger military since it cares for the fruit of their loins so well AND has accomplished so much good in the world with the trillions already squandered at the behest of the Neocon Israel Firsters.

    You sure have your finger on America's pulse Shammy and clearly want nothing but the best for the American people, right? What a tosser!

    NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 12:58 am GMT
    @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that the old days are back.

    On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the "job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc. Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.

    Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
    US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small. Did you skip the article and go straight to comments? Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT
    • 100 Words @Z-man Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission. It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I get my blood pressure up! What if the fat boy (and the NK people) feel that they need those weapons for defensive purposes? After all, it wasn't too long ago that Korea was invaded by the US (plus a few satraps) and millions of Koreans were killed. Who are we in the west to interfere with NK? •
    Erebus , April 18, 2017 at 1:27 am GMT
    • 200 Words @The Alarmist

    "The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired."
    You have nut-jobs in Congress talking out hacking being an act of war and planners talking about massive NATO reponse as being appropriate ... can one seriously believe the US would not repond with nukes in the event of such an attack, even though it is non-nuclear? I understand that there would be great hue and cry to take revenge. That is why I wrote (with a correction in bold):

    One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow ed their internationalistic instincts when that moment has passed.

    America's owners aren't necessarily American. That the civilizational consequences of America's death be limited to the N. American continent is in their interest, and they would make that interest known.
    The geo-political consequences of an attack on the grid in response to a US/NATO attack on Russia would be that the US would instantly cease to be a military/economic power for at least several generations. The Great Game would be over. If the US came back with a nuclear response, they know well that Russia's counter-response would simply extend that timeline. Perhaps to infinity. IOW, other than suicidal madness, there is no geo-political reason to respond, and there'd be every reason to take the hit and try to rebuild.

    Likewise, Russia's politicians would be hard pressed to resist responding to an American nuclear attack in kind, but the fact is that there would be no military purpose to doing so. The US would be finished as a world power. Vaporizing 200M people would be of no military value. Better to keep what's left of your nuclear forces intact so you don't have to rebuild them.

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 1:38 am GMT
    • 100 Words @Zzz

    Russians blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution

    Russian who are blaming the Serbs for WW1
    Are the same people. I thought I explained that it is the Russian liberals who picked up the Western view of who to blame for WW1, just like they picked up everything else from their Western role models. The Russian nationalists do not blame the Serbs "for dragging them into WW1″ because this is principally a Western idea of how to push discord among Slavic relatives, not that it even matters that it is completely untrue. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT
    @Z-man Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission. It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I get my blood pressure up! You are stupid, are you not? •
    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT
    • 100 Words @Avery {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}

    Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g. U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
    Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
    No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable conditions of real war.

    To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
    To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.

    Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
    I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s too, unofficially).

    Well Scuds were strange beasts. Saddam's Scuds did not have regular ballistic trajectories, probably because they were old and falling apart during flight. Thus, their trajectories became unintentionally unpredictable/random. I agree that the Raytheon's shootdown rate was a boldface lie which professor Postol exposed. But randomised trajectory is the reason why the shootdown rate was so low.

    The Russian MIRV ICBM Bullawa uses exactly the same approach of randomising trajectory of each vehicle intentionally, small but quick completely random maneuvers, which makes it virtually impossible to shootdown. The US would have to place supercooled computers on its interceptors to destroy those babies. Therefore, another relatively cheap but highly effective countermeasure to US ABMD, a beautiful response.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Erebus , April 18, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Joe Wong "Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita." this is very funny, how about the 20 trillions of US national debt and it is skyrocketing fast? If you only count asset without counting liability US maybe in the top 10 GDP per capita, but if you count net asset the US is in the negative GDP per capita, a broke nation. Perhaps it is American Exceptionalism logic, claiming credit where credit is not due, living in a world detached from reality.

    "If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke." this is even funnier, Russian does not use USD in Russia, nor Russian government pay its MIC in USD, meanwhile Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed, why does oil price have any relationship with Russian internal spending? Another example of "completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities" which is defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices and snakeoil economic theories and rhetoric taught in the western universities.

    Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed

    No, it cannot.
    The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD, the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
    As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
    These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand, and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough, and so they stay where they are.
    So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties. A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.

    The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution which all but prohibits its restructuring.

    You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:

    http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT
    • 100 Words OT, here is some education about North Korea for the stupid people and those who are not stupid but lack information. This is truly worth a read, it will open your eyes. Particularly read the comments, and especially the three comments by "b", the zine owner:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/the-reason-behind-north-koreas-nuclear-program-and-its-offer-to-end-it.html#more

    The reality about North Korea is that the South Korean US puppets apply the same technique on NK defectors that the British US puppets apply on Russian "KGB defectors". These poor defecting souls found themselves in a desperate situation in their new country to which they were attracted by stories of street paved in gold. Thus even just for food they have to invent more and more outrageous stories to feed the propaganda machines of their South Korean/British hosts.

    This is how Kim Jong Un threw his uncle to the 120 starving dogs and how Putin blew up some Russian apartments in Buynaksk, Moscow, and Volgodonsk, defector's honor!

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Mark Chapman , • Website April 18, 2017 at 2:27 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Avery {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}

    Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g. U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
    Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
    No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable conditions of real war.

    To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
    To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.

    Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
    I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s too, unofficially).

    In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black' release. Not always, but often.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-russias-s-400-missile-system-in-action-and-heres-1746490022

    I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft element using current tactics.

    It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry.

    Carlton Meyer , • Website April 18, 2017 at 2:31 am GMT
    @DanC One of the most spectacular misallocation of resources has been the US Navy's insistence on building ever-more surface ships of ever-increasing complexity, while allowing their submarine fleet to languish, and neglecting missile & torpedo technology.

    The reason is career path incentives in the Navy, and in the defense contractor corporations, not in rational consideration of the directions naval warfare is developing in the rest of the world.

    I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: the first time a surface fleet, no matter how modern, how large, even a carrier group, is attacked by a well-commanded, networked battery of modern missles, like the Moskit, Onyx or BrahMos, there will be debacle of historic proportions.

    Thousands of sailors and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware will be headed to the bottom. If you care to read my detailed explanation of why carrier strike groups are obsolete against a modern navy:

    If you prefer to watch a 33 second example:

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:42 am GMT
    • 300 Words @Sam Shama

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,
    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    It [US] needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly.

    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.

    Firstly, US military budget is significantly more than presented because the whole budget has been divided between different government departments. For example, nuclear weapons are under the Department of Energy, the huge ongoing cost of Veterans' health is under Department of Health budget, the free money to Israel is under the Foreign Affairs and so on. Overall, about 40% of the US military budget is hidden, which means that US spends not 2.5% of GDP on the military then probably around 4.5%.

    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.

    Thirdly, the idea of "coming down hard on MIC waste" is utterly ridiculous because the "MIC waste" is the Deep State profit and we just had an illustration of what happens with those who oppose the Deep State. In other words, only God could come down on US MIC waste, the Presidents can only pretend.

    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump. When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s. The US$ is still strong, not because of its intrinsic value then thanks to skillful FX market manipulation and thanks to 10-12 aircraft carrier groups.

    Trump is now amassing three carrier groups near North Korea, Russia and China. What do you think would happen to US$ if even one of those carriers gets sunk?

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
    Generally legitimate point but it will require a very expanded answer. I will, at some point, elaborate on it--there are some serious nuances.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.
    Largely true. However, in serious signal processing systems such as radar, sonar, combat control (management) systems etc. the main secret are mathematics (algorithms). Just to give you an example, it was impossible for China to copy any software from any Russian-made systems. As an example, Shtil Air Defense complexes which went to China after she bought Project 956 destroyers in 1990s are defended such way that any attempt to tamper with their (and other systems') brains results in a clean slate. It is true today also, actually, especially today. China now is receiving full Russian "version" of SU-35 and of S-400, they still will not be able to copy it. Mimic somewhat? Yes. After all they do have their own S-300 knock offs. Copy? No. They will try, of course but, say, SU-35 engine and avionics is still beyond their reach.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance?
    I believe Ondrej made a good, albeit partial case, for you in his response. Let me put it this way--viewing Russia's public schools' 8-9th grade books on math and physics (and chemistry) may create a state of shock in many, even elite, US schools and not among students only I know. Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union, in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.

    Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck (or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing any other component of success?

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 3:48 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Mark Chapman In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black' release. Not always, but often.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-russias-s-400-missile-system-in-action-and-heres-1746490022

    I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft element using current tactics.

    It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry. Very good and relevant explanation. I would only add that what Russia has in Syria and what Syria has in Syria are not IADS then stand-alone radars and missiles. What Russia has over Russia is IADS, especially with the new S500 (Russian ABMD). The Russians do not develop separate systems for air-defence and missile-defence, in Russia it is all one integrated multi-sensor system. What is completely unknown is the effectiveness of the Western stealth techniques and jammers against the Russian IADS over Russia. What if, what the Western airforces call the blue line, the entry space which allows you to destroy the airdefense before being detected and destroyed, keeps changing, becomes unpredictable or disappears altogether. What if you cannot overwhelm the airdefense with a barrage of 59 Tomahawks as in Syria, because you would need to fire several hundred or even thousand missiles simultaneously?

    If Russia implements IADS over Syria, which may be what was announced after the US cruise missile attack, then the "blue line" for US and Israeli jets and missiles may disappear.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Bayan , April 18, 2017 at 3:51 am GMT
    • 100 Words America and Russia will not go for a direct war.

    The reason is simple: one is crazy the other is nuts. When crazy meets nuts sanity of both is restored. They 'll go for a drink and head home.

    I sort of drove this conclusion from a Russian poem I read years ago.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 4:09 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Mark Chapman Agreed; the US Navy only continues to pursue railgun technology to use up budget dollars - a peculiarity of western defense budgeting is that if you show efficiency by using less than the full amount allocated for your operations, maintenance and R&D, your budget is likely to be cut by that much next cycle. The USN has gone back to the drawing-board on railgun development, but absent a power-supply breakthrough it is unrealistic except as a vanity project.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-railgun-dream-could-be-denied-by-two-big-problems-17301

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/this-is-why-the-navy-cant-have-nice-railguns

    An additional argument in Russia's favour is that many of its systems are built simply to be rugged and easily operated by someone with a minimum of training, like a conscript, although the top end of the air defense systems are still largely operated by specialists. Western systems often are unnecessarily complex - sometimes seemingly just to impress reviewers - and the fiasco of the F-35 nightmare serves as exemplary of what happens when corporatism gets the upper hand on government; any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard of pork-barreling and design changes.

    As far as the navy goes, I made some of the same points myself some years ago, particularly the gross discrepancy in the cost of the USN's Littoral Combat Ships compared with - in this instance - China's missile corvettes.

    https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/fall-out-and-secure-for-sea-the-2012-sino-russian-naval-exercises/comment-page-1/

    Thanks for a great piece; it was timely, informative, thought-provoking and chock-full of meaty phrases and terminology I cannot wait to borrow.

    Mark, sorry but I have to disagree on the F-35 project. You are right that

    any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard of pork-barreling and design changes

    But it appears that even that original concept was a pie in the sky sold to the government by a ruthless military almost-monopolistic corporation.

    Firstly, the concept was unrealistic, then also the concept was too ambitious in the wrong direction.

    Unrealistic: to create one frame for different airforce roles with very different requirements I describe as similar to creating a tank which can race on the ground, fly and submerge . I wonder why this has never been done successfully before. But this is what LM promised to USAF and on paper it looked fantastic and when greased with a few corrupt bucks the concept won the decision day. The same frame and 70% of shared components between all versions, ha!

    Too ambitious: instead of focusing on the firepower and maneuverability, it focused on stealth which is relatively easily defeated with multi-sensor IADS. The designers created the best stealth possible but at the expense of the principal plane performance: the firepower and maneuverability.

    LM claims that F-35 is completely new technology and suffers from birthing pains. Although true, this is not the crux of the problem. The whole design is back-to-the-drawing-board level of disaster. Even US & Allies cannot afford a trillion dollars stuff-up and a decade of time lost.

    In essence, the F-35 is again a good weapon only against the thirld-world opponents who cannot defeat stealth.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    2stateshmoostate , April 18, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT
    • 200 Words I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
    After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
    The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and got the shit kicked out of them.
    On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
    The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
    I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign powers.
    Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes) in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
    But, I certainly could be wrong. •
    Joe Franklin , April 18, 2017 at 4:42 am GMT
    • 300 Words @mushroom When folks discuss Russia's capabilities they often forget what's blatantly obvious - which is what's not obvious, i.e. what the bear has created and is in it's hidden caves.

    What happened to that U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea was just a teasing mini-harbinger of this reality!

    So is the genius to create a cavity to eavesdrop, &c...

    If you want to enjoy happy days don't mess with the bear! The USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) is a 4th generation guided missile destroyer whose key weapons are Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of up to 2,500 kilometers, and capable of carrying nuclear explosives. This ship carries 56 Tomahawk missiles in standard mode, and 96 missiles in attack mode.

    The US destroyer is equipped with the most recent Aegis Combat System. It is an integrated naval weapons systems which can link together the missile defense systems of all vessels embedded within the same network, so as to ensure the detection, tracking and destruction of hundreds of targets at the same time. In addition, the USS Donald Cook is equipped with 4 large radars, whose power is comparable to that of several stations. For protection, it carries more than fifty anti-aircraft missiles of various types.

    Meanwhile, the Russian Su-24 that buzzed the USS Donald Cook carried neither bombs nor missiles but only a basket mounted under the fuselage, which, according to the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta [2], contained a Russian electronic warfare device called Khibiny .

    As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer . In other words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up – or about to be – with the defense systems installed on NATO's most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote control.

    The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft – unarmed – repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.

    After that, the 4th generation destroyer immediately set sail towards a port in Romania.

    Since that incident, which the Atlanticist media have carefully covered up despite the widespread reactions sparked among defense industry experts, no US ship has ever approached Russian territorial waters again.

    According to some specialized media, 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved from active service.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    utu , April 18, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT
    • 400 Words The article is not backed up by numbers. There is zero specificity.

    How many S-300 and S-400 are actually deployed? How many missiles/fighter jets would it take to overwhelm this defensive force? Does US/NATO have that many missiles/fighter jets to do this job?

    How many Su-35 were deployed so far and how does this compare to the number of F-22 in service?

    How many submarines US and Russia have currently in the seas?

    What's wrong with Ohio class subs? They are just there to deliver the punch and are perfectly safe as Russia does not have enough killer subs.

    And now this:

    Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.

    What would be the purpose of such a strike? Wasting expensive missile on delivering just singular 500kg explosive? Anybody seriously in Russia's military would consider such an idiocy?

    The bottom line is that Russia is a nuclear power that can annihilate the US. All strategies take this into account. This is the bottom line. Any response or aggression vis a vis Russia must take this into account.

    Russia has conventional defensive capabilities but has negligible ability of projecting its power beyond its borders. Circa 4 dozens of planes in Syria with half a dozen of fighter jets to protect them that all are defended by few dozens of S-300/400 tubes is not very impressive. This force could be overwhelmed in just few hours by Israel AF that has over 400 F-15/16 or Turkey AF that has over 200 F-16.

    I do not believe anybody really wants a war with Russia but certainly they want to conquer Russia to make it to submit to the Washington consensus. But this will not be done with foreign troops on Russian soil or with bombs falling or Russian cities. It will be done with a soft coup d'etat that will depose Putin and his semi-patriotic faction. It all will be done with Russian hands. The attack on Syria by Trump was perfectly timed with president Xi visit who is very familiar with the Chinese proverb: kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Putin was the chicken and Xi was the monkey in this case. Putin lost face and Xi lost face. With every incident of this nature there will be more and more resentment and plotting among various factions in Russia's Deep State. There is no other choice because certainly Russia will not go to the preemptive nuclear war and apart of nuclear war Russia will be humiliated in every conventional skirmish.

    I am taking bets if Putin will be out of power by the end of this summer.

    pogohere , • Website April 18, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT
    • 300 Words @Erebus

    Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
    No, it cannot.
    The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD, the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
    As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
    These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand, and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough, and so they stay where they are.
    So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties. A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.

    The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution which all but prohibits its restructuring.

    You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
    http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf What international treaties has the Russian Central Bank entered into, if any?

    Re: "The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution which all but prohibits its restructuring."

    Yours is an odd way of interpreting this provision of the Russian Constitution:

    The Constitution of the Russian Federation
    Article 75 (Chapter 3)

    1. The monetary unit in the Russian Federation shall be the rouble. Money issue shall be carried out exclusively by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Introduction and issue of other currencies in Russia shall not be allowed.
    2. The protection and ensuring the stability of the rouble shall be the major task of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, which it shall fulfil independently of the other bodies of state authority.
    3. The system of taxes paid to the federal budget and the general principles of taxation and dues in the Russian Federation shall be fixed by the federal law.
    4. State loans shall be issued according to the rules fixed by the federal law and shall be floated on a voluntary basis. [emphasis added]

    With reference to this @p36 of the treatise cited:

    "Laws need to be changed. That means that it is necessary to take the State
    Duma under control. That means that a parliamentary majority is required.
    And therefore, a party needs to be created that will win the general elections.
    A political structure which is currently rather popular starts being created.

    The majority party in the Duma now has representation sufficient to enable an amendment to the constitution to change the above provisions, not to mention the laws pursuant to same. Whether that is actually politically feasible is another matter.

    The treatise you cited appears to be somewhat dated with regard to the constraints, if any, on changes to central banking in Russia.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Seraphim , April 18, 2017 at 5:44 am GMT
    • 200 Words @anon That is a point I have often tried to make. Had the Tsar just told the Serbs flat out, "You guys are on your own. Comply. Or fight the Central Powers by yourself. We are out of it.",' there would never have been a 'Great' war (WW1). At most the 'war' would have been a minor brawl between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. History would have recorded it as just another Balkan skirmish. It would have been virtually forgotten today. This was the initial assumption of the Kaiser when he issued his 'blank check' of support. The Tsar would have saved millions of lives, including his own and his family too. Just nine years earlier the Tsar had fought and lost a disastrous war with Japan. That defeat led to a revolution that came within a hair of deposing him. He SHOULD have learned his lesson and avoided any future conflict like the plague. Tsar Nicolas was an incredibly stupid man. He deserves far more vilification then the Kaiser does. Tsar Nicholas was not that stupid to not see that the aggression against Serbia was in fact directed at Russia. The Dual Alliance of 1879, coming immediately after the Berlin Congress was directed squarely against Russia. By the time of Nicholas it evolved in the Triple Alliance and I have no doubts that Russians knew that Romania had adhered in secret in 1882. He could not be unaware of the 'Drang nach Osten' mentality which gripped Germany by the end of the 19th century and that the plans for the partition of Russia were on the drawing board. He could not have been unaware that the rejection of his proposals for disarmament has induced Germany to believe that the proposal reflected the weakness of Russia. He could not been unaware of Moltke's proposal in 1912 for a preventive war against Russia. He could not have been unaware that an external war was a precondition of for the revolution.
    War was imposed on Russia. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Blacktail , April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT
    • 200 Words The Russian military is moving in the same direction as the US - toward state-of-the-art obsolescence. While they build tiny numbers of new weapons, many times that number of their predecessors are being retired faster than the new weapons can be built.

    That fancy T-14 Armata Russia started building a few years ago? It replaces over 20000 T-55s and T-62s built early in the Cold War, and 6000 T-64s that were all spontaneously retired in the early 2010s and shipped not to the tank graveyards, but straight to the cutting mills.

    The Borei class Ballistic Missile Submarines mentioned in the article currently number about 5 boats, most of which aren't finished yet. They replace not only the infinitely more powerful and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age, but because Russia couldn't afford them), but also some 50 other Cold War era "Boomers".

    And that Su-35 that's all the hype these days? It was back in the mid-1990s as well, and the Su-27 it was meant to replace is being retired faster than Su-35s can be built. The new T-50 isn't much of a threat either, because it's been in development almost as long as the F-35, and it's no closer to being combat-ready.

    These are a metaphor for what Russia has become; a nation so insecure about the wrong things (cutting-edge technology rather than enough weapons to defend itself) that they're over-spending to weakness.

    Ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT
    • 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are coming as a very pragmatic sort of a man ;) Just for your warning – well, bit of cultural and genetical conditioning helps in this case.

    As one of my grandfathers was helping in early stages of establishing

    Unfortunately, I did not have chance to discuss these issues with him.

    Unfortunately, depending on point view, I am not enough pragmatic for current ideologically driven socio-economical society

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anonHUN , April 18, 2017 at 7:22 am GMT
    • 600 Words @Joe Wong "still 20 years behind on average?" since you are fabricating thru the thin air, why did you stop at 20 years? Why didn't you say 30 years behind, 40 years behind, ... ? You should know fake news is always fake new regardless it is a small fake news or a big fake news. It depends on the area, in some things they are 30 years behind, or even 40. The USSR collapsed in 1991 and for at least 10 years Russia had no money even to pay its soldiers. As the Chechen debacles had shown they were in shambles. Their new projects weren't going much forward, as you can see they resumed their 1980′s projects after 2000 when they had more oil income and Putin made the Russian state working again (well, kind of it is still hindered by corruption, disincentivizes citizens from being entrepreneurial (in a state where the rules can be changed overnight at the ruler's whim (no real rule of law) and you can be a billionaire oligarch but you can't be sure the state doesn't simple take everything from you and throw you in prison overnight, even arranging for your "accidental" death, except the money you siphoned to foreign accounts and real estate abroad etc.) It is mafia state, or a mafia (ex KGB) presenting itself as the state. Of course it is more ore less true everywhere (in the US too of course), deep under the veneer of democracy and rule of law, but in Russia it is almost open and blatant. Also the Russians don't have any traditions of enterpreneurship, private incentive, contrary to China, which is also a very corrupt country with a corrupt and totally nondemocratic regime (contrary to Russia which has token Western-style democratic institutions now), but thanks to the industriousness of the Chinese people they have risen to where they are now. Average Russians still seem to expect the state to provide for them as it was in the USSR, they need a "Father Tsar" which is now Putin, or they are just drinking too much and are in a rut, idk.

    As for the years it was only an estimate of course, but as I said they first had to make up for the lost decade after 1991, like finishing subs that were left unfinished since 1992 and things like that. First really new gadgets were the Armata (and Kurganets) which is still a newcomer, and T-50, still not an operational fighter. Regarding SAM's I must say the Russians always were the fans of SAM's but they were ineffective in the ME and Vietnam too. Didn't stop the enemy from achieving air superiority. I don't doubt that the S-300 /400 is much more advanced than the SAM systems of the 60′s and 70′s were, but they would have to face a much more advanced opponent too. Like low RCS planes that cannot be detected until they are well within the range of their air-to-surface weapons or dozens of targets flying at 20-3o m coming in from multiple directions.
    The F-35 is derided around here, the US spent a fortune on it, true. It has problems (only known because the US is more open, you usually don't read in the media about problems with the new Chinese or Russian planes, sure you think it is because they don't have any with them?) but it's capabilities are something. Stealth is not some scam as some believe. It is serious business when your SAM's or AAM's cannot lock on the damn thing even if you have a monster longwave radar that can detect it from a few dozen miles

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Kiza Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union, in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.

    Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck (or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing any other component of success?

    Am I missing any other component of success?

    Just a possibility – or my hypothesis I am playing lately:-)

    It can be language according Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
    The principle of linguistic relativity that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined to include two versions. The strong version says that language determines thought, and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.

    and also due to fact that:

    Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development any sudden systemic upheaval. [ ] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the present. [ ] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European." ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp.
    59-60).

    Which could explain math skills of Russians and Indian:-) because languages are closely related.

    + learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view, if you look at current Russian elites Shoigu, Lavrov and others they speak usually one or more foreign languages fluently.

    anon , April 18, 2017 at 8:18 am GMT
    • 300 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
    Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US "missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.

    P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still, after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff Academy uses virtually identical definition. Your main point is well taken. PPP instead of simply GDP captures lower costs in Russia and is a better starting point. Plus, the US military procurement is remarkably inefficient. The combination of the two plus tacit and institutional knowledge regarding spending on military hardware makes analysis based on US spending misleading.

    However, the US is remarkably efficient in many other areas and has had the best performing developed economy since 2008.

    Regarding access to capital markets, the US over the last decade has developed a massive unconventional oil industry. This was done with capital investment of $3 trillion. Which came from capital markets. Not only was this unplanned, but it was done with grudging support from the Obama administration. And it is of enormous geo strategic value. I wish to hell that our defense doctrine would plug this new fact - US has no need for Middle East oil - into their strategy. Not to totally discount its importance, but the idea fighting and dying for a strategic resource that can be bought or drilled for needs to be thought out.

    If we were going to refight WW 2, then we would have some problems with global supply chains, etc. The next major war, if we have one, won't be like WW 2. The logic of a US conventional war with Russia is stupid. Either side with a decisive conventional advantage would simply increase the risk of it going nuclear.

    Russia could, if they were so inclined, forcibly take back some of the former USSR. But why would they want to? Even Crimea is expensive. It has taken what seems like forever to build the Kerch Strait Bridge. They have their Naval Base and the border dispute will keep Ukraine out of NATO. Technically, they could try it, but one of the requirements for membership is that the nation is not involved in conflict. It's held in Georgia and Moldova.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    DanC , April 18, 2017 at 8:41 am GMT
    • 400 Words @Carlton Meyer If you care to read my detailed explanation of why carrier strike groups are obsolete against a modern navy:

    http://www.g2mil.com/navwar.htm

    If you prefer to watch a 33 second example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ki2-uyCHOA Great article.

    Concerning wastage of resources, here's what John Patch of the USN had to say:

    The Soviets debated building a significant carrier fleet in the 1960s but determined that large carriers had no place in the nuclear age, partly because of their vulnerability to missiles with nuclear warheads.2 While later choosing to build larger carriers, Moscow always retained the view that carriers remained vulnerable.

    https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-carrier-invulnerability-myth.145678/

    It is surely significant that Russia sold or gave away all its cold war-era aircraft carriers and retains only the hybrid aircraft-capable cruiser, Kuznetsov.

    They "get" it that the role of capital surface ships is changing,, and diminishing. This is also indicative of why the Russians will shock the first fleet that tries to engage them. They keep their planners and developers focused on what actually matters, and serious war gaming, rather than rigging things to provide the answer they want for careerist reasons

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

    Note that it took the attacking general about 5 minutes using a swarm of old-generation cruise missiles to sink enough craft to disable the fleet's networked defense and EW capacity, with crew amounting to 20,000 on the ships sunk alone. The remaining ships were sitting ducks for the follow up attacks.

    These were subsonic cruise missiles. A bunch of moskits would have wiped everything out.

    And still these fools keep spending money on carrier groups. it's noteworthy that they restarted the war game and ordered the opposing general to stop making effective attacks. That sums up exactly why the US keeps wasting money and doing stupid things.
    __________________

    As an aside, note that the CGI from the movie of an aircraft carrier attack is not realistic.

    Projectiles travelling at the speeds shown would easily be destroyed or diverted by fleet defense systems.

    The new BrahMos adaptation of the Onyx missile travels at 2,800 mph. By comparison a bullet fired from a high compression hunting rifle travels at 1,700 mph.

    The ballistic missiles such as the Dong feng being developed by the Chinese, will have incoming speeds as high as 5,000 mph.

    The human eye can't actually see objects moving that fast.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Joey Zaza , April 18, 2017 at 9:48 am GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Hopefully the President of Russia will take on board your succinct and informed analysis. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT
    @reiner Tor I think that while it's a grave mistake for Americans to underestimate Russians, it's also a grave mistake for Russians to underestimate Americans.

    Since I cannot claim to be an expert in military technology, I always read such articles with great interest, but never know with how much grain of salt I need to take them - none? a little? a lot? a whole salt mine?

    Underestimate Americans in what ? Stupidity ? Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT
    @reiner Tor

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
    I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. Russians have already defeated Ottomans and Turkey is NOT a tough test for Russia given Turkey invades Russia otheriwse unlike US you don't expect Russia to go launch a war bravado against them. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Seraphim , April 18, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT
    @2stateshmoostate I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
    After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
    The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and got the shit kicked out of them.
    On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
    The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
    I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign powers.
    Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes) in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
    But, I certainly could be wrong. The war that the Japanese started pushed by the Schiff banking cabal was ended in 1945 by the people they helped to overturn a friend of Japan, the Tsar Nicholas II. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT
    @utu The article is not backed up by numbers. There is zero specificity.

    How many S-300 and S-400 are actually deployed? How many missiles/fighter jets would it take to overwhelm this defensive force? Does US/NATO have that many missiles/fighter jets to do this job?

    How many Su-35 were deployed so far and how does this compare to the number of F-22 in service?

    How many submarines US and Russia have currently in the seas?

    What's wrong with Ohio class subs? They are just there to deliver the punch and are perfectly safe as Russia does not have enough killer subs.

    And now this:


    Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.
    What would be the purpose of such a strike? Wasting expensive missile on delivering just singular 500kg explosive? Anybody seriously in Russia's military would consider such an idiocy?

    The bottom line is that Russia is a nuclear power that can annihilate the US. All strategies take this into account. This is the bottom line. Any response or aggression vis a vis Russia must take this into account.

    Russia has conventional defensive capabilities but has negligible ability of projecting its power beyond its borders. Circa 4 dozens of planes in Syria with half a dozen of fighter jets to protect them that all are defended by few dozens of S-300/400 tubes is not very impressive. This force could be overwhelmed in just few hours by Israel AF that has over 400 F-15/16 or Turkey AF that has over 200 F-16.

    I do not believe anybody really wants a war with Russia but certainly they want to conquer Russia to make it to submit to the Washington consensus. But this will not be done with foreign troops on Russian soil or with bombs falling or Russian cities. It will be done with a soft coup d'etat that will depose Putin and his semi-patriotic faction. It all will be done with Russian hands. The attack on Syria by Trump was perfectly timed with president Xi visit who is very familiar with the Chinese proverb: kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Putin was the chicken and Xi was the monkey in this case. Putin lost face and Xi lost face. With every incident of this nature there will be more and more resentment and plotting among various factions in Russia's Deep State. There is no other choice because certainly Russia will not go to the preemptive nuclear war and apart of nuclear war Russia will be humiliated in every conventional skirmish.

    I am taking bets if Putin will be out of power by the end of this summer. S-300 can destroy Israeli warplanes even before they leave their airfields for sky. Do you see Russians doing it ? Why ? Because Russia and Israel have friendly relations and Russia doesn't interfere in Hezbollah and Israelis conflict. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 11:48 am GMT
    • 300 Words @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.

    Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in battle.

    In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum: no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies, like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?

    As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.

    There is a slight flaw in your comment.

    Israeli used Greece's S-300 PMU-1 to prepare their F-16I pilots for potential air strikes on Iran .

    we still don't know which version went to Iran so if they practice on the S-300PMU-1 and Iran gets the S-300VM it will be like practising on a home cat and then going against a tiger.

    Even US and UK had older S-300 models with them. US has S-300PS/PMU systems at Nevada. It has same value as figuring out Turkish F-16 from Egyptian/Pakistan/UAE/Taiwan /Korean.

    But yes earlier S-300 models are not completely protected Israel succeeded where many in NATO failed against even an old system like PMU. Regarding S-300PMU, it has been upgraded substantially in previous years.

    Its guidance system is literally unjammable unless huge resources are dedicated, ie broadband noise jamming of the most powerful kind.

    Though recently Israel announced that it is upgrading its F-16 variants external link to be able to handle the vaunted Russian S-300 anti-aircraft system. Iran is perennially about to receive shipments of the system. But mere intention does not mean they have managed to do so.

    It was the middle of the 1990s and money was nonexistent in Russia . They sold components of an S-300V battery to the US likely the oldest model they had that was incomplete.With the money they made they upgraded the whole system to S-300VM or Antei-2500.So in effect the US paid for the next generation to replace the generation that was compromised.And the S-300V was in service in most former Soviet republics so chances were eventually they would get their hands on it anyway at least this way they got their own funding to develop a replacement system.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    bb. , April 18, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @inertial You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps - all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom. Well, duh.

    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors - mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. - who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.

    In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise as much capital as they need.

    As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities. Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?

    Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an idiot. not treating US data seriously is obviously hyperbole, but incidentally a very on spot one in this case.
    all things being equal, you are right about market formation and capitalization. but these are not normal times. nobody really knows whats going to happen when the shit, which is the US stock market QE fueled ponzi scheme, hits the fan. it is very hard to take the subprime, derivative, QE, buyback economy of the last almost 20 years seriously.
    it is also false to say that zuckerbook is useless. it generates way too much money(compared to twitter or tesla) to make that statement. in general, it is hard to estimate the value and effectiveness of marketing expenses and facebook put a decent metric on it, better than google to some extent. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    AP , April 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @2stateshmoostate I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
    After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
    The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and got the shit kicked out of them.
    On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
    The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
    I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign powers.
    Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes) in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
    But, I certainly could be wrong.

    I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.

    Sorry, that's just completely wrong.

    The best rough analogy to Russia of pre-1904 would be China (though China is further along in its development, perhaps it would be Russia of 1914 or later, had Russia not stupidly gotten itself into World War I).

    The US would somehow be analogous to the British Empire in its decline. A key difference, however, is the US' massive population (more than double that of Russia), territory and natural resources compared to that of the British mainland. This probably provides some sort of floor to the American decline that Britain didn't have.

    Also, keep in mind that western Russophobes plus Bolsheviks exaggerated the Tsars' Russia's weakness and incompetence, while there was nobody to defend it. This makes the picture unrealistically negative. During World War I, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers (compare Russian vs. British performance vs. the Ottoman Empire) and was able to maintain a stable front vs. the third.

    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
    NEW!

    They sold components of an S-300V battery to the US

    Belarus sold the whole complex to the US, S-300V.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
    • 100 WordsNEW! @Blacktail The Russian military is moving in the same direction as the US --- toward state-of-the-art obsolescence. While they build tiny numbers of new weapons, many times that number of their predecessors are being retired faster than the new weapons can be built.

    That fancy T-14 Armata Russia started building a few years ago? It replaces over 20000 T-55s and T-62s built early in the Cold War, and 6000 T-64s that were all spontaneously retired in the early 2010s and shipped not to the tank graveyards, but straight to the cutting mills.

    The Borei class Ballistic Missile Submarines mentioned in the article currently number about 5 boats, most of which aren't finished yet. They replace not only the infinitely more powerful and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age, but because Russia couldn't afford them), but also some 50 other Cold War era "Boomers".

    And that Su-35 that's all the hype these days? It was back in the mid-1990s as well, and the Su-27 it was meant to replace is being retired faster than Su-35s can be built. The new T-50 isn't much of a threat either, because it's been in development almost as long as the F-35, and it's no closer to being combat-ready.

    These are a metaphor for what Russia has become; a nation so insecure about the wrong things (cutting-edge technology rather than enough weapons to defend itself) that they're over-spending to weakness.

    They replace not only the infinitely more powerful and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age,

    Sir, please, don't write things you don't know about. Pacific Fleet's Delta III (Project 667 BDR) SSBNs are in dire need of replacement, while Northern Fleet's SSBNs of Delta IV class (Project 667 BDRM) are nearing the end of life. Remaining Project 941 (Akula-class> not Typhoon) are not even consideration for Borey-class, serving out their lives as test platforms, mostly. Borey (Project 955 and 955A) was created to replace aging Deltas.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT
    • 200 WordsNEW! @Kiza Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union, in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.

    Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck (or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing any other component of success?

    Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie.

    This is crucial. Sure, Chemezov's or Rahmanov's salaries are huge by Russian standards (well, by Western too) and allows the military-industrial elite to live very comfortably, to put it mildly but the answer is the state's ownership of the whole defense sphere, from industry to doctrinal development. Relationship between Russians and their state are dramatically different from what most Westerners ever experienced in their relations. It was inevitable in the nation with such military history as Russia. As I mentioned Arthur J. Alexander's "spread"–Russia does have this pressure applied to her institutes to, in the end, become this character from Russian anecdote, where he buys a crib for his toddler from one of the former MIC plants and after assembling it at home gets AK-47. Russia is bound to produce (at least mostly) weapons which have to work.

    Here is what Russians do, barn, of course, being a representation of Russian State;)

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT
    @NoseytheDuke What if the fat boy (and the NK people) feel that they need those weapons for defensive purposes? After all, it wasn't too long ago that Korea was invaded by the US (plus a few satraps) and millions of Koreans were killed. Who are we in the west to interfere with NK? Fat boy is developing missiles that will hit the USA, nuff said.
    Ok a little more, he can sell those little nuclear bombs to some terrorist group, now 'nuff said!' Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sam Shama , April 18, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @NoseytheDuke The troubles of the US of late have largely stemmed from having an insatiable parasite on its back sucking all that it can from the military and the economy in general whilst simultaneously plotting to undermine it.

    The senseless wars in the ME to provide Israel with "security", the billions of dollars in "loans" that will never be repaid, the vast amounts of military hardware worth billions declared as "scrap" and given to Israel, what a great investment it all has been.

    No doubt millions of Americans will welcome more degradation of their cities and infrastructure in order to field a larger military since it cares for the fruit of their loins so well AND has accomplished so much good in the world with the trillions already squandered at the behest of the Neocon Israel Firsters.

    You sure have your finger on America's pulse Shammy and clearly want nothing but the best for the American people, right? What a tosser! I shall refrain from returning your predictably dumb insults.

    On the topic of foreign aid and loan guarantees, you aren't well-read nor qualified to render any opinion likely to be worth more than the pixels wasted by your fatuous lines.

    First, understand the difference between actual loans and loan guarantees.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf [pg 25 - 27]

    Second, here is a table for U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Total Aid

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-u-s-foreign-aid-to-israel-1949-present

    It irks you the U.S. sends foreign aid to Israel by an amount which really means not a great deal [average, $1.86b % $310b = 0.006 of GDP], even as U.S. foreign aid finds a much wider set of recipients. That's your emotional prerogative, one which breaches a very, very long tradition observed by powerful nations.

    There is little you or I could do about it. Alea iacta est .

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
    @Kiza You are stupid, are you not? No, I am smarter than you, and probably better looking. Just a guess, but an educated one, lol! •
    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

    Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident.

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services.

    The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and the amygdala.

    Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality.

    Joe Wong , April 18, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Erebus

    Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
    No, it cannot.
    The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD, the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
    As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
    These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand, and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough, and so they stay where they are.
    So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties. A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.

    The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution which all but prohibits its restructuring.

    You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
    http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf

    The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves.

    The above is your fabrication, the link is a write out by an over zealous nationalist with half baked truth, and the link is neither a treaty quoted by you to support your claim nor saying there is such IMF treaty.

    Most nations hardly have any hard currency reserves, yet the amount of local currency they printed proves your "prescribed ratio" a fake news. Even those nations have hard currency reserves, the amount of local currency they prints makes your "prescribed ratio" a Hollywood fantasy.

    Putin has begun de-dollarization Russian economy long time ago, Russian has signed currency SWAP with China, EU and Japan, so that Russian can trade without USD. China also has set up AIIB and Alt-SWIFT for rest of the world to bypass the USD as well. Time has changed, man.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT
    • 300 WordsNEW! @inertial You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps - all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom. Well, duh.

    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors - mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. - who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.

    In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise as much capital as they need.

    As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities. Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?

    Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an idiot.

    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.

    Sure, and that is why a company which produces nothing of value "commands" the so called "investments" which are several times larger than those of Boeing who is de facto US national treasure and who, as you stated, has problems with raising "capital". That pretty much says it all. Again, I omit here the trick with stock buybacks. But in the end, you seem to miss completely the point–structure of GDP.

    You may go here and see for yourself how FIRE overtook manufacturing in US in output. What is "output", of course, remains a complete mystery, same as many other services, once one considers the "quality" of education in US public schools which reflects in the most profound way on US labor force which increasingly begins to look like a third world one.

    https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=51&step=1#reqid=51&step=51&isuri=1&5114=a&5102=15

    In general, we speak here different languages and I may only refer you back to Michael Lind's quote in my text. Judged in a larger, geopolitical framework, one can observe very clearly the process of US literally running out of resources and no amount of "raised capital" can change it. This is not to speak about the whole house of cards of Pax Americana which rested on US military imperial mythology. Once this mythology is debunked (the process which is ongoing as I type it) the house of cards folds.

    • Agree: Sergey Krieger •
    Joe Wong , April 18, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Anon

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services.
    The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and the amygdala.

    Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality. I guess what Andrei Martyanov was trying to say that virtual is not real, intrinsic or tangible, it is fabricated or created thru the thin air, hence the American economy is not real, intrinsic or tangible, it is fabricated or created thru the thin air. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Anon

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services.
    The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and the amygdala.

    Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality.

    It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well.

    Yes, valid argument which true for GB, Belgium, Holland, with their Gulf Stream protected stable clime, but I would prefer Mediterranean area such as Greece or Balkan for that matter.

    Hmm Olive oil, vine, fishing sounds nice, but anything east of Frankfurt and North of let say Berlin in Europe, will add different perspective. Heating for winter, and shorter summer. Just ask people in Archangelsk or Petersburg

    + Virtual reality need quite a lot of electrical power to run, not only on your computer but in cloud as well.

    Here you can find nice perspective as well..

    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2015/09/you-call-this-progress/

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Peripatetic commenter , April 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT
    • 100 Words Strategy page thinks that the S400s in Syria are useless:

    https://strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20170418.aspx

    In reading their article they seem to forget about the Mig-15 and Mig-17 in Korea and Vietnam, respectively, and about the effectiveness of those SAMs in Vietnam as well.

    Didn't that traitor, John McCain get downed by a SAM?

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    The Alarmist, April 18, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
    @Erebus I understand that there would be great hue and cry to take revenge. That is why I wrote (with a correction in bold):
    One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow ed their internationalistic instincts when that moment has passed.
    America's owners aren't necessarily American. That the civilizational consequences of America's death be limited to the N. American continent is in their interest, and they would make that interest known.
    The geo-political consequences of an attack on the grid in response to a US/NATO attack on Russia would be that the US would instantly cease to be a military/economic power for at least several generations. The Great Game would be over. If the US came back with a nuclear response, they know well that Russia's counter-response would simply extend that timeline. Perhaps to infinity. IOW, other than suicidal madness, there is no geo-political reason to respond, and there'd be every reason to take the hit and try to rebuild.

    Likewise, Russia's politicians would be hard pressed to resist responding to an American nuclear attack in kind, but the fact is that there would be no military purpose to doing so. The US would be finished as a world power. Vaporizing 200M people would be of no military value. Better to keep what's left of your nuclear forces intact so you don't have to rebuild them. The more likely scenario is this: Sensing a number of strategic and tactical indicators of an impending attack, the US launches a bolt out of the blue attack to cripple the Russian forces before they can attack. Russian SLBMs and rail-based missiles get off a few MIRVs that take out DC and a few other major cities (counter-force targetting is pointless after the first-strike), but no-harm no-foul since the JEEP was executed at the time of the first-strike, so everybody who matters was saved from harm and that pesky problem of too many idle hands in the major urban centers was finally taken care of.

    Alternatively, the Russians use EMP weapons already in orbit to take out the US grid. The US NCA execute the SIOP. Outcome: See above.

    Winning move is not to play, but the geniuses running things don't see the extintinction of the little guy as a bug, rather as a feature.

    lastnerve , April 18, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT
    @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    I agree with what you write except that the Deep State is but a part of the Globalist (NWO)
    plans for their future world.
    Sam Shama , April 18, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT
    @Kiza
    It [US] needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly.
    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.

    Firstly, US military budget is significantly more than presented because the whole budget has been divided between different government departments. For example, nuclear weapons are under the Department of Energy, the huge ongoing cost of Veterans' health is under Department of Health budget, the free money to Israel is under the Foreign Affairs and so on. Overall, about 40% of the US military budget is hidden, which means that US spends not 2.5% of GDP on the military then probably around 4.5%.

    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.

    Thirdly, the idea of "coming down hard on MIC waste" is utterly ridiculous because the "MIC waste" is the Deep State profit and we just had an illustration of what happens with those who oppose the Deep State. In other words, only God could come down on US MIC waste, the Presidents can only pretend.

    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump. When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s. The US$ is still strong, not because of its intrinsic value then thanks to skillful FX market manipulation and thanks to 10-12 aircraft carrier groups.

    Trump is now amassing three carrier groups near North Korea, Russia and China. What do you think would happen to US$ if even one of those carriers gets sunk?

    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.

    Hi Kiza,

    I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.

    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.

    "Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01USM156N

    I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?

    Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?

    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.

    Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?

    CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower), the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.

    The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.

    Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.

    The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status? I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance of such status requires a far more diversified economy.

    When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.

    Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".

    Best

    Avery, April 18, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT
    @Mark Chapman In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black' release. Not always, but often.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-russias-s-400-missile-system-in-action-and-heres-1746490022

    I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft element using current tactics.

    It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry. {I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse phase. }

    I don't doubt the veracity of the claim in the article. All I was commenting on was this sentence of the author of the article: {From people who serve on it, and I quote:" mind boggling capabilities".}

    Traditionally Soviets/Russians have do spend more of their resources on defense, particularly anti-air. Their anti-air missiles have a solid track record: the highly competent USAF – in personnel, and training, and technology – lost lots and lots of equipment to Soviet SAMs in Viet Nam. Even high-flying B52 were not safe.

    Also, Egyptians shot down lots of Israeli jets with Soviet AAs during the Yom Kippur war .

    So there is no doubt in my mind that S-300/S-400 are very capable systems. But the phrase 'mind boggling' is a bit of a hyperbole.
    What is it based on? engineering specifications and simulated tests.

    I have a bit of a technical background (commercial, not military).
    We'd simulate all sorts real-life conditions in testing the product, but as soon as it was sent out, humans managed to find some sequence that crashed the system. You just can't simulate the randomness of the real world.

    If and when the S-400 is used in anger, then we'll see if its capabilities are 'mind boggling' . Until then, it's just conjecture.

    Seamus Padraig, April 18, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
    @LondonBob Trump's isolationism and embrace of realpolitik is just a recognition of realities, interestingly this is a viewpoint shared in many European capitals, despite their fulminating over Trump. If Trump isn't co-opted he deserves congratulations for stymieing the traditional imperial overstretch, that is unless recent events in Syria and the Ukraine, perhaps analogous to the Boer War, don't already represent the high points of US power before inevitable decline. Avoiding a WWI type general conflagration will be achievement enough.

    We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.

    We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.

    True, but it can be effective as a propaganda technique nevertheless. Orwell referred to it as 'doublethink'.

    iffen, April 18, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT
    @Sam Shama
    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
    Hi Kiza,

    I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.

    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.
    "Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01USM156N

    I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?

    Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?

    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
    Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?

    CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower), the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.

    The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.

    Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEXCHUS

    The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status? I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance of such status requires a far more diversified economy.


    When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
    Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".

    Best Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements.

    Who gets to define "least desirable"?

    I know that you are not talking about IAM members.

    A good defense industry is vital. In a capitalist economy, what other model for the MIC do you have in mind?

    ThatDamnGood , April 18, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT
    @Timur The Lame @SmoothieX12

    The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP and GNP tabulations.

    Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first and foremost and that was that.

    I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.

    Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident (USS Donald Cook).

    Cheers- Kitty Hawk.

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2000/12/2254/

    in the middle, April 18, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". Come on! While serving in Africa, I saw the US Marines, and, and, well, not many whites were visible! Mostly minorities, specially Hispanics, and Blacks, so there goes your argument; same for the Army. So Hush! (The AF is the only service with majority whites). The Navy, lots of Philippinos.
    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT
    @Timur The Lame @SmoothieX12

    The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP and GNP tabulations.

    Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first and foremost and that was that.

    I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.

    Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident (USS Donald Cook).

    Cheers- There were many cases of Russian SU-24, TU-142, Tu-22s flying over one of the US carriers. Here is one such case:

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/two-russian-bombers-buzz-u-s-aircraft-carrier/

    Nothing secret about it. Roger Thompson in his seminal work on US Navy gives a recount of number of such cases:

    https://www.usni.org/store/books/clear-decks-50-90/lessons-not-learned

    There is nothing secret really about it, except for reputational losses. Cases of breaking through US Carrier Battle Groups air defense and ASW screens are very numerous. As per this USS Donald Cook "affair", which continues to dominate many "military" forums–a complete baloney, of course, SU-24 are simply not equipped for alleged "burning of circuits" and "shutting down radars". Here I discuss a little bit the issue.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/05/so-much-for-trumps-new-foreign-policy.html

    Z-man, April 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT
    @iffen Nah, you are still the greatest idiot on unz

    And the field of competition is not that weak.

    And a weak sister chimes in. •
    Timur The Lame, April 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
    @ Smoothiex12,

    Thank you for the information. I shall look up your post regarding the Donald Cook incident. Your take on it would be news to me as it did seem to be disabled, though I only read relatively superficial accounts.

    As ThatDamnGood pointed out (thanks) it was indeed the Kitty Hawk incident that escaped my recollection. I know that these type incidents occur but it was something about the aforementioned case that stuck in my mind, the super low altitude I think.

    Time for a revisit and a memory tonic. But then again even Kasparov eventually lost to Deep Blue.

    Cheers-

    Seminumerical, April 18, 2017 at 9:59 pm GMT
    @AtomAnt "Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average"

    Dude, you're delusional. The US military is to a large extent a paper tiger. Example: Aircraft carriers are not survivable against Russian or Chinese missiles and subs. They are good for bombing 3rd world countries only, like 19th century gunboats (plus fattening MIC coffers). Example: A Rand report found the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, isn't fast enough to run away".

    I would argue nothing is as important as missile technology. Russia may be leading in that.

    Furthermore, the US has lower income and less capital now than 20 years ago. Russia has a central bank focused on rational economics rather than milking the country for billionaires' sake. They insist on positive interest rates so savers get the benefit of their money. That's why Russia is growing albeit slowly while the US regresses.
    The US will find fighting Russia is not like fighting Arabs. (Remember what some Israeli general said about fighting Arabs.) The US hasn't fought without air superiority in over 74 years.

    Note the moral dimension, also. The US has to pay its military 2X the equivalent private sector wages, because no one wants to die for Lockheed Martin. Sure the Aircraft carriers are vulnerable. But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile or torpedo. So the carriers get to project power despite their vulnerability. •

    inertial, April 18, 2017 at 11:03 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
    Sure, and that is why a company which produces nothing of value "commands" the so called "investments" which are several times larger than those of Boeing who is de facto US national treasure and who, as you stated, has problems with raising "capital". That pretty much says it all. Again, I omit here the trick with stock buybacks. But in the end, you seem to miss completely the point--structure of GDP.

    You may go here and see for yourself how FIRE overtook manufacturing in US in output. What is "output", of course, remains a complete mystery, same as many other services, once one considers the "quality" of education in US public schools which reflects in the most profound way on US labor force which increasingly begins to look like a third world one.

    https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=51&step=1#reqid=51&step=51&isuri=1&5114=a&5102=15

    In general, we speak here different languages and I may only refer you back to Michael Lind's quote in my text. Judged in a larger, geopolitical framework, one can observe very clearly the process of US literally running out of resources and no amount of "raised capital" can change it. This is not to speak about the whole house of cards of Pax Americana which rested on US military imperial mythology. Once this mythology is debunked (the process which is ongoing as I type it) the house of cards folds. Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct sets.)

    And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the "real" economy like GM.

    Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems? Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big? Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.

    Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen to cranks.

    Kiza, April 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT
    @ondrej Am I missing any other component of success?

    Just a possibility - or my hypothesis I am playing lately:-)

    It can be language according Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
    The principle of linguistic relativity that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined to include two versions. The strong version says that language determines thought, and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.

    and also due to fact that:

    Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development any sudden systemic upheaval. [ ] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the present. [ ] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European." ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp.
    59-60).

    Which could explain math skills of Russians and Indian:-) because languages are closely related.

    + learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view, if you look at current Russian elites Shoigu, Lavrov and others they speak usually one or more foreign languages fluently.

    learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view

    I do not know if this has been scientifically established but I can certainly vouch for it personally because learning every new language gives you a different perspective on existing things. After starting to learn a new language I would think – I had no idea that lego could be arranged this way as well! Therefore, learning new languages broadens one's view of the world but whether it also helps recognize other points of view probably depends on the tolerance of the person. Maybe the key word in your statement is "helps".

    Kiza, April 18, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT
    @Z-man And a weak sister chimes in. I provided a link about North Korea to a blog which could educate you about it. But you still persisted with your original bull. This is a clear characteristic of an idiot, because the uninformed inform and correct themselves. And yes, there is a strong competition here at unz for the title of King of All Idiots.

    Here it is again, one last time, The Reason for North Korea's Nuclear Program and Its Unrequited Offers to End It : http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/the-reason-behind-north-koreas-nuclear-program-and-its-offer-to-end-it.html#more

    On North Korea, the US chefs cook up their usual menu of bullshit and bombs , whilst the latest chef being the most prolific on both.

    Seraphim, April 19, 2017 at 12:11 am GMT
    @AP
    I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
    Sorry, that's just completely wrong.

    The best rough analogy to Russia of pre-1904 would be China (though China is further along in its development, perhaps it would be Russia of 1914 or later, had Russia not stupidly gotten itself into World War I).

    The US would somehow be analogous to the British Empire in its decline. A key difference, however, is the US' massive population (more than double that of Russia), territory and natural resources compared to that of the British mainland. This probably provides some sort of floor to the American decline that Britain didn't have.

    Also, keep in mind that western Russophobes plus Bolsheviks exaggerated the Tsars' Russia's weakness and incompetence, while there was nobody to defend it. This makes the picture unrealistically negative. During World War I, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers (compare Russian vs. British performance vs. the Ottoman Empire) and was able to maintain a stable front vs. the third.

    Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg. The declaration of war against France followed on the 3d of August, followed by the violation of Belgium neutrality.
    Russia was far from being defeated in 1916-17. •
    NoseytheDuke, April 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT
    @iffen Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements.

    Who gets to define "least desirable"?

    I know that you are not talking about IAM members.

    A good defense industry is vital. In a capitalist economy, what other model for the MIC do you have in mind?

    One that focuses on the defence of the nation?
    The Alarmist, April 19, 2017 at 2:51 am GMT
    @Sam Shama
    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
    Hi Kiza,

    I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.


    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.

    "Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01USM156N

    I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?

    Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?


    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
    Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?

    CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower), the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.

    The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.

    Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEXCHUS

    The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status? I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance of such status requires a far more diversified economy.


    When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
    Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".

    Best

    ""Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite."

    US inflation as officially reported is significantly understated. Do a little shopping from time to time and tell me what kind of inflation you actually experience. I come back to the US every few months, and it is hard to not notice how expensive many things have become over the past couple of decades.

    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

    Kiza, April 19, 2017 at 4:12 am GMT
    @The Alarmist
    ""Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite."
    US inflation as officially reported is significantly understated. Do a little shopping from time to time and tell me what kind of inflation you actually experience. I come back to the US every few months, and it is hard to not notice how expensive many things have become over the past couple of decades.

    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ... ad nauseum.

    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

    "Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks" which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and all.

    I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .

    Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.

    Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 5:19 am GMT
    @Kiza
    learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view
    I do not know if this has been scientifically established but I can certainly vouch for it personally because learning every new language gives you a different perspective on existing things. After starting to learn a new language I would think - I had no idea that lego could be arranged this way as well! Therefore, learning new languages broadens one's view of the world but whether it also helps recognize other points of view probably depends on the tolerance of the person. Maybe the key word in your statement is "helps". One could say that to certain degree it is disadvantage for English to be lingua-franca.

    In many ways it is also most abused language in world. All speakers bring to English their language frameworks.

    One could conclude that English native speakers became more accustomed – to be more tolerant for non-precise meanings or statements of others to certain degree – due to many non-native English speakers. Therefore it is not that obvious for them.

    I think, speakers of other languages would often not accept such improper usage of words or grammar in their language – (thinking) because by language we think.

    Combine that with euphemisms and political correctness and you have recepy for disaster in communication.

    Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT
    @inertial Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct sets.)

    And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the "real" economy like GM.

    Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems? Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big? Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.

    Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen to cranks.

    The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it.

    Obviously false statement. You would need to at least some adjective such as mostly, probably, usually into sentence. Frame it in current prevailing socio-economical system.

    Just ask Soviets if they won ww2 due to strong financial system, or put Sputnik into space for that matter.

    So there is not at all any correlation in between financial sector and real economy;-)

    Kiza, April 19, 2017 at 9:04 am GMT
    @Ondrej
    The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it.
    Obviously false statement. You would need to at least some adjective such as mostly, probably, usually into sentence. Frame it in current prevailing socio-economical system.

    Just ask Soviets if they won ww2 due to strong financial system, or put Sputnik into space for that matter.

    So there is not at all any correlation in between financial sector and real economy;-) In theory, the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of investments, as opposed to central planning. This is how it us supposed to support the real economy. In reality, the Western financial system, and possibly the Chinese one, have turned into a leach draining blood out of the real economy, much worse than central planning. •

    Frederic Bastiat , April 19, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT
    @inertial Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct sets.)

    And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the "real" economy like GM.

    Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems? Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big? Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.

    Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen to cranks.

    Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why.

    The financial sector is a fraud. It is a parasitic industry that only sucks tax payers money in the long run.

    Nassim Taleb is spot on regarding the financial industry:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/69813f49-27b1-431f-8edc-ea892aa96d8d

    Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 11:36 am GMT
    @Kiza In theory, the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of investments, as opposed to central planning. This is how it us supposed to support the real economy. In reality, the Western financial system, and possibly the Chinese one, have turned into a leach draining blood out of the real economy, much worse than central planning.

    In theory , the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of investments, as opposed to central planning.

    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.

    I know theory, but there is empirical evidence that it does not, see Taleb for that matter, or Schumpeter in my comment 165.

    Schumpeter is worth to read , as he argues, logically, in case of market equilibrium = fair prices interest would approach to zero, and it ceases to be incentive for financing innovation. And this leads us back to Marx`s theory of simple reproduction as his main argument in Kapital Volume I. which create a problem for system.

    As for Central economy, you would be probably surprised – at least I was surprised,
    that it was in fact J.V. Stalin who critiqued too much of Central planning. He was warning in 50. that it would block next development of system. in his book Economical problems of socialism.

    You mention your experience with socialistic system, in case you want to refresh your memory or get better than propagandistic (from right or left) view of Marx . I advise David Harwey lectures on youtube.

    Kiza , April 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT
    @Kiza
    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
    "Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks" which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and all.

    I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .

    Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.

    Here I quote a funny comment from a guy on zerohedge. This is how the Western economies have been operating:

    You have two cows.
    You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
    The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
    The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
    The public then buys your bull.

    AP, April 19, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT
    @Seraphim Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg. The declaration of war against France followed on the 3d of August, followed by the violation of Belgium neutrality.
    Russia was far from being defeated in 1916-17.

    Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg.

    It declared war first, after Russia had mobilized and refused to turn back its mobilization. Germany would not and should not have waited until huge masses of Russian troops had actually crossed its border before declaring war.

    The sad events of the 20th century in some ways can be seen as a tragic, Old Testament style story of sin and brutal retribution. Serbia committed regicide, and lost 25% of its population in the ensuing war. Nicholas II, a decent but foolish man, supported the regicidal regime and was himself murdered, along with his family. The peoples of the Russian Empire didn't stop that crime, and suffered the millions dead under Bolshevism. Wilhelm sent Lenin to Russia and lost his own throne. The peoples of Central Europe abandoned the Habsburgs and suffered decades of Nazism, Communism and war. Such was the sad fate of the former Holy Alliance.

    ANOSPH , April 19, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov There were many cases of Russian SU-24, TU-142, Tu-22s flying over one of the US carriers. Here is one such case:

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/two-russian-bombers-buzz-u-s-aircraft-carrier/

    Nothing secret about it. Roger Thompson in his seminal work on US Navy gives a recount of number of such cases:

    https://www.usni.org/store/books/clear-decks-50-90/lessons-not-learned

    There is nothing secret really about it, except for reputational losses. Cases of breaking through US Carrier Battle Groups air defense and ASW screens are very numerous. As per this USS Donald Cook "affair", which continues to dominate many "military" forums--a complete baloney, of course, SU-24 are simply not equipped for alleged "burning of circuits" and "shutting down radars". Here I discuss a little bit the issue.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/05/so-much-for-trumps-new-foreign-policy.html Andrei,

    Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian system is due for a collapse?

    Part 1: Part 2:

    I realize that he's been saying essentially the same thing for three years, but surely his words are worth at least some consideration given his "contacts in the elites."

    Andrei Martyanov, • Website April 19, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
    @Seminumerical Sure the Aircraft carriers are vulnerable. But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile or torpedo. So the carriers get to project power despite their vulnerability.

    But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile or torpedo

    Not against peer. Dynamics there is very different than it would have been with some adversary as Iran. Unless the "disproportionate" response becomes nuclear, what is a definition of "disproportionate". I can tell you what may happen if one of the CVNs sunk and this is not my idea but of former Chief Of Naval Operations late Admiral Elmo Zumwalt: the psychological demoralizing impact will be overwhelming and that is what may push a political (and suicidal) decision on nuclear response. In purely conventional framework–the game may become very different. To have some (however disagreeable from purely tactical point of view) primer on one of very many scenarios, you may try Naval War College Newport Papers, especially #20.

    https://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/-Newport-Papers/Documents/20-pdf.aspx

    I am no fan of US military's war gaming but it will give you at least some general idea on how US Navy wanted to think about itself.

    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 19, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT
    @ANOSPH Andrei,

    Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian system is due for a collapse?

    Part 1: http://strelkov-i-i.livejournal.com/26121.html
    Part 2: http://strelkov-i-i.livejournal.com/26458.html

    I realize that he's been saying essentially the same thing for three years, but surely his words are worth at least some consideration given his "contacts in the elites."

    Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian system is due for a collapse?

    My attitude to Strelkov is similar to my attitude to clowns or not-adequate people. Having said all that, Russia does face some serious economic challenges which are of purely domestic origins and I never hid my reserved attitude to Putin (despite all his achievements) because of the fact him being an economic "liberal" and surrounding himself in economic block with a bunch of Gaidar-worshipping hacks. Medvedev's government is an affront to overwhelming majority of Russian people.

    Sam Shama, April 19, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT
    @Kiza
    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
    "Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks" which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and all.

    I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .

    Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.

    Hey Kiza,

    I base my views on data and economic theory generally accepted in the West. If one summarily dismisses these instruments of analyses then, of course, all conclusions derived are rejectable. Which is what you are doing. Fine.

    Simply deeming our system fraudulent and built on myth amounts to a meaningless unfalsifiable assertion. Unfalsifiable, since the collapse event dangles always in the undefined "future".

    His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist.

    I thought you were using past experience to assert with high confidence that the West is headed for a repeat of Weimar Has there been a total destruction of productive capacity which eluded my reverie?

    Data for prediction [at least parameter estimation of any system] is always from the past. I am not aware of any data from the future, is anyone? I don't claim a system superior without subjecting it to out-of-sample and live outcomes. Some Western models have failed recently [pure Rational Expectations models, e.g.]while others have succeeded with flying colours [New Keynesian Models]. What good is any theory or claim without corroborating empirical evidence? To me, claims of our economies headed to a collapse, because because well BIG DEBT! WEIMAR! FALSE STATISTICS! etc are just emotional outbursts devoid of any internally consistent theory, let alone the utter absence of evidence since the whole trope started in 2008.

    Alarmist: you stated earlier that inflation stats are misleading. I am perfectly willing to accept that statement if it were supported by facts. If during your visits to supermarkets, shops, online purchases you found your favourite items costing more, that in itself is no reason to conclude inflation is at hand. I do shop, and a great deal in point of fact :-), and I've noticed that prices of computers, e.g. have fallen continuously and dramatically. What about rent inflation? Or transportation? Rent inflation stands at levels much lower than averages from the past 70 years and transportation costs have fallen greatly as well [Air travel as a percentage of median per capita income]. Do you deny these? Trouble arises when people take these things for granted, and only complain about (mostly) food items that have gone up in price ["I hate these prices for eggs! Back in my childhood, a dozen cost only a penny!"]

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA#0 [change the graph to go from 1950 and pick the percentage change option]

    If you don't believe in official CPI/Core PCE, look at the MIT Billion Prices Index, which provides one with real-time inflation from literally a billion prices from online markets which operate globally. Those indices substantially tell the same story: inflation has been heading down!

    Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear war).

    How is he going to regime change Russia? It's a pipe dream. Putin is immensely popular and in my reckoning, he is simply negotiating spheres of influence with USA.

    China, well they are joined to the US at the hip!. The U.S. is only looking for China to wean away from its mercantilist stance and start buying our goods and services.

    Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer.

    Russia is a vastly endowed nation with a gifted population. The climate isn't all that balmy, shall we say. Her natural resources are the assets of her citizens to do with them as they deem optimal.

    I'll go along with your hypothetical scenario in which Putin is unseated and a new Yeltsin is installed. I would consider that outcome both undesirable and approaching a vanishingly low probability. You'll need to convince me of its plausibility and DT's desire to bring about such an outcome.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Bannons Worldview Dissecting the Message of The Fourth Turning

    This four seasons theory looks to me like some king of amateur dialectics...
    80 years is close to Kondratiev cycles length.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years. ..."
    "... This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians, makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary as spring, summer, fall and winter. ..."
    "... In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage. This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border control. ..."
    "... We should shed and simplify the federal government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling its core infrastructure. ..."
    "... One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture - has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies into decline. ..."
    "... The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty his administration might demand. ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    Stephen K. Bannon has great admiration for a provocative but disputed theory of history that argues that the United States is nearing a crisis that could be just as disruptive and catastrophic as the most seminal global turning points of the last 250 years.

    This prophecy, which is laid out in a 1997 book, "The Fourth Turning," by two amateur historians, makes the case that world events unfold in predictable cycles of roughly 80 years each that can be divided into four chapters, or turnings: growth, maturation, entropy and destruction. Western societies have experienced the same patterns for centuries, the book argues, and they are as natural and necessary as spring, summer, fall and winter.

    Few books have been as central to the worldview of Mr. Bannon, a voracious reader who tends to see politics and policy in terms of their place in the broader arc of history.

    But what does the book tell us about how Mr. Bannon is approaching his job as President Trump's chief strategist and what he sees in the country's future? Here are some excerpts from the book, with explanations from The New York Times.

    'Winter Is Coming,' and We'd Better Be Prepared

    History is seasonal, and winter is coming. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake. Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, one commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II. The risk of catastrophe will be high. The nation could erupt into insurrection or civil violence, crack up geographically, or succumb to authoritarian rule.

    The "Fourth Turning" authors, William Strauss and Neil Howe, started using that phrase before it became a pop culture buzzword courtesy of HBO's "Game of Thrones." But, as the authors point out, some winters are mild. And sometimes they arrive late. The best thing to do, they say, is to prepare for what they wrote will be "America's next rendezvous with destiny."

    In an interview with The Times, Mr. Bannon said, "Everything President Trump is doing - all of it - is to get ahead of or stop any potential crisis." But the magnitude of this crisis - and who is ultimately responsible for it - is an unknown that Mr. Trump can use to his political advantage. This helps explain Mr. Trump's tendency to emphasize crime rates, terrorist attacks and weak border control.

    The 'Deconstruction of the Administrative State,' and Much More, Is Inevitable

    The Fourth Turning will trigger a political upheaval beyond anything Americans could today imagine. New civic authority will have to take root, quickly and firmly - which won't be easy if the discredited rules and rituals of the old regime remain fully in place. We should shed and simplify the federal government in advance of the Crisis by cutting back sharply on its size and scope but without imperiling its core infrastructure.

    The rhythmic, seasonal nature of history that the authors identify foresees an inevitable period of decay and destruction that will tear down existing social and political institutions. Mr. Bannon has famously argued that the overreaching and ineffective federal government - "the administrative state," as he calls it - needs to be dismantled. And Mr. Trump, he said, has just begun the process.

    As Mr. Howe said in an interview with The Times: "There has to be a period in which we tear down everything that is no longer functional. And if we don't do that, it's hard to ever renew anything. Forests need fires, and rivers need floods. These happen for a reason."

    'The American Dream Is Dead'

    James Truslow Adams (wrote) of an 'American Dream' to refer to this civic faith in linear advancement. Time, they suggested, was the natural ally of each successive generation. Thus arose the dogma of an American exceptionalism, the belief that this nation and its people had somehow broken loose from any risk of cyclical regress . Yet the great weakness of linear time is that it obliterates time's recurrence and thus cuts people off from the eternal - whether in nature, in each other, or in ourselves.

    One of the authors' major arguments is that Western society - particularly American culture - has denied the significance of cyclical patterns in history in favor of the more palatable and self-serving belief that humans are on an inexorable march toward improvement. They say this allows us to gloss over the flaws in human nature that allow for bad judgment - and bad leaders that drive societies into decline.

    Though he probably did not intentionally invoke Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe, Mr. Trump was channeling their thesis when he often said during his campaign, "The American dream is dead." One of the scenarios the book puts forward is one in which leaders who emerge during a crisis can revive and rebuild dead institutions. Mr. Trump clearly saw himself as one of these when he said his goal would be to bring back the American dream.

    Conform, or Else

    In a Fourth Turning, the nation's core will matter more than its diversity. Team, brand, and standard will be new catchwords. Anyone and anything not describable in those terms could be shunted aside - or worse. Do not isolate yourself from community affairs . If you don't want to be misjudged, don't act in a way that might provoke Crisis-era authority to deem you guilty. If you belong to a racial or ethnic minority, brace for a nativist backlash from an assertive (and possibly authoritarian) majority.

    The authors envision a return to a more traditional, conservative social order as one outcome of a crisis. They also see the possibility of retribution and punishment for those who resist or refuse to comply with the new expectations for conformity. Mr. Trump's "with us or against us" attitude raises questions about what kind of leader he would be in such a crisis - and what kind of loyalty his administration might demand.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Trump folded. The purple revolution against him succeeded. He was unable withstand the pressure of anti-Russian attacks and Trump as a Russian agent smear. Few

    Notable quotes:
    "... One thing worth reiterating: Trump has largely shown himself to be no different than standard Republicans on budget issues, and his core supporters still love him. It's as though they actually care little about economic issues ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Sanjait, April 19, 2017 at 08:32 AM
    Bernstein on garbage duty.

    One thing worth reiterating: Trump has largely shown himself to be no different than standard Republicans on budget issues, and his core supporters still love him. It's as though they actually care little about economic issues and just want a guy who acts terribly towards minorities and foreigners.

    jonny bakho -> Sanjait... , April 19, 2017 at 08:57 AM
    The southern rednecks who control the GOP believe in the Plantation Economy. The Plantation owner exploits the slave and white trash labor and then hires the privileged white guys with the money he extorts. White guys get ahead by brown nosing the wealthy plantation owner.

    The alternative economy that is thriving is entrepreneurial and many people find it easy to suck up to a rich white guy than to go on their own. It is a failing economic model but the only one some people know.

    libezkova -> Sanjait... , April 19, 2017 at 10:14 AM
    "his core supporters still love him"

    I am not so sure. Trump folded. The "purple" revolution against him succeeded. He was unable withstand the pressure of anti-Russian attacks and "Trump as a Russian agent" smear. Few people love turncoats.

    Now he is within just sex change operation difference from Hillary Clinton on foreign policy issues. In other words he betrayed anti-war right -- an important part of his base. He also lost paleoconservatives, another less important, but still a sizable part of his former base.

    Out of his domestic promise the only part that still stands is the Trump Wall -- "building the wall on the border with Mexico" project :-)

    Also, on domestic issues he proved to be so incompetent, that I am not sure that any of his supporters are exited about him. His dealing with Obamacare issues were not only disastrously incompetent and also did not correspond to his election promises. And that was noted.

    He promised to "drain the swamp" but instead he became a part of the swamp himself.

    Politically he is Obama II -- a Republican version of Obama: another king of "bait and switch".

    "Agent Orange" now wants to use jingoism to artificially propel hid approval ratings, but his attack on Syrian airbase is not just a war crime. It is much worse. It was a blunder.

    In other words large part of his supporters see that "the king is naked."

    libezkova -> pgl... , April 19, 2017 at 10:24 AM
    Actually analogy with Obama is deeper than the "king of bait and switch" characterization.

    Like Obama before him, he played the role of a "tabula rasa" -- an empty board on which the frustrated Americans could project their desire for the change ("change we can believe in"), but who, in reality, was just another sell-out.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Assessing Russias Military Strength

    Notable quotes:
    "... In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help to implement it. As Michael Lind writes: ..."
    "... At this point, the only locality where the US can hope to "defeat" Russia is in Syria, to reassert, even if for a little while longer, itself as "greatest military in history". But even there the window of opportunities is closing fast since the Russian conventional response in Europe would be devastating. ..."
    "... As Colonel Pat Lang's blog noted : "If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions of grandeur". ..."
    "... US Naval Institute Proceedings ..."
    "... The Unz Review ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    "... [AKA "SmoothieX12"] ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.unz.com
    There is a popular point of view in some of Russia's political circles, especially among those who profess monarchist views and cling to a famous meme of 1913 Tsarist Russia development statistics, that WW I was started by Germany to forestall Russia's industrial development which would inevitably challenge Germany's plans on domination of Europe. A somewhat similar argument could be made for the WW II, but, in general, preventive wars are nothing new in human history. While "preventive" argument may or may not be a valid one regarding WW I, there is no doubt that it could be used, among others, when explaining the origins of a war.

    A classic example of such "preventive" war is, of course, US invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the mayhem which ensued there when US, as was stated then, "prevented" Saddam from obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction, that is nuclear weapons, which, of course, he never had and wasn't intent on obtaining . It is becoming increasingly clear that "preventive war" has become a preferred instrument in the hands of Washington establishment, be it Iraq, Libya or Syria.

    But what about Russia, one may ask, or China. Are "preventive wars" against them possible? Taken at face value the question may seem strange-both China, and especially Russia are nuclear armed states which can defend themselves. They do have deterrents and that supposedly should stop any attempt on any kind of war on them. This all is true but only so far. One may consider the current geopolitical situation in which China has all but created a new alternative economic power pole , and in which the US finds herself increasingly in the position of the still extremely important but second and, eventually, even third place player in Eurasian economic development. The United States doesn't like being in second and doesn't take such a reality kindly.

    But for Washington, whose political discourse is based on American exceptionalism and foreign policy now is defined completely in terms of military power, emergence of a "peer" military power is absolutely unacceptable. While China is an economic giant and is now arguably the largest economy in the world, she still has a long way to go until she becomes a true "peer" to the United States militarily. This is not the case with Russia. It becomes also true when one begins to look at doctrinal and technological developments both in the US and Russia. The contrast is startling, even if one considers a very dubious US intelligence analysis on Russia .

    Russia's military doctrine and posture are explicitly defensive. Power Projection in Russian strategic considerations is secondary, if not tertiary, to the defense of Russia proper and her immediate geographic vicinity which can roughly be defined as about 80-85% of territory of the former USSR. This is not the case with the United States who is a consummate expeditionary power and fights wars not on own territory, and whose population and political elites are not conditioned by continental warfare.

    Arthur J. Alexander in his " Decision Making In Soviet Weapons Procurement " came up with quantification of what he called "classes of forces" (or constants) influencing aggregate defense expenditures for USSR. This quantification remains virtually unchanged for modern day Russia. To quote Alexander, two of the most "heavy" constants he mentions are: "History, culture and values–40-50 percent. International environment, threat and internal capabilities–10-30 percent" . Taken by their maxima, 50+30=80%, we get the picture. 80% of Russia's military expenditures are dictated by real military threats, which were, time after time over centuries, realized for Russia and resulted in the destruction and human losses on a scale incomprehensible for people who write US military doctrines and national security strategies. This is especially true for Neocon "strategists" who have a very vague understanding of the nature and application of military power-expeditionary warfare simply does not provide a proper angle on the issues of actual defense. The nation whose 20 th Century losses due to wars from WW I, to Civil War to WW II number roughly in 40-45 million range, would certainly try to not repeat such ordeals. Even famous Russophobe and falsifier, Richard Pipes, was forced to admit that:

    Such figures are beyond the comprehension of most Americans. But clearly a country must define "unacceptable damage" differently from the United States which has known no famines or purges, and whose deaths from all the wars waged since 1775 are estimated at 650,000-fewer casualties than Russia suffered in the 900-day siege of Leningrad in World War II alone. Such a country (Russia) tends also to assess the rewards of defense in much more realistic terms.

    In layman's lingo, the United States lacks geographic, historic, cultural, economic and technological pressures to develop and have a coherent defensive military doctrine and weapons which would help to implement it. As Michael Lind writes:

    The possibility of military defeat and invasion are usually left out of discussion .in the United states and Britain. The United States, if one discounts Pearl Harbor has not suffered a serious invasion from 1812; Britain, though it has been bombed from the air in the (20th century), has been free from foreign invasion even longer .Elsewhere in the world, political elites cannot as easily separate foreign policy and economics.

    Russia lives under these pressures constantly and, in fact, Russians as ethnos were formed and defined by warfare. Russia is also defined by her weapons and it is here where we may start looking for one of the most important rationales for anti-Russian hysteria in Washington which have proceeded unabated sincethe return of Crimea in 2014, in reality even earlier.

    The Western analytical and expert community failed utterly in assessing Russia's both economic and, as a consequence, military potential. The problem here is not with Russia, which offers unprecedented access to all kinds of foreigners, from businessmen and tourists to political and intelligence (overt and covert) professionals. The problem is with Western view of Russia which as late as three years ago was completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities. That is the reality not defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices.

    It took a complete and embarrassing failure of the West's economic sanctions on Russia to recognize that the actual size of Russia's economy is about that of Germany, if not larger, and that Russia was defining herself in terms of enclosed technological cycles, localization and manufacturing long before she was forced to engage in the war in Georgia in 2008. Very few people realistically care about Russia's Stock Market, the financial markets of Germany are on the order of magnitude larger, but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can. Germany doesn't have a space industry, Russia does. The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry and her military-industrial complex which dwarfs that of any "economic" competitor Western "economists" always try to compare Russia to, with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only. Third or Second World economies do not produce such weapons as Borey-class strategic missile submarines or SU-35 fighter jets, they also do not build space-stations and operate the only global alternative to US GPS, GLONASS system.

    Whether this lesson will be learned by the combined West is yet to be seen. So far, the learning process has been slow for US crowd which cheered on US deindustrialization and invented a fairy tale concept of post-industrial, that is non-productive, virtual economy.

    The Russian economy is not without problems, far from it-it still tries to break with the "heritage" of robbery and deformities of 1990s and still tries to find its way on a path different from destructive ideology of Russia's "young reformers" who still dominate policy formulation, be it from the positions of power or through such institutions as notorious High School of Economics.

    Yet, it seems this economy which was " left in tatters " or was an economy of a " gas station masquerading as a country ", is the only other economy in the world which can produce and does produce the whole spectrum of weapons ranging from small arms to state-of-the-art complex weapon and signal processing systems. No other nation with the exception of the US and Russia, not even China, can produce and procure a cutting edge military technology which has capabilities beyond the reach of everyone else.

    Here, the US establishment, also known as the Neocon interventionist cabal, it seems, has begun to wake up to actual reality, not the fictitious one that the US can allegedly create for itself. Such as the fact that Russia, in a planned and well executed manner, without any unnecessary fanfare, launched a complete upgrade of her naval nuclear deterrent with the state of the art SSBNs of Borey-class (Project 955 and 955A). Three submarines of this type are already afloat while other 5 are in a different stages of completion and this is the program which most of US Russia "analysts" were laughing at 10 years ago. They are not laughing anymore.

    Today it is US Navy which is in dire need for upgrade of its nuclear deterrent, with the youngest of Ohio-class SSBN, SSBN-743 USS Louisiana, being 20 year old. The future replacement of venerable Ohio-class SSBNs, a Columbia-class is slated to go into production in 2021 that is if the R&D will go smoothly. But one has to consider a feature which became defining of US R&D and weapons procurement practices-delays and astronomical costs of US weapons, which, despite constantly being declared "superior", "unrivaled" and "best in the world" are not such at all, especially for the prices they are offered both domestically and abroad. As in the case with above mentioned Columbia-class SSBN, the GAO expects the cost of the whole program to be slightly above 97 billion dollars and that means that the average cost for each sub of this class will be around 8.1 billion dollars. That is much more than the cost of the whole-8 advanced submarines-program of Russia's naval nuclear deterrent.

    And this single example demonstrates well an abyss in fundamental approaches to the war between US and Russia: not only do Russian weapons rival those made in US, they are much-much less expensive and they provide Russia with this proverbial bang for a buck, also known in professional circles which deal with strategy and operation's research as cost/effectiveness ratio. Here, United States is simply no competition to Russia and the gap not only remains, it widens with ever-increasing speed. As Colonel Daniel Davies admitted : " The truth is, the United States is nowhere near as powerful and dominant as many believe ." That brings us to a second issue, of doctrines, operational concepts and weapons themselves.

    A complete inability to see the evolution of Russia's Armed Forces is another failure which not only irritated but continues to irritate US military-political establishment since it proved them completely wrong. Economic "blindness" factored in here very strongly-it was inevitable in a system that looks at the world through a grossly distorted Wall Street monetarist spyglass. Many times it was pointed out that direct linear comparison, dollar-for-dollar, of military budgets is wrong and does not reflect real military, in general, and combat, in particular, potentials in the least.

    While the US Navy was busy spending 420 million dollars per hull on its 26-ship fleet of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS), Russian Navy spent two times less per unit on a frigates whose combat capabilities dwarf those of any LCS in any aspect: ASW, Air Defense and Sensors, including the ability to launch supersonic anti-shipping cruise missiles from 600 kilometers and land-attack missiles from 2500. The same goes to much smaller and even much cheaper missile corvettes of Buyan and Karakurt classes which can engage any US Navy's targets, let alone something of LCS caliber.

    Experiences with a technological embarrassment known as F-35 merely confirm the fact that US is being tangled in a bizarre combination of unrealistic doctrinal views, unachievable technological and operational requirements and, in general, a complete failure to follow Sun Tzu's popular dictums of "Know Thy Enemy" and "Know Thy Self". On both counts the US policy makers and doctrine mongers failed miserably.

    As late as two years ago a number of US Russia's military "experts" declared that Russia's ground forces return to division structure was merely "symbolic". Symbolic they were not, with Russia resurrecting both divisions and armies as appropriate operational-tactical and operational-strategic units in order for a large scale combined arms operations. While following closely the evolution of US forces within the framework of initially much touted Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), Russia never changed her focus on the large scale combined arms operations. This came as a nasty surprise on 08/08/2008 when the elements of the supposedly "backward" Russian 58 th Army demolished NATO and Israel trained, and partially equipped, Saakashivili's Army in a matter of 96 hours. Nobody celebrated this victory and Russian Army was subjected, somewhat justifiably, to scathing criticism from many quarters. But it was clear already then that combined arms operations of large army units remain a principle method of the war between peer-to-peer state actors. The issue then, in 2008, was that US didn't consider Russia a peer and even near peer "status" was grudgingly afforded due to Russia's nuclear arsenal.

    Things changed dramatically after the coup in Kiev and junta unleashing a war in Donbass. Brigade and Division size forces there engaged in a full blown combined arms warfare, including head to head armor clashes, employment, especially for LDNR forces, of full C4ISR capabilities and Net-Centric warfare principles. So much so that it created a cultural shock for US military's COIN crowd , which got used to operate in the environment of total domination over its rag-tag lightly armed guerilla formations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

    And it was then, and later, in 2015, demonstrated by Russia's Syria campaign, that the realization of an inability to defeat Russia conventionally began to dawn on many in D.C. establishment. Thus the whole premise of last quarter century "Pax Americana"-alleged conventional military superiority over any adversary-was blown out of the water. American military record of the last quarter century is not impressive for a power which proclaimed herself to be a hyper-power and as having the most powerful military in history. As US Marine Corps Captain Joshua Waddle bitterly admitted :

    "Let us first begin with the fundamental underpinnings of this delusion: our measures of performance and effectiveness in recent wars. It is time that we, as professional military officers, accept the fact that we lost the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Objective analysis of the U.S. military's effectiveness in these wars can only conclude that we were unable to translate tactical victory into operational and strategic success".

    Delusion, of course, being the fact of US expecting a decisive tactical and technological superiority on the battlefield. Overwhelming empirical evidence tells a completely different story:

    United States military in future conflicts will have to deal, in case of conventional conflict against near-peer, let alone peer, with adversary who will have C4ISR capability either approaching that or on par with that of the US. This adversary will have the ability to counter US military decision cycles (OODA loop) with equal frequency and will be able to produce better tactical, operational and strategic decisions. US real and perceived advantage in electronic means of warfare (EW) will be greatly reduced or completely suppressed by present and future EW means of adversary thus forcing US forces fight under the conditions of partial or complete electronic blindness and with partially or completely suppressed communications and computer networks. US will encounter combat technologies not only on par but often better designed and used , from armor to artillery, to hyper-sonic anti-shipping missiles, than US military ever encountered. Modern air-forces and complex advanced air defense systems will make the main pillar of US military power-its Air Force-much less effective. Last but not least, today the US military will have to deal with a grim reality of its staging areas, rear supply facilities, lines of communications being the target of massive salvos of long-range high subsonic, supersonic and hyper-sonic missiles . The US military has never encountered such paradigm in its history. Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.

    But above all, if to finally name this "peer", which is Russia, and that is who pre-occupies the minds of former and current Pentagon's and National Security brass, in case of conventional conflict Russians will be fighting in defense of their motherland. Here Russia has a track record without equals in human history. Meanwhile, if the current military trends continue, and there are no reasons for them to stop , the window of opportunities for the Neocon cabal to attack Russia conventionally and unleash a preventive war is closing really fast (if it ever existed). That is what drives to a large extent an aggressive military rhetoric and plans, such as National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster's doctrine and war mongering.

    By mid 2020s Russia's rearmament program will be largely complete, which will allow Russia's Armed Forces to field and float a technology which will completely prevent NATO from exercising any illusions about the outcome of any conventional war in Russia's geographic vicinity, including her littoral, and that will mark the end of US designs on Eurasia by military means. It wouldn't matter how many carrier battle groups US will be able to move to forward areas or how many submarines, or how many brigades it will be able to deploy around Russia it will not be able to defeat Russia conventionally. With that, especially when one considers China's growing military potential, comes the end of Pax-Bellum Americana, the one we all hoped for this election cycle.

    At this point, the only locality where the US can hope to "defeat" Russia is in Syria, to reassert, even if for a little while longer, itself as "greatest military in history". But even there the window of opportunities is closing fast since the Russian conventional response in Europe would be devastating.

    As Colonel Pat Lang's blog noted : "If Russia decides to call our bluff and escalate things Trump will likely preside over a public humiliation that will explode America's military delusions of grandeur".

    Today, the United States in general, and her military in particular, still remain a premier geopolitical force, but increasingly they will have to content with the fact that the short-lived era of self-proclaimed superiority in every single facet of modern nation-states' activity is over, if it ever was the case to start with. Will the US "Deep State" unleash a preventive war to prevent Russia from serving US with the pink slip for its position as world's chaos-monger or will it be, rephrasing the magnificent Corelli Barnett: " US Power had quietly vanished amid stupendous events of the 21 st Century, like a ship-of-the-line going down unperceived in the smoke and confusion of battle ". This is the most important question of the 21 st Century so far, but knowing US deep state ignorance of Russia one can never discount its insanity and an acute case of sour grapes.

    Andrei Martyanov has extensive knowledge of naval issues, and has been published in US Naval Institute Proceedings . Using the handle "SmoothieX12," he has written over 130,000 words of comments at The Unz Review , overwhelmingly on Russian and military matters.

    Anonymous , April 17, 2017 at 5:31 am GMT

    • 100 Words Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

    Intelligent Dasein , • Website April 17, 2017 at 5:40 am GMT
    • 400 Words I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    • Agree: Amanda , bluedog , Seamus Padraig •
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 5:57 am GMT
    • 100 Words "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..

    Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917.

    • Agree: Randal •
    Art , April 17, 2017 at 7:30 am GMT
    • 100 Words Russia said it was going to bolster Syria's air defenses.

    If true – what does this mean for Israeli air power over Syria and Lebanon?

    Hezbollah has shown, even with its air force behind it that the IDF is a paper tiger.

    Without its air forces at 100%, Israel is very vulnerable. A war would be very costly. Many Jews want to leave Israel as it is now.

    Peace - Art

    animalogic , April 17, 2017 at 7:48 am GMT
    • 100 Words The US – with its NATO dogs contributing their yaps – has driven Russia & China into an economic & strategic partnership. Such a foreign policy must rate in the top ten of historical blunders. Essentially they have given a very helpful shove towards Eurasian unity - not yet, but forseeable, perhaps probable.
    Russia & China's continuing military advances are just one side of a coin: economic integration & advance is the other.
    If or when the US loses this struggle it need look no futher than classic Greek tragedy for the first causes of its decline: HUBRIS. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 9:27 am GMT
    Hey 'Neocon Cabal' is my phrase!!!!! (wink)
    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity that scares the Americans and the Jews to death. I hope the Iranians get as many of those SAM's as they need to defend against the Zionist threat! •
    mp , April 17, 2017 at 9:52 am GMT
    • 100 Words It is one thing to let a woman "man" a game console in order to fire a missile, or pilot a killer drone, hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the action. But it's another when "boots" hit the ground. I wonder how effective our Americanized, feminized, transgendered, gay friendly, diversified Army and Navy will be when they actually have to storm a beach, somewhere, against a real army–and not some third world outpost. •
    Verymuchalive , April 17, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT
    • 200 Words This is a situation that should never have permitted to arise. The US Federal Deficit is approaching $20 trillion, 2016′s Trade Deficit is $0.5 trillion and the Accumulated Trade Deficit over the last 30 years about $10 trillion. The US is to all intents bankrupt, and bankrupt states quickly lose their empires.
    Of course, America's creditors – China, Japan etc – have rigged the financial sector so that America is still able to afford their goods. Herein, lies the solution. The US dollar is a fiat currency and will collapse sooner or later. It is in Russia and China's interests that they precipitate such a collapse ASAP, even if they themselves suffer negative economic consequences.
    Faced with an imploding economy, and a choice between minimum social welfare measures and a grotesquely expansive military, there can only be one outcome for America. The Neocons will be defanged.
    This form of economic warfare has got to be a lot safer and more effective in achieving its aims than actual warfare. I sincerely hope that the Russians and Chinese have some such plan formulated.
    The era of military confrontation should have been over with the end of the Soviet Union. The Neocons have stolen the Peace, and helped themselves to the Peace Dividend. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    reiner Tor , • Website April 17, 2017 at 9:58 am GMT
    I think that while it's a grave mistake for Americans to underestimate Russians, it's also a grave mistake for Russians to underestimate Americans.

    Since I cannot claim to be an expert in military technology, I always read such articles with great interest, but never know with how much grain of salt I need to take them – none? a little? a lot? a whole salt mine?

    LondonBob , April 17, 2017 at 10:09 am GMT
    • 100 Words Trump's isolationism and embrace of realpolitik is just a recognition of realities, interestingly this is a viewpoint shared in many European capitals, despite their fulminating over Trump. If Trump isn't co-opted he deserves congratulations for stymieing the traditional imperial overstretch, that is unless recent events in Syria and the Ukraine, perhaps analogous to the Boer War, don't already represent the high points of US power before inevitable decline. Avoiding a WWI type general conflagration will be achievement enough.

    We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.

    Anatoly Karlin , • Website April 17, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT
    • 400 WordsNEW! Excellent article – and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time.

    NoseytheDuke, April 17, 2017 at 11:06 am GMT
    Having read many, many of SmoothieX12′s knowledgable comments and now this article, I would imagine that his many critics have enough egg on their faces to have their eggs any way they want them, except sunny side up of course.

    Nobody should be surprised by the revelations here nor should they feel disheartened. It is doubtful that Russia has any plans or even thoughts to ever invade or harm the US. The upside could be that the Neocons and the AIPAC crowd might become so disempowered that they will be finally held to account for their many crimes and that would be good for everyone.

    AP , April 17, 2017 at 12:06 pm GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Goods and services in Russia are considerably less expensive than in the West (and this includes the cost of producing fighter jets or rockets), so for such purposes GDP PPP is a better indicator than is nominal GDP. In terms of GDP PPP, Russia is of course not on par with the United States but is considerably higher than Mexico. It is in the same neighborhood as places such as Hungary.

    Russia's overall GDP PPP places it slightly below Germany – 6th place in the world:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

    Randal , April 17, 2017 at 12:22 pm GMT
    @anon "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..

    Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917. I agreed with the main thrust of your comment, but I would just note that I don't agree with the last sentence:

    It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917.

    The essence of the US was always expansion by military and other means, from its settler colonial origins and the Manifest Destiny to the expansionist wars against Mexico and Spain, the Monroe Doctrine, and colonial expansions into Hawaii, the Philippines and central America, all before Wilson, who admittedly took the opportunity handed to him by the self-destructive warring of the European powers to go for the big one.

    It's just the nature of the beast.

    Lewl42, April 17, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita.

    But the US GDP is of an different structure. Compared it is overblown with pure financial sales and "hedonistic adjustments". More is blown by the culture. In the US much more everyday things relies on money. In case of case they are all worth nothing. Furthermore, if it comes to conflicts than the whole US Infrastructure has to be "revalued", and i doubt that it can withheld some stress tests.

    If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke

    No country that relies on oil ( Russia do not) has made substantial improvements. Normally they are problem states where the problems made by oil are solved by money.

    So from my point of view the opposite is true. Russia has made the big mistake to open itself to the west and was bitten. Now they readjust (with a border to china). Thank's to the US Oligarchs which thrown away that chance for they're primitive Neanderthal tribe thinking.

    reiner Tor, Website April 17, 2017 at 12:33 pm GMT
    @mp It is one thing to let a woman "man" a game console in order to fire a missile, or pilot a killer drone, hundreds (or even thousands) of miles away from the action. But it's another when "boots" hit the ground. I wonder how effective our Americanized, feminized, transgendered, gay friendly, diversified Army and Navy will be when they actually have to storm a beach, somewhere, against a real army--and not some third world outpost. Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". •
    alexander, April 17, 2017 at 12:36 pm GMT
    Thank you Mr Martyanov, for a highly informative article.

    I am always amazed at the "euphemisms" of our "belligerent war" era, and how they affix themselves, and have affixed themselves, to our mendacious and deceitful behavior.

    Take the idea of a "surge", as was used during the Iraq disaster, as a substitute for the word "escalation" because nobody was comfortable with "escalating the war" once the imminent WMD threat had proven to be phony .so our belligerent elites substituted the word "surge" to ram through funding for the escalation.

    Or lets look at the "euphemisms" of "pre-emptive war" or "preventive war". Do they not function as substitutes for what is , in reality, the greatest crime any nation on earth can commit "War of Aggression"?

    There are other areas too, where we need to take a long, hard look a this " parade of euphemisms" which is constantly inserting itself into the hearts and minds of our citizens .

    For example, lets take a look at the word "propaganda", which is a word that, for the most part, stands on its own ,yet, for arguments sake, does it not function as a "euphemism",( in our ongoing global belligerence) for FRAUD ?

    As we think about these assorted "euphemistic realities" set upon us in our tragic age..we understand the acute distinction between defining something as "war propaganda" versus "WAR FRAUD".

    "War propaganda", however desultory a term, is understood as a legitimate tool within the toolbox of belligerence whereas WAR FRAUD is implicitly understood as a CRIME..which is in need of punishment.

    Have not our euphemistic manipulations , like "preemptive war", or "preventive war",overwhelmed the integrity of our national discourse, and paved the way for heinous murderous behavior which would normally not be tolerated ?,

    Is not their primary purpose to insulate us from our own awareness of the CRIMES we have committed , and will continue to commit ?.

    What a blessing it will be for the whole wide world, once we end this " charade of euphemisms" and start calling things what they truly are.

    Erebus, April 17, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT
    Yes, thank you for an excellent summation of the situation.

    The owners of the US face an Either/Or moment. Either they abandon their ambitions of Global Hegemony, and retreat to attempt to rule over N. America (with some residual dreams of ruling C. & S. America to sweeten the pot) or they go for broke.

    Unlike Dasein, I have no doubt that any dreams of Global Hegemony will come crashing to ground if any sort of a war breaks out. Putin has made it perfectly plain. Russia will never allow itself to be invaded again. That means something, and what it means is that Russia will take the fight to the enemy when it sees its red lines crossed.

    The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired.

    No mushroom clouds or devastated cities, yet, but the Either/Or moment will become acute indeed. One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow their internationalistic instincts when that moment has passed.

    reiner Tor, Website April 17, 2017 at 12:42 pm GMT
    @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.

    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).

    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time.

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.

    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved – all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    AP, April 17, 2017 at 12:50 pm GMT
    @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time. I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But –

    You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs

    Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.

    "but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can" – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment

    But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.

    iffen, April 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMT
    This is an interesting and informative article.

    Can you give us your opinion of the F-35 program and to a lesser extent the LCS program? I have no doubt that we get good and reliable information in the US, but just in case, a different perspective on whether the projected capabilities are actually being met by the weapons would be nice to consider.

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT

    @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time.

    Excellent article – and congratulations on your first article here.

    Thank you.

    Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).

    Processing power in military applications is less dependent on 10 or 28 nm, than on mathematics and algorithms. Both architectures are more than sufficient for the whole spectrum of military tasks, be it signal processing or developing firing solutions.

    I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.

    Apples and oranges. Producing a state-of-the-art nuclear sub is on the order of magnitude more complex task than producing even a very good SSK. China now produces very good AIP SSKs of 039A type, she still is not capable to produce a nuke with at least third generation characteristics.

    Railguns, and associated naval EM systems

    Absolutely useless, other than to impress journalists, in combat paradigm where hyper-sonic missiles with ranges of 1000 kilometers begin to rule the day. I think 3M22 Zircon reaching Mach=8 this weekend on trials is by far more impressive and influential on the tactical and even political level than any rail-gun. Zircon is a change in combat paradigm of such a scale that it is even difficult to completely grasp it at this stage. I may elaborate on it in depth at some point of time.

    reiner Tor,Website April 17, 2017 at 1:18 pm GMT
    @AP I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But -
    You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs
    Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
    "but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can" – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
    But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.

    I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran.

    Avery, April 17, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". { suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die .}

    What happens IF straight white men refuse to go and die?

    [Stunning Evidence that the Left Has Won its War on White Males]

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/03/stunning_evidence_that_the_left_has_won_its_war_on_white_males__comments.html

    {White males, in large numbers, are simply losing their will to live, and as a result, they are dying so prematurely and in such large numbers that a startling demographic gap has emerged. It is not just the "opioid epidemic" that is killing off white working class males, it is a spiritual crisis, and Princeton economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton have the numbers to sustain this conclusion.}

    Carlton Meyer, • Website April 17, 2017 at 1:28 pm GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Over the years, the Pentagon encouraged Congress to move parts of national security spending out of its budget to the extent that almost half is found outside the DOD. The USA really spends over a trillion dollars a year. For example, nuclear weapons research, testing, procurement, and maintenance is found in the Dept of Energy budget.

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/defense-budget/2016/americas-1-trillion-national-security-budget.html

    And as others have noted, GDP is a measure of activity, not prosperity. For example, mortgage refinancing creates lots of GDP, but no real wealth. Hurricanes and arson are good for GDP too!

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 1:45 pm GMT
    @Z-man Hey 'Neocon Cabal' is my phrase!!!!! (wink)
    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity that scares the Americans and the Jews to death. I hope the Iranians get as many of those SAM's as they need to defend against the Zionist threat!

    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity

    It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online, well–it is a different game altogether from there.

    Randal , April 17, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT
    An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.

    But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends. Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.

    If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect, measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:

    Share of world gdp, ppp:

    US
    2020 14.878%
    2015 15.809%
    2010 16.846%
    2000 20.76%

    China
    2020 19.351%
    2015 17.082%
    2010 13.822%
    2000 7.389%

    Russia
    2020 2.836%
    2015 3.275%
    2010 3.641%
    2000 3.294%

    Source IMF per economywatch.com

    Population (2017):

    China: 1,388,232,693

    US: 326,474,013

    Russia: 143,375,006

    These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative to all rivals, for decades to come.

    To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).

    The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might be different.

    The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities.

    mushroom, April 17, 2017 at 2:02 pm GMT
    When folks discuss Russia's capabilities they often forget what's blatantly obvious – which is what's not obvious, i.e. what the bear has created and is in it's hidden caves. What happened to that U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea was just a teasing mini-harbinger of this reality!

    So is the genius to create a cavity to eavesdrop, &c If you want to enjoy happy days don't mess with the bear!

    5371, April 17, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Stupid beyond belief. Countries can't go broke doing something, if they control the natural and human resources they need to accomplish it. In addition, you apparently did not read Smoothie's explanation of why just comparing the sums spent is silly. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
    @Randal I agreed with the main thrust of your comment, but I would just note that I don't agree with the last sentence:

    It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917.

    The essence of the US was always expansion by military and other means, from its settler colonial origins and the Manifest Destiny to the expansionist wars against Mexico and Spain, the Monroe Doctrine, and colonial expansions into Hawaii, the Philippines and central America, all before Wilson, who admittedly took the opportunity handed to him by the self-destructive warring of the European powers to go for the big one.

    It's just the nature of the beast. Yes but up until 1898 – the war against Spain – the US actually got something out of its wars. Wars with countries BEYOND the Americas have gained nothing for America. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    5371 , April 17, 2017 at 2:45 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
    I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. Turkey's military has a decent reputation, but I'm not sure that the reputation corresponds with reality any longer. •
    Agent76 , April 17, 2017 at 2:46 pm GMT
    • 100 Words March 19, 2017 Putin Prepares For Invasion of Europe With Massive Cuts to Military Spending

    Russia announces "deepest defense budget cuts since 1990s". Putin must be stopped before it's too late. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world has enjoyed an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity. Long gone are the days of wasteful military expenditures and no-bid contracts to build airplanes and aircraft carriers that neither fly nor float.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46686.htm

    Aug 8, 2016 "I want to scare Assad" Mike Morell on Charlie Rose

    Mike Morell, former deputy director of the CIA, discusses the need to put pressure on Syria and Russia. The full conversation airs on PBS on August 8th, 2016.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    ANOSPH , April 17, 2017 at 2:47 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
    It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online, well--it is a different game altogether from there. Excellent article. I look forward to many more from you.

    Re: the S400, for those interested, TASS developed an excellent and visually appealing overview on the system in Russian:

    Just keep scrolling down.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:51 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
    I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. The real point is that Russia and Turkey are almost neighbors while N.K. is about 8,000 miles from the US. In other words the US could ignore Korea. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    5371 , April 17, 2017 at 2:55 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @reiner Tor

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    Neither France nor Germany could have stayed out once Russia was in, but then both of them had given their respective allies every encouragement to bring matters to a head. The French had a great increase in self-confidence just in the last two or three years. You are right that Serbia didn't even decide to reject the ultimatum until they heard Russia was already going ahead with pre-mobilisation. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". Hopefully at least some of those straight white males will know better. Hopefully.

    Then again people often act contrary to their best interests.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Hunsdon , April 17, 2017 at 2:56 pm GMT
    Thank you, sir. Great article. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
    • 300 WordsNEW! @Randal An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.

    But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends. Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.

    If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect, measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:

    Share of world gdp, ppp:

    US
    2020 14.878%
    2015 15.809%
    2010 16.846%
    2000 20.76%

    China
    2020 19.351%
    2015 17.082%
    2010 13.822%
    2000 7.389%


    Russia
    2020 2.836%
    2015 3.275%
    2010 3.641%
    2000 3.294%

    Source IMF per economywatch.com

    Population (2017):

    China: 1,388,232,693

    US: 326,474,013

    Russia: 143,375,006

    These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative to all rivals, for decades to come.

    To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).

    The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might be different.

    The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities.

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US "missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.

    P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological dimensions. You want to see operational dimension–look no further than Mosul which is still, after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff Academy uses virtually identical definition.

    anon , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @reiner Tor

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    That is a point I have often tried to make. Had the Tsar just told the Serbs flat out, "You guys are on your own. Comply. Or fight the Central Powers by yourself. We are out of it.",' there would never have been a 'Great' war (WW1). At most the 'war' would have been a minor brawl between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. History would have recorded it as just another Balkan skirmish. It would have been virtually forgotten today. This was the initial assumption of the Kaiser when he issued his 'blank check' of support. The Tsar would have saved millions of lives, including his own and his family too. Just nine years earlier the Tsar had fought and lost a disastrous war with Japan. That defeat led to a revolution that came within a hair of deposing him. He SHOULD have learned his lesson and avoided any future conflict like the plague. Tsar Nicolas was an incredibly stupid man. He deserves far more vilification then the Kaiser does. •
    TG , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT
    • 300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.

    1. "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.

    2. In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world. But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?

    3. The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term. At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses, loading up college students with massive unpayable debt so that university administrators can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible. To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anonymouse , April 17, 2017 at 3:12 pm GMT
    @Art Russia said it was going to bolster Syria's air defenses.

    If true – what does this mean for Israeli air power over Syria and Lebanon?

    Hezbollah has shown, even with its air force behind it that the IDF is a paper tiger.

    Without its air forces at 100%, Israel is very vulnerable. A war would be very costly. Many Jews want to leave Israel as it is now.

    Peace --- Art You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit. •

    Vendetta , April 17, 2017 at 3:16 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @reiner Tor

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    Japan was certainly the greatest beneficiary of the war in economic terms. Their exports ended up tripling to fuel the demand of the wartime European economies and especially to fill in the gap for consumer goods in the East Asian markets whose normal suppliers had redirected their production for the war effort. Shipbuilding in Japan also boomed as a result of wartime demands. Pre-WWI Japan was still importing most of its major warships from Britain; post-WWI Japan was building them all on its own.

    Romania gained a lot in territory but its doubtful whether these gains were worth it in terms of the lives they cost.

    The United States certainly gained in terms of geopolitical power, but that was largely due to the same wartime economic circumstances that had benefited Japan, with the addition of supplanting Britain as the world's leading financial power. These gains, however, would have been won whether or not we'd sent 100,000 of our own to die in France, so their lives ultimately amounted to little more than a sacrifice to Woodrow Wilson's egomaniacal dreams of reshaping the world order into a utopia.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    5371 , April 17, 2017 at 3:18 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Anatoly Karlin Excellent article - and congratulations on your first article here.

    Agree with the general argument here, having said similar things in some of my articles .

    * GDP (PPP) being much more relevant for military comparisons than nominal GDP, let alone stockmarket capitalizations.
    * The Russian military technological gap being smaller than what the Western media tends to posit.
    * The US having predominance in Syria and MENA generally, but with Russia having the capability to successfully respond horizontally in areas where it has the advantage (in Ukraine or even the Baltics).
    * The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit. I think it was Moltke the Younger who said that given a couple of more years Germany would find it much more difficult to fight the Russian Army. That happened to be the date when Russia's military reforms should have come to fruition.
    * You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs.

    More skeptical about:

    * " but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can " - Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment.
    * "The same argumentation goes for Russia's microelectronics industry ... with the exception of US and China, and then on bulk, not quality, only." Russia is a consistent 5-10 years behind in semiconductor process technology (only recently began to produce 28nm, whereas state of the art is now 10nm).
    * It's lagging in the most "futuristic" aspects. It had a huge lag in drones, though it has made that up somewhat with purchases from Israel. Railguns, and associated naval EM systems. In robotics, Boston Dynamics has far more impressive exponents than anything Russia has publicly demonstrated. To be sure this is all pretty irrelevant right now and most likely in 10 years, but not in 20-30 years time. WW1, unlike Barbarossa, didn't start with a German attack on Russia, although in each case the argument was made by some (stronger in retrospective for 1941 than 1914) that Russia would be too strong to take on in a couple of years. The difference is that a number of factors – the ideological conflict, the success of "blitzkrieg", the weak Soviet performance at the start of the Finnish war – created an illusory hope of easy victory for the Germans along with the fear of later defeat. That tipped the balance in favour of attack.
    As I understand it, the claimed regular progress to smaller and smaller chip feature sizes has for some time been a matter of marketing, not reality. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    DannyMarcus , April 17, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. •
    Randal , April 17, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @AP I generally agree both with Andrei's article and with your responses. But -

    You can't say much about US (or Israeli) military effectiveness on the basis of their performance in fighting Arabs
    Or Russian, on the basis of performance in fighting Georgians or Arabs in Syria. Neither side has really been tested, but a real test would reflect some sort of disaster. US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.

    "but Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet, Russia can" – Russia spends 5% of its GDP on the military (esp. once adjusted for hidden spending), Germany just a bit more than 1%. If Germany was to effectively quadruple its real military spending, I have no doubt that the world's second most complex economy would be up to the task. I am sure it will also be able to build world-class nuclear subs (it already has excellent AIP ones) and a global positioning system with that kind of investment
    But how long would it take? I suspect, at least two decades.

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.

    Russia would crush Turkey very quickly in a straight one on one conflict, though it would struggle to physically occupy it. The only reason Turkey would have any capability to resist at all is that Turkey has full US backing, both in terms of the NATO alliance and in terms of the military systems and capabilities it fields. Russia's capabilities, in contrast, are wholly indigenous. Individually, the two countries are not remotely in the same class, militarily.

    Likewise for the US versus Iran or NK. The problem would likely not be in defeating the military forces themselves, but in occupying and holding ground longer term, and dealing with problems caused by horizontal escalation.

    These are issues not really of military capabilities, but rather of national political will to apply those capabilities ruthlessly and to inflict and to take the losses required for total victory.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    gwynedd1 , April 17, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT
    The US is not worried about Russia. They were worried about the EU and Russia with economic links to China. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Vendetta , April 17, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @5371 Turkey's military has a decent reputation, but I'm not sure that the reputation corresponds with reality any longer. Their recent mishaps in Syria certainly cast some doubts on their formidable reputation. However I would hesitate to go so far as to say that Turkey has become a paper tiger.

    I don't know if there's a more professional terminology for this, but I think there is a difference between what you might call weakness the surface level and weakness at the core.

    The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.

    America in the years before it became a permanently mobilized state was also prone to this sort of happening in the initial stages of its wars – see the rout at Kasserine Pass in World War II or the initial defeats it suffered to the North Koreans in 1950. The British made "our Italians" jokes after Kasserine, but these had a short shelf life as US performance picked up very quickly afterwards.

    The state of the Turkish military right now seems more likely to be one of surface-level weakness (which would be tempered by exposure to battle) than of core-level weakness (which would be exacerbated by it).

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Anon , April 17, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
    http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/this-cold-war-is-even-crazier-than-the-last/19689#.WPTiK9QrK4Q Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Astuteobservor II , April 17, 2017 at 3:45 pm GMT
    excellent first article on unz. looking forward to more. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    inertial , April 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT
    • 100 Words A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising, as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't.

    • Agree: Kiza •
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT
    • 100 Words

    The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.

    Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief)
    was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.

    Gen. Waldemar Erfuth
    Wermacht Army Attache in Finish General Staff
    from book: Fighting in Hell – German Ordeal on Eastern Front

    reiner Tor , • Website April 17, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMT
    @Ondrej

    The Winter War, for example, was a humiliating display of weakness from the Red Army – one which the Germans took (mistakenly) as a sign of weakness at the core.
    Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief)
    was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.

    Gen. Waldemar Erfuth
    Wermacht Army Attache in Finish General Staff
    from book: Fighting in Hell - German Ordeal on Eastern Front

    Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief) was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.

    When was it?

    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising, as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market.

    Try to make following thought experiment, what would happen with SP100 financial valuation of shares GN a Lockheed in case of conflict and what would be impact on with Suchoi and MIG shares and how this would impact real economy instead of economics?

    Luckily there is still plenty of people in Russian companies who were educated in economy instead of economics..

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't.

    From seeing some discussions in Russian TV channels, I can say people in Russia are in fact disgusted with part of government still trying to apply Western type of economics..

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 5:28 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor

    Mannerheim (Finish Commander in Chief) was stressing how fast Soviet Army learned from their experience, trying to counter claim H. Göring who claimed Winter War as biggest military bluf in history.
    When was it? according to book 4. March 1943

    Mannerheim in front of German General as reaction to some public speech of H. Göring before.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    bluedog , April 17, 2017 at 5:36 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
    Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US "missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.

    P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still, after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff Academy uses virtually identical definition. Very good article and David Stockman says the same thing on our GDP that its do to very creative accounting much like our BLS report . Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Kiza , April 17, 2017 at 6:18 pm GMT
    • 600 Words Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said – I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.

    Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in battle.

    In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum: no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies, like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?

    As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level – I remember well the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 6:19 pm GMT
    • 300 WordsNEW! @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising, as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't.

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    Mind you–this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever–make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about 10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident.

    Jonathan Revusky , • Website April 17, 2017 at 6:40 pm GMT
    • 200 Words I think this is a good article. I say "I think so" because the truth of the matter is that I lack the detailed domain knowledge to be able to evaluate it very well.

    The comment I would make about it (which is not a critique of the article per se ) is that Russia (or the USSR speaking more precisely) did suffer a horrendous defeat from which it is still recovering - I mean, in the Cold War. However, that defeat was not military in nature. It was entirely political/psychological/ideological. (N.B. The complete neocon/zionist takeover of the U.S. and other Western countries also occurred without firing a shot, no?)

    Anyway, no grand battles occurred like Stalingrad or Kursk, yet somehow the USSR was as defeated a nation in the 1990′s as Germany was in 1945! In my view, the AngloZionists would be more interested in repeating that feat, than actually getting into a real hot war. That, also, would be their template for defeating China, as opposed to getting into some land war in Asia.

    I assume the above, because I have the tendency to think they are crazy, but not that crazy. But that said, I don't know for sure either. Maybe they really are that crazy and I just don't want to believe it. After all, it's really terrifying to think they are insane on that level.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    carlos22 , April 17, 2017 at 6:46 pm GMT
    • 100 Words Russia is in the position to be king maker out of China & US.

    Think about it Russia collapses & disintergrates, Siberia goes to China, which with all this land mass, energy reserves and population overtakes the US to become leading superpower. Ask yourself is that what the US wants?

    Or

    China betrays Russia, Russia then goes on to be US bitch, allows US missile defence to encircle China with US bases. China looses a key friend at the UN, when the SHTF in Tibet, Tywan or Hong Kong China finds its self alone. Is that what China wants?

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.

    Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in battle.

    In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum: no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies, like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?

    As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more.

    Superb and efficient educational system of USSR. Last generation is in their forties.
    Rules –
    1. push what you can into children when they young and train them properly
    2. Go fast, finish University in 22 – go to production and learn from olders
    3. Go trough Army service (only when you are already extremely good you are exempt)

    This gives you head start, you are conditioned to design things that work.

    Problem with many current – not only military products, that their designers often do not have idea how they are used..

    You simply can not take classes of ergonomic design and design even hammer correctly as it is often case with different innovative gadgets nowadays:-)

    Kiza , April 17, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT
    • 300 Words @reiner Tor

    The WW1 preemptive war argument does have a lot of merit.
    Czar Nicholas II could've simply told the Serbs to comply with the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum. Actually, that was the first reaction of Russian government circles (harboring terrorists was not looked upon very nicely in Russia where the grandfather of the Czar was murdered by similar terrorists), but then they changed their minds.

    In any event, WW1 was a blunder for almost all involved - all countries that participated could've easily stayed out, and with a few exceptions (perhaps Romania and Japan? maybe even China?) none had any significant benefits relative to the enormous costs. Not even the US.

    You and your responders are obviously not Russian, because you exhibit a terribly superficial knowledge of the pre WW1 Europe and Russia. You must have learned your history in US or British schools.

    The situation in Europe in 1914 was much, much more complicated than your simple minds could comprehend. The key factor was the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the power vacuum that this has created in the Balkans. This has encouraged all European powers of the time, from U.K., through Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the way to Russia to have designs for the area. Russia actually cultivated most Serbian nationalistic groups to counter the influence of U.K. and Germany/Austria in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia just did not let its Balkan proxies, the Serbs, down when attacked by Austro-Hungary, but it was involved in what was happening in the Balkans even before the war started. Yes, there was internal opposition in Russia against getting involved in the Balkans, but the non-interventionists lost. The U.K. was trying to prop up the dying Turkish Empire to remain an enemy of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary were trying to acquire as much new territory and population in the Balkans as possible. Russia just could not allow the Catholic Austro-Hungary to strengthen further after the annexation of Bosnia in 1908. France was on the same side. And so on.

    Is it not amazing how most of Western history of WW1 starts with Archduke's assassination in Sarajevo, instead of power vacuum in Southeast Europe and aggressive imperial designs at the turn of the century? It is typical Western bullshit history. Nobody had evil intentions, everybody was just dragged into WW1.

    You can observe that today's Russians are blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution in Russia and cause Tsar family's deaths, instead of the Serbs who were defending themselves against an expansionist Catholic Empire. It is mainly the British and US "historians", and their Russian liberals who are blaming the Serbs for WW1, the same old, same old Anglo-Zionist bull.

    Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 7:35 pm GMT
    @Randal An excellent and very useful piece, thanks, even if I don't agree with all of it. Certainly many good and important points are made. I would share most of Anatoly Karlin's points above, both in terms of points of agreement and disagreement.

    But when it comes down to the big picture, I think focussing on technologies and doctrines and even crystallised military capabilities is a mistake if you are trying to see long term trends. Such things come and go, and are always in any event shrouded in uncertainty and ignorance. Nobody except a very few (and they aren't talking) really knows what our own side has, and even they don't really know what the other side has, and neither side really knows how their own systems will perform, or how each side's systems will interact in the crucible of war.

    If we are going to speculate about medium term power trends, then we need to look at the underlying basics, which for military power are economic strength (for which the best, albeit imperfect, measure we have is gdp using ppp) and population. Here are the relevant figures:

    Share of world gdp, ppp:

    US
    2020 14.878%
    2015 15.809%
    2010 16.846%
    2000 20.76%

    China
    2020 19.351%
    2015 17.082%
    2010 13.822%
    2000 7.389%


    Russia
    2020 2.836%
    2015 3.275%
    2010 3.641%
    2000 3.294%

    Source IMF per economywatch.com

    Population (2017):

    China: 1,388,232,693

    US: 326,474,013

    Russia: 143,375,006

    These are the basic sinews of world power, at least as far as fully developed countries are concerned (which Russia and the US certainly are, and China nowadays largely is).

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales. That is why China's military capabilities are so far behind their current economic status. It is also why it is all but certain that China's relative military strength will continue to increase dramatically, relative to all rivals, for decades to come.

    To compare with past world power levels, when the US dominated and the Soviet Union was its rival in the mid-C20th (1950), the US accounted for 27.3% of world gdp, and the Soviet Union had around a third of that, with Britain in third place. In 1913 just before the European powers and Britain committed their suicide by world war, the US accounted for 18.9% of world gdp, with the British Empire just behind and Germany and Russia on about half as much each, but the US was in the position of China today with its relative military power lagging behind its growing economic strength (in 1870 the US share of world gdp had been less than half that of the British Empire).

    The trend of the past decades has been for a steady decline of the US's share of world gdp from its 1950 peak of 27% to only 16% today. There's no reason to expect that trend to halt, so it is just a matter of time before the military balance shifts. In the past, this would likely have been uncovered by a catastrophic military defeat at the hands of a rising power, and that might yet happen, but we now live in the dubious shade of the nuclear peace and so things might be different.

    The figures however make it perfectly clear that the only plausible peer rival to the US in the medium term is China, and not Russia, regardless of current military capabilities. Randal, what do you think happens if neutron star approaches red giant? US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars. Is US going to hit Russia with nice shoes, highly apprised real estate or S&P500? Creative accounting is another thing that makes US GDP larger than it really is. •

    AP , April 17, 2017 at 7:50 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

    Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident.

    While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion.

    Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/business/tesla-ford-general-motors-stock-market.html?_r=0

    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov •
    syd.bgd , April 17, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT
    Great article. Thanks. Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 7:56 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures "Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita." this is very funny, how about the 20 trillions of US national debt and it is skyrocketing fast? If you only count asset without counting liability US maybe in the top 10 GDP per capita, but if you count net asset the US is in the negative GDP per capita, a broke nation. Perhaps it is American Exceptionalism logic, claiming credit where credit is not due, living in a world detached from reality.

    "If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke." this is even funnier, Russian does not use USD in Russia, nor Russian government pay its MIC in USD, meanwhile Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed, why does oil price have any relationship with Russian internal spending? Another example of "completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities" which is defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices and snakeoil economic theories and rhetoric taught in the western universities.

    Art , April 17, 2017 at 8:02 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Anonymouse You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit. You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.

    Pointing out the evils of Zionist Israel is not mean – it is crucial.

    Exposing Judaism and Zionism for their backward ways is the only path to a peaceful just world.

    The Kushner White House is now pushing us to war in N Korea.

    Congress must stop this – but they cannot because Jews control them also.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. Good god – Trump is sending two more carrier groups to Korea!

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT
    • 100 WordsNEW! @AP

    While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion.
    Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/business/tesla-ford-general-motors-stock-market.html?_r=0

    Indeed. And Tesla is now "worth" more than Ford, on paper:

    Faced with the choice between most expensive Tesla and new F-150 truck for free–I would choose Tesla, sell it back to dealership or would find some moron from Redmond/Kirkland area and sell Tesla to him and then would go buy F-150 and would use the rest of the money for other useful purposes, such as donating to animal shelter or will help some family in need. I certainly would make sure that I have the access to a bottle or two of really good bourbon to celebrate my new F-150. I wish, though, that Subaru made trucks.

    • Agree: AP Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Wally , April 17, 2017 at 8:17 pm GMT
    • 100 Words I seriously doubt the author's statement:

    Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet

    Seriously? The technological & industrial genius of Germany could not produce it's own jet fighter?
    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.

    Laughable.

    Granted, AFAIK, it's current fighters are 'collaborative' with other Europeans.
    IOW, Germany did the heavy lifting.

    Diversity Heretic , April 17, 2017 at 8:25 pm GMT
    @anon "The US lacks a coherent defensive military doctrine"..

    Which is hardly surprising since its only two bordering countries are very weak and zero military threat. It is also moated by two huge oceans. The USA could spend virtually nothing on its military and (with a sound immigration policy and secure borders) be perfectly safe. But the American political establishment are not content with this. They seek hegemony. It all started with Woodrow Wilson who refused to mind his business and stay out of war in 1917. The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. •

    Art , April 17, 2017 at 8:31 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.

    Too late – Trump is sending in two more carrier groups.

    US Deploys Two More Aircraft Carriers Toward Korean Peninsula: Yonhap

    According to a report by South Korea's primary news outlet, Yonhap, the Pentagon has directed a total of three US aircraft carriers toward the Korean Peninsula, citing a South Korean government source.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-17/us-deploys-two-more-aircraft-carriers-toward-korean-peninsula-yonhap

    This is insane – another preventive war like Iraq – but on China and Russia's doorstep.

    Congress must stop this!

    Peace - Art

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT
    • 400 WordsNEW! @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.

    Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in battle.

    In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum: no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies, like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?

    As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.

    But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    Generally legitimate point but it will require a very expanded answer. I will, at some point, elaborate on it–there are some serious nuances.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Largely true. However, in serious signal processing systems such as radar, sonar, combat control (management) systems etc. the main secret are mathematics (algorithms). Just to give you an example, it was impossible for China to copy any software from any Russian-made systems. As an example, Shtil Air Defense complexes which went to China after she bought Project 956 destroyers in 1990s are defended such way that any attempt to tamper with their (and other systems') brains results in a clean slate. It is true today also, actually, especially today. China now is receiving full Russian "version" of SU-35 and of S-400, they still will not be able to copy it. Mimic somewhat? Yes. After all they do have their own S-300 knock offs. Copy? No. They will try, of course but, say, SU-35 engine and avionics is still beyond their reach.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance?

    I believe Ondrej made a good, albeit partial case, for you in his response. Let me put it this way–viewing Russia's public schools' 8-9th grade books on math and physics (and chemistry) may create a state of shock in many, even elite, US schools and not among students only I know.

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT
    NEW! @Ondrej

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more.
    Superb and efficient educational system of USSR. Last generation is in their forties.
    Rules -
    1. push what you can into children when they young and train them properly
    2. Go fast, finish University in 22 - go to production and learn from olders
    3. Go trough Army service (only when you are already extremely good you are exempt)

    This gives you head start, you are conditioned to design things that work.

    Problem with many current - not only military products, that their designers often do not have idea how they are used..

    You simply can not take classes of ergonomic design and design even hammer correctly as it is often case with different innovative gadgets nowadays:-) Some very good points you made. •

    Sam Shama , April 17, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT
    • 400 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
    Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US "missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.

    P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still, after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff Academy uses virtually identical definition.

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,

    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    AtomAnt , April 17, 2017 at 8:43 pm GMT
    @inertial A good informative article. Unfortunately it suffers from the typical poor understanding of the economic and financial realities.

    No, "Wall Street economic indices" are not meaningless. And you do have to care about the Russian stock market. Its small size relative to the economy is a cause for concern. In general, Russian financial system is too weak, too small and shallow for an economy of this size. This is not surprising, as it is very new. Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.

    Incidentally, Putin and his government seem to understand these things, even if many others don't. That's just bankster propaganda. In truth, anything past 5% (generously) for the financial sector is just parasitism. The US S&P 500 hovers around 30% financial sector. That's just elites extracting resources from productive people. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    anonHUN , April 17, 2017 at 8:47 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that the old days are back.

    On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the "job" that was left unfinished in the 90′s according to their view. They want regime change in Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc. Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.

    Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
    US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small.

    Verymuchalive , April 17, 2017 at 8:49 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

    Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident. The financialisation of the economy has been a disaster in most Western countries, especially for manufacturing companies. I had personal dealings with Pilkingtons, a World-leading British glass company. At the first opportunity, the Banks and other corporate investors sold it to a Japanese competitor. Pilkingtons is now a branch operation and has lost its research base.
    Mr Putin seems to realise the importance of indigenous manufacturing industry- and not only for defence- related purposes. So the capitalisation of such companies has been treated with great caution, e g Gazprom. I could be wrong, of course.
    So I must ask if you think Mr Putin has an Advanced Manufacturing Strategy in place, like Eamonn Fingleton sees in Japan, Korea, Germany etc. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] , • Website April 17, 2017 at 8:52 pm GMT
    • 200 WordsNEW! @Wally I seriously doubt the author's statement:

    Germany cannot design and build from scratch a state of the art fighter jet ...
    Seriously? The technological & industrial genius of Germany could not produce it's own jet fighter?
    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.

    Laughable.

    Granted, AFAIK, it's current fighters are 'collaborative' with other Europeans.
    IOW, Germany did the heavy lifting.

    Germany did the heavy lifting.

    Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.

    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.

    Actually:

    Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder, so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;)

    Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:08 pm GMT
    • 100 Words ,

    There is wisdom to the old adage "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Your WW1 rant is lacking in accurate facts and the actual facts that you refer to are misapplied subsequently your logic is flawed and you find yourself in the oft quoted IBM construct of GIGO.

    The genesis and the triggers for the eruption of WW1 are broad and complex and could generally be put in the context of the colloquial term " a perfect storm". Your Slavic tinted glasses illuminate only a tip of the tip of the iceberg as it were. I state this in the spirit of constructive criticism.

    Cheers-

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 9:14 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov Some very good points you made. Having recent experience in teaching in former socialist country and remembering and comparing with past I must say

    It is quite painful to watch horrors of destruction of once functional educational system of your own country which is trying to mimic current trends in western education.

    I guess in Russia, given by typical Slavic tendency to extremes, is even more horrible. But it looks like they do get it and they have still chance revert this trend.

    First step is always to recognize problem, which is in my opinion given by public discussions such as

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    bluedog , April 17, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Sam Shama

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,
    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    Hmm first we would have to rebuild our manufacturing sector seeing most of our goods including military are outsourced out, and I question the raw economics endowment what ever they are, and then you have to retrain the workers for the old class is gone and the new isn't all that inclined to work, and who would want to invest in a hallowed out economy, trillions in debt more trillions in future liabilities trillions in derivitives little to no natural resources left military projects milked to the bone months years overdue I'm afraid your caught in the light on the hill we are exceptional bit but I presume that's to be expected.. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT
    @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. If these countries really wanted to stop the USA, why not make the American troops leave their countries? Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Corvinus , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 pm GMT
    @Diversity Heretic The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. "The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security."

    At the time, yes. In the long run, no.

    "The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan "

    Imperialistic ambitions in the Pacific by the U.S. and Japan put our nations on a path to fight.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    colm , April 17, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT
    @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    Those who fought for the Entente in the Great War fought for the sake of the Third World.

    Veterans Day should be abolished immediately. Memorial Day is enough.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anon , April 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Diversity Heretic The Spanish-American War was completely unnecessary for U.S. security. The acquisition of the Phillipines put us on a collision course with Japan and even today we suffer the burden of strategically useless economic parasite of Puerto Rico. Yes of course, you are right. The 1898 war with Spain was 100% a war of choice for America. Without it, it was certainly possible war with Japan could have been avoided. Also agree that Puerto Rico has proven to be utterly worthless to America. Should be given its independence ASAP. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. Eu, japan, taiwaneses, south koreans Their governements are all puppets, whores of washington, the people doesnt matter, we (I am european) have no voice- All westerns politics are the same whores. Countrys and people have no value. Only globalists are going for bussines. Rusia is the great premium: The major land in the world- Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:46 pm GMT
    • 300 Words @SmoothieX12

    The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP and GNP tabulations.

    Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first and foremost and that was that.

    I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.

    Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident (USS Donald Cook).

    Cheers-

    The Alarmist , April 17, 2017 at 9:51 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Erebus Yes, thank you for an excellent summation of the situation.

    The owners of the US face an Either/Or moment. Either they abandon their ambitions of Global Hegemony, and retreat to attempt to rule over N. America (with some residual dreams of ruling C. & S. America to sweeten the pot) or they go for broke.

    Unlike Dasein, I have no doubt that any dreams of Global Hegemony will come crashing to ground if any sort of a war breaks out. Putin has made it perfectly plain. Russia will never allow itself to be invaded again. That means something, and what it means is that Russia will take the fight to the enemy when it sees its red lines crossed.
    The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired.

    No mushroom clouds or devastated cities, yet, but the Either/Or moment will become acute indeed. One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow their internationalistic instincts when that moment has passed.

    "The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired."

    You have nut-jobs in Congress talking out hacking being an act of war and planners talking about massive NATO reponse as being appropriate can one seriously believe the US would not repond with nukes in the event of such an attack, even though it is non-nuclear?

    Timur The Lame , April 17, 2017 at 9:54 pm GMT
    My WW1 post was for Kiza. Somehow that got scrubbed Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Ondrej , April 17, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Sam Shama

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,
    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    I will add bit of Central Europe perspective:-)

    Products of US economic endowments which I use in Europe or see some value in them:

    a) Military Complex (waste of money)
    b) Boeing (OK that is serious, not flying much lately)
    c) Hollywod movies (huge industry, some movies are good but mostly rubbish)
    d) Coca-Cola (sometimes nice – but can live without it)
    e) MacDonald (only in rush for their car ride)
    f) Microsoft Windows (I hate it)
    g) Apple products (well I have still preference for them, but they are mostly produced in China anyway)
    h) Harley-Davidson (not any value for me, but it is as American as it can be:-)

    To be honest, I am more interested if I have heated home and electricity runnig, provided in form of nuclear, gas or oil fuel from Russia + some Siemens technology provided by Germany for Electrical Grid regulation and function of PowerPlants..

    inertial , April 17, 2017 at 10:22 pm GMT
    • 300 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

    Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident. You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps – all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom. Well, duh.

    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.

    In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise as much capital as they need.

    As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities. Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?

    Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an idiot.

    Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
    It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online, well--it is a different game altogether from there. Well, it shouldn't be that complicated because it has to be used rapidly. Hopefully it is easy for the user to operate it.
    Thanks for the reply. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT
    @Ondrej

    There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.
    I will add bit of Central Europe perspective:-)

    Products of US economic endowments which I use in Europe or see some value in them:

    a) Military Complex (waste of money)
    b) Boeing (OK that is serious, not flying much lately)
    c) Hollywod movies (huge industry, some movies are good but mostly rubbish)
    d) Coca-Cola (sometimes nice - but can live without it)
    e) MacDonald (only in rush for their car ride)
    f) Microsoft Windows (I hate it)
    g) Apple products (well I have still preference for them, but they are mostly produced in China anyway)
    h) Harley-Davidson (not any value for me, but it is as American as it can be:-)

    To be honest, I am more interested if I have heated home and electricity runnig, provided in form of nuclear, gas or oil fuel from Russia + some Siemens technology provided by Germany for Electrical Grid regulation and function of PowerPlants..

    You are coming as a very pragmatic sort of a man •
    Cyrano , April 17, 2017 at 10:31 pm GMT
    • 300 Words Any military conflict between Russia and US is bound to degenerate into nuclear war. That's because only degenerates can plan such event and even try to predict "survivability" of such war. I believe only recently US funded a study to explore the outcome of such conflict. You don't have to be military genius to realize that the odds are in Russia's favor.

    How so? Simple. More than half of US population lives in 30 major cities. Russia's population is much more dispersed. I think I read somewhere that during the cold war US had enough nukes to destroy every USSR city of 10 000 and more inhabitants. Still, the Russians can inflict far more casualties targeting far fewer cities than US can.

    For those who think that western weapons are superior because they are more complicated – perfection is always simple.

    One of the most symptomatic examples of what's wrong with American military technology is F35. At the end of the cold war the feeling of omnipotence has spread into their military technology. F35 was supposed to do the job of what previously used to be done by several different planes. It was supposed to be a ground support, vertical takeoff, interceptor, aircraft carrier based, bomber, air superiority fighter plane.

    While they were at it, why they didn't include in their specifications ability to fly to the moon, be used as a cargo plane, awacs, fuel refueling tanker and passenger plane. When something is designed to be universally good at different tasks it usually ends not being particularly good at any of them.

    Congratulations on your first article Andrei, keep up the good work.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    inertial , April 17, 2017 at 10:32 pm GMT
    @Sergey Krieger Randal, what do you think happens if neutron star approaches red giant? US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars. Is US going to hit Russia with nice shoes, highly apprised real estate or S&P500? Creative accounting is another thing that makes US GDP larger than it really is.

    US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars.

    You say it as though it's a bad thing.

    Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT
    @Art You're gloating, Art. Many jews have been leaving Israel for many years for fear of their personal safety. Others remain. Gloating this way reflects a mean spirit.

    Pointing out the evils of Zionist Israel is not mean - it is crucial.

    Exposing Judaism and Zionism for their backward ways is the only path to a peaceful just world.

    The Kushner White House is now pushing us to war in N Korea.

    Congress must stop this - but they cannot because Jews control them also.

    Peace --- Art

    p.s. Good god – Trump is sending two more carrier groups to Korea!

    Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission. It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I get my blood pressure up! •
    Today,s Thought , April 17, 2017 at 10:42 pm GMT
    [ ] • 3,200 WORDS • 93 COMMENTS • REPLY [ ]
    Z-man , April 17, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    Germany did the heavy lifting.
    Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.

    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
    Actually:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Lyulka

    Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder, so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;) This reminds me of the line from 'Ice Station Zebra' by the Patrick McGoohan played character 'David Jones of MI6′, "The Russians put our (Brits) camera made by *our* German scientists and your (US) film made by *your* German scientists into their satellite made by *their* German scientists." LOL! Exaggeration of course but funny and somewhat true. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 10:53 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @DannyMarcus There is a very important and perhaps most decisive aspect of possible US war with Russia or China, which is completely missing in Andrei Martyanov piece and the related comments.
    Don't you think European NATO countries, as well as Japan, South Korea and Taiwan will loudly resist, when their very well-being and existences is utterly jeopardized by American ambitions for hegemony well beyond its shores?
    I imagine and hope that well before a shooting war breaks out with Russia or China, US' present subservient allies will show enough courage to put the brakes on American designs long before any future global wars involving their vital interest is invoked.
    The South Koreans, over 10 million of whom are living in Seoul, are most likely right now pressing the Trump Administration hard to avoid any foolhardy military adventures in North Korea.
    The Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans and the Taiwanese are the best hope of stopping American adventurism because in the final analysis they will refuse to be the sheep marching willingly to the slaughterhouse of a WWIII. There are a lot of nations wanting wars between USA, Russia and China, from top of the list is Japan, India, UK, They believe they will be the next global hegemons standing on the ashes of USA, Russia and China.

    Taiwanese are mentally colonized Japanese wannabes, they will be happy just returning to the Japanese colony status.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sergey Krieger , April 17, 2017 at 10:58 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @inertial

    US GDP contains a lot of things that are irrelevant to fighting wars.
    You say it as though it's a bad thing. No, I am just trying to look at it from the point of view currently discussed. Namely Russian GDP is being mocked as an inadequate to stand up to USA in military terms.
    I am just pointing that what GDP consists of is far more important that nominal size of it.
    Namely, Italy might have a large share of GDP coming from tourist industry and designers shoes and other garments. . How is it relevant to military power?
    US GDP also is full of basically fraudulent valuations. Tesla as it was pointed is just one example and Facebook and others are another. •
    Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 11:06 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that the old days are back.

    On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the "job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc. Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.

    Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
    US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small. "still 20 years behind on average?" since you are fabricating thru the thin air, why did you stop at 20 years? Why didn't you say 30 years behind, 40 years behind, ? You should know fake news is always fake new regardless it is a small fake news or a big fake news. •

    martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 11:08 pm GMT
    • 200 Words good post smooty. And good coments also.I have three issues I am thinking some time ago. First: The soviet Union not colapsed, Gorbachev vas not a moron or a traitor. It was 50 years chess-game- The west is in turmoil already. Gorbachev did not do nothing without the approbation of the hundreds of specialists .The same with Trump, as USA has about more than 5 milions of people working in intel or something about. Second misread: Usa did not lost the war in Irak or Afganistan., as is said by journalists. Bush (W) said it in clair: I´ll bring the caos to irak, to stoneage.
    In Afganistan they are for 16 years for run the caos meantime. If they left , te country could go normaly, They cant afford this. Is for future desestabilization of central asia. Three: In the future war, you can see that the europeens are too sweet for go to war against Russia (Don´t talk about the gays, trans and woman of de USA Army) : What about theese 2 milions of refugees (arabs mens in militar age, all men?) All in Germany. This is not an Army for go to fight with russia? Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anatoly Karlin , • Website April 17, 2017 at 11:17 pm GMT
    • 100 WordsNEW! @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Joe Wong , April 17, 2017 at 11:23 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality".

    US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality"

    That did not happen during the Korean War and Vietnam War. The straight white men stayed behind and played gook hockey games.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    DanC , April 17, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT
    If anyone is interested in the perverse incentives in place in the US military development system, which result in such spectacular failures and misallocation of resources, you could read this:

    http://chuckspinney.blogspot.ca/p/the-defense-death-spiral-why-defense.html

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    martino from barcelona , April 17, 2017 at 11:29 pm GMT
    • 100 Words The westerns politics, that works against their own people (starting with Merkel), and are absolute whores or the globalists of washington and elsewere .. (city of London, Rotschilds, Jews,Vatican, , etc) Have learned the trick of the proxys, as they are now in Siria. And conciousness that the european people are against else war, (and dont talk about the gay-trans-woman army of the EEUU) The criminals europeans politics are getting milions of future proxy warriors from muslim countrys. Their job will be the war we are not going. They, the "refugees" will get money, drugs, guns, slave women, alcohol, and will go to war against rusia, and in europe inf they are said. cheers.
    Ahh!.. They give him the blue pill, also, (Are not than macho men?) Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Wally , April 17, 2017 at 11:43 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Germany did the heavy lifting.
    Sir, before writing something, at least study subject a bit. Euro Fighter (Typhoon) is a thoroughly British effort initially, with engines being based on Rolls Royce XG-40 and avionics being, for the lack of better word, American, Italian, what have you, but not German. Yes, MTU was involved in some form in developing some Euro Jet EJ200 components but it will take a whole lot of space to explain to you what is "cooperative" effort in military aviation.

    After all, they designed & built the world's first fighter jet, the ME 262, 'The Swallow'.
    Actually:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkhip_Lyulka

    Just as the matter of general education, but here is the deal: Chinese invented gun powder, so what? When and if Germany will be able to produce something comparable to MiG-29SMT, forget about SU-35, not to speak of T-50, then we may start looking into German "genius". In order for you to understand what I am trying to convey to you, one has to have understanding of what enclosed technological cycle is. But I am sure, if MTU will be asked they will come up immediately with the fifth generation jet engine, right? After all, it is so simple and I am not talking about such things as designing the air-frames. US has expertise on that on several orders of magnitude than Germany and look where it got US with F-35;) You really need to know what you are talking about:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon

    About "Lyulka"?

    " In 1945-47 he designed the first Soviet jet engine ".

    Hoisted by your own petard.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Zzz , April 17, 2017 at 11:44 pm GMT
    @Kiza You and your responders are obviously not Russian, because you exhibit a terribly superficial knowledge of the pre WW1 Europe and Russia. You must have learned your history in US or British schools.

    The situation in Europe in 1914 was much, much more complicated than your simple minds could comprehend. The key factor was the crumbling of the Ottoman Empire and the power vacuum that this has created in the Balkans. This has encouraged all European powers of the time, from U.K., through Germany and Austro-Hungarian Empire, all the way to Russia to have designs for the area. Russia actually cultivated most Serbian nationalistic groups to counter the influence of U.K. and Germany/Austria in the Balkans. Therefore, Russia just did not let its Balkan proxies, the Serbs, down when attacked by Austro-Hungary, but it was involved in what was happening in the Balkans even before the war started. Yes, there was internal opposition in Russia against getting involved in the Balkans, but the non-interventionists lost. The U.K. was trying to prop up the dying Turkish Empire to remain an enemy of Russia, Germany and Austro-Hungary were trying to acquire as much new territory and population in the Balkans as possible. Russia just could not allow the Catholic Austro-Hungary to strengthen further after the annexation of Bosnia in 1908. France was on the same side. And so on.

    Is it not amazing how most of Western history of WW1 starts with Archduke's assassination in Sarajevo, instead of power vacuum in Southeast Europe and aggressive imperial designs at the turn of the century? It is typical Western bullshit history. Nobody had evil intentions, everybody was just dragged into WW1.

    You can observe that today's Russians are blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution in Russia and cause Tsar family's deaths, instead of the Serbs who were defending themselves against an expansionist Catholic Empire. It is mainly the British and US "historians", and their Russian liberals who are blaming the Serbs for WW1, the same old, same old Anglo-Zionist bull.

    Russians blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution

    Russian who are blaming the Serbs for WW1

    Are the same people.

    inertial , April 17, 2017 at 11:47 pm GMT
    @Sergey Krieger No, I am just trying to look at it from the point of view currently discussed. Namely Russian GDP is being mocked as an inadequate to stand up to USA in military terms.
    I am just pointing that what GDP consists of is far more important that nominal size of it.
    Namely, Italy might have a large share of GDP coming from tourist industry and designers shoes and other garments. . How is it relevant to military power?
    US GDP also is full of basically fraudulent valuations. Tesla as it was pointed is just one example and Facebook and others are another. I agree with you. I just wish that Russian GDP had a lot more of those non-military components.

    Incidentally, market cap has nothing to do with GDP. I'm pretty sure that Facebook's contribution to GDP is minuscule.

    DanC , April 17, 2017 at 11:48 pm GMT
    • 100 Words One of the most spectacular misallocation of resources has been the US Navy's insistence on building ever-more surface ships of ever-increasing complexity, while allowing their submarine fleet to languish, and neglecting missile & torpedo technology.

    The reason is career path incentives in the Navy, and in the defense contractor corporations, not in rational consideration of the directions naval warfare is developing in the rest of the world.

    I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: the first time a surface fleet, no matter how modern, how large, even a carrier group, is attacked by a well-commanded, networked battery of modern missles, like the Moskit, Onyx or BrahMos, there will be debacle of historic proportions.

    Thousands of sailors and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware will be headed to the bottom.

    Sergey Krieger , April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT
    • 100 Words @inertial I agree with you. I just wish that Russian GDP had a lot more of those non-military components.

    Incidentally, market cap has nothing to do with GDP. I'm pretty sure that Facebook's contribution to GDP is minuscule. For this I believe nationalization of what was "privatized" in 90′s is needed and new industrialization drive to become more self sufficient and less dependent upon outsiders. Finances also is a matter of concern. Russia has very good experience in how to do it. Political power will is needed though. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Mark Chapman , • Website April 18, 2017 at 12:18 am GMT
    • 200 Words Agreed; the US Navy only continues to pursue railgun technology to use up budget dollars – a peculiarity of western defense budgeting is that if you show efficiency by using less than the full amount allocated for your operations, maintenance and R&D, your budget is likely to be cut by that much next cycle. The USN has gone back to the drawing-board on railgun development, but absent a power-supply breakthrough it is unrealistic except as a vanity project.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-railgun-dream-could-be-denied-by-two-big-problems-17301

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/this-is-why-the-navy-cant-have-nice-railguns

    An additional argument in Russia's favour is that many of its systems are built simply to be rugged and easily operated by someone with a minimum of training, like a conscript, although the top end of the air defense systems are still largely operated by specialists. Western systems often are unnecessarily complex – sometimes seemingly just to impress reviewers – and the fiasco of the F-35 nightmare serves as exemplary of what happens when corporatism gets the upper hand on government; any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard of pork-barreling and design changes.

    As far as the navy goes, I made some of the same points myself some years ago, particularly the gross discrepancy in the cost of the USN's Littoral Combat Ships compared with – in this instance – China's missile corvettes.

    https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/fall-out-and-secure-for-sea-the-2012-sino-russian-naval-exercises/comment-page-1/

    Thanks for a great piece; it was timely, informative, thought-provoking and chock-full of meaty phrases and terminology I cannot wait to borrow.

    Avery , April 18, 2017 at 12:22 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    The S400 is a great example of Russian simplicity
    It is a very complex weapon system, whose actual combat potential is highly classified. From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities". Latest modifications of S-300 seem almost tame in comparison and S-300 (PMU, Favorit) is a superb complex. Once S-500 comes online, well--it is a different game altogether from there. {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}

    Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g. U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
    Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
    No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable conditions of real war.

    To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
    To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.

    Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
    I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s too, unofficially).

    AtomAnt , April 18, 2017 at 12:24 am GMT
    • 200 Words @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that the old days are back.

    On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the "job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc. Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.

    Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
    US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small. "Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average"

    Dude, you're delusional. The US military is to a large extent a paper tiger. Example: Aircraft carriers are not survivable against Russian or Chinese missiles and subs. They are good for bombing 3rd world countries only, like 19th century gunboats (plus fattening MIC coffers). Example: A Rand report found the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, isn't fast enough to run away".
    I would argue nothing is as important as missile technology. Russia may be leading in that.
    Furthermore, the US has lower income and less capital now than 20 years ago. Russia has a central bank focused on rational economics rather than milking the country for billionaires' sake. They insist on positive interest rates so savers get the benefit of their money. That's why Russia is growing albeit slowly while the US regresses.
    The US will find fighting Russia is not like fighting Arabs. (Remember what some Israeli general said about fighting Arabs.) The US hasn't fought without air superiority in over 74 years.
    Note the moral dimension, also. The US has to pay its military 2X the equivalent private sector wages, because no one wants to die for Lockheed Martin.

    • Agree: Kiza •
    wayfarer , April 18, 2017 at 12:32 am GMT
    SAR (search and rescue) versus SAD (search and destroy)

    "Disaster of the Kursk"

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 12:53 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Sam Shama

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,
    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    The troubles of the US of late have largely stemmed from having an insatiable parasite on its back sucking all that it can from the military and the economy in general whilst simultaneously plotting to undermine it.

    The senseless wars in the ME to provide Israel with "security", the billions of dollars in "loans" that will never be repaid, the vast amounts of military hardware worth billions declared as "scrap" and given to Israel, what a great investment it all has been.

    No doubt millions of Americans will welcome more degradation of their cities and infrastructure in order to field a larger military since it cares for the fruit of their loins so well AND has accomplished so much good in the world with the trillions already squandered at the behest of the Neocon Israel Firsters.

    You sure have your finger on America's pulse Shammy and clearly want nothing but the best for the American people, right? What a tosser!

    NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 12:58 am GMT
    @anonHUN I think the military and intelligence guys (and the big contractors) need Russia as the enemy, the bogeyman, probably many of them were secretly disappointed back then when the Soviet Union collapsed. The Deep State wants an endless race, a race where America is always leading but not by too much. A Cold War with a worthy opponent, not with tinpot third world dictatorships. Many of them don't even hate Russia, even respects it to some extent. Now they are probably happy that the old days are back.

    On the other hand there are of course real Russophobes, who really want to win and finish the "job" that was left unfinished in the 90's according to their view. They want regime change in Russia and preferably break it up, with all the republics of the RF declaring independence etc. Brzezinski, McCain or the neocons are like that. But they don't want WW3 either, they are not nutcases, just they want to settle an account with Russia badly.

    Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average, the gap didn't close since Soviet times, if anything, it widened in many respects.
    US military might is still unique and unrivaled, on the long run China has the most chance to challenge it. Russia is simply too poor, an economic dwarf compared to China (China is the workshop of the world, Russia mostly exports raw materials), also it's population is probably too small. Did you skip the article and go straight to comments? Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    NoseytheDuke , April 18, 2017 at 1:08 am GMT
    • 100 Words @Z-man Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission. It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I get my blood pressure up! What if the fat boy (and the NK people) feel that they need those weapons for defensive purposes? After all, it wasn't too long ago that Korea was invaded by the US (plus a few satraps) and millions of Koreans were killed. Who are we in the west to interfere with NK? •
    Erebus , April 18, 2017 at 1:27 am GMT
    • 200 Words @The Alarmist

    "The continental US can be thrown into socio-political-economic collapse with 3 dozen Kalibrs aimed at critical nodes in the national electrical grid. With no prospect of electricity being revived, the now largely urban population would find itself instantly transported to 1900 with none of the skills and infrastructure that kept a pre-electrified rural society fed and secure. If the subs and/or TU-160s are in place, that's 45-90 minutes without a single nuke fired."
    You have nut-jobs in Congress talking out hacking being an act of war and planners talking about massive NATO reponse as being appropriate ... can one seriously believe the US would not repond with nukes in the event of such an attack, even though it is non-nuclear? I understand that there would be great hue and cry to take revenge. That is why I wrote (with a correction in bold):

    One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow ed their internationalistic instincts when that moment has passed.

    America's owners aren't necessarily American. That the civilizational consequences of America's death be limited to the N. American continent is in their interest, and they would make that interest known.
    The geo-political consequences of an attack on the grid in response to a US/NATO attack on Russia would be that the US would instantly cease to be a military/economic power for at least several generations. The Great Game would be over. If the US came back with a nuclear response, they know well that Russia's counter-response would simply extend that timeline. Perhaps to infinity. IOW, other than suicidal madness, there is no geo-political reason to respond, and there'd be every reason to take the hit and try to rebuild.

    Likewise, Russia's politicians would be hard pressed to resist responding to an American nuclear attack in kind, but the fact is that there would be no military purpose to doing so. The US would be finished as a world power. Vaporizing 200M people would be of no military value. Better to keep what's left of your nuclear forces intact so you don't have to rebuild them.

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 1:38 am GMT
    • 100 Words @Zzz

    Russians blaming the Germans for sending the half-Jewish Lenin with a trainload of gold to foment Bolshevik (Jewish) revolution

    Russian who are blaming the Serbs for WW1
    Are the same people. I thought I explained that it is the Russian liberals who picked up the Western view of who to blame for WW1, just like they picked up everything else from their Western role models. The Russian nationalists do not blame the Serbs "for dragging them into WW1″ because this is principally a Western idea of how to push discord among Slavic relatives, not that it even matters that it is completely untrue. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 1:48 am GMT
    @Z-man Korea?, no big deal as far as I'm concerned. Let's bomb that fat boy to submission. It's when we blindly support that dirty little country occupying the Holy Land, that's when I get my blood pressure up! You are stupid, are you not? •
    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:04 am GMT
    • 100 Words @Avery {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}

    Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g. U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
    Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
    No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable conditions of real war.

    To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
    To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.

    Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
    I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s too, unofficially).

    Well Scuds were strange beasts. Saddam's Scuds did not have regular ballistic trajectories, probably because they were old and falling apart during flight. Thus, their trajectories became unintentionally unpredictable/random. I agree that the Raytheon's shootdown rate was a boldface lie which professor Postol exposed. But randomised trajectory is the reason why the shootdown rate was so low.

    The Russian MIRV ICBM Bullawa uses exactly the same approach of randomising trajectory of each vehicle intentionally, small but quick completely random maneuvers, which makes it virtually impossible to shootdown. The US would have to place supercooled computers on its interceptors to destroy those babies. Therefore, another relatively cheap but highly effective countermeasure to US ABMD, a beautiful response.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Erebus , April 18, 2017 at 2:16 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Joe Wong "Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita." this is very funny, how about the 20 trillions of US national debt and it is skyrocketing fast? If you only count asset without counting liability US maybe in the top 10 GDP per capita, but if you count net asset the US is in the negative GDP per capita, a broke nation. Perhaps it is American Exceptionalism logic, claiming credit where credit is not due, living in a world detached from reality.

    "If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke." this is even funnier, Russian does not use USD in Russia, nor Russian government pay its MIC in USD, meanwhile Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed, why does oil price have any relationship with Russian internal spending? Another example of "completely triumphalist and detached from Russia's economic realities" which is defined by meaningless Wall Street economic indices and snakeoil economic theories and rhetoric taught in the western universities.

    Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed

    No, it cannot.
    The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD, the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
    As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
    These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand, and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough, and so they stay where they are.
    So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties. A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.

    The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution which all but prohibits its restructuring.

    You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:

    http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT
    • 100 Words OT, here is some education about North Korea for the stupid people and those who are not stupid but lack information. This is truly worth a read, it will open your eyes. Particularly read the comments, and especially the three comments by "b", the zine owner:

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/the-reason-behind-north-koreas-nuclear-program-and-its-offer-to-end-it.html#more

    The reality about North Korea is that the South Korean US puppets apply the same technique on NK defectors that the British US puppets apply on Russian "KGB defectors". These poor defecting souls found themselves in a desperate situation in their new country to which they were attracted by stories of street paved in gold. Thus even just for food they have to invent more and more outrageous stories to feed the propaganda machines of their South Korean/British hosts.

    This is how Kim Jong Un threw his uncle to the 120 starving dogs and how Putin blew up some Russian apartments in Buynaksk, Moscow, and Volgodonsk, defector's honor!

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Mark Chapman , • Website April 18, 2017 at 2:27 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Avery {From people who serve on it, and I quote:"mind boggling capabilities".}

    Until it has proven itself in a real war against a technologically competent adversary, e.g. U.S./NATO, then it's all simulation.
    Its "mind boggling capabilities" are nothing more than engineering specifications.
    No computer simulation anywhere, anytime has been able to come even close to the chaotic, unpredictable conditions of real war.

    To wit: the Patriot worked great on paper, but its performance in the Iraq war against ancient Iraqi Scuds was dismal.
    To wit2: the misnamed 'Iron Dome', which is a supposedly improved copy of the Patriot and which Israelis claim has a hit rate of 90%+, was proven by Prof. Postol of MIT to have a success rate of ~5% against primitive Hamas rockets.

    Let's wait and see if the S-400 has "mind boggling capabilities" .
    I hope it does. (Armenia has 'bought' some S-300s, officially. Maybe Russia gave RoA some S-400s too, unofficially).

    In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black' release. Not always, but often.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-russias-s-400-missile-system-in-action-and-heres-1746490022

    I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft element using current tactics.

    It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry.

    Carlton Meyer , • Website April 18, 2017 at 2:31 am GMT
    @DanC One of the most spectacular misallocation of resources has been the US Navy's insistence on building ever-more surface ships of ever-increasing complexity, while allowing their submarine fleet to languish, and neglecting missile & torpedo technology.

    The reason is career path incentives in the Navy, and in the defense contractor corporations, not in rational consideration of the directions naval warfare is developing in the rest of the world.

    I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here: the first time a surface fleet, no matter how modern, how large, even a carrier group, is attacked by a well-commanded, networked battery of modern missles, like the Moskit, Onyx or BrahMos, there will be debacle of historic proportions.

    Thousands of sailors and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of hardware will be headed to the bottom. If you care to read my detailed explanation of why carrier strike groups are obsolete against a modern navy:

    If you prefer to watch a 33 second example:

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 2:42 am GMT
    • 300 Words @Sam Shama

    Russia is a very special case here–this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about,
    Hey Smoothie,
    Loved this informative piece.

    On the military aspect, I'll take your assessments without any salt at all, for I do believe the U.S. has been tracking a technologically shallower but cost wise steeper trajectory.

    I think Russians are a highly gifted lot, able to do wonders mostly on account of their deep science & mathematics bench.

    Yet I also think Randal is mostly right about economic strength playing a vital, even decisive role in overall strength in the longer run. There are no countries which can match the U.S. in the department of raw economic endowments.

    China comes closest to exceeding the overall size of the U.S.economy, based on a combination of sheer population, relentless mercantilism combined with extractive labour policies over the last five decades or more. All of which has also propelled them to achieve technological capabilities not far behind many western European states.

    The U.S is eminently capable of really, I mean really increasing military spending without breaking a sweat. But that is not the goal in itself. It needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly. Imagine a U.S. spending an efficient 7-10% of GDP on this, in which case I see its competitors doing little else besides gearing their entire economies to armaments, and then failing to keep up. I am confident if such a race ensued there'd be a global run to purchase U.S. assets, even as capital controls are put into action.

    The troubles of the U.S have stemmed from a paucity of far-sighted leaders of late. I am still hoping Mr Trump comes through, and there are signs he will. We should be establishing a truly friendly relationship with Russia and focusing our resources on joint goals of a far loftier nature than besting each other on wartime toys.

    It [US] needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly.

    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.

    Firstly, US military budget is significantly more than presented because the whole budget has been divided between different government departments. For example, nuclear weapons are under the Department of Energy, the huge ongoing cost of Veterans' health is under Department of Health budget, the free money to Israel is under the Foreign Affairs and so on. Overall, about 40% of the US military budget is hidden, which means that US spends not 2.5% of GDP on the military then probably around 4.5%.

    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.

    Thirdly, the idea of "coming down hard on MIC waste" is utterly ridiculous because the "MIC waste" is the Deep State profit and we just had an illustration of what happens with those who oppose the Deep State. In other words, only God could come down on US MIC waste, the Presidents can only pretend.

    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump. When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s. The US$ is still strong, not because of its intrinsic value then thanks to skillful FX market manipulation and thanks to 10-12 aircraft carrier groups.

    Trump is now amassing three carrier groups near North Korea, Russia and China. What do you think would happen to US$ if even one of those carriers gets sunk?

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 3:04 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.
    Generally legitimate point but it will require a very expanded answer. I will, at some point, elaborate on it--there are some serious nuances.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly – Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.
    Largely true. However, in serious signal processing systems such as radar, sonar, combat control (management) systems etc. the main secret are mathematics (algorithms). Just to give you an example, it was impossible for China to copy any software from any Russian-made systems. As an example, Shtil Air Defense complexes which went to China after she bought Project 956 destroyers in 1990s are defended such way that any attempt to tamper with their (and other systems') brains results in a clean slate. It is true today also, actually, especially today. China now is receiving full Russian "version" of SU-35 and of S-400, they still will not be able to copy it. Mimic somewhat? Yes. After all they do have their own S-300 knock offs. Copy? No. They will try, of course but, say, SU-35 engine and avionics is still beyond their reach.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance?
    I believe Ondrej made a good, albeit partial case, for you in his response. Let me put it this way--viewing Russia's public schools' 8-9th grade books on math and physics (and chemistry) may create a state of shock in many, even elite, US schools and not among students only I know. Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union, in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.

    Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck (or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing any other component of success?

    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 3:48 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Mark Chapman In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black' release. Not always, but often.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-russias-s-400-missile-system-in-action-and-heres-1746490022

    I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft element using current tactics.

    It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry. Very good and relevant explanation. I would only add that what Russia has in Syria and what Syria has in Syria are not IADS then stand-alone radars and missiles. What Russia has over Russia is IADS, especially with the new S500 (Russian ABMD). The Russians do not develop separate systems for air-defence and missile-defence, in Russia it is all one integrated multi-sensor system. What is completely unknown is the effectiveness of the Western stealth techniques and jammers against the Russian IADS over Russia. What if, what the Western airforces call the blue line, the entry space which allows you to destroy the airdefense before being detected and destroyed, keeps changing, becomes unpredictable or disappears altogether. What if you cannot overwhelm the airdefense with a barrage of 59 Tomahawks as in Syria, because you would need to fire several hundred or even thousand missiles simultaneously?

    If Russia implements IADS over Syria, which may be what was announced after the US cruise missile attack, then the "blue line" for US and Israeli jets and missiles may disappear.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Bayan , April 18, 2017 at 3:51 am GMT
    • 100 Words America and Russia will not go for a direct war.

    The reason is simple: one is crazy the other is nuts. When crazy meets nuts sanity of both is restored. They 'll go for a drink and head home.

    I sort of drove this conclusion from a Russian poem I read years ago.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Kiza , April 18, 2017 at 4:09 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Mark Chapman Agreed; the US Navy only continues to pursue railgun technology to use up budget dollars - a peculiarity of western defense budgeting is that if you show efficiency by using less than the full amount allocated for your operations, maintenance and R&D, your budget is likely to be cut by that much next cycle. The USN has gone back to the drawing-board on railgun development, but absent a power-supply breakthrough it is unrealistic except as a vanity project.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-railgun-dream-could-be-denied-by-two-big-problems-17301

    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/this-is-why-the-navy-cant-have-nice-railguns

    An additional argument in Russia's favour is that many of its systems are built simply to be rugged and easily operated by someone with a minimum of training, like a conscript, although the top end of the air defense systems are still largely operated by specialists. Western systems often are unnecessarily complex - sometimes seemingly just to impress reviewers - and the fiasco of the F-35 nightmare serves as exemplary of what happens when corporatism gets the upper hand on government; any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard of pork-barreling and design changes.

    As far as the navy goes, I made some of the same points myself some years ago, particularly the gross discrepancy in the cost of the USN's Littoral Combat Ships compared with - in this instance - China's missile corvettes.

    https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/fall-out-and-secure-for-sea-the-2012-sino-russian-naval-exercises/comment-page-1/

    Thanks for a great piece; it was timely, informative, thought-provoking and chock-full of meaty phrases and terminology I cannot wait to borrow.

    Mark, sorry but I have to disagree on the F-35 project. You are right that

    any vision of what the F-35 was originally supposed to do has been lost in a blizzard of pork-barreling and design changes

    But it appears that even that original concept was a pie in the sky sold to the government by a ruthless military almost-monopolistic corporation.

    Firstly, the concept was unrealistic, then also the concept was too ambitious in the wrong direction.

    Unrealistic: to create one frame for different airforce roles with very different requirements I describe as similar to creating a tank which can race on the ground, fly and submerge . I wonder why this has never been done successfully before. But this is what LM promised to USAF and on paper it looked fantastic and when greased with a few corrupt bucks the concept won the decision day. The same frame and 70% of shared components between all versions, ha!

    Too ambitious: instead of focusing on the firepower and maneuverability, it focused on stealth which is relatively easily defeated with multi-sensor IADS. The designers created the best stealth possible but at the expense of the principal plane performance: the firepower and maneuverability.

    LM claims that F-35 is completely new technology and suffers from birthing pains. Although true, this is not the crux of the problem. The whole design is back-to-the-drawing-board level of disaster. Even US & Allies cannot afford a trillion dollars stuff-up and a decade of time lost.

    In essence, the F-35 is again a good weapon only against the thirld-world opponents who cannot defeat stealth.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    2stateshmoostate , April 18, 2017 at 4:38 am GMT
    • 200 Words I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
    After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
    The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and got the shit kicked out of them.
    On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
    The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
    I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign powers.
    Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes) in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
    But, I certainly could be wrong. •
    Joe Franklin , April 18, 2017 at 4:42 am GMT
    • 300 Words @mushroom When folks discuss Russia's capabilities they often forget what's blatantly obvious - which is what's not obvious, i.e. what the bear has created and is in it's hidden caves.

    What happened to that U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea was just a teasing mini-harbinger of this reality!

    So is the genius to create a cavity to eavesdrop, &c...

    If you want to enjoy happy days don't mess with the bear! The USS Donald Cook (DDG-75) is a 4th generation guided missile destroyer whose key weapons are Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of up to 2,500 kilometers, and capable of carrying nuclear explosives. This ship carries 56 Tomahawk missiles in standard mode, and 96 missiles in attack mode.

    The US destroyer is equipped with the most recent Aegis Combat System. It is an integrated naval weapons systems which can link together the missile defense systems of all vessels embedded within the same network, so as to ensure the detection, tracking and destruction of hundreds of targets at the same time. In addition, the USS Donald Cook is equipped with 4 large radars, whose power is comparable to that of several stations. For protection, it carries more than fifty anti-aircraft missiles of various types.

    Meanwhile, the Russian Su-24 that buzzed the USS Donald Cook carried neither bombs nor missiles but only a basket mounted under the fuselage, which, according to the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta [2], contained a Russian electronic warfare device called Khibiny .

    As the Russian jet approached the US vessel, the electronic device disabled all radars, control circuits, systems, information transmission, etc. on board the US destroyer . In other words, the all-powerful Aegis system, now hooked up – or about to be – with the defense systems installed on NATO's most modern ships was shut down, as turning off the TV set with the remote control.

    The Russian Su-24 then simulated a missile attack against the USS Donald Cook, which was left literally deaf and blind. As if carrying out a training exercise, the Russian aircraft – unarmed – repeated the same maneuver 12 times before flying away.

    After that, the 4th generation destroyer immediately set sail towards a port in Romania.

    Since that incident, which the Atlanticist media have carefully covered up despite the widespread reactions sparked among defense industry experts, no US ship has ever approached Russian territorial waters again.

    According to some specialized media, 27 sailors from the USS Donald Cook requested to be relieved from active service.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    utu , April 18, 2017 at 4:52 am GMT
    • 400 Words The article is not backed up by numbers. There is zero specificity.

    How many S-300 and S-400 are actually deployed? How many missiles/fighter jets would it take to overwhelm this defensive force? Does US/NATO have that many missiles/fighter jets to do this job?

    How many Su-35 were deployed so far and how does this compare to the number of F-22 in service?

    How many submarines US and Russia have currently in the seas?

    What's wrong with Ohio class subs? They are just there to deliver the punch and are perfectly safe as Russia does not have enough killer subs.

    And now this:

    Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.

    What would be the purpose of such a strike? Wasting expensive missile on delivering just singular 500kg explosive? Anybody seriously in Russia's military would consider such an idiocy?

    The bottom line is that Russia is a nuclear power that can annihilate the US. All strategies take this into account. This is the bottom line. Any response or aggression vis a vis Russia must take this into account.

    Russia has conventional defensive capabilities but has negligible ability of projecting its power beyond its borders. Circa 4 dozens of planes in Syria with half a dozen of fighter jets to protect them that all are defended by few dozens of S-300/400 tubes is not very impressive. This force could be overwhelmed in just few hours by Israel AF that has over 400 F-15/16 or Turkey AF that has over 200 F-16.

    I do not believe anybody really wants a war with Russia but certainly they want to conquer Russia to make it to submit to the Washington consensus. But this will not be done with foreign troops on Russian soil or with bombs falling or Russian cities. It will be done with a soft coup d'etat that will depose Putin and his semi-patriotic faction. It all will be done with Russian hands. The attack on Syria by Trump was perfectly timed with president Xi visit who is very familiar with the Chinese proverb: kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Putin was the chicken and Xi was the monkey in this case. Putin lost face and Xi lost face. With every incident of this nature there will be more and more resentment and plotting among various factions in Russia's Deep State. There is no other choice because certainly Russia will not go to the preemptive nuclear war and apart of nuclear war Russia will be humiliated in every conventional skirmish.

    I am taking bets if Putin will be out of power by the end of this summer.

    pogohere , • Website April 18, 2017 at 5:14 am GMT
    • 300 Words @Erebus

    Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
    No, it cannot.
    The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD, the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
    As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
    These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand, and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough, and so they stay where they are.
    So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties. A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.

    The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution which all but prohibits its restructuring.

    You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
    http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf What international treaties has the Russian Central Bank entered into, if any?

    Re: "The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution which all but prohibits its restructuring."

    Yours is an odd way of interpreting this provision of the Russian Constitution:

    The Constitution of the Russian Federation
    Article 75 (Chapter 3)

    1. The monetary unit in the Russian Federation shall be the rouble. Money issue shall be carried out exclusively by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. Introduction and issue of other currencies in Russia shall not be allowed.
    2. The protection and ensuring the stability of the rouble shall be the major task of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, which it shall fulfil independently of the other bodies of state authority.
    3. The system of taxes paid to the federal budget and the general principles of taxation and dues in the Russian Federation shall be fixed by the federal law.
    4. State loans shall be issued according to the rules fixed by the federal law and shall be floated on a voluntary basis. [emphasis added]

    With reference to this @p36 of the treatise cited:

    "Laws need to be changed. That means that it is necessary to take the State
    Duma under control. That means that a parliamentary majority is required.
    And therefore, a party needs to be created that will win the general elections.
    A political structure which is currently rather popular starts being created.

    The majority party in the Duma now has representation sufficient to enable an amendment to the constitution to change the above provisions, not to mention the laws pursuant to same. Whether that is actually politically feasible is another matter.

    The treatise you cited appears to be somewhat dated with regard to the constraints, if any, on changes to central banking in Russia.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Seraphim , April 18, 2017 at 5:44 am GMT
    • 200 Words @anon That is a point I have often tried to make. Had the Tsar just told the Serbs flat out, "You guys are on your own. Comply. Or fight the Central Powers by yourself. We are out of it.",' there would never have been a 'Great' war (WW1). At most the 'war' would have been a minor brawl between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. History would have recorded it as just another Balkan skirmish. It would have been virtually forgotten today. This was the initial assumption of the Kaiser when he issued his 'blank check' of support. The Tsar would have saved millions of lives, including his own and his family too. Just nine years earlier the Tsar had fought and lost a disastrous war with Japan. That defeat led to a revolution that came within a hair of deposing him. He SHOULD have learned his lesson and avoided any future conflict like the plague. Tsar Nicolas was an incredibly stupid man. He deserves far more vilification then the Kaiser does. Tsar Nicholas was not that stupid to not see that the aggression against Serbia was in fact directed at Russia. The Dual Alliance of 1879, coming immediately after the Berlin Congress was directed squarely against Russia. By the time of Nicholas it evolved in the Triple Alliance and I have no doubts that Russians knew that Romania had adhered in secret in 1882. He could not be unaware of the 'Drang nach Osten' mentality which gripped Germany by the end of the 19th century and that the plans for the partition of Russia were on the drawing board. He could not have been unaware that the rejection of his proposals for disarmament has induced Germany to believe that the proposal reflected the weakness of Russia. He could not been unaware of Moltke's proposal in 1912 for a preventive war against Russia. He could not have been unaware that an external war was a precondition of for the revolution.
    War was imposed on Russia. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Blacktail , April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT
    • 200 Words The Russian military is moving in the same direction as the US - toward state-of-the-art obsolescence. While they build tiny numbers of new weapons, many times that number of their predecessors are being retired faster than the new weapons can be built.

    That fancy T-14 Armata Russia started building a few years ago? It replaces over 20000 T-55s and T-62s built early in the Cold War, and 6000 T-64s that were all spontaneously retired in the early 2010s and shipped not to the tank graveyards, but straight to the cutting mills.

    The Borei class Ballistic Missile Submarines mentioned in the article currently number about 5 boats, most of which aren't finished yet. They replace not only the infinitely more powerful and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age, but because Russia couldn't afford them), but also some 50 other Cold War era "Boomers".

    And that Su-35 that's all the hype these days? It was back in the mid-1990s as well, and the Su-27 it was meant to replace is being retired faster than Su-35s can be built. The new T-50 isn't much of a threat either, because it's been in development almost as long as the F-35, and it's no closer to being combat-ready.

    These are a metaphor for what Russia has become; a nation so insecure about the wrong things (cutting-edge technology rather than enough weapons to defend itself) that they're over-spending to weakness.

    Ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT
    • 100 Words @Sergey Krieger You are coming as a very pragmatic sort of a man ;) Just for your warning – well, bit of cultural and genetical conditioning helps in this case.

    As one of my grandfathers was helping in early stages of establishing

    Unfortunately, I did not have chance to discuss these issues with him.

    Unfortunately, depending on point view, I am not enough pragmatic for current ideologically driven socio-economical society

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    anonHUN , April 18, 2017 at 7:22 am GMT
    • 600 Words @Joe Wong "still 20 years behind on average?" since you are fabricating thru the thin air, why did you stop at 20 years? Why didn't you say 30 years behind, 40 years behind, ... ? You should know fake news is always fake new regardless it is a small fake news or a big fake news. It depends on the area, in some things they are 30 years behind, or even 40. The USSR collapsed in 1991 and for at least 10 years Russia had no money even to pay its soldiers. As the Chechen debacles had shown they were in shambles. Their new projects weren't going much forward, as you can see they resumed their 1980′s projects after 2000 when they had more oil income and Putin made the Russian state working again (well, kind of it is still hindered by corruption, disincentivizes citizens from being entrepreneurial (in a state where the rules can be changed overnight at the ruler's whim (no real rule of law) and you can be a billionaire oligarch but you can't be sure the state doesn't simple take everything from you and throw you in prison overnight, even arranging for your "accidental" death, except the money you siphoned to foreign accounts and real estate abroad etc.) It is mafia state, or a mafia (ex KGB) presenting itself as the state. Of course it is more ore less true everywhere (in the US too of course), deep under the veneer of democracy and rule of law, but in Russia it is almost open and blatant. Also the Russians don't have any traditions of enterpreneurship, private incentive, contrary to China, which is also a very corrupt country with a corrupt and totally nondemocratic regime (contrary to Russia which has token Western-style democratic institutions now), but thanks to the industriousness of the Chinese people they have risen to where they are now. Average Russians still seem to expect the state to provide for them as it was in the USSR, they need a "Father Tsar" which is now Putin, or they are just drinking too much and are in a rut, idk.

    As for the years it was only an estimate of course, but as I said they first had to make up for the lost decade after 1991, like finishing subs that were left unfinished since 1992 and things like that. First really new gadgets were the Armata (and Kurganets) which is still a newcomer, and T-50, still not an operational fighter. Regarding SAM's I must say the Russians always were the fans of SAM's but they were ineffective in the ME and Vietnam too. Didn't stop the enemy from achieving air superiority. I don't doubt that the S-300 /400 is much more advanced than the SAM systems of the 60′s and 70′s were, but they would have to face a much more advanced opponent too. Like low RCS planes that cannot be detected until they are well within the range of their air-to-surface weapons or dozens of targets flying at 20-3o m coming in from multiple directions.
    The F-35 is derided around here, the US spent a fortune on it, true. It has problems (only known because the US is more open, you usually don't read in the media about problems with the new Chinese or Russian planes, sure you think it is because they don't have any with them?) but it's capabilities are something. Stealth is not some scam as some believe. It is serious business when your SAM's or AAM's cannot lock on the damn thing even if you have a monster longwave radar that can detect it from a few dozen miles

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT
    • 200 Words @Kiza Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union, in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.

    Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck (or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing any other component of success?

    Am I missing any other component of success?

    Just a possibility – or my hypothesis I am playing lately:-)

    It can be language according Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
    The principle of linguistic relativity that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined to include two versions. The strong version says that language determines thought, and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.

    and also due to fact that:

    Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development any sudden systemic upheaval. [ ] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the present. [ ] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European." ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp.
    59-60).

    Which could explain math skills of Russians and Indian:-) because languages are closely related.

    + learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view, if you look at current Russian elites Shoigu, Lavrov and others they speak usually one or more foreign languages fluently.

    anon , April 18, 2017 at 8:18 am GMT
    • 300 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    When relative economic strength is changing, military power lags by decades because many of the systems, technologies and institutions can only be built on such timescales.
    Russia is a very special case here--this is one of the points which is missed completely from "western" discussion. The empirical evidence is in and it overwhelmingly supports my, now academic, contention that "western" metrics for Russia do not work, nor most of the "experts" know what they are talking about, even when they have almost unrestricted access to sources. The way US "missed" Russia's military transformation which started in earnest in 2008 and completed its first phase by 2012 (4 years, you are talking about decades) is nothing short of astonishing. Combination of ignorance, hubris and downright stupidity are responsible for all that.

    P.S. No serious analyst takes US GDP as 18 trillion dollars seriously. A huge part of it is a creative bookkeeping and most of it is financial and service sector. Out of very few good things Vitaly Shlykov left after himself was his "The General Staff And Economics", which addressed the issue of actual US military-industrial potential. Then come strategic, operational and technological dimensions. You want to see operational dimension--look no further than Mosul which is still, after 6 months, being "liberated". Comparisons to Aleppo are not only warranted but irresistible. In general, overall power of the state (nation) is not only in its "economic" indices. I use Barnett's definition of national power constantly, remarkably Lavrov's recent speech in the General Staff Academy uses virtually identical definition. Your main point is well taken. PPP instead of simply GDP captures lower costs in Russia and is a better starting point. Plus, the US military procurement is remarkably inefficient. The combination of the two plus tacit and institutional knowledge regarding spending on military hardware makes analysis based on US spending misleading.

    However, the US is remarkably efficient in many other areas and has had the best performing developed economy since 2008.

    Regarding access to capital markets, the US over the last decade has developed a massive unconventional oil industry. This was done with capital investment of $3 trillion. Which came from capital markets. Not only was this unplanned, but it was done with grudging support from the Obama administration. And it is of enormous geo strategic value. I wish to hell that our defense doctrine would plug this new fact - US has no need for Middle East oil - into their strategy. Not to totally discount its importance, but the idea fighting and dying for a strategic resource that can be bought or drilled for needs to be thought out.

    If we were going to refight WW 2, then we would have some problems with global supply chains, etc. The next major war, if we have one, won't be like WW 2. The logic of a US conventional war with Russia is stupid. Either side with a decisive conventional advantage would simply increase the risk of it going nuclear.

    Russia could, if they were so inclined, forcibly take back some of the former USSR. But why would they want to? Even Crimea is expensive. It has taken what seems like forever to build the Kerch Strait Bridge. They have their Naval Base and the border dispute will keep Ukraine out of NATO. Technically, they could try it, but one of the requirements for membership is that the nation is not involved in conflict. It's held in Georgia and Moldova.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    DanC , April 18, 2017 at 8:41 am GMT
    • 400 Words @Carlton Meyer If you care to read my detailed explanation of why carrier strike groups are obsolete against a modern navy:

    http://www.g2mil.com/navwar.htm

    If you prefer to watch a 33 second example:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ki2-uyCHOA Great article.

    Concerning wastage of resources, here's what John Patch of the USN had to say:

    The Soviets debated building a significant carrier fleet in the 1960s but determined that large carriers had no place in the nuclear age, partly because of their vulnerability to missiles with nuclear warheads.2 While later choosing to build larger carriers, Moscow always retained the view that carriers remained vulnerable.

    https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-carrier-invulnerability-myth.145678/

    It is surely significant that Russia sold or gave away all its cold war-era aircraft carriers and retains only the hybrid aircraft-capable cruiser, Kuznetsov.

    They "get" it that the role of capital surface ships is changing,, and diminishing. This is also indicative of why the Russians will shock the first fleet that tries to engage them. They keep their planners and developers focused on what actually matters, and serious war gaming, rather than rigging things to provide the answer they want for careerist reasons

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

    Note that it took the attacking general about 5 minutes using a swarm of old-generation cruise missiles to sink enough craft to disable the fleet's networked defense and EW capacity, with crew amounting to 20,000 on the ships sunk alone. The remaining ships were sitting ducks for the follow up attacks.

    These were subsonic cruise missiles. A bunch of moskits would have wiped everything out.

    And still these fools keep spending money on carrier groups. it's noteworthy that they restarted the war game and ordered the opposing general to stop making effective attacks. That sums up exactly why the US keeps wasting money and doing stupid things.
    __________________

    As an aside, note that the CGI from the movie of an aircraft carrier attack is not realistic.

    Projectiles travelling at the speeds shown would easily be destroyed or diverted by fleet defense systems.

    The new BrahMos adaptation of the Onyx missile travels at 2,800 mph. By comparison a bullet fired from a high compression hunting rifle travels at 1,700 mph.

    The ballistic missiles such as the Dong feng being developed by the Chinese, will have incoming speeds as high as 5,000 mph.

    The human eye can't actually see objects moving that fast.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Joey Zaza , April 18, 2017 at 9:48 am GMT
    @Anonymous Russia spent almost 5.4% of GDP on military spending. The US last year spent 3.3% and with Trump's proposed increase this number will increase by a few decimal points.

    Russia is a middle income country while the US is a rich country, in the top 10 of GDP per capita. If oil prices don't substantially improve and Russia continues to spend the way it does on the military it will simply go broke.

    Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita (Russia is between Mexico and Suriname)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures Hopefully the President of Russia will take on board your succinct and informed analysis. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 9:53 am GMT
    @reiner Tor I think that while it's a grave mistake for Americans to underestimate Russians, it's also a grave mistake for Russians to underestimate Americans.

    Since I cannot claim to be an expert in military technology, I always read such articles with great interest, but never know with how much grain of salt I need to take them - none? a little? a lot? a whole salt mine?

    Underestimate Americans in what ? Stupidity ? Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 9:57 am GMT
    @reiner Tor

    US would have a real test in North Korea or Iran, Russia in a war against Turkey.
    I think Turkey's military is stronger than either Iran's or North Korea's, so it would be a tougher test for Russia to fight Turkey than for the US to fight North Korea or Iran. Russians have already defeated Ottomans and Turkey is NOT a tough test for Russia given Turkey invades Russia otheriwse unlike US you don't expect Russia to go launch a war bravado against them. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Seraphim , April 18, 2017 at 10:39 am GMT
    @2stateshmoostate I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
    After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
    The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and got the shit kicked out of them.
    On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
    The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
    I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign powers.
    Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes) in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
    But, I certainly could be wrong. The war that the Japanese started pushed by the Schiff banking cabal was ended in 1945 by the people they helped to overturn a friend of Japan, the Tsar Nicholas II. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT
    @utu The article is not backed up by numbers. There is zero specificity.

    How many S-300 and S-400 are actually deployed? How many missiles/fighter jets would it take to overwhelm this defensive force? Does US/NATO have that many missiles/fighter jets to do this job?

    How many Su-35 were deployed so far and how does this compare to the number of F-22 in service?

    How many submarines US and Russia have currently in the seas?

    What's wrong with Ohio class subs? They are just there to deliver the punch and are perfectly safe as Russia does not have enough killer subs.

    And now this:


    Moreover, already today, US lower 48 are not immune to a conventional massive missile strike.
    What would be the purpose of such a strike? Wasting expensive missile on delivering just singular 500kg explosive? Anybody seriously in Russia's military would consider such an idiocy?

    The bottom line is that Russia is a nuclear power that can annihilate the US. All strategies take this into account. This is the bottom line. Any response or aggression vis a vis Russia must take this into account.

    Russia has conventional defensive capabilities but has negligible ability of projecting its power beyond its borders. Circa 4 dozens of planes in Syria with half a dozen of fighter jets to protect them that all are defended by few dozens of S-300/400 tubes is not very impressive. This force could be overwhelmed in just few hours by Israel AF that has over 400 F-15/16 or Turkey AF that has over 200 F-16.

    I do not believe anybody really wants a war with Russia but certainly they want to conquer Russia to make it to submit to the Washington consensus. But this will not be done with foreign troops on Russian soil or with bombs falling or Russian cities. It will be done with a soft coup d'etat that will depose Putin and his semi-patriotic faction. It all will be done with Russian hands. The attack on Syria by Trump was perfectly timed with president Xi visit who is very familiar with the Chinese proverb: kill the chicken to scare the monkey. Putin was the chicken and Xi was the monkey in this case. Putin lost face and Xi lost face. With every incident of this nature there will be more and more resentment and plotting among various factions in Russia's Deep State. There is no other choice because certainly Russia will not go to the preemptive nuclear war and apart of nuclear war Russia will be humiliated in every conventional skirmish.

    I am taking bets if Putin will be out of power by the end of this summer. S-300 can destroy Israeli warplanes even before they leave their airfields for sky. Do you see Russians doing it ? Why ? Because Russia and Israel have friendly relations and Russia doesn't interfere in Hezbollah and Israelis conflict. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Max Steel , April 18, 2017 at 11:48 am GMT
    • 300 Words @Kiza Congratulations on the article Andrei. As another commenter said - I do not agree with everything in the article, but I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

    I also fully support your answers to Karlin, he often barks up a wrong tree.

    Now the main issue with your article that I have is the same old issue that I always had with your comments. You start from the right premise and then you blow it up beyond recognition. In other words, you are too optimistic. For example, it is a very good point that the Russian and US perceptions of war are totally different: for a Russian the war is a fight for survival as an individual and as a nation, for a US person war and killing are just another day in the office. Then you start counting weapons and comparing weapons technology specifications and always conclude that Russian is better and cheaper, even when there is no direct comparison of effectiveness in battle.

    In other words, if your top level goal is to counter the ubiquitous US MIC propaganda with the Russian MIC propaganda, then you are doing a good job. But never forget the Motke's dictum: no wonderful battle plan survives contact with the enemy. I accept that the mercenairy armies, like the US one, are not very good when dying starts, they totally rely on military superiority which does not exist against Russia and soon will not exist against China. But the new generations of Russians are becoming softer and softer and Russian military has not been tested in a recent conflict against a peer just like the US one has not.

    The second major disadvantage of the Russian MIC is that US has a huge market of allies which it ruthlessly milks for weapons procurement, whilst when Russia sells an S300 to Cyprus it lands in the hands of the Israelis to be cracked. Even after such experience Russia engages in an apparently serious discussion to sell S400 to Turkey, straight into NATO hands. To put it mildly - Russia has to nurture the BRICS defense market, although most of the customers are copy artists, China being the master copier.

    Having criticised you too much, now I have to admit that I do not understand how Russia can get on average 5X more bang for the buck than US, sometimes more. Does Russian MIC operate some underground former mine facilities in which these engineering slaves design all these wonderful military toys and then build them at the cost of sustenance? Lower Russian wages and US MIC's extraordinary greed still cannot fully explain such huge difference. Is it some amazing corruption-free project management skills inherited from Soviet Union?

    As someone who has had experience with the weaponry of both sides, I have always been a fan of Russian engineering simplicity and reliability in design. Most people are familiar with this design philosophy through experience with Kalashnikov rifle, but this is a general design principle of all Russian weapons, even the sophisticated ones (probably even S500). Admittedly, the Chinese apply a similar principle in their engineering, although not at the same level - I remember well the shock of my Western colleagues when they realised that the Chinese Long March rockets utilised plywood where they utilised (at that time) very expensive carbon fibre and other composites.

    There is a slight flaw in your comment.

    Israeli used Greece's S-300 PMU-1 to prepare their F-16I pilots for potential air strikes on Iran .

    we still don't know which version went to Iran so if they practice on the S-300PMU-1 and Iran gets the S-300VM it will be like practising on a home cat and then going against a tiger.

    Even US and UK had older S-300 models with them. US has S-300PS/PMU systems at Nevada. It has same value as figuring out Turkish F-16 from Egyptian/Pakistan/UAE/Taiwan /Korean.

    But yes earlier S-300 models are not completely protected Israel succeeded where many in NATO failed against even an old system like PMU. Regarding S-300PMU, it has been upgraded substantially in previous years.

    Its guidance system is literally unjammable unless huge resources are dedicated, ie broadband noise jamming of the most powerful kind.

    Though recently Israel announced that it is upgrading its F-16 variants external link to be able to handle the vaunted Russian S-300 anti-aircraft system. Iran is perennially about to receive shipments of the system. But mere intention does not mean they have managed to do so.

    It was the middle of the 1990s and money was nonexistent in Russia . They sold components of an S-300V battery to the US likely the oldest model they had that was incomplete.With the money they made they upgraded the whole system to S-300VM or Antei-2500.So in effect the US paid for the next generation to replace the generation that was compromised.And the S-300V was in service in most former Soviet republics so chances were eventually they would get their hands on it anyway at least this way they got their own funding to develop a replacement system.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    bb. , April 18, 2017 at 12:01 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @inertial You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps - all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom. Well, duh.

    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors - mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. - who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.

    In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise as much capital as they need.

    As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities. Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?

    Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an idiot. not treating US data seriously is obviously hyperbole, but incidentally a very on spot one in this case.
    all things being equal, you are right about market formation and capitalization. but these are not normal times. nobody really knows whats going to happen when the shit, which is the US stock market QE fueled ponzi scheme, hits the fan. it is very hard to take the subprime, derivative, QE, buyback economy of the last almost 20 years seriously.
    it is also false to say that zuckerbook is useless. it generates way too much money(compared to twitter or tesla) to make that statement. in general, it is hard to estimate the value and effectiveness of marketing expenses and facebook put a decent metric on it, better than google to some extent. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    AP , April 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @2stateshmoostate I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
    After after the surprise attack by the Japanese navy against Port Arthur and ultimate victory by Japan in the Russian-Japanese war that followed back in 1904, the Czarist regime was doomed.
    The Russians were arrogantly confident that they could easily beat down the Japanese forces and got the shit kicked out of them.
    On paper the Russians should have had the advantage, but because there was so much corruption and incompetence in the Czarist military complex they were defeated.
    The result was a the revolution of 1905 and the Czars ultimate demise in 1917.
    I think everything about the US government is a lie and has been for a while. Even though billions are spent on the US military I suspect it is a "paper tiger" because of obvious corruption but also because of the traitorous activity of US government officials with allegiances to a foreign powers.
    Anyway I'd be surprised that the US would prevail (without destroying the entire world with nukes) in a conflict with a adversary like Russia.
    But, I certainly could be wrong.

    I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.

    Sorry, that's just completely wrong.

    The best rough analogy to Russia of pre-1904 would be China (though China is further along in its development, perhaps it would be Russia of 1914 or later, had Russia not stupidly gotten itself into World War I).

    The US would somehow be analogous to the British Empire in its decline. A key difference, however, is the US' massive population (more than double that of Russia), territory and natural resources compared to that of the British mainland. This probably provides some sort of floor to the American decline that Britain didn't have.

    Also, keep in mind that western Russophobes plus Bolsheviks exaggerated the Tsars' Russia's weakness and incompetence, while there was nobody to defend it. This makes the picture unrealistically negative. During World War I, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers (compare Russian vs. British performance vs. the Ottoman Empire) and was able to maintain a stable front vs. the third.

    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 12:47 pm GMT
    NEW!

    They sold components of an S-300V battery to the US

    Belarus sold the whole complex to the US, S-300V.

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT
    • 100 WordsNEW! @Blacktail The Russian military is moving in the same direction as the US --- toward state-of-the-art obsolescence. While they build tiny numbers of new weapons, many times that number of their predecessors are being retired faster than the new weapons can be built.

    That fancy T-14 Armata Russia started building a few years ago? It replaces over 20000 T-55s and T-62s built early in the Cold War, and 6000 T-64s that were all spontaneously retired in the early 2010s and shipped not to the tank graveyards, but straight to the cutting mills.

    The Borei class Ballistic Missile Submarines mentioned in the article currently number about 5 boats, most of which aren't finished yet. They replace not only the infinitely more powerful and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age, but because Russia couldn't afford them), but also some 50 other Cold War era "Boomers".

    And that Su-35 that's all the hype these days? It was back in the mid-1990s as well, and the Su-27 it was meant to replace is being retired faster than Su-35s can be built. The new T-50 isn't much of a threat either, because it's been in development almost as long as the F-35, and it's no closer to being combat-ready.

    These are a metaphor for what Russia has become; a nation so insecure about the wrong things (cutting-edge technology rather than enough weapons to defend itself) that they're over-spending to weakness.

    They replace not only the infinitely more powerful and infamous Typhoon class (retired not because of age,

    Sir, please, don't write things you don't know about. Pacific Fleet's Delta III (Project 667 BDR) SSBNs are in dire need of replacement, while Northern Fleet's SSBNs of Delta IV class (Project 667 BDRM) are nearing the end of life. Remaining Project 941 (Akula-class> not Typhoon) are not even consideration for Borey-class, serving out their lives as test platforms, mostly. Borey (Project 955 and 955A) was created to replace aging Deltas.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT
    • 200 WordsNEW! @Kiza Ok. so the secret of Russian military project effectiveness is that there are no congressional districts and power plays to divvy up the military budget not based on merit and proven capability than based on the power of the district's Congressional and/or Senatorial whore. Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie. Then the engineers works for reasonable salaries with a highly respected bonus of patriotism. Then there is an excellent well established educational system (for the whites) which puts accent on physics, maths and real technical building skills, supported by mentorship by experienced engineers, instead of putting accent on lying, financial market wizardry (again manipulation), MBAs, whilst training blacks to become engineers and importing engineers from India. Finally, there is the accumulated project experience and cooperative networks from building good weaponry during the days of Soviet Union, in which Russia quickly and effectively replaced sometimes dysfunctional pieces of network which dropped out, especially the important ones from Ukraine. I am truly amazed how quickly the Russian military manufacturing network compensates and adjusts for the loss of any piece.

    Have I answered my own question of how Russia produces on average 5X more bang for the buck (or more precisely, almost the same bang for five times less buck) than the US MIC? Am I missing any other component of success?

    Then, there are no MIC billionaires to skim the pie.

    This is crucial. Sure, Chemezov's or Rahmanov's salaries are huge by Russian standards (well, by Western too) and allows the military-industrial elite to live very comfortably, to put it mildly but the answer is the state's ownership of the whole defense sphere, from industry to doctrinal development. Relationship between Russians and their state are dramatically different from what most Westerners ever experienced in their relations. It was inevitable in the nation with such military history as Russia. As I mentioned Arthur J. Alexander's "spread"–Russia does have this pressure applied to her institutes to, in the end, become this character from Russian anecdote, where he buys a crib for his toddler from one of the former MIC plants and after assembling it at home gets AK-47. Russia is bound to produce (at least mostly) weapons which have to work.

    Here is what Russians do, barn, of course, being a representation of Russian State;)

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 1:20 pm GMT
    @NoseytheDuke What if the fat boy (and the NK people) feel that they need those weapons for defensive purposes? After all, it wasn't too long ago that Korea was invaded by the US (plus a few satraps) and millions of Koreans were killed. Who are we in the west to interfere with NK? Fat boy is developing missiles that will hit the USA, nuff said.
    Ok a little more, he can sell those little nuclear bombs to some terrorist group, now 'nuff said!' Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Sam Shama , April 18, 2017 at 1:23 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @NoseytheDuke The troubles of the US of late have largely stemmed from having an insatiable parasite on its back sucking all that it can from the military and the economy in general whilst simultaneously plotting to undermine it.

    The senseless wars in the ME to provide Israel with "security", the billions of dollars in "loans" that will never be repaid, the vast amounts of military hardware worth billions declared as "scrap" and given to Israel, what a great investment it all has been.

    No doubt millions of Americans will welcome more degradation of their cities and infrastructure in order to field a larger military since it cares for the fruit of their loins so well AND has accomplished so much good in the world with the trillions already squandered at the behest of the Neocon Israel Firsters.

    You sure have your finger on America's pulse Shammy and clearly want nothing but the best for the American people, right? What a tosser! I shall refrain from returning your predictably dumb insults.

    On the topic of foreign aid and loan guarantees, you aren't well-read nor qualified to render any opinion likely to be worth more than the pixels wasted by your fatuous lines.

    First, understand the difference between actual loans and loan guarantees.

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf [pg 25 - 27]

    Second, here is a table for U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel: Total Aid

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-u-s-foreign-aid-to-israel-1949-present

    It irks you the U.S. sends foreign aid to Israel by an amount which really means not a great deal [average, $1.86b % $310b = 0.006 of GDP], even as U.S. foreign aid finds a much wider set of recipients. That's your emotional prerogative, one which breaches a very, very long tradition observed by powerful nations.

    There is little you or I could do about it. Alea iacta est .

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 1:24 pm GMT
    @Kiza You are stupid, are you not? No, I am smarter than you, and probably better looking. Just a guess, but an educated one, lol! •
    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 2:07 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Andrei Martyanov

    Hopefully it will grow to its proper dimensions.
    So, Facebook's capitalization of 400 billion, that is for company which produces nothing of real value (in fact, is detrimental to mental health of the society) is a true size of economy.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/market_cap

    Mind you--this is for a collection of several buildings, servers and about 200-300 pages of code in whatever they wrote it (C++, C whatever--make your pick).

    Meanwhile, Gazprom, which is an energy monster is about...10 times less.

    https://ycharts.com/companies/OGZPY/market_cap

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products--ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy--of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual--a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services. i am not talking, of course, about stock buybacks. As I already stated, nobody of any serious expertise in actual things that matter, treats this whole US "economic" data seriously. The problem here is that many in US establishment do and that is a clear and present danger to both US and world at large because constant and grotesque overestimation of own capabilities becomes a matter of policy, not a one-off accident.

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services.

    The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and the amygdala.

    Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality.

    Joe Wong , April 18, 2017 at 2:24 pm GMT
    • 200 Words @Erebus

    Russian Central Bank can print Ruble thru the thin air just like the Fed
    No, it cannot.
    The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves. The latter are the USD, the UKP, the EUR, the JPY, and now the CNY.
    As IMF treaties are considered International Treaties, they stand above the law of the land.
    These treaties are the instruments whereby the US' IMF-USD $ystem keeps the dollar in demand, and extracts value from the "3rd world" which are thereby forced to sell raw commodities to print enough currency to develop their internal economies. Of course, they can never really sell enough, and so they stay where they are.
    So, when the USM buys some insanely expensive aircraft carrier, or fighter aircraft, the rest of the world pays for it. In turn, the US uses that same carrier or aircraft to enforce the treaties. A self-reinforcing arrangement that allows the US and its allies to enjoy all the benefits of thievery over honest toil. "Extraordinary privilege", DeGaulle called it.

    The Russian Central Bank is doubly constrained by virtue of its (American authored) constitution which all but prohibits its restructuring.

    You can read a rather lengthy, but eye opening treatise on this subject here:
    http://lit.md/files/nstarikov/rouble_nationalization-the_way_to_russia%27s_freedom.pdf

    The Russian Central Bank, like all "emerging market" central banks are treaty bound to print local currency only in a prescribed ratio to their "hard currency" reserves.

    The above is your fabrication, the link is a write out by an over zealous nationalist with half baked truth, and the link is neither a treaty quoted by you to support your claim nor saying there is such IMF treaty.

    Most nations hardly have any hard currency reserves, yet the amount of local currency they printed proves your "prescribed ratio" a fake news. Even those nations have hard currency reserves, the amount of local currency they prints makes your "prescribed ratio" a Hollywood fantasy.

    Putin has begun de-dollarization Russian economy long time ago, Russian has signed currency SWAP with China, EU and Japan, so that Russian can trade without USD. China also has set up AIIB and Alt-SWIFT for rest of the world to bypass the USD as well. Time has changed, man.

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 2:34 pm GMT
    • 300 WordsNEW! @inertial You just illustrated my point. Facebook vs. Gazprom market caps - all that shows is that Facebook has access to vastly larger amounts of capital than Gazprom. Well, duh.

    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors - mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. - who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.

    In Russia, the government is just about the only major saver and investor. This works fine in areas where the government must play a role, such as weapons manufacture. In other areas, enterprises that need capital to develop must either accumulate it themselves over the years (which puts limit on growth,) or get the government to help them out, or borrow abroad at usurious rates. That's not good. Ideally, Russian enterprises should enter Russian stock or fixed income market and raise as much capital as they need.

    As for Boeing, yes it's a gem. But it does have some difficulties in raising capital. It's been balancing on the edge of bankruptcy for years and, unlike Facebook, it has huge liabilities. Incidentally, Boeing very much engages in all that "useless" high finance stuff. The buy and sell and issue bonds and short term paper; I don't know if they issue options but they certainly trade them. They don't believe that they are performing "virtual transactions with virtual money;" on the contrary, they consider this and essential part of the business, as important as building engines or whatever. Perhaps they know something you don't?

    Finally, a tip. Any "expert" who doesn't treat US (or other) economic data seriously is an idiot.

    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.

    Sure, and that is why a company which produces nothing of value "commands" the so called "investments" which are several times larger than those of Boeing who is de facto US national treasure and who, as you stated, has problems with raising "capital". That pretty much says it all. Again, I omit here the trick with stock buybacks. But in the end, you seem to miss completely the point–structure of GDP.

    You may go here and see for yourself how FIRE overtook manufacturing in US in output. What is "output", of course, remains a complete mystery, same as many other services, once one considers the "quality" of education in US public schools which reflects in the most profound way on US labor force which increasingly begins to look like a third world one.

    https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=51&step=1#reqid=51&step=51&isuri=1&5114=a&5102=15

    In general, we speak here different languages and I may only refer you back to Michael Lind's quote in my text. Judged in a larger, geopolitical framework, one can observe very clearly the process of US literally running out of resources and no amount of "raised capital" can change it. This is not to speak about the whole house of cards of Pax Americana which rested on US military imperial mythology. Once this mythology is debunked (the process which is ongoing as I type it) the house of cards folds.

    • Agree: Sergey Krieger •
    Joe Wong , April 18, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Anon

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services.
    The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and the amygdala.

    Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality. I guess what Andrei Martyanov was trying to say that virtual is not real, intrinsic or tangible, it is fabricated or created thru the thin air, hence the American economy is not real, intrinsic or tangible, it is fabricated or created thru the thin air. Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Ondrej , April 18, 2017 at 3:01 pm GMT
    • 100 Words @Anon

    Here is a dilemma. Gazprom extracts and delivers energy without which Eurasia can not exist. Facebook? Turn it off tomorrow and bar some impressionable teenagers committing suicide, the world will continue on living just fine. But that is just one example. You will not find, however, such a hi-tech monster as Rostec on any financial market. For a corporate giant which employs half-a-million people and produces state of the art weapon systems and civilian products–ask yourself a question whose "capitalization" is more important for economy–of useless Facebook or of the corporation which produces civilian jet engines. But let me add insult to injury. While Facebook "capitalizes" on almost half-trillion, a gem of the American industry, aerospace giant Boeing barely makes it to 109 billion. Most US economic indices are fraud, the same as most of US economy is virtual–a collection of virtual transactions with virtual money and virtual services.
    The above is a classic example of elementalism. It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well. Every desire is born of the limbic system, which includes the hippocampus and the amygdala.

    Don't speak so dismissively of Virtual Reality.

    It is a flawed perspective. Humans do not need much more than clean air, clean shelter, food, water and perhaps some antibiotics to live perfectly well.

    Yes, valid argument which true for GB, Belgium, Holland, with their Gulf Stream protected stable clime, but I would prefer Mediterranean area such as Greece or Balkan for that matter.

    Hmm Olive oil, vine, fishing sounds nice, but anything east of Frankfurt and North of let say Berlin in Europe, will add different perspective. Heating for winter, and shorter summer. Just ask people in Archangelsk or Petersburg

    + Virtual reality need quite a lot of electrical power to run, not only on your computer but in cloud as well.

    Here you can find nice perspective as well..

    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2015/09/you-call-this-progress/

    Reply More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Peripatetic commenter , April 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT
    • 100 Words Strategy page thinks that the S400s in Syria are useless:

    https://strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20170418.aspx

    In reading their article they seem to forget about the Mig-15 and Mig-17 in Korea and Vietnam, respectively, and about the effectiveness of those SAMs in Vietnam as well.

    Didn't that traitor, John McCain get downed by a SAM?

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-15

    Reply More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    The Alarmist, April 18, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMT
    @Erebus I understand that there would be great hue and cry to take revenge. That is why I wrote (with a correction in bold):
    One can hope that we'll be rejoicing that America's owners follow ed their internationalistic instincts when that moment has passed.
    America's owners aren't necessarily American. That the civilizational consequences of America's death be limited to the N. American continent is in their interest, and they would make that interest known.
    The geo-political consequences of an attack on the grid in response to a US/NATO attack on Russia would be that the US would instantly cease to be a military/economic power for at least several generations. The Great Game would be over. If the US came back with a nuclear response, they know well that Russia's counter-response would simply extend that timeline. Perhaps to infinity. IOW, other than suicidal madness, there is no geo-political reason to respond, and there'd be every reason to take the hit and try to rebuild.

    Likewise, Russia's politicians would be hard pressed to resist responding to an American nuclear attack in kind, but the fact is that there would be no military purpose to doing so. The US would be finished as a world power. Vaporizing 200M people would be of no military value. Better to keep what's left of your nuclear forces intact so you don't have to rebuild them. The more likely scenario is this: Sensing a number of strategic and tactical indicators of an impending attack, the US launches a bolt out of the blue attack to cripple the Russian forces before they can attack. Russian SLBMs and rail-based missiles get off a few MIRVs that take out DC and a few other major cities (counter-force targetting is pointless after the first-strike), but no-harm no-foul since the JEEP was executed at the time of the first-strike, so everybody who matters was saved from harm and that pesky problem of too many idle hands in the major urban centers was finally taken care of.

    Alternatively, the Russians use EMP weapons already in orbit to take out the US grid. The US NCA execute the SIOP. Outcome: See above.

    Winning move is not to play, but the geniuses running things don't see the extintinction of the little guy as a bug, rather as a feature.

    lastnerve , April 18, 2017 at 3:44 pm GMT
    @Intelligent Dasein I've come to the conclusion that it is the probable consensus among America's Deep State elites, as exemplified by the truly evil Hillary Clinton, that an all-out war with Russia which totally devastates Russia but leaves America just barely standing, would, notwithstanding the rivers of blood and the chaos unleashed, be an acceptable outcome as long as the blasted rump of America, namely the Deep State itself, gets to subsequently enthrone itself as the unchallenged world hegemon. The Deep State views the entirety of America's economic and military might, as well as the lives of its citizens, as merely a means to this end.

    I also believe that Russia's strategists and state-level actors have come to the same conclusion regarding America's designs. This is the strategic situation that Russia is up against, and this is why Russia has wisely prepared itself to fight a defensive war of astonishing proportions. And for the sake of the human race, for the peace of men of good will everywhere, I would advise Russia that when dealing with a cranky, feeble, delusional, and senile Uncle Sam, it is not possible to be too paranoid. You will not be up against a rational actor if and when this war breaks out. Whatever zany, desperate, and counterproductive gambits you can imagine the USA making, they will not be worse than what these people are capable of.

    As an American myself, I would have liked to have been a patriot. If my country must go to war, I would have liked to be on my country's side. But the bitter truth is that my government is something the world would be better off without. Russia has the moral high ground in this conflict. Hopefully that, and the strength of its arms, will be enough.

    The great tragedy of the 20th century was that all the wrong people won the major wars. Whether it was Chiang Kai-shek in China or Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, or the Kaiser and the House of Hapsburg before them, the real heroes, the ones who were however ineffectively and confusedly on the side of Right, suffered defeat at the hands of the evil imperialists. We cannot allow that to happen again. I know who I will be supporting if it comes to war.

    Long live king and country. God bless the patriots, wherever they be. Hail victory.

    I agree with what you write except that the Deep State is but a part of the Globalist (NWO)
    plans for their future world.
    Sam Shama , April 18, 2017 at 3:46 pm GMT
    @Kiza
    It [US] needs to come down hard on MIC waste, which if done successfully can change things around very quickly.
    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.

    Firstly, US military budget is significantly more than presented because the whole budget has been divided between different government departments. For example, nuclear weapons are under the Department of Energy, the huge ongoing cost of Veterans' health is under Department of Health budget, the free money to Israel is under the Foreign Affairs and so on. Overall, about 40% of the US military budget is hidden, which means that US spends not 2.5% of GDP on the military then probably around 4.5%.

    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.

    Thirdly, the idea of "coming down hard on MIC waste" is utterly ridiculous because the "MIC waste" is the Deep State profit and we just had an illustration of what happens with those who oppose the Deep State. In other words, only God could come down on US MIC waste, the Presidents can only pretend.

    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump. When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s. The US$ is still strong, not because of its intrinsic value then thanks to skillful FX market manipulation and thanks to 10-12 aircraft carrier groups.

    Trump is now amassing three carrier groups near North Korea, Russia and China. What do you think would happen to US$ if even one of those carriers gets sunk?

    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.

    Hi Kiza,

    I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.

    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.

    "Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01USM156N

    I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?

    Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?

    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.

    Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?

    CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower), the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.

    The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.

    Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.

    The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status? I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance of such status requires a far more diversified economy.

    When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.

    Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".

    Best

    Avery, April 18, 2017 at 3:56 pm GMT
    @Mark Chapman In fact, Russia often tests its systems under much more realistic conditions than does the USA and western powers. They want to know if it is going to fail when it is confronted with western jamming, for example, and try to make intercept difficult where the west is obsessed with collecting test data for evaluation, and as a consequence the launch site knows the release time of the target and its initial course and speed, rather than a 'black' release. Not always, but often.

    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-russias-s-400-missile-system-in-action-and-heres-1746490022

    I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse phase. Whatever you believe, the author is correct in pointing out that the S-400 is just a part of a multilayered Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and it only takes one mobile launcher in an unexpected place to wreck the day for a manned-aircraft element using current tactics.

    It is safe to say without further information that western air forces are very wary of the S-400, and confronting Russia's multilayered IADS would be nothing like taking on Gadaffi's eccentric and janky mismatched collection of air-defense weaponry. {I guess much of it boils down to how seriously you take Russian accounts of their own tests, but they specify here that the test took place under heavy jamming and yet all four missiles intercepted the target during the midcourse phase. }

    I don't doubt the veracity of the claim in the article. All I was commenting on was this sentence of the author of the article: {From people who serve on it, and I quote:" mind boggling capabilities".}

    Traditionally Soviets/Russians have do spend more of their resources on defense, particularly anti-air. Their anti-air missiles have a solid track record: the highly competent USAF – in personnel, and training, and technology – lost lots and lots of equipment to Soviet SAMs in Viet Nam. Even high-flying B52 were not safe.

    Also, Egyptians shot down lots of Israeli jets with Soviet AAs during the Yom Kippur war .

    So there is no doubt in my mind that S-300/S-400 are very capable systems. But the phrase 'mind boggling' is a bit of a hyperbole.
    What is it based on? engineering specifications and simulated tests.

    I have a bit of a technical background (commercial, not military).
    We'd simulate all sorts real-life conditions in testing the product, but as soon as it was sent out, humans managed to find some sequence that crashed the system. You just can't simulate the randomness of the real world.

    If and when the S-400 is used in anger, then we'll see if its capabilities are 'mind boggling' . Until then, it's just conjecture.

    Seamus Padraig, April 18, 2017 at 4:08 pm GMT
    @LondonBob Trump's isolationism and embrace of realpolitik is just a recognition of realities, interestingly this is a viewpoint shared in many European capitals, despite their fulminating over Trump. If Trump isn't co-opted he deserves congratulations for stymieing the traditional imperial overstretch, that is unless recent events in Syria and the Ukraine, perhaps analogous to the Boer War, don't already represent the high points of US power before inevitable decline. Avoiding a WWI type general conflagration will be achievement enough.

    We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.

    We are both supposed to deride and fear Russia, both can't be true.

    True, but it can be effective as a propaganda technique nevertheless. Orwell referred to it as 'doublethink'.

    iffen, April 18, 2017 at 4:11 pm GMT
    @Sam Shama
    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
    Hi Kiza,

    I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.

    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.
    "Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01USM156N

    I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?

    Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?

    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
    Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?

    CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower), the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.

    The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.

    Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEXCHUS

    The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status? I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance of such status requires a far more diversified economy.


    When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
    Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".

    Best Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements.

    Who gets to define "least desirable"?

    I know that you are not talking about IAM members.

    A good defense industry is vital. In a capitalist economy, what other model for the MIC do you have in mind?

    ThatDamnGood , April 18, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT
    @Timur The Lame @SmoothieX12

    The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP and GNP tabulations.

    Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first and foremost and that was that.

    I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.

    Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident (USS Donald Cook).

    Cheers- Kitty Hawk.

    http://mobile.wnd.com/2000/12/2254/

    in the middle, April 18, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
    @reiner Tor Don't worry, when the going gets tough, suddenly the US military will only send straight white men to die for LGBT and black "equality". Come on! While serving in Africa, I saw the US Marines, and, and, well, not many whites were visible! Mostly minorities, specially Hispanics, and Blacks, so there goes your argument; same for the Army. So Hush! (The AF is the only service with majority whites). The Navy, lots of Philippinos.
    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 18, 2017 at 5:40 pm GMT
    @Timur The Lame @SmoothieX12

    The points you make with respect to capitalization of Facebook and other totally worthless social media constructs in comparison to actual entities that produce something, anything that you could stub your foot on, be it good or not is brilliant in that it exposes the sham of GDP and GNP tabulations.

    Question: I read about 10 years ago of an incident where an American carrier group was sailing on in it's merry way in waters that I can't now recall when a couple of Sukhois came in undetected and screamed over the actual aircraft carrier at mast level at the maximum speed that the altitude would allow. The carrier group immediately did a 180 and got the hell out of Dodge. The Admiral was supposedly called on the carpet afterwards as to why he altered course without prior approval and he stuck to his guns and said that his responsibility was for the safety of his group first and foremost and that was that.

    I have been unable to substantiate this episode. Has it been brushed from the internet or did I fall for a Russian (internet) hoax? I remember mentioning it to some senior Russian officers at a Canadian multi national English language course at an army base close to me and they were non committal in their answers and basically looked guardedly at me as if I were a spook of sorts.

    Any knowledge of this supposed incident from you would be much appreciated. By the way the event that I am referring to is not to be mistaken with the relatively recent Black Sea incident (USS Donald Cook).

    Cheers- There were many cases of Russian SU-24, TU-142, Tu-22s flying over one of the US carriers. Here is one such case:

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/two-russian-bombers-buzz-u-s-aircraft-carrier/

    Nothing secret about it. Roger Thompson in his seminal work on US Navy gives a recount of number of such cases:

    https://www.usni.org/store/books/clear-decks-50-90/lessons-not-learned

    There is nothing secret really about it, except for reputational losses. Cases of breaking through US Carrier Battle Groups air defense and ASW screens are very numerous. As per this USS Donald Cook "affair", which continues to dominate many "military" forums–a complete baloney, of course, SU-24 are simply not equipped for alleged "burning of circuits" and "shutting down radars". Here I discuss a little bit the issue.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/05/so-much-for-trumps-new-foreign-policy.html

    Z-man, April 18, 2017 at 6:26 pm GMT
    @iffen Nah, you are still the greatest idiot on unz

    And the field of competition is not that weak.

    And a weak sister chimes in. •
    Timur The Lame, April 18, 2017 at 6:52 pm GMT
    @ Smoothiex12,

    Thank you for the information. I shall look up your post regarding the Donald Cook incident. Your take on it would be news to me as it did seem to be disabled, though I only read relatively superficial accounts.

    As ThatDamnGood pointed out (thanks) it was indeed the Kitty Hawk incident that escaped my recollection. I know that these type incidents occur but it was something about the aforementioned case that stuck in my mind, the super low altitude I think.

    Time for a revisit and a memory tonic. But then again even Kasparov eventually lost to Deep Blue.

    Cheers-

    Seminumerical, April 18, 2017 at 9:59 pm GMT
    @AtomAnt "Regarding Russian military they are still 20 years behind on average"

    Dude, you're delusional. The US military is to a large extent a paper tiger. Example: Aircraft carriers are not survivable against Russian or Chinese missiles and subs. They are good for bombing 3rd world countries only, like 19th century gunboats (plus fattening MIC coffers). Example: A Rand report found the F-35 "can't turn, can't climb, isn't fast enough to run away".

    I would argue nothing is as important as missile technology. Russia may be leading in that.

    Furthermore, the US has lower income and less capital now than 20 years ago. Russia has a central bank focused on rational economics rather than milking the country for billionaires' sake. They insist on positive interest rates so savers get the benefit of their money. That's why Russia is growing albeit slowly while the US regresses.
    The US will find fighting Russia is not like fighting Arabs. (Remember what some Israeli general said about fighting Arabs.) The US hasn't fought without air superiority in over 74 years.

    Note the moral dimension, also. The US has to pay its military 2X the equivalent private sector wages, because no one wants to die for Lockheed Martin. Sure the Aircraft carriers are vulnerable. But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile or torpedo. So the carriers get to project power despite their vulnerability. •

    inertial, April 18, 2017 at 11:03 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov
    Market capitalization is determined mostly by institutional investors – mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. – who pool private savings and channel them into various investments. There are massive amounts of such savings available in USA; in Russia, not so much.
    Sure, and that is why a company which produces nothing of value "commands" the so called "investments" which are several times larger than those of Boeing who is de facto US national treasure and who, as you stated, has problems with raising "capital". That pretty much says it all. Again, I omit here the trick with stock buybacks. But in the end, you seem to miss completely the point--structure of GDP.

    You may go here and see for yourself how FIRE overtook manufacturing in US in output. What is "output", of course, remains a complete mystery, same as many other services, once one considers the "quality" of education in US public schools which reflects in the most profound way on US labor force which increasingly begins to look like a third world one.

    https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=51&step=1#reqid=51&step=51&isuri=1&5114=a&5102=15

    In general, we speak here different languages and I may only refer you back to Michael Lind's quote in my text. Judged in a larger, geopolitical framework, one can observe very clearly the process of US literally running out of resources and no amount of "raised capital" can change it. This is not to speak about the whole house of cards of Pax Americana which rested on US military imperial mythology. Once this mythology is debunked (the process which is ongoing as I type it) the house of cards folds. Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct sets.)

    And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the "real" economy like GM.

    Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems? Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big? Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.

    Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen to cranks.

    Kiza, April 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm GMT
    @ondrej Am I missing any other component of success?

    Just a possibility - or my hypothesis I am playing lately:-)

    It can be language according Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.
    The principle of linguistic relativity that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition. Popularly known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, or Whorfianism, the principle is often defined to include two versions. The strong version says that language determines thought, and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories, whereas the weak version says that linguistic categories and usage only influence thought and decisions.

    and also due to fact that:

    Baltic and Slavic show the common trait of never having undergone in the course of their development any sudden systemic upheaval. [ ] there is no indication of a serious dislocation of any part of the linguistic system at any time. The sound structure has in general remained intact to the present. [ ] Baltic and Slavic are consequently the only languages in which certain modern word-forms resemble those reconstructed for Common Indo-European." ( The Indo-European Dialects [Eng. translation of Les dialectes indo-européens (1908)], University of Alabama Press, 1967, pp.
    59-60).

    Which could explain math skills of Russians and Indian:-) because languages are closely related.

    + learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view, if you look at current Russian elites Shoigu, Lavrov and others they speak usually one or more foreign languages fluently.

    learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view

    I do not know if this has been scientifically established but I can certainly vouch for it personally because learning every new language gives you a different perspective on existing things. After starting to learn a new language I would think – I had no idea that lego could be arranged this way as well! Therefore, learning new languages broadens one's view of the world but whether it also helps recognize other points of view probably depends on the tolerance of the person. Maybe the key word in your statement is "helps".

    Kiza, April 18, 2017 at 11:27 pm GMT
    @Z-man And a weak sister chimes in. I provided a link about North Korea to a blog which could educate you about it. But you still persisted with your original bull. This is a clear characteristic of an idiot, because the uninformed inform and correct themselves. And yes, there is a strong competition here at unz for the title of King of All Idiots.

    Here it is again, one last time, The Reason for North Korea's Nuclear Program and Its Unrequited Offers to End It : http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/04/the-reason-behind-north-koreas-nuclear-program-and-its-offer-to-end-it.html#more

    On North Korea, the US chefs cook up their usual menu of bullshit and bombs , whilst the latest chef being the most prolific on both.

    Seraphim, April 19, 2017 at 12:11 am GMT
    @AP
    I could be wrong, but I am inclined to see a parallel between the US now and the Russian Empire pre-1904.
    Sorry, that's just completely wrong.

    The best rough analogy to Russia of pre-1904 would be China (though China is further along in its development, perhaps it would be Russia of 1914 or later, had Russia not stupidly gotten itself into World War I).

    The US would somehow be analogous to the British Empire in its decline. A key difference, however, is the US' massive population (more than double that of Russia), territory and natural resources compared to that of the British mainland. This probably provides some sort of floor to the American decline that Britain didn't have.

    Also, keep in mind that western Russophobes plus Bolsheviks exaggerated the Tsars' Russia's weakness and incompetence, while there was nobody to defend it. This makes the picture unrealistically negative. During World War I, Russia defeated two of the three Central Powers (compare Russian vs. British performance vs. the Ottoman Empire) and was able to maintain a stable front vs. the third.

    Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg. The declaration of war against France followed on the 3d of August, followed by the violation of Belgium neutrality.
    Russia was far from being defeated in 1916-17. •
    NoseytheDuke, April 19, 2017 at 12:28 am GMT
    @iffen Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements.

    Who gets to define "least desirable"?

    I know that you are not talking about IAM members.

    A good defense industry is vital. In a capitalist economy, what other model for the MIC do you have in mind?

    One that focuses on the defence of the nation?
    The Alarmist, April 19, 2017 at 2:51 am GMT
    @Sam Shama
    Gee Sam, you are totally lost in your understanding of US problems.
    Hi Kiza,

    I admit I do get lost on occasion, so please feel free to correct me. Are you saying that accounting categorisation, which if reversed might lead to a 2% higher military spending, is an attempt to deceive international bond markets? You clearly think bond investors are stupid. That is an opinion based on what precisely? Experienced results of bond markets? Please enlighten me.


    Secondly, if US were to bump up the military budget to 7-10% this could come only either at the expense of money printing machines running even hotter than super hot QE1,QE2,QE3 (what Trump is doing) or by increasing taxes on a quite depressed economy in which retail spending has almost collapsed. I cannot believe that you are suggesting this, maybe you are too close to your Fed buddies.

    "Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01USM156N

    I have no idea what you mean by "what Trump is doing". Have you noticed the Fed had actually raised short rates? Yet the 10-year bond is at 2.2%?

    Please read what I wrote carefully. Nowhere did I recommend the U.S. pursue the path of yet another Reaganesque star wars race. What I said was, of all nations, she is the most capable of doing so, where an escalation would literally push her "competitors" to engage in little else in their economies. That is all. Yes, I understand that MIC waste ends up in the pockets of the least desirable elements. Do you mean to say that other nations are bereft of this virtue?


    Since Russia and China started replacing US$ as a reserve and exchange currency, the clock has been ticking for the money printers such as the Fed and Trump.
    Gee Kiza, exaggerate much? Replace the USD?

    CNY has been added to the SDR basket as a reserve currency, with very limited international use, as of 2016 BIS data, after having doubled over the last year (but currently moving lower), the Yuan comprises 4% of total international reserve currency use.

    The United States actually wants the Chinese currency to gain much greater acceptance to aid global growth and relieve the pressure on the U.S, but of late the massive capital flows out of China to the U.S. has badly hindered this objective.

    Here is what the Yuan has done: from a managed and swiftly devalued currency pursuant to China's decades-long mercantilist policies (to which the US had given the implicit nod), it rose in value during 2005-2013 as the US/ECB/BoJ/BoC worked in a co-ordinated fashion to modify global savings imbalances, to yet again devalue during 2014-present, mostly as capital outflows gathered force.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEXCHUS

    The Rouble is not a reserve currency, so the AIB while a worthy development, does not give the Rouble reserve status, somehow "replacing" the USD/EUR/GBP/JPY/KRW. Can it achieve that status? I think it can, given the deep capabilities of the Russian population. International acceptance of such status requires a far more diversified economy.


    When the amount of US$ returning to US starts exceeding the amount bought by foreigners, then the inflation will explode to the German one of the 1920s.
    Reversing cause and effect. If hyperinflation ever arrives on the shores of the US, you'll have far greater problems globally than worrying about bonds. I've seen this trope play continuously since 2008. I need a date, even an approximate one, or I shall be forced to tell you that I know with certainty that "at some point in the future the Earth will cease to exist".

    Best

    ""Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite."

    US inflation as officially reported is significantly understated. Do a little shopping from time to time and tell me what kind of inflation you actually experience. I come back to the US every few months, and it is hard to not notice how expensive many things have become over the past couple of decades.

    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

    Kiza, April 19, 2017 at 4:12 am GMT
    @The Alarmist
    ""Hot", as in inflation? If so, the characterisation is a fail, since U.S. inflation and long bond yields have been doing the opposite."
    US inflation as officially reported is significantly understated. Do a little shopping from time to time and tell me what kind of inflation you actually experience. I come back to the US every few months, and it is hard to not notice how expensive many things have become over the past couple of decades.

    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ... ad nauseum.

    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.

    "Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks" which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and all.

    I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .

    Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.

    Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 5:19 am GMT
    @Kiza
    learning other languages helps one for recognizing other points of view
    I do not know if this has been scientifically established but I can certainly vouch for it personally because learning every new language gives you a different perspective on existing things. After starting to learn a new language I would think - I had no idea that lego could be arranged this way as well! Therefore, learning new languages broadens one's view of the world but whether it also helps recognize other points of view probably depends on the tolerance of the person. Maybe the key word in your statement is "helps". One could say that to certain degree it is disadvantage for English to be lingua-franca.

    In many ways it is also most abused language in world. All speakers bring to English their language frameworks.

    One could conclude that English native speakers became more accustomed – to be more tolerant for non-precise meanings or statements of others to certain degree – due to many non-native English speakers. Therefore it is not that obvious for them.

    I think, speakers of other languages would often not accept such improper usage of words or grammar in their language – (thinking) because by language we think.

    Combine that with euphemisms and political correctness and you have recepy for disaster in communication.

    Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT
    @inertial Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct sets.)

    And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the "real" economy like GM.

    Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems? Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big? Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.

    Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen to cranks.

    The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it.

    Obviously false statement. You would need to at least some adjective such as mostly, probably, usually into sentence. Frame it in current prevailing socio-economical system.

    Just ask Soviets if they won ww2 due to strong financial system, or put Sputnik into space for that matter.

    So there is not at all any correlation in between financial sector and real economy;-)

    Kiza, April 19, 2017 at 9:04 am GMT
    @Ondrej
    The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it.
    Obviously false statement. You would need to at least some adjective such as mostly, probably, usually into sentence. Frame it in current prevailing socio-economical system.

    Just ask Soviets if they won ww2 due to strong financial system, or put Sputnik into space for that matter.

    So there is not at all any correlation in between financial sector and real economy;-) In theory, the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of investments, as opposed to central planning. This is how it us supposed to support the real economy. In reality, the Western financial system, and possibly the Chinese one, have turned into a leach draining blood out of the real economy, much worse than central planning. •

    Frederic Bastiat , April 19, 2017 at 10:52 am GMT
    @inertial Years ago, I used to make fun of Amazon and later of Google. I learned my lesson. I personally don't have much use for Facebook; I don't have an account there. But I can see that Facebook provides a lot of value both to its users and to its customers (two distinct sets.)

    And then there is the potential. Lots of smart people are working at Facebook; they may well come up with a breakthrough in some unexpected area. Google started with search and now they are working on driverless cars, among other things. I doubt GM or Ford would've come up with driverless cars, as it is more of a software challenge than a car design one. So here is an example how an investment into a "virtual" company like Google worked out better than an investment into the "real" economy like GM.

    Now as for FIRE, and that brings me back to what I said about Facebook. Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why. Are there problems? Of course there are; there are always problems, that's human condition. Is FIRE sector too big? Perhaps, but with all due respect you are not a person to judge, as you have only the vaguest of ideas of what it actually does. The truth is, financial sector supports the "real" economy, which cannot exist without it. And this makes it as "real" as anything.

    Finally. The problem is that you listen to cranks. I used to be there 15-20 years but then I realized that the cranks are full of shit. Sometimes they accidentally may stumble upon a valid point but such cases are few and far between. Mostly they are one note Johnnies. Don't listen to cranks.

    Just because you personally don't need or don't understand a service it doesn't mean that it's "useless," or "virtual," or "fraudulent," or whatever other epithet is being used. Before you slam the FIRE sector you have to understand what services it provides, who needs these services, and why.

    The financial sector is a fraud. It is a parasitic industry that only sucks tax payers money in the long run.

    Nassim Taleb is spot on regarding the financial industry:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/b/69813f49-27b1-431f-8edc-ea892aa96d8d

    Ondrej, April 19, 2017 at 11:36 am GMT
    @Kiza In theory, the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of investments, as opposed to central planning. This is how it us supposed to support the real economy. In reality, the Western financial system, and possibly the Chinese one, have turned into a leach draining blood out of the real economy, much worse than central planning.

    In theory , the financial system is supposed to ensure the efficient allocation of investments, as opposed to central planning.

    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is.

    I know theory, but there is empirical evidence that it does not, see Taleb for that matter, or Schumpeter in my comment 165.

    Schumpeter is worth to read , as he argues, logically, in case of market equilibrium = fair prices interest would approach to zero, and it ceases to be incentive for financing innovation. And this leads us back to Marx`s theory of simple reproduction as his main argument in Kapital Volume I. which create a problem for system.

    As for Central economy, you would be probably surprised – at least I was surprised,
    that it was in fact J.V. Stalin who critiqued too much of Central planning. He was warning in 50. that it would block next development of system. in his book Economical problems of socialism.

    You mention your experience with socialistic system, in case you want to refresh your memory or get better than propagandistic (from right or left) view of Marx . I advise David Harwey lectures on youtube.

    Kiza , April 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm GMT
    @Kiza
    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
    "Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks" which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and all.

    I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .

    Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.

    Here I quote a funny comment from a guy on zerohedge. This is how the Western economies have been operating:

    You have two cows.
    You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.
    The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
    The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
    The public then buys your bull.

    AP, April 19, 2017 at 1:14 pm GMT
    @Seraphim Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg. The declaration of war against France followed on the 3d of August, followed by the violation of Belgium neutrality.
    Russia was far from being defeated in 1916-17.

    Do not forget that Germany made the first declarations of war. It declared war against Russia on the 1st of August 1914 and the next day invades Luxemburg.

    It declared war first, after Russia had mobilized and refused to turn back its mobilization. Germany would not and should not have waited until huge masses of Russian troops had actually crossed its border before declaring war.

    The sad events of the 20th century in some ways can be seen as a tragic, Old Testament style story of sin and brutal retribution. Serbia committed regicide, and lost 25% of its population in the ensuing war. Nicholas II, a decent but foolish man, supported the regicidal regime and was himself murdered, along with his family. The peoples of the Russian Empire didn't stop that crime, and suffered the millions dead under Bolshevism. Wilhelm sent Lenin to Russia and lost his own throne. The peoples of Central Europe abandoned the Habsburgs and suffered decades of Nazism, Communism and war. Such was the sad fate of the former Holy Alliance.

    ANOSPH , April 19, 2017 at 2:26 pm GMT
    @Andrei Martyanov There were many cases of Russian SU-24, TU-142, Tu-22s flying over one of the US carriers. Here is one such case:

    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/two-russian-bombers-buzz-u-s-aircraft-carrier/

    Nothing secret about it. Roger Thompson in his seminal work on US Navy gives a recount of number of such cases:

    https://www.usni.org/store/books/clear-decks-50-90/lessons-not-learned

    There is nothing secret really about it, except for reputational losses. Cases of breaking through US Carrier Battle Groups air defense and ASW screens are very numerous. As per this USS Donald Cook "affair", which continues to dominate many "military" forums--a complete baloney, of course, SU-24 are simply not equipped for alleged "burning of circuits" and "shutting down radars". Here I discuss a little bit the issue.

    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/05/so-much-for-trumps-new-foreign-policy.html Andrei,

    Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian system is due for a collapse?

    Part 1: Part 2:

    I realize that he's been saying essentially the same thing for three years, but surely his words are worth at least some consideration given his "contacts in the elites."

    Andrei Martyanov, • Website April 19, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT
    @Seminumerical Sure the Aircraft carriers are vulnerable. But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile or torpedo. So the carriers get to project power despite their vulnerability.

    But the US have a disproportionate response prepared for any country that strikes one with a missile or torpedo

    Not against peer. Dynamics there is very different than it would have been with some adversary as Iran. Unless the "disproportionate" response becomes nuclear, what is a definition of "disproportionate". I can tell you what may happen if one of the CVNs sunk and this is not my idea but of former Chief Of Naval Operations late Admiral Elmo Zumwalt: the psychological demoralizing impact will be overwhelming and that is what may push a political (and suicidal) decision on nuclear response. In purely conventional framework–the game may become very different. To have some (however disagreeable from purely tactical point of view) primer on one of very many scenarios, you may try Naval War College Newport Papers, especially #20.

    https://www.usnwc.edu/Publications/Naval-War-College-Press/-Newport-Papers/Documents/20-pdf.aspx

    I am no fan of US military's war gaming but it will give you at least some general idea on how US Navy wanted to think about itself.

    Andrei Martyanov , • Website April 19, 2017 at 2:50 pm GMT
    @ANOSPH Andrei,

    Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian system is due for a collapse?

    Part 1: http://strelkov-i-i.livejournal.com/26121.html
    Part 2: http://strelkov-i-i.livejournal.com/26458.html

    I realize that he's been saying essentially the same thing for three years, but surely his words are worth at least some consideration given his "contacts in the elites."

    Off-topic, but what do you think about Igor Strelkov's opinion that the entire current Russian system is due for a collapse?

    My attitude to Strelkov is similar to my attitude to clowns or not-adequate people. Having said all that, Russia does face some serious economic challenges which are of purely domestic origins and I never hid my reserved attitude to Putin (despite all his achievements) because of the fact him being an economic "liberal" and surrounding himself in economic block with a bunch of Gaidar-worshipping hacks. Medvedev's government is an affront to overwhelming majority of Russian people.

    Sam Shama, April 19, 2017 at 4:29 pm GMT
    @Kiza
    As for bond yields, there is a bit of a vicious and not-so-virtuous cycle going on, as the borrowed money is used to ramp up military spending, which translates to further aggression abroad, which leads to further international destabilisation, which then leads to money flow into US Treasury bonds and other US assets as a so-called flight-to-safety play. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum.
    "Ad nauseum" is only until the whole thing collapses. I have been saying for a long time that most markets in the US, and where they flow over into the international markets, are rigged. The number of people needed to rig a market is not large, because it is the same, about a dozen "banks" which dominate almost all markets. The Western Governments are in on the act and their official statistics on every economic measure are perverted jokes: inflation, unemployment, GDP, any and all.

    I lived under socialism/communism as an adult and I remember how my friends and I laughed at government's economic statistics. But this is much worse, this is an entire alternative reality moving on the inertia of the size of its lie .

    Sam asks for an approximate date of the collapse, which is almost like asking for the date when a nuclear war will end humanity. His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist. Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear war). Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer. This is why they are so viciously attacking the Russian leadership. But this is a great example why the moment of collapse is unpredictable and it is unfair to ask for (an even approximate) date.

    Hey Kiza,

    I base my views on data and economic theory generally accepted in the West. If one summarily dismisses these instruments of analyses then, of course, all conclusions derived are rejectable. Which is what you are doing. Fine.

    Simply deeming our system fraudulent and built on myth amounts to a meaningless unfalsifiable assertion. Unfalsifiable, since the collapse event dangles always in the undefined "future".

    His is the principal fallacy that the past is a continuously good predictor of the future, that discrete events do not exist.

    I thought you were using past experience to assert with high confidence that the West is headed for a repeat of Weimar Has there been a total destruction of productive capacity which eluded my reverie?

    Data for prediction [at least parameter estimation of any system] is always from the past. I am not aware of any data from the future, is anyone? I don't claim a system superior without subjecting it to out-of-sample and live outcomes. Some Western models have failed recently [pure Rational Expectations models, e.g.]while others have succeeded with flying colours [New Keynesian Models]. What good is any theory or claim without corroborating empirical evidence? To me, claims of our economies headed to a collapse, because because well BIG DEBT! WEIMAR! FALSE STATISTICS! etc are just emotional outbursts devoid of any internally consistent theory, let alone the utter absence of evidence since the whole trope started in 2008.

    Alarmist: you stated earlier that inflation stats are misleading. I am perfectly willing to accept that statement if it were supported by facts. If during your visits to supermarkets, shops, online purchases you found your favourite items costing more, that in itself is no reason to conclude inflation is at hand. I do shop, and a great deal in point of fact :-), and I've noticed that prices of computers, e.g. have fallen continuously and dramatically. What about rent inflation? Or transportation? Rent inflation stands at levels much lower than averages from the past 70 years and transportation costs have fallen greatly as well [Air travel as a percentage of median per capita income]. Do you deny these? Trouble arises when people take these things for granted, and only complain about (mostly) food items that have gone up in price ["I hate these prices for eggs! Back in my childhood, a dozen cost only a penny!"]

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CUUR0000SEHA#0 [change the graph to go from 1950 and pick the percentage change option]

    If you don't believe in official CPI/Core PCE, look at the MIT Billion Prices Index, which provides one with real-time inflation from literally a billion prices from online markets which operate globally. Those indices substantially tell the same story: inflation has been heading down!

    Sam, imagine for a moment that Trump somehow manages to regime-change Russia and crush China (without causing a global nuclear war).

    How is he going to regime change Russia? It's a pipe dream. Putin is immensely popular and in my reckoning, he is simply negotiating spheres of influence with USA.

    China, well they are joined to the US at the hip!. The U.S. is only looking for China to wean away from its mercantilist stance and start buying our goods and services.

    Russia is the largest country on the planet, with vast unused land and resources, mainly because the technology for their exploitation did not exist in the past (inhospitable land). Now imagine adding this almost virgin land to the banking ledgers full of vapor-assets under the so called "mark-to-market". The market riggers and their governments could live happily ever after for another couple of generations of banksters. Like vampire needs blood, the sick system just needs a massive injection of real assets to survive another 100 years or longer.

    Russia is a vastly endowed nation with a gifted population. The climate isn't all that balmy, shall we say. Her natural resources are the assets of her citizens to do with them as they deem optimal.

    I'll go along with your hypothetical scenario in which Putin is unseated and a new Yeltsin is installed. I would consider that outcome both undesirable and approaching a vanishingly low probability. You'll need to convince me of its plausibility and DT's desire to bring about such an outcome.

    [Apr 19, 2017] Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell: Russian meddling in US election is the political equivalent of 9/11

    Really agitated Hillary supporter and a member of coup d'état against Trump/
    Notable quotes:
    "... "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11." ..."
    Dec 12, 2016 | www.businessinsider.com

    Evidence that Russia attempted to sway the outcome of the presidential election with a hacking campaign targeting Democrats "is the political equivalent of 9/11," the former acting director of the CIA, Michael Morell, said in an interview published Monday.

    Morell, an intelligence analyst who served as acting director of the CIA twice between 2011 and 2013, told The Cipher Brief that revelations disclosed in a new CIA report about how Russia meddled in the election to help get Donald Trump elected "is an attack on our very democracy."

    "A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life," Morell said. "To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11."

    [Apr 19, 2017] Ex-CIA Director's kill Russians in Syria comment reveals neocon influence

    Looks like the former CIA Director Michael Morell is kind of "inside CIA" chickenhawk. Never was in field operations
    Notable quotes:
    "... Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly. ..."
    "... Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning? ..."
    "... What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it. ..."
    "... What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him. ..."
    "... Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. ..."
    "... You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war. ..."
    "... Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria? ..."
    "... The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it. ..."
    Aug 13, 2016 | www.rt.com
    Op-Edge 'Ex-CIA Director's 'kill Russians in Syria' comment reveals neocon influence' Published time: 13 Aug, 2016 12:53 Edited time: 14:38

    I want to scare Assad Mike Morell (Aug 8, 2016) Charlie Rose

    Former CIA Director Michael Morell sparked uproar when he said in an interview on Charlie Rose that Russians and Iranians should be killed in Syria. Was the provocative statement an effort to promote himself as the new CIA Director under Hillary Clinton?

    Morell has proposed the US change tactics in Syria by targeting President Bashar Assad's allies, adding that killing Russians should be done covertly.

    "We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price," Morell told a stunned Charlie Rose, who asked if that means killing Iranians and Russians. Morell answered "Yes," saying the killings should be done "convertly" but done in such way that "Moscow would get the message."

    Two former CIA officials turned whistleblowers, Ray McGovern and John Kiriakou, appeared on RT's "Watching the Hawks" program to give their analysis on the disturbing comments, as well as other tantalizing bits of information.

    'Kill Russians and Iranians, threaten Assad,' says ex-CIA chief backing #Clintonhttps://t.co/qd21Klts2Npic.twitter.com/Otcuwniwxw

    - RT America (@RT_America) August 9, 2016

    RT (Tyrel Ventura): Morell was suggesting to kill Russian and Iranian people – I'm assuming soldiers, even though he wasn't that specific – as payback for their actions in Syria and Iran's actions in Iraq. Apparently Iran was providing supplies and armaments to the people we were fighting there during our occupation. Is this of strategy or tactics the norm or the oddity for the CIA in planning?

    John Kiriakou: This is the exception. It's not the norm. Even under George W. Bush when the CIA wanted to initiate or institute a policy or program that would result in the killing of foreign nationals, my God, we went to the UN Security Council and asked for a vote. What Mike Morell is proposing is quite simply illegal. You just can't wantonly kill people because you don't like their politics. One of the important things that Mike Morell has forgotten or has chosen to ignore is that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, whether we like him or not, is the internationally recognized leader of a sovereign country. And the Russian military has been invited into that country by its sovereign leader. So it's not up to us to decide we don't like that, and so we are going to start killing people because of it.

    Ray McGovern: What a fraud. A transparent fraud. John knows him better than I do because John dealt with him.

    JK: I worked closely with Mike Morell for several years in CIA headquarters. Mike Morell was a golden boy for many years. He was a very young manager and rose quickly through the ranks, and had the most important jobs in the CIA, at least on the analytic side Once he got into the senior intelligence service, he took on a broader role, but that role never involved operations. This is a problem inside the agency. It's emblematic of what has happened with what I like to think is a neoconservative takeover of CIA policy. You have somebody who has never served overseas except in the very final years of his career in a very cushy position. But certainly never operationally. He's never recruited a foreign national to spy for the United States; he's never been involved in difficult or dangerous operations, yet he's advocating putting American lives on the line to kill foreign nationals against whom we have no declaration of war.

    #WatchingTheHawks SoundCloud Episode 44.2 is here of our best segments! @TabethaWatching@TyrelWatchinghttps://t.co/dxYcjCww42

    - RT America (@RT_America) August 13, 2016

    RT (Tabetha Wallace): Say he gets the chance to implement this great strategy of his which is apparently murdering a bunch of people and blowing up a bunch of stuff around Assad. How does that bring peace to Syria?

    JK: It doesn't, it can't and it won't. This whole idea that he espoused on the Charlie Rose show will not come to pass. If Mike Morell were serious about this, if this were something that Hillary Clinton would seriously consider, it would be kept so secret and so private that even inside the CIA 99 percent of employees wouldn't know anything about it. So for him to just go on TV and dramatically say this is what he would do it's just grandstanding.

    This is such an obviously transparent bid by Michael Morell to be the CIA Director under a Hillary Clinton administration... This is a political ploy by him that is not thought through at all - Gareth Porter, investigative journalist, to RT in a separate interview.

    RT (Tyrel Ventura): Why do you think Morell is getting on TV and grandstanding like that? What is his motivation for doing this?

    RM: He's not the only one. There are others who are candidates to be head of the CIA or other high positions. The whole thing is so vacuous. Charlie Rose has had this guy on 11 times in the last two years. They never question the unspoken premises. I mean, Hello? Why does Bashar al-Assad have to go? Is he a threat to the United States? No. Then why does he have to go? It's very simple. The neocons want him to go. Why do the neocons want him to go? The definition of a neocon is somebody who has great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of Israel, on the one hand, and the strategic interests of the United States on the other. Israel wants bedlam in Syria, and they've got it.

    The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

    [Apr 19, 2017] A Lawless Plan to Target Syrias Allies by Ray McGovern

    Notable quotes:
    "... (Emphasis added) ..."
    "... And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that. ..."
    "... And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. ..."
    "... (Emphasis added) ..."
    "... "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it." ..."
    "... Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism." ..."
    Aug 20, 2016 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: Official Washington's disdain for international law – when it's doing the lawbreaking – was underscored by ex-CIA acting director Morell voicing plans for murdering Iranians and maybe Russians in Syria, ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern says.

    On Aug. 17, TV interviewer Charlie Rose gave former acting CIA Director Michael Morell a "mulligan" for an earlier wayward drive on Aug. 8 that sliced deep into the rough and even stirred up some nonviolent animals by advocating the murder of Russians and Iranians. But, alas, Morell duffed the second drive, too.

    Morell did so despite Rose's efforts to tee up the questions as favorably as possible, trying to help Morell explain what he meant about "killing" Russians and Iranians in Syria and bombing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad into submission.

    Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.

    In the earlier interview, Morell said he wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. make the Russians pay a price in Syria."

    Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"

    Morell: "Yeah."

    Rose: "And killing Iranians?"

    Morell: "Yes You don't tell the world about it. But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran."

    In the follow-up interview , some of Rose's fretful comments made it clear that there are still some American non-neocons around who were withholding applause for Morell's belligerent suggestion.

    Rose apparently has some viewers who oppose all terrorism, including the state-sponsored variety that would involve a few assassinations to send a message, and the notion that U.S. bombing Syria to "scare" Assad is somehow okay (as long as the perpetrator is the sole "indispensable" nation in the world).

    Rose helped Morell 'splain that he really did not want to have U.S. Special Forces kill Russians and Iranians. No, he would be satisfied if the U.S.-sponsored "moderate opposition" in Syria did that particular killing. But Morell would not back away from his advocacy of the U.S. Air Force bombing Syrian government targets. That would be "an okay thing" in Morell's lexicon.

    The FBI defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." That would seem to cover Morell's plan.

    But Morell seems oblivious to international law and to the vast human suffering already inflicted in Syria over the past five years by government forces, rebels, terrorists and outside nations trying to advance one geopolitical goal or another.

    What is needed is a serious commitment to peace talks without unacceptable preconditions, such as outside demands for "regime change." Instead, the focus should be on creating conditions for Syrians to make that choice themselves through elections or power-sharing negotiations.

    Morell prefers to think that a few more U.S.-directed murders and some more aerial-inflicted mayhem should do the trick. Perhaps he thinks that's the sort of tough-guy/gal talk that will impress a prospective President Hillary Clinton.

    A Slight Imprecision?

    Charlie Rose begins the "mulligan" segment with the suggestion that Morell might have slightly misspoken: "Tell me what you wanted to say so we understand it Tell me what you meant to say perhaps you did not speak as precisely as you should have or I didn't ask the right questions."

    TV interviewer Charlie Rose.

    Morell responded, "No, no, Charlie, you always ask the right questions," and then he presented his killing plan as a route to peace, albeit one in which the United States dictates "regime change" in Syria: "So there's not a military solution to this, there is only a political solution. And that political solution is, in my view, a transition of power from Assad to a, a, a transitional government that represents all of the Syrian people.

    "That is only going to happen if Assad wants it to happen, if Russia wants it to happen, if Iran wants it to happen. So we need to increase our leverage over those three people and countries, in order to get them more interested in having a conversation about a transition to a new government.

    "And sometimes you use military force for military ends. Sometimes you use military force to give you political leverage. So what I tried to say was, Look, we need to find some ways to put some pressure on Assad, or put some pressure on Russia, and put some pressure on Iran. Now, with regard to Russia and Iran, what I said was, what I wanted to say was: Look, the moderate opposition, which the United States is supporting (everybody knows that, right?), the moderate opposition is already fighting the Syrian government, and they're already fighting Russians and Iranians.

    "So the Syrian military, supported by Russia and the Iranians, is fighting the moderate opposition. And the moderate opposition is already killing Iranians and Syrians. What, what I said is that's an okay thing, right, because it puts pressure on Iran and Russia to try to see some value in ending this thing politically. And what I said is that we should encourage the moderate opposition to continue to do that and perhaps get a lot more aggressive." (Emphasis added)

    Rose: "You weren't suggesting that the United States should do that, but the moderate forces on the ground."

    Morell: "And I think I came across as saying U.S. Special Forces should go in there and start killing Iranians and Russians. I did not say that.

    "So that's Russia and Iran. Now, Assad. How do you put some pressure on Assad, right? And here I did argue, Charlie, that the U.S. military itself should take some action, and what I would see as valuable is limited, very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his offices; you don't kill anybody, right, zero collateral. You do this with the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists . (Emphasis added)

    "You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night, right, just to send him a message and get his attention that, that maybe your days are numbered here, just to put some pressure on him to think about maybe, maybe the need to think about a way out of this.

    "Now these issues that I'm talking about here, right, are talked about in the sit room. They're talked about in national security circles all the time, right. These are debates that people have, and I certainly understand that there are people on the other side of the argument from me, right. But I wasn't talking about the U.S. starting a major war with Iran and Russia, and I think that was the way people interpreted it."

    Acts of Illegal War

    Not to put too fine a point on this, but everything that Morell is advocating here violates international law, the rules that – in other circumstances, i.e. when another government is involved – the U.S. government condemns as "aggression" or as an "invasion" or as "terrorism."

    Video of the Russian SU-24 exploding in flames inside Syrian territory after it was shot down by Turkish air-to-air missiles on Nov. 24, 2015.

    Remember, after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in February 2014, when Russia intervened to allow Crimea to hold a referendum on splitting away from the new regime in Kiev and rejoining Russia, the U.S. government insisted that there was no excuse for President Vladimir Putin not respecting the sovereignty of the coup regime even if it had illegally ousted an elected president.

    However, regarding Syria, the United States and its various "allies," including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, have intervened directly and indirectly in supporting various armed groups, including Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, seeking the violent overthrow of Syria's government.

    Without any legal authorization from the United Nations, President Barack Obama has ordered the arming and training of anti-government rebels (including some who have fought under Nusra's command structure ), has carried out airstrikes inside Syria (aimed at Islamic State militants), and has deployed U.S. Special Forces inside Syria with Kurdish rebels.

    Now, a former senior U.S. intelligence official is publicly urging bombing of Syrian government targets and the killing of Iranians and Russians who are legally inside Syria at the invitation of the internationally recognized government. In other words, not only does the U.S. government operate with breathtaking hypocrisy in the Syrian crisis, but it functions completely outside international law.

    And, Morell says that in attacking Syrian government targets - supposedly without causing any deaths - the United States would employ "the same rules of engagement we use against terrorists," except those rules of engagement explicitly seek to kill targeted individuals. So, what kind of dangerously muddled thinking do we have here?

    One can only imagine the reaction if some Russian version of Morell went on Moscow TV and urged the murder of U.S. military trainers operating inside Ukraine – to send a message to Washington. And then, the Russian Morell would advocate Russia bombing Ukrainian government targets in Kiev with the supposed goal of forcing the U.S.-backed government to accept a "regime change" acceptable to Moscow.

    A Fawning Audition

    Rather than calls for him to be locked up or at least decisively repudiated, the American Morell was allowed to continue his fawning audition for a possible job in a Hillary Clinton administration by extolling her trustworthiness and "humanity."

    Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the AIPAC conference in Washington D.C. on March 21, 2016. (Photo credit: AIPAC)

    Morell offered a heartwarming story about how compassionate Clinton was as Secretary of State when he lost out to John Brennan to be the fulltime CIA Director. After he was un-picked for the job, Morell said he was in the White House Situation Room and Clinton, "sat down next to me, put her hand on my shoulder, and she simply said, 'Are you okay?' There is humanity there, and I think the public needs to know."

    And, Clinton was a straight-shooter, too, Morell explained: "You know, it's interesting, Charlie, I worked with her for four years. Leon Panetta, David Petraeus worked with her for four years. We trusted her word; we trusted her judgment. You know, [CIA] Director Panetta, [CIA] Director Petraeus, I provided her with some of the most sensitive information that the CIA collects and she never gave us one reason to doubt how she was handling that. You know, she spoke to us forthrightly. I trust her word and I trust her judgment."

    Can Morell be unaware that Clinton repeatedly put highly sensitive intelligence on her very vulnerable private email server along with other data that later investigations determined should have been marked SECRET, TOP SECRET, CODEWORD, and/or SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS?

    FBI Director James Comey, in announcing that he would not recommend prosecuting Clinton for compromising these secrets, called her behavior "extremely careless."

    For his part, Charlie Rose offered a lament about how hard it is for Clinton to convey her "humanity" and how deserving she is of trust. He riffed on the Biblical passage about those who can be trusted in small matters (like sitting down next to Morell, putting her hand on his shoulder, and asking him if he is okay) can be trusted on big matters, too.

    My Travails With Charlie

    Twelve years ago, I was interviewed by Charlie Rose, with the other interviewee (who participated remotely) James Woolsey, former head of the CIA (1993-95), arch-neocon, and self-described "anchor the Presbyterian wing of JINSA " (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).

    The occasion was the New York premier of Robert Greenwald's full-length film version of his documentary, "Uncovered: the Whole Truth About the Iraq War," in which I had a small part and which described the many falsehoods that had been used by President George W. Bush and his neocon advisers, to justify invading Iraq. Woolsey did not like the film, and Greenwald asked me to take the Rose invitation that had originally been extended to him.

    True to form, Charlie Rose knew on which side his bread was buttered, and it wasn't mine. He was his usual solicitous self when dealing with an "important" personage, such as Woolsey. I was going to count the minutes apportioned to me and compare them with those given to Woolsey, but I decided to spare myself the trouble.

    The last time I checked the Aug. 20, 2004 video is available for purchase but I refuse to pay for it. Fortunately, a friend taped and uploaded the audio onto YouTube. It might be worth a listen on a slow summer day 12 years after my travails with Charlie.

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990 and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    [Apr 19, 2017] Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    TG , April 17, 2017 at 3:10 pm GMT \n

    300 Words An interesting article. A few random thoughts.
    1. "Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death" – Otto von Bismarck.
    2. In general I agree and wish that the United States military would be more defensive and waste fewer resources attacking irrelevant nations on the other side of the world. But. It is nevertheless true that "defensive" Russia has been invaded and devastated multiple times, and the United States has not. Perhaps creating chaos on the other side of the world is long-term not quite so ineffective as sitting around waiting for an attack?
    3. The American elites are simply corrupt and insane/don't care about the long-term. At every level – companies taking out massive loans to buy back their stock to boost CEO bonuses, loading up college students with massive unplayable debt so that university administrators can get paid like CEOs, drug prices going through the roof, etc.etc. Military costs will never be as efficient as civilian, war is expensive, but the US has gotten to the point where there is no financial accountability, it's all about the right people grabbing as much money as possible.

      To make more money you just add another zero at the end of the price tag. At some point the costs will become so inflated and divorced from reality that we will be unable to afford anything And the right people will take their loot and move to New Zealand and wring their hands at how the lazy Americans were not worthy of their brilliant leadership

    [Apr 19, 2017] And yet the "isolationist" candidate win the election, and only took 70 days to go full neoconservative

    Notable quotes:
    "... Just stop! If nothing else, save yourself the time coming up w 10 or 17 other rules The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless interventions abroad and subsequent destruction? For those wanting to know more, a really good interview: Birth of American Empire with Stephen Kinzer – https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/381285-american-imperialism-overseas-expansion/ ..."
    "... Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the Establishment or amongst the people. (see post 1918-Europe .easier to blame everything on Hitler and UK/France than ask about the contributory effects of Woodrow Wilson's 1917 intervention) ..."
    "... as long as there are cheap sugar, cheap beef and cheap carbs, Americans don't care what happens around the world. ..."
    "... And you are saying the general public in other countries do ..."
    "... And yet the "isolationist" candidate win the election, and only took 70 days to go full neoconservative. The American people are damned by the MIC even when they vote isolationist. ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Olga , April 17, 2017 at 10:22 am

    17 Rules for Foreign Interventions The American Conservative

    Ok, so how about just one rule: stop (bleep, bleep) intervening!

    Just stop! If nothing else, save yourself the time coming up w 10 or 17 other rules The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless interventions abroad and subsequent destruction? For those wanting to know more, a really good interview: Birth of American Empire with Stephen Kinzer – https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/381285-american-imperialism-overseas-expansion/

    oho , April 17, 2017 at 10:58 am

    >>The real question is why does Am. public condone these endless interventions abroad and subsequent destruction?

    Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the Establishment or amongst the people. (see post 1918-Europe .easier to blame everything on Hitler and UK/France than ask about the contributory effects of Woodrow Wilson's 1917 intervention)

    as long as there are cheap sugar, cheap beef and cheap carbs, Americans don't care what happens around the world.

    Jagger , April 17, 2017 at 11:41 am

    Americans flat out don't care and aren't circumspective in the Establishment or amongst the people.

    Funny, I care but for some reason I haven't been able to figure out how to stop all those foreign interventions. Maybe if I just cared more, I could stop it. I will try that. Or maybe I simply lack the immense power required to confront and defeat a State intent on foreign interventions.

    Sort of like berating individual Joe slave for not ending slavery.

    Carolinian , April 17, 2017 at 12:57 pm

    And you are saying the general public in other countries do care (assuming they aren't the ones being attacked)? The Brits and the French in recent years have seemed just as enthusiastic about intervening as we are. To me this is a lot more shocking than the complacency of my fellow Americans–people who live behind two oceans and are perhaps understandably uninterested in foreign affairs. This has always been true as was seen in the runups to WW1 and WW2.

    Kurtismayfield , April 17, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    And yet the "isolationist" candidate win the election, and only took 70 days to go full neoconservative. The American people are damned by the MIC even when they vote isolationist.

    [Apr 19, 2017] This guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets). ..."
    "... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Timur The Lame , April 16, 2017 at 12:21 pm GMT \n

    I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.

    While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.

    The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).

    The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct. With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really. It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights "

    To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe.

    American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever .

    Cheers-

    [Apr 19, 2017] Wikileaks Hillary Clinton Told Al Qaeda Is On Our Side

    Apr 19, 2017 | www.eutimes.net
    Wikileaks posted an unclassified email to Hillary Clinton from her foreign policy advisor, Jake Sullivan dated February 2012 saying, 'AQ is on our side in Syria'.

    The other part of the email published by Wikileaks read:

    UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05789138 Date: 10/30/2015 AL-ZAWAHIRI URGES MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION (U) Al-Qaida leader al-Zawahiri called on Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East to aid rebel forces in their fight against supporters of Syrian President Asad in an interne video recording. Al-Zawahiri also urged the Syrian people not to rely on the AL, Turkey, or the United States for assistance.Reuters)

    Read the full chain of unclassified emails in that document published by Wikileaks here .

    Source

    [Apr 19, 2017] Russia should be persistent and keep pressuring UNSC for investigation. This must not be swept under the rug.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria? ..."
    "... I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and take the blood samples. ..."
    "... Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth, the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be buried. Cheers from New Zealand. ..."
    "... Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead? Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack. 23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only real fact in this story. ..."
    "... The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don' t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was). ..."
    "... "It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky. ..."
    "... I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now? ..."
    Apr 19, 2017 | theduran.com
    Melotte 22 , 16 hours ago

    Russia should be persistent and keep pressuring UNSC for investigation. This must not be swept under the rug.

    christianblood Melotte 22 , 14 hours ago

    Well-said!

    In an another note: Will the UN and its so-called 'security council' condemn the horrific and barbaric attack on that took the lives of 126 mainly women and children refugee being evacuated from their villages?

    Will the UN hold U$, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK responsible for this attack which was carried out by their takfiri, jihadist terrorist clients in Syria?

    Tarciso Ribeiro Melotte 22 , 15 hours ago

    yeah, I agree ,if they don't they will keep using and talking about this fake attack even without any proof.

    Toxik Melotte 22 , 5 hours ago

    I agree. And if the OPCW refuses to do anything, have Bolivia, and other neutral third parties do the testing. Importantly, let's call those so-called White Helmet guys. Interview them and take the blood samples.

    Tahau Taua Melotte 22 , 4 hours ago

    Agree. It's about keeping the momentum going. The more the warmedia avoids the blatant truth, the more people are going to be turned off by their crap. This story among many, must never be buried. Cheers from New Zealand.

    Cale , 16 hours ago

    Dead children shown only on white helmets videos, not one "rescuer" had correct protective clothing and nobody was affected by poison gas, so there was no gas? But children are dead? Assad was blamed immediately for what reason? The airport was back in use, one day after the attack. 23 Tomahawks hit the airport, 36 Tomahawks went missing? The US media was celebrating this attack which cost the lives of at least 6 people. Surrealistic psychopath behavior - That is the only real fact in this story.

    Robson Robson -> Cale , 15 hours ago

    The US is allowed to rain down as many Tomahawks/ Hellfires as they want wherever they want as long as they can get away with it. It is called the law of the jungle. If you are weak don' t complain about it. Get nukes, a strong army and be happy about a favourable geography and maybe a strong ally next to you (as North Korea is/was).

    If you let the NeoConNazis (or Israelis, if you are close by) take your nukes you are one step closer to get disposed of (see Lybia, Syria, Iraq). From the 7 countries (as in 7 countries in 5 years) several ones have been already attacked but progress was kinda slow and we haven't seen vibrant democracies yet:

    • -Iraq: broken apart into a US friendly Kurdish, an Iran friendly Shia and an ISIS territory
    • -Syria: Civial war being waged, divided into loyalist, AlQuaeda,ISIS and Kurdish part
    • -Lebanon: Civil war incited by Saudi Arabia, stopped by Hisbollah
    • -Libya: Complete clusterfuxx thanks to Hillary Clinton wanting to have a lasting moment as US secretary of foreign affairs
    • -Somalia: Who put that on a list? It was already a complete mess in 2001
    • -Sudan: Friends of China as well as Saudi Arabia - are allowed to butcher whomever they want as long as they are Christian
    • -Iran: Prevented attack by letting the US military bleed out in Iraq. Were already outflanked in Iraq and Afghanistan. No need to take actions in Afghanistan, as Pakistan's ISI made sure the US bleeds there too.

    Ah, let' s start war in a different country, why not in North Korea. What are the odds it could go south?

    tom -> Robson Robson , 14 hours ago

    Actually, the USA is still at war with North Korea, which it invaded in 1950, killing several million of its citizens.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

    Tommy Jensen -> tom , 13 hours ago

    The North Koreans killed 55000 American soldiers and marines in that war without mercy. McCain´s father was singing like a songbird but the rice eaters hanged him anyway because they were against freedom.

    Robson Robson -> Tommy Jensen , 12 hours ago

    55000 dead americans? Do you know that 55000 Americans are not a lot compared to a total of more then 3 million deaths, most of them civilians? Most north korean cities were leveled by US bomber attacks. There were many massacres with more then 10000 dead civilians - committed by South Korean troops supported by the US. And also many atrocities committed directly by US soldiers.

    Same thing was repeated in Vietnam, except that especially the northern part of Korea was well industrialized so there was a stark contrast when the got bombed back to the stone age.

    Have you ever been to Jeju-Do? It is a cute little island - many South Koreans have spent their honeymoon their. In 1948 the South Korean strongmen president (who has been in exile in the US) made sure that everybody with suspected communist ties went to a camp. And some of these internment camps became death camps and about 20000 Koreans lost their life. Way to go! USA! USA! USA!

    So you stupid racist pig, calling asians rice eaters and crying about 55000 souls while many more people died by their hand: have a look at history and when maybe to think before supporting any kind of stupid war that just benefits the MIC...

    tom -> Robson Robson , 15 hours ago

    "It is called the law of the jungle". And it works out very satisfactorily as long as you are on top. Less so when someone else turns out to be more powerful, or unscrupulous, or sneaky.

    If a major US city were to disappear in a thermonuclear explosion, or to be immersed in a cloud of poison gas or deadly virus, the USA would not have a leg to stand on in protest.

    International law and the UN Charter unambiguously state that the only justified reasons for attacking another country are a UN mandate to use force, or self-defence against a country that has already attacked you. There are no exceptions.

    So we must conclude that the USA is now at war with at least several dozen nations. Go on, count the nations that the USA has attacked with military force since (let's say) 1945.

    Any one (or more) of those nations has the right, under international law, to commit acts of war against the USA. Including (now I come to think of it) North Korea, with whom the USA never agreed a treaty of peace.

    Robson Robson -> tom , 12 hours ago

    I just have ten fingers so I give up counting the nations the US is having war like actions with. But technically the US has not declared war so it must be at peace right now?

    The only wars fought I personally remember are the war on the middle class and the war against Xmas. Maybe also the the war against free speech called political correctness, something I liked about Trump... ;-)

    Tommy Jensen , 13 hours ago

    But Trump succeeded to kill 4 children and 8 civilians in his Tomahawk attack on a Syrian Airport and related village as revenge for a staged fake, while he was crying Assad is "an animal who kill beautyful babies".

    [Apr 18, 2017] Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.

    Notable quotes:
    "... What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states. ..."
    "... Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. ..."
    "... Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? ..."
    "... Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran? ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

    DB Cooper , April 18, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT

    100 Words This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:

    watch-v=g1VNQGsiP8M

    Carlton Meyer , Website April 18, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT
    Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:

    NoldorElf , April 18, 2017 at 5:01 am GMT
    100 Words I am forced to conclude that the neoconservatives and indeed all of Washington DC are eager to go to war. They are just itching for any excuse to start yet another war in a nation of their choosing.

    If there is no good reason, they will make one up. There is an eerie resemblance to what is happening now with Syria and what happened leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

    I think the paleoconservative community also needs to come to terms with the fact that Trump has sold them out and is increasingly acting like a Washington insider neocon. Trump did to the paleoconservatives what Obama did to the left.

    It seems Trump will not put "America First" nor make any attempts to restore the American Middle Class nor American manufacturing to truly "Make American Great Again".

    Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.

    Coming from the left, I'd say that the Sanders and Trump base have a lot more in common than we admit. We are both deeply unhappy with the way that Washington has handled things. They basically betrayed the American people and enriched themselves at public expense.

    The real question is, can the US be saved for the people or will it continue on its path to terminal decline?

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT
    100 Words Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?
    Wizard of Oz , April 18, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT
    100 Words What is your view of David Kilcullen, what he knows about, and what his views are worth? No doubt "modified" or " qualified" respect but it is the qualifications and the reasons for them that I am interested in. When I've got round tobfinishing his article saying Assad is desperate and losing I'll probably be back.
    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT
    Get a load of this a ** hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://youtu.be/AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.

    Brabantian , Website April 18, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT
    600 Words Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -

    Above all because of a very-censored explosive story – a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' anyone can invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent job here as she very often does:

    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above

    (6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    (8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:

    In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."

    By way of motive – Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria – Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.

    Vlad , April 18, 2017 at 9:45 am GMT
    What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states.

    Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. If that is the case we know now how American is governed, by the military industrial complex that dictates its policy. The sad part is that the Constitution is disregarded once again, that the Liberals who used to be peaceniks, are now cheering for war, that the UN is marginalized, that Trump uses it just as Bush did to justify an illegal war.

    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.

    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton

    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]

    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.

    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria

    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position– he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.

    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.

    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.

    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT
    @Carlton Meyer Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pm8-vSo4Y4

    Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. Read More

    AmericaFirstNow , Website April 18, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT
    Jewish AIPAC Israel firster Jared Kushner and his fellow Jewish AIPAC Israel first friends (like Reed Cordish who worked for Israel Lobby lackey Dick Cheney as well) whom he brought into the White House more than likely influenced Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda vs Syria for regime change to weaken Iran:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/

    More on Kushner and his fellow AIPAC Israel firster at the White House obviously influencing Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda like he did with Syria as I heard Netanyahu praised the Syriaattack and Pence personally telephoned to thank him:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/

    Hunsdon , April 18, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT
    @Sean Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    anonymous , April 18, 2017 at 1:03 pm GMT
    It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad.

    Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along?

    Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?

    No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening.

    Quartermaster , April 18, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT
    @Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Read More LOL: geokat62 Troll: L.K , Rurik

    Quartermaster , April 18, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT
    @Brabantian Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -

    Above all because of a very-censored explosive story - a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' ... anyone can invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent job here as she very often does:

    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened - Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' ... A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above

    (6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama ... [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages ... videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    (8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament ... The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:

    In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV ... the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."

    By way of motive - Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria - Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria. Sarin is a nerve agent and if that is what was used, gas masks are far less than what is needed to protect anyone.

    I don't see any motivation on Assad's part to stage such an attack. It simply was not in his interest to do so. Trump's action was a knee jerk reaction and stupid. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Agent76 , April 18, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT
    April 07, 2017

    Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    The Western media refutes their own lies.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

    Apr 9, 2017

    No More

    Wizard of Oz , April 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT
    Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    There is no reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda affiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscribe to the popular contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack?

    Clark Westwood , April 18, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT
    Is it possible that Trump and Putin cooked up this little show simply to give Trump more credibility in his approaching confrontation with North Korea?
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT
    @Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel. What's the common denominator to these two ??????

    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT
    "Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric."

    All owned by the likes of http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.631441.1418390491!/image/412181903.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/412181903.jpg Repulsive no?

    Jeff Davis , April 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT
    @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? " picture he found somewhere on social media."

    If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".

    Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists - the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists - who control that area.

    Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event.

    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. Well they do not get to set the rules until they are the most powerful state in the world–like the US. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    JoaoAlfaiate , April 18, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT
    100 Words Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had WMD?

    New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."

    Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable. The only question remaining is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions."

    Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "

    "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
    Joseph Goebbels Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    iffen , April 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. Read More

    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT
    200 Words @Wizard of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Hi Wiz,

    I think it is quite clear, that with the assistance of the Russian military, the Syrian army has mounted multiple strategic victories against ISIS over the past year and a half.

    The entry of Russia into the fray, at the request of Syria, provided a very deep reservoir of enhanced military power which has shown to be highly effective in degraded both Al Qaeda and ISIS on multiple fronts.

    It seems as absurd now , as it did in 2013, that Assad would do the ONE THING that would force the hand of the US military to enter the fray against him.

    I also doubt the notion of the Syrian regimes "desperation" given the complete cooperation of Russia in providing any assistance the Syrian army might need , to achieve victory against ISIS.

    One could argue, however ,that Assad is truly "bonehead" stupid.

    You are certainly free to make that argument, Wiz , because, in this case, it seems to be the one that would make the most sense. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    The Alarmist , April 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sean

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]


    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.


    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria
    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.


    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.
    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.

    "The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."

    Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds. Read More

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. IOW, the Russians have their own military in their own county guarding their own borders. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT
    @iffen Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. "Illegal" not.

    Russia was right to accept the legitimate Crimean vote.

    The Crimean voters overwhelmingly approved returning to Russia.

    Democracy personified, the will of the people.

    Leftists hate that. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Ivy , April 18, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT
    See the article by Gaius Publius at Naked Capitalism for a deeper dive.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/gaius-publius-new-evidence-syrian-gas-story-fabricated-white-house.html Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT
    @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? You won't find it by looking at CNN / ZNN.

    Try:

    http://russia-insider.com/en Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Philip Giraldi , April 18, 2017 at 4:58 pm GMT
    100 Words NEW! @Wizard of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. Read More

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 5:01 pm GMT
    @Quartermaster Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Putin is so bad for Russia that the Russians overwhelmingly support him.

    I suggest you quit digging. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    SolontoCroesus , April 18, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT
    600 Words @Jeff Davis "...picture he found somewhere on social media."

    If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".

    Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists -- the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists -- who control that area.

    Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event. On Apr 13, 2017, Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted Mike Pompeo for his first public speaking appearance as CIA director.

    After Pompeo's prepared remarks, Juan Zarate queried the director on the Syria attack/s, starting his questions with comment on the rapidity with which "assessments were made."
    (Zarate is now at CSIS after proving his neoconservative bona fides as a charter member of Stuart Levey's Treasury Department "guerrillas in grey suits" - the gang that deploys financial blackmail to coerce international banks and corporations to join the US in constraining their commerce with states the USA does not like.)

    Pompeo responded to Zarate's request for "behind the scenes" description of how the assessments were made:

    "We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "

    Zarate did not register dissatisfaction with this non-response; instead, he accepted the assessment as conclusive. Then he escalated the discussion:

    "What do you make of the Russian disputation of those conclusions? Bashar Al-Assad calling this a fabrication, the entire event. It's a battle of legitimacy and proof. How do you deal with that?"

    To which Pompeo delivered the money-quote:

    They're challenges. There are things we were able to use to form the basis of our conclusion that we cannot reveal. That is always tricky, but we've done our best and I think over time we can reveal a bit more. Everyone saw the open source photos, so we had reality on our side. "

    So apparently Pompeo and the "entire intelligence community" used the same photos that Dr. Postol examined exhaustively, but reached a different conclusion; they believe that the photos reflect "reality" and support their interpretation of events as fingering the Syrian government as perpetrators of the "red-line" "atrocity."

    Pompeo spent the next few minutes derogating Russia and Putin, stating that "Russia is on its sixth or seventh version of the story," and that "Putin is not a credible man . . . a man for whom veracity does not translate into English." (I think he meant "into Russian . . . .")

    -

    Recall that in 2013 Diane Feinstein also engaged the "rapid turnaround" efforts of the CIA to produce a video presentation of gassed children, which she claimed implicated the Syrian government, in her bid to drive the Obama administration across the "red line." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/07/cia-authenticates-13-videos-showing-syrian-gas-attack-aftermath-official-says.html
    and
    Lawmakers shown 'horrendous' video of alleged chemical attack in Syria Sept 05, 2013

    After extensive investigation by experts under the auspices of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon declared that it was "indisputable" that a chemical attack had occurred, but those responsible for the attack were not conclusively identified. Samantha Power, however, insisted that "it must have been Assad." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/un-report-confirms-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria-a-922746.html

    Same lies, different liars. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    joe webb , April 18, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT
    The Theodor Postel report made it onto Yahoo News surprisinly, last night. JW Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Jeff Davis , April 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT
    100 Words @Sean

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]


    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.


    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria
    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.


    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.
    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.

    Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.

    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist. Read More Agree: Z-man

    The Anti-Gnostic , Website April 18, 2017 at 6:20 pm GMT
    @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names. Read More
    utu , April 18, 2017 at 6:43 pm GMT
    200 Words @The Anti-Gnostic How do we know it wasn't YOU? Prove it. I want pictures, names. It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right? Read More
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT
    100 Words @The Alarmist

    "The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
    Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    Trump didn't wait for the gas attack, he was already laying the ground for getting involved in Syria, which is not a vital interest of Russia. Russians want to do stuff like support Assad and crush rebels the US has expressed sympathy for. they surely didn't expect to be left alone. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Svigor , April 18, 2017 at 6:59 pm GMT
    600 Words

    Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.

    So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the idea that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.

    even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack

    I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you, Phil, because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.

    It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are (or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.

    Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard

    Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?

    There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.

    The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their word for anything?

    Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified source or method.

    And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive in this context.

    Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.

    So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal" bullshit. Great.

    The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area

    Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit. Read More

    bike-anarchist , April 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT
    @utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right? Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. Read More
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT
    100 Words @Jeff Davis You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.

    Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast -- what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad -- is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.

    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you,... are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.

    What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.
    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project.

    Bares repeating. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT
    @bike-anarchist Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. You found it impudent for me calling Russian media and Russia's propaganda machine inept and indolent? You must be one of those who drank Putin's Kool-Aid and is now patiently awaiting his 2nd coming and saving us all from the grips of the NWO, right? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Svigor , April 18, 2017 at 7:20 pm GMT
    400 Words I think the take-home point for anyone who does his own thinking is that Trump acted so quickly (36 hours) that the evidence should be overwhelming and incontrovertible. The evidence forthcoming has been shit. Ergo, it seems very clear that Trump had no valid reason to act as he did.

    What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations?

    Either the area is full of innocent civilians, or it's an al-Qaeda stronghold.

    Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media?

    The Russians are going to need a lot more than counter-propaganda. I trust them even less than I trust western Big Media. Hard evidence or go home.

    Agent76, nobody who will trust globalresearch.ca needs to have their link cited, they'll know about it already, being Konspiracy Kooks. Nobody else is gonna buy that junk.

    Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port.

    Illegal, schmellegal. It's perfectly legit realpolitik. If Ukraine didn't want Russia taking back what was hers, she shouldn't have jumped into bed with hostile powers. Seriously, if you'd asked a Ukrainian on independence day what would happen in the current circumstances, they could have painted you an accurate picture.

    "We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "

    "Trust me, I'm a professional liar." Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT
    400 Words Dear Mr. Giraldi,

    Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn.

    I was an avid reader of the the NY Times, for over 25 years, and I watched the nightly news all the time.

    When we were all told by these media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war, that Saddam had launched an anthrax attack against our news rooms and our capitol I believed it completely 100%..without any reason in my own mind why I shouldn't .

    Once the war began, and the attribution to Saddam of the anthrax attack quickly collapsed , I felt defrauded by those who I had always trusted to be honest, most especially on issues of war and peace.

    In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason.

    If they were lying then why aren't they lying now ?

    I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country tens of trillions of dollars.

    There is no reason why I , nor any American, should be happy about this.

    Whats worse is they have displayed such enormous contempt for all the tens of millions of innocent families who have suffered on account of their deceits that they have lost an overwhelming amount of respect from me,as well as, I imagine, countless others.

    Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger.

    This reality will not go away, but only get worse, until they start to shoot straight, and have proven to their viewers, that they are not seeking to manipulate, or defraud us . into War. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT
    @iffen Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. Thanks, Wally.

    "iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in. Read More

    Biff , April 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT
    With Trump's complete flip on foreign policy I'm starting to think(again) that U.S. Presidents are mere puppets for the real rulers of this world – who no doubt considered Obama to be just a corporate "house negro". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Greg Bacon , Website April 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT
    100 Words President KUSHNER and his faithful toady Trump sure are busy these days. In between bites of chocolate cake, they are arming the terrorists and bombing Syrian civilians.

    Over 50 Civilians Killed, Injured in US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Eastern Syria

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960129000960

    US Continues to Airdrop More Aid Packages to ISIL Terrorists in Northwestern Iraq

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960129000900

    There's one reason the USA is stuck in endless ME wars, with no end in sight. American troops are fighting and dying for Apartheid Israel, and our wealth is being spent on the same.

    When Syria is toast, the MSM will start attacking Iran, and they'll have plenty of friends who think the same way in the WH and Congress. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    iffen , April 18, 2017 at 7:37 pm GMT
    @RobinG Thanks, Wally.

    "iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in. always trying to slip one in

    Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.

    BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War. Read More

    Svigor , April 18, 2017 at 7:40 pm GMT
    200 Words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons

    There are three basic configurations in which these agents are stored. The first are self-contained munitions like projectiles, cartridges, mines, and rockets; these can contain propellant and/or explosive components. The next form are aircraft-delivered munitions. This form never has an explosive component.[41] Together they comprise the two forms that have been weaponized and are ready for their intended use. The U.S. stockpile consisted of 39% of these weapon ready munitions. The final of the three forms are raw agent housed in one-ton containers. The remaining 61%[41] of the stockpile was in this form.[56] Whereas these chemicals exist in liquid form at normal room temperature,[41][57] the sulfur mustards H, and HD freeze in temperatures below 55 °F (12.8 °C). Mixing lewisite with distilled mustard lowers the freezing point to −13 °F (−25.0 °C).[48]

    Higher temperatures are a bigger concern because the possibility of an explosion increases as the temperatures rise. A fire at one of these facilities would endanger the surrounding community as well as the personnel at the installations.[58] Perhaps more so for the community having much less access to protective equipment and specialized training.[59] The Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted a study to assess capabilities and costs for protecting civilian populations during related emergencies,[60] and the effectiveness of expedient, in-place shelters.[61]

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT
    None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.

    But it doesn't.

    There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Read More

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 7:45 pm GMT
    @Svigor

    Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    So far it's been a Big Media claim, too. To the point of at least one piece (in The Atlantic , IIRC) poo-pooing the idea that the Big Media Narrative could be wrong.

    even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack
    I'm tired of reading this and seeing no explanation. I'd like to see that assertion supported. I'd like it to come from you, Phil, because so far, in my experience, you seem to be the most reasonable US-skeptic writer at TUR.

    It isn't self-explanatory. Chemical weapons have their uses, like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas that would be costly to clear the old fashioned way. Weighed against Trump's ostensible goal to stay out of Syria and drop the insane "Assad must go" rhetoric of the previous administration, it might've been tempting. Which is why I would like to know more about the target area and circumstances. But nobody seems to give a shit. I suppose it might have a lot to do with the fact that there are (or were, last I heard) no journalists in Syria. But if we simply don't know much about the target area, maybe we should stop assuming hitting it with chemical weapons had no utility.


    Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard
    Those principles being "don't invade the world, invite the world," I presume?

    There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.
    The American Security Apparatus can shove their consensus up their asses anyway. Why should the American public take their word for anything?

    Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified source or method.
    And there are huge, consistent gaps in satellite coverage (and always have been, last I heard) that everyone and their mother knows about, meaning, it would be trivial for anyone to plan an attack when the satellites can't see. If Parry is right, then it sounds like the administration has jack shit. "Satellite surveillance" is the last source I'd find persuasive or conclusive in this context.

    Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House.
    So this really is shaping up to all be a bunch of "Wag The Dog/I bombed Serbia to distract from my kosher blowjob scandal" bullshit. Great.

    The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area
    Meaning, this "innocent civilians" mantra we've been hearing from Big Media is bullshit. " like clearing out heavily fortified urban areas.."

    Svigor, all parties seem to agree this was a small village and there were only civilian casualties. (Did I misread?) So, hardly a "tempting" target. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Brewer , April 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT
    100 Words @DB Cooper This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=22s It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Read More

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT
    200 Words @Anon None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.

    But it doesn't.

    There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited.

    Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013. Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked.

    Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred, our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e. Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house in Coventry, England. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Orville H. Larson , April 18, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT
    100 Words @anonymous It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
    No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."

    Yeah, it looks like it.

    I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . . Read More

    anon , April 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT
    200 Words How does the lie work? It survives . It always survives . King is dead! Long live the king! It come back. People ignore when they find it out . Same propel tweak the margins and support the new version to build another lie.

    That's why we hear that "Saddam did not have nukes but they found weapons they found this they found that they found gas chemical"

    I tell them " that is none of your and this Gov's Freaking business"

    Now these guys are busy saying "Assad sent refugees he doesn't want this or that or he poured chem s or make attack it possible"

    Mu answer is usually this " The Gov can go to war tomorrow because r the sky was not blue above the desert of Iran proving they are not compliant and is busy destroying the climate . You will accept that logic as well or shrug it off but will vote him or his surrogate next time " Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    unseated , April 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
    @Philip Giraldi Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda. Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win. Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident of Australia.
    What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Read More
    SolontoCroesus , April 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT
    100 Words @utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right?

    One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff.

    According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality" of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later."

    Maybe it will be revealed after Assad is safely dead or in exile in Moscow what the CIA's can't be revealed methods were. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Philip Giraldi , April 18, 2017 at 9:24 pm GMT
    NEW! @unseated I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident of Australia.
    What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Yes, Australian. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 9:34 pm GMT
    100 Words @Brewer It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Hi Brewer,

    Is there a link to the video ?

    Moreover, if what you are saying is true, then it would seem to indicate the White Helmets, as well as ISIS were leaked information as to the time of the Syrian strike so as to stage the chemical event well beforehand.

    This means there is a big leak in the shared information between the White House and Moscow.

    My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement.

    Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ?

    How else could ISIS obtain advanced knowledge about exactly when to plant their gas canister
    and stage the gas attack ? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Incitatus , April 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT
    300 Words It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.

    GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere! Nope, no weapons over there! Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic, was dead.

    The media loves it now. Easy stories – sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?

    True corruption. There are no excuses.

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.' Read More

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 10:05 pm GMT
    100 Words @Brewer It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.

    It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am.

    Why Russian media does not make the same point? Wouldn't it be nice if there was an article in Sputnik or even better, a video on rt.com that would argue that the video was made one day before? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 18, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT
    200 Words @Orville H. Larson " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."

    Yeah, it looks like it.

    I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed--I hoped!--that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .

    With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. .

    Israel has a well known deterrent referred to as the 'Samson option'.

    I think it would be prudent, and I hope that the sane world has already made those in a position to force a major war between the zio-West vs. Russia (for instance)..

    .. that the first place to get glassed will be that shitty little country- as a kind of reverse Samson option

    I would like to hope that even now, all sane nations.. (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, et al) who have nukes, have them all trained at ground zero (T.A.) for the strife in the world.

    and I suppose to be effective, they'd have to be aimed at some of the snake pits in the Western world as well- I really don't think Rothschild, (Soros, Kristol, etc..) would care too much if most of Israel proper were glowing, so long as they and the diaspora would be able to take control of what ever was left after the fallout dispersed.

    the Fiend needs to know that he'd get it first, and there would be the peace

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn6Cf30HgNI Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 18, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT
    100 Words @Incitatus It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.

    GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!...Nope, no weapons over there!...Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic, was dead.

    The media loves it now. Easy stories - sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?

    True corruption. There are no excuses.

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.'

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow.

    that's not specifically true. They've come right out and said they prefer Al Nursa and the cannibals and crucifying head slicers to a stable government with a viable middle class.

    "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,"

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE98G0DR20130917

    Israel wants in Syria what it got in Iraq and Libya.. a complete dystopian hell on earth. Old Testament vengeance and unimaginable suffering. It is written.

    They literally thrive on that shit

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47

    nope

    it started in earnest with the Balfour Declaration and Wilson's war. A hundred years ago exactly to the day from Trump's attack on Syria.

    The attack on Syria on that notorious anniversary was sort of like a modern day Passover, when the kings of Europe slaughtered the new born of Europa, and the chosen were blessed with a country of their own out of the smoking ashes of Christendom Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Bill , April 18, 2017 at 10:45 pm GMT
    100 Words @iffen always trying to slip one in

    Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.

    BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War. Pretty sure the Commies had Sevastopol at the start of the Cold War and all the way through it. Sevastopol doesn't really count as a warm water port in the way you mean since you have to go through two straits controlled by NATO before you are in the real ocean.

    [Apr 18, 2017] How the U.S. Government Spins the Story by Philip Giraldi

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013," ..."
    "... The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017 ..."
    "... These academics are like mafia lawyers. The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia. It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob. ..."
    "... So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates. They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob. ..."
    "... Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event. ..."
    "... Recall that in 2013 Diane Feinstein also engaged the "rapid turnaround" efforts of the CIA to produce a video presentation of gassed children, which she claimed implicated the Syrian government, in her bid to drive the Obama administration across the "red line." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/07/cia-authenticates-13-videos-showing-syrian-gas-attack-aftermath-official-says.html ..."
    "... After extensive investigation by experts under the auspices of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon declared that it was "indisputable" that a chemical attack had occurred, but those responsible for the attack were not conclusively identified. Samantha Power, however, insisted that "it must have been Assad." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/un-report-confirms-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria-a-922746.html ..."
    "... Same lies, different liars. ..."
    "... Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program. ..."
    "... The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist. ..."
    "... Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. ..."
    "... Trump didn't wait for the gas attack, he was already laying the ground for getting involved in Syria, which is not a vital interest of Russia. Russians want to do stuff like support Assad and crush rebels the US has expressed sympathy for. they surely didn't expect to be left alone. ..."
    "... Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn. ..."
    "... In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason. ..."
    "... I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country tens of trillions of dollars. ..."
    "... Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger. ..."
    "... It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. ..."
    "... There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited. ..."
    "... Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013. Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked. ..."
    "... Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred, our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e. Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house in Coventry, England. ..."
    "... I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . ..."
    "... According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality" of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later." ..."
    "... My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement. Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ? How else could ISIS obtain advanced knowledge about exactly when to plant their gas canister and stage the gas attack ? ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th. Shortly after the more recent incident, President Donald Trump, possibly deriving his information from television news reports, abruptly stated that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had ordered the attack. He also noted that the use of chemicals had "crossed many red lines" and hinted that Damascus would be held accountable. Twenty-four hours later retribution came in the form of the launch of 59 cruise missiles directed against the Syrian airbase at Sharyat. The number of casualties, if any, remains unclear and the base itself sustained only minor damage amidst allegations that many of the missiles had missed their target. The physical assault was followed by a verbal onslaught, with the Trump Administration blaming Russia for shielding al-Assad and demanding that Moscow end its alliance with Damascus if it wishes to reestablish good relations with Washington.

    The media, led by the usual neoconservative cheerleaders, have applauded Trump's brand of tough love with Syria, even though Damascus had no motive to stage such an attack while the so-called rebels had plenty to gain. The escalation to a war footing also serves no U.S. interest and actually damages prospects for eliminating ISIS any time soon. Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric. Principled and eminently sensible Democratic Congressman Tulsi Gabbard, has demanded evidence of Syrian culpability, saying "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia-which could lead to nuclear war. This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning." For her pains, she has been vilified by members of her own party, who have called for her resignation .

    Other congressmen, including Senators Rand Paul and Tim Kaine, who have asked for a vote in congress to authorize going to war, have likewise been ignored or deliberately marginalized. All of which means that the United States has committed a war crime against a country with which it is not at war and has done so by ignoring Article 2 of the Constitution, which grants to Congress the sole power to declare war. It has also failed to establish a casus belli that Syria represents some kind of threat to the United States.

    What has become completely clear, as a result of the U.S. strike and its aftermath, is that any general reset with Russia has now become unimaginable, meaning among other things that a peace settlement for Syria is for now unattainable. It also has meant that the rebels against al-Assad's regime will be empowered, possibly deliberately staging more chemical "incidents" and blaming the Damascus government to shift international opinion farther in their direction. ISIS, which was reeling prior to the attack and reprisal, has been given a reprieve by the same United States government that pledged to eradicate it. And Donald Trump has reneged on his two campaign pledges to avoid deeper involvement in Middle Eastern wars and mend fences with Moscow.

    There have been two central documents relating to the alleged Syrian chemical weapon incidents in 2013 and 2017, both of which read like press releases. Both refer to a consensus within the U.S. intelligence community (IC)and express "confidence" and even "high confidence" regarding their conclusions but neither is actually a product of the office of the Director of National Intelligence, which would be appropriate if the IC had actually come to a consensus. Neither the Director of National Intelligence nor the Director of CIA were present in a photo showing the White House team deliberating over what to do about Syria. Both documents supporting the U.S. cruise missile attack were, in fact, uncharacteristically put out by the White House, suggesting that the arguments were stitched together in haste to support a political decision to use force that had already been made.

    The two documents provide plenty of circumstantial information but little in the way of actual evidence. The 2013 Obama version "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013," was criticized almost immediately when it was determined that there were alternative explanations for the source of the chemical agents that might have killed more than a thousand people in and around the town of Ghouta. The 2017 Trump version " The Assad Regime's Use of Chemical Weapons on April 4, 2017 ," is likewise under fire from numerous quarters. Generally reliable journalist Robert Parry is reporting that the intelligence behind the White House claims comes largely from satellite surveillance, though nothing has been released to back-up the conclusion that the Syrian government was behind the attack, an odd omission as everyone knows about satellite capabilities and they are not generally considered to be a classified source or method. Parry also cites the fact that there are alternative theories on what took place and why, some of which appear to originate with the intelligence and national security community, which was in part concerned over the rush to judgment by the White House. MIT Professor Theodore Postol, considered to be an expert on munitions, has also questioned the government's account of what took place in Khan Sheikhoun through a detailed analysis of the available evidence. He believes that the chemical agent was fired from the ground, not from an airplane, suggesting that it was an attack initiated by the rebels made to appear as if it was caused by the Syrian bomb.

    In spite of the challenges, "Trust me," says Donald Trump. The Russians and Syrians are demanding an international investigation of the alleged chemical weapons incident, but as time goes by the ability to discern what took place diminishes. All that is indisputably known at this point is that the Syrian Air Force attacked a target in Idlib and a cloud of toxic chemicals was somehow released. The al-Ansar terrorist group (affiliated with al-Qaeda) is in control of the area and benefits greatly from the prevailing narrative. If it was in fact the actual implementer of the attack, it is no doubt cleaning and reconfiguring the site to support the account that it is promoting and which is being uncritically accepted both by the mainstream media and by a number of governments. The United States will also do its best to disrupt any inquiry that challenges the assumptions that it has already come to. The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.

    DB Cooper , April 18, 2017 at 4:13 am GMT \n

    • 100 Words This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:

    Read More
    Carlton Meyer , • Website April 18, 2017 at 4:21 am GMT \n
    Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:

    Read More
    NoldorElf , April 18, 2017 at 5:01 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words I am forced to conclude that the neoconservatives and indeed all of Washington DC are eager to go to war. They are just itching for any excuse to start yet another war in a nation of their choosing.

    If there is no good reason, they will make one up. There is an eerie resemblance to what is happening now with Syria and what happened leading up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq.

    I think the paleoconservative community also needs to come to terms with the fact that Trump has sold them out and is increasingly acting like a Washington insider neocon. Trump did to the paleoconservatives what Obama did to the left.

    It seems Trump will not put "America First" nor make any attempts to restore the American Middle Class nor American manufacturing to truly "Make American Great Again".

    Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the few principled politicians in this case and for that she is marginalized for saying what few others have the moral courage to say. Many on the left are hoping she will run in 2020 for President.

    Coming from the left, I'd say that the Sanders and Trump base have a lot more in common than we admit. We are both deeply unhappy with the way that Washington has handled things. They basically betrayed the American people and enriched themselves at public expense.

    The real question is, can the US be saved for the people or will it continue on its path to terminal decline?

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    utu , April 18, 2017 at 6:16 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? Read More
    Wizard of Oz , April 18, 2017 at 6:17 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words What is your view of David Kilcullen, what he knows about, and what his views are worth? No doubt "modified" or " qualified" respect but it is the qualifications and the reasons for them that I am interested in. When I've got round tobfinishing his article saying Assad is desperate and losing I'll probably be back. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 6:34 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words Get a load of this a ** hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers. The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates. They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Brabantian , • Website April 18, 2017 at 8:34 am GMT \n
    • 600 Words Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -

    Above all because of a very-censored explosive story – a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' anyone can invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent job here as she very often does:

    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above

    (6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    (8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:

    In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."

    By way of motive – Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria – Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria.

    Read More
    Vlad , April 18, 2017 at 9:45 am GMT \n
    • 200 Words What has happened is one of two things as far is Trump is concerned. Either he walked into a trap prepared for him by the Deep state, willingly or unwillingly. If willingly he knew he was set up and accepted it because he has no choice. He could not disobey the military. They have their own agenda in Syria which they had been pursuing for a while, that is carving out American zone of occupation in eastern Syria with the help of Sunny states. Or Trump simply capitulated to the deep state as Obama did before him. If that is the case we know now how American is governed, by the military industrial complex that dictates its policy. The sad part is that the Constitution is disregarded once again, that the Liberals who used to be peaceniks, are now cheering for war, that the UN is marginalized, that Trump uses it just as Bush did to justify an illegal war. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 10:22 am GMT \n
    • 1,100 Words

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.

    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]

    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.

    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria

    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position– he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.

    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.

    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.

    Read More
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT \n
    @Carlton Meyer Am I the only person who remembers news from a month ago? Trump ordered hundreds of regular American combat troops into Syria BEFORE this event, with no explanation. This was covered on all major networks, including CNN.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    And why? They've been trying to overthrow Assad since 2005:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pm8-vSo4Y4 Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. Read More

    AmericaFirstNow , • Website April 18, 2017 at 11:19 am GMT \n
    • 100 Words Jewish AIPAC Israel firster Jared Kushner and his fellow Jewish AIPAC Israel first friends (like Reed Cordish who worked for Israel Lobby lackey Dick Cheney as well) whom he brought into the White House more than likely influenced Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda vs Syria for regime change to weaken Iran:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2012/02/12/israel-lobby-pushes-for-us-action-against-the-syrian-government/

    More on Kushner and his fellow AIPAC Israel firster at the White House obviously influencing Trump to push the Israel Lobby agenda like he did with Syria as I heard Netanyahu praised the Syriaattack and Pence personally telephoned to thank him:

    http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/359120/jared-kushners-friend-picked-by-donald-trump-as-assistant/

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Hunsdon , April 18, 2017 at 12:07 pm GMT \n
    @Sean Russia was having too much success, they needed to understand that the US is not going to stand by any longer and wait to see. INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    Read More
    anonymous , April 18, 2017 at 1:03 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. Next up, N Korea and then Iran?
    No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. Read More
    Quartermaster , April 18, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT \n
    @Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.

    Putin is the real weasel, and problem in Russia. He's corrupt to his core and has his own vision for Russia which is quite destructive. His Soviet revanchism is a serious problem for Russia and has set the country up for a serious fall. Read More • LOL: geokat62 • Troll: L.K , Rurik
    Quartermaster , April 18, 2017 at 1:11 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @Brabantian Proof of the false-flag nature of the 'chemical attack' in Syria absurdly ascribed to Assad's forces -

    Above all because of a very-censored explosive story - a distinguished group of Swedish doctors showed that the George Clooney & Western-backed 'White Helmets' in fact made a snuff film actually murdering children of this 'chemical attack' ... anyone can invite medical physicians they know to view this, to see the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights are absolutely correct in their accusations:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    For an overview of the many wider points making clear the false flag, Aangirfan does an excellent job here as she very often does:
    http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/trump-at-war-with-assad-and-putin.html

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened - Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) The USA & CIA were previously documented as having approved a "plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria & blame it on Assad's regime' ... A 2013 article on this is deleted from the UK Daily Mail website, but is saved at Web Archive, a screenshot at Aangirfan's page above

    (6) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama ... [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages ... videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (7) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    (8) The 2013 gas attack in Syria killing over 1000 people, was also proven to be an operation by USA & allies, with admissions to this effect by Turkish Members of Parliament ... The operation even involved the CIA's Google Inc monopoly search control internet domination tool, via their subsidiary Google Idea Groups & Jared Cohen:

    In 2014, the later-murdered journalist Serena Shim "stumbled upon a safehouse run by Jared Cohen & Google Idea Groups, a short distance from a border crossing into Syria between Hatay, Turkey & Aleppo province in Syria. In the safehouse were three Ukrainian secret service who had just buried a load of sarin gas shells from the Republic of Georgia. Chemical weapons used in the Ghouta war crime were trucked through Turkey to Gaziantep then taken from there to Aleppo by NGOs, hidden in ambulances or in trucks supposedly carrying relief aid. After Shim broke this story on PressTV ... the clumsily-staged 'accident' leading to her death only a few days later."

    By way of motive - Destruction of Syria & Assad serves the long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel, in general service to the world oligarchs. Plus, there are major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria - Assad's fall is sought for changing from the Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria, to the USA-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria. Sarin is a nerve agent and if that is what was used, gas masks are far less than what is needed to protect anyone.

    I don't see any motivation on Assad's part to stage such an attack. It simply was not in his interest to do so. Trump's action was a knee jerk reaction and stupid.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Agent76 , April 18, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT \n
    April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    The Western media refutes their own lies.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

    Apr 9, 2017 No More

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Wizard of Oz , April 18, 2017 at 2:21 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack?

    Read More
    Clark Westwood , April 18, 2017 at 2:22 pm GMT \n
    Is it possible that Trump and Putin cooked up this little show simply to give Trump more credibility in his approaching confrontation with North Korea? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 2:53 pm GMT \n
    @Anon Get a load of this a**hole who was responsible for disaster in Russia.

    He thinks he has the right to judge the mental health of others.

    But as long as super-rich globalists fund think-tanks and invite lunatics like him, he can posture as a 'voice of reason'.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhyD-fPS0vs

    And there is the other esteemed 'voice of reason', Thomas Friedman, who wants war in Syria to go on, even if ISIS kills more innocents.

    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/15/thomas-friedmans-perverse-love-affair-isis

    These academics are like mafia lawyers.

    The mafia sent some of their guys to study law or even enter legit institutions(like police, church, government, etc) and then had those guys serve the mafia. They had the sheen of respectability, dignity, and objective meritocracy, but their main loyalty was to the mafia.
    It's like Tom Hagen is an ace lawyer but serves the Mob.

    And there were other famous Mob Lawyers, the real ones.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Ragano

    So many of these journos and academics are really Mob Publicists and Mob Advocates.
    They serve the globalist mafia. Glob is their Mob.

    Sachs is a total shark. He's been a Glob Advocate forever. A real weasel.

    What's the common denominator to these two ?????? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT \n
    "Democratic Party liberal interventionists have also joined with Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham and Marco Rubio to celebrate the cruise missile strike and hardening rhetoric."

    All owned by the likes of http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.631441.1418390491!/image/412181903.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/412181903.jpg Repulsive no?

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Jeff Davis , April 18, 2017 at 3:15 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? " picture he found somewhere on social media."

    If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".

    Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists - the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists - who control that area.

    Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event.

    Read More
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT \n
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. Well they do not get to set the rules until they are the most powerful state in the world–like the US. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    JoaoAlfaiate , April 18, 2017 at 3:33 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words Remember WMD and Saddam? What did the top papers say after Colin Powell's speech to the UN "proving" that Iraq had WMD?

    New York Times: "[Powell's speech] may not have produced a 'smoking gun," but it left little question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."

    Wall Street Journal: "The Powell evidence will be persuasive to anyone who is still persuadable. The only question remaining is whether the U.N. is going to have the courage of Mr. Powell's convictions."

    Washington Post: "To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make "

    "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play."
    Joseph Goebbels

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    iffen , April 18, 2017 at 3:48 pm GMT \n
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. Read More

    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
    • 200 Words @Wizard of Oz Here is ths David Kilcullen article I have been referring to. On the face of it he is a respectable analyst and authority like Mr Girardi with no hidden agenda:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/fighting-islamic-state/sarin-attack-shows-assad-is-desperate-as-jihadist-rebels-gain-ground/news-story/5265dee03a779671aefa32ef8d1a2fb3

    Thete is mo reason to suppose that either DK or PG have special knowledge of what gas attack actually occurred and by whom. However there seems to be an even more important division over the security of the Syrian government under attack from the Al Qaeda afiliate by whatever name it is now called in Syria. Kilcullen points to Assad having superior hardware but desperately lacking manpower.

    Does PG subscrtobe to the populsr contrary view that Assad is so close to winning againt all rebels that he simply couldn't hsve hsd s motive to make the gss atttack? Hi Wiz,

    I think it is quite clear, that with the assistance of the Russian military, the Syrian army has mounted multiple strategic victories against ISIS over the past year and a half.

    The entry of Russia into the fray, at the request of Syria, provided a very deep reservoir of enhanced military power which has shown to be highly effective in degraded both Al Qaeda and ISIS on multiple fronts.

    It seems as absurd now , as it did in 2013, that Assad would do the ONE THING that would force the hand of the US military to enter the fray against him.

    I also doubt the notion of the Syrian regimes "desperation" given the complete cooperation of Russia in providing any assistance the Syrian army might need , to achieve victory against ISIS.

    One could argue, however ,that Assad is truly "bonehead" stupid.

    You are certainly free to make that argument, Wiz , because, in this case, it seems to be the one that would make the most sense.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    The Alarmist , April 18, 2017 at 4:30 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @Sean

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .

    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]


    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.


    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria
    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.


    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.
    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe.

    "The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."

    Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds.

    Read More
    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
    @Hunsdon INORITE! I mean look, Russia has expanded its military to the very borders of NATO.

    Oh.

    Wait. IOW, the Russians have their own military in their own county guarding their own borders. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:48 pm GMT \n
    @iffen Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. "Illegal" not.

    Russia was right to accept the legitimate Crimean vote.

    The Crimean voters overwhelmingly approved returning to Russia.

    Democracy personified, the will of the people.

    Leftists hate that.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Ivy , April 18, 2017 at 4:50 pm GMT \n
    See the article by Gaius Publius at Naked Capitalism for a deeper dive.

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/gaius-publius-new-evidence-syrian-gas-story-fabricated-white-house.html

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Wally , April 18, 2017 at 4:56 pm GMT \n
    @utu Why'd there is no propaganda counter offensive coming from Putin and Assad? Where are their accounts of what happened there backed up by pictures and names of those who created this false flag? Don't they have their sources, intelligence and people on the ground? We are getting nothing. Instead Sputnik and RT is deferring to retired 71 old professor Postol who did his whole analysis based on single picture he found somewhere on social media. Do you think this will cause a dent in beliefs of people who are 24/7 being propagandized by Anglo-Zio media? You won't find it by looking at CNN / ZNN.

    Try:

    http://russia-insider.com/en

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    SolontoCroesus , April 18, 2017 at 5:05 pm GMT \n
    • 600 Words @Jeff Davis "...picture he found somewhere on social media."

    If you check closely, I think you will find that Postol took that photo from the White House issued document presenting the "evidence"(not!) of Syrian responsibility(not!) for the sarin(?) gas attack. Thus that photo represents the on-the-record official story w/official "evidence".

    Far from being some randomly acquired photo taken from social media and originating who knows where. And to take it one discrediting step further, it turns out the photo was provided by the al Qaeda terrorists -- the CIA's client anti-Assad terrorists -- who control that area.

    Bottom line: From the first, this was an ***OBVIOUS*** false flag. The only question remaining is whether the CIA coordinated with al Qaeda in planning this event.

    On Apr 13, 2017, Center for Strategic and International Studies hosted Mike Pompeo for his first public speaking appearance as CIA director.

    After Pompeo's prepared remarks, Juan Zarate queried the director on the Syria attack/s, starting his questions with comment on the rapidity with which "assessments were made."
    (Zarate is now at CSIS after proving his neoconservative bona fides as a charter member of Stuart Levey's Treasury Department "guerrillas in grey suits" - the gang that deploys financial blackmail to coerce international banks and corporations to join the US in constraining their commerce with states the USA does not like.)

    Pompeo responded to Zarate's request for "behind the scenes" description of how the assessments were made:

    "We were in short order able to deliver a high confidence assessment that it was the Syrian regime that had launched chemical attacks against its own people. Not me, Our Team, not just the CIA, the entire intelligence community was good and fast and we challenged ourselves. I can assure you we were challenged by the President and his team. We wanted to make sure we had it right. There's not much like when the president looks at you and says, Are you sure? When you know he's contemplating an action based on the analysis your organization has provided, and we got it right and I'm proud of the work that get to have the president have the opportunity to make a good decision about what he ought to do in the face of the atrocity that took place. "

    Zarate did not register dissatisfaction with this non-response; instead, he accepted the assessment as conclusive. Then he escalated the discussion:

    "What do you make of the Russian disputation of those conclusions? Bashar Al-Assad calling this a fabrication, the entire event. It's a battle of legitimacy and proof. How do you deal with that?"

    To which Pompeo delivered the money-quote:

    They're challenges. There are things we were able to use to form the basis of our conclusion that we cannot reveal. That is always tricky, but we've done our best and I think over time we can reveal a bit more. Everyone saw the open source photos, so we had reality on our side. "

    So apparently Pompeo and the "entire intelligence community" used the same photos that Dr. Postol examined exhaustively, but reached a different conclusion; they believe that the photos reflect "reality" and support their interpretation of events as fingering the Syrian government as perpetrators of the "red-line" "atrocity."

    Pompeo spent the next few minutes derogating Russia and Putin, stating that "Russia is on its sixth or seventh version of the story," and that "Putin is not a credible man . . . a man for whom veracity does not translate into English." (I think he meant "into Russian . . . .")

    -

    Recall that in 2013 Diane Feinstein also engaged the "rapid turnaround" efforts of the CIA to produce a video presentation of gassed children, which she claimed implicated the Syrian government, in her bid to drive the Obama administration across the "red line." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/07/cia-authenticates-13-videos-showing-syrian-gas-attack-aftermath-official-says.html

    and

    Lawmakers shown 'horrendous' video of alleged chemical attack in Syria Sept 05, 2013

    After extensive investigation by experts under the auspices of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon declared that it was "indisputable" that a chemical attack had occurred, but those responsible for the attack were not conclusively identified. Samantha Power, however, insisted that "it must have been Assad." http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/un-report-confirms-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-syria-a-922746.html

    Same lies, different liars.


    joe webb , April 18, 2017 at 5:09 pm GMT \n
    The Theodor Postel report made it onto Yahoo News surprisingly, last night.
    Jeff Davis , April 18, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT \n
    @Sean

    Sounds like we've heard it all before, because we have, back in August 2013, and that turned out to be less than convincing. Skepticism is likewise mounting over current White House claims that Damascus used a chemical weapon against civilians in the village of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province on April 4th.
    Quite. They maybe faked before and know how to in there was a overwhelming need. However, one wonders why they did not use the gas gambit when they were set to lose Aleppo. Using it now only when they have lost their big gains, seems like bolting the stable door after the horse is gone . So the motives for the rebels faking a gas attack at this juncture are even more puzzling as for the Assad regime having ordered it .
    Why Volatility Signals Stability, and Vice Versa
    By Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Gregory F. Treverton
    Purchase Article
    Even as protests spread across the Middle East in early 2011, the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria appeared immune from the upheaval. Assad had ruled comfortably for over a decade, having replaced his father, Hafez, who himself had held power for the previous three decades. Many pundits argued that Syria's sturdy police state, which exercised tight control over the country's people and economy, would survive the Arab Spring undisturbed. ]...

    But appearances were deceiving: today, Syria is in a shambles, with the regime fighting for its very survival, whereas Lebanon has withstood the influx of Syrian refugees and the other considerable pressures of the civil war next door. Surprising as it may seem, the per capita death rate from violence in Lebanon in 2013 was lower than that in Washington, D.C. That same year, the body count of the Syrian conflict surpassed 100,000.

    Why has seemingly stable Syria turned out to be the fragile regime, whereas always-in-turmoil Lebanon has so far proved robust? The answer is that prior to its civil war, Syria was exhibiting only pseudo-stability, its calm façade concealing deep structural vulnerabilities. Lebanon's chaos, paradoxically, signaled strength. Fifteen years of civil war had served to decentralize the state and bring about a more balanced sectarian power-sharing structure. Along with Lebanon's small size as an administrative unit, these factors added to its durability. So did the country's free-market economy. In Syria, the ruling Baath Party sought to control economic variability, replacing the lively chaos of the ancestral souk with the top-down, Soviet-style structure of the office building. This rigidity made Syria (and the other Baathist state, Iraq) much more vulnerable to disruption than Lebanon.[...]


    The divergent tales of Syria and Lebanon demonstrate that the best early warning signs of instability are found not in historical data but in underlying structural properties. Past experience can be extremely effective when it comes to detecting risks of cancer, crime, and earthquakes. But it is a bad bellwether of complex political and economic events, particularly so-called tail risks-events, such as coups and financial crises, that are highly unlikely but enormously consequential. For those, the evidence of risk comes too late to do anything about it, and a more sophisticated approach is required.

    [...]

    Simply put, fragility is aversion to disorder. Things that are fragile do not like variability, volatility, stress, chaos, and random events, which cause them to either gain little or suffer. A teacup, for example, will not benefit from any form of shock. It wants peace and predictability, something that is not possible in the long run, which is why time is an enemy to the fragile. What's more, things that are fragile respond to shock in a nonlinear fashion. With humans, for example, the harm from a ten-foot fall in no way equals ten times as much harm as from a one-foot fall. In political and economic terms, a $30 drop in the price of a barrel of oil is much more than twice as harmful to Saudi Arabia as a $15 drop.

    THE CENTER CANNOT HOLD

    The first marker of a fragile state is a concentrated decision-making system.funds, at the price of increasing systemic risks, such as disastrous national-level reforms.

    This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria
    A Russian build military base being used to attack urban areas is not "Syria"

    Assad and those around him hold concentrated centralised power and are already proven to be incredibly stupid, that is why he is in this position-- he thought the people loved him, put up the price of basic commodities and the rebellion started. Assad perhaps believes the US is scared to get involved in Syria or to to cross the Russians . It seems silly but he and his advisors have a proven record of catastrophic misjudgements . Bringing in the Russians meant the US would be involved.

    I dare say the US has more advanced facilities for gathering intelligence it lets on about and than Syria, Russia or US media know about. Providing "evidence" gives away the hole card one might come in handy if the nuclear balloon starts going goes well and truly up. Any price would be worth paying for knowing Russia's intent. If people doubt Trump over this (and he warned the Russian it was going to be done so he didn't seek confrontation) it is the unfortunate price of maintaining secret intelligence facilities.


    The Trump Administration is threatening to do more to remove Bashar al-Assad and every American should accept that the inhabitant of the White House, when he is actually in residence, will discover like many before him that war is good business. He will continue to ride the wave of jingoism that has turned out to be his salvation, reversing to an extent the negative publicity that has dogged the new administration.
    For a great power seeing its rival use military force to crush a rebellion it has expressed sympathy is quite definitely a real defeat . It's a zero sum game for America and Russia (yes Russia is Jingoistic, and I think it is more centralised in decision making ) . The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.

    Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.

    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you, are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.

    Agree: Z-man
    Sean , April 18, 2017 at 6:49 pm GMT \n
    @The Alarmist
    "The Russians took advantage of US passivity under Obama, and they were exultant at the way the US stood and watched, while Russia made all the successful initiatives, but really they couldn't be allowed to have it their own way any longer, for what they would have done next can be assumed to have been frightening to Europe."
    Wow, we must have been observing two different worlds, because Russian actions in several theatres (Syria, Ukraine, Korea, ROW) have been relatively restrained to non-existent despite clear threats to their national interests, while the US has ratcheted up it military intervention pretty much globally over the same period. Then again, I live outside the US and am not blanketed with the propaganda that spills out of its MSM house organs, so we have indeed observed two different worlds. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/08/politics/marines-raqqa-assault-syria/

    Trump didn't wait for the gas attack, he was already laying the ground for getting involved in Syria, which is not a vital interest of Russia. Russians want to do stuff like support Assad and crush rebels the US has expressed sympathy for. they surely didn't expect to be left alone.

    bike-anarchist , April 18, 2017 at 7:04 pm GMT \n
    @utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right? Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. Read More
    Z-man , April 18, 2017 at 7:12 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @Jeff Davis You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't source your quotes, and you're ideologically driven by a form of crypto anti-socialism revealed in you're basic premise that centralized planning created the vulnerability that brought down Saddam and now threatens Assad.

    Nonsense. What threatens all of the Mideast -- what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad -- is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.

    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project. And you,... are either a fool or an Israeli propagandist.

    What threatens all of the Mideast - what brought down Saddam, Gaddafi, and now threatens Assad - is US/Zionist covert and overt political and military violence. Dick Cheney turned the US Govt over to Israeli neocon subversion, resulting in Zionist control of US foreign policy and its conversion into a foreign policy in service to Israel: the implementation of the 7-country, Oded Yinon regime change program.
    The US has been turned into Israel's bjtch, its treasury looted, the lives of US miltary personnel sacrificed to benefit the Zionist criminal project.

    Bares repeating.

    utu , April 18, 2017 at 7:18 pm GMT \n
    @bike-anarchist Your comment reminds me of a conversation I had with a fence post. At least I found the the fence post truthful, unlike you. I can't imagine you to be able to make humanitarian decisions based on your impatience and impudence. You found it impudent for me calling Russian media and Russia's propaganda machine inept and indolent? You must be one of those who drank Putin's Kool-Aid and is now patiently awaiting his 2nd coming and saving us all from the grips of the NWO, right? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 7:21 pm GMT \n
    Dear Mr. Giraldi,

    Not withstanding our Presidents "rush to judgement" tomahawk strike against the Assad regime last week, there should be very strong indications to our main stream media, that they are being abandoned by tens of millions of Americans across our country who no longer accept the medias willingness to defraud us ,at nearly every turn.

    I was an avid reader of the the NY Times, for over 25 years, and I watched the nightly news all the time.

    When we were all told by these media outlets in the run up to the Iraq war, that Saddam had launched an anthrax attack against our news rooms and our capitol I believed it completely 100%..without any reason in my own mind why I shouldn't .

    Once the war began, and the attribution to Saddam of the anthrax attack quickly collapsed , I felt defrauded by those who I had always trusted to be honest, most especially on issues of war and peace.

    In 2013,when the Ghouta Sarin attack was attributed to Assad by these very same pundits, the memory of the phony Saddam anthrax attribution reared its ugly head, and with good reason.

    If they were lying then why aren't they lying now ?

    I think our media has proven itself, scores of times, over the last fifteen years, to be, at best, disingenuous and at worst complicit in acts of war fraud and terror fraud which have taken the lives of millions of innocent people and cost our country tens of trillions of dollars.

    There is no reason why I , nor any American, should be happy about this.

    Whats worse is they have displayed such enormous contempt for all the tens of millions of innocent families who have suffered on account of their deceits that they have lost an overwhelming amount of respect from me,as well as, I imagine, countless others.

    Our Big Media can only cry "wolf" so many times before they are greeted by everyone with the middle finger.

    This reality will not go away, but only get worse, until they start to shoot straight, and have proven to their viewers, that they are not seeking to manipulate, or defraud us . into War.

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 7:25 pm GMT \n
    @iffen Not only that they recently illegally annexed a prized warm water port. Thanks, Wally.

    "iffen," the eff'n Israeli disinfo troll, is always trying to slip one in.

    Read More
    Biff , April 18, 2017 at 7:27 pm GMT \n
    With Trump's complete flip on foreign policy I'm starting to think(again) that U.S. Presidents are mere puppets for the real rulers of this world – who no doubt considered Obama to be just a corporate "house negro". Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Greg Bacon , • Website April 18, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words President KUSHNER and his faithful toady Trump sure are busy these days. In between bites of chocolate cake, they are arming the terrorists and bombing Syrian civilians.

    Over 50 Civilians Killed, Injured in US-Led Coalition Airstrikes in Eastern Syria

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960129000960

    US Continues to Airdrop More Aid Packages to ISIL Terrorists in Northwestern Iraq

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960129000900

    There's one reason the USA is stuck in endless ME wars, with no end in sight. American troops are fighting and dying for Apartheid Israel, and our wealth is being spent on the same.

    When Syria is toast, the MSM will start attacking Iran, and they'll have plenty of friends who think the same way in the WH and Congress.

    Anon , April 18, 2017 at 7:41 pm GMT \n
    None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.

    But it doesn't.

    There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such.

    Brewer , April 18, 2017 at 8:16 pm GMT \n
    @DB Cooper This whole chemical weapon attack by Assad sounds fishy from the beginning. From what I read Assad is winning the civil war and things are turning for the better for him. What would he gain at this point to launch a chemical attack on the civilian populations? Things just doesn't add up. Check out this video:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1VNQGsiP8M&t=22s

    It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked.

    RobinG , April 18, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT \n
    @Anon None of this would be an issue if the media did its job.

    But it doesn't.

    There is free media in the US, but Big Media is not free media. It is Bought Media and should be called as such. Right you are! The Big, Bought and Biased Media must be RELENTLESSLY exposed and discredited.

    Trump's airstrike was triggered by the latest Assad-Did-It-Again, "gassing his own people" story, that we first heard in 2013. Once again evidence is lacking, and worse, there is a total lack of interest in finding evidence, or in asking the obvious questions of motive, cui bono? In a replay of "Gulf of Tonkin," "WMDs in Iraq," and numerous other false provocations, the mainstream media has once again rushed to judgment with no penetrating questions asked.

    Since 2011, U.S. corporate media has acted as advocate for militant factions. Rather than reporting events as they occurred, our "journalists" have repeated stories selected by anti-Assad "sources" such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, i.e. Rami Abdul Rahman. Yes, the SOHR is one guy, an ex-pat member of the so-called "Syrian opposition" who operates out of his house in Coventry, England.

    Orville H. Larson , April 18, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT \n
    @anonymous It certainly appears to have been a manufactured event. The media was ready and swung into action immediately with pictures and a noisy campaign that the usual war-hawk politicians joined in with. The timing was just too good and seems to have been coordinated. Syria was bombed without bothering to investigate based on Trump's claim that the evidence was ironclad. Did people like McMaster think it was real and report it to Trump as such? Did Trump believe it? Or did they know it was fake but pretended otherwise? Were they in on it from the beginning or were they forced to play along? Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless.

    Next up, N Korea and then Iran?

    No matter how one votes they end up getting the same thing. It's very disheartening. " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."

    Yeah, it looks like it.

    I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed–I hoped!–that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .

    anon , April 18, 2017 at 8:59 pm GMT \n
    How does the lie work? It survives . It always survives . King is dead! Long live the king! It come back. People ignore when they find it out . Same propel tweak the margins and support the new version to build another lie.

    That's why we hear that "Saddam did not have nukes but they found weapons they found this they found that they found gas chemical"

    I tell them " that is none of your and this Gov's Freaking business"

    Now these guys are busy saying "Assad sent refugees he doesn't want this or that or he poured chem s or make attack it possible"

    Mu answer is usually this " The Gov can go to war tomorrow because r the sky was not blue above the desert of Iran proving they are not compliant and is busy destroying the climate . You will accept that logic as well or shrug it off but will vote him or his surrogate next time "

    unseated , April 18, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT \n
    @Philip Giraldi Kilcullen is well compensated by those who support the Establishment narrative on Syria and everywhere else in the Middle East so he does indeed have an agenda.

    Most intel and military types that I have spoken to agree that after the retaking of Aleppo al-Assad is winning and will eventually win.

    Did he nevertheless stage the chemical attack on Idbil? I don't know. Let's see the evidence. Somebody obviously knows that happened. I assume that someone called "Wizard of Oz" might, like myself, be a resident of Australia.

    What is surprising, then, is that he/she gives any credibility to a Murdoch rag and the Australian at that. Its political positions with respect to the Middle East in particular are well known. Read More

    SolontoCroesus , April 18, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT \n
    @utu It's not about proving things. It is about narrative control. However you look at it Russia (and Assad) lost the narrative. One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff. One would think they have means, right? After all there are FSB, GRU, Assad's intelligence, assets on the ground in Syria, intercepted communications between Al Qaeda and their handlers. And Russian media can't come up with a good story and relies on 71 years old former MIT professor report. So what's going on there? Don't they want to win? Are they being sabotaged by inept and indolent staff? Or is Russia's fight in the Middle East just a make belief? Hey, Our American Partners, how much will you pay us for playing bad guys? And for being stupid guys you pay extra, right?

    One amateurish report by retired professor from MIT that bases his finding on just one picture won't change it. Still it is this report that Russia's media like RT and Sputnik are citing instead of coming up with their own genuine stuff.

    According to newly minted director of CIA, that organization and the entire "intelligence community" relied on the "reality" of those photos, in addition to other things that "can't be revealed right now, maybe later."

    Maybe it will be revealed after Assad is safely dead or in exile in Moscow what the CIA's can't be revealed methods were.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    alexander , April 18, 2017 at 9:34 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @Brewer It is established that the White Helmets delivered their film to Al Jazeera before 8am. on the 4th of April (the day of the Syrian Airstrike which occurred between 11.30am. and 12.30pm. It is simply impossible, given the elevation of the sun shown in the video, for that film to have been made before 8am. on the 4th. This is irrefutable evidence that the filming was done no later than the day before the Syrian Government forces attacked. Hi Brewer,

    Is there a link to the video ?

    Moreover, if what you are saying is true, then it would seem to indicate the White Helmets, as well as ISIS were leaked information as to the time of the Syrian strike so as to stage the chemical event well beforehand.

    This means there is a big leak in the shared information between the White House and Moscow.

    My understanding is Moscow shared advanced warning of the Syrian strike with D.C., as part of their non confrontation agreement. Somebody leaked that information to ISIS and Al Qaeda .I wonder who ? How else could ISIS obtain advanced knowledge about exactly when to plant their gas canister and stage the gas attack ?

    Incitatus , April 18, 2017 at 9:39 pm GMT \n
    It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.

    GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere! Nope, no weapons over there! Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic, was dead.

    The media loves it now. Easy stories – sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?

    True corruption. There are no excuses.

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.'

    Rurik , April 18, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT \n
    • 200 Words @Orville H. Larson " . . . Trump has quickly shifted into being an establishment politician whose rhetoric has been bellicose and reckless. . . ."

    Yeah, it looks like it.

    I voted for Trump mainly for foreign policy reasons. I assumed--I hoped!--that Trump would be better than Our Lady of the Pantsuits, that Israel-controlled, neocon hack. Maybe the difference is this: With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. . . .

    With Clinton, the ICBMs would have been flying by now, but with Trump, it'll take a bit longer. .

    Israel has a well known deterrent referred to as the 'Samson option'.

    I think it would be prudent, and I hope that the sane world has already made those in a position to force a major war between the zio-West vs. Russia (for instance)..

    .. that the first place to get glassed will be that shitty little country- as a kind of reverse Samson option

    I would like to hope that even now, all sane nations.. (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, et al) who have nukes, have them all trained at ground zero (T.A.) for the strife in the world.

    and I suppose to be effective, they'd have to be aimed at some of the snake pits in the Western world as well- I really don't think Rothschild, (Soros, Kristol, etc..) would care too much if most of Israel proper were glowing, so long as they and the diaspora would be able to take control of what ever was left after the fallout dispersed.

    the Fiend needs to know that he'd get it first, and there would be the peace

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn6Cf30HgNI

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Rurik , April 18, 2017 at 10:43 pm GMT \n
    @Incitatus It should surprise none that Syria is simply a redux of Iraq 2002-03, minus Ahmed Chalabi or a reasonable facsimile. A "slam dunk." It worked then. The media loved it. All the players got to write memoirs and collect royalties on the same bogus narrative. OK, it was widened a bit to include how everyone, absolutely everyone had no doubt about the 'intelligence' and WMDs. Honest.

    GW Bush even did a clever PowerPoint mime for the Radio & Television Correspondent's Association Dinner 24 March 2004 in which he said "Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!...Nope, no weapons over there!...Maybe under here?" while pretending to look for WMD under his desk. Few (if any) objected. That's when it was pretty clear the soul of the press, if not the Republic, was dead.

    The media loves it now. Easy stories - sensational, complete with dead infant/kiddy pics. Second only to porn. Better in a way, because you can inject moral indignation into the byline. Remember the Sabah's hawking 312 dead babies removed from incubators by Saddam in Kuwait in '90? Worked then too. No need to look further.

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow. It champions 'moderate rebels', despite their kinship to the most extreme barbarism. If Iraq 2003 was bad, this is even worse. We don't even bother to suggest reasonable succession or a viable alternative future. Too much effort?

    True corruption. There are no excuses.

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47, which codified the CIA and changed the "Department of War' to the 'Department of Defense'?. We've waged war (clandestine and overt) ever since. If only for honesty, it should be changed back to' Department of War.'

    Our Administration(s) insists Assad 'must go' without considering what will follow.

    that's not specifically true. They've come right out and said they prefer Al Nursa and the cannibals and crucifying head slicers to a stable government with a viable middle class.

    "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran,"

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-israel-idUSBRE98G0DR20130917

    Israel wants in Syria what it got in Iraq and Libya.. a complete dystopian hell on earth. Old Testament vengeance and unimaginable suffering. It is written.

    They literally thrive on that shit

    Did it all start with Truman's National Security Act of '47

    nope

    it started in earnest with the Balfour Declaration and Wilson's war. A hundred years ago exactly to the day from Trump's attack on Syria.

    The attack on Syria on that notorious anniversary was sort of like a modern day Passover, when the kings of Europe slaughtered the new born of Europa, and the chosen were blessed with a country of their own out of the smoking ashes of Christendom

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Bill , April 18, 2017 at 10:45 pm GMT \n
    • 100 Words @iffen always trying to slip one in

    Thanks to you RobinG I get a White House propaganda blurb "slipped" into my email every day or so. The decent thing for you to have done would have been to warn me not to use my actual email address.

    BTW. the commies have been trying to get a warm water port since the beginning of the Cold War.

    Pretty sure the Commies had Sevastopol at the start of the Cold War and all the way through it. Sevastopol doesn't really count as a warm water port in the way you mean since you have to go through two straits controlled by NATO before you are in the real ocean.

    [Apr 18, 2017] NSC has been filled with McMaster loyalists aka Neocon preemptive strikers

    Apr 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    XXX

    Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten, no probs . (from April 8)

    Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists).

    https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-mcmaster-manipulating-intelligence-reports-to-trump-wants-150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99

    "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong.

    McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position ."

    fresno dan , April 17, 2017 at 9:33 am

    oho
    April 17, 2017 at 9:00 am

    oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
    You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump or for Obama – its a very lonely place other than at NC .

    EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign intelligence sources.

    Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin" (or emphasize – I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited "wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin – now, I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches (at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears CORRECT.

    But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
    The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize, and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..

    https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/14/pro-trump-outlets-and-fake-news-purveyors-misinterpret-new-reports-vindicate-foxs-napolitano/216031

    ***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???

    dontknowitall , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333. To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis of all of this and it is all archived in her website.

    a different chris , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Petraeus for President 2024! Seriously, you know it's coming. :p

    Pat , April 17, 2017 at 10:51 am

    Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 11:41 am

    Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree on that.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 11:54 am

    Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad, I'd want to get out – Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.

    tgs , April 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria – the carnage will continue.

    And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well. Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it it's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.

    Mark P. , April 17, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy.

    People will miss him when he's gone.

    Olga , April 17, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 – after notifying the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete. What makes you think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly reverse course? If they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember – they have a VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese). The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. There is a large power structure connected to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians and Iranians understand that if they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents – they would be next (Chechnya war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective of the other – not from what the US would like.

    anonymous , April 17, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Isn't the greater Damascus area relatively unscathed? Granted other vast areas are in ruins

    Christopher Fay , April 17, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150 k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio.

    [Apr 18, 2017] NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers versus the Flynn/Bannon camp aka pragmatic-realists

    Notable quotes:
    "... Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists). ..."
    "... "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position . ..."
    "... maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few. ..."
    "... In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone. ..."
    "... The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. ..."
    "... The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio. ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten, no probs . (from April 8)

    Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists).

    https://medium.com/@Cernovich/h-r-mcmaster-manipulating-intelligence-reports-to-trump-wants-150-000-ground-soldiers-in-syria-83346c433e99

    "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position ."

    fresno dan , April 17, 2017 at 9:33 am

    @oho April 17, 2017 at 9:00 am

    oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
    You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump or for Obama – its a very lonely place other than at NC .

    EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign intelligence sources.

    Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin" (or emphasize – I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited "wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin – now, I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches (at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears CORRECT.

    But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
    The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize, and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..

    https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/14/pro-trump-outlets-and-fake-news-purveyors-misinterpret-new-reports-vindicate-foxs-napolitano/216031

    ***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???

    dontknowitall , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333. To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis of all of this and it is all archived in her website.

    a different chris , April 17, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Petraeus for President 2024! Seriously, you know it's coming. :p

    Pat , April 17, 2017 at 10:51 am

    Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 11:41 am

    Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree on that.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 11:54 am

    Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad, I'd want to get out – Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.

    tgs , April 17, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria – the carnage will continue.

    And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well. Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.

    Susan the other , April 17, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.

    Mark P. , April 17, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone.

    Olga , April 17, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 – after notifying the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete.

    What makes you think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly reverse course? If they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember – they have a VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese).

    The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin – the story is not just about one man. There is a large power structure connected to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians and Iranians understand that if they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents – they would be next (Chechnya war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective of the other – not from what the US would like.

    anonymous , April 17, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Isn't the greater Damascus area relatively unscathed? Granted other vast areas are in ruins

    Christopher Fay , April 17, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Trump Foreign Policy Becomes Bush 2.0 and Obama 1.5

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump's pivot to U.S. involvement in regime change in multiple countries, combined with military and diplomatic bluster, swagger, and chest-thumping can best be summed up as combining the unitary executive imperialistic foreign policy of George W. Bush with the regime change agenda of Barack Obama, or "Bush version 2.0/Obama version 1.5" ..."
    "... During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's supporters did not mind the real estate billionaire's swashbuckling attitude. After all, Trump said he would worry about "America First". Trump decried the role played by his predecessors as the "world's policeman". Trump said he would not be the "president of the world" but the president of the United States. Everything changed on April 7, 2016, when Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched on the Syrian air base. ..."
    "... At the United Nations, Trump's ambassador, Nikki Haley, proclaimed that the U.S. would take additional actions against Syria and that the United States did not see a future for Assad as president of Syria. Haley told CNN : "there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime... regime change is something that we think is going to happen ". ..."
    "... Haley also expanded America's goals in Syria by stating that Trump also sought to eliminate Iranian influence in Syria. The statement about Iran and Syria went far beyond anything ever suggested by the Obama administration. ..."
    "... In 2013, Trump tweeted the following about calls for the U.S. to attack Syria: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." Trump sought no congressional approval for his action against Syria. In fact, Trump informed Chinese president Xi Jinping, while he was departing Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, about the attack on Syria before he informed members of Congress. Trump's attempt to impress President Xi had little impact. No sooner had Xi's plane departed Florida, the Chinese government news agency Xinhua stated: "It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles". ..."
    "... Trump had become what he decried earlier: an unaccountable world policeman who would, without U.S. constitutional or international legal authority, seek regime change through military means. ..."
    "... All around the world, officials of the Trump administration re-adopted the regime change tactics of Obama. Trump's ambassador to Serbia, Kyle Scott, let it be known that Washington was not happy with the re-election on April 2 of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Scott sent messages that Washington did not favor Vucic's continued close relations with Russia, encouraging anti-Vucic street protesters in the service of George Soros to stage anti-Vucic demonstrations. In neighboring Macedonia, Trump's ambassador Jess Baily continued to provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support for Soros-backed protesters and opposition parties that were trying to replace the Macedonian government with one that favored integration with the European Union and a freeze in relations with Russia. ..."
    "... At the end of March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Baily, who was visiting the State Department, a green light to continue the destabilization activities in Skopje that began under Obama. In Serbia and Macedonia, what appeared on the streets were the first signs of a concordat between Trump and Soros, something that was bound to enrage Trump's anti-globalization and anti-Soros erstwhile base of supporters. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org
    OPINION

    Donald Trump's pivot to U.S. involvement in regime change in multiple countries, combined with military and diplomatic bluster, swagger, and chest-thumping can best be summed up as combining the unitary executive imperialistic foreign policy of George W. Bush with the regime change agenda of Barack Obama, or "Bush version 2.0/Obama version 1.5".

    Trump's knee-jerk decision to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles against the Shayrat air base, a forward operating base for Syrian and Russian military forces battling against Islamic State forces in Palmyra and other locations, represents the type of reckless unilateralism employed by the Bush administration in Iraq coupled with the "regime change" tactics of the Obama administration throughout the Middle East and North Africa. However, even Barack Obama refused to be drawn into direct military action against the Syrian government, preferring instead to use Syrian rebel factions backed by the Turkish, Saudi, and Qatari governments and overseen by Central Intelligence Agency operatives to launch attacks on Syrian government forces.

    Trump's decision to attack Syria's forces was based on the shoddiest of video and photographic "evidence" that was tainted with the fingerprints of the very dubious and terrorist-connected Syrian "White Helmets" and the pathetic joke known as the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" in Coventry, England. There was no wonder that Trump's cruise missile attack was celebrated wildly in the Islamic State and Al Qaeda camps around the Middle East, by the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and in the royal courts of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These quarters had previously been worried about Trump's campaign rhetoric to join with the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad and Russia in defeating the jihadist scourge that swept across Syria as the result of Obama's "Arab Spring" and regime change goals.

    As the first Tomahawks were fired from the U.S. Navy destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross , anxiety among the jihadist rebels in Syria, who were losing ground to Syrian and allied forces, quickly turned to ecstasy. The Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, Jaysh al-Islam, the Al Nusra Front, Liwa al-Haqq, and others had just been awarded by Trump their own high-tech military force: the United States Navy.

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump's supporters did not mind the real estate billionaire's swashbuckling attitude. After all, Trump said he would worry about "America First". Trump decried the role played by his predecessors as the "world's policeman". Trump said he would not be the "president of the world" but the president of the United States. Everything changed on April 7, 2016, when Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched on the Syrian air base.

    At the United Nations, Trump's ambassador, Nikki Haley, proclaimed that the U.S. would take additional actions against Syria and that the United States did not see a future for Assad as president of Syria. Haley told CNN : "there's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime... regime change is something that we think is going to happen ".

    Haley also expanded America's goals in Syria by stating that Trump also sought to eliminate Iranian influence in Syria. The statement about Iran and Syria went far beyond anything ever suggested by the Obama administration.

    There were reports that Trump's daughter, Ivanka Trump, a White House adviser without portfolio, and her husband Jared Kushner, the senior White House presidential adviser, had convinced Trump to attack Syria after being convinced of the authenticity of photos and videos showing Sarin victims, including children, in the village of Khan Sheikoun. The sources of the "evidence" – the same sources that originated previous dubious "evidence" of Syrian use of chemical weapons – were totally suspect.

    In 2013, Trump tweeted the following about calls for the U.S. to attack Syria: "What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval." Trump sought no congressional approval for his action against Syria. In fact, Trump informed Chinese president Xi Jinping, while he was departing Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, about the attack on Syria before he informed members of Congress. Trump's attempt to impress President Xi had little impact. No sooner had Xi's plane departed Florida, the Chinese government news agency Xinhua stated: "It has been a typical tactic of the U.S. to send a strong political message by attacking other countries using advanced warplanes and cruise missiles".

    Trump had become what he decried earlier: an unaccountable world policeman who would, without U.S. constitutional or international legal authority, seek regime change through military means.

    Trump also decided to beef up U.S. air and naval forces in Northeast Asia in a show of force to North Korea. In media leaks, Trump advisers let it be known that a nuclear attack on North Korea or a U.S.-sanctioned assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jon Un, both with the goal of North Korean regime change, were on the table as options. Trump's actions in Syria and on the Korean peninsula demonstrated that he has gone "full neocon", much to the distress of his alt-right and "America First" supporters. There were reports out of the White House that Trump's strategic policy adviser Stephen Bannon had been kicked off the National Security Council in deference to the wishes of the neocons who had effectively seized control of the White House's foreign policy apparatus.

    All around the world, officials of the Trump administration re-adopted the regime change tactics of Obama. Trump's ambassador to Serbia, Kyle Scott, let it be known that Washington was not happy with the re-election on April 2 of Serbian president Aleksandar Vucic. Scott sent messages that Washington did not favor Vucic's continued close relations with Russia, encouraging anti-Vucic street protesters in the service of George Soros to stage anti-Vucic demonstrations. In neighboring Macedonia, Trump's ambassador Jess Baily continued to provide U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) support for Soros-backed protesters and opposition parties that were trying to replace the Macedonian government with one that favored integration with the European Union and a freeze in relations with Russia.

    At the end of March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave Baily, who was visiting the State Department, a green light to continue the destabilization activities in Skopje that began under Obama. In Serbia and Macedonia, what appeared on the streets were the first signs of a concordat between Trump and Soros, something that was bound to enrage Trump's anti-globalization and anti-Soros erstwhile base of supporters.

    In Latin America, Trump's envoys were backing the forces of reactionary proto-fascism. Washington questioned the legitimacy of Ecuadorian leftist leader Lenin Moreno's presidential election victory over a Wall Street-backed crony capitalist named Guillermo Lasso. In Argentina, U.S. embassy officials rallied around Trump's billionaire friend, President Mauricio Macri, against labor and student leaders protesting the Wall Street-directed austerity measures of the Argentine government.

    While Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner prevailed on Trump to avenge the deaths of civilians in Khan Sheikoun by launching a missile attack on Syria, neither of these two self-entitled products of crony capitalism had much to say about the massacre of 43 Coptic Christians by the Islamic State while attending Palm Sunday services at churches in Tanta and Alexandria in Egypt. Trump's vapid family were silent in any call for retaliation against the actual financial and logistical supporters of the Islamic State in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. Ivanka certainly would not want to jeopardize her fashion line sales in the high-priced boutiques of Jeddah, Doha, and Istanbul.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Dear Washington the era of the false flag attack is now over

    Notable quotes:
    "... None other than Russian President Vladimir Putin then spoke out, saying that Russia believed similar "provocations" were being planned ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | theduran.com
    Not so long ago, using the term "false flag" immediately marked you as a "conspiracy theorist," – basically a nutcase not in touch with reality. Supposedly.

    In case anybody still doesn't know, a "false flag [attack/event]" is an incident perpetrated by one party (usually a state) either against itself or someone else, while making it appear that a third party is to blame.

    False flag events are far from a new idea. King Gustav III of Sweden staged an attack on one of his own outposts using soldiers in fake Russian uniforms, to provide a pretext for initiating war against Russia in 1788.

    In the Gleiwitz Incident , Nazi Germany apparently staged an attack on a German radio station, in order to blame Poland and provide propaganda supporting the decision to go to war.

    However, it is the United States which, in the 20th and 21st centuries, has been most frequently accused of perpetrating false flag events.

    The 1898 Spanish-American war started after a US battleship, the Maine, mysteriously blew up in Havana harbor . The cause was never conclusively proven, but Spain was immediately blamed, and Congress declared war. (Nobody apparently asked what a US battleship was doing parked in another country's harbor in the first place.)

    Operation Northwoods was a plan developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted to President John F. Kennedy in 1962, proposing various scenarios for faking terrorist attacks on the US and blaming them on Cuba. Kennedy rejected the plan.

    Many consider the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964, which was used to introduce US ground troops into Vietnam, to have been a false flag. And millions of people world wide do not believe the official narrative of what occurred during the 9-11 attacks.

    When the United States accused the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, of unleashing a sarin gas attack on civilians in the town of Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib province of Syria on April 4th – an incident which brought him no advantage, but played directly to the advantage of his enemies – the alternative media sphere immediately began crying foul.

    Twitter exploded with indications that the event was staged, with so-called "white helmets" humanitarian workers caught in multiple compromising positions:

    However, the proof in social media was only the first blow. None other than Russian President Vladimir Putin then spoke out, saying that Russia believed similar "provocations" were being planned:

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/bACg_VPECmk

    His statement was followed by an extended interview given by Syrian President Assad, whose reasoned responses ripped to sheds the accusations of his accusers:

    http://www.youtube.com/embed/Syyq7zbTuTA

    These public statements by two leading world statesmen immediately added impetus to the claims in alternative media that a false flag attack had indeed occurred.

    Then, in a clear message to the United States, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov followed up his April 12th meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, by meeting with the foreign ministers of Iran and Syria in Moscow only two days later, April 14th – a clear show of solidarity.

    This followed Tillerson's demand at the G7 in Lucca that Russia should "reconsider" its alliance with Iran and Syria.

    At the press conference afterward, Lavrov stated about the alleged chemical attack:

    There is growing evidence that this was staged – meaning the incident with the use of chemical weapons in Idlib province.

    What makes the false flag at Khan Shaykhun unlike previous false flags is the speed with which it was exposed – both on the internet using the alleged footage itself, and possibly for the first time, by other state parties (Russia and Syria) opposed to the agenda the perpetrators seek to advance.

    Now "false flag" has essentially entered the normal political lexicon.

    And normalizing awareness of what a false flag is, along with decreasing acceptance of it as a state tactic, essentially means it will be increasingly difficult to succeed with one in the future.

    Thus, it can be said that the era in which government orchestrated false flags can be carried out with a high chance of success is effectively over. Both modern communication media (i.e. the internet and smart phones) and risk of exposure by opposing governments will make it high-risk, low reward-undertaking.

    That is not to say false flags will not continue to happen. They will. After all, the deep state apparatus appears both highly resistant to change, and severely lacking in originality. But such events will be increasingly less likely to be successful in convincing observers that the party they intend to implicate is the one to blame.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Russian Defence Minsitry No one has asked for antidotes or medicines around location of alleged Idlib chemical attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... Thus far, the only video of the alleged attack's aftermath have been provided by the White Helmets, an organisation widely exposed as fraudulent , comprising known and open supporters of al-Qaeda factions in Syria. ..."
    "... "The impact zone in Khan Shaykhun, from where locals had to be evacuated, has not been identified. The town is living its life. Neither locals nor pseudo-rescuers have even asked for medicines, antidotes, (nor) decontaminants. ..."
    "... It is clear that, as in Iraq and Libya, there are simply no plans to carry out a qualified investigation in Khan Shaykhun by the current 'schemers' of the chemical attack". ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | theduran.com
    A puzzling new development has emerged in the aftermath of the alleged chemical weapons incident in Syria's Idlib Governorate from the 4th of April.

    Since the incident, apparently no one in the Khan Shaykhun area in question has asked for any antidotes for exposure to toxic sarin gas, the chemical allegedly deployed on the 4th of April.

    Many have consequently questioned whether the images presented of sarin gas victims were entirely inauthentic.

    Thus far, the only video of the alleged attack's aftermath have been provided by the White Helmets, an organisation widely exposed as fraudulent , comprising known and open supporters of al-Qaeda factions in Syria.

    Russian Defence Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov has described the rather strange and incongruous developments at the location of the alleged attack over the last weeks,

    "The impact zone in Khan Shaykhun, from where locals had to be evacuated, has not been identified. The town is living its life. Neither locals nor pseudo-rescuers have even asked for medicines, antidotes, (nor) decontaminants.

    It is clear that, as in Iraq and Libya, there are simply no plans to carry out a qualified investigation in Khan Shaykhun by the current 'schemers' of the chemical attack".

    Konashenkov continued,

    "It has been exactly two weeks after the incident with the alleged use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun. However, the only 'proof' of the use of chemical weapons remain only two White Helmets videos".

    The Russian Defence Ministry spokesman also stated,

    "At the same time, every day the number of unbiased experts grows, especially in Western countries, who ask these evident questions. These specialists, who have the knowledge and experience, cannot explain how these representatives of the White Helmets could work in the contamination zone for so long remaining alive without any gas masks and special uniform".

    These revelations may indicated that the incident was more than even a false flag, it may have been a false attack in totality.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Attack Against Syria and the Region Speaking Up

    Apr 18, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    By Andre Vltchek

    April 18, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - Beirut - As the US Tomahawk missiles were raining on Syria, the entire Middle East was shaken to its core. Here, even the name itself – Syria – triggers extremely complex and often contradictory sets of emotions. To some, Syria is synonymous with pride and a determined struggle against Western imperialism, while others see it as an uncomfortable reminder of how low their own rulers and societies have managed to sink, serving foreign interests and various neo-colonialist designs.

    Many people are hiding their heads in the sand, obediently repeating the official Western narrative, while others are gradually resorting to the alternative sources of information that are coming from outlets such as RT Arabic, Al-Mayadeen and Press TV.

    Here in the Middle East and, in fact, all over the entire Arab world, feelings towards the Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad are always 'strong'; no one appears to be 'neutral'. But even the divisions are often 'pre-defined', carved along pan-Arab versus pro-Western, or Sunni versus Shi'a lines. It is rarely being mentioned that the Syrian state is constructed mainly on secular and socialist principles.

    The recent opportunistic statements by certain badly informed and biased Western 'progressive' intellectuals, calling the Syrian system "disgraceful" has confused things even further.

    *****

    Overall, in the countries encircling Syria, there is very little support among the general population as well as among the intellectuals, for the Western assaults on the country, conducted directly, and indirectly by proxies. Pro-Western regimes and governments are currently governing Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and all of them are officially supporting the Western military actions. So is, naturally, Israel. The leaders of both Turkey and Israel would actually like to see more military actions, and more attacks against one of the last Arab countries, which is still upholds its independence.

    But ask the thinkers from all over the region, and the reaction is near unanimously against the assaults that are being conducted by the West.

    Ms Zeinab Al-Saffar (Photo: Andre Vltchek)

    An Iraqi educationalist, prominent journalist and researcher, Ms Zeinab Al-Saffar explained:

    I believe that the attacks against Syria that we are now witnessing, are a pre-orchestrated flagrant imperialist violation of a sovereign state, a flexing of muscles which is supposed to prove that the US is still the global power. Why on earth would the Syrian government perform a chemical attack knowing that the fingers would be immediately pointed at it, consequently thwarting an ongoing political process? Only fools could buy such narratives that are reminiscent of the 2003 US-led aggression to destroy the WMDs in Iraq, which only resulted in the devastation of Iraq, in the ruining of its people, and wiping out of its culture.

    After the US missile assault on Syria, the Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti, lashed out at Trump's decision, which he defined as, "an extremely serious violation of international law."

    Llorenti reminded the Council of February 5th, 2003, when the then US secretary of State Colin Powell, "came to this room to present to us, according to his own words, convincing proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

    Incirlik NATO air base in Turkey near Syria (Photo: Andre Vltchek)

    Such views are not held in Iraq only; I encountered fairly similar logic and recollection of the events even in Turkey, from where a well-known columnist Feryal Çeviköz wrote to me:

    The real question is: "who orchestrated that chemical attack?" It seems that only the US could benefit from this chemical assault. The US had finally found the 'reason', the pretext for its direct attack against Syria. There were already many similar incidents in the region and in other parts of the world, and the screenplay is always the same. It seems that only the players, the actors keep changing.

    In Latin America, Russia, China, much of Africa and, of course, in the neighboring Iran, people are beginning to see clearly both the pattern and predictability of the Western foreign policy.

    A young prominent Iranian researcher, columnist and filmmaker, Hamed Ghashghavi, gave me his opinion on the recent developments:

    It seems to me that the US behaves like an injured wolf that is close to its death, but before vanishing is trying to hurt others. The more aggressively the US behaves, the closer, it appears to be at its end. The recent attack against Syria, whatever the reasons and consequences, has symbolically proven how and why the so-called US Empire is declining. What the US did is also sending a strong signal to Iran and its project of the military base near the Syrian town of Khmeimim, but it is also a message to an anti-Trump wing of neocons who have been accusing him of being too much 'pro-Putin' and 'pro-Assad'.

    What is now clearly detectable in the region is not just a condemnation of the US and Western actions, it is also a deep fatigue of having to endure the same type aggression which brings absolutely nothing except misery to the people of the Middle East and the world.

    In Syria, the sentiments are clear. My friend, a Syrian educator Ms. Fida Bashour summarized it all, I believe:

    I feel sad and worried. I want this war to finally stop, no blood any more, I want peace and to have my safe existence. I don't want others to interfere in our life. Why doesn't Trump let us live as we want to; why is he doing this to us?

    Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are revolutionary novel "Aurora" and two bestselling works of political non-fiction: " Exposing Lies Of The Empire " and " Fighting Against Western Imperialism " . View his other books here . Andre is making films for teleSUR and Al-Mayadeen. Watch Rwanda Gambit , his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo. After having lived in Latin America, Africa and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter .

    First published by NEO

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Putin Syria Chemical Attack Was 'False Flag,' More 'Provocations' Coming

    Notable quotes:
    "... Independent ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    At a Tuesday press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed last week's chemical weapons attack in the Idlib province of Syria was a "false flag" – a phony operation staged by enemies of Russia and Syria to discredit them. He said more such false flag operations were on the way.

    "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," said Putin, as reported by Russia's RT.com .

    "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq," Putin continued, referring to Italian President Sergio Mattarella, who appeared with him at the press conference in Moscow.

    "The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," Putin declared.

    According to RT.com, the Russian General Staff has prepared a report that claims "militants" among the Syrian rebellion are "transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria."

    "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," said Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy, head of operations for the General Staff.

    The Associated Press reports that Russia's General Staff has expressed a willingness to allow international inspectors to examine the Sharyat airbase in Syria for traces of chemical weapons, and offered to provide military security for the inspectors. Putin said he would appeal to the United Nations to investigate the incident.

    The UK Independent reports that Putin more specifically accused the United States of planning to drop chemical weapons on Damascus and then blame the incident on Assad, although it does not provide a translation of the Russian president's precise words to that effect.

    On Monday, Russia and Iran declared the United States "crossed red lines" by attacking Sharyat airbase, borrowing a phrase made infamous by former President Barack Obama. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has accused the Russians of either being "complicit" in the Syrian chemical weapons deployment, or "incompetent" for allowing it to happen. The Pentagon is investigating the possibility that Russia actually participated in the chemical weapons attack, and/or the bombing of a hospital where victims were receiving treatment afterward.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack Kills 100+ Children, Women ..."
    "... An MoA commentor reports that the group Nour al Din al Zenki which is is financed, armed and promoted by NATO, is responsible for this latest atrocity in Syria. IOW, another NATO war crime. ..."
    "... Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed. Quick, do an air lift of American cosmetics so that we can extend our concern / sarc ..."
    Apr 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    MoiAussie , April 17, 2017 at 7:57 am

    Al-Qaeda Suicide Attack Kills 100+ Children, Women

    An MoA commentor reports that the group Nour al Din al Zenki which is is financed, armed and promoted by NATO, is responsible for this latest atrocity in Syria. IOW, another NATO war crime.

    fresno dan , April 17, 2017 at 8:54 am

    MoiAussie
    April 17, 2017 at 7:57 am

    Apparently, we only care when "beautiful, beautiful babies" are killed. Quick, do an air lift of American cosmetics so that we can extend our concern / sarc

    mle detroit , April 17, 2017 at 9:31 am

    Good idea. But they gotta be cosmetics from Ivanka's brand.

    craazyboy , April 17, 2017 at 10:25 am

    They can get 'em on Overstock.com now! Just package 'em up on the pallets stacked with $100 bills and air drop them wherever we know there are friendly terrorists. It'll all work out. Helicopter money always does.

    [Apr 18, 2017] Blame Putin! scheme is much older then recent Presidential elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing. ..."
    "... Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died. ..."
    "... Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Andrew Watts , December 31, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    *I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to yesterday's hastily written comment on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment can be attributed to my gullibility.

    Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing.

    -The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil War.

    -The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch" Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later a cop in California.

    Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died.

    -Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil but doesn't blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if you ask me. *cough* A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings involves a former PLO turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh is was still in contact with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.

    Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.

    -The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.

    Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    nsa , April 16, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    @Willem Hendrik

    If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.

    Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold medal of international victimhood?

    And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?

    All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.

    Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?

    [Apr 17, 2017] Clinton was always a sleazy dealer on word of whom only fool can rely

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Agent76 , April 16, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT \n

    October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton

    Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework document on North Korea's nuclear program.

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=49319

    [Apr 17, 2017] What Would Korean War II Look Like? by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
    "... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
    "... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
    "... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
    "... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
    "... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
    "... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
    "... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
    "... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
    "... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
    "... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
    "... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
    "... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
    "... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
    "... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
    "... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
    "... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
    "... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
    "... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | unz.com
    Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.

    The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles. But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital, Beijing.

    China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and hard to identify and knock out.

    This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.

    A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan.

    North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.

    Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.

    US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military conscription might have to be re-introduced.

    Timur The Lame says: April 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.

    The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).

    The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing.

    " Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.

    Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?

    Cheers-

    Art , April 16, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT
    Who do we have to fear the most – Kim or Trump?

    Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.

    How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.

    It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."

    Sean , April 16, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
    North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder.

    History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT
    @bob sykes Any discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.

    China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese. If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.

    To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.

    Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside. It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.

    America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.

    We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.

    What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.

    {We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }

    Almost true.

    Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.

    Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.

    By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly ** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.

    So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).

    --
    * Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
    ** Heroic defense of Bastogne.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT
    @anon It's really China's problem.

    And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.

    A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.

    An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.

    The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.

    North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.}

    This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.

    Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.

    As to nukes.

    China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.

    First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
    First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
    First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.

    POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
    If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy generals.

    Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
    --
    * targeted deliberately: war crimes.

    denk , April 17, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
    '" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."

    With this porky pie,
    Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.

    And .
    With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
    Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.

    Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .

    B.S. --

    Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago.

    Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.

    As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe

    Joe Wong says: April 17, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT @Vendetta
    Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
    daniel le mouche , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT @Timur The Lame
    I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.

    While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.

    The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).

    The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct. With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really. It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."

    To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever....

    Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Trump Is Moving Full Speed Ahead in War in Yemen, Despite Massive Civilian Casualties

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.truth-out.org
    Since taking office, Trump has rapidly expanded US military operations in Yemen. Last month, the US reportedly launched more than 49 strikes across the country -- more strikes than the US has ever carried out in a single year in Yemen. The US has also resumed some weapons sales to the Saudis, after the transfers were frozen by President Obama amid concerns about mounting civilian casualties in Yemen. For more, we speak with longtime investigative reporter Allan Nairn.

    TRANSCRIPT

    AMY GOODMAN: With the attacks, from Syria to Mosul in Iraq to Yemen, it wasn't -- what? -- eight days before -- after Donald Trump was inaugurated that the US Navy SEAL strike happened in Yemen. Something like 25 civilians were killed, many of them children. And perhaps the reason we know about it is because a US Navy SEAL was killed. That US Navy SEAL's father, William Owens, refused to meet President Trump, who surprised Owens when he came to Dover Air Base with his daughter Ivanka, his son's body brought to the base. He was harshly critical of the raid. Mr. Owens said, "Why did he have to do this now, to move so quickly in his administration?" Can you talk about that first attack, if it was the first attack, and what it means to talk about these attacks as presidential initiation rites?

    ALLAN NAIRN: Well, first, the particulars of that attack, that attack was aimed to be targeting al-Qaeda, a local al-Qaeda affiliate. It's worth noting that in Syria many of the rebels, who the US has been backing and arming and training, often conduct joint operations with al-Nusra, the al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria. And, indeed, a good number of them have joined up with al-Nusra. But on this raid, it took place in a context of a broader war and a broader assault, which on -- on Yemen, on the Houthi armed rebel movement in Yemen, by Saudi Arabia. And in these raids, the Saudis are using US planes. They're using US bombs. There are actually US personnel sitting in the Saudi Air Force headquarters, helping them with targeting. And the Saudis are systematically targeting Yemeni civilians. After one particularly egregious and especially widely reported massacre on a funeral gathering, the US admonished the Saudis. They criticized them. They temporarily froze and pulled back a bit of their aid. But now, under Trump, again, it's full speed ahead with assaults on civilian targets by the Saudis in -- in Yemen.

    And if you look at the press, including outlets like MSNBC, various press outlets that are considered to be liberal, one of the main arguments they make is that a US action is good when it pleases the Saudis. They always -- there's this constant line of criticism, which has been going on for decades, criticism against US presidents who are considered to be too soft at a given moment. And that criticism is: You're letting down our Middle Eastern allies, i.e. you're letting down the Saudis. The journalists will say, "I've just been in the Middle East, and I've been talking to our allies there," i.e. the Saudis, the Gulf states, "and they're very unhappy, because they think the US is not showing enough credibility. We're letting them down" -- i.e. the US isn't being violent enough. And that's the context in which this attack on Yemen by the Special Forces took place.

    As to why Trump authorized it in that way, I think a very important motivating factor, that is really underestimated by people, especially scholars, is the extent to which, when you have power, when you're the king, a lot of the motivation for violence, for war, it's not just interest. A lot of the motivation is fun, is thrill, is getting a charge out of ordering violence, and thrilling the public, exciting the courtiers around you, exciting the press around you. The recent reaction to the Syria attack is a very good example of that. I think to really understand how big powers operate, when it comes to going out and killing people, I mean, don't just study their concrete interests, like, you know, mineral exports and geopolitics. Also study Shakespeare. Study the the whims of kings, because that's what a lot of it is about. And if you look back at the debates in the campaign between Clinton and Trump, when they were talking about the violent system, they they did not disagree at all about the US right to commit aggression, about the US right to kill civilians. What they did disagree about was how those decisions would be made. Clinton invoked the traditional establishment criteria that I discussed before of, yes, you can bomb, but you can only kill up to 25 civilians with your bombing run. Trump invoked a different standard, saying, "I'll attack whenever the hell I feel like it." Both of them allow the killing of civilians, which is a crime.

    AMY GOODMAN: And Trump saying, "I was just continuing what President Obama started"?

    ALLAN NAIRN: In that sense, Trump does have a point, because it was Obama who started the support of the Saudi attack on -- in Yemen and the general policy of US sending -- doing its own military-CIA strikes in Yemen. And, of course, US support for the Saudi order and dominance in the region and for their violence goes back for many decades. And it's also the case that Clinton would probably have done this strike on the Syria airfield, just as Trump did. In fact, a day or so before, she gave an interview to The New York Times where she was recommending strikes on the Syrian airfields.

    AMY GOODMAN: No, actually, the interview that Hillary Clinton did was with Nicholas Kristof, and it was in the Women in the World conference. It was several hours before the attack took place.

    ALLAN NAIRN: Just hours, uh-huh.

    AMY GOODMAN: And that video clip of her saying, "Why doesn't he bomb an airfield?" or "I would bomb an airfield," was played before the attack took place.

    ALLAN NAIRN: Yeah. In fact, come to think of it, the way Trump operates, maybe Trump saw that -- if that was publicly available --

    AMY GOODMAN: Yes.

    ALLAN NAIRN: -- maybe Trump saw that clip. That's exactly the kind of thing that would set him off, say, "Oh, my god. I've got to at least match her, and maybe top her." But this gets back to the more fundamental point that it's really important to understand, which is, US has this violent system, which is criminal, and it has had it for decades. It is willing to commit aggression and kill civilians in country after country after country. And all of those responsible for it should be judged by the same standards that we judge domestic killers. And by those standards, they should all be in prison, including the living US presidents, including Hillary Clinton.

    But Trump -- now, that all said, Trump makes it even worse. Trump is bringing in a doctrine and a group of people who are in the process of and are definitely going to commit even more killings of civilians, even more aggression. And that's why it was such -- one of many reasons why it was such a catastrophe that Trump and the radical-right Republicans won, because it will make it even worse. And the argument which you hear going around, especially in some circles on the left, that, "Oh, they're all bad. They're equally bad," it's insane, and it's irresponsible, given that now even more people are going to suffer as a result.

    AMY GOODMAN: Award-winning investigative journalist Allan Nairn. We'll be back with him in a minute, as he talks more about his assessment of the Trump presidency. Stay with us. This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source. Amy Goodman Amy Goodman is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on more than 1,100 public television and radio stations worldwide. Time Magazine named Democracy Now! its "Pick of the Podcasts," along with NBC's "Meet the Press."

    [Apr 17, 2017] Paul Craig Roberts It Has Become Embarrassing To Be An American

    Notable quotes:
    "... Authored by Paul Craig Roberts, ..."
    "... What were the lies used to justify bombing tribesmen in Pakistan, to bomb a new government in Yemen? No American knows or cares. Why the US violence against Somalia? Again, no Americans knows or cares. Or the morons saw a movie. ..."
    "... the Russians and Chinese, Iran and North Korea. ..."
    "... Did you know that Russia is so powerful and the NSA and CIA so weak and helpless that Russia can determine the outcome of US elections? You must know this, because this is all you have heard from the utterly corrupt Democratic Party, the CIA, the FBI, the Amerian whore media, and the morons who listen to CNN, MSNBC, NPR or read the New York Times and Washington Post. ..."
    "... Did you know that the president of Russia, which world polls show is the most respected leader in the world, is, according to Hillary Clinton "the new Hitler"? ..."
    "... Did you know that the most respected leader in the world, Vladimir Putin, is a Mafia don, a thug, a tarantula at the center of a spy web, according to members of the US government who are so stupid that they cannot even spell their own names? ..."
    "... Did you know that Putin, who has refrained from responding aggressively to US provocations, not out of fear, but out of respect for human life, is said to be hellbent on reconstructing the Soviet Empire? ..."
    "... What are we to do, what is the world to do, when we have utter morons as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as President of the US, as National Security Adviser, as Secretary of Defense, as Secretary of State, as US Ambassador to the UN, as editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, MSNBC? How can there be any intelligence when only morons are in charge? ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Paul Craig Roberts,

    It has become embarrassing to be an American. Our country has had four war criminal presidents in succession. Clinton twice launched military attacks on Serbia, ordering NATO to bomb the former Yugoslavia twice, both in 1995 and in 1999, so that gives Bill two war crimes. George W. Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and attacked provinces of Pakistan and Yemen from the air. That comes to four war crimes for Bush. Obama used NATO to destroy Libya and sent mercenaries to destroy Syria, thereby commiting two war crimes. Trump attacked Syria with US forces, thereby becoming a war criminal early in his regime.

    To the extent that the UN participated in these war crimes along with Washington's European, Canadian and Australian vassals, all are guilty of war crimes. Perhaps the UN itself should be arraigned before the War Crimes Tribunal along with the EU, US, Australia and Canada.

    Quite a record. Western Civilization, if civilization it is, is the greatest committer of war crimes in human history.

    And there are other crimes-Somalia, and Obama's coups against Honduras and Ukraine and Washington's ongoing attempts to overthrow the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia. Washington wants to overthrow Ecuador in order to grab and torture Julian Assange, the world's leading democrat.

    These war crimes committed by four US presidents caused millions of civilian deaths and injuries and dispossessed and dislocated millions of peoples, who have now arrived as refugees in Europe, UK, US, Canada, and Australia, bringing their problems with them, some of which become problerms for Europeans, such as gang rapes.

    What is the reason for all the death and destruction and the flooding of the West with refugees from the West's naked violence? We don't know. We are told lies: Saddam Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction," which the US government knew for an absolute fact did not exist. "Assad's use of chemical weapons," an obvious, blatant lie. "Iranian nukes," another blatant lie. The lies about Gaddafi in Libya are so absurd that it is pointless to repeat them.

    What were the lies used to justify bombing tribesmen in Pakistan, to bomb a new government in Yemen? No American knows or cares. Why the US violence against Somalia? Again, no Americans knows or cares. Or the morons saw a movie.

    Violence for its own sake. That is what America has become.

    Indeed, violence is what America is. There is nothing else there. Violence is the heart of America.

    Consider not only the bombings and destruction of countries, but also the endless gratuitous, outrageous police violence against US citizens. If anyone should be disarmed, it is the US police. The police commit more "gun violence" than anyone else, and unlike drug gangs fighting one another for territory, police violence has no other reason than the love of committing violence against other humans. The American police even shoot down 12-year old American kids prior to asking any question, especially if they are black.

    Violence is America. America is violence. The moronic liberals blame it on gun owners, but it is always the government that is the source of violence. That is the reason our Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment. It is not gun owners who have destroyed in whole or part eight countries. It is the armed-at-taxpayer-expense US government that commits the violence.

    America's lust for violence is now bringing the Washington morons up against people who can commit violence back: the Russians and Chinese, Iran and North Korea.

    Beginning with the Clinton moron every US government has broken or withdrawn from agreements with Russia, agreements that were made in order to reduce tensions and the risk of thermo-nuclear war. Washington initially covered its aggressive steps toward Russia with lies, such as ABM missile sites on Russia's border are there to protect Europe from (non-existent) Iranian nuclear ICBMs.

    The Obama regime still told lies but escalated to false charges against Russia and Russia's president in order to build tensions between nuclear powers, the antithesis of Ronald Reagan's policy. Yet moronic liberals love Obama and hate Reagan.

    Did you know that Russia is so powerful and the NSA and CIA so weak and helpless that Russia can determine the outcome of US elections? You must know this, because this is all you have heard from the utterly corrupt Democratic Party, the CIA, the FBI, the Amerian whore media, and the morons who listen to CNN, MSNBC, NPR or read the New York Times and Washington Post.

    Surely you have heard at least one thousand times that Russia invaded Ukraine; yet Washington's puppet still sits in Kiev. One doesn't have to have an IQ above 90 to understand that if Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine would not still be there.

    Did you know that the president of Russia, which world polls show is the most respected leader in the world, is, according to Hillary Clinton "the new Hitler"?

    Did you know that the most respected leader in the world, Vladimir Putin, is a Mafia don, a thug, a tarantula at the center of a spy web, according to members of the US government who are so stupid that they cannot even spell their own names?

    Did you know that Putin, who has refrained from responding aggressively to US provocations, not out of fear, but out of respect for human life, is said to be hellbent on reconstructing the Soviet Empire? Yet, when Putin sent a Russian force against the US and Israeli trained and supplied Georgian army that Washington sent to attack South Ossetia, the Russian Army conquered Georgia in five hours; yet withdrew after teaching the morons the lesson. If Putin wanted to reconstruct the Russian Empire, why didn't he keep Georgia, a Russian province for 300 years prior to Washington's breakup of the Russian Empire when the Soviet Union collapsed? Washington was powerless to do anything had Putin declared Georgia to be again part of Russia.

    And now we have the embarrassment of Trump's CIA director, Mike Pompeo, possibly the most stupid person in America. Here we have a moron of the lowest grade. I am not sure there is any IQ there at all. Possibly it reads zero.

    This moron, if he qualifies to that level, which I doubt, has accused Julian Assange, the world's Premier Journalist, the person who more than anyone represents the First Amendment of the US Constitution, of being a demon who sides with dictators and endangers the security of American hegemony with the help of Russia. All because Wilileaks publishes material from official sources revealing the criminal behavior of the US government. Wikileaks doesn't steal the documents. The documents are leaked to Wikileaks by whistleblowers who cannot tolerate the immorality and lies of the US government.

    Anyone who tells the truth is by definition against the United States of America. And the moron Pompeo intends to get them.

    When I first read Pompeo's accusation against Assange, I thought it had to be a joke. The CIA director wants to revoke the First Amendment. But the moron Pompeo actually said it. https://www.rt.com/usa/384667-cia-assange-wikileaks-critisize/

    What are we to do, what is the world to do, when we have utter morons as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as President of the US, as National Security Adviser, as Secretary of Defense, as Secretary of State, as US Ambassador to the UN, as editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NPR, MSNBC? How can there be any intelligence when only morons are in charge?

    Stupid is as stupid does. The Chinese government has said that the moronic Americans could attack North Korea at any moment. A large US fleet is heading to North Korea. North Korea apparently now has nuclear weapons. One North Korean nuclear weapon can wipe out the entirety of the US fleet. Why is Washington inviting this outcome? The only possible answer is moronic stupidity.

    North Korea is not bothering anyone. Why is Washington picking on North Korea? Does Washington want war with China? In which case, is Washinton kissing off the West Coast of the US? Why does the West Coast support policies that imply the demise of the West Coast of the US? Do the morons on the West Coast think that the US can initiate war with China, or North Korea, without any consequesnces to the West Coast? Are even Amerians this utterly stupid?

    China or Russia individually can wipe out the US. Together they can make North America uninhabitalbe until the end of time. Why are the Washington morons provoking powerful nuclear powers? Do the Washington morons think Russia and China will submit to threats?

    The answer is: Washington is a collection of morons, people stupid below the meaning of stupid. People so far outside of reality that they imagine that their hubris and arrogance elevates them above reality.

    When the first Satan 2 hits Washington, the greatest collection of morons in the world will cease to exist.

    The world will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

    Bring it on! Come on morons, eliminate yourselves! The rest of us cannot wait.

    HardAssets -> Manthong , Apr 16, 2017 11:45 PM

    PCR has the southern gentleman's understanding of the grip of New England Puritan arrogance and hypocrisy on this nation. When you think you are 'the shining city on the hill' you can do no wrong. You think you're bringing 'democracy' to the world and G-d has 'shed his grace on thee'. This is an old problem & leading Americans wrote & spoke on it, including Thomas Jefferson.

    Never One Roach -> HardAssets , Apr 17, 2017 12:04 AM

    Profiteers and crooks run DC; Hillary Clinton is a good example.

    While middle class Americans suffer, DC politicans line thier pockets with Loot and fail to be responsible leaders.

    Radical Marijuana -> buckstopshere , Apr 16, 2017 10:43 PM

    "People so far outside of reality that they imagine that their hubris and arrogance elevates them above reality."

    Globalized Neolithic Civilization, that the USA became the "leader" of, is the maximizing expression of the abilities to back up more or less legalized lies with legalized violence, despite that doing so never stops those lies from still being false ... In general, the overall situation is FAR WORSE than the superficially correct analysis provided by Paul Craig Roberts!

    Indeed, what is "Easter," but the metaphorical expression of yet another manifestation of the criminal insanities which follow from the excessive successfulness from being able to back up lies with violence, emerging out of the deep history of Neolithic Civilization?

    Meanwhile, the entire political economy is almost totally based on public governments enforcing frauds by private banks, while it, therefore, has become politically impossible to prevent those vicious spirals of the funding of political processes from automatically becoming worse, faster, at about an exponential rate, due to prodigious progress in physical science and technology being channeled through Civilization based on the abilities to back up lies with violence, despite that being able to do so results in Civilization becoming more and more psychotic, at about an exponential rate:

    "Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive mad."

    Archive_file , Apr 16, 2017 10:30 PM

    Critical theory (Henry A. Gireoux)

    https://youtu.be/F_ayf-IEoZ4

    redc1c4 , Apr 16, 2017 10:33 PM

    DC isn't America...

    neither is new Yak Shitty or Lost Angels, Frisco or any of the others.

    #HTH.

    Giant Meteor -> flaminratzazz , Apr 16, 2017 10:59 PM

    Paul is a bit heated. I thought this one of his best.

    Rebel yell -> bpj , Apr 16, 2017 11:39 PM

    America had 44,000 suicides in 2014, 16,000 homicides, 10,000 heroin overdoses, and 10,000 prescription opioids overdoses., and one percent of our population is in the prison industrial complex, with the most corrupt criminals in our government, banking system, and mic roaming freely and committing more atrocities every day. Glad it's working out for ya! https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/

    silverer , Apr 16, 2017 11:52 PM

    Wow. I've never seen Paul this pissed. I guess he, along with a lot of other Americans, feel a certain helplessness to counter the insane policies and decisions coming from these people who have built their false power on the backs of the working people. He's right. If the US gets nuked, the rest of the world will breathe a sigh of relief. Imagine if the tables were turned, and our country looked like Libya, Iraq, Syria, Bosnia from being bombed, day in and day out. And wondering if you'd be alive the next day because you weren't in the right place at the right time. Way overboard with the empire crap, the US is.

    flaminratzazz -> Ms No , Apr 17, 2017 1:06 AM

    my thoughts is that last century's nukes are big ponderous dinosaurs that wont get 5000 feet before the new and improved anti missiles kill them. or the satellites.. I have no doubt that all the land based ICBMs are worthless.

    Maybe we could get a few through from our subs but that too is speculation..

    Years ago my brother was in the navy and his job was to fly around in an awacs type plane and intercept and decode Russian messages and he told me that one of the messages he decoded was the locations of every Trident in our fleet.

    Ms No -> flaminratzazz , Apr 17, 2017 1:12 AM

    It seems like bullies always go down the same way. They rule by intimidation and then when they get challenged and eventually wounded everybody sees that they are weak and can/should be beaten. They then get throttled because there is blood in the water. We don't seem to far off from that.

    Joe A , Apr 17, 2017 1:40 AM

    America is Rome. Modeled after the old Rome including political/legal structure, architecture and symbols. New Rome same as the old Rome except the weaponry is more powerful.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Trump, A Symptom Of What A Radical Message From a Half-Century Ago

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the American system we live under can create this atrocity, there must be something wrong with the whole thing. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.truth-out.org
    You could hear the deep sadness in the preacher's voice as he named "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government." With those words, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., launched a scathing indictment of America's war in Vietnam. It was April 4, 1967.

    That first antiwar sermon of his seemed to signal a new high tide of opposition to a brutal set of American policies in Southeast Asia. Just 11 days later, unexpectedly large crowds would come out in New York and San Francisco for the first truly massive antiwar rallies. Back then, a protest of at least a quarter of a million seemed yuge .

    King signaled another turning point when he concluded his speech by bringing up "something even more disturbing" -- something that would deeply disturb the developing antiwar movement as well. "The war in Vietnam," he said, "is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit."

    Many of those who gathered at antiwar rallies days later were already beginning to suspect the same thing. Even if they could actually force their government to end its war in Vietnam, they would be healing only a symptom of a far more profound illness. With that realization came a shift in consciousness, the clearest sign of which could be found in the sizeable contingent of countercultural hippies who began joining those protests. While antiwar radicals were challenging the unjust political and military policies of their government, the counterculturists were focused on something bigger: trying to revolutionize the whole fabric of American society.

    Why recall this history exactly 50 years later, in the age of Donald Trump? Curiously enough, King offered at least a partial answer to that question in his 1967 warning about the deeper malady. "If we ignore this sobering reality," he said, "we will find ourselves... marching... and attending rallies without end." The alternative? "We as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values."

    Like many of my generation, I feel as if, in lieu of that radical revolution, I have indeed been marching and attending rallies for the last half-century, even if there were also long fallow periods of inactivity. (In those quiet times, of course, there was always organizing and activism going on behind the scenes, preparing for the next wave of marches and demonstrations in response to the next set of obvious outrages.)

    If the arc of history bends toward justice, as King claimed , it's been a strange journey, a bizarre twisting and turning as if we were all on some crazed roller-coaster ride.

    The Trump era already seems like the most bizarre twist of all, leaving us little choice but to march and rally at a quickening pace for years to come. A radical revolution in values? Unless you're thinking of Trump's plutocrats and environment wreckers, not so much. If anything, the nation once again finds itself facing an exaggerated symptom of a far deeper malady. Perhaps one day, like the antiwar protestors of 1967, anti-Trump protestors will say: If the American system we live under can create this atrocity, there must be something wrong with the whole thing.

    But that's the future. At present, the resistance movement, though as unexpectedly large as the movement of 1967, is still focused mainly on symptoms, the expanding list of inhumane 1% policies the Republicans (themselves in chaos) are preparing to foist on the nation. Yet to come up are the crucial questions: What's wrong with our system? How could it produce a President Trump, a Republican hegemony, and the society-wrecking policies that go with them both? What would a radically new direction mean and how would we head there?

    In 1967, antiwar activists were groping their way toward answers to similar questions. At least we have one advantage. We can look back at their answers and use them to help make sense of our own situation. As it happens, theirs are still depressingly relevant because the systemic malady that produced the Vietnam War is a close cousin to the one that has now given us President Trump.

    Challenging the Deeper Malady

    The Sixties spawned many analyses of the ills of the American system. The ones that marked that era as revolutionary concluded that the heart of the problem was a distinctive mode of consciousness -- a way of seeing, experiencing, interpreting, and being in the world. Political and cultural radicals converged, as historian Todd Gitlin concluded, in their demand for a transformation of "national if not global (or cosmic) consciousness."

    Nor was such a system uniquely American, they discovered. It was nothing less than the hallmark of Western modernity.

    In exploring the nature of that "far deeper malady," Martin Luther King, for instance, turned to the European philosopher Martin Buber, who found the root of that consciousness in modernity's "I-It" attitude. From early childhood, he suggested, we learn to see other people as mere objects ("its") with no inherent relation to us. In the process, we easily lose sight of their full humanity. That, in turn, allows us free rein to manipulate others (or as in Vietnam simply destroy them) for our own imagined benefit.

    King particularly decried such dehumanization as it played itself out in American racism: "Segregation substitutes an 'I-it' relationship for the 'I-thou' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things." But he condemned it no less strongly in the economic sphere, where it affected people of all races. "The profit motive, when it is the sole basis of an economic system," he said, "encourages a cutthroat competition and selfish ambition that inspire men to be more I-centered than thou-centered... Capitalism fails to realize that life is social."

    Another influential thinker of that era was a German-American philosopher, Herbert Marcuse . (Some radicals even marched in rallies carrying signs reading "Marx, Mao, Marcuse.") For him, the dehumanization of modernity was rooted in the way science and technology led us to view nature as a mere collection of "things" having no inherent relation to us -- things to be analyzed, controlled, and if necessary destroyed for our own benefit.

    Capitalists use technology, he explained, to build machines that take charge both of the workers who run them and of aspects of the natural world. The capitalists then treat those workers as so many things, not people. And the same hierarchy -- boss up here, bossed down there -- shows up at every level of society from the nuclear family to the international family of nations (with its nuclear arsenals). In a society riddled with structures of domination, it was no accident that the US was pouring so much lethal effort into devastating Vietnam.

    As Marcuse saw it, however, the worst trick those bosses play on us is to manipulate our consciousness, to seduce us into thinking that the whole system makes sense and is for our own good. When those machines are cranking out products that make workers' lives more comfortable, most of them are willing to embrace and perpetuate a system that treats them as dominated objects.

    Marcuse would not have been surprised to see so many workers voting for Donald Trump, a candidate who built his campaign on promises of ever more intensified domination -- of marginalized people at home, of " bad hombres " needing to be destroyed abroad, and of course, of nature itself, especially in the form of fossil fuels on a planet where the very processes he championed ensured a future of utter devastation.

    One explanation for the electoral success of Trump was the way he appealed to heartland white working-class voters who saw their standard of living and sense of social status steadily eroding. Living in a world in which hierarchy and domination are taken for granted, it's hardly surprising that many of them took it for granted as well that the only choice available was either to be a dominator or to be dominated. Vote for me, the billionaire businessman (famed for the phrase "You're fired!") implicitly promised and you, too, will be one of the dominators. Vote against me and you're doomed to remain among the dominated. Like so many other tricks of the system, this one defied reality but worked anyway.

    Many Trump voters who bought into the system will find themselves facing even harsher domination by the 1%. And as the Trumpian fantasy of man dominating nature triggers inevitable twenty-first-century blowback on a planetary scale, count on growing environmental and social disasters to bring disproportionate pain to those already suffering most under the present system. In every arena, as Marcuse explained back in the 1960s, the system of hierarchy and domination remains self-perpetuating and self-escalating.

    "The Long and Bitter but Beautiful Struggle for a New World"

    What's the remedy for this malady, now as lethally obvious at home as it once was in Vietnam?

    "The end of domination [is] the only truly revolutionary exigency," Marcuse wrote. True freedom, he thought, means freeing humanity from the hierarchical system that locks us into the daily struggle to earn a living by selling our labor. Freedom means liberating our consciousness to search for our own goals and being able to pursue them freely. In Martin Luther King's words, freedom is "the opportunity to fulfill my total capacity untrammeled by any artificial barrier."

    How to put an end not only to America's war in Vietnam, but to a whole culture built on domination? King's answer on that April 4th was deceptively simple: "Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door... The first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."

    The simplicity in that statement was deceptive because love is itself such a complicated word. King often explained that the Greeks had three words for love: eros (aesthetic or romantic love), philia (friendship), and agape (self-sacrificing devotion to others). He left no doubt that he considered agape far superior to the other two.

    The emerging counterculture of those years certainly agreed with him on the centrality of love to human liberation. After all, it was "the love generation." But its mantra -- "If it feels good, do it" -- made King's rejection of eros in the name of self-negating agape a non-starter for them.

    King, however, offered another view of love, which was far more congenial to the counterculture. Love unites whatever is separated, he preached. This is the kind of love that God uses in his work. We, in turn, are always called upon to imitate God and so to transform our society into what King called a "beloved community."

    Though few people at the time made the connection, King's Christian understanding of love was strikingly similar to Marcuse's secular view of erotic love . Marcuse saw eros as the fulfillment of desire. He also saw it as anything but selfish, since it flows from what Freud called the id, which always wants to abolish ego boundaries and recover that sense of oneness with everything we all had as infants.

    When we experience anyone or anything erotically, we feel that we are inherently interconnected, "tied together in a single garment of destiny," as King so eloquently put it. When boundaries and separation dissolve, there can be no question of hierarchy or domination.

    Every moment that hints at such unification brings us pleasure. In a revolutionary society that eschews structures of domination for the ideal of unification, all policies are geared toward creating more moments of unity and pleasure.

    Think of this as the deep-thought revolution of the Sixties: radically transformed minds would create a radically transformed society. Revolutionaries of that time were, in fact, trying to wage the very utopian struggle that King summoned all Americans to in his April 4th speech, "the long and bitter but beautiful struggle for a new world."

    Fifty Years Later: The Thread That Binds

    At this very moment 50 years ago, a movement resisting a brutal war of domination in a distant land was giving birth to a movement calling for the creation of a new consciousness to heal our ailing society. Will the resistance movement of 2017 head in a similar direction?

    At first glance, it seems unlikely. After all, ever since the Vietnam War ended, progressives have had a tendency to focus on single issues of injustice or laundry lists of problems. They have rarely imagined the American system as anything more than a collection of wrong-headed policies and wrong-hearted politicians. In addition, after years of resisting the right wing as it won victory after victory, and of watching the Democrats morph into a neoliberal crew and then into a failing party with its own dreary laundry lists of issues and personalities, the capacity to hope for fundamental change may have gone the way of Herbert Marcuse and Martin Luther King.

    Still, for those looking hard, a thread of hope exists. Today's marches, rallies, and town halls are packed with veterans of the Sixties who can remember, if we try, what it felt like to believe we were fighting not only to stop a war but to start a revolution in consciousness. No question about it, we made plenty of mistakes back then. Now, with so much more experience (however grim) in our memory banks, perhaps we might develop more flexible strategies and a certain faith in taking a more patient, long-term approach to organizing for change.

    Don't forget as well that, whatever our failings and the failings of other past movements, we also have a deep foundation of victories (along with defeats) to build on. No, there was no full-scale revolution in our society -- no surprise there. But in so many facets of our world, advances happened nonetheless. Think of how, in those 50 years just past, views on diversity, social equality, the environment, healthcare, and so many other issues, which once existed only on the fringes of our world, have become thoroughly mainstream . Taken as a whole, they represent a partial but still profound and significant set of changes in American consciousness.

    Of course, the Sixties not only can't be resurrected, but shouldn't be. (After all, it should never be forgotten that what they led to wasn't a dreamed of new society but the "Reagan revolution," as the arc of justice took the first of its many grim twists and turns.) At best, the Sixties critique of the system would have to be updated to include many new developments.

    Even the methods of those Sixties radicals would need major revisions, given that our world, especially of communication, now relies so heavily on blindingly fast changes in technology. But every time we log onto the Internet and browse the web, it should remind us that -- shades of the past -- across this embattled Earth of ours, we're all tied together in a single worldwide web of relations and of destiny. It's either going to be one for all and all for one, or it's going to be none for 7.4 billion on a planet heading for hell.

    Today is different, too, because our movement was not born out of protest against an odious policy, but against an odious mindset embodied in a deplorable person who nonetheless managed to take the Oval Office. He's so obviously a symptom of something larger and deeper that perhaps the protesters of this generation will grasp more quickly than the radicals of the Vietnam era that America's underlying disease is a destructive mode of consciousness (and not just a bad combover).

    The move from resisting individual policies to transforming American consciousness may already have begun in small ways. After all, "love trumps hate" has become the most common slogan of the progressive movement. And the word love is being heard in hard-edged political discourse, not only on the left , but among mainstream political voices like Van Jones and Cory Booker . Once again, there is even talk of " revolutionary love ."

    Of course, the specific policies of the Republicans and this president (including his developing war policies ) must be resisted and the bleeding of the immediate moment staunched. Yet the urgent question of the late 1960s remains: What can be done when there are so many fronts on which to struggle and the entire system demands constant vigilant attention? In the age of a president who regularly sucks all the air out of the room, how do we even talk about all of this without being overwhelmed?

    In many ways, the current wave of regressive change and increasing chaos in Washington should be treated as a caricature of the system that we all have been living under for so long. Turn to that broader dimension and the quest for a new consciousness may prove the thread that, though hardly noticed, already ties together the many facets of the developing resistance movement.

    The largest mobilization for progressive politics since the Vietnam era offers a unique opportunity to go beyond simply treating symptoms and start offering cures for the underlying illness. If this opportunity is missed, versions of the same symptoms are likely to recur, while unpredictable new ones will undoubtedly emerge for the next 50 years, and as Martin Luther King predicted, we will go on marching without end. Surely we deserve a better future and a better fate. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here .

    Ira Chernus Ira Chernus is a professor emeritus of religious studies at the University of Colorado and author of MythicAmerica: Essays . He blogs at mythicamerica.us , hosted by History News Network .

    Related Stories Trump Is Moving "Full Speed Ahead" in War in Yemen, Despite Massive Civilian Casualties By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now! | Video Interview Trump Tees Off on Syria By Matt Bors, Universal Uclick | Cartoon Trump Says He'll Combat the Opioid Crisis, but His Agenda Could Make It Worse By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | News Analysis

    [Apr 17, 2017] What Would Korean War II Look Like? by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
    "... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
    "... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
    "... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
    "... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
    "... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
    "... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
    "... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
    "... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
    "... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
    "... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
    "... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
    "... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
    "... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
    "... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
    "... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
    "... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
    "... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
    "... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | unz.com
    Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.

    The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles. But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital, Beijing.

    China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and hard to identify and knock out.

    This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.

    A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan.

    North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.

    Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.

    US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military conscription might have to be re-introduced.

    Timur The Lame says: April 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.

    The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).

    The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing.

    " Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.

    Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?

    Cheers-

    Art , April 16, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT
    Who do we have to fear the most – Kim or Trump?

    Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.

    How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.

    It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."

    Sean , April 16, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
    North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder.

    History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT
    @bob sykes Any discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.

    China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese. If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.

    To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.

    Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside. It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.

    America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.

    We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.

    What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.

    {We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }

    Almost true.

    Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.

    Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.

    By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly ** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.

    So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).

    --
    * Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
    ** Heroic defense of Bastogne.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT
    @anon It's really China's problem.

    And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.

    A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.

    An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.

    The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.

    North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.}

    This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.

    Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.

    As to nukes.

    China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.

    First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
    First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
    First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.

    POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
    If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy generals.

    Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
    --
    * targeted deliberately: war crimes.

    denk , April 17, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
    '" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."

    With this porky pie,
    Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.

    And .
    With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
    Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.

    Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .

    B.S. --

    Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago.

    Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.

    As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe

    Joe Wong says: April 17, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT @Vendetta
    Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
    daniel le mouche , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT @Timur The Lame
    I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.

    While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.

    The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).

    The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct. With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really. It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."

    To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever....

    Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.unz.com

    nsa , April 16, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    @Willem Hendrik

    If there were ever a Just Cause for the Yanks to invade and bring democracy somewhere, it would be North Korea. The horrors that generations of North Koreans in concentration camps are enduring, would even make the holo-jews cringe.

    Then again, is Israel ready to take a second row seat on the holocaust narrative and let the North Koreans take the gold medal of international victimhood?

    And what do you do with millions of people coping with culture shock, paranoia, etc.? And, last but not least, who would make our clothing for 5 cents a piece?

    All in all. I do not think the Israeli's would let the USA attack North Korea.

    Zero chance of any attack on Korea beyond a prearranged choreographed pinprick. The explanation is simple: nothing in it for the Jooies and Izzies who worked overtime to install a US government of the jooies, by the jooies, for the jooies. Why would they waste their satrap's assets when they could be used on Iran?

    [Apr 17, 2017] What Would Korean War II Look Like? by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
    "... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
    "... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
    "... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
    "... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
    "... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
    "... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
    "... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
    "... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
    "... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
    "... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
    "... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
    "... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
    "... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
    "... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
    "... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
    "... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
    "... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
    "... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | unz.com
    Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.

    The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles. But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital, Beijing.

    China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and hard to identify and knock out.

    This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.

    A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan.

    North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.

    Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.

    US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military conscription might have to be re-introduced.

    Timur The Lame says: April 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.

    The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).

    The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing.

    " Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.

    Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?

    Cheers-

    Art , April 16, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT
    Who do we have to fear the most – Kim or Trump?

    Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.

    How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.

    It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."

    Sean , April 16, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
    North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder.

    History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT
    @bob sykes Any discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.

    China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese. If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.

    To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.

    Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside. It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.

    America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.

    We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.

    What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.

    {We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }

    Almost true.

    Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.

    Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.

    By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly ** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.

    So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).

    --
    * Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
    ** Heroic defense of Bastogne.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT
    @anon It's really China's problem.

    And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.

    A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.

    An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.

    The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.

    North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.}

    This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.

    Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.

    As to nukes.

    China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.

    First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
    First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
    First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.

    POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
    If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy generals.

    Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
    --
    * targeted deliberately: war crimes.

    denk , April 17, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
    '" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."

    With this porky pie,
    Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.

    And .
    With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
    Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.

    Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .

    B.S. --

    Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago.

    Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.

    As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe

    Joe Wong says: April 17, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT @Vendetta
    Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
    daniel le mouche , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT @Timur The Lame
    I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.

    While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.

    The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).

    The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct. With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really. It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."

    To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever....

    Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it.

    [Apr 17, 2017] US Attack on Syria Cements Kremlins Embrace of Assad

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration to end the conflict on his terms.

    The solidarity with Damascus is likely to cause problems for Russia in the long run, analysts said, although Mr. Putin probably cannot be persuaded to loosen his embrace any time soon.

    The Russian government often takes its time to react to major world events, but the Kremlin issued a prompt statement early Friday castigating the United States for the missile strike on Al Shayrat airfield in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack.

    The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed to strengthen Syria's air defense systems, sent a frigate on a port call and froze an agreement with the United States to coordinate activity in Syrian air space.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Why North Korea Needs Nukes - And How To End That

    Notable quotes:
    "... Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?! ..."
    "... The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie. ..."
    "... I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed. ..."
    "... The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies. ..."
    "... This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. ..."
    "... No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did) ..."
    "... There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week. ..."
    "... China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves. ..."
    "... I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up. ..."
    "... It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything. ..."
    "... If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind. ..."
    "... China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do. ..."
    "... Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc. ..."
    "... why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down.. ..."
    "... This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true. ..."
    "... Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting. ..."
    "... NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse. ..."
    "... Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie. ..."
    "... One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area. ..."
    "... I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop. ..."
    "... This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war. ..."
    "... Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder? ..."
    "... At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China. ..."
    "... Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead. ..."
    "... Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo. ..."
    "... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
    "... The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans." ..."
    "... Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed. ..."
    "... The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants. ..."
    "... The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people. ..."
    "... The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician. ..."
    "... From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. ..."
    "... North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated. ..."
    "... If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ? ..."
    "... IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;) ..."
    "... Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ... ..."
    "... "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted. ..."
    "... Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ..."
    "... Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with. ..."
    "... Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ? ..."
    "... I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality. ..."
    "... ...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy... ..."
    "... "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0 ..."
    "... China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly. ..."
    "... US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify. ..."
    "... It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? ..."
    "... Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before. ..."
    "... Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that. ..."
    "... "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained. ..."
    "... I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all. ..."
    "... This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening. ..."
    "... A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire. ..."
    "... In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation. ..."
    "... it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa. ..."
    "... "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track. ..."
    "... Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today. ..."
    "... Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ ..."
    "... If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot. ..."
    "... The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed. ..."
    "... we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/ ..."
    "... Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff ..."
    "... A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent). ..."
    "... ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way). ..."
    "... Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force. ..."
    "... The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South. ..."
    "... As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea. ..."
    "... The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign. ..."
    "... South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM. ..."
    "... who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash. ..."
    "... The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea. ..."
    "... South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional. ..."
    "... Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation. ..."
    "... "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers. ..."
    "... Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid! ..."
    "... According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together. ..."
    "... This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook. ..."
    "... I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though. ..."
    "... What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on? ..."
    "... Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3. ..."
    "... Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification. ..."
    "... Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 9:18:34 AM | 1

    Isnt it amazing, the media in the west will always (ALWAYS!) be there for western nations when they want to wage a war, year after year. And then they say that we, who protest and expose them we are somehow the propagandists and disinformation agents?!

    As b show, North Korea is the rational, but no one in our "free" western media brings these fact up.

    No wonder western populations dont have any faith in their states and media.

    I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed away apparently..

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 9:30:57 AM | 2
    Bravo b. Bravo.

    Another key consideration from a strategic military perspective, re the massive extensive military 'exercises' by US/SK annually is such can and have been used historically in war to create a sense of routine & normalcy, so if the Nth should be complacent, and its been going on for decades, a surprise attack can be launched and have devastating effects, even thought the Nth is on 'annual' 'alert'.

    Maintaining heightened readiness, to Stand To! , stand ready for an attack, especially daily before dawn and prior to & after sunset, bayonets fixed, eye-peeled, adrenaline pumping, day after day, when the extended 'exercises' run, year after year after year is very difficult psychologically for the troops involved, corrosive of morale and discipline, and the Empire is very cognizant of this indeed.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 9:50:19 AM | 3
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 9:18:34 AM | 1

    I really hope North Korea put an end to this by standing tall, the pathetic China have backed away apparently..

    China doesn't have the option of backing away because a North Korea threatened by AmeriKKKa is also a China threatened by AmeriKKKa. I hope Trump knows what he's doing because the Chinese most certainly do know what they're doing.

    Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4
    Thank you, b!

    The pressure to capitulate to the US government on this issue is immense. The propaganda relentless. For over 64 years the American people have been living the Big Lie.

    The oozing sore of a Cold War that never ended, that was really a Hot War for millions, now threatens to metastasize into Total War. I cannot see how this ends well for any of us, mainly due to the intransigence and irrationality of the US ruling class, who do not care how much blood they shed.

    BRF | Apr 14, 2017 10:07:06 AM | 5
    The USA as representing western elites have never signed off on the Korean War as a truce and cessation of hostilities but not a peace treaty is the current situation. This war continues and is being pursued by other means, mainly financial and with sanctions, by the west and its South Korean proxies.

    The imposition of a state of tension by the west is all the west seems capable of with the result in the current situation and any time a solution is proposed that could lead to a lessening of tensions the west either sabotages or outright rejects the initiative.

    This on going policy by the west is of course aimed at its geo-political adversaries in China and Russia as allies of the North Korean nation. The only fix that I can see is an economic collapse in the west that leads to a pull back from western imperial outposts as they become too expensive to maintain. This can only take place with the demise of the Federal Reserve Note (USD) as the world reserve currency which is printable in any amount the western elites desire in maintaining their grip and domination through imperial dictate over the rest of the world. End this financial death grip and the rest follows very very quickly.

    Mark Stoval | Apr 14, 2017 10:11:29 AM | 6
    No small country is safe from the evil empire (USA) if they don't have nuclear weapons. Witness what happened to Iraq (and others) who had no weapons of mass destruction. (even though USA claimed they did)

    The USA has always believed the myth that WW2 saved the economy from the Great Depression and that the country would have slide back into depression without a war to fight --- hence the cold war and all the CIA wars ever since. Then came the "destroy the middle east" for the sake of Israel. (or oil or whatever)

    The USA remains today the greatest impediment to world peace that there is. The USA may set off nuclear war and the destruction of all civilization at some point.

    God help us all.

    stumpy | Apr 14, 2017 10:13:43 AM | 7
    Dead on, b.

    If you parse Obama's Nobel prize acceptance speech he hints at the theoretical model he used to cut off chances for peace anywhere. With China's premiere in the room, no less.

    Let me also say this: the promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

    Effing liar. America offers the choice of an open door to North Korea? Ha. We like our indignation without cream and sugar, to maximize purity.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:15:53 AM | 8
    Hoarsewhisperer

    There is no other way to declare that China have backed off, otherwhise we wouldn't see this preparation for war by Trump that came after his big China meeting last week.

    China will sure remember this idiot stance they have taken when the wars begin, after North Korea, China will be in the cross-hair themselves.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 10:22:50 AM | 9
    @ Posted by: Jeff Kaye | Apr 14, 2017 10:04:05 AM | 4

    All honor & respect to you Invictus , for daunting, tireless & seemingly endless endeavor. Deepest & abiding respect indeed, Sir/Madam. Wishing you & yours safety & joy this Easter. ' Vale, Pax Tecum '.

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 10:31:30 AM | 10
    I still wonder why China stayed away from Syria with no talk of supporting Russia. This is/was a golden chance to show solidarity, in my opinion. Both NK and Pakistan are Chinese partners and nuclear powers. With MOAB in Afghanistan and forces around NK, this is a clear message to China. Is China setting a classic trap militarily or they just choosing to fight economically or otherwise? Somehow, Chinese reaction does not add up.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 10:35:14 AM | 11
    Chinese way of rebuking Trump
    "On the Korean Peninsula issue, it is not the one who espouses hasher rhetoric or raises a bigger fist that will win," Wang said.

    It is utmost stupidity. Trump is parking US war ships in reach of North Korea, Russia and China. Now he depends on them not to do anything.

    Lysander | Apr 14, 2017 10:39:27 AM | 12
    If you ever ask a local jingoist to list all the countries attacked by North Korea vs a comparable USA list, you will illicit blank stares, followed by anger, followed by the suggestion you go live in North Korea. Putin's analogy of chess with a pigeon comes to mind.
    @ 8, China does not care about the current leadership of North Korea at all. Their concern is to keep US forces no closer to the Chinese border than they are now, and that they will do.

    If Trump actually is dumb enough to strike, the Chinese will happily stand by and watch him hang himself. Just as promised at Mar-a-Lago.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:48:53 AM | 14
    Lysander

    +1 on that.
    Actually what you are describing is the average westerner today (although, perhaps the average westerner is a jingoist today), they are indoctrinated every day by by the MSM, they have no idea whats going on in the world, its so tragic when you try to explain world events and they always react like you said, anger, hate, accuations etc.

    stumpy | Apr 14, 2017 11:11:39 AM | 15
    Trump throwing stones at the mother of all hornet nests. Wonder what this all does for Samsung and Hyundai stock prices.
    james | Apr 14, 2017 11:28:04 AM | 16
    thanks b... many good comments already too! thanks folks.. @12 lysander - bang on example of how ignorant most folks remain.. why is the usa here there and everywhere on the planet where their war machines? answer - they are the planets most warmongering nation, hands down..
    WorldBLee | Apr 14, 2017 11:38:51 AM | 18
    Good article, b. This is extremely relevant yet almost never discussed in the US. North Korea is said to be "crazy", and is treated as some kind of rabid, non-human country that threatens the US. Of course, the opposite is more true.

    It's important to note that every country that disagrees with the US is called crazy. Al-Assad is a "butcher", an "animal", a "dictator who kills his own people". Every time the US wants regime change they first vilify the leader of said country to turn him into a non-human entity that should be feared and loathed. This self-justifies the impending destruction of the country, which after all happened "for its own good."

    Tobin Paz | Apr 14, 2017 11:59:34 AM | 19
    If I told you ten years ago that the defacto American diplomat to North Korea Dennis Rodman would get kicked out of the country for getting drunk and taking a shit in a Pyongyang hotel; and that WWE hall of famer and reality TV star Donald Trump would threaten to attack North Korea as POTUS... would you have believed me?
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:02:37 PM | 20
    Chinese FM earlier today said 'war might come to Korea any time now', basically, US and allies could attack Korea and we wont do aynthing about it, what a corrupt nature they are show off now, disgusting.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 12:13:11 PM | 21
    The Huge Moron has got himself into a situation now where China is mediating between the US and Korea.
    likklemore | Apr 14, 2017 12:19:51 PM | 22
    Kudos b putting this together. That was some digging.

    Here is my 2 dumb questions: will the person who did the tallying of the MOAB taking out the 36 in Afghanistan be sent to NK for a similar task? Not to be crass, but given it was the "mother of all bombs" should the Pentagon folks not be embarrassed to release the count? KROI.

    China warns, and this from Her Majesty's paper, The Telegraph.co.uk with video interview:
    LINK

    "World 'on the brink of thermo-nuclear war', as North Korea mulls test that could goad Trump"

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Trump, as we have observed, does not enjoy being goaded - fights back when he is accused of having small hands.

    And Kim Jong-Un? Well never mind.

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Wish all abundant blessings this Easter. We may not see 2018.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 12:25:07 PM | 23
    Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 10:15:53 AM | 8

    Imo, the main reason AmeriKKKa is threatening Korea at this time is because Xi scared them, and their freedom of navigation charade, out of the South China Sea. And now they're adding blackmail to the provocation by putting NK between them. It's cowardly and stupid, which is why I said I hope Trump knows what he's doing, because it doesn't look that way to me.

    A violent conflict in NK will create a NK refugee problem which, as history illustrates, is AOK with AmeriKKKans but no-one else.
    And if Xi has scared AmeriKKKa once, he can do it again.

    likklemore | Apr 14, 2017 12:26:43 PM | 24
    and linked in the article is Democratic-Leader Pelosi 's tweet:

    President Trump's escalation on Syria, Saber-Rattling on North Korea Necessitate Immediate Congressional Scrutiny

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    somewhat late after Congress abandoned it's war powers to the past 4 presidents.

    Greg Bacon | Apr 14, 2017 12:33:42 PM | 25
    Why is NK our problem?

    NK has seen what happens when nations give up their WMD's Iraq got invaded and Saddam first tortured, then hanged. Libya got smashed and Qaddafi got a bayonet up his arse.

    Now Syria is in the cross-hairs, with much of the nation in ruins, close 500K dead, millions more wounded and millions more homeless, with Assad being fitted for a hemp necktie.

    So why should Kim give up his nukes, where's the benefit?

    GoraDiva | Apr 14, 2017 12:36:48 PM | 26
    For anyone even marginally interested in the issue of NK vs SK - please take time to listen to this interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A (actually, 2 2-hr interviews).

    Historian Bruce Cumings looks way back in trying to explain the peninsula and its troubles. One point he makes is that the Korean war gave Truman a perfect excuse to expand the military and set up the national security complex. One thing he does not say is that US likely has zero interest in defusing the conflict - lest they'd have to leave the area.

    fastfreddy | Apr 14, 2017 12:47:00 PM | 28
    Trump is not a huge moron. He is an actor - pretending to be a moron for his moron fan club. He is very convincing. Superb acting. Terrific. An Armada of Stagecraft. Unfortunately, his moronic behavior leads to moronic and zany consequences.

    I'm now wondering how much worse the Known Entity - the Murderous Bloody Hillary could have been. Trump is a bull in a China Shop.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29
    Hoarsewhispet

    IMO, if anyone it is Trump that have "scared" the chinese or rather baited the Chinese with good trade deals and have got the word from the chinese that they wont rescue NK nor attack US if US feel like attacking NK. This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war.

    E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30
    b, this occasion, your writing is very one-sided. You left out (as did all the commentators to this moment) the decades of brinksmanship by NK, demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments.

    Consider this: (who ever is in charge of the WH now or last time, etc.) does not matter as much as "perhaps" that entire region, and the multiple layers of MIC/Deep State folks/their proxies in Congress in the USA, are finally fed up with the brinksmanship for cash to keep that guy's family and supporters in power, and now that NK lunatic has raised the anti to the nuke level (thanks Bill for helping them out there in the 1990's)... it looks like the Pentagon will work the decisions at their level as we now see in real-time.

    I served a recent tour there. "Ready to Fight Tonight" is not just a motto with South Korea. They have lived it since 1953 and they are really tired of it.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 1:00:32 PM | 31
    30

    Could you rephrase your whole chunk of text, it makes no sense, US dont "pay" North Korea anything and the lunatic is not in NorthKorea but in the White House allied with your dear South Koreans.

    GoraDiva | Apr 14, 2017 1:03:41 PM | 33
    @30
    You've likely absorbed too much MCM (c - corporate) reporting; for a more complex understanding of the subject, pls listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba3dgDUtE9A - that is you're interested in learning, as opposed to just repeating MCM talking points.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:08:11 PM | 34
    @ Posted by: E Ring 46Z Vet | Apr 14, 2017 12:51:46 PM | 30

    Respectfully, your comments are very one-sided, and you appear to be profoundly ignorant of the entire genesis of the Korean v US conflict and the motivations and conduct of involved parties since the days of the Kuomintang (KMT), Chiang Kai-shek, in the Chinese Civil War starting in 1940 but especially US actions from Sept 1946 and 1949 onward, as well as relevant USSR/Chinese involvement.

    Should you be interested there is significant detail in posts re 'Forgotten & buried History' of which you may be oblivious in the last three threads posts, or not.

    If you served in SK, ' Ready to Fight Tonight ', then why did you not bother to actually learn something of the Korean history, if only the last 70 years, with you and your buddies lives 'on the line', as opposed to merely regurgitating 'kool-aid' propaganda & misinformation ?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37
    And while we are studying this, the empire is making more plans.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-mattis-idUSKBN17G1C1
    U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis will visit Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Qatar and Djibouti starting on Tuesday, the Pentagon said in a statement on Friday.

    It said Mattis would "reaffirm key U.S. military alliances," and "discuss cooperative effort to counter destabilizing activities and defeat extremist terror organizations" during the April 18-23 tour. In Israel, he will hold talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the statement said.
    .......

    Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organizations they are talking Hezbollah. It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:33:11 PM | 38
    @ Posted by: From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 1:20:25 PM | 36

    Have been involved in detailed discussions that have carried thru the last three threads re Korea covering from 1940, to the critical events of Sept 1945, then thru to 1949 and just as important 1949 onwards, PRECEDING the Korean War of '50 ... many extracts, numerous links/sources/references, from multiple participating posters. Hm, suppose start around here:

    b | Apr 14, 2017 1:33:38 PM | 39
    @E Ring 46Z Vet

    I you come here for "neutral" piece that give equal weight and view to all sides you are in the wrong place. No author does that anyway and there are mountains to read that always highly endorse the U.S. side on each and every issue. I am not from the States and have a way more neutral view than you will find in your media. But I am not one sided. I have my moral position, my conscience and I follow it. I know what the U.S. has done to Korea - unnecessarily and for what I consider nefarious reasons.

    I also know that the claim NoKo was "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43, including oil shipments." is stupidly wrong.

    It was only Clinton who made a deal with NoKo which included for the U.S. side the delivery of oil and grain and the building of two civil nuclear reactors in North Korea. North Korea, in exchange, was to stop all nuclear work it had proceeded with including its own building of civil reactors which it urgently needed for electricity. It was a deal. Both side got something out of it.

    It was Clinton who broke that deal. It was Clinton who never delivered on his promises. The delivery of oil and grain was slow and ended early. Only the foundations of the reactors were build (by North Korea). No components were delivered. Bush only officially ended the deal Clinton had already renegaded on.

    chump change | Apr 14, 2017 1:39:08 PM | 40
    "demanding as much as $50 million annually from all the presidents prior to Bush 43"

    Should take lessons from Israel and demand 3 Bil. 50 mil is chump change. How much do you think these annual maneuvers cost? More to the point, isn't it interesting that the US's war budget is practically unlimited, while money spent on peace is always too much.

    You probably support tax cuts for oligarchs while bitching about money squandered upon the poor, homeless and ill.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 1:41:42 PM | 41
    Followup to #38

    Also very highly recommend the following article and embedded links/references re Korea and consequences/issues surrounding detailed expert factual analysis re possible war here:

    Posted by: Outraged | Apr 12, 2017 8:38:58 PM | 248, 'Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is There One At All?' thread. Cheers.

    Skip | Apr 14, 2017 1:43:49 PM | 42
    @30

    I wonder how warm and fuzzy the USA would be if NK had 60+ years ago, devastated our population with the bloodlust described by MacArthur, yet still had 50,000 troops stationed all along the Mexican border(DMZ)with nuclear capabilities that in an instant could destroy Houston, Austin, Dallas, Phoenix and Los Angeles??? Somehow I hear screaming and howling coming from the bowels or our esteemed Washington overlords. Kim's behavior is no more foolish.

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 1:52:11 PM | 43
    Air China to suspend some flights to North Korea http://presstv.ir/Detail/2017/04/14/518018/Air-China-suspend-flights-North-Korea

    Well well well, this is almost getting comical, chinese show its true nature once again, what a backstabbing nation. China will be as complicit in this war on NK as Trump (and other pathetic allies). How many billion dollar deals did the stupid president get by Trump to be able to accept this tremendous blunder?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45
    Is the US going the full John McCain? China rising, pivot on Asia behind schedule. Resources Diverted back to Middle East when Obama's headchoppers threatened US oil at Erbil. More resources for the pivot on China with Russia's re entry into the world of hard power.

    At this stage, Russia was supposed to be the gas station that produced nothing. Syria should have fallen to US headchoppers. Philippines has pulled out of the pivot on China.

    Obama's leading from behind, and proxy wars largely failed. This leaves the US very short on time to take down China, plus they now have to deal with a Russia that has risen from the dead.

    So US going full John McCain to make up for time lost / ground lost through the Obama years?

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:59 PM | 46
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:32:44 PM | 37

    I still think it's a one-front war. Saudi's just formed a NATO-like Sunni force with an ex-Pakistani general as it's head. Now they have a about 20 nation force for basic ground ops and this will help Saudi's in Yemen and may be Syria especially with Pakistan's depth in recruiting regulars and non-regulars. This could not have happened without US approval, imo.

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 1:57:01 PM | 47
    @37, Peter AU
    Syria? or Iran? When the above group talk about terrorist organisations they are talking Hezbollah.It is starting to look like the US is about to launch a two front war. Korea/China, Middle East/Russia.

    US is in no position to launch any serious military operation as of now, certainly not against Iran, not to speak about Russia. Bombing something? Sure, as long as it is stand-off weapons and no US casualties. Yet, US is under pressure to "perform" something because, as of lately things are not going too well for US in general and her military in particular. Consider all these plans a self-medication. Per China, China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now, not does she want to risk losing the access to US markets.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:08:37 PM | 48
    For those wondering what book the page is from, it's Napalm: An American Biography by Robert Neer, Belknap, 2013. Using google, enter this exactly into the search box: macarthur "biblical devastation resulted" hit search and the top result will take you to the page. (The actual url is about 4 lines, so I refrained from posting.) I do suggest reading the next several paragraphs, but they are not for the squeamish as what's described is 100% revolting. If after reading the text you cannot fathom why the North Koreans detest Americans more than anything else, then you'll make a perfect Neocon and ought to join Cheney and Co.

    Thanks b for posting that extract provided by Jeffery Kaye!

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 2:10:57 PM | 49
    No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat the experience.

    Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:11:06 PM | 50
    46) Not true
    PAKISTAN'S Parliament rejected a Saudi request to dispatch troops to combat Houthi rebels in Yemen, much to the chagrin of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). When Pakistan joined the Saudi led 34 nation military alliance, Iran took offence believing itself to be the target. Pakistan thus found itself between a rock and a hard place. Stung by the sensitivities of both its friends, Pakistan has had to rethink its diplomatic overtures to maintain the right balance between Tehran and Riyadh.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 2:14:53 PM | 52
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 1:55:14 PM | 45

    Succinct overview recap, though very pessimistic ;)

    Its occurred to me you may not fully follow, with utmost respect, what I've referred to on occasion as: no key indicators re logistics/materiel mandatory pre-deployments with minimum ~3-6 months lead times, ONCE, a decision to go to War, or an Op that risks War breakout, any War, has been taken and formally committed to, before the War or risk 'of' Operation, can commence ?

    To do so without such pre-deployments well in advance of boots-on-the-ground, ships firing armaments or aircraft launching strikes, ie engaging in Ops that have inherent escalation to War risk, virtually guarantees failure and defeat should a War subsequently breakout ... Lieutenants study tactics, Field officers/Commanders/Generals/Admirals study logistics, to paraphrase numerous famous military commanders, especially smarmy/cheeky/insubordinate military logisticians ;)

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 53
    SmoothieX12 47 China is not in the shape to fight US Navy as of now

    That is a good reason for the US to act now. Look up the Rand Corp report - Thinking the Unthinkable. Report finance by the pentagon as a military strategy for taking down China.

    In the report, if the US acts now, they have a good chance. In five years time it will it will be 50/50 and in ten year it is all over for the US. By then China will be militarily superior or at a point when any US force projection against China will be totally destroyed very quickly.

    Rand report here. I had the title wrong in earlier posts. PDF can be read online or downloaded from the Rand Corp link
    Thinking Through The Unthinkable http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1140.html

    Monolycus | Apr 14, 2017 2:27:04 PM | 54
    Thank you, E Ring 46Z Vet @#30 for that.

    I still read this blog from time to time, but this very issue is why I almost never comment anymore. North Korea is to the Left as Israel is to the Right, and it infuriates me. The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because... "America" spelled any various number of ways is eeeeeeeevil.

    I live in South Korea and have for the past 15 years. I posted a story here in 2012, shortly after Kim Jong-un came to power, about a defector badmouthing North Korea. B chastised me for believing such propaganda and responded with a linked story about how Kim Jong-un had created an agricultural revolution resulting in a surplus of crops that year and was a hero as a result of it. I am in South Korea.

    Kim Jong-un had been in power for less than a year. The time of year was very, very early Spring and the ground in South Korea was still frozen and no crops of any sort had been planted at all, so I know they could not possibly have been planted yet in the north. Yet I was the one believing in baseless propaganda. There's just no way to have any rational debate when the subject is as sacred a cow to the residents here as North Korea is. You'll catch abuse for your comment daring to suggest any culpability whatsoever for poor, innocent bystander North Korea, but I wanted to reassure you that there do exist a small minority of us who appreciated what you had to say.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:28:49 PM | 55
    The conclusion from a review of the book by SF Gate: "Neer has provided a valuable book that fills in historical gaps and sheds much-needed light on a history that many would rather forget ." [Emphasis mine] http://www.sfgate.com/books/article/Napalm-by-Robert-M-Neer-4377836.php

    The #1 reason the Outlaw US Empire gets away with its continuation of massive crimes against humanity is that its citizenry is mostly ignorant--made so purposefully--of the history that matters and are today's equivalent of "Good Germans."

    However, that doesn't excuse the remainder of the planet's citizenry from demanding an end to the criminal actions of the Rogue United States.

    Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 2:29:12 PM | 56
    @ Posted by: somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:11:06 PM | 50

    Thanks for the link.

    This rejection was a while ago, 2015 or so? Or was there a new one after the general was given the top post? I had assumed things have changed since.

    Anyways, cornering Iran is the goal that the US/Israel trying to accomplish, at least from reading the pattern of activities. Slippery slope indeed.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 2:35:49 PM | 57
    @ Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 2:15:00 PM | 52

    Thought scenario ... US launches attacks and starts War with China, no virtually 'non-concealable' 6 month mandatory preparation lead-time ... however unlikely, events don't go well for PLA ... China assesses at risk of conventional defeat ... however unlikely, no possibility to continue to conventionally resist or recover for an extended conventional conflict or guerilla campaign... fires a demonstration tactical nuke (no casualties) to send a message re de-confliction/de-escalation, or else ... US either stands down or its MAD. Game Over.

    Alternately US just goes MAD straight up and risks it all with a supposed surprise First Strike (highly improbable to adequately conceal) ... only a few Sino nukes make it to Stateside, yet enough to wipe out 80Million+ instantly and same number in initially non-KIA casualties of varying degrees plus turn to 'glass' half a dozen major cities ... well armed citizens response/reaction to their new post-apocalyptic lives of joy & happiness ?

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 2:45:17 PM | 58
    53 / Monolycus

    Thanks for proving how well the South Korean state propaganda work, you are basically calling for war against your own country (or perhaps you are not even a native korean?) and your own people, and you are calling people here crazy?

    Yonatan | Apr 14, 2017 2:47:10 PM | 59
    The 'Big Event' that Kim Jong Un boasted of, and had 'everyone' paralyzed in fear of nuke tests - the grand opening of a new mass residential area in Pyongyang.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxPw26MeviQ

    As others have stated, this whole mess is yet another US creation - the consequence of a 'nukes for oil' deal that the US reneged on - NK would cease nuke development in exchange for eased sanctions.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:47:13 PM | 60
    Posted by: Ronak | Apr 14, 2017 2:29:12 PM | 55

    Dated April 14, 2017

    Another fresh link - 17 hours ago

    ISLAMABAD: Defence Minister Khawaja Asif on Thursday assured the National Assembly that Pakistan would not become part of any alliance against a Muslim state.

    Responding to a calling attention notice, he said that the terms of reference (TOR) of the Saudi-led military alliance would be unveiled by Saudi authorities next month.

    He said that the TOR of the alliance, which is to be led by former Chief of the Army Staff Gen Raheel Sharif, and its aims and objectives will be presented in parliament before formally deciding whether Pakistan should become part of it or not.

    "We have committed to safeguarding Saudi Arabia's soil for the safety and sanctity of the two holy sites - Makkah and Medina - but we will not become part of any conflict against any Muslim state, including Iran," the defence minister said, responding to the notice moved by Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) MNA Dr Shireen Mazari.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 2:56:20 PM | 61
    add to 59

    Egypt's cooperation is not that safe either

    In Libya, the three states seem to be in lock step, supporting Khalifa Haftar, for example. In Palestine, a theatre long abandoned by the Arab leaders, Cairo has a deep-seated interest and is backing the anti-Hamas Mohammed Dahlan, who is also very close with the ruling family in the UAE.

    In Yemen, the Egyptian regime has announced its plan to maintain its limited presence, although Cairo's unwillingness to expand this presence is another source of disagreement with Riyadh.

    The issue on which there is the most daylight between Cairo and Riyadh, however, is the most significant conflict affecting the region today: the Syrian war.

    While Riyadh has backed forces opposed to the regime since the outset, Cairo has moved from a position of ambivalence to open support for the regime.

    ...

    Although rumblings of an Egyptian military presence in Syria have not been substantiated, Egyptian rhetoric and diplomatic efforts have firmly supported Assad. Most recently, Cairo abstained from a key vote in a UN Security Council resolution that would have imposed sanctions on the Syrian government, no doubt to the displeasure of the Saudis.

    This position is more consistent with the Egyptian regime's outlook; Sisi rose to power on an anti-Islamist platform and is waging a war against a small scale insurgency in the Sinai. The Trump administration's policy goals in the region seem to align with Sisi's vision of supporting authoritarian regimes against Islamists. This agenda puts both Trump and Sisi into Assad's camp.

    For this reason, it seems that Sisi's dream of a joint Arab military force will not materialise anytime soon, at least not with joint Egyptian and Saudi participation.

    Without agreement on Syria, this endeavor to unify Arab governments under his leadership is dead on arrival, as the Syrian conflict is currently the most significant security threat.

    b | Apr 14, 2017 3:03:08 PM | 62
    The link to the book extract in the post which @karlof1 provided. The book is Napalm: An American Biography by Robert Neer, Belknap, 2013

    The linked pages following the one above are about the extremely cruel effects of Napalm as used in Korea.

    Yonatan | Apr 14, 2017 3:03:41 PM | 63
    Karlof1 @48, @54

    The US laid a similar (though smaller scale) trail of destruction in Germany at the end of WWII.

    The development of napalm specifically to target civilians ties in the testing of the two US nuclear weapons in Japan. The Japanese target cities were left untouched by conventional air raids throughout, even though they contained valid military targets such a torpedo production plants.

    The occupants were so used to seeing US planes pass them by without ill effect, that on the fateful day they stood out in the open watching the planes pass by as normal or so they thought. The two attacks - for different designs of weapon - were designed to test and calibrate the effects of nuclear weapons on undamaged cities and unprotected civilians. They were actual medical and physical experiments on real people.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:04:29 PM | 64
    @ outraged

    I have been giving your posts a lot of consideration. How to tie the logistics and so forth lead time, to what we are seeing take place?
    create major incident, congress quickly votes for war?

    Can the US deploy faster than we have seen in the past? Most US wars since WWII have been wars of choice, done at leisure, in a time and place of US choosing.

    The difference between now and all the years since WWII, through the cold war and so forth is that the US has very little time left. In trying to think how the US is acting different now to the past, or actually dig up solid points I would probably point to MH17. With MH17 Australia, one of the five eyes gladly sacrificed some people for empire. That shook me. The evidence was the same as the crap dossier on Assad gassing his own people, yet not a word of protest out of any Australian politician.

    The US now have total and complete control over all its vassal. The US can now say and do anything, no matter how obvious, and the bobble heads as Putin calls them, just bobble their heads in agreement.

    I think what we will see in the next few years will be much different to the last 70 or so years. If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other currencies taking up market share.

    I believe US will act, and that means taking down China as China is currently the number one threat to the US. China simply continuing the way it is, manufacturing, trading ect will take down the US.

    The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. At the same time, China and Russia are working to prevent the US from going to war.

    What you have said about lead time does have to be taken into account to try and work out US strategy. Does the US need another Pearl Harbour to get its population on a war footing for the coming war with China? Sink a few useless aircraft carriers, similar to battleships being sunk at Pearl harbour when WWII was a aircraft carrier war and battle ships were largely obsolete?


    US think tanks like Brookings and Rand. Fronts for the 0.01% ? US policy roughly follows the lines put out by these type think tanks.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:06:51 PM | 65
    @ Monolycus

    If you truly earnestly believe:

    The decades of kidnapping foreign nationals, hijacked planes, international assassination attempts-- basically 70 years of deliberate destabilization and human rights abuses are all justified because...

    following on from the defeat of Japan at end WWII occurred without any similar actions prior to, concurrent with and subsequent to events of the Korean War, and the issues are purely of Left & Right 'isms', not basic matters of Humanity, then frankly, you're viewpoint/position is wilfully documented counter-factual, IMHO. Have seen no 'abuse' as you assert.

    You live in SK ? Respectfully, please enlighten us as to the history of the island of Jeju from Sept 1945 thru to today, as an example, maybe comment on the abandoned truth & reconciliation inquiries/compensation and the persisting existing community divisions thru to this day, hm ?

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 3:14:00 PM | 66
    @52, Peter AU
    That is a good reason for the US to act now.

    From US point of view--absolutely. US establishment, yet again, thinks that it can control escalation. Conventionally, North Korea is a punching bag. But I also would be very careful with any (I underscore--any) supposedly "reputable" US analytical source assessments of anyone. Overwhelming empirical evidence testifies to the fact that often they have no idea what they are talking about.

    ronny | Apr 14, 2017 3:16:05 PM | 67
    Kim Jong-un orders evacuation of Pyongyang: report

    North Korean leader Kim Jong-un ordered 25 percent of Pyongyang residents to leave the city immediately, according to a Russian news outlet on Friday. The Pravda report said that in accordance with the order, 600,000 people should be urgently evacuated.

    http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170414000689

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:25:30 PM | 68
    @ Peter AU
    If the US does nothing, it will start to collapse as the power of the dollar is eroded by other currencies taking up market share.

    Stepping back from fundamental military strategy/necessities ...

    If China/Russia were facing imminent War, then they would very probably dump all US reserves and Treasury Bonds first, and pre-emptively trigger economic collapse & rout. Unless it's MAD first strike stuff, where is the industrial and manufacturing base of the US/UK to sustain and win a 'Total War' ? Russia/China/Iran/NK are all militarily self-sufficient ... long-term sanctions do that, somewhat self-defeating, no ?

    IF the US collapses without War occurring, the 0.01% driving this will have already relocated in advance to, New Zealand or Iceland, etc ? To live lives of luxury, whilst purchasing collapsed US corporations for pennies on the dollar, perhaps, and wait for the investment to mature, maybe ? Ruthless bastards, citizens of the world ;)

    Yet, mistakes & miscalculations can occur unintentionally when even only a sustained 'strategy of tension' goes on and on ...

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:31:49 PM | 69
    Another thing to consider now when looking at US actions... US have pinned all their hopes for military dominance on the F-35. Thirty years of R&D, a trillion dollars, and all they have produced is a flying scrapyard. The F-22 is a top aircraft, but they scrapped production to concentrate all resources on the F-35. I read not long ago that production of upgraded Super Hornets is about to kick off again.

    The F-35 has put the US too far behind. By the time they have designed and produced another 5th gen or later version aircraft, it will be all over for the US.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 3:37:12 PM | 70
    53/monolycos It is possible your opinion is not shared by South Koreans

    2003, report for congress South Korean Politics and Rising "Anti-Americanism": Implications for U.S. Policy Toward North Korea

    These shifts in the South Korean polity, particularly the rise in anti-Americanism, confront the Bush Administration with a policy dilemma: how to manage the U.S.-ROK alliance while pursuing a more confrontational approach toward North Korea than that favored by many, if not most, South Koreans.
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 3:40:15 PM | 71
    You make good points Outraged. Will wait and watch, but I have a bad feeling that comes from a lot of small, on their own, seemingly inconsequential events/moves.
    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 3:41:39 PM | 72
    add to 69
    Opinion polls taken over the past few years generally have found that large majorities of respondents favor a partial or total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea, though most holding this position say they favor a drawdown unless there are improvements in North-South Korean relations; few favor an outright withdrawal.
    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 3:41:41 PM | 73
    @68, Peter AU
    The F-35 has put the US too far behind.

    It is not just F-35, it is a combination of factors of strategic, technological and operational nature. Take a look at LCS program or at the cost of SSBN Ohio-class replacement--a single hull for $8.1 billion. This is more than Russia spent on all 8 of her latest state-of-the-art SSBNs of Borey-class (Project 955, 955A)--3 afloat, 5-in different stages of readiness.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 3:42:31 PM | 74
    Followup to 67
    The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary.

    "The US is going to war. Much thought and training going into fighting peer, or near peer adversary. " Do not see substantive evidence of the former, yet. Re the latter, other than neo-con/lib chickenhawk warmongers and detached from facts/reason/competent analysis & reality stink-tanks, again, see no evidence other than endless PR and rabid rhetoric, MSM abetted.

    Have you seen the most recent data/reports on DOD readiness levels, it's not a pleasant read if you're a jingoistic warmonger ... would argue, short version, the opportunity existed prior to 2001, maybe even as late as 2004-2006 at a pinch ... since then, and now, the window has closed and the opportunity lost ... the vassals you refer to have been as suborned as they are now since the late '40's, they just are now led by such incompetents that they don't have the sense to conceal that they are, bought & paid for, bobbleheads. Yet, they are good time opportunists and no guarantee of staying the course should it come to a potential WWIII, see Germany/Italy/etc ...

    Ike | Apr 14, 2017 3:50:58 PM | 75
    Thanks for a great article. It is so good to read truthful information and not the propaganda bullshit the MSM saturates us with.
    If more people read this the outrage would force the fascist US government to back off.
    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 3:51:40 PM | 76
    And again,

    US successfully test drops nuclear gravity bomb in Nevada https://reportuk.org/2017/04/14/breaking-us-successfully-test-drops-nuclear-gravity-bomb/

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 3:56:35 PM | 77
    Of passing interest...according to CGTN World Today, April 15, China and Russia's foreign ministers spoke by telephone on Friday to discus stability on the Korean Peninsula.
    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78
    @ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 14, 2017 3:56:35 PM | 76

    Who knows, maybe NK will be rehabilitated, as is, and accepted back into the Russia/China 'Axis', openly, as for the then USSR/ChiCom 'Axis' pre and during the Korean war ? After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ?

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:06:09 PM | 79
    Peter AU--

    Perhaps the most important yet neglected fact related to the build-up for war with China is the lack of preparing the ignorant US citizenry via the sort of dehumanization campaign waged at Islam/Muslims. Heck, just the great preference for Chinese food makes such a campaign more than difficult--the Yellow Peril proclamations of the past long ago ceased to resonate. Plus, I'll certainly echo Outraged's point about USA lacking the required industrial capacity and raw material for any such war other than MAD versus China/Russia. One of the main reasons the Lead From Behind strategy was adopted along with using terrorist proxies to destabilize Russia/China is because of that rather stark reality.

    Yonatan @62--

    Thanks for your reply. Napalm was developed at Harvard and the book was published by one of Harvard's publishing houses. Given its current attitude, I bet Harvard would now call its own published work Fake News, and disallow it from classrooms while removing it from libraries.

    Monolycus--

    The following extracts are from Australian National University Professor Gavan McCormack's Target Korea: Pushing North Korea To The Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe and detail just which side did most of the murdering:

    "At the outbreak of war in 1950, one of the first acts of the [South Korean] Rhee regime was to order the execution of political prisoners, whose deaths were in due course attributed to atrocities by the incoming Northern forces...Declassified U.S. documents indicated that `more than 2,000' political prisoners were executed without trial in the early weeks, hundreds of them were taken out to sea from the port of Pohang and shot, their bodies dumped overboard...Throughout the country, according to Gregory Henderson, then a U.S. Embassy official in Seoul and later a prominent historian of Korea, probably over 100,000 people were killed without trial or legal warrant. Investigations into all this have scarcely begun...

    "When Seoul was recaptured by U.S. and South Korean forces perhaps as many as 29,000 Koreans were executed on suspicion of collaboration with the North...The occupation of Pyongyang and many other cities and villages above the 38th parallel [by South Korean forces] was characterized by atrocities...According to one estimate, 150,000 people were executed or kidnapped...

    "The official U.S. Army report at the end of the [Korean] war gave 7,334 as the figure for civilian victims of North Korean atrocities, a small fraction of those now known to have been executed by [government of South Korean leader] Rhee in the first moments of the war alone...

    "...The Taejon Massacre...became the centerpiece of the U.S. case for North Korean brutality...A U.S. Army report on the massacre, including graphic photographs, was published around the world in October 1953...
    "At Taejon, a town of about 160 kilometers south of Seoul, a massacre undoubtedly occurred...

    "...It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the most brutal North Korean atrocity in the South was actually a Southern atrocity in a brutal ongoing civil war...

    "...The figure of 1,800 massacre victims was given...Somebody--presumably in either the American military or government--seems to have made the decision to turn this into a Northern massacre, the characteristic, single atrocity of the entire war. The truth seems inescapable: The worst atrocity of the war was committed by forces acting in the name of the United Nations, and a concerted effort was then made to cover it up by blaming it on the North Korean enemy...

    "...On the admission of [U.S.] General Ridgeway's Head Office, more POWs died in United Nations camps than in North Korean camps..." http://wherechangeobama.blogspot.com/2013/05/revisiting-history-of-korea-again-part-4.html?m=0

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 4:10:21 PM | 80
    Re US war manufacturing base. Where is the MIC at now? US is by far the largest manufacturer of military hardware. The assembly of the final product has not been offshored. How much do they import in the way of raw or processed materials? Steel smelting, rolling ect - Aluminium - Titanium?

    Rare earth metals required for high tech military is imported from China, North Korea has the other known large recoverable rare earth reserve. Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?

    Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:13:54 PM | 81
    Lawrence Wilkerson, a former U.S. Army colonel: U.S. Creating New Foes, Too Many To Handle
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/former-bush-chief-staff-u-s-creating-new-foes-many-handle/225999/
    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 4:21:06 PM | 82
    Any US war with China would most likely be a naval missile war, something along the lines of the Rand report?

    China does have limited versions of both Klub-NK and Club-S, those were shorter ones until recently when China started to get her hands on actual Russian versions of such weapons as P-800 Onyx with their ranges of 660 kilometers, add here SU-35 (also in Russian configuration) and S-400, also in Russian configuration, and you have a rather interesting dynamics suddenly.

    China's very weak spot navy-wise is their submarine force, despite some good SSKs, PLAN's nuclear submarine component is atrocious--a generation or two behind what Russia and US operate. So, for now it is a mixed bag. Plus there is an issue of targeting, I don't know if Russia will make her Liana system available to China. Can China today sink US nuclear carrier? Possibly, In 5-7 years it will become not only possible but highly probable.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 4:25:05 PM | 83
    Peter AU @79--

    US MIC armament production ought to be seen/understood as MIC profitmaking scam that happens to produce few usable/battle-worthy assets. There's a very good reason for calling the USA's once mighty industrial heartland the Rust Belt--it's literally rotting away as a ride on Amtrak's Capitol Limited will testify.

    It would be far cheaper, saner and moral to obtain rare earth minerals and other goods via trade than expanding industrial capacity, instituting a military draft, outfitting such a force, then waging a war for conquest.

    b | Apr 14, 2017 4:40:02 PM | 84
    @Monolycus

    I tried for some 15 minutes to find the comment you wrote about and can not find it.

    But two remarks:

    byongjin policy ('progress in tandem' or 'move two things forward simultaneously') was developed and implemented years before Kim Jong-un came to power. He (more precise: those who are behind him) made it an official party policy and created the slogan long after the program had started. The first nuclear test in NoKo was 2006 - five years before him. The deterrence effects were already in place as well as a lessened conventional positioning, the economic trend was already positive.

    I may well have berated you about the uncritical quoting of a North Korean defector. These are notorious liars. Their income in South Korea was reported to be paid by the secret service in dependence of the media splash they create.

    There is huge amount of fake horror stories about North Korea in the South Korean (esp. Chosun Ilbo) and global press. Much of it is planted by the South Korean government. U.S. media have thankfully stopped to regurgitate most of the stories for now as too many turned out to be false .

    Kim Jong-un had his dogs maul one of his uncles?
    Stripped naked, thrown into a cage and torn apart by 120 starving dogs: How Kim Jong Un had 'scum' uncle executed
    That story ran one way or another in every bigger western media. It was false. The uncle was executed but after a (sham) trial and with guns by a regular execution command.

    North Korea hacked Sony? No it did not. It was an insider hack by a former Sony IT person. Sony made the "North Korea hack" up to escape culpability and to sell an otherwise unsellable bad movie.

    Kim Jong-un's ex-girlfriend reportedly executed by firing squad
    Bad, bad boy. But later she turns up on live TV , smiling and laughing as ever.

    Kim Jong-Un kills his half brother by having an unprotected person smear highly toxic VX in his face in a very public place in Malaysia? The person who does that gets not hurt one bit? Check the life style of his half brother - girls and drugs and rock&roll - lots of drugs and lots of alcohol. The dude much more likely had a heart infarct and the rest was made up like the other stories above.

    North Korea did and does some outrageous stuff. So did and do other countries. How many alleged "communists" and "sympathizers" did the various dictatorships in South Korea kill under U.S. tutelage? Thousands? Ten thousands? A hundredthousand at least. How many sabotage acts did they engineer in North Korea? How many were hurt by those?

    I am not blind on one eye. But the anti-NoKo propaganda is similar to the propaganda that created the war on Iraq fever. It is now even more important to look from the other side and to write that up, not just some pseudo-concerned "all sides are bad" pieces.

    Looking in vain for the old Monolycus comment I came across a piece I wrote in 2012.

    Therein I quote Tariq Ali from a piece he wrote about his 1970s visit to North Korea. This bit from the end of the piece on the U.S. position under Bush/Obama is enlightening:

    Over lunch I asked her about [the Bush administration] plans for North Korea. She was cogent. 'You haven't seen the glint in the eyes of the South Korean military,' she said. 'They're desperate to get hold of the North's nuclear arsenal. That's unacceptable.' Why? 'Because if a unified Korea becomes a nuclear power, it will be impossible to stop Japan from becoming one too and if you have China, Japan and a unified Korea as nuclear states, it shifts the relationship of forces against us.' Obama seems to agree with this way of thinking.
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 4:40:46 PM | 85
    SmoothieX12 karlof1

    It really makes little sense what the US is up to. Are they relying on bluff and bluster to win the day? Anon1 @80 put up a good link. It is one of the things that has me worried.

    What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type culture - US can overcome all no matter what?

    Willy2 | Apr 14, 2017 4:43:41 PM | 86
    - North Korea has some good reasons to not trust the US.

    1) In the 1990s they had a deal with the US, in which the US would supply Nort Korea with oil in return for a suspension of their nuclear program. But the US didn't deliver on theri promises.

    2) In 2003 or 2004 the US made some serious movements that did suggest that the US was preparing a MAJOR attack on North Korea. Under secretary Paul Wolfowitz also made some remarks that would suggest such a move.

    3) The G.W.Bush administration (2000-2008) deliberately increased tension with North Korea.

    From The Hague | Apr 14, 2017 4:45:58 PM | 87
    38 41 Outraged

    Thanks!
    Very relevant historical background.

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 4:46:09 PM | 88
    @84, Peter AU.
    What we are seeing now, is it bluff and bluster? or is it Doolittle raid/battle of Midway type culture - US can overcome all no matter what?

    Both. I am not sure that I can correctly estimate a percentage of both. Let me take a wild guess: bluster/bluff-60-65%, Doolittle--35-40%. The foundation of Pax Americana is a mythology of the "best military in the world", without this myth the whole house of cards begins to fold. It was folding with increasing speed since circa 2008 and accelerated tremendously in 2014.

    somebody | Apr 14, 2017 4:47:27 PM | 89
    Shadowbrokers just released NSA hacks for Windows Systems enabling kids to go to work over the Easter Weekend.

    NSA hacks include the Swift System.

    By the way, google "North Korean hackers" and have fun.

    Win | Apr 14, 2017 4:48:24 PM | 90
    @Monolycus

    Great that you swing by every so often. But I am not sure why you are offended when people criticise your point of view. That's what comments are for. And that's why this blog is here. To present an alternative view to mainstream lies. And just because you live in South Korea does not mean you have an objective view of the situation there. In the bigger picture, the mad dogs in the US government do all the things you mention, but no doubt because they are America they are ignored and their actions declared righteous. The agreements are historical and it was not North Korea who backed away, broke them or refused to consider them. North Korea has the tightest sanctions on earth and so b's reporting about the rationale for North Korea's actions is timely. Instead of the insidious propaganda we get from Western media. Enjoy yourself in South Korea. Just remember who invaded who there and who is causing mayhem in the rest of the world. Hint; it is not Kim Yong-Un.

    Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 5:05:51 PM | 91
    @ Peter AU

    An old saw, but a profound truism, 'No Battleplan survives first engagement with the enemy'.

    So Rands 'plan' ain't worth much ... secondly, if you go into combat/war without actually considering the enemies own moves/counters/plans/actions, then you've already lost before the first shot is fired.

    For example, the Chinese have built an autobahn grade highway which ends ~10Kms short of the China-Afghan border, they have 3 combined arms army groups including air divisions from the adjacent Western Military Region they could send over that border pass, after getting the combat engineers, sweating hard and using machinery, to finish the final stretch in a matter of hours ... the remaining army group & numerous Police divisions could secure the military region, as its isolated from potential threats other than Indian border effectively.

    Within 3-4 days forced march, worst case, they've crossed the Iran-Afghan border and the ME is toast ... concurrent and co-ordinated with similar capabilities from Russia, the ME is toast. And in conjunction with Iran free to wipeout the GCC's pathetically unprofessional non-commital 'green' 'parade only' militaries.

    What has the US got, pre-positioned to prevent it ?

    The conventional forces that NATO used to have deployed, pre-positioned and in number to defend a USSR, now RF, multi echelon armored deep penetration into EU, no longer exists ...

    The Bundeswehr is a shadow of its glory days as an armored/mechanized shield during the Cold War, now periodically ridiculed for not having sufficient MGs or ammunition to train with on joint training exercises ... War ready in 2017 ?

    The nuclear and non-nuclear subs of both sides would promptly slaughter each other in a mutual knife-fight, sudden death, whilst taking out the majority of the Carriers, US/UK/FR ... the remainder of the Carrier group escorts exist and are designed/configured to defend/protect & shield the carrier, not very useful once its at the bottom of the ocean along with all the strike aircraft, pilots, support crews and sailors ...

    @ From the Hague

    You are most welcome, a group effort.

    okie farmer | Apr 14, 2017 5:07:18 PM | 92
    link http://eng.tibet.cn/world/1481178463674.shtml
    b | Apr 14, 2017 5:21:19 PM | 93
    For those beating up on China (or applauding it) for suspending flights with NoKo.

    Air China clarifies ticket sales to blame for temporary flight cuts to Pyongyang; no suspension of services

    Jen | Apr 14, 2017 5:23:04 PM | 94
    Thanks B for the information regarding how the US and South Korea time their military maneuvers to coincide with the rice planting and harvesting periods in North Korea. I had not been aware of this before.

    Bill Clinton's offer to North Korea to supply grain and materials for building two new reactors and his later reneging on that do not surprise me at all as these are of a piece with the Clinton Foundation raising hundreds of millions for Haiti's post-quake reconstruction which in the end resulted in the construction of one factory employing 30 people making T-shirts for export. No doubt with the North Korean "offer" the Clintons got something of that.

    Also thanks to Karlof1 for being the tireless terrier that he is in hunting down the information about US-allied atrocities during the Korean War.

    I would like to pose to Monolycus and the other South Korean-based commenter the challenge of explaining how South Korea rapidly recovered from total war devastation in the early 1960s to the point where in 1988 the nation's capital could host the Summer Olympic Games. This all took place in the space of less than 30 years. If you both can do this convincingly and somehow mention Park Chunghee as an enlightened free-market democratic capitalist ideologue, rest assured I will be blown away.

    fastfreddy | Apr 14, 2017 5:33:25 PM | 95
    American Technological progress is probably stymied by the manner in which it is conducted. That is to spread contracts for hardware/software/parts among competing states via state representative congressional bag men. Wasting time and money in the process. Hoping for cost overruns and delays which increase profits. Small wonder the state-of-the-art US warplane is shit.
    Pft | Apr 14, 2017 5:41:44 PM | 96
    I'd have to question Kims sanity if he OK's a missile or nuclear test at this time. Trumps obviously a mad man trying to show how tough he is in order go terrorize countries and maybe his own citizens into submission. However, he has the means to execute the destruction. The MSM will be behind him all the way and Americans love war because God blesses them and they believe they are the good guys fighting evil and making the world safe for liberty and Democracy. American exceptionalism they call it.. The citizens as a group might be the most insane of all of these entities. Certainly the dumbest.
    james | Apr 14, 2017 5:45:36 PM | 97
    b - great responses to the naysayers here.. very informative as well. thank you..
    Jen | Apr 14, 2017 5:49:40 PM | 98
    B @ 92: I should think Air China's flight cuts are due to people suddenly cancelling flight plans after the threats made by the Trump government against Nth Korea.

    Anticipating though that if the US were to make the first move against Nth Korea, Air China's flights back and forth between China and Nth Korea are going to be very full. I believe there are some 2 million Koreans living in China (mainly in Manchuria) and many if not most of them have family in Nth Korea. Beijing must consider preparing for a refugee exodus into China's northeast provinces if there are as yet no plans.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 5:52:13 PM | 99
    mmm... well something major is brewing. What is smoke and mirrors and deflection and what is the real US strategy?
    Syria, Korea, Mattis cooking up a plot with GCC+Isreal = Iran
    paul | Apr 14, 2017 6:40:24 PM | 101
    Wow - I'm impressed with this approach from China. But they still need to be a bit stronger about denying the US the right or the chance to attack NK. Even Russia has several times sent a fleet to Syria. China should do this to ward off the Hegemon.
    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 7:00:05 PM | 102
    @or, @p au

    interesting discussion on the likelihood of war, upcoming.

    i think certainly outraged has the 'rational' analysis of war well in hand. but i don't think that war is rational in, literally, the end.

    i think the 'smartest guys in the room' in the us are not military types, but financial types. the same guys who run the hedge funds run the 'rational analysis' and forecast the 'outcomes' of wars, purely imaginary. and they have the rest of the world backing down before the 'overwhelming' might of the us wehrmacht, though a good part of their analysis is based on their own 'funny money' based 'power', which is only as good as everyone else's willing suspension of disbelief. no 'rational actor' would not back down, they say, in double negative. they're reductionists, and their results only hold true in the very much reduced world they've disconnected, bottled, and simulate their 'trades' in.

    i think there is a very real chance that they'll take us all over the edge, especially now that they have the donald himself unequivocally - well for him - on board. we'll see, won't we?

    we won't be safe from all this until after the air has been let out of their financial balloon, for good this time, and they are no longer the 'smartest guys' in the room. and then we'll only be safe if we claim our world and install an alternative management.

    thanks b, for the excellent perspective on the ceaseless grind the us has put the peninsula under over the past six decades. i never noticed their lockstep of stress and torture with the agricultural cycle either. hades and persephone all over again. i guess it never stops.

    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 7:01:52 PM | 103
    Jen @94--

    Thanks much for the complement. There are two main credible reporters on the Korean War that I use: IF Stone's The Hidden History of the Korean War was published in 1952 and was excellent for its timely veracity; Bruce Cumings, recently History Chair at University of Chicago, has written extensively on Korea, and his two volume The Origins of the Korean War is the most extensive examination of the conflict. In 2010, he published a very abridged version that looks serviceable, easier to find and much less expensive. This links to a review of Stone's book in doc format, www.ais.org/~jrh/Hidden_History_of_Korean_War.doc Cumins also co-authored Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth about North Korea, Iran, and Syria which is short and very readable. Cumins has also examined and written about the relationship between War and Television within the USA. And here's a website containing many of IF Stone's writings, http://www.ifstone.org/index.php

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 7:13:33 PM | 104
    I am amazed by the depth of the comments on Trump's military threats against North Korea (trolls excepted). I would hope that Trump is just playing Teddy Roosevelt who "carried the big stick" using the white fleet to intimidate Japan:
    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h942.html

    Unfortunately, would appear that Trump actually wants to degrade North Korea's nuclear program using strategic bombers (B52, B-1b and B2) currently deployed at Guam (a rerun of the US attack on Iraq nuclear reactor?).
    https://reportuk.org/2017/04/14/us-defcon-nuclear-threat-warning-increased-with-north-korea-on-verge-of-war/

    The US has positioned two cruise missile carrying destroyers within 300 miles of the North Korean nuclear test site awaiting the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group including the WC-135 "nuclear sniffer" aircraft.

    U.S. Air Force has also just staged and epic Elephant Walk at Kadena Air Base Japan comprised of HH-60 Pave Hawks, F-15 Eagles, E-3 Sentries and KC-135 Stratotankers as a show of force (see Superstation95 for photos).

    In addition to the thermobaric bomb demonstration in Afghanistan, the US just tested the upgraded B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb (just linked by Anon1)

    Trump's "Big Stick" approach has led to mass movements of:

    (1) China moved 200,000 troops on the border of North Korea;

    (2) Evacuation of about 600,000civilians from Pyongyang;

    (3) Plans by Japan's National Security Council on how to evacuate its nearly 60,000 citizens from South Korea;

    (4) Lots of flights out of South Korea.

    There are reports that China has sent its submarines sent out to sea (setting on the bottom?) and is likely making additional preparations without fanfare.

    North Korea has recently stated that if an attack is perceived a nuclear war will occur. I would expect that the first strike would be an airburst meant to wipe out all electronics not protected by Faraday cages, including unhardened military communications systems.

    I hate to speculate on where the other nuclear bombs will be " delivered". Under a worst-case scenario it could result in some global cooling about 20% of that predicted http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EF000205/full

    On the US West coast it would be wise to stock up on iodine tablets as attacks on nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities will release iodine 131 from fuel rods as well as other biologically hazardous radionuclides including strontium-90, cesium-137, and uranium-234.

    It may be the Make America Great Again is actually represents the Jewish word for combat (MAGA). Such an approach was warned against by General Smedley Butler in his critical essay "War is a Racket". https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    As a side note the South Korean elections are coming up soon. Does anyone have a point of view?

    dh | Apr 14, 2017 7:15:01 PM | 105
    @104 The hedge fund guys are only good if they make the right bets. What they depend on is inside information, which companies are in trouble, which country is going to get whacked etc. But they don't always get it right. And their thinking is mostly short term.

    'Alternative management' would be nice. Maybe a race of benevolent aliens could take over.

    blues | Apr 14, 2017 7:18:52 PM | 106
    I feel I should simply repeat what I said yesterday on this site. It still seems rather relevant:

    This is where this is going, I would guess:

    US Airstrike on North Korea Risks Leading to '5-6 Chernobyl-Type Disasters' https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704131052612166-us-north-korea-chernobyl/
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    "Approximately 30 nuclear power plants are operational in South Korea. Several of them could be destroyed even if conventional bombs and shells are used. This could lead to five-six Chernobyl-type disasters on a relatively small area of 99 square kilometers that could instantly turn into a place unsuitable for life," he explained.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    But that's not all we're going to get:
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    The Pentagon "cannot but take into account that in case of an airstrike against North Korea, US-made Tomahawks will fly toward the territory of Russia and China. This is a more dangerous scenario than the show of force in Syria," he said. "Russia will not be able to wait for US missiles to accidentally land on its territory. Moscow will be forced to shoot down the missiles while they are in North Korean airspace."
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    Meanwhile, tens of millions of South Koreans perish, with a few becoming radionuclide refugees. Good job, eh?

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 7:43:14 PM | 107
    @ blues
    I would guess that SK, Japan, Australia, are all viewed simply as forward military bases by the US, that can be abandoned if required.

    @ jfl

    I have read although ,in a casual way rather than a study, too much of the history of wars. Often what comes across the insanity of a country starting a war and then is itself destroyed. Nazi Germany - leading edge tech, smart people. Country of sixty million conquered virtually all of Europe with ease then took on Russia. Instead of being content with being a leading country, they were willing to gamble everything to have it all.

    This is somewhat where the US is at today. The position is that it has over reached and now needs to pull back and consolidate, but we are not seeing that. instead, we are seeing the US become more threatening.

    So for me that needs to be matched/reconciled to Outraged comments on pre-positioning, indicators ect.

    Piotr Berman | Apr 14, 2017 7:51:15 PM | 108
    TRUMP READY TO REMOVE CRAZED NORTH KOREAN KILLER [GLOBE as observed in my supermarket yesterday, front page reported on-line]

    IN a gutsy move to save the world from global disaster, courageous ­President ­Donald Trump has drawn up a ruthless, top-secret plan to kill North Korean ­warmonger Kim Jong Un before he can push the ­button that would unleash nuclear holocaust!

    D.C. insiders tell GLOBE the iron-willed president is fed up with roly-poly Kim's blustery bull and is determined to squash the pint-sized dictator, who recently launched four intercontinental ballistic missiles into the Sea of Japan!

    "Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in Trump has put the elite fighting teams of Delta Force and SEAL Team 6 in South Korea on standby and ordered Tomahawk missiles and nuclear weapons to the North Korean border!" a White House insider tells GLOBE.

    Get all the details and the latest information on the White House's latest moves against the tyrannical North Korean dictator in this week's issue of GLOBE.

    ====

    Piotr: I understand how "top-secrets" can make it to our intrepid GLOBE reporters. But how did they determined who is "iron-willed" and who is "rolly-polly". E.g. it seems to me that Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim have similar BMI. Or how both leaders exhibited iron will firing employees.

    Willy2 | Apr 14, 2017 7:53:30 PM | 109
    - MEDIA MATTERS had a VERY interesting take why we could see a US attack on North Korea:

    https://mediamatters.org/research/2017/04/13/punditry-syrian-airstrikes-encouraging-trump-escalate-tensions-north-korea/216023

    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 8:27:18 PM | 110
    @109 p au

    i agree. no matter what happens, it won't be good ... until the Mother Of All Bubbles has burst. and then it might be but a brief respite indeed if we don't take advantage of the lull in 'play' to 'decapitate' our own 'leadership'. it's our sheer, mere 300 million+ souls (600 million+ soles?) to their 535 caputs ... think we have a chance?

    Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 14, 2017 8:39:34 PM | 111
    @jfl #114:

    A primary problem there is that they have convinced at least 20% of those 300M to be human shields in the service of Empire.

    Julian | Apr 14, 2017 8:44:26 PM | 112

    Apologies if this has already been mentioned - but if the USA were to unilaterally launch strikes on North Korea could Russia itself intervene and launch missiles against the ships/fleet at fault - ie - against those who have abrogated their responsibilities to international peace and security? The aggressor nation.

    Could Russia sink the ships with the USS Carl Vinson in the name of maintaining international peace and security??

    What side of Korea is the Carl Vinson and is it closer to the coastline of Russia or Syria?

    frances | Apr 14, 2017 9:02:27 PM | 113

    According to Jim Stone NK has a very formidable 50+ submarine fleet. He also said these subs are of NK manufacture based on their upgrades to Russian 1990's designs. They are nowhere to be seen at the moment and as they run on batteries when still, there is no easy way to detect them if they are on the ocean floor.

    Many are nuclear, have on average 100 mile range and the largest one could travel to and hit the West Coast. So if the Trump armada attacks they may quickly find themselves on the bottom of the South China Sea. And as for a war with China, IMO there is no way the US can win conventionally IMO. And if it looks to go to nuclear, Russia will regretfully reduce us to ash. It appears Trump has turned over management of the military to the generals. I have the same sense of pending disaster that I would have if I, on rounding a corner bumped into 1000 Daleks and with not a Doctor in sight.

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 9:24:28 PM | 115
    A Russia missile cruiser arrived in Korea on April 11th:

    https://already-happened.com/2017/04/11/russian-guided-missile-cruiser-varyag-and-rfs-pechenga-have-arrived-at-port-of-busan-south-korea-today/

    DemiJohn | Apr 14, 2017 9:33:42 PM | 116
    Amazing how Kim Jung-un is demonized. Certainly a bully but there is much worse ... and Erdogan is untouchable.
    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 9:43:21 PM | 117
    blues @108

    Good point about the nuclear reactors.

    In addition nuclear reactors require fossil fuel power plants as backup up they suddenly lose power. In case of an air blast over South Korea the electrical grid would shut down with possible meltdown of reactors which didn't go into standby prior to the nuclear detonation.

    An even more critical issue is that a lack of power would shutoff cooling water to the spent nuclear fuel storage ponds. This would result in the water boiling off and

    "Once the fuel is uncovered, it could become hot enough to cause the metal cladding encasing the uranium fuel to rupture and catch fire, which in turn could further heat up the fuel until it suffers damage. Such an event could release large amounts of radioactive substances, such as cesium-137, into the environment."

    http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-waste/safer-storage-of-spent-fuel#.WPF2kI61tt8

    http://allthingsnuclear.org/dlochbaum/spent-fuel-damage-pool-criticality-accident

    It is important to remember that there is more spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel rods than in the reactors. There is a DOE computer program for calculating the radionuclide composition of the fuel vs storage time (Origin code). but I cannot find it on the internet. The release of these daughter products and the long term dispersal onto the land would turn Korea into a dead zone for hundreds of years.

    jfl | Apr 14, 2017 10:13:07 PM | 118
    @125 username ... not your real name. my name is john francis lee. i've never understood people who hide behind 'clever' usernames.
    Alaric | Apr 14, 2017 10:17:31 PM | 119
    This is very disturbing but I still believe it is show and that trump is just using theater to intimidate N Korea and actually China to control N Korea.

    i fully expect that China will give him a bogus way of looking tough that will achieve nothing and do little to n Korea. The problem is what happens if n Korea and China call his bluff and give him no way to look tuff.

    Is it possible this is a distraction for further actions in Syria?

    marcus_lepidus | Apr 14, 2017 11:11:46 PM | 120
    Maybe connected.....maybe not? With the election of Trump....word gets out that North Korea is very interested in talks with the incoming administration....and then what happens: Kim Jong-un's brother dies in a spectacularly suspicious fashion. Now that Park has been impeached.......and her likely successor looks to be someone open to talks with North Korea, the US is suddenly on the brink of war with the DPRK. Coincidence...neocon serendipity? Inquiring minds wanna know!
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:12:18 PM | 121
    129
    into sci-fi entertainment much?
    yesu | Apr 14, 2017 11:23:25 PM | 122
    @29 - This is why Trump acting so tough now, he know China+UN+EU+Nato will support his coming war.Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 14, 2017 12:49:02 PM | 29


    ridiculous idea to even contend with. scared of what? the very first place for he n.korean nukes will be US army basesin japan, even before s korea.

    everyone knows the so called armada is a bluff here in asia, on other note, it shows USA doesn't provide security to the freedom of navigation that it keeps on pushing onto others. it does the opposite, it shows all the nations what freedom of navigation really means ..... to push for war instead of protecting trade, of which almost all the trade is coming from china anyways.

    it brings a huge conundrum in decision making, if trump doesn't do anything, all countries in asia will switch alliances towards china in the long run, except for broke jokes japan/usa.

    if trump does do something ridiculous, there won't be much of US/japan influence left in asia as china/russia will be forced to respond, and respond it will not like the fake wars washington is content with nowadays. trump obviously wants to change the tune of the conflicts....... but sending an armada into enemy territory while espousing support from nato..... (pacific nato?) puts so much fear into any nation here, knowing there is no petroleum logistics here for the war lovers.

    where u going to buy oil from Hong kong? singapore? japan? russia?

    NotTimothyGeithner | Apr 14, 2017 11:33:03 PM | 123
    @127 The simple answer is much like Obama, Trump is turning to bumbling around the international stage now that his domestic Presidency is finished. Between the Freedom Caucus and extinction of the Democrats who have been reliable crossover votes, there isn't a working majority in Washington.

    The key event wasn't the chemical weapon false flag or Rachel Maddow's latest Glenn Beck screed but the failure to repeal ACA and the recognition the Republicans don't have a plan to go or much of anything. The budget will be up in a few months, and he still has the same problem he has ACA: Demcorats who cant provide cover and the Freedom Caucus types.

    "Wag the Dog" scenarios focus on salacious scandals, but the collapse of domestic Presidencies are usually followed by war Presidencies. Trump is largely the idiot he appears to be and is simply grabbing onto the various interests within the borg. Trump will bounce from "enemy" to "enemy" trying to find an issue to get his Presidency back on track.

    Kalen | Apr 14, 2017 11:34:00 PM | 124
    One other jewel of US propaganda is why US is there, Keeping peace between NK and SK? Not at all US is there to keep peace between both Koreas and Japan and US stake imperial claim against China.

    Numerous cases of Japanese even minute encroachments on territorial waters of whole Korea were met by SK and NK alike with joint condemnation recalling ambassadors and even small shooting war and that including sharp conflict between both Koreans and Japan over so called disputed islands and waters.

    In fact a claim that US role there is stabilizing the situation cannot be entirely dismissed however the issue is that it is the US THAT CAUSED THIS INSTABILITY IN THE FIRST PLACE pushing regional divisions what amounts to precluding possibility to really end WWII among enemies resolve issues that still remind unresolved like Korea and move on with acknowledgment of reality of Chinese economic and political leadership which would be just return to historical situation just two centuries ago with modern solutions for coexistence.

    But that would spell the end of globalist project under US imperial umbrella, a prospective that is strongly opposed on all sides for diametrically different reasons.

    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:47:55 PM | 125
    Something that has struck me as this thread goes on.. WWII never ended. Nazi/imperial Japan quest for empire morphed into US quest for empire that is coming to a climax today.
    Anoncommentator | Apr 14, 2017 11:51:21 PM | 126
    Wide ranging fascinating interview with former high ranking CIA intelligence officer, Robert David Steele
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8UfYLA7FCqQ
    Peter AU | Apr 14, 2017 11:55:22 PM | 127
    continuing from 135

    Russia/USSR won WWII in Vietnam, and Vietnam is now an independent sovereign country. US won WWII in Germany and Germany is still an occupied country. Japan has never been disputed and remains a US occupied country. Korea has never been settled and WWII is still ongoing.

    Krollchem | Apr 14, 2017 11:58:45 PM | 128
    "Deputy Defense Minister General of the Army of Russia, Dmitry Bulgakov has arrived in Khabarovsk Krai near North Korea to inspect troops."

    "Russia also moved military vehicles (Air Def) toward Vladivostok not far from the border with North Korea"

    Link also shows videos of Chinese units moving toward the North Korean border

    http://thesaker.is/news-brief-brics-joint-communique-troops-deployment-near-korean-peninsula/

    Circe | Apr 15, 2017 12:12:39 AM | 129
    If North Korea, Russia, Iran, China or any other country that resists Zio-U.S. imperialism sent an Armada off the U.S. coast on the fourth of July, the U.S. wouldn't hesitate to sink it immediately, no questions asked. Trump is proving every day that he's a dangerous idiot.
    Anoncommentator | Apr 15, 2017 12:31:18 AM | 130
    This is going viral and so it should!!! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rkj9UCHO0Tc
    denk | Apr 15, 2017 1:03:56 AM | 131
    so mark pence is in sk with the troops 'observing easter prayer', what fucking hypocrites , 'god's army' on the way to another killing spree. --

    i wonder if pence's son is with the grunts ? mao sent his son together with the troops to help nk beat back the murkkans, hundreds of thousands never went home, including mao's son.

    but nuthin about the chinese sacrifice was mentioned in the nk war memorial hall, its all about the 'great leader'.
    during the sino/soviet split, nk had no hesitation ditching beijing for the more powerful ussr.

    by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...if only washington would accept him.

    wouldnt be surprised if kim is eventually 'cowed' by trump's armada and submit to washington wish.

    then trump would brag 'didnt i tell you all the past prez are pussies, it takes a real man to get things done'

    hehhehe
    =============

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 1:10:32 AM | 132
    @ outraged.
    What would we see for a naval and to a lesser extent air war to blockade China? No ground war component with the massive logistic tail that requires. Obama's pivot on China entailed moving 60% of US naval assets to Asia pacific region.

    Where are US subs located? Where are US missile ships located. What is classified in the way of US naval asset positioning and not available to the public?
    Carriers are smoke and mirrors. A bygone era.

    From what I can make of it, Carter pre-positioned India as a US asset in 2016.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 1:20:07 AM | 133
    it may be that b has hit the nail on the head again ...
    "As a first step, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises," Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session of the National People's Congress.
    ... what happens is that tee-rump unveils essentially this plan at the 'last minute' and takes credit for it, having exercised us all and directed the attention to his spotlight on the yellow sea.

    i hope that's what happens. we're stuck with this clown for four more years. he has no talent of his own, unless you call this kind of 'performance' talent ... and in fact he seems to have claimed it ... he may be an a**hole but he's the world's biggest a**hole! ... at least we might all live through it, ruled by a 70 year-old enfant terrible. tee-rump will play dummy and putin and xi can alternate as ventriloquists ... smiling and holding the dummy up to take the bows.

    Dr. Wellington Yueh | Apr 15, 2017 1:21:00 AM | 134
    @145: I don't really consider folks here'bouts as peasants. There are trolls and sock puppets. B and the commentators here (you and jfl are high on the list!) comprise a collection of 'reality lenses' that I find useful.

    RE: My initial response to jfl, the 20% I envision as human shields might be splittable, but you're only going to flake off a few %. Also, ignorance/apathy/fear (or incapacity for some other reason) on 'our side' brings the numbers way down. Add to that attrition from whatever course of action Empire attempts, and you have even fewer. Since we seem to be dealing with the 'upset-the-table' kind of losers, I'm sure they'll do something spectacular as a coda.

    Anyway, currently reading "The Shining", "Conquest of the Useless", "Roughing It", "Moby Dick". Just finished Gregory Benford's "Galactic Center" series...that was gripping and depressing for 6 long volumes.

    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 1:30:34 AM | 135
    North Korea's statement names the "Trump's administration serious military hysteria" This description is correct.
    blues | Apr 15, 2017 1:31:08 AM | 136
    Hmmm. Hmmm.

    /~~~~~~~~~~
    Zero Hedge -- Krunch Time for Korean Krackpot Despot, Kim Jong-Un: Missile Crisis Countdown Has Begun -- Apr 14,2017
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-14/krunch-time-korean-krackpot-despot-kim-jong-un-missile-crisis-countdown-has-begun

    Vice President Pence is scheduled to visit Seoul on Sunday, during his first Asian trip. The timing of his visit, after the Day of the Sun, might indicate the US does not plan any pre-emptive strike against North Korea on the Day of the Sun However, while Pence is ostensibly going to South Korea to talk with the government there about North Korea's nuclear development, the White House has also said it has contingency plans for the VP's visit, should North Korea carry out another nuclear test, indicating the possibility of a sudden shift to a war footing if Kim goes ahead with his apparent plans.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    What if Pence doesn't make it out in time?

    Hmmm.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 1:34:21 AM | 137
    @146 denk, 'by all accounts kim jong un would dearly wish to dump beijing for the more powerful unitedsnake...'

    but that's a plan made looking in the rearview mirror ... isn't it? the future is china's. the very recent past is the 'legacy' of the us, burnt-out shooting star. sacrificed to the greed of its ruling class. in this life, at any rate.

    any opportunist worth his wages would go with china at this point in the game. and isn't kim really just the korean version of trump?

    an apprentice working for the apparat that really runs the country as their frontman, to bound about on stage and keep the world's attention on korea?

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 1:40:24 AM | 138
    151
    Ignorance/apathy covers the middle 75% or so. A US manual on special forces hybrid/covert warfare covers that well. Even has a pie chart. Too many home brews at the moment to dig up the link, compounded by the fact that it is nearly time for my nana nap.
    Julian | Apr 15, 2017 1:53:59 AM | 139
    Re: Posted by: Pft | Apr 14, 2017 5:41:44 PM | 97

    If Kim does want to 'provoke' the Americans and test a missile or nuke surely he's most likely to do it a bit later than people think - ie - like Tuesday night Korean time - perhaps just before US markets open for Tuesday after the holidays. Or are they open on Monday? If they are, perhaps 9-10pm Monday night Korean time???

    Try and cause a 'panicked' market crash before Trump can react? Ensuring he will react against the backdrop of a market crash should he choose to react.

    Anyone know - are US markets open on Monday?

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 2:05:06 AM | 140
    @151 tjk

    i re-read moby dick myself a couple of years ago. found a whale chart to go along with it, which helped bring the voyage to life ... back in the day ... when i was a kid there were always films from africa on tv, millions of gazelles and wildebeasts. i imagine they're all gone now, as are the buffalo, as go the whales.

    i think that, just as the man himself has turned on a dime when confronted with 'reality', so too will we and many of our usian brothers and sisters, many his followers, once we reach the point of personal betrayal required to open our eyes to our real enemies, to forget the scripted 'enemies' our real enemies had taught us to love to hate. but i've never been through a real meltdown and revolution before, so i don't know. that looks to me the way things are headed though. deplored by all sides, yet thought to be well under control, yet we all have our own peculiar 'red lines', and are being pushed, relentlessly toward them. we are many and growing more numerous; they are few and getting fewer, by their own design.

    Pft | Apr 15, 2017 2:29:45 AM | 141
    @135 Peter AU

    The wars to consolidate the world under one power has been going on for well over a century. Britain took the lead early on before passing the torch to the US once Rhodes plan to recover America was accomplished, sometime between Mckinleys assassination and the and of WWI . Wall Street and the money power in the city of London were always in sync. Albert Pike predicted 3 World Wars would be needed.

    The main change has been the form of government envisioned for the future. This has changed from Communism to Fascism. Many supporters of fascism here in the 1930's including FDR. After WWII many of the fascist bankers and industrialists in Germany and Japan got off light and were reintegrated into the global economy where they trained up the next generation of fascists. They joined forces with those likeminded folks in the US and Brits by working together in BIS, various international agencies and groups like the Bilderbergers and Trilaterals to develop strategies to acccomplish their goals in the short and long terms

    This is oversimplistic but time is short

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 15, 2017 2:31:02 AM | 142
    ...
    After all, given the insane and surreal rabid propaganda in western MSM, what difference would it make re supposed 'image' in the eyes of the supposed 'International Community' (US/UK/Israhell & good time vassals) ... any ?
    Posted by: Outraged | Apr 14, 2017 4:03:27 PM | 78

    That's a really good question. Imo, Western propaganda often seems to have an influence on the actions and statements of AmeriKKKa's fake enemies. There are two (maybe more?) ways of looking at this.

    1. The fake enemies really are worried about public opinion in the West.
    2. They're not worried, but deem it sensible to pretend that they are, because anything they can do to encourage AmeriKKKa to believe more of its own bullshit should lead to an escalation to the point where it crosses the line dividing the sublime from the ridiculous - which is what seems to have happened this year.

    michaelj72 | Apr 15, 2017 2:40:23 AM | 143
    we are ruled by idiots, con men, war-mongers, and Neanderthal whackos. Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions. Plus, I assume, the north korean army that remains would likely shower much of south korea with tens of thousands of rockets, mortars and missiles. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/04/14/whackos-in-washington-the-risky-game-of-regime-decapitation/

    Whackos in Washington: the Risky Game of Regime Decapitation by Dave Lindorff

    .....But what would the result of such a strike be?

    For one thing, almost certainly it would mean the contamination of part or even much of the country in North Korea with nuclear fallout and radiation. For another it - given the long history of US "precision" targeting going terribly wrong - it would mean much death and destruction for the long-suffering North Korean people.

    It would also mean chaos in a country that for nearly three-quarters of a century has been ruled by one absolute tyrant or another, in which there is simply no organized system of governance at lower levels to handle anything, from delivery of health services to distribution of food. If you think the chaos that followed the US invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist leadership of Iraq was bad, or that the chaos of the US overthrow of Gaddafy in Libya was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet if North Korea's leader gets offed in a US strike.

    In theory, China, South Korea or Japan could step in with troops, money and civilian personnel to help reestablish some kind of order and peace, while preventing the rise of yet another tyrannical government, but none of that is likely. The Chinese would probably not want to take it on, the Japanese are viewed negatively as a former colonial power, and South Korea may not want the financial burden of rescuing the North, which would be staggering.

    Meanwhile, while the US could relatively easily, and at minimal cost, "take out" North Korea's missiles, nukes and leadership, especially in the case of the Trump administration, there is absolutely no interest in taking on the costs of occupying and subsidizing the rebuilding North Korea following such an ill-conceived attack......

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 2:51:26 AM | 144
    163
    "Any attack by the US would be a massacre and humanitarian disaster of epic proportions."

    Just part of human nature. Very common throughout history.
    As technology increases, the scale increases.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:27:44 AM | 145
    A lot of people do not know that the US bombed the hell out of the entire of north Korea during the war. Like to ashes. The Chinese, and even more so, the Soviet reconstruction project for north Korea was the biggest of its kind post WWII. Even bigger than what actually went to European reconstruction I believe, but don't quote me on that (not in terms of what was earmarked but spent).

    ALSO perhaps the biggest crime was bombing the north's huge dams. Unless your a poor farmer you don't know what kind a thing that it is to do. No military value (I heard it was bombed because they ran out of other targets in some way).

    Its insane and breeds a toooon of animosity. Plus rejecting all attempts at peace talks. Plus having the media only present it in one way and an attitude of RA RA we don't engage in diplomacy with the terrorist obviously he only listens to force.

    Crazy world. And most people can't see past it at a level more deep than "crazy dictator with a bad haircut."

    The world is so fucked up.

    okie farmer | Apr 15, 2017 3:28:25 AM | 146
    The 'mother of all bombs' is big, deadly – and won't lead to peace Medea Benjamin
    "I'm really very good at war. I love war, in a certain way," bragged candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Iowa. This is the same Donald Trump who avoided the Vietnam draft by claiming a bone spur in his foot, a medical problem that never kept him off the tennis courts or golf courses, and miraculously healed on its own.
    But with the escalation of US military involvement in Syria, the record number of drone attacks in Yemen, more US troops being sent to the Middle East and, now, the dropping of a massive bomb in Afghanistan, it looks like Trump may indeed love war. Or at least, love "playing" war.
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/14/the-mother-of-all-bombs-big-deadly-ineff

    https://youtu.be/FMArIc5Hn_g

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:30:53 AM | 147
    I've also heard the total death toll was between 1/10 and 1/5 of the total population.

    Of the TOTAL population. Imagine knowing no one could name a person not being touched by the violence. Having total families decimated. Breeds a ton of hatred and understandably so. We need to get that its not just as one sided as having everyone "brainwashed" without access to outside culture. Its an insane outlook.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:37:42 AM | 148
    Solo sorry for the triple post, also needed to say that because everyone hates this crazy dictator people never take the anti war position. Its just we should charge in with our guns - or giant missiles - blazing hooorahh.

    No one sees the death and destruction that will take place. The artillery alone not even nukes, would smash Seoul. They can't see beyond the black and white of 'allow dictator nukes' and 'kill him.' There's never room for diplomacy here - its just as bad as 'negotiating with terrorists.' What a crock of shit. And trumps played his hand badly cause he has no wiggle room. Makes Syrian strike looks like a joke. So much for being friendly with China. How about a piece of delicious cake as consolation?

    b | Apr 15, 2017 3:45:16 AM | 150
    @Outraged - deleted a bunch of your comments with long list of military equipment no one is interested in

    provide links to such stuff, don't copy it.

    --

    @all - deleted a bunch of nonsensical one-liners and some sniping at each other that I considered off topic. Go back to kindergarten if you need that.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 3:45:27 AM | 151
    LOVE B's take on the economics of nuclear might is. Crazy I never heard of those documents. Doesn't help that the North has been straved of food - and more importantly OIL. Means a lot of money when you get down to brass taxes. Worst of all, north Korea NEEDS subsistence farming and its so mountainous you need oil and diesel to blow these hilly as hell fields. When you strave them of oil, you strave them of food again in a way. Without subsistence farming they strave for the most part. And people think that drives people AWAY from a demagogic/personality cult type figure. It only endears them more. It, in a way, is proving the dictator right... That the US IS OUT TO GET US (and it is) and THE US IS STARVING YOU NOT ME (also true).
    b | Apr 15, 2017 4:02:52 AM | 152
    @all - done some housecleaning here for Day of the Sun - Juche 105 (.i.e.today)
    ---

    The parade in North Korea yesterday was quite a show. Lots of new TEL (Transport-Erector-Launch Vehicles) for big intercontinental missiles. We don't know if real missiles were inside but NoKo likes to show new stuff off and only field it a year or two later.

    Video of the 3 hour parade from NoKo TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okxM0AUsh_w The interesting mil stuff starts around 2h 14m with the leg swinging girls (intentionally?)

    Some remarks on the off-road capable TEL North Korea's 2017 Military Parade Was a Big Deal. Here Are the Major Takeaways

    Even though Pyongyang withheld from testing this weekend amid rumors of possible retaliation by the United States, North Korea is still looking to improve its missile know-how. Moreover, the long-dreaded ICBM flight test also might not be too far off now. Given the ever-growing number of TELs - both wheeled and tracked - North Korea may soon field nuclear forces amply large that a conventional U.S.-South Korea first strike may find it impossible to fully disarm Pyongyang of a nuclear retaliatory capability. That would give the North Korean regime what it's always sought with its nuclear and ballistic missile program: an absolute guarantee against coercive removal.
    (will put the above in a post update)
    ashley albanese | Apr 15, 2017 4:31:45 AM | 153
    smoothie X2 82
    Ah -- what lies beneath the waves? . I remember in the early 1970's comments in the Western press that China through budget constraints was putting its 'eggs' into the submarine basket - cost effectiveness - . The article stressed that Chinese strategists deliberately eschewed using non-Chinese designs and 'fast track' technology so as to develop submarine systems that would have unique , secret capabilities honed to Chinese conditions . Perhaps of all weaponary the Chinese sub-mariners may have some surprises in store . Let's hope we never have to find out --
    oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 4:38:31 AM | 154
    Dear b and community. I read all of your posts on this topic with interest.

    The focus seems to be on what DPRK (north), PRC and USA might do. I would like to suggest that closer scrutiny should be applied to what is actually going on in RK (South). I think that this tension is being ratcheted upwards primarily to influence the outcome of the presidential election in the South.

    For the past two presidential terms, the South has had Lee Myung-Bak and Park Geun-Hye both of whom took a hardline against North Korea and have killed the Sunshine Policy of their predecessors (Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-Hyun). As we all know, Park has recently been impeached. In normal circumstances it could be expected that an opposition figure like Moon Jae-In would be the favourite to win the election. This may not be in the interests of either the US, Japan or the powers-that-be in South Korea.

    The election is 9 May 2017, and the US president has just ensured that North Korea will be front and centre in the campaign.

    Just a thought. Thanks for everyone's contributions. This is a really good place to gain insight.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 5:17:39 AM | 155
    @154

    Extremely interesting take. Plus the anti THAAD movement is growing. Incidents between American soldiers in South Korean bases and the locals have been growing and that doesn't help. Remember that Osprey crash a couple months back?

    It all adds up.

    PavewayIV | Apr 15, 2017 5:24:32 AM | 156
    oneoffposter@154 - Thanks for that, oneoffposter. Korea would (supposedly) have been re-unified in the late 90's if it wasn't for US and Japanese efforts to prevent that from happening. I don't have specifics to back that up, but that 'feels' about right with regards to US actions over the years.

    South Korea is clearly benefiting economically (finally) from US support, but also pays a price by being another lapdog to the US and an eternal host for our military presence, willing or not. I suspect it's 'willing' because the US does everything possible to remind South Koreans of their peril by demonizing the North. South Korean press is worse than the US MSM.

    Likewise, the US does everything possible to antagonize North Korean leaders and rattle their cage, making them seem even more insane than they usually are. Resulting, of course, in the South Koreans eagerly approving an eternal US presence for protection and the North Korean leaders sliding further into a black hole of indignation and rage. We didn't create the psychopaths in North Korea, but we're sure good at keeping them in power. They're useful to us.

    I'll be watching the elections in the South with much interest now.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 6:15:41 AM | 157
    i wonder how much we really know about the koreans. it's hard for me to imagine that the korean people hate and fear each other. korea is not a settler country, like us five eyes, where the possibility of setting one group against another is so conveniently ready to hand to the oppressors. can either set of koreans hate and fear one of their governments more than the other? i think, as someone else pointed out above, the worst of the terror after the war was undertaken by korean compradors of the japanese, at american instigation. i remember reading about a program to 'allow' southerners to cross the border for family reunions. i think it was terrifically popular.

    who pointed out above that wwii has not yet ended on the korean peninsula. i always knew that the war was 'technically' not over in the sense of no peace treaty's having been signed ... the same obtains between russia and japan, doesn't it? that's an indictment right there of the us. in both cases, as the us still has japan on a short leash.

    treating peoples like objects, we'll be objects of hate ourselves, finally. already are in many quarters, of course. but in far fewer than we 'merit'. i don't see how that cannot change now that we have embraced 'the dark side', as cheney put it, and now the unabashed evil-clown/wicked-witch with trump/clinton in the 2016 coin toss.

    now with mercenaries, cruise missiles, drones, chemical weapons, and none of our own skin in the game ourselves any longer, we really do fit the description of creatures from another planet to our victims. the image of hg wells' aliens in tripods sticks in my mind. that must be just what americans - not even in - drones and cruise missiles must seem to our victims.

    atonement. at-one-ment a friend of mine used to say. with the human race. how long will that take for america and americans, once 'the pride of man' is broken in the dust again.

    V. Arnold | Apr 15, 2017 6:36:59 AM | 158
    Well, it's 19:02m in Korea, on the 15th and no nuke blast. President Loon (my apology to the bird) will have to pack up his toys and go home.
    I wonder how much that hubris cost the US?
    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 6:43:12 AM | 159
    Posted by: oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 4:38:31 AM | 154

    From German experience this would not work. Every South Korean knows that war with the North was/would be total desaster.

    It is also clear that North Korea will only open up if they feel safe. The break down of communist systems is over, there is no use to wait for that.

    German Social Democrats had their best election results when promoting a "change by approach" policy.

    The main issue will be South Korea's relationship with the US and China. Traditionally South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. But the US managed to create a security conflict between China and South Korea that ensures increased Chinese military support for North Korea.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 7:14:42 AM | 160
    @159 sb, 'South Korea has profited more from the US than from exchange with China. I bet this has already changed. '

    you win your bet...

    The top export destinations of South Korea are
    China ($131B),
    the United States ($72.7B),
    Vietnam ($26.6B),
    Hong Kong ($26.3B) and
    Japan ($25.5B).

    The top import origins are
    China ($90.1B),
    Japan ($44.6B),
    the United States ($42.7B),
    Germany ($20.2B) and
    Saudi Arabia ($17.7B).

    oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 7:54:29 AM | 161
    @160 jfl

    Thanks for posting the figures. I don't know what the present day figures are like (your source seems to be posting figures for 2015).

    Since then, Park Geun-Hye gave the go ahead for THAAD to be installed overriding the objections of the local people. People more informed than I question (to put it mildly) the benefit this gives to South Korea. However, it has already had an impact on the South's economic relationship with China (and I guess, the political relationship too), showing just how important the question of who holds power in South Korea really is.

    Posters here often refer to the US/NATO attempt to split the Russia/China axis. It seems to me that this KOR/CHINA relationship also would not be welcomed.

    The ideas and slow-build towards reunification as evidenced by Kim Dae-Jung & Roh Moo-Hyun (e.g. Sunshine policy and the Truth commissions) were (in my opinion) logical steps to be taken towards first reducing the tensions on the peninsula leading perhaps to reunification talks (you never know). It is impossible to know now where they would have led, but they have been thoroughly discredited at this point and it is difficult to see how they could be restarted.

    somebody | Apr 15, 2017 7:57:38 AM | 162
    S.Koreans file petition with constitutional court against THAAD deployment
    SEOUL, April 6 (Xinhua) -- South Korean residents and civic group activists on Thursday filed a petition against the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system, which they depicted as unconstitutional.

    Residents from Seongju county and Gimcheon city in southeast South Korea and peace activists gathered outside the constitutional court in central Seoul, holding a press conference before submitting the constitutional appeal.

    According to the petition document, the residents and activists said the THAAD deployment violated many of the constitution clauses while failing to follow any appropriate procedures.

    Seoul and Washington abruptly announced a decision in July last year to install one THAAD battery in the county by the end of this year. Just three days before the announcement, Defense Minister Han Min-koo told lawmakers that he hadn't been informed of any notice about the THAAD installation.

    Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se visited a department store when the THAAD deployment decision was announced, indicating no advance discussions between ministers of defense and foreign affairs and the presidential office.

    The petitioners said the decision-making process on THAAD was rough and ready as there was no approval in the cabinet meeting, and that it was unilaterally determined by the national security council of the presidential office.

    "The THAAD decision did not follow any proper procedure. No effort has been made for dialogue with residents," said Ha Joo-hee, an attorney at Lawyers for a Democratic Society, an advocacy group composed of liberal lawyers.

    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 8:17:00 AM | 163
    So much provocation, vilification and preparation of the public...for nothing.

    The Neocons had really hoped that NK would react in some spectacularly 'menacing' way on its national holiday...but no, just a parade with some huge phal...er, missiles. Sad.

    It doesn't really matter *who* starts an aggression, but somebody at some point would surely lose his nerves, no? And NK would make for such a good villain, reminding SK and Japan of how dearly they need all that 'protection'.

    Let's see where the next act will play out. Ukraine once again, or Libya?

    (on that MOAB - looks like a strong message that 'we' are not about to give Afghanistan up, but rather willing to up the ante...)

    col from oz | Apr 15, 2017 8:26:51 AM | 164
    Beautifully written 157 jfl esp NOW
    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 8:32:42 AM | 165
    @ oneoffposter | Apr 15, 2017 7:54:29 AM | 161

    Yet bet NATO wouldn't be happy. The entire 'containment' policy towards Beijing rests on the surrounding states being hostile to/ scared of China. Already SE Asia has all but 'fallen' (from a western viewpoint), what remains is Japan and SK. Detente? God forbid!

    The THAAD deployment places SK (even more) firmly in the cross-hairs of China's missiles. So now, at least they have some reason to fear it and scramble for 'protection'...mission accomplished!

    (President Park didn't approve of this...which is why she was removed.)

    Is there a way out of this? Not really. The US running out of money, maybe.

    Curtis | Apr 15, 2017 8:59:05 AM | 166
    b
    I read the nj.gov link and it does not tend to match your narrative in that paragraph although I agree that official narratives tend to twist the truth. I cannot see the Soviet motives towards Korea as anymore altruistic than Japan's especially in that time period. The Soviets are no more saints in the WWII period than the US.

    I do agree that US maneuvers close to the borders of "opponents" whether Russia or NK are antagonistic and unnecessary. And sometimes stupid action takes place after them like we saw in Georgia 2008. Putin shook a finger at Bush and rightly so. If Mr. "Art of the Deal" really were a deal maker he would meet at Panmunjon with the leaders of NK, SK, Russia, and China and sign an final official end to the Korean war and set the framework for demilitarization of the peninsula and trade/other deals.

    Curtis | Apr 15, 2017 9:01:20 AM | 167
    somebody jfl
    Excellent points. What South Korea wants should be paramount to the issue of what the US should do. Seoul is very vulnerable.
    Anon1 | Apr 15, 2017 9:06:26 AM | 168
    smuks

    For nothing? The american ship have pretty much just arrived, within next 4 weeks we probably will see something happen by the US. He simply cant back now.

    Gravatomic | Apr 15, 2017 9:18:57 AM | 169
    @Hoarsewhisperer

    According to US MSM the Chinese are totally on board and only have moved troops to bolster the border and help the US. And Russia and China really aren't conducting military exercises together.

    This constant mistranslated rhetoric and literally putting of words into foreign leaders mouths is of course one aspect of the western propaganda arm. Even when the headline or text of the article is updated, corrected or removed the meat of it remains in social media like Facebook.

    I have friends who use Facebook, I don't, who constantly say the oddest, incorrect things to me that could only have been fomented there.

    Gravatomic | Apr 15, 2017 9:23:57 AM | 170
    @ oneoffposter

    Yes, when the arm twisting doesn't suffice they remove you, that's part of what the NSA and CIA do. Smear, blackmail and gather corruption evidence, whether real, perceived or planted to keep US puppets in line.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 10:29:41 AM | 171
    @161 oop,

    yes, somebody's link had the china-south korea trade at 300 billion, whereas the numbers in the link i found were at ~220 billion. but the the china-south korea trade at 220 billion was just about twice the us-south korea trade in that period. i imagine it ratio was higher, if anything, up until thaad.

    @162, sb,

    maybe the trade value lost due to the thaad deal will make everyone 'notice' its illegality ... now that they're starting to bleed. money speaks louder than the law, in most countries these days.

    @167 curtis

    they'd set the peninsula on fire if they thought it would bring them closer to world domination. the us ruling class cares not a whit for humans of any 'brand', americans included. certainly not for koreans, north or south.

    @170 gravatomic

    i have no proof but that's exactly the thought that ran through my head when park went down : she wasn't 'on board' the thaad train. i suppose it was the memory of the pictures with xi ... and of the vile cia's past actions, all over the world.

    Monolycus | Apr 15, 2017 10:32:57 AM | 172
    @b

    I saw your response earlier about how no writer can represent both sides equally, and I agree. I still lurk here and find no fault with your insights 99% of the time. You know perfectly well that in most situations, I am a staunch non-interventionist. I simply disagree (strongly) on this particular issue. Anyway, I apologize for sounding so hostile--especially at you. This situation just has my nerves pretty frayed right now.

    I don't want to be dragged into a giant tu quoque match, so I won't respond to much more here, except to address George Smiley @155, above. I'm not sure where you read that the anti-THAAD movement is "growing," but that certainly doesn't seem to be the case from here on the ground. I am about 20 minutes from Seongju, and have spoken to many of the anti-THAAD people about their concerns. There's very, very little going on there politically; Seongju is a very poor area which is economically dependent on a particular melon crop they are famous for. Most of the anti-THAAD demonstrators were local farmers who had gotten the idea that the EM radiation coming from the THAAD radar would hurt their crops. In the wake of China's economic retaliation against THAAD, however, a good many of the locals have reversed their opinion and now support it. When the deployment was first announced, there was a lot of buzz about it (nobody wanted it here in their backyard,) but now when the subject is brought up at all (increasingly rarely,) it's usually digging in their heels about how China deserves it for kicking out their K-pop stars and shutting down the Lotteria fast food restaurants unfairly. Public opinion might change again if Moon Jae-in declares a firm position about it instead of waffling back and forth, but at this moment it's only a small but vocal minority that are opposed to it.

    dh | Apr 15, 2017 10:33:07 AM | 173
    @158 The US armada will be off to Pattaya soon for some well deserved R&R.

    The BBC coverage is worth a watch BTW for those who like to read between the lines. Lots of spin of course but the commentator does admit at one point that NK needs its nukes to avoid going the way of Iraq and Libya.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39607343

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 10:47:18 AM | 174
    @168 anon

    was there ever an 'official' announcement of a nuclear test planned for saturday? or was it just an 'expectation' ... if the latter, maybe the cia fostered it, knowing it wasn't going to happen, so they could thwack tee-rump's rump and have him take a 'victory lap' when it didn't? if they're serious about nukes ... and they should be as long as the us has them in its sights ... the north koreans have got to test more at some point.

    it's really hard for me to imagine any good excuse for a us battle group to be between china and korea in the yellow sea without an invitation. what would the us position be if a chinese - not to mention a russian - battle group showed up in the caribbean, or hudson's bay, concerned about the rogue american state and it's mad leader ?

    denk | Apr 15, 2017 11:03:02 AM | 175
    jfl 137


    here's the oft derided 'unelected' ccp partial plan for 2017,
    'to lift another 10-20m people outta poverty and step up the anti corruption battle'.
    thats in addition to the 70m already bailed out , cited by UN as a text book case of social development.

    whats the vaunted 'elected' leaders of murkka plan for 2017,
    to do 'syria, nk, iran, china, russia.... '?
    350 ships for the 'depleted' USN ?
    'star war' redux ?
    by the guy who got 'elected' on his 'anti deep state' and 'populist' platform --


    denk | Apr 15, 2017 11:09:48 AM | 176

    lots of people say mdm park is a murkkan stooge and she's been removed by people power.

    well like i say many times before, park is a very reluctant 'stooge',
    first off she is a known sinophile who's well versed in chinese culture,
    she had been dragging her feet over the thaad installation for years and china is sk's largest market.
    hence antagonising china must be the last thing on her mind.

    anyone of the above is enough reason for a regime change.
    the last straw was most likely when she defied washington's dictat and join putin in china's ww2 memorial ceremony in 2015.
    mind you, she's the only leader from the murkkan camp with 'cojones'to attend. [1]
    i guess her fate was sealed from that moment.

    so is her ouster yet another color rev masqueraded as 'people power',like the 'arab spring' etc ?

    some observers think so.

    we shall see.

    [1]
    Xi extended a particularly warm welcome to Park, who attended the ceremony over the objections of Japan and the U.S.
    http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Ties-between-Park-Xi-shape-East-Asia-diplomacy

    Anon1 | Apr 15, 2017 11:27:54 AM | 177
    jfl / 174

    Re: US provocations

    Yes you are of course right, as usual when US does it themselves, it is apparently the fault of the other party (North Korea) according to the useless MSM in the west.

    There are some rumours that NK will test its nuclear tech. again soon and then US will strike.
    China is getting nervous somehow, apparently dont understand what they effectively have giving a green light to:

    China : "We call on all parties to refrain from provoking and threatening each other, whether in words or actions, and not let the situation get to an irreversible and unmanageable stage."
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/15/nkor-a15.html

    The chinese cant even condemn the foreign aggressor anymore.

    juliania | Apr 15, 2017 12:13:45 PM | 178
    Thank you very much for this important and critical posting, b. I wish for you and all who come here a joyful and rich Springtime holy season to assuage our fears and give us hope for the future.

    Peace to all.

    Rick | Apr 15, 2017 2:37:35 PM | 179
    Sure would be nice to find the original of the comments attributed to MacArthur. I've looked at the references in "Napalm: an American biography" by Robert M. Neer but can't find any original sources online. The footnote for this passage is jumbled, citing seven sources for this passage.

    I did find that at the time MacArthur was advocating far more attacks in Korea, not less, which makes such comments suspect. Why would someone who was losing their job, and likely their career, due to their stance advocating more military action make such comments?

    mauisurfer | Apr 15, 2017 3:14:19 PM | 180

    It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose

    From Foreign Policy Magazine (behind the paywall)

    The first step to solving the North Korean problem is removing U.S. troops from the middle of it.

    By Doug Bandow
    April 13, 2017

    It's Time for America to Cut South Korea Loose

    Asia contains the world's two most populous nations, the country with the largest Muslim population, the two largest economies after America, and the next superpower and peer competitor to the United States. But when U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited the continent recently, small, impoverished North Korea nearly monopolized his attention.

    Why is the United States, which dominates the globe militarily, politically, and economically, fixated on this poor, isolated, and distant nation? Because America has gotten entangled where it does not belong.

    Washington has been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula since the end of World War II. Subsequently, the Cold War gave a zero-sum quality to international relations, with Washington's loss being the Soviet Union's gain. Having invested some 37,000 lives to save South Korea during the Korean War, America's credibility was also at stake. And with the "loss" of China to communism fresh on Americans' minds, nobody was willing to see another Asian nation go red.

    But that world disappeared long ago.

    The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America's Korea commitment its purpose.

    The Korean Peninsula has lost its geopolitical significance, South Korea its helplessness, and America's Korea commitment its purpose. While there is much to criticize in the approach of Donald Trump's administration to the rest of the world, the president correctly sees the need for a foreign policy that more effectively protects America's interests. A good place to start shifting course is the region home to the world's newest and least responsible nuclear power.

    The Koreas are no longer a proxy battleground between superpowers. There was a time when U.S. withdrawal from a confrontation with a Soviet ally in Asia would have, analysts believed, signaled weakness a continent away in Europe. But the Soviets are long gone and the cause for American commitment with them. An inter-Korean war would be tragic and the body count enormous, but absent American involvement the fighting would largely be confined to the peninsula. The continued presence of U.S. forces, by contrast, virtually guarantees the spread of conflict.

    South Korea's defense no longer requires Washington's presence. The South's economy began racing past its northern antagonist during the 1960s. Democracy arrived in the late 1980s. By the 1990s, when mass starvation stalked Pyongyang as Seoul's economy boomed, the gap between the two Koreas was already huge and growing. The South's military potential is correspondingly great though as yet unrealized - in part because dependence on the U.S. presence has affected strategic choices.

    Yet America's military presence has remained sacrosanct. Jimmy Carter's plan to bring home U.S. troops was opposed even by his own appointees. Ronald Reagan pushed a more muscular confrontation with the Soviet Union and other communist states. With the end of the Cold War, his successors expanded alliance commitments, particularly in Europe, but also in Asia. Today, 28,500 troops remain in South Korea, backed up by U.S. forces in Okinawa and other Asian-Pacific bases, and highlighted by periodic decisions to overfly the North with bombers or send aircraft carriers to nearby waters whenever Washington wants to demonstrate "resolve" to Pyongyang.

    So why is America still there?

    One argument, advanced by analyst Robert E. McCoy, is moral, "since it was American ignorance that facilitated the division of the Korean Peninsula in the concluding days of World War II." Some Koreans malign America for this division. But this is the wisdom of hindsight; in the chaotic aftermath of global conflict, no U.S. official wanted to push the Soviets over a faraway peninsula. The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism and claims that it must forever police the peninsula.

    More practical is the contention of analysts such as the Heritage Foundation's Bruce Klingner that U.S. backing is "necessary to defend" the South. Yet, in contrast to 1950, there is no reason the South cannot protect itself - if properly motivated to do so by the departure of U.S. conventional forces. With a bigger economy, larger population, and significant technological edge, as well as greater international support, Seoul could construct armed forces capable of deterring and defeating the North. Doing so would be expensive and take serious effort, but so what? The South Korean government's most important duty is to protect its people.

    Taking on that responsibility also would force Seoul to treat Pyongyang more consistently. The "Sunshine Policy" begun under former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung resulted in the transfer of some $10 billion in cash and assistance to the North, even as the latter was developing missiles and nuclear weapons. That approach was viable only because Washington provided a military backstop (and if the new South Korean president, to be elected in May, revives the Sunshine Policy, as some have suggested, there's no telling if the Trump administration would be so forgiving). The South needs to bear both the costs and benefits of whatever approach it takes.

    But even if South Korea couldn't defend itself, the argument would still fall short.

    American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and everywhere.

    American soldiers shouldn't be treated as defenders of the earth, deployed here, there, and everywhere. The United States should go to war only when its most important interests are at stake.

    South Korea's prosperity is not one of those vital interests, at least in security terms. A renewed conflict confined to the two Koreas would be horrific, but the consequences for the United States would be primarily humanitarian and economic, not security. The cost would be high but fall primarily on the region. In contrast, direct U.S. involvement in another Korean War would be much more expensive than the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts, which have cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

    Of course, the North's possession of what we assume to be a growing and at some point deliverable nuclear arsenal skews the peninsula's balance of power. However, this doesn't create a need for a conventional American military presence on the peninsula. Washington could still guarantee massive retaliation against any North Korean use of nuclear weapons, providing a deterrent against the North's threats.

    But it is worth contemplating whether it would be better to allow South Korea to construct its own deterrent. In the late 1970s, South Korean President Park Chung-hee worried about Washington's reliability and began work on a Korean bomb - only to stop under U.S. pressure. Since then, support for reviving such work has periodically surfaced in South Korea. Encouraging such efforts might actually be in the best interests of the United States, even if America has to maintain its nuclear umbrella while the Korean bomb is developed.

    Yes, encouraging nuclear proliferation is a risky path. But the United States would gain from staying out of Northeast Asia's nuclear quarrels. China, fearful that Japan would join the nuclear parade, might take tougher action against Pyongyang in an attempt to forestall Seoul's efforts. The South could feel confident in its own defense, rather than remaining reliant upon U.S. willingness to act.

    A potpourri of broader claims is also made for maintaining U.S. forces. America's presence supposedly constrains China, promotes regional stability, and deters an arms race. Let's consider those claims in order. What sort of constraint is allegedly being posed to China? If the idea is to coerce it into assuming responsibility for North Korea in the event of its collapse, Beijing has shown no interest in attempting to swallow a Korean population likely to prove indigestible. And if the calculation is rather that Washington can persuade South Korea to pressure China on non-Korean matters, it's easy to predict the unfriendly response Seoul's Blue House would give if invited by the White House to join it in warring against China to, say, save an independent Taiwan, counter Chinese moves in the South China Sea - or, horror of horrors, defend Japan. Indeed, absent U.S. protection, South Korea and Japan might feel greater pressure to finally settle historical disputes so often misused by their nationalist politicians.

    As for the idea that the U.S. presence deters a regional arms race, building weapons so others don't have to is not the sort of charity America should engage in. Alliances can deter. But, as dramatically demonstrated by World War I, they also can act as transmission belts of war. Moreover, small nations often act irresponsibly - such as underinvesting in defense - when protected by big powers.

    The U.S. security presence in South Korea is an expensive and dangerous commitment that America can no longer afford. Nor has it ever brought the United States much popularity in the country, where U.S. soldiers are a constant irritant to nationalists. The South is no longer a poor nation in need of protection from the specter of global communism but one more than capable of standing on its own two feet.

    George Smiley | Apr 15, 2017 4:50:38 PM | 181
    @172 That makes me sad to hear. I appreciate a perspective that comes from first hand experience. Its hard to get a proper outloom I feel outside of speaking with Koreans or even knowing the language.

    Perhaps reading articles published by journalists opposed to THAAD has distorted my handle of the situation. Sad the movement doesn't have more traction.

    I do know more than a few Koreans firsthand pissed off at US army personnel behaviour though. Perhaps that can be channelled into meaningful change. They tell me that the impunity from judicial retribution plays a big role in the anger. Certain bases in Japan have had similar problems (I get the sense it cause more anger there though unfortunately). Perhaps this is just the views of a few people I talk to in SK though.

    Any thoughts? I appreciate your response greatly.

    Kalen | Apr 15, 2017 5:01:37 PM | 182
    What is real Russian position on this WWIII POTENTIAL STANDOFF. NK only one condemned attack on Syria while if what I hear is true, they want NK disarmed even in face of open US aggression. Also China if awfully quiet while repeating thirty year old equitable solution rejected by US that never looked for any solutions but domination. What's going on?
    karlof1 | Apr 15, 2017 5:19:16 PM | 183
    Rick @179--

    I wanted to see the footnotes for that section, too, but I don't have a paper copy of the book. However, based upon other readings of same testimony, I believe they were made during Congressional testimony.

    Perhaps the most important element to learn from the aggression waged against the peoples of Korea, Indochina, and Iraq by the Outlaw US Empire is their Genocidal nature, and the additional fact that in their post-war environment the killing and maiming continues unabated: All casualty categories combined add up to well over 10 million and rising, far outperforming Hitler's genocide of jews, gypsies and others.

    Outraged | Apr 15, 2017 5:21:08 PM | 184
    @ b 150

    Apologies. Understood. Will comply.

    Re b @ 152 & post update

    Heres an 8min38Sec Youtube of the military personnel & 'hardware' portion only:

    North Korea Holds Massive Military Parade 'Day of the Sun Parade' in Pyongyang ( Show Case Missile )
    dh | Apr 15, 2017 5:22:19 PM | 185
    @182 Don't know about Russia but I have some thoughts re. China. Xi made it clear to Donald that China would support Kim if NK is attacked i.e WW3.

    At the same time Xi told Kim not to provoke Donald i.e. no nuclear test. Let them think they've won.

    Outraged | Apr 15, 2017 5:42:46 PM | 186
    @ Posted by: dh | Apr 15, 2017 5:22:19 PM | 185

    Fully concur. And the Chinese are 'civilized' re public discourse, just because the are not openly bellicose and full of aggressive rhetoric, does not mean they are push over pussies, exactly the opposite behind the agreeable, diplomatic, ' face '. Talk softly, yet have a big stick ready, just in case.

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 6:26:20 PM | 187
    @180 mauisurfer

    the foreign policy article extends tee-tump's 'pay for a native implementation of us policy' a la nato to south korea ... and wouldn't it be a good idea if south korea had nukes, too. their summary of us 'involvement' in korea post-wwii is shameful ...

    The alternative was pure inaction, which would have resulted in South Koreans joining their northern neighbors in the Kim dynasty's new Dark Age. Perhaps inadvertently, Washington did a very good deed. For that it deserves praise, not criticism ...
    Depraved foreign policy recommendations from the us foreign policy establishment might as well stay in their echo chamber, behind their paywall, as far as i'm concerned. news of the us foreign policy establishment's depravity is dog bites man.
    smuks | Apr 15, 2017 7:05:05 PM | 188
    @ Anon1 168

    Why should that happen, if no side is willing to fire the first shot? There's been 'increased tensions' many times before, missile and nuclear tests, naval drills...so far it's all just scaremongering to me, and I don't quite see why it should be heating up *now*.

    Peter AU | Apr 15, 2017 7:11:02 PM | 189
    Looks like NK may have done a missile test. Failed apparently.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-missile-idUSKBN17H0NL
    https://sputniknews.com/asia/201704161052679707-north-korea-fails-misile-launch/

    jfl | Apr 15, 2017 8:10:03 PM | 190
    there's a brief summary at the nation of the most germane us-north korean history by Burce Cumings, on 23 March This Is What's Really Behind North Korea's Nuclear Provocations .
    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 16, 2017 1:21:37 AM | 191
    Other authors sympathetic to the plight of Korea are...
    Gavan NcCormack
    Gregory Elich
    Desaix Anderson, who delivered an address on the US monstrous and systematic betrayal of NK to the Nautilus Institute called Crisis In North Korea. Anderson was the CEO of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO).
    I can no longer find the article on the www but one of the sleuths here may be able to track it down.
    Mr Reynard | Apr 16, 2017 2:44:06 AM | 192
    Actually, all the problems started with the demands that Kim Jong Un made to USA --
    First, he has demanded that USA give up all of its nuclear weapons, that USA stop all nuclear research, that there should be a "regime change" in Washington, plus he had the chutzpah to send assassins to USA to kill the POTUS !! So I'm not surprised at the reaction of D Trump to this provocation ??
    b | Apr 16, 2017 10:11:11 AM | 194
    Had forgotten this when I wrote the post above:

    Wikileaks, Podesta email about the Hillary Clinton speech for Goldman Sachs "We don't want a unified Korean Peninsula" because China, not the U.S., would naturally dominate it. The U.S. will do everything it can to prevent reunification.

    JMiller | Apr 16, 2017 10:26:08 AM | 195
    The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises"

    It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities.

    Outraged | Apr 16, 2017 10:32:20 AM | 196
    @ JMiller

    Would that be Judith Miller, perhaps, or possibly just a hero/role model ? ;) One perfectly reasonable phrase comes to mind, ' Subsequent to good faith negotiations & actual, guarantees '.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 16, 2017 12:28:22 PM | 197
    Link to Desaix Anderson's Nautilus Institute address Crisis In North Korea.
    http://oldsite.nautilus.org/fora/security/0325A_Anderson.html
    JMiller | Apr 16, 2017 2:39:37 PM | 198
    The NK offer says that they "MAY suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises".

    It does not say that they WILL suspend its nuclear and missile activities, just that they may. It is not surprising that the U.S. turned down the offer since it did not guarantee that NK would do anything.

    Anon1 | Apr 16, 2017 3:08:42 PM | 199
    Jimiller

    Yeah how dare NK offer peaceful ways to solve problems in this world. Yeah no wonder US not accepted it, go figure.

    [Apr 17, 2017] What Would Korean War II Look Like? by Eric Margolis

    Notable quotes:
    "... A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan. ..."
    "... The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing. ..."
    "... Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years. ..."
    "... How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD. ..."
    "... North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder. ..."
    "... China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. ..."
    "... China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there. ..."
    "... America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. ..."
    "... We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. ..."
    "... It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. ..."
    "... What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire. ..."
    "... Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah . ..."
    "... Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago. ..."
    "... Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue. ..."
    "... As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe ..."
    "... That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention. ..."
    "... The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. ..."
    "... To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever.... ..."
    "... The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | unz.com
    Memory of the bloody, indecisive first Koran War, 1950-53, which killed close to 3 million people, has faded. Few Americans have any idea how ferocious a conventional second Korean War could be. They are used to seeing Uncle Sam beat up small, nearly defenseless nations like Iraq, Libya or Syria that dare defy the Pax Americana.

    The US could literally blow North Korea off the map using tactical nuclear weapons based in Japan, South Korea and at sea with the 7th Fleet. Or delivered by B-52 and B-1 bombers and cruise missiles. But this would cause clouds of lethal radiation and radioactive dust to blanket Japan, South Korea and heavily industrialized northeast China, including the capital, Beijing.

    China would be expected to threaten retaliation against the United States, Japan and South Korea to deter a nuclear war in next door Korea. At the same time, if heavily attacked, a fight-to-the-end North Korea may fire off a number of nuclear-armed medium-range missiles at Tokyo, Osaka, Okinawa and South Korea. These missiles are hidden in caves in the mountains on wheeled transporters and hard to identify and knock out.

    This is a huge risk. Such a nuclear exchange would expose about a third of the world's economy to nuclear contamination, not to mention spreading nuclear winter around the globe.

    A conventional US attack on North Korea would be far more difficult. The North is a small nation of only 24.8 million. Its air and sea forces are obsolete and ineffective. They would be vaporized on the first day of a war. But North Korea's million-man army has been training and digging in for decades to resist a US invasion. Pyongyang's 88,000-man Special Forces are poised for suicide attacks on South Korea's political and military command and control and to cripple key US and South Korean air bases, notably Osan and Kunsan.

    North Korea may use chemical weapons such as VX and Sarin to knock out the US/South Korean and Japanese airbases, military depots, ports and communications hubs. Missile attacks would be launched against US bases in Guam and Okinawa.

    Short of using nuclear weapons, the US would be faced with mounting a major invasion of mountainous North Korea, something for which it is today unprepared. It took the US six months to assemble a land force in Saudi Arabia just to attack feeble Iraq. Taking on the tough North Korean army and militia in their mountain redoubts will prove a daunting challenge.

    US analysts have in the past estimated a US invasion of North Korea would cost some 250,000 American casualties and at least $10 billion, though I believe such a war would cost four times that much today. The Army, Air Force and Marines would have to mobilize reserves to wage a war in Korea. Already overstretched US forces would have to be withdrawn from Europe and the Mideast. Military conscription might have to be re-introduced.

    Timur The Lame says: April 16, 2017 at 5:18 pm GMT

    Indeed. It was a sorrowful read with the exception of the heroics of the First Marines at Chosin Reservoir. Wiki called that action a victory as if rearguard actions or successful retreats could ever be put in a victory column.

    The big point now is what do the Chinese think. They were the reason that there even was a Korean War for those who prefer headlines over history or happen to be in elective office in the US government (or Pentagon).

    The stupidity, cultural ignorance and geopolitical autism of the people that actually have their fingers on the trigger on our side in today's world is mind blowing.

    " Hit the dirt, join the crowd, lookee mamma, a mushroom cloud" from MAD magazine, in the sixties, a kids rag that makes some people wonder why the non funny, non witty Onion even exists.

    Today that cloud thing suddenly becomes real possibility. Did I say MAD?

    Cheers-

    Art , April 16, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT
    Who do we have to fear the most – Kim or Trump?

    Starting a war with N Korea is crazy. Are we going to start a war that would kill millions in order to stop a war that does not exist? There has been little blood spilled between the Koreas in the last 60 years – let's try for another 60 years.

    How is Trump protecting us, if we are killing and dying in a far-off land? The truth is that our homeland is a very long way from being attacked by N Korea – PERIOD.

    It is time to deescalate – it is time to trade with the bastard – it is time to open up N Korea. Send in the food. Help the people. Be better than the dictator. Give his people what he cannot deliver. Give them the power to demand freedom. It is hard to see – but when dictator governments trade with others, they evolve to freedom.

    Peace - Art

    p.s. The Trump Whisperer – Ivanka – needs to get in daddy's ear and say "cool it Pops."

    Sean , April 16, 2017 at 6:45 pm GMT
    North Korea has got nothing anyone wants so they won't be attacked. It is all a lot of bluffing, except if the Chinese (aghast at Trump's avowed view that China is raping the US economy) try to placate him by promising to give the North Koreans the cold shoulder.

    History shows that the leadership of states in danger of losing their independent status will choose uncertain and perilous courses of action . The best thing is this will fizzle out. If China tries to pressure Kim, he would seriously consider starting a conventional war. He couldn't possibly win, but that is the point: China cannot accept a collapse of North Korea into the US client south. Nuclear weapons will not be used in any event.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:32 pm GMT
    @bob sykes Any discussion of a new Korean War that does not emphasize China is asinine, like this one. China is the central, most important actor on the peninsula, and China controls whatever happens there.

    China will not permit an American ally on the Yalu River. Any state bordering China on the Yalu must be explicitly pro-Chinese. If a war does break out on the peninsula, China will intervene on the side of the North Koreans.

    To call the first Korean War inconclusive is tendentious: China decisively defeated the US/NATO forces, and did so with with a primitive WW I style army and no navy or air force to speak of. Human wave assaults sufficed then. They did not occupy the whole peninsula because their primitive army lacked the logistical capacity to do so.

    Today China has a large modern military with a full spectrum of capabilities, including tactical and strategic nuclear weapons and a large amphibious force. China would crush the US, Japanese and South Korean militaries, even assuming Russia stands aside. It didn't in Korea I and Vietnam. And China's strategic nuclear forces would prevent the US from using nuclear weapons on the peninsula. Anyway, the antique nuclear weapons we have today may not even work.

    America's main weakness is its utterly delusional political and military leadership. The military that invaded Iraq no longer exists, and it was smaller than the one that liberated Kuwait. The US military has been downsized to the point that it cannot meet our treaty commitments. Sequestration has stripped the remaining military of funds needed for training and maintenance. Only a third of our fighter/bombers are available for war, and the pilots get only half the hours needed to maintain their skills. We do not practice combined arms warfare any more.

    We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. At present, we are fighting and losing to lightly armed Third World militias. The use of the MOAB against ISIS in Afghanistan was an indicator of panic in our military command there and at home. It is an open question as to whether we can defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and we certainly cannot unless we ally ourselves with Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.

    What we are watching today is the collapse of the American military and empire.

    {We have not fought a peer since 1945, and since 1945 we have a long record of failure. }

    Almost true.

    Imperial Japan was no Nazi Germany.

    Although Japanese were tenacious fighters and they had first-rate military hardware*, U.S. and U.S. Navy were a rung above the Imperial Japanese military. Japan simply did not have the resources or the industrial might of U.S.

    By the time Allies (really the U.S.) landed in Europe in 1944, Wehrmacht was a spent force: 80% of its best, toughest units were destroyed on the Eastern Front. Even then, at the Battle of the Bulge U.S. troops ran from the advancing Germans (mostly ** ). GIs were saved by the powerful USAF when the skies cleared up.

    So we don't really have a good example of peer-to-peer land warfare for US military (other than the US Civil War).

    --
    * Zero was considered superior to US equipment in the beginning.
    ** Heroic defense of Bastogne.

    Avery , April 16, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT
    @anon It's really China's problem.

    And the only thing that has kept Japan and South Korea non nuclear is the US. A real threat would be for the US to simply to go home. When Trump was tweeting that exactly -- it was seen as quite threatening.

    A nuclear North Korea which is barely in the nuclear club and doesn't have the economy to militarize is simply an annoyance to China. Japan and South Korea could be real threats quite quickly. And there is no love lost between any of them.

    An irony is that the US has effectively disarmed Europe via NATO, and if the US told Germany to take care of themselves, Russia wouldn't feel threatened, they would be threatened.

    The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.

    North Korea's only threat is nuclear, which is hollow, since they are assured of massive retaliation in kind. I suppose China has been OK with the situation, since it annoys us to no end and hasn't cost them much. So far. {The truth is that the US hasn't won a war since we decided to constrain our military in Korea. They wanted to nuke China, and also wanted to use them in Vietnam.}

    This an enduring myth that was created to salve the psych wound of being beaten by 'inferior' yellow-man.

    Other than using atomic bombs, there were no constraints on US military. US military was given a free hand to bomb and destroy anything and everything, including civilian targets* in both wars.

    As to nukes.

    China had no nukes during Korean war, but Soviet Union did.

    First SU nuke test: Aug 1949.
    First US thermonuke test: Nov 1952
    First SU thermonuke test: Aug 1953.

    POTUS Truman fired delusional Gen McArthur because he knew SU would most certainly use tac nukes in Korea if US did.
    If you recall, Truman had no compunction using nukes on civilian targets, so he must have had good reason to restrain the crazy generals.

    Same with Viet Nam: yes US military wanted to nuke Hanoi in desperation, but cooler civilian heads prevailed. Again, there was near-certainty that SU would respond in kind in Viet Nam.
    --
    * targeted deliberately: war crimes.

    denk , April 17, 2017 at 2:35 am GMT
    '" If China is not going to solve North Korea , we will."

    With this porky pie,
    Trump becomes the 45th 'bald faced liars' elected by the murkkans.

    And .
    With the bombing of Syria, Yemen
    Trump joins the 'prestigious' ranks of the previous 44 war criminals in WH.

    Lots of murkkans , the Trumpsters, are crying foul, They are 'betrayed' by Trump who now 'surrender to the deep state', 'the neocons have finally gotten to Trump', blah blah blah .

    B.S. --

    Astute obsevers like Vltchek, Engdahl, Draistser ..reminded murkkans about the exercise in futility in the 'election circus' long ago.

    Mathematically, Ian Fleming's fundamental law of probability practically guarantees that the 45th POTUS would be same as the old boss, MIC front man who speaks with forked tongue.

    As the pathetic hack Fareed Zakaria of Times magazine would gush after the Syria bombing, ' With this act, Trump has just become POTUS ' He didnt know how right he's, hehehehe

    Joe Wong says: April 17, 2017 at 11:11 am GMT @Vendetta
    Why not allow that? That will not sit very well with American global full spectrum dominance and end the day that American can commit war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against humanity on the phantom WMD allegation as humanitarian intervention.
    daniel le mouche , April 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm GMT @Timur The Lame
    I picked up a batch of old Rollingstone magazines from my local library for pennies to use as bathroom/breakfast reading. One issue had Matt Taibbi following Trump on the campaign trail while still battling for the Republican party nomination. In this leg of his tour he talked about how big insurance conglomerates were setting the prices to their liking and how he as president would bust them up etc.. Then came the commentary from Duck Dynasty types on how they are sick and tired of paying high premiums and so on. It gave me a minor epiphany, namely that this guy is, was and always will be full of shit in other words nothing but a super salesman.

    While I was happy that he blew away the syphilitic structure of the mainstream parties and the press I now realize that the volatile and insane world now has a monkey with a machine gun in a major position of power. This can't end well.

    The Great Pumpkin cut his jib by beating up other businessmen in the vicious world of East coast real estate. In this world he had the MacArthur motto for there being 'no substitute for victory'. If he transmogrifies his business instincts onto the world stage, stock up on rice and beans (and iodine tablets).

    The simple scenario germane to this article is if Trump deploys a carrier fleet even closer to the proximity of the Norks. Who thinks fat boy Jong-Un is sane? Ivanka? Sending even just conventional missiles across the bow is well within his mental construct. With their faulty accuracy they could accidentally hit the target. A carrier sunk. What options does Trump have now? None really. It's show time and by probable extension, "overture, curtains, lights, this is it night of nights..."

    To those interested in the Korean War, I highly recommend David Halberstam's posthumous book, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War. It is not a standard military chronicle instead a spellbinding journalistic read. Major theme, MacArthur's super ego, pomposity and geo-political ignorance resulting in catastrophe. American troops experienced the thrill of Stalingrad. In an eerie way, Trump now has a chance of becoming American Caesar 2.0 and in the very same playground. History repeats, rhymes whatever....

    Cheers- The only book I've read on the Korean War is IF Stone's firsthand account, The Hidden History of the Korean War. It is absolutely staggering. Why was it fought? No reason. It was a military exercise for MacArthur, just kind of for the hell of it.

    [Apr 17, 2017] The pot calling the kettle black

    Notable quotes:
    "... As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole. ..."
    "... On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm. ..."
    "... One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." ..."
    "... RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag. ..."
    "... As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S." ..."
    "... The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT. ..."
    "... The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion. ..."
    "... Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. ..."
    "... The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. ..."
    Apr 16, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    From: A Lesson in Moscow About Trump-Style 'Alternative Truth' - The New York Times by Jim Rutenberg >

    Mr. Trump had just ordered a Tomahawk strike against Syria's Shayrat air base, from which, the United States said, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had launched the chemical weapons attack that killed more than 80 and sickened hundreds.

    As soon as I turned on a television here I wondered if I had arrived through an alt-right wormhole.

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike. There was some "reportage" from sources like the conspiracy theorist and radio host Alex Jones - best known for suggesting that the Sandy Hook school massacre was staged - that the chemical attack was a "false flag" operation by terrorist rebel groups to goad the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. But that was a view from the fringe.

    Here in Russia, it was the dominant theme throughout the overwhelmingly state-controlled mainstream media.

    On the popular Russian television program "Vesti Nedeli," the host, Dmitry Kiselyov, questioned how Syria could have been responsible for the attack. After all, he said, the Assad government had destroyed all of its chemical weapons. It was the terrorists who possessed them, said Mr. Kiselyov, who also heads Russia's main state-run international media arm.

    One of Mr. Kiselyov's correspondents on the scene mocked "Western propagandists" for believing the Trump line, saying munitions at the air base had "as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

    That teed up Mr. Putin to suggest in nationally televised comments a couple of days later that perhaps the attack was an intentional "provocation" by the rebels to goad the United States into attacking Mr. Assad. RT, the Russian-financed English-language news service, initially translated Mr. Putin as calling it a "false flag." The full Alex Jones was complete.

    When Trump administration officials tried to counter Russia's "false narratives" by releasing to reporters a declassified report detailing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles - and suggesting to The Associated Press without proof that Russia knew of Mr. Assad's plans to use chemical weapons in advance - the Russians had a ready answer borrowed from Mr. Trump himself.

    As the pro-Kremlin newspaper Izvestia put it, "Apparently it was for good reason Donald Trump called unverified information in the mass media one of the main problems in the U.S."

    It was the best evidence I've seen of the folly of Mr. Trump's anti-press approach. You can't spend more than a year attacking the credibility of the "dishonest media" and then expect to use its journalism as support for your position during an international crisis - at least not with any success.

    While Mr. Trump and his supporters may think that undermining the news media serves their larger interests, in this great information war it serves Mr. Putin's interests more. It means playing on his turf, where he excels.

    Integral to Mr. Putin's governing style has been a pliant press that makes his government the main arbiter of truth.

    While talking to the beaten but unbowed members of the real journalism community here, I heard eerie hints of Trumpian proclamations in their war stories.

    Take Mr. Trump's implicit threat to the owner of The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, during the election campaign. In case you've forgotten, while calling The Post's coverage of him "horrible and false," Mr. Trump warned that if he won the presidency Mr. Bezos's other business, Amazon, would have "such problems." (The Post was undaunted, and the issue hasn't come up again.)

    ... ... ...

    Alexandra Odynova contributed research.

    for-the-record , April 17, 2017 at 6:16 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.

    To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from Newsweek today (April 17) via Yahoo News:

    ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops

    The author tells us that

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.

    Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream media.

    The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") - but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.

    I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).

    Altai , April 17, 2017 at 8:29 pm GMT \n
    400 Words @for-the-record Is this parody or for real? Everything he cites the Russian press as saying seems to me far more believable than the "alternative" version purveyed by the NYT and other such "respectable" sources.

    To put it mildly, anyone with half a brain would be willing to accept that it was far more likely that the alleged chemical attack was the work of the not-so-moderate rebels, rather than the Syrian Government which had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, from such an attack (assuming that it still had chemical weapons, which even the US previously admitted was no longer the case). That those fighting Assad do indeed possess stocks of chemical weapons is no secret. Regarding Isis, for example, you can learn from Newsweek today (April 17) via Yahoo News:


    ISIS Militants Launch Multiple Chemical Weapons Attacks On Iraqi Troops
    The author tells us that

    Back in the States, the prevailing notion in the news was that Mr. Assad had indeed been responsible for the chemical strike.
    Of course this was and is the prevailing view, a convincing testimony to the effect of the "fake news" that is reported as "fact" by the mainstream media.

    The author asserts that those who questioned the Assad-did-it narrative were only on the alt-right "fringe". But this is absurd, as anyone who looks at a non-alt right site like https://consortiumnews.com/ can easily confirm. And of course a highly respected MIT scientist, Theodore Postol, has published not one but two notes effectively showing that the White House "Intelligence Report" about the incident was rubbish ("obviously false, misleading and amateurish") -- but you are unlikely to read about this in the NYT.

    I live outside the US and also have the time and energy to investigate alternative sources. What amazes and pains me is that many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).

    many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).

    It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points harder than most US outlets.

    Don't ever trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this simply can't be said for mainstream media)

    I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.

    I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM looks like InfoWars and is scary.

    It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned helplessness like this.

    WorkingClass , April 17, 2017 at 9:28 pm GMT \n
    I know it's bullshit. I read it in the New York Times.

    The NYT is an enemy of the human race.

    Assad didn't do it. Just like he didn't do it last time. Just like he will not have done it next time.

    El Dato , April 17, 2017 at 10:19 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @Altai

    many friends of mine (US, UK) have swallowed hook, line and sinker the official story, not only about this incident but the general story about what is going on in Syria (and elsewhere, notably vis-à-vis Russia).
    It's unreal to me after everything that has happened the last 15 years that anyone who lived through it could not have learned a thing. It seems to be getting more blatant too. Now the BBC is pushing neocon talking points harder than most US outlets.

    Don't ever trust a western news outlet whenever it goes on a months long crusade to 'expose' a certain regime that is alleged to be doing exactly what our 'allies' do and get no coverage about. I knew little about what was going on in Syria years ago but when the BBC started telling me how horrible 'barrel bombs' were over and over, night after night, making sure to mention Assad in every sentence, my bullshit detector sprang up and I looked at the alt media I trusted. (Which I trusted as taking the narrative from them I was able to better predict and understand the world and this simply can't be said for mainstream media)

    I know a guy who thinks of himself as worldly but reads WaPo and Der Speigel daily. He doesn't understand how I can't believe how good Obama handled the US economy and how low US unemployment is. Any attempt to explain that US unemployment numbers post-1994 are not what he thinks it is is met with a dismissive as though I am full of bullshit.

    I think it might also be generational. I grew up in my teens with Iraq and the explosion of alt middle east commentators and journalists who posted to the net what they'd never get cleared in the MSM. You know exactly the deal with everybody, the anti-war left, the 'alt-right', the counter jihadis and the important motivations and differences between them that colour their commentary on different events, but it still didn't change the fact that what they were posting was news and information that was being deliberately obscured. But for a lot of people in their 40s and older everything non-MSM looks like InfoWars and is scary.

    It must be scary to be plugged into the MSM today. A kind of learned helplessness like this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8moePxHpvok Nice short film. However, I cannot agree that people are in some kind of "oh dear" mindset. On the contrary, they are easily instrumented into supporting any random "something must be (militarily) done" call for action. Maybe a direct consequence of post-Gulf War 1 triumphalism, when the US was great again and apparently had left behind of trauma of Vietnam for good (that was an actual talking point, believe it or not!). With the Soviet Union no more, poised to rework the world in its own image, the US was!

    It all went south of course. We got the Yougoslavia catastrophe. Taking sides along with Europeans acting according to reflexes harking back to 1914 and dropping bombs didn't go all that well. When bombing started, Serbia was as MSM-tarred as Syria is today. We got 10 years of suppressing Mr. Hussein. Something was happening in Russia and maybe Chechnya and Georgia but no-one was all too certain what or why. We got the surprise Hutu-on-Tutsi massacre after which liberventionists were clamoring that "something should have been done". There was some "cruise missile diplomacy" (i.e. Clinton bombs Sudan). There were noises from Afghanistan with military commanders in particular Ahmad Shah Massoud fighting someone called "Taliban" but nobody cared about that. There was the marginally interesting Israel-Palestinian conflict with neverending talks and the Israelis starting to behave like jerks after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. We got first "hard" terrorism hits: A bombing in the WTC basement, a sarin gas attack in Tokyo, a diplomatic mission in Africa and of course the OKC bombing. Well, I guess those years of practically pre-Internet chaos were when "liberventionism" gelled.

    After the 9/11-Anthrax events it was of course full neocon time and everyone was on the same track for foreign land adventurism. By hook or by crook. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Johnny F. Ive , April 17, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT \n
    The US media should have learned something about the Iraq war, but it still hasn't. It blindly supports every stupid foreign policy decision wrapped in humanitarian clothes while being unwilling to honestly tell the American people that its a proxy war where all the actors in it are evil. That no one knows for sure what happened because it wasn't investigated. The media in Russia may be a tool of the Kremlin but the US media is the tool of the war profiteers. There is no way to get around that no matter how Rutenberg tries to frame it around what he thinks is the correct opinion.

    Also VIPS had American intelligence contacts in the Middle East who said the Syrians hit something that had chemicals in it. Everyone has their anonymous intelligence sources. Assad isn't going anywhere there could have been a proper investigation. The US media salivated at the bombing of Syria. The US media is the American Empire's id. It tells it to do stupid stuff that is going to get it killed. The US media loves to play nuclear chicken with Russia. I suppose psychopaths need a lot of stimulation and what could be more stimulating than a risk of nuclear war.

    If the US media was doing its job it would not just be after Trump's relationship with Russia. It would be after the whole American establishments cozy relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia. They've turned the US into a banana empire. Of course the US media is tied to weapons producers and Israel gets a welfare check to buy American arms and Saudi Arabia buys American arms. Also Israel no matter what it does is protected because of guilt (which will be its undoing because its bad behavior is not being checked). If Russia bought American arms I bet the US media would love Putin. The US media then would take it upon themselves to support Putin against his enemies.

    Israel wants the Syrian war to go on forever. The Saudi and Iranian proxies aren't saints. There are no good guys yet removing Assad is the preferred outcome for the US media. Its irrational unless you realize who its working for. Its not the American people. Its not even working to keep the US Empire in a position of strength. It demands obedience to the whims of the Empire's global subjects and its domestic war industry. That is what this Russian crap was about Trump. Maybe they tried to interfere. People were going to vote the way they voted anyway because Trump struck an emotional cord with his larger than life personality and the Democrats conspired against the candidate that could have beaten him (Bernie) while making sure no one that could win would run for the Democrat nomination. Also the Israelis are right wing and they get away with stuff the Alt-right could never get away with in the US (and I hope wouldn't want to engage in). What they do to the Palestinians is straight out of Nazi Germany before the holocaust (which is coming for the Palestinians). They loved Trump and voted for him. US media doesn't make a big deal about this. Any reporter who did would risk losing their job.

    The good thing about the US corporate media is that it is being put behind paywalls. I just use software to block these sites so I don't even bother wasting my time by clicking and then having to click back. I get "the line" from sources not behind a paywall. Only an idiot would pay to be lied to on behalf of groups that do not have the US interest at heart. By being whores for war profiteers and their global allies the US media makes Russian government controlled media seem great in comparison. There is no reason why the US should be a whore for unsavory governments and organizations across the world. Its 20 trillion in debt and the US media uses verbal abuse and praise to manipulate the President into making war, while framing the war into simplistic and cartoonish terms. There are some that are extremely wealthy. The Europeans could handle their own security but manipulating the US to do it is easy because of the US media and easily malleable politicians.

    How about the US media find some poor defenseless country and harp up a war and bleed the US Empire dry of its wealth in a fruitless quagmire and call it a day? Some of us do have a self preservation instinct and fighting Russia for the mess in Syria is stupid. If it was me I'd try to get the defense companies to focus on space and space mining. Whoever controls outer space will control humanity's destiny. But go ahead bleed the US dry on these short sided money grabbing crusades so other countries can take over outer space instead.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Trump is escalating foreign conflicts

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/ ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    okie farmer | Apr 15, 2017 3:40:13 AM | 149

    Trump is escalating foreign conflicts

    So we're not going into Syria, but neither are we going to tolerate the tactics Assad has been using for six years. Where exactly is the "red line" in Syria? The president's spokesman, Sean Spicer, further muddied the waters, making similar statements about barrel bombs.

    This kind of confusion doesn't help American allies or even our foes like Syria, Russia and Iran who are trying to navigate this conflict. Trump needs to take a page from the book of his cabinet members who have been talking with more clarity about Syria and Russia.

    "I think it is clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, but the question of how that ends, and the transition itself, could be very important, in our view, to the durability, the stability inside of a unified Syria. We are not presupposing how that occurs," the more measured Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted by The Washington Post as saying in Italy before he flew to Russia. http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/12/trump-is-escalating-foreign-conflicts/

    [Apr 17, 2017] The Syria Strikes A Conspiracy Theory

    Nice satire... almost Gavlin style...
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is the 100% true story of the #SyriaStrikes, and if you support sites like The Corbett Report that question it in any way you are a moonbeam fake news tyrant-loving hippy pinko Russian agent and should commit ritual suicide immediately. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Anoncommentator | Apr 15, 2017 12:31:18 AM | 130
    This is going viral and so it should!!! corbettreport

    The Syria Strikes A Conspiracy Theory

    TRANSCRIPT AND SOURCES: https://www.corbettreport.com/syriast...

    On the morning of April 4th 2017, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, on the verge of a military victory against the terrorist insurgency in his country and on the eve of peace talks that would secure his position as president, decided to use chemical weapons he didn't have against a target of no military significance in front of as many cameras as possible to cross the one red line that would insure his own government's downfall.

    Soon after, the Academy Award-winning White Helmets –noted for their Oscar-worthy performances , persistent proximity to Al Qaeda , and financial dependence on USAID –bravely risked their lives, handling Sarin victims barehanded against every protocol in the book.

    Without presenting a shred of evidence, President Donald Trump boldly launched a military strike against Shayrat airfield because "national security interest," promising to help the "beautiful children" (*offer does not apply to babies in Gaza , Yemen , Pakistan , or basically anywhere else).

    That military strike, a volley of 59 Tomahawk land attack missiles of which 23 actually made it to their target, failed to take out a single runway or even keep the airbase from operating for even 24 hours , but was a complete success for ExxonMobil , Raytheon and Donald Trump .

    No one could question the wisdom of striking Syria ( except Donald Trump ). And no one could oppose such a move ( except Russia ).

    The Trump Train, still convinced by candidate Trump (" dropping bombs on Assad " and " look what happened after Gaddafi ") concluded that this was 7th dimensional backgammon to make China afraid of the US' willingness to spend $100 million in a fearsome show of failing to destroy a single airfield.

    Throughout the world people rejoice as a horrible secular regime in the Middle East is replaced by yet another peace-loving band of ragtag human rights campaigners and child beheaders motivated by a desire to subdue the armies of Rome in an apocalyptic confrontation in Dabiq. (* actual ISIS belief )

    The chemicals for the previous "red line" attack in Syria have since been proven to come from Libya with US approval , but that's probably not relevant to this case.

    The CIA has released declassified report after declassified report showing that the plan to topple Syria's government has been in the works for decades, but this just shows that they were right all along.

    The mainstream media unquestioningly asserts that the story is true because the US government says so, but that's OK because we all know the msm is full of unbiased truthtellers and dig hard to get the raw facts on every story. (" beauty of our weapons ")

    Even members of congress think the story is a load of hogwash , but that's OK because they're probably crazy.

    Meanwhile the White House has released a report on its intelligence about the chemical attack that refutes its own version of the story , but that's OK because when has the White House ever lied people into war?

    This man doesn't exist, and if you think he does you're an enemy of humanity who should apologize for having been born. Likewise him , her , her , him and him . And him and her .

    This is the 100% true story of the #SyriaStrikes, and if you support sites like The Corbett Report that question it in any way you are a moonbeam fake news tyrant-loving hippy pinko Russian agent and should commit ritual suicide immediately.

    If you love your country and/or liberty, NASCAR, supermodels, TV, water slides or your mother you will not question this story in any way. Ever.

    This message has been brought to you by the Friends of the Brookings Institute , Raytheon , Genie Oil , Oded Yinon , I-CIA-SIS and The New York Times .

    Because IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

    [Apr 17, 2017] The cruise missile attack was planned several days before it actually happened. Most likely, the attack was decided on before the Ross left Rota on April 3

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Regarding the US cruise missile strike against the Shirat airbase, the USS Ross was at its forward base, Rota, southern Spain on April 3. The launch area for the cruise missile attack was some 4000 km away at the far east end of the Mediterranean. Even steaming at top speed for 24 hours a day, it would have taken the Ross 3 days to get to the launch area. ..."
    "... For it to have travelled at top speed from the get go, it suggests a specific time-critical mission was planned from before it sailed. If the ship had travelled at a lower cruising speed, it would have taken say 4.5 days to get there, ie sometime between midday 7th (for an early departure on the 3rd) to midday on the 8th (for a late departure at the end of the 3rd). ..."
    Apr 14, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    karlof1 | Apr 14, 2017 6:01:32 PM | 100
    Although somewhat OT to this thread's topic, the following info just shared relates to the planning and prepositioning of assets prior to an attack, albeit on a small scale. Re, the USS Ross's participation in the supposedly off-the-cuff retaliatory attack for the Idlib False Flag courtesy of Anonymous at SyrPers:

    "Regarding the US cruise missile strike against the Shirat airbase, the USS Ross was at its forward base, Rota, southern Spain on April 3. The launch area for the cruise missile attack was some 4000 km away at the far east end of the Mediterranean. Even steaming at top speed for 24 hours a day, it would have taken the Ross 3 days to get to the launch area.

    For it to have travelled at top speed from the get go, it suggests a specific time-critical mission was planned from before it sailed. If the ship had travelled at a lower cruising speed, it would have taken say 4.5 days to get there, ie sometime between midday 7th (for an early departure on the 3rd) to midday on the 8th (for a late departure at the end of the 3rd).

    Even if the Ross departed at cruise and received an attack order in route, there would have been a narrow window where it was possible to get there with a combination of cruise and full speed.

    This strongly suggests the cruise missile attack was planned several days before it actually happened rather than the Ross fortuitously being on station before the order was made. Most likely, the attack was decided on before the Ross left Rota on April 3." https://syrianperspective.com/2017/04/dia-officer-declares-attack-in-idlib-to-be-fake-usa-slaughters-hundreds-of-civilians-in-dayr-el-zor-tillerson-rebuffed-in-russia-over-illegal-attack-on-syrian-base-kafarayyaa-and-al-fawa.html#comments

    [Apr 17, 2017] Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political elite is generally an office plankton with law or political science (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill)

    Notable quotes:
    "... overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort). ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    SmoothieX12 | Apr 14, 2017 2:10:57 PM | 49

    No one has forgotten the near genocide and no one in Korea, north or south, wants to repeat the experience.

    Meanwhile, overwhelming majority of US political "elite" is generally an office plankton with law or political "science" (or journalism--which is not a profession or a skill) degrees from Ivy League "humanities" departments and their comprehension of the war is limited to Hollywood. Most difficulties in life they ever experienced was, most likely, being overbooked for the first class seats on the flight to Hawaii (or any other resort).

    [Apr 17, 2017] Firing dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria deflects attention from Trump list of troubles at home

    Notable quotes:
    "... As a candidate, Mr. Trump said that forcing Mr. Assad out of power was not as urgent a priority for the United States as vanquishing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He claimed, somewhat erroneously, that he had always opposed the Iraq war. He criticized Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who was Mr. Trump's opponent in the election, as plunging heedlessly into foreign entanglements, drawn by misplaced idealism and the substitution of other nations' interests for America's. ..."
    "... "One day, we're bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians," Mr. Trump said during a major foreign policy speech in April 2016. "The next day, we're watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. Lives lost, massive moneys lost. The world is a different place." ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    Acting on Instinct, Trump Upends His Own Foreign Policy - The New York Times by By MARK LANDLER

    As a candidate, Mr. Trump said that forcing Mr. Assad out of power was not as urgent a priority for the United States as vanquishing the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. He claimed, somewhat erroneously, that he had always opposed the Iraq war. He criticized Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state who was Mr. Trump's opponent in the election, as plunging heedlessly into foreign entanglements, drawn by misplaced idealism and the substitution of other nations' interests for America's.

    "One day, we're bombing Libya and getting rid of a dictator to foster democracy for civilians," Mr. Trump said during a major foreign policy speech in April 2016. "The next day, we're watching the same civilians suffer while that country falls and absolutely falls apart. Lives lost, massive moneys lost. The world is a different place."

    "We're a humanitarian nation," he continued, "but the legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray, a mess. We've made the Middle East more unstable and chaotic than ever before."

    The contrast between Mr. Trump and his predecessor could not be starker. In the early days of his presidency, Mr. Obama made the case for America's moral responsibility to intervene militarily on humanitarian grounds. "Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later," he said in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 .

    Yet when Syria slipped into a deadly civil war, Mr. Obama focused more on the costs of intervention than the risks of inaction. Even after Mr. Assad's forces killed hundreds in a poison gas attack in August 2013, Mr. Obama did not carry out a threatened missile strike because, he said, he had not gotten Congress to sign off on it .

    Mr. Trump's action, only 77 days into his term, hardly settles the question of when he might intervene in future crises. He has not articulated criteria for humanitarian interventions and, even if he did, it is not clear that he would stick to his standards any more than Mr. Obama did.

    Firing dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria also deflects attention from Mr. Trump's lengthening list of troubles at home, from the investigation of his campaign's murky ties with Russia to his failed health care legislation.

    [Apr 17, 2017] US Attack on Syria Cements Kremlins Embrace of Assad

    Apr 17, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    By championing Mr. Assad and condemning American "aggression," President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia seemed to be burying the idea that he could somehow cooperate with the Trump administration to end the conflict on his terms.

    The solidarity with Damascus is likely to cause problems for Russia in the long run, analysts said, although Mr. Putin probably cannot be persuaded to loosen his embrace any time soon.

    The Russian government often takes its time to react to major world events, but the Kremlin issued a prompt statement early Friday castigating the United States for the missile strike on Al Shayrat airfield in retaliation for Syria's chemical weapons attack.

    The Russian Ministry of Defense vowed to strengthen Syria's air defense systems, sent a frigate on a port call and froze an agreement with the United States to coordinate activity in Syrian air space.

    [Apr 17, 2017] Did Al Qaeda Fool The White House Again

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bannon is anti-intervention, so Trump had to kick him out of the NSA planning room. General Kushner is now in charge. Love to send General Kushner to the Syrian front lines, where he could dazzle us all with his acts of supreme bravery. ..."
    "... The key in that conflict with the Soviets was giving AQ shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles , Stingers, which were needed to enable freedom of movement against the Hind attack helicopters. That worked great. ..."
    "... If they're talking about giving what, MANPADS? to the Al Nusras or ISIS holy fuck that's stupid. But it worked before, remember? That's how they'll think. ..."
    "... I believe we have to go back to some of the first Big Lies told to the worldwide populace and their subsequent success, (at least as viewed by the purveyors of those Big Lies) and then we can understand why this metric is not changing. ..."
    "... "The American way of life is not negotiable", Dick Cheney. The dye is already cast for WWIII, and the timetable is set by the construction of the Sino Russian energy pipelines. By its recent actions the USA is now viewed by it enemies as a non rational player in the game of MAD (mutually Assured Destruction,just in case you went to a US public School). ..."
    "... For the threat of MAD to deter, each player must be convinced of the rationality of the other players, if they're not, a first strike makes the only logical move. Its better to give than recieve it IOW.. The USA has become a suicidal death cult. ..."
    "... I am afraid we have squandered, so much money on defense, that our civilian economy is permanently damaged. ..."
    "... Fool the White House again? No, you moron. ... The White House, CIA AND ISIS fooled (or attempted to fool) the USSA tax payers............AGAIN! ..."
    "... No actual "American" - the true and prophesied "Chosen of God," the "El-ectorate" - is a "caretaker of truth" until JFK's and MLK's known assassins and their satanic ruling false-elite "Deep State" faction are brought to Justice ..."
    "... Everybody knew it was a false flag, but they spun it as Assad. Now they've painted themselves into a corner and can never walk it back. ..."
    Apr 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    by bamawatson -> chunga , Apr 16, 2017 3:30 PM

    https://steemit.com/pizzagate/@rebelskum/pizzagate-wiki-gets-even-more-on-the-ties-between-max-maccoby-laura-silsby-and-james-alefantis

    Manthong -> bamawatson , Apr 16, 2017 5:21 PM

    The deep state "advisors" knew damn well the "intelligence" was at the least thin and at the most bogus.

    Trump, his still wet-behind-the ears son-in-law and his bleeding heart daughter are probably just not seasoned enough to see through the bad advice.

    It is likely still going on.

    Draining the swamp with a soda straw won't work.

    evoila -> Manthong , Apr 16, 2017 5:35 PM

    they didn't get fooled. they were trying to trick the populace.

    http://thesaker.is/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Paul Kersey -> flaminratzazz , Apr 16, 2017 3:58 PM

    Bannon is anti-intervention, so Trump had to kick him out of the NSA planning room. General Kushner is now in charge. Love to send General Kushner to the Syrian front lines, where he could dazzle us all with his acts of supreme bravery.

    TheLastTrump -> Future Jim , Apr 16, 2017 4:31 PM

    Well, blame Reagan, because that's when we built Al Qaida in Afghanistan.

    The key in that conflict with the Soviets was giving AQ shoulder fired anti aircraft missiles , Stingers, which were needed to enable freedom of movement against the Hind attack helicopters. That worked great.

    If they're talking about giving what, MANPADS? to the Al Nusras or ISIS holy fuck that's stupid. But it worked before, remember? That's how they'll think.

    BorisTheBlade -> Normalcy Bias , Apr 16, 2017 3:53 PM

    Precisely, if you want evidence, it's out there. And if you want a balanced position, you ought to examine every possibility to determine which one ultimately makes more more sense.

    Additionally, we live in an age where obtaining and studying evidence is streamlined and one could find a killer who committed a crime 20 years ago just by studying some residue of his hair on victim's shoulder [exageration obviously, but not that far fetched]. However, manufacturing evidence progressed as well and it is easier to do it given a certain [geo]political momentum.

    Bad_Sushi , Apr 16, 2017 3:25 PM

    I believe we have to go back to some of the first Big Lies told to the worldwide populace and their subsequent success, (at least as viewed by the purveyors of those Big Lies) and then we can understand why this metric is not changing.

    IOW...

    They got away with it before, they are sure they will get away with it again.

    Business as usual boys and girls, business as usual.

    Winston Churchill , Apr 16, 2017 3:50 PM

    "The American way of life is not negotiable", Dick Cheney. The dye is already cast for WWIII, and the timetable is set by the construction of the Sino Russian energy pipelines. By its recent actions the USA is now viewed by it enemies as a non rational player in the game of MAD (mutually Assured Destruction,just in case you went to a US public School).

    For the threat of MAD to deter, each player must be convinced of the rationality of the other players, if they're not, a first strike makes the only logical move. Its better to give than recieve it IOW.. The USA has become a suicidal death cult.

    williambanzai7 , Apr 16, 2017 3:32 PM

    Friedman is a fucking used globalist donkey condom.

    sgt_doom -> williambanzai7 , Apr 16, 2017 3:51 PM

    Well, sometimes you are right!

    Deep Snorkeler , Apr 16, 2017 3:33 PM

    I am afraid we have squandered, so much money on defense, that our civilian economy is permanently damaged.

    I sip absinthe, a grain of sand on the Beach of Lost Prosperity.

    besnook , Apr 16, 2017 3:38 PM

    al Qaeda is the USA so we fooled ourselves or just the people?

    DuneCreature , Apr 16, 2017 3:45 PM

    Fool the White House again? No, you moron. ... The White House, CIA AND ISIS fooled (or attempted to fool) the USSA tax payers............AGAIN!

    What fucking planet do hail from, Spanky? ... Did you just wake up from your little nap? ... You sound like you received a big dose of colorless, odorless stupid in your sleep.

    Live Hard, The Press Is STUXNET On Burnt Toast And Smoking Up The Room, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    iamerican4 , Apr 16, 2017 3:56 PM

    No actual "American" - the true and prophesied "Chosen of God," the "El-ectorate" - is a "caretaker of truth" until JFK's and MLK's known assassins and their satanic ruling false-elite "Deep State" faction are brought to Justice

    Snípéir_Ag_Obair -> TheLastTrump , Apr 16, 2017 4:13 PM

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/iran-the-destabilizer/

    Parry is great - but he will never point out the heavy role of Zionist Jews in the media and government in advocating for war on Syria and Iran, using naked lies and a Jewish dominated media to control the narrative - and all to benefit Israel.

    Goldberg is a Jewish Supremacist Zionist, and about as dishonest a person as Bill Kristol and Alan Pedo Dershowitz.

    It is not 'the Jews' nor are all or even most of DC's warmongers Jewish.

    But the Goldbergs and Friedmans, and on and on, are Israel Firster Jews, and they are motivated by Israel, and they play a major, and perhaps predominant role in both the lies/propaganda and the political impetus.

    It's fair, and necessary, to say so.

    Snípéir_Ag_Obair -> IranContra , Apr 16, 2017 4:25 PM

    You sure are trying real hard to vilify Iran even using Orwellian reversals of the facts and naked lies - as hasbara trolls do.

    The problem is your claims have no real support, while evidence to the contrary is abundant and essentially incontrovertible re the hostility of the Zionists ergo Deep State to a free and independent Iran which can support the Lebanese resistance, sell oil for gold, have its own central bank, etc.

    Why not stop straining to make 2+2 = 5?

    Serve Truth, and serve God.

    Serve Likud, and serve 'Satan'

  • http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/brookings-which-path-to-persia...
  • https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/16/a-neocon-admits-the-plan-to-bomb-i...
  • http://lobelog.com/neocons-who-brought-you-the-iraq-war-endorse-aipacs-i...
  • http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity/
  • https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-...
  • https://theintercept.com/2016/01/13/us-media-condemns-irans-aggression-i...
  • mc888 , Apr 16, 2017 4:47 PM

    Instead, Official Washington's propaganda bubble will stay firmly in place allowing its inhabitants to go happily about their business believing that they are the caretakers of "truth."

    mc888 smoked Robert Parry when he wrote: most entertaining is the mainstream US-cum-Soviet media spinning out of control about the chemical attacks.

    Everybody knew it was a false flag, but they spun it as Assad. Now they've painted themselves into a corner and can never walk it back.

    <snip>

    Any proper investigation must be delegitimized.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/joe-scarborough-giddy-over-sour...

    [Apr 17, 2017] News became propaganda when alternative viewpoints are not fairly represented or worse, supressed

    This is how the US MSM covered Niki Haley demise by Bolivian representative. " Nikki Haley forces public UN meeting to put Assad's defenders in 'full public view '"
    Apr 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason

    I made a comment that was swallowed?

    I think Simon Wren-Lewis When journalism becomes propaganda - mainly macro
    missed the main point here.

    Propaganda is when:

    1. Alternative viewpoints are not fairly represented

    2. News and opinion are not clearly delinearated (as Dean Baker tirelessly points out).

    We need a good discussion of how to de-propagandize and de-polarize society. Getting rid of winner-take-all politics would sure help.

    [Apr 16, 2017] Joe Scarborough Giddy Over Souring Russian-US Relations, Says Russia is Helpless to Protect Syria

    All wars are bankers wars
    Notable quotes:
    "... After the USSR collapsed Russia is as good as an ally to have as any like UK or Australia for US as a nation. But lets face it, this is bank wars, not political wars, just like the other world wars were. This is Putin vs. Goldman Sachs and nothing less. And gullible fools like Trump just love being the pawn if you use the code word "child" for some reason. Wow. ..."
    "... Politics in banking means hundreds of millions dead last century. Could well be billions of dead this century. All Putin really has to say is this: "My message to Goldman Sach's is that your bank will be in rubble if you stop getting Trump to side with terrorists. We won't talk to Trump as he is not in power any more." Free advice to Putin there, no charge. ..."
    "... All I've seen from Assad is him doing battle with the Sunni rebels who are from Al Qaeda their ISIS allies. Assad is the only leader not perpetrating genocide against non-Muslim or different Muslim sects currently in Syria. ..."
    "... End-game in Syria? Same as the end-game in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya: US Global Hegemony engineered by complete annihilation throughout the whole region... complete chaos is the plan ..."
    "... Scarborough's utterings are just a desperate attempt to maintain his fantasy. He is in a panic because the façade of American Exceptionalism ® is falling from his eyes. His words are the braggadocio of a coward. ..."
    Apr 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    tangent , Apr 11, 2017 4:37 PM

    After the USSR collapsed Russia is as good as an ally to have as any like UK or Australia for US as a nation. But lets face it, this is bank wars, not political wars, just like the other world wars were. This is Putin vs. Goldman Sachs and nothing less. And gullible fools like Trump just love being the pawn if you use the code word "child" for some reason. Wow.

    Politics in banking means hundreds of millions dead last century. Could well be billions of dead this century. All Putin really has to say is this: "My message to Goldman Sach's is that your bank will be in rubble if you stop getting Trump to side with terrorists. We won't talk to Trump as he is not in power any more." Free advice to Putin there, no charge.

    Was Trump really pretending to be on the side of common sense or was that a charade he was playing to get in power?

    True Blue , Apr 11, 2017 4:46 PM

    "you go into these places that you're not going to face a show of force"

    Um; "people in glass houses" much? Places like what? Grenada? Panama (remember Manuel Noriega?*) Iraq? Afghanistan? 15 years of the mightiest armed force in the world fighting "cavemen" and the "JV Team" retakes half of that territory in a few months (in tennis shoes and Toyota pickups.)

    *Should also watch out for the precedents you set, invading a foreign nation in order to kidnap their leader and put him on trial for violating the provincial laws of 'your' nation just might not have been such a brilliant idea; especially when charges of "war crimes" start floating around.

    TemporarySecurity , Apr 11, 2017 2:39 PM

    Everybody is giddy over going to war and destroying Syria and the bad guy.

    What exactly is the end solution? Put one of the nice Islamist ex-Al Qaeda rebel leaders in charge? Chances are anybody we can find will be a Sunni Islamist who will finish killing other sects of Muslims and all Christians in the area. A slaughter worse than anything we've seen so far.

    All I've seen from Assad is him doing battle with the Sunni rebels who are from Al Qaeda their ISIS allies. Assad is the only leader not perpetrating genocide against non-Muslim or different Muslim sects currently in Syria.

    Personally I think we are witnessing the decline and fall of the American Empire.

    Posa -> TemporarySecurity , Apr 11, 2017 4:19 PM

    End-game in Syria? Same as the end-game in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya: US Global Hegemony engineered by complete annihilation throughout the whole region... complete chaos is the plan

    shortonoil , Apr 11, 2017 4:12 PM

    Between the media, the intelligence services, and the cheap self serving politicians the US is a basket case. With a faltering industrial base, dying financial system, and withering energy sector the Russians only have to wait for the clowns in charge to complete its destruction. The only reason that Scarborough believes that this is funny is because he hasn't figured out yet that the joke is on him.

    Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 11, 2017 3:17 PM

    As shown by Scarborough and the yapping poodle Brzezinski, US citizenism rewards well propagandists and fantasists. But they are becoming fearful. Propaganda is losing in quality because the level of reality that propagandists use to back their propaganda is growing more and more adverse to them.

    Scarborough's utterings are just a desperate attempt to maintain his fantasy. He is in a panic because the façade of American Exceptionalism ® is falling from his eyes. His words are the braggadocio of a coward.

    moneybots , Apr 11, 2017 2:52 PM

    "Russian foreign policy since Christmas 1991 has been all about resentment, resentment of losing the cold war."

    I don't recall Yeltsin being that way. In fact, TIME ran a cover story about the secret U.S. plan to get Yeltsin elected in 1996.

    onthedeschutes , Apr 11, 2017 12:27 PM

    Not surprised one bit. Joe's teammate, Mika, is also giddy as is her father, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Look at this evil bastard.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2U9jJoWsM

    Buck Johnson -> onthedeschutes , Apr 11, 2017 2:13 PM

    Hey Joe, lets talk about Lori Klausutis!!!!!!

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/21/1613261/-What-Really-Happened-to-Lori-Klausutis-Everything-Joe-Scarborough-Does-NOT-Want-Viewers-To-Know

    MalteseFalcon -> yttirum , Apr 11, 2017 2:40 PM

    Yeah Joe, the neocons and Trump launched cruise missiles into Syria and half of them actually landed somewhere in Syria.

    You can't conquer a country from the air. You need boots on the ground for that.

    So we'll see.

    This is a tremendous policy error and not in America's interest. Even if Syria is toppled.

    [Apr 16, 2017] Trumps Beautiful Syria Airstrike and What It Means Opinion teleSUR English

    Apr 16, 2017 | www.telesurtv.net
    With Trump's inauguration, policy in Syria has begun to take a different direction. After having failed at regime-change, with the Syrian insurgency badly defeated, on the defensive and fighting amongst themselves , it appeared the rebels' international sponsors had realized the futility of their efforts and started to discontinue their support.

    The Trump administration reportedly ended the CIA's train-and-equip program. This represents a long-standing feud between the Pentagon and the CIA The Pentagon had vehemently opposed the CIA's rebel program on the grounds that it was empowering radical extremists which would eventually turn their guns toward Americans, and if successful would turn Syria into a country of chaos ruled by warring factions of jihadists, similar to Libya.

    However, the sectors of power that Obama represented largely centered around the financial institutions and the intelligence apparatus, and therefore the CIA won the tug-of-war and the rebel program continued. Under Trump, the program was ended and the CIA's control over foreign policy was diminished , while the generals and military officials were largely granted discretion to conduct overseas operations with little oversight from the chief executive. The interests steering foreign policy are largely those of the weapons and defense contractors and the profit incentives of the military industrial complex as a whole.

    Given this, instead of covertly funneling aid to al-Qaeda, Trump began increasing the coalition's bombing of the group and adopted a different regional strategy. This increased bombing only materialized, however, after al-Qaeda had been routed on the battlefield .

    Nevertheless, the strategy became one of overt military occupation and a partitioning of Syrian territory.

    The purpose of the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" campaign had up to this point been to project the image that the U.S. was fighting the group while simultaneously allowing them to prosper and militarily bleed out Iran and Russia. In this way, the presence of ISIS was redirected into a useful pretext which legitimized an illegal military presence in Syria which otherwise would not have been possible. The universally despised attitude toward ISIS could conveniently be transformed into a mandate for annexing and occupying Syrian territory. The strategy could shift from "Assad must go" to "defeating ISIS."

    Signaling this shift, the Trump administration had announced that it "accepts" the "political reality with respect to Assad," and that "foremost among its priorities" from here on out would be "the defeat of ISIS."

    Concurrent with this was an agreement reached between Trump and the Saudi king after their meeting in mid-March, where it was decided that the Gulf would reopen supply channels to their proxies and occupy Russia on the battlefield, allowing the U.S. to concentrate on dividing northern Syria and establishing their occupation.

    Within this environment, it appeared that some kind of negotiated settlement might have materialized, wherein Russia would agree to the U.S. annexation in return for certain concessions. Powerful factions within the U.S. were vehemently opposed to this, however, and were determined to reverse it.

    The chemical weapons incident in Khan Sheikhoun effectively accomplished that and upended all previous hopes for a settlement.

    After the horrendous attack, killing upwards of 70 people, procedures were underway for a thorough UN investigation to determine culpability. Without having completed that process, and without any evidence presented, the Trump administration launched a barrage of cruise missiles and attacked a Syrian military installation which was being used to fight ISIS . The timing of the attack prevented the investigation from going forward.

    This was a clear violation of international law and a blatant act of unjustified aggression against another state, which according to the Nuremberg Tribunals represents the "supreme international crime." The pain and suffering of the victims was cynically exploited as a pretext for such an aggression, unsurprisingly to the high moral acclaim of Western officials and media personalities. The attack, hailed as a " beautiful " display of our weapons, which revealed the " heart " and compassion of President Trump, reportedly murdered half a dozen Syrian soldiers , as well as four children .

    Who cares? It was our moral duty to punish Assad for killing children, by killing other children, albeit through the justified and morally honorable way, with U.S. bombs.

    Even more egregious, the attack was almost certainly carried out by the rebels, dominated by al-Qaeda and a rabble of other sectarian extremists. Washington would have you believe that Assad, having given up all of his chemical weapons in 2013 and barely escaping a Libya-style overthrow, after now having devastated the rebels on the battlefield, would on the eve of important international congregations aimed at ending the war launch a militarily insignificant attack with the kind of weapons that are literally the one thing that could endanger his rule and lead to a U.S. invasion. Assad may be a brutal autocrat, but he has never displayed any signs of being insane .

    The opposition, however, has everything to gain from this. Desperate, staring at defeat and a reduction in supplies, along with a U.S. administration abandoning its former "Assad must go" policy, the last recourse they had was for a "red-line" to be crossed which could justify a U.S. invasion. It has also been widely reported that they, in fact, have access to chemical weapons and have utilized them in the past.

    Not surprisingly then, the U.S. intelligence community largely holds the Russian explanation, that Assad's forces bombed a rebel storage facility containing chemical weapons, to be true , and the official U.S. line to be false. Sources from the CIA have stated that it was their belief that "Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison gas incident in northern Syria." One intelligence source said "the most likely scenario" was "a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy that the U.S. government would no longer seek 'regime change' in Syria."

    War is a Racket

    In the aftermath of the attack, it has become apparent that the entire motivation behind the Democratic Party's antagonism toward Trump, along with the CIA, the neocons and the rest of the liberal interventionists, had absolutely nothing to do with opposition towards Trump's racism, xenophobia, attacks against civil rights, or even any connection with Putin, the accusations of course lacking any foundation in evidence. Instead, these were pretexts used to wage an all-out campaign of manipulation with a single goal in mind: pressuring him to continue carrying out the previous administration's strategy of overthrowing the Syrian government and maintaining a war-footing against Russia.

    This is why the liberal resentment was solely focused on undermining the one aspect of his platform which was actually worth pursuing , cooperation with Russia and a détente of the increasingly dangerous confrontation that had been festering between the two nuclear powers. By portraying Trump as nothing more than a spy for Putin, the liberal establishment was able to guarantee that business-as-usual against Russia would be resumed, under threat that their efforts would be directed toward undermining the presidency if it did not.

    Explaining the situation , the Wall Street Journal reported that "in Washington, probes by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Congress into possible connections between Mr. Trump's associates and Russia have restricted the new administration's ability to cut deals seen as conciliatory to the Kremlin in the near term without provoking an outcry from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill."

    Exposing this antagonism for the opportunistic warmongering that it was, following Trump's attack, in reality a war-crime for which Trump should be impeached and tried, all of his most forceful opponents of only a few days prior are now simply fawning in praise at their "great commander-in-chief." The pressure has effectively been called off, though Trump will realize why that is and will remember again in the future when it is reapplied. After having found such an effective mechanism for ensuring that the proper course is maintained, it will continue to be utilized.

    In addition to having mitigated domestic opposition, the attack will likely remedy the problem of Trump's approval ratings , which were below that of any comparable president. Nothing more effectively rallies a country around their leader like a war. In this sense, being a celebrity personality whose foremost concerns are seemingly how others view him, the incident was largely orchestrated around boosting the president's national image. Trump will now be seen as the "strong" leader who attacked the evil Assad and wasn't afraid of Russian threats, while Obama was the "weak" president who wouldn't do the same even without Russia protecting him. It appears that such a reckless attack was largely the result of one man's ego.

    However, it also represented the increased power and influence of the military, Trump having vowed to listen to his generals in the same way that Obama did not. When it comes to military officials, every solution resembles a nail, and are "solved" through military means such as missile strikes. The power of the military-industrial base to secure profit-making interests through state policy was also on display. Most notably the defense contractor Raytheon, who manufactures the missiles that were used in the attack, and thereby stands to gain when the government resupplies its arsenal. Their stock instantly surged following the incident, adding nearly five billion dollars to its overall market value. Even more to the point are the reports which suggest that Trump still holds shares in Raytheon , and therefore will directly profit from this and from similar decisions in the future. Oil stocks as well have precipitously increased .

    History, it seems, is repeating itself, with Smedley Butler's classic " War is a Racket " coming to mind.

    The attack is also related to the Trump administration's strong ties with Israel and the AIPAC lobby. Shortly before the chemical incident took place, Israeli jets had interfered on the side of the Islamic State and targeted Syrian army positions . Syria shot at the jets violating their airspace and forced them to retreat. The same airbase that Trump attacked was the one from which the Israeli jets were targeted, Trump giving his friend Bibi a gift in the form of retribution.

    In a similar vein, the order was given during Trump's dinner with the President of China, and comes with a message in mind. The message is that "my threats aren't hollow," and carry force behind them, referring to recent bellicose statements directed towards China if it refuses to "solve" the situation in North Korea. This, unsurprisingly, has only further encouraged North Korea and others to continue acquiring nuclear capabilities to deter American aggression. After all, this is what the North Korean nuclear program is all about , at least according to US military intelligence .

    Nevertheless, Trump now has immense incentives to continue pursuing confrontation with Russia and Syria.

    For what it was worth though, the actual attack represents a small-scale and largely symbolic accomplishment. It did not greatly damage Syria's military capabilities, the airbase reportedly already being back in operation. It does, however, carry with it extraordinarily dangerous and potentially unforeseeable consequences.

    A Lifeline for the Jihadists

    The situation in Syria was already extremely precarious. For the first time in the modern period fighter jets of two nuclear powers were circling each other within the bounds of a single state in defense of opposing ground forces; one false move could've potentially sparked a WWIII scenario. Trump's careless actions have only further hurdled the world toward possible catastrophe, further strengthening the opinion of the world's population that the U.S. is by far the greatest threat to world peace , with constantly-invoked official adversaries trailing far behind.

    Directly after the attack, Russia severed the communication channels between itself and the US military. The agreed upon "deconfliction" precautions have been abandoned while the memorandum of understanding used to prevent military confrontations and air accidents has been tabled . US jets are now operating in Syria under constant threat of being targeted by the Russian air force and the Syrian army. Given this, former members of the US-led coalition have suspended their involvement and evacuated their aircraft, saying it is no longer safe to remain. Others are likely to follow. One false move could bring us to the brink of a cataclysmic confrontation. Wasn't this decision just wonderful?

    On top of all this, the maneuver has greatly damaged Russia's credibility. The US effectively called the Russian narrative a lie and exposed Putin's "protection" of his allies to be hollow. The Russian military has been discredited and their already strained relations with Syria and Iran have only further been maligned. Unsurprisingly the Russian's are furious .

    Importantly, however, it seems likely that some kind of an agreement was reached when the US notified the Russians and warned them of the attack. Important military equipment and personnel were evacuated from the site. The question, however, is what concession Russia received in return for allowing Trump to save face after his "red line" comments and what will be the Russian response. Already a Russian warship is steaming toward the Mediterranean while further steps are being taken to increase Syria's air defenses.

    The other direct consequence was the strengthening of ISIS and al-Qaeda, who unsurprisingly exploited the attack to launch their own offenses. The military installation that was hit was one of the main bases from which attacks against ISIS were carried out. It was instrumental in keeping nearby ISIS militants at bay and protected the surrounding inhabitants from an ISIS attack. Following the incident residents say they now fear an assault, stating that "women and children have already started to leave Shayrat to go to Homs city. We're not afraid of airstrikes. Our fear is the [ISIS] attack from the east." For the residents, all these airstrikes amount to is "proof that the U.S. helps Daesh." Perhaps this is what the New York Times meant when they said , "It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday."

    All of the most reactionary forces on the ground praised and welcomed the strikes, and its main beneficiaries were ISIS and al-Qaeda. How glorious.

    Furthermore, the implicit message that Trump has sent to the jihadists is that the international media and the US administration will not attempt to deliberate over evidence and demonstrate factual culpability, but instead will automatically blame Assad for any chemical weapons attacks. This effectively gives them a mechanism by which to call in US airstrikes should they ever need to improve their battlefield positions or gain the support of foreign intervention. Far from deterring dangerous weapon use, this provides an overwhelming incentive for chemical weapons to continue to be deployed, especially in terms of the Gulf monarchies should they ever need to redirect Trump towards an explicit "Assad must go" policy.

    Leaked memos from Saudi Arabia say that Assad must be overthrown at all costs, because if he is not then Syria's primary goal will be "taking revenge on the countries that stood against it, with the Kingdom coming at the top of the list," which represents "a high degree of danger for the Kingdom." The Saudi rulers make clear their view that the main stumbling block in the way of achieving this is the "lack of 'desire' and not a lack of 'capability' to take firm steps" on the part of the United States, and therefore they "must seek by all means available and all possible ways to overthrow the current regime in Syria." (emphasis added)

    Isn't it wonderful how we taught Assad a lesson?

    Given all of this, the pressures leading towards war and destruction will continue, as will the strategy of occupying northern Syria while denying the Syrian government from controlling the totality of its former territories. Rebel jihadi supply lines through Turkey will continue fueling the conflict, and with it the innocent deaths, while the money and weapons from the Gulf will continue to be forthcoming in an attempt to sink Russia down into the Syrian quagmire. This course of action, based on motivations of regional dominance, will continue to be the largest stumbling block towards peace that will further prolong the already 6-year long conflict.

    Obstacles to Peace

    Russia still has a fresh memory of the debacle in Afghanistan during the 1980s and desperately fears another repeat in Syria, especially given the newfound influence they have now been able to establish with the buildup of their military presence around the Mediterranean. The conflict in Syria provided them the opportunity to accomplish this. It is therefore within their interests for a quick political settlement to be reached and for a termination of the conflict, along with a cleanup of the Russian-nationals fighting in the ranks of the jihadists, and to further consolidate and exploit its newfound position as an influencer in regional Middle Eastern affairs. This comes into stark conflict with their Iranian and Syrian partners who are urging Russia to continue the offensive and reclaim the totality of Syrian territory.

    Because of this, Russia would likely be willing to exert the pressure necessary to force its allies to accept a settlement which includes extraordinary concessions. For this reason, too, Russia will likely acquiesce to the US-backed balkanization effort in some form in order to freeze the conflict.

    At the same time, the Americans and Europeans desperately want to see Russia get bogged down in another Afghanistan scenario, not the least of which because Russia was instrumental in preventing their regime-change efforts. It is for this reason that the US and the EU do not have a coherent plan to end the conflict, but do have a strategy of partitioning Syrian territory which will likely result in an all-out corporate resource-grab afterwards, allowing Western investors access to exploit the area and obtain the rebuilding contracts that will then be signed. This being paramount in their calculations, the reactionary al-Qaeda forces on the ground again become a useful asset rather than an enemy to be destroyed, while the ISIS pretext justifies the annexations.

    Following the completion of partition, the strategy will shift directly back toward regime change, only with newly acquired territories and levers of pressure from which to exert such demands. The eventual goal is a complete eviction of Russia from the Mediterranean and from its ability to frustrate Western ambitions for regional hegemony.

    Fueling this is the embedded and institutional nature of an American policy of regime change toward all non-compliant states, euphemistically referred to as the "axis of evil." These policies are not at all related to the changing personalities which happen to occupy the White House from time to time. This is because government policy is representative of the very narrow class interests of those which dominate the socio-economic hierarchy. That is, the dominant plutocracy made up of the individuals and interests who own the private economy and enjoy control over vast consolidations of wealth and resources. It is from this dominant business-class that the top level positions within the executive are filled, and from these interests that policy is crafted and legislated. This has been shown in prominent political science studies which explain "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." Or, in other words, "the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy," while decision-making is confined almost exclusively to the top 1%.

    This is why prominent political analysts have concluded since the 1950s that "at every level of the administration of the American state, domestically and internationally, business serves as the fount of critical assumptions or goals and strategically placed personnel." Policy, therefore, stemming from "the most powerful class interests" which inform the "nature and objectives of American power at home and abroad." It is the "ideology and the interest and material power of the physical resources of the ruling class of American capitalism" which determine courses of action, "the latter [the material power of their physical resources] being sufficient should consensus break down." This "economic ruling elite" being "the final arbiter and beneficiary of the existing structure of American politics and of United States power in the world."

    This the reason why US policy towards Syria has remained consistent for nearly a century. The CIA has been attempting, since its inception, to overthrow the Syrian government since the middle of the 20th century , through countless administrations and countless fluctuations between Democrats and Republicans. The core policy remains the same, so it should be no wonder that the current incumbent would opportunistically seize upon an opportunity to attack the Syrian state. These actions cannot solely be laid at the feat of the liberals nor domestic political concerns.

    Instead, the overthrow of non-compliant regimes is a staple of US policy because doing so secures the economic and material interests of the dominant ruling class within America. It is within their interests for governments to allow their economies to be penetrated by Western corporations seeking to exploit their markets, and to denationalize state assets and coveted resources for the exploitation of foreign investors. Furthermore, these interests are further secured through regional support for US military aggressions and occupations. This is why so much emphasis was put upon securing control over Iraqi oil and the establishment of US military bases in Iraq, and why similar aggressions are not pursued against client states which comply with these developments. Syria, although it began to allow Western economic penetration, has on the whole frustrated attempts for greater access. In addition, Syria has opposed US military aggression in the region, such as their attempts to undermine the occupation of Iraq.

    The Logic of Imperialism

    The other major issue is the pipeline war between the US and Russia over the natural gas field which bisects Iranian and Qatari territory, the largest in the world. Qatar's attempts to connect their holdings directly to European markets was denied by Assad, while an Iranian and Russian-backed pipeline was put into motion. It is only after the ball began rolling for the Russian-Iranian-Syria pipeline that the insurgency was fostered against Assad.

    This is why Trump has used this opportunity to further aggress upon the Syrian state, now writing up a new batch of sanctions to apply under the pretext of chemical weapons use. The sanctions, after all, are an economic siege against the entirety of the country, and are fueling much of the suffering and the fleeing of refugees. These new ones will continue a tactic of brutalization of the civilian population with little effect against the government, the strategy being to force massive economic suffering as a means to pressure the current regime. This is also why the US again is demanding Assad's ouster , saying "There's not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime."

    As self-righteous pundits, officials, and intellectuals who should know better wax poetically and bask in their own self-righteousness over how moral and justified this immoral act of aggression was, it is not hard to see why the world considers the US the leading threat to peace and a leading terrorist rogue state.

    The US and its clients, who have all hailed Trump's belligerent attacks on moralistic grounds, are the only states rampaging through the region attacking countries at will while destroying any that stand in their way. The US now, and the British before them, have consistently opposed and overthrown any truly progressive, democratic, and secular movement or government that has emerged in the Middle East while at the same time propping up the forces of extremist-Islam and fueling the spread of violent jihadism throughout the region. This is because the US has, since the 1950s, pursued an agenda of global domination and has insisted on securing its ambitions through tyranny and oppression .

    Imagine, for an instance, that Syria manufactured a false claim and said the US military used chemical weapons against them, and used that pretext to launch a cruise missile assault on an American base in American territory, murdering the innocent civilians living nearby, including four children. Now imagine that on top of that, the officials and intellectuals from Syria didn't apologize, but instead hailed the intolerable injustice as being a display of " justice done ," something that was " beautiful ," which elicited a "sense of emotional satisfaction" and was righteous and good, showing how heartfelt and compassionate they are.

    How malicious and sociopathic would we view those officials?

    Yet we all carry on, blind and drunk off the desire to dominate and control.

    The logic of imperialism is truly wondrous to behold .

    RELATED:

    How 'Anti-Trump' Liberal Media Cheered Syria Attack

    China Blasts Syria Attacks

    Stupid Trump Move in Syria Raises Global Tensions

    Chile to Welcome at Least 60 Syrian Refugees

    Syria Crisis

    US Imperialism Attacks Syria, Venezuela Based on Lies

    [Apr 16, 2017] Bolivia UN Envoy on Syria Attack History Teaches Us that US Lies to Justify Wars

    See also Bolivian Ambassador to UN Sacha Llorenti Gives a History Lesson YouTube 360p - YouTube
    Notable quotes:
    "... Holding up an enlarged photo of Colin Powell's "weapons of mass destruction" speech, Llorenti made an impassioned plea to hold the U.S. to account for Thursday's unprovoked attack on Syria, noting the U.S. history of imperialist interventions in other nations, including Latin America. ..."
    "... "Now the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners. That's not what international law is about ..."
    "... "I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us and on this occasion (in 2003), the United States did affirm, they affirmed that they had all the proof necessary to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but they were never found never were they found," the Bolivian envoy told the emergency Security Council meeting on Friday ..."
    "... On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented fabricated "proof" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including deadly nerve agents. The presentation has since been widely discredited, as no evidence of a weapons program was ever discovered. Powell himself expressing regret over what he termed "a great intelligence failure" - a failure that originated in his own exaggerated and doctored interpretation of intercepted Iraqi communications ..."
    "... Arguing that the U.S. acted unilaterally and in flagrant violation of the U.N. charter, the Bolivian envoy called for a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council ..."
    "... United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley denied the request. The U.S. holds the presidency of the Security Council this month. ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | telesurtv.net

    "I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us," the Bolivian envoy told the U.N. Security Council. | Photo: United Nations

    "Now the U.S. believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners," the Bolivian ambassador said.

    Lambasting the United States' aggression against Syria, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations Sacha Llorenti compared the basis for the unilateral move to former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous 2003 presentation to the body, when fraudulent evidence of an alleged Iraqi weapons program was presented to justify the U.S. war on Iraq.

    Holding up an enlarged photo of Colin Powell's "weapons of mass destruction" speech, Llorenti made an impassioned plea to hold the U.S. to account for Thursday's unprovoked attack on Syria, noting the U.S. history of imperialist interventions in other nations, including Latin America.

    "Now the United States believe that they are investigators, they are attorneys, judges and they are the executioners. That's not what international law is about."

    The Andean nation currently holds a non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

    "I believe it's vital for us to remember what history teaches us and on this occasion (in 2003), the United States did affirm, they affirmed that they had all the proof necessary to show that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction but they were never found never were they found," the Bolivian envoy told the emergency Security Council meeting on Friday.

    On Feb. 5, 2003, Secretary Powell presented fabricated "proof" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, including deadly nerve agents. The presentation has since been widely discredited, as no evidence of a weapons program was ever discovered. Powell himself expressing regret over what he termed "a great intelligence failure" - a failure that originated in his own exaggerated and doctored interpretation of intercepted Iraqi communications.

    The U.S. launched dozens of tomahawk cruise missiles at the Shayrat air base in Homs Thursday night. The Russian Defense Ministry claims that only 23 of 59 missiles reached the intended target, with the remainder landing in nearby villages. Syrian media sources are reporting that nine civilians died in the attack, four children.

    The attack was a response to an alleged Sarin gas attack on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. The incident claimed 89 lives, including 33 children and 18 women, according to local opposition authorities.

    Syrian government representatives have denied that it would use such weapons, stating that the alleged proof of a Syrian military role is, in fact, propaganda fabricated by opposition groups like Jabhat al-Nusra. Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that Putin considers the strikes to be "aggression against a sovereign state in violation of international law, and under a false pretext."

    Arguing that the U.S. acted unilaterally and in flagrant violation of the U.N. charter, the Bolivian envoy called for a closed-door meeting of the U.N. Security Council.

    "The United States was preparing once again and carried out a unilateral attack," Llorenti said. "The missile attack, of course, is a unilateral action. They represent a serious threat to international peace and security."

    United States Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley denied the request. The U.S. holds the presidency of the Security Council this month.

    [Apr 15, 2017] 'Words Are Also Deeds' Unverified Stories and the Growing Risk of War With Russia

    Apr 15, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    'Words Are Also Deeds': Unverified Stories and the Growing Risk of War With Russia

    The US narratives for which there are as of yet no facts could lead to direct military conflict between Washington and Moscow.

    By Stephen F. Cohen

    Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen and John Batchelor continue their weekly discussions of the new US-Russia Cold War.

    April 13/14, 2017 " Information Clearing House " - " The Nation "- Cohen argues that the American political-media establishment has embraced two fraught narratives for which there is still no public evidence, only "intel" allegations. One, "Kremlingate," as it is being called, is that Russian President Putin ordered a hacking of the Democratic National Committee and disseminated e-mails found there to help put Donald Trump in the White House. The other is that Syrian President Assad, Putin's ally, ordered last week's chemical-weapons attack on Syrian civilians, including young children. A third faith-based narrative, promoted by MSNBC in particular, is now emerging linking the other two: that Trump's recent missile attack on a Syrian military air base was actually a Putin-Trump plot to free the new American president from the constraints of "Kremlingate" investigations and enable him to do Putin's bidding in matters of US national security.

    Cohen points out that in addition to the absence of any actual evidence for these allegations, there is no logic. The explanation that Putin "hated Hillary Clinton" for protests that took place in Moscow in 2011 is based on a misrepresentation of that event. And why would Assad resort to the use of chemical weapons, thereby risking all the military, political, and diplomatic gains he has achieved in the past year and half, and considering that he had Russian air power at his disposal as an alternative? And the emerging sub-narrative that Putin lied in 2013, when he and President Obama agreed that Assad would destroy all of his chemical weapons, is based on another factual misrepresentation. It was the United Nations and its special agency that verified the full destruction of those weapons, not Putin. (This allegation is clearly intended to discredit the one important act of US-Russian cooperation, a vital one, in recent years.)

    The Russian adage "words are also deeds" is proving true, it seems. Trump's missile attack on Russia's ally Syria, despite its ramifying dangers, may have had a domestic political purpose-to debunk the narrative that is crippling his presidency, that he is somehow "Putin's puppet." If so, Cohen adds, the American mainstream media, which has promoted this narrative for months, is deeply complicit. Meanwhile, the Kremlin, which watches closely as these narratives unfold politically in Washington, has become deeply alarmed, resorting to its own fraught words. The No. 2 leader, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, declared that US-Russian relations have been "ruined," a statement Cohen does not recall any previous Soviet or post-Soviet leader ever having made. Medvedev added that the two nuclear superpowers are at "the brink" of war. Considering that Medvedev is regarded as the leading pro-Western figure in Putin's inner circle, imagine what the other side-state patriots, or nationalists, as they are called-is telling Putin. Still more, the Kremlin is saying that Trump's missile attack on Syria crossed Russia's "red lines," with all the warfare implications that term has in Washington as well. And flatly declaring the mysterious use of chemical weapons in Syria a "provocation," Putin himself warned that forces in Washington were planning more such "provocations" and military strikes. In short, while the Kremlin does not want and will not start a war with the United States, it is preparing for the possibility.

    No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media

    Get Our Free Daily Newsletter You can't buy your way onto these pages

    Cohen and Batchelor ended their broadcast as Trump's new secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had just arrived in Moscow, before his talks with Russian leaders began the following day. (Whether or not Putin himself would met with Tillerson, or only Foreign Minister Lavrov, was still uncertain. Putin may be an authoritarian leader, the "decider," but influential forces in and around the Kremlin were strongly against Putin meeting with an American secretary of state in the immediate aftermath of such a US "provocation.") Whatever the case, Cohen thinks Tillerson's visit is vitally important, at least for the Russian leadership, and for Putin in particular.

    Tillerson is well known to Putin and other Kremlin leaders. On behalf of ExxonMobil, he negotiated with them one of Russia's largest energy deals, which would grant access to the nation's vast oil resources beneath frozen seas. Putin personally approved the deal, which oil giants around the world sought. He would not have done so had he not concluded that Tillerson was a serious, highly competent man. (For this achievement on behalf of a major American corporation, Tillerson too has been slurred as "Putin's friend" in the American media.) The Kremlin will therefore expect candid answers from Tillerson to these questions related to the looming issue of war or peace. Are the fact-free narratives now prevailing in Washington the determining factor in Trump's policy toward Russia? Are they the reason Trump committed the "provocation" in Syria? Does this mean that Trump no longer shares, or can support, Russia's essential strategic premise regarding the civil and proxy war in Syria-that the overthrow of Assad would almost certainly mean ISIS or another terrorist army in Damascus, an outcome that the Kremlin regards as a dire threat to Russia's own national security? And, most fundamentally, who is making Russia policy in Washington: President Trump or someone else? Putin, it should be recalled, asked the same question publicly about President Obama, when the agreement Putin and Obama negotiated for military cooperation in Syria was sabotaged by the US Department of Defense.

    The answers that the very experienced Tillerson-he had his own corporate global state department and intelligence service at ExxonMobil-gives may do much to determine whether or not the new Cold War moves even closer to the "brink" of hot war, certainly in Syria. Meanwhile, the American mainstream media should return to their once professed practice of rigorously fact-checking their narratives with an understanding that words are indeed also deeds.

    Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com

    Stephen Frand Cohen is an American scholar and professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

    [Apr 15, 2017] The Nerve Agent Attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria (+Addendum) - The Unz Review

    Apr 15, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Dear Larry:

    I am responding to your distribution of what I understand is a White House statement claiming intelligence findings about the nerve agent attack on April 4, 2017 in Khan Shaykhun, Syria. My understanding from your note is that this White House intelligence summary was released to you sometime on April 11, 2017.

    I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria at roughly 6 to 7 a.m. on April 4, 2017.

    In fact, a main piece of evidence that is cited in the document points to an attack that was executed by individuals on the ground, not from an aircraft, on the morning of April 4.

    This conclusion is based on an assumption made by the White House when it cited the source of the sarin release and the photographs of that source. My own assessment, is that the source was very likely tampered with or staged, so no serious conclusion could be made from the photographs cited by the White House.

    However, if one assumes, as does the White House, that the source of the sarin was from this location and that the location was not tampered with, the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122 mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides.

    The only undisputable facts stated in the White House report is the claim that a chemical attack using nerve agent occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria on that morning. Although the White House statement repeats this point in many places within its report, the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity.

    The report instead repeats observations of physical effects suffered by victims that with very little doubt indicate nerve agent poisoning.

    The only source the document cites as evidence that the attack was by the Syrian government is the crater it claims to have identified on a road in the North of Khan Shaykhun.

    I have located this crater using Google Earth and there is absolutely no evidence that the crater was created by a munition designed to disperse sarin after it is dropped from an aircraft.

    The Google Earth map shown in Figure 1 at the end of this text section shows the location of that crater on the road in the north of Khan Shaykhun, as described in the White House statement.

    The data cited by the White House is more consistent with the possibility that the munition was placed on the ground rather than dropped from a plane. This conclusion assumes that the crater was not tampered with prior to the photographs. However, by referring to the munition in this crater, the White House is indicating that this is the erroneous source of the data it used to conclude that the munition came from a Syrian aircraft.

    Analysis of the debris as shown in the photographs cited by the White House clearly indicates that the munition was almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive on top of it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged load of sarin.

    Since time appears to be of the essence here, I have put together the summary of the evidence I have that the White House report contains false and misleading conclusions in a series of figures that follow this discussion. Each of the figures has a description below it, but I will summarize these figures next and wait for further inquiries about the basis of the conclusions I am putting forward herein.

    Figure 1 shows a Google Earth image of the northeast corner of Khan Shaykhun where the crater identified as the source of the sarin attack and referred to in the White House intelligence report is located.

    Also shown in the Google Earth image is the direction of the wind from the crater. At 3 AM the wind was going directly to the south at a speed of roughly 1.5 to 2.5 m/s. By 6 AM the wind was moving to the southeast at 1 to 2 m/s. The temperature was also low, 50 to 55°F near the ground. These conditions are absolutely ideal for a nerve agent attack.

    When the temperature near the ground is low, and there is no sun and very slow winds, the dense cool air stays close to the ground and there is almost no upward motion of the air. This condition causes any particles, droplets, or clouds of dispersed gas to stay close to the ground as the surrounding air moves over the ground. We perceive this motion as a gentle breeze on a calm morning before sunrise.

    One can think of a cloud of sarin as much like a cloud of ink generated by an escaping octopus. The ink cloud sits in the water and as the water slowly moves, so does the cloud. As the cloud is moved along by the water, it will slowly spread in all directions as it moves. If the layer of water where the ink is embedded moves so as to stay close to the ocean floor, the cloud will cover objects as it moves with the water.

    This is the situation that occurs on a cool night before sunrise when the winds move only gently.

    Figures 5 and 6 show tables that summarize the weather at 3 hour intervals in Khan Shaykun on the day of the attack, April 4, the day before the attack, April 3, and the day after the attack, April 5. The striking feature of the weather is that there were relatively high winds in the morning hours on both April 3 and April 5. If the gas attack were executed either the day before or the day after in the early morning, the attack would have been highly ineffective. The much higher winds would have dispersed the cloud of nerve agent and the mixing of winds from higher altitudes would have caused the nerve agent to be carried aloft from the ground. It is therefore absolutely clear that the time and day of the attack was carefully chosen and was no accident.

    Figure 2 shows a high quality photograph of the crater identified in the White House report as the source of the sarin attack. Assuming that there was no tampering of evidence at the crater, one can see what the White House is claiming as a dispenser of the nerve agent.

    The dispenser looks like a 122 mm pipe like that used in the manufacture of artillery rockets.

    As shown in the close-up of the pipe in the crater in Figure 3 , the pipe looks like it was originally sealed at the front end and the back end. Also of note is that the pipe is flattened into the crater, and also has a fractured seam that was created by the brittle failure of the metal skin when the pipe was suddenly crushed inward from above.

    Figure 4 shows the possible configuration of an improvised sarin dispersal device that could have been used to create the crater and the crushed carcass of what was originally a cylindrical pipe. A good guess of how this dispersal mechanism worked (again, assuming that the crater and carcass were not staged, as assumed in the White House report) was that a slab of high explosive was placed over one end of the sarin-filled pipe and detonated.

    The explosive acted on the pipe as a blunt crushing mallet. It drove the pipe into the ground while at the same time creating the crater. Since the pipe was filled with sarin, which is an incompressible fluid, as the pipe was flattened the sarin acted on the walls and ends of the pipe causing a crack along the length of the pipe and also the failure of the cap on the back end. This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.

    If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane.

    Figure 8 shows the improvised sarin dispenser along with a typical 122 mm artillery rocket and the modified artillery rocket used in the sarin attack of August 21, 2013 in Damascus.

    At that time (August 30, 2013) the Obama White House also issued an intelligence report containing obvious inaccuracies. For example, that report stated without equivocation that the sarin carrying artillery rocket used in Damascus had been fired from Syrian government controlled areas. As it turned out, the particular munition used in that attack could not go further than roughly 2 km, very far short of any boundary controlled by the Syrian government at that time. The White House report at that time also contained other critical and important errors that might properly be described as amateurish. For example, the report claimed that the locations of the launch and impact of points of the artillery rockets were observed by US satellites. This claim was absolutely false and any competent intelligence analyst would have known that. The rockets could be seen from the Space-Based Infrared Satellite (SBIRS) but the satellite could absolutely not see the impact locations because the impact locations were not accompanied by explosions. These errors were clear indicators that the White House intelligence report had in part been fabricated and had not been vetted by competent intelligence experts.

    This same situation appears to be the case with the current White House intelligence report. No competent analyst would assume that the crater cited as the source of the sarin attack was unambiguously an indication that the munition came from an aircraft. No competent analyst would assume that the photograph of the carcass of the sarin canister was in fact a sarin canister. Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it. All of these highly amateurish mistakes indicate that this White House report, like the earlier Obama White House Report, was not properly vetted by the intelligence community as claimed.

    I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.

    I am available to expand on these comments substantially. I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct, and it also appears that this report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community.

    This is a very serious matter.

    President Obama was initially misinformed about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public record. President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the attack was "not a slamdunk."

    The question that needs to be answered by our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly important intelligence finding? A second equally important question is how did the White House produce an intelligence report that was obviously flawed and amateurish that was then released to the public and never corrected? The same false information in the intelligence report issued by the White House on August 30, 2013 was emphatically provided by Secretary of State John Kerry in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!

    We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report.

    The Congress and the public have been given reports in the name of the intelligence community about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, technical evidence supposedly collected by satellite systems that any competent scientists would know is false, and now from photographs of the crater that any analyst who has any competent at all would not trust as evidence.

    It is late in the evening for me, so I will end my discussion here.

    I stand ready to provide the country with any analysis and help that is within my power to supply. What I can say for sure herein is that what the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security.

    Sincerely yours,

    Theodore A. Postol

    Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Email: [email protected]
    Cell Phone: 617 543-7646

    ... ... ... ...

    A lot of interesting and detailed information omitted

    ... ... ...

    Philippe Lemoine , Website April 13, 2017 at 5:53 am GMT \n

    200 Words I was really hoping that Prof. Postol would share his thoughts about the attack in Khan Sheikhoun. If you are interested, I wrote a very detailed blog post , in which I examine the evidence about the recent chemical attack and compare the situation with what happened after the chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013. I argue that, in the case of the attack in Ghouta, the media narrative had rapidly unravelled and that, for that reason, we should be extremely prudent about the recent attack and not jump to conclusions. Among other things, I discuss the ballistic analysis produced by Postol and Lloyd at the time, which showed that both the much-touted NYT/HRW analysis and the US intelligence were mistaken. I also show that, despite the fact that a lot of evidence came out that undermined the official narrative, the media never changed their stance and continued to talk as if there was no doubt that Assad's regime was responsible for the attack. It's more than 5,000 words long and I provide a source for every single factual claim I make. The post has already been widely shared and some people have criticized it, so I will soon post a follow-up where I reply to critics and say more about the evidence that bears on the attack in Khan Sheikhoun.
    Diversity Heretic , April 13, 2017 at 7:35 am GMT \n
    100 Words This just gets weirder and weirder. Is the position of the Trump Administration and the intelligence community that the Syrian Air Force went through all the trouble to launch an aerial attack and drop one bomb? Handling chemical munitions is inherently dangerous. Syrian Air Force personnel loading the nerve agent into the bomb and then fitting it on the plane would have to wear protective clothing and receive special training, and might even then suffer some exposure casualties. And my recollection is that chemical weapons, even nerve gas, generally have to be used in massive quantities to achieve any military result.

    The chances that the gassing was as a result of a Syrian Air Force attack are vanishingly small. Other forces are in play here. The American people are being deceived. Read More

    Mao Cheng Ji , April 13, 2017 at 7:58 am GMT \n
    100 Words Technical stuff is interesting, but from the layman's perspective it's really straightforward: means, motive, opportunity.

    Opportunity: yes.
    Means: seems doubtful, due to the 2013-14 OPCW cleanup of the government-controlled territory.
    Motive: not just absent, but manifestly counterproductive, under the circumstances.

    There's also ample evidence of the government desperately trying to avoid antagonizing the population. In the territories they they liberate, they routinely – and that's a fact – transport anti-government militants and their families, and even with their light weapons, into rebel-controlled territories, that same Idlib province. In government-supplied buses. Even though they could easily kill them all, right on the spot. How does it square with with the supposed indiscriminate gassing? Read More

    Anon , April 13, 2017 at 8:39 am GMT \n
    A courageous and honorable man indeed. This is putting America first! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    The Scalpel , Website April 13, 2017 at 9:20 am GMT \n
    100 Words Much "evidence" can be faked. This is just an example of that fact. Looking at that tube, it is obvious that it did not explode. If it is very difficult to determine if evidence is real or faked, then one must be very careful reaching conclusions based on said evidence. At that point, motives must be taken into consideration.

    The argument that the Syrian government had any motive whatsoever to carry out this attack is very,very weak. Also, I have heard the claim that the US government believes only one chemical weapon was used. Assuming that the Syrian government carried out the attack, which I do not believe, why would they use just one chemical weapon?

    So what we have here is very weak evidence, very weak motive, and an illogical and inefficient proposed mechanism. This does not pass the smell test at all.

    Avery , April 13, 2017 at 12:37 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Mao Cheng Ji Technical stuff is interesting, but from the layman's perspective it's really straightforward: means, motive, opportunity.

    Opportunity: yes.
    Means: seems doubtful, due to the 2013-14 OPCW cleanup of the government-controlled territory.
    Motive: not just absent, but manifestly counterproductive, under the circumstances.

    There's also ample evidence of the government desperately trying to avoid antagonizing the population. In the territories they they liberate, they routinely - and that's a fact - transport anti-government militants and their families, and even with their light weapons, into rebel-controlled territories, that same Idlib province. In government-supplied buses. Even though they could easily kill them all, right on the spot. How does it square with with the supposed indiscriminate gassing? You make good points.

    {How does it square with with the supposed indiscriminate gassing?}

    It doesn't.
    Particularly a chemical attack, to kill, what, 100 people?
    Assad knows very well what that would mean: even Russia would not let it slide.
    As you said, SAA could easily kill hundreds of terrorists and their sympathizers with conventional bombs if they wanted to kill indiscriminately.

    On the other hand it squares 100% with enemies of Syria.
    SAA is winning, albeit at a very slow pace, and Neocons clearly are panicking and desperate to prevent the breakout of peace in Syria at any cost.

    Xander USMC , April 13, 2017 at 12:54 pm GMT \n
    200 Words I was a demo guy in the Marine Corps, so I am familiar with the effect of explosive charges. There is no question that the photo, if accurate, is consistent with a charge placed above rather than within. There may be other explanations for the compression but definitely not an internal charge. I would note that the diagram in the article suggests some sort of "pipe bomb" type charge on top, but I do not see any sort of fragments from that type of device. If it was a charge on top it would have needed to be a simple explosive charge, probably tamped with dirt or sand. In any case, there would be explosive residue on the outside of the pipe which could easily be identified. Obviously, if this pipe was source of the agent someone should have preserved this evidence and turned it over to the UN or whoever.
    Ivan , April 13, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT \n
    @Diversity Heretic This just gets weirder and weirder. Is the position of the Trump Administration and the intelligence community that the Syrian Air Force went through all the trouble to launch an aerial attack and drop one bomb? Handling chemical munitions is inherently dangerous. Syrian Air Force personnel loading the nerve agent into the bomb and then fitting it on the plane would have to wear protective clothing and receive special training, and might even then suffer some exposure casualties. And my recollection is that chemical weapons, even nerve gas, generally have to be used in massive quantities to achieve any military result.

    The chances that the gassing was as a result of a Syrian Air Force attack are vanishingly small. Other forces are in play here. The American people are being deceived. Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh.

    El Dato , April 13, 2017 at 3:07 pm GMT \n
    @Ivan Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh. Which is why

    https://www.rt.com/news/384042-shayrat-probe-chemical-weapons/

    and also

    https://southfront.org/debunking-rumors-about-chemical-weapons-containers-in-syrias-shayrat-airbase/

    Anon , April 13, 2017 at 3:09 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Chris Mallory

    Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for the deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war?
    Yes

    Who is worse, Assad or Lincoln?
    Lincoln wins that race in a blowout. Lincoln was one of the most evil monsters to ever walk the earth. Well, President Asad is trying to prevent the destruction of his nation, the probable partitioning of it, the crushing of any institutions reflecting the Arab consensus that has always bound the nation together and made its institutions work, as well as preventing openly genocidal barbarians from achieving victory, erasing Earth's oldest Christian communities and other religious minorities. President Lincoln was facing a foe that just wanted slavery and separatism. The Confederates were not genocidal, although the cruelties of the slave trade and the plantation system often reached the same level of inhumanity. So, overall, from the perspective of a CNN/MSNBC believer, or a Trumpian nouveau-neocon, Asad is much worse worse than Hitler, in fact, as Sean Spicer was trying to say. Here's a tip: Keep it simple, Sean. Don't bring up the Holocaust, just say he's worse than Hitler. Some will question that, but those who matter will let it slide.
    Agent76 , April 13, 2017 at 3:29 pm GMT \n
    April 07, 2017 Pentagon Trained Syria's Al Qaeda "Rebels" in the Use of Chemical Weapons

    The Western media refutes their own lies.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-trained-syrias-al-qaeda-rebels-in-the-use-of-chemical-weapons/5583784

    Apr 9, 2017 No More

    utu , April 13, 2017 at 4:38 pm GMT \n
    500 Words Where is Russia's propaganda machine? 71 years old, retired American professors does amateurish analysis using one pict obtained from social media and Sputnik and Russia Today will publish it, right? But where are the Russians? What did they do to support the belief that the gas attack was a false flag? Apparently nothing. Lavrov calls of UN investigation. That's about all. But what about the assets they have in Syria? Couldn't they release some information pointing to the real culprits?

    Inept, indolent losers!

    Why Russia's media are so pathetically weak? For some years already I follow some Russian media outfits and I am amazed why they are so inept and indolent. Their approach is totally inadequate when targeted with Anglo-Zio media aggressive anti-Russia narratives.

    This time when Russia and Putin were smacked in the face in Syria the best Russia came up with was to claim that it did not hurt that much, that only 23 out of 59 missiles reached the target and that the damage to the airport was minimal. And next day they doubled down on it by having planes taking off from the airport. Whether the claims are factual or not it does not matter. The opposite approach should have be used: exaggerate the pain and loss you have suffered. Keep showing dead bodies and damage even if invented. Do not pretend that it rains when they are spitting in your face. Show your hurt, your weakness. Be more like Anglo-Zio propaganda that will accuse every drop a real rain of aggressive intent or even of being anti-semitic. Be proactive not reactive.

    So why Russia's propaganda machine is so weak? Is it because Russians are proud people or that their journalists and propagandists have moral scruples and won't engage in lies and manipulations? Obviously not. They just do not know because they are conditioned by the working of propaganda in the authoritarian regime just like during Tsars and Bolsheviks. In the authoritarian regime the chief objective of propaganda is to convince the subjects of the regime that the regime knows what it is doing and that it is strong. The propaganda is not really directed for the foreign enemies but for the domestic friends. For this reason any setbacks or losses will be hidden from the populace or minimized. No disasters and no catastrophes ever happened in the Soviet Union if you just read Pravda or Izvestia. Towards the end of WWII Goebbels was disappointed with inability of German propaganda to produce sympathy around the world for Germans suffering due to American and British bombing of German civilian population that was killing children women, and elders. But this was a consequence of years of hiding these losses from German population because the regime wanted to project its strengths. And that was a mistake. So if Russia wants to confront Anglo-Zio media they must shape up and change the approach. So far they are failing though I am sure they are doing a wonderful job for people like Smoothie (if you ask him) and other clumsy and ineffective agents of influence on behalf of Russia.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    El Dato , April 13, 2017 at 4:54 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @reiner Tor Thanks, that's useful to know.

    Are you sure it's true of sarin? I read that about sarin specifically. It seems creating the sarin generates either hydrochloric acid or hydrofluoric acid as byproduct (especially the latter is Very Not Good), so keeping sarin even in glass bottles is bound to be fraught with difficulties over the long run (instant expert via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin )

    In particular the US had capabilities to fire sarin precursors in a single shell that are reacting in-flight to avoid the storage problems. I'm not sure Syria had that, but even for the Ghouta attack there was talk about "our intelligence services picked up the order for mixing" (however debatable that is), so I don't suppose they did. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Astuteobservor II , April 13, 2017 at 5:03 pm GMT \n
    just another false flag. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Alfa158 , April 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm GMT \n
    100 Words What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and they are usually months or years old.
    Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas attack? Read More
    MarkinLA , April 13, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT \n
    100 Words And on CNN this morning there was a claim that the US intercepted Syrian military people interacting with chemical weapons specialists or some garbage like that. Just when the story is about to explode in the US's face, out comes a convenient claim that doesn't make any sense to people with IQs above room level. I am sure if there was such a dubious communication it was created by Mossad or Saudi secret services.

    This is like all our intercepted communiques. Like that one just before we invaded Iraq. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    bjondo , April 13, 2017 at 5:15 pm GMT \n
    @Carlton Meyer Let me add that Jimmy Dore made a great point in that video. Many blame Assad for the half million Syrians who have died in this civil war; yet it was mostly caused by an invasion of outside Islamic mercs paid for by the Saudis and Qatar.

    Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for the deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war? The confederate rebels weren't even trying to conquer the north, they just wanted to be left to run their own affairs.

    Who is worse, Assad or Lincoln? Wouldnt compare Old Abe to President Assad
    Pres Assad doesn't deserve the very questionable "who is worse" comparison.
    Assad is GOOD. Period. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    El Dato , April 13, 2017 at 5:34 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Everybody has Sarin Fever, soon there will be Sarin Pokemons, Sarin with your ice cream, Sarin pillows, a George Lucas movie called "Sarin!" and voucher for Sarin holidays I'm sure:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/13/asia/north-korea-missiles-japan/

    "North Korea may be able to arm missiles with sarin, Japan PM says Abe did not provide any evidence why he felt North Korea had the capability to equip missiles with chemical weapons. "

    Well, one might totally suppose the Norks are not total peasants. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    El Dato , April 13, 2017 at 5:47 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Alfa158 What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and they are usually months or years old.
    Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas attack? It's just to show the location:

    The Google Earth map shown in Figure 1 at the end of this text section shows the location of that crater on the road in the north of Khan Shaykhun, as described in the White House statement.

    That warehouse is a bit bombed-out by now.

    See:

    http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2017/7-april-pentagons-location-of-impact-crater-linked-to-the

    It's right here, a lonely crater of a single chemical munition:

    https://www.google.com/maps/place/35%C2%B026'59.7%22N+36%C2%B038'55.6%22E/@35.449907,36.6478998,353m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0×0!8m2!3d35.449907!4d36.648767 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    JPTravis , Website April 13, 2017 at 5:53 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Sadly, the way these things work, the evidence as it stands will henceforth be irrelevant. Now that the Trump administration has staked its reputation on a cruise missile attack to punish Assad for using chemical warfare, they will NEVER admit they were wrong. Just like Obama will never admit he royally screwed up Libya and his amateurish machinations got a U.S. ambassador dragged through the streets like a dead cat. We seem to live in a world where truth no longer matters. What matters is whether you can get the idiots in the media to buy your version of events rather than your political enemy's version of events. Personally, I never thought Assad was responsible for this atrocity. Why risk something like that when everybody agreed he was finally winning this thing?
    El Dato , April 13, 2017 at 6:32 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Olive branch extension and face-saving in progress?

    https://www.rt.com/uk/384592-ambassador-brenton-russia-syria/

    Russia 'horrified at chemical attacks' in Syria, says former UK ambassador to Moscow

    Russia has been badly mishandled by Western powers, which fail to realize the Kremlin is not fond of the Syrian leadership and is horrified at recent chemical attacks, former British diplomat Tony Brenton has told the BBC.

    Speaking to the BBC 'Today' program on Thursday, Brenton, who served as ambassador to Moscow from 2004 to 2008, said it is important to understand Syria from the Russian perspective.

    "The Russian view of the situation in Syria is very clear. They don't much like [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and they must be horrified at the chemical weapons attack last week.

    But the question they ask themselves is, 'if we get rid of Assad, what comes after?'" Brenton said.

    "Their answer to that question is that 'we get some of Islamic fundamentalism which is worse for us than Assad' so we put up with the nasty dictator that we've got rather than admitting fundamentalism which is a direct threat to us."

    Asked if the Russians need "help" to move away from Assad, Brenton said: "I think that is exactly it. I think if we can get together with the Russians they have a real interest in moving away from Assad as well."

    Understanding the domestic political situation in Russia is also vital in order to grapple with the question of how the country operates in the world, he said.

    "They are dealing with a population which doesn't really understand why they are in Syria at all.

    "If we could move towards an after-Assad regime in Syria which guaranteed the non-intervention of Islamic fundamentalism, [Russia] would be delighted to work in that direction."

    Agent76 , April 13, 2017 at 7:00 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Carlton Meyer A Congressman and Iraq war vet suggests an investigation and the Dems denounce her:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1oECQ6r6do This is what the Bankster puppet's do when they have been outed!

    Dec 8, 2016 Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Introduces Bill to Stop Arming Terrorists

    December 08, 2016 Bipartisan Bill Would Forbid US Funding ISIS, al-Qaeda Affiliates

    Gabbert-Rohrabacher Bill Would Effectively End CIA Program Arming Syrian Rebels. The Stop Arming Terrorists Act (SATA) has been introduced today in the House of Representatives by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D – HI).

    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/08/bipartisan-bill-would-forbid-us-funding-isis-al-qaeda-affiliates/

    Art , April 13, 2017 at 8:13 pm GMT \n
    100 Words The Jew keep their eye on the price – a busted up Syria. They have the Kushner White House, all the rest of Stockholm DC, and their MSM all pumping out the "Assad did it" lie.

    The world's two major nuke powers are at loggerheads – but what the hell – Israel is happy and getting its way.

    You Stockholmers must never forget what the Jew terrorists tell you – "Jews are the eternal victims" – so suck it up you 7,000,000,000 fools – you must always defer to us!

    Laugh in your face! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    RobinG , April 13, 2017 at 8:15 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Ivan Gilad Atzmon had another question: if the US really did believe that air force base had chemical weapons stores then launching a Tomahawk strike would in all likelihood release those same gases . Duh. Gilad's whole argument is flawed. The US has not said that chem. weapons were stored there. [If anyone has official statement to contrary, please correct me.] The US only claimed that chem. attacks were launched from there.

    Then, as to targeting, US said it was targeting below-ground fuel storage, perhaps munitions also, but not chem. Again, anyone have better info? Official, not MSM who will say anything.

    anon , April 13, 2017 at 8:33 pm GMT \n
    100 Words the Wall Street Journal's right wing neocon-in-residence Brett Stephens loudly called for "regime change" in North Korea two weeks ago.

    And then there's Iran, which the Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol is once again saying is the ultimate "prize" for regime change, now that Trump is directly bombing Assad's forces.

    Weeks ago, Trump's defense secretary James Mattis was reportedly planning a brazen and incredibly dangerous operation to board Iranian ships in international waters. " https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/10/not-just-syria-trump-ratcheting-up-wars-world

    One day they or their children will move to Israel or to another country and use North Korean or Iranian to do terrorism against America or even use the entire country using this history of what is happening today to invade America . Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Steve Rendall , April 13, 2017 at 8:36 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Carlton Meyer Let me add that Jimmy Dore made a great point in that video. Many blame Assad for the half million Syrians who have died in this civil war; yet it was mostly caused by an invasion of outside Islamic mercs paid for by the Saudis and Qatar.

    Does this mean that Abe Lincoln was a ruthless thug responsible for the deaths of a half a million Americans during our civil war? The confederate rebels weren't even trying to conquer the north, they just wanted to be left to run their own affairs.

    Who is worse, Assad or Lincoln? I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.

    Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011 to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share. Read More

    anon , April 13, 2017 at 8:45 pm GMT \n
    100 Words do not ignore these guys -

    "Susannah Sirkin from the Soros-funded Physicians for Human Rights claimed, "We know that sarin has been used before by the Assad regime." But that has NOT been confirmed by any credible organization. On the contrary, the most thorough investigations point to sarin being used by the armed opposition, NOT the Syrian government.

    The other guest was Andrew Tabler from the neoconservative Israeli-associated Washington Institute for Near East Policy. His editorial from last fall makes clear what he wants: "The case for (finally) bombing Assad." So, the viewers of the publicly funded network got one of their usual doses of "Assad must go" propaganda"

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/10/how-media-bias-fuels-syrian-escalation/ Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    m___ , April 13, 2017 at 8:46 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Higher intelligence individuals, moral integrity, ethical overview, physical courage.

    Since even the detailed and easy language above analysis leaves the world at large clueless, the few with necessary perception within the public, having no trouble understanding as outsiders what is meant, speak about what is the quality of the Washington power structures.

    The harnessed 'elites', including universities, are corrupted, cater to superficial riches, the short term, in equivalents of family and clan. Washington is a dump, where high quality individuals that by definition need less structure have no place.

    Since the public needs elites, since elites carry responsibility, "noblesse obligue", the essence of our de facto society can be concluded rotten to the core. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Randal , April 13, 2017 at 9:29 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Steve Rendall I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.

    Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011 to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share.

    Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011 to 2014.

    You have a rather unrealistically late idea of when foreign groups started backing the terrorists in Syria.

    Qatar, to name just one, is on the record as having actively supported the rebels militarily since at least April 2012, and the FT reported in May 2013 it had already spent $1-3 billion backing the rebels:

    How Qatar seized control of the Syrian revolution

    Turkey started providing support to the "Free Syria Army" in 2011, and jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda were openly calling for volunteers to fight in Syria by February 2012.

    This is all information in the public domain. It's likely covert interference started long before that. Read More

    MarkinLA , April 13, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @RobinG Gilad's whole argument is flawed. The US has not said that chem. weapons were stored there. [If anyone has official statement to contrary, please correct me.] The US only claimed that chem. attacks were launched from there.

    Then, as to targeting, US said it was targeting below-ground fuel storage, perhaps munitions also, but not chem. Again, anyone have better info? Official, not MSM who will say anything. I think you are right about US claims but they really don't make any sense if the aim was to punish someone using chemical weapons. At least Bush pretended to be looking for the WMD even though he likely knew they didn't exist.

    Where else would they be stored unless you think Assad has a secret stash someplace and pulls them out, now and then, to do some gassing. If that was the case, wouldn't it make more sense to bomb the stash and prove to the rest of the world Assad had them rather than just bomb an airfield and leave yourself open to the kind of criticism Trump is getting? The idea that we can track everything the Syrian military does but they have a secret chemical weapons store that Mossad, Turkey, the CIA, FSB, and Saudi intelligence agencies don't know about seems incredible. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    D Trump , April 13, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT \n
    @El Dato Why is there a neatly printed red panel with a death's head next to the "incriminating tube"? Do White Helmets (or whoever did the photographing, maybe our undeclared "boots on the ground"?) carry these with them? My arabic reading skills are not so good, what does it say? Ivanka tells me – she does all my reading for me – that it says "Danger. Unexploded weapon" Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    RobinG , April 13, 2017 at 10:40 pm GMT \n
    @Steve Rendall I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.

    Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011 to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share. "It's likely covert interference started long before that." Yes, Randal. About 2006.

    Steve Randall, where do you think all those weapons and Jihadis went when Ambassador Chris Stevens arranged their passage out of Libya? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Anon , April 13, 2017 at 10:48 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Considering everything that's been happening recently, I think there is a strong possibility that this was either a false flag or they were simply waiting for an excuse to attack Syria – anything would do. In fact, Mattis had cooked up a plan to illegally board Iranian ships in international waters as a kind of Gulf of Tonkin provocation. The plan was only scrapped because it was leaked. Now, these maniacs are sending more troops to Afghanistan, concealing the numbers of troops they are deploying to the Middle East, dropping MOABs to scare other nations into submission, and threatening to attack North Korea.

    "Weeks ago, Trump's defense secretary James Mattis was reportedly planning a brazen and incredibly dangerous operation to board Iranian ships in international waters. This would have effectively been an act of war. Apparently, the only reason the Trump administration didn't carry it out was because the plan leaked and they were forced to scuttle it – at least temporarily. But that hasn't stopped the ratcheting up of tensions towards Iran ever since he took office

    On top of all this madness, 16 years after America's longest war in history started, a top general has already testified to Congress that the military wants more troops in Afghanistan to break the "stalemate" there. Well before the end of the Trump administration, there will be troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan who weren't even born when the 9/11 attacks occurred.
    To further shield the public from these decisions, the Trump administration indicated a couple weeks ago they have stopped disclosing even the amount of additional troops that they are sending overseas to fight. The numbers were already being downplayed by the Obama administration and received little attention as the numbers continually creeped up over the last two years. Now, the public will have virtually no insight into what its military is doing in those countries."

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/10/not-just-syria-trump-ratcheting-up-wars-world Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Steve Rendall , April 13, 2017 at 11:20 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Randal

    Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011 to 2014.
    You have a rather unrealistically late idea of when foreign groups started backing the terrorists in Syria.

    Qatar, to name just one, is on the record as having actively supported the rebels militarily since at least April 2012, and the FT reported in May 2013 it had already spent $1-3 billion backing the rebels:

    How Qatar seized control of the Syrian revolution

    Turkey started providing support to the "Free Syria Army" in 2011, and jihadist groups such as Al Qaeda were openly calling for volunteers to fight in Syria by February 2012.

    This is all information in the public domain. It's likely covert interference started long before that. Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that works?

    See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back with.

    I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are responsible for most of the refugee problem. Read More Troll: L.K

    JoaoAlfaiate , April 13, 2017 at 11:23 pm GMT \n
    Am I the only guy who finds it strange that the "bomb" explored exactly in the middle of a road? Read More
    Contraviews , Website April 13, 2017 at 11:25 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Dear Mr.Postol,
    What I did miss in your excellent analysis are comments on White Helmets and other rescuers handling sarin contaminated victims with bare hands and no protective clothing. As you know sarin is a highly toxis chemical, targeting the muscles and nervous system. Rescuers would have been contaminated themselves and died probably within hours.
    It's my take that these images were staged and filmed already before the "attack". Could you please comment on this aspect?
    Also listening to a chemical expert on Rt he stated that delivering sarin or chlorine from the air would be totally ineffective. Could you possibly elaborate on this as well?
    Tom Van Meurs
    New Zealand
    I will pubish your article on my Facebook Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    anon , April 14, 2017 at 12:09 am GMT \n
    200 Words @Steve Rendall Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that works?

    See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back with.

    I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are responsible for most of the refugee problem. Refugees s been pouring in Jordan and Turkey before moving to EU. Refugees eas expected by saudi They put barbed wire I think to stop.

    Syria initially saw a peaceful demonstration and before government started using arms or ammunition , demonstration got violent with assassination and killing of government forces Soon UK and USA were demanding that Assad needed to surrender. Assad started using air force to stem the tide of the violence .Assad offered amnesty and reconciliation s All were discarded at the behest of Western ad Saudi and Turkey Before that the 'Rat line" from Libya flooded the country with weapons Long before that French FM exposed the plans of destabilizing Syria . in 2007 Cheney was planning with Rice to start a civil war in Syria and western Iraq. Arms were in plenty already

    Assad had no choice but use all powers he had .
    Why did refugees go to EU?

    No one knows.

    But one thing is sure that this fallout and aftermath were in-built in the projects cooked in DC Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Brewer , April 14, 2017 at 12:51 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Alfa158 What was the date of the image from Google Earth showing the supposed bomb crater? Google Earth is not a real time satellite reconnaissance system. You can get the date of the image from the display options, and they are usually months or years old.
    Is it possible that this crater was already there prior to the gas attack? There is a glaring anomaly in that there appears to be a 5-hour time difference between the gas release and the Syrian air attack – the former at around 6am, the latter at 11am. This should be easy enough to ascertain if one has the proper resources. If so it clears the SAA of responsibility.
    Xander USMC , April 14, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT \n
    200 Words White House Explanation of Alleged Syrian Strategy is Utter Nonsense.

    I have not really seen much comment on the White House explanation for why the Syrians supposedly did this. The Paper discussed claims that the Syrian government did this attack in "southern Idlib province" in response to a threat "in response to an opposition offensive in northern Hamah province that threatened key infrastructure." This explanation is utterly nonsensical. If key infrastructure is being threatened in one part of the country why did the government have an airstrike in another area of the country–much less an entirely insignificant single rocket attack that does not appear to have accomplished anything militarily. If they were going to use gas why didn't they use it in Hamah where the "key infrastructure" was allegedly being threatened?

    Of course, there may be times when you can strike your enemies' supply lines, (like MacArthur wanted to take out the bridge over the Yalu River) but in any event I wish someone would ask the White House to explain this statement. No one has yet to offer any coherent explanation for the alleged actions of the Syrian government. Read More

    Xander USMC , April 14, 2017 at 1:29 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Brewer There is a glaring anomaly in that there appears to be a 5-hour time difference between the gas release and the Syrian air attack - the former at around 6am, the latter at 11am. This should be easy enough to ascertain if one has the proper resources. If so it clears the SAA of responsibility. If there is a time gap that merely is evidence that it was someone on the ground. The U.S. claims a Syrian Sukoi-22 (an airplane so old the Russians don't use it anymore) dropped ordinance (the alleged chemicals) at the time of the attack. So if there was an airstrike by an Su-22 using high explosives that could well have damaged chemicals on the ground.

    There are also many possible explanations for a delay–we don't really know very much so its is pure speculation, but for example, if a warehouse storing chemical weapons by the rebels was damaged they may have tried to remove the chemicals from the warehouse hours after the attack and it was the attempt to move the damaged containers that resulted in an "accident." It is also consistent with a set-up as it would take time for rebels after the airstrike to engineer a chemical attack. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    alexander , April 14, 2017 at 3:00 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Xander USMC White House Explanation of Alleged Syrian Strategy is Utter Nonsense.

    I have not really seen much comment on the White House explanation for why the Syrians supposedly did this. The Paper discussed claims that the Syrian government did this attack in "southern Idlib province" in response to a threat "in response to an opposition offensive in northern Hamah province that threatened key infrastructure." This explanation is utterly nonsensical. If key infrastructure is being threatened in one part of the country why did the government have an airstrike in another area of the country--much less an entirely insignificant single rocket attack that does not appear to have accomplished anything militarily. If they were going to use gas why didn't they use it in Hamah where the "key infrastructure" was allegedly being threatened?

    Of course, there may be times when you can strike your enemies' supply lines, (like MacArthur wanted to take out the bridge over the Yalu River) but in any event I wish someone would ask the White House to explain this statement. No one has yet to offer any coherent explanation for the alleged actions of the Syrian government. Xander,

    Let us assume, for arguments sake, you are President Assad.

    Over the past year, with the assistance of Russian forces, you have been able to mount decisive, significant victories against ISIS using conventional weapons, and you are on the verge of reclaiming your country from the assorted Jihadist's who are fragmenting it and destroying it.

    If you are well aware the ONE action you could take, which might force the hand of the most powerful military on the planet to descend upon you Wouldn't you avoid it like the plague ?

    Is there any strategic or tactical value for you to attempt it ?

    If there is .What is it ? Read More

    Randal , April 14, 2017 at 3:36 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Steve Rendall Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that works?

    See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back with.

    I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are responsible for most of the refugee problem.

    Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees.

    The comment to which you responded referred to deaths, not refugees.

    But with regard to refugees, the UNHCR figures show that the number of registered Syrian refugees was still below 1m at the end of March 2013 (it's now over 5 million), whereas as I pointed out above, the external backing for the rebels that prevented the government restoring order and really ratcheted up the fighting had markedly increased during 2012.

    The blame for the devastation in Syria belongs with those who have perpetuated the rebellion and prevented the Syrian government restoring order, as Assad's father restored order following the uprising in 1982. Primarily with the US as the global hegemon, and with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel who have directly or indirectly interfered to seek regime change in Syria regardless of the human cost.

    Those who have a genuine humanitarian concern and are not motivated by ulterior strategic or political interests, should direct their criticism and their pressure appropriately. Read More

    bluedog , April 14, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT \n
    @Steve Rendall Anon does not reposed to my argument. Early on, Jihadi fighters were not much of a factor in driving the flight of refugees. And long term covert machinations, which I agree there was plenty of, don't matter if those it supports are not terrorizing people to leave the country. See how that works?

    See how Assad sacked major parts of Homs, with artillery, tanks, and an Air Force, while opposition had little more than mortars to fight back with.

    I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are responsible for most of the refugee problem. Well one would think it would be who ever started the dance not what happened after the lights went out..

    Xander USMC , April 14, 2017 at 8:48 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @alexander Xander,

    Let us assume, for arguments sake, you are President Assad.

    Over the past year, with the assistance of Russian forces, you have been able to mount decisive, significant victories against ISIS using conventional weapons, and you are on the verge of reclaiming your country from the assorted Jihadist's who are fragmenting it and destroying it.

    If you are well aware the ONE action you could take, which might force the hand of the most powerful military on the planet to descend upon you...Wouldn't you avoid it like the plague ?

    Is there any strategic or tactical value for you to attempt it ?


    If there is....What is it ? Right, but that is the strategic lack of sense, but I'm pointing out the strike would make no sense tactically either. If something was being threatened arguably it would make tactical sense to gas the area under attack–but not a minor attack 50 miles away that does not appear to have any relation to the alleged threat elsewhere. I haven't even seen any confirmation of any threat to "key infrastructure." Not to mention Syria retook Aleppo without the need for chemicals–wasn't that a lot more key than this unidentified "key infrastructure"?

    alexander , April 14, 2017 at 10:28 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Xander USMC Right, but that is the strategic lack of sense, but I'm pointing out the strike would make no sense tactically either. If something was being threatened arguably it would make tactical sense to gas the area under attack--but not a minor attack 50 miles away that does not appear to have any relation to the alleged threat elsewhere. I haven't even seen any confirmation of any threat to "key infrastructure." Not to mention Syria retook Aleppo without the need for chemicals--wasn't that a lot more key than this unidentified "key infrastructure"? Yes ,

    It would make the most sense were one to use chemical weapons as a TACTIC, to use them in areas and situations where (as you suggest) one would get the most "bang for their buck".

    It is very clear to you,based on its location, this chemical attack was almost meaningless tactically.

    Right ?

    So if this chemical assault was tactically absurd and strategically suicidal, then what would be Assad's thinking by attempting it ?

    Is there some "rationale" that escapes us ?

    L.K , April 14, 2017 at 10:49 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Steve Rendall I like Dore, but if he said that he's almost surely wrong.

    Assad was bombing Syria for quite a while before Jihadis were much of a factor. He had the only Air Force and mechanized army in Syria from 2011 to 2014. For all of that time his bombing was the primary driver of the refugee crisis. It is impossible to say how many refugees Assad is responsible for, but it's likely he has caused the lion's share. Everything you wrote is pure BS. But I guess that is your purpose here.

    Even Robert Fisk admitted there were Salafi jihadis involved from day one. Al-Ciada in Iraq was involved from day one, etc.
    There were and there are NO moderate 'rebels'. This ain't fucking star wars.
    Since early 2012, the Al-Nusra Front & co have been the main fighting force trying to topple the Syrian government . They are actually a more serious threat to Syria than Daesh/is.
    Increasingly from 2012 the Jihadis have been ever more heavily armed.
    The key Jihadi groups all have armored forces, artillery, ATGMs, the only thing they don't have is an air-force. Robert Fisk reported from the front lines in 2013/14/15 re how oftentimes the Syrian army faced militants that were as well armed and, in some cases, even better armed.
    Armored Assault by Al-Nusra in Aleppo, Caught on Nusra Drone Camera

    L.K , April 14, 2017 at 11:05 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @El Dato Syria may be an autocratic shithole where women must know their place and you better kowtow to the friendly state employee (or face a guided tour of a dungeon) with the Assad family in power (indeed we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Hama_massacre under daddy already) but

    I dare you to find me an independent Syria expert who says the rebels are responsible for most of the refugee problem.
    This is just jumping the shark.

    People just don't like to stay in warzones and flattened cities, yes. Your view of Syria is a grotesque caricature. Here's what former US marine, Brad Hoff, found in Syria before the war:

    DURING MY FIRST WEEKS in Damascus, I was pleasantly shocked. My preconceived notions were shattered: I expected to find a society full of veiled women, mosques on every street corner, religious police looking over shoulders, rabid anti-American sentiment preached to angry crowds, persecuted Christians and crumbling hidden churches, prudish separation of the sexes, and so on. I quickly realized during my first few days and nights in Damascus, that Syria was a far cry from my previous imaginings, which were probably more reflective of Saudi Arabian life and culture. What I actually encountered were mostly unveiled women wearing European fashions and sporting bright makeup - many of them wearing blue jeans and tight fitting clothes that would be commonplace in American shopping malls on a summer day. I saw groups of teenage boys and girls mingling in trendy cafes late into the night, displaying expensive cell phones. There were plenty of mosques, but almost every neighborhood had a large church or two with crosses figured prominently in the Damascus skyline.

    A Marine in Syria

    https://medium.com/news-politics/a-marine-in-syria-d06ff67c203c

    As for the 'Hama massacre', it was actually a battle between the army and a sectarian islamic insurgency.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Syria Where the Rubber Meets the Road - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | www.unz.com

    contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian 'chemical weapons attack.' Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died ..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened."

    - Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community (names below)

    You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak. The chemical weapons attack in Khan Shaykhun, has produced no smoking gun, no damning evidence, in fact, no evidence at all. Similar to the Russia hacking fiasco, (not a shred of evidence so far) the western media and the entire political class has made the case for attacking a sovereign country on the thin gruel of a few videos of an incident that took place in a location that is currently under the control of militant groups connected to al Qaida. That's pretty shaky grounds for a conviction, don't you think?

    And it's not up to Assad to prove his innocence either. That's baloney. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution. If Trump and his lieutenants have evidence that the Syrian President used chemical weapons, then– by all means– let's see it and be done with it. If not, we have to assume that Assad is innocent, not because we like Assad, but because these are the legal precedents that one follows to establish the truth. And that's what we want, we want to know what really happened.

    Neither Trump nor the media care about the truth, what they care about is regime change, which is the driving force behind Washington's six year-long war on Syria. The fact that Washington has concealed its support by secretly arming-and-training Sunni militias, does not absolve it from responsibility. The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria. Without Washington's support none of this would have happened. 7 million Syrians wouldn't have fled their homes, 400,000 Syrians wouldn't have been killed, and the country would not be the anarchic wastelands it is today. The United States is entirely is responsible for the death and destruction of Syria. These are Washington's killing fields.

    As we said earlier, there is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against his people nor has there been any investigation to substantiate the claims. The Trump administration launched its Tomahawk missile barrage before consulting with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons which essentially preempted the organization from doing its job. The administration's rejection of the normal investigative procedures and rush to judgement reinforces the belief that they know they have no case and are just peddling pro-war BS in the mad pursuit of their geopolitical objectives.

    Since we don't have an organization like the OPCW to conduct an investigation, we should at least consider the informed opinions of professionals who have some background in intelligence. This doesn't provide us with iron-clad proof one way or another, but at least it gives us an idea of some probable scenarios. Here's a quote from former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi, who stated last week on the Scott Horton show:

    "I am hearing from sources on the ground, in the Middle East, the people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence available are saying that the essential narrative we are all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham. The intelligence confirms pretty much the account the Russians have been giving since last night which is that they hit a warehouse where al Qaida rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear, and people both in the Agency and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he should already have known - but maybe didn't–and they're afraid this is moving towards a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict." (The Impending Clash Between the U.S. and Russia, Counterpunch)

    We hear a very similar account from retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former chief of Staff to General Colin Powell. Here's what he said in a recent interview on the Real News Network:

    "I personally think the provocation was a Tonkin Gulf incident .. Most of my sources are telling me, including members of the team that monitors global chemical weapons –including people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence Community–that what most likely happened was that they hit a warehouse that they had intended to hit and this warehouse was alleged to have to ISIS supplies in it, and some of those supplies were precursors for chemicals .. conventional bombs hit the warehouse, and due to a strong wind, and the explosive power of the bombs, they dispersed these ingredients and killed some people." (" Lawrence Wilkerson: Trump Attack on Syria Driven by Domestic Politics ", Real News Network)

    Finally, we have the collective judgement of 20 former members of the US Intelligence Community (names below) the so-called Steering Group of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Here's what they say:

    "Our U.S. Army contacts in the area have told us this is not what happened. There was no Syrian "chemical weapons attack." Instead, a Syrian aircraft bombed an al-Qaeda-in-Syria ammunition depot that turned out to be full of noxious chemicals and a strong wind blew the chemical-laden cloud over a nearby village where many consequently died ..This is what the Russians and Syrians have been saying and – more important –what they appear to believe happened."

    So, why is the administration so eager to jump to conclusions? Why do they want to use such a sketchy incident to justify an attack on sovereign nation that poses no threat to US national security? What's really going on here?

    ORDER IT NOW

    To answer tha, we need to review an interview with President Trump's new National Security Advisor, Lt. General H.R. McMaster, that took on place on Sunday on Fox News. McMaster– you may recall– recently replaced General Michael Flynn at the same position. Flynn's failing was that he wanted to "normalize" relations with Russia which the behind-the-scenes powerbrokers rejected out-of-hand and worked to have him replaced with far-right wing militarist-neocon McMaster. Now, McMaster is part of the one-two combo that decides US foreign policy around the world. Trump has essentially dumped Syria in the laps of his two favorite generals, McMaster and James "Mad Dog" Mattis who have decided to deepen Washington's military commitment in Syria and intensify the conflict even if it means a direct confrontation with Russia.

    In the Fox interview, McMaster was asked a number of questions about Trump's missile attack. Here's part of what he said:

    "The objective (of the strikes) was to send a very strong political message to Assad. And this is very significant because . this is the first time the United States has acted directly against the Assad regime, and that should be a strong message to Assad and to his sponsors .

    He added,

    "Russia should ask themselves, what are we doing here? Why are we supporting this murderous regime that is committing mass murder of its own population and using the most heinous weapons available .Right now, I think everyone in the world sees Russia as part of the problem." (Fox News with Chris Wallace)

    Can you see what's going on? Trump's missile attack was not retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming for Assad, and you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for you.' That's the message. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons or the suffering of innocent people. McMaster was delivering a threat. He was putting Putin 'on notice'.

    Like McMaster said, "this is the first time the United States has acted directly against the Assad regime, and that should be a strong message to Assad and to his sponsors ."

    In other words, McMaster wants Putin to know that he's prepared to attack the Syrian government and its assets directly and, that, if Putin continues to defend Assad, Russian forces will be targeted as well.

    There was some confusion about this in the media because UN ambassador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson got their talking-points mixed up and botched their interviews. But the Washington Post clarified the policy the next day by stating bluntly:

    "Officials in the Trump administration on Sunday demanded that Russia stop supporting the Syrian government or face a further deterioration in its relations with the United States."

    Bingo. That's the policy in a nutshell. The issue isn't chemical weapons. The issue is Russia's support for Assad, the leader who remains the target of US regime change plans. We are seeing a fundamental shift in the policy from mainly covert support for CIA-backed Sunni militias to overt military intervention. This is just the first volley in that new war.

    The media wants the American people to believe that President Trump impulsively ordered the missile attacks in response to the use of chemical weapons. But there's reason to suspect that the attacks had been planned for some time in advance. As one blogger pointed out:

    "In the weeks before the missile strikes, Trump met with the Saudis, the president of Egypt, and the King of Jordan, while Secretary of State met with Turkish President Erdogan. In other words, the administration met with the entire Middle East 'Sunni alliance' just days before ordering the missile strikes. Coincidence?

    Probably not. They were probably tipped off and asked for their continued support.

    Also, Trump waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi Jinping to launch the attacks. How's that for timing?

    Do you think that the announcement that Trump just attacked Syria would have an impact on the two leaders' conversation about North Korea? Do you think Xi might have seen the announcement as a not-so-subtle threat of violence against the North unless China forces its ally to make concessions?

    Of course, he did. The man wasn't born yesterday.

    It seems unlikely that Trump's attack was a snap decision made by an impulsive man. Instead, it looks like there was a significant amount of planning that went on beforehand, including the deploying of 400 additional Special Ops to Syria and 2,500 combat troops to nearby Kuwait. It appears as though Washington had been building up its troop-strength for some time before it settled on the right pretext for taking things to the next level. As journalist Bill Van Auken noted at the World Socialist Web Site:

    "We have been here so many times before that it is hardly worth wasting the time required to refute the official story. It is now 14 years since the US launched its invasion of Iraq over similar lies about weapons of mass destruction, setting into motion a vast slaughter that has claimed the lives of over one million people and turned millions more into refugees ..

    Once again, as in the air war against Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, and the attack on Libya in 2011, the United States has concocted a pretext to justify the violation of another country's sovereignty " ("The Bombing of Syria, Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site)

    I have no way of knowing whether Assad used chemical weapons or not, but I found Russian President Vladimir Putin's analysis particularly interesting. Reporters asked Putin - "What is your view about the use of chemical weapons in Syria?"

    Putin answered-:

    "You all know that the Syrian government has repeatedly asked the international community to come and inspect the sites where the rebels used chemical weapons. But they always ignored those requests. The only time the international community has responded, was to this last incident. So, what do I think?

    I think we can figure out what's going on by just using a little common sense. The Syrian army was winning the war, in some places they had the rebels completely surrounded. For them to throw it all away and give their trump card to the people who have been calling for regime change is, frankly, a crock of shit.". ( Russian President Vladimir Putin. )

    Putin's response to Trump's missile attack has been subdued to say the least. He did issue a perfunctory presidential press statement on the incident, but the tone of the statement was neither incendiary or belligerent. If anything, it sounded like he found the whole matter irritating, like the man who sits down to a picnic lunch and finds he has to deal with pesky mosquito before he can eat. But, of course, this is the way that Putin handles most matters. He's a master of understatement who is not easily given to emotional outbursts or displays of rage. He's more apt to scratch himself, roll his eyes and give a shrug of the shoulders, than wave his fist and issue threats.

    But from a strategic point of view, Putin's measured response makes perfect sense, after all, the real battle isn't going to be won or lost in Syria. It's much bigger than that. Putin is challenging the present world order in which a disproportionate amount of political and economic power has accrued to one unipolar center of authority, a global hegemon that imposes its economic model wherever it goes and topples sovereign states with a wave of the hand. Putin's task is to build resistance among the vassals, form new alliances, and strengthen the collective resolve for a different world where national sovereignty and borders are guaranteed under an impartial set of international laws that protect the weak as well as the strong.

    That's Putin's real objective, to rebuild the system of global security based on a solid foundation of respect for the vital interests of each and every country. To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends even when they are under attack. That's why Putin won't abandon Assad. It's because he can't.

    Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on. It's where the rubber meets the road.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    Anon , April 12, 2017 at 1:44 pm GMT \n

    100 Words

    Can you see what's going on? Trump's missile attack was not retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming for Assad, and you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for you.' That's the message.

    It's not only that. He adds that everyone else in the world sees it that way.
    That's an essential element to bully speak, and it's never missing from it.

    They love to receive validation from their serfs (you could consider this the "alpha's dessert", from a certain anthropological perspective, to be tasted after every meal).

    After the missile barrage, European "leaders" all took part in a bowing down competition. The good general's expectations about them didn't go unrealized.

    The choir of serfs may be seem a scenic element, nevertheless it is essential scenery. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.

    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also only be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/syria-where-the-rubber-meets-the-road/#comment-1834576 Tweet More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    WorkingClass , April 12, 2017 at 6:48 pm GMT \n
    Trump attacked Syria because he wants to rule the world by force of arms. He pretended to prefer peace to war in order to get elected. He is not Hitler. He is Dubya and Kushner is his Cheney.
    FKA Max , April 13, 2017 at 4:06 am GMT \n

    You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak.

    Maybe you do have to be one

    Ann Coulter, whom I believe to be a female genius

    http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1833752

    ANN COULTER FULL ONE-ON-ONE EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON (4/12/2017)

    Read More

    Anon , April 13, 2017 at 5:33 am GMT \n
    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    Anon , April 13, 2017 at 6:19 am GMT \n
    Kinzer says 'left' and 'right' are breaking down in foreign policy.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Diversity Heretic , April 13, 2017 at 6:54 am GMT \n
    @WorkingClass

    If you want a world whereby the US lives in perpetual peace you want a world in which the US is too weak to invade other countries.
    Yup. That's what I want. In one of his last books, Around the Cragged Hill , George Kennan advocated the dissolution of the United States in its present form for precisely this reason. You're in good company. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Ram , April 13, 2017 at 9:30 am GMT \n
    @nsa Under 2% of the population.....over 50% of the Trump cabinet. The Anglos lack the "genetic" qualification to "serve" the US. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    El Dato , April 13, 2017 at 10:28 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    Probably not. [Sunni/Wahabbi/Army of Conquest actors] were probably tipped off and asked for their continued support.

    In which case the "accidental release of warehoused chemicals" makes only sense if it was a "lucky strike". Seeing how this went down, so totally perfectly, I would say "fully engineered 'incident' with actors on the ground" is the likely explanation. See also http://www.unz.com/author/theodore-a-postol/ of course.

    It's just a matter of degree but the US went from not-too-deadly-to-civilians false flags (some 60′s CIA "communist bombings" in South Vietnam notwithstanding) to do-not-care-about-civilians false flags, and I would say that happened under Obama.

    In the long run. these people are all dead of course, but it's still a hardening of the veins. Read More

    Karl , April 13, 2017 at 10:54 am GMT \n
    > The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria

    darn, those jolly peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a history of thousands of years without a single internal conflict . by the Americans. Everything by the Americans.

    > waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi Jinping to launch the attacks. How's that for timing?

    whatever it takes to make sure that Arabella gets good reviews in the Beijing papers Read More

    KenH , April 13, 2017 at 12:21 pm GMT \n
    200 Words I saw a red flag when Trump & the Pentagon inserted troops into Syria without asking for permission from Bashar Al Assad. It seemed to me that the regime change writing was on the wall and it was only a matter of time before they found the right pretext or created a false flag (or fell for one staged by the "rebels"). And lo and behold they found one straight out of a Hollywood movie script where a real life Dr. Evil type dictator "gasses" innocent women and children.

    Then it was the usual faux outrage by the president, his cabinet members, Congress and the fake, lapdog media while repeating unfounded allegations 24/7 as established truths.

    "In the weeks before the missile strikes, Trump met with the Saudis, the president of Egypt, and the King of Jordan, while Secretary of State met with Turkish President Erdogan.

    Those are all the wrong people to consult with since they are Sunni and Assad is a member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam. Of course they'd like to see Assad deposed and a pliant Sunni stooge in his stead.

    As for Israel, they prefer the bad guys not backed by Iran which would be ISIS and other Wahabi cutthroats and who we now seem to be supporting given Trump's radical shift on Syria.

    http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Oren-Jerusalem-has-wanted-Assad-ousted-since-the-outbreak-of-the-Syrian-civil-war-326328 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Miro23 , April 13, 2017 at 1:10 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Really a very good article putting beyond doubt that Syria is being set up for "Regime Change" and the Russians are being warned to keep out.

    .. To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends even when they are under attack. That's why Putin won't abandon Assad. It's because he can't.

    Well, maybe he could, rather than risk was WWIII. And at least the US public would know for sure that their "No More ME Wars" candidate had defected to the Neo-cons, with the American Establishment being the War Party rather than the Russians. Read More

    Robert Magill , April 13, 2017 at 1:48 pm GMT \n
    100 Words My scenario is a little different. I cannot believe that Donald Trump who has demonstrated such spot on political instincts has suddenly lost his touch. Consider: Premier Xi comes to visit. Deals are done. Russia and Syria are notified during lunch the number of missiles and their intended destination. This is all a show for Xi and Putin. After lunch the missiles go off and about half reach the target.

    Main runway undamaged, Syrian planes resume flights next day. Mission accomplished! Target practice for the Russians. Now we know and they know how many missiles they can scratch in a cluster.
    War hawks salivate. Everybody else has the vapors. Xi goes to Alaska for the next big thing. Train service from the old world to the new.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    anonymous , April 13, 2017 at 2:04 pm GMT \n
    200 Words The world must attack the criminal China by serving the interest of the imperialism/Zionism and the Trump regime for few petty bones.

    China abstained from the UN vote on Syria, where Trump regime bombed Syrian people and frame Assad for the chemical attack where CIA trained terrorists in Syria staged.

    {President Donald Trump has praised China for its decision to abstain from voting on a UN Security Council resolution condemning last week's chemical attack on civilians in Syria, terming it an honour for the US.}

    China is a criminal state a petty colony. Its leaders are cowards and cannot be trusted. They are traitors to humanity. Everyone and every country must BOYCOTT anything Chinese.
    You don't want to help petty people.

    Long live Russia for time being. China and Russia SOLD Libya and open the road for the criminal West into Syria. China bears very big responsibility for the survival of evil for
    petty concessions.
    Down with China, Down with its petty 'leaders' with mafia hear style. Shame on China.

    Please boycott all goods made in China. Petty Chinese have close relation with Zionist entity because Chinese are enemies of Muslims as well. Down with China. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    jacques sheete , April 13, 2017 at 2:14 pm GMT \n
    @Fran Macadam I'd say, it's more like "where the rubble meets the road."

    I'd say, it's more like "where the rubble meets the road."

    Or where the rabble bombed the road. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Bill , April 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Karl > The US is totally responsible for the mess in Syria

    darn, those jolly peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a history of thousands of years without a single internal conflict.... by the Americans. Everything by the Americans.

    > waited until the evening that he was having dinner with President Xi Jinping to launch the attacks. How's that for timing?


    whatever it takes to make sure that Arabella gets good reviews in the Beijing papers

    darn, those jolly peaceful people in Syria got pushed off-course of a history of thousands of years without a single internal conflict . by the Americans. Everything by the Americans.

    Your claim is that the war would have happened even without the US and its allies starting it? What's the evidence for this claim? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    bluedog , April 13, 2017 at 3:21 pm GMT \n
    @Miro23 Really a very good article putting beyond doubt that Syria is being set up for "Regime Change" and the Russians are being warned to keep out.

    ..... To accomplish that, Putin must seem like a reasonable and trustworthy ally who honors his commitments and stands by his friends even when they are under attack. That's why Putin won't abandon Assad. It's because he can't.
    Well, maybe he could, rather than risk was WWIII. And at least the US public would know for sure that their "No More ME Wars" candidate had defected to the Neo-cons, with the American Establishment being the War Party rather than the Russians. No Putin can't throw away Syria for if he does then the rest of the world would judge him the same as they judge us "everyone knows the word of America is no good" and neither Putin or the Russia people would go for that Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    Agent76 , April 13, 2017 at 3:39 pm GMT \n
    Sep 3, 2013 The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told

    What's really going on in Syria? Let's look at the evidence.

    Read More

    Tom Welsh , April 13, 2017 at 3:55 pm GMT \n
    100 Words If the Americans intend to attack Syria, and attack the Russians if they defend Syria, the Americans are going to get a bloody nose (and perhaps a broken jaw).

    What really annoys me is that the fatuous stuffed shirts in Washington get off scot-free every time their ludicrous adventures go haywire.

    Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could pass a law requiring that, whenever an American military aggression fails, all those responsible must commit seppuku in the traditional Japanese way? Read More

    Agent76 , April 13, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Tom Welsh If the Americans intend to attack Syria, and attack the Russians if they defend Syria, the Americans are going to get a bloody nose (and perhaps a broken jaw).

    What really annoys me is that the fatuous stuffed shirts in Washington get off scot-free every time their ludicrous adventures go haywire.

    Wouldn't it be nice if Congress could pass a law requiring that, whenever an American military aggression fails, all those responsible must commit seppuku in the traditional Japanese way? It would be better if most of the world knew this instead. *All Wars Are Bankers' Wars*

    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

    https://youtu.be/5hfEBupAeo4 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    bjondo , April 13, 2017 at 5:20 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    Can you see what's going on? Trump's missile attack was not retaliatory, not really. It was a message to Putin. McMaster was saying as clearly as possible, that 'the US military is coming for Assad, and you'd better stay out of the way if you know what's good for you.' That's the message. It has nothing to do with chemical weapons or the suffering of innocent people. McMaster was delivering a threat. He was putting Putin 'on notice'.

    BS

    US will not touch President Assad.

    And US not putting President Putin on notice. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 13, 2017 at 5:37 pm GMT \n
    at least it wasn't in Damascus

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html Read More

    El Dato , April 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm GMT \n
    @Rurik at least it wasn't in Damascus

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/13/politics/afghanistan-isis-moab-bomb/index.html

    First on CNN: US drops largest non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan

    Yes, I would LOVE it if the largest non-nuclear bomb was dropped first on CNN. As long as everybody were in the building at that time. Read More Agree: Rurik Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Sean , April 13, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Eustace Tilley (not) How he yearns for Imperial Dawn,
    Our doubleplusgood-speaking Sean!
    He bleats and he chatters
    Of "kindly" cruel matters
    While playing the Government pawn. You are much too high minded for this world of filth and worms and lies. But never mind–
    [MORE]

    Evil wings in ether beating;
    Vultures at the spirit eating;

    Things unseen forever fleeting
    Black against the leering sky.
    Ghastly shades of bygone gladness,
    Clawing fiends of future sadness,
    Mingle in a cloud of madness
    Ever on the soul to lie.

    Thus the living, lone and sobbing,
    In the throes of anguish throbbing,
    With the loathsome Furies robbing
    Night and noon of peace and rest.
    But beyond the groans and grating
    Of abhorrent Life, is waiting
    Sweet Oblivion, culminating
    All the years of fruitless quest.

    Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    RobinG , April 13, 2017 at 7:17 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @El Dato

    Probably not. [Sunni/Wahabbi/Army of Conquest actors] were probably tipped off and asked for their continued support.
    In which case the "accidental release of warehoused chemicals" makes only sense if it was a "lucky strike". Seeing how this went down, so totally perfectly, I would say "fully engineered 'incident' with actors on the ground" is the likely explanation. See also http://www.unz.com/author/theodore-a-postol/ of course.

    It's just a matter of degree but the US went from not-too-deadly-to-civilians false flags (some 60's CIA "communist bombings" in South Vietnam notwithstanding) to do-not-care-about-civilians false flags, and I would say that happened under Obama.

    In the long run. these people are all dead of course, but it's still a hardening of the veins. EXACTLY. From Postol:

    "This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.

    If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane ." Read More

    utu , April 13, 2017 at 8:39 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @RobinG EXACTLY. From Postol:

    "This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.

    If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane ." Publishing Postol's article may serves a disinfo purpose that people will start endless discussion how sarin was dispersed and start arguing about wind direction and humidity on that day. The picture of the alleged shell on which Postol's bases his whole analysis has no credibility whatsoever. Is he that naive and stupid not too think about it or is he a tool of those who do not want us think of other alternatives?

    Shouldn't we ask ourselves what the head choppers and their sponsors (CIA, MOSSAD, Saudi Arabia, Qatar) are really capable of? Can they kill some civilians they rounded up somewhere by gas or whatever? Sure they can? Do they have priors? Sure they have. Are they media savvy and know how to create the event and report it? Sure they do.

    Her is an example of some very media savvy operators in Iraq:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZyHUr9YWM

    Have they done it before (see bad acting 2:37 min)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p54hHhlLjRk Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    paraglider , April 13, 2017 at 9:33 pm GMT \n
    200 Words Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on. It's where the rubber meets the road.

    actually syria is now the battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.

    the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves this week.

    washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.

    the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.

    the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.

    his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.

    i will wager the syrian showdown between dc and russia goes no further. Read More

    RadicalCenter , April 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm GMT \n
    @paraglider Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on. It's where the rubber meets the road.

    actually syria is now the battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.

    the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves this week.

    washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.

    the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.

    the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.

    his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.

    i will wager the syrian showdown between dc and russia goes no further. God I hope you're right. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Mike Johnson , April 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm GMT \n
    700 Words So funny, as Israeli ass licking as Bannon was, it wasn't even an afterthought to have this nuisance removed from Trump's inner circle by Kushner. I feel bad for those of you Americans who thought that your Savior was gonna really pursue some sort of populist agenda once he was elected to the White House. I know the Breitbart types figured that achieving something akin to what Israel has achieved for Jews could happen here for white Americans but the reality is that the Jews who run your country end up not respecting you for letting them do it, and hoping that they might let you have a seat at what should be your table is pathetic lol, these people are your enemies .

    "Also, of interest was the ouster of controversial Trump strategist Steve Bannon from the National Security Council (NSC), taking place only days before the administration's dramatic reversal on Syria. Incidentally, Bannon's fall from grace – which has only accelerated in the week since his removal from the NSC – was due to his in-fighting with Kushner, proving that Kushner's influence in his father-in-law's administration is much more powerful than previously thought. While it remains unknown exactly why Kushner and Bannon were fighting, the drastic policy change in "national security" days later seems to speak volumes.
    While Bannon is hardly anti-war or anti-Israel, it seems that Kushner's commitment to radical Zionism and neo-conservative ideas put him at odds with Bannon – who considers himself a "populist" and is a long-time conservative, unlike Kushner. Indeed, Kushner – until 2012 – was a key supporter of Democrats, much like his father, the notoriously corrupt Charles Kushner, and donated thousands to Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.

    Israel First

    White House Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, takes his seat to watch Vice President Mike Pence administer the oath of office to U.S. Ambassador to Israel David M. Friedman, March 29, 2017. (AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
    However, Kushner had no problem changing parties as his political leanings have been shown to only change in regard to one issue – Israel. In 2012, it was Kushner's stalwart support for Israel, particularly Israel's far-right, that ultimately led him to reject the Democrat Party and support Mitt Romney's candidacy. "Rather than strengthen the nation's relationship with Israel as the Arab world imploded, Mr. Obama treated Jerusalem as less a friend than a burden," said the Kushner-owned New York Observer's endorsement, summing up Kushner's view on the matter in language that Trump would later echo.
    Kushner's unwavering support for Israel is obvious as any cursory examination of his background reveals. Kushner was raised in a wealthy Zionist family and met powerful Israeli politicians including now Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu in his teenage years. As an adult, Kushner has overseen the finances of his family's "charitable" foundation which has donated thousands to illegal Israeli settlements as well as thousands more to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

    This Oct. 24, 2016 photo, shows part of the Israeli settlement of Beit El, near the West Bank city of Ramallah. Tax records show the family of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has donated tens of thousands of dollars to Israeli settlement institutions in the West Bank in recent years. (AP/Nasser Nasser)
    Of particular interest among these donations was the $20,000 donation in 2013 to American Friends of Beit El Yeshiva, which supports one of the more extremist illegal settlements in the West Bank. The chairman of this organization, David Friedman, has been Trump's real estate lawyer for the past 15 years and was selected by the Trump administration to serve as the U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman is noticeable for being against the two-state solution, a position that Kushner also shares according to journalist Robert Parry and others.
    With Kushner's "Israel first" mentality clear and his commitment to Zionism obvious, it is hardly surprising that Kushner, and his wife Ivanka, would push for a different approach to Syria than that promised by Trump during the 2016 election."

    https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-prodigal-son-in-law-jared-kushner-and-the-rise-of-the-neo-cons-in-the-trump-admin/226794/ Read More Agree: Kiza Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    alexander , April 13, 2017 at 10:55 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @paraglider Syria is the battlefield where competing visions of the future meet head on. It's where the rubber meets the road.

    actually syria is now the battlefield where the american neocon vision of the future is dying for all to see irrespective what trump wants or doesn't want.

    the war there is, strategically speaking, over, all that remains are the tactical battles needed to finish off whatever the rebels calls themselves this week.

    washington/israels neocon vision of the middle east is finished.

    the russians do not want a war with the usa but i wager they are preparing for one at all levels as i write this. washington likes to fight but mostly against those who can not fight back and is wholly unprepared to battle a russian enemy every bit as technically advanced as the us military.

    the 'real' us military knows fighting russia is suicide and a fools errand and is surely counseling trump on this fact. if he doesn't listen he potentially ends most life on earth or if he stops short of that the us military suffers a humiliating defeat for all the world to see.

    his presidency ends forthwith and the integrity of the nation is at risk.

    i will wager the syrian showdown between dc and russia goes no further. Some really good points here, paraglider.

    I believe a nations army will always fight hardest to defend itself against an aggressive invasion An entire nation (every man ,woman and child) will rally to the call when an existential threat is upon them

    They will make every sacrifice to survive ..

    When its balls to the walls do or die .Ordinary people have shown a mountain of courage where none would expect it.

    When an aggressor army enter the fray, under false or dubious claims, no matter how well disciplined its soldiers are, the integrity of rationale, or lack there of, impinges on the hearts and minds of its warriors.

    How can it not ?

    We are human beings, after all ?

    Cannot any of us imagine how potent and deadly a warrior Pat Tillman might have been, defending OUR country..from an attacking invader ?

    One deadly , vicious , Motherf#cker I can tell you that now .God rest his soul.

    There is nothing WORSE for a nation than to engage in aggressive war under false or bogus pretenses..

    Nothing WORSE --

    It undermines the fighting spirit.. because deep down, every soldier doesn't REALLY believe they have the RIGHT to win ..

    and they are right --

    They understand, somewhere deep in their belly .there is NO victory in winning when the very reason they are laying down their lives is a LIE. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    joe webb , April 13, 2017 at 11:46 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @FKA Max

    You don't have to be a genius to figure out that the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad is extremely weak.
    Maybe you do have to be one...

    ...Ann Coulter, whom I believe to be a female genius...
    - http://www.unz.com/jthompson/iq-does-not-exist-lead-poisoning-aside/#comment-1833752

    ANN COULTER FULL ONE-ON-ONE EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON (4/12/2017)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45c408-s58A It would be so nice if Ann Coulter stopped tossing her hair around and bobbing her head generally, and Smiling all the time .of course, girlie behavior can be forgiven since she is a girl, but

    arguably she could be more effective if the skin factor was reduced not necessarily eliminated and she was better prepared with a few facts, numbers, etc. Carlson is great given the need to keep his job, not for his money, but for Fox viewers who are subject to Hannity and O'Reilly emotionalism. The other guy, is not as bad, but he too starts to dance a bit Lou Dobbs.

    Thank god for Tucker, his brilliance, his limits-pushing, his skepticism right now about Syria Story per the Usuals. Evidence! he keeps on saying .Yup.

    Joe Webb Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    KenH , April 14, 2017 at 1:13 am GMT \n
    400 Words Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set I've learned the following:

    1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.

    2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open. It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.

    3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.

    4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's "resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!

    5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul).

    6) The only thing preventing John McCainiac's permanent man crush on Trump is the latter's unwillingness to commit 500,000 troops for a ground invasion. He should also consider invading Iran while we're in the neighborhood since Assad's evil is only matched by the mullahs. Of course, if Trump follows through with McCain's wish then Lindsay Graham will fall in love, too and have a hard on for the ages. Read More

    Ivy , April 14, 2017 at 2:02 am GMT \n
    @RobinG EXACTLY. From Postol:

    "This mechanism of dispersal is essentially the same as hitting a toothpaste tube with a large mallet, which then results in the tube failing and the toothpaste being blown in many directions depending on the exact way the toothpaste skin ruptures.

    If this is in fact the mechanism used to disperse the sarin, this indicates that the sarin tube was placed on the ground by individuals on the ground and not dropped from an airplane ." The drone delivery theory sounds intriguing. There may be a screenplay in that. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    krollchem , April 14, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT \n
    @KenH Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set I've learned the following:

    1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.

    2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open. It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.

    3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.

    4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's "resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!

    5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul).

    6) The only thing preventing John McCainiac's permanent man crush on Trump is the latter's unwillingness to commit 500,000 troops for a ground invasion. He should also consider invading Iran while we're in the neighborhood since Assad's evil is only matched by the mullahs. Of course, if Trump follows through with McCain's wish then Lindsay Graham will fall in love, too and have a hard on for the ages. Your dry humor may not be understood my most readers. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Rurik , April 14, 2017 at 2:42 pm GMT \n
    @KenH Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set I've learned the following:

    1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.

    2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open. It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.

    3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.

    4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's "resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!

    5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul).

    6) The only thing preventing John McCainiac's permanent man crush on Trump is the latter's unwillingness to commit 500,000 troops for a ground invasion. He should also consider invading Iran while we're in the neighborhood since Assad's evil is only matched by the mullahs. Of course, if Trump follows through with McCain's wish then Lindsay Graham will fall in love, too and have a hard on for the ages. Eric Bolling called Assad "the butcher of Damascus"

    can't get more 'Hitler of the month' than that Read More

    Agent76 , April 14, 2017 at 5:06 pm GMT \n
    100 Words April 14, 2017 The Trump/Syria conundrum Will Trump deliver Deep State's world war?

    In appearance, Trump's April 6, 2017, missile attack on Syria is the first step towards a regime change, a massive regional conquest, and World War 3. In appearance, the event marked a point of no return for Trump's presidency.

    http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/20880 Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

    El Dato , April 14, 2017 at 5:25 pm GMT \n
    @KenH Eric Bolling is filling in for the great O'Reilly and interviewing the wise Sebastian Gorka on the Syrian and N. Korea situation. Based on this and other interviews and coverage over the last week by the neocon smart set I've learned the following:

    1) Assad is evil, almost indescribably so, and he periodically uses chemical weapons against innocent people for pure sport. Don't challenge this or you are condoning evil, stupid, a liberal pussy, or not a true patriot. Besides, our intelligence agencies are second to none and wouldn't lie or mislead us and how dare you question the narrative.

    2) Assad and his allies are quaking in their boots. Iran and Russia better think long and hard about supporting Assad. We may use additional force. We may not. We like to keep people guessing and our options open. It's all part of Trump's unpredictability and brilliance.

    3) The use of WMD's will not be tolerated by this administration unless we're the ones using them since we are exceptional. If we use them then we have a right to and are killing really evil people who threaten innocent people, Israel and the change of seasons on earth.

    4) The Chinese premier thought the tomahawk missile strike before dessert was cool and scary at the same time. Xi Jinpeng was so impressed by Trump's "resolve" and the dessert was so delectable that he will probably invade or nuke N. Korea for us. That's the art of the deal!

    5) Our actions are legal and moral even though nobody can say where we derive the power to bomb nations we are not at war with or who don't pose an imminent threat. Trump, Tillerson, Nikki Haley, Israel, CNN, FOX and Rush Limbaugh think we have this power and that's all that matters. If you disagree then you are a traitor or phony patriot and should leave the exceptional American nation NOW (yes, you alt-right, Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul).

    6) The only thing preventing John McCainiac's permanent man crush on Trump is the latter's unwillingness to commit 500,000 troops for a ground invasion. He should also consider invading Iran while we're in the neighborhood since Assad's evil is only matched by the mullahs. Of course, if Trump follows through with McCain's wish then Lindsay Graham will fall in love, too and have a hard on for the ages. Fukken printed! Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    El Dato , April 14, 2017 at 5:29 pm GMT \n
    @Rurik Eric Bolling called Assad "the butcher of Damascus"

    can't get more 'Hitler of the month' than that Well, Assad Jr. used to run a halal meat shop when he was not busy learning the basics of totalitarian governance. It was rather famous throughout Damascus. Read More

    MEexpert , April 14, 2017 at 7:00 pm GMT \n
    @El Dato Well, Assad Jr. used to run a halal meat shop when he was not busy learning the basics of totalitarian governance. It was rather famous throughout Damascus. You are a moron. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    MEexpert , April 14, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Since the neocons are so interested in partitioning every other country, we should give them a partitioned country right here. We should break up the United States into several countries. California and Texas already want to secede. We should make New York as a separate country for the neocons and the MSM. They can run it to ground anyway they like. Read More
    Miro23 , April 14, 2017 at 10:01 pm GMT \n
    @MEexpert Since the neocons are so interested in partitioning every other country, we should give them a partitioned country right here. We should break up the United States into several countries. California and Texas already want to secede. We should make New York as a separate country for the neocons and the MSM. They can run it to ground anyway they like. There' s already plan for this at red-blue county level: https://www.amazon.com/Restoring-America-Dr-Michael-Hart/dp/1312875704/ref=cm_cr-mr-title Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    jacques sheete , April 14, 2017 at 10:08 pm GMT \n
    @Agent76 Sep 3, 2013 The Syrian War What You're Not Being Told

    What's really going on in Syria? Let's look at the evidence.

    https://youtu.be/dkamZg68jpk What's the message?

    I pretty much avoid vids because I can read much faster. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    bluedog , April 14, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT \n
    @MEexpert Since the neocons are so interested in partitioning every other country, we should give them a partitioned country right here. We should break up the United States into several countries. California and Texas already want to secede. We should make New York as a separate country for the neocons and the MSM. They can run it to ground anyway they like. Wait a second I live in N.Y. AND WE DON'T WANT THE BASTARDS HERE EITHER. Read More
    MEexpert , April 15, 2017 at 12:21 am GMT \n
    @bluedog Wait a second I live in N.Y. AND WE DON'T WANT THE BASTARDS HERE EITHER. I feel sorry for you. You are going to have hard time getting rid of those cockroaches.

    [Apr 15, 2017] 3-31-17 Arnaldo Claudio on National Security Advisor Gen. H.R. McMasters human rights violations of Iraqis in 2005

    Apr 15, 2017 | www.libertarianinstitute.org

    Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his 2005 investigation of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel H.R. McMaster, whom Claudio threatened to arrest. According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions, handcuffed, deprived of food and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces. A so-called "good behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely (beyond a rule requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."

    [Apr 15, 2017] SECSTATE TILLERSONS CHIEF OF STAFF MARGARET PETERLIN HAS BEEN MANAGING US CYBER WARFARE OPERATIONS AGAINST RUSSIA FOR YEARS

    Notable quotes:
    "... Stack, who started with family money he incorporated as the Stack Family Office and diversified into computer engineering and IT technology investments, is a decade younger than Peterlin. Both of them have worked on cyber weaponry for US Government agencies. According to the Wikileaks release last month of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) "Vault 7" files, these weapons include UMBRAGE. ..."
    "... The CIA's UMBRAGE operation "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques." ..."
    "... Reporting on the applications of UMBRAGE lack conclusiveness on whether US Government agents have used UMBRAGE as a "factory for false flag hacking operations" to make the intrusions into the US election campaign, which have subsequently been blamed on Russian cyber operations – blame Tillerson endorsed in his press conference in Moscow yesterday. For that story, read this . ..."
    "... According to another report , "it would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were reusing unique source code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA documents don't say this. Instead, they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious." ..."
    "... What Tillerson knows also is that Peterlin has spent most of her career participating in these operations. Whether or not the CIA's Operation UMBRAGE has been used to manufacture the appearance of Russian hacking in the US elections, Peterlin knows exactly how to do it, and where it's done at the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Peterlin has also drafted the memoranda so that for Americans to do it, it's legal. And for men like Stack, something to boast about. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | johnhelmer.net
    Peterlin's appointment to run Tillerson's office was announced more authoritatively by the Washington Post on February 12. There her Texas Republican Party credentials were reported in detail, but not her expertise in signals, codes, and cyber warfare.

    "Peterlin has a wealth of government and private-sector experience. After distinguished service as a naval officer, she graduated from the University of Chicago Law School and clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit [Texas and Louisiana]. She then went to work for House Majority Leader Dick Armey [Republican, Texas], just days before the 9/11 attacks. Afterward, she helped negotiate and draft key pieces of national security legislation, including the authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, the Patriot Act and the legislation that established the Department of Homeland Security. 'She's very substance- and policy-focused. She's not necessarily a political person,' said Brian Gunderson, a State Department chief of staff for Condoleezza Rice who worked with Peterlin in the House [Armey's office]. Following a stint as legislative counsel and national security adviser for then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Peterlin moved over to the Commerce Department, where she served as the No. 2 official in the Patent and Trademark Office."

    Peterlin's appointment triggered a lawsuit by a group of patent lawyers and investors against the Secretary of Commerce. On July 23, 2007, two months after Peterlin was sworn in, papers filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia charged that Peterlin's appointment violated the Patent Act of 1999 requiring the Director and Deputy Director of the Patent Office to have "professional experience and background in patent or trademark law." Peterlin, the lawsuit charged, "lack[ed] the requisite professional experience and background." The court was asked to order a replacement for Peterlin "who fulfills those requirements." Six months later, in December 2007 Judge James Robertson dismissed the case on several technicalities. Peterlin's lack of professional skill and alleged incompetence were not tested in court. Peterlin didn't last long in her job and left in 2008. Peterlin's career publications focus on computer and internet surveillance, interception, and espionage. She started with a 1999 essay entitled "The law of information conflict: national security in cyberspace." In December 2001, with two co-authors, she published a paper at the Federalist Society in Washington entitled "The USA Patriot Act and information sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities". It can be read in full here .

    Peterlin argued "the unalterable need for greater information sharing means that the U.S. no longer has the luxury of simply separating law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Separation is a security risk." Peterlin's conclusion: "Who performs the surveillance may also matter, but the conditions of the performance are of the most critical importance the focus of attention should be principally on the techniques by which intelligence is gathered domestically and not on whether other members of the intelligence community are permitted to view the intelligence gathered as a result of those operations."

    After she left the Patent and Trademark Office in 2008, Peterlin became an employee of the Mars family companies with the job title, "technology strategy officer". That lasted six years, before she went into business for herself at a consulting company she called Profectus Global Corporation. There is almost no trace of that entity on the internet ; it appears unrelated to similarly named entities in Hungary and Australia. Peterlin then joined XLP Capital in Boston in November 2015.

    Peterlin's appointment as managing director of the firm, according to XLP's press release, reveals that when Peterlin was in the US Navy she was a cyber communications specialist. She was also seconded by the Navy to the White House as a Navy "social aide" when Hillary Clinton was First Lady.

    XLP didn't mention that at the time Peterlin was hired, she was also a board member at Draper Labs, the Massachusetts designer, among many things, of US missile guidance systems and the cyber weapons to combat them. According to XLP, one of Peterlin's selling points was "extensive experience with administrative law as well as deep operations exposure to Federal agencies, including the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and Health and Human Services." For deep operations, read cyber warfare.

    Before Peterlin joined Tillerson two months ago, her employer at XLP Capital was Matthew Stack (below). In his internet resume Stack reports he is "an accomplished computer hacker and cryptanalyst, and has written and advised on state-run network cyber-warfare policy, and agility-based strategic combat. He was recognized in 2009 by Hackaday as one of the top 10 most influential hardware hackers."

    ... ... ...
    Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=71987011&privcapId=302978562

    At Lambda Prime, Stack claims credit for two cyber warfare projects in 2013 – the practical, "weaponized virtual machines with heterogenous nodes for unpredictable and agile offensive fronts" and the theoretical, "Clausewitz, a modern theory of grand strategy for cyber military forces, and the role of guerilla cyber tactics". The following year Stack hosted his first "Annual Hackathon" - "Hackathoners flew in from all across the United States to inhabit a 27 acre, early 1900s mansion that serves as the Lambda Prime corporate headquarters".

    On social media Stack has revealed his involvement in internet hacking operations in Kiev; also which side he was on. "Ominous clouds hang over Kiev's central square, like Russia over its post-Soviet era neighboring Slavic states, " Stack instagrammed to his followers. "The country may be a mess, but Kiev has the fastest internet I've ever clocked – now I know why so many hackers live in Kiev. Thanks to my amazing tour guide @m.verbulya."

    Stack, who started with family money he incorporated as the Stack Family Office and diversified into computer engineering and IT technology investments, is a decade younger than Peterlin. Both of them have worked on cyber weaponry for US Government agencies. According to the Wikileaks release last month of the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) "Vault 7" files, these weapons include UMBRAGE.

    This was developed for the CIA's Remote Devices Branch; the leaked files for the UMBRAGE operations date from 2012 to 2016. The CIA's UMBRAGE operation "collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation. With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from. UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques."

    Some of the UMBRAGE components date from 2012; most from 2014. A leaked memo dated June 19, 2013, reveals one of the UMBRAGE managers telling others: "As far as Stash organization, I would recommend that you create one larger "Umbrage" project, and then create separate repositories within that project for each component. Then there is one central point on the site for 'all things Umbrage'."

    Reporting on the applications of UMBRAGE lack conclusiveness on whether US Government agents have used UMBRAGE as a "factory for false flag hacking operations" to make the intrusions into the US election campaign, which have subsequently been blamed on Russian cyber operations – blame Tillerson endorsed in his press conference in Moscow yesterday. For that story, read this .

    According to another report , "it would be possible to leave such fingerprints if the CIA were reusing unique source code written by other actors to intentionally implicate them in CIA hacks, but the published CIA documents don't say this. Instead, they indicate the UMBRAGE group is doing something much less nefarious."

    Yesterday Tillerson claimed to make "a distinction when cyber tools are used to interfere with the internal decisions among countries as to how their elections are conducted. That is one use of cyber tools. Cyber tools to disrupt weapons programs – that's another use of the tools." With Peterlin prompting by his side during his meetings with Lavrov and Putin, Tillerson knew this was not a distinction US cyber operations against Russia make.

    What Tillerson knows also is that Peterlin has spent most of her career participating in these operations. Whether or not the CIA's Operation UMBRAGE has been used to manufacture the appearance of Russian hacking in the US elections, Peterlin knows exactly how to do it, and where it's done at the CIA, the Pentagon, and other agencies. Peterlin has also drafted the memoranda so that for Americans to do it, it's legal. And for men like Stack, something to boast about.

    Peterlin's and Stack's public records are two reasons why none of this is secret from the Russian services. That's another reason why in Moscow yesterday Lavrov would not look at Tillerson during their press conference - and why Putin refused to be photographed with him.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Man made political and economic institutions underlie economic success or lack of it

    Notable quotes:
    "... The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and "reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the result of disruption brought by technological change, globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect of rent-seeking and regulatory capture? ..."
    "... "Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It." ..."
    "... Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from society. Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this. ..."
    "... With the same idea that the "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" will drive sheeple to the "bright future of all mankind" using bullets for encouragement, if needed. And this "bright future of all mankind" is the global neoliberal empire led by the USA. ..."
    "... Including full scale use of three letter agencies. Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital owners, which along with high levels management and professionals include neoclassical economists. They are integral and important part of neoliberal nomenklatura and are remunerated accordingly. ..."
    "... Because you can't be half-pregnant -- it is difficult to try anything else when neoliberalism still dominates globally and try to enforce its will via global financial institutions. They do not hesitate to punish detractors for Washington consensus. ..."
    "... It is difficult to survive trying to find alternatives to neoliberalism on the continent with Uncle Sam and his extremely well financed three letter agencies which operate with impunity. And it does not cost too much money to implement more moderate variant of Chile Pinochet coup model -- create economic difficulties and then bring neoliberals back to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the current government due to economic difficulties. ..."
    "... Difficulties of finding the right balance avoid sliding into opposite extreme -- "over-regulating" the economy. In view of sabotage experienced (and encouraged), which produces natural (and damaging) counteraction, this is almost impossible. Looks like a real trap -- the efforts of the USA to undermine the economy of countries with left wing governments produce a counteraction which helps to undermine the economy and pave the way for restoration of neoliberal regime ..."
    "... In this sense Trump is just Obama II -- neoliberal "bait and switch" artist, who capitalized on pre-existing discontent using fake slogans and then betrayed the electorate. ..."
    "... "Class dictatorship. Raw or refined" ..."
    "... My interpretation is that it's a class project, now masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and the free market. ..."
    "... That rhetoric was a means towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that neoliberal project has been fairly successful ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    From a ProMarket interview with Anat Admati:
    ... Q: The World Economic Forum has called for "reimagining" and "reforming" capitalism. To what extent is this need for reform the result of disruption brought by technological change, globalization, and immigration and to what extent is it the effect of rent-seeking and regulatory capture?

    Acemoglu and Robinson argued in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that "man-made political and economic institutions underlie economic success (or lack of it)." Technological developments have highlighted the immense power associated with controlling information. The business of investigative reporting is in a crisis. Corporations often play off governments, shopping jurisdictions and making bargains. For capitalism to work, the relevant institutions must work effectively and avoid excessive rent extraction. The governance challenge of the global economy is daunting.

    RGC said...

    "Martin Hellwig and I discuss "global competitiveness" and THE PARTICULARLY HARMFUL SYMBIOSIS BETWEEN BANKS AND GOVERNMENTS in our book The Bankers' New Clothes: What's Wrong with Banking and What to Do about It."

    [Private/public arrangements are often a way for private parties to bleed wealth from society. Our current banking system is the most egregious example of this.]

    libezkova , April 15, 2017 at 01:53 PM

    "Acemoglu and Robinson argued in Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty that "man-made political and economic institutions underlie economic success (or lack of it)."

    Neoliberalism is the second after Marxism social system that was "invented" by a group of intellectuals (although there was no any single dominant individual among them) and implemented via coup d'état. From above. Much like Bolshevism.

    Looks like it is more resilient then Marxism based economic systems and it demonstrated staying power even after 2008 -- when the ideology itself was completely discredited and became a joke.

    Neoliberalism survived the demise of neoliberal ideology and entered zombie stage. Much like many sects with discredited predictions like the Second Coming.

    Neoliberalism borrowed quite a lot from Marxism. Actually analogies with Marxism are too numerous to list. But one is very important: neoliberalism replaced "Dictatorship of proletariat" with the dictatorship of "free markets" and proletariat itself with so called "creative class".

    With the same idea that the "vanguard" recruited mainly from "Intelligentsia" will drive sheeple to the "bright future of all mankind" using bullets for encouragement, if needed. And this "bright future of all mankind" is the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.

    They also demonstrated the same ruthlessness in the best style of "end justifies means". Killed are mainly "brown people" (is we do not count ten thousand Ukrainians)

    In short, neoliberalism is a kind of "Trotskyism for rich." Gore Vidal once famously said that the neoliberal economic system is "free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich." As unforgettable Bush II said "I'm a free market guy. But I'm not gonna let this economy crater in order to preserve the free market system" – George W. Bush, December 17, 2008, William Simon, President Nixon's Treasury Secretary, once famously observed of those who preach free markets typically are simultaneously rushing to the public treasury: "I watched with incredulity as businessmen ran to the government in every crisis, whining for handouts or protection from the very competition that has made this system so productive always, such gentlemen proclaimed their devotion to free enterprise and their opposition to the arbitrary intervention into our economic life by the state. Except, of course, for their own case, which was always unique and which was justified by their immense concern for the public interest."

    And neoliberalism uses the same repressive tactics including dominance in MSM and the control of the university education to get and stay in power, which were invented by Bolsheviks/Trotskyites.

    Including full scale use of three letter agencies. Also like Bolshevism before, neoliberalism created its own "nomenklatura" -- the privileged class which exists outside the domain of capital owners, which along with high levels management and professionals include neoclassical economists. They are integral and important part of neoliberal nomenklatura and are remunerated accordingly.

    That fact the deification of markets is a "fools gold" was know from the Great Recession (and Karl Polanyi famous book), but when 50 years passed and generation changed they manage to shove it down throat. Because the generation which experienced horrors of the Great Depression at this point was gone (and that include cadre of higher level management which still have some level of solidarity with workers against capital owners). The new generation switched camps and allied with capital owners against the working class.

    When the old generation was replaced with HBS and WBS graduates -- ready made neoliberals -- quite coup (in Simon Johnson terms) naturally followed ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/ ) and we have hat we have.

    In this sense the ascendance of neoliberalism and Managerialism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerialism ) are closely related.

    Both treat the country the same way as bacteria treat a squirrel carcass.

    Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time, genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon-correctly, in most cases-that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.

    As Paine noted neoliberalism in zombie state (which it entered after 2008) remains dangerous and is able to counterattack -- the US sponsored efforts of replacement of left regimes in LA with right wing neoliberal regimes were by-and-large successful.

    Among them are two key LA countries -- Brazil and Argentina. That happened despite that this phase of neoliberal era has been marked by slower growth, greater trade imbalances, and deteriorating social conditions. In Latin America the average growth rate was lower by 3 percent per annum in the 1990s than in the 1970s, while trade deficits as a proportion of GDP are much the same.

    Contrary to neoliberal propaganda the past 25 years (1980–2005) have also characterized by slower rate of improvement of key social indicators for the vast majority of low- and middle-income population of LA countries [compared with the prior two decades ]

    In an effort to keep growing trade and current account deficits manageable, third world states, often pressured by the IMF and World Bank, used austerity measures (especially draconian cuts in social programs) to slow economic growth (and imports). They also deregulated capital markets, privatized economic activity, and relaxed foreign investment regulatory regimes in an effort to attract the financing needed to offset the existing deficits. While devastating to working people and national development possibilities, these policies were, as intended, responsive to the interests of transnational capital in general and a small but influential sector of third world capital. This is the reality of neoliberalism.

    As for the question "Why?" there might be several reasons.

    1. Because you can't be half-pregnant -- it is difficult to try anything else when neoliberalism still dominates globally and try to enforce its will via global financial institutions. They do not hesitate to punish detractors for Washington consensus.
    2. This is LA specific part. It is difficult to survive trying to find alternatives to neoliberalism on the continent with Uncle Sam and his extremely well financed three letter agencies which operate with impunity. And it does not cost too much money to implement more moderate variant of Chile Pinochet coup model -- create economic difficulties and then bring neoliberals back to power on the wave of dissatisfaction with the current government due to economic difficulties.
    3. Difficulties of finding the right balance avoid sliding into opposite extreme -- "over-regulating" the economy. In view of sabotage experienced (and encouraged), which produces natural (and damaging) counteraction, this is almost impossible. Looks like a real trap -- the efforts of the USA to undermine the economy of countries with left wing governments produce a counteraction which helps to undermine the economy and pave the way for restoration of neoliberal regime.

    My impression is that before the next oil crisis (defined as oil price crossing $150 mark or so) attempts to displace financial oligarchy are bound to fail.

    So, in some "mutated" form, like Trump's "bastard neoliberalism" ( aka neoliberalism without globalization, limited to a single country) it will stay put.

    In this sense Trump is just Obama II -- neoliberal "bait and switch" artist, who capitalized on pre-existing discontent using fake slogans and then betrayed the electorate.

    paine -> libezkova... April 15, 2017 at 06:17 PM

    Class dictatorship

    Raw or refined .

    libezkova -> paine... April 16, 2017 at 06:08 PM

    "Class dictatorship. Raw or refined"

    That's David Harvey's view:

    http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Their-crisis-our-challenge

    "Does this crisis signal the end of neoliberalism? My answer is that it depends what you mean by neoliberalism. My interpretation is that it's a class project, now masked by a lot of rhetoric about individual freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, privatisation and the free market.

    That rhetoric was a means towards the restoration and consolidation of class power, and that neoliberal project has been fairly successful."

    [Apr 15, 2017] Populist regimes in Latin America are either out or under siege

    Notable quotes:
    "... Once again the opportunity to transform society down there has come apart ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    paine -> anne... , April 14, 2017 at 09:55 AM
    Related

    Populist regimes in Latin America are either out or under siege

    Once again the opportunity to transform society down there has come apart

    Policy choices must be examined
    post mo

    anne -> anne... , April 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM
    Where in 1980 real per capita Gross Domestic product in China was a mere 6.4% that of Brazil, in 2016 per capita GDP in China was larger than that of Brazil or 101.4% that of Brazil.

    [Apr 15, 2017] The Trump phenomenon shows that we urgently need an alternative to the obsolete capitalism

    Apr 15, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    The Trump phenomenon shows that we urgently need an alternative to the obsolete capitalism globinfo freexchange

    It's not only the rapid technological progress, especially in the field of hyper-automation and Artificial Intelligence, that makes capitalism unable to deliver a viable future to the societies. It's also the fact that the dead-end it creates, produces false alternatives like Donald Trump.

    As already pointed :

    With Trump administration taken over by Goldman Sachs , nothing can surprise us, anymore. The fairy tale of the 'anti-establishment' Trump who would supposedly fight for the interests of the forgotten - by the system - Americans, was collapsed even before Trump election.

    What's quite surprising, is how fast the new US president - buddy of the plutocrats, is offering 'earth and water' to the top 1% of the American society, as if they had not already enough at the expense of the 99%. His recent 'achievement', was to sign for more deregulation in favor of the banking mafia that ruined the economy in 2008, destroyed millions of working class Americans and sent waves of financial destruction all over the world. Europe is still on its knees because of the neoliberal destruction and cruel austerity.

    Richard Wolff explains:

    If you don't want the Trumps of this world to periodically show up and scare everybody, you've got to do something about the basic system that produces the conditions that allow a Trump to get to the position he now occupies.

    We need a better politics than having two parties compete for the big corporations to love them, two parties to proudly celebrate capitalism. Real politics needs an opposition, people who think we can do better than capitalism, we ought to try, we ought to discuss it, and the people should have a choice about that. Because if you don't give them that, they are gonna go from one extreme to another, trying to find a way out of the status quo that is no longer acceptable.

    I'm amazed that after half a century in which any politician had accepted the name 'Socialist' attached to him or her, thereby committing, effectively, political suicide, Mr. Sanders has shown us that the world has really changed. He could have that label, he could accept the label, he could say he is proud of the label, and millions and millions of Americans said 'that's fine with us', he gets our vote. We will not be the same nation going forward, because of that. It is now openly possible to raise questions about capitalism, to talk about its shortcomings, to explore how we can do better.

    Indeed, as the blog pointed before the latest US elections:

    Bernie has the background and the ability to change the course of the US politics. He speaks straightly about things buried by the establishment, as if they were absent. Wall Street corruption, growing inequality, corporate funding of politicians by lobbies. He says that he will break the big banks. He will provide free health and education for all the American people. Because of Sanders, Hillary is forced to speak about these issues too. And subsequently, this starts to shape again a fundamental ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans, which was nearly absent for decades.

    But none of this would have come to surface if Bernie didn't have the support of the American people. Despite that he came from nowhere, especially the young people mobilized and started to spread his message using the alternative media. Despite that he speaks about Socialism, his popularity grows. The establishment starts to sense the first cracks in its solid structure. But Bernie is only the appropriate tool. It's the American people who make the difference.

    No matter who will be elected eventually, the final countdown for the demolition of this brutal system has already started and it's irreversible. The question now is not if, but when it will collapse, and what this collapse will bring the day after. In any case, if people are truly united, they have nothing to fear.

    So, what kind of system do we need to replace the obsolete capitalism? Do we need a kind of Democratic Socialism that would be certainly more compatible to the rapid technological progress? Write your thoughts and ideas in the comments below.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Report issued on April 11 consciously use false claims for justifying a war of aggression act against Syria supporting ISIS:

    www.moonofalabama.org

    Kassandra | Apr 15, 2017 3:27:01 PM | 9

    Proof that the alleged Syrian Government chemical weapons attack on April 5 was staged, and that the White House either did not care for a professional intelligence check on their draft for the White House Intelligence

    Report issued on April 11 consciously use false claims for justifying a war of aggression act against Syria supporting ISIS:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/video-evidence-of-false-claims-made-in-the-white-house-intelligence-report-of-april-11-2017-by-ted-p.html

    [Apr 15, 2017] Top Ten Reasons To Doubt Official Story On Assad Poison-Gas Attack

    Notable quotes:
    "... The sarin-gas attack story prompted the US missile strike on a Syrian runway. Here are the top ten reasons for doubting that story, and instead calling it a convenient pretext: ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca

    The sarin-gas attack story prompted the US missile strike on a Syrian runway. Here are the top ten reasons for doubting that story, and instead calling it a convenient pretext:

    ONE: Photos show rescue workers treating/decontaminating people injured or killed in the gas attack. The workers aren't wearing gloves or protective gear. Only the clueless or crazy would expose themselves to sarin residue, which can be fatal.

    TWO: MIT professor Thomas Postol told RT,

    "I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the [US intelligence] document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real. No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it." How would a canister purportedly dropped from an Assad-ordered plane incur "crushing from above?"

    THREE: Why would President Assad, supported by Russia, scoring victory after victory against ISIS, moving closer to peace negotiations, suddenly risk all his gains by dropping sarin gas on his own people?

    FOUR: In an interview with Scott Horton, ex-CIA officer Philip Giraldi states that his intelligence and military sources indicate Assad didn't attack his own people with poison gas.

    FIVE: Ex-CIA officer Ray McGovern states that his military sources report an Assad air strike did hit a chemical plant, and the fallout killed people, but the attack was not planned for that purpose. There was no knowledge the chemicals were lethal.SIX: At consortiumnews.com , journalist Robert Parry writes,

    "There is a dark mystery behind the White House-released photo showing President Trump and more than a dozen advisers meeting at his estate in Mar-a-Lago after his decision to strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles: Where are CIA Director Mike Pompeo and other top intelligence officials?"

    "Before the photo was released on Friday, a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA's belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier - and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision."

    "After the attack, Secretary of State Tillerson, who is not an institutional intelligence official and has little experience with the subtleties of intelligence, was the one to claim that the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a 'high degree of confidence' that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province."

    "While Tillerson's comment meshed with Official Washington's hastily formed groupthink of Assad's guilt, it is hard to believe that CIA analysts would have settled on such a firm conclusion so quickly, especially given the remote location of the incident and the fact that the initial information was coming from pro-rebel (or Al Qaeda) sources."

    "Thus, a serious question arises whether President Trump did receive that 'high degree of confidence' assessment from the intelligence community or whether he shunted Pompeo aside to eliminate an obstacle to his desire to launch the April 6 rocket attack."

    SEVEN: As soon as the Assad gas attack was reported, the stage was set for a US missile strike. No comprehensive investigation of the purported gas attack was undertaken.

    EIGHT: There are, of course, precedents for US wars based on false evidence-the missing WMDs in Iraq, the claims of babies being pushed out of incubators in Kuwait, to name just two.

    NINE: Who benefits from the sarin gas story? Assad? Or US neocons; the US military-industrial complex; Pentagon generals who want a huge increase in their military budget; Trump and his team, who are suddenly praised in the press, after a year of being pilloried at every turn; and ISIS?

    TEN: For those who doubt that ISIS has ever used poison gas, see the NY Times (11/21/2016). While claiming that Assad has deployed chemical attacks, the article also states that ISIS has deployed chemical weapons 52 times since 2014.

    I'm not claiming these ten reasons definitely and absolutely rule out the possibility of an Assad-ordered chemical attack. But they do add up to a far more believable conclusion than the quickly assembled "Assad-did-it" story.

    These ten reasons starkly point to the lack of a rational and complete investigation of the "gas attack."

    And this lack throws a monkey wrench into Trump's claim that he was ordering the missile strike based on "a high degree of confidence."

    [Apr 15, 2017] Why Is Trump Fighting ISIS in Syria

    A "chicken hawk" is a person "who strongly supports war or other military action, yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age." And, according to Wikipedia, "generally the implication is that chicken hawks lack the moral character to participate in war themselves, preferring to ask others to support, fight and perhaps die in an armed conflict." Why would the NYT run a column suggesting the US should support ISIS "the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen... this is "tantamount to saying that the US should have reduced pressure on the Nazis to keep the Soviets bleeding" back in the 1940's. In Friedman's defense, ORB International (an American research firm) revealed in 2015 how 85 percent of Iraqis and 82 percent of Syrians believe the US created ISIS. With The New York Times publishing columns like this, this just became better proven.
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
    ... ... ...

    Let's go through the logic: There are actually two ISIS manifestations.

    One is "virtual ISIS." It is satanic, cruel and amorphous; it disseminates its ideology through the internet. It has adherents across Europe and the Muslim world. In my opinion, that ISIS is the primary threat to us, because it has found ways to deftly pump out Sunni jihadist ideology that inspires and gives permission to those Muslims on the fringes of society who feel humiliated - from London to Paris to Cairo - to recover their dignity via headline-grabbing murders of innocents.

    The other incarnation is "territorial ISIS." It still controls pockets in western Iraq and larger sectors of Syria. Its goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria - plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies - and to defeat the pro-Iranian Shiite regime in Iraq, replacing both with a caliphate.

    Challenge No. 1: Not only will virtual ISIS, which has nodes all over the world, not go away even if territorial ISIS is defeated, I believe virtual ISIS will become yet more virulent to disguise the fact that it has lost the territorial caliphate to its archenemies: Shiite Iran, Hezbollah, pro-Shiite militias in Iraq, the pro-Shiite Assad regime in Damascus and Russia, not to mention America.

    Challenge No. 2: America's goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord with moderate Sunni Muslims that would also ease Assad out of power. One way to do that would be for NATO to create a no-fly safe zone around Idlib Province, where many of the anti-Assad rebels have gathered and where Assad recently dropped his poison gas on civilians. But Congress and the U.S. public are clearly wary of that.

    So what else could we do? We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations. Fine with me.

    What else? We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.

    I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free? When was the last real estate deal Trump did where he volunteered to clean up a toxic waste dump - for free - before he negotiated with the owner on the price of the golf course next door?

    This is a time for Trump to be Trump - utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias - because ISIS is a Sunni terrorist group that plays as dirty as Iran and Russia.

    Trump should want to defeat ISIS in Iraq. But in Syria? Not for free, not now. In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache - the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.

    --> Sharon5101 Rockaway Beach Ny April 12, 2017

    How is this administration supposed to 'fix" the chaos that is engulfing and devouring Syria when it's woefully unprepared to host the annual Easter Egg Roll?

    Cathy Hopewell Junction April 12, 2017

    Mr. Friedman is thinking that Trump is a chess player, all strategy and end-game.

    Trump is a checkers player. King Me!

    He has a very simple set of ideas. ISIS bad. Iran bad. Russia good except when bad. Assad bad when gasses babies. He isn't thinking of hegemony and spheres of influence. He isn't thinking of a Hydra that grows a few more heads when you cut one off. He isn't thinking six moves ahead.

    Syria is an intractable, long term problem. Sunni ideologues are an intractable long term problem and a Hydra. Iran is a long term problem, but maybe not totally intractable. And Russia is self interested and big on hegemony.

    Trump has no plan to deal with all that. Just ISIS bad. So that's why he is fighting in Syria.

    Patrick Stevens Mn April 12, 2017

    Your question has an obvious answer. Why did Reagan invade Grenada? Why did Bush attack Panama? Why did Bush II assault Iraq after being struck by Saudis?
    Republican Presidents have learned that flexing military might wins elections for them and their party. It costs a lot, but has a huge pay off. Trump is just doing what he thinks he needs to do to improve his odds of staying in office. It is a calculated risk, but given his poll numbers, and the likely collusion of his people with the Russians during the election, this was a perfect plan.
    That is the answer to your question.

    Jack Hartman Douglas, Michigan April 12, 2017

    The question should not be why are we fighting ISIS in Syria but why are we fighting in the literal sense at all? The U.S. is the strongest economic, political and military country in the world by far and yet we seem to rely on military solutions rather than using our economic and political assets.

    In the Middle East, at least, the answer is not that complicated. Using our political and economic assets would put us squarely at odds with some of our so-called allies, particularly the Sunni Saudis who are primarily responsible for the rise of militant Islam in recent decades. We'd have to call them out on moral grounds, which would be embarrassing for them, as well as on economic grounds, which might cause us and our other allies some economic pain.

    Instead, we use only our military assets to go after what Saudi Arabia's support of radical Islam has produced, extremists who see terror as their best weapon. Furthermore, our economic and political assets would be much more effective against both Iran and Russia than essentially the empty threat of knocking out a Syrian air base for a few hours.

    That is, remember, how we brought down the USSR and got Iran to agree to stop their nuclear arms development. Nary a shot was fired in what were two of our most important victories in the past few decades. Compare that to our "military solution" in Iraq which still plagues us.

    Bruce Rozenblit is a trusted commenter Kansas City, MO April 12, 2017

    This editorial is based upon a false premise. It assumes that Trump has a Syrian strategy. There is no Syrian strategy. There is no why. There is no goal. There is no policy team. There is only Trump and he only does what makes him look good at any given moment. The attack on the Syrian airport was such an event. It is still in operation but Trump got a big boost in the polls from it.

    Mr. Friedman is trying to make sense of the senseless. Trump is a never ending contradiction. His positions flip flop from day to day. This is exactly how he spoke during the campaign. He would contradict himself from one minute to the next. This is how his mind works. This is how he is governing. Why is anyone surprised?

    M.I. Estner Wayland MA April 12, 2017

    Sometimes when people appear to be doing illogical things, we strain to try to understand the logic behind them, i.e., what we are missing. But oftentimes people doing apparently illogical things are just being illogical.

    In terms of substantive policy and strategy in Syria, Trump is being illogical. The most logical thing is to leave the fighting to others and just to help all Syrians who want to emigrate to do so and then help then to resettle including in the US.

    But Trump does not act in the interests of substance. For him, there is no substance. There is only appearance, his image, that concerns him. He wants that image to be that of a strong leader protecting the US from terrorism in the form of ISIS.

    Attacking the virulent form of ISIS has no optics. It cannot be shown on TV. Attacking territorial ISIS has optics, and Trump can manipulate the media to show these attacks and thus further his desired image.

    One of Trump's many problems is his obsession with his image. A subsidiary part of that problem is he wants to project the wrong image. If he could only get past his overwhelming narcissism to understand that he'd actually be much better liked if people felt that he actually cared about other people.

    Lawrence Kucher Morritown NJ April 12, 2017

    Since it is always all about Him, my guess is that He's going
    to start a war, maybe two, because war time presidents do well
    in the polls. He doesn't have a plan for Syria, remember the
    "secret plan to defeat ISIS?" Where's that plan??
    This Country is not going to survive 4 years of this.
    Everybody is on edge and loosing sleep, but Trump plays
    golf on the taxpayer dime at the cost of 3 mill a week end.
    Mexico, will you take us when Canada turns us down?
    Maybe California and Massachusetts could secede?
    (I'm grasping for answers and a new place to live)

    Larry Eisenberg is a trusted commenter New York City April 12, 2017

    Commenting on Trump is degrading
    All logic and sense he's evading,
    Bankruptcy's his gambit
    Illogic his ambit
    His ego growth isn't abating.

    A TV reality show
    Is about the one thing he does know
    A statesman he's not
    The POTUS we've got
    As a learner? Egregiously slow.

    Dan Welch East Lyme, CT April 12, 2017

    Your questions are valid absolutely provided that "Defeating Isis" is really some kind of serious issue rather than a campaign soundbite. This administration hasn't yet figured out the difference. So "Defeating Isis" is simply the backbeat to an incoherent set of practices.

    Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts April 12, 2017

    "I don't get it. President Trump is offering to defeat ISIS in Syria for free - and then pivot to strengthening the moderate anti-Assad rebels. Why? When was the last time Trump did anything for free?"

    Good points. I don't think Trump gives one hoot about Syria. Nor do I believe would have done anything like he did last week if his daughter hadn't spoken up. That blew my mind: it takes a daughter to convince her father that banned chemical gassing is criminal?

    As to your main point, that ISIS is a state of mind that can't be simply eliminated, I say yes, yes, and yes. Virtually all recent ISIS attacks on American soil were committed by naturalized Americans converted to jihadism online.

    The Trump administration seems unconcerned about the more powerful online ISIS while territorial ISIS has so many players it's a wonder they all know who they're shooting at.

    Syria is going the way of Lebanon, stripped down to rubble. Trump should do some hard thinking (not easy for him) as to what his objective is in Syria, if any. It's a complex dilemma that risks focusing on the easier aspects of war ( troops and treasure) over the near impossible task of eliminating online jihadism made worse by administration policies like the "Muslim ban," all Trump's (and Bannon's) anti-Islam rhetoric.

    soxared, 04-07-23 Crete, Illinois April 12, 2017

    "Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah."

    Nine times in your essay, Mr. Friedman, you employ this construction. Here's the problem: Donald Trump doesn't understand any of them. Why do you think he hasn't resorted to his go-to move, the tweet? He doesn't know what to do.

    Had he bothered to attend daily security briefings and acquaint himself with the regional problems after Nov. 8 it wouldn't be "gee, who knew fighting ISIS would be so complex?" But no; he embarked upon victory laps, post-Nov. 8 campaign rallies, retreats with good ole boys to Philly when he should have been assembling a team and a policy and demanding briefing papers. The foreign policy professionals could have told him that ISIS is like a bad smell after an even worse dinner and "deal with it."

    It says here that if Trump were at all smart (which he is not) he would allow Bashar al-Assad to remain Vladimir Putin's headache. Let his Russian pal prop up a regime that destroys "babies...beautiful babies...children." Israel should have some skin in this game; they're all neighbors.

    I disagree with you, Mr. Friedman, when you write that ISIS has two manifestations; they have as many as they have willing warriors. They're like flies at a picnic; you can wave them away and maybe kill some, but they'll always return. They will always be there. ISIS isn't so much a fighting force as it is an idea. Trump can't destroy the Internet.

    He'll soon learn what his predecessor did: ISIS may be defeated but not destroyed.

    Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich April 12, 2017

    "The Trump foreign policy team"

    Stop right there. That is not what we are seeing. It is not a "team."

    There are various isolated factions, vying for the favor of a man who does not really know what he's doing. They slash at each other.

    So far, they've drawn a lot of blood internally, but there is not semblance of any accepted outcome yet. They are in mid-brawl.

    My money is on people with experience, discipline, and hard fists. But we'll see. Meanwhile, there is no "foreign policy team."

    Hal Donahue Scranton April 12, 2017

    Following the 911 attacks, the United States misidentified the enemy and never stepped back. The media was as complicit as Congress in not demanding answers or questioning rationales prior to sending this nation to endless war. The enemy was identified as terrorism (a license to attack any group anywhere deemed too hostile to US goals). Conservatives and republicans, with major media approval, began identifying terrorists as 'Islamic'.
    Media and political leaders never stepped forward to identify the specific enemy as extremist Muslims influenced and often supported by the Sunni Wahhabi and Salafi sects, not all of Islam and most certainly not the Shia Islam practiced by much of Iran and Iraq. Why?

    Perhaps the answer is that Saudi Arabia is the global promulgator of Wahhabism, the sect most often fueling terrorist attacks in the region and abroad. It is Saudi Arabia and Israel who worked together in defiance of the US to block constitutional government in Egypt and install a Salafi influenced military dictatorship. As I type this the Trump gang is working with the Saudis to restore order in Syria – a recipe for disaster and long term terrorism.

    Trump has no knowledge; the least this paper can do is attempt to educate him.

    Hugh CC Budapest April 12, 2017

    I understand the urge to write about Trump as if he has a plan, a strategy or even thinks in depth with intelligence about anything. Americans are yearning for a president, not someone who sets foreign policy based on what he sees on Fox and Friends or what his handbag selling daughter whispers in his ear. We want to think that there is something in Trump that is redeemable. But Mr. Friedman, there isn't.

    Five months after the election and he still refers to Hillary Clinton as "crooked Hillary" in a NYT interview. The man is irredeemable. Give up trying to make something of him and let's just figure out how to run him from office.

    Michael California April 12, 2017

    Mr. Friedman: I agree with your strategy: let the Russians and Iranians deal with ISIS on the ground. I also agree with your assessment of Trump; that he should be unpredictable so our adversaries don't know what he will do next. But there is one fundamental place where your logic seems to fall short:

    "And those will only emerge if there are real power-sharing deals in Syria and Iraq"

    Show me a single Arab country where Sunni and Shi'a factions have a working power sharing arrangement without one side dominating the other, and I'll agree that this is a reasonable goal. The only formulas that seem to work in that part of the world are to put a strongman in place to force compliance, or to divide the place up, Sunni here, Shi'a there.

    IMHO if you could help the locals develop a federal method of power sharing that works for all parties, you could clean up the whole Middle East. There must be enough of them that want the fighting to stop, but each group is terrified of being subjugated by the other, and for good reason, because their history shows them that this is inevitable. That is the true knot that must be untangled before there will be peace in the Middle East.

    John LeBaron MA April 12, 2017

    The problem, it seems to me, is that if "moderate" Sunni movements exist in Iraq and Syria in the first place, they lack the military power and brutal drive of an ISIS that observes no humanitarian boundry moral limitation to its behavior.

    Obscene brutalization has become so endemic in Syria and the territory around it that it has become normalized colective behavior. Russia is fully complicit, but the US carries its own oversized share of the blame. Absent Bush's misguided Iraq debacle, we would be facing a completely different Middle East today.

    These are the consequences of brain-dead, knee-jerk decision-making where the world's greatest military power resides.

    john.jamotta Hurst, Texas April 12, 2017

    Mr Friedman, I am steadily losing all hope that POTUS and DC politicians have the capability and the caliber to lead and inspire America through the many and varied challenges we face.

    To me, politicians ask citizens for their votes based on a fantasy world where complexity is never recognized and Americans have the God given right to expect a world where they receive more of everything without the sacrifice or payment needed to secure these benefits.

    Although I am inherently optimistic about life, I think we are facing challenges that will only be solved by the next generation because our generation is failing to defend our fragile democracy.

    Joseph Huben Upstate NY April 12, 2017

    Wahhabism is an essential part of the ISIS problem, but is often overlooked, or hidden. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchs are responsible for the global reach of ISIS through their support of Wahhabi schools and preachers. Fighting ISIS in Syria is foolish, for all of the reasons given here and because America and Europe have failed to tell the truth about the Wahhabi basis of ISIS.
    The war in Iraq and Syria is a war between Sunni Wahhabi extremists and Shiites. For propaganda purposes our government and our pundits have implied that world terrorism is related to Shiites, knowing all the while that it is and has always been a Sunni Wahhabi terror. Russia's Muslim population ranges between 6% and 15% of it's population, with 1 million Muslims living in Moscow. 90% of Russia's Muslim population is Sunni. Chechnya is a Sunni state under Russian sway. Russia is under threat by ISIS. Why should we fight ISIS in Syria. Friedman is correct. America and the EU have no interest in defeating ISIS in Syria. We do have an interest in preventing the use of poison gas.

    Bos is a trusted commenter Boston April 12, 2017

    ISIL in Syria v. ISIL in Iraq? Does terrorism have a border?

    Syria is a can of worms. By now, people should appreciate what President Obama. Just as President Clinton before President Bush the 43rd, Mr Obama navigated the rapid by minimizing damages. But both Messrs. Clinton and Obama are followed by two simpletons whose one-dimensional thinking will inevitably lead the U.S. into quagmire. Well, we really don't know what is in Trump's head. His Syrian excursion might very well be a sleight of hand light show - how else can you explain the facts that he pre-warned Russia before the raid and little damage was done to an airbase after 59 tomahawks dropped there? If that is a light show for N Korea, then it is doubtful Trump would do anything more. For all we know, Trump-Russia rift may very well be a charade

    While one could argue Syria now is Iraq before Bush's invasion, Syria is too far gone. Everyone is at risk. Trump is riding the tiger now. There is only one certainty: his bombing of Syria is as inexplicable as his saying the U.S. no longer cares if Assad wanted to stay. Either there are ulterior motives in both situations or Trump's ADHD acting up, neither of the scenarios bodes well to the world's future

    Joseph Thomas Reston, VA April 12, 2017

    The situation in Syria is exactly why our unfit and unstable president is such a danger to our country and the world.

    He doesn't know the history of Syria, he doesn't know the current situation in Syria and he has no desire to learn either. His missile attack came days after his administration seemed to be willing to accept Assad as president. It accomplished nothing except to confuse both our allies and our adversaries.

    Now you want him to distinguish between the territorial ICIS and the virtual ICIS, between the ICIS in Syria and the ICIS in Iraq, and to implement a strategy that involves long term thinking while Tweeting about something other than himself. It's not going to happen, he doesn't have the intelligence or the vision to follow through on such a plan.

    Nice idea, though.

    roarofsilence North Carolina April 12, 2017

    There are no moderates in Syria, it is a fantasy created in the minds of John McCain and other neoconservatives who seem to be blind to the disasters they have created in Libya, Iraq and Yemen. Syria is in the midst of a Sunni-Shia civil war.

    DanC Massachusetts April 12, 2017

    Once again there is the usual mistake of thinking that Trump can stick to a plan, any plan. He is impulsive through and through, in a compulsive way. He has neither a complete functioning brain nor a complete functioning personality. That is why he needs his daughter-wife-and-second-first-lady and Kushner as advisers. He does not look for information that experts can provide but to the family members who serve as a collective nanny to more or less try to keep him in line and to clean up the messes he makes. Understanding Trump is easier when one thinks of his White House as an extension of his dysfunctional family relations.

    Aubrey Alabama April 12, 2017

    Just because someone has a lot of money doesn't make them smart.

    Trump could have been a good President -- we sure could use a fresh look at many policies and programs but his lack of basic knowledge (enough to select good people and work with them to develop strategies/plans, which he would then follow) has created chaos. Our adversaries, other governments, our own government -- nobody knows what our foreign policy is.

    silver bullet Warrenton VA April 12, 2017

    In answer to your question, this administration has no coherent military strategy to fight ISIS at all. The president was all campaign talk and no action. He has yet to lay a glove on ISIS. He knew more about ISIS than his generals, so his unilateral strike last week was carried out without the need to consult his military brass or Congress. Just trust him, his actions said.

    The missile strike was, in your words, a "headline-grabbing" ploy to distract attention away from the investigations into his ties to Russia last year. His act of war produced a spike in his popularity, especially among Republicans and his base who joyfully celebrated the awakening of the sleeping American giant who finally had enough of Middle East terrorism. The bully was thumping his chest and braying "bring it on, radical Islam".

    Syria, like Viet Nam, is a no-win proposition. Any protracted military involvement there will cost many American lives and Treasury spending will go through the roof. Mr. President and erstwhile draft dodger, don't raid the war chest and let your mouth write out a check that your behind can't cash.

    James Landi Salisbury, Maryland April 12, 2017

    "Where's that Trump when we need him?" Geez Tom, you're asking Trump to think five steps ahead of today--- you''re talking strategy, Tom? The man is incapable of putting a complex sentence together with a qualifying clause, and you're asking the Trump we know to "think"--to plot strategy... never happen.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Trump's Michigan Base Begins to Fall Out of Love with The Donald Over Refugees, Nepotism, and a Slow Start

    Apr 15, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    It's not all bad news for the President, but it is a warning to be heeded. Here in Michigan, Trump voters, campaigners, and low-level donors expressed concern to this Breitbart News correspondent on the recent change in his direction - citing the travel ban, border control, and the power of his relatives in his administration as key areas of concern.

    "We're watching a man who can take action every single day," Jeff, a long-standing Trump supporter, told me. He went on:

    He doesn't need to go to Congress. He can take action. We're watching him carefully. We're talking about people who have lives to live. Grandchildren to take care of. And we're watching actions day to day and they're falling flat. They're receding from why we put the man there, and it is extremely, it is more than stressful. We're keeping track, we're watching it. We do not want to hear about family members having an impact. We voted. We have high expectations for impact.

    ... ... ...

    While these names were not first to the lips of the dozens I spoke to in Michigan - which I am not claiming is science - they did stress their growing disaffection with the executive branch.

    "I feel like it's gone so far now the wrong way that it's going to take something magnificent on his part to get people back. We're fish that are off the hook right now. He only has one small chance to get us hooked again," Penny, a middle-aged lady from Sterling Heights, told me, adding:

    Jared and Ivanka were not on the ballot. I did not vote for them, nor would I if given the opportunity. There is a reason we have anti-nepotism rules. The fact that they were aided by the odious Jamie Gorelick in circumventing those rules pours salt in our wounds. Now it looks like the counterbalance of Bannon and Kellyanne is being marginalized. President Trump seems to have forgotten the loyal supporters who have been behind him since the early primary days. I feel so very betrayed.

    ...if the first 100 days - especially the second half of that time period - are anything to go by - the Donald will have some serious explaining to do in about three years time.

    [Apr 15, 2017] Russia Says Evidence Growing Syria Chemical Attack Was Staged

    The fact that the crater is on the road is another indicator that the attack was staged. as in this case it looks like it was Syrian rebels who provided artillery shell with sarin (or other toxic agent) and explosives to create the gas cloud.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The U.S. hasn't shown evidence that Assad was responsible for the April 4 attack in Idlib, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Friday in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where Putin was attending a collective-defense meeting of former Soviet republics. ..."
    "... Russia says Syrian forces struck a building where terrorists kept the internationally banned chemical. The U.S. says it has images proving the bomb left a crater in a road rather than hitting a building. ..."
    Apr 15, 2017 | www.bloomberg.com
    More stories by Stepan Kravchenko @world_reporter More stories by Ilya Arkhipov ‎April‎ ‎14‎, ‎2017‎ ‎7‎:‎51‎ ‎AM
    • U.S. actions in Syria seek regime change, Lavrov says
    • Foreign ministers of Russia, Iran, Syria meet in Moscow
    Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said a chemical-weapons attack in Syria that provoked U.S. missile strikes on the Middle Eastern country may have been orchestrated.

    "There's growing evidence that this was staged," Lavrov said at a Moscow news conference with his Iranian and Syrian counterparts on Friday. Publications including in the U.S. and the U.K. have highlighted "many inconsistencies" in the version of events in Syria's Idlib province that was used to justify the American airstrikes, he said.

    Russia, Iran and Syria want an independent investigation and those opposed to the call "don't have a clear conscience," Lavrov said. Russia vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution on Wednesday that demanded the Syrian government cooperate with an inquiry into the suspected sarin-gas attack that killed dozens of people.

    U.S. President Donald Trump ordered cruise-missile strikes on an airbase in Syria last week after his administration accused Russia of trying to cover up Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's role in the chemical-weapons attack. Russia contends the chemicals belonged to terrorists. Lavrov called on the U.S. not to repeat the airstrikes, which he said were part of efforts to oust Assad that won't succeed.

    'Nerve Agent'

    The crisis dominated Moscow talks between U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday as the Kremlin rebuffed demands to abandon its ally Assad. Putin's military backing of Assad has been crucial in keeping the regime in power after six years of civil war.

    The U.S. hasn't shown evidence that Assad was responsible for the April 4 attack in Idlib, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Friday in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, where Putin was attending a collective-defense meeting of former Soviet republics.

    The U.S. "is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack, using the nerve agent sarin, against its own people," according to a four-page document published by officials in Washington on Tuesday that contained evidence including satellite images, reports from the scene and details of exposure gathered from victims.

    Russia says Syrian forces struck a building where terrorists kept the internationally banned chemical. The U.S. says it has images proving the bomb left a crater in a road rather than hitting a building.

    [Apr 14, 2017] Looks like Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.

    Apr 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    EMichael -> B.T.... , April 14, 2017 at 05:24 PM
    And I'd argue that there is not one single trump voter in the whole world that voted for his economic policies.

    And that this populism bs has been swallowed by way, way too many people.

    It wasn't the bringing back the lost jobs in coal country(which even the single most stupid human being in West Va knew was a crock), it was that the coal jobs lost in West Va were taken by people of color and socialistically minded dems.

    Peter K. -> EMichael... , April 14, 2017 at 07:41 PM
    Josh Marshall isn't a Susan Sarandon/Ralph Nader type:

    "We hear people constantly saying 'Nothing will change his supporters' minds. They're with him no matter what.' First of all this is enervating defeatism which is demoralizing and loserish. But it also misses the point. It is factually wrong. For the supporters those people have in mind, they're right. They're true believers, authoritarians who are energized by Trump's destructive behavior. But there are not that many of those people. A big chunk of Trump's voters voted for him in spite of their dislike. Those people can be carved away. But Democrats will regain power by winning it in what amount to our 21st century internal American borderlands, not in the big cities or rural areas mainly but in between. So what's happening now to lay that groundwork for 2018?"

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-fight-in-the-borderlands

    libezkova -> EMichael... , April 14, 2017 at 08:17 PM
    "And I'd argue that there is not one single trump voter in the whole world that voted for his economic policies. "

    Looks like Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.

    Worked beautifully.

    [Apr 14, 2017] 'Brought to you by agency which produced Al-Qaeda ISIS' – Assange trolls CIA chief

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Called a 'non-state intelligence service' today by the 'state non-intelligence agency' which produced Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet." ..."
    "... "non-state hostile intelligence service," ..."
    "... "he and his ilk make common cause with dictators." ..."
    "... "firm and continuing policy " ..."
    "... "We publish truths regarding overreaches and abuses conducted in secret by the powerful," ..."
    Apr 14, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Julian Assange has responded to CIA Director Mike Pompeo's accusation that WikiLeaks is a "non-state intelligence agency" by trolling the CIA over its own roles in producing "Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran and Pinochet."

    Called a "non-state intelligence service" today by the "state non-intelligence agency" which produced al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) April 14, 2017

    Assange tweeted, "Called a 'non-state intelligence service' today by the 'state non-intelligence agency' which produced Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Iraq, Iran & Pinochet."

    Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of siding with dictators and being a "non-state hostile intelligence service," at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event on Thursday. He called Assange and his associates "demons" and said "he and his ilk make common cause with dictators."

    BREAKING: #WikiLeaks is 'hostile intel' and #Assange & his followers are 'demons' - CIA chief Mike #Pompeo https://t.co/DA5MmJIYWF pic.twitter.com/MjQ87lKJgR

    - RT America (@RT_America) April 13, 2017

    Assange in turn accused the CIA of producing terrorist groups and dictators. He said the CIA produced Al-Qaeda, referring to the agency's role in arming and training mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets during the 1970s, some of whom – including Osama Bin Laden – later evolved into Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

    Assange has previously stated that the CIA's role in arming the mujahideen led to Al-Qaeda, which led to 9/11, the Iraq invasion and, later, the formation of ISIS.

    The CIA admitted it was behind the 1953 coup in Iran which overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq and reinstalled the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose 26 year rule led to the 1979 Islamic revolution.

    #WikiLeaks releases more than 500k US diplomatic cables from 1979 https://t.co/9Ophyvp2zD

    - RT America (@RT_America) November 28, 2016

    Assange's Pinochet reference alludes to the CIA's "firm and continuing policy " to assist in the overthrowing of Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973, and its support for dictator Augusto Pinochet.

    Pompeo's attack on WikiLeaks appears to be in response to an op-ed Assange wrote in the Washington Post on Tuesday which referenced President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell speech, in which he warned of the dangers of the influence of the military industrial complex. Assange said the speech is similar to WikiLeaks' own mission statement.

    READ MORE: 40 targets in 16 countries: Scale of CIA-linked #Vault7 hacking tools revealed by Symantec

    "We publish truths regarding overreaches and abuses conducted in secret by the powerful," he said, going on to say that WikiLeaks' motives are the same as those of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

    Pompeo himself has previously appeared to support WikiLeaks' revelations, while President Donald Trump praised the whistleblowing site on more than one occasion during the presidential election, even professing his love for WikiLeaks in October.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Russia - PUTIN: 95% of the worlds terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA

    This is not very reliable source belonging to Donbass separatists ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... 95% of the world's terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA T ..."
    "... with this in mind. If the CIA have Russian blood on their hands, they will forever regret stirring the Russian bear from its peaceful slumber." ..."
    "... Putin also suggested that the CIA could have played a hand in the bombing of the St. Petersburg Metro ..."
    "... an expression of the will of world oligarchy and their vision for a New World Order. ..."
    "... The CIA does not work on behalf of the American people or act in their interests ..."
    "... Claremont Review of Books ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... New York Times Book Review ..."
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West ..."
    "... fact-based appraisal of Putin and his times ..."
    "... There's a lot to be said for Robert Steele's ideas on Open Source EVERYTHING and Electoral Reform. Mr Steele also claims that Chuck Schumer, Lyndsay Graham, Marco Rubio and John McCain are being blackmailed into going along with deep state policies. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | gosint.wordpress.com
    Posted on April 8, 2017 by L

    " 95% of the world's terrorist attacks are orchestrated by the CIA T he St. Petersburg metro bombing must be investigated with this in mind. If the CIA have Russian blood on their hands, they will forever regret stirring the Russian bear from its peaceful slumber."

    Vladimir Putin - President of the Russian Federation

    April 6 2017.

    During an extraordinary meeting, Vladimir Putin - the President of the Russian Federation - has accused "the US 'Deep State' and the radical Islamic groups they sponsor" to destabilize key regions in the world. Putin also suggested that the CIA could have played a hand in the bombing of the St. Petersburg Metro.

    Speaking at a behind closed doors forum for the highest echelons of government and staff in his home city of St. Petersburg, Putin responded to questions about the metro blast. When questioned by a top aide as to whether the '95% figure' was accurate, Putin answered that:

    "The CIA is a rogue element of the deep state, and an expression of the will of world oligarchy and their vision for a New World Order.

    The evidence is everywhere, and I personally have intimate knowledge of their dealings.

    The CIA exists today as part of America but it is certainly not American. The CIA does not work on behalf of the American people or act in their interests ."

    RELATED POST: CIA Director Mike Pompeo - Who Is Who in World Intelligence and Security Agencies?

    RELATED POST: CIA Director Mike Pompeo defends 'State Secrets Privilege' in high profile torture case

    RELATED POST: Michael Morell: Let Us Kill Iranians and Russians in Syria!

    How to think about Putin

    Christopher Caldwell is a graduate of Harvard College. His work has appeared in the Claremont Review of Books , the Wall Street Journal , the New York Times Book Review , the Spectator (London), Financial Times , and numerous other publications. He is the author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West , and is at work on a book about post-1960s America.

    Caldwell has recently penned a very interesting piece - How to Think About Vladimir Putin - which was adapted from a speech he delivered on February 15, 2017, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona. Please, take the time to read this fact-based appraisal of Putin and his times .

    "Let me stress at the outset that this is not going to be a talk about what to think about Putin, which is something you are all capable of making up your minds on, but rather how to think about him. And on this, there is one basic truth to remember, although it is often forgotten. Our globalist leaders may have deprecated sovereignty since the end of the Cold War, but that does not mean it has ceased for an instant to be the primary subject of politics."

    "Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism. That turns out to be the big battle of our times. As our last election shows, that's true even here."

    RELATED POST: Putin tells a KGB joke. A bit dark but funny

    RELATED POST: Why the CIA & MI6 Love to Hate Putin

    RELATED POST: Putin Ridicules CIA Hilarious

    Former CIA Robert Steele: "US Politicians blackmailed by the Deep State"

    There's a lot to be said for Robert Steele's ideas on Open Source EVERYTHING and Electoral Reform. Mr Steele also claims that Chuck Schumer, Lyndsay Graham, Marco Rubio and John McCain are being blackmailed into going along with deep state policies.

    "Our common ennemy is the Deep State."

    REFERENCES

    Putin: '95% Of World Terrorist Attacks Are Orchestrated By The CIA' - Novorossia Today April 6 2007

    [Apr 13, 2017] The USA is treating Russia like Romans treated Carnage

    Notable quotes:
    "... * A Carthaginian peace is the imposition of a very brutal 'peace' achieved by completely crushing the enemy. The term derives from the peace imposed on Carthage by Rome. After the Second Punic War, Carthage lost all its colonies, was forced to demilitarize and pay a constant tribute to Rome and could enter war only with Rome's permission. At the end of the Third Punic War, the Romans systematically burned Carthage to the ground and enslaved its population. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. -> Peter K...., April 13, 2017 at 06:51 AM
    there

    And these "mainstream" economists like Krugman and PGL claim to be followers of Keynes.

    Did they ever read the Economic Consequences of the Peace?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economic_Consequences_of_the_Peace

    The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1919) is a book written and published by John Maynard Keynes.[1] Keynes attended the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 as a delegate of the British Treasury and argued for a much more generous peace. It was a best-seller throughout the world and was critical in establishing a general opinion that the Versailles Treaty was a "Carthaginian peace*". It helped to consolidate American public opinion against the treaty and involvement in the League of Nations. The perception by much of the British public that Germany had been treated unfairly in turn was a crucial factor in public support for appeasement. The success of the book established Keynes' reputation as a leading economist especially on the left. When Keynes was a key player in establishing the Bretton Woods system in 1944, he remembered the lessons from Versailles as well as the Great Depression. The Marshall Plan, after the Second World War, was a similar system to that proposed by Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the Peace.

    --------------------

    Did the Marshall Plan not improve things in Europe!?!?!

    * A Carthaginian peace is the imposition of a very brutal 'peace' achieved by completely crushing the enemy. The term derives from the peace imposed on Carthage by Rome. After the Second Punic War, Carthage lost all its colonies, was forced to demilitarize and pay a constant tribute to Rome and could enter war only with Rome's permission. At the end of the Third Punic War, the Romans systematically burned Carthage to the ground and enslaved its population.

    ---------------------------

    The financial crisis and terrible recovery was a disaster forced on the voters of advanced nations. Is it any wonder that there was a populist backlash? The spoiled, pampered center-left like Krugman, Hillary and PGL have no idea of the suffering that many voters and citizens had to endure, losing their homes, etc.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Neocons Have Trump on His Knees

    Notable quotes:
    "... Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.) ..."
    "... But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows." ..."
    "... But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: The Democrats' Russia-made-Hillary-lose hysteria has pushed a weakened President Trump into the arms of the neocons who now have a long list of endless-war ideas for him to implement, reports Robert Parry.

    After slapping Donald Trump around for several months to make him surrender his hopes for a more cooperative relationship with Russia, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist allies are now telling the battered President what he must do next: escalate war in the Middle East and ratchet up tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.

    Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Fountain Park in Fountain Hills, Arizona. March 19, 2016. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

    Star neocon Robert Kagan spelled out Trump's future assignments in a column on Sunday in The Washington Post, starting out by patting the chastened President on the head for his decision to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles at an airstrip in Syria supposedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government (although no serious investigation was even conducted).

    Trump earned widespread plaudits for his decisive action and his heart-on-the-sleeve humanitarianism as his voice filled with emotion citing the chemical-weapons deaths on April 4 of "small children and even beautiful little babies." The U.S. media then helpfully played down reports from Syria that Trump's April 6 retaliatory missile strike had killed about 15 people, including nine civilians, four of whom were children.

    However, for Kagan, the missile strike was only a good start. An advocate for "regime change" in Syria and a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century which pushed for the Iraq War, Kagan praised Trump "for doing what the Obama administration refused to do," i.e. involve the U.S. military directly in attacks on the Syrian government.

    "But," Kagan added, "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of U.S. power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration's policies over the past six years."

    Kagan continued: "Trump was not wrong to blame the dire situation in Syria on President Barack Obama. The world would be a different place today if Obama had carried out his threat to attack Syria when Assad crossed the famous 'red line' in the summer of 2013. The bad agreement that then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry struck with Russia not only failed to get rid of Syria's stock of chemical weapons and allowed the Assad regime to drop barrel bombs and employ widespread torture against civilian men, women and children. It also invited a full-scale Russian intervention in the fall of 2015, which saved the Assad regime from possible collapse."

    A Seasoned Propagandist

    Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.)

    Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

    But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows."

    But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran.

    "Russia has greatly expanded its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean," Kagan wrote. "Obama and Kerry spent four years panting after this partnership, but Russia has been a partner the way the mafia is when it presses in on your sporting goods business. Thanks to Obama's policies, Russia has increasingly supplanted the United States as a major power broker in the region. Even U.S. allies such as Turkey, Egypt and Israel look increasingly to Moscow as a significant regional player.

    "Obama's policies also made possible an unprecedented expansion of Iran's power and influence. If you add the devastating impact of massive Syrian refugee flows on European democracies, Obama's policies have not only allowed the deaths of almost a half-million Syrians but also have significantly weakened America's global position and the health and coherence of the West."

    Trump's Probation

    Yes, all that was Obama's fault for not invading Syria with a couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops because that's what would have been required to achieve Kagan's "regime change" goal in Syria. And there's no reason to think that the Syrian invasion would have been any less bloody than the bloody Kagan-advocated invasion of Iraq. But Kagan and the neocons never take responsibility for their various bloodbaths. It's always someone else's fault.

    President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, attends a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Dec. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    And now Kagan is telling Trump that there is still much he must do to earn his way back into the good graces of the neocons.

    Kagan continued, "Trump, of course, greatly exacerbated these problems during his campaign, with all the strong rhetoric aimed at allies. Now he has taken an important first step in repairing the damage, but this will not be the end of the story. America's adversaries are not going to be convinced by one missile strike that the United States is back in the business of projecting power to defend its interests and the world order.

    "The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the stomach for confrontation."

    And confrontation is surely what Kagan has in mind, adding:

    "Instead of being a one-time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and military strategy to rebalance the situation in Syria in America's favor. That means reviving some of those proposals that Obama rejected over the past four years: a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, the grounding of the Syrian air force, and the effective arming and training of the moderate opposition, all aimed at an eventual political settlement that can bring the Syrian civil war, and therefore the Assad regime, to an end.

    "The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt it. This in turn will require moving sufficient military assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate the conflict to a crisis, and to be sure that American forces will be ready if they do.

    "Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong U.S. response in Syria would make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."

    On His Knees

    To put this message in the crude terms that President Trump might understand, now that the neocons have forced him to his knees, they are demanding that he open his mouth. They will not be satisfied with anything short of a massive U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and a full-scale confrontation with Russia (and perhaps China).

    Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

    This sort of belligerence is what the neocons and liberal hawks had expected from Hillary Clinton, whom Kagan had endorsed. Some sources claim that a President Hillary Clinton planned to appoint Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, as Secretary of State.

    As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under Obama, Nuland oversaw the U.S.-backed putsch that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, replacing him with a fiercely anti-Russian regime, the move that touched off civil war in Ukraine and sparked the New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia. [For more on Kagan clan, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Family Business of Perpetual War ."]

    Clinton's defeat was a stunning setback but the neocons never give up. They are both well-organized and well-funded, dominating Official Washington's think tanks and media outlets, sharing some power with their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, who differ mostly in the rationales cited for invading other countries. (The neocons mostly talk about global power and democracy promotion, while the liberal hawks emphasize "human rights.")

    In dealing with the narcissistic and insecure Trump, the neocons and liberal hawks conducted what amounted to a clever psychological operation. They rallied mainstream media personalities and Democrats horrified at Trump's victory. In particular, Democrats and their angry base were looking for any reason to hold out hope for Trump's impeachment. Hyping alleged Russian "meddling" in the election became the argument of choice.

    Night after night, MSNBC and other networks competed in their Russia-bashing to boost ratings among Trump-hating Democrats. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians, such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California, saw the Russia-gate hearings as a ticket to national glory. And professional Democratic strategists could evade their responsibility for running a dismal presidential campaign by shifting the blame to the Russians.

    However, besides creating a convenient excuse for Clinton's defeat, the anti-Russian hysteria blocked Trump and his team from any move that they might try to make regarding avoidance of a costly and dangerous New Cold War. The Russia-hating frenzy reached such extremes that it paralyzed the formulation of any coherent Trump foreign policy.

    Now, with the neocons regaining influence on the National Security Council via NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus, the neocon holding action against the New Détente has shifted into an offensive to expand the hot war in Syria and intensify the New Cold War with Russia. As Kagan recognized, Trump's hasty decision to fire off missiles was a key turning point in the reassertion of neocon/liberal-hawk dominance over U.S. foreign policy.

    It's also suddenly clear how thoroughly liberal Democrats were taken for a ride on the war train by getting them to blame Russia for Hillary Clinton's defeat. The liberals (and even many progressives) hated Trump so much that they let themselves be used in the service of neocon/liberal-hawk endless war policies. Now, it may be too late to turn the train around.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Apr 13, 2017] Syria Accuses US Of Hitting ISIS Chemical Weapons Depot Killing Hundreds; Russia Sends Drones Zero Hedge

    Apr 13, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Syria Accuses US Of Hitting ISIS Chemical Weapons Depot Killing Hundreds; Russia Sends Drones

    Catullus , Apr 13, 2017 8:49 AM

    Radar will confirm that Putin actually put them chemical weapons there

    no1wonder -> Catullus , Apr 13, 2017 8:51 AM

    Pentagon will claim they were Russian planes with US markings..

    90's Child -> Looney , Apr 13, 2017 8:56 AM

    ISIS chemical weapons depo?

    More like CIA / Israel / Saudi chemical weapons depo.

    More wasted tax payers money.

    PrayingMantis -> Lumberjack , Apr 13, 2017 10:33 AM

    ... >>> "US Kills Hundreds in Chemical Strike on Der Ezzor or US Bombs Hit Chemical Warehouse, Will Russia Hit US Base, Ask Questions Later?"

    ... ... [VT]"Editor's note: Without a video done by the White Helmets distributed by Qatar's intelligence agency and their al Jazeera organization, the cheerleaders of ISIS, Ivanka Trump is silent though hundreds lie dead, most of them children. Without White Helmets to murder the babies on camera, jabbing them with cardiac needles and digging around until their hearts are torn to shreds and their eyes go dim, the satanic witch queen, Ivanka, will not be ordering military retaliation and pushing for Armageddon."

    >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/13/us-kills-hundreds-in-chemical-strike-on-der-ezzor/

    ... continued from >>> "Breaking: VT Investigators Startling Discovery at Khan Sheikhoun ... Busted: We know who did it, we name them and we have caught them trying it again" >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/11/idlib-vt-investigators-startling-discovery-at-khan-sheikhoun/

    and >>> "Busted: White House Syria Report Obviously False (updated/video)" >>> http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/12/busted-white-house-syria-report-obviously-false/

    ... the best part of waking up is opening your eyes ...

    SoilMyselfRotten -> PrayingMantis , Apr 13, 2017 11:32 AM

    This story can't be true. The bastions of truth, CNN, MSNBC and FOX all have breaking news coverage of the UAL lawyers press conference. No mention of gas bombings. They must know what's fake news or sumpin.

    MsCreant -> tmosley , Apr 13, 2017 10:48 AM

    Still holding out hope for the Trump, I see. The change was so bizarre, I am too, a tiny bit. Maybe .01%. Would be happy to see it. It isn't going to happen. Something happened that you and I are never going to know about. It was bad, really bad. And Trump changed.

    Also, too much pivot is it's own problem.

    We are not getting the same guy tweeting, self-absorbed, doing his own thing, any more.

    Putrid -> MsCreant , Apr 13, 2017 11:38 AM

    Hope only serves to prolong suffering. Hegel identified with fear, he thought it was the agent that drove progress toward self knowledge.

    Actually, I've come to realize that the limit placed upon self knowledge is the absence of virtue, namely the absence of Courage. It takes courage to deal with Reality. To see it for what it is, in its naked form.

    The System Result is extinction which is quite clear to see. Either you change the System or you'll be killed by it. And since the entire System has now been modeled, the central question becomes whether it can be changed and then whether it would be worthwhile doing so.

    I don't think change is possible, Marx gave it his level best and he failed. It's the lack of courage that keeps everyone in the cave and I can't see that changing. It's to do with how the Mind forms.

    Putrid www.beforethecollapse.com/about

    Took Red Pill -> Manthong , Apr 13, 2017 9:34 AM

    "The Pentgaon has admitted to the airstrikes"

    So far MSM isn't saying the truth. They are saying that only Syrian & Russian jets were in the area.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/middleeast/syria-strikes-russia-donald-tru...

    http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/1.783270

    kochevnik -> new game , Apr 13, 2017 11:17 AM

    We are not fascist, simply. USA became fascist with Clinton in stealth mode, and publicly with baby Bush who advertised neoconservatism. Neocon is simply a euphemism for fascist. Sadly a simple name change is enough to satisfy most people that you're not a fucking NAZI from Strangelove's bunker

    new game -> kochevnik , Apr 13, 2017 1:12 PM

    his country is under attach and he seemed like an accountant.

    jeff montanye -> kochevnik , Apr 13, 2017 1:17 PM

    neocon is not, imo, simply a euphemism for fascist pure and simple. as daddy bush said to baby bush, when the latter asked what neoconservatism was, "israel".

    check out tbraton in the comments: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/06/23/whats-a-neoconservativ...

    google is becoming more and more neocon and is making finding things that don't cast israel in the best light (true things not wild anti-jew ravings) harder and harder.

    that might make an interesting story zh, especially since they translate between languages (but can't translate english into english).

    try googling most dangerous jewish organizations then compare it to most dangerous white organizations (even given the inaccuracies that invites).

    toady -> 90's Child , Apr 13, 2017 9:25 AM

    Exactly. People seem to forget that isis is fighting with U.S. weapon systems.... that they "stole" from Iraq.... that they appear to be able to "steal" ammunition for on a regular basis.. and the MIC is NOT making a single dolla on!

    SoDamnMad -> 90's Child , Apr 13, 2017 9:41 AM

    "This is old news, the Turks delivered the sarin, read Seymour Hersch's "The Red Line and the Rat Line," which was published in the London Review. No publisher in USA would touch it, so much for free press in America. A gas attack is a war crime and the 2011 sarin attack was a red flag operation. One thing have to give to Obummer, he didn't fall for this when they tried to blame it on Asad. "

    Don't forget our NATO partner, TURKEY.

    chubbar -> no1wonder , Apr 13, 2017 2:31 PM

    Looks like the US had previous knowledge of the strike that was blamed on Syria as a gas attack. Looks like the US either planted gas at the site or the site was a chemical storage facility of some type, not sarin gas though.

    " ANALYSIS by retired Col. Patrick LANG

    Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.

    1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
    2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
    3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
    4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
    5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through "Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

    There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.

    This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

    Here's the good news. The Russians and Syrians were informed, or at least were aware, that the attack was coming. They were able to remove a large number of their assets. The base the United States hit was something of a backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a tough guy. He is not. He is a fool.

    This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

    It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100 million dollars of missiles to blow up sand and camel shit. The Russians were aware that a strike was coming. I'm hoping that they and the Syrians withdrew their forces and aircraft from the base. Whatever hope I had that Donald Trump would be a new kind of President, that hope is extinguished. He is a child and a moron. He committed an act of war without justification. But the fault is not his alone. Those who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the Department of State should have resigned in protest. They did not. They are complicit in a war crime."

    greenskeeper carl -> Oldwood , Apr 13, 2017 9:45 AM

    Thats the problem with the way our MSM works. It prints info tha turns out to be false on the front page, in huge letters, with dramatic photos. The TV media reports on it breathlessly. Later, when the story is proven to be false, like the 2013 nonsense, a retraction might be printed in a tiny column at the back of the paper, if at all. But, years later, they still talk about it as if thats how it happened, since it 'fits that pattern'. Most people don't see anything other than the big 'breaking news' story, so thats their new reality.

    You know, kinda like the 'wiretappped data used in inquiry of trump aids' being a headline ON ELECTION DAY and then a few months later, the author of that same story says trump is a crazy person for claiming obama had his 'wires tapped'.

    TwelveOhOne -> UnschooledAustrianEconomist , Apr 13, 2017 11:33 AM

    As an 80's comedian asked, "Why did they put our oil under their sand ??!?"

    Clashfan -> Dr. Engali , Apr 13, 2017 7:40 PM

    Clashfan -> Clashfan , Apr 13, 2017 7:45 PM

    Okay and water, sure--and oil in the Golan Heights.

    nachochan , Apr 13, 2017 9:01 AM

    Both sides Russian and American are spewing out propoganda that shouldnt be listened too or at least taken with a grain of salt. Don't trust the intel from either party as it pertains to this mess. We need to get the hell out of Syria now unfortunately Donald fucked that up with his damn hard on for the Tomohawk waroom. We couldve gotten concessions on the way out had he choose his detente that he campaigned on but now he has nothing to gain politically from backing out because Russia will not tolerate concecssions.

    nardami -> nardami , Apr 13, 2017 9:12 AM

    The Syrian MOD claims were reported on Al Masdar News...Sputnik picked it up.

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-civilians-killed-us-jets-bomb-isis-chemical-depot-deir-ezzor-syrian-mod/

    Son of Captain Nemo , Apr 13, 2017 9:04 AM

    Tex "blinked"!

    The tragedy of it is that the Russians and the U.S. made a deal to cover up the embarrassment for the U.S. military and it's "head chopper" proxies without Syria invited to that "PARTY"!

    NOT a very good way to dispose of chemical weapons... But hey?... They ain't Russian or Americans right?!!!

    If I were Assad I'd be raising a "MIDDLE DIGIT" in Putin's direction along with the Iranians!!!

    Sick Underbelly -> cherry picker , Apr 13, 2017 11:33 AM

    If most of the Trumptards on here had half an ass and applied their brains to a study of the balance of Freedom, Liberty and Inalienable Rights, and started with the premise "Pursue whatever until and unless you encroach upon the Rights and Freedom of others, or the Law subjugating you both" we wouldn't have to ask "Why don't Americans...mind their own business".

    We could have a long discussion about the " War Powers Resolution ", but don't you think 535 people involved would SLOW DOWN the hasty actions to just send ~$100 million worth of missiles to a remote air field? Don't you think being able to pull the lever to initiate non-nuclear launch sequence of attacks, without deliberation, violates some basic principle of logical sanity?

    If Congress had to vote to declare war on Syria to then authorize the lame-ass attack, don't you think we would have had a different outcome?

    Aside from all of that, on principle alone:

    a) The US is deliberately pushing for regime change, and we have funded the opposition to and the overthrow of the currently-elected President of Syria. This, alone, is reason enough to not be involved. We are encroaching upon their Freedoms, their Liberty, and their Rights to self-govern and self-efficacy. To this, I say we are the war criminals, the guilty party, the treasonous-bitch, unwelcome outsiders.

    b) Syria asked Russia for help. Syria has not asked us for help. We are unwelcome. If you are in a town, and the asshole "window washer" comes up and just starts spraying and scrubbing, expecting something in return...you're starting to get the feeling.

    Now, say asshole window washer comes brandishing an AR-15, he's strapped with ballistic helmet and plate carrier, and you know he wants your shit, but all you have is a t-shirt, some sunglasses and a pocket knife? You wanna fight, but the prospect of running that red light looks best, while calling for backup.

    The US is the loaded, asshole window washer going to steal Syria's stuff. They sped off and got help from Russia, and the US is still in the dust, firing helplessly at the shit that's getting away.

    c) Common sense and decency says that if one sovereign nation wants access to another sovereign nation's resources, the seeking nation proposes terms to enter into agreement with the possessing nation. They both respect each others' right to self-govern, and their right to deal with whomever on whatever terms are agreeable. The US has fucked this up beyond belief. I'm not sure any people in the State Department or at the decision-making levels abides by, believes and/or lets that simple maxim drive the way they approach the world.

    On principle alone, the US should be chained up, set in the corner, and given a detox of whatever megalomaniac-influencing drugs and thoughtforms it has been consuming...24/7 classical music, readings from classic texts, a diet of bread, water and occasional soup, and a comforting, fluffy blanket, so as not to be too harsh. =)

    Stinkytofu , Apr 13, 2017 9:29 AM

    according to RT

    Today 12:37 GMT

    US coalition denies airstrikes in area of alleged chemical leak in Syria

    The US-led coalition against Islamic State on Thursday denied a Syrian army report it had carried out an airstrike that had hit poison gas supplies belonging to IS and caused the deaths of hundreds of people. "The coalition conducted no strikes in that area at that time. The Syrian claim is incorrect and likely intentional misinformation," US Air Force Colonel John Dorrian, a coalition spokesman, told Reuters.

    perkunas , Apr 13, 2017 9:30 AM

    Trump says NATO obsolete, now its good=fail

    Trump says America 1st, stay out of Syria, Iraq=fail

    Trump says drain the swamp, fills it Goldman Sachs=fail

    Trump says get rid off TPP then hires the guy that wrote it, to negotiate NAFTA=fail

    Trump says to fight ISIS, them bombs Assad the guy fighting them=fail

    Trump says we need to get along with Russia so we can solve things=fail

    Trump now openly lying=fail

    Trump=fail

    no1wonder , Apr 13, 2017 9:35 AM

    via Xinhua China News:

    #BREAKING: U.S. military says airstrike in northern Syria mistakenly killed 18 allied fighters

    ( i.e. 18 Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) soldiers)

    https://twitter.com/XHNews/status/852512891290796032

    Rebel yell , Apr 13, 2017 9:54 AM

    The cost of the tomahawk bombing on April 11 just for the tomahawks alone was $50,268,000. Fifty nine tomahawk missiles at $852,000 a piece.

    Of course all of that is minutiae compared to the international crisis and loss of life that has resulted in it!

    TemporarySecurity -> Rebel yell , Apr 13, 2017 10:35 AM

    If Syria did the attack it was a war crime under the UN. That is a big if.

    Under the UN an unprovoced non-defensive attack is a war crime also.

    Rebel yell -> TemporarySecurity , Apr 13, 2017 8:39 PM

    But it did not. Even if it did, where does it say in the UN charter that if any country violates war crime laws, of which the US is by far the most guilty of doing, that it is up to the US to bomb them? International law also prohibits countries from ousting leaders of countries. It is why George HW Bush did not remove Sadaam houssein in desert storm. He specifically stated that too.

    British reporter in Syria says that the Syrian army attacked al nousra chemical plant in Syria. The US countinues to lie about Assad -- The only Americans telling the truth are Rand Paul Tulsi Gabbard and who the dnc establishment has demonized! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xjOSZ6QgGgY

    falak pema , Apr 13, 2017 9:54 AM

    A constant theme in the way the US fights is to use "shock n awe"; aka massive overkill.

    As a result the collateral damage is just beyond belief; nothing pin pointed about it. Witness Nam, Laos and now Afghan and Iraq etc. etc. etc.

    In Iraq 1-- Desert Storm-- the Italians and Brits lost a lot of their personnel against friendly fire by the US troops.

    The frogs played safe; Mitterrand ordered his troops to keep a perimeter of 45 km minimun from the advancing US army on its march to Basra and Baghdad. Result : No collateral damage to the frog regiments.

    Why should anything be different in Syria and Mosul today ?

    Apart from operation "trojan horse" type false flag scams; which is standard CIA/special ops. pratice.

    DuneCreature , Apr 13, 2017 10:02 AM

    I can't wait to hear the CIA, errrrrr, I meant CNN spin on this shit.

    Freaky Fraeed will need to do some fancy footwork to get this blamed on Assad and the Russians.

    Live Hard, A Pouch Of Magic Indian Nose Hair Says He Will Give It His Best Shot, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    Uncle Tupelo -> DuneCreature , Apr 13, 2017 10:24 AM

    CNN @CNN

    US intelligence intercepted communications between Syrian military and chemical experts, a senior US official says cnn.it/2oaNZrq

    DuneCreature -> Uncle Tupelo , Apr 13, 2017 11:01 AM

    Yes, yes, they can fabricate any signals intercepts they want. ....... If I know the Langley crowd they will even screw up that air tight psyop with sloppy execution.

    Let's give it about 48 hours and see if I'm right.

    Duff is a little 'out there' BUT about this he is dead on the money at 300 yds.

    http://journal-neo.org/2017/04/04/the-nasty-truth-about-the-cia/

    Live Hard, USSA Intelligence Gathering Is A Side Business For Today's New And Degraded CIA Pirate Gang, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    JesusUp -> DuneCreature , Apr 13, 2017 11:48 AM

    this is mossad's specialty

    adonisdemilo , Apr 13, 2017 10:04 AM

    If there is proven evidence of this fuckup can we expect appologies en-masse from the UK's UN representative, one two faced little shit called Matthew Rycroft.

    I get the urge to throw something very heavy at the TV every time he starts spouting his propaganda BS.

    He makes me ashamed to admit I'm a brit.

    Greed is King -> adonisdemilo , Apr 13, 2017 10:27 AM

    Me too, and the British media has the bare arsed cheek to accuse the Russian envoy who shouted at Matt (the Brat with a face begging to be slapped) Rycroft of "unprofessional" behaviour; unlike the Anti-Russian rantings of Boris the bumbling buffoon, he`s really professional, he`s the best Foreign Secretary and top Diplomat any country has had since Ulrich Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim von Ribbentrop graced the corridors of the Reichstagg in Berlin during the reign of dear old Adolph. #realdonaldtrump

    Deep Snorkeler , Apr 13, 2017 10:12 AM

    Everything Will Be OK

    1. Americans will easily accept wage cuts, when the military victories start to pile up.

    2. Trump employs the age-old John Wayne Doctrine of Mindless Aggression, with great success.

    Whopper Goldberg , Apr 13, 2017 10:12 AM

    RT Worlds Apart interview with another American bullshit artist

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KME9Uz54Hsg

    DuneCreature , Apr 13, 2017 10:14 AM

    What ever happened to real war correspondents and fearless camera crews?

    I want to see the gas victims writhing around on the ground in agony, damn it!

    If I'm going to pay for all of this CIA gas and distress I want to see how my tax dollars are being spent.

    Live Hard, Let's Bring All The War Refugees We Just Bombed And Gassed Back To Have A Block Party And Cook Out. Maybe Get In A Few Games Of Softball, Horseshoes Or Corn Hole And Drink Some Near Beer With Mohammad And His Six Or Seven Wives, Die Free

    ~ DC v5.0

    Smedley's Butler -> DuneCreature , Apr 13, 2017 10:36 AM

    War correspondents and fearless camera crews... Why do we need them? Is this not the job of the White Helmets? I have no doubt they are en route to rescue children covered in talcom powder and ketchup? Right? any moment now.

    Greed is King , Apr 13, 2017 10:14 AM

    "Update 1: Russia has reportedly dispatched drones to the area to confirm Syria's reports. The Russian military said that it has no information confirming the reports of death as a result of the US-led coalition's strike."

    "The Russian Defense Ministry does not possess information confirming reports of deaths and the type of the destriction as a result of the US-led coalition's bombing near Deir ez-Zor."

    "Unmanned aerial vehicles have been sent to the area to monuitor the situation," the ministry added.

    What ?, go and investigate ?, why ?, come on Putin, get with the program, do what Donny would do, NUKE EVERYBODY. #realdonaldtrump

    SMC , Apr 13, 2017 10:30 AM

    Without a formal declaration of war this is murder.

    Karl Marxist -> SMC , Apr 13, 2017 11:02 AM

    Media doesn't care. They exist not to play to moral outrage but to lull viewers to sleep. Local news full of blood and guts. National and international news void of all realities on the ground. No bloody stumps of baby carcases shown there. Unnamed sources only. Their mission: bury the magnitude of crimes by power and wealth. But Hynduai is pen Easter Sunday. Free hot dogs and ballons for the kids! Get a gas guzzling cn't see around one Bulgemobile for only $189/mo. Comes with inside TV while you drive! No credit? Bad credit? No prblem. Habla Espanol.

    Cordeezy , Apr 13, 2017 10:30 AM

    Why is trump such a sell out? I should have known that voting for either candidate would lead to this. Www.escapeamazon.com

    Cutter , Apr 13, 2017 10:40 AM

    Sputnik should be read cautiously.

    johnnycanuck -> Cutter , Apr 13, 2017 11:13 AM

    As should NYT, Wapo, Guardian and all other western majors. CNN, FOX and the rest of the Cables should be ignored completely.

    Cutter -> johnnycanuck , Apr 13, 2017 1:03 PM

    Agree. Wouldn't watch CNN, if they paid me. Fox is right leaning,but way better than the majors or CNN.

    Bottom line is these days almost no media is impartial, they are all spinning. The only outlet that's impartial, is Consortium News. So you have to read them all with a jaundiced eye, and try and divine the truth from the fog.

    Not saying Sputnik shouldn't be read, but it, like all the others, has its own spin.

    dltff-ya , Apr 13, 2017 10:41 AM

    It is sad to witness the controlled media and lack of free speech even amount the best media sites. It's not actually their fault sometimes. It is self preservation. They don't want to be crucified for speaking the unspeakable. Visitors from Russia and China often say that in Russia people blurt out their opinions now days. politically correct or not. Point: Tucker Carlson, a decent fellow and probably agrees with me, has to navigate the direction of the discussion with guests that agree with me (and Tucker almost certainly) about the nature of the Syrian problem. Tucker was discussing with some Russian expert about what is the cause of the left wanting war with Russia so much. Well Tucker has to feign wonderment about why, and he asks the expert, who also has to orbit around the truth without speaking the words. Why the animosity - hostility, and belligerence towards Russia and Syria? Tucker has to ask out loud- He and his guest and most of the viewers know the answer which can't be articulated by anyone on the air. The secret---- unveiled for Tucker----

    Israel hates Hezbollah, Syria, and Russia because their position in Syria interferes with their local Hegemony in Lebanon in particular, in 2006. http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/13/how-hezbollah-defeated-israel-2/ This is a proxy war fought to support Israeli regional supremacy, and their ability to strike Syria and Assad and Hezbollah at will, any time and anywhere they like, in the Golan Heights or in Damascus, or anywhere in Lebanon they choose. The American neocons and the left for the most part is in bed with these guys, and will cause the US to go to war if they have to, and even with Russia if they have to go that far, because Russia is the power behind this triumvirate. This is why Israel supports el Nusra (ISIS) and their stooge John McCain has no trouble with that.These are they guys with the Sarin, and the lack of scruples to use it to blame Assad. This is the only picture that makes any sense from the Syrian point of view. Somehow, poor Tucker can't blurt out the truth. He must stand there in his shoes and wonder outloud, why do the Left and necons want a war with Russia. Very very sad state of view for free speech in the US. It's gone.

    Soph -> dltff-ya , Apr 13, 2017 10:55 AM

    I think you're waaay off the mark. Yes, Isreal is obviously a factor in region, and they have their hands in the pie, no question.

    This, however, is first and foremost about pipelines. Russia has an iron grip on the petro market in Europe. Syria is key to maintaining that monopoly simply because they are the land-route for fast, cheap, pipelines from the middle east.

    The Saudis, Qatari's, and their US, er, ally, need to control Syria to build those pipelines. With Assad in power, that will never happen. That is why the Saudi's/Qatari's backed the various opposition groups in the area (including ISIS), and that is why they simply will not let this one go.

    It is, as is often the case, all about petro dollars.

    Whopper Goldberg -> Soph , Apr 13, 2017 11:04 AM

    Bullshit, its all about Israel and their Oded Yinon plan.

    Russia' iron grip? Get real

    They have been selling gas to Europe for decades even during the days of the USSR/

    never a problem

    ClickNLook -> Whopper Goldberg , Apr 13, 2017 11:28 AM

    This time Quatar/US want their share in EU gas market.

    Assad depositing is a key to get that going.

    tsuki , Apr 13, 2017 10:50 AM

    Last paragraph of a Seymour Hersh article published in the London Review of Books on December 19, 2013:

    "The UN resolution, which was adopted on 27 September by the Security Council dealt indirectly with the notion that rebel forces such as an-Nusra would also be obliged to disarm .No group was cited by name. While the Syrian regime continues the process of eliminating its chemical arsenal, the irony is that, after Assad's stockpile of precursor agents is destroyed, al-Nusra and its Islamist allies could end up as the only faction inside Syria with access to the ingredients that can create sarin, a strategic weapon that would be unlike any other in the war zone."

    Interesting.

    Robert Trip , Apr 13, 2017 10:58 AM

    Suddenly Syria is just chock full of chemical weapons.

    Depots and manufacturing facilities are all over the place.

    Whopper Goldberg -> Robert Trip , Apr 13, 2017 11:02 AM

    Thaniks to the USA backed terrorists who the USA says they are ''fighting''.

    They have been arming them all along ..

    MrBoompi -> Whopper Goldberg , Apr 13, 2017 12:09 PM

    The trail of chemical weapons in Syria leads directly to Obama and Clinton. George Webb has done some good work on this subject.

    Free Spirit , Apr 13, 2017 11:00 AM

    This news is on SANA´swebsite thus it is probably true.

    http://sana.sy/en/?p=104229

    Mzhen , Apr 13, 2017 11:29 AM

    These deaths of beautiful babies are lost in the chemical fog of war because the White Helmets and a film crew were not ready on scene to record the event for US media.

    Son of Captain Nemo , Apr 13, 2017 11:33 AM

    Can you say "Amerikansky Bitch"?... I knew that you could!

    https://southfront.org/us-shifts-strategy-in-syria-amid-tensions-with-ru...

    https://www.rt.com/usa/384633-trump-russia-lasting-peace/

    joego1 , Apr 13, 2017 11:43 AM

    Remember that after bombing Libya chemical weapons where transferred to Syria. It was Hillbilly that did it with Trumps help. When will they learn that there is no "winning" anything in this morass.

    Mzhen , Apr 13, 2017 11:54 AM

    Deir ez-Zor is the location where "coalition" airstrikes killed and wounded a couple hundred Syrian soldiers last September. The US claims that they were mistaken for ISIS. Before the airstrike, the Syrian army was winning the battle for control of the area. This strike, and another phony incident in the western part of the country days later, blamed on the Assad government, resulted in derailing the ceasefire that had been negotiated between Kerry and Lavrov.

    Rubicon727 , Apr 13, 2017 11:59 AM

    RT.com reports the issue as: "US-led coalition airstrike mistakenly killed 18 SDF ally fighters in Syria on April 11 – Pentagon" Yup. Just like the US mistakenly murdered Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, one million+ in Iraq, and Viet Nam. A nation you can really believe in.

    MrBoompi , Apr 13, 2017 12:03 PM

    Evidently, even in the face of insurmountable evidence to the contrary, the US will be playing this "ISIS is our enemy" psyop to the bitter fucking end. It seems ISIS would be easy to eliminate, using both military and financial methods. But we focus on getting rid of Assad and when we kill his supporters we claim it was just an accident. I don't think these people in DC and their allies realize how many people around the globe are not falling for their lies.

    Falconsixone , Apr 13, 2017 12:05 PM

    Must have been their 18 best special forces.

    I wonder how mossads isis got the gas away from the Syrian airport?

    I'm thinking they (mossad/cia/pentagram/mi6/etc.) had the whole tomahawk thing planned weeks in advance and made the gas thing up with clumsier counterpart mossad isis (soon to be deadmen) that just killed some kids and waited for the next air strike then made a movie and gave it to jew boy kushners crying fool wife and the rest is now jew history of murders (to be proud I'm sure). News Flash: You jew perverts are losing more everyday and soon will be destroyed forever.

    Mzhen , Apr 13, 2017 12:07 PM

    "Deir ez-Zor is perhaps best known for its oilfields, and previously much of the fighting around the city involved fighting for control over these strategically important objectives. As the oilfields used to provide much of the fuel for the Syrian Arab Army, the Republican Guard, the National Defence Force and Suqur al-Sahara (Desert Falcons), their takeover about a year ago was a serious blow to all forces loyal to Assad and endangered the fuel supply badly needed to mount new offensives."

    http://spioenkop.blogspot.com/2014/12/battlefront-syria-deir-ez-zor.html

    Pitchman , Apr 13, 2017 12:10 PM

    Bomb, bomb, bomb; Bomb, bomb Syria.

    Treason: Were John McCain, McMaster And Brennan Behind The Syrian Gas Attack?

    adamas -> Dre4dwolf , Apr 13, 2017 1:31 PM

    Unfortunately you're the I'll informed lunatic. Dr Assad was a medical Dr based in London prior to the death of his father. He is totally secular and has a British wife. His country has been set upon by terrorist fighters trained and funded by the USA, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (ISIS) the reason for the assault on Syria and the devastation on the country is that the USA wants to pump Qatari natural gas through Syrian territory to Europe in order to break the Russian stranglehold on European gas supplies. Syria is a long standing Russia partner and ally and has resisted the construction of the pipeline. This entire mess is entirely the fault of the western oil majors pulling strings in Washington and London. We have no right to be there, we have no right to be funding terrorism and we have caused the decimation of the Coptic Christian community in Syria as the jihadi conscripts in ISIS have committed horrific slaughter on all of these communities under cover of the US military umbrella. Please stop talking shit.

    personal109 , Apr 13, 2017 12:30 PM

    The US and its allies, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, started this war in Syria in a disastrous attempt to get rid of Assad and snake an oil pipeline through the country. They funneled massive numbers of armaments to Sunni groups with direct affiliations to Al Quada. In the power vacuum they created ISIS and the ensuring refugee crisis. Ask Angela Merkel, she agrees! The Russians, Iran and Assad won the Syrian civil war. But these same clowns, US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are doing whatever they can through their FAKE news media outlets to stir the pot one more time. Pathetic.

    rosiescenario , Apr 13, 2017 12:57 PM

    How is Quagmire spelled?.............SYRIA

    It is amazing that we do not learn from our very large and very recent mistakes in the Middle East......if we actually succeed in getting Assad removed there will be a power vacuum which will then be filled by some crazy extremist religious fanatic who will then proceed to further de-stabilize the region, thus requiring our further efforts to corral the problem.

    We should get out now.....let Russia and Assad deal with ISIS.

    While we are diverting our resources and energy to the ME, we do not take care of our own citizens here at home. The Mexican drug cartels are far more of a threat to us than ISIS or its ilk have ever been. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our inner cities are more dangerous than ME war zones, and our deficits are out of control.

    I really believed that Trump would put America first.....now it appears we are putting Syria first. Just the same old shit.

    Vageling -> rosiescenario , Apr 13, 2017 1:19 PM

    Same for DPRK. Events in the past thaught us the vacuum can't be controlled. Meet the new boss. Even more insane than the previous.

    It is very obvious there is no consensus within the Trump administration just like there is no solid forgein policy. Other than the lame old shit they do not admit to. The chilrun!

    Good news. More instability and the "status quo" under review. Good! Nothing last forever and every empire crumbles eventually. Lets review western alliances as well. Genie is out the bottle anyway.

    Hannibal , Apr 13, 2017 1:17 PM

    Coalition Strikes Daesh Depot With Chemical Weapons in Deir ez-Zor

    The Syrian General Staff said that the US-led coalition struck a Daesh depot storing chemical weapons in Deir ez-Zor on Wednesday. The Syrian military said that this fact proves that terrorists possess chemical weapons.

    "The jets of the so-called US-led coalition launched a strike at about 17:30-17:50 Download Video on a Daesh warehouse where many foreign fighters were present. First a white cloud and then a yellow one appeared at the site of the strike, which points at the presence of a large number of poisonous substances. A fire at the site continued until 22:30 [19:30 GMT]," the Syrian army's command statement obtained by Sputnik said.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/13/us-kills-hundreds-in-chemical-st...

    johnnycanuck , Apr 13, 2017 1:22 PM

    If true, looks like New yawk Don's Wild Wild West tomahawk show merely got Assad an upgrade for his airforce;

    Syria gains more upgraded Su-24M2 bombers

    Posted 13 April 2017 ·

    "The Syrian Arab Armed Forces are receiving 10 examples of the Sukhoi Su-24M2 'Fencer-D' attack aircraft from Russia, augmenting an unknown number of existing 'Fencers'. Jon Lake reports."

    http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/syria-gains-more-upgraded-su-24m2-bombe...

    SU 17s out, SU 24s in. When life gives you a lemon....

    Genby , Apr 13, 2017 1:26 PM

    Wikilieaks: Clinton was informed that Al-Qaida leader al-Zawahiri called to support US in Syria

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23225

    Internet-is-Beast , Apr 13, 2017 2:05 PM

    The chemical weapons had plenty of time to get to those warehouses during the Obama era. They probably came in through the Jarablus Corridor. It is possible that ISIS recently moved them to that warehouse and then made sure the US got the message they were there. ISIS made sure they were placed near a vulnerable population where many children would be killed. The blame will be placed on Assad once again. Sure sounds like a neocon plot.

    Trump is way out of his depth and should probably just resign. He should have thought twice about this obviously contrived setup. I hope for his sake and the sake of his family he quits. No job is worth having innocent blood on your hands. I pity the guy. Everything is going to hell for him.

    If it turns out Jared leaned on him to do this deed, things are even worse. Using his kids as his advisors shows that he really is not fit to be president. The fact that he is better than Hillary and that if he leaves, some evil neocon will replace him is not enough of a reason for him to stay. He is being bled like a stuck pig by the neocons and should think about saving himself and his family.

    Bad_Sushi -> Internet-is-Beast , Apr 13, 2017 3:56 PM

    Its too late for quiting now.

    quax , Apr 13, 2017 2:05 PM

    Surprisingly balanced reporting by the Tylers. Usually the Russian/Syrian stories have been presented as the literal truth.

    deplorable nation , Apr 13, 2017 2:08 PM

    What happened to the Susan Rice story?

    rwe2late -> deplorable nation , Apr 13, 2017 3:23 PM

    Replaced by Trump accusations that the Russians

    "must have" known beforehand (and by insinuation therefore approved)

    the Syrian government murdering children.

    All of this without any evidence or credible motive.

    TheMagician , Apr 13, 2017 2:19 PM

    Technically the russkies can send a squadron of SU-24 bombers flanked by some Mig-35s or even Sukhoi T-50s, and kill every last US trooper in a convoy of assumed ..cough...ISIS scumbags, on the M4 road in Syria that goes all the way into Iraq.

    If Trump starts complaining over dead American soldiers through his sidekick Spicer, he has to explain what they were doing there without congressional approval (which he won´t, unless he is completely insane).

    Putin can further, through his faithful mouthpiece Lavrov, declare that we have the official blessings from the sovereign state of Syria to bomb any invading enemy or said state if we find proof of such invasion...and so on...

    This is a game of chess between war crazy neocons that want to see how far they can push their war agenda until the Russians and Chinese starts killing off American soldiers and navy men on live TV for all to see what happens when a war-mad puppet in the WH starts believing he can take on the entire world without repercussions.

    Internet-is-Beast , Apr 13, 2017 2:37 PM

    I bet ISIS has warehouses full of sarin gas all over western Europe. Read Samuel Laurent's book, Al Qaida en France. He actually visited, several years ago, one of their warehouses in France, though at the time, even though they had many advanced weapons, no mention was made of chemical and biological weapons. But you know the probability is 100% that they now have ample stocks of those weapons, which they will definitely use for acts of terror when they decide the time is right for bringing Europe to its knees.

    Al Qaida actually wants people to know of their capabilities, which is why they granted a weapons depot tour to Laurent. They made sure that he would never know the location of the depot.

    Needless to say, the vast majority of Europeans are insouciant.

    sinbad2 -> Internet-is-Beast , Apr 13, 2017 5:09 PM

    The US/Israel usually keeps a pretty tight leash on the gas it supplies to al Qaeda, I guess they are scared that the moozies might bite the hand that feeds them.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Trump Flips On Five Core Campaign Promises In Under 24 Hours

    Apr 13, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Blink, and you missed Trump's blistering, seamless transformation into a mainstream politician.

    In the span of just a few hours, President Trump flipped to new positions on several core policy issues, backing off on no less than five repeated campaign promises.

    In a WSJ interview and a subsequent press conference, Trump either shifted or completely reversed positions on a number of foreign and economic policy decisions, including the fate of the US Dollar, how to handle China and the future of the chair of the Federal Reserve.

    Goodbye strong dollar and high interest rates

    In an announcement that rocked currency markets , Trump told the WSJ that the U.S. dollar "is getting too strong" and he would prefer the Federal Reserve keep interest rates low. "I do like a low-interest rate policy, I must be honest with you," Mr. Trump said. "I think our dollar is getting too strong, and partially that's my fault because people have confidence in me . But that's hurting-that will hurt ultimately," he added. "Look, there's some very good things about a strong dollar, but usually speaking the best thing about it is that it sounds good."

    Trump then said the one thing that every other currency manipulator realizes all too well: "It's very, very hard to compete when you have a strong dollar and other countries are devaluing their currency. "

    During his campaign Trump had repeatedly said that a "strong dollar" policy would be beneficial for the US economy, despite our repeat warnings that he will inevitably reverse on this, especially if and when the "Goldman" circle of advisors starts providing macroconomic advice.

    It is unclear if the shift in Trump's policy will mean that US economic data will now "mysteriously" begin to deteriorate to justify not only his request for a weaker dollar, but to also hit the breaks on Yellen's plans for further rate hikes over the next 2-3 years. In any case, the debate over the Fed's balance sheet unwind, and the trajectory of Fed hikes, is now on indefinite hiatus.

    The biggest loser here, again, are America's savers who may have been hoping that their bank deposits will finally earn some interest.

    As for the most notable outcome from this Trump statement, is that it counters his "desire" for a weaker dollar with the Fed's tightening bias. Will fireworks fly as Trump realizes that Yellen's actions are prompting the strong dollar? Stay tuned for what may be the most entertaining clash yet: Trump vs Yellen.

    * * *

    Labeling China a currency manipulator

    Trump also told the Wall Street Journal that China is not artificially deflating the value of its currency, a big change after he repeatedly pledged during his campaign to label the country a currency manipulator.

    "They're not currency manipulators," the president said, adding that China hasn't been manipulating its currency for months, and that he feared derailing U.S.-China talks to crack down on North Korea. Trump routinely criticized President Obama for not labeling China a currency manipulator, and promised during the campaign to do so on day one of his administration.

    Trump's declaration also means that Peter Navarro may as well pack his bags, as the Goldman economic advisory team has now won its contest with the "Bannon nationalist" circle.

    * * *

    Yellen's future

    Trump also told the Journal he'd consider re-nominating Yellen to chair the Fed's board of governors, after attacking her during his campaign." I like her. I respect her," Trump said, "It's very early."

    Trump called Yellen "obviously political" in September and accused her of keeping interest rates low to boost the stock market and make Obama look good. "As soon as [rates] go up, your stock market is going to go way down, most likely," Trump said. "Or possibly."

    * * *

    Export-Import Bank

    Trump also voiced support behind the Export-Import Bank, which helps subsidize some U.S. exports, after opposing it during the campaign.

    "It turns out that, first of all, lots of small companies are really helped, the vendor companies," Trump told the Journal. "Instinctively, you would say, 'Isn't that a ridiculous thing,' but actually, it's a very good thing. And it actually makes money, it could make a lot of money."

    Trump's support will anger conservative opponents of the bank, who say it enables crony capitalism.

    * * *

    NATO

    Finally, Trump said NATO is "no longer obsolete" during a Wednesday press conference with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, backtracking on his past criticism of the alliance. During the campaign, he frequently called the organization "obsolete," saying did little to crack down on terrorism and that its other members don't pay their "fair share."

    "I said it was obsolete. It is no longer obsolete," the president said Wednesday.

    Trump has gradually become more supportive of NATO after it ramped up efforts to increase U.S. and European intelligence sharing regarding terrorism. Trump still insisted that NATO allies "meet their financial obligations and pay what they owe." He said he discussed with Stoltenberg his desire that allies put 2 percent of their gross domestic products into defense by 2024.

    * * *

    Add to this Trump's first, most prominent reversal, the launch of air strikes on Syria last Friday after repeatedly bashing Obama for even considering that, and Trump's transformation into a mainstream politician now appears complete.

    stacking12321 -> BaBaBouy , Apr 12, 2017 7:34 PM

    WHY ARE PEOPLE DENYING REALITY?

    the CIA has a top secret brain-switching technology, they used it to put hillary's brain into donald's body.

    you can pretend it didn't happen, but reality says otherwise.

    Whoa Dammit -> nmewn , Apr 12, 2017 6:59 PM

    I met Trump back in the day at the Taj.

    The important thing to know about him is he wants whoever he is talking to at the moment to like him, and will say anything to make it so. He is the ultimate yes man.

    Al Gophilia -> knukles , Apr 12, 2017 6:53 PM

    We've been grabbed by the pussy.

    Is-Be -> AnonG-Man , Apr 12, 2017 9:08 PM

    They were pretend war crimes Except for the 8? casualties. Even the best military operations have casualties.

    Its pretty hard to loose 57 cruise missiles and not hit something.

    ( Big hint. The captain of the missile ship did not refuse his orders because they were unconstitutional)

    Trumformers. More than meets the eye.

    Posit; Slavering chickenhawks outdo each other in secret meetings because of penis envy. They rely on Mr.T. to hold them in check. And then he let's go of their leads. Oops.

    Ever seen two dogs arguing through the safety of a fence, and then they get to the open gate?

    I think either that happened or Trump is the ultimate Yes man.

    Whatever. The result is the same.

    Kidbuck -> AnonG-Man , Apr 12, 2017 9:29 PM

    The fucking muzzies hide behind women and children. Of course there will be casualties.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Neocons Have Trump on His Knees

    Notable quotes:
    "... Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.) ..."
    "... But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows." ..."
    "... But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: The Democrats' Russia-made-Hillary-lose hysteria has pushed a weakened President Trump into the arms of the neocons who now have a long list of endless-war ideas for him to implement, reports Robert Parry.

    After slapping Donald Trump around for several months to make him surrender his hopes for a more cooperative relationship with Russia, the neocons and their liberal-interventionist allies are now telling the battered President what he must do next: escalate war in the Middle East and ratchet up tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.

    Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Fountain Park in Fountain Hills, Arizona. March 19, 2016. (Flickr Gage Skidmore)

    Star neocon Robert Kagan spelled out Trump's future assignments in a column on Sunday in The Washington Post, starting out by patting the chastened President on the head for his decision to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles at an airstrip in Syria supposedly in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack blamed on the Syrian government (although no serious investigation was even conducted).

    Trump earned widespread plaudits for his decisive action and his heart-on-the-sleeve humanitarianism as his voice filled with emotion citing the chemical-weapons deaths on April 4 of "small children and even beautiful little babies." The U.S. media then helpfully played down reports from Syria that Trump's April 6 retaliatory missile strike had killed about 15 people, including nine civilians, four of whom were children.

    However, for Kagan, the missile strike was only a good start. An advocate for "regime change" in Syria and a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century which pushed for the Iraq War, Kagan praised Trump "for doing what the Obama administration refused to do," i.e. involve the U.S. military directly in attacks on the Syrian government.

    "But," Kagan added, "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the Bashar al-Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of U.S. power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration's policies over the past six years."

    Kagan continued: "Trump was not wrong to blame the dire situation in Syria on President Barack Obama. The world would be a different place today if Obama had carried out his threat to attack Syria when Assad crossed the famous 'red line' in the summer of 2013. The bad agreement that then-Secretary of State John F. Kerry struck with Russia not only failed to get rid of Syria's stock of chemical weapons and allowed the Assad regime to drop barrel bombs and employ widespread torture against civilian men, women and children. It also invited a full-scale Russian intervention in the fall of 2015, which saved the Assad regime from possible collapse."

    A Seasoned Propagandist

    Kagan, who cut his teeth in the Reagan administration running a State Department propaganda shop on Central America, has never been particularly interested in nuance or truth, so he wouldn't care that Obama pulled back from attacking Syria in summer 2013, in part, because his intelligence advisers told him they lacked proof that Assad was responsible for a mysterious sarin attack. (Since then, the evidence has indicated that the attack was likely a provocation by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate with help from Turkish intelligence.)

    Prominent neocon intellectual Robert Kagan. (Photo credit: Mariusz Kubik, http://www.mariuszkubik.pl)

    But groupthinks die hard – and pretty much every Important Person in Official Washington just knows that Assad did carry out that sarin attack, just like they all knew that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was hiding WMDs in 2003. So, it follows in a kind of twisted logical way that they would build off the fake history regarding the 2013 Syria-sarin case and apply it to the new groupthink that Assad has carried out this latest attack, too. Serious fact-finding investigations are not needed; everyone just "knows."

    But Kagan is already looking ahead. Having pocketed Trump's capitulation last week on Syria, Kagan has shifted his sights onto the much juicier targets of Russia and Iran.

    "Russia has greatly expanded its military presence in the eastern Mediterranean," Kagan wrote. "Obama and Kerry spent four years panting after this partnership, but Russia has been a partner the way the mafia is when it presses in on your sporting goods business. Thanks to Obama's policies, Russia has increasingly supplanted the United States as a major power broker in the region. Even U.S. allies such as Turkey, Egypt and Israel look increasingly to Moscow as a significant regional player.

    "Obama's policies also made possible an unprecedented expansion of Iran's power and influence. If you add the devastating impact of massive Syrian refugee flows on European democracies, Obama's policies have not only allowed the deaths of almost a half-million Syrians but also have significantly weakened America's global position and the health and coherence of the West."

    Trump's Probation

    Yes, all that was Obama's fault for not invading Syria with a couple of hundred thousand U.S. troops because that's what would have been required to achieve Kagan's "regime change" goal in Syria. And there's no reason to think that the Syrian invasion would have been any less bloody than the bloody Kagan-advocated invasion of Iraq. But Kagan and the neocons never take responsibility for their various bloodbaths. It's always someone else's fault.

    President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, attends a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Dec. 12, 2013. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    And now Kagan is telling Trump that there is still much he must do to earn his way back into the good graces of the neocons.

    Kagan continued, "Trump, of course, greatly exacerbated these problems during his campaign, with all the strong rhetoric aimed at allies. Now he has taken an important first step in repairing the damage, but this will not be the end of the story. America's adversaries are not going to be convinced by one missile strike that the United States is back in the business of projecting power to defend its interests and the world order.

    "The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the stomach for confrontation."

    And confrontation is surely what Kagan has in mind, adding:

    "Instead of being a one-time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and military strategy to rebalance the situation in Syria in America's favor. That means reviving some of those proposals that Obama rejected over the past four years: a no-fly zone to protect Syrian civilians, the grounding of the Syrian air force, and the effective arming and training of the moderate opposition, all aimed at an eventual political settlement that can bring the Syrian civil war, and therefore the Assad regime, to an end.

    "The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt it. This in turn will require moving sufficient military assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate the conflict to a crisis, and to be sure that American forces will be ready if they do.

    "Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong U.S. response in Syria would make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."

    On His Knees

    To put this message in the crude terms that President Trump might understand, now that the neocons have forced him to his knees, they are demanding that he open his mouth. They will not be satisfied with anything short of a massive U.S. military intervention in the Middle East and a full-scale confrontation with Russia (and perhaps China).

    Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

    This sort of belligerence is what the neocons and liberal hawks had expected from Hillary Clinton, whom Kagan had endorsed. Some sources claim that a President Hillary Clinton planned to appoint Kagan's neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, as Secretary of State.

    As Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under Obama, Nuland oversaw the U.S.-backed putsch that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014, replacing him with a fiercely anti-Russian regime, the move that touched off civil war in Ukraine and sparked the New Cold War between the U.S. and Russia. [For more on Kagan clan, see Consortiumnews.com's " A Family Business of Perpetual War ."]

    Clinton's defeat was a stunning setback but the neocons never give up. They are both well-organized and well-funded, dominating Official Washington's think tanks and media outlets, sharing some power with their junior partners, the liberal interventionists, who differ mostly in the rationales cited for invading other countries. (The neocons mostly talk about global power and democracy promotion, while the liberal hawks emphasize "human rights.")

    In dealing with the narcissistic and insecure Trump, the neocons and liberal hawks conducted what amounted to a clever psychological operation. They rallied mainstream media personalities and Democrats horrified at Trump's victory. In particular, Democrats and their angry base were looking for any reason to hold out hope for Trump's impeachment. Hyping alleged Russian "meddling" in the election became the argument of choice.

    Night after night, MSNBC and other networks competed in their Russia-bashing to boost ratings among Trump-hating Democrats. Meanwhile, Democratic politicians, such as Rep. Adam Schiff of California, saw the Russia-gate hearings as a ticket to national glory. And professional Democratic strategists could evade their responsibility for running a dismal presidential campaign by shifting the blame to the Russians.

    However, besides creating a convenient excuse for Clinton's defeat, the anti-Russian hysteria blocked Trump and his team from any move that they might try to make regarding avoidance of a costly and dangerous New Cold War. The Russia-hating frenzy reached such extremes that it paralyzed the formulation of any coherent Trump foreign policy.

    Now, with the neocons regaining influence on the National Security Council via NSC adviser Gen. H.R. McMaster, a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus, the neocon holding action against the New Détente has shifted into an offensive to expand the hot war in Syria and intensify the New Cold War with Russia. As Kagan recognized, Trump's hasty decision to fire off missiles was a key turning point in the reassertion of neocon/liberal-hawk dominance over U.S. foreign policy.

    It's also suddenly clear how thoroughly liberal Democrats were taken for a ride on the war train by getting them to blame Russia for Hillary Clinton's defeat. The liberals (and even many progressives) hated Trump so much that they let themselves be used in the service of neocon/liberal-hawk endless war policies. Now, it may be too late to turn the train around.

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Apr 13, 2017] Trump's Gambit Sacrificing a Fascist for Establishment Approval and Israeli Propaganda By Yoav Litvin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yoav Litvin is a doctor of psychology / behavioral neuroscience , a documentary photographer and writer living in New York City . ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.telesurtv.net
    President Trump wants to help "beautiful babies" in Syria by bombing the country. | Photo: AFP

    The U.S. president's gambit worked. Flip-Flop President

    Since his election as the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump has been fighting multiple fronts: " Russiagate " has remained persistently on the mainstream agenda, the media has been highly critical of his cabinet appointments, a spike in xenophobic and anti-Semitic incidents in the U.S. has been attributed to his associations with the "alt-right" , and after his failed attempt at repealing Obamacare members of his own party have been on the attack, smelling blood. With record low approval ratings in recent polls , Donald Trump has been in desperate need of a miracle.

    RELATED:
    How 'Anti-Trump' Liberal Media Cheered Syria Attack

    On April 4th, residents of the rebel-held city Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province, Syria were attacked with chemical weapons. Trump quickly seized on this Syrian catastrophe as an opportunity.

    Prior to any kind of formal investigation, The White House determined that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack, with Trump flip-flopping on a statement made less than a week beforehand by his Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley who stated that Assad's removal was "no longer a priority".

    On April 5th Trump removed Stephen Bannon from the National Security Council (NSC). Bannon championed Trump's "America First" doctrine and was opposed to military action in Syria. Further, the move appeased the liberal establishment that was critical of Bannon's fascistic "alt-right" and White supremacist associations.

    Thus, after neutralizing opposition from within (Steve Bannon) and instilling the appropriate local propaganda ( Sean Spicer ), a strike on Syria would align Trump with establishment conservatives and neoliberals , as well as the corporate media.

    On April 6th, to quote CNN's political pundit Fareed Zakaria , "Trump became President" when he bombed Syria. Indeed, Trump was immediately embraced by an adoring and uncritical American media (also here ), as well as by a bipartisan political establishment.

    But what did Syria's immediate neighbor and America's closest ally in the Middle East – Israel – think of a strike so close to home? Israeli support is fundamental to the survival, success and popularity of American Presidents, and Trump knows this well.

    Israeli Consensus

    Trump's courtship of Israel has been ongoing.

    It fully took off at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in March, 2016. Since, Donald Trump has proven his loyalty to right-wing Zionists by supporting the expansion of Israeli settlements and the annexation of parts of the West Bank , prioritizing the controversial move of the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, announcing the death of the two-state solution during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the White House and appointing his bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman as ambassador to Israel. Only recently, Nikki Haley received a "rockstar welcome" at the annual 2017 AIPAC meeting when she promised to treat what the Israeli government and its allies view as an inherent bias against Israel at the UN.

    Trump's April 6th strike on Assad forces was yet another advance in his longstanding bromance with Netanyahu.

    RELATED:
    Bolivia UN Envoy on Syria Attack: 'History Teaches Us' US Lies to Justify Wars

    In Israel the strikes were met with resounding approval and even applause; nothing reassures Israelis more than an American show of force in the "rough neighborhood of the Middle East". The last time a bombing was met with such glee in Israel was during Operation Protective Edge in 2014, when residents of Sderot gathered on hilltops opposite Gaza to watch its bombardment by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF).

    Israeli Propaganda

    "Wall to wall support in Israel for US attack on Syria" claimed Gil Hoffman of the Jerusalem Post in a recent piece that laid out a seemingly rare case of political agreement in Israel, whereby Netanyahu's government coalition and its opposition were unanimous in their support of Donald Trump's decision to bomb Assad's army. From Zehava Gal-On (Meretz), Isaac Herzog (Zionist Union) and Tzipi Livni (Zionist Union) to Oren Hazan (Likud), Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) and Moti Yogev (Bayit Yehudi) the Israeli political spectrum was presented as lock, stock and barrel behind Donald Trump.

    But does such a consensus really exist throughout the entirety of the Israeli political spectrum?

    A closer look at the article reveals that by "wall to wall support" the right-wing Jerusalem Post only considered Zionist parties, while completely ignoring the Arab Joint List, no small party at 13 mandates making it the third largest in the Israeli Knesset.

    In fact, the Joint List was unanimous in its disapproval of the American bombing , but could not agree on a condemnation of Assad as responsible for the chemical weapons attack. Although Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman was "100% sure" the attack was perpetuated by Assad's forces , members of the Joint List remained unconvinced, siding with Assad's regime over his opposition or claiming that regardless of the perpetrators, American intervention is counterproductive as is all other foreign intervention, including Russian.

    In contrast to the uniform Zionist support for Trump, the subtleties of opinion and disagreements within the Joint List faithfully echo the long-lasting and ongoing worldwide debate over the war in Syria. Thus, the omission of The Joint List from the Jerusalem Post's pro-Trump propaganda piece was clearly not an oversight, but meant to convey unanimous Israeli support for Trump's aggressive tactics, while disregarding those who do not serve the expansionist Zionist objectives. After all, Assad represents a united Syria to which the occupied Golan Heights can theoretically be returned as a condition for peace. Further, Assad serves as a key ally of Israel's mortal enemy Iran and a channel from which the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah receives weapons from its Iranian benefactors.

    Clearly, Trump's gambit worked. For the price of 59 Tomahawk missiles , he managed to align himself with the DC establishment, recapture corporate media, distance himself from the controversial and fascistic Bannon and as an added bonus, increase his popularity among American Jews and Israelis. His move threw egg in the face at those who underestimated his prowess and opportunism.

    Yoav Litvin is a doctor of psychology / behavioral neuroscience , a documentary photographer and writer living in New York City .

    This article was originally published at Mondoweiss .

    [Apr 13, 2017] The Escalating War on Syria and Need for International Law Opinion teleSUR English

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Yesterday's chemical attack in Syria [was] against innocent people including women, small children and even beautiful little babies. Their deaths was an affront to humanity. These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much." ..."
    "... "The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces." ..."
    "... Faulty intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action." ..."
    "... Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." ..."
    "... What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State." ..."
    "... Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He lives in the SF Bay Area and can be contacted at [email protected] ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.telesurtv.net
    Opinion > Articles The Escalating War on Syria and Need for International Law --> By: Rick Sterling
    • U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter conducts strike operations against Syria while in the Mediterranean Sea. U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Porter conducts strike operations against Syria while in the Mediterranean Sea. | Photo: Reuters
    Published 7 April 2017
    • span span < fb-xfbml-state="rendered" data-href="http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-Escalating-War-on-Syria-and-Need-for-International-Law-20170407-0008.html"> 0 Comments
    • Comments
    Increases text size - Decreases text size Follow us TheWorldToday International law has been undermined and replaced by "humanitarian law,"contributing to the current disastrous situation whereby a war is being waged under a humanitarian pretext. On Tuesday, April 4, there were reports of children and other civilians killed by chemical poisoning in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, Syria. There were contradictory reports, some saying they smelled the gas; others claiming it caused immediate death like odorless sarin.

    RELATED: US Attacks Syrian Base with 59 Missiles After Chemical Attack

    On Wednesday, April 5, President Trump blamed the Syrian government despite conflicting reports and contradictory information and accusations. He said, "Yesterday's chemical attack in Syria [was] against innocent people including women, small children and even beautiful little babies. Their deaths was an affront to humanity. These heinous actions by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."

    On Thursday, April 6, Trump ordered a 'targeted military strike' on Syria with 50 tomahawk missiles attacking the primary Syrian air base near Homs. This base is used to support the combat with ISIS in eastern Syria and Nusra / al Qaida in Idlib province.

    As I will show below, it is likely the deaths in Khan Sheikhoun were caused by an armed opposition faction, not the Syrian government. The goal was precisely what has happened: a media firestorm leading to direct U.S. aggression against Syria.Syria.

    What Happened and How?

    On April 4 news broke of a 'chemical weapon' attack in Syria. Western media and governments quickly blamed the Syrian government. Just as quickly, neoconservatives such as Sen. John McCain recalled the 2013 crisis when Pres Obama ultimately decided not to attack Syria. Israeli PM Netanyahu chimed in with a not-too-subtle renewed call for war on Syria. He tweeted that it's time for the international community to "fulfill its obligations from 2013."

    Basic facts include:

    - On March 22, the government-controlled town of Khattab was over-run by militants with some civilians kidnapped and taken to the nearby opposition-controlled town of Khan Sheikhoun.

    - On April 4, up to 80 persons, including many children, died at Khan Sheikhoun. Some showed signs of chemical poisoning. Photographs, videos, analyses and other sources are documented at "A Closer Look At Syria" .

    - one of the videos features the UK born and raised Dr. Shajul Islam . He received his UK medical license in 2012 but had the license suspended due to reports he was involved in the kidnapping in Syria of journalist John Cantlie.

    - Many of the video scenes depict an area set into a limestone quarry with apparent caves and storage depots. There are flatbed trucks with bodies scattered on the ground in this semi-industrial area. Other video show scenes in a medical clinic.

    - Photographs show "White Helmet" individuals handling bodies without gloves which is very strange if they died or were dying from chemical poison.

    Who is responsible?

    There are three theories about what happened:

    - The western government narrative is that the Syrian "regime" is responsible. They fired illegal chemical weapons into the town, primarily killing innocent civilians and many children.

    - The Syrian army acknowledges firing air strikes but denies using chemical weapons at this or anytime. This area was the base for militant attacks against government areas in Hama province in the preceding weeks. The Russian Ministry of Defense says that militants had a weapons production factory including chemical weapon ingredients, and that may have been hit and caused the chemical weapon deaths.

    - A third theory is the kidnapped civilians from Khattab were killed or poisoned by the militants as part of a staged event.

    Evidence Pointing to the Militants

    Looking at the facts, history and overall circumstances, it is far more likely the armed opposition is responsible for this event. Here is why:

    (1) The incident and publicity help the opposition and hurt the government.

    Crime investigations usually begin with the question: Who has a motive? In this case, it's strikingly clear that the armed opposition and their supporters benefit from this event. They have used the story to further demonize the Assad government and make renewed calls for the United States and "the world" to intervene.

    The Syrian government is making steady advances in many parts of the country. They have no reason to use chemical weapons; they have every reason to NOT use chemical weapons. They know very well that the armed opposition has immediate access to major media.

    RELATED: US Attacks on Syria Constitutes International Armed Conflict: Red Cross

    Accusations that the Syrian government intentionally attacks civilians is contradicted by their policies and actions. As demonstrated last Decembers in Aleppo, civilians are welcomed from opposition areas into government controlled areas. Even Syrian militants are welcomed after they sign an agreement to lay down arms.

    It is also relevant to consider timing. There is a pattern of sensational events helpful to the armed opposition occurring simultaneously with critical international meetings or actions. In this case, the events in Khan Sheikhoun occurred the day before an important conference on Syria in Brussels. The conference titled "Supporting the future of Syria and the region" has been effectively sidetracked by news about the chemical weapons attack and the Syrian government being blamed.

    (2) Extremists were responsible for the August 2013 Chemical Weapon attack in Damascus.

    Western supporters of the armed opposition were quick to blame the Syrian government for the chemical attack in Ghouta on August 21, 2013. However, subsequent investigations by the most credible investigative journalists and researchers concluded the Syrian government was probably NOT responsible. Seymour Hersh and Robert Parry concluded the attack was most likely carried out by militants with support from Turkey. The in-depth examination titled WhoGhouta concluded , "The only plausible scenario that fits the evidence is an attack by opposition forces." An MIT study made a detailed trajectory analysis, concluded that the missile could not have been fired from government territory and warned: " Faulty intelligence could have led to an unjustified US military action."

    (3) Armed Opposition Groups have a history of Staging Incidents

    From the start, the Syrian conflict has included an information war. Hillary Clinton boasted of "training for more than a thousand activists, students and independent journalists." In December 2012, NBC journalist Richard Engel was reportedly kidnapped and abused by "shabiha" supporters of the Syrian government. Engel and his film crew were "liberated" by Free Syrian Army rebels after a gunfight with the Assad supporting kidnappers. In reality, the entire episode from kidnapping to rescue was a hoax designed to demonize Assad supporters and glorify the "rebels". The true story emerged years later after the actual events were leaked. When it was going to be made public, Engel finally admitted the truth.

    (4) Supporters of the armed opposition have a history of fabricating stories which demonize the Syrian Government.

    In February 2014, it was announced that a defecting Syrian military photographer, who was anonymous but code-named "Caesar", had 55,000 photos showing the torture and murder of 11,000 innocent Syrian civilians. This news received sensational media attention with live interviews on CNN and front page coverage throughout the western world. The news relied on the judgment of legal prosecutors who "verified" the story and produced a "Caesar Report". This was released the day before the start of Geneva negotiations. It effectively disrupted the talks and facilitated the "rebels" refusal to negotiate and walk away. In reality, the "verification" and report was commissioned by the government of Qatar which has been a major funder of the armed opposition. Since then it has been discovered that nearly half the 55,000 photos show the opposite of what was claimed: they show dead Syrian soldiers and victims of explosions NOT tortured civilians. That is just one of the findings confirming the fraud involved in this sensational story. A concise expose of "Caesar" is here .

    How the Public has been Misinformed on Syria

    Historian and journalist Stephen Kinzer has said , " Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press." Here are a few examples showing the bias, half-truths and outright false statements regarding the events at Khan Sheikhoun:

    Trump Syria

    - The PBS Newshour typically features two guests who are questioned by the host. The problem is that their guests consistently share the same basic viewpoint. On April 4, one guest was from the Soros-funded Physicians for Human Rights. She claimed, "We know that sarin has been used before by the Assad regime." In fact, that has NOT been confirmed by any credible organization. On the contrary, the most thorough investigations point to sarin being used by the armed opposition NOT the Syrian government. The other guest was Andrew Tabler from the neoconservative Israeli associated "Washington Institute". His editorial from last Fall makes clear what he wants: " The case for (finally) bombing Assad ." The discussion on Syria at PBS Newshour is consistently biased.

    - The New York Times feature story on April 4 was " Worst Chemical Attack in Years in Syria; U.S. Blames Assad" . One of the authors, Michael Gordon, was an influential proponent for "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" that justified the 2003 invasion. But that has apparently not hurt his career. In this story on Syria, he and co-author Anne Barnard claim that "American intelligence agencies concluded" the 2013 attack was carried out by the Syrian government. That is false. The intelligence agencies did NOT agree and the "assessment" came from the White House not the intelligence agencies. It is astounding that they either do not know this or they are intentionally misleading the public. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity explained the significance in their memorandum "A Call for Syria - Sarin Proof" .

    - DemocracyNow is a popular television/radio show. It is widely considered to be "progressive" but is also highly biased in its presentation on Syria. It almost solely promotes the perspective of those who support the armed opposition and/or western intervention in Syria. On April 5, they interviewed Dr. Rola Hallam. She is infamous for being the key player in the documentary "Saving Syria's Children" which purports to show a chemical weapon attack in Aleppo but was actually staged . The "documentary" was then broadcast at a critical time trying to influence the 2013 vote in British parliament for an attack on Syria. On April 6, DemocracyNow interviewed another "Syrian" who lives in the West and promotes western intervention: Lina Sergie Attar. Viewers of DemocracyNow have no idea that the majority of Syrians support the government and especially the national Army in their struggle against invasion and terrorism.

    Public understanding about what's happening in Syria has been seriously confused by the bad analysis of prominent analysts. Some have suggested that Israel was content to live with Assad. Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren clarified the truth as he said "we always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to those who were backed by Iran." In short, Israel prefers al Qaida or ISIS or, better yet, the conflict to continue so that both sides are destroyed.

    Before the conflict began, in 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made demands to Damascus that all revolved around Israeli interests. She wanted Syria to end its alliance with Hezbollah, to reduce its interactions with Iran and to come to an agreement with Israel. In contrast to what some analysts have said, Israeli interests have been a major factor driving and maintaining the conflict. With the liberation of Aleppo and prospect of a victory by Syria and allies, Israeli demands to escalate the war have probably increased.

    Some of the world's most famed political analysts have contributed to the confusion and lack of resistance as the war on Syria has continued. For example, Noam Chomsky on DemocracyNow two days ago said "The Assad regime is a moral disgrace, the Russians with them." Evidently, he believes all or most of the accusations which have said about the 'regime'. In sharp contrast with Chomsky's assessment, it's remarkable that Syria has held together as well as it has in the face of attack by some of the most powerful and rich countries on earth. Over 100,000 Syrians have given their lives defending their country against the onslaught. Russia has supported their ally in compliance with international law, continually trying to work with the U.S. coalition as a "partner" against terrorism. Evidently, Chomsky is unaware or does not believe the extent of lies that have been created around Syria. Evidently, he does not recognize the distorted and shameful media coverage mentioned by Kinzer. Everyone makes mistakes but Chomsky's poor analysis here is a whopper. If he was to visit Syria and talk with real Syrians I think his perception would be dramatically changed just as described by the PBS Frontline crew here . With consummate hypocrisy, both Syrian and Russian governments are now demonized by western neoconservatives and liberals who have done little or nothing to stop their own government's collusion with terrorists raining havoc and destruction in Syria.

    The need to restore International Law

    International law has been undermined and replaced by "humanitarian law". This has contributed to the current disastrous situation whereby the U.S. and NATO are waging aggression under a humanitarian pretext.

    International law regarding attacks on sovereign states is clear: it is illegal unless authorized by the UN Security Council or in legitimate self-defense. It is clear that Syria poses no threat to any of its neighbors or any other nation. It is also clear that Syria has been the victim for six long years of aggression by foreign states which have funded and promoted a proxy army of fanatics and mercenaries from around the world.

    As the former Nicaraguan Foreign Minister and President of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D'Escoto, has said: " What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State."

    RELATED: Syria Wants Turkey 'Invasion Forces' Out, US, Russia Cooperate

    There has been a sustained attempt to derail Trump's campaign pledge to stop the US "regime change" policy. This has been accompanied by a semi-hysterical demonization of Syria's ally Russia. Liberals have been willing accomplices in this campaign which serves the interests of the U.S. military-security complex, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    It looks like the foreign policy hawks and neocons have succeeded. Yesterday's attacks on Syria mark an escalation in the war of aggression and violation of international law against Syria. This could lead to WW3 unless there is sufficient outcry and opposition.

    Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He lives in the SF Bay Area and can be contacted at [email protected]

    [Apr 13, 2017] The first act of Trump "make war great again"; lend the US navy to al Nusra

    Apr 13, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> RGC... , April 12, 2017 at 01:46 PM
    The first act of Trump "make war great again"; lend the US navy to al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria, now calling themselves Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)). Bin Laden is pleased!

    US media propaganda aiding and abetting the terrorists, imagine if someone called the Taliban "beleaguered rebel factions".

    Idlib province "one of the last strongholds for beleaguered rebel factions...." Bilious malarkey, Washington Post full mini truth speak. The Post supports beleaguered remnants of al Qaeda not plain sounding 'rebel factions'!

    We all love cheap gasoline/heating oil and pandering to the religious nobility of the Gulf Cooperation Council (invited to G7 to represent al Qaeda) is also good for wall st. I get it that there is no risk 8% profit margins from squandering 4% of GDP on war without end Amen!

    I get that Ivanka wept about the terrorists' human shield dead kids in Syria was high morality especially while we sell cluster bombs for the religious nobility of the Gulf Cooperation Council to do it in and around Sanaa. I get it that remorselessly taking Mosul apart cinderblock by cinderblock must be kept out of the news cycle. I get that needing a "moderate jihadi" brigade and 400 US sorties to not take out 200 ISIS fighters is embarrassing.

    I get that you don't question the Trump "make war great again" version of yellow cake. I get Ivanka was over emotional. It is so easy!

    Who relies on the Trump "make war great again" press? How come you have to go to EU sources to find out that Khan Sheikhoun is the place where the false flag was staged, not "NW Syria"? It is south of Aleppo, on the main road to Damascus! How come US press calls them "activists" while a little research if you knew the name of the town and the "activists" are al Nusra, which does beheadings as efficiently as ISIS but is a lot closer to the Arabian Peninsula Wahabbists working for bin Laden mujahedeen trust.

    Sticking to Trump "make war great again" press you can ignore the fact the "moderate" jihadis, US are training, can do nothing without massive US support. If Syria were open to be picked it is al Nusra and ISIS will come out on top! Then you have the situation that Iraq fell into with no Shiites to balance the Sunni crazies.

    Why not try nation building in Korea? There Trump "make war great again" might secure our South Korean manufactures after experiencing some nuclear detonations ..

    All of the above is why the G7 "failed" aside from Johnson the G5 are not conned into agreeing to confront Putin, the Trump "make war great again" case does not sell if you have a few pieces of evidence and can reason.

    libezkova -> ilsm... , April 12, 2017 at 04:39 PM
    "The first act of Trump "make war great again"; lend the US navy to Al Nusra (al Qaeda in Syria, now calling themselves Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)). Bin Laden is pleased!"

    No this is the second act. The first was putting hawks in senior position and betraying Flynn and now Bannon, who was definitely against the strikes.

    "Sticking to Trump "make war great again" press you can ignore the fact the 'moderate' jihadis... "

    What amaze me most is not even the level of jingoism, but the level of intellectual impotence of the MSM.

    Comment section in Guardian has intellectual level far superior to them. Please look at

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/12/syria-regime-change-bashar-al-assad-mistake#comments

    Most US MSM articles on the event are just KSA-style unconditional praising of the king by court sycophants and swiping under the carpet the fact the slogan "Make America Great Again" was now replaced with "Make Islamic Emirate Under Sharia Law Great Again". what regime change will lead in Syria is the second KSA with Sharia Law, beheadings and women treated as a cattle. May be even slave trade, as now is common practice in Libya.

    Geopolitically is a serious incident and its escalation would definitely get us where we should be if Hillary had been elected. In other words the difference between Trump and Hillary in foreign policy is now minimal and can be eliminated completely with a sex change operation.

    See also interesting, but flawed analysis of a former intelligence analyst writing under nickname of "the Saker" at http://www.unz.com/tsaker/a-multi-level-analysis-of-the-us-cruise-missile-attack-on-syria-and-its-consequences/#comments

    which does not take into account the fact that Russia since 1991 was not able to recover economically and the last thing it needs is a confrontation with crumbling but still powerful US neoliberal empire. Looks like Putin has blinked – he met with Tillerson. So without any strong allies it and facing the armada of major Western States led by the USA and its satellites including Turkey, KSa and Jordan, it is now on the ropes. Especially taking into account that Chinese definitely want to sit this out as a neutral observer of how "two tigers fight in the valley".

    It is almost funny, if it was not so tragic, that everybody dutifully imitates "search of a black cat in the dark room knowing that there is no cat in the room" Published "intelligence report" remind Italian "yellow cake" fabrication so strongly that it looks like history does repeat, not only rhymes as Mark Twain supposed. As farce.

    As a side note, I doubt that Trump now decide anything. He already folded and is now just a figurehead, a marionette.

    Actually I am thinking that getting his family into this complex mess was a big mistake. He is 70, So, at least theoretically, he can "die for the cause" like in good old times" cleaning the swamp. Divorcing Melanie would be a good move to free hands for a fight with neocons. Even if this means to die in the fight like a real patriot. But with family "in" the situation became completely self-defeating.

    So what is left for him now are self-embarrassing remarks during interviews. Everything else is probably already done by "other people".

    [Apr 13, 2017] Is This The End Of The Trump Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... Whoever observed Trump's moves carefully would have noticed it. His talks of safe-zones with the Saudis, his disinterest of meeting Putin, despite the latter one voicing his availability several times. Instead changing plans to meet Merkel in March already, when intially the plan was not to meet her until July. Trump is a fraud, he did what he had to to get elected and for many it's a rude awakening to realize that they'd been played and that the deep state is still in absolute control. The question will be where will those voters go next, now that neither Republican nor Democratic party offers any opportunity out of this quandrum. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    On April 4 2017 in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun, a city controlled by western-backed terrorists, chemical weapons killed more than eighty civilians. Immediately, local and foreign sources (the White Helmets and Syrian Observatory, respectively, dubiously linked to Al Qaeda groups) blamed the Syrian Arab Army, accusing them of employing chemical agents. In the following forty-eight hours, the mainstream media flooded print media and the airwaves with information that alleged that Assad used chemical weapons. As is known, it is not the first time that the legitimate government of Syria has been accused of attacking its own people with weapons of mass destruction.

    In all similar events in the past, it has been later discovered that the chemical agents in question were used by the Al Nusra Front and Al Qaeda terrorists. In 2013, Obama tacitly rejected the argument that the Syrian Army used chemical weapons in Ghouta, deciding not to succumb to internal pressure to bomb Syria in response. Donald Trump required little confirmation before taking the initiative to cross the red line, openly attacking the Syrian army, even though his same intelligence community strongly doubted that the chemical attack took place according to the narrative advanced by the media.

    There are several hypotheses regarding what may have happened in Khan Shaykhun. The first one points to a false flag by rebels and terrorists supported by Israeli, British, Saudi and Qatari intelligence. Alternatively, it could have simply been an accident. Assad's forces could have hit a terrorist weapons cache without knowing that it was dedicated to the production and storage of chemical weapons. Another theory offers that foreign intelligence agents may have provided accurate information to the terrorists in Khan Shaykhun about what buildings were going to be targeted by Assad's air force, thereby allowing them to move chemical weapons into the targeted locations in order to bring about a civilian massacre.

    Whatever the case may be, it is unthinkable that Assad and the Syrian army would use chemical agents against their own civilians. There is no rational reason for them to use such weapons which do not guarantee any tactical advantage and which, besides, would incite an obvious, vehement reaction from the international community -- a counterproductive move from any way you look at it. This is not to mention that two days before the accident (?), Trump and Tillerson had publicly opened up to Assad, broaching a Syrian future with the president still in office. Once again, the use of chemical weapons proved to be of no tactical gain, spelling full-blown political suicide. From whatever perspective one observes the incident; an intentional chemical attack by Syrian forces is not credible and should be therefore ruled out. Furthermore, Russia saw its request for an independent investigation in the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident blocked by almost all nations belonging to the UN council, with the exception of Syria, Bolivia, China and Russia. What do the US and its allies have to hide? We all know the answer to that.

    An important factor to consider in order to understand the events surrounding the incident with chemical gases concerns the immediate American response. The bombardment with cruise missile, which caused a dozen deaths and some slight damage to Shayrat Air Base, needed at least a couple of months of preparation. This consideration helps clarify the scope of the chemical attack along with the attendant rationale and motivations.

    Notably, over the past two months, Trump has received all kinds of pressure to continue the neocon-inspired aggression against Syria. The main cheerleaders of this attack certainly fall into that category of players that includes the intelligence community, the military-industrial complex, neoconservatives, the Saudis, the Israelis, the Turks and the Qataris. It is not unthinkable that the chemical attack was an act needed in order to allow a US military response. One must not neglect to consider the very positive outcome of the meeting between Trump and the Saudi prince, the latter of whom is a major supporter of aggression against Syria. The summit between the King of Jordan and the American president the day after the events in Khan Shaykhun ought to be viewed in the same light. At the same time, other events look more than suspicious in terms of timing and motives, such as the permanent exclusion of Trump adviser Steve Bannon in favor of General H. R. McMaster (appointed by Trump). McMaster is a protégé of General Petraeus, a leading exponent of the interests of the neoconservatives. This is not to mention the exclusion of Flynn a month ago, another person who for years has advised against aggression against Syria, mainly thinking of the consequences that such a move would entail at the international level.

    Much ambiguity also remains when one considers the absence of members of the American intelligence community in the war room during the bombing of Syria on April 6. Rumors suggest that these American agencies would have recommended that Trump not act on the basis of partial or false information regarding the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun. Trump, contrary to what he stated during the presidential campaign, has dismissed the advice of his intelligence community, preferring instead to act unilaterally under pressure from McMaster and other neocons in the administration.

    The bombardment, involving the use of 59 cruise missiles (23 hit the base, others went missing, according to the Russian ministry of defense), caused little damage to the Shayrat Air Base, thanks to the prompt evacuation of Syrian personnel, and no injuries were reported amongst the Russian contingent. The Pentagon claims to have warned the Russians of their intentions, but it is more likely that there were no alternatives, and that this act was mostly political and at no cost. Rather than reading this as a hypothetical US courtesy to the Russians (and the Syrians, because Moscow immediately warned Damascus), we must consider that a few seconds after the launch of the first cruise missile by the two destroyers in the Mediterranean, Russian forces in the area were already fully aware of the path and destination of the missiles, thereby alerting Damascus . It is also possible that the generals close to Trump advised him to alert Moscow because of the danger of a Russian reaction if hit by US missiles.

    Some doubts still remain as to the intentions and purpose of the attacks. In recent days, a hypothesis has emerged implying some sort of connivance between Russia and the United States in these attacks, apparently staged to appease the interventionists of the US deep state. There is no evidence to support this hypothesis, and the relatively limited damage to the Shayrat military airport may rest either with the high defense capabilities of the Syrian and Russians, or to the marked inefficiency of Raytheon's cruise missiles, rather than any purposeful intention to do limited damage. In coming days, with more information available, it will be important to analyze what exactly happened to the cruise missiles that did not hit their target. As many know, it is taboo in the United States to criticize the military-industry complex, given the importance and influence it enjoys. In this sense, it is no surprise that in the United States, the press has been talking about the complete success of the attack, with 58 out of 59 missiles apparently being advertised as hitting their targets.

    For Trump it may well be the beginning of the end. The intention may have been to make a once-off attack to appease the deep state, lowering in the process the heat stemming from Russiagate, in order to allow for the implementation of national policies in line with the proclaimed America-First doctrine that has thus far been sabotaged by opponents and detractors. These same detractors now applaud Trump for what they see as his first presidential act, which involves killing civilians with missiles.

    What Trump does not appear to understand is that he has opened up a Pandora's Box that implicitly encourages foreign intelligence and terrorists in Syria to rely on American help by simply playing the chemical-gas-attack card. Trump seems unaware that he is now under the complete control of the media, the intelligence agencies, Al Qaeda, and the neocons, who are all the time working towards the involvement of the United States in ever more wars, such as with the one in Syria. Trump has intentionally sold out to the deep state in the hope of saving his presidency. However, in so doing, he is doomed to becoming a puppet of the deep state. Now let us speculate for a moment about what may happen in the coming weeks.

    In response to US aggression, Russia, Syria and Iran will increase cooperation against terrorists in Syria without any further cooperation with the United States. In this regard, we have already seen the suspension of channels of communication between Russia and the United States. The most likely reason for this is to avoid revealing to the United States the whereabouts of Russian troops in Syria. This hopefully causes huge concern for Washington, as the next American attack on Syria may impact on Russian troops. Regardless, it now seems clear that in the case of a new attack on Syria, there will be a firm and proportionate response from Moscow that could even lead to the sinking of the ships that launched the cruise missiles. It constitutes a dangerous escalation that could involve nuclear superpowers. Trump is probably betting that Moscow, in the case of another attack on Syria, would not dare attack American ships. Unfortunately for Trump and the rest of the world, his calculations are dead wrong, pushing the world to the brink of disaster in the event of another American bombardment of Syria. If Russia sinks American naval ships, and Trump does not respond, he is done. If he responds, then the world is done. Let us hope that the US does not do stupid shit (an Obama quote).

    In case al Qaeda once again uses chemical weapons, Trump will be requested to answer with force, as he has already done. If he refuses to do so, he will be immediately pilloried as Obama was in 2013, thereby committing political suicide. Trump has already lost his most loyal supporters, who had voted for him to stop US military adventures abroad. By deciding to bomb Syria, he has opened the door to either an early termination of his presidency or for a large-scale conflict. Whatever the case may be, the United States begins a new phase of conflict in the Middle East, in direct contrast to the claims made by Trump throughout the presidential campaign. It represents a 180-degree reversal in policy that reveals the real intentions of the American presidency, namely continuing the preservation of the American unipolar world, in spite of lacking the necessary operational and military capabilities. After all, Obama resisted for six years the pressure to bomb Syria coming from the extremist wing of the deep state. Trump took only eighty days to voluntarily go along with plans to attack Syria. Whatever the hidden truth of these two events, it is clear that from now on that nothing will be as before.

    rehypothecator -> G-R-U-N-T , Apr 12, 2017 11:12 PM

    Perhaps this is the deep state's way of taking Trump down.

    G-R-U-N-T -> rehypothecator , Apr 12, 2017 11:16 PM

    Could be, if it's discovered it was a set up to blame Assad, then they'll blame Trump's impulsive response.

    Ignatius -> G-R-U-N-T , Apr 12, 2017 11:25 PM

    It works both ways. Either they get away with it and move on while benefitting from the propaganda, or they get "caught" in the American mind, dump Trump, and get neocon Pence in his place. What will not be discussed is that the neocons and their allies likely arranged the incident.

    Oldwood -> Ignatius , Apr 12, 2017 11:35 PM

    Russians have already called it on future chemical attacks which may actually make them hesitate on another false flag. This.is all about "strategery".

    Al Gophilia -> rehypothecator , Apr 12, 2017 11:35 PM

    If he's that fucking stupid so as to be lured into a trap, then he deserves all that he gets. He promised us our government back and all he has achieved is more of the same.

    Equinox , Apr 12, 2017 11:20 PM

    Understanding Trump's Ballistic Attack on Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRjtIGjLCuE

    balz , Apr 12, 2017 11:30 PM

    I hate Obama. But I miss Obama. I cheered for Trump. And I hate him now. Strange world.

    Badsamm -> balz , Apr 12, 2017 11:35 PM

    Screw them both

    Cabreado , Apr 12, 2017 11:31 PM

    Yet another article pretending to forget about a thoroughly corrupt and defunct Congress.

    Does the author not know how the government was designed to work, or does the author not care?

    Pick one, author.

    directaction , Apr 12, 2017 11:32 PM

    I liked Trump until he began bombing Syria. And Yemen via Saudi proxy. And Iraq. Trump betrayed me. I can't stand to hear his voice, or even look at him.

    samjam7 , Apr 12, 2017 11:37 PM

    Whoever observed Trump's moves carefully would have noticed it. His talks of safe-zones with the Saudis, his disinterest of meeting Putin, despite the latter one voicing his availability several times. Instead changing plans to meet Merkel in March already, when intially the plan was not to meet her until July. Trump is a fraud, he did what he had to to get elected and for many it's a rude awakening to realize that they'd been played and that the deep state is still in absolute control. The question will be where will those voters go next, now that neither Republican nor Democratic party offers any opportunity out of this quandrum.

    But before we get there, we need to survive his presidency, not such an easy task, considering his latest steps.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Simply no incentive for the SAF to launch a chemical weapons attack.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is throwing the haters a bone to gnaw on while he completes the rest of his agenda. Then he'll get back to the likely fake news of chemical weapons use and debunk it. ..."
    "... Fake news. Fake. news. You think this was fake news? Not only that, but you think it was fake news and that the only person able to determine reality is Donald Trump? Good lord. ..."
    "... It is not an accident that chemical poisoning happened a day after Trump decided not to remove Assad. Rebel-terrorists supported by the West want Assad removed, they arranged that chemical spill ... and not for the first time. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    Rob Saunders , 6d ago

    This article alludes to the "merits of western intervention in Syria". It is therefore nonsensical.

    green_forest -> Rob Saunders , 6d ago

    Yip. Simply no incentive for the SAF to launch a chemical weapons attack.

    Robert Fisk's most recent article on the pummeling of Nusra and ISIS is here:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-deir-hafer-syria-army-soldiers-town-village-death-muder-islamic-state-daesh-murder-killing-army-a7660481.html

    Els Bells , 6 Apr 2017 14:20

    Trump is throwing the haters a bone to gnaw on while he completes the rest of his agenda. Then he'll get back to the likely fake news of chemical weapons use and debunk it.
    petesire Els Bells , 6 Apr 2017 15:03
    Fake news. Fake. news. You think this was fake news? Not only that, but you think it was fake news and that the only person able to determine reality is Donald Trump? Good lord.
    DillyDit2 petesire , 6 Apr 2017 15:29
    I know, right? Check out comments on any Brietbart news story, though, and you'll how typical of a select minority of Americans that kind of thinking represents (suggest you wear earphones to block out the cacophony of thousands of bleeting sheep).
    fanUS , 6 Apr 2017 14:20
    It is not an accident that chemical poisoning happened a day after Trump decided not to remove Assad. Rebel-terrorists supported by the West want Assad removed, they arranged that chemical spill ... and not for the first time.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the US?

    Apr 13, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    johnbonn , 2h ago Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.

    ... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.

    .... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.

    ...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.

    ......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the US?

    BlueCollar , 2h ago

    Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.

    Pier16 , 12 Apr 2017 15:58

    The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want." These are the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.
    freeandfair , 12 Apr 2017 15:53
    > Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.

    Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change?
    And Syria is not the only country were this happened.
    Will there ever any responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?

    First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the pieces.

    Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?

    Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    The choice as I see it is this:

    A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.

    B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.

    It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.

    [Apr 13, 2017] Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern debunks the alleged Syria 'Chemical Attack'

    Apr 09, 2017 | gosint.wordpress.com
    Posted on April 9, 2017 by L

    "A source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA's belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier - and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision."

    Robert Parry – Consortium News

    Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern

    Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern explains what he has learned from his sources about how the Syrian "chemical attack" actually went down. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

    The Facts

    On 4 April 2017, the town of Khan Shaykhun in the Idlib Governorate of Syria, was struck by a heavy airstrike followed by massive civilian chemical poisoning.

    At the time of the attack the town was under the control of Tahrir al-Sham,formerly known as the al-Nusra Front.

    The President of the United States, Donald Trump, as well as the UK Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, blamed the attack on the forces of Syrian President Bashar Assad, while the Russian and Syrian governments said it was caused by the Syrian Air Force's destruction of a nearby rebel-operated chemical weapons warehouse.

    In response, the United States launched 59 cruise missiles at Shayrat Air Base, which U.S. Intelligence believed was the source of the attack.

    Ray McGovern

    According to the former CIA Analyst:

    "Syrian aircraft 'knew' there was a weapons cache in this particular rebel-held area. That was correct, and the Syrian aircraft bombed it.

    What seems not to have been known was the existence nearby of a large storage facility for chemicals. That too was damaged, releasing a cloud of chemicals that the wind blew south and poisoned those villagers."

    The most likely scenario

    As I reported recently, here is what most likely happened:

    The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.

    The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons and explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

    The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.

    There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.

    We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you.

    RELATED POST: Former DIA Colonel: "US strikes on Syria based on a lie"

    Where is CIA Director Mike Pompeo?

    As President Trump was launching his missile strike against Syria, CIA Director Pompeo and other intelligence officials were nowhere in sight.

    Back row from left: Deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, senior adviser Jared Kushner, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Sean Spicer, President Trump, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, chief strategist Steve Bannon, senior adviser Stephen Miller, national security official Michael Anton. Front from left: Chief of staff Reince Priebus, national security adviser HR McMaster, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, deputy national security adviser Dina Powell.

    According to Spicer's tweet, the people present are looking at a screen showing Vice-President Mike Pence, Defence Secretary James Mattis and Joseph Dunford, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    Robert Parry - from Consortium News - reports the following:

    "Before the photo was released on Friday (April 7 2017), a source told me that Pompeo had personally briefed Trump on April 6 about the CIA's belief that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was likely not responsible for the lethal poison-gas incident in northern Syria two days earlier - and thus Pompeo was excluded from the larger meeting as Trump reached a contrary decision."

    "You don't see Pompeo or Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats or any other intelligence official. Even The New York Times noted the oddity in its Saturday editions, writing: "If there were CIA and other intelligence briefers around, they are not in the picture." [Robert Parry – Consortium News]

    RELATED POST: CIA Director Mike Pompeo - Who Is Who in World Intelligence and Security Agencies?

    ABOUT Ray McGovern

    Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst from the administration of John Kennedy to that of George H.W. Bush, and prepared the President's Daily Brief for Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    RELATED POST: Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern: "Michael Morell's Comments are Reckless and Vapid"

    Interview

    REFERENCES

    Khan Shaykhun chemical attack - Wikipedia

    Decoding the Trump 'war room' photograph - BBC News

    Where Was CIA's Pompeo on Syria? - Consortium News

    =

    Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern debunks the alleged Syria 'Chemical Attack'

    [Apr 13, 2017] Former DIA Colonel: "US strikes on Syria based on a lie"

    Apr 07, 2017 | gosint.wordpress.com
    Posted on April 7, 2017 by L

    "In the coming days the American people will learn that the [US]Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib."

    Patrick Lang - a former DIA Colonel - does not mince words about the US attacks on Syria. Lang claims that Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

    Patrick Lang is truly a top expert on the Middle-East. The former DIA Colonel is highly respected for his deep knowledge and absolute honesty.

    [NOTE: Many years ago, Lang helped me to understand a very 'murky' dossier regarding Libya. I trust his analysis 100%. Last week - knowing full well that 'the shit was going to hit the fan' - I asked him permission to reproduce his posts on my blog. Colonel Lang kindly agreed.]

    RELATED POST: Veteran Intelligence Professionals: "Trump Should Rethink Syria Escalation"

    RELATED POST: Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: "The Syrian chemical attack story is a hoax."

    RELATED POST: Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern debunks the alleged Syria 'Chemical Attack'

    ANALYSIS by retired Col. Patrick LANG

    Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.

    1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
    2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
    3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
    4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
    5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through "Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

    There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.

    This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

    Here's the good news. The Russians and Syrians were informed, or at least were aware, that the attack was coming. They were able to remove a large number of their assets. The base the United States hit was something of a backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a tough guy. He is not. He is a fool.

    This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

    It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100 million dollars of missiles to blow up sand and camel shit. The Russians were aware that a strike was coming. I'm hoping that they and the Syrians withdrew their forces and aircraft from the base. Whatever hope I had that Donald Trump would be a new kind of President, that hope is extinguished. He is a child and a moron. He committed an act of war without justification. But the fault is not his alone. Those who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the Department of State should have resigned in protest. They did not. They are complicit in a war crime.

    About Patrick Lang

    Walter Patrick "Pat" Lang, Jr. (born May 31, 1940) is a commentator on the Middle East, a retired US Army officer and private intelligence analyst, and an author. After leaving uniformed military service as a Colonel, he held high-level posts in military intelligence as a civilian. He led intelligence analysis of the Middle East and South Asia for the Defense Department and world-wide HUMINT activities in a high-level equivalent to the rank of a lieutenant general. [ WIKIPEDIA ]

    REFERENCES

    Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker by Publius Tacitus - P. Lang FaceBook Page

    =

    Former DIA Colonel: "US strikes on Syria based on a lie"

    [Apr 13, 2017] The problem with handing an ultimatum, is what will the US do when Russia rejects and ignores the ultimatum? More harsh words? More name calling? More sanctions. I think Russia is prepared for any eventuality.

    The problem for Russia is that Trump secured China neutrality in voting in Security council beforehand.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The individual sources may each have to be taken with a grain of salt, but a number of different outlets, including Robert Parry, seem to collaborate each other. Namely, U. S. intelligence analysts knew that Russia's account of the matter was accurate, and that it was also a false flag. ..."
    "... I was confused by the fact that Syria and Russia are sticking to their statement that it was a conventional Syrian airstrike on a rebel warehouse, which, unknown to the SAA or the Russians, contained chemical substances. It didn't seemed to mesh with the numerous and obvious signs of the entire incident being a prearranged false flag. The Saker, too, in his analysis, felt that this version of the events would require one to "believe in coincidence". However, it doesn't have to be coincidence at all, considering what one source claims: ..."
    "... There US and its coalition of lap dogs were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed the massive convoys of oil to Turkey that propped them up. ..."
    "... In short, the US is exceptional and no-one is going to succeed bringing it the International Criminal Court because it is not a member and no-one would dare (not even those fearsome fighters for humanitarian law, the Spanish – sic, how are you dealing with Franco's widespread crimes?). The US will continue to ignore anything it doesn't like, but for everyone else particularly in Europe, nope. Even the Brits would be a lot more cautious. ..."
    "... Even if it were true – so what? The United States has intervened any number of times to keep leaders in power in various countries, against the demonstrated will of their populations, so long as it suited American interests. My favourite example is Hosni Mubarak; the Egyptian people loved him so much that they tried to assassinate him six times to show their adoration. ..."
    "... The group which benefited most immediately and strongly was the Muslim Brotherhood, and look what a peaceful and prosperous western-leaning market democracy Egypt is now . ..."
    "... I don't buy for a minute that Russia's primary motive is to keep Assad in power – my take is that Russia's focus is on stopping the United States from carrying out another of its regime-change colour revolutions. It so happens that keeping Assad in power accomplishes that endeavour, and he remains the choice of the majority in Syria. That's where Russian 'intervention' and American meddling differ – Washington does not care if the leader it wants is popular with the people or not. ..."
    Apr 13, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 4:52 am

    Neuters: Putin says trust erodes under Trump, Moscow icily receives Tillerson
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-russia-idUKKBN17E1AD?il=0

    Just as Tillerson sat down for talks, a senior Russian official assailed the "primitiveness and loutishness" of U.S. rhetoric, part of a volley of statements that appeared timed to maximize the awkwardness during the first visit by a member of Trump's cabinet.

    "One could say that the level of trust on a working level, especially on the military level, has not improved but has rather deteriorated," Putin said in an interview broadcast on Russian television moments after Tillerson sat down with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in an ornate hall .

    Moments earlier, Lavrov greeted Tillerson with unusually icy remarks, denouncing the missile strike on Syria as illegal and accusing Washington of behaving unpredictably.

    "I won't hide the fact that we have a lot of questions, taking into account the extremely ambiguous and sometimes contradictory ideas which have been expressed in Washington across the whole spectrum of bilateral and multilateral affairs," Lavrov said.

    "And of course, that's not to mention that apart from the statements, we observed very recently the extremely worrying actions, when an illegal attack against Syria was undertaken."

    Lavrov also noted that many key State Department posts remain vacant since the new administration took office - a point of sensitivity in Washington.

    One of Lavrov's deputies was even more undiplomatic.

    "In general, primitiveness and loutishness are very characteristic of the current rhetoric coming out of Washington. We'll hope that this doesn't become the substance of American policy," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told Russia's state-owned RIA news agency.

    "As a whole, the administration's stance with regards to Syria remains a mystery. Inconsistency is what comes to mind first of all."
    ####

    I don't see the point of Trump firing TLAMS only to play nicey-nicey with Moscow in public. So in short, are the public and private messages the same? As for Russia, their message should be clear (and it is) " No more 'fun' or WE are done ". The only role the West can play is that of a spoiler , particularly in Syria. They have absolutely nothing to gain even if their tame media claims they do. Everyone should keep their pants on and not be rude – including you NS!

    marknesop , April 12, 2017 at 6:06 pm
    Trump seems to have reasoned that all he had to do was release the dreaded American cruise missiles and Putin would roll over submissively and expose his belly. He has a hell of a lot to learn about foreign policy, and I don't think he's going to have the time to learn it.
    Moscow Exile , April 12, 2017 at 6:12 am
    Her impudence pales into insignificance when compared with that of Tillerson, who has flown to Russia in order to issue an ultimatum to the Russians on their own territory.

    When he finished his speech, Lavrov politely said in English to the impolite United States journalist : "You may shout now".

    It was reported in Russian that he said to her: "Теперь можете кричать, если хотите", which literally translates as "Now you can shout if you want to", which in English sounds less polite (it does to me, anyway) than what he actually said politely but with irony, in that he politely invited someone to continue to act in an uncultured fashion.

    I am pretty sure Mr. Lavrov is aware of the adage that Americans "don't do irony".

    Warren , April 12, 2017 at 2:29 pm
    The problem with handing an ultimatum, is what will the US do when Russia rejects and ignores the ultimatum? More harsh words? More name calling? More sanctions. I think Russia is prepared for any eventuality.

    As regards the impudent US hack that was shouting; I think she is your typical loud, ignorant and obnoxious US hack.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 6:46 am
    The Daily Caller: Pentagon Casts Doubt On AP Report Claiming Russia Knew About Syrian Chemical Attack
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/10/dod-discredits-associated-press-report-claiming-russia-knew-about-syrian-chemical-attack-in-advance/

    A Department of Defense spokesman discounted an Associated Press report that claimed Russia knew in advance about the chemical weapons attack in Syria last week that left more than 80 people dead.

    "I've seen nothing that corroborates this definitive statement," Major Jamie Davis told the Daily Caller in a statement Monday. "We continue to review the available intelligence surrounding this incident."

    Though Davis noted that the DOD is continuing to assess the details of the situation, he noted they have found nothing so far that could verify the AP story .

    A senior administration official in the White House also cast doubt on the AP report.
    ####

    So unlike the anonymous intelligence source that did not have ' authorization to speak to the media ' quoted by AP, here we have an official sources calling BS. Does that make the AP piece Fake News or 'in the interests of the American public'? F/tards.

    I think it is fairly clear that sensationalist leaking is part of the strategy balanced by later rowing back or dismissing, knowing that the Pork Pie News Networks cannot resist it. It's a balance of sorts that is aimed to keep the PPNN and others off-balance. Again, these are just words, not actions. We also see the same method over the earlier reports that a USN CVBG was steaming towards North Korea, now we are being told that it is not and is just in the general area. It's a pattern:

    Antiwar.com: Mattis: Navy Strike Group Not Headed to North Korea for Any Reason
    http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/11/mattis-navy-strike-group-not-headed-to-north-korea-for-any-reason/
    ####

    How long it will take the PPNN to cotton on is anybody's guess, but it don't see how this strategy can work in the medium to long term.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 6:48 am
    Antiwar.com: Mattis: US-Russia Tensions Won't Spiral Out of Control
    http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/11/mattis-us-russia-tensions-wont-spiral-out-of-control/

    Secretary of Defense James Mattis sought to downplay the situation, however, saying that he was certain the situation "will not spiral out of control,"* a belief he appeared to rest on the idea that Russia wouldn't dare retaliate against further US attacks against Syria, as they have threatened to.

    "I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interests," Mattis insisted. Yet he also threatened further US strikes on Syria, and Russia has made clear in recent days that they would respond with force to any additional such US strikes .

    * http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-russia-mattis-idUSKBN17D2L1

    marknesop , April 12, 2017 at 7:02 pm
    Yes, the USA is so firmly in control of global events. I totally believe him.
    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 6:53 am
    Antiwar.com: US Officials Can't Explain Reason for Syria 'Chemical Attack'
    http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/11/us-officials-cant-explain-reason-for-syria-chemical-attack/

    Administration officials are trying to manufacture one, with an unnamed "senior official" today delivering a briefing* to the media claiming that the Syrian military was afraid of a rebel offensive in the Hama Province, and launched the attack against the rebels' rear support areas for operational purposes

    On top of this, the US narrative's initial premise is faulty, as the Hama offensive had already ground to a halt two weeks prior to the putative Syrian attack, and Syrian forces appeared well on their way to recovering lost territory from the rebels
    ####

    I'm surprise they even bothered with a new narrative. The PPNN had it already well covered with their numerous conspiracy theories so the Administration has only unnecessarily muddied the waters here.

    Chinese American , April 12, 2017 at 6:53 am
    Interesting collection of reports on what happened with the chemical weapons attack on April 4, including Robert Perry, citing sources within U. S. intelligence and military:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/intelligence-and-military-sources-who-warned-about-wmd-lies-iraq-war-now-say-assad-d

    The individual sources may each have to be taken with a grain of salt, but a number of different outlets, including Robert Parry, seem to collaborate each other. Namely, U. S. intelligence analysts knew that Russia's account of the matter was accurate, and that it was also a false flag.

    I was confused by the fact that Syria and Russia are sticking to their statement that it was a conventional Syrian airstrike on a rebel warehouse, which, unknown to the SAA or the Russians, contained chemical substances. It didn't seemed to mesh with the numerous and obvious signs of the entire incident being a prearranged false flag. The Saker, too, in his analysis, felt that this version of the events would require one to "believe in coincidence". However, it doesn't have to be coincidence at all, considering what one source claims:

    1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.

    2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.

    The dedicated phone line would have been part of the deconfliction agreement between Russia and the U. S., started soon after the Russian began military intervention in fall 2015. If it is true that the U. S. knew about the planned target long ahead of time, then the fact that McCain took a secret trip to Syria recently becomes even more sinister.

    Whatever chemicals (not sarin) were used were planted at the warehouse, or simply released nearby at the time of the airstrike. As for the photos and videos from the White Helmets, etc., those were probably produced ahead of time, on a Saudi or Qatari or Turkish production stage, for all we know.

    This theory would give another dimension to the fact that Russia suspended the deconfliction agreement immediately after the Tomahawk attack.

    Fern , April 12, 2017 at 7:39 am
    This is what I'm inclined to think – that some element(s) within the Trump Administration ensured those charming basket-weaving, flowers-in-the-hair-wearing, kumbaya-singing 'moderate' rebells knew an air-strike was planned and left it to them to arrange the chemical exposure.
    Cortes , April 12, 2017 at 4:47 pm
    Thierry Meyssan apparently agrees:

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article195904.html

    kirill , April 12, 2017 at 8:07 pm
    Exactly. There US and its coalition of lap dogs were supposedly fighting ISIL/Daesh but missed the massive convoys of oil to Turkey that propped them up.

    In fact, the US was bombing to disrupt SAA operations and really protecting ISIL. I do not know why Russia agreed to share any such operational details. This looks like an epic fail by Russia. They just needed real time coordination to prevent collisions in the air.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 7:00 am
    Deutscher's Willy: US missile strike on Syria 'a violation of international law'
    http://www.dw.com/en/us-missile-strike-on-syria-a-violation-of-international-law/a-38389950

    The US has called its attack on an airbase in Syria "a strong signal" for the Assad regime. Legal experts, however, criticized the action. In an interview with DW, international law expert Stefan Talmon explains why.
    ####

    More at the link.

    In short, the US is exceptional and no-one is going to succeed bringing it the International Criminal Court because it is not a member and no-one would dare (not even those fearsome fighters for humanitarian law, the Spanish – sic, how are you dealing with Franco's widespread crimes?). The US will continue to ignore anything it doesn't like, but for everyone else particularly in Europe, nope. Even the Brits would be a lot more cautious.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 7:05 am
    Neuters: U.S. asks G7 ministers why it should care about Ukraine conflict
    http://www.reuters.com/article/g7-foreign-ukraine-idUSKBN17D1P6

    U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asked his European counterparts on Tuesday why American voters should care about the conflict in Ukraine, France's foreign minister said .

    French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said Tillerson had openly questioned why "American taxpayers" should be concerned about Ukraine, which has been racked by a separatist conflict for the last three years
    ####

    Another PR stunt designed for domestic consumption.

    marknesop , April 12, 2017 at 7:19 pm
    If God had any sort of a sense of humour at all, G7 leaders would break out in painful boils every time one of them used the phrase 'rules-based international order' in a manner which implied the G7 nations give a flying fuck about obeying international rules which do not permit them to act as they please.
    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 10:19 am
    I just made the mistake of watching 'BBC World News'. There was a report by their Moscow Correspondent Steve Rosenberg who said "Russia intervened in Syria to keep Assad in power". No nuance, no other details such as I-rack, Libya etc. descending into chaos and spreading terrorists, weapons & refugees in to Europe, let alone Chechen and other terrorists who would head back to Russia fully trained or that the IS/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH was allowed to grow on the West watch and Russia intervened long after Syria descended in to hell.

    That the BBC continues to employ a tabloid correspondent like Rosenberg all these years shows how seriously they take their reporting of Russia. Very poorly, very poorly indeed. He's the Luke Harding of the broadcasting news. A f/kwit. And f/k the BBC too.

    marknesop , April 12, 2017 at 7:30 pm
    Even if it were true – so what? The United States has intervened any number of times to keep leaders in power in various countries, against the demonstrated will of their populations, so long as it suited American interests. My favourite example is Hosni Mubarak; the Egyptian people loved him so much that they tried to assassinate him six times to show their adoration.

    Yet the USA propped him up over and over, and no attempts to unseat him enjoyed any kind of success until Washington decided he was no longer useful. Then suddenly the winds of (regime) change began to blow, and *poof*, we had the 'Arab Spring', and all American politicians of whatever stripe suddenly became conscious that the dictator they had propped up for 30 years 'must step down'.

    The group which benefited most immediately and strongly was the Muslim Brotherhood, and look what a peaceful and prosperous western-leaning market democracy Egypt is now .

    I don't buy for a minute that Russia's primary motive is to keep Assad in power – my take is that Russia's focus is on stopping the United States from carrying out another of its regime-change colour revolutions. It so happens that keeping Assad in power accomplishes that endeavour, and he remains the choice of the majority in Syria. That's where Russian 'intervention' and American meddling differ – Washington does not care if the leader it wants is popular with the people or not.

    et Al , April 12, 2017 at 11:34 am
    Vladimir Safronkov rips Matthew Rycroft at the UNSC

    Warren , April 12, 2017 at 2:23 pm
    Hilarious, the Russian Deputy Ambassador doesn't mince words! I look forward to hearing more from him.
    Northern Star , April 12, 2017 at 4:47 pm
    War Crimes and Remembrance

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051

    [Apr 12, 2017] Regime change in Syria? That would be a mistake by Prof Michael John Williams

    Notable quotes:
    "... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
    "... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
    "... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
    "... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
    "... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
    "... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
    "... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
    "... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
    "... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
    "... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
    "... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government.

    Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention doubtful.

    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.

    Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.

    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 17:57
    Those interested in how the MSM fell in love with terrorists in Syria should go back and check out Charlie Skelton's illuminating piece from The Guardian 2012 .
    Ciarán Here , 12 Apr 2017 17:48
    The Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq...
    Ciarán Here , 12 Apr 2017 17:46
    Did the USA bomb war planes that they said had been used to carry chemical weapons - a chemical attack!
    Robert Rudolph , 12 Apr 2017 17:40
    Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed Pistoia to be destroyed."

    ... ... ..

    1Cedar , 12 Apr 2017 17:39
    In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.

    That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding regime change.

    Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies.

    unsouthbank , 12 Apr 2017 17:32
    I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.

    Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.

    If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher.

    Ruthie Riegler , 12 Apr 2017 17:21
    ...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
    NezPerce macmarco , 12 Apr 2017 17:37

    There are two possible regimes, the Assad fascists, or the rebel jihadist

    The Syrian government is Baathist, it was elected.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_–_Syria_Region

    http://www.france24.com/en/20160417-syria-bashar-assad-baath-party-wins-majority-parliamentary-vote

    Latest update : 2016-04-17

    Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.

    Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-falls-to-syrian-regime-bashar-al-assad-rebels-uk-government-more-than-one-story-robert-fisk-a7471576.html

    And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates in the Gulf – have been supporting.

    They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?

    jimbo2000M , 12 Apr 2017 16:55
    Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
    unsouthbank , 12 Apr 2017 16:40
    I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical attack in Idlib province.

    Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce officer.

    Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.

    Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical statements about Syria.

    martinusher , 12 Apr 2017 16:35
    Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other). Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)

    Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence people.

    KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 16:07
    Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.

    Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.

    Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.

    The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria. These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.

    TomasStedron KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 16:27
    Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982 Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
    MacMeow KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 17:30

    Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria

    Link please. Because without evidence the rest of your post collapses.

    KhalijFars MacMeow , 12 Apr 2017 17:50
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

    The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

    His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

    Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

    Jermaine Charles , 12 Apr 2017 16:02
    More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains very popular, despite the western media like lies!
    johnbonn , 12 Apr 2017 16:00
    Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.

    ... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.

    .... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.

    ...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.

    ......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?

    BlueCollar , 12 Apr 2017 15:59
    Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.
    stratplaya , 12 Apr 2017 15:58
    History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.

    The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.

    Pier16 , 12 Apr 2017 15:58
    The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."

    These are the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.

    freeandfair , 12 Apr 2017 15:53
    > Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.

    Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?

    First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the pieces.

    Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?

    GlozzerBoy1 , 12 Apr 2017 15:40
    Absolutely, stay the hell out, we should have no footprint in that awful part of the world.
    Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    The choice as I see it is this:

    A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.

    B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.

    It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.

    Weefox Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:43
    Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
    Tom1982 Weefox , 12 Apr 2017 15:46
    I'd imagine the Shia feel the same.
    freeandfair Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 16:06
    Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
    oddballs , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    Assad would stand a good chance of winning a fair and honest election,

    Still waiting for evidence by forensic experts over the chemical weapons , who did what and where.

    Until proof is given hat prove otherwise the rebels are the most likly suspects. --> normankirk , 12 Apr 2017 15:35

    SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:24
    The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be laughing in his grave.
    aleph SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:45
    1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously believe them.

    2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.

    Fort Sumpter aleph , 12 Apr 2017 14:54
    If you have the evidence of a nerve gas agent being present please supply it forthwith.

    I keep asking you guys, who must be on the ground in Idlib such is your certainty, to provide the proof but you always refuse. Why is that?

    SHA2014 aleph , 12 Apr 2017 14:56
    An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime, but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.

    An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.

    SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:13
    Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
    Imperialist , 12 Apr 2017 14:07
    America should not be the one who decides who is an acceptable government, and sends soldiers to enforce its will.

    The UN should have done that long ago. To Assad. To Kim. Stopped the Khmer Rouge. Or Rwanda.

    Yet the only time they ever have actually fought is in the Korean War.

    Fort Sumpter Imperialist , 12 Apr 2017 14:55
    *cough* The US supported the Khmer Rouge *cough*
    Mauryan , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
    diddoit Mauryan , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    It's all about what's best for the US and the incredibly powerful(in the US) Israel lobby. The UK just goes along with it.
    NezPerce , 12 Apr 2017 13:52
    The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence that they are infinitely worse than Assad.

    We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/false-flag-how-us-armed-syrian-rebels-set-excuse-attack-assad

    False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

    Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.

    The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.

    Nat-Nat aka Kyl Shinra , 12 Apr 2017 13:50
    "Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "

    well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking about may very well be pro-Assad.

    This said, I agree, leave Assad and Syria alone.

    Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:48
    Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq. Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia against the real enemy - ISIS.
    diddoit Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal) dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.

    Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.

    dusktildawn Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
    diddoit Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    call themselves. -typo
    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:47
    The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.

    While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing, the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.

    Mauryan dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:52
    Partition would create more Assads.
    Jemima15 , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
    DanielDee , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    Regime change? Why not?

    Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi would make a fine statesman!

    Pipcosta DanielDee , 12 Apr 2017 14:03
    Until he turns on his mater
    IamDolf , 12 Apr 2017 13:45
    Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
    diddoit IamDolf , 12 Apr 2017 13:49
    Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
    Patin , 12 Apr 2017 13:43
    Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority vote?

    Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.

    The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.

    freeandfair Patin , 12 Apr 2017 16:19
    > Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity?

    You should start with American leaders like Bush. If you are serious about this.

    roachclip , 12 Apr 2017 13:42

    There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.

    You are absolutely right.

    Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.

    Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders who were threatening their control of the oil market.

    This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century. Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.

    All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.

    Taku2 , 12 Apr 2017 13:35
    One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government, so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian government.

    Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.

    It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy', the 'devil', as it were.

    As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia. There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.

    The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.

    Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to the right.

    Arapas Taku2 , 12 Apr 2017 13:42

    so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal

    Your point is of great importance.

    Now that Russia has done the dirty work at great cost, pushing them out of the way.........................

    That will not happen, Rex was told by Sergei.

    Arapas , 12 Apr 2017 13:34
    robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.

    Is meant to be the joke of the month.

    What did they ever fix ? Just look what the Korean war has lead to.

    Vietnam, where the Americans were defeated, is now a united and peaceful country.

    On the other hand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other regime change candidates have been reduced to failed states.

    In Syria, the fate of the Alwites will be the same of that of women and children cowering in St Sophia in 1453.

    Utter slaughter!

    ganaruvian , 12 Apr 2017 13:32
    Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/ Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians, whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
    Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 13:20
    Assad is the lesser of two evils. Those who are hailed as rebels pose an enormous threat to our security.
    jonnyross Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 13:44
    There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast majority of the victims.

    Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.

    Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.

    john evans , 12 Apr 2017 13:20
    Syria is finished.

    According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000.

    On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.

    Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January 2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.

    Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.

    Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.

    No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.

    Arapas john evans , 12 Apr 2017 13:37

    No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.

    It can --

    Look at Chechnya! A newly rebuilt Grosny, living in peace.

    Bearing in mind Iraq, Libya etc who wants to see that --

    NativeBornTexan Arapas , 12 Apr 2017 14:08
    Chechnya is ruled by a Russian puppet dictator who executes gay men.
    Shad O NativeBornTexan , 12 Apr 2017 15:13
    That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".

    It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties, but it's all for the greater good.

    Pipcosta , 12 Apr 2017 13:18
    Why do we send a sewer rat to the UN as our ambassador
    brianboru1014 , 12 Apr 2017 13:14
    Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
    Ruby4 , 12 Apr 2017 13:13
    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

    Albert Einstein

    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

    Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645

    FFC800 , 12 Apr 2017 13:08
    This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct in the peace.

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.

    Most of that was done by rebels.
    jackrousseau , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't rhyme at all; it parodies.

    The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job", and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy grail, "yellowcake uranium".

    Of course, 6 months ago --with full knowledge of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds--Trump said toppling Hussein was a "uge" mistake and defended him as an "efficient killer of terrorists". "Efficient" indeed... https://cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/05/politics/donald-trump-saddam-hussein-iraq-terrorism/index.html

    I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).

    Who knows...I guess at least it's interesting.

    John Smythe , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.

    There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.

    bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 13:00
    I find the commments on here quite confusing...

    Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).

    Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?

    The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.

    Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.

    So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....

    Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.

    dusktildawn bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 13:34
    I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.

    And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.

    bemusedfromdevon dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 14:11
    My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...

    I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'

    I'm embarrassed to be honest....

    Shad O bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 15:25

    Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with

    what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat acceptable.

    In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper) as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.

    Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on (Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.

    NezPerce , 12 Apr 2017 12:58

    President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways the right on.

    Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left. David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.

    Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.

    The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war. The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:

    https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-michael-savage-begs-trump-to-stop-wwiii/

    In this off the cuff interview Michael Savage begs Donald Trump to not plunge the world into another world war that could destroy life as we know it

    .

    Trump has been subjugated by the deep state, his base is outraged and in despair.

    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:58
    You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as well.
    Mates Braas dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 15:05
    You can start proceedings against your own war criminals. There is a long list of them, stretching from, Paris, London, Washington and Tel Aviv.
    freeandfair dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 16:41
    In that case North Korea and Saudi Arabia should be on top of the list.
    Trekkie555 , 12 Apr 2017 12:57
    Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
    Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    diddoit , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google it).

    But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his fate was sealed.

    zolotoy diddoit , 12 Apr 2017 12:59
    Nope, wrong. Assad wouldn't give the USA, Qatar, and Turkey a nice pipeline to kneecap Russian natural gas sales in Europe.

    It's all about oil and money, petrodollars and ensuring American worldwide hegemony.

    sokkynick zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 13:07
    +1
    diddoit zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 13:42
    Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance the region.

    I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.

    Ilan Klinger , 12 Apr 2017 12:53
    A regime changing in Syria?

    Can someone here try and convince me that the State of Syria still exists?

    And change it from what to what?From a Murderouscracy to a Oppressionocracy?

    peterwiv , 12 Apr 2017 12:52
    The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.

    Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.

    aleph , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
    elaine naude aleph , 12 Apr 2017 15:43
    Who should he have backed? - Isis?
    algae64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.

    Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely, it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.

    BorisMalden , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble

    Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.

    Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.

    We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.

    Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.

    The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.

    aleph Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:56
    "Better to help Assad stabilise the Country"

    Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.

    Oldfranky aleph , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    Are you sure it's only Assad, laugh all you will.
    BorisMalden , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble

    Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.

    Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.

    We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.

    Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.

    The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.

    aleph Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:56
    "Better to help Assad stabilise the Country"

    Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.

    Oldfranky aleph , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    Are you sure it's only Assad, laugh all you will.
    Foracivilizedworld , 12 Apr 2017 12:44

    Regime change in Syria? That would be a mistake

    Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"

    And I think Trump would do it.

    SaracenBlade , 12 Apr 2017 12:43
    Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
    notDonaldTrump SaracenBlade , 12 Apr 2017 12:49
    'regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict.'

    If one tried to think impartially the evidence might lead one to think that was the plan all along.

    BlueCollar notDonaldTrump , 12 Apr 2017 15:50
    If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud, even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
    timefliesby , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Have we learnt nothing?
    zolotoy timefliesby , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    Some of us have learned to be very comfortable with scraps from the war machine table -- Western legacy media in particular.
    moreorless2 , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
    Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 12:39
    Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq, where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
    StrongMachine Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    Are you calling George W Bush a liberal?
    PSmd Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 13:07
    It's not liberal cultural imperialism. It's painted as that to sell to domestic audiences.

    It's liberal economic imperialism.

    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.

    WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.

    The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.

    juster , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc 2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.

    Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.

    freeandfair juster , 12 Apr 2017 16:58
    > They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.

    An excellent point.

    bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 12:35
    There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots get on with it...

    There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....

    If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian readers.

    Jared Hall bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
    bemusedfromdevon Jared Hall , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    We're pulling the trigger??

    And that makes supporting a tyrant who will do anything a satisfactory solution to you?

    Sounds like crocodile tears to me.

    SterlingPound Jared Hall , 12 Apr 2017 13:11
    Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year. The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.

    It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.

    Muzzledagain , 12 Apr 2017 12:35
    Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
    Aethelfrith , 12 Apr 2017 12:31
    Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.

    This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.

    More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.

    austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:30
    And it will serve as a welcome distraction from the lack of domestic achievements by the U.S. govt.
    Fort Sumpter austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    Theresa could also do with some distraction from her shambolic government and the whole Brexit disaster.
    timefliesby austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    Got to agree. Dead cat. Nobody is talking about links and the FBI any more and Putin is mentioned on a new context.

    Approval ratings from US voters?

    Moo1234 Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:45
    We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:30
    What if this was Apartheid era South Africa and the white minority were bombing the hell out of the majority black civilians who wanted them out?
    duthealla dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:49
    Nobody intervened in South Africa despite massacres like Sharpeville....perhaps it would've let to full on racial war though?
    dusktildawn duthealla , 12 Apr 2017 12:55
    I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
    Fort Sumpter dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:04
    It isn't hypocrisy because your South African scenario bears little resemblance to what is happening in Syria. Simple as that.
    Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:28
    Boris obviously has a more pressing engagement over Easter.
    BeanstalkJack , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Regime change - a phrase that reminds us imperialism is alive and well.
    Gandalf66 BeanstalkJack , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
    BeanstalkJack Gandalf66 , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.

    I think the word is arrogance rather than belief.

    Mates Braas sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 14:51
    I think the word is arrogance rather than belief...............and exceptionalism.
    brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Trump is the new boy on the block, trying to use missiles as a penis substitute.

    Sorry, but simple definitions are sometimes correct.

    yshani brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 13:19
    Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.

    Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.

    brucebaby yshani , 12 Apr 2017 13:26
    WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have happened if not for the USA.

    Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.

    MacMeow brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 17:01

    WW2 was won principally by the USSR

    That old clunker again, it's like the war in the Pacific never happened.

    Sorry4Soul , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Why it would be a mistake ?

    Libya was such a success story.

    Trumbledon , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    Finally, at long last, some sense.

    I agree wholeheartedly; by far the best analysis I've read in this paper.

    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later? Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
    joAnn chartier , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
    Fakecharitybuster , 12 Apr 2017 12:20
    Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
    ganaruvian Fakecharitybuster , 12 Apr 2017 13:40
    Spot-on!
    Viva_Kidocelot , 12 Apr 2017 12:20
    Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
    Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:19
    At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
    Gandalf66 Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided by the Syrians themselves.
    Mates Braas Gandalf66 , 12 Apr 2017 14:50
    "Why isn't Syria ready for Western values?"

    The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before all the US led interventions.

    There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will likely say.

    shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto! A darling of the left.
    bemusedfromdevon shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:22
    That's how it seems...
    Fort Sumpter shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Not the left. These writers are pro-British Establishment, pro mixed economy liberals. Soft right if anything.
    zolotoy Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.

    Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.

    They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically insignificant.

    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:17
    "Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary"

    The Guardian reported that in Libya, the last country to benefit from US and "our" attempts at regime change there are now open air slave auctions.

    So yeah, why not do the same in Syria; what is there to lose?

    Mates Braas , 12 Apr 2017 12:16
    Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals. These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.

    Imperial hubris knows no bounds.

    tjt77 Mates Braas , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
    jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:16
    President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him just a bit more.
    sceptic64 jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    And what comes after?
    duthealla sceptic64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    That'd be a problem for the EU. We cook , you clean - as some neocon asshat said about Iraq.
    richmanchester duthealla , 12 Apr 2017 13:14
    Well the Guardian was reporting on open air slave auctions in

    Libya this week.

    So clearly arming "the people" and supplying air support worked well there.

    Obviously the same course should be followed in Syria.

    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    "All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. "

    And that's Assad'd fault?

    Or is it the fault of the originally US and still Gulf states/Turkey backed Wahhabis that have damaged them?

    Trumbledon richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    All Assad's fault, if he hadn't tried to liberate Palmyra, it'd still be standi... Oh wait.
    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:14
    "The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "

    Absolute tosh.

    The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with one that aligned itself with the USA.

    The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern

    Elinore richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    It would work in the USA.
    Nietzschestache , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
    pete8s sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:21
    Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.

    There is no love of Assad anywhere.

    If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.

    bemusedfromdevon sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Perhaps because the rebel areas are getting the shit bombed out of them by the Russians and Assad...

    How many heavy bombers and fighters do those fighting Assad have...?

    Just think about it a little....

    Fort Sumpter pete8s , 12 Apr 2017 12:26

    There is no love of Assad anywhere.

    How many Syrians do you know and how many times have you been there?

    scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 12:10
    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.

    A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.

    Amanzim , 12 Apr 2017 12:10
    Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes in laws of yesteryears.
    zankaon , 12 Apr 2017 12:09
    Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?

    Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.

    Elinore , 12 Apr 2017 12:08
    You could put Assad in the White House and Trump in Syria and and nothing would change except that the White House might be a tad more intelligent.
    Gandalf66 Elinore , 12 Apr 2017 12:59
    Assad is actually a qualified doctor so he's pretty intelligent. Strange that he's ignoring the Hippocratic Oath on a daily basis.
    jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:08
    So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom, then you are living in a hole in the ground.
    Mickmarrs jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    Yeah and the guys that get in are head loppers
    ProfJake , 12 Apr 2017 12:05
    Well said. Worth taking a look at Global Peace Index, which is produced annually by the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace:

    http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index /

    In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.

    The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.

    Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:05

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.

    Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.

    Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos online for goodness sake.

    mp66 , 12 Apr 2017 12:04
    Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.

    So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.

    ID1941743 , 12 Apr 2017 12:02
    Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
    ariaclast , 12 Apr 2017 12:01
    This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.

    One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our intervention could scarcely make things any worse

    Vetinary ariaclast , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Are you actually blind?
    ariaclast Vetinary , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    Who said that?
    LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 12:00
    The US?

    Syria?

    Regime change?

    Moi?

    It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth making yet another gaffe;

    "I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."

    (my emphasis)

    Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.

    As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?

    zolotoy LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    I'm sure it was an unintentional but very revealing Freudian slip.

    The advantage of letting dunces speak is that they're not very good at hiding what they think.

    LucyandTomDog LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 13:21
    Typo

    'As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?'

    Should be destabilise

    Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 11:59

    Bashar al-Assad is not a good person.

    Don't hold back...

    Moo1234 Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 12:22
    Daesh/ isis are even less good people......
    Gandalf66 Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 13:00
    More like Assad is the least worst.
    davshev , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
    sceptic64 davshev , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy, something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.

    This whole thing stinks.

    davshev sceptic64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
    zolotoy davshev , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Good question. How sleazy is it to be complicit with Al Qaeda, the only entity on the planet that the USA is semiofficially at war with?
    scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates in regime change at the top.

    The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.

    The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.

    This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet" for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?

    As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.

    As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.

    Mates Braas scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 14:37
    "The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime;"

    There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace talks were arranged.

    lemonsuckingpedant , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
    zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 11:53
    Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces? I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime change."

    Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached with this whopper:

    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.

    --as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
    Janeira1 zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Didn't notice Iraq faring too well the last time the US intervened in regime change.
    jamie evans , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    Trump told him over some cake?

    This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care. How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.

    Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.

    Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.

    So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.

    dusktildawn Jack1R , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed the conflict as a whole recede?
    Jack1R dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:02
    They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.

    The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.

    It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment, other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.

    I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving it.

    There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.

    Alderbaran Jack1R , 12 Apr 2017 13:04
    Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought together to defeat ISIS?

    In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great track record in Syria.

    And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to support other dictators)

    Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional government is agreed upon.
    WellmeaningBob Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 12:11
    A little contradictory, no? Oh we fucked up, so you need to be colonised anyway.
    Laurence Bury WellmeaningBob , 12 Apr 2017 12:19
    No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.

    The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a dictatorship indefinitely.

    WellmeaningBob Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
    Mates Braas elan , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Civil war means that both sides are killing their own people.
    zolotoy jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:57
    Only because his opposition is even more barbaric.
    Fort Sumpter jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 12:09
    'indiscriminate weapons'

    Oh dear, are they rally still pushing this 'our weapons don't kill civilians' BS?

    No need for evidence of chlorine gas bombs apparently.

    And anyone who questions the MSM narrative and who is sickened by endless war is an 'apologist'. What are you but an apologist for war?

    Mates Braas jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    Unfortunately, there is no way to make war nice.
    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 12 Apr 2017 11:42
    Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called ''civil war'' even started.

    They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).

    The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.

    The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after they defeated Assad)

    The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap

    hpe974 SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 12 Apr 2017 16:26
    Of course it is!! The USA is truly the biggest sponsor of terror and mayhem and destruction in the M.E.
    namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 11:38
    Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
    HuckelburryPin namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 11:46

    Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.

    Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........

    WellmeaningBob namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 12:04
    I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:37
    Scott Ritter has been commenting on the alleged Assad gas attacks . Unlike the MSM the former Iraq weapons inspector seems far from convinced.
    Levant1998 ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    Former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd, and Professor Theodore Posto of MIT also authored a piece:

    http://m.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    jadamsj ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 17:12

    Scott Ritter has been commenting on the alleged Assad gas attacks. Unlike the MSM the former Iraq weapons inspector seems far from convinced.

    What that before or after Russia blocked an investigation into it?

    ploughmanlunch , 12 Apr 2017 11:35
    'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'

    Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure that makes things drastically worse.

    zolotoy ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:46
    Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
    EdmundLange , 12 Apr 2017 11:29
    We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
    EdmundLange jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:58
    Excellent, I'm glad we're going to topple Assad so the Jihadists can take control. Just what we needed.
    capatriot , 12 Apr 2017 11:26

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.

    What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?

    But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to help it?

    Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?

    zolotoy jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally serving him, aren't limitless.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Outraged Ivanka influenced Donald Trumps decision to strike Syria, Eric Trump says

    Apr 12, 2017 | watoday.com.au

    He also confirmed that President Trump's decision to bomb a Syrian airbase to punish President Bashar al-Assad for a nerve gas attack last week was influenced by the reaction of his sister Ivanka, who said she was "heartbroken and outraged" by the atrocity.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Did Assad Really Use Sarin

    Notable quotes:
    "... Paul Gottinger ..."
    "... is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected] ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    Almost immediately after video of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib hit Western media, Assad was declared guilty by US news networks and political commentators. The front page of the New York Times on April 5 th showed a heartbreaking image of a child wounded in the alleged chemical attack with a headline claiming Assad was responsible.

    By the afternoon of April 7, a US attack seemed inevitable as both Rex Tillerson and Trump said action would be taken.

    Between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan consensus emerged, rare in the Trump presidency, whereby Assad was deemed guilty and Trump was goaded on to attack. The few voices of dissent seemed mostly concerned with the lack of constitutional approval for the strike

    The night of the strike, US media snapped into DPRK-style, state media mode. TV pundits fell into a trance while expressing the " beauty " of American power being unleashed on a country already destroyed by 6 years of war.

    Pundits described the attack as "surgical" despite the pentagon quietly admitting one of the missiles missed its target and they don't know where it landed. My questions to both CENTCOM and the Secretary of Defense Office on the missing cruise missile have thus far gone unanswered. However, Syrian sources claim civilians were killed in the missile strike.

    Trump justified the attack by invoking religiously themed buzzwords and unconvincing blather on the "beautiful babies" murdered in the chemical attack.

    Following the attack, Trump officials' statements indicated there was a shift towards regime change. UN ambassador Nikki Haley said Sunday that removing Assad is now a priority.

    The Neocon sharks have started circling too. Bill Kristol tweeted that these strikes should be used to move towards regime change in Iran. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain have all joined in too, their mouths watering at the thought of ousting Assad.

    But was Assad really responsible for the attack?

    To ask such a question is to be deemed an "Assadist" by pundits and discourse police across the political spectrum.

    Neither the lack of an independent investigation, nor the fact that nearly all the information on the alleged attack has come from rebel sources, who stand to benefit from a US response, is deemed sufficient cause for skepticism.

    In a civilized society an actor is be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is determined, a legally justified course of action is taken. In the US however, if the accused is a US enemy, no evidence is needed, and even deranged conspiracies are given play in mainstream media coverage.

    The best recent example of this is the US media's conspiracy about Russia stealing the US election and working for Trump. The US media has stooped so low as to even push bizarre conspiracies by Louise Mensch . She recently claimed the 2014 uprising in Ferguson was a Russian plot.

    In the case of the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhun, US officials and pro-war experts immediately declared Assad's guilty and then cheered on an illegal use of force. This is all very reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq war.

    In an eerie coincidence, Michael R. Gordon, who with Judith Miller helped sell the Iraq WMD story to Americans, coauthored the New York Times April 4th article on Assad's alleged sarin attack at Khan Sheikhun.

    To help sell the sarin narrative, the US media brought on a doctor to describe the alleged attack that has been accused of helping kidnap journalists in his work with extremists.

    When the US investigated its own airstrike in Mosul this March, it took a number of days before it admitted it had killed hundreds of civilians. Yet, guilt was immediately assigned in the Khan Sheikhun attack.

    In 2013, the US media also rushed to the conclusion Assad used sarin in a horrific incident in Ghouta. The US was on the verge of attacking Assad then, but Obama decided against it. Obama claimed he held off because US intelligence voiced skepticism about Assad's guilt.

    The UN investigation on the Ghouta attack took almost a month and even its conclusions have been disputed.

    In December of 2013, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy investigation into the 2013 attack in Ghouta and found reason to doubt Assad's responsibility for attack. He was forced to publish it in the London Review of Books after the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to run it.

    He reported that classified US reports claimed that Syria's al Qaeda affiliate had "mastered the mechanics of creating sarin".

    A month after Hersh's piece appeared, a MIT study cast further doubt on the US government's story by demonstrating that the rockets used in the Ghouta attack couldn't have flown as far as the US government claimed.

    Ted Postol, one of the authors of the study said, "We were within a whisker of war based on egregious errors."

    In this latest alleged gas attack, a few individuals have dared question the state narrative.

    The journalist Robert Parry has recently claimed there is much to be made of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, wasn't among those helping sell this latest sarin story to the American people. He believes it indicates doubt in the CIA over Assad's involvement.

    Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has raised skepticism over Assad's involvement. He says rebels have had chemical weapons facilities in Syria and some of the witnesses' statements describe a strong smell during the attack, which indicates something other than sarin was used.

    The Canadian government originally called for an investigation and stopped short of blaming Assad at the UN, but then later championed Trump's strikes.

    Groups like Organizations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Watch are still investigating the alleged attack in Khan Sheikhun.

    Whether these groups or others will be able to conduct an independent investigation is not known. But in usual fashion, the US had no interest in investigating facts, which may provide the wrong answers.

    It's possible that Assad carried out the attack, but just because he's a reprehensible figure doesn't mean there is no need to present evidence and conduct an independent investigation.

    What's clear now is that the US attack benefitted jihadi groups, has made further US military action more likely, and has increased the chances of a direct military confrontation with Russia. All of these results are very dangerous.

    Future US military action in Syria should be resisted with popular pressure. History shows we can't count on the media or pundits to act as the voice of reason. Join the debate on Facebook

    Paul Gottinger is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected]

    [Apr 12, 2017] Regime change in Syria? That would be a mistake by Prof Michael John Williams

    Notable quotes:
    "... The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government. ..."
    "... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
    "... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
    "... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
    "... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
    "... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
    "... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
    "... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
    "... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
    "... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
    "... Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government, the legitimacy of which is reduced through the participation of an outside government.

    Soon, the new regime is considered a "puppet" and its existence is questioned by the people. Interestingly, the Middle East has proven particularly resistant to durable regime change and democratization, further making the success of any US-led intervention doubtful.

    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do. The US experienced the downside of this during the ill-conceived war in Vietnam. During the Soviet-led war in Afghanistan, the US played the spoiler of Soviet efforts, funnelling money and weapons to the anti-Soviet mujahideen, turning the USSR's intervention into a protracted, bloody war.

    Prof Michael John Williams is Director of the International Relations Program at New York University.

    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 17:57
    Those interested in how the MSM fell in love with terrorists in Syria should go back and check out Charlie Skelton's illuminating piece from The Guardian 2012 .
    Ciarán Here , 12 Apr 2017 17:48
    The Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq...
    Ciarán Here , 12 Apr 2017 17:46
    Did the USA bomb war planes that they said had been used to carry chemical weapons - a chemical attack!
    Robert Rudolph , 12 Apr 2017 17:40
    Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed Pistoia to be destroyed."

    ... ... ..

    1Cedar , 12 Apr 2017 17:39
    In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.

    That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding regime change.

    Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies.

    unsouthbank , 12 Apr 2017 17:32
    I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.

    Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.

    If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher.

    Ruthie Riegler , 12 Apr 2017 17:21
    ...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
    NezPerce macmarco , 12 Apr 2017 17:37

    There are two possible regimes, the Assad fascists, or the rebel jihadist

    The Syrian government is Baathist, it was elected.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_–_Syria_Region

    http://www.france24.com/en/20160417-syria-bashar-assad-baath-party-wins-majority-parliamentary-vote

    Latest update : 2016-04-17

    Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.

    Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-falls-to-syrian-regime-bashar-al-assad-rebels-uk-government-more-than-one-story-robert-fisk-a7471576.html

    And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates in the Gulf – have been supporting.

    They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?

    jimbo2000M , 12 Apr 2017 16:55
    Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
    unsouthbank , 12 Apr 2017 16:40
    I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical attack in Idlib province.

    Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce officer.

    Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.

    Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical statements about Syria.

    martinusher , 12 Apr 2017 16:35
    Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other). Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)

    Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence people.

    KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 16:07
    Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.

    Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.

    Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.

    The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria. These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.

    TomasStedron KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 16:27
    Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982 Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
    MacMeow KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 17:30

    Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria

    Link please. Because without evidence the rest of your post collapses.

    KhalijFars MacMeow , 12 Apr 2017 17:50
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

    The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

    His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

    Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

    Jermaine Charles , 12 Apr 2017 16:02
    More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains very popular, despite the western media like lies!
    johnbonn , 12 Apr 2017 16:00
    Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.

    ... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.

    .... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.

    ...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.

    ......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?

    BlueCollar , 12 Apr 2017 15:59
    Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.
    stratplaya , 12 Apr 2017 15:58
    History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.

    The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.

    Pier16 , 12 Apr 2017 15:58
    The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."

    These are the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.

    freeandfair , 12 Apr 2017 15:53
    > Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.

    Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?

    First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the pieces.

    Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?

    GlozzerBoy1 , 12 Apr 2017 15:40
    Absolutely, stay the hell out, we should have no footprint in that awful part of the world.
    Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    The choice as I see it is this:

    A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.

    B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.

    It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.

    Weefox Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:43
    Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
    Tom1982 Weefox , 12 Apr 2017 15:46
    I'd imagine the Shia feel the same.
    freeandfair Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 16:06
    Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
    oddballs , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    Assad would stand a good chance of winning a fair and honest election,

    Still waiting for evidence by forensic experts over the chemical weapons , who did what and where.

    Until proof is given hat prove otherwise the rebels are the most likly suspects. --> normankirk , 12 Apr 2017 15:35

    SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:24
    The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be laughing in his grave.
    aleph SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:45
    1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously believe them.

    2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.

    Fort Sumpter aleph , 12 Apr 2017 14:54
    If you have the evidence of a nerve gas agent being present please supply it forthwith.

    I keep asking you guys, who must be on the ground in Idlib such is your certainty, to provide the proof but you always refuse. Why is that?

    SHA2014 aleph , 12 Apr 2017 14:56
    An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime, but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.

    An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.

    SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:13
    Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
    Imperialist , 12 Apr 2017 14:07
    America should not be the one who decides who is an acceptable government, and sends soldiers to enforce its will.

    The UN should have done that long ago. To Assad. To Kim. Stopped the Khmer Rouge. Or Rwanda.

    Yet the only time they ever have actually fought is in the Korean War.

    Fort Sumpter Imperialist , 12 Apr 2017 14:55
    *cough* The US supported the Khmer Rouge *cough*
    Mauryan , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
    diddoit Mauryan , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    It's all about what's best for the US and the incredibly powerful(in the US) Israel lobby. The UK just goes along with it.
    NezPerce , 12 Apr 2017 13:52
    The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence that they are infinitely worse than Assad.

    We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/false-flag-how-us-armed-syrian-rebels-set-excuse-attack-assad

    False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

    Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.

    The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.

    Nat-Nat aka Kyl Shinra , 12 Apr 2017 13:50
    "Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "

    well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking about may very well be pro-Assad.

    This said, I agree, leave Assad and Syria alone.

    Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:48
    Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq. Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia against the real enemy - ISIS.
    diddoit Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal) dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.

    Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.

    dusktildawn Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
    diddoit Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    call themselves. -typo
    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:47
    The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.

    While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing, the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.

    Mauryan dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:52
    Partition would create more Assads.
    Jemima15 , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
    DanielDee , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    Regime change? Why not?

    Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi would make a fine statesman!

    Pipcosta DanielDee , 12 Apr 2017 14:03
    Until he turns on his mater
    IamDolf , 12 Apr 2017 13:45
    Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
    diddoit IamDolf , 12 Apr 2017 13:49
    Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
    Patin , 12 Apr 2017 13:43
    Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority vote?

    Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.

    The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.

    freeandfair Patin , 12 Apr 2017 16:19
    > Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity?

    You should start with American leaders like Bush. If you are serious about this.

    roachclip , 12 Apr 2017 13:42

    There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.

    You are absolutely right.

    Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.

    Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders who were threatening their control of the oil market.

    This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century. Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.

    All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.

    Taku2 , 12 Apr 2017 13:35
    One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government, so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian government.

    Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.

    It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy', the 'devil', as it were.

    As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia. There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.

    The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.

    Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to the right.

    Arapas Taku2 , 12 Apr 2017 13:42

    so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal

    Your point is of great importance.

    Now that Russia has done the dirty work at great cost, pushing them out of the way.........................

    That will not happen, Rex was told by Sergei.

    Arapas , 12 Apr 2017 13:34
    robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.

    Is meant to be the joke of the month.

    What did they ever fix ? Just look what the Korean war has lead to.

    Vietnam, where the Americans were defeated, is now a united and peaceful country.

    On the other hand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other regime change candidates have been reduced to failed states.

    In Syria, the fate of the Alwites will be the same of that of women and children cowering in St Sophia in 1453.

    Utter slaughter!

    ganaruvian , 12 Apr 2017 13:32
    Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/ Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians, whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
    Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 13:20
    Assad is the lesser of two evils. Those who are hailed as rebels pose an enormous threat to our security.
    jonnyross Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 13:44
    There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast majority of the victims.

    Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.

    Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.

    john evans , 12 Apr 2017 13:20
    Syria is finished.

    According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000.

    On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.

    Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January 2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.

    Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.

    Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.

    No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.

    Arapas john evans , 12 Apr 2017 13:37

    No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.

    It can --

    Look at Chechnya! A newly rebuilt Grosny, living in peace.

    Bearing in mind Iraq, Libya etc who wants to see that --

    NativeBornTexan Arapas , 12 Apr 2017 14:08
    Chechnya is ruled by a Russian puppet dictator who executes gay men.
    Shad O NativeBornTexan , 12 Apr 2017 15:13
    That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".

    It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties, but it's all for the greater good.

    Pipcosta , 12 Apr 2017 13:18
    Why do we send a sewer rat to the UN as our ambassador
    brianboru1014 , 12 Apr 2017 13:14
    Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
    Ruby4 , 12 Apr 2017 13:13
    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

    Albert Einstein

    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

    Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645

    FFC800 , 12 Apr 2017 13:08
    This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct in the peace.

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.

    Most of that was done by rebels.
    jackrousseau , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't rhyme at all; it parodies.

    The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job", and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy grail, "yellowcake uranium".

    Of course, 6 months ago --with full knowledge of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds--Trump said toppling Hussein was a "uge" mistake and defended him as an "efficient killer of terrorists". "Efficient" indeed... https://cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/05/politics/donald-trump-saddam-hussein-iraq-terrorism/index.html

    I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).

    Who knows...I guess at least it's interesting.

    John Smythe , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.

    There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.

    bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 13:00
    I find the commments on here quite confusing...

    Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).

    Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?

    The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.

    Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.

    So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....

    Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.

    dusktildawn bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 13:34
    I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.

    And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.

    bemusedfromdevon dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 14:11
    My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...

    I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'

    I'm embarrassed to be honest....

    Shad O bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 15:25

    Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with

    what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat acceptable.

    In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper) as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.

    Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on (Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.

    NezPerce , 12 Apr 2017 12:58

    President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways the right on.

    Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left. David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.

    Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.

    The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war. The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:

    https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-michael-savage-begs-trump-to-stop-wwiii/

    In this off the cuff interview Michael Savage begs Donald Trump to not plunge the world into another world war that could destroy life as we know it

    .

    Trump has been subjugated by the deep state, his base is outraged and in despair.

    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:58
    You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as well.
    Mates Braas dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 15:05
    You can start proceedings against your own war criminals. There is a long list of them, stretching from, Paris, London, Washington and Tel Aviv.
    freeandfair dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 16:41
    In that case North Korea and Saudi Arabia should be on top of the list.
    Trekkie555 , 12 Apr 2017 12:57
    Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
    Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    diddoit , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google it).

    But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his fate was sealed.

    zolotoy diddoit , 12 Apr 2017 12:59
    Nope, wrong. Assad wouldn't give the USA, Qatar, and Turkey a nice pipeline to kneecap Russian natural gas sales in Europe.

    It's all about oil and money, petrodollars and ensuring American worldwide hegemony.

    sokkynick zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 13:07
    +1
    diddoit zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 13:42
    Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance the region.

    I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.

    Ilan Klinger , 12 Apr 2017 12:53
    A regime changing in Syria?

    Can someone here try and convince me that the State of Syria still exists?

    And change it from what to what?From a Murderouscracy to a Oppressionocracy?

    peterwiv , 12 Apr 2017 12:52
    The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.

    Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.

    aleph , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
    elaine naude aleph , 12 Apr 2017 15:43
    Who should he have backed? - Isis?
    algae64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.

    Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely, it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.

    BorisMalden , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble

    Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.

    Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.

    We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.

    Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.

    The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.

    aleph Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:56
    "Better to help Assad stabilise the Country"

    Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.

    Oldfranky aleph , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    Are you sure it's only Assad, laugh all you will.
    BorisMalden , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble

    Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.

    Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.

    We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.

    Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.

    The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.

    aleph Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:56
    "Better to help Assad stabilise the Country"

    Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.

    Oldfranky aleph , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    Are you sure it's only Assad, laugh all you will.
    Foracivilizedworld , 12 Apr 2017 12:44

    Regime change in Syria? That would be a mistake

    Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"

    And I think Trump would do it.

    SaracenBlade , 12 Apr 2017 12:43
    Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
    notDonaldTrump SaracenBlade , 12 Apr 2017 12:49
    'regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict.'

    If one tried to think impartially the evidence might lead one to think that was the plan all along.

    BlueCollar notDonaldTrump , 12 Apr 2017 15:50
    If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud, even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
    timefliesby , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Have we learnt nothing?
    zolotoy timefliesby , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    Some of us have learned to be very comfortable with scraps from the war machine table -- Western legacy media in particular.
    moreorless2 , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
    Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 12:39
    Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq, where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
    StrongMachine Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    Are you calling George W Bush a liberal?
    PSmd Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 13:07
    It's not liberal cultural imperialism. It's painted as that to sell to domestic audiences.

    It's liberal economic imperialism.

    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.

    WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.

    The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.

    juster , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc 2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.

    Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.

    freeandfair juster , 12 Apr 2017 16:58
    > They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.

    An excellent point.

    bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 12:35
    There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots get on with it...

    There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....

    If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian readers.

    Jared Hall bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
    bemusedfromdevon Jared Hall , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    We're pulling the trigger??

    And that makes supporting a tyrant who will do anything a satisfactory solution to you?

    Sounds like crocodile tears to me.

    SterlingPound Jared Hall , 12 Apr 2017 13:11
    Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year. The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.

    It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.

    Muzzledagain , 12 Apr 2017 12:35
    Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
    Aethelfrith , 12 Apr 2017 12:31
    Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.

    This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.

    More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.

    austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:30
    And it will serve as a welcome distraction from the lack of domestic achievements by the U.S. govt.
    Fort Sumpter austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    Theresa could also do with some distraction from her shambolic government and the whole Brexit disaster.
    timefliesby austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    Got to agree. Dead cat. Nobody is talking about links and the FBI any more and Putin is mentioned on a new context.

    Approval ratings from US voters?

    Moo1234 Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:45
    We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:30
    What if this was Apartheid era South Africa and the white minority were bombing the hell out of the majority black civilians who wanted them out?
    duthealla dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:49
    Nobody intervened in South Africa despite massacres like Sharpeville....perhaps it would've let to full on racial war though?
    dusktildawn duthealla , 12 Apr 2017 12:55
    I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
    Fort Sumpter dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:04
    It isn't hypocrisy because your South African scenario bears little resemblance to what is happening in Syria. Simple as that.
    Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:28
    Boris obviously has a more pressing engagement over Easter.
    BeanstalkJack , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Regime change - a phrase that reminds us imperialism is alive and well.
    Gandalf66 BeanstalkJack , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
    BeanstalkJack Gandalf66 , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.

    I think the word is arrogance rather than belief.

    Mates Braas sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 14:51
    I think the word is arrogance rather than belief...............and exceptionalism.
    brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Trump is the new boy on the block, trying to use missiles as a penis substitute.

    Sorry, but simple definitions are sometimes correct.

    yshani brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 13:19
    Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.

    Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.

    brucebaby yshani , 12 Apr 2017 13:26
    WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have happened if not for the USA.

    Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.

    MacMeow brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 17:01

    WW2 was won principally by the USSR

    That old clunker again, it's like the war in the Pacific never happened.

    Sorry4Soul , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Why it would be a mistake ?

    Libya was such a success story.

    Trumbledon , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    Finally, at long last, some sense.

    I agree wholeheartedly; by far the best analysis I've read in this paper.

    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later? Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
    joAnn chartier , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
    Fakecharitybuster , 12 Apr 2017 12:20
    Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
    ganaruvian Fakecharitybuster , 12 Apr 2017 13:40
    Spot-on!
    Viva_Kidocelot , 12 Apr 2017 12:20
    Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
    Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:19
    At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
    Gandalf66 Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided by the Syrians themselves.
    Mates Braas Gandalf66 , 12 Apr 2017 14:50
    "Why isn't Syria ready for Western values?"

    The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before all the US led interventions.

    There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will likely say.

    shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto! A darling of the left.
    bemusedfromdevon shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:22
    That's how it seems...
    Fort Sumpter shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Not the left. These writers are pro-British Establishment, pro mixed economy liberals. Soft right if anything.
    zolotoy Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.

    Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.

    They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically insignificant.

    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:17
    "Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary"

    The Guardian reported that in Libya, the last country to benefit from US and "our" attempts at regime change there are now open air slave auctions.

    So yeah, why not do the same in Syria; what is there to lose?

    Mates Braas , 12 Apr 2017 12:16
    Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals. These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.

    Imperial hubris knows no bounds.

    tjt77 Mates Braas , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
    jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:16
    President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him just a bit more.
    sceptic64 jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    And what comes after?
    duthealla sceptic64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    That'd be a problem for the EU. We cook , you clean - as some neocon asshat said about Iraq.
    richmanchester duthealla , 12 Apr 2017 13:14
    Well the Guardian was reporting on open air slave auctions in

    Libya this week.

    So clearly arming "the people" and supplying air support worked well there.

    Obviously the same course should be followed in Syria.

    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    "All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. "

    And that's Assad'd fault?

    Or is it the fault of the originally US and still Gulf states/Turkey backed Wahhabis that have damaged them?

    Trumbledon richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    All Assad's fault, if he hadn't tried to liberate Palmyra, it'd still be standi... Oh wait.
    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:14
    "The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "

    Absolute tosh.

    The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with one that aligned itself with the USA.

    The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern

    Elinore richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    It would work in the USA.
    Nietzschestache , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
    pete8s sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:21
    Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.

    There is no love of Assad anywhere.

    If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.

    bemusedfromdevon sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Perhaps because the rebel areas are getting the shit bombed out of them by the Russians and Assad...

    How many heavy bombers and fighters do those fighting Assad have...?

    Just think about it a little....

    Fort Sumpter pete8s , 12 Apr 2017 12:26

    There is no love of Assad anywhere.

    How many Syrians do you know and how many times have you been there?

    scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 12:10
    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.

    A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.

    Amanzim , 12 Apr 2017 12:10
    Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes in laws of yesteryears.
    zankaon , 12 Apr 2017 12:09
    Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?

    Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.

    Elinore , 12 Apr 2017 12:08
    You could put Assad in the White House and Trump in Syria and and nothing would change except that the White House might be a tad more intelligent.
    Gandalf66 Elinore , 12 Apr 2017 12:59
    Assad is actually a qualified doctor so he's pretty intelligent. Strange that he's ignoring the Hippocratic Oath on a daily basis.
    jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:08
    So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom, then you are living in a hole in the ground.
    Mickmarrs jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    Yeah and the guys that get in are head loppers
    ProfJake , 12 Apr 2017 12:05
    Well said. Worth taking a look at Global Peace Index, which is produced annually by the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace:

    http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index /

    In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.

    The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.

    Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:05

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.

    Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.

    Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos online for goodness sake.

    mp66 , 12 Apr 2017 12:04
    Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.

    So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.

    ID1941743 , 12 Apr 2017 12:02
    Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
    ariaclast , 12 Apr 2017 12:01
    This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.

    One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our intervention could scarcely make things any worse

    Vetinary ariaclast , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Are you actually blind?
    ariaclast Vetinary , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    Who said that?
    LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 12:00
    The US?

    Syria?

    Regime change?

    Moi?

    It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth making yet another gaffe;

    "I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."

    (my emphasis)

    Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.

    As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?

    zolotoy LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    I'm sure it was an unintentional but very revealing Freudian slip.

    The advantage of letting dunces speak is that they're not very good at hiding what they think.

    LucyandTomDog LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 13:21
    Typo

    'As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?'

    Should be destabilise

    Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 11:59

    Bashar al-Assad is not a good person.

    Don't hold back...

    Moo1234 Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 12:22
    Daesh/ isis are even less good people......
    Gandalf66 Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 13:00
    More like Assad is the least worst.
    davshev , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
    sceptic64 davshev , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy, something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.

    This whole thing stinks.

    davshev sceptic64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
    zolotoy davshev , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Good question. How sleazy is it to be complicit with Al Qaeda, the only entity on the planet that the USA is semiofficially at war with?
    scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates in regime change at the top.

    The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.

    The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.

    This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet" for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?

    As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.

    As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.

    Mates Braas scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 14:37
    "The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime;"

    There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace talks were arranged.

    lemonsuckingpedant , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
    zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 11:53
    Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces? I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime change."

    Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached with this whopper:

    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.

    --as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
    Janeira1 zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Didn't notice Iraq faring too well the last time the US intervened in regime change.
    jamie evans , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    Trump told him over some cake?

    This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care. How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.

    Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.

    Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.

    So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.

    dusktildawn Jack1R , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed the conflict as a whole recede?
    Jack1R dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:02
    They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.

    The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.

    It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment, other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.

    I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving it.

    There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.

    Alderbaran Jack1R , 12 Apr 2017 13:04
    Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought together to defeat ISIS?

    In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great track record in Syria.

    And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to support other dictators)

    Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional government is agreed upon.
    WellmeaningBob Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 12:11
    A little contradictory, no? Oh we fucked up, so you need to be colonised anyway.
    Laurence Bury WellmeaningBob , 12 Apr 2017 12:19
    No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.

    The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a dictatorship indefinitely.

    WellmeaningBob Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
    Mates Braas elan , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Civil war means that both sides are killing their own people.
    zolotoy jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:57
    Only because his opposition is even more barbaric.
    Fort Sumpter jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 12:09
    'indiscriminate weapons'

    Oh dear, are they rally still pushing this 'our weapons don't kill civilians' BS?

    No need for evidence of chlorine gas bombs apparently.

    And anyone who questions the MSM narrative and who is sickened by endless war is an 'apologist'. What are you but an apologist for war?

    Mates Braas jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    Unfortunately, there is no way to make war nice.
    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 12 Apr 2017 11:42
    Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called ''civil war'' even started.

    They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).

    The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.

    The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after they defeated Assad)

    The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap

    hpe974 SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 12 Apr 2017 16:26
    Of course it is!! The USA is truly the biggest sponsor of terror and mayhem and destruction in the M.E.
    namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 11:38
    Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
    HuckelburryPin namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 11:46

    Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.

    Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........

    WellmeaningBob namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 12:04
    I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:37
    Scott Ritter has been commenting on the alleged Assad gas attacks . Unlike the MSM the former Iraq weapons inspector seems far from convinced.
    Levant1998 ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    Former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd, and Professor Theodore Posto of MIT also authored a piece:

    http://m.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    jadamsj ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 17:12

    Scott Ritter has been commenting on the alleged Assad gas attacks. Unlike the MSM the former Iraq weapons inspector seems far from convinced.

    What that before or after Russia blocked an investigation into it?

    ploughmanlunch , 12 Apr 2017 11:35
    'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'

    Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure that makes things drastically worse.

    zolotoy ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:46
    Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
    EdmundLange , 12 Apr 2017 11:29
    We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
    EdmundLange jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:58
    Excellent, I'm glad we're going to topple Assad so the Jihadists can take control. Just what we needed.
    capatriot , 12 Apr 2017 11:26

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.

    What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?

    But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to help it?

    Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?

    zolotoy jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally serving him, aren't limitless.

    [Apr 12, 2017] on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:16 pm UTC

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    You are the typical Anglo-Saxxon who has been fed Propaganda, and who thinks he knows what great Fighters are made off. You are wrong, you didn't have any of that sort for a looong, looong time -- Why ? Because you are evil, your wars are evil since a looong, loooong time. There are no great Warriors in the Army of evil, only slime, rubbish, filth. Those who aren't cannot be part of really and usually die a very unkonwn, unspoken of death.

    A Lion, a Wolf know fear, because not having it is bad for survival, as you will soon find out yourselve.
    How old are you ? I guess you are older than twenty. I have bad news for you. If you don't even know such extremly basic fundamentals what else could you know ? 'Know How' probably, which makes you the perfect Slave, Soldier, Ork, Zombie.

    Aggression – Fear are the result of the same mechanism, the examination of a social situation intra- or inter- species. The resultant reaction is usually beneficial for survival, else it will just dissapear over time.

    The Russians know what it means to have a real modern War at hand, an experience which you never had, Your experience comes from phony Hollywood crap. The Russians experienced total War, a term you have no faculties for, only the Germans and Russians have. The Germans were transformed into plastic, jew hailing dolls, while the Russians learned really from the experience. They prepare large underground shelters for the Civilians in the large Metropolitan areas (Having a Subway is also not bad), but more importantly their mind is focused, they ready themselves in the mind. You can see some of it's quality in the civil war in the Donbass. These are men types and women completly alien to a dumbed down Westerner fed up with lies. In comparance to them you are just junk, trash. One of them outweighs 20 of yours easily. Would you know what you are fighting for ? The only feasible reply could be, yes we plan to kill our Leaders. Now that said, do you know where strength comes from, first and foremost ? A pure god abiding soul !!!!!! Any TRUE Warrior will fear war, because he is concerned for the weak, for himself and even for his enemy. The strength you are talking is not strength at all, but weakness. You are the type who at first occurence will use barbaric force onto the innocence (Civilians, Surrendering Enemies) we know you inside out. Your strength is to be brutal and barbaric, only that's no strength at all but weakness. It only makes the enemy stronger, his resolve will increase indefinetly. In a total War that means defeat for you without exception. Your Leaders know this or knew this, thus they planned their wars very carefully in advance, striking only when risk was minimal (WWI & WWII), because you couldn't withstand a prolonged real war spiritually, in war all domestic lies are uncovered the nearer you get to the frontline.

    TYS on April 12, 2017 , · at 1:22 am UTC
    @HDan

    Your posting was literally a poem, a profound one, painfully truthful and excellent.

    The part you where you wrote:

    Now that said, do you know where strength comes from, first and foremost ? A pure god abiding soul !!!!!! Any TRUE Warrior will fear war, because he is concerned for the weak, for himself and even for his enemy.

    Was particularly poignant and reminded me of the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita, representing the exact attitude of the main warrior Arjuna on the eve of battle.

    Are you Russian? Did those ideas you wrote down in your post come from the Russian culture and represent a portion of Russian ethos or does it come from some other culture (Chinese or Japanese). It would really be valuable for our understanding if you could answer this.

    With respect, TYS.

    Anonius on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:20 pm UTC
    @Spartan
    You so do not understand a thing. Spartans fought to the last breath, because as someone said they had to protect their land and the families. This is why some people say " Molon Lave – come and get it" they did not say "we run now". They understood that this was their last stand. And this is called "ultimate sacrifice".

    Saker is so correct in what he says, and you do not have to agree with him, because you haven't had to stand when bullets were flying around you. The truth though is: you do not hear the one coming for you. How I know it? From my father who did his share of fighting in WWII.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Russia became strong because of the sanctions. It made Russia concentrate on internal production

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Russia became strong because of the sanctions. It made Russia concentrate on internal production, on self-reliance. As Putin noted, "Thanks, couldn't have done it without you"

    So, how is this for left field

    I agree, the US and China are economically interdependent.

    Trump wants to make America great again. Wants the jobs and the factories back. So, why not 'fry' China. Nuke Nth Korea, declare war on China after either a false flag or China retaliating.

    Then, as an enemy state, confiscate all China's assets in the US and repudiate any debt to China via Bonds etc. WTF is China going to do?

    Smile a lot???

    America is then forced to make things again, and getting rid of a few trillion in bond debt will help economically I expect.

    Concentrate on internal production and consumption.

    Oh yes, it is all a lot more complicated than that .. but think about it .. interesting scenario

    And it would fit in with Trumps child-like simple view of the world.

    We are still essentially a group of nation states, basically at war because each state only acts in its own interests. Until we can work together as a common humanity, war seems the only way to resolve differences.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:41 am UTC
    You may need to educate your self with some simple facts: 18.3% of Chinese export goes to US and 15% of US export goes to China. Anything happen to trade with US will hurt, but Chinese can Manage.

    US can frozen Chinese asset, and Chinese will hit where it hurts. There are plenty of American finial products in China and China will have her pick.

    Like Germans said to Trump, "We are not a nation without means, and we will fight back!" I have yet see China fail to retaliate any so called punishment from US.

    I fail to see why a smart people like you running with some one who is not living in this reality.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:00 am UTC
    TYS, you are wrong on one thing: The Chinese political apparatchiks are not idiots like their European, American and Russian liberal counterparts. You forget that credit inflation and deflation can be controlled by the CCB at will. It's a balance sheet operation in the accounting department. Bad debts can be cleared (bonds of economic useful actors can be bailed out – parasites like 90% of bond holders can go tits up) if need be. It's true that in the confines of neoclassical economic thinking an operation like that is unfathomable, but it is still just a technical operation which has to be executed in a planned manner. In contrast to the so called "free market in the West" the Chinese government has the means to get all necessary actors to comply and the ability to get the necessary information. The shadow banking system in China is a much bigger problem, once again not because the assets cannot be restructured, but because of the lack of control and, in some cases, the integral part they play in the Chinese economy.

    Many make the faulty assumption that money is somehow an integral part of our physical reality – it's not. A social unit of account, claim on work, the materialised form of consolidated power, is a necessary illusion to keep humans devided in a hierarchical power structure. This has nothing to do with physical laws, which cannot be manipulated. Humans can do whatever they want with the stored energy in form of atom bonds to electromagnetic radiation. If it means they want to push some electrons in the CB mainframe to get society to keep believing in real or electronic paper, they can do it. BTW the US debt was created though the transfer of reserves at the CB into an interest bearing asset e.g. treasuries. Translation: the Chinese swapped their reserves at the FED for treasuries. The US cannot default on its currency because its the SOLE issuer of it. It stupefies me to no end that the myth of a US default in DOLLAR is still discussed seriously. On the other hand, Chinese assessts in dollars are at a real risk. They CAN drop in value if the US were to create more dollar denominated credit with which it would buy up REAL assessts and not fictional wealth f.e. at the stock market.

    There are no economic laws. There is only an established social system which is very profitable for a few and is the legacy of a previous power struggle.

    nice try on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:15 pm UTC
    @ Nachtigall: Well put! The US put it's neck in the "reserve currency to the world" noose at Bretton Woods. An imperial overstep, the Daffy Duck in Aladdin's Cave moment "MINE MINE, ALL MINE!!!"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJIlCSBfksM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE0miV8YBBw

    TYS on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:54 pm UTC
    I agree that the Chinese leadership are not idiots, I don't believe I ever said they were.

    I repeat, the Chinese are not going to throw away their ability to gain access to western technology and corporations (or destabilize, any further, their social systems by disrupting their export oriented industries) by doing anything stupid like threatening the US with their current Empire currency & debt holdings. So I agree with you, I don't think the Chinese leadership are reckless idiots: that's my point.

    Have you forgotten that the Chinese economic growth has nearly halved even based on their faked inflated "official" 6.5 % GDP growth figures (their actual growth figure is between 3-4%)? They are not operating from a position of strength.

    Gold reserves, during a trade war, will not give the Chinese access to the Western technologies and assets they desire.

    Someone mentioned a scenario where the US will declare war on China in order to tear up their debt obligations to the Chinese and seize Chinese assets in the West. Why would they need to do that? One can easily make the counter argument: the US can provoke China into doing something wreckless and then default on China. Isn't that what the close shore patrols the US performs along China's coastline designed to underscore?

    Again, a very good point was brought up in the article, President Xi needs to do more than behave like a smiling Buddha: they continue to let Russia does all the heavy lifting (and dying). Let's see if they do finally step up to the plate, – I don't believe they will.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:44 pm UTC
    I agree with you. They are very cautious not to upset their dollar apple card, as you've rightly pointed out: the Chinese worked themselves like slaves to get this mountain of dollar reserves. I once picked up the rumor that the Russians tried to convince the Chinese to drop their dollar reserves on the market in 2008-2009 so as to crash the dollar, but again this would have meant shooting themselves in the foot. The US doesn't give s* about its debt, they don't have to default on anything because its their currency! So you're right the US could provoke China into doing something rash. Indeed China is very much an export driven economy, and they will absolutely do jack to threaten their position by getting into a military confrontations with the US. How do you even, like the Saker points out regularly, deal with war mongering freaks like the US officials? The US is itching to destroy its competitors by any means necessary.

    The crucial point I wanted to make, and this is what I mean by not being idiots, is that they know how they should play the capitalist game of smoke in mirrors, they know that the debt bubble in thw real estate sector is unsustainable, they know that they inflate GDP numbers, but here is the BIG difference (to eurocrats f.e.): If the real estate bubble pops the CB can bail out all useful actors and let the bad ones go bankrupt. It can create yuan at infinitum. It would send initially shock waves through the economy, but depending on the prudent restructuring of all the debts the economy can resume on working again. This is what no Western bureaucrat would dare to think – when they bail out something, it's parasites like JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, Goldman and large funds, never small time debtors f.e. home owners. As I recall, Micheal Hudson talked about how Sheila Bair (EX FDIC Chairman) did suggest that you should save real people (depositor's money) instead of bank balance sheets, and that the FED was able to do that (a small summary of her views with a lot weasel words and smoke: https://jrc.princeton.edu/news/sheila-bair-former-fdic-chairman-discusses-financial-crisis ).

    This subject is much more complex than everything said by us, but I understand why Chinese officials refrain from doing the rational thing of restructuring the debts right now; i think they speculate on the fact that as long as the economy is growing they will continue to build cities, ports, planes, buy out western companies and infrastructure till the bell rings. After the process of consolidation I described they will reinflate the credit bubble again. They try everything at the same time. Reining in the shadow banking system, slowing down credit inflation and than restarting it again and letting the economy grow etc. China is trying to establish its very own yuan vacuum cleaner by which they can buy up (real!) assets like mines, factories etc. all over the world.

    That is the perspective of the capitalist class (not to speak of silly name calling like"communists"), take another viewpoint esp. in terms of the eco-system and all of this is a big fat net loss. They once tried to measure their "Green GDP" but quickly stopped doing that after it became apparent how much "natural capital" was destroyed each year.

    All of our terminology, definitions, ethics are sloppy and misleading by design if we talk about who decides what, when and who gets what, when and how much.

    Nachtigall on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:40 pm UTC
    Interesting interview with Michael Hudson about the FIRE=FinanceInsuranceRealEstate sector:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/15/how-bankers-became-the-top-exploiters-of-the-economy/

    TYS on April 12, 2017 , · at 12:49 am UTC
    @Nachtigall

    Very well put. Thanks for elaborating in detail. I agree the very premise of "currency" based systems are virtualized models and artificial. Hudson's work is very revealing, I agree.

    Evilc on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:32 pm UTC
    @Nachtigall
    Very well put, but may I add that the 'economy' is an expression of energy; past, present and future and we (in the west anyway) have borrowed rather heavily from the future. We can print as much money as we want but we cant print energy, well not yet anyway.
    Little Black Duck on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:40 am UTC
    China has hedged its exposure to US debt by accumulating gold.
    When the US dollar crashes, gold will soar and the effect may well be beneficial to China even if they initiate the crash.
    It's the USA that is between a rock and a hard place.
    nice try on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:27 pm UTC
    Yup, China and Russia are divesting US$-based reserves, using those artificially inflated US$ instruments to buy physical gold at artificially deflated market prices literally hundreds of tonnes/year.

    Meanwhile the US has to buy/steal gold from other countries, bought about 220 tonnes from Canada to give about the same to Netherlands in the "rehypothecated WW2 safe-keeping gold repatriation scam", plus steal from Libya and Ukraine to do the same for Germany and France. The hegemon is in a weak position when the vassal states don't trust them to hold their physical gold and can demand it back.

    Russia and China have already set up an alternate international currency/exchange/trade system, using yuan-renminbi/ruble plus accommodating other local currencies. The only-US$-based WTO/IMF/World Bank/BIS/SWIFT/etc. system can be bypassed if the US/Rothschilds decide to attempt any M.A.D. economic tactics.

    Simon Chow on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:24 pm UTC
    Yes I agree. Accumulating gold seems to be part of their plan. If the USD crash for whatever reasons, the rise in the price of gold will at least cover up for the loss in value of USD assets. I think China has enough gold to be now more than ready to dump USD assets; and the US knows this. This means that China can survive a crash of the USD but USA will not. That's why Trump is talking nice to Xi. Neither will the US survive if the USD is manipulated too high through interest rates by the Fed.
    TYS on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:07 pm UTC
    @ Little Black Duck

    The United States Reserve hold 8 times as much gold as China's. So where does your argument go now?

    If we include the BS internet rumor that China has unofficial holdings of an additional 9000 tonnes raising their total seizable holdings to 10,000 tonnes that is still dwarfed by US private holdings. Europe has comparable reserves in private and central bank hands. Finally, the country with largest gold holdings in both in govt and private hands is India, at approx 20,000 tons.

    So China has no net advantage here.

    Anonymous on April 12, 2017 , · at 3:40 am UTC
    Just look at the yearly production of gold in China, the gold that never reaches the market. The official Chinese reserves of 1,000 tones are nothing compared to it. Coupled with official Swiss mints data of gold export to China in the last 10 years, and you are coming really close to BS internet rumor numbers.

    When was the last time that US gold holdings were audited? Do you know that US had 24,000 tones of gold in 1945? They reduced their holdings for more than 15,000 tones from 1945 to 1971, and after that they didn't reduce it for an ounce?

    Peace on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:45 am UTC
    Saker, a pat on the back for you, excellent job. I don't expect but pray that the anglozionist read this article

    [Apr 12, 2017] Tillerson meets with Putin amid deepening tensions over U.S. missile strikes in Syria by Carol Morello and David Filipov

    www.washingtonpost.com

    The Trump administration on Tuesday said it had collected intelligence that purportedly proved Syrian forces had carried out the deadly chemical weapons attack in the northern Idlib province that led to the U.S. missile strike.

    "We reject any accusations to this effect and would like to remind everyone that Russia has been the only country to demand an unbiased international inquiry into the circumstances of the use of toxic chemicals near Idlib from the very start," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

    The meeting between Tillerson and Russian President Vladimir Putin came after hours of tense exchanges, with both sides staking out positions that were sharply at odds. Russia made it clear it was unwilling to roll back its strategic alliance with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    The talks appeared unlikely to bring any significant breakthroughs after last week's missile strike plunged U.S.-Russian relations to one of the lowest points since the Cold War.

    [U.S. reveals intelligence disputing Russian claim about Syria chemical attack]

    But despite the growing rifts, some general compromises were discussed.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Johnson stung over sanctions against Russia

    Apr 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 12, 2017 at 05:45 AM
    Johnson stung over sanctions against Russia

    Sam Coates, Deputy Political Editor | David Charter
    April 12 2017, 12:01am,
    The Times

    One senior Tory described the outcome of the G7 meeting in Italy as a humiliation for Boris Johnson and Britain

    Boris Johnson was left embarrassed last night after his demands for fresh sanctions against Russia over its backing for President Assad of Syria were publicly rebuffed by European allies.

    The final communiqué after a two-day meeting of G7 nations in Lucca, Italy, made no mention of the foreign secretary's proposal to isolate Vladimir Putin and impose sanctions on Russian military figures.

    Italy and France rejected Mr Johnson's position, and one senior Tory described the outcome as a humiliation for Britain.

    The comments came as Rex Tillerson, the US secretary of state, flew to Moscow to confront the Kremlin over its support for Assad after a gas attack last week that led the US to respond with missile strikes on a Syrian airbase.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/johnson-stung-over-sanctions-against-russia-s925bppx8

    [Apr 12, 2017] Putin Backs Down Meets Tillerson amid Heightened U.S.-Russia Tensions - Breitbart

    Apr 12, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    Sam Crow 2 hours ago

    Why is it interpreted as 'backing down'??? Sounds to me Putin is the only reasonable grownup in the room and realizes how quickly things can spiral out of control towards war.

    Colonel Bogey Sam Crow an hour ago

    I, too, take issue with the headline "PUTIN BACKS DOWN," but my complaint is with Breitbart. It's as if they're trying to stir things up by acting just like the MSM. It would have been wiser to just say "Putin Reverses, Meets Tillerson." BTW I like the Sam Crow handle.

    WaitYourTurn maganow an hour ago

    You read my mind. Why does Breitbart bash Putin with a headline of "backing down" when Putin meeting with Tillerson is exactly what Trump and Bannon would have wanted? It's important not to beat up on people who are engaging reasonably and diplomatically with our administration.

    pinetreeflag WaitYourTurn 44 minutes ago

    Tillerson and the globalists/neocons/deep state better back off this dismantling of the Assad regime if his boss Trump is saying there won't be any more action in Syria.

    RiseLiberty pinetreeflag 27 minutes ago

    He didn't say no more action. He said no troops. Plenty of action from the air and sea still possible.

    LEEPERMAX RiseLiberty 23 minutes ago

    Needless to say ...

    "Russian State Media" seems more informed than "American State Media"

    David Brainerd WaitYourTurn 36 minutes ago

    Because Breitbart is covering for Trump's new neocon warmonger agenda.

    Voltaire David Brainerd 9 minutes ago

    David I think Trump is going for peace through strength. Obama has turned half of America into apologist pacifists - and just look at the state of the world after Obamas lead-from-behind approach. A MESS !!! Trump is asserting leadership.

    PCM WaitYourTurn 34 minutes ago

    It's also very important no to look like Putin caved in to Trump. He must look strong and "save face" at home to his people. Making him look weak is silly and foolish, childlike.

    Susan Sloate WaitYourTurn 8 minutes ago

    I LOVE that you called it 'our administration '. It's the first time I've seen an administration as 'mine ' in at least 30 years!

    Gordon Geikko 2.0 maganow an hour ago

    It's all about Clicks...
    You have to Create Tension to Create Interest...
    So they create Tension even where there is none...
    Breitbart makes their living selling conflict.
    That's what makes it Interesting
    ""World Peace Achieved -- Everyone is Happy !" doesn't make anyone scared, worried or pissed...not that we will ever see that headline...

    British Bulldog Gordon Geikko 2.0 29 minutes ago

    Yeah, fun for them maybe ... while the rest of us sweat it out

    Dave Tibor Gordon Geikko 2.0 30 minutes ago

    You're probably right, from Breitbart's perspective. That's sad because it's a big mistake. Breitbart readers are annoyed by misleading hype. BTW - love your posts.

    m1a1_79 Gordon Geikko 2.0 7 minutes ago

    breitbart got a lot of free publicity in this last campaign cycle for so roundly supporting trump, now trump's won, and bb is one of the most "trusted" news sources for Trump, even if only via bannon.

    They should really try to elevate themselves above click bait if they want to be taken seriously. And no, not MSM serious, ACTUAL serous. IE: do some damn journalism and stop feeding trolls and generating click bait.

    /rant over

    [Apr 12, 2017] Putin Trust With US Deteriorated After Trump Took Office

    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    In an interview today, Russian President Vladimir Putin reported that the level of trust with the United States on a day-to-day, working basis began getting worse after Trump took office. This is a surprise, as the Kremlin had welcomed Trump's election and was expressing high hopes for improved relations.

    Of course, those improved ties never came to pass, with the administration abandoning plans to ease sanctions on Russia shortly thereafter, and backed off more or less all the stated plans of shifting US policy in Syria toward a focus on ISIS, which culminated last week in the US attacking the Syrian government outright.

    While the Obama Administration of the last few years was every bit as hostile toward Russia as the Trump Administration is, they never presented themselves as anything but hostile. Putin's comments suggest Russia had high hopes for rapprochement with Trump, and the dramatic reverse by the new administration had badly eroded Russia's trust in anything they say.

    [Apr 12, 2017] With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.

    Serial betrayer...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored. ..."
    "... Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success. ..."
    "... I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors. ..."
    "... Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen. ..."
    "... Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there." ..."
    "... Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org

    x | Apr 12, 2017 10:28:48 AM | 3

    Elvis has (almost) left the building...

    quote
    ----
    Goodwin says he asked Trump if he still has confidence in Bannon, who is reportedly feuding with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner. And Trump didn't exactly disabuse Goodwin of the idea that Bannon is embattled. In fact, he did quite the opposite.

    "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late," Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist, and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/11/trump-just-made-some-very-strange-comments-about-stephen-k-bannon

    likklemore | Apr 12, 2017 10:56:15 AM | 7
    Thanks b,
    Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can sanity be brought back to town?

    Oldtimers from the 1980 remember reading China, Russia and Iran were the great enemies of USA and to keep boss Israel safe her neighbors had to be splintered into mini statelets. Warring is a racket and lunacy obfuscates the racket; makes for good profits. So "sanity" will not be restored.

    I am reading the release of an ex see-i-aye officer that McCain, McMaster, Brennan are in a huddle and Bannon is out. Somewhat confirming Where is Trump's loyalty? I was winning before he rescued me: In an interview with Michael Goodwin of NYPOST

    Trump won't definitively say he still backs Bannon

    "I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late," Trump said. "I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist and it wasn't like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary."
    He ended by saying, "Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will."

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    My take is Trump has given too much of his presidential responsibility to Jared. Israel and Family are always First.

    RUKidding | Apr 12, 2017 12:20:29 PM | 26
    Vis Trump and Bannon in terms of Bannon apparently being tossed out:

    Jane Meyer wrote in the New Yorker recently about the wealthy hedge funder, Robert Mercer, and his daughter Rebekah, who are big sponsors of Breitbart. They backed Cruz in the Primary, but once he lost to Trump, they began to back Trump with lots of money. For their "donations," they more or less demanded that Trump take on Bannon as an advisor. Meyer posits that it's largely due to the Mercers and Bannon that Trump won. They started working with Trump in August when Trump was seriously lagging in the poles. Although many criticized and/or jeered Trump's hiring of Bannon, the rest, as they say, is history. It is believed that Bannon and the Mercer's are largely behind and responsible for his success.

    I have read somewhere that Bannon always said he'd be out within a year. I don't believe that Trump had much loyalty to Bannon beyond whatever "good" Bannon did for him on any given day. So it's not all that surprising that Bannon is out, as are most of Trump's other initial picks as his "inside" advisors.

    With Bannon and Kushner not getting along, well, it's a slam dunk that Bannon's out.

    "How can sanity be brought to town?"

    Clearly and quite simply, it can't unless something majorly serious happens. We all had some slim hope that Trump could be the disrupter who made at least some levels of serious change. Clearly, that ain't gonna happen.

    Syria's just some sort of side show distraction. US citizens - at least a certain siginificant percentage of them - can be relied on to rally 'round the Flag, boys, just one more time if the tomahawks are flying at brown people "over there."

    Frankly ALL of the media here, as everyone knows, is insanely corrupt and complete and ridiculous propaganda 24/7/365. Otherwise reasonably "sane" friends of mine knee-jerked into saluting the flag and frothing at the mouth about the horrors of Assad - about whom they know bupkiss - because they listened to propaganda about it. It's pretty frightening - really - at how George Orwell it all is. I definitely keep FAR AWAY from any tvs and radios when this crap is happening. I listened to about 3 sentences that some propagandist on NPR was spewing out. It was so over the top evident that they were propagandizing the listeners that I had to turn it off immediately. It's pretty appalling.

    How will this end? No doubt, not well, especially if you're brown skinned in the ME. The dog help us all.

    [Apr 12, 2017] White House Intelligence Assessment Is No-Such-Thing - Shows Support for Al-Qaeda

    Notable quotes:
    "... Several of the released video were introduced and commented by "Dr. Shajul Islam" who has been removed from the British medical registry and had been indicted in the UK for his role in kidnapping "western" journalists in Syria. He fled back to Syria. ..."
    "... Other videos and photos are by the White Helmets "rescuers", a U.S./UK financed propaganda prop , which is so neutral that it works with ISIS (vid) and al-Qaeda but not in government held areas where the actual Syrian population lives. ..."
    "... The Hama offensive by the "opposition" was personally planned and directed by the head of al-Qaeda in Syria al-Joliani. Photos of the planing sessions were published by "opposition" agencies and widely distributed. ..."
    "... How can there be an "intelligence assessment" (and reporting about it) that does not note that the incident in question took place in an area where AL-QAEDA rules and that the allegedly related (but defeated) offensive was launched by AL-QAEDA. Is AL-QAEDA now officially the "Syrian opposition" the U.S. supports? The neocon former General Petraeus lobbied for a U.S. alliance with al-Qaeda since 2015. The new National Security Advisor to Trump, General McMaster, is a Petraeus protege. He, together with Petraeus, screwed up Iraq . Is the Petraeus alliance now in place= ..."
    "... Postol finds nothing in the White House assessment that lets him believe the incident was from an air attack. He finds signs that the incident that was launched on the ground by intentional exploding the container of 122mm ammunition with some other explosives. ..."
    "... He calls the White House assessment amateurish and not properly vetted by competent intelligence analysts who, Postol says, would not have signed off on it in is current form (just as I said above.) ..."
    "... Postol presumes that the incident was with Sarin. He makes no analysis of that White House claim (it is not his field). I don't agree with the Sarin claim. Many other organophosphate substances (pesticides) would be "consistent with" the symptoms displayed or played in the videos and pictures. Some symptoms expected with Sarin, for example heavy cramps, spontaneous defecation, are no visible in any of the videos or pictures. ..."
    "... "A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population." ..."
    "... To sum this bunch of crap up - in less than 48 hours we are to believe the DOD's use of friggin social GD media proved beyond reasonable doubt that Assad chemed his own people in a town that is known worldwide as 'ground zero' for jihadi's, filmed by a doc who was brought to trial on terror charges (lest we forget about the UK/US financed White Helmets at $100M playing pretend propaganda chit) with the bad ass retired general now in charge of all of the militaries toys and humans stating as fact, FACT, this violation of U.S. law and international law was a one time deal b/c Assad is bad, bad, bad - I looked at the evidence and was convinced beyond doubt blah, blah blah F'ing bullshit! ..."
    "... It's just worthless verbage , unclassified, unattributed, unaddressed, unstructured, unprofessional, unreferenced, unformatted (re standards), etc, etc, nebulous raw text. So now some staffer in the WH does their childish version of the puerile #Fake 'Dossier', the 'Intelligence Report' on Trump, that never was ? Fucking surreal. Amateur hour at the WH, the, 'Executive' arm of government. This insanity is apparently only going to get worse. Might have to strap in for this ride and consider taking up alcohol again. FFS! :( ..."
    "... To quote b, "Well, maybe because, you know, that mujahedeen thing worked out so well that nearly forty years later the U.S. is mulling again to send additional troops to Afghanistan to defeat them." ..."
    "... It worked just great. More military expenditure, without even talking about the poppy fields guarded by US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The USA wouldn't want to lose such a golden business, would it? Not right when they have an amazing, fantastic heroin epidemic that lines so many pockets back at home... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heroin-use-in-u-s-reaches-alarming-20-year-high/ ..."
    "... The whole things reeks doesn't it? So amateurish. And those BGMs had to have gone somewhere, this is a terrible failure rate or the number launched was a lie. Either way it doesn't bode well that the 'stand off' weapons are less than 50% effective. Also, We never found out how many failed in the Gulf War because the media was locked in. This and the failure of the Trident. ..."
    "... The west is already allied-using al-Qaida isis so any acknowledgement would just be an official declaration, most likely with another name change for their proxy forces. This has been a active tactic since the west began using Islamic fundamentalists in the aftermath of WW II and to effect in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan, destroying the progressive government then there because is was not in the orbit or under the control of the western fascists. The west thought they had it all in the bag with the collapse of the Soviet Union until an old cold war warrior saved the Russian culture and people from complete devastation at the hands of the western globalists....and here we are today. ..."
    "... friedman and the nyt - suggesting they align with isis to take down assad was essentially what obama openly stated previously.. someone had this script written down some time ago.. nyt is just the servant to all the propaganda that is fit to print. isis is a creation of the war party, as is the divide and conquer strategy of creating a sunni/shite conflict and all the rest of the madness that continues to unfold from all of the madness... ..."
    "... The hegemon won't recognise a multipolar world until the multipolar world talks to it in the only language it has grown to understand: Violence ..."
    "... "How can sanity be brought back to town?" Is That Armageddon Over The Horizon? http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/12/is-that-armageddon-over-the-horizon/ ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    White House "Intelligence Assessment" Is No-Such-Thing - Shows Support for Al-Qaeda

    UPDATED at the end of the post

    The Trump White House published three and a half pages of accusations against the governments of Syria and Russia. These are simple white pages with no header or footer, no date, no classification or declassification marks, no issuing agency and no signatures. It is indiscernible who has written them.

    U.S. media call this a Declassified U.S. Report on Chemical Weapons Attack . It is no such thing.

    It starts with "The United States is confident that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapon attack, ..."

    The U.S. "is confident", it does not "know", it does not have "proof" - it is just "confident".

    The whole paper contains only seven paragraphs that are allegedly a "Summary of the U.S. intelligence community assessment" on the issue. The seven paragraphs are followed by eight(!) paragraphs that try to refute the Russian and Syrian statements on the issue. Some political fluff makes up the sorry rest.

    That "intelligence community assessment" chapter title is likely already a false claim. Even a fast tracked, preliminary National Intelligence Assessment, for which all seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies must be heard, takes at least two to three weeks to create. A "long track" full assessment takes two month or more. These are official documents issued by the Director of National Intelligence. The summary assessment the White House releases has no such heritage. It is likely a well massaged fast write up of some flunky in the National Security Council.

    The claimed assessment starts with a definitely false claim: "We assess that Damascus launched this chemical attack in response to an opposition offensive in Hama province that threatened key infrastructure."

    The Hama offensive had failed two weeks ago. Since then the Syrian army has regained all areas the al-Qaeda "opposition" had captured during the first few days. Key infrastructure had never been seriously threatened by it. Over 2,000 al-Qaeda fighters were killed in the endeavor.

    Peto Lucem, a well known and reliable source for accurate maps of the war on Syria, posted on March 31 , four days before the chemical incident:

    Peto Lucem @PetoLucem

    NEW MAP: "Rebel" frontline in #Hama is collapsing, #SAA reverses most #AlQaeda gains made in first days of their failed offensive. #Syria


    bigger

    The attack in Hama had already failed days before the chemical incident in Khan Shaykhun happened. Khan Shaykhun is far from the front line. The incident and the failed al-Qaeda attack in Hama can not possibly be related. It would make no sense at all to launch a militarily useless incident in a place far away "in response" to a defeat of the enemy elsewhere. (The Defense Intelligence Agency likely never signed off on such an objectively false claim.)

    The following paragraphs of the released paper reveal that the assessment is largely based on a "significant body" of "open source reporting" which "indicates" something. This means that the White House relied on pictures and videos posted by people who are allowed to operate freely in the al-Qaeda ruled Khan Shaykhun. (The town had been in the hands of an Islamic State associated group Liwa Al-Aqsa until mid February . The group moved out after fighting al-Qaeda and killing some 150 of its fighters .)

    Several of the released video were introduced and commented by "Dr. Shajul Islam" who has been removed from the British medical registry and had been indicted in the UK for his role in kidnapping "western" journalists in Syria. He fled back to Syria. The videos he distribute of "rescue" of casualties of the chemical incidents were not of real emergencies but staged. One of the journalists kidnapped with the help of Dr. Shajul Islam, James Foley, was later murdered on camera by the Islamic State.

    Other videos and photos are by the White Helmets "rescuers", a U.S./UK financed propaganda prop , which is so neutral that it works with ISIS (vid) and al-Qaeda but not in government held areas where the actual Syrian population lives.

    The Hama offensive by the "opposition" was personally planned and directed by the head of al-Qaeda in Syria al-Joliani. Photos of the planing sessions were published by "opposition" agencies and widely distributed.


    bigger

    How can there be an "intelligence assessment" (and reporting about it) that does not note that the incident in question took place in an area where AL-QAEDA rules and that the allegedly related (but defeated) offensive was launched by AL-QAEDA. Is AL-QAEDA now officially the "Syrian opposition" the U.S. supports? The neocon former General Petraeus lobbied for a U.S. alliance with al-Qaeda since 2015. The new National Security Advisor to Trump, General McMaster, is a Petraeus protege. He, together with Petraeus, screwed up Iraq . Is the Petraeus alliance now in place=

    The next step then will be for the U.S. to ally with the Islamic State. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is already arguing for that :

    We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they're the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war - the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other. If we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah and enable them to devote all their resources to crushing the last moderate rebels in Idlib, not sharing power with them.

    The U.S., Friedman says, should let ISIS run free so it can help al-Qaeda which is ruling in Idleb governate. Friedman talks of "moderate rebels in Idleb" but these are unicorns. They do not exist. There is al-Qaeda and there is Ahrar al Sham which compares itself with the Taliban . All other opposition fighters in Idleb have joined these two or are now dead.

    But why not use these gangs of sectarian mass murderers against the Syrian government and others? Hey, Israel wants us to do just that . And why don't we hand out anti-air missiles to them, Friedman asks, and lend them air-support at the same time. Surely the combination will do well.

    In Syria, Trump should let ISIS be Assad's, Iran's, Hezbollah's and Russia's headache - the same way we encouraged the mujahedeen fighters to bleed Russia in Afghanistan.

    Well, maybe because, you know, that mujahedeen thing worked out so well that nearly forty years later the U.S. is mulling again to send additional troops to Afghanistan to defeat them.

    Lunacy has truly taken over the White House but even more so the U.S. media. How can sanity be brought back to town?

    UPDATE:

    Professor emeritus at MIT Theodor Postol, a former science adviser to U.S. Navy command and missile expert, has analyzed the "evidence" the White House presented. The short, preliminary report is available here .

    Postol finds nothing in the White House assessment that lets him believe the incident was from an air attack. He finds signs that the incident that was launched on the ground by intentional exploding the container of 122mm ammunition with some other explosives.

    He calls the White House assessment amateurish and not properly vetted by competent intelligence analysts who, Postol says, would not have signed off on it in is current form (just as I said above.)

    Postol presumes that the incident was with Sarin. He makes no analysis of that White House claim (it is not his field). I don't agree with the Sarin claim. Many other organophosphate substances (pesticides) would be "consistent with" the symptoms displayed or played in the videos and pictures. Some symptoms expected with Sarin, for example heavy cramps, spontaneous defecation, are no visible in any of the videos or pictures.

    I do not concur with Postol on the picture of the alleged impact crater of the "attack". I have seen several "versions" of the impact crater on social nets with different metal parts, or none, placed in it. Postol seems to have only seen one version. His conclusions from that version seem right. But the crater "evidence" is tainted and to make overall conclusions from it is not easy. I concur though that the crater is not from an air impact but from a ground event. I am not sure though that it is related to the incident at all.

    Lysander | Apr 12, 2017 10:16:29 AM | 1

    "How can sanity be brought back to town?" Sadly, only a very strong punch in the face can stop a bully. It's a very hard and dangerous thing to do but one is amazed how quickly it works.
    Ray Fox | Apr 12, 2017 10:16:34 AM | 2
    Sanity has nothing to do with this. Remember what countries General Wesley Clark was told at the Pentagon after 9/11 were going to be destroyed. The plan will not stop, no matter what. Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote the most banned book in the world, " 200 Years Together ".

    quantums | Apr 12, 2017 10:31:31 AM | 4
    Monsters who are responsible for the death of millions in Iraq are trying to teach others about human rights? Syria was peaceful country before US started flooding the country with arms and money to their proxy armies. Assad's Syria is a shelter to near two million Palestinians that fled from Israeli "democracy". Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan... You know, seems that people from the US lost touch with reality. You are the real monsters, not Assad.
    h | Apr 12, 2017 10:35:58 AM | 5
    b - I posted this yesterday which mirrors many of the details in your post. There is one factoid missing, that is Mattis stated at his press conference yesterday (link below) the bombing at Shayrat air base was a 'supposed' one time military campaign and not a part of the U.S. overall strategy regarding the ISIS campaign. He also stated way more loss at Shayrat than Syria/Russia has offered.

    WH Lays Out Evidence that Syria was behind deadly attack...

    "A senior administration official laid out evidence that the Syrian regime was behind the chemical attack in the country that killed at least 80 people last week."

    "The official said intelligence gathered from social media accounts, open source videos, reporting, imagery, and geospatial intelligence showed that the chemical attack was a regime attack."

    "I don't think there's evidence to the contrary at all," an official who briefed reporters on background Tuesday said."

    FUNNY THAT...

    Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About Weapons Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that Assad Did NOT Launch Chemical Weapon Attack

    "A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population."

    FUNNIER THAT, NOT AS IN A HAHA, BUT RATHER IRONY -

    UK-trained doctor hailed a hero for treating gas attack victims in Syria stood trial on terror offences 'and belonged to the group that kidnapped British reporter John Cantlie'

    "Dr Shajul Islam, from East London, published a video of the patients on his Twitter account after the attack. He said his hospital took care of three victims all with narrow, pinpoint pupils that did not respond to light."

    "The University of London graduate was arrested and charged with kidnapping two journalists - Mr Cantlie and Dutch reporter Jeroen Oerlemans - in 2012 but was released after the trial collapsed when neither of the prosecution's witnesses were able to give evidence."

    THIS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETE WITHOUT MAD DOG'S LOUSY TWO CENTS -

    "The goal right now in Syria and the military campaign is focused on accomplishing that is breaking ISIS, destroying ISIS in Syria. This was a separate issue that arose in the midst of that campaign. The use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons and we addressed that militarily but the rest of the campaign stays on track"...

    To sum this bunch of crap up - in less than 48 hours we are to believe the DOD's use of friggin social GD media proved beyond reasonable doubt that Assad chemed his own people in a town that is known worldwide as 'ground zero' for jihadi's, filmed by a doc who was brought to trial on terror charges (lest we forget about the UK/US financed White Helmets at $100M playing pretend propaganda chit) with the bad ass retired general now in charge of all of the militaries toys and humans stating as fact, FACT, this violation of U.S. law and international law was a one time deal b/c Assad is bad, bad, bad - I looked at the evidence and was convinced beyond doubt blah, blah blah F'ing bullshit!

    Sick of it. Just sick and tired of all of it! I loathe being lied to and that SOB lied today. LIED LIED LIED.

    My rant is done.

    Links:

    1. http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/11/white-house-lays-out-evidence-that-syria-was-behind-deadly-chemical-attack/

    2. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/intelligence-military-sources-warned-iraq-war-say-assad-not-launch-chemical-weapon-attack.html

    3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4388780/Doctor-Syria-stood-trial-terror-offences.html

    4. Mattis presser https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgvnvvIoyEE

    Gravatomic | Apr 12, 2017 10:58:22 AM | 8
    It's staggering that western MSM is trying to play everyone again with a WMD false flag and an agenda that hasn't wavered since 2011. They want to partition these areas of northern Syria and create 'safe zones'. We all rebuked Hillary Clinton's call for 'no-fly-zones' and Americans voted Trump with a hope that things would be different. Fat Chance! The drip dripping US troops into Syria and the taking of airfields shows that they have no intention of leaving anytime soon. They want that conduit up the Euphrates. Trump, Clinton same difference.

    The big question is when the inevitable happens and it will, probably before summer, what will Russia do? Go along with the break up of the country or maintain the entirety of the country under rule from Damascus?

    JC | Apr 12, 2017 10:59:12 AM | 9
    You may want to look at T. Meyssan's assessment of the operation for an entirely different perspective:

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article195904.html

    jfl | Apr 12, 2017 11:02:34 AM | 10
    b, '"How can sanity be brought back to town?"'

    catastrophic failure of the maniacs' 'plans'. they've been at it for 15+ years and are just a mad as ever. they won't stop until they're forced to stop.

    If russia can bring syria's air defenses up to par, if, for instance, tee-rump lets the cruise missiles fly at north korea and china sinks his fleet ... then sanity may return. nothing short of a catastrophic us defeat will do it, in my estimation. my fellow americans will remain catatonic, on their couches, until something happens that they didn't expect. endless us wars - and endless us 'victories' - are their expectation. and their paychecks depend on it. when did it finally occur to the germans that it wasn't exactly the way der führer said it was.

    Outraged | Apr 12, 2017 11:03:02 AM | 11
    Jebus wept.

    It's just worthless verbage , unclassified, unattributed, unaddressed, unstructured, unprofessional, unreferenced, unformatted (re standards), etc, etc, nebulous raw text. So now some staffer in the WH does their childish version of the puerile #Fake 'Dossier', the 'Intelligence Report' on Trump, that never was ? Fucking surreal. Amateur hour at the WH, the, 'Executive' arm of government. This insanity is apparently only going to get worse. Might have to strap in for this ride and consider taking up alcohol again. FFS! :(

    Lea | Apr 12, 2017 11:12:04 AM | 13
    To quote b, "Well, maybe because, you know, that mujahedeen thing worked out so well that nearly forty years later the U.S. is mulling again to send additional troops to Afghanistan to defeat them."

    It worked just great. More military expenditure, without even talking about the poppy fields guarded by US and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The USA wouldn't want to lose such a golden business, would it? Not right when they have an amazing, fantastic heroin epidemic that lines so many pockets back at home... http://www.cbsnews.com/news/heroin-use-in-u-s-reaches-alarming-20-year-high/

    Gravatomic | Apr 12, 2017 11:14:42 AM | 14
    @JC

    The whole things reeks doesn't it? So amateurish. And those BGMs had to have gone somewhere, this is a terrible failure rate or the number launched was a lie. Either way it doesn't bode well that the 'stand off' weapons are less than 50% effective. Also, We never found out how many failed in the Gulf War because the media was locked in. This and the failure of the Trident.

    BRF | Apr 12, 2017 11:16:16 AM | 15
    The west is already allied-using al-Qaida isis so any acknowledgement would just be an official declaration, most likely with another name change for their proxy forces. This has been a active tactic since the west began using Islamic fundamentalists in the aftermath of WW II and to effect in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan, destroying the progressive government then there because is was not in the orbit or under the control of the western fascists. The west thought they had it all in the bag with the collapse of the Soviet Union until an old cold war warrior saved the Russian culture and people from complete devastation at the hands of the western globalists....and here we are today.

    james | Apr 12, 2017 11:19:10 AM | 17
    thanks b. good break down and analysis..

    friedman and the nyt - suggesting they align with isis to take down assad was essentially what obama openly stated previously.. someone had this script written down some time ago.. nyt is just the servant to all the propaganda that is fit to print. isis is a creation of the war party, as is the divide and conquer strategy of creating a sunni/shite conflict and all the rest of the madness that continues to unfold from all of the madness...

    russia can't back down, even though it is facing a rabid mad dog here.. i am sure they know this. it's embarrassing the amount of propaganda being paid for on all this with my dupe prime minister trudeau falling in line with it all.. sad times..

    WG | Apr 12, 2017 11:33:04 AM | 20
    Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve currency.
    psychohistorian | Apr 12, 2017 11:58:41 AM | 21
    @ WG who I want to thank for writing: "Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve currency."

    Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve currency.

    Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve currency.

    Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve currency.

    Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve currency.

    This is all about the power and control that owning private finance brings. Eliminate private finance and you kill the God of Mammon and the evil social incentives that are attendant to it.

    Phodges | Apr 12, 2017 12:00:59 PM | 22
    "How can sanity be brought back to town?"

    The coming humiliating defeathe may ring a few bells. And as stated above, the failure of the dollar. The empire is based more on the dollar as global reserve than on military might.

    LXV | Apr 12, 2017 12:01:59 PM | 23
    Thanks for coming back to your senses, b, I would've missed your precious reports!

    Regarding your last Q, there are 2 solutions to the issue - either the US electorate grows a pair and throws the crooks out of public office or we all get to kill each other a-la Hobbes until blood fatigue sets in and we call a time-out for the next 60-80 years (2 generations is all the time needed for a society to forget the horrors of war and destruction )

    MadMax2 | Apr 12, 2017 12:06:21 PM | 24
    The hegemon won't recognise a multipolar world until the multipolar world talks to it in the only language it has grown to understand: Violence
    Perimetr | Apr 12, 2017 12:09:29 PM | 25
    "How can sanity be brought back to town?" Is That Armageddon Over The Horizon? http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/12/is-that-armageddon-over-the-horizon/

    Mina | Apr 12, 2017 12:25:22 PM | 27
    A diplomat recently was saying on a radio programme that there is no one to talk to at the State Department, because the Trump team is not even complete, with hundreds of jobs not filled!

    Today in Le Monde, Hollande gave a big interview about Syria.
    He has a general strike going on in French Guyana (no internet! only at Kourou spatial base) and a movement in the 200% overpopulated prisons (1 guard for 100 prisonners in Fleury-Merogis) but it's easier to bomb Syria.

    Posted by: Mina | Apr 12, 2017 12:41:54 PM | 28

    Today in Le Monde, Hollande gave a big interview about Syria.
    He has a general strike going on in French Guyana (no internet! only at Kourou spatial base) and a movement in the 200% overpopulated prisons (1 guard for 100 prisonners in Fleury-Merogis) but it's easier to bomb Syria.

    Posted by: Mina | Apr 12, 2017 12:41:54 PM | 28

    Former 11B | Apr 12, 2017 12:46:03 PM | 29
    "How can sanity be brought back to town?"

    Firing squads

    Perimetr | Apr 12, 2017 12:55:09 PM | 30
    I agree with Former 11B, firing squads might do the trick.

    The discussion of how to reform Washington kind of reminds me of Chapter 5 in Huckleberry Finn, when Huck's father was taken in by the new judge in town, in an attempt to reform him:

    "When he got out the new judge said he was agoing to make a man of him. So he took him to his own house, and dressed him up clean and nice, and had him to breakfast and dinner and supper with the family, and was just old pie to him, so to speak. And after supper he talked to him about temperance and such things till the old man cried, and said he'd been a fool, and fooled away his life; but now he was agoing to turn over a new leaf and be a man nobody wouldn't be ashamed of, and he hoped the judge would help him and not look down on him. The judge said he could hug him for them words; so he cried, and his wife she cried again; pap said he'd been a man that had always been misunderstood before, and the judge said he believed it. The old man said that what a man wanted that was down, was sympathy; and the judge said it was so; so they cried again. And when it was bedtime, the old man rose up and held out his hand, and says:

    "Look at it, gentlemen and ladies all; take ahold of it; shake it. There's a hand that was the hand of a hog; but it ain't so no more; it's the hand of a man that's started in on a new life, and 'll die before he'll go back. You mark them words- don't forget I said them. It's a clean hand now; shake it- don't be afeard."

    So they shook it, one after the other, all around, and cried. The judge's wife she kissed it. Then the old man he signed a pledge- made his mark. The judge said it was the holiest time on record, or something like that. Then they tucked the old man into a beautiful room, which was the spare room, and in the night sometime he got powerful thirsty and clumb out onto the porch-roof and slid down a stanchion and traded his new coat for a jug of forty-rod, and clumb back again and had a good old time; and towards daylight he crawled out again, drunk as a fiddler, and rolled off the porch and broke his left arm in two places and was most froze to death when somebody found him after sun-up. And when they come to look at that spare room, they had to take soundings before they could navigate it.

    The judge he felt kind of sore. He said he reckoned a body could reform the ole man with a shot-gun, maybe, but he didn't know no other way."

    Les | Apr 12, 2017 12:57:46 PM | 31
    It sounds like some, if not many, in the intelligence community won't stand behind it. It either came out of the White House or the Pentagon. Given the publicly available news reporting entirely sourced from the government-funded pro-opposition media entities, anyone with a search engine and a heavily slanted viewpoint could've produced the essay.

    chu teh | Apr 12, 2017 12:59:22 PM | 32
    "How can sanity be brought to town?"

    How can there be sanity without justice, also known as unfairness?

    Unfairness leads to chaos. Chaos disrupts any workable system/ordering of life.

    Sanity depends on a workable system/ordering that is known and has predictable results.

    Circe | Apr 12, 2017 1:03:01 PM | 33
    Here's what I think; my honest opinion so don't jump all over me as I've been calling it like I see it from day one.

    Trump is a fraud and an opportunist. Trump will always do what benefits him and the family dynastic ambitions first and foremost. Look at the pattern; you canot ignore or dismiss a pattern of behavior. Example, Trump will throw anyone under the bus who he imagines has become or will become a liability for his interests.

    Here's the pattern on this: After Carter Page was dismissed from the campaign; to paraphrase: I hardly knew Carter Page, Carter Page was never part of the campaign; after Manafort was dismissed; Manafort was with the campaign for a very short time; after Flynn was dismissed; Flynn made false statements to Pence and couldn't remember what he spoke about with the Russian Ambassador, just the fact that he couldn't remember is not good for someone in his position; now today we got the excuse for Bannon; I like Steve, BUT you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late. I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn't know Steve. I'm my own strategist.

    And of course, there was Christie and Lewandowski - all thrown under the bus.

    After the comment he just made regarding Bannon, which borders on an indignity considering the level of Bannon's support; I'd say Bannon's days are numbered.

    Let's face it, Jared Kushner has been the real Campaign Manager, the real Vice-President and even acting President here, wearing several hats. Jared Kushner, a Zionist, is running the Trump show and Bannon is the next head to roll and stay tuned, there will be more.

    Jared Kushner is being groomed to be the first Zionist President, no doubt about it, and he's probably influencing policy. This is a very ambitious agenda. Trump was merely the stepping stone in all this and he's a willing participant.

    Policy is morphing as was planned all along. Trump fleeced the dumb sheeple; that's all that mattered.

    Because there is yet no transparency regarding the Syria file; after the strike, some people around here were STILL apologizing for Trump endlessly on yesterdays thread when the writing on the wall couldn't be clearer at this stage.

    Endless bullshit has been coming out of this White House, and this intelligence assessment is par for the course.

    It's just a continuation of the previous administration, and in some cases, word for word.

    Look there is only one way; either the only honest politicians left in Washington that aren't Zionist bribed and co-opted start a serious third party option OR the people must storm the Washington palace and drag the traitors on both sides out of there.

    I hope Putin is reading Tillerson the riot act. There is no doubt, there is conclusive evidence, there is a criminal pattern that proves that the Empire has committed war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and assisted in their commission in Lebannon, Palestine and Yemen.

    Syria, as Tulsi Gabbard had the guts to state forthrightly, was a proxy war started by operatives from the U.S., Israel, and mercenaries supported by the latter and the KSA and Turkey. These countries are solely responsible for the massive humanitarian tragedy that has unfolded from their murderous complicity on Syria and failed attempt at regime change. The U.S. under Zionist foreign policy direction has committed a multitude of WAR CRIMES all over the Middle East and should be condemned for these crimes by people everywhere in all parts of the globe. Period. There is no more to see here. Every tragedy suffered by the people of Syria can be laid at the feet of the Zio-Anglo Empire!

    It's time for the U.N. to condemn the fabrications that brought about this monumental crime against humanity in the Middle East and haul all criminals responsible for Yinon=Clean Break=PNAC before a Nuremburg-calibre court. It's time for the Empire to pay for all its crimes!

    andoheb | Apr 12, 2017 1:03:59 PM | 34
    21

    Dollar role as key reserve currenvy depends heavily on perceptions of US military strength. If a US carrier was sunk or severely damaged while attacking someone, dollar and stock market would CRASH.

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 12, 2017 1:04:01 PM | 35
    For a better understanding of the narrative being sold by the Iraqi OG (2011) rebels, the second half of new Intercepted podcast, Murtaza Hussain lays it out more clearly than I have heard/read elsewhere. Claiming, among other things that ISIS's role/threat has been exaggerated (but not discussing the Salafi jihadists who violently wrenched control from the nationalist rebels back in ~2012-13). He suggests -- which I doubt -- that Syria might have used chemical weapons to drive a wedge between impending American/Russian coordination.

    I'm going to have to re-listen, take notes and do homework because I think the cohesion of and future political strength the non-jihadi rebels is being overstated and, as a refutation of some derided "enemy of my enemy" assumed support for Assad (because he is the USA's crosshairs), I understand some folks "buying" into this narrative (particular if, as has become common, expressing support for an Assad mediated "peace" is labeled condoning and abetting war crimes and war criminals). There's a bit of "everything you know is wrong" to the second half that's annoying.

    Dennis Kuchinch is in the first half, ably explaining his "support" for allowing an Assad mediated peace.

    No one talks -- as usual -- about the Rebels refusing to be seated at the negotiating table "as long as Assad is in power" ... which has been an "evergreen" demand even as the Rebels have lost territory and momentum.

    I have no insight into what "the Syrian people" want and with more than half the population either internally displaced or out-of-country in refugee camps, I'm doubtful "polls" can be meaningfully conducted until a meaningful ceasefire has been in place ... good luck with that.

    I'm not endorsing the contents, but I understand better how and why these people keep being given airtime/page-space that to me has seemed to be disproportionate and an effort to justify "a seat" at some future negotiating table. (i.e. "we're still players in this conflict")

    podcast page at the Intercept .

    Sorry so long. Eager for others' impressions.

    Kalen | Apr 12, 2017 1:10:47 PM | 36
    I wonder when b finally has his mental breakdown trying to use reason to explain behavior of murderous mental patients, delusional psychopaths in the US government lusting for money and fame.

    The true power of Deep State finally completely detached itself from politics, politicians and all the facade of any governance, democratic or not, concocted for show and to herding the American sheeple to their appropriate real and political slaughterhouses in calm and order of condemned convicts.

    Before, the so-called facade of governmentality (WH, Congress, SCOTUS, MEDIA) and its puppets were at least told what to do and somewhat consulted about how to lie to the sheeple about it so riots would not immediately ensue. Now it is no longer done which is turning all of this political spectacle from a simple lowbrow farce to an Ionesco Theater of Absurd.

    In fact the US so-called government is not told what actually is going on but scrambles to explaining something they are totally ignorant about, knowing no more than oblivious media and fake terrorist reality show on YT let them "know" leaving them in a role of clueless apologists for whatever Deep State is doing or they suspect or guess is doing or trying to do.

    WH, Congress, SCOTUS, MEDIA by loosing a lot of its manipulative influence on the American sheeple, now struggling for their own relevance in eyes of Deep State, showing their utter stupidity and abhorrent opportunism and political hubris thinking that their privileges were safe even if they lost the ability to effectively lie and induce people attitudes and acts.

    What we are observing are chaotic desperate rants of screaming maggots from Media to WH and Congress pleading for mercy before being fed to the birds of pray of Depp State that no longer needs them.

    dumbass | Apr 12, 2017 1:19:38 PM | 37
    Gravatomic @ 8

    >> It's staggering that western MSM
    >> is trying to play everyone again
    >> with a WMD false flag and an agenda
    >> that hasn't wavered since 2011.

    Yes.. Oh, whoa. Since "2011"? The Wolfowitz Doctrine was in the early 90's. All of Oceania's aggression in the ME should at least be seen with the early 90's as the "latest possible choice of 'starting point'", because the idea of "colonize all of it" was articulated by then.

    I'd entertain much earlier starting points, going back to before the nation's "founding".

    dumbass | Apr 12, 2017 1:22:52 PM | 38
    "How can sanity be brought back to town?"

    As "Formerly T-Bear" said in the prior thread: "There is absolutely no evidence of the assumed hegemon self correcting - ever."

    Circe | Apr 12, 2017 1:23:43 PM | 39
    I just want to add to my 32: The War Crimes of the Empire have been committed with total impunity not with any benevolent motive/end justifying the cruel, destructive and murderous means, but to spread a culture enslaved by the almighty U.S. Dollar and to expand control over the region benefitting Zionism/Zionists exclusively, because all this was done with the pretense of benefitting the American people when nothing could be further from the truth.

    kgw | Apr 12, 2017 1:28:37 PM | 40
    @34

    "...impending American/Russian coordination."

    Haha....Not a chance in Hell

    ALberto | Apr 12, 2017 1:32:18 PM | 41
    Moderate Treason aka Sedition Lite

    Robert Steele - Inside Source Says Brennan, McCain & McMaster Responsible for Syrian False Flag

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8n6VCL5D7A

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 12, 2017 1:40:59 PM | 42
    Posted by: kgw | Apr 12, 2017 1:28:37 PM | 40

    I agree ... this is one of those post-events rationales where Putin failing to disown Assad is shown as some vast expression of support ... and the objective "all along"

    While I completely understand the remnants of the original pre-Jihadi rebels (y'know the ones likely "encouraged" into some sort of Arab Spring/Color Revolution by the CIA, etc) wanting a place at the table ... "who wouldn't?" ... their inability -- for example -- to force "rebels" to share the food in besieged "rebel held territory" while apparently being the "voices from the crisis" on BBC speaks of a certain self-serving theatricality, particularly in the absence (AFAICT) of the sort of ex-pat Syrian centers, a potential locus of some new COHERENT post-Assad political power (like what the Iraqis and others achieved, even if that turned our really badly) -- but have no fear, I suspect we will see "just that" aided and funded by the usual forces ... will they be in Paris and London, per usual?

    Scotch Bingeington | Apr 12, 2017 1:43:38 PM | 43
    1) Thanks for the precious insights & analysis, especially regarding the real "who is who"

    2) It doesn't make a difference, but even so: I don't think Khan Shaykhun is actually far from the front-line. It's roughly 15 kms inland from government territory. Still, there couldn't have been any benefit for the SAA from using chemical weapons there (or anywhere else in their own country, for that matter). Maybe the guys in Khan Shaykhun were just mistaken, anticipating their losing the town to government forces any time soon, and decided to make use of the chemicals facility there (whatever shape or purpose it had) in a deranged way before having to abandon it eventually.

    3) Unfortunately I don't see the SAA making any headway on the ground, despite the fact that Russian and Syrian air forces are attacking anything that's potentially a target. Nowhere on the map, not near the border crossing to Jordan, not outside of Damascus, not around Homs and certainly not north of Hama, which is where Khan Shaykhun is situated. The only exception seems to be their fight against ISIS in the Palmyra pocket. Sure, they do have the initiative, but are they really gaining anything for the future instead of just managing to keep FSA forces down? I believe the legitimate Syrian government re-establishing control over as much of Syrian territory as possible is really the only way to bring this gang-rape victim of a country back to peace and normalcy. But they seem to lack manpower very, very much.

    ALberto | Apr 12, 2017 1:47:49 PM | 44
    @41

    Interest statement attached to video link I post @41

    Published on Apr 10, 2017

    "From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below video was recorded and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source) that former CIA Director John Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed during the Obama Administration, with Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster. Brennan got the Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this is clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective legislative bodies. Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my evaluation of each of these people, and a good starting point for an international investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan should be standing before the International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because of the CIA's drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for Intelligence and National Security."

    xor | Apr 12, 2017 2:11:23 PM | 45
    Niece piece b. I wasn't even aware that MSM presstitutes are so open in calling for cooperation with terrorists who they used to justify the military presensence in all these countries and take away all our liberties, all in the name of fighting terrorism. With the Al Qaeda rescue workers White Helmets they at least pretend but here not even that.

    zzz | Apr 12, 2017 2:15:10 PM | 46
    "if russia can bring syria's air defenses up to par, if, for instance, tee-rump lets the cruise missiles fly at north korea and china sinks his fleet ... then sanity may return. nothing short of a catastrophic us defeat will do it, in my estimation."
    It's definitely attractive, obvious problem with this line of thought is limits of escalation can be too high. nuclear strikes back and forth kind of thing. Let it burn instad this bullshit can be attractive but egoistically because everything what is going on is not realy nessesary.

    Gravatomic | Apr 12, 2017 2:22:22 PM | 47
    @dumbass

    The agenda that is a part of was of course is there, Wolfowitz doctrine >> contain Russia and Iran, do not allow Russia to rise to status again. We can see that with Nato encircling Russia. I was pointing out that since the 'uprising' in 2011 in Damascus the US policy hasn't changed, they've just worded if differently and given the actors new names. They want a puppet in there answerable to Washington. I know the agenda is nothing new and goes back decades.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 12, 2017 2:35:15 PM | 48
    Live Zio Jazeera broadcast of press conference after Tillerson/Lavrov talks....
    US/Russia couldn't be further apart. Tillerson is lying his ass off about Assad. Lavrov says Assad is irrelevant and Syrians will choose their own president. Lavrov listed Christian Colonial (NATO) crimes against numerous countries commencing with Yugoslavia and pointing out that in every case these R2P interventions produced the opposite result from the pre-intervention promises.

    I think Russia's patience with US-NATO is on the threshold of expiry.

    Mike Maloney | Apr 12, 2017 2:41:54 PM | 49
    From Robert Parry's assessment of the four-page NSC white paper, Trump Withholds Syria-Sarin Evidence :
    In the case of the April 4 chemical-weapons incident in the town of Khan Sheikhoun, which reportedly killed scores of people including young children, I was told that initially the U.S. analysts couldn't see any warplanes over the area in Idlib province at the suspected time of the poison gas attack but later they detected a drone that they thought might have delivered the bomb.

    According to a source, the analysts struggled to identify whose drone it was and where it originated. Despite some technical difficulties in tracing its flight path, analysts eventually came to believe that the flight was launched in Jordan from a Saudi-Israeli special operations base for supporting Syrian rebels , the source said, adding that the suspected reason for the poison gas was to create an incident that would reverse the Trump administration's announcement in late March that it was no longer seeking the removal of President Bashar al-Assad.

    Curtis | Apr 12, 2017 2:42:04 PM | 50
    Sanity? Not going to happen except from within from a critical mass of Americans woken up and mad about the agenda. And that's not going to happen either.
    "We assess." CIA said that about Russian hacking. And yet they did not talk to the guy who hosted the server. "Open source?" What open source? Or are we talking about White Helmets? It sounds like the CIA is backing the White House in a lying/propaganda campaign just like Tenet did with Cheney/Bush.
    "We are certain that the opposition could not have fabricated all of the videos and other reporting of chemical attacks. Doing so would have required a highly organized campaign to deceive multiple media outlets and human rights organizations while evading detection."
    Really? But you're depending on them and have been for a while. And did Doctors Without Borders and Amnesty International do a full analysis of the bombs, where they struck, etc or just check out the patients.

    james | Apr 12, 2017 2:42:31 PM | 51
    @20 wg quote "Only one thing will stop this. The dollar losing its status as world reserve currency."

    yeah, but that will be the end result and it is going to take a while to get their, unless as someone else pointed out some major event happens to shift perception of the military supremacy of the usa.. even then, it won't happen quickly.. in the meantime it will be business as usual... all the poodles and lapdogs for the continuation of this system, will continue to be poodles and lapdogs for the continuation of what we have.. wish it could happen sooner and we didn't have to go thru hell to get their, but the planet will go thru hell on the way..

    likklemore | Apr 12, 2017 2:44:31 PM | 52
    MIT Professor Postol's review:

    White House claims on Syria chemical attack 'obviously false' 12 Apr, 2017

    [.]

    "I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun," wrote Postol.
    A chemical attack with a nerve agent did occur, he said, but the available evidence does not support the US government's conclusions.

    [/]
    "Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real," he wrote. "No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it."
    Instead, "the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides."

    We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report," he concluded, recalling the 2013 situation when the Obama administration claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against the rebels in Ghouta, near Damascus.
    "What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true," Postol wrote, "and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security."

    RT Link


    Curious bubbling: why US would reject the OPCW investigating the alleged attack.

    FF, yesterday listened to an interview with a clip of Gen. Mattis confirming his intelligence on the event was supported by what he read on social media.

    Honestly, searching for the clip did not dream this.
    Social media!! where is Lucy and Charlie Brown?

    There is not enough outrage

    Curtis | Apr 12, 2017 2:45:30 PM | 53
    "Russia's allegations fit with a pattern of deflecting blame from the regime and attempting to undermine the credibility of its opponents."
    That sounds very familiar.

    Jackrabbit | Apr 12, 2017 2:46:24 PM | 54
    Is Trump pushing back on neocons or joining them?

    Cold War Messaging Yields Insight into US-Russian Conflict

    dumbass | Apr 12, 2017 2:51:34 PM | 55
    Gravatomic @ 47

    Sorry for nitpicking your statement and effectively misinterpreting it.

    ALberto | Apr 12, 2017 2:56:05 PM | 56
    State Department Employee Arrested and Charged With Concealing Extensive Contacts With Foreign Agents

    A federal complaint was unsealed today charging Candace Marie Claiborne, 60, of Washington, D.C., and an employee of the U.S. Department of State, with obstructing an official proceeding and making false statements to the FBI, both felony offenses, for allegedly concealing numerous contacts that she had over a period of years with foreign intelligence agents.

    The charges were announced by Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary B. McCord for National Security, U.S. Attorney Channing D. Phillips of the District of Columbia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew W. Vale of the FBI's Washington Field Office.

    source - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/state-department-employee-arrested-and-charged-concealing-extensive-contacts-foreign-agents

    Mina | Apr 12, 2017 3:00:08 PM | 57
    Nato chief visiting Trump today
    Ksa blackmail certainly has to do with oil prices and threats to rise them, no?

    jayc | Apr 12, 2017 3:11:28 PM | 58
    The reliance on "open-source" pictures and video and circumstantial presumption - i.e. regime planes were in the area so they must be responsible - is very similar to MH-17. I don't know that many persons outside of those whose job depends on believing these reports, actually believes these reports.

    One claim made during the "unnamed senior official" backgrounder yesterday was that the "rebels" do not have access to sarin (which was later qualified as "rebels in that area" do not have access). That does not seem factual. Has there not been connections established between rebels and sarin, and beyond what was reported by Hersch?

    karlof1 | Apr 12, 2017 3:24:08 PM | 59
    "open source"

    I know of at least a dozen such that provide evidence-backed analysis proving the Outlaw US Empire's assertions to be 100% false, and one of the more important sites owners/contributors have been issued death threats, https://sputniknews.com/europe/201704121052568643-white-helmets-video-fabricated-noli-swedhr/ And that source-- The Indicter --used the same open sources to arrive at its verdict because it actually watched with critical eyes.

    dumbass | Apr 12, 2017 3:27:40 PM | 60
    Maybe the people in Washington act insane because -- like HAL 9000 -- they can't mentally personally reconcile conflicting overall goals, marching orders, propaganda, and whatever morsel of morality they might still possess.

    If Washington's choices are shaped at least in part on behalf of planners in Jerusalem, then perhaps Putin primarily should negotiate (with carrot and stick) directly with Bibi and skip the confused middlemen.

    It's worth trying. Indeed, well prior to Israel seemingly acquiring a "controlling stake" in American influence, America was quite genocidal and untrustworthy (like all other empires, I imagine). Negotiating more with Israel has a better chance of peaceful outcome as any. Try that and hope Israel really does -- as some Israelis have noted -- control American policy.

    Just brainstorming some ideas for a peace plan:

    - Give Israel the Golan Heights. (We know they're not going to give it up anyway.)

    - Combined US/Russian/Chinese troop presence in the region, for stability. (We know those powers or outsiders won't stop meddling until they dot the region with bases anyway. Any semblance of "independent" Syria or Kurdistan or Jordan is pure pretense.)

    - Cut the MIC in order for the US to make multi-trillion war reparation payouts -- not "loans" or earmarks for NATZO contractors -- to Syria and to any Palestinians willing to resettle out of apartheid Israel (helps Israel remain a reservation / homeland for a frequently persecuted group and also help them return to being an actual democracy) into neighboring Syria.

    - US pays war reparations to Libya, too.

    - KSA should pay huge war reparations, too, and be forced to hold elections. "Royal" family wealth should be repatriated to the new democratic state.

    If you offer Israel the Golan and to remove Palestinians by enticing the victims to resettle with huge financial incentives (instead of "persuading" them with bullets and starvation), could we finally see peace in the region?

    Alternatively, if America isn't and can't be controlled, then really there's no hope but war or surrender for Assad and, eventually, everyone.

    What would a peace plan look like, to you?

    mrr52 | Apr 12, 2017 3:33:48 PM | 61
    I believe recent events indicate the initial stages of a US invasion of eastern Syria. The US is moving troops into eastern Syria from Iraq and Jordan and increasing troop numbers in Afghanistan. Another telltale is Erdogan flipping again back to the US camp.

    Other reports may be related. Allegedly, significant amounts of military equipment were offloaded in Lebanon. Also, Israel appears to be in final stages of preparation for an incursion into Lebanon. Likely, Israel hopes to capture at least the Litani River region in Lebanon, openly claimed by Israel as Israeli water since before the Iraq invasion of 2003.

    I believe McCain and Graham control US foreign policy and probably have done so since the Trump inauguration. In this respect, the Trump presidency was dead on arrival. The current plan for Syria is the original neocon plan, the McCain and Graham plan. Israel heartily approves.

    Most likely, the contrived chemical weapon "event" in Khan Sheikhoun was ordered by McCain and Graham in order to send a message via a missile strike on Shu'ayraat Airbase.

    The message is this: the US is serious about taking control of eastern Syria, and will not be deterred by Russia or China.

    The strike was intentionally weak and avoided killing Russians in order to allow Russia an opportunity to "get on board." I no longer believe there was any other deal. If correct, Tillerson probably delivered another message today to Lavrov that effectively states: we will not stop; you can work with us, you get out of the way, or you can get run over. Most likely, Trump delivered the same message to Xi while in Florida. The timing was not coincidental.

    Reports of Chinese troops operating in the border region of Afghanistan as of several weeks ago have been posted. The additional US troops requested now for Afghanistan may be intended to discourage any further Chinese advance.

    All of this is quintessential McCain and Graham. Essentially, McCain and Graham are betting the farm that Russia (and China) will accede to US demands for Syria. As of March 28, 2017, political analyst A. Korybko seems to concur:

    "It's very rare for any war nowadays (key word) to be concluded without some degree of compromises, concessions, and trade-offs taking place between all sides, and in a very complicated and quagmire-prone situation where Russia has wisely opted to seek a political – and not military – solution to the conflict (just as all sides have officially done, at least), it's clear that Moscow lacks the will to commit itself to advancing Damascus' preferred outcome of retaining the country's unity."

    ( http://21stcenturywire.com/2017/03/28/syria-approaching-the-finishing-line-geopolitical-jockeying-for-position-intensifies/)

    The US has no intention of reversing course. Therefore, Russia's reply to Tillerson will determine whether the strike on Shu'ayraat marks the beginning of WWIII or the dismemberment of Syria.

    Anon1 | Apr 12, 2017 3:39:01 PM | 62
    More evidence what a neocon lover Trump is:

    Trump Meets NATO Head, Confirm Commitment to Alliance
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/1.783133

    karlof1 | Apr 12, 2017 3:56:56 PM | 63
    Results of the Tillerson-Lavrov-Putin talkfest are emerging, https://sputniknews.com/europe/201704121052568643-white-helmets-video-fabricated-noli-swedhr/

    Tillerson says: "We both believe in a stable and unified Syria," which presumably means no partitioning. But as jas commented, Tillerson's just repeating talking points while Lavrov is trying to deal with real issues. I didn't read much that would persuade me to be reassured, particularly sine the Assad must go cannard is still point #1: "We [US and Vassals]think its important that Assad's departure is done in an orderly way ... the final outcome in our view does not provide a role for Assad or the Assad family. We will not accept that, we don't believe the world will accept that," except that the world already does accept Assad as Syria's legitimate leader.

    Here's the link to TASS's recap. Both sites provide video, http://tass.com/world/941043

    ruralito | Apr 12, 2017 3:58:13 PM | 64
    @61, page not found.

    Russia just vetoed a resolution that called for military action if Syria didnt follow the resolution. Backed by the US and its pathetic lackeys.

    Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 12, 2017 3:59:18 PM | 65

    Russia just vetoed a resolution that called for military action if Syria didnt follow the resolution. Backed by the US and its pathetic lackeys.

    Posted by: Anon1 | Apr 12, 2017 3:59:18 PM | 65

    dh | Apr 12, 2017 4:03:00 PM | 66
    @64 Did you try without the brackets?

    Circe | Apr 12, 2017 4:11:10 PM | 67
    @65

    ...and China abstained . WTF??? China should have voted a firm NO. China wants Iran's oil and gas and in return gutless support.

    RUKidding | Apr 12, 2017 4:13:19 PM | 68
    @mrr52

    I believe McCain and Graham control US foreign policy and probably have done so since the Trump inauguration. In this respect, the Trump presidency was dead on arrival. The current plan for Syria is the original neocon plan, the McCain and Graham plan. Israel heartily approves.

    I agree that it at least seems like McCain & Graham control US foreign policy and possibly have done so since Trump was inaugurated. They certainly had a hand in US foreign policy during ObamaCo - at least they really tried hard to have power, sway & influence and probably did.

    Never forget when McCain ran for POTUS in 2008 he sang about "Bomb bomb bombing Iran." A word to the wise... no doubt that old demented fool has that back on his radar. McCain's never forgiven or forgotten that he lost to "that one," the darkie, and has had revenge fantasies ever since.

    Merasmus | Apr 12, 2017 4:13:55 PM | 69
    b, I just want to note again that the video you link supposedly showing White Helmets wandering freely in ISIS controlled territory was taken in East Aleppo. ISIS never had much presence there. It seems more likely that it's just further evidence of them working with/being Al-Qaeda, and the person who runs that YouTube channel doesn't understand, or can't be bothered with, the difference between AQ and ISIS.

    Circe | Apr 12, 2017 4:15:11 PM | 70
    Even Bolivia had the guts to vote AGAINST. Hey XI grow a fucking spine!!!

    karlof1 | Apr 12, 2017 4:15:48 PM | 71
    dumbass @60--

    "What would a peace plan look like, to you?"

    A proper peace plan would provide justice for regional events since 1945, which would entail the defanging of the Zionist Entity and establishemnt of a single state: Palestine. Something would need to be done about Saudi/GCC/Turkish terrorist sponsoring as well as Outlaw US Empire/NATO for same. Personally, I'd prefer the establishment of a multiethnic state comprising the territories of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Kurdish zones, with Turkey ceding most of its Kurdish lands as punishment for its support of terrorism. Essentially, taking Yinon and turning it inside-out.

    virgile | Apr 12, 2017 4:20:33 PM | 72
    When it comes to recognize their mistakes that cost human lives, the American presidents are deaf and dumb.
    There is no other reply to persistent bullying than violence. When it reaches the USA, no one should be surprised.

    hopehely | Apr 12, 2017 4:20:47 PM | 73
    Posted by: Circe | Apr 12, 2017 4:15:11 PM | 70
    Hey XI grow a fucking spine!!!

    That chocolate cake was really yummy I guess.

    dh | Apr 12, 2017 4:22:28 PM | 74
    Russia vetos UN resolution clearly designed to use force.

    ""The result of the vote is as follows: ten votes in favor, two votes against, three abstentions. The draft resolution has not been adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of Council," US Ambassador and current Security Council President Nikki Haley stated."

    https://www.rt.com/news/384534-un-resulution-syria-chemical/

    virgile | Apr 12, 2017 4:24:54 PM | 75
    Is Trump Enlisting in the War Party?
    Pat Buchanan
    Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?

    For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve gas attack on children, certain to ignite America's rage, for no military gain?

    Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false flag operation to stampede America into Syria's civil war.

    Anon1 | Apr 12, 2017 4:28:13 PM | 76
    Circe

    Re: China abstained.

    Indeed, thats what I have been saying too here past week, China is naive, they will sell out North Korea too, I didnt expect this but it seems China got great trade deals by Trump and now becoming a puppet to the neocon agenda on Syria, North Korea and sooner or later China itself.

    aaaa | Apr 12, 2017 4:31:36 PM | 77
    My goodness, the gesturing style of Stoltenberg makes him look very skeezy

    aaaa | Apr 12, 2017 5:09:38 PM | 78
    the attack on Syria was to warn Assad not to reach Idlib. Because in Idlib there are many westerners, western paid proffesional killers.

    so trump wants to give time to the western paid killers to escape from Syria and not to change sides, because this will be a desaster for the picture the USa has painted untill now.

    harrylaw | Apr 12, 2017 5:24:20 PM | 79
    Russia was correct to use its veto at the UNSC. The purpose of the Resolution was to use chapter 7 in the event of the Resolution not being implemented the way the US wanted. Remember the way Resolution 1441 was used against Iraq, which only said Iraq would face 'consequences' if it did not disarm, similarly a Resolution not vetoed by Russia and China for a limited no fly zone over Libya was used for regime change by the West, to the fury of Russia and China [they were conned].The West are not going to give up its regime change machinations, anyone including Lavrov who think they can do a deal with the US are delusional. Russia, Iran and Hezbollah need to prosecute the war to its conclusion on their own, and expect the US to interfere at every turn. An earlier poster said the army did not have the manpower, if that's the case Iran has a huge army and reserves, surely they could make up any shortfall, even if only taking up defensive duties, thereby relieving the Syrian army to concentrate on more offensive duties elswhere.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Those interested in how the MSM fell in love with terrorists in Syria should go back and check out Charlie Skeltons illuminating piece from The Guardian 2012

    Notable quotes:
    "... In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down. ..."
    "... Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies. ..."
    "... I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery. ..."
    "... Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on. ..."
    "... If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher. ..."
    "... Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay. ..."
    "... Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran. ..."
    "... Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces. ..."
    "... Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 17:57
    Those interested in how the MSM fell in love with terrorists in Syria should go back and check out Charlie Skelton's illuminating piece from The Guardian 2012 .
    Ciarán Here , 12 Apr 2017 17:48
    The Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq...
    Ciarán Here , 12 Apr 2017 17:46
    Did the USA bomb war planes that they said had been used to carry chemical weapons - a chemical attack!
    Robert Rudolph , 12 Apr 2017 17:40
    Instead, the western powers have followed the example cited by Machiavelli: "in order to prove their liberality, they allowed Pistoia to be destroyed."

    ... ... ..

    1Cedar , 12 Apr 2017 17:39
    In late 2015, Eren Erdem, a Turkish MP, said in Parliament that the Turkish state was permitting Da'esh to send sarin precursors to Syria. He had a file of evidence, so was accused of treason for accessing and publicizing confidential material. The investigation into the people responsible for the transfer of toxic chemicals was shut down.

    That surely ought to make us at least ask evidence-seeking questions about the Idlib gas attack before yet again demanding regime change.

    Al-Assad is certainly capable of murdering opponents, and not bothering too much about collateral damage, but strategically it makes no sense for him to do this now, when peace talks under the aegis of Russia and Iran have begun, and the world is watching. Also, Assad has been engaged in a reconciliation process, allowing members of the FSA to return to the Syrian army, and Aleppans remain in Damascus if they didn't wish to go to Idlib. At such a juncture, using chemical weapons would be counter-productive. If Sarin was used at his command, he should be properly prosecuted: but bombing a Syrian air base merely assists Da'esh and its cronies.

    unsouthbank , 12 Apr 2017 17:32
    I have just watched the press conference in which Trump labelled Assad a butcher, and went on again about dead babies. I just wish that someone at one of these conferences would have the guts to point out to Trump his own butchery.

    Anyone watching this performance would think that US forces had never been responsible for killing innocent civilians, men, women, children and babies. To listen to Trump, you wouldn't think that US forces had ever killed over 150 civilians in Mosul, dozens in Raqqa, or had bombed hospitals in Afghanistan, or schools in Iraq, or were supporting the Saudi blockade of Yemen resulting in the starvation of children and babies, or had destroyed wedding parties with drones,.....I could go on.

    If Assad is a butcher, he is only a junior, apprentice, corner-shop butcher. Trump is the real thing, the large-scale, wholesale, expert butcher.

    Ruthie Riegler , 12 Apr 2017 17:21
    ...Indeed, Richard Spencer last week protested outside the White House against the airstrikes on the regime airbase carrying a sign that read "No more wars 4 Israel."
    NezPerce macmarco , 12 Apr 2017 17:37

    There are two possible regimes, the Assad fascists, or the rebel jihadist

    The Syrian government is Baathist, it was elected.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialist_Ba%27ath_Party_–_Syria_Region

    http://www.france24.com/en/20160417-syria-bashar-assad-baath-party-wins-majority-parliamentary-vote

    Latest update : 2016-04-17
    Syria's ruling Baath party and its allies won a majority of seats in parliamentary elections last week across government-held parts of the country, the national electoral commission announced late Saturday.

    Who are the rebels supported by Washington and Westminster?

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/aleppo-falls-to-syrian-regime-bashar-al-assad-rebels-uk-government-more-than-one-story-robert-fisk-a7471576.html

    And we're going to learn a lot more about the "rebels" whom we in the West – the US, Britain and our head-chopping mates in the Gulf – have been supporting.

    They did, after all, include al-Qaeda (alias Jabhat al-Nusra, alias Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), the "folk" – as George W Bush called them – who committed the crimes against humanity in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania on 11 September 2001. Remember the War on Terror? Remember the "pure evil" of al-Qaeda. Remember all the warnings from our beloved security services in the UK about how al-Qaeda can still strike terror in London?

    jimbo2000M , 12 Apr 2017 16:55
    Gotta get that pipeline in for the Saudi's, eh, no matter how many children's carcasses it crosses, yay, regime change again, yay, and a heap of new terrorists for our kids in the west to dodge and duck, yay.
    unsouthbank , 12 Apr 2017 16:40
    I agree that Bashar al-Assad is not a "good person". It is impossible to be an authoritarian leader, struggling to maintain the unity, or even existence, of a nation state, and at the same time be a kind and gentle person. However, I do not believe him to be the psychopathic monster that he is portrayed as being, either. He is almost certainly not personally responsible for the chemical attack in Idlib province.

    Presidents do not normally make detailed decisions on what sort of weapons should be used on every airstrike made by their aircraft. He may be a dictator, but he is not a complete imbecile. Even the dimmest of politicians could have foreseen that this chemical attack would end up being a massive own-goal. Nobody as cynically calculating as Assad is supposed to be, would be that stupid. My own hunch, (and that is all it is) is that sarin was used due to a blunder by a low or medium ranking Syrian airforce officer.

    Yes, of course Assad bears responsibility for overall strategy in this vicious war of survival, and as such, has blood on his hands. But, so does Trump, so does Obama, so does Putin so does Erdogan, so does May, and so do all the leaders who have supplied the numerous rebel groups with billions of pounds worth of weapons, and have therefore kept the pot boiling.

    Last year, Theresa May stood up in parliament and proudly proclaimed her willingness to commit mass indiscriminate murder on a scale that would make Syria look like a pinprick. She declared her willingness to press the nuclear button and therefore slaughter hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of completely innocent men, women, children and babies. She not only has blood on her hands, she is proud of it. Perhaps we should remember that, when she comes out with one of her sanctimonious, nauseatingly hypocritical statements about Syria.

    martinusher , 12 Apr 2017 16:35
    Assad was democratically elected more than once so he must be doing something right. (OK, so they're democracy might not be our democracy but 'our' democracy has brought us Trump, Brexit and the like so its really six to one, a half dozen to the other). Syria until we started messing with it -- creating, supporting and even arming opposition groups -- was stable, wasn't messing with its neighbors and had significant religious and cultural freedoms compared to other countries in the area. (Our actions might suggest that we really don't want stable, peaceful, countries in that region, we need them to be weak and riven by internal factions.)

    Anyway, given our outstanding track record of success with regime change in that part of the world we should probably adopt a hands-off approach -- all we seem to do is make an unsatisfactory situation dire. Hardly the way to win friends and influence people.

    KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 16:07
    Despite the several misrepresentations, the facts are that Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria , which is a proxy war against Iran.

    Britain was at the forefront in setting up the Al Nusra Front and in hosting the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights to disseminate deeply negative propaganda about the Syrian Government and armed forces.

    Every step of this including the media campaign which has comprised a major part of the military campaign against Syria, has been an attempt to delegitimize the Sovereign government and its institutions and to gain consensus from the somnambulistic British and US public for yet another direct military campaign against another Middle Eastern country.

    The whole which has visited terrible and incalculable suffering, on the Syrian people. Syria was a paradise before the British and US did their usual work. The journalists, government and security services in Britain who have wrought this mess , I'm sure will not escape the consequences of their actions. One hopes they experience a 1000 times of the hell they have visited on Syria. These actions are truly despicable acts of cowardice and absolute wickedness.

    TomasStedron KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 16:27
    Syria was a paradise for those who rule Syria........ the Assad regime brutally repressed any opposition to their rule. In 1982 Assad´s father killed probably more than 30,000 in the siege of Hama. As well as sheltering a number of terrorist organisations who have their headquarters in Damascus....... he also armed and supported the fledgling Al-Quaeda resistance to the coalition in Iraq, giving them asylum in Syria........now the IS ....... I can think of Paradise in different ways......
    MacMeow KhalijFars , 12 Apr 2017 17:30

    Britain has been one of the main protagonists in prosecuting this war against Syria

    Link please. Because without evidence the rest of your post collapses.

    KhalijFars MacMeow , 12 Apr 2017 17:50
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/01/trial-swedish-man-accused-terrorism-offences-collapse-bherlin-gildo

    The prosecution of a Swedish national accused of terrorist activities in Syria has collapsed at the Old Bailey after it became clear Britain's security and intelligence agencies would have been deeply embarrassed had a trial gone ahead, the Guardian can reveal.

    His lawyers argued that British intelligence agencies were supporting the same Syrian opposition groups as he was, and were party to a secret operation providing weapons and non-lethal help to the groups, including the Free Syrian Army.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines


    Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

    Jermaine Charles , 12 Apr 2017 16:02
    More guff from the guardian/ Mr Williams, with just a little realistic sense, but who can replace Assad and in Syria he remains very popular, despite the western media like lies!
    johnbonn , 12 Apr 2017 16:00
    Russia has to move quickly to secure a 100 year lease for the Latakia port and airbase. Otherwise the US will soon attempt to render it useless as well, regardless of which of the moderate rebel factions it decides to install.

    ... Spirits die hard, and those of the Arab spring and the Orange Revolution are still alive in the halls of the Pentagon.

    .... A controlled cold war however, is the only way to a avoid a larger mess than what the West has already inflicted on the innocent Syrian people by using the most abortive war design that has ever been conceived by the war college or any other war commander.

    ...... At the current rate there will be more Syrians in Germany than those remaining in Syria.

    ......... Is it hard to wonder why Syrians might hold a grudge against the, US?

    BlueCollar , 12 Apr 2017 15:59
    Regime change ? All in the name of democracy as we see it.Why not try it in the Kingdom of family owned country KSA or why not another family owned enterprises called UAE.
    stratplaya , 12 Apr 2017 15:58
    History tells us replacing Assad would be a bad idea. We should have learned the lesson with Hussain and Iraq, but didn't. We would go on to replace Gaddafi of Libya and boom, it trigged ISIS.

    The hard lesson here is that for some reason Muslim majority countries have a strong central authoritarian leader. No matter if that leaders is called president, king, prime minister, or whatever. When that strong leaders is deposed, chaos ensues.

    Pier16 , 12 Apr 2017 15:58
    The Americans have a fetish with regime change. Up until recently they were discrete about it and did it in secret, now they are all in the open. People who are against regime change are considered anti-Americans and tools of the Soviets...ahm.... Russia. The amazing thing is Tillerson said Assad's faith should be left with the Syrian people, the American establishment in unison said how could he says such a terrible thing, "we should decide what Syrian people want."

    These are the same people who elected Trump, maybe they should let Syrian people select the US president. The result may end up better.

    freeandfair , 12 Apr 2017 15:53
    > Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad.

    Yes, Assad is not a good person. But what about American politicians such as Hillary Clinton, who armed "moderate rebels" and supported the opposition in pursuit of regime change? And Syria is not the only country were this happened. Will there ever any responsibility taken for their actions by the US and NATO?

    First, they make a manageable problem into a huge problem, then just hightail back home, living local people to pick up the pieces.

    Those half millions of deaths - are they all responsibility of Assad or do the sponsors of jihadists and jihadists themselves have some responsibility as well?

    GlozzerBoy1 , 12 Apr 2017 15:40
    Absolutely, stay the hell out, we should have no footprint in that awful part of the world.
    Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    The choice as I see it is this:

    A. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........but women can wear what they like in public, get a good education courtesy of the State, and embark on a career.

    B. A horrible authoritarian regime that tortures and murders it's opponents...........where women are denied education, made virtual prisoners in their own homes, and have acid flung in their faces for having the temerity to appear unveiled when they do go out in public.

    It's not a great choice, but one is definitely better than the other.

    Weefox Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 15:43
    Also worth remembering that under Assad people are allowed religious freedom. I know two Syrian Christians who are terrified of what will happen if the rebels take control of their country.
    Tom1982 Weefox , 12 Apr 2017 15:46
    I'd imagine the Shia feel the same.
    freeandfair Tom1982 , 12 Apr 2017 16:06
    Choice B also includes Sharia law, full extermination of other faiths and death sentence for rejection of Islam. Basically Choice B is another Saudi Arabia, but a lot of people will have to die first.
    oddballs , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    Assad would stand a good chance of winning a fair and honest election,
    Still waiting for evidence by forensic experts over the chemical weapons , who did what and where.
    Until proof is given hat prove otherwise the rebels are the most likly suspects. --> normankirk , 12 Apr 2017 15:35
    SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:24
    The world's biggest superpower is willing to risk a nuclear war with mass destruction of billions and possible extinction of life on earth on an unproven assertion made by Al Qaeda sympathisers that the Syrian government bombed them with sarin? OBL must be laughing in his grave.
    aleph SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:45
    1. Who is threatening a nuclear war? The Russians? I haven't heard them threaten that. Probably because no-one would seriously believe them.

    2. An intellectually honest person should not describe young children as terrorist sympathisers. Let alone imply they somehow deserve to be deliberately targeted by nerve gas as a result.

    Fort Sumpter aleph , 12 Apr 2017 14:54
    If you have the evidence of a nerve gas agent being present please supply it forthwith.

    I keep asking you guys, who must be on the ground in Idlib such is your certainty, to provide the proof but you always refuse. Why is that?

    SHA2014 aleph , 12 Apr 2017 14:56
    An intellectually honest person should question the veracity of a report that is unverified by a terrorist organisation. The children were never described by me as 'terrorist sympathisers' so you make a dishonest accusation, the terrorist sympathisers are those who produced the report on which the whole story is based. It is not about the death of the children which is of course a crime, but they are being used by the terrorists for thier purposes.
    An intellectually honest person would also show outrage about the mass murder of civilians, including children in Mosul and by a US bombing in Syria that seem to not arouse the same outrage.
    SHA2014 , 12 Apr 2017 14:13
    Regime change by US has been used at least three times against democracies, in Chili, in Iran and in Ukraine. Attempted regime change has also been used often in South America to oust populist rulers because of US interests. Although the above analysis raises the very good point that change has to come from the bottom up, it starts with the same fallacies of assuming that all of the death and destruction in Syria comes from one person which is an extremely flawed point to start from. The point that is to be made is that there is no military solution to the conflict except in an anti terrorist capacity. The problem is that all of those against the Syrian government in the current conflict are either outright terrorists or those who collaborate heavily with terrorists making it difficult to have a conventional peace process.
    Imperialist , 12 Apr 2017 14:07
    America should not be the one who decides who is an acceptable government, and sends soldiers to enforce its will.

    The UN should have done that long ago. To Assad. To Kim. Stopped the Khmer Rouge. Or Rwanda.

    Yet the only time they ever have actually fought is in the Korean War.

    Fort Sumpter Imperialist , 12 Apr 2017 14:55
    *cough* The US supported the Khmer Rouge *cough*
    Mauryan , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    America engaged in regime changes to suit American interests during the cold war and the New world order drive. The fact that they supported dictatorships worldwide and helped them overthrow democratically elected governments tells clearly that imposing democracy forcibly was not their intention. Intervention in global conflicts is mainly for controlling pathways for resources and gaining ground for business opportunities for their multinational giant corporations.
    diddoit Mauryan , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    It's all about what's best for the US and the incredibly powerful(in the US) Israel lobby. The UK just goes along with it.
    NezPerce , 12 Apr 2017 13:52
    The West's narrative has fallen apart, nobody believes that the Syrian rebels are peace loving democrats. We have ample evidence that they are infinitely worse than Assad.

    We also have plenty of evidence that the Western deep state, not the public, wants another regime change in the middle east and will stop at nothing to achieve its end including false flag gas attacks. This article goes into detail.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-08/false-flag-how-us-armed-syrian-rebels-set-excuse-attack-assad

    False Flag: How the U.S. Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

    Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.

    The Left is very opposed to war in Syria, the Libertarian right is very opposed to war in Syria but a hugely powerful Deep State will stop at nothing to achieve its ends.

    Nat-Nat aka Kyl Shinra , 12 Apr 2017 13:50
    "Worse still, more than 500,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the civil war, 6.1 million have been internally displaced and another 4.8 million are seeking refuge abroad. "

    well, you cannot put the blame on Assad only. He never asked for that war for a start and a lot of the refugees you're talking about may very well be pro-Assad.

    This said, I agree, leave Assad and Syria alone.

    Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:48
    Finally an article which still sticks to logical thinking when it comes to Syria. Assad is a terrible leader but atleast with him, most of the factions within the country can be sorted. The West's obsession with stuffing democracy down the throats of every oil producing country in the Middle East has resulted in the Mad Max wasteland i.e. Libya and the unsolvable puzzle i.e. Iraq. Both Gaddafi and Saddam were terrible human beings but removing them left a vacuum which has cost the lives of thousands and displaced millions. The West must make its peace with Assad for now, stop supporting the rebels and try to find common ground with Russia against the real enemy - ISIS.
    diddoit Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    The west - as the US/UK like to themselves, couldn't give a damn about democracy . They want compliance , not democracy. A good(brutal) dictator is better than a 'difficult' democratically elected leader , look at events in Egypt for example.

    Our own democracies are pretty ropey, certainly not up there with the Scandinavian best practice.

    dusktildawn Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    You're kidding right? The West stuffing democracy down the throats of the Gulf countries. More like defending them against the threat of democracy by arming them to the teeth and stationing troops there. Have you heard of Bahrain?
    diddoit Jayesh Iyer , 12 Apr 2017 13:55
    call themselves. -typo
    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:47
    The only plausible solution to this conflict is partition assuming of course the imminent defeat of Isis.

    While getting rid of Assad would create a dangerous power vacuum and is in any case perhaps impossible given Russias backing, the sheer scale of the killing he's done and destruction he's unleashed on his own people - of a totally different scale to Saddam Hussein and even his father, from whom he seems to have inherited his psychopathic tendencies -renders the idea that he could continue to rule a "united" Syria or even the majority of it, laughable.

    Mauryan dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:52
    Partition would create more Assads.
    Jemima15 , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    If you get rid of Assad, whoever replaces him is going to have a very difficult task. How on Earth do you enforce any sort of civilized law and order in a country which has some of the worst terrorist organizations the world has ever known. With organizations like ISIS around, a government is gong to need to take a firm hand somewhere. It's not as if you can send Jihadists on community service and expect them to come back as reformed characters.
    DanielDee , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    Regime change? Why not?
    Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi would make a fine statesman!
    Pipcosta DanielDee , 12 Apr 2017 14:03
    Until he turns on his mater
    IamDolf , 12 Apr 2017 13:45
    Fact is that Assad still enjoys considerable support among Syrians. In particular among those who have no problem with a woman going to the beach in a bikini and driving a car to work. He is not giong anywhere soon. And if he did, the situation would be worse. As in the case of the butcher Saddam Hussein and the crazy dictator Khadaffi, who also were supposedly removed in an attempt to bring "freedom and democracy to the people."
    diddoit IamDolf , 12 Apr 2017 13:49
    Syria was one of the few countries in the ME where you could drink alcohol. Does anyone believe whoever follows Assad be it someone picked by the US/Israel/KSA/Qatar will be quite so tolerant?
    Patin , 12 Apr 2017 13:43
    Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity? Is it not about time that they are compelled to comply with international law and for the United Nations Assembly to make them so by enforceable resolutions passed by a majority vote?

    Assad is a tyrant who should be removed from office and held accountable for his crimes against humanity. Syrians should be entitled to a government that is respectful of their human rights.

    The UN should take responsibility for enforcing a permanent ceasefire and brokering talks to secure Syria's future. It should require as a condition of UN membership compliance with and adherence to international law protecting human rights. Non compliance should be met with expulsion and the economic isolation of the country concerned from the rest of the world.

    freeandfair Patin , 12 Apr 2017 16:19
    > Why can't world leaders be held to account for their crimes against humanity?

    You should start with American leaders like Bush. If you are serious about this.

    roachclip , 12 Apr 2017 13:42

    There is no shortcut to lasting peace. As uncomfortable as it is, the best that western governments can do is provide aid and assistance to those in distress, while pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.

    You are absolutely right.

    Such a pity then that the western governments in question, the UK, America and to a lesser extent, France, are in fact the same entities, via their surrogate power in the middle east, Saudi Arabia, who are the ones providing the weapons and money.

    Just as they did in Iraq and Libya, and always for the same reason, to achieve regime change against the Middle Eastern leaders who were threatening their control of the oil market.

    This situation is nothing new, these Western Powers have been attacking various parts of the Middle East for nigh on a century. Winston Churchill was responsible for bombing Iraq in the 1920's. That also was to achieve regime change.

    All of the deaths and the destruction in the Middle East can ultimately be laid at the door of the 'Western Powers' and their willingness to do anything to protect their oil interests.

    Taku2 , 12 Apr 2017 13:35
    One of the most despicable thing about the West's attempts to bribe, entice and force Russia into abandoning the Syrian Government, so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal, is how patronising they have been towards the Russians and Iranians. Granted that their racism towards the Russians might not be what it is towards the Syrian state, which they want to deny a voice and disrespect to the extent of talking to the Russians, and ignoring the Syrian government.

    Yes, the West is behaving towards the Syrian state as if it is just something for it to manipulate, as it does with the global economy. Not having made any progress in manipulating the Syrian proxy conflict into the outcomes it wants, the West has now resorted to making merciless and unjustified attacks on Russian and the Iranians. Despite the fact that it is Russia and the Syrian government forces and their Hezbollah allies who have broken the impasse in this terrible war.
    It is scurrilous that there should now be this coordinated media and political campaign to make Russia out to be 'the bad guy', the 'devil', as it were.

    As for 'the liberals', well, guess what, if you want to do something constructive. Then stop blaming Russia and demonising the Russians, the Syrian Government and their allies. Look closer to home, to America, To Britain, to France and Saudi Arabia. There you will find more demons disguised as 'humanitarians' and 'angels' than probably in all of Russia and Syria.
    The guys in the West who are posturing as angels are no less culpable than the Syrian government.
    Of course the West should not destroy the Syrian state and government. But, since when has logic prevented this cartel from exercising its destructive force? As Libya, Iraq and Yemen have proven? The liberals need to grow up and stop being allied to the right.

    Arapas Taku2 , 12 Apr 2017 13:42

    so that America, France, Britain and Saudi Arabia can rush in, like hyenas to finish off a wounded animal

    Your point is of great importance.
    Now that Russia has done the dirty work at great cost, pushing them out of the way.........................
    That will not happen, Rex was told by Sergei.

    Arapas , 12 Apr 2017 13:34
    robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.

    Is meant to be the joke of the month.
    What did they ever fix ? Just look what the Korean war has lead to.
    Vietnam, where the Americans were defeated, is now a united and peaceful country.
    On the other hand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other regime change candidates have been reduced to failed states.

    In Syria, the fate of the Alwites will be the same of that of women and children cowering in St Sophia in 1453.
    Utter slaughter!

    ganaruvian , 12 Apr 2017 13:32
    Firstly, we have yet to see the results of any impartial investigation checking out the Syrian/Russian version of events about the gas in Idlib province, which could be true. Nobody that I can see is 'supporting' the use of gas against civilians, but it is known that the bigger terrorist organisations such as ISIS and al Qaeda do have stocks of poison gas. Secondly,so many uninformed commentators have not understood that Syria's 6 year war has been and remains a religious war! Asad's Shiite/ Alawite/Christian/ Druse/ Ismaili communities and other minorities supported by Iran and Lebanon's Shiites, fighting for their very survival against Saudi/ Qatari/Gulf States' extremist Wahhabi fighters, who via ISIS ,Al Qaeda and similar Islamists, want to wipe them off the face of the earth (with Turkey playing a double game). At this very moment people are condemning Assad for bombing civilians, whilst the US-led coalition including our own RAF, is doing exactly the same thing in the ISIS held city of Mosul -for the same reasons. The rebels take over and then surround themselves in cities, with civilians, hoping that these horrors will raise western public opinion against the government forces trying to defeat them. The 'half- informed' public opinion is now behaving in exactly this predictable way against the Syrian government, trying to deal with its own religious extremist rebels, many of whom are not even Syrians. It was always a war that the west should stay out of -other peoples religious wars are incomprehensible to non-believers in that particular faith. To talk now of replacing Asad is juvenile and mischievous - maybe that's why Boris is so engaged?
    Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 13:20
    Assad is the lesser of two evils. Those who are hailed as rebels pose an enormous threat to our security.
    jonnyross Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 13:44
    There is an equality of evil between Assad and ISIS. That said, Assad's forces and their Shia allies have slaughtered the vast majority of the victims.

    Both Assad and ISIS will lose eventually. How many Syrians are slaughtered in the meantime is anyone's guess.

    Why murderous dictators are so popular btl is a mystery.

    john evans , 12 Apr 2017 13:20
    Syria is finished.
    According to Wikipedia Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 321,358 and 470,000.
    On 23 April 2016, the United Nations and Arab League Envoy to Syria put out an estimate of 400,000 that had died in the war.

    Also,according to Wikipedia I n 2016, the United Nations (UN) identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, of which more than 6 million are internally displaced within Syria, and over 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. In January 2017, UNHCR counted 4,863,684 registered refugees.
    Turkey is the largest host country of registered refugees with over 2.7 million Syrian refugees.

    Before the troubles,Syria had a population of 23 million.
    No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.

    Arapas john evans , 12 Apr 2017 13:37

    No country could go back to normality after that upheaval.

    It can --
    Look at Chechnya! A newly rebuilt Grosny, living in peace.
    Bearing in mind Iraq, Libya etc who wants to see that --

    NativeBornTexan Arapas , 12 Apr 2017 14:08
    Chechnya is ruled by a Russian puppet dictator who executes gay men.
    Shad O NativeBornTexan , 12 Apr 2017 15:13
    That's because politics is heartlessly, ruthlessly, compassionlessly pragmatic. If having a pet local petty king in the area keeps it stable and does not a politically costly military operation, everything else is seen as "acceptable collateral damage".

    It's funny but western foreign policy is fundamentally the same in the methods, just different in goals. If the goal of regime change is achieved and political points collected, everything else is completely irrelevant. Opposition can become "moderately islamist", "democratic" rebels may implement sharia law, "precision strikes" may cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties, but it's all for the greater good.

    Pipcosta , 12 Apr 2017 13:18
    Why do we send a sewer rat to the UN as our ambassador
    brianboru1014 , 12 Apr 2017 13:14
    Every time the West especially the Anglo west of the USA and Britain intervene in another countries affairs, the end product is a disaster so for that reason alone these two societies which can only communicate in English should leave this to the Russians.
    Ruby4 , 12 Apr 2017 13:13
    "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

    Albert Einstein

    Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html

    Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645

    FFC800 , 12 Apr 2017 13:08
    This almost manages to achieve sense, and it's good to see an article not promoting regime change for once, but it still falls short of stating the truth that the correct policy in Syria is to help Assad win the war, and then impose conditions on his conduct in the peace.

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.

    Most of that was done by rebels.
    jackrousseau , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    I must now begrudgingly thank the Trump Administration for causing me to realize a profound and universal truth. History doesn't rhyme at all; it parodies.

    The build up to our inevitable Syria invasion is essentially an SNL parody of our Iraq invasion. All the way down to allegations of to "hidden stockpiles of WMDs", "gassing own citizens", "violation of no WMD agreement", "weapons inspectors not doing job", and most recently "Assad/Saddam is Hitler". All that's left is the final piece of evidence to tip public opinion in...the holy grail, "yellowcake uranium".

    Of course, 6 months ago --with full knowledge of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds--Trump said toppling Hussein was a "uge" mistake and defended him as an "efficient killer of terrorists". "Efficient" indeed... https://cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/05/politics/donald-trump-saddam-hussein-iraq-terrorism/index.html

    I'm not sure exactly what comes next (presumably Trump declaring an "Axis of Evil" consisting of Syria, ISIS, Iran, N.Korea...and perhaps Russia and/or China or both...thus setting the stage for a hilarious parody of WWII).

    Who knows...I guess at least it's interesting.

    John Smythe , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    Perhaps dear Boris should have had more talks with the British government to find out what is the political position of the conservative government over Syria, and more importantly with Russia. So far the American have by the look of things, telling the British Government in what they want, not bothering to ask what Britain thinks what is important.
    There is actually no point in swapping one master the EU, to handcuff ourselves to the a far more right wing America.
    bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 13:00
    I find the commments on here quite confusing...

    Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with are people that want to oust a tyrannical and unelected leader who clearly has nothing but disdain for his people (groups of at least).

    Those rebels (or freedom fighters) are being seen as the bad guys it seems to me...?

    The only reason I can see for this is that they have slight support from the United States.

    Had the boot been on the other foot and the US we're supporting Assad and Russia,the rebels (freedom fighters) I'm quite sure public opinion (Guardian readers at least) would be quite different.

    So what do the Syrian rebels who are looking to overthrow a dictator have to do to be put on a pedestal of righteousness as Castro was for effectively trying to achieve the same end goal....

    Oh, that's right, Castro was trying to stick it to the Yanks.... now I get it.

    dusktildawn bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 13:34
    I think there's a definite strain of anti-Americanism on display however cautiously we have to view their actions after Iraq and give their closeness to the Gulf States. A quarter of the country has fled Assad, some 10 million internally displaced not to mention the incredible numbers of dead and wounded.

    And yet there's a close minded reflex to say that things will be better off with him in charge ignoring even the possibility of partition, which strikes me as the most plausible option. The idea that Assad can now after all he's done rule a united country indefinitely putting a lid on refugees and terrorism strikes me as utterly preposterous.

    bemusedfromdevon dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 14:11
    My sentiments entirely and it shocks me that there are a considerable number of Assad apologists commenting on here as he is clearly seen as a better 'devil' than Trump...

    I'm just very pleased I don't live in Syria and I think the run of the mill Syrian dying in their droves due to gas, bombs or simply drowning in the Med would be horrified to read a large number of comments on here in relation to this article and how Assad 'isn't such a bad old stick!'

    I'm embarrassed to be honest....

    Shad O bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 15:25

    Take Isil and jihadists out of the equation and what you're left with

    what you are left is nothing. This was the big point since 2013, when Nusra began taking over the last remnants of the FSA. Since then Cameron (or was it Hammond) had to coin the term "relatively hardline islamists" to make some of the jihadi groups somewhat acceptable.

    In its latest iteration, Nusra (now rebranded yet againTahrir al-Sham) has formally absorbed several other "rebel" group, including the Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who were in the past equipped by the US, and were quoted by various agencies (including this paper) as "opposition" during the recapture of Aleppo.

    Ah, yes, you also have the Kurds, who are building their own state. But if there is something all the local powers agree on (Russia, US, Turkey, Syria, Iraq...) is that they don't want an independent Kurdish state.

    NezPerce , 12 Apr 2017 12:58

    President Obama was heavily criticized for not doing more in Syria, but he made a difficult decision that was in many ways the right on.

    Obama required cover from the British Parliament. Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the UK public from right to left. David Miliband listened to the public and stopped the bombing of Syria. Nobody expected a Labour politician to dare to oppose the US war machine, it took them all by surprise.

    Bombing Syria was incredibly unpopular with the US public and the European public, Miliband saved us from ISIS and Al Nusra both al Qaeda franchises running Syria.

    The BBC routinely portrays the Libertarian right wing in the USA as Isolationists but if you hear it from them they are anti-war. The American working class understands what war is like in the middle east because many of them have experienced it. They are clearly anti another war in the middle east. proof:

    https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-michael-savage-begs-trump-to-stop-wwiii/

    In this off the cuff interview Michael Savage begs Donald Trump to not plunge the world into another world war that could destroy life as we know it

    .

    Trump has been subjugated by the deep state, his base is outraged and in despair.

    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:58
    You could argue this isn't about regime change per se but prosecuting a dictator for targeting and massacring civilians. And surely the same rationale can be used against Isis. In other words you don't allow mass murderers to take. Over but prosecute them as well.
    Mates Braas dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 15:05
    You can start proceedings against your own war criminals. There is a long list of them, stretching from, Paris, London, Washington and Tel Aviv.
    freeandfair dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 16:41
    In that case North Korea and Saudi Arabia should be on top of the list.
    Trekkie555 , 12 Apr 2017 12:57
    Good article. Hits the nail on the head. Regime change may be required for Syria the G7 and Arab countries must come together to carefully plan what happens afterwards.
    Nolens , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    diddoit , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    'Monster' Assad was courted by western leaders: Remember the Assads pictured taking tea at Buckingham Palace with the Queen(google it) , Blair all smiles in Damascus. The Kerry family pictured in Damascus enjoying a late evening supper with the Assads(google it).

    But Bashar al-Assad is a stubborn man , he wouldn't distance himself from Iran and their proxies such as Hezbollah, thus his fate was sealed.

    zolotoy diddoit , 12 Apr 2017 12:59
    Nope, wrong. Assad wouldn't give the USA, Qatar, and Turkey a nice pipeline to kneecap Russian natural gas sales in Europe.

    It's all about oil and money, petrodollars and ensuring American worldwide hegemony.

    sokkynick zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 13:07
    +1
    diddoit zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 13:42
    Well it's all tied in . People talk about Israel wanting the Golan Heights permanently in part due to oil interests, they talk about Qatar and the gas pipeline to Europe Assad refuses. They talk about the KSA being unnerved by Iran's growing influence in the region after the Iraq war, and how it would suit KSA , Israel and the US for Sunni leadership to emerge in Syria to rebalance the region.

    I think it's all of the above . Which isn't what US/UK populations are being told.

    Ilan Klinger , 12 Apr 2017 12:53
    A regime changing in Syria?
    Can someone here try and convince me that the State of Syria still exists?
    And change it from what to what?From a Murderouscracy to a Oppressionocracy?
    peterwiv , 12 Apr 2017 12:52
    The West learns nothing from its mistakes. Can't we understand that our real enemy is ISIS and that springs directly from our disastrous invasion of Iraq? Assad may be pretty awful but surely we should be able to comprehend that he is an ally in the fight against ISIS just as the far more horrible Stalin was an ally against the Nazis.
    Just because Trump suddenly talks about "beautiful babies", we all go mad again.
    aleph , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    Syria is going to need serious amounts of aid and foreign investment to recover when peace starts to take hold. But Assad cannot travel internationally because he will be subject to arrest. At least in any civilised country. So he will be gone one way or antithetical. Putin has backed the wrong horse. It's too handicapped to run.
    elaine naude aleph , 12 Apr 2017 15:43
    Who should he have backed? - Isis?
    algae64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    Until the Saudis, US & UK decide that enough is enough, then this idiocy will continue. Assad is a better leader for Syria than Isis, Al Qaeda, or the other Saudi-backed groups would be.

    Syria was secular and religiously tolerant under Assad. It won't be either of those things if Assad is deposed. More than likely, it would end up as a Saudi-style Islamic theocracy with the harshest head-chopping, hand-chopping version of sharia law.

    BorisMalden , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble

    Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.

    Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
    We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
    Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
    The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
    aleph Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:56
    "Better to help Assad stabilise the Country"

    Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.

    Oldfranky aleph , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    Are you sure it's only Assad, laugh all you will.
    BorisMalden , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble

    Did Assad deliberately bring his country into civil war? When his forces are being attacked by rebels sponsored by foreign groups, he really only has two choices: give up leadership and allow the rebels to take over the country, or fight back. Given that you're arguing that a regime change is a bad idea it logically follows that you support the second option, so it hardly seems fair to criticise him for the consequences of that resistance. You might do better to blame the rebels and those who sponsor them for bringing war to what was previously a (relatively) peaceful country.

    Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:46
    This Regime Change Policy adopted by the US and in many, if not all cases, supported by the UK, whilst in some case toppling Dictators, has left nothing but chaos in its wake.
    We need to consider the case of Syria, very carefully, as we may well find ourselves handing the Country to ISIL on a plate.
    Better to help Assad stabilise the Country, and then discuss political change.
    The rhetoric coming from the Foreign and Defence Secretaries, can do nothing to help, but make the UK look stupid.
    aleph Oldfranky , 12 Apr 2017 12:56
    "Better to help Assad stabilise the Country"

    Hahahahaha, collude with crimes against humanity in the name of stability and call it progress because after six years we cannot think of an alternative. Great.

    Oldfranky aleph , 12 Apr 2017 13:58
    Are you sure it's only Assad, laugh all you will.
    Foracivilizedworld , 12 Apr 2017 12:44

    Regime change in Syria? That would be a mistake

    Absolutely no... it will be a colossal disaster... and would explode the entire region affecting not only all ME countries including Israel, but will extend to Europe and NA, You can't keep it all "Over There"

    And I think Trump would do it.

    SaracenBlade , 12 Apr 2017 12:43
    Regime change, evidently the US has n't learned from the past experience. Look at Iraq, Lybia, regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict. Syrian population is strictly divided on sectarian line - Sunnis, Shias, Christians, Kurds. Who is going to make a cohesive government capable of running the affairs of the state? Bashar Assaad's father, Hafiz Assaad ruled Syria with an iron grip, he understood Syrian sectarian divide.
    notDonaldTrump SaracenBlade , 12 Apr 2017 12:49
    'regime change has resulted in complete chaos, instability, and perpetual conflict.'

    If one tried to think impartially the evidence might lead one to think that was the plan all along.

    BlueCollar notDonaldTrump , 12 Apr 2017 15:50
    If any country needs regime change, it is Saudi Arabia. All important positions are controlled by hundreds of Royals of Al Saud, even honest criticism of royals brings you closer to the back swing of executioner .
    timefliesby , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Have we learnt nothing?
    zolotoy timefliesby , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    Some of us have learned to be very comfortable with scraps from the war machine table -- Western legacy media in particular.
    moreorless2 , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    My newsagent loves Assad. Why because he's a Syrian Christian. Assad is the only hope for the minority's in Syria. All of the opposition groups are some variation on Islamic nationalists. They will all happily slaughter anyone not of their faith. Assad is a murdering bastard but he kills those that threaten him. In Middle Eastern terms he's a liberal.
    Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 12:39
    Quite right. What the people of Syria need is stability and an end to the fighting. All else is secondary. In particular, the greatest crime that the West has committed in recent decades is the attempt to foist democracy on countries like Syria and Iraq, where it simply does not work. Even now, Western liberals dream of sitting Sunni, Shia, Alevi, Kurds, secularists and Islamic militants around a table to talk through to a democratic and mutually acceptable future for Syria. This is a fantasy - as democracy always is in heavily tribalised societies. It can only end in renewed civil war and inevitable dictatorship. I often wonder whether the West is just naive in these attempts at liberal cultural imperialism, or whether they are in fact a cynical front to mask the equally egregious aim of checkmating Russian influence in the region. Either way, shame on us.
    StrongMachine Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    Are you calling George W Bush a liberal?
    PSmd Terra_Infirma , 12 Apr 2017 13:07
    It's not liberal cultural imperialism. It's painted as that to sell to domestic audiences.

    It's liberal economic imperialism.

    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    Now to be fair, no one knows really what the president is thinking, not even apparently his chief diplomat or his UN envoy, who have sent conflicting messages. But let's cut to the chase – this is a very, very bad idea.

    WW3 is definately a very very bad idea.
    The idea that the US can change the government of another country for the better is born of US arrogance and lying manipulation.

    juster , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    It's a bit funny that we just casually mention that the country harping on about the respect of the international rule book sinc 2014 vaiolate one of the core UN charter principles 72 times and is openly speaking of braking it the 73th time.

    Jsut picture China saying openly their goal is to change the Abe regime in Tokio or Russia to change the regime in Kiev. They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.

    freeandfair juster , 12 Apr 2017 16:58
    > They can't even have a pefered presidential candidate without mass interference hysteria and we just feel like it's A OK to go around the world changing who's in charge of countries.

    An excellent point.

    bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 12:35
    There are two main choices... Regime change... which hasn't worked out well where it's been attempted or just let the despots get on with it...

    There are no easy answers but perhaps the only way is to let dictators crush and annihilate their opposition, utilise death squads to make dissenters disappear in the dead of night and, outwardly at least pretend everything is rosey....

    If we, as a civilised society are able to 'look the other way' then that might be the simple answer... just hope everyone can sleep well at night and be grateful that, however much you hate our present government they aren't out gassing (allegedly) Guardian readers.

    Jared Hall bemusedfromdevon , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Not gassing people no, but still killing plenty of "innocent little babies" bombing hospitals and helping the Saudis cluster bomb fishing villages. Why don't we see pictures on TV of Yemeni kids mutilated by American bombs? How do we sleep with that?
    bemusedfromdevon Jared Hall , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    We're pulling the trigger??

    And that makes supporting a tyrant who will do anything a satisfactory solution to you?

    Sounds like crocodile tears to me.

    SterlingPound Jared Hall , 12 Apr 2017 13:11
    Well, we saw the aftermath of a deliberate attack by Saudis planes on a clearly demarcated Yemeni hospital on the BBC last year. The first rocket hit an arriving ambulance with civilian casualties and a doctor on board. The response of the Saudi shills in the Commons - what is it about the British upper class and the Arabs, I wonder - was to demand forcefully that the Saudis set up an inquiry to examine the evidence of a war crime.
    It should have been sadly obvious from the get-go that we had to back Assad before he attempted to beat his father's record for murder and repression, the whole family's fucking insane, but it's long past too late now. He's soiled goods and Tillerson's untutored idea of elections is surely farcical.
    Muzzledagain , 12 Apr 2017 12:35
    Fair article, although ISI and rebels actively participated in the destruction of Syria. If Assad falls, anarchy due to vacuum will follow, guaranteed. Agree with the last paragraph in particular and still wondering why they (the West) don't do it especially pressuring the countries that feed the rebels, and they are not so moderate, with money and weapon. Unless this is because of the infamous pipeline. Tragic state of affair indeed.
    Aethelfrith , 12 Apr 2017 12:31
    Decade after decade, the west has interfered or overthrown government after governemnt , all over the world , mainly for the benefit of capitalist puppeteers . America has been the worst , one only has to look at the CIA's track record in South America when legitimately elected governments were ousted by force so that "American business" interest were looked after.
    This same vested self interest has been the driving force over the last few years. The interventions in Iraq , Libya, Afghanistan have all been total disasters fro the regions and resulted in more deaths than any tin pot dictator could have achieved. Backing so called "moderate" terrorists seems to be the excuse to get involved.
    More moral achievement and good could have been achieved by widespread dropping of food around the world , or even the cost of the military hegemony being given as cash handouts to poor people , but this simplistic altruism does not allow for the geopolitical control games that is the true beating heart of western aggression.
    austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:30
    And it will serve as a welcome distraction from the lack of domestic achievements by the U.S. govt.
    Fort Sumpter austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    Theresa could also do with some distraction from her shambolic government and the whole Brexit disaster.
    timefliesby austinpratt , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    Got to agree. Dead cat. Nobody is talking about links and the FBI any more and Putin is mentioned on a new context.
    Approval ratings from US voters?
    Moo1234 Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:45
    We are all Brexiteers now. I voted remain, but accept the democratic will of the people. Blame David Cameron and get on with the job of making a success of it, rather than whining about it....
    dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:30
    What if this was Apartheid era South Africa and the white minority were bombing the hell out of the majority black civilians who wanted them out?
    duthealla dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 12:49
    Nobody intervened in South Africa despite massacres like Sharpeville....perhaps it would've let to full on racial war though?
    dusktildawn duthealla , 12 Apr 2017 12:55
    I'm just saying people making the case for the West to back off would probably be saying the opposite in that case if the white minority were massacring black people on the scale of Syria. Isn't that hypocrisy?
    Fort Sumpter dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:04
    It isn't hypocrisy because your South African scenario bears little resemblance to what is happening in Syria. Simple as that.
    Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:28
    Boris obviously has a more pressing engagement over Easter.
    BeanstalkJack , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Regime change - a phrase that reminds us imperialism is alive and well.
    Gandalf66 BeanstalkJack , 12 Apr 2017 12:47
    The successful regime changes mentioned in the article such as Poland and the rest of the Eastern bloc were initiated by the people themselves, rather than the the "help" of a foreign power.
    BeanstalkJack Gandalf66 , 12 Apr 2017 13:03
    The people did it all by themselves did they? So nothing to do with the economic collapse of the Soviet Union caused by an arms race ramped up by President Reagan. Nothing to do with a very costly war in Afghanistan?
    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary. Such thinking has a long pedigree in the United States, where there is a robust belief in a supposed American ability to fix what is wrong.

    I think the word is arrogance rather than belief.

    Mates Braas sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 14:51
    I think the word is arrogance rather than belief...............and exceptionalism.
    brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Trump is the new boy on the block, trying to use missiles as a penis substitute.

    Sorry, but simple definitions are sometimes correct.

    yshani brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 13:19
    Would you have said the same thing in 1917 and 1940. Would you have said the same thing in the duration of the cold war. If US did not have a bigger penis then you would not be around to comment about it.

    Long live the US penis and may it grow longer and stronger.

    brucebaby yshani , 12 Apr 2017 13:26
    WW2 was won principally by the USSR, who suffered many more casualties than the western alliances. The cold war would not have happened if not for the USA.

    Sorry, the USA is more of a threat to the planet than any country, and Trump is unintelligent, a real threat to the world.

    MacMeow brucebaby , 12 Apr 2017 17:01

    WW2 was won principally by the USSR

    That old clunker again, it's like the war in the Pacific never happened.

    Sorry4Soul , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Why it would be a mistake ?
    Libya was such a success story.
    Trumbledon , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    Finally, at long last, some sense.

    I agree wholeheartedly; by far the best analysis I've read in this paper.

    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    If the US wants Assad ousted, they should support a UN investigation to find out WHO was at fault. Shoot first questions later? Hollywood Wild West thinking. The US has zero credibility. You simply cannot blame someone without having the facts independently checked out. Yet they didn't wait and decided to break interantional law instead.
    joAnn chartier , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    There seems to be a crucial component of reality lacking in this opinion piece: rather than bombing and droning and etc, why does the 'world order' not stop the manufacture and distribution of weapons of mass destruction like barrel bombs, nuclear warheads etc etc -- where profits are made by arms manufacturers and their investors--oh, could that be the reason?
    Fakecharitybuster , 12 Apr 2017 12:20
    Quite. Assad is awful, but he is less awful that the Islamist alternatives, which are the only realistic alternatives. We should stop posturing and accept this unpalatable reality.
    ganaruvian Fakecharitybuster , 12 Apr 2017 13:40
    Spot-on!
    Viva_Kidocelot , 12 Apr 2017 12:20
    Much more level reporting, but still is framing the narrative as a brutal gas attack and is still a rush to judgement when the case is that bombs were dropped on a supply of toxic gas, most likely Phosgene.
    Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:19
    At last, some common sense. like Saddam and Gaddafi, Assad is a ruthless tyrant. What the West, including the petulant Boris Johnson need to realise is that Syria ISN'T the West. Don't impose your values on a country that isn't ready for them. The sickening hypocrisy of the British government would look very foolish if Putin pulled out and allowed Syria to fall to isis. Would Boris and Theresa put British troops on the ground to keep the extremists out of Turkey?
    Gandalf66 Moo1234 , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    Why isn't Syria ready for Western values? After what the country has been through the people would probably leap at the chance of free elections. Prior to the conflict Syria was a multi-ethnic patchwork. Whatever happens to the country needs to be decided by the Syrians themselves.
    Mates Braas Gandalf66 , 12 Apr 2017 14:50
    "Why isn't Syria ready for Western values?"

    The geopolitical status quo in the Middle East is unstable, and tribal affiliations/religious/ ethnic allegiances need to be carefully balanced and controlled. Something Lebanon, Libya, Syria and Iraq achieved reasonably peacefully for many years before all the US led interventions.

    There is no evidence that the terrorists are fighting for democracy, although if westerners ask them that is what they will likely say.

    shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    So Trump is unfit to govern because of his locker room humour and possible antics, but gas a few thousand people and hey presto! A darling of the left.
    bemusedfromdevon shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:22
    That's how it seems...
    Fort Sumpter shockolat1 , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Not the left. These writers are pro-British Establishment, pro mixed economy liberals. Soft right if anything.
    zolotoy Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:51
    You're talking about this rag. Take a look at what's coming out of Howard Dean's mouth, or Bernie Sanders's, or practically any Democrat in Washington not named Tulsi Gabbard.

    Or, if you have a really strong stomach, take a look at Daily Kos.

    They're what passes for "left" in America, unfortunately, because the number of SWP and Green Party members is statistically insignificant.

    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:17
    "Given the situation, it is understandable why some people may think ousting Assad is necessary"

    The Guardian reported that in Libya, the last country to benefit from US and "our" attempts at regime change there are now open air slave auctions.

    So yeah, why not do the same in Syria; what is there to lose?

    Mates Braas , 12 Apr 2017 12:16
    Regime change is illegal under international law, except to the rogues of course found in western capitals, and their Gulf vassals. These are the only group of people in the entire planet who talk openly about overthrowing sovereign governments of other countries.

    Imperial hubris knows no bounds.

    tjt77 Mates Braas , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    The unfortunate truth is that, along with the ongoing decline of western civilization, one 'by-product' is that International Law is continually disdained. The USA, having lack of insightful leadership, does as it wants, when it wants .. the result is that perpetual wars seem to be a given .. meanwhile, Asia continues to rise and is growing real and genuine wealth by producing and exporting the goods the rest of the world consumes and is doing it very well..
    jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:16
    President Trump didn't do enough (yet) by bombing an air base at night. The people of Syria need weapons, tanks, missiles, air support, etc. from a country like the USA that stands for freedom and human rights. Assad, who lives by the sword should also die by the sword. For the U.S. to stand by and watch these atrocities unchallenged would simply be not who we are. I don't agree with President Trump on a lot of things, but on this point he is right. I have changed from not liking him at all to liking him just a bit more.
    sceptic64 jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:24
    And what comes after?
    duthealla sceptic64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:54
    That'd be a problem for the EU. We cook , you clean - as some neocon asshat said about Iraq.
    richmanchester duthealla , 12 Apr 2017 13:14
    Well the Guardian was reporting on open air slave auctions in
    Libya this week.

    So clearly arming "the people" and supplying air support worked well there.

    Obviously the same course should be followed in Syria.

    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    "All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged. "

    And that's Assad'd fault?

    Or is it the fault of the originally US and still Gulf states/Turkey backed Wahhabis that have damaged them?

    Trumbledon richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:36
    All Assad's fault, if he hadn't tried to liberate Palmyra, it'd still be standi... Oh wait.
    richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:14
    "The logic is that by removing and replacing an undesirable leader, the political situation in the country will change. "

    Absolute tosh.

    The logic behind nearly all attempts at cold war regime change was to replace a regime which aligned itself with the USSR with one that aligned itself with the USA.

    The internal situation, politically or otherwise was of no concern

    Elinore richmanchester , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    It would work in the USA.
    Nietzschestache , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Good piece. Regime change has been such a resounding success, you only have to look at Iraq and Libya to see that. Nor does a country which has a history of using napalm and carcinogenic defoliants any room to take the moral high ground.
    sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    If Assad, is so bad, how come most of the civilian population prefer his areas to those of the rebels? The one certainty in all of this is that the MSM has sold its credibility. Most of what I see is vested interest propaganda.
    pete8s sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:21
    Isn't the main reason that people prefer Assad's areas because he doesn't bomb them.
    There is no love of Assad anywhere.
    If the US were to limit itself to punishing strikes against Assad whenever his forces committed war crimes – bombing hospitals using poison gas etc then a minor at the level of civilisation creeps back into the equation.
    bemusedfromdevon sokkynick , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Perhaps because the rebel areas are getting the shit bombed out of them by the Russians and Assad...

    How many heavy bombers and fighters do those fighting Assad have...?

    Just think about it a little....

    Fort Sumpter pete8s , 12 Apr 2017 12:26

    There is no love of Assad anywhere.

    How many Syrians do you know and how many times have you been there?

    scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 12:10
    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.

    A proxy war between the United States and Russia is the thing we all have to fear. In Trump and Putin you have two leaders who use brinkmanship to get what they want and who will never back down from any position no matter what the consequences. They'd rather pursue a misguided policy rathen than lose face. I'd like to think the recent war of words between the two countries is just bluster, but as each day goes by I'm no longer sure anymore.

    Amanzim , 12 Apr 2017 12:10
    Regime change should work if all parties believe in democracy and respect each other. That does not seem likely in the middle east. We have seen what that means forcing that idea in Iraq, Egypt and Libya. A secular SOB is better than somebody who believes in laws of yesteryears.
    zankaon , 12 Apr 2017 12:09
    Another way: reducing accidental use of chemical weapons?

    Always drop 2 bombs; one from each side of ammunition dump. That way, one of such unmarked ordinance is likely to be conventional explosives. The latter would further disperse, and dilute (reduce density) of the chemical gas; hence lessening lethality.

    Elinore , 12 Apr 2017 12:08
    You could put Assad in the White House and Trump in Syria and and nothing would change except that the White House might be a tad more intelligent.
    Gandalf66 Elinore , 12 Apr 2017 12:59
    Assad is actually a qualified doctor so he's pretty intelligent. Strange that he's ignoring the Hippocratic Oath on a daily basis.
    jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:08
    So we agree on the final result (need for regime change which by the way the article conflicts with its own title), but we disagree on the method. Many bottoms-up revolutions would not have been successful without outside help. The French helped America achieve freedom although their reason was somewhat revengeful. The people of Syria have no chance against an army and tanks ruled by a ruthless evil dictator like Assad without outside assistance. If you think they are not shedding enough blood for their freedom, then you are living in a hole in the ground.
    Mickmarrs jman57 , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    Yeah and the guys that get in are head loppers
    ProfJake , 12 Apr 2017 12:05
    Well said. Worth taking a look at Global Peace Index, which is produced annually by the Sydney-based Institute for Economics and Peace:

    http://visionofhumanity.org/indexes/global-peace-index /

    In the latest iteration for 2016, the bottom ten places in the Index, reserved for the least peaceful countries on earth, include Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya: four countries where "regime change" has been brought about – or, in Syria's case, where there is arguably an ongoing attempt to bring it about – by the use of military force.
    The evidence so far is that the use of force to topple regimes does not make things better, even when the behaviour of those regimes is/was objectionable in many ways.

    Fort Sumpter , 12 Apr 2017 12:05

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities such as Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco world heritage sites have been damaged.

    Nope. Most of Homs and Aleppo are intact. The areas occupied by foreign Jihadists using the local populace as human shields were heavily bombed but now they have been liberated.

    Who was it who destroyed these heritage sites? Not the SAA. The Jihadists even filmed themselves doing it and posted the videos online for goodness sake.

    mp66 , 12 Apr 2017 12:04
    Bashar al-Assad is not a good person. He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble. All six of Syria's Unesco World Heritage sites have been damaged.

    So thousands of mostly foreign jihadists occupying parts of those cities had nothing to do with it? Did the US led forces in now n Mosul, or before that in Fallujah find the way to dislodge terrorists from urban strongholds without devastation of the city? Also for all world heritage sites in Syria, they were defended by Syrian troops, and everything that could be moved was moved to safe place. It was exclusively jihadists that were destroying temples, churches, shrines, even muslim graveyards when they found the funeral momunent "too tall". In all of these efforts to save the history of the humanity, syrian govermnent got no help nor acknowledgment. To add insult to injury, the western "cultural" response was touring 3D model of Palmyra gates through western capitals but while Daesh was methodically blowing it up under clear desert skies, there was interestingly not a single american drone to be found anywhere. It was syrian, iranian and russian blood spilled to liberate it twice from the death cult.

    ID1941743 , 12 Apr 2017 12:02
    Yep. There isn't a solution to this problem, but the one thing I'm 99.999% convinved will not work is 'the west' dusting off it's world policeman uniform and bombing the heck out of Syria.
    ariaclast , 12 Apr 2017 12:01
    This is precisely why the west has largely stayed out of the Syrian conflict; despite having a policy favouring the removal of Assad there hasn't been an attempt (or even the suggestion of an attempt at a policy level) at regime change.


    One does wonder, though, at what point the conflict becomes so abhorrent and the civilian casualties so grotesque that our intervention could scarcely make things any worse

    Vetinary ariaclast , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Are you actually blind?
    ariaclast Vetinary , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    Who said that?
    LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 12:00
    The US?
    Syria?
    Regime change?
    Moi?
    It seems that Spicer, the White House Press Secretary, whilst putting all his cerebral energy into attempting to apologise for his jaw-droppingly ignorant statement that Hitler never used chemical weapons on his own people, failed to stop his mouth making yet another gaffe;

    "I needed to make sure that I clarified, and was not in any shape or form any more of a distraction from the president's decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he is making to destabilise the region and root out ISIS out of Syria."


    (my emphasis)

    Spicer speaks about the president's attempts to destabilise the region in a CNN television interview too.
    As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?

    zolotoy LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 12:44
    I'm sure it was an unintentional but very revealing Freudian slip.

    The advantage of letting dunces speak is that they're not very good at hiding what they think.

    LucyandTomDog LucyandTomDog , 12 Apr 2017 13:21
    Typo
    'As people are beginning to ask, does Spicer actually know what distabilise means?'
    Should be destabilise
    Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 11:59

    Bashar al-Assad is not a good person.

    Don't hold back...

    Moo1234 Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 12:22
    Daesh/ isis are even less good people......
    Gandalf66 Guy1ncognito , 12 Apr 2017 13:00
    More like Assad is the least worst.
    davshev , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    It bothers me that Trump is suddenly showing such concern toward innocent Syrians. Yet, at the same time he wants a ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria.
    sceptic64 davshev , 12 Apr 2017 12:15
    Don't you think the timing here is - for Trump - rather convenient? Just when he is under pressure for being a Russian patsy, something happens to allow him to portray himself as 'standing up to Putin'.

    This whole thing stinks.

    davshev sceptic64 , 12 Apr 2017 12:26
    Right. Also, the question should be...if Putin is sleazy enough to be complicit with Syria, then why wouldn't they be sleazy enough to be involved in trying to swing the American election?
    zolotoy davshev , 12 Apr 2017 12:42
    Good question. How sleazy is it to be complicit with Al Qaeda, the only entity on the planet that the USA is semiofficially at war with?
    scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    In essence there must be incremental change in the political climate and culture of a state amongst the masses before it culminates in regime change at the top.

    The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime; opposition activitsts, aid workers, doctors and nurses, journalists - all have either been killed, have fled to Europe, or are currently being tortured in one of his detention centres. There is no one left to rise up against him.

    The intervention triggers resentment and hostility at the new government whose legitimacy is reduced through the participation of an outside government. Soon the new regime is considered a 'puppet' and its own existence is questioned by the people.

    This is indeed true. However backing Assad also has its costs; where is the legitimacy of someone who is now merely a "puppet" for Russia and Iran's ambitions in the region?

    As uncomfortable as it is the best western governments can do is to provide aid and assistance to those in distress, whilst pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions.

    As reasonable as this sounds, I'm afraid this is just wishful thinking.

    Mates Braas scipioafricanus , 12 Apr 2017 14:37
    "The political climate is no longer there because Assad has systematically murdered everyone who could have formed a credible oppostion to his regime;"

    There is a credible position inside Syria which has been largely ignored by the western MSM and governments, because it does not support the uprisisng or the violent overthrow of the Syrian government. It was refused participation when the first peace talks were arranged.

    lemonsuckingpedant , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    Wow, a Guardian article I can finally wholeheartedly agree with. Does this Professor chap have a hotline to Trump and the rest of the Western leaders itching for a fight with Assad?
    zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 11:53
    Why do I get the feeling this is just another one of those "Now that Trump is in charge, we shouldn't do regime change" pieces? I note that the author nowhere comes out against fighting an eternal war in Syria -- he just doesn't want Trump doing the "regime change."

    Yeah, he blabbers on about "aid and assistance" and "pressuring those countries that continue to feed money and weapons to the combatants to change their positions" -- obviously choosing to ignore how several western governments provide money and weapons to the combatants (should they be "pressuring" themselves?) But the pinnacle of his cluelessness -- or his agenda -- is reached with this whopper:

    The situation will be even more fraught if other external actors turn any attempt at regime change into a proxy war, as Russia and Iran are likely to do.

    --as if this hadn't been a proxy war for years already, one in which his own country has been quite actively engaged.
    Janeira1 zolotoy , 12 Apr 2017 12:13
    Didn't notice Iraq faring too well the last time the US intervened in regime change.
    jamie evans , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    Trump told him over some cake?
    This idiot has got to go, he is not rational. He clearly has not an inkling of the gravity of his actions. Nor does he care. How did we get to this? We always thought that a rogue state would be the end of us all. We were wrong. This moron is doing it all by himself. Some one needs to step in, take back control. This is frightening stuff.
    terests, Assad's removal would be catastrophic. There would be no stable government in Syria, it would be controlled by warlords backed by Saudi Arabia, al-Qaeda or ISIS and millions of refugees would have no country to return to or to live in. This will mean more refugees in Europe, more destabilisation and more money drained from our treasuries.
    Russia would also be far from pleased and if the conflict erupted into a confrontation between NATO affiliated forces in Syria against Russia, the Eastern European front will become a lot more precarious (at a time when Britain is cutting back on military spending and very few European countries adequately contribute towards NATO). Do we really want a repeat of tensions from the pre-1991 era? I don't think so, especially with the combined threat of domestic Islamic terrorism throughout Europe and with the continental debt crisis that cannot afford more wars that are not in its interests. Russia will quickly mobilise its forces into the non-Russian caucuses, already closely aligned with Armenia and potentially link up with Iran territoriality. And what about Turkey? They cannot be relied upon.

    So what benefit exactly is it to create anarchy in Syria for Britain's immediate and long-term interests? The destruction of Libya has created nothing but chaos and a stream of migrants from across Africa. Why Boris Johnson is waltzing around the world demanding hard action against Russia when we are cutting back on our armed forces is startling. A better question would be in whose immediate economic and geopolitical interests is the destruction of Assad beneficial? Well... there's two countries in the Middle East which come to mind... not hard to guess.

    dusktildawn Jack1R , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    That's fair enough but what if Assad stays in power? Will the refugees, who mainly fled him, return? Will anyone invest in rebuilding the country? WIll anyone deal with the country other than Russia or Iran? Above all will the hatred of Assad, terrorism or indeed the conflict as a whole recede?
    Jack1R dusktildawn , 12 Apr 2017 13:02
    They didn't flee him... they fled the war. Most people, in any country, are apolitical. I expect the refugees in the Middle East and Anatolia will return to Syria and those in the West must be forced to return back.

    The problem with Syria now is that it has become such a hot plate. If the West concedes to Russia and allows Syria to survive under the rule of Assad then we will lose face internationally... and it would be domestically embarrassing. No doubt Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Gulf monarchies would be less than pleased, and we depend on them for a lot of our oil.

    It's a difficult question but what we do know is that there are no other credible groups that can rule Syria at the moment, other than Assad's Alawite minority. If we decide to nation-build, that will cost billions, possibly even trillions with no concrete result as our attempt in Iraq shows and we have no idea who we would put in charge. The Christians have about as much legitimacy as the Alawites. Perhaps the only conceivable outcome would be the breakup of Syria. The Christian and Alawite regions go towards Lebanon, the Kurdish regions are given independence and the Sunni areas are also given an independent state. But of course, the Sunni and Christian areas are intertwined and many Sunni's support Assad, or at least do not oppose him. And Turkey, as well as Iran, would never allow an independent Kurdistan. Iran would be less than pleased with the breakup of Syria as well.

    I want to see a post-Assad plan. We all know what happens to non-Sunni minorities when a secular Arab leader is toppled. No one has yet to provide a coherent post-Assad state-structure. Unless of course they want Turkey to territoriality expand... we want to preserve the post-Ottoman borders and state-system yet at the same time we're waging war against the forces actively preserving it.

    There is no simple answer. Assad is a pawn of Russia and Iran, yet the other options are either Turkish expansion (which, the last time they did that, they had sizeable European territories) or Saudi expansion (which I hope everyone agrees is less than desirable). We have no friends in the Middle East, other than Jordan, Egypt and Israel. But they all have their own interests and I suspect their friendships are determined upon those interests. I think our aim is to maintain the balance of power. Perhaps only the growth of Israel could act as a counter-weight to Sunni and Shia interests.

    Alderbaran Jack1R , 12 Apr 2017 13:04
    Would you support another leader from perhaps the same party taking over as an interim measure whilst different factions are brought together to defeat ISIS?

    In an ideal world, I would love to see this happening, along with a form of truth and reconciliation commission, and a commitment from the international community and other bodies independent of the Syrian government to assist in tackling issues such as warlordism and corruption. The dogmatic belief that there can be no leader other than Assad is one that might have ultimately cost millions of lives and it would be wrong to use the old dictator's mantra of 'me or chaos'. And to be fair, Assad does not have a great track record in Syria.

    And a final question - do you believe Russia should be doing more to put pressure on Assad or do you think it will be happy to put its international credibility on the line for him? (There is something pathological I believe in Putin's willingness to support other dictators)

    Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    How can one call for 'peaceful transition to a new society' when the original opposition to Assad was sponsored by multifarious power-hungry foreign actors? They exploited the Arab Spring pro-democracy utopianism then messed up their insurrectional strategy disastrously. The country now needs to be made a protectorate of an international peace-keeping force until a representative transitional government is agreed upon.
    WellmeaningBob Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 12:11
    A little contradictory, no? Oh we fucked up, so you need to be colonised anyway.
    Laurence Bury WellmeaningBob , 12 Apr 2017 12:19
    No, that sounds like the pseudo-leftist neo-colonial discourse that Obama was so fond of.
    The counter-argument to regime change is more that by now Assad controls most cities again, the opposition are awful sectarians who should be let nowhere near power and it may still be possible to contain IS to a manageable extent while Assad maintains a dictatorship indefinitely.
    WellmeaningBob Laurence Bury , 12 Apr 2017 12:27
    Not quite sure what you mean. Just saying that the "man on the street" would more likely than not understand "protectorate" pretty much the same as e.g. the Moroccans did.
    elan , 12 Apr 2017 11:50
    One day spent in assad's syria and Michael williams would be calling for regime change as well. Idiots thousands of miles living in comfortable lives have no idea the horror the syrian people have been going through for the last 7 years under this cruel barbaric regime of assad.

    Assad has killed more arabs than israel in only three years

    jonnyross elan , 12 Apr 2017 11:57
    "Assad has killed more arabs than israel in only three years"

    By a factor of 10, or so.

    Fort Sumpter elan , 12 Apr 2017 12:07

    Assad has killed more arabs than israel in only three years

    Ah, you let the mask slip.

    Mates Braas elan , 12 Apr 2017 12:25
    Civil war means that both sides are killing their own people.
    ApfelD , 12 Apr 2017 11:48

    It is entirely understandable that a liberal heart wants to see justice done


    Are you kidding?
    Vendange ApfelD , 12 Apr 2017 11:54
    This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards . Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs .
    Snaga ApfelD , 12 Apr 2017 13:43
    You don't understand the desire for justice??
    jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:44
    "He uses indiscriminate weapons such as 'barrel bombs' and chlorine gas on a regular basis against his own citizens."

    Not to mention the thousands tortured to death in his prisons, the use of starvation as a weapon, the denial of aid and the deliberate targeting of hospitals and medical staff. All carefully documented.

    Yet, strangely, he has no shortage of apologists prepared to deny his crimes.

    zolotoy jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:57
    Only because his opposition is even more barbaric.
    Fort Sumpter jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 12:09
    'indiscriminate weapons'

    Oh dear, are they rally still pushing this 'our weapons don't kill civilians' BS?

    No need for evidence of chlorine gas bombs apparently.

    And anyone who questions the MSM narrative and who is sickened by endless war is an 'apologist'. What are you but an apologist for war?

    Mates Braas jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 12:23
    Unfortunately, there is no way to make war nice.
    ToffeeDan1 , 12 Apr 2017 11:43
    Send them a Chocolate Bombe
    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 12 Apr 2017 11:42
    Regime change in Syria was being talked directly since 9/11 and it never stopped. It's on the record. So is john Kerry, on record on TV, stating gulf states offered to cover part of the costs of a US invasion in Syria at least twice way before the so called ''civil war'' even started.
    They prepared it for years but the poor taste Iraq/Libya left on the US public meant the US pulled out of the deal (all because of the planed gas pipelines from Qatar to Europe that has to go through Syria).
    The Saudis along with Qatar, Turkey and Israel believed they could force the hand of the US and acted alone initiating the takeover. This is why despite the intel, organisation and provision of what is estimated to be 300k(german estimates) foreign jihadists eventually came to a standstill without direct US support.
    The Jihadists then prematurely jumped the gun fragmented creating ISIS (something meant to take place behind the scenes after they defeated Assad)

    The point is of course...it's all about oil...nothing about democracy or Gas or any of that crap

    hpe974 SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 12 Apr 2017 16:26
    Of course it is!! The USA is truly the biggest sponsor of terror and mayhem and destruction in the M.E.
    namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 11:38
    Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum. A stunning misreading and proof of the failure of American foreign policy "experts" and CIA strategists to grasp the realities on the ground.
    HuckelburryPin namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 11:46

    Yes, this is all quite true. What the USA almost always seems to do is create a power vacuum in the countries it attempts to "save" and, inevitably it seems, the USA always chooses the wrong damn party or person to support in said vacuum.

    Like in Japan. Just that Japan is ... Shinto. Or something. Not M.........

    WellmeaningBob namjodh , 12 Apr 2017 12:04
    I'm sure its fair to say that for many instability, disorder, mayhem and the like are entirely desirable. Witness Kissinger who out-and-out advocated/advocates looking after US long-term interests through war, disease and starvation.
    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:37
    Scott Ritter has been commenting on the alleged Assad gas attacks . Unlike the MSM the former Iraq weapons inspector seems far from convinced.
    Levant1998 ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 13:46
    former UN weapons inspector Richard Lloyd, and Professor Theodore Posto of MIT also authored a piece:

    http://m.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    jadamsj ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 17:12

    Scott Ritter has been commenting on the alleged Assad gas attacks. Unlike the MSM the former Iraq weapons inspector seems far from convinced.

    What that before or after Russia blocked an investigation into it?

    ploughmanlunch , 12 Apr 2017 11:35
    'The on-going devastation in Syria cries out for a response, 'do something' is the inherent plea.'

    Might I suggest sending generous quantities of bubble wrap to each of the 'something must be done' brigade. Popping those bubbles is relaxing and calming. They will otherwise impatiently agitate for some ineffective, or more likely counter-productive measure that makes things drastically worse.

    ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:33
    Good grief. A sensible piece about Syria in The Guardian. I think i need a lie down.
    namjodh ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:35
    Quite
    zolotoy ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:46
    Not very sensible, actually -- see the comment by capatriot above (or below, if you do "newest first"). Rather appalling that someone with academic credentials would (1) engage in a comic book-style analysis of world politics (big bad nearly omnipotent supervillain!) and (2) put all the blame for the carnage and destruction on one side.
    lemonsuckingpedant ID4352889 , 12 Apr 2017 11:54
    I know, me too! Most disorientating.
    EdmundLange , 12 Apr 2017 11:29
    We tried to change the leader in Iraq. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. We tried to change the leader in Libya. It didn't work, and now the country is a hotbed of terrorism and incredibly corrupt and ineffectual government. I guess we could try to change the leader in Syria, if we really, really want.
    jonnyross EdmundLange , 12 Apr 2017 11:53
    Eventually Assad will lose. He started a sectarian bloodbath he simply can't win. The Russians and the Iranian-backed Shia jihadists will only delay the inevitable outcome.
    If Assad is lucky, he and his family may escape with their lives.
    EdmundLange jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:58
    Excellent, I'm glad we're going to topple Assad so the Jihadists can take control. Just what we needed.
    ponderwell EdmundLange , 12 Apr 2017 12:00
    There are no solid beneficial choices...
    a recent familiar political theme in the US.
    capatriot , 12 Apr 2017 11:26

    He has reduced once great Syrian cities like Homs and Aleppo to rubble.

    What, he, personally? What is he, superman? And I wonder why he'd choose to do that to his own nation's cities?

    But wait, you mean that there was a rebellion against the recognized government which developed into a civil war, aided and abetted by sectarian outsiders and terrorists and the United States/West, with political and religious/ethnic overtones? And that later, as it looked like the recognized govt was going to fail, other interested outsiders like Russia and Iran intervened to help it?

    Gosh, I wonder what the least worst outcome for the people of Syria actually is here ... perhaps we should leave it to them?

    jonnyross capatriot , 12 Apr 2017 11:47
    "What, he, personally? What is he, superman? "

    Are you being obtuse deliberately?

    zolotoy jonnyross , 12 Apr 2017 11:56
    It's actually a very serious question. How much control does Assad have over his government, let alone his armed forces? He's a trained dentist, ferchrissakes, and his older brother was the one groomed for the <strike>throne</strike> presidency. It makes sense to assume that his powers over an entrenched nomenklatura, to say nothing of all of the different armed factions nominally serving him, aren't limitless.
    Social36 capatriot , 12 Apr 2017 12:18
    It's clearly ALL Obama's fault!

    [Apr 12, 2017] China could not sit it out even if they wanted to because if Russia fall they are next

    Notable quotes:
    "... It looks like Trump is stupid enough to take on Both Syria and NK at same time. Let's see how it play out. ..."
    "... How is China going to like US troops on the Yalu. And a "united" Korea as a military ally of the US's. Complete with US bases on North Korea's coast, and along the Yalu. That is the reality of the situation. ..."
    "... A "united" Korea with US troops is a US puppet and military ally, for when the US decides its best to strike against China. ..."
    "... Two maxims that rule Death Star USA these days: winning isn't everything; it's the only thing and if you can't do that . destroy it in order to save it ..."
    "... There is no "art of the deal" when there is no fair deal. Trump's betrayal of the American people means the deal is off and that, my fellow Americans (including you, Alex Jones), is a done deal.. ..."
    "... And how do you expect to preserve a sovereign Russia without going to war ? It is not that US made a choice to wage a hot war with Russia, they are already at war (economical ), and sooner or later they will strangle and bring Russia to its knees. ..."
    "... it is Russia that must make a choice between slavery or war. In respect of China I remind everyone that Chinese love money. ..."
    "... Once takfirism eventually rules Syria, Saudi Arabia and contemporaneously Iraq to the Euphrates the purpose of installing the NATO base in Libya will become apparent. i.e. the facillitation of takhfiriism into Egypt. (note how Egypt and Russia are realising urgency for closer co-operation). ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    What a magnificent essay!!! Extremely informative. And so enjoyable to read, I did not want it to end.

    I don't think China will ever let Russia stand alone. They couldn't even if they wanted to. Luckily, US arrogance works to Russia's advantage. China is taking US threats against North Korea seriously and have moved 150k troops to the Korean border. They would not tolerate a US presence on their border in 1950, and they won't today, either.

    One thing I can be sure of about Trump and his neocon circles is that they don't want to die. And they definitely understand that war with Russia means that they personally will die. Not just some poor shmo who joined the army tonpay for college. Them. They may not show it, but I have no doubt they know it.

    Don't believe me? Why then did they warn the Russians about the impending tomahawk attack? Because they are nice guys? No. It is because they know full well the consequence of killing Russian soldiers and thought better of it.

    They clearly exhibit narcissistic and sociopathic behavior. But the most important characteristic of those types is that they consider themselves far too valuable to ever let themselves get hurt. That will work to Russia's advantage, even if it doesn't seem so now.

    Lastly, the rest of the world, Europe and the American noninterventionists especially, really does need to step up and help. Voting obviously is not going to do it. Mass protests and general strikes aimed at shutting down the country just might.

    We need to do this to save ourselves, not just Russia. ICBMs can't distinguish between the good people and bad ones.

    PS. I'm not sure talking to the Americans means much. What putin needs to do is talk to the American government in Tel Aviv and let them know that in the event of a nuclear exchange, they will not simply watch it from a distance. That just might get the US to back off.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:42 am UTC
    IMHO, if the fight just between North and South, China will stand aside. If US dare to join, then China will intervene. China will not let outsider swallow up Korea. If Japanese join in, then North and South Korea will stop fighting each other, but united to fight Japan, China will let them have all the pleasure of exacting revenge.

    It looks like Trump is stupid enough to take on Both Syria and NK at same time. Let's see how it play out.

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:23 pm UTC
    How is China going to like US troops on the Yalu. And a "united" Korea as a military ally of the US's. Complete with US bases on North Korea's coast, and along the Yalu. That is the reality of the situation.

    North Korea,for all its faults, is a military buffer between the US hegemon and China's industrial North. A "united" Korea with US troops is a US puppet and military ally, for when the US decides its best to strike against China.

    With thousands of years as a state behind it. I would expect China to realize that. As I recall China suffered enormously from Japan controlling the Korean Peninsula. And that China got involved with helping the North Vietnamese because they didn't want US troops on their border. If they think differently today, they will live to regret that I'm afraid.

    teranam13 on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:20 am UTC
    Saker, you have always come through in these dark nights with reasoned analysis. Thanks.

    Two maxims that rule Death Star USA these days: winning isn't everything; it's the only thing and if you can't do that . destroy it in order to save it

    There is no "art of the deal" when there is no fair deal. Trump's betrayal of the American people means the deal is off and that, my fellow Americans (including you, Alex Jones), is a done deal..

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:23 am UTC
    I hear you saker. In Chinese history, there is not much contact with Middle East other than trade. There is no justification for Chinese Government to go into war for any side in Middle East. I do not see how she can speak up about middle east and be taking seriously.

    However, that does not mean she can not help other way. Such as sending train load of specialty goods to Russia, saber rattling in far east to take pressure off Middle East (Kim V3 can be a useful idiot here) . Any one else have any ideas?

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:02 am UTC
    Maybe Kim V3 wants to play his part of taking heat off his buddy Assad and Putin too. Let's see. He may seems crazy, but so far, he has shown he is not coward, and not a stupid guy.

    He may just give enough provocation to keep the boiler simmering and attract enough attention. Who said he have to do it alone since there has to be secure communication to Beijing. Plenty of way for various transport in and out Korea.

    The real idiot here is Trump.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:16 am UTC
    So far Chinese actions in SCS, and DiaoYu islands are ignored, China went to DiaoYou today, report from Taiwan: http://focustaiwan.tw/news/acs/201704100018.aspx
    Ann on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:52 am UTC
    hi J, I agree, I like Kim – hehehehe
    Marcus on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:49 pm UTC
    A more balanced perspective on North Korea and it's much slandered head of State

    http://journal-neo.org/2017/02/15/north-korean-paranoia-is-well-founded/

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:03 pm UTC
    Marcus, yeah I agree with this perspective. Kim v3 is not doing poorly there. He actually out smarted US, and protect himself. Chinese seems does not feel there is much danger of a war on peninsular, at least not now. I agree US's number in east and south Asia is up, and It is matter of time Korea and Japan will be freed.

    With all blistering attitude South Korea put up against China with THAAD, it is now started to feel the pain of reality. Japan is simply under occupation.

    Stalin on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:29 am UTC
    To those of war weary:

    And how do you expect to preserve a sovereign Russia without going to war ? It is not that US made a choice to wage a hot war with Russia, they are already at war (economical ), and sooner or later they will strangle and bring Russia to its knees.

    it is Russia that must make a choice between slavery or war. In respect of China I remind everyone that Chinese love money.

    White whale on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:39 am UTC
    Thanks Saker.

    Truly appreciate this sober, but scary, analysis. Why do Americans think the way they do? One answer is Hollywood. Since WW2 theatres (and TV) have "constructed" the American hero. From John Wayne to Rambo, to Tom Cruise/TopGun, to Jason Bourne to, we all know the genre.

    This infantile fantasy of US invincibility and moral action . and for decades Russians are cast as the "bad guys". The "programming" reaches into a cellular levels. It seems what we are seeing emerge really is a "clash of civilisations"

    Stalin on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:19 am UTC
    This infantile fantasy of US invincibility and moral action . and for decades Russians are cast as the "bad guys".

    Same thing happen in Nazi Germany. It is worrying, the German were pretty close to defeat Russian in 1941. But this time, a huge economical machine is behind the army. if Hitler had one, there was a chance that Russia would become "Golden Horde 2". Russia must strike first and hard to naturalize the treat. Ignoring it means – it's over.

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:48 am UTC
    There was one big difference though. The nazis (not Germans in mass) "were" bad guys. Just ask any Russian about what they did in Russia to easily see that.
    Big 'ol Nate on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:45 am UTC
    Dear Saker,

    As far as "not agreement capable" issue is concerned: I used to have some faith the US military would provide an ultimate check on irresponsible political behavior, as it may have been in 2013 during the first attempt at attack Assad. However, I have concluded that the Pentagon has become entirely corrupted over recent time. Saudi Arabia now spends more on defense than Russia, but does that mean they are in any ways a formidable military power? It's mostly a bribe, that gets recycled to the defense contractors, chiefly Lockheed Martin, and then to the retired generals who work either directly or indirectly for them as subcontractors and consultants.

    Look at the exponential price increase of the F-15 & F-16 over the last twenty years .

    I think the Defense Department is now essentially a kick-back racket in arms sales, so of course they must hate the Russians, they are their only real competitor.

    Spiral on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:49 am UTC
    Related to this "message sending" by means of tomahawks, I remember the same medium being used in Kosovo war. In terms of nation assassination, MSM media were much worse than tomahawks. Here is a brief philosophical view by Matija Beckovic, Serbian poet of Montenegrin origin, that applies to Syria as well.

    " If Kosovo is not ours, why are they asking us to give it to them?
    If it is theirs, why are they robbing it from us?
    And if they can rob it, why are they so hesitant? "

    Regards, Spiral

    BRF on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:51 am UTC
    In the last few days I have read a few other theories being played which you nicely debunked here. The "sending a message" (to China) was one. Getting the neo-humanitarian-con war hawks off Trump's back another and the "Russian stooge" meme being another. All immediately seemed to me like some sort of apology for just a stupid act by Trump, as a weaker than Obama president, egged (Delphi mind control on the pompous end and gaslighting on the insecure end) on by the neos that surround him. The take away was your opinion that psychoanalysis might prove a better way of understanding the western elites than calm cool headed rational analytics. I got the image of the iconic Uncle Sam on the couch being given Rorschach prints with the captions "that one looks like a evil Putin, This one looks like a mean Assad. That looks like a conniving Xi Jinping. And this one looks like a smiling benevolent Hitler .
    Ann on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:05 am UTC
    "And now Trump has betrayed HIMSELF by turning against everything he, himself, stood for. This is almost Shakespearean in its pathetic and tragic aspects! During his campaign Trump made a lot of excellent promises and he did inspire millions of Americans to support him. I personally believe that he was sincere in his intentions, and I don't buy the "it was all an act" theory at all."

    I wonder how much of Trump's campaign promises were coming straight from Bannon – before Bannon, Trump was being ridiculed about being all over the place – he almost lost at that point – and then Bannon came on board and Trump really started to reveal the Deep State – which is actually Bannon's thing – and now with Bannon gone, Trump has become the noodle he really was

    – has no one seen this video ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQUkaEVe7II&t=3s

    Personally I think that Trump really believed that the Syrian Army had bombed a gas factory and that the gases had killed the villagers – of course perhaps it was a great diversion from the Mosul killings that he had oops done – unintentional accident of war –

    The intelligence was true enough – half true lets say, that he could act on it quickly as he was being pressured to do.

    "Yes, I know, Tillerson is expected to meet Lavrov this week. This was discussed ad nauseam on Russian TV and the consensus is that the only reason why the Russians did not cancel this meeting is because they don't want, on general principle, to be the ones to refuse to speak to the other side. Fine. Considering that we are talking about a potential international thermonuclear war, I can see the point. Still, I would have preferred to say Lavrov telling Tillerson to go and get lost. Why? Because I have come to the conclusion that any and all types of dialog with the United States are simply a meaningless and useless "

    But think Saker, that if you were a teacher with a kid in your class that was as potentially dangerous – in his future years – and you were responsible as a teacher – Russia sees herself in this role – you would have to deal with this kid – in a Christian way – (Russia is Christian before all else –

    And Nicki Haley and Rex Tillerson are working for 'the boss' who is an indecisive man – we've all seen it and also see my first paragraph – they're just doing what they're told – but I also think Rex Tillerson is like one of these guys in this video link below – by Really Graceful – thanks to Blue for linking it

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV_ggGIkZcU

    "But let me explain why I don't know. In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume that everybody involved was what we called a "rational actor". The Soviets sure where. As where the Americans. Then, starting with Obama more and more often"

    Kissinger is being quoted that an unpredictable president is the best type – so now that's what we have for sure –

    'The next four years will be terrible, I am sorry to say. Our next hope – however thin – for somebody sane in the White House might be for 2020. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard will run on a campaign promise of peace and truly draining the swamp? Maybe "America first" will mean something if Gabbard says it? '

    I've been thinking that I should have voted for Rand Paul all along (Canadian notwithstanding) – I think its true what some say – that you should vote for who you want – not vote for the person who will win against who you don't want.

    So sad.

    thanks so much Saker, for being here and for providing this wonderful forum for us to read and talk to each other. God Bless you and Anna and your kids and may all be well that ends.

    Julian on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:34 am UTC
    Telling Tillerson to go and get lost will no doubt be done in private.

    Also – you will also get the likely spectacle of Lavrov bashing Tillerson/ Trump/ The Neo Cons etc. all of them at a joint press conference.

    In English – as Lavrov speaks such excellent English.

    Tillerson will be absolutely squirming.

    No doubt the Russian journalists will bombard Tillerson with questions designed to show him up.

    I can't wait to see it.

    This meeting is absolutely vital in that it does go ahead – for the message Lavrov will deliver – an exceedingly blunt one I imagine, and the press conference afterwards.

    I also imagine Lavrov will deliver a new message to Tillerson – that they've specifically now targeted several of their Russian ICBMs at Wichita Falls as a special gift for Tillerson and his relatives.

    Wichita Falls in North Texas being where Tillerson comes from.

    Maybe even a few happy snaps of Wichita Falls being nuked.

    Hmm.

    I would definitely do that were I Lavrov.

    Babushka in Oz on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:13 am UTC
    Thanks Saker for an analysis that required great stamina of mind, body and spirit.

    Our Minister of Foreign Affairs (Julie Bishop) is now chorusing that 'Putin must cease supporting Assad'.. or . (else)

    G7 seem to concocting some punitive sanctions to deter Russia and Iran for supporting Syria.

    mmm Wonder how effective that will be? I think not.

    White whale on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:38 am UTC
    @babuska.
    G7: can't help wondering if THIS is the 7-headed beast of Revelation?
    They are all Demons, certainly.
    Kinterra on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:08 pm UTC
    White whale I believe your statement about the seven headed beast is a profound insight.
    K
    Фланкербандит on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:24 am UTC
    I agree with the Сокол about the technical aspects of the little skirmish of the Tomahawks

    However all of that is of very little consequence right now and I can't share his seemingly serene outlook that things will happen rather predictably

    Here is my two cents whether anyone wants to hear it or not

    There is a very real possibility of an invasion of Syria in the next few weeks if not days and it's not going to be US troops but Erdo's Turks

    USN will supply the big guns offshore of course maybe even air support if not engaging Russian Aerospace forces directly then at least for intimidation

    Erdo is completely ready and willing to roll a few mechanized divisions right through northern Syria [he already has a good footprint there and controls the borderlands] and take Aleppo city

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-turkey-idUSKBN1782QK

    From there steamroll right over Latakia where the small Russian military contingent is holed up and not coincidentally the Alawite heartland that has been the seat of power of the modern Syrian state for its existence since post-colonial times

    The Russians will be forced to retreat in ignominy and defeat

    That is the reality of the balance of forces in the region

    Let's not kid ourselves if this is the worst nightmare scenario that you can conjure up then that is the most likely thing to happen

    Hoping and wishing and praying the worst doesn't happen doesn't often work you have to be ready for the worst

    Why do I think this ?

    Let's step back and look at the big picture over the last quarter century since the fall of the USSR what has been the trend ever since the Soviet Union fell ? it has been constant advance by the Western empire and constant retreat of Russia

    Yugoslavia started getting carved up before the dust had even settled in Moscow in December 1991 by the following spring full on war was raging in Bosnia a proxy war of course the empire prefers not to get its hands dirty if at all possible

    The previous year, 1990 with puffball Gorby in charge and already dismantling the Motherland the elder Bush had already screwed up enough courage to hit Saddam with a huge but still politically limited military strike regime change was not contemplated nor was invasion and occupation the USSR had not yet collapsed

    Same with Milosevic in 1999 the empire hit Russia's little brother with fiendish cruelty [there are still to this day ruined buildings in the heart of Belgrade] while a helpless Russia could do little but gasp what with the dirtbag Yeltsin and his Khazar looters at the controls

    Only a couple of years later did the Soros color revolution do the trick and Milo's head was handed to the Hague on a silver platter

    By the time Putin got the ship at least partially righted the long-term plan for Russia's final dismemberment was already fully formed and chugging along the Bush junior invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq this time with complete freedom to remove the government by force of arms and occupy the country [with medieval brutality]

    Flattening cities like Falluja [War Criminal First Grade Rabid Dog Mattis] starting up ISIS from the remnants of Saddam's Sunni army [remember the Petraeus Surge ?]

    Then came Libya then quickly Syria the goal after nearly a quarter century of this slow death by a thousand cuts has nearly been reached who in his right mind thinks they are going to stop now ?

    And what's to stop them ?

    Really folks I have to repeat this question

    What is to stop them ?

    In real and practical terms absolutely nothing the Russian contingent in Syria is now meaningless it has become meaningless because the US under Drumpf has decided to go for the gusto

    Ask Erdo he's already primed and pumped

    You question what kind of business smarts Drumpf has what he has is the killer instinct to stick a knife in your back and that's how he got where he is a Judas and stone cold killer

    The thing to note here in the short history I have recalled and which we are all too familiar with is that the method of the empire is to move slowly there is no need to achieve every objective all in one day Rome wasn't built in a day

    Iraq was first stunned with a fish club to the head by Bush senior then 10 years of slow bleeding with sanctions and an illegal no-fly zone and the occasional gratuitous bombing from the Khazar pit bulls

    Same with Yugo first the dirty proxy war [with intense propaganda of course] then when the country was bled for a few more years and everyone thought the Balkans crisis had settled down boom the Albanian uprising the bombing didn't finish off Milosevic as some hoped but no matter easy does it time is on our side

    Even a UNSC resolution was signed guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia UNSC 1244 if memory serves how much is that scrap of paper worth now ?

    Nobody with a right head on his shoulders can miss this modus operandi the slow creeping war that just keeps grinding on for years a seemingly frozen conflict or proxy war until boom the time is just right to deliver the coup de grace

    Right now that moment has come for Syria there is no other project in the works Syria is still the prize and anyone who thinks that the empire has given up on its prize for a second needs to have their head examined

    This is a winner take all game always has been

    You want clues look no further than Erdogan that whole Astana BS what a sham buying time until the big guy in DC says GO

    China has nothing to do with this fight thinking that China will somehow get involved is sheer lunacy

    If the Russians aren't smart enough to have figured out that their head is now on the chopping block in Syria you can be sure that Xi is laboring under no such illusions

    ' leaving Syria to the Takfiris ?'

    Give me a break it's never been about the Takfiris whoa re just convenient foot soldiers mercenaries are always available on every corner always have been

    It's always been about squeezing Russia into an ever smaller box

    Now that Putin has made the military gambit the empire is enraged you just have to look at the mouth foaming that's on display 24 / 7 in the media in DC in Europe even

    Who cares if it's a cooked-up gas story ? so was WMD 15 years ago so was Gaddafi murdering his own people so was Milosevic murdering his own people

    The powers that be have rightly calculated that the blood lust of their own miserable people is insatiable they have nothing better to do with their miserable lives than to pour their hate in any convenient direction that the Bernays masters point them to just like a stupid, angry dog on a leash who lives a miserable, flea-bitten existence, eating rotten dirt, and chained to a tree and the only bright moment in life is to be sicked on someone by his cruel master/tormentor

    So that is the nightmare scenario folks get ready to rock and roll

    Russia now has two choices either she stops making empty noises about never fighting another war on its soil or she ends up doing exactly that at some future and unspecified point in time

    Don't worry time is irrelevant to the masters of the universe who can stop and start time as they please

    A nuclear war forget about it it's never going to happen because it's not in the plan I wouldn't lose two winks over that one

    A conventional war you got it baby

    Where on Russian soil unless the Russians draw a line in the sand Now

    There is not much to think about really

    If VVP lets Drumpf and Erdo get the drop on him he's toast

    Russia will be presented with brand new facts on the ground very quickly Turkish tank divisions and all their takfiri mercenaries a formidable amount of manpower I might add taking Aleppo city in a heartbeat they are just outside city limits now

    Idlib province is already in their pocket so is a good deal of Aleppo province where the Turkish troops are already running things

    What choice do the Russians have at that point ?

    They can pack up their bags and get the hell out of dodge

    This will be a stunning defeat the likes of which Russia has not tasted since 1905 when a perfumed prince Emperor decided to take on the gritty Japs

    It will be a major domino to fall

    Then the empire can bleed Russia for 10, 20 years like they did Iraq Nazis buildup next door in Ukraine can slowly grind along

    Wahabbi foothold on Russia's southern underbelly eventually all of Russia's Western, Caucasus and central Asia border will be lined up with enemy formations the like of which Der Fuehrer could only have dreamed

    This is the slow-death game of backing up backing up inch by inch

    At the same time the financial lifeblood of the country will be drained Don't think that China is going to come to Russia's rescue if they have a better offer in gold from the empire that's just silly

    Not to mention that Imperial Russia actually hacked of a good bit of China in the Far East not all that long ago

    If VVP and the rest of the gang and there are some good men there do not see this writing on the wall then they will surely get the message from the Delco man

    ' Pay me now or Pay me later '

    So what is to be done ?

    Tillerson is winging into Moscow to deliver an ultimatum you can bet your bottom dollar on that one

    Why would anyone on earth think that Drumpf ever the consummate gold-digger would not see the beauty of the neocon plan for toppling Russia ?

    Whatever read anyone may have on him the one thing that stands out is that he is the crassest of opportunists with no shred of moral fiber or anything resembling principle in his rotten bag of celluloid he calls a body

    The fact that he so easily Judased the people who got him where he is should tell you all you need to know

    Why on earth wouldn't he sell out Russia for a much bigger bag of coin ?

    First step that I would do tell buddy Rexxon that Lavrov is busy right now and can't receive him as planned

    As Lavrov should be actually shuttling back and forth with real allies Iran Hezbollah making war preparations for Syria

    Big order of business is to get as many aircraft stationed in Iran as possible never mind the case by case basis the Ayatollahs need to realize that their skin is on the line as much as Russia's

    Shoigu and military staff need to get the Il-76 transports in the air 24/7 they have enough of them so no worries there

    Get as many Iskander brigades into Syria as possible a division of crack troops get the big naval guns steaming into Tartus on the double the subs should already be there

    It's to make a stand at the OK corral

    You know I have had it up to here with all the crackers who are whining about how Russia won't confront America in Syria and blah blah blah well to hell with these morons

    Russia has no other choice but to confront America in Syria now

    There will not be a nuclear war so all the worry warts please just stop

    That's not how things work in real life real life is like the schoolyard when you were a kid either you grow a pair and stand up for yourself or you keep backing down and in no time you find yourself wishing your parents would move so you could go to another school

    There comes a time for confrontation and there is no need to be afraid of it or to overthink it or 'analyze' it to death

    That time has come

    The first order of business has to be to get the Iskanders moving in Erdo's generals know all too well that the Isky can tear a tank army to shreds in no time flat ask Saakashvili

    And please spare me the bleating from various quarters who deride the 'laptop warriors' in the alt-Russian community

    Getting a deterrent in place is the only thing that is going to change the Drumpf and Erdo calculus at this point in time

    Nobody is saying launch the ICBMs that is not going to happen in our lifetime it's not the empire's plan because they don't want to die either in fact they are chickens not even roosters which are actually pretty feisty

    All I'm saying is get enough force in place so that Syria can be defended and the aggression that is so clearly on the horizon deterred while there is still time

    If Erdo gets cold feet from a serious Russian buildup the the ball is Drumpf's court and he's not that stupid to send in another Desert Storm army

    And if he decides to up the ante then Comrade VVP feel free to call his McChickenass bluff

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:33 am UTC
    While your post is brash and non-diplomatic I think it holds a lot of "bottom-line" truth in it. I don't think (at first at least) there would be a nuclear war. I think there are red lines for that. And for Russia it is almost certain to be an attack on Russia's actual borders. And for the US (if they act sanely,uncertain for now) it would be an attack against the US itself.But given the results of a war (who is losing) I think the possibility of using nukes goes up. The best result would be as you say. The war can be won by Russia outside of Russia and without nukes.But we'll have to see if the Russians are willing to defend their future. Or if it will take an enemy attack on Russia before they act. If so it will be too late to not use nukes.I did think your analysis of the plan for Turkey to attack is very possible. I've read others thinking the same way.I have never for more than a minute trusted Erdogon. So I have no doubt he would do something like that.
    Ann on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:13 am UTC
    to russian guy – I like your comments but this is too much buddy –

    'The powers that be have rightly calculated that the blood lust of their own miserable people is insatiable they have nothing better to do with their miserable lives than to pour their hate in any convenient direction that the Bernays masters point them to just like a stupid, angry dog on a leash who lives a miserable, flea-bitten existence, eating rotten dirt, and chained to a tree and the only bright moment in life is to be sicked on someone by his cruel master/tormentor '

    American people – ferocious dog on a chain ?- come on get real – most Americans are spoilt little dogs really I guess you must be Russian these type of dogs only exist on Indian reservations – sorry – politically incorrect –

    here's another giveaway that you're not American

    'That's not how things work in real life real life is like the schoolyard when you were a kid either you grow a pair and stand up for yourself or you keep backing down and in no time you find yourself wishing your parents would move so you could go to another school '

    hahaha don't you know that bullies are bad??? for the past 15 years there are no bullies in American schools – they get taken out immediately by all the teachers and parents ganging up on them American kids are whoosies – now they are even transgender buddy

    oh, and one more thing – just because you tell us not to worry wart ourselves because there ain't gonna be a nuke in the mix – I think maybe cooler heads in Russian high places will think slower and longer than just taking your word for it.

    Bye for now,

    Ann

    Фланкербандит on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:09 am UTC
    Holy smokes Ann I wasn't talking about dogs I was talking about people

    You don't think honest working class people who built this county are sick and tired of being chained to a life of debt slavery eating crap and getting kicked around ?

    Don't know when you went to school but for me it was a lot longer than 15 years ago back then we didn't have the PC police if you didn't learn to smashmouth in a hurry you ended up hanging by your underwear from the toilet door hook

    Ann on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:16 am UTC
    I think you guys are silly to think that nuclear war is debateable – once the war starts it will be finished by nukes so there's alot of hesitation in Moscow to start – starting their side of what's already a hot war on the other side.

    Once war starts there's no backing down. I'm glad you two – UB and Russian Guy – are here at Saker's and not there in the Kremlin –

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:59 am UTC
    LOL. I like you realistic view . Even with your assessment about China.

    It is fact the fight in Syria is not a Chinese fight. It is also a fact that "Not to mention that Imperial Russia actually hacked of a good bit of China in the Far East not all that long ago ".

    The fact is Russia has historically extorted China for ransom, and took a big chunk of China away. There is a old Italian map from 1860s donated to China recently (because it showed Diao Yu was part of China) showed big part of China on that map are now in Russia.

    It is fact that the West has returned all the occupied territories of China, and Russia has not.

    That aside, Chinese will not be paralyzed by the past and not about to move on for the good of nation and region.

    It is obvious that peace and co-existence with Russia is for the best of both country. We have 5 years good time, if we keep it up, in 100, 200, 300 years, then the old bad times will not have any significance.

    For China, most importantly, peace at borders, especially the northern border, worth more than any amount of gold in anyone's vault in term of blood and treasure of the country. China is not know for being short sighted.

    So I do not see why China want to do anything but secure the northern border, which is has a stable, friendly government at north, Which means supporting Russia.

    However, Syria is Russia's fight, stand and fight to win, or flee is Russia's own decision. I am sure China and Russia are in touch on Syria issues and China will help with Russian's needs.

    Ali on April 11, 2017 , · at 8:48 am UTC
    Hi FlankerBandit :)

    As the days pass, I'm starting to hold the view that Trump willingly becomes what he is now, a Clinton robot on steroids. Not sure why, but probably he is convinced by the deep state and their foreign allies, that the USA can only survive by maintaining the status quo. America first still, just another meaning. All obstacles will be removed, possibly indirectly to make Trump look clean, while removing opposition in his own party and supporters to his change. Come to this of it, if Trump really is being cornered and forced, a whining tweet or a surprise at a televised speech can garner attention to his predicament and force off the deep state. That Nikki Haley seem comfortable with Trump, despite her running off with her mouth and theatrics.

    I believe Trump was sincere and supported the movement. But now it seems that Trump decided that the old path is still the only salvation for the USA. And that makes him a very dangerous and clever opponent for Putin and Xi. Trump should not be under-estimated. He is a Master Persuader, as Scott Adams explained and is still explaining. Note: it did not take long for Erdogan to switch back to his old self.

    As for Syria, I think the main target is Russia. Trump wants to put Putin and Russia's growing international prestige and influence down with the least effort. Probably it will be swift and sudden: a humiliating retreat or defeat of Russia's forces in Syria with the least US military involvement. Possibly not just a northern invasion by Turkey to take Latakia and Aleppo, but also Israeli + Jordanian + Saudi and US army from the south to take Palmyra + Damascus, while leveling Deir ez-zor to rubbles together with ISIS. Mcmaster seems to be getting all the people he needs into the NSC while Trump says nothing. Remember, Putin's deeds and ways of doing things were visible and studied. They know. Nobody knows what Trump will be as a president. He is still in the dark.

    In other words, Trump might be the something we have never seen before, who could rival Putin and Xi and possibly beat them on the international arena. All the bad company the US had allied with, are now barking in place and awaiting to pounce. The DPR in Novorussia is wise to start the 27,000 mobilization and issuing of arms. All Trump need is a military defeat for Russia with the least action on his part.

    Cris on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:06 am UTC
    Very interesting and well thought. Through Russia won't confront America on Syria soil: they will be forced to confront Turkey.
    And since Russia has no endless reservoir of soldiers (contrary to USA/EU, which can count on an endless flux of immigrants from everywhere craving for citizenship), they won't waste their sons fighting Turkey, just to be forced to confront America AFTER that.
    If something like that happens, Russia will be forced to use the nuke option: not because Russia likes it, but because she has not enough ground force left to fight the final battle.
    Marko on April 11, 2017 , · at 12:09 pm UTC
    Firstly, thank you Saker on the exhaustive analysis. Secondly, I completely agree with you, фланкербандит. You obviously studied Evil Empire's modus operandi in Iraq and Yugoslavia/Serbia, or, heck, you might have even lived through the hell of Yugoslavia's death throes as I did myself.

    It is exactly it, the fate of Yugoslavia multiplied a thousand times, that awaits Russia and its people(s) if they do not show the crazies that this time they mean business. And, yes, I don't think there will be any help from the Chinese or anyone else for that matter. I am so sorry but the sad spectacle of Scrooge McDuck bathing in dollars comes to mind. We all have traded our lives for pieces of broken glass and mirrors as did noble but naive native Americans. What can we, keyboard warriors, do? Provide more financial support to sites such as this one prepare ourselves for the proverbial stuff in the fan.

    Melotte 22 on April 11, 2017 , · at 12:15 pm UTC
    What makes you think Russia would not use strategic nuclear weapon in Syrian war theater if scenario you are predicting becomes reality? I have no doubt that would be the case. Russia is defending Russia in Syria.
    Фланкербандит on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:47 pm UTC
    Ok couple of responses here

    First the idea of escalation to nuclear even tactical [battlefield] nukes

    Here is why this won't happen because there is no logic in it

    The first guy to use tactical nukes is basically going to open the doors to an all-out ICBM nuclear exchange that all-out exchange still may not happen even then but the tension will be great

    And here is the logic

    Does anyone here actually believe that an all-out ICBM exchange between Russia and US is going to have a 'winner' ?

    That's crazy and everyone knows from Soros on down

    All of the US Europe and much of Russia will be completely flattened back to the stone age basically

    This is not the outcome that the empire desires

    As I have said before the rotten empire is run by banksters and robber barons who keep the ordinary people in perpetual serfdom while wallowing in degenerate luxury with gold-plated private jets and yachts and even children as sex toys just ask Jeffrey Epstein

    These people are worms not warriors

    They have zero courage

    Their ken is all about clever means of swindle the art of the ripoff and living off the avails of others

    Do you think these degenerates are going to risk all of this by pushing the nuclear button ? even if some psychopath generals in their employ might be willing to they will certainly not allow it

    Second logical reason

    Why should they ?

    There is no need to panic everything is actually sailing along just fine

    If you look at the bottom line of net gains and losses over the last 25 years the empire has made huge gains while losing absolutely nothing

    This is a long war in slow motion a war of attrition the hyena hunting down the much faster wildebeest by running it to exhaustion

    The empire at this point controls nearly everything the entire 'international community' they control all the levers of power at the UN they control all the international money a lock on the international media [propaganda machine]

    They pretty much rule the world already of course the psychopathic parasite mindset can never get enough power money and the pleasure of inflicting suffering on the subhumans they see as the 'little people'

    And besides they love their ongoing project of working toward full world domination it keeps them busy and gives them something to strive for

    But why on earth would they want to risk all of that on mutual self-assured destruction [MAD] ?

    They are scared of that like nobody's business.

    And they know full well that they need only to play the waiting game again like the pack of hyenas time to them is irrelevant if their project takes 100 years so be it their maggot grandkids will be around to enjoy it if they aren't

    A nuclear exchange is the very last thing they want you can take that to the bank

    Think of it this way do you think the guy siting in the corner office with the gold plated toilet is thinking about getting into some kind of shootout with a bad dude on the street ?

    Sure the bad dude may be thinking of things like that because he's desperate and has very little to live for but Mr. Gold Toilet has everything to live for and if he's really concerned about his precious neck then it is easy to hire as many beefnecks as he needs to to do his fighting for him

    Besides the empire fully believes that at some point in time their 'great technical minds' will come up with a new and lethal technology to defeat Russia for example missile defense at which point they will win politically without having to fire a shot and Russia has no option but to bow

    Sidebar: I will say here that this is wishful thinking one of many 'blind spots' in the degenerates' rear-view mirror

    A degenerate society generally produces very few truly impressive scientific and technical minds that can come up with inventions that change history

    The degenerates are letting their entire education system go to pot they are even telling young people don't bother even getting a college degree won't do you any good just go straight into debt bondage without passing GO

    For the long-term this does not bode well for the technical achievements this society will produce

    We can see some signs of this intellectual rot and decay of the scientific/technical infrastructure already the US is entirely dependent on advanced Russian rocket engines to get their military spy satellites into space to LOL spy on Russia as PCR points out

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/01/russian-government-insouciant/

    The US astronauts must hitchhike to the space station [whose core command and control module is Russian built] on Russian spacecraft

    US has been hyping its hypersonic scramjet technology for at least the last dozen years and is it all hot air btw scramjet stands for supersonic combustion ramjet and is very difficult to achieve because it involves combusting fuel and air that is moving faster than the speed of sound

    In the meantime Russia is getting ready to field a scramjet missile [zirkon] into active duty

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-lethal-hypersonic-zircon-cruise-missile-enter-15909

    Of course hubris comes with being 'masters of the universe ' so it is no wonder that the degenerates think that their well-paid scientists will deliver but those same scientists see the degenerates living it up and ask themselves 'why should I sweat it ?'

    I could go on for quite a while on the blind spots of the degenerates but there is a truth that you can take to the bank

    they are absolute cowards who have no intention of suffering any kind of hardship never mind pain

    So they will never contemplate a nuclear exchange where they stand a good chance of getting roasted or even slightly burnt

    So what about Russia's side ?

    What if the US backs Turkey into an invasion of Syria ? will Russians resort to nukes ?

    That's simply crazy Russia's stance is purely defensive her goal is to be able to defend herself and preferably in a way that would inflict far greater losses on the enemy than the enemy could on her

    They have suffered enough pain

    So there is zero chance of any kind of nuclear confrontation while the degenerate empire is still up and running

    Naturally people have fears about nuclear war and probably the degenerates feed that fear to some extent in order to scare the sheeple and bring them shivering under their control

    If Russia is confronted with a massive Turkish invasion of Syria as I fully expect then she will either put enough of a credible deterrent into theater [conventional weapons] to stop the project in its tracks or she will slink away with her tail between her legs

    That's all folks

    Lumi on April 11, 2017 , · at 9:11 pm UTC
    Flankie boy :) mate what a rompin' good read! Realism. The way you describe the grinding modus operandi of the Azi Empire is refreshing.

    Plus, you all but admitted that nukes don't exist even though you explicitly maintain they do. Here's the deal, man:

    *If* nukes exist and if the scenario unfolds along the lines of a Turkish and/or Usanian invasion of Syria as you predict, than Russia could totally deny the Azi game by using the much-vaunted "tactical nukes" that are flying about the main and comment sections of this blog.

    Have a problem with a Usanian or Turkish troup and tank concentration in some corner of the country? "A few mechanized divisions"? Simply send a nuke and the problem dematerializes. Instantly. No recovery. Gone for good. And what do you want?! They were invading! Self-defense. It's about drawing a line in the sand. "They counted on Russia to be passive. They counted wrong."

    At this point it's safe to say that Turkey will leave the game. So will the "ziogay" (courtesy vot tak) EU softies. Turkey cannot risk attacking or allowing Uncle Sam to attack Russian or Syrian troups with nukes from Turkish soil because the retaliation would hit home on Turkish soil. The stakes would be sky high and Incirlik would be a very legitimate target. There would be wild panic in Turkey and all of Europe and some other places.

    It's about drawing a line in the sand.

    So that leaves Uncle Sam in Iraq and Jordan, basically in desert camps. We understand that ICBMs (which don't exist either, but let's assume, as you do, that they do) cannot be used because of MAD. So no one will use them. Fine.

    But what about some nukie nukie in the desert? Why not? By your logic, would the ever grinding Azi Empire put its tail between its legs, count its losses and give up? Or would it not rather grind down? To retaliate by tactical nuke? To nuke or not to nuke?

    Now do you realize how close all of this is to the beloved state of Israel? Isn't Israel, in contrast to all the Muslim camel herders, supposed to be somehow precious? Isn't that a Trump Card for Russia? Knowing how Usanians just *looove* Israel? Now would Uncle Sam grind down and risk losing the precious jewel of Israel in the process?

    I tell you what. If nukes are real and if there's an invasion, Russia will use them for military reasons on military targets in legitimate self-defense, and she will use them first and decisively. Remember who said: "One thing the streets of St. Petersberg taught me: If you know the fight is unavoidable, be sure to strike first!" And that's what will happen because it will make Russia the military winner.

    Yes, there would be condamnation, from the usual ziogay suspects, but Uncle Sam has p!ssed off so much of the planet that Schadenfreude will be sky high and so will be admiration for Russia and the line in the sand where the Azi Empire was finally pushed back.

    And Russia will keep nukes in Syria, right next to Israel. In fact, the Golan will be returned, and nukes will be placed right there. Talk about instant holocaust. Should they muck in the wrong direction – Sodom and Gomorrha.

    Okay, this is how nuke fanboys see the world.

    But, as is clear to anybody using their brain as intended by their Maker, nukes are nothing but a silly bombastic bugaboo. So Russia will need to find a conventional solution. We agree the only thing to stop the Azi Empire is force, so it has to be along the lines of force.

    Anonymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:24 pm UTC
    @ Фланкербандит on April 11
    As an answer to your comment, I'm reposting two of my comments on April 5 and April 6, and my personal opinion regarding very important points in your comment.
    April 06, 2017 · at 1:33 am UTC
    The differences between Sunni and Shi'a are a joke, but they are sworn enemies since 1400 years ago. During the seventh century, there was a schism led to a civil war. The two sides became known as Sunni and Shia, and they hated one another, and divided ever since. This ancient sectarian hatred, simmering just beneath the surface for centuries, explains the Sunni-Shia violence today in places such as Syria Iraq and Iran, as well as the worsening tensions between Saudi Arabia, which is officially Suni, and Iran Which is officially Shia. This is literally ancient history. Today's divide between Sunni and Shia isn't primarily about religion, and it is not ancient: It is quite recent, and much of it is driven by politics, not theology.
    Suni-Shia sectarianism is indeed tearing apart the Middle East, but is largely driven by the very modern and very political rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia. They have sought to fight one another on Sunni-Shia lines not of religious hatred but rather because they see sectarianism as a tool they can use-thus making that religious division much more violent and fraught. So there it is a lot of meat over there, and takes the lion's share whoever controls the money supply.
    Anonymous on April 05, 2017 · at 6:37 pm UTC
    20 dead here, 15 dead there. This isn't a war. Just a series of small fist fights. What is the Russian Air Force actually doing?
    The phase of peaceful protester it is over.
    The phase of guerilla militant's war it is over.
    The phase of well-armed and trained militants is escalating.
    They are able to match the Syrian army gun per gun and tank for tank.
    The Russian aerospace it is a joke.
    Now the US (NATO) is in, and soon we will see what is planed long time ago and will be implemented NOW.
    Assad cannot deal with an Opposition army very well equipped, with unlimited capitals and with full NATO support. Air cover, Armor, Artillery and with well-trained unlimited manpower.
    It took them one year to watch what Russian were capable to do in Syria, and now they are stepping in to finish the job.
    Sorry for many Russian lives lost in Syria, targeted selectively by High Tech adversaries.

    What Russian can do against NATO?
    Not too much. Why?
    The regime change in Russia around 1990, and the reconstruction of a New Russian Elite incapacitated very severely this Nation. Since then, during a period of 20 years irreversible transformations happens, resulting in full control of the West to Russia (Economically, Financially and Politically).
    The so-called "Elite" is the ruling, and the political part of the Nation, and this part is pro Western.
    Even if the IVAN (Russian MUZHIK), would weaken up from the very long Hibernation; Russia didn't have enough time, capitals and manpower to confront in a head on collision with NATO.
    Regarding the Trump:
    Trump is very unpredictable, he is not only tolerating the chaos, but he is the part of creating the chaos.
    Regarding the nuclear confrontation.
    The question is how many active thermonuclear warheads Russia has?
    The thermonuclear warheads has two ingredient Deuterium and Tritium.
    The half-life of tritium is 12.3 years.
    So in 12.3 years half of the mass of Tritium is gone, and in 25 years 75% of the mass of the Tritium in the thermonuclear warheads is gone.
    So from 1992 up to day, was Russia able to produce all the needed amount of Tritium for the 7000 + warheads?
    I do not think so. Tritium is the radioactive isotope of the element hydrogen. Tritium is used in research and is an ingredient of the thermonuclear weapon. I doubt that Russia has the means to compensate all the Tritium lost in thermonuclear heads, during last 25 Years.
    Where we are going?
    I feel that we are going toward an Unipolar World, inside the frame of the "Limits to Growth".
    James Paul Warburg (August 18, 1896 – June 3, 1969) was a German-born American banker. He was well known for being the financial adviser to Franklin D. Roosevelt. He gained some notice in a February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in which he said, "We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

    Anonymous on April 12, 2017 , · at 12:54 am UTC
    @ Anonymous on April 11, 2017 · at 5:24 pm UTC

    ' The question is how many active thermonuclear warheads Russia has?
    The thermonuclear warheads has two ingredient Deuterium and Tritium '

    Ok thanks for the question

    I'm not a chemist or nuclear physicist

    First you are correct that Tritium has a half-life of only 12 years and it is used in small quantities in the thermonuclear weapon ie hydrogen bomb but not as the fuel rather as a 'booster' of the so-called 'primary' stage which is an implosion-type fission bomb

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon#Basic_principle

    The fuel used in the secondary fusion stage which releases the huge energy of the weapon is lithium-6 which is a stable isotope

    ' Lithium-6 is valuable as the source material for the production of tritium (hydrogen-3) and as an absorber of neutrons in nuclear fusion reactions. Natural lithium contains about 7.5 percent lithium-6, with the rest being lithium-7. Large amounts of lithium-6 have been separated out for placing into hydrogen bombs. The separation of lithium-6 has by now ceased in the large thermonuclear powers, but stockpiles of it remain in these countries. Lithium-6 is one of only three stable isotopes with a spin of 1 '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lithium#Lithium-6

    Translation lithium-6 is a fairly abundant, commonly occurring substance which does not decay and the nuclear powers have stockpiled more than enough of the actual fuel for the hydrogen warheads

    Tritium is required also but note that Tritium is produced in nuclear reactors by the neutron activation of lithium-6

    Russia being one of the leaders in nuclear reactor technology and export of such it is clearly not a problem

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium#Production

    Michael Thompson on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:28 am UTC
    "I very much hope that after the referendum Erdogan will recover some sense of reality."
    I think you're setting yourself up for some Grade A disappointment there, Saker.
    White whale on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:34 am UTC
    Hi Saker,
    I suspect you and a collegiate blogger at The Duran {ADAM GARRIE} were both writing and then posting around the same time!

    There is a common thinking in both your posts, expressed individually, of course.

    Here's why Russia doesn't want to fight the United States in Syria
    ADAM GARRIE
    Russia's historical suffering through bloody wars has made the Russian state and Russia people averse to further conflict.
    If one wants to know why the modern Russian state and the Russian people are so averse to war, just take a look and the following charts.

    http://theduran.com/heres-why-russia-doesnt-want-to-fight-the-united-states-in-syria/

    Here's an extraction of what GARRIE writes:

    Conservative estimates for Soviet deaths in the Great Patriotic War/Second World War are just over 26 million. Other scholars take the aggregate total of deaths including those who died from starvation and disease at around 40 million.

    Every Russian alive today either knows, or is related, to someone who fought in the Great Patriotic War.

    Is it any wonder that Russians do not share the same zeal for war as those who have numerically and dare I say emotionally, not experienced the hell of war as sharply and as painfully?

    It is as easy and as disgusting for alt-media trolls sitting behind their laptops to talk about Russia 'lobbing nukes' to show America Russia means business as it is for cretins like fake news merchant Brian Williams to call an unprovoked missile attack which killed innocent people 'beautiful'.

    In spite of this, many in the nominally pro-Russian alt-media seem to salivate at the concept of Russia engaging with the United States in a Third World War.

    Copying aggressive, militant and preemptive neo-con strategies, only under a Russian flag, is not the solution to the mess that Donald Trump has created in Syria, nor is it what any mainstream Russian politician wants, whether President Putin or opposition leaders Vladimir Zhirinovsky and Gennady Zyuganov.
    Contrary to inaccurate reports, the Russian government and main opposition leaders are speaking with a generally unified voice; one that is calm but stern, angry and prepared but not vengeful nor fanatical.

    As much as many would like Russian foreign policy to be as unpredictable, imperious and rash as that of the United States, this would be foolish.

    One doesn't fight madness with madness.

    Russia understands this, many people who fail to understand Russian history and culture do not.

    Julian on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:57 am UTC
    That may be true, but it's strange to me Russia would prefer to see destruction visited on the Motherland as it surely will than try and prevent it by pre-empting that eventuality somewhere else.

    What is this desire for destruction of the Motherland?

    Didn't they learn anything from WW2?

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:45 am UTC
    What a great article. I have a few points I'd like to discus from it.

    1."I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody."

    I think there are some. Not in the leadership of countries ,maybe. But among the people brainwashed by Western propaganda. I think those millions "do" believe it. They buy the propaganda from the MSM. They don't have enough knowledge of the facts to recognize how foolish that story is. They take it on face value. An example of that is the "Russiagate" story. People with deductive reasoning see that as "fake news". But there are millions of Americans that "actually" believe it.And that is an "internal" issue. With foreign issues they trust the regime and MSM even more. After Iraq and with most everyone (not everyone) understanding how we were lied to. You still have many people applauding the strikes in Syria. In the US,scandals are forgotten quickly when the next one "pops up" and replaces it.

    2. "Now the Russians have withdrawn from their agreement with the USA and, even more importantly, have have declared that the Syrians urgently need more advanced air defense capabilities. Currently the Syrians operate very few advanced Russian air defense systems, most of their gear is old."

    Are the Russians really going to give the Syrians (maybe with Russian operators and trainers) the air defense systems to stop US attacks. I believe they should. But except for talk I haven't heard of any actions taking place to do it. If they are going to,they need to hurry. As we saw last week,the US could/would attack at any time.

    3. "All that most American people care about is whether the illegal action brings victory or not. "

    There you hit the nail on the head.American culture is built on the ideology of "winning". The bottom line in almost anything is "did you win". I suspect that is "somewhat" true in most cultures. But I know for a fact it is in the US.

    4. "My son perfectly summed up what Trump's actions have resulted in: "those who hated him still hate him while those who supported him now also hate him". Wow! How did Trump and his advisors fail to predict that? Instead of fulfilling his numerous campaign promises (and his own Twitter statements) Trump decided to suddenly make a 180 and totally betray everything he stood for. I can't think of a dumber action, I really can't. I have to say that Trump now appears to make Dubya look smart. But there is much, much worse."

    Yes,for a "smart guy",Trump made a huge error. He handed his enemies the rope to hang him with. His "haters" will always hate him. And he gave the neo-cons the way to get rid of him unless he obeys them.If he now says he doesn't want more war. The neo-cons can join the "liberals" and accuse him of breaking US law in attacking Syria without Congress approval. Not that they care about that. And certainly as long as he obeys them it won't matter. But unlike the "Russiagate" attack.They now have a "real" reason available to impeach him on. So they can use that for blackmail anytime he gets too "frisky" for them.

    5."And just to make sure that the message gets through, the latest US harpy at the UNSC threatens the DPRK with war."

    True, its crazy. Remember how over the years the MSM described NK as crazy when they threatened the US with war if we attacked them. But when it concerns the US its "backwards". Its fine for the US to threaten war,"finalize" plans to murder foreign leaders,etc. But if those countries return those threats they are "automatically" insane.The "exceptional" hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

    6."First, the easy answer: the Europeans. They can do nothing. They are irrelevant. They don't even exist. At least not in the political sense."

    I beg to differ here.They can and do, do something. They cheer the US on. Especially the British. And the Eastern European countries. They are like,when two boys are fighting,and one boy's friends are saying ,"you got him,hit him again. Smash him, he ain't got nothing".Encouraging the fight. We hear that out of Britain and East Europe constantly (in slightly different words). Boris Johnson and Fallon in particular are "enablers" involved in all this.

    7."Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia."

    Yes,that is a key problem.I hear some say that China wouldn't do anything because of the vast economic relations they have with the US. But China needs to ask themselves what good are economic riches when you are enslaved. What would China be if the US didn't exist. They would still be China. And they would figure out how to do without the US trade. That is what nations do if they want to survive. They don't let blackmail stop them from surviving. If China wants to be "friends" with the US their choice is clear. Give "Turkestan" independence. Give Tibet independence. Renounce any claim on Taiwan,and the islands in the SC Sea or those nearer to Japan. Stop friendship with Russia and North Korea. And open what would be left of their economy to US control.Those are the actions required to "for a while" stop the US aggression against China. Its simple,they can do those things and "maybe" that will be good enough for the US. Or they can start to stand up for themselves. Certainly it might in the short-run hurt their economy. But in the long-run if they want to have an economy free of outside control they will need to "bite the bullet" and stand up for themselves. They have Russia (for now) willing to stand up with them.

    8. "Alas, I am afraid that the plutocracy in power will never allow that. The way the crushed Trump in one month tells me that they will do that to anybody who is not one of their own. So while hope is always a good thing, and while I like dreaming of a better future, I am not holding my breath. I find a sudden and brutal collapse of the Anglo-Zionist Empire followed by a break-up of the USA (as described here) far more likely."

    Yes,as I've posted in several (many) other posts.I have no faith in the US reforming itself without outside pressure. The rot has become too "exceptionally" deep over the last 25 or so years.

    famerbraun on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:04 am UTC
    "They cheer the US on. Especially the British. "
    You are understating the involvement of the ever-perfidious Albion by at least an order of magnitude.
    The special relationship means that the really, really dirty work is done by the Poms; always has been.
    And at the centre of the filth you will find the Soames and Serco ; ask Hilary.
    blue on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:08 am UTC
    There is a mind set now on international trade which is often not justified. China is big, with many people - potential consumers for domestic production - and trading partners in other nations, including Russia, of course.
    If the flying saucer people transported the US and it's colonies to another galaxy, there would be some chaos and difficulties but it would not be that long before the world got on just fine without them. The great Chinese economic 'miracle' could have been accomplished internally if it had been properly managed. After all, they did manage to muddle through for several thousand years.

    It isn't like the US produces so much in critical goods - they mostly do financial whiz-bang now, and no one really needs the US to do that. It's a scam.

    Lumi on April 11, 2017 , · at 9:52 pm UTC
    Totally correct. Uncle Sam is a big fat parasite. He consumes much more than he produces. Consumption inflates the GDP, a flawed measure. Las Vegas gambling nonsense increases Uncle Sam's GDP. Anyone can see there's no productivity there. And a big part of what Uncle Sam produces is military. It's a GDP of death and destruction. Uncle Sam is totally dispensable.
    Ann on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:23 am UTC
    Uncle bob your quote –

    "Are the Russians really going to give the Syrians (maybe with Russian operators and trainers) the air defense systems to stop US attacks. I believe they should. But except for talk I haven't heard of any actions taking place to do it. If they are going to,they need to hurry. As we saw last week,the US could/would attack at any time."

    Of course they are Why wouldn't they ?- I don't understand why you doubt that – its good for business and it needs to happen and it would be the greatest chess move of all – I don't understand your doubt I mean I know you're disappointed because Russia hasn't already started the end war of all wars in Ukraine – you have never gotten over that yet – but this – selling better weapons to Syria – is not the beginning of the end for Russia

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:36 am UTC
    "Of course they are Why wouldn't they ?"

    You tell me why not. Syria has needed those for years now. But hasn't gotten them.Had they already had them this wouldn't have happened. And I have yet to hear of them arriving. Just talk so far.

    Larchmonter445 on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:48 am UTC
    The US empire is not going to implode or crumble.
    Hell, Ukraine is not going to implode or crumble.

    Where have we seen implode and crumble? In Socialist Paradises, Cuba is shaky, Venezuela, Brazil is heading that way, Argentina is spitting up blood.

    Even a moribund Japan, irradiated for years now from Fukishima, hasn't imploded and crumbled. It's been in the toilet for 20+ years, yet has billions for investment, and is in fact, investing in Russia.

    So, Saker, aside from that rant, the good part of your typo-infested article (I can get away with that comment because I live thousands of miles away from Saker, and he can't get his hands on me, and knows I'm teasing him) is realism about what Russia can and cannot do militarily in Syria.

    Also, the analysis of China, which now has two very clear views of Trump and US policy. To say there is no coherent foreign policy is to miss the obvious. Hegemony. It relies on projection of Power. Cruise missiles and carrier task forces. Great show. It's very real again. And dangerous.

    The Chinese are in the exact same box as Russia. They face containment and destruction as a competitor to the Hegemon. Russia faces containment (of its gas and oil sales), China faces loss of import of commodities and export of products from naval strangulation (US Naval goal).

    Both China and Russia are targets because of Eurasia-OBOR development. Here's where Iran comes in. If the Hegemon allows that project of development of 4.5 Billion people to get rolling, the containment won't work and the Hegemon will shrivel and recede from unipolar control.

    If you look at the SCO and who is in and who is waiting to get in and who wants to be invited in, the Hegemon cannot allow it. So to Eurasia.

    Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Italy, Greece, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, Mongolia, Japan, So. Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Hungary, and Belarus for starters all want a piece of Eurasia-New Silk Road development investment from China and the AIIB and half of them want or are in SCO.

    Russia's EAEU is now being integrated with OBOR. And everyone wants Russian defense systems, and a lot of military jets, tanks, subs, et al.

    This is why the Hegemon is back up and spitting fire. The West is shrinking in the face of all these emerging and developing nations. The only weapons the West can use is finance and sanctions.

    China will take this Trump profile (or personality disorder) and fill it with "dumplings" and "Peking duck". They have been at these games for centuries and millennia. The US cannot scare them into inaction. But what the so will be strategic and not seen easily.

    China must have Russia. It would be crushed if Russia was nulled out.
    Similarly, Russia must have China.

    This situation will bind the two militaries much closer. And their geopolitical moves will be more coordinated. It looks like China doesn't want to get dirty in Syria.
    But it needs Iran and Iraq and Syria stabilized. Those are oil nations and will also in Iran's case provide gas to South Asia as China develops Pakistan and Afghanistan (and maybe India comes along after Modi).

    Big armies of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan add dimensions to Russia and China. They are not in play for the Hegemon and clearly want Russia and China as multi-polar superpowers to tame the beast.

    Both Russia and China also want nuclear non-proliferation and diplomatic, political settlements not wars as "solutions".

    Yes, the Hegemon is back with a man who knows how to throw weight around.
    But Trump will be a failure without economic changes in the US. And he may have gone against his past speeches and historic tweets, but his brain hasn't changed one cell. He knows war is death to his historic Presidency. He has to put America First and MAGA. War is not the path to either.

    He needs to be killing ISIS and AQ, not thinking of killing Assad and Russians.
    I think he will do one more war action, in NK, and then he will stand down and bear down on domestic issues. He is in more deep trouble than anyone imagined.
    The Elites and the System in Congress are not giving him anything he needs.

    He cannot be a wartime President, even a little war like the Syrian gamble to build and hold safe zones in order to dice up the nation. Flying in the hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid needed for safe zones will be easy pickings for MANPADS. It will make dropping into Kabul look like a picnic. C5s and C130s will be shot down by loyal, patriotic Syrian "volunteers". Like the Green Zone became untenable, so will these zones.

    The reality is the US has to take care of America First.
    He has no mandate or support from the people for staying in Syria.
    And the Sunni Arab backers of ISIS and AQ will never be able to replace the US or NATO on the ground. Just can't happen. They never have been worth crap in real war. While people in safe zones live in tents and wood shacks, the Chinese will be rebuilding real modern Syrian cities. We know they can do it in months, not years.

    Who will want to stay in the Safe Zones?

    Trump is capable of reversing instantly. He will have to.
    He bought some good press. He resurrected the Hegemon.
    MIC is happy.
    His 65 million voters, however, are perplexed and deeply worried he has been co-opted or lied to them.
    And he just delivered his one big domestic victory, Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
    The rest of his program and promises are stuck in the Swamp.

    China will sell him pumps, but can't help him pump it out.
    Russia can hold fire and not cost him any military setbacks.
    But if he slaps more sanctions and tries to throw that heavy Hegemonic weight around the world, he will not make a deal with anyone that matters.

    Too many enemies internally. Too few allies. So easy to "one term" him, or begin impeachment if he walks into a disaster. DC wants him gone.

    I can't see him getting anything with Putin. Trump can rationalize that. But then all he has is China. And the CPC is 3000 minds against his. And more billionaires than in the US. And one million millionaires. They are not just one guy on the other side of the table from Trump. China is very hard to move. Come as the Hegemon and the Panda turns Dragon.

    He has to show a coherent Trump foreign policy. It must include the defeat of ISIS and AQ. He has messed that up bigly. Syria was on the verge of victory this year.
    With Russia and US cooperation, they could have been finished by Sept.

    Since he won't even meet with Putin until G20, in July, Trump has boxed himself in. Maybe he will have the guts to challenge the Deep State and Khazarians who refuse to let him deal with Putin. By July, Syria will have a new reality. It will be another American disaster if Mattis' plans go forward.

    I suspect Putin will let Trump stomp into the self-made trap. Trump should be very familiar with sand traps from his golf courses and playing the sport. The Syrian sand trap will be a colossal end to the big man's game. Time will run out on his programs in Congress, and Syria will devour his presidency.

    Ann on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:33 am UTC
    dearest Larchmont what a fabulous comment and I want to add one thing about domestic Trumpets – I read in RT that colleges in the state of NY will be free for un-wealthy students –

    https://www.rt.com/usa/384232-new-york-free-tuition/

    Krollchem on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:50 am UTC
    Here are a couple of additional points from an admittedly over the top source

    Japan's Sankei Shimbun news reported on the 9th that the Syrian missile strike by the United States shocked China, and reports that the People's Liberation Army forces are moving toward the Yalu River.

    "The newspaper said the move was a medical and aft support unit for the Shenyang bulb (the northern light bulb).

    There is an observation that medical and back-up support units will be dispatched to "train for North Korean refugees," the newspaper added.

    On the same day, the Northern Bulb of China's Tohoku District Defense Command issued orders to all the submarine and submarine units on the same day, as it deployed the 16th, 23, 39, and 40th group troops in the North Korean border area.

    These media say that the Kiryuolbun and the Foal Eagle training exercises of the U.S. and South Korea will end the month after this month when the emergency situation on the Korean peninsula is eradicated and Kim Jong Un and the North Korean leadership are removed and the weapons of mass destruction of North Korea are destroyed.

    The core Chinese Army units that respond immediately to the drastic changes in North Korea are the 39th group and the 40th group, each of which has its headquarters in Yingkou and Jinzhou in Liaoning Province. The 39th group is a heavy army mechanized unit and the 40th group is the rapid reaction group. "
    https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/3642

    It is also important to note that empty chemical weapons containers have been pictured at the Syrian base. They are, however, containers that were left over from on site neutralization of the agents back in 2014,:
    Sarhttps://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/3625

    Larchmonter445 on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:34 pm UTC
    The 39th I know for certain was heavily involved in the Korean War. They are not about to go spill blood of North Korean troops.
    They have many brethren buried in North Korea. It is sacred ground for many of these units.

    This is symbolism for US misinterpretation. It's working. People think the Chinese are lining up to assist the US. I'd say, unless NK lobs a missile their way, the Chinese are backing NK forever.

    How they construct that militarily is pretty clear. They won't allow the US or S.K. to take over NK and dominate the Peninsula. This is like Donbass to Russia. Chinese blood and Chinese Communist Party ideology are blended in the national histories of both nations.

    What it signals also is the very high probability of another Trump missile attack.
    It may also be bomber attack to demonstrate the Hegemon's heaviest hits.
    To take out the nuclear program, the US will have to destroy mountains. So this is mostly going to be strike against the missile program (launch sites).

    China is signaling to Kim that they are standing behind NK, not him. And it might be a signal to the military that it would be a good time to relieve themselves of their glorious leader. China will assist them maintain stability and order.

    Behind those Chinese troops would be 300,000 more quickly added.
    And the Russians would provide whatever airlift and air power China thought they could use. Russians flew in the Korean War and died there also. It is a strategic piece of Earth that neither China nor Russia will allow to fall into US control.

    No one wants Kim to remain. How he goes is problematic. But he either grabs hold of reality or he will be gone. Talks will have to start soon and some rational path down from the brink will have to clear.

    Meanwhile, Trump will strike unless some back channel "proof" comes out of Pyongyang that a solution is possible.

    oneforall on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:14 pm UTC
    What difference would getting rid of Kim make?
    What exactly should – or even could – NK do to de-escalate the situation?
    Get rid of their nuclear weapons?

    OK . Let's go back to the 1990s when NK had no nuclear weapons. Even back then the US was intent on destroying the country. During the nineties there existed a so-called "sunshine policy" of increasing cooperation between the 2 Koreas.
    Then came Bush and the list of countries the US intended to destroy of which NK was one.
    The government of North Korea acquired nuclear weapons quite rightly after they saw what the US and gang did to Iraq.
    What is the difference between Russia's right to self defence and North Korea's?
    There is no difference.
    So let's be clear – US warmongering towards NK has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. America's malevolence towards this tiny country goes back decades.
    NK's nuclear weapons have possibly in fact saved the country from a Libya or Lraq fate.
    The real reason the US wants to destroy North Korea is because it exists outside the Zionist banking system of control and we should stand up for it's right to defend itself which in fact is all that it's doing.
    The subject of who is "Leader" of the country is a matter for the North Korean people.

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:51 pm UTC
    The "Korean crisis" is much easier to solve than Syria or Ukraine. If there was the will to do it. China along with Russia and the US (yes I know the US isn't trustworthy. Which is why China and Russia need to be involved),need to guarantee the neutrality of the Korean Peninsula. They need to guarantee that an attack on either North or South Korea will not be tolerated. And then China needs to aid North Korea's economy to develop.Russia doesn't have the money for that. And the US even if they had the money wouldn't use it to aid North Korea.But its important for China to have a stable country on her border. And especially one that isn't constantly under attack by the US.I think South Korea would like that idea as well.Not fearing attack from the North. And not having to be controlled by the US should appeal to them as well. Unlike some,I don't see Kim as insane. I see him as being afraid of US aggression.Without that worry its quite possible he could be convinced to make major changes in North Korea. But for something like that to happen. Both China and Russia will need to act.And there lays the problem.As of today neither seems to be willing to act to end this crisis.
    Klaatu on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:52 am UTC
    Thank you for a detailed and informed analysis of recent events. I'm a bit surprised that you still hold out some hope or optimism for the American political system, which is owned by the corporations (which, in turn, are owned by the plutocrats). Sadly, I think it entirely possible that the Zionists will feel perfectly free to goad the American "gorilla" into a war with Russia, under the illusion that Israel will survive and prosper in the Aftermath–or at least that their sponsors will prevail! Delusional, yes, but consistent with past behavior.
    The American people are "insouciant", to use PCR's favorite adjective. Blind and carefree. They still think war is a disaster that happens to other people. I'm confident that Vladimir Putin has instructed his military to inform him exactly what actions NATO would have to take in order to require a Russian response. The next war will not be fought in Russia.
    bill on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:55 am UTC
    I am not on Twitter, so someone Please post Saker's quote: " when confronted with the ruthless opposition of the Neocons and the US deep state, Trump snapped and instantly broke because he is clearly completely spineless and has the ethics and morals of a trailer park prostitute."

    It should go viral!

    White whale on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:07 am UTC
    @bill.
    Twitter is appropriately named . It is mostly twits ..

    Your "tweet" is far too long. (!!!!)
    It needs to be 140characters(max) so:

    The Saker: Spineless Trump defeated by neocons/DeepState.
    Has ethics/morals of trailer-park prostitute.

    Others may upgrade.

    john mason on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:06 am UTC
    Good article. Congratulations. What is left out is the UN. Is it relevant? What caused the decay and how can it be mended? Has the UN failed in its' mandate to protect? Is their a logical reason why those that violate International Law are not being prosecuted? Is the UN and the Charter, International Law a scam? Is their a need to have it replaced and the rules, all or part of, replaced or amended?
    I believe that to tackle the problems with rogue states like the US is to fix the UN, International Law, ICC, ICJ and have its' head office removed from the US.
    Is their a reason why there has been next to no discussions on this relevant topic because it affects everyone globally.
    plainsman on April 11, 2017 , · at 1:52 pm UTC
    Well John, because the UN is a pallative front operation run and paid for,mostly, by the Rockafeller outfit. A lot of yapping and no teeth. to make the theater believable.
    BobNZ on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:14 am UTC
    The easiest way to stop the US battering Syria with Tomahawk missiles is to give Syria mobile land based, domestic version Kalibr missiles.
    The next time Tomahawk missiles are fired at Syria the Syrians could take out the ships or subs that are firing them.
    Russia need not be involved.
    David Ronin on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:22 am UTC
    Saker,
    You said Trump has "the ethics and morals of a trailer park prostitute." I think that's an insult to trailer park prostitutes. Seriously.
    You also said Americans do not and will not want war. You assume rational actors here. Don't you remember the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003-or, for that matter, 1991? Americans love war as long as they win. Just wait: the slogan "Better dead than Red" (from the 1950s) will pop up again soon; never mind that communism is dead in Russia.
    (Vietnam was an exception to Americas' love of war only because too many members of the middle class were casualties over there and the war dragged on with no victory in sight. Americans don't mind the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq because the casualties are low and the casualties come from the lower orders who enlisted rather than being drafted.)
    Please comment on the possibility that the USA plans to present Russia with two fronts of hostile actions: in Syria, of course, but also in Eastern Europe-most likely Ukraine, but perhaps Latvia instead. Plus more terrorist attacks within Russia. Those things would stretch the Russians to their limits, yes?
    Further, please comment on the possibility that Russia's allies will present the USA with a new front of war (Korea) or a renewal of much higher conflicts in Iraq. Perhaps that would (finally) give the American public pause, as it would stretch the US armed forces beyond their limits and require not only a calling up of the National Guard but a renewal of the draft (assuming it doesn't all quickly go nuclear).
    Thank you for your posting. It was a wonderful summary of what has happened and of what might and could happen.
    Kevin Hester on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:46 am UTC
    A veritable 'piece de resistance' from the VineyardSaker.
    " Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON/FIVE EYES gang. "
    NZ's misguided affiliation to the "Empire of Chaos" as Pepe Escobar calls the USA, is going to take us down the gurgler with the evangelical Christians controlling the U.S. who it must be remembered believe in the 'Rapture'.
    Don't underestimate the role runaway abrupt global warming is playing in this dichotomy.
    We are in early stage runaway, only a nuclear winter will slow it down. I believe that is what they are cooking up for us.
    Brace for imminent impact.
    https://kevinhester.live/2016/06/15/the-inevitability-of-nuclear-war-and-subsequent-nuclear-winter/
    War for Blair Mountain on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:04 am UTC
    Saker

    Post-1965 US Immigration Policy has created a large population of economically redundant Native Born White American Teenage Males. This is the canon fodder for Trump-Clinton-Greater Israel Racket.

    Unfortunately, I believe you to be an enthusiast for importing nonwhite scab labor .legally. To the extent that this is true .you have contributed to the march towards thermonuclear mass murder.

    I submit that the demographic-social-cultural agenda of White Liberals and Leftists such as Noam Chomsky is driving the US to provoke thermonuclear war with Russia.

    voltaire1964 on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:17 am UTC
    Thank you Saker, for the analysis and I hope you are right. There are several indications, however, pointing to somewhat different scenarios. For one thing, American political mentality equates politeness and courtesy with weakness. I have observed it, especially in corporations, in instances where the 'John Wayne' manager types berated (when the subject was absent) other colleagues and their 'weakness' for being polite. I have actually witnessed a large corporation being literally ruined by the 'John Wayne' newly installed management type and mentality.
    I wish to believe that the Russian position reflects strategy and not fear. I equally like to think that the Russian foreign ministry has by now well understood that bullies are strong with the weak and weak with the strong.
    The US apparatchit, from the top to the last ass-licking servant, has no concept of morality. Witness as an example this brief extract from MSNBC where the interviewer, (of course paid millions for reading from scripts) "praises" the "beauty" of the US missiles. The idea that 14 Syrian people had to die, to appease the sickening lust for war of the ruling US elites, never crossed this fu ng goon's mind.
    https://youtu.be/wcbYM_Rdm0o
    Still, this is the material and the people that Russia and the sane part of the world have to deal with. They will not be stopped by courtesy or by referring to "international law" to which their stock answer is "f k you."
    Finally 2/3 of the neocons are Talmudists. Trump's daughter, to marry the Talmudic husband, had to convert to Talmudism. Otherwise she would remain a "shiksa." Which in the Talmudic religion is not much above the level of a whore, for being Christian or otherwise non-Talmudic.
    I still think that the weight, influence and power of Talmudism in the US is not fully understood.
    David Ronin on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:20 am UTC
    I just sent in one comment, and so am a bit embarrassed about adding this one. But many of the replies focused on China. And I believe they missed some points:

    1. Xi was taken by surprise while at dinner with Trump, as to the cruise missile attack. Regardless, China has never acted hastily. Ever. To demand that China speak up is, well, an enthocentric error. They will come up with something, to be sure. But not as a knee-jerk reaction. Hence, not even any rhetoric yet.

    2. Yes, China needs exports to the USA, badly. However, the USA needs China's purchase of Treasury bonds far more. It isn't a mutually assured destruction situation. If the American economy collapses, American society collapses, and we'll be under martial law to deal with all the riots. True, if the Chinese economy collapses, China will be under martial law too. But that would be a lot easier to accomplish there and more acceptable, given (a) the nature of Chinese culture, historically, and (b) that the Chinese would see that America started the economic war.

    3. America will not "go back to building things" if its economy collapses. That takes time. And the American public won't be patient. China will simply keep on building things.

    4. Yes, China has a problem with a housing bubble, bad loans, etc.. And China might go into a Depression as a result. But, again, China would not only endure, it would prevail. Compare: the USA before, during, and after the 1930s.

    5. Perhaps most important of all, the US dollar is the world's reserve currency. It's what has enabled Americans to have a far higher standard of living, for generations now, than other nations-because our biggest export is IOUs in the form of dollars. If the dollar collapses, it's over for America. Permanently unless Special Drawing Rights are used to save us I strongly suspect the Dark State is pushing so hard to wrap things up as to global hegemony because the threats to the dollar are growing, and the dollar is already living on borrowed time.

    6. Yes, the Chinese did cede their entire eastern coast to Imperial Russia. (1760s?) And China wants it back, no doubt. But the Chinese think in terms of centuries, it's said. Someday, they'll make a deal with Russia to save Russia's hide in return for (later) getting its eastern seaboard back. But first things first.

    7. China wants to be #1. Even the characters for "China" actually mean "the Middle Kingdom" (between Heaven and Earth). China well remembers that it had the most advanced civilization on earth for centuries and that, for centuries, the round-eyes treated China like dirt (and even their fellow Asians, the Japanese, joined in for over half-a-century). They want "revenge," in the form of regaining what they see as their rightful place as hegemon. They will not "cut a deal" to screw Russia, because they know they (the Chinese) cannot stand up to America alone, and they will not accept-as a long-term goal-merely playing second fiddle to Uncle Sam. They're playing a deep game against the Deep State.

    8. I apologize for appearing to strike a pose as an expert on China. I'm not. But I think the above thoughts are valid, and a real "China hand" would agree with me. A reading of Sun Tzu's Art of War, and The Chinese Machiavelli (I forget the authors' names–Bloodworths, I think), and a few others on "the Chinese mind" would really help anyone who wants to consider what China might do and how they'd go about it. I also apologize for this long post. For those of you who've read all of it, I hope it proved at least somewhat worthwhile.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:00 am UTC
    I actually agree with most of what you say but not number 7. Being number 1 and revenge is really not on the menu.

    Peace at borders, security within, prosperity, 100s flowers bloom (means diversity of ideals, studies), and friends from all direction are what we strive for.

    David Ronin on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:40 pm UTC
    J–

    I did not mean to even remotely suggest that the Chinese would want to treat white nations the way the white nations treated the Chinese, let alone that the Chinese would want to engage in anything even remotely comparable to the Rape of Nanjing.

    But I do think they want a subtle-note, subtle (they are Chinese, remember)-acknowledgment that China is #1 (if and when that point is reached), and sits at the head of the table. No violence, no open contempt for others. Just an unvoiced understanding among all concerned as to who is now top dog.

    Everything you mentioned as China's goals is fully consistent with that.

    Фланкербандит on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:46 pm UTC
    David Ronin

    A very good, thoughtful comment glad to see this contribution

    Pretty much everything you present is eminently reasonable my only quibble as such is that I do not think there is yet a desperation among the ruling elite with regard to the dollar world system

    ' Dark State is pushing so hard to wrap things up as to global hegemony because the threats to the dollar are growing, and the dollar is already living on borrowed time '

    I wish that were true and have often fallen back on this line of thought myself but a more detached appraisal of the situation leads me to conclude otherwise I still think the empire has a lot of time to play with borrowed as it may necessarily be

    The current order is not going to collapse overnight and not without some cataclysmic event like the two world wars in the previous century that brought down the British Empire and gave rise to US world power

    Look at it this way what kind of wars have we seen in the last quarter century ? they have all been very lopsided affairs on the part of empire beating up small, almost defenseless countries

    I think the only thing the empire is truly scared of for all their bluff and bluster is a truly global war causing widespread destruction

    This would bring the whole roof crashing down on their little Ponzi scheme whereby they feed off the sweat and misery of little folks worldwide including right here at home

    This is also why I think there will not be any nuclear war or even a big conventional war against Russia unless the outcome is almost guaranteed as it was against Serbia, Iraq, Libya etc

    The Russian leadership should be smart enough to recognize this and call their bluff in Syria if they make Syria a fortress now it will stop any aggression otherwise aggression is inevitable and Russia will be kicked out of the Levant unceremoniously

    Anonymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:38 am UTC
    Great article Saker except for the part about China Xi and the Chinese people. So very few non-Chinese people throughout history have understood the Chinese Psyche it has always been a mystery especially to members of the Western Psyche. After October 1, 1949 apparently the Western elites were scratching their head or their ass and asking "Who lost China?".

    A cornerstone of the Chinese Psyche is called "Wu Wei" literal English translation "take no action". This attitude is abundantly evident in the public Chinese foreign policy of non-intervention.

    China has not risen from the ashes in the past 70 years by accident and even the help Western Greed has so obviously provided was probably helped along by Chinese involvement.

    The smiling Buddha as several people referred to Xi is no pansy. Saker helped us understand how Russians have no need to display strength the Chinese even less.

    Me thinks Putin some time ago and now Trump have taken the Chinese Psych 101 course.

    Look at the published outcomes of the Florida summit the 100 day plan the expression "100 xxx" stems from ancient Chinese philosophy the Western title would have been the 90 day plan. Think about it.

    China is involved in todays' mess up to her eyeballs and speaking of courage and determination Russia may still have something to learn from the Chinese.

    Julian K McCrann on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:15 am UTC
    It'll be a pity when all their energy supplies from the Middle East get choked off won't it.

    How will they function without oil and gas?

    Big 'ol Nate on April 11, 2017 , · at 1:53 pm UTC
    How would the West do without it? Iran & Russia can withhold theirs & choke off the Gulf States.

    This is why the US/NATO cannot win an all out fight that last over three months.

    Shamefaced Belgian on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:55 am UTC
    Thank you for your enlightening views, Saker. But aren't you underestimating Israel's role in the conflict? Thanks to the article below, we finally know where Trump got his 'Syria safe zones' idea from.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/netanyahu-calls-buffer-zone-syria-protect-israel/ri19522

    Oscar on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:58 am UTC
    Saker I agree with every word you wrote here except "The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not" The Americans are actually afraid of war they in my opinion voted for Trump to avoid this, it just that Trump like predecesors do not matter they have no control. They are just puppets of the deep state (war industry, banks, AIPAC, etc). Americans are hostages of their own government. Then as you mention but I think is important to stress is China´s weak behaviour when Russia is attacked from evey angle. What happened with the ancient chinese wisdom? Dont they know that they are next in the meny?
    Lumi on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:10 am UTC
    Take a look at this behaviour shaping show:

    The Apprentice U.S. – BEST FIRINGS (Part 1) – Youtube

    How much of it is spontaneous and real? How much of it is scripted and acted?

    The whole Trump vs Deep State circus has to be viewed in a similar manner.

    It's been a deception, that much should be clear by now. Engdahl had it right all along.

    The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency – By F. William Engdahl – 25 November 2016

    Same goes for the Thermokookular Jewish Bugaboo.

    The Usanian Terror Bully (UTB) *is* rational. It acts on the basis of cold analysis where bugaboos are treated for what they are. It will rationally and relentlessly pursue its objectives, i.e. the objectives of the ruling plutocracy. To continue to believe in the illusions and projections of the UTB, such as presidents and nukes, on the other hand, displays a lack of rational analysis. Wishful thinking.

    The UTB begins to have egg on its face due to resistance by Russia, China, Iran, Syria. It begins to look stupid in front of its vassals. The UTB cannot afford this. It needs to demonstrate strength. This is what you'll continue to see.

    The only thing that will help against the UTB is to physically disable it.

    War for Blair Mountain on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:17 am UTC
    Saker

    About your description of Trump and his inner circle .you have described them as Mafiosa Gangsters whose negotiating tactic is this:give us what we want or we will break your (removed language,MOD) legs next time:a bullet in your (removed language,MOD) head. I highly recommend that you rent the movie "Goodfellas" for this is what Russia is up against-Mafiosa Gangster negotiation-not-agreeable types.

    What is the Russian word for Mafiosa-Gangster Don?

    Paul on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:18 am UTC
    Great post, but there is one point in which I disagree.

    The Europeans COULD do something. They should denounce the US aggression and they should withdraw all support from the US. They should close down the US bases in Europe.

    At the moment the Europeans are PARTNERS IN CRIME with the US/UK/Israel/Saudi mafia.

    greg on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:25 am UTC
    Rand Paul also spoke about against the recent attack on Syria.
    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:38 am UTC
    I agree with Saker that the US system has broken down. But I would go further and say the propaganda has infected too many (the majority?) for it to be overcome easily. As a good example here is a post I found on FB tonight. Its from a "regular" person. One of the multitude that buys into the "exceptionalism".He is middle class/ working middle class.Very supportive of local authority,but not normally pro-Trump or pro-Clinton.Here is the post and more importantly the comments from other Americans.Whenever you hear that we are brainwashed think of this:

    "If this s pops off between the US and North Korea we may as well turn Israel loose on Iran too. They want it, and I wanna see it. Iran is ripe for regime change anyway. Israel will wipe Iran off the face of the earth in probably a week tops."

    Comments

    " We would cause without US they just can't do it."

    " Trump supposedly just had a sit down with china about nk. China has them by the ba..s"

    " Im sure it went something like, "im Donald Trump and im not playing games with this fat piece of s . Now we good but if you dont get buddy in line, im gonna give him what he think he wants" lol

    " Nah, it didn't go like that. Trump was eating dinner with China's president, turned on a monitor of him bombing the s outta Syria, and looked at China's president and said get them before I do. Lol"

    " Israel doesn't need the US to end Iran. Their Air Force is one of the most powerful in the world. It's all our s . Iran doesn't stand a chance there. Think back to the 6 day war."

    " If we don't cover them their ass is grass. They do have one of the TOP 3 Air Forces in the world but somebody got to have their 6 and in that region they are HATED"

    "They're hated but pretty much everybody in the region is scared of them. It'll be another 6 day war and they don't want them problems."

    " I'm telling you it's like going to school and your Big Brother is the s and you and the entire school know it."

    "He said to China president I bombed Syria and everyone loved it..it was amazing..lol"

    " Man those was warning shots, trust me. 6 jdams wouldve did worst then 60 tomahawks"

    " Israel f .. up 5 countries in 6 days. Made them all say uncle."

    " 6 jdams and that base they bombed would have just been a huge hole in the earth."

    " I've done more damage on zero targets."

    "Israel doesn't f around lol every man woman and child is a trained soldier."

    " Nothing quite says f you like a Jdam"

    " Funny thing is, no matter your beliefs or what country we choose to level, we could do just that in one night! Our country will not risk killing innocent civilians tho. But like north Korea, we could level every base and arms stock in a matter of an hour "

    "And even worse, when those bombs start dropping those nukes they're building be blown up too."

    " Exactly "

    " I'm a Missile Maintenance guy so imma sit this one out. Y'all go head."

    " If something is going to happen, it will with in the next week. That strike group we just sent to the western Pacific, is cause on the 15th nk founding fathers anniversary and kim wants to do another missle test. If they do, bam, we have a reason to level their s cause theres tension and a missle being fired within a patrolling area. Trumps smart and showing we not dealing with the bullshit. I didmt vote but that alone is why i was in favor of him being President"

    'you were doing ok. Then you went and associated 2 wrongs. Trump and Smart

    'He's not smart he's wreckless."

    "Matter fact they didnt call this strike, that's why it had NO REAL EFFECT OR CHANGE to anything over there. Well except delaying a few barrel bombing flights"

    " Lol hes not the first choice but foreign relations is a big problem and he has proved to address in manners it should be"

    " S he doesn't have a f clue. He's trying to get richer he don't give two s . about any of US."

    " Honestly i just want to see us use some of the s i know we got, and things looking real possible for that right now lol"

    "You going to fight"

    " I have"

    " Its not pretty but im willing to bet there wont be boots on the ground whatever happens"

    " Well you already know that's not about to happen. N. Korea don't have anything of value and all the big oil nations are having issues and don't want us there so where we going to test s at? We've been over there since we helped all of them overthrow their Gov. We done almost drained that region.

    "Thats above my pay grade lol"
    ..

    The "wonderful" thing about social media is you get to see the "real" thinking of people. Not what you see on blog posts. But what people talk about with friends. When they don't think its for public viewing.Their true nature and thoughts are shown much more clearly. So here you see what, I can almost guarantee, you would see in social media posts all over the US.I edited the language "slightly" for our site.

    blue on April 11, 2017 , · at 8:25 am UTC
    I don't know anyone who is on facebook regularly, and I might guess most Americans aren't except for 'facebook kids'. I can't say that that exchange is typical - it sounds to me more like high school kids or young adults - which maybe problematic, but not the most important sector. It's not the way people I run into would say things, if they cared enough to say anything about it. Social media attracts a limited type of people, and, it seems, many trolls (as well as planted trolls).

    But I'm guessing a lot here, and am not much in touch with this, and have never had a facebook (or twitter) account, and would not touch that stuff. I'm a recluse now (and like it). Mostly just chat a little with people I see at Walmart, and like that.

    Still, many people don't have a clue what's going on and don't want to know. Yet, all the money and effort on manipulating not just public perception, but what the supposed exceptions of the public are (as with the spun polling - the pseudo reality), need to be taken into account.

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 9:04 am UTC
    I suspect that has more to do with the people you know than anything else. There are many posters here that proudly talk about not watching the MSM (me as well BTW). But yet that limits our ability to give correct assessments of the thinking of most of the population in the US ,"who do watch or read it". But here are a few stats for you. The 2017 statistics on FB use in the US show 214 million people on it (2 thirds of the US population). Of which 38.25 million were between 18-24,52.82 million were between 25-34,38.42 million between 35-44,32.34 million between 45-54,14.06 million between 55-64,and 20.02 million were 65+. Only 5.9 million were 13-17 years old. The ages of the people I quoted range from early to mid-twenties to mid-thirties.As has been shown in the ME and Europe as well. The social media (as much as I dislike it) is a powerful tool for gauging and influencing public opinion. The US used in quite well (for evil) during the "Arab Spring" and for the "maidan" in Ukraine.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/398136/us-facebook-user-age-groups/

    Justin on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:52 am UTC
    Hi Saker
    That analysis was excellent! I thoroughly reading it and was almost sad when I came to the end after 40 minutes.
    I just wanted to ask a couple of questions.
    One of the goals here is as you say full spectrum dominance and getting rid of the strongest competition like Russia and China is top of the agenda. One of the ways to do this is via the quatari pipeline via Syria. What do you think Russia's response will be if the us put bases up in the east of Syria and prevent Syrian troops from reaching there? They just need to control enough of the country for the pipeline to go through and once the pipeline is built then I'm sure the EU will buy it in preference to Russia even if it's more expensive. What are the Russian's absolute red lines when it comes to Syria?
    What are your thoughts behind China massing troops on the border with North Korea?
    I agree that trump has lost his base and will not last 4 years. I'm not sure if the disillusioned voters will bother with the next elections and this may be sowing the seeds for future civil unrest.
    What do us military analysts/intelligence make of this situation where their work is ignored and the agenda hijacked by the neocons? I'm assuming you have contact with them. They must be pretty disillusioned.
    Thank you once again. Keep up the excellent work!
    Sioxx on April 11, 2017 , · at 8:05 am UTC
    Some things I can see actualy.
    The US Deep State needs a dump Idiot as President to put in charge for all bad Actions, wich is obviously Donald Trump and his Backstage main adviser and doughter Jovanka Trump. Do not underestimate her influence.

    At next is the pretend-and-prickle strategy of the US to make target States furious and cause the next pretend by itself to be prickled.

    Now we have Russia who will learn, train its defense and going to be stronger on each US pretend-and-prickle action. As rsult the Time works for Russia at all. So the best Russia can do is to stay calm and that is what they will do. Russia will do as less as possible. Let the US shipping around theier swimming coffins if they want. One day the overall defence becomes that strong, that they will cause zero damage except on them self.

    The US will become more and more like a dumb naggling woman throwing her crockery and even her atomic bombs will become useless one day.

    Ian K on April 11, 2017 , · at 8:09 am UTC
    Great article with some positive titbits in what has been a depressing week. Reading about the possibility that Russia diverted the Tomahawk missiles was extremely interesting and I find myself mentally cheering for the Russians and Syrians. I hope they do upgrade Syria's defences so future aggression from America,Israel or Turkey etc. can really be countered effectively.
    Regarding China and the USA's mutual dependance. That is true. What is also true is that the American economy should have collapsed years ago but it has been kept afloat by money printing and financial trickery. Who knows how long this can be maintained. China and Russia have turned to preserving wealth in gold rather than US treasuries, they have established alternative banking systems to reduce their reliance on the US dominated financial system. Time is on the side of China rather than the USA and many, including me, consider the constant war-mongering is at heart a desperate attempt to divert the "sheeples" attention from the fraud, theft and mismanagement of the global financial system by, primarily, Wall Street and the City of London.
    If a global financial collapse occurs China has much more chance of controlling unrest among its citizens than the USA and it also has the New Silk Road project. One of the few bright spots in the worlds economy, unless of course you are a weapons manufacturer.
    Benfica. on April 11, 2017 , · at 8:12 am UTC
    Wag The Dog - How Al Qaeda Played Donald Trump And The American Media.
    Responsibility for the chemical event in Khan Sheikhoun is still very much in question.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/syria-chemical-attack-al-qaeda-played-donald-trump_us_58ea226fe4b058f0a02fca4d

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:38 am UTC
    A great article. I'm very surprised that the Huffington Post posted it.
    White whale on April 11, 2017 , · at 12:34 pm UTC
    @UB. Yes. My initial thoughts also. Huffington were the most pure and extreme HRC shills.
    Wikileaks revealed Adriana Huffington offering to stay in background where she could "help the most".
    The "not my president" crowd remain. Huffington is still their cheerleader.
    Trump has broken with the constitution and committed a war crime. Grounds for impeachment.
    They want him gone – and will use any and every device to achieve this.
    Fueling and furthering existing doubts about the validity of Trumps 59-missile "tweet" is just another way to continue delegitimising his presidency.
    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:56 pm UTC
    I thought the same. But still,"any port in a storm". If the HP finally telling the truth can help to quiet the war drums,that is a good thing. No matter what their motive is for it.
    Giovanni G. Vieira on April 11, 2017 , · at 8:21 am UTC
    Prova e confirmação de que não podemos jamais confiar em Uncle Sam – "Tio Sam" (EUA) - THE BIGGEST LIAR IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!!

    O MAIOR MENTIROSO DO MUNDO!!!

    Giovanni G. Vieira

    RB on April 11, 2017 , · at 8:47 am UTC
    Next reduktion of sionist influence will taket place in the US. When sionist influence grows over a tipping point the influenced make the reduction. During 2000 years and more this have happened time and time again.
    Mathias on April 11, 2017 , · at 8:58 am UTC
    "The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable "

    We know the difference between test results and reality. The reality is that no American or Russian or what ever missile is ALWAYS accurate. Then there is the question how to measure the accuracy. It looks like only 4 of those 23 not blocked by brilliant Russian electronic system (how brilliant?) were accurate by all means. They caused the damage. Besides 4 x 450 kilos on explosive is not so devastating in such a huge area.

    I'm not expert at all of electronic system Russians used but let's remember that some Tomahawks hitting target might have also got late stage influence of that blocking system. It's not just 1 or 0 – bullseye or bad miss. Sometimes even 2% influence are do same result. Fiasco is fiasco whether missile going 10 km or 500 meters away the target. Correct me please if i am totally wrong.

    Aleks.W80 on April 11, 2017 , · at 9:09 am UTC
    Friends, you all started too early sprinkle ashes on his head.
    I do not speak any English, I write through Google-Translate.
    Therefore I give references to analytical articles and video, in which it is justified that this situation – spectacle.
    The Washington Post reaction makes these considerations even more reliable.

    I suppose the author speaks Russian?
    I suggest to other readers to use Google -Translator for reading articles.
    Unfortunately you will not understand the video.
    Maybe someone will translate the video, there is a very detailed analysis of the situation

    Links:
    1. Небесный гром стальных яиц Трампа
    http://alternatio.org/articles/articles/item/50454-

    2. Трамп играет за Россию. Зачем взлетели "томагавки"
    http://politobzor.net/show-128067-tramp-igraet-za-rossiyu-zachem-vzleteli-tomagavki.html

    3. Почему Трамп разбомбил сирийскую авиабазу? (Познавательное ТВ)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDRPMMajKDU&list=PL8B733D935BED406C&index=1

    venice12 on April 11, 2017 , · at 9:13 am UTC
    "The worst aspect of that is that by betraying people left and right Trump has now shown that you cannot trust him, that he will backstab you with no hesitation whatsoever. "

    Some already noticed:

    http://www.unz.com/article/god-emperor-no-more/

    "Never betray your friends to court the favor of your enemies. If you betray your friends, the most principled and perceptive among them will drop you, leaving only the delusional and venal. That is not a good trade, given that the approval you gain is bound to be fleeting and contingent, whereas the contempt and distrust you create will be permanent. The people you betrayed may come back to you out of sentimentality or self-interest, but their trust and respect will never return. They will always regard you as a traitor."

    Andrew Korybko on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:01 am UTC
    "Russia has no intentions to use its Aerospace Forces against US missiles if Washington decides to carry out new strikes in Syria as it could lead to a large-scale war, a senior Russian lawmaker said Monday.

    The US administration said earlier in the day it may undertake further military activities against Syrian government forces if Damascus carries out another chemical attack on civilians.

    "We cannot be dragged into a military confrontation as it could lead to a large-scale war," First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council's Committee on International Affairs Vladimir Jabarov told reporters."

    https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704101052503997-russia-unlikely-counter-us-strikes/

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:49 am UTC
    In related news his father is rumored to have said in 1941 that "we can't be dragged into a military confrontation with Germany.It could lead to a large scale war". And his grandfather is rumored to said said "we can't be dragged into a military confrontation with Austria-Hungary.It could lead to a large scale war".And all three of them advocate/advocated knelling to Russia's enemies as the first step for peace.Or in the current case probably the first step for a color revolution.Since the humiliation of surrender would most likely bring on the patriotic backlash that would spark the revolution we hear about being thought of for near the end of the year.
    Фланкербандит on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:20 pm UTC
    Hear Hear Uncle Bob

    I'm glad to see you burst that little soap bubble

    Now I just clicked on Sputnik and guess what the headline reads ?

    ' Russia does not React well to Ultimatums What Tillerson can offer Moscow '

    A Russian 'political observer' is quoted as saying

    ' there are three basic proposals the secretary can make to his Russian colleague: empty threats, an ultimatum, or a deal respecting both Russian and Syrian interests '

    Personally I think number two is most likely with number three complete fantasy

    Of course number three just might be what is supposedly presented but as a deception to buy time and prevent RF from moving forces into theater think Molotov-Ribbentrop

    The article goes on to note that the Killerson visit was preceded by a G7 meeting where the ultimatum to Russia on the Syria question was not doubt hammered out as a 'consolidated front '

    Russia is to leave Syria immediately or else

    The article then quickly veers off into stupid-land with another 'commentator' saying basically 'relax don't worry' the US is making contradictory statements one day Assad must go the next day he can stay then the third day he can stay again etc so nothing to worry about

    This is the kind of stupid thinking that's going to get the RF a tight-fitting noose around her neck in Syria

    Wake up dummies

    https://sputniknews.com/politics/201704111052529474-tillerson-moscow-visit-expectations/#comments

    Oh and incidentally I'm not the only one being undiplomatic VVP himself is going to snub buddy Rexxon with only Lavrov agreeing to show up

    If I know VVP I would venture that he has counseled his colleague to likewise snub but he allows his senior men freedom to make up their own minds

    http://news.antiwar.com/2017/04/10/putin-to-snub-tillerson-as-tensions-spike/

    As for VVP I am likewise confident he has already given main man Shoigu the go-ahead for buildup in Syria

    Let's see if I'm right or just wishful thinking I fear if I'm wrong a color revolution awaits the indecisive 'king '

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 7:06 pm UTC
    I'm not sure about the snub. Putin is meeting with Italy's President. So there may be a good reason for not seeing Tillerson. And we aren't certain that they may not end up meeting anyway. Its unclear right now. Still though,Lavrov and Tillerson are the same rank as FM's (or SOC in the US). So it isn't really so strange that President Putin might not meet with Tillerson. More important though is the comment Putin made today about the chemical weapons attack being a false flag by the rebels in Syria. And not an attack by the Assad government.I doubt he would have said that unless he was 100% sure about it. He isn't given to wild false statements like we see so commonly in the West today.
    naf on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:05 am UTC
    thanks, saker, a great article which helps me to understand at least a little bit of what is going on these days.
    Steven Mark Hayden on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:07 am UTC
    Very thorough analysis of technical and political aspect of Tomahawk attack and failure.Thank you.
    James lake on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:18 am UTC
    Saker
    Interesting analysis
    But you know you have not really clarified what Russia is doing.

    Can you state explicitly

    1. Is Russia going to stay in Syria

    2. Tillerson is due there on Wednesday – god knows why Russia is meeting him.
    He is expected to give Russia an ultimatum and impose sanctions
    Is Russia ready for this?

    3. The Telegraph quotes Russia as saying Assad is negotiable – is this true? The same article talks of buying-off Putin with a return to the G7

    Pete Whittaker on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:26 am UTC
    BRAVO! Thank you, Saker.
    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:45 am UTC
    RT is reporting there is a rumor that Tillerson is going to offer to readmit Russia to the G7 if Russia betrays Syria and turns on Assad. I'm wondering if he plans on "sweetening" the offer and throwing in an extra "30 pieces of silver" as well. In the past those kind of deals involved something like that. At least one I can think of did.

    https://www.rt.com/news/384283-tillerson-meeting-russia-lavrov/

    James lake on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:49 am UTC
    I read this and I have asked what Dajee thinks of all this discussion of buying off Russia.

    We have not heard Russia's voice loud enough about what they are doing

    Why is lavrov still meeting ??

    James lake on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:23 am UTC
    Just read. On BBC

    No sanctions on Russia over Syria

    G7 says there is not clear proof regarding the alledged gas attack

    The uk were pushing for this and Boris has been slapped down.

    Have the G7 found a back bone – they could really undermine Trumps drive for war if they got their act together

    Ananymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:26 am UTC
    I believe Russia has plenty more options than mentioned by the author. Moscow's biggest problem is she is really not a business minded entrepreneur when it comes to dealing with the Anglo-Zionist enterprise. She keeps playing honest chess games as if she is forever is playing in the Olympics, whereas the US is a lot more cunning, sly opponent. Therefore, before thinking of a direct military engagement and nuclear war with the US, one can see where these Western supermen get their false energy levels from. Basically, it's the role of Saudi Arabia to keep pumping and delivering oil in order to sustain the NY, London, Nikkei, etc. stock market system at the core of Neocon activities around the world. Even a small disturbance at the initial stages will make the Neocons look for peace. This is why S.A. keeps supporting global terrorist activities in order to make everybody busy elsewhere.
    kpax on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:43 am UTC
    Hi everyone from DownUnder.
    The Saker is essential.
    I think USA behave in some irrational manner because they follow the only policy they support: destroy or be destroyed according to some famous Jesuits doctrine.
    It reminds me this excellent book from Amir Alexander Infinitesimal: how a 'dangerous' mathematical theory shaped the modern world.
    The Jesuits Order lost the battle against a modern world but not the war for the New World Order (never to be) and would only support obedience to a system made of their own conservative truth till their last Pope?
    Always paradoxal: the ennemi is chaos and yet in order to destroy what they don't accept they spread more chaos. It's somehow rational but shortsighted and short lived.
    Napoleon Bonaparte was a man of order it did not take long before entropy of chaos took the best of his sanity.
    The furture world will be multipolar, diversified and unified but neither under some delusional order nor after any nuclear winter even if danger is high.
    De-weaponising the world is not some impossible utopia. It starts at home for the best cause: humanity in one world.
    Aristotle should have declared: "Love cannot be divided into things without infinitesimal parts of love".
    Basil on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:50 am UTC
    Is this for real? I've just read a Sputnik article on Ivanka influencing her father to bomb Syria:

    Shocking Family Business: Trump's Son Confirms Ivanka's Role in Striking Syria

    [quote] Ivanka is a mother of three kids and she has influence. I'm sure she said: 'Listen, this is horrible stuff," Trump's son told The Telegraph newspaper.[unquote]

    Seeing that Sputnik was quoting the Telegraph, I'm taking the article with a pinch of salt. On the other hand Trump has taken the unprecedented step of giving his daughter a role as an unpaid adviser in the White House

    It's taken quite a while for me to size up Trump. But after reading some other sites and the comments here, I'd say that the Peter Principle is at work here, to wit: "managers rise to the level of their incompetence." A successful businessman is sadly showing signs of being an incompetent politician, open to manipulation by his, frankly, treasonous advisers, conflicted between his business interests (you're only Prez for max 8 years) and those of his country.

    I don't wish it, but looking at recent events like St Pete, Russia is already on the receiving end of another round of irregular war.

    WizOz on April 12, 2017 , · at 2:06 am UTC
    @Ivanka

    People would talk about the small fry because they cannot (or refuse to) see the biggest elephant in the room. Everything has been told in clear before the elephant got into the room of the White House.

    "Donald Trump, America's first Jewish president", by David Peyman*, November 6, 2016,
    @http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/donald-trump-americas-first-jewish-president/
    **David Peyman is senior advisor and National Director of Jewish Affairs and Outreach for the Trump-Pence Campaign .

    " .Mr. Trump's ties to Jews and Israel go beyond policy. They also go beyond his loving support and encouragement of his religiously observant Jewish daughter and son-in-law and his pride in his Jewish grandchildren. Donald Trump's love of the Jewish people dates back many decades. Senior observant Jewish executives in the Trump Organization recall being encouraged to stop deals on Friday afternoons so they can go home to their families to observe the Sabbath.
    Mr. Trump has disavowed any support from anti-Semites, just as I hope Mrs. Clinton disavows support from anti-Israel groups that support her. I proudly wear my kippa to Trump Tower and receive support and encouragement from the campaign to take off every Sabbath and every Jewish holiday (of which there have been many in October), crucial days lost for any campaign. But supporting Jews is what Mr. Trump has done all his life.
    These are some reasons why American Jews chose Donald Trump as Grand Marshall of the annual Israel Day Parade in New York. Mr. Trump's policies, his staunch pro-Israel advisors and his personal ties to the Jewish people are why they will choose him as the next President of the United States."

    Now Ivanka and her 'observant' husband are followers of the fanatical messianic sect of Chabad-Lubavitch, rabidly anti-Russian.
    But there is even more:
    "Looks Like Donald Trump May Well Be Jewish. That Would Explain A Great Deal", by Miles Mathis via Jim Kirwan 4-9-17
    – See more at: http://rense.com/general96/trumpjewish.htm#sthash.c91wlgrx.dpuf

    "Ivana [Ivanka's mommy] is also Jewish. Geni.com lists her father's name as both Knavs and Zelnícek. I'll give you a hint: drop the second "e". You get Zelnick. It is Yiddish for haberdasher. Clothier. It's Jewish, too. See Robert Zelnick, Strauss Zelnick, Bob Zelnick, etc. Robert was a fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford. Strauss was President of 20th Century Fox. Bob was ABC News producer. Also Friedrich Zelnik, silent film producer. Also David O. Selznick, whose name was originally Zeleznick, or, alternately, Zelnick. He and his father were major Hollywood producers."

    Mathias on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:55 am UTC
    It's crystal clear that what really matters now is military power. When that sky above Syria is closed then Americans will become once again co-operative.

    There's one thing making me worry: how risky is to give knowledge of highly brilliant Russia electronic warfare to Syrians? Leaking? Traitors? Spies? Or does Russians anyway something even better in their pocket if this sucked?

    Jonas Bangkok on April 11, 2017 , · at 1:07 pm UTC
    Usually the Russians are downgrading systems intended for export – not sure if that is valid for Syria given the circumstances.
    Jordan on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:58 am UTC
    The possibility of a 'Tier 1' false flag (9/11 or worse) has gone right through the roof. DEFCON 1. Astute observers and commentators must start identifying possible targets. Perhaps outside the box, like a 'chemical' strike in Saudi itself.
    Anonymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 12:25 pm UTC
    So since the patient is raving mad, we must let him do as he pleases, at least for now, lest he brings down the house. But will he? What if the lunacy is staged? See for example the following quote from "Essentials of Post–Cold War Deterrence", a document produced (in 1995) as a "Terms of Reference" by the Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) of the United States Strategic Command:

    "The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially 'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

    Mmmm. "Part of the national persona we project to all adversaries "

    Makes sense

    Anonymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 12:39 pm UTC
    Several of the errant cruise missiles have been located. Manufacturers ID plates indicate they were built in 2015 so are the latest Block IV devices.

    One cruise missile crashed into the garden of a house in Karto, Tartus, fortunately without exploding. One missile killed 9 individuals in a Christian village not far from the airbase. One exploded in al Manzul killing 5 including children. One landed in another village (name forgotten) killing another 4 or so (including children). Finally one exploded near another village without causing injuries. So that is 5 miss-hits acccounted for. The others may have done what the USAF has been doing all along – pounding sand.

    Anonymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 12:53 pm UTC
    The movie Brother is on YouTube, on the production's company's own channel. There is a full version with no subtitles and an 8 part version with English subtitle:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw6cDYEd8Dw

    David Ronin on April 12, 2017 , · at 2:08 am UTC
    Anonymous–

    Ochen spaseebo!!!

    I just watched it, relying on the English subtitles. Very worth watching, regardless of any allegorical relationship to US-Russian relations.

    Thanks again-and thanks to Saker for mentioning it.

    Student of Imran Hosein on April 11, 2017 , · at 1:03 pm UTC
    Excellent analysis!

    I would like The Saker and his Community to comment on the following summarized analysis why the so called west is fanning the flames of takfirism especially in that part of the world:

    Once takfirism eventually rules Syria, Saudi Arabia and contemporaneously Iraq to the Euphrates the purpose of installing the NATO base in Libya will become apparent. i.e. the facillitation of takhfiriism into Egypt. (note how Egypt and Russia are realising urgency for closer co-operation).

    Once achieved now Israel will have causus bellum to "help" rid the world of this "menace" to the cheers of the world community. In the process Israel will be able to secure the so called "Biblical" borders of the land of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates!

    Once achieved the zionists will smell the arrival of their King to be crowned for the "Leadership" of the world in Jerusalem. Those still sitting on the fence will see with their very own eyes how Israel now has "legitimacy" owning Biblical borders and at that time after having introduced "Real" and "Honest" money. i.e. gold/silver backed currency. They will flock in the millions to the "Messiah" of the land of ZION. Little will they realise that this man is the "false messiah".

    As history cannot end without truth triumphing over falsehood (otherwise there would be no justification in the act of creation in the first place) NOW the true MESSIAH Jesus, the Son of the Virgin Mary will return to settle the matter once and for all.

    After that there will not be any need for any more empires in history as mankind would have reached perfect harmony in tune with the rest of the universe in surrendering to the will of the Lord most high.

    A humble student of Sheikh Imran Hosein

    Tom Welsh on April 11, 2017 , · at 1:06 pm UTC
    "I would just underscore the supreme irony of a country basically built by and run by lawyers (just see how many of them there are in Congress) whose general population seems to be totally indifferent to the fact that their elected representatives act in a completely illegal manner".

    The main purpose of lawyers is not to enforce the law, but to find ways around it for those wealthy and unscrupulous enough to enlist their services.

    So it turns out that lawyers are precisely the people to choose if you want to be effectively free from all laws and restraints. Not only can they find loopholes in all laws; they don't have much use for, or interest in, customs and morals.

    Years ago I was relaxing, watching a cricket match on TV. The commentator was the great John Arlott, who not only knew everything about the game and players, but never failed to come up with interesting and amusing things to talk about in the intervals between active play.

    At the end of an over, while the fielders were moving to their new positions, the camera panned across the background scenery and zoomed in on a church whose spire had a most curious curve.

    "That's one of the most fascinating local landmarks," related Arlott in his gravelly Hampshire tones. "They say the spire used to be perfectly straight like any other church's. Then one day an honest lawyer went into the church – and it's been like that ever since".

    [Apr 12, 2017] Trump told Xi of Syria strikes over beautiful piece of chocolate cake

    China politically is major beneficiary of Trump Syria strike. Trump now has a monkey on his neck and need to sort our problems with Russians and well as the feeling of betrayal of his own electorate. For the first time since beginning of his presidency impeachment became a political reality for him. although noe Decocrats has less incentive to pursue this pass as he surrendered to neocons. It also drive the wedge between Putin and Trump and lessen change that Trump manage to lure Russia into position opposing China political and economic interests and to undermine the fledging alliance between two nations with some kind of "carrost and sticks" diplomacy. Of which the USA is a proven master, which fooled Russian leaders not once and even not two times.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Bill Bishop, a Washington-based China expert who tracks the country's political scene on his Sinocism newsletter, said Beijing would not have welcomed Trump's decision to break the news over dessert. ..."
    "... The Chinese generally hate those kinds of surprises. The Chinese would have preferred it hadn't happened while they were in the US. Clearly it overshadowed the summit ..."
    "... Beijing would also commemorate how the Syria strikes had driven a wedge between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... "It's an unsolvable problem. If the US gets sucked into another conflict in the Middle East, it is less likely that the US is going to be focused or have the capacity to really pressure China on certain issues." ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    ..."I was sitting at the table. We had finished dinner. We are now having dessert. And we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you have ever seen. And President Xi was enjoying it," Trump said.

    "And I was given the message from the generals that the ships are locked and loaded. What do you do? And we made a determination to do it. So the missiles were on the way.

    "And I said: 'Mr President, let me explain something to you we've just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq [sic] heading toward Syria and I want you to know that.'

    "I didn't want him to go home and then they say: 'You know the guy you just had dinner with just attacked [Syria].'"

    Asked how the leader of China, which alongside Russia has repeatedly blocked UN resolutions targeting the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, had reacted, Trump said: "He paused for 10 seconds and then he asked the interpreter to please say it again – I didn't think that was a good sign."

    "And he said to me, anybody that uses gases – you could almost say, or anything else – but anybody that was so brutal and uses gases to do that to young children and babies, it's OK. He was OK with it. He was OK."

    ... ... ...

    All mention of the US strikes on Syria was relegated from the front pages of state-run newspapers in a bid to prevent Trump's dramatic military intervention overshadowing Xi's visit.

    Bill Bishop, a Washington-based China expert who tracks the country's political scene on his Sinocism newsletter, said Beijing would not have welcomed Trump's decision to break the news over dessert.

    " The Chinese generally hate those kinds of surprises. The Chinese would have preferred it hadn't happened while they were in the US. Clearly it overshadowed the summit ," he said.

    But Bishop said Beijing had still managed to capitalise on the Mar-a-Lago meeting by spinning Xi as "Trump's equal" in China's domestic media. Beijing would also commemorate how the Syria strikes had driven a wedge between Trump and Russian president Vladimir Putin.

    ... ... ..

    "It's an unsolvable problem. If the US gets sucked into another conflict in the Middle East, it is less likely that the US is going to be focused or have the capacity to really pressure China on certain issues."

    [Apr 12, 2017] One expects incredible, surreal vicious stupidity from American politicians and EU as spineless vassals

    Notable quotes:
    "... One expects incredible, surreal vicious stupidity from many American politicians. But bewilderingly pathetic were the reaction of various 'prominent' political figures outside of the United States, who without bothering to determine the actual facts of the matter pertaining to the probable false flag so-called chemical warfare event, cheered on Trump's mediocre performance 'supreme crime' missile attack. What are these people drinking? It's as though they have no brain or heart. ..."
    "... I had come to the conclusion over the weekend that China was the key to peace in Syria. (or at least the halt of US aggression) A trip wire force there would completely alter the political landscape in Syria for the better. There is no way that the US would risk facing China, Russia and Iran simultaneously. ..."
    "... The Chinese have trained up an elite force of 300,000 men that are fully modernized and, one would presume, is capable, but their role is to protect China proper, not overseas adventures. ..."
    "... Chinese ISIS affiliated muslim Uyghur terrorists from the far western Xinjiang province, a key New Silk Road/OBOR node, are fighting alongside ISIS inside Syria ..."
    "... You think the Chinese do not know that the same ISIS is a CIA construct designed to thwart that very Russian/Chinese strategic cooperation? You are hopelessly ill-informed if you don't realise that as a result thereof, the Chinese are ALREADY assisting Russia, Syria and Iran in Syria against ISIS. ..."
    "... "Do you think China will just sit back and wait for these terrorists to go back home and cause havoc [?]" ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad." Should the madness proceed, the destruction will be global. In the age of nuclear weapons, and their adjunct, several hundred nuclear power plants, there is potential for an 'extinction level event' scale of collateral damage.

    One expects incredible, surreal vicious stupidity from many American politicians. But bewilderingly pathetic were the reaction of various 'prominent' political figures outside of the United States, who without bothering to determine the actual facts of the matter pertaining to the probable false flag so-called chemical warfare event, cheered on Trump's mediocre performance 'supreme crime' missile attack. What are these people drinking? It's as though they have no brain or heart.

    nice try on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:53 pm UTC
    @ canuck: Don't be so hasty to point at only the US gov't and EU as spineless vassals our Selfie Prince Trudeau has bought the "Assad did it" hook, line and sinker.

    Plus he perpetuates Harpo the Clown's support of the Crimea annexation myth, and listens to that generational Ukie-neo-Nazi Freeland in cabinet.
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/

    Canada's leadership has gone from allowing economic/military subjugation (AVRO Arrow, branch-plant economy, NAFTA) to boot-licking lackeys.

    canuck on April 11, 2017 , · at 9:00 pm UTC
    Not quite a nice try. Maybe too hasty? Couldn't agree with you more re Trudeau's pathetic performances and Canada's lackey (rabid chihuahua?) role.

    But where did I mention Europe?? Canada, is at least on the map, 'outside of the United States. So is Australia.

    MikeH on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:56 am UTC
    I had come to the conclusion over the weekend that China was the key to peace in Syria. (or at least the halt of US aggression) A trip wire force there would completely alter the political landscape in Syria for the better. There is no way that the US would risk facing China, Russia and Iran simultaneously.

    I hope Xi acts appropriately and recognizes this. It really is in his hands.

    TYS on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:28 am UTC
    @MikeH

    I'm making a straight out prediction: Xi will not provide any direct military support to Syria. No military intervention. Syria is too far away, their is no immediate and direct threat to China in that theater and the bulk of China's military is too primitive and lacking in long range logistics to be anything but a liability: The Chinese have trained up an elite force of 300,000 men that are fully modernized and, one would presume, is capable, but their role is to protect China proper, not overseas adventures.

    I hope you are right and I am wrong, but I can't see it happening.

    Scanfish on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:08 pm UTC
    Chinese ISIS affiliated muslim Uyghur terrorists from the far western Xinjiang province, a key New Silk Road/OBOR node, are fighting alongside ISIS inside Syria. Do you think China will just sit back and wait for these terrorists to go back home and cause havoc to a strategic economic initiative designed to wean China/Russia and their allies away from the US controlled international trade/finance system, a system that largely benefits the west at the expense of everyone else outside the west?

    You think the Chinese do not know that the same ISIS is a CIA construct designed to thwart that very Russian/Chinese strategic cooperation? You are hopelessly ill-informed if you don't realise that as a result thereof, the Chinese are ALREADY assisting Russia, Syria and Iran in Syria against ISIS.

    TYS on April 12, 2017 , · at 2:11 am UTC
    @Scanfish

    To the answer to your following question:
    "Do you think China will just sit back and wait for these terrorists to go back home and cause havoc [?]"

    Ans: Yes I do.

    It is you who is hopeless misinformed about China. I, having lived and worked their and being from the region seem to have more insight than you. Now can we dispense with the emotional outbursts and ad hominem attacks and stick to some pertinent facts:

    Are you aware that Uygur terrorists operate freely in Northern Pakistan and certain central Asian republics and Malaysia (right in China's backyard and sphere of influence) and that China can do nothing about it other than to wait for them to return and then kill them? Apparently you are not aware of this.

    China is not going waste it's time and money sending its ill-trained and equipped troops over to Syria just to crush a few Uighur terrorist cockroaches. That's not the mindset of Asians, the Chinese mindset, one this issue, is much closer to that of Indians and Russians and not that of pampered zero-risk conditioned masses of the West. Over reacting to terrorist incidents may be the mindset of overly sensitive and fragile eye for an eye Israelis, but it is not how to deal with terrorists. Terrorism feeds on overreaction and emotionalism leading to wasted resources and psychological exhaustion. The worst thing you can do to a terrorist movement is scale your responses down , proportionate to the damage they can actually do: this obliterates their strategy and dooms them to exhaustion and defeat.

    kev on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:50 am UTC
    Yes China is the key, but they will betray us. Threatening Korea is a warning to China to stay out but China wasn't interested anyway.

    Its own media reports Syria from an American point of view with little recognition of Russia and no airtime at all for the Syrian government. I have seen Chinese TV refer to Russian aggression and even introduce experts from the Brookings institute seriously, I'm not making this stuff up.

    They care about the China sea and are programed to hate Japan but beyond that the Chinese government only care about Chinese 'Stability" and money for themselves.

    Lee Francis on April 11, 2017 , · at 1:12 pm UTC
    "Yes China is the key, but they will betray us."

    China cannot afford to sit on the sidelines and, 'betray us' it will be (has been) forced by the US into a growing confrontation in the South China Sea and now Korea. If it doesn't want to surrender to the US it will perforce have to be part of an alliance with Russia, Iran, and North Korea. It is certain that they chinese military strategists know this, but they are keeping the cards close to their chests at this particular juncture. These nations will need to hang together or hang separately.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:30 pm UTC
    Chinese TV state all views on world events, include the West, especially at beginning.

    I am sure When Putin went to Syria, he did not, or should not count on China to rescue him some day. What he was able to count on is will be peace at border with China.

    Russia has a fighting culture. It is Russian tradition to get into fight, and without mercy.

    Chinese culture is for peace, harmony, and prosperity. Chinese do not go out fight, but will fight defend her borders.

    It is unrealistic expect Russian act like Chinese. Otherwise, China would have had a lot of her northern coast.

    There is no reason to expect Chinese will fight a war far way for some one else. If Russian think China will give up her millenniums old doctrine for sake of Russia, that is not be realistic.

    I think Russians should be grateful for peace at Chinese border even after centuries invasions and pointed policy of ethic cleaning of Chinese of her own land.

    By the way, China do not hate Japan if we do not even hate Russia.

    Bottom line is,
    1. Chinese are not blind to what really happened in the world, including what happens last week in Syria.
    2. Chinese appreciate the 5 years of peace and harmony with Russia
    3. In history, Russia was as a big enemy as the west if not bigger.
    4. There has been no remorse show from Russia Government or the people about your fighting actions inflict on China, or any of your neighbor in fact.
    5. Why a smart man like Putin want to depend on others to rescue him for his own country's security?

    nice try on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:26 pm UTC
    It may be that Russia and China think a viable strategy is to play on the US's arrogant self-image as the "world's policeman". Engaging the US in many opponents' "backyards" worldwide will spread even the largest military in the world very thin. Maintaining the security/viability of the 1,000 foreign US-bases will be difficult in a purely military sense, let alone the hatred begat of the decades of US-military-personnel's literally rapacious behaviour on the surrounding populace. Even in "safe" Europe.

    So it is probably not China's role to directly engage in Syria, the better to ensure the US faces all of China's resources in the Far East and the Indian sub-continent. India and Pakistan may be playing both ends against the middle now, but they should have no illusions that backing the Zionist/US in such close proximity to China is a good long-term plan.

    The longer Russia and China keep the US scurrying around making ineffective grandstanding pin-prick provocations, the less effective the US political position becomes with other countries. Only the most committed vassals will send military if the US starts a conventional war, and not in great numbers. For example, 60,000 total Canadian regular/reserves will make zero difference "helping" the US's 2million active/reserve total. Besides, the Canadian military can't keep recruitment levels up to make up for those retiring, resigning, injured. I guess the myth of Cdn forces as "peacekeepers" is finally dead.

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/canadian-military-facing-shortfall-of-personnel

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:16 pm UTC
    Nice Try,
    IMHO, a proxy war in a third country is amoral and does not serve interest of China. In case of North Korea and Pakistan, their enemies are happened to vocally declare China as enemy as well. They are Chinese neighbors, support them is same as defend ourselves.

    However, What China can do is to help Russia besides economically: http://china.org.cn/business/2017-04/09/content_40586054.htm , maybe do some saber rattling in South China Sea, east China sea, or in Korean peninsula, with Mr. Kim V3's cooperation of cause to divert US's attention from ME. There is not going to be overt action from China.

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:07 pm UTC
    "By the way, China do not hate Japan if we do not even hate Russia."

    I find it interesting that you say it that way. Russia annexed some small (for the area) almost empty territory "claimed" by China. But only claimed by China because the Manchu Dynasty ruled China at that time.Without the Manchu claim to that territory China wouldn't have had any claim to it.It had never been ruled (as in settled by) ethnic Chinese Dynasties before. And then Russia freed Manchuria from the Japanese in WWII.Returning it all to China. While on the other hand Japan actually attacked China several times and in war took over Chinese territory. Slaughtered millions of Chinese during WWII.And looted and pillaged the country. For which ,unlike the USSR that gave China aid,has never paid reparations for.And yet you seem to conflate the two countries as equally old enemies.I don't see that at all.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:19 pm UTC
    Too bad Bob. Chinese do not hate Japan. And again, "China do not hate Japan if we do not even hate Russia."

    Qing was a Chinese dynasty, rule by same Confucius doctrine as it is today. Had Qing at the time still act like Manchus, Russia would have not get away with such big piece of land, sparsely populated or not.

    If the land is so unimportant, why was Russian want it at first place? Why had Russian not return it as it is obviously over its head trying to administering it?

    Sorry bob, It is time for you to channel America, India, ISIS for Tibet and Xinjing. Historical facts be damned.

    Китайский дурак on April 11, 2017 , · at 2:46 pm UTC
    Looks like you are the one and only commentator here who understands the 1+1=0 which lies at the fundation of the China puzzle. One would suppose that you are a Russian student in BJ or SH, with some minimal knowledge of Chinese language, as well as the dominating mentality of the nation as it manifests now?

    I wanted to say something about Saker's projection on China's entrance into global geopolitics. After reading all the posts I understood that it's pointless. The only dim hope I have is that Putin and Lavrov understand something about the US-China-Russia triangle, which overseas lover of Russia like the Great Saker himself does not.

    J on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:32 pm UTC
    Superficial knowledge of China many can claim.

    The fact is Chinese do not go out to fight a war. Let along for someone else.

    When Russian marching east wards taking Chinese land, kicking Chinese off her land, Chinese government treated to save lives of her soldiers and concentrate on protecting populated area, Why did Russian not think about some day, they could fall into same predicament?

    No, Chinese has no interest in Middle east. China did not join Korea fight until US was bombing Chinese villages by Yalu.

    Chinese government doctrine is be strong, and win without a war. There is not going to be a war if the war is not at bordering countries that aim at China.

    Chinese government's responsibility is maintain peace and harmony for its own people and at borders.

    Chinese bordering some 14 countries, some of them are big pain on the rear. There is no reason to take eye off ball.

    If all those hurt Russian feelings, then too bad. Our feeling has been hurt for over 3 hundred years, and I do not see any Russian ever give a dime.

    Uncle Bob 1 on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:11 pm UTC
    I saw them giving a "dam" in 1945. And also during the Korean War. With thinking like what you say,maybe that was a mistake on Russia's part.
    WizOz on April 12, 2017 , · at 1:34 am UTC
    One may wonder why the word is out in some Chinese twits accusing Russia that she did not jump to support China in her confrontation with USA over the South China Sea?
    But Russia militates for a 'multipolar' world and non-interference in other people yards. Of course when your neighbour house is in flames and the fire threatens your own house, you will help him to extinguish the fire, disregarding the fact that he might have once moved the fence into your own yard to pinch a slice of land.
    J on April 12, 2017 , · at 2:12 am UTC
    First of all, Russia's house is not inflame. second, To China, It only matters if the far east part of Russian house is in flame from outsiders who is also hostile to China. Chinese do not take sides in civil war, or score settling fight. Third, any Chinese expecting Russian to come to rescue at SCS is not being realistic.

    As Russian exercised in SCS, Chinese also exercised in Mediterranean with Russian.

    TYS on April 12, 2017 , · at 3:18 am UTC
    @kev

    That's exactly right. Chinese media has reported events just as you said parroting the Western narrative. Anyone denying this or trying to make excuses is going to look like an sycophantic idiot.

    China has it's own agenda, it doesn't really (deep inside) support a multipolar world, it has pretensions of trying to replace the US as the next apex power. Certain factions of their leadership see China as the only peer to the US, all other power centers (Russia, India, EU) are to be junior partners to China. This world view of a Chinese Imperial center with only vassal states and lesser empires in the periphery is nothing new to Chinese leadership, it's their default template.

    Nobody trusts China, including Russia, which is why Russia continues to arm China's most prominent and militarily dangerous enemies: India and Vietnam. Russia hedging its bets? In contrast, people and nations do trust Russia, why is that? The answer is obvious.

    farmerbraun on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:10 am UTC
    One minor correction needed.
    "The Neocons totally submitted him ( Trump) . . ."

    Subsumed , maybe. Or forced him into submission. Neutered.Emasculated.

    [Apr 12, 2017] China needs to do more that behave as a smiling Buddha

    Notable quotes:
    "... China holds huge investments in dollars, anything that jeopardizes the dollar's buying power damages China too (do you really think the Chinese want to see their hard earned $3Trillion-4Trillion (among other US denominated assets) to no longer be exchangeable for US/Western/International technology, Corporations, hard assets, Utilities, etc. The Chinese are in a bind. They have near term crises to manage. Expecting moral, principled or even long term pragmatic behavior out of them is pointless. ..."
    "... Also putting any faith in a Deep State approved resource like a Tulsi Gabbard, who gets mysteriously easy prime time access to CNN and MSNBC, is like forgetting that Obama came out of the same US security state casting pool and forgetting the danger of putting faith in any American politician t hat seems to talk sense and peace ..."
    "... Many do not realize that China's economic leverage over the USA is a financial version of mutually-assured destruction and China will try just about anything before resorting to crashing the USD. ..."
    "... it was pointless to expect "long term pragmatism" from China. What I meant to say is: it's pointless to expect China to take difficult but necessary steps that will benefit them in the long term, just look at their track record: ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Saker you said it yourself, you don't understand economics, your statement that China can really hurt the US economically, proves it. China can do nothing to the US economically without damaging itself even more. The rest is wishful thinking.

    You correctly pointed out that China needs to do more that behave as a smiling Buddha. Yes precisely. So why haven't they? How many years has it been that China has done nothing other that lend support to Russia's veto? Your theory is not going to survive the test of time, you do not understand the mindset of the Chinese leadership and it seems like you don't understand their economic limitations, vulnerabilities and compulsions.

    China holds huge investments in dollars, anything that jeopardizes the dollar's buying power damages China too (do you really think the Chinese want to see their hard earned $3Trillion-4Trillion (among other US denominated assets) to no longer be exchangeable for US/Western/International technology, Corporations, hard assets, Utilities, etc. The Chinese are in a bind. They have near term crises to manage. Expecting moral, principled or even long term pragmatic behavior out of them is pointless.

    Also putting any faith in a Deep State approved resource like a Tulsi Gabbard, who gets mysteriously easy prime time access to CNN and MSNBC, is like forgetting that Obama came out of the same US security state casting pool and forgetting the danger of putting faith in any American politician t hat seems to talk sense and peace (have you forgotten how sweet and logical Trump's Russia position was during the campaign?). In my opinion, the US has lost its opportunity for a soft landing, the whole world is in for a bumpy ride as both US and EU decline.

    JS on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:04 am UTC
    I believe that you are correct. Many do not realize that China's economic leverage over the USA is a financial version of mutually-assured destruction and China will try just about anything before resorting to crashing the USD.
    TYS on April 11, 2017 , · at 5:03 am UTC
    @JS

    Thanks JS, I'm glad that you have avoided group think too (like me). China is racing against the clock to Manage several crises.

    By the way when I wrote the above posting, I typo'd and wrote that I thought it was pointless to expect "long term pragmatism" from China. What I meant to say is: it's pointless to expect China to take difficult but necessary steps that will benefit them in the long term, just look at their track record:

    • They know they have a huge real estate bubble that will crash, but they have held back on doing anything.
    • They know they have a huge internal debt crisis and badly performing loans, yet continue with pumping loans out to SMEs at below market rates.
    • They did not take the painfull but courageous route but opted for continuing with short term firefighting and supporting the status quo because they are afraid of the Chinese public in that may start protesting. No long term thinking here.
    Laika von old Monkshusen on April 11, 2017 , · at 6:30 am UTC
    Mutually assured destruction? Maybe you two have no sense of economies whatsoever. Now whose high quality products uphold the whole China subsidized circus in the US? Who gets nothing in return? Of course is The Saker absolutely right about China.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Mattis US-Russia Tensions Wont Spiral Out of Control by Jason Ditz

    There were rumors that the USA military brass is less hawkish then neocon chickenhawks. After all they say death with their own eyes. But those rumors seems to be greatly exaggerated. People who rise to the level of the top level military brass those days are mostly unprincipled sycophants and careerists (or worse sociopaths) that might be even more dangerous the civial neocon chickenhawks.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Two weeks ago, the Kremlin expressed major concern about US-Russia relations, describing them as "maybe even worse" than they had been during the Cold War. Since that time, they've gotten dramatically worse, with US missile attacks on Syria fueling soaring acrimony. ..."
    "... "I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interests," Mattis insisted. Yet he also threatened further US strikes on Syria, and Russia has made clear in recent days that they would respond with force to any additional such US strikes. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    Mattis: US-Russia Tensions Won't Spiral Out of Control Insists Russia Won't Act Against Their 'Best Interests' , April 11, 2017

    Two weeks ago, the Kremlin expressed major concern about US-Russia relations, describing them as "maybe even worse" than they had been during the Cold War. Since that time, they've gotten dramatically worse, with US missile attacks on Syria fueling soaring acrimony.

    Secretary of Defense James Mattis sought to downplay the situation, however, saying that he was certain the situation "will not spiral out of control," a belief he appeared to rest on the idea that Russia wouldn't dare retaliate against further US attacks against Syria, as they have threatened to.

    "I'm confident the Russians will act in their own best interests," Mattis insisted. Yet he also threatened further US strikes on Syria, and Russia has made clear in recent days that they would respond with force to any additional such US strikes.

    [Apr 12, 2017] If Assad is removed, Iran is the next and then Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast. ..."
    "... So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk. ..."
    "... I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something! ..."
    "... Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. ..."
    "... So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. ..."
    "... The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not. ..."
    "... The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness. ..."
    "... This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations. ..."
    "... Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it. ..."
    "... Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is

    But the two countries which really need to step up to the plate are Russia and China. So far, it has been Russia who did all the hard work and, paradoxically, it has been Russia which has been the object of the dumbest and most ungrateful lack of gratitude (especially from armchair warriors). This needs to change. China has many more means to pressure the USA back into some semi-sane mental state than Russia. All Russia has are superb military capabilities. China, in contrast, has the ability to hurt the USA where it really matters: money. Russia is in a pickle: she cannot abandon Syria to the Takfiri crazies, but neither can she go to nuclear war with the USA over Syria. The problem is not Assad. The problem is that he is the only person capable, at least at this point in time, to protect Syria against Daesh.

    If Assad is removed, Syria falls and Iran is next. Russia absolutely cannot afford to have Iran destroyed by the Anglo-Zionists because after Iran, she will next. Everybody in Russia understands that. But, as I said, the problem with military responses is that they can lead to military escalations which then lead to wars which might turn nuclear very fast.

    So here is my central thesis: You don't want Russia to stop the USA by purely military means as this places the survival of of mankind at risk.

    I realize that for some this might be counter-intuitive, but remember that deterrences only works with rational actors . Russia has already done a lot, more than everybody else besides Iran. And if Russia is not the world's policeman, neither is she the world savior. The rest of mankind also needs to stop being a silent bystander and actually do something!

    Russia and China can stop the US, but they need to do that together. And for that, Xi needs to stop acting like a detached smiling little Buddha statue and speak up loud and clear. That is especially true since the Americans show even less fear of China than of Russia.

    [Sidebar: the Chinese military is still far behind the kind of capabilities Russia has, but the Chinese are catching up really, really fast. Just 30 years ago the Chinese military used to be outdated and primitive. This is not the case today. The Chinese have done some tremendous progress in a record time and their military is now a totally different beast than what it used to be.

    I have no doubt at all that the US cannot win a war with China either, especially not anywhere near the Chinese mainland. Furthermore, I expect the Chinese to go full steam ahead with a very energetic military modernization program which will allow them to close the gap with the USA and Russia in record time.

    So any notions of the USA using force against China, be it over Taiwan or the DPRK, is an absolutely terrible idea, sheer madness. However, and maybe because the Americans believe their own propaganda, it seems to me like the folks in DC think that we are in the 1950s or 1960 and that they can terrify the "Chinese communist peasants" with their carrier battle groups.

    What the fail to realize is that with every nautical mile the US carriers make towards China, the bigger and easier target they make for a military which has specialized in US carrier destruction operatons. The Americans ought to ask themselves a simple question: what will they do if the Chinese either sink or severely damage one (or several) US Navy carriers?

    Go to nuclear war with a nuclear China well capable of turning many US cities into nuclear wastelands? Really? You would trade New York or San Francisco for the Carl Vinson Strike Group? Think again.]

    So far China has been supporting Russia, but only from behind. This is very nice and very prudent, but Russia is rapidly running out of resources. If there was a sane man in the White House, one who would never ever do something which might result in war with Russia, that would not be a problem. Alas, just like Obama before him, Trump seems to think that he can win a game of nuclear chicken against Russia. But he can't. Let me be clear he: if pushed into a corner the Russian will fight, even if that means nuclear war. I have said this over and over again, there are two differences between the Americans and the Russians

    The Russians are afraid of war. The Americans are not. The Russians are ready for war. The Americans are not.

    The problem is that every sign of Russian caution and every Russian attempt to de-escalate the situation (be it in the Ukraine, with Turkey or in Syria) has always been interpreted by the West as a sign of weakness.

    This is what happens when there is a clash between a culture which places a premium on boasting and threatening and one which believes in diplomacy and negotiations.

    [Sidebar. The profound cultural differences between the USA and Russia are perfectly illustrated with the polar difference the two countries have towards their most advanced weapons systems. As soon as the Americans declassify one of their weapon systems they engage into a huge marketing campaign to describe it as the "bestest of the bestest" "in the world" (always, "in the world" as if somebody bothered to research this or even compare). They explain at length how awesome their technology is and how invincible it makes them. The perfect illustration is all the (now, in retrospect, rather ridiculous) propaganda about stealth and stealth aircraft. The Russians do the exact opposite. First, they try to classify it all. But then, when eventually they declassify a weapons system, they strenuously under-report its real capabilities even when it is quite clear that the entire planet already knows the truth!

    There have been any instances when Soviet disarmament negotiators knew less about the real Soviet capabilities than their American counterparts!

    Finally, when the Russian export their weapons systems, they always strongly degrade the export model, at least that was the model until the Russians sold the SU-30MKI to India which included thrust vectoring while the Russian SU-30 only acquired later with the SU-30SM model, so this might be changing.

    Ask yourself: did you ever hear about the Russian Kalibr cruise missile before their first use in Syria? Or did you know that Russia has had nuclear underwater missiles since the late 1970 s capable of "flying under water" as speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour?]

    Russia is in a very difficult situation and a very bad one. And she is very much alone. European are cowards. Latin Americans have more courage, but no means to put pressure on the USA. India hopes to play both sides. Japan and the ROK are US colonies. Australia and New Zealand belong to the ECHELON / FIVE EYES gang. Russia has plenty of friends in Africa, but they more or less all live under the American/French boot. Iran has already sacrificed more than any other country and taken the biggest risks. It would be totally unfair to ask the Iranians to do more. The only actor out there who can do something in China. If there is any hopes to avoid four more years of "Obama-style nightmare" it is for China to step in and tell the US to cool it.

    In the meantime Russia will walk a very fine like between various bad options. Her best hope, and the best hope of the rest of mankind, is that the US elites become so involved into fighting each other that this will leave very little time to do any foreign policy. Alas, it appears that Trump has "figured out" that one way to be smart (or so he thinks) in internal politics is to do something dumb in external politics (like attack Syria). That won't work.

    Maybe an impeachment of Trump could prove to be a blessing in disguise. If Mike Pence becomes President, he and his Neocons will have total power again and they won't have to prove that they are tough by doing stupid and dangerous things? Could President Pence be better than President Trump? I am afraid that it might. Especially if that triggers a deep internal crisis inside the USA.

    [Apr 12, 2017] As in Romes latter stages, the ruling class is dominated by sociopaths.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The people in America generally don't see this whether the reason is apathy, denial, or simply exposure to years of propaganda. ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | thesaker.is
    The technical analysis was great, but it's the psychological analysis which explains the danger the world faces. As in Rome's latter stages, the ruling class is dominated by sociopaths. I have the feeling that many in power have the mindset they will either control the world or destroy it rather than compromise.

    The people in America generally don't see this whether the reason is apathy, denial, or simply exposure to years of propaganda.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Trump was neutered, emasculated

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    One minor correction needed.
    "The Neocons totally submitted him ( Trump) . . ."

    Subsumed , maybe. Or forced him into submission. Neutered.Emasculated.

    White whale on April 11, 2017 , · at 3:45 am UTC
    Or JFK'd (without the bullet)
    farmerbraun on April 11, 2017 , · at 4:53 am UTC
    Shall we say . . . subverted?

    [Apr 12, 2017] Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bolivia: a profile in courage ..."
    "... Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that? Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well. ..."
    "... Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO) https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/ ..."
    "... Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington. ..."
    "... Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread fake news. Like a pack of hyenas. ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    Some countries, however, are showing an absolutely amazing level of courage. Look at what the Bolivian representative at the UNSC dared to do:

    Bolivia: a profile in courage

    And what a shame for Europe: a small and poor country like Bolivia showed more dignity that the entire European continent. No wonder the Russians have no respect for the EU whatsoever.

    What Bolivia did is both beautiful and noble.

    Anonymous on April 11, 2017 , · at 10:21 am UTC
    Your long explanation of current reality in Europe, which seemingly contradicts Saker's sentence you quoted, says exactly the same. There is no dignity. What you listed are excuses. None of the European countries condemned the obvious aggression on Syria in UN. Where is dignity in that? Nowhere and is it a shame. I am from EU and I find the EU's position shameful as well.

    Bolivia clearly condemned the strikes. Speaking at the emergency meeting to discuss the United States' missile strikes against Syria on Thursday, Bolivian Ambassador to the United Nations, Sacha Llorenti, criticized the Trump's decision to take unilateral action against Syria, which he described as being "an extremely serious violation of international law."

    Bolivia mercilessly trolls US over Iraq WMD lie in front of UN Security Council (VIDEO)
    https://www.rt.com/viral/383979-bolivia-un-syria-us-wmd/

    Melotte 22 on April 11, 2017 , · at 11:35 am UTC
    Exactly rigth, well said. There is nothing to admire about EU, but plenty to despise. From its Russophobic mentality to spineless following of orders from their masters in Washington.

    Not a single one of these puppets have criticised obvious crime of aggression by US against sovereign state of Syria. Not a single one. But they all bark at Russia and follow lies and spread fake news. Like a pack of hyenas.

    [Apr 12, 2017] US Threatens Further Attacks on Syria

    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    US Threatens Further Attacks on Syria
    Despite Threats, Mattis Insists US Policy 'Unchanged'

    by Jason Ditz, April 11, 2017

    Print This | Share This


    With the region still reeling after last week's US missile attacks on Syria, top administration officials continue to threaten further attacks against the Syrian military, with the White House saying President Trump retains the option to attack Syria whenever he thinks it's "in the national interest."

    Defense Secretary James Mattis concurred, adding that any use of chemical weapons would draw US attacks against the Syrian government. The US claimed last week's attacks were a response to an accused Syrian "gas attack" against rebel-held Idlib.

    Since then, US officials have repeatedly talked up thew idea of further missile attacks against Syria, though at the same thing Mattis once again insisted today that US military policy in Syria is totally unchanged in the wake of the attacks.

    That's demonstrably untrue, of course, as Pentagon officials have confirmed changes inside Syria designed to protect US ground troops from potential retaliation, and have confirmed that US airstrikes against ISIS targets have decreased significantly since the attack, again fearing Syrian air defense will target the US warplanes as potential hostiles.

    Officials have sent conflicting messages on their exact position on Syria since then, insisting that ISIS remains their "priority," but continuing to pick fights with the Syrian government, and needle Russia in such a way as to greatly diminish the US ability to operate against ISIS.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Trump said that Russia had likely known in advance of the Syrian government's plan to unleash a nerve agent against its own people

    Apr 12, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    In an interview that aired on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that Mr. Putin was partly to blame for the conflict in Syria and denounced him for backing President Bashar al-Assad, whom he called an "animal." Later at the White House, Mr. Trump said that Russia had likely known in advance of the Syrian government's plan to unleash a nerve agent against its own people, and asserted that the United States' relations with Moscow were at an "all-time low."

    ... ... ...

    Further punctuating the Syria dispute, Russia on Wednesday vetoed a Western-backed resolution at the United Nations Security Council that condemned the chemical weapons attack.

    ... But in a possible sign of Russia's isolation on the chemical weapons issue, China, the permanent member that usually votes with Russia on Syria resolutions, abstained.

    The vote came the day after Mr. Trump spoke by phone to President Xi Jinping of China, whom he hosted last week at a summit at his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Palm Beach, Fla. White House officials said they credited the relationship between the two leaders that was forged during the visit, and the conversation Tuesday evening, with helping to influence China's vote

    ... ... ....

    "I really think there's going to be a lot of pressure on Russia to make sure that peace happens, because frankly, if Russia didn't go in and back this animal, we wouldn't have a problem right now," Mr. Trump said in an interview with Fox Business Network, referring to Mr. Assad. "Putin is backing a person that's truly an evil person, and I think it's very bad for Russia. I think it's very bad for mankind. It's very bad for this world."

    Later, after a meeting at the White House with Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, Mr. Trump went out of his way to praise the military institution, which he called a "great alliance," and to express disappointment with Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Amid the rift with Russia, Mr. Trump made a striking reversal on NATO, saying the alliance had transformed into an effective one since he took office.

    "I said it was obsolete; it's no longer obsolete," Mr. Trump said, standing beside Mr. Stoltenberg.

    Mr. Trump attributed his change of heart to unspecified transformations within NATO, which he said were a direct response to criticism he had leveled that the alliance was not doing enough to combat terrorism.

    ... Trump administration had supported the admission of Montenegro into NATO this week, in part to counter the influence of Russia in the small Balkan nation. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the official cited "credible reports" that Moscow had backed a plot for a violent Election Day attack there last fall.

    Mr. Trump on Tuesday signed the paperwork allowing Montenegro to enter NATO, two weeks after the Senate approved the move in a March 28 vote.


    [Apr 12, 2017] Behind Trumps Syria Turnabout by Justin Raimondo

    Apr 12, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Trump came into office touting his "America First agenda," disdaining NATO, and asking "Why is it a bad thing to get along with Russia?" He told us he abjured "regime change" and held up Libya as an example of bad policy. Now he's turned on a dime, bombing Syria, and welcoming tiny (and troubled) Montenegro into NATO. His intelligence agencies are even accusing Russia of having advance knowledge of the alleged chemical attack in Syria (although the White House disputed that after it got out). And all this in the first one hundred days!

    How did this happen? It's easy to explain, once you understand that there is no such thing as foreign policy: all policy is domestic.

    That's the core principle at the heart of what I call "libertarian realism," the overarching theory – if such a grandiose term can be applied to what is simply common sense – that explains what is happening on the world stage at any particular moment. And there is no better confirmation of this principle than the recent statement by Eric Trump, the President's son, who said: "If there was anything that Syria [strike] did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie."

    Oh yes, and Ivanka was "heartbroken" – and so it was incumbent upon the President to change course, break a major campaign promise, and declare via his Secretary of State that " Assad must go ."

    Got it.

    Trump's Syrian turnabout is clearly a response to the coordinated attack launched on his presidency by the combined efforts of the Deep State, the media, the Democrats, and the McCain-Graham-neocon wing of the GOP – a campaign that still might destroy him, despite his capitulation to the War Party.

    Vladimir Putin has likened the current Syria imbroglio to what happened in Iraq, with claims of "weapons of mass destruction" and a war fought on the basis of false intelligence, but there is one major difference: this time, the bombing came first, with the "evidence" an afterthought. You'll recall that in the run up to the invasion of Iraq there was an extended and quite elaborate propaganda campaign designed to make the case for war. Now, however, that process has been reversed: bombing first, "evidence" later.

    Speaking of which, Bloomberg national security reporter Eli Lake tells us that the US is about to release a "dossier" explaining the rationale for the Syria strike: it is "short on specific intelligence" but long on "its refutation of Russian disinformation." As in the case of the "Russian interference in the election" narrative, we'll doubtless be told that protecting "sources and methods" precludes us peons from seeing the actual "intelligence." Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die, as the old saw goes: but is that – not to mention the moral imperative of safeguarding Ivanka's fragile emotional state – really enough to justify a 180-degree shift in US foreign policy?

    The real significance of this "dossier" has little to do with justifying the Syria strike insofar as actual evidence of Assad's alleged crime is concerned, and more with signaling to the heretofore hostile "intelligence community' and political actors in the US that the days of President Trump trying to achieve détente with Russia are over. As Lake points out:

    "But it is really the report's condemnation of the Russian response that is most striking. Trump has sought to reset the relationship with Moscow, as President Barack Obama hoped to do in 2009 and 2010. Now, one U.S. official tells me, Russian officials in phone calls with their Trump administration counterparts repeated in private the same propaganda lines their government was issuing in public. 'That has led to a lot of frustration at the highest levels of the government,' this official said."

    Translation: Forget getting along with Russia – just call off your bloodhounds.

    We now have Putin warning that more "provocations" are in store, with some pretty specific details supplied. It wouldn't surprise me in the least, but we'll have to wait and see if that pans out. In the meantime, however, three factors are percolating in the mix:

    1. Our spooks, not content with having turned the Trump administration around on Syria policy, won't let up on the alleged "Russian foreknowledge" angle. These guys mean business.
    2. The previously stalled effort to overthrow Assad by funding and arming the Islamist savages championed by McCain, Graham, & Co. will recommence, with some success, and
    3. The campaign to smear Trump as a Kremlin tool will continue, unabated, with both the House and Senate investigations barreling full speed ahead, with plenty of help from the "former intelligence officials." They aren't about to let Trump off the hook quite so easily.

    What all this shows is how far removed the making of US foreign policy is from actual facts on the ground, and the rational calculation of American interests. What it all comes back to is how it serves the political interests of those in power – and those who aspire after power. Facts have nothing to do with it except insofar as they can be manipulated – or created – so as to fit a preexisting agenda.

    There are very few good arguments for striking out at the Syrian government. One of the pseudo-credible ones is that the use of sarin and other similar weapons, if allowed to go unpunished, would hurt our legitimate interests, since their use would then become pandemic. The riposte is that anyone who would even consider using such weapons is not likely to be deterred by US retaliation, no matter how swift.

    In any case, this raises the question: did Bashar al-Assad drop sarin gas on a bunch of civilians at Idlib? Despite the rush to judgment, we don't know the answer to that question, but several factors make it unlikely. He was winning the civil war, and this, if you'll pardon the expression, seems like overkill. Furthermore, for years the Syrian rebels have been doing their damnedest to frame Assad for just such a heinous crime in order to provoke US intervention on their behalf, to little avail – until now. Their record speaks for itself.

    If indeed Assad is guilty, then it's conceivable – although I would disagree – that one could make an argument for a one-off warning strike. Yet that is not what we're seeing at all: already, Secretary of State Tillerson is echoing that old Obama-Clinton slogan, "Assad must go." This isn't a one-off: it's a complete reversal of what candidate Trump said he'd do once in office.

    As I said in my last column , the silver lining is that many of Trump's prominent supporters – and former supporters – are waking up to the importance of non-interventionism as one of the pillars of "Trump_vs_deep_state." Their former hero's betrayal is putting them on a learning curve – and the best of them will come out the other side with a new awareness of what "America First" really means.

    On the other hand, we are going to have to live with the consequences of this terrible turnabout – not all of which are readily apparent, and none of which redound to the benefit of the United States and its citizens.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Putin Trust With US Deteriorated After Trump Took Office

    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    In an interview today, Russian President Vladimir Putin reported that the level of trust with the United States on a day-to-day, working basis began getting worse after Trump took office. This is a surprise, as the Kremlin had welcomed Trump's election and was expressing high hopes for improved relations.

    Of course, those improved ties never came to pass, with the administration abandoning plans to ease sanctions on Russia shortly thereafter, and backed off more or less all the stated plans of shifting US policy in Syria toward a focus on ISIS, which culminated last week in the US attacking the Syrian government outright.

    While the Obama Administration of the last few years was every bit as hostile toward Russia as the Trump Administration is, they never presented themselves as anything but hostile. Putin's comments suggest Russia had high hopes for rapprochement with Trump, and the dramatic reverse by the new administration had badly eroded Russia's trust in anything they say.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Johnson stung over sanctions against Russia

    Apr 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 12, 2017 at 05:45 AM
    Johnson stung over sanctions against Russia

    Sam Coates, Deputy Political Editor | David Charter
    April 12 2017, 12:01am,
    The Times

    One senior Tory described the outcome of the G7 meeting in Italy as a humiliation for Boris Johnson and Britain

    Boris Johnson was left embarrassed last night after his demands for fresh sanctions against Russia over its backing for President Assad of Syria were publicly rebuffed by European allies.

    The final communiqué after a two-day meeting of G7 nations in Lucca, Italy, made no mention of the foreign secretary's proposal to isolate Vladimir Putin and impose sanctions on Russian military figures.

    Italy and France rejected Mr Johnson's position, and one senior Tory described the outcome as a humiliation for Britain.

    The comments came as Rex Tillerson, the US secretary of state, flew to Moscow to confront the Kremlin over its support for Assad after a gas attack last week that led the US to respond with missile strikes on a Syrian airbase.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/johnson-stung-over-sanctions-against-russia-s925bppx8

    [Apr 12, 2017] White House claims on Syria chemical attack 'obviously false' – MIT professor

    Notable quotes:
    "... "contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft," ..."
    "... "I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun," ..."
    "... "I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct," ..."
    "... "very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this attack and who conducted this attack itself," ..."
    "... "doubting the entire international reporting crew documenting this." ..."
    "... "a wide body of open-source material" ..."
    "... "social media accounts" ..."
    "... "Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real," ..."
    "... "No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it." ..."
    "... "the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides." ..."
    "... "We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report," ..."
    "... "What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true," ..."
    "... "and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security." ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.rt.com
    A professor who challenged the 2013 claims of a chemical attack in Syria is now questioning the Trump administration's narrative blaming the Assad government for the April 4 attack in the Idlib province town of Khan Shaykhun. On Tuesday, the White House released a declassified intelligence brief accusing Syrian President Bashar Assad of ordering and organizing the attack, in which Syrian planes allegedly dropped chemical ordnance on civilians in the rebel-held town.

    The report "contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft," wrote Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Professor Theodore Postol, who reviewed it and put together a 14-page assessment, which he provided to RT on Wednesday.

    Leading CW expert Theodor Postol of MIT just published a 14-page document questioning WH claims that Sarin was dropped from #Syrian AF plane pic.twitter.com/kMJgxwsN8Z

    - EHSANI2 (@EHSANI22) April 12, 2017

    "I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the US government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun," wrote Postol.

    A chemical attack with a nerve agent did occur, he said, but the available evidence does not support the US government's conclusions.

    Read more US accuses Moscow of 'sowing doubt' over narrative of Assad's culpability in chemical attack

    "I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct," Postol wrote.

    It is "very clear who planned this attack, who authorized this attack and who conducted this attack itself," Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon on Tuesday.

    Earlier in the day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer also said that doubting the evidence would be "doubting the entire international reporting crew documenting this."

    The report offered by the White House , however, cited "a wide body of open-source material" and "social media accounts" from the rebel-held area, including footage provided by the White Helmets rescue group documented to have ties with jihadist rebels, Western and Gulf Arab governments.

    Postol was not convinced by such evidence.

    "Any competent analyst would have had questions about whether the debris in the crater was staged or real," he wrote. "No competent analyst would miss the fact that the alleged sarin canister was forcefully crushed from above, rather than exploded by a munition within it."

    Instead, "the most plausible conclusion is that the sarin was dispensed by an improvised dispersal device made from a 122mm section of rocket tube filled with sarin and capped on both sides."

    "We again have a situation where the White House has issued an obviously false, misleading and amateurish intelligence report," he concluded, recalling the 2013 situation when the Obama administration claimed Assad had used chemical weapons against the rebels in Ghouta, near Damascus.

    "What the country is now being told by the White House cannot be true," Postol wrote, "and the fact that this information has been provided in this format raises the most serious questions about the handling of our national security."

    Report by White House Alleging Proof of Syria as the Perpetrator of the Nerve Agent Attack in Khan Shaykhun... by RT America on Scribd

    [Apr 12, 2017] Did Assad Really Use Sarin

    Notable quotes:
    "... is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected] ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org

    Almost immediately after video of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Idlib hit Western media, Assad was declared guilty by US news networks and political commentators. The front page of the New York Times on April 5 th showed a heartbreaking image of a child wounded in the alleged chemical attack with a headline claiming Assad was responsible.

    By the afternoon of April 7, a US attack seemed inevitable as both Rex Tillerson and Trump said action would be taken.

    Between Democrats and Republicans, a bipartisan consensus emerged, rare in the Trump presidency, whereby Assad was deemed guilty and Trump was goaded on to attack. The few voices of dissent seemed mostly concerned with the lack of constitutional approval for the strike

    The night of the strike, US media snapped into DPRK-style, state media mode. TV pundits fell into a trance while expressing the " beauty " of American power being unleashed on a country already destroyed by 6 years of war.

    Pundits described the attack as "surgical" despite the pentagon quietly admitting one of the missiles missed its target and they don't know where it landed. My questions to both CENTCOM and the Secretary of Defense Office on the missing cruise missile have thus far gone unanswered. However, Syrian sources claim civilians were killed in the missile strike.

    Trump justified the attack by invoking religiously themed buzzwords and unconvincing blather on the "beautiful babies" murdered in the chemical attack.

    Following the attack, Trump officials' statements indicated there was a shift towards regime change. UN ambassador Nikki Haley said Sunday that removing Assad is now a priority.

    The Neocon sharks have started circling too. Bill Kristol tweeted that these strikes should be used to move towards regime change in Iran. Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain have all joined in too, their mouths watering at the thought of ousting Assad.

    But was Assad really responsible for the attack?

    To ask such a question is to be deemed an "Assadist" by pundits and discourse police across the political spectrum.

    Neither the lack of an independent investigation, nor the fact that nearly all the information on the alleged attack has come from rebel sources, who stand to benefit from a US response, is deemed sufficient cause for skepticism.

    In a civilized society an actor is be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If guilt is determined, a legally justified course of action is taken. In the US however, if the accused is a US enemy, no evidence is needed, and even deranged conspiracies are given play in mainstream media coverage.

    The best recent example of this is the US media's conspiracy about Russia stealing the US election and working for Trump. The US media has stooped so low as to even push bizarre conspiracies by Louise Mensch . She recently claimed the 2014 uprising in Ferguson was a Russian plot.

    In the case of the alleged attack on Khan Sheikhun, US officials and pro-war experts immediately declared Assad's guilty and then cheered on an illegal use of force. This is all very reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq war.

    In an eerie coincidence, Michael R. Gordon, who with Judith Miller helped sell the Iraq WMD story to Americans, coauthored the New York Times April 4th article on Assad's alleged sarin attack at Khan Sheikhun.

    To help sell the sarin narrative, the US media brought on a doctor to describe the alleged attack that has been accused of helping kidnap journalists in his work with extremists.

    When the US investigated its own airstrike in Mosul this March, it took a number of days before it admitted it had killed hundreds of civilians. Yet, guilt was immediately assigned in the Khan Sheikhun attack.

    In 2013, the US media also rushed to the conclusion Assad used sarin in a horrific incident in Ghouta. The US was on the verge of attacking Assad then, but Obama decided against it. Obama claimed he held off because US intelligence voiced skepticism about Assad's guilt.

    The UN investigation on the Ghouta attack took almost a month and even its conclusions have been disputed.

    In December of 2013, Seymour Hersh published a lengthy investigation into the 2013 attack in Ghouta and found reason to doubt Assad's responsibility for attack. He was forced to publish it in the London Review of Books after the New York Times and the Washington Post refused to run it.

    He reported that classified US reports claimed that Syria's al Qaeda affiliate had "mastered the mechanics of creating sarin".

    A month after Hersh's piece appeared, a MIT study cast further doubt on the US government's story by demonstrating that the rockets used in the Ghouta attack couldn't have flown as far as the US government claimed.

    Ted Postol, one of the authors of the study said, "We were within a whisker of war based on egregious errors."

    In this latest alleged gas attack, a few individuals have dared question the state narrative.

    The journalist Robert Parry has recently claimed there is much to be made of the fact that Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director, wasn't among those helping sell this latest sarin story to the American people. He believes it indicates doubt in the CIA over Assad's involvement.

    Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, has raised skepticism over Assad's involvement. He says rebels have had chemical weapons facilities in Syria and some of the witnesses' statements describe a strong smell during the attack, which indicates something other than sarin was used.

    The Canadian government originally called for an investigation and stopped short of blaming Assad at the UN, but then later championed Trump's strikes.

    Groups like Organizations for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and Human Rights Watch are still investigating the alleged attack in Khan Sheikhun.

    Whether these groups or others will be able to conduct an independent investigation is not known. But in usual fashion, the US had no interest in investigating facts, which may provide the wrong answers.

    It's possible that Assad carried out the attack, but just because he's a reprehensible figure doesn't mean there is no need to present evidence and conduct an independent investigation.

    What's clear now is that the US attack benefitted jihadi groups, has made further US military action more likely, and has increased the chances of a direct military confrontation with Russia. All of these results are very dangerous.

    Future US military action in Syria should be resisted with popular pressure. History shows we can't count on the media or pundits to act as the voice of reason. Join the debate on Facebook

    Paul Gottinger is a journalist based in Madison, WI whose work focuses on the Middle East. He can be reached via Twitter @paulgottinger or email: [email protected]

    [Apr 12, 2017] Putin Will Not Meet Tillerson In Russia, As Confusion Grows Over US Policy Toward Syria

    Putin changed he mind :-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Once again reiterating the policy confusion over Syria, Tillerson said at the weekend that the defeat of Islamic State remained the U.S. priority, while the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that "regime change" in Syria was also a priority for Trump. ..."
    "... "The Americans say they agree, but there's nothing to show for it behind (the scenes). They are absent from this and are navigating aimlessly in the dark," said a senior European diplomat, who declined to be named. ..."
    "... They will also discuss Libya. Italy is hoping for vocal support for a United Nations-backed government in Tripoli which has struggled to establish its authority even in the city, let alone in the rest of the violence-plagued north African country. ..."
    www.zerohedge.com
    Apr 10, 2017 | http://www.zerohedge.com/print/592878

    While the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson seem unable to agree on what the right policy is regarding Syria and specifically Assad, with the former saying a top priority of Trump is to oust Assad, while the latter claimed over the weekend that the Islamic State is the key concern while Assad's fate and that the people of Syria should decide Assad's fate, Russia is not waiting for clarification.

    On Monday morning, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was not due to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin when he visits Moscow later this week. He will meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov however, Peskov said.

    "So far there is no meeting with Tillerson on the president's schedule," Peskov told reporters in a phone call. "We never announce such meetings, whether they will take place or not – we won't announce it."

    The Kremlin spokesman assured reporters though that if there is such a plan, media would be "properly notified."

    Commenting on U.S. missile strikes against Syria last week, Peskov said the action had shown Washington's total unwillingness to cooperate on Syria. He said renewed calls for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down would not help to resolve the crisis.

    "The US side thus has demonstrated a complete unwillingness to somehow cooperate on Syria and take into account each others' interests and concerns," Peskov said, while commenting on the suspension of the Memorandum on Air Safety in the aftermath of the US missile strike on Syrian military airfield overnight on Thursday.

    "There is no other alternative," to peace talks in Geneva and Astana, Peskov said.

    Meanwhile Tillerson, who on Monday was in Italy for a meeting of G7 foreign ministers in Tuscany, said the United States will hold responsible anyone who commits crimes against humanity, just days after the U.S. military unexpectedly attacked Syria. We assume US drone operators, whose actions have caused thousands of innocents deaths over the past decade, will be exempts from this "responsibility."

    While prior to the April 7 missile strikes President Donald Trump had indicated he would be less interventionist than his predecessors and willing to overlook human rights abuses if it was in U.S. interests, Tillerson said the United States would not let such crimes go unchallenged. "We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world," he told reporters while commemorating a 1944 German Nazi massacre in Sant'Anna di Stazzema.

    As Reuters adds, European ministers are eager to hear whether Washington is now committed to overthrowing Assad, who is backed by Russia. They also want the United States to put pressure on Moscow to distance itself from Assad.

    Once again reiterating the policy confusion over Syria, Tillerson said at the weekend that the defeat of Islamic State remained the U.S. priority, while the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that "regime change" in Syria was also a priority for Trump.

    The mixed messages have confused and frustrated European allies, who are eager for full U.S. support for a political solution based on a transfer of power in Damascus.

    "The Americans say they agree, but there's nothing to show for it behind (the scenes). They are absent from this and are navigating aimlessly in the dark," said a senior European diplomat, who declined to be named.

    Italy, Germany, France and Britain have invited foreign ministers from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Qatar to sit down with the G7 group on Tuesday morning to discuss Syria. All oppose Assad's rule.

    The foreign ministers' discussions in Tuscany will prepare the way for a leaders' summit in Sicily at the end of May where foreign ministers will also talk about growing tensions with North Korea, as the United States moves a navy strike group near the Korean peninsula amid concerns over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.

    They will also discuss Libya. Italy is hoping for vocal support for a United Nations-backed government in Tripoli which has struggled to establish its authority even in the city, let alone in the rest of the violence-plagued north African country. The Trump administration has not yet defined a clear policy and Rome fears Washington may fall into step with Egypt and Russia, which support general Khalifa Haftar, a powerful figure in eastern Libya.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Arnaldo Claudio on National Security Advisor Gen. H.R. McMasters human rights violations of Iraqis in 2005

    Mar 31, 2017 | www.libertarianinstitute.org

    Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his 2005 investigation of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel H.R. McMaster, whom Claudio threatened to arrest.

    According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions, handcuffed, deprived of food and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces.

    A so-called "good behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely (beyond a rule requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."

    [Apr 12, 2017] The Verifiable Information Vacuum From Syria

    Apr 12, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    It is hard to underestimate the paucity of objective information coming from Syria.

    Wars always have their propaganda machine feeding media sources, from the Israeli Army's largely false assertions that Hamas used human shields during the 2014 Gaza War to Robert McNamara's claim that American campaigns were leading to success in Vietnam. But rarely has the public been fed and believed information from a rebel opposition dominated by terrorist groups, as is the case in the Syrian Civil War. The lack of the civil war's neutral information may be the case in the recent images we saw from apparent chemical attacks in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib province, Syria, where Al-Nusra is the most powerful opposition group.

    The Syrian opposition has been trying to get the US to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since the beginning of the conflict. After the US's "leading from behind" in the NATO-led overthrow of Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi, the Syrian opposition assumed that Assad's head would be next on the US's chopping block. But this would not come to pass.

    It should be remembered that these initial anti-Assad protests were certainly legitimate acts of dissent and the Assad regime overreacted with disproportionate violence. In response, protesters grew in number and the regime increased its violence, leading to the development of an armed opposition, shortly after which the US, Europe and Gulf States called for Assad to step down. Though receiving arms and funding from its international supporters, the rebel opposition had trouble coalescing and remained highly disorganized, during which time terrorist groups, such as al-Nusra, ISIS and Ahrar al Sham, established themselves in Syria. These terrorist groups were far more organized and effective at fighting than the discombobulated opposition and soon became the principal anti-regime actors in Syria. Thousands of disaffected fighters from the "moderate" opposition joined these terrorist groups, as they proved to be the most effective fighting forces against Assad.

    This brings us back to the informational vacuum that is the Syrian Civil War. On the one hand, Russian, Syrian and Iranian state news continuously depicting Assad's war on "terrorists," which is not entirely true – the opposition is not fully composed of jihadists. Interestingly, Assad and his supporters used the same "terrorist" designation early in the conflict, when there were few terrorist groups involved, as there are now. On the other side, there is rebel media, consisting of White Helmets (pro-Assad media shows members of the White Helmets holding weapons next to ISIS members and the White Helmets cinematographer had been previously barred from entering the United States under Obama) and other partisans supporting the ouster of Assad.

    While some non-mainstream Western journalists are occasionally based with the Assad regime, it suffices to say that they usually only present one side of the story – the pro-regime one – and tend to already be partial towards the regime. In opposition-held territory, journalists rarely, if ever, dare to venture. This is due to safety concerns of reporting from regions where "moderate" opposition groups often ally and commingle with more powerful terrorist groups. The result is an absence of verifiable, unbiased information emerging from the Syrian conflict.

    Rather than acknowledging this complexity and the difficulty of discerning the veracity of information emerging from Syria, the Western media often plays footage it receives from the opposition; an opposition that even US government officials have long acknowledged is terrorist-dominated.

    This level of gullibility that the Western media has towards rebel footage is quite astounding. For instance, it would be like relying on propaganda footage taken by Bin Laden and spreading it as though it were factual.

    With the recent chemical weapons attack footage, there is a significant chance that we're being played by al-Nusra, or even by the "moderate" opposition. Then again, reality could be closer to what we are told/shown: a brutal chemical attack by the Syrian regime was orchestrated on the people of Khan Sheikhoun.

    Even if the latter were true, brutal as this maybe, it is far less harrowing than the totality of the Syrian Civil War that has killed approximately a half million people. The goal should be stopping the war, rather reacting to what amounts to less than a pinprick that took less than 100 lives.

    It should also make us question how we respond to digital information that we receive today, amidst a cacophony of news images. How does it affect us?

    If one recalls, the events which seemed to push the West into beginning the campaign against ISIS in September 2014, were the horrible images fed to the media by terrorists (again?) showing the decapitation of journalist James Foley and other Americans. Should video recordings that are designed to incite us, the viewer, have their intended effect? Obama's airstrikes seemed to serve ISIS's purpose, increasing their popularity and allure for young disaffected Muslim men, who were often marginalized in Western societies.

    This has happened against in April 2017, after President Donald Trump viewed images from the Khan Sheikhoun attack and immediately reversed his more realistic policy of not supporting regime change, through launching 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Syrian government airbase of Shayrat. Should we reflexively react to images that emotionally move us? Or would a clear, concise strategy towards terrorism and peacebuilding in the region serve us better?

    Trump's strike on Syria government forces also makes us consider how American politicians and the public react to military strikes – worryingly, it is with utmost reverence. While Democrats and even some Republicans have compulsively criticized Trump for alleged Russia ties and seeking US-Russia rapprochement; orchestrating a military strike receives support from an overwhelming majority.

    Whether this is a "one-off" strike against the Syrian government or may escalate into further conflict with Syria, and potentially Russia, remains to be seen. One thing is for certain, it has temporarily increased the popularity of a failing administration, helped coalesce a fractured Republican Party and neutered the hostile Democratic opposition.

    The question of whether this Tomahawk strike will prove to be a kind of Gulf of Tonkin event, leading the US to a path of embroiled long-term conflict in Syria – that question remains open.

    Whatever the future may hold, we should try to remember this simple fact: when there are no independent observers on the ground in a conflict, one should be wary of the information presented.

    Peter Crowley is a recent graduate from the Northeastern University Global Studies' Conflict Resolution MS program. He works as a Workflow Coordinator for a prominent library science company. His writings can be found in Boston Literary Magazine, Mint Press News, (several publications in) Wilderness House Literary Review, Mondoweiss, Green Fuse Press, Inquiries Journal, and a periodical publication of the Brookline, MA Historical Society.

    [Apr 12, 2017] US Officials Cant Explain Reason for Syria Chemical Attack

    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    While it wouldn't be unusual for Syria to bomb targets belonging to al-Qaeda's Nusra Front in the Idlib Province with airstrikes, a big hole in the US-backed allegations of a "chemical weapons attack" by the Syrian military is that there was no reason for such a strike.

    Administration officials are trying to manufacture one, with an unnamed "senior official" today delivering a briefing to the media claiming that the Syrian military was afraid of a rebel offensive in the Hama Province, and launched the attack against the rebels' rear support areas for operational purposes.

    This new narrative, that the strike was done for operational reasons,, seemingly contradicts previous claims that Syria attacked civilians with chemical weapons for no reason at all, and when pressed by reporters, the US official was clearly shaken, insisting the attacks were for operational purposes, but not against militarily significant targets, which of course wouldn't make sense.

    On top of this, the US narrative's initial premise is faulty, as the Hama offensive had already ground to a halt two weeks prior to the putative Syrian attack, and Syrian forces appeared well on their way to recovering lost territory from the rebels.

    Small tit-for-tat offensives and counteroffensives on the frontier between government and rebel forces are common enough at any rate, that the losing a handful of villages in northern Hama would not have sparked such an act of desperation, meaning the US claim is not credible.

    If anything, the underlying assumptions make Russia's own narrative of conventional attacks against al-Qaeda's Nusra Front make even more sense, since the US apparently assessed the area targeted as having operational significance to the jihadist rebels.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Tillerson Meets Putin; Visit Polite But Major Differences Remain

    Apr 12, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
    The tone of the conference was polite, with both sides emphasizing current problems with bilateral relati ons and the need to improve on the current "low point," but in addressing questions from reporters, the answers almost exclusively needled the other side, underscoring how deeply divided the nations are.

    Tillerson continued to hype accusations of a Syrian "gas attack" last week, though he admitted when pressed that his repeated accusations of Russian involvement or at least complicity in the incident weren't based on any "firm" information that the US possesses.

    On top of that, Tillerson complained of Syria's use of cluster bombs in the civil war, arguing they are "designed to maim." The US, of course, also has rejected the global cluster munition ban, and has routinely used them in their various wars.

    But the most tense moment was likely the talk of interference in the 2016 US elections, with Tillerson insisting that Russia had done so, and that more sanctions might be warranted. Lavrov fired back that the allegations were slanderous, and pushed for actual evidence.

    The demand for evidence of US accusations was a big talking point for Lavrov, who urged an impartial, international investigation into the putative gas attack, instead of just drawing conclusions and reacting before the information is all in.

    Lavrov went on to criticize the US impulse to impose regime change in general, citing a long list of US failures dating back to Serbia, the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the NATO regime change in Libya, and culminating with the establishment of, and virtually immediate collapse of, South Sudan.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: The Syrian chemical attack story is a hoax

    Notable quotes:
    "... However, it is now quite obvious that "a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid." [Robert Parry - Trump's 'Wag the Dog' Moment ] ..."
    "... According to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's well informed sources, the explanation presented by the Russians is the most likely scenario. ..."
    "... I would probably have missed the meaning of these few words if it was not for the fact that a well informed source has told me last night that the US will indeed seek a no-fly zone on the entire part of Syria West of the Euphrates. ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | gosint.wordpress.com

    "Assad's military has gained a decisive advantage over the rebels and he had just scored a major diplomatic victory with the Trump administration's announcement that the U.S. was no longer seeking 'regime change' in Syria. The savvy Assad would know that a chemical weapon attack now would likely result in U.S. retaliation and jeopardize the gains that his military has achieved with Russian and Iranian help. ( ) But logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor inside the mainstream U.S. news media."

    Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson - Former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell - does not believe the official narrative of the 'Syrian chemical attack'. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi agrees and describes the story as nothing short of a "sham". Follow us on Twitter: @INTEL_TODAY

    Last Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson claimed the U.S. Intelligence Community had assessed with a "high degree of confidence" that the Syrian government forces had unleashed a toxic chemical bomb against innocent civilians in Khan Sheikhoun in Syria's Idlib Governate.

    However, it is now quite obvious that "a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid." [Robert Parry - Trump's 'Wag the Dog' Moment ]

    According to Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson's well informed sources, the explanation presented by the Russians is the most likely scenario. Wilkerson also confirmed that the intelligence on this ISIS depot had been shared prior to the strike with both US and Russian Military.

    "In fact most of my sources are telling me - including members of the team that monitor global chemical weapons, including people in Syria, including people in the US Intelligence community - that what most likely happened (and this intelligence was shared with the US by Russia in accordance with the de-conflicting agreement) is that they hit a warehouse that they intended to hit and had told both sides, Russia and the US, that they were going to hit. This is a serious air force, of course. And this warehouse was alleged to have ISIS supply in it and indeed it probably did. And some of these supplies were precursors for chemicals (or possibly an alternative they were phosphates for fertilizing) Conventional bombs hit the warehouse and the wind dispersed these ingredients and killed some people."

    RELATED POST: Former CIA Analyst Ray McGovern debunks the alleged Syria 'Chemical Attack'

    Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi

    Giraldi told Scott Horton's Webcast :

    "I'm hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence that is available who are saying that the essential narrative that we're all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham."

    "The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving which is that they hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected with Al Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear."

    RELATED POST: Former CIA Analyst Philip Giraldi: "Morell's bluster deserves a bit of a fact check"

    Former DIA Colonel Pat Lang

    Yesterday, the former DIA officer posted the following analysis:

    "The American media and many American political leaders, Republicans and Democrats, are a complete disgrace as they have cheered Donald Trump's illegal and unjustified order to launch of cruise missiles against a backwater Syrian Air Force outpost. The American public are being sold a profound and dangerous lie via a massive propaganda campaign that, without one shred of empirical evidence, insists that the Air Force of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dropped a chemical weapon for the express purpose of killing civilians. That did not happen. There is no intelligence supporting this claim by the Trump Administration." [ Where Are the Heroes?]

    RELATED POST: Former DIA Colonel: "US strikes on Syria based on a lie"

    A cryptic statement around the 5′ mark, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson drops a strange comment:

    "Assad has a number of ways to achieve this - Including artillery - which by the way a no-fly zone would not stop "

    I would probably have missed the meaning of these few words if it was not for the fact that a well informed source has told me last night that the US will indeed seek a no-fly zone on the entire part of Syria West of the Euphrates.

    About Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson

    Lawrence B. "Larry" Wilkerson (born 15 June 1945) is a retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson has criticized many aspects of the Iraq War, including his own preparation of Powell's presentation to the UN.

    "My participation in that presentation at the UN constitutes the lowest point in my professional life. I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community and the United Nations Security Council."

    RELATED POST: TURKEY - Former US Secretary chief of staff: "The CIA knew about the coming coup "

    Interview: "Trump Attack on Syria Driven by Domestic Politics"

    Lawrence Wilkerson - Wikipedia

    Ex-CIA Agent: The Official Story of Syria Govt "Gassing Innocent Civilians is a Sham"

    =

    Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson: "The Syrian chemical attack story is a hoax."

    Related

    [Apr 12, 2017] US-Russia relations at a low, says Tillerson after meeting with Putin

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The perspective from the US is supported by facts we have that are conclusive that the chemical attack was planned and directed and executed by Syrian regime forces," Tillerson said, adding that the "reign of the Assad family is coming to an end" and "Russia perhaps has the best means of helping the Assad regime recognise this reality". ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Tillerson stuck to the Trump administration insistence that a chemical weapons attack that killed more than 80 people last week in Syria was the work of -> Bashar al-Assad , and that the Syrian president could play no part in the country's long-term future.

    "The perspective from the US is supported by facts we have that are conclusive that the chemical attack was planned and directed and executed by Syrian regime forces," Tillerson said, adding that the "reign of the Assad family is coming to an end" and "Russia perhaps has the best means of helping the Assad regime recognise this reality".

    [Apr 12, 2017] Denmark seeks to change law on pipelines amid Nord Stream 2 divisions

    Apr 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    et Al , April 10, 2017 at 5:00 am

    Euractiv with Neuters: Denmark seeks to change law on pipelines amid Nord Stream 2 divisions
    http://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/denmark-seeks-to-change-law-on-pipelines-amid-nord-stream-2-divisions/

    Denmark's government is proposing amending legislation to allow it to ban pipeline projects on the grounds of foreign and security policy, due to concerns raised by Russian efforts to build a disputed gas pipeline through Danish waters.

    "We want to have the possibility to say yes or no from a perspective of security and foreign policy," the minister of energy and climate, Lars Christian Lilleholt, told Reuters, adding that it was currently only possible to veto such projects on the grounds of environmental concerns .

    Denmark and Sweden earlier this year requested that the European Commission intervene in Nord Stream 2 before the two states agree on permits for the pipeline to pass through their waters. EU diplomats said there was little scope for either nation to block the plan.

    The current regulatory framework does not allow Denmark to say "no" to the construction of transit pipelines in territorial waters on the basis of foreign policy considerations, the ministry said in a statement .

    EU sources have said the Commission, sensing that there may ultimately be no legal basis to block approval of Nord Stream 2, is delaying it as long as possible .

    Denmark's right-wing minority government would now negotiate with other parties to win support for the proposal.
    ####

    ' sensing that there may ultimately be no legal basis to block approval..' – Well that's quite a polishing of the EU turd when we know that the EU has no legal way to block the pipeline, sic the opinion of the EU's own Legal Service. How delicate the EU stuffed suits are that they cannot just admit it outright. Oh, but that would be a propaganda victory for Russia. They should be grateful because if they had blocked it, it would have been a very clear message that the EU's Rule of Law which it proudly pronounces around the world is barely a fig leaf that is dropped as the slightest political pressure. It's a joke already, but with a project as big as . as it has done with much political decisions

    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 5:56 am
    While they're creating magic out of whole cloth, why not a law that anyone who discovers significant gas deposits anywhere must immediately hand them over to the EU for their exclusive use and disbursement? Or a law that orders massive new gas deposits be discovered in Denmark?
    et Al , April 10, 2017 at 6:43 am
    I suspect that the government is having a slow news day and as there is absolutely no consequence to Russophobia as it is essentially a free gift that keeps on giving when and wherever is needed, i.e. to distract from domestic politics.

    The Whole G7 'How can we f/k up Russia further' conveniently segues with the improvement of Russia's economy and the continued failure of G7 sanctions against Russia. I'm not really sure what else they can do without shooting themselves in the foot.

    There's already been some whinging that the West's actions have only further driven it in to China's arms, so WTF? I guess they have to come up with something that looks tough, but isn't. After all, they will need to put out a key statement signed by them all. IN short, 'This spade is far too small. Let's go and get another one!'.

    [Apr 12, 2017] China took a very different message from Donald Trump's Syria attack

    Apr 12, 2017 | watoday.com.au
    24 reading now Show comments

    A theme echoing through US media in the last few days was that Donald Trump's decision to attack Syria during dinner with China's president was sending a message to Beijing. But what was the message?

    It was an obvious act of intimidation, a threat, according to the consensus American interpretation. America is powerful. America is dangerous. America will use force, so watch out.

    At his first face to face meetings with Trump last week, Xi Jinping gave the US president nothing. Not the least concession on even the smallest issue.

    Remarkably, Trump said it himself. After their first round of talks before dinner on Thursday night, the American leader told reporters: "We had a long discussion already. So far I have gotten nothing. Absolutely nothing. But we have developed a great friendship."

    If Trump thought that his overnight pyrotechnics display in Syria would change Xi's attitude, he was mistaken. Xi merely ignored a year of angry Trump bluster and threats against China.

    Point for point on Trump's grievance list: Xi made no concession on trade, no concession on China's allegedly undervalued currency, no concession on North Korea, no concession on Taiwan, no concession on the South China Sea.

    [Apr 12, 2017] A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences The Vineyard of the Saker

    Apr 12, 2017 | thesaker.is
    The pretext:

    I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat . Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true). Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have . He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support. And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack . Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:

    a classical US-executed false flag a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe in coincidences. I don't. Unless, the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored.

    What is evident is that the Syrians did not drop chemical weapons from their aircraft and that no chemical gas was ever stored at the al-Shayrat airbase. There is no footage showing any munitions or containers which would have delivered the toxic gas. As for US and other radar recordings, all they can show is that an aircraft was in the sky, its heading, altitude and speed. There is no way to distinguish a chemical munition or a chemical attack by means of radar.

    Whatever option you chose, the Syrian government is obviously and self-evidently innocent of the accusation of having used chemical weapons. This is most likely a false flag attack.

    Also, and just for the record, the US had been considering exactly such a false flag attack in the past. You can read everything about this plan here and here .

    The attack:

    American and Russian sources both agree on the following facts: 2 USN ships launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The US did not consult with the Russians on a political level, but through military channels the US gave Russia 2 hours advance warning. At this point the accounts begin to differ.

    The Americans say that all missiles hit their targets. The Russians say that only 23 cruise missiles hit the airfield. The others are "unaccounted for". Here I think that it is indisputable that the Americans are lying and the Russians are saying the truth: the main runway is intact (the Russian reporters provided footage proving this) and only one taxiway was hit. Furthermore, the Syrian Air Force resumed its operations within 24 hours. 36 cruise missiles have not reached their intended target. That is a fact.

    It is also indisputable that there were no chemical munitions at this base as nobody, neither the Syrians nor the Russian reporters, had to wear any protective gear.

    The missiles used in the attack, the Tomahawk, can use any combination of three guidance systems: GPS, inertial navigation and terrain mapping. There is no evidence and even no reports that the Russians shot even a single air-defense missile. In fact, the Russians had signed a memorandum with the USA which specifically comitting Russia NOT to interfere with any US overflights, manned or not, over Syria (and vice versa). While the Tomahawk cruise missile was developed in the 1980s, there is no reason to believe that the missiles used had exceeded their shelf live and there is even evidence that they were built in 2014 . The Tomahawk is known to be accurate and reliable. There is absolutely no basis to suspect that over half of the missiles fired simply spontaneously malfunctioned. I therefore see only two possible explanations for what happened to the 36 missing cruise missiles:

    Explanation A: Trump never intended to really hit the Syrians hard and this entire attack was just "for show" and the USN deliberately destroyed these missiles over the Mediterranean. That would make it possible for Trump to appear tough while not inflicting the kind of damage which would truly wreck his plans to collaborate with Russia. I do not believe in this explanation and I will explain why in the political analysis below.

    Explanation B: The Russians could not legally shoot down the US missiles. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that these cruise missiles flew a direct course from the Mediterranean to their target (thereby almost overflying the Russian radar positions). Tomahawk were specifically built to be able to fly tangential courses around some radar types and they also have a very low RCS (radar visibility), especially in the frontal sector. Some of these missiles were probably flying low enough not to be seen by Russian radars, unless the Russians had an AWACS in the air (I don't know if they did). However, since the Russians were warned about the attack they had plenty of time to prepare their electronic warfare stations to "fry" and otherwise disable at least part of the cruise missiles. I do believe that this is the correct explanation. I do not know whether the Russian were technically unable to destroy and confuse the 23 missiles which reached the base or whether a political decision was taken to let less than half of the cruise missiles through in order to disguise the Russian role in the destruction of 36 missiles.

    [Apr 12, 2017] We have seen all this before Putin said at a press conference in the Kremlin with Italian President Sergio Mattarella, describing the chemical attack as a provocation.

    Apr 12, 2017 | watoday.com.au

    In a sign of escalating tensions, even as Mr Tillerson's plane was arriving in at an airport in Moscow, Mr Putin said in a news conference the the Kremlin has "information" provocateurs are planning to plant chemical substances in suburban Damascus and blame it on Syrian authorities.

    Mr Putin said the situation in Syria reminded him of events in Iraq before the US invaded in 2003, an allusion to the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration used as a justification to invade. He also said Western countries divided over the election of President Trump were scapegoating Russia and Syria.

    "We've seen all this before," Mr Putin said at a press conference in the Kremlin with Italian President Sergio Mattarella, describing the chemical attack as "a provocation."

    ... ... ...

    "Syria and Russia provide a common enemy, a very good platform for consolidation" between the US and its western allies, Mr Putin said. "We're ready to be patient. We hope only that this will end up on some kind of a positive trend."

    And the Russian general staff said it has warned the United States not to launch another missile strike in Syria, saying that would be "unacceptable."

    ... ... ...

    After days of waffling and insisting Mr Putin had no meeting planned with Mr Tillerson, Russian Foreign Ministry sources told RBC television the two would meet Wednesday.

    The ministry laid out its list of expectations for talks that come at a moment when the US-Russian relationship is "in its most difficult period since the Cold War," the ministry said in a statement.

    Russia is "concerned about US plans regarding North Korea in the context of a possible scenario of unilateral use of force," the ministry said, mirroring the alarm expressed by senior Russian officials Monday about the possibility of a US strike against Pyongyang.

    The Russian side will also expect Washington to agree to "an impartial investigation into the Idlib chemical incident," Moscow's terminology for the chemical weapons attack the United States and its allies have blamed on Mr Assad.

    Russia has maintained that a Syrian government airstrike on Idlib hit a factory where Syrian rebels were manufacturing chemical weapons, and Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said after the US missile strike that the Syrian government "has no chemical arms stockpiles" and said the strike was based on a "far-fetched notion."

    Moscow says that it fulfilled its part of a 2013 agreement mandating that Russia oversee the destruction of Mr Assad's chemical weapons arsenal. On Monday, Russia's general staff said that two locations where chemical weapons might remain are in territory controlled by Syrian rebels.

    But Mr Tillerson told reporters last week's poison gas attack shows Moscow did not take its obligations seriously or was incompetent. In either case, he added, the distinction "doesn't much matter to the dead."

    "We want to relieve the suffering of the Syrian people," he said, and issued an ultimatum: "Russia can be a part of that future and play an important role. Or Russia can maintain its alliance with this group, which we believe is not going to serve Russia's interests longer term."

    Mr Tillerson's visit has the potential to be a window of opportunity, or another marker in the escalation of tensions between between the two great superpowers.

    On Monday, the foreign ministry warned that if Washington does nothing to improve relations, "Moscow will react reciprocally."

    Russia last week suspended a deal that set up a hotline that allowed Russian and US-led coalition air forces to avoid conflict as they conducted separate operations in the crowded airspace over Syria.

    The suspension of that agreement does not mean Russian air defense will shoot down incoming missiles in the event of another US strike, but it will not prevent Syria from defending itself, Viktor Ozerov, the head of the defense and security committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament, told the Interfax news agency.

    But Russia would defend itself to ensure the safety of air bases and supply bases in Tartus, he said, wherever a threat originated: by land, air or sea.

    Sanctions proposal denied

    Mr Tillerson is uniquely qualified to bring a stern warning to the Russians. As the CEO of ExxonMobil, he negotiated a deal with the state-controlled gas company Rosneft, leading Mr Putin to bestow the Order of Friendship on him. Mr Tillerson gained a reputation for being willing to walk out on energy deals that did not meet his standards.

    If Mr Tillerson succeeds in nudging Moscow away from Mr Assad, he will have successfully leveraged international outrage over Syria's use of chemical weapons and the US retaliatory strike with the implicit threat it could be used again.

    However, the Trump administration still has not explained whether it has a clear strategy to ensure Mr Assad's departure, and what would prompt the United States to take further military action.

    And diplomats in Italy did not agree on a British proposal to impose more sanctions on Russia over Syria, on top of sanctions already in place over Ukraine. Italian foreign minister Angelino Alfano said ministers want Russia to pressure Mr Assad, but warned, "We must not push Russia into a corner."

    Bloomberg, The Washington Post

    [Apr 12, 2017] Reports of African migrants being bought and sold in Lybia mark a new low in the Lybia West-induced crisis

    Apr 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Warren , April 11, at 7:12 am

    You can thank NATO's aggression against Libya in 2011 for the reintroduction of slavery to the African continent.

    African migrants sold in Libya 'slave markets', IOM says


    Reports of African migrants being bought and sold mark a new low in the crisis

    Africans trying to reach Europe are being sold by their captors in "slave markets" in Libya, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) says.

    Victims told IOM that after being detained by people smugglers or militia groups, they were taken to town squares or car parks to be sold.

    Migrants with skills like painting or tiling would fetch higher prices, the head of the IOM in Libya told the BBC.

    Libya has been in chaos since the 2011 Nato-backed ousting of Muammar Gaddafi.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39567632

    marknesop , April 11, 2017 at 5:07 pm
    Thanks, NATO. Most people would learn from their 'mistakes'. But not NATO – it can't wait for the next empowering liberation in the name of freedom and democracy.

    [Apr 12, 2017] Ukraines central bank chief resigns but not before amassing substnatial personal wealth

    Notable quotes:
    "... Здобулы! ..."
    "... http://vesti-ukr.com/svetskie-vesti/90064-gontareva-ezdit-na-pjati-avto-i-uzhinaet-u-bassejna ..."
    Apr 12, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Warren , April 10, 2017 at 4:36 am

    Ukraine's central bank chief resigns

    The governor of Ukraine's central bank, Valeriya Gontareva, has resigned the post after three years, following intense pressure from tycoons whose banks she shut down for conducting illegal transactions and loans.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39551699

    Lyttenburgh , April 10, 2017 at 10:26 am
    Meanwhile her personal wealth after 3 years in chrage of Ukraine's finances (read: of the Western donors money) MYSTERIOUSLY increased to 7 blns of hryvnias and entire squadron of luxury cars (from 3.5 mln hryvnas upwards each). What can I say? Здобулы!

    http://vesti-ukr.com/svetskie-vesti/90064-gontareva-ezdit-na-pjati-avto-i-uzhinaet-u-bassejna

    cartman , April 10, 2017 at 11:15 am
    I wonder if Nabiullina has a pink Barbie car. Probably not to her taste.
    Jen , April 10, 2017 at 10:43 pm
    I think we've found Dave Cameron's soul mate.
    Moscow Exile , April 10, 2017 at 10:47 pm
    You are not suggesting that she resembles Miss Piggy, are you?
    Jen , April 11, 2017 at 12:49 am
    She looks the type to put Call-Me-Dave in his place, which is in a pig sty.
    et Al , April 10, 2017 at 11:18 am
    Neuters: Ukraine president's grip weakens as central bank chief quits
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-ukraine-crisis-politics-analysis-idUKKBN17C0RU

    If Ukraine's central bank chief needed any more incentive to quit, last week she woke up to find the image of a pig draped in a Russian flag spray-painted onto the wall of her house and a gaggle of young protesters calling her a Russian stooge.

    After a sustained hate campaign that also included a coffin laid at her door, Valeria Gontareva finally quit on Monday.

    Her departure, with no obvious candidate for a successor, leaves President Petro Poroshenko with one fewer ally in power at a time when lenders keeping Ukraine afloat already question his ability to follow through on promised reforms .

    [Apr 11, 2017] Tulsi Gabbard: We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as humanitarian but actually increased human suffering many times over.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times over. ..."
    "... Tulsi is a really courageous woman. It is tough to fight against the neocon "swamp". Trump already folded. She is still standing. ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne April 11, 2017 at 12:56 PM
    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/851872500484980736

    Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard We need to learn from Iraq and Libya-wars that were propagated as "humanitarian" but actually increased human suffering many times over.

    12:00 PM - 11 Apr 2017

    sanjait -> anne... , April 11, 2017 at 01:57 PM

    Gabbard is right to be skeptical of the usefulness and righteousness of missile strikes, but deeply stupid to carry water for the denials by Assad and the Russian state media about complicity for the chemical weapons attacks.

    Anne, real skepticism is when you question your own heroes and assumptions.

    Peter K. -> sanjait... , April 11, 2017 at 02:05 PM
    Which you never do.
    libezkova -> anne... , April 11, 2017 at 03:43 PM
    Anne,

    Tulsi is a really courageous woman. It is tough to fight against the neocon "swamp". Trump already folded. She is still standing.

    [Apr 11, 2017] The Democratic attacks on Representative Gabbard for wanting to understand what has happened in Syria are an attack on our democracy.

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> anne... , April 11, 2017 at 05:42 PM
    The Democratic attacks on Representative Gabbard for wanting to understand what has happened in Syria are an attack on our democracy.
    ilsm -> anne... , April 11, 2017 at 06:13 PM
    Gabbard is correct.

    Both mainstream US parties are war parties, it requires huge lying, faulty logic and misplaced faux morality to justify state sanctioned, industrial scale murder.

    'If you took the money out of war there would be less of it.'

    Obama doctrine is wrong there have been no instances of 'unjust peace' since Cain killed Abel.

    anne -> ilsm... , April 11, 2017 at 06:34 PM
    Obama doctrine is wrong, there have been no instances of 'unjust peace' since Cain killed Abel.

    [ What an interesting passage. I will think this over carefully. ]

    [Apr 11, 2017] Is There A New U.S. Syria Policy? Is There One At All?

    Notable quotes:
    "... It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key goal has been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line with their privately owned central bank. ..."
    "... The petrol dollar is no longer working and debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a functional government but remember the first thing they did was establish a new private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don't like that. What a coincidence that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are the same. ..."
    "... everybody's fed up with the neocons... the prospect of war with Russia makes americans sick to their stomachs, jared and ivanka have three little kids and they probably love them ..."
    "... world leaders are fed up, including xi ..."
    "... what makes you so sure Trump isn't Stupid? He is way over his head, he has no idea of policy, process nor much else. Our one hope was that he was isolationist, but I think that ship has sailed... ..."
    "... I think at least part of this is because some of the things he naively thought were problems are actually dilemmas. Problems can be worked out or smoothed over by methods he's familiar with and comfortable with; dilemmas, not so much. ..."
    "... As I see it little of the Syria policy has much to do with Syria policy. We see a naked struggle for power in Washington. This struggle has been brewing at least since the Syria operation started came out more in the open, more or less, in the 2013 false flag gas attack. ..."
    "... You saw there the marriage of both Democrats and Republicans in pushing for War. ..."
    "... This was the first time I've seen such an open and obvious soft coup within the National Security State and Obama was stripped of his power. Part of why Carter did this is because everyone knew that Trump could not win so Clinton would hit the ground running and go into full-tilt war. Washington was held by the War Party and when Trump entered Washington he entered a town bent on War! Inc. all the way every day. ..."
    "... I'm guessing that the War Party made Trump an offer he could not refuse and he complied ..."
    "... The office of the President does not grant you automatic rule over the Washington establishment as many people falsely believe--that power must be seized and few Presidents have been able to do that. ..."
    "... Just so you know--by "Washington" I mean the entire apparatus of the Deep State which includes major corporations, foreign oligarchs, and governments like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU all who favor the War Party. This way they can utterly ignore the interests and prefernces of the American people whose interests are of no account in Washington. ..."
    "... The current US foreign policy depends on who last spoke to the president? Oh wait, wasn't that Ronnie 'Shoot first, ask questions later' Raygun? ..."
    "... Or Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out. ..."
    "... A bipartisan group called the war party now has control of the presidency and executive powers. The major flip flops in policy recently is the outward signs of the coup. Policy will soon steady to that of a tafiri suicide bomber. ..."
    "... On further thoughts, it is clear that there is no coherent persistent US foreign policy. Therefore Russia cannot trust a word the US says, especially in relation to issues concerning Russia's national security. ..."
    "... If the rumored deal is serious, it shows the west has either no concept of what Russia has been saying for years or they believe all leaders can be bought off for the right price. ..."
    "... Would Russia trade Assad for the removal of the supposed 'missile defense' (actually nuke-capable first strike) systems in Poland and Romania? I doubt it as those systems can be dealt with in other ways without compromising the prime mission of defeating the terrorists in Syria. ..."
    "... There is nothing the US can say now. It has totally destroyed its negotiating credibility in the eyes of Russia. All it can do is act. It either really supports the removal of all terrorists in Syria (no chance now?) or it tries to prevent Russia and allies destroying them. And that will mean military intervention. ..."
    "... US is pushing to launch strikes against Syrian gov. Much propaganda build up now in prep for next chemical false flag attacks. These nuts are ready to go to war against Syria Air strikes, missile strikes) to destroy the Syrian government even with Russia in Syria. ..."
    "... I suggest there are multiple agenda with one over-riding (or perhaps underwriting) theme that joins them all -- follow the money and it leads to the Saudi Regime (and other related gas stations in the region) ..."
    "... Media: silence when necessary -- 9/11; Yemen, little prince-lings delivering ISIS 'go' drugs in private jets via Lebanon; the weekly beheading and hand removal medieval style -- noise when necessary, "Assad Must Go!" at EVERY opportunity etc. I suggest it highly likely that all globalist politicians get a $kickback for the words sprouted in accord with the main themes. Easy to test the theory: just nuke Riyadh and see how quickly the ex-goat herders from the 11th century STFU. The war on Syria (and Islamic modernity) would end over night. ..."
    "... Neocons and enough rope: there may be a bit of that as well, but I suggest it is 3rd to the previous listed. What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria? -- Whatever the $money wants, and with an Economic Depression underway, the money wants distraction most of all. Bread and circus. ..."
    "... In ancient Rome they crowded the Colosseum to watch the blood sports -- now they just tune in on CNN & Co for their daily dose of fact-less Hollywood narrative. Syrian kid gassed, and it's the end of the world snowflake sobbing stupor; Yemen, Gaza, Iraqi, Afghani, (and the list goes on) and it's the big yawn if it even gets a mention between the sponsor's adverts. ..."
    "... Nations don't exist anymore, in practical terms -- as George Carlin said... the owners ... https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ ..."
    "... Trumps rush to judgment instead of attacking fake news, as he has in the past, shows that the 'fix is in'. In that light, Trump's business dealings with Qataris, Turks, etc. are suspect. ..."
    "... b, "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan." Everone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" [ ..."
    "... All your answers can be found in Oded Yinon's 1982 plan to bust up the ME so Israel would be the only remaining dominant influence, and make it easier for that Apartheid nightmare to steal more land. ..."
    "... The US policy is to install a pro-Western leader in Syria. An impossibility IMO but they won't stop trying. Tillerson is going to Moscow to deliver an ultimatum. ..."
    "... Difficult to guess, what is rolling inside Trumps brains. Author William Engdhal thinks, that " Trumps´s Job is to Prepare America for War ." ..."
    "... I'll elaborate later why I "hate the game, not the players". But, thanks to reading strategic policy plans (Yinon Plan, Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC policy document) and the "news" cohesively (rather than as unrelated events the way Big Brother Media frames them), the grand story arc in the ME seems to be unfolding in a manner consistent with Yinon's vision. Is the consistency due to (a) causation or (b) correlation? ..."
    "... I'm afraid Trumps commitment to a non-interventionist agenda was only superficial. As a businessman he saw a niche in the political market (the interests of working class people, so against illegal immigration, offshoring jobs and neocon interventions) and he played it for what it's worth. An additional benefit is that it was contra Obama who he hates. ..."
    "... Now that Bannon is downsized too, there is only the same neoliberal-neocon administration left that we had with Obama, Bush and Clinton. ..."
    "... It looks like there is no deep strategy behind the sudden switch concerning Syria. Trump just wants to look good and he saw an opportunity to get it in an easy way. ..."
    "... I've never thought that Trump was capable of formulating his own plans. I thought it was clear from the campaign that he didn't have mastery of the details of any of his businesses or government policies to fend off attacks. He appeared to be the type of executive who left the details and the decision-making to his VP's. If you can surround him with the right people on his staff, they would essentially run the ship. ..."
    "... Was Obama 'forced' to give up his populist progressive agenda? No. He proved to be a servant of TPTB. His progressiveness was a shame. Obama barely tried to fight back, but his adoring fans made excuses for him at every turn. 11-dimension chess became a joke. ..."
    "... Trump has now proven to be the Republican Obama. He wasn't 'forced' to abandon 'America First'. That is a canard. And he is/will reap financial benefits from serving wealthy ME interests. ..."
    "... The plan is to throw the neocon controlled media off their track. The momentum against Trump was strong - led partly hysteria around the Russia election meddling propaganda. Even Flynn had to be sacrificed. For Trump to survive, he knows he has to throw the media off its track and being the master of media manipulation that he is, he has just managed that. Look at the headlines in NYT or WaPo or the other neocon controlled media in the last few days. The round the clock negative coverage of Trump has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, in WaPo Robert Kagan recently wrote a post praising Trump and saying more is needed. Of course, he wants more bloodshed in the mideast. ..."
    "... In my opinion, there will be no escalation from here on. Trump has been silent on Syria. His various officials will go off in different directions and everyone (especially the neocons) will believe what they want to - just look at that Kagan article - it's so dripping with hope. That gives him the time to consolidate and carry on his own strategy. He just needs time and with this gambit, he has got it. ..."
    "... Greg Bacon - I agree with you 100% (the Yinon Plan is the key). The Zionist influence in the US is scary ... I recently watched a video (youtube) / watch?v=hUJHA9VhUZE where Roger Mattson talked about his book "Stealing the Bomb" - how Israel acquired the knowledge and material to build their nuclear arsenal in the US ... what I found extremely disturbing is the fact, that after the AEC, found that 94 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) was "missing" in 1965, what happened? Nothing. ..."
    "... In 1968, the Tel Aviv CIA-station chief collected some samples outside Dimona and sent them to a forensic lab. Result: definitely of US origin, they could even tell from which plant because the unusual enrichment level (97,7%) did exactly match. So finally, the FBI starts to investigate .. (meanwhile Israel is producing plenty of plutionium...)and finds clear evidence of who did it and why ... ..."
    "... LBJ pretended it did not happen (he also knew what the Zionists had done to the USS Liberty but ordered it a "state secret" after the Zionists told him, if he spilled the beans, Jewish money would dry up for the Dems).. the relevant documents were classified for 50 yrs ..all this "frustrates US democracy" says Mattson ... (you bet) ..."
    "... So the Zionists did exactly what they accuse Iran of ... they do this all the time and then play the moral outrage card ... Zionism is a perfidious form of fascism ... the "Neo-cons" are all Zionists (or supporters of Zionism) so in reality fascism is driving US foreign policy ... (Allan Dulles did not bring all these Nazi-war criminals to the US for nothing ....) ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    "Trump was grab by is pussy by the deep state, now we are in a deep shit :)"

    What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria?

    The elements were clear just a few days ago. The U.S. would split off the east and set up a Kurdish enclave which it would then occupy with the help of proxy forces. It would use the leverage to push for political regime change in western Syria. Israel would occupy another piece of the Golan.

    While that looked somewhat favorable for the U.S. in the short term it was bad long term strategy. U.S. forces in the east would be surrounded by hostiles, cut off from the sea and under permanent guerilla attack from various opposing forces. But it looked at least like a viable short term way forward.

    The new strategy, which may not be one at all, and the new U.S. commitment is all over the place :

    As various officials have described it, the United States will intervene only when chemical weapons are used - or any time innocents are killed. It will push for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria - or pursue that only after defeating the Islamic State. America's national interest in Syria is to fight terrorism. Or to ease the humanitarian crisis there. Or to restore stability.

    I don't get it. The cacophony of the last days does not make any sense. There is no viable endgame I see here that would be advantageous for Trump or general U.S. borg policy - neither internationally nor domestically - neither short term nor long term. Trump is now losing the "America First" followers he will need to win another election.

    Due to the anti-Russian panic Trump surrendered to the neocons . Suddenly the borg is lauding him for a senseless escalation. The neocons want chaos but chaos is not a plan. There seems to be no plan that will help any cause.

    There is no chance that the U.S. can split Syria from its allies, Hizbullah, Iran and Russia. While Russia is under pressure in Kaliningrad, Crimea and Syria it has lived through way worse situation and these have always increased its determination. I don't see how or why it would fold now.

    Trump had an intelligent strategy when he won against Clinton. He deftly use his advantages. There are few advantages that he has and can play with regards to Middle East policy. Use pure military force? That's not a strategy, just tactical game play. Though the generals who run his cabinet may not be capable to see that. If he destroys Syrian then Lebanon and Jordan will also fall to radicals. Other countries will follow. Iraq would again throw out all U.S. troops. Would the U.S., or Israel, want that? Why?

    Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan.

    Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all.

    david | Apr 11, 2017 7:19:55 AM | 1
    Deep state.

    It's the only viable explanation, it also appears Trumps lost his twitter password. Lost the offhand style and is now being managed.
    His plan is survive, i think that's as far as it gets now, he cannot control US foreign policy under any circumstances.

    unn | Apr 11, 2017 7:26:37 AM | 2
    Talked about fake news. victim of fake news or now the generator of it? lies from the beginning to the end. that is the bread and butter.
    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:32:56 AM | 3
    trump and putin are setting a trap for theneocons
    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 7:39:50 AM | 4
    Touched on it somewhat in the open thread discussions, b.

    The administrations motivations appear to be purely domestic political, defensive, under siege, and extremely short term reactionary.

    The leaders of the Empires various vassal States openly declare they're just as confused, too.

    Should this incoherent non doctrine, of ' Make it up as you go along from day-to-day ', be formally christened, the 'Trump Doctrine', perhaps ?

    Ah, we're the world's sole remaining superpower, supposedly, displaying our true colors, deep omnipotence and thorough deliberative forward planning, for all the world to see ... /snark

    @ Posted by: flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:32:56 AM | 3

    Hoarsewhisperer suspects a similar possibility ... have my doubts.

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 7:44:38 AM | 5
    b, 'Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan. Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all.'

    tee-rump is stupid. he has no plan. he's reacting. everyone who thinks he/she has a plan is pushing it as tee-rump's plan. tee-rump lets them all go forward - probably isn't even aware of them all - will 'fire' those that fail, 'adopt' any that might not, that at least give him 'topical relief'.

    the fools - the evil clowns - are in power in ac/dc.

    meshpal | Apr 11, 2017 7:46:36 AM | 6
    It appears that US foreign policy is in turmoil and no longer well managed. The key goal has been to keep the US dollar as a reserve currency and every state in-line with their privately owned central bank.

    The petrol dollar is no longer working and debts are out-of-control. Libya and Operation Odyssey Dawn helped bring down a functional government but remember the first thing they did was establish a new private central bank and get rid of an independent one. Cuba, North Korea, Syria, and Sudan still have an independent bank and people at the top don't like that. What a coincidence that having an independent central bank and being an enemy of America are the same.

    In any case, it looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything to stop Russia, Iran, and Syria working together in peace. And make sure that central bank ownership is changed. Chaos may not be great, but it seems to generate profits and achieve goals for people at the top of the food chain. I do not hear much complaining about Libya. Why not the same for Syria?

    Eugene | Apr 11, 2017 7:50:20 AM | 7
    Whether or not Trump has a plan, he does have a trump card, Nuclear. After all, the Congress used it with the conformation process the other day. They might be similar in name only, but the fact 1/2 was used - i.e. the congress - means the U.S. might use the other 1/2. One has to wonder, just whose side are the pooh-baas really on?
    Mina | Apr 11, 2017 7:52:50 AM | 8
    G7 in Italy today; French FM says it is just the calendar chance, but they spoke mainly about Syria (Tillerson was there before he flies to Moscow). Ayrault says they are 100 percent in agreement on the plan for Syria with ARAB and TURKISH allies...

    i.e. they saved the Merkel-Turkey deal about the million Syrians in Turkey. No question about Erdogan's policies will be taken. Business as usual.

    Ox | Apr 11, 2017 7:52:54 AM | 9
    "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."

    Absolutely, a "very stupid plan"....... Or he had a plan and that plan was blown away by the Deep Forces that Trump, obviously ,will not dare to challenge . So much for the "Good All USA Swamp Cleaning"

    So, where is everybody now? On the streets? No, watching TV and eating Burritos.

    Edward | Apr 11, 2017 7:53:41 AM | 10
    The new Syria policy seems to be the plan of Kushner, who resembles/is a neocon:

    nomoremister.blogspot.com/2017/04/in-trump-white-house-democrats-and.html

    I don't see this plan working. The question is at what point does Trump give up and try something else, hopefully before igniting WWIII. Trump is in a real jam. He doesn't really have any ideas/solutions of his own, his advisors lack any real solutions, and he lacks institutional or public support. Will he end up surrendering to the borg? He may want to resign. He will try to blame others.

    Jen | Apr 11, 2017 7:54:42 AM | 11
    The US attack on Sha'riat airbase turned out to be much less than it was portrayed by the corporate presstitutes. As we know already, 23 of the 59 Tomahawk missiles reached their targets. Of the others, about 5 or 6 might have gone astray and the rest could have been intercepted and redirected by Russian forces near Latakia. The missiles fell around the perimeter of Sha'riat airbase, the main runway was not damaged and Syrian jets were using it not long after the attack. Russia was pre-warned of the US attack and managed to evacuate most personnel (as did the Syrians). The Russians also knew the US attack had been pre-planned even before the Syrian airforce dropped a conventional bomb on the terrorist warehouse storing sarin gas and chlorine gas components in Idlib.

    The whole incident may have been staged in part to buy Trump time and to trick the neocon establishment on Capitol Hill into believing it has Trump by the short and curlies. Trump has a good opportunity to gauge the loyalty or treachery of his cabinet and administration, and of Congress, by observing how they react to the Tomahawk attack.

    Also, is it necessarily a given that after the Sha'riat airbase attack, the US will engage in further attacks on Syrian territory? There's been some news that since the attack, US bombing flights over Syria have decreased. Perhaps there was some deal-making that we don't know about.

    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 7:55:02 AM | 12
    @ mesphal
    ... looks like the US is just winging it in Syria; anything to stop Russia, Iran, and Syria working together in peace.

    Though the actual effect appears to actually be very much the opposite, as well as disrupting vassal State cohesion/alignment and stiffening resolve among the non-aligned States re blatant, outright, 'Rogue' conduct.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:57:12 AM | 13
    "trump and putin are setting a trap for the neocons"

    the logic runs like this...

    everybody's fed up with the neocons... the prospect of war with Russia makes americans sick to their stomachs, jared and ivanka have three little kids and they probably love them

    world leaders are fed up, including xi

    so putin and trump will terrorize americans into doing some thinking, and xi is in on the gag

    McCain and graham will go down in flames, along with the main media

    that is admittedly the bright side... the dark side is: Richard Perle has the negative of trump and that burro

    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 8:09:17 AM | 14
    @ Jen

    Given the RF promptly cancelled the de-confliction MOU and communication channel, that means any US/coalition aircraft in flight over Syria within ~250Km+ of Latakia or Tartus (S400/300+ complexes) are at extreme risk.

    This is because those aircraft fly at mid to high altitudes to avoid possible engagement by numerous Syrian AD SAM/Gun systems captured and in known use by ISIS/AQ & various moderate head-choppers ...

    if true US/Coalition have ceased overflights, may not necessarily indicate anything more than that for now, simple force protection measure in the interim, perhaps.

    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 8:16:13 AM | 16
    Posted by: Jen | Apr 11, 2017 7:54:42 AM | 11

    Russia stopped to communicate on airstrikes - the deconflicting. It is the opposite of a deal, US planes risk running into accidents.

    harrylaw | Apr 11, 2017 8:22:36 AM | 17
    It is all about who will be the hegemon in the middle east, Apartheid Israeli expansionism in the West Bank, Golan Heights and beyond, not forgetting Israels claims on the Litani river. Plus Israels ability to influence the US electoral process through bundlers like Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban etc, plus the almost 100% support of Israel in Congress, winning US elections is what it is all about. Saudi Arabia also has good friends in Congress, just so long as they continue to use the petro dollar and continue purchasing 100's of billions of dollars on US arms.

    Both countries are coming together in their fear of Iran, thinking that Israels military power and Saudi money will fix everything is delusional. US thinking has it that the 'arc of resistance' must be defeated and that Syria 'the low hanging fruit' of that coalition shall be the first to fall, followed by Hezbollah then Iran.

    The US realize their hegemony in the region is at stake, that is why they are thrashing about with futile gestures accusing Syria and Russia in turn of war crimes. In my opinion the 'arc' will prevail, such is the existential nature of the struggle, the US, Israel/Saudi Arabia and the head choppers are on the wrong side of history.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 8:24:44 AM | 18
    that blackwater guy met with Russians in the sychelles, set up a back-channel communications link between trump and Putin

    Jared's been meeting with Russians, a fact he "forgot" to put on his job application

    meanwhile, McCain is making a leaping gaping asshole of himself, and so is the main media

    it's a risky strategy, it may backfire, it may not even exist, but...

    hope springs eternal, doesn't it?

    scottindallas | Apr 11, 2017 8:26:25 AM | 19
    what makes you so sure Trump isn't Stupid? He is way over his head, he has no idea of policy, process nor much else. Our one hope was that he was isolationist, but I think that ship has sailed...
    PhilK | Apr 11, 2017 8:33:26 AM | 21
    Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan.

    I think at least part of this is because some of the things he naively thought were problems are actually dilemmas. Problems can be worked out or smoothed over by methods he's familiar with and comfortable with; dilemmas, not so much.

    Banger | Apr 11, 2017 8:34:13 AM | 22
    As I see it little of the Syria policy has much to do with Syria policy. We see a naked struggle for power in Washington. This struggle has been brewing at least since the Syria operation started came out more in the open, more or less, in the 2013 false flag gas attack.

    You saw there the marriage of both Democrats and Republicans in pushing for War.

    Against this newly united faction realists in the military and other national security agencies opposed drastic military action and for three years there was a back and force--sometimes the War Party held some advantage and sometimes the realists dragged their feet.

    In late September of 2016 the realists seemed to have some momentum and the Kerry/Lavrov agreement was signed. With stunning swiftness the agreement was condemned by the War mongers and SecDef Carter mutinied and scuttled the agreement within a week.

    This was the first time I've seen such an open and obvious soft coup within the National Security State and Obama was stripped of his power. Part of why Carter did this is because everyone knew that Trump could not win so Clinton would hit the ground running and go into full-tilt war. Washington was held by the War Party and when Trump entered Washington he entered a town bent on War! Inc. all the way every day.

    I'm guessing that the War Party made Trump an offer he could not refuse and he complied and probably convinced himself that he was doing the right thing--what else could he do? The office of the President does not grant you automatic rule over the Washington establishment as many people falsely believe--that power must be seized and few Presidents have been able to do that.

    I have no idea if Trump is playing possum and waiting to fight another day or if he is merely content in being Head of State and letting the bureaucracy (Deep State) run the government without interference.

    Just so you know--by "Washington" I mean the entire apparatus of the Deep State which includes major corporations, foreign oligarchs, and governments like Saudi Arabia, Israel and the EU all who favor the War Party. This way they can utterly ignore the interests and prefernces of the American people whose interests are of no account in Washington.

    Yonatan | Apr 11, 2017 8:35:35 AM | 23
    The current US foreign policy depends on who last spoke to the president? Oh wait, wasn't that Ronnie 'Shoot first, ask questions later' Raygun?

    Given the scary way things are going, so light relief may be in order, so here is a link I came across of Russian press call in which Lavrov expertly trolls Tillerson.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl8126Iy6gM&t=4m40s

    CasualObserver | Apr 11, 2017 8:36:46 AM | 24
    I think Trump (Bannon) gave a piece of rope to neocon guys in his house and they used it to make this current mess. Bannon excused himself so other guys can hang themselves without him being burn. They wanted a fire, they got one.

    DS is not stupid enough to really start WW3 and fireplaying guys will ultimately burn at some moment this whole Bannon stratagem plays out. It looks risky as hell, but given precision of other guys strategic arms nobody is crazy enough to play too far.

    Other side knows this, and just makes fire hotter an hotter - while helping SAA to became more and more of A and many other steps all around the world. Once this plays out somebody will pay and I think Trump will not be one paying. He will get out of this a winner, an empathic and wise leader. And Putin will still be smiling one.

    TG | Apr 11, 2017 8:37:33 AM | 25
    What are Trump's thoughts? Good question.

    I really have no idea. It does look as if he was finally beaten down by the so-called 'deep state' (more properly, the oligarchy).

    Or Trump was just another Obama: a tabula rasa on which a frustrated American public could project their desires, but who in reality was just another sell-out.

    So sad.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 8:41:18 AM | 26
    one last little thing, here...

    google: fake chemical attack Syria: About 5,350,000 results

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fake+chemical+attack+syria&spf=1020

    *shrug*

    guidoamm | Apr 11, 2017 8:42:40 AM | 27
    You are assuming that anyone elected to office has the power to do anything. Politics is merely a sideshow.

    Take Europe as a typical case in point. In the past 40 years, Europe has experienced all manners of political ideology. From the Marxists and the military in Portugal and Greece to the Fascists in Spain and all manner of "Democrats" elsewhere.

    Yet, the result is exactly the same across the board. We have stagnating wages, a sky rocketing cost of living, decrepit infrastructure that all result in increasing fiscal and legislative pressure.

    Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life.

    Marxists, Fascists and Democrats all subscribe to a policy of perpetual fiscal deficits. No exception.

    Regardless the underlying condition of the economy, Western governments run fiscal deficits and rack up sovereign debt perpetually.

    But in a closed system where there is an entity that has been anointed as the owner of the currency and where the unit of account is imposed under penalty of law, perpetual deficits have arithmetical ramifications.

    The ramification is the migration of profit towards the owner of the currency.

    As profit migrates, so does title and political power.

    Essentially, the central bank has been allowed to draw a boundary around society. The central bank doesn't care what happens within the boundary because their sole role is to push credit into the system.

    Central banks have no other role.

    In this regard, the central bank has the most to gain when the economy is faltering.

    In this regard too, the roles of the World Bank, the IMF or the UN should become clearer. Hence the reason, for example, that the UN always, always, alway disburses funds even when corruption has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the reason that despite subsequent damning reports by SIGAR, USAid still spends hundreds of millions on white elephants in war zones.

    Syria is but a side show. As is Yemen, Iraq, Libya and many other theatres prior.

    The end game the transfer of title.

    Title is transferred by precipitating chaos.

    As you precipitate chaos, the fiscal strain compels the political construct to tighten the fiscal and legislative screws on people.

    In a first instance, this monetary system can only result in the political construct having to, eventually, fight against the people.

    Shortly after that, the political construct will have to fight against the owners of the currency too. This arrangement however, also builds up and nourishes an increasingly necessary security apparatus to ensure its own survival.

    As the fiscal situation worsens however, the Praetorians will, though gradually, inevitably take over. The Praetorian Guard has now taken over. That is what is happening in Syria

    g

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 8:43:26 AM | 28
    A bipartisan group called the war party now has control of the presidency and executive powers. The major flip flops in policy recently is the outward signs of the coup. Policy will soon steady to that of a tafiri suicide bomber.
    terry | Apr 11, 2017 8:52:56 AM | 29
    I am thinking that the Putin plan of a stalemate is going well ...Most plebs in the west want the US out of the ME and most in the ME want the US out so its looking like a win win . >)
    Yonatan | Apr 11, 2017 9:17:01 AM | 31
    On further thoughts, it is clear that there is no coherent persistent US foreign policy. Therefore Russia cannot trust a word the US says, especially in relation to issues concerning Russia's national security.

    There are rumors in the British press that Tillerson is going to make Russia an offer, presumably one seen by the US as something Russia cannot possibly refuse. The deal in question - give up Assad in favor of returning to the G7.

    This is totally laughable for several reasons.

    • i) The G7 probably has zero merit to the Russian government. At best, sanctions will be lifted, but they are actually of benefit to Russia.
    • ii) Assad per se is not important to Russia. The west really doesn't get that - they are so trapped in their own made-up world. The Russians are in Syria to kill the terrorists so they can't be used against Russia sometime later and to preserve the concept of the primacy of national territorial integrity / self-determination. However, it Assad was replaced before the terrorists are rmeoved, the possible pro-west replacement could kick Russia out of Syria before the key part is done. So in that sense, Russia's default is Assad stays.

    If the rumored deal is serious, it shows the west has either no concept of what Russia has been saying for years or they believe all leaders can be bought off for the right price.

    Would Russia trade Assad for the removal of the supposed 'missile defense' (actually nuke-capable first strike) systems in Poland and Romania? I doubt it as those systems can be dealt with in other ways without compromising the prime mission of defeating the terrorists in Syria.

    There is nothing the US can say now. It has totally destroyed its negotiating credibility in the eyes of Russia. All it can do is act. It either really supports the removal of all terrorists in Syria (no chance now?) or it tries to prevent Russia and allies destroying them. And that will mean military intervention.

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 9:36:12 AM | 32
    best place to find out what US is up to is perhaps Russian intelligence.

    https://www.rt.com/news/384333-putin-idlib-attack-provocation/

    (Putin)..."We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack,"...

    ..."President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ....

    ...A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff, which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria...

    US is pushing to launch strikes against Syrian gov. Much propaganda build up now in prep for next chemical false flag attacks. These nuts are ready to go to war against Syria Air strikes, missile strikes) to destroy the Syrian government even with Russia in Syria.

    x | Apr 11, 2017 9:39:48 AM | 33
    "Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all."
    ---

    I suggest there are multiple agenda with one over-riding (or perhaps underwriting) theme that joins them all -- follow the money and it leads to the Saudi Regime (and other related gas stations in the region).

    Media: silence when necessary -- 9/11; Yemen, little prince-lings delivering ISIS 'go' drugs in private jets via Lebanon; the weekly beheading and hand removal medieval style -- noise when necessary, "Assad Must Go!" at EVERY opportunity etc. I suggest it highly likely that all globalist politicians get a $kickback for the words sprouted in accord with the main themes. Easy to test the theory: just nuke Riyadh and see how quickly the ex-goat herders from the 11th century STFU. The war on Syria (and Islamic modernity) would end over night.

    Trump: he looks bored already. Suggest he's just pressed the whiz button on the DC food processor -- Republicans are acting like they won the election. Wrong, Trump and Bannon and Flynn won the election. Payback will be the mid-term in 2018 where all 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives and 34 of the 100 seats in the United States Senate will be contested.

    He's moving to hand these parasites back to 'the people' in one fine mess.

    Neocons and enough rope: there may be a bit of that as well, but I suggest it is 3rd to the previous listed. What does the U.S. administration want with regards to Syria? -- Whatever the $money wants, and with an Economic Depression underway, the money wants distraction most of all. Bread and circus.

    In ancient Rome they crowded the Colosseum to watch the blood sports -- now they just tune in on CNN & Co for their daily dose of fact-less Hollywood narrative. Syrian kid gassed, and it's the end of the world snowflake sobbing stupor; Yemen, Gaza, Iraqi, Afghani, (and the list goes on) and it's the big yawn if it even gets a mention between the sponsor's adverts.

    The only way this system of systemic corruption and abomination is going to stop is if/when the Russians/Chinese and any others simply target their "10,000" nukes on the GPS readings of the 0.01% cohort of individuals and start the countdown.

    Nations don't exist anymore, in practical terms -- as George Carlin said... the owners ... https://youtu.be/rsL6mKxtOlQ

    David | Apr 11, 2017 9:41:02 AM | 34
    In regards to the Trumpet's middle east mess I submit this link from Brandon Smith (Alt-market.com)

    Economic End Game

    An interesting blog. Brandon seems like someone willing to look beyond normal stereotypes and has a unique take on current affairs. I'd suggest checking-out some of his other blog post about the election. He also has information on making a ghillie suit which defeats thermal imaging (FLIR) – I'm sure this is something all MoA folks will be wearing come summer (snark).

    Thanks to the patrons and especially b for keeping this place open and interesting. As a side note I prefer the commenters who comment on news and not bash each other.

    I've been reading aleksandr solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, but I find I can't finish it. Too stark and too many moments that make me think the folks in the USA are about to experience the book first hand. Sigh.

    Peace

    Jackrabbit | Apr 11, 2017 9:46:23 AM | 35
    Trumps rush to judgment instead of attacking fake news, as he has in the past, shows that the 'fix is in'. In that light, Trump's business dealings with Qataris, Turks, etc. are suspect.

    Trump's NY-sized ego forces him to seek to dominate. In Trump's world, that means $$$$$. By servicing wealthy ME interests, he can leverage his business to make billions.

    Obama only got a $60m book deal. Trump's 'take' will rival the Clinton Foundation pay-to-play scheme.

    Jackrabbit | Apr 11, 2017 9:48:01 AM | 36
    The weak attack on Shayrat was a 'shot across the bow'. Trump sent a signal that further R+6 advances will not be tolerated. It is a 'one off' only if Putin agrees to a deal.
    FecklessLeft | Apr 11, 2017 9:48:12 AM | 37
    @34 thanks for the blog recommendation - looks interesting at a first glance.

    And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement: "Thanks to the patrons and especially b for keeping this place open and interesting. As a side note I prefer the commenters who comment on news and not bash each other."

    never mind | Apr 11, 2017 9:49:22 AM | 38
    I don't really see this one unified front when it comes to US foreign policy, one might view this administration, going forward, as schizophrenic as the last one.

    Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, after all, the US is considered to be an oligarchy , there are too many influental people, corporations and institutions pulling the strings of the empire.

    The question is, how does one deal with the US considering its mental health issues?

    mireille | Apr 11, 2017 9:51:29 AM | 39
    ... ... ...
    2. Trump controls nothing and never will. When Peter Dale Scott began talking about the Deep State many years ago he made it clear that the term derived from the Turkish "Donmeh". The donmeh has always been strpngly crypto Jewish and was the decisive force behind Kemal Attaturk that put the secular Turkish government in place. The donmeh includes Turkish, Israeli, and Saudi power factions with differing but allied agendas. The Syria situation is confused because the Turks are deeply confused about what would be acceptable to them.
    ... ... ...
    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 9:54:14 AM | 40
    36
    The deal is, Putin pulls support of Syria totally. No weapons, no ammunition into Syria, no support whatsoever so AQ can get the upper hand.
    Though I doubt the strike is a one off. The decision has already been made to hit Syria, Russia or no Russia.
    harrylaw | Apr 11, 2017 10:02:41 AM | 41
    b, "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan." Everone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" [Mike Tyson ]

    That punch... The Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah's acceptance of the Syrian invitation to help them defeat the headchoppers.Game set and match to Syria.

    Greg Bacon | Apr 11, 2017 10:10:35 AM | 43
    All your answers can be found in Oded Yinon's 1982 plan to bust up the ME so Israel would be the only remaining dominant influence, and make it easier for that Apartheid nightmare to steal more land.

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf

    After Syria is destroyed, it will be on to Iran and the MSM will be more than happy to oblige in killing another nation.

    dh | Apr 11, 2017 10:18:20 AM | 44
    The US policy is to install a pro-Western leader in Syria. An impossibility IMO but they won't stop trying. Tillerson is going to Moscow to deliver an ultimatum.
    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 10:19:14 AM | 45
    Syria war: G7 fails to agree sanctions on Russia after 'chemical attack'
    BBC News - 14 minutes ago

    The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says experience shows that Russia does not take well to threats or ultimatums. If Mr Tillerson thinks he can weaken Moscow's support for President Assad, he may need to re-think, our correspondent says, adding that ...

    Tillerson Gives Russia Ultimatum: Side With The US Or Iran
    International Business Times - 25 minutes ago
    U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was scheduled to meet with Russian diplomats this week to discuss Russia's obligation to drain Syria of chemical weapons under a 2013 agreement. Tillerson gave Russia an ultimatum Tuesday to side with the U.S ...

    maningi | Apr 11, 2017 10:20:48 AM | 46
    B

    Difficult to guess, what is rolling inside Trumps brains. Author William Engdhal thinks, that " Trumps´s Job is to Prepare America for War ."
    But maybe we should better ask Kissinger, who once said:
    "No one knows, what he (Trump) is going to do. So we can make of him anything we want to.
    He is what we want to make him
    .

    Guess that was the big, somehow erratic plan right from the beginning - I am afraid.

    Anyway, most likely its a waste of time trying to find out, what big plans Trumps will be pulling out of the wizards hat.
    On the other hand, it could be live saving to start to thing about the plan WE should come up to get us out of this mess.

    mfg,

    dumbass | Apr 11, 2017 10:37:34 AM | 48
    I'll elaborate later why I "hate the game, not the players". But, thanks to reading strategic policy plans (Yinon Plan, Wolfowitz Doctrine, PNAC policy document) and the "news" cohesively (rather than as unrelated events the way Big Brother Media frames them), the grand story arc in the ME seems to be unfolding in a manner consistent with Yinon's vision. Is the consistency due to (a) causation or (b) correlation?

    (a) If "causation", then the US will likely keep increasing its activities and presence until Syria is partitioned and the US has permanent bases.

    For us peaceniks, potential upside is to mitigate militant Israeli rulers lack of confidence in their long-term survivability:

    • Permanent US bases in southern Syria place a buffer between Israel and Muslim countries. US would more directly guarantee Israel's security.
    • With Israel's newest land grab, they'll secure substantial long-term energy supplies.

    Once they feel substantially less threatened, then maybe a later generation of people living in the region will not know war so intimately.

    (Still on their "to do" list is "relocate the Palestinians somewhere". Maybe relocate the Palestinians to a re-partitioned Syria or Libya, now that part of those populations has been sent to Europe as refugees?? Again, gotta wonder about causation versus correlation.)

    About "hate the game, not the players", I understand why Israeli militant rulers feel the way they do. If they choose not to play brutal geopolitcal games, others will. Indeed, when you observe the ease with which they and others successfully excited Christian sheeple into becoming attack dogs, you can see they have no choice but to do so, because other irrational rulers could and would eventually come along and turn those same sheeple against them. The world is cruel and you cannot safely "choose not to play".

    (If most self-professed "Christians" weren't so easily goaded into supporting killing people, then maybe they wouldn't need to be "wagged". But, I don't see that day coming. Especially with the way history is (not) taught.)

    (b) It could simply be "correlation". After all, imperialist but self-professed "Christian" hordes have been killing each other, Muslims, and Jews with abandon for millenia. (What's that about "religion of peace"?? In recent memory, "Christianity as practiced" is far less a "religion of peace" than Islam.) What we see in the ME could simply be more ordinary US/UK/Western European imperialism, like the kind we've seen historically and continuing to present day everywhere else around the world.

    The "light at the end of the tunnel" is that general artificial intelligence is coming soon. If it doesn't kill us, there's some "hope" the hegemon that emerges within 10 years will use its omniscience and omnipotence to impose/guarantee safety to all of us in the panopticon.

    dumbass | Apr 11, 2017 10:45:09 AM | 50
    guidomann @ 27

    >> Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life.

    Not true. Capitalist colonies that transformed from capitalist to Marxist experiences giant improvements in literacy and longevity within just a few years. That in spite of a constant state of war imposed on them by their former and future masters.

    Compare Cuba people's fortunes with any and every other tiny nation in Oceania's direct shadow. Heck, Cuba's biggest export was doctors. Better than "the world's greatest purveyor of violence" by a long shot.

    Jerry | Apr 11, 2017 10:46:38 AM | 51
    I'm afraid Trumps commitment to a non-interventionist agenda was only superficial. As a businessman he saw a niche in the political market (the interests of working class people, so against illegal immigration, offshoring jobs and neocon interventions) and he played it for what it's worth. An additional benefit is that it was contra Obama who he hates.

    So when Obama starts wars all over the Middle East, Trump claimed to want peace. When Obama struck a deal with Iran, Trump wanted to nuke it. Same with TPP, Obama care etc. In the same way I suspect that Trumps hatred for Mexico comes from several botched businessdeals in Mexico that cost him a lot of money.

    Now that Trump has what he wants (the White House and giving Obama the finger), he is only interested in 'winning'. So when the Bannon-Flynn wing couldn't give him victories, he started to go with the Kushner-Cohn wing. Trump seems to be very opportunistic without any commitment to a principled policy. And with people he acts the same: anyone remember how he dropped Christy and Gingrich after they campaigned for him? Same with Flynn: he dropped him for no good reason. Now that Bannon is downsized too, there is only the same neoliberal-neocon administration left that we had with Obama, Bush and Clinton.

    It looks like there is no deep strategy behind the sudden switch concerning Syria. Trump just wants to look good and he saw an opportunity to get it in an easy way. And he did get it: the MSM is suddenly loving him, the Trump-is-Putin-meme has all but disappeared, his approval rate just bumped up and the Israel-lobby is elated. It is not even that Trump sold out his voter-base. He was never committed to them in the first place and now they're in for a rude awakening - how sad!

    dumbass | Apr 11, 2017 10:51:37 AM | 52
    Team Chaos has found the perfectly inscrutable figurehead in Trump. Confusing the hell out of their contrived adversaries 24x7.
    Pislyak | Apr 11, 2017 11:04:07 AM | 53
    Trump buckling under to these policies (from neocon Robert Kagan Washington Post, Sunday, April 9)reported by Consortium News:

    "The testing of Trump's resolve actually begins now. If the United States backs down in the face of these challenges, the missile strike, though a worthy action in itself, may end up reinforcing the world's impression that the United States does not have the stomach for confrontation."

    "Instead of being a one time event, the missile strike needs to be the opening move in a comprehensive political, diplomatic and military strategy to re-balance the situation in Syria in America's favor."

    "Thursday's action needs to be just the opening salvo in a broader campaign not only to protect the Syrian people from the brutality of the Assad regime but also to reverse the downward spiral of US power and influence in the Middle East and throughout the world. A single missile strike unfortunately cannot undo the damage done by the Obama administration over the past six years."

    "The United States' commitment to such a course will have to be clear enough to deter the Russians from attempting to disrupt it. This in turn will require moving sufficient assets to the region so that neither Russia nor Iran will be tempted to escalate the conflict to a crisis, and be sure that the American forces will be ready if they do . . ."

    "Let's hope that the Trump administration is prepared for the next move. If it is, then there is a real chance of reversing the course of global retreat that Obama began. A strong response in Syria will make it clear to the likes of Putin, Xi Jinping, Ayatollah Khamenei and Kim Jong Un that the days of American passivity are over."

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/10/neocons-have-trump-on-his-knees/

    juliania | Apr 11, 2017 11:06:48 AM | 54
    What Trump hasn't seen but Putin does see is that in order to become a leader recognized by history as great and ultimately able himself to face himself, one has to stand by what he has told the people he will do. In that illusory state of blindness he resembles Obama greatly and resides within a bubble of immediate, transitory acclaim. Our hope was that, in his later years now, he would have realized, with our support, what a sham that attitude has been - Obama has yet to realize it, but he eventually will, and his declining years will face him with that reality. It's a huge shame for both men that they seem unable to appreciate that they both had the potential to be great and have both shunned the prospect.

    Putin will now turn away. Not belligerently, but with great sadness. Tillerson is taking, RT says, an ultimatum from the G7 which Putin will not accept. If he, Tillerson, presents this, he will quickly be shown the door. Politely, but quickly. Russia will not, cannot, accept any 'deal'. The best we can hope for is that they will ignore us and concentrate on the real tragedies of people under siege and lives lost. The best we can hope for is that our blustering 'leader' will find some other distraction that doesn't get in the way, for whatever sort of time he still wants to spend pretending to be president. Because that he is not. If Russia can manage without us, they will have to do so, and I really don't know how the US is going to be able to manage.

    Movies and tv shows maybe. Movies and tv shows. And blue jeans. We could go back to making blue jeans; we were good at that.

    Les | Apr 11, 2017 11:10:45 AM | 55
    I've never thought that Trump was capable of formulating his own plans. I thought it was clear from the campaign that he didn't have mastery of the details of any of his businesses or government policies to fend off attacks. He appeared to be the type of executive who left the details and the decision-making to his VP's. If you can surround him with the right people on his staff, they would essentially run the ship.
    Jackrabbit | Apr 11, 2017 11:12:53 AM | 56
    Jerry @51

    Was Obama 'forced' to give up his populist progressive agenda? No. He proved to be a servant of TPTB. His progressiveness was a shame. Obama barely tried to fight back, but his adoring fans made excuses for him at every turn. 11-dimension chess became a joke.

    We are failing to learn from that history.

    Trump has now proven to be the Republican Obama. He wasn't 'forced' to abandon 'America First'. That is a canard. And he is/will reap financial benefits from serving wealthy ME interests.

    Hannibal | Apr 11, 2017 11:14:55 AM | 57
    Trump does not have a plan, he's a clueless eco-centric blowhard bully. He's dangerous!
    ancient archer | Apr 11, 2017 11:15:14 AM | 58
    "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."

    The plan is to throw the neocon controlled media off their track. The momentum against Trump was strong - led partly hysteria around the Russia election meddling propaganda. Even Flynn had to be sacrificed. For Trump to survive, he knows he has to throw the media off its track and being the master of media manipulation that he is, he has just managed that. Look at the headlines in NYT or WaPo or the other neocon controlled media in the last few days. The round the clock negative coverage of Trump has been stopped in its tracks. In fact, in WaPo Robert Kagan recently wrote a post praising Trump and saying more is needed. Of course, he wants more bloodshed in the mideast.

    Is it a wonder that in the age of fake news the master media manipulator won the elections??

    In my opinion, there will be no escalation from here on. Trump has been silent on Syria. His various officials will go off in different directions and everyone (especially the neocons) will believe what they want to - just look at that Kagan article - it's so dripping with hope. That gives him the time to consolidate and carry on his own strategy. He just needs time and with this gambit, he has got it.

    Also, with the war crazy neocons flocking to his banner, they have proved that they are neither republicans nor are they democrats. they just support whoever seems ablest to sow more war and chaos. A blight on their houses!

    john | Apr 11, 2017 11:28:34 AM | 59
    Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan

    well, if he's not stupid the idea that he's been 'captured' doesn't really hold up. unless, of course, the man with no name put the old luger to his temple and talked to him softly about the well-being of his beautiful wife and children.

    after all these years, decades really, the aggregate of lies, betrayals, and deceptions, criminality of the vilest nature, has sucked all the oxygen out of strategic thinking . off-the-cuff accusations of gas attacks without a shred of evidence, or even a sham investigation, followed hours later by a cruise missile bombardment pretty much confirms this. now it looks like raw imperialism on steroids.

    of course the only viable plan would be to pack up and go home, start a political reconciliation process, and pay a massive reparations bill.

    fat chance.

    Miss Marple | Apr 11, 2017 11:32:57 AM | 60
    Greg Bacon - I agree with you 100% (the Yinon Plan is the key). The Zionist influence in the US is scary ... I recently watched a video (youtube) / watch?v=hUJHA9VhUZE where Roger Mattson talked about his book "Stealing the Bomb" - how Israel acquired the knowledge and material to build their nuclear arsenal in the US ... what I found extremely disturbing is the fact, that after the AEC, found that 94 kg of HEU (highly enriched uranium) was "missing" in 1965, what happened? Nothing.

    In 1968, the Tel Aviv CIA-station chief collected some samples outside Dimona and sent them to a forensic lab. Result: definitely of US origin, they could even tell from which plant because the unusual enrichment level (97,7%) did exactly match. So finally, the FBI starts to investigate .. (meanwhile Israel is producing plenty of plutionium...)and finds clear evidence of who did it and why ...

    End result: huge cover-up .... according to Mattson:

    "CIA-information withheld from NRC and FBI" ... "FBI did not look until too late" .. "FBI & CIA feared Israel's pushback" (!)

    LBJ pretended it did not happen (he also knew what the Zionists had done to the USS Liberty but ordered it a "state secret" after the Zionists told him, if he spilled the beans, Jewish money would dry up for the Dems).. the relevant documents were classified for 50 yrs ..all this "frustrates US democracy" says Mattson ... (you bet)

    So the Zionists did exactly what they accuse Iran of ... they do this all the time and then play the moral outrage card ... Zionism is a perfidious form of fascism ... the "Neo-cons" are all Zionists (or supporters of Zionism) so in reality fascism is driving US foreign policy ... (Allan Dulles did not bring all these Nazi-war criminals to the US for nothing ....)

    Heliopause | Apr 11, 2017 11:40:51 AM | 61
    Trump undoubtedly has a plan, such as it is, but the competing plans from the many different major actors make it difficult to discern or execute. Imagine a football game where a dozen teams are all playing one another at the same time. Obama's plan was to kinda sorta do something, hoping nobody would notice the dearth of morality or coherence, and Trump may be falling into the same trap.
    Flavius | Apr 11, 2017 11:49:01 AM | 64
    Ockham: every appearance points to no plan, ergo, until evidence directs otherwise, the hypothesis that there is no plan best explains the circumstances. Trump, like our past 3 Presidents, appears to be over his head, unable to reconcile streams of advice into a coherent policy, and close to flailing. He has thrown away his cover on the intelligent right; he has defaulted into cover from the borg where he is despised. If/when evidence is presented that the Syria 'gas attack' was a false flag, he is through. Better lucky than smart, but it sure looks time has run out on Trump with respect to both.
    Backdoor | Apr 11, 2017 12:00:18 PM | 65
    Still funny how so many people fall for the "Trump is an idiot" scheme, go on underestimating him, that's what he wants.
    Personally I think it's important to look at the "military action" he took. Sending a bunch of tomahawks on an unimportant target, all with a prior warning, is hardly a heavy retaliation, which makes sense since Assad did nothing worthy of retaliation, and Trump most certainly knew that. But look what happend, everyone is loosing their shit, complaining about how Trump will start WW3, and all the while, the warhawks flook to trump and endorse his actions, actions that the majority of the population condems because they're either pro-Trump, and hold him to his campaign promise of "america first", or are against Trump, and therefore condem absolutly everything he does. Imagine Hilary doing the same thing, her followers would have hailed her as a hero for fighting this Evil-Monster-Assad™. We will have to see how this situation plays out, but to toss in my two cents, I suspect that the war tension will get seriously hyped up by the media and Trump will play his part in that aswell, either by remaining silent or by resorting to vague politically meaningless statements. Once the public is outraged and people are frigthend enough Trump can handle syria without appearing weak or being attacked as a russian ploy. Afterall Trump has nothing to win by starting a war in syria, it wouldn't make sense for him to suddenly outobama Obama, for what reason? Money? Power? Sure the deepstate could blackmail him, but I'm honestly sure that after all these baseless attacks they could have a video of him in full SS-Garb shooting a bunch of puppies and the public wouldn't give a shit.
    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 11, 2017 12:00:50 PM | 66
    Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid.
    He must have some kind of plan.

    Welcome to the club.
    Given his inaugural drain the swamp declaration, and the inherent hazards and complexities, there was no chance at all that His presidency would be anything other than a perpetual guessing game. Imo, Trump seems to be the first POTUS in modern times to fully comprehend, and exploit, the outer limits of the power and respect that the position confers on the incumbent. Everyone who matters on the World Stage is obliged to listen when POTUS speaks, and at least pretend to take him seriously, whether they agree or not.
    ----------------------
    As Outraged has alluded to above, the G8-1 wank-fest was as anti-climactic as Xi's meeting with Trump. Perhaps someone stayed sober enough to suggest they all take a cold shower and stop talking a load of drivel that even they, themselves, were having trouble pretending to believe.
    Howzat?!
    Putin won, in absentia!

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 11, 2017 12:04:16 PM | 67
    Trump's "plan" seems to be to rush the net and provoke a sense of crisis, "danger" (to whom by what?) and "chaos" (no coherent storyboard or "message discipline" as many have mentioned).

    No, I don't think Trump is "smart" ... pre-inauguration (even) he was described as a person whose opinion is most formed by the person he last spoke to ... and he appears to be an easily distracted, never-shuts-up (talking about himself), poor listener. He may not be "stupid" but he's not smart or disciplined either. He's impressed by his own mythology wrt flying by the seat of his pants through crisis after crisis, with multiple spinning plates ... he's a plate-spinner of some skill.

    The G7 has declined to impose additional sanctions on Putin -- OR -- Syria, meaning, I hope, they recognize how overblown and opportunistically exploited this alleged use of chemical weapons incident has become. Guardian .

    The US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified message from the G7, which condemned the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However, G7 foreign ministers were divided over possible next steps and refused to back a UK call for fresh sanctions.

    (It's likely not of much too much significance, but does represent at least detour or delay as opposed to an Anti-Putin and Anti-Assad rubber stamp)

    Is R2P even part of Trump's vocabulary? Yes, sentence first, trial after (if anyone can be forced to remember the incident is disputed and the investigation is incomplete)

    Anon1 | Apr 11, 2017 12:15:44 PM | 68
    Bernie Sanders on Syria Strikes: Assad Is a War Criminal and a Child-Killer
    https://medium.com/@pplswar/bernie-sanders-on-syria-strikes-assad-is-a-war-criminal-and-a-child-killer-6be6c1e32cb9
    ToivoS | Apr 11, 2017 12:17:17 PM | 69
    Banger | Apr 11, 2017 8:34:13 AM | 22

    I have to agree with these comments. In 2002 the Bush admin had a plan for Iraq. We all know what that was. The problem for Bush was that he started losing the resulting war. After 2004 just about every decision was some ad hoc fix and compromise after another to avert a more obvious defeat. Obama inherited that situation and his policies, if they can be called that, were unchanged. The only initiative Obama has shown was to extend Bush's plan to Libya and Syria but without massive use of US troops on the ground. This has resulted in the destruction of the Libyan state and the Syrian War. Again Obama's wars have failed just as Bush's. Like Bush, Obama resorted to ad hoc fixes and compromises that led directly to the incoherent policies pursued by Kerry.

    What Trump has added is a quantitative change, not qualitative. The frequency of incoherent and contradictory moves has just increased. Even the open split in current policy where Nikki openly contradicts Tillerson was seen in the Obama admin when Ash Carter shot down Kerry's efforts at a Syrian deal.

    It is pointless to try to define a policy from this mess. It should be obvious that the incoherence is the result of some serious divisions inside the deep state and what is likely stirring the current crisis in US policy is an effort by part of the deep state to overthrow or neuter the Trump admin. Identifying the competing factions is not that difficult. Assessing the relative power of those factions and what policies those faction's prefer are more difficult.

    Mina | Apr 11, 2017 12:19:40 PM | 70
    Bhadhrakumar was poitint to Erdogan has not wanting an international enquiry on the chemical used. Who need an enquiry when you can provide the result you want?
    http://www.rfi.fr/contenu/ticker/syrie-analyses-confirment-desormais-utilisation-sarin-ministre-turc-sante
    We all have to believe the Turkish authorities...
    While the Sweden attacker travelled to Syria (via Turkey) and one of the two EGyptians who blew themselves in Egyptian churches last sunday was expelled from Kuwait for links with IS (as tipped by.. the Egyptian authorities...), the EU probably think that they will manage to control the flood of former IS recruits (from Idlib to the rest of the world) by occupying Syria? i doubt it works.
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/262728/Egypt/Politics-/Alexandria-bombing-suspect-was-extradited-from-Kuw.aspx

    More demonstration of Arab solidarity and ethics
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/9/262777/World/International/African-migrants-seeking-Europe-sold-as-slaves-for.aspx
    http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/262773/World/Region/Lebanon-army-order-evicts-,-Syria-refugees-from-ca.aspx we enforce by selling them billions of dollars of weapons have nothing to say about that...
    But the "moral authorities"

    PavewayIV | Apr 11, 2017 12:20:58 PM | 71
    This:

    https://twitter.com/PavewayIV/status/851830282164555776

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 11, 2017 12:21:21 PM | 72
    So many folks breathlessly anticipating mushroom clouds in our future, I fear we are being manipulated into gratitude and relief at anything less ... which also seems to have become a recognizable Trump (and MSM) tactic ...

    Team Trump has apparently failed to "normally" and effectively stage-manage the annual White House Easter Egg hunt -- a logistical nightmare that a hotelier and beauty pageant magnate and staff might have been expected to ace... diminished expectations ... many fewer participants, military bands rather than A-list acts (Bieber apparently was a past entertainer 2010 to an onsite audience of 30,000 mentioned). Commemorative "eggs" ordered late, local schools still have not received their invitations. Apparently, they have only half the "normal" number of volunteers to staff the event

    Washington-area public schools that normally receive blocks of tickets for as many as 4,000 children have yet to hear from the White House, according to representatives for school systems in the District of Columbia; Arlington, Va.; and Alexandria, Va. Several groups representing military families, who have accounted for as many as 3,000 guests in recent years, also said they had yet to be contacted.

    This should have been a gimme --

    NYT .

    WG | Apr 11, 2017 12:29:29 PM | 73
    Look what's happened with Trumps initial moves in the whitehouse in some detail:

    -Appoints Michael Flynn
    -Flynn appoints Ezra-Cohn Watnik to senior director of intelligence at National Security Council
    -Flynn alters national security council January 28
    -removes director national intelligence
    -removes chairman of joint chiefs of staff
    -removes director of the CIA
    -removes US chief representative to the UN (state department?)
    -removes secretary of energy (nuclear weapons complex)
    -adds chief strategist to the president (Bannon)

    -Flynn gets removed by Vice President leaking that Flynn lied to him about Russia, Trump asks for Flynn resignation.
    -Ezra-Cohn Watnik discovers who unmasked Flynn during Obama admin, leaks info to Nunes.
    -NYT reveals Watnik is the leaker
    -McMaster tries to transfer Watnik out of NSC, Trump and Jared intervene.
    -April 4 McMaster succeeds in altering National Security Council back to original pre Trump configuration, removing Bannon's position and reinstating all of the others.
    -within days of that move, events unfold in Syria and US policy shifts 180 degrees, both in Syria and apparently in North Korea.

    -----
    It's clear that Flynn's departure was the beginning of the end, it's just taken a little bit of time. Bannon, Watnik and Nunes were working to try and maintain control however they've clearly been crippled as Bannon's now off of NSC and Nunes recused himself from the probe into Russia.
    There is no Trump master plan in motion, the people who he originally hired to enact his vision are either sidelined or fired.

    TG | Apr 11, 2017 12:35:19 PM | 74
    Some have suggested that Trump is practicing "Mad Dog" diplomacy, wherein an appearance of being dangerously unpredictable can be useful in getting your way.

    Perhaps.

    I do point out, however, that to be long-term effective "Mad Dog" diplomacy requires that one not actually BE a mad dog.

    Lea | Apr 11, 2017 12:39:56 PM | 75
    @Posted by: guidoamm | Apr 11, 2017 8:42:40 AM | 27

    Quote, "In the past 40 years, Europe has experienced all manners of political ideology. From the Marxists and the military in Portugal and Greece to the Fascists in Spain and all manner of "Democrats" elsewhere.
    Yet, the result is exactly the same across the board. We have stagnating wages, a sky rocketing cost of living, decrepit infrastructure that all result in increasing fiscal and legislative pressure.
    Clearly, politics has absolutely no bearing on our quality of life. "

    I am not sure things are like that because of some sort of natural decline. I have a link that tells a whole different story, one of occupation of Europe by the USA since right after WW2.
    That US occupation came most at the same time as the end of the European colonies (pushed by the USA with the Atlantic Charter). Unable to carry on plundering its colonies, the post-war, destroyed and impoverished Europe was left well-nigh totally dependent on US investments.
    The US occupation of Europe (and Japan) was economic, military and cultural. And we are still ruled by the USA swamp creatures (I am French).
    http://www.entelekheia.fr/how-did-europe-become-an-american-turf/

    I also recommend the blog of the author, where I found historical absolute pearls of wisdom.
    http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 12:52:41 PM | 76
    Paveway 71

    The blue pipeline in your link - why the need for it to skirt around Iraq? Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey?

    xor | Apr 11, 2017 1:00:50 PM | 77
    Trump's plan is to stay in the presidential seat and try to deliver on at least 1 of his promises which he will so desperately cling to just like Obama clung so desperately to 1 of his promises, health care, that eventually became an abomination. Trump has no power over the chain of events occurring in Syria or beyond and is just there to give it legitimacy, to keep the illusion allive as if the pursued policy is being led by someone people voted for. It's like in Europe when NATO first bombed Libya and then the parliaments voted for the military action giving their approval while it should have been the other way round so it was just to give the impression that there is some democratic veneer to the pursued policies.

    The policy of the US deep state/borg is chaos and fragmentation like Yugoslavia, Libya, Somalia, ... resulting in weak meaningless pliable statelets.

    dh | Apr 11, 2017 1:08:24 PM | 78
    A lot depends on Tillerson's reception in Moscow. It will be interesting to see how the Russians handle him.

    It could be that the inconclusive result he got from the G7 has caused some second thoughts.

    LXV | Apr 11, 2017 1:08:29 PM | 79
    Congratulations b, for your on-the-record giving in to Tavistock's smoke and mirrors .

    Lest you forget, propaganda is still legal in the US of A, courtesy of the Patriot Act. You too must have noticed the Trump administration's decision to double down on their predecessors' efforts in spreading the 'fog of war' far and wide, by disseminating contradictory reports and opinions by .gov officials, "anonymous sources" and various psy-ops projects. Simultaneously Trump decides to black out all info regarding US troops deployment in the ME (as opposed to Obama's most.transparent.administration.ever. that at least reported some 'numbers') and send more boots on the ground in Jordan and with the Kurds.

    Now all we have to do is just sit back, relax and wait for the next "barrel bombing by Assad's regime" to (not) take place and be "reported" by zionist presstitutes, the rest is a question of simple math...

    chu teh | Apr 11, 2017 1:09:36 PM | 80
    "Trump is now losing the "America First" followers he will need to win another election. "...

    Neither Trump nor his minders have need nor great desire for "must have" a 2nd-Pres. term. The deed is already done and more deeds are works in progress.

    The DeepState, SecretTeam, DarkSide, 5thColumn and other clichés for CovertActions are the continuation of plans at least going back to Federal Reserve creation 1913 [which arguably involved blackmail-control of Woodrow Wilson via his alleged, late-stage syphilis].
    So a 2nd pres term is a distraction.

    When considering global movers-and-shakers, understand that old-wealth families have the privileges of generation-to-generation , continuous communication networks and accumulated implanted agents
    and mutual benefits that are vital to continuing their wealth status, with its growing control networks that span generations.

    Any "new money" lacks such time-honed privileges. BTW, "they" know all about assassination; there is no tech that rivals assassination when it becomes necessary to maintain old-wealth status.
    The removal of the Russian Czar system and its 300-year old Romanov family reign, threatened and terrified all other old-wealth families and established an all-out war to maintain the status of the remaining "families". If you were looking for the real movers-and-shakers, you might start here.

    ToivoS | Apr 11, 2017 1:13:49 PM | 81
    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 12:52:41 PM | 76

    " Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey? "

    Well maybe because the US does not control Iraq (at least to the level to secure a pipeline) and probably does not control Turkey either.

    These pipeline stories as an explanation for every twist and turn in US actions in the ME are becoming tedious. Oil and gas are not the drivers of US policy in the ME. Maybe it was in the 1950s but it is not today. A much simpler explanation is the infiltration of the neocons (i.e. Zionist) into US foreign policy circles.

    B. Nathanael | Apr 11, 2017 1:15:46 PM | 82
    Here's why:

    http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=1201

    Netanyahu visits Trump; IsraHell bombs Syria; Netanyahu demands buffer zones into the Golan Heights; Tillerson says Assad can stay; 'Sarin gas' (fake news) explodes in Idlib; The Jew-owned media blames Assad sans any proof; War criminals Mattis and McMaster concur and Trump buys the JEW LIE; Tillerson caves; Trump BOMBS Syria; Tillerson reverses and says Assad must go and Russia is complicit; Jews applaud!

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 1:16:12 PM | 83
    Add to WG's list that Trump now has a fully legal impeachment hanging over his head.

    For the past twelve months or so, US has been building up forces on Russia's borders. Not enough for any sort of attack - apart from Kaliningrad perhaps - but enough that Russia must maintain sufficient forces in place to face that threat. The build up of US forces in Europe seems to have begun some time after Russia moved into Syria for the purpose of tying up Russian forces.

    Syria - outraged has posted links to a couple of relevant articles further back in the thread.
    Add to that what Putin has said to reporters -
    https://www.rt.com/news/384333-putin-idlib-attack-provocation/

    Russian MoD http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12118216@egNews
    ...Moreover, according to the information, insurgents are delivering toxic substances to the areas of Khan Sheikhoun, Jira airport, East Ghouta and to the west from the Aleppo city.
    The purpose of these actions is making another reason to accuse Syrian government of chemical weapons use and provocation of new US attacks.
    The Russian party warns against making such steps.

    Russia are now beefing up Syrian air defences and apparently other measures.

    Has the decision to attack Syria already been made?
    Was the Tomahawk attack a warning for Russia to get out before the main attack comes?

    chris m | Apr 11, 2017 1:18:53 PM | 84
    his "base" is beginning to turn against him.
    all of a sudden, the Dems and Liberals are cock-a whoop for him
    while those who actually supported him are turning against him.
    i think he's probably lost it.


    jayc | Apr 11, 2017 1:19:59 PM | 85
    I would say the bombing of the Syrian airfield served the function of a valve - opened to relieve pressure. The pressure was the intense hysteria in the USA media and political culture over the "chemical attack" with the additional context of alleged Russian meddling in favour of the new administration.

    As to the end of the de-confliction communications, I suspect this will be reinstated at some point. Based on statements by Russian military soon after the "chemical attack" - to the effect that the flight plan of the plane, which conducted a mission in the area at the same time as the alleged attack, had been shared with the Americans ahead of time, as routine, and the Russians assume this information was passed to the rebel groups who staged the attack so the theatrical presentation could be timed to coincide with the presence of that plane.

    Pnyx | Apr 11, 2017 1:44:51 PM | 86
    "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid. He must have some kind of plan."
    His plan is to survive as Potus. That's all. He has pretty strong fascistoid beliefs, but of course surviving is more important. So the nihilistic neocons are on the march again.
    ben | Apr 11, 2017 1:56:44 PM | 87
    Could we all just grab a clue please? Mr. Trump, in the role of Reagan, is nothing more than a salesperson selling whatever the corporate giants have to sell. He is here to sell his brand, and by way of that, the empire's goals also. Global hegemony is the game for the empire/NATO. This modern empire will not tolerate competition of any kind. So regime change is in store for any nation that will not comply.

    Mr. Trump is a spoiled rich brat, but is is a superb "snake oil salesman". Like Reagan, perfect for the empire's needs.

    harrylaw | Apr 11, 2017 2:02:19 PM | 88
    TG@74 We already have a mad dog on the Trump team 'Mad dog Mattis. here are some of his quotes.
    "The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot."
    (Business Insider)
    3. "I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all."
    (San Diego Union Tribune)
    4. "Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they're so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact."

    "Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet."

    Outraged | Apr 11, 2017 2:04:50 PM | 89
    Perhaps we should take a deep breath and exhale slowly ... a short take on the G8-1 love-in:

    After two days of the usual, a supplementary joint position/statement was sought, the primary driver being Perfidious Albion, UK, with US, Tillerson in support, the response of the Foreign Ministers of Italy, France, Germany, Canada & Japan, whilst diplomatic observers of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Qatar & Turkey stand around looking on sternly:

    1. We should all agree to launch action against Russkies to teach 'em a lesson: No.
    2. Well what about agreeing to take action against Syria and that demon-head Assad: No.
    3. Alright, lets agree to new sanctions against Russia then: No.
    4. Can we at least agree to new sanctions against Evil Assads Syria: No.
    5. What about we agree the chemical incident was a bad bad thing and it should be thoroughly investigated: Yes.

    Righy-O then, says Tillerson, with that unanimous ringing endorsement and steadfast explicit backing & support I'm off to Moscow to present my credentials and on arrival immediately thereafter issue an Ultimatum to Evil Beelzebubic(sic) Putin and put him in his place --

    Meanwhile Putin and the President of Italy are meeting and declare the reported chemical incident should be thoroughly investigated ...

    The corporate owned MSM is hyping all this to the max and beyond ... meanwhile, later this week the foreign ministers of Syria and Iran will meet in Moscow ...

    WG | Apr 11, 2017 2:06:20 PM | 90
    @Peter AU

    Exactly! Trump has traded threatened impeachment over groundless accusations for the threat of impeachment (if he doesn't play along) over legitimate impeachable offences. Seems at best a decision made in panic to buy time, and at worst an acknowledgement of capitulation.

    I fear they've already decided to attack they're just not sure when. Perhaps they're just going to keep pushing until US soldiers are killed and then there will be the congressional vote for war.

    Christophe Douté | Apr 11, 2017 2:08:54 PM | 91
    I suggest listening to Dr. Pieczenik on the Alex Jones Show... especially his appearance there on April 10th explains it probably pretty well... it is less than 20 minutes long.
    Or even shorter, this report on that interview: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-10/pieczenik-explodes-issues-warning-trump-mathis-and-mcmaster-about-going-war-syria
    Pat Bateman | Apr 11, 2017 2:10:13 PM | 92
    Something is brewing. For Putin to publicly call the Americans out today during a press conference with the Italian President by stating US plans to bomb Damascus, is exceptional.
    Matt | Apr 11, 2017 2:10:55 PM | 93
    Of course Israel wants it. Having backwards salafist principalities on the Israeli border will be no threat at all.
    ruralito | Apr 11, 2017 2:11:21 PM | 94
    @82, Brother Nate is here! Not all "Jews applaud", Bro Nate. Neturei Karta for one. http://www.nkusa.org/
    Love your videos, you got a fire under you, and it shows. But your suggestion that Jews are born evil contradicts science AND Jesus whom you claim to venerate.
    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 2:20:08 PM | 95
    Posted by: Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 1:16:12 PM | 83

    "Has the decision to attack Syria already been made?
    Was the Tomahawk attack a warning for Russia to get out before the main attack comes?"

    The US never had the power to do this - see Cuban missile crisis. Both militaries are careful not to get involved in any tit for tat that would finally lead to nuclear war. So Ukrainians and Syrians have to go to a proxy war against each other with outside support. It was better in the cold war when lines were drawn who was allowed to support which government.

    The G7 countries have just refused further sanctions for Russia and are asking for proof.

    The truth will come out, probably via Turkey, especially if Erdogan loses the referendum.

    Peace would be easy if everybody took regime change from the table - the US, Iran, Saudi.

    Trump means the end of US influence if he combines an aggressive foreign policy with a trade war. Countries just have no reason left to ally with the US.

    Quentin | Apr 11, 2017 2:28:17 PM | 96
    Idlib province borders on Turkey. Yes, Turkey.
    Curtis | Apr 11, 2017 2:39:17 PM | 97
    David 34
    Thanks for the interesting link. The US banking holiday of 1933, the Cyprus haircut of 2013, the Indian demonetization of 2017. There are precendents for the banking systems to take dramatic/drastic steps either as the result of economic change or precipitously/preemptively. Will TPTBs do such a thing to the US? Hopefully not anytime soon. But it does fit in with their stated overall game plan.

    jayc 85
    Perhaps Trump released the valve. It's sad that that's the best we can hope for. Meanwhile, Trump can now relish that - like his predecessors going back for decades - he is officially a wartime president.(with the associated madness that entails)
    http://theweek.com/articles/691356/dcs-war-madness

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 11, 2017 2:40:54 PM | 98
    Unfortunately for everyone, the United States is utterly opposed to "peace" ... couldn't find it in the dictionary, much less the encyclopedia, much less draw a picture of it, except maybe one that has a tripartite Syria to match the tripartite several times proposed and rejected for Iraq and now apparently also to Libya. Balkanization or Bosnification appears to be one unifying "plan" under the pretense of dividing the pie "fairly" -- but, at least as proposed for Iraq, was absurdly unfair, in addition to having (IIRC) zero popular support and hitting the re-set button when it comes to reducing governmental legitimacy back to near-zero.
    Mina | Apr 11, 2017 2:42:58 PM | 99
    89 outraged
    French journalists are on another (qatari) planet. They report that evryone stand with the us, no mention ofthe Italian president talking with putin and give as a fact that the Turks have published the results of the analysis. Well yesterday they were convinced that the us strike had destroyed "20% of syrian aviation".
    Mina | Apr 11, 2017 2:48:24 PM | 100 Posted by b at | Comments (152)
    Former prez of msf ( doctors without borders) stated that use of chlorine in bombing is not forbidden... and that even if the bombed chemicals belonged to the rebels it is a warcrime to bomb that knowingly!
    the pair | Apr 11, 2017 2:56:47 PM | 101
    he might not be stupid but i don't think he's particularly intelligent either. a few things that lined up:

    - professional dumb hick nikki haley (who, by the way, is actually indian and from a sikh family so who knows if ingrained islamophobia is part of her "deal") and dick cheney's idiot brother tillerson started off the confusion. maybe hanging out with the saudis and israelis at UN HQ made her want to sit at the cool kids' table. tillerson is just an oil tard...but maybe he has other agendas. just doesn't seem that sharp to me.

    - chief of meritocracy jared kushner took some time off from being the jewish patrick bateman to run around the globe with the same kind of psycho generals that are currently badgering his dad-in-law into stupid decisions. they went to iraq and israel and all the fun places that make you wish the US would just collapse already.

    that and his public feud with bannon line up nicely and it seems obvious the globalists further infected his tiny little yuppie mind with nonsense and shiny weapons and tales of anecdotal tragedies that could have been averted if only the people had been bombed by us instead of shot by syrians. trump for some reason thinks this kid has a mind of his own ("well, he did score my hot daughter...noice!") and will definitely choose him over bannon cementing not only his closet globalism but his increasing tendency to crap on anyone who got him elected, even the mercers with their piles of cash and love of bannon's politics.

    - the neocons/israel-firsters have lost patience now that the russians and syrians and their allies have started to reach a plainly visible victory. not only did they stage (probably with help from turkey) a blatantly fake attack and then had their media lackeys turn the Screech Factor to 11, but they've seen how easy it was and simply cannot help themselves. i guess they haven't gotten it out of their system with a full scale slaughter of gazans lately so they need to let off steam by grabbing golan and any other territory they can grasp in their slimy claws (and people thought west bank settlements were cheeky).

    - "veterans today" is a bit of an odd site but they claim to have actually gone to the area and confirmed the (possibly chlorine but definitely not sarin) attack was a turkey/al nusra joint. they also claim that another is being filmed and planned with the white helmets and even a few guys from reuters nearby. if they're not full of it (the article had no pictures or video and was a bit rushed looking) then the next one will be the true "never again" moment that leads to boots on the ground.

    - speaking of which, sure it's a TOTAL coincidence that flynn was sacked for his pro-diplomacy outlook vis a vis russia only to be replaced by an obvious lunatic like mcmaster. word on the street is he's blatantly cooking intelligence before showing it to trump and wants 150k troops on the ground by june for a full scale invasion. he's a real "jack d. ripper" type and looks like he loves the taste of netanyahu's bum. watch out for this psycho.

    so tl;dr = lots of moving parts and it would resemble keystone cops if it wasn't so terrifying.

    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 2:57:38 PM | 102
    95 plus Trump's team is completely incompetent - they can't even get their Assad = Hitler stuff right.
    Ops1 | Apr 11, 2017 3:00:00 PM | 103
    Trump was grab by is pussy by the deep state, now we are in a deep shit :)
    james | Apr 11, 2017 3:00:54 PM | 104
    thanks b.. good question and many interesting responses to your question.

    i think the empire is coming apart personally.. trump will be the fall guy, but it will probably hang in their for longer then his term, if he makes his term. the usa approach at this point seems very chaotic at best.. unfortunately all hell could break lose at any moment, thanks the war party that continues to guide the world into a ditch..

    i don't believe trump and putin have got together to hatch a brilliant plan...that just doesn't ring true to me. i do believe we continue to be in trouble on the planet and this is just the latest installment we have to work thru. so much can go wrong, but one thing for sure - many folks are going to wake up fast, if at all..

    Kalen | Apr 11, 2017 3:04:48 PM | 105
    As long as b ignores central role of Israel in the Syrian War, he will continue to be lost in seemingly chaotic developments, which to his defense is a bread and butter of MENA politics of global proxies.

    What if chaos was the real goal of this war?

    Already Israel is safe from Syria and Egypt and even of war ends will be safe for decades. If this war last another decade Iran will be exhausted, substantially weakened.

    Of course this assumes US imperial dominance to continue while this is the biggest risk in the entire mess, what makes Bibi a drunken gambler with the fate of Israeli nation which may not even see celebration of 70.

    Alaric | Apr 11, 2017 3:05:52 PM | 106
    Trump has entered political survival mode. From here on I'd expect an erdogan style play all sides strategy. That means some concessions will be made to neocons.
    PavewayIV | Apr 11, 2017 3:23:23 PM | 107
    ToivoS@81 - "Oil and gas are not the drivers of US policy in the ME. Maybe it was in the 1950s but it is not today. A much simpler explanation is the infiltration of the neocons (i.e. Zionist) into US foreign policy circles."

    Your second sentence contradicts your first one if I'm reading that right. I agree, there is little direct benefit to the US regarding access to oil and gas. But I would disagree the direct interests of the US in the Middle East have any bearing here. Everything happening in the Middle East (at least the view from under my tin-foil visor) seems to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia (and Gulf cronies). Even the laughable claims of trying to "fight Islamic extremism" are not a rational goal when Islamic extremists are being funded IN ORDER TO keep the US there. Israeli and Saudi interests have an inordinate amount of influence on my government's foreign policy. I like to throw around the word 'treason' but that's just useless. When the US population is brainwashed into thinking Israeli and Saudi/GCC interests ARE US interests, then it seems like we (the US) are somehow vaguely serving our own interests there when in reality we have - or should have - none.

    When some power-drunk delusional bastards think they're the world's cop, then you can manipulate them with little effort by providing a suitable evil criminal gang that must be eliminated. You know what suckers Americans are for demonization - it's almost cartoonish in it's effect.

    Peter AU@76 - "Why not up through US controlled Iraq and into Turkey?"

    I think that was the plan at one time, but the Saudis/Qataris are pretty much hated by Iraq today - something about funding head-choppers. I think they would have a much better luck running it up through Syrian head-chopperistan and whatever Rojava is called today. That's why I keep harping about the entire purpose of any 'government' in partitioned east Syria must have the authority to sign oil and pipeline contracts that supersedes the authority of the Syrian government. If that is not explicitly obtained, then the US. will simply assume it's there (like in Barzanistan) and have their fake partition governments sign anyway. And since the Saudis already have a gas pipeline and compressor stations nearly all the way to Jordan, it will be cheapier/easier to run it up through Syria. That also benefits Israel - they do not want to pay for an underwater Leviathan pipeline and want Leviathan gas intermingled with Qatari gas as far back in the pipeline as possible (BDS and all). Jordan will support both - it will enjoy cheap, plentiful gas either way. Jordan needs it for power generation.

    ALberto | Apr 11, 2017 3:36:29 PM | 108
    NEW IRAN SYRIA 2.DOC

    https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328

    If previously posted please excuse

    karlof1 | Apr 11, 2017 3:42:35 PM | 109
    Outlaw US Empire Imperial Policy hasn't changed; the clue is to look at the rest of the world situation, and there it's easy to see that Full Spectrum Dominance is still the #1 policy goal. By very openly declaring the Idlib incident to be a false flag with more expected, Putin torpedoed anything Tillerson might have said of substance, while Iran and Russia escalate their military efforts.

    The US "strategy" reminds me of the fire bases they set up deep in VC territory and serviced via UH-1s & CH-47s that proved to be a total failure. The Empire lacks the required number of boots to properly occupy/pacify Syraq and eventually will be forced to completely withdraw; as with Vietnam, it's just a matter of time. But will US military openly stand and fight with Daesh and al-Ciada, or will such a choice provoke mutiny?

    sTrumpet reminds me of W, but lacking the boots needed to fulfill the same policy goal mapped out decades ago--Yinon. IMO, at the moment, the real, dangerous, conflict point is Korea. And the wild card still remains China.

    Vollin | Apr 11, 2017 3:43:27 PM | 110
    Suspect US warmongering may tone down quite a bit if military starts to take significant casualties. neocons seem to implicitly assume that US losses will always be trivial.
    Ghostship | Apr 11, 2017 3:57:38 PM | 111
    Yet again the United States will be playing catch-up with the Russians and Syrians yet again. The Syrians are removing the last block to an offensive against Idlib - the populations of Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya are being exchanged for the populations of Madaya and Al-Zabadani, and rebel prisoners currently in SAG prisons. Once the exchange is complete, there'll be no reason for the SAA not to attack the rebels in Idlib.

    From AMN :

    The first batch of buses sent by the Syrian Government have arrived in besieged Madaya and Al-Zabadani, Damascus Now reported this afternoon.

    The buses are prepared to transport more than 2,500 residents and militants from the besieged towns in rural Damascus to the Idlib Governorate, as part of the deal set forth by the Qatari and Iranian governments.

    In exchange for the 2,500 residents of Madaya and Al-Zabadani, more than 1,500 civilians from besieged Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya will be transported from their villages to Damascus.

    Once this exchange is made, the second phase of the agreement will reportedly begin with the release of rebels from the Syrian government's prisons and the transportation of another 1,500 residents of Al-Fou'aa and Kafraya from jihadist-held territory.

    The first phase of this agreement is expected to commence in the coming hours, a government source told Al-Masdar

    Maybe Trump's policy for Syria just became irrelevant.

    Ghostship | Apr 11, 2017 3:58:15 PM | 112
    End quote
    Steve | Apr 11, 2017 4:00:42 PM | 113
    "Whatever one might say about Trump, he is not stupid."
    Uhmm... I wouldn't bet on that.
    mischi | Apr 11, 2017 4:08:01 PM | 114
    this is my $.02

    Trump is used to having brainstorming sessions to run his business and he welcomes many different opinions. However, he allows these people to speak to the press and they give a wildly varying position for the Administration.

    He has allowed himself to be persuaded to have a strike on Syria but now it remains to be seen how he will deal with other gas attacks because you know there will be many. He has painted himself into a corner.

    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 4:12:33 PM | 115
    Posted by: ALberto | Apr 11, 2017 3:36:29 PM | 108

    The correct date of that is 2012 according to Wikileaks.

    Thanks.

    Russia's intervention was not part of the calculus.

    \flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 4:22:40 PM | 116

    for the time being, I'm sticking to the theory that trump,
    putin and xi are working together to discredit the neocons

    what would force trump, putin and xi to cooperate?

    ...the realization that the neocons are the worst thing to come
    down the pike since the Nazis?

    that theory is intolerable --and very scary-- to our resident
    kommissars... but in terms of human survival, it makes sense,
    and that scares our kommissars even more

    .

    what can our kommissars do to eliminate the possibility that
    trump, putin and xi are cooperating?

    ...keeping in mind that it ought to be something that is televised
    live, like the second impact at the twin towers

    .

    Kmart | Apr 11, 2017 4:56:16 PM | 117
    "for the time being, I'm sticking to the theory that trump,
    putin and xi are working together to discredit the neocons"

    I don't see how that is even possible.

    Where and how would this coordination have taken place? Every single bit of communication by Trump has been monitored by the US intellegence agencies. If there was anything remotely close to some sort of behind the scenes coordination with China and/or Russia Trump would be sititng in jail with wackjob Hillary in the Oval Office.

    The much simpler explanation is:

    1. Trump, like anyone who knows nothing about Syria, sees reports of the US funding and aiding jihadist terror groups. He makes completely reasonable comments about stopping those types of activities with his administration

    2. Trump being a political outsider lacks the army of political lackeys presidential cannidates have when they take office

    3. This lack of support has left Trump completley vunerable to the long time Washington players.

    4. The neocons have relentless taken out Trumps political amateurs one by one to the point we are now where he is almost entirely surrounded by them

    5. The neocons are now feeding him a continuous stream of fake intel about Syria and other hotspots around the world

    I don't think it is because Trump is dumb. He simply is completely out of his leage in his ability to take on the long time Washington powers. Previous administrations have come in with an army of lackeys to defend the president and enforce the president's will upon the so called deep state.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 5:00:13 PM | 118
    Kmart has never heard of showbiz
    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 5:00:51 PM | 119
    Another 'Dossier' out

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-11/what-reset-white-house-to-call-out-russia-s-fake-news-on-syria
    "The Syrian regime and its primary backer, Russia, have sought to confuse the world community about who is responsible for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people in this and earlier attacks," the dossier says. Another passage says Moscow's response to the April 4 incident "follows a familiar pattern of Russia's response to egregious actions; it spins out multiple, conflicting accounts in order to create confusion and sow doubt within the international community." The dossier also derided a "drumbeat of nonsensical claims" from Syria and its allies, a clear reference to Russia....

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 5:06:00 PM | 120
    google: fake chemical attack Syria

    About 7,070,000 results

    https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=fake+chemical+attack+syria&spf=548

    .

    the propaganda campaign isn't working so pretty good

    .

    thecelticwithinme | Apr 11, 2017 5:10:48 PM | 121
    Since everyone is throwing their hat into the ring, here is my take:

    US military has a thing about initiating conflict when world leaders are in close proximity. If you recall, at the start of the Georgia-Russia conflict, world leaders (including Bush and Putin) were gathered in China for the summer Olympics. Putin immediately left and returned to Moscow to administer to the engagement while Bush stayed behind to get in close with the women's beach volleyball team.

    The decision to initiate combat was not made by Saakashvili alone. He was operating under the umbrella of the world's only super power, i.e., with US blessing. Putin knew that Bush knew, but put an overwhelming stop to all that. Never the less, combat was commenced at the time when world leaders were gathered together in China.

    Now we have a situation in which the Chinese leader is visiting with Trump (all off the record) with the hope of coming to some kind of understanding perhaps, and US military initiates attack against Syria. There is a message US is sending here with regard to US intensions. The timing is not coincidental but intentional. I haven't put my finger on it.

    And I don't believe Trump (at this time) is thinking about re-election. He's too busy hoping to make it through this first year.

    Syria claims they were monitoring a warehouse thought to belong to ISIS. It observed increase in amount of traffic coming and going, into and out of said facility. It decides to attack and explodes CW being stored there.

    But there was some thing else going on there important enough that the US thought it had to retaliate. I don't believe it was CW alone nor do I believe it was pics of innocent children.

    It's not the act but the message it sends that one must discern with care. From what I've read, US intelligence is lacking in the ME in that much of what gets reported as classified is not much more that paper clippings. Little in the way of person-to-person contacts.

    I don't know where I'm going with all of this but it appears that increased chaos is indeed the end game.

    The people crying out for more strikes are delusional.

    telescope | Apr 11, 2017 5:13:34 PM | 122
    Syria will be partitioned, it's simply not a viable country anymore, given Arabs' clannishness, susceptibility to foreign intrigue and the existing animosity between the various groups. Now is the time for the West to insert 50k soldiers into the ISIS country (the mooted 150 000 US soldiers is a pie in the sky - America doesn't have those) and start bleeding - and negotiating the contours of the partition. Russians already got what they came for, and now they wait the rest of the gang to stake their claims. People in the West should listen to what the King of Jordan - a very good personal friend of Putin - had said recently, namely that in Moscow's mind the issue of Syria is inextricably linked to the issue of Crimea and the Ukraine. He knows how it works. And Trump did 180 on Syria during his visit. The West will resist Syria-Ukraine linkage, but it can't do it forever. Russia simply won't agree to anything until that's achieved. What's good for the goose (Syria) must be good for the gander (Ukraine). The issues are similar, whatever others may say.
    As for Trump, he wants to put his soldiers into the Syrian desert (Latakia, Tartus and Damascus are in the Russian domain), but can't because US public opinion is hostile to the idea. The latter can be gradually molded by the mounting hysteria, which is exactly what's happening.


    motive464 | Apr 11, 2017 5:20:15 PM | 123
    I think the plan is to up the ante on what was proposed in backchannels during the transition/flynn debacle - supposedly they were trying to make a deal of good relations with Russia and sanctions removal in exchange for russia abandoning support for Syria and Iran. Of course, that failed.
    So now I think the chem weapons pretense is like some face-saving 'opportunity', or politial excuse for putin to back out from supporting assad, and at the same time a thinly veiled threat, that more sanctions could come "if" its determined Russia facilitated or had some foreknowledge since they were "responsible" for ensuring that Assad's stockpiles were destroyed. They've been careful not to vindicate or blame Russia, to keep the door open, they are waiting for their next move.

    Thats entirely ludicrous of course, but from the mirrored exceptionalist bubble that the US establishment operates out of, I'm sure its 'the dealmaker's most brilliant idea ever.

    It seems they have more false flag attacks like this scheduled to occur as Putin stated, and as one could almost read from Mathis' nervous lips during his press conference today.

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 5:24:02 PM | 124
    "Help me out. What are his thoughts behind this. Or are there really none at all."

    The common theme with Trump, Tillerson, Haley is that the US is prepared to act bilaterally. Self appointed sheriff. Above the UN.

    President Trump‏Verified account @POTUS 7h7 hours ago
    More
    North Korea is looking for trouble. If China decides to help, that would be great. If not, we will solve the problem without them! U.S.A.

    Tillerson.. "Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Monday that the U.S. will stand up to anyone who commits crimes against innocent people"

    Haley .. "When the U.N. consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,"

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 5:28:20 PM | 125
    ...US is prepared to act unilateraly..

    Forgot to check the spell checker.. maybe 'unilateraly' is not even a word?

    Lochearn | Apr 11, 2017 5:49:56 PM | 126
    As james said good question.

    I think Trump works on hunches. I think he goes to bed with a question and wakes up with an answer. Israel Shamir wrote about the hunch aspect of Trump. Nothing is thought out logically. It is the opposite of the academic approach and appears to have yielded much success for him in his business and TV life. But international politics and economics is vast and requires years of study. There is no easy way. The people who really control things have covered up their moves and each one has to be uncovered through much research. Trump relies on people rather than books. He relied on Bannon for election strategy and was smack on. But now he is up against masters like Putin, Netanyahu and Xi Jinping and he is lost. So he goes back to ratings; what gets good ratings as a sort of feel-good factor like a drinker with his bottle, like a baby with its milk.

    One thing that stuck in my mind about FDR was a long period of illness in the 1920s and how he devoured books, the better to prepare him for the massive changes he was about to bring in.

    swmcl | Apr 11, 2017 6:38:21 PM | 127
    Here's my take ...

    Trump allows the neocons to advise hime to strike and to celebrate the strike.
    Slowly, the world comes to realise the Syrians did not have the chemicals and did not use them against their own people.
    As this slowly is being realised, various others who are against Trump on the inside are exposed.
    Then Trump can get up and say he was misinformed and the various traitors and mis-informers will have to go.
    This would include a massive re-alignment of intelligence agencies (abolish the CIA).
    It would also expose the media who have been complicit in their support of the strife for many decades.
    All pre-organised with Russian help to identify a airbase that had no significant assets ...

    Take all the piss-clowns down in one stroke.

    Ops1 | Apr 11, 2017 6:43:27 PM | 128
    http://theweek.com/articles/691356/dcs-war-madness


    Interested reding for all!

    Kmart | Apr 11, 2017 6:51:54 PM | 129
    "Kmart has never heard of showbiz"

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

    The reality is that God Emporer master 5d chess player is nothing more than an experienced businessman who is completely out of his element in Washington politics and is in the process of being eaten alive by the neocon establisment.

    Trump's failure and capture by the Washington establishment is a perfect example of the folly of populists screaming for term limits. You get politcal amateurs who get chewed up and spit out by the unelected state actors who have had decades of experience.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 6:59:19 PM | 130
    the Chinese and Russian are not concerned about the neocons' published ambition to establish "benevolent
    global hegemony"...

    and they aren't alarmed that the neocons apparently
    intend to achieve their hegemony by killing anyone
    who resists their benevolence

    .

    world leaders, according to Kmart's theory, are too stupid
    to recognize mental illness when they see it and are threatened by it


    *shrug*

    Ann | Apr 11, 2017 7:00:02 PM | 131
    Trump seems to be keen on taking Intelligence away from civilians like Susan Rice, and letting those who know what a battlefield looks like advise him. He is essentially depriving foreign banks and multinational corporations to use the US for their Nation Building, i.e. to have us pay for it with our taxes, and use our soldiers as cannon fodder.

    So he made a bold stroke. Some chats with the presidents of Russia, China, Syria, and the King of Jordan, for instance, but not our so-called allies in NATO. It also allows him to smoke out the snakes here and elsewhere. Of course for the trick to work, various leaders had to talk tough and condemn Trump's action.

    Websites which address some of these issues:
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article195862.html
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article195904.html
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU2TapgWl-A

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 7:02:46 PM | 132
    @89 or

    thanks for the bullet list from the g7

    @95 sb, 'Trump means the end of US influence if he combines an aggressive foreign policy with a trade war. Countries just have no reason left to ally with the US.'

    we've all said that for some time now ... but if the g7 meeting means that the countries ... other than the poodles in the uk, of course ... are seeing themselves as the accomplices of the usofa in the crytal ball, and not liking it at all, then maybe 'Countries [have really, finally come to understand that they] just have no reason left to ally with the US'.

    somebody | Apr 11, 2017 7:05:39 PM | 133
    Posted by: Ops1 | Apr 11, 2017 6:43:27 PM | 128

    Yep, it is a good read. It is like with old people where the brain has not adapted to what the body can no longer do.

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:07:56 PM | 134
    can you establish benevolent global hegemony by killing anyone who resists?

    so far, the neocon project has wrecked country after country, caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, and millions of refugees

    where's the benevolence in that?

    .

    and don't people like Russians and Chinese have a right to
    be alarmed? ...especially in light of the US's nuclear primacy policy, which is based on nuke first strikes so
    overwhelming that Russia and china are unable to retaliate

    it's no wonder, considering the neocpns' ambitions, performance and policies, that world leaders would cooperate to rid the world of neocons, is it?

    .

    flickervertigo | Apr 11, 2017 7:12:27 PM | 135
    here's the consolation prize...

    if humanity is stupid and crazy enough to exterminate itself in a fit on mental illness, then they are a failed species

    that's kinda cold consolation, isn't it?

    .

    Perimetr | Apr 11, 2017 7:15:00 PM | 136

    I don't think Trump has a plan or a clue. Can't wait for the Armada to arrive at North Korea.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-11/trump-were-sending-very-powerful-armada-north-korea

    BARTIROMO: You redirected navy ships to go toward the Korean Peninsula. What we are doing right now in terms of North Korea?

    TRUMP: You never know, do you? You never know.

    BARTIROMO: That's all (INAUDIBLE)...

    TRUMP: You know I don't think about the military.

    BARTIROMO: Yes.

    TRUMP: I'm not like Obama, where they talk about in four months we're waiting -- we're going to hit Mosul.

    BARTIROMO: Right.

    TRUMP: And in the meantime, they get ready and like you've never seen -- look, they're still fighting. Mosul was supposed to last for a week and now they've been fighting it for many months and so many more people died. I don't want to talk about it. We are sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier, that I can tell you. And we have the best military people on Earth. And I will say this. He is doing the wrong thing. He is doing the wrong thing.

    BARTIROMO: Do you...

    TRUMP: He's making a big mistake.

    BARTIROMO: -- do you think he's mentally fit?

    TRUMP: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know him. But he's doing the wrong thing.

    I think the shit is going to hit the fan. Maybe we will find out if the North Korean satellites that orbit over the US every day are actually EMP weapons? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/expert-north-korea-threatens-emp-nuke-attack-on-u.s./article/2614739

    But why not just attack Damascus while were at it? The neocons seem quite sure that "Russia will back down".

    Julian | Apr 11, 2017 7:18:50 PM | 137
    Why is escalation in Syria happening now?

    Ie, why was the go-ahead given on the CW False Flag in terms of it's timing.

    It could be as simple as trying to swing the French Election.

    Pro NATO (Macron & Fillon) against Anti-NATO (Le Pen & Melenchon).

    If either of the Anti-NATO candidates were to become President there's absolutely no doubt they would split NATO at the first sign of conflict with Russia - which could be imminent.

    What better way to tie their hands than attack Syria until there is a forceful Russian military response, Article 5 is invoked, and Hollande goes along with it full boar as one of his last acts.

    The hands of the next French President are essentially tied at that point - even better (from that point of view) if some French soldiers are inserted into the conflict and perhaps killed).

    How could a new President possibly climb down from that policy position? How could Le Pen or Melenchon argue that France should not go along with the invoking of Article 5?

    Would this really play well with the French voting public to be seen as "abandoning" long-held NATO allies in their time of need?

    Surely it would torpedo their candidatures - unless of course they are the two in the run-off - which is possible.

    Speaking to young French voters recently (in their early 20s) - they do not like Macron - they see him as a fake, a phony, a creep. They won't be voting for him - and they're from Paris.

    james | Apr 11, 2017 7:19:19 PM | 138
    @122 telescope.. some of what you say i agree with and some not!

    @ 124 peter au.. i think what you point out is all a given.. the exceptional warmongering nation will not be deterred regardless just how effective the propaganda machine is... this is why i believe we are in a more dangerous place now then ever before. even when the propaganda is breaking apart, all parties opposed to the war party will have to remain fully prepared for more war..lousy actors playing a bad hand with the 'exceptional warmongering' status on shaky ground..

    @132 jfl... those poodles are looking into something more like a crystal meth ball, then an actual crystal ball.. if they weren't so hooked on the crack, they would have been calling it quits on their bad habit of aligning with the exceptional warmongering nation, but alas - they are too addicted to the crack..

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 7:40:14 PM | 139
    @106 alaric, 'From here on I'd expect an erdogan style play all sides strategy.'

    i think viewing tee-rump as an american erdogan is quite apt. except that he's not as smart as erodogan, certainly not as observant or well-studied.

    @127 swmel

    that's quite an agile acrobatic performance. i think you're right as far as tee-rump's letting his 'apprentices' try 'their' plans and then blaming and firing those whose efforts don't work out. but trump works on the 31st floor . and he very well knows there are people at work on the floors above him - the bankers, in his business career - whom he must please in order to be allowed to continue. and his plan is to continue. business career, political career ... same thing.

    Vor | Apr 11, 2017 7:43:38 PM | 140
    The mainstream media more or less gave us an explanation of what the US cruise missile attack on Syria was all about - to be regarded as a 'player' in the Syrian theatre. That may seem trivial & petty on the surface, but think again, things are often not what they appear. The attack was a demonstration effect, which many US bombing attack often are, they are sending a message that the US deployment with the Kurds (YPG/SDF) in the North is the beginning of Syria's partition. This will be backed up by more heavy US military engagement, hence the cruise missile attack. That's why Russia responded so vociferously, they know this was not for show as Thierry Meyssan & others have suggested, it was just made to look that way because for starters the US has chosen not to escalate, but to warn. That is why they have followed up with threats of further attacks, because the first was just a taste, but the next will be more strategic & will target the SAA &/or vital state infrastructure. Partition of Syria is key, because at the heart of all of this is the dissolution of all Middle Eastern states so as to facilitate Israeli expansion.
    peter | Apr 11, 2017 7:49:54 PM | 141
    Trump has told Fox that he's not going into Syria in an interview that airs in the morning. I hope that Tillerson got the memo before he talks to Lavrov.

    Putin has publicly made the case for a false flag. The G7 boys have denied Tillerson the kind of wholehearted support he was hoping for by wanting an investigation before any punitive actions are taken against Syria or Russia. It's been put out there while the world is totally focused on events so there's no chance the MSM can ignore it. There will be no UN sanctioned attack on Syria or Assad without doing the dance. Unless Trump goes rogue.

    The response to the Tomahawks was mostly positive in the West. Trump finally got some positive press and Russiagate was like it never happened. I think even Putin was perfectly happy to let him have one kick at the cat so he didn't look like a pussy. But the followup babel of tweets and sound bytes about everything from Russian involvement to the necessity of removing Assad was sure to up the ante. I think the Tillerson-Lavrov meeting is critical. I hope that Putin finds time to meet with Tillerson.

    The business on the Korean Peninsula is the more worrisome of the two crises. Now there's two unpredictable leaders fixin' to kick ass and take names. There can't be any winners over there. It blows my mind that these vaunted generals have allowed Trump and the US to find themselves at loggerheads with so many enemies at once. I thought these fucking clowns went to West Point. It's been a hell of a ride from non-intervention to taking on half the world. And we only just got started.

    There used to be a pool of seasoned diplomats to try to see if there were ways to avoid sabre-rattling and confrontation. But they're all gone. All that's left is generals and CEOs. And the generals seem to be in the catbird seat.

    There's some that are still carrying water for Trump. They say the deep state has him snookered. Well, Trump is the deep state or trying very hard to be part of it. He owns this debacle. Lets hope he's not the fucking antichrist, I'm not up for getting raptured.

    Rapier | Apr 11, 2017 7:58:34 PM | 142
    I'll help you out. Syria doesn't matter. Whatever happened with the gas and its aftermath doesn't matter. Forget Syria.

    Instead think about Iran. Trump is going to destroy Iran and in so doing will put an end to China's New Silk Road and will also take out a large marginal supplier of oil to the world market and so oil prices will recover. Now if Trump is thinking in such strategic terms I have no clue. It matters not.

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 8:02:43 PM | 143
    @136 perimetr

    the talk of 'submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier' on their way towards north korea is interesting. the Syrian Tomahawk Strike review had an interesting line ...


    This should also tell us how useful (or useless, as the case may be) our Virginia class submarines that carry only 12 Tomahawks will be – not very. It would have required five subs to carry out this attack and this was only a partial attack against a small airfield. Those who believe that our subs will constitute a significant land strike capability are mistaken. The subs are more likely to be used as snipers, taking out smaller, undefended targets. The retirement without replacement of our four SSGNs which each carried 154 Tomahawks may come to be viewed as a mistake.

    ... i wonder if those 'four SSGNs' ( Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia ?) is a done deal, or whether one or more might be sailing beneath waves toward north korea?

    fresh from his 'triumph' and accompanying great reviews from his syrian cruise missle performance, is he about the try an encore, on a much larger scale, in north korea?

    silly to point out that it's irrational. the play's the thing! think of the curtain calls for this one!

    h | Apr 11, 2017 8:03:40 PM | 144
    WH Lays Out Evidence that Syria was behind deadly attack...

    "A senior administration official laid out evidence that the Syrian regime was behind the chemical attack in the country that killed at least 80 people last week."

    "The official said intelligence gathered from social media accounts, open source videos, reporting, imagery, and geospatial intelligence showed that the chemical attack was a regime attack."

    "I don't think there's evidence to the contrary at all," an official who briefed reporters on background Tuesday said."

    FUNNY THAT...

    Intelligence and Military Sources Who Warned About Weapons Lies Before Iraq War Now Say that Assad Did NOT Launch Chemical Weapon Attack

    "A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda's arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population."

    FUNNIER THAT, NOT AS IN A HAHA, BUT RATHER IRONY -

    UK-trained doctor hailed a hero for treating gas attack victims in Syria stood trial on terror offences 'and belonged to the group that kidnapped British reporter John Cantlie'

    "Dr Shajul Islam, from East London, published a video of the patients on his Twitter account after the attack. He said his hospital took care of three victims all with narrow, pinpoint pupils that did not respond to light."

    "The University of London graduate was arrested and charged with kidnapping two journalists - Mr Cantlie and Dutch reporter Jeroen Oerlemans - in 2012 but was released after the trial collapsed when neither of the prosecution's witnesses were able to give evidence."

    THIS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETE WITHOUT MAD DOG'S LOUSY TWO CENTS -

    "The goal right now in Syria and the military campaign is focused on accomplishing that is breaking ISIS, destroying ISIS in Syria. This was a separate issue that arose in the midst of that campaign. The use by the Assad regime of chemical weapons and we addressed that militarily but the rest of the campaign stays on track"...

    To sum this bunch of crap up - in less than 48 hours we are to believe the DOD's use of friggin social GD media proved beyond reasonable doubt that Assad chemed his own people in a town that is known worldwide as 'ground zero' for jihadi's, filmed by a doc who was brought to trial on terror charges (lest we forget about the UK/US financed White Helmets at $100M playing pretend propaganda chit) with the bad ass retired general now in charge of all of the militaries toys and humans stating as fact, FACT, this violation of U.S. law and international law was a one time deal b/c Assad is bad, bad, bad - I looked at the evidence and was convinced beyond doubt blah, blah blah F'ing bullshit!

    Sick of it. Just sick and tired of all of it! I loathe being lied to and that SOB lied today. LIED LIED LIED.

    My rant is done.

    Links:

    1. http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/11/white-house-lays-out-evidence-that-syria-was-behind-deadly-chemical-attack/

    2. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/04/intelligence-military-sources-warned-iraq-war-say-assad-not-launch-chemical-weapon-attack.html

    3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4388780/Doctor-Syria-stood-trial-terror-offences.html

    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgvnvvIoyEE

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 8:06:01 PM | 145
    @143, i wonder if the retirement of those 'four SSGNs' (Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia?) is a done deal?
    dh | Apr 11, 2017 8:06:20 PM | 146
    @141 "I hope that Putin finds time to meet with Tillerson."

    Putin will certainly be able to find the time. It depends what message Tillerson has come to deliver. Putin will need to know that before he agrees to any meeting. Tillerson must first have a friendly chat with Lavrov. Putin will probably be listening in.

    Ron | Apr 11, 2017 8:06:41 PM | 147
    No, there isn't a new policy in place. The target has been the Iranian hegemonic ambition, not Assad. It's the same policy as before. The plan is the same: break up Syria (and Iraq). The break-up takes places in stages and all the players attempt to force each other's hand, hence the ever-expanding chaos. The north of Syria is going to be a part of the future Kurdistan, the east is going to be part of an independent Sunni state. Finally, the west was destined to shape the new Syria, which would include most of the country's territory, but this plan was botched after the rise of Daesh and the Russian intervention in Assad's favor. What I describe is a slight amendment on the borders proposed here ; the blue-colored "Sunni Iraq" state between Baghdad and the (still current) Syrian border and the Kurds will have more Syrian territory than the map depicts. As you will notice, the map is American-made. That's the plan, broadly speaking and Trump's bombing of Assad's airfield is another move in the framework defined by this plan.

    Trump has chosen to use the opportunity offered by the sad event of last week, the actual origin of which is hotly debated, to unleash a warning strike to Iran. Israel is the only US ally which is not openly opposed to the plan I describe above, because it will guarantee to a large extent its security. In fact Israel wants an independent Kurdistan; such a country will provide strategic depth to Israel. The Turks don't like it for obvious reasons, as well as the Saudis. The Iranians will be affected too by an independent Kurdistan, but they have not shied from the opportunity to extend their sphere of influence to Iraq and to cement and broaden their pre-existent influence in the Mediterranean.

    A relevant digression: The reason the Saudis invaded Yemen is that they want to foil the Iranian attempt to establish strategic maritime connection between Iran and its Mediterranean proxies by controlling the entrance to the Red Sea. Remember that the plan is to have a Sunni state and Kurdistan between Shiite-controlled Iraq and Assad's territories and Lebanon, so land is a no-go for the Iranians at this point.

    The Israelis do not want Iran to have so much influence that the obstacles placed deliberately in its path will not foil its hegemonic tendencies. Of course, the Israelis need any Sunni hegemonic tendencies to be in check, too. Remember, the map provides for territorial interruption to the perpendicular Sunni axis starting from Turkey and ending at the Gulf of Aden (which is Kurdistan), as well as for an interruption of the horizontal Shia axis of the region (the Sunni state and Kurdistan). Apparently the Persians have been doing rather well for themselves in Syria and Trump was in all probability advised to grasp the opportunity to remind them that the reality that is taking shape in that part of the world will have to follow the provisions of the mentioned map. This account also explains why the Israelis were fast to declare that it was Assad's Syrian Arab Republic which was behind the attacks with chemical weapons: the Israelis want to see the American plan implemented, not foiled. It also explains Russia's gift to Israel: it was a message of the type "we respect your concerns, but keep out of this". You see, if Israel accepted the Russian gift, it would de facto enter the current Syrian fray (as a beneficiary); this is not what Israel should want and this is also not what the US have planned for Israel (in order to keep it safe). For the US Israel and Palestine are a different matter. This is depicted in the map of the new Middle East as no radical border changes; by accepting Russia's gift the Israelis would show themselves to be rather short-sighted, something which would cause the US to discipline it.

    So there is no new policy, just a different way of moving the pieces on the chessboard - Obama's way was far subtler.

    Peter AU | Apr 11, 2017 8:21:15 PM | 148
    jfl 139

    Trump is pleasing the bankers right now
    https://twitter.com/search?q=Trump%20Frank%20Dodd&src=typd

    At 1.40 in this video of his speech he actually says the bankers will be very happy.
    https://twitter.com/Forever_Lucid/status/851840956915748865

    Pft | Apr 11, 2017 8:27:39 PM | 149
    There is no fundamental change in Syria or the Middle East. The basic plan is to break everyone up into small competing pieces. Divide and Rule. The essense of the Odin Plan and the long proven tactic of British Colonialism.

    Trumps a puppet. Compromised and controlled asset of the neocon faction of the Deep State. He may have been forced to run or face losing all to the Rico Act due to his many mob connections. Surveillance in the 21st century means pretty much anyone is vulnerable, but Trump especially. Russians call it Kompromat,

    In any case, we cant say his turn around is real or not. Perhaps just scripted. Said what he needed to say to get elected with help from Comey. Needed a valid reason to explain the turnaround other than gross deception which was anticipated , so we had this Putin connection which was manufactured and engineered by the Deep State , and Trump willingly went along calling for Putin to help get the emails and appointing some pro-russian cabinet members who would be sacrificed. All a sham. He does have Russian connections but its the Russian Mafia and not Putin. Some of these guys deal with Putin out of self preservation but all want him gone. Many are Isreali as well or have ties to Israel.

    US is strongly allied with British and Israeli interests in the region. This alliance is so strong one may consider the trio as one entity. Its been that way since 1917 when we went to War for the British and the future Israel.

    Now how does the script read for Syria in coming years?. Perhaps only Hollywood knows. In the long term Syria, Lebanon, Iran will be carved up with regime changes in Egypt and Turkey. Outside the region conflict with China over North Korea and Russia over Ukraine/Crimea is possible but I doubt anyone is foolish enough to allow escalation to WWIII

    And obviously there are many more false flags to come since people refuse to believe in them unless MSM spells it out for them, and they won't.

    jfl | Apr 11, 2017 8:28:21 PM | 150
    @148, never stopped pleasing the banksters. been working for them his whole life long.
    Pespi | Apr 11, 2017 8:33:20 PM | 151
    Theory 1: Obama deftly played the CIA/State and DoD against each other, limiting their lust for bloodshed and chaos in Syria by putting their proxies at odds with each other. Trump, in his clumsiness thought giving the DoD a free hand would speed up the Defeat of ISIS and make him look good.

    But the CIA and Neocons kept pushing the Russia angle, and he's too petty a person to sweat out the false accusations, so he "does something."

    Theory 2: The US has gone full North Korea, "rabid dog" mode where they just lash out violently at random to make it appear as if they have more power and control of a situation, when in truth they are at the mercy of many layers of facts and realities.

    Sad Canuck | Apr 11, 2017 8:35:38 PM | 152
    We know little about the relationship between actors moving in the shadows and anything revealed is increasingly cartoonish and staged for public consumption. That Assad would use WMD at this point is as ridiculous as the damage caused by the supposed launch of 59 tomahawks. In that sense it looks like this is a wag the dog moment to distract from domestic issues. But there are also likely connections with recent events in Syria. IDF jets have been bombing Syria more lately for some reason and one or more jets may have been downed a few weeks ago. The progress against ISIS in eastern Allepo seems to have unnerved Assad's opponents who have been doing everything possible to draw key resources like Tiger Forces away from this front and down to Hama. Russian Kalibr cruise missiles were launched with little fanfare and no announced targets a couple of weeks ago (I think I have my timing right). The Russians never scream about their targets or successes with these cruise missile attacks, but it seems they reserve these for serious targets. If this weeks events were not a wag the dog distraction then something valuable certainly seems to have been lost or about to be lost to set off this reaction. Connecting sparse dots is difficult but the dots are there to be connected.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Vladimir Putin claimed ISIS planned false-flag chemical weapon attacks to justify further US missile strikes.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on Syria , and that there were plans to fake chemical attacks there. ..."
    "... "We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria, including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons]," ..."
    "... In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack, and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with Donald Trump. ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Vladimir Putin has deepened his support of the Syrian regime, claiming its opponents planned false-flag chemical weapon attacks to justify further US missile strikes.

    The Russian president's predictions on Tuesday of an escalation in the Syrian war involving more use of chemical weapons came as US officials provided further details of what they insist was a sarin attack by Bashar al-Assad's forces against civilians on 4 April, and accused Moscow of a cover-up and possible complicity.

    The hardening of the Kremlin's position, and its denial of Assad's responsibility, accelerated a tailspin in US-Russian relations, just as the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson , arrived in Moscow for direct talks.

    Analysis What's Trump's plan for Syria? Five different policies in two weeks Until late last month, Donald Trump was fine with Bashar al-Assad remaining in power. Since then, his administration has struggled to articulate a clear plan

    Tillerson had hoped to underscore the US position with a unified message from the G7, which condemned the chemical attack at a summit in Italy on Tuesday. However, G7 foreign ministers were divided over possible next steps and refused to back a British call for fresh sanctions.

    Putin said western and Turkish accusations that Syria's government dropped the nerve agent that killed dozens of civilians in Idlib earlier this month were comparable to the now-discredited claim that Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

    "It reminds me of the events in 2003 when US envoys to the security council were demonstrating what they said were chemical weapons found in Iraq," the president told reporters on Tuesday. "We have seen it all already."

    Putin said Russia had information that the US was planning to launch new missile strikes on Syria , and that there were plans to fake chemical attacks there.

    He insisted that Assad was not behind the alleged sarin attack in Khan Sheikhun, saying Moscow had information "from different sources" that it was carried out by rebel groups intent on dragging the US into the conflict.

    "We have information that a similar provocation is being prepared in other parts of Syria, including in the southern Damascus suburbs where they are planning to again plant some substance and accuse the Syrian authorities of using [chemical weapons],"

    he said, without offering any proof for the assertion. Putin predicted such fake attacks would be used to justify further US missile strikes on the regime, like the attack on Shayrat air force base on Friday.

    Senior White House officials said that Syrian military officers involved in the regime's chemical weapons programme were at the Shayrat base ahead of and on the day of the Khan Sheikhun attack, which they claimed was carried out by a Syrian air force Su-22 warplane, dropping at least one munition containing sarin nerve agent.

    One official said that there was "no consensus based on the information we have" of direct Russian complicity, but pointed out that the Russian and Syrian military had a long history of close cooperation and that Russian troops were at Shayrat base at the time of the attack.

    In his remarks Putin said Russia would ask the UN to carry out an investigation into the attack, and accused unnamed western countries of supporting the US strikes in a bid to curry favour with Donald Trump.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Chuck Todd Interviewes Nikki Haley On NBCs Meet The Press

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Ambassador" what a joke, warmongering, disrespectful, hateful representative. All without a single shred of proof. ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    ytfp 1 day ago

    "Ambassador" what a joke, warmongering, disrespectful, hateful representative. All without a single shred of proof.

    [Apr 11, 2017] The road to war and the death of millions is paved with dead baby propaganda

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact, western authorities are well aware that Assad was not to blame for the Ghouta massacre, and know as well – or should – that there is every chance the sarin gas used was supplied by Turkey. ..."
    "... When Erdogan consolidated his power following the failed coup attempt to oust him, one of the first things his administration did was shut down Today's Zaman ..."
    "... What's the cost to the West of being proved wrong over the latest 'chemical attack'? Absolutely nothing. ..."
    "... They will simply say that they acted on the information on the time and it was a reasonable action to take, and that it was unfortunate that it turned out to be more complicated. The US is not going to be dragged in front of the ICJ because it is not a member and is certainly not going to pay any reparations. USS Vincennes v. Iran Air 310 anyone? They simply don't care, whether it is Trump or some other President. Facts are Scrotums (to modify a former claim used by the Guardian's old 'Comment is Free' opinion section). ..."
    "... So why? Because they can? Like a bear in woods? Or is it to show that it is still some sort of player and save face from the fact that Assad, with the backing of Russia, Hezbollah & I-ran have been very effective in fighting IS/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH/Whatever whereas the West had simply ignored it for years? ..."
    "... je ne sais quoi ..."
    "... I don't know if one should believe this 100%, and in the comments, there are people who quote opposing reports but Cernovich does have sources. Basically, Trump's new national security adviser McMaster is the one pushing for war, and wants 150,000 US ground troops in Syria. Currently, there is still some resistance in the Trump administration against this. ..."
    "... I think Trump's 'strategy', if you can call it as such, is to shake the tree to see who folds under pressure. It's likely it will blow up in his face, but as we have seen with the TLAM strike in Syria, even the Dems were on board and congratulating him so they own the consequences too. ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
    Analysis of evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks kirill , April 9, 2017 at 3:04 pm
    The road to war and the death of millions is paved with dead baby propaganda. Time for humans to change their idiotic values. Even thousands of dead babies are not worth millions of dead from large scale wars. Initiation of war as retaliation for some alleged atrocity must fall under war crime. Alleged good intentions are not enough. Unfortunately the Nuremberg principles are useless to cover these cases.
    marknesop , April 9, 2017 at 10:39 pm
    That is truly depressing. It is plain the leaders of the western powers are willfully ignoring exculpatory evidence in order to push a narrative they know, or ought to know, is false.
    Moscow Exile , April 8, 2017 at 11:00 pm
    Russia is to blame for "every civilian death" in the chemical weapons attack last week in Syria, Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon has claimed.

    A really, really annoyed Fallon: "Russia must show the resolve necessary to bring this regime to heel."

    See: Russia to blame for Syria deaths – Sir Michael Fallon – BBC

    kirill , April 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
    Yeah, sure, whatever US regime elements claim. The same regime that excuses itself with "shit happens" when it slaughters civilians by the hundred.
    Hoffnungstirbtzuletzt , April 9, 2017 at 12:12 am
    https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2017/04/09/1373821/trump-following-netanyahu-s-footsteps-in-syria-russian-analyst

    "Along these lines, the message being delivered to President Xi is that Trump might even launch limited strikes against North Korea next, and it's no surprise that both leaders came out of their meeting with a supposedly new strategy for responding to Pyongyang.

    The other point that Trump was conveying is that he is the "alpha male" not only over President Putin (whom he feels that he embarrassed by the strike), but also President Xi, who apparently seems to need Trump more than the reverse and therefore didn't walk away from the dinner in spite of Trump's aggression in Syria.

    It's true that China needn't get directly involved in Mideast affairs nor take on the responsibility of being Syria's protector (a duty which it has no mandate or obligation to perform), but the optics surrounding the fact that President Xi dined with Trump after the latter ordered a military strike against the SAA are nonetheless uncomfortable and negative."

    Tasnim: Do you believe that the US and Russia are on road to a final collision? Do you think that the US is beating the drum for World War III?

    Korybko: No, the two sides will not enter into a conventional war with one another, let alone over Syria, for the reasons which I thoroughly explained in my article for Geopolitika.Ru, "How The Neocons Are Tempting Trump On Syria".

    I released it Thursday night before the attack took place and accurately forecast that Russia wouldn't militarily intervene to stop Trump because its mandate only covers anti-terrorist activities, not supporting President Assad, the SAA, or Syria's sovereignty.

    The global perception, however, is that Russia has tacitly taken on these responsibilities, though this myth was painfully shattered the moment that Russia's state-of-the-art anti-air defense systems stood silent and weren't ordered to fire at the Tomahawks.

    Having said that, however, the two sides are definitely engaged in a New Cold War which is being advanced through the US' Color Revolutions, Unconventional Wars, Hybrid Wars, and Conventional Wars in third-party states, all of which are examples of strategic warfare and represent a new era of proxy conflict.

    More at the link.

    niku , April 9, 2017 at 2:16 am
    "President Xi, [] apparently seems to need Trump more than the reverse and therefore didn't walk away from the dinner in spite of Trump's aggression in Syria. [The Optics is] uncomfortable and negative."

    I think it is a mistake to imagine that diplomacy's goal is to produce headlines for the newspapers. The goal is to get something you want. There should be some meaning in the act of walking away - just "showing displeasure" is meaningless. Would President Xi not cooperate with President Trump henceforth? Why not, if it suits China's interest? Russia too has not recalled or expelled Ambassadors after many provocations, because it would be meaningless.

    Anyway, China hasn't stood up to the US till now, and it has served it quite well. China keeps on downplaying the news reports that it is now world's largest economy - because there is nothing to gain from this distinction, and only something to lose. (Such a distinction will bring the spotlight onto China, and people will notice bad things about it, e.g. environmental pollution. While it is an "underdog", all is forgiven!).

    Lao Tzu:

    In order to contract a thing, one should surely expand it first.
    In order to weaken, one will surely strengthen first.
    In order to overthrow, one will surely exalt first.
    "In order to take, one will surely give first."
    This is called subtle wisdom.

    Thanks, Jen and Mark for the article(s)! I am from India, by the way.

    Jen , April 9, 2017 at 5:34 am
    Thanks Niku – yes, to walk away just to show displeasure is an almost empty gesture. Xi would need to have something in reserve to support that gesture, that at the same time is a warning to Trump. Also the context matters: Xi was dining at Trump's resort at Mar-a-Lago while the Tomahawk airstrikes were under way, and for this guest to walk out on his host would make him look petulant and potentially embarrass him and China.
    Hoffnungstirbtzuletzt , April 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
    According to Pepe Escobar Xi's delegation left Mar-a-Lago exactly six minutes after the first missiles started hitting Syria. I haven't found any other information about this.
    marknesop , April 9, 2017 at 10:48 pm
    Thank you, Niku, and welcome! Your perspective is an interesting one. It remains to be seen if China's behavior will continue on this course, but its thinking is hard to predict using a western template and assuming it will act in its own interest seems a safe one. However, China must also be aware that Washington plans for China to either be a vassal, or an enemy who must be demonized and destroyed as it intends for Russia. The USA will not acknowledge any other world power as an equal.
    niku , April 11, 2017 at 1:21 am
    Beijing calls for preserving Syria's sovereignty and opposes the use of military force in the conflict, China's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said on 10th April.

    "China has always called against using military force in international relations and for preserving territorial sovereignty," the diplomat said, noting that the Syrian crisis can be only resolved by political means.

    "It is up to the Syrian people to decide on Syria's future," the spokesperson said, stressing that China is ready to "work with all the sides for resolving the crisis as soon as possible."
    http://tass.com/world/940435

    Moscow Exile , April 9, 2017 at 3:53 am

    You have been warned "We are taking names". https://www.youtube.com/embed/BfS5ZWiaPiQ

    The Empire has spoken! What a plonker she is!

    karl1haushofer , April 9, 2017 at 3:56 am
    And a big Ha Ha to those Trump voters who thought he would bring a change.

    As I said, move out of the Babylon (America, Australia, Canada, Britain etc.).

    yalensis , April 9, 2017 at 5:46 am
    OMG! This is the first time I heard this c**t talk.

    She sounds half hockey mom and half corporate bigmouth announcing the formation of some big new project team to the assembled slaves while simultaneously bullying her immediate underlings.
    These people have no clue how to act on the world stage!

    et Al , April 9, 2017 at 11:20 am
    Look like Tina Fey to me.
    Jen , April 9, 2017 at 6:37 pm
    She's Sarah Palin Version 2.0.
    kirill , April 9, 2017 at 6:33 am
    Evidence how deluded the US elites are. They think they are already ruling the world.

    yalensis , April 9, 2017 at 6:04 am

    Very good clip. The interlocutors make the point that Trump's true target is Iran.
    This is what Netanyahu is pushing him to: bomb bomb bomb Iran .

    Other point they make: America Deep State at war with itself.

    • FBI was pro-Trump.
    • The CIA is hostile to Trump.

    My thoughts: I think it goes without saying that the CIA could have Trump assassinated any time of their choosing. Or harm his family. Trump is most likely aware of this by now. Although Trump himself is evil, his family truly does seem like lovely people, and, in retrospect, he never should have dragged them into this.

    marknesop , April 9, 2017 at 10:57 pm
    That's probably why Washington flipped its lid when Russia initially announced sales of the S-400 system to Iran.
    yalensis , April 9, 2017 at 6:10 am
    My latest post on Russian reaction to the Trump rocket strike.

    While on my blog, please check out Lyttenburgh's "Futurology" essay , if you haven't started reading it yet. We're about halfway through with the installments. Well worth reading, so please take the time to catch up, if you haven't already!

    kirill , April 9, 2017 at 6:10 am
    http://russia-insider.com/en/breaking-trumps-national-security-adviser-wants-full-scale-war-syria/ri19516

    So Uncle Scumbag couldn't bait Russia into a war in Ukraine and will now instigate a direct confrontation in Syria. Russia needs to ratchet up the rhetoric at the UN that any non-sanctioned US deployment in Syria is the action of a rogue state that authorizes a Russian response. NATzO is trying to destroy the basis of international relations and norms. (Forget about law.) This is a clear neo-colonial agenda where some cheesy false flag can "authorize" NATzO to regime change at leisure. No investigation by independent bodies, just ad hoc response by the pack of hyenas. A wall needs to be placed for this agenda and Syria is the do or die moment.

    Cortes , April 9, 2017 at 7:17 am
    In contrast to the inane Sir Michael Fallon, David Habakkuk at the Turcopolier site provides a lengthy, detailed account of the behaviour of grownup people dealing with the mad neocon kids and their jihadi besties who conjured up the Ghouta incident:

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/sentence-first-verdict-afterwards.html#more

    Well worth taking the time to read, I think.

    marknesop , April 9, 2017 at 8:10 am
    In fact, western authorities are well aware that Assad was not to blame for the Ghouta massacre, and know as well – or should – that there is every chance the sarin gas used was supplied by Turkey.

    When Erdogan consolidated his power following the failed coup attempt to oust him, one of the first things his administration did was shut down Today's Zaman newspaper, and replace it with a Turkish-language alternate which parroted the Erdogan line. Our erstwhile former-intelligence-professional colleague Ronald Thomas West did an excellent story on the article which appeared in the doomed paper before its demise, reporting that the Turkish government shut off an investigation which would prove Turkey was involved at the state level and that the sarin was provided by a group of Turkish businessmen with the collusion of Turkey's intelligence services. The story was widely unreported elsewhere, but I am still on RTW's mailing list.

    NATO would be wise to remember the strangling of opposing voices like this when it is whooping and strutting and screaming about Putin crushing opposition news media and the horrible climate of censorship which prevails in Russia, because Saakashvili did just the same thing with the Georgia Media Center.

    et Al , April 9, 2017 at 11:39 am
    What's the cost to the West of being proved wrong over the latest 'chemical attack'? Absolutely nothing.

    They will simply say that they acted on the information on the time and it was a reasonable action to take, and that it was unfortunate that it turned out to be more complicated. The US is not going to be dragged in front of the ICJ because it is not a member and is certainly not going to pay any reparations. USS Vincennes v. Iran Air 310 anyone? They simply don't care, whether it is Trump or some other President. Facts are Scrotums (to modify a former claim used by the Guardian's old 'Comment is Free' opinion section).

    So why? Because they can? Like a bear in woods? Or is it to show that it is still some sort of player and save face from the fact that Assad, with the backing of Russia, Hezbollah & I-ran have been very effective in fighting IS/ISIS/ISIL/DAESH/Whatever whereas the West had simply ignored it for years?

    As for Erdogan, I expect another change of wind once he becomes Prez for Life.

    Moscow Exile , April 9, 2017 at 7:54 am
    Syria crisis: Russia raises prospect of war if it is given G7 ultimatum as it mocks Boris Johnson's no-show

    Russia has raised the prospect of war with the West as it mocked Boris Johnson for cancelling a trip to Moscow in the wake of the Syrian nerve gas attack.

    The Russian Embassy in London posted a series of provocative tweets on its official account in which it suggested that "a conventional war" could be one outcome if the G7 group of nations presents it with an ultimatum later this week.

    Oh tut tut! How dreadful of those Russians are to pen such scurrilous messages in the social media Such uncultured louts!

    Note how the Telegraph accuses Russia of sabre rattling.

    cartman , April 9, 2017 at 1:03 pm
    Big girl shirt, he is.
    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 6:15 pm
    Excellent. You have a certain je ne sais quoi .
    Warren , April 9, 2017 at 2:16 pm
    Fallon has particular axe to grind with respect to Russia.

    Visibly drunk Michael Fallon forcibly separated from attractive Russian spy by minder

    https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/visibly-drunk-michael-fallon-had-to-be-forcibly-separated-from-attractive-russian-spy-by-a-minder/

    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 7:55 pm
    Dear God. Are there no responsible adults left at all?
    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 5:29 pm
    Ha, ha!!! The proposal is said to contain a tacit offer to Russia to rejoin the G7 if it plays nice, withdraws all its military forces from Syria and drops its backing for Assad – after which the west would be in there like stink and ISIS would be running the joint before the next Ramadan.

    And a flood of Syrian refugees would be fleeing sectarian prosecution or death. As the west so often makes me say, fuck off. And when you get there, fuck off a bit further. Russia prefers the G20 forum to the G8, and an offer to rejoin the cash-strapped G7 is not an enticement.

    Drutten , April 9, 2017 at 11:14 am
    Nothing new here, but a well written essay nonetheless:

    Patrick Cockburn: Who supplies the news?
    London Review of Books, vol 39, no. 3.
    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n03/patrick-cockburn/who-supplies-the-news

    Chinese American , April 9, 2017 at 1:44 pm
    A new report by Mike Cernovich:

    I don't know if one should believe this 100%, and in the comments, there are people who quote opposing reports but Cernovich does have sources. Basically, Trump's new national security adviser McMaster is the one pushing for war, and wants 150,000 US ground troops in Syria. Currently, there is still some resistance in the Trump administration against this.

    Pavlo Svolochenko , April 9, 2017 at 2:15 pm
    Oh, nothing to worry about then – he's shown such fortitude in the face of pressure so far.

    There is no way this ends in any way but WWIII – these fellows either think they're invincible or they'd truly rather see Syria and Russia destroyed than see their grandchildren grow up.

    Either way, the Russian government's options are decreasing to a singular course.

    et Al , April 10, 2017 at 1:21 am
    Like Whatever -- Trump likes to have people with strongly conflicting views around him, which I suspect is to make it easier to divide & rule but also maintain an element of uncertainty (like Hitler!) abroad. It plays well to the Pork Pie News Networks but we keep coming back to the fundamental issue that large numbers of Americans voted for Trump on America first, not more war – which would require a coalition and all those complications.

    Does anyone see European militaries putting significant boots on ground? No. So far only Special Foreskins. Would the US seek to emulate the succes of Russia by using local forces? Saudi & Qatari troops? Even Jordanian troops? They're beof tartar people put in their sandwiches before they get eaten. All the known unknowns say that that the potential blowback(s) from another such a mission could be considerable, and yet again it would be Europe who would pay the price.

    Chinese American , April 9, 2017 at 3:28 pm
    Another good link, detailed analysis of the videos "Dr. Shajul Islam" (a documented terrorist) that supposedly document the chemical weapons attack at Khan Sheikhoun:
    http://logophere.com/Topics2017/17-04/17_015-BLA-ShajulIslam.htm
    (Also older detailed articles on the 2013 Ghouta attack at the site.)

    The Western MSM is trying to slip the idea of sarin into the public consciousness, counting on the idea that the uninformed public would mentally conflate "sarin" and "chemical weapons". For instance the BBC talking head going on about how the Russian/Syrian story was that an airstrike hit a rebel "sarin" warehouse, which I am fairly sure was not what Russia and Syria said.

    Warren , April 9, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    Published on 5 Apr 2017
    When you serve imperialism you get burned by imperialism.
    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/
    https://www.rt.com/news/371250-aleppo

    et Al , April 10, 2017 at 7:11 am
    Asia Times: The West bashes Russia while China is busy bridging the gap to Europe
    http://www.atimes.com/west-bashes-russia-china-builds-rail-roads/

    By Jan Krikke

    Russia-bashing has become the staple of the Western mainstream media in recent months. Some headlines suggest a level of paranoia not seen since the Cold War: "Russia is the world's biggest threat to democracy." "Our freedom under assault." "Nato must strengthen its defenses." It is unlikely that Russian tanks will be rolling into Western Europe any time soon. Instead, a steady stream of Chinese freight trains is rolling in from the Far East. They make a 12,000-kilometer journey across the Eurasian Land Bridge to Germany, where they unload Chinese flat-screen TVs, notebooks, and tablets. European consumers will use them to watch the news with its daily dose of Russia-bashing.

    As the sun rises in the United States, a new day of Russia-demonizing begins. There are new revelations about Russian super hackers, spying Russian diplomats and "bad actors with connections to Putin." The ostensibly liberal media and formerly dovish Democratic senators have suddenly turned into hawks while repeating a now-familiar mantra: Putin stole the US presidential election from Hillary Clinton. The Democrats had a billion-dollar war chest and overwhelming support from the media, yet a handful of Russian hackers and Internet trolls were able to steal the election. A look at recent history suggests the anti-Russia hysteria is part of a failing attempt to isolate Russia and derail the Eurasian Land Bridge .

    Northern Star , April 10, 2017 at 3:54 pm
    • warmonger Check
    • psycho .Check
    • moron CHECK:

    http://www.duffelblog.com/2014/12/hr-mcmaster-injured-army/

    Northern Star , April 10, 2017 at 4:38 pm
    Throughout history words of war have often been antecedent to eventual actual combat.
    The words written in Mein Kampf or the rantings of the Nazi maniac's speeches led straight to to WW2. (see link infra)
    Some of you stooges have tried to downplay the significance of the current crisis following the alleged gas attack and the following cruise missile retaliation. You seem to think that the rhetoric spewing from the rotten Sikh whore or that bonehead war criminal McMaster isn't necessarily probative of how close we are to the edge of a nuclear holocaust abyss. You are surprisingly foolish and naive in tha assumption.

    "The airstrikes in Syria and the war drive of American imperialism

    10 April 2017

    In the aftermath of last week's cruise missile attack on Syria, the relentless logic of military escalation is driving decisions in Washington. The US political establishment and media are demanding that the action be followed up by a "comprehensive strategy" to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and escalate the confrontation with Russia.
    The Trump administration's ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, declared on Sunday that "regime change [in Syria] is something that we think is going to happen." As for Russia and Iran, she said, "We're calling them out. But I don't think anything is off the table at this point You're going to continue to see the United States act when it needs to act."
    Republican Senator Lindsey Graham called on Sunday for the deployment of "five to six thousand" US troops to Syria and for economic sanctions against Russia. Assad, he said, is making a "serious mistake because if you are an adversary of the United States and you don't worry about what Trump may do on any given day, then you're crazy."
    The chorus of calls for action against the Russian government came from both Democrats and Republicans. "They're accomplices," Republican Senator Marco Rubio said. "Vladimir Putin is a war criminal who is assisting another war criminal." His colleague, Democrat Ben Cardin, declared the UN Security Council should set up a tribunal to indict both Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin for war crimes.

    *****Such rhetoric is the language of war. The denunciation of one or another foreign leader as a war criminal is the standard prelude to military action.*** "
    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/10/pers-a10.html

    The fascists and psychopaths in DC,Brussels and London are livid and panic stricken with rage and frustration that the other whore wasn't elected and their schemes to implement global hegemony have been thwarted by Russia.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/07/pers-a07.html
    "The claim that this attack is a response to the Syrian government's use of poison gas is a transparent lie. Once again, as in the air war against Serbia in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, and the attack on Libya in 2011, the United States has concocted a pretext to justify the violation of another country's sovereignty.
    The bombing of Syria is a unilateral abrogation by the US of the agreement negotiated with Russia in 2013, which resulted in the calling off of a long-planned direct military intervention by the US in the on-going civil war.
    As the International Committee of the Fourth International warned in September 2013, "The postponement of war does not lessen the likelihood, indeed, the inevitability, of the outbreak of a major war. As the bellicose statements emanating from Washington make clear, the 'military option' remains on the table. Nor is Syria the only target for military attack. US operations against Syria would set the stage for a clash with Iran. And, still further, the logic of US imperialism's drive for global dominance leads to a confrontation with Russia and China. Nor can it be excluded that the conflict of interests among the major imperialist powers-for example, the United States and Germany-might under certain conditions metastasize into armed conflict." [1]
    This warning has been substantiated.
    Moreover, the attacks signify at least a partial resolution of the bitter conflict over foreign policy that has been raging within the highest echelons of the American state since last November's presidential election. With the support of the most powerful factions of the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency, the Democratic Party's demand for war against Syria and intensified confrontation with Russia has prevailed. The Trump White House has been compelled to execute an astonishing about-face from the policy that it had publicly announced only days earlier"

    We are headed to a nuclearr September 3 ,1939..sure as fuck and some stooges ..however brilliant ..don't seem to get that through your heads..

    Moscow Exile , April 10, 2017 at 9:41 pm
    Well wadya know!

    NYT wins Pullitzer Prize for reporting on " attempts by the Russian government to assert its power".

    See 2017 Pulitzer Prize Winners

    In "Russia's Dark Arts," a team of New York Times journalists across two continents chronicled the covert and sometimes deadly actions taken by President Vladimir V. Putin's government to grow Russian influence abroad. The series, which began last spring, explored the rise of online "troll armies," the strategic spreading of disinformation and Russia's unprecedented - and politically consequential - cyberattack on the 2016 American presidential election.

    No prize awarded for use of English though: "to grow influence abroad" in a similar way as one grows potatoes in one's garden, for example?

    I should imagine that the verb "to grow" used in the passive voice with "influence" would sound better:"Russian influence is growing abroad", or in the subjunctive mood: actions taken by President Vladimir V. Putin's government so that Russian influence grow abroad – but "to grow influence"?

    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 10:44 pm
    The Times is just a tabloid now, blowing with the political wind and seeking sensationalist stories which it reports in hyperbolic terms. Just that one line, "The series, which began last spring, explored the rise of online "troll armies," the strategic spreading of disinformation and Russia's unprecedented - and politically consequential - cyberattack on the 2016 American presidential election" is enough to tell you what the Pulitzer is worth these days. Just like the Nobel Peace Prize, it's a political pat on the head for being a good doggie.
    Moscow Exile , April 10, 2017 at 9:50 pm
    Shitwit Hague pontificating again:

    Russia is a nation in decline, stuck with a Cold War KGB mindset – the West must treat it as such

    There are three reasons why Donald Trump was right to launch a cruise missile strike against the Syrian Air Force facilities responsible for the chemical weapons attack last week on a town in northern Syria.

    First, the use of such weapons, in this case against civilians including children, is an abhorrent crime that is internationally outlawed and was generally avoided even in the Second World War. There has to be a response to such a crime. In August 2013, Ed Miliband's Labour Party and some rebel Conservatives prevented any retaliation, which has only led to further atrocities.

    Second, Trump acted quickly, which is crucial to making a clear connection between the crime and the response. Obama initially intended to do this four years ago, but then became bogged down in the decision-making, accepting instead a Russian plan to disarm Assad of chemical agents – a plan we can now see was not

    All based on the irrefutable evidence of, amongst other impeccable sources, the "White Helmets" and a bloke who lives in a Birmingham council house in the UK and a host of objective reporters at the Guardian, NYT etc.that the crime was committed by the Assad "regime".

    Moscow Exile , April 10, 2017 at 9:58 pm
    DISTURBING IMAGES: White Helmets BUSTED killing babies in PR stunt to start war in Syria
    marknesop , April 10, 2017 at 10:51 pm
    Ah, but you see, the Russians are dumb, like dogs. When your dog pees on the floor, you have to rap him on the nose with your rolled-up newspaper right away, rather than investigating to see if perhaps it was the wife who pissed on the carpet and not the dog, because punishment delayed merely confuses the poor animal – what have I done? You have to strike immediately, so the dumb creature can make the connection between offense and punishment. No time for investigation, old chappie, old bean.

    Logic like that is demonstrative of a nation of halfwits. I daresay Trump will be pleased, because he is a halfwit as well, and he will certainly make the connection between using the military and international approbation, as people who yesterday would not cross the street to spit on him if he was on fire today praise him as a decisive leader.

    Maybe a nuclear holocaust that cracks the planet in two like a plate is just what the doctor ordered; the human race isn't worth saving.

    Fern , April 11, 2017 at 10:47 am
    Quite extraordinary the number of people prepared to go to war on the basis of youtube videos filmed by an anti-Assad propaganda outfit funded by, amongst others, the US State Department and the UK government. Goebbels, thou shoulds't be living at this hour

    As far as Hague's comments on Russia are concerned, I think he's forgotten the golden rule .it's a really, really bad idea to start believing your own propaganda.

    Cortes , April 11, 2017 at 4:28 pm
    Hague is the original white helmet.
    marknesop , April 11, 2017 at 5:00 pm
    Actually, he's a purple helmet.


    Fucking idiot of a British foreign minister at the same table as his beaming Canadian Svidomite counterpart at G7 meeting yesterday.

    Boris Johnson threatens Russia with fresh sanctions over support for 'toxic' Assad regime in Syria

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Boris Johnson fails to secure backing of the G7 nations for swift sanctions against Russia and Syria

    Boris Johnson has failed to secure the backing of the G7 nations for swift sanctions against Russia and Syria, leaving the US-UK plan to pressurise Vladimir Putin in tatters.

    Germany and Italy vetoed the idea of targeting Russian and Syrian military leaders until an investigation has been carried out into who was to blame for last week's nerve gas attack in Idlib province.

    The Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano said Mr Putin "must not be pushed into a corner", suggesting Italy may not support extra sanctions even if an investigation proves Assad was to blame.

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 11:28 am
    G7 not stronk!
    marknesop , April 11, 2017 at 5:24 pm
    It's a circle-jerk of debtor nations, among whom – when it was a member – Russia held the lowest debt level by far. Russia is better off out of it, and the sooner it replaces the IMF and other western institutions in its daily dealings and ceases its capitalization of them, the better off Russia will be. Choose between America and Assad, indeed. What fool would choose to publicly seek the friendship of a country that spits on it all day long, every day, week in, week out? Even if Assad were actually guilty of all the horrible things know-nothing Washington claims he is, he would still be a better choice.
    Cortes , April 11, 2017 at 12:14 am
    The Saker on the Tomahawk strike:

    http://thesaker.is/a-multi-level-analysis-of-the-us-cruise-missile-attack-on-syria-and-its-consequences/

    Includes detail on how Russian misdirection of the 36 AWOL missiles may have been done plus loads more. Apologies if linked to earlier.

    et Al , April 11, 2017 at 3:21 am
    The Charlotte Observer: US Official: Russia knew Syrian chemical attack was coming
    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article143893739.html

    By ROBERT BURNS and LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press

    The United States has made a preliminary conclusion that Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, but has no proof of Moscow's involvement, a senior U.S. official says.

    The official said Monday that that a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons

    couldn't have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known The official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on intelligence matters and demanded anonymity, didn't give precise timing for when the drone was in the area, didn't provide details for the military and intelligence information

    Another U.S. official cautioned official wasn't authorized to speak about internal administration deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity

    Until Monday, U.S. officials had said they weren't sure whether Russia or Syria operated the drone. The official said the U.S. is now convinced Russia controlled the drone. The official said it still isn't clear who was flying the jet that bombed the hospital, because the Syrians also fly Russian-made aircraft
    ####

    Purlitzer here please! I wonder what a judge would say to the Prosecution in a criminal case if they said that they don't have the actual evidence but that they are 'convinced' the defendant is guity?

    I don't really know why AP is needed at all here as all this can be put straight out by US officials. Who says main steam establishment journalism is dead? I do. All that remains is establishment piss stream journalism.

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 3:49 am
    "Who the fuck invited him to speak???" they must have been screaming in the BBC Breakfast TV studio control room.

    BBC with egg on its face during a breakfast TV interview with former UK ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, on April 7, 2017:

    Love it at the end when the interviewer asks:

    "Well, how will his [Assad's] behaviour change now he knows President Trump is prepared to launch cruise missile attacks?"

    [Classic "begging of the question", it being taken as a given by the interviewer that Assad was responsible for the CW attack in Ibidem and, therefore, suffered the consequences in the form of a cruise missile attack by the Exceptional Nation.]

    Ford replies:

    "But he probably didn't do it in the first place, so it can't change his behaviour if he didn't do it in the first place "

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 5:57 am
    AP:

    Tillerson: Russia must choose between Assad and the US

    Hmmmm ..

    Tough choice!

    Moscow Exile , April 11, 2017 at 6:17 am
    "Two Russian servicemen were killed in the Syrian Arab Republic as a result of an attack by militants A mine explosion killed the two Russian servicemen. Military medics are struggling for the life of a wounded Russian serviceman" – Russia MoD.

    This news cannot have reached Finland yet.

    See: Militants Kill Two Russian Servicemen in Syria, Medics Fighting for Third's Life
    14:04 11.04.2017(updated 14:32 11.04.2017)

    Warren , April 11, 2017 at 7:24 am
    Boris Johnson: Russia will want a way out on Syria

    UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, predicts Russia will want "a way out" of its current position on Syria and says that the G7 meeting has proposed measures which offer a way forward.

    Mr Johnson was speaking to the BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39563637

    BoJo continues to embarrass himself, how presumptuous of him to think he knows what Russia wants. What on Earth makes BoJo think that "Russia wants an way out"? Russia's relationship with Syria contrary to his erroneous assertion is not an "albatross around Russia's neck". BoJo got one thing right, Russia's intervention in September 2015, absolutely "changed the game", the threat of direct NATO aggression along the lines of what occurred in Libya was neutered.

    kirill , April 11, 2017 at 6:27 pm
    Russia is in Syria until the battle is won. It is rather obvious that Russia decide to take the fight to the Wahabbis near their home turf instead of having the Wahabbis set the agenda along its border. It diverted Wahabbi resources from Chechnya and elsewhere in the process. Good job!
    Warren , April 11, 2017 at 7:54 am
    What is behind Toshiba's financial crisis?

    11 April 2017 Last updated at 01:12 BST

    Toshiba is currently trying to sell off its prized computer chips unit in an attempt to cover losses from its troubled US nuclear unit Westinghouse.

    But it's not the only Japanese firm to struggle in recent years.

    The BBC's Tokyo correspondent Rupert Wingfield-Hayes looks at some of the reasons why.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39557757

    Looks like the Japanese corporate model is coming to an end. I wonder if revelations will emerge that Toshiba has committed fraud and hid its losses in shell companies, in the same way Olympus had done?

    kirill , April 11, 2017 at 6:25 pm
    So Westinghouse was a black hole to the extent that it practically broke Toshiba. Wow. How much of the rest of the US super duper ubermenschen power house hyper economy nothing more than a rotten facade?
    Northern Star , April 11, 2017 at 1:18 pm
    The only appropriate Russian response to Tillerson';s ultimatum would be along the lines of:

    You fascist vermin have two options:

    1) All of North America ,Western Europe and Western Russia wiil be turned into sheets of glass serving as the mass tombs of a billion or so putrefying radioactive corpses.

    2) You will immediately completely cease and desist from fucking -IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER- with Russia or any sovereign nation with which Russia is allied

    Your call motherfuckers

    The fact that this cocksucker Tillerson would give an ultimatum to the Russians IN RUSSIA no less speaks to the unbounded psycho arrogance of the rabid vermin in the Western elite.

    et Al , April 11, 2017 at 1:26 pm
    I think Trump's 'strategy', if you can call it as such, is to shake the tree to see who folds under pressure. It's likely it will blow up in his face, but as we have seen with the TLAM strike in Syria, even the Dems were on board and congratulating him so they own the consequences too.
    Northern Star , April 11, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    "even the Dems were on board " Exactly .see my post infra We have ZERO fuckin' leadership of substance-moral and intellectual- in this country(America)-whatsoever the Congressional Black Caucus is as full of spineless dogshit as the white dominated DNC black vermin political opportunists white vermin political opportunists..all cut from the same bolt.

    Jen , April 11, 2017 at 3:19 pm
    The people who say that Adolf Hitler refused to use sarin gas because of his own experiences during WW1 when he was gassed with mustard gas will have to juggle their belief with the fact that Zyklon B and carbon monoxide gas were used on people in concentration / death camps in Poland or on people travelling packed sardines-in-tin style in the backs of trucks travelling to the camps. Saying that Hitler or his government would not have used gas comes dangerously close to denying the use of gas in camps like Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor and Auschwitz-Birkenau to kill people.

    As Lina Arabi says, people like Hannon and Simon are completely lost and totally ignorant.

    et Al , April 11, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    Al Beeb s'Allah GONAD (God's Own News Agency Direct): Syria: Boris Johnson denies defeat over sanctions call
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39563640

    ####

    There's a job waiting for him as a spokesman for the US Government.

    He'll have to top this though.

    Huff Blow: Sean Spicer Says Hitler 'Never Used Chemical Weapons' As If He's Never Heard Of The Holocaust
    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sean-spicer-chemical-weapons-holocaust_uk_58ed23e9e4b0df7e20460dc3

    Northern Star , April 11, 2017 at 1:29 pm
    To the stooges who have Chamberlain Syndrome:

    "Pseudo-left endorses imperialist onslaught against Syria
    11 April 2017
    Nearly 16 years after the beginning of the "war on terror" and more than a quarter-century after the first Gulf War in 1991, the unending imperialist war drive is entering a new and more dangerous stage. In the aftermath of the Trump administration's air strikes against Syria, the US media and political establishment, parroting the official propaganda line used to justify the attacks, is demanding even more aggressive action against Syria and Russia. There is the very real danger of a direct military conflict between the US and nuclear-armed Russia, with incalculable consequences.
    And yet, fourteen years after the mass protests against the Iraq war in 2003, there does not exist any organized anti-war movement. With each successive war, accompanied by ever more brazen propaganda and lies, the level of organized popular protest has diminished. This is despite the fact that among broad sections of the population there is profound disquiet and hostility to the warmongering of the government. How is this to be explained?
    It is impossible to answer this question without analyzing the role of the nominally "left" political parties and publications that have become vocal cheerleaders of US regime-change operations. Included among them are the International Socialist Organization (Socialist Worker) and the Pabloite International Viewpoint."

    Spot on comment:

    "Blaine • 7 hours ago
    The article makes it sound as if the Left political establishment has any sort of control over citizens with left leaning tendencies.

    I believe the real reason for anti-war silence is that it does no good to speak up and rally. This was learned from Iraq.

    You will also be arrested and beaten and nothing will come of it – learned from Occupy.

    Whoever you put into office will continue on a war footing, learned from Obama.

    Unless one is ready and committed to playing smash mouth with LE in large numbers and really dragging this thing into a genuine national crisis, how you feel or vote or whether you speak up or peaceably assemble will not have any effect.

    People are waking up but at a very slow pace. Too slowly. The anti-war movement has no leaders to galvanize it, no eloquent speeches to incite the spirit, no folk singers wondering where the flowers have gone."

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/11/pers-a11.html

    To which I would add to the above :'Half measures' don't work. Learned from DonBass and now Syria

    [Apr 11, 2017] After Trumps Syria Attack, What Comes Next

    Trump probably has a horse head in his bed
    Notable quotes:
    "... From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war. ..."
    "... The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile? ..."
    "... Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now! ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Thursday's US missile attack on Syria must represent the quickest foreign policy U-turn in history. Less than a week after the White House gave Assad permission to stay on as president of his own country, President Trump decided that the US had to attack Syria and demand Assad's ouster after a chemical attack earlier in the week. Trump blamed Assad for the attack, stated that "something's going to happen" in retaliation, and less than two days later he launched a volley of 59 Tomahawk missiles (at a cost of $1.5 million each) onto a military airfield near where the chemical attack took place.

    President Trump said it is in the "vital national security interest of the United States" to attack Syria over the use of poison gas. That is nonsense. Even if what Trump claims about the gas attack is true – and we've seen no evidence that it is – there is nothing about an isolated incident of inhuman cruelty thousands of miles from our borders that is in our "vital national security interest." Even if Assad gassed his own people last week it hardly means he will launch chemical attacks on the United States even if he had the ability, which he does not.

    From the moment the chemical attack was blamed on Assad, however, I expressed my doubts about the claims. It simply makes no sense for Assad to attack civilians with a chemical weapon just as he is winning his war against ISIS and al-Qaeda and has been told by the US that it no longer seeks regime change. On the verge of victory, he commits a suicidal act to no strategic or tactical military advantage? More likely the gas attack was a false flag by the rebels -- or perhaps even by our CIA -- as a last ditch effort to forestall a rebel defeat in the six year war.

    Would the neocons and the mainstream media lie to us about what happened last week in Syria? Of course they would. They lied us into attacking Iraq, they lied us into attacking Gaddafi, they lied us into seeking regime change in Syria in the first place. We should always assume they are lying.

    Who benefits from the US attack on Syria? ISIS, which immediately after the attack began a ground offensive. Does President Trump really want the US to act as ISIS's air force?

    The gas attack, which took some 70 civilian lives, was horrible and must be condemned. But we must also remember that US bombs in Syria have killed hundreds of civilians. Just recently, US bombs killed 300 Iraqi civilians in one strike! Does it really make a difference if you are killed by poison gas or by a US missile?

    What's next for President Trump in Syria? Russia has not backed down from its claim that the poison gas leaked as a result of a conventional Syrian bomb on an ISIS chemical weapons factory. Moscow claims it is determined to defend its ally, Syria. Will Trump unilaterally declare a no fly zone in parts of Syria and attempt to prevent Russian air traffic? Some suggest this is his next move. It is one that carries a great danger of igniting World War Three.

    Donald Trump's attack on Syria was clearly illegal. However, Congress shows no interest in reining in this out-of-control president. We should fear any US escalation and must demand that our Representatives prohibit it. If there ever was a time to flood the Capitol Hill switchboard demanding an end to US military action in Syria, it is now!


    Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Apr 11, 2017] Mr. Trump is clearly incapable of running any business besides his Mar a Lago Golf Club. This is his problem. However, I really cannot understand how the elites seams not to notice. This experiment will turn out very costly for everyone.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump doesn't have any long-term strategy with Syria? Neither did Obama whose strategy was apparently to let the war burn itself out and finally stop when everyone is either dead or have fled the country. Did Krugman criticize Obama's strategy? (and maybe Obama's strategy was the least worst option, better than invasion and war.) ..."
    "... more like centrist vs centrist. bernie says nice soothing words (free college!, free healthcare!) but is just as much of a capitalist as krugman. ..."
    "... who appointed the USA world police? and why would they do this after this nation has slaughtered millions of innocent civilians? ..."
    "... The best thing the USA can do to promote peace and stability is to dismantle its brutal thuggish military. ..."
    "... This is an attempt to oust Assad with a false flag. The US should cut off any more 9/11 observances, it is advancing bin Laden's jihad. ..."
    "... Mr. Trump is clearly incapable of running any business besides his Mar a Lago Golf Club. This is his problem. However, I really cannot understand how the "elites" seams not to notice. This experiment will turn out very costly for everyone. ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Monday, April 10, 2017 at 07:11 AM

    Peter K. -> B.T.... April 10, 2017 at 09:19 AM

    Yeah doesn't seem like Putin is running Trump even if Trump is corrupt as hell.

    Trump doesn't have any long-term strategy with Syria? Neither did Obama whose strategy was apparently to let the war burn itself out and finally stop when everyone is either dead or have fled the country. Did Krugman criticize Obama's strategy? (and maybe Obama's strategy was the least worst option, better than invasion and war.)

    Hillary wanted a no-fly zone, right? See Libya.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... April 10, 2017 at 09:19 AM

    I'll never forget the Bernie columns. Center-left versus left.

    yuan -> Peter K.... April 10, 2017 at 09:33 AM

    more like centrist vs centrist. bernie says nice soothing words (free college!, free healthcare!) but is just as much of a capitalist as krugman.

    yuan -> B.T.... "some sort of response" April 10, 2017 at 09:39 AM

    who appointed the USA world police? and why would they do this after this nation has slaughtered millions of innocent civilians?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-we-ignore-the-civilians-killed-in-american-wars/2011/12/05/gIQALCO4eP_story.html

    The best thing the USA can do to promote peace and stability is to dismantle its brutal thuggish military.

    ilsm -> B.T.... April 10, 2017 at 02:16 PM

    Assad cleared Aleppo in Dec. 16. The government is pushing the jihadis back.

    The motive for him to go Curtis LeMay does not exist.

    And that Brit "expert" who said an explosion cannot spread the gas hopes you don't know about Bhopal.

    There is no evidence of the containers that controlled the release, just eye witnesses who are under the thumb of terrorists.

    This is an attempt to oust Assad with a false flag. The US should cut off any more 9/11 observances, it is advancing bin Laden's jihad.

    Lillian April 10, 2017 at 07:17 AM

    Mr. Trump is clearly incapable of running any business besides his Mar a Lago Golf Club. This is his problem. However, I really cannot understand how the "elites" seams not to notice. This experiment will turn out very costly for everyone.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Idlib chemical attack was false flag to set Assad up, more may come – Putin - RT News

    Notable quotes:
    "... "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," ..."
    "... "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," ..."
    "... "The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," ..."
    "... "We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe," ..."
    "... "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Russia has information of a potential incident similar to the alleged chemical attack in Idlib province, possibly targeting a Damascus suburb, President Vladimir Putin said. The goal is to discredit the government of Syrian President Assad, he added. https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FRTvids%2Fvideos%2F1533173910026190%2F&show_text=0&width=560" name="I1">

    "We have reports from multiple sources that false flags like this one – and I cannot call it otherwise – are being prepared in other parts of Syria, including the southern suburbs of Damascus. They plan to plant some chemical there and accuse the Syrian government of an attack," he said at a joint press conference with Italian President Sergio Mattarella in Moscow.

    Damascus denied the allegations, noting that the targeted area may have been hosting chemical weapons stockpiles belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) or Al-Nusra Front jihadists.

    The incident has not been properly investigated as yet, but the US fired dozens of cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in a demonstration of force over what it labeled a chemical attack by Damascus.

    "President Mattarella and I discussed it, and I told him that this reminds me strongly of the events in 2003, when the US representatives demonstrated at the UN Security Council session the presumed chemical weapons found in Iraq. The military campaign was subsequently launched in Iraq and it ended with the devastation of the country, the growth of the terrorist threat and the appearance of Islamic State [IS, formerly ISIS] on the world stage," he added.

    Read more Future strikes on Syria a 'possibility'– White House

    It was the first time the US had targeted Syrian troops deliberately. The White House says it will repeat military action in response to any possible new chemical weapon attacks.

    "The sight of people being gassed and blown away by barrel bombs ensures that if we see this kind of action again, we hold open the possibility of future action," spokesman Sean Spicer said Monday.

    Putin reiterated the call to properly investigate what happened in Khan Sheikhoun, saying that the alleged use of chemical weapons demands one.

    "We are planning to address the corresponding UN structure in The Hague and call on the international community to thoroughly investigate all those reports and take appropriate action based on the results of such a probe," he said.

    A separate report of a potential false flag operation in Syria came from the Russian General Staff, which said militants were transporting toxic agents into several parts of Syria, including Eastern Ghouta, the site of the 2013 chemical weapons incident.

    "These actions are aimed at creating a new pretext for accusing the government of Syria of more chemical weapons attacks and provoking more strikes by the US," said Colonel General Sergey Rudskoy, the head of Operations.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Chuck Todd Interviewes Bernie Sanders On NBCs Meet The Press

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    It is easier to get into the war that to get out of war

    14 years of Afghan war did not teach those neocons much.

    > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

    [Apr 11, 2017] John McCain interview On CBSs Face the Nation with John Dickerson (4-9-2017)

    McCain is making a fool of himself, and so is the main media
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Sebastian Ionescu 2 days ago

    YOU CAN SEE JOHN MCCAIN, BUT ALL YOU HEAR IS ISRAEL AND ZIONISM. McCain should be rotting in a jail cell waiting for execution by SAWED OFF SHOTGUN FIRING SQUAD. This jew owned whore deserves nothing less than to have his fucking head blown off by an American appointed execution squad supported by the American people and put in place to deter : 1.) LOYALTY TO ISRAEL OVER AMERICA. 2.) THE ENRICHMENT OF PRIVATE WAR PORTFOLIOS. 3.) THE WARMONGERING AND DESTABILIZATION OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

    The American people know that this is nothing more than a war for ISRAEL. NOTHING BUT ISRAEL.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/israel-grants-illegal-oil-rights-inside-syria-to-murdoch-and-rothschild/5517488

    [Apr 11, 2017] Robert Steele - Inside Source Says Brennan, McCain McMaster Responsible for Syrian False Flag

    Does Donald Trump switched from "America first" to "Israeli firsts" ?
    Apr 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    From Robert Steele - We do now know (I did not know this at the time the below video was recorded and I have no link for this, it comes to me from an inside source) that former CIA Director John Brennan plotted this false flag attack, which may have involved some real sarin allegedly destroyed during the Obama Administration, with Senator John McCain and National Security Advisor Herbert McMaster.

    Brennan got the Saudis to pay half and McCain got Israel to pay half. They blind-sided – this is clearly treason – not only the Director of the CIA, but the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense. In my personal view, both John McCain and Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be impeached by their respective legislative bodies.

    Whether true or not I cannot certify – it is consistent with my evaluation of each of these people, and a good starting point for an international investigation. I have long felt that John Brennan should be standing before the International Court of Justice as a war criminal, not least because of the CIA's drone assassination program that I recently denounced in a book review article for Intelligence and National Security.

    If you appreciate what we do here at VL, consider supporting us on Patreon.. Thank you :-)

    https://www.patreon.com/victuruslibertas

    [Apr 11, 2017] Mattis Syria Will Not Spiral Out Of Control

    Apr 11, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    SgtShaftoe , Apr 11, 2017 3:30 PM

    Fuck you Pentagram demons. Haven't you yet tasted enough death and human suffering?

    Looney -> SgtShaftoe , Apr 11, 2017 3:31 PM

    Barking orders works well with the UK, Germany, France, and the rest of the EU.

    This shit doesn't fly with the Russians or the Chinese.

    Dubya tried it, although very carefully. 0bama tried it, not so carefully.

    Now, Trump wants to "make deals" by giving orders to Xi (on N. Korea) and Putin (on Syria).

    Is this how he used to "make deals" with the Unions, NY regulators, or byers/sellers of Real Estate?

    Looney

    Raffie -> Ghost of Porky , Apr 11, 2017 3:43 PM

    Mad Dog says "We believe Assad attacked..." Believe, not Know... big difference.

    pods -> Raffie , Apr 11, 2017 3:51 PM

    They don't even BELIEVE that cause they KNOW who really did.

    pods

    NoDecaf -> pods , Apr 11, 2017 4:03 PM

    If this goes all the way...I mean ALL the way.

    It'll be open season on neocons

    44magnum -> NoDecaf , Apr 11, 2017 4:22 PM

    American revolution 2.0

    Chupacabra-322 -> 44magnum , Apr 11, 2017 4:54 PM

    These ZioNeoConFascist have crossed The American Patriots "Red Line."

    These Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Deep State Psychopaths have been & are "Going All In."

    This is Irrefutably, Absolutely the Last chance of Peacefully, Diplomatically walking away from a Situational Inter National Crises of which the CIA / Deep State Dept is Gulty of causing.

    The Global Criminal Oligarch Cabal Bankster Intelligence Crime Syndicate has been exposed for all the World to See.

    The Emperor is Stark Naked & the World doesn't seen to Care.

    The Deception that was once "Hidden in plain view" is now Globally Tyrannically Lawlessly open for all the World to See.

    Pure Unadulterated Evil.

    SoilMyselfRotten -> Chupacabra-322 , Apr 11, 2017 5:01 PM

    Can you imagine how much shit the Pentagon is into if it cant account for $6 trillion?

    http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/08/18/trillions-go-missing-military-penta...

    john doeberg -> SoilMyselfRotten , Apr 11, 2017 5:31 PM

    ONLY if US stops helping ISIS

    Donald Trump -> john doeberg , Apr 11, 2017 5:36 PM

    Slim chance of that happening.

    ISIS got MORAL support now, and even if US will take longer to react to their COMING false flags, they are already embolden by the missile attack.

    They now know they can summon Trump whenever they do some stunt.

    By Bombing the Syrian Government, Trump Turned the U.S. into ISIS' Air Force

    http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-04-11/by-bombing-the-syrian-governme...

    MillionDollarButter -> bob_bichen , Apr 11, 2017 5:40 PM

    Proof that the dysfunctional element is the controlling element . But don't assume the other players will not turn dysfunctional. They know the endgame goes all the way to Iran. They will have to draw a line sooner or later.

    Donald Trump -> MillionDollarButter , Apr 11, 2017 5:41 PM

    Trump is losing face, and might bactrack on his warmongering.

    Maybe he's still juggling the pros (and cons) he might get from the Swamp.

    [Apr 11, 2017] If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained in Aleppo

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Lee A. Arnold ... , April 10, 2017 at 02:01 PM
    War [leaving Syria to 9/11 terrorists who want to do what they were not doing in Iraq in 2002, that is build a terror states to compete with Libya and Afghanistan] is the life of the US state in the 'American Century'.

    If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained in Aleppo!

    [Apr 11, 2017] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Why Does Assad Have To Go -- With Lew Rockwell

    Apr 11, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Why Does Assad Have To Go? -- With Lew Rockwell

    It was supposed to be different with Trump. Dozens of times as candidate and even early on as president, he stated that it would be a big mistake to go into Syria. He also finally cancelled Obama's "Assad must go" policy. Then came reports of a gas attack in Syria which was blamed on Assad with no evidence given. Suddenly missiles are flying, US boots are on the ground, and again we hear "Assad must go."

    Is it our role to determine who can and cannot rule foreign countries? We are joined in-studio today by Mises Institute founder Lew Rockwell to discuss:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/n7nQaXyvowA

    Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given. Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Apr 11, 2017] US Bolsters Protection of Ground Troops in Syria as Tensions Rise Growing Concerns Last Week's Strikes Could Fuel Retaliation

    Apr 11, 2017 | news.antiwar.com

    by Jason Ditz, April 10, 2017
    Last week's US missile strikes against Syria have been something of a game-changer in US policy across the region. Nowhere is the concern greater than among the US ground troops stationed in Syria, however, as if the strikes ultimately provoke a retaliation, they're in the line of fire.

    While they're not offering details on exactly what they're doing, US officials have confirmed that they have made adjustments since the attacks, seeking to increase the protection of US forces in Syria in case they do come under attack in the course of their operations.

    The ground troops are deployed in Syria overwhelming in anti-ISIS operations, and this is the second time in as many days officials have confirmed anti-ISIS operations were changed because of last week's attack, after confirming yesterday they'd cut back on airstrikes against ISIS for fear of coming under attack from Syrian air defense.

    At this point, retaliation appears unlikely unless the US launches further attacks, with Russia making it clear that any future attacks are a "red line" for them. US officials continue to talk up potential justifications for such strikes, however, which might mean they're hoping they can call Russia's bluff, assuming it is a bluff.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Donald Trump surrendered to neocons and sacrificed his Syrian policy in hope to squash Russian-ties witch hunt against him and his close allies

    Apr 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The president has just swaggered his way into the single most complex civil war in living memory – and he does so with little credibility or legitimacy

    It may be hard to believe, but Donald Trump is even more simplistic than George W Bush in matters of war. George W Bush enjoyed all the certainty of a very simple man: you were either with us or against us, good or evil, marching for democracy or plotting terrorist attacks.

    Yet Donald Trump manages to make Bush look like Baron von Metternich. He just launched military strikes against a brutal Syrian regime he used to describe as "NOT our problem".

    Yes, Donald Trump is a great big bag of contradictions and he just swaggered his way into the single most complex civil war in living memory – a war that is even more complicated than raising a high-rise hotel in a foreign capital.


    At least Bush took more than a year after 9/11 before he invaded Iraq. Trump hasn't reached the 100-day mark and he's already walking into his own quagmire.

    seedeevee , 7 Apr 2017 15:25
    It would have been nice if the Guardian wasn't such a cheerleader for this warfare.
    ID1720063 , 7 Apr 2017 15:27
    Going from dangerous to lethal - he's graduated to blindly lobbing bombs at foreign countries for reasons he doesn't fully understand and causing consequences he'll never comprehend.
    Gwion Williams LetsBeClear , 7 Apr 2017 15:45
    Helping to further destabilise one of the most dangerous regions in terms of international terrorism is a good thing? If Assad is toppled today the people placed to fill the vacuum are some of the most abhorrent Wahhabist nutters you could imagine. The secular rebels such as they were have either been killed or surpassed in power and influence, several years ago by now. Atrocities committed by Assad need to be dealt with by international courts following the managed conclusion of the war.
    ThumbSprain , 7 Apr 2017 15:27
    Remember "Hillary will start a war over Syria"? Oh well.

    On the up side for him I suppose that's the investigation in collusion with Russia nixed, Cui Bono eh? Share Facebook Twitter

    littlebillykershaw ThumbSprain , 7 Apr 2017 15:42
    "Cui Bono eh?"

    Don't be getting him involved :)

    Muzzledagain , 7 Apr 2017 15:31
    What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people.
    GuyPeron , 7 Apr 2017 15:31
    I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks? That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
    AndyMcCarthy GuyPeron , 7 Apr 2017 15:44
    If Trump says Assad is responsible Assad is responsible. Trump doesn't need evidence. Not even a dodgy dossier.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Trump Joins the War Against Assad

    Apr 11, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    Trump Joins the War Against Assad

    by David Stockman , April 11, 2017 Print This | Share This David Stockman has agreed to send every Antiwar.com reader a free copy of his newest book, Trumped! when you take his special Contra Corner offer. Click here now for the details.

    The Donald's missile "attack" on Syria's al-Shairat air base is surely the most impetuous, thoughtless, reckless and stupid act from the Oval Office that we can remember – and that covers 50 years at least. And we put "attack" in quotes because it's now evident that virtually every one of those $1.4 million per copy Tomahawks amounted to a big fat nothing-burger.

    To wit, 36 of the 59 missile were duds and landed somewhere that was not the al-Shairat air base, including a nearby village where apparently a number of civilians were killed. The 23 that did hit the base actually missed the main runway, which, by the way, was back in operation launching Syrian air force sorties within 24 hours. None of Assad's operational warplanes were hit, either – just a handful of old MIG-23s that have apparently long been languishing in the base's "repair" boneyard.

    Yes, the Donald's sharpshooters did annihilate several glorified Butler buildings, otherwise referred to as "hangars", and a few fuel tanks – the better for some post-attack fireworks to be posted to the War Channels (CNN, MSNBC and Fox).

    But what the Tomahawks surely did not hit was the chemical weapons storage facilities alleged by the Pentagon to be at the base. With Washington's satellites monitoring al-Shairat like a cloud of bumble bees, there was not a whit of evidence of Syrian personnel running around with gas masks after the missiles hit.

    Had there been, the War Channels would have been playing it in an endless loop all weekend. Naturally, the Pentagon says these apparently non-existent stores weren't even targeted owing to humanitarian (?) reasons.

    Right, copy that!

    Worse, launching this feckless attack in the midst of sharing Caesar salad with the leader of China was surely an amateur ploy right out of the pages of The Apprentice. That's because within 24 hours of Xi Jinping's departure from what will now be known as War-A-Lago, the Syrian air force had not only resumed launches from the base, but was actually bombing the very site of the original offense at Khan Sheikhoun!

    Upon hearing the news, China's supreme leader would have presumably browned his Changshan (traditional tunic) in the fear of it – save for the fact that he is the reincarnation of Mao Tse-tung in a business suit, and just as ruthless.

    That gets us, of course, to the purpose of attacking any sovereign government that has not attacked or threatened America; and, most especially, one waging a determined fight against the one threat to America's peace of mind, if not actual physical security, extant on the planet today.

    That is, the radical jihadist head-choppers of ISIS, and particularly the al-Nusra terrorists desperately holed up in their last redoubt in Idlib province. Even if Assad had used chemical weapons – and there is zero proof he did – what possible purpose was there in a pinprick attack on Assad's military capability that was hailed by jihadists all over Syria and the greater Middle East?

    Does the Donald really wish to attack both sides in the most tangled, bloody, sectarian and convoluted civil war in modern history – a course of action he has long, and rightly, criticized.

    Did he really reverse in a mere two days, the anti- "regime change" line he had held for years? And one he had wielded to great effect with a "don't do it" tweet storm in August 2013 in the wake of what now is clear had been a false flag chemical attack staged by radical jihadists at Ghouta designed to lure Obama into attacking the regime?

    The weekend talk show huffing and puffing by Secretary Tillerson and the ignorant little nincompoop he appointed as UN Ambassador, Nikki Haley, would leave you to guess, but not really. At the time of the attack Thursday evening, Administration spokesmen made it clear that the attack was "punishment" for Assad's violation of international norms about the fair way to kill civilians when waging urban warfare.

    You see, dropping white phosphorous, which is a second cousin of sarin gas, as Washington did on Fallujah is apparently OK. The same goes for drone attacks and percussion bombs on civilian targets, as Washington has been doing throughout the better part of the Middle East for much of the last two decades.

    But this was different. Why, according to the self-appointed tribunes of the moral high ground at the editorial pages of the New York Times , Assad's attack on Khan Sheikhoun was so heinous that it cried out for punishment.

    So then and there, Donald J. Trump appointed himself the Empire's Spanker-in-Chief, and thereby destroyed what remained of his stillborn Presidency. Indeed, it will be all downhill from here because the Deep Steep now most assuredly has the Donald by his stubby.

    Still, the fact that Donald Trump has now made himself a laughingstock by putting what amounted to a wimpy birch-switch to Bashar's behind, does raise a crucial question. If Trump is to be praised – as the mainstream media did incessantly since Thursday night – for stepping up as Spanker-in-Chief, why stop with Assad?

    How about his recent visitor to the Oval Office, General Sisi of Egypt? The latter has put thousands of his political enemies to death or in jail or through unspeakable torture. But rather than getting the birch switch, Sisi got a ringing endorsement from the Donald for his regime of terror and assurance that Washington's $1.5 billion annual stipend to the Egyptian military would be his for the duration.

    Then again, why was the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman grinning like a Cheshire cat after his Oval Office meeting with the Donald. He should have been grimacing in agony after several hundred Saudi-style lashes for conducting what amounts to a genocidal campaign against the civilian population of Yemen.

    So far there have been more than 10,000 civilian casualties – including 4,000 dead men, women and children who were at the receiving end of Saudi bombs and missiles. And some of the latter were Textron-supplied "percussion" bombs which upon impact leave behind hundreds of unexploded bomblets disguised as brightly-colored balls, toys and trinkets.

    Needless to say, they do not include a warning label in Arabic or otherwise saying "keep out of the reach of children". The proof of that is dozens of dead and maimed children who picked up the "toys" supplied by the war criminal pictured below (left side of the photo).

    The worst part of the Donald's spanking campaign, of course, is that the White House has not offered one iota of proof that Assad did it. Nor has it even attempted to refute the exceedingly plausible Russian-Syrian claim that the regime's bombing raid in the heart of Nusra Front's last remaining occupied territory hit a weapons depot where the jihadists were storing not only conventional ammo, but possibly manufacturing projectiles stuffed with chemical agents, too.

    Do ya think that the Donald could have kept his birch switch in the drawer for at least a few days so that an impartial international inspection team could have examined the site and the victims?

    In fact, retired DIA Colonel Patrick Lang gave us a roadmap to what may actually have happened based on his own sources in the intelligence community. In the past his credibility has been excellent, and his story makes far more sense than the White House's. That is, on the verge of victory over the jihadists and only days after the Trump Administration threw in the towel on regime change, Assad committed an act of complete insanity:

    Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened.

    1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
    2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
    3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
    4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
    5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through "Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

    There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.

    This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

    So given that very plausible alternative possibility, why not at least have an Adlai Stevenson moment? That's when President Kennedy's UN Ambassador stood before the entire world and showed dramatic reconnaissance photos proving the Soviets had indeed placed intermediate range missile batteries in Cuba.

    By contrast, the Deep State's octopus of secrecy today hides behind the pathetic excuse that it must protect its "sources and methods" at all hazards. Therefore it can only "assess" and "judge" out loud that the bad guys actually did it. Meanwhile, the Congress, the American public and the rest of the world should take their word for it that the intelligence community (IC) has the hard evidence.

    Well, FU, IC.

    For crying out loud, the entire world – and most especially the Russians, Assad regime and assorted other purported malefactors – knows that the skies of the planet are swarming with US intelligence satellites. And that NSA's digital blood funnel, to borrow Matt Taibbi's felicitous description of Goldman Sachs in another context, has penetrated every nod, switching center and backdoor of the entire global communications grid.

    So exactly nothing is being protected by Washington's refusal to stump up the SIGINT (signals intelligence) proof if they've got it.

    That's exactly what didn't happen, of course, back in August 2013 when the jihadists pulled a similar false flag to lure Obama into a similar attack. At the time, the White House released a four-page, evidence-free paper pinning the blame squarely on Assad in what it called a "government assessment" because even the IC would not vouch for it.

    Needless to say, not a shred of SIGINT was ever released to prove the White House contentions – save for an obvious leak a few days after the event to the ever complaint New York Times. The latter's rewrite of their leaked White House talking points claimed that an assessment of the chemical rocket's trajectory found at the site proved the sarin-carrying missiles were fired from deep in government controlled territory more than 12 kilometers away .

    As it happened, an international arms control expert and leading MIT scientist in the field, teamed up shortly thereafter to prove from the primitive rockets examined by international inspectors after the attack that they could have had a trajectory of no more than 2 kilometers . That is, they were fired from the heart of jihadist controlled territory in the very villages where the horrific sarin gas attack occurred.

    As Philippe Lemonoine summarized in a recent post, the evidence has only gotten even more unequivocal since then:

    Back in 2013, Carla Del Ponte, a member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (IICISAR) and the former Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, told the BBC that "what appears to our investigations [is] that [chemical weapons were] used by the opponents, by the rebels and we have no indication at all that the authorities of the Syrian government have used chemical weapons". To be sure, she indicated that she was only talking about their preliminary findings and, when the IICISAR published its report a month later, it didn't assign responsibility to anyone. Del Ponte reiterated her claims after the report was published in another interview to Euronews and said that she didn't regret making them.

    There is still more to cast doubt on the hypothesis that Assad was behind the attack in Ghouta. Seymour Hersh, a famous investigative journalist who, among other thing, broke the My Lai massacre and the Abu Ghraib scandal, argued in two detailed articles published a few months after the attack that Turkey provided sarin to Syrian rebels. According to him, the Turkish government wanted them to carry out a false flag attack using chemical weapons in Syria, which Erdogan hoped would force the US to intervene against the regime. Indeed, as I already noted above, Obama had declared the use of chemical weapons a red line that Syria could not cross under any circumstances. Hersh's claims were later supported by the allegations made in December 2015 by Turkish members of Parliament, who claimed that, back in 2013, several people had been arrested with chemicals in the South of Turkey a few weeks before the attack in Ghouta. According to them, the prosecutor's office had wiretapped conversations proving that they were making sarin, but this was almost completely ignored in the Western media.

    But far be it for the mainstream media to remember back that far. Indeed, the cable channels and the beltway politicians were all in war heat the entire weekend at the sight and sound of Imperial Washington literally pounding sand in the Syrian desert.

    And right up front were not merely the usual suspects like Senator McWar (R-AZ) and Little Marco (R-FL) busy ranting about the "war criminals" in Damascus and Moscow, but also the ever so thoughtful (by his lights) Fareed Zakaria pronouncing within minutes of the attack that "tonight Donald Trump became president".

    Yes, that's what the man said. The entire Imperial City has become so sick with war fever that an illegal, unconstitutional act of rash stupidity can be proclaimed an exercise in high statesmanship.

    Needless to say, the Donald will never shake himself loose of this tar-bay. He has the US now in harm's way in the thick of an inferno crawling with Assad's allies including the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah fighters, as well as his enemies scattered among pockets and crevices of an artificial nation created by European imperial diplomats in 1916 and utterly destroyed by Imperial Washington a century later.

    The "enemies", of course, include the remnants of the Islamic State in the dusty rubble-strewn towns of the Upper Euphrates and the pockets of the northeast such as Idlib province controlled by the equally horrid jihadists of Nusra front and the various rebranded affiliates which operate with it.

    As to the latter, the Donald may have actually helped revive what amounts to a Taliban in the Levant in the name of protecting Syria's women and children.

    Here is what one of America's most distinguished scholars has to say about the Nusra front and their White Helmet auxiliaries who now rule the roost in Idlib. The latter flood the world with fake news on the social media, of course, about how they are being victimized by the duly elected leader of Syria – even as they would "Khadafy" him in a heartbeat if they had the half the chance:

    To judge how incompetent the rebels have been in providing a viable or attractive alternative to Assad, one need merely consider the situation in the province of Idlib, where the rebels rule. Schools have been segregated, women forced to wear veils, and posters of Osama bin Laden hung on the walls. Government offices were looted, and a more effective government has yet to take shape. With the Talibanization of Idlib, the 100-plus Christian families of the city fled. The few Druze villages that remained have been forced to denounce their religion and embrace Islam; some of their shrines have been blown up. No religious minorities remain in rebel-held Syria, in Idlib, or elsewhere. Rebels argue that Assad's bombing has ensured their failure and made radicalization unavoidable. But such excuses can go only so far to explain the terrible state of rebel Syria or its excesses. We have witnessed the identical evolution in too many other Arab countries to pin it solely on Assad, despite his culpability for the disaster that has engulfed his country."

    Needless to say, we have no brief for Bashar al-Assad. He and his family have ruled Syria for 40 years harshly and more often than not by the sword. Their regime has been based on secular principles and a coalition of minorities including Christians, Druse, Kurds, Yazidis and their own minority Alawite (Shiite) tribe. The alternative is a Sunni-jihadist led reign of ethnic cleansing and an extension of the murderous caliphate hanging on by a thread in Raqqa and Mosul.

    Yet in getting out the birch switch against Assad without even remotely proving the case, the Donald has ended up siding with the incipient Taliban occupiers of Syria's northeast.

    He needs to be careful. It's only a few short steps to this.

    David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed , The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America and TRUMPED! A Nation on the Brink of Ruin And How to Bring It Back . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader .

    Read more by David Stockman

    [Apr 11, 2017] After August 6 coup detat emasculated Trump change his orientation to one idential to Clinton's oe neocons such as Marco Rubio

    Notable quotes:
    "... Many believe Tillerson was chosen specifically for his close relationship with the Russian government. On the other hand, in his first months Tillerson has been sidelined within the administration, which has left the state department badly understaffed as Trump increasingly allows career military officers such as Mattis and McMaster to shape his foreign policy. ..."
    "... Trump has been accused of being a Russian puppet by some and a militarist by others, but the reality may be scarier than either: he has no idea what he's doing, ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    On Tuesday, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, arrived in Moscow to meet with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, to try to discuss a way forward in Syria following the Trump administration's airstrikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad late last week.


    Syria is directly protected by Russia, which is dedicated to maintaining Assad in power at whatever human cost. A US war against Syria by its very nature risks a US war against Russia.

    Under any other president that would be scary enough, given Russia's nuclear arsenal and global influence. But what makes it even more troubling is that it comes during an ongoing investigation into the extent to which the Russian government meddled in the 2016 US election.


    Trump, in other words, is playing chicken with Russia even as the nature of his relationship with Russia remains bizarre and unexplained.

    ... ... ...

    That leaves Trump in an awkward place as far as Russia is concerned. As a president with no policy experience and no deep understanding of the world, he is reliant on advisers, and increasingly that means national security establishment figures like secretary of defense James Mattis and national security adviser HR McMaster, who hold mainstream hawkish views toward Russia.

    Last week, the establishment consolidated power in the Trump White House at the expense of less traditional advisers such as Steve Bannon, whose position toward Russia was more conciliatory. What this suggests is that to whatever extent Trump's campaign and initial administration might have been "pro-Russian", its current orientation is the same as Clinton's, or any of Trump's conventional Republican rivals such as Marco Rubio, would have been.

    ... ... ...

    Many believe Tillerson was chosen specifically for his close relationship with the Russian government. On the other hand, in his first months Tillerson has been sidelined within the administration, which has left the state department badly understaffed as Trump increasingly allows career military officers such as Mattis and McMaster to shape his foreign policy.


    Whatever Tillerson might hope to achieve in Moscow could turn out to be less important given the influence of officials inclined to look for military solutions to problems like Syria.

    Trump has been accused of being a Russian puppet by some and a militarist by others, but the reality may be scarier than either: he has no idea what he's doing, and can be cajoled into supporting wildly contradictory policies by anyone, including but not limited to Russia.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Is Trump Joining the War Party?

    Trump surrendered to neocons. He is now Israel first instead of America first.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A Syrian war would consume Trump's presidency. ..."
    "... Another problem: Trump's missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so. ..."
    "... What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational: "When you kill innocent children, innocent babies-babies, little babies-with a chemical gas that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much." ..."
    "... Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria's civil war, among them thousands of children and infants. ..."
    "... For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve-gas attack on children, certain to ignite America's rage, for no military gain? ..."
    "... Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false-flag operation to stampede America into Syria's civil war. ..."
    "... And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him-to keep us out of unnecessary wars-may not be standing by him. ..."
    "... We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for. ..."
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
    "... and the author of the book ..."
    "... Unfortunately Pat the "War Party" will probably get its way. Hate to break your heart but Trump is well on his way to "selling out" all the promises he ran on. I'm surprised you didn't see that a long time ago. What in Trump's background made you think he was a man of any integrity? ..."
    "... The media / administration (are they any different) are certain that Assad did it. Now they are upping the ante and claiming for sure Putin approved it. Really? can we recall the battleship Maine? can we recall the Gulf of Tonkin, can we recall the WMD in Iraq? ..."
    "... How much money is budgeted for this? Based on results so far in Iraq and Afghanistan countries with basically no allies we have spent 3T. Syria is allied with Russia better budget 2T for that but no need for body bags as the nukes will cremate us all. ..."
    "... Donald Trump said that he would keep us out of unnecessary foreign wars – wars that damaged the US national interest. ..."
    "... Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers who have also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars – wars that have damaged the national interest. ..."
    "... Make no mistake: As fervently as we have supported our beloved "America First" President Trump, our first loyalty is – and will always be - to the interests of America, not to President Trump. ..."
    "... If President Trump drags us into another Middle East war in Syria - risking a military confrontation with Russia, the one remaining nuclear power in the world capable of destroying the US – many of us will stop supporting President Trump. ..."
    "... Trump's "non-interventionism," like so much else about him, is only skin-deep. In fact, I doubt there are *any* consistent non-interventionists on the Right in elected office. I believe the consistent ones are all either writing for or reading TAC. ..."
    "... Patrick was spot on in 2003 with his article "Whose war?" He is again right. The same cabal that sent us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has reemerged stronger and more determined than ever to force American to pursue a policy not in its national interests. ..."
    "... If you are on a diet, you do not hire gourmet chefs to advise you. This is what Trump has done. He has invited the (continual) war party to be his closest advisors. His credentials as an "American First" president have been irrevocably shattered beyond repair. All that is left is a war-compliant Congress. These are difficult times. ..."
    "... The most ludicrous figure is poor Tillerson, who when he arrives in Moscow will probably be taken to the nearest Motel 6 and forgotten. Why would Putin agree to see this sputtering, foaming wind-up toy after his several warnings and insults? No reason I can see. ..."
    "... I am in my 60s, Vietnam War era kid. Since I started paying attention those many years ago, I have watched the US "intelligence" community lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, fail to know the USSR was collapsing, overthrow government leaders in South America, lie about the Shah of Iran's conduct which led to the Iranian revolution, support Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as it went to war against Iran and killed one million people in the process, then either lied about or grossly got wrong the "weapons of mass destruction" that we now know did not exist in Iraq. ..."
    "... Surely; you jest . Like the captain of the Vincennes, who got a medal? Sure; when Russia bombs a hospital; it's evil; when we do it the next week; well; I guess mistakes happen.. ..."
    "... "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?" – Ghandi ..."
    "... I wrote the White House, my congressman, and one of my senators to denounce our intervention in Syria and urge detente. It most likely will amount to nothing, but it seemed the only option within my power to take. ..."
    "... Overthrowing Assad will certainly "do something about ISIS": It will grow stronger. ..."
    "... John S. Thanks for your analysis of the difference between American and Russian way of attacks. You say "we launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out justice". Sir can you kindly give us one instance of justice meted out in US for such attacks? Does WMD and at least a million Iraqis killed/maimed count? How about Libya where they had a functioning government now a no mans land where our beloved CIA/DIA dare not thread ..."
    "... There is a wonderful Russian fable about a fly sitting on an ox's back as the ox tills a field, and then telling to the ox "we did a great job." No offense, but this is exactly the relationship between consistent non-interventionists and the Trump electorate. You all supported Trump because you heard no more war; But Trump was saying "blow up bad guys without spending any money or losing any soldiers." ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    By firing off five dozen Tomahawk missiles at a military airfield, our "America First" president may have plunged us into another Middle East war that his countrymen do not want to fight.

    Thus far Bashar Assad seems unintimidated. Brushing off the strikes, he has defiantly gone back to bombing the rebels from the same Shayrat air base that the U.S. missiles hit.

    Trump "will not stop here," warned UN Ambassador Nikki Haley on Sunday. "If he needs to do more, he will."

    If Trump fails to back up Haley's threat, the hawks now cheering him on will begin deriding him as "Donald Obama."

    But if he throbs to the war drums of John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio and orders Syria's air force destroyed, we could be at war not only with ISIS and al-Qaeda, but with Syria, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

    A Syrian war would consume Trump's presidency.

    Are we ready for that? How would we win such a war without raising a large army and sending it back into the Middle East?

    Another problem: Trump's missile attack was unconstitutional. Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so.

    Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.

    What was Trump thinking? Here was his strategic rational: "When you kill innocent children, innocent babies-babies, little babies-with a chemical gas that crosses many, many lines, beyond a red line. And I will tell you, that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much."

    Two days later, Trump was still emoting: "Beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror."

    Now, that gas attack was an atrocity, a war crime, and pictures of its tiny victims are heart-rending. But 400,000 people have died in Syria's civil war, among them thousands of children and infants.

    Have they been killed by Assad's forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian, Israeli, and Turkish planes and drones-and by Kurds, Iranians, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, ISIS, U.S.-backed rebels, and Shiite militia.

    Assad is battling insurgents and jihadists who would slaughter his Alawite brethren and the Christians in Syria just as those Copts were massacred in Egypt on Palm Sunday. Why is Assad more responsible for all the deaths in Syria than those fighting to overthrow and kill him?

    Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?

    For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve-gas attack on children, certain to ignite America's rage, for no military gain?

    Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false-flag operation to stampede America into Syria's civil war.

    And as in most wars, the first shots fired receive the loudest cheers. But if the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him-to keep us out of unnecessary wars-may not be standing by him.

    We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war. It is those doing the fighting who have causes they deem worth dying for.

    For ISIS, it is the dream of a caliphate. For al-Qaeda, it is about driving the Crusaders out of the Dar al Islam. For the Turks, it is, as always, about the Kurds.

    For Assad, this war is about his survival and that of his regime. For Putin, it is about Russia remaining a great power and not losing its last naval base in the Med. For Iran, this is about preserving a land bridge to its Shiite ally Hezbollah. For Hezbollah it is about not being cut off from the Shiite world and isolated in Lebanon.

    Because all have vital interests in Syria, all have invested more blood in this conflict than have we. And they are not going to give up their gains or goals in Syria and yield to the Americans without a fight.

    And if we go to war in Syria, what would we be fighting for?

    A New World Order? Democracy? Separation of mosque and state? Diversity? Free speech for Muslim heretics? LGBT rights?

    In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria.

    We are back at that barricade. An after-Easter battle is shaping up in Congress on the same issue: Is the president authorized to take us into war against Assad and his allies inside Syria?

    If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war, the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    Fred Bowman, April 10, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    Unfortunately Pat the "War Party" will probably get its way. Hate to break your heart but Trump is well on his way to "selling out" all the promises he ran on. I'm surprised you didn't see that a long time ago. What in Trump's background made you think he was a man of any integrity? All he did was tell people what they wanted to hear but there was nothing in Trump's past that would suggest he would ever deliver on them. At best Trump is just an opportunist who got in "over his head" and will end up as "figurehead President" controlled by those who have done so much to destroy what's left of the American Republic.

    John Sharpe, April 11, 2017 at 1:45 am

    Is it in America's vital interest that the use of WMD's never becomes a common tactic for unstable regimes to punish/control misbehaving populations? I don't know. It's hard to argue for a world where sarin gas attacks happen at the about the same frequency as car bombs. Could be a handful of missiles bought the world another decade or so before that comes about.

    john, April 11, 2017 at 1:48 am

    The media / administration (are they any different) are certain that Assad did it. Now they are upping the ante and claiming for sure Putin approved it. Really? can we recall the battleship Maine? can we recall the Gulf of Tonkin, can we recall the WMD in Iraq?

    How much money is budgeted for this? Based on results so far in Iraq and Afghanistan countries with basically no allies we have spent 3T. Syria is allied with Russia better budget 2T for that but no need for body bags as the nukes will cremate us all.

    Kurt Gayle, April 11, 2017 at 1:52 am

    Donald Trump said that he would keep us out of unnecessary foreign wars – wars that damaged the US national interest.

    Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers who have also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars – wars that have damaged the national interest.

    This week's US bombing of Syria has set off alarm bells for many of us. We find it hard to believe that – after just three months in office – someone in whom we placed so much trust might be on the verge of betraying his promise to keep us out of unnecessary wars.

    Make no mistake: As fervently as we have supported our beloved "America First" President Trump, our first loyalty is – and will always be - to the interests of America, not to President Trump.

    If President Trump drags us into another Middle East war in Syria - risking a military confrontation with Russia, the one remaining nuclear power in the world capable of destroying the US – many of us will stop supporting President Trump.

    Instead, we will do what we have always done: We will support our country, the US, and its national interest in staying out of unnecessary foreign wars.

    The ball is now in President Trump's court. We, his supporters, are watching him closely – by the hour.

    Live up to your campaign promises, Mr. President!

    Alex , says: April 11, 2017 at 2:22 am
    "In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria."

    Obama was much smarter than Trump. Now Republicans are trashing Obama for being weak and praising Trump for being strong. The Republicans talk about rule of law when it suits them.

    Trump sent a message. A pretty expensive and stupid and meaningless one. The majority of stupid Republicans and spineless Democrats are supporting it.

    Trump did what he was supposed to: he eliminated Hillary. Now we need to survive theses four years.

    Pear Conference , says: April 11, 2017 at 6:27 am
    Trump's "non-interventionism," like so much else about him, is only skin-deep. In fact, I doubt there are *any* consistent non-interventionists on the Right in elected office. I believe the consistent ones are all either writing for or reading TAC.
    PAXNOW , says: April 11, 2017 at 8:29 am
    Patrick was spot on in 2003 with his article "Whose war?" He is again right. The same cabal that sent us into Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has reemerged stronger and more determined than ever to force American to pursue a policy not in its national interests.

    If you are on a diet, you do not hire gourmet chefs to advise you. This is what Trump has done. He has invited the (continual) war party to be his closest advisors. His credentials as an "American First" president have been irrevocably shattered beyond repair. All that is left is a war-compliant Congress. These are difficult times.

    Mel Profit , says: April 11, 2017 at 8:46 am
    The most ludicrous figure is poor Tillerson, who when he arrives in Moscow will probably be taken to the nearest Motel 6 and forgotten. Why would Putin agree to see this sputtering, foaming wind-up toy after his several warnings and insults? No reason I can see.

    This administration has all the finesse of a bar fight with baseball bats.

    John S , says: April 11, 2017 at 8:51 am
    Two points.

    "Have they been killed by Assad's forces? Surely, but also by U.S., Russian "

    Surely there's a world of difference between our attacks and those of the Russians? For when innocent civilians suffer when we attack, the American public is scandalized, we launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out justice. At least that's the way we hope it works. No such thing happens on the Russian side. Russia was complicit in this gas attack. In fact, Russia targets innocents regularly. And there is no comparable scandal in Moscow.

    "We have no vital national interest in Syria's civil war"
    Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?

    PAXNOW , says: April 11, 2017 at 9:46 am
    @ John S – Like Representative Gabbard and others Patrick wants us to stop supporting ISIS (directly or indirectly).
    No to neos , says: April 11, 2017 at 10:07 am
    I am in my 60s, Vietnam War era kid. Since I started paying attention those many years ago, I have watched the US "intelligence" community lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, fail to know the USSR was collapsing, overthrow government leaders in South America, lie about the Shah of Iran's conduct which led to the Iranian revolution, support Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as it went to war against Iran and killed one million people in the process, then either lied about or grossly got wrong the "weapons of mass destruction" that we now know did not exist in Iraq.

    That list is just off the top of my head. Yet we're supposed to automatically believe this same "intelligence" community knows beyond doubt what happened in that gas attack?

    SDS , says: April 11, 2017 at 10:11 am
    What Kurt Gayle said- I second.

    "For when innocent civilians suffer when we attack, the American public is scandalized, we launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out justice "

    Surely; you jest . Like the captain of the Vincennes, who got a medal? Sure; when Russia bombs a hospital; it's evil; when we do it the next week; well; I guess mistakes happen..

    IN the end; we will do what Israel wants us to do We did in Iraq; in Libya; yet to do in Iran; and now we will attack Syria; all because Israel wants us to .

    Sad! .

    BradD , says: April 11, 2017 at 11:02 am
    @John S

    "Surely there's a world of difference between our attacks and those of the Russians? "

    "What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or in the holy name of liberty or democracy?" – Ghandi

    I doubt that those on the ground really know who it is that are bombing them all the time. A bomb is a bomb, a missile a missile. An errant drone strike that hits a hospital does the same damage that an intentional one causes.

    "Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?"

    Ah, to 'do something'. I can do a lot of somethings: I could wish really hard ISIS go away, I could launch attacks on China thinking that would deter ISIS, I could paint a red line around my house cause ISIS won't cross red lines. ISIS is in Iraq and Syria. They have no aircraft carrier, no tanks, no transport ships. They will no arrive on our shores in a mass invasion. They are trying to recruit those that are here, inspire attacks, and infiltrate in numbers less than a dozen. Let our intelligence services do their job, not our military a thousand miles away.

    Scott_api , says: April 11, 2017 at 11:35 am
    "In 2013, a great national coalition came together to compel Congress to deny Barack Obama authority to take us to war in Syria."

    In 2013, a GOP coalition came together to stop Obama getting credit for doing something the GOP war party wanted to reserve solely for their own use – bombing brown people to inflate their domestic polling numbers.

    I think that is what you meant to say.

    If you are under the illusion that the GOP stopped Obama from bombing Syria for any other reason than the above, you are in need of a check-up.

    minimammal , says: April 11, 2017 at 12:06 pm
    I wrote the White House, my congressman, and one of my senators to denounce our intervention in Syria and urge detente. It most likely will amount to nothing, but it seemed the only option within my power to take.

    Also to respond to John S.'s comment: "Doesn't Mr. Buchanan want to do something about ISIS?"

    How does creating a power vacuum in Syria thwart ISIS?

    Lee Timmer , says: April 11, 2017 at 12:52 pm
    @John S
    Overthrowing Assad will certainly "do something about ISIS": It will grow stronger.
    Murali , says: April 11, 2017 at 12:55 pm
    John S. Thanks for your analysis of the difference between American and Russian way of attacks. You say "we launch investigations, and we look for culpability. And if there was culpability, we mete out justice". Sir can you kindly give us one instance of justice meted out in US for such attacks? Does WMD and at least a million Iraqis killed/maimed count? How about Libya where they had a functioning government now a no mans land where our beloved CIA/DIA dare not thread

    To our honor can we also add Afganistan where we displaced the government with a constant night rides and drone attacks?

    Oh by the way we lobbied bombs on a hospital operated by Doctors without borders, we first denied then said may be and launched an investigation to nowhere? Surely appreciate your thoughts.

    Dan , says: April 11, 2017 at 1:20 pm
    "Donald Trump said "

    words that have been uttered by stiffed contractors and workers for decades and now people who thought they had elected a savior.

    This is the problem with personality cults, Mr. Buchanan. Trump was a million different images to a million different people. But, ultimately, he's a conman and selfish.

    None of this is surprising, even if the details are frightening. Trump lied; he always lies; he will continue to lie.

    We need to check this frightening figure. I can only hope the Constitutional 'literalists' grow a pair and do their duty. So far, it seems we have a party of sycophants to our own strongman

    John Gruskos , says: April 11, 2017 at 1:37 pm
    Great column by Pat Buchanan, and a great comment from Kurt Gayle.
    Kevin , says: April 11, 2017 at 1:37 pm
    "Some of us who campaigned most fervently to elect Donald Trump President are old-timers who have also campaigned and marched for more than half a century against unnecessary US wars – wars that have damaged the national interest.
    "

    There is a wonderful Russian fable about a fly sitting on an ox's back as the ox tills a field, and then telling to the ox "we did a great job." No offense, but this is exactly the relationship between consistent non-interventionists and the Trump electorate. You all supported Trump because you heard no more war; But Trump was saying "blow up bad guys without spending any money or losing any soldiers."

    Patrick D , says: April 11, 2017 at 3:41 pm
    Kevin,

    "But Trump was saying "blow up bad guys without spending any money or losing any soldiers."

    This was basically the Democratic Party's MO the last 8 years, aka "smart power", and Clinton promised more.

    PRDoucette , says: April 11, 2017 at 4:05 pm
    If the Russians and Iranians starting laughing when Trump gave them 30 minutes advance warning of the message he was going to send to Assad for using chemical weapons, they really doubled over when Trump's people called for regime change in Syria. Talk about a meaningless gesture. The only way there will be a regime change in Syria is if the Russians and Iranians decide Assad is no longer useful and they want to put their selected puppet on the throne for reasons that they see as vital to their national interests, which Syria very much represents to both of them.

    [Apr 11, 2017] Effectivness of propaganda: A new CBS News poll shows 57 percent of Americans agree with the decision Trump made

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    RGC -> RGC... April 10, 2017 at 10:56 AM President Trump's strikes against the Syrian government earned the support of the American people and improved views of Trump (albeit only slightly), according to a new poll.

    But the biggest takeaway might be the big, red stop sign that came with all that.

    A new CBS News poll - the first live-caller poll to test reactions to the strikes - shows 57 percent of Americans agree with the decision Trump made. His approval rating, meanwhile, edged up to 43 percent, with about half (49 percent) still disapproving.


    But Americans were even more emphatic about what they don't want to see next: any other unilateral strikes authorized by Trump or further involvement, period.

    And there is basically no vote of confidence when it comes to Trump's leadership.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/10/trump-sees-a-bump-after-striking-syria-but-also-a-giant-stop-sign/?utm_term=.2c7f068eb2c2

    [Apr 11, 2017] Russian MoD US Missile Attack on Syrian Airbase was Prepared Long Time Ago

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran ..."
    Apr 11, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    Russian view: This attack as a blatant violation of Memorandum.

    Attack was prepared for long time and the event in sevred just a trigger for already prepared attack.

    george washington 3 days ago

    I am a Chinese American, I voted for trump. I feel betray after the missile strike. Trump seems just like another puppet by the Zionist Jew to eliminate Syria then Iran

    kentucky fried 3 days ago (edited)

    so trump clearly has no choice in things it's soo clear. everything that happens is decided by the zionists. so let me get this straight, the CIA provide chemical weapons like sarin gas to terrorists groups and when the Syrian army bombs the factory it explodes the gas killing the civilians in the area, America proceeds to Launch 60 tomahawk missiles(and only half land) at a Syrian air base and terrorist groups just happen to launch a quick offensive soon after.

    didn't the trump administration say getting rid of assad is no longer on the agenda?

    then who is pushing the buttons?

    [Apr 11, 2017] Something about typical narrow-minded, provincial neocon chichenhawks

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. April 10, 2017 at 09:22 AM
    "But the liberal Democrat, who was one of then-Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' few supporters in Congress last year, explained she wanted to engage in dialogue with Assad."

    If you support peace, you work for Russia. McCarthyism.

    sanjait -> Peter K.... , April 10, 2017 at 01:40 PM
    McCarthyism is indeed a bad thing, but the only ones I see complaining about it recently are useful idiots, and useful idiocy is also a bad thing. So I'm left only to despair at the state of political thought in the United States today.
    ilsm -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 02:21 PM
    If you question malarkey you are a "useful idiot". War is the Life of the Deep State. eh.
    libezkova -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 05:22 PM
    "McCarthyism is indeed a bad thing, but the only ones I see complaining about it recently are useful idiots, and useful idiocy is also a bad thing."

    Nothing is worse then being McCarthyist. Nothing. That's the bottom: they are real intellectual bottom feeders. Think about this.

    Even being useless "neoliberal idiot", essentially a shill of financial oligarchy, the role that you played before in this forum, is much, much better.

    And please stop treating ilsm as if he is subpar to you just because you are "politically correct".

    Please understand that your post pretty well attest that you are just a typical narrow-minded, provincial neocon chichenhawk.

    Brainwashed by propaganda to the extent that you lost any ability to think independently and skeptically. Capable only regurgitating CNN.

    sanjait -> libezkova... , April 10, 2017 at 05:55 PM
    "Brainwashed by propaganda to the extent that you lost any ability to think independently and skeptically."

    Says the 9/11 truther... lolz. Go ahead and insult me. If people like you thought I made sense, I would have a serious problem.

    ilsm -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 05:32 PM
    You should to go in to that area in north Syria where the chemical attack/false flag was staged, ask for hard evidence and see how long you live.

    The propaganda is "Assad is a brute", jihadi shell loyal sections of Syria every day but no one run pictures of those casualties, just like none from Sanaa or Gaza.

    The guys who were going to replace Qaddafi? Where are the liberals?

    sanjait -> ilsm... , April 10, 2017 at 05:56 PM
    Sure, because inability to investigate a war zone without danger indicates it all MUST be false flag operations. That's very logical ... for me to poop on.
    libezkova -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 05:56 PM
    Looks like in addition to having zero knowledge of physics, you have zero knowledge of chemistry. Congratulations. Looks like you might seek the job as MSM political commentator.

    But now a little bit chemistry:

    == quote ==
    Sarin, or GB (G-series, 'B'), is a colorless, odorless liquid,[5] used as a chemical weapon due to its extreme potency as a nerve agent.
    ... ... ...
    People who absorb a non-lethal dose, but do not receive immediate medical treatment, may suffer permanent neurological damage.
    == end of quote ==

    Syrian revels were already producing sarin in 2013 and injured several US solders with it in Iraq (using artillery shell delivery system).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn22Pfmw85A
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMSU6A6UCcI

    This is a really diabolic substance which is probably 10 to 100 times more dangerous then cyanide. Poor man weapon of mass destruction, if you wish. BTW that's why Assad had have it -- to counterbalance Israeli nuclear weapons as such bombs/rockets would wipe out country population. Not so much because he was such an evil dictator who enjoys collecting dangerous staff.

    Lethal concentration is so low that if a person touches the victim with bare hands he/she essentially touches dispersed cyanide power. And has reasonably high chances to absorb a non-lethal doze to be injured for life, if this was a military grade sarin.

    This was not the case. And that raises a very important question: what if this was not a military grade sarin. And the most plausible answer is: no it was not. Oops...

    What was is the most plausible source of not military grade sarin with primitive systems of delivery (artillery shells). Right. Rebels. Such product is an amateur product typical for rebel's underground labs. So if you shell the territory that is bombed by Assad forces with your shell with sarin warhead you get what? Right. A very potent false flag with no witnesses and difficulties to find the truth.

    If one compare how Japanese dealt with sarin attack in the subway with the way first responders in Syria treated victims the hypothesis that it was military grade chemical weapon promoted by the MSM instantly becomes much less convincing and their level of indignation start looking somewhat phony.

    Some even suggest that this was phosgene -- a much easier synthesized (phosgene can be produced by passing purified carbon monoxide and chlorine gas through a bed of porous activated carbon, which serves as a catalyst -- undertaking simple enough for any rebel group) or it was sarin, but in "amateur concentration" with simplistic warhead: less lethal then "military grade" with sophisticated dispersion via bomblets

    Again sarin is a really diabolical substance even in comparison with phosgene -- that is very important to understand.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTZI2lS6MYo

    "Phosgene is the chemical compound with the formula COCl2. This colorless gas gained infamy as a chemical weapon during World War I where it was responsible for about 85% of the 100,000 deaths caused by chemical weapons. It is also a valued industrial reagent and building block in synthesis of pharmaceuticals and other organic compounds. In low concentrations, its odor resembles freshly cut hay or grass"

    After some research, this incident to me looks more and more like a successful repetition of previous false flag operation conducted in the same province in 2013 with the same explicit goal: to implicate Assad and provoke the USA for invasion of the country with the goal of regime change.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack

    With the same players and the same suspiciously hysterical reaction of neocon dominated MSM -- the reaction which occurred before any investigation.

    Which means this is a propaganda campaign, not a natural reaction for the tragedy.

    And Trump reaction in the best cowboy style increased my suspicions even more: that means that he folded: "Russian links" neo-McCarthyism smear got him (it is incorrectly to call it McCarthysim as "classic" ten year campaign was about communists as a political movement, not only about a particular country -- the USSR ).

    Now anti-war right is typically blamed with anti-Semitism, which is less potent weapon. Anti-Russian smear was the invention of Hillary Clinton campaign staff.

    And "last but not least." Nikki Haley is a pretty clever, fast learning politician, so when she imitates Colin Powell in the UN (suicidal, career limiting move), condemning Assad, Russia and Iran before any investigation of chemical attack in Syria ( 'They defied the conscience of the world' ) additional questions arise about the USA motives and the level of cooperation with the al Nusra rebels on the level of government agencies.

    She got "all in" without any second thought. Politicians don't do that unless forced or convinced that this is "slam dunk".

    To me her behavior was a real red flag -- the smell of Iraqi WDMs -- the smell of government operation -- the signal that something is really fishy here: after listening to her I assumed "false attack" as the primary hypothesis.

    Because of cuo bono principle.

    And started looking at those sites which the provide alternative hypothesis and information, mainly British. I now wonder if all victims were locals, or some of them were hostages, "human shields" and did people died exactly from air attack and subsequent release of chemicals ("Russian hypotheses") or the area was shelled in parallel with the air attack with shells that carry chemical warheads.

    Another unanswered but troubling question: Why such a disproportional number of children ? Was this staged to increase the level of anger against Assad government (which worked) ?

    But I am a skeptic by nature, so your mileage may vary.

    My impression is that CNN is good enough for your intellectual level, so you can continue in your typical, already well learned, standard brainwashed way. I do not see any desire to dig in the substance in your political-related posts. You just regurgitate CNN and happy about it.

    Which has a definite advantage of being always "politically correct".

    And what is important is that you seems to enjoy this position so much that you just can't stop from reminding me about this your advantage on each and every occasion, especially if you have no valid arguments ;-).

    [Apr 11, 2017] The US should have supported a through UN investigation and international law in regard to the gas attacks in Syria.

    Apr 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 10, 2017 at 08:19 AM
    Five major US newspapers-the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and New York Daily News-offered no opinion space to anyone opposed to Donald Trump's Thursday night airstrikes.

    By contrast, the five papers ran a total of 18 op-eds, columns or "news analysis" articles (dressed-up opinion pieces) that either praised the strikes or criticized them for not being harsh enough:

    http://www.alternet.org/media/five-top-papers-run-18-opinion-pieces-praising-syria-strikes-zero-are-critical-0

    RGC -> RGC... , April 10, 2017 at 08:51 AM
    A pair of veteran leaders on the left, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for last week's chemical attack.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/09/politics/democratic-leaders-gabbard-syria/

    anne -> RGC... , April 10, 2017 at 10:01 AM
    "A pair of veteran leaders on the left, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for last week's chemical attack."

    [ Astonishing, Neera Tanden and Howard Dean are wildly intolerant of dissent by Democrats from the dictates of the Clintons but I would not have imagined they were this intolerant. Tulsi Gabbard is an elected official of conscience, but evidently conscience is intolerable for the likes of Tanden and Dean.

    The point I suppose is for "leading" Democrats to clear the party of those who are not suitably dogma intimidated. ]

    anne -> anne... , April 10, 2017 at 04:46 PM
    https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/850478090887319552

    Tulsi Gabbard @TulsiGabbard

    The US should have supported a through UN investigation and international law in regard to the gas attacks in Syria.

    3:39 PM - 7 Apr 2017

    [ Such a statement strikes me as completely reasonable, and for any prominent Democrat to find the statement intolerable is to me lacking in tolerance and judiciousness. Then again, the implied or lightly veiled criticism of President Obama for failing to intervene forcefully enough in Syria has startled me. ]

    [Apr 10, 2017] Took Red Pill

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    new game , Apr 10, 2017 8:30 AM

    Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the only sensible politicians;

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/04/06/breaking-news/rep-tulsi-gabbard...

    [Apr 10, 2017] Liberals Call For Ouster Of Democrat Representative After She Questions Syria Attacks Zero Hedge

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Liberals Call For Ouster Of Democrat Representative After She Questions Syria Attacks ronaldwilsonreagan , Apr 10, 2017 12:22 PM

    If you are a warmonger you are not really a liberal.

    BaBaBouy -> ronaldwilsonreagan , Apr 10, 2017 12:25 PM

    NON Deep State Shill...

    She's A Hero ...

    Looney -> BaBaBouy , Apr 10, 2017 12:28 PM

    Did Howard Dean actually find time in his busy child-molesting schedule to criticize Gabbard?

    Shut the fuck up, you perv!

    Looney

    Ghost of PartysOver -> BaBaBouy , Apr 10, 2017 12:26 PM

    Tulsi is one of the very very few Dems that I will actually listen to what they have to say. Perhaps she would relocate to AZ and take McCain's seat. That would be nice.

    Jim in MN -> ronaldwilsonreagan , Apr 10, 2017 12:24 PM

    The Deep State globalists are gunning for any opponents.

    Sad how many 'liberals' are on board with these monsters.

    LawsofPhysics , Apr 10, 2017 12:24 PM

    LOL!!! Stupid is as stupid does!!! Just more proof that liberals are not capable of critical thinking, even when one of there own is waking up to the MIC action!!!!

    Philo Beddoe , Apr 10, 2017 12:24 PM

    If Howard Dean is against her I am behind her.

    Being behind her would be ok, I suppose.

    Cursive , Apr 10, 2017 12:24 PM

    Howard Dean called her a disgrace? I have bowel movements that are more productive and graceful then that dumbass.

    replaceme , Apr 10, 2017 12:25 PM

    This is a disgrace - Howard Dean.

    I would tend to agree; that guy is an expert on disgrace.

    SidSays -> replaceme , Apr 10, 2017 12:30 PM

    Howard Dean?

    That guy is bat-shit crazy .

    SidSays , Apr 10, 2017 12:32 PM

    Hero to zero....

    In no time flat...

    Thats how democracy (and the Technocracy) works ...

    Thankfully we live in a representitive republic.

    Bay of Pigs , Apr 10, 2017 12:27 PM

    One of the few sane voices in Congress on this issue.

    She is spot on and over the target which is why they are all attacking her.

    [Apr 10, 2017] If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained in Aleppo

    Notable quotes:
    "... The main accomplishment of bombing Syria was the sabotage of Trumps stated goal of corporation with Russia. I wonder which of his advisers convinced Trump to fock himself? Peter K. -> pgl... , April 10, 2017 at 11:44 AM As Krugman points out it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Trump has no long-term strategy. A one-off of destroying some planes and a Syrian janitor wouldn't matter in the long run. It's like Bill Clinton's strategy with Iraq. Launch some missiles at them to distract attention. ..."
    "... Of course there is a long term strategy, it is to use Saudis and the GCC to keep permanent war going. ..."
    "... How could shooting insanely from the hip further weaken US 'credibility'? How can continuously repeating unsubstantiated allegations as fact be any different than Goebbels' propaganda? ..."
    "... The US is defender of Sunni terror, you know the kind behind 9/11/01, against Shiite Muslims and Middle East Christians living in places controlled by US' oil sheiks or their jihadi clients! ..."
    "... To 96% of the people in the world the US is either a conscienceless, heavily armed thug or a dog with half the world's war spending to be unleashed by any thug with resources or banks. ..."
    "... Defeating ISIS is priority to no one. The Saudis, Turkey, etc like ISIS exactly where they are. ..."
    "... While the staged "fight" for Raqqah is malarkey, an excuse to deliver heavy weapons to jihadists. The US' jihadis moved south to 'grab the dam', so that ISIS' logistics road from turkey was not cut! How ISIS has not been starved out in Mosul and Raqqa is beyond imagining. ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Lee A. Arnold ... , April 10, 2017 at 02:01 PM
    War [leaving Syria to 9/11 terrorists who want to do what they were not doing in Iraq in 2002, that is build a terror states to compete with Libya and Afghanistan] is the life of the US state in the 'American Century'.

    If US succeeds in regime change future bands of terrorists attacking the infidel will be trained in Aleppo!

    anne -> ilsm... , April 10, 2017 at 05:49 PM
    This series of laments and explanations are remarkably interesting, and I am grateful for them. I have found these last days discouraging, though foolishly so no doubt. So the laments help and can be most informative even though outlines.
    DeDude , April 10, 2017 at 03:39 AM
    The main accomplishment of bombing Syria was the sabotage of Trumps stated goal of corporation with Russia. I wonder which of his advisers convinced Trump to fock himself?
    Peter K. -> pgl... , April 10, 2017 at 11:44 AM
    As Krugman points out it wouldn't have mattered anyway. Trump has no long-term strategy. A one-off of destroying some planes and a Syrian janitor wouldn't matter in the long run. It's like Bill Clinton's strategy with Iraq. Launch some missiles at them to distract attention.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , April 10, 2017 at 02:06 PM
    Of course there is a long term strategy, it is to use Saudis and the GCC to keep permanent war going.

    " .and weaken American credibility .."

    How could shooting insanely from the hip further weaken US 'credibility'? How can continuously repeating unsubstantiated allegations as fact be any different than Goebbels' propaganda?

    The US is defender of Sunni terror, you know the kind behind 9/11/01, against Shiite Muslims and Middle East Christians living in places controlled by US' oil sheiks or their jihadi clients!

    To 96% of the people in the world the US is either a conscienceless, heavily armed thug or a dog with half the world's war spending to be unleashed by any thug with resources or banks.

    Defeating ISIS is priority to no one. The Saudis, Turkey, etc like ISIS exactly where they are.

    While the staged "fight" for Raqqah is malarkey, an excuse to deliver heavy weapons to jihadists. The US' jihadis moved south to 'grab the dam', so that ISIS' logistics road from turkey was not cut! How ISIS has not been starved out in Mosul and Raqqa is beyond imagining.

    [Apr 10, 2017] Took Red Pill

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    new game , Apr 10, 2017 8:30 AM

    Tulsi Gabbard seems to be one of the only sensible politicians;

    http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/04/06/breaking-news/rep-tulsi-gabbard...

    [Apr 10, 2017] Trump lost support from the anti war right -- the most politically active and important segment of his electorate. Which to certain extent protected him from impeachment as the last thing DemoRats want are fierce protests up to armed clashes with alt-right afterward

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now he really can be impeached by DemoRats with impunity and there will be little on no protests. But now, when he surrendered to neocons, why DemoRats take trouble to impeach him? ..."
    "... In other words, from April 6 "Agent Orange" is walking in his new clothing like naked king from Andersen tale. ..."
    Apr 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    sanjait -> DeDude... , April 10, 2017 at 01:32 PM
    Trump and Putin are both Kabuki theater specialists who use foreign military adventurism to stoke nationalism and distract from other issues. So in that regard, they are still very much in cooperation in Syria, even if on opposite sides of the actual conflict.
    ilsm -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 02:12 PM
    "War is the life of the State from over at Angry Bear......
    libezkova -> sanjait... , April 10, 2017 at 04:17 PM
    "Trump and Putin are both Kabuki theater specialists who use foreign military adventurism to stoke nationalism and distract from other issues."

    It was Obama and Hillary who were Kabuki theater specialists. The first was Nobel Price winner, my God. Real Kabuki Theater.

    But especially Hillary. Remember Libya theater and poor Colonel Gaddafi, sodomized with the bayonet. We came, we saw. he died.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

    Trump campaigned on non-interventionism platform. Almost paleo--conservative platform. And on April 6 he lost "anti-war right". And even some part of anti-war left ( Sanders supporters who really hated Hillary for her jingoism and corruption ) who supported him holding the nose. Probably forever.

    That might have consequences for him because he lost support from politically active and important segment of his electorate. Which to certain extent protected him from impeachment as the last thing DemoRats want are fierce protests up to armed clashes with alt-right afterward.

    If his calculation was that DemoRats (neoliberal Democrats) are now also a War party, so it does not matter, he probably badly miscalculated.

    He now needs to worry what Russians might have on him because Wikileaks or other similar sites might get some interesting materials. Of course Pence would be even more horrible POTUS, and revenge is a dish that better serve cold, but still he probably did not sleep well after this "Monica" show of strength.

    He also probably can forget about any compromises of the style "something for nothing" (as previous presidents enjoyed from Russia in a wane hope of improving relations between two countries) from Russians for a while.

    Only things prepaid with yuans from now on ;-).

    The whole move smells with "Monica" and Iraq WDM: "Shoot first ask questions later".

    Now he really can be impeached by DemoRats with impunity and there will be little on no protests. But now, when he surrendered to neocons, why DemoRats take trouble to impeach him?

    In other words, from April 6 "Agent Orange" is walking in his new clothing like naked king from Andersen tale.

    [Apr 10, 2017] Both Syria and Russia have called for an independent investigation of the incident. I guess that only proves how diabolical Putin is! The US has resisted, and also blew up potential forensic evidence in that cruise missile attack. Hmmm ...

    Apr 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick -> Peter K.... , April 10, 2017 at 04:24 PM

    In a way, I wish Trump actually were more of a Putin toady - a least in this case - because Putin's policy in Syria has been, although by no means progressive, certainly more intelligent than US policy. Alas, Trump seems not to be the Manchurian candidate of MS-NBC fever dreams.

    The US has promoted yet another perpetual civil war in the Middle East, this time in Syria, and has worked with its allies in the region, especially Saudi Arabia - or at least looked the other way - as they flood foreign fighters into that country. So they have helped create another Iraqified hellscape, with many regions outside Assad's control now brutal mini theocracies, and the most catastrophic refugee crisis in history as people race out of the country to escape ALL of the belligerents. Now, in typical fashion among the beltway national "security" sickos, some are proposing yet another sectarian partition of a country they themselves helped destroy and fragment.

    https://www.academia.edu/31985043/Five_Myths_About_Syrian_Refugees

    And look at the old gang all over the airwaves cheering on the further destabilization of that country and plugging for another US escalation and regime change crusade: Wolfowitz, Woolzey, Friedman, Boot, Abrams, McCaingraham, Clinton - the whole beltway neocon and interventionist-imperialist hawk gang. They're the geniuses who gave us Iraq, and now they have another crackpot scheme in the works: to depose Assad in favor of yet another phony crew of Beltway-tabbed "moderates", with regime change in Iran their ultimate target. They're giddy, because they think they might have flipped the very manipulable and very conscience-deprived Trump to their own sick side. But they will only spread more of their typical carnage and misery.

    There has still not been a proper investigation of the gas incident in Syria last week. Somehow, we are all supposed to believe that Assad suddenly decided to use chemical weapons in a war he was winning, thus inviting a foreign backlash. OK, it's a possibility. But it's also a possibility that the chemicals were used by al Qaeda fighters themselves as atrocity propaganda - something people in that region have a significant track record in doing.

    Remember Nayirah?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

    Another possibility is that the chemicals were stored by the local fighters and their release was an unintended by-product of a conventional bombing.

    Both Syria and Russia have called for an independent investigation of the incident. I guess that only proves how diabolical Putin is! The US has resisted, and also blew up potential forensic evidence in that cruise missile attack. Hmmm ...

    If Americans fall for another one of these war party ampaigns,

    Dan Kervick -> Dan Kervick... , April 10, 2017 at 04:25 PM
    I meant to conclude:

    If Americans fall for another one of these war party propaganda campaigns, they're total idiots, and deserve the cruel negative judgment of history.

    ilsm -> Dan Kervick... , April 10, 2017 at 05:38 PM
    When Iran decides it is essential for national survival to close the Hormuz with an assist from Russia and to starve the jihadi the G7 (less the US which is too far gone in its renascent PNAC craze) may wake up.

    Turkey is a big player keeping ISIS alive and supporting all the jihadis.

    [Apr 10, 2017] Trump Just Started WW3 - YouTube

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Apr 6, 2017

    Trump just started World War 3 - as 59 Tomahawk missiles slam into a Syrian airfield. Trump's excuse? Another false flag "atrocity."

    Just like removing Saddam Husein from Iraq, CIA's Syria strategy starts by demonizing the foreign leader (with a staged Syrian "sarin gas attack"), then calls for United Nations joint effort to seize control of the foreign territory.

    But this False Flag "sarin gas attack" in Syria was poorly staged by CIA and Israel -- since emergency personnel handled victims of the fake sarin attack using bare hands (no protective gloves). That would never happen in a real chemical weapons attack -- since the paramedics would get contanimated with neurological toxins.

    Is Trump's strategy against Syria just a replay of the phony "WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction" excuse used to overthrow Iraq? Is oil the goal -- or does the USA seek something more?

    TWITTER (Follow Me):
    https://twitter.com/BarrySoetoroESQ

    White House - Extreme Makeover:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot4-C...

    Civil War 2 Starts NOW:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QplRX...

    Trump Lands on Aircraft Carrier:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmWNz...

    For Updates, Subscribe to 'Barry Soetoro' Channel:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgzi... Truthseeker 1060 4 days ago To believe this false flag one has to be stupid or corrupt. A smart person would not believe this lame attempt to frame Assad. So if Trump attacks Assad he will blow his cover and expose himself for the globalist he really is. It's your move Mr. Trump. Who are you? Let's see. The world is watching. Natasha Vonoskabaya 4 days ago (edited) Yup. Trump celebrates his first WMD White House False Flag! I was always a skeptic of Trump, but voted for him because Hillary.. Seems Trump, Hillary and Bush are the same people. Real Newsforever 3 days ago 60 Tomahawk Missiles just launched in 60 seconds for a total weight of 60,000 pounds reported on CBS. Sound like a pattern??? cloncar101 AJ cloncar101 AJ 3 days ago (edited) he was such an idiot to send those missiles Internet Privacy Advocate 3 days ago Impeach Trump now. Jerry Fernandez 3 days ago The first Trump strike to expand the Greater Israel Project. (Is this the Jared effect?) Attacking Syria is to start WW3. The Russians are not going to run away from Syria, and the U.S. Military are going to get their ass kicked. Obama destroyed the U.S. Military advantage during last 8 years, and left $20 Trillion debt. Syria does not have a Rothschild Central Bank as U.S. does (Federal Reserve). Israel announced today that it will continue to strike Syria. Israel does not do anything without CIA approval. The sisters (Israel & Saudi Arabia) are going all out on Syria. Qatar gas pipeline through Syria. This Syria attack is to draw Iran in to the conflict for all out war. WW3. President Trump, I have believed in you and I want to continue believing in you, and this looks very bad. I want PEACE for our HUMANITY WORLDWIDE. NO MORE WARS! It's Mars all over again. Constitution_89 3 days ago I am truly horrified with this news in the last 4 hours. I want to believe it has happened due to the "intelligence/prodding/Lies of the Bush/Clinton/Obama sycophants that are still all over D.C. in every facet of the Fed and Pres. Trump has been cajoled into this, but I can't believe that he would be fooled by this. Anyone with a functioning brain would understand that Assad couldn't have done this, the consequences of such an action on his part are just to insanely suicidally Stupid. I'll say it right now that you can already believe that the MIC Salesman, Muslim Brotherhood Supporter, RINO Traitor and Trump hater Mumpface McCain and his CIA Droogs have a hand in this Sarin Attack if it even really happened. But Trump has fallen for this??? I'm in shock, I really am --- and very worried.

    [Apr 10, 2017] LIMBAUGH Trump Voters Feel SHOCKED And BETRAYED After Syria Missile Strike

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    bob murphy 3 days ago Where's the Proof that Assad did this, please don't use fabricate b.s. from the White House.

    DSWynne 3 days ago My main concern is how convenient the Syrian gassing had occurred, just days after Trump re-affirmed his commitment to avoid "messing situations" overseas, especially since Assad is winning his fights (with Russia's help, of course). Why start using sarin gas now? Just doesn't feet right, as if there was a script at work.

    BG Hoover 3 days ago I do not feel betrayed. I am concerned at the infiltration into the White House by Jarvanka, Cohn and Powell.

    westokcrealestate 1 day ago BG Hoover absolutely correct, me too.

    Wylliam Reichart 13 hours ago White house was not infiltrated, this has been the plan for years, makes no difference the talking head that implements it. Trump did what he needed to do to gain power, now he is doing the bidding of his masters. You are in denial that you were bamboozled by a fraud, join the crowd.

    [Apr 10, 2017] That was roundly 30 tons of weight.

    Apr 10, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> DrDick... April 10, 2017 at 02:04 PM

    That was roundly 30 tons of weight.

    In Vietnam US exploded 10's of millions of tons and got nothing!

    Bombing does not work, which is the conclusion of the suppressed minority including JK Galbraith of the bombings in WW II.

    Except the A bomb which scared the emperor.

    [Apr 10, 2017] The Sarin Gas Attack In Syria Ignited an Information Battle

    Apr 10, 2017 | www.defenseone.com

    The Russian Defense Ministry wrote a Facebook post to that effect: "According to the objective monitoring data, yesterday, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. (local time) the Syrian aviation made a strike on a large terrorist ammunition depot and a concentration of military hardware in the eastern outskirts of the Khan Sheikhun town. On the territory of the depot, there were workshops, which produced chemical warfare munitions.Terrorists had been transporting chemical munitions from this largest arsenal to the territory of Iraq. Both international organizations and the authorities of the country had repeatedly proved their usage by terrorists." FedUpWithWelfareStates 2 days ago I tend to go with the 'Logical' Russian version of the incident...

    ONE, Syria had NO reason to throw away all of the gains made.

    TWO, the Pentagon & State Department has LIED so much to the American people, that they are NO longer believable...

    Max South 2 days ago
    There are no "denials" of the warehouse explanation that would even remotely make sense.
    Also, there is not only no evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian air force, but there is no even a motive. Assad is expanding the control of his territory, he is winning almost everywhere. Why he would all of sudden decide to use chemical weapons (which he does not even have as the UN inspection got full access to any and all facilities that stored them or could manufacture, and certified that all of the chemical weapons were destroyed).
    Max South Kingfish 2 days ago
    The "evidence" comes from Al-Qaeda that controls the city, and from one of its doctors who as tweeting all day during the "emergency" on how he will receive videocalls and interviews. The doctor has been implicated in kidnapping of UK citizens, and was disbarred.
    Way more sane evidence has been to very well in a YouTube video called "Evidence Suggests S-Y-R-I-A G-A-S ATTACK Is False Flag".

    [Apr 09, 2017] Who is responsible for the chemical attack in Syria

    Previous false flag
    Sep 08, 2013 | www.salon.com
    The early morning assault in a rebel-held Damascus suburb known as Ghouta was said to be the deadliest chemical weapons attack in Syria's 2 1/2-year civil war. Survivors' accounts, photographs of many of the dead wrapped peacefully in white sheets and dozens of videos showing victims in spasms and gasping for breath shocked the world and moved President Barack Obama to call for action because the use of chemical weapons crossed the red line he had drawn a year earlier.

    Yet one week after Secretary of State John Kerry outlined the case against Assad, Americans – at least those without access to classified reports – haven't seen a shred of his proof.

    There is open-source evidence that provides clues about the attack, including videos of fragments from the rockets that analysts believe were likely used. U.S. officials on Saturday released a compilation of videos showing victims, including children, exhibiting what appear to be symptoms of nerve gas poisoning. Some experts think the size of the strike, and the amount of toxic chemicals that appear to have been delivered, make it doubtful that the rebels could have carried it out.

    What's missing from the public record is direct proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, tying this to the regime.

    The Obama administration, searching for support from a divided Congress and skeptical world leaders, says its own assessment is based mainly on satellite and signals intelligence, including intercepted communications and satellite images indicating that in the three days prior to the attack that the regime was preparing to use poisonous gas.

    But multiple requests to view that satellite imagery have been denied, though the administration produced copious amounts of satellite imagery earlier in the war to show the results of the Syrian regime's military onslaught. When asked Friday whether such imagery would be made available showing the Aug. 21 incident, a spokesman referred The Associated Press to a map produced by the White House last week that shows what officials say are the unconfirmed areas that were attacked.

    The Obama administration maintains it intercepted communications from a senior Syrian official on the use of chemical weapons, but requests to see that transcript have been denied. So has a request by the AP to see a transcript of communications allegedly ordering Syrian military personnel to prepare for a chemical weapons attack by readying gas masks.

    The U.S. administration says its evidence is classified and is only sharing details in closed-door briefings with members of Congress and key allies.

    Yet the assessment, also based on accounts by Syrian activists and hundreds of YouTube videos of the attack's aftermath, has confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people – especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops had the upper hand on the ground.

    Rebels who accuse Assad of the attack have suggested he had learned of fighters' plans to advance on Damascus, his seat of power, and ordered the gassing to prevent that.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Biden No doubt Syria unleashed chemical attack, must pay price

    So warmonger Biden was trying to unleash the US invasion against Syria but failed...
    Notable quotes:
    "... He said rebel forces were to blame for security concerns near the suspected chemical sites, arguing that Western leaders are using the claims as an excuse to go after al-Assad's regime. ..."
    "... "We all hear the drums of war," Moallem said. "They want to attack Syria. I believe to use chemical weapons as a pretext is not a right." ..."
    Aug 28, 2013 | www.cnn.com

    Saying "there is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons attack in Syria: the Syrian regime," Vice President Joe Biden signaled Tuesday that the United States -- with its allies -- was ready to act.

    "Those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable," Biden said in a speech to the American Legion.

    The vice president's remarks echo those made by other U.S. officials in recent days, as well as many of the nation's foremost allies.

    French President Francois Hollande said his administration was "ready to punish those who made the decision to gas these innocent people," adding that "everything leads us to believe" that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces are responsible.

    British Prime Minister David Cameron -- who talked Tuesday with U.S. President Barack Obama -- called lawmakers back from their summer vacations to consider a response to Syria, as the UK military prepares contingency plans.

    And U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the BBC on Tuesday that U.S. forces are "ready to go" if ordered to strike Syria by President Barack Obama.

    "The options are there. The United States Department of Defense is ready to carry out those options," Hagel said.

    Western leaders were reacting to a growing consensus that the Syrian regime was responsible for an August 21 attack that killed more than 1,300 people, most of them dying from exposure to toxic gases, according to rebel officials. The opposition -- which has said it's been targeted by chemical weapons attacks in the past as well -- backed up its latest allegations with gruesome video of rows of dead bodies, including women and children, with no visible wounds.

    Opinion: For U.S., Syria is truly a problem from hell

    Syrian officials, though, have steadfastly denied using chemical weapons in this or other cases.

    Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday that his government would never use such munitions against its own people, daring those who disagree to present evidence publicly.

    He said rebel forces were to blame for security concerns near the suspected chemical sites, arguing that Western leaders are using the claims as an excuse to go after al-Assad's regime.

    "We all hear the drums of war," Moallem said. "They want to attack Syria. I believe to use chemical weapons as a pretext is not a right."

    And if foreign powers do strike the Middle Eastern nation, its foreign minister said the government and its forces will fight back.

    "Syria is not easy to swallow," said Moallem. "We have the materials to defend ourselves. We will surprise others."

    [Apr 09, 2017] Tucker Carlson Takes on Sen Graham After Syrian Strikes

    Notable quotes:
    "... So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing! ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Donal Lenehan

    I don't trust that Lindsey Graham any more than Obama

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    Graham is a fucking asshole. The man is despicable FILTH.

    Yanin Rodriguez

    Disappointing questions Tucker with all due respect. Fact - Syrians support Assad up to 82%. Fact #2 - Rebels in Syria are by most accounts not even Syrian. Follow up on "liberating the Syrians" - with that mentality what about the Saudis?????

    War is profits and comprises of the highest % of employment in the US - so until we transfer that sector of the economy to more peaceful endeavors - we will be permanently be in illegal wars. Lastly - where are any of these wars constitutional?

    Why has congress relinquished this responsibility???

    We know the answers but never hear the questions asked...

    Josh Hempfleng

    The strike in Syria really made the Military industrial complex show themselves. The media, Democrats and Rhino's all cheering on the attack now that they see a chance to make some money off war.

    Rumi900

    +Josh Hemplfeng - You say '... Democrats and Rhino's all cheering ...' Why Democrats and Rhino's?

    I'd be okay with you saying Democrats and Republicans, but you seem to be letting the bulk of Republicans off the hook. Or, are you saying all the Republican elite are Rhinos? If so, I agree. The point is, surely, that much of Washington (on both sides) is bought and paid for by the wealthiest elites, through their lobbyists.

    This isn't a partisan issue. I wish people would stop making it one! Republicans and Democrats are all equally culpable.

    There are Democrats and Republicans who are not just shills for the elite. And those are the politicians we should be championing.

    Trump talked about it during the election - 'draining the swamp'. The 'swamp' is not some secret power, some nefarious underground that is controlling things.

    The 'swamp' is bought and paid for politicians - politicians bought and paid for by massive donations that can now hide behind the opaque screens of the SuperPACs. It's not just politicians on the 'other' side. Both sides are equally involved.

    I don't believe Trump is serious about 'draining the swamp'. If he is, he should be going after things like the Citizen's United decision. The Supreme Court bounced that back to the House, because it's the House that makes the law. The Supreme Court is there to say whether the law is Constitutional. They don't make law. it's up to Congress to do that.

    But politicians in the house, Republicans and Democrats alike, are happy with Citizen's United and SuperPACs and the opportunities for massive secret donations it has allowed. It's how they all get rich.

    If Trump was serious about draining the swamp, he'd be tackling those issues. But he's not. Just look at his appointees! I didn't vote for Trump. Because I didn't believe his rhetoric. I still don't.

    It's you guys, his ardent supporters, who should be holding his feet to the fire! And unfortunately, I see way too much adulation, mindless hero worship, and not enough demanding accountability.

    Joanne K

    They don't want us to know that ISIS is in Syria (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and that is what Assad is fighting, along with other Islamic groups. The L in ISIL stands for Levant. Leave Syria out so that overthrowing Assad will only leave the amorphous oppressed rebels (really ISIS or Al Nusra or Al Qaeda).

    They are deceivers.

    Zack Edwards

    So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing!

    [Apr 09, 2017] You would hope that our independent media might ask some important questions, rather than simply swallow the narrative our governments feed them

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently do US actions like this help ISIS? ..."
    "... Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes? ..."
    "... And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US? ..."
    "... American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep! ..."
    "... The world does not need another full scale war! ..."
    "... Maybe he's someone who questions overt propaganda pushing wars. ..."
    "... This last bombing is very much in line with Trump steaks and Trump vodka, just a hell of a lot uglier. ..."
    "... And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*. ..."
    "... Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin incident. ..."
    "... Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence, that Trump vindicated his action on. ..."
    "... Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence, that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid. ..."
    "... Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency at home. ..."
    "... Trump is doing exactly what the Establishment has told him to do. ..."
    "... I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind it. How do they benefit? ..."
    "... I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians. ..."
    "... But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda. ..."
    "... And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve. ..."
    "... We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting. ..."
    "... The US is above international law. Plus they have just destroyed the crime scene. ..."
    "... In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime, to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between. ..."
    "... But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him? ..."
    "... Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been framed. Only evidence can clear this up. ..."
    "... The absolute worst aspect of all, and we do know this for sure, is that the bastard claims god is his guide. ..."
    "... As he escalates on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex, which is desperately in need of profit and growth. ..."
    "... Liberals want the Wahhabis to be in charge. ..."
    "... Dec 2016 - Erdogan confirms Turkey has evidence that the US coalition is supporting ISIS and rebels in Syria ..."
    "... It almost seems too perfect doesn't it? Could be another false flag.. ..."
    "... America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity - anywhere. ..."
    "... It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military intervention without evidence or legality. ..."
    "... There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side. ..."
    "... A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although with modern munitions that seems unlikely. ..."
    "... Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels", or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America created ISIS. ..."
    "... Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly, Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has been regarding acts of war in the past few decades. ..."
    "... An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might see one or the other interesting picture or video this year. ..."
    "... Who's warmonger now? ..."
    "... A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this. ..."
    "... With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people, the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes. ..."
    "... According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)... ..."
    "... Tomahawk diplomacy ..."
    "... IMO there are only two options now. ..."
    "... Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over the brink, or ..."
    "... He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't feel that important anymore ..."
    "... The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up. ..."
    "... Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself . ..."
    "... Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a colt to his head. ..."
    "... BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase? If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX? Will the NRA get the "message"? Rattel , 7 Apr 2017 09:48 So the answer to the question 'Cui bono' appears to be Donald Trump. ..."
    "... Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! ..."
    "... Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump is to manipulate. ..."
    "... "Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account. "The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides." Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong? beren56 , 7 Apr 2017 09:50 Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America ..."
    "... As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power. ..."
    "... ''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012. ..."
    "... "Meanwhile, the heart of the problem is that the United States seems always to have only one solution to war: make more war. " ..."
    "... In my youth a frequent moniker said "fighting for peace is like fu.king for virginity" - it hasn't changed ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    ajcook , 2d ago

    You would hope that our "independent" media might ask some important questions, rather than simply swallow the narrative our government's feed them...

    For instance, where is the evidence that the Syrian regime did this? Only on Wednesday the UN stated that it could not say with any certainty that the chemicals were delivered by air.

    Indeed the UN investigation has barely started, so if the US have information that Assad did this surely they should present it?

    What about motive, why would Assad who everyone agrees is on the brink of winning this war give the US a reason to intervene against him? Besides didn't we also oversee the distruction of his chemical weapons stockpile 4 years ago?

    We know ISIS have chemical weapons because our ally Turkey has let them import them over their border.

    Also, even if we ignore the legality of last night's strike, what has it done to help the situation in Syria?

    In fact there are already reports that ISIS has launched an offensive in the Homs region sure in the knowledge that the Syrian regime has lost its air cover in that region. Consequently do US actions like this help ISIS?

    I don't know about anyone else but it is pretty standard for me that when someone is accused of something I look for the evidence and motives. It seems unfortunately that our media have long stopped asking any difficult questions, as we sleepwalk into yet another middle eastern war...

    hewasrightabout42 , 7 Apr 2017 09:14
    The number of countries not bombed by the USA grows smaller all the time. It is a foreign policy based on high explosives - mindless, cruel and bound to create more enemies.
    12inchPianist , 7 Apr 2017 09:14
    What the hell exactly is the message? Don't use chemical weapons on the beautiful babies, stick to blowing them to pieces and mutilating them with conventional weapons like civilized people?
    Muzzledagain , 7 Apr 2017 09:14
    Asking again: where is the toxic chemical cloud from the airbase the US attacked overnight that was allegedly the base from where chemical air raids were launched and thus presumably where the toxic material was in storage?

    Why did Al Qaeda attack Homs at the same time as the US strikes?

    João Paulo Caron , 7 Apr 2017 09:14
    There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot. Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.

    Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?

    And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US?

    Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!

    American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!

    The world does not need another full scale war!

    KeithNJ -> João Paulo Caron , 7 Apr 2017 09:16
    I see from your photo that you are a Russian propagandist. Does it pay well?
    dopamineboy KeithNJ , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    Maybe he's someone who questions overt propaganda pushing wars.
    maguro , 7 Apr 2017 09:16
    Trump's actions aren't but a dirt cheap smokescreen. He might as well have ponded sand.

    Little babies, the president said, tiny little babies.

    Where does this concern for the Syrian civilians suddenly come from?

    Not even three weeks ago, the US bombed a school near Raqqa, killing 33 civilians, and shortly before that, a mosk in al Jinah, kiliing 49.

    This last bombing is very much in line with Trump steaks and Trump vodka, just a hell of a lot uglier.

    F this.

    nishville , 7 Apr 2017 09:16
    And so we see once again that it does not matter who the American president is, what he/she wants or plans for their foreign policy - when the real masters whistle, the interchangeable White House puppet rolls over and bombs anyone who endangers the corporate profits*.

    International laws are ignored, pretexts hastily fabricated (did you notice they don't pay so much attention to detail anymore?) and people die to be used as an excuse for yet another war crime in the perpetual quest for more and more and more money.

    *If they refuse, they are shown the footage of Kennedy assassination taken from a yet unseen angle (RIP Bill Hicks).

    fran terion , 7 Apr 2017 09:16
    Islamic state takes advantage of US attack on government to storm western Palmyra

    BEIRUT, LEBANON (9:40 A.M.) – Not long after the U.S. attacked the Shayrat Airbase in eastern Homs, the Islamic State (ISIL) launched two separate attacks on the Syrian Arab Army's (SAA) defenses in the Palmyra.

    Ottomanboi , 7 Apr 2017 09:17
    USA ...the rogue state whose name no one dares mention.
    United Europe needed more than ever.
    BigWeedge , 7 Apr 2017 09:17
    I struggle to see why bombs are almost universally accepted way of solving foreign problems, even by most of the left.

    It might seem like standing by and doing nothing in the face of appalling horrors, but enlightenment and revolution has to come naturally and from the people, and dropping foreign bombs is just going to confuse the issue.

    There are so many non-violent, more effective options that we never seem to use. Why not open borders to allow show refugees compassion and that the rest of the world is not like their home country? Why not charter warships to peacefully collect those seeking refuge, removing them from the conflict rather than raining down more conflict on them? Why not do low fast flybys as a show of not only vast force, but restraint, responsibility, compassion? Why not remove military force peacefully, by cutting off arms trade? Why not drop thousands of flowers? Why not drop information? Food? Teddy bears?

    Why not?

    Making war doesn't end war.

    StrangerInParadise , 7 Apr 2017 09:18
    Well the liberal elite finally got what they wanted. A shooting war in the Middle East. I hope The Guardian, BBC and Vauxhall Cross are all very proud of themselves this morning.
    dopamineboy StrangerInParadise , 7 Apr 2017 09:20
    At least Hillary is smiling in her mansion.
    tsonga , 7 Apr 2017 09:18

    Russia has suspended the memorandum of understanding on flight safety in Syria with the United States amid the US missile strike on Syria's Shayrat military airfield, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement.

    And there is more to come. Now, US (and UK) aircrafts can be freely knocked down from the sky.
    Greg38585 , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    Where's the actual proof that Assad did this?. The whole thing stinks of another Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    Also whenever the media just blindly report something as fact without any concrete evidence, without any critical thought, investigation & examination etc then I'm always highly suspicious

    (just like tthe last chemical attack, where they were eagerly stating that Assad did it, there was video footage etc etc yet it turned out that it was the "Rebels" who were behind the attack all along.

    Of course the media never told us that, as soon as it became apparent that Assad did not do it they dropped the story so fast, swept under the rug never to be reported ever again).

    I mean it really doesn't add up as Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons (he's winning the war(and would've won along time ago if it wasn't for the West proping up the supposed "Rebels & Moderates" more like Isis and AQ), he benifets in no way, and only brings about international scorn) risking the advantage he has), the whole thing comes across as very fishy.

    All too convenient & very contrived. I think we're being had by the powers that be, and unfortunately too many people aren't smart enough, don't possess the critical thinking to see that and will fall for it hook, line and sinker, will take it all at face value.

    volkswin Greg38585 , 7 Apr 2017 09:22
    You would expect a gas attack using a nerve agent dropped by a plane to be far more effective than it was.
    ardvark2 , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    Just goes to show, how dangerous Trump actually is. We need to be given the 'clear' evidence, that Trump vindicated his action on.

    So far, the information available, is not irrefutable i.e. that Assad's forces were involved in a deliberate gas attack, and in fact he would be mad to do so, knowing it couldn't be concealed, and the consequences are what we're seeing now.

    At the moment, we are told that planes took off from that airfield, were logged on US radar to the town, on which explosives were dropped, and that the military base, might have had stocks of chemical weapons, in 2013.

    Unless, 'experts' can investigate the bombed area, there is, as yet, no unequivocal evidence, that Syrian forces we're responsible, and Assad's and Russian explanations, could be just as valid.

    Let's face it, the only one's to benefit from this, is Isis and the other extreme Islamist rebel factions, and Trump himself, who could be attempting to shore up his failing presidency at home.

    Of course, if Assad is directly to blame, and that can be demonstrated without doubt, then by all means, retaliate, and very hard, but until then, a more measured and circumspect appraisal is now necessary.

    DT48 ardvark2 , 7 Apr 2017 09:21
    Trump is doing exactly what the Establishment has told him to do.
    diddoit , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    I think we in the west need to be very careful and set an example by respecting international law, for one day the Anglo world might not be the world's dominant military powers. There needed to be a proper investigation before any action. Working with Russia to find out exactly what happened.

    How would we like to be struck at will with a total inability to respond by a militarily superior foe wherever & whenever that foe feels like it? It could be a superior Chinese military floating off our coast one day , with us screaming about international law.

    Chris Farouk Hussain , 7 Apr 2017 09:19
    I can't be the only person who's thinking false flag here. Something doesn't add up. Clearly there has been a chemical attack - it just doesn't make any sense why the Syria regime are behind it. How do they benefit?

    Why use chemical weapons when the US said it was the "line"? Who does benefit from this? Have false flag operations happened before (with proof)? It's extremely dangerous to believe what has been said in the US and UK since this attack, and not answered these questions as well. Something clearly is amiss here.

    ID629977 , 7 Apr 2017 09:20
    I too can't believe that Assad would shot himself in the foot by using chemical weapons. The most plausible explanation is the one being advanced by the Russians.

    But whatever the truth, and no one seems to know, unless you swallow the false-news regularly advanced by this newspaper, everybody as seized on the news to advance their own agenda.

    For the Trump administration it was a great moment to show China and North Korea that the USA is capable of delivering a knock-out blow to the North Koreans nuclear ambitions.

    And the the Guardian and BBC jump to use it as propaganda to steer the UK government to a foreign policy of which the Guardian and BBC approve.

    We are fed, lie, after lie, after lie, and they expect us to swallow it - it is insulting.

    cygnetborn , 7 Apr 2017 09:20
    This seems so coordinated - alleged chemical attack, universal condemnation of Assad, US missile strike and then within hours ISIS are attacking Syrian army bases.

    Shame so little condemnation here when US killed 100s if not 100s recently in Iraq, but seems most here are now disgusting Trump supporters so no surprise.

    dopamineboy cygnetborn , 7 Apr 2017 09:23
    It's all a convenient set up - ever since Trump announced he was pulling back from confronting Assad - the war machine went into overdrive - and sucked Don in.
    madeiranlotuseater , 7 Apr 2017 09:22
    Another knee jerk reaction from the USA. Next thing we know the west can add Syria to its list of disastrous military campaigns that will sink another country into even bigger chaos. Greater loss of life and like Libya, a breeding ground for Daesh.
    But still, think of the profit for the manufacturer of Cruise missiles. Another twenty six and a half million dollars of missiles to be replaced. One wonders if top brass are on a commission from the arms manufacturers?
    TracyJavid , 7 Apr 2017 09:22
    Don't get me wrong, I loathe Assad. But I don't get why he would have launched a chemical attack now. He's winning. He knows he loses by doing something like that. Are we sure he did it? If he goes who's next? Are they worse? Why aren't we airlifting kids out of these areas, we could do that. We moved kids during WW2, and we didn't have the technology we have now. If we can use a drone to drop a missille, why can't it drop food and medications on people who need it. We are morally bankrupt. In the face of all this immorality we sit here and order another Starbucks and type with impotent rage. How can we get this to stop?
    Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:22
    When was the investigation into the alleged chemical weapons attack concluded? Did I miss that news?
    anonym101 -> Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:26
    The US is above international law. Plus they have just destroyed the crime scene.
    liberalexpat , 7 Apr 2017 09:23
    This is frightening: policy replaced by a knee-jerk reaction based on Trump's moods. The atrocity was unspeakable, Assad is a vicious despot, Russia's backing for him is purblind. But..

    In a single day, we've gone from Assad's air force being 'suspected' of the war crime, to an air base 'believed to be' that from which the attack was launched, to both being established facts, reported as such by the media - with no investigation or proof in between.

    And still US policy on Syria is a mystery, not to say non-existent: the strike raises more questions than it answers. If this was limited action, was it anything more than gesture politics? But if Trump has decided to get Assad out, who is the US going to put in to replace him?

    Marika Whitfield -> liberalexpat , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    Good to see an intelligent comment. Share Facebook Twitter
    Shaker56 -> liberalexpat , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    Good comment - as mentioned elsewhere today Trump seems to be rapidly reversing his policy on Syria - re Assad and refugees allowed entry to America etc. Might this airstrike action usefully get him off the hook with regard to the Puppet of Russia accusations and define him in a "good" light with his home audience in juxtaposition to Obama's reluctance to strike?
    Sowester , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    The Americans have surveillance that should be able to prove Assad was guilty. Time to show it.

    Or maybe the Russians are right and Trump has been played by the jihadists who are quite capable of gassing civilians to provoke a response against Assad.

    Loathed though I am to contemplate it on this occasion it is possible that Assad has been framed. Only evidence can clear this up.

    Felipe1st , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    The absolute worst aspect of all, and we do know this for sure, is that the bastard claims god is his guide.

    As he escalates on behalf of the Military Industrial Complex, which is desperately in need of profit and growth.

    All psychopaths and bullies avoid direct responsibility for what they unleash.

    martybishop , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    The worrying issue to me is that Trump seems to be capable of knee-jerk reactions with very little diplomacy or forethought as to the inevitable consequences. The chemical raids were undoubtedly a ghastly act by whoever perpetrated them, but in this particular conflict, like so many in that troubled part of the world, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the good guys from the bad. Now Trump wades in with unilateral air strikes - gunboat diplomacy at its worst that could spark wider conflict. Now where did I put those instructions on how to build my nuclear shelter?
    ruffledfeathers , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    So many people want Assad gone. Who will be put in his place? The result of removing brutal dictators from the Middle East is all too clear to see, not only across the Middle East, but across Europe and across the world.

    Where is the proof that it was Assad?

    A year back Saudi smuggled weapons to Turkey supposedly in relation to the Syrian conflict, but which the Turks would have used against the Kurds.

    There is too much that isn't known in this instance to take action. I can't see Russia and Assad now backing away. North Korea might even offer them a helping hand (whether that hand would be taken might be unlikely, but backed into a corner - who knows).

    Nathaniel Gould -> ruffledfeathers , 7 Apr 2017 09:28
    Liberals want the Wahhabis to be in charge.
    SubjectiveSubject , 7 Apr 2017 09:25
    Dec 2016 - Erdogan confirms Turkey has evidence that the US coalition is supporting ISIS and rebels in Syria .

    Jan 2017 - May visits Erdogan and signs major trade deal and supplies arms to the regime. Erdogan now backs the strike on Syria.

    João Paulo Caron , 7 Apr 2017 09:26
    There is simply NO REASON at all that Assad would go out of his way to gas 100 people including children KNOWING the backlash that would follow right after. Assad does not strike me as an idiot. Specially being so close to end this mess once and for all.

    Doesn't the UN has a organisation that was in charge of the inspection and removal of all chemical weapons from Syria back in 2013/14 ?

    And what about Turkey now riling up everybody and wanting to invade Syria and asking for more strikes from the US?

    Something fundamental changed on the ground in this past days to make so many heads of states turn 180 on this issue. Fishy at best!

    American people: never forget the pretext that put you into this mess in Iraq in the first place! Be critical of your government. Don't jump to conclusions based on photos from sources that can't prove their authenticity! Don't be the sheep!

    The world does not need another full scale war!

    Dyler Turdan , 7 Apr 2017 09:26
    Wasn't a week ago US decided change policy on removing Assad..the Turks and the terrorists couldn't have that so they made up this gas attack because its a red line, some of those filming those horrific pictures were terrorists..the hawks used it and Trump fell for it.
    HerbGuardian , 7 Apr 2017 09:26
    The West wants to topple Syria in order to get closer to Iran and do the same thing there ( send in and supply the murderous cut throats to collapse it from the inside) therefore anything about Assad being this and the Syrian Government being that, as per the Western Media , is just Bull ....as far as I am concerned.
    disqusagain , 7 Apr 2017 09:27
    Personality related impulsive behaviour? Seems Trump feels a need for power without reflection of the consequences of his actions and consultation with the leaders of other nations. abuse of his position of power? If he makes these decisions what else will follow?
    blairsnemesis disqusagain , 7 Apr 2017 09:38
    Trump is not capable of reflection or even forethought. He acts in the way he speaks, i.e. whatever is passing through his head is the next thing to do/say. He is the most clueless US president I've heard of, and that includes Reagan.
    Timelord421 , 7 Apr 2017 09:27
    Orwell predicted a machine that would churn out garbage music to satisfy the proles. Does the Guardian have such a machine simply attach a name before publishing?

    6 years of hand-wringing? Let's have some more of that.

    Mark Dawson , 7 Apr 2017 09:27
    Amazing how many people, on both sides of the argument, are ready with hard and fast opinions so rapidly. Might be an idea to wait until a few more facts are in, and the ramifications begin to reveal themselves. But I guess that's not how the internet (or commentary) works.
    ConCaruthers Mark Dawson , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    Regime change of Syria was on Wesley Clarke's list 16 years ago after 9/11.

    Assad had only just come to power, so it's clearly an orchestrated exercise and the US is frankly running out of time and excuses not to get in and get the job done, ironically for the Swamp creatures that Donald said he wanted to get rid of, what a complete numskull.

    Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:28
    I thought Trump wasn't the warmonger and would focus on the USA, which would only concern itself with other countries if there was something to gain from it. First he doesn't care and now that he has seen dead children it is suddenly different? How rash and unpredictable.
    BreqJustice Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    The USA are the best are creating dead children - nobody can come close ...
    StrongMachine Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:37
    That's right - we were warned Hillary was the warmonger. Goodness only know what she would have done!

    (She was also supposed to be in hock to Goldman Sachs - Trump cut out the middleman and brought them directly into his administration).

    mugsey Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:41
    Well, dead children that HE didn't kill.
    Forthestate , 7 Apr 2017 09:28
    This from the Guardian this morning:

    Friday briefing: Assad's atrocity answered with hail of Tomahawks

    It appears that the Guardian doesn't think it necessary to wait for the conclusion of any investigation into the chemical attack before pronouncing Assad responsible. I take it this approach is an example of what the Guardian considers to be "quality journalism". Most people would consider quality journalism to rely upon evidence, rather than an editorial agenda.
    dopamineboy Forthestate , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    Not when Dr Strangelove is in charge.
    Forthestate Forthestate , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    And then again this:

    The chemical attack had in all likelihood been carried out by the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

    Seems they want it both ways.
    Grantbarking , 7 Apr 2017 09:29
    FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG FALSE FLAG The only thing which could derail Assad's total victory in Syria is if he uses chemical weapons. Then he uses chemical weapons. Whatever you think of Assad he isn't mad. This is clearly a con and Trump has fallen for it. Share Facebook Twitter
    Sowester Grantbarking , 7 Apr 2017 09:33
    Not clearly but I would like to see some evidence.
    Zetenyagli , 7 Apr 2017 09:29

    Donald Trump, the man who just over a month ago wanted to bar entry of all Syrian refugees into the United States, now wants us to think that he cares deeply about Syrian children. I don't believe it

    Neither do I. I think he is trying to save his job. With Trump if you can't baffle them with brains baffle them with BS. This attack is a distraction from the Russian/Flynn investigation.

    What it achieves for Trump is the following:
    1. Makes him look anti Russian. This is important because of the investigation into his cronies connections with Russia.
    2. Proves he has given up on Ukraine, so no removal of sanctions and therefore no big oil deal with Russia.
    3. Encourages ISIS and Al-Quaeda.
    4. Has committed an act of war against Syria so America is now at war with Syria. A war with no strategy like Iraq, Libya.
    5. Makes Trump look like a leader.
    6. Has probably alienated many of his supporters.

    Most of all he thinks this action will save his job.

    StrangerInParadise Zetenyagli , 7 Apr 2017 09:32
    Bannon was obviously against this. I doubt Trump will do anymore yuge rallies.
    anonym101 , 7 Apr 2017 09:29
    Assad was winning. Turkey and the US needed a circuit breaker. Petty the real culprits could show up in Paris or Sydney in a few months time.
    jonmac65 , 7 Apr 2017 09:30
    I see the international context as secondary to the US-domestic one. Since taking office Trump has been made to look a twat by judges, demonstrators and his own legislature. And so the Syrian chemical attacks previded him with a wonderful opportunity to do something military which is always the fall-back of poor leaders. He can now say he is strong, America is strong, we'll take on the bad guys, etc etc.
    To be honest nobody really cares much about Assad (I doubt even the Russians do beyond his country's strategic usefulness) so it was a target that while championed at home was always going to win approval abroad (even if muttered under the breath).
    It also allowed Trump to do the hard-man/big-swinging-dick act right in the Chinese leader's face - again a 'win' for him.
    I think he is calculating that he has just saved his presidency. Given the lunacy of US politics at the moment he is probably right.
    Raptorius jonmac65 , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    It almost seems too perfect doesn't it? Could be another false flag..
    pfg2powell jonmac65 , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    I think your are probably exactly right.
    garedelyons , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    If there is anyone out there who would really think that Assad would be stupid enough to use chemical weapons, he/she (Trump/May) must be, well, stupid.

    Mr Trump admitted that US had done "bad things". This is just another example. What he has done plays wholly into the hands of some very questionable regimes and IS.

    The tomahawk was an offensive weapon. What is offensive about white USA adopting it to name its modern killer is that the original carriers, defending their land, were mown down using the latest weapon of the time - the Gatling gun.

    America is simply showing it stays one step or 10 ahead and can and will act with impunity - anywhere.

    hugodegauche , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    When reading articles like this I fear ultimately there will be no possible compromise with globalists who want it all but at all costs open borders.
    Johnny Kent , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    It's not even proved that Assad used gas. In fact it's not proved what gas it was...Thanks to media and political spin its a cert is was Sarin. So, the US launches yet another military intervention without evidence or legality.
    KeithNJ , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    There is no deliberation in Syria, there is only violence. An uprising has morphed into a major proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran based on sectarian lines, with Turkey tilting the scales a bit for the Saudis and Russian the same for the Iran-backed side.

    Civil wars come to end either with defeat of one party or all sides becoming exhausted of violence. The proxy backers ensure that defeat for their side is impossible, and the sectarian aspect makes exhaustion a far off prospect since each side fears genocide should it lose. Nonetheless, it might be over by now if Russia has not intervened to prop up Assad, reducing his need to compromise.

    A similar situation in Germany 400 years ago has become labelled 'the 30 years war', although with modern munitions that seems unlikely.

    As for the American air strike, a negative spin would be it made no difference (but the Russian reaction suggest that is not the case) while a positive spin was that it tilted the balance back towards a compromise ending (since Assad can no longer assume the Russian presence gives him immunity from serious harm).

    No one knows, and all arguments are propaganda.

    unbritannia , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    Isn't this exactly the kind of action that The Guardian and CNN etc have been goading Trump towards since he took office? With every article accusing Trump of being a Russian stooge or a Manchurian candidate, the "liberal" media has pushed him ever closer to sending this message .

    The "message" isn't intended for Assad, and it's quite clearly marked with sheepish apologies to Russia - which aren't going to wash, as Trump possibly guesses, but he had more urgent priorities than Russia, such as proving that he isn't their "man" to domestic critics. This was all done for the benefit of US and European audiences. Those in the media who clamored for it, must have lost all sense of irony, not to say integrity, to come out with umbrage now that Trump as reacted precisely as should have been predictable in order to defend his reputation against their jibes.

    The only redeeming feature of Trump's campaign was that he didn't seem to want to keep America (and with it so much of the globe) embroiled in endless war. That broad instinct for a bit less less war, if translated into actual policy, was the one Trump offering that you'd think the "liberal" media could get behind.

    But no. Trump was working for "the Russians", don't you know, and now he's prepared to push us all one step closer to war with them just to disprove the playground taunts.

    Meanwhile Syrian children will continue to be murdered by all comers. None of the international parties taking an "interest" in Syria is innocent or guileless in this respect. We don't know for certain yet who carried out the chemical attack - it could well have been ISIS or other "rebels", or it could have been the "regime". But let's remember that Trump has said publicly that America created ISIS.

    Trump's recent action doesn't just reveal a lack of understanding about what's going on in Syria. (And let's face it, which of us really knows what is going on there? There is no news source whose credibility is beyond question concerning that conflict). No, far more worryingly, Trump's recent action reveals a cynical willingness to act regardless of his understanding of the situation in order to refute a critical narrative (against himself) or promote a more favourable narrative (towards himself). In other words, not that different than any other politician has been regarding acts of war in the past few decades.

    When will the media accept the role they play in this? It is frankly grueling to read these "outraged" reports while none of that goes acknowledged.

    chrisu2012 , 7 Apr 2017 09:31
    An interesting year ahead. We will see soon what Putin really has in his Trump file. We might see one or the other interesting picture or video this year.
    dopamineboy , 7 Apr 2017 09:33
    Trump tweet 2013 - What will we get from bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict. Do not attack Syria. Very many bad things will happen and US gets nothing!
    Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    I remember sitting in front of my TV watching the horror of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. Fast forward 16 years and leader of the so called free world has bombed Syria on the say so of Al-Qaeda while liberals cheer! What's going on?
    wullieg , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    This is a smokescreen, it has more to do with Trump giving a message to Xi face to face. He (Trump) is telling Xi that if he doesn't deal with North Korea this is what he is capable of. Now watch this drive.
    abecedadeda , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    Who's warmonger now?
    Bert9000 , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    I utterly despise how the narrative has just moved on and no one seems concerned with seeing any proof of whether Assad is actually responsible for these attacks.

    This is a sobering read http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    Assad probably had nothing to do with the attacks in 2013, and he has literally zero motive for these attacks. Yet a vast majority of people just accept it because they trust the media to do their job instead of act as a mouthpiece for warmongering assholes.

    Shame on you Guardian, shame on all the journalists not questioning and demanding facts.

    Clearly the chemical weapons attack was horrendous, not something we ever want to see repeated. But i fear what we have done here, by jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions, is ensured that the real perpetrator of these attacks is now emboldened and considering the whole thing a great success. You'll note it is Al Qaeda (Al Nusra) and ISIS who are celebrating these US led attacks on Syria. Think about that for a second. Are you really convinced they didn't carry out the chemical attacks, in territory they held? They had everything to gain by doing so and casting the blame on Assad, and given their defeat is currently almost certain, they had everything to gain.

    Their ability to use such weapons is well documented in US intelligence reports.

    Why are we so quick to jump to conclusions, when our chosen suspect has literally ZERO motive for doing something like this.

    Think people. Your journalists won't do it for you unfortunately.

    dopamineboy Bert9000 , 7 Apr 2017 09:37
    In an interview conducted on April 5, 2017, Damian Walker, a former army bomb disposal officer, made these observations: When I initially read that sarin nerve agent had been used in an attack on Idlib, I was surprised that the chemical warfare agent had been identified so quickly. On watching the video of the incident, I quickly concluded that it was unlikely a sarin attack. If it was the first responders would also have been killed, and the victims' symptoms appeared to be the result of a "choking agent", and not a military grade agent.
    ID3121651 , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    "largely ineffective bombing does little but make US lawmakers feel good".

    Grateful for this insight. I think your last line covers what Trump actually intended. To look to his own people, that he is acting decisively and those that supported him will see this action as doing that. I think he intends no more than the appearance of looking like a decisive leader. That can only be short lived as the reality impinges on his projected image to his supporters.

    We have to vane men at the head of large countries - what could go wrong?!

    diddoit , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    If it was a false flag Trump will probably be the last to find out.
    thejerk2 , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    We knew this new regime wanted war, Syria being it's first target, who knows north Korea and the Russia.
    The yanks need war to fuel and feed it's inhabitants, it simply can't resist without it.
    Scary times to be a living in a world with mad yanks and that man controlling them.
    God bless the people that suffer daily in Syria at the hands of American funded terror.
    ID4104389 , 7 Apr 2017 09:35
    I'm quite suspicious that it happened at all. Syria denies responsibility and it seems logical to question why they'd do the "chemical massacre" when it could only harm their own position. May was in Saudi Arabia pretty quickly after Brexit was triggered to talk "trade" etc. It seems that everybody hates Iran. Support for Trump's "targeted" attack is being quickly announced by the apparent current alliance states, have there actually been any pictures released of the "chemical massacre" of dead bodies? Just graves being dug, and graves already filled in with neatly placed headstones - tidy. And, yes, children with oxygen masks on, but isn't sarin gas pretty quick acting, being "26 times more deadly than cyanide" and leading to death by losing your insides to the outside, basically.
    Down2dirt , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    I see that the war criminal McCain and the rest of the relic Cold War establishment couldn't be happier.
    DT48 , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    A UK ex-Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, describes how Jihadi opposition in Syria were storing chemical weapons in schools, and that Western journalists saw this.

    With no evidence that the Syrian military actually has dropped chemical munitions on people, the rush to attack the Syrian installation speaks volumes.

    *If* there was actual evidence that Syria committed that crime, do you who favour military action in Syria not think that most people would back attacking them with full force?

    The rush to attack with no evidence says it all - it says there is none, the same MO as before.

    anonym101 DT48 , 7 Apr 2017 09:39
    Unfortunately no one cares about fact. The media is excited by the prospect of a war with Syria and they possibly with Iran in the future.
    Wirplit , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    Even the NY Times hardly a fan of Assad has backed down on the endless repeated assertions that it was Assad forces that caused the 2O13 Ghouta chemical attack. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/06/nyt-retreats-on-2013-syria-sarin-claims/that the BBC does not even seem to question. This is the notorious Red line case that Obama allegedly fudged. The reason was the evidence pointed clearly to it being a Rebel False Flag as Seymour Hersh the guy who broke the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam first opined to near universal silence . https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
    On this much every Guardian reader needs to at least assess the evidence and they won't get much help from the MSN
    But who needs evidence? And don't think for one moment Intelligence services not capable of doing this. We all know about the WMD claims that were enough, despite being completely baseless, to launch a war while the State Dept scrambled desperately to prove a non existent connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
    This is the Age of The Big Lie... the technique so ably initiated by Goebbels. Better than repeat opinions at least research the evidence.
    expats11 , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    According to the Guardian headline, after the gas attack killed 70, "'The dead were wherever you looked': ..In the botched US airstrike 230 were killed ( 'ours' are just collateral damage)...

    Can someone/ anyone explain why, when he is winning on all fronts, Assad would use chemical weapons?

    StillAbstractImp , 7 Apr 2017 09:36
    Tomahawk diplomacy
    Trouble cementing authoritarianism at home?
    Let the foreign diversions begin!
    StillAbstractImp , 7 Apr 2017 09:38
    He's already got two war crimes
    20 dead in Yemen
    200 dead in Mosul
    ...next?
    piebeansMontrachet , 7 Apr 2017 09:38
    When the other bad guys...isis twist of as a reaction...hope Trump will take them to court. Of course such does not apply to USA...them not having signed up to ICC. An alleged isis in your back garden gives them licence to bomb you. Happy days...for American arms industry
    emma linnery , 7 Apr 2017 09:40
    The issues in Syria are due to both uk and usa acting like mercenary in the first place, i see it that obama is guilty of war crimes all due to been a puppet of saudi.
    Its when we look at the bigger picture we can begin to realise what is causing all this..... The UK is the world's second biggest arms exporter with a market share of about 20% and directly employs 350,000 people spread over 11,000 firms, with as many as 1.2 million people relying on it for a living, now at the same time, then we must look back to when 2013, Wahhabism was identified by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the main source of global terrorism, we must ask ourselves as to why the UK is still selling weapons to saudi...as for Assad, the Syrian government of Assad supports a secular regime and lifestyle while Saudi Arabia supports a conservative and religious world view. The rebels supported by the Saudi Arabian government are religious extremists. In this fight, UK and the usa are supporting the side of religious extremism against a secular state for financial gain. Disgraceful really,
    magila_cutty , 7 Apr 2017 09:40
    Trump saw some pictures of the victims of this chemical attack so he launches. The same people have been killed in their hundreds of thousands with reports of same coming in regularly. The written reports have no impact on him as he doesn't /can't read but the pictures..
    A clear demonstration of how easily he could be manipulated.
    anonym101 , 7 Apr 2017 09:41
    I think Trump just lost 50 million votes. And he knows it.

    IMO there are only two options now.

    1) Trump and his neolibcons plan to escalate this to the brink of WWIII, and possibly over the brink, or
    2) He has been blackmailed with the lives of his nearest ones, so winning the 2020 doesn't feel that important anymore

    Davelad , 7 Apr 2017 09:41
    The man's a total fool. He's taken Syria down the same road as his predecessors did with Libya and Iraq. Remove the leaders, just contend with hordes of warring tribals. By that time the incumbent President of the USA has moved on, leaving his mess for others to clean up.
    THKMTL , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    There is as per , no investigation in the Guardian's coverage . The ultimate in unethical journalism being the quoting of ' sources ' and "' the Syrian opposition ' ( ISIS ) say ......"
    The credibility of the Syrian Gov. s claim that :

    a) It was bombing ' opposition ' ( ISIS ) occupied enclave and

    b) The chemicals were contained on the ground there and were released only by bombing the fact of Syrian bombing :

    Is not even mentioned let alone investigated . Yet it is an infinitely logical , credible and likely claim .

    Along with the fact that ONLY THE SYRIAN GOV COULD POSSIBLY LOSE BY SUCH AN ATTACK -- and would have ZERO to gain , is a compelling reason for investigation : NOT blanket repetition of what ISIS say -- according to the Guardian itself .

    Trumbledon , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    It'll be interesting to see how the media reacts when Al Qaeda launch their next chemical attack on civilians and blame it on the 'Regime' (Or 'government', if we're using correct terminology): will they still insist it's the regime doing it, even now it's clear that using chemical weapons will bring immediate retaliation from the USA? Yes, they probably will.

    This whole thing stinks. Assad is a wanker but he is not stupid, there's no way he'd deliberately lose a war he's currently certain to win, by doing the only thing that could possibly result in western interference.

    The only way I can see the chemical attack having been the work of Assad would be if the whole Trump/Russia business goes deeper than we realise, and this whole episode has been premeditated, I.E. Assad used chemical weapons with the express agreement of Trump, who could then be seen as standing up for civilised values and in defiance of Russia by launching retaliatory strikes, after which no more chemical attacks occur, making Trump look like the good guy and taking some of the heat off him regarding his links to Russia, with Assad losing a couple of planes and a handful of soldiers - no great loss in the grand scheme of things.

    Other than that slightly far-fetched conspiracy theory, I can think of no reason of any sort why Assad would seek to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    ploughmanlunch , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    The US attack was carried out in retaliation for what they believe was a chemical attack initiated by Assad's forces. The US has not waited for a thorough and unbiased investigation.

    Inevitably this means that blame for any subsequent incidents involving chemical weapons will automatically be ascribed to Assad - not to do so would call into question the justification of the US action carried out overnight. The rebels have a Trump card. If hard pressed they can manufacture a chemical atrocity and call in the cavalry. Haley won't even have to hold up pictures of wounded children.

    marc80 , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    A bit confused here. And I'm not trying to be ironic.

    1) Doesn't this attack help ISIS in the current war in Syria?

    2) How sure are we that it was the Al-Assad regime who used chemical weapons in the attack?

    3) Final question. Is there a third choice other than Al-Assad or ISIS?

    justapleb , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    While the western powers seem to have made up their mind that Assad was guilty of the poison gas attack, serious doubts must remain. The explanation of the Assad government and Russia seem credible to me. The dismissal of those explanations is very lightweight indeed. This amounts to two arguments.

    1. Bombing a sarin gas chemical weapons store would not release the gas. Really? That defies logic.

    2. The rebels do not possess sarin gas? How do we know that?

    Apart from the lack of a credible motive for the use of chemical weapons, Assad, like Sadam Hussein before him claims he does not possess such weapons. As in 2003 this has not prevented a US missile attack on a foreign state. Back in 2003, Sadam Hussein was eventually proved right and we all know what happened after that.

    What is the evidence that Assad's air force carried out this attack? This seems to rely on the fact of the gas poisoning (which no-one is disputing) and witness statements from the area under attack from the Syrian air force. This is Idlib, to where the allegedly murderous Assad allowed free passage to armed jihadist terrorists humanely ejected (rather than killed or taken prisoner) from other parts of Syria including East Aleppo, from where skilled propaganda outlets fed the appetites of Western media including the disgraceful Ch4 News, which has again been agitating for military action against the Syrian government.

    It will clearly be very hard to find independent witnesses amongst such a population, heavily controlled by Jihadist fighters well used to targeting civilian areas of government controlled Syria.

    This development is sinister indeed. That Trump has shown such willingness to take such extreme action so quickly, without firm evidence, should make us all very, very afraid.

    nic , 7 Apr 2017 09:45
    Due to the USAs long history of making shit up to start wars, I dont believe a fucking word of it.
    vivazapata38 , 7 Apr 2017 09:46
    The Guardian reports "Syrian rebels have welcomed the attack" but want more. Job done and it was so easy for them. They also have a, UN proven, history of setting off chemical weapons in order to get the US etc involved.
    AfinaPallada , 7 Apr 2017 09:46
    Trimp's actions show that US policy never changes. It is defined not by US President, but by US establishment. It can change it's forms but never cnages in essence. Republicans and Demoсrats in US are two wings of one bird.

    It seems, that Trump, had he had noble intensions to change it's policy for the good was swallowed by establishment the same as it happened with any US president, from Kennedy to Nixon. Otherwise, it again shows that he is a talanted populist which perfectly played at protest spirits against messiah tensions and nepotism in US (the Clinton and Bush dynasties).

    Anyway, the least actions of US in Syria, which can be qualified as an agression against a sovereign state from any point of view, shows that US, as a drunk cowboy, firing at bottles in a saloon, understand only a policy of superior force and is negotiable only when you put a colt to his head.

    And even in this case, you should beware of a shot in back when you put this colt off. This is how the world now feels the US.

    doctuscumlibro , 7 Apr 2017 09:46
    one Tomahawk costing 1,59 milion $ , so the US last night spend around 100 million $ .....Enjoying the world s reserve currency and print as much as you want of it is comfy innit ? Attacking yet another nation without irrefutable justification reminds me of the Iraq debacle and its WMD, the US of course can get away with similar acts of war being the world s "stabilizer", diverting at the same time the attention from the civilian bloodshed in Mosul and Yemen. Thank you US of A, the world is happy to have you around the world.
    Jackhammer1 Andrew Terhorst , 7 Apr 2017 09:50
    I notice the "army of Islam" very happy about the strike. US/UK now explicitly supporting Islamic extremism.
    BevanBoyAus Andrew Terhorst , 7 Apr 2017 09:50
    Whereas the US using chemical Napalm bombs is humane and caring and only targeted at the military and 'terrorist'?
    Aryu Gaetu , 7 Apr 2017 09:48
    BTW: 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at $1,590,000 each [Wiki] is $93,810,000. Or the annual income of 4,690 people making $10/hr spent within a few minutes... to send a message to a vacated airbase?

    If 80 people killed in Syria is senseless, then what is 210 people shot in America on the first day of 2017? Should we send 2.5 times as many Tomahawk cruise missiles to ORD and LAX? Will the NRA get the "message"?

    Rattel , 7 Apr 2017 09:48
    So the answer to the question 'Cui bono' appears to be Donald Trump.
    SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 7 Apr 2017 09:49
    Its not bloody Trump that is the problem, is it? He didn't want to attack Syria, we did. All these fucking news agencies spouting propaganda coming straight from Al Qaida and their supporters. The Guardian like all the others have completely forgotten the fake evidence of WMDs in Iraq and are actually egging on for war. First they say Trump is dangerous to get into war and then the same bloody people are demanding Trump to attack Syria!

    This whole gas attack is the clearest red flag attack ever and every god damn main steam reporter goes along with it, no questions asked.

    Just look every single time an attack like this has occured just happens to be in what would be the most illogical time for the Syrian government. Are you seriously saying that they are so stupidly insane to think killing 100 people with gas is worth the diplomatic losses and military wrath of the west? They could kill 1000 with conventional weapons, it makes zero sense.

    Where is the god damn basic logic of looking at the beneficiaries to deduce the real motive in what look like a murky issue.

    The guardian quoting 'experts' saying a facility creating and stockpiling chemicals would not leaked if bombed? Are you kidding me? You need incendiary napalm to burn the gas, but napalm is porhibited and was NOT used in the alleged attack. Jeasus, use your god damn brain for once.

    Last time I saw the guardian posting pic of the vehicles carrying humanitarian aid that were allegedly attacked by syrian planes...and they were full of visible small arms bullet holles with is impossible to come from planes. The scenes had been staged! Go back and look at them. There are cars that look crumpled up, not burned and without any glass at all. That is impossible to be as part of an attack by planes

    FrankLeeSpeaking SeeNOevilHearNOevil , 7 Apr 2017 09:53
    Well said. The Guardian and other MSM are complicit in war. Share Facebook Twitter
    Picasso82 , 7 Apr 2017 09:49
    Recruiting now! Western Dictator to run oil rich country in the Middle East. No experience necessary, but must have a basic knowledge of civilian oppression, creating vacuums to religious extremists and oil sales.
    ID776729 , 7 Apr 2017 09:49
    Why would Assad use chemical weapons on civilians when:

    A) It's almost sure to provoke a reaction from Trump, an unpredictable and untested US President.
    B) Assad has almost won the war using conventional weapons.
    C) It increases pressure from the World community to displace him.
    D) It will piss of his major ally Russia, who just had to effectively run from American missiles and have zero will for direct conflict with the US. This is a proxy war.

    It makes zero sense. None whatsoever and I'm sorry I'm having a hard time believing it.

    I'm no fan of Assad - his barrel bombs are disgusting enough. I'm no fan of Putin or the USA/Trump/the Jihadi rebel extremists they've armed: So I'm taking no sides other than to say that this stinks and looks exactly as if it was designed to escalate the conflict and get what a lot of people want - US involvement in toppling Assad and sending a message to Russia and Iran.

    Further escalation of this mess is terrifying - especially now we've seen how easy Trump is to manipulate.

    ShanksArmitage , 7 Apr 2017 09:50
    "Hitting one airbase is not enough, there are 26 airbases that target civilians," a key figure in the Army of Islam faction, Mohamed Alloush, said on his Twitter account.

    "The whole world should save the Syrian people from the clutches of the killer Bashar (al-Assad) and his aides."

    Siding with a group called the Army of Islam - what could possibly go wrong?

    beren56 , 7 Apr 2017 09:50
    Sadam and Gadaffi were removed from power and it only created a vacuum. Getting rid of Assad will likely do the same. The dictators kept radical Islam in check. It's not like they will thank America if they did get rid of Assad-they would still hate America
    Nolens , 7 Apr 2017 09:51
    As soon as the current Assad regime fall, it will bring chaos, instability and death to Syria and indeed the ME on a unprecedented scale. The West should should be very careful. Assad is many times more preferable than a post Assad situation with various religious nutters wielding power.
    Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:51
    ''Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.'' Donald Trump on Twitter, 9 October 2012.
    Telvannah Raptorius , 7 Apr 2017 09:56
    LOL - well picked up
    kirby1 , 7 Apr 2017 09:51
    A purely political act by Trump to show that he's not beholden to Putin in the face of mounting concern about his campaign and the election. Red meat for the rednecks who backed him. Doesn't bode well for the future - in flagrant breach of international law.

    ...

    "There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and ignored the urging of the UN security council," Trump said on Thursday night.

    The challenge for this all-new season of Trump is that his first and biggest test is credibility. The world needs to trust the United States: that these bombing targets are legitimate, that the Syrian regime is indeed responsible, and that the president has the legal authority and political support of the international community and Congress.

    DanielDee, 7 Apr 2017 09:53

    The strikes were senseless in that there is no proof of Syrian involvement in the chemical attacks beyond information coming from Al Quaeda controlled territory.
    Motive is important and Assad is no fool. Why on earth would he risk it all for no gain in using chemical weapons when the war is all but won.
    Trumps been hoodwinked by the neocons and war hungry establishment

    Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:53
    The CDC says:

    Sarin is combustible. The agent may burn but does not ignite readily. Fire may produce irritating, corrosive, and/or toxic gases. If a tank, rail car, or tank truck is involved in a fire, isolate it for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions; also, consider initial evacuation for 0.5 mi (800 m) in all directions.

    Small spills (involving the release of approximately 52.83 gallons (200 liters) or less), when sarin (GB) is used as a weapon.

    https://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/ershdb/EmergencyResponseCard_29750001.html

    An air strike could have hit an al-Qaeda depot storing sarin, some could have burnt releasing toxic gasses, some may have been dispersed .

    Telvannah , 7 Apr 2017 09:54
    I can see the trolls are out in force, but thank you so much for an interesting article.

    "Meanwhile, the heart of the problem is that the United States seems always to have only one solution to war: make more war. "

    In my youth a frequent moniker said "fighting for peace is like fu.king for virginity" - it hasn't changed

    [Apr 09, 2017] The re bels will now have an incentive to fake another chemical attack and bring the US fully into the war with Syria and Russia. Syria will then be left to the warring factions to fight it out just like Libya and Iraq.

    Notable quotes:
    "... At last !..this is the act that show to the entire world that the USA is backing Daesh from the beginning and all the way ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    , Phil Gollin

    , 7 Apr 2017 08:31
    .

    Well, definitely an act of aggression and hence illegal under the UN Charter - now, who will bring a condemning Resolution in the Security Council ? And who will vote against it, or even veto it ?

    I see the UK Government has already mindlessly agreed with the aggressive act.

    But what will the US's military strike – a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?

    , 12inchPianist , 7 Apr 2017 08:33
    It's pretty clear that this is Trump just being the lunatic amateur that he is, you know the one we all worried because he had his finger on the button. He authorised the fatally flawed Yemen raid only days after assuming office. This is Dr Trumplove in action, there's nothing the public and his sycophantic fans would enjoy more than a reprise of the missiles down elevator chutes that lit up our televisions in '92. This time the war will not be televised...it will be on twitter. Share
    , ID236207 , 7 Apr 2017 08:33
    Interesting that America claims to care about Arab children, while it recently killed over 150 civilians in Iraq.

    Having said that, I find it difficult not to support a targeted strike at Assad's military bases. I would never however support an invasion or occupation of another Arab country as we all know that would be a huge mistake; the tens of thousands of Arabs that would die, Western military personnel put at risk and financial cost.

    Assad must be stopped, but only the Syrians themselves must take the lead in forming a new government without continued interference from the outside. Formation of a new government at any point must be home-grown alone.

    , clematlee ID236207 , 7 Apr 2017 08:37
    Why must Assad be stopped he is fighting the same demented loonies who have done attacks all over Europe, including the UK. Are you saying its ok for us to kill these loonies but not Syria.Get real.
    , brotherJAK , 7 Apr 2017 08:33
    Using gas was a terrorist attack, not a military one.
    In that case, why on earth would Assad do it. It weakens his case in all respects and strengthens his enemies.
    But of course such an argument flies in the face of hawks worldwide.
    , Mongolikecandy , 7 Apr 2017 08:33
    The whole thing is a sad sorry affair. I'm not sure I can trust anything any side is saying. One thing is certain is this proxy wars between Russia and the US will continue in all shapes and form first the next 20 years at least.
    One question though. Those US air strikes that killed over 100 civilians last week. Why have they not got the same coverage as the chemical weapons? Isn't killing, killing?
    , pittens , 7 Apr 2017 08:34
    Well, the deep state always wins. The idea that assad used chemical weapons (which the country was declared free of a fee years ago) immediately after trump declared a policy of non regime change beggars belief.

    This article is calling for the grounding of Russian and syrian planes. The first action could cause WWIII. The second would allow isis to invade Damascus.

    , Derryclare pittens , 7 Apr 2017 08:57
    I suppose the use of chemical weapons in 2013 in Syria was doen to the CIA and Obama? You are probably yet another conspiracy "nut" who thinks that the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq by Assad's chum Saddam was Fake News. Share Facebook Twitter
    , pittens Derryclare , 7 Apr 2017 09:25
    It probably was.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

    , Catona , 7 Apr 2017 08:34
    Are we sure it wasn't the so called rebels? It would make no sense for Assad to do this now. Who financed the whole coup in the first place arming the 'rebels'? They are responsible for the whole mess.
    , SeventhOne Catona , 7 Apr 2017 08:44
    Yes, Syrian and Russian forces are striking ISIS, Al-Queda and Al-Nusra, while the US strikes Syria. Sums up the whole thing really.
    , queequeg7 , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    According to a poll this morning between 41% and 51% of British voters would support an escalation even if it meant conflict with Russia. We're being turned into a country of gurning imbeciles and if I die because of all this bollocks I'll be really pissed off.
    , Alan Urdaibay , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    It depends what you mean by 'accomplish nothing.'

    The chances are that there will be no response of any kind. Will this drive a President, having an unhealthy mix of behavioral problems and frustrated by failure in his domestic policy, to take further dramatic action in order to attract attention in the style of his spoilt brat counterpart in North Korea, Kim Jong-un? Share Facebook Twitter

    , brotherJAK Alan Urdaibay , 7 Apr 2017 08:58
    Trump will feel emboldened by this move. A frighening thought indeed.
    , AusterityAspirant , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    I am sure that Netanyahu will be pleased that America has finally agreed to remove another Arab leader.
    , PaulDLion , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    This is a set up by the criminal regime in Washington and their servile allies in London. I don't believe their propaganda claims about this chemical attack, and in any case they are not interested in waiting for any evidence. They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act. Share Facebook Twitter
    , LiberalTory PaulDLion , 7 Apr 2017 08:40
    "They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act."

    As long as "they" does not include the innocent UK/US population.

    , PaulDLion LiberalTory , 7 Apr 2017 09:03
    No, certainly not. I would never advocate terrorist acts against anybody. But this action will do the US and the Western alliance no good at all and will diminish their standing in the world. The US/UK population must hold their leaders to account over this nonsense, and demand proof of the dubious claims over the supposed chemical attack.
    , torhan , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    This was a failed US aggression based on propaganda. A repetition of the invented story about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Syrian style.

    The rebels will get an advantage if they use chemical weapons and blames Assad. Assad has nothing to gain from using such weapons.

    It's simply not logical and believable that Assad. used chemical weapons. What happened to information based decisions and critical journalism?

    , Muzzledagain , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    So here we go, nothing really changes in the land of the free. Warmongers they will remain. Al Qaeda rejoices.
    , goodtable , 7 Apr 2017 08:36
    I actually feel that Trump may have got this just about right. If we actually believe that a plane from this airbase delivered a Sarin attack, then it was necessary to prevent a repetition. But equally it was necessary to avoid the US being dragged into a war against Assad, which so many are desperate to see happen, and it was necessary to avoid World War 3 by avoiding killing Russians.

    If the Russians, as they probably did, warned the Syrians and few people were actually killed by this strike, then maybe it will all calm down now, the Syrian air force won't ever use Sarin again and can concentrate on defeating the rebels instead which, like it or not, is probably the quickest route to peace.

    , Daniel Kells goodtable , 7 Apr 2017 08:39
    I have to question whether or not it was actually Assad who committed the attack, why would he risk retaliation from the US when he is currently winning the Syrian Civil war
    , MalcolmsPond , 7 Apr 2017 08:36
    Agreed the main thing it shows is a kneejerk reaction. Incredibly dangerous from a US president but perhaps not unexpected.

    Even if Assad needs to be removed the idea as well that Trump has a post regime plan to do that is laughable.

    We have seen what happened in Iraq and Libya when bad dictators were overthrown and a bad situation ended up much worse in terms of a replacement by militant Islamist groups.

    Unfortunately what we have here is ISIS 1 (Trump o.g), Commonsense and sanity 0

    , Muzzledagain CABHTS , 7 Apr 2017 08:42
    But if the alleged planes carrying chemical weapons came from Homs that just got 59 bombs, where was the topic cloud? Weren't they suppose to have a chemical stock in this airbase ? Strange that no chemical in sight.
    , scalatorOverTheHill , 7 Apr 2017 08:39
    Trump – Russia...Trump – Russia...Trump – Russia...

    Oh, wait a minute...

    1. Susan Rice – mother lode for all the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories via her unmasking of names and wide dispersal of same, but "nothing to see here".

    2. "Donald Trump's Syrian air-strike 'significant blow to US-Russia relations', says Kremlin" (Guardian headline).

    I would have posted this comment below said title but, of course, no comments are possible, just as they aren't below most of, for example, David Smith's execrable anti-Trump 'output'.

    , clematlee , 7 Apr 2017 08:39
    This attack is an act of war against Syria. North Korea has nuclear weapons will the usa warmongers risk a nuclear war.
    , Angular Greek FrankRoberts , 7 Apr 2017 08:51
    "Lavrov, please release some pictures from the videos of Trump with the prostitutes!"
    , Prasad Iyer , 7 Apr 2017 08:40
    Five months ago: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

    "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.

    Now:

    "I will tell you that attack on children had a big, big impact on me," he said. "That was a horrible, horrible thing."

    Eh?

    , SeventhOne , 7 Apr 2017 08:41
    Assad has absolutely no motive to order this attack. His forces, with Russia's assistance have gained the upper hand in the protracted conflict with US and UK backed terrorists. Why on earth would he do something that he knows would bring international condemnation and likely military action from the US?

    Stinks to high heaven of a false flag- the fact that global MSM had solved the crime and broadcast the perpertrators all over global media within an hour is enough proof for me - the stories would have had to have been pre-packaged.

    , Manners01 , 7 Apr 2017 08:41
    Breaking news, Assad has Sarin tipped long-range missiles that can hit the UK in 30 mins. We need to go in and destroy these WMDs immediately.

    "S**t, we've used that one before, any ideas?"

    , geniusofmozart , 7 Apr 2017 08:41
    Spot-on.

    Perhaps you could tell that to the Guardian writers (the "liberal interventionists") who have been beating the war drums for years, failing to learn any lessons from Iraq and Libya. I see no plan for the aftermath, and I see no real consideration given to the threat of a further decline in relations with Russia.

    And, do these people seriously want Trump overseeing a regime change? It would be more chaotic than when Bush tried it in Iraq.

    , PekkaRoivanen , 7 Apr 2017 08:42
    There are at likely two parties that are very happy about the USA attack on Syrian airfield. They are Syrian al-Qaeda which governs Idlib province where the alleged chemical attack happened and ISIS.

    Both can count that alleging Assad for chemical attacks may get Donald Trump´s USA to become their air force. If there is a red line, cross it and blame Assad. I think that may be how al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders are interpreting the events.

    , neocomments95 , 7 Apr 2017 08:43

    a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?

    That's $70 million down the drain JUST on missiles.
    .
    Made a certain group of shareholders owning a certain military company trading in NYSE slightly wealthier.
    .
    Also, a participatory certificate for participating in a virility contest.

    , Bambawap , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    I thought Russian air defences were supposed to be able to shoot down tomahawk missiles. They don't travel all that fast. Perhaps they wanted to put pressure on Assad and let them pass.
    , Sorry4Soul
    , Phil Gollin , 7 Apr 2017 08:31
    .

    Well, definitely an act of aggression and hence illegal under the UN Charter - now, who will bring a condemning Resolution in the Security Council ? And who will vote against it, or even veto it ?

    I see the UK Government has already mindlessly agreed with the aggressive act.

    But what will the US's military strike – a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?

    , 12inchPianist , 7 Apr 2017 08:33
    It's pretty clear that this is Trump just being the lunatic amateur that he is, you know the one we all worried because he had his finger on the button. He authorised the fatally flawed Yemen raid only days after assuming office. This is Dr Trumplove in action, there's nothing the public and his sycophantic fans would enjoy more than a reprise of the missiles down elevator chutes that lit up our televisions in '92. This time the war will not be televised...it will be on twitter. Share
    , ID236207 , 7 Apr 2017 08:33
    Interesting that America claims to care about Arab children, while it recently killed over 150 civilians in Iraq.

    Having said that, I find it difficult not to support a targeted strike at Assad's military bases. I would never however support an invasion or occupation of another Arab country as we all know that would be a huge mistake; the tens of thousands of Arabs that would die, Western military personnel put at risk and financial cost.

    Assad must be stopped, but only the Syrians themselves must take the lead in forming a new government without continued interference from the outside. Formation of a new government at any point must be home-grown alone.

    , clematlee ID236207 , 7 Apr 2017 08:37
    Why must Assad be stopped he is fighting the same demented loonies who have done attacks all over Europe, including the UK. Are you saying its ok for us to kill these loonies but not Syria.Get real.
    , brotherJAK , 7 Apr 2017 08:33
    Using gas was a terrorist attack, not a military one.
    In that case, why on earth would Assad do it. It weakens his case in all respects and strengthens his enemies.
    But of course such an argument flies in the face of hawks worldwide.
    , Mongolikecandy , 7 Apr 2017 08:33
    The whole thing is a sad sorry affair. I'm not sure I can trust anything any side is saying. One thing is certain is this proxy wars between Russia and the US will continue in all shapes and form first the next 20 years at least.
    One question though. Those US air strikes that killed over 100 civilians last week. Why have they not got the same coverage as the chemical weapons? Isn't killing, killing?
    , pittens , 7 Apr 2017 08:34
    Well, the deep state always wins. The idea that assad used chemical weapons (which the country was declared free of a fee years ago) immediately after trump declared a policy of non regime change beggars belief.

    This article is calling for the grounding of Russian and syrian planes. The first action could cause WWIII. The second would allow isis to invade Damascus.

    , Derryclare pittens , 7 Apr 2017 08:57
    I suppose the use of chemical weapons in 2013 in Syria was doen to the CIA and Obama? You are probably yet another conspiracy "nut" who thinks that the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq by Assad's chum Saddam was Fake News. Share Facebook Twitter
    , pittens Derryclare , 7 Apr 2017 09:25
    It probably was.

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

    , Catona , 7 Apr 2017 08:34
    Are we sure it wasn't the so called rebels? It would make no sense for Assad to do this now. Who financed the whole coup in the first place arming the 'rebels'? They are responsible for the whole mess.
    , SeventhOne Catona , 7 Apr 2017 08:44
    Yes, Syrian and Russian forces are striking ISIS, Al-Queda and Al-Nusra, while the US strikes Syria. Sums up the whole thing really.
    , queequeg7 , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    According to a poll this morning between 41% and 51% of British voters would support an escalation even if it meant conflict with Russia. We're being turned into a country of gurning imbeciles and if I die because of all this bollocks I'll be really pissed off.
    , Alan Urdaibay , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    It depends what you mean by 'accomplish nothing.'

    The chances are that there will be no response of any kind. Will this drive a President, having an unhealthy mix of behavioral problems and frustrated by failure in his domestic policy, to take further dramatic action in order to attract attention in the style of his spoilt brat counterpart in North Korea, Kim Jong-un? Share Facebook Twitter

    , brotherJAK Alan Urdaibay , 7 Apr 2017 08:58
    Trump will feel emboldened by this move. A frighening thought indeed.
    , AusterityAspirant , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    I am sure that Netanyahu will be pleased that America has finally agreed to remove another Arab leader.
    , PaulDLion , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    This is a set up by the criminal regime in Washington and their servile allies in London. I don't believe their propaganda claims about this chemical attack, and in any case they are not interested in waiting for any evidence. They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act. Share Facebook Twitter
    , LiberalTory PaulDLion , 7 Apr 2017 08:40
    "They must be made to pay a heavy price for this criminal act."

    As long as "they" does not include the innocent UK/US population.

    , PaulDLion LiberalTory , 7 Apr 2017 09:03
    No, certainly not. I would never advocate terrorist acts against anybody. But this action will do the US and the Western alliance no good at all and will diminish their standing in the world. The US/UK population must hold their leaders to account over this nonsense, and demand proof of the dubious claims over the supposed chemical attack.
    , torhan , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    This was a failed US aggression based on propaganda. A repetition of the invented story about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq Syrian style.

    The rebels will get an advantage if they use chemical weapons and blames Assad. Assad has nothing to gain from using such weapons.

    It's simply not logical and believable that Assad. used chemical weapons. What happened to information based decisions and critical journalism?

    , Muzzledagain , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    So here we go, nothing really changes in the land of the free. Warmongers they will remain. Al Qaeda rejoices.
    , goodtable , 7 Apr 2017 08:36
    I actually feel that Trump may have got this just about right. If we actually believe that a plane from this airbase delivered a Sarin attack, then it was necessary to prevent a repetition. But equally it was necessary to avoid the US being dragged into a war against Assad, which so many are desperate to see happen, and it was necessary to avoid World War 3 by avoiding killing Russians.

    If the Russians, as they probably did, warned the Syrians and few people were actually killed by this strike, then maybe it will all calm down now, the Syrian air force won't ever use Sarin again and can concentrate on defeating the rebels instead which, like it or not, is probably the quickest route to peace.

    , Daniel Kells goodtable , 7 Apr 2017 08:39
    I have to question whether or not it was actually Assad who committed the attack, why would he risk retaliation from the US when he is currently winning the Syrian Civil war
    , MalcolmsPond , 7 Apr 2017 08:36
    Agreed the main thing it shows is a kneejerk reaction. Incredibly dangerous from a US president but perhaps not unexpected.

    Even if Assad needs to be removed the idea as well that Trump has a post regime plan to do that is laughable.

    We have seen what happened in Iraq and Libya when bad dictators were overthrown and a bad situation ended up much worse in terms of a replacement by militant Islamist groups.

    Unfortunately what we have here is ISIS 1 (Trump o.g), Commonsense and sanity 0

    , Muzzledagain CABHTS , 7 Apr 2017 08:42
    But if the alleged planes carrying chemical weapons came from Homs that just got 59 bombs, where was the topic cloud? Weren't they suppose to have a chemical stock in this airbase ? Strange that no chemical in sight.
    , scalatorOverTheHill , 7 Apr 2017 08:39
    Trump – Russia...Trump – Russia...Trump – Russia...

    Oh, wait a minute...

    1. Susan Rice – mother lode for all the Trump-Russia conspiracy theories via her unmasking of names and wide dispersal of same, but "nothing to see here".

    2. "Donald Trump's Syrian air-strike 'significant blow to US-Russia relations', says Kremlin" (Guardian headline).

    I would have posted this comment below said title but, of course, no comments are possible, just as they aren't below most of, for example, David Smith's execrable anti-Trump 'output'.

    , clematlee , 7 Apr 2017 08:39
    This attack is an act of war against Syria. North Korea has nuclear weapons will the usa warmongers risk a nuclear war.
    , Angular Greek FrankRoberts , 7 Apr 2017 08:51
    "Lavrov, please release some pictures from the videos of Trump with the prostitutes!"
    , Prasad Iyer , 7 Apr 2017 08:40
    Five months ago: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/

    "The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families," Trump said.

    Now:

    "I will tell you that attack on children had a big, big impact on me," he said. "That was a horrible, horrible thing."

    Eh?

    , SeventhOne , 7 Apr 2017 08:41
    Assad has absolutely no motive to order this attack. His forces, with Russia's assistance have gained the upper hand in the protracted conflict with US and UK backed terrorists. Why on earth would he do something that he knows would bring international condemnation and likely military action from the US?

    Stinks to high heaven of a false flag- the fact that global MSM had solved the crime and broadcast the perpertrators all over global media within an hour is enough proof for me - the stories would have had to have been pre-packaged.

    , Manners01 , 7 Apr 2017 08:41
    Breaking news, Assad has Sarin tipped long-range missiles that can hit the UK in 30 mins. We need to go in and destroy these WMDs immediately.

    "S**t, we've used that one before, any ideas?"

    , geniusofmozart , 7 Apr 2017 08:41
    Spot-on.

    Perhaps you could tell that to the Guardian writers (the "liberal interventionists") who have been beating the war drums for years, failing to learn any lessons from Iraq and Libya. I see no plan for the aftermath, and I see no real consideration given to the threat of a further decline in relations with Russia.

    And, do these people seriously want Trump overseeing a regime change? It would be more chaotic than when Bush tried it in Iraq.

    , PekkaRoivanen , 7 Apr 2017 08:42
    There are at likely two parties that are very happy about the USA attack on Syrian airfield. They are Syrian al-Qaeda which governs Idlib province where the alleged chemical attack happened and ISIS.

    Both can count that alleging Assad for chemical attacks may get Donald Trump´s USA to become their air force. If there is a red line, cross it and blame Assad. I think that may be how al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders are interpreting the events.

    , neocomments95 , 7 Apr 2017 08:43

    a barrage of at least 59 (offensively named) Tomahawk cruise missiles aimed at a lone airfield – really accomplish?

    That's $70 million down the drain JUST on missiles.
    .
    Made a certain group of shareholders owning a certain military company trading in NYSE slightly wealthier.
    .
    Also, a participatory certificate for participating in a virility contest.

    , Bambawap , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    I thought Russian air defences were supposed to be able to shoot down tomahawk missiles. They don't travel all that fast. Perhaps they wanted to put pressure on Assad and let them pass.
    , Sorry4Soul , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    As the missile strike have already happened ('justice' before investigation) so will there be an independent investigation about what was the cause of the gas leakage ?
    , BloodyNora49 , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    The usual suspects, those actually responsible for false flag unleashing chemical weapons, have apparently achieved only a limited response from el trumpo... and one unlikely to satisfy their lust ultimately to bring down the Syrian government. This action designed as a stage to that end to uncouple trumpo and putin...
    , Ruth Boulton , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    This will improve his ratings! Share Facebook Twitter
    , kronfeld Ruth Boulton , 7 Apr 2017 08:45
    That is all he cares about.
    , whitesnake , 7 Apr 2017 08:44
    Trump bowed to NeoCon pressure. He was supposed to be different. But then so was Obama. 300,000 people have died! Were those killed by bombs any less tragic? Who is funding, arming and supporting ISIS? It's not about these children it's about anti Assad/Iran/Russia influence in the region. Again, 300,000 have died already!
    As the missile strike have already happened ('justice' before investigation) so will there be an independent investigation about what was the cause of the gas leakage ?
    , BloodyNora49 , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    The usual suspects, those actually responsible for false flag unleashing chemical weapons, have apparently achieved only a limited response from el trumpo... and one unlikely to satisfy their lust ultimately to bring down the Syrian government. This action designed as a stage to that end to uncouple trumpo and putin...
    , Ruth Boulton , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    This will improve his ratings! Share Facebook Twitter
    , kronfeld Ruth Boulton , 7 Apr 2017 08:45
    That is all he cares about.
    , whitesnake , 7 Apr 2017 08:44
    Trump bowed to NeoCon pressure. He was supposed to be different. But then so was Obama. 300,000 people have died! Were those killed by bombs any less tragic? Who is funding, arming and supporting ISIS? It's not about these children it's about anti Assad/Iran/Russia influence in the region. Again, 300,000 have died already!
    , ustard Banjo , 7 Apr 2017 08:45
    At the moment there's a big fat Chinese elephant in the room. All this goes on as he hosts the Chinese delegation in Florida. I wonder how much Trumps decision to bomb Syria was to do with showing the Chinese he means business. Share Facebook Twitter
    , Pinkie123 , 7 Apr 2017 08:45
    So is Trump now part of the Western, globalist order of space lizards?

    This is getting confusing.

    , LostInEu , 7 Apr 2017 08:45
    Donald is trying to regain support at home. Wag the dog. Share Facebook Twitter
    , dopamineboy , 7 Apr 2017 08:45
    Interesting timing as Trump first says hands off Syria, then suddenly a sarin gas attack by Assad, the world goes omg he must go, Hillary gives a speech we must bomb their airfields, and whammy some 30 minutes later we hear the missiles went flying. Talk about a set up.
    , Gloi , 7 Apr 2017 08:45
    What if the chemical attack was done by the other side as a sacrificial way to ensure the US attacked Assad. Share Facebook Twitter
    , diddoit Gloi , 7 Apr 2017 08:49
    If that's the case don't expect any apology from the UK , US or the guardian.
    , expats11 , 7 Apr 2017 08:45
    Trump in trouble at home and resorts to a pointless military gesture in Syria... The Guardian, which spends most of it's editorial time blaming Assad for Syria's problems, and demanding action, will now bemoan the deaths at the airfield...

    , 12inchPianist , 7 Apr 2017 08:46
    All some prankster needs to do to unleash armageddon is to photoshop a nuclear bomb going off over California and post it to Trump's twitter feed with a fake @VladPutin account and we'd all better hide under a table, tuck our heads between our legs and kiss our asses goodbye.
    , Sam_Buca , 7 Apr 2017 08:46
    The military industrial complex are laughing all the way to the bank with this one. Trump is one hell of a puppet.
    , toptierwannabes , 7 Apr 2017 08:47
    This could be a comment section on the daily mail, such is the vitriolic posts, there is not one shred of evidence that these weapons were used by forces loyal to Assad, and Turkey acting as a go between Russia and Syria against the rebels and western forces stinks of the highest hypocrisy, as for sending China a message over Korea this will just reinforce the ties between China and Russia and who wants to take them on, thank fuck we're leaving hopefully after we've left our politicians wont be so gung ho in the future when it comes to foreign policy and sticking our noses in every conflict going
    , Big Jobs , 7 Apr 2017 08:47
    Assad knows the Americans are watching every move he is making and he knows chemical weapons are a red line for them. He may be bad enough to carry out such an attack but is he mad enough? I seriously doubt it, either way Trump is now acting as the air-force for ISIS
    , Ronny White , 7 Apr 2017 08:48
    Trump showing how easy he is to manipulate. We've seem false intelligence reports and outright doctored fake attacks/incidents, often alleging gas/chemical weapons, used time and again to justify acts of aggression
    , NezPerce , 7 Apr 2017 08:48
    The Guardian has always pushed for war, War in Iraq based on lies, war in Libya based on lies and now war in Syria. We will see a massive effort to stop any proper investigation of the chemical attack.

    Trump appeared to be for ramping down tensions, he was mercilessly attacked by the Guardian (and the entire mainstream media. Now Trump has caved in, a unilateral attack with no proper investigation. The word of the Syrian terrorists, the very same people who attack us on our streets, has been taken as truth.

    , torquemadascodpiece , 7 Apr 2017 08:49
    Trump's foreign policy: shoot-first-ask-questions-later
    , CharlesBradlaugh , 7 Apr 2017 08:50
    The problem is incoherence , inconsistency and idiocy. There is no policy just the mad reactions of a bloated narcissist.
    , mrpants , 7 Apr 2017 08:50
    Assad was winning the war against opposition forces. He has the backing of the most ruthlessly efficient fighting force in existence. Why was he so stupid as to use chemical weapons?
    , SmartestRs mrpants , 7 Apr 2017 09:02
    No. I think that you will find that the USA is on the opposing side.
    , 5abi Jomper , 7 Apr 2017 08:55
    Putin is helping Syria, because a dictator wants to help another dictator........

    By that logic why are the NATO countries supporting and arming Saudi Arabia?
    Why have the Americans and their NATO lapdogs been supporting Al Nusra in Syria?

    , danubemonster Jomper , 7 Apr 2017 08:56
    What is the evidence that Assad was using chemical weapons? Numerous parties in the Middle East have access to sarin. And as many have said, there is no motive for Assad to used chemical weapons - he was winning the war. I know, people construct a motive, but really, it's a case of cui bono - and it's not Assad.
    , lochinverboy , 7 Apr 2017 08:50
    Mission accomplished for the Pentagon hawks. Trump was minded to wind down the mission on Iraq and end the vilification of Russia. One unverified "chemical attack", in the mould of Chemical Ali and the glove puppet Trump turns full circle. Russia will be drawn into this, so it's two birds with one stone. US regime change in Syria can continue as can the pressure on oil and gas rich Russia.
    , ALI Alsaad , 7 Apr 2017 08:50
    Is it proven that it was the syrian air force which carried out the attack in the first place? Or is this another WMD lie that we are supposed to act upon?! How many times did we watch videos of murdered children only to find out that they were made and staged and paid for by the western-backed rebels.
    I simply don't buy any of this manipulation anymore.
    , sustaingbr , 7 Apr 2017 08:50
    Very bad mistake to wipe out the base and many of its occupants on an unproven assumption that the Syrian armed air force dropped the chemical weapons. To discount the fact that ISIS (who use chemical attacks) may have set off the chemical attacks after/during the air strike is plain stupid.
    Now USA has has given ISIS an assist and deeply damaged relations with Russia...
    , jack mira , 7 Apr 2017 08:51
    Recently in Washington there has been a clear shift away from the non globalist Bannon to the mainstream McMaster/Mathhis orbit of influence. The writer has missed the point of the strike. It was meant for Putin not Assad.
    , Aquarius9 , 7 Apr 2017 08:51
    Sorry, there is no evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, yes someone did and it could have been IS or anyone else who wants to get rid of Saddam. Many including IS have drones, and they could possible have dropped the chemical weapons, they could also have made the chemical weapons - whose to say there is no chemist in such groups? All the chemical weapons in Syria were removed by the UN. The west, and particularly the US, which loves war, has over the years been quick to condemn people, and countries without having any evidence. It about time people got back to finding out the facts, before making statements.
    , dopamineboy Aquarius9 , 7 Apr 2017 08:55
    A lot of so called factual information coming out of Syria is by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which turns out to be a guy who lives in Coventry, who is funded by a certain EU country.
    , Kalumba , 7 Apr 2017 08:52
    Unfortunately Trump's action was a total success from his point of view: it will play very well with his domestic ratings, it appears to have surgically executed, he has received immediate affirmation from key western allies and the Russians were shown 'consideration', he broken international law and done his own thing the one time he could get away with it, it does not matter to him that he has no after plan.

    Of course the danger is what happens if the stakes escalate ...

    I hate to say and I regret that he had an opportunity to thrive.

    , derek strange , 7 Apr 2017 08:53
    This is a tragic situation with no obvious easy solutions, but, it seems as far as this paper is concerned, Trump is screwed whatever he does.
    Also, small point, why is it offensive to call a missile " tomahawk? What difference does it make, its a weapon ffs.
    , Bluejil , 7 Apr 2017 08:53
    Despicable and the UK standing shoulder to shoulder, even more so. Is there a sane politician in the world? Humanity has really taken a wrong turn.
    , mrpants , 7 Apr 2017 08:54
    Our political masters never learn. More regime change on the cards. More instability and the return of those most horrific murdering savages, ISIS
    , clematlee , 7 Apr 2017 08:54
    The article basically agrees with the MSM that Syria is guilty. Why would Syria use chemical weapons when it winning the war against the heart eating demented lunatics. The west has a history of framing up countries it does not like. And why is ok for Saudi arabia to bomb children in Yemen on a daily basis.
    , clematlee FrankRoberts , 7 Apr 2017 09:05
    The Doctor who twitted reports of the alleged chemical attack was once on trail for kiddnapping, check out UKs daily Mail.
    , missuswatanabe , 7 Apr 2017 08:54
    I don't really understand all the fuss about chemical weapons. Killing is killing. The numbers matter more than the methods. The United States Empire has been racking up a pretty high score in the last decade. Trump said he was going to work with Russia and pacify the situation in Syria. Sadly it looks like he going down the same tragic route as his predecessors.
    , danubemonster missuswatanabe , 7 Apr 2017 08:58
    The worst chemical attack by one country on another in the history of warfare was the US's use of agent orange in Vietnam.
    , Charmant_mais_fou missuswatanabe , 7 Apr 2017 09:01
    As soon as states start ignoring the Geneva Convention, then humanity's full potential for barbarity would be unleashed.
    , TeddyJensen danubemonster , 7 Apr 2017 09:10
    You can't blame Trump for that, as he dodged military service.
    , kritter , 7 Apr 2017 08:54
    I absolutely hate Trump. But I think for once he listened to some experts, because this doesn't seem that bad a response to me. As the author says, it was actually very limited - won't significantly degrade Assad's capabilities and for obvious reasons they avoided hitting the Russians.
    That said, it will probably be a big enough deterrent to stop Assad using chemical weapons on civilians again in the near future - which is obviously a good thing. Share
    , ildfluer kritter , 7 Apr 2017 08:56
    It violates both US and International Law. There's many a precedent in the ME already showing that the locals don't like it when we in the West try to influence their politics.
    , kodicek , 7 Apr 2017 08:55
    It makes no sense - Assad has almost cleaned out Isis - knowing full well that a gas attack would incur the wrath of the US. Why would he do this now? Under Obama it was too blatant to intervene, as they'd been caught doing this. Total set up. Neo-cons now salivating at the prospect that they can bully Trump into this.

    Syria was a moderate Muslim country - before funded Isis moved in. Turkey have a plan for this too, and will flood Europe with the proceeds of these 'interventions'

    , Bolowski kodicek , 7 Apr 2017 09:18
    Yes: all very suspicious.

    It is difficult to see what benefit Assad hoped to gain from a small-scale (compared to what is possible with these weapons) chemical-weapon attack on civilians in rebel-held territory.

    Conclusions regarding the gas attack have been made and military action has been taken before an exhaustive investigation by credible independent and responsible authorities. At best, this is unwise.

    Assad is horrendous, but is not the only monster in Syria. And some of those other monsters might indeed be well-served by a chemical-weapons attack that could lead to US military action against Assad.

    And the bigger question is just what are US objectives here? What, exactly, have those 59 cruise missiles achieved, other than getting Trump some more air-time?

    Indeed, without the stomach for a much wider and bloody engagement with Syria, with US troops in the line of fire, what contribution can the US actually make to this terrible conflict?

    And at the end of the day, who would be the monster that would replace Assad?

    , Dode74 , 7 Apr 2017 08:56
    Why would Assad launch a chemical attack in a war he is winning? Why would Russia want him to? He doesn't stand to benefit from it.

    Regardless, if Assad didn't launch the strikes I wonder if such a precipitate attack without investigation isn't an attempt to improve domestic support by Trump.

    , Coordinateur , 7 Apr 2017 08:56
    These missiles cost nearly 1.5 million USD each.
    Wouldn't this money be better spent helping the displaced and refugee civilian population.
    Unfortunately the "defense and arms" industry are very good at lobbying......
    , diddoit , 7 Apr 2017 08:57
    Trump was talking about 'beautiful little babies' , are kids in Yemen and Mosul in Iraq not beautiful enough or something? And why no graphic images from those places in the aftermath of our strikes?

    Do our MS media even realise how much they are being manipulated by warmongers? Do they care?

    , Dode74 , 7 Apr 2017 08:58
    60 tomahawks vs S400. Were any shot down or did they all reach the target? If none were shot down, and if no S400 were fired, that puts an interesting spin on things presuming Russia still has operational control over those systems. US/Russia teaming up to put Assad back in his box? Share Facebook Twitter
    , Deckard99 Dode74 , 7 Apr 2017 09:11
    It does to an extent.

    The US notified the Russians first of the attack, I would guess at pretty short notice, however it would still enable russians to take out a good proportion of tomahawks.

    They, seemingly, did not attempt to try.

    At best, I think the actions could be interpreted as - we will back you Assad, but within reason.
    I doubt Putin really gives a shit about using chemical weapons but he is smart enough to know he has to play the game in front of an international audience.

    , whomightyoube , 7 Apr 2017 08:59
    When a crime has been committed , one has to look at who has the motive as well as means and opportunity. The Syrian Rebels stand to gain hugely from US air support, Assad stands to lose. He was already winning the civil war, why would he need to use chemical weapons?

    The US Hawks have been itching for an excuse to indulge in yet another regime change which would result in the same mess as Libya and Iraq. The hopes for an end to this awful civil war have just been dealt a huge blow by the US.

    , 5abi , 7 Apr 2017 09:00
    It has nothing to do with Assad. Trump is in trouble at home and he desperately needed a diversion.
    Whether Assad actually provided Trump with that opportunity with this chemical attack or 'this attack' is another of the Iraq WMD type of lie we will never know.
    One thing is clear that America has just proved again it is a rogue State.
    , Weefox , 7 Apr 2017 09:00
    The main issue for me, and many others including the ex-UK ambassador to Syria (just interviewed on BBC), is that there is absolutely no evidence that Assad committed this chemical atrocity.

    He also (the ex-ambassoary) added that the Jihadi groups would be jubilant that the USA has lined up with them and that women and minority groups in Syria will be terrified. However evil Assad is he has protected the rights of women and minorities.

    This knee-jerk attack from Trump has echoes of Blair and the dodgy dossier and of course the way we messed up Lybia.

    , LeCochon , 7 Apr 2017 09:00
    Trump is an imbecile.
    Neocons never left office in the US
    I feel sorry for those still in the UK- your government is just as bad and it will be civilians who end up paying the price.
    , SubjectiveSubject , 7 Apr 2017 09:00
    Cameron attempted to rush war against Syria through Parliament and that was stopped in its tracks. Subsequently, fake news and inaccurate reporting presented a story that Assad used chemical weapons and that transpired to be false and the UN investigation concurs it was not Assad. We've now had Boris Johnson and American counterparts cranking up the rhetoric against Syria all week leading up to this new chemical attack of which there is no evidence that it was Assad but, America strikes without proper investigation. This seems to be a reaction that can only cause tensions and flame anti-west sentiment.
    , SubjectiveSubject cartidge , 7 Apr 2017 09:07
    Iraq 2.0 was inevitable. There has never been a US President in my lifetime that has not started a war on the assumption of chemical weapons. The US and UK Foreign Secretaries have both been asked to clarify evidence and both have failed to produce.
    , NezPerce , 7 Apr 2017 09:01
    Remember "Catch 22"?
    Usarian drops his bombs in the sea rather than bomb an Italian town.
    The military have a big problem and do what the often do in such a situation rather than court marshalling Usarian they give him a medal for dropping a perfect square pattern in the sea.

    Lets hope this attack is a Usarian moment from Trump, a perfect square pattern on the Homs run way.

    The West can now walk away or go for a potential fight with a nuclear power based on evidence from Al Nusra front, a branch of al Qaeda.

    , paisleymachine , 7 Apr 2017 09:01
    Syrian rebels will be emboldened to start full scale war again. If Trump wishes to remove Assad would he support Isis. Could Isis and the rebels form an anti Assad alliance. This is probably the level of thinking going on at the Pentagon.
    , Sceptical Walker , 7 Apr 2017 09:02
    Politically the strike was aginst Putin, not Assad. Militarily it will probably not change much on the ground.
    , diddoit Sven Tyler , 7 Apr 2017 09:07
    Trump's inviting the law of the jungle in that case. You can just go around settling scores militarily with anyone who you feel has 'taunted' you. Any more than you can go around town punching anyone you believe has looked at you in a strange way.
    , Graham Taylor , 7 Apr 2017 09:02
    Nothing like a few bombs to divert attention away from difficulties at home.

    A ploy used many times in history e.g. Thatcher and The Fauklands.

    , fumanshoe , 7 Apr 2017 09:03
    if Syrian forces are not guilty of using gas, then who supplied the Jihadi rebels stocks of this terrible weapon Share Facebook Twitter
    , Pinkie123 fumanshoe , 7 Apr 2017 09:05
    Some people would say the CIA
    , Tamurello , 7 Apr 2017 09:03
    Doesnt make sense assad used chemical weapons.. For what? There is something else going on here.
    , whomightyoube , 7 Apr 2017 09:03
    Western policy in the Middle East is a mess.

    The rebels will now have an incentive to fake another chemical attack and bring the US fully into the war with Syria and Russia. Syria will then be left to the warring factions to fight it out just like Libya and Iraq.

    Innocent children have to die just to further US destabilisation policy.

    , ScanDiscNow whomightyoube , 7 Apr 2017 09:44
    Don´t you think there could be somebody else´s fingerprints involved too. Third parties, who never abandoned their goal of toppling Assad for "a noble cause, that justifies any means".
    , DavidRL1954 , 7 Apr 2017 09:03
    More US bombastic looney-ness. This is nothing to do with the US. All it does is spread dissatisfaction to the US and Europe endangering lives in those countries. This has absolutely nothing to do with US security, it is Trump trying to show what a great warmongering guy he is to satisfy the US gun-lobby and those who voted for him. Clearly it is better for the US to kill "women, children and beautiful babies" with bombs than for Syria to kill them with gas.
    , ScanDiscNow DavidRL1954 , 7 Apr 2017 09:38
    Trump risks now losing widely of his voter support, because the presidential campaign promised less military interference in ME.. Many voters are outraged now and feel cheated. Another thing will be, is he now going gain enough lib neocon support the compensate his lost credibility. If he does not, he is just done, judging to an angry tune in many media reader´s comments.
    , factgasm , 7 Apr 2017 09:03
    This from Wednesday:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/05/global-britain-brexit-financier-arms-merchant-brutal-dictators#comment-96147144

    , Kithou , 7 Apr 2017 09:03
    So where's the evidence showing that Assad was behind the gas attack? Share Facebook Twitter
    , volkswin Kithou , 7 Apr 2017 09:18
    It comes from the same sources that claimed Iraqi soldiers killed babies in incubators during the first Gulf war and same sources again that claimed the Iraqi's had mountain's of weapons of mass destruction.
    , Ottomanboi , 7 Apr 2017 09:04
    US comes to aid of Islamic State?
    , Taku2 Ottomanboi , 7 Apr 2017 09:17
    You are most probably right, although, in his haste to respond to this alleged chemical attack by the Syria government, Donald Trump and his EU allies will not have properly consider the implications. We have seen that from Bush and Blair in the Iraq debacle, and now we are seeing it from Donald Trump. Bomb first and ask questions later, is their guiding principle.
    Of course Daesh/ISIS stands to gain most from this emerging disaster. The lesson of Iraq and Afghanistan have still not been learnt, and, sadly, as far as western imperialism is concerned, never will!
    , Ivan7K , 7 Apr 2017 09:05
    Who stands to gain from using chemical weapons in Syria? Assad, whose forces were winning the war & who previously Trump was sympathetic to? Or CIA-backed extremists who needed to drag US forces into the conflict?

    Unfortunately, we have an incompetent, mentally unbalanced fake in the White House, who, whenever he fails to deliver on his bluster of pie-in-the-sky promises on the home front, seems likely to only escalate global conflict.

    US & indeed most military action invariably has ulterior motives. Here it suits the extreme right-wing Trump administration & Steve Bannon well as it also distracts the masses from the series of embarrassments surrounding Trump's presidency so far. Probably NK gets bombed later, which will only provoke China & so on. We live in dangerous times.

    , vammyp , 7 Apr 2017 09:05
    Nothing saves lives like US bombs explosions.
    , Mongolikecandy , 7 Apr 2017 09:05
    Michael Fallon was just on LBC.
    Presenter: So what's the solution
    Fallon: So, we would like to see a situation develop like Iraq where it is now a democracy where sunni and Shia can come together. The Iraqi government is slowing rebuilding the country with our help.
    Presenter: So Iraq is the blueprint?
    Fallon: No

    What a crock of shit. First of all well done to the presenter for saying straight after the interview "the defence secretary says that Iraq is the blueprint for Syria" ha ha.

    Seriously though how can Fallon he say that with a straight face. 100 Civilians including 10s of children were killed last week by US strikes. They just ignore these facts and pursue their own narrative.

    , Nathaniel Gould Mongolikecandy , 7 Apr 2017 09:09

    Seriously though how can Fallon he say that with a straight face.

    Because we don't have a free press. Share Facebook Twitter

    , volkswin Mongolikecandy , 7 Apr 2017 09:13
    I was listening to R4 on the way to work and they had the ex British ambassador to Syria on, He quickly stated that he believed that it was not Assad explaining what would Assad expect to achieve by using chemical weapons etc, as soon as the BBC interviewer realised that the Ambassador was not giving the usual Anti Assad lines they quickly pulled the interview.
    , juascar , 7 Apr 2017 09:05
    At last !..this is the act that show to the entire world that the USA is backing Daesh from the beginning and all the way ...
    , billforsyth , 7 Apr 2017 09:06
    Trump's motives for bombing Syria may well be questionable, to say the least, but if the result is to make any power think twice about using chemical weapons as a legitimate form of war then that is surely a good thing.Chemical agents cannot be uninvented but their use can be if those contemplating their deployment are in no doubt that they will not go unpunished.There has to be a point at which barbarism has to be declared unacceptable. Share
    , Peter Gunn billforsyth , 7 Apr 2017 09:13

    if the result is to make any power think twice about using chemical weapons surely a good thing

    We managed to be responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands in Iraq with no need for chemical weapons.People will continue to die regardless.

    The US is attacking a sovereign country as a show of strength whilst the Chinese are in town. That is what is happening

    , JimVxxxx , 7 Apr 2017 09:06
    No big fan of Donald Trump. But the question you have to ask yourself is "should the international community accept the use of chemical weapons against civilians?"
    The rest is just hair-splitting. Share Facebook Twitter
    , Nathaniel Gould JimVxxxx , 7 Apr 2017 09:08
    If al-Qaeda carried out the attack then the ''international community'' has sided with the jihadists. Share Facebook Twitter
    , ildfluer JimVxxxx , 7 Apr 2017 09:08
    There's a law against chemical weapons use. It's a war crime, yes. But at the same time, no country is allowed to attack another without getting UN approval.
    , Peter Gunn JimVxxxx , 7 Apr 2017 09:09

    No big fan of Donald Trump. But

    And there it is. But . The guy unleashed 50 m worth of ordinance to impress the Chinese and people here think it is something to do with saving Syrias children..we are finished as a species...

    , Nathaniel Gould , 7 Apr 2017 09:06
    Total madness, US and UK liberals, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,al-Qaeda all praising Trump's attack on Syria!
    , gidrys , 7 Apr 2017 09:06
    so whilst Trump's just attacked Syria, he also continues to obliterate Yemen; in doing so he continues a fine tradition upheld by successive US President's: "we can and will bomb who ever we choose, with impunity".
    some recent headlines:
    New Evidence Contradicts Pentagon's Account of Yemen Raid, But General Closes the Case
    .
    Aid Officials Beg Congress to Help Yemen, While Trump Sends More Bombs
    .
    U.S. Launched More Airstrikes in Yemen Last Month Than in All of 2016
    .
    Media Silent As Saudi Arabia Devastates Yemen Into Famine
    .
    The Last 5 Presidents Have This One Thing in Common

    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/09/new-evidence-contradicts-pentagons-account-of-yemen-raid-but-general-closes-the-case/
    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/22/aid-officials-beg-congress-to-help-yemen-while-trump-sends-more-bombs/
    http://anonhq.com/u-s-launched-airstrikes-yemen-last-month-2016/
    http://anonhq.com/media-silent-saudi-arabia-devastates-yemen-famine/
    http://anonhq.com/last-5-presidents-one-thing-common/

    , Ziontrain , 7 Apr 2017 09:06
    Tried and tested tactic of all US presidents is when your domestic poll numbers are running low, fire bombs away abroad.

    And that's before considering Trump's standard MO of distractions for the dimwitted media and public:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-trump-diversion-tactics-media-20170126-story.html

    http://www.decodedc.com/news-analysis-trumps-tested-tactic-distract-deceive-deny /

    -> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/21/donald-trump-distraction-technique-media

    -> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/donald-trump-media-manipulation-tactics

    , Robzview2 , 7 Apr 2017 09:07
    There are still and video records of the so called white hats handling alleged sarin gas victims BARE HANDED and wearing paper masks. The "doctor" in the "hospital" is on video sending tweets and taking video calls while supposedly overwhelmed with victims. This "doctor" has been struck off the British medical register and is sought by British police in relation to extremist links. That town and that part of
    Idlib is completely under the control of heart eating head choppers. The US has stated that terrorists in Iraq have carried out chemical weapons attacks. The party line on the august 13 attack in Ghouta has long since fallen apart. The NYT published a " missile vector " proving the missiles came from SAA positions 9km away- unfortunately the missile with traces of sarin had a maximum range of 2km. UN inspector Carla del Ponte stated that the attack was probably carried out by the terrorists. The US and its toadys including Australia have no people in that area- unless the are "embedded" with the terrorists- so how is it they immediately concluded it was an aerial attack? Have bomb fragments been tested for sarin? Having fired a barrage of cruise missiles in "retaliation" is there any prospect that conclusive proof that EITHER a govt or terrorist act has occurred when the conclusion has been reached before a credible inquiry?
    , DavidWRyan , 7 Apr 2017 09:07
    I have half a feeling that one day this will turn out to be a false flag event in order to bring the USA into the conflict against the Syrian regime.

    Trump might have played it well though. A pre warned attack against a Syrian airfield causing very little damage and no Russian casualties while telling Putin what he was up to for his own domestic media needs.

    Or it could have been an act of sheer madness by Assad's regime. Who knows the truth these days.

    , ConCaruthers DavidWRyan , 7 Apr 2017 09:20
    Looks like a classic FF to me. Shameful.
    , LeCochon , 7 Apr 2017 09:07
    All too convenient for the Neocon Trump admin.
    The question is: what is the world going to do about the US/UK rogue states?
    , fd56356 , 7 Apr 2017 09:07
    I wonder who the Chinese will bomb when they have Trump round for dinner in return?

    They've started a new tradition. Anoint good relations with some human sacrifice.

    , ContrarianRW , 7 Apr 2017 09:07
    Congratulations Donald.

    The only saving grace that you had was that you were so vehemently against the US getting involved in military strikes against Syria.

    Now even that is gone and Trump has proven that he is as much a neocon warmongering shill as the rest of them.

    , Wirplit , 7 Apr 2017 09:08
    When Seymour Hersh's original report https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line is ignored and when the subsequent research on this http://whoghouta.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2014-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2015-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=7 is also ignored and the idea of False Flag operations is not even mentioned on the BBC while all the mouthpieces line up to repeat non evidence or dubious assertions as Certain Facts, despite the known history of lies going back to the notorious WMD charade which was enough to launch a war shows that its not False News that is the major problem but Lies of Omission.
    On the BBC ex UK ambassador Peter Ford gets 3mins to counteract the Deluge of " Certainty" that it was the Regime responsible. None with new or real evidence of the standard that destroyed the WMD lie.
    It nearly worked in Ghouta in 2O13... it was inevitable to be tried again and Trump jumps straight in. The Deep State in the US is back in business
    , ConCaruthers Wirplit , 7 Apr 2017 09:15
    Quite right, the idea this was a Sarin attack is ludicrous, watching the discredited Al Qaeda/Al Nusra front, 'White Helmet's' video.
    , Prydain , 7 Apr 2017 09:08
    Has the situation w.r.t. access to and use of chemical weapons by the various agents in Syria, or the US political use of intelligence in this area, changed since Obama in 2013?

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

    I thought Trump was bringing a new approach?

    , jadawin , 7 Apr 2017 09:08
    During this war against Daesh, an Arab country, Syria, formed for the first time a strong and effective army, which will be a threat to Israel after the war. Visibly, in Tel Aviv as in Washington it was decided to quickly destroy it ...
    , Frontinus77 , 7 Apr 2017 09:09
    The brainwashed, bloodthirsty warmongering on this thread is quite simply astonishing.
    , morisy , 7 Apr 2017 09:09
    I'm also a bit skeptical of the explanation of why Assad would do such a thing, particularly at this time. What on earth could he hope to gain?

    That 'he's a madman' or 'he's just evil' have never struck me as anything but mindlessly simplistic responses. I've watched interviews with the man, and he struck me as neither hopelessly daft or completely bonkers. Evil, perhaps. But stupidly impulsive? I'm not so easily persuaded, especially by such one dimensional -- and stereotypical -- characterizations.

    Frankly, much as I hate to say it, I find the Russian explanation to be the most plausible. And it's a sad day for Western media when the Russians look like the grown-ups in the room.

    , oldgit47 , 7 Apr 2017 09:10
    Getting rid of Assad will solve the problem?, I can remember being told getting rid of someone called Saddam would solve the problem. But it only made it worse, very much worse, for the little people in that part of the world that is, who are now considered a threat in their abject destitution.
    Perhaps if the death and destruction had happened across the US, Russia or Europe we'd be rid of the macho men and have someone who put little people before politics.
    , VladimirM , 7 Apr 2017 09:10
    The strike seems to be more symbolic, rather than of any practical significance. It violated international law, of course, and dealt a blow to the US-Russia relations, but Trump had found himself in a sort of zugzwang and he had to make his choice after weighing it out. So he shows that America is back in the ME game, he proves himself not being Putin's agent silensing critics a bit and easing the pressure on him, he shows he is not Obama, he gets approval from the Nato allies who are praising him for the first time ever, he does a bit of muscle flexing bearing in mind his meeting with Putin. On the down side are the violation of international law (has never been an obstacle for the US), fuelling tentions with Russia once again (no big deal though), sparking the reaction from Iran (no big deal either). But long-term effect seems not to be on the table. What if Russia scraps the air security memorandum in Syria?
    , Alex Hughes VladimirM , 7 Apr 2017 09:13
    Russia is a big deal and the air security memorandum was scrapped today. Do keep up.
    , Roger Bingham , 7 Apr 2017 09:11
    We don't know who is responsible for the sarin attack.

    Based on accusations and allegations from "activists" the Syrian government are blamed once again for the use of chemical weapons.
    No evidence - not a shred - no independent enquiry or investigation - nothing.

    The Syrian forces together with the Kurds in the East and Russia in the West were attacking and crippling the capability of daesh.

    The illegal missile attack by US weakens the Syrians so that both daesh and the so-called "moderate rebels" (insurgents) will have an advantage.

    What was Syria's motive to use gas?
    They are winning.
    They knew that the use of gas would provoke outrage and a military response by US

    On the other hand the insurgents are losing.
    They have everything to gain by involving the US to weaken Assad
    There are documented cases where the insurgents have bought sarin gas
    The insurgents overran and looted government ammunition depots
    They knew that the use of gas would provoke outrage and a military response by US

    , Alexander Bach , 7 Apr 2017 09:11
    It makes perfect sence that Assad used chemical bombs (that he doesn't even have) just a couple of days after Trump said removing Assad is not a priority any more, just to destroy a village he could have more effectively destroy with ordinary bombs, doesn't it?
    Back in 2013 when Assad actually had chemical weapons the US made a mistake. They accused him of having what he actually had thus giving him a chance to give it in. More reliable scenario is to accuse someone of having what he doesn't have, like with Saddam in 2003. He probably would be happy to give in the WMD but he didn't have it. Today we see the same old scenario is being played.
    The problem is that the Russians will not let it go that way anymore. We are as close to the WWIII as never before.
    , anyonelistening , 7 Apr 2017 09:11
    The only reason that Trump bombed Assad was to try to show that he was not elected by Putin and other Russians.But for that,the most he would have done was say a few bad things about Assad and even say he was happy if some of the victims were members of ISIS.
    By the way what happened about his promise to deal with ISIS from day one,and all the other promises he made.It even took that idiot GOP senator to invoke the NUCLEAR option to get his Supreme Court nominee approved.Trump does love that WORD.
    , ID1299813 , 7 Apr 2017 09:11
    You would think a country that has caused nothing but disaster in the ME, nothing but more deaths and sufferings, a country whose army got their arses kicked in Iraq, and still now in Afghanistan, a country that gave us ISIS would have learned by now to stop interfering in ME

    Even a dog learns quicker than the US

    , Taku2 , 7 Apr 2017 09:11
    Well, not quite; it does accomplish the fruits of stupidity. Which is disaster.

    Never have I seen the leaders of nations which consider themselves to be civilise, be so insistent on goading themselves and others to go to war. A senseless war, professedly with the intention of killing hundreds, if not thousands, and destroying their livelihoods, under the premis of seeking revenge for the deaths of a hundred people, purportedly by a chemical attack by the Syrian government.

    It is absolute madness. So, who will protect the people from the folly and madness of their leaders, who refuse to make peace, choosing war instead?

    , Peter Grimes , 7 Apr 2017 09:11
    It is all so predictable. All the terrorist rebels have got to do from now on is release gas during any air strike by Russian or Syrian forces, kill as many children as possible, photograph the result and sit back and wait for the US missiles to be launched in 'retaliation'.
    Rather than saving lives, Trump has condemned more to die.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Tucker Carlson Takes on Sen Graham After Syrian Strikes

    Notable quotes:
    "... So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing! ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Donal Lenehan

    I don't trust that Lindsey Graham any more than Obama

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    Graham is a fucking asshole. The man is despicable FILTH.

    Yanin Rodriguez

    Disappointing questions Tucker with all due respect. Fact - Syrians support Assad up to 82%. Fact #2 - Rebels in Syria are by most accounts not even Syrian. Follow up on "liberating the Syrians" - with that mentality what about the Saudis?????

    War is profits and comprises of the highest % of employment in the US - so until we transfer that sector of the economy to more peaceful endeavors - we will be permanently be in illegal wars. Lastly - where are any of these wars constitutional?

    Why has congress relinquished this responsibility???

    We know the answers but never hear the questions asked...

    Josh Hempfleng

    The strike in Syria really made the Military industrial complex show themselves. The media, Democrats and Rhino's all cheering on the attack now that they see a chance to make some money off war.

    Rumi900

    +Josh Hemplfeng - You say '... Democrats and Rhino's all cheering ...' Why Democrats and Rhino's?

    I'd be okay with you saying Democrats and Republicans, but you seem to be letting the bulk of Republicans off the hook. Or, are you saying all the Republican elite are Rhinos? If so, I agree. The point is, surely, that much of Washington (on both sides) is bought and paid for by the wealthiest elites, through their lobbyists.

    This isn't a partisan issue. I wish people would stop making it one! Republicans and Democrats are all equally culpable.

    There are Democrats and Republicans who are not just shills for the elite. And those are the politicians we should be championing.

    Trump talked about it during the election - 'draining the swamp'. The 'swamp' is not some secret power, some nefarious underground that is controlling things.

    The 'swamp' is bought and paid for politicians - politicians bought and paid for by massive donations that can now hide behind the opaque screens of the SuperPACs. It's not just politicians on the 'other' side. Both sides are equally involved.

    I don't believe Trump is serious about 'draining the swamp'. If he is, he should be going after things like the Citizen's United decision. The Supreme Court bounced that back to the House, because it's the House that makes the law. The Supreme Court is there to say whether the law is Constitutional. They don't make law. it's up to Congress to do that.

    But politicians in the house, Republicans and Democrats alike, are happy with Citizen's United and SuperPACs and the opportunities for massive secret donations it has allowed. It's how they all get rich.

    If Trump was serious about draining the swamp, he'd be tackling those issues. But he's not. Just look at his appointees! I didn't vote for Trump. Because I didn't believe his rhetoric. I still don't.

    It's you guys, his ardent supporters, who should be holding his feet to the fire! And unfortunately, I see way too much adulation, mindless hero worship, and not enough demanding accountability.

    Joanne K

    They don't want us to know that ISIS is in Syria (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) and that is what Assad is fighting, along with other Islamic groups. The L in ISIL stands for Levant. Leave Syria out so that overthrowing Assad will only leave the amorphous oppressed rebels (really ISIS or Al Nusra or Al Qaeda).

    They are deceivers.

    Zack Edwards

    So basically the Neoconservatives haven't learned a goddamn thing!

    [Apr 09, 2017] Something Smells Rotten in Syria (and in Washington, too)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It tells me that they have finally found some way to co-opt him, whether through his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, which I have seen reports of, or in some other way. All of a sudden Trump is dealing with the very folks that, a month ago, were working to slit his political throat. And his core concept of making America great again seems to be going by the wayside in favor of the neo-con's "nation building" program in the Middle East – the exact same game Comrade Obama played so very well, as did Bush 2 before him. ..."
    "... "Donald Trump campaigned on the promise he would 'bomb the hell out of ISIS.' Instead he bombed installations of the Syrian government. This was on April 6, 2017–one hundred years to the day after the House voted for war with Germany." This gas attack has "false flag" written all over it! ..."
    "... Back when Slick Willie was in office and having his problems over "that woman" Monica Lewinsky, and there was talk of his impeachment, Clinton "suddenly" decided to bomb Iraq–with "the unanimous support of his national security advisers." Given the body count of those who had disagreed with the Clintons over something or other, would they have dared to say anything else? ..."
    "... So it often seems that problems in the Middle East suddenly erupt when some scandal in Washington is about to erupt–and they are very convenient for focusing media and public attention on the Middle East, and away from the potential scandal problem. ..."
    "... Consider this; there seems to be a growing possibility that this Susan Rice affair could turn out badly for Hillary and the other socialist Democrats and there has been mounting concern over that in the past couple weeks. How much have you seen in the prostitute press about that since this Syrian situation hit? ..."
    Apr 08, 2017 | revisedhistory.wordpress.com

    And something else bothers me about all this. All of a sudden all the people in Washington that hated Trump's guts; McCain, Pelosi, Schumer, and a whole batch of other slithery Leftist creatures who couldn't say enough bad things about him re now, all of a sudden, staunchly in his corner and they just love what he is doing in Syria Does that tell you anything???

    It tells me that they have finally found some way to co-opt him, whether through his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, which I have seen reports of, or in some other way. All of a sudden Trump is dealing with the very folks that, a month ago, were working to slit his political throat. And his core concept of making America great again seems to be going by the wayside in favor of the neo-con's "nation building" program in the Middle East – the exact same game Comrade Obama played so very well, as did Bush 2 before him.

    Interestingly enough, on http://www.garynorth.com for April 8th, Mr. North noted: "Donald Trump campaigned on the promise he would 'bomb the hell out of ISIS.' Instead he bombed installations of the Syrian government. This was on April 6, 2017–one hundred years to the day after the House voted for war with Germany." This gas attack has "false flag" written all over it!

    Back when Slick Willie was in office and having his problems over "that woman" Monica Lewinsky, and there was talk of his impeachment, Clinton "suddenly" decided to bomb Iraq–with "the unanimous support of his national security advisers." Given the body count of those who had disagreed with the Clintons over something or other, would they have dared to say anything else?

    According to an article on http://www.dailymail.co.uk for August 26, 2016: "The strikes–known as Operation Desert Fox–were ordered the day after the House of Representatives issued report accusing the president of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and ended the day the articles of impeachment were passed. Previous strikes in 1996, Operation Desert Strike, were ordered during a campaign finance scandal."

    So it often seems that problems in the Middle East suddenly erupt when some scandal in Washington is about to erupt–and they are very convenient for focusing media and public attention on the Middle East, and away from the potential scandal problem. Understand, I am not accusing President Trump of anything, except possibly a lack of historical knowledge and probably taking bad advice from some family members, and those who have a vested interest in dragging us (and him) away from his "America first" agenda and back into the New World Order agenda.

    Consider this; there seems to be a growing possibility that this Susan Rice affair could turn out badly for Hillary and the other socialist Democrats and there has been mounting concern over that in the past couple weeks. How much have you seen in the prostitute press about that since this Syrian situation hit?

    Mr. Trump has been a shrewd businessman (and I don't mean that in a negative sense), but I don't think he has yet grasped the totally devious nature of the political mind and how underhanded it can really be. That, and bad advice, for whatever reason, from his in-laws, seems to be leading him down the New World Order's garden path at this point. Let us pray the Lord will give him wisdom to see where all this is going, and that he might repent of it and return to his original vision–the one the voters put him into office to enact.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Nigel Farage turns on ally Donald Trump after US missile strike on Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I am very surprised by this. I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying, 'where will it all end?'" ..."
    "... "As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I'm surprised. Whatever Assad's sins, he is secular." ..."
    "... "Previous interventions in the Middle East have made things worse rather than better," ..."
    "... "rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing." ..."
    "... "The whole world rightly condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but the US attack on the Assad regime does nothing to lower tensions, nor will it hasten peace in that country. ..."
    "... "Too often rash responses to horrific situations are about the conscience of the attacker, rather than a clear-headed response to an awful situation. ..."
    "... "There are currently no good options in Syria. Assad or ISIS [Islamic State/IS] is not a choice anyone would wish to make. But firing off missiles in an enraged response shows weakness not strength in the face of horror. ..."
    "... "I hoped for better from this administration." ..."
    "... "appropriate response" ..."
    "... "close contact on all levels" ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage has criticized his ally US President Donald Trump for ordering a missile strike against an airbase in Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

    The MEP warned that many Trump voters will be confused by his retaliation.

    "I am very surprised by this. I think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying, 'where will it all end?'" he said.

    "As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I'm surprised. Whatever Assad's sins, he is secular." Farage also urged Britain not to get involved in any further airstrikes.

    "Previous interventions in the Middle East have made things worse rather than better," he said.

    Farage's comments mark a dramatic turnaround in a relationship that last year saw him dine with Trump and the president publicly urge Prime Minister Theresa May to make Farage the UK ambassador to Washington.

    UKIP leader Paul Nuttall has also condemned the Syria attack, saying it was "rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing."

    UKIP Leader @paulnuttallukip condemns the missile attack on Syria saying it is "rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing." pic.twitter.com/5H0AA6f5aL

    - UKIP (@UKIP) April 7, 2017

    The U.S. bombing of Syria last night was rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing. I hoped for better.

    - Paul Nuttall (@paulnuttallukip) April 7, 2017

    "The whole world rightly condemns the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but the US attack on the Assad regime does nothing to lower tensions, nor will it hasten peace in that country.

    "Too often rash responses to horrific situations are about the conscience of the attacker, rather than a clear-headed response to an awful situation.

    Read more Britain's Defence Secretary Michael Fallon © Matt Dunham/Pool UK govt 'fully supports' US missile strike on Syria

    "There are currently no good options in Syria. Assad or ISIS [Islamic State/IS] is not a choice anyone would wish to make. But firing off missiles in an enraged response shows weakness not strength in the face of horror.

    "I hoped for better from this administration."

    Trump ordered the US military to fire a barrage of Tomahawk missiles from two US Navy vessels in the Mediterranean Sea, which hit the Shayrat base near Homs in the early hours of Friday. It is claimed the base was responsible for launching a chemical attack on Tuesday, which reportedly killed up to 100 civilians in Idlib province.

    The British government says the US missile attack, which killed at least five people, was an "appropriate response" to the alleged chemical attack. It was in "close contact on all levels" with the US, and May was told in advance the strikes were going to take place. Britain was not asked to join in.

    Damascus has denied responsibility for the chemical attack. Russian officials say the gas contamination was the result of a leak from a rebel chemical weapons depot hit by Syrian government airstrikes.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Michael Savage Turns on Trump, Says Syrian Gas Attack Was False Flag Operation

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Conservative talk show host, Michael Savage, who fervently supported Trump during the Presidential campaign, soured on him today. Savage, referencing his background in science, having a PhD in epidemiology, said the alleged gas attack in the ISIS controlled city of Idlib was most likely phosgene and not sarin.

    Backing up his claim that the attack did not contain sarin, Savage made reference to photos showing first responders attending to bodies without gloves or protective gear. Had sarin been used in the attack, all of those men in white helmets would be dead.

    In nearly a 15 minute soliloquy over the attack, Savage lamented that the neocon 'military tweet' by Trump was a ploy to increase his popularity, in light of falling poll numbers. Verbosely, Savage hemmed and hawed with disappointment, dispirited that he spent over a year advocating for Trump, who said he eschewed the interventionist policies of people like McCain, Graham, and Schumer, only to cave in shortly after winning the Presidency.

    Savage also questioned the timing of Jared Kushner's trip to Iraq, coupled with Bannon's timely demotion from the NSC -- just ahead of the attacks as being highly suspicious.

    "This whole thing stinks to high heaven,' said Savage. Furthering his criticism of the President, Savage proclaimed: "It looks like Hillary, deep state won, and Trump is doing her bidding."

    As it pertained to who was responsible for the attack, Savage reminded his audience that just last week Putin was considered to be the smartest and most diabolical man on earth. If so, why on earth would he permit Assad to launch a chemical weapons attack, when they had already defeated the rebels, which was sure to turn public opinion against them?

    "Why would he do it, you morons you?", said Savage.

    Who are we supporting? According to Lindsey Graham , the 'free Syrian army.'

    Savage exploded: "The free Syrian Army? There is no such thing. The free Syrian Army are our moderate terrorists created by the CIA and John McCain. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the mouthpieces for this army of murderers."

    "The west jumped to a conclusion, before there was any investigation."

    A must listen to a voice of reason.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/pO5BT7AZLqM

    The_Real_Fly , Apr 8, 2017 10:55 PM

    Here you go shills. The Quick Rundown on today's Syria happenings.

    http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2017/04/08/heres-quick-rundown-todays-syria...

    Savyindallas , Apr 8, 2017 9:02 PM

    I was against the 1990 Iraq war and all neocon wars since then. However, I just went back and saw a picture of the Kuwaiti baby that Saddam's troops pulled out of the incubator -- now I think we should rebomb Iraq, take out syria, Iran and russia. We need to send a message to the Chinese.

    Old Hippie Patriot , Apr 8, 2017 7:50 PM

    The only hope in this apparent 180 degree turn in Trump's moves is that he is playing chess while his opponents are still on checkers. He has finally put an end to the Russian collusion lie. Everyone in the area was warned in plenty of time so that the base could be abandoned and anything that flew could be flown out. The damage was confined to hangers with non serviceable aircraft and the runways were left intact. It was the perfect false flag response to a false flag attack. Now, Trump is free to negotiate with Syria and Russia and work out a way to end the Saudi inspired, Obama supported war on Europe and the west. The timing of the attack also served to warn the visiting Chinese Xi that the US is no longer being run by a President that hates the country. Only time will tell if Trump has been compromised or duped.

    miketv Old Hippie Patriot , Apr 8, 2017 11:20 PM

    Shame that falls apart as moves continue.. "Reports of US tanks & troops entering # Syria from northern # Jordan "

    gregga777 , Apr 8, 2017 7:47 PM

    Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner is making sure that Trump does the bidding of the racist paradise of Apartheid Israel. Apartheid Israel is very happy that American blood and treasure is being expended to overthrow Syria's President Bashar Assad solely for the benefit of Apartheid Israel.

    Non-Corporate Entity , Apr 8, 2017 7:11 PM

    I'm waiting for the narrative to turn to "Trump gassed Syrian babies..." What the f**k is wrong with you fakes that "used to support Trump"? Is it the fluoride in your water? I think maybe you're past Bernie supporters, still feeling The Burn. Poor things.

    Bigly Non-Corporate Entity , Apr 8, 2017 8:46 PM

    Ok. I'll bite.

    I have my own well. No fluoride. So fuck off there.

    People are extremely disappointed/angered because this is icing on the cake.... and the worst decision yet.

    -Not firing corrupt people, not draining the swamp

    -Questionable appointments, both imbeciles and (((deep state amish)))...i am being nice

    -Questionable judgment left and right including deferring to others who are obviously making poor decisions (any 5th grader can see this) AND HE GOES ALONG WITH IT.

    I call bullshit. And unless there is something very impt. that we all seem to be missing, this is becoming one epic clusterfuck

    Flicker , Apr 8, 2017 7:02 PM

    And gas as a WMD Is so old school. It's inclusion in WMD predated tanks, planes, aerial bombs, jet bombers, napalm, carpet bombing, nukes, ICBMs, cruise missiles and EMPs. (Now THESE bad boys are MASS DESTRUCTION.) But it's the gas, man. We must punish the use of gas, regardless of our own laws. Forget declarations of war. Forget the separation of powers.

    And the congress and all those who hated him now applaud. He's become one of us! My eyes are moist wiith joy. We haven't seen a moment like this since we all hailed G.H.W. Bush's NWO inaugurated with the invasion of Somalia. And we all see how wonderfully that ended.

    TRM Flicker , Apr 8, 2017 8:48 PM

    Don't forget our favorite WMD .. depleted uranium munitions!

    http://umrc.net/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-VkpR-wka8

    Yes they know the airborne (40% vaporization on impact) dust is inhaled and will kill American troops as well as enemy troops, civilians and it has a half life of a billion years (YES A BILLION WITH A "B" YEARS). But hey go ahead and "serve your country" or "volunteer".

    MikeOz , Apr 8, 2017 7:02 PM

    The whole Planet knows Syria did not drop chemical gas on it's own defenceless citizens. Trump has been compromised! The Deep State Military Industrial complex now owns him!

    10fold , Apr 8, 2017 6:51 PM

    Why were 59 missiles fired at an old disused bunker?

    zazou pitts 10fold , Apr 8, 2017 10:15 PM

    It was a statement against Israel.

    This particular base defended against Israel's encroachment into Syria. From there Assad had successfully attacked 4 Israeli aircraft a few weeks before. https://twitter.com/venilagorilla/status/850775978662088704

    veritas semper ... 10fold , Apr 8, 2017 9:48 PM

    This is one of the most important military airport ,strategic, they use to bomb in Palmyra, Homs. ISIS tryed multiple times to cease it and could not.

    Immediately after US bombed, ISIS/Al Qaeda started an attack . It was coordinated with US attack -- US army is ISIS air support

    Savyindallas , Apr 8, 2017 6:32 PM

    Wow! I used to despise Savage as a typical Jewish Neocon. However, he has been really good for quite some time. He knocked this one out of the park.

    DirtySanchez , Apr 8, 2017 5:54 PM

    Huge Trump supporter until the Syrian war crime.

    Fuck Trump.

    I hope they impeach and imprison the mutt.

    Collectivism Killz Non-Corporate Entity , Apr 8, 2017 9:21 PM

    Lobbing 100 million worth of tomahawks at a government trying to fight ISIS is not exactly a small mistake. Trump is proving to be exactly what he spoke out against, more hope and change Republitard style.

    Swamidon , Apr 8, 2017 4:53 PM

    Didn't take the Left long to find Trump's Achilles Heel. Anybody remember the outcry when JFK appointed his brother (and he was qualified)? Middle America and Trump's Base will quickly tire of the influence his young daughter and younger son-in-law have on things they know nothing about.

    daveO Swamidon , Apr 8, 2017 7:19 PM

    Oh, they know alright. I warned people about them. Most people I talked to didn't even know they were Jewish. Clearing out the Golan Heights. $$$

    urhotdogs silverer , Apr 8, 2017 7:06 PM

    Trump needs to move his family out of his administration and get back to fulfilling his promises.

    Berspankme urhotdogs , Apr 8, 2017 8:36 PM

    Back to? Name one he has accomplished. Obamacare lite? Hilary for prison? Drain the swamp? Stop the overseas interventions? Obama club indictments?

    Fuckers a phony

    Flicker SummerSausage , Apr 8, 2017 6:50 PM

    I was a Trump supporter only because the bad guys (the media, CIA, NSA, the Left, the Republican intelligencia, the RNC?, and congress) all hated him and worked to keep him out, and then to put him out. So he must have been their enemy, right?

    Well, now he has joined them. He likes the swamp, doesn't he.

    joeyman9 SummerSausage , Apr 8, 2017 5:38 PM

    Assad, you know the last guy in power who wears suits, raised in England, protects Christians and Jews and other religious minorities unlike the "Rebels."

    joeyman9 rockstone , Apr 8, 2017 4:33 PM

    Trump HAS done several good things domestically (Killed TPP, TPIA, Reduce EPA, Cut State Dpt Budget, Killed lots of regulations, not anti-gun (so far)) BUT...you go to war and all that good will is undone.

    I am officially OFF the Trump Train and regret supporting him. We really didn't have much of a choice this (or any other) election cycle. The solution????

    DEVOLVE POWER BACK TO THE STATES (WHO DON'T WANT WAR and couldn't support it if they did).

    [Apr 09, 2017] Trump is a traitor

    Looks like Hillary (who was a puppet of deep state) won and Trump is now yet another puppet, doing deep state bidding.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump just says no questions can be asked about this? Well I question everything in particular things which sure look like a total false flag to me! ..."
    "... The Free Syrian Army aks FSA was known as the Farouk Bridage. They are all Salfist from the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 15% of their ranks are Syrians. ..."
    "... Savage is on the money. It is good to see an actual radio host who isn't bought and paid for by the "Conservatives" and the Republican party. I hope Trump is listening to Savage. This is not good for America. Trump needs to re-read some of his tweets and remember his positions. The war issue was a huge issue for moderates supporting Trump. Peace Presidents always win. ..."
    "... Swamp-rat Donald assists the Deep State in their efforts to divert attention elsewhere. Rather than being drained, the swamp just got a little deeper! Note: Was it a coincidence when rice first appeared when she did, saying she knew nothing? And after her lies were exposed, she reappeared saying she leaked 'nothing to nobody?' Is it a coincidence that Hillary suddenly reappears? Tough-talking, tough-tweeting Donald has CAVED! ..."
    "... This was a self-serving move, to bolster Trump's 'image' among his detractors ..."
    "... Welcome to the swamp, swamp-rat Donald! ..."
    www.youtube.com

    Trump Train

    Trump is a traitor

    ryvr madduck

    Hillary and McCain approved of this bombing. If those fucking nitwits approved is means Trump really fucked up!!!

    onemansopinion

    Who are these intel insiders and shadow brokers? who do they work for and what skin do they have in the game.

    The President has info presented to him that we and the so called insiders are not privy to and I Trust the Presidents judgment more than I do phony insiders or shadow brokers.

    Boris Odor

    Michael Savage didnt turn on Trump, Trump turned on his core supporters.

    davids11131113

    Trigger Happy RIGHT! Just a month ago Trump was saying there's nothing in Syria worth getting involved in and one would be stupid to do anything there it's not in our interest and not our business....so what changed in a month?

    Trump just says no questions can be asked about this? Well I question everything in particular things which sure look like a total false flag to me!

    The cure for Ignorance-is knowledge

    hey, mr. savage, i think its about time to cease and desist on calling americans stupid. you are correct, this is nonsense that assad did this, graham saying" we cant defeat isis with assad in power." ha.

    what we have in this country are people who want to believe their government has their best interests at heart. being gullible, and being naive, does not represent stupidity.

    we are in trouble, the best thought i can have is, he, 'trump' was hypnotized.

    davids11131113

    We weren't 'wrong', we had to reject Hitlery the known evil, but Michael and me too never said Trump is a demigod above any question or doubt....

    Michael has always said he hopes Trump does right but always had his warnings and doubts just read his book it's all in there we're not sycophants.

    Hoyum Toy

    When has the government ever had our best interest at heart??? BIG BROTHER is an public enemy of the American peoples, all they do is look for ways to take our freedom rights away, look after Corporate America, allowing them to leave the country, give them special tax breaks, same time focus on dividing the American peoples.

    Crystal Giddens

    The gassing was a lie, agreed. That means our public motive is a lie but it does not mean our motive is wrong.

    What are our national interest in being their? Why is it so important to every administration? We are not spending more on our military than the next ten biggest spenders for nothing are we? Savage needs to address this from another angle I think.

    David Argento

    The Free Syrian Army aks FSA was known as the Farouk Bridage. They are all Salfist from the Muslim Brotherhood. Only 15% of their ranks are Syrians.

    banemaler

    Savage is on the money. It is good to see an actual radio host who isn't bought and paid for by the "Conservatives" and the Republican party. I hope Trump is listening to Savage. This is not good for America. Trump needs to re-read some of his tweets and remember his positions. The war issue was a huge issue for moderates supporting Trump. Peace Presidents always win.

    toonarmy -> footsoldier

    Trump has had the 'tap on the shoulder' from the Deep State, and he has been warned! Look at the sequence of events: Comey lied to the House Intelligence Committee. The narrative was clear - 'Get Trump'. Comey 'very selective' with questions he can answer in a non secure setting.

    Gowdy sees what's going, focusses on the undisputed fact that someone has committed a felony. Gowdy smartly introduces to the record, the names of potential leakers/felons. Comey makes it clear that FBI not interested in a felony 'bigger-than-Watergate'. Decision made that they should meet again in a 'secure setting' so Comey will be less selective with his answers.

    Enter Nunes, who comes forward with some very disturbing information ... all eyes on Nunes. Comey now refuses to meet in a 'secure setting'. (The questions will now be a lot tougher than previously thought). Susan Rice exposed (And one or two others know they too will be exposed - Comey knows this). Wheels are beginning to fall off the Deep State conspiracy - too many careers at stake. Susan Rice suddenly appears, repeating her diversionary performance over Benghazi. Time to give Trump the 'tap on the shoulder' and warn him that the 'FIX' is in! Trump caves.

    Swamp-rat Donald assists the Deep State in their efforts to divert attention elsewhere. Rather than being drained, the swamp just got a little deeper! Note: Was it a coincidence when rice first appeared when she did, saying she knew nothing? And after her lies were exposed, she reappeared saying she leaked 'nothing to nobody?' Is it a coincidence that Hillary suddenly reappears? Tough-talking, tough-tweeting Donald has CAVED!

    toonarmy -> footsoldier

    Right on the money! This was a self-serving move, to bolster Trump's 'image' among his detractors. Assad may be mad enough to do it ..but he isn't STUPID enough to do it. Welcome to the swamp, swamp-rat Donald!

    Moz the great

    I agree with Savage. Deffo a false flag op. The question is why Trump said Yes? Does he know its a false flag? Is he in on the plot. Has he gone along for political reasons? Prove hes not soft on Russia.

    Did Bannon get pushed out cause he knows its all bullshit? Worrying signs for all of us who were truly hoping Trump was the real deal.

    Sheree Rabe

    I am just purely heartsick over Trump. I warned everyone he might just be the best actor of all and it appears unfortunately I was right!

    FarFromEquilibrium

    Thankfully, somebody knows something about chemistry. And those containers that the media paraded -> they were not gas containers, they were corrosive solids containers.

    FarFromEquilibrium

    All anyone needs to know is : Hildabeast, Graham, McInsane, Merkel, Pelosi, Schumer, and that ilk likes the action - therefore it's the wrong action. You can't make anyone of them happy by doing the right thing.

    Dan Sam

    Assad had nothing at all to gain from the gassing. this single fact is all you need to realize that this was a false flag. Trump either fell for it, or was pressured into his actions.
    I am one Trump supporter that is very close to taking away my support.

    Cat Cook

    The week before this "gas attack", 250 Syrian civilians were kidnapped by rebels. Gee, what a coincidence that they are the ones being identified amongst the dead.

    The White Helmets got hazmat suits the same week and filmed a training video in their compound carved out of solid rock.

    Now we see a film of them washing off the gas victims with the same compound in the background, obviously filmed in the same location.

    But oh, gee, they forgot to wear their new hazmat suits... oh and look, they forgot to put on their gloves to handle the sarin gas victims, even though a micro dot can be absorbed thru the skin and kill within minutes. I'll post link to this story below.

    Astra2012

    i also think it was a false flag - if we know it i think Trump knows it too. He did his best to avoid casualties, but wants to show that us will react fast if necessary - and to close many mouths. i still trust him for now! That analysis you make about WHY is probably not true.

    Dorian Edwards

    There are videos out there of the rebel gas bomb making factories. They have the bags and the bomb casings. They have all that out there. Anyone who knows anything knows this was not Assad. This is Trump jumping at the chance to finally sit at the big table with the Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the rest.

    What a dumb fuck you are thinking that he was ever anything but this. He always wanted this to happen. I knew he would jump at this. HE HAS NO IDEOLOGY. NONE! Only himself.

    And his perceived place in the world. That has ALWAYS been the fact. NO matter what your book says. HE HAS NO IDEOLOGY!!!!

    Dorian Edwards

    If you actually believed that Donald Trump was anything other than a New York liberal, who would have loved to have been a part of the military industrial complex. He loved those elites, he wanted to be anything but a plain old real estate developer.

    He wished he was a big player with Lockheed or any of the other big defense companies. The first chance he got, to look good to them, he took it. This incident, which is just exactly what the Russians are saying it is, a bombing of a munitions dump that contained Clorine gas. Trump jumped on it. Big time!

    Albert Benson

    I agree with Dr. Savage. This was a total false flag operation. Check out the latest article on
    http://revisedhistory.wordpress.com

    [Apr 09, 2017] False Flag: How the US Armed Syrian Rebels to Set Up an Excuse to Attack Assad

    Apr 08, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Apr 8, 2017 12:47 PM Via The Daily Bell

    Evidence suggests a false flag chemical weapons attack on the Syrian people was initiated by Syrian rebels with the help of the United States in order to justify Thursday night's U.S. Military attack on a Syrian base.

    President Trump approved the bombing of the Syrian military base controlled by Dictator Bashir al-Assad supposedly to destroy the Syrian government's ability to launch further chemical attacks on civilians.

    "Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children," Trump said in remarks from Mar-a-Lago, his family compound in Palm Beach, Florida. "It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."

    But Trump's statements contradict the reality that rebel groups have been trained to secure, monitor, and transport chemical weapons. Included in the opposition to Assad are terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. Should we believe these rebels' claims against Assad, especially given their access to chemical weapons?

    Documents from Wikileaks show that the U.S. State Department wanted to help rebels overthrow Syrian Dictator Assad in order to strengthen Israel's position against Iran. The State Department discussed how Iran and Syria trained forces in opposition to Israel. The fall of Assad, they said, would destroy the only Iranian ally in the region positioned to help Iran in the event of Israeli aggression to stop Iran's nuclear program.

    Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition.

    The State Department makes it quite clear their belief that "Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly."

    This is nothing new, and really not surprising, as the U.S. has been involved in dozens of similar operations around the world. But just how far would the U.S. and Israel go to bring down Assad?

    Just what type of training would be given to the rebels to help overthrow Assad? The groundwork had already been laid out by President Obama. As soon as chemical weapons were used by Assad, the international community would have the justification to become more involved in removing him from power. We know they were interested in doing so regardless of whether or not he used chemical weapons against the people of Syria.

    CNN reported in 2012 that America was involved in training the rebels to secure and monitor chemical weapons sites.

    The United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats told CNN Sunday.

    The training, which is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the sources. Some of the contractors are on the ground in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, according to one of the officials.

    This confirms that rebel forces had access to chemical weapons and that the U.S. helped familiarize rebel groups with storing and transporting the weapons.

    But a removed article from The Daily Mail seems to prove that the U.S. had planned on helping the rebels actually use chemical weapons as well. The article was supposedly removed because the source of the information was untrustworthy. A Malaysian hacker was said to have taken emails from British defense contractors from an unprotected server.

    Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad's regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.

    A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme 'approved by Washington' is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.

    Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

    Lending credence to this theory that the United States trained rebel forces in the use of chemical weapons in order to initiate a false flag attack are the events surrounding the death of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens in 2012.

    The story is far from Trump's claim that the U.S. attempts to "prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons."

    The U.S. is an active player in moving weapons all throughout the middle east, arming all sorts of rebel groups, militias, and government. It appears the United States funneled weapons out of Libya to provide Syrian rebels the ability to fight Assad.

    A book called The Real Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don't Want You to Know details the role Stevens fulfilled in Libya of brokering weapons exports from Libya to countries which backed the Syrian rebels.

    The author, Aaron Klein, said a group called the February 17 Brigade worked with the CIA to provide security for a special operation in Benghazi and helped facilitate weapons transfers .

    The exact nature of the U.S. involvement with the February 17 Brigade that guarded the U.S. special mission might have been unintentionally exposed when a Libyan weapons dealer formerly with the Brigade told Reuters in an in-person interview he had helped ship weapons from Benghazi to the rebels fighting in Syria.

    Klein noted that no one seems to have connected the dots from what the weapons dealer said to the activities taking place inside the Benghazi compound and whether the Brigade serves as a cut out to ship weapons.

    In the Reuters interview published June 18, 2013, Libyan warlord Abdul Basit Haroun declared he is behind some of the biggest shipments of weapons from Libya to Syria. Most of the weapons were sent to Turkey, he said, where they were, in turn, smuggled into neighboring Syria.

    It was Steven's job to facilitate the retrieval of these Libyan weapons and funnel them to U.S. interests. His death may have been related to militia groups inside Libya not trusting the United States with these weapons, or wanting them for their own use or profit.

    Libyan weapons were shipped to places like Turkey which were already participating in training the Syrian rebels. Part of this training, we know, had to do with chemical weapons.

    We also know that the U.S. wanted to see Assad brought down and that they had drawn a line over the use of chemical weapons. They needed a chemical weapons attack to justify stronger interventions in the conflict against Assad.

    That chemical attack happened last week, followed by the subsequent U.S. bombing of an Assad base.

    We know the terrorist groups forming the opposition to Assad had access to chemical weapons.

    Is this enough evidence to prove the United States facilitated a false flag chemical weapons attack in order to justify military intervention, and finally defeat Assad, in support of Israel?

    [Apr 09, 2017] It Took A War For Trump To Win CNNs Approval Trump Became President Last Night

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Surrender is an option... For Trump. To neocons.

    For CNN, it took a war and pointed, globalist "rhetoric" for Trump to become President of the United States. Per CNN host Fareed Zakaria on "New Day" this morning:

    "I think Donald Trump became president of the United States last night. I think this was actually a big moment."

    "Candidate Trump had said that he would never get involved in the Syrian civil war. He told President Obama you can not do this without the authorization of Congress. He seemed unconcerned with global norms."

    "President Trump recognized that the President of the United States does have to act to enforce international norms, does have to have this broader moral and political purpose. President Trump realized, as every president has for many decades now, that they have inherent legal authority as commander-in-chief and they don't have to go to a pesky Congress every time they want military force."

    "For the first time really as president, he talked about international norms, international rules, about America's role in enforcing justice in the world. It was the kind of rhetoric that we've come to expect from American presidents since Harry Truman, but it was the kind of rhetoric that President Trump had pointedly never used either on the campaign trail nor in his inaugural."

    "So I think there has been an interesting morphing and a kind of education of Donald Trump."

    . @FareedZakaria on Syria strikes: "I think Donald Trump became President of the United States" last night https://t.co/dLipRu6SZu

    - New Day (@NewDay) April 7, 2017

    [Apr 09, 2017] This Is Not What We Voted For: Trumps Online Base Furious Over Syria Intervention

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has broken his campaign promises, and stabbed his supporters in the back. He has done exactly what I expected Hillary and Jeb to do ... left Obamacare in place and launched a sneak attack on Syria. What's the point of voting in 2018? wolf pfizer 1 minute ago It's inter-religion war. Shiait Asad and sunni Rebels. We don't need to get involved except for providing humanitarian assistance. There is a false narrative that is being propagated here in the US about Rebels that somehow they are for democracy. Don't be in any illusion that these Rebels are fighting for democracy. Average Syrian enjoyed more personal freedom under Asad Regime compared to other Arab countries in that part of the world. About the Chemical attack, the Rebels are vicious enough to carry out such attack and pin it on Asad. Let neighboring countries take care of the situation. We should stay out and concentrate on our homeland. We enough problems of our own here. Cory 3 minutes ago As Americans we NEVER like to admit when we get something wrong. We always try to justify things by blaming someone else. The Dems blame the GoP. The GoP blame the Dems. It's always something. The older generation likes to blame the younger and vice- versa. The real fact is everything that is right or wrong in this country is the result of all of us. The past 50 years BOTH parties have had ample opportunity to make changes and neither party has done anything to make changes. Any policy Trump makes now someone else will change down the road, much like Trump has done to Obama. Welcome to the new age of instability. notinmymane 6 minutes ago You Trumpanzees got conned by a snake-oil salesman. Didn't you know that he was a conman before you voted for him? Stuuuuupid! The Hated Stooge 6 minutes ago And The Trump Vaudeville Act circle's the globe with Creepy Kushner leading the way. Kushner will fix everything. scrub 11 minutes ago For every Trump supporter who is upset with his decision to bomb Syria there are a dozen or more who still stand behind him and that decision. Why won't you do an article on that, Yahoo? Have you informed all the readers, pro and anti-Trump alike, that Obama managed to bomb at least one Middle East country every day that he was in office (8 fecking years, and that was over oil, not inhumane treatment of people)? Where's the outrage over that? Gertwise 12 minutes ago This is exactly what they voted for. They were warned, pleaded with, shown facts, and they still voted him into office. You reap what you sow. Alex Verne 12 minutes ago He does not need us anymore, ho ha new friends now. Neocons, Zionists even Clinton. The SWAMP loves him now, he IS the SWAMP now. ..."
    Apr 08, 2017 | www.yahoo.com

    In the days since Trump brought the U.S. deeper into that country's six-year-old civil war, his most fervent right-wing supporters have lashed out online, with many saying they feel betrayed.

    It's true. Trump has broken his campaign promises, and stabbed his supporters in the back. He has done exactly what I expected Hillary and Jeb to do ... left Obamacare in place and launched a sneak attack on Syria.

    What's the point of voting in 2018?

    wolf pfizer 1 minute ago

    It's inter-religion war. Shiait Asad and sunni Rebels. We don't need to get involved except for providing humanitarian assistance. There is a false narrative that is being propagated here in the US about Rebels that somehow they are for democracy.

    Don't be in any illusion that these Rebels are fighting for democracy. Average Syrian enjoyed more personal freedom under Asad Regime compared to other Arab countries in that part of the world. About the Chemical attack, the Rebels are vicious enough to carry out such attack and pin it on Asad. Let neighboring countries take care of the situation. We should stay out and concentrate on our homeland. We enough problems of our own here.

    Cory 3 minutes ago

    As Americans we NEVER like to admit when we get something wrong. We always try to justify things by blaming someone else. The Dems blame the GoP. The GoP blame the Dems. It's always something. The older generation likes to blame the younger and vice- versa. The real fact is everything that is right or wrong in this country is the result of all of us. The past 50 years BOTH parties have had ample opportunity to make changes and neither party has done anything to make changes. Any policy Trump makes now someone else will change down the road, much like Trump has done to Obama. Welcome to the new age of instability.
    notinmymane 6 minutes ago
    You Trumpanzees got conned by a snake-oil salesman. Didn't you know that he was a conman before you voted for him? Stuuuuupid! The Hated Stooge 6 minutes ago And The Trump Vaudeville Act circle's the globe with Creepy Kushner leading the way. Kushner will fix everything. scrub 11 minutes ago For every Trump supporter who is upset with his decision to bomb Syria there are a dozen or more who still stand behind him and that decision. Why won't you do an article on that, Yahoo? Have you informed all the readers, pro and anti-Trump alike, that Obama managed to bomb at least one Middle East country every day that he was in office (8 fecking years, and that was over oil, not inhumane treatment of people)? Where's the outrage over that?

    Gertwise 12 minutes ago

    This is exactly what they voted for. They were warned, pleaded with, shown facts, and they still voted him into office. You reap what you sow.

    Alex Verne 12 minutes ago
    He does not need us anymore, ho ha new friends now. Neocons, Zionists even Clinton. The SWAMP loves him now, he IS the SWAMP now.
    Edward 20 minutes ago
    They also think Bannon is still relevant.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Who is responsible for the chemical attack in Syria

    Previous false flag
    Sep 08, 2013 | www.salon.com
    The early morning assault in a rebel-held Damascus suburb known as Ghouta was said to be the deadliest chemical weapons attack in Syria's 2 1/2-year civil war. Survivors' accounts, photographs of many of the dead wrapped peacefully in white sheets and dozens of videos showing victims in spasms and gasping for breath shocked the world and moved President Barack Obama to call for action because the use of chemical weapons crossed the red line he had drawn a year earlier.

    Yet one week after Secretary of State John Kerry outlined the case against Assad, Americans – at least those without access to classified reports – haven't seen a shred of his proof.

    There is open-source evidence that provides clues about the attack, including videos of fragments from the rockets that analysts believe were likely used. U.S. officials on Saturday released a compilation of videos showing victims, including children, exhibiting what appear to be symptoms of nerve gas poisoning. Some experts think the size of the strike, and the amount of toxic chemicals that appear to have been delivered, make it doubtful that the rebels could have carried it out.

    What's missing from the public record is direct proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, tying this to the regime.

    The Obama administration, searching for support from a divided Congress and skeptical world leaders, says its own assessment is based mainly on satellite and signals intelligence, including intercepted communications and satellite images indicating that in the three days prior to the attack that the regime was preparing to use poisonous gas.

    But multiple requests to view that satellite imagery have been denied, though the administration produced copious amounts of satellite imagery earlier in the war to show the results of the Syrian regime's military onslaught. When asked Friday whether such imagery would be made available showing the Aug. 21 incident, a spokesman referred The Associated Press to a map produced by the White House last week that shows what officials say are the unconfirmed areas that were attacked.

    The Obama administration maintains it intercepted communications from a senior Syrian official on the use of chemical weapons, but requests to see that transcript have been denied. So has a request by the AP to see a transcript of communications allegedly ordering Syrian military personnel to prepare for a chemical weapons attack by readying gas masks.

    The U.S. administration says its evidence is classified and is only sharing details in closed-door briefings with members of Congress and key allies.

    Yet the assessment, also based on accounts by Syrian activists and hundreds of YouTube videos of the attack's aftermath, has confounded many experts who cannot fathom what might have motivated Assad to unleash weapons of mass destruction on his own people – especially while U.N. experts were nearby and at a time when his troops had the upper hand on the ground.

    Rebels who accuse Assad of the attack have suggested he had learned of fighters' plans to advance on Damascus, his seat of power, and ordered the gassing to prevent that.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Biden No doubt Syria unleashed chemical attack, must pay price

    So warmonger Biden was trying to unleash the US invasion against Syria but failed...
    Notable quotes:
    "... He said rebel forces were to blame for security concerns near the suspected chemical sites, arguing that Western leaders are using the claims as an excuse to go after al-Assad's regime. ..."
    "... "We all hear the drums of war," Moallem said. "They want to attack Syria. I believe to use chemical weapons as a pretext is not a right." ..."
    Aug 28, 2013 | www.cnn.com

    Saying "there is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons attack in Syria: the Syrian regime," Vice President Joe Biden signaled Tuesday that the United States -- with its allies -- was ready to act.

    "Those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable," Biden said in a speech to the American Legion.

    The vice president's remarks echo those made by other U.S. officials in recent days, as well as many of the nation's foremost allies.

    French President Francois Hollande said his administration was "ready to punish those who made the decision to gas these innocent people," adding that "everything leads us to believe" that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces are responsible.

    British Prime Minister David Cameron -- who talked Tuesday with U.S. President Barack Obama -- called lawmakers back from their summer vacations to consider a response to Syria, as the UK military prepares contingency plans.

    And U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the BBC on Tuesday that U.S. forces are "ready to go" if ordered to strike Syria by President Barack Obama.

    "The options are there. The United States Department of Defense is ready to carry out those options," Hagel said.

    Western leaders were reacting to a growing consensus that the Syrian regime was responsible for an August 21 attack that killed more than 1,300 people, most of them dying from exposure to toxic gases, according to rebel officials. The opposition -- which has said it's been targeted by chemical weapons attacks in the past as well -- backed up its latest allegations with gruesome video of rows of dead bodies, including women and children, with no visible wounds.

    Opinion: For U.S., Syria is truly a problem from hell

    Syrian officials, though, have steadfastly denied using chemical weapons in this or other cases.

    Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday that his government would never use such munitions against its own people, daring those who disagree to present evidence publicly.

    He said rebel forces were to blame for security concerns near the suspected chemical sites, arguing that Western leaders are using the claims as an excuse to go after al-Assad's regime.

    "We all hear the drums of war," Moallem said. "They want to attack Syria. I believe to use chemical weapons as a pretext is not a right."

    And if foreign powers do strike the Middle Eastern nation, its foreign minister said the government and its forces will fight back.

    "Syria is not easy to swallow," said Moallem. "We have the materials to defend ourselves. We will surprise others."

    [Apr 09, 2017] Miilitary brass notes only 40% of Tomahawk missiles fired hit targeted Syrian base

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Damson , April 7, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    And yet more:

    Russian radar data show that the Tomahawk missiles were fired from the US destroyers Porter and Ross in the Mediterranean between 03:42 and 03:56 Moscow time, the general said.
    The Syrian army's air defense system will be reinforced in the near future to protect the most important infrastructure facilities, Konashenkov assured.
    In 2016, several batteries of Russia's air defense system S-300 were moved to the naval logistic facility at Tartus to provide protection for the base and Russian ships off Syria's shores. Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said a multi-tier defense system had been created around Tartus and the Hmeymim air base. At the end of November the newest air defense system S-400 was delivered to Syria after a Turkish F-18 fighter shot down Russia's Sukhoi-24 bomber.
    Pantsir systems protect Russian military facilities from low-flying aircraft and missiles. Also, the defense of Russian facilities incorporates the system Bastion, capable of hitting naval and ground targets 350-450 kilometers away. Russia has helped Syria to restore the operation of its S-200 air defense systems that protect Russian bases from potential attacks from the east. Also, the Syrian army uses air defense systems Buk.

    The chemical attack

    The US missile strike in Syria had been planned in advance, while the chemical weapons incident was used just as a pretext, Konashenkov has noted.

    "It is nakedly clear that the attack on a Syrian air base with US cruise missiles had been planned well beforehand," he said.
    "For any specialist it is clear that the decision to conduct the missile strike on Syria had been made in Washington long before the events at Khan Shaykhun, which were used a far-fetched pretext.
    The show of military muscle stemmed exclusively from internal political reasons," the ministry's spokesman added.

    Cooperation with Pentagon
    The Russian Defense Ministry has suspended cooperation with Pentagon on prevention of incidents in Syria.
    "We consider these steps taken by the United States to be a blatant violation of the 2015 Memorandum on preventing military incidents and ensuring security during operations in Syria's air space," the ministry's spokesman said.
    "The Russian Defense Ministry is suspending cooperation with Pentagon aimed at the implementation of the memorandum."
    "To protect the most sensitive facilities of the Syrian infrastructure, a set of measures will be taken in the immediate future to reinforce and raise the effectiveness of the Syrian armed forces' air defense system," he added.

    Syria' losses
    US strikes on military airfield in Homs province leave six dead - Syrian armed forces.
    "According to the air base command, two Syrian servicemen went missing, while four were killed and six sustained burn injuries while combating the fire," Konashenkov said.
    At the same time, according to the Syrian army command, the attack killed six people.
    According to the Russian Defense Ministry, six Mikoyan MiG-23 fighter jets, a radar station and other equipment have been destroyed.
    "The strike destroyed a logistics warehouse, a training building, a canteen, six MiG-23 planes in the repair hangars and also a radar station."
    "The runway, taxiways and parked planes of the Syrian Air Force have not been damaged," the spokesman said.

    Trump admits he issued order for missile strike on Syrian airbase

    On Thursday night, at the direction of US President Donald Trump, the US forces fired 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles on a Syrian military air base located in the Homs Governorate. The attack came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib Governorate on April 4. The US authorities believe that the airstrike on Idlib was launched from that air base.

    [Apr 09, 2017] The Syrian military denies using chemical weapons

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.jacobinmag.com
    The Syrian military denies using chemical weapons. Their international backer, Russia, claims that the Syrian military did drop bombs in the affected area but that the chemical effect was not in the bombs dropped but rather from the explosion of an alleged chemical warehouse under the control of unnamed rebel forces. The same report by the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that found Syrian government responsibility for chlorine attacks also found that ISIS had used another chemical weapon, mustard gas, and investigated at least three other chemical weapons attacks whose perpetrators could not be identified. So that could be possible as well.

    For a variety of reasons, some of these possibilities don�'t hold up so well if the chemical used this week was the sarin nerve agent � but we don�'t know yet what it was.

    There are some other, perhaps even more important things, that we do know. We know that in 2013, at the time of an earlier, even more deadly chemical weapon attack, similar accusations against the Syrian regime were widely made, assumed to be true, and used as the basis for calls for direct US military intervention in the civil war. And we know those accusations were never proved, and that it remains uncertain even now, almost four years later, who was actually responsible.

    And we know that the bombing of Syria in 2013 was averted, despite President Obama�'s �red line� being crossed, because an enormous US and global campaign against such a disastrous escalation made it politically too costly to launch a new US war. This was a president willing but not eager, or driven, to go to war. When Obama turned decision-making over to Congress, hundreds of thousands of people across the United States called and wrote and emailed their representatives, urging them to prevent a new war. In some offices calls were running six or seven hundred to one against a new bombing campaign.

    And we know that President Obama turned it over to Congress in the first place because the British parliament, facing massive public opposition, made clear that the UK would not join its US ally in going to war against Syria. And eventually, when Congressional opposition became undeniable, Russia provided the US with a way out, arranging for international collection and destruction of Syria�s chemical weapons arsenal. Chlorine was not included, and it is certainly possible that Syria didn�'t declare all of its weapons, or perhaps the precursor chemicals to make them, and but that claim was never proven. Ultimately, though, a US attack was averted.

    [Apr 09, 2017] If Trump says Assad is responsible Assad is responsible. Trump doesnt need evidence. Not even a dodgy dossier.

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    Muzzledagain , 7 Apr 2017 15:31
    What Trump did was totally illegal, and you won't find anyone to tell him so. All the ones that hated him before are at his feet now for further collaboration in destroying Syria and thus prolonging the suffering of the Syrian people. Share Facebook Twitter
    MadJackMacMadd Muzzledagain, 7 Apr 2017 15:45

    Yes, you're right. It was 'unconstitutional' for a start in that he didn't get Congressional approval, he didn't get the approval of the UN and he committed an act of war against a sovereign nation (also a UN member).

    Is anyone going to hazard a guess as to what happened to the 36 cruise missiles that didn't find their target?

    GuyPeron, 7 Apr 2017 15:31
    I am still troubled by the Guardian editorial line and journalists unquestioningly concluding that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attacks in question. I of course cannot say it is not, but I have also not been presented with any evidence anywhere that it was. I certainly haven't seen any convincing evidence presented in the Guardian. Most troubling for me is that I haven't seen any Guardian journalists asking what benefit the Assad regime thought it would gain from carrying out these chemical attacks (if it did). Who is to benefit from these attacks? That is what I would be asking as that is a long way to discovering who is guilty. Share
    AndyMcCarthy GuyPeron, 7 Apr 2017 15:44
    If Trump says Assad is responsible Assad is responsible. Trump doesn't need evidence. Not even a dodgy dossier.
    Elinjo, 7 Apr 2017 15:33
    "Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread".
    His impetuosity makes me fear, that should he fail to convince China to put pressure on North Korea, he will carry out his threats to take matters into his own hands.
    GeeDeeSea, 7 Apr 2017 15:34
    The US targeted 59 cruise missiles on the airfield which is supposedly storing chemical bombs and yet no chemical weapons are blown-up!

    Another US intelligence failure. Share Facebook Twitter

    MadJackMacMadd GeeDeeSea, 7 Apr 2017 15:36
    They didn't all reach the target.
    sean7889 7 Apr 2017 15:37
    Chemical attack or no chemical attack it doesn't change the fact that Assad is the lesser of two evils.

    We have a choice between a broadly secular evil, or fundamentalist Islam evil.

    I know which one I would rather be dealing with. You only have to look at what's happening in Libya now we have disposed of Gaddaffi.

    KoreyD sean7889, 7 Apr 2017 15:57
    The major evil is the Americans arming and supporting the Jihadsists since day one of the civil war and using their propaganda machine to demonize Assad. Russia and Iran are the only 2 countries legally in Syria at it's request. America is an invader and shows absolutely no regard for international law. After all who would enforce it? Without America's intervention this civil war would have been over 6 months after it started, 400,000 more people would be alive and there would be 7 million less refugees million what gives the US the right to do this in Syria, never mind Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Yemen, Ukraine?
    tc2011 7 Apr 2017 15:37
    Dutiful little lapdogs. Nothing like some hot military action to get our war-loving establishment back into bed with the Donald, eh?

    When push comes to shove, we scratch a liberal and find a Trumpist.

    Let's just pretend that Donald Trump has undergone a conversion of biblical proportions on the road to Damascus.


    Let's pretend that the vast majority of you really wanted to oppose him in the first place.
    sustaingbr 7 Apr 2017 15:38
    What if this was rebel jihadists who set off the chemical attack? Or the bombs fell on to a rebel chemical storage site?
    The US has jumped to a very dangerous conclusion here - it took them 6 days to confirm that US bombs had dropped in Mosul but 1 day to confirm a Syrian government aircraft had specifically dropped a chemical bomb!?
    ColinMay sustaingbr, 7 Apr 2017 15:49
    CNN reported that the US tracked a flight from the base to the area that was gassed. Share Facebook Twitter
    HarrytheHawk ColinMay, 7 Apr 2017 16:04
    There is no question that they bombed the area.

    There is no evidence that the sarin came from those bombs.

    Jack Rowse , sustaingbr, 7 Apr 2017 16:54
    I'm just going to repeat the comment, as no-one has brought it up in this thread...

    They wrote an article about it. They sent "journalists" to the town. According to the journalists and photos that they took, the 'warehouse' was empty and the gas had radiated from a canister that was dropped from the air:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/the-dead-were-wherever-you-looked-inside-syrian-town-after-chemical-attack

    ort Sumpter Joss_Wynne_Evans, 7 Apr 2017 15:53

    scuppered the Clinton Project

    Clinton wanted to bomb Syria.

    MrConservative2016 , 7 Apr 2017 15:39
    I certainly hope those strikes were a one-off

    Trump should not repeat the mistakes of the previous administrations and drag the USA into even more prolonged conflict; even more so in view of the fact that we know the so-called 'opposition' to be a motley of Islamist terror groups

    [Apr 09, 2017] The USA and its allies such as Turkey and KSA invested six billions or so building insurgency supplying them with weapons (including some from Lybia)

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    pgl , April 07, 2017 at 01:12 PM
    General Wesley Clark just asked what is Trump's policy towards Assad. As in is it OK for Assad to kill his own people the regular way just so he does not use chemical weapons. Harsh commentary but the key question.
    libezkova -> pgl... , April 07, 2017 at 05:44 PM
    "..is it OK for Assad to kill his own people the regular way".

    That's a great question. and the answer is that he is doing it with some help and the USA is complicit.

    The USA and its allies such as Turkey and KSA invested six billions or so building insurgency supplying them with weapons (including some from Lybia).

    Repeating my old post:

    libezkova -> Chris G...

    "an uneasy alliance of foreign-funded jihadists, Western intelligence, and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders" is a fact in Syria too.

    Another good read is Sy Hersh story of the previous "false flag" sarin poisoning operation during Obama term:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS5DOg-_XXE

    I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt.

    BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin from components bought in Turkey.

    ilsm -> libezkova... , April 07, 2017 at 05:55 PM
    If it were "sarin" there would be large pieces of debris from the delivery hardware........

    No pix, no sarin!

    Or the Syrian super pilots flew crop dusters 200 miles one way!

    ilsm -> pgl... , April 07, 2017 at 05:53 PM
    For the US it is okay to supply oil rich Sunnis to kill Shi'a.

    Toady asks the wrong question......

    Clark got his 4th star from Bill Clinton. Clark is a DNC toady.

    [Apr 09, 2017] No evidence of air attack using low or no explosive type cluster munitions which are needed for this type of ordinance

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> libezkova... April 09, 2017 at 09:02 AM

    Delivering sarin requires low to no explosive type cluster munitions. Cannot be done from barrel bomb!

    There would be many dozens of UXB 'containers' and shells of the ones that worked.

    If there were any evidence the propagandists would not use pix of supposedly decontaminated casualties with "rescue workers" unprotected. And using garden hoses when a solvent is needed to neutralize sarin.

    The 2013 staged example was never proved either.

    [Apr 09, 2017] False flag or not ?

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Damson , April 7, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Note:

    The attack was 'reported' TWENTYFOUR HOURS before it happened as a 'chemical attack' by journo working for Saudi/ Gulf agencies in a tweet.

    So how did he spin it before the depot was targetted by SAA?

    False flag – absolutely.

    Aumua , April 7, 2017 at 3:45 pm

    How about a link? Anything? Bueller?

    DJPS , April 7, 2017 at 6:40 pm

    They may have been talking about this? https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/849720967781863425

    Aumua , April 7, 2017 at 8:39 pm

    Yeah. It's not that I don't think some kind of 'false flag' or falsehood in general is possible here. I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I simply don't know. It's just that I see so many loudly proclaiming that they know for SURE that it definitely IS a false flag, while providing only the flimsiest evidence, if any.

    People who are doing that are doing the same thing 'they' are when they say they know for SURE that Assad is behind the attack. I don't trust either side, and I don't recommend anyone else does either. There's a lot of agendas flying around, both personal and interpersonal.

    [Apr 09, 2017] This is Colin Powell's justification for Iraq war all over again

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 10:14 AM
    US vows to keep up pressure on Syria after missile strikes
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2017/04/08/vows-keep-pressure-syria-after-missile-strikes/SxuJkb18xGmO2HPKeY1MTK/story.html?event=event25 via @BostonGlobe

    Julie Pace - AP - April 8, 2017

    PALM BEACH, Fla. - The United States is vowing to keep up the pressure on Syria after the intense nighttime wave of missile strikes from U.S. ships, despite the prospect of escalating Russian ill will that could further inflame one of the world's most vexing conflicts.

    Standing firm, the Trump administration on Friday signaled new sanctions would soon follow the missile attack, and the Pentagon was even probing whether Russia itself was involved in the chemical weapons assault that compelled President Donald Trump to action. The attack against a Syrian air base was the first U.S. assault against the government of President Bashar Assad.

    Much of the international community rallied behind Trump's decision to fire the cruise missiles in reaction to this week's chemical weapons attack that killed dozens of men, women and children in Syria. But a spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the strikes dealt ''a significant blow'' to relations between Moscow and Washington.

    A key test of whether the relationship can be salvaged comes next week when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson becomes the first Trump Cabinet member to visit Russia.

    British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson also had planned to visit Russia this coming week, but decided Saturday to cancel the trip because of the fast moving events in Syria. Johnson, who condemned Moscow's continued defense of Assad, said Tillerson will be able to give a ''clear and coordinated message to the Russians.''

    At the United Nations on Friday, Russia's deputy ambassador, Vladimir Safronkov, strongly criticized what he called the U.S. ''flagrant violation of international law and an act of aggression'' whose ''consequences for regional and international security could be extremely serious.'' He called the Assad government a main force against terrorism and said it deserved the presumption of innocence in the chemical weapons attack.

    The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, said the world is waiting for the Russian government ''to act responsibly in Syria'' and ''to reconsider its misplaced alliance with Bashar Assad.'' ...

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 08:02 PM
    "The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, said the world is waiting for the Russian government ''to act responsibly in Syria'' and ''to reconsider its misplaced alliance with Bashar Assad.'' ..."

    Summary: "This is Colin Powell's justification for Iraq war all over again"

    In two years or so most of the evidence will probably be discredited. But what is done is done. Shoot first and ask questions later is the most noble tradition in the USA foreign policy.

    The USA now gave rebels and their allies such as Turkey and KSA a huge incentive to fake another chemical attack in order to bring the US ground troops into Syria.

    Syria will then be left to the warring Islamist factions to fight it out just like in Libya and Iraq."

    [Apr 09, 2017] Even the liberals were all over this -- Bill Maher disgusted by the cable news response to Syria

    An interesting feature of comments in WaPo -- only one suggest the possibility of false flag attack. all other take "Assad gassed people" at face value. Acouple of comments suggest that was "Monica-style" bombing: "Wow. So Trump is willing to kill to get the discussion off of him being a Russian puppet.".
    www.washingtonpost.com

    FergusonFoont, 9:17 AM EDT

    Hey, Bill. I'm a liberal and I am not "all over this." I absolutely hate it.

    What Bashir Assad does in the country he heads is not our responsibility. Atroticities happen all over the world nearly every day, particularly in Africa, and we don't police their actions.

    StreetPhD, 9:15 AM EDT [Edited]

    Very predictable. When political popularity is in desperate need of a fix, blowing stuff up is a routine fallback ploy. The trick is tuning and timing the roll out script:
    > Video: innocent victims of Evil Boogeyman's barbarism
    > Video: Avenging Angel strikes back with thrilling nighttime missile launch
    > Reaction: Drooling media does back flips; polls might improve
    > Recharge & Repeat: Loop launch video on Jumbotron as pop singer screeches Anthem at televised sport events - audience gets big dose of sticky britches - loves diversion from real concerns

    > Outcome: Over inflated right wing sends eagle into tailspin.

    hereandnow100, 8:41 AM EDT

    Red lines??? We just crossed one. And talk about shooting from the hip!! The little man said it himself: I don't think, or read. Little trump has got, what was it, gut instinct? Will he just trust his gut all the way to armageddon? He just might.

    maverick13, 8:37 AM EDT

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York called it "the right thing to do." Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California called the military response "a limited, and I think an important strike, and it accomplished its purpose and sent a message."

    Rex Block, 8:36 AM EDT [Edited]

    Brian Williams is an idiot. Without that pretty-boy face, he is nothing.

    Lurker_no_Longer, 8:44 AM EDT

    I really can't believe that NBC put that liar back on the air. Trust of him was gone long ago, and I have to change the channel whenever I see him.

    garythomaszeman 8:32 AM EDT
    Another nice little war. The CIA, raising hell around the world since 1948. "Democracy Dies in Darkness."
    ReasonableDiscourse 8:35 AM EDT
    Col Jack Jacobs on the strike "What are we trying to accomplish?"

    We seem to have no thoughtful answer to that question. Only talking points and and cliched babble about being "presidential".

    Dr--Bob 7:54 AM EDT
    
    Kilgore: Smell that? You smell that?  
    Lance: What?  
    Kilgore: Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that.  
    [kneels]  
    Kilgore: I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like  
    [sniffing, pondering]  
    Kilgore: victory. Someday this war's gonna end...  
    [suddenly walks off]  
    -----Apocalypse Now (1979)  
    
    KingJethro 7:54 AM EDT
    Hey, now! Nobody does wag-the-dog better than the U.S. This is why we are so exceptional!!!
    rabrophy 7:43 AM EDT
    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

    Trump wanted to distract the Media and it worked! Wolf Blitzer got wood for the first time in years.

    And this keeps happening over and over - Some empty military gesture that has no effect or another Savior-General who will make all thing right ( are we at Savior 15 or 16 now?) All we need next is an Op Ed in the Times by Hillary commending Trump's stupid trick.

    alfa67 7:51 AM EDT
    Wolf Blitzer thought the illegal US attack was great because he ALWAYS stays on script with AIPAC. You people DO know that Blitzer used to work for AIPAC don't you? See my comment below and give it some thought. It's pretty obvious really.
    alfa67 7:38 AM EDT
    I think that there is a pretty good chance that the Israelis used the poison gas in Syria.

    The Israelis have been trying for at least 30 years to get the US to do a regime change in Iraq.

    The Israelis have hinted on a number of occasions that that they have stockpiles of the full range of chemical and biological weapons. The Israelis have shown before (for example in Iraq and Libya) that they can pressure/manipulate (using AIPAC et al) a US president into conducting regime change against someone the Israelis don't like. Conversely why would Assad do something stupid like killing some civilians with poison gas? It's not going to win anything for him and would bring down the wrath of the world on him. This use of poison gas reeks of an Israeli operation to get the US involved in getting rid of Assad. Remember the USS Liberty affair where the Israelis shot up an American ship (killing and wounding dozens of Americans) and tried to blame it on the Egyptians in order to get the Americans into their war? And what about the "Lavon affair" where the Israelis blew up an American library and information center in Cairo and tried to blame it on the Egyptians in order to get the US into a war with Egypt? And, of course, the Israelis easily get ALL of the US media to jump in with both feet saying what a horrible thing Assad has done and the US has to start bombing and sending in troops RIGHT NOW! You need to do some reading and thinking , folks, and not let the Israelis railroad us into YET ANOTHER DISASTER!

    17B 7:47 AM EDT
    Brian Williams had his Iraq, Hillary had her Bosnia, and Trump had 'My Vietnam' in the form of sexual promiscuity in the 60s (his Howard Stern interview).

    There's a pattern here. Perhaps Fox can have Ollie North have all three on his War Stories show.

    trytobenice 7:28 AM EDT
    The easily swayed television media, without scruples, is why we have trump in the white house. They promoted his campaign and now this. Everything for ratings. Disgusting.
    Javalin2016 7:26 AM EDT
    Why is Brian Williams even considered a journalist and why is he still on air?

    As for the other comments, we went down this rabbit hole before with W., and look where it got us.

    The media hasn't learned a thing in 16 years, so don't expect anything different when the Punk in Chief attacks a country that didn't attack us. Sounds familiar?

    edbyronadams 7:25 AM EDT
    The liberals sat on their hands when Obama ordered the firing of more than one hundred cruise missiles at Libya with less justification. They haven't got the credibility to complain now. Holding the "other party" accountable while ignoring the transgressions of your own won't carry much weight.
    michaelanncb 6:59 AM EDT
    Comp[letely agree. Anybody remember weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? And why should Trump be so sympathetic to those poor children but he won;t let them in the U.S. and cuts foreign aid which will affect refugee camps? What were the media thinking to jump on this bandwagon? Can't ANYBODY be trusted?
    LeonDeZurich 6:19 AM EDT
    Who would have thought that all Trump needed to do to convince his critics was to throw some bombs around? What's Brian Williams going to call it if Trump uses nukes - a spectacular show? Count me among the disgusted.
    broaddusromu 3:13 AM EDT
    Sick, sick, and sicker. The United States is run by a sick and bloodthirsty collection of imbeciles who can only get their kicks by attacking and killing people who have done nothing to this country. Look at Iraq, and look at Libya. And their bloodthirsty dumbed-down constituents robotically cheer them on.

    This is what this land of liberty is truly about. My country, 'tis of thee.

    Eilis Nic Ionmhain 3:32 AM EDT
    It's not just the U.S. The international media and politicians are pleased with President Trump for the first time since he took office -or was even elected. "Getting along with people" or negotiating solutions, obviously didn't appeal to them. It seems that risking conflict with Russia, or plunging Syria into further difficulty, is a better deal.

    RT are the only source of criticism I've encountered, but that's from Moscow.

    If a show of strength is needed to extract a better settlement for the Syrian people, that's fine, but the comfortable reaction of President Trump's opponents creates worry as to what really drives them, and how that will impact in the Middle East, or in relations with Russia.

    51fordf2 1:49 AM EDT
    @Outofshape: Chemical weapons are not "outlawed" but are banned by an international treaty. But this treaty is only binding on the nations that ratify it. Three nations have not ratified and one has signed but not ratified. The treat took effect in 1997, not 100 years ago. This augments the Geneva Protocol which took effect in 1925, also not 100 years ago.
    Get real people, 4/8/2017 10:17 PM EDT [Edited]
    Trump succeeded AGAIN. The discussion of his ties to Russia have been pushed off the front page.

    Wow. So Trump is willing to kill to get the discussion off of him being a Russian puppet.

    Who will need to die when the Senate hearings get back underway?

    Mark Sparkman 4/8/2017 9:40 PM EDT
    The MSM is reliving the attacks on Baghdad - when the world and the American public was transfixed on the bombing and the anti-aircraft counters that night. They - the MSM - can't get over the drama of the night and the visual impact it had. They are continuously looking for a repeat performance.
    Andromeda5 4/8/2017 9:33 PM EDT [Edited]
    This strike was three-quarters distraction from the Russian collusion story and one quarter little man/baby itching to play with his big toys. Yeah, inching towards war, just what so many people feared when this moron got into power. I hope all the other morons who voted him into power will be happy with the US going to war all over the place and dragging everyone else into it ... yeah, the world thanks you *sarcasm* for those moron voters because you probably missed it being the morons that you are.
    DoNotEnterYourDisplayName 4/8/2017 10:04 PM EDT
    And yet the liberals are soiling themselves in delight over this bombing. In fact, Hillary Clinton has done several speeches/interviews in the last 48 hours calling for a full-scale bombing campaign against all Syrian military targets, even the ones embedded in civilian neighborhoods. Maybe stop shilling for a moment and realize that the MIC has its money sunk deep in the pockets of warmongers in both parties. Recognize that the problem transcends party. And, when you realize the scope of the problem, be glad that Trump isn't as trigger-happy as the rest of these clowns.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Former CIA Officer The Intelligence Confirms The Russian Account On Syria

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Robert Parry via ConsortiumNews.com,

    President Trump earned neocon applause for his hasty decision to attack Syria and kill about a dozen Syrians, but his rash act has all the earmarks of a "wag the dog" moment.

    Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime's guilt and launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.

    Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal advisers since the days after his surprise victory on Nov. 8.

    There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a "high degree of confidence" that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.

    But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid.

    One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government would no longer seek "regime change" in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.

    The source said the Trump national security team split between the President's close personal advisers, such as nationalist firebrand Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner, on one side and old-line neocons who have regrouped under National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army general who was a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus.

    White House Infighting

    In this telling, the earlier ouster of retired Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and this week's removal of Bannon from the National Security Council were key steps in the reassertion of neocon influence inside the Trump presidency. The strange personalities and ideological extremism of Flynn and Bannon made their ousters easier, but they were obstacles that the neocons wanted removed.

    Though Bannon and Kushner are often presented as rivals, the source said, they shared the belief that Trump should tell the truth about Syria, revealing the Obama administration's CIA analysis that a fatal sarin gas attack in 2013 was a "false-flag" operation intended to sucker President Obama into fully joining the Syrian war on the side of the rebels - and the intelligence analysts' similar beliefs about Tuesday's incident.

    Instead, Trump went along with the idea of embracing the initial rush to judgment blaming Assad for the Idlib poison-gas event. The source added that Trump saw Thursday night's missile assault as a way to change the conversation in Washington, where his administration has been under fierce attack from Democrats claiming that his election resulted from a Russian covert operation .

    If changing the narrative was Trump's goal, it achieved some initial success with several of Trump's fiercest neocon critics, such as neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, praising the missile strike, as did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The neocons and Israel have long sought "regime change" in Damascus even if the ouster of Assad might lead to a victory by Islamic extremists associated with Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State.

    Wagging the Dog

    Trump employing a "wag the dog" strategy, in which he highlights his leadership on an international crisis to divert attention from domestic political problems, is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton's decision to attack Serbia in 1999 as impeachment clouds were building around his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.

    President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at joint press conference on Feb. 15. 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

    Trump's advisers, in briefing the press on Thursday night, went to great lengths to highlight Trump's compassion toward the victims of the poison gas and his decisiveness in bombing Assad's military in contrast to Obama's willingness to allow the intelligence community to conduct a serious review of the evidence surrounding the 2013 sarin-gas case.

    Ultimately, Obama listened to his intelligence advisers who told him there was no "slam-dunk" evidence implicating Assad's regime and he pulled back from a military strike at the last minute – while publicly maintaining the fiction that the U.S. government was certain of Assad's guilt.

    In both cases – 2013 and 2017 – there were strong reasons to doubt Assad's responsibility. In 2013, he had just invited United Nations inspectors into Syria to investigate cases of alleged rebel use of chemical weapons and thus it made no sense that he would launch a sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs, guaranteeing that the U.N. inspectors would be diverted to that case.

    Similarly, now, Assad's military has gained a decisive advantage over the rebels and he had just scored a major diplomatic victory with the Trump administration's announcement that the U.S. was no longer seeking "regime change" in Syria. The savvy Assad would know that a chemical weapon attack now would likely result in U.S. retaliation and jeopardize the gains that his military has achieved with Russian and Iranian help.

    The counter-argument to this logic – made by The New York Times and other neocon-oriented news outlets – essentially maintains that Assad is a crazed barbarian who was testing out his newfound position of strength by baiting President Trump. Of course, if that were the case, it would have made sense that Assad would have boasted of his act, rather than deny it.

    But logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor inside the mainstream U.S. news media.

    Intelligence Uprising

    Alarm within the U.S. intelligence community about Trump's hasty decision to attack Syria reverberated from the Middle East back to Washington, where former CIA officer Philip Giraldi reported hearing from his intelligence contacts in the field that they were shocked at how the new poison-gas story was being distorted by Trump and the mainstream U.S. news media.

    Giraldi told Scott Horton's Webcast : "I'm hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence that is available who are saying that the essential narrative that we're all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham."

    Giraldi said his sources were more in line with an analysis postulating an accidental release of the poison gas after an Al Qaeda arms depot was hit by a Russian airstrike.

    "The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving which is that they hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected with Al Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear."

    Giraldi said the anger within the intelligence community over the distortion of intelligence to justify Trump's military retaliation was so great that some covert officers were considering going public.

    "People in both the agency [the CIA] and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he already should have known – but maybe he didn't – and they're afraid that this is moving toward a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict," Giraldi said before Thursday night's missile strike. "They are astonished by how this is being played by the administration and by the U.S. media."

    One-Sided Coverage

    The mainstream U.S. media has presented the current crisis with the same profound neocon bias that has infected the coverage of Syria and the larger Middle East for decades. For instance, The New York Times on Friday published a lead story by Michael R. Gordon and Michael D. Shear that treated the Syrian government's responsibility for the poison-gas incident as flat-fact. The lengthy story did not even deign to include the denials from Syria and Russia that they were responsible for any intentional deployment of poison gas.

    The article also fit with Trump's desire that he be portrayed as a decisive and forceful leader. He is depicted as presiding over intense deliberations of war or peace and displaying a deep humanitarianism regarding the poison-gas victims, one of the rare moments when the Times, which has become a reliable neocon propaganda sheet, has written anything favorable about Trump at all.

    According to Syrian reports on Friday, the U.S. attack killed 13 people, including five soldiers at the airbase.

    Gordon, whose service to the neocon cause is notorious, was the lead author with Judith Miller of the Times' bogus "aluminum tube" story in 2002 which falsely claimed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear-weapons program, an article that was then cited by President George W. Bush's aides as a key argument for invading Iraq in 2003.

    Regarding this week's events, Trump's desperation to reverse his negative media coverage and the dubious evidence blaming Assad for the Idlib incident could fit with the "Wag the Dog" movie from 1997 in which an embattled president creates a phony foreign crisis in Albania.

    A fake war scene in the dark 1997 comedy "Wag the Dog," which showed a girl and her cat fleeing a bombardment in Albania.

    In the movie, the White House operation is a cynical psychological operation to convince the American people that innocent Albanian children, including an attractive girl carrying a cat, are in danger when, In reality, the girl was an actor posing before a green screen that allowed scenes of fiery ruins to be inserted as background.

    Today, because Trump and his administration are now committed to convincing Americans that Assad really was responsible for Tuesday's poison-gas tragedy, the prospects for a full and open investigation are effectively ended. We may never know if there is truth to those allegations or whether we are being manipulated by another "wag the dog" psyop.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Russian FM US Secretary of State discuss US strike on Syria in phone call

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.rt.com
    A thorough and impartial investigation must be launched following the alleged chemical attack in Idlib, which the US cited as the reason for its missile strike, Lavrov told the American official.

    The US attack ordered by President Trump only played into terrorists' hands, Russia's top diplomat told Tillerson.

    US missile strike killed people fighting terrorists – top Assad adviser to RT

    The US Secretary of State is set to travel to Moscow next week and hold meetings with a number of Russian officials, including Lavrov.

    Experts should be sent to Syrian airbase attacked by US to carry out chemical probe – Russian MoD https://t.co/DKcy06LHNm pic.twitter.com/F4OXX2tDrA

    - RT (@RT_com) April 8, 2017

    Earlier Saturday, British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson canceled his planned trip to Moscow. Citing the recent events in Syria, the UK official pulled out of the Russia trip just hours before he was supposed to depart. Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman has described the cancellation as "absurd."

    [Apr 09, 2017] Trump now supports removal of Assad and another American led genocide

    Notable quotes:
    "... This shit makes no sense and I am certain in years to come we will find out that this attack was instigated by the supposed allies of the US. ..."
    "... Where have all the little orange Trumpsters that were calling Clinton " Killary" and Obama warmonger gone now? ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | discussion.theguardian.com
    pittens -> tonystoke , 2d ago
    Replaced by isis and a another American led genocide.
    Phil Gollin -> tonystoke , 2d ago

    No, the USA is just being mindlessly violent. It has spent years supporting terrorist groups in Syria (both directly and via Saudi Arabia) - it is just a demonstration of US aggression and hypocrisy.

    Harvey North -> tonystoke, 2d ago

    Yeah, it would have been all sweetness and light, like Libya and Iraq if this action had been taken by Obama

    Peter Gunn -> tonystoke , 2d ago

    If this action had been taken by Obama

    The history of the post WW2 world is that the US has been on the wrong side on every big conflict although I will give you Serbia was complicated.

    Anything they do is wrong. This is a display of his prowess and to consider it as anything else is simplistic tosh

    roccov -> tonystoke , 7 Apr 2017 08:54

    finally there is a US president that doesn't ignore his own red lines.

    That's laughable. Trump crossed his own red line about not intervening in foreign wars. Also read this:

    Even more confounding was Trump's declaration that the Idlib gas attack crossed "many, many lines – beyond a red line". The comment came only hours after the president had lambasted Barack Obama for laying down the original red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons in 2012 and then not attacking when the line was crossed in August 2013.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/syria-chemical-attack-trump-administration-response-assad

    ThomasPaine3 -> FatCat08 , 7 Apr 2017 09:45
    The US were never bombing ISIL in all seriousness. If they were, they would have joined forces with Assad and Russia and ISIS would have been vaporized. The truth is rather more complex. ISIL is funded, supported and directed in its operations by Israeli, Saudi, Qatari and US assets on the ground in Syria. This was discovered after Aleppo fell. 18 members of the command structure of Al Nusra/ISIL were discovered in a bunker in East Aleppo while the Syrian army were evacuating the town. The 'rebels' to whom they gave safe passage - teamed up with those in Idlib and were responsible for another false flag operation to draw international outrage and US direct attacks on the Syrian armed forces.

    The only people laughing this morning are the head-chopping fascists, that the West hypocritically claims we must defeat. If anyone can't see that this chemical attack only benefitted Al Nusra they are either lying or stupid.

    jondonnis2000 , 7 Apr 2017 08:26
    I get the feeling he's only done it to say "Look, see, I'm not in bed with Russia". To devert the attention from the ongoing Russian links investigation.
    Earl_Grey , 7 Apr 2017 08:27
    It certainly appears to be a decision made on the run catching US allies off guard.

    Rather dangerous to have someone like this with the ability to start a nuclear war. Probably a good idea to stock up on non perishable food items.

    HHeLiBe , 7 Apr 2017 08:28
    Assad was finally at the point where he was ready to make his peace with the international community and continue ruling with their support.
    But he somehow managed to snatch failure from the jaws of success.
    No wonder the bumbling fool has left his nation in such disarray. Share Facebook Twitter
    Phil Gollin HHeLiBe , 7 Apr 2017 08:35
    .

    Errrrr. . . . . I think you mean Trump there.

    londonhongkong1 HHeLiBe , 7 Apr 2017 08:36
    care to explain why he would launch an attack which has not brought the US into direct involvement in the conflict? Ah yes, he's a "bumbling fool"....that must be it.

    This shit makes no sense and I am certain in years to come we will find out that this attack was instigated by the supposed allies of the US.

    MABKenward -> MajorHumpage , 7 Apr 2017 08:53
    Oh look! Oil prices have jumped. Now, can you remind who's in Trump's team? Share Facebook Twitter
    Ranger75th -> MajorHumpage , 7 Apr 2017 09:25
    $800,000 * 59 = a lot of money.

    But this has been the policy of the US and UK for the last 25 years. Perpetual war in middle east. Surely we cannot blame trump. Trump did not even want to be involved there. But it must be difficult to be the POTUS and having dozens of lobbyists, advisors, generals all day remidning you that bombs is the only solution, you end up getting convinced

    Joe Dert -> ChrisD58 , 7 Apr 2017 08:43
    "Trump finally does something right"

    According to himself he didn't. There's a 2013 tweet where Trump told Obama to "save his powder" and not get involved in Syria over chemical weapons. Of course now he has the gall to criticize Obama for leaving a mess when Obama just did what Trump said. Consistently and clearness isn't exactly Trump's strong suit.

    Where have all the little orange Trumpsters that were calling Clinton " Killary" and Obama warmonger gone now?

    nishville -> hoytred , 7 Apr 2017 09:34
    A passenger plane is shot down by someone, before the last piece hits the ground Russia is hit with the sanctions - evidence of the crime substituted by orchestrated media shrieks. Someone uses poisonous gas on civilians and Russian ally is attacked with cruise missiles - evidence of the crime is substituted by statements given by the only people who were caught using chemical weapons in Syria and yet another media lynch mob.

    We are pushed into war by a bunch of greedy murderous liars. None of them give two fucks about the Syrians or their children, they want their pipeline through Syria and it will be built even if it takes a murder of thousands of people. Do you realize what kind of monsters we allow to rule our lives?

    somebody_stopme , 7 Apr 2017 08:30
    Nothing is strong word. It accomplices demand for defence industries which they wanted. Share Facebook Twitter
    UrinalShuvinsky -> somebody_stopme , 7 Apr 2017 09:24
    Trump's meeting the Chinese premiere this week, so no doubt he thinks this will send the message that he's not to be messed with, a man of action etc. Of course the Chinese will be thinking things like 'idiotic, hasty, premature,' etc. But yes, guided cruise missiles cost a few million a pop, so spunking a 59 on a dusty Syrian airfield full of (mostly inoperative) ancient rusting Migs will do the arms suppliers no harm.
    Commentator6 , 7 Apr 2017 08:30
    Assad with Russian help has pretty much won this war so why would he use WMD's at this point?

    The US must provide proof of this use of WMD ... chucking 59 cruise missiles into the mix without checking your facts seems somewhat careless.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Trump, Syria, and Chemical Weapons What We Know, What We Dont, and the Dangers Ahead naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves. ..."
    "... I'd say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin. ..."
    Apr 09, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Damson , April 7, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    More ( repost of comment on Moon of Alabama):

    This best way to see immediately that the victims have not died from sarin intoxication is that in almost every case their skin is red/pink. Sarin turns people blue - always. Sarin makes people puke on themselves, urinate on themselves, shit themselves. Show me the evidence of sarin. Scores and scores of "sarin victims," not a single one has the constellation of symptoms produced by sarin. Not a single one.

    The red/pink color of the victims in the vids suggests the people were executed with cyanide or carbon monoxide, which, in turn, suggests these scenes are staged after the executions. The evidence for KS is just now being collected. The evidence for Ghouta is very, very strong: those people were gassed by the terrorists using, probably, CO.

    Please quit spreading the lie that these are sarin victims and sarin attacks. They are false flags and now that there is a moron in the WH we see how effective those false flags will be unless the public understands what is going on biologically.

    My PhD is in pharmacology, specializing in neuropharmacology, University of Virginia. My postdoc was at Harvard in neurosciences. I am a lawyer. I know bullshit when I smell it. This sarin bullshit has to stop. " (Posted by: Denis | Apr 7, 2017 8:09:40 AM | 47)

    Procopius , April 8, 2017 at 10:23 am

    I can't verify the symptoms of sarin, but if you watch the videos posted you will note the people walking among the victims and those picking up and carrying victims are not wearing any protective gear. No gas masks, no protective suits, no protective footwear, and no gloves.

    I'd say this pretty well rules out sarin, because sarin can be absorbed through the skin.

    If you thought someone was the victim of sarin you would not want to expose your bare skin to possible residue. I say this based on the CBR training I got in the Army thirty years ago. Maybe current doctrine is different.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Russia condemns US missile strike on Syria, suspends key air agreement by David Filipov

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

    President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said the risk of confrontation between aerial assets of the U.S.-led coalition and Russia has "significantly increased" after President Trump ordered the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in retaliation for a chemical attack that killed scores of civilians.

    Later Friday, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has officially informed the United States that it is suspending its obligations under the memorandum at midnight.

    Under the pact, the two countries have traded information about flights by a U.S.-led coalition targeting the Islamic State and Russian planes operating in Syria in support of the Assad government. Moscow was taking its action, the Defense Ministry said, because it sees the U.S. strike "as a grave violation of the memorandum."

    During a special U.N. Security Council session on the airstrikes Friday, Russia's United Nations envoy condemned what he called an "illegitimate action by the United States."

    "The consequences of this for regional and international stability could be extremely serious," Deputy Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said. "The U.S. has often talked about the need to combat international terrorism," he said, yet it attacked the Syrian air force, which he claimed is leading that fight in Syria.

    "It's not difficult to imagine how much the spirits of terrorists have been raised by this action from the United States," Safronkov said.

    ... ... ...

    The council has set aside for now a separate discussion of whether to condemn the Assad government for Tuesday's chemical attack. Russia is expected to veto a resolution supported by the United States, Britain and France.

    Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, earlier claimed that the Syrian government had no chemical weapons and dismissed the Trump administration's explanation as an excuse to enter the conflict.

    "President Putin considers the American strikes against Syria an aggression against a sovereign government in violations of the norms of international law, and under a far-fetched pretext," Peskov told reporters. "This step by Washington is causing significant damage to Russian-American relations, which are already in a deplorable state."

    ... ... ..

    Konashenkov said the attack destroyed a warehouse, classrooms, a cafeteria, six Mig-23 fighter jets that were being repaired and a radar station. The runway and other aircraft were not affected, he said.

    ... ... ...

    Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry, also dismissed the U.S. assertion that the attacks were a response to this week's chemical weapon attack in northern Syria, which left scores dead in a village in Idlib province - one of the last strongholds of anti-Assad factions.

    "It is obvious that the strike by U.S. cruise missiles was prepared well in advance," Zakharova said on Russian state television. "It is clear to any specialist that the decision to deliver the strikes was made in Washington before the Idlib events, which were simply used as a pretext for demonstrating force."

    Putin's spokesman said the Russian president considered the attack an attempt to distract attention from the heavy civilian casualties caused by a U.S.-backed offensive to capture the northern Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State group.

    Dan Lamothe and David Nakamura in Washington and Andrew Roth in Moscow contributed to this report.

    Jeff Black, 4/8/2017 3:46 AM EDT [Edited]

    You Liberals lost the election because you had a failed candidate. This led you to your safe rooms where you thumb sucked and did your bed wetting while playing with your tinker toys and dreamed of a Russian conspiracy between Putin and Trump. Got any evidence on the Russian deal? I didn't think so.

    3August, 4/7/2017 9:52 PM EDT

    For a British diplomatic official to call Assada a war criminal is beyond reason. He is a duly elected leader of a sovereign country who is fighting not only opposition rebels but also international terrorist within his country. He is not attacking other countries as is the West. Who has destroyed Yemen with the help of the US, Saudia Arabia. They are the true war criminals!

    georgex9 4/7/2017 9:31 PM EDT
    The U.S. policy of trying change dictatorships has not been working in the Middle East. And, yet, here we are in Syria trying to oust this brutal dictator who now has support from Russia. Our objective in Syria ought to be limited to defeating radical religious fanatics like ISIS. If Assad is replaced who knows what subsequent turmoil will follow. Of course, the warmongers in Congress are happy with this missile attack in Syria. This means more profits for the makers of the cruise weapons.
    whatthe---- 4/7/2017 10:39 PM EDT
    What's to complain about, more jobs now available in the munitions industry.

    ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:18 PM EDT [Edited]

    The President is prohibited from starting a war without the approval of Congress unless we are under the threat of impending attack. This of course is not the case.

    Once again Trump ignores the Constitution.

    NS Bingo, 4/7/2017 8:32 PM EDT

    Just like Bill Clinton bombed an Aspirin factory without approval from congress.

    ezpaddler, 4/7/2017 8:50 PM EDT

    Why do neocons always try to defend the crimes of NOW by referencing the past?
    Weak, pathetic, Sad.

    BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:43 PM EDT

    Why not Trump in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity? With 3 military actions he has killed over 150 children.. Mosul 300 civilians, mostly children.. Syria attack last night 6 children... And the Navy Seal engagement a few days after his Inaugural.. 7 children.
    And he hasnt even been office 100 days..

    supermoe88, 4/7/2017 7:38 PM EDT

    While the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent and should be condemned, since when was the U.S. the globally elected policeman of the world? No country has the right to attack another sovereign country, which has not initiated an attack on it, without an approved UN resolution. This is an illegal act and a blatant violation of international law, as Putin rightly states. If Trump is so concerned by the killing of babies then why has he not condemned the killing of babies by the U.S. bombing of innocent civilians and babies in Iraq last week?? What a double standard!

    Vladdie Luvs Donnie, 4/7/2017 7:39 PM EDT

    We're the biggest Suckers.

    BostonCommon, 4/7/2017 7:23 PM EDT

    biggest winners today? ISIS.. That airfield launched bombing raids on them, as well.

    AMR56 4/7/2017 6:53 PM EDT
    I've been watching "Platoon" and "Full Metal Jacket" recently. It's clear to me that history is repeating itself in East Ukraine and Syria.

    America is the world's most powerful country. It needs to make the right decisions about which side to back...otherwise defeat beckons. Again.

    sasha59 4/7/2017 6:44 PM EDT
    So MAGA hat wearing Trump lovers, are you or your kids ready to take off that hat, put on a helmet and some Kevlar, and go fight in Donny's new war if this escalates?

    [Apr 09, 2017] Is Assad to blame for the chemical weapons attack in Syria?

    Apr 09, 2017 | www.dw.com

    More than 80 people were killed by suspected chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun . That is about the only thing certain about the attack. Western statements place blame at the feet of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, an accusation Damascus and Moscow contest .

    The Syrian regime may not have had a compelling motive, believes Günther Meyer, the director of the Research Center for the Arab World at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz. "Only armed opposition groups could profit from an attack with chemical weapons," he told DW. "With their backs against the wall, they have next to no chance of opposing the regime militarily. As President [Donald] Trump's recent statements show, such actions make it possible for anti-Assad groups to receive further support."

    Former President Barack Obama famously drew a "red line" in 2012. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus," he said at the time. Meyer views the statement as an "invitation for Assad's opponents to use chemical weapons and make the Assad regime responsible for it."

    Rebels' chemical weapons

    In 2014, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported on opposition forces' ability to use chemical weapons. In an article for the "London Review of Books," Hersh obtained documents from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Pentagon's own spy organization. They suggested that the Nusra Front, a Syrian offshoot of al Qaeda, had access to the sarin nerve agent. A chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta in August 2013, which was blamed on Assad, was carried out by rebels, according to Hersh's article. They wanted Washington to presume Assad had crossed Obama's "red line" and draw the US into a war.

    Syrien UN Inspektoren Untersuchung Giftgas Einsatz Sarin Damaskus (AFP/Getty Images)

    There are doubts over whether the suspected chemical weapons strike in Ghouta came from Assad's forces

    The Ghouta attack

    Obama's Director of National Intelligence at the time, James Clapper, was able to dissuade Obama from ordering a cruise missile strike, according to a newly-published book by Mideast expert Michael Lüders. Presumably, a deciding factor was an analysis of the chemical weapons used in Ghouta, conducted by a British military lab, which found the gas to be of a different composition than the Syrian army possessed.

    The attack took place while UN weapons inspectors were in the country, on Assad's invitation, said Meyer. Assad had asked them to investigate a chemical weapons attack from March 2013 outside Aleppo, which killed Syrian soldiers.

    "It makes no sense that the regime would carry out an attack with inspectors in the country," he said.

    [Apr 09, 2017] Full blown neo-McCartism is now politically correct in the USA

    Apr 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. -> BenIsNotYoda... , April 07, 2017 at 01:39 PM
    If there is some connection, it will come out after some time. Comey said there was an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the election. The former National Security adviser Flynn wants an immunity deal.

    But the liberals like PGL have certainly gone hysterical in that it reminds me of McCarthyism. They'd rather talk about the traitors than why Hillary lost the election to a buffoon. Samantha Bee joked that the Russian hackers who spread fake news in Midwest swing states had a better game plan than Hillary.

    The center-left cant' believe they lost to Trump. So they focus on Russia, the external enemy.

    Kind of like wagging the dog.

    Sanjait -> Peter K.... , April 07, 2017 at 11:37 PM
    The Trump Organization subsisted for years off Russian oligarch money and his campaign and administration are lousy with people paid directly by them for political activities including his son.

    And you wonder "if" there is a connection? Bless your useful heart.

    ilsm -> Sanjait... , April 08, 2017 at 06:48 AM
    while the Clinton

    mob took Sunni

    royals' money

    in exchange for US

    keeping the Shi'a down

    it is different'

    when it is

    slaughter by US'

    puppet masters

    ilsm -> BenIsNotYoda... , April 07, 2017 at 05:36 PM
    What is the difference between Watergate and Obama wire tapping Trump and the GOP?

    Nixon did not trash the US constitution.

    If you think that is peanuts I suggest you look at pictures of US cemeteries in France.

    Sanjait -> ilsm... , April 07, 2017 at 11:38 PM
    I'm going to bet you are a 9/11 truther, and I suspect you're also the type who thinks fluoridated water is some kind of conspiracy.
    ilsm -> Sanjait... , April 08, 2017 at 06:52 AM
    your thinking skills

    are suspect

    what would you

    risk to find out?

    you do well betting?

    as Twain said

    it is difficult

    to argue with

    non "thinkers"

    they bring you

    into their delusion

    and beat you

    with experience

    libezkova -> Sanjait... , April 08, 2017 at 10:29 AM
    "I'm going to bet you are a 9/11 truther"

    I am going to bet that you are Hillary email scandal denier. And worse -- clueless jingoist, who get your all foreign policy information from the CNN and then uncritically regurgitate this neoliberal propaganda here.

    Each of us has a set of positions, and there should be some level of respect of them despite differences, because it is the debate that gets us closer to the truth.

    And it is a required behavior for those, who like you continuously try to show up your university education, despite the evidence to the contrary that that their posts often produce.

    The real sign of the university education is the tolerance toward the opponents. It is badly lacking in your behavior in this forum.

    [Apr 08, 2017] Was Trumps Syria Strike Illegal?

    Apr 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 10:29 AM
    Was Trump's Syria Strike Illegal? Explaining
    Presidential War Powers https://nyti.ms/2oaFfoB
    NYT - CHARLIE SAVAGE -mAPRIL 7, 2017

    WASHINGTON - President Trump ordered the military on Thursday to carry out a missile attack on Syrian forces for using chemical weapons against civilians. The unilateral attack lacked authorization from Congress or from the United Nations Security Council, raising the question of whether he had legal authority to commit the act of war.

    Mr. Trump and top members of his administration initially justified the operation as a punishment for Syria's violating the ban on chemical weapons and an attempt at deterrence. But they did not make clear whether that was a legal argument or just a policy rationale.

    The strike raises two sets of legal issues. One involves international law and when it is lawful for any nation to attack another. The other involves domestic law and who gets to decide - the president or Congress - whether the United States should attack another country.

    Did Trump have clear authority under international law to attack Syria?

    No. The United Nations Charter, a treaty the United States has ratified, recognizes two justifications for using force on another country's soil without its consent: the permission of the Security Council or a self-defense claim. In the case of Syria, the United Nations did not approve the strike, and the Defense Department justified it as "intended to deter the regime from using chemical weapons again," which is not self-defense.

    Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, in a briefing with reporters, invoked Syria's violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and a related Security Council resolution from 2013, saying, "The use of prohibited chemical weapons, which violates a number of international norms and violates existing agreements, called for this type of a response, which is a kinetic military response."

    However, while the resolution said the Security Council would impose "measures" if anyone used chemical weapons in Syria in the future, it did not directly authorize force. The chemical weapons treaty does not provide an enforcement mechanism authorizing other parties to attack violators as punishment.

    Mr. Trump's attack was different from the United States' bombings targeting the Islamic State in rebel-held areas of Syria. The United States has justified those airstrikes as part of the collective self-defense of Iraq, which asked for help against the group. But Syria did not use its chemical weapons against the United States or an ally like Iraq.

    Could the strike be justified as a humanitarian intervention?

    Some human rights advocates have argued that customary international law, which develops from the practices of states, also permits using force to stop an atrocity. Others worry that accepting such a doctrine could create a loophole that would be subject to misuse, eroding important constraints on war. The United States has not taken the position that humanitarian interventions are lawful absent Security Council authorization.

    Still, in 1999, the United States participated in NATO's air war to stop the Serbian ethnic-cleansing campaign in Kosovo, even though the operation lacked a Security Council authorization. The Clinton administration never offered a clear explanation for why that operation complied with international law. Instead, it cited a list of "factors" - like the threat to peace and stability and the danger of a humanitarian disaster - without offering a theory for why those factors made that war lawful. In a seeming acknowledgment that this was dubious, the administration said the Kosovo intervention should not serve as a precedent.

    Did Trump have domestic legal authority to attack Syria?

    The answer is murky because of a split between the apparent intent of the Constitution and how the country has been governed in practice. Most legal scholars agree that the founders wanted Congress to decide whether to go to war, except when the country is under an attack. But presidents of both parties have a long history of carrying out military operations without authorization from Congress, especially since the end of World War II, when the United States maintained a large standing army instead of demobilizing.

    In the modern era, executive branch lawyers have argued that the president, as commander in chief, may use military force unilaterally if he decides a strike would be in the national interest, at least when its anticipated nature, scope and duration fall short of "a 'war' in the constitutional sense," as a Clinton administration lawyer wrote in the context of a contemplated intervention in Haiti. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 10:35 AM
    The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) is a federal law intended to check the president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

    The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto. ... (Wikipedia)

    (That is, IN THE SHORT TERM, the President
    can do 'as necessary', i.e., as he pleases,
    with US armed forces, overseas at least.)

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 11:12 AM
    War without an endgame in Syria
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2017/04/07/esyria/YAuy4QnGZYGsCvWC8PGNdN/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - editorial - April 8

    'The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory," wrote Sun Tzu in his book "The Art of War."

    That's good advice - and advice that the author of "The Art of the Deal" should take to heart when thinking about the act of war that he unilaterally ordered this week against the Syrian regime. A cruise missile fusillade is an efficient way to wreck an airbase. But it is only a military tactic, not a strategy for victory.

    To be sure, there won't be any victors in the years-long human tragedy unfolding in Syria. The poison gas used against civilians there is a stark reminder of man's capacity for indiscriminate cruelty as well as the international community's inability or unwillingness to restrain it.

    Restraint is important when it comes to waging war. It is the reason our constitution prevents the president from launching one alone. Congress restrains the executive by approving or rejecting war. Donald Trump certainly thought so when he tweeted, on August 30, 2013: "The President must get congressional approval before attacking Syria - big mistake if he does not!" Just so. Congress considered military action in Syria after a poison gas attack and opposed it.

    Trump must seek immediate congressional approval for continued conflict in Syria. The idea that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is somehow applicable here is farcical. The Assad regime is not Al Qaeda.

    One of the first questions that legislators will - or should - ask, and which the president must explain, is this: What are US goals in Syria, and how will these particular military actions help achieve them? There may indeed be answers to those questions, but they have yet to be brought before the American people, in whose name those missiles are being fired.

    Articulating a coherent strategy and the way that strategy will be implemented is critical, because it forces a unity of effort between military, diplomatic, humanitarian, and intelligence efforts, which have often been at cross purposes.

    The Trump administration is coming late to the war in Syria. Yet it seems keen to fight first and afterwards look for a victory. What they should also be looking for is an exit strategy from one of the world's bloodiest quagmires.

    (Indeed, given that there ARE US troops on the
    ground in Syria, and have been for some time,
    an AUMF would seem to be necessary.)

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 11:50 AM
    The US has not listened to Sun Tsu since 1945.

    In Syria US is bin Laden's heirs and assigns' Air Force.

    While no one sees pictures of starving Shiite kids in Yemen. Or the results of cluster munitions on civilians in Sanaa.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 11:47 AM
    There is no evidence for the national government of Syria to have done the 2013 or last week's supposed sarin attacks.

    http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    Unless I see evidence of ordnance that delivered the volatile liquefied sarin, and there would be plenty, I will not accept the unsubstantiated fake news from NYT.

    To say Assad had nothing to lose is mind reading.

    US will bomb away toward regime change and another Yemen for less truth than this.

    And passing jihadi propaganda as reason for becoming their air support is insane.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , April 08, 2017 at 12:37 PM
    ... Victims of a suspected chemical attack in Syria appeared to show symptoms consistent with reaction to a nerve agent, the World Health Organization said on Wednesday.

    "Some cases appear to show additional signs consistent with exposure to organophosphorus chemicals, a category of chemicals that includes nerve agents," WHO said in a statement, putting the death toll at at least 70.

    The United States has said the deaths were caused by sarin nerve gas dropped by Syrian aircraft. Russia has said it believes poison gas had leaked from a rebel chemical weapons depot struck by Syrian bombs.

    Syria attack symptoms consistent with nerve agent
    use: WHO http://reut.rs/2nWTdZo via @Reuters

    (It is the Trump admin that says Assad is to blame.)

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , April 08, 2017 at 01:28 PM
    Symptoms are not evidence that the agent, whether sarin or bug spray from a plant trying to make sarin (see Bhopal), was delivered the by government.

    If by jets, or helos the canisters and bomblet debris would be just as easy to show as distraught fathers who support terrorists.

    Or, the government could have flown a crop duster....... with sprayer bars...... at night and caught by US radar!!!

    Too much innuendo to justify shooting 59 cruise missiles to shut the runway for a few hours and destroy a few broken, old jets

    [Apr 08, 2017] Theyre terrified that peace was going to break out – Ron Paul on US Syria strike

    Notable quotes:
    "... "I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn't been presented, and they need a so-called excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition." ..."
    "... "If any of this was true, I don't know why they couldn't wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn't go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can't think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it's helping ISIS, because it's helping Al-Qaeda." ..."
    "... "From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things," ..."
    "... The Syrian situation now is "a victory for neo-conservatives, who've been looking for Assad to go," ..."
    "... "I don't believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it's hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty." ..."
    "... "The peace talks have ended now. They're terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes things dramatically! I don't expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future." ..."
    Apr 08, 2017 | www.rt.com

    "A victory of neo-conservatives" – that's how Ron Paul, a former member of the US House of Representatives and three-time presidential candidate, described the US strike on Syria, adding that he does not expect peace talks to resume any time soon. Speaking to RT, Ron Paul said that there is no proof of Damascus' guilt that could trigger such a rash and violent response from the US.

    "I don't think the evidence is there, at least it hasn't been presented, and they need a so-called excuse, they worked real hard, our government and their coalition."

    This is not the first time something like this has happened in Syria or elsewhere, Paul said, but now it is convenient to pay attention and react immediately.

    "If any of this was true, I don't know why they couldn't wait and take a look at it. In 2013, there were similar stories that didn't go anywhere, because with a little bit of a pause, there was a resistance to it built in our Congress and in the American people. They thought that it was a fraud and nothing like that was happening, and right now, I just can't think of how it could conceivably be what they claim, because it's helping ISIS, because it's helping Al-Qaeda."

    "From my point of view, there was no need to rush. There was no threat to national security. They have to give a reason to do these things," Paul added.

    A factor that contributed to the speedy reaction was of course the US president, the politician told RT.

    "I have no idea what his purpose was. Maybe he just didn't want to hear the debate, because the last time they debated it, they lost. And this time, it was necessary for them to jump onto this, before people came to know what was really going on."

    The Syrian situation now is "a victory for neo-conservatives, who've been looking for Assad to go," Paul said.

    "They want to get rid of him, and you have to look for who is involved in that. Unfortunately, they are the ones who are winning out on this, and the radicals, too! There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, because at one minute we say, well, maybe Assad has to stay, the next day he has to go, and we're there fighting ISIS and Al-Qaeda. At the same time, what we end up doing is we actually strengthen them! It is a mess.

    "I don't believe that our people or the American government should be the policemen of the world, it makes no sense, it causes us more trouble and more grief, it causes us more financial problems, and it's hardly a way that we could defend our constitutional liberty."

    This policy clearly does not lead to peace, Paul told RT.

    "The peace talks have ended now. They're terrified that peace was going to break out! Al-Qaeda was on the run, peace talks were happening, and all of a sudden, they had to change, and this changes things dramatically! I don't expect peace talks anytime soon or in the distant future."

    Last but not least, the politician spoke out about the deeper reasons – and potential disastrous consequences – of the latest attack's timing.

    "I was wondering about the fact that the announcement came when Trump was talking to Xi [Jinping, the Chinese president]. And of course, [North] Korea's high on the list of targets for our president and our administration. It might be a warning: this is what's going to happen to you if you don't do what we tell you. I just don't like us being involved in so many countries, in their internal affairs; I think it's so detrimental."

    READ MORE:

    [Apr 08, 2017] US just flew tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) in order to support al Qaeda, acting essentially as Al Qaeda air force.

    Apr 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Chris G ... , April 07, 2017 at 05:23 PM
    We could have Hillary in the oval office. Trump applied Obama doctrine of 'unjust peace has to be stopped by just cruise missiles aiding terrorists'.

    Soviet cluster munitions (CBUs)in Afghanistan were evil. Saudi cluster munitions killing Shi'a kids in Yemen are "leadership". CBU's artillery shells dispensing bomblets and land mines are banned by other treaties the US does not follow.

    Pix of dead kids only matter in Syria. US double standard.

    US just flew tomahawk land attack missile (TLAM) support for al Qaeda!

    [Apr 08, 2017] Turning the tables: Duma committee to probe US media for meddling in Russian elections

    Notable quotes:
    "... preemptive retaliation ..."
    "... After the end of the US presidential elections, the American politicians who voiced very acute accusations targeting the Russian mass media, proceeded from words to real action ..."
    "... Once Reagan, discussing taxes, addressed Americans with 'Read my lips: No ..."
    Apr 08, 2017 | www.rt.com
    The State Duma Committee for Information Policy, IT and Communications has decided to hold an investigation into the work of Western media outlets in order to examine possible attempts to influence election processes in Russia. The head of the committee, MP Leonid Levin (Fair Russia) told TASS that he and his colleagues would soon hold a special session with analysts and experts, at which they intend to look into the activities of such mass media organizations as CNN, Radio Liberty and Voice of America. Read my lips: NO – Putin says about Russia's 'meddling' in US elections

    The idea to launch a probe was proposed by MP Konstantin Zatulin of the majority United Russia party. In an attachment to the protocol letter, the lawmaker described the motion as " preemptive retaliation ."

    " After the end of the US presidential elections, the American politicians who voiced very acute accusations targeting the Russian mass media, proceeded from words to real action ," Zatulin wrote.

    This action includes, for example, a bill that gives Justice Department additional authority to investigate RT America for possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, drafted recently by Democratic Party Senator Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire). Shaheen said in press comments that her bill was a response to a report from the director of national intelligence about Russian influence in the 2016 election.

    Moscow has repeatedly denied allegations of its role in the last US presidential elections. Most recently the rumors were dismissed by President Vladimir Putin as he spoke to journalists during the Arctic Forum in late March.

    " Once Reagan, discussing taxes, addressed Americans with 'Read my lips: No !'" Putin said, answering a question posed by the anchor of the forum.

    [Apr 08, 2017] CIA bluff: Brennan claims that CIA had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed

    Looks like John O. Brennan , then the CIA director was a very important player in creating anti-Russian hysteria. Who put a lot of efforts is fanning the "Russian threat" meme designed to suppress Hillary email scandal and DNC revelations. some senators such as McCain and Reid also played a role: "Mr. Reid fired off another letter on Oct. 30, accusing Mr. Comey of a "double standard" in reviving the Clinton investigation while sitting on "explosive information" about possible ties between Russia and Mr. Trump."
    Apr 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    pgl, April 07, 2017 at 11:41 AM

    So on the same night, we sent missiles against an Assad airbase, the New York Times rant this story:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

    CIA Had Evidence of Russian Effort to Help Trump Earlier Than Believed

    ilsm -> pgl... , April 07, 2017 at 05:47 PM
    No way could Russia have done worse than the crooks in the DNC!

    Besides the Russia Putin canard diverts attention from the DNC trashing of the constitution.....

    libezkova -> ilsm... , April 08, 2017 at 12:31 PM
    I suspect that this is more of an attempt to unite the divided nation (and, especially, the Democratic Party), in which the majority of population now rejects official ideology of neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. With trust in official institution such as Congress, at dangerously low levels. And rumors (aka "fake news") rampant due to lack of trust in discredited official media channels. Proliferation of rumors ("improvised news") as Tamotsu Shubitani noted in his book ( https://www.amazon.com/Improvised-News-Sociological-Study-Rumor/dp/0672511487 ) is a definitive sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the ruling elite and/or dominant ideology of a given society. Sign of growing level of distrust.

    War hysteria is a proven cure in such circumstances. It also helps to suppress Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Susan A. Brewer is Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point book, Why America Fights: Patriotism and War Propaganda from the Philippines to Iraq, told a fascinating history of how the US elite has conducted what Donald Rumsfeld called "perception management" on the US population:

    == quote ==

    10. WE FIGHT TO STOP ANOTHER HITLER. There was only one Hitler, but he lives on in wartime propaganda since World War II.

    9. WE FIGHT OVER THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT HERE. In this message, America typically is portrayed as a pastoral land of small towns, not as an urban, industrialized and militant superpower.

    8. WE FIGHT CLEAN WARS WITH SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY. This message suggests that U.S. troops will not be in much danger, nor will innocent civilians be killed in what is projected to be a quick and decisive conflict.

    7. WE FIGHT TO PROTECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN. A traditional theme of war propaganda since ancient times, it is accompanied by compelling visuals and heartrending stories.

    6. WE FIGHT BRUTISH, FANATICAL ENEMIES. Another classic, it dehumanizes enemy fighters.

    5. WE FIGHT TO UNITE THE NATION. Here war is shown to heal old wounds and unify the divisions caused by the Civil War, class conflict, racial and ethnic differences, or past failures such as the Vietnam War.

    4. WE FIGHT FOR THE FLAG AND THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. The trend has been to emphasize the flag over the republic. The more flags on display, the less likely the people's elected representatives will debate foreign policy or exercise their power to declare war.

    3. WE FIGHT TO LIBERATE THE OPPRESSED. When the oppressed resist U.S. help, they appear ungrateful and in need of American guidance especially if they have valuable resources.

    2. WE FIGHT TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. During the Philippine War, for example, this message advised that Uncle Sam knew what was best for the little brown brothers.

    1. WE FIGHT TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. Although the American way of life stands for peace, it requires a lot of fighting.

    == end of quote ==

    So it like the real goal of current warmongering hysteria is to unite the nation in general and Democratic Party in particular against the common enemy, using Russian threat as a scapegoat.

    This also helps to preserve the grip of Clinton (neoliberal) wing on Democratic Party, because after Hillary momentous fiasco, in normal circumstances, all of them need to go and be replaced with Sanders wing appointees.

    [Apr 07, 2017] US Launches Airstrikes Against Syria (Updated)

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump supporters aka the "deplorables" are flipping out and feel incredibly betrayed. Bipartisanship at last–ex-the neocons. ..."
    "... The Deplorables are mostly against the war. They are probably the only real anti-war faction in the US, as the anti-war Left tends to dissappear whenever a Democrat is in power. Deplorables actually are angry at Trump for this. ..."
    "... According to Wikipedia, the last country the USA declared war on was Hungary (during WW2). ..."
    "... With Flynn gone and Bannon marginalized, Trump has suddenly transformed into another GW Bush!!!! ..."
    "... This attack seems to be sending a very clear US message to Syria: We will not let you defeat our rebels and our terrorists. We will intervene every time you get close and ensure the conflict continues. We need no justification for our actions, we can create one whenever required (thanks Turkey). Do not stand in the way of our interests. ..."
    "... I was thinking the same thing. Just like Hill/Bill bombing Yugoslavia without Congressional approval in order to direct attention from Monica among other reasons. ..."
    "... If memory serves me correct Bill Clinton launched a volley of cruise missiles at targets in Iraq the night before his Congressional impeachment vote. Dan Rather was on the scene in Baghdad to report the attack "LIVE!" so there was a great deal of coordination and preplanning that took place with the media. ABC had to interrupt their specially scheduled programing for the evening to report on the attack. A television special on John F Kennedy who was portrayed as the nation's greatest president who incidentally was a serial philander that just couldn't keep his d*%k in his pants- what a coincidence! Remind you of anybody you know America? (Nudge, nudge, wink) Wow look at those pretty explosions. Serious manly-man stuff right there. Pretty darn grown-up and Presidential eh? ..."
    "... I highly doubt this was Trump's call. I believe the powers that be done got to old Donnie and helped him get his mind right. ..."
    "... My initial take on Trump was that he would be taken into a room and shown something needed to bring him around. Where that is remains to be seen. Obama, W and others likely got a similar treatment. How else would nonsensical 180s be explained, even by DC standards? ..."
    "... Who is pulling all those strings? ..."
    "... It could be he's being manipulated but maybe he and his team are taking a page from Clinton's triangulation playbook, especially with Clinton having called for the exact same strike just yesterday. ..."
    "... In the longer term, it could serve his purposes for the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians to think they are dealing with a man capable of any impulsive lunacy ..."
    "... Introduced by McDonnell Douglas in the 1970s, it was initially designed as a medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a surface platform. It has been improved several times, and after corporate divestitures and acquisitions , is now made by Raytheon . Some Tomahawks were also manufactured by General Dynamics (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security) ..."
    "... So that's what, another $150 or $200 million out the launch tubes, to do what again, to "make America safe?" ..."
    "... . I think that Trump's Presidency will be a disaster, because he was not the man that he campaigned to be. ..."
    "... It's interesting to note that the Paleoconservatives have broken ranks. ..."
    "... I think it's more complicated than that. You ignore that the utter hysteria of the "evil Rooskies" campaign has revealed how deeply committed the military industrial complex has been about getting its Russian war. ..."
    "... It is now looking like Eisenhower was right, the military industrial complex could and has usurped democracy. A better President might have been able to check and contain it on its Russia campaign. Maybe a great President could have figured out how to stymie them but name names as to who we have now who could have done that. ..."
    "... In his book The Brothers ..."
    "... I guess breakdown in command is always a possibility, but Assad would be wacko beyond belief to sacrifice whatever ties he has with Putin to kill 100 – even if they all were ISIS. I hate false flag arguments, but it sure seems to fit here. Plus it worked on the trigger happy target, if it indeed was one. ..."
    "... Trump thinks he's staged a propaganda coup against the Clintonites and to some degree he has. But by acting out their plans in a wild man format he's showing how crazy and vicious they all are. There's going to be a drive to play their hand out, and there will be scads of opportunities to overreact. How is this going to effect Russian support for US efforts in Afghanistan, for example? ..."
    "... The entire group of voters who figured his rhetoric (scam/con) was proof that he was the lesser of the evils is frustratingly naive. ..."
    "... It certainly was an argument that was repeated ad nauseam around here by certain individuals (not necessarily the majority) as a pat answer to any question of the correctness of voting Trump. Unwarranted optimism about Trump's motives, plans, and/or capabilities will continue to look more and more absurd as we go forward, I predict. ..."
    "... Hillary was out today, before the missiles, advocating for EXACTLY what Trump did. The only consistent, morale choice between Hillary and Trump was NOT VOTING FOR EITHER ONE. ..."
    "... I still think it was reasonable to vote for Trump as the lesser evil, in order to stop Hillary. Trump was a wild card. Hillary had both the record of interventionism and the rhetoric. Trump talked out of both sides of his mouth, but he was at least pretty consistent in opposing hostility toward Russia. And he hadn't been intimately involved in planning or supporting the invasion and destruction of multiple countries. Of course, that might just be because he had no record as a public official at all. ..."
    "... The USA is a rogue nation in the world community. Dying Empires are at their most dangerous when they begin to loose control of events. ..."
    "... Anyone with a functioning brain cell can immediately identify the sequence of recent events in Syria as a false flag attack staged to provide the pretext for an unconstitutional act of war. ..."
    "... In previous administrations false flag attacks have been orchestrated by brilliant Machiavellians like Cheney, who was able to sell an illogical fabrication like the Official 911 Report to a gullible public. ..."
    "... congratulations, america, you are once again al-qaeda's airforce. make america gullible again! ..."
    "... Trump is such an interesting and frightening phenomenon because he is ultimately the continuation of the status quo but puts such a naked face on the bullshit that has always been there. ..."
    "... The way he spoke when decrying the horrors of the gas attacks, about all the babies that died, in his perversely hilarious cold and off-putting way, the US always does this type of crocodile tears, but with Trump it is incredibly on the nose. ..."
    "... Channeling my inner Scott Adams: "What's the best way for Trump to prove that he isn't a Russian stooge ? To attack Russia !" ..."
    "... Tulsi Gabbard: "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia-which could lead to nuclear war. ..."
    "... "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder." ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on April 6, 2017 by Yves Smith So the military/surveillance state got its war against Russia after all. My, that was fast. Merely implementing a no-fly zone was widely seen as tantamount to instigating a war with Russia, and this move is far more provocative.

    Perhaps the US thinks it can engage in a show of muscle and stop there. But as Lambert has pointed out, some things can't be unsaid. Even if this attack was meant as an over-the-top message to Russia regarding its support of Assad, some things can't be undone either.

    Another line of thought is that this airstrike was meant as a warning shot to Xi Jinping regarding North Korea, that the US is willing to take aggressive, precipitous actions. Unlike Syria, North Korea would be a bona fide threat to the US if it succeeds in its efforts to build long-range missiles.

    ... ... ...

    Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post points out via an e-mailed alert that:

    Donald Trump does not have the legal authority to launch airstrikes against Syria, yet he has done so tonight, multiple news outlets are reporting, and confirmed by an intelligence community source

    Update 10:15 PM . From the Wall Street Journal :

    The U.S. military launched a series of strikes against a Syrian air base Friday, a response to mounting calls for a display of force in the wake of this week's suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria.

    The strikes represented the first time a U.S. military operation deliberately targeted the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and came a day after President Donald Trump said the chemical attack in Idlib province earlier this week , blamed on Syrian forces, had changed his thinking on Mr. Assad ..

    U.S. lawmakers had urged Mr. Trump to strike the Assad regime. There is a growing consensus that the regime used banned chemical weapons in the attack, which killed at least 85 people, including 27 children, and injured about 550.

    CNN reports that Trump will address the nation shortly.

    This is from Howard Beale IV, but I don't have the images to confirm his take. Readers? Note that the US did give Russia a head's up before the bombing .

    If you see the press pictures of the runway damage of the Syrian airfields, the amount of damage is so minimal they'll be back in operation in under a week. IOW, it was just a very expensive fireworks demonstration.

    Had Hair Furor really wanted to send a message, they would have had to actually destroy the runway with a bombing mission-that's a very high-risk move, but would have sent a far more serious message that we're not fucking around.

    This may be giving Team Trump way more credit than is due. However, any action against Syria, even if Trump was sold on the idea that this was a warning shot disguised as an apparent act of war, it is first very risk and second has the effect of committing Trump psychologically against Assad, when before he was pretty indifferent.

    ... ... ...

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , April 6, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    The ending of his speech was somber.

    Is there a power greater than the president that is moving world events invisibly?

    Aumua , April 6, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    Of course there is. Very unfortunate for humanity.

    Transcript here .

    Fred , April 6, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    Yes, fake news.

    craazyboy , April 6, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    "There is a growing consensus ." God speaks in quite whispers to the faithful ..

    So now we get the calls to depose Bad Guy Assad. Our good guys are Al-Qaeda and ISIS, so I guess they take the helm, then. Jolly good, olde chaps. I'm glad I don't have to explain that to Putin.

    craazyboy , April 6, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    crap. "quite" s/b quiet.

    miles , April 7, 2017 at 2:39 am

    Yes, it is the evil that invokes God's name to justify acts of violent aggression. It is the worldwide religion of warmongering and profiteering that rules the hearts of our leaders. The exact sort of evil the Bible warns about. Think: who did Jesus condemn while on earth? The self righteous Jewish religious elders. And summarily they fought for his execution.

    Isn't it evident? God does not have to move world events. The evil in human hearts, throughout history, has slowly but steadily led us to the brink of total annihilation. That is the price of free will.

    The question then is: does it stop there? Or is there a God that will redeem the earth at the end of it all?

    Personally I believe the Bible, the principle of resurrection bringing eternal life out of death, and the promise that we will be judged by our works, not merely our "religious" "faith."

    I hope that we can all find some sliver of hope to keep our heads up in these times, whatever that means for you personally, because despair is a bottomless pit.

    grayslady , April 6, 2017 at 10:05 pm

    I just tried calling my so-called Congressional representatives. I can't even leave a message after business hours. I am so angry right now I am seeing red! Who are these people that think they can declare war on a sovereign nation–with a legally elected government–when we haven't been attacked or threatened? We've just experienced a military coup if Congress no longer has the right to declare war. Insanity!

    Thanks for the out-of-cycle post, Yves. NC continues to be my first source for real, accurate news.

    oho , April 6, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    Trump supporters aka the "deplorables" are flipping out and feel incredibly betrayed. Bipartisanship at last–ex-the neocons.

    jrs , April 7, 2017 at 1:12 am

    their candidate certainly proved deplorable enough. Bunch of dead Syrians killed by U.S. missiles, are they deplorable or just dead? Yea the deplorables that aren't lucky enough to live in the U.S. get murdered outright and not slowly either.

    And then Trump won't even allow the refugees this war will create into this country. F the man.

    tony , April 7, 2017 at 3:24 am

    The Deplorables are mostly against the war. They are probably the only real anti-war faction in the US, as the anti-war Left tends to dissappear whenever a Democrat is in power. Deplorables actually are angry at Trump for this.

    Dead Dog , April 6, 2017 at 10:11 pm

    Yes, anger and despair.

    Re declaring war, I think the previous two pressies already crossed over that line, consequence free

    jrs , April 7, 2017 at 1:14 am

    I don't think it's been declared since the Korean war actually, so some 70 years of undeclared wars?

    JerseyJeffersonian , April 7, 2017 at 1:39 am

    jrs,

    Not even then, as it was characterized by Truman as merely a "police action". Sure it was, Harry. Oh, and thanks for authorizing the Security State, too.

    Jeff , April 7, 2017 at 5:17 am

    According to Wikipedia, the last country the USA declared war on was Hungary (during WW2).

    JohnnyGL , April 6, 2017 at 10:52 pm

    Both Senators and my Congressional Reps are getting a call tomorrow morning! NO MORE WAR!!!

    Lots of people in DC want impeachment, now I'm on board.

    With Flynn gone and Bannon marginalized, Trump has suddenly transformed into another GW Bush!!!!

    Tom , April 6, 2017 at 11:02 pm

    Funny how there's always money for lobbing endless flights of Tomahawk missles at countries on the other side of the world, but never enough to fund things at home like healthcare, education, environmental protection and infrastructure. I guess you go with the priorities you have, not the ones you wish you had.

    Carla , April 6, 2017 at 11:20 pm

    I guess you go with the state you have, the Deep State, not the one you wish you had that, uhm, democratic thingy

    Sandler , April 6, 2017 at 11:37 pm

    How many US children died this week from lack of access to adequate healthcare, food, safe roads, safe neighborhoods, etc?

    Harry , April 6, 2017 at 11:55 pm

    Or Yemeni kids, or Mosul kids.

    Dead Dog , April 6, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    Just gobsmacked.

    This isn't a game of bluff ffs A major war affects everyone on the planet. How f'ing selfish and blind to the destruction and the killing of human beings.

    What's next, North Korea? Cut off the head?

    Nuts

    MoiAussie , April 7, 2017 at 12:40 am

    This is not (yet) a major war. In fact, it's less than I expected, which was a US/Israeli attack on Damascus to try to take out Assad. It's not the first direct US attack on Syrian forces, and it won't be the last. There have been plenty of US boots on the ground for some time now. You can start worrying when coalition forces try to take out Syria's air defenses.

    This attack seems to be sending a very clear US message to Syria: We will not let you defeat our rebels and our terrorists. We will intervene every time you get close and ensure the conflict continues. We need no justification for our actions, we can create one whenever required (thanks Turkey). Do not stand in the way of our interests.

    MoiAussie , April 7, 2017 at 1:24 am

    The message can be seen as a direct response to Assad's statement, reported yesterday , that there is no "option except victory" in the country's civil war.

    "If we do not win this war, it means that Syria will be deleted from the map. We have no choice in facing this war, and that's why we are confident, we are persistent and we are determined."

    Buck Eschaton , April 6, 2017 at 10:10 pm

    I wonder how many Hillaryites/McResistance people will be defending Trump now how many brains will explode???

    marym , April 6, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    Clinton speech today: https://twitter.com/CNN/status/850w124602886037505

    "Hillary Clinton calls on the US to take out Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's air fields"

    (Tweet links to a CNN story too, but too slow to load.)

    Apparently Neera hadn't heard the speech:

    Neera Tanden‏Verified account @neeratanden
    I'm not saying we should have a year long debate on use of force but perhaps more than 24 hrs btwn Trump doing a 180 on an issue and bombing

    MSNBC:
    https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC live tweeting MSNBC coverage. Summary:

    Adam H. Johnson‏Verified account @adamjohnsonNYC · 2m2 minutes ago

    Six consecutive MSNBC guest praising Trump for airstrikes, the only dissent on MSNBC concern trolling over Congressional authority.

    Carolinian , April 7, 2017 at 12:09 am

    There ya go. And to the WaPo, the NYT, the Blob and Mrs. Clinton: beware of what you ask for, you may get it.

    Will the Left finally and at last regain it's anti-war soul? Or will they stay glued to MSNBC?

    different clue , April 6, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    Many. Millions. This is exactly what the Clintonite Shitocrat Scum were voting FOR when they voted FOR Clinton. They must be surprised and delighted to get the Assad Must Go from Trump that they thought only their preciousss Mommy Wokest would have delivered unto them.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 7, 2017 at 12:06 am

    The Hillbots on Twitter are apparently claiming that Trump followed what Hillary recommended.

    Marina Bart , April 7, 2017 at 12:11 am

    Not all of them. I haven't been on for a couple of hours, but I saw quite a few trying to say this proves Trump was always the real warmonger and Hillary is the dove of peace.

    They have remarkable minds.

    Marco , April 7, 2017 at 4:47 am

    The standard view for most good "liberals" regarding Hillary's militarism was that it was merely a cynical ploy in currying favor with the MIC in her attempt to gain the Presidency. After entry to the White House she would be a good little diplomatic internationalist and dial back the iron-lady persona. So why is she calling for air-strikes NOW when she has NO CHANCE IN HELL of ever gaining any real power in the few remaining years she has left on this sorry planet? What does it matter to her now and who does she need to please? Also doesn't this kinda neutralize any anti-Trump / anti-war push by Team Blue.

    Tom , April 6, 2017 at 10:11 pm

    Well, that will certainly knock the Susan Rice scandal off the front page, won't it now? Wag that f**king dog, you bastards.

    HopeLB , April 6, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    I was thinking the same thing. Just like Hill/Bill bombing Yugoslavia without Congressional approval in order to direct attention from Monica among other reasons.

    https://off-guardian.org/2016/03/28/theres-a-special-place-in-hell-for-madeleine-albright/

    Possibly these;

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514131/posts

    JerryDenim , April 7, 2017 at 2:03 am

    If memory serves me correct Bill Clinton launched a volley of cruise missiles at targets in Iraq the night before his Congressional impeachment vote. Dan Rather was on the scene in Baghdad to report the attack "LIVE!" so there was a great deal of coordination and preplanning that took place with the media. ABC had to interrupt their specially scheduled programing for the evening to report on the attack. A television special on John F Kennedy who was portrayed as the nation's greatest president who incidentally was a serial philander that just couldn't keep his d*%k in his pants- what a coincidence! Remind you of anybody you know America? (Nudge, nudge, wink) Wow look at those pretty explosions. Serious manly-man stuff right there. Pretty darn grown-up and Presidential eh?

    The more things change in Washington the more they stay the same. I hope this little cruise missile stunt blows over without a major escalation of the Syrian proxy war, but given the recent glimpses of behind-the-scenes crazy emanating from the power struggle in Washington I have a bad feeling about this. Who the hell is driving the ship at the moment?

    ChiGal in Carolina , April 6, 2017 at 10:18 pm

    The ignorance, sentimentality, and impulsivity of this man is astounding.

    What does Scott Adams have to say now, I wonder.

    And what rough beast ? Trump is the very embodiment of the Ugly American.

    Tom , April 6, 2017 at 10:55 pm

    I highly doubt this was Trump's call. I believe the powers that be done got to old Donnie and helped him get his mind right.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CBqjZX6FjE

    pretzelattack , April 6, 2017 at 11:01 pm

    didn't take long, i must say.

    St Jacques , April 6, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    Did anybody think it would be otherwise? Just be grateful he killed the TPP. That's one nice wrench thrown into the machine.

    Dirk77 , April 6, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    I hoped it would be. Civilization was sure nice while it lasted.

    Marina Bart , April 7, 2017 at 12:17 am

    I think the TPP zombie is still out there, unkilled. But Trump slowed all this down. If Hillary had been elected, drafting women would already be law, and we'd already be on the Russian front.

    We did throw a wrench in, but if the machinery is strong enough, it will still grind that wrench down. We need a nice acid bath, or maybe a pool of molten lead. Isn't that what finally took out that last piece of the Terminator?

    Aumua , April 6, 2017 at 11:04 pm

    Maybe someone with an ego like he has is just easily manipulated. All you have to do is push the right buttons, in the right order. We all signed up to find out what was under the smirk, and now we are finding out. Fun times ahead.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 7, 2017 at 12:10 am

    Oh, it was his call. He got up and made a speech. He's got too much ego to do anything like that if he wasn't on board.

    But what this says is the people around him are increasingly figuring out how to manipulate him. Even if they can only drive him in a direction for a short vector of action, as in make isolated decisions, that's enough for them. A series of short vectors in the direction they want will get them to their destination, even if the path is herky-jerky.

    grayslady , April 7, 2017 at 12:26 am

    That's a very frightening thought, since Trump's advisors do not inspire confidence.

    sad American , April 7, 2017 at 1:13 am

    My initial take on Trump was that he would be taken into a room and shown something needed to bring him around. Where that is remains to be seen. Obama, W and others likely got a similar treatment. How else would nonsensical 180s be explained, even by DC standards?

    Who is pulling all those strings?

    ilpalazzo , April 7, 2017 at 5:00 am

    Bill Hicks Puppet Show

    voxhumana , April 7, 2017 at 1:44 am

    It could be he's being manipulated but maybe he and his team are taking a page from Clinton's triangulation playbook, especially with Clinton having called for the exact same strike just yesterday. It puts approving establishment Dems in the awkward position of having to "normalize" Trump for carrying out the same neocon agenda Clinton campaigned on – the worst possible thing for their version of the party's future. And I bet that if someone who has his confidence explained it to him that way he'd have signed on in a heartbeat.

    Now, the dems also know there are Trump voters who believed his campaign's pro-detente, anti-regime change rhetoric but they aren't going to morph into a peace party just to win back a few misguided old hippies. Most dems* will ultimately have to support, in some way, Trump's action at the same time they're kissing goodbye all the establishment GOP and neocon endorsements Hillary got. The Dems will never get those again. Trump may have just coopted the bellicose center/right space that Clintonism aspired to.

    I bet his approval ratings go up.

    Meanwhile, the doomsday clock inches ever closer to armageddon.

    *I will be particularly interested to read what Gabbard and Sanders have to say

    PlutoniumKun , April 7, 2017 at 2:54 am

    Only time will tell, but I've been wondering the last week or so if Trump has decided to take the Kissenger line on Vietnam, as in 'don't do anything, Nixon is crazy enough to do something stupid'. In the longer term, it could serve his purposes for the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans and Iranians to think they are dealing with a man capable of any impulsive lunacy. In the mind of Trump and his crew, they may feel this gives them cover for achieving broader aims. For a man obsessed with 'the deal', playing the crazy card while someone else (Kushner?), plays the good guy would make a lot of sense. Trump is not intelligent in the conventional sense, but I think he has some grasp of his limitations, long term diplomacy and strategy being one of them.

    Matt , April 6, 2017 at 10:19 pm

    If he thinks some missile strikes are going to get the anti-Russia fanatics off his back, he's mistaken. They won't be satisfied until the U.S. starts killing Russian soldiers. But McCain's not worried https://twitter.com/LoopEmma/status/850097784816586752

    JTMcPhee , April 6, 2017 at 11:16 pm

    McCain, even inside his protective bubble, is a lot closer to "passing on" from natural causes than the people who are going to have to try to make their way, on a screwed-up planet, and in a screwed-up political economy.

    Tillerson says "we know Assad did it." Really? Proof? How Fooking dumb do he and the rest think we all are? Wait, wait, don't tell me

    I've written before about a sci-fi story from 1962, originally titled "A Sense of Obligation," re-titled "Planet of the Damned" to boost sales. The framing is that the rulers of a hot desert planet are planning to launch nuclear weapons at a larger, cooler world, regardless of the ability of the people of the other planet being able to destroy the desert world if they try. Turns out the desert planet's rulers, the "magter," actually have a brain symbiote/parasite that's turned them all "neocon," so they do not give a sh!t about the consequences, and apparently do not even understand why they are going ahead with the attack, other than something like the Dalek's motivational chant: "KILL! KILL! KILL!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWED5zcgnxM&ytbChannel=MrHarrisonChase Here's the whole book, read it for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35204?msg=welcome_stranger Here's the wiki article, for a short version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_of_the_Damned

    We naked apes on Planet Earth don't, unfortunately, have a wise, honorable, fortuitous hero and his fortuitous native sidekick in place, able to take action and stop the MADness All the institutions and incentives and rewards and shibboleths and hair triggers are in place, just waiting for the magters (the epitome of credentialed monomaniacs) to start the dance of death . Part of what it's about: "more than 50" Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles [have to include the obligatory, "I'm in the know" acronym, (TLAM)], 1,000 pounds, 550 mph, range 1,500 miles, warhead W-80 thermonuclear ("retired" – what does that mean?), or 1,000 lb high explosive, or "submunition dispense,r" or PBX (see this for detail, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer-bonded_explosive ). And most important, to "our" political economy,

    Introduced by McDonnell Douglas in the 1970s, it was initially designed as a medium to long-range, low-altitude missile that could be launched from a surface platform. It has been improved several times, and after corporate divestitures and acquisitions , is now made by Raytheon . Some Tomahawks were also manufactured by General Dynamics (now Boeing Defense, Space & Security) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

    And the most important subset consideration is that, per "FY 2017 currently budgeted", each TLAM (not including the launch platform, a billion dollar "destroyer" or many-billion submarine) costs the political economy $2,981,000 each. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

    So that's what, another $150 or $200 million out the launch tubes, to do what again, to "make America safe?"

    Will there be special medals handed out to the Navy crews and contractors who ran this attack? Maybe the kinds of gold stars handed out to kids who graduate from pre-K to K? "Participation awards," "earned" from far out to sea, beyond the range of anticipated Syrian defenses and counterattacks (in the hope that "the Russians," who do have the ready means to "reach out and touch them," will continue to "exercise restraint" since we gave them a phone call warning the attack was on the way?

    I got the sinking feeling that tonight I'm going to have one of those horrific recurring dreams I mostly have mislaid, hangovers from the war thing I was dumb enough to enlist in

    We who participate here at NC can jaw and perceive and understand and parse all we want - too bad that does nothing, can apparently do nothing, to stop those "magters" from launching this set of missiles, and going ahead with all the other stuff they have in hand, to complete the Fokking up of the planet

    John Zelnicker , April 7, 2017 at 1:16 am

    @JTMcPhee – Thanks for that. Your analysis is spot on, and the details on the Tomahawk are quite interesting.

    I'm not sure they think we're dumb, however. I think they either believe that we are too busy trying to live our oppressed lives to pay attention, or they don't think about it at all and just do what they damn well please and Fokk the rest of the world.

    jrs , April 7, 2017 at 1:28 am

    There's likely layers to it, their lies do keep the propagandized and poorly informed on board (yes everyone is propagandized to a degree but it really is a matter of degree, I mean the folks that never woke up from the American dream and American exceptionalism). Meanwhile those who see right through the ever repeating BS, well what can they really DO about it anyway? And yes survival keeps people poorly informed and even when not it keeps them too busy.

    If I was conspiratorial, I'd almost say this is why we can't have nice things, like really basic things like the rest of the world has, because a more secure population might actually oppose the empire that purports to represent them.

    Anyway at least TWICE they have already LIED about Assad being behind gassings, and now we are supposed to believe them. Yes indeed what rubbish.

    Altandmain , April 6, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    This is a very serious mistake. I think that Trump's Presidency will be a disaster, because he was not the man that he campaigned to be. If he were remotely serious, he would end the wars abroad, bring the US troops home and then use the money on rebuilding America's infrastructure.

    This could easily spill over into other nations, lead to a large refugee crisis, and get a lot of people killed needlessly.

    It's interesting to note that the Paleoconservatives have broken ranks.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-incredibly-bad-arguments-for-intervening-in-syria/

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-case-against-another-intervention-in-syria/

    No U.S. interests are threatened by the Syrian government, and at present the Syrian government's patrons are to some degree on the same side as our government in their hostility to ISIS. Attacking the Syrian government would be a boon to jihadists, the start of a new and unnecessary war for the U.S., possible direct confrontation with Iran and its proxies in Iraq and Syria, and a potentially disastrous provocation of a nuclear-armed major power. Trump is always emphasizing how the U.S. gets nothing from its foreign wars, so it bears repeating that the U.S. would most certainly get nothing from picking another fight in the region except increased costs and new enemies.

    If Trump were half the realist or even the 'Jacksonian' that some of his supporters have claimed him to be, this intervention would not be under consideration, but then Trump is first and foremost a militarist and seems inclined to favor military options to the exclusion of everything else. If Trump were remotely serious about his "America first" rhetoric, the obvious lack of any threat to American interests would ensure that there would be no U.S. military action taken against Syria's government, but his use of that phrase has always been opportunistic and it has never meant that he is interested in staying out of foreign wars or minding our own business.

    Deeper intervention in Syria seemed to be something that Trump was unlikely to do as president based on what he said during the campaign, but he could never be trusted to do what he said and his foreign policy views have always been unformed (and uninformed) and can be easily changed. Trump's lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge make him much more susceptible to bad advice, and his lack of any firm convictions means that he is more likely than most to yield to demands that he "do something" in response to an ongoing conflict.

    I think that ideologically the left has more in common with the Paleoconservatives these days than we do with the Clinton Liberal faction, which also wanted to go to war. They are pretty much neoconservatives.

    We disagree with the Paleocons on social issues and they are a lot more free market oriented, but when push comes to shove, they seem to be a lot more ideologically honest than the rest of the political spectrum. They also seem to be pro-middle class.

    We should also pay a very close eye on which Democrats choose to vote for this war. Who is going to play bad cop this time around? Everyone knows that like Iraq, this is going to be a disaster. Washington seems determined to not learn from its past mistakes perhaps to make the military industrial complex very rich.

    I'm thinking that in 2020, if there is a Sanders like President, they could criticize this decision and go from there.

    Luke , April 6, 2017 at 11:22 pm

    So did you believe Trump during the campaign then? That he was for curtailing the Empire and its maneuvers? One of the most frustrating parts of this entire debacle has been smart minded folk deciding Trump was the lesser evil based on what he said. As if what he said meant anything at all or was related to what he might do. Ever.

    Altandmain , April 7, 2017 at 12:15 am

    I thought there was a 90% chance that he would screw up and a 100% chance Clinton would. I guess we lose nothing since Clinton clearly was itching to go to war.

    Some things he might do are good, but some things will be bad. If he actually makes a serious attempt at trying to crackdown the H1B, that's step forward in my book. So is any attempt to rebuild infrastructure and manufacturing. That said, some things are awful like his selling of private surfing data.

    I wanted Sanders to win.

    Yves Smith Post author , April 7, 2017 at 12:29 am

    I think it's more complicated than that. You ignore that the utter hysteria of the "evil Rooskies" campaign has revealed how deeply committed the military industrial complex has been about getting its Russian war.

    Trump was pretty consistent on not wanting to escalate in the Middle East, although he seemed to believe you could fight Muslim terrorists we had helped create surgically and that was naive.

    But he knows even less about foreign affairs than he does about domestic policy, and because he was such an outsider, his team has lots of people from various fringes because either no one would join even after he won and some marginal types were willing to sign on early and Trump felt he owed them. So his team never embodied a consistent view, even on the issues where Trump kinda sorta had them.

    And the the Borg went really hard to get out the folks who were not fully on board with neocon orthodoxy and get more warmogers in.

    Put it another way: Trump is obviously over his head in DC. I've been stunned at the willingness of the CIA to attempt openly to unseat a President. Even if he were deeply committed to not escalating in the Middle East and/or versus Russia, how long do you think he could have held out even if he were seriously committed, a seasoned bureaucratic infighter and had a loyal, aligned core team?

    It is now looking like Eisenhower was right, the military industrial complex could and has usurped democracy. A better President might have been able to check and contain it on its Russia campaign. Maybe a great President could have figured out how to stymie them but name names as to who we have now who could have done that.

    Oregoncharles , April 7, 2017 at 12:34 am

    Eisenhower. But that was a long time ago. (Actually, I think he presided over the initial growth of the CIA and the National Security State. But even I was a kid then, so I'm not real sure.)

    Yves Smith Post author , April 7, 2017 at 2:33 am

    And he had been the Commander in Chief of the Allies in Europe WWII. He could have stared anyone down.

    Secretary of State Dean Rusk did in a more limited way in the Cuban missile crisis. JFK had ordered a naval blockage and Rusk asked the Chief Admiral what would happen as Khrushchev 's ships approached. The Admiral said first they'd make a warning shot. Rusk then asked what would happen if they didn't change course. The naval officer gets angry and starts to tell Rusk the Navy has been running blockades since 1812.

    Rusk cut him off and berated him along these lines:

    This is not about your pettifogging Navy traditions. This is a communication between the President and Khrushchev. You will not take a single action unless it has been explicitly authorized. Have I made myself clear?

    solipsist , April 7, 2017 at 3:30 am

    That was McNamara that berated Admiral George Anderson. And here's a great link of the scene from the movie 13 Days.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRCTHj7k8Y

    Yves Smith Post author , April 7, 2017 at 4:15 am

    You made me dig up my book Humanity, which is based on extensive archival research, by Jonathan Glover, and it was indeed McNamara. However, that scene takes a lot of artistic liberties. The Navy was leashed and collared before the blockade was put in place.

    I might as well write up the exchange as recounted by McNamara:

    "We'll send a shot across the bow," he said.

    "Then what, if that doesn't work?"

    "Then we'll fire into the rudder," he said, by now clearly very annoyed.

    "What kind of ship is it?" I asked.

    "A tanker, Mr. Secretary," he said.

    "You're not going to fire anything without my express permission, is that clear?" I said. That's when he made his famous remark about how the Navy had been running blockades since the days of John Paul Jones and if I would leave them alone they would run this one successfully as well. I rose from my chair and said this was not a blockade but a means of communication between Kennedy and Khruschchev; no force would be applied without my permission; and that would not be given without discussion with the President. "Was that understood?" I said. The tightlipped response was, "Yes."

    ex-PFC Chuck , April 7, 2017 at 5:55 am

    In his book The Brothers , Stephen Kinzer asserts that John Foster and Allen Dulles coordinated with each other beforehand to present a united front during meetings on national security issues with Ike, and this usually crowded out other viewpoints on whatever was being discussed.

    Altandmain , April 7, 2017 at 12:17 am

    I'm aware of healthcare, although I had been hoping that Trump would have the guts to actually fight or not have his ego pushed around.

    As for healthcare well I"m in Canada so I do know about how terrible US healthcare is (lived in the USA for 5 years). We need universal dental care, but yeah American healthcare looks to be in even worse shape!

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/08/the-link-between-health-spending-and-life-expectancy-the-us-is-an-outlier.html

    I suppose Mr. Trump may be afraid of ending up like Kennedy?

    https://www.thenation.com/article/are-we-witnessing-a-coup-operation-against-the-trump-white-house/

     President Kennedy fired the Deep State's godfather in 1961, after the Bay of Pigs calamity and Dulles's never-acknowledged support for a failed coup against de Gaulle (believe it, the French president). Taking this to the ultimate, Talbot, who founded Salon 20-odd years ago, makes a persuasive case that Dulles retreated to Georgetown, gathered his loyalists, and probably architected JFK's assassination two years later. Talbot's book does not include this incident, but I have it from a former spook of great integrity, now noted for blowing whistles: A few years into Barack Obama's presidency supporters asked at a fundraiser, "Where's our progressive foreign policy, Mr. President?" Obama's reply: "Do you want me to end up another JFK?"

    Yeah something is going on behind closed doors for sure that we need to know about.

    mpalomar , April 6, 2017 at 10:34 pm

    Has NC linked to this interview with Seymour Hersh regarding his story on the first Sarin attacks in Syria? It has implications regarding what is happening now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTeZitRDhk0

    The NYT is floating a story from unnamed intelligence officials about how the Russians connived to elect Trump. It is terribly disturbing to watch the manipulation of the mechanisms of thought control contrive the grounds for yet another war.

    So far the US missiles seem to be landing on Syrian air bases and not Russian targets but a very dangerous game. It must be hoped that the Russians, who seem to be the rational actors, will seek to avoid confrontation with the US war machine.

    bob , April 6, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    Turkey votes - 2017

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_constitutional_referendum,_2017

    "A constitutional referendum will be held in Turkey on Sunday, 16 April 2017.[1] Voters will vote on a set of 18 proposed amendments to the Constitution of Turkey."

    This is all about Turkey. The photo they released of Turkish soldiers running with a litter, dressed in full heavy haz mat suits, within Turkey proper, is over the top.

    Quentin , April 7, 2017 at 2:40 am

    Yes, Bob, thanks for pointing this out. Turkey! Who let arms and men cross into Syria unobstructed from their territory for years? Turkey. Where did the endless lines of oil tankers travel to from Isis held-territory. Turkey. Which country wants to put an end to any Kurdish political aspirations. Turkey. Which country demanded Assad's removal on basically religious grounds Turkey. And on and on. Erdogan will win his referendum by hook or by crook. Donald Trump could never get this in a thousand years. Most people could't, so I can't fault him for being especially thick. Turkey is NATO's heartthrob who has taken over the place. And Turkey receives 'victims of the chemical attack' to public acclaim, proving its case against Syria. Long live the nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire. Long live the utter stupidity and callousness of the US government towards its own people and the world.

    ewmayer , April 6, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    I still await a shred of credible evidence that it was in fact the regime which used said weapons. But the neocons talking heads on the TeeVee sure like it! All we need is another Hillaryesque 'we came, we saw, he died [chortle, smirk]' soundbite.

    Watching the coverage on RT right now to get the taste of paid MIC shills like George Stephanopopopopopopoulos out of my mouth seems the admin. called the Rooskies to give them advance notice, and strikes were on just 1 airfield. The wild-eyed optimist in me hopes this was a staged 'show of force' to assuage the domestic-side warmongers, but said optimist is currently being roundly shouted down by the 'this is nuts!' voices.

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 6, 2017 at 10:43 pm

    Putin and Xi have domestic audiences too. The Kennedy boys acted aggressively because they believed the Russians would know the were only kidding. The Politburo had to react to the street as much as any government, and the street hated how the US treated Cuba. Obama didn't understand this either.

    It was ludicrous when Democrats claimed Obama played 853rd dimensional chess, and it's ludicrous when people try to make excuses for Trump.

    pretzelattack , April 6, 2017 at 10:52 pm

    both parties, rotten to the core. i thought there was a possibility trump meant it when he repudiated the iraq war. or maybe he just meant it at that minute.
    the maine and the tonkin gulf and iraqi wmd's, and now this shit. i never really got why it was necessary to risk ww3 in cuba; still less here.

    oho , April 6, 2017 at 10:55 pm

    from my POV, literally no one in the rank-and-file deplorable crowd is happy. At the very best, people are confused and tow the "maybe he knows something we don't" line.

    jrs , April 7, 2017 at 1:37 am

    "maybe he knows something we don't" is a sure sign of authoritarian thinking if ever there was one.

    tony , April 7, 2017 at 3:31 am

    Not really. Reserving judgement is completely reasonable, especially when this attack looks more like theatre than anything else.

    ChrisPacific , April 6, 2017 at 11:24 pm

    I've been reading the comments on Sic Semper Tyrannis. Lots of speculation and not too much consensus, but a few things seem clear:

    1. It wasn't sarin that was used (lack of hazmat suits/protective precautions from medical personnel in the videos, who were not falling down/dying in consequence)
    2. It would have been extremely counterproductive for Assad to order this and give the US an excuse to intervene, given the current political/military situation.

    Point #2 doesn't rule out him having done it as a big middle finger to the US if he thought he could get away with it, but I don't find that idea particularly credible.

    At this point I think all Syrian sources should be regarded as highly suspect pending verification and evidence. Alternatively you could just pass on the whole evidence thing and just conclude that if it's bad then Assad done it. This seems to be the line the US government is taking (I've yet to even see an acknowledgement from them that evidence is needed, much less that they have any).

    IDontKnow , April 6, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    One wonders what Republican Congressman Massie thinks about his statements on CNN that he thought it very unlikely Assad authorized any gas attack. Will he stick to his opinion, or fall in line and follow the money. Anyone, are there any component makers for Drones/Cruise Missiles in Kentucky?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6SnIvQKN1Y

    CNN's Bolduan, visibly taken aback by what the man is saying - as though it were inconceivable a U.S. lawmaker might have an original opinion on matters - fumbled for words a few moments before managing a simple: "Who do you think is behind it?"

    Massie began to answer, but Bolduan cut him off. Unsurprisingly, she asked him directly if he was saying he believes what the Russians are saying - that Assad had nothing to do with the attack that killed dozens in Syria on Tuesday. Reuters reported Wednesday that the attack has sparked renewed calls to oust the country's president.

    craazyboy , April 6, 2017 at 11:00 pm

    I saw some news stating the gas attack area was "in rebel held territory". But Syrian military stated it was a civilian part. So I would think someone should check the bodies for guns first then there was the baby pictures.

    I guess breakdown in command is always a possibility, but Assad would be wacko beyond belief to sacrifice whatever ties he has with Putin to kill 100 – even if they all were ISIS. I hate false flag arguments, but it sure seems to fit here. Plus it worked on the trigger happy target, if it indeed was one.

    zapster , April 6, 2017 at 11:14 pm

    https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201704051052330649-syria-chemical-attack-idlib/
    http://acloserlookonsyria.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Alleged_Chemical_Attack_Khan_Sheikhoun_4_April_2017 This one is a running collection of details.

    Matt , April 6, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    Thank you for posting the second website, it's an excellent resource. Be sure to read the discussion pages as well.

    oho , April 6, 2017 at 10:41 pm

    I believe that establishment neo-con DC thinks that Trump supporters really are like this guy.. https://mobile.twitter.com/Stevenwhirsch99/status/850168562643849217

    in reality Trump lost a lot of goodwill today. I'll even dare say, solidly on the path to Jimmy Carter status. as Yves predicted. all in less than 100 days!

    pretzelattack , April 6, 2017 at 10:43 pm

    carter didn't start ww3, and brokered a peace process in the middle east, which lasted longer than most there.

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 6, 2017 at 10:51 pm

    http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahideen/

    Are you sure about Carter? WW1 and WW2 are representative of European core attacking the European periphery, but the current World War is about U.S. hegemony.

    Both Seven Years Wars and the Napoleonic Wars were world wars.

    pretzelattack , April 6, 2017 at 11:00 pm

    yes, reagan did far more to arm the middle east, and push the cause of us hegemony. giving saddam wmd's in the first place, after giving iran weapons for holding the hostages till inauguration day. the roots of us hegemony seeking in the middle east go back at least to ike. carter wove one strand in a large rug, but there was pushback against the us in the form of hijacked planes well before carter, and because of our interference in the middle east in the 50's and our support of israel in the 40's, 50's and 60's. jfk almost got us into ww3, and johnson of course may have been even more militaristic than kennedy.

    oho , April 6, 2017 at 10:51 pm

    as I don't watch cable news I can't verify this tweet but sounds like MSNBC is doing a great job as the voice of the "Resistance" (gallows humour sarcasm)

    Sam Sacks
    @SamSacks
    49m
    Guest after guest is gushing. From MSNBC to CNN, Trump is receiving his best night of press so far. And all he had to do was start a war.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/SamSacks/status/850166028738973696?p=v

    flora , April 6, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    There was an emergency meeting of UN Security Council to address Syria chem weapons. Looks like it was US, UK, and France on one side vs Russia and Syria in the meeting. After the the meeting ended without a vote the US took military action.

    From aljazeera:

    "Haley hinted that in light of a UN failure to prevent such attacks, certain states may be "compelled to act" on their own. .
    "The Security Council meeting was adjourned without a vote scheduled as ambassadors continued negotiations privately."
    http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/security-council-meets-syria-gas-attack-170405142736085.html

    Any vote is now moot.

    Swamp Yankee , April 6, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    I don't think Maddow et al. quite know what their position ought to be. Like that moment in 1984 when the speaker switches the war from Eurasia to Eastasia. The bought courtier press is confused. Based on about 25 minutes on MSNBC, I noticed:

    - Maddow sounded her first cautious, not-hysterically-Russophobic notes in months. If Trump's for war, she will once more become "anti-war" as she was when first climbing the greasy pole. (Rachel, those of us actually opposed to war and empire notice you're only against it when it's not your Party doing it). Then as the evening goes on it seems she may be warming up to the idea.

    - Matthews is stuck in Cold War mode. Makes numerous references to "the Soviets." Seems to worry about intervention on the one hand, worry about failing confidence in us by our client states (al-Sisi he mentions) if we don't do something, on the other;

    - Brian Williams references "The American President", seems to think we are in an Aaron Sorkin script.

    - Not on MSNBC, but on NBC Nightly News tonight, Hallie Jackson intones breathlessly about "the ULTimate test of a Commander in Chief", is clearly dazzled by the prospect of a war nobody she knows will have to fight.

    Empire is a religion for these people.

    akz , April 7, 2017 at 12:22 am

    Sisi huh? Not that anyone here doesn't know but the USPTB/MSM are truly the worst kid of shitbirds. On 14 August 2013 Egyptian security forces raided two camps of protesters in Cairo: one at al-Nahda Square and a larger one at Rabaa al-Adawiya Square. The two sites had been occupied by supporters of ousted President Mohamed Morsi, who had been removed from office by the military a month earlier, following mass street protests against him. The camps were raided after initiatives to end the six week sit-ins failed and as a result of the raids the camps were cleared out within hours.The raids were described by Human Rights Watch as "one of the world's largest killings of demonstrators in a single day in recent history". According to Human Rights Watch, a minimum of 817 people and more likely at least 1,000 were killed in Rabaa Square on August 14

    SeanL , April 6, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    Far more important is the optics of this while Xi was in the US.

    What is the value of hitting the same spot with 60 cruise missiles?

    Can't help but think this was more about warning North Korea (and China) than Assad.

    As the Chinese saying goes: chop off a chicken's head to scare the monkeys.

    hemeantwell , April 6, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    I'm reminded of Bill Clinton using cruise missiles to try to resolve domestic political problems in 1998.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

    The Somalis did not have the geopolitical heft of the Syrians, however. Repercussions will not be so contained this time around.

    hemeantwell , April 7, 2017 at 6:29 am

    With further sleepless thought, I'm also reminded of Truman at Potsdam. Xi is in town, and Trump is doing a war dance. This can only have the result of driving the Russians and Chinese closer together. Let's throw in Iran as well.

    Trump thinks he's staged a propaganda coup against the Clintonites and to some degree he has. But by acting out their plans in a wild man format he's showing how crazy and vicious they all are. There's going to be a drive to play their hand out, and there will be scads of opportunities to overreact. How is this going to effect Russian support for US efforts in Afghanistan, for example?

    bob , April 6, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    Locally, they had a WaPo react piece published on the news site, before they had a story about the strikes.

    http://www.syracuse.com/us-news/index.ssf/2017/04/russia_usa_syria_response_chemical_attack_trump_assad_putin.html

    gov doesn't declare war, they just let it happen after the media gets it going.

    This also, what one week? after syria was 'confirmed' to have had its stockpile destroyed.

    Luke , April 6, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    I'm through giving leeway to the Trump apologists who said during the campaign that he was less likely to start a war or drop the big one and that this alone was reason enough to not support his opponent. Totally absurd. Nothing he said meant anything in the real world. He will do what he wants in the moment and that is all. The entire group of voters who figured his rhetoric (scam/con) was proof that he was the lesser of the evils is frustratingly naive.

    Aumua , April 6, 2017 at 11:33 pm

    It certainly was an argument that was repeated ad nauseam around here by certain individuals (not necessarily the majority) as a pat answer to any question of the correctness of voting Trump. Unwarranted optimism about Trump's motives, plans, and/or capabilities will continue to look more and more absurd as we go forward, I predict.

    On the other hand, I don't think he's really doing what he wants either. More like he's along for the ride at this point, as are we all. It's possible that Trump still thinks otherwise.

    Fiery Hunt , April 6, 2017 at 11:38 pm

    Hillary was out today, before the missiles, advocating for EXACTLY what Trump did. The only consistent, morale choice between Hillary and Trump was NOT VOTING FOR EITHER ONE.

    Carolinian , April 7, 2017 at 12:41 am

    Right. And let's not forget that the media as well as the Clinton and Obama people have been doing everything in their power to scandal Trump into not changing course on foreign policy. Clearly they've succeeded and now say look, toldja, just the same.

    Yves probably sized up Trump best at the very beginning–all hat, no cattle. There's yet to be any indication that he knows what he's doing and I strongly believe he never expected to win in the first place. Election night he seemed a bit stunned.

    But for Clinton supporters you can't say aha Trump doesn't know what he is doing when he has just done what she recommended that he do.

    RudyM , April 7, 2017 at 1:58 am

    I still think it was reasonable to vote for Trump as the lesser evil, in order to stop Hillary. Trump was a wild card. Hillary had both the record of interventionism and the rhetoric. Trump talked out of both sides of his mouth, but he was at least pretty consistent in opposing hostility toward Russia. And he hadn't been intimately involved in planning or supporting the invasion and destruction of multiple countries. Of course, that might just be because he had no record as a public official at all.

    JohnnyGL , April 6, 2017 at 11:18 pm

    Now that I'm getting my head around this .there's a couple of minor rays of hope .

    1) When I heard "tomahawk cruise missiles", I flashed back to the plans that Obama drew up in 2013 to basically destroy the ability of Syria to function as a state. They were going to take out bridges, airfields, fueling stations, and tons of important infrastructure. It would have had the potential to provoke a Libyan-style collapse.

    Thankfully, this is NOT that plan. Just a limited attack on one airbase and surrounding infrastructure.

    2) At least they gave the Russians a heads up.

    Beyond that, this is a complete nightmare. Iran's going to be bullshit mad, Russians are going to be bullshit mad. Chinese won't be happy, either. Egypt will run straight into the arms of the Russians and the Chinese. They all know Assad is the only thing standing between them and the jihadi head-choppers.

    As far as Yves' comparison with Clinton's stated views. I could easily envision her doing something similar after a staged chemical incident like this.

    Thor's Hammer , April 6, 2017 at 11:30 pm

    The USA is a rogue nation in the world community. Dying Empires are at their most dangerous when they begin to loose control of events.

    Anyone with a functioning brain cell can immediately identify the sequence of recent events in Syria as a false flag attack staged to provide the pretext for an unconstitutional act of war. The one participant with the strongest motive to not stage a poison gas attack was Assad-but the MSM immediately started a coordinated chorus of blame, the "intelligence" agency warmongers called to the Presidential briefing room read from a script prepared during the Obama administration, and our Idiot-in-Chief started searching his desk for the cruise missile launch codes

    In previous administrations false flag attacks have been orchestrated by brilliant Machiavellians like Cheney, who was able to sell an illogical fabrication like the Official 911 Report to a gullible public. After a success like that, the deep state Overlords have obviously concluded that they don't even need to try to cover their tracks. As well they might, having acquired full control of propaganda organizations like the Washington Post, NY Times, and Google News. And now they have as a front man an individual so mentally deficient that he can believe almost anything as long as he thinks it is his own idea.

    Some voters concluded that placing an egotist like Trump in the Presidency was preferable to having a wholly-owned Neo-Con like Clinton at the helm of the Defcon button, but it hasn't taken long to prove them wrong. Trump has shown himself to be nothing but a bloated ego with a delusional pea sized brain hiding under a rag of fake hair.

    So the immediate fate of the world rests upon the diplomatic skills of Russia's chief oligarch, Vladimir Putin. One can only pray that there is a way to escape from the rush toward the cliff of Nuclear war.

    sierra7 , April 6, 2017 at 11:31 pm

    One of these days we will lose our perceived/real impunity to retaliation to those ships of ours who conduct these cruise missile attacks .then all hell will break loose.

    I can't imagine anyone believing that this president, or possibly any other will slow down the march to Armageddon that we are on and willing to provoke to achieve, "Full Spectrum Dominance" of the world, especially of the ME.

    We are becoming crazier and crazier by the minute.

    Aumua , April 7, 2017 at 1:16 am

    I'm not. Are you? Is the American, Russian, or Syrian man on the street, just making their way through life, on a crazy train to murder and Armageddon? It's just a handful of people, a minuscule minority, who cannot be content until they have everything. ALL of the wealth. ALL of the power. They stand and point around to everyone else on Earth and say "You all owe us! Bow down to us, or else.." They're afraid. They know there is an awakening going on. They know we're coming, so they have to immanetize the echaton, push things over the edge. Push everyone into hating and fighting each other, and those who won't? There are plans for them too, I'm sure.

    JohnnyGL , April 6, 2017 at 11:36 pm

    CNN's Don Lemon and Fareed Zakaria are singing Trump's praises, it's obnoxious. Cruise missile launch video is on a loop. Not sure how much I can take .

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 6, 2017 at 11:37 pm

    https://mobile.twitter.com/nycwomensmarch/status/850180421077929984?p=p If you are in New York. My guess is Hillary won't be there.

    Walter Sobchak , April 6, 2017 at 11:41 pm

    https://youtu.be/ks072waMayk

    frosty zoom , April 6, 2017 at 11:44 pm

    maybe mr. trump will get a gold-plated white helmet when this is all done.

    congratulations, america, you are once again al-qaeda's airforce. make america gullible again!

    jrs , April 7, 2017 at 1:45 am

    Make American great was always BS, I want to make America good FOR THE FIRST TIME. Although clearly it just gets more and more evil. I suppose it is just in the nature of empire.

    Darthbobber , April 6, 2017 at 11:45 pm

    Depending on what happens going forward this could also turn out to be one of those "gotta look resolute" nothingburgers. We gave the Russians some degree of advance notice through the "deconfliction" channels, knowing they'd pass that on to the Syrians, which probably minimized casualties at the airfield. And if this is a one-off, whose main purpose is to make the Donald look resolute, his people could be aiming to just go back to the track they were on.

    If not well, we have people on the ground in known locations all over the place, and "accidents" do happen.

    Tim , April 6, 2017 at 11:45 pm

    Provocative in the truest sense of the word. our best hope is his tipoff to the Russians is seen as an olive branch of some strange kind.

    Trump is not deep and plays things how he sees them in tit for tat increments. The big concern is standard diplomacy does​ not view things that way. Diplomacy must adapt or we are doomed.

    SBW , April 6, 2017 at 11:45 pm

    Well I wrote in Bernie so I can't say I regret my vote. I figured Trump would be hooking up his business buddies and gutting worker interests, but at the same time I had hope he could resurrect some old style business-first isolationism - the former would have been a price I would gladly pay for the latter.

    I could care less about Russia or being friends or enemies of Russia. Chemical attacks in a far region of the world are not my concern - no matter how cruel that statement is. That war is a regional concern, not my concern.

    Trump, America First indeed. What a piece of %$#!.

    NotTimothyGeithner , April 6, 2017 at 11:49 pm

    I've noticed we haven't been inundated with polls for kinetic action. I suspect there will be domestic blow back. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/syria-poll_n_3832395.html

    Jerry , April 6, 2017 at 11:54 pm

    1. How do we know assad actually did this and isnt being framed a la bush/cheney and wmd's? What motive would assad have for doing this?

    2. Is ww3 the only way to get the domestic spending needed to fix our economy in the age of austerity and the freedom caucus?

    Edward E , April 7, 2017 at 12:05 am

    Day 77: the neocons fear Trump, NAFTA is scrapped, ISIS has been destroyed, the swamp has been drained, repealed Obamacare, Mexico made to pay for the wall, Muslims banned, wiretapping evidence presented, nobody lied, nobody seeking immunity, nobody recused themselves, no FBI winning streak continues

    John , April 7, 2017 at 12:05 am

    Swarms of drones, suicide speed boats, subs and mines will sink the whole US Navy. Just check the pathetic war gaming exercises since 2002 all structured to make the empire appear victorious. Karma gonna come a calling to the US of A and it ain't gonna be pretty.

    George Lane , April 7, 2017 at 12:42 am

    Trump is such an interesting and frightening phenomenon because he is ultimately the continuation of the status quo but puts such a naked face on the bullshit that has always been there.

    The way he spoke when decrying the horrors of the gas attacks, about all the babies that died, in his perversely hilarious cold and off-putting way, the US always does this type of crocodile tears, but with Trump it is incredibly on the nose. I have to say I am surprised at the speed at which this unfolded but of course in retrospect in makes sense I suppose. Some think this may be a one-off show of strength, a position I sympathize with but I am much more of a pessimist.

    One of the few things I truly credited Obama in a positive way with was the fact that he avoided direct "boots on the ground" involvement in Syria (thanks in part of course to Russia), how swiftly and brutally it was undone.

    Paul Greenwood , April 7, 2017 at 1:53 am

    He is totally in thrall to Ivanka who tweets before he does. He donated in the past to Schumer and McCain and Clinton. He was a Democrat. His daughter and President-elect Kushner are both Democrats. Kushner was funded by Soros to the tune of $250 million

    Lambert Strether , April 7, 2017 at 7:09 am

    > Some think this may be a one-off show of strength, a position I sympathize with

    Trump may think that, or have been sold on the idea –giving the Russians a heads-up, for example - but that doesn't mean it will turn out that way. We're getting volatility, alright. Just internationally!

    Kalen , April 7, 2017 at 12:44 am

    Brace yourself.

    Those who voted Trump ( I was not one of them) have been vindicated tonight. Trump one way or another delayed the neocon war with Syria for at least two months. Only after being blackmailed by CIA he was put on leash and submitted. And all those on the phony left, touchy feely peace loving snowflakes who hate Bannon as reincarnated evil have been fatally discredited since it seems that Flynn and Bannon were the very few who opposed open war with Syria and Russia.

    The air base in Homs that was attacked was also Russian training and Repair base for Syria aircraft, first causalities reported. Are those first shots of WWIII?

    Here is PCR take on the beginning of new War with Russia and China since Xi was ambushed in Florida and Chinese never forget it:
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/06/trump-surrendered-will-putin-next-surrender/

    George Lane , April 7, 2017 at 1:01 am

    Let's hope we see the same anti-war sentiment as we did popularly with the first gas attacks, which, we should all keep in mind was shown by Seymour Hersh to be essentially a false flag operation mainly conducted by Turkey with the Syrian opposition: https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

    Anti-war is the most important thing right now, and can be a rallying cry to unite leftists, liberal progressives, blacks, browns, white Trump voters (such as this one, https://mobile.twitter.com/undefined/status/850070150594351105/video/1 ). There is no hope if we insist on dividing amongst each other. There's the rich and there's the rest of us. That's it. The only thing that can unite us is a common struggle, anti-war can be a site of that common struggle, given that class politics in the Marxist sense won't ever really catch on in the United States.

    jrs , April 7, 2017 at 2:00 am

    Oh I get caring about war as an issue, even one's primary issue (though I would probably say caring about the survival of the biosphere is mine). I get that emotionally and even intellectually entirely, and am in great sympathy.

    However I do think we can DO more about economic and even environmental issues than we can about the issues of empire (locally if nowhere else, but also even nationally). It's not just about what plays in Peoria to the masses, but about what the masses actually CAN influence. And I don't put the empire itself high on that list. They are never ever going to let us have a say in that! And the masses being united and having no power doesn't accomplish much unless it then shifts it's focus to somewhere it might have some power. Basically what bones we can get even though we are ruled by sadists.

    George Lane , April 7, 2017 at 2:20 am

    I certainly agree with you that much can be done with popular organization with regards to economy and the environment, and I also agree of course that the planet is the most pressing threat to human life, but I think you underestimate the possibilities of anti-war movements and their central importance. The military-industrial complex is constitutively tied to capitalist expansion and environmental destruction, and therefore must be fought with the same virulence. This is why Bernie, even in the bizarro world where he was elected, would have ultimately fallen into line just as Trump did. There was a large anti-war voice back in 2013 when the mainstream media was beating the war drums, and thankfully we avoided intervention. Now though paradoxically Trump is able to do this unilaterally. Paradoxical because one would think the mainstream liberal center-"left" could be anti-war again given all the Trump hate, but on the contrary this will be great PR for Trump with the likes of CNN, as this is precisely what Hillary would have done back in february.

    Sluggeaux , April 7, 2017 at 1:19 am

    President Assad and his regime were WINNING the civil war - there is no reason that they would launch a gas attack against a non-strategic target when they have more than sufficient conventional force directed against armed fighters. This alleged "gas attack" only makes logical sense as some sort of false flag incident intended to provoke a reaction from the thin-skinned ignoramus in the White House.

    It worked. WW III is the extremists' wet dream

    Fiery Hunt , April 7, 2017 at 1:57 am

    It's just so insane the tribalism, the psychopaths in charge, the dumb public swallowing every lie..

    "How did we get here?" -old Talking Heads song

    dcblogger , April 7, 2017 at 1:31 am

    Protest: Stop Trump's War against Syria - 5:00 p.m. Friday
    http://www.answercoalition.org/protest_stop_trumps_war_against_syria

    Jen , April 7, 2017 at 5:08 am

    "It is noteworthy that in the hours before Trump ordered military strikes on Syria, Hillary Clinton emerged back into the public spotlight to demand that Trump carry out military strikes against Syria. Again, following a tried and true script, U.S. imperialist military actions against an independent, sovereign Middle Eastern government takes place under the pretext of protecting civilians from weapons of mass destruction."

    Happy now?

    Frenchguy , April 7, 2017 at 1:36 am

    Channeling my inner Scott Adams: "What's the best way for Trump to prove that he isn't a Russian stooge ? To attack Russia !"

    Anyway, I'm taking confort in the fact that it seemed the mildest things he could do: bomb an airfield with missiles after having warned the other side (pretty sure the US has already intervened much more decisively in Syria, even if it wasn't official ). The Blob will be so pleased he could almost make a deal with Assad now. Of course, I'm just trying to convince myself that the Hair is not crazy.

    MoiAussie , April 7, 2017 at 1:43 am

    Yes. So far, nothing substantial, just "perpetual war as usual". The question is what happens next, in any of Syria, DPRK, Iran, the Baltics, and Ukraine.

    Frenchguy , April 7, 2017 at 1:48 am

    To wit: "So how does a Master Persuader respond to a fake war crime? He does it with a fake response, if he's smart. "

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159264981001/the-syrian-gas-attack-persuasion

    @MoiAussie Not saying I'm happy about this, far from it But in military terms, it does seem it could end up pretty innocuous if it stops there.

    MoiAussie , April 7, 2017 at 1:55 am

    I'm agreeing with you, not being sarcastic. See my comment here upthread. The big unknown is of course, does it escalate? It won't stop, in the sense of cease completely.

    Frenchguy , April 7, 2017 at 2:10 am

    Ah yes. If I read you correctly, you say this attack is a message to Assad. That's where I don't agree. This is way too public and ineffective so it looks more like a PR operation aiming at a domestic audience (based on the fragments of info we have, so this is very speculative). Trump needed to kill the gas attack story and he did. I'm sure Putin would understand.

    On the other hand, I agree that it creates very bad incentives. If I'm a Syrian "rebel", I know what I have to do now The best case scenario is that escalation (fake or not) creates finally the conditions for a settlement. Worst case well

    Paul Greenwood , April 7, 2017 at 1:51 am

    President of China visits USA and President Kushner causes huge embarrassment to him with Chinese Military elites. That is major disrespect. The US has used nuclear weapons on Asians and now deploys THAAD radar solely on the approval of a Korean President now under arrest who sought no Cabinet approval, a radar that offers Seoul no protection whatsoever.

    China and Russia and Iran know there can be NO agreements with USA that will last more than hours. the ABM treaty was torn up just like Hitler's German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 24. Aug 1939.

    Russia knows war is coming from the USA. China is planning a 500 ship Navy and clearly needs more submarines and more bases near the equator. The US has chosen the path of global war and permanent warfare

    Lambert Strether , April 7, 2017 at 7:13 am

    Unless Trump gave Xi a heads-up!

    George Lane , April 7, 2017 at 2:28 am

    Assange on Trump and Syria from a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0ki9zuNfMI

    makedoanmend , April 7, 2017 at 2:35 am

    "There must be war. God wills it."

    It is not the USA deep state. It is a Western 'blob'. The USA just happens to have the biggest stick and so they use it when they see fit. The European states add the "moral" texture for US actions when they condone or ignore the use of the stick, as they have consistently done for the last few decades. (The UK, god bless, sends out a few ill-equipped soldiers and does the annoying yapping noises. Le Monde went into neo-liberal reporting mode before the attack [Assad is evil] and has basically sanctioned the actions since then.)

    Obama (the hallow man) was horrible but he had one "virtue". He knew how to analyse a situation, and he knew that every situation has an upside and downside potential. (Of course, he only did this analysis on how it affected his view of himself and what others might think of him – ego analysis, if you like.) He decide Syria wasn't giving enough upside to provide a good PR opportunity – probably too many unknowns and too many variables.

    Trump seems to have a sales rep type of personality. The only goal is to close the deal. These rep types know, at some level, that the deal might have negative consequences but they ignore these in order to get the deal done. They hope to collect their commission now and that a dodgy deal derails at some far off date. (Trump often reminds me of the Crazy Eddie[?] TV commercials I watched in NYC in the 80s.) Therefore, when confronted with a situation, the main focus becomes on the immediate action.

    Trump is not evil incarnate. He's just basically does what a sales rep does, imho.

    Couple of PSs – did the neoliberals of the USA and the EU do an inventory of Russian resources during their tenure in the 1990s? Is the allure of easy Russian resource lucre just too much of a temptation? Will the Chinese see the USA's actions as a slap in the diplomatic face – launching the attack when their Premier is in the USA? Did the USA/EU just cement the ties between Russian and China?

    The times are just about getting too interesting.

    LT , April 7, 2017 at 2:45 am

    Are the uranium depleted bombs the US has used in the ME considered chemical weapons?

    cripes , April 7, 2017 at 3:56 am

    Trump did us a favor by breaking the Clinton and Bush dynastic ambitions. And disrupting the real ruler's electoral illusions. But they're fast reasserting their power.

    Tossed out the TPP after it was a dead letter anyway and "saved" a couple hundred air conditioner jobs in Indiana–until they get un-saved.

    That's about it.

    Anyone imagining he would be transformational, in a good way, was delusional. I hope you're over it.

    All he just did was prove–again–the executive can attack sovereign nations without a shred of legality or authorization from Congress or the UN. They'll give their own emasculation a standing ovation at the next possible opportunity. Not sure if they'll bow or bob for apples. Sanders and Warren will try to lay low, but when pushed will support it. Their scribblers are working on it right now.

    Tweaking Russia and supporting our terrist twoops in Al Nusra is always a bonus. McCain must have wet his diapers.

    Trump's out of his depth, with a thin bench of Kushner and Ivanka, and will do what the spooks tell him. He might even believe all the posturing about the "babies."

    WTF is this, 1917?

    vlade , April 7, 2017 at 4:01 am

    Trump's problem always was, and is, his ego and the related thin skin. I wonder how much was this 180 driven by the constant "worst approval ever" messaging by the media, which now are gushing over Trump left right and centre, an ego massage he hasn't got for a while. He's now also disocvering the old truism that solving domestic problems is hard, and failyure

    TBH, what I'm really surprised on, is that no-one bombed one of "Trump hotels", as that I suspect would lead him around very nicely thank you very much. Personally, I think it's only a matter of time..

    Kevin Smith , April 7, 2017 at 4:05 am

    Matt Stoller @matthewstoller
    "That awkward moment when Trump notifies Russia he's about to strike Syria, but not the US Congress." pic.twitter.com/mRwX7ESZgg
    11:10 PM – 6 Apr 2017

    financial matters , April 7, 2017 at 7:24 am

    :). Russia is probably a more reliable ally.

    The Rev Kev , April 7, 2017 at 4:26 am

    I wonder how the United States Navy feels about becoming the tactical support group for Al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria? Are their fellow Americans to thank them for that particular 'service' when they eventually come back home? Gaacchhh!
    If Trump thinks that he has gotten the Deep State off his back by fulfilling one of their wishes, he is much mistaken. All this means is that the Deep State has found that all they have to do is pile on the pressure and Trump will fold like a lawn-deck chair and give them what they want. Trump has just paid his first installment of Danegeld.

    financial matters , April 7, 2017 at 7:20 am

    Actually I thought the 'man on the ground' military would be most confused by Trump changing course in Syria and working with the Russians counter to what has been going on for several years.

    Other than some top brass it seems that most of the military are also subjectable to the onslaught of the neocon mainstream media.

    Christopher (Dale) Rogers , April 7, 2017 at 4:31 am

    As none of the noble commentators has yet to link in the Sic Semper Tyrannis's latest take on events in Syria and Trumps capitulation to the Borg in DC, here's SST's latest summation, namely, not only has Trump acted in a crass manner, but his actions are all but illegal: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/04/donald-trump-is-an-international-law-breaker.html

    Je , April 7, 2017 at 5:38 am

    Tulsi Gabbard: "It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia-which could lead to nuclear war.

    "This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning. If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder."

    https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-trump-s-military-strikes-syria-are-reckless-and-short-sighted

    Alex , April 7, 2017 at 7:06 am

    I agree with most of what she says, but the ICC can't hand down death sentences ..

    Sad the "peace" politicians call for even more blood in this way.

    financial matters , April 7, 2017 at 7:12 am

    Thank you Tulsi. We need more like you.

    [Apr 07, 2017] This Fishy Smell of Sarin, or Was It Chlorine?

    Apr 07, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Anatoly Karlin April 5, 2017 400 Words 206 Comments Reply RSS To Top To Bottom Bookmark ToC List of Bookmarks

    There are so many problems with the propaganda campaign against Assad getting unrolled now.

    (1) You can't treat exposure to sarin with your bare hands without falling ill/dead yourself, as the White Helmets were apparently doing in the aftermath of the Idlib attack.

    (2) As Syrian war reporter @Partisangirl noticed, some journalists were apparently discussing a chlorine sarin attack before it actually happened.

    (3) It is eerily reminescent of the aftermath of the 2013 Gouta attacks, in which the Western media and neocon and neocon-in-all-but-name politicians and punditry parroted the official line that Assad's troops were responsible even though consequent journalistic work by Sermour Hersh and MIT raised serious doubts over the veracity of that allegation.

    (4) The "moderate rebels" have themselves resorted to poison gas on various occasions.

    (5) Unlike in 2013, Assad is now winning. Why on Earth now, of all times, would he resort to poison gas – one of the few things he can do to that is capable of provoking a strong Western reaction – just to kill all of 75 civilians ?

    It just makes no sense.

    So one can't help but treat Nikky Haley's melodramatic performance at the UN with skepticism. The idea that the poisoning was due to a bomb hitting a chemical weapons manufactory seems more plausible.

    Trump's initial non-interventionist rhetoric on assuming the Presidency was encouraging, as was his promotion of other anti-war figures such as Tulsi Gabbard . However, the latest response of the US administration, including Trump himself, is not giving any cause for optimism:

    I will tell you that attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me, big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching it, and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that And I will tell you it's already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.

    To be sure, one might view this as a merely ritualistic expression of outrage, but also coming on as it does on the eve of Steve Bannon's dismissal from the National Security Council one can't help but start having dark thoughts on whether the deep state might be triumphing after all.

    michael dr , April 6, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT \n

    On Trump – the less he intends to do, the more strongly he positions himself.
    So one way to interpret his remarks is that he is occupying a position that fully takes advantage of anti-Assad sentiment, but with no intent to act on it at all.
    Chuck , April 6, 2017 at 12:22 am GMT \n
    So Trump the hard-headed America Firster morphs into weepy bleeding heart interventionist?

    The Empire needs better writers.

    Anatoly Karlin , Website April 6, 2017 at 12:51 am GMT \n
    100 Words NEW! @Chuck So Trump the hard-headed America Firster morphs into weepy bleeding heart interventionist?

    The Empire needs better writers. I've been pretty solid in my Trump support, despite occasional "zradas" (defeats/betrayals).

    This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his intentions and goodwill.

    If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration speech will die as well. Very sad!

    El Dato , April 6, 2017 at 12:57 am GMT \n
    100 Words Gee, I wonder who could be behind this offensively low-brow and loud theater performance to give a "casus belli" and a "reason for responsibility to protect".

    100% repeat of Obama's "redline" performance. Maybe it will go through now, it depends on the levels of sellout.

    The always-reliable yuropeans are onboard, same as with the Lybian "Ghadaffi is distributing Viagra to rape his own people" somewhat-liberating free-for-all. Clearly the cheques have arrived.

    Meanwhile, the bombing of Yemen on behalf of the Saudis, which in a sane world would result in US military personnel and politicians getting acquainted with the wrong end of firing squads, is merrily ongoing.

    Felix Keverich , April 6, 2017 at 1:02 am GMT \n
    100 Words Well, let's see: Tillerson makes a statement that overthrowing Assad is no longer a priority. Neocons disagree. And within days this "chemical attack" happens, the biggest chemical attack in Syria – we are told – since 2013.

    Coincidence? I don't think so.

    I think it's possible that chemical attack did happen, and it was the CIA or its terrorist buddies that arranged to poison these children. Unlike Assad, these actually have a plausible motive – manipulating Trump and influencing his policy.

    Backwoods Bob , April 6, 2017 at 1:34 am GMT \n
    @Anatoly Karlin I've been pretty solid in my Trump support, despite occasional "zradas" (defeats/betrayals).

    This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his intentions and goodwill.

    If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration speech will die as well. Very sad! I have become disheartened.

    Hillary was the end of America as we knew it. But Trump is far too much of an Empire First, not America First president at the moment.

    El Dato , April 6, 2017 at 1:44 am GMT \n
    Also, "White Helmets"

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/23/the-white-helmets-controversy/

    anonymous1 , April 6, 2017 at 2:33 am GMT \n
    200 Words It's WMD and false flag attacks all over again. How short is the public's memory? I suppose Trump is caught in a pincer movement here, false flag or provocation carried out by the 'deep state' or parts of the so-called 'intelligence community' on the one hand, coordinated with the mass media on the other who publicize it and beat the drums demanding that something must be done, it's a crisis, etc. They're trying to force his hand. It'll be interesting to see how he handles this. On the face of it, for a person who's shown a healthy level of skepticism he's coming across as a bit too credulous. The UN ambassador Haley is a really embarrassing idiot who is undermining the very person that gave her this wonderful platform for her to be a star of. People gave her adulating coverage in the past as an up-and-coming talent but has been revealed to be merely a blabbering airhead. The pool of talent for Trump to pick from is apparently quite thin so finding some good people is looking to shape up as a major challenge.
    Yevardian , April 6, 2017 at 3:01 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Anatoly Karlin I've been pretty solid in my Trump support, despite occasional "zradas" (defeats/betrayals).

    This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his intentions and goodwill.

    If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration speech will die as well. Very sad! As I thought at the time, and Ron Unz also noted here, Trump was either an utter moron or completely indifferent to actual policy to promote a facelesss POS like Mike Pence to VP.
    I think it should be increasingly obvious that he's a gauche blowhard who's merely a weathervein for whomever advised him last.

    jimbojones , April 6, 2017 at 3:30 am GMT \n
    100 Words Trump should watch out. He was voted in exactly because people were profoundly disgusted by the Obama/Clinton Libyan monstrosity, and because people wanted Washington to stop funding terrorists to topple the legitimate government of Syria.

    Assad didn't gas civilians. The very idea is moronic. He has won the war. Trump can use Assad as an ally in the fight against everybody's common enemy ISIS. Or Trump can betray his electorate and ruin his presidency by doing something stupid in Syria.

    The choice is his.

    WorkingClass , April 6, 2017 at 3:56 am GMT \n
    It's a false flag attack. Just like before. Assad didn't do it. But the victims died in earnest. The evil accrues to Imperial Washington.

    If Trump thinks Assad did this he is a fool. Somebody needs to tell Trump the deplorables are drifting away.

    utu , April 6, 2017 at 4:43 am GMT \n
    300 Words @Anatoly Karlin I've been pretty solid in my Trump support, despite occasional "zradas" (defeats/betrayals).

    This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his intentions and goodwill.

    If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration speech will die as well. Very sad! This betrayal is for real and final. Stop projecting your wishful thinking on Trump. He never was the man many of us were imagining. This were just our projections. Projections of people who wanted to have some hope. The most important is that Bannon is out or on his way out. W/o Bannon there is nobody else. Just your usual dumb and vile republicans are all what is left plus some soft hearted libs in Ivanka faction. That's all. It's over!

    Besides what a great opportunity for Trump. Just do the Syria and everything will be forgiven and forgotten. Including Susan Rice, OK? We will not have to impeach you and replace with Pence.

    Not sure about this guy but he claimed 2 days ago:

    Published on Apr 3, 2017

    Is the US Preparing to Invade Damascus?
    As absurd as this may sound the evidence seems to stack up in favor of this scenario of a US led invasion of Damascus, Syria. The movement of US desert Camo military equipment was done in a way to avoid detection by Russia. First to Germany to make it appear as a buildup on Russia's border, then to Poland final to a port in Romania, then reloaded at set sail to Beirut Lebanon where Damascus comes into view. All the while Israeli US Italian and UAE military work in Greece to overcome Russia s300 air defense system. Israel moves their forces into the Golan for supposed drills. All troops in position Damascus to be hit next.

    If so, the staged gas attack is just a part of a much bigger scheme that was planned months ago with Trump knowledge. No more talking about hat the Deep Sate is boxing Trump in. No, Trump is on it.

    Cyrano , April 6, 2017 at 4:56 am GMT \n
    200 Words If there were 3 million parallel universes out there, then I guess maybe in one of them Assad would have been responsible for the chemical attack on the Syrian civilians, but even then I doubt it. For the sake of argument, let's say he did it and as a result almost a hundred people died. So then I guess it's justifiable to go in and kill thousands and thousands of civilians to punish Assad for killing less than a hundred of them.

    When "dictator" like Assad kills people, he does it in an undemocratic way – with chemical weapons, which is inhumane. When the greatest democracy does it – it's ok, because it's for a just cause and with weapons approved by the Geneva Convention. And if at the end of the carnage awaits the prospect of democracy – then no price in civilian lives is too high. Something that Madeleine Albright would call a price worth paying.

    When a democracy kills people – it doesn't use chemical weapons, it uses bombs, bullets and rockets and that's what really makes a difference. I think most people would find it very objectionable to be killed by chemical weapons, but with bullets – it's almost a breeze, and then when you factor in that you are possibly dying in order to bring democracy to your country, I am surprised that they actually don't volunteer for such an honor.

    Seraphim , April 6, 2017 at 5:20 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Anatoly Karlin I've been pretty solid in my Trump support, despite occasional "zradas" (defeats/betrayals).

    This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his intentions and goodwill.

    If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration speech will die as well. Very sad! Not everyone was fooled by the supposed intentions and goodwill of Trump.

    F. William Engdahl, "The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency"

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/25/the-dangerous-deception-called-the-trump-presidency/

    The exact repetition of Colin Powell's vial of anthrax performance shows that nobody gives a hoot about 'making sense'. Assad must go! Nah, hang. And those who 'back' him and 'would not escape responsibility for this'. Be concerned, very concerned. The Petersburg attack just missed the 'real culprit'.

    Seamus Padraig , April 6, 2017 at 5:21 am GMT \n
    Well, people, it's all over. I had a bad feeling back when Trump let go of Gen. Flynn. Now my worst suspicions have been confirmed: the deep state has won. The Trump we elected is no more ..
    Seraphim , April 6, 2017 at 7:09 am GMT \n
    300 Words It is known that the apparition of Haley's Comet presage wars. Do we have it? No, but we have Nikki Haley.

    U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Feb. 16, 2017:
    ""I just put out to the members of the Seucrity Council to help me understand: When we have so much going on in the world, why is it that every single month we're going to sit down and have a hearing where all they do is obsess over Israel?
    The Security Council is supposed to discuss how to maintain international peace and security. But at our meeting on the Middle East, the discussion was not about Hizballah's illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon. It was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not about how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No, instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that's how the Council has operated, month after month, for decades.
    I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias. We will never repeat the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn Israel. Instead, we will push for action on the real threats we face in the Middle East
    It is the UN's anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change. The United States will not hesitate to speak out against these biases in defense of our friend and ally, Israel".

    What are the 'real threats'? Assad, Russia, Iran, Sarin gas. Understood?

    Ilyana_Rozumova , April 6, 2017 at 7:15 am GMT \n
    100 Words Always check the timing. Now Globalists did realize that they cannot impeach Trump.
    So?????????????????
    They decided with this false flag to reeducate him.
    Some people claim that US wars in Levant are for israel.
    I am not sure of anything.
    But I do think that real power is hiding behind of the curtain.
    Dana Thompson , April 6, 2017 at 7:25 am GMT \n
    100 Words On every occasion like this when a chemical weapons atrocity causes a stir, discussion always neglects the question I find most interesting, which is: we all know that traditional methods, like bullets that make heads explode like overripe melons, and shrapnel that flings entrails into picturesque sausage-like festoons are licit and acceptable to enlightened humanity, but use of chemicals is outside the pale of decency. But why is that? I think this article contains clues to the answer, but I can't seem to follow the exact line of reasoning:
    J.B.S. Haldane on chemical warfare
    German_reader , April 6, 2017 at 7:38 am GMT \n
    100 Words I don't know, maybe Assad/his government felt they could now get away with it and could use chemical weapons to terrorize and punish the opposition. But even if Assad's military is responsible, how does this incident really change anything? Tbh I don't care if Assad's military gasses a few dozen children, and no remotely sane person would regard this as legitimate reason for intervention. And the outrage is absurdly hypocritical given what's going on in Yemen with direct US support.
    Really disappointing how Trump seems to be preparing an intervention, total madness.
    Sergey Krieger , April 6, 2017 at 8:22 am GMT \n
    @Anatoly Karlin I've been pretty solid in my Trump support, despite occasional "zradas" (defeats/betrayals).

    This is the first time however that I am genuinely questioning his intentions and goodwill.

    If Trump in the end does goes down the path of corporatist neocon warmongering, he will lose and the vision he outlined at his inauguration speech will die as well. Very sad! He had vision? Doubtfully. Just wanted to win elections and thus was pressing all right buttons.
    I had no doubt for a second it was all for show.
    American history starting with Indian treaties is one of broken promises and lies.

    karl1haushofer , April 6, 2017 at 9:55 am GMT \n
    100 Words @JL The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So, attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. Similarly, going after North Korea, where the US has also been saber rattling recently, would be very bloody and could very well go nuclear. I think the first comment on this thread maybe had it right, this is the opposite of "talk soft and carry a big stick". If I'm wrong, well, it's been a good run for humanity and sorry to everyone with children and hopes and plans for the future.

    AK, maybe it's time to dust off and update your nuclear war post? "The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So, attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "

    The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think – whether justified or unjustified – that if Russian military, or a close Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.

    Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military and political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea

    animalogic , April 6, 2017 at 10:00 am GMT \n
    100 Words @jimbojones Trump should watch out. He was voted in exactly because people were profoundly disgusted by the Obama/Clinton Libyan monstrosity, and because people wanted Washington to stop funding terrorists to topple the legitimate government of Syria.

    Assad didn't gas civilians. The very idea is moronic. He has won the war. Trump can use Assad as an ally in the fight against everybody's common enemy ISIS. Or Trump can betray his electorate and ruin his presidency by doing something stupid in Syria.

    The choice is his. Will this be the final test of trump. ? If he follows the neo-con's into this minefield can anyone doubt - WHATEVER the EXACT reasons why - that his independence from the deep state is basically neglible ?
    I feel sorry for those who "believed" (they did have good reason to believe, given the putrid alternative .)
    If my fears are realized, I just hope that the millions who supported him reject BOTH of the major (sides of the same business) party.
    SOMETHING has to push Americans out of the unholy rut they have been in for decades now .

    animalogic , April 6, 2017 at 10:08 am GMT \n
    @Cyrano If there were 3 million parallel universes out there, then I guess maybe in one of them Assad would have been responsible for the chemical attack on the Syrian civilians, but even then I doubt it. For the sake of argument, let's say he did it and as a result almost a hundred people died. So then I guess it's justifiable to go in and kill thousands and thousands of civilians to punish Assad for killing less than a hundred of them.

    When "dictator" like Assad kills people, he does it in an undemocratic way – with chemical weapons, which is inhumane. When the greatest democracy does it – it's ok, because it's for a just cause and with weapons approved by the Geneva Convention. And if at the end of the carnage awaits the prospect of democracy – then no price in civilian lives is too high. Something that Madeleine Albright would call a price worth paying.

    When a democracy kills people – it doesn't use chemical weapons, it uses bombs, bullets and rockets and that's what really makes a difference. I think most people would find it very objectionable to be killed by chemical weapons, but with bullets – it's almost a breeze, and then when you factor in that you are possibly dying in order to bring democracy to your country, I am surprised that they actually don't volunteer for such an honor.

    Excellent response. Don't forget though, depleted uranium, cluster bombs, napham & Daisy cutters are also symbols of our humanity & love of democracy.
    It just makes you feel so warm, even gooey, inside, doesn't it ?
    Diversity Heretic , April 6, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT \n
    100 Words Whether or not the attack was a false flag, that picture of Nikki Haley with the photo of the dead child ought to be very high on the list of "Why Women Should Not Be Allowed Anywhere Near Diplomacy." First, Angela Merkel consents to the massive invasion of her country because of a dead Syrian child. Now Nikki Haley wants Americans to be put at risk to kill more Syrians because of another dead Syrian child. Otto von Bismarck was right, women's roles should be confined to children (their own), the church and the kitchen.
    annamaria , April 6, 2017 at 10:31 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Ram Reminiscent of the bombing of Deir Az Zohr by the US in support of ISIS when Kerry stepped out of the path laid out for him by the NeoCons. " the path laid out for him by the NeoCons."
    Agree.

    Paul Craig Roberts' invective against ziocons: "The entire history of the 21st century is the history of Washington's wars instigated by Zionist neoconservatives and the state of Israel against Muslim countries. So far Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and parts of Syria and Pakistan, have been destroyed by gratuitous military attacks that are, without any doubt, war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard established by the United States. The hoax "war on terror" has not only murdered and dislocated millions of peoples, producing waves of Muslim immigration over the Western World, but also destroyed Western civil liberty." http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/04/05/germany-rip/

    Mrs. Haley and other non-Jewish warriors like McCain and Lindsey Graham are indeed the whores in service of the "chosen" and mega war profiteers, from weaponry peddlers to the financial "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity:"

    annamaria , April 6, 2017 at 10:37 am GMT \n
    @karl1haushofer "The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So, attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "

    The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think - whether justified or unjustified - that if Russian military, or a close Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.

    Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military and political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea... Russian federation has been trying to avoid a full-blown military conflict that the ziocons have been provoking with the vicious audacity. The lying, thieving, criminal congress, run by the CIA /Mossad, is not an honest partner. Russia is cornered.

    Joe Wong , April 6, 2017 at 10:46 am GMT \n
    100 Words @michael dr On Trump - the less he intends to do, the more strongly he positions himself.
    So one way to interpret his remarks is that he is occupying a position that fully takes advantage of anti-Assad sentiment, but with no intent to act on it at all. The only guy used chemical weapons in wars against civilians on record is the USA during the Vietnam War; Agent Orange, Agent White and Agent Rainbow are still wrecking havoc in Vietnam. The only guy conduct false flag ops to blame the victims for violating human rights via its NED sponsored NGOs then wage reckless wars against the victims on the moral high ground is the USA and its NATO partners.

    This poisonous gas attack on Syria civilians bears too many similarities to the past records of the USA and its NATO partners' behaviour.

    JL , April 6, 2017 at 10:48 am GMT \n
    100 Words @karl1haushofer "The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So, attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. "

    The problem is that there have been too many cases where Russia has not responded accordingly to an aggression against it. Many people think - whether justified or unjustified - that if Russian military, or a close Russian ally, is attacked Russia will not respond.

    Hopefully there are people in deciding roles in the Russian military and political circles who have the guts to act if it ever gets to this. I mean, those US bases in the Middle East are within the distance of Russian cruise missiles from Caspian and Black Sea... You realize you're talking about nuclear war, right? Why any rational person would hope for that truly escapes me. No, the only thing we can hope for is that there are people in deciding roles in the American military and political circles who still remember about the concept of MAD.

    Anatoly Karlin , Website April 6, 2017 at 11:03 am GMT \n
    100 Words NEW! @JL The difference between now and 2013 is that Russia is in Syria. So, attacking the Assad regime now would be tantamount to war with Russia. Similarly, going after North Korea, where the US has also been saber rattling recently, would be very bloody and could very well go nuclear. I think the first comment on this thread maybe had it right, this is the opposite of "talk soft and carry a big stick". If I'm wrong, well, it's been a good run for humanity and sorry to everyone with children and hopes and plans for the future.

    AK, maybe it's time to dust off and update your nuclear war post? Heh.

    I had an outline of a post in my drafts on how a US-Russian clash in Syria might escalate, which I expected to write if HRC won. I might brush that off.

    I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so long as the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't have any formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation in Syria proper will be justifiable – and well-advised, considering massive American aeronaval dominance in the region.

    Of course this would be a humiliation for Putin on at least the order of Euromaidan if not greater, so he will probably be forced to respond somehow, somewhere.

    Brabantian , Website April 6, 2017 at 11:09 am GMT \n
    400 Words Key items showing false-flag nature of the Syrian gas attack absurdly attributed to Assad

    (1) Anti-Assad "reporter" Feras Karam tweeted about the gas attack in Syria 24 hours before it happened – Tweet , "Tomorrow a media campaign will begin to cover intense air raids on the Hama countryside & use of chlorine against civilians"

    (2) Gas masks were distributed 2 days before the attack

    (3) Rescue workers are not wearing protective gear as they would if severely-toxic gas attack had occurred, as Anatoly Karlin notes above

    (4) Pakistani British doctor promoting Syria gas attack story, "who at the time of attack was taking interview requests instead of helping injured flooding in" is Dr Shajul Islam, "used as source by US & UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping & torturing two British journalists in Syria & being struck off the medical register"

    (5) Videos previously exposed as fraudulent are being recycled "A chemical weapons shipment run by Saudi mercenaries [is blown up] before it can be offloaded & used to attack the Syrian army in Hama [this story] has turned into Syrian aircraft dropping sarin gas on orphanages videos shot in Egypt with the smoke machines are dragged out again."

    (6) Gas attack story is supported by known Soros-funded frauds 'White Helmets' who had previously celebrated alongside Israeli-Saudi backed 'Al Qaeda' extremists after seizing Idlib from Syrian Army forces. White Helmets "have been caught filming their fake videos in places like Egypt & Morocco, using actors, smoke machines & fake blood".

    Very regrettably, Russia & its potentially powerful media, are playing their traditional Israeli-serving role of being inexcusably timid in denouncing blatant false-flag deception & fraud Just as Russia signed off on killing Qaddafi & hurling Libya into mass death & chaos

    Destruction of Syria & Assad serves long-being-implemented 1980s Israeli Oded Yinon Plan to destroy & dismember all major countries surrounding mafia state Israel

    Also, major US-backed economics behind the campaign to destroy Syria -
    Map of pipeline alternatives thru Syria:
    (a) Russia-supported pipeline from Iran thru Iraq & Syria
    (b) US-supported pipeline from Qatar thru Saudi Arabia, Jordan & Syria

    http://oil-price.net/cartoons/iran-iraq-syria-pipeline.jpg

    Hunsdon , April 6, 2017 at 11:12 am GMT \n
    200 Words @Anatoly Karlin Heh.

    I had an outline of a post in my drafts on how a US-Russian clash in Syria might escalate, which I expected to write if HRC won. I might brush that off.

    I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so long as the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't have any formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation in Syria proper will be justifiable - and well-advised, considering massive American aeronaval dominance in the region.

    Of course this would be a humiliation for Putin on at least the order of Euromaidan if not greater, so he will probably be forced to respond somehow, somewhere. Please bear in mind, O our host, that Gen. Dunford, chairman of the JCS, said (in October?) that for the US to set up no fly zones in Syria would mean that we are at war with Syria and Russia. The next day in a NBC radio interview Lady MacBeth once more advocated for such no fly zones.

    Unlike the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump administration will actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly and Mattis. For the last generation, the US has stalked more or less unopposed on the world stage, throwing its weight around as it pleases. No one, we think, can oppose us! Well, that's nice and all, but I haven't forgotten the Cold War and the threat of nuclear confrontation with the USSR/Russia, and I'll bet you a meal of shashlik, lepeshki and vodka that Mattis, Dunford and Kelly haven't either.

    Maybe my faith is naive, we'll have to wait and see.

    Timur The Lame , April 6, 2017 at 11:47 am GMT \n
    400 Words Gordian Knot time. I don't know for sure what it is about politics that turns knowledgeable people of different stripes into Revusky's Hi IQ Idiots. They have done controlled tests on this phenomena with brain wiring and visual stimuli to show that an emotional element interferes with (or dominates) logical thinking when political themes or visuals are invoked. The big boys must have known this through other wisdom when they allowed for universal suffrage but that is an argument for another day.

    Just as the leftist intellectuals were urinating with glee onto their Birkenstocks when Buckwheat won in 2008, so did the intellectual right over their Red Wings when Drumpf prevailed. Emotions.

    I hold ALL politicians in extreme contempt and thereby reflexively limit my exposure to the reality show charade of elections. Needless to say, no emotions invoked. Then inevitably I get to roll my eyes when real and honest intellectuals on the left gnashed their teeth when the Nobel Peace prize laureate doubled up on foreign wars and reneged on domestic issues and likewise get do so when otherwise intelligent writers such as Mr. Karlin reveal surprise and disappointment with Trump.

    It is all so painfully obvious that a system which has been hijacked and has steadily degenerated for over 200 years cannot be fixed through the same (but negatively expanded) rules by simply producing new personality. Einstein's definition of insanity fully displayed.

    When asked what I think of Trump from election day +1 until the present, my answer remains the same. The upside is that his success did a monumental job in exposing 'professional' politicians of all stripes as being corrupt and worthless beyond words and that he exposed the media as being bought and paid for whores who walk in lockstep from the highest perch of the 'gray lady'
    right down to the local community papers even in foreign countries.

    The downside is that he will inevitably deflate and disappoint those people who arguably might have made a difference. Apathy and cynicism will ensue, resulting in a reversion to the status quo. It has always been the mob's destiny when the mob supposedly gets to decide. So after some possibly honest Trumpian burps it will be business as usual (Syria as just one example).

    Leviathan will not be dislodged by a mere mortal.

    Cheers-

    karl1haushofer , April 6, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT \n
    @JL You realize you're talking about nuclear war, right? Why any rational person would hope for that truly escapes me. No, the only thing we can hope for is that there are people in deciding roles in the American military and political circles who still remember about the concept of MAD. Are you saying that Russia should allow its forces in Syria to be attacked or bombed without retribution? Read More
    The Scalpel , Website April 6, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT \n
    100 Words @The Scalpel Trump is losing the plot It is quite possible that this ENTIRE incident is a staged production. Film and special effects people are certainly capable of it. Assuming any of this is credible before seeing objective evidence only reinforces the narrative. On the surface of things, it seems illogical and obviously self-defeating and unnecessary for the Syrian government to have done this. One should withold any judgement until the facts are in
    Jim Christian , April 6, 2017 at 11:51 am GMT \n
    300 Words @Seamus Padraig Well, people, it's all over. I had a bad feeling back when Trump let go of Gen. Flynn. Now my worst suspicions have been confirmed: the deep state has won. The Trump we elected is no more .. Either that, or there's "real estate" at Arlington Trump has been offered, say a 6′LX4′WX6′D up there on that hill above the Shining City in Arlington Cemetery. Up there next to Jack and Bob Kennedy who, whatever ELSE you think of them were the last two to say No to a bullshit war.

    Real estate in Arlington is what those who oppose wars earn for themselves. You may have silver and gold or you may have lead. Pick one. And so he has.

    Rule #1 is, war for profit goes on. Or else.
    Rule #2 is, Presidents (or candidates as we saw with RFK) will never change Rule #1 and survive the attempt. This is our country for the past century and a half. I'm sure the armorers made themselves a pretty penny during the civil war. Ok, ok, so half a million died, millions maimed, all White Americans (don't want to hear about the Black squads, sorry). but cannon balls and black powder makes good money. Nothing has changed since. And they'll risk lots of casualties toying with a nuclear confrontation without blinking an eye. Lots of money in rebuilding cities, too.

    I really hate our ruling classes these days. If they do this with Syria, start in on Russia with skirmishes and outright war, we'll know we're ruled by evil. There's no need for any of it. We "won". We leveled the Middle East in response to 9/11. You'd think it's enough from looking at the carnage and destruction we've wrought on them. But it's never enough, not anymore.

    JL , April 6, 2017 at 12:27 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @karl1haushofer Are you saying that Russia should allow its forces in Syria to be attacked or bombed without retribution? What I'm saying is that I can't envision a scenario whereby an American attack on Russian forces in Syria doesn't lead to all out nuclear war and I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Otherwise, we can continue this discussion in the afterlife. Mr. Karlin seems to have different ideas and I would very much like to read the post on various escalation scenarios that he had worked up in case of a Clinton victory. As it is and even before any escalations, US and Russian forces operating in such close vicinity seems to me extremely dangerous.
    karl1haushofer , April 6, 2017 at 12:34 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @JL What I'm saying is that I can't envision a scenario whereby an American attack on Russian forces in Syria doesn't lead to all out nuclear war and I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that. Otherwise, we can continue this discussion in the afterlife. Mr. Karlin seems to have different ideas and I would very much like to read the post on various escalation scenarios that he had worked up in case of a Clinton victory. As it is and even before any escalations, US and Russian forces operating in such close vicinity seems to me extremely dangerous. But don't you realize that this type of thinking gives America a leeway to attack Russia whenever it pleases?

    Your way of thinking goes something like this: "America can attack Russia because it knows that Russia cannot retaliate because it would start WW3″.

    May I ask that why shouldn't America worry about starting WW3 if it attacks Russia?

    Tom Welsh , April 6, 2017 at 12:39 pm GMT \n
    100 Words That tweet certainly is a classic.

    "Persons with knowledge believe "

    You could write a book about deception based on those four words alone. "Persons with knowledge" is a phrase calculated to inspire envy and respect in the great unwashed, who of course have no knowledge. But wait a moment! Who are those "persons with knowledge"? They seem to be unnamed and undefined – could that be deliberate?

    And then we learn that those "persons with knowledge" *believe* something. But wait a moment! If they have knowledge, why would they be reduced to "believing"? Wouldn't they actually, well, *know* ?

    So the tweet tells us that some undefined people, who may or may not exist, know something and believe presumably, something else that they don't know about.

    And I would care about this why?

    annamaria , April 6, 2017 at 1:22 pm GMT \n
    100 Words When ignoramuses like Morell (a pampered villain) get power over resources of an empire like the US, the whole humanity becomes endangered. The greatest danger is a rule of the opportunistic incompetent. It is doubtful that the all-powerful CIA has any knowledgeable and principled persons left among its rank anymore, after the years of careful selection for opportunists/profiteers. At least there is no way the ziocons, war profiteers and their families will be able to survive the next world war.
    Psychopaths are anti-life by definition.
    JL , April 6, 2017 at 1:31 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @karl1haushofer But don't you realize that this type of thinking gives America a leeway to attack Russia whenever it pleases?

    Your way of thinking goes something like this: "America can attack Russia because it knows that Russia cannot retaliate because it would start WW3".

    May I ask that why shouldn't America worry about starting WW3 if it attacks Russia? Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.

    During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.

    I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same way as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some influence in the near abroad.

    Look, I'm all for Russia's resistance to the empire, I'd just like it to happen without WW3.

    SmoothieX12 , Website April 6, 2017 at 1:33 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @annamaria Russian federation has been trying to avoid a full-blown military conflict that the ziocons have been provoking with the vicious audacity. The lying, thieving, criminal congress, run by the CIA /Mossad, is not an honest partner. Russia is cornered.

    Russia is cornered.

    I think it is exactly the other way around. Russia has options, US doesn't, apart from the fact that it lost all international subjectivity and is now nothing more than Israel's "subsidiary". Russia is not desperate, US establishment is and that is why it is so desperate to start "war" with Russia, whatever that means. Russia will always avoid war–it is her MO for decades. US desperation for this "war" with Russia has very logical explanations, granted that some of the factors in all this US insanity are, indeed, irrational (and hysterical) and metaphysical in nature.

    DanFromCt , April 6, 2017 at 1:55 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Felix Keverich Well, let's see: Tillerson makes a statement that overthrowing Assad is no longer a priority. Neocons disagree. And within days this "chemical attack" happens, the biggest chemical attack in Syria - we are told - since 2013.

    Coincidence? I don't think so.

    I think it's possible that chemical attack did happen, and it was the CIA or its terrorist buddies that arranged to poison these children. Unlike Assad, these actually have a plausible motive - manipulating Trump and influencing his policy. The timing is more than suspicious so I tuned in Fox News for straight up false flag narrative, and sure enough there was Sen. Bob Corker saying Assad was a monster gassing his people and cutting off their genitals, with Corker calling for Putin to repudiate Assad to the thanks of Bill Hemmer–end of script. Incidentally, has anyone else noticed that Corker more resembles that stuttering, court-appointed lawyer in My Cousin Vinny than any statesman?

    The entire history of the development of the rules of evidence in law, science, and politics, a signature achievement of Western Civilization, is being thrown away and hardly anyone notices or cares. Today a canned, identical, and obviously pre-scripted narrative available within minutes of these events goes unquestioned, even when, as in this latest theater, at least one announcement was made before the event.

    I'm also sickened by the concurrent Wounded Warriors theater at the White House because this empty jingoistic stunt may signal that our military may become active on the ground over there and therefore Trump's neo handlers are already selling the inevitable loss of limbs as a sign of our righteousness instead of the reality, which is that our soldiers lose their lives and limbs so good Isrseli boys need not.

    cali , April 6, 2017 at 2:03 pm GMT \n
    600 Words Clearly the false flag committed by none other than the Deep State not only against Assad but also against the boogeyman for all that is wrong – the Putin government – continues.
    Here are a couple of facts unknown to many since the US Pravda the outlet for the Deep State to report only approved 'news' is hard at work to frame Assad.
    During HRC term as SOS she licensed Marc Turi the arms dealer to funnel weapons into Syria via Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Marc Turi also stated that she funneled Sarin gas from the Ghaddafi arsenal after his assassination to the US sponsored rebels Al Nusra and others making up ISIS into Syria as a means to overthrow, accuse and frame Assad as the culprit using Sarin gas against his own people to stay in power.
    HRC and Obama et al attempted to railroad Marc Turi after his services ended as a means to silence him. The out-of-the-blue charges against him via the Loretta Lynch DOJ accusing him of being an arms smuggler without license nearly put him in prison ergo Turi threaten Hillary and Obama to expose their treacherous actions in Benghazi that was used to set up the overthrow of Assad in Syria. His threats of exposure of the arming of ISIS in Syria as well as the Sarin gas provided to ISIS murdering Syrian civilians while plasing the blame on Assad ended the prosecution and charges against him by the DOJ who suddenly and without explanation dropped all charges against him.
    The saber rattling against Assad and Putin continues unabated as we see here.
    Nicki Haley – member of the #NeverTrump 'performs' her role as planned namely to continue the anti-Assad and anti-Putin agenda. I'm sure traitor McCain the Soros and CFR stooge is whispering into her ear.
    Trump made a big mistake when appointing her into this position simply because her agenda as part of Trump's republican enemies within while placing trust in her she has not earned and is contrary to the DT agenda.
    On a sidenote: In October 2016 the UK Parliament published their final investigative report of Hillary and her actions in Libya/Benghazi accusing her of war crimes. The US Pravda did not inform American voters about this investigation.
    Shortly after that the Syrian president Assad and Vladimir Putin submitted a dossier to the ICC that described the Deep State and its agents Obama and HRC about their war crimes in Syria detailing all the findings including the use of Sarin gas provided to ISIS to be used on innocent civilians while blaming it on Assad. The ICC studied this dossier and accepted said dossier for a future trial against HRC and Obama et al among others having participated in the attempt to overthrow his government and the slaughter of over 250,000+ Syrians as a means to justify their coup.
    Lastly – the recent report of the Russian government spokesperson with reporters in regard to Tillerson's planned visit to Russia included this statement: "If the disinformation, accusations and lies in the US via the Deep State propaganda media continues accusing Russia having hacked the election etc the Russian president may expose Obama about various issues and actions that her begged Vladimir Putin to keep secret. All bets are off!"

    Assad was not the one ordering the use of Sarin gas to attack his own citizens but the Deep State and it's agents like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, McCain, HRC and Obama et al using Ghaddafi's chemical weapons after his assassination.

    Anatoly Karlin , Website April 6, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT \n
    100 Words NEW! @SmoothieX12

    What is different now is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.
    It is not as huge as you might think. In fact, one of the reasons for a hysteria is precisely a sense (and very rarely--a rational understanding) of the fact of a complete failure in forecasting what Russia is both economically and militarily. Considering an atrocious incompetence of American so called "Russia expertdom" there is nothing surprising here.

    I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same way as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to go into Afghanistan.
    1. Russia of early 2000s and Russia of 2017 are two very different countries in every single respect.

    2. Some people in US military are beginning to understand that US can not win conventional conflict with Russia in Russia's immediate vicinity, it will be defeated and will sustain casualties which will make Vietnam look like a week at the spa. My view on things is informed by two key assumptions/observations:

    (1) The US can wipe the floor with Russia in Syria or anywhere in the Middle East.

    (2) Russia can wipe the floor with NATO east and north of the Suwalki gap.

    If things really go south in Syria – as in, actual Russian forces coming under sustained attack from the USAF – I would expect either:

    (a) If they decide on a military response –> it will be either in Ukraine (e.g. ranging from recognition of the LDNR to resurrection of the Novorossiya project) or even the Baltics;

    (b) If they decide on a negotiated surrender-in-all-but-name in Syria with the US allowing Russia its forces intact in exchange for abandoning Assad –> a domestic clampdown to contain the mass outrage that this humiliation will doubtless elicit.

    annamaria , April 6, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @SmoothieX12

    Russia is cornered.
    I think it is exactly the other way around. Russia has options, US doesn't, apart from the fact that it lost all international subjectivity and is now nothing more than Israel's "subsidiary". Russia is not desperate, US establishment is and that is why it is so desperate to start "war" with Russia, whatever that means. Russia will always avoid war--it is her MO for decades. US desperation for this "war" with Russia has very logical explanations, granted that some of the factors in all this US insanity are, indeed, irrational (and hysterical) and metaphysical in nature. "Russia is not desperate, US establishment is and that is why it is so desperate to start "war" with Russia, whatever that means. Russia will always avoid war–it is her MO for decades. "

    Agree. You are right. Russia will always try to avoid the war. But the US needs desperately a war, both to patch the enormous holes in economy (the $20 trillion debt and counting, crumbling welfare system, loss of manufacture and such), and create new sources of mineral riches from newly subdued countries. Instead of revamping the internal system (a painful and highly strenuous process for a society), the US wants to solve the problem by the old ways, externally. Since the US is unable to reform (do you see any signs, any hope for the internal reforms? – I do not), the deciders will go, most likely, for the jugular against Russia. Only in this respect Russia is cornered.

    The RF government has a task of politely (but painfully) reminding the "deciders" that Russia will not capitulate to the "chosen," fed reserve, and mega-war profiteers (all of them are most likely under a total surveillance and "guidance" by the CIA). In the absence of the painful aspect of reminding, the deciders are not able to come to their senses. Barring an internal coup d'etat led by American patriots, the US is rolling towards US-made global catastrophe.

    Randal , April 6, 2017 at 2:13 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Hunsdon Please bear in mind, O our host, that Gen. Dunford, chairman of the JCS, said (in October?) that for the US to set up no fly zones in Syria would mean that we are at war with Syria and Russia. The next day in a NBC radio interview Lady MacBeth once more advocated for such no fly zones.

    Unlike the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump administration will actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly and Mattis. For the last generation, the US has stalked more or less unopposed on the world stage, throwing its weight around as it pleases. No one, we think, can oppose us! Well, that's nice and all, but I haven't forgotten the Cold War and the threat of nuclear confrontation with the USSR/Russia, and I'll bet you a meal of shashlik, lepeshki and vodka that Mattis, Dunford and Kelly haven't either.

    Maybe my faith is naive, we'll have to wait and see.

    Unlike the Obama administration, I somehow think the Trump administration will actually listen to military men like Dunford, Kelly and Mattis.

    Being military is certainly no guarantee against making misjudgements of this kind.

    Here's what Lang at SST has to say and he has both directly relevant experience and contacts:

    " Some of the retired military people whom McMaster inherited on the NSC staff think that of the US intervenes against the Syrian government, Russia will back away from, us. I do not agree with this. "

    This moment is where Trump succeeds or fails, imo.

    KA , April 6, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Tell me how this works , how it happens. Carl Bidt says same thing NYT says before any investigation . So does Hailey at UN . Max Boot on MSNBC ,and GOP Representative from Oklhaoma on FOX . Is there an universal subsonic dog whistle that brings the howling out of the rabid mad poisonous vipers from the hidden pit ? How do they start slithering out of the rock together?

    I guess I should include Bob Corker as well .
    How does the other wailing from Israel that Iran is more dangerous than ISIS synch with this dog whistle ?

    Randal , April 6, 2017 at 2:43 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @JL Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.

    During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.

    I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same way as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some influence in the near abroad.

    Look, I'm all for Russia's resistance to the empire, I'd just like it to happen without WW3.

    I noticed in another conversation you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to go into Afghanistan.

    There was no UN resolution allowing the US attack on Afghanistan, which was another deliberately lawless act by the US regime.

    The Bush regime probably could have got one if it had felt it needed it, given the almost universally supportive climate immediately after 9/11. Instead it chose to rely on a shamelessly spurious and wilfully dishonest mis-application of the supposed right of self defence after 9/11, knowing that nobody important was going to question it. That produced a much more useful precedent for the US regime than meekly complying with the law and the US's treaty obligations would have.

    Likewise, the Bush regime probably could have had Bin laden produced for trial somewhere by the Taliban if it had wanted that, but the political and brute power needs of the moment required the US regime to be seen to be kicking some foreign butt aggressively and promptly.

    Verymuchalive , April 6, 2017 at 3:22 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @Anatoly Karlin My view on things is informed by two key assumptions/observations:

    (1) The US can wipe the floor with Russia in Syria or anywhere in the Middle East.

    (2) Russia can wipe the floor with NATO east and north of the Suwalki gap.

    If things really go south in Syria - as in, actual Russian forces coming under sustained attack from the USAF - I would expect either:

    (a) If they decide on a military response --> it will be either in Ukraine (e.g. ranging from recognition of the LDNR to resurrection of the Novorossiya project) or even the Baltics;

    (b) If they decide on a negotiated surrender-in-all-but-name in Syria with the US allowing Russia its forces intact in exchange for abandoning Assad --> a domestic clampdown to contain the mass outrage that this humiliation will doubtless elicit. The safest way to defang America lies in any future economic collapse. Faced with an imploding economy and a choice between minimal social welfare measures or a grotesquely expanded military, the choice is obvious. I still think it will happen later this decade, if there is any humanity left to witness it.
    The Neocons and the other warmongers seem to realise this, too, hence their increasing recklessness in seeking ever more dangerous wars. As if one more country to loot will somehow stave off the inevitable.
    I have felt for some years now that other major powers ( Russia, China ) should have precipitated this collapse, since the longer they remain in power – and both Houses are still overwhelmingly Neocon – the more dangerous they become.
    Philip Giraldi occasionally mentions a choke point near Dhahran where over 60% of Saudi Arabia's oil is processed. He regards it as the World's biggest engineering weak spot. I suggest Mr Putin arranges a nasty accident there ASAP, thereby preventing production for months and months. The panic alone should be enough to trigger the collapse.

    Anonymous , April 6, 2017 at 3:23 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Does anyone know if parathion (E-605) and other similar organophosphate pesticides are still being used in Syrian agriculture or are still present in some form there? This class of chemicals are typically incredibly toxic to people and they used to be widespread in Africa and the Middle East up until very recently, and there were reports of tons of annual deaths from accidental exposure in for example Syria.

    The reason I'm asking is because according to some of the geolocation efforts, the alleged bomb impacts occured in and around an old agricultural facility with large buildings and rows of silos, and several of the reported properties of the alleged chemical match those of parathion and similar pesticides.

    Parathion smells horrible, like steaming sewage slush, and it causes acute respiratory difficulties, constricted pupils, horrifying convulsions and ultimately death. Many symptoms are somewhat similar to those of weaponized nerve agents such as Sarin and VX (they're also organophosphates) but unlike the pesticides these lack any noticeable odor and they don't form visible clouds.

    Now, from what I can see Damascus decided to get rid of these things after a parliamentary decision in 1999. This basically meant just burying it in the ground or in some locked basement somewhere. Later on, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) set off to help Syria actually destroy these giant stashes and a program to this end was initiated about ten years ago. They dug up close to a thousand tons of it from all over the country, but it seems like the civil war got in the way before they were finished, and who knows what the jihadist "authorities" are up to in regards to that.

    Just one possible theory among many, I suppose. I do think it's a tad far fetched myself, but it was just something that popped into my head immediately upon reading about this.

    SmoothieX12 , Website April 6, 2017 at 3:34 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @annamaria "Russia is not desperate, US establishment is and that is why it is so desperate to start "war" with Russia, whatever that means. Russia will always avoid war–it is her MO for decades. "

    Agree. You are right. Russia will always try to avoid the war. But the US needs desperately a war, both to patch the enormous holes in economy (the $20 trillion debt and counting, crumbling welfare system, loss of manufacture and such), and create new sources of mineral riches from newly subdued countries. Instead of revamping the internal system (a painful and highly strenuous process for a society), the US wants to solve the problem by the old ways, externally. Since the US is unable to reform (do you see any signs, any hope for the internal reforms? - I do not), the deciders will go, most likely, for the jugular against Russia. Only in this respect Russia is cornered.
    The RF government has a task of politely (but painfully) reminding the "deciders" that Russia will not capitulate to the "chosen," fed reserve, and mega-war profiteers (all of them are most likely under a total surveillance and "guidance" by the CIA). In the absence of the painful aspect of reminding, the deciders are not able to come to their senses. Barring an internal coup d'etat led by American patriots, the US is rolling towards US-made global catastrophe.

    Instead of revamping the internal system (a painful and highly strenuous process for a society), the US wants to solve the problem by the old ways, externally. Since the US is unable to reform (do you see any signs, any hope for the internal reforms? – I do not), the deciders will go, most likely, for the jugular against Russia. Only in this respect Russia is cornered.

    Current US "elites" across the whole spectrum of state's activity–from economic, to military, to intelligence, to diplomacy are simply not competent to deal with global realities. In terms of statesmen–US does not produce statesmen anymore, times of FDR, Ike or even Nixon are long gone. US "elite" production are mostly Ivy League boys and girls who are only conditioned for navigating system, which gets out only politicians who only know how to get elected.

    AP , April 6, 2017 at 3:42 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @JL Ah, I see the misunderstanding here. My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1. Specifically, it very much is the US that should be worrying about starting WW3 in this case, not Russia.

    During the Cold War, both sides realized the ramifications of direct military conflict and acted accordingly. The US is behaving as if something has changed in that respect and I find it terrifying. What is different now is that there is a huge asymmetry in forces that perhaps has instilled unwarranted confidence in the Americans that they can win a war with Russia.

    I think you maybe overestimate Russia's strength, in somewhat the same way as the US may be underestimating it. I noticed in another conversation you thought that Russia should have vetoed the UN resolution allowing the US to go into Afghanistan. To me, this is a complete misjudgment of Russia's situation at that moment in time, while ignoring, or forgetting, the resolve of the US immediately following September 11. Not to mention, there was probably a geopolitical calculation that having the US bogged down in Afghanistan, something the Russians could envision all too well, would allow Russia some breathing room to get back on its feet and claw back some influence in the near abroad.

    Look, I'm all for Russia's resistance to the empire, I'd just like it to happen without WW3.

    My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.

    I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.

    Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe its own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops killed in Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its troops were killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact, I would put the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a puppet government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case of Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's never coming back from a nuclear war.

    I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would be imposed.

    AP , April 6, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT \n
    100 Words If we are going to make wild speculations, perhaps it's a Russian operation designed to get America sucked into a Syrian quagmire as Russia exits, so Russia can do more in its backyard while the USA is preoccupied in the Middle East. Georgia happened while the USA was in Iraq.

    I think there is basically a zero chance of Assad having ordered this. It may be a US false-flag operation, Which would be stupid and unlikely. Given how heavily Russia is involved there, this could be probably uncovered rather easily given the competence of Russian intelligence.

    Most likely – some local commander acting for who knows what reason or local resistence doing a false flag operation withot American orders. Assad's forces are apparently not very centralized. Incompetence by Assad's forces or desperation by resistence makes more sense than does a conspiracy.

    SmoothieX12 , Website April 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @AP

    I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.

    US "needs" any kind of military success after de facto lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive–not a single war with first rate opponent, only extolled ad nauseam "victory" over third rate Saddam forces. A lot of psychology comes into this. Not only many US generals sleep and dream how to fight Russia, they desperately crave it. In conventional war with Russia this will be US, not Russia, who will initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are numerous, including massive reputational military losses – from losing one or two aircraft carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive casualties which will lead to impossibility of attaining any political objectives.

    Russia is also completely capable of conventionally striking US proper. By about 2021-2023 this capability will grow exponentially, including the ability (which US currently doesn't have and most likely will not have) to field missile and other technologies which completely zero-down US military potential. Pentagon knows this.

    utu , April 6, 2017 at 4:04 pm GMT \n
    Just few years ago:

    BBC News Caught Staging FAKE Chemical Attack In Syria

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/videoseries?list=PLcRxDfqBg9aDYiI13PRimygPjn0EZVYRG

    Look at hilarious acting straight from The Walking Dead at 2:37 min.

    hyperbola , April 6, 2017 at 4:14 pm GMT \n
    300 Words Maybe all this is about putting Obama and Trump through exactly the same "do as we say or else" deep state scenario? Remember that Obama knew that the case for blaming Assad for Ghouta was at best not certain.

    Seymour M. Hersh · Whose sarin? · LRB 19 December 2013

    https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

    . In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad .

    There was a lot of very loud rhetoric from Obama, but no direct attack in response. One might almost say that Obama and Putin "cooperated" to allow the situation to defuse. That was heavily criticized by the strongest ZionCon fanatics in the US government and media.

    Now we have an almost identical repeat of the very same scenario and Trump must know that real intelligence suggests the same situation Obama faced. Trump´s choices seem to be three-fold: (1) denounce the deep state treason in the US government, (2) kowtow to the deep state and have the US military directly attack Syria, or (3) do the same as Obama and let the situation defuse with time (w/wo help from Putin).

    I would guess Trump will choose option (3) just like Obama. The real question is whether the ZionCon control of the US government includes both the Pentagon and the CIA or whether the US military still resists the country being ruled by a foreign sect. The media is clearly 100% ZionCon and this restricts Trump's freedom to choose option (1).

    utu , April 6, 2017 at 4:19 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @SmoothieX12

    The movement of US desert Camo military equipment was done in a way to avoid detection by Russia. First to Germany to make it appear as a buildup on Russia's border, then to Poland final to a port in Romania, then reloaded at set sail to Beirut Lebanon where Damascus comes into view.
    Yeah, sure--you know, those stupid Russians who are still using spyglasses and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they possibly notice the movement of a brigade size units.

    "Yeah, sure–you know, those stupid Russians who are still using spyglasses and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they possibly notice the movement of a brigade size units."

    I do not know how is the mighty Russia military intelligence after the major shakeups by Putin and Shoygu in 2010/11 doing? Where is your mighty all knowing GRU? They did not not know that something is being cooked up and the chemical weapon provocation was being prepared? Just few years in proper places few days ago could avert it. But nothing happened. Did bombing in St. Petersburg divert their attention?

    At least in 2013 there was a leak that apparently stopped Obama from going all the way:

    Remember WHY Obama Didn't Act on the Red Line Violation? Leaked Document Suggested Obama Greenlighted Chemical Weapon False Flag Attack

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/remember-why-obama-didnt-act-on-the-red-line-violation-leaked-document-suggested-obama-greenlighted-chemical-weapon-false-flag-attack/

    However you spin it does not look good. Russia is outplayed on every turn.

    Mr. Hack , April 6, 2017 at 4:22 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @AP

    My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.
    I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.

    Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe its own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops killed in Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its troops were killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact, I would put the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a puppet government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case of Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's never coming back from a nuclear war.

    I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would be imposed.

    I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts of Ukraine.

    I could definitely foresee more involvement in Ukrainian affairs, but Baltic aggression seems over the top to me. By invading any of the Baltic countries, Russia will provoke the ire of European countries, especially those within NATO, and a likely counterattack. A war against the US in Syria and one against NATO in the Balts is way too much to envision. Things in Ukraine would undoubtedly unwind too. Wars on three fronts for Russia would be suicide. I think that what Karlin states here makes sense, and would preempt this sort of a scenario from occuring:

    I disagree that attacking Syria automatically means war, at least so long as the Russian military isn't directly targetted. Russia doesn't have any formal military alliances with Syria, so a lack of retaliation in Syria proper will be justifiable – and well-advised, considering massive American aeronaval dominance in the region

    SmoothieX12 , Website April 6, 2017 at 4:36 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @utu

    "Yeah, sure–you know, those stupid Russians who are still using spyglasses and arithmometers in their intelligence efforts, how can they possibly notice the movement of a brigade size units."
    I do not know how is the mighty Russia military intelligence after the major shakeups by Putin and Shoygu in 2010/11 doing? Where is your mighty all knowing GRU? They did not not know that something is being cooked up and the chemical weapon provocation was being prepared? Just few years in proper places few days ago could avert it. But nothing happened. Did bombing in St. Petersburg divert their attention?

    At least in 2013 there was a leak that apparently stopped Obama from going all the way:

    Remember WHY Obama Didn't Act on the Red Line Violation? Leaked Document Suggested Obama Greenlighted Chemical Weapon False Flag Attack
    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/remember-why-obama-didnt-act-on-the-red-line-violation-leaked-document-suggested-obama-greenlighted-chemical-weapon-false-flag-attack/

    However you spin it does not look good. Russia is outplayed on every turn.

    However you spin it does not look good.

    My spin on it is for you to take some kind of calming medicine (try Valerian Root) and start learning about real world outside. Stopping projecting your (very wrong) perceptions of how complex military-intelligence machines work onto something which needs more than just reading a bunch of media outlets, may also help.

    Russia is outplayed on every turn.

    May be yes, may be no. However you try to spin it, but it is US which is hysterical, not Russia.

    Ilyana_Rozumova , April 6, 2017 at 4:40 pm GMT \n
    US most enjoyable hobby always was to beat up small South American countries.
    Jooz only redirected this valuable US passion to Middle East.
    There is nothing wrong with that.
    Randal , April 6, 2017 at 4:46 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @AP

    My point was simply that any discussion of how Russia would respond to an attack on its forces by the US is moot because it will respond in kind, and the whole thing will go nuclear in 3,2,1.
    I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.

    Let's look at (remotely) plausible scenarios. Would Russia want to wipe its own civilization off the face of the Earth over getting its troops killed in Syria? Would America do the same because a few thousand of its troops were killed in the Baltics, or Poland? Not going to happen. In fact, I would put the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a puppet government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case of Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's never coming back from a nuclear war.

    I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts of Ukraine. Russia likes to reciprocate. That's not going to lead to nuclear war, though I imagine Russia would be out of swift and total sanctions would be imposed.

    I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible ..In fact, I would put the odds of a nuclear response to American troops installing a puppet government and occupying Moscow at below 50%. Because as in the case of Napoleon's or the Polish occupation, Russia can come back from that. It's never coming back from a nuclear war.

    That's not how anybody really expects a superpower confrontation to lead to nuclear war, though.

    Most escalation scenarios since mutually assured destruction became generally accepted involve a repeated series of escalations, each assuming the other side will step back from the brink in response, or a loss of command and control giving rise to uncontrolled or mistaken releases, until at some point one side is faced, or thinks it is faced, with a stark "use it or lose it" choice with only a few minutes to decide.

    It's not that likely that even open war would lead to an uncontrolled nuclear exchange. but how much risk are you prepared to accept when the consequences are that serious?

    The real concern today, though, is that there might be American politicians and military men who actually believe that their first strike counterforce capabilities combined with missile defences to mop up surviving attacks actually could limit damage to the continental US to acceptable levels.

    Anatoly Karlin , Website April 6, 2017 at 4:47 pm GMT \n
    200 Words NEW! @AP If we are going to make wild speculations, perhaps it's a Russian operation designed to get America sucked into a Syrian quagmire as Russia exits, so Russia can do more in its backyard while the USA is preoccupied in the Middle East. Georgia happened while the USA was in Iraq.

    I think there is basically a zero chance of Assad having ordered this. It may be a US false-flag operation, Which would be stupid and unlikely. Given how heavily Russia is involved there, this could be probably uncovered rather easily given the competence of Russian intelligence.

    Most likely - some local commander acting for who knows what reason or local resistence doing a false flag operation withot American orders. Assad's forces are apparently not very centralized. Incompetence by Assad's forces or desperation by resistence makes more sense than does a conspiracy.

    Incompetence by Assad's forces or desperation by resistence makes more sense than does a conspiracy.

    That's one /pol/ack's idea: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/119714121

    >implying Arabs are competent enough to keep strict tabs on all their chemical warfare agents
    > implying they can tell the difference between a regular bomb and a gas bomb when they load them up in their planes
    > implying Arabs haven't used nerve agents as recently as 1988 in warfare
    > implying there is a strategic ammo dump full of sarin that they bombed despite literally no evidence pointing to any such thing
    > implying even if they did bomb this imaginary depot full of sarin agents that the agents don't dissipate quickly enough due to sarin's high evaporation rate which is sped up intensely by the dry Syrian desert

    It certainly could have also been a rogue element within the Syrian military. It's not exactly a secret there are too many Islamist sympathizers within it, which partly explains why it has such low effectiveness.

    I agree that one or the other of these is probably likelier than a specifically American inspired false flag, which in turn is likelier than Assad having ordered it directly.

    Anonymous , April 6, 2017 at 5:10 pm GMT \n
    200 Words The purpose of this False Flag chemical attack by the CIA trained terrorists who are called 'rebel' by the illiterate zionist salesman, is to create No Fly Zone, modified a 'save zone' by the illiterate 'president' to partition Syria and Iraq to erect kurdistan. Kurds are trained CIA terrorists spying for Israel and US. The axis of evil US – Israel- Britain CANNOT topple Assad, so the illiterate 'president' is trying the false flag operation to establish NFZ, the US/Hillary project with the help of the YOUNG zionist Kushner in the business of illegal settlements.

    The illiterate zionist salesman in the business of escort and hotel with a help of his escort at the UN is trying to fool the ignorant American people AGAIN to commit more crimes against humanity to help his son in law. Shame on America that goes sooooooooooo low to implement Zionist policy.

    The people of the region NEVER allow a second Israel in Syria or Iraq. YOU, the criminal mass murderers must get lost from Syria and the region NOW.

    Down with China and Russia if they sell another country to mass murderers, like Libya, for two bones called concessions. Shame on China if betrays humanity AGAIN.

    bjondo , April 6, 2017 at 5:31 pm GMT \n
    The smell neither sarin nor chlorine but BS
    utu , April 6, 2017 at 5:56 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @reiner Tor To be honest, I can't even imagine how this apparent complete U-turn could happen without him being blackmailed. "without him being blackmailed" – One resorts to blackmail with people who have integrity and stand for some higher principles. Trump is an opportunist. He will do whatever. He is not the man of your own projections that you casted on him. This commenter I think got him right

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/video-bannon-tries-to-advise-trump-on-getting-involved-in-syria/#comment-1825893

    Trump has balls but he's no political philosopher. He's not coherent on anything.

    "I love Wikileaks! I'm being surveilled!/Edward Snowden is a traitor!"

    "Iraq was a mistake. Libya was a mistake. America First!/We're gonna get rid of Isis! Assad's gas attack changes things."

    "Drain the swamp!/ Get behind the establishment's healthcare bill!"

    "Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it/Mitt Romney lost because his self deportation comment was mean and it lost him the Latino vote"

    The guy watches Fox and Friends and Judge Jeanine-two of the most mind numbingly stupid shows on cable news and seems to genuinely enjoy them. The guy has a few good instincts but he doesn't have a coherent worldview and you can bet the people whispering in his ear who can actually get stuff done in Washington do. Problem is, they tend to be Bill Kristol. Rand "hey let's actually talk about this before we commit ourselves to more wars" Paul is a lonely "wacko bird." Trump is beyond ideology. He wants results. He want accomplishments. He wants his ego flattered. And there are plenty of rats ready to exploit that situation and play Iago to his Othello.

    Who has access to his ear now counts. It ain't Bannon anymore who helped to save his campaign by doubling down on the original Trump message that Trump was ready to dilute or even discard. It will be Ivanka, Kushner and many Iagos. Art at #114 above put it really well in terms of Steve the Baptist metaphor. W/o Bannon it's over.

    utu , April 6, 2017 at 6:13 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @AP

    "I agree with Karlin that the USA taking out Russian troops in Syria (really doubt this would happen) will result in a high likelihood of Russia occupying the Baltics (taking out American troops in the process) and parts of Ukraine. "

    I could definitely foresee more involvement in Ukrainian affairs, but Baltic aggression seems over the top to me. By invading any of the Baltic countries, Russia will provoke the ire of European countries, especially those within NATO, and a likely counterattack.

    In my comment I assumed not some Russians killed as collateral damage by the USA assaulting Assad, but a US direct attack on and destruction of Russian military forces in Syria such as the naval base at Tartus. I think the odds of this happening are basically zero, but if the USA did this I suspect Russia would retaliate by taking out the nearest and most convenient American bases, which would be in the Baltics (Russia couldn't really retaliate in the Middle East). This would save face at home, demonstrate to the world that Russia does retaliate and that attacks on Russia have consequences, and perhaps end NATO, because the Western powers, as in 1939, would probably not want to really fight for the sake of some eastern European countries.

    "I suspect Russia would retaliate by taking out the nearest and most convenient American bases, which would be in the Baltics (Russia couldn't really retaliate in the Middle East). "

    Russia has no conventional means of retaliating in the Middle East. All Russian forces in Middle East can be swarmed and overwhelmed by USA, Turkey and Israel within few hours. Russia will not go nuclear for the sake of Syria. In the end it is all about saving face. Funny, isn't it? There is nothing tangible there. Saving face for Russian people sake only because beyond Russia nobody really cares about Russia's face which in the West they think is beyond salvaging anyway. The end of it will be a coup d'etat in Russia by those who think that Russia's face was not saved enough or by those who think that saving Russia's face may lead to Russia's destruction. It will be the latter who pretend to be the former for the people's sake.

    SmoothieX12 , Website April 6, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMT \n
    500 Words @AP I agree with most of what you say, and can't dispute your military assessment because it is beyond my expertise. But -

    In conventional war with Russia this will be US, not Russia, who will initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are numerous, including massive reputational military losses–from losing one or two aircraft carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive casualties which will lead to impossibility of attaining any political objectives.
    I find the idea of America's military/political leaders choosing to commit national suicide under such a scenario (Russia destroying America's military capability and ability to project power outside the USA through conventional means) to be extremely unlikely. Leader may be foolish or short-sighted, but I really doubt they have a Nazi-like or Islamic-like mentality of preferring total national destruction if they don't have their way. I doubt even the fanatic neocons would feel this way.

    I find the idea of America's military/political leaders choosing to commit national suicide under such a scenario (Russia destroying America's military capability and ability to project power outside the USA through conventional means) to be extremely unlikely.

    I don't. Without going deep into, now firmly established, dysfunctionality of the US State, which is horrendously dangerous in itself, the war, and I am not being original here, has the mind of its own once it starts. The war with Russia, if it happens either in Syria or, let alone, in and around Ukraine, will have a very different military and political logic.

    1. Casualties sustained will be massive in a very short period of time.
    2. US will have a major political crisis at home.
    3. Reputational losses will be huge.
    4. Geopolitical dynamics will change drastically and in a very short time
    5. This point is for US further internal US contingencies and here one can only imagine what it may be and what political forces may emerge. Military-intelligence coup? Easily.
    6.

    So,

    Leader may be foolish or short-sighted, but I really doubt they have a Nazi-like or Islamic-like mentality of preferring total national destruction if they don't have their way.

    But this is a defining feature of, at least, most neocon cabal. But let's forget about Korea, where MacArthur was forced by Truman out of his position because he wanted to use nukes, same goes for Vietnam, where nuking it was considered. US is a no stranger to this kind of military thinking. What happens if Russia destroys a single Carrier Battle Group, and probability of this is not a zero at all? Do you know what the loss of even single carrier means for US as a whole, forget US Navy. Do not listen to me, read what Admiral Elmo Zumwalt thought about it during and after his tenure as CNO. We can only imagine what pressures will arise. While it is true that neocons are cowards, it is also true that we really do not know what is their threshold of rationality. You have to understand, for decades now US political and military "elite" was formed by this ad nauseam mantra of American exceptionalism in everything. Are you ready to predict the results of this "parting syndrome"? I am not. I can only discuss contingencies and one of them, and I guarantee you–it is being considered in Russia, is precisely of US "top" going completely rogue and insane, not that it is not happening as I type this. This contingency can not and must not be excluded from serious elaborations.

    P.S. Lowlife Albright's desire to sacrifice 500,000 Iraqi children for "democracy" was not an accidental misspeak–this is how many in D.C. think and live. In the end, if not for courageous British General Sir. Jackson, Wesley Clark would start killing Russian paratroopers at Slatina airfield. He issued the orders. Since then things only got worse.

    El Dato , April 6, 2017 at 6:39 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @anon Trump got burned on the Yemen raid.

    Why is the military going along with this one? The last one didn't happen because no one wanted to sign off on it. That is, Obama drew the line (stupidly). But then decided to make Congress vote for it. Everyone wanted someone else to be the designated 'leader'.

    Syria is no less a loser today. Does Congress want to vote for this? The only thing that is utterly predictable about Trump is he doesn't want to lose. But even more so, he doesn't want to be blamed.

    He was quite convincing today as the sucker.

    But really?

    The military and public mostly seem OK with bombing. So maybe we bomb some stuff. It's disgusting but its just killing military on one side or another along with a lot of collateral damage, dead women and children, etc. But no boots on the ground.

    I'd like to think that he won't do it. Like how could he be so stupid? But it hasn't stopped anyone sine the 2000 election.

    So maybe we bomb some stuff.

    That's going to be quite interesting.

    - Nusra Front will rebound.
    - ISIS will be back (remember them?)
    - USA will lose a few planes to S-300 anti-air.
    - There will be dead Russians. This won't go down well.
    - There will be dead Iranian cleaner teams, and thus angry Iranians. Hardcore Mullahs will be happy (sounds like feature because a War on Iran is exactly what the satanic union of Saudi-Arabia and you-know-who wants.)
    - Turkey will flow into the "bombed stuff" area to attack Kurds.

    God knows where that will all end up.

    Remember little Serbia and August 1914.

    iffen , April 6, 2017 at 6:48 pm GMT \n
    @SmoothieX12

    I doubt either country will directly attack the other. In the extremely unlikelihood of such an attack, an escalation to nuclear would be even more unlikely, given that this will result in the end of both civilizations and annihilation of both peoples. It is silly to think that it's even possible.
    US "needs" any kind of military success after de facto lost wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive--not a single war with first rate opponent, only extolled ad nauseam "victory" over third rate Saddam forces. A lot of psychology comes into this. Not only many US generals sleep and dream how to fight Russia, they desperately crave it. In conventional war with Russia this will be US, not Russia, who will initiate nuclear exchange. The reasons for that are numerous, including massive reputational military losses--from losing one or two aircraft carriers, to sustaining (which is highly likely) massive casualties which will lead to impossibility of attaining any political objectives. Russia is also completely capable of conventionally striking US proper. By about 2021-2023 this capability will grow exponentially, including the ability (which US currently doesn't have and most likely will not have) to field missile and other technologies which completely zero-down US military potential. Pentagon knows this. US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive

    Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes like ripping those Afghans a new one for example.

    Art , April 6, 2017 at 6:55 pm GMT \n
    100 Words Just cannot believe that Assad is that stupid as to do a gas attack at this time. It is beyond comprehension, after staying in power for five years of vicious civil war, and about ready to declare victory, he would never knowingly do this.

    This was either a tragic unintended error or a false flag by another party – most likely Israel.

    Whatever, the globalist Jews are going to use this tragedy to achieve their long-held goal of breaking up Syria.

    Jared and Ivanka Kushner will lead the way.

    SmoothieX12 , Website April 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @iffen US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive

    Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes like ripping those Afghans a new one for example. "There is a literature and a common perception that the Soviets were defeated and driven from Afghanistan. This is not true. When the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1989, they did so in a coordinated, deliberate, professional manner, leaving behind a functioning government, an improved military and an advisory and economic effort insuring the continued viability of the government. The withdrawal was based on a coordinated diplomatic, economic and military plan permitting Soviet forces to withdraw in good order and the Afghan government to survive. The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA)managed to hold on despite the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Only then, with the loss of Soviet support and the increased efforts by the Mujahideen (holy warriors) and Pakistan, did the DRA slide toward defeat in April 1992. The Soviet effort to withdraw in good order was well executed and can serve as a model for other disengagements from similar nations."

    http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/Withdrawal.pdf

    All questions to US Army Command And General Staff College in Leavenworth, KS. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    German_reader , April 6, 2017 at 7:05 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @iffen US military record of the last 70 years is rather unimpressive

    Right, no way that they match Soviet/Russia's impressive list of successes like ripping those Afghans a new one for example. Compared to Vietnam, the Soviet record in Afghanistan wasn't really that bad (and at least the Soviets realized early on that they needed to get out and left behind a friendly regime that lasted some time, and might have lasted longer if not for the dissolution of the Soviet Union – what has NATO achieved so far in Afghanistan, after 15 years?).
    And I'd actually go farther than Smoothie, US triumphalism is way overdone even in regard to the 2nd world war, at least concerning the European theatre.

    jconsley , April 6, 2017 at 7:40 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Seraphim It is known that the apparition of Haley's Comet presage wars. Do we have it? No, but we have Nikki Haley.

    U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Feb. 16, 2017:
    ""I just put out to the members of the Seucrity Council to help me understand: When we have so much going on in the world, why is it that every single month we're going to sit down and have a hearing where all they do is obsess over Israel?...
    The Security Council is supposed to discuss how to maintain international peace and security. But at our meeting on the Middle East, the discussion was not about Hizballah's illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon. It was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not about how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No, instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that's how the Council has operated, month after month, for decades.
    I'm here to say the United States will not turn a blind eye to this anymore. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I'm here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN's anti-Israel bias. We will never repeat the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn Israel. Instead, we will push for action on the real threats we face in the Middle East...
    It is the UN's anti-Israel bias that is long overdue for change. The United States will not hesitate to speak out against these biases in defense of our friend and ally, Israel".

    What are the 'real threats'? Assad, Russia, Iran, Sarin gas. Understood? Poor Nikki - what about Resolution 242? Is it now 69 U.N. Resolutions that Israel has ignored along with all international law? Does the United States recognize international law Nikki?

    Thus far, your comments and representation display you total lack of knowledge. At least consider the pros and cons of situations before forming an opinion. It seems you are regurgitating whatever lies you are told.

    Perhaps Trump selected you because you only watch TV and never read books, magazines, etc. You no doubt make Trump feel comfortable with your TV knowledge. It may help to read some State Department cables and emails to learn about United States' policies. Try not to be discouraged by the fact that most policies are hypocritical where Israel is involved.

    John Gruskos , April 6, 2017 at 7:48 pm GMT \n
    @Tulip Why would Assad do it, assuming he is winning the civil war?

    First, Assad requires political backers to stay in power, and if his backers dessert, he will fall.

    Second, during the civil war, his political backers have no choice but to back Assad, or otherwise their faction could fall from power.

    Third, after the civil war, his political backers could very well consider new leadership.

    Fourth, by using poison gas, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, Assad and his backers are now international war criminals.

    Fifth, if his backers move against Assad, they could all end up in front of the Hague.

    Sixth, its a nice FU to Donald Trump and America, as Assad doesn't need their support.

    Seventh, it either brings the Donald into an unwinnable quagmire, weakening America, or Donald looks more like Ronald (McDonald).

    If it looks like he is going to win the war, and Russia and Iran have his back (in terms of money and arms), gassing these people helps cement the support of his backers, at the expense of pissing off some nations he neither needs nor likes. This theory doesn't hold up. Assad and his backers already have blood on their hands. He doesn't need a new atrocity to cement their loyalty.

    [Apr 07, 2017] Syria The Toxic Meltdown

    Notable quotes:
    "... Donald Trump – and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no detailed investigation – are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying. ..."
    "... Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing "fully objective and verified" information, identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a "moderate rebel" warehouse east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas. ..."
    "... Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by "rebels" in Aleppo late last year, according to samples collected by Russian military experts. ..."
    "... And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama's theoretically trespassed red line on chemical weapons, a secret US intelligence report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity. ..."
    "... So those toxic weapons that "disappeared" – en masse - from Gaddafi's arsenals in 2011 ended up upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely described across the Beltway as "moderate rebels". ..."
    "... Trump's ambassador to the UN, Heritage Foundation asset Nikki Haley, predictably went ballistic, monopolizing the whole Western news cycle. Lost in oblivion, also predictably, was Russia's deputy UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov shattering to bits the West's "obsession with regime change" in Syria, which is "what hinders this Security Council." ..."
    "... Idlib Chemical Attack: West Blames Assad Even Before Probe Launched Safronkov stressed the chemical attack in Idlib was based on "falsified reports from the White Helmets", an organization that has been "discredited long ago". Indeed; but now the Helmets are Oscar winners , and this pop culture badge of honor renders them unassailable – not to mention immune to the effects of sarin gas. ..."
    "... The dead "children of Syria" are now pawns in a much larger, perverse game. The US government may have killed a million men, women and children in Iraq – and there was no serious outcry among the "elites" across the NATO spectrum. A war criminal still at large admitted , on the record, that the snuffing out, directly and indirectly, of 500,000 Iraqi children was "justified." ..."
    "... For his part, Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama instrumentalized the House of Saud to fund – and weaponize - some 40 outfits "vetted" by the CIA in Syria. Several of these outfits had in fact already merged with, or were absorbed by, Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. And they all engaged in their own massacres of civilians. ..."
    "... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | sputniknews.com
    Syria: The Toxic Meltdown © AFP 2017/ Omar haj kadour Columnists 19:29 06.04.2017 Get short URL Pepe Escobar 6 3147 52 0

    "These heinous acts by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated." Thus spoke the President of the United States.

    Instant translation;

    Donald Trump – and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no detailed investigation – are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying.

    Using Chemical Weapons Against Civilians? Assad 'Would Never Make Such a Crazy Move' That's a pretty serious charge.

    Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing "fully objective and verified" information, identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a "moderate rebel" warehouse east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas.

    Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by "rebels" in Aleppo late last year, according to samples collected by Russian military experts.

    Still, Trump felt compelled to telegraph what is now his own red line in Syria; "Militarily, I don't like to say when I'm going and what I'm doing. I'm not saying I won't do anything one way or another, but I certainly won't be telling you [the media]."

    By his side at the White House lawn, the pathetic King Playstation of Jordan praised Trump's "realistic approach to the challenges in the region." This might pass as a Monty Python sketch. Unfortunately, it's reality.

    What's at stake in Idlib

    Washington 'Knows Damascus Has No Chemical Weapons', But Still Blames Assad Hysteria unleashed – once again -, Western public opinion conveniently forgot that declared chemical weapons held by Damascus had been destroyed way back in 2014 on board of a US maritime vessel, no less, under UN supervision.

    And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama's theoretically trespassed red line on chemical weapons, a secret US intelligence report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity.

    Not to mention that the Obama administration and its allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar had made a secret pact in 2012 to set up a sarin gas attack and blame Damascus, setting the scene for a Shock and Awe replay. Funding for the project came from the NATO-GCC connection coupled with a CIA-MI6 connection, a.k.a. rat line , of transferring all manner of weapons from Libya to Salafi-jihadis in Syria.

    So those toxic weapons that "disappeared" – en masse - from Gaddafi's arsenals in 2011 ended up upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely described across the Beltway as "moderate rebels".

    'Red Line' Revisited? What's Behind Trump Accusing Damascus of Reported Chemical Attack in Syria Cornered in Idlib province, these "rebels" are now the top target of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Russian Air Force. Damascus and Moscow, unlike Washington, are bent on smashing the whole Salafi-jihadi galaxy, not only Daesh. If the SAA continues to advance, and if these "rebels" lose Idlib, it's game over.

    So the offensive by Damascus had to be smeared, no holds barred, in full view of global public opinion.

    Yet it does not make any sense whatsoever that only two days before another international conference on Syria, and immediately after the White House was forced to admit that "the Syrian people should choose their destiny" and "Assad must go" is over and done with, Damascus should launch a counterproductive gas attack antagonizing the whole NATO universe.

    This walks – and talks - more like the tsunami of lies that predated Shock and Awe on Iraq in 2003, and certainly walks and talks like the renewed turbo-charging of an "al-CIAda" campaign. Jabhat al-Nusra never ceased to be the CIA's babies in the preferred Syrian regime change scenario.

    Your kids are not toxic enough

    Trump's ambassador to the UN, Heritage Foundation asset Nikki Haley, predictably went ballistic, monopolizing the whole Western news cycle. Lost in oblivion, also predictably, was Russia's deputy UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov shattering to bits the West's "obsession with regime change" in Syria, which is "what hinders this Security Council."

    Idlib Chemical Attack: West Blames Assad Even Before Probe Launched Safronkov stressed the chemical attack in Idlib was based on "falsified reports from the White Helmets", an organization that has been "discredited long ago". Indeed; but now the Helmets are Oscar winners , and this pop culture badge of honor renders them unassailable – not to mention immune to the effects of sarin gas.

    Whatever Trump and the Pentagon may eventually come up with an independent US intel analyst, averse to groupthink, is adamant; "Any air attack on Syria would require coordination with Russia, and Russia will not allow any air attack against Assad to take place. Russia has the defensive missiles there that can block the attack. This will be negotiated out. There will be no attack as an attack can precipitate a nuclear war."

    The dead "children of Syria" are now pawns in a much larger, perverse game. The US government may have killed a million men, women and children in Iraq – and there was no serious outcry among the "elites" across the NATO spectrum. A war criminal still at large admitted , on the record, that the snuffing out, directly and indirectly, of 500,000 Iraqi children was "justified."

    For his part, Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama instrumentalized the House of Saud to fund – and weaponize - some 40 outfits "vetted" by the CIA in Syria. Several of these outfits had in fact already merged with, or were absorbed by, Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. And they all engaged in their own massacres of civilians.

    Meanwhile, the UK keeps merrily weaponizing the House of Saud in its quest to reduce Yemen to a vast famine wasteland pinpointed by "collateral damage" graveyards. The NATO spectrum is certainly not crying for those dead Yemeni children. They are not toxic enough.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [Apr 07, 2017] Ron Paul Zero Chance Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag Zero Hedge

    The first question to be asked in such cases is " Cue bono " "Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat , for example."
    Notable quotes:
    "... According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack. ..."
    "... "It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said Paul. ..."
    "... Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels. ..."
    "... Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria. ..."
    "... Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East? ..."
    "... The propaganda is so prevalent, the indoctrinated so blinded, there is no way at this point for the populace to have any idea of "what is truth?". ..."
    "... Trump is too sharp not to sense something smells fishy. It's a deliberate ignorance. ..."
    "... You mean like lacing ammunition with depleted Uranium, U.S. style? Or showing up, undeclared, and initiating aggressive war in other countries, violating international law, U.S. style? Or gunning down civilians and children rendering aid, U.S. style like that Manning/Collateral Murder video showed, exclaiming, "Well, the kids shouldn't be in a war zone." Everyone within earshot, muttering, "Yep." ..."
    "... Let's not forget using DU weapons in populated areas. Also no problem. Babies getting incinerated by thermobarics? No problem either. Illegal use of the double tap, targeting first responders using the specious argument that if you dig the body parts out of a building or attempt to help those unlucky enough to be in the blast radius of one of our thermobarics? Nope, no problem. ..."
    "... If it was sarin, these White Helmet fraudsters would be dead: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jumping-conclusions-something-not-a... ..."
    "... Japanese first responders dealing with a real sarin attack in Tokyo. Those handling the victims are wearing positive-pressure hazmat suits. The White Helmets? Sneakers, no gloves and a generic gas mask. http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/n-sarin-b-2015032... ..."
    "... Like the US government has no clue about what is going on here in the US, regarding to politics, IRS Scandals, Clinton scandals, Trump scandals, Obamacare, Obama scandals.... but some how, some way, they always know everything that was happening in Syria and always confirm everything within 24 hours and telling the world what really went on in Syria... ..."
    "... So 'follow the money', who wins from this chemical attack - US deep state, neocons, MIC and media lapdogs. ..."
    "... Deep state and their legacy media pawns are using Syria to manipulate and get control of Trump. With media all parroting 'Assad did it' Trump has played to their tune and deep state sucks Trump deeper into their swamp. ..."
    "... No bomb blast kids. No burned kids. No adults. I guess the kids were in a field of clover, wearing orange vests and pilots were just flying crop dusters, wearing full nerv agent proof suits and sprayed them. ..."
    "... Looking deeper, Israel has been pushing this hard. Putin to Netanyahu: Unacceptable to Make 'Groundless Accusations' on Syria Chemical Attack http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782007 ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Ron Paul: "Zero Chance" Assad Behind Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria; Likely A False Flag

    According to former Congressman Ron Paul, the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun that killed 30 children and has led to calls for the Trump administration to intervene in Syria could have been a false flag attack.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/LULzvg1gA5U

    As Paul Joseph Watson details, pointing out that the prospect of peace in Syria was moving closer before the attack , with ISIS and Al-Qaeda on the run, Paul said the attack made no sense.

    "It looks like maybe somebody didn't like that so there had to be an episode," said Paul, asking, "who benefits?"

    " It doesn't make any sense for Assad under these conditions to all of a sudden use poison gases – I think there's zero chance he would have done this deliberately, " said Paul.

    The former Congressman went on to explain how the incident was clearly being exploited by neo-cons and the deep state to enlist support for war.

    "It's the neo-conservatives who are benefiting tremendously from this because it's derailed the progress that has already been made moving toward a more peaceful settlement in Syria," said Paul.

    Many have questioned why Assad would be so strategically stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack and incite the wrath of the world given that he is closer than ever to winning the war against ISIS and jihadist rebels.

    Just five days before the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said, "The longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," implying a definite shift in U.S. foreign policy away from regime change in Syria.

    Why would Assad put such assurances in jeopardy by launching a horrific chemical attack, allowing establishment news outlets like CNN to once against use children as props to push for yet another massive war in the Middle East?

    Manthong -> auricle •Apr 6, 2017 11:07 AM

    If President Trump does not fire and publicly humiliate any of those who told him that the Syrians attacked civilians with chemical weapons, he will lose a lot of respect from those of us who know better.

    Mr. Universe -> Manthong •Apr 6, 2017 12:10 PM

    Tulsi Gabbard's Twitter is ablaze with "shame on you Tulsi, you know who is responsible as you met with him a few months ago. "

    The propaganda is so prevalent, the indoctrinated so blinded, there is no way at this point for the populace to have any idea of "what is truth?".

    beemasters -> Comtrend Apr 6, 2017 3:46 PM

    Every president has always been elected for the purpose of benefiting the very few at the expense of the many.

    X22Report on this false flag... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0mS_z50A_w&t=19m40s

    Trump is too sharp not to sense something smells fishy. It's a deliberate ignorance.

    Arnold -> Ghost of Porky , Apr 6, 2017 11:04 AM

    You are a good discriminator of legal and illegal war.

    Ghost of Porky -> Arnold , Apr 6, 2017 11:45 AM

    Oh, did congress declare war? Must have missed that.

    Stranger_in_a_S... -> Arnold , Apr 6, 2017 2:45 PM

    You mean like lacing ammunition with depleted Uranium, U.S. style? Or showing up, undeclared, and initiating aggressive war in other countries, violating international law, U.S. style? Or gunning down civilians and children rendering aid, U.S. style like that Manning/Collateral Murder video showed, exclaiming, "Well, the kids shouldn't be in a war zone." Everyone within earshot, muttering, "Yep."

    So I guess Assad should just utter, "Kids shouldn't have been in a war zone," and the rest of the world would go, "Oh, yeah, that's how it works because that is what the U.S. explained to us about those kids riddled with .50 calibers during the slaughter of those Reuters reporters went. Everything's OK then."

    Or they should have had more responsible father's, like the 16 year old Awlaki kid. That works too, because that's how the U.S. rolls.

    Besides, Assad could also just tell us how it's all worth it, kids dying, because that is another acceptable rationalization per Albright.

    In essence, there is a laundry list of 'acceptable' excuses Assad could use, because the U.S. uses them all the time. Would save him a lot of trouble and this recent fakery wouldn't even have to be denied.

    greenskeeper carl -> Ghost of Porky , Apr 6, 2017 11:26 AM

    Let's not forget using DU weapons in populated areas. Also no problem. Babies getting incinerated by thermobarics? No problem either. Illegal use of the double tap, targeting first responders using the specious argument that if you dig the body parts out of a building or attempt to help those unlucky enough to be in the blast radius of one of our thermobarics? Nope, no problem.

    lets say we give most of the government their war they seem to want so desperately. How many babies will we kill when we invade Syria? Children killed by our bombs are just as dead as babies killed by gas.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Mtnrunnr , Apr 6, 2017 10:36 AM

    You can't stockpile what kind of gas? I haven't heard anything specific regarding even the cause of death of the victimized stage props used in this Made-For-TV drama.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Mtnrunnr , Apr 6, 2017 10:49 AM

    No, you're fucking wrong.

    If it was sarin, these White Helmet fraudsters would be dead: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/jumping-conclusions-something-not-a...

    HowdyDoody -> Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 6, 2017 2:03 PM

    Japanese first responders dealing with a real sarin attack in Tokyo. Those handling the victims are wearing positive-pressure hazmat suits. The White Helmets? Sneakers, no gloves and a generic gas mask. http://jto.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/n-sarin-b-2015032...

    Yog Soggoth -> Mtnrunnr , Apr 6, 2017 8:30 PM

    You are such a tard.

    Army: Disposal Of Sarin Containers To Begin Next Spring When was that? What did the ASS press say? Sarin is very soluble in water whereas other nerve agents are more sparingly soluble. VX has the unexpected property of being soluble in cold water but sparingly soluble in warm water (>9.5 °C). What did we see this morning? People in warm weather spraying down children without real protection from Sarin.

    abyssinian -> nyse , Apr 6, 2017 10:13 AM

    Thanks Ron for pointing out the obvious! But you are the only MAN brave enough to say it.

    Like the US government has no clue about what is going on here in the US, regarding to politics, IRS Scandals, Clinton scandals, Trump scandals, Obamacare, Obama scandals.... but some how, some way, they always know everything that was happening in Syria and always confirm everything within 24 hours and telling the world what really went on in Syria...

    stilletto2 -> nyse , Apr 6, 2017 11:12 AM

    So 'follow the money', who wins from this chemical attack - US deep state, neocons, MIC and media lapdogs. So CIA set their terrorist buddies to release chems in the vacinity of a syrian bombing - easy to plan and do and then feed the brain dead media and Trump is ambushed - textbook CIA

    Deep state and their legacy media pawns are using Syria to manipulate and get control of Trump. With media all parroting 'Assad did it' Trump has played to their tune and deep state sucks Trump deeper into their swamp.

    Offthebeach -> nyse , Apr 6, 2017 11:53 AM

    Gee, the Syrian do one, single nerve agent bomb.....and they just hit kids. How accurate.

    My fking ass. No bomb blast kids. No burned kids. No adults. I guess the kids were in a field of clover, wearing orange vests and pilots were just flying crop dusters, wearing full nerv agent proof suits and sprayed them. Do the kids look like those Palestinian kids that are supposedly shot, then get up and run away.

    Of course the poor saps that we support would never stage a fake attack. ?

    Fake News ( is there any other? )

    bmore -> nyse , Apr 6, 2017 2:13 PM

    Looking deeper, Israel has been pushing this hard. Putin to Netanyahu: Unacceptable to Make 'Groundless Accusations' on Syria Chemical Attack http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.782007

    Bill of Rights , Apr 6, 2017 10:09 AM

    Nuff said

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2dpyR1kEP4

    Consuelo -> Bill of Rights , Apr 6, 2017 10:36 AM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oQTWn1JfeA

    NFLX...?

    BigFatUglyBubble , Apr 6, 2017 10:10 AM

    This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

    [ to Neo who is choosing the red pill ] Remember... all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more.

    Morpheus

    Dangerclose , Apr 6, 2017 10:11 AM

    Trump jumped like a trained dog when he answered the reporter's question about Syria yesterday. Someone like Ron Paul has to help this man and by all means lets keep the laser pointers away from him!! GEESCH!!

    Ward no. 6 -> Dangerclose , Apr 6, 2017 10:58 AM

    i am not pro-trump but i would think that there is extreme pressure for him to do as he is told

    truthseeker69 , Apr 6, 2017 10:11 AM

    >Swap Creature Transformation Complete

    >Commening 'Syria Propaganda' sequence.

    I just can't help but wonder what the trumpsters are going to do with thier 'MAGA' hats?

    [Apr 07, 2017] Trump took Hillary Clintons advice to bomb Assad Air Bases

    Apr 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne, April 06, 2017 at 06:38 PM
    https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/850081192376500224

    Jack Goldsmith‏ @jacklgoldsmith

    My arg that military action in Syria in response to chem weapons would've been illegal in 2013 still applies today.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/opinion/what-happened-to-the-rule-of-law.html

    What Happened to the Rule of Law?

    1:22 PM - 6 Apr 2017

    libezkova -> anne... , April 06, 2017 at 10:29 PM
    Looks like it took only 100 days for Trump to metamorphose into Hillary Clinton in foreign policy area.

    Ron Paul Institute thinks that ground invasion of Syria is imminent. More dead and more destruction in already war torn country. Will Damascus be captured without a fight or not ? This is one of oldest cities in the world.

    This rush to military actions reminds me Colin Powell performance in the UN. A million or more Iraqis are dead now.

    https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/05/colin-powell-discusses-wmd-blot-his-record

    Aside from legality (and Trump does not care about legality as long it is not directed against him) there are some common sense questions to neocons who successfully captured Trump administration and manipulated Trump into action (on April 5th Bannon was removed from National Security Council):

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/cnn-anchor-speechless-after-congressman-questions-syria-chemical-attack-narrative


    1. Gassed by whom? Was there any investigation? What type of gas was used ? ""It's hard to know exactly what's happening in Syria right now. I'd like to know specifically how that release of chemical gas, if it did occur - and it looks like it did - how that occurred," Representative Thomas Massie told CNN's Kate Bolduan."

    2. Was the gas released by weapons from airplanes (but there is no bomblets on the scene) or as a result of the attack on chemical munitions factory producing shells with chemical warheads?

    3. Is there a possibility that attack was staged specifically to get USA actions ("false flag operation")

    4. Cue Bono ? "Ahrar Al-Sham, Tahrir Al-Sham (#AlQaeda) and #ISIS private Telegram channels praising #UnitedStates attack tonight..." as Representative Thomas Massie told CNN's Kate Bolduan. "Because frankly, I don't think Assad would have done that. It does not serve his interests. It would tend to draw us into that civil war even further."... "I don't think it would've served Assad's purposes to do a chemical attack on his people It's hard for me to understand why he would do that - if he did."

    Essentially the USA verdict was instant -- Assad needs to go. But no information was shared with public.

    Ron Paul thoughts:

    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2017/april/06/syria-crisis-update-us-attack-imminent-and-what-you-can-do/

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-06/ron-paul-zero-chance-assad-behind-chemical-weapons-attack-syria-likely-false-flag

    im1dc , April 06, 2017 at 06:40 PM
    McConnell started something today that he may not get tomorrow but if he does the GOP will regret it, imo.
    im1dc , April 06, 2017 at 07:08 PM
    Trump took Hillary Clinton's advice to bomb Assad's Air Bases

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN1782S0

    "Trump unleashes military strikes against Assad airbase in Syria"

    "PALM BEACH, Fla. - The U.S. military launched cruise missile strikes ordered by President Donald Trump against a Syrian airbase controlled by President Bashar al-Assad's forces in response to a deadly chemical attack in a rebel-held area, a U.S. official said on Thursday."

    [Apr 07, 2017] Tillerson Warns Russia Coalition Steps Are Underway To Remove Assad

    Apr 07, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    VIX was being crushed and stocks were leaking higher just as planned, until Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hit the tape beating war drums and announcing a new US policy on Syria, just a week after he said the US had no interest in removing the Syrian president.

    Specifically, Tillerson said that steps are underway to remove Syrian President Bashar al- Assad, and that the U.S. is considering an "appropriate response" to the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons.

    "The process by which Assad would leave is something that requires an international community effort both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country to avoid further civil war and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving," Tillerson said at the news conference in Palm Beach, Fla.

    Tillerson on Assad: "Clearly with the acts that he has taken it would seem there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people." pic.twitter.com/Nr5BcHJmz1

    - ABC News (@ABC) April 6, 2017

    Tillerson also called into question Assad's future in Syria, saying there would be "no role" for authoritarian ruler in Syria, and said that there is no doubt the Assad regime was reponsible for the Syria attack.

    As a result, Tillerson said that "Assad's role in the future is uncertain clearly, and with the acts that he has taken it would seem that there would be no role for him to govern the Syrian people"

    Acknowledging that a conflict with Syria would involve Russia, Tillerson said that " it's very important that the Russian government consider carefully their continued support of the Assad regime."

    All of which was a quick U-turn from last Thursday's comments when Tillerson said that "I think the longer term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people," a statement which as we reported infuriated John McCain .

    The reaction in the market was quick:

    VD -> SenselessPanic , Apr 6, 2017 3:12 PM

    voted for Trump in no small part for his promised detente while simultaneously voting against neocon Hitlery criminal muderding sociopathic warmonger and now we're still pushing into WW3.

    just another BTFD opportunity off the thermonuclear war (rumor)... .. . ..

    dogsandhoney2 -> Shemp 4 Victory , Apr 6, 2017 6:36 PM

    let's see... bannon out, fakenews pesticide bomb, assad from evil to neutral to evil, more war in middle east.

    mic taking the reins, again.

    no woof.

    Comtrend -> Killer the Buzzard , Apr 6, 2017 4:32 PM

    Deep State got to Rex:

    Deep State pulls on Tillerson's Strings: "No Role for Assad"

    and they move FAST

    US Official: Pentagon in Detailed Discussions with White House on Military Options in Syria

    I bet the 2 neocohens McCain and Graham are in on this, maybe conditioning Gorsuch vote on having their war.

    tmosley -> bob_bichen , Apr 6, 2017 7:54 PM

    You guys have really gone full retard. Step one is to remove ISIS. Step two is to stabilize Syria. Only after that is finished would they turn to removing Assad, ie years from now when everyone has forgotten all about this incident and he can just not do it and no-one will care.

    Big question here: why does the ZH comment section hate Trump with such a vengence? Many, if not most here seem to have wanted him to fail from the start, or for him to suddenly turn evil for some reason, and every time there is a new bit of data to feed that confirmation bias, they are screaming "I told you so's" from the rooftops, and after the "scandal" dies down, everyone else still likes Trump and they are back looking for the next sign of the coming of the anti-Christ.

    Is it just the doomboner crowd having withdrawals, or what?

    chunga -> wildbad , Apr 6, 2017 3:27 PM

    Me too. I hope the Russians have evidence of this "attack" by Assad and release it to the world.

    Beyond that I wish them well in their fight against the monsters calling the shots in this govt, even if I become collateral damage.

    strannick -> chunga , Apr 6, 2017 3:46 PM

    Sociopaths dont regard evidence. They just screech their lies louder in the MSM

    EuroPox -> hoyeru , Apr 6, 2017 3:46 PM

    Well here is the proof it wasn't Assad - a tweet (from an anti-Assad reporter) warning about a sarin attack in Idlib 24 hours before it happened...

    https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/849635794994286592

    Laddie -> VD , Apr 6, 2017 4:00 PM

    Well I thought compared to Hyena Rodthem Clinton that Trump was superb. He is still better than that creature, but he has sadly disappointed me.

    Roger Stone Tells AJ Jared Kushner Leaking Anti-Bannon Information to MSNBC Andrew Anglin April 5, 2017 Start at about 9:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAap1rM0Dq4

    Greasy Whore Nimrata Randhawa Threatens Invasion of Syria US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley strongly condemned Russia and the Syrian government Wednesday over the chemical weapons attack on civilians, suggesting that the US is open to using military action to solve the country's ongoing civil war."

    Stranahan: Kushner Forcing Out Bannon? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibmiTrvKVQE

    Soros backed Trump son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in real estate venture with $259 MILLION: George Soros was the man who provided Cadre with a $259 million line of credit. "Soros has had a long and productive relationship with the Kushner family."

    Dr. Duke had British author and activist Mark Collett as his guest for the hour. They talked about the prominent role being played in the Trump administration by first son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is being put "in charge" of everything from reinventing the government to bringing peace to the Middle East. Dr. Duke points out that Kushner, who is an orthodox Jew, has a close association with the Chabad Lubavich movement, which embraces a theology that elevates Jews to divine status while denigrating the goyim as beasts.

    Kushner's family has given large sums of money to Chabad Lubavich, and has been very active in its events. They also discussed the bombing incident in St. Petersburg, which is more evidence of the cultural enrichment white countries are benefiting from, among other benefits of vibrant multiculturalism. AUDIO April 3, 2017 Photo: Kushner- Zarchi

    But if we consider such things from the standpoint of the race, not from the standpoint of the individual Jew who battens on us, is it not likely that the material profit counts for much less than the spiritual satisfaction? And if we consider some of the Jews' work, I cannot see how it could conceivably yield a net profit. What monetary gain can they have obtained, or intended to obtain, by spending vast sums to incite the (blacks) to rape, murder, and arson? What profit from destroying civilization in Rhodesia and making that land again a land of savages? What can the Jews in South Africa gain in material terms from their present intensive effort to destroy the white population and make of that country another Rhodesia? Is it not obvious that they could squeeze much more money out of the White population by peaceful parasitism and without inciting the racial hatreds that disrupt the economy and could conceivably bring retribution upon themselves? The only explanation, it seems to me, is that with their race as a whole spiritual considerations are paramount, paramount over profit and even over self-preservation. One can foresee the logical end in a future that may not be too distant: one can see the last Jews dying with exultation on the surface of a planet from which they have exterminated all other human beings, all animals, all vegetation, all life -- a planet of which they have made "a desolation of desolations."

    THE YELLOW PERIL (1983) Revilo P. Oliver, late Professor of the Classics, University of Illinois at Urbana

    rodocostarica -> VD , Apr 6, 2017 4:21 PM

    Call White house switchboard. Someone answers. They hang up on you when you call Trump a Neocon but hopefully the message gets through. CALL NOW>>>

    202-456-1414

    N0TME -> Snípéir_Ag_Obair , Apr 6, 2017 4:48 PM

    Also on mintpress: http://www.mintpressnews.com/russia-reports-discovery-rebel-held-chemica...

    meditate_vigorously -> EuroPox , Apr 6, 2017 3:13 PM

    We need to assemble coalition forces to regime change Washington D.C.

    BlindMonkey -> meditate_vigorously , Apr 6, 2017 3:42 PM

    It is absolutely time for a regime change in DC. I was watching a video on this and the announcer had the best summary of this:

    "Summing up the events in few sentences, the whole story pushed to the public looks this way: The bloody Assad regime took back Aleppo city and wide areas in its countryside, the Western Ghouta region, the Wadi Barada region, once again recaptured Palmyra from ISIS, and repelled a powerful rebel advance in northern Hama. The US even declared that the toppling of Assad was no longer the main priority in Syria.

    Then, the military leadership of the regime decided that was not enough and ordered a Su-22 warplane to use chemical weapons against people in Khan Sheikhoun. Some kind of small Soviet unguided rockets hit a road in the village and inflicted mass poisoning of civilians in the nearby areas. Fortunately, members of the Syrian Civil Defense and local journalists nearby were equipped with dust respirators. They filmed the incident and saved some people."---Harold Hoover
    Dr. Engali -> EuroPox , Apr 6, 2017 3:16 PM

    Trump never had a grip. He has been a tool of the deep state from the beginning. His purpose is to act as a lightning rod and distract attention from the real owners of this country while they continue to rape and pillage in the back ground. He also gave the red team faith that the system still works so they can continue the charade a little while longer.

    chicken_goose , Apr 6, 2017 3:03 PM

    Great more unnecessary wars for the MIC and cabal of international bankers.

    chunga -> chicken_goose , Apr 6, 2017 3:05 PM

    Trump goes from populist champion to fraudulent zio war criminal fraud in what...12 weeks?

    Lady Jessica , Apr 6, 2017 3:04 PM

    Isn't there the option of the Trump administration pretending to fight Assad, much as the Obama administration pretended to fight ISIS/ISIL/whatever?

    What's that called in psyop speak?

    directaction , Apr 6, 2017 3:08 PM

    Trump is shaping up to be as crazy as Obama and Bush II.

    zeroboris -> directaction , Apr 6, 2017 4:02 PM

    Trump is far more dangerous than Obama, as he pretends to be a tough-guy.

    HowdyDoody -> zeroboris , Apr 6, 2017 4:43 PM

    So did Obomber in September 2013

    "Obama is pursueing limited strikes against Syria as punishment for the alleged use of chemical weapons"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPhIPT9yOu8

    Meet the new flase flag, same as the old false flag.

    blue51 , Apr 6, 2017 3:11 PM

    This is sickening .Putin is in a jam , now . BIG decisions coming soon .

    sheikurbootie , Apr 6, 2017 3:29 PM

    Remember, this could be a negotiation tactic. We have not done anything to remove Assad...yet. I agree with Ron Paul. It makes no sense for Assad to use chemical weapons.

    Same with NK. We have not done ANYTHING but threaten a military option.

    We could pull bring the troops home from S.Korea too. We're not wanted their by half the population. Understandably so, we've been there for 70 fucking years. How much did that shit cost us?

    Before everyone plays armchair general, let's see what ACTUALLY happens.

    FBaggins , Apr 6, 2017 3:45 PM

    Fake News About Syria Exposed by Real Journalist Eva Bartlett

    December 14, 2016

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YANWFzMG9sU

    Nothing has changed even with the election of Trump. Tillerson's aim is to ensure control of oil/gas resources and pipeline routes in the middle east. As a CEO of Exxon what does anyone expect.

    As soon as he was elected, Trump opened the WH doors to let in the slime of the swamp and he is now drowning in their crarp.

    man of Wool , Apr 6, 2017 3:46 PM

    Removing Assad is a politically bad move. Assad keeps the country's many factions together.

    Remove Assad and replace with brutal American puppet?

    The one good thing i can see coming out of this long term is a Kurdistan country.

    [Apr 07, 2017] Trump Orders Strikes Against Syrian Regime Airbase in Response to Chemical Attack

    Apr 07, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    WASHINGTON –President Trump has ordered cruise missile strikes against a Syrian regime military airbase, a defense official said late Thursday.

    A U.S. official said "more than 50" Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched at the airbase, located in Western Syria. That base, called Shayrat, was where the U.S. believes the Assad regime carried out a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians this week that killed at least 70 people.

    The strikes were carried out from two U.S. destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea, the official said. The attack occurred between 8 and 9 p.m. ET, according to CNN.

    Trump had hinted on Wednesday that he would take action against the chemical weapons attack during a Rose Garden briefing with the King of Jordan.

    The U.S. military has not yet completed a battle damage assessment, the official said.

    He said the attack had crossed "many, many lines, beyond a red line - many, many lines."

    "That attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me. Big impact," Trump had said. "That was a horrible, horrible thing, and I've been watching it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that."

    It was reported earlier in the day that Trump was considering military options against the Syrian regime.

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called on the president to come to Congress to obtain congressional authorization for military action in Syria.

    "While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the US was not attacked," he said in a statement.

    "The President needs congressional authorization for military action and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate on our role. Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer and Syria will be no different. – Senator Rand Paul

    Meanwhile, Republican defense hawks praised the airstrikes.

    "Unlike the previous administration, President Trump confronted a pivotal moment in Syria and took action," said Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

    "I think it was an important step," Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said on CNN. "This was not some symbolic measure."

    In a statement, President Trump explained the urgency behind the strikes:

    My fellow Americans, on Tuesday, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many, even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of God should ever suffer such horror.

    Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where a chemical attack was launched. It is in the vital, national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons. There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and ignored the urging of the U.N. Security Council.

    Years of previous attempts at changing Assad's behavior have all failed, and failed very dramatically. As a result, the refugee crisis continues to deepen and the region continues to destabilize, threatening the United States and its allies. Tonight I call on all civilized nations to join us in seeking to end the slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types.

    We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and for the souls of those who have passed and we hope that as long as America stands for justice, that peace and harmony will, in the end, prevail. Good night and God bless America and the entire world. Thank you.

    [Apr 07, 2017] Missile strike demonstrates American leadership. Always bipartisan support for that

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump is no longer the dove it seems. But he is an incompetent hawk. ..."
    "... Incompetent hawks are awful. We can at least take some comfort that Schumer and Pelosi called out Trump for acting recklessly... Oh, wait, that was in an alternate reality where they did that. @#$%. If it weren't for incompetence and belligerence we would have any foreign policy at all. ..."
    "... "an uneasy alliance of foreign-funded jihadists, Western intelligence, and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders" is a fact in Syria too. ..."
    "... Another good read is Sy Hersh story of the previous "false flag" sarin poisoning operation during Obama term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS5DOg-_XXE ..."
    "... I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt. ..."
    "... BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin from components bought in Turkey. ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Chris G -> Peter K....

    Missile strike demonstrates American leadership. Always bipartisan support for that. Death chemical warfare agents unacceptable so must do something. Didn't I read a Syrian quoted the other day "I buried my family today. If they had been killed by barrel bombs I could have given Assad a pass but death by chemical weapons is unacceptable."? Did I not read that? That aside, clearly there are acceptable and unacceptable ways to kill civilians. Assad crossed that line and we had to do something.

    PS Real men don't consult Congress before ordering missile strikes on sovereign nations. It'd be un-American to question the wisdom of bombing a butcher like Assad. What downside could there be?

    pgl -> Chris G ... April 07, 2017 at 07:34 AM

    Trump is no longer the dove it seems. But he is an incompetent hawk. He told Russia ahead of time. And of course Russia tipped off Syria. Which is why most of their planes got away.

    The Russian military today is mocking us.

    An incompetent hawk is the worst kind.

    Chris G -> pgl... April 07, 2017 at 09:02 AM

    Incompetent hawks are awful. We can at least take some comfort that Schumer and Pelosi called out Trump for acting recklessly... Oh, wait, that was in an alternate reality where they did that. @#$%. If it weren't for incompetence and belligerence we would have any foreign policy at all.

    Chris G -> Chris G ... April 07, 2017 at 09:36 AM

    Worth reading over at Jacobin - https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/09/when-humanitarianism-became-imperialism/

    Consider political interests and potential outcomes before deciding whether or not to engage. Choosing to act based on emotional reactions does not set the stage for good outcomes.

    libezkova -> Chris G ...

    Thank you --

    "an uneasy alliance of foreign-funded jihadists, Western intelligence, and NGOs like Doctors Without Borders" is a fact in Syria too.

    Another good read is Sy Hersh story of the previous "false flag" sarin poisoning operation during Obama term: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS5DOg-_XXE

    I like how MSM honchos picked up sarin story this time. As if somebody kicked them in the butt.

    BTW both Turkey and KSA had bet all cards on Syrian insurgency. In the past Turkey's intelligence service MIT was supporting not only the Free Syrian Army but also Al-Nusra, which produced sarin from components bought in Turkey.

    [Apr 07, 2017] MoA - WMDs In The UNSC - History Repeats Itself, First As Tragedy, Second As Farce

    Notable quotes:
    "... So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia while his face stil sours. ..."
    "... Here I found a prophetic post about Trump from just a week before his election 2016. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/us-elections-a-farcical-spectacle-of-blood-and-imperial-hubris/ ..."
    "... Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy 'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc. ..."
    Apr 07, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Pic: April 5 2017 - U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley during an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council

    Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, on Wednesday strongly condemned the Syrian government in the wake of an alleged chemical weapons attack perpetrated on its own civilians this week. "When the UN consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action," Haley said. She added that if the UN doesn't take collective action, "we may."
    Greg Bacon | Apr 5, 2017 1:54:17 PM | 3
    Hackers Expose U.S. False Flag to Frame Syria

    Hacked emails from a British mercenary company were posted online, leading to claims Washington was backing a dirty war against Syria in which a chemical attack on Syria could be blamed on the Syrian regime, thereby strengthening the case for immediate intervention on the part of the United States military.

    One of the hacked emails that has resulted in the most embarrassment for the U.S. government concerned Syria. The email reads as follows:

    Phil, we've got a new offer. It's about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved in Washington. We'll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell [sic] from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don't think it is a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

    Kind regards,

    David

    http://americanfreepress.net/hackers-expose-u-s-false-flag-to-frame-syria/

    Brian | Apr 5, 2017 2:39:58 PM | 8
    Yet another US spokes person pretends to a humanitarianism she doesn't feel ot is overridden by a report she too readily believes . Syria has no Chem weapons and US change of govt more illusion than reality
    https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201704051052321244-unsc-russia-syria-idlib/

    Kalen | Apr 5, 2017 2:40:36 PM | 9
    So finally Trump got slapped in the face and started to regurgitate psychotic delusions of his MIC and Wall Street masters.Now he is ready for war with Russia while his face stil sours.

    Here I found a prophetic post about Trump from just a week before his election 2016. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/us-elections-a-farcical-spectacle-of-blood-and-imperial-hubris/

    Petri Krohn | Apr 5, 2017 2:40:44 PM | 10
    THERE WAS NO GAS ATTACK ON KHAN SHEIKHOUN!

    If dead children are paraded in front of cameras, it does not show a chemical weapons attack. It is proof of murder, someone massacred these children and their families.

    To claim a gas attack , you have to show photos and videos of the attack site; dead families in or outside their homes. Dead animals. Rescue workers breaking into houses and discovering the bodies.

    The Western press is buying the hoax narrative. I have heard hysterical screaming on the radio all day. No one ever asked or answered the essential questions: When and where did the attack happen? How was the chemical delivered? What neighborhoods were affected? Where was the wind blowing from? How were the victims taken to the place where they were first filmed? Who did the rescue work? Where where the White Helmets and their camera crews when this happened?

    The White Helmets did not exist in 2013. Today they are an Oscar-winning film crew, with GoPro action cams attached to their signature helmets. They film each and every real and fake rescue operation they take part in. So why no video of the Khan Sheikhoun rescue and recovery work?

    This is just another staged hoax, like the Ghouta chemical massacre of August 2013. Hostages were kept in cellars and then gassed with chlorine when the time came to make propaganda videos and call for a No-Fly Zone.

    Brian | Apr 5, 2017 2:41:39 PM | 11
    @7
    Shows how easy it is to manipulate simple minds. Post any image of children and you can twist people to do what ever you wAnd

    Madeira | Apr 5, 2017 2:44:42 PM | 12
    Two good articles on the gas attack:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/05/another-dangerous-rush-to-judgment-in-syria/

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46801.htm

    The Stephen Miller Band | Apr 5, 2017 2:45:01 PM | 13
    Actually, if Trump really does sneak attack Damascus and take on Putin if he tries to intervene it would prove his Russian connections are meaningless and he's not a quisling afterall, therefore, the news spectacle surrounding this issue and the investigation by the Senate can be dropped even though there will be no one left to set the record straight except a few cockroaches and last time I checked they don't have opposable thumbs so therefore they aren't up to the task if they were so inclined.

    My what tangled webs we weave.

    Jackrabbit | Apr 5, 2017 2:55:53 PM | 15
    Petri Krohn @10:
    The Western press is buying the hoax narrative.
    I think we know enough by now to know that they are not dupes. They are complicit.

    likklemore | Apr 5, 2017 3:22:57 PM | 19
    Over the last days I recall reading the UN-OPCW had taken ALL Syria's chemical weapon on ship out to sea for destruction. Was I dreaming?

    Here is a report for you

    4 September 2014

    Ninety-six percent of Syria's declared chemical weapons destroyed – UN-OPCW mission chief
    UN Link

    The Special Coordinator for the Joint Mission of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations (OPCW-UN) told the Security Council today that 96 percent of Syria's declared stockpile, including the most dangerous chemicals, had been destroyed and preparation were underway to destroy the remaining 12 production facilities.

    "This is a chemical weapons disarmament process, it's been unique," said Sigrid Kaag after her final briefing to the Security Council in her capacity as the head of the joint mission dealing with Syria's chemical weapons, which is winding up its work at the end of September.

    "At the same time, we reiterate our strong hope that if this is achieved, that conditions for peace and security and the political process will be centre stage for the benefit of the people of Syria and that of the region, particularly in these days of profound crisis."

    Ms. Kaag told a press conference at UN Headquarters following her closed-door briefing to the Council that the mission had overseen that destruction of 100 percent of "priority chemicals" and 96 percent of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, but the good offices of the UN Secretary-General on this issue, discussions on monitoring verification, and accurate reporting to the Council will be continued [.]

    See..I did not dream that ship, it's real AND it was a U.S. vessel

    "UN chief welcomes destruction of Syrian chemical weapons aboard U.S. vessel"
    UN Link

    The Secretary-General welcomes the destruction of the declared chemical weapons material on board the United States Maritime Vessel Cape Ray. This marks a significant achievement in the international community's efforts to eliminate the chemical weapons programme of the Syrian Arab Republic following the framework agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States of America.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    The USUKEU should stop throwing sh**T. Propaganda Fatigue has taken root. There is the Net for instant recall. As b observed, if it was sarin, how is it those timely "rescuers" were not affected?

    Intelligence insulted.

    Alaric | Apr 5, 2017 3:34:46 PM | 20
    Every time Assad is winning, we have a chemical attack or humanitarian trajedy. Oh sure, I believe it. The propaganda and false flags will continue until the SAA finally wins. Putin best have his EW and S-400s ready and both Russia and Iran need to send more troops to help Assad win already.

    Les | Apr 5, 2017 3:36:44 PM | 21
    The Syrian opposition has stated their motive for the attack. Suspicions of who's responsible lies strongly with the opposition.

    A suspected Syrian government chemical attack in Syria was a "direct consequence" of recent U.S. statements that it was not now focused on making Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leave power, a Syrian opposition member said on Tuesday.

    "The first reaction from Syrians is that this is a direct consequence of American statements about Assad not being a priority and giving him time and allowing him to stay in power," Basma Kodmani told Reuters in Washington.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-opposition-idUSKBN1762QC

    smuks | Apr 5, 2017 4:04:11 PM | 22
    Just checked comments & likes in a major conservative European newspaper: Roughly 5% seem to believe that Assad is to blame.

    Nikki Haley is as Neocon as Samantha Power, now who would've guessed. As I've been saying for a year: Even if Trump has a different foreign policy agenda (which I doubt), he's far too weak to stand up to them. In times of crisis, a country needs a strong president, not a narcissist showmaster.

    Pnyx | Apr 5, 2017 4:05:54 PM | 23
    2:15:04 PM | 5

    "Jesus, these people are insane, why on earth do Trump that have spoken out against useless war put this stupid woman in the UN?"
    Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war, then they will unite behind their Führer.

    Lozion | Apr 5, 2017 4:39:46 PM | 24
    Bannon is replaced by Rick Perry at the NSC? Neoconia rules..

    Wonder what those flyboys in Quatar are up to today?

    aniteleya | Apr 5, 2017 4:52:30 PM | 27
    smuks - 22

    I fear you may be right. Neo-cons on a roll again. This chemical farce is clearly designed to put pressure on Trump to see which way he turns. Looks like he may move away from his 'America First' isolationist rhetoric in a desperate bid to say something meaningful. Loads of Neo-cons on his back to push for more mayhem in the Middle East. Things aren't the way they were in 2003 tho', so probably won't go for the invasion. Cantonisation of Syria is probably what the neo-cons are after. Shit crazy.

    canuck | Apr 5, 2017 4:54:07 PM | 29
    If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse by force of habit, signifying nothing much.

    rm | Apr 5, 2017 5:04:37 PM | 31
    "Well , I think this is Tronalds way out of the pressure he's under. Start a war, then they will unite behind their Führer." 23

    Yep. that's what it feels like to me. The abject snivel of his response serves that purpose absolutely. God. How STUPID people can be! Kidnap then murder then staging with the dead..fcking white helmets necrophilia ..

    Susan Sunflower | Apr 5, 2017 5:56:46 PM | 32
    ere's an alarming "hey, batter, batter" heckling "what'za matta, you chicken??" quality to the media war drums. I can't tell if people actually want Trump to "do something" (as they are demanding) or hoping that he punts or walks, this time at bat. It's (presidenting) "harder than it looks" has been a popular refrain for weeks and the still insulted Obama crowd seems more interested in seeing Trump shamed, than that anything be "done" about Assad or Syria ... coming within two weeks of our 200 dead in Mosul, Trump's self-proclaimed change of heart wrt Assad (of course undefined) seems right out of PT Barnum ... The timing really couldn't be better for something showy, given China's Xi Jinping's imminent arrival at Mar-A-Lago ... want's to top the theatrical show they he put-on Abe of Japan (on the event ot a Korean missle launch) ... I am and have been nauseated with anxiety

    Scotch Bingeington | Apr 5, 2017 6:04:44 PM | 33
    These photos and videos that we saw of Khan Sheikhoun, some of them showed a site with white rock in the background and sleazy white mud on the ground (like here: https://youtu.be/fGPa0k3J4vI). Some have described it as a rebel dugout.
    Maybe it was hit by the Syrian Airforce, though almost certainly not with any chemical ammunitions. I think that the hit on said site could be in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYOMEDK_uVs - third impact on the right, where much brighter dust is rising, but much slower than from the other impact sites, plus the height and shape of the cloud is very different.
    I'm saying "maybe" it was hit by the Syrian Airforce because to me, it seems equally likely that something was set off on the ground there - by rebels, in that case. It would explain the strikingly different appearance of this one cloud that I mentioned (and there has to be an explanation for it).
    This whitish rock background that I mentioned in the beginning looks very much like limestone or chalk to my eyes. Maybe it's a limestone quarry turned rebel hideout. Anyway, for any makeshift Sarin production or storage facility a limestone/chalk surrounding would be the perfect setting. Short of a state-of-the-art chemical plant, you couldn't make up any better location, and there's two reasons for that.
    One concerns possible manufacturing of Sarin. Whatever process you use, there will be leftover acids in your end product. You have to get rid of those in order for your product to have an acceptable shelf life. Even the most masterfully created Sarin will be usable for only about 5 years. This time is strongly reduced if you don't purify it by eliminating the excess acids in the product. This can only be done with a nice base or alkaline substance, and limestone/chalk is the perfect raw material to create such an alkaline (namely lye or brine or whatever you want to call it), large scale.
    The other reason a limestone surrounding such as seen in Khan Sheikhoun is a perfect match for Sarin has to do with safeguarding against the obvious hazards of dealing with Sarin – accidental spilling and poisoning. For decontamination and neutralizing purposes any strong and simple alkaline is, again, the go-to substance. While Sarin victims need to have atropine injected asap to even have the slightest chance for survival, their clothes and the body have to be thoroughly rinsed with an alkaline solution, too.
    And even if you don't use the limestone for anything at all, just moving in a "limy" environment when having to deal with Sarin release will help, and would have helped the White Helmets in this case. This might help to explain why so many of them were able to "do their thing" there and then without wearing any protective gear. As it happens, limestone/chalk will also help with destroying any Sarin-related evidence.
    We could also see some kind of tanker truck in the pictures. People were sprayed with liquid coming from this truck. It's not just water that comes to mind here, it could also have been ready-made lye solution in that tank.
    But whatever had been going on in this place prior to the incident, I'm also wondering what all those children and young people were doing there. Why would they gather (or be gathered) right there , of all places? I know this will sound gross, but some of the bodies I saw didn't look so "recently deceased" either.
    This whole thing, it's just All the BS we're getting from western politicians and the MSM right now - nothing adds up, nothing makes sense here, and yet it's cheered as a pretext for more war?

    jfl | Apr 5, 2017 7:19:32 PM | 37
    Unknown airstrikes reportedly hit Army positions in southern Syria

    "It's very, very possible, and I will tell you it has already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad, has changed very much," Mr. Trump said

    all aboard! the train is leaving the station.

    FecklessLeft | Apr 5, 2017 7:20:42 PM | 38
    "If Trump is going all teary eyed over this unclear, suspect, plausibly 'WMD' false flag, he is a child, an ignoramus, or too near the raw onions; or he is being fed hogwash. If he is posturing 'tactically' to justify making more war, he is a fiend and war criminal. One might hope that this was merely a random neural-tweet-impulse by force of habit, signifying nothing much."

    Posted by: canuck | Apr 5, 2017 4:54:07 PM | 29

    While I agree with your sentiment, war crimes are not defined by the perpetrators' states of minds. Threatening the UNSC to go with the US 'or else' is a war crime already, full stop. I'm sure many thought launching a war of aggression on Iraq and Afghanistan was the 'right' or 'moral' position at the time (however deluded that may be), but they are still war criminals.

    I think many of us need to separate any actions in question from intent and reasons when it comes to war crimes. It's like the US saying "well we bombed a hospital by accident sorry but we thought we were striking a weapons cache. Terrible tragedy and it won't happen again" - even if every they said was true it doesn't make it any less of a war crime. Maybe easier for us as individuals to sympathise with but that should be another question as a whole.

    I think people would be well served to read a little about the subject (not directing this at you cancuck so don't get me wrong). There's a lot of misconceptions I see held by many, including here and other similar forums.

    Regardless of all that, to threaten the security council to do what they want - coming only hours after initial reports and with no confirmation for much of the official western state sanctioned story - it doesn't look good. I follow developments in Syria awful closely and I really am blown away and would never have expected such a development. Really came out of no where. I had few if any hopes for change from Trump re foreign policy but goddamn I def didn't expect this. I really hope its just further bluster and big talk, but i doubt it would do that job effectively. Just seems counterproductive towards western goals (unless goal is overt aggression and occupation). Crazy day.

    I implore everyone here to keep Syria and its people in your thoughts and/or prayers these coming days. I suppose that goes for basically the entire MENA region the way it'd go up like tinder if another US occupation force entered.

    Piotr Berman | Apr 5, 2017 8:05:43 PM | 40
    I may be biased, but Powell's performance at UN is a tough act to follow. Steady delivery, deep baritone, and the gaze so straight that it could drill brain of any doubter. That said, Tony Blair was a clear champion in the tenor class. While Powell was all experience of a principled elder, Blair was in his own words "passionate", like a 9 year old boy describing how he was personally instructed by Our Lady of Fatima (together with two pre-teen girls, now we have 100-th anniversary*). Which gives pointers to soprano section.

    Condoleeza Rice was a total miscast in that role. Shifty eyes, unsteady diction, twitching head. Perhaps I will check a video of Nikki Halley.

    Piotr Berman | Apr 5, 2017 8:17:21 PM | 41
    I regret to say that Nikki is from the Condi school. But at least she looks better than Ms. Powell, and boys, she has guts: fuchsia business suit!!

    Piotr Berman | Apr 5, 2017 8:24:48 PM | 42
    Petri Krohn | Apr 5, 2017 2:40:44 PM | 10: To claim a gas attack, you have to show photos and videos of the attack site;

    The Guardian shows a photo : a bomb was apparently so powerful that it made a pothole in the street pavement.

    Tobin Paz | Apr 5, 2017 8:31:44 PM | 43
    The "War and Peace Report" strikes again:

    Syria Has Become a Circus of Death: Doctor Warns of Growing Humanitarian Crisis as War Rages On

    AMY GOODMAN: Let me go to a clip from the 2013 BBC documentary Saving Syria's Children, where the filmmakers traveled with you, Dr. Rola Hallam, inside Syria to reveal how children are impacted by the war. This is Dr. Hallam describing the aftermath of an airstrike at a school playground, as patients pour into a hospital in Aleppo.

    Hermius | Apr 5, 2017 8:33:50 PM | 44
    The US doesnt want a military conflict with Russia over the Syria Crisis. Trumps stance has changed towards Assad. Therefore expect a US response to events (as aluded to at the UNSC). The only way to achieve all three of the above is a precision strike against Assad personally.

    mischi | Apr 5, 2017 8:34:47 PM | 46
    it looks like someone was tweeting about the gas attack before it happened.

    https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/849635794994286592

    h | Apr 5, 2017 10:52:08 PM | 56
    SYRIAN AVIATION AIRSTRIKE IN IDLIB TARGETED CHEMICAL ARMS LAB - RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY -

    "MOSCOW, April 5. /TASS/. A Syrian aviation airstrike on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhun on Tuesday targeted workshops to produce chemical-laden projectiles, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said Wednesday.

    "According to Russian airspace monitoring systems, yesterday between 11.30 and 12.30 local time the Syrian aviation carried out an airstrike on the eastern outskirts of Khan Sheikhun, targeting a major ammunition storage facility of terrorists and a cluster of military hardware. The territory of this storage facility housed workshops to produce projectiles stuffed with toxic agents," Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said.

    "From this major arsenal, chemical-laden weapons were delivered by militants to Iraq. Their use by terrorists was confirmed on numerous occasions by international organizations and official authorities of the country," he said.

    The spokesman added that these projectiles were similar to those used by militants in Syria's Aleppo, where their use was recorded by Russian military specialists.

    [...]

    h | Apr 5, 2017 11:08:24 PM | 57
    Of course Trump knows this. No question. If he takes any kind of military action whatsoever in Syria against sovereign troops, over a really lame propaganda campaign all of us can see through, well, that's about as dumb as it gets. If I know this, a lowly news aggregator blogger, you can damn well be sure Trump knows this.

    Anyone and everyone who can read or talk or see knows for a fact that the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S military has not been invited into Syria by Syria nor has the U.S. Congress passed a WAR RESOLUTION. Thus, if the U.S. Military takes aim at Syria and her government it will be under the extremely nimble CIA article whatever for covert action. And no lawyer worth chit can, not even Gonzalez, twist the law into the pretzel necessary to take 'legal' covert military action.

    If I'm wrong please feel free to inform me with the facts. I'm happy to be wrong...

    Circe | Apr 6, 2017 1:38:40 AM | 66
    And I will tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. [notice he says: it already happened therefore the plan for Syria was already in the works and the chemical attack was like 9/11 for justifying the plan] Syrian chemical attack crossed a lot of lines for me...beyond a red line. I now have responsibility. [translation: I now have the excuse, cover to expand this war] That responsibility could be made a lot easier if it was handled years ago. [don't blame me for what I'm about to unleash; blame the other guy who hesitated to put boots on the ground and kicked the can to me.]

    I'm not saying I'm doing anything one way or another, but I'm certainly not going to be telling you. [sneaky, opaque agenda]

    Trump Neocon-speak in italics.

    Sigh...if only Obama had put boots on the ground and expanded this war, then Trump man-god wouldn't have to burst the bubble of his adoring followers here and we could all keep on pretending we don't see the Emperor's naked ass and keep blaming Obama for all Trump's screw-ups. Trump and Mattis met with the Saudi Defense Minister and blacked-out the press on that meeting, but we're supposed to believe that a plan wasn't in the works and that Trump is moved solely to defend the innocent in Syria, while he helps the Saudis slaughter children on the brink of starvation in Yemen.

    Every day I'm vindicated more and more.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 6, 2017 1:56:10 AM | 68
    In the Various Issues thread, 'maningi' at #101 points out that young children don't usually stray far from their mothers. This makes images depicting lots of dead young children, but no dead mothers, smell a bit fishy.

    How selective is sarin?

    ThatDamnGood | Apr 6, 2017 2:02:55 AM | 69
    no country for Trumpsters

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-05/suddenly-both-obamacare-repeal-and-trump-tax-reform-are-dead

    Translation: both healthcare and tax reform are now indefinitely dead, which means that a suddenly pivoting Trump, who earlier today said he had "changed his mind" on Syria, may have no choice but to begin war with Assad to distract from everything else that is going on in the US.

    Cream rises till its sours. Trump looks really out of his league atm.

    Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 6, 2017 2:05:33 AM | 70
    The only woman I've seen in any of the MSM's 'news' was alive and purported to be recovering in a hospital in Turkey which, imo, could be any hospital, anywhere, on the planet.

    Julian | Apr 6, 2017 4:34:45 AM | 75
    Tillerson to meet Lavrov in Moscow next week
    By MADELINE CONWAY 04/05/17 11:09 AM EDT

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will travel to Moscow next Wednesday for a meeting with Russian officials, including the Kremlin's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov.

    Tillerson plans to discuss issues including Ukraine, North Korea, Syria, and counterterrorism with the officials while in Moscow, according to the State Department.

    The "trip is part of our effort to maintain direct lines of communication with senior Russian officials and to ensure U.S. views are clearly conveyed, including on next steps in Minsk implementation," the department said in a statement.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/rex-tillerson-moscow-trip-236906

    I'll be interested to see what comes out of this - meeting on Wednesday April 12, 2017 .

    Julian | Apr 6, 2017 4:36:01 AM | 76
    Re: Posted by: john | Apr 6, 2017 4:07:00 AM | 72

    Tulsi Gabbard. Being roundly ignored by the MSM of course.

    They won't be having her on anytime soon (except to try and make her look stupid of course).

    neocon butcher | Apr 6, 2017 4:57:32 AM | 78
    The pathetic Tillerson shows what a weak person he is

    Russia must stop support for Syria
    http://presstv.ir/Detail/2017/04/06/516934/Tillerson-calls-on-Russia-to-rethink-support-for-Syrian-government

    Yonatan | Apr 6, 2017 6:11:34 AM | 81
    Matthew Rycroft , the barking UK UN representative, once worked with NATO and also Tony Blair. He was the author of the infamous secret memo about the lead up to the Iraq war in which he said words to the effect that 'facts' and 'intelligence' were being fixed to comply with policy. Nothing has changed. 'Facts' and 'intelligence' are still being fixed to policy.

    harrylaw | Apr 6, 2017 6:18:44 AM | 82
    Nice to see you Taxi. This mass hysteria from Western Politicians and MSM against Assad 'Sentance first, verdict afterwards' should only serve to instruct Putin and Assad that regime change [by any means necessary] are the ultimate goals of the West, and formulate their policies accordingly. Many in the West like neo con John McCain think US aggression against Assad will not receive push back from Russia. Now might be the right time for Putin to quietly disabuse the US of that notion.

    Curtis | Apr 6, 2017 8:57:14 AM | 92

    smuks | Apr 6, 2017 8:59:35 AM | 93
    @aniteleya 27

    Standard operating procedure of right-wing politicians: When you don't get anything accomplished domestically, distract with some foreign policy 'adventure'/ escalation and watch them rally around the flag. Trump's yielding to Neocon interventionist demands was just a matter of time, as it was obvious that he wouldn't be able to 'deliver' on economic issues etc.

    There won't be a 'full-scale' invasion like 2003, but an increased use of SF embedded with the regional (or foreign jihadi) allies. To make sure the war goes on for as long as possible, hopefully get Russia and Iran drawn deeper into that quagmire, or at least prevent them from securing their positions.

    There's no international support whatsoever (apart from the GCC), but Trump is not the one who'd care. So it seems the only thing that could stop this would be the US running out of money...

    Note that a couple of days ago, the US govt stopped disclosing the number of troops deployed:
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-deployment-20170330-story.html

    trumpobamabush | Apr 6, 2017 9:44:24 AM | 102
    Turkey sent a report to the United Nations just before a U.N. Security Council meeting to address accusations that the Syrian government staged a chemical weapons attack on April 4, stating that the gas used in the attack was chlorine gas.

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-sends-report-to-un-over-possible-chlorine-gas-attack-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=111675&NewsCatID=359

    somebody | Apr 6, 2017 11:03:57 AM | 106
    100/101

    The significant fact is that they say chlorine gas, not sarin. Chlorine gas is dual use, easy to obtain and manufacture, and the "rebels" are known for using it. It was not on the list of chemical weapons Syria was supposed to destroy.

    The Russian version of hitting a warehouse where chlorine gas was stored is very likely depending on how the wind blows. There are accidents with chlorine gas all over the world.

    It is industrally used and produced - as simple as that.

    Actually first reporting in German media was chlorine gas, I was surprised to hear it was switched to sarin.

    Turkish medics seem to have diagnozed "gas poisoning" - they keep it as unspecific as that.

    Scotch Bingeington | Apr 6, 2017 11:35:44 AM | 109
    Posted by: hopehely | Apr 6, 2017 2:38:06 AM | 70

    It is absorbed through skin, one drop is enough to kill.
    If that was indeed sarin attack, there would be scores of dead people, dogs, cats, rats, sheep, cows, chicken and white helmets littered all around in all kinds of contorted positions.
    Oxygen masks on vicims are pointless. The affected are in neural shock, muscles twitching and spasming over all body. There is no coughing, because coughing reflex is disrupted.
    Only treatment is atropine injection straight to the muscle. You need gas mask and full hazmat overall and gloves to enter the contaminated zone. Surgical mask over face will help you nil.

    You're spot-on.
    Skin, any mucous membrane, Sarin will enter the body even through the eyeballs.
    And even if you had full protective gear, you'd have to thoroughly decontaminate that before you could even think about taking it off again.

    To think that hordes of college-educated, well paid, experienced people in politics, in the media everywhere should be impressed by such a cheap stunt by the White Helmet freaks, who are effectively using corpses for props - it just makes me scream inside.

    CarlD | Apr 6, 2017 12:20:14 PM | 112
    I have been reading the following article: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8b63/5e885486c0672aaaa962afe500ca65e1a8a1.pdf

    It is a scholarly article about nerve agents Sarin, Soman , Tabun and VX.

    Throughout the article, reference is made to the actual application of these substances to actual living human beings!

    It doesn't mention if these guinea pigs were volunteers or unwilling participants. But does indicate that research was being willfully conducted.

    Was this the work of some Dr. Mengele? Apparently not. Real Western scientists no less.

    canuck | Apr 6, 2017 12:20:24 PM | 113
    One might wonder what Trump actually understood when he declared ISIS the great enemy:

    Was he aware that ISIS was a PTB creature, and that his beloved Israel's IDF have been low profile participants in ISIS?
    For example: www.globalresearch.ca/israel-supports-isis/5492807

    "Dec. 2, 2015 – Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon admitted Israel support for ISIS"

    somebody | Apr 6, 2017 12:32:37 PM | 114
    Doctors without Borders assume two toxins have been involved
    A number of victims of the April 4 attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun were brought to the hospital, located about 60 miles to the north, near the Turkish border. Eight people who were examined by MSF staff displayed symptoms consistent with exposure to an agent such as sarin gas or similar compounds, including constricted pupils, muscle spasms and involuntary defecation.

    The MSF team provided drugs and antidotes to treat patients, and distributed protective clothing to medical staff in the hospital's emergency room.

    MSF medical teams also visited other hospitals treating victims of the attack, and reported that they smelled of bleach, indicative of possible exposure to chlorine.

    These reports strongly suggest that victims of the attack on Khan Sheikhoun were exposed to at least two different chemical agents.

    somebody | Apr 6, 2017 12:52:50 PM | 117
    add to 112

    Actually a lot of legitimate stuff can be neurotoxic

    Pesticides for example.

    Khan Sheikhoun is an agricultural place with cotton farming. Pesticides will be freely available there.

    jawbone | Apr 6, 2017 12:55:30 PM | 118
    Nikki Haley barks very loudly and may be getting on Trump's nerves. He must regret not having chosen Bolton at the UN. At least he was predictable and would have submitted to Trump's authority.

    Nikki is a wild goose.

    Posted by: virgile | Apr 5, 2017 2:57:47 PM | 16

    Nikki is the front for The Heritage Foundation. Trump seems to have outsourced US foreign policy (along with most of domestic policy) the Heritage.

    frances | Apr 6, 2017 1:00:54 PM | 119
    There was an interesting post on Zero Hedge:
    ""A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced "Tomorrow we are launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the usage of chemical warfare against civilians." This shows clear foreknowledge that the rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV."
    As Taxi 105 noted, If Trump attacks Syria he will lose the Independents and Dems that rejected HC et al and voted for him. But more than losing them he may turn them against him and they may well support the current Dem's Impeach Him effort. People are tired of being lied to, they will not take much more IMO, from either side.

    somebody | Apr 6, 2017 1:47:15 PM | 123
    Posted by: jawbone | Apr 6, 2017 12:55:30 PM | 115

    Well, the Heritage Foundation is recommending more of the same in Syria .

    virgile | Apr 6, 2017 2:06:25 PM | 127
    @Grieved

    I agree with you. Trump always say that he will not reveal what he intends to do and when.

    In this case he will watch the current. There already voices in the congress doubting that the Syrian president actually ordered a chemical attack that goes against his interests. Why would the Syrian army be interested to randomly kill dozens of civilians when it has to fight ten of thousands of well armed Islamist terrorists.

    Trump will come to his senses and do nothing. The neocons will certainly come up with something else because they only want an Israel-friendly Sunni leader in Syria, not an Iran-friendly leader.

    Trump has a VERY tough fight against the Dems and the Neocons. It will be bloody and the USA will weaken even further in the next 4 years.

    lysias | Apr 6, 2017 2:24:53 PM | 128
    Nunes taking himself off the investigation (presumably under White House orders) is another sign that the Trump administration is surrendering to the Russophobes.

    karlof1 | Apr 6, 2017 3:11:42 PM | 131
    Pepe Escobar, as usual, posts a very potent riposte to the sTrumpet's cries, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201704061052371707-syria-toxic-meltdown/

    By the sTrumpet's own criteria, every nation on the planet has 100% justification to attack his Outlaw US Empire anywhere and everywhere until it's completely devastated.

    AtaBrit | Apr 6, 2017 3:51:43 PM | 133
    Erdogan stating in an interview this evening that Trump should put his words into action and that Turkey is willing to do anything it takes to support the US militarily in Syria AND Iraq!! "Let's pull together all the strength of the coalition with the US at its head..."

    Erdogan also stated that he had spoken to Putin, but that Putin was still questioning whether Assad had done it or not ...
    This looks very much like Turkey seeing how far it can push Trump.

    Is this really it?

    Top link - Turkish; bottom link - English.

    http://www.t24.com.tr/haber/trumptan-suriyeye-askeri-mudahale-sinyali-erdogandan-destek,397829

    https://www.komnews.com/turkey-will-support-us-operation-syria-takes-place-president-erdogan/

    karlof1 | Apr 6, 2017 4:11:56 PM | 135
    Southfront has posted an article first published by Veterans Today (yes, I know about its unreliable nature) that is essentially an attempt to provide wider distribution of a very damning report about the White Helmet terrorists by the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights organization: "The doctors found that the videos were counterfeit, where even Arabic stage directions were overheard, and that the alleged "Rescue" in actuality is a murder." https://southfront.org/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/

    Southfront provides a video featuring Russia's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova wher she cites a report by a new (to me) publication, The Indicter , which provided the basis for the VT report. Here's the link to its article an imbedded videos, http://theindicter.com/white-helmets-movie-updated-evidence-from-swedish-doctors-confirm-fake-lifesaving-and-malpractices-on-children/ And that's not their only report indicting the White Helmets as frauds and terrorists. The site warrants further investigation as it appears to be another member of the Multipolar Alliance, http://theindicter.com/

    Curtis | Apr 6, 2017 5:53:28 PM | 136
    Just caught Deutche Welle news on PBS World channel. They interviewed Abdullah with White Helmets. The announcer said the Syrian government claimed it had hit a base with illegal weapons. Then he asked Abdullah about this. HA HA HA!. Right! As if the ones reporting the incident would ever reverse themselves. So Mr. White Helmet reiterated the earlier strikes and govt denial and then said who would have such weapons. Geeeeee, maybe those opposed to Assad who have a lot of outside help?

    Petri Krohn | Apr 6, 2017 9:57:31 PM | 146
    DID WORLD WAR 3 JUST BREAK OUT?

    The United States tried to launch a war of aggression against Syria in August 2013, following the #ChemicalHoax massacre in Ghouta. It was prevented from doing so by the Russian Navy, which had taken control of the Eastern Mediterranean.

    The plan in 2013 was to coordinate the missile strike with al-Qaeda forces, so that Islamist would quickly overrun the government bases and capture Damascus. I believed at the time that Russia would respond to the attack, the secret orders to the fleet were to sink any U.S. ship launching an illegal attack.

    Will Russia respond this time? (Or has it already retaliated?) I do not think so. The difference is that the Syrian government is no longer in a mortal danger. The missiles are mainly symbolic. There is no al-Nusra army waiting for the signal to launch their coordinated attack.

    Trump Orders Military Strike in Syria; Dozens of Cruise Missiles Launched at Government Targets

    The United States launched a military strike on Syrian government targets in retaliation for their chemical weapon attack on civilians earlier in the week, CNN is told.

    On President Donald Trump's orders, US warships launched 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

    The strikes are the first direct military action the US has taken against the leadership of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the country's six-year civil war and represent a substantial escalation of the US' military campaign in the region, which could be interpreted by the Syrian government as an act of war. The US began launching airstrikes in Syria in September 2014 under President Barack Obama as part of its coalition campaign against ISIS, but has only targeted the terrorist group and not Syrian government forces.

    dh | Apr 6, 2017 10:22:24 PM | 150
    This cruise missile attack isn't totally pointless. It makes Trump look tough and shuts the war party up temporarily. Syria loses a few planes and runways.

    The question is will Assad retaliate? If he lets it pass it's just a question of time until the next 'gas attack'.

    psychohistorian | Apr 6, 2017 10:25:21 PM | 151
    It is interesting that Trump et. al. executed an attack on Syria within hours of the Xi/Trump meeting.

    If we don't go the nuclear extinction route out of this I suspect the China and Russia can take the US to the UN and see what happens. If nothing else it may build a coalition to stop funding further war crimes by buying more US Treasuries.

    That is the high road that I think that China/Russia and ??? will take.

    Sigh! May you live in interesting times. Call it a curse or a blessing, either way, live this interesting time honorably.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Bannon no longer on Trump's National Security Council

    Notable quotes:
    "... "regular attendees" ..."
    "... "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added. ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
    President Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council, and his Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon is apparently no longer on the Principals Committee, according to a memo that has surfaced. Bloomberg has posted a memo from Trump, dated April 4, reorganizing the National Security Council and updating the list of officials who sit on its Principals Committee. The document shows no role for Bannon and a reduced role for Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.

    Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, are again considered "regular attendees" of the principals committee.

    In addition to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the regular attendees will be the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security and the Attorney General; the national and homeland security advisers; and the US envoy to the UN, as well as the CIA director, in addition to the Joint Chiefs chair and the DNI.

    The White House chief of staff, counsel and deputy counsel for national security, and the director of the Office of Management and Budget are also invited to attend any NSC meeting, the memo says.

    "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.

    "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added.

    [Apr 06, 2017] The only pre-election promises that actually will be retained are torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil. Did you vote for these items? Anyway, that is all you are left with. Get used to it

    Notable quotes:
    "... you like most losers are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected. ..."
    "... now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much. ..."
    "... torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil ..."
    "... enjoy your Trump as president ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.unz.com

    utu , April 6, 2017 at 3:43 pm GMTn

    @Buzz Mohawk
    This turn of events is the biggest challenge ever to my support of Trump. If he really goes the way he is indicating, he will lose the support of people like me -- and there may be millions like me. We have no alternative candidate, but we will never again be led down this road.

    If Trump turns, that is the end of everything.

    " we will never again be led down this road." You will, you will because you like most losers are driven by your own projections. You projected your hopes and wishful thinking on Trump and it worked perfectly for him. He got elected.

    But now after firing Bannon there is nothing left. He was the last and the only guarantor of your hopes. That's why MSM hated Bannon so much.

    The only pre-election promises that actually will be retained are torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil. Did you vote for these items? Anyway, that is all you are left with. Get used to it:

    torture, Guantanamo and stealing their oil

    And enjoy your Trump as president.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Scott Uehlinger Susan Rice Unmasking 'Abuse of Power' Violates 'Spirit of the Law,' Should Be 'Further Investigated'

    Notable quotes:
    "... Breitbart News Daily ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Former CIA operations officer Scott Uehlinger, co-host of The Station Chief podcast, talked about the Susan Rice "unmasking" story with SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Tuesday's Breitbart News Daily.

    "I think it's an issue which deeply concerns people like myself and other people, working-level officers in the intel community," Uehlinger said. "Even though at this point, there seems to be no evidence of breaking the law, this 'unmasking' of people was ill-advised at best. I think it really shows that abuse of power and the fact that many people in the Obama administration were willing to violate the spirit of the laws designed to protect Americans, perhaps rather than the law itself."

    ... ... ...

    "As a working-level CIA officer, we were always told by upper authority, you're always told to – and the quote is – 'avoid the appearance of impropriety,'" he said. "Well, this does not pass that smell test, definitely."

    Uehlinger said another thing that concerns working-level officers in the intelligence and military communities is "the American people, average Americans like myself, are tired of seeing two sets of rules followed by the higher-ups and then the working-level people."

    "This is just part of that again. A working-level officer would have gotten into big trouble doing anything remotely like this," he observed. "But now, we have a lot of people saying that she should just be given a pass."

    "While I understand, you know, it's important that the Trump administration has to move forward with its domestic agenda, but these allegations demand to be further investigated," he urged.

    Kassam proposed that Democrats and their media would not allow the Trump administration to move forward with any part of its agenda until this "Russia hysteria" is cleaned up. That will be a difficult task since, as Kassam noted, the hysteria has been burning at fever pitch for months without a shred of evidence to back up the wildest allegations.

    Uehlinger agreed and addressed Kassam's point that media coverage alternates between "no surveillance was conducted" and "we know everything about Trump's Russia connections."

    "The Obama administration relaxed the rule that allowed raw intelligence that was gathered by the NSA to be shared throughout the government," he pointed out. "First of all, to relax that, there is absolutely no operational justification for doing that. With all of the counter-intelligence problems, with espionage, with Snowden, all these things we've had, to raise by an order of magnitude the access to this very sensitive information makes no operational sense at all."

    "So for someone to approve that, it's clear they had another intent, and I believe the intent was to allow for further leakage," he charged. "To give more people access, thus more leaks, which, in fact, would hurt the Trump administration. It seems very obvious when you put that together and combine it with the actions of Susan Rice and other people in unmasking people. That is the true purpose behind this."

    "I say this as somebody who – you have to remember, when I was a station chief overseas, this is what I was reporting on. I was in countries like Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kosovo – countries which constantly had the offices of the prime minister or president using the intelligence services to suppress the domestic opposition. So I've been to this rodeo before, many a time. I saw the storm clouds gathering several weeks ago, and everything I've suspected has so far come to fruition," Uehlinger said.

    He pronounced it "very disappointing" that such transparent abuse of government power for partisan politics would occur in the United States.

    "An intelligence service has to have the trust of the people and the government in order to function effectively," he said. "With all of these scandals happening, and with the name of perhaps the CIA and other intelligence community elements in the mud, this makes the object of protecting our national security more problematic. The agencies have to have the trust of the American people, and they're losing it, because it seems as though they've been weaponized – perhaps, like I said, not breaking the law but playing very close to the line."

    Kassam suggested that leaking the information might have been illegal, even if Rice was legally entitled to request information on Donald Trump's campaign and unmask the U.S. persons monitored during surveillance of foreign intelligence targets.

    "That's absolutely the case," Uehlinger agreed. He went on to argue that the absence of hard evidence for any wrongdoing by the Trump campaign in all of these leaks was highly significant.

    "Since basically the Obama administration has sort of loaded this with these rule changes and all to allow for leaks the fact that there is no 'smoking gun' of Trump administration collusion with Russia indicates that there isn't any. There is nothing substantial here because a juicy morsel like that would certainly have been leaked by the same people that have been leaking everything else. The fact it hasn't been leaked out means it does not exist," he reasoned.

    Kassam said some of the Russia hysteria came from imputing sinister motives to conventional business dealings, arguing that Trump's organization made deals around the world, and it is exceedingly difficult to do business with any Russian entity that is not somehow connected to the Russian government.

    "That's an excellent point. You're absolutely right," Uehlinger responded. "It shows these people who are doing these gambits are relying on the relative ignorance of the American public of the actual nuts and bolts of intelligence to make their point. Anyone with any background in this stuff can see it for what it is: a desperate attempt to discredit an administration because they were crushed in the past elections."

    Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Where are canisters and where are bomblets.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I find revealing is that the United States Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care. ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> pgl..., April 05, 2017 at 03:11 PM
    bomblet debris is missing. need pictures. sarin is volatile. cannot be exploded. must be canister dropped.

    where are canisters and where are bomblets.

    about 40% duds on average if they are bad as US CBU's

    anne -> anne... , April 05, 2017 at 02:13 PM
    What the outcome may be I have no idea, but what I find revealing is that the United States Ambassador to the UN should decide in effect to dictate to the UN. Diplomacy and belligerency differ, Ambassador Haley does not appear to care.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Russia quietly cutting oil output while looking at broader prospects

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Russia is reducing its oil production in stages, in accordance with the plans we worked out voluntarily with our production companies," ..."
    "... "We anticipate complying with the figure outlined in the agreement by the end of April," ..."
    "... "Undoubtedly, and this could be an even more important factor, is the situation on the market linked with the balance between supply and demand and the situation with regards to the development of the situation with oil reserves and oil product reserves in the OECD countries and the countries in the world as a whole," ..."
    "... "And we will be following this closely; it will be important for us to know what's going to happen in April, the forecasts for May and June and the second half of next year," ..."
    "... "Currently, we are producing about 17 percent of our total oil production in the Arctic. In 20 years, in accordance with our strategic plans, this share will increase to as much as 26 percent. But the figures for gas will be even more interesting to you. We currently produce 80 percent of our gas in the Arctic," ..."
    "... "As far as energy independence is concerned I don't think this is anything new for the United States. It's unlikely that at any time it was ever US policy to increase its dependence on imported energy resources," ..."
    "... "It's clear that we are all assessing the situation in a sober fashion, we understand that there will be a rise in the production of shale oil. Again I want to say that we need to look at the situation as a whole throughout the world," ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Moscow is fully complying with the deal to cap oil production, while accurately evaluating longer-term structural developments in the market, according to Russian Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak. In March, the country's producers reduced output by 200,000 barrels per day as the decrease in January and February was ahead of the original plans, according to the minister. 'Largest discovery' of oil off Scottish coast could raise chances of independence

    "Russia is reducing its oil production in stages, in accordance with the plans we worked out voluntarily with our production companies," Novak said in an interview with CNBC at the International Artic Forum in Arkhangelsk on Thursday.

    "We anticipate complying with the figure outlined in the agreement by the end of April," he said, stressing that the reduction target was 300,000 barrels per day.

    According to Novak, overall supply and demand trends will be a major reason for Russia to support renewing the agreement at the end of May.

    "Undoubtedly, and this could be an even more important factor, is the situation on the market linked with the balance between supply and demand and the situation with regards to the development of the situation with oil reserves and oil product reserves in the OECD countries and the countries in the world as a whole," said the energy minister.

    "And we will be following this closely; it will be important for us to know what's going to happen in April, the forecasts for May and June and the second half of next year," he stressed.

    The minister has also pointed to the importance of the Arctic region for Russia's energy strategy.

    "Currently, we are producing about 17 percent of our total oil production in the Arctic. In 20 years, in accordance with our strategic plans, this share will increase to as much as 26 percent. But the figures for gas will be even more interesting to you. We currently produce 80 percent of our gas in the Arctic," he said, adding that new production was ongoing on the Arctic shelf.

    The minister's comments followed the recent changes in US policy to increase the country's energy independence. There has been a resurgence in the activity of US shale producers that could lead to increased supply to the global market given a rebound in the oil price.

    "As far as energy independence is concerned I don't think this is anything new for the United States. It's unlikely that at any time it was ever US policy to increase its dependence on imported energy resources," he said.

    At the same time, the boost in shale oil production may reach up to 400,000 barrels a day this year, according to Novak.

    "It's clear that we are all assessing the situation in a sober fashion, we understand that there will be a rise in the production of shale oil. Again I want to say that we need to look at the situation as a whole throughout the world," the energy minister concluded.

    [Apr 06, 2017] IEA Huge Oil Price Spike Inevitable

    Notable quotes:
    "... Meanwhile, demand will continue to grow, eventually overtaking supply. The IEA projects global demand to reach 104 million barrels per day (mbd) by 2020, with the " call on OPEC ..."
    "... The IEA warns that unless a wave of new upstream projects are given the greenlight by exploration companies, OPEC's spare capacity will fall to low levels and oil prices will rise sharply. ..."
    "... One of the more eye-opening predictions from the IEA is that oil demand will continue to rise without interruption. The agency noted that global oil demand grew by a whopping 2 mb/d in 2015 because of low prices, then by another strong 1.6 mb/d in 2016. Moving forward, demand rises steadily, year after year, by an average of 1.2 mb/d through 2022. India takes over as the largest source of demand growth, a mantle long-held by China. ..."
    "... For all these reasons, the much-discussed peak for oil demand remains some years into the future, ..."
    "... "[W]e are emphasising an important message: more investment is needed in oil production capacity to avoid the risk of a sharp increase in oil prices ..."
    "... This article was originally published on Oilprice.com ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Mar 13, 2017

    Three years of drastic cuts to upstream spending because of the meltdown in oil prices could result in a shortage of oil supply in a few years, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.

    When oil prices collapsed in 2014, oil producers quickly took an ax to their spending. Global oil and gas investment dropped by a quarter in 2015 and by an additional 26 percent last year, the IEA estimates. A long list of projects, particularly very large ones, were put on ice.

    Because many of these projects take years to develop, the sharp slowdown between 2014 and 2016 could result in very few sources of new supply hitting the market towards the end of the decade.

    To be sure, supply is already coming back. The US has added more than 500,000 bpd since last summer, and shale drillers are ramping up activity. The IEA says that the shale industry achieved cost reductions of about 30 percent in 2015 and 22 percent in 2016, making the average shale well more profitable today than it was before the downturn. That is already leading to a rebound.

    But even the nascent recovery in drilling this year will be a far cry from the investment prior to the 2014 oil bust.

    Moreover, the IEA thinks that even the revival of U.S. shale at lower prices won't be enough to head off a supply shortage by 2020. The pipeline of new projects is too small.

    Meanwhile, demand will continue to grow, eventually overtaking supply. The IEA projects global demand to reach 104 million barrels per day (mbd) by 2020, with the " call on OPEC " reaching 35.8 mbd, up from 32.2 mbd last year.

    The market may ask for much higher supply from OPEC, but that would force the group to burn through its spare capacity, which could shrink to well below 2 mb/d. Spare capacity – the ability to ramp up or down supply on short notice – has been one of the key cushions to the oil market for decades. Knowing that Saudi Arabia could plug any supply gap in a pinch helped reduce oil market volatility, and also reduced the risk premium that would hit the market when unforeseen geopolitical flashpoints inevitably cropped up.

    The IEA warns that unless a wave of new upstream projects are given the greenlight by exploration companies, OPEC's spare capacity will fall to low levels and oil prices will rise sharply.

    One of the more eye-opening predictions from the IEA is that oil demand will continue to rise without interruption. The agency noted that global oil demand grew by a whopping 2 mb/d in 2015 because of low prices, then by another strong 1.6 mb/d in 2016. Moving forward, demand rises steadily, year after year, by an average of 1.2 mb/d through 2022. India takes over as the largest source of demand growth, a mantle long-held by China.

    The IEA, unlike a growing chorus of analysts, thinks that electric vehicles might only have a marginal impact on demand, slowing consumption growth but ultimately not reversing it. On top of that, oil demand will grow in various sectors not related to passenger vehicles, including freight, marine transit, and aviation. " For all these reasons, the much-discussed peak for oil demand remains some years into the future, " the IEA wrote.

    So we have rising demand and a shortage of new supply. But, surely U.S. shale, with its falling breakeven prices and resurgence at $50 per barrel can meet the supply gap? The IEA does think that shale will see significant growth, rising by 1.4 mb/d through 2022, assuming oil prices at $60 per barrel. If prices rise to, say, $80 per barrel, then U.S. shale could see growth of 3 mb/d. But the IEA's working assumption is that all non-OPEC countries together contribute an extra 3.3 mb/d of supply over the next five years.

    The problem with that figure is that demand is expected to rise by 7.2 mb/d over that same timeframe. The end result will be a strain on OPEC supplies. In light of these numbers, the IEA issued a warning. "[W]e are emphasising an important message: more investment is needed in oil production capacity to avoid the risk of a sharp increase in oil prices " by the early 2020s.

    This article was originally published on Oilprice.com

    Read more:

    $25 trillion investment needed to meet future oil demand The craziest oil price predictions for 2017 Oilprice.com: Oil Prices Hold Steady Ahead Of Inventory Data Oilprice.com: Oil Majors To Boost Production As IEA Warns Of Supply Deficit

    [Apr 06, 2017] Oil at near one-month high on supply outage in North Sea

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The immediate reason for the move was an unplanned production outage in the North Sea," ..."
    "... "We have seen a significant reduction in global oil supply since January, with oil on water going from 978 million barrels on Jan. 1 to 812 million barrels on April 3," ..."
    "... "These changes are a signal that the rebalancing is happening faster than many in the market believe," ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
    Crude prices climbed one percent on Wednesday on the news of a supply outage at a field in the United Kingdom's sector of the North Sea. Read more Russia quietly cutting oil output while looking at broader prospects – Energy Minister

    Brent crude, the international benchmark for oil in the region, rose 54 cents to $54.71 per barrel. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were up 52 cents, at $51.55 per barrel. For both benchmarks, this is the best performance since March, 8.

    "The immediate reason for the move was an unplanned production outage in the North Sea," said Sukrit Vijayakar, director of energy consultancy Trifecta, as quoted by Reuters. He was referring to an unpredicted production outage at the Buzzard oil field.

    Crude prices were also propped up by expectations the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would continue looking at cutting production.

    Moreover, there has been information that shipped oil supplies have dropped by 17 percent this year, according to oil analysis firm Vortexa.

    "We have seen a significant reduction in global oil supply since January, with oil on water going from 978 million barrels on Jan. 1 to 812 million barrels on April 3," said Vortexa chief executive Fabio Kuhn.

    "These changes are a signal that the rebalancing is happening faster than many in the market believe," Kuhn added.

    According to Reuters, OPEC shipments fell to 813.7 million barrels at the end of March from 796.6 million barrels at the beginning of the year.

    While US oil stockpiles dropped by 1.8 million barrels last week to 533.7 million, this is still close to a record.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Bannon no longer on Trump's National Security Council

    Notable quotes:
    "... "regular attendees" ..."
    "... "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
    "... "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added. ..."
    Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
    President Donald Trump has reorganized the National Security Council, and his Chief Strategist Stephen Bannon is apparently no longer on the Principals Committee, according to a memo that has surfaced. Bloomberg has posted a memo from Trump, dated April 4, reorganizing the National Security Council and updating the list of officials who sit on its Principals Committee. The document shows no role for Bannon and a reduced role for Homeland Security Adviser Tom Bossert.

    Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joseph Dunford, are again considered "regular attendees" of the principals committee.

    In addition to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the regular attendees will be the secretaries of State, Treasury, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security and the Attorney General; the national and homeland security advisers; and the US envoy to the UN, as well as the CIA director, in addition to the Joint Chiefs chair and the DNI.

    The White House chief of staff, counsel and deputy counsel for national security, and the director of the Office of Management and Budget are also invited to attend any NSC meeting, the memo says.

    "Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration. I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized," Bannon said in a statement to the Wall Street Journal.

    "General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function," he added.

    [Apr 06, 2017] Diplomats warn of Russia hysteria

    Apr 06, 2017 | thehill.com
    "That's total horseshit," said Wayne Merry, a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council who worked as a U.S. diplomat to Russia and has known Kislyak for decades. "It's a witch-hunt with paranoia and hysteria at its core. Normally it's the Russians who become paranoid and hysterical. That the conspiracy theories and paranoia is coming from Americans makes me very uncomfortable."

    The past two U.S. ambassadors to Russia defended Kislyak in interviews with The Hill: Michael McFaul a fierce Trump critic who was appointed by former President Obama, and John Beyrle, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush but served for three years under Obama.

    Both former ambassadors tell The Hill that the Russian ambassador was merely doing his job and that there is no evidence of any illicit collusion between him and the Trump campaign.

    McFaul and Beyrle say they are extremely troubled by evidence that suggests the Russians interfered in the U.S. election. They support an independent investigation into the matter.

    But allegations and insinuations that Kislyak was the point person for this - and that it could have played out in broad daylight at meetings on Capitol Hill or at Trump campaign events - are preposterous, they say.

    "Kislyak's job is to meet with government officials and campaign people and I think he's good at his job," said McFaul. "People should meet with the Russian ambassador and it's wrong to criminalize that or discourage it. I want the Russian government to be as informed as possible about the American political process. When I was ambassador, it was frustrating how poorly informed the Russian government was. It's a good thing to meet with him, not a bad thing."

    National security experts generally agree that Sessions and other Trump campaign officials have handled the Russia issue poorly.

    Sessions, they say, should have told Congress about his meeting with Kislyak.

    And they say Flynn was reckless and wrong to speak with Russian diplomats about sanctions during the transition period when Obama was still president.

    Still, former diplomats say the atmosphere in Washington over anything that carries even a whiff of Russia is out of control.

    "It's the usual Washington breathlessness that accompanies any story these days about Trump or the Russians," said Beyrle. "That doesn't mean there isn't need for an investigation. There is almost no question that there was Russian interference in the election and there needs to be an investigation. But to conclude from all this that Kislyak was somehow a bad actor is missing the target."

    National security experts say the uproar around Kislyak could have foreign policy reverberations, potentially making life difficult for the current U.S. ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, or his successor, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman.

    "The Russian default mode is reciprocity," said Beyrle. "If they feel we're doing it to them, more often than not they'll do it back to us."

    McFaul has experienced this first-hand. He routinely landed on the front page of Russian newspapers, accused of fomenting revolution.

    "I was demonized and called all kinds of things in the Russian press and I don't want Americans to do to Kislyak what the Russian government did to me," McFaul said. "It's not good for U.S. Russian relations. People should be able to meet with him without fear of being called a double-agent. Throwing around loosely, without documentation, that this person is an intelligence officer is dangerous."

    It's damaging to U.S. interests for lawmakers to be skittish about meeting with foreign ambassadors, according to Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security at the U.S. Naval War College.

    From the Russian perspective, Gvosdev is worried that the frenzy around Kislyak will provoke the Russians to shut down diplomatic backchannels needed for the countries to cooperate on even basic levels.

    "Russia is still a major player. We can't not talk to them, " Gvosdev said. "We are really creating issues for future diplomacy with the Russians and this will make it harder when there's an actual major challenge from them."

    Andrey Sushentsov, the head of the Moscow-based Foreign Policy Advisory Group and a program director at the Valdai Club there, says the damage has already been done.

    "It seems that the "Russian question" is becoming one of the issues in America's culture wars," Sushentsov said in an email to The Hill. "By demonizing a foreign partner for a political purposes the U.S. limits it's capability in global governance and diplomacy.

    "Russia was not expecting the relations with the U.S. to improve significantly, but was not striving to worsen them even more. What Russia needs is predictability and stability in its relations with the US - even if this is a negative stability. Current climate in Washington does not permit this." Tags Jeff Sessions

    [Apr 04, 2017] VIDEO Ex-Obama Staffer Who Urged Spying On Trump Predicted 'Quick' Impeachment Weeks Before Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council. ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Speaking at a conference two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Evelyn Farkas, a former top Obama administration official, predicted that if Donald Trump won the presidency he would "be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government," Breitbart News has found.

    Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under the Obama administration. She has been in the spotlight since the news media last week highlighted comments she made on television that seemed to acknowledge efforts by members of the Obama administration to collect intelligence on Trump and members of his campaign.

    Now it has emerged that at on October 26, 2016, Farkas made remarks as a panelist at the annual Warsaw Security Forum predicting Trump's removal from office "pretty quickly."

    Asked at the event to address the priorities of a future Hillary Clinton administration, Farkas stated:

    It's not a done deal, as you said. And so, to the Americans in the audience please vote. And not only vote but get everybody to vote. Because I really believe we need a landslide. We need an absolute repudiation of everything. All of the policies that Donald Trump has put out there. I am not afraid to be political. I am not hiding who I am rooting for. And I think it's very important that we continue to press forward until election day and through election day to make sure that we have the right results.

    I do agree however with General Breedlove that even if we have the wrong results from my perspective America is resilient. We have a lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherent the argument – they have given us examples of all of our horrible presidents in the past and the fact that we have endured. And we do have a strong system of checks and balances. And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not even joking.

    Farkas was referring to General Philip Mark Breedlove, another panelist at the conference who served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO Allied Command Operations. The panel discussion was about what to expect following the Nov. 8 presidential election.

    Farkas has also been in the news after remarks she made as a contributor on MSNBC on March 2 resurfaced last week. In the comments , she said that she told former Obama administration colleagues to collect intelligence on Trump and campaign officials.

    "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration," stated Farkas.

    She continued:

    Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

    The White House has utilized Farkas's statements to bolster the charge that Trump was being illicitly surveilled during the campaign.

    White House Spokesman Sean Spicer last week stated :

    [I]f you look at Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is out there, Evelyn Farkas, she made it clear that it was their goal to spread this information around, that they went around and did this.

    They have admitted on the record that this was their goal - to leak stuff. And they literally - she said on the record "Trump's team." There are serious questions out there about what happened and why and who did it. And I think that's really where our focus is in making sure that that information gets out.

    Farkas, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia until she resigned in 2015.

    She told the Daily Caller last week that she had no access to any intelligence. "I had no intelligence whatsoever, I wasn't in government anymore and didn't have access to any," she said.

    Speaking to the Washington Post, Farkas denied being a source of any leaks.

    The Post reported:

    Farkas, in an interview with The Post, said she "didn't give anybody anything except advice," was not a source for any stories and had nothing to leak. Noting that she left government in October 2015, she said, "I was just watching like anybody else, like a regular spectator" as initial reports of Russia contacts began to surface after the election.

    Farkas currently serves as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia and has released numerous reports and briefs about Russian aggression.

    The Council is funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., the U.S. State Department, and NATO ACT. Another Council funder is the Ploughshares Fund, which in turn has received financing from billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations.

    Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

    Last month, FBI Director James Comey confirmed that his agency never had direct access to the DNC's servers to confirm the hacking. "Well, we never got direct access to the machines themselves," he stated. "The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."

    National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers also stated the NSA never asked for access to the DNC hardware: "The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job."

    [Apr 04, 2017] VIDEO Ex-Obama Staffer Who Urged Spying On Trump Predicted 'Quick' Impeachment Weeks Before Election

    Notable quotes:
    "... Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council. ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Speaking at a conference two weeks before the 2016 presidential election, Evelyn Farkas, a former top Obama administration official, predicted that if Donald Trump won the presidency he would "be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government," Breitbart News has found.

    Farkas served as deputy assistant secretary of defense under the Obama administration. She has been in the spotlight since the news media last week highlighted comments she made on television that seemed to acknowledge efforts by members of the Obama administration to collect intelligence on Trump and members of his campaign.

    Now it has emerged that at on October 26, 2016, Farkas made remarks as a panelist at the annual Warsaw Security Forum predicting Trump's removal from office "pretty quickly."

    Asked at the event to address the priorities of a future Hillary Clinton administration, Farkas stated:

    It's not a done deal, as you said. And so, to the Americans in the audience please vote. And not only vote but get everybody to vote. Because I really believe we need a landslide. We need an absolute repudiation of everything. All of the policies that Donald Trump has put out there. I am not afraid to be political. I am not hiding who I am rooting for. And I think it's very important that we continue to press forward until election day and through election day to make sure that we have the right results.

    I do agree however with General Breedlove that even if we have the wrong results from my perspective America is resilient. We have a lot of presidential historians who have put forward very coherent the argument – they have given us examples of all of our horrible presidents in the past and the fact that we have endured. And we do have a strong system of checks and balances. And actually, if Donald Trump were elected I believe he would be impeached pretty quickly or somebody else would have to take over government. And I am not even joking.

    Farkas was referring to General Philip Mark Breedlove, another panelist at the conference who served as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) of NATO Allied Command Operations. The panel discussion was about what to expect following the Nov. 8 presidential election.

    Farkas has also been in the news after remarks she made as a contributor on MSNBC on March 2 resurfaced last week. In the comments , she said that she told former Obama administration colleagues to collect intelligence on Trump and campaign officials.

    "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill, it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration," stated Farkas.

    She continued:

    Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior [Obama] people who left, so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy that the Trump folks – if they found out how we knew what we knew about their the Trump staff dealing with Russians – that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence.

    The White House has utilized Farkas's statements to bolster the charge that Trump was being illicitly surveilled during the campaign.

    White House Spokesman Sean Spicer last week stated :

    [I]f you look at Obama's Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense that is out there, Evelyn Farkas, she made it clear that it was their goal to spread this information around, that they went around and did this.

    They have admitted on the record that this was their goal - to leak stuff. And they literally - she said on the record "Trump's team." There are serious questions out there about what happened and why and who did it. And I think that's really where our focus is in making sure that that information gets out.

    Farkas, a former adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia until she resigned in 2015.

    She told the Daily Caller last week that she had no access to any intelligence. "I had no intelligence whatsoever, I wasn't in government anymore and didn't have access to any," she said.

    Speaking to the Washington Post, Farkas denied being a source of any leaks.

    The Post reported:

    Farkas, in an interview with The Post, said she "didn't give anybody anything except advice," was not a source for any stories and had nothing to leak. Noting that she left government in October 2015, she said, "I was just watching like anybody else, like a regular spectator" as initial reports of Russia contacts began to surface after the election.

    Farkas currently serves as a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia and has released numerous reports and briefs about Russian aggression.

    The Council is funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., the U.S. State Department, and NATO ACT. Another Council funder is the Ploughshares Fund, which in turn has received financing from billionaire George Soros' Open Society Foundations.

    Farkas serves on the Atlantic Council alongside Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of CrowdStrike, the third-party company utilized by the FBI to make its assessment about alleged Russian hacking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council.

    Last month, FBI Director James Comey confirmed that his agency never had direct access to the DNC's servers to confirm the hacking. "Well, we never got direct access to the machines themselves," he stated. "The DNC in the spring of 2016 hired a firm that ultimately shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."

    National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers also stated the NSA never asked for access to the DNC hardware: "The NSA didn't ask for access. That's not in our job."

    [Apr 04, 2017] 11 Highlights of Susan Rice's MSNBC Interview with Andrea Mitchel

    Apr 04, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Here are the highlights of Mitchell's interview with Rice, which took up the first quarter-hour of Mitchell's show.
      Rice admitted asking for the names of U.S. citizens in intelligence reports to be "unmasked." Rice said: "There were occasions when I would receive a report in which a U.S. person was referred to. Name not provided, just U.S. person. And sometimes in that context, in order to understand the importance of the report, and assess its significance, it was necessary to find out, or request, the information as to who that U.S. official was." Rice argued it was necessary for her and other officials to request that information, on occasion, to "do our jobs" to protect national security. Rice admitted asking specifically for the names of members of Donald Trump's transition team. She argued that she had not done so for political purposes, however. Mitchell asked: "Did you seek the names of people involved in - to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump transition, the people surrounding the president-elect in order to spy on them and expose them?" Rice answered: "Absolutely not for any political purposes to spy, expose, anything." Rice denied leaking the name of former General Michael Flynn. "I leaked nothing to nobody, and never have, and never would." She added that to discuss particular targets would be to reveal classified information. She later walked back her denial. Mitchell: "The allegation is that you were leaking the fact that he spoke to the [Russian] ambassador and perhaps to others." Rice: "I can't get into any specific reports what I can say is there is an established process." Rice denied reports that she prepared a "spreadsheet" of Trump transition staff under surveillance. Mitchell asked specifically about the Daily Caller story Tuesday: "They allege there was a spreadsheet you put out of all of these names and circulated it." Rice: "Absolutely false. No spreadsheet, no nothing of the sort." She said that unmasked names "was not then typically broadly disseminated throughout the national security community or the government." Rice said that even if she did request the names of citizens to be unmasked, that did not mean she leaked them. "The notion that by asking for the identity of an American person, that is the same as leaking it, is completely false." Rice admitted that the pace of intelligence reports accelerated throughout the election. She said she could not say whether the pace of her "unmasking" requests accelerated, but she said there was increasing concern, as well as increasing information, relating to the possibility of Russian interference in the election, particularly after August 2016. Rice implied that President Obama himself ordered the compilation of intelligence reports on Trump officials. " the president requested the compliation of the intelligence, which was ultimately provided in January [2017]." Rice said that she was unaware, even while working with Flynn during the transition, that he was working for the Turkish government. Mitchell asked: "When did you learn that?" Rice answered: "In the press, as everybody else did." Mitchell, incredulously: "You didn't know that, when you were National Security Advisor?" Rice: "I did not." Rice reiterated that President Obama never tapped Trump's phone. "Absolutely false there was no such collection [or] surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump individuals directed by the White House or targeted at Trump individuals." She did not deny that there might have been some surveillance by other agencies, however. She said it was impossible for the White House to order such surveillance, but that the Department of Justice could have done so. Rice seemed aggrieved by Trump's claims. "It wasn't typical of the way presidents treat their predecessors." Rice would not say whether she would be willing to testify on Capitol Hill before Congress. "Let's see what comes. I'm not going to sit here and prejudge," she said. But she insisted that the investigations into Russian interference in the presidential election were of interest to every American citizen, and should be followed wherever the evidence leads.

    [Apr 04, 2017] Top Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel by Eli Lake

    Apr 04, 2017 | www.bloomberg.com
    White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

    The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."

    The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

    The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

    Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.

    Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.

    Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said : "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

    Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

    But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

    The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.

    The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself and other members of the committee.

    Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.

    [Apr 04, 2017] The pursuit of Trump may have caught the Obama White House

    Notable quotes:
    "... And what Earth-shattering insights were revealed as a result of the hacks? That the DNC was in the tank for Hillary Clinton and had been lying to Bernie Sanders. Everybody in Washington already knew that, and it didn't make any difference to Trump. In fact, the revelations gave the Clinton camp a pretext to get rid of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz - something it wanted to do anyway. Next, Clinton campaign chairman Podesta's emails did not reveal anything beyond Beltway gossip that was only of interest to political junkies. Nothing was revealed that drove any votes. If Russian hackers wanted to harass Podesta, what is the crime that the Trump campaign might have committed? ..."
    "... The cacophony of accusations, deflections and distractions has led us to the latest revelation that is causing a "holy cow" double-take, plot-thickening moment in Washington: President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sought to unmask the identities of Trump aides whose conversations had been collected through routine electronic intercepts of foreign officials' communications. ..."
    "... And there are more suspicious reasons for Obama's national security adviser to have sought to unmask the identities of Trump campaign aides than there are valid reasons. Rice has a history of a strained relationship with the truth, and for a national security adviser, she has, at times, flown close to the partisan political flame. ..."
    "... Multiple senators are now demanding her testimony . There could have been crimes committed and a real scandal could develop, so you can bet the full story will be slow to emerge. It appears that Rice has issued the standard denials. And her defenders on Capitol Hill and in the media will do all they can to distract and demand that there is nothing to see here. Democrats and their media allies will continue to make baseless allegations, hoping that the Russia investigations will somehow deliver for them and become this president's Watergate. ..."
    "... The result so far? Competing outrage. Just as Democrats are pursuing L-TACs (links, ties, associations or contacts) in search of a crime, the Obama White House's national security adviser has now landed as one of the ones who will have to answer for her actions under oath. ..."
    "... How did Ed slip this article past the Wapo /DNC/Loony Left /Bezos Puppet editors? ..."
    "... Ms. Rice kept a 'spreadsheet' of phone calls taking place within the Trump campaign. Will that be in the next installment of this ongoing drama? ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | www.washingtonpost.com

    It is said that Watergate wasn't about the crime, but about the coverup. Well, at least in the Watergate scandal, there was a proper crime - specifically, the break-in and wiretapping. The media hasn't even settled on what to call its quest for a potentially nefarious Russia-Trump link. The whole pursuit is vaguely referred to as looking at President Trump's "links," "ties," "associations" or "contacts" with Russia. Since this is Washington, let's give it an acronym: L-TACs. With no end in sight, the manic pursuit of L-TACs has produced a basket of denials, lies, half-baked plots, evasions, one-off non sequiturs, side tracks, conspiracies and suspicions between the Trump administration, Democrats and the media. The frenzy has created a scandal without perpetrators or a crime. There is a sense that Washington is on the brink, but no one can say on the brink of what.

    When they have to be specific, some Democrats have settled on the idea that the Trump campaign may have collaborated with Russia on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the John Podesta emails. There is no evidence of this, but it is worth remembering a few things. First, the FBI was aware of the DNC hacking when it occurred. This was confirmed again yesterday in Politico's interview with Lisa Monaco , who served as assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism in the Obama White House. She said the hacking was handled as a law enforcement matter. I assume she was referring to when the FBI called the dolts at the DNC, but the DNC took no action.

    Then-national security adviser Susan Rice is seen last year on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press)

    And what Earth-shattering insights were revealed as a result of the hacks? That the DNC was in the tank for Hillary Clinton and had been lying to Bernie Sanders. Everybody in Washington already knew that, and it didn't make any difference to Trump. In fact, the revelations gave the Clinton camp a pretext to get rid of DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz - something it wanted to do anyway. Next, Clinton campaign chairman Podesta's emails did not reveal anything beyond Beltway gossip that was only of interest to political junkies. Nothing was revealed that drove any votes. If Russian hackers wanted to harass Podesta, what is the crime that the Trump campaign might have committed?

    The cacophony of accusations, deflections and distractions has led us to the latest revelation that is causing a "holy cow" double-take, plot-thickening moment in Washington: President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, sought to unmask the identities of Trump aides whose conversations had been collected through routine electronic intercepts of foreign officials' communications. To unmask, or reveal, the identities of U.S. citizens whose names and conversations were gathered through incidental collection is unusual.

    And there are more suspicious reasons for Obama's national security adviser to have sought to unmask the identities of Trump campaign aides than there are valid reasons. Rice has a history of a strained relationship with the truth, and for a national security adviser, she has, at times, flown close to the partisan political flame.

    So, what was going on? Why did she do it? And with whom, in the government and the media, did she share the information?

    Multiple senators are now demanding her testimony . There could have been crimes committed and a real scandal could develop, so you can bet the full story will be slow to emerge. It appears that Rice has issued the standard denials. And her defenders on Capitol Hill and in the media will do all they can to distract and demand that there is nothing to see here. Democrats and their media allies will continue to make baseless allegations, hoping that the Russia investigations will somehow deliver for them and become this president's Watergate.

    The result so far? Competing outrage. Just as Democrats are pursuing L-TACs (links, ties, associations or contacts) in search of a crime, the Obama White House's national security adviser has now landed as one of the ones who will have to answer for her actions under oath.

    Washington is as scandal-primed as I've ever seen it - there is a lot of smoke right now, but no clear fire. So the noise and finger-pointing will continue. And I have no idea who is winning. The pursuit of Trump may have caught the Obama White House

    Ed Rogers is a contributor to the PostPartisan blog, a political consultant and a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses and several national campaigns. He is the chairman of the lobbying and communications firm BGR Group, which he founded with former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour in 1991. Follow @EdRogersDC

    Bigly Fan 5:38 PM EDT
    How did Ed slip this article past the Wapo /DNC/Loony Left /Bezos Puppet editors?
    theworm1 5:37 PM EDT
    "The whole pursuit [ of Trump's Russian engagement] is vaguely referred to as looking at President Trump's "links', 'ties', 'associations' or 'contacts'" . These are the same nouns the media uses to describe the alleged "connections" between al Qaeda and Saddam and between ISIS and whoever we don't like today. They carry meaning or they don't. I think most people think they do.
    Io fifty 5:37 PM EDT
    I just read in Breitbart, sure you have too Mr. Rogers ...... that Ms. Rice kept a 'spreadsheet' of phone calls taking place within the Trump campaign. Will that be in the next installment of this ongoing drama?

    [Apr 04, 2017] Report Susan Rice Ordered 'Spreadsheets' of Trump Campaign Calls

    Notable quotes:
    "... Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the " most influential " people in news media in 2016. His new book, ..."
    "... , is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak . ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    President Barack Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump's campaign aides during the last election, and maintained spreadsheets of their telephone calls, the Daily Caller reports.

    The alleged spreadsheets add a new dimension to reports on Sunday and Monday by blogger Mike Cernovich and Eli Lake of Bloomberg News that Rice had asked for Trump aides' names to be "unmasked" in intelligence reports. The alleged "unmasking" may have been legal, but may also have been part of an alleged political intelligence operation to disseminate reports on the Trump campaign widely throughout government with the aim of leaking them to the press.

    At the time that radio host Mark Levin and Breitbart News compiled the evidence of surveillance, dissemination, and leaking - all based on mainstream media reports - the mainstream media dismissed the story as a " conspiracy theory ."

    Now, however, Democrats are backing away from that allegation, and from broader allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign, as additional details of the Obama administration's alleged surveillance continue to emerge.

    The Daily Caller reports :

    "What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals," diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

    "The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with," diGenova said. "In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls."

    The surveillance and spreadsheet operation were allegedly "ordered one year before the 2016 presidential election." According to a Fox News report on Monday, former White House aide Ben Rhodes was also involved.

    Rhodes and Rice were both implicated in a disinformation campaign to describe the Benghazi terror attack in Sep. 2012 as a protest against a YouTube video. Rhodes also boasted of creating an " echo chamber " in the media to promote the Iran deal, feeding stories to contrived networks of "experts" who offered the public a steady stream of pro-agreement propaganda.

    On Monday, Rhodes retweeted a CNN story quoting Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) claiming that the alleged unmasking was "nothing unusual."

    To the extent they have reported the surveillance story at all, CNN and other news outlets have focused on Trump's tweets last month that alleged President Obama had "wiretapped" Trump Tower, describing the claims as unfounded.

    CNN continued treating story dismissively on Monday, with The Lead host Jake Tapper insisting allegations of Russian interference in the election were more important than what he referred to as the president's effort to distract from them.

    Later in the day, host Don Lemon declared he would ignore the surveillance story and urged viewers to do likewise.

    The potential abuse of surveillance powers for political purposes has long troubled civil libertarians, and could affect the re-authorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act later this year.

    Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the " most influential " people in news media in 2016. His new book, How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution , is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .

    [Apr 04, 2017] Rand Paul Susan Rice 'Ought to Be Under Subpoena,' Asked If Obama Knew About Eavesdropping

    Apr 04, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Tuesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) called on former National Security Advisor Susan Rice to be brought in front of Congress under subpoena and asked questions about allegations she was behind the unmasking of American identities in raw surveillance.

    Paul also said she should be asked about former President Barack Obama's knowledge of these alleged activities.

    "For years, both progressives and libertarians have been complaining about these backdoor searches," Paul said. "It's not that we're searching maybe one foreign leader and who they talk to; we search everything in the whole world. There were reports a couple of years ago that all of Italy's phone calls were absorbed in a one month period of time. We were getting Merkel's phone calls; we were getting everybody's phone calls. But by rebound we are collecting millions of Americans phone calls. If you want to look at an American's phone call or listen to it, you should have to have a warrant, the old fashioned way in a real court where both sides get represented."

    "But a secret warrant by a secret court with a lower standard level because we're afraid of terrorism is one thing for foreigners but both myself and a Progressive Ron Wyden have been warning about these back door searches for years and that they could be politicized," he continued. "The facts will come out with Susan Rice. But I think she ought to be under subpoena. She should be asked did you talk to the president about it? Did President Obama know about this? So this is actually, eerily similar to what Trump accused them of which is eavesdropping on conversations for political reasons."

    [Apr 04, 2017] 5 Susan Rice Scandal Facts Every American Must Know - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Special Report. ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Below are five facts from Susan Rice scandals every American should know.

    1. Susan Rice allegedly ordered surveillance of Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign aides as part of a political intelligence operation.

    Rice allegedly maintained spreadsheets of Trump aides' telephone calls "one year before the 2016 presidential election," according to the Daily Caller.

    The Daily Caller reports :

    "What was produced by the intelligence community at the request of Ms. Rice were detailed spreadsheets of intercepted phone calls with unmasked Trump associates in perfectly legal conversations with individuals," diGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group Monday.

    "The overheard conversations involved no illegal activity by anybody of the Trump associates, or anyone they were speaking with," diGenova said. "In short, the only apparent illegal activity was the unmasking of the people in the calls."

    ... ... ...

    5. Susan Rice was the driving force behind a misinformation campaign about the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terror attacks.

    Then-UN Ambassador Rice, acting as the Obama White House's spokeswoman, appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows and repeatedly claimed that the Benghazi attacks had been caused by an anti-Islam video.

    Rice appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, and CNN and regurgitated talking points purporting that the protests that had erupted "spontaneously" near two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya and were a result of a "hateful video" that was offensive to Islam.

    But government documents , released following a Judicial Watch lawsuit, reveal that government officials monitoring the attack in real-time did not cite an anti-Islam video as an explanation for the paramilitary attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

    In May 2015 interview, former Obama CIA Director Mike Morell said Rice's Benghazi talking points blaming an anti-Islam YouTube video crossed "the line between national security and politics."

    "I think the line in there that says one of our objectives here right on the Sunday show is to blame the video rather than a failure of policy," Morell said on Fox News' Special Report. "And as you know, I say in the book that I think that that is crossing the line between national security and politics."

    [Apr 04, 2017] Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole nine yards.

    Apr 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC , April 04, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    US Military Should Get Out of the Middle East Jeffrey Sachs, Boston Globe

    It's time to end US military engagements in the Middle East.

    Drones, special operations, CIA arms supplies, military advisers, aerial bombings - the whole nine yards. Over and done with.

    That might seem impossible in the face of ISIS, terrorism, Iranian ballistic missiles, and other US security interests, but a military withdrawal from the Middle East is by far the safest path for the United States and the region. That approach has instructive historical precedents.

    America has been no different from other imperial powers in finding itself ensnared repeatedly in costly, bloody, and eventually futile overseas wars. From the Roman empire till today, the issue is not whether an imperial army can defeat a local one. It usually can, just as the United States did quickly in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003.

    The issue is whether it gains anything by doing so. Following such a "victory," the imperial power faces unending heavy costs in terms of policing, political instability, guerilla war, and terrorist blowback.

    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/04/03/us-military-should-get-out-middle-east

    anne -> RGC... , April 04, 2017 at 08:42 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/27/magazine/the-empire-slinks-back.html

    April 27, 2003

    The Empire Slinks Back
    By NIALL FERGUSON

    Wheresoever the Roman conquers, he inhabits. -- Seneca

    Iraq has fallen. Saddam's statues are face down in the dust. His evil tyranny is at an end.

    So -- can we, like, go home now?

    You didn't have to wait long for a perfect symbol of the fundamental weakness at the heart of the new American imperialism -- sorry, humanitarianism. I'm talking about its chronically short time frame. I wasn't counting, but the Stars and Stripes must have been up there on the head of that statue of Saddam for less than a minute. You have to wonder what his commanding officer said to the marine responsible, Cpl. Edward Chin, when he saw Old Glory up there. ''Son, get that thing down on the double, or we'll have every TV station from here to Bangladesh denouncing us as Yankee imperialists!''

    An echo of Corporal Chin's imperial impulse can be heard in the last letter Cpl. Kemaphoom Chanawongse sent home before he and his Marine unit entered Iraq. Chanawongse joked that his camp in Kuwait was like something out of ''M*A*S*H'' -- except that it would need to be called ''M*A*H*T*S*F'': ''marines are here to stay forever.''

    But the question raised by Corporal Chanawongse's poignant final joke -- he was killed a week later, when his amphibious assault vehicle was blown up in Nasiriya -- is, Are the marines in Iraq ''to stay forever''? No doubt it is true, as President Bush said, that the America will ''honor forever'' Corporal Chanawongse and the more than 120 other service personnel so far killed in the conflict. Honored forever, yes. But there forever? In many ways the biggest mystery about the American occupation of Iraq is its probable duration. Recent statements by members of the Bush administration bespeak a time frame a lot closer to ephemeral than eternal. As the president himself told the Iraqi people in a television broadcast shortly after the fall of Baghdad: ''The government of Iraq and the future of your country will soon belong to you. . . . We will respect your great religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are essential to Iraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.''

    What the president didn't make entirely clear was whether the departing troops would be accompanied by the retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner and his ''Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance,'' newspeak for what would once have been called Omgus -- the Office of Military Government (United States). Nor was he very specific about when exactly he expected to see the handover of power to the ''peaceful and representative government'' of Iraqis.

    But we know the kind of time frame the president has in mind. In a prewar speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Bush declared, ''We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more.'' It is striking that the unit of measure he used was days. Speaking less than a week before the fall of Baghdad, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, suggested that Garner would be running Iraq for at least six months. Other administration spokesmen have mentioned two years as the maximum transition period. When Garner himself was asked how long he expected to be in charge, he talked about just three months.

    If -- as more and more commentators claim -- America has embarked on a new age of empire, it may turn out to be the most evanescent empire in all history. Other empire builders have fantasized about ruling subject peoples for a thousand years. This is shaping up to be history's first thousand-day empire. Make that a thousand hours.

    Let me come clean. I am a fully paid-up member of the neoimperialist gang. Two years ago -- when it was not at all fashionable to say so -- I was already arguing that it would be ''desirable for the United States to depose'' tyrants like Saddam Hussein. ''Capitalism and democracy,'' I wrote, ''are not naturally occurring, but require strong institutional foundations of law and order. The proper role of an imperial America is to establish these institutions where they are lacking, if necessary . . . by military force.'' ...

    [Apr 04, 2017] No Evidence That Khan Sheikhoun Gas Attack Resulted From Aerial Bombardment

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs, Aryeh Deri, also responded to the rumours of the jihadists and the associated images, by saying "Israel, the only superpower and democracy in the region, must lead the world to put an end to the horrible massacres in Syria. " ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | www.therussophile.org
    This post was originally published on this site
    April 4th, 2017 – Fort Russ News – – Breakingnews.sy – – translated by Samer Hussein –

    According to the unverified rumours, spreading in the corporate press, a a poisonous gas attack was carried out in the Syrian village of Khan Sheikhoun, located in Idleb province. Dozens of civilians are said to be killed, with Syrian and Russian air force units being named as the main suspects, despite no evidence. The affected area is otherwise under complete control of the terrorist groups whose positions are occasionally being targeted by the Russian and Syrian Air Force.

    The news of the incident were allegedly forwarded by the controversial White Helmets and the Syrian Observatory for Human Right.

    Both NGOs are notorious for their association with the terrorist groups. Meanwhile, the unconfirmed reports have already triggered international response. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, commented on the news, peddled by representatives of the jihadist groups on Twitter, by saying "the shocking images that are being shared on social networks must shake the conscience of every human being", adding that "Israel strongly condemns the use of chemical weapons, especially against civilians."

    The Israeli Minister of Internal Affairs, Aryeh Deri, also responded to the rumours of the jihadists and the associated images, by saying "Israel, the only superpower and democracy in the region, must lead the world to put an end to the horrible massacres in Syria. "

    The correspondent of the TV channel Orient News, known for being associated with the terrorist groups, Al Nusra Front including, yesterday announced on this Twitter page that "Tomorrow is the start of a new media campaign to cover the intensified number of air strikes, launched in the northern countryside of Hama, and the use of poisonous chlorine gas against civilians. "

    The village of Khan Shaikhoun itself is located on the administrative border between the provinces of Hama and Idlib.

    The notorious organisation White Helmets published photo and video material, claiming that gas attack caused deaths of more than 50 civilians, mostly adolescents due to suffocation from chemical substances that were "fired from the air", while blaming the Russian and Syrian Air Force. However, it failed to provide evidence that the gas attack was the result of an aerial bombardment. In the meantime, the Turkish government closed the Bab Al Hama border crossing, thus refusing ambulances, coming from the direction of Khan Sheikhoun, to enter Turkish territory.

    The Russian government has since denied the accusations of being involved in Khan Sheikhoun gas attack, saying no Russian fighter jets, carrying chemical agents, participated in assaults on Khan Sheikoun.

    The controversial rumours, surrounding the events in Khan Sheikhoun, come right in time when the Syrian Army is achieving significant victories against the terrorists in the Northern countryside of Hama, namely Al Nusra Front which started its large-scale offensive right after the beginning of the fifth round of talks in Geneva on settlement of the Syrian crisis in the last week of March.

    >

    [Apr 04, 2017] Clear and undeniable case of mass hysteria in the USA -- a new anti-russian witch hunt

    Line was the case during McCartyism, when mass hysteria grips the USA it becomes a powerful and destructive material force. Kind of a new type of explosive device.
    It would be very fanny, if it is not so tragic for a country to descend into some king of pseudo-religious trance...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria ..."
    "... This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria. ..."
    "... But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone. ..."
    "... But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should. ..."
    www.rollingstone.com

    Putin Derangement Syndrome Arrives by Taibbi

    Whatever the truth about Trump and Russia, the speculation surrounding it has become a dangerous case of mass hysteria

    • So Michael Flynn, who was Donald Trump's national security adviser before he got busted talking out of school to Russia's ambassador, has reportedly offered to testify in exchange for immunity.
    • Trump has stuffed his Cabinet with tyrants, zealots and imbeciles – all bent on demolishing our government from within
    • For seemingly the 100th time, social media is exploding. This is it! The big reveal!
    • Perhaps it will come off just the way people are expecting. Perhaps Flynn will get a deal, walk into the House or the Senate surrounded by a phalanx of lawyers, and unspool the whole sordid conspiracy.
    • He will explain that Donald Trump, compromised by ancient deals with Russian mobsters, and perhaps even blackmailed by an unspeakable KGB sex tape, made a secret deal. He'll say Trump agreed to downplay the obvious benefits of an armed proxy war in Ukraine with nuclear-armed Russia in exchange for Vladimir Putin's help in stealing the emails of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and John Podesta.

    I personally would be surprised if this turned out to be the narrative, mainly because we haven't seen any real evidence of it. But episodes like the Flynn story have even the most careful reporters paralyzed. What if, tomorrow, it all turns out to be true?

    What if reality does turn out to be a massive connect-the-dots image of St. Basil's Cathedral sitting atop the White House? (This was suddenly legitimate British conspiracist Louise Mensch's construction in The New York Times last week.) What if all the Glenn Beck-style far-out charts with the circles and arrows somehow all make sense?

    This is one of the tricks that keeps every good conspiracy theory going. Nobody wants to be the one claiming the emperor has no clothes the day His Highness walks out naked. And this Russia thing has spun out of control into just such an exercise of conspiratorial mass hysteria.

    Even I think there should be a legitimate independent investigation – one that, given Trump's history, might uncover all sorts of things. But almost irrespective of what ends up being uncovered on the Trump side, the public prosecution of this affair has taken on a malevolent life of its own.

    One way we recognize a mass hysteria movement is that everyone who doesn't believe is accused of being in on the plot. This has been going on virtually unrestrained in both political and media circles in recent weeks.

    The aforementioned Mensch, a noted loon who thinks Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart but has somehow been put front and center by The Times and HBO's Real Time, has denounced an extraordinary list of Kremlin plants.

    She's tabbed everyone from Jeff Sessions ("a Russian partisan") to Rudy Giuliani and former Assistant FBI Director James Kallstrom ("agents of influence") to Glenn Greenwald ("Russian shill") to ProPublica and Democracy Now! (also "Russian shills"), to the 15-year-old girl with whom Anthony Weiner sexted (really, she says, a Russian hacker group called "Crackas With Attitudes") to an unnamed number of FBI agents in the New York field office ("moles"). And that's just for starters.

    Others are doing the same. Eric Boehlert of Media Matters, upon seeing the strange behavior of Republican Intel Committee chair Devin Nunes, asked "what kind of dossier" the Kremlin has on Nunes.

    Dem-friendly pollster Matt McDermott wondered why reporters Michael Tracey and Zaid Jilani aren't on board with the conspiracy stories (they might be "unwitting" agents!) and noted, without irony, that Russian bots mysteriously appear every time he tweets negatively about them.

    Think about that last one. Does McDermott think Tracey and Jilani call their handlers at the sight of a scary Matt McDermott tweet and have the FSB send waves of Russian bots at him on command? Or does he think it's an automated process? What goes through the heads of such people?

    I've written a few articles on the Russia subject that have been very tame, basically arguing that it might be a good idea to wait for evidence of collusion before those of us in the media jump in the story with both feet. But even I've gotten the treatment.

    I've been "outed" as a possible paid Putin plant by the infamous "PropOrNot" group, which is supposedly dedicated to rooting out Russian "agents of influence." You might remember PropOrNot as the illustrious research team the Washington Post once relied on for a report that accused 200 alternative websites of being "routine peddlers of Russian propaganda during the election season."

    Politicians are getting into the act, too. It was one thing when Rand Paul balked at OKing the expansion of NATO to Montenegro, and John McCain didn't hesitate to say that "the senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin."

    Even Bernie Sanders has himself been accused of being a Putin plant by Mensch. But even he's gotten on board of late, asking, "What do the Russians have on Mr. Trump?"

    So even people who themselves have been accused of being Russian plants are now accusing people of being Russian plants. As the Russians would say, it's enough to make your bashka hurt.

    Sanders should know better. Last week, during hearings in the Senate, multiple witnesses essentially pegged his electoral following as unwitting fellow travelers for Putin.

    Former NSA chief Keith Alexander spoke openly of how Russia used the Sanders campaign to "drive a wedge within the Democratic Party," while Dr. Thomas Rid of Kings College in London spoke of Russia's use of "unwitting agents" and "overeager journalists" to drive narratives that destabilized American politics.

    This testimony was brought out by Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. Warner has been in full-blown "precious bodily fluids" mode throughout this scandal. During an interview with The Times on the Russia subject a month back, there was a thud outside the window. "That may just be the FSB," he said. The paper was unsure if he was kidding.

    Warner furthermore told The Times that in order to get prepared for his role as an exposer of 21st-century Russian perfidy, he was "losing himself in a book about the Romanovs," and had been quizzing staffers about "Tolstoy and Nabokov."

    This is how nuts things are now: a senator brushes up on Nabokov and Tolstoy (Tolstoy!) to get pumped to expose Vladimir Putin.

    Even the bizarre admission by FBI director (and sudden darling of the same Democrats who hated him months ago) James Comey that he didn't know anything about Russia's biggest company didn't seem to trouble Americans very much. Here's the key exchange, from a House hearing in which Jackie Speier quizzed Comey:

    SPEIER: Now, do we know who Gazprom-Media is? Do you know anything about Gazprom, director?
    COMEY: I don't.
    SPEIER: Well, it's a – it's an oil company.

    (Incidentally, Gazprom – primarily a natural-gas giant – is not really an oil company. So both Comey and Speier got it wrong.)

    As Leonid Bershidsky of Bloomberg noted, this exchange was terrifying to Russians. The leader of an investigation into Russian espionage not knowing what Gazprom is would be like an FSB chief not having heard of Exxon-Mobil. It's bizarre, to say the least.

    Testimony of the sort that came from Warner's committee last week is being buttressed by news stories in liberal outlets like Salon insisting that "Bernie Bros" were influenced by those same ubiquitous McDermott-chasing Russian "bots."

    These stories insist that, among other things, these evil bots pushed on the unwitting "bros" juicy "fake news" stories about Hillary being "involved with various murders and money laundering schemes."

    Some 13.2 million people voted for Sanders during the primary season last year. What percentage does any rational person really believe voted that way because of "fake news"?

    I would guess the number is infinitesimal at best. The Sanders campaign was driven by a lot of factors, but mainly by long-developing discontent within the Democratic Party and enthusiasm for Sanders himself.

    To describe Sanders followers as unwitting dupes who departed the true DNC faith because of evil Russian propaganda is both insulting and ridiculous. It's also a testimony to the remarkable capacity for self-deception within the leadership of the Democratic Party.

    If the party's leaders really believe that Russian intervention is anywhere in the top 100 list of reasons why some 155 million eligible voters (out of 231 million) chose not to pull a lever for Hillary Clinton last year, they're farther along down the Purity of Essence nut-hole than Mark Warner.

    Moreover, even those who detest Trump with every fiber of their being must see the dangerous endgame implicit in this entire line of thinking. If the Democrats succeed in spreading the idea that straying from the DNC-approved candidate – in either the past or the future – is/was an act of "unwitting" cooperation with the evil Putin regime, then the entire idea of legitimate dissent is going to be in trouble.

    Imagine it's four years from now (if indeed that's when we have our next election). A Democratic candidate stands before the stump, and announces that a consortium of intelligence experts has concluded that Putin is backing the hippie/anti-war/anti-corporate opposition candidate.

    Or, even better: that same candidate reminds us "what happened last time" when people decided to vote their consciences during primary season. It will be argued, in seriousness, that true Americans will owe their votes to the non-Putin candidate. It would be a shock if some version of this didn't become an effective political trope going forward.

    But if you're not worried about accusing non-believers of being spies, or pegging legitimate dissent as treason, there's a third problem that should scare everyone.

    Last week saw Donna Brazile and Dick Cheney both declare Russia's apparent hack of DNC emails an "act of war." This coupling seemed at first like political end times: as Bill Murray would say, "dogs and cats, living together."

    But there's been remarkable unanimity among would-be enemies in the Republican and Democrat camps on this question. Suddenly everyone from Speier to McCain to Kamala Harris to Ben Cardin have decried Russia's alleged behavior during the election as real or metaphorical acts of war: a "political Pearl Harbor," as Cardin put it.

    That no one seems to be concerned about igniting a hot war with nuclear-powered Russia at a time when both countries have troops within "hand-grenade range" of each in Syria other is bizarre, to say the least. People are in such a fever to drag Trump to impeachment that these other considerations seem not to matter. This is what happens when people lose their heads.

    There are a lot of people who will say that these issues are of secondary importance to the more important question of whether or not we have a compromised Russian agent in the White House.

    But when it comes to Trump-Putin collusion, we're still waiting for the confirmation. As Democratic congresswoman Maxine Waters put it, the proof is increasingly understood to be the thing we find later, as in, "If we do the investigations, we will find the connections."

    But on the mass hysteria front, we already have evidence enough to fill a dozen books. And if it doesn't freak you out, it probably should.

    Watch illustrator Victor Juhasz discuss what it means to draw President Donald Trump.

    See also

    Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on RussiaTaibbi: Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the MediaTaibbi: The Russia Story Reaches a Crisis PointAll Stories

    Taibbi on Trump the Destroyer

    [Apr 04, 2017] Hysteria is to be expected when the privileged in politics and the media feel as though their privileges are at risk

    Notable quotes:
    "... hysteria is to be expected when the privileged in politics and the media feel as though their privileges are at risk. ..."
    Apr 04, 2017 | jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com

    Just another day in the oligarchy.

    There was an intraday note about the returns of stocks and precious metals year to date posted here .

    Matt Taibbi had a nice article today titled Putin Derangement Syndrome Arrives.

    And on the other hand here is a video with Jimmy Dore and Josh Fox about the breathtaking decline and servile desperation for corporate money of MSNBC here and here .

    Well, hysteria is to be expected when the privileged in politics and the media feel as though their privileges are at risk.

    [Apr 04, 2017] Senate's Russia Hearings Will Lead Nowhere

    Apr 04, 2017 | therealnews.com

    Michael Hudson explains that the Senate hearings on Russia are an effort by Democrats to torpedo improvements in Russia-US relations and lack any real evidence of Russian meddling

    William W Haywood 2 hours ago He builds his story around Clapper being a truth teller? UNBELIEVABLE idiocy when you expect me to believe this crap! Seer • 5 hours ago Two top US experts on Russia, Professor Stephen Cohen and Ray McGovern (ex-CIA analyst) and Robert David Steele (ex-CIA0 and Bill Binney (ex NSA) ALL state the Dems accusations are ALL BOGUS. I tend to believe them rather than mainstream media and wonder if RN is going mainstream soon? Marko 6 hours ago " Russia Hearings Will Lead Nowhere "

    Nowhere involving Russia , perhaps , but they're leading somewhere involving the U.S. :

    http://www.zerohedge.com/ne...

    They're leading to the uncovering of an illegal political witch-hunt , probably on the orders of Obama , though Rice will likely take the fall. Said fall should include jail time , but we all know that elites don't "do" jail in the U.S. , unlike in the less-advanced democracies , like Iceland or S. Korea. Jon Henri Matteau 7 hours ago Really, this collusion is what is harming any US Russian relation, that and the Ukraine issue. If there wasn't an issue, sit back and let the investigations prove it. We had NINE redundant investigations into an exaggerated scandal. what are people afraid of if this is pursued? weilunion 8 hours ago They are designed by the deep state to lead to nowhere but destraction. Octavia Bee • 9 hours ago Oh my--how does Hudson know there is no evidence? Does he have some sort of top-secret security clearance? It's also curious how Hudson is so supportive of Putin, who is a horrific dictator.
    He's obviously another deluded Trumpster. Why would this man be given the role of an expert? Sad! Donatella Octavia Bee 8 hours ago More empty rhetoric from the McCarthyite Democrat party. The Democrat party did not allow the government to inspect the server that was "hacked". Instead they used the information from a private company that depends upon them for income. So we really don't know if it was a hack or a leak by a Democrat insider like Seth Rich. Obama was more of a "horrific" leader killing tens of thousands of innocents than Putin. Anyone calling him a "dictator" is just either parroting talking points or is uninformed. Donatella Wallace 7 hours ago As usual you are mindlessly parroting neocon or Democrats talking points. Putin won his last election with 63% of the votes cast. And yes, the oligarchs stole Russian wealth under Yeltsin with the help of the U.S. Yeltsin would have lost his reelection if it had not been for the intervention of American help. You should take your own suggestion and read some history.

    The only reason Russia has not experienced high growth is because of the U.S. imperial financial sanctions. The U.S. also pushed Russian into a closer alliance with China, which the U.S. will learn to regret. The U.S. is on a long-term decline and the 21st century will see a rising China and Russia.

    And yes, his annexation of Crimea by a 90+ vote by the Crimean voters (majority are Russian) is a good example of Putins populist strengthening of Russia. Better than letting the neo-Nazis in Kiev take over what has been Russian territory and give NATO a military base.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Matt Drudge Warns Trump Surrounded by Traitors, In Crisis Alex Jones Infowars There s a war on for your mind!

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.infowars.com
    "I do think there is a crisis, on many fronts," Drudge admitted.

    "Is some of it of his own making?" he asked before going to calls.

    The DrudgeReport.com founder indeed invoked his former radio host days when he joined Savage in California to celebrate the veteran broadcaster's 75th birthday.

    "We're trying to save this young Trump administration," Drudge declared.

    Drudge claimed Trump single-handedly saved floundering leftist media outlets like the New York Times and Vanity Fair, which seemed destined to fail before the "opposition" party "consolidated."

    "I'm getting a little bit nervous about the media situation. Do you know, the media was near death. The New York Times was hanging on the short hairs. Do you know Vanity Fair was going under. CNN barely had a fraction," Drudge said. "Trump has saved the media."

    The influential news figure also called attention to the president's flagging approval ratings in Rasmussen polls, which he is concerned currently spell danger for the Trump administration.

    [Apr 03, 2017] when I appeal to authority it is the Bible or Einstein not slate

    Apr 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> EMichael... , April 01, 2017 at 07:14 AM
    Re slate.com

    when I appeal to authority it is the Bible or Einstein not slate

    [Apr 03, 2017] Russian Foreign Ministry offers election hacking for April Fools' Day - YouTube

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Gary Duarte 1 day ago Proof that America is a laughing stock thanks to media and the democrats.

    lissa leggs 1 day ago Gary Duarte Your hero putin needs a history lesson.

    Raoulfr des Roches 1 day ago Gary Duarte You're delusional!!! The FBI and The CIA have both implicated the Russians in interfering in the American political process.

    Deplorable Me 1 day ago I'm just surprised the liberal media even knows it's a joke Natalia Jensen 1 day ago I bet MENSA member, Maxine Waters fell for it.

    Primero Ultimo 14 hours ago I think the Liberal media knows it's all a bunch of nonsense.....

    Geral Hammonds 1 day ago Because EVERYONE knows Russia hacking , interfering, meddling, influencing is a complete joke. Its only the MSM & the democrats that pretend its real. SMH

    206 guy 1 day ago (edited) timmy turner Only a fool would a believe a central intelligence agency just because they're the central intelligence agency. Fucking sheep's. 

    Natalia Jensen 1 day ago timmy turner Not only are you a brainwashed, delusional libtard, you're also a racist. Poor baby. The Alt-Left libtards are a worldwide joke & I love it.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Trump desire to modernise and build up the USA nuclear triad can creeate tensions with Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear strategic weapons. ..."
    "... they will be more humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect. However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb. ..."
    "... What's more, our American partners are not abandoning the programme of deploying weapons in outer space, and they are essentially alone in voting against the initiatives co-sponsored by us, China and many other colleagues to commit not to do so. ..."
    "... The Americans refuse to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is also an important strategic stability factor. And of course the global missile defence system has an absolutely direct impact on strategic stability. ..."
    "... Another point: imbalances in conventional weapons, which are also being modernised very quickly. ..."
    thesaker.is
    Question: US President Donald Trump, in a recent statement, unexpectedly proposed revisiting the issue of reducing strategic arms as a platform for bargaining. Should strategic nuclear forces today be a subject of negotiations with the Americans or would it be advisable at this point to put them outside the bounds of Russian-US relations?

    Sergey Lavrov: To a very large extent, President Trump's position on the majority of key issues on the foreign policy agenda, including further steps to limit strategic nuclear weapons as you've mentioned, has yet to be finalized. By the way, if I remember right, Donald Trump mentioned the issue of cooperation with us in this field as an example. He was asked whether he would be prepared to lift sanctions on Russia. I believe that was the way the question was formulated. He responded by saying they should see if there were issues on which they could cooperate with Russia on a mutually beneficial basis in US interests, in particular, mentioning nuclear arms control.

    At the same time, as you know, the US president said the Americans should modernise and build up their nuclear triad. We need to wait until the military budget is finally approved under the new administration and see what its priorities and objectives are and how these funds will be spent.

    As for our further conversation, I briefly mentioned in my address that we are ready for such a conversation but it should be conducted with acknowledgment of all strategic stability factors without exception. Today, those who propose implementing the so-called nuclear zero initiative as soon as possible, banning and destroying nuclear weapons and generally outlawing them absolutely, ignore the fact that since the nuclear bomb was made and this new kind of weapon began to be produced on a large scale in the USSR, the US, China, France and the UK, colossal changes have taken place in military science and technology.

    What is being developed in the US under the codename Prompt Global Strike are non-nuclear strategic weapons. If they are developed (and this work is moving forward very actively, with the objective of reaching any point in the world within an hour), of course, they will be more humane than nuclear weapons, because there will be no radiation, no Hiroshima or Nagasaki effect. However, in terms of military superiority, my friends at the Defence Ministry tell me the effect will be more devastating than from a modern nuclear bomb.

    What's more, our American partners are not abandoning the programme of deploying weapons in outer space, and they are essentially alone in voting against the initiatives co-sponsored by us, China and many other colleagues to commit not to do so.

    The Americans refuse to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is also an important strategic stability factor. And of course the global missile defence system has an absolutely direct impact on strategic stability.

    Another point: imbalances in conventional weapons, which are also being modernised very quickly. We always begin our dialogue with NATO by stressing the need to restore normal relations. We propose normalisation and agreements on mutual verification measures but before that, it is necessary to sit down and look at what each of us has deployed in proximity to each other, as well as in the entire Euro-Atlantic region. There are a lot of factors that need to be considered if we want not simply to ban nuclear weapons as idealists, but to ensure peace and security in the world and ensure strategic stability that will be sustainable and based on global parity. Everything that I've mentioned needs to be discussed. I may have missed some other factors.

    I should also add that restrictions imposed by Russia and the US on each other have reached a point where it is hard to say that we will be able to do a great deal together anymore. All states that have nuclear weapons should be brought in – importantly, not only those that have them officially but also de facto.

    [Apr 03, 2017] Clinton-Morell Make Russia Pay a Price

    Apr 03, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Aug 10, 2016

    "Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell, who supports Hillary Clinton and insists that Donald Trump is being manipulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, said that Russians and Iranians in Syria should be killed covertly to "pay the price."

    The top CIA official, who twice served as the acting director of the agency, and worked with Clinton while she was secretary of state, told PBS host Charlie Rose that Iran and Russia should "pay a big price" in Syria – and by that he meant killing them.

    "I ran the CIA now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton and I want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in Syria"

    Referring to the US-backed rebels in Syria, Morell said he wanted Washington to support them in more aggressive actions, not only against Bashar Assad's government, but against Iranians and Russians.

    Morrell then went on a diatribe about how the US should "scare" Assad, including going after his national guard and "bombing his offices in the middle of the night."

    After he retired from the CIA in August 2013, Morrell took a job at Beacon Global Strategies, a Washington, DC consultancy founded by Clinton aides Philippe Reines and Andrew Shapiro. There he worked with Leon Panetta, another Clinton aide and his predecessor at the helm of the CIA, who also spoke in support of Clinton at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia last month.

    Last year, Morrell apologized to "every American" and finally owned up to the "mistakes" made by the CIA in Iraq, where over 4,000 US soldiers and at least 250,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the 2003 US invasion." - RT News

    https://www.rt.com/usa/355291-morrell...

    [Apr 03, 2017] Russias cyberwar against America isnt over - and the real target is democracy

    The article is pure low quality McCarthyism (as one commenter characterized it "Bullshit of the most brainless sort") and signify that Democratic Party brass kointed forces with neocons to undermine Trump. But some comments are interesting
    Notable quotes:
    "... Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey, a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant? ..."
    "... Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling. And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters. ..."
    "... The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently as is polite. Like real fucking soon. ..."
    "... What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers! ..."
    "... That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears. ..."
    "... Don't pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... . ..."
    "... Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t! ..."
    "... Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the expense of virtually everything ..."
    Apr 03, 2017 | www.salon.com
    Knowing what we know now, it's no longer a stretch to report that Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake: Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans against America. Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake news, we all suffer from a skewed view of U.S. elections today. We're all more suspicious about whether our elections are on the level, and we should be. Putin's goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly trust the outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago and then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?

    This is the next colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings inside the White House, we have no choice but to pursue a far greater task: re-establishing the integrity of our elections while re-establishing facts and reality as the basis for our decisions. There are too many of us who sadly and disturbingly can't tell the difference between foreign propaganda - fake news - and legitimate news. This has to change or else Putin will have won, and democracy as we know it will cease to exist.

    Bob Cesca is a regular contributor to Salon.com. He's also the host of "The Bob Cesca Show" podcast, and a weekly guest on both the "Stephanie Miller Show" and "Tell Me Everything with John Fugelsang." Follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

    Ilya Ratner · Works at APCON Mar 28, 2017 11:10am

    Popycock! Complete and utter drivel! Hillary's credibility has been undermined by many years of attacks by the "legitimate" media, as well as the right-wing conspiracy media. Was James Comey, a right-wing hack himself, a Russian plant?

    Secondly, by far most of the Republicans would've voted for Trump regardless. Beyond that he managed to seduce some voters in the key states that he was bringing jobs back. He lied, of course, and everyone knew it, but ti was still more compelling than whatever Hillary was peddling. And let's face it, Clinton just failed to inspire voters.

    John Stich · Mar 28, 2017 4:34pm

    Southeastern Louisiana University http://www.slate.com/.../the_trump_russia_investigation...

    John Stich · Southeastern Louisiana University Mar 28, 2017 4:37pm

    The DNC is in deep trouble as they look to project all their woeful inadequacies on nefarious Russian hackers. The Clintoncrats for a start should be purged from the party as expediently as is polite. Like real fucking soon.

    Leonardus Caron · Moderator Forum at Gearslutz.com Mar 28, 2017 3:58pm

    What a pathetic display of failed propaganda, Salon. Even Sith Lord Clapper came out and said there's NO EVIDENCE. Piss off and go fight your WW3 alone you warmongers!

    Chris Maley · Freelance Writer at Chris Maley Mar 28, 2017 6:49pm

    That investigation is just beginning. And today, Nunes didn't help Easy D's case. On the other hand, it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Putin does not wrestle bears.

    Manfred Humphries · Works at Self-Employed Mar 28, 2017 9:38am

    Is it possible you have mistaken Russias target? It is not democracy that they are attempting to undermine, because they don't exhibit this kind of animus towards any of the other democracies in the world, with the exception of those that consistently meddle in Russian interests.

    Don't pull that innocent bullshit -- America is complicit in virtually every geopolitical disaster on the planet since the end of WW II. You play with the bull, you get the horn... .

    And he is one smart bull.

    Chester Bridal Mar 28, 2017 11:23am

    Democrats!! -- Your candidate lost! The Russians didn't steal the election! I know that The Powers That Be need an Enemy, an "Other" to justify America's monstrous defense budget, but enough of the anti-Russia hysteria bullsh*t!

    John Stich · Southeastern Louisiana University Mar 28, 2017 4:48pm

    Bullshit of the most brainless sort.

    Dorothy C. Benson · Jersey City, New Jersey

    Um, the candidate who ostensibly 'won' is proposing to increase our defense budget at the expense of virtually everything else so your logic does not track, Comrade. Oh, and have a shot of Putinka on me, Comrade.

    [Apr 02, 2017] How Obama White House Weaponized Media Against Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius. ..."
    "... Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. ..."
    "... The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate. ..."
    "... On Dec. 29, Obama announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one. ..."
    "... On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it? ..."
    "... This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin." ..."
    "... Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in. ..."
    "... While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it. ..."
    "... With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all. ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored op-ed by Michael Doran via The Hill,

    Senator Chuck Schumer and Congressman Adam Schiff have both castigated Devin Nunes, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, for his handling of the inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. They should think twice. The issue that has recently seized Nunes is of vital importance to anyone who cares about fundamental civil liberties.

    The trail that Nunes is following will inevitably lead back to a particularly significant leak . On Jan. 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius reported that "according to a senior U.S. government official, (General Mike) Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29."

    From Nunes's statements, it's clear that he suspects that this information came from NSA intercepts of Kislyak's phone . An Obama official, probably in the White House, "unmasked" Flynn's name and passed it on to Ignatius.

    Regardless of how the government collected on Flynn, the leak was a felony and a violation of his civil rights. But it was also a severe breach of the public trust. When I worked as an NSC staffer in the White House, 2005-2007, I read dozens of NSA surveillance reports every day. On the basis of my familiarity with this system, I strongly suspect that someone in the Obama White House blew a hole in the thin wall that prevents the government from using information collected from surveillance to destroy the lives of the citizens whose privacy it is pledged to protect.

    The leaking of Flynn's name was part of what can only be described as a White House campaign to hype the Russian threat and, at the same time, to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin's Manchurian candidate.

    On Dec. 29, Obama announced sanctions against Russia as retribution for its hacking activities. From that date until Trump's inauguration, the White House aggressively pumped into the media two streams of information: one about Russian hacking; the other about Trump's Russia connection. In the hands of sympathetic reporters, the two streams blended into one.

    A report that appeared the day after Obama announced the sanctions shows how. On Dec. 30, the Washington Post reported on a Russian effort to penetrate the electricity grid by hacking into a Vermont utility, Burlington Electric Department. After noting the breach, the reporters offered a senior administration official to speculate on the Russians' motives. Did they seek to crash the system, or just to probe it?

    This infrastructure hack, the story continued, was part of a broader hacking campaign that included intervention in the election. The story then moved to Trump: "He has spoken highly of Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite President Obama's suggestion that the approval for hacking came from the highest levels of the Kremlin."

    The national media mimicked the Post's reporting. But there was a problem: the hack never happened . It was a false alarm - triggered, it eventually became clear, by Obama's hype.

    On Dec. 29, the DHS and FBI published a report on Russian hacking, which showed the telltale signs of having been rushed to publication. "At every level this report is a failure," said cyber security expert Robert M. Lee. "It didn't do what it set out to do, and it didn't provide useful data. They're handing out bad information."

    Especially damaging were the hundreds of Internet addresses, supposedly linked to Russian hacking, that the report contained. The FBI and DHS urged network administrators to load the addresses into their system defenses. Some of the addresses, however, belong to platforms that are widely used by the public, including Yahoo servers. At Burlington Electric, an unsuspecting network administrator dutifully loaded the addresses into the monitoring system of the utility's network. When an employee checked his email, it registered on the system as if Russian hackers were trying to break in.

    While the White House was hyping the Russia threat, elements of the press showed a sudden interest in the infamous Steele dossier, which claimed that Russian intelligence services had caught Trump in Moscow in highly compromising situations. The dossier was opposition research paid for by Trump's political opponents, and it had circulated for months among reporters covering the election. Because it was based on anonymous sources and entirely unverifiable, however, no reputable news organization had dared to touch it.

    With a little help from the Obama White House, the dossier became fair game for reporters. A government leak let it be known that the intelligence community had briefed Trump on the dossier. If the president-elect was discussing it with his intelligence briefers, so the reasoning went, perhaps there was something to it after all.

    By turning the dossier into hard news, that leak weaponized malicious gossip. The same is true of the Flynn-Kislyak leak. Ignatius used the leak to deepen speculation about collusion between Putin and Trump: "What did Flynn say (to Kislyak)," Ignatius asked, "and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?" The mere fact that Flynn's conversations were being monitored deepened his appearance of guilt. If he was innocent, why was the government monitoring him?

    It should not have been. He had the right to talk to in private - even to a Russian ambassador. Regardless of what one thinks about him or Trump or Putin, this leak should concern anyone who believes that we must erect a firewall between the national security state and our domestic politics. The system that allowed it to happen must be reformed. At stake is a core principle of our democracy: that elected representatives control the government, and not vice versa.

    [Apr 02, 2017] DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security. ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | www.dni.gov
    DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    WASHINGTON, DC 20511

    January 11, 2017

    DNI Clapper Statement on Conversation with President-elect Trump


    This evening, I had the opportunity to speak with President-elect Donald Trump to discuss recent media reports about our briefing last Friday. I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.

    We also discussed the private security company document, which was widely circulated in recent months among the media, members of Congress and Congressional staff even before the IC became aware of it. I emphasized that this document is not a U.S. Intelligence Community product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.

    President-elect Trump again affirmed his appreciation for all the men and women serving in the Intelligence Community, and I assured him that the IC stands ready to serve his Administration and the American people.

    James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence

    [Apr 02, 2017] Dr. Nick Begich Why Russia Is A Threat To Globalists

    Apr 02, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HQbHGFUxHg

    Published on Mar 31, 2017

    Dr. Nick Begich breaks down what he thinks is why the globalists are so afraid of Russia, relating to it's history and it's progress post communism.

    Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show

    [Apr 02, 2017] Democrats claim that Russia Ate Our Homework

    Notable quotes:
    "... A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach (" Don't Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own ") then you know something is seriously out of whack. ..."
    "... the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central committee ..."
    "... by the state Democratic Party committee ..."
    "... a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity ..."
    "... representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies ..."
    Mar 28, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Democrats: "Russia Ate Our Homework"

    TRUMP increases sanctions on Russia.

    DEMOCRATS: "Putin installed this president! Trump is illegitimate!"

    TRUMP expands wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria

    DEMOCRATS: "Russia is out to get us!"

    TRUMP dismantles environmental regulations.

    DEMOCRATS: "White House distracts from Russia investigation!"

    TRUMP kills worker protection, lowers billionaire taxes.

    DEMOCRATS: "Putin's interference cost us the election!"

    TRUMP launches nuclear war with North Korea.

    DEMOCRATS: "Russia ate our homework!"

    Posted by b on March 28, 2017 at 01:15 PM

    Mike Maloney | Mar 28, 2017 1:33:07 PM | 2
    A major reason that Democrats have become neo-McCarthyite is to keep the Bernistas at bay. Blaming everything on Putin blocks any accountability for the party's Wall Street leadership. If Masha Gessen is complaining about Democratic overreach (" Don't Fight Their Lies With Lies of Your Own ") then you know something is seriously out of whack.
    karlof1 | Mar 28, 2017 1:44:52 PM | 3
    b, doesn't a similar dynamic operate in your nation?
    hopehely | Mar 28, 2017 1:48:49 PM | 4
    Scapegoating is the oldest weapon of mass distraction.
    Susan Sunflower | Mar 28, 2017 1:54:52 PM | 5
    Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin ploys ... I suspect he's soon to be blamed for the rising "despair suicide epidemic" (amazed he's been spared blame for the opiate, fentanyl, epidemic)

    Salon: Russia's cyberwar against America isn't over - and the real target is democracy -- The Soviet Union never attacked America as blatantly as Putin has - and we're in danger of losing democracy .

    It would be funny if they weren't deadly serious and if Gessen were not getting thumbs-up retweets and endorsements all over the place from folks who should be wiser.

    The autocratic Russian president, his oligarch allies and his intelligence services, including the Federal Security Service (or FSB) and the GRU, recognized an emerging perfect storm in America that included a convergence of the following:
    1. A distrust in institutions and the news media.
    2. The emergence of almost universal social-media usage.
    3. The willingness to repeat outrageous rumors or fake news to help boost personal social-media branding.
    4. Political polarization and the accompanying emergence of information bubbles, confirmation bias and echo chambers.
    5. The metastasizing of the post-Watergate misconception that anyone can or should be president, leading to the candidacy of a reality-show celebrity named Trump. (Today's folksy "have a beer" qualification nearly supersedes other qualifications.)

    It rained today but I wanted sun ... the cynicism-inducing effects of the "revealed" Obama and Clinton over the last decade not.worth.mentioning.

    Bob In Portland | Mar 28, 2017 2:10:04 PM | 6
    When you are owned by Wall Street and the Deep State you aren't concerned with trivial things that the hoi polloi are dying to have.

    If you want to see how the DNC reacted to last November's total defeat take a look at Jon Ossoff, the guy chosen to run for Tom Price's open seat in the 6th District of Georgia. Georgetown, Madeleine Albright, London School of Economics, propaganda films. The only thing missing in his wikipedia bio is when he signed up with the CIA I'm guessing it was sometime in high school.

    The Democratic Party is dead to Democrats.

    Susan Sunflower | Mar 28, 2017 2:33:37 PM | 7
    The thing I find so insidious in this Russian conspiracy mongering is the underlying helplessness, even defeatism, suggesting that -- "self evidently" -- Putin has already won and we've already lost -- it suggests some upcoming apocalyptic ("which side are you on") day-of-reckoning ... which I (perhaps erroneously) doubt reasonates with most folks who long-ago turned off the fear-mongering press .. perhaps in favor of savoring the present and being surprised when the end comes.
    james | Mar 28, 2017 2:40:37 PM | 8
    lol... good one b! sad kettle of fish for the american people and for the people of the world with a political system that is the laughing stock of the world at this point..
    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 28, 2017 2:51:22 PM | 9
    It's always fun to hear Right-wing Cranks/Wannabe Masters Of The Universe blaming someone else when one, or more, of their half-baked plots collapses under the weight of the bullshit which made it seem like a good idea.
    Qualtrough | Mar 28, 2017 2:53:06 PM | 10
    If Putin and the Russians are so diabolically clever and successful at subverting US democracy that means that US intelligence agencies have been abject failures. Have any heads rolled over these alleged massive intelligence failures? Rhetorical question.
    Ort | Mar 28, 2017 3:15:21 PM | 11
    @ Susan Sunflower | 5

    "Salon's latest appears to blame America ennui and cynicism on deliberate putin ploys ..."
    _____________________________

    Whether it's genuine Russophobia, or fake Party Line Russophobia, I've noticed that it includes this thread of cultural "soft criticism".

    That is, the US/EU/NATO infoganda artists-- Elected Misrepresentatives and state mass-media consent manufactories-- have made "hard" allegations, albeit based on insinuations and innuendo, that Russia's state-security apparatus has directly and overtly "tampered with" election results, sponsored or colluded with hackers, cultivated "fifth column" sympathizers and de facto operatives to nefariously influence Western public opinion, etc.

    But they also work in the "charge(s)" that the evil, pernicious Russkies have also sought to undermine the public's faith and confidence in government and the electoral process. The charlatans utter this indictment with the gravest, Churchillian high dudgeon and self-righteousness.

    How dare some "outsider" cast aspersions upon the paragons of Modern Democracy represented by the US and EU hegemony! Surely, any radical criticism of these governments and their policies and actions is implicitly false and meritless, and can only be understood and explained as an attempt to undermine and destroy appropriate faith and trust in their political leadership!

    Any discerning observer can see that this impassioned cri de cœur, stripped of its high-flown rhetoric, amounts to whining, "Hey! Those damned Russkies are making us look bad !" It is to laugh!

    This phenomenon induced a feeling of déjà vu. Of course, this complaint isn't novel. Conservative Elders have traditionally excoriated iconoclasts for supposedly encouraging social decay and "anarchy" by refuting Panglossian exceptionalism and exposing political leaders' feet of clay.

    Among other precedents, it reminds me of the 1970s reactionary criticisms of writers like Kurt Vonnegut. Indignant wingnuts chastised writers like Vonnegut and Joseph Heller for impermissibly "teaching Youth to be cynical about patriotism and democratic institutions".

    It's no surprise that "Salon", a progressive-liberal lite bastion, echoes this "soft" authoritarian-submissive doctrine.

    aaaa | Mar 28, 2017 3:15:23 PM | 12
    The democrat party is the same as it was before Trump got elected. The DNC are going to maintain their establishment and wait for Trump and the REpublicans to fail miserably at their jobs. I guess that is all they can do
    karlof1 | Mar 28, 2017 4:14:01 PM | 13
    Lavrov's recent lecture at Russia's Military Academy for the General Staff provided some insights in to how Kremlin leaders view the Outlaw US Empire and its "slanderous" campaign against Russia. Here's the passage most relevant to the current discourse:

    "Question: Recent experience shows that, in terms of the damage they cause, aggressive actions in the media at times have consequences similar to the use of weapons of mass destruction. In your opinion, isn't it time, at the UN, in the format of bilateral ties with other states, to move forward with drafting and signing a comprehensive treaty in this field, similar to strategic arms limitation treaties?"

    "Sergey Lavrov: We've been working on this for several years now. Russia put forward an initiative that became known at the UN as International Information Security [Initiative]. It has been a subject of independent resolutions at a number of UN General Assembly sessions. While initially these resolutions were rejected by some of our Western partners, in recent years resolutions related to the UN contribution to international information security have been adopted unanimously.

    "Several years ago, a group of government experts was set up. It drafted a report that was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly. The General Assembly expressed support for continuing this effort in the context of identifying specific cyberspace risks at present. Another government expert group was also formed, which is beginning to work. It is meant to prepare specific proposals in one and a half years.

    "I'd like to say right away that despite the apparently constructive participation of all states in this discussion, we are aware of the desire [of certain states] to limit themselves to discussions and not reach practical international legal agreements. So, alongside the work that I just mentioned, Russia and its partners, in particular in the SCO, have drafted a document entitled Code of Conduct for Cyberspace. It was also distributed at the UN and is designed to promote targeted dialogue on the legal aspects of this problem. Overall, we believe (and we have already submitted this proposal) that it is time to draft an international convention on cyber security, including the elimination of threats and risks related to hacking. We were the first to propose penalising and banning hacking within the framework of international law. We will see how those who are accusing Russian hackers of seeking to blow up the world in the style of James Bond will respond to this.

    "There is another important topic related to these issues. It concerns internet governance. For several years now a discussion on the democratisation of the internet and internet governance has been ongoing at the International Telecommunication Union. A very serious ideological struggle, if you will, is under way. Some people are upholding free market principles but there are also those who believe that farming out the internet to the free market is tantamount to giving it away to just one country. In this context, serious debate lies ahead.

    "We see all these problems. The majority of countries agree on the need to enforce some generally acceptable order. Focused work is under way but it is too early to expect any results yet."

    There are other points within the Q&A where this topic gets discussed further, although within a somewhat different context than the above. Relative to Hybrid War, Lavrov says: "An information war is underway when slander becomes a mandatory condition for the media. This is an objective fact." Later in response to another question regarding the defense of national interests, Lavrov replies:

    "It's amazing to see how the media in the countries you mentioned and other EU countries come up with absolutely fictional and, most importantly, inept, clumsily written articles and reports about Russia's widespread influence on their electoral processes. I would say they should be ashamed of having election systems they cannot even protect from external interference. I am referring to such major countries as Germany and France, not some small countries. Second, they do not offer a single fact. We constantly remind them about it; President Vladimir Putin regularly communicates with German politicians and business leaders. My German counterpart, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, has visited Russia recently. He met with President Putin and they had a frank discussion of these issues. When you talk to them at our regular meetings, they show no such fanaticism. But obviously, someone really wants this fanaticism to be artificially maintained and whipped up. I could never imagine that these self-respecting media outlets could sink so low – to flagrant slander without even bothering to provide facts."

    As noted above, I again emphasize this lecture is a must read , http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/video/-/asset_publisher/i6t41cq3VWP6/content/id/2702537

    Anon1 | Mar 28, 2017 4:28:46 PM | 14
    Well one could laugh but this hysteria is sick and dangerous, this is what happens if you question western news today:

    Danish journalist Iben Thranholm: 'Does this make me a Russian agent?':
    The Danish journalist Iben Thranholm is branded as a "pro-Russian propagandist" by EU task force EastStracom.

    https://www.facebook.com/freewestmedia/posts/1874109846198716

    Sabine | Mar 28, 2017 4:33:00 PM | 15
    hang on?

    So he is the one to start world war three? I thought that was the one no one could vote for?

    Surely, one day Trump is gonna be all presidential and bring peace to all of us, together with Russia. xoxoxox

    And can anyone tell us what Jared! and Ivanka! are doing? Nepotism, or is that only for countries that are not US American and Russa?

    fuck me, but seriously this post is bullshit.

    h | Mar 28, 2017 4:43:29 PM | 16
    Jimmy Dore of the Jimmy Dore show agrees with you - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY7CxRO5AkA
    maningi | Mar 28, 2017 6:10:31 PM | 18
    Anyone here read the "Russian Democracy Act 2002" enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America?

    Section 2, Finding and Purposes:

    (3A) Since 1992, United States Government democratic reform programs and public diplomacy programs, including training, and small grants have provided access to and training in the use of the Internet, brought nearly 40,000 Russian citizens to the United States, and have led to the establishment
    of more than 65,000 nongovernmental organizations
    , thousands of independent local media outlets, despite governmental opposition, and numerous political parties
    .
    (Unquote)

    More than 65.000 NG0s established in Russia by the US-Government from 1999-2002? What a crazy number! And how many more NGOs have been created there in the following 15 years till today? In the tens of thousands the figure must be. But how many NGOs have the Russians established in the West meanwhile (the West, not only US)? Its far less than a dozen, as far as I am know.

    Imagine the Russian had tried to installed only 650 Russian NGOs (1% of the numbers above) in the US?
    Link to the public Law Document:

    Petri Krohn | Mar 28, 2017 6:22:15 PM | 19
    I wrote this earlier today:
    WHAT IS HYBRID WAR?

    Hybrid war is somewhere between diplomacy and war. It is like being half-pregnant. Hybrid war is never all-out war. Instead it tries to limit escalation into a real war.

    NATO's definition of Russian hybrid war arises from the short appearance of polite people or the 50 or so unmarked green men at the Simferopol airport on February 28, 2014. Russia could naturally have sent in a whole tank division or moved its 15,000 troops on Crimea from their bases, but that could have resulted in a formal state of war existing between the Russian Federation and the Maidan regime in Kiev. By leaving out national identification markings Russia allowed Kiev to ignore the incident and to maintain diplomatic ties.

    The "Little Green Men" caused huge alarm and hysteria in NATO headquarters. They were suddenly seen as a Russian miracle weapon that could threaten the security of Western Europe. This of course is bullshit!

    The window for the use of "Green Men" and other methods of hybrid warfare arises from the internal weaknesses and conflicts of the target country. These by definition cannot exist in an open society like the democratic West purports to be. The clear exception is the Baltic apartheid states of Estonia and Latvia. They are not democracies but more like ethnic dictatorships and U.S. protectorates.

    Someone more informed on the NATO side wrote an article two years ago debunking the whole narrative. He said that the "hybrid" threat of domestic insurrection as seen in Estonia and Latvia cannot be countered by NATO security guarantees or international intervention, but must be handled by local police and security forces locally.

    Western security looks different if one rejects the notion that Western democracies are open societies and instead sees them as semi-dictatorships controlled by the Anglo-American "Deep State" and by the the fake news and false narratives of the mainstream media. In this scenario the election of Trump as president becomes an act of Russian hybrid war. It was the result of hostile elements of Russian information influence entering the U.S. information space. If one lives in a hybrid war mentality, then everything the "enemy" does or may have done becomes and act of hybrid war.

    The link given by Susan Sunflower @5 proves the point. Bob Cesca of Salon is totally delusional!

    Russia's cyberwar against America isn't over - and the real target is democracy

    Russia declared war on the United States last year, and it's a war that continues to be waged today...

    Millions of our own people, millions of American voters on both sides of the aisle were manipulated into acting as unwitting foot soldiers for Vladimir Putin's invasion...

    Trench by trench, Facebook group by Facebook group, Americans executed Putin's attacks for him...

    Trump was placed in office by Putin. But it only happened because millions of Americans unknowingly volunteered to serve as enemy combatants, undermining and betraying their own country and their own democratic elections. Make no mistake: Putin's attack was less about electing Donald Trump and more about turning Americans against America. Whether you were suckered by Putin or voted for Trump based on fake news, we all suffer from a skewed view of U.S. elections today. We're all more suspicious about whether our elections are on the level, and we should be. Putin's goal was to goad us into asking the perpetual question: How can we possibly trust the outcomes of future elections knowing that Russia preselected our president years ago and then set about guaranteeing that outcome by turning our people against us?

    This is the next colossal problem to solve. Once we weed out Putin's quislings inside the White House...

    Peter AU | Mar 28, 2017 6:25:41 PM | 20
    That many games being played... Political hacks working against Trump, many Presidential appointments still unfilled, Trying to take out those around Trump and Trump himself and concentrating on the fight against Russia.
    Even though Trump was not the anointed, he still has qualities the P-nacker types can work with. Those that write the constant updates to manifest destiny always have Iran and North Korea in their sights.
    If Trump cannot be removed he can be used to try and take out Iran and NK and also take the blame for US boots in bodybags.
    The partitioning of Syria is now going ahead to Rand Corp plans. This will give the US control of a large amount of territory on Irans western border. US has already announced it Will keep military forces in Iraq after ISIS is defeated. Genocide of the people of Yemen is underway as US will need full control of Bab al-Mandab straight before attacking Iran.

    A couple of plays occurring? Political hacks will continue to try and remove or restrict Trump, meantime the powers that be are moving forward with their plans, simply adjusting them to Trump for the moment?

    karlof1 | Mar 28, 2017 6:35:05 PM | 21
    maningi @19--

    That's an excellent example of Cultural Imperialism. Russia is trying to rid itself of those deemed detrimental to its sociocultural being. And Russia is far from the only victim of such.

    Peter AU | Mar 28, 2017 6:44:23 PM | 22
    maningi 19

    Something like that was listed on the US Russian embassy website about two years ago

    At that time the US Syrian embassy website, amongst other things where advertising for American companies to supply and install oil infrastructure in rebel held parts of Syria.

    Most everything the US was doing around the world at that time was blandly in your face listed on their various embassy websites, no tinfoil hat required.

    Tony B. | Mar 28, 2017 6:50:09 PM | 23
    Everyone seems to present this as a Putin v. U.S. war when, in fact, the Brits have been much more vicious against Putin than the U.S. media. The real war here is Putin v. the Rothschild cabal in its City of London. The U.S. and the CIA (CIA has no real U.S. connection, works directly for the cabal) are just the present kneecappers for the cabal.

    Tony B. | Mar 28, 2017 6:56:51 PM | 24
    Correction: CIA has no U.S. OVERSIGHT . . . .

    Frank | Mar 28, 2017 7:00:41 PM | 25
    For some readson i read all of that in Dany Devitos voice which made it all the more funnier. But seriously their Focus on the russian "allegations" is just going to strengthen Trump when the whole thing just blows up in their faces. It kind of reminds me of the Situation back in 2008 when Obama was First elected and panicing republicans called him a commie and claimed that he wad going to fuck up the country. I mean sure they were right, but they could not have possibly known that then. The point is this "ressistance" is a joke, and Trump will probably deliver the punchline soon enough

    Susan Sunflower | Mar 28, 2017 7:57:34 PM | 26
    I keep thinking that this is all fanfare leading up to Hillary Clinton's moment of triumphant return (or something) ... in which she will galvanize the party, which will unify behind her and drive Trump and his minions from Washington (actual method and details to be determined / unspecified) ... "like in a movie" or more likely Hillary's "dream sequence"

    It feels like the sort of noisy loud barking that's heard with over-anxious "guard dogs", who would actually be willing and eager to be called off by their master, but won't stop barking until given permission to stop ... or something.

    Professional Putin hater Gessen is getting kudos galore for point out that the Putin Trump conspiracy theory lacks evidence ... yes, I was glad for the NYRB piece ... but I fear it may mean that she (and her Putin hating) will gain stature and credibility on her next go-around ... Has Gessen displaced Applebaum temporarily? Pussy Riot has been in the news again ... and I'm on the look out for some Michael Khodorkovsky update or editorial, since like the seasons these things seem to follow one another and -- gosh -- Putin is up for reelection this year ... speaking of whom: WAshington Times: Russian dissident hopes Trump will end Putin's power (03/08/2017) .

    jfl | Mar 28, 2017 8:33:12 PM | 27
    TRUMP: increases sanctions on Russia.
    TRUMP: expands wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria
    TRUMP: dismantles environmental regulations.
    TRUMP: kills worker protection, lowers billionaire taxes.
    TRUMP: launches nuclear war with North Korea.

    DEMOCRATS: sh*t ... Trump did our homework ... "Trump's a russki-commie-pinko-faggot!"

    whenever the demoblicans loose to the republicrats they make an end-run around them on the right. only now that requires going out of bounds completely, over the edge and into mccarthyism, jingo, fascism and ... shrill irrelevance.

    confusing the democrat party with an opposition to the neolibraconians?

    at this late stage in the 'game'?

    there may be less than a dime's worth of difference between the repbublicrats and demoblicans ... but the salaries of hundreds of thousands / millions of neolibraconian hacks are on the line here ... and trump ain't hirin'!

    what we need to do ... sez i ... is to organize and seriously start firin' ... there are only 546 of them (537, the supremes are not yet elected)! there are 313 million of us!

    replace all the elephants and jackasses with ordinary americans chosen from among ourselves.

    it'll take a decade. no time like the present to begin.

    no citizen denied her/his vote* for any reason => federal recall, referendum, initiative.

    * we citizens register ourselves, authorize and authenticate ourselves, run our paper-ballot polls ourselves, count and store the results ourselves.

    Jonathan | Mar 28, 2017 8:48:52 PM | 28
    I think the only level of disregard that will move Democrats is to respond to their every speech act with a call to literally commit seppuku. Anything else admits of a continued need for them and their performative contrition Rollenspiel.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 28, 2017 10:03:36 PM | 29
    @16 Sabine

    fuck me, but seriously this post is bullshit.

    What is bullshit about it? The fact that Trump is a fraud and dismantling America while rattling sabers at all and sundry abroad, or the fact that the DNC and its sycophants blame Russia and Putin for, well, everything they dislike?

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 28, 2017 10:06:49 PM | 30
    @ 14 karlof1

    Thanks for this, sir. Best post of the week.

    Circe | Mar 28, 2017 10:32:50 PM | 31
    @30

    You have to ask? They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating this for months now and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a snake oil salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac and everything is unfolding as I was convinced it would.

    Peter AU | Mar 28, 2017 10:46:20 PM | 32
    One of Trumps first moves was to kill the TPP, something that would have put all governments signed up to it under the control of the mostly US based multi-national corporations ????

    Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:07:49 PM | 33
    It's important to maintain perspective. The "big news" today was that Dick Cheney called Russian meedling in the 2016 Elections an "act of war". McCain had said the same in December but for Cheney to repeat that now - after little, if any, evidence of such interference only shows (again) how much the establishment despises Trump.

    Trump hate is a blind alley. Purposely so. Promoting such thinking does a disservice. We see to think about what comes after Trump (ike jfl above). IMO, a successful Movement that returns power to the people is one that unites the principled left and principled right. I think direct democracy can do that. I encourage everyone to explore the Pirate Party, a Party that provides a form of direct democracy that makes a good start.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 28, 2017 11:22:29 PM | 34
    @32 Circe

    They're two corrupt sides of the same coin. I've been repeating this for months now and getting nothing but abuse around here for it. Trump is a CON, a snake oil salesman, i.e. a LIAR, a narcissist i.e. megalomaniac

    I agree with you wholeheartedly. That's why I was asking "Sabine", who apparently does not agree, what exactly is "bullshit" about pointing out the failings of Trump and the DNC crowd.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 28, 2017 11:31:36 PM | 35
    I hope that today's offering indicates "b" has let the scales fall from his eyes regarding Trump and sees the guy for the nefarious danger he and his junta and Goldman Sachs/corporate raider administration are to the United States and the world.

    Anyone who looks into Steve Bannon's background and reads his public comments and still thinks the Chump administration stands for peaceful trade and ending American imperialism is a fool or an idiot.

    Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:51:20 PM | 36
    It's important to understand what the establishment dislikes about Trump.

    1) Trump is NOT a proponent of Assad must go! .
    Neocons and their ME sponsors reject any middle-ground/accommodation on Syria. They want total victory for headchoppers because that eliminates Iranian influence and the Hezbolla 'threat to Israel.

    2) Trump is anti-TPP.
    This trade deal is sold as the best way to contain China. But it is actually a means off destroying sovereignty that strengthens the form of Empire that powerful "allies" prefer.

    3) Trump uses the power of his office to connect and communicate with people.
    Obama scolded us and communicated when he had to. Trump trashes the media, former Presidents, etc.

    4) Drain the Swamp
    Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that constrain money-making.

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 12:01:05 AM | 37
    Historical traditions should also be mentioned among the factors that determine a nation's role in world politics. "History is the memory of States," said Henry Kissinger, the theoretician and practitioner of international relations. By the way, the United States, whose interests Mr Kissinger has always defended, did not aspire to be the centre of the liberal world order for a greater part of its own fairly short history, and did not see that role as its preeminent mission. Its Founding Fathers wanted its leadership and exceptional nature to derive from its own positive example. Ironically, the American elite, which emerged as freedom fighters and separatists anxious to cast off the yoke of the British crown, had transformed itself and its state by the 20th century into a power thirsting for global imperialist domination. The world is changing, however, and – who knows – America might yet purify itself and return to its own forgotten sources.

    Excerpt from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's remarks and answers to questions during a lecture for senior officers of the Military Academy of the General Staff, Moscow, March 23, 2017

    Link [use at your own risk]: http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2702537

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:39:28 AM | 38
    @35

    Why doesn't b just come right out and slam Trump and expose him in every sense for the lying, pretender ass that he is? Right away, the title tells you who he's really blaming; the title says nothing of Trump...but-but the buck stops with Trump. Every criticism is couched by the Democrats are distracted by Russiagate, but isn't everyone??? Which is the bigger elephant in the room: grandpa Trump's pretense at respectability and more laughably, President, or Russia collusion?

    Russia or no Russia Trump is disgusting. One Howard Stern interview is enough proof; it's not rocket science for crying out loud! sleazy and corrupt does Washington, specifically, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; that's the least of it.

    V. Arnold | Mar 29, 2017 12:44:29 AM | 39
    Hmm; is this true? If so, about time.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-28/dnc-asks-entire-staff-resignation-letters

    Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 29, 2017 12:45:08 AM | 40
    ...
    4) Drain the Swamp
    Trump has instituted tough rules on lobbying. Washington doesn't care for rules that constrain money-making.
    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 28, 2017 11:51:20 PM | 37

    Trump's inaugural Drain The Swamp promise was no accident. It put The Swamp Club on notice which was unnecessarily sporting of him considering their own tactics. He wouldn't have been so upfront about his intentions if he hadn't already written the How To Drain the Swamp Manual long before the Election. Anyone who thinks he expected a smooth run, after such a confrontational start, isn't terribly bright; or grown-up.

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 12:48:12 AM | 41
    Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

    Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology-global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle-with liberty at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address, January 17, 1961.

    Nick | Mar 29, 2017 1:09:10 AM | 42
    Is Trump destroying the GOOGLE? There is a coordinate boycott ads campaign against them going on. They can lose billions because of this. http://mobilemarketingmagazine.com/youtube-advertiser-boycott-extremist-content-cost-google-750m

    For who doesn't know. Google has deep ties with CIA since Stanford days in 1998.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 1:11:06 AM | 43
    @42

    Oh yeah Ike was a real authority on peace in the world , he only threatened the Chinese with nuclear weapons and ordered the CIA to overthrow the democratically-elected leader of Iran at the time to install the Shah and conspire with the U.K. to steal Iranian oil and commit atrocities against the people of Iran. From wiki:

    He therefore authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.[174] This resulted in an increased strategic control over Iranian oil by U.S. and British companies.[175]

    Such a nice guy! It's like I always say: actions speak louder than silver-tongued words.

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 1:25:43 AM | 44
    Also, I would like to say that if the practice of leaking information that concerns not just the United States but also Russia, which has become a tradition in Washington in the past few years, continues, there will come a day when the media will publish leaks about the things that Washington asked us to keep secret, for example, things that happened during President Obama's terms in office. Believe me, this could be very interesting information.

    h/t Zerohedge -- Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria , Moscow, March 23, 2017

    Next door to the Lavrov speech @14 karlof1 (Thank you!)

    Let's consider the possibility that Russia has fully penetrated the CIA (not a stretch) (and by transposition the DNC) (laugh if you like) and actually DID run Trump as a presidential stooge. Let's say that the US media accidentally stumbled upon the theoretical truth that Snowden and Assange are in fact operating with/for Russia (who pays their bills?) (Ecuador?)(Iran?)(Soros?)

    Why would Russia agree to keep American secrets as Zakharova implies, and what do we think of the threat of Russia revealing the dirt it has on the MOBama administration? Is Russia playing the USG or is it a pointed insinuation to make fun of the Russophobia?

    Elsewhere in her remarks, Zakharova refers to the assassination in Kiev:

    Note that she condemns Ukraine's reflexive finger-pointing at Moscow yet she herself asserts evidence that it was a contract killing to send a message. How would she know? What evidence? What message?

    The Russians are a sophisticated yet ruthless bunch. Their theme of taking the high road and pointing their condescending finger at anyone who accuses them is fairly consistent. I still wouldn't dismiss the idea that they are in fact pulling some strings along with Turkey, the Saudis, the Izzies, etc. or were they played? The Clintons harvested a lot of cash from folks that wanted favor in the new administration, if you believe the Guccifer leaks. So many leaks, ship sinks, rats swim.

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 1:27:34 AM | 45
    Quote:

    Evidence suggests it was a contract killing that, by all indications, was meant to send a message. As soon as the media reported this assassination Moscow hoped that Ukrainian law enforcement agencies would be able promptly to solve this crime and identify the masterminds behind it and of course its perpetrators, without any politicisation[sic] and based on objective data. However, after Ukrainian President Poroshenko announced that this assassination was "an act of terror perpetrated by Moscow," naturally, there was no more hope left that the investigation would be impartial or objective. We have no doubt about that. By all indications, this time as well the "killer regime" (as it is already being referred to) will do its best to make sure that no one will ever know the truth about what happened in Kiev.

    PavewayIV | Mar 29, 2017 1:28:10 AM | 46
    b - too funny.

    Ort@12 - Well said!

    karlof1@14 - Lavrov understands my country better than I do - I always enjoy being educated by him. I have to say that there was one zinger at the very end: What will Russia do about that girl they won't let in Eurovision? Now I know this has outraged many Russians (and rightfully so), but to put this question to the Russian Foreign Minister after THAT lecture? If I were him, I would have said with the most deadpan face I could muster, "We have not taken the option of a pre-emptive nuclear strike off the table at this time." and than just walked off the stage.

    Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 1:32:00 AM | 47
    Trump haters don't talk about what comes after Trump.

    A BIG clue as to what motivates them.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 1:33:53 AM | 48
    The Eisenhower quote put up by stumpy is interesting... US ingrained culture, manifest destiny, exceptional people ect.

    In looking up the various missiles systems and aircraft over the last few years, something starts to stand out.
    Since WWII Soviet, and now Russian design perimeters are guided by keeping the US out.
    US designs always have had the base perimeter of breaking through Soviet and now Russian defence systems.
    US culture is based on total aggression to any who do not bow to its power.
    No matter the US president is a nationalist or a globalist, this culture will continue until it is destroyed

    stumpy | Mar 29, 2017 1:35:40 AM | 49
    @44, Circe -- yup, hoisted on his own petard. He was the last one who could get away with it being halfway credible. Every president gets more rotten.

    ben | Mar 29, 2017 1:50:17 AM | 50
    Enjoy the theater folks.. Blaming Russia for all that's evil in the world, instead of speaking up for the workers in the U$A, is the Dems newest plan. Trump was elected because he ran as a progressive. We know now, he has no interest in such foolishness. Both parties are the parties of $, and will further the interests of corporate America, over the interests of the people. That means " Full Spectrum Dominance."

    Talk about hypocrisy::

    http://therealnews.com/t2/story:18700:US-Has-Interfered-in-More-Elections-Than-Any-Other-Nation

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:10:18 AM | 51
    Trump haters don't talk about what comes after Trump.

    A BIG clue as to what motivates them.

    Here's a big clue: A jackass who doesn't have to pretend he's not one ergo we can all rally to kick his ass. The thing about Trump is that those who used to fight on the good side moved to the dark side when they were reeled in by Trump.

    So who cares who comes after Trump as long as we all go back to fighting in solidarity the enemy that Trump represents and his successor from the right or left aisle will surely represent as well.

    Julian | Mar 29, 2017 2:12:38 AM | 52
    Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:39:28 AM | 39

    I won't go as far as disagreeing with you about Trump, but I would ask the obvious question given you are just so relentlessly anti-Trump.

    Logically that means a few things.

    1. You would have preferred Hillary Clinton won the Election and became President.

    If you reject that assertion then please remove the scales from your eyes - there was no other choice - it was Clinton or Trump . No one else was going to win that election, saying "I don't like either" isn't an answer and is a failure to acknowledge reality.

    2. You would like Mike Pence to step up and take over from Trump (because Trump is so awful he must be replaced asap).

    Pence is the only person who is going to replace Trump - so logically you would prefer a President Pence to Trump. Fair enough - but is that really your view? Or is your view that they're all awful and we'd be better off with Jill Stein? Or Ralph Nader? Or Ross Perot? Rand Paul? Who? Doesn't matter anyway - because it is again evidence that you are living in a place detached from reality if your argument is NO TRUMP, NO PENCE - someone else!

    Nope. Forget it.

    At the moment your choice is Trump (or Pence) - no one else. So clarify again for me - you prefer Pence then?

    If your answer to all of the above is No, No, No, No, No, we need someone else I'm afraid it is completely pointless to argue with you - What are YOU going to do about it?

    Because I sure as hell am not going to try and find a way to get someone else installed besides Trump, or Pence. Just how would one go about doing that anyway? Not worth thinking about as far as I'm concerned.

    It's called living in an alternate reality, and perhaps it's best if you retire to Patagonia and live out your fantasies far far away from anyone else who might deign to interrupt you.

    Julian | Mar 29, 2017 2:20:49 AM | 53
    Re: Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 1:32:00 AM | 48

    It's interesting isn't it. Trump haters logically want to see President Mike Pence.

    But why this yearning for Pence? On the face of it it would appear that given their complaints about Trump Pence would be even more odious to them, but yet - Pence is exactly what they want!

    Strange isn't it Jack.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 2:25:43 AM | 54
    Looks like you nailed it Julian.

    Willy2 | Mar 29, 2017 2:29:37 AM | 55
    - The Democrats are looking more and more stupid every day. Keep in mind, I don't get the impression that Trump has the best in mind for the US Joe sixpack as well.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:32:19 AM | 56
    @53

    Spare me your long-winded cynicism. What's YOUR point if Trump is as corrupt as the rest?

    My point is that its better to fight the system together than divided by a worthless shit like Trump!

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 2:47:11 AM | 57
    Circe you throw tantrums without putting up alternatives. Much like my daughters when they were in a huff.
    Sniff some salts, fan your face, you'll be right.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 3:03:59 AM | 58
    @58

    You're ad homs for lack of an argument are predictable. If you have nothing better to write don't *remove all doubt*. You know the saying: better to keep your trap shut and be thought a fool than open it up and...**

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 3:13:27 AM | 59
    Miss/Mrs Circe... by your username I take it you identify as female?

    Address Julian's questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
    A) Clinton
    B) Trump
    C) Pence

    Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.

    For me, I would like to see the US and its culture of manifest destiny totally destroyed. I cannot see that happening in the foreseeable future unless they initiate mutual assured destruction.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 3:14:57 AM | 60
    D)

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 3:30:54 AM | 61
    Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 3:14:57 AM | 61

    Well that was a rational and well thought out reply.
    Reminds me of Wile E Coyote looking down into the chasm, just before he drops.

    One thing I have to say about earlier pre political correctness US. They had some great cartoons.

    Perhaps you are auditioning Circe?

    Lozion | Mar 29, 2017 3:32:11 AM | 62
    D)? Hope that means none of the above..

    Julian | Mar 29, 2017 3:56:47 AM | 63
    Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 2:32:19 AM | 57

    Re: Posted by: Circe | Mar 29, 2017 3:14:57 AM | 61

    D eh. Once again you fail to answer a simple question. Your response is pointless. It lacks a basis in reality.

    There is no D option. Are you the D option. You seem to think so.

    My point is that its better to fight the system together than divided by a worthless shit like Trump!

    And how exactly are you fighting this system? Writing a few sentences on someone's (admittedly GREAT! Blog) ain't going to get you very far.

    Thanks for the support Peter. I don't think anyone here who supported Trump (over Clinton) was under the illusion Trump was going to be a "Great" President by any stretch of the imagination.

    But it was fairly simple - do you want the proven warmongering maniac, or the egotistical narcissist?

    Easy choice for mine - and like you Peter, I don't get to vote in US Elections so I could hardly make my voice heard at a US ballot box.

    For the record, speaking as someone with libertarian leanings, Rand Paul was my initial choice in the US Primaries Republican/ Democrat. Rand seems eminently sensible on foreign policy issues. Stop expanding NATO, leave the Middle East. Of course Rand (like his father) is roundly ignored by the MSM most of the time.

    Rand even jumped on Tulsi Gabbard's Stop Arming Terrorists Act! Good move for your credibility Rand, bad move if you want higher office.

    Re: Posted by: Lozion | Mar 29, 2017 3:32:11 AM | 63

    I assume D means none of the above as well, but provide the alternative then - a realistic alternative. As far as I can see - there is no D alternative being offered at the moment in reality .

    dumbass | Mar 29, 2017 4:00:20 AM | 64
    Oh, lord. You people ganging up on Circe again? It's beneath your normally good commentary. Irritatingly so.

    Circe's expectations about Trump have so far proven correct. Many of you -- INCLUDING ME! -- who hoped to see more sensible behavior from Trump must admit you're disappointed.

    So far, it seems I -- and many of you -- owe Circe "you told me so". (*Not* like it would've made me change my vote from "Jill Stein" to "Killary" just to try to keep Trump out of office.)

    >> It's interesting isn't it. Trump haters logically want to see President Mike Pence.

    You're not using logic. You're mocking it.

    I, for one, abhor Trump's decisions thus far. Do you really think it's a matter of "logic" that I would prefer Pence's?

    That argument is embarrassing.

    >> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.

    People are free to condemn what Trump does without being obligated to "choose" a veritable "s*** sandwich" from your "replacement menu".

    But more importantly, stay civil! I choose to lurk because I rarely have anything (other than "thumbs up" to practically everything from jfl or psychohistorian). But, I read comments fairly regularly and have seen very little hostility from Circe -- except for maybe one understandable comment as a reaction to constant harassment -- that would justify this antagonism, Peter AU.

    Julian | Mar 29, 2017 4:03:08 AM | 65
    In the mean-time we have the Ecuador run-off Presidential Election this week. Sunday April 2, 2017.

    Pro-Assange
    Lenin Moreno

    Anti-Assange
    Guillermo Lasso


    Easy choice for mine. Go Lenin.

    Then we have the French Election (April-June 2017). Viva Le Pen (Destroyer of the EU).

    The German Elections (September 2018). A total non-event. Schulz v Merkel - both as bad as each other.

    The Russian Elections (March-April 2018). Putin to be re-elected assuming he stands.

    The Italian Elections (By May 2018). Can Beppe Grillo win and take Italy out of the Euro and thereby destroy the Europeon project? Perhaps, but I don't trust Grillo as much as Le Pen.

    Unfortuntely, if Le Pen loses, Grillo might be the last hope for a sane resolution to all that ails the world (The West) at the moment.

    If things continue going to plan I foresee Russia/Putin shutting down all gas supplies to the EU either Winter 2018/19 or Winter 2019/20.

    At that point, the election season is completed, and why bother extending chance after chance for the Europeons to wise up? Plus, the TurkStream and pipes to China will be completed by then.

    That's my estimate of when Russian patience with the EU runs out anyway.

    The only question then becomes, does the West collapse economically before then?

    Perhaps, but I see no reason they can't just continue with the tricks of the last decade for another 2 years.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 4:10:17 AM | 66
    Dunmbass is correct. User name that is.

    Dumbass, come up with an alternative narrative.
    JFL and psychohistorian I have respect for, but I do feel their alternatives are dreamtime stuff.
    What we see is the real world. Human nature at its "finest".

    Constant revolution is perhaps the most applicable to the real world though perhaps not in the intention of the originator.

    Human nature. Does not change with knowledge.


    jfl | Mar 29, 2017 4:11:00 AM | 67
    @40

    Democratic_National_Committee


    The DNC is composed of

    1. the chairs and vice-chairs of each state Democratic Party's central committee ,
    2. two hundred members apportioned among the states based on population and generally elected either on the ballot by primary voters or by the state Democratic Party committee ,
    3. a number of elected officials serving in an ex officio capacity , and
    4. a variety of representatives of major Democratic Party constituencies .


    1. public enemies of the jackass persuasion numbers 1 through 100 ...
    2. like to see the breakdown of 'elected' / appointed ... even when elected, elected by their cronies, no one else knows who they are ...
    3. political hacks given sinecures ... the 'grateful dead' ...
    4. lobbyists for wall street, the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, the medical industrial complex, the 'intelligence community', enemies of the people in general ...

    don't imagine these folks will be resigning. they're just killing off the hired hands ... they're the ones who 'ate our homework!' ... right ... the hh's will be replaced by interchangable clones. the dnc are dead men and women walking. and talking, of course.

    @43

    probably a false-flag by the googleplex itself, an alibi for discontinuing 'extremist' postings. 'hey, it's not us! it's our advertizers ... it's just bidnez, g-o-i ...'

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 4:22:14 AM | 68
    Prior to Trumps election, The US/globalist fellow travelers were all walking along nicely. Trump usurped the throne from the anointed one and now the fellow travelers are arguing.
    Some say Trump will take us to a few places on our bucket list, others say say- no Trump has to go.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 4:33:54 AM | 69
    Oh Where art thou Circe?
    Three choices. A, B, or C. Easy peasy. Or do you have X held back in secrecy?

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 4:40:26 AM | 70
    Miss/Mrs Circe

    My alternative in imagination is total fucking destruction of US and their fucked up culture. What is yours?
    You have never put forth any alternative?

    Sabine | Mar 29, 2017 4:50:29 AM | 71
    @ 35

    the reason i consdier this post to be a load of bullshit is simple.

    the democratic party is so diminised it has not effect on anything the orange turd and his henchmen do.

    So they can whinge about what ever they want to.

    secondly: in general the US American Jane and Joe Do don't give a flying fuck about war. Its the only thing they have going for the, the million plus peoples army of the US and the weapons manufactures. If they don't have the army and the weapons company US unemployemnt would be through the roof and there would be rioting in the streets. Can you imagine the orange turd bringing home his troops from anywhere in Europe if they 'don't pay his bill for Nato"?

    thridly: many of us predicted precisely that. Namely that the orange turd will do as any other US president did before him, war oversees and weapons selling. But oh noes, he is gonna be besties with Putin (who will win the election cause anyone else running will be dead by the time people get to put their fingerprints on a piece of paper)

    fourth: i find it funny how many here over the years are ok with foreign influence in the US election, obviously its ok now to just delegitimze the last little bit of 'influence' people get to have in their countries.

    fifth: i no more rejoice in the forth coming misery for the US American women and children then i do in the ongoing misery for the women of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, Westbank, Somalia.

    and as another poster said above, there was no real choice for teh US, there was Hillary with all her faults, and then there was the orange turd.

    as for 'sabine' i have used my name as a handle since the time of billmon. and frankly this blog is going to shite. Sadly so.

    Sabine | Mar 29, 2017 4:55:24 AM | 72
    @ 71

    Circe answered, D none of the above.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 5:07:03 AM | 73
    Sabine.

    D is not an option.

    D more likely refers to duh

    The only option is destruction of the US which can only be put plainly and not as duh, as in imbecile.

    Peter AU | Mar 29, 2017 5:19:23 AM | 74
    @ Circe

    What do you make of Laverov's recent speech?
    Russia has been through both communism and wide open capitalism.

    MadMax2 | Mar 29, 2017 6:09:54 AM | 75
    Lavrov's speech to the military academy sits in nicely behind Putin's speech to the UN Assembly a couple of years ago. Writing the global script with openness, clarity and integrity.

    Makes a great sequel due to the ease and detail of which Lavrov breaks down each and every question. Nothing mealy mouthed as you might expect from a US state department press outing...from the top down the Russians' believe in what they say, mean what they say, and do not mince words because its so much easier to give quick, detailed and direct answers when they are guided by truth and not a forked tongue.

    From him you get a sense that today's Russia has very much evolved from a deep appreciation of it's history and, in a typically strong yet understated fashion, very much understands it's place within it. All the while the west embarrasses itself under the weight of repeatedly failing realities.

    ...the difference between a politician and a statesman.

    fast freddy | Mar 29, 2017 7:07:14 AM | 76
    It is apparent that Pence would be even worse than Trump.

    The Deep State, the CIA and it's media arm wants Pence. The Democrats and most of the Republicans also want Pence.

    Trump the degenerate Orange Turd must be good for something if all that is evil intends to usurp him.

    Curtis | Mar 29, 2017 9:14:20 AM | 77
    aaaa 13
    "It's still rock and roll to me." - Billy Joel
    In the case of the DEMs, it's all about politics and winning. (and not much diff to the GOP). For FDR and the DEMs in 1932 it was more important to let more of the economy (and banks) fail to have a more spectacular loss for Hoover and the GOP. (The Roosevelt Myth) And now the DEMs and the media sycophants are more shrill. Their one-trick pony obsession is Putin (riding a horse without his shirt - ha ha). If they cannot stand up for anything else, it's about time those in the party notice and change things.

    The surprise of FDR was to find out he had no real ideology and simply took on people whose ideas sounded good. Otherwise it was the political machines of NYC, Chicago, and the unions (some dominated by Communists) that propelled him into higher office. He wanted to win and that was all that counted.

    Susan Sunflower | Mar 29, 2017 9:24:33 AM | 78
    Like Gessen, Anne Applebaum is attempting to be the voice of reason and reality:

    WAPO: The critical questions on Russia .

    Russian private money has also played a role in Trump's career. Though Trump has said repeatedly that he has never invested in Russia, Russia has invested in him. Famously, Donald Trump Jr. declared in 2008 that Russian money made up a "pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets." More recently, a Reuters investigation showed that holders of Russian passports invested at least $98 million into seven Trump properties in Florida alone, a number that doesn't include any investors who hid their names behind anonymous shell companies.

    Technically, none of this money had anything to do with the Russian state. But in practice, it likely won goodwill and influence for Russia. Over many years, and long before he became president, Trump repeatedly praised Russia and its president. In 2007, he declared that Putin is "doing a great job." In 2015, he described the Russian president as a "man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."

    Just like Deripaska's payments to Manafort, the "disproportionate" Russian investments in Trump's businesses, which Trump still owns, weren't bribes. They didn't involve the KGB, and they probably didn't include any secret payments either. The question now is whether our political system is capable of grappling with this particular form of modern Russian corruption at all. Congress cannot simply ask the question "was this all legal," because it probably was. Congress, or an independent investigator, needs to find a way to ask, "was this moral," because it surely wasn't, and "does it constitute undue influence," which it surely does.

    Apparently Congress will need to parse the morality of all Russian dealings with, oh hell, about everyone everywhere ... she's implicating pretty much the entire Russian Business class as Putin's water carrying agents of influence ... regardless, in this climate, this appears to be something resembling "a voice of reason and moderation" (or at least goal posts and some definitions of the 5 questoins -- who, what, why, where, when --variety)

    Morongobill | Mar 29, 2017 9:25:57 AM | 79
    Sometimes it occurs to me that what some of the writers(the Salon piece in particular) need is a good ass whipping. Pardon my French please.

    Come to think of it, I feel the same way about some of these anti-Trump protestors.

    Susan Sunflower | Mar 29, 2017 9:32:10 AM | 80
    The Salon article seemed to be echoing Malcolm Nance of last week's fantasy ... part Jules Verne, part really bad third-tier LeCarre knockoff ...

    NotTimothyGeithner | Mar 29, 2017 9:37:34 AM | 81
    @2 The long term effects of recruiting self funding non entities are at play too. Many of these Democrats were recruited at lower levels because they were bland enough to not offend local interests and had the money to upfront the funding for their campaign. Independent Senator Bernie Sanders wasn't entrusted with the budget and veteran committee select spots because he is such a shining star or has leverage with the caucus, he's not joining the GOP. He holds those positions because the Democrats don't have people interested or even capable of those jobs serving in Congress. Russia is a convenient refrain. They know voters want answers, and a good portion of the elected Democrats know so little about policy they can't possibly offer answers.

    JohnThomas | Mar 29, 2017 9:42:53 AM | 82
    The US is whining about how Russia dealt with 100s of people attending unlicensed demonstrations in Russia. Russians are pussies when it comes to dealing with protestors. This is how the US does it.

    http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/203/420/UCDavis_pepperspray.jpg?1321852699

    http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/303385/14835326/1357272278107/scott-olsen.JPG?token=V6gtNZZjC66o%2BDSGDxYcrfFcFZY%3D

    Anon1 | Mar 29, 2017 10:56:38 AM | 83
    US have just accepted Montenegro as a coming member of NATO, you guys think that Nato will come to formally accept Montenegro on the Nato meeting on 31 of march?

    blues | Mar 29, 2017 11:29:00 AM | 84
    /~~~~~~~~~~
    Zero Hedge -- ACLU Actively Assisting With Soros-Driven Protest Organization After Accepting Funds From The Open Society Institute -- Mar 6, 2017
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-06/aclu-...

    The ACLU itself has received massive amounts of funding from George Soros. A February 6th, 2017 article from Zerohedge cited research from LifeZette and the Capital Research Center indicating that Soros's Open Society Institute has sunk over $35 million into the ACLU alone and millions more to other liberal organizations directly involved in filing lawsuits against various policies of Donald Trump all around the country. The massive donation drive is part of Soros' overall effort to "reshape the American justice system" by buying district attorneys in races across the country.
    \~~~~~~~~~~


    /~~~~~~~~~~
    ACLU / People Power -- Join People Power
    https://go.peoplepower.org/signup/join?source=root

    On March 11, the ACLU is holding a Resistance Training. This event will launch People Power, the ACLU's new effort to engage grassroots volunteers across the country and take the fight against Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the streets. We're organizing grassroots events in communities across the country to watch the livestream together. Please join us!

    Sign up to learn more about People Power and the Resistance Training livestream on March 11 at 5pm ET. We'll follow up with you about opportunities to volunteer and attend events near you.
    \~~~~~~~~~~

    So. George Soros gives the ACLU $35 million and they promptly "take the fight against Donald Trump's policies not just into the courts, but into the streets". Of course, if they dispose of Trump, we get -- Mike Pence as president. He would be so much better? Consider:

    Vice President Mike Pence voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution, which called for the use of military force in Iraq.

    Pence went on a widely condemned trip with Senator John McCain to Iraq in 2007.

    In a 2002 statement on the floor of the House of Representatives (reported in the Congressional Record), Pence told his colleagues "... I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rational explanation for the known universe."

    "[Indiana governor] Mike Pence's time in office has been so toxic that Hoosier Republicans are publicly begging Donald Trump to save their party," [by getting him out of Indiana] said Drew Anderson, [Indiana Democratic] communications director.

    blues | Mar 29, 2017 11:32:55 AM | 85
    I've given up complaining about Circe. Maybe he works for Soros, or is Soros' grandson. Or something. Nearly constant single complaint, no alternatives discussed.

    It's just another of those nutty things.

    Circe | Mar 29, 2017 12:30:47 PM | 86
    @85

    Can't you just leave it at your comment @84 rather than wasting a separate post just to personally attack me by taking a cheap shot with bullshit speculation? You just had to back-up the other 2 offenders; makes you feel big, huh?

    @70

    Yes I have posted my political preferences and leadership preferences that don't include any of the choices you listed. Either you weren't paying attention or you just don't give a damn what I think. I suspect it's the latter, since you pay too much attention as obviously you never fail to deliver with your ad homs each and every time I comment on a topic and you disagree with what I write. I don't have to repeat what I posted previously to live up to your standards or pass some kind of litmus test to meet with your approval.

    peter | Mar 29, 2017 1:10:12 PM | 87
    Here's the acceptable viewpoints as near as I can tell,


    1) it's infallible truth that there's no substance to the awful rumors that the Trump team and the Putin team may have colluded prior to the election.

    2) Putin has been a beacon of integrity and forthrightness with no desire for anything but the nations of the world to live in harmony.

    3) Trump is really on the same page as Putin but the evil forces of the deep state try mightily to derail his plans for our betterment

    4) any attempt at free trade is inherently evil, the machinations of that cabal that seeks to rule the world

    5) we should accept Trump simply because there's nobody that can do any better.


    If you stick to these the no one will flame you. If you don't then you work for Soros. Yeah, fucking right, Trump's the man. we should learn to love him.


    1) love how he's pouring troops and assets into the ME

    2) accept that climate change is bullshit and cheer the deregulation that is currently taking place

    3) accept that the bankers aren't so bad and realize that the regulations placed on them had to go because they were really hurting business and consequently their plans for making America great

    4) accept that Latinos are the root of many of America's problems and cheer the zeal with which they are being rounded up

    5) accept that the poor have only themselves to blame and applaud the way their safety net is being dismantled


    Because Trump likes Putin and Putin likes Trump and that's all that really matters. Well suck me dry and call me Dusty, how could anybody not see that?


    dumbass | Mar 29, 2017 1:28:54 PM | 88
    >> Dunmbass is correct. User name that is.

    Ad hom straight off? Choices...action...habit...character.

    >> Dumbass, come up with an alternative narrative.

    Your "narrative" thus far is to make the same pitch the 2-party duopolists make: choose from the shitty choices we give you. History proves the governments' imperialist policies do not change from one administration/party to another. So, I choose options not on your list. I'm not changing my "narrative" to accommodate your dogmatism.

    >> What we see is the real world.

    Real world? Your choices are not even "real". Here they were:
    >> Address Julian's questions. Who would you prefer as head warmonger
    >> A) Clinton
    >> B) Trump
    >> C) Pence
    >> Easy peasy. No other options at present time. Put up or shut up.

    Those aren't even "real world" choices. They're your own artificial, limited construct. Another election isn't until 2020. Clinton may or may not run. Your choices are stupid and contradict your self-professed "real world" pragmatism.

    By the way, saying your choices are "stupid" and that you contradict yourself isn't ad hominem, though judgments about your comment quality might lead people to draw inferences about you personally.

    Jackrabbit | Mar 29, 2017 2:05:52 PM | 89
    Circe @86

    Circe did post his preference.

    IIRC, he/she supports Kucinich (Democratic Party) as next President.

    karlof1 | Mar 29, 2017 6:18:49 PM | 90
    peter @87--

    "Putin likes Trump"

    There're no grounds for that supposition. All Putin and Lavrov have stated is their willingness to work with whomever was elected. Mr Lavrov just again in an interview published today, 3/29, in National Interest Magazine : "We said what we did, that we are ready to work with any administration, any president who would be elected by the American people. This was our line throughout the electoral campaign, unlike the acting leaders of most European countries who were saying absolutely biased things, supporting one candidate, unlike those who even bluntly warned against the choice in favor of the Republican candidat[sic], and this somehow is considered normal." http://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/2710445

    Tom in AZ | Mar 29, 2017 10:21:30 PM | 91
    @54

    It is worse than just Pence. It goes Pence, Speaker Ryan, president pro tempore box turtle McConnell, and then Exxon Sec. State Tillerman. And eventually in the cabinet, you would get to Ben Carson. Jesus wept...

    Tom in AZ | Mar 29, 2017 10:32:07 PM | 92
    Peter AU @69

    C'mon Peter. A, Clinton is NOT an option at all. Unless the entire government is overthrown to install her. See my comment above re succession. There is no 'reset' to give her the election. Surely you know this, so why are you trying to make Clinton an option for Circe?

    Tom in AZ | Mar 29, 2017 10:38:13 PM | 93
    @76 fast freddy

    IMO Pence will be an order of magnitude worse than Trump. He will be piously waving his bible while screwing the people of the US more than can be imagined, as he knows all the crazies in Congress and agrees with the most disgusting views of the right wing. He will be more effective in our destruction.

    PavewayIV | Mar 29, 2017 10:43:58 PM | 94
    dumbass@64 - Sir, I have *never* in my life heard a more precise and succinct description of the U.S. perverse election process. Bravo!

    "...People are free to condemn what Trump does without being obligated to "choose" a veritable "s*** sandwich" from your "replacement menu"..."

    I shall steal this for future use, but forgive me if I do not give proper attribution as "the dumbass on MoA"

    Sabine | Mar 30, 2017 12:39:42 AM | 95
    @73

    if you fill out none of the cases in a form, which one will you have choosen?

    you have choosen the one that you left out.

    D. None of the above fuckwits.

    thanks

    denk | Mar 30, 2017 1:30:38 AM | 96
    Julian 52

    *I won't go as far as disagreeing with you about Trump, *

    Hmm

    You agrees with Circe on Trump, --

    But you sides with JR the Trump apologist --

    Can you make up your mind, are you a 'Trump hater', [sic]
    or a 'Trump lover' ?

    dumbass | Mar 30, 2017 1:39:08 AM | 97
    Hey, thanks, Paveway IV.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 30, 2017 2:05:45 PM | 98
    "b" dude, maybe your playing to your crowd here and cha-ching and all that...but Blowhard Chump and the MSM's crazed rantings about him just aren't that interesting. Ya know? He's not going to bring world peace, detente with Russia or make America great again. Probably quite the opposite. And the media will continue to focus on him and ignore the many failings of the Demosplats et al. Move on is my advice.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 30, 2017 2:23:39 PM | 99
    Look, I don't like Clinton/Obama, neoliberalism, "free trade" agreements etc. BUT I don't like Trump either. If you thought Obama was bad how can you like Chump? He's a fucking liar and an über-capitalist piece of shit who takes his orders from Darth Bannon. Fuck em' all I say. I am not a Soros agent btw. (but if I was I probably wouldn't tell ya...heheheheh)

    I also think Trump is "better", or at least less terrible, than Pence, McCain/Graham, Hillary or any of the demented fanatics and war mongers waiting in the wings. So while I don't like the guy or his junta/corporate raider administration impeaching him is not cool. And the "Russia did it" crap is seriously insane and there is no evidence Putin "threw" the election.

    The people holding a candle for Chump are like the morons who still maintain O'Bomber did good things for America and the world. You are the other side of that particular coin. That's what you get when you meed a hero figure to worship.

    [Apr 02, 2017] Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign dictator! Oh my!! We do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play

    Notable quotes:
    "... Someone is accused of foiling the neocon plot to start WWIII. Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign dictator! Oh my!! we do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    lsm -> point... , April 01, 2017 at 07:12 AM
    Someone is accused of foiling the neocon plot to start WWIII. Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign dictator! Oh my!! we do get AIPAC in our elections! And Riyadh pay for play

    Someone is accused of colluding with a foreign power to hack

    O my someone helped Assange, someone is accused of putting truth about the CONARTISTS in DNC to the American people

    I have as much basis in facts as NYT!

    O my!

    [Apr 02, 2017] 'Press 2 if hackers needed' Russian FM April Fools voicemail leaves US media unamused

    Notable quotes:
    "... add foreign languages ..."
    "... CNN is the so-called news network that gave questions to Hillary Clinton during the debate. So we shouldn't really take them seriously. When it comes to laughing matters, they are now the laughing stock of the news world ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | www.rt.com
    On Friday, WikiLeaks released a batch of documents detailing CIA hacking tactics and how the US agency can divert forensic investigators from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks to the spy agency. One of the documents revealed that the framework supports the ability to " add foreign languages " to malware, listing Chinese, Russian and Korean in the example code, indicating the potential for the CIA to focus attention on another party to be blamed for the hack.

    CNN, however, decided to not cover the story, Gaunt told RT.

    " CNN is the so-called news network that gave questions to Hillary Clinton during the debate. So we shouldn't really take them seriously. When it comes to laughing matters, they are now the laughing stock of the news world ," the British commentator and politician said.

    [Apr 02, 2017] Liberals are losing their minds over Trump and Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... in their quest to find a connection - particularly some sort of direct conspiracy between Trump and Putin - some liberals are abandoning good sense and becoming credulous toward nutty thinkers. ..."
    "... I'm reminded in a way of the Second Red Scare. The era of Joseph McCarthy is rightly remembered as a time of deranged witch hunts and fevered anti-Communist paranoia. ..."
    "... In other words, the defining characteristic of McCarthyism was not a false belief that KGB spies had infiltrated the government, because they had. It was paranoia and hysterical panic about such spying, especially in how it was used to further partisan Republican ends. McCarthy was a fool and an incompetent drunk, but other Republican elites tolerated him and his accusations because he whipped up unhinged outrage against Democratic Party elites and policies. ..."
    "... They loved it when he was falsely smearing Dean Acheson and George Marshall as secret Soviet sympathizers, or slagging public housing bills as the first step to Communism. It was only when McCarthy's erratic, diseased thinking, his constant lying and fabrication, and his utter investigative incompetence became undeniable that they began to desert him. ..."
    "... A corollary of this is that McCarthy was an active impediment to anti-espionage efforts. During the Red Scare, it's possible his various lists of supposed Communists included a small fraction of actual Soviet spies . But what tiny truth was there was swamped by the huge number of innocents caught up in the panic. What's more, after McCarthy's downfall the whole idea of Soviet infiltration of the American government was badly tainted by association with his vile methods. ..."
    "... Now, liberals' Trump-Russia fever is not remotely as bad as what struck Republicans during the McCarthy era. There is no full-blown panic, nor any show trials. Yet there is an echo of the basic mechanics. Instead of a Wisconsin senator, we have Louise Mensch, a former Conservative MP and bug-eyed conspiracy hound who has been all over cable news making one unsubstantiated accusation after another - and even somehow got a piece in The ..."
    "... Washington Monthly ..."
    "... The New Republic ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    Apr 02, 2017 | theweek.com

    An awful lot of American liberals have become rather possessed by the possibility that President Trump is somehow in league with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The circumstantial evidence that there is some sort of connection is rather strong - Putin very probably helped Trump win in 2016, some Trump associates have a rat's nest of connections with Russia, and Trump himself has been relying on financing from Eastern Europe for many years.

    But definitive proof has yet to surface. So in their quest to find a connection - particularly some sort of direct conspiracy between Trump and Putin - some liberals are abandoning good sense and becoming credulous toward nutty thinkers.

    It's important to avoid this not only because clear thinking is important, but because it is the best way to root out the truth.

    I'm reminded in a way of the Second Red Scare. The era of Joseph McCarthy is rightly remembered as a time of deranged witch hunts and fevered anti-Communist paranoia. Something that is a bit less remembered is that the Soviet Union did indeed have extensive espionage success within the American government, particularly during the Second World War. They penetrated the Manhattan Project, they scooped up all manner of non-nuclear weapons technology, they recruited one of the very top economic policy officials in the country, and on and on.

    In other words, the defining characteristic of McCarthyism was not a false belief that KGB spies had infiltrated the government, because they had. It was paranoia and hysterical panic about such spying, especially in how it was used to further partisan Republican ends. McCarthy was a fool and an incompetent drunk, but other Republican elites tolerated him and his accusations because he whipped up unhinged outrage against Democratic Party elites and policies.

    They loved it when he was falsely smearing Dean Acheson and George Marshall as secret Soviet sympathizers, or slagging public housing bills as the first step to Communism. It was only when McCarthy's erratic, diseased thinking, his constant lying and fabrication, and his utter investigative incompetence became undeniable that they began to desert him.

    A corollary of this is that McCarthy was an active impediment to anti-espionage efforts. During the Red Scare, it's possible his various lists of supposed Communists included a small fraction of actual Soviet spies . But what tiny truth was there was swamped by the huge number of innocents caught up in the panic. What's more, after McCarthy's downfall the whole idea of Soviet infiltration of the American government was badly tainted by association with his vile methods.

    (As an aside, it's important to note that all of this is orthogonal to the question of whether Soviet spying necessitated a hyper-belligerent diplomatic stance towards the USSR. All countries spy, America very much included, and in the end all the espionage probably didn't amount to much - indeed, it may have actually calmed tensions somewhat.)

    Now, liberals' Trump-Russia fever is not remotely as bad as what struck Republicans during the McCarthy era. There is no full-blown panic, nor any show trials. Yet there is an echo of the basic mechanics. Instead of a Wisconsin senator, we have Louise Mensch, a former Conservative MP and bug-eyed conspiracy hound who has been all over cable news making one unsubstantiated accusation after another - and even somehow got a piece in The New York Times . And she is only the most prominent of a cottage industry of instant Russia "experts" who have sprung up to write long tweet threads and create infographics in Microsoft Paint validating liberals' darkest suspicions about Trump.

    ... ... ...

    Ryan Cooper is a national correspondent at TheWeek.com . His work has appeared in the Washington Monthly , The New Republic , and the Washington Post .

    [Apr 01, 2017] Nunes own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials.

    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal ]. Why Nunes left his cab:

    Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since they aren't the "finished" intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn over said documents-with no luck, so far.

    Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:

    First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2") they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.

    To sum up, Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration.

    Mr. Schiff's howls about Mr. Nunes's methods are bluster; the Republican was doing his job, and well.

    It would be interesting to know if this was still going on. And from the other side of the aisle:

    Readers, those of you who can endure tweet storms and clicked through, what do you think of these three?

    "The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [ NBC ].

    "Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [ Raw Story ]. You knew this was coming, right? The story is just as sloppy and misleading as the headline. For example: "Over time the anti-Clinton online faction became known by the nickname 'Bernie Bros.'" Note lack of agency in "became known"; #BernieBro was in fact propagated by Clinton supporters. And then there's this: "'Senator, I think what they were trying to do was drive a wedge within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group," said [Retired Gen. Keith Alexander - former director of the National Security Agency]. "And then in our nation between Republicans and Democrats.'" Where to begin? Can Alexander really mean that Sanders and Clinton supporters wouldn't be in conflict if it weren't for the evil Russkis? Or Republicans and Democrats? I hope when Alexander analyzes Lower Slobovia he does a better job.

    [Apr 01, 2017] What Devin Nunes Knows

    Notable quotes:
    "... Unmasking could be legitimate as well – we don't know right now. But to continue to put forward the proposition that Trump associates were not surveilled (by the Obama ADMINISTRATION) is simply preposterous. ..."
    "... And the trust in the honor and integrity of CIA and intelligence agency officials assumed by the MSM when there are so many instances of documented lying is hard to reconcile with an objective press. ..."
    "... I pretty much suspect there were some standard Washington scams/influence peddling going on – more so because this is Trump – and someone in the Obama administration was over anxious to leak this information, developed from classified information to hurt Trump. The only problem is that intelligence gathered information is not to be used for common criminal law. So we have the common law breaking on the Trump side and we have constitutional law breaking from the Obama side. Unfortunately, this country seems to have lost all desire to restrain the government from access to ALL communications of US citizens. And the MSM seems entirely unconcerned about unlimited government snooping. ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fresno dan, March 31, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    "What Devin Nunes Knows" [Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal]. Why Nunes left his cab:

    Around the same time, Mr. Nunes's own intelligence sources informed him that documents showed further collection of information about, and unmasking of, Trump transition officials. These documents aren't easily obtainable, since they aren't the "finished" intelligence products that Congress gets to see. Nonetheless, for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn over said documents-with no luck, so far.

    Mr. Nunes earlier this week got his own source to show him a treasure trove of documents at a secure facility. Here are the relevant details:

    First, there were dozens of documents with information about Trump officials. Second, the information these documents contained was not related to Russia. Third, while many reports did "mask" identities (referring, for instance, to "U.S. Person 1 or 2") they were written in ways that made clear which Trump officials were being discussed. Fourth, in at least one instance, a Trump official other than Mr. Flynn was outright unmasked. Finally, these documents were circulated at the highest levels of government.

    =============================================================
    Other than right wing sites, this is the first instance of the argument I have seen of the repubs that has been put forward coherently and the issue stated cogently. That does not mean its true, but at least it is put forward.

    I was watching CNN last night and the blonde commentator woman (Kirsten ???) put forward the proposition that the intelligence agencies "collecting" information on Trump associates does not mean Trump associates were surveilled – now this was in the context that the discussion was about the fact that Trump individuals were supposedly illegally "unmasked" by the intelligence agencies because the information was ..collected because they were under surveillance. Parsing "collection: vs "surveilling" was disingenuous beyond reality. One can put forward the idea that Trump personnel had conversations because of "incidental collection" or that Trump personnel are lawbreakers or treasonous as a reason for the surveillance (if surveillance happened – it seems obvious that it did happen) and the surveillance was legitimate.

    Unmasking could be legitimate as well – we don't know right now. But to continue to put forward the proposition that Trump associates were not surveilled (by the Obama ADMINISTRATION) is simply preposterous.

    Again, I just see purposeful obtuseness. And the trust in the honor and integrity of CIA and intelligence agency officials assumed by the MSM when there are so many instances of documented lying is hard to reconcile with an objective press.

    I pretty much suspect there were some standard Washington scams/influence peddling going on – more so because this is Trump – and someone in the Obama administration was over anxious to leak this information, developed from classified information to hurt Trump. The only problem is that intelligence gathered information is not to be used for common criminal law. So we have the common law breaking on the Trump side and we have constitutional law breaking from the Obama side. Unfortunately, this country seems to have lost all desire to restrain the government from access to ALL communications of US citizens. And the MSM seems entirely unconcerned about unlimited government snooping.

    [Apr 01, 2017] Sean Spicer Repeats Trump s Unproven Wiretapping Allegation

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom?" Mr. Spicer said. "But I think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day." ..."
    "... TheGatewayPundit.com, a right-wing site, called it a "notorious" interview and said it proved Obama administration officials had disseminated "intel gathered on the Trump team." Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that Ms. Farkas had made "just an incredible statement." Breitbart News reported on Mr. Priebus's comments. ..."
    "... The comments by Ms. Farkas, Mr. Spicer said, were evidence that Mr. Trump or his associates "were surveilled, had their information unmasked, made it available, was politically spread." He said that such stories were proof that Obama administration officials had "misused, mishandled and potentially did some very, very bad things with classified information." ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nytimes.com

    The White House on Friday revived President Trump's unproven wiretapping allegations against the Obama administration, insisting that there is new evidence that it conducted "politically motivated" surveillance of Mr. Trump's presidential campaign.

    Senior government officials, including James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, and lawmakers from both parties have repeatedly and forcefully rejected the president's claim, saying they have seen no evidence of direct surveillance. A spokesman for former President Barack Obama has denied that Mr. Obama ever ordered surveillance of Mr. Trump or his associates.

    But Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, asserted to reporters during his daily news briefing that members of Mr. Obama's administration had done "very, very bad things," just as Mr. Trump alleged without proof on March 4 when he posted messages on Twitter accusing Mr. Obama of "wire tapping" his phones at Trump Tower.

    "The question is why? Who else did it? Was it ordered? By whom?" Mr. Spicer said. "But I think more and more the substance that continues to come out on the record by individuals continues to point to exactly what the president was talking about that day."

    ... ... ...

    Mr. Spicer's remarks on Friday seemed designed to give new life to the allegations against Mr. Obama after weeks of trying to focus attention on the damage that Mr. Spicer said had been caused by leaks from the investigations into Russia's involvement in the 2016 presidential campaign.

    TheGatewayPundit.com, a right-wing site, called it a "notorious" interview and said it proved Obama administration officials had disseminated "intel gathered on the Trump team." Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that Ms. Farkas had made "just an incredible statement." Breitbart News reported on Mr. Priebus's comments.

    In fact, the reports do not back up the allegations that Mr. Trump or any officials in his campaign were ever under surveillance. In the March 2 interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program, Ms. Farkas said she had expressed concern to her former colleagues about the need to secure intelligence related to the Russian hacking of the American election.

    Ms. Farkas was commenting on a New York Times article a day earlier that documented how in the days before Mr. Trump's inauguration, Obama administration officials had sought to ensure the preservation of those documents in order to leave a clear trail for government investigators after Mr. Trump took office.

    In a statement she gave to the American Spectator, a conservative publication, Ms. Farkas said the furor over her remarks was "a wild misinterpretation of comments I made on the air in March." She added, "I was out of government, I didn't have any classified information, or any knowledge of 'tapping' or leaking or the N.Y.T. article before it came out." White House officials also confronted on Friday the disclosure that Mr. Flynn, who resigned in February over his contacts with Russian officials, has offered to testify before the two congressional committees investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia about those contacts in exchange for immunity from prosecution.

    Mr. Trump said on Twitter on Friday morning that he agreed with Mr. Flynn's proposal.

    "Mike Flynn should ask for immunity in that this is a witch hunt (excuse for big election loss), by media & Dems, of historic proportion!" Mr. Trump wrote.

    The comments by Ms. Farkas, Mr. Spicer said, were evidence that Mr. Trump or his associates "were surveilled, had their information unmasked, made it available, was politically spread." He said that such stories were proof that Obama administration officials had "misused, mishandled and potentially did some very, very bad things with classified information."

    [Apr 01, 2017] Red Scare Economic Principals

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Washington Post ..."
    "... Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire ..."
    "... The Chicago Tribune ..."
    "... Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China ..."
    "... The New York Times Magazine ..."
    "... The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.economicprincipals.com
    Red Scare March 5, 2017 - No Comments ↓ | Posted in 2016 elections , Russia Tagged with: Andrew Krepinevich , Andrew Marshall , Barry Watts , David Remnick , Evan Osnos , Joshua Yaffa , The Last Warrior , Valery Gerasimov
    In a week in which Attorney General Jeff Sessions's unremembered visit with the Russian ambassador dominated the news, the most interesting thing I read was a 13,000-word article in The New Yorker . It exemplified all the preconceptions typical of what I have come to think of as reporters of the Generation of '91 .

    David Remnick , b. 1958, was Moscow bureau chief 1988-1992 for The Washington Post , before he moved to the magazine. In 1998 he was named its editor. Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire won a Pulitzer Prize in 1993. Evan Osnos , b. 1976, joined the magazine from The Chicago Tribune in 2008 and covered China for five years. Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China appeared in 2014 and was a Pulitzer finalist. Joshua Yaffa is a journalist based in Moscow. He has written for The Economist and The New York Times Magazine .

    Nothing in the article – Active Measures: What lay behind Russia's interference in the 2016 election – and what lies ahead ? – was quite as punchy as the art that accompanied it. The magazine's traditional anniversary cover featured Vladimir Putin, as a dandy peering through a monocle at a raging butterfly Trump, instead of the customary rendering of Eustace Tilley . That was non-committal enough, though it reminded me of the magazine's 2014 Sochi Olympics cover , a figure-skating Vladimir Putin leaps while five little Putin lookalikes feign disinterest from the judges' stand.

    More alarming was the art opposite the opening page, Saint Basil's Cathedral, in Moscow, administering a jolt of light (a digital illumination ray?) to the White House from the skies above. The caption states, "Democratic National Committee hacks, many analysts believe, were just a skirmish in a larger war against Western institutions and alliances."

    The article was organized in five little chapters.

    In "Soft Targets," Putin orders an unprecedented effort to interfere in the US presidential election. It is a gesture of disrespect, ordered out of pique and resentment of perceived US finagling in the 2012 Soviet election, intended to be highly public.

    In "Cold War 2.0," the Obama administration is caught flat-footed by the campaign and fails to respond effectively. The Russians have adopted a new and deeply troubling offensive posture "that threatens the very international order," a former Obama official states.

    In "Putin's World," a capsule history of the decline of Russian pride during the 1990s is presented alongside an argument for the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Putin's mistrust of democracy at home is described, as well as his recoiling from the US invasion of Iraq. Differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama after the annexation of Crimea are recounted: she sometimes favors the use of military force whereas he does not.

    In "Hybrid War," Russia becomes technically adroit at cyberwarfare and experiments with a digital blitz on Estonian communications after a statue of a Soviet soldier is removed; meanwhile the US unleashes its Stuxnet computer virus on Iran's uranium refinery operations. The Russian Army chief of staff, Valery Gerasimov, is introduced, along with his 2013 article, The Value of Science Is in the Foresight , urging "the adoption of a Western strategy," combining military, technological, media, political and intelligence tactics to destabilize a foe, the article having "achieved the status of legend" as the Gerasimov doctrine, following the invasion of Ukraine. An estimated thousand code warriors are said to be working for the Russian government on everything from tapping former Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland's cell phone in Kiev ("a new low in Russian tradecraft") to the forthcoming French and German elections. Finally, the hacking campaign against the Democratic Party is rehashed, and Clinton campaign manager John Podesta says the interaction between Russian intervention and the FBI "created a vortex that produced the result" – a lost election.

    In "Turbulence Theory," Trump is said to be a phenomenon of America's own making, like the nationalist politicians of Europe, both the consequence of globalization and deindustrialization, but Russia likes the policies that are the result: leave Russia alone and don't talk about civil rights. Meanwhile, the hacking campaign may have backfired, and Trump may no longer have the freedom to accommodate Russian ambitions as might have been wished, but at least Russia has come up with a way to make up for its economic and geopolitical weakness, namely inflict turbulence on the rest of the world.

    Three things about this assessment stand out.

    Putin's views of US foreign policy are not integral to the account: they are presented in two widely separate sections, one on the history of US "active measures," the other on changes in his opinion wrought by the war in Iraq.

    Putin is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, the authors write, but his opinions, and those of others, especially who compare the invasions of Crimea and Iraq (where the US immediately set out to build an embassy for 15,000 workers) are dismissed as "whataboutism ," exercises in false moral equivalence. NATO expansion is more or less taken for granted. The military alliance's extension to the borders of Russia forms no part of the narrative.

    Second, no attention is paid to Putin's problems, aside from a nod to his suppression of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the rock group Pussy Riot. His plans for a Eurasian Union, which were at the heart of the Ukraine crisis, go unmentioned. There's nothing about the centuries-old struggle between Westernizers and Slavophiles who oppose policies that would tie Russia more closely to the West.

    Third, the history of the Cold War itself gets short shrift. The genesis of the doctrine of "hybrid war," ascribed to Gen. Gerasimov, is described at length in The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy , by Andrew F. Krepinevich and, Barry D. Watts (Basic Books, 2015). Marshall founded the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment. In 1973 he described what would become a dramatic strategic shift:

    In general we need to look for opportunities as well as problems; search for areas of comparative advantage and try to move the competition into these areas; [and] look for ways to complicate the Soviets' problems.

    Many factors led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. "Active measures," of the sort propounded by Marshall, were prominent among them. You can hardly be surprised that the Russians have sought to master new techniques. The underlying proposition of the New Yorker's article is that the world is, or at least it should be, unipolar, with the US in charge of its democratic values. After all these years, the Russians still don't agree.

    [Apr 01, 2017] Of Tweets And Trade

    Accidently Krugman gave out the reason for Anti-Russian hysterias... Here we can talk about neoliberal junta...
    blogs.nytimes.com

    ...the classic answer of collapsing juntas is the Malvinas solution: rally the nation by creating a foreign confrontation of some kind. Usually this involves a shooting war; but maybe a trade war would serve the same purpose.

    [Apr 01, 2017] My speculation is Flynn doesn't want to have the Logan act hanging over his head

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [NBC]. ..."
    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    djrichard , March 31, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    "The Senate Intelligence Committee turned down the request by former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's lawyer for a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony, two congressional sources told NBC News" [NBC].

    So what's the over/under on this?

    My speculation is Flynn doesn't have anything to say about Trump. He just doesn't want to have the Logan act hanging over his head. But if he's got nothing to contribute, that means Flynn is more valuable to anti-Trump forces if he doesn't open his mouth – gotta keep the other narratives going.

    [Apr 01, 2017] US neocons have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Still detente offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of Chinas orbit and accepting Us terms in Syria

    Apr 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Mar 31, 2017 3:08:38 PM | 17

    b's quote from Obama is from January 2016. I don't think Obama was EVER serious about fighting ISIS. He helped to create ISIS when he ignored their rise, calling them al Queda's "JV team". He confirmed his support for ISIS with his "leading from behind" policy.

    In January 2016, the US was starting the charade of separating moderate rebels. We know how that farce turned out.

    Even after the San Bernardino (Dec. 2015) and Orlando (Jun. 2016) terror attacks - attributed to ISIS - nothing really changed. For Obama it was business as usual.

    Trump initiated talks between US military command and Russians for the first time since 2014. Gen. Dunford met with Gen. Gerasimov in Feb. 2017. We now see Israel stepping up operations in Syria as a result of US pulling back from the failed 'Assad must go!' policy.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Has there been any real change or just a hiatus? I don't think we'll know until Trump meets with Putin.

    Many in the US (esp. neocons) will have a hard time coming to terms with a multi-lateral world. Whatever peace is offered to Russia is likely to be conditioned on pulling Russia out of China's orbit.

    Hayder | Mar 31, 2017 1:17:42 PM | 1
    I'm sorry about this long contribution, but as I was writing this, more information and ideas came to hand.


    Iraqi situation:


    Recently, Iraqi PM Al-Abadi met with President Trump in the White House.

    As well as the usual niceties of a meeting between two heads of state in Washington, the meeting centred around three main areas where the US has objectives that need to be address by their Iraqi counterparts:​


    1) The Popular Mobilisation Units (PMU): These forces must be disbanded, and are seen as a stumbling block in the face of US objectives in Iraq and the wider region. There has been some indications that PM Al-Abadi will disband them after the elimination of Daesh/ISIS, allowing those that wish to remain to be integrated into the Iraqi security apparatus and disbanding those that do not. This is the "objective", but whether Al-Abadi can deliver is an entirely different matter. Already, Iraqi members of parliament have come out in protest at there mere possibility of the disbandment of the PMU, stating that the PM does not have the legal authority to disband them, and it needs parliamentary approval, where any MP voting for this will be committing political suicide due to the popularity the the PMU among ordinary Iraqis.


    2) Permanent american Bases in Iraq and increasing the number of troops in the country: This is a big issue for President Trump. During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly stated the need to control Iraqi oil, and stated that leaving Iraq was a mistake. He even said this IN FRONT OF PM Al-Abadi several times.There is also widespread concern amongst Iraqis that the US is on its way back to Iraq, and in large numbers- some report a figure of up to fifty thousand troops, in permanent bases. There is also a very large US military base being build in Al Qayyarah area in Northern Iraq (about half way between Beiji and Mosul), that reports say will equal the size of Incirlik. This is another very "hot" topic in Iraq, and has widespread rejection by the Iraqi people. Once again, Iraqi MPs state that Al-Abadi DOES NOT have legal authority to allow permanent bases or keep foreign troops permanently in Iraq, and that such a step would need approval by parliament. Again, any MP voting for this will be committing political suicide. There is genuine fear amongst Iraqis about the situation "after" Daesh/ISIS. The concern is, that in the event the Government DOES NOT cede to the will of the US, and approve bases and troops etc.. there will be a dramatic political change, either in the form of a coup, or declaration of a state of emergency, through which special measures will take place. There is also talk of appointing a military governor for the mainly Sunni provinces of Nainawa, Salahuldeen (Saladin) and Anbar- a de facto state within a state- this could link up with Eastern Syria (see bellow).


    3) Moving Iraq away from Iran and closer to the Saudi "camp". The recent visit to Iraq by the Saudi Foreign Minister has been well covered. There was also a meeting between the Iraqi PM and the Saudi King on the 29th on March. Al-Abadi's speech at the Heads of State of the Arab League in Jordan (29th March) was notable in that it was close to the Saudi position on several topics: a) His statement did not mention Syria, b) It stated that Iraq will "expel ISIS outside Iraq" { ?into Syria as per the objectives of others wishing to topple the Syrian state}, c) Is stressed the need for a unified Arab front against threats to Iraqi sovereignty, or the sovereignty of any Arab nation {reference to alleged Iranian interference in the region}. On the face of it, it seems that Iraq is moving away from Iran and edging closer to the Saudi camp, albeit slowly, but this is purely at the level of the current Iraqi government. I think efforts to distance Iraq from Iran and closer to Saudi Arabia will ultimately fail, for two reasons:


    Firstly, The vast majority of Iraqi people view Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Gulf Monarchies very negatively. Unlike Iraqi politicians, who will certainly have some personal gains from closer ties with Saudi Arabia, Iraqi people are unwilling to just "forgive and forget" how the Saudis and others persistently conspired against the Iraqi people over the years. It was the Saudis and other Gulf States who supported Saddam Hussein and his regime, which oppressed Iraqis terribly, they supported him to the tune of over 200 billion dollars for the war against Iran and persistently opposed the political process since 2003 (and Democracy was NOT the reason!). More recently, the Saudis have been supporting Daesh/ISIS both financially and ideologically. This support has carried on unabated to this day.


    Secondly: the links between Iraq and Iran are much closer and deeper than others realise, and including at a cultural, religious and tribal level, and no government can alter that. The only exception to this would be a harsh dictatorial regime, such as that of Saddam Hussein, whereby government policy had absolutely no relation to Iraqi public opinion, and was simply a tool for carrying out the wishes of the "Dear Leader".


    Other Iraq developments:


    A) PMU still barred from entering Tel Afar. The Iraqi government has succumbed to pressure from Turkey to prevent Tal Afar from being liberated, with a threat of invasion by a Turkish force stationed at the boarder town of Silopi should the PMUs enter Tel Afar.


    B) Rumours that Daesh/ISIS evacuating injured/ getting supplies from through a corridor to the North of Mosul, via Masoud Barzani controlled territory / Turkey, and plans are to slow down the Iraqi advance long enough for the majority of Daesh/ISIS forces to evacuate into Syria. The route takes them through Tell Kayf and Batnay (see Southfront mosul situation update map 31 March https://southfront.org/military-situation-in-mosul-on-march-31-2017-iraqi-map-update/ ).

    Syria situation:


    With the ongoing advance towards Raqqa by US/SDF forces, the bid event recently was the surprise Tabqa operation. It is notable that the airborne landings in Tabqa by a small US/SDF force occurred with relatively little resistance from Daesh/ISIS, with few casualties. Some have concluded that the majority of ISIS had already withdrawn. Contrast this with the Ithriyah-Raqqa offensive carried out by the Syrian Arab Army in 2016, whereby the SAA suffered heavy casualties and resulted in Daesh/ISIS gains. There are also reports of a rapid withdraw on ISIS from East As-Suwayda to reinforce strength in Raqqa, Deir Ezzor and As-Sukhnah.


    The US/SDF landings in Tabqa aimed at achieving several objectives. The most important is blocking the path of the Syrian army and allies from Reqqa.

    If/when US/SDF forces defeat Daesh/ISIS in Reqqa , they will have virtual control of the whole of Eastern Syria, save for three pockets of SAA control in Qamishli, Hasakah and Deir Ezzur, as well as some areas where Daesh/ISIS will remain.

    The Eastern part of Syria is where the baulk of the oil and gas is located as well as being the agricultural heartland of the country. The US secretary of State, Tillerson stated that the the US longer sees toppling President Assad as a primary objective. This may be the case (for now), but on the ground, events are such that Syria is being divided into regions of influence whereby the Damascus Government no longer has authority over large swathes of it. We are witnessing a de facto federalisation of Syria, with the Eastern part no longer under the rule of Damascus, and in effect a US protectorate, with troops on the ground. The creation of this "region" also serves another critical US objective in the region - it acts as a "wall" separating Iran & "Shia" Iraq from the Government of Syria and Lebanon. There are whispers that parts of Western Iraq will be added to this new entity in a "redrawing" of the political maps in the region. As stated in a previous post of mine, I believe that Daesh/ISIS will concentrate its forces in Deir Ezzor after its defeat in Raqqa, for a final "showdown" with other forces. It will likely face both US/SDF and Syrian/Russian forces there, but time will tell.


    Turkey announced the Euphrates Shield has concluded. Turkey has managed to split the two areas of Kurdish influence in Syria, but I believe the operation was concluded as there was no more room for Turkey to move, rather than by choice. Erdogan has finally got a foothold in Norther Syria. Could this area now be used to house refugees as per "safe zones" advocated by Turkey, Saudi and now the new US administration?

    Arab Summit:

    Some are sating that the recent summit of the Arabs Heads of State held in Jordan on March 29th marked the unofficial start of the "Arab NATO" to face Iran. There was the usual anti-Iran rhetoric from the "usual suspects" but Iraq was usually cold towards Iran. The question of Palestine was high on the agenda at the summit, but it is thought that this is merely being used as a tool to provide "political cover" for the upcoming Sunni NATO, with an expected summit to be held sometime down the line in Washington that will bring together these Arab leaders together with their Israeli counterparts in a public display of a new type alliance between Arabs and Israelis to face the "Iranian threat".


    War in Yemen:

    There are signs that the US is about to enter the war in Yemen, against the government in Sana'a (Houthi-Saleh alliance). This is seen as a war against Iran in Yemen. There are currently three US destroyers with support vessels in the Red Sea. The is a media storm from the Saudi side regarding the port of Hodeida, and that it is used to smuggle weapons into Yemen, stressing the importance of "taking it out". The next large operation could well be the battle for the West coast of Yemen (on the Red Sea). The Sana'a forces have stated that they will NOT tolerate an attack on Hodeida, and any such action will mean a major escalation on their part. At present, the Sana'a forces have refrained from going deep into Saudi territory- but this could change and their forces may receive the political green light to proceed if Hodeida is attacked.


    End in sight in Syria .....?


    Things seem to be clearing up in Syria.. Daesh/ISIS is on the ropes, US/SDF making steady progress in the East, and the Syrian army, backed by the Russians is in control of most of the major population areas, and the fact that the US publicly states that removal of Assad is no longer a priority have lead some to argued that it is the beginning of the end.. that the players are making their final touches before a political settlement is reached.. they argue that at the start, the US and its allies wanted regime change by supporting the rebels, and aimed at taking the whole of Syria- this has failed. Now, the US and its allies are involved directly and will settle for a different model, whereby there are regions of influence, a division between the US and Russian Axis. I disagree with this. I think it is still too early, and the US, Turkey, Saudi and other will still relish the overthrow of the Syrian government- and as things stand, they cant do it, but are still open to seizing any opportunity that may present itself in the future to achieve this. That is the only explanation for the lack of full co-ordination between the US and Russia to bring a devastating defeat to Daesh/ISIS, Al-Nusra and groups allied to them. If the US and its allies were serious in accepting what gains they have made, then they would start the full co-ordination of efforts to defeat the extremists with a view of working out a final political settlement. We have to remember that Daesh/ISIS and other groups are only a tool, a means to an end. they are weapons on mass destruction- some may have outlived their usefulness and will need to be exterminated, others still have a role to play.


    Its not over yet,. it is not clear what the final outcome for both Iraq and Syria will be after Daesh/ISIS. As regards Syria, I think there is a false sense of security, and the danger to the Syrian government will stem from the South- contrary to expectations.

    Hayder, the Iraqi abroad

    WorldBLee | Mar 31, 2017 3:12:54 PM | 18
    I used to use the term "Obusha" for the hybrid nature of the last two administrations where the Coke/Pepsi branding masked the fact that the core policies were the same. Perhaps "Trama" is the term for the current state where the Washington-Wall Street consensus types scream about how Trump is an abomination while in reality business as usual goes in most areas. Certainly Trama describes the impact on the rest of the world, particularly in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine.

    Temporarily Sane | Mar 31, 2017 3:14:17 PM | 19
    @1 Hayder

    Excellent analysis. I wonder what the Iranian, Syrian, Hezbollah reaction will be. Part of Trump's goal, I suspect, is moving Russia away from Iran. There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are.

    james | Mar 31, 2017 3:33:23 PM | 20
    b - thank you... the only dupes who are going to swallow the change in the words, are the same dupes who believed all the previous lies... meanwhile, until an actual change happens, it will be the same biz as usual from the same group of liars... they must think folks are complete idiots to believe any of their bs!! change my ass... hopey changey, lol...

    dh | Mar 31, 2017 1:45:47 PM | 6
    Good point b about this being Obama policy but

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/31/team-trump-doubles-down-on-obamas-horrendous-betrayal-of-syria

    likklemore | Mar 31, 2017 2:00:02 PM | 8
    yes b, Haley also said "Assad regime, Iran and Russia committed war crimes"

    No, never mind "war crimes" Assad may stay because we failed the regime change thingy after Mr. Putin entered in support of Syria..Bad Putin who hijacked our elections they are no match for us. So, our new focus is North Korea, third world dictator Kim Jung-Un, piece of cake we can readily beat just like we did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Kim Jung's half brother was offed - we will continue to send a message. This time around we really do intend to teach NK people a lesson in democracy and vassalship. See..the USA Sec. of War

    In London, Mad-Dog Mattis: "North Korea 'Has Got to Be Stopped"

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/defense-sec-james-mattis-north-korea-has-got-be-stopped-n740966

    Mad-Dog is an apt descriptor MAD --setting up the final event for total collapse.
    I gotta go buy some supplies: plastic sheeting, duct tape, water and food. Can't afford a luxury underground bunker.

    likklemore | Mar 31, 2017 3:02:23 PM | 14
    hopehely @ 10

    Guess, I should have included the /S tag


    Dh @ 12

    John McCain loves his friends, ISIS. Here he is outing himself on Hannity Show saying:
    "ISIS! not true" "I know these people intimately, I know these people I am in contact with them all the time."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHtS3c5olMY

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    You think?
    All doubts of McCain ISIS connection now debunked.

    Peter AU | Mar 31, 2017 4:19:29 PM | 22
    Temporarily Sane 19 "There are already points of contention between Russia and Syria/Iran namely that the former has not made the continued unity of Syrian territory a non-negotiable condition. Which begs the question what Russia's actual goals in Syria are."

    There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains its territorial integrity.
    US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.

    Louis Proyect | Mar 31, 2017 5:16:50 PM | 23
    Okay, it is now six years and counting. How many years will it take for you to figure out that the USA prefers Assad to the religiously conservative rural poor? Maybe both Obama and Trump took the advice of the RAND corporation:: "Regime collapse, while not considered a likely outcome, was perceived to be the worst possible outcome for U.S. strategic interests"

    Yonatan | Mar 31, 2017 5:23:00 PM | 24
    Temporarily Sane @19

    Russia's primary goal in Syria is to destroy the Islamic terrorists so they can't be sent on to Russia. They have already taken out around 4500 terrorists whose passports show they were from RF states. The Russia media is littered with details of small scale takfiri terrorist acts around the RF southern borders - the biggest most recent was 6 or so taken out on the border to Chechnya.

    Secondary goals include the support for primacy of international law relating to national integrity, support for an ally, testing military systems in real conditions and increasing the strength of the multipolar opposition to Anglo-Zionist hegemony.

    Harry | Mar 31, 2017 5:38:31 PM | 25
    @ Peter AU | 22

    There is the matter of the UNSC resolution, that Russia put up and US agreed to, that Syria retains its territorial integrity.

    If Kurds get de-facto independence within Syria (according to their manifesto) a la Barzanistan, resolution of "territorial integrity" technically remains intact. Russia could make such concessions (even blasted Assad for desiring to return all of Syria's territory) if only US would agree to barter, so far they didnt (or maybe Trump/Putin already did, who knows). While for Syria/Iran its as bad as it gets.

    US may occupy part of Syria for awhile. Nothing Russia can do about that in the short term, short of going to war with the US. Russia is looking at the long term.

    US wont be the one occupying, Kurds will (US will just rule them). Do you think Syria will start a war with Kurds (especially under US protection)? Of course not. Kurds expanded their territory 10x (now finishing off ethnic cleansing that ISIS started), occupied as many oilfields as they could.

    Kurds themselves are divided, but US will make sure their puppets have the power, while pro-Syrian Kurds will be marginalized or simply killed. The idea that Kurds will come to their senses is slim and most likely wont happen, just look at Barzanistan. Independence US dangling in front of them is powerful motivator, not to speak of how much influence and money US, Israel, monarchies, etc. have.

    As for Russia, both short and long term its looking after its own interests, which may or may not be whats the best for Syria. Hence the clashes.

    telescope | Mar 31, 2017 10:31:53 PM | 30
    The more US soldiers are stuck in Islamic badlands (Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq) - without any chances of even remotely favorable outcome - the better it's for America's foes. The US will keep bleeding financially, emotionally, spiritually and literally, until its military machine simply unravels and disappears into a memory hole. The Russians and the Chinese must be watching US moves with utter amazement. America's inability to perform even the simplest geopolitical calculations may very well be unprecedented in world's history.

    Alaric | Mar 31, 2017 10:36:32 PM | 31
    While i agree that the goal remains one of dividing Syria, I doubt it will work out as planned by the US/Saudis/Israelis etc. Raqqa is not Kurd territory and I'm skeptical that the various arab tribes there are going to accept governance by a Kurd/US alliance. I also wonder why Kurds are liberating Raqqa. The main advantage to them beyond killing ISIS is really leverage in negotiations with Assad. Do you want Raqqa back? Well here is what we want. I have a hard time believing the Kurds really expect to occupy Arab territories under the nose of Assad, Russia and Turkey for any extended period of time?

    Net: capturing Raqqa gives the kurds bargaining power against the Asaad government towards Kurd autonomy.

    [Apr 01, 2017] Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign

    Apr 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    The worst liars are often form intelligence agents. timbers , March 31, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    "Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw Story].

    Medicare for all and universal single payer healthcare is a Russian plot to divide America and was used to interfere with the election to get Trump elected and steal the Presidency from Hillary, who would have defeated Putin by now if she had won, just like we won in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and lots of other places.

    I think I'm going to try this line out on customers next time I tend bar. Their input should be very helpful especially after they've had several cocktails.

    LT , March 31, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    Of course. The Democratic Party is dismissive of the fact that the institutions they hold so dear are corrupted beyond reformability. They have zero self-awareness no matter how much yoga or meditation they practice and the sooner the party goes extinct the better.

    dontknowitall , March 31, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    So now Bernie Bros are Stalin's unwitting dupes since "Trump is a Putin agent" doesn't seem to be working out. As a Bernie Bro this Russian connection is news to me, I couldn't stand Hillary forever (before Putin even) and even less her hapless cadre of well wishers. If you pile up all the lying and obfuscating that went on with Obama and Bush, I was more than ready to look outside the Beltway for a life raft.

    I tell you when I absolutely decided I was not going to play the 'lesser evil' game and that was when it became patently obvious that Sec State Hillary Clinton was going to approve of the DAPL pipeline by having its environmental impact 'independently' scrutinized by a contractor that was also working for the pipeline's owners. That piece of straw broke the camel's back

    I have yet to figure out why Apple's autocorrect keeps changing Bernie Bros to beriberi

    Alex Morfesis , March 31, 2017 at 3:50 pm

    White russians vs formerfakered russians 100 yrs later, razputin sez read my hips no interference in american election

    but from archangel where about 100 years ago the only americans ever shot by russians died about 20 there and 30 Vladivostok if I have split the 50 killed over two years from actual combat correctly

    America and russia must always be kept apart otherwise europe (and china) will not flourish

    Russia is twice the physical size of the usa with one third its population

    Are there and have there been conflicts between the 2 nations these last 100 years well we invaded them at the end of ww1 just as we (& others) invaded and occupied china for a few decades but yes major countries and with russia spanning three continents(arguing diomide island & Aleutian isles are part of n. America) it is impossible for Russian interests to not involve most northern hemisphere economies

    Just as communism and marxism is not some communicable disease neither is hamiltonianism

    If fearless leader were powerful, the trappings of power(big building we see you erdo ), big posters, big parades & 365247 as talking head would not be necessary

    If pinochet, fidel, marcos, stalin & franco were "powerful" they would not have had to round up and kill "dissidents"

    Who would ever want to be king

    aletheia33 , March 31, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    actually i am worried about this. if they can persistently smear sanders enough with this kind of associated-with-foreign-enemies lie–which they can escalate in various directions from a foundational "russians used bernie"–i can see it taking him out from any further effectiveness. the younger generation may not take it seriously, but knee-jerk patriotism is still quite useful–it's never failed when TPTB want a war, has it?–for directing americans' minds to where TPTB want them to go. i keep thinking of how easy it was for mccarthyism to take hold in the 1950s, and we are now seeing so much that is reminiscent of that. and mccarthyism was very effective in crushing the left, with consequences we are still suffering. the more followers sanders attracts, the more dangerous and frightening to TPTB he will become. they have barely begun to take him seriously as a threat. this is only the beginning of what they will try in their effort to erase it if they see it escalating.

    please correct me, i want to be wrong.

    a different chris , March 31, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    Unfortunately, the only thing you are wrong about is just being worried about "this" so specifically the TPTB will try any and all possible levers to get what they want. It will take more than Sanders to stop them, and they will crush quite a few people along the way. Might include Sanders, but if he's the only resistance then they will certainly crush his movement and will get their war on.

    We need a 1000 flowers to bloom. Every type and in every direction.

    aletheia33 , March 31, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    @a different chris,

    agreed. i am specifically worried about the russia/sanders thing (and not mentioning all the rest that you refer to) because i don't see it being taken seriously now at its inception. i think it's important to call attention at the first emergence of a new disinfo campaign, which often evokes from people, initially, laughter and disbelief.

    HopeLB , March 31, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    I was thinking along the lines of an internet deluge of messages which convey something along the lines of , " Do you actually think you have dumbed us down to the point where we would actually believe this Red Scare Shit? Or are just gauging how much worse you have to make common core education and lead levels to get us there?" Not catchy but something to that effect.

    different clue , March 31, 2017 at 9:13 pm

    Or . . . How long did it take you people to come up with that?

    How much did it cost you to have that focus-grouped?

    Steve , March 31, 2017 at 4:20 pm

    I was reading the comments on the RawStorys piece last night. It was absolutely frightening the hate the majority of commenters have for people who supported Bernie. The fact that almost all of their information is untrue doesn't make any difference to them. They are poorly informed and becoming very unhinged.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 31, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    Wait till 2018.

    The Great Purge will be quite a show.

    NotTimothyGeithner , March 31, 2017 at 5:01 pm

    They were always unhinged.

    Do you remember "battle tested" and boasts about Hillary winning Republicans? Those were just as fantastical. Hillary ran in two elections (2006 doesn't count). She carpet bagged her way into New York where she wound up facing a candidate too extreme for Peter King and only won by 10 points. Gore won by 25. Then she lost to Obama. She polled as a consistent drag on down ticket races.

    The stuff about Obama's soaring rhetoric was absolutely nuts. "We aren't red states or blue states. We are the United states." He was dopey then. This is largely the result of emotional investment in candidates. Admittedly, they are lashing out because their imaginary friends aren't on TV all the time. They remind me very much of Lonzo Ball's old man or crazed sports parents and stage mom's in general.

    Of course, one does wonder about Brock's trolls.

    Big River Bandido , March 31, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    They are completely unhinged. No better than birthers, Tea Partiers, and anti-vaxxers.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 31, 2017 at 5:34 pm

    Unhinged, or just their true selves this is normal for them?

    Is it a bug, or a feature?

    Is it divorce time? Finally knowing there is no changing the two-timer.

    a different chris , March 31, 2017 at 7:26 pm

    *this* - realize the Republican Party, hard to say about Trump himself, but the Rs are literally no more to the right of these people than Sanders is to the left.

    So it's not unhinged to treat him just as badly.

    They are OK with US tax levels because they are comfortably well off, and being more urban they can see the infrastructure and understand that it has to be paid for. They are OK with Obamacare because they aren't subject to it and it "sounds good". They are OK with wars because other people fight them. And so on.

    different clue , March 31, 2017 at 9:15 pm

    I have said before that the millions upon millions of Klinton Koolaid Kultists will be a social problem going forward. They may well become a menace.

    Should Sanders supporters quietly begin forming armed and trained militias to be able to protect themselves and eachother from rioting Clintonite mobs, Clintonite home-invaders, and so forth?

    Vatch , March 31, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    "Russians used 'Bernie Bros' as 'unwitting agents' in disinformation campaign: Senate Intel witness" [Raw Story]. You knew this was coming, right?

    Well, no, I did not know that this was coming. I suppose I should have; I did not realize that I, as a Sanders supporter, was a tool of Russian propaganda. I naively thought that I opposed Clinton because of her immoral family foundation activities, her secret and lucrative speeches to Wall Street firms, her Senate vote for the invasion of Iraq, her vote to make it harder for people to get out of bankruptcy, her votes to create and reauthorize the Patriot Act, her disdain for environmentalists, and all of the bizarre events associated with her private email server. I guess I now better now. (sarc)

    djrichard , March 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm

    That's no excuse. One must strive to not have overlap with the Russian agenda. America depended on us when we were most needed and in our failings we failed America. /sarc

    Cujo359 , March 31, 2017 at 3:51 pm

    Almost as though a term as a US Senator and four years as SoS would give us no idea how she might govern. It was Russian propaganda that made us believe she was going to do no better than give us more of the same

    DJG , March 31, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    Vatchushka: I knew all along that you are a running dog of Russian imperialism. Come on. Admit it.

    Vatch , March 31, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    I didn't even realize that I'm a sleeper agent!

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 31, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    A Manchurian sleeper agent.

    Arizona Slim , March 31, 2017 at 4:44 pm

    And to think that my beloved aunt (RIP, Jean!) turned me on to Bernie Sanders. Does that make her a BernieAunt? If so, she'd think that it was hilarious.

    craazyboy , March 31, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    First they come for the Bros, then they come for the LezBros.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 31, 2017 at 6:13 pm

    First the came for the Deplorables.

    Now, they are coming for the Bros.

    Gareth , March 31, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    I take this as meaning that the Queen of Chaos is running again. This time in a leather jacket.

    Marina Bart , March 31, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    Every time she does her leather lesbian routine, I get excited for a brief moment that she's going to come out as bi, which would be one cool progressive thing she could achieve that would cost her nothing (in reality - in her mind, I think she still believes she's going to be President).

    And then I remember the scam about the hot sauce in her purse, and I wonder whose pocket she's trying to pick by doing this.

    [Mar 31, 2017] The Coup Against Trump and Why Russia Must Be Destroyed by Henry Romero

    Notable quotes:
    "... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | sputniknews.com
    The Coup Against Trump and Why Russia 'Must Be Destroyed' © REUTERS/ Opinion 17:04 16.01.2017 (updated 13:51 22.01.2017) Get short URL John Wight 95 36555 208 27 Delenda est Cathargo ("Carthage must be destroyed") are words that come down to us from ancient history. It is said they were spoken by the famed Roman statesman and orator Cato the Elder at the end of his speeches. They remain relevant today in the case of Trump, Russia and a Washington establishment that is intent on destroying both. The Rome of our time is Washington, Russia is Carthage, and today's Cato the Elder is none other than US Senator John McCain, whose quest for conflict with Russia is unbounded. © AP Photo/

    Indeed for Mr. McCain the belief that Russia must be destroyed has been elevated to the status of a self evident and received truth.

    Origins of the 'Dodgy Dossier'

    It was McCain who passed the "dodgy dossier" on Trump to the FBI, after receiving it from former UK ambassador to Russia, Sir Andrew Wood. Contained within the dossier is information purporting to reveal how Trump has been compromised by Russian intelligence over various sexual encounters with prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. Compounding the scandal, adding to the lurid nature of it, are reports of the existence of a second Russian dossier on the President-elect.

    The dossier's originator has been revealed as former British MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who now runs a private intelligence company and has, according to reports, gone into hiding in the UK, supposedly fearing assassination by Russian agents.

    The fact that Mr. Steele hasn't set foot in Russia for a number of years and reportedly, on behalf of Trump's enemies within the Republican Party establishment, paid for the information contained in the 35-page dossier, recently released with the caveat that its contents cannot be verified, should have been more than enough to have it instantly dismissed as, well, fake news?

    In an article that appeared on the UK's Independent newspaper website - titled "The dodgy Donald Trump dossier reminds me of the row over Saddam Hussein and his fictitious weapons of mass destruction" - Patrick Cockburn writes, "I read the text of the dossier on Donald Trump's alleged dirty dealings with a scepticism that soon turned into complete disbelief." Later in the same article he observes, "In its determination to damage Trump, the US press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious document."

    More significant than the fact this dossier was not immediately dismissed is the timing of its emergence and subsequent publication by the US news site, BuzzFeed. It comes on the very cusp of President-elect Donald Trump's official inauguration as the 45 th President of the United States on January 20th, and the very point at which his cabinet appointees were being grilled over their views of Russia, the threat Russia allegedly poses to the US and the West, during their official Senate confirmation hearings.

    Political Coup Underway Against Trump

    By now most people are aware, or at least should be, of Washington's long and ignoble history when it comes to fomenting, planning, supporting, and funding political and military coups around the world - in Central and Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere the CIA and other US agencies have brought down countless leaders and governments that have refused to toe the line when it comes to serving US interests.

    In unprecedented fashion, what we have in this instance are those same deep state actors, working in conjunction with the US liberal establishment, currently engaged in a coup designed to destroy the Trump presidency - if not before it begins then certainly soon after, with the prospect of impeachment proceedings against him already being mooted in Washington circles.

    During his recent press conference , Trump felt minded to declaim against Washington's bloated intelligence community, accusing it of releasing the dossier to the media, an allegation US intelligence chiefs have denied. The result is an unprecedented open war between the country's next president and his soon-to-be intelligence services that has pitched the country into a political crisis that grows deeper by the day.

    The Power of the Military Industrial Complex

    On the question of why the US deep state and Washington's liberal establishment is so intent on maintaining Russia in the role of deadly enemy, the answer is very simple - money.

    Huge and powerful economic and ideological interests are tied up in the new Сold War of the past few years.

    We're talking the country's previously mentioned gargantuan defense and intelligence budgets, continuing US support and financing of NATO, along with reason for the continued existence and funding of the vast network of political think tanks in Washington and throughout the West, all of which are committed to sustaining a status quo of US hegemony and unipolarity.

    Russia's emergence as a strategic counterweight to the West in recent years has and continues to challenge this hitherto uncontested hegemony, providing lucrative opportunities for organizations, groups, and individuals with a vested interest in the resulting new Cold War. For those of a skeptical persuasion in this regard, I refer you to the chilling warning issued by former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower prior to leaving office in 1960 to make way for his replacement, John F. Kennedy.

    In his televised farewell address to the American people in 1961, Eisenhower said, "We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."

    He continued:

    "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

    Finally, Eisenhower warned the American people how, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

    Though neoconservatives may no longer be in the driving seat in Washington, neoconservative ideas undoubtedly are. And prime among them is the idea that not only must Russia be destroyed but also anyone who would dare stand in the way of this narrative, up to and including President-elect Donald J. Trump.

    The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

    [Mar 31, 2017] Russian Disinformation Works Because Donald Trump 'Parrots The Same Lines,' Cyber Expert Testifies The Huffington Post

    Look like Clinton Watt can't (or does not want) to distinguish crisis of neoliberalism in the USA after 2008 and Russian influence. This is definitely pro-Clinton stance. He discredited himself by stating that Trump tower was wired is "fake news." It is not a "fake news". After Snowden revelations this is a plausible hypotheses that needs to be investigated and iether proved or disproved. This "Putindidit" stance is a very convenient smoke screen for Clinton supporters.
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    President Donald Trump aided Moscow's disinformation campaign during the 2016 U.S. election by spreading false information originating from Russian state-sponsored news outlets and internet bots, a cybersecurity expert testified before Congress on Thursday.

    "Part of the reason active measures have worked in this U.S. election is because the commander in chief has used Russian active measures, at times, against his opponents," Clint Watts, a fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, told members of the Senate intelligence committee during the panel's first public hearing on Russian election interference since Trump's inauguration in January.

    The charge from Watts, a former FBI Special Agent who tracks Russian influence operations, came in response to a question from Republican Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who asked why Russian President Vladimir Putin believed he could get away with interfering in last year's U.S. elections.

    "They parrot the same lines," Watts responded, referring to Trump and Moscow. "[Trump] denies the intel from the United States about Russia. He claimed that the election could be rigged. That was the No. 1 theme pushed by RT, Sputnik news," Watts continued. "He's made claims of voter fraud, that President Obama is not a citizen, that Congressman Cruz is not a citizen."

    In some instances, Trump and his campaign team propagated fake stories they appear to have learned about directly from Russian state media. Last year, then-campaign chairman Paul Manafort accused the U.S. media of failing to cover a terrorist attack against the NATO air base in Incirlik, Turkey. There was no such attack ― but RT, Sputnik and pro-Russian Twitter accounts pushed a series of stories suggesting Incirlik was under threat.

    According to Watts, pro-Russian Twitter accounts noticed Trump's loose relationship with facts and sought to capitalize on it. They "tweet at President Trump during high volumes when they know he's online and they push conspiracy theories," Watts testified.

    The U.S. intelligence community released a public assessment in January concluding that the Russian government used a campaign of false information and cyber hacking efforts to discredit Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and help Trump win the 2016 election. There is an ongoing FBI-led investigation into Moscow's alleged efforts and possible collusion with the Trump team. The House and Senate intelligence committees are conducting their own separate probes into the matter.

    While the Kremlin appeared to favor Trump in the 2016 presidential election, there are indications that Moscow has sought to undermine Republican politicians as well, Watts said Thursday. During the presidential primary races, Russian media outlets "sought to sideline opponents on both sides of the political spectrum with adversarial views towards the Kremlin," Watts said.

    Turning his gaze toward Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a committee member and a GOP presidential candidate last year, Watts said, "Senator Rubio, in my opinion you, anecdotally, suffered from these efforts."

    This past week, Watts continued, social media accounts pushed material discrediting Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis).

    AshLee Strong, a Ryan spokeswoman, said she wasn't familiar with the activity mentioned by Watts but added that it was unsurprising "that foreign adversaries are trying to undermine our efforts."

    Rubio, who did not immediately respond to Watts' claim, later confirmed that former members of his presidential campaign team were targeted by IP addresses that traced back to an unknown location within Russia. According to Rubio, the attempted breaches occurred in July 2016, shortly after he announced he would run for Senate re-election, and again this week, at 10:45 a.m. on Wednesday. Both attempts were unsuccessful, he said.

    It's likely Moscow will turn against Trump as it becomes politically and strategically prudent to do so, Watts warned. "They win because they play both sides," he said.

    Russia began developing its active measures campaign in 2009, with its capabilities progressing all the way up until the 2016 election, Watts said. The U.S. was slow to catch on to the threat, he charged, because the intelligence community has been "over-focused on terrorism" and biased against open-source information.

    "My two colleagues and I use three laptops and we do this at our house," Watts said. "But for some reason, the entire intel apparatus, with billions of dollars, will miss a tweet or a Facebook post that's right in front of them."

    [Mar 31, 2017] US Senators Get Lesson on Twitter Trolls at Costly Russian Interference Hearing

    Mar 31, 2017 | sputniknews.com
    Titled "Disinformation: A Primer in Russian Active Measures and Influence Campaigns," the Senate Intelligence Committee's rare public hearing on Thursday was promoted with a promise to provide details on how the Kremlin interfered in the 2016 US presidential election. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, in his opening remarks, asserted that the hearing would provide a "foundational understanding of the problem."

    Once again, however, evidence primarily consisted of speculation, and appeared to fall short.

    "Russian propaganda outlets like RT and Sputnik successfully produced and peddled disinformation to American audiences" in favor of the campaign of Donald Trump, Vice Chairman Mark Warner asserted in his remarks, as if it was a well documented and proven fact.

    "This Russian 'propaganda on steroids' was designed to poison the national conversation in America."

    FBI Director James Comey, left, joined by National Security Agency Director Michael Rogers, right, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, March 20, 2017, before the House Intelligence Committee hearing on allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election © AP Photo/ Manuel Balce Ceneta Dozen Most Insane Statements From US Congress' Hearing on 'Russian Spying' Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the US National Intelligence Council, claimed that "fake news" and "trolls" are an "integral part of Russian foreign policy."

    "It is the totality of Russian efforts in plain sight - to mislead, to misinform, to exaggerate - that is more convincing than any cyber evidence. RT, internet trolls, fake news and so on, are an integral part of Russian foreign policy today," Rumer claimed.

    Roy Godson, a former Georgetown University professor still apparently stuck in the Cold War era, continuously referred to Russia as "the Soviets." He did admit that there is little evidence that Russia attempted to change vote tallies.

    Former FBI agent Clinton Watts offered testimony about how "trolls" will push hashtags and stories on Twitter until they make it into the top 10 trending items - forcing mainstream media to cover the topic. Stating the obvious, he explained that once information gets on to Twitter's trending list it will gain organic traction.

    Dick Cheney © Flickr/ Tony Swartz Cheney Seeks to Manipulate Trump 'Splashing Gasoline' Into Election 'Scandal' Watts cited hashtags such as "God," "constitution," "conservative," and "Trump" as examples of hashtags used by "Russian trolls." He also claimed that Kremlin operatives did not stop meddling in American politics after the election, and just this week engaged in a campaign to smear House Speaker Paul Ryan.

    "This past week we observed social media campaigns targeting Speaker of the House Paul Ryan hoping to foment further unrest amongst US democratic institutions," Watts testified.

    Many US Trump supporters took to Twitter following his comments to declare that the former agent was giving Russia credit for their efforts, as prominent supporters of the president have long voiced displeasure with Ryan.

    Watts urged mainstream traditional media to boycott WikiLeaks, so that "Russian influence dies on the vine."

    He also claimed that the efforts did not just target Clinton during the primaries, but other politicians as well - specifically including Senator Marco Rubio, who was sitting on the panel.

    "They were in full swing during both the Republican and Democratic primary season - and may have helped sink the hopes of candidates more hostile to Russian interests long before the field narrowed," Watts claimed. "Senator Rubio, in my opinion, you anecdotally suffered from these efforts."

    'Enter' key Pixabay The 'Democrats' Benghazi': Russian Hacking Saga Continues During the second panel, Rubio shocked the room when he stated that former members of his presidential campaign were "targeted" by people using IP addresses in Russia, first in July, and again on Wednesday.

    "Former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to the internal information of my presidential campaign were targeted by IP addresses with an unknown location within Russia," Rubio said Thursday. "That effort was unsuccessful."

    "I would also inform the committee within the last 24 hours, at 10:45 a.m. yesterday, a second attempt was made, again, against former members of my presidential campaign team who had access to our internal information - again targeted from an IP address from an unknown location in Russia. And that effort was also unsuccessful."

    Following the hearing, Rubio was asked by Sputnik News whether he was able to verify the person was actually in Russia and not just using a VPN to show a Russian address. He paused for an extended moment before answering.

    "I'm going to stay with what I said in the committee and not outline anything further," Rubio told Sputnik News, measuring his words carefully. "We've turned it over to the appropriate authorities and we'll go from there."

    U.S. President Donald Trump reacts after delivering his first address to a joint session of Congress from the floor of the House of Representatives iin Washington, U.S., February 28, 2017 © REUTERS/ Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool Trump 'Takes Advantageous Position,' Accuses Hillary Clinton of Russia Ties Another Senate witness, Thomas Rid, professor in the Department of War Studies at King's College London, strangely asserted that WikiLeaks, Twitter and "over eager journalists" are all "unwitting Russian agents."

    Earlier this month, Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Vladimir Putin, told CNN that "hysteria in official Washington and in the American media" is harming relations between the two nations. He also vehemently denied Russian involvement in election-related hacking.

    "This is unimaginable and someone has to say - all this is not true. We have to be sober, let's come to our minds," Peskov added.

    On Tuesday, Burr and Warner spoke to reporters about their investigation.

    Burr, a Republican, announced that seven staffers are working full time on the probe, compared to three on the Benghazi investigation. The smaller investigation into the 2012 attack cost American taxpayers over $7 million.

    "This one's one of the biggest investigations that the Hill has seen in my tenure here," Burr said.

    [Mar 31, 2017] People propagating anti-russian hysteria r emind population of a certain country in the past.

    Mar 31, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    EMichael -> ken melvin... , March 30, 2017 at 08:30 AM
    Russia has owned him for a long, long time.

    "Trump scholars gradually will determine how material was the sales boost in the complicated ups-and-downs of Trump's financial position in those days. For an explication of some of the favors owed, which in one case went back to 1976, see the current article. This much is indelibly clear: the president has seen Russia as a prime source of revenue, if not investment, for twenty years. Again, BBw:

    Simultaneous with when the tower was going up, developer Gil Dezer and his father, Michael, were building a Trump-backed condo project in Sunny Isles Beach, Fla. "Russians love the Trump brand," [Dezer] says, adding that Russians and Russian Americans bought some 200 of the 2,000 units in Trump buildings he built. They flooded into Trump projects from 2001 to 2007, helping Trump weather the real estate collapse, he says."

    http://www.economicprincipals.com/issues/2017.03.26/1983.html

    libezkova -> EMichael... , March 30, 2017 at 08:27 PM
    My God, what an indoctrinated, completely brainwashed twat you are. Note to Anne: this word is listed by the British Board of Film Classification as an example of "moderate language" for the 12 certificate...

    Incapable (in this particular area) of any independent thinking and like parrots capable only repeat Anti-Russian propaganda from some questionable sources.

    Reminds me population of a certain country in the past.

    I wonder what will happen, if Russia opens archives and show the world the level of greed and corruption of US politicians during 1991-2000 "economic rape of Russia." In this case Wikileaks staff can take a very long vacation.


    [Mar 28, 2017] Trump Asks Why Intelligence Committee Isn t Probing The Clintons

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night. ..."
    "... Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed. ..."
    "... The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation. ..."
    "... This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted? ..."
    "... I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar. ..."
    "... CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment. ..."
    "... Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them. ..."
    "... Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles. ..."
    "... Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!! ..."
    Mar 27, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Following a day of drama involving the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, who has been under constant onslaught by Democrats ever since his disclosure last week that Trump had indeed been the object of surveillance, and whose Democrat peer at the Intel panel, Adam Schiff, on Monday night called for Nunes to recuse himself , moments ago Trump waded into the news cycle when he asked on Twitter why the House Intelligence Committee is not investigating the Clintons for various ties of their own to Russia. He then slammed the ongoing anti-Russian witch hunt, saying "the Russia story is a hoax."

    "Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech, money to Bill, the Hillary Russian 'reset,' praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA!" Trump wrote in two tweets Monday night.

    Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech....

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2017

    ...money to Bill, the Hillary Russian "reset," praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax. #MAGA --

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2017

    Trump's rhetorical questions come amid a news cycle which as discussed on various occasions today has focused on the Republican chair of the Intel Committee, Nunes, who is under fire for briefing Trump about classified material he reviewed last week without sharing the information with committee Democrats. On Monday it was revealed that Nunes had secretly visited the White House grounds one day before announcing incidental surveillance of President Trump's transition team. His visit raised questions about whether the White House could have been was the source of the intelligence Nunes reviewed.

    Democratic lawmakers have now called on Nunes to recuse himself from the committee's probe into Russia's interference in the United States presidential election. Nunes on Monday evening said the chairman would not step aside from the investigation.

    The republican lawmaker has claimed that his findings had no relevance to the Russia probe, even as the committee examines the unmasking and leaking of surveillance information as part of that investigation.

    ... ... ...

    GUS100CORRINA -> LetThemEatRand , Mar 27, 2017 10:59 PM

    This whole situation is really beginning to concern me. Is the entire US Government corrupt? Is there no one in the IC and oversight committee who can be trusted?

    As someone recently said, President TRUMP needs to take the word GOOD out of his vocabulary when referencing people. GOOD is very clear about His perspective on humanity. None are GOOD, no NOT one!

    I am going to bet money that everyone, and I mean everyone. in DC has had their hands in the "CORRUPTION" cookie jar.

    CLINTONS are simply a mirror image of the Washington DC establishment.

    azusgm -> GUS100CORRINA , Mar 27, 2017 11:02 PM

    Oh no. The Clintons are in a class of their own (unless you count the Bush cartel). Plenty of corrupt characters are trying their best to emulate them.

    The Joker , Mar 27, 2017 10:24 PM

    Because they are VIPs...very important pedophiles.

    Beam Me Up Scotty -> LN , Mar 27, 2017 11:01 PM

    Actually, IIRC, he said, "If I am president, you will be in prison", to Hillary. Lets keep the campaign promise Donalt!!

    MsCreant , Mar 27, 2017 10:28 PM

    I work with smart folks. Today I was listening to a guy go on about how Trump might be guilty of treason. I asked about Hillary and the Clinton Foundation and some of the issues brought up in this article. Crickets...

    I am worried.

    Trump may be a lot of distasteful things. I don't see treason here. But if smart folks buy into this... aw hell we are in for it.

    PoasterToaster , Mar 27, 2017 10:28 PM

    The Democratic Party is the party of White Slavery.

    Ms No , Mar 27, 2017 10:31 PM

    This is the part where he regrets saying that he was going to leave the Clintons alone because they were good people and have been through enough. Our election system needs to be investigated before the next election also. Obviously we need hearings on the CIA, NSA, all of it. Of course who will oversee the hearings? What a joke.

    Yes We Can. But... -> Ms No , Mar 27, 2017 10:46 PM

    Or is this where Trump plays dumb and says "I thought they were good people. But that was before I knew XYZ"?

    Trump knows they're not good people. I mean, he just asked why they aren't under investigation.

    Trump knows Bill is a rapist and a predator. Trump knows why Hillary as SOS refused to use required .gub email, why she set up a secret server with classified info on it, why she wiped 30k+ yoga emails.

    Animal Mother -> Yes We Can. But Lets Not. , Mar 27, 2017 10:49 PM

    Trump personally has to have some things he can point to in order to prove his impartiality when the DOJ finally starts looking into the Bubba Foundation. He can claim that he is impartial and say in a nice tweet, "Hey, I thought they were nice people. Now I see how she fooled all her voters" and still have her sent to Federal Prison along with Bubba and Soetoro too.

    biker , Mar 27, 2017 10:39 PM

    Maxine Waters talks about Obama OFA shared-access amazon cloud secret database on USA citizens/agencies (shadow government) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d69X20HhEQg

    Akzed , Mar 27, 2017 10:41 PM

    "Trump Asks Why Intelligence Committee Isn't Probing The Clintons"

    Nunes is head of the committee. Why didn't Trump think to ask him when he had him over?!

    BitchesBetterRe... , Mar 27, 2017 10:44 PM

    Why isn't the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary........

    Hey Trump - who's in the White house now? YOU !!!! So stop whining, get your team together & Go after them instead of tweeting about it!!!!

    WTF Donald.....

    Cabreado -> BitchesBetterRecognize , Mar 27, 2017 11:02 PM

    The government wasn't designed to work that way. It is a mistake (and it always was) to expect the Presidency to fix-it-all-up. Your sentiments are dangerous, in part because of your expectations, and in part because you give a pass to corrupt points of control.

    But don't feel bad -- nobody here (or anywhere, really) seems to give a damn.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Russia Is Pissed Threatens To Spill Obama Admin Secrets If US Intel Does not Stop Leaking

    Another fake news. this time from Zero Hedge...
    Mar 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Russia Is Pissed: Threatens To Spill Obama Admin Secrets If US Intel Doesn't Stop Leaking logical-different , Mar 28, 2017 5:56 PM

    Here's what you have to do Russia

    Tell the American government that they'll have to apply for a VISA before you'll them come into your country. Personally, I don't know why you'd want the bastards to come for a visit. If you think your confused now wait until the inmates from the USA finish with their visit.

    Herdee , Mar 28, 2017 4:36 PM

    Like how the CIA trained these F'n morons?

    https://www.infowars.com/german-mp-erdogan-a-terrorism-godfather/

    NobodyNowhere , Mar 28, 2017 3:59 PM

    Obama was never a world-class leader - not even close. An arguably good speaker but not on topics of state, mostly on ethnic divide, cummunal politics - things that touch heart strings in disadvantaged sections of society (minorities, unemployed whites, etc).

    As a politician he was pedantic (community level); as a statesman, zero.

    Onan_the_Barbarian -> NobodyNowhere , Mar 28, 2017 4:55 PM

    Google for "Obama without teleprompter". Not impressive.

    nobodysfool , Mar 28, 2017 1:44 PM

    It's all about Leverage...

    Don Corleone : Good. Someday, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But until that day - accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.

    DirtySanchez , Mar 28, 2017 10:44 AM

    Russia and others may be of help.

    The entire world needs verifiable proof of the US war criminal behavior for the past 20+ years.

    Prison sentences are not enough.

    Former US Presidents need to face their accusers for the raping, pillaging, destruction, and murder of several soverign nations.

    God help them.

    dvfco -> DirtySanchez , Mar 28, 2017 2:21 PM

    It's time they nailed everyone in the Obama Administration to the wall, then follow up with every Republican in a former Bush Administration who is a NeverTrump douche and handcuff them to one from Obama's group.

    The only reason there are Republican - Never Trumpers is that they're terrified all their sins will surface.

    Once Trump starts reaming Obama and Clinton, they'll turn on Bush, etc.

    Gonna get fugly!

    LawsofPhysics , Mar 28, 2017 10:32 AM

    Ultimately there is no honor among theives...

    esum , Mar 28, 2017 10:13 AM

    Someone should shit or get off the pot with this Russian stuff... The REAL STORY IS SPYING ON US CITIZENS AND CONGRESS AND OBAMA'S USE OF CLASSIFIED INTEL AND COMEY BRENNAN CLAPPER CRIMES..... Lets get to it

    MrBoompi , Mar 28, 2017 9:00 AM

    There is nothing Russia could divulge that would come as a surprise to most of us here. At this point it would just be a confirmation of the highly corrupt and immoral behavior we've seen this government engage in for decades now. Besides, if we couldn't throw Bush and Cheney in the slammer after what they did, what hope would we have to hold Obama and Clinton accountable? Until further notice, this class of folks is above the law.

    OCnStiggs , Mar 28, 2017 8:39 AM

    The Progressive Liberal Democrats who have been staunch allies with the Russians for nearly 50 years have now turned on them to hide their own failure in running Hillary. Big mistake Mr. Schumer.

    The Russians are looking out for Russia. They will uncork a plethora of very bad news for you, including all the private dealings Progressives have had with them ('ala Ted Kennedy asking Andropov to help screw Reagan during his last election) and the timing couldn't be better for the mid-term elections.

    The Progressives are no friend of America and as the word gets out to mainstream America, the result will be devastating to the Democratic Party. Good. About time.

    MORE INVESTIGATIONS OF DEMOCRATS!!!! FRY HILLARY!!!

    Reaper , Mar 28, 2017 8:07 AM

    Did Putin foolishly expect swine to be honorable?

    d edwards -> Reaper , Mar 28, 2017 8:41 AM

    I bet they do have Hillary's 30k missing emails.

    goober -> d edwards , Mar 28, 2017 1:17 PM

    Just like NSA always has and has never released any of it, why is that ? Do we actually have a legitimate government or simply a giant criminal enterprise control mechanism ? Here are the answers --

    http://www.downtoearththinking.com/our-government-created-google-and-fac...

    http://www.downtoearththinking.com/the-war-against-donald-trump-.html

    The Russians have their own shit to keep secret and when that is less important and damaging then they will release the flood gates of hell on BHO and crew as well as Hillary and the Bushites. Not until, but I suspect that time is approaching or very near. The tangled web of sociopaths and psychopaths that control us, Hey ?

    TheEndIsNear -> PleasedToMeatYou , Mar 28, 2017 8:07 PM

    Most of the American population are so ignorant of the physical laws of nature that they prefer to believe what the government tells them to believe instead of straining their brains to exercise a little common sense. I think the disappearing 757 airliners at the Pentagon and Shanksville are the most blatant of the government lies since they require no knowledge of high-rise building construction. How people can ignore this kind of thing would be a mystery except that almost everyone gets their news from the TeeVee.

    IranContra , Mar 28, 2017 7:08 AM

    Fortunately, liberal thugs have not succeeded in derailing Trump-Putin cooperation, even in the most difficult areas: There is complete Russian-American military coordination in Iraq and Syria, even where Turkey and Iran disagree. Russia is allowing the US to arm the Kurds against ISIS in Syria, and Russia has asked Iran to withdraw its troops and militias from Iraq and Syria, exactly as Trump wants.

    Not Too Important -> PleasedToMeatYou , Mar 28, 2017 1:35 PM

    Russia can pull out of SWIFT any time they want. Europe depends on their gas. Russia can demand payment in rubles, too, or gold.

    Europe's nuclear energy has already gone off a cliff, due to all the bad reactor parts from the French. That makes Russian energy much more valueable, and they don't have enough LNG receiving facilities to buy elsewhere in any significant amounts.

    The only option now for the NWO is a quiet retirement, or mass global nuclear suicide. Any guesses?

    nmewn , Mar 28, 2017 6:45 AM

    "The US Department of State has more than once asked us not to announce planned visits until the last minute. This is not our tradition. We have been operating openly for years, but we have respected the requests we have received from our colleagues in Washington in the past few years . But what happened after that? First, the US Department of State asked us to keep the planned visit quiet and not to announce it until the last possible minute, until we coordinated the date. We did as they asked. But a day or two later the information was leaked by the US State Department and sometimes by the US administration. Frankly, this put Russia and the media in a strange situation, because they didn't know who to believe – the official agencies or the many leaks."

    And as of this moment, the second quietest person in the room just happens to be...John Kerry.

    Anybody seen ole horse face around lately? ;-)

    fleur de lis -> NO QANA , Mar 28, 2017 10:15 AM

    Russia must have a lot of info that they swept up over the years thanks to DC morons.

    They relseased the recording of Icky Vicky Neudelmann because she instigated a war on their border.

    But they must have picked up much more than that, thanks to her obnoxious ego.

    Bastiat -> fleur de lis , Mar 28, 2017 3:20 PM

    Remember when they released the crystal clear recording of Vicky Nuland organizing the Ukraine government? They must have been shocked at the utter indifference of supporters of the Obama regime.

    [Mar 28, 2017] Heres The Story Behind Trumps Podesta-Russia Tweet Zero Hedge

    Mar 28, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    The Daily Caller reports:

    John Podesta, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2016 national campaign chairman, may have violated federal law by failing to disclose the receipt of 75,000 shares of stock from a Kremlin-financed company when he joined the Obama White House in 2014, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation's Investigative Group.

    Joule Unlimited Technologies - financed in part by a Russian firm - originally awarded Podesta 100,000 shares of stock options when in 2010 he joined that board along with its Dutch-based entities: Joule Global Holdings, BV and the Stichting Joule Global Foundation.

    When Podesta announced his departure from the Joule board in January 2014 to become President Obama's special counsellor, the company officially issued him 75,000 common shares of stock.

    The Schedule B section of the federal government's form 278 which - requires financial disclosures for government officials - required Podesta to "report any purchase, sale or exchange by you, your spouse, or dependent children of any property, stocks, bonds, commodity futures and other securities when the amount of the transaction exceeded $1,000."

    The same year Podesta joined Joule, the company agreed to accept 1-Billion-Rubles - or $35 million - from Rusnano, a state-run and financed Russian company with close ties to President Vladimir Putin.

    Anatoly Chubais, the company CEO and two other top Russian banking executives worked together with Podesta on the Joule boards. The board met six times a year.

    Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director said because of the Kremlin backing, it was essential Podesta disclose the financial benefits he received from the company.

    "I think in this case where you're talking about foreign interests and foreign involvement, the collateral interest with these disclosure forms is put in the forefront of full disclosure of any foreign interest that you may have," he told TheDCNF in an interview.

    The existence of the 75,000 shares of Joule stock was first revealed by the Government Accountability Institute report issued last year.

    But Podesta didn't pocket all the shares. Correspondence from Podesta to Joule instructed the firm to transfer only 33,693 shares to Leonidio Holdings, a brand-new entity he incorporated only on December 20, 2013, about ten days before he entered the White House.

    Leonidio is registered in Delaware as a limited liability corporation. Podesta listed the address of his daughter, Megan Rouse, in the incorporation papers. His mother and father also appear to be co-owners of Leonidio.

    TheDCNF made multiple inquiries to OGE and received no reply. TheDCNF inquiries to Mr. Podesta were not returned.

    That's not the end of the story though, as John Podesta's brother, Tony, confirmed Russia's largest bank had hired the Podesta Group to lobby for an end to sanctions ...

    JuliaS -> Chris Dakota , Mar 28, 2017 2:23 PM

    Like Ron Paul says - since the government spies on everyone, it's a certainty that the last administration spied on Trump.

    By the same token, since it's guaranteed that there are pedophiles existing in positions of power pretty much everywhere (not just in the Catholic church), one can make a blind guess that there is a pedo ring inside the government and be right.

    My suspicion is that pizzagate conspiracy is invented, but regardless of that fact, real pedophiles in the government are scared shitless that if the authorities begin digging, they'll be discovered. That's why they want pizzagate talk silenced.

    TheGardener -> JuliaS , Mar 28, 2017 2:40 PM

    "pizzagate conspiracy is invented" ? More like pizzagate conspiracy is inverted ..poking a deep state hornest nest is what would

    could have triggered that aggressive counter-action. Pedo-rings as horrible and stomach turning they really are still are old school

    intelligence modes of operation, East Germany had one set up in the West by spies it sent in camouflaged as refugees.

    Tasked at compromising politicians.

    [Mar 26, 2017] Ex-scout Bezrukov USA on the verge of changing course

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia could potentially pose a problem if it creates a competitive unit that will become the alternative system in terms of security and in terms of the economy. The most serious blow to the US would be the creation of a great Eurasian bloc, such as Russia-Germany. This unit on its resource and military and political power to bring Europe and most of Asia from the control of the American system. Would become the de facto competitor. ..."
    "... Interviewed By Nikolay Surkov ..."
    Mar 26, 2017 | csef.ru
    The former scout-the illegal immigrant, Andrey Bezrukov, has worked a long time in the USA, has told to the correspondent "News" Nikolay Surkov, why the United States needs Ukraine and why Russia got together with China to build greater Eurasia.

    - The cold war ended over 20 years ago. Why the U.S. still refers to Russia as the enemy?

    - Cold war is only an episode in the relations between our countries. There are two levels on which to consider the basis of relationship between the two countries. The first is the level of objective geopolitical realities, the situation of our countries and their role in the world system. The USA declare that their wellbeing depends on the vitality of the global system that they've built. They are a Central part of this system. While it exists, they will be in a privileged position. Their primary national interest - the maintenance of this global system.

    In the cold war the USSR was a geopolitical competitor. He dominated in Eurasia, creating an area in which American influence did not pass. He created a pole for those who were dissatisfied with the American system.

    Russia could potentially pose a problem if it creates a competitive unit that will become the alternative system in terms of security and in terms of the economy. The most serious blow to the US would be the creation of a great Eurasian bloc, such as Russia-Germany. This unit on its resource and military and political power to bring Europe and most of Asia from the control of the American system. Would become the de facto competitor.

    What then should be considered at the second level?

    - The second level is ideological. From our side there is no ideological barrier in relations with the United States. If the U.S. is not trying to impose their way of life and creating problems for our state, we have no problems with them. They, unfortunately, have problems. They relate to the generation that did not devoiles in the cold war. The attitude of the ruling elite towards Russia as an enemy or competitor will not leave. They had no revaluation, for it was not the cause. They consider themselves winners. But because their problem isn't solved, Russia did not become a state that does what they want, they have this element of irritation from the unfinished task.

    In addition, the independent foreign policy of Russia is a challenge the people in the USA who preach American exceptionalism. These are people who not just see themselves as exceptional Americans, and consider it a blessing, ready by force to impose their position on others. This group is very closely related to the cold war. But it is still very closely linked with the principles of the Democratic party that America should be ideals. For this you can to impose their understanding of things to other countries.

    I think in a few years the geopolitical component will remain, and ideological can just move away. Will be rethinking that America no longer has the right nor the capacity to impose their principles on others. After some time, leave those personalities that are now the conductors of the ideology that emerged during the cold war.

    There is an ethnic component. Around the neo-conservatives many people who are ethnically or ideologically associated with anti-Russian diasporas of Eastern European countries, which believe that Russia dominated them. They too will be gone anyway.

    - Why work so hard to fight with Russia? Unless China is now a much more serious competitor?

    - Really, now is not Russia, but China is, from the point of view of the Americans, the main challenge for the global system. China's economy is so large that it attracts all of Asia and the influence of the Americans on these countries and markets is reduced.

    The US is trying to bring China out of the brackets. To fence off a piece of Asia. Through security agreements with the surrounding countries of China. And through the construction of a TRANS-Pacific partnership without China.

    The periods of tension in relations with the US are predetermined and unavoidable?

    - Our interest is to ensure the security around our borders to neighbors no one told that to trade with Russia or not to trade, to war with Russia or not to fight.

    In this sense, the conflict in Ukraine objective. If they need Ukraine as a buffer against us, we need it too, we are ethnically very close, this is pre-Soviet geopolitical space. Its economy is part of our economy. It is our civilizational area. Our interest there is obvious.

    However, the USA is beginning to experience a redefinition of its role in the world. They haven't reached a complete rethinking. They're just starting to see the problems and the inadequacy of its policies. Rethinking will happen in a few years. Then the ideological component in our relationship is minimized. This may be due to the new President, but will not necessarily occur in the period of his reign. American policy is evolving cycles. Now ends the cycle that began with Reagan.

    - That is, in 7-8 years we can count on change?

    Then we may have a completely different relationship between countries. But their and our interests will remain.

    Objectively, Americans want to antagonize China's neighbors - Japan, India, us. Therefore, it is important for us to build long-term non-competitive relationship with China and India.

    Our goal is to provide yourself a quiet life in the greater Eurasia. It is hampered by the lack of security and lack of infrastructure linking Russia's economy with the growing economies of Asia. The policy of pairing the EEU and the silk road in building the economic infrastructure. China and Russia have an interest in stabilizing the greater Eurasia. Then there will be rapid economic growth.

    - What happens to the American political system? Why the Republicans are unable to put any decent presidential candidate?

    In the US there is a problem by. The American people in the face of elites, particularly business elites, was assigned to conduct the political Affairs political superstructure - the Congress, the parties of the ruling class, since the capital itself will not engage in politics. The seller has the job of defending the interests of the customer. For a long time, the ruling group did. But now the ruling group broke away from the understanding of objective tasks. Beginning to act as she wants. In America I understand that policy has become less effective, it does not reach the set goals. If this continued, it will lead to the decline of US influence in the world. The elite do not like it.

    We can say that American politics is like an airplane that flies on autopilot, which was set 30 years ago. But the pilot had already begun to understand that it's time to get back into the cockpit and change course. The request for change by coming from two sides. Trump is the voice of the business elite. Sanders speaks on behalf of the young intellectual elite. Mature change in the political superstructure. The authorities will be renewed at the expense of people who are new understand the situation and can propose a new course.

    Help "Izvestia"

    Andrei Bezrukov was born on 30 August 1960 in the city of Kansk of Krasnoyarsk region. Graduated from Tomsk state University majoring in history. In 2000 he graduated from the School of public management John F. Kennedy, Harvard University with a master's degree. Colonel intelligence retired.

    Together with his wife Elena Vavilova many years spent on illegal intelligence work. Under the name Donald Heathfield led consultancy company specializing in government and corporate strategic forecasting and planning. Was arrested in June 2010 in the U.S. as a result of betrayal.

    He has state awards - the order "For merits before Fatherland" IV degrees, medals. Currently - Advisor to the President of the company "Rosneft". A member of the club "Valdai".

    Interviewed By Nikolay Surkov

    [Mar 26, 2017] There are cliques of employees in all these govt agencies who have political and religious views just like the rest of the world, except they have access to spy satellites, phone tapping, and every other spy tool just like Snowden tried to expose.

    Mar 26, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Korprit_Phlunkie , Mar 25, 2017 6:53 PM

    There are cliques of employees in all these govt agencies who have political and religious views just like the rest of the world, except they have access to spy satellites, phone tapping, and every other spy tool just like Snowden tried to expose. Finally after watching the evil satan worshipping liberals for all these years use these tool to further the NWO thru clintons and hussein, the patriot Christian conservative side is finally leaking info they have access to to TRUMP and he is able to fight back a little. THis is good versus evil, no doubt in my mind. Choose this day whom you will serve. Especially you crossroad demon from hell.

    [Mar 26, 2017] Ex-scout Bezrukov USA on the verge of changing course

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia could potentially pose a problem if it creates a competitive unit that will become the alternative system in terms of security and in terms of the economy. The most serious blow to the US would be the creation of a great Eurasian bloc, such as Russia-Germany. This unit on its resource and military and political power to bring Europe and most of Asia from the control of the American system. Would become the de facto competitor. ..."
    "... Interviewed By Nikolay Surkov ..."
    Mar 26, 2017 | csef.ru
    The former scout-the illegal immigrant, Andrey Bezrukov, has worked a long time in the USA, has told to the correspondent "News" Nikolay Surkov, why the United States needs Ukraine and why Russia got together with China to build greater Eurasia.

    - The cold war ended over 20 years ago. Why the U.S. still refers to Russia as the enemy?

    - Cold war is only an episode in the relations between our countries. There are two levels on which to consider the basis of relationship between the two countries. The first is the level of objective geopolitical realities, the situation of our countries and their role in the world system. The USA declare that their wellbeing depends on the vitality of the global system that they've built. They are a Central part of this system. While it exists, they will be in a privileged position. Their primary national interest - the maintenance of this global system.

    In the cold war the USSR was a geopolitical competitor. He dominated in Eurasia, creating an area in which American influence did not pass. He created a pole for those who were dissatisfied with the American system.

    Russia could potentially pose a problem if it creates a competitive unit that will become the alternative system in terms of security and in terms of the economy. The most serious blow to the US would be the creation of a great Eurasian bloc, such as Russia-Germany. This unit on its resource and military and political power to bring Europe and most of Asia from the control of the American system. Would become the de facto competitor.

    What then should be considered at the second level?

    - The second level is ideological. From our side there is no ideological barrier in relations with the United States. If the U.S. is not trying to impose their way of life and creating problems for our state, we have no problems with them. They, unfortunately, have problems. They relate to the generation that did not devoiles in the cold war. The attitude of the ruling elite towards Russia as an enemy or competitor will not leave. They had no revaluation, for it was not the cause. They consider themselves winners. But because their problem isn't solved, Russia did not become a state that does what they want, they have this element of irritation from the unfinished task.

    In addition, the independent foreign policy of Russia is a challenge the people in the USA who preach American exceptionalism. These are people who not just see themselves as exceptional Americans, and consider it a blessing, ready by force to impose their position on others. This group is very closely related to the cold war. But it is still very closely linked with the principles of the Democratic party that America should be ideals. For this you can to impose their understanding of things to other countries.

    I think in a few years the geopolitical component will remain, and ideological can just move away. Will be rethinking that America no longer has the right nor the capacity to impose their principles on others. After some time, leave those personalities that are now the conductors of the ideology that emerged during the cold war.

    There is an ethnic component. Around the neo-conservatives many people who are ethnically or ideologically associated with anti-Russian diasporas of Eastern European countries, which believe that Russia dominated them. They too will be gone anyway.

    - Why work so hard to fight with Russia? Unless China is now a much more serious competitor?

    - Really, now is not Russia, but China is, from the point of view of the Americans, the main challenge for the global system. China's economy is so large that it attracts all of Asia and the influence of the Americans on these countries and markets is reduced.

    The US is trying to bring China out of the brackets. To fence off a piece of Asia. Through security agreements with the surrounding countries of China. And through the construction of a TRANS-Pacific partnership without China.

    The periods of tension in relations with the US are predetermined and unavoidable?

    - Our interest is to ensure the security around our borders to neighbors no one told that to trade with Russia or not to trade, to war with Russia or not to fight.

    In this sense, the conflict in Ukraine objective. If they need Ukraine as a buffer against us, we need it too, we are ethnically very close, this is pre-Soviet geopolitical space. Its economy is part of our economy. It is our civilizational area. Our interest there is obvious.

    However, the USA is beginning to experience a redefinition of its role in the world. They haven't reached a complete rethinking. They're just starting to see the problems and the inadequacy of its policies. Rethinking will happen in a few years. Then the ideological component in our relationship is minimized. This may be due to the new President, but will not necessarily occur in the period of his reign. American policy is evolving cycles. Now ends the cycle that began with Reagan.

    - That is, in 7-8 years we can count on change?

    Then we may have a completely different relationship between countries. But their and our interests will remain.

    Objectively, Americans want to antagonize China's neighbors - Japan, India, us. Therefore, it is important for us to build long-term non-competitive relationship with China and India.

    Our goal is to provide yourself a quiet life in the greater Eurasia. It is hampered by the lack of security and lack of infrastructure linking Russia's economy with the growing economies of Asia. The policy of pairing the EEU and the silk road in building the economic infrastructure. China and Russia have an interest in stabilizing the greater Eurasia. Then there will be rapid economic growth.

    - What happens to the American political system? Why the Republicans are unable to put any decent presidential candidate?

    In the US there is a problem by. The American people in the face of elites, particularly business elites, was assigned to conduct the political Affairs political superstructure - the Congress, the parties of the ruling class, since the capital itself will not engage in politics. The seller has the job of defending the interests of the customer. For a long time, the ruling group did. But now the ruling group broke away from the understanding of objective tasks. Beginning to act as she wants. In America I understand that policy has become less effective, it does not reach the set goals. If this continued, it will lead to the decline of US influence in the world. The elite do not like it.

    We can say that American politics is like an airplane that flies on autopilot, which was set 30 years ago. But the pilot had already begun to understand that it's time to get back into the cockpit and change course. The request for change by coming from two sides. Trump is the voice of the business elite. Sanders speaks on behalf of the young intellectual elite. Mature change in the political superstructure. The authorities will be renewed at the expense of people who are new understand the situation and can propose a new course.

    Help "Izvestia"

    Andrei Bezrukov was born on 30 August 1960 in the city of Kansk of Krasnoyarsk region. Graduated from Tomsk state University majoring in history. In 2000 he graduated from the School of public management John F. Kennedy, Harvard University with a master's degree. Colonel intelligence retired.

    Together with his wife Elena Vavilova many years spent on illegal intelligence work. Under the name Donald Heathfield led consultancy company specializing in government and corporate strategic forecasting and planning. Was arrested in June 2010 in the U.S. as a result of betrayal.

    He has state awards - the order "For merits before Fatherland" IV degrees, medals. Currently - Advisor to the President of the company "Rosneft". A member of the club "Valdai".

    Interviewed By Nikolay Surkov

    [Mar 26, 2017] They are an American Taliban: I have never read such a vitriolic comments section. Lots of Americans a seething mad.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple. ..."
    "... They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way. ..."
    "... Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects. ..."
    "... US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending. ..."
    "... The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights. ..."
    "... The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media... ..."
    Mar 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason , March 25, 2017 at 03:01 PM
    I just read this:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/25/why-republicans-were-in-such-a-hurry-on-health-care/?utm_term=.590e103e2761

    I have never read such a vitriolic comments section. Lots of Americans a seething mad.

    reason -> reason... , March 25, 2017 at 03:03 PM
    By mad - I mean angry. And at the Republican party more than Trump.
    libezkova -> reason... , March 25, 2017 at 05:10 PM
    I like the following comment:

    Farang Chiang Mai, 7:39 PM EDT

    The GOP and this administration are overwhelmingly self-avowed Christians yet they try to deny the poor to benefit the rich. This is not Christian but evil pure and simple.

    I would love to see this lying, cheating, selfish, crazy devil (yeah, I know I sound a bit OTT but the description is fact based) of a president and his enablers challenged on their Christian values.

    They are an American Taliban, just going about their subversion in a less overtly violent way.

    libezkova -> libezkova... , March 25, 2017 at 05:31 PM
    An interesting question arise:

    Are the people who consider our current rulers to be "American Taliban" inclined to become "leakers" of government activities against the citizens, because they definitely stop to consider the country as their own and view it as occupied by dangerous and violent religious cult?

    Much like Russian people viewed the country under Bolshevism, outside of brief WWII period. That's probably why we have Anti-Russian witch hunt now. To stem this trend. But it is the US neoliberal elite, not Russians, who drive the country to this state of affairs. By spending God knows how many trillions of dollar of wars of neoliberal empire expansion and by drastic redistribution of wealth up. And now the majority of citizens is facing substandard medical care, sliding standard of living and uncertain job prospects.

    ilsm -> libezkova... March 26, 2017 at 05:42 AM

    I see the angst over Sessions talking to a Russia diplomat twice as a red herring.

    US elections have been influenced by anyone with huge money or oil since the Cold War made an excuse for the US' trade empire enforced by half the world's war spending.

    The fake 'incidental' surveillance of other political opponents is a gross violation of human rights and the US' Bill of Rights.

    The disloyal opposition and its propagandists are running Stalin like show trails in their media.....

    [Mar 25, 2017] Maddow has proven herself an indisputable part of "the establishment media going whole-hog on these vague suspicions". That is, she is carrying tubs of water for her Deep State masters.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State's crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and Israel. And it's not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA The massive, long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center. As Deep Throat taught us, "Follow the money". ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    Jessejean

    March 23, 2017 at 1:04 pm Good history–wonder why Rachel The Mouth Maddow never did it in her time wasting opening segments where she repeats herself over and over to numb our minds and spend her time when she could be saying something insightful. Maybe that's why. PS. Why does she never invite Robert Parry on to comment? Oh. I see. Reply Brian Setzler , March 23, 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Because she's paid $7 million per year to talk about some things, and not others.

    Google "Jill Stein and Russia" and the results will illuminate the Democratic Party Echo Chamber

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:03 pm

    Maddow has proven herself an indisputable part of "the establishment media going whole-hog on these vague suspicions". That is, she is carrying tubs of water for her Deep State masters.

    Any moderately intelligent person who explores the news and history outside the MSM can easily find the OVERWHELMING evidence of the Deep State's crimes, including JFK, 9/11, and Israel. And it's not merely an organizational survival instinct in the CIA The massive, long-standing MSM coverups point to tight control and coordination from a powerful center. As Deep Throat taught us, "Follow the money".

    [Mar 25, 2017] What Russia Wants - and Expects

    Notable quotes:
    "... Does Russia Have a Future? ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    March 22, 2017

    Washington's political infighting has blocked President Trump's plans for a new détente with Russia but also has left the global playing field open for Russian – and Chinese – advances in expanding their influence, explains Gilbert Doctorow.

    By Gilbert Doctorow

    As Democrats and the mainstream U.S. media focus intensely on still unproven charges of Russian election meddling to explain Hillary Clinton's surprising defeat, the furor has forced an embattled President Trump to retreat from his plans to cooperate with Russia on fighting terrorism and other global challenges.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10, 2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)

    Amid the anti-Russian hysteria, Trump's Cabinet members and United Nations ambassador have gone out of their way to reiterate the tough policy positions of the Obama administration with respect to Russia, underlining that nothing has changed. For its part, Congress has plunged into McCarthyistic hearings aimed at Trump supporters who may have met with Russians before the 2016 elections.

    Meanwhile, the Kremlin has duly noted these developments in Washington. In Moscow, the breakthrough in relations that some had hoped for is now dismissed as improbable. On the other hand, while the United States is tearing itself apart in partisan fighting, Russia is getting a much-needed breather from the constant ratcheting up of pressure from the West that it experienced over the past three years.

    We hear from Russian elites more and more how they plan to proceed on the international stage in the new circumstances. The byword is self-reliance and pursuit of the regional and global policies that have been forming over the past couple of years as the confrontation with the United States escalated.

    These policies have nothing to do with some attack on the Baltic States or Poland, the nightmare scenarios pushed by neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in the U.S. and the European Union. The Russian plans also have nothing to do with subversion of elections in France or Germany, the other part of the fevered imaginations of the West.

    Instead, the Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian countries that together can oppose the power of the West. It is important to understand that the Russian vision is a future multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War system of two superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited resources.

    In other words, the Russians are envisioning a future world order whose contours harken back to the Nineteenth Century. In terms of details, the Russians are now inseparably wed to China for reasons of mutual economic and security interest on the global stage. The same is becoming true of their relationship with Iran at the regional level of the Greater Middle East.

    The Russian elites also take pride in the emerging military, economic and geopolitical relationships with countries as far removed as Libya, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and Thailand. News about breakthroughs with each of these countries is heralded on daily television programming.

    Mideast Interests

    Russian elites note that the United States has misunderstood Moscow's position in Syria from the start of the war there. Russia's priority was never to keep the Assad regime in power, but rather to maintain a foothold in the Middle East. Put narrowly, Russia was determined to maintain its naval base at Tarsus, which is important to support Russia's presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. More broadly, Moscow's goal was to restore Russian influence in the strategic region where Russia once was a significant player before the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

    In May 2016, Russian marchers honoring family members who fought in World War II. (Photo from RT)

    Russia's loss of Eastern Europe is also not forgotten, though American hegemony there is acknowledged as a reality of the present. But nothing lasts forever, and the Russians expect to be back as a major force in the region, not by military conquest, but by virtue of economic and strategic logic, which favors them in the long term. Though many East European elites have been bought off by the United States and the European Union, many common citizens have been major losers from the American led post-Cold War order, suffering from de-industrialization and large-scale emigration to more developed E.U. countries, reaching as much as 25 percent of the general population in some places. These Eastern European countries have little to offer Western Europe except for tourist destinations, whereas their shared potential for trade with Russia is immense.

    This past weekend, Russian television news carried images of demonstrations in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova that you did not see on Euronews. The object of this popular wrath was billionaire financial speculator George Soros and his "Open Society" affiliates. Russian news commentary explained that these demonstrations - operating under the banner of "Go Home Soros" - became possible now because the Trump administration has dropped U.S. support for him.

    It would be naïve not to see some official Russian assistance to these coordinated demonstrations across a large swath of Eastern Europe, but the Russians were simply giving the United States a taste of its own medicine, since U.S.-sponsored "non-governmental organizations" have been busy subverting legitimate Euro-skeptic governments in these countries in cooperation with Soros's NGOs.

    Not Your Grandfather's Cold War

    But there are key differences between what is happening now and in the Cold War days. The original Cold War was characterized not only by military and geopolitical rivalry of the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It also was an ideological rivalry between – on one side – free market capitalism and parliamentary democracy and – on the other – planned economies and monolithic top-down Communist Party rule.

    President Richard Nixon with his then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger in 1972.

    Starting with President Richard Nixon, a policy of détente was put in place, which embodied the principle of co-existence of these competing principles of organizing human society for the sake of world peace. There are those who maintain we have no New Cold War today because the ideological dimension is lacking, although there are obvious differences over principles between the socially liberal U.S./E.U. and the more socially conservative Russia. But those differences hardly constitute a full-blown ideological conflict.

    The real area of contention is in how each side today conceptualizes global governance. On this level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because there is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which include: globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign policy versus interests-based foreign policy; a global order established by the all-out victory of liberal democracy over all other forms of national governance versus a balance of forces and respect for local differences; idealism versus realism. The West generally has favored the first of these options while Russia and China lead a bloc of nations generally favoring the second options.

    On the campaign trail and in his Inaugural speech, Donald Trump spoke in Realist terms suggesting that the U.S. would abandon its Idealist ideology of the preceding 25 years, which involved coercive "regime change" strategies to impose Western political values and economic systems around the world. Instead, Trump suggested that he would do business with Russia and with the world at large without imposing U.S. solutions, essentially accepting the principles that the Russians have been promoting ever since they began their public pushback to the United States in 2007.

    However, given Trump's retreat on foreign policy in recent weeks – while under fierce attack from Washington power centers asserting possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – we may be left with something akin to the re-set that Obama introduced at the start of his rule in 2009 which never went as far as détente/co-existence. It was limited to cooperation in isolated areas where U.S. and Russian interests were deemed to coincide.

    The only difference we might see from the embattled Trump administration is less of a penchant for "regime change" operations and a resumption of some bilateral contacts with Russia that were cut off when Obama decided to penalize Russia for its intervention in Crimea and the Donbass in 2014.

    Assuming that Washington's neocon Republicans and hawkish Democrats don't push Trump into a desperate political corner, he might at least engage Moscow with a more polite and diplomatic tone. That might be better than some of the alternatives, but it is surely not an onset of a new collaborative Golden Age.

    The scaling back in expectations of how far the Trump administration will go in improving relations with Russia makes sense because of another reality that has become clear now that his team of advisers and implementers is filling out, namely that there is no one in his "kitchen cabinet" or in his administration who can guide the neophyte president as he tries to negotiate a new global order and to do a "big deal" with Vladimir Putin, such as Trump may have hoped to strike.

    Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner lacks the experience and depth to be a world-class strategic thinker. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has corporate skills from his years at Exxon-Mobil but also lacks a strategic vision. Many other key jobs have gone to military generals who may be competent administrators but have limited political or diplomatic experience. There was talk of guidance coming from Henry Kissinger, but he has not been seen or heard from recently, and it is doubtful that at his advanced age and frailty he could provide consistent counsel.

    As Trump struggles to survive the cumulative attacks on his fledgling administration, he is also distracted from the reality of a rapidly changing world. If and when he does get to concentrate on the geopolitical situation, he may well have to play catch up with Russia and China as they make deals with other regional players and fill the vacuum left by the ongoing American political disorder.

    Assuming Trump can bring on board talented advisers with strategic depth, it would still take enormous vision and diplomatic skills to strike a "big deal" that could begin to end the violent chaos that has swept across much of the world since 2001. If and when that becomes possible, such a deal might look like a "Yalta-2" with a triangular shape involving the U.S., Russia and China.

    Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. Andrew Nichols , March 22, 2017 at 7:26 pm

    Stuff your silly divide and rule. How about live and let live? I presume this is what you do in your private life. I dont feel any threat at all from Russia, Iran or China despite the Chicken Little crap from our media and bought and paid for pollies on a daily basis. So let's all chill out and tell our pollies to shut ..f..k up!

    Kiza , March 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    Your words reminded me of what I learned about Hitler. In Europe, all my teachers of history in primary and secondary school emphasised that if Hitler was smart enough to attack one country at a time, he would have won the WW2. For example, when he attacked Poland and Britain declared war on Germany, he should have tried to finish off Britain instead of trying to win it over whilst attacking Soviet Union.

    Perhaps the US/Israeli leadership suffers from the same type of hubris, believing that it can globalize the World by conquering both Russia and China. Of course, the US/Israeli MIC believes that the bigger the enemy the higher the profit.

    Joe Tedesky , March 23, 2017 at 1:35 am

    KIza my hunch is the American Israeli MIC is blinded by money, and what they consider success. Here could have been the moment for America to truly be the that shinning city upon the hill, but instead we took the advice of the Project for a New American 21st Century, a project so evil it surpasses the stupidity of Dr Strangelove and here we are. If the money could see a profit in humanitarian needs, wow wouldn't that be lovely.

    My grandmother always told me the bigger they are, the harder they fall, and America better watch out now it's gonna get it's ass kicked good if it doesn't wise up. I love my country, and that remark I just made isn't a reflection on our uniformed military, but these genius in DC fighting each other, and laying down some really made stuff on Russia, isn't good, and it ain't going to amount to much more than pain in the end. The whole idea of this 21st century America is nothing but a plan to inflict pain.

    This fricking media we have isn't going to stop until Trump gets impeached, or we really do something stupid to Russia. The sense of all of this in my eyes always leads back to that Project for the new American Century piece of crap. America had it all to win over the love of the world, why with just the rhetoric and spirit it was enough to try and strive for, but now ah not so much. It's not too late, but I don't at this moment in time see what good is on the horizon in the meantime I'm going to just try and appreciate whatever it is there is to appreciate take care Joe

    Kiza , March 23, 2017 at 3:35 am

    I agree Joe, as a project of its Dual Citizens PNAC is the root of most evil in US. It is not a true American project. It is a project for global domination of Israel using US, its people and its resources, as means to an end. Who needs to discuss the veracity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, when PNAC is available in plain sight. I am just surprised how few US people understand this. Thanks for your great comment as usual.

    Bob Van Noy , March 22, 2017 at 10:55 am

    "Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian countries that together can oppose the power of the West. It is important to understand that the Russian vision is a future multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War system of two superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited resources." Gilbert Doctorow

    Again. "The real area of contention is in how each side today conceptualizes global governance. On this level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because there is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which include: globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign policy versus interests-based foreign policy; a global order established by the all-out victory of liberal democracy over all other forms of national governance versus a balance of forces and respect for local differences; idealism versus realism." Gilbert Doctorow

    To me the choice, were we ever given a choice as voters, would clearly be: 1) A future multi-polar world and, 2) a balance of forces and respect for local differences. The choice doesn't seem so very controversial? However, the default position of the Neocons and the liberal interventionists has always been to double down rather than negotiate, so I expect more saber rattling aggression

    BannanaBoat , March 22, 2017 at 5:26 pm

    Jimmy Carter stated USA is no longer a democracy, true. Idealism is the opposite of true USA motives, pure machivellian greed.

    backwardsevolution , March 22, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    Brad Owen – that's the way I see it too. I don't think that Trump needs Bannon or his son-in-law to be strategic. Strategic thinking (one-upping your opponent, outsmarting him, taking what's not yours, outright lying, propaganda, coups, trying to control the whole world) has been the policy for too long. I think Trump has a particular vision, and he's, as you say, playing rope-a-dope with the "strategic" thinkers.

    I see Trump as wanting to create free (but FAIR) trade. I see him wanting to stay out of other countries' business, concentrating on the home base, which has been sorely neglected for the last 20 – 30 years.

    I think people totally underestimate Trump.

    This is really a war between those who favor globalism/internationalism thinking (open borders, absence of a nation state or culture, multinational corporations controlling the world, one-world order) and those who favor nation states, culture, borders, fair and open trade with other countries.

    Trump is not a professional politician. He is not a great orator, slick or polished. But I believe he loves his country more than the other bought-and-paid-for politicians who govern according to who is paying them the most money on any given day.

    I think that the way Trump looks at business is if his competitor gets a property on one block, he gets one on the next. Everybody is happy. He doesn't set out to ensure that his competitor is crushed. He doesn't lie about him, try to get others to sanction him, try to bar him from doing business.

    Arseniy Urazov , March 22, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Hi Brad, nice comment, I think you will like this article in case you missed it https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/14/trumps-quiet-outreach-to-russia/
    And just to add to your comment, Russia and USA are working very close in Syria. Not directly of course, but Syrian army and the Kurds (who are heavily supported by USA from air) are making great progress in the Norther part of Syria. In fact they even cooperated to block further advances of the Turks (NATO member btw). So I think that the RU-USA relationship is better than the media is trying to show us

    Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 5:21 am

    I agree,Arseniy. We are two of the three Nations (China being the third Nation) PRIMARILY responsible for securing the peace and guiding development for the entire World we three. This was Roosevelt's vision,ejected by the Anglophile intelligence community the moment he died; recovered fortunately, by our mutual ally China, in the BRI policy. Russia and USA will be the Gateway managers of the World LandBridge (tunnel, spanning Bering Straits with mag-lev rail lines, pipelines, power lines, communication lines) that ties the whole World together. This was thought of in Lincoln's time a way to bypass the powerful British and other European maritime Empires. Russia had the foresight to sell us Alaska towards this end. Russia ALWAYS supported our stand AGAINST European Empires (especially the British Empire), even in the Soviet days. Together with our friend China, AND the rest of the World's Nations we'll continue to progress and grow and move out, into the Solar System to industrialize the moon and Mars and other moons and planets, after we put away these childish, pointless, sinful, wars. Read Executive Intelligence Review website, where these ideas are championed. Remember Krafft Erikhe (spelling?) whose vision of Man the Solar Species inspired our early space program. Our next, centuries-long Era will be our inhabiting of our Solar System, after war has been abolished as obsolete and counter-productive.

    Joe Tedesky , March 22, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    It is a sad day when detente and cooperation is replaced with demonization and belligerence to boot. When will our American leadership finally come to grips that this world isn't flat? Is liberating a nation for the sake of our installing an American fast food chain worth the price of so many innocent lives who get displaced, or worst yet killed by American bombs the price people must pay to join the NWO? Does anyone believe that by doing these things we are making any real and sincere new friends can you say blowback?

    All this fuss over Putin and Russian interference is putting President Trump in a difficult box. Why even Putin critic Masha Gessen is worried ..

    https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/03/21/noted-putin-critic-warns-of-confrontation-between-trump-and-russia-not-collaboration/

    Joe Tedesky , March 22, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, and if we include journalist well then Masha Gessen for at least on this Russia-Gate story is making charges similar to those of us who see this witch hunt for what it really is. Now don't blast me for posting a link to Gessen's article but since others are quoting her I thought you may wish to read her own words.

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/

    After reading what Gessen has to say, then read what Paul Street has to say about her saying it.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/22/russiagate-and-the-democratic-party-are-for-chumps/

    If America can pull through these tough and difficult times all in one piece, and regain some sense of sanity and fairness of values, this moment in time will be shelved along side the McCarthy era of the lowest of times in America.

    Kiza , March 22, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    I would not be as generous to Masha Gessen as you are Joe. Ms Gessen is very anti-Russian and anti-Putin, but she recognises the damage the current DNC policy against her two pet-hates does. After all the US high-tempereture emotional madness blows out, Russia will end up standing even taller because the US Democrats were crying wolf. I have been highlighting this same point for a while now – the Democrats are really working to benefit Russia, they are the really traitorous fifth column they accuse Trump of. This is why Ms Gessen is distancing herself from the mindless bunch.

    Joe Tedesky , March 22, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    KIza please don't read my posting Gessen's article as an endorsement. I only posted it due to the fact that sites like libertblitzkreig and Leftist Paul Street on counterpunch talked about Gessen's concerns. You know how I've mentioned in many of my comments how I think Vladimir Putin is the only adult in the room when it comes to our world's future. I'm all for distributed power, and I am no fan, and never was of the NWO.

    You are on too something though, when you mention to how Masha is no doubt distancing herself away from the awaiting disaster the Democrate's are leading us into. This whole fiasco is troubling when you think of how Hillary's conniving has brought us all to this place. It would be great if Hillary were brought to justice, but then again so much for wishful thinking.

    I'll leave you with this, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Theyre Like The Praetorian Guard - Whistleblower Confirms NSA Targeted Congress, The Supreme Court, Trump Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said. ..."
    "... "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it." ..."
    "... "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded. ..."
    "... Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult. ..."
    "... "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said. ..."
    "... "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count." ..."
    "... Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..." ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Authored by Chris Menahan via InformationLiberation.com,

    NSA whistleblower William Binney told Tucker Carlson on Friday that the NSA is spying on "all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House."

    Binney, who served the NSA for 30 years before blowing the whistle on domestic spying in 2001, told Tucker he firmly believes that Trump was spied on.

    "They're taking in fundamentally the entire fiber network inside the United States and collecting all that data and storing it, in a program they call Stellar Wind," Binney said.

    "That's the domestic collection of data on US citizens, US citizens to other US citizens," he said. "Everything we're doing, phone calls, emails and then financial transactions, credit cards, things like that, all of it."

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/lkChOSdOgcc

    "Inside NSA there are a set of people who are -- and we got this from another NSA whistleblower who witnessed some of this -- they're inside there, they are targeting and looking at all the members of the Supreme Court, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the White House," Binney said.

    "And all this data is inside the NSA in a small group where they're looking at it. The idea is to see what people in power over you are going to -- what they think, what they think you should be doing or planning to do to you, your budget, or whatever so you can try to counteract before it actually happens," he said.

    "I mean, that's just East German," Tucker responded.

    Rather than help prevent terrorist attacks, Binney said collecting so much information actually makes stopping attacks more difficult.

    "This bulk acquisition is inhibiting their ability to detect terrorist threats in advance so they can't stop them so people get killed as a result," he said.

    "Which means, you know, they pick up the pieces and blood after the attack. That's what's been going on. I mean they've consistently failed. When Alexander said they'd stop 54 attacks and he was challenged to produce the evidence to prove that he failed on every count."

    Binney concludes ominously indicating the origin of the deep state... "They are like the praetorian guard, they determine what the emperor does and who the emperor is..."

    Who's going to stop them?

    toady -> Bank_sters Mar 25, 2017 9:22 PM
    I'm continually amazed that anyone thinks they are not being "wiretapped".

    One more time;

    Everyone, from the queen to the homeless guy on the corner, is being tracked, recorded, and data mined to the hilt.

    • Trump was survieled? No shit!
    • Obama was survieled? No shit!
    • Merkel was survieled? No shit!

    I hope people start to REALLY understand this....

    NAV GUS100CORRINA Mar 25, 2017 7:19 PM

    Bringing history more up to date, this is Stalinism, i.e., fascism. As John T. Flynn states, "Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator." Neo-fascism of course is Stalinism-blame Hitler.

    So, is it fascism?

    Yes, says Major Todd Pierce (retired) in an interview with Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss - who says NSA whistle blower Bill Binney has "got to be one of the smartest people in the world, I don't think that's an exaggeration. He was one of the smartest people at the NSA.

    Says Weiss: "And he agrees with me fully. Because he's seen the NSA. We're a more sophisticated form of what I think has to be called fascism. The term fascism was applied to the way the communists and Stalin got on as well. You bring the term fascist to what it really means, and that ultimately is, ultramilitarism and authoritarianism combined with an expansionist foreign policy. And that's us-what you can see us becoming."

    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/09/innocence-worldview-retired/#sthash.XjFDU6km.dpuf

    Rubicon727 -> GUS100CORRINA •Mar 25, 2017 7:38 PM

    The Roman Empire's death was far more complicated than "moral rot" and its "currency devaluation." Read some history books.

    Chris Hedges makes the observation that ALL empires that are scourges of the earth, eventually turn inwards. As the empire begins its fatal decline, the terror they inflicted on outsiders, is then turned against its own citizens.

    We now see that happening in America. Banks, corporations, intel/military, etc. are turning inward: destroying meaningful employment, humane health care, and pilfering billions of $s reserved for the 1%.

    Just Another Vi... -> FriendlyAquaponics •Mar 25, 2017 8:05 PM

    A video worth revisiting......

    Reuters ..........

    ... Obama criticizes Donald Trump endlessly....over Trumps assertions that the election is rigged..,

    telling the candidate to "stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-idUSKCN12I27L

    HRClinton -> JLee2027 •Mar 25, 2017 8:15 PM

    Who does the NSA work for on the Org Chart?

    That's right, the DOD. They can't go completely rogue, without the explicit or implicit approval of the Secretary of Defense and his Deputies.

    It is rather phoney and hypocritical of any POTUS - including Pres. Thump - to moan about the NSA, without loping off heads at the DOD and NSA. By that, I include all the Deputies, who do the real work and know the real secrets.

    It's time that Thump had a "Come to Jesus" meeting with all these guys. Else he's part of the problem, and no amount of sugar coating can stop a turd being a turd.

    TheReplacement -> HRClinton •Mar 25, 2017 9:42 PM

    In an honest world, sure.

    In reality, no. Like Binney said, they don't have to do anything they don't like because NOBODY can prove they haven't complied with orders. There is nobody who can watch the watchers. They can blackmail anyone.

    'Gosh, I have no idea how that child porn got on my computer.'

    CIA or NSA knows exactly how it got there. They put it there.

    [Mar 25, 2017] What Russia Wants - and Expects

    Notable quotes:
    "... Does Russia Have a Future? ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    March 22, 2017

    Washington's political infighting has blocked President Trump's plans for a new détente with Russia but also has left the global playing field open for Russian – and Chinese – advances in expanding their influence, explains Gilbert Doctorow.

    By Gilbert Doctorow

    As Democrats and the mainstream U.S. media focus intensely on still unproven charges of Russian election meddling to explain Hillary Clinton's surprising defeat, the furor has forced an embattled President Trump to retreat from his plans to cooperate with Russia on fighting terrorism and other global challenges.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on May 10, 2015, at the Kremlin. (Photo from Russian government)

    Amid the anti-Russian hysteria, Trump's Cabinet members and United Nations ambassador have gone out of their way to reiterate the tough policy positions of the Obama administration with respect to Russia, underlining that nothing has changed. For its part, Congress has plunged into McCarthyistic hearings aimed at Trump supporters who may have met with Russians before the 2016 elections.

    Meanwhile, the Kremlin has duly noted these developments in Washington. In Moscow, the breakthrough in relations that some had hoped for is now dismissed as improbable. On the other hand, while the United States is tearing itself apart in partisan fighting, Russia is getting a much-needed breather from the constant ratcheting up of pressure from the West that it experienced over the past three years.

    We hear from Russian elites more and more how they plan to proceed on the international stage in the new circumstances. The byword is self-reliance and pursuit of the regional and global policies that have been forming over the past couple of years as the confrontation with the United States escalated.

    These policies have nothing to do with some attack on the Baltic States or Poland, the nightmare scenarios pushed by neoconservatives and liberal interventionists in the U.S. and the European Union. The Russian plans also have nothing to do with subversion of elections in France or Germany, the other part of the fevered imaginations of the West.

    Instead, the Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian countries that together can oppose the power of the West. It is important to understand that the Russian vision is a future multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War system of two superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited resources.

    In other words, the Russians are envisioning a future world order whose contours harken back to the Nineteenth Century. In terms of details, the Russians are now inseparably wed to China for reasons of mutual economic and security interest on the global stage. The same is becoming true of their relationship with Iran at the regional level of the Greater Middle East.

    The Russian elites also take pride in the emerging military, economic and geopolitical relationships with countries as far removed as Libya, Egypt, Turkey, Pakistan and Thailand. News about breakthroughs with each of these countries is heralded on daily television programming.

    Mideast Interests

    Russian elites note that the United States has misunderstood Moscow's position in Syria from the start of the war there. Russia's priority was never to keep the Assad regime in power, but rather to maintain a foothold in the Middle East. Put narrowly, Russia was determined to maintain its naval base at Tarsus, which is important to support Russia's presence in the Eastern Mediterranean. More broadly, Moscow's goal was to restore Russian influence in the strategic region where Russia once was a significant player before the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

    In May 2016, Russian marchers honoring family members who fought in World War II. (Photo from RT)

    Russia's loss of Eastern Europe is also not forgotten, though American hegemony there is acknowledged as a reality of the present. But nothing lasts forever, and the Russians expect to be back as a major force in the region, not by military conquest, but by virtue of economic and strategic logic, which favors them in the long term. Though many East European elites have been bought off by the United States and the European Union, many common citizens have been major losers from the American led post-Cold War order, suffering from de-industrialization and large-scale emigration to more developed E.U. countries, reaching as much as 25 percent of the general population in some places. These Eastern European countries have little to offer Western Europe except for tourist destinations, whereas their shared potential for trade with Russia is immense.

    This past weekend, Russian television news carried images of demonstrations in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova that you did not see on Euronews. The object of this popular wrath was billionaire financial speculator George Soros and his "Open Society" affiliates. Russian news commentary explained that these demonstrations - operating under the banner of "Go Home Soros" - became possible now because the Trump administration has dropped U.S. support for him.

    It would be naïve not to see some official Russian assistance to these coordinated demonstrations across a large swath of Eastern Europe, but the Russians were simply giving the United States a taste of its own medicine, since U.S.-sponsored "non-governmental organizations" have been busy subverting legitimate Euro-skeptic governments in these countries in cooperation with Soros's NGOs.

    Not Your Grandfather's Cold War

    But there are key differences between what is happening now and in the Cold War days. The original Cold War was characterized not only by military and geopolitical rivalry of the world's two superpowers, the U.S. and the Soviet Union. It also was an ideological rivalry between – on one side – free market capitalism and parliamentary democracy and – on the other – planned economies and monolithic top-down Communist Party rule.

    President Richard Nixon with his then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger in 1972.

    Starting with President Richard Nixon, a policy of détente was put in place, which embodied the principle of co-existence of these competing principles of organizing human society for the sake of world peace. There are those who maintain we have no New Cold War today because the ideological dimension is lacking, although there are obvious differences over principles between the socially liberal U.S./E.U. and the more socially conservative Russia. But those differences hardly constitute a full-blown ideological conflict.

    The real area of contention is in how each side today conceptualizes global governance. On this level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because there is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which include: globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign policy versus interests-based foreign policy; a global order established by the all-out victory of liberal democracy over all other forms of national governance versus a balance of forces and respect for local differences; idealism versus realism. The West generally has favored the first of these options while Russia and China lead a bloc of nations generally favoring the second options.

    On the campaign trail and in his Inaugural speech, Donald Trump spoke in Realist terms suggesting that the U.S. would abandon its Idealist ideology of the preceding 25 years, which involved coercive "regime change" strategies to impose Western political values and economic systems around the world. Instead, Trump suggested that he would do business with Russia and with the world at large without imposing U.S. solutions, essentially accepting the principles that the Russians have been promoting ever since they began their public pushback to the United States in 2007.

    However, given Trump's retreat on foreign policy in recent weeks – while under fierce attack from Washington power centers asserting possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia – we may be left with something akin to the re-set that Obama introduced at the start of his rule in 2009 which never went as far as détente/co-existence. It was limited to cooperation in isolated areas where U.S. and Russian interests were deemed to coincide.

    The only difference we might see from the embattled Trump administration is less of a penchant for "regime change" operations and a resumption of some bilateral contacts with Russia that were cut off when Obama decided to penalize Russia for its intervention in Crimea and the Donbass in 2014.

    Assuming that Washington's neocon Republicans and hawkish Democrats don't push Trump into a desperate political corner, he might at least engage Moscow with a more polite and diplomatic tone. That might be better than some of the alternatives, but it is surely not an onset of a new collaborative Golden Age.

    The scaling back in expectations of how far the Trump administration will go in improving relations with Russia makes sense because of another reality that has become clear now that his team of advisers and implementers is filling out, namely that there is no one in his "kitchen cabinet" or in his administration who can guide the neophyte president as he tries to negotiate a new global order and to do a "big deal" with Vladimir Putin, such as Trump may have hoped to strike.

    Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner lacks the experience and depth to be a world-class strategic thinker. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has corporate skills from his years at Exxon-Mobil but also lacks a strategic vision. Many other key jobs have gone to military generals who may be competent administrators but have limited political or diplomatic experience. There was talk of guidance coming from Henry Kissinger, but he has not been seen or heard from recently, and it is doubtful that at his advanced age and frailty he could provide consistent counsel.

    As Trump struggles to survive the cumulative attacks on his fledgling administration, he is also distracted from the reality of a rapidly changing world. If and when he does get to concentrate on the geopolitical situation, he may well have to play catch up with Russia and China as they make deals with other regional players and fill the vacuum left by the ongoing American political disorder.

    Assuming Trump can bring on board talented advisers with strategic depth, it would still take enormous vision and diplomatic skills to strike a "big deal" that could begin to end the violent chaos that has swept across much of the world since 2001. If and when that becomes possible, such a deal might look like a "Yalta-2" with a triangular shape involving the U.S., Russia and China.

    Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. Andrew Nichols , March 22, 2017 at 7:26 pm

    Stuff your silly divide and rule. How about live and let live? I presume this is what you do in your private life. I dont feel any threat at all from Russia, Iran or China despite the Chicken Little crap from our media and bought and paid for pollies on a daily basis. So let's all chill out and tell our pollies to shut ..f..k up!

    Kiza , March 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    Your words reminded me of what I learned about Hitler. In Europe, all my teachers of history in primary and secondary school emphasised that if Hitler was smart enough to attack one country at a time, he would have won the WW2. For example, when he attacked Poland and Britain declared war on Germany, he should have tried to finish off Britain instead of trying to win it over whilst attacking Soviet Union.

    Perhaps the US/Israeli leadership suffers from the same type of hubris, believing that it can globalize the World by conquering both Russia and China. Of course, the US/Israeli MIC believes that the bigger the enemy the higher the profit.

    Joe Tedesky , March 23, 2017 at 1:35 am

    KIza my hunch is the American Israeli MIC is blinded by money, and what they consider success. Here could have been the moment for America to truly be the that shinning city upon the hill, but instead we took the advice of the Project for a New American 21st Century, a project so evil it surpasses the stupidity of Dr Strangelove and here we are. If the money could see a profit in humanitarian needs, wow wouldn't that be lovely.

    My grandmother always told me the bigger they are, the harder they fall, and America better watch out now it's gonna get it's ass kicked good if it doesn't wise up. I love my country, and that remark I just made isn't a reflection on our uniformed military, but these genius in DC fighting each other, and laying down some really made stuff on Russia, isn't good, and it ain't going to amount to much more than pain in the end. The whole idea of this 21st century America is nothing but a plan to inflict pain.

    This fricking media we have isn't going to stop until Trump gets impeached, or we really do something stupid to Russia. The sense of all of this in my eyes always leads back to that Project for the new American Century piece of crap. America had it all to win over the love of the world, why with just the rhetoric and spirit it was enough to try and strive for, but now ah not so much. It's not too late, but I don't at this moment in time see what good is on the horizon in the meantime I'm going to just try and appreciate whatever it is there is to appreciate take care Joe

    Kiza , March 23, 2017 at 3:35 am

    I agree Joe, as a project of its Dual Citizens PNAC is the root of most evil in US. It is not a true American project. It is a project for global domination of Israel using US, its people and its resources, as means to an end. Who needs to discuss the veracity of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, when PNAC is available in plain sight. I am just surprised how few US people understand this. Thanks for your great comment as usual.

    Bob Van Noy , March 22, 2017 at 10:55 am

    "Russians are concentrating on their domestic defense capabilities and their budding political alliances with China and a host of Asian countries that together can oppose the power of the West. It is important to understand that the Russian vision is a future multi-polar world, not a return to the bipolar Cold War system of two superpowers, which Russian elites see as unattainable given the diffusion of power across the globe and Russia's own more limited resources." Gilbert Doctorow

    Again. "The real area of contention is in how each side today conceptualizes global governance. On this level, it makes sense to speak of an ideological divide because there is a vast body of thought to underpin the competing views which include: globalization versus sovereign-state; values-based foreign policy versus interests-based foreign policy; a global order established by the all-out victory of liberal democracy over all other forms of national governance versus a balance of forces and respect for local differences; idealism versus realism." Gilbert Doctorow

    To me the choice, were we ever given a choice as voters, would clearly be: 1) A future multi-polar world and, 2) a balance of forces and respect for local differences. The choice doesn't seem so very controversial? However, the default position of the Neocons and the liberal interventionists has always been to double down rather than negotiate, so I expect more saber rattling aggression

    BannanaBoat , March 22, 2017 at 5:26 pm

    Jimmy Carter stated USA is no longer a democracy, true. Idealism is the opposite of true USA motives, pure machivellian greed.

    backwardsevolution , March 22, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    Brad Owen – that's the way I see it too. I don't think that Trump needs Bannon or his son-in-law to be strategic. Strategic thinking (one-upping your opponent, outsmarting him, taking what's not yours, outright lying, propaganda, coups, trying to control the whole world) has been the policy for too long. I think Trump has a particular vision, and he's, as you say, playing rope-a-dope with the "strategic" thinkers.

    I see Trump as wanting to create free (but FAIR) trade. I see him wanting to stay out of other countries' business, concentrating on the home base, which has been sorely neglected for the last 20 – 30 years.

    I think people totally underestimate Trump.

    This is really a war between those who favor globalism/internationalism thinking (open borders, absence of a nation state or culture, multinational corporations controlling the world, one-world order) and those who favor nation states, culture, borders, fair and open trade with other countries.

    Trump is not a professional politician. He is not a great orator, slick or polished. But I believe he loves his country more than the other bought-and-paid-for politicians who govern according to who is paying them the most money on any given day.

    I think that the way Trump looks at business is if his competitor gets a property on one block, he gets one on the next. Everybody is happy. He doesn't set out to ensure that his competitor is crushed. He doesn't lie about him, try to get others to sanction him, try to bar him from doing business.

    Arseniy Urazov , March 22, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Hi Brad, nice comment, I think you will like this article in case you missed it https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/14/trumps-quiet-outreach-to-russia/
    And just to add to your comment, Russia and USA are working very close in Syria. Not directly of course, but Syrian army and the Kurds (who are heavily supported by USA from air) are making great progress in the Norther part of Syria. In fact they even cooperated to block further advances of the Turks (NATO member btw). So I think that the RU-USA relationship is better than the media is trying to show us

    Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 5:21 am

    I agree,Arseniy. We are two of the three Nations (China being the third Nation) PRIMARILY responsible for securing the peace and guiding development for the entire World we three. This was Roosevelt's vision,ejected by the Anglophile intelligence community the moment he died; recovered fortunately, by our mutual ally China, in the BRI policy. Russia and USA will be the Gateway managers of the World LandBridge (tunnel, spanning Bering Straits with mag-lev rail lines, pipelines, power lines, communication lines) that ties the whole World together. This was thought of in Lincoln's time a way to bypass the powerful British and other European maritime Empires. Russia had the foresight to sell us Alaska towards this end. Russia ALWAYS supported our stand AGAINST European Empires (especially the British Empire), even in the Soviet days. Together with our friend China, AND the rest of the World's Nations we'll continue to progress and grow and move out, into the Solar System to industrialize the moon and Mars and other moons and planets, after we put away these childish, pointless, sinful, wars. Read Executive Intelligence Review website, where these ideas are championed. Remember Krafft Erikhe (spelling?) whose vision of Man the Solar Species inspired our early space program. Our next, centuries-long Era will be our inhabiting of our Solar System, after war has been abolished as obsolete and counter-productive.

    Joe Tedesky , March 22, 2017 at 12:23 pm

    It is a sad day when detente and cooperation is replaced with demonization and belligerence to boot. When will our American leadership finally come to grips that this world isn't flat? Is liberating a nation for the sake of our installing an American fast food chain worth the price of so many innocent lives who get displaced, or worst yet killed by American bombs the price people must pay to join the NWO? Does anyone believe that by doing these things we are making any real and sincere new friends can you say blowback?

    All this fuss over Putin and Russian interference is putting President Trump in a difficult box. Why even Putin critic Masha Gessen is worried ..

    https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2017/03/21/noted-putin-critic-warns-of-confrontation-between-trump-and-russia-not-collaboration/

    Joe Tedesky , March 22, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Politics is said to make strange bedfellows, and if we include journalist well then Masha Gessen for at least on this Russia-Gate story is making charges similar to those of us who see this witch hunt for what it really is. Now don't blast me for posting a link to Gessen's article but since others are quoting her I thought you may wish to read her own words.

    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/

    After reading what Gessen has to say, then read what Paul Street has to say about her saying it.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/22/russiagate-and-the-democratic-party-are-for-chumps/

    If America can pull through these tough and difficult times all in one piece, and regain some sense of sanity and fairness of values, this moment in time will be shelved along side the McCarthy era of the lowest of times in America.

    Kiza , March 22, 2017 at 9:00 pm

    I would not be as generous to Masha Gessen as you are Joe. Ms Gessen is very anti-Russian and anti-Putin, but she recognises the damage the current DNC policy against her two pet-hates does. After all the US high-tempereture emotional madness blows out, Russia will end up standing even taller because the US Democrats were crying wolf. I have been highlighting this same point for a while now – the Democrats are really working to benefit Russia, they are the really traitorous fifth column they accuse Trump of. This is why Ms Gessen is distancing herself from the mindless bunch.

    Joe Tedesky , March 22, 2017 at 11:46 pm

    KIza please don't read my posting Gessen's article as an endorsement. I only posted it due to the fact that sites like libertblitzkreig and Leftist Paul Street on counterpunch talked about Gessen's concerns. You know how I've mentioned in many of my comments how I think Vladimir Putin is the only adult in the room when it comes to our world's future. I'm all for distributed power, and I am no fan, and never was of the NWO.

    You are on too something though, when you mention to how Masha is no doubt distancing herself away from the awaiting disaster the Democrate's are leading us into. This whole fiasco is troubling when you think of how Hillary's conniving has brought us all to this place. It would be great if Hillary were brought to justice, but then again so much for wishful thinking.

    I'll leave you with this, keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

    [Mar 25, 2017] Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban". ..."
    "... It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework". ..."
    "... He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" ..."
    "... 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing ..."
    "... I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats. ..."
    "... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US. ..."
    "... Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right. ..."
    "... US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan. ..."
    "... The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. ..."
    "... Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship". ..."
    "... The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." ..."
    "... I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away. ..."
    "... When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, ..."
    Mar 25, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Anna , March 23, 2017 at 4:24 pm

    Every time the ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California opens his mouth to propagate unsubstantiated allegations against Russia and Russian influence on the last US elections, he makes a reminder, inadvertently, of the First Husband (the philanderer) taking $500.000 from Russians. The money was a bribe intended to make a right impression on Mrs. Clinton. Keep going Mr. Schiff. There were also tens of millions of $US dollars delivered to Clintons Foundation by the major sponsors of terrorism. These tens of millions of dollars from Saudis, Qatari, and Moroccans constitute bribing of a State Department official. As a result of these bribes, the US government has violated the US Constitution by supplying the US-made weaponry to the Middle Eastern warmongering despots/sponsors of terrorism. That is indeed a treason. Let Mr. Schiff talk. He has been making a nice rope for his own hanging.

    Skip Scott , March 24, 2017 at 8:02 am

    Great post Anna.

    Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:06 am

    Another official US moron has blamed Russia, this time for "supplying Taliban" in Afghanistan. US Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti announced that "it was conceivable that Russia was providing supplies to the Afghan Taliban".

    It appears that absolutely any personal or group failure by any US official gets automatically converted into "Russia did it". Little kids are more creative when they say "the dog ate my homework".

    But what this sick and unintelligent bull does to Russia? It appears that the US coup in Ukraine and its support for Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria have solidified Putin's popularity rating at around an unimaginable 85%. All this in the middle of a fairly serious economic crisis in Russia. There is and there has been no major country in the World where the leader has had such approval rating, for so long and despite the economy in a bad shape. Read all about it: http://johnhelmer.net/the-us-war-has-been-good-for-president-vladimir-putin-and-the-russian-economy-looks-stable-through-the-presidential-election-so-if-you-are-a-us-warfighter-what-is-the-regime-change-opportunity-no/#more-17368

    Therefore, all these US Demopublicans, generals and other assorted officials are obviously all on Putin's payroll, because they keep working to increase his popularity.

    Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Democrats. Republicans. Same old, same old.

    In 1904 Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle :

    "The original edition of the novel concluded with its proletarian protagonist attending a mass rally addressed by the American Socialist Party's mesmerizing presidential candidate – Sinclair's fictional representation of Eugene Debs. The candidate, Sinclair wrote:

    "was a man of electric presence, tall and gaunt, with a face worn think by struggle and suffering. The fury of outraged manhood gleamed in him – and the tears of suffering. When he spoke he paced the stage restlessly; he was lithe and eager, like a panther. He leaned over, reaching out for his audience; he pointed into their souls with an insistent finger. His voice was husky from much speaking, but the hall was still as death, and everyone heard him. He spoke the language of workingmen – he pointed them the way. He showed the two political parties as 'two wings of the same bird of prey" [emphasis added]. The people were allowed to choose between their candidates, and both of them were controlled, and all their nominations were dictated by, the same [money] power."

    In a number of essays Walter Karp made similar points backed up by lots of evidence.

    Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:04 pm

    That book should be required reading in this country. I suspect most people have never even heard of it despite the fact that it was undoubtedly one of the most influential books of the early 20th century.

    D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 1:34 pm

    The time is extraordinary in the reckless and naked way the PTB (i.e. the two major parties) are exposing themselves as to NOT serving the people. I was disappointed today to read on RT that 69 percent of the [US] people have been taken in with the Russia bashing (showing I've been wrong lately on my estimates), but I'm hopeful that will not last. More important, Robert's article shows us the dedication of the parties to their deeper playbook, which is obviously controlled by financial interests, not the people's interests. The nakedness of this exposure today is unusual in my experience of watching Washington.

    Recommended: a look at what could be a companion piece to Robert's article from Mike Whitney in today's counterpunch, titled "Will Washington risk WWIII to block an emerging EU-Russia super-state":

    From that article:

    "For the last 70 years the imperial strategy has worked without a hitch, but now Russia's resurgence and China's explosive growth are threatening to break free from Washington's stranglehold. The Asian allies have begun to crisscross Central Europe and Asis with pipelines and high-speed rail that will gather together the far-flung statelets scattered across the steppe, draw them into a Eurasian Economic Union, and link them to an expansive and thriving superstate, the epicenter of global commerce and industry."

    BannanaBoat , March 23, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    Neither the proud Russians nor Chinese will diminish their nation and culture. BRICS is the level of unity they will accept.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 1:36 pm

    I would trace the transition of the Democrats to a war party, not to the fear of being labeled disloyal after Iraq War 1, but to their being taken over by the zionists. The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." They want those Mideast wars because they are religious fanatics and thieves. Those are the facts of the Democrats. They are owned by zionist traitors. They are Ziocrats.

    J. D. , March 23, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking. While there is no doubt that Natanyahu's Israel supports a policy in sync with that of neo-con objectives, it is beyond a stretch to attribute that policy to that Israel's exaggerated influence in the US.

    Rather, Israel, as well as Israel's Saudi allies, are both instruments of British Empire policy, sometimes called "globalism," which was adopted and embraced by what can be called the Obama faction of the Democratic Party and its backers in the Republican right.

    US policy, especially in the post-Soviet era has been determined by a failing attempt to maintain a "unipolar" world that no longer exists and should never have been. The freak-out over Trump's exposure of British Intelligence's GCHQ, heralding a possible rupture in Britain's "special relationship" is an indication of the fear gripping the Anglo-American financial oligarchy that their control over the US is slip-sliding away and that the US will pursue its political and economic self-interest by establishing new relationships to true world powers Russia, China, India and Japan.

    Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    Well said. It's also time to get rid of the phony "Special Relationship" (between 1%er oligarchs of The City and The Street), to replace it with the actual Special Relationship, so as to ease UK's transition into the New multi-polar Era dawning: this is tribal, in that dear old "Mother Country" need not worry that Her "Four Children" (Australia, Canada, N.Z., USA) will leave Her out in the cold. THAT is the TRUE special relationship; the far-flung, English-speaking Tribe will see to the General Welfare of ALL of its' members, but without degrading the well-being of the rest of the World. War is obsolete, not conducive to anyone's well-being, Geopolitics & divide & conquer is over, finished.

    Brad Owen , March 23, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    Zionism is a product of Cecil Rhodes' RoundTable Group, which, in concert with the Synarchist Movement for Empire, concerned how to manage African and Middle East colonies and assets belonging mainly to British and French Empires (which also explains WHY the Brits dawdled in North Africa during WWII, much to the chagrin of Stalin and Gen Marshall, who wanted to open up the Western Front ASAP).

    They found the perfect opportunity to implement the strategy post-WWII, and suckered USA, via The City's Wall Street Tories, into guaranteeing the existence of Israel. End of story.

    Check out the tons of articles on the subject at the EIR website. Tarpley covers it well also. Argue your case with them, F Sam. Good luck. You'll need lots of it.

    rosemerry , March 23, 2017 at 4:49 pm

    All the talk of "Russian interference" takes over the media, but the ever-present Israeli connection is just accepted as normal. Saudi Arabia, too, is allowed plenty of influence while Iran is demonized.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm

    Yes, Brad, I agree that Cecil Rhodes and others were involved with the zionists fairly early, although perhaps the greatest British interest was in the Suez canal. Also agree that the US was fooled into taking over the Suez protection and pressuring the UN to create Israel. No doubt there was Wall St interest, although I gather that zionists made direct "donations" to Truman's campaign for the UN pressure.

    No doubt there were British zionists involved. But I think that JD's theory that Brits control US policy in the Mideast is a diversion from the obvious zionist control, whether he knows it or not. I will look again at your EIR website. Did not mean to offend.

    Brad Owen , March 24, 2017 at 4:27 am

    Sam, we just disagree on the location of the REAL enemy. The zionistas are indeed real, and a threat, a real enemy to the USA, but I maintain they are just a weapon wielded by our traditional enemy who has always fought to undermine us here in America; the British Empire (an entity distinct from the Anglo-Celtic people living on the British Isles who are our tribal mates and suffering under the same yoke of Empire as are we).

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:26 pm

    Completely wrong: it is an obvious fact that the Democrats have been taken over by the zionists. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor." Hillary's major campaign sponsors are all Jewish.
    http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/033116/top-10-corporate-contributors-clinton-campaign.asp
    The top 10 contributors to HRCs Superpac were as follows:
    1. Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna: $35 million
    2. Donald Sussman, Paloma Partners: $21,100,000
    3. Jay Robert Pritzker (Mary), Pritzker Group and Foundation: $12,600,000
    4. Haim Saban and Cheryl Saban, Saban Capital Group: $10,000,000
    5. George Soros (Schwartz): $9,525,000 (changed name from Schwartz)
    6. S. Daniel Abraham, SDA Enterprises: $9,000,000
    7. Fred Eychaner (Eichner), Newsweb Corporation: $8,005,400
    8. James Simons (Shimon), Euclidean Capital: $7,000,000
    9. Henry Laufer and Marsha Laufer, Renaissance Technologies: $5,500,000
    10. Laure Woods (Wald), Laurel Foundation: $5 million

    Your suggestion that this is "British empire" policy is way beyond the ridiculous, it is zionist propaganda. The entire UK economy is a small fraction of that of the US, and there is little financial connection.

    I challenge you to deny these facts, or to substantiate the absurd theory of British control. US mass media.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    To continue, the US mass media are also controlled by Jews, presumably zionists. About 40-60 percent of US newspapers are controlled by persons of identifiable Jewish surnames, while less than half of Jewish people can be so identified. Most of the rest are indirectly controlled by Jews.

    No further explanation is needed of the mass media craze for Hillary Clinton (Kleinberg). The DNC emails show that she talks to no one but Jews about Mideast policy.

    No further proof is needed of the origins of Democrat policy in the Mideast. It may play to the interests of the MIC and oil companies sometimes, but not in Syria/Libya/Egypt. And we got no special deals on Iraqi oil anyway, and had no reason to expect them.

    Your move.

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:33 pm

    In support of your points, here is an excellent article at a Jewish-run, anti-Zionist website that points out the huge known influence of Israel on American politics that is being ignored amidst all the speculation about possible Russian influence, "Let's talk about Russian influence"
    http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/

    Mondoweiss is a site of news and analysis with high journalistic standards. Like Consortium News it has also been attacked by the Deep State for its honesty.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Thank you; it is very appropriate to note that many Jewish people are strong critics of zionism and Israeli policies. There is some hope that they will assist in liberating Jews as well as Palestinians from the racism of the zionists, as many whites assisted in greatly reducing racism among whites in the US against African-Americans.

    Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking.

    There were references in an earlier post quoting two former Israeli prime ministers saying, in effect, they could take care of U.S. politicians to ensure they would do Israel's bidding. I recall Yitzhak Shamir was one of them. The spectacle of Netanyahu showing contempt for Obama in the way he addressed Congress and the standing ovations Netanyahu got from the senators and Congresspersons who sold their souls to the Israel lobby kind of supports the proposition that "the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists"" Same thing goes for the Republicans.

    Anna , March 23, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Have you heard about PNAC? Have you heard about the Lobby?
    http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/neocons-as-a-figment-of-imagination/#comment-1810991

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 9:55 pm

    Thanks for the links. PNAC founders Kristol and Kagan helped harness forces for zionist goals. PNAC signers W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz were principal promoters of Iraq War II, as Wolfowitz installed Israeli spy operatives Perl, Feith, and Wurmser at CIA/DIA/NSA offices to select known-bad "intelligence" to incite the war.

    Jerry Alatalo , March 23, 2017 at 6:50 pm

    J. D.,

    "The simplistic notion that the Democrats have been "taken over by the zionists" is a dangerous illusion that needs debunking."

    Can you share with readers why you used the term "dangerous illusion" and why it needs debunking? According to William Binney, Obama's use of GCHQ was nothing more than standard operating procedure, an everyday mode of business, to avoid breaking American laws – nothing new, so therefore presenting no threat of rupturing U.S.-British "special relationship".

    Can you share the names of major influential figures composing what you describe as the "Anglo-American financial oligarchy" for the benefit of others who pass this way?

    It's hard to explain away Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and so many other U.S. politicians fighting each other to get to the head of the pack in supporting Israel. Bernie Sanders only mentioned that Palestinians suffer human and civil rights deficiencies and the world shook, despite it being only a very minor, tiny critique of Israel. Can we imagine what would have happened – the titanic reaction – had Mr. Sanders blurted out during one of the debates with Ms, Clinton the same conclusion that Professor Virginia Tilley and Professor Richard Falk's report arrived at very recently – that the State of Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid?

    Years ago while Mr. Sanders appeared weekly with Thom Hartmann on "Brunch With Bernie" we redialed the call-in program until finally getting through and asking two questions. The first was a request for a response from Senator Sanders on the trillion-dollar / year global tax haven-evasion industry facilitated by the world's most powerful accounting, legal and banking firms. The second requested response on the suggestion that it was time to "nationalize the privately-owned Federal Reserve". Mr. Sanders responded to the 1st, then suddenly the show went to music and a break – then after the break until show's end nothing about the Federal Reserve.

    My guess is that Mr. Sanders and Mr. Hartmann were aware of a "panic button to break" to be triggered when the live call-in topics became, let's say, "unmanageable". That is just a guess,but another guess is that Mr. Sanders was the recipient of, how shall we put it, very "risky" news during his campaign for president when running against Ms. Clinton. So, long story short, Sanders capitulated because he's fully aware of what happened to JFK, MLK and RFK, Clinton became spoiled goods and unacceptable as America's new CEO, and Donald Trump was selected. Trump's long-time friends include "Lucky" Larry Silverstein, who just happened to avoid being in his Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, breaking his religiously kept routine of breakfast every morning in a restaurant located in the top floors of one of the towers – because his wife fortunately convinced him to keep an appointment with his dermatologist.

    Donald Trump, "Lucky Larry" and Benjamin Netanyahu are long-time friends.

    ***

    Men and women wishing to read, copy, save and disseminate the report on Israel apartheid by Professor Tilley and Professor Falk can find it online at the co-author's internet platform, available at:

    https://richardfalk.wordpress.com

    Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    The top ten "donors" to Clinton (Kleinberg) were Jewish, every single one of them! Over $100 million. Obama got over $100 million from a single Jewish "donor."

    In exchange Israel got a $38 BILLION package of US aid. What a deal!! Presumably, the Israel lobby will show its appreciation to Obama with donations to his presidential library probably making that library the most expensive ever.

    Sam F , March 23, 2017 at 6:27 pm

    Yes, there can be little doubt that the zionist campaign money comes at least indirectly from US aid to Israel, and that the aid is intended substantially for that purpose. Investigation of such cashflows might turn up evidence, although there is a quid pro quo economy on both sides that could easily obscure the feedback.

    You may well be right in suggesting that the vast aid flows simply make campaign donations a great investment for those who would otherwise have invested in Israel. But the Dems and Reps know that this aid to Israel is for campaign bribes, pure and simple.

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    In addition to the carrot bribes, there are also the blackmail sticks. This possibility is consistent with the following segment of a 1998 interview with Kay Griggs, former wife of the U.S. Army's director of assassination training.

    Kay Griggs: "Even when he [General Al Gray] was General he ran an intelligence operation which was a contract organization trying to hook politicians, and get them. What is the word? In other words "

    Interviewer: "In compromising situations?"

    Kay Griggs: "Yes, yes. He had and still has an organization which brings in whores, prostitutes, whatever you want to say, who will compromise politicians so they can be used."

    The above is in Part 2 of the whole interview, starting at 48:00 in the video at
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-SEA9W6pmA

    In Part 1 of the interview she explains the motives behind this.

    Kay Griggs: "I'm talking about the Brooklyn-New Jersey mob. My husband, Al Gray, Sheehan, they're all Brooklyn. Cap Weinberger. Heinz Kissinger – there's the Boston mob, which was shipping weapons back and forth to Northern Ireland. And I don't want to get too deeply involved in that, but it goes – Israel – some of the Zionists who came over from Germany, according to my husband, were – he works with those people – they do a lot of money laundering in the banks, cash transactions for the drugs they're bringing over, through Latin America, the Southern Mafia, the Dixie Mafia, which now my husband's involved with in Miami. The military are all involved once they retire. They're – you know, they go into this drug and secondary weapon sales."

    The above starts soon after 18:00 in the video at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ
    (Part 1 of interview)

    Further on the following exchange occurs.

    Interviewer: "And directly under whose instructions to sell these weapons, do you know that?"

    Kay Griggs: "Yeah."

    Interviewer: "Okay, who would that be?"

    Kay Griggs: "Well, uh, [pause] it's the Israeli-Zionist group in New York."

    The above starts at 1:06:45 in the same video at
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ

    Shortly afterward in the same segment is this exchange.

    Kay Griggs: "It's kind of like Monica and Bill. I think they put Monica in there to have something on Bill. That's my own feeling. Sarah McClendon feels the same way. Because "

    Interviewer: "And Linda Tripp was there to guide the situation."

    Kay Griggs: "Absolutely, of course. Linda Tripp was Delta Force. Linda Tripp was trained by Carl Steiner, who's in the diary [her husband's] with my husband. And he [Steiner] tried to trip up Schwarzkopf. I mean, he was trying to take, to take the whole Iraqi thing over because they had been baiting, you know using the Israeli rogues in Turkey. They were having little zig-zag wars. It's all to sell weapons. It's all about weapons sales, it's all about drugs, it's all about funny money."

    A blackmail factor, combined with financial carrots, and especially if backed up with a death threat, could easily explain why a reasonably intelligent and educated person would act uninformed and irrational. The surface inconsistency becomes easy to understand. A strategic system of blackmail of the sort Kay Griggs described could easily explain a phalanx of politicians lying in lockstep to American voters, and voting against America's best interests.

    backwardsevolution , March 24, 2017 at 12:19 am

    JWalters – fascinating! Thanks for posting. Makes sense, doesn't it?

    Sam f , March 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    That is fascinating. There must be material on the linkages of secret agencies, ex-military staff, political gangsters, and money-laundering banksters to the drugs and weapons trade. They would be useful tools for false-flag incidents and to supply terror groups.

    Those with connections should contact independent news reporters, who could perhaps train journalism students to investigate further. There may be material in the Wikileaks Vault-7 dump of CIA docs.

    Pablo Diablo , March 23, 2017 at 1:39 pm

    A military buildup=an empire in decline.

    chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:25 pm

    before they let their hegemony over humanity collapse, they blow up the planet.

    what's remarkable, for me as an outsider at least, how many insane people are running the show and that's not exclusive to the psychotic right. seeing the mad general at hillary's DNC coronation and the "U!S!A!" chants from the crowd, i'm under the impression that the majority of Americans, that has not yet been marginalized and impoverished, is as deranged as ecstatic Germans cheering on Goebbels and his total war.

    Accidental , March 23, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    Actually what's happening now in the US is more like France in 1848

    Pauline Saxon , March 23, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    I have supported you from the beginning. I would like to understand why you seem to be protecting Trump

    D5-5 , March 23, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    I don't believe Robert Parry or this site are protecting Trump. Questioning the demonizing and slandering of Trump, and efforts to remove him, also do not constitute "protecting."

    Trump was elected legitimately to be the president for better or worse. An assessment means looking at both sides of whatever it is. Trump is obviously not doing well and getting negative evaluations, but some of his views (for one example) that promise toward détente or acceptance of a multi-polar world are worth considering.

    Is he genuinely moving in this direction, or faking for some hidden reason? The jury is still considering. So investigating an attack on Trump that is primarily bogus and motivated as a smoke screen to demonize Russia, and prepare the nation for war, is not protecting Trump, but trying to get at the underbrush of what's really going on behind the headlines.

    Perhaps you could give us some idea of what you see as protecting Trump?

    For myself I'm very critical of Trump. At this time he seems bent on building up ground troops in Syria, but with ISIS already being subdued without this action, we should question why. What's going on. Is he seeking a Ronald Reagan/George W. type of glory moment as One Tough Supreme Commander? Is he now falling in to the neocon overview of controlling the middle east? It's more foolishness in my view, that will not settle the problems and what W uncorked with his phony Iraq war. But this kind of considering doesn't take the heat off the DEM Party for its unconscionable manipulations with Trump and Russia bashing at this time.

    Hayden Head , March 23, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    Well said! You are spot on in your defense of Parry, who has consistently shown himself to be committed to the truth, regardless of whom he is defending or the consequences of his position. Many of us are waiting to see if Trump might, just might, lead us away from endless war to something approaching a rational foreign policy. Is such hope foolishness? Well, hope usually is.

    Bill Bodden , March 23, 2017 at 8:08 pm

    Unfortunately, this site is afflicted with the utterances of sloppy readers who are triggered to hit their keyboard when some sentence gets their attention and causes them to ignore other contradictory commentary.

    Jake G , March 23, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    What are you talking about? There are as many Trump-critic articles from him.

    JWalters , March 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm

    It seems to me Parry is not so much protecting Trump as trying to protect America from another needless war manufactured by the Deep State, e.g. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror"
    http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com

    Gina , March 23, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    Excellent article. I am pretty horrified at the direction of the Dems which has become Rethuglican-lite.

    LJ , March 23, 2017 at 2:06 pm

    The Democrats abandoned their core constituency , LABOR, when Clinton got the 1992 nomination promising to sign NAFTA a short time after having been pictured attending a Bilderberg Beer fest, Since then by jumping further under the sheets with High Finance and Tech Billionaires they have continuously bled votes everywhere except the West Coast. Recent Polling you may have noticed has the Democrats declining in favorability even more since the election. Strange Days have found us haven't they?. .when all else fails we can whip the horses eyes and make them sleep and cry .. I say for starters we separate the words Military and Intelligence forever with a Constitutional Amendment .. How then will Senators McCain and Feinstein react? What will they do for God's sake? The rest of the Two Party infrastructure will quickly implode. Sorry. Thank God and the ACA,, the Amazon Drone has just delivered my prescription meds.. Peace in our time.

    chuck b , March 23, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    i think it's safe to say that the democrats have been equally adept at waging war since the nutcase LBJ didn't know if they were shooting at whales in the bay of tomkin and started the American holocaust. obama let his darling Hillary run amok which resulted in a rise of refugees and idp by 50% to over 60 million, in just his first term. you actually live in a country run by Nazis for a very long time. from Kissinger to McCain, they are people in power who have collaborated with Nazis (phoenix, condor) and continue to do so in Ukraine or with Islamic extremists in syria. the prospect of McCain anywhere near the state dept must be avoided by an means necessary.

    Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    "[B]ut what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom." That's it Mr. Parry. That is the key that we need to understand. It is not, not, a priority of either political half of the Republican/Democratic dynamic, to do good for the American people. We are being subjected to the policies which previously were our export, the evisceration of nation(s) to benefit private capital.

    I had previously wondered, back in the 90's when Russia was being subjected to neo liberal economic intervention, why these vultures hadn't descended upon the United States, being the feted calf that it were. But I was blind, they were already descending, it only has take some time and a couple of "opportunities", such as 9/11, the Katrina hurricane, to implement those same measures here.

    We need to understand that our current political structure is indifferent to the well being of the majority of the "citizens" ie; what are now more commonly called consumers. If the prisons stay full and the indebtedness mounts that is part of the program. Stop thinking that our present system is offering anything that would be recognized by a rational and moral human being as something even close to "a government of the People, by the People, for the People; [or] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

    ltr , March 23, 2017 at 2:22 pm

    I can tell you that the atmosphere is such on campus that a social science faculty member needs to be very careful not to be taken for having "sympathies" for either Russia or China. I repeatedly hear comments that are chilling, and just nod and get away.

    Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    It is nearly impossible to engage with someone in a political context and advocate for a least a fair mind, some neutrality in examining the domestic political situation and relations with Russia. I have to mute myself unless I am willing to engage in a long and tiring argument/discussion in which my point is lost and I have to defend simple ideas of statesmanship and diplomacy.

    Sheryl , March 23, 2017 at 5:22 pm

    I can relate. The frustrating part is that they think I'm a nut wearing a tinfoil hat.

    Realist , March 23, 2017 at 5:55 pm

    Would you go so far as to say that most such discussions now take place on terrain far removed from the real world? And, if you insist on sticking to facts rather than fantasy, are you immediately branded an enemy of the state, an intellectual exile without friends or influence, and probably someone marked for extinction, at least on the professional level, if this country must repeat the greatest mistakes of the 1930's and 40's, as it seems headed? So glad I am retired, and I worked in the natural sciences, not the more volatile and political social sciences. Now their only leverage against me is my state pension and health benefits, which many do want to make into a political football.

    Tristan , March 23, 2017 at 7:31 pm

    The distinction between the real and the ideological has been blurred in accordance with the principles of public opinion management, ie; propaganda. The prevailing mania, contextualized via the dynamic of globalized free market capitalism masquerading as the promotion of freedom and democracy, is where one finds that the seeds of "treason" are sown wider and wider against heretics.

    Kiza , March 24, 2017 at 8:35 am

    Just reading what all of you guys have written about the prevailing atmosphere in the so called intellectual community, which is much more serious than the atmosphere in the nutty MSM, makes me think of the Decline of the Roman Empire. Many people here are leftists, therefore they will disagree with me, but I see absolutely solid parallels between Russia-hate and AGW. Both have become religion for the vast majority of the Western intellectual class, devoid of the principal tool of the intellectuals – rationality. If you are a doubter, you will be ostracized .

    Enquiring Mind , March 23, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    They have no decency, sir.
    At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat, even though his methods and execution were unsound.

    Miranda Keefe , March 23, 2017 at 3:59 pm

    "At least McCarthy was right on the commie threat."

    The US was the aggressor in the Cold War. The Soviet Union, after the war, wanted to continue to co-exist under the spheres of influence agreed on by the US at Yalta.

    When did the Democratic Party turn into the post-war war party? At the Democratic convention in 1944 when the establishment did a coup against FDR's right hand man, his VP, his chosen future VP and successor, the great Henry Wallace.

    Gregory Herr , March 23, 2017 at 7:52 pm

    Wallace instead of Truman? One of the big "what might have been" turns of history.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/14297-henry-wallace-americas-forgotten-visionary

    [Mar 24, 2017] Democrats Trade Places on War and McCarthyism – Consortiumnews

    Notable quotes:
    "... During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda." ..."
    "... After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. ..."
    "... At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom. ..."
    "... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
    Mar 24, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Exclusive: The anti-Russia hysteria gripping the Democratic Party marks a "trading places" moment as the Democrats embrace the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism, flipping the script on Republicans, writes Robert Parry.

    Caught up in the frenzy to delegitimize Donald Trump by blaming his victory on Russian meddling, national Democrats are finishing the transformation of their party from one that was relatively supportive of peace to one pushing for war, including a confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.

    This "trading places" moment was obvious in watching the belligerent tone of Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee on Monday as they impugned the patriotism of any Trump adviser who may have communicated with anyone connected to Russia.

    Ranking Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, acknowledged that there was no hard evidence of any Trump-Russia cabal, but he pressed ahead with what he called "circumstantial evidence of collusion," a kind of guilt-by-association conspiracy theory that made him look like a mild-mannered version of Joe McCarthy.

    Schiff cited by name a number of Trump's aides and associates who – as The New York Times reported – were "believed to have some kind of contact or communications with Russians." These Americans, whose patriotism was being questioned, included foreign policy adviser Carter Page, Trump's second campaign manager Paul Manafort, political adviser Roger Stone and Trump's first national security adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

    In a 15-minute opening statement, Schiff summed up his circumstantial case by asking: "Is it possible that all of these events and reports are completely unrelated and nothing more than an entirely unhappy coincidence? Yes, it is possible. But it is also possible, maybe more than possible, that they are not coincidental, not disconnected and not unrelated."

    As an investigative journalist who has covered (and uncovered) national security scandals for several decades, I would never accuse people of something as serious as betraying their country based on nothing more than coincidences that, who knows, might not be coincidental.

    Before we published anything on such topics, the news organizations that I worked for required multiple layers of information from a variety of sources including insiders who could describe what had happened and why. Such stories included Nicaraguan Contra cocaine smuggling, Oliver North's secret Contra supply operation, and the Reagan campaign's undermining of President Carter's Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980.

    For breaking those stories, we still took enormous heat from Republicans, some Democrats who wanted to show how bipartisan they were, and many establishment-protecting journalists, but the stories contained strong evidence that misconduct occurred – and we were highly circumspect in how the allegations were framed.

    Going Whole-Hog

    By contrast, national Democrats, some super-hawk Republicans and the establishment media are going whole-hog on these vague suspicions of contacts between some Russians and some Americans who have provided some help or advice to Trump.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry listens to Russian President Vladimir Putin in a meeting room at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, at the outset of a bilateral meeting on July 14, 2016. [State Department Photo] Given the paucity of evidence – both regarding the claims that Russia hacked Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks, and the allegations that somehow Trump's advisers colluded in that process – it would appear that what is happening is a political maneuver to damage Trump politically and possibly remove him from office.

    But those machinations require the Democratic Party's continued demonization of Russia and implicitly put the Democrats on the side of escalating New Cold War tensions, such as military support for the fiercely anti-Russian regime in Ukraine which seized power in a 2014 U.S.-backed putsch overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

    One of the attack lines that Democrats have used against Trump is that his people toned down language in the Republican platform about shipping arms to the Ukrainian military, which includes battalions of neo-Nazi fighters and has killed thousands of ethnic Russian Ukrainians in the east in what is officially called an Anti-Terrorism Operation (or ATO).

    The Democratic Party leaders have fully bought into the slanted Western narrative justifying the violent overthrow of Yanukovych. They also have ignored the human rights of Ukraine's ethnic Russian minorities, which voted overwhelmingly in Crimea and the Donbass to secede from post-coup Ukraine. The more complex reality is simply summed up as a "Russian invasion."

    Key Democrats also have pressed for escalation of the U.S. military attacks inside Syria to force "regime change" on Bashar al-Assad's secular government even if that risks another military confrontation with Russia and a victory by Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists.

    In short, the national Democratic Party is turning itself into the more extreme war party. It's not that the Republicans have become all that dovish; it's just that the Democrats have become all that hawkish. The significance of this change can hardly be overstated.

    Questioning War

    Since late in the Vietnam War, the Democrats have acted as the more restrained of the two major parties on issues of war, with the Republicans associated with tough-guy rhetoric and higher military spending. By contrast, Democrats generally were more hesitant to rush into foreign wars and confrontations (although they were far from pacifists).

    Especially after the revelations of the Pentagon Papers in the 1971 revealing the government deceptions used to pull the American people into the Vietnam War, Democrats questioned shady rationalizations for other wars.

    Some Democratic skepticism continued into the 1980s as President Ronald Reagan was modernizing U.S. propaganda techniques to whitewash the gross human rights crimes of right-wing regimes in Central America and to blacken the reputations of Nicaragua's Sandinistas and other leftists.

    The Democratic resolve against war propaganda began to crack by the mid-to-late 1980s – around Reagan's Grenada invasion and George H.W. Bush's attack on Panama. By then, the Republicans had enjoyed nearly two decades of bashing the Democrats as "weak on defense" – from George McGovern to Jimmy Carter to Walter Mondale to Michael Dukakis.

    But the Democratic Party's resistance to dubious war rationalizations collapsed in 1991 over George H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, in which the President rebuffed less violent solutions (even ones favored by the U.S. military) to assure a dramatic ground-war victory after which Bush declared, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all."

    Fearful of being labeled disloyal to "the troops" and "weak," national Democrats scrambled to show their readiness to kill. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton left the campaign trail to return to Arkansas to oversee the execution of the mentally impaired Ricky Ray Rector.

    During his presidency, Clinton deployed so-called "smart power" aggressively, including maintaining harsh sanctions on Iraq even as they led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. He also intervened in the Yugoslavian civil war by bombing civilian targets in Belgrade including the lethal destruction of the Serb TV station for the supposed offense of broadcasting "propaganda."

    After the 9/11 attacks in 2001, many leading congressional Democrats – including presidential hopefuls John Kerry, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton – voted to authorize President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Though they offered various excuses (especially after the Iraq War went badly), the obvious real reason was their fear of being labeled "soft" in Republican attack ads.

    The American public's revulsion over the Iraq War and the resulting casualties contributed to Barack Obama's election. But he, too, moved to protect his political flanks by staffing his young administration with hawks, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. (and later CIA Director) David Petraeus. Despite receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Obama also became comfortable with continuing Bush's wars and starting some of his own, such as the bombing war against Libya and the violent subversion of Syria.

    By nominating Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Democratic Party completed its transformation into the Party of War. Clinton not only ran as an unapologetic hawk in the Democratic primaries against Sen. Bernie Sanders – urging, for instance, a direct U.S. military invasion of Syria to create "no fly zones" – but positioned herself as a harsh critic of Trump's hopes to reduce hostilities with Russia, deeming the Republican nominee Vladimir Putin's "puppet."

    Ironically, Trump's shocking victory served to solidify the Democratic Party's interest in pushing for a military confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. After all, baiting Trump over his alleged "softness" toward Russia has become the centerpiece of Democratic hopes for somehow ousting Trump or at least crippling his presidency. Any efforts by Trump to ease those tensions will be cited as prima facie evidence that he is Putin's "Manchurian candidate."

    Being Joe McCarthy

    National Democrats and their media supporters don't even seem troubled by the parallels between their smears of Americans for alleged contacts with Russians and Sen. Joe McCarthy's guilt-by-association hearings of the early Cold War. Every link to Russia – no matter how tenuous or disconnected from Trump's election – is trumpeted by Democrats and across the mainstream news media.

    But it's not even clear that this promotion of the New Cold War and the New McCarthyism will redound to the Democrats' political advantage. Clinton apparently thought that her embrace of a neoconservative foreign policy would bring in many "moderate" Republicans opposed to Trump's criticism of the Bush-Obama wars, but exit polls showed Republicans largely rallying to their party's nominee.

    Meanwhile, there were many anti-war Democrats who have become deeply uncomfortable with the party's new hawkish persona. In the 2016 election, some peace Democrats voted for third parties or didn't vote at all for president, although it's difficult to assess how instrumental those defections were in costing Clinton the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

    More broadly, the Democratic obsession with Russia and the hopes for somehow exploiting those investigations in order to oust Trump have distracted the party from a necessary autopsy into why the Democrats have lost so much ground over the past decade.

    While many Democratic leaders and activists are sliding into full-scale conspiracy-mode over the Russia-Trump story, they are not looking at the party's many mistakes and failings, such as:

    • Why did party leaders push so hard to run an unpopular establishment candidate in a strongly anti-establishment year? Was it the fact that many are beholden to the Clinton cash machine?
    • How can Democrats justify the undemocratic use of "super-delegates" to make many rank-and-file voters feel that the process is rigged in favor of the establishment's choice?
    • What can the Democratic Party do to reengage with many working-class voters, especially downwardly mobile whites, to stop the defection of this former Democratic base to Trump's populism?
    • Do national Democrats understand how out of touch they are with the future as they insist that the United States must remain the sole military superpower in a uni-polar world when the world is rapidly shifting toward a multi-polar reality?

    Yet, rather than come up with new strategies to address the future, Democratic leaders would rather pretend that Putin is at fault for the Trump presidency and hope that the U.S. intelligence community – with its fearsome surveillance powers – can come up with enough evidence to justify Trump's impeachment.

    Then, of course, the Democrats would be stuck with President Mike Pence, a more traditional Religious Right Republican whose first step on foreign policy would be to turn it over to neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, a move that would likely mean a new wave of "regime change" wars.

    At such a point, that might put the Democrats and Republicans in sync as two equally warmongering parties, but what good that would do for the American people and the world is hard to fathom.

    [For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon " and " Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party .]

    Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com ).

    [Mar 24, 2017] Surveillance State Goes After Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein. ..."
    "... Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia. ..."
    "... 'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s. ..."
    "... We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense. ..."
    "... And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it. ..."
    Mar 24, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Democrats are so eager to take down President Trump that they are joining forces with the Surveillance State to trample the privacy rights of people close to Trump, ex-FBI agent Coleen Rowley tells Dennis J Bernstein.

    Since Donald Trump's election, former Special FBI Agent Coleen Rowley has been alarmed over how Democratic hawks, neocons and other associates in the "deep state" have obsessed over "resurrecting the ghost of Joseph McCarthy" and have built political support for a permanent war policy around hatred of Russia.

    Rowley, whose 2002 memo to the FBI Director exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11failures, compared the current anti-Russia hysteria to "the

    'Red Scare' fear of Communism" famously associated with legendary FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who collaborated with Sen. Joe McCarthy's hunt for disloyal Americans in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

    In an interview, Rowley told me that while Trump was wrong about his claim that President Obama ordered a surveillance "tapp" of Trump Tower, the broader point may have been correct as explained by House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, R-California, who described how U.S. intelligence apparently picked up conversations by Trump associates while monitoring other targets.

    Dennis Bernstein: A former high-level FBI whistleblower says Trump is vindicated on his claims of being surveilled by the previous administration. Joining us to take a close look at what's been going on, what's been unfolding in Washington, D.C. is Coleen Rowley. She's a former FBI special agent and division council. She wrote a May 2002 memo to the FBI director that exposed some of the FBI's pre-9/11 failures, major failures. She was Time magazine's person of the year in 2002. Help us explain what chairman Nunes reported in terms of the collecting process and Trumps innocence or guilt?

    ... ... ...

    CR: Well, I don't think there has and it's not just myself, it's really most of our veteran intelligence professionals, retired CIA, retired NSA, we've all been conferring for a while on this. And we have asked, we actually put out a memo asking for evidence. Because it's just been assertions and innuendoes, and demonization

    We see a lot of demonization of the Russian T.V. channel. But we have not seen any actual evidence of Russians and there's a lot of reasons to think that this would be illogical. Even if, and I would grant that Comey mentioned this in his testimony, that Putin and other top Russians hated Hillary Clinton. Well, even if you assume that, that they didn't like Hillary Clinton, as much as Donald Trump. They considered Donald Trump their lesser evil, or whatever. Even if you think that, why would they take the risk? Because, at the time Hillary Clinton surprised everyone by everyone thought she was going to win. So it would have been completely illogical for them to have done these things, to take that kind of a risk, when it was presumed that she was going to be the next president. There's just so many things here that don't add up, and don't make sense.

    FBI Director James Comey

    And yet, and yet, because our mainstream media is owned by what? half a dozen big conglomerates, all connected to the military industrial complex, they continue with the scenario of that old movie the Russians are coming! the Russians are coming! And unfortunately the Democrat Party has become the war party, very clearly. They're the ones that don't see the dangers in ginning up this very dangerous narrative of going after Russia, as meddling, or whatever. And they should ask for, we all should ask for the full evidence of this. If this is case, then we deserve to know the truth about it. And, so far, we haven't seen anything. Look at that report. There's nothing in it.

    DB: And, this is the same media who for the last ever since Trump claimed that he was wiretapped using the wrong terminology, these journalists they couldn't stop saying "if he did lie, this is a felony. He did lie. He did accuse the former president of the United States " So, you're saying, based on your long experience and information this was just a confusion of a term of art, and the idea of the possibility of Trump Towers being under investigation, this was all incredibly not strange, not crazy, and totally normal in the context of an investigation.

    CR: Yes, and I again, there could be grounds for legitimate investigation of the periphery of the Trump campaign, certain staffers. And you know what, corruption in Washington, D.C. is quite rampant. And I think many, many of the politicians if they actually put them under the microscope they could find just as you look at foreign leaders, Netanyahu was indicted for corruption, whatever. It's not uncommon to have conflicts of interests, and under the table deals. That's very possible.

    So, that's not what our news is saying. Our mainstream news is saying that, what you said at the beginning, the Russians own Trump, and basically that this has undermined our democracy and our electoral process. That part of it we have seen no evidence of. And, Trump is partially vindicated, because obviously whether he was personally targeted, his campaign at least seems to have been monitored, at least in part.

    DB: Were you amazed that, for instance, the FBI director raised the issue of the Clinton investigation, but not the Trump investigation?

    CR: Well, I've been trying to figure that out. Because back, during when he went public, he was put into the spot because Loretta Lynch should have been the one to be public on these things. But she was tainted because of having met with Bill Clinton on the tarmac. And so my explanation was that that Comey shouldered the burden from Loretta Lynch. He was doing her a favor in a way because he thought it would look like this is more independent and more professional coming from the FBI. Because at the time Loretta Lynch was under a cloud. And I think that is the explanation for why he was so public at the time.

    And, of course, things have developed the summer, if any investigation started during the summer, again, it was not known. It was probably legitimate if they got some information in about some act of corruption, or whatever, it was certainly legitimate. But since this summer what has happened is this whole narrative has just gone on steroids, because of the leaks about the Russians, etc. And the fact that they put out this report, the FBI, the NSA, and the director of National Intelligence. And I think that that's the problem right now is the public just is so confused because there has been so much wrong information out there in the media. And no one knows what to believe.

    Actually, to Comey's credit he did say this a couple of times that these media accounts are not accurate. And, I think that, again, we there's been a lot of "sources" anonymous sources which I do not think are whistleblowers. But these anonymous sources seem to have come from political operatives, and even higher level people. I'm guessing some of this came from the Obama administration appointees, not Obama, of course, personally.

    And, who knows if he knew anything about this, but some of those prior appointees, I think, when all is said and done will be seen as the ones, if they can ever uncover this. It's hard with anonymous sources. But I think they were probably the ones leading this. And maybe over time we can get back to some sanity here without so much of this planted information, and wrongful leaks. And I, again, I'm all for whistle blowing. But, I don't agree with leaks like Scooter Libby's where they were actually using the media to plant false info.

    [Mar 24, 2017] Whether the Soviet union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy to divert the sheeples attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare

    Mar 24, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    hoyeru , Mar 24, 2017 9:17 PM

    Whether the Soviet union exists or not has nothing to do with it. USA MUST always have an enemy to divert the sheeple's attention that their so called American dream is really a nightmare. Besides, USA's empire is failing and Russia is getting stronger. of course USA will be pissed off about it.

    daveO -> hoyeru , Mar 24, 2017 9:34 PM

    "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia." I'm glad to have lived to see them almost fail. When I first read this in 1984, by coincidence, there seemed to be no end in sight. As soon as the USSR failed they replaced it with terrorism(Eastasia)....

    lester1 , Mar 24, 2017 9:21 PM

    Help out of you can. Seth Rich was exposing corruption with the DNC against Bernie Sanders. He was mysteriously shot in the back last summer, but his wallet and watch weren't taken.

    https://www.gofundme.com/SethRich

    xrxs , Mar 24, 2017 9:36 PM

    I still can't figure this Russiophobia out. We went from a path to mutual arms reduction and normalizing relations to the shitstorm in Ukraine and Syria. I think I know who started that whole mess, but I still haven't figured out why other than maintaining friendly control of European petrochemicals.

    We went from Bush II and Vlad fishing and hanging out at the ranch to where we are today. WTF happened?

    HRH Feant -> xrxs , Mar 24, 2017 9:58 PM

    Same here. This new obsession is complete and utter insanity.

    The leftists in the US remind me of the revolutionaries in Bolshevik Russia. They want a revolution and dream of communal living.

    Communal living is my worst nightmare! Anyone that has shared a house with roomies soon understands that one person pays the bills while another eats all the food and one person cleans the toilet while everyone else makes a mess of the entire place. Communal living sounds great, in theory. In practice? It doesn't work.

    shovelhead , Mar 24, 2017 9:39 PM

    Nobodies "Russo-phobic". That's the story they're trying to sell the world.

    That's just a convenient excuse for retaliating on Ukraine, Syria and now Trump. Russia and Putin have become like Mr. Clean in the household.

    Good for every mess you make.

    Cabreado , Mar 24, 2017 9:49 PM

    "This is an American implosion. An historic Made-in-America meltdown. And Russophobia is but a symptom of the internal decay at the heart of US politics."

    More importantly, it is a decay in the electorate and how it relates to the elected (isn't that the real heart of US politics?)

    And so the elected, naturally, have become a corrupt mass of opportunists.

    This is why they ("We") invented Rule of Law. We just have to give a damn like We mean it.

    [Mar 23, 2017] The president-elect requested security clearance for Kushner to attend top-secret presidential briefings

    Mar 23, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    Trump has described his son-in-law as a "great guy". The president-elect has also reportedly taken the unprecedented step of requesting security clearance for Kushner to attend top-secret presidential briefings, the first one of which was on Tuesday. It's unclear if the request will be approved. It marks an astonishing departure and invites the accusation of nepotism.

    Kushner's options for a White House job are limited given his family ties to the president, Richard Painter, who served as President George W Bush's White House ethics lawyer, told the Associated Press. Congress passed an anti-nepotism law in 1967 that prohibits the president from appointing a family member – including a son-in-law – to work in the office or agency they oversee. The measure was passed after President John F Kennedy appointed his brother, Robert Kennedy, as attorney general.

    But the law does not appear to prevent Kushner from serving as an unpaid adviser, and few doubt that Kushner will play a decisive role in shaping the Trump presidency, acting as policy adviser and gate-keeper. As Trump and Barack Obama met privately at the White House last week, Kushner strolled the mansion's South Lawn, deep in conversation with Obama's chief of staff. As Kushner walked through the bustling West Wing during Trump's visit last week, he was heard asking Obama aides: "How many of these people stay?", apparently blissfully unaware that the entire West Wing staff will leave at the end of Obama's term.

    His contacts already include Henry Kissinger and Rupert Murdoch; he has received foreign ambassadors. Like Trump, Kushner has never had a formal role in government, but he now appears set to be more important than many who do.

    we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but far fewer are paying for it. And advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

    Fund our journalism and together we can keep the world informed.

    [Mar 23, 2017] The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported

    Still waiting for any evidence to appear that Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported. ..."
    "... The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi money terrorist influence goes. ..."
    "... The surveillance state bites the politicians that created it in the ass. I love that. They are not happy, I love that too. ..."
    "... It was already a farce when McCain went after Paul. Though it was, before that, a horror film, with the 'ways the intelligence community can get you.' ..."
    "... It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .) ..."
    "... Revealing this is treason. ..."
    "... People will die. ..."
    "... I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous operations run against . well, everybody. ..."
    Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    There's also this showing evidence that Trump Tower was specifically monitored during the Obama administration, although the probe was targeting Russian mafia and not Trump and was done well before he declared his candidacy.

    The FBI did wiretap Trump Tower to monitor Russian activity, but it had nothing to do with the 2016 Presidential election, it has been reported.

    Between 2011 and 2013 the Bureau had a warrant to spy on a high-level criminal Russian money-laundering ring, which operated in unit 63A of the iconic skyscraper - three floors below Mr Trump's penthouse.

    Not exactly a confirmation of Trump's rather wild claims, but something. Still waiting for any evidence to appear that Russians interfered with the elections or colluded with Trump.

    uncle tungsten , March 22, 2017 at 9:40 pm

    Ok, so they were just after the Russian mafia, phew I feel better already. So they got the felons and they are all arrested?

    What utter BS! Why is Semion Mogilevitch still at large in Hungary and no extradition process? What about Felix Sater and Steve Wynn and on and on. Why are they incapable of prosecuting mafia mobsters and instead chasing politicians?

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 22, 2017 at 5:29 pm

    That said, it was what happening potentially to all citizens, not just Donald Trump. I dislike this intensely, but why should Trump get special dispensation over other citizens? Would like to know the reason for that.

    Like Watergate, it's really about the denial or the lying. "When did you know about the, er, collecting?" For how many days have we ridiculed Trump for his alternative universe imagination?

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:25 am

    > He can join the other 310 million of us who can be "incidentally collected".

    Didn't your mother tell you that 310 million wrongs don't make a right? Neither party establishment cares about that quaint concept, civil liberties. If Obama's flip flip on FISA reform in July 2008, giving the Telco's retroactive immunity for Bush's warrantless surveillance, didn't convince you, then his 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy should have.

    fritter , March 23, 2017 at 10:38 am

    Not to mention monitoring a politician opens up a whole new can of worms. I'm convinced Trump must pretty clean relatively because the IC hasn't gotten rid of him yet and you know they have all of his communications.

    I'm with Lambert on neither party caring. I knew all I needed to when Obama voted for FISA and the following years just reinforced how corrupt the Dems were. There is an import point here though. I don't think Trump would have thought that all of the surveillance would be applied to him personally. It was just about other people. It was probably a legitimate eye opener. Now Trump is at the head of the surveillance apparatus. Instead of asking Wikileaks to release all of Clintons emails, he should just do it himself.

    The Dems who were all for collecting on everyone can't (non-hypocritically) complain about Trump having all that now. I mean, we can never know how far the extremist have penetrated into our government unless we trace where all that Saudi money terrorist influence goes.

    Code Name D , March 22, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    Not just incidental, in Congressional hearings, Comey flat out says that Trump and his team were investigated for Russian connections, and that none were found. The question now is was the investigations properly secured or not. Something completely in the air.

    But team Dem is still playing the "wire tap" canad.

    Randy , March 22, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    The surveillance state bites the politicians that created it in the ass. I love that. They are not happy, I love that too.

    allan , March 22, 2017 at 5:25 pm

    This is now turning into high comedy low farce:

    Devin Nunes Commits "Felonious Leaking" [Emptywheel]

    and @mkraju:

    WYDEN, member of Senate Intel, says Nunes' statements "would appear to reveal classified information, which is a serious concern."

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , March 22, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    It was already a farce when McCain went after Paul. Though it was, before that, a horror film, with the 'ways the intelligence community can get you.'

    polecat , March 22, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    they're going all Fellini on us now --

    wilroncanada , March 22, 2017 at 9:44 pm

    And here I thought they were only looking through a glass, darkly.

    fresno dan , March 22, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef
    March 22, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    It is a satire, wrapped in a parody, hidden in slapstick, on top of a farce, buried in a bro-mance between a man with a tower and another man riding a horse without a shirt (and the man isn't wearing a shirt either .)

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:31 am

    And scripted by Cersei Lannister

    allan , March 22, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Also, this kind of incidental collection has been known about for years. Here's a Barton Gellman, Julie Tate and Ashkan Soltani article (linked to by Emptywheel)
    from the WaPo in 2014 and based on the Snowden documents:

    In NSA-intercepted data, those not targeted far outnumber the foreigners who are
    [WaPo]

    Ordinary Internet users, American and non-American alike, far outnumber legally targeted foreigners in the communications intercepted by the National Security Agency from U.S. digital networks, according to a four-month investigation by The Washington Post.

    Nine of 10 account holders found in a large cache of intercepted conversations, which former NSA contractor Edward Snowden provided in full to The Post, were not the intended surveillance targets but were caught in a net the agency had cast for somebody else.

    And what was the reaction of many Congresspersons
    (including many Dems, and all of the GOP except maybe Rand Paul and Justin Amash)?
    Revealing this is treason. People will die.
    And Trump's CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, has called for Snowden's execution.

    fresno dan , March 22, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    allan
    March 22, 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Sorry allan – I got all excited at seeing a Nunes article in ZeroHedge and posted a comment – your article is better and it makes for more coherent comment threads to keep them together – I should have looked before I leaped (posted).

    Nunes: "I recently confirmed that, on numerous occasions, the Intelligence Community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens involved in the Trump transition.
    Details about U.S. persons associated with the incoming administration-details with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value-were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
    I have confirmed that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked.
    To be clear, none of this surveillance was related to Russia or any investigation of Russian activities or of the Trump team."

    ==============================================
    So the worm turns. The hypocrisy espoused by all sides is ..well, 11th dimensional.

    3.14e-9 , March 22, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    fresno dan, this was a major topic of discussion during the committee hearing with Comey and Rogers on Monday. I listened to the whole thing – all five hours and 18 minutes' worth – because I suspected that the corporate media would omit important details or spin it beyond recognition. And so they did.

    The bipartisan divide is being portrayed as Democrats wanting to get to the truth of Russian efforts to snuff out Democracy, and Republicans wanting to "plug leaks" (see Lambert's RCP except above), with some reports suggesting the Rs are advocating stifling free speech, prosecuting reporters for publishing classified information, and the like.

    Republican committee members were indeed focused on the leaks, and there was talk about how to prevent them, but their concern – at least as they expressed publicly on Monday – was specifically related to whether all those current and former officials, senior officials, etc., quoted anonymously in the NYT and WaPo (the infamous "nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies") violated FISA provisions protecting information about U.S. persons collected incidentally in surveillance of foreign actors.

    Sure, they're playing their own game, and it could be a ruse to divert attention from the Trump campaign's alleged Russian ties or simply to have ammo against the Ds. Even so, after listening to all their arguments, I believe they are on more solid ground than all the Dem hysteria about Russian aggression and Trump camp treason.

    I don't think I'll ever get Trey Gowdy's cringe-worthy performance during the Benghazi hearings out of my head, but he made some pretty good points on Monday, one of which was that investigating Russian interference and possible ties between Trump advisers and Russia is all well and good, but there may or may not have been any laws broken; whereas leaking classified information about U.S. citizens collected incidentally under FISA is clearly a felony with up to 10 years. Comey confirmed that by saying that ALL information collected under FISA is classified.

    And then he repeatedly refused to say whether he thought any classified information had been leaked or existed at all (I counted more than 100 "no comment" answers from Comey, who astonishingly managed to find 50 different ways to say it).

    My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability.

    In fact, there were some interesting comments in Monday's hearing about the possibility that some of what has been reported was fabricated. Then, you might expect Comey to say something like that. For all his talk about not tolerating leaks from his agency, blahblah, it was clear that he'll provide his own people with cover, if necessary. I think that's what Gowdy and a couple other Republicans were getting at.

    It goes without saying, but I'll add that the Dems were hardly even trying to disguise their real goal, which isn't protecting the American People® from the evil Russkies, but taking down Trump.

    fresno dan , March 22, 2017 at 11:56 pm

    3.14e-9
    March 22, 2017 at 10:35 pm

    Thanks for watching the whole thing – the nation owes you a debt of gratitude.

    "My beef isn't so much the leak of classified information, but the gross dereliction of duty – if not outright abuse of First Amendment powers – by reporters who collaborate with intelligence agencies and then quote them anonymously, giving everyone cover to say or write whatever they want with zero accountability."

    First, I a squillion percent agree with you. This is a big, bit deal because essentially the military/IC/neocons is trying to wrest control of the civilian government – the idea that the CIA is some noble institution that wants the best for all Americans is preposterous, yet accepted by the media, which proves how much propaganda we are fed. The sheep like following, the mandatory use of the adjective "murderous thug" before the name of "Putin" just shows that most of the media has been bought off or has lost all their critical thinking faculties.

    But I also don't want to be a hypocrite so I will explain that I don't have too much of a problem with leaks. WHAT I do have a problem with is the purposeful naivete or ignorance of the media that the CIA and/or facets of the Obama administration is trying to thwart rapprochement with Russia. Administrations BEFORE they are sworn in talk to foreign governments – the sheer HYSTERIA, the CRIME of talking to a Russian is beyond absurd. We are being indoctrinated to believe all Russia, all bad

    There is a ton of information about Podesta and the Clintons dealing with Russia for money. If Flynn and whatshisname are just grifting that is pedestrian stuff and everybody in Washington does it (I thing they call it "lobbying"). If there is REAL treason something should have come out by now.

    3.14e-9 , March 23, 2017 at 3:27 am

    Thanks, fd.

    I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am willing to take the time to dig for them or, in this case, to sit through a hearing as though I were covering it as a member of the press – especially when I don't even have to wash my hair or get dressed!

    I didn't mean to imply that I have a problem with leaks. I certainly encouraged enough of them in my time, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with publishing leaked material, even certain kinds of classified information. It depends.

    There's the kind of "classified" information that is restricted expressly to keep the public from knowing something they have a right to know, and there's information that's classified to protect individual privacy. The first kind should be leaked early and often. The second kind, close to never (and off the top of my head I can't think of an instance when it would be OK).

    Even though journalists aren't (and shouldn't be) held liable for publishing classified information given to them by a third party, they need to be scrupulous in their decisions to do so. Is it in the public interest? Who or what might be harmed? Would sitting on the information cause more harm than publicizing it? Does it violate someone's constitutional rights?

    These questions can get tricky with someone like Flynn, who's clearly a public figure and thus mostly fair game. However, if I had been reporting that story, I think I would have sat on it until I had more information, even at the risk of getting scooped – unless, of course, I was in cahoots with the leakers and out to get him and his boss.

    At that point, I am no longer an objective journalist committed to fair and accurate reporting, but a participant in a political cause. Although newspapers throughout history have taken sides, and pure "fact-based" journalism is a myth, there's a big difference between having an editorial slant and being an active participant in the story. Evidently, BezPo has decided that the latter is not only acceptable, but advantageous.

    Sorry, didn't mean to ramble on when I'm likely preaching to the converted. I feel very strongly about this issue, and it's disconcerting to me, as a lifelong Democrat, that I agreed more with the Republicans in that hearing. At the same time, the D's propaganda machine is pumping out so much toxic fog that it's shaking my faith in unfettered freedom of the press.

    Exactly what Putin wants, right?

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:46 am

    > I began covering congressional hearings while I was still in j-school and sat though many like this during my years as a reporter in D.C. Even though I haven't worked as a full-time journalist for many years, I still prefer original sources and am willing to take the time to dig for them

    Hmm. NC needs an in-house emptywheel

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:38 am

    I agree that everybody is surveilled all the time, especially in the Beltway, where probably there are multiple simultaneous operations run against . well, everybody.

    It doesn't, er, bug me that 70-year-old Beltway neophyte Trump used sloppy language - "wiretap" - to describe this state of affairs. (I don't expect any kind of language from Trump but sloppy.) All are, therefore one is. It does bug me that the whole discussion gets dragged off into legal technicalities about what legal regimen is appropriate for which form of Fourth Amendment-destruction (emptywheel does this a lot). The rules are insanely complicated, and it's fun to figure them out, rather like taking the cover off the back of a Swiss watch and examining all the moving parts. But the assumption is that people follow the rules, and especially that high-level people (like, say, Comey, or Clapper, or Morrel, or Obama) follow the complicated rules. That assumes facts not in evidence.

    Lambert Strether Post author , March 23, 2017 at 3:28 am

    Incidental collection was always a likely scenario.

    We've also seen statements from people like GHCQ that clains they surveilled Trump at Obama's behest were "absurd," but those are non-denial denials. I can't recall a denial denial. Am I missing something?

    [Mar 23, 2017] Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

    Notable quotes:
    "... to influence our Atlantic Council! ..."
    "... our Atlantic Council! ..."
    Mar 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    craazyboy , March 22, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [Politico]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were hacking tampering with meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration of war I had lying around
    ______________________

    Ukrania IS A NEW WORLD ORDER!!!!!

    Ukrainian World Congress
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_World_Congress

    Members[edit]
    European Congress of Ukrainians (Yaroslava Khortiani)
    Armenia: Federation of Ukrainians of Armenia "Ukraine"
    Belgium: Main Council of Ukrainian Public Organizations
    Bosnia and Herzegovina: Coordination council of Ukrainian associations
    Czech Republic: Ukrainian Initiative in the Czech Republic
    Croatia: Union of Rusyns and Ukrainians of the Republic of Croatia
    Estonia: Congress of Ukrainians of Estonia
    France: Representative Committee of the Ukrainian Community of France
    Georgia: Coordination Council of Ukrainians of Georgia
    Germany: Association of Ukrainian Organizations in Germany
    Greece: Association of the Ukrainian diaspora in Greece "Ukrainian-Greek Thought"
    Hungary: Association of Ukrainian Culture in Hungary
    Italy
    Latvia: Ukrainian Cultural-Enlightening Association in Latvia "Dnieper"
    Lithuania: Community of Ukrainians of Lithuania
    Moldova: Society of Ukrainians of Transnistria
    Norway
    Poland: Association of Ukrainians in Poland (Piotr Tyma)
    Portugal: Society of Ukrainians in Portugal
    Romania: Union of Ukrainians of Romania
    Russia: Association of Ukrainians of Russia
    Serbia
    Slovakia: Union of Rusyn-Ukrainians of the Slovak Republic
    Spain
    Switzerland
    United Kingdom: Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain (Zenko Lastowiecki)
    Others
    Australia: Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations (Stefan Romaniw)
    Argentina: Ukrainian Central Representation in Argentina
    Brazil: Ukrainian-Brazilian Central Representation
    Canada: Ukrainian Canadian Congress (Paul Grod)
    Kazakhstan: Ukrainians in Kazakhstan
    Paraguay:
    United States: Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (Andriy Futey)
    United States: Ukrainian American Coordinating Council (Ihor Gawdiak) [2]
    Uzbekistan: Ukrainian Cultural Center "Fatherland"

    They also are attempting to influence our Atlantic Council!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council

    Funding[edit]
    In September 2014, the New York Times reported that since 2008, the organization has received donations from more than twenty-five governments outside of the United States, including $5 million from Norway.[34] Concerned that scholars from the organization could be covertly trying to push the agendas of foreign governments, legislation was proposed in response to the Times report requiring full disclosure of witnesses testifying before Congress.[35] Other contributors to the organization include the Ukrainian World Congress, and the governments of Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.[9][36]

    Plus, Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder of the famous DNC security firm, CrowdStrike, is a senior fellow of our Atlantic Council!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Alperovitch

    CrowdStrike also has hired some top FBI security professionals. Revolving Door!

    Keep plenty of Declaration of War forms handy. We're gonna need 'em!!!!

    [Mar 23, 2017] Houston, we have a problem

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can be unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all of the unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You can keep tabs on them every time they end up being incidentally collected. ..."
    "... You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas? Your communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced off various targets over the last several years. ..."
    "... This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag. ..."
    "... Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. ..."
    "... The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc? ..."
    "... But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely. ..."
    "... It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.. ..."
    Mar 23, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    TeethVillage88s , Mar 23, 2017 6:54 PM

    Yes, they have your Apples too:

    Crash Overide -> aloha_snakbar , Mar 23, 2017 7:39 PM

    Maxine Waters: 'Obama Has Put In Place' Secret Database With 'Everything On Everyone'

    Vilfredo Pareto , Mar 23, 2017 7:01 PM

    The rank and file of the IC are not involved in this. So let's not tar everyone with the same brush, but Obama revised executive order 12333 so that communication intercepts incidentally collected dont have to be masked and may be shared freely in the IC.

    Now we have "synthetic" surveillance. You don't even need a court order. Now all incidental communication intercepts can be unmasked. One can search their huge databases for all the incidental communications of someone of interest, then collect all of the unmasked incidental communications that involve that person and put them together in one handy dandy report. Viola! You can keep tabs on them every time they end up being incidentally collected.

    You ever went to an embassy party? Talked to a drug dealer or mafia guy without being aware of it? Correspond overseas? Your communications have been "incidentally" collected too. There is so much surveillance out there we have probably all bounced off various targets over the last several years.

    What might your "synthetic" surveillance report look like?

    Chupacabra-322 , Mar 23, 2017 7:04 PM

    It's worth repeating.

    There's way more going on here then first alleged. From Bloomberg, not my choice for news, but There is another component to this story as well -- as Trump himself just tweeted.

    It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.

    Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity.

    This is what police states do. In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

    Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told me Monday that he saw the leaks about Flynn's conversations with Kislyak as part of a pattern. "There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration," he said. "From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern."

    @?realDonaldTrump?

    The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington? Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N.Korea etc?

    President Trump was roundly mocked among liberals for that tweet. But he is, in many ways, correct. These leaks are an enormous problem. And in a less polarized context, they would be recognized immediately for what they clearly are: an effort to manipulate public opinion for the sake of achieving a desired political outcome. It's weaponized spin.............

    But no matter what Flynn did, it is simply not the role of the deep state to target a man working in one of the political branches of the government by dishing to reporters about information it has gathered clandestinely.

    It is the role of elected members of Congress to conduct public investigations of alleged wrongdoing by public officials.. ..... But the answer isn't to counter it with equally irregular acts of sabotage - or with a disinformation campaign waged by nameless civil servants toiling away in the surveillance state.....

    [Mar 23, 2017] Anti-russian hysteria became a witch hunt which is by-and-large out of control of Democratic leadership, and they feel that they became hostages of it

    Notable quotes:
    "... " The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson. ..."
    "... I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership got on themselves. ..."
    "... He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish. ..."
    "... In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic witch hunt dynamics. ..."
    "... "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. ..."
    "... And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
    "... Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence. ..."
    Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 04:32 PM
    Devin Nunes is unfit to be Intel Chair of the House Committee

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/23/nunes-now-unsure-if-trump-team-was-surveilled.html

    "Intel chair Devin Nunes unsure if Trump associates were directly surveilled"

    By Mike Levine...Mar 23, 2017...5:24 PM ET

    " The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, R-Calif., does not know "for sure" whether President Donald Trump or members of his transition team were even on the phone calls or other communications now being cited as partial vindication for the president's wiretapping claims against the Obama administration, according to a spokesperson.

    "He said he'll have to get all the documents he requested from the [intelligence community] about this before he knows for sure," a spokesperson for Nunes said Thursday..."

    libezkova -> im1dc..., March 23, 2017 at 07:04 PM

    I think im1dc along with a couple of other commenters here symbolize perfectly well the problem Democratic leadership got on themselves.

    He got the taste of sniffing Russian pants and now he can't stop, despite the fact that all his knowledge of Russia came from US media. Kind of political graphomania, of some sort. Or, incontinence, if you wish.

    In other words now in the USA hysteria became detached from the facts and has now its own life. Obtained classic witch hunt dynamics.

    It became by-and-large out of control of Democratic leadership, and they feel that they became hostages of it. But they can't call the dogs back.

    It was a dirty but effective trick to avoid sacking Democratic Party failed, corrupt neoliberal leadership (Clinton wing of the party). It worked, but it come with a price.

    As Glenn Greenwald noted.

    "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence.

    And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

    Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

    The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said, adding, "There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."

    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

    [Mar 23, 2017] The Russian Hacking Story Changes Again Zero Hedge

    Mar 23, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    "Obama's "Russia Hacked The Election" is CODE for "Trump Stole The Election." Any "provable" instance of Russian hacking might also be a false flag operation to justify new round of sanctions. That make Obama to look especially bad as he asked CA to investigate this case, while t might well be that CIA is the agency that needs to be investigated. They now have a lot of friends n Baltic republics and Ukrane to stage also false flag operation attributable to Russia, they wish. Remeber Oswald and JFK assassination.

    Shemp 4 Victory -> Wow72 , Jan 5, 2017 7:46 AM

    In keeping with the theme of providing no proof to the general public, the officials declined to describe the intelligence obtained about the involvement of a third-party in passing on leaked material to WikiLeaks, saying they did not want to reveal how the U.S. government had obtained the information . So just trust them, please.

    Good thing we can completely trust the integrity of 17 Intelligence Agencies ® because this explanation is exactly what a corrupt and politicized institution would use to try to pass off a completely fabricated story as legitimate.

    Tarzan -> Shemp 4 Victory , Jan 5, 2017 8:03 AM

    Would this third party happen to be a disgruntled DNC insider named seth rich?

    MalteseFalcon -> Tarzan , Jan 5, 2017 8:23 AM

    It's like arguing with a teenager.

    You catch them in a lie, and debunk it.

    The teenager processes the debunking and alters the lie to conform with the "new truth".

    The iterations continue until you give up or simply "ground" the punk.

    And who are these 17 intelligence agencies?

    Will they all be called to "Songbird" McCains hearing?

    Will the hearing end before Songbird keels over from old age?

    CuttingEdge -> MalteseFalcon , Jan 5, 2017 8:31 AM

    "Dissolve the CIA"

    The Langley gym swimming pool filled with hydrochloric acid, maybe?

    Works for me, as long as that evil cunt Morell is first in.

    CuttingEdge -> CuttingEdge , Jan 5, 2017 8:41 AM

    Just imagine Friday's meeting if Trump actually knows who lifted the DNC files?

    Only, judging by the way he is playing this thus far in being openly dismissive of anything put forward, that may very well be the case.

    To have the entire combined intel machine by the balls without them knowing, as they project their politicised billion dollar bullshit...now that would be a beautiful thing to behold.

    Joe Davola -> CuttingEdge , Jan 5, 2017 9:03 AM

    Looking at some of the 'information' from previous hacks

    1. Sony - claimed to be North Korea

    2. DNC/Clinton email - claimed to be Russia

    3. Various - claimed to be China

    4. Iranian centrifuges - no claims, but pretty good indication it was CIA/NSA/Israel

    Now, who from that list didn't want HRC to be president. One could make a compelling case that #4, particularly Israel, would go this route and have the wherewithall/foresight to make it look like #2 - and Obama/Kerry allowing the UN vote to go through as punishment. Or, we can believe #2 was sloppy (or intentionally sloppy to send a message/rub our noses in it). Or, it was some 14 year old operating from their parents basement - nah, no 14 year old would think of covering their tracks to make it look like someone else.

    jeff montanye -> Manthong , Jan 5, 2017 3:49 PM

    thought crimes are where you find them, ask the catholic church.

    seriously though, john mccain is an asset of the mossad. no other formation does it justice:

    "We will obviously be talking about the hacking, but the main thing is the whole issue of cybersecurity," the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said ahead of the hearing. "Right now we have no policy, no strategy to counter cyberattacks."

    check this shit out (my bold): Guilt By Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War

    By Jeff Gates, State Street Publications, 2008, paperback, 320 pp. List: $27.95; AET: $18 (if you really want to understand why this is going on, read.on; others be assured it is true.).

    In his chapter on "John McCain and the Financial Frauds," Gates reviews McCain's unsavory role in the "Keating Five" scandal. The following chapter recounts the shameful role of McCain's father in helping to cover up Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War in which 34 of the crew were killed and 294 wounded . "From a game theory perspective," Gates explains, "by covering up the murder of Americans aboard the USS Liberty, a U.S. president (with the aid of Admiral John McCain, Jr. ) confirmed that Israeli extremists could murder Americans without endangering U.S. support."

    Reviewed by Andrew I. Killgore

    Books

    GUILT BY Association is an initially confusing masterpiece almost too stuffed with evidence to concentrate on making clear its basic theme. But author Jeff Gates did so in a recent letter to a distinguished retired American diplomat: "The research pivoted off the firsthand experience of "˜John Doe' whose experience spans 56 years of dealing with a transnational criminal syndicate whose senior operatives share a common ideology in fundamental Judaism and a skill set experienced in displacing facts with beliefs. Thus the common source of the fixed intelligence that took us to war in Iraq. And, thus the same network now being employed to expand this war to Iran."

    From 1980 to 1987 Gates served as counsel to the Senate Finance Committee, working with Sen. Russell Long of Louisiana, son of the state's former Gov. Huey Long, who was assassinated at age 42 as he was preparing a presidential campaign. James Farley, postmaster general under President Franklin Roosevelt, had run a "penny postcard" poll confirming that if Huey Long actually ran for president, Roosevelt could not be re-elected. Fifty years later Russell Long remained convinced that Roosevelt's people had killed his father.

    At a 2002 speech Gates gave in London, he met "John Doe," related to one of the well-known people who had endorsed two of Gates' earlier books. Soon afterward, Doe assured him that if Gates undertook the research and analysis the results of which appear in Guilt, the evidence would identify who killed Huey Long, and why. The facts Gates assembled point not to Roosevelt's people but to the syndicate identified in Guilt.

    The brilliantly provocative Guilt by Association consists of nine chapters: "Game Theory and the Mass Murder of 9/11"; "Organized Crime in Arizona"; "John McCain and Financial Frauds"; "McCain Family Secret: The Cover-Up"; "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime"; "Money, Democracy and the Great Divide"; "The New Anti-Semitism"; "Would Obama Be Better?"; and "The Way Forward."

    In the first chapter Gates illustrates the intergenerational sophistication with which neoconservatives "prepared the minds" of the American public to invade Iraq in response to 9/11. Academics and think tanks pushed Samuel Huntington's 1996 Clash of Civilizations to promote a "clash consensus"-five years before 9/11. That same year Richard Perle along with other neocons such as Douglas Feith wrote "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" for incoming Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. This helped lay more "mental threads" for removing Saddam Hussain. Then Senators McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Distracted by the Monica Lewinsky affair, President Bill Clinton signed it.

    Four days after the destruction of the World Trade Towers, then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz was urging President George W. Bush to invade Iraq. Not only was there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but there was no real connection between Saddam's secular regime and the deeply religious al-Qaeda. At the same time, other Zionists from the U.S. Defense Department under Wolfowitz and, not so coincidentally, Feith were feeding false intelligence to the White House. The war would not be costly, according to Wolfowitz, and the entirely unnecessary and illegal war was launched.

    In the chapter on "The Presidency and Russian Organized Crime," Gates describes a John McCain who was either "ignorant about-or complicit in" Russian organized crime. During Boris Yeltsin's first term as president of Russia, a handful of "oligarchs' financially pillaged Russia. Six of the "Big Seven" oligarchs, whom Gates terms Ashkenazis, qualify for Israeli citizenship.

    McCain described Mikhail Khodorovsky, the most infamous of Russia's corrupt oil oligarchs, as a "political prisoner." Notes Gates: "To claim Khodorovsky as a "˜political prisoner' requires a closer look at how, at 32 years of age, a single Russian-Ashkenazi citizen amassed state-owned assets worth more than $30 billion." Gates goes on to document the widespread criminality involved in Khodorovsky's billions.

    "To solve this systemic criminality," Gates explains, "requires that a broad base of Americans understand how this "˜fields-within-fields' modus operandi operates unseen yet in plain sight, and how its operations progress working through people whose profiled needs become the means for influencing their behavior."

    Guilt describes how Americans were induced to freely choose the very forces that endanger their freedom. Thus the role of those masterful at waging "war by deception" (the motto of the Israeli Mossad) by displacing facts with what the "mark" (i.e., the U.S.) could be deceived to believe: for example, that Iraq had nuclear weapons and mobile biological weapons laboratories and that the secular Saddam Hussain had ties with the fundamentalists of al-Qaeda.

    Crafted as a wake-up call, the author documents how Tel Aviv wields control over U.S. foreign policy in an environment where lawmakers have been intimidated by the Israel lobby. "U.S. national security," Gates writes, "requires a rejection of the self-deception that Israel operates as a trustworthy ally in an unstable region while ignoring its multi-decade role in provoking and sustaining instability."

    As Gates points out, the charge of anti-Semitism is used to misdirect and intimidate. As the criminality he documents becomes transparent, moderate Jews in fact are emerging as allies. The Zionist component-which Gates convincingly portrays as ideology in the service of criminality -has as its goal an extensive, Jews-only realm in an oil-rich region.

    The facts confirm that Tel Aviv will never agree to peace with the Palestinians, as that would preclude their expansionist agenda for a Greater Israel. An oft-employed "entropy strategy" remains Israel's means to preclude settlement of the conflict. Indeed, Huntington's Clash of Civilizations is revealed as only the latest in a long series of manipulations-each of which is designed to ensure a plausible evildoer. Meanwhile, fundamentalist Jews catalyze serial conflicts of opposites, while this transnational criminal syndicate profits off the misery of both.

    Andrew I. Killgore is publisher of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

    America's Defense Line: The Justice Department's Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government

    By Grant F. Smith, Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), 2008, paperback, 340 pp. List: $14.95; AET: $11.

    Reviewed by Delinda C. Hanley

    Books

    The declassification on June 10, 2008 of long-secret Department of Justice (DOJ) documents is the springboard for Grant F. Smith's latest book revealing the inner workings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This ground-breaking study spotlights the Israel lobby's key architect, Isaiah L. Kenen, and uncovers how he and subsequent Israel-firsters morphed from being openly registered as foreign agents, who should have remained employees of the Israeli Embassy's Office of Information, into "American" domestic lobbyists for Israel, a far more benign, if dishonest, nomenclature.

    Smith's very readable book reproduces and analyzes the highly deceptive Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) filings Kenen made while he was still an employee of the Israeli government in New York. It proceeds on to the American Zionist Council (ACZ), the precursor organization where AIPAC gestated. Referencing internal DOJ records, the book painstakingly documents previously undisclosed attempts by the Justice Department and dissenting Jewish groups, including the American Council for Judaism, to close down Kenen's Israeli-financed political propaganda operation-or to at least make it openly register and disclose its activities under FARA.

    Thanks to Kenen's efforts, AIPAC's Zionist financial backers succeeded in laundering money, purchasing arms, smuggling stolen U.S. military hardware, and launching Israel's nuclear and military weapons industries. They paid for some of it with tax-exempt "charitable" donations, though a far larger percentage came from U.S. tax-dollars-without ever having to come out of the shadows.

    Coming 20 years after Kenen's death, Smith's book is a powerful reminder to readers about the effectiveness of stealth public relations and the importance of framing stories for the mainstream media. (Kenen also launched the Near East Report, AIPAC's biweekly flagship publication, which is still a vital public relations tool for Israel.) This close examination of AIPAC's birth and struggle for power is a valuable lesson about nascent foreign interest lobbies, prosecutorial discretion, and the subversion of the rule of law by political elites.

    America's Defense Line reads like a fascinating spy thriller or "who done it" that is hard to put down-until, that is, one remembers that AIPAC and its supporters are still at it-and, usually, getting away with it. (Stay tuned for the espionage trial of former AIPAC officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.)

    Readers of Smith's book, perhaps alongside Jeff Gates' Guilt By Association, will have all the history and information necessary to loosen AIPAC's grip upon our nation once and for all-but only if we all insist that the rule of law once again become the law of the land.

    Delinda C. Hanley is news editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

    y3maxx -> CuttingEdge , Jan 5, 2017 11:10 AM

    -Clapper is a lying felon.

    DjangoCat -> cali , Jan 5, 2017 10:36 AM

    I call you on the statement "Assange even stated that he received the DNC material from Seth Rich!"

    Wikileaks is dogmatic on the protection of sources. Wikileaks did provide a reward of $20,000 for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's murderer, however.

    MrBoompi -> DjangoCat , Jan 5, 2017 10:50 AM

    You're correct, but Assange did offer $20,000 for information on Rich's murder. One could infer this was Assange's way of telling us his murder is related to the leaked emails without technically divulging his source.

    cali -> DjangoCat , Jan 5, 2017 1:07 PM

    Your question is absolutely valid! Assange said that the first batch of documents he published were given to him by a 'democratic staffer from the DNC'. After Seth was murdered - he offered the monies to find the murderer. I should have stated it that way in my comment. Be as it may Assange connected the dots for me when using the verbiage 'democratic staffer - DNC - Seth Rich - murdered. My bad!

    Krungle -> cali , Jan 5, 2017 11:09 AM

    You don't have to wonder since Craig Murray has said the source was domestic. That is the absurdity of this entire affair--we have the intermediary on record, a career diplomat, and no one has publicly questioned him. This whole thing is akin to the cops catching a white guy leaving a house with stolen goods, then they go into the house to investigate and find a dead body and there is another guy standing there with a smoking gun and then they decide not only to ignore the murder, they put out a warrant for a black guy who was nowhere near the crime, letting the original burgler off the hook too. That's how idiotic and off the trail of the important crimes these guys are. I mean why the hell are we not talking about the legit classified docs that Hillary allowed to be pilfered by multiple foreign (and probably domestic) sources anymore? Seems to me that is the actual crime.

    Parrotile -> 847328_3527 , Jan 5, 2017 3:56 PM

    > How about we send Congressional children and cia children first into battle against the Russians if they feel so strongly about it. <

    Well, "someone's children" are already being sent to what could easily be the "Front Line" in a land battle against Mother Russia, and you can safely bet that none of these cannon-fodder will have families "with connections". THEIR children are all assured comfortable office jobs in the Pentagon, or similar.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-05/us-has-begun-amassing-troops-ru...

    ChanceIs -> NoDebt , Jan 5, 2017 9:07 AM

    California just hired Eric "Too Big To Jail" Holder as its point man against Trump deporting the illegals. I am dumbfounded. He is obviously such a whore and incompetent/unethical attorney. I figured he would be smart and stay on the gold course. Shows you how stupid and blindly partisan Californians are.

    Add Holder to the list of those who have lied so much that nobody believes jack shit from them. Dems don't get it. The Clintonistas have gone back to the well about one thousand times too many. They are sooooo old and worn. Incapable of flexing with the wind and forming new ideas.

    Nancy Pelosi is starting to look her age all of the sudden. Put on about ten pounds. And wrinkles and saggy jowels.

    BTW: We don't need new ideas, just the Constitution.

    Krungle -> ChanceIs , Jan 5, 2017 11:20 AM

    This cracked me up since Holder is probably going to spend the next four years defending himself against crimes he committed while in office.

    scrappy -> NoDebt , Jan 5, 2017 12:11 PM

    Alternate - Alternate narrative.

    The Grizzly Steepe report is a mishmash.

    http://www.robertmlee.org/critiques-of-the-dhsfbis-grizzly-steppe-report/

    This instance (DNC Wiki) may have been an insider leak. We need more info to be sure.

    That said, we should not be so niave to think that russia does not ever hack us, of course they do.

    We hack them too.

    That is why we need to be careful about attribution .

    https://www.tenable.com/blog/attribution-is-hard-part-1

    https://www.tenable.com/blog/attribution-is-hard-part-2

    [Mar 23, 2017] The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies

    Mar 23, 2017 | onclick="TPConnect.blogside.reply('6a00d83451b33869e201b8d26ddde2970c'); return false;" href="javascript:void 0">

    JohnH said in reply to Anachronism ... Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 08:38 AM

    Where's the collusion? Even former DNI Director Clapper said there is no evidence.

    Glenn Greenwald explains: "The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

    Key Democratic officials are clearly worried about the expectations that have been purposely stoked and are now trying to tamp them down. Many of them have tried to signal that the beliefs the base has been led to adopt have no basis in reason or evidence.

    The latest official to throw cold water on the MSNBC-led circus is President Obama's former acting CIA chief Michael Morell. What makes him particularly notable in this context is that Morell was one of Clinton's most vocal CIA surrogates. In August, he not only endorsed Clinton in the pages of the New York Times but also became the first high official to explicitly accuse Trump of disloyalty, claiming, "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    But on Wednesday night, Morell appeared at an intelligence community forum to "cast doubt" on "allegations that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia." "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire at all," he said, adding, "There's no little campfire, there's no little candle, there's no spark. And there's a lot of people looking for it."
    https://theintercept.com/2017/03/16/key-democratic-officials-now-warning-base-not-to-expect-evidence-of-trumprussia-collusion/

    Democrats will do just about anything to avoid sacking their failed, corrupt, sclerotic leadership.

    Anachronism said in reply to JohnH... ◾The White House also tweeted that former intelligence director James Clapper was "right" to say there was "no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump Campaign." But Clapper said he had no such information "at the time," meaning before he left office in January.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/spinning-the-intel-hearing/

    It further says:

    'No Evidence of Collusion'

    The White House, in a tweet, and Spicer, in his daily press briefing, attempted to dismiss the possibility of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials by citing comments made by intelligence leaders in the Obama administration, as well as by Democratic and Republican leaders who have been briefed on the investigation to date.

    But the White House misrepresented the comments of those officials.

    As the attached video shows, the White House tweet left out an important qualifier. Comey said Clapper was "right" to say that there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign contained in the declassified report released Jan. 6 on Russian activities during the 2016 presidential election.

    Clapper made his remarks about the report in a "Meet the Press" interview on March 5, when he was asked whether there were "improper contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian officials."

    "We did not include any evidence in our report, and I say, 'our,' that's NSA, FBI and CIA, with my office, the Director of National Intelligence, that had anything, that had any reflection of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper said. "There was no evidence of that included in our report."

    Clapper went on to say "at the time, we had no evidence of such collusion." But he added, "This could have unfolded or become available in the time since I left the government."

    Clapper also said, "I do think, though, it is in everyone's interest, in the current president's interests, in the Democrats' interests, in the Republican interest, in the country's interest, to get to the bottom of all this."

    "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd asked, "You admit your report that you released in January doesn't get to the bottom of this?"

    "It did - well, it got to the bottom of the evidence to the extent of the evidence we had at the time," Clapper said. "Whether there is more evidence that's become available since then, whether ongoing investigations will be revelatory, I don't know."

    Asked what the Senate intelligence committee could learn through an investigation that Clapper's agency could not, Clapper replied, "Well, I think they can look at this from a broader context than we could."

    So Clapper did not say there was no collusion. He said there was no evidence of collusion "at the time" he left office in January. And he went on to say that he believed a Senate investigation was warranted to clear the air.

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 09:56 AM Anachronism said in reply to Anachronism ... And of course, there's this:

    http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/key-dem-points-evidence-collusion-between-russia-team-trump/amp

    Key Dem points to evidence of collusion between Russia, Team Trump

    03/23/17 08:00AM - Updated 03/23/17 01:37PM

    By Steve Benen

    . . .

    But on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, the California Democrat again talked to Chuck Todd, and this time he took another step forward when describing the nature of the evidence.


    TODD: But you admit, all you have right now is a circumstantial case?
    SCHIFF: Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that. And I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now. So, again, I think -

    TODD: You have seen direct evidence of collusion?

    SCHIFF: I don't to want go into specifics, but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial, and it very much worthy of investigation. So, that is what we ought to do.

    When we contacted the congressman's office, asking if Schiff may have misspoken, and giving him a chance to walk this back, his office said Schiff meant what he said. . . .

    There's some fire along with all the smoke being generated.

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM RGC said in reply to Anachronism ... " Info suggests"

    " may have coordinated"

    "possibly coordinate"

    "FBI is investigating"

    "according to one source"

    "now reviewing that information"

    "according to those U.S. officials"

    "raising the suspicions"

    " may have taken place'

    "officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive"

    "investigation is ongoing"

    " began looking into possible coordination"

    "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe"

    "One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests"

    " it appeared"

    "it's premature to draw that inference"

    " it's largely circumstantial"

    "cannot yet prove that collusion took place"

    "CNN has not confirmed"

    " according to U.S. intelligence agencies"

    " investigations are notoriously lengthy"

    "can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges"

    "Investigators continue to analyze"

    "unverified information"

    "suggested coordination"

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 08:43 AM Gerald said in reply to RGC... And what did you expect at this point? A little investigative realism, please. Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:33 AM Paine said in reply to Anachronism ... Assume you are a business man looking for experts on Russia tht share your
    Dovish views and your business posture and view point

    Surely you'll scoop up Russian tools and mercenaries etc

    My guess these guys operated beyond trumps awareness and control
    in as Much as they were Russian state contract drones etc

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:39 AM Paine said in reply to Paine... Trump likes doing business with out castes marginal in the shadows players
    Dark operatives etc

    Criminal corrupt co opted ..whatever

    Why ?


    THEY PAY BETTER THEN MNC outfits

    He instinctively sees
    Opportunities in Russia Iran and china

    Rule one

    Wave a carrot or threaten to kick them in the cubes

    Reply Thursday, March 23, 2017 at 11:43 AM

    [Mar 23, 2017] CNN doubles down on Russia threat hysteria

    Mar 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Anachronism : March 23, 2017 at 04:41 AM , 2017 at 04:41 AM
    The story is starting to get interesting:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/us-officials-info-suggests-trump-associates-may-have-coordinated-with-russians/index.html

    US officials: Info suggests Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians

    By Pamela Brown, Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz and Jim Sciutto, CNN

    US officials: Trump associates may have coordinated with Russians 14:11

    Washington (CNN) - The FBI has information that indicates associates of President Donald Trump communicated with suspected Russian operatives to possibly coordinate the release of information damaging to Hillary Clinton's campaign, US officials told CNN.

    This is partly what FBI Director James Comey was referring to when he made a bombshell announcement Monday before Congress that the FBI is investigating the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, according to one source.

    The FBI is now reviewing that information, which includes human intelligence, travel, business and phone records and accounts of in-person meetings, according to those U.S. officials. The information is raising the suspicions of FBI counterintelligence investigators that the coordination may have taken place, though officials cautioned that the information was not conclusive and that the investigation is ongoing.

    In his statement on Monday Comey said the FBI began looking into possible coordination between Trump campaign associates and suspected Russian operatives because the bureau had gathered "a credible allegation of wrongdoing or reasonable basis to believe an American may be acting as an agent of a foreign power."

    The White House did not comment and the FBI declined to comment.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer maintained Monday after Comey's testimony that there was no evidence to suggest any collusion took place.

    "Investigating it and having proof of it are two different things," Spicer said.

    One law enforcement official said the information in hand suggests "people connected to the campaign were in contact and it appeared they were giving the thumbs up to release information when it was ready." But other U.S. officials who spoke to CNN say it's premature to draw that inference from the information gathered so far since it's largely circumstantial.

    The FBI cannot yet prove that collusion took place, but the information suggesting collusion is now a large focus of the investigation, the officials said.

    The FBI has already been investigating four former Trump campaign associates -- Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone and Carter Page -- for contacts with Russians known to US intelligence. All four have denied improper contacts and CNN has not confirmed any of them are the subjects of the information the FBI is reviewing.

    One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in finding conclusive intelligence is that communications between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed their methods of communications, making monitoring more difficult, the officials said.

    Last July, Russian intelligence agencies began orchestrating the release of hacked emails stolen in a breach of the Democratic National Committee and associated organizations, as well as email accounts belonging to Clinton campaign officials, according to U.S. intelligence agencies.

    The Russian operation was also in part focused on the publication of so-called "fake news" stories aimed at undermining Hillary Clinton's campaign. But FBI investigators say they are less focused on the coordination and publication of those "fake news" stories, in part because those publications are generally protected free speech.

    The release of the stolen emails, meanwhile, transformed an ordinary cyber-intrusion investigation into a much bigger case handled by the FBI's counterintelligence division.

    FBI counterintelligence investigations are notoriously lengthy and often involve some of the U.S. government's most highly classified programs, such as those focused on intelligence-gathering, which can make it difficult for investigators to bring criminal charges without exposing those programs.

    Investigators continue to analyze the material and information from multiple sources for any possible indications of coordination, according to US officials. Director Comey in Monday's hearing refused to reveal what specifically the FBI was looking for or who they're focusing on.

    US officials said the information was not drawn from the leaked dossier of unverified information compiled by a former British intelligence official compiled for Trump's political opponents, though the dossier also suggested coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russian operatives.

    kthomas -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 04:51 AM
    He's probably bangin' his daughter.
    anne -> kthomas... , March 23, 2017 at 05:54 AM
    He's probably ------- his --------.

    [ This person is continually obscene. This person is continually trying to terrorize and destroy. ]

    kthomas -> anne... , March 23, 2017 at 06:40 AM
    Piss off. Nobody elected you to blog sheriff, you hypocrite.
    Peter K. -> kthomas... , March 23, 2017 at 07:06 AM
    troll.
    anne -> kthomas... , March 23, 2017 at 07:21 AM
    He's probably ------- his --------.

    ---- off.

    Oh look, a new ------- ----------.

    [ This person is continually obscene. This person is continually trying to terrorize and destroy. This person continually threatens others.

    I am afraid of this person. ]

    Gerald -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 06:24 AM
    "The story is starting to get interesting."

    There's little doubt in my mind that Trump's team did in fact collude with the Russians, and that the investigation will ultimately come to the same conclusion. That's when the fun begins, if impeachment proceedings can be called fun. Trump will deny, deny, deny that he had any knowledge of the collusion; the fact that he's a serial liar won't prevent most Republicans from voting against his impeachment. Only Trump can save us by doing a Nixon and resigning. He won't though, and we'll be right back where we are, with one huge exception: we'll have a proven traitor sitting in the White House, kept there by a spineless GOP.

    Anachronism -> Gerald... , March 23, 2017 at 06:41 AM
    Agreed. If in fact the FBI can prove substantial ties between the Russians and the Trump team co-ordinating the Wikileak email dump, that has to qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors".

    And given that, at this point, President Cheeto is so unpopular, plus the FBI's evidence (yet to be proven), they would almost have to vote for impeachment or risk losing re-election in their home districts.

    Go make some popcorn, grab your favorite beverage, sit back and enjoy the sound of them imploding.

    Gerald -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 07:18 AM
    "...and enjoy the sound of them imploding." Can't wait to hear it. :)
    JohnH -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 07:15 AM
    Like Whitewater, this investigation will take years and may well come up empty.

    Meanwhile, Democrats can obsess about how unfair the election was, deny any notion that Hillary was a lousy candidate, and refuse to figure out how to talk to working people or come up with any kind of coherent economic message.

    Trump-Putin shows that they are willing to do most any distraction to keep from having to keep their eye on the ball!

    As a result, Democrats will mostly likely circle the wagons to foist another mealy mouthed neoliberal on the electorate in 2020 in the tradition of Gore, Kerry, and Hillary, a candidate who will almost certainly assure Trump a second term.

    Despite a string of congressional losses, the sclerotic, corrupt leadership refuses get rid of their losing leadership. It would appear that Democrats have grown to love playing Washington Generals to Republicans' Harlem Globetrotters.

    The current requirement for a duopoly assures that there is always a place for losers.

    JohnH -> Anachronism ... , March 23, 2017 at 08:02 AM
    Mark my words: "The Trump-Putin investigation [will take] years because [investigators can't] find any wrongdoing from [Trump-Putin] and so then continued looking into [Trump-Putin] whenever they could, simply to keep the witch hunt going."

    If they had any evidence beyond innuendo and hearsay, we would have seen some of it by now.

    Trump-Putin has become an elaborate distraction to keep Democrats from looking honestly at their failure, and to keep the American public entertained as Trump guts the remnants of their safety net.

    [Mar 22, 2017] Trumps billionaire coup détat

    Mar 22, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    Donald Trump is about to break the record of withdrawing his promises faster than any other US president in history. It's not only the fact that his administration has been literally taken over by Goldman Sachs, the top vampire-bank of the Wall Street mafia.

    Recently, Trump announced another big alliance with the vulture billionaire, Paul Singer, who, initially, was supposedly against him. It looks like the Trump big show continues.

    The 'anti-establishment Trump' joke has already collapsed and the US middle class is about be eliminated by the syndicate of the united billionaires under Trump administration.

    As Greg Palast told to Thom Hartmann:

    Paul Singer whose nickname is "the vulture", he didn't get that nickname because he is a sweet an honest businessman. This is the guy who closed the Delphi auto plants in Ohio and sent them to China and also to Monterrey-Mexico. Donald Trump as a candidate, excoriated the billionaires who sent Delphi auto parts company down to Mexico.

    Paul Singer has two concerns: one of them is that we eliminate the banking regulations known as Dodd–Frank. He is called 'the vulture' cause he eats companies that died. He has invested heavily in banks that died. He makes his billions from government bail-outs, he has never made a product in his life, it's all money and billions made from your money, out of the US treasury.

    He is against what Obama created, which is a system under Dodd–Frank, called 'living wheels', where if a bank starts going bankrupt, they don't call the US treasury for bail-out. These banks go out of business and they are broken up so we don't have to pay for the bail-out. Singer wants to restore the system of bailouts because that's where he makes his money.

    The Mercers are the real big money behind Donald Trump. When Trump was in trouble in the general election he was out of money and he was out of ideas and he was losing. It was the Mercers, Robert, who is the principal at the Renaissance Technologies, basically investment banking sharks, that's all they are. They are market gamblers and banking sharks, and that's how he made his billions, he hasn't created a single job as Donald Trump himself like to mention.

    Both the vulture and the Mercers, they don't pay the same taxes as the rest. They don't pay regular income taxes. They have a special billionaires loophole called 'carried interest'. They were two candidates who said that they would close that loophole: one was Bernie Sanders and the other, believe it or not, was Donald Trump, it was part of his populist movie, he said ' These Wall Street sharks, they don't build anything, they don't create a single job, when they lose we pay, when they win, they get a tax-break called carried interest. I will close that loophole. ' Has he said a word about that loophole? It passed away.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/z-q5R4k_3rE"

    Take a taste of Paul Singer from Wikipedia :

    His political activities include funding the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and he has written against raising taxes for the 1% and aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act. Singer is active in Republican Party politics and collectively, Singer and others affiliated with Elliott Management are "the top source of contributions" to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

    A number of sources have branded him a "vulture capitalist", largely on account of his role at EMC, which has been called a vulture fund. Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid debts", and in 1996, Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near default-such as Argentina, ]- through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through Kensington International Inc. Singer's business model of purchasing distressed debt from companies and sovereign states and pursuing full payment through the courts has led to criticism, while Singer and EMC defend their model as "a fight against charlatans who refuse to play by the market's rules."

    In 1996, Elliott bought defaulted Peruvian debt for $11.4 million. Elliott won a $58 million judgement when the ruling was overturned in 2000, and Peru had to repay the sum in full under the pari passu rule. When former president of Peru Alberto Fujimori was attempting to flee the country due to facing legal proceedings over human rights abuses and corruption, Singer ordered the confiscation of his jet and offered to let him leave the country in exchange for the $58 million payment from the treasury, an offer which Fujimori accepted. A subsequent 2002 investigation by the Government of Peru into the incident and subsequent congressional report, uncovered instances of corruption since Elliott was not legally authorized to purchase the Peruvian debt from Swiss Bank Corporation without the prior approval of the Peruvian government, and thus the purchase had occurred in breach of contract. At the same time, Elliott's representative, Jaime Pinto, had been formerly employed by the Peruvian Ministry of Economy and Finance and had contact with senior officials. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Peruvian government paid Elliott $56 million to settle the case.

    After Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2002, the Elliott-owned company NML Capital Limited refused to accept the Argentine offer to pay less than 30 cents per dollar of debt. With a face value of $630 million, the bonds were reportedly bought by NML for $48 million, with Elliott assessing the bonds as worth $2.3 billion with accrued interest. Elliott sued Argentina for the debt's value, and the lower UK courts found that Argentina had state immunity. Elliott successfully appealed the case to the UK Supreme Court, which ruled that Elliott had the right to attempt to seize Argentine property in the United Kingdom. Alternatively, before 2011, US courts ruled against allowing creditors to seize Argentine state assets in the United States. On October 2, 2012 Singer arranged for a Ghanaian Court order to detain the Argentine naval training vessel ARA Libertad in a Ghanaian port, with the vessel to be used as collateral in an effort to force Argentina to pay the debt. Refusing to pay, Argentina shortly thereafter regained control of the ship after its seizure was deemed illegal by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Alleging the incident lost Tema Harbour $7.6 million in lost revenue and unpaid docking fees, Ghana in 2012 was reportedly considering legal action against NML for the amount.

    His firm... is so influential that fear of its tactics helped shape the current 2012 Greek debt restructuring." Elliott was termed by The Independent as "a pioneer in the business of buying up sovereign bonds on the cheap, and then going after countries for unpaid debts", and in 1996, Singer began using the strategy of purchasing sovereign debt from nations in or near default-such as Argentina, Peru-through his NML Capital Limited and Congo-Brazzaville through Kensington International Inc. In 2004, then first deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund Anne Osborn Krueger denounced the strategy, alleging that it has "undermined the entire structure of sovereign finance."

    we wrote that " Trump's rhetoric is concentrated around a racist delirium. He avoids to take direct position on social matters, issues about inequality, etc. Of course he does, he is a billionaire! Trump will follow the pro-establishment agenda of protecting Wall Street and big businesses. And here is the fundamental difference with Bernie Sanders. Bernie says no more war and he means it. He says more taxes for the super-rich and he means it. Free healthcare and education for all the Americans, and he means it. In case that Bernie manage to beat Hillary, the establishment will definitely turn to Trump who will be supported by all means until the US presidency. "

    Yet, we would never expect that Trump would verify us, that fast.

    [Mar 22, 2017] Trump has even lost the support of the WSJ, Karma is biting him in his arse

    Notable quotes:
    "... CNN video 1:08 quoting the WSJ Opinion article today. "WSJ editorial: Most Americans may conclude Trump 'fake president'" ..."
    "... I think the US Presidency is like the Ruler of the universe in Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Anybody who wants the job is not suitable. ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : March 22, 2017 at 08:35 AM
    Trump has even lost the support of the WSJ, Karma is biting him in his arse . What's comes next a call for his Impeachment from FOX News 'Friends and Family'?

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politics/donald-trump-wsj-trust/index.html

    CNN video 1:08 quoting the WSJ Opinion article today. "WSJ editorial: Most Americans may conclude Trump 'fake president'"

    By Eugene Scott, CNN...Wed...March 22, 2017...Updated 10:16 AM ET,

    "(CNN)President Donald Trump's repeated lack of "respect for the truth" puts him in jeopardy of being viewed as "a fake President," The Wall Street Journal editorial board says.

    "Two months into his presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump's approval rating at 39%. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news, but if he doesn't show more respect for the truth, most Americans may conclude he's a fake President," reads the editorial, which appeared online Tuesday night."...

    libezkova said in reply to im1dc... , March 22, 2017 at 03:48 PM
    "Trump has even lost the support of the WSJ"

    Was not WSJ a supporter of Hillary ? Am I missing something ?

    reason -> im1dc... , March 22, 2017 at 09:05 AM
    I think the US Presidency is like the Ruler of the universe in Hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. Anybody who wants the job is not suitable.
    Peter K. -> reason ... , March 22, 2017 at 09:14 AM
    Hillary was suitable, but not a very good candidate following on Obama's charm. Can't believe the center-left ran a candidate who lost to Trump.

    Well yes I can. And I can believe they don't want to do a post mortem. Ambitious careerists like PGL are never good at self-criticism or insights.

    libezkova -> Peter K.... , March 22, 2017 at 03:08 PM
    "Hillary was suitable"

    Suitable for whom?

    [Mar 22, 2017] Notes From the House Select Intelligence Hearing on Russia

    Mar 22, 2017 | www.rollingstone.com

    10:05 a.m. It's a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but the effort to describe the Russia Today network as diabolical propaganda without mentioning Voice of America and Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe continues to amaze. Apparently Russia is the only country that funds a media network intended to influence foreign audiences.

    Nunes in his opening statement characterizes RT as a disinformation effort that "traffics in anti-American conspiracies," rivaling Soviet propaganda. Here it is hard not to think of the joint intel report that cited the network's reporting on Occupy Wall Street, "corporate greed" and fracking as evidence of its anti-American nature. It also decried the network's use of the term "surveillance state" to describe the U.S., which will be pretty ironic considering the content of today's hearing.

    Again, it's a small point, but by these standards pretty much any alternative media outlet is "anti-American," and it's alarming to hear Democrats later ape this language in reference to RT.

    10:20 a.m. Schiff delivers a long speech that essentially lays out the Trump-Russia conspiracy. Twitter seems to be unanimous that it's a powerful piece of rhetoric.

    Among other things, he unblinkingly cites the Christopher Steele's "golden showers" dossier as a source. This seems like a pretty intense political calculation given that Michael Morell, who would have been Hillary Clinton's CIA director, basically called the dossier useless just last week. The dossier "doesn't take you anywhere, I think," Morell said. But it's all over this hearing, with multiple Democratic members citing it. What that means, who knows, but it's interesting to see that level of commitment from the Democrats.

    10:32 a.m. Comey creates the big headline of the day by saying, "I have been authorized ... to confirm that the FBI is investigating" the Russia story.

    This both is and isn't big news. Although it's the first time it's been stated publicly, the existence of this investigation has been common knowledge for a long time. Most of the leaked reports on the topic have included this information.

    For instance, The New York Times story from February 14th, about Trump officials having had "contact" with Russian intelligence, spoke definitively of an investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Putin government.

    Still, that doesn't mean Comey had to do what he did today. Is this payback to Trump for accusing the FBI of illegally wiretapping him? Is it a good-faith effort to square the ledger in terms of his previous highly controversial decision to out the Clinton email investigation? It's curious and bold either way. One wonders if Trump might fire him.

    The true newsworthy detail, of course, isn't that Comey disclosed the existence of an FBI investigation into Trump – as Democrats should know better than anyone, that doesn't necessarily mean anything – but that Comey is doing this now and didn't do so earlier, before the election. Obviously, he made a different choice with regard to the Clinton email story, and the Democrats rightfully should be furious about that.

    10:36 a.m. Nunes asks Rogers if Russians hacked vote tallies in Michigan. Rogers answers no, noting that the NSA doesn't do domestic surveillance. Nunes goes on to ask about Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, knowing Rogers won't answer. It's a totally meaningless exchange, but instantly becomes Twitter fodder:

    This is what these hearings are for, primarily. Except for very rare occasions when mega-careful witnesses like Comey and Rogers decide to give up tidbits, for the most part these hearings are held so that House members can ping-pong talking points off witnesses, and then circulate clips of themselves asking questions to which they already know the answers.

    10:39 a.m. Florida Republican Tom Rooney asks Rogers about incidental collection of data about "U.S. persons" under the Section 702 program. Admiral Rogers' explanation for how they use that data, and how they protect the rights of U.S. companies and citizens – redacting or "masking" identities, for instance – is almost comically non-reassuring.

    Reading between the lines, the NSA seems to have basically unrestricted ability to snoop on foreigners. When their targets are speaking to American persons or communicating with American companies, the agency also seems to have an absurdly permissive mandate to listen to whatever they want to listen to. Only later, it seems, do they figure out how to justify it legally.

    This is an example of how the hyper-partisan nature of these hearings spoils American politics. Liberals especially should be seriously concerned about such surveillance overreach by the intelligence agencies, and also about leaks directed against individuals by intelligence officials. Similarly, conservatives should be mortified by the possibility of foreign interference in our electoral process.

    But because both of these issues are tied in highly specific ways to the political fortunes of Donald Trump, each issue will be ignored by one side and thundered over by the other.

    11:03 a.m. Schiff asks both men if Obama wiretapped Trump as Trump claimed. "I have no information that supports those tweets," Comey says. Asked if he engages in McCarthyism, Comey says he tries "not to engage in any isms of any kind, including McCarthyism." He gets laughs. Comey is a very, very slick witness, difficult to read.

    An interesting development in this hearing is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are treating these witnesses as hostile. And both Comey and Rogers are in their own ways giving both Nunes and Schiff what they want so far. They're allowing members of both parties to make speeches and ask their suggestive questions, while giving them next to nothing.

    11:19 a.m. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, last seen spending two expensive years stepping on his weenie in a pathetic effort to dig up dirt on Hillary Clinton through the Benghazi probe, comes on to the delight of, well, nobody. Gowdy is the first to cross over into open unfriendliness. Ominously, he starts trying to get Comey to say reporters could be held criminally liable for disclosing secret information.

    Gowdy later scores a point by getting Comey to explain a hypothetical: how he would go about investigating the leak of a U.S. citizen's name that appears in a newspaper. (He's clearly talking about Flynn.)

    Comey, with the caveat that he's not talking about anyone specific, lays out how he would do that, talking about identifying the "universe" of people with access to that information and then using investigative techniques to further narrow the field. Indirectly, Comey confirms Gowdy's interpretation of a "felonious" disclosure to a newspaper that must be prosecuted. It sets up a demand that Comey investigate and prosecute that leak.

    Gowdy does in fact go on to make such a demand. But Comey cockblocks Gowdy and says he "can't" promise that he will investigate the leaks.

    Gowdy looks like someone just stole his box of Mike and Ikes. He seems surprised, like he didn't expect Comey's answer. Comey smiles and glares at Gowdy like the third-rater he is.

    11:43 a.m. Jim Himes asks Comey if Ukraine used to be part of the Soviet Union. Comey says yes. Glad we cleared that up.

    11:52 a.m. Mike Conaway of Texas points out that determining the source of a hacking campaign is a forensic enterprise, but asks how they determine intent. In the process, he pins down Rogers as saying he had a "lower level" of confidence in the idea that the Russians preferred Trump to Clinton.

    Conaway then plunges into a bizarre metaphor about how his wife went to Texas Tech, so he roots for the Red Raiders and dislikes the Longhorns, or something. Conaway seemed to want to ask if it is possible to root against Texas without liking the Red Raiders, or the opposite, but pretty much everyone watching instantly loses track of whether Hillary Clinton is Texas or Texas Tech in the metaphor.

    Comey confidently goes with it. "Wherever the Red Raiders are playing, you want them to win and their opposition to lose," he says. He goes on to elaborate on the metaphor, talking about how the Russians later in the year knew the Red Raiders were going to lose, "so you hope key people on the other team get hurt so they are not as tough an opponent down the road."

    The substantively interesting thing here is Comey's sly disclosure that the Russians late in the game expected Trump to lose the election. But his deft handling of Conaway's bumbling hypothetical overshadows the answer.

    12:21 p.m. Nunes tries on a new rhetorical line: It's absurd to say Russians prefer Republicans, because Reagan!

    This is silly, of course, because Trump is a different animal from Reagan, but then Comey and Rogers do something equally silly. On the question of whether the Russians preferred Romney or McCain over Obama, they both look at each other like it's crazy to suggest they ever considered the question. Isn't it their job to know things like that? They're clearly dissembling.

    12:25 p.m. Peter King, the most mumbly member on the panel, asks about the report that Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe told Reince Priebus that one of the New York Times stories on Russia was "BS."

    "Is there any way you can comment on whether or not Mr. McCabe told that to Mr. Priebus?" King asks.

    Comey gives a classically Comeyish answer:

    "I can't, Mr. King, but I can agree with your general premise. Leaks have always been a problem. I read over the weekend [about] George Washington and Abraham Lincoln complaining about them. But I do agree in the last six weeks and months there apparently have been a lot of instances of conversations appearing in the media, and a lot of it is dead wrong. Which is one of the challenges, because we don't correct it. It's made it difficult because people are talking, or at least reporters are saying people are talking, in ways that have struck me as being unusually active."

    Translation: blow me, I'm not telling you what McCabe said to Priebus. King basically thanks them both and retreats. King will spend much of the day apologizing for asking perfectly legitimate questions.

    Although the hearing has generated tons of headlines before it hits the halfway mark, it's really a giant tease.

    Both Comey and Rogers indicated from the start that they will reserve their more candid testimony for a later classified hearing with these same members. For the public, this means one thing: we'll continue to get no real answers, and a heavily partisan and politicized version of events, no matter what happens. So long as the investigations aren't closed, and the real information is kept behind closed doors, both parties can pursue their rhetorical campaigns unchecked. And the testimony of people like Comey and Rogers will be useful only for driving interest in the reading of tea leaves.

    There should probably be three entirely separate investigations. One should concern the question of whether, or to what extent, the Russians interfered with the election. That's a non-partisan question, really, one everyone should care about, but Republicans won't do anything about it because they will perceive the entire issue as a partisan attack on Trump.

    A second inquiry could deal with the question of illegal/politicized leaks of secret surveillance data coming from the "IC." Again, in reality this is a non-partisan concern. Were congressional Democrats really interested in getting at whatever the intelligence community has on Trump, a bipartisan inquiry of this nature would be an excellent pressure point.

    Lastly, you could have a completely separate set of hearings into the question of whether or not the Trump campaign engaged in anything untoward in its dealings with Russians last year. If there's anything to this, the public needs to hear it, and it all needs to be public.

    But don't expect answers anytime soon. Hearings like today's only add to the frustrating strangeness of this scandal, and it looks like this will continue for quite some time.

    [Mar 22, 2017] A Breach in the Anti-Putin Groupthink by Gilbert Doctorow

    Anti-Russian campaign is too profitable to be affected by minor setbacks.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Does Russia Have a Future? ..."
    Mar 21, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    The mainstream U.S. media has virtually banned any commentary that doesn't treat Russian President Putin as the devil, but a surprising breach in the groupthink has occurred in Foreign Affairs magazine, reports Gilbert Doctorow.

    Realistically, no major change in U.S. foreign and defense policy is possible without substantial support from the U.S. political class, but a problem occurs when only one side of a debate gets a fair hearing and the other side gets ignored or marginalized. That is the current situation regarding U.S. policy toward Russia.

    For the past couple of decades, only the neoconservatives and their close allies, the liberal interventionists, have been allowed into the ring to raise their gloves in celebration of an uncontested victory over policy. On the very rare occasion when a "realist" or a critic of "regime change" wars somehow manages to sneak into the ring, they find both arms tied behind them and receive the predictable pounding.

    While this predicament has existed since the turn of this past century, it has grown more pronounced since the U.S.-Russia relationship slid into open confrontation in 2014 after the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and sparking a civil war that led Crimea to secede and join Russia and Ukraine's eastern Donbass region to rise up in rebellion.

    But the only narrative that the vast majority of Americans have heard – and that the opinion centers of Washington and New York have allowed – is the one that blames everything on "Russian aggression." Those who try to express dissenting opinions – noting, for instance, the intervention in Ukrainian affairs by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland as well as the U.S.-funded undermining on Yanukovych's government – have been essentially banned from both the U.S. mass media and professional journals.

    When a handful of independent news sites (including Consortiumnews.com) tried to report on the other side of the story, they were denounced as "Russian propagandists" and ended up on "blacklists" promoted by The Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets.

    An Encouraging Sign

    That is why it is encouraging that Foreign Affairs magazine, the preeminent professional journal of American diplomacy, took the extraordinary step (extraordinary at least in the current environment) of publishing Robert English's article , entitled "Russia, Trump, and a new Détente," that challenges the prevailing groupthink and does so with careful scholarship.

    A wintery scene in Moscow, near Red Square. (Photo by Robert Parry)

    In effect, English's article trashes the positions of all Foreign Affairs' featured contributors for the past several years. But it must be stressed that there are no new discoveries of fact or new insights that make English's essay particularly valuable. What he has done is to bring together the chief points of the counter-current and set them out with extraordinary writing skills, efficiency and persuasiveness of argumentation. Even more important, he has been uncompromising.

    The facts laid out by English could have been set out by one of several experienced and informed professors or practitioners of international relations. But English had the courage to follow the facts where they lead and the skill to convince the Foreign Affairs editors to take the chance on allowing readers to see some unpopular truths even though the editors now will probably come under attack themselves as "Kremlin stooges."

    The overriding thesis is summed up at the start of the essay: "For 25 years, Republicans and Democrats have acted in ways that look much the same to Moscow. Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests. It is no wonder that Russia pushes back. The wonder is that the U.S. policy elite doesn't get this, even as foreign-affairs neophyte Trump apparently does."

    English's article goes back to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and explains why and how U.S. policy toward Russia was wrong and wrong again. He debunks the notion that Boris Yeltsin brought in a democratic age, which Vladimir Putin undid after coming to power.

    English explains how the U.S. meddled in Russian domestic politics in the mid-1990s to falsify election results and ensure Yeltsin's continuation in office despite his unpopularity for bringing on an economic Depression that average Russians remember bitterly to this day. That was a time when the vast majority of Russians equated democracy with "shitocracy."

    English describes how the Russian economic and political collapse in the 1990s was exploited by the Clinton administration. He tells why currently fashionable U.S. critics of Putin are dead wrong when they fail to acknowledge Putin's achievements in restructuring the economy, tax collection, governance, improvements in public health and more which account for his spectacular popularity ratings today.

    English details all the errors and stupidities of the Obama administration in its handling of Russia and Putin, faulting President Obama and Secretary of State (and later presidential candidate) Hillary Clinton for all of their provocative and insensitive words and deeds. What we see in U.S. policy, as described by English, is the application of double standards, a prosecutorial stance towards Russia, and outrageous lies about the country and its leadership foisted on the American public.

    Then English takes on directly all of the paranoia over Russia's alleged challenge to Western democratic processes. He calls attention instead to how U.S. foreign policy and the European Union's own policies in the new Member States and candidate Member States have created all the conditions for a populist revolt by buying off local elites and subjecting the broad populace in these countries to pauperization.

    English concludes his essay with a call to give détente with Putin and Russia a chance.

    Who Is Robert English?

    English's Wikipedia entry and biographical data provided on his University of Southern California web pages make it clear that he has quality academic credentials: Master of Public Administration and PhD. in politics from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. He also has a solid collection of scholarly publications to his credit as author or co-editor with major names in the field of Russian-Soviet intellectual history.

    Red Square in Moscow with a winter festival to the left and the Kremlin to the right. (Photo by Robert Parry)

    He spent six years doing studies for U.S. intelligence and defense: 1982–1986 at the Department of Defense and 1986-88 at the U.S. Committee for National Security. And he has administrative experience as the Director of the USC School of International Relations.

    Professor English is not without his political ambitions. During the 2016 presidential election campaign, he tried to secure a position as foreign policy adviser to Democratic hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders. In pursuit of this effort, English had the backing of progressives at The Nation, which in February 2016 published an article of his entitled "Bernie Sanders, the Foreign Policy Realist of 2016."

    English's objective was to demonstrate how wrong many people were to see in Sanders a visionary utopian incapable of defending America's strategic interests. Amid the praise of Sanders in this article, English asserts that Sanders is as firm on Russia as Hillary Clinton.

    By the end of the campaign, however, several tenacious neocons had attached themselves to Sanders's inner circle and English departed. So, one might size up English as just one more opportunistic academic who will do whatever it takes to land a top job in Washington.

    While there is nothing new in such "flexibility," there is also nothing necessarily offensive in it. From the times of Machiavelli if not earlier, intellectuals have tended to be guns for hire. The first open question is how skilled they are in managing their sponsors as well as in managing their readers in the public. But there is also a political realism in such behavior, advancing a politician who might be a far better leader than the alternatives while blunting the attack lines that might be deployed against him or her.

    Then, there are times, such as the article for Foreign Affairs, when an academic may be speaking for his own analysis of an important situation whatever the political costs or benefits. Sources who have long been close to English assure me that the points in his latest article match his true beliefs.

    The Politics of Geopolitics

    Yet, it is one thing to have a courageous author and knowledgeable scholar. It is quite another to find a publisher willing to take the heat for presenting views that venture outside the mainstream Establishment. In that sense, it is stunning that Foreign Affairs chose to publish English and let him destroy the groupthink that has dominated the magazine and the elite foreign policy circles for years.

    President Barack Obama meets with President Vladimir Putin of Russia on the sidelines of the G20 Summit at Regnum Carya Resort in Antalya, Turkey, Sunday, Nov. 15, 2015. National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice listens at left. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

    The only previous exception to the magazine's lockstep was an article by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault" published in September 2014. That essay shot holes in Official Washington's recounting of the events leading up to the Russian annexation of Crimea and intervention in the Donbass.

    It was a shock to many of America's leading foreign policy insiders who, in the next issue, rallied like a collection of white cells to attack the invasive thinking. But there were some Foreign Affairs readers – about one-third of the commenters – who voiced agreement with Mearsheimer's arguments. But that was a one-time affair. Mearsheimer appears to have been tolerated because he was one of the few remaining exponents of the Realist School in the United States. But he was not a Russia specialist.

    Foreign Affairs may have turned to Robert English because the editors, as insider-insiders, found themselves on the outside of the Trump administration looking in. The magazine's 250,000 subscribers, which include readers from across the globe, expect Foreign Affairs to have some lines into the corridors of power.

    In that regard, the magazine has been carrying water for the State Department since the days of the Cold War. For instance, in the spring issue of 2007, the magazine published a cooked-up article signed by Ukrainian politician Yuliya Tymoshenko on why the West must contain Russia, a direct response to Putin's famous Munich speech in which he accused the United States of destabilizing the world through the Iraq War and other policies.

    Anticipating Hillary Clinton's expected election, Foreign Affairs' editors did not hedge their bets in 2016. They sided with the former Secretary of State and hurled rhetorical bricks at Donald Trump. In their September issue, they compared him to a tin-pot populist dictator in South America.

    Thus, they found themselves cut off after Trump's surprising victory. For the first time in many years in the opening issue of the New Year following a U.S. presidential election, the magazine did not feature an interview with the incoming Secretary of State or some other cabinet member.

    Though Official Washington's anti-Russian frenzy seems to be reaching a crescendo on Capitol Hill with strident hearings on alleged Russian meddling in the presidential election, the underlying reality is that the neocons are descending into a fury over their sudden loss of power.

    The hysteria was highlighted when neocon Sen. John McCain lashed out at Sen. Rand Paul after the libertarian senator objected to special consideration for McCain's resolution supporting Montenegro's entrance into NATO. In a stunning breach of Senate protocol, a livid McCain accused Paul of "working for Vladimir Putin."

    Meanwhile, some Democratic leaders have begun cautioning their anti-Trump followers not to expect too much from congressional investigations into the supposed Trump-Russia collusion on the election.

    In publishing Robert English's essay challenging much of the anti-Russian groupthink that has dominated Western geopolitics over the past few years, Foreign Affairs may be finally bending to the recognition that it is risking its credibility if it continues to put all its eggs in the we-hate-Russia basket.

    That hedging of its bets may be a case of self-interest, but it also may be an optimistic sign that the martyred Fifteenth Century Catholic Church reformer Jan Hus was right when he maintained that eventually the truth will prevail.

    Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015.

    [Mar 22, 2017] The Rachel Maddow Show on msnbc

    Rachel Maddow looks at the role of Russian bot networks and cyber war tactics during the 2016 U.S. election and notes that those things didn't just go away after the election. She proves to be a talented anti-Russian warmonger. Very impressive piece of propaganda. Classic brainwashing.
    MSNC clearly is in neo-McCarthyism camp and try to capitalize on anti-Russian hysteria. Of cause, Rachel Maddow was and still is a Hillary puppet, so she should have her credibility already destroyed. but people still watching her show and that's a problem. Previously she supported this neocon warmonger, now she became one. The problem with her blabbing is that accounting to FBI Russians have written off Trump in Summer 2016.
    Looks like Democratic party brass can no longer control the anti-Russian hysteria why wiped up, even if they realized that they went too far and the ability to lick thier wound by launching anti-Russian hysteria and getting it to the sky level pitch has some adverse effects in a long run ...
    Notable quotes:
    "... This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign. ..."
    "... A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded. These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase. ..."
    "... It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us. ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | www.msnbc.com

    Duration: 20:44

    libezkova -> Peter K .... March 22, 2017 at 04:24 PM

    This anti-Russian warmonger Rachel Maddow is a Hillary puppet. That is a known fact. She has been dyed-in-the-wool supported neocon warmonger Hillary Clinton for the duration of the campaign.

    All her blows were below the belt.

    This selective reporting of pieces of information is actually pretty disingenuous. Anybody using those methods and by selective reporting of bits of information that support your viewpoint can be painted as a Russian agent. Even EMichael :-)

    The problem with her blabbing is that according to FBI Russians have written off Trump in Summer 2016.

    Listening to this show by MSNBC is so disguising, that I lost any respect for it.

    RGC -> EMichael... March 22, 2017 at 04:45 PM
    Fool Me Once ... - Crowdstrike Claimed Two Cases
    Of "Russian Hacking" - One Has Been Proven Wrong

    The cyber-security company Crowdstrike claimed that the "Russia" hacked the Democratic National Committee. It also claimed that "Russia" hacked artillery units of the Ukrainian army. The second claim has now be found to be completely baseless. That same is probably the case with its claims related to the DNC.
    ..........................

    The DNC was likely not hacked at all. Some insider with access to its servers may have taken the emails to publish them. On July 10 2016 the DNC IT administrator Sean Rich was found fatally shot on the streets of Washington DC. To this day no culprit has been found. The crime is unsolved. Five Congressional staffers and IT administrators from Pakistan, some of whom also worked for the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are under criminal investigation for unauthorized access to Congressional computers. They had the password of Wasserman-Schultz and may have had access to the DNC servers.

    Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" have evidently been false with regards to the Ukrainian artillery. Crowdstrike's claims of "Russian hacking" in the case of the DNC have never been supported or confirmed by independent evidence. There are reasons to believe that the loss of control of the DNC's email archives were a case of unauthorized internal access and not a "hack" at all.

    A company related to a NATO aligned "think-tank", which is financed by weapon producers and other special interests, raises allegations against Russia that are quite possibly unfounded. These allegations are then used by NATO to build up a public boogeyman picture of "the Russian enemy". In consequence the budgets for NATO militaries and the profits of weapon producers increase.

    It is a simple racket, but with potentially very bad consequences for all of us.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/ Wednesday, March 22, 2017 at 04:45 PM

    [Mar 22, 2017] New Cold War and anti-Russian hysteria news March 2017 edition

    Notable quotes:
    "... the wrong foreign power ..."
    Mar 22, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    "Devin Nunes is a conservative Republican from the San Joaquin Valley who advised Donald Trump through his transition to the presidency. Adam Schiff is a Los Angeles Democrat who campaigned for Hillary Clinton and isn't shy in his criticisms of the man who defeated her" [ RealClearPolitics ]. Now the two California congressmen find themselves at the center of the political universe, leading a House probe into Russian meddling in American politics . The two have no qualms about expressing disagreements with what they deduce from the same pot of information, but their joint appearances are a vestige of the kind of bipartisanship that has all but disappeared from Washington. And yet, Monday's hearing showed the partisan divide on the issue, with Republican members focused on plugging government leaks of sensitive information and Democrats interested in possible collusion." "Meddling," "collusion." Pretty squishy words

    "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [ Politico ]. (Furzy Mouse). ZOMG!!!! The Ukrainians were hacking tampering with meddling in seeking to influence our election! Where's that declaration of war I had lying around

    "From Russia, with Panic" [Yasha Levine, The Baffler (DG)]. This is an important post. Key point: "But in private conversations, as well as little-noticed public discussions, security professionals take a dimmer view of the cybersecurity complex. And the more I've looked at the hysteria surrounding Russia's supposed hacking of our elections, the more I've come to see it as a case study of everything wrong and dangerous about the cyber-attribution business." For example: "Matt Tait, a former GCHQ analyst and founder of Capital Alpha Security who blogs under the influential Twitter handle @pwnallthethings, found a Word document pilfered from the DNC and leaked by Guccifer 2.0. As he examined its data signatures, he discovered that it had been edited by Felix Edmundovich-a.k.a. Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka. To him, it was proof that Guccifer 2.0 was part of the same Russian intelligence operation. He really believed that the super sophisticated spy group trying to hide its Russian ties would register its Microsoft Word processor in the name of the leader of the infamously brutal Soviet security service."

    "Could the President Spy on His Political Opponents?" [ The American Conservative ]. "But regardless of whether [Trump's "wiretapping"] claims turn out to be completely false, which is all but certain now, they do raise a question that shouldn't be casually dismissed: Could President Obama's administration have surveiled his political opponents under its interpretation of the law? Could President Trump's administration now do the same? The answer, unfortunately, is yes."

    "Report: Paul Manafort Drafted a Plan in 2005 to Influence American Politics for Putin's Benefit" [ Slate ]. I used Slate because "2005" somehow didn't get into the headlines in the other stories. Here's a blow-by-blow from NPR .

    I can well believe that the Democrats are so feckless that they ginned up a Trump scandal with the wrong foreign power :

    on Twitter
    Follow Mark Ames @MarkAmesExiled

    One claim in piss-Trump dossier that rang true-Trump happy media focus on his Russia ties rather than his China biz https:// twitter.com/matthewstoller /status/843888616774483968

    2:48 PM - 20 Mar 2017

    Heatlh Care

    "A White House in full-court press mode deployed President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence to Capitol

    [Mar 22, 2017] Noted Putin Critic Warns Of Confrontation Between Trump And Russia, Not Collaboration Zero Hedge

    Mar 22, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Authored by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

    One thing we should have learned over the past year or so is you can take any narrative being pushed by the corporate media and Democrats, and assume that the exact opposite is true . The current Trump-Russia hysteria could very well turn out to be the latest and most embarrassing example of this phenomenon. In fact, well known Putin-critic, Masha Gessen, recently warned in an interview with Politico that her biggest fear is a Trump-Putin conflict, not some imagined alliance.

    Below I provide the excerpts from this lengthy interview which I believe are relevant to the topic.

    From Politico :

    Glasser : I want to talk a little bit about where we are right now. And then back up to why it is, in your life, you've figured out this expecting the unimaginable. But recently, you know, American politics has been consumed by Russia. Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. And you wrote something that a lot of people were surprised by the other day, although I was not. And you said, "Beware the conspiracy trap."

    And that, in fact, the Russia scandal that now threatens to engulf President Trump's very new presidency, you wrote, "In effect, could be actually helping President Trump and amount to a sort of a colossal distraction for us." What did you mean by that?

    Gessen : Well, a couple things. One is that, if you look at, you know, what we actually know about the Russia story, which changes every day, but what-at this point, what we actually know suggests that the likelihood that there's going to be a causal link between the Russian interference in the American election and the outcome of the election. The likelihood that was a causal link, and that that causal link can be shown, is basically vanishingly small, right?

    So-and I think that part of the reason-there are basically two reasons that a lot of journalists and a lot of activists have been focusing on Russia is because it serves as a crutch for the imagination. And again, I'm coming back to this topic of imagination, which obsesses me.

    So one way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is that it allows us to imagine that, maybe, Trump will be so sullied by this Russia scandal, by this connection, even if he can't prove a cause-causal link, just that the darkness of the scandal will be thick enough of a cloud that he will eventually be impeached by a Republican Congress.

    That's a huge leap. And it also, I think, doesn't take into account the tools-the rhetorical tools that will have to be used to sully Trump in such a way, right? Which are basically xenophobic and, you know, corrosive to the public sphere. And the other way in which it serves as a crutch for the imagination is it also serves to explain how Trump could have happened to us, right? The Russians did it.

    Glasser : That's exactly right; if it's an external thing. And you wrote that very, very early on. Actually, before this latest round, that the real threat to Trump would be to misunderstand where this comes from. And if it's not Americans who voted for him, but somehow, it's a wily, dark conspiracy theory. That leads you down a whole different set of responses to Trump.

    Gessen : Right. Which-

    Glasser : I think that's your point.

    Gessen : That is my point. And also that it's destructive to politics. Politics is what happens out in the open. And there's lots of politics happening, right? There's this endless barrage of frightening bills being filed at this point. There are the Cabinet appointments. There's the, you know, dismantling of the federal government as we have known it for generations.

    All of that is going on out in the open. And we only have so much bandwidth. If we're not talking about what's going on out in the open, if we're talking about conspiracy instead, then we are, by doing that, destroying the politics that we should be preserving, right? I mean, how do we emerge out the other end, when Trump ends, and Trump will eventually end. Everything ends, right?

    If we've engaged in conspiracy theorizing this whole time, instead of engaging in politics-and only by engaging in politics can we actually preserve the political space

    Gessen : I'm worried about Russia. I'm-this is-I mean, we're already out of the honeymoon phase, and it's been less than two months. And I think it's-I mean, the danger of having these two unhinged power-hungry men at their-respective nuclear buttons cannot be overestimated. But-

    Glasser : So you would see them as potential enemies as much as potential friends? That this scenario-

    Gessen : Oh, absolutely.

    Glasser : -we should worry about is Trump versus Putin, not just Trump and Putin uniting?

    Gessen : Right. I'm actually worried about a collision with them.

    She's exactly right. I completely agree that the disaster scenario with Putin and Trump is if and when they actually clash. Once that happens, the corporate media and Democrats will pretend they had nothing to do with it, as they always do. As Mark Ames noted on Twitter:

    All the worst Iraq war liars still have their fat media jobs-where they now tell us public distrust in Establishment is a Kremlin conspiracy

    - Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) March 20, 2017

    Moving on, I want to once again turn to Robert Parry of Consortium News to highlight just how ridiculous the whole "Putin bought off Trump aides" conspiracy is. From yesterday's piece, The Missing Logic of Russia-gate :

    Democrats circulated a report showing that retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who served briefly as President Donald Trump's national security adviser, had received payments from several Russia-related entities, totaling nearly $68,000.

    The largest payment of $45,386 came for a speech and an appearance in Moscow in 2015 at the tenth anniversary dinner for RT, the international Russian TV network, with Flynn netting $33,750 after his speakers' bureau took its cut. Democrats treated this revelation as important evidence about Russia buying influence in the Trump campaign and White House. But the actual evidence suggests something quite different.

    Not only was the sum a relative trifle for a former senior U.S. government official compared to, say, the fees collected by Bill and Hillary Clinton, who often pulled in six to ten times more, especially for speeches to foreign audiences. ( Former President Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin, The New York Times reported in 2015,)

    Yet, besides Flynn's relatively modest speaking fee, The Washington Post reported that RT negotiated Flynn's rate downward.

    Deep inside its article on Flynn's Russia-connected payments, the Post wrote, "RT balked at paying Flynn's original asking price. 'Sorry it took us longer to get back to you but the problem is that the speaking fee is a bit too high and exceeds our budget at the moment,' Alina Mikhaleva, RT's head of marketing, wrote a Flynn associate about a month before the event."

    So, if you accept the Democrats' narrative that Russian President Vladimir Putin is engaged in an all-out splurge to induce influential Americans to betray their country, how do you explain that his supposed flunkies at RT are quibbling with Flynn over a relatively modest speaking fee?

    Of course, you'll never hear any of this emphasized in the corporate media, they're too busy pushing for a conflict between the U.S. and Russia. A conflict that once it happens, they will vehemently deny playing any role in propagating.

    [Mar 19, 2017] Russian Parliament Launches Investigation Of CNN And Other American Media

    Mar 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    A few days ago Jeanne Shaheen, a Democratic Senator from New Hampshire, introduced a piece of legislation that would give the Department of Justice "new authority" to investigate potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by the 'Russian Times' . Among other things, Shaheen said the legislation was necessary to determine whether "RT News is coordinating with the Russian government to spread misinformation and undermine our democratic process." We won't even bother to touch on the inherent hypocrisy of such a statement, but here is the press release from Shaheen's website :

    Following intelligence reports that RT News operates as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has introduced legislation that gives the Department of Justice new authority to investigate potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act by RT America.

    "We have good reason to believe that RT News is coordinating with the Russian government to spread misinformation and undermine our democratic process," said Shaheen. "The American public has a right to know if this is the case. RT News has made public statements boasting that it can dodge our laws with shell corporations, and it's time for the Department of Justice to investigate. My bill provides the authority needed to request documentation of RT News and find out who they're accountable to."

    The Director of National Intelligence's recent report titled Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections concluded that RT News officials have structured their affiliate organizations to deliberately circumvent U.S. reporting and disclosure requirements under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Senator Shaheen's Foreign Agents Registration Modernization and Enforcement Act gives the Department of Justice new authority to compel organizations like RT America to produce documentation on funding sources and foreign connections.

    Well, as it turns out, Russian officials have the power to launch meaningless witch hunts in their country as well and have decided to demonstrate that power with the announcement today that they'll launch a similar investigation into all U.S. media currently operating in Russia. Per Reuters :

    [Mar 19, 2017] The benefit of state-media propaganda: government claims shape headlines, no dissent, opposing views included

    Mar 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 18, 2017 at 10:06 AM , 2017 at 10:06 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/843114192081211394

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    The benefit of state-media propaganda: government claims shape headlines, no dissent, opposing views included

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39311670

    UK troops in Estonia to deter 'Russian aggression'

    7:57 AM - 18 Mar 2017

    ilsm -> anne... , March 18, 2017 at 04:56 PM
    Maybe if NATO said "we will never close the sea lanes to St Petersburg...'

    US troops in Estonia to keep the Russian minority down........

    Estonia, like Iraq and Turkey, cannot be partitioned like US did Serbia!

    Estonia has land where artillery can shut down St Petersburg shipping........

    ilsm -> geoff ... , March 18, 2017 at 05:01 PM
    Saudi Arabia is the target of many 10's of billions in future arms sales. US needs to keep them burning jet fuel and jettisoning bombs so they buy planes, and other big ticket stuff from US.

    Trump must be listening to the pentagon guys saying we could have won in Vietnam if we had more time and bombs...........

    Maybe the Saudis can 'kill enough of them'!

    US never held back cluster bombs!

    [Mar 19, 2017] Intel Chair No Collusion Between Trump and Russia... Leak Is The Only Crime Zero Hedge

    Mar 19, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Intel Chair: "No Collusion Between Trump and Russia... Leak Is The Only Crime" Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 11:57 AM

    Reason won't matter to snowflakes. They'll cling to the comfort of their illusions.

    Erek -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 11:59 AM

    Hmm. It seems the "Intelligence" chair is leaking on the snowflakes.

    Looney -> Erek , Mar 19, 2017 12:01 PM

    ... No evidence of collusion

    But but 0bama said Hillary said 17 intelligence agencies said CNN said

    LetThemEatRand -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 11:59 AM

    The Deep State/MSM trots out shit like this precisely because the facts don't matter once the narrative is set. Half the country will go on thinking there's no way the story would have made it this far were there not some there there.

    MsCreant -> chunga , Mar 19, 2017 12:55 PM

    I have wondered if some of the strategy is to keep him on the run, on the defensive, so that if he does go after some of the elite who need to go down for their crimes, that it will be framed as a dictator abusing his power, engaged in partisan politics.

    I wonder if he can go after them at all without looking like Mussolini?

    chunga -> MsCreant , Mar 19, 2017 1:07 PM

    Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will say that but they hate Trump no matter what.

    Trump's deplorable supporters know the score and will criticize if he doesn't go after them hard and now is a perfect opportunity. It was the Dummycrats who demanded this investigation but want the scope restricted to Russia, and Russia only. And the rEpublicans won't bring this up either because they suck too.

    The first rule of Swamp Club is you DO NOT talk about Anthony Weiner's laptop.

    Jubal Early -> chunga , Mar 19, 2017 1:46 PM

    "Guys like Schiff, Schumer, and Blitzer will say that but they hate Trump no matter what."

    This whole "jew media hates Trump" meme is starting to put off a foul stench. For one thing Trump has yet to do anything to stop this war for greater Israel. Or take this latest leak/Russian collusion news. After months of bluster, its a nothing burger. Is Trump really made of that much teflon, or is this all a show for the goyim and all the ignorant jews.

    Just keep on scrolling. It really is starting to look like Trump is a crypto jew:

    http://thezog.info/who-controls-donald-trump/

    Lurk Skywatcher -> kellys_eye , Mar 19, 2017 12:27 PM

    Baseless accusations to try and draw attention away from what the Dems actually DID, with evidence and all.

    Libtards wreck everything they touch, even the hard work of theorists who until recently achieved an amazing level of success in converting conspiracys into fact.

    DaddyO -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 12:07 PM

    <- They'll cling to the comfort of their illusions ->

    Isn't delusions a better word choice?

    There's a part of me that wants the tide to change quickly, for the intel and deep state apparatus pendulum to swing back the other way.

    This slow motion train wreck is wreaking havoc on my libertarian leanings. I keep hoping against hope for a dramatic event like indictments and perp walks.

    The best outcome would be the elimination of the many 3 letter agencies that have become pygmalian.

    DaddyO

    Giant Meteor -> DaddyO , Mar 19, 2017 12:41 PM

    Yes, delusion, due to the illusion ...

    Madness .. in short

    Pathologic insanity if ya wanna go clinical

    Giant Meteor -> Canary Paint , Mar 19, 2017 12:24 PM

    Most reasonable people are sickened by this entire shit show, feel they have no say, nor control. As always it is mostly a partisan echo chamber, while the real events take on a life of their own. The great many, the unwashed masses are merely riding on the crazy train, and the reality is could give two shits. Other than that, another percentage spits back up what they are told on the tee vee .

    Yes, this paints a bleak picture, but there you have it.

    Giant Meteor -> Automatic Choke , Mar 19, 2017 1:09 PM

    Sure its been goin on forever. Partisan head games, lying, spying, stealing, cheating, theft, deep state parlor tricks, hat tricks, etc. all that .. I didn't say the game nor human beings were / was invented yesterday, and of course you're spot on about glimpsing past the curtain, thank you interwebs. I am merely saying, the depth of of problem, the extent, is becoming increasingly "larger" by degrees of magnitude, as will the eventual blow off top in my opinion, and also the blowback, I would imagine ..

    Obviously I could be completely wrong on this and things will just swim along such as they are, forever ..

    TheLastTrump -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 1:08 PM

    That IS what they say about Trump voters you know ....

    Watched more media this am, Trump kicked their ass into a puddle with this Obama wiretapping charge. Totally bitch slapped them. Now he's made Merkel & the EU & G20 look stupid along with the media.

    post turtle saver -> Shemp 4 Victory , Mar 19, 2017 2:30 PM

    it was a lie from the beginning

    HRC and Soros should be in jail

    if it comes to it, former President Obama should be in jail... probably has too mucn plausible deniability to shield him, but where there's smoke there's fire

    if I were Trump D.C. would be undergoing a serious witch hunt as we speak... the people who did this need to do time and the lying lapdog 'media' needs to be sanctioned

    fbazzrea -> DirtySanchez , Mar 19, 2017 12:29 PM

    should be on the front lines of the war with Russia.

    what war with Russia?

    chubbar -> fbazzrea , Mar 19, 2017 12:43 PM

    We start a war with Russia, we'll all be on the "front line". The retarded snowflakes don't even know that they are supporting this effort to start a war with Russia.

    az_patriot , Mar 19, 2017 12:00 PM

    ...and the liberal snowflakes and their puppets in the "news" media will run from this story like a vampire from garlic. Anything that proves them wrong or might in any way bolster Trump is bad medicine for them...

    [Mar 17, 2017] Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Britain is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship. In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself." ..."
    "... Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence agencies to evade domestic controls. ..."
    "... The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules. ..."
    "... President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's statement internationalizes the dispute. ..."
    Mar 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : March 16, 2017 at 04:45 PM , 2017 at 04:45 PM
    Really? This WH is unhinged from all known and verifiable reality and a clear and present danger to our national security, peace, and prospertiy, imo, of course

    "Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/03/16/sean-spicer-just-suggested-that-obama-used-british-intelligence-to-spy-on-trump-not-so-much/

    "Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"

    By *Henry Farrell...March 16, 2017...7:12 PM

    "In his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer just repeated a claim that President Barack Obama had used British spies to surveil President Trump. After laying out a number of different media sources which Spicer suggested supported President Trump's contentions that he was wiretapped, he concluded:

    Last, on Fox News on March 14th, Judge Andrew Napolitano made the following statement – quote – Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command. He didn't use the NSA, he didn't use the CIA, he didn't use the FBI, and he didn't use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ. What is that? It's the initials for the British intelligence spying agency. So simply by having two people saying to them the president needs transcripts of conversations involving candidate Trump's conversations, involving President-elect Trump, he's able to get it and there's no American fingerprints on this. Putting the published accounts and common sense together, this leads to a lot.

    This is an explosive accusation.

    What's GCHQ?

    GCHQ - Government Communications Headquarters - is Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency. Like the NSA, it engages in extensive international surveillance. It furthermore has a close relationship with the United States. Britain is one of the so-called "Five Eyes," a group of five English-speaking countries including the United States, which engage in close and intensive collaboration and intelligence sharing. Even within that context the United States and Britain have an unusually tight relationship. In the words of Stephen Lander, a former head of Britain's MI5, relations are so close that "consumers [of intelligence] in both capitals seldom know which country generated either the access or the product itself."

    Close collaboration can lead to temptation

    Some people writing on intelligence and surveillance note that close working relations like this can allow intelligence agencies to evade domestic controls. Jennifer Granick, in her new Cambridge University Press book, American Spies: Modern Surveillance, Why You Should Care, and What To Do About It, notes that Five Eyes countries aren't supposed to spy on each other's citizens. However, she says that the NSA has prepared policies that would allow it to spy on Five Eyes citizens without permission. She furthermore suggests that:

    The Five Eyes collaboration appears to extend the NSA's surveillance capabilities, giving the agency a way to spy on Americans without technically breaking US laws that would otherwise prohibit such spying. Edward Snowden described the Five Eyes as a "supra-national intelligence organization that doesn't answer to the laws of its own countries." In other words, if US law doesn't protect the privacy rights of British citizens, and British laws don't protect the rights of Americans, then they can just spy on us, we'll spy on them, and our intelligence agencies will just swap information. This evasion of domestic privacy laws would enable essentially unlimited spying unaffected by either collection or usage rules.

    Granick notes that if there are rules that would protect Americans from Five Eyes spying, or about the ways that the NSA, FBI or CIA could use information from foreign partners, we haven't seen them.

    But don't jump to conclusions

    Granick's arguments point to some important potential problems in close spying relationships. If there are rules to prevent the abuses that she fears, we don't know what they are. However, her concerns are with surveillance of ordinary citizens. It is wildly unlikely that U.S. and British intelligence agencies would secretly collaborate to monitor a U.S. presidential candidate. The political risks to both sides would be quite enormous. While critics like Granick and Snowden worry that intelligence agencies have too much unchecked power, they happily acknowledge that most members of the intelligence community are motivated by a sincere concern for American well-being. If the United States was really using foreign intelligence as a cut-out to spy illegally on the Republican candidate for president, all it would take would be one sincere objector or one worried conservative to create a scandal that would dwarf Watergate. Nor would British intelligence have any obvious motivation to collaborate in such an arrangement. The British government knows that it will have to deal with both Democratic and Republican administrations, and would have no appetite for an intrigue which would have little obvious benefit to Britain, but which could cripple the U.S.-British relationship for decades.

    Nor is there any actual proof

    Judge Napolitano, a Fox News television personality, does not seem to have good evidence for these extraordinary claims. As he describes it on his own website:

    Sources have told Fox News that the British foreign surveillance service, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ, most likely provided Obama with transcripts of Trump's calls. The NSA has given GCHQ full 24/7 access to its computers, so GCHQ - a foreign intelligence agency that, like the NSA, operates outside our constitutional norms - has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's. So by bypassing all American intelligence services, Obama would have had access to what he wanted with no Obama administration fingerprints.

    This statement is notable both for being strategically vague and for not understanding what the NSA does. Spicer quotes a strong claim by Napolitano on Fox News that Obama "went outside the chain of command" and "used GCHQ." Napolitano is much more cautious in the print version, where he claims that unnamed intelligence sources said that GCHQ "most likely" provided transcripts. That's not a claim as to fact, made by someone who claims to have seen the transcripts or had first-hand knowledge of the relationship. It is a (in my opinion highly dubious) suggestion as to plausibility, made by someone who does not claim to have direct knowledge of what happened.

    Furthermore, Napolitano doesn't seem to have any very strong understanding of the actual controversies between the defenders and critics of modern surveillance law. For example, Napolitano seems to believe that GCHQ is able to generate transcripts because it has "full access" to NSA computers, which in turn " has the digital versions of all electronic communications made in America in 2016, including Trump's." In fact, if the GCHQ were looking for data on American communications, it would be far better advised to look to its own resources than to the NSA. While critics argue that the NSA collects too much 'incidental' data and metadata on Americans, they do not claim that the NSA has "the digital versions" (whatever that means) of all American communications, or anything like it. Napolitano is not a sound source for explosive political claims.

    This statement will hurt intelligence cooperation

    President Trump is already engaged in an unprecedented battle with large segments of his own intelligence community. Spicer's statement internationalizes the dispute. U.S. intelligence partners - in the Five Eyes and elsewhere - are already nervous about sharing sensitive intelligence with the Trump administration, since they do not know how it will be used or who it will be shared with. This accusation will greatly exacerbate these fears, suggesting that the Trump administration does not prioritize continued close collaboration with its intelligence partners. Both critics and defenders of cross-national intelligence collaboration agree that there has been an extraordinarily high level of trust among a few select intelligence agencies since World War II. The "Five Eyes" was a club that other states clamored to get into (during the Snowden controversy, Germany tried to use revelations about U.S. spying as a lever to open the door to German participation in the Five Eyes). Now club members have much less reason to trust each other and membership looks substantially less attractive."

    *Henry Farrell is associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University. He works on a variety of topics, including trust, the politics of the Internet and international and comparative political economy.

    libezkova -> im1dc... , March 16, 2017 at 09:23 PM
    "Sean Spicer just suggested that Obama used British intelligence to spy on Trump. Not so much"

    Looks like British and Dutch. And not necessary Obama himself.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/a-soft-coup-or-preserving-our-democracy/?mc_cid=2f82659492&mc_eid=32cf78e7e5

    == quote ==
    The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe.

    Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile.

    Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.

    [Mar 17, 2017] The deep state will move to overthrow trump there is a secret agenda to allow a crisis and get rid of the president

    Video
    Mar 17, 2017 | www.shtfplan.com

    [Mar 17, 2017] The Democrats Trump-Russia Conspiracy Campaign Collapses

    Notable quotes:
    "... From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented. ..."
    "... The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected ..."
    "... now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed. ..."
    Mar 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Is sanity finally returning? After weeks of ranting and raving about Russian "interference" and Putin-Trump conspiracies, so-called 'intelligence' agencies and high-ranking Democrats are quietly walking back their rhetoric and managing their base's expectations - simply put: there's no 'there', there .

    'Moon of Alabama' reminds us that a while ago Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone warned: Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media :

    If we engage in Times-style gilding of every lily the leakers throw our way, and in doing so build up a fever of expectations for a bombshell reveal, but there turns out to be no conspiracy – Trump will be pre-inoculated against all criticism for the foreseeable future.

    And now, as The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald writes , key Democratic officials are now warning their base not to expect ...

    From MSNBC politics shows to town hall meetings across the country, the overarching issue for the Democratic Party's base since Trump's victory has been Russia, often suffocating attention for other issues. This fixation has persisted even though it has no chance to sink the Trump presidency unless it is proven that high levels of the Trump campaign actively colluded with the Kremlin to manipulate the outcome of the U.S. election - a claim for which absolutely no evidence has thus far been presented.

    The principal problem for Democrats is that so many media figures and online charlatans are personally benefiting from feeding the base increasingly unhinged, fact-free conspiracies - just as right-wing media polemicists did after both Bill Clinton and Obama were elected - that there are now millions of partisan soldiers absolutely convinced of a Trump/Russia conspiracy for which, at least as of now, there is no evidence. And they are all waiting for the day, which they regard as inevitable and imminent, when this theory will be proven and Trump will be removed.

    [Mar 16, 2017] Assange Claims Hillary, Intel Officials Quietly Pushing A Pence Takeover

    Mar 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Over the weekend we noted chatter that some saw Mike Pence as "the Deep State's insurance policy," and now, judging by tweets from Wikileaks' Julian Assange, that may well be the Clinton/Intelligence Officials plan...

    Clinton stated privately this month that she is quietly pushing for a Pence takeover. She stated that Pence is predictable hence defeatable.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    Adding that...

    Two IC officials close to Pence stated privately this month that they are planning on a Pence takeover. Did not state if Pence agrees.

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    As The Daily Caller notes, Assange's claims appear to come in response to reports that President Trump authorized the CIA to perform drone strikes on terrorists Monday evening...

    By handing unilateral power to the CIA over its drone strikes at this time White House signals that bullying, disloyalty & incompetence pays

    - Julian Assange (@JulianAssange) March 14, 2017

    As we concluded previously, if Trump doesn't adopt the Cold War 2.0 approach of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and is forced out of his own administration in the same manner as Flynn, it will become clear why once we learn who would replace him: Mike Pence.

    No matter what one makes of Trump - or his administration and the policies that have been initiated thus far - the fact remains that Trump won the U.S. election. The people working behind the scenes to oust him are not subject to democratic controls, nor are they working in the best interests of the American public. We are left to ask ourselves exactly how renewing relations with Russia – a nuclear power – could possibly endanger American lives.

    Either way, we are more or less left with two paths ahead of us.The firs t path involves Trump giving in and adopting an anti-Russian agenda, as is already apparent in his decision to send more ground troops to Syria alongside Saudi troops , who will intentionally oppose the Syrian regime (a close ally of Russia). The second involves the possibility of another direct coup within the Trump administration, this time one that may ultimately force Trump out of the White House so he can be replaced by Mike Pence, a war hawk who will be more than happy to do the job Hillary Clinton wanted to do.

    froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:17 PM

    Groan... Start charging people for sedition already. Although Sessions cleaning house was a good start, we will see where this goes.

    InTheLandOfTheBlind -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:17 PM

    Assange gets the no shit sherlock award. Hang the traitors

    BullyBearish -> InTheLandOfTheBlind , Mar 14, 2017 12:21 PM

    NOTHING worse than a zionist-enabling evangelical christian neocon...they are the pawns that keep this $hitshow going...

    Logan 5 -> wildbad , Mar 14, 2017 1:41 PM

    "color me VERY doubtful on this scenario playing out"

    Not so fast...

    Unless you haven't noticed, Trump has surrounded himself with Jared Kushner & Goldman types...

    Let's face it, nobody around here wanted HRC to win, but they backed Trump more on a ANYTHING BUT HILLARY notion, plus, a [DRAIN THE SWAMP = HOPE & CHANGE] ideaology.

    Trump is, and always has been, a 'narcissist' in his good moments... It's hard for me to believe he even wants this job... Many of his appointments have been suspect (& the good ones like Flynn have been shown the door)... It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Trump was just 'satisfied that he won' which amounts to a checked box on his personal bucket list.

    I would not be surprised AT ALL to see this scenario have some success... JUNK me all you want... The end result would be that this country is, most truly, fucked beyond all possible return...

    If this were to end up happening, without a resultant uprising & civil war... Then we're truly repeating what Solzhenitsyn warned against.

    chubbar -> NidStyles , Mar 14, 2017 2:43 PM

    Here is another crooked FBI story that is just breaking. If true, Trump needs to clean that outhouse as well!!!!

    http://truepundit.com/exclusive-fbis-own-political-terror-plot-deputy-director-and-fbi-brass-secretly-conspired-to-wage-coup-against-flynn-trump-2/

    "Mere days before Gen. Michael Flynn was sacked as national security advisor, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe gathered more than a dozen of his top FBI disciples to plot how to ruin Flynn's aspiring political career and manufacture evidence to derail President Donald Trump, according to FBI sources.

    McCabe, the second highest ranking FBI official, emphatically declared at the invite-only gathering with raised voice: "Fuck Flynn and then we Fuck Trump," according to direct sources. Many of his top lieutenants applauded and cheered such rhetoric. A scattered few did not.

    This was one of several such meetings held in seclusion among key FBI leaders since Trump was elected president, FBI sources confirm. At the congregation where McCabe went off the political rails and vowed to destroy Flynn and Trump, there were as many as 16 top FBI officials, inside intelligence sources said. No lower-level agents or support personnel were present."..........

    froze25 -> Pinto Currency , Mar 14, 2017 12:31 PM

    I believe you are right and the Military is behind Trump, the military does have a intelligence branch that rivals the CIA my guess is that we are seeing a battle between the Military and the CIA

    Jayda1850 -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:36 PM

    Then why would Trump give the CIA the power to commit drone strikes, something that was only supposed to be done by the military?

    froze25 -> Jayda1850 , Mar 14, 2017 12:41 PM

    They already had the power, Obama gave it to them. My guess is they came to him, said we have a target of opportunity Trump probably looked to his advisers in his cabinet and they agreed that it should be done and then he said, "do it". My guess is that the CIA is big enough that the people that do the Drone strikes aren't the same agents that are undermining him. Probably not even in the same branch or division.

    Jayda1850 -> froze25 , Mar 14, 2017 12:57 PM

    They didn't have the power, Obama was the one who curtailed it. They could pick targets, but the military were the ones who pulled the trigger. Trump handed over the kill order to the CIA

    http://thehill.com/policy/defense/323808-trump-gives-cia-power-to-launch...

    [Mar 16, 2017] A Soft Coup, or Preserving Our Democracy by Philip Giraldi

    A rare even-handed analysis of Russian leaks and Anti-Trump campaign in mass media. Intelligence agencies became political actors, like is typical for color revolution. The only difference is that now they are acting is concert with neoliberal media against their own elected administration.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on ..."
    "... the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. ..."
    "... The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election. ..."
    "... Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. ..."
    "... It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades. ..."
    "... In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House. ..."
    "... Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it. ..."
    "... Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped." ..."
    "... The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
    "... British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. ..."
    "... President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms. ..."
    "... Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place. ..."
    "... Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government." ..."
    "... Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, ..."
    "... The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties. ..."
    "... Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives. ..."
    "... The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration. ..."
    "... The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe. ..."
    "... Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active. ..."
    "... The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. ..."
    "... It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, ..."
    "... I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive. ..."
    "... If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020. ..."
    Mar 16, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    ... ... ...

    Coup or legitimate political pushback depends on which side of the fence one is standing on. There are two competing narratives to choose from and there is inevitably considerable gray area in between depending on what turns out to be true.

    • One narrative, coming from the Trump camp, is that President Obama used the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies plus judicious leaks of classified information and innuendo to the media to sabotage Trump during and after the campaign. This was largely done by spreading malicious claims about the campaign's associates, linking them to criminal activity and even suggesting that they had been subverted to support Russian interests. As of this date, none of the "Manchurian candidate" allegations have been supported by evidence because they are not true. The intention of the Obama/Clinton campaign is to explain the election loss in terms acceptable to the Democratic Party, to hamstring and delegitimize the new administration coming in, and to bring about the resignation or impeachment of Donald Trump.

      It is in all intents and purposes a coup, though without military intervention, as it seeks to overturn a completely legal and constitutional election.

    • The contrary viewpoint is that team Trump's ties to Russia constitute an existential national security threat, that the Russians did steal information relevant to the campaign, did directly involve themselves in the election to discredit U.S. democracy and elect Trump, and will now benefit from the process, thereby doing grave damage to our country and its interests. Adversarial activity undertaken since the election is necessary, designed to make sure the new president does not alter or eliminate the documentary record in intelligence files regarding what took place and to limit Trump's ability to make serious errors in any recalibration with Moscow. In short, Trump is a dangerous man who might be in bed with an enemy power and has to be watched closely and restrained. Doing so is necessary to preserve our democratic system.

    This is what we know or think we know described chronologically:

    The sources all agree that in early 2016 the FBI developed an interest in an internet server in Trump Tower based on allegations of possible criminal activity, which in this case might have meant suspicion of involvement in Russian mafia activity. The interest in the server derived from an apparent link to Alfa Bank of Moscow and possibly one other Russian bank, regarding which the metadata (presumably collected either by the Bureau or NSA) showed frequent and high-volume two-way communications. It is not clear if a normal criminal warrant was actually sought and approved and/or acted upon but, according to The New York Times , the FBI somehow determined that the server did not have "any nefarious purpose" and was probably used for marketing or might even have been generating spam.

    The examination of the server was only one part of what was taking place, with The New York Times also reporting that, "For much of the summer, the FBI pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats ." The article also noted that, "Hillary Clinton's supporters pushed for these investigations," which were clearly endorsed by President Obama.

    In June, with Trump about to be nominated, some sources claim that the FBI sought a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court to tap into the same Trump Tower server and collect information on the American users of the system. FISA warrants relate to investigations of foreign intelligence agents but they also permit inadvertent collection of information on the suspect's American contacts. In this case the name "Trump" was reportedly part of the request. Even though FISA warrants are routinely approved, this request was turned down for being too broad in its scope.

    Also in the summer, a dossier on Trump compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele that was commissioned initially by a Republican enemy of Trump and was later picked up and paid for by the Democratic National Committee began to make the rounds in Washington, though it was not surfaced in the media until January. The dossier was being worked on in June and by one account was turned over to the FBI in Rome by Steele in July . It later was passed to John McCain in November and was presented to FBI Director James Comey for action. It contained serious but largely unsubstantiated allegations about Trump's connection to Russia as a businessman. It also included accounts of some bizarre sexual escapades.

    At roughly the same time the Clinton campaign began a major effort to connect Trump with Russia as a way to discredit him and his campaign and to deflect the revelations of campaign malfeasance coming from WikiLeaks. In late August, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wrote to Comey and demanded that the "connections between the Russian government and Donald Trump's presidential campaign" be investigated. In September, Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative Adam Schiff of the Senate and House intelligence committees respectively publicly accused the Russians of meddling in the election "based on briefings we have received."

    In October, some sources claim that the FBI resubmitted its FISA request in a "narrowed down" form which excluded Donald Trump personally but did note that the server was "possibly related" to the Trump campaign. It was approved and surveillance of the server on national security grounds rather than criminal investigatory grounds may have begun. Bear in mind that Trump was already the Republican nominee and was only weeks away from the election and this is possibly what Trump was referring to when he expressed his outrage that the government had "wiretapped" Trump Tower under orders from the White House.

    Trump has a point about being "tapped" because the NSA basically records nearly everything. But as president he should already know that and he presumably approves of it.

    Several other sources dismiss the wiretap story as it has appeared in the media. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper "denied" on March 5 that there had been a FISA warrant authorizing surveillance of the Trump Tower server. He stated that there had never been any surveillance of Trump Tower "to my knowledge" because, if there had been a FISA warrant, he would have been informed. Critics immediately noted that Clapper has previously lied about surveillance issues and his testimony contradicts other evidence suggesting that there was a FISA warrant, though none of the sources appear to know if it was ever actually used. Former George W. Bush White House Attorney General Michael Mukasey provided a view contrary to that of Clapper, saying that "there was surveillance, and that it was conducted at the behest of the Justice Department through the FISA court." FBI Director Comey also entered the discussion, claiming in very specific and narrow language that no phones at Trump Tower were "tapped."

    The campaign to link Trump to Russia also increased in intensity, including statements by multiple former and current intelligence agency heads regarding the reality of the Russian threat and the danger of electing a president who would ignore that reality. It culminated in ex-CIA Acting Director Michael Morell's claim that Trump was "an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    British and Dutch intelligence were apparently discreetly queried regarding possible derogatory intelligence on the Trump campaign's links to Russia and they responded by providing information detailing meetings in Europe. Hundreds of self-described GOP foreign policy "experts" signed letters stating that they opposed Trump's candidacy and the mainstream media was unrelentingly hostile. Leading Republicans refused to endorse Trump and some, like Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and Lindsey Graham, cited his connections to Russia.

    President Obama and the first lady also increasingly joined in the fray as the election neared, campaigning aggressively for Hillary. President Obama called Trump's "flattery" of Vladimir Putin "out of step" with U.S. norms.

    After the election, the drumbeat about Trump and Russia continued and even intensified. There was a 25-page report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on January 6 called "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections . " Four days later, this was followed by the publication of the 35-page report on Trump compiled by British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The ODNI report has been criticized as being long on conjecture and short on evidence while the British report is full of speculation and is basically unsourced. When the Steele dossier first appeared, it was assumed that it would be fact-checked by the FBI but, if that was ever done, it has not been made public.

    Also on January 6, two weeks before the inauguration, Obama reportedly "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 18 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." This made it easier for derogatory or speculative information on individuals to be shared or leaked. The New York Times interpreted this to be a move intended to "preserve" information relating to the investigation of the Trump campaign's Russian ties. In this case, wide dissemination was viewed as a way to keep it from being deleted or hidden and to enable further investigation of what took place.

    Two weeks later, just before the inauguration, The New York Times reported that the FBI, CIA, NSA and the Treasury Department were actively investigating several Trump campaign associates for their Russian ties. There were also reports of a "multiagency working group to coordinate the investigations across the government."

    Leaks to the media on February 8 revealed that there had been late December telephone conversations between national security advisor designate Michael Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergei Kislyak. The transcripts were apparently leaked by senior intelligence officials who had access to such highly restricted information, presumably hold-overs from the Obama Administration, and Flynn was eventually forced to resign on February 13 for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about the calls. For what it's worth, some at the CIA, FBI and State Department have been openly discussing and acknowledging that senior officers are behind the leaks. The State Department is reported to be particularly anti-Trump.

    One day after Flynn resigned The Times cited "four current and former officials" to claim that Trump campaign associates had had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials," but admitted that there was no evidence that the campaign had in any way been influenced by the Russians.

    The Attorney General Jeff Sessions saga, which appeared in the media on March 1, is still ongoing. Sessions is being accused of lying to Congress over two contacts with the Russian ambassador. No one is claiming that he did anything inappropriate with Kislyak and he denies that he lied, arguing that the question was ambiguous, as was his response. He has agreed to recuse himself from any investigation of Russia-Trump campaign ties.

    Soon thereafter, also on March 1, The New York Times published a major article which I found frightening due to its revelation regarding executive power . It touched on Sessions, but was more concerned with what was taking place over Russia and Trump. It was entitled "Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking." It confirmed the previous European intelligence service involvement in the Trump-Russia investigation and also exposed the long-suspected U.S. intelligence agency interception of telephone communications of Russian officials "within the Kremlin," revealing that they had been in contact with Trump representatives.

    The Times article also described how in early December Obama had ordered the intelligence community to conduct a full assessment of Russian activity relating to the election. Soon thereafter the intelligence agencies acting under White House instruction were pushing Trump-Russia classified information through the system and into analytic documents so it would be accessible to a wide readership after the inauguration while at the same time burying the actual sources to make it difficult to either identify them or even assess the reliability of the information. Some of the information even went to European allies. The State Department reportedly sent a large cache of classified documents relating to Russian attempts to interfere in elections worldwide over to Senator Ben Cardin, a leading critic of Trump and Russia, shortly before the inauguration.

    The Times article claimed, relying on anonymous sources, that President Obama was not directly involved in the efforts to collect and disseminate the information on Trump and the Russians. Those initiatives were reportedly directed by others, notably some political appointees working in the White House. I for one find that assertion hard to believe.

    The turmoil on Capitol Hill is matched by street rallies and demonstrations denouncing the Trump administration, with much of the focus on the alleged Russian connection. The similarities and ubiquity in the slogans, the "Resist" signs and the hashtags #notmypresident have led some to believe that at least a part of the activity is being funded and organized by progressive organizations that want Trump out. The name George Soros, a Hungarian billionaire and prominent democracy promoter, frequently comes up . Barack Obama is also reported to be setting up a war room in his new home in Washington D.C. headed by former consigliere Valerie Jarrett to "lead the fight and strategy to topple Trump." And Hillary Clinton has been engaged in developing a viable opposition to Trump while still seething about Putin. Two congressional inquiries are pending into the Russian connection and the FBI investigation, insofar as can be determined, is still active.

    If one were to come up with a summary of what the government might or might not have been doing over the past nine months concerning Trump and the Russians it would go something like this: FBI investigators looking for criminal activity connected to the Trump Tower server found nothing and then might have sought and eventually obtained a FISA issued warrant permitting them to keep looking on national security grounds. If that is so, the government could have been using the high-tech surveillance capabilities of the federal intelligence services to monitor the activity of an opposition political candidate. Additional information was undoubtedly collected on Trump and his associates' dealings with Russia using federal intelligence and law enforcement resources, and NSA guidelines were changed shortly before the inauguration so that much of the information thus obtained, normally highly restricted, could then be disseminated throughout the intelligence community and to other government agencies. This virtually guaranteed that it could not be deleted or hidden while also insuring that at least some of it would be leaked to the media.

    The actions undertaken by the lame duck Obama administration were certainly politically motivated, but there also might have been genuine concern over the alleged Russian threat. The Obama administration's actions were quite likely intended to hobble the new administration in general as Trump would be nervous about the reliability of his own intelligence and law enforcement agencies while also being constantly engaged in fighting leaks, but they might also have been designed to narrow the new president's options when dealing with Russia. Whether there is any intention to either delegitimize or bring down the Trump White House is, of course, unknowable unless you had the good fortune to be in the Oval Office when such options were possibly being discussed.

    It should also be observed that all of the investigations by both the government and the media have come up with almost nothing, at least insofar as the public has been allowed to see the evidence. Someone, widely presumed but not demonstrated to be in some way associated with the Russian government, hacked into the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The factual information was then passed to WikiLeaks, which denies that it came from a Russian source, and was gradually released starting in July. There has been a presumption that Moscow was either trying to influence the outcome of the election in support of Donald Trump or that it was trying to somehow subvert American democracy, but no unimpeachable evidence has as of yet been produced to support either hypothesis. The two senior Trump officials – Flynn and Sessions – who have been under the gun have not been pummeled because they did anything wrong vis-à-vis the Russians -they did not - but because they have been accused of lying.

    So, whether there is some kind of coup in progress ultimately depends on your perspective and what you are willing to believe to be true. I would suggest that if there continue to be damaging leaks coming from inside the government intended to cripple the White House the possibility that there is a genuine conspiracy in place begins to look more attractive.

    And the possibility of impeachment is also not far off, as Trump is confronted by a hostile Democratic Party and numerous dissidents within the GOP ranks. But if nothing comes of it all beyond an extremely rough transition, the whole business might just be regarded as a particularly nasty bit of new style politics. If, however, it turns out that the intelligence agencies have indeed been actively collaborating with the White House in working against opposition politicians, the whole tale assumes a particularly dangerous aspect as there is no real mechanism in place to prevent that from occurring again. The tool that Obama has placed in Trump's hands might just as easily be used against the Democrats in 2020.

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.

    [Mar 14, 2017] All Roads Lead Back to Brennan (wiretapping of Trump)

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld. ..."
    "... For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. ..."
    "... The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. ..."
    "... The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election. ..."
    "... We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program. ..."
    Mar 14, 2017 | freerepublic.com
    From american spectator

    George Neumayr
    Posted on ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017‎ ‎4‎:‎42‎:‎04‎ ‎PM by RoosterRedux

    It is "our job," not Trump's, to "control exactly what people think," gasped MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski last month. This week's gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump's, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld.

    For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out.

    Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?

    Notice what is happening here: The Obama holdovers are denying the import of the very stories that they planted. Where did the liberal BBC's story (building on a story first reported by Heat Street) on intelligence agencies receiving a FISA court warrant to investigate Russian-Trumpworld ties come from? It came from a "senior member of the US intelligence community":

    On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.
    Notice on the Sunday talk shows that Obama's CIA director John Brennan did not appear. Yet he served as the genesis of this investigation, according to the BBC story:

    (Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

    To: RoosterRedux

    As the author points out, here is the key:

    The Obama administration used half-baked (or, more likely, completely fabricated) information from some "foreign source" as the pretext to launch a clandestine fishing expedition against Trump during the election.

    Can't wait to see the application paperwork for the requested FISA orders!!

    gibsonguy ‎3‎/‎6‎/‎2017‎ ‎5‎:‎48‎:‎56‎ ‎PM

    To: RoosterRedux Don't want to start a separate thread for this and it is somewhat related.

    Listening to Hannity show today and William Binney was on and interviewed. Binney was a US Intelligence Official with the NSA who resigned in 2001 and turned whistleblower.

    I am paraphrasing but - He says phone, email, test, surveillance is routinely done on everyone with no warrant. He said they can go back for years and pull out the data.

    Please listen to Hannity at the top of the 3rd hour for details.

    We live in a police state folks under the warrantless eavesdropping program.

    [Mar 14, 2017] Trump tweeted earlier this month that President Barack Obama had ordered him to be wiretapped

    Vault 7 revelations now shed some light on the possibilities of a muti-step operations to get the court order. The absurdity of the situation is evident: acting POTUS complains about wiretapping by his predecessor who supposedly used one of intelligence agencies (supposedly CIA) for this operation. Being now a Commander in Chief.
    Ray McGovern who probably knows what he is talking about suggested that Obama might be scared of CIA Director Brennan ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGayl9uNW4A actually this is a very interesting interview)
    The following scheme looks plausible: Scapegoat Russians by hacking into DNC servers; create media hysteria about Russians; implicate Trump in connections to Russians; get court order for wiretapping on this ground
    Notable quotes:
    "... Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. ..."
    "... I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam under his watch ..."
    "... Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision. ..."
    "... in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance security and liberty ..."
    Mar 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova : March 13, 2017 at 06:20 PM , 2017 at 06:20 PM

    Obama and Brennan

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/17/obama-and-brennan/

    Baker-Mazzetti's opener says it all: " Just hours before he publicly responded last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee report accusing the Central Intelligence Agency of torture and deceit, John O. Brennan, the CIA's director, stopped by the White House to meet with President Obama. Ostensibly, he was there for an intelligence briefing. But the messages delivered later that day by the White House and Mr. Brennan were synchronized, even down to similar wording, and the larger import of the well-timed visit was hardly a classified secret: After six years of partnership, the president was standing by the embattled spy chief even as fellow Democrats called for his resignation. " Nothing could be plainer. As one who remembers well the guilt-by-association days of McCarthyism, I'm not tarring Obama with Brennan's war crimes and that of the Agency, copiously documented in the Senate Report on Torture, and instead am suggesting an active partnership-in-war-crimes, Obama, if anything, giving CIA its head of steam under his watch , as in its role in drone assassination at facilities in Pakistan, Brennan himself installed as Director after Valiant Service as national security adviser, all despite questions of favoring waterboarding raised in confirmation hearings. From a pool of gung-ho national-security experts on which to draw, the others still making up his First Team of advisers (include generals, admirals, members of think tanks with partly disguised neocon credentials), Obama plucked Brennan to lead the intelligence charge through the interstices of government and military culminating in a permanent war economy and psychosis of vision.

    Obama is not Brennan's puppet, nor the other way. Both are electrified by mutual contact and support. The reporters note friction between the White House and Langley "after the release of the scorching report," Brennan having "irritated advisers by battling Democrats on the committee over the report during the past year." They do not point out Obama did the same, stalling release, suffocating criticism of CIA hard-ball tactics against the committee, of which later; yet they make up for that with, given that this is NYT, an astonishing statement: "But in the 67 years since the CIA was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan. It is a relationship that has shaped the policy and politics of the debate over the nation's war with terrorist organizations, as well as the agency's own struggle to balance security and liberty ."

    What they don't say is that counterterrorism is part of the larger US position of counterrevolution, issuing in confrontations with Russia and China and regime change wherever American interests are challenged. Nor do they say, the Agency's struggle to balance security and liberty was lost before it had fairly begun, assassination and regime change hardly indicative of liberty, a no-contest battle.

    [Mar 14, 2017] The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during the election.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during the election. ..."
    "... A spokesman for committee chairman Devin Nunes of California, Jack Langer, says the committee might subpoena the information if the Justice Department fails to answer its questions. ..."
    "... The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
    www.apnews.com

    "WASHINGTON (AP) - The Latest on President Donald Trump (all times EDT):

    7:10 p.m.

    The House intelligence committee says it could resort to subpoenaing the Justice Department if it fails to answer its request for any evidence that President Donald Trump was wiretapped during the election.

    The committee set Monday as the deadline for getting the information, but the Justice Department says it needs more time.

    The committee now says it wants the information in hand before March 20 when it holds its first public hearing on its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    A spokesman for committee chairman Devin Nunes of California, Jack Langer, says the committee might subpoena the information if the Justice Department fails to answer its questions.

    ___

    6:30 p.m.

    The Justice Department is requesting more time to respond to a congressional inquiry into President Donald Trump's unproven assertion that he was wiretapped by his predecessor.

    The department had been expected to provide a response by Monday to the House Intelligence Committee, which has made Trump's wiretapping claims part of a bigger investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

    But spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores says in a statement Monday that the department has asked for more time to "review the request in compliance with the governing legal authorities and to determine what if any responsive documents may exist."

    [Mar 14, 2017] John Brennan, Obama and the Central Intelligence Agency

    Notable quotes:
    "... Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a gentlemen's club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth with an astounding 21,000 plus employees, there have been rumors of politicization and "cooked" intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same. ..."
    "... According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution, India's successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see, The Ten Biggest American Intelligence Failures , FP] ..."
    "... Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent attack on Brennan's turf. ..."
    "... Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama's national security advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | www.pipelinenews.org

    What we must presume has been a behind the scene conflict between politicized elements of America's rather vast intelligence infrastructure [at least 17 discreet agencies, which doesn't take "dark op" players into account] leading up to and now following the November 8 election, has ingloriously boiled over into a public cat fight.

    If not for the subject matter the scene would be reminiscent of the now semi-ancient but nonetheless still hilarious Mad Magazine cartoon series, Spy vs. Spy it's gotten that bad.

    The basic thesis, doggedly argued by the most politicized of the various intelligence agencies' nodes - John Brennan's CIA – is that Vlad Putin's operatives were responsible for the DNC/John Podesta hack which Hillary supporters believe threw the election into the Dem's nightmare scenario, victory by the Blond Barbarian from New York, Donald J. Trump.

    We have touched upon this topic frequently and quite recently for example [see, A Spiteful And Psychopathic Obama Tries To Start World War III , The Anti-Trump Pushback and Obama Unchained ] so readers should be well aware of our high level of skepticism over the claims - primarily by the CIA - that the election was "hacked."

    Since its inception as the Office of Strategic Services [OSS] at the start of World War II, when it was viewed a somewhat of a gentlemen's club, albeit gentlemen licensed to administer lethal force with great prejudice, to its modern day incarnation as a behemoth with an astounding 21,000 plus employees, there have been rumors of politicization and "cooked" intelligence as well as public demonstrations of same.

    According to Foreign Policy Magazine the CIA has had some really serious intelligence failures which caught the agency entirely flat footed: the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of the Soviet Union, Ayatollah Khomeini's Iranian Revolution, India's successful nuke test, of course 9/11 and finally, the Iraqi WMD fiasco. [see, The Ten Biggest American Intelligence Failures , FP]

    To some observers the very idea that a government organization with the charter of the CIA would not INHERENTLY be politicized is foolish:

    "Indeed, when a government agency relies on taxpayer funding, Congressional lawmaking, and White House politics to sustain itself, it is absurd to expect that agency to somehow remain not "politicized." That is, it's a logical impossibility to think it possible to set up a government agency that relies on government policymakers to sustain it, and then think the agency in question will not attempt to influence or curry favor with those policymakers." [source, Has the CIA Been Politicized? , Mises Institute]

    So much for background and generalizations, let's turn to the real matter at hand, John Brennan's performance as Obama's lap dog, parroting [highly questionable at best] the Democrat line that Putin put Trump in the Oval Office and is therefore an illegitimate president.

    This line of attack is so common within the modern progressive/Marxist Democrat Party that it would normally have little effect outside the I95 corridor except for the fact that this one has a very visible [and presumed by many to be beyond reproach] and public champion, John O. Brennan and his war-toy, the Central Intelligence Agency.

    We believe for a number of reasons that in his effort to discredit Mr. Trump, Brennan is acting as an intelligence operative doing [a uniquely narcissistic] president's bidding.

    Exhibit one is obvious: Brennan is fearful of what the incoming administration might do to his porcine agency, one replete with desk jockeys rather than actual field agents so attacking the incoming CIC might prove advantageous in repelling the supposedly imminent attack on Brennan's turf.

    An above the fold feature story in the January 5 edition of the Wall Street Journal reflects this view:

    "President-elect Donald Trump, a harsh critic of U.S. intelligence agencies, is working with top advisers on a plan that would restructure and pare back the nation's top spy agency, people familiar with the planning said advisers also are working on a plan to restructure the Central Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at its Virginia headquarters and pushing more people out into field posts around the world. The CIA declined to comment.

    'The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world has become completely politicized,' said the individual, who is close to the Trump transition. 'They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring the agencies and how they interact.'" [source, Damian Paletta and Julian E. Barnes, Trump Plans Spy Agency Overhaul , Wall St. Journal, January 5, 2017]

    Exhibit two might be a bit less speculative:

    "In telephone conversations with Donald Trump, FBI Director James Comey assured the president-elect there was no credible evidence that Russia influenced the outcome of the recent U.S. presidential election by hacking the Democratic National Committee and the e-mails of John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign Comey told Trump that James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, agreed with this FBI assessment.

    The only member of the U.S. intelligence community who was ready to assert that the Russians sanctioned the hacking was John Brennan, the director of the CIA, according to sources who were briefed on Comey's conversations with Trump.

    'And Brennan takes his marching orders from President Obama,' the sources quoted Comey as saying." [source, Ed Klein, Comey to Trump: The Russians Didn't Influence the Election ]

    Bolstering the image of a CIA director willing to grovel to curry favor with the administration, to the detriment of American interests, in 2010 we wrote about what was a firestorm at the time, an address by Brennan, then one of Obama's national security advisors, at an NYU event called, "A Dialogue on our National Security," which was organized by then president of the Hamas linked Islamic Society of North America, Ingrid Mattson.

    During the 34 minute speech [video below] Brennan rendered his bizarre - near love affair - with Islam.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/mKUpmFb4h_U

    [approximately 5:40 into the speech]

    "...And as part of that experience, to learn about the goodness and beauty of Islam....I came to see Islam not as it is often misrepresented, but for what it is...a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity...[breaks into spoken Arabic]

    [approximately 7:30 into the speech]

    "...But I did spend time as an undergraduate at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s. And time spent with classmates from Egypt, from Jordan, from Palestine, and around the world who taught me that whatever our differences of nationality or race or religion or language, there are certain aspirations that we all share. To get an education. To provide for our families. To practice our faith freely. To live in peace and security. And during a 25-year career in government, I was privileged to serve in positions across the Middle East...as a political officer with the State Department and as a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia. In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina. I marveled at the majesty of the Hajj and the devotion of those who fulfilled their duty as Muslims by making that privilege [he corrects himself] that pilgrimage. And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is Al Quds ...Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together..." [see, William Mayer, John Brennan's "Al Quds" NYU Address - Providing Aid and Comfort to the Islamists ]

    The use of the Arabic term - Al Quds - for the capital of Israel, Jerusalem by such a high ranking member of any American administration is really without precedent, leading one to view with great suspicion the allegiance of Brennan as well as raising substantial questions about his boss.

    For our fourth exhibit, we turn simply to the career of Mr. Brennan. He was recruited by the CIA straight out of college, proceeded to then serve for 25 years as a field agent followed by a long list of high level intel type government jobs. It's our judgment that though the CIA director really doesn't come across as the brightest bulb in the box, that persona is a façade hiding a very skilled operator who views his current attack on the incoming president as if it were a clandestine assignment in some godforsaken part of the planet.

    In short Brennan is a man on a mission, Obama's bagman.

    And finally, as our fifth exhibit let's examine the logic, or lack thereof of why someone like Vlad Putin would prefer Trump over Hillary, thus providing him with motive.

    Let us stipulate for the sake of argument that Putin directed a group of Russia's best programmers to hack into the DNC's Internet network knowing that internal email would make Hillary Clinton and the entire Democrat Party look so bad that voters would decide to award the election to Trump.

    What on earth would motivate the wily Russian strongman to prefer Trump over Hillary, consider the facts.

    1. It's common knowledge that Hillary's bathroom server network was hacked at least 5 times by foreign intelligence agencies. Thus, her trading access for money through the Clinton Foundation would be well known to a group of individuals eager to exploit such weaknesses. So it follows that if Putin was clever enough to hack into the DNC which had a more secure computer network than Hillary's, he had at the same time a literal encyclopedia of dirt on the Clintons.

    This of course would make Hillary, as president an obvious target for blackmail.

    Think of what a crafty ex-KGB officer could do with only 1% of the type of information which was so inelegantly stored on the Clinton email server, let alone the whole enchilada.

    It would have made Hillary literally a puppet of Vlad Putin.

    2. Contrast this with Trump's promise to rebuild the military as well as America's infrastructure and take an aggressive stance against America's foes.

    Sorry, it just doesn't fly. The idea of Putin hacking Trump to victory is absurd and just the last in a very long list of excuses why one of the worst candidates for president in modern American history lost on November 8.

    The prosecution rests

    [Mar 13, 2017] Boris and Natasha version of hacking might well be a false flag operation. How about developing Russian-looking hacking tools in CIA? To plant fingerprints and get the warrant for monitoring Trump communications

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you did not noticed Vault 7 scandal completely overtook everything else now. This is a real game changer. ..."
    "... Tell me who stole the whole arsenal of CIA hacking tools with all the manuals? Were those people Russians? ..."
    Mar 13, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc: March 12, 2017 at 10:14 PM

    Am I alone in thinking that Preet Bharara, the just fired US Attorney for Southern District of New York, would be the ideal Special Prosecutor of the Trump - Russia investigation

    Tom aka Rusty -> im1dc... Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 11:41 AM
    Bharara did not push back against "too big to prosecute" and sat out the biggest white collar crime wave in the history of the world, so why is he such a saint?

    Lots of easy insider trading cases.

    im1dc -> Tom aka Rusty... Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 05:01 PM
    I don't think you considered the bigger picture here which includes in Bharara's case his bosses to whom he would have to had run any cases up the flag pole for approval and Obama and Company were not at the time into frying Wall Street for their crimes b/c they were into restarting the Bush/Cheney damaged, almost ruined, US and global Economy.
    libezkova -> im1dc... Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 09:11 PM
    If you did not noticed Vault 7 scandal completely overtook everything else now. This is a real game changer.

    Just think, how many million if not billion dollars this exercise in removing the last traces of democracy from the USA and converting us into a new Democratic Republic of Germany, where everybody was controlled by STASI, cost. And those money were spend for what ?

    BTW the Stasi was one of the most hated and feared institutions of the East German government.

    If this is not the demonstration of huge and out of civil control raw power of "deep state" I do not know what is.

    If you are not completely detached from really you should talk about Vault 7. This is huge, Snowden size scandal that is by the order of magnitude more important for the country then all those mostly fake hints on connections of Trump and, especially "Russian hacking".

    Tell me who stole the whole arsenal of CIA hacking tools with all the manuals? Were those people Russians?

    If not, you should print your last post, shred is and eat it with borsch ;-).

    libezkova -> libezkova... Sunday, March 12, 2017 at 10:01 PM

    From this video it looks like CIA adapted some Russian hacking tools for their own purposes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z6XGl_hLnw

    In the world of intelligence false flag operations is a standard tactics. Now what ? Difficult situation for a Midwesterner...

    libezkova -> libezkova...
    Another difficult to stomach hypothesis:

    "Boris and Natasha" version of hacking might well be a false flag operation. How about developing Russian-looking hacking tools in CIA? To plant fingerprints and get the warrant for monitoring Trump communications.

    VAULT 7: CIA Staged Fake Russian Hacking to Set Up Trump - Russian Cyber-Attack M.O. As False Flag

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4CHcdCbyYs

    == quote ==

    Published on Mar 7, 2017

    "The United States must not adopt the tactics of the enemy. Means are important, as ends. Crisis makes it tempting to ignore the wise restraints that make men free. But each time we do so, each time the means we use are wrong, our inner strength, the strength which makes us free, is lessened." - Sen. Frank Church

    WikiLeaks Press Release

    Today, Tuesday 7 March 2017, WikiLeaks begins its new series of leaks on the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Code-named "Vault 7" by WikiLeaks, it is the largest ever publication of confidential documents on the agency.

    The first full part of the series, "Year Zero", comprises 8,761 documents and files from an isolated, high-security network situated inside the CIA's Center for Cyber Intelligence in Langley, Virgina. It follows an introductory disclosure last month of CIA targeting French political parties and candidates in the lead up to the 2012 presidential election.

    Recently, the CIA lost control of the majority of its hacking arsenal including malware, viruses, trojans, weaponized "zero day" exploits, malware remote control systems and associated documentation. This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.

    "Year Zero" introduces the scope and direction of the CIA's global covert hacking program, its malware arsenal and dozens of "zero day" weaponized exploits against a wide range of U.S. and European company products, include Apple's iPhone, Google's Android and Microsoft's Windows and even Samsung TVs, which are turned into covert microphones.

    Since 2001 the CIA has gained political and budgetary preeminence over the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). The CIA found itself building not just its now infamous drone fleet, but a very different type of covert, globe-spanning force - its own substantial fleet of hackers. The agency's hacking division freed it from having to disclose its often controversial operations to the NSA (its primary bureaucratic rival) in order to draw on the NSA's hacking capacities.

    [Mar 11, 2017] In the West, its now common for politicians to shout Russian fake news when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canadas new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton

    Notable quotes:
    "... In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton. ..."
    "... Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign. ..."
    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : March 11, 2017 at 09:25 AM

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/09/another-russia-fake-news-red-herring/

    March 9, 2017

    Another Russia 'Fake News' Red Herring

    In the West, it's now common for politicians to shout Russian "fake news" when embarrassing facts come out - as happened with Canada's new foreign minister hiding a Nazi family skeleton.

    By Robert Parry

    On Feb, 27, Consortiumnews.com published an article * describing misrepresentations by Canada's new Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland about her Ukrainian maternal grandfather whom she has portrayed as a hero who struggled "to return freedom and democracy to Ukraine" but left out that he was a Nazi propagandist whose newspaper justified the slaughter of Jews.

    Over the next week, the article entitled "A Nazi Skeleton in the Family Closet" by journalist Arina Tsukanova (which I personally edited and fact-checked) circulated enough that Freeland was asked about it by the Canadian news media. As often happens these days, Freeland chose not to tell the truth but rather portrayed the article as part of a Russian propaganda and disinformation campaign.

    Freeland told reporters, "I don't think it's a secret. American officials have publicly said, and even [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel has publicly said, that there were efforts on the Russian side to destabilize Western democracies, and I think it shouldn't come as a surprise if these same efforts were used against Canada. I think that Canadians and indeed other Western countries should be prepared for similar efforts to be directed at them."

    Though Freeland did not comment directly on the truthfulness of our article, her office denied that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator.

    Other leaders of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government joined in the counterattack. Citing the danger of Russian disinformation, Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale, said, "The situation is obviously one where we need to be alert."

    In an article on March 6, Canada's Globe and Mail also rallied to Freeland's defense claiming that she was "being targeted by allegations in pro-Moscow websites that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather was a Nazi collaborator."

    The newspaper also reached out to other experts to add their denunciations of Consortiumnews.com and other news sites that either reposted our story or ran a similar one.

    "It is the continued Russian modus operandi that they have. Fake news, disinformation and targeting different individuals," said Paul Grod, president of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress. "It is just so outlandish when you hear some of these allegations – whether they are directed at minister Freeland or others."

    The Globe and Mail also quoted Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, Andriy Shevchenko, citing our supposedly fake news as "another reason we should realize that Russia is waging a war against the free world. It is not just about Ukraine."

    The ambassador then offered some advice about standing up to the Russians and their disinformationists: "I am absolutely sure they will seek new targets in the free world so I would encourage our Canadian friends to be prepared for that, to stay strong and we will be happy to share our experience in how to deal with all these information wars."

    A Second-Day Story

    The only problem with all these righteous condemnations was that the information about Freeland's grandfather was true – and Freeland knew that it was true.

    In a second-day story, The Globe and Mail had to revisit the issue, reporting that "Freeland knew for more than two decades that her maternal Ukrainian grandfather was the chief editor of a Nazi newspaper in occupied Poland that vilified Jews during the Second World War."

    In other words, not only was our story accurate but Freeland knowingly launched a deceptive attack on us and other news outlets to punish us for writing the truth.

    And not only was our story correct but it was newsworthy, given Freeland's fierce support for Ukrainian nationalism and her deep hatred of Russia. Canadians have a right to know what drives those passions in their Foreign Minister. In this case, her worldview derived from her grandparents who sided with Adolf Hitler and who fled to the West as the Soviet Red Army defeated the Nazis.

    Yet, instead of fessing up and acknowledging these facts, Freeland chose to dissemble and slander journalists who were doing their job. And the smears didn't entirely stop.

    Even as the Globe and Mail admitted the reality about Freeland's grandfather, it continued to disparage the journalists who had exposed the facts. The second line of the newspaper's second-day article read: "Ms. Freeland's family history has become a target for Russian forces seeking to discredit one of Canada's highly placed defenders of Ukraine." ...

    * https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/

    [Mar 11, 2017] The exposé on how Canada's Foreign Minister knowingly lied for 20 years about grandfather's past, now blames Russia

    Mar 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : March 11, 2017 at 06:02 AM , 2017 at 06:02 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/840200091394818054

    Glenn Greenwald‏ @ggreenwald

    The exposé on how Canada's Foreign Minister knowingly lied for 20 years about grandfather's past, now blames Russia

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/freeland-knew-her-grandfather-was-editor-of-nazi-newspaper/article34236881/

    Freeland knew her grandfather was editor of Nazi newspaper

    Stories published in pro-Russian websites have said Ms. Freeland's strong stand against Russian aggression in Ukraine is linked to her grandfather's past.

    5:58 AM - 10 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 06:03 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/840199378459607044

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Canada's Foreign Minister lied for 20 years about her Ukrainian grandfather being a Nazi collaborator, now blames Russia

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/chrystia-freelands-granddad-was-indeed-a-nazi-collaborator-so-much-for-russian-disinformation

    Chrystia Freeland's granddad was indeed a Nazi collaborator – so much for Russian disinformation

    5:55 AM - 10 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 06:03 AM
    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/839921709230747649

    Paul Krugman‏ @paulkrugman

    The people who brought us Trump now smearing the superb Chrystia Freeland, with mainstream media as useful idiots. Of course.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terry-glavin-enter-the-freeland-nazi-conspiracy-and-the-amping-up-of-russias-mischief-in-canada

    Terry Glavin: Enter the Freeland-Nazi conspiracy - and the amping-up of Russia's mischief in Canada

    11:31 AM - 9 Mar 2017

    ilsm -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 07:39 AM
    East Ukraine [Russians therein] have as much right to independence as Turks left behind in Kosovo.

    When the Red Army sets up a permanent [Camp Bonesteel] armed presence to assure the minority are safe it might look a tiny fraction like of the crimes of the US/NATO.

    Early in the "occupation" of Ukraine Hitler turned down the non Aryan volunteers, by D Day they were killing Americans in Normandy.

    In the case of Russian news I err on the side they are correct compared to the NYT which tells every who could be conned they "tell the neoliberal truth".

    anne : , March 11, 2017 at 06:28 AM
    https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/840199378459607044

    Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald

    Canada's Foreign Minister lied for 20 years about her Ukrainian grandfather being a Nazi collaborator, now blames Russia

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/chrystia-freelands-granddad-was-indeed-a-nazi-collaborator-so-much-for-russian-disinformation

    Chrystia Freeland's granddad was indeed a Nazi collaborator – so much for Russian disinformation

    5:55 AM - 10 Mar 2017


    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/839921709230747649

    Paul Krugman‏ @paulkrugman

    The people who brought us Trump now smearing the superb Chrystia Freeland, with mainstream media as useful idiots. Of course.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terry-glavin-enter-the-freeland-nazi-conspiracy-and-the-amping-up-of-russias-mischief-in-canada

    Terry Glavin: Enter the Freeland-Nazi conspiracy - and the amping-up of Russia's mischief in Canada

    11:31 AM - 9 Mar 2017

    anne -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 06:35 AM
    Imagine such a Democratic opinion maker having absorbed and been overtaken by Cold War thinking, unable to be self-reflective enough to understand the disdain of a people that is being fostered, how damaging this can be, evidently wishing a return to the fearful 1950s.

    That such a Democratic opinion maker has come to use the language of the 1950s to instill disdain for a people and spread fear in those who would question or dissent from the prejudice continues to be shocking and dismaying.

    ilsm -> anne... , March 11, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    McCarthy bad analogy, he did not use the FBI on opponents to invade their privacy during a presidential campaign!
    kthomas -> ilsm... , March 11, 2017 at 08:31 AM
    Really? How do you know Hoover was not passing information to Sen. McCarthy?

    [Mar 10, 2017] The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates

    Notable quotes:
    "... The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening. ..."
    "... We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not. ..."
    "... What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone. ..."
    "... This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic. ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Stormcrow , , March 9, 2017 at 9:35 am

    Here is Raimondo's take: Spygate http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2017/03/07/spygate-americas-political-police-vs-donald-j-trump/

    The campaign to frame up and discredit Trump and his associates is characteristic of how a police state routinely operates. A national security apparatus that vacuums up all our communications and stores them for later retrieval has been utilized by political operatives to go after their enemies – and not even the President of the United States is immune. This is something that one might expect to occur in, say, Turkey, or China: that it is happening here, to the cheers of much of the media and the Democratic party, is beyond frightening.

    The irony is that the existence of this dangerous apparatus – which civil libertarians have warned could and probably would be used for political purposes – has been hailed by Trump and his team as a necessary and proper function of government. Indeed, Trump has called for the execution of the person who revealed the existence of this sinister engine of oppression – Edward Snowden. Absent Snowden's revelations, we would still be in the dark as to the existence and vast scope of the NSA's surveillance.

    And now the monster Trump embraced in the name of "national security" has come back to bite him.

    We hear all the time that what's needed is an open and impartial "investigation" of Trump's alleged "ties" to Russia. This is dangerous nonsense: does every wild-eyed accusation from embittered losers deserve a congressional committee armed with subpoena power bent on conducting an inquisition? Certainly not.

    What must be investigated is the incubation of a clandestine political police force inside the national security apparatus, one that has been unleashed against Trump – and could be deployed against anyone.

    This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about preserving what's left of our old republic.

    Perhaps overstated but well worth pondering.

    [Mar 10, 2017] Obama Spying Whistleblower Doubles Down On Trump Tower Wiretap Claim

    Mar 10, 2017 | radaronline.com
    Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin claims "the evidence is overwhelming" that the Obama administration spied on Donald Trump leading up his inauguration , RadarOnline.com has learned.

    "I'm saying the public record is damning of the Obama administration. It was investigating the campaign of a presidential candidate of an opposing party during the course of the campaign. Its use of FISA, loosening of NSA distribution requirements, husbanding and protecting information at the behest of White House staff on the way out the door, and recent leaks of confidential and perhaps classified information is extraordinary," Levin said in the CNN Reliable Sources newsletter.

    [Mar 10, 2017] Did Obama spy on Trump by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

    Notable quotes:
    "... FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked . But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC . As McCarthy writes, this is notable because "the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance." ..."
    "... Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn't specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones. ..."
    "... Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls "disingenuous on several levels." Others have characterized them as a " non-denial denial ." ..."
    "... The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House." ..."
    "... Obama's political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress . ..."
    "... Trump has called for a congressional investigation , but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.thecalifornian.com

    So President Trump set off a firestorm over the weekend with a series of tweets alleging that Obama had tapped Trump Tower. But getting hung up on imprecise language in the president's tweets isn't the right way to look at things. What seems to be true is that the Obama administration spied on some of Trump's associates and we don't know exactly how much information was collected under what authority and who was targeted.

    As former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy summarizes in National Review, the Obama Justice Department considered a criminal investigation aimed at a number of Trump's associates. When they didn't find anything criminal, they converted the investigation into an intelligence probe under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . Elements of that story have been confirmed by The New York Times, the BBC and McClatchy newspapers.

    FISA surveillance has to be approved by a special court, which almost always allows the government to spy on people when asked . But when the Justice Department asked to spy on several of Trump's associates, the court refused permission, according to the BBC . As McCarthy writes, this is notable because "the FISA court is notoriously solicitous of government requests to conduct national security surveillance."

    Not taking no for an answer, the Obama administration came back during the final weeks of the election with a narrower request that didn't specifically mention Trump. That narrower request was granted by the court, but reports from the Guardian and the BBC don't mention the tapping of phones.

    Former Obama officials issued denials that the former president had anything to do with it, which McCarthy calls "disingenuous on several levels." Others have characterized them as a " non-denial denial ."

    To the Obama camp's claim that the president didn't "order" surveillance of Trump, McCarthy writes:

    "First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that 'orders' surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court. So, the issue is not whether Obama or some member of his White House staff 'ordered' surveillance of Trump and his associates. The issues are (a) whether the Obama Justice Department sought such surveillance authorization from the FISA court, and (b) whether, if the Justice Department did that, the White House was aware of or complicit in the decision to do so. Personally, given the explosive and controversial nature of the surveillance request we are talking about – an application to wiretap the presidential candidate of the opposition party, and some of his associates, during the heat of the presidential campaign, based on the allegation that the candidate and his associates were acting as Russian agents – it seems to me that there is less than zero chance that could have happened without consultation between the Justice Department and the White House."

    And as journalist Mickey Kaus commented on Twitter, there's a reason why presidents name trusted allies as attorney general. As close as former attorney general Loretta Lynch was to Obama, and as supportive as she was of his political goals, it seems very unlikely that this was some sort of rogue operation.

    It's certainly not impossible to believe that the Obama administration spied on Trump. Obama wouldn't be the first president to engage in illegal surveillance of opposition candidates, and his administration has been noted for its great enthusiasm for domestic spying. In an effort to plug embarrassing leaks, the Obama administration spied on Associated Press reporters and seized the phone records not only of a Fox News reporter but also of his parents. Obama's political allies even alleged that his CIA spied on Congress .

    Nor is it unbelievable that under the Obama administration, supposedly non-partisan civil servants would go after political opponents. After all, the notorious IRS scandal was about exactly that.

    Trump has called for a congressional investigation , but what this really needs is a special prosecutor, someone from outside the politically tainted Justice Department, to look into the political abuse of surveillance laws by the Obama administration. Maybe, upon investigation, it will turn out that nothing improper happened – that this is a lot of smoke, but that there's no fire. But we can't know without an investigation, and if there really were political abuses of the Justice Department and the intelligence surveillance process, those guilty should not simply be exposed but go to jail. Such abuse strikes at democracy itself.

    Note that FISA surveillance is severely limited and requires information from surveillance to be kept very secret or, if not relevant, deleted. If those limits were exceeded, if Obama officials lied to the court, or if the information was – as it appears to have been – excessively shared within the government, or leaked to outsiders, those are all serious crimes, as First Amendment attorney Robert Barnes notes.

    Watergate brought down a presidency, but if the worst suspicions here are borne out, we're dealing with something worse. Hopefully not, but there's no way to tell at this point. As The Washington Post has been saying lately, "Democracy dies in darkness." Let's shine some light on what the Obama administration was doing during this election.

    Glenn Harlan Reynolds , a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of " The New School : How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself," is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors .

    [Mar 10, 2017] Specialist in history writes about network security

    Mar 10, 2017 | www.salon.com
    Judging from comments totally brainwashed part of American electorate conditioned to believe into "Boris and Natasha" stories and unconditionally support DemoRats (not understanding that they are just soft neoliberals and also want to redistribute wealth up, away from ordinary shmucks) is very comfortable being out sync with reality. Middle age starting to replay in the USA. Right here, right now. see https://theintercept.com/2016/11/01/heres-the-problem-with-the-story-connecting-russia-to-donald-trumps-email-server/
    > As "zackeryzackery" noted , "
    Looks like the libtards will twist any facts to fit their narrative. HEADER
    > " (from his comment on
    Salon.com , ).

    Also from the same thread: "RUSSIA!!!!!. Look guys, RUSSIA! The Obama administration repeatedly broke federal laws, lied about breaking those laws, got caught lying about breaking those laws (thank you "whistle blowers") then said it stopped breaking said laws. Then it got caught lying about saying it stopped breaking laws. "

    [Mar 10, 2017] Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media

    Notable quotes:
    "... At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. ..."
    "... Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous: ..."
    "... Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out. ..."
    "... Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it. ..."
    "... In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on. ..."
    Mar 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Trump Transition

    "Why the Russia Story Is a Minefield for Democrats and the Media" [Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone ]. Well worth a read. "There is a lot of smoke in the Russia story . Moreover, the case that the Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee now appears fairly solid. Even Donald Trump thinks so ."

    At that link, Taibbi goes astray by trusting CNN; I hate to cite a source with the John Birch society on its blogroll, but when they're right, they're right, and CNN sexed up the transcript. Here's the CNN quote: "'I think it was Russia, [1] but I think we also get hacked by other countries and other people. ' Trump said. Putin '[2]should not be doing it. He won't be doing it. Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I am leading it than when other people have led it.'" From the full transcript , [1] shows what CNN deleted, and [2] comes 45 minutes later, in response to a very qualified question. Trump doesn't do nuance well, but I think he was trying to do it here.

    Back to Taibbi. I think this is exactly right, and in today's vicious atmosphere, courageous:

    [T]he manner in which these stories are being reported is becoming a story in its own right. Russia has become an obsession, cultural shorthand for a vast range of suspicions about Donald Trump.

    The notion that the president is either an agent or a useful idiot of the Russian state is so freely accepted in some quarters that Beck Bennett's shirtless representation of Putin palling with Alec Baldwin's Trump is already a no-questions-asked yuks routine for the urban smart set .

    We can't afford to bolster [Trump's] accusations of establishment bias and overreach by using the techniques of conspiracy theorists to push this Russia story. Unfortunately, that is happening.

    One could list the more ridiculous examples, like the Washington Post's infamous "PropOrNot" story identifying hundreds of alternative media sites as fellow travellers aiding Russia, or the Post's faceplant over a report about a hacked utility in Vermont.

    Setting all of that aside, look at the techniques involved within the more "legitimate" reports. Many are framed in terms of what they might mean, should other information surface.

    There are inevitably uses of phrases like "so far," "to date" and "as yet." These make visible the outline of a future story that isn't currently reportable, further heightening expectations.

    Similarly, Democrats in congress have been littering their Russia speeches with caveats like, "We do not know all the facts," and, "More information may well surface." They repeatedly refer to what they don't know as a way of talking about what they hope to find out.

    Reporters should always be nervous when intelligence sources sell them stories. Spooks don't normally need the press. Their usual audiences are other agency heads, and the executive. They can bring about action just by convincing other people within the government to take it.

    In the extant case, whether the investigation involved a potential Logan Act violation, or election fraud, or whatever, the CIA, FBI, and NSA had the ability to act both before and after Donald Trump was elected. But they didn't, and we know why, because James Clapper just told us – they didn't have evidence to go on.

    Thus we are now witnessing the extremely unusual development of intelligence sources that normally wouldn't tell a reporter the time of day litigating a matter of supreme importance in the media. What does this mean?

    [Mar 09, 2017] Wiretarring scandal is a sign of empire in decay

    They can't win hearts and minds of people with discredited neoliberal ideology. So they need to spy on them.
    Notable quotes:
    "... I find this Real News Network interview with Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, to be astonishing. He effectively says that Trump may not be wrong in his claims that he was spied on. ..."
    "... Trump used the word "wiretapping," which gave his opponents a huge out, since that means a judge gave a warrant to allow for monitoring. ..."
    "... What is therefore striking about this report is that Wilkerson, who is no fan of Trump, nevertheless is defending him in this matter. That is a sign that he regards the campaign against Trump as dangerous from an institutional perspective. ..."
    "... three Trump associates were the subject of surveillance and "wiretapping" and that the information was shared with Obama. ..."
    "... I am SURE Trump is being advised not to tip over the apple cart and let everybody know who was RIGHT – we're all monitored all the time. And that's the rub. ..."
    "... which legalized warrantless surveillance on domestic soil so long as the target is a foreigner abroad, even when the target is communicating with an American ..."
    "... The way I understand it, any conversation with the Russian ambassador in it is monitored (and stored) – Flynn talks to the ambassador, he is being monitored. Supposedly, Flynn should know this. ..."
    "... My theory is that Flynn was talking policy – albeit SENSITIVE policy – and PERHAPS the intelligence community didn't like the change in policy and decided by leaking to make Flynn look like a dirty commie – Or Flynn is a turncoat (so why isn't he being prosecuted???) ..."
    "... Getting "stuff" on people so that they can be manipulated is par for the course. Have we forgotten about J. Edgar Hoover. Does anybody really believe that the Democrats and the "deep state" don't already have enough "on Trump" to remove him from office given his mafia connections, not to mention Roy Cohn? ..."
    "... Could Trump's use of "Obama" just have been a metonym for the previous administration? I mean that's how the names of presidents and other leaders are frequently used. Journalists, historians, and people in general will often say "Bush did this" or "Thatcher did that" or "Stalin did something else" when it's clear that the named individuals didn't and couldn't have personally performed the action, rather functionaries of the regimes they headed did the action. ..."
    "... Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism! Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW! I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election! How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy! ..."
    "... Whoa. Wilkerson looks on edge, usually very cool in these pieces. ..."
    "... I have the impression he can't contain himself on the subject of Brennan. Is that your take? ..."
    "... Introduction page viii ..."
    Mar 08, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on March 8, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here.

    I find this Real News Network interview with Colin Powell's former chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, to be astonishing. He effectively says that Trump may not be wrong in his claims that he was spied on.

    At the 50,000 foot level, Trump's claim is trivial. Anyone who paid attention to the Edward Snowden revelations knows that the NSA is in a total data acquisition mode, hoovering up information from smart devices and able to use computers and tablets as monitoring devices. But Trump used the word "wiretapping," which gave his opponents a huge out, since that means a judge gave a warrant to allow for monitoring. And pinning surveillance on Obama personally was another huge stretch. In other words, Trump took what could have been an almost certain statement of fact, and by larding it up with dodgy particulars, pushed it well into crazypants terrain.

    What made Trump look bad was the FBI making clear it was not snooping on Trump, when the FBI would have been involved in a wiretap. Lambert and I discussed that it wasn't hard to come up with scenarios that weren't wiretaps by which Trump could have been spied upon while keeping Obama Administration hands clean. The most obvious was to have another member of the Five Eyes do the dirty work.

    What is therefore striking about this report is that Wilkerson, who is no fan of Trump, nevertheless is defending him in this matter. That is a sign that he regards the campaign against Trump as dangerous from an institutional perspective. And he states that the idea that Lambert and I had casually bandied about, that a foreign spy organization like the GCHQ, did Trump dirty work for the US government, is seen as a real possibility in the intelligence community.

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fgd4WDMG4mQ

    PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay. Welcome to another edition of the Wilkerson Report.

    Of course the accusations are flying in every direction in D.C.. The latest Donald Trump saying that President Obama spied on him, ordered the listening of his telephone conversations. Now joining us to talk about these allegations is Larry Wilkerson.

    Larry joins us from Falls Church, Virginia. Larry was the former Chief of Staff for U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. Currently an Adjunct Professor of Goverment at the College of Willam and Mary and a regular contributor to The Real News Network.

    (discussion)

    PAUL JAY: So, Larry what do you make of these allegations? Most of the media seems to be saying Trump is alleging this in order to distract from the real controversy, which they say his and his administration's connections to Putin and Russia. What do you make of Trump's allegations?

    LARRY WILKERSON: Well, I'm certainly not one, Paul, to defend HMS Trump and that whole entourage of people, but I will paint you a hypothetical here. There are a number of events that have occurred in the last 96 hours or so that lead me to believe that maybe even the Democratic party, whatever element of it, approached John Brennan at the CIA, maybe even the former president of the United States. And John Brennan, not wanting his fingerprints to be on anything, went to his colleague in London GCHQ, MI6 and essentially said, "Give me anything you've got." And he got something and he turned it over to the DNC or to someone like that. And what he got was GHCQ MI6's tapes of conversations of the Trump administration perhaps, even the President himself. It's really kind of strange, at least to me, they let the head of that organization go, fired him about the same time this was brewing up. So I'm not one to defend Trump, but in this case he might be right. It's just that it wasn't the FBI. Comey's right, he wasn't wire-tapping anybody, it was John Brennan, at the CIA And you say, "What would be John Brennan's motivation?" Well, clearly he wanted to remain Director of the CIA for Hillary Clinton when she was elected President of the United States, which he had every reason to believe, as did lots of us, that she would be.

    PAUL JAY: Now, Larry, do we have any evidence of this? Is this like a theory or is there some evidence?

    LARRY WILKERSON: Well, it's a theory that's making its way around some in the intelligence community right now because they know about the relationship between the CIA and the same sort of capabilities, maybe not quite as vast as the NSA has, but still good capabilities that exist in London. I mean, otherwise the president just came out and said something was patently false. Generally speaking, you know, I would agree with that, with regard to this particular individual, but not in this case.

    PAUL JAY: Now why would the British go along with this?

    LARRY WILKERSON: Well, you have to understand this is a real problem, Paul, it's been a problem for a long time. Only certain governments have national technical means that feature $5 billion satellites orbiting the United States and the rest of the globe and providing intricate national means of looking at other people 24/7. Even streaming video and so forth. There are only so many people who can afford that. We're the biggest guy on the block so when we sidle up to France or we sidle up to Germany or Japan or anybody else, they have two choices, either cooperate with us and share in that treasure trove from time to time or they don't cooperate with us and I'll tell you what we do, we cut them off. So this is a very incestuous relationship. I saw this up close and personal when we were saying there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we had Paris and Tel Aviv and Berlin and London and everybody agreeing with us. I now know why they agreed with us, more recetively(?) (sound difficulties – 00:04:45 – 00:05:05) You still there?

    PAUL JAY: Yeah.

    LARRY WILKERSON: Well, they agree with us because they don't have any choice. Their choices are stark. They agree with us and hope it doesn't rebound to their discredit or hurt them or they don't agree with us and we cut them off.

    PAUL JAY: Okay, now let's go back to Trump's allegations. Trump does not seem to be shy about just making stuff up from whole cloth without any basis at all. Why would one thing this isn't just another fabrication?

    LARRY WILKERSON: Paul, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I'm not so sure you're right in that–

    PAUL JAY: I'm not saying it is. I'm just asking, is there any reason to think that we know that he's not making this up?

    LARRY WILKERSON: No, except that the series of events that occurred lead me to believe that John Brennan was, in fact, working with London and perhaps something came out of that, that might have assured John Brennan of a continuation of his role at the CIA with a new administration headed by Hillary Clinton. That makes every bit of sense to me when I think about it. And remember, I've been there and I've seen this stuff.

    PAUL JAY: Okay. We'll have to wait over the next few days or hours and see if more hard evidence follows out. But let's go look a little further, if you're right, Brennan's helping Clinton, you have different sections of the intelligence community helping various players. Some of them seem to be turning on Trump, some are feeding Trump, some are supporting him, it's like you got little fiefdoms in the intelligence community all with their own agendas here.

    LARRY WILKERSON: This is very disturbing. It's happened in the past, of course, when we politicized intelligence. It happened when Bill Casey and Ronald Reagan when Bill Casey made the case for a Soviet buildup so Reagan could justify his arms buildup in the U.S.. The Soviets were not involved in a buildup at all. That was all fabricated intelligence. It's happened with Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon from time to time. But this is a new level of 17 different heavily funded intelligence agencies and groups, headed by the DNI and the CIA all apparently playing their own little games within various segments of a political community in this country and leaking accordingly. And I don't eliminate the FBI from that either. Why else would Comey come out, for example, just prior to the elections and say he had other e-mails and imply that they might be damning of one of the candidates? It's everyone playing in this game and it's an extremely dangerous game.

    PAUL JAY: Is part of what's going on here, is that all of these institutions whether it's CIA or FBI or NSA and on and on with all the alphabet, that their first priority, their deepest interest is their own agency. Their existence, their funding, their own jobs, that this is really - it's not about some supposed national interest to start with it starts with just who these guys are and they become entities unto themselves.

    LARRY WILKERSON: Absolutely. Hoover, take Hoover at the FBI, during World War II, it can be proven, it can be analytically demonstrated that Hoover spent more man hours and more money trying to look at his own administration, trying to gain power over elements of that administration than he did looking at the Nazis. I mean, this is not anything new, it's just come to a depth and a profundity of action that is scary and dangerous.

    When you have your entire intelligence community more interested in its own survival and its own power, and therefore, playing in politics to the degree that we have it doing so today, you've got a real problem. And I'm not talking about the people beavering away in the trenches who are trying their best to do a good job, I'm talking about these leaders, these people at the top and the second tier level, who are participating in this political game in a way that they should not be, but they've been doing for some time and now they've brought it to a crescendo.

    PAUL JAY: Is part of what's happening here an overall decay, if you will, of the state itself, of the American government? Which is a reflection of what's going on in the economy. You have so much of Wall Street is about pure parasitical investment. There's more money being invested in derivative gambling and billionaires gambling against billionaires and shorting, kind of manupulating commodity markets and so on, more money in the parasitical activity than there is investment in productive activity. And these are the guys that are financing political campaigns even electing presidents, in the case of Robert Mercer, who 's the billionaire who backed Trump and Bannon. Bannon worked for Mercer. The whole state and the upper echelons in the economy they seem to be into such practically mafioso short-sightedness. Like, "What can we do today for ourselves and damn what happens later?"

    LARRY WILKERSON: The decay of (sound difficulties) empire hat on and I will tell you, yes. You're right. This empire is decaying at a rapid rate. And it is not just reflected in the fact that we can't govern ourselves, the fact that we have a congress that can't even see the nation for the trees. My political party, Paul, right now thinks that it's going to achieve its full agenda or at least a good portion of it while this buffoon in the White House twiddles his thumbs. They don't see the country. They don't care about the country. All they want to do is achieve their agenda; social, economic and otherwise. This country, in all of its components, whether it's government or it's finance, economics or whatever, is falling apart.

    PAUL JAY: Thanks very much for joining us, Larry.

    LARRY WILKERSON: Thanks for having me, Paul.

    PAUL JAY: Thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

    sleepy , March 8, 2017 at 6:33 am

    I took a glance at the article and read one of its links to the NYTimes article which confirms that three Trump associates were the subject of surveillance and "wiretapping" and that the information was shared with Obama.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html?_r=1

    Even without digging into the story, the fact that Trump's claim is viewed with such disdain by the MSM has always struck me as incredulous. I have generally assumed that most communications among people in power is monitored whether legally or not.

    fresno dan , March 8, 2017 at 8:15 am

    none
    March 8, 2017 at 4:44 am

    I've read most of those. The problem is that the important thing – was a FISA warrant issued – not been confirmed by the government to my knowledge. Apparently it is secret by law so it is one of those things that the government will neither confirm nor deny – and I am SURE Trump is being advised not to tip over the apple cart and let everybody know who was RIGHT – we're all monitored all the time. And that's the rub.

    The other thing about the articles is the incredible amount of contradiction (assuming the government officials aren't being misquoted there are a LOT of things that just don't square).

    I think comes down to this – very simply the government/intelligence community (IC) does not really want to admit how many people's conversations it actually listens to or CAN listen to. Nobody can look at this and say that the 4th amendment is meaningful .

    In this case, a U.S. general, working on behalf of the president elect (or was this before Trump was elected?), was monitored by the IC and removed from office because of illegal leaks. We don't REALLY know why – but the idea that the IC has a veto over the president's appointees should give everyone pause.

    Bill Smith , March 8, 2017 at 9:06 am

    Would a warrant actually be needed? In the New York Time article on January 12, 2017 they say:

    After Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act - which legalized warrantless surveillance on domestic soil so long as the target is a foreigner abroad, even when the target is communicating with an American - the court permitted raw sharing of emails acquired under that program, too.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/politics/nsa-gets-more-latitude-to-share-intercepted-communications.html

    So any of Trump's associates talking to a 'Russian' from the Trump Tower which was his campaign headquarters would qualify according to his tweet.

    fresno dan , March 8, 2017 at 10:24 am

    Bill Smith
    March 8, 2017 at 9:06 am

    The way I understand it (gleaned from a National Review article written by a former justice department lawyer Andrew McCarthy – I excerpted quite a bit of it, but it is now in skynet heaven )

    is that Russki subjects of interest (or any nationality) are always monitored. This means that Americans will occasionally get MONITORED if in communication with such individuals as well and those communications are STORED (monitored and stored ARE NOT THE SAME AS LISTENED TO). Now, to actually listen to the Americans in these conversation is what supposedly requires the FISA warrant – it is suppose to be based on something that the person is acting as an AGENT of a foreign power.

    Or the FBI could have been doing just a regular financial fraud investigation between Trump companies and Russia found nothing (OR found something and IS still investigation), and than passed it over as an intelligence matter. I can't do justice to the article without being skynetted, so you will have to read the article for yourself if interested.

    Bill Smith , March 8, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    If that is true then what was the basis for Flynn's phone calls being listened to?

    So I'm not sure the point about monitored / stored / listened to is the case anymore. The NYT article I referenced is all about the old privacy rules being removed.

    In addition the part of the article I quoted seems to say that isn't the case anymore.

    Flynn did a lot of work during the transition from Trump Tower. We know some of his calls where intercepted and not just the one from the beach.

    Evidently Paul Manafort lived in Trump Tower for a while. From the news articles his phone calls where also intercepted.

    I did look up a bunch of McCarthy's articles in National Review. Thanks for the pointer.

    fresno dan , March 8, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    Bill Smith
    March 8, 2017 at 1:13 pm

    "If that is true then what was the basis for Flynn's phone calls being listened to?"

    The way I understand it, any conversation with the Russian ambassador in it is monitored (and stored) – Flynn talks to the ambassador, he is being monitored. Supposedly, Flynn should know this.

    My theory is that Flynn was talking policy – albeit SENSITIVE policy – and PERHAPS the intelligence community didn't like the change in policy and decided by leaking to make Flynn look like a dirty commie – Or Flynn is a turncoat (so why isn't he being prosecuted???)

    The issue from the NR article is, as I understand it, is that Flynn should not be listened to unless there was some REAL suspicion that he was an agent and there was a FISA warrant (a former US general is really suspected of being a Russian agent???). So one can know that Flynn had a conversation with the ambassador (from monitoring) but not the substance unless there was a FISA warrant – if I am understanding this correctly.

    If he wasn't proven to be an agent than that conversation is suppose to go into the "vault" and never be released or acknowledged. So there are just a lot of things that don't add up. I'm thinking like the meme "fake news" that the people who started this whole think may regret looking into whether Trump was improperly monitored after all. BUT I DON"T KNOW – maybe Trump is guilty of something

    Ptolemy Philopater , March 8, 2017 at 4:46 pm

    Does anybody really believe that these people feel bound by law? This is raw power politics. Getting "stuff" on people so that they can be manipulated is par for the course. Have we forgotten about J. Edgar Hoover. Does anybody really believe that the Democrats and the "deep state" don't already have enough "on Trump" to remove him from office given his mafia connections, not to mention Roy Cohn?

    It's not about removing anyone from office but to get them to do your bidding. Likewise it is a big distraction from the ongoing fraud and corruption consuming this nation. Men like Wilkerson are finally realizing how far along our Mafia culture has come to complete and utter collapse. Next time the music stops will there be any chairs left?

    Kukulkan , March 8, 2017 at 4:45 am

    Could Trump's use of "Obama" just have been a metonym for the previous administration? I mean that's how the names of presidents and other leaders are frequently used. Journalists, historians, and people in general will often say "Bush did this" or "Thatcher did that" or "Stalin did something else" when it's clear that the named individuals didn't and couldn't have personally performed the action, rather functionaries of the regimes they headed did the action.

    As an example, I've seen a number news articles saying Kim Jong-un killed Kim Jong-nam, even though, as far as I can tell, Kim Jong-un has an airtight alibi, having been in a different country at the time. Most people understand such claims to mean that functionaries of the North Korean government headed by Kim Jong-un are responsible for the killing and Kim Jong-un is just used as a metonym for that government.

    Same thing with "wiretap". Trump is of a generation where wiretap was a generic term used to refer to any sort of bugging.

    Reading them as specific references comes across as a particularly pedantic and uncharitable interpretation.

    Kukulkan , March 8, 2017 at 4:52 am

    Actually, checking the tweet, I see Trump wrote "tapp", an even more generic term for using electronic devices to listen in on other people's private conversations.

    Yves Smith Post author , March 8, 2017 at 7:01 am

    Wow, that is an important catch! Shame on me for missing it and way bigger shame on the MSM for misrepresenting it.

    Bill Smith , March 8, 2017 at 8:56 am

    Actually it was "wires tapped" with Trump having put the quotes in. So yeah, very generic term. And it says Trump Tower. Doesn't he own Trump Tower? All that stuff in the Trump Tower is 'his'. So the claim is even more generic.

    There were numerous reports that people associated with the campaign (headquarters in Trump Tower) had their phone conversations intercepted. I assume it was when they were talking to a 'Russian'.

    The first thing I thought when I heard this was "Hey, Trump finally attended an intelligence briefing."

    jrs , March 8, 2017 at 12:10 pm

    If the NSA really is listening to everything, can anyone answer why the powers that be would even bother with an actual wiretap anymore? Isn't it something anachronistic, like owning a beeper or something?

    Katniss Everdeen , March 8, 2017 at 8:02 am

    This is exactly the way I took it–with "obama" and "wiretap" being generic terms. Funnily enough, it made all the furor over the tweet initially hard to understand. Now it makes the literal parsing look desperate and deliberately obfuscatory.

    fresno dan , March 8, 2017 at 8:26 am

    Katniss Everdeen
    March 8, 2017 at 8:02 am

    I find it impossible to believe that the MSM does not know that wiretap = any kind of monitoring/surveillance and that "Obama" = white house, and/or Obama administration. There is nothing wrong about doing a story about the nuances of surveillance, but to go on and on and ON about there is no wiretapping is absurd. And the MSM professes to wonder why people find them unreliable

    It is deliberate obtuseness to advance an agenda.

    Katniss Everdeen , March 8, 2017 at 9:28 am

    I may be "mis-remembering" here, but it reminded me of a time when ben bernanke was testifying in front of some congressional committee or other. A member of the panel referenced the fed "printing" money. Bernanke replied that the fed doesn't "print" money. They enter it onto a computer. A textbook distinction without a difference.

    fresno dan , March 8, 2017 at 10:32 am

    Katniss Everdeen
    March 8, 2017 at 9:28 am

    OH EXACTLY RIGHT!!! To go off on a tangent – to not say that money is "loaned" into existence and as much as you need can be obtained from the either, just would beg the question of why Goldman Sachs, somebody who managed to lose trillions is deserving of more loans, but a borrower who was scammed into some mortgage with some skyrocketing interest rate proviso is not. And the unpalatable answer – the FED is to protect the rich and f*ck the poor .

    nobody , March 8, 2017 at 9:14 am

    Trump's language was very clear (at least to my ear) in attributing personal involvement to Obama (calling him a "bad (or sick) guy"). But with "wiretap" note the use of quotation marks. When I first heard about these tweets the morning after, the first thing I did was to go to Trump's twitter feed to have a look for myself. For me the quotation marks scanned as scare quotes and I instinctively interpreted "wiretap" in its generic sense.

    Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

    Is it legal for a sitting President to be "wire tapping" a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!

    I'd bet a good lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!

    How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!

    Michael Fiorillo , March 8, 2017 at 6:23 am

    In his autobiography "Memoirs of a Revolutionist," Peter Kropotkin describes being interrogated by a member of the Okhrana, the Tsar's secret police, after his arrest.

    In the course of the interview, Kropotkin expresses amazement that the secret police had so deeply infiltrated his revolutionary cell. His interrogator expressed smug satisfaction, and then informed him that such surveillance was commonplace, and that in fact no one in the entire empire was more closely surveilled than the Tsar himself.

    I've always operated under the assumption that the intelligence agencies devote ample resources to keeping the Executive under close observation, and that he likely has no more secrets than the rest of us.

    The difference now is that the agencies are not just monitoring executive goings-on, but becoming active political players. Needless to say, clueless, hopeless Democrats are cheering them on.

    Colonel Smithers , March 8, 2017 at 6:32 am

    Thank you, Michael. It's not just Democrats cheering. There are cheerleaders overseas, too, vide the UK MSM.

    p7b , March 8, 2017 at 6:42 am

    Whoa. Wilkerson looks on edge, usually very cool in these pieces.

    Yves Smith Post author , March 8, 2017 at 6:58 am

    I have the impression he can't contain himself on the subject of Brennan. Is that your take?

    Colonel Smithers , March 8, 2017 at 6:50 am

    Thank you, Yves, for posting.

    Your title of "Empire In Decay" reminded me of my last two years at school (late 1980s) and the emphasis on Tudors and Stuarts, Bourbons and Habsburgs in history classes. The school organised lectures from history professors like Henry Kamen and Paul Kennedy. Kennedy had just written the book on the rise and fall of empires and been on the airwaves. Kamen is an expert on imperial Spain. One rarely sees that sort of expertise in the MSM. We get the likes of McCain, Miss Lindsey, David Brooks, Bernard-Henri Levy, Simon Schama (sic) et al masquerading as experts.

    Disturbed Voter , March 8, 2017 at 6:55 am

    Paul Kennedy knew his stuff. Read his book back in the day, cover to cover. That is the level of state-craft these people are thinking about. One dinky national election is mere detail. I am sure all the agencies have read the Club of Rome report and what came after it. It isn't just Global Warming time. Chess end games, all the way down, until checkmate.

    Colonel Smithers , March 8, 2017 at 8:07 am

    Thank you, DV. Me, too. I still have the book.

    It's appalling, isn't. Just the same talking heads going around studios and obsessing over trivia and sound bites.

    I remember the Sunday lunchtime and evening shows in the UK thirty years ago, featuring academics and journalists who had been in a country for years and got to know the country well. The advent of 24 hour and international news seems to have destroyed what was good coverage / analysis.

    FWIW, one of my friends and also son of immigrants from a former French and British colony works at the UK mission to the EU. He is a professional historian and studied at LSE and Cambridge. He hopes to return to Cambridge by the end of the decade and teach, but will also write about how Brexit panned out from a ring side seat.

    It would be great if Yves could get historians of the calibre of Kamen, Kennedy, Howard, Scarisbrick and Sauvigny to contribute.

    skippy , March 8, 2017 at 7:02 am

    Rational self interest meets its inevitable outcome .

    PH , March 8, 2017 at 7:14 am

    Do we assume that Trump expected to be surveiled?

    And acted cautiously as a result?

    What are the motives of the various players?

    who are the most important and somewhat important players?

    In the fog, everyone seems to see the shapes that they expect to see

    PH , March 8, 2017 at 7:15 am

    Do we assume that Trump expected to be surveiled?

    And acted cautiously as a result?

    What are the motives of the various players?

    who are the most important and somewhat important players?

    In the fog, everyone seems to see the shapes that they expect to see

    AbateMagicThinking but Not money , March 8, 2017 at 7:54 am

    Gore Vidal was telling the world about the National Security State years ago seemingly without any impact on the wider public mindset.

    Only when the legitimacy of leaders is seriously in question does this stuff pique the public interest. Isn't there something called positive vetting? But then, there are no qualifications required for becoming a politician – seemingly every other job nowadays needs a certificate but not that.

    I'm just hoping that when I accidentally delete something important I can type a cry for help into Firefox and GCHQ will get it all back for me.

    AbateMagicThinking but Not money , March 8, 2017 at 8:19 am

    Dan Rather! It must be really serious. Ooo eee!

    Campaign in fantasy, govern in paranoia. Am I paraphrasing Mario Cuomo or someone else?

    Eureka Springs , March 8, 2017 at 8:28 am

    If these things are true then there is little reason to think we aren't far, far beyond decay.. we are the festering maggot laden puss spreading more toxic virulent dangers far and wide.

    Little can explain those who circle the wagon in deference to, even in favor of the surveillance state unless they are afraid, blackmailed etc.

    Chaotic unpredictable Trump (who must be clean as a whistle to survive this long) may have grabbed this Shock Doctoring chaotic beast by the tail. Will he be willing or able to bring it down? If so, he may be the greatest thing that's ever happened to this country. He's already survived more than I ever dared imagine an individual could. I mean we have long been way past stay out of any and all airplanes territory here.

    The irony is just too rich a man in favor of ever increasing military, more torture, more drones just isn't enough for the intel state.

    dontknowitall , March 8, 2017 at 8:32 am

    A long while back a post Snowden revelation was that there exists a rule and mechanisms in the NSA to make sure that politicians are put on a list that specifically excludes their communications from being vacuumed with everyone else's. To bypass the list requires authorization at the highest levels in the agencies involved (and maybe even presidential authority). That is how Congress protects itself and why it so easily gives all kinds of spying authorities to the agencies. This is not czarist Russia in other words.

    On whose authorities were the protections bypassed in the Trump case ? Comey has already come out to say he didn't do it. Devin Nunes, the Chairman the House Intelligence committee seems to not have been informed of any surveillance op involving Trump so the committees maybe out of the loop. This implies either CIA/NSA or GCHQ as I don't see Canada getting involved in it or NZ. Was the flimflam Russian bs crapped out by GCHQ and CIA to gain such legal authorities and dredge opposition on Trump to prevent his election or to soft coup him out ? That the Russian 'intel' came from an ex British spy seems suspicious.

    Michael Fiorillo , March 8, 2017 at 10:22 am

    The history of the FBI under Hoover makes me question your claim that members of Congress are exempt from surveillance. Are we really supposed to believe that, the technology being what it is, the intelligence agencies would show such admirable self-restraint? That's a bet I wouldn't take.

    Eureka Springs , March 8, 2017 at 10:45 am

    If Obama would "approve" the following and intels would do it, why wouldn't he/they go after Trump?

    https://shadowproof.com/2015/01/16/white-house-approved-cia-hacking-of-senate-computers/

    dontknowitall , March 8, 2017 at 10:55 am

    Yes I know and agree it would be foolish to rely on it. In practical terms they might do it anyway specially if safe in Obama's approval, tacit or otherwise, but the rule exists anyway, if only to be a cudgel if the congress is feeling ornery. If I remember correctly, it was discussed in Emptywheel's website in the context of the hacking of Angela Merkel.

    Eureka Springs below mentions the senate hack. The hacking of the senate computers was a CIA screwup and the agencies don't like to be in the spotlight that way but CIA seems to mind it less than the others. This is another reason I think CIA may be behind the Trump tapp.

    jefemt , March 8, 2017 at 8:53 am

    What strikes me is that this is NOT astounding, and should really come as no surprise. Think of the subterfuge and intrigue back in the ancient empires of China, Greece, Rome. It's part of our human DNA. What cracks me up is the strength of the kool-aid the innocence and starry-eyed conviction that we are exceptional. The concept of America spun in elementary school is indeed exceptional- even exceptionally virtuous. But in fact, with our convenient lives, preoccupation with debt service and preoccupation with Dancing with the Master Chefs, misdirection has kept us from the ugly reality that we are right in there amongst the best, if not the most aggressive, in our dominant empire phase.
    Think about the outrage when it was determined we were monitoring Merkle's phone. Empire in decline, indeed! Seems to me Homo sapiens is really heading out toward the end of their dead branch on the tree of life: RIP Too much head, not enough heart.

    Steve , March 8, 2017 at 9:20 am

    A reason that I don't completely ignore Trump's claim (I do not like Trump!) is that it is beginning to look as if the entire Obama Presidency had a few real primary objectives. Firstly was to protect Wall Street from any prosecution but one of the other primary longterm goals was the TTP. Obama's desire to get the TTP through at any cost makes the act of listening in on Trump (who said he would kill it) very plausible.

    jrs , March 8, 2017 at 12:18 pm

    your forgot one: bail out the insurance companies (ACA) – not that I even imagine the average person benefiting from the new Republican plans.

    DJG , March 8, 2017 at 9:36 am

    I believe that Cocomaan asked about a new Church committee in yesterday's comments. And the entire post above gives the reasons why not. There is no one in Congress of the caliber of Frank Church. (Even if McCain has fantasies ) No one will take on a multinational intelligence system, deliberately interlocked to avoid accountability. And when was the last congressional investigation that produced results and legal proceedings?

    The "Five Eyes" always remind me of V for Vendetta. (Which is not just a great graphic novel, but an unfolding prophecy.)

    White-collar America, triumphant: Love means never having to say you're sorry.

    cm , March 8, 2017 at 10:14 am

    I agree. Ron Wyden is perhaps the only one possible, but the fact that Clapper was never humiliated for lying to Congress shows that we don't have anyone up to the task.

    ChrisFromGeorgia , March 8, 2017 at 9:44 am

    A nice interview and a good example of why I keep coming back to this blog. You don't get this kind of analysis anywhere else.

    While all this infighting and spy vs. spy skulduggery goes on, one thing is for certain – the neo-cons and "deep state" are too distracted by operation "take down the Donald" to pay much attention to their usual work.

    The creation of failed states appears to be badly behind schedule now; Syria may actually be restored by the Russians and Iran back to a functional state, and there appears to be a gutting of the State Department in progress which will make future "color revolutions" difficult.

    Is it any wonder there are so many powerful interests screaming that Russia "hacked" the election?

    "methinks the lady doth protest too much."

    Hamlet

    McWatt , March 8, 2017 at 10:25 am

    Having just read "Sleepwalkers" and the new Rasputin biography and reading how everyone of any note
    in political circles was monitored in Europe and Russia over 100 years ago these modern revelations come as no surprise. In those days they did it by opening mail, intercepting telegrams and having people followed 24 hours a day.

    It reminded me of when the Chaplain was arrested by the CID men because Yossarian signed the chaplain's name or Washington Irving's or Irving Washington's name as he censored soldiers letters home while staying in the hospital.

    RUKidding , March 8, 2017 at 10:32 am

    Thanks for this very important post. Nothing that Wilkerson said is a surprise – at all – to me. In fact, it's what I've figured has been happening since well, at least since Hoover, as Wilkerson indicates.

    As others have pointed out, though, this type of spying has gone on in many forms over the eons of time. None of it is new. The only sort of newsworthy aspect of it is that people in positions of some power and knowledge of behind the scenes stuff, like Wilkerson, are coming out and saying it.

    I always figured, esp since the Snowden reveal, that ALL politicians of any major impact/level would be spied on – or at least the data is gathered and available to be perused on an as needed basis.

    I read somewhere that Trump allegedly was steamingly angry about this. I want to say: SO? What did you expect? THIS is the way things work. Sometimes you're going like that Intel and sometimes you won't.

    I'm not that convinced whether it makes a difference if there was an actual wire tap or the info was gathered by spy satellite or some other method. But I could be wrong in that regard.

    So it seems to me that Trump is naive, albeit I also get it that he's hitting out at his enemies and using his tool of choice: twitter. So he makes his short tweets and expresses his anger against his enemies to shore up the defences of his supporters. I can only hope that Trump was NOT naive enough to not realize that he wouldn't be spied on. Trump can hate Obama all he wants – and I don't like Obama much either – but this kind of spying has be de rigueur for a long long time and no doubt, will continue to be so for a long long time.

    Will Trump be able to "tame" the Spooks? Good luck. JFK tried that, and we all witnessed how that turned out.

    flora , March 8, 2017 at 11:29 am

    Thanks for this post. My guess is Wilkerson is right that intel agencies care most about their own turf and budgets. What's interesting is, judging by the Chicken Little flailing after the election, imo the CIA and other agencies never saw a Trump win coming, or really even possible. So, what are these agencies doing with all their big data? Did they simply use Google/Ada for their election probabilities intel? /s

    Pookah Harvey , March 8, 2017 at 11:59 am

    Sorry about length but I think this puts together some interesting info.

    According to the BBC (from a Jan 13 report) FISA warrants were issued:

    On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything – giving up classified information would be illegal – but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

    "I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.

    Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was – allegedly – a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

    It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

    The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

    Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

    Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

    Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities – in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

    A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case – told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

    I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request for comment.

    The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.

    Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.

    Wilkerson's supposition was pre-dated by ex-CIA Larry Johnson in A RT interview

    RT: What do you make of the accusations made by Donald Trump? How big of a deal is this?

    Larry Johnson: I think it's a huge deal. The problem is Trump probably should not have done this via Twitter because to call it a "wiretap" is technically inaccurate. And the denials by the Obama people – like Bill Clinton asking what the meaning of "is" is with respect to "was oral sex a sexual act."

    In this case I understand from very good friends that what happened was both Jim Clapper and John Brennan at CIA were intimately involved in trying to derail the candidacy of Donald Trump. That there was some collusion overseas with Britain's own GHCQ [Government Communications Headquarters]. That information that was gathered from GHCQ was actually passed to John Brennan and it was disseminated within the US government. This dissemination was illegal.

    Donald Trump is in essence correct that the intelligence agencies, and some in the law enforcement community on the side of the FBI, were in fact illegally trying to access, monitor his communications with his aides and with other people. All of this with an end to try and destroy and discredit his presidency. I don't think there can be any doubt of that. I think it's worth noting that the head of the National Security Agency, an Admiral [Michael] Rogers, made a journey to the Trump Tower shortly after Trump had won. And in the immediate aftermath of his visit, Jim Clapper and others in the intelligence community called for him to be fired . Why did Rodgers go to Trump Tower? My understanding is that it was to cover himself, because he was aware that the NSA authorities had been misused and abused with respect to Donald Trump.

    Another piece of evidence that Wikerson alludes to ( March 1, 2017 ) :

    The American media is ignoring a story from London about the abrupt resignation of Robert Hannigan, the head of Britain's highly secretive Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which is the code breaking equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA). Hannigan's resignation on January 23 surprised everyone, with only a few hours' notice provided to his staff. He claimed in a press release that he wanted to spend more time with his family, which reportedly includes a sick wife and elderly parents. Given the abruptness of the decision, it seems likely to be a cover story.

    Putting it altogether and there seems like a lot of smoke, will the MSM look for the fire?

    wild west , March 8, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    If we ignore the noise that comes from all sides 24/7 we should ask ourselves what is the worst consequence of this election cycle. I think that the fact that hatred became acceptable and normal is by far the worst. Will take a long time, if ever, to heal that.
    From the book The Damned Yard by Ivo Andric

    The success with which the politicians were able to pursue their campaign of division and mutual antagonism depended to a very large extend on the power of language to create a reality people are ready to believe in without reference to fact. Introduction page viii

    "It can happen, as you know," wrote Brother Mato, "that some of our people watching the Vizier destroy the Turks and their "prominent people" would comment on how some good would come of it for the rayah, for our fools think that another's trouble must do them good. You can tell them straight, so that they know now at least what they refused to see before: that nothing will come of it. Page 11

    Such was their capacity for hatred! And when the hatred of the bazaar attaches itself to an object, it never lets go, but focuses increasingly on it, gradually altering its shape and meaning, superseding it completely and becoming an end in itself. Then the object becomes secondary, only its name remains, and the hatred crystallizes, grows out of itself, according to its own laws and needs, and becomes powerful, inventive and enthralling, like a kind of inverted love; it finds new fuel and impetus, and itself creates motives for ever greater hatred. Page 19

    susan the other , March 8, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    Well this time Wilkerson did look upset. Just last week he looked tired but not so upset in his RNN interview. The topic this time is of course Trump being tapped and Wilkerson clearly doesn't like it. But did anybody else notice that Wilkerson is wearing the exact same clothes as in the most previous interview? And the time of day is very similar by the lighting behind him on the ceiling and on his face as he speaks down into his computer. So that's odd. Because it indicates to me that they were getting ready to debunk "Trump is crazy" talk even before Trump's claim hit the news. Or at least as soon as it did; they were ready with this interview. I get the feeling they waited a few days to make it look spontaneous. Makes me think there is almost a civil war going on. But regardless of these tactics, it's annoying that the DNC pulled this clumsy crap via the UK.

    [Mar 08, 2017] Life in Modern Russia A Citizen's Perspective

    Mar 08, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Nov 16, 2015

    Presented by Natalia Pecherskaya

    Quad 264
    Saint John's University

    November 12th, 2015

    > > > > > > > > >

    [Mar 07, 2017] Obama s wiretap America by Andrew Leonard

    Notable quotes:
    "... The more pertinent question is whether we can trust our government to responsibly seek those court orders, once it is armed with a massive expansion in surveillance power. The evidence there is not encouraging. On the same day that the news broke of the Obama administration's plan to support expanded wiretapping capabilities, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that, according to documents obtained by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Justice just doesn't believe that it needs search warrants "to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files." ..."
    "... FBI Director Robert Mueller has argued for years that the new wiretapping capabilities are necessary to deal with what he calls the "going dark" problem. As we've moved our communications from voice calls to texting and chatting and tweeting, our activities have become less visible to law enforcement. But even that assumption seems highly questionable. We are now generating vastly more data about our activities than ever before, and great swaths of it are available via subpoenas that don't require a judge's approval. One could easily argue that our incredibly detailed digital trails have put more of our lives in the "light" than ever. ..."
    "... So here's why we should be worried about the Obama administration's purported supported for expanded wiretapping. A government that we already know to be overzealous in grabbing our data is using a bogus excuse to justify vastly increased surveillance powers. ..."
    Mar 07, 2017 | www.salon.com
    Did the surveillance state just take another gigantic Big Brotherish step forward? The New York Times and Washington Post are reporting that the Obama administration is planning to support an FBI plan for "a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services."

    Facebook posts, Skype calls, Google chats, Apple's iMessage - under the new plan, every form of Internet communication would have to be accessible to law enforcement wiretapping. Civil libertarians, Internet companies and privacy activists are all understandably unenthused. A blogger at FireDogLake immediately labeled the news proof that Obama intended to support the "end of the 4th Amendment on the Internet."

    That's a little overheated. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure, chiefly by requiring that search warrants be authorized by a judge and supported by probable cause. According to all descriptions of the new FBI wiretapping plan, if law enforcement wants to listen in on your Facebook chats or Apple iMessages, law enforcement will have to get a court order, just at it would if it wants to wiretap your phone. If society is going to grant government the right to listen in to our old-school phone conversations, it's hard to see how, in principle, it can deny the same right with regard to our Skype calls.

    The more pertinent question is whether we can trust our government to responsibly seek those court orders, once it is armed with a massive expansion in surveillance power. The evidence there is not encouraging. On the same day that the news broke of the Obama administration's plan to support expanded wiretapping capabilities, CNET's Declan McCullagh reported that, according to documents obtained by the ACLU, the U.S. Department of Justice just doesn't believe that it needs search warrants "to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files."

    Now we're talking violation of the Fourth Amendment. And if we combine that kind of cavalier attitude toward our constitutionally mandated protections with vastly expanded technical surveillance capabilities, then we've got a real problem. Civil libertarians have a right to be nervous. Expanded power implies expanded opportunities to abuse that power.

    FBI Director Robert Mueller has argued for years that the new wiretapping capabilities are necessary to deal with what he calls the "going dark" problem. As we've moved our communications from voice calls to texting and chatting and tweeting, our activities have become less visible to law enforcement. But even that assumption seems highly questionable. We are now generating vastly more data about our activities than ever before, and great swaths of it are available via subpoenas that don't require a judge's approval. One could easily argue that our incredibly detailed digital trails have put more of our lives in the "light" than ever.

    So here's why we should be worried about the Obama administration's purported supported for expanded wiretapping. A government that we already know to be overzealous in grabbing our data is using a bogus excuse to justify vastly increased surveillance powers. Yippee.

    Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.

    [Mar 07, 2017] Did post-Marxist theories destroy Communist regimes

    Notable quotes:
    "... But Brezhnevite equilibrium consisted precisely in "decentralizing" power to local "barons" who would then support the faction in the center that gave them most power. ..."
    "... When Gorbachev tried to recentralize decision-making in order to promote his reforms, he was obstructed at all levels and eventually figured out that without the republican support he could accomplish nothing. This is why, as Suraska writes, at the last Party congress in 1991, he outbid his competitors (Yegor Ligachev) by formally bringing all regional party bosses into the Politburo and thus effectively confederalizing the Party and the country. ..."
    "... She sees the beginning of the end of the Army's role in Politburo's decision, strongly promoted by Andropov (then the head of KGB), not to intervene in Poland in 1980-81. Andropov's position (according to the transcripts of the Politburo meetings) that "even if Poland falls under the control of "Solidarity" [non-intervention] will be" (p. 70) was grounded in the belief that every Soviet foreign intervention (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968) reinforced the power of the Army and thus, if KGB were ever come on top, Army must not be in the driver's seat. ..."
    "... In perhaps the most original insight, Suraska deals with the ideology of Gorbachev and the first entirely Soviet-raised and bred generation that came to power in the mid-1980s. They were influenced by post-Marxist thinking where democracy or its absence were simple external (or non-essential) features: democracy was a sham since the "real power" resides elsewhere. ..."
    "... In the penultimate chapter Suraska quickly and very critically reviews different theories that purported to explain the Communist state: modernization theory, totalitarianism, bureaucratic theory, are all found wanting. ..."
    "... Both eviscerate the state, take over its functions, impose arbitrary decision-making, and do away with the division of powers. Anarchic and despotic features are thus shown to go together, moreover to be in need of each other. ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | glineq.blogspot.com

    The break-up of the Soviet Union was one of the most unusual events in history. Never before had an empire this powerful and vast given up its power and allowed the dissolution of its internal core (the Soviet Union) and its tributary states (Eastern Europe) so quickly and without a fight. The Ottoman empire went into a process of disintegration that lasted several centuries and was punctuated by numerous wars, both with western powers and Russia, and numerous struggles for national independence (Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria). The Habsburg empire dissolved after four years of the hitherto largest conflict in history. The same is true of the Russian empire and the Hohenzollerns'. But the Soviet Empire gave way almost entirely peacefully and without a fight. How did that happened?

    A slender volume by Wisła Suraska ( How the SovietUnion disappeared , Duke University Press, 1998) tries to answer the question. It is important to explain what the book is not. It is not a book about Communism and economics. It does not try to answer (at least, not directly) the question about successes and failures of Communism nor does it deal with economics at all. It is remarkable that the book does not contain a single number. It is a book written by a political scientist and it focuses on internal political determinants of the Soviet collapse.

    It is a very well and clearly written volume. The key conclusion of Suraska, enounced in italics in the last chapter, is that the break up is due to "the general failure of communist regimes-- their inability to build a modern state " (p. 134). It is "the state weakness, rather than its omnipotence [that] stalled communist project of modernization and, most notably, Gorbachev's perestroika" (p. 134). Lest somebody believe that Suraska is a partisan of state power, let me explain that what she means is that the arbitrary nature of Communist state, overseen by the Communist party, prevented it from ever developing a responsible and impersonal machinery of Weberian bureaucracy. Such a machinery that follows well-known and rational rules cannot be established if the power is arbitrary. And without such a machinery, the project of modernization is doomed.

    But this still does not explain why the country (the USSR) broke up. It broke up, she argues, because of a Brezhnevite equilibrium that-lacking a functioning centrally-controlled state apparatus and forsaking the use of terror-consisted in the creation of territorially-based fiefdoms. The power at the center depended on having peripheral supporters and these peripheral supporters gradually took over most of the local (in the USSR case, republican) functions. They could be dislodged only by the application of mass terror as when, under Stalin, the center actively fought the creation of local centers of power, either by "purging" the leaders or by shifting them constantly between the regions in order to prevent accumulation of power. But Brezhnevite equilibrium consisted precisely in "decentralizing" power to local "barons" who would then support the faction in the center that gave them most power.

    When Gorbachev tried to recentralize decision-making in order to promote his reforms, he was obstructed at all levels and eventually figured out that without the republican support he could accomplish nothing. This is why, as Suraska writes, at the last Party congress in 1991, he outbid his competitors (Yegor Ligachev) by formally bringing all regional party bosses into the Politburo and thus effectively confederalizing the Party and the country. But even that proved too little too late as the largest unit, Russia under Yeltsin, became, together with the Baltic republics, the most secessionist.

    Suraska rightly adds to this vertical de-concentration of power the ever-present wariness and competition between the Party, the secret services (KGB) and the Army. The triangular relationship where two actors try to weaken and control the third contributed to the collapse. She sees the beginning of the end of the Army's role in Politburo's decision, strongly promoted by Andropov (then the head of KGB), not to intervene in Poland in 1980-81. Andropov's position (according to the transcripts of the Politburo meetings) that "even if Poland falls under the control of "Solidarity" [non-intervention] will be" (p. 70) was grounded in the belief that every Soviet foreign intervention (Hungary 1956, Czechoslovakia 1968) reinforced the power of the Army and thus, if KGB were ever come on top, Army must not be in the driver's seat.

    The ultimate weakness of the Party could be, as Suraska writes, seen in the final denouements in the Soviet Union and Poland: in one case, the top party post went to a head of the secret police, in the other case, to the head of the Army.

    In perhaps the most original insight, Suraska deals with the ideology of Gorbachev and the first entirely Soviet-raised and bred generation that came to power in the mid-1980s. They were influenced by post-Marxist thinking where democracy or its absence were simple external (or non-essential) features: democracy was a sham since the "real power" resides elsewhere. "Armed" with this belief and the 1970 ideas of convergence of the two systems plus (in my opinion) millenarian Marxist view that Communism represents the future of mankind, they began to see no significant contradictions between the two systems and trusted that even the introduction of democracy would not affect their positions. Thus, in an ironic twist, Suraska, who is thoroughly critical of both Marxist and post-Marxist theories, credits the latter (p. 147) for bringing to an end the Marxist-based regimes.

    In the penultimate chapter Suraska quickly and very critically reviews different theories that purported to explain the Communist state: modernization theory, totalitarianism, bureaucratic theory, are all found wanting. Suraska's conclusion, stated in the beginning of this text, is then expounded in the last chapter revealingly entitled "Despotism and the modern state".

    There, in a final note worth pointing out, Suraska discusses Communist rejection of the state and its rules-bound procedures (which make Communists ideological brethrens of anarchists) and compellingly argues for the complementarity of "council ("soviet") democracy and central planning.

    Both eviscerate the state, take over its functions, impose arbitrary decision-making, and do away with the division of powers. Anarchic and despotic features are thus shown to go together, moreover to be in need of each other.

    [Mar 07, 2017] The Deep State Targets Trump by Patrick J. Buchanan

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national-security advisor, Bill Kristol purred his satisfaction, "If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state." ..."
    "... To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real defender and rightful repository of our liberties. Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls "The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn." ..."
    "... In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador. He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations. ..."
    "... But apparently, this did not sit well with the deep state. For when Vice President Pence told a TV show that Flynn told him that sanctions did not come up in conversation with the Russian ambassador, a transcript of Flynn's call was produced from recordings by intelligence agencies, and its contents leaked to the Washington Post . ..."
    "... The real crime here, however, is not that the incoming national-security advisor spoke with a Russian diplomat seeking guidance on the future president's thinking. The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state to transcribe the private conversation of a U.S. citizen and leak it to press collaborators to destroy a political career. ..."
    "... But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved. ..."
    "... Purpose: stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, "President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to return Crimea." ..."
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of ..."
    "... and the author of the book ..."
    "... What has become obvious to me is that the United States government is operating as any regime which fears it's people (but does not fear them enough) operates. ..."
    "... They drum up fears of an outside enemy. In this case, it's Russia. If they succeed, then they can subvert the will of the people as expressed through an elected President. They can prevent peace and prosperity for the benefit of the few who hold power through, as we have seen, blackmail. Trump should pardon Snowden and start firing upper level management in any intelligence agency that behaves insubordinately. They serve at the President's pleasure with Congressional oversight on their activities and bureaucrats need to be reminded of this, frequently. In this case, the record of these intelligence agencies renders the argument that we can't afford to lose the expertise these people represent is moot. Elected officials must take precedence over unelected functionaries and intelligence agencies do not have any business in determining policy. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    When Gen. Michael Flynn was forced to resign as national-security advisor, Bill Kristol purred his satisfaction, "If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state."

    To Kristol, the permanent regime, not the elected president and his government, is the real defender and rightful repository of our liberties. Yet it was this regime, the deep state, that carried out what Eli Lake of Bloomberg calls "The Political Assassination of Michael Flynn."

    And what were Flynn's offenses?

    In December, when Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador. He apparently counseled the envoy not to overreact, saying a new team would be in place in a few weeks and would review U.S.-Russian relations.

    "That's neither illegal nor improper," writes Lake. Vladimir Putin swiftly declared that there would be no reciprocal expulsions and U.S. diplomats and their families would be welcome at the Kremlin's Christmas and New Year's parties. Diplomatic crisis averted. "Great move (by V. Putin)," tweeted Trump, "I always knew he was very smart."

    But apparently, this did not sit well with the deep state. For when Vice President Pence told a TV show that Flynn told him that sanctions did not come up in conversation with the Russian ambassador, a transcript of Flynn's call was produced from recordings by intelligence agencies, and its contents leaked to the Washington Post .

    After seeing the transcript, the White House concluded that Flynn had misled Pence, mutual trust was gone, and Flynn must go. Like a good soldier, Flynn took the bullet.

    The real crime here, however, is not that the incoming national-security advisor spoke with a Russian diplomat seeking guidance on the future president's thinking. The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state to transcribe the private conversation of a U.S. citizen and leak it to press collaborators to destroy a political career.

    "This is what police states do," writes Lake.

    But the deep state is after larger game than General Flynn. It is out to bring down President Trump and abort any move to effect the sort of rapprochement with Russia that Ronald Reagan achieved.

    For the deep state is deeply committed to Cold War II.

    Hence, suddenly, we read reports of a Russian spy ship off the Connecticut, Delaware, and Virginia coasts, of Russian jets buzzing a U.S. warship in the Black Sea, and Russian violations of Reagan's INF treaty outlawing intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

    Purpose: stampede the White House into abandoning any idea of a detente with Russia. And it appears to be working. At a White House briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said, "President Trump has made it very clear that he expects the Russian government to return Crimea."

    Is the White House serious?

    Putin could no more survive returning Crimea to Ukraine than Bibi Netanyahu could survive giving East Jerusalem back to Jordan.

    How does the deep state go about its work? We have seen a classic example with Flynn. The intelligence and investigative arms of the regime dig up dirt, and then move it to their Fourth Estate collaborators, who enjoy First Amendment immunity to get it out.

    For violating their oaths and breaking the law, bureaucratic saboteurs are hailed as "whistleblowers" while the journalists who receive the fruits of their felonies put in for Pulitzers.

    Now if Russians hacked into the DNC and John Podesta's computer during the campaign, and, more seriously, if Trump aides colluded in any such scheme, it should be investigated.

    But we should not stop there. Those in the FBI, Justice Department, and intelligence agencies who were complicit in a conspiracy to leak the contents of Flynn's private conversations in order to bring down the national-security advisor should be exposed and prosecuted.

    An independent counsel should be appointed by the attorney general and a grand jury impaneled to investigate what Trump himself rightly calls "criminal" misconduct in the security agencies.

    As for interfering in elections, how clean are our hands?

    Our own CIA has a storied history of interfering in elections. In the late '40s, we shoveled cash into France and Italy after World War II to defeat the communists who had been part of the wartime resistance to the Nazis and fascists.

    And we succeeded. But we continued these practices after the Cold War ended. In this century, our National Endowment for Democracy, which dates to the Reagan era, has backed "color revolutions" and "regime change" in nations across what Russia regards as her "near abroad."

    NED's continued existence appears a contradiction of Trump's inaugural declaration: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone."

    The president and GOP should get out front here. Let Congress investigate Russia meddling in our election. And let a special prosecutor run down, root out, expose, and indict those in the investigative and intel agencies who used their custody of America's secrets, in collusion with press collaborators, to take down Trump appointees who are on their enemies lists.

    Then put NED down.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative and the author of the book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority .

    Bob K. , says: February 16, 2017 at 10:38 pm
    It used to be that no one knew what "the deep state" was. Now it has become a common news item.

    Bill Kristol and other people close to it may come to regret their satisfied "purring" about its actions against American democracy.

    Joe , says: February 17, 2017 at 3:31 am
    Is it conclusive that the leak came from the IC?
    Rdevagiri , says: February 17, 2017 at 4:46 am
    Hi – I agree with all you say. As an Australian citizen, I am outraged that the conversation between my Prime Minister and your President was leaked. This leak occurred from within the White House. There were reportedly four people from the Donald Trump admin who were on line. So yes, deep state boogey stuff is sexy, who among the reported President's team – Steve Bannon, Sean Spicer, Michael Flynn or God forbid the president himself leaked? No deep state involvement in a call with the only ally that has fought all wars with the USA since WW2 right?
    John S , says: February 17, 2017 at 7:05 am
    "The real crime is the criminal conspiracy inside the deep state "

    Mr. Buchanan could have written this in his piece "Hillary's High Crimes and Misdemeanors" published just a few short months ago in reference to leaks from the FBI. In that case, for Buchanan, "the people have a right to know." Seems like a double standard to me.

    Mark Thomason , says: February 17, 2017 at 7:16 am
    It is important to expose the American origins of this drive for Cold War II, and its motives.

    Good work.

    Drue Gawel , says: February 17, 2017 at 9:39 am
    Strange how Patrick Buchanan didn't complain about the Deep State when it was leaking information about Hillary. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/hillarys-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors/

    Seems like he is just a partisan as politicians who complained about the FBI leaks.

    With regard to making leaks public, I think Buchanan's comments about Hillary are as true for Trump. "Indeed, it would seem imperative that FBI Director James Comey, even if it violates protocol and costs him his job, state publicly whether what Baier's FBI sources are telling him is false or true."

    I personally think that if Trump has conflicts of interest and can be subject to Russian pressure, the public deserves to know. And as Buchanan suggests, the leakers should take the consequences. Why did Trump not chose transparency and release his Tax Returns and why did he not choose the public's interest and divest himself of his business holdings?

    Sceptic , says: February 17, 2017 at 11:10 am
    What the sniping comments here ignore is context. This is not about just matters of correct process and form - to which it is easy to respond sarcastically to the Trump objections: it's about starting or stopping Cold War II. And let's not forget, Cold War II increases the dangers of the hot kind, which could be quite unpleasant.

    One correction. It is not just about Putin's government, as Mr. Buchanan states. Despite fond dreams inside NED, no conceivable Russian government will 'give back' Crimea - that is, short of WWIII - or, as an outside possibility, the establishment of a neutral zone after the dissolution of NATO and the reordering of the international system.

    Will Harrington , says: February 17, 2017 at 11:46 am
    Ben Stone, Seriously? Boy, you lived in a whole different country 4 months ago than I did.

    What has become obvious to me is that the United States government is operating as any regime which fears it's people (but does not fear them enough) operates.

    They drum up fears of an outside enemy. In this case, it's Russia. If they succeed, then they can subvert the will of the people as expressed through an elected President. They can prevent peace and prosperity for the benefit of the few who hold power through, as we have seen, blackmail. Trump should pardon Snowden and start firing upper level management in any intelligence agency that behaves insubordinately. They serve at the President's pleasure with Congressional oversight on their activities and bureaucrats need to be reminded of this, frequently. In this case, the record of these intelligence agencies renders the argument that we can't afford to lose the expertise these people represent is moot. Elected officials must take precedence over unelected functionaries and intelligence agencies do not have any business in determining policy.

    Seriously, I didn't vote for the guy, but Trump is not the one we need to worry about when it comes to taking away our liberty. If a President can be brought to heel through tactics like this by unelected bureaucrats then we officially live in a police state.

    Will Harrington , says: February 17, 2017 at 11:53 am
    John S

    You make a category error. Hillary Clinton was not an sitting President at the times those leaks were made. Donald Trump is. That makes a very real difference. If you leaked information about a vice president of the company that employed you in an attempt to get him fired and embarrass your CEO, then you should be fired for insubordination.

    Dennis , says: February 17, 2017 at 12:17 pm
    The media and Deep State's obsession with Russia, and desire to fan the flames of war with Russia, is truly mystifying and terrifying. Why are they so obsessed with Russia, and acting as if Russia were still an enemy and we were still in the midst of the Cold War?

    We have more in common with Russia than not, and should work together to promote common interests, particularly in combating ISIS and radical Islam. Russia and Eastern Europe in general are also at the forefront of fighting against the US & Western European liberal monoculture consensus that dominates US & EU media and policy-making elites. On Russia policy Trump's instincts are right, but I fear the Deep State and some of his own advisors are doing their best to undermine those instincts and promote conflict. How else could one make sense of Spicer's idiotic comment the other day that the President expects Russia to give back the Crimea? One can make an historical case that not only the Crimea but all of the Ukraine should be part of Russia, but that is not our problem and we need to stay out of it and focus on areas of agreement where we can make common cause with Russia.

    [Mar 06, 2017] Victim of Obama Administration Surveillance Order, James Rosen, Discusses His Experiences, says Trump Wiretape Plausible

    Notable quotes:
    "... With Holden's explicit direction, the DOJ secretly accessed all of Rosen's gmails, contacts, and surveilled of more than 20 phone lines connected to him, including his mother's phone in Staten Island, NY. ..."
    "... Here is Rosen recounting his affair and opining on the plausibility of Trump being a target of the Obama administration too -- which he affirmed in the positive, 'in the age of Snowden.' ..."
    Mar 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Back in 2013, Fox News journalist, James Rosen, was named a 'criminal co-conspirator' and 'flight risk' by then AG Holder -- which led to a series of events that made Holden later regret doing it . With Holden's explicit direction, the DOJ secretly accessed all of Rosen's gmails, contacts, and surveilled of more than 20 phone lines connected to him, including his mother's phone in Staten Island, NY.

    The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wrote a piece on the ordeal, saying "The Rosen affair is as flagrant an assault on civil liberties as anything done by George W. Bush's administration, and it uses technology to silence critics in a way Richard Nixon could only have dreamed of. To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job - seeking out information the government doesn't want made public - deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based."

    Here is Rosen recounting his affair and opining on the plausibility of Trump being a target of the Obama administration too -- which he affirmed in the positive, 'in the age of Snowden.'

    [Mar 06, 2017] The shadow of JFK assassination: is the US Intelligence community trying to depose Trump ?

    Flynn definitely was compromised deliberately, because he just spoke with Russian ambassador as a private person (but may be on instructions from Trump) and then understanding that lied to the vice president. So releasing his conversations was a part "color revolution" against Trump, launched by neocons in intelligence services. As for the role of Jews in this affair is is naive to consider neocons to be purely ethnically based, although "Israel firster" are an important part of them. So in Fred C. Dobbs post below one needs to replace "Jew" with "Neocon" in Nixon's remarks. You will instantly see the point and it is difficlut nt to agree with Nixon that neocons influence is huge threat to the USA. In this sense Nixon proved again that his was very talented, pretty shred politician...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.) ..."
    "... Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). ..."
    "... The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power. ..."
    "... Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power. ..."
    "... Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us. ..."
    "... Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo ..."
    "... if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance ..."
    "... ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies. ..."
    "... Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added: ..."
    "... "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? ..."
    "... The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it. ..."
    "... We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. ..."
    "... Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance. ..."
    "... The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category. ..."
    "... But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules ..."
    "... At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... February 18, 2017 at 10:12 PM , 2017 at 10:12 PM
    Is this Intel community trying to undermine Trump's presidency? If so congratulations ask yourself if are living in a modern incarnation of a police state. Intelligence agencies as a pinnacle of political power == police state.

    The swamp lost part of the power and fights back.

    Looks like "Color revolution" came to the USA and you being the US citizen better to learn what it means. And it means a lot (among other things that means an immediate end of remnants of democracy left; Welcome to the USSR, in other words.)

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump. Media dominance is one essential part. Coordinated series of leaks is a standard scenarios.

    Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) on Gen. Michael Flynn resigning as President Trump's National Security Advisor and the divide between the intelligence community and Trump.

    "Who knows what is truth anymore. It's like a version of Mad magazine". -- Kusinich

    All standard tricks used to depose governments like Yanukovych in Ukraine are now played against Trump.

    Media dominance and hostility of media to the government is one essential part of any color revolution. That's what we have now in the USA. Here is Kucinich warning:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_ZfKmcnSk

    Defiant Christian Infidels

    Tom Clancy eat your heart out, this is as real as Dennis Kucinitch describes it as. The sinister globalist elite will stop at nothing in establishing their Luciferian dreams of the Novus Ordo Seclorum (New World Order). Death to the Globalist/Islamic/Leftist alliance. Deus Vult!

    Mike V

    In 2009, the Haitian parliament voted unanimously to raise the minimum wage, up to 61 cents per hour. US-based multinational textile corporations such as Hanes and Levi's objected, claiming that paying these workers slightly more would cut into their profits. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intervened and pressured Haiti to back off - blocking the raise. We only know about this from WikiLeaks.

    How on Earth is that something a communist would do? Communists want workers to unite and fire their bosses. Communists want the workers to run the factories. How on God's green Earth does a Communist - who wants the workers to directly control the means of production - intervene to block a tiny wage increase for those same workers.

    Calling corporate Democrats like Clinton and Obama "communist" and "socialist" is so mindbogglingly stupid that I don't even know how to respond to someone so blinded by partisanship.

    Gg Mo

    See: The Young Hegelians . CRONY Totalitarian "Communism" is the Goal, and the Minions are screaming for it , in their estrogen soaked , Marxist indoctrinated IDIOCY.

    IT WIZARD

    Trump needs to drain the swamp on the Intel community

    Joe

    The old Elites need conflicts, so they can keep power.
    sequorroxx

    Yep. Trillion dollar military industrial complex is a lot of motivation for the establishment to revive the cold war and to keep the IC involved in the Saudi's proxy war via ISIS in the middle east. The CIA isn't interested in peace. It wants power.

    Trisha Holmeide

    Yes, that appears to be their Operandi--to not only keep us distracted and our resources drained to continually feed their purses and purposes (to confiscate more wealth and usurp more power)...so, now that we are aware of this what are we doing to do to put a stop to it since we are Sovereign, and supposed to be in charge (self-governing). It appears we have not been taking our responsibility seriously and trusting our "servants" whilst they have been plotting and scheming against us.

    ilsm -> libezkova... , February 19, 2017 at 04:12 AM
    Trump is the last, best hope to disband the US' neolib version of the Gestapo. As the Japanese Imperial Army noted, never invade America there would be a "rifle behind every blade of grass"
    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 04:09 AM
    if Clinton won there would never be a political opponent free from her deep state surveillance

    faux media is a tool of 'leftie' oppressors who are okay!

    'leftie' oppressors want to force Christian bakers to make cakes

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , February 19, 2017 at 05:06 AM
    In Nixon's day, the Deep State was all about 'Jews in the Guv'mint'. Not gonna happen on Trump's watch, not yet anyway, so that's something. Now, it's 'Progressives', presumably. Call them NeoLiberals if you like.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/oct99/nixon6.htm

    Washington Post - October 6, 1999

    ... "The Jews are all over the government," Nixon complained to his chief of staff, H.R. "Bob" Haldeman, in an Oval Office meeting recorded on one of a set of White House tapes released yesterday at the National Archives. Nixon said the Jews needed to be brought under control by putting someone "in charge who is not Jewish" in key agencies.

    Washington "is full of Jews," the president asserted. "Most Jews are disloyal." He made exceptions for some of his top aides, such as national security adviser Henry Kissinger, his White House counsel, Leonard Garment, and one of his speechwriters, William Safire, and then added:

    "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right?"

    Haldeman agreed wholeheartedly. "Their whole orientation is against you. In this administration, anyway. And they are smart. They have the ability to do what they want to do--which is to hurt us." ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , February 19, 2017 at 05:19 AM
    Trump Is Showing How the Deep State Really Works
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/15/trump-is-showing-how-the-deep-state-really-works/
    Foreign Policy - Feb 15

    The who, what, where, and why of the Trump administration's first major scandal - Michael Flynn's ignominious resignation on Monday as national security advisor - have all been thoroughly discussed. Relatively neglected, and deserving of far more attention, has been the how.

    The fact the nation's now-departed senior guardian of national security was unmoored by a scandal linked to a conversation picked up on a wire offers a rare insight into how exactly America's vaunted Deep State works. It is a story not about rogue intelligence agencies running amok outside the law, but rather about the vast domestic power they have managed to acquire within it.

    We know now that the FBI and the NSA, under their Executive Order 12333 authority and using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as statutory cover, were actively monitoring the phone calls and reading text messages sent to and from the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak.

    Although the monitoring of any specific individual is classified TOP SECRET, and cannot be released to foreigners, the existence of this monitoring in general is something of an open secret, and Kislyak probably suspected he was under surveillance.

    But a welter of laws, many of them tweaked after the Snowden revelations, govern the distribution of any information that is acquired by such surveillance. And this is where it's highly relevant that this scandal was started by the public leaking of information about Mike Flynn's involvement in the monitoring of Kisylak.

    The way it's supposed to work is that any time a "U.S. person" - government speak for a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, even a U.S. company, located here or abroad - finds his or her communications caught up in Kislyak's, the entire surveillance empire, which was designed for speed and efficiency, and which, we now know, is hard to manage, grinds to a halt. That's a good thing. Even before Snowden, of course, the FBI would "minimize" the U.S. end of a conversation if analysts determined that the calls had no relevance to a legitimate intelligence gathering purpose. A late night call to order pizza would fall into this category.

    But if the analyst listening to Kislyak's call hears someone identify himself as an agent of the U.S. government - "Hi! It's Mike Flynn" certainly qualifies - a number of things have to happen, according to the government's own rules

    At this stage, the actual audio of the call and any transcript would be considered "Raw FISA-acquired information," and its distribution would be highly restricted. At the NSA, not more than 40 or so analysts or senior managers would be read into the classification sub-sub compartment that contains it, called RAGTIME-A,B,C D or P, where each letter stands for one of five different categories of foreign intelligence.

    For anything out of the ordinary - and, again, Flynn's status qualifies - the head of the National Security Division would be notified, and he or she would bring the raw FISA transcript to FBI Director James Comey or his deputy. Then, the director and his deputy would determine whether to keep the part of the communication that contained Flynn's words. The NSA has its own procedures for determining whether to destroy or retain the U.S. half of an intercepted communication.

    In this case, there were three sets of communications between Flynn and Kislyak, at least one of which is a text message. The first occurs on Dec. 18. The last occurs on Dec. 30, a day after sanctions were levied against people that the Russian ambassador knew - namely, spies posing as diplomats.

    The factors FBI Director Comey and his deputy would have had to consider in this case are complex. Flynn was a former senior intelligence official not in power at the time of the communications, though he did have an interim security clearance. Then there was the policy context: The United States wanted to know why Russia decided not to retaliate, according to the Washington Post.

    (Justice Department warned White House that
    Flynn could be vulnerable to Russian blackmail,
    officials say https://wpo.st/fthc2 Feb 13)

    But the most important factor would have been that Flynn was talking to the ambassador of a country who has been credibly accused of interfering in the election of his boss. Regardless of the content of Flynn's side of the call, it would be negligent if the FBI decided to minimize, or ignore, these calls, simply because Flynn is a citizen who is not subject to surveillance himself. But what Flynn said in the calls would have played a role in the FBI's determination to keep the transcripts unminimized - a fancy way of saying "unredacted."

    The Justice Department would then decide whether to pursue the matter further. If they thought Flynn was acting as an agent of a foreign government - and there's not a gram of evidence for this - they could apply for a normal surveillance warrant under Title III of the U.S. code.

    It is rare for the FBI or NSA to distribute raw, unminimized FISA material outside of controlled channels. But given the intelligence questions at stake, they would have had an obligation to circulate the Flynn transcripts to the National Security Council, which, during most of January, was peopled with President Obama's staff and detailees from other government agencies.

    Sometime before January 12, the fact that these conversations had occurred was disclosed to David Ignatius, who wrote about them. That day, Sean Spicer asked Flynn about them. Flynn denied that the sanctions were discussed. A few days later, on January 16, Vice President Mike Pence repeated Flynn's assurances to him that the calls were mostly about the logistics of arranging further calls when Trump was President.

    At this moment, we are four days away from Trump's inauguration. The FBI agents and analysts who monitored the calls, as well as some NSC officials in the Obama administration, along with a few senior Justice Department attorneys, all knew with certainty that the content of the calls contradicted Flynn's account of them. The transcript of the Dec. 30 call proved as much.

    For reasons unclear to us, the FBI director, James Comey, did not believe that Flynn's misrepresentations amounted to a sufficient national security risk on January 16 to spring FBI investigators on the Trump team, or even on Flynn. Perhaps he felt that doing so right before the inauguration would have been too unseemly.

    But he did want to know more. In an extraordinary turn, agents were sent to the White House to interview Flynn just a few days after Trump was sworn in, according to the New York Times. We don't know what they learned. But by January 26, Comey had dropped his objections to notifying the White House. (In the interim, Sean Spicer was asked about the calls again, and repeated the Flynn untruth.)

    Acting attorney general Sally Yates informed the White House counsel, Don McGahn, that their account of what Flynn said did not match what Flynn insisted he said.

    McGahn had the clearance to see the transcript, but it's fair to assume that many members of Trump's team probably did not. But that does not explain why it took 11 days for Vice President Pence, who certainly did have such clearance, to learn about the Justice Department warning. And it does not explain what the White House was doing as it mulled over this information for weeks.

    Here we have to leave the realm of reasonable conjecture, but the best explanation might be the easiest: incompetence or ineffectiveness from the White House counsel and an inability to foresee the real world consequences of their own decisions by White House principals. The country's intelligence agencies, by contrast, were far more clear-sighted in the use of their prerogatives and power.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 19, 2017 at 07:26 AM
    Obama's executive order and an act make it okay to attempt a coup trashing the 4 th amendment.

    The US confirms to the world it is not what it claims.

    [Mar 06, 2017] Russian effect is tiny compared to CIA Vickie Nuland color coup in Kyiv, sodomizing Qaddafi, greenlighting the military coup in Egypt, busting up Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan

    Mar 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    DeDude -> libezkova...

    , March 05, 2017 at 04:05 AM
    Yes sure Russians did all they could to get Hillary elected ??

    Now your desperation is becoming pathetic - comrade.

    ilsm -> DeDude... , March 05, 2017 at 07:34 AM
    How fast the loser become take the role of the enemies.

    Russian effect is tiny compared to CIA Vickie Nuland color coup in Kyiv, sodomizing Qaddafi, greenlighting the military coup in Egypt, busting up Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Afghanistan.......

    There is nothing more than a politicized 'thought experiment' on how the Russians could in their alter reality have kept the career criminal from taking Pa and Wi.


    Their press even rolls out dead journalists against Putin while the 65 dead around the Clinton crime family is 'tin foil hat....'

    They'll fact check Trump on each 140 characters!

    [Mar 05, 2017] Senator Sasse Issues Statement On Trumps Very Serious Wiretapping Allegations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Sasse raises several key points: if the wiretap was authorized by a FISA Court, Trump should demand to see the application, find out on what grounds it was granted, and then present it to the US public at best, or at least the Senate. In case there was no FISA court, it is possible that Trump was illegally tapped. Finally, there is the possibility that Trump was not wiretapped at all, although for the president to make such a public allegation one would hope that there is at least some factual basis to the charge. ..."
    "... "We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots. A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health." ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary and Armed Services Committees, has issued the following statement after President Trump accused former President Obama of wiretapping his phones in 2016 and Obama's spokesman said that was false.

    Sasse raises several key points: if the wiretap was authorized by a FISA Court, Trump should demand to see the application, find out on what grounds it was granted, and then present it to the US public at best, or at least the Senate. In case there was no FISA court, it is possible that Trump was illegally tapped. Finally, there is the possibility that Trump was not wiretapped at all, although for the president to make such a public allegation one would hope that there is at least some factual basis to the charge.

    my statement on wiretapping... pic.twitter.com/OzYkOCXeEh

    - Ben Sasse (@BenSasse) March 4, 2017

    Here is Sasse's full statement.

    Sasse Statement On Wiretapping

    "The President today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic requires deserve more information.

    If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump's organization or campaign, then it was either with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization.

    If without, the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible that he was illegally tapped.

    On the other hand , if it was with a legal FISA Court order, then an application for surveillance exists that the Court found credible.

    The President should ask that this full application regarding surveillance of foreign operatives or operations be made available, ideally to the full public, and at a bare minimum to the U.S. Senate.

    Sasses then concludes:

    "We are in the midst of a civilization-warping crisis of public trust, and the President's allegations today demand the thorough and dispassionate attention of serious patriots. A quest for the full truth, rather than knee-jerk partisanship, must be our guide if we are going to rebuild civic trust and health."

    It appears that the Trump admin may already be working on Sasse's recommendations: as the NYT reports ,

    " a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president's chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what the official described as a document issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing surveillance of Mr. Trump and his associates. The official offered no evidence to support the notion that such a document exists; any such move by a White House counsel would be viewed at the Justice Department as a stunning case of interference ."

    Alternatively, it would be viewed as a case president seeking to determine if his predecessor was actively plotting to interfere with the election via wiretapping, also a quite "stunning" case.

    [Mar 05, 2017] Obama says Trump claim he ordered Trump Tower wiretapped is false Fox News

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Had my wires tapped"! Just became the new internet meme. ..."
    "... Trump has enough evidence to put bammy in JAIL ..."
    Mar 05, 2017 | www.foxnews.com
    Former President Obama on Saturday denied President Trump's accusation that Obama had Trump Tower phones tapped in the weeks before the November 2016 election.

    "Neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false," said Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president.

    Trump made the claim in a series of early Saturday morning tweets that included the suggestion that the alleged wiretapping was tantamount to "McCarthyism" and "Nixon/Watergate."

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

    Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

    6:35 AM - 4 Mar 2017
    "Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my 'wires tapped' in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism," Trump tweeted.

    "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!" he said in another tweet.

    Trump also tweeted that a "good lawyer could make a great case of the fact that President Obama was tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!"

    "How low has President Obama gone to tap (sic) my phones during the very sacred election process. This is Nixon/Watergage. Bad (or sick) guy!" the president continued.

    Trump does not specify how he uncovered the Obama administration's alleged wiretapping.

    However, he could be referencing a Breitbart article posted Friday that claimed the administration made two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) requests in 2016 to monitor Trump communications and a computer server in Trump Tower, related to possible links with Russian banks.

    No evidence was found.

    The article was based on a segment by radio host Mark Levin.

    However, the timelines for each seems to draw from a range of news reports over the last several months, including those from The New York Times and Heat Street.

    Lewis also said Saturday: "A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice."

    wouldsmash

    REOPEN CLINTON EMAIL SERVER INVESTIGATION

    encorezzzzzzz

    GOP lawmaker calls to investigate Obama's $418 million arms deal with Kenya.

    Fox News reported: A North Carolina congressman is calling for a probe into a potential $418 million contract between Kenya and a major U.S. defense contractor announced on President Obama's last day in office -- a deal the lawmaker claims reeks of cronyism. Republican Rep. Ted Budd wants the Government Accountability Office to investigate a deal between the African nation and New York-based L3 Technologies for the sale of 12 weaponized border patrol planes.

    He said he wants to know why a veteran-owned small company in North Carolina – which specializes in making such planes – was not considered as the manufacturer. IOMAX USA Inc., based in Mooresville and founded by a U.S. Army veteran, offered to build Kenya the weaponized planes for roughly $281 million – far cheaper than what its competitor, L3, is selling them for.

    "Something smells wrong here," Budd told Fox News. "The U.S. Air Force bypassed IOMAX, which has 50 of these planes already in service in the Middle East." "They were given a raw deal," Budd said of Kenya, which had requested from the U.S. 12 weaponized planes in its fight against terrorist group Al-Shabaab near its northern border. "We want to treat our allies like Kenya fairly," he said. "And we want to know why IOMAX was not considered."

    ricochetdog

    "Had my wires tapped"! Just became the new internet meme.

    Andrewmag16

    Why are democrats always meeting and dealing with us and then act like its bad if anyone else speaks to Russians?

    evolutionmyths

    Coming from an ... that never spoke any kind of truth . If he said false it means True

    SheSayEh

    Obama was community organizer of Chicago. Look at the mess he left behind there.

    MrChainBlueLightning

    The so called United States experiment should end. It was ultimately a failure. Red and Blue states should merge and form their own countries.

    CLUTCHCARGO1

    DON'T STOP INVESTIGATING. OBAMA NEEDS TO MEET INMATE BUBBA

    wouldsmash

    Trump has enough evidence to put bammy in JAIL

    MickeyQBitskoIII

    Soros would certainly have it done, and Obama and Hillary would be in on whatever "intel" is gathered, but there is NO WAY Soros would allow his favorite Kenyan lap dog to be directly involved in the operation.

    frdm399

    Tucker Carlson exposed Politifact, New York Times, and Washington Post fact checkers as liars last night. You just can't believe anything a democRAT says...

    jconnelly

    The US Govt was spying on Trump during the election. The Russians were spying on Clinton during the election. Which is worse?

    [Mar 05, 2017] Obama Advisor Rhodes Is Wrong: The President Can Order A Wiretap, And Why Trump May Have The Last Laugh

    Funny now Obama and Clinton need to be afraid the Trump will wiretap them ;-)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath ..."
    "... The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation. ..."
    "... I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it. ..."
    "... Additionally, Philip Rucker, the WaPo's White House bureau chief echoed Favreau's caveat, namely that the Obama spokesman's statement does not deny the existence of wiretaps on Trump Tower ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Following Trump's stunning allegation that Obama wiretapped the Trump Tower in October of 2016, prior to the presidential election, which may or may not have been sourced from a Breitbart story , numerous Democrats and media pundits have come out with scathing accusations that Trump is either mentally disturbed, or simply has no idea what he is talking about.

    The best example of this came from Ben Rhodes, a former senior adviser to President Obama in his role as deputy National Security Advisor, who slammed Trump's accusation, insisting that " No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you." He also said "only a liar" could make the case, as Trump suggested, that Obama wire tapped Trump Tower ahead of the election.

    No President can order a wiretap. Those restrictions were put in place to protect citizens from people like you. https://t.co/lEVscjkzSw

    - Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) March 4, 2017

    It would appear, however, that Rhodes is wrong, especially as pertains to matters of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, and its associated FISA court, under which the alleged wiretap of Donald Trump would have been granted, as it pertained specifically to Trump's alleged illicit interactions with Russian entities.

    In Chapter 36 of Title 50 of the US Code *War and National Defense", Subchapter 1, Section 1802 , we read the following:

    (1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that

    (A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at- (i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or (ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

    (B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

    (C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801(h) of this title; and if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

    While (B) seems to contradict the underlying permissive nature of Section 1802 as it involves a United States person, what the Snowden affair has demonstrated all too clearly, is how frequently the NSA and FISA court would make US citizens collateral damage. To be sure, many pointed out the fact that Fox News correspondent James Rosen was notoriously wiretapped in 2013 when the DOJ was investigating government leaks. The Associated Press was also infamously wiretapped in relation to the same investigation.

    As pertains to Trump, the Guardian reported as much in early January, when news of the alleged anti-Trump dossier by former UK spy Chris Steele broke in January:

    The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

    Furthermore, while most Democrats - not to mention former president Obama himself - have been harshly critical of Trump's comments, some such as former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau was quite clear in his warning to reporters that Obama did not say there was no wiretapping, effectively confirming it:

    I'd be careful about reporting that Obama said there was no wiretapping. Statement just said that neither he nor the WH ordered it.

    - Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) March 4, 2017

    Favreau also urged his twitter followers to read a thread that explicitly suggested the prior existence of FISA-endorsed wiretaps:

    Ok you definitely need to read this thread https://t.co/W7CkXjV40f

    - Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) March 4, 2017

    Additionally, Philip Rucker, the WaPo's White House bureau chief echoed Favreau's caveat, namely that the Obama spokesman's statement does not deny the existence of wiretaps on Trump Tower, only that Obama himself and the Obama White House did not approve them if they did exist.

    The Obama statement does not say there was no federal wire tapping of Trump Tower. It only says Obama and White House didn't order it.

    - Philip Rucker (@PhilipRucker) March 4, 2017

    Further implying the existence of such a wiretap was David Axelrod, who tweeted today that that such a wiretap could exist but would have "been OK'ed only for a a reason."

    If there were the wiretap @realDonaldTrump loudly alleges, such an extraordinary warrant would only have been OKed by a court for a reason.

    - David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) March 4, 2017

    Yet ironically, it was none other than the Trump administration which just earlier this week announced it supports the renewal of spy law which incorporates the FISA court, without reforms :

    "the Trump administration does not want to reform an internet surveillance law to address privacy concerns, a White House official told Reuters on Wednesday, saying it is needed to protect national security. The announcement could put President Donald Trump on a collision course with Congress, where some Republicans and Democrats have advocated curtailing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, parts of which are due to expire at the end of the year."

    "We support the clean reauthorization and the administration believes it's necessary to protect the security of the nation," the official said on condition of anonymity.

    The FISA law has been criticized by privacy and civil liberties advocates as allowing broad, intrusive spying. It gained renewed attention following the 2013 disclosures by former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden that the agency carried out widespread monitoring of emails and other electronic communications.

    In any event, the bottom line here appears to be that with his tweet, Trump has opened a can of worms with two possible outcomes: either the wiretaps exist as Trump has suggested, and the president will use them to attack both the Obama administration and the media for political overreach; or, there were no wiretaps, which as Matthew Boyle writes , would suggest the previous administration had no reason to suspect Trump colluded with a foreign government.

    Senator Ben Sasse said as much in his statement issued earlier today:

    The President today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic requires deserve more information. If there were wiretaps of then-candidate Trump's organization or campaign, then it was either with FISA Court authorization or without such authorization. If without, the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible that he was illegally tapped. On the other hand, if it was with a legal FISA Court order, then an application for surveillance exists that the Court found credible.

    But what is perhaps most important, is that we may know soon enough. As the NYT reported on Saturday afternoon , a senior White House official said that Donald F. McGahn II, the president's chief counsel, was working on Saturday to secure access to what the official described as a document issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court authorizing surveillance of Mr. Trump and his associates.

    If and when such a document is made public - assuming it exists of course - it would be Trump, once again, that gets the last laugh.

    [Mar 04, 2017] Obama Slams False Trump Accusation, Says Never Ordered Wiretapping

    Notable quotes:
    "... Moments ago, Barack Obama through his spokesman Kevin Lewis denied Trump's accusation that he had ordered the Trump Tower wiretapped, saying neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, " ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false ." ..."
    "... Yet while the carefully-worded statement, an exercise in semantics, claims Obama did not himself, or through members of his White House team, order a potential wiretapping, it does not deny an actual wiretapping of Trump (or Trump Tower), which as some have speculated in the past , did in fact take place after a FISA Court granted surveillance of Trump over accusations of Russian interference. It also does not preclude the FBI - which is the entity that would most likely have implemented such a wiretap - from having given the order. ..."
    "... The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. ..."
    "... For the definitive answer, we suggest Trump ask Comey whether or not his building was being tapped in the days prior to the election. ..."
    "... Analyzing Obama's own statements over the years on the illegal wiretappings, one does not come to the conclusion that he can be trusted ..."
    "... Of course Obama himself did not give the order It's someone in his administration that would have ordered it, which he commanded over. His wordsmithing is so tiresome. ..."
    "... Obama, "The Russians did it" ..."
    "... He says of course: "I am not a crook " R. Nixon. Give me a break the dickhead even tapped Angela Merkel's phone and half of Europe. ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Moments ago, Barack Obama through his spokesman Kevin Lewis denied Trump's accusation that he had ordered the Trump Tower wiretapped, saying neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, " ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false ."

    Follows the statement from Kevin Lewis, spokesman to former president Barack Obama

    "A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."

    MORE: Spokesperson for former Pres. Obama responds to Trump wiretap allegation, calls it "simply false." https://t.co/cXyQHeSvNy pic.twitter.com/se2gno6wxz

    - ABC News (@ABC) March 4, 2017

    Yet while the carefully-worded statement, an exercise in semantics, claims Obama did not himself, or through members of his White House team, order a potential wiretapping, it does not deny an actual wiretapping of Trump (or Trump Tower), which as some have speculated in the past , did in fact take place after a FISA Court granted surveillance of Trump over accusations of Russian interference. It also does not preclude the FBI - which is the entity that would most likely have implemented such a wiretap - from having given the order.

    As a reminder, here is what the Guardian reported in early January :

    The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

    For the definitive answer, we suggest Trump ask Comey whether or not his building was being tapped in the days prior to the election.

    Belrev , Mar 4, 2017 1:13 PM

    Analyzing Obama's own statements over the years on the illegal wiretappings, one does not come to the conclusion that he can be trusted

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fap41cMdhcc

    wildbad -> Belrev , Mar 4, 2017 1:13 PM

    end the tsa bs https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/limit-and-reduce-invasive-and-...

    Chris Dakota -> wildbad , Mar 4, 2017 1:15 PM

    Yeah you did you community agitator, fire starter, treasonous snake.

    thesonandheir -> Chris Dakota , Mar 4, 2017 1:20 PM

    Just investigate Pizzagate fully and we'll see if O'birdbath is lying or not.

    The_Juggernaut -> thesonandheir , Mar 4, 2017 1:23 PM

    You have to appreciate the way he puts things out there that cause them to issue carefully worded denials that sound more like confessions than anything else.

    auricle -> The_Juggernaut , Mar 4, 2017 1:29 PM

    Of course Obama himself did not give the order It's someone in his administration that would have ordered it, which he commanded over. His wordsmithing is so tiresome.

    eatthebanksters -> auricle , Mar 4, 2017 1:34 PM

    We're goin to find out soon...who asked for the FISA warrant?

    BaBaBouy -> eatthebanksters , Mar 4, 2017 1:36 PM

    "NEVER Ordered It" So that means It Was Done, under Obama Regime???

    BaBaBouy -> BaBaBouy , Mar 4, 2017 1:43 PM

    How about that "Meeting" Between Billy and the Lorretta, on the tarmac??? The "How are the kidz, Lorretta" Meeting??? LOL...

    remain calm -> BaBaBouy , Mar 4, 2017 1:51 PM

    Obama, "The Russians did it"

    Billy the Poet -> remain calm , Mar 4, 2017 1:54 PM

    neither he nor any member of the Obama White House, "ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false."

    Obama has taken credit for ordering the drone strike which killed US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. Now we are being told that no surveillance preceded that strike. Obama apparently ordered the strike and a drone was launched blindly into the heavens but it still managed to find and destroy al-Awlaki entirely by chance.

    Sounds like very fake news to me.

    Winston Churchill -> Billy the Poet , Mar 4, 2017 2:01 PM

    Only a smidgeon of a lie.

    FreddieX -> Winston Churchill , Mar 4, 2017 2:51 PM

    Stay sane: clear logic:

    http://theduran.com/obama-replies-trumps-wiretap-charge/ " This statement is classic Obama. It appears on its face to be clear and complete, but in reality it is nothing of the sort. .. We are at a very early stage in this matter. There are multiple investigations underway, some launched by the outgoing Obama administration against the incoming Trump administration, and some launched by the current Trump administration against the preceding Obama administration. ... Obama's highly legalistic statement today – which reads very much like a defence statement – however gives a good flavour of the direction some of these inquiries are taking. " ...

    " The statement hints than any order to wiretap ... was the work of officials in the Justice Department ... This too is almost certainly true. However it neglects to say that some of these officials were people whom Obama himself appointed, and who were therefore part of his administration. "

    Perhaps Mr. Kadzik http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-31/doj-tells-congress-it-will-work...

    Jim in MN -> FreddieX , Mar 4, 2017 4:27 PM

    Simpler even then that: If he didn't ORDER then he must have APPROVED. If he didn't APPROVE what does that say? And if he did?

    monad -> Jim in MN , Mar 4, 2017 5:36 PM

    Or he found out about it when his owners told him to make a statement & provide the msm more distraction from the great things Trump is already accomplishing in this his 7th week on the job , despite the backstabbing congress, senate, spooks, crisis actors, paid protestors and moochers.

    The fanatics who did this are the the same fanatics who bombed London mass transit during a drill, and conducted the 911 heist and mass execution during a drill.

    cowdiddly -> Jim in MN , Mar 4, 2017 5:54 PM

    He says of course: "I am not a crook " R. Nixon. Give me a break the dickhead even tapped Angela Merkel's phone and half of Europe.

    fockewulf190 -> FreddieX , Mar 4, 2017 4:54 PM

    If that would have been a statement straight from Obama, he would have sounded like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfk

    A bit old, but true nonetheless.

    eatthebanksters -> FreddieX , Mar 4, 2017 6:06 PM

    Is anyone naive enough to think that Loretta Lynch and Obama were unaware that the Republican candidate for POTUS was being wiretapped the month before the actual election?

    This is Hillary like legal speak where Obozo is trying to keep his neck out of a legal sling. Sorry...Nixon tried that.

    SWRichmond -> Winston Churchill , Mar 4, 2017 2:54 PM

    "A cardinal rule of the Obama Administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false

    Taqqiya

    fleur de lis -> SWRichmond , Mar 4, 2017 3:56 PM

    When Obama says he did not order the wiretapping, he is probably telling the truth. Obama had no power at all -- he took the position knowing that he was only a cat's paw. He was content to be a facade and he knew it, and so did his wife. He was not smart enough to be a President, but he was egotistical enough to take the position and all the bennies in exchange for taking orders from his handlers without question.

    • Does anyone really think he was smart enough to plan all the Middle East attacks for 8 years? Of course not -- the logistical planning for those events were far beyond his intelligence.
    • For that matter, has anyone seen his Columbia and Harvard transcripts? Of course not -- he was a dummy and a fake and the records would show that.
    • He was editor of the HLR but has anyone seen a sample of his writing? Of course not -- if it exists at all it is unimpressive.
    • It is doubtful that the Deep State would allow Obama access to such critical wiretapping. That sort of power is reserved for our tax funded, invisible slavemasters.
    xythras -> fleur de lis , Mar 4, 2017 4:24 PM

    Meanwhile the hypocritical left dares to compare the two email situations Photo of Clinton Reading about Pence's Email Scandal Goes Viral

    http://dailywesterner.com/news/2017-03-04/photo-of-clinton-reading-about...

    [Mar 04, 2017] There is extremely powerful and influential fifth column of globalization within the country which intends to block Trump efforts to reverse neoliberal globalization

    Notable quotes:
    "... He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments. ..."
    "... And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals: ..."
    "... Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism ..."
    "... Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself. ..."
    "... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place," ..."
    "... This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    cm -> im1dc... March 04, 2017 at 05:59 PM 2017 at 05:59 PM
    The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president. What would motivate many people to go out for weekend rallies now?
    libezkova -> cm... , -1
    "The important mission has been accomplished - Trump has become president."

    You are absolutely wrong. Mission is not accomplished. It is not even started.

    Trump IMHO was just a symbol of resistance against neoliberalism that is growing in the USA.

    He was elected not for his personal qualities, but despite them, as a symbol of anti-neoliberal movement. As the only candidate that intuitively felt the need for the new policy due to crisis of neoliberalism ("secular stagnation" to be exact) impoverishment of lower 80% and "appropriated" anti-neoliberal sentiments.

    And he is expected to accomplish at least two goals:

    1. Stop the wars of expansion of neoliberal empire fought by previous administration. Achieve détente with Russia as Russia is more ally then foe in the current international situation and hostility engineered by Obama administration was based on Russia resistance to neoliberalism (despite being neoliberal country with neoliberal President -- Putin is probably somewhat similar to Trump "bastard neoliberal" a strange mixture of neoliberal in domestic politics with "economic nationalist" on international arena that rejects neoliberal globalization, on term favorable to multinational corporations).
    2. Reverse or at least stem destruction of jobs and the standard of living of lower 80% on Americans due to globalization and, possibly, slow down or reverse the process of globalization itself.

    The problem is there is extremely powerful and influential "fifth column" of globalization within the country and they can't allow Trump to go this path. As Senator Dick Durbin said about banks and the US Congress

    == quote ==

    Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has been battling the banks the last few weeks in an effort to get 60 votes lined up for bankruptcy reform. He's losing.

    On Monday night in an interview with a radio host back home, he came to a stark conclusion: the banks own the Senate.

    "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place,"

    == end of the quote ==

    This is anathema for neoliberalism and it is neoliberals who ruled the country since 1980. So it is not surprising that they now are trying to stage a color revolution in the USA to return to power. See also pretty interesting analysis at

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/03/03/done-paul-craig-roberts/

    [Mar 04, 2017] DNC hack is used for fueling the witch hunt in best traditions of Russians are coming

    Notable quotes:
    "... Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security. ..."
    "... Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is. ..."
    "... If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity. ..."
    "... There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today. ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | www.newyorker.com

    March 04, 2017 at 05:33 AM

    Game Warden -> ilsm... March 04, 2017 at 05:57 AM

    The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and viewership) and then setting the hook to try to land the fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one hot topic if there is any potential for a catch.

    The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it paid off for them. They landed the Hillary carp and found that it rotted from the head anyway.
    The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or whatever, they land.
    The Old Man and The Sea it ain't.

    ilsm -> Game Warden...March 04, 2017 at 06:04 AM

    Oh well Clinton was never good with flies.

    My resident Hillary lover foresaw this week's Sessions version of 'the Russians are coming' two weeks ago.

    They should keep the operational schedule for the coup closer.

    libezkova -> ilsm... March 04, 2017 at 02:58 PM

    Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece. I would say this can qualify as a classic anti-Russian propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.

    But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)

    Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history. He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

    Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the signal," Putin said.

    "They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.

    ... .. ...

    Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm. Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."

    In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of the new President.

    ... ... ...

    *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties.

    I especially like the last paragraph.

    Paine -> libezkova... March 04, 2017 at 03:39 PM

    The history of uncle Sam's Interference in foreign elections since1946 is a fun house with many many rooms

    anne -> anne... March 04, 2017 at 12:45 PM

    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....

    anne -> anne... March 04, 2017 at 01:00 PM

    Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security.

    Peter K. -> anne...March 04, 2017 at 01:05 PM

    "Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is."

    Pinkybum -> anne... March 04, 2017 at 02:55 PM

    Surely you would want to express this number at least as inflation adjusted per-capita dollars (which GDP sort-of captures.)

    ilsm -> pgl... March 04, 2017 at 01:09 PM

    I like the OMB historical tables that reflects outlay/ordering authority that is the checking account to obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures for delivery for years.

    Tracking GDP metric is limited in perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in the accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books nor what new stuff is added to the order books.

    If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity.

    There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today.

    Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting some account information on backlog procurements means much for any country.

    2009 was a big year for the peace prize surge!

    [Mar 04, 2017] Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War

    Three neocon stooges wrote a classic propaganda essay. All major anti-Russian myths are present. Comments are borrowed from March 04, 2017 at economistsview.typepad.com
    Notable quotes:
    "... Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought." ..."
    "... *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties. ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | www.newyorker.com

    Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history. He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the uprisings of the Arab Spring. Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the signal," Putin said. "They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.

    ... .. ...

    Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm. Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."

    In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of the new President.

    ... ... ...

    *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties.

    [Mar 04, 2017] http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trump-putin-and-the-new-cold-war

    Mar 04, 2017 | www.newyorker.com

    The illusion of DNC hack, allegation it is "the Russians are coming:".

    There is not there there! Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 05:33 AM Game Warden said in reply to ilsm... The dems are like fishermen, baiting the water (and viewership) and then setting the hook to try to land the fish. They are following the old DC approach of pursuing one hot topic if there is any potential for a catch.
    The reps did that with the e-mails during the campaign and it paid off for them. They landed the Hillary carp and found that it rotted from the head anyway.
    The dems will see what type of fish, or old tire, or whatever, they land.
    The Old Man and The Sea it ain't. Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 05:57 AM ilsm said in reply to Game Warden... Oh well Clinton was never good with files.

    My resident Hillary lover foresaw this week's Sessions version of 'the Russians are coming' two weeks ago.

    They should keep the operational schedule for the coup closer. Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 06:04 AM libezkova said in reply to ilsm... Those three neocon stooges wrote a really interesting piece. I would say this can qualify as a classic anti-Russian propaganda. All major anti-Russian myths are present.

    But in the sea of standard propaganda drivel and anti-Russian myths there are a couple of interesting admissions (it is difficult to lie all the time ;-)

    == quote ==

    Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history. He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the uprisings of the Arab Spring.

    Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the signal," Putin said.

    "They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.

    ... .. ...

    Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm. Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."

    In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of the new President.

    ... ... ...

    *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties.
    == and of quote ==

    I especially like the last paragraph.

    Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 02:58 PM
    Paine said in reply to libezkova... The history of uncle Sam's Interference
    in foreign elections since1946
    Is a fun house with many many rooms Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 03:39 PM

    anne said in reply to anne... http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.... Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 12:45 PM anne said in reply to anne... Defense spending in 2016 was $732.3 billion, the president is asking for another $54 billion in 2017, while between 2001 and 2016, $4.79 trillion was spent on or allotted to the cost of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria and on Homeland Security. Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:00 PM Peter K. said in reply to anne... "Curiously there are ever so many people who make a point of always but always understating defense spending by playing all sorts of games from expressly leaving out spending on military field activities as in Afghanistan or Iraq to talking about real or surreal spending so that any ordinary person is made to think spending is tens of billions of dollars less than it actually is."

    Yes. I wouldn't trust any info PGL provides without clear links from objective sources.
    Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:05 PM Pinkybum said in reply to anne... Surely you would want to express this number at least as inflation adjusted per-capita dollars (which GDP sort-of captures.) Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 02:55 PM ilsm said in reply to pgl... I like the OMB historical tables that reflects outlay/ordering authority that is the checking account to obligate money which might not show up in GDP expenditures for delivery for years.

    Tracking GDP metric is limited in perspective, it shows what was delivered and paid for in the accounting year. It does not show what is on the order books nor what new stuff is added to the order books.

    If we look at %GDP I think US expenditures for the defense account included (not all) declined to about 3.9%. SIPRI is a good source for GDP activity.

    There remains a huge amount of (outlay) backlog to expend from FY 2009 through today.

    Why I am not sure measuring GDP impact without getting some account information on backlog procurements means much for any country.

    2009 was a big year for the peace prize surge! Reply Saturday, March 04, 2017 at 01:09 PM

    [Mar 04, 2017] Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War

    Three neocon stooges wrote a classic propaganda essay. All major anti-Russian myths are present. Comments are borrowed from March 04, 2017 at economistsview.typepad.com
    Notable quotes:
    "... Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought." ..."
    "... *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties. ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | www.newyorker.com

    Vladimir Putin, who is quick to accuse the West of hypocrisy, frequently points to this history. He sees a straight line from the West's support of the anti-Moscow "color revolutions," in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine, which deposed corrupt, Soviet-era leaders, to its endorsement of the uprisings of the Arab Spring. Five years ago, he blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the anti-Kremlin protests in Moscow's Bolotnaya Square. "She set the tone for some of our actors in the country and gave the signal," Putin said. "They heard this and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, began active work." (No evidence was provided for the accusation.) He considers nongovernmental agencies and civil-society groups like the National Endowment for Democracy, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the election-monitoring group Golos to be barely disguised instruments of regime change.

    ... .. ...

    Initially, members of the Russian élite celebrated Clinton's disappearance from the scene, and the new drift toward an America First populism that would leave Russia alone. The fall of Michael Flynn and the prospect of congressional hearings, though, have tempered the enthusiasm. Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of a leading foreign-policy journal in Moscow, said that Trump, facing pressure from congressional investigations, the press, and the intelligence agencies, might now have to be a far more "ordinary Republican President than was initially thought."

    In other words, Trump might conclude that he no longer has the political latitude to end sanctions against Moscow and accommodate Russia's geopolitical ambitions. As a sign of the shifting mood in Moscow, the Kremlin ordered Russian television outlets to be more reserved in their coverage of the new President.

    ... ... ...

    *An earlier version of this passage wrongly indicated that the U.S. is known to have funded Russian political parties.

    [Mar 04, 2017] Update on Trumps Pro-Russiaism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during that meeting, Acosta said. ..."
    Mar 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : March 03, 2017 at 05:45 PM , 2017 at 05:45 PM
    Update re Trump's Pro-Russiaism

    This shows Trump and his highest campaign officials at the time complicit in pro-Russian spin and from those in contact with Russia in the Trump campaign

    Impeachment charge stuff imo

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/jd-gordon-change-story-gop-platform-ukraine-amendment

    "Trump Ally Drastically Changes Story About Altering GOP Platform On Ukraine"

    By Allegra Kirkland....March 3, 2017....2:16 PM EDT

    "In a significant reversal, a Trump campaign official on Thursday told CNN that he personally advocated for softening the language on Ukraine in the GOP platform at the Republican National Convention, and that he did so on behalf of the President.nnb877

    CNN's Jim Acosta reported on air that J.D. Gordon, the Trump campaign's national security policy representative at the RNC, told him that he made the change to include language that he claimed "Donald Trump himself wanted and advocated for" at a March 2016 meeting at then-unfinished Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

    Gordon claimed that Trump said he did not "want to go to World War III over Ukraine" during that meeting, Acosta said.

    Yet Gordon had told Business Insider in January that he "never left" the side table where he sat monitoring the national security subcommittee meeting, where a GOP delegate's amendment calling for the provision of "lethal defense weapons" to the Ukrainian army was tabled. At the time, Gordon said "neither Mr. Trump nor [former campaign manager] Mr. [Paul] Manafort were involved in those sort of details, as they've made clear."

    Discussion of changes to the platform, which drew attention to the ties to a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine that fueled Manafort's resignation as Trump's campaign chairman, resurfaced Thursday in a USA Today story. The newspaper revealed that Gordon and Carter Page, another former Trump adviser, met with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak at the GOP convention.

    Trump and his team have long insisted that his campaign had no contact with Russian officials during the 2016 race, and that they were not behind softening the language on Ukraine in the Republican Party platform."...

    libezkova -> im1dc... , March 03, 2017 at 08:30 PM
    This is not an update re: "Trump's Pro-Russiaism".

    This is an update of your complete lack of understanding of political situation.

    There was a pretty cold and nasty calculation on Trump's part to split Russia-China alliance which does threaten the USA global hegemony. Now those efforts are discredited and derailed. Looks like the US neoliberal elite is slightly suicidal. But that's good: the sooner we get rid of neoliberalism, the better.

    Sill Dems hysteria (in association with some Repugs like war hawks John McCain and Lindsey Graham) does strongly smells with neo-McCarthyism. McCain and Graham are probably playing this dirty game out of pure enthusiasm: Trump does not threatens MIC from which both were elected. He just gave them all the money they wanted. But for Dems this is en essential smoke screen to hide their fiasco and blame evil Russians.

    In other words citing Marx: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce. "

    This farce of making Russians a scapegoat for all troubles does make some short-term political sense as it distracts from the fact the Dems were abandoned by its base. And it unites the nation providing some political support for chickenhawks in US Congress for the next elections.

    But in a long run the price might be a little bit too high. If Russian and China formalize their alliance this is the official end for the US neoliberal empire. Britain will jump the sinking ship first, because they do not have completely stupid elite.

    BTW preventing Cino-Russian alliance is what British elite always tried to do (and was successful) in the past -- but in their time the main danger for them was the alliance of Germany and Russia -- two major continental powers.

    Still short-termism is a feature of US politics, and we can do nothing against those forces that fuel the current anti-Russian hysteria.

    The evil rumors at the time of original McCarthyism hysteria were that this was at least partially a smoke screen designed to hide smuggling of Nazi scientists and intelligence operatives into the USA (McCarthy was from Wisconsin, the state in German immigrant majority from which famous anti-WWI voice Robert M. La Follette was elected ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._La_Follette_Sr.))

    So here there might well be also some hidden motives, because everybody, including even you understands that "Trump is in the pocket of Russians" hypothesis is pure propaganda (BTW Hillary did take bribes from Russian oligarchs, that's proven, but Caesar's wife must be above suspicion).

    im1dc -> libezkova... , March 03, 2017 at 07:44 PM
    What we are witnessing is the truth coming out, too slowly for some of us, but it surely will come out eventually despite the best efforts of Trump's WH, Gang, and his Republican lackies to cover it up.
    im1dc -> im1dc... , March 03, 2017 at 08:05 PM
    Serious question, what do you believe to be Director Comey's fingerprints on all of this?
    libezkova -> im1dc... , March 03, 2017 at 08:59 PM
    You probably would be better off sticking to posting music from YouTube then trying to understand complex political events and posting political junk from US MSM in pretty prominent economic blog (overtaking Fred)

    Especially taking into account the fact that English is the only language you know and judging from your posts you do not have degrees in either economics or political science (although some people here with computer science background proved to be shrewd analysts of both economic and political events; cm is one example).

    Although trying to read British press will not hurt you, they do provide a better coverage of US political events then the USA MSM. Even neoliberal Guardian. So if you can't fight your urge to repost political junk please try to do it from British press.

    As for your question: in 20 years we might know something about who played what hand in this dirty poker, but even this is not given (JFK assassination is a classic example here; Gulf of Tonkin incident is another)

    [Mar 03, 2017] Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Berlin. So the global capitalist ruling classes' neutralization of the Trumpian uprising seems to be off to a pretty good start. It's barely been a month since his inauguration, and the corporate media, liberal celebrities, and their millions of faithful fans and followers are already shrieking for his summary impeachment, or his removal by well, whatever means necessary, including some sort of "deep state" coup. Words like "treason" are being bandied about , treason being ground for impeachment (not to mention being punishable by death), which appears to be where we're headed at this point.

    In any event, the nation is now officially in a state of "crisis." The editors of The New York Times are demanding congressional investigations to root out the Russian infiltrators who have assumed control of the executive branch. According to prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, "a foreign dictator intervened on behalf of a US presidential candidate" "we are being governed by people who take their cues from Moscow," or some such nonsense. The Washington Post , CNN , MSNBC , The Guardian , The New Yorker , Politico , Mother Jones , et al. (in other words virtually every organ of the Western neoliberal media) are robotically repeating this propaganda like the Project Mayhem cultists in Fight Club .

    The fact that there is not one shred of actual evidence to support these claims makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. As I wrote about in these pages previously , such official propaganda is not designed to be credible; it is designed to bludgeon people into submission through sheer relentless repetition and fear of social ostracization which, once again, is working perfectly. Like the "Iraq has WMDs" narrative before it, the "Putin Hacked the Election" narrative has now become official "reality," an unchallengeable axiomatic "fact" that can be cited as background to pretend to bolster additional ridiculous propaganda.

    This "Russia Hacked the Election" narrative, let's remember, was generated by a series of stories that it turned out were either completely fabricated or based on "anonymous intelligence sources" that could provide no evidence "for reasons of security." Who could forget The Washington Post 's "Russian Propagandist Blacklist" story (which was based on the claims of some anonymous' blog and a third rate neo-McCarthyite think tank), or their "Russians Hacked the Vermont Power Grid" story (which, it turned out later, was totally made up), or CNN's "Golden Showers Dossier" story (which was the work of some ex-MI6 spook-for-hire the Never Trump folks had on their payroll), or Slate 's "Trump's Russian Server" story (a half-assed smear piece by Franklin Foer, who is now pretending to have been vindicated by the hysteria over the Flynn resignation), or (and this is my personal favorite) The Washington Post 's "Clinton Poisoned by Putin" story? Who could possibly forget these examples of courageous journalists speaking truth to power?

    Well, OK, a lot of people, apparently, because there's been a new twist in the official narrative. It seems the capitalist ruling classes now need us to defend the corporate media from the tyrannical criticism of Donald Trump, or else, well, you know, end of democracy. Which millions of people are actually doing. Seriously, absurd as it obviously is, millions of Americans are now rushing to defend the most fearsome propaganda machine in the history of fearsome propaganda machines from one inarticulate, populist boogeyman who can't maintain his train of thought for more than fifteen or twenty seconds.

    All joking aside, the prevailing mindset of the ruling classes, and those aspiring thereto, is more frightening than at any time I can remember. "The Resistance" is exhibiting precisely the type of mindlessly fascistic, herd-like behavior it purports to be trying to save us from. Yes, the mood in Resistance quarters has turned quite openly authoritarian. William Kristol captured it succinctly: "Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, [I] prefer the deep state to the Trump state." Neoliberal Rob Reiner put it this way: "The incompetent lying narcissistic fool is going down. Intelligence community will not let DT destroy democracy." Subcommandante Micheal Moore went to the caps lock to drive the point home: "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was going on: TRUMP COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS TO THROW THE ELECTION TO HIM," and demanded that Trump be immediately detained and renditioned to a secure facility: "Let's be VERY clear: Flynn DID NOT make that Russian call on his own. He was INSTRUCTED to do so. He was TOLD to reassure them. Arrest Trump."

    These a just a few of the more sickening examples. The point is, millions of American citizens (as well as citizens of other countries) are prepared to support a deep state coup to remove the elected president from office and it doesn't get much more fascistic than that.

    Now I want to be clear about this "deep state" thing, as the mainstream media is already labeling anyone who uses the term a hopelessly paranoid conspiracy theorist. The deep state, of course, is not a conspiracy. It is simply the interdependent network of structures where actual power resides (i.e., the military-industrial complex, multinational corporations, Wall Street, the corporate media, and so on). Its purpose is to maintain the stability of the system regardless of which party controls the government. These are the folks, when a president takes office, who show up and brief him on what is and isn't "possible" given economic and political "realities." Despite what Alex Jones may tell you, it is not George Soros and roomful of Jews. It is a collection of military and intelligence officers, CEOs, corporate lobbyists, lawyers, bankers, politicians, power brokers, aides, advisers, and assorted other permanent members of the government and the corporate and financial classes. Just as presidents come and go, so do the individuals comprising the deep state, albeit on a longer rotation schedule. And, thus, it is not a monolithic entity. Like any other decentralized network, it contains contradictions, conflicts of interest. However, what remains a constant is the deep state's commitment to preserving the system which, in our case, that system is global Capitalism.

    I'm going to repeat and italicize that to hopefully avoid any misunderstanding. The system the deep state primarily serves is not the United States of America, i.e., the country most Americans believe they live in; the system it serves is globalized Capitalism. The United States, the nation state itself, while obviously a crucial element of the system, is not the deep state's primary concern. If it were, Americans would all have healthcare, affordable education, and a right to basic housing, like more or less every other developed nation.

    And this is the essence of the present conflict. The Trump regime (whether they're sincere or not) has capitalized on people's discontent with globalized neoliberal Capitalism, which is doing away with outmoded concepts like the nation state and national sovereignty and restructuring the world into one big marketplace where "Chinese" investors own "American" companies that manufacture goods for "European" markets by paying "Thai" workers three dollars a day to enrich "American" hedge fund crooks whose "British" bankers stash their loot in numbered accounts in the Cayman Islands while "American" workers pay their taxes so that the "United States" can give billions of dollars to "Israelis" and assorted terrorist outfits that are destabilizing the Middle East to open up markets for the capitalist ruling classes, who have no allegiance to any country, and who couldn't possibly care any less about the common people who have to live there. Trump supporters, rubes that they are, don't quite follow the logic of all that, or see how it benefits them or their families.

    But whatever they're all just fascists, right? And we're in a state of crisis, aren't we? This is not the time to sit around and analyze political and historical dynamics. No, this is a time for all loyal Americans to set aside their critical thinking and support democracy, the corporate media, and the NSA, and CIA, and the rest of the deep state (which doesn't exist) as they take whatever measures are necessary to defend us from Putin's diabolical plot to Nazify the United States and reenact the Holocaust for no discernible reason. The way things are going, it's just a matter of time until they either impeach his puppet, Trump, or, you know, remove him by other means. I imagine, once we get to that point, Official State Satirist Stephen Colbert will cover the proceedings live on the "Late Show," whipping his studio audience up into a frenzy of mindless patriotic merriment, as he did in the wake of the Flynn fiasco (accusing the ruling classes' enemies of treason being the essence of satire, of course). After he's convicted and dying in jail , triumphant Americans will pour out onto the lawn of Lafayette Square again, waving huge flags and hooting vuvuzelas, like they did when Obama killed Osama bin Laden. I hope you'll forgive me if I don't attend. Flying home may be a little complicated, as according to The Washington Post , I'm some kind of Russian propagandist now. And, also, I have this problem with authority, which I don't imagine will go over very well with whatever provisional government is installed to oversee the Restoration of Normality, and Love, of course, throughout the nation.

    C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (US). He can reached at his website, cjhopkins.com, or at consentfactory.org.

    [Mar 03, 2017] Evola framework allows for a shared nationalistic struggle that is simultaneously individualistic and universal in the chivalric sense that true warriors always recognize and respect each other even when serving different causes.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The two thinkers, recently in the news thanks to Steve Bannon, had different views on human nature. ..."
    "... if human nature is universal, cultural convergence seems to be the logical outcome of a globalized world. ..."
    "... Spengler's views can be seen in the context of a movement known as historicism, the idea that human societies were the products of historical and material circumstances, which arose as a result of the universalism propagated by the Enlightenment and spread by the French Revolution. While Spengler makes some valid points, particularly in arguing against the idea that history is goal-oriented and directional, his view denies the very concept of empathy, that one can look at, say, Caesar, and see things through his eyes. ..."
    "... In other words, Evola believed that there was a common core to human beings, a set of higher principles and heroic "traditional" values that lay at the root of every successful civilization. Even when eclipsed, these values remained in a dormant form, waiting to be reactivated. It is not surprising, then, that Evola is popular among nationalists and reactionaries today, because his framework allows for a shared nationalistic struggle that is simultaneously individualistic and universal in the chivalric sense that true warriors always recognize and respect each other even when serving different causes. ..."
    "... The problem is that the mere existence of human nature is no guarantee of its consummation. Human beings may live pathetic or ignoble or fragmentary lives. Evola's concern (whatever one might think of it) was with encouraging the perfection of human nature through political means. That perfection may have little to do with the commonest "material, psychological, and emotional factors"; indeed, it most certainly requires their overcoming. ..."
    "... This is important, because it forms one of the strongest critiques that the far right brings against democratic republics: namely, that they are materialistic and emotionally hollow; that they provide no transcendental or ennobling vision of the life of human beings and the destiny of societies. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    Akhilesh Pillalamarr

    The two thinkers, recently in the news thanks to Steve Bannon, had different views on human nature.

    The apocalyptic worldview promoted by prominent political figures such as Steve Bannon in the United States and Aleksandr Dugin in Russia is premised on the notion that ordinary political and legislative battles are more than just quibbles over contemporary issues. Rather, political debates are fronts in a greater battle of ideas , and everything is a struggle for the meaning of civilization and human nature. Bannon's worldview is preceded by the thought of two early-20th-century thinkers, Oswald Spengler and Julius Evola-and his passing mention of the latter in a 2014 speech has caused some controversy in recent weeks, including a New York Times article entitled "Steve Bannon Cited Italian Thinker Who Inspired Fascists."

    These thinkers wrote at a time when the Western narrative of progress and improvement was shattered after World War I. Interest in both Spengler and Evola has recently revived, though Spengler was always fairly well-known for his thesis that civilizations grew and declined in a cyclical fashion.

    Although both Spengler and Evola shared a pessimism over the direction of modern Western civilization, they differed on human nature. Is there a way to reconcile two vastly different observations?

    The first is that people in different eras and locales display a remarkable degree of behavioral similarity; id est , human nature is universal and constant. However, on the other hand, the peculiarities and differences between some cultures are so great that it is hard to see how these are derived from a common source. This question is really what lies at the root of the current argument between cosmopolitanism and nationalism. For if human nature is universal, cultural convergence seems to be the logical outcome of a globalized world.

    Are there alternatives? Building off of ideas introduced in the early 19th century by Hegel, Spengler argued that the very framework of human experience was limited by the time and the civilization in which the person lived:

    "Mankind" has no aim, no idea, no plan [and] is a zoological expression, or an empty word. But conjure away the phantom, break the magic circle, and at once there emerges an astonishing wealth of actual forms. I see, in place of that empty figment of one linear history which can be kept up only by shutting one's eyes to the overwhelming multitier of facts, the drama of a number of mighty Cultures. There is not one sculpture, one painting, one mathematics, one physics, but many, each in its deepest essence different from the others, each limited in duration and self-contained.

    Spengler's views can be seen in the context of a movement known as historicism, the idea that human societies were the products of historical and material circumstances, which arose as a result of the universalism propagated by the Enlightenment and spread by the French Revolution. While Spengler makes some valid points, particularly in arguing against the idea that history is goal-oriented and directional, his view denies the very concept of empathy, that one can look at, say, Caesar, and see things through his eyes.

    Age after age, people look back on history for inspiration, and it is hard to accept this lack of commonality with historical figures: the idea of a common human nature is a compelling concept. It also has the weight of historical, literary, and anthropological evidence behind it. But it does not follow that the idea of a fixed human nature leads to a form of neoliberal universalism.

    One alternative was provided by Evola, who sought to reclaim the idea of human nature from the Enlightenment and reconcile it with the observations described by Spengler and Hegel. Instead of the liberal, convergent universalism championed by the Enlightenment, Evola advocated a traditionalist universalism, because "there is no form of traditional organization that does not hide a higher principle." In an argument that echoes Plato's Theory of Forms, he wrote:

    The supreme values and the foundational principles of every healthy and normal institution are not liable to change. In the domain of these values there is no "history" and to think about them in historical terms is absurd even where these principles are objectified in a historical reality, they are not at all conditioned by it; they always point to a higher, meta-historical plane, which is their natural domain and where there is no change.

    In other words, Evola believed that there was a common core to human beings, a set of higher principles and heroic "traditional" values that lay at the root of every successful civilization. Even when eclipsed, these values remained in a dormant form, waiting to be reactivated. It is not surprising, then, that Evola is popular among nationalists and reactionaries today, because his framework allows for a shared nationalistic struggle that is simultaneously individualistic and universal in the chivalric sense that true warriors always recognize and respect each other even when serving different causes.

    ... ... ...

    Akhilesh Pillalamarri is an editorial assistant at The American Conservative . He also writes for The National Interest and The Diplomat .

    John Bruce Leonard , says: February 21, 2017 at 4:15 pm
    "But the truth is probably a lot simpler: people are motivated by similar and fixed material, psychological, and emotional factors across time and space, not by any liberal or 'meta-historical' purposes."

    Yet it seems to me that everything depends on just who the "people" in question are, and what their relation is to the wellsprings of power. The motivations of the American electorate are not those of a Napoleon; and these motivations in turn are not identical to those those of, say, the Venetian Doge in the Renaissance. The character of the very social order changes dramatically on the basis of the motivations of its rulers.

    The problem is that the mere existence of human nature is no guarantee of its consummation. Human beings may live pathetic or ignoble or fragmentary lives. Evola's concern (whatever one might think of it) was with encouraging the perfection of human nature through political means. That perfection may have little to do with the commonest "material, psychological, and emotional factors"; indeed, it most certainly requires their overcoming.

    This is important, because it forms one of the strongest critiques that the far right brings against democratic republics: namely, that they are materialistic and emotionally hollow; that they provide no transcendental or ennobling vision of the life of human beings and the destiny of societies.

    Until democratic republics can answer that charge, which is a poetic, a spiritual, a philosophical charge, they will remain vulnerable to the peril of "fascist revolt."

    [Mar 03, 2017] America Right or Wrong An Anatomy of American Nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... an unwillingness or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public conformism, ..."
    "... he daringly points out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American. ..."
    "... The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism. ..."
    "... The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities. ..."
    "... The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as the invasion of Iraq. ..."
    "... " The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis of political stupidity;" ..."
    "... "One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward at a vanished and idealized national past; " ..."
    "... " [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters..., as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever on American behavior and interests ;" ..."
    "... I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do. ..."
    Oct 30, 2016 | www.amazon.com
    America Right or Wrong An Anatomy of American Nationalism is one of the best book on American exceptionalism. Here are some Amazon reviews

    From Siegfried Sutterlin March 21, 2006

    ... While there are incontestable civilizing elements to America's nationalism, there are also dangerous and destructive ingredients, a sort of Hegelian thesis and antithesis theme which places a strong question mark in America's historical theme of exceptionalism.

    Unlike in other post-World War II nations, America's nationalism is permeated by values and religious elements derived mostly from the South and the Southern Baptists, though the fears and panics of the embittered heartland provide additional fuel.

    Lieven's book, among other elements, is also a summation of lots of minor observations--even personal ones he made as a student in the small town of Troy, Alabama--and historical details which reflect the grand evolution of America's nationalism. When he says that "an unwillingness or inability among Americans to question the country's sinlessness feeds a culture of public conformism," then he has the support of Mark Twain who said something to the effect that we are blessed with three things in this country, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and, thirdly, the common sense to practice neither one! Ditto when he daringly points out America's "hypocrisy," which also is corroborated by other scholars, among them James Hillman in his recent book "A Terrible Love of War" in which he characterizes hypocrisy as quintessentially American.

    Lieven continues with the impact of the Cold War on America's nationalism and then, having always expanded the theme of Bush's foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, examines with commendable perspective the complex and very much unadmitted current aspects of the U.S.'s relationships with the Moslems, the Iraq War and the impact of the pro-Israeli lobby. It is the sort of assessment one rarely finds in the U.S. media . He exposes the alienation the U.S. caused among allies and, in particular, the Arabs and the EU.

    Lieven wrote this book with passion and commendable sincerity. Though it comes from a foreigner, its advice would without question serve not only America's interest but also provide a substantial basis for a detached and objective approach to solving the intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the satisfaction of all involved before worse deeds and more burdens materialize.

    Tom Munro:

    What this book suggests is that a significant number of Americans have an outlook similar to European countries around 1904. A sense of identification with an idea of nation and a dismissive approach to other countries and cultures. Whilst in Europe the experience of the first and second world wars put paid to nationalism in America it is going strong. In fact Europeans see themselves less as Germans or Frenchmen today than they ever have.

    The reason for American nationalism springs from a pride in American institutions but it also contains a deep resentment that gives it its dynamism . Whilst America as a nation has not lost a war there are a number of reasons for resentment. The South feels that its values are not taken seriously and it is subject to ridicule by the seaboard states. Conservative Christians are concerned about modernism. The combined resentments lead to a sort of chip on the shoulder patriotism which so characterizes American nationalism.

    Of course these things alone are not sufficient. Europeans live in countries that are small geographically. They travel see other countries and are multilingual. Most Americans do not travel and the education they do is strong in ideology and weak in history. It is thus easier for some Americans to develop a rather simple minded view of the world.

    The book suggests that the Republican Party is really like an old style European nationalist party. Broadly serving the interests of the moneyed elite but spouting a form of populist gobbledygook, which paints America as being in a life and death, struggle with anti-American forces at home and abroad. It is the reason for Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. That is the rhetoric of struggle acts as a cover for political policies that benefit a few and lay the blame for the problems of ordinary Americans on fictitious entities.

    The main side effects of the nationalism are the current policies which shackles America to Israel uncritically despite what that country might and how its actions may isolate America from the rest of the world. It also justifies America on foreign policy adventures such as the invasion of Iraq.

    The book is quite good and repeats the message of a number of other books such as "What is wrong with America". Probably there is something to be said for the books central message.

    Keith Wheelock (Skillman, NJ USA)

    A Socratic 'America know thyself': READ IT!, August 13, 2010

    Foreigners, from de Tocqueville and Lord Bryce to Hugh Brogan and The Economist's John Micklethwait and Adrian Woodridge, often see America more clearly than do Americans. In the post-World War II period, R. L. Bruckberger's IMAGES OF AMERICA (1958) and Jean -Jacques Servan-Schreiber's THE AMERICAN CHALLENGE (1967) presented an uplifting picture of America.

    Two generations later, Englishman Anatol Lieven paints a troubling picture of a country that is a far cry from John Winthrop's' "city upon a hill."

    Has America changed so profoundly over the past fifty years or is Mr. Lieven simply highlighting historical cycles that, at least for the moment, had resulted in a near `perfect storm?' His 2004 book has prompted both praise [see Brian Urquhart's Extreme Makeover in the New York Review of Books (February 24, 2005)] and brick bats. This book is not a polemic. Rather, it is a scholarly analysis by a highly regarded author and former The Times (London) correspondent who has lived in various American locales. He has a journalist's acquaintance of many prominent Americans and his source materials are excellent.

    I applaud his courage for exploring the dark cross currents in modern-day America. In the tradition of the Delphic oracle and Socrates, he urges that Americans `know thy self.' The picture he paints should cause thoughtful Americans to shudder. Personally, I found his book of a genre similar to Cullen Murphy's ARE WE ROME? THE FALL OF AN EMPIRE AND THE FATE OF AMERICA.

    I do not consider Mr. Lieven anti-American in his extensive critique of American cross currents. That he wrote this in the full flush of the Bush/Cheney post-9/11 era suggests that he might temper some of his assessments after the course corrections of the Obama administration. My sense is that Mr. Lieven admires many of America's core qualities and that this `tough love' essay is his effort to guide Americans back to their more admirable qualities.

    Mr. Lieven boldly sets forth his book's message in a broad-ranging introduction:

    1. " The [U. S.] conduct of the war against terrorism looks more like a baroque apotheosis of political stupidity;"
    2. "Aspects of American nationalism imperil both the nation's global leadership and its success in the struggle against Islamic terror and revolution;"
    3. "Insofar as American nationalism has become mixed up with a chauvinist version of Israeli nationalism, it also plays an absolutely disastrous role in U.S. relations with the Muslim world and in fueling terrorism;"
    4. "American imperialists trail America's coat across the whole world while most ordinary Americans are not looking and rely on those same Americans to react with `don't tread on me' nationalist fury when the coat is trodden on;"
    5. "One strand of American nationalism is radical...because it continually looks backward at a vanished and idealized national past; "
    6. "America is the home of by far the most deep, widespread and conservative religious belief in the Western world;"
    7. "The relationship between the traditional White Protestant world on one hand and the forces of American economic, demographic, social and cultural change on the other may be compared to the genesis of a hurricane;"
    8. "The religious Right has allied itself solidly with extreme free market forces in the Republican Party although it is precisely the workings of unrestricted American capitalism which are eroding the world the religious conservatives wish to defend;"
    9. "American nationalism is beginning to conflict very seriously with any enlightened, viable or even rational version of American imperialism;"
    10. " [George W.] Bush, his leading officials, and his intellectual and media supporters..., as nationalists, [are] absolutely contemptuous of any global order involving any check whatsoever on American behavior and interests ;"
    11. "Nationalism therefore risks undermining precisely those American values which make the nation most admired in the world;" and
    12. "This book...is intended as a reminder of the catastrophes into which nationalism and national messianism led other great countries in the past."

    Mr. Lieven addressed the above points in six well-crafted and thought-provoking chapters that I find persuasive. For some readers Chapter 6, Nationalism, Israel, and the Middle East, may be the most controversial. I am the only living person who has lunched with Gamal Abdel Nasser and David Ben-Gurion in the same week. I have maintained an interest in Arab-Israeli matters ever since. I find that Mr. Lieven's assessment of both the United States' and Israel's role rings true. While he does not excuse Arab leaders for their misdeeds, he clearly documents a history in which the United States has repeatedly subordinated vital U.S. regional interests in favor of accepting whatever Israel chooses to do.

    In 1955 American historian Richard Hofstadter wrote,

    "The most prominent and persuasive failing [of political culture] is a certain proneness to fits of moral crusading that would be fatal if they were not sooner or later tempered with a measure of apathy and common sense."

    I am confident that Professor Hofstadter would agree with me that AMERICA RIGHT OR WRONG is a timely and important book.

    [Mar 03, 2017] Interesting week for Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump

    Mar 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Trump – all words, no action, but good words

    In the meantime, Trump has been busy giving speeches. Which sounds pretty bad until you realize that these are good speeches, very good ones even. For one thing, he still is holding very firmly to the line that the "fake news" (which in "Trumpese" means CNN & Co. + BBC) are the enemies of the people. The other good thing is that twice in a row now he has addressed himself directly to the people. Sounds like nothing, but I think that this is huge because the Neocons have now nicely boxed Trump in with advisors and aides who range from the mediocre to bad to outright evil. The firing of Flynn was a self-defeating disaster for Trump who now is more or less alone, with only one loyal ally left, Bannon. I am not sure how much Bannon can do or, for that matter, how long until the Neocons get to him too, but besides Bannon I see nobody loyal to Trump and his campaign promises. Nobody except those who put him in power of course, the millions of Americans who voted for him. And that is why Trump is doing the right thing speaking directly to them: they might well turn out to be his biggest weapon against the "DC swamp".

    Furthermore, by beating on the media, especially CNN and the rest of the main US TV channels, Trump is pushing the US public to turn to other information sources, including those sympathetic to him, primarily on the Internet. Good move – that is how he won the first time around and that is how he might win again.

    The Neocons and the US 'Deep State' have to carefully weigh the risks of continuing their vendetta against Trump. Right now, they appear to be preparing to go after Bannon. But what will they do if Trump, instead of ditching Bannon like he ditched Flynn, decides to dig in and fight with everything he has got? Then what? If there is one thing the Neocons and the deep state hate is to have a powerful light pointed directly at them. They like to play in the dark, away from an always potentially hostile public eye. If Trump decides to fight back, really fight back, and if he appeals directly to the people for support, there is no saying what could happen next.

    I strongly believe that the American general public is deeply frustrated and angry. Obama's betrayal of all his campaign promises only made these feelings worse. But when Obama had just made it to the White House I remember thinking that if he really tried to take on the War Machine and if he came to the conclusion that the 'deep state' was not going to let him take action or threaten him he could simply make a public appeal for help and that millions of Americans would flood the streets of Washington DC in support of "their guy" against the "bastards in DC". Obama was a fake. But Trump might not be. What if the Three Letter Agencies or Congress suddenly tried to, say, impeach Trump and what if he decided ask for the support of the people – would millions not flood the streets of DC? I bet you that Florida alone would send more than a million. Ditto for Texas. And I don't exactly imagine the cops going out of their way to stop them. The bottom line is this: in any confrontation between Congress and Trump most of the people will back Trump. And, if it ever came to that, and for whatever it is worth, in any confrontation between Trump-haters and Trump-supporters the latter will easily defeat the former. The "basket of deplorables" are still, thank God, the majority in this country and they have a lot more power than the various minorities who backed the Clinton gang.

    There are other, less dramatic but even more likely scenarios to consider. Say Congress tries to impeach Trump and he appeals to the people and declares that the "DC swamp" is trying to sabotage the outcome of the elections and impose its will upon the American people. Governors in states like Florida or Texas, pushed by their public opinion, might simply decide not to recognize the legitimacy of what would be an attempted coup by Congress against the Executive branch of government. Now you tell me – does Congress really have the means to impose its will against states like Florida or Texas? I don't mean legally, I mean practically. Let me put it this way: if the states revolt against the federal government does the latter have the means to impose its authority? Are the creation of USNORTHCOM and the statutory exceptions from the Posse Comitatus Act (which makes it possible to use the National Guard to suppress insurrections, unlawful obstructions, assemblages, or rebellions) sufficient to guarantee that the "DC swamp" can impose its will on the rest of the country? I would remind any "DC swamp" members reading these lines that the KGB special forces refused not once, but twice, to open fire against the demonstrators in Moscow (in 1991 and 1993) even though they had received a direct order by the President to do just that. Is there any reason to believe that US cops and soldiers would be more willing than the KGB special forces to massacre their own people?

    Donald Trump has probably lost most of his power in Washington DC, but that does not entail that this is the case in the rest of the USA. The Neocons can feel like the big guy on the block inside the Beltway, but beyond that they are mostly in "enemy territory" controlled by the "deplorables", something to keep in mind before triggering a major crisis.

    This week I got the feeling that Trump was reaching out and directly seeking for the support to the American people. I think he will get it if needed. If this is so, then the focus of his Presidency will be less on foreign affairs, where the US will be mostly paralyzed, than on internal US politics were he still might make a difference. On Russia the Neocons have basically beaten Trump – he won't have the means to engage in any big negotiating with Vladimir Putin. But, at least, neither will he constantly be trying to make things worse. The more the US elites fight each other, the less venom they will have left for the rest of mankind. Thank God for small favors

    I can only hope that Trump will continue to appeal directly the people and try to bypass the immense machine which is currently trying to isolate him. Of course, I would much prefer that Trump take some strong and meaningful action against the deep state, but I am not holding my breath.

    Tonight I spoke with a friend who knows a great deal more about Trump than I do and he told me that I have been too quick in judging Trump and that while the Flynn episode was definitely a setback, the struggle is far from over and that we are in for a very long war. I hope that my friend is right, but I will only breathe a sigh of relief if and when I see Trump hitting back and hitting hard. Only time will tell.

    [Mar 03, 2017] Against All Odds

    Notable quotes:
    "... Stupid White Men ..."
    "... Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected] ..."
    "... The Unz Review ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Mike Moore's flabby mug always looks indecently exposed, like middle-aged female genitalia. The fat slob could lead the old hags' march without the pink pussyhat. Just his own visage would suffice. He is actually similar to George Soros: the same obscene pussyface. For me, his appearance would doom him: like Oscar Wilde, I believe that ugly creatures are immoral as well. It's enough to look at Madeleine Albright, another pussyface, for a proof. But if you need more, his Stupid White Men has been the most execrable book produced in the US in this century: there he claimed that were 9/11 passengers black, the hijack would never have succeeded. Now the Pussyface bared the hidden plans of Putin and called for enthroninge Clinton because Trump is a Russian spy . Years ago he spoke against the Iraq War; now he calls for the nuclear Armageddon. With such enemies, we should not give up on Trump.

    Trump is down, cry the fans and haters alike. He's been defeated, broken, never to rise again. He is a lame duck soon to be impeached. He will crawl back to his golden lair leaving the White House to his betters, or even better, he will run to his pal Vlad Putin.

    No, my friends and readers, Trump is fighting, not running, but things take time. It is not easy to change the paradigm, and the odds were heavily slanted against Trump from step one. Still, he got this far, and he will go on. Stubborn guy, and he perseveres. The corrupt judges chain his hands; the CIA and NSA reveal his moves to the NYT, CNN, NBC ; but he stands up, ready to carry the fight to his – and American people's – enemy, the hydra of so many triple-letter heads.

    There are sprinters who want to see victory right away, and they despair at the first setback. A power-intoxicated judge opens America's gates for the ISIS advance troops, voiding a very moderate and sensible executive order, and they wring their hands. Terrible, but what could Trump do? To do nothing because his order would be overturned? He had to try, so the people will see and judge the judges. Line the judges up against the (Mexican border) wall at sunrise? He can't do it yet, though it would make sense.

    Flynn had to leave, and they exclaim: all is lost . It would be bad indeed, if Trump were to take it lying down, but he did not. At a very public and well-covered press-conference with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Trump said : "Michael Flynn, General Flynn is a wonderful man. I think he's been treated very, very unfairly by the media - as I call it, the fake media. It's very, very unfair what's happened to General Flynn, the way he was treated, and the documents and papers that were illegally - I stress that - illegally leaked. Very, very unfair." These are fighting words, of a man who lost a battle, or a skirmish, but he still fights the war.

    Perhaps it would be better to keep Flynn, but politics is an art of possible. Trump's words of support for the dismissed general were already out of line.

    Trump had met with Netanyahu, and the faint-of-heart bewailed the US President's surrender to the nefarious lobby. The other way round. The ADL, the Jewish assault crew, attacked him for refusing to mouth their favourite word "antisemitism", Haaretz declared "Yes, Trump is an antisemite", the NY Times editorialised why he did not condemn the a-s word as demanded; Rabbis called his remarks "terrifying" and "anti-Zionist" for Trump refused to tromp the well-trodden impasse called "two-states solution". By the way, Palestinians do support one-state-solution mentioned by Trump and do not believe in the mythic two-states-solution, the Middle-Eastern equivalent of squaring the circle. Trump deftly applied his weapon of choice, Bibi Netanyahu's support; with this weapon a-blazing, Trump was able to beat off the bouts of a-s hunters without doing what they wanted.

    It would be better to forget about Jews altogether, but it can't be done while they own all the fake-news media and the hearts of ordinary Americans. Refusing to condemn a-s is as far as an American politician can walk without falling of the earth's disc altogether.

    After this explaining-away, let us admit that the first month of Trump's first term was an uphill one. We hoped the defeated forces would be reasonable and allow the new president to implement his agenda, but they carried on their arrière-garde battle. His task is huge: Trump endeavours to bury globalising capitalism before it buries European and American workers. Without Trump, America and Europe would be invaded by millions made homeless by R2P wars. Without Trump, the American and European workers would work in hamburger joints, while the financiers would bloat off their blood and sweat. Such a U-turn couldn't pass unopposed.

    Look back at people who achieved radical changes of such magnitude. I will not mention names so you won't be scared. None of them had a specially nice personality, but they had charisma, iron will, good memory, vision and perseverance; they were master tacticians, i.e. they felt when it was the right time to retreat and when to advance. Perhaps Trump has these qualities. But besides, they usually had a loyal and supportive party, or at least an army or secret services at their disposal. Trump has none.

    These additional tools are necessary to overcome the undemocratic and unelected elements of the government. In the US, the judiciary and media, two "powers" out of four, are profoundly un- or even anti-democratic. The media is owned by the media lords, usually rich Jews, and it promotes their agenda. Judges are instinctively anti-democratic; they despise democracy and popular opinion.

    ORDER IT NOW

    The judiciary is also heavily Judaised: three out of nine (or four out of nine) Supreme Court judges are Jewish. President Obama had tried to install an additional Jewish judge, and pro-Jewish elements will fight to prevent a non-Jew "stealing" his place. There are so many Jewish lawyers and Jewish teachers of law that this puts its imprimatur upon the whole profession. No radical change can be entertained and implemented unless these powers are limited.

    Trump has no loyal party, no reliable and loyal secret services. The US intel is against him, spies on him and delivers the goods to his political enemies. The Republican Party is suspicious of Trump. There are too many Republicans sharpening knives for his back, beginning with the old traitor, John McCain . Republican Senators and Representatives owe a huge debt to (a large extent Jewish) donors; they need the support of the media in order to get re-elected.

    Trump should establish control over his party, by placing his loyalists and weeding out his adversaries in the party apparatus, in the Senate and Congress. I'd advise him to break, humiliate and unseat a prominent hostile Republican Senator, even if the seat would go to a Democrat. It is not an impossible task. This would instill some fear in the meek hearts.

    Bringing the secret services under control is relatively easy: begin a witch-hunt after the traitors who leaked the contents of classified phone conversations to the media. This is high treason; a lot of people of dubious loyalty can be dismissed just in case of suspicion. A one-way ticket to Guantanamo will help to focus minds of potential traitors. They should be treated as harshly as poor Bradley Manning was. And anyway, the secret services are overblown; the US can't support one million spies. Eighty per cent should go. They should enter the labour market and be useful. The remainder will be loyal.

    The media can be subjugated by various means. Usually media holdings are not highly profitable and are susceptible to hostile takeovers; some holdings can be broken using anti-trust legislation. Hostile media lords can be brought to heel by checking their tax returns. In case of the NY Times , their system of multi-tier shares is plainly unjust and can be attacked by shareholders. The best and most radical measure would separate advertising and content by banning political content in ad-carrying publications, as I argued elsewhere , but it would need the approval of Congress.

    The judges are human; hostile judges who think they are above the president and congress can be subjected to thorough inspection with some prejudice. Life tenure should be abolished in the courts and in the universities.

    So the task of President Trump is formidable but not impossible. Cut the security services down to size of, say, British or French services (it is also a lot). Remember that after WWI, the US had no secret services at all, and prospered. Terrorise a media lord and a Republican senator. Discover the corruption of District judges. Open a can of worms in the Clinton Foundation. Try some neocons for lying to the Congress. Mend bridges with Bernie Sanders. Call your supporters to enlist in the Republican party and achieve your dominance in primaries. And yes, it will take time.

    Now you understand why the pessimistic assessments of our colleagues Paul Craig Roberts and The Saker are at least premature. In the face of the ancient regime's hostility, Trump will need at least six months merely to settle properly in the White House. Just for comparison: Putin had spent five years consolidating his power, and another five years solidifying it, though he had full support of Russian security services and a most authoritarian constitution written by the Americans for their stooge Mr Yeltsin.

    President Putin remembers that it takes time. For this reason, he is not unduly upset by President Trump's delay with normalising US-Russia relations. The fake news of Russian disenchantment with Trump are exactly that, fake news. Russians believe in positive developments for US-Russia relations, and they do not hold their breath.

    But why I do believe that Trump will win, at the end? The US is not an island; it is a part of the West, and the West is going through a paradigm change. Cuntfaces lost, Deplorables won, and not as a fluke. Remember, Trump was not the first victory; the Brexit preceded him. Between the Brexit vote and the Trump election, the British government hesitated and postponed acting upon. The Brits weren't sure whether that vote was a sign of change, or a fluke. After Trump's victory, the Brits marched on.

    The British judges – every bit as evil as the American ones – tried to stop Brexit by insisting that the case be sent to Parliament. They believed that the Parliament would throw the case out, and leave England in the EU, as their media demanded. But they were mistaken. Though the British public voted for Brexit 52:48, the British parliamentarians approved it 83:17. The Deplorables won hands down.

    Now let us cross the English Channel. The French Establishment preferred François Fillon (centre-right, a moderate Republican, in American terms) to inherit the chair of pussyfaced President Hollande. His victory appeared assured. But as he readied himself for the move to the Palais de l'Élysée, an unpleasant fact has been revealed. This modest member of parliament misappropriated (stole, in plain English) a cool million dollars of French taxpayers' best by claiming his wife worked as his parliamentary assistant.

    Now nobody wants to touch him with a barge pole, and the chances of the Queen of Deplorables, Marine Le Pen winning the May elections in the first round became highly plausible. She will be opposed by a soft socialist Emmanuel Macron, and he is not very impressive. His rhetoric of calling her "bitter" and "enemy of liberte-egalite-fraternite" as she is not keen on Arab immigration, probably will fall on deaf ears. People are bitter, and they aren't sure that more Arabs means more equality. So Marine may win, and France will become an ally of Trump's America.

    ORDER IT NOW

    Fillon accused "shadowy" forces of seeking to crush him, and probably he is right. This revelation took air out of his sails, and it came in the right moment, just like in the case of DNC emails. In both cases, the crime, or at least dishonest dealing of the culprit was real, and he (or she) deserved defeat. In both cases, only a real powerful and "shadowy" force could make it stick. This is not Russia: Russia is not in this league yet. It is a "shadowy" Western force standing for nationalist capitalism, against globalist liberal "invade-invite" force. This force helped Trump reach White House, this force caused Brexit, this force removed Fillon from Le Pen's way. It is probable Frau Merkel will lose the forthcoming elections, ruining Obama's preposterous plan to install Germany as the liberal globalised world's cornerstone.

    The Masters of Discourse are being defeated in all the West. Temporary setbacks of Donald Trump can't change this tendency. Nationalist productive capitalism is set to inherit from the financiers, the media lords, the minority promoters, the transgender toilets and women studies. The battle is not over yet, but meanwhile it seems the Deplorables are winning, and Pussyfaces are losing.

    We do not know who stands for the Deplorables. When Brexit won, the Masters of Discourse said the pensioners, lumpens, chavs did it. But then, the Parliament approved it. Mme Clinton despised the deplorables, but now Trump sits in the White House. With France and Germany in the queue, a new force is coming to the fore. It is supported by native majorities. Who leads it from behind? Industrialists, people of spirit, or just the Spirit of Time, the Zeitgeist? Whatever it is, this force will help Trump, if he will persist.

    Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]

    This article was first published at The Unz Review .

    [Mar 03, 2017] Neocons are trying to re-whip anti-Russian hysteria of McCarthy years but do not find as receptive an audience as they used to

    Notable quotes:
    "... I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria. ..."
    Mar 03, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    financial matters , February 27, 2017 at 9:15 am

    It seems that the last worthwhile president we had was JFK. He started out his presidency as a Cold Warrior but at the end saw the futility of being involved in Vietnam and of the cold war in general.

    At the time there was a very strong anti-communist pro-war sentiment in the US which resonated well with the military industrial complex that Kennedy was up against when his views became more conciliatory with Russia. This anti-Russian sentiment is trying to be re-whipped up in the US but isn't finding as receptive an audience.

    Kennedy essentially lost control of his presidency. Trump seems to be facing similar pressures but I don't think he's so isolated in his battles. He has strong allies in both the military and industry and there is a different public sentiment.

    I think that there's still a lot of resistance in the US to consider seriously the idea that it could be responsible for assassinating it's own popular president (JFK) and also to consider critically our current activities in places like Ukraine, Libya and Syria.

    Russia seems to be treating its Arab neighbors with more respect and it would be good if Trump could get on that train. It would also be good to see Trump transition to a more climate friendly attitude such as partnering with China on solar energy.

    [Feb 28, 2017] Noam Chomsky - Neoliberalism the Global Order

    Jan 07, 2014 | youtube.com

    This is the complete talk (excluding the Q&A) of Noam Chomsky speaking at Yale University on February 25, 1997

    San Patch

    Thank you, Noam Chomsky. Sharp, articulate, critical. Reminding us to cross-check our favourite ideologies against the facts. Free markets, my arse. I salute Chomsky's courage, his intellect and his humanity.

    emir yi

    He truly is the face of sheer honesty and intellectual openness. So admirable to be able to be so critical of a system in which otherwise many including himself are subsumed.

    Dimitrios Mavridopoulos

    I strongly recommend his book World Orders: Old and New, where he substantiates all his claims and accusations, in a far more coherent manner. He has a long chapter, where he explains how the principles of free trade and classical economics, have been consistently violated in history by the developed countries (imperial preference, tariffs, state-intervention), while demanding that Third World countries conform to them, through the IMF and the World Bank. Unfortunately he is not a gifted lecturer though he compensates by being a moral titan

    Richard Huza

    10x
    I also tried to collect Chomsky's videos on my site at index:
    http://milisoft.ro/MainPage.php?iditem=a02663aa20b879c3f4cfd508231dfb28fd74945e
    I agree with the spirit of sharing of information

    [Feb 27, 2017] Attack trump, fear Russia, ignore the deep state, scare them about racists and fascists*, there is nothing going to be fixed by the new crooks running the new DNC

    Feb 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K, February 24, 2017 at 05:52 AM , 2017 at 05:52 AM
    Nobody wants to talk about the DNC Chair debate. Huh.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/23/us/democrats-dnc-chairman-trump-keith-ellison-tom-perez.html

    Weakened Democrats Bow to Voters, Opting for Total War on Trump

    By JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEXANDER BURNS
    FEB. 23, 2017

    Reduced to their weakest state in a generation, Democratic Party leaders will gather in two cities this weekend to plot strategy and select a new national chairman with the daunting task of rebuilding the party's depleted organization. But senior Democratic officials concede that the blueprint has already been chosen for them - by an incensed army of liberals demanding no less than total war against President Trump.

    ... ... ...

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , February 24, 2017 at 06:55 PM
    attack trump, fear Russia, ignore the deep state, scare them about racists and fascists*, there is nothing going to be fixed by the new crooks running the new DNC

    * a few of tonight's pity party decorations.........

    [Feb 27, 2017] Rogue Bureaucrats at Homeland Security Leak Report Critical of Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Rogue bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security have leaked an "incomplete" report critical of President Trump's executive order that temporarily blocked the issuance of visas to seven Middle Eastern countries that previous administrations had declared "sponsors of state terrorism" or countries of concern. ..."
    "... "AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations." ..."
    "... A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked draft document, though it did appear to be authored by someone associated with his area of responsibility within DHS. ..."
    Feb 27, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Rogue bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security have leaked an "incomplete" report critical of President Trump's executive order that temporarily blocked the issuance of visas to seven Middle Eastern countries that previous administrations had declared "sponsors of state terrorism" or countries of concern.

    Based on that leaked document, the Associated Press published a story on Friday with the headline "AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations."

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

    A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

    Click here to see the leaked document. ... ... ...

    Last week, Breitbart News reported that David Grannis, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Intelligence and Analysis in the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security, is a holdover Obama bureaucrat who President Trump could remove from his position immediately:

    A lifelong Democrat, "[p]rior to joining DHS, Mr. Grannis served as the Staff Director of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) from 2009 through 2014 and as the Minority Staff Director for 2015. During this time, he served as the principal intelligence advisor to SSCI Chairman Dianne Feinstein and SSCI Members and led the Committee's efforts to produce and enact annual Intelligence Authorization Act from 2010 through 2016 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, according to the DHS website.

    He has spent his career working for partisan Democratic members of Congress:

    He previously served as a staff designee to Senator Feinstein on the SSCI from 2005 until 2009 with a varied portfolio of committee responsibilities. Mr. Grannis worked on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security with responsibilities for intelligence, aviation security, and science and technology from 2003 to 2005 and was Senior Policy Advisor to Representative Jane Harman on matters of national security from 2001 to 2003.

    A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security would neither confirm nor deny that Grannis was the author of, or had reviewed, the leaked draft document, though it did appear to be authored by someone associated with his area of responsibility within DHS.

    [Feb 27, 2017] Whitney believes that Flynn's defenestration was the end of Trump's vaunted reconciliation with Russia policy.

    Feb 27, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    jo6pac , February 24, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    As some one here pointed out. It's Friday time for some Jeffery St Clair.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/24/roaming-charges-exxons-end-game-theory/

    Mike Whitney has a good article there also.

    geoff , February 24, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    Agreed– Whitney believes that Flynn's defenestration was the end of Trump's vaunted (around here anyway) reconciliation with Russia policy. New National Security Advisor McMaster is a Petraeus follower, and has repeatedly called out Russia as an aggressive power which must be contained and deterred with US and NATO military power.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/24/mcmaster-takes-charge-trump-relinquishes-control-of-foreign-policy/

    EndOfTheWorld , February 24, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    He's just an advisor. MacMaster will not make policy. But Trump is finding out, as many presidents have before him, that to a large extent the Pentagon runs itself. The military plans things way ahead of time. As president it's difficult to buck heads with the PTB on foreign policy. The best Trump may be able to do for the time being is stay out of war.

    I would prefer an outright lovefest with Russia. I like their anti-GMO policy. Maybe in a few years.

    [Feb 27, 2017] New York Times 'What Does Steve Bannon Want'

    Notable quotes:
    "... When Mr. Bannon spoke on Thursday of "deconstructing the administrative state," it may have sounded like gobbledygook outside the hall, but it was an electrifying profession of faith for the attendees. It is through Mr. Bannon that Trump_vs_deep_state can be converted from a set of nostalgic laments and complaints into a program for overhauling the government. ..."
    "... Mr. Bannon's film features predictable interviews with think-tank supply siders and free marketers fretting about big government. But new, less orthodox voices creep in, too, from the protectionist newscaster Lou Dobbs to the investment manager Barry Ritholtz. They question whether the free market is altogether free. Mr. Ritholtz says that the outcome of the financial crisis has been "socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else." ..."
    "... By 2014, Mr. Bannon's own ideology had become centered on this distrust. He was saying such things about capitalism himself. "Think about it," he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned against "the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by which he meant "a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a "Judeo-Christian" foundation. ..."
    "... If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr. Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed the party whole, and its Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason for being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted. ..."
    Feb 27, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Weekly Standard senior editor Christoper Caldwell writes at the New York Times :

    President Trump presents a problem to those who look at politics in terms of systematic ideologies. He is either disinclined or unable to lay out his agenda in that way. So perhaps it was inevitable that Mr. Trump's chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who does have a gift for thinking systematically, would be so often invoked by Mr. Trump's opponents. They need him not just as a hate object but as a heuristic, too. There may never be a "Trump_vs_deep_state," and unless one emerges, the closest we may come to understanding this administration is as an expression of "Bannonism."

    Mr. Bannon, 63, has won a reputation for abrasive brilliance at almost every stop in his unorthodox career - as a naval officer, Goldman Sachs mergers specialist, entertainment-industry financier, documentary screenwriter and director, Breitbart News cyber-agitprop impresario and chief executive of Mr. Trump's presidential campaign. One Harvard Business School classmate described him to The Boston Globe as "top three in intellectual horsepower in our class - perhaps the smartest." Benjamin Harnwell of the Institute for Human Dignity, a Catholic organization in Rome, calls him a "walking bibliography." Perhaps because Mr. Bannon came late to conservatism, turning his full-time energy to political matters only after the Sept. 11 attacks, he radiates an excitement about it that most of his conservative contemporaries long ago lost.

    Many accounts of Mr. Bannon paint him as a cartoon villain or internet troll come to life, as a bigot, an anti-Semite, a misogynist, a crypto-fascist. The former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, have even called him a "white nationalist." While he is certainly a hard-line conservative of some kind, the evidence that he is an extremist of a more troubling sort has generally been either massaged, misread or hyped up.

    There may be good reasons to worry about Mr. Bannon, but they are not the ones everyone is giving. It does not make Mr. Bannon a fascist that he happens to know who the 20th-century Italian extremist Julius Evola is. It does not make Mr. Bannon a racist that he described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right" - a broad and imprecise term that applies to a wide array of radicals, not just certain white supremacist groups.

    Where Mr. Bannon does veer sharply from recent mainstream Republicanism is in his all-embracing nationalism. He speaks of sovereignty, economic nationalism, opposition to globalization and finding common ground with Brexit supporters and other groups hostile to the transnational European Union. On Thursday, at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, he described the "center core" of Trump administration philosophy as the belief that the United States is more than an economic unit in a borderless word. It is "a nation with a culture " and " a reason for being."

    ...

    When Mr. Bannon spoke on Thursday of "deconstructing the administrative state," it may have sounded like gobbledygook outside the hall, but it was an electrifying profession of faith for the attendees. It is through Mr. Bannon that Trump_vs_deep_state can be converted from a set of nostalgic laments and complaints into a program for overhauling the government.

    ...

    Mr. Bannon adds something personal and idiosyncratic to this Tea Party mix. He has a theory of historical cycles that can be considered elegantly simple or dangerously simplistic. It is a model laid out by William Strauss and Neil Howe in two books from the 1990s. Their argument assumes an 80- to 100-year cycle divided into roughly 20-year "highs," "awakenings," "unravelings" and "crises." The American Revolution, the Civil War, the New Deal, World War II - Mr. Bannon has said for years that we're due for another crisis about now. His documentary about the 2008 financial collapse, "Generation Zero," released in 2010, uses the Strauss-Howe model to explain what happened, and concludes with Mr. Howe himself saying, "History is seasonal, and winter is coming."

    Mr. Bannon's views reflect a transformation of conservatism over the past decade or so. You can trace this transformation in the films he has made. His 2004 documentary, "In the Face of Evil," is an orthodox tribute to the Republican Party hero Ronald Reagan. But "Generation Zero," half a decade later, is a strange hybrid. The financial crash has intervened. Mr. Bannon's film features predictable interviews with think-tank supply siders and free marketers fretting about big government. But new, less orthodox voices creep in, too, from the protectionist newscaster Lou Dobbs to the investment manager Barry Ritholtz. They question whether the free market is altogether free. Mr. Ritholtz says that the outcome of the financial crisis has been "socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else."

    By 2014, Mr. Bannon's own ideology had become centered on this distrust. He was saying such things about capitalism himself. "Think about it," he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned against "the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by which he meant "a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a "Judeo-Christian" foundation.

    If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr. Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed the party whole, and its Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason for being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted.

    But voters never more than tolerated it. It was Pat Buchanan who in his 1992 run for president first called on Republicans to value jobs and communities over profits. An argument consumed the party over whether this was a better-rounded vision of society or just the grousing of a reactionary. After a generation, Mr. Buchanan has won that argument. By 2016 his views on trade and migration, once dismissed as crackpot, were spreading so fast that everyone in the party had embraced them - except its elected officials and its establishment presidential candidates.

    Mr. Bannon does not often go into detail about what Judeo-Christian culture is, but he knows one thing it is not: Islam. Like most Americans, he believes that Islamism - the extremist political movement - is a dangerous adversary. More controversially he holds that, since this political movement is generated within the sphere of Islam, the growth of Islam - the religion - is itself a problem with which American authorities should occupy themselves. This is a view that was emphatically repudiated by Presidents Obama and George W. Bush.

    Mr. Bannon has apparently drawn his own views on the subject from intensive, if not necessarily varied, reading. The thinkers he has engaged with in this area tend to be hot and polemical rather than cool and detached. They include the provocateur Pamela Geller, a campaigner against the "Ground Zero Mosque" who once suggested the State Department was "essentially being run by Islamic supremacists"; her sometime collaborator Robert Spencer, the director of the website Jihad Watch, with whom she heads an organization called Stop Islamization of America; and the former Department of Homeland Security official Philip Haney, who has argued that officials in the Obama administration had compromised "the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness."

    Read the complete column at the New York Times .

    [Feb 26, 2017] Israel attack on Syrian forces might be a provocative effort and if its jets have been attacked by Syrian or Russian forces, which would allow Israel to use this as a causus belli to attempt to seize more land from Syria and Lebanon in the name of national security

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia isn't in Syria to solve the world's problems. It is there to destroy the takfiris before they can be unleashed on Russian territory. It is also there to aid an ally. It is doing this with minimal forces. The S-400 systems are there to defend Russian assets, no more. Shooting down an Israeli aircraft, which caused minimal damage, would lead to unpredictable consequences and distractions from the prime task. ..."
    "... Let's be clear that "islamic" means UK spookie. Muslim Brotherhood, the house of Saud, and the rest of it are Anglo-Zionist creatures. Never forget. ..."
    "... If Assad "welcomes US troops to fight ISIS" (they're already there...illegally...and ISIS is a US creation as he well knows) he is a fool or someone is putting words in his mouth or, possibly, he was misquoted. ..."
    "... One needs only look at Libya's fate to see what happens to naive leaders who trust the US and assume its leaders and corporate "partners" are acting in good faith. Rule #1 Never EVER trust the USG and its mouthpieces. ..."
    "... These kind of provocative operations have a very long history; they're been continually used by various actors in the Deep State to sabotage diplomatic peace efforts - from the Eisenhower era (the U2 flights taking place without Eisenhower's approval) to Ashton Carter's attack on Syrian government forces in Deir-Ezzor, the signature is pretty obvious. ..."
    Feb 26, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    Julian | Feb 22, 2017 2:12:18 AM | 10

    Here we go yet again........

    An Israeli military plane carried out an airstrike on the Syrian government forces stationed in the western countryside of Damascus near the Lebanese border.

    https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201702221050928975-israeli-plane-attacks-syrian-army/

    jfl | Feb 22, 2017 7:55:13 AM | 31
    Israeli warplanes bombard military positions outside Damascus: Reports

    A Syrian military source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said an Israeli fighter jet crossed into Syria's airspace at around 3 a.m. local time (0100 GMT) on Wednesday after circling the skies of Lebanon's Beqaa Valley and flying above the eastern city of Baalbek, al-Masdar News reported.

    i wonder if there really are 's-400' anti-aircraft defensees in syria. and if there are, i wonder if they really work.

    i remember paveway explaining to me, the last time the israelis bombed syria, that in fact the airplane responsible was flying over israel and had fired a cruise missile, or someother type of 'standoff' weapon, across the border at that time.

    the reasoning for not responding to that attack was said to be that the defensive weapon was much too expensive to waste on the missile, and that shooting down the plane over israel that actually launched the attack ... just couldn't be done.

    that's obviously so emboldened the israelis that they now fly right into syrian airspace, like they own it. in fact they do.

    the russian airforce is so busy acting as the turkish airforce over the portion of syria that erdogan has laid claim to that they cannot be bothered to defend hezbollah .., who've been doing a lot of the heavy lifting on the ground in syria.

    i wonder if russia and tee-rump are coming to an understanding ... Trump Makes Good On Promise, Tells CIA To Stop Arming So-Called "Moderate" Rebels And Other Terrorists Groups In Syria -- .

    tee-rump begins to end cia support of al-cia-duh in syria in return for russia's looking the other way when israel kills syria's allies and destroys their armory?

    Yonatan | Feb 22, 2017 8:19:32 AM | 32
    jfl @31

    Russia isn't in Syria to solve the world's problems. It is there to destroy the takfiris before they can be unleashed on Russian territory. It is also there to aid an ally. It is doing this with minimal forces. The S-400 systems are there to defend Russian assets, no more. Shooting down an Israeli aircraft, which caused minimal damage, would lead to unpredictable consequences and distractions from the prime task.

    Circe | Feb 22, 2017 1:46:11 PM | 71
    Apparently, Defense is still seriously considering sending troops into Syria on the pretext of fighting ISIS. When asked about this at the press briefing today, Spicer, immediately brought up the fact that everyone knows Trump is considering "safe harbors" (he expressed it that way first) or safe zones in the context of this troop deployment issue. So was this a slip up? He then said he would get back to report further on the issue.

    So, what happened to Syrian sovereignty and International Law? What's Trump up to? So now that Israel again bombed a Syrian base, is the U.S. going to join in this breach of sovereignty as well?

    There's only one country that got permission to operate inside Syria militarily; that's Russia. So now that Putin has remained silent on Israel bombing Syrian bases, will he remain silent when the U.S. joins in on the action?

    I believe the last time Israel and the U.S. breached the sovereignty of a country together to conduct military agression was in Lebanon, and look what happened there!

    SmoothieX12 | Feb 22, 2017 2:11:27 PM | 73
    @71
    So, what happened to Syrian sovereignty and International Law? What's Trump up to?

    He is up to claiming (at least some) credit for defeating ISIS. Considering US' track record of the last 16+ years in military (and geopolitical) affairs this is not an unreasonable thing to do from American point of view.

    nobody | Feb 22, 2017 2:22:34 PM | 76

    Let's be clear that "islamic" means UK spookie. Muslim Brotherhood, the house of Saud, and the rest of it are Anglo-Zionist creatures. Never forget.
    Temporarily Sane | Feb 22, 2017 3:01:22 PM | 81
    @75 nobody

    Assad also made a point a few weeks ago to single out Iran, not Russia, as Syria's closest partner in its ongoing fight against Salafist/Wahhabi mercenaries.

    Assad and Iran have always said dividing Syria is not an option; Russia has stated otherwise. Putin has allowed Turkish troops into Syria. Why? How does this sit with Iran and the Syrian government?

    If Assad "welcomes US troops to fight ISIS" (they're already there...illegally...and ISIS is a US creation as he well knows) he is a fool or someone is putting words in his mouth or, possibly, he was misquoted.

    One needs only look at Libya's fate to see what happens to naive leaders who trust the US and assume its leaders and corporate "partners" are acting in good faith. Rule #1 Never EVER trust the USG and its mouthpieces.

    nonsense factory | Feb 22, 2017 5:43:00 PM | 98
    Note on the Israeli attacks on Syrian government forces and the lack of response from Syria or Russia:

    This is called a provocative effort; what Israel desires above all else is to have its jets attacked by Syrian or Russian forces, which would allow Israel to use this as a causus belli to attempt to seize more land from Syria and Lebanon in the name of national security.

    Turkey's shoot-down of a Russian jet was a very similiar operation, aimed at drawing in NATO to attack Syria (this was pre-coup effort, however, before Russia hit the economic sanctions button on Turkey).

    These kind of provocative operations have a very long history; they're been continually used by various actors in the Deep State to sabotage diplomatic peace efforts - from the Eisenhower era (the U2 flights taking place without Eisenhower's approval) to Ashton Carter's attack on Syrian government forces in Deir-Ezzor, the signature is pretty obvious.

    Another point: Clinton would have had a far easier time carrying out this agenda than anyone in the Trump administration will. And this is really all about one thing: preserving that massive $600 billion a year military-industrial budget and preventing a much-needed 50% cut, with the other $300 billion directed mainly to domestic infrastructure problems, i.e. roads, bridges, dams, public buildings, water supply systems, etc. etc. etc. Until that's done, the United States will continue to look more and more like the corrupt bloated Soviet Union of the Brezhnev era, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

    [Feb 26, 2017] a textbook illustration how color revolution methods are used to discredit the government. To attack Trump Russia is skillfully painted as Big Satan contact with whom is sin

    Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : February 24, 2017 at 08:26 PM

    RREAKING NEWS WaPo Exclusive RREAKING NEWS WaPo Exclusive

    "Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories"

    Ring any Nixon Bells with anyone???

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-enlist-intelligence-officials-key-lawmakers-to-counter-russia-stories/2017/02/24/c8487552-fa99-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html

    "Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories"

    By Greg Miller and Adam Entous...February 24, 2017...at 9:34 PM

    "The Trump administration has enlisted senior members of the intelligence community and Congress in efforts to counter news stories about Trump associates' ties to Russia, a politically charged issue that has been under investigation by the FBI as well as lawmakers now defending the White House.

    Acting at the behest of the White House, the officials made calls to news organizations last week in attempts to challenge stories about alleged contacts between members of President Trump's campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, U.S. officials said.

    The calls were orchestrated by the White House after unsuccessful attempts by the administration to get senior FBI officials to speak with news organizations and dispute the accuracy of stories on the alleged contacts with Russia.

    The White House on Friday acknowledged those interactions with the FBI but did not disclose that it then turned to other officials who agreed to do what the FBI would not - participate in White House-arranged calls with news organizations, including The Washington Post."...

    libezkova -> im1dc... , February 26, 2017 at 06:56 AM
    This article is a textbook illustration how "color revolution" methods are used to discredit the government.

    Russia is skillfully painted as "Big Satan" contact with whom is sin for Christians.

    What a despicable scum those presstitutes are...

    [Feb 26, 2017] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity: US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley We Must Sanction Assad Over Chemical Weapons by Daniel McAdams

    Feb 24, 2017 | ronpaulinstitute.org
    US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley: We Must Sanction Assad Over Chemical Weapons!

    undefined

    Recently, we had a look at the ways President Trump's Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is making her predecessor, "humanitarian bomber" Samantha Power, look like a model diplomat by comparison. It turns out Haley's ghastly performance at the UN thus far is no fluke. Each time she opens her mouth she spews not the kind of foreign policy that President Trump campaigned on, but rather the boot-in-the-face know-nothingness that we have grown accustomed to in recent years.

    In the latest "Haley Alert," the Ambassador is furious over a Russia-threatened veto of a UN Security Council resolution offered by the US, UK, and France to impose new sanctions on the Syrian government over unproven allegations that Syria used chemical weapons against its own population.

    Yes, under Ambassador Haley we have entered a time machine back to 2013, where the US is ready to deploy its entire diplomatic (and perhaps military) arsenal against the one government in the Middle East actually fighting President Trump's sworn enemies: ISIS and al-Qaeda.

    President Trump, in one of his first interviews after the November election, starkly contrasted his position with those both of the outgoing Obama Administration and his defeated opponent, Hillary Clinton:

    I've had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria. ...My attitude was you're fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria... Now we're backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.
    His employee, the US Ambassador to the UN, clearly does not share her boss's "opposite view" on Syria. And she is not afraid to contradict her boss's position on a regular basis. Today the US Mission to the UN released Ambassador Haley's remarks condemning the threatened Russian veto of new sanctions against Syria, and her comments do not in any way suggest a diplomat remotely well-informed about the complex matters at hand:
    I think what we saw in there was pretty amazing, because you had unity in the fact that we needed to be concerned about chemical weapons being used in Syria. You had an overwhelming vote to say we need an investigative mechanism that would prove that these chemical weapons were being done by the Syrian regime. Now you've got the results that have come out, and people don't like what the results are. It is ridiculous. How much longer is Russia going to continue to babysit and make excuses for the Syrian regime? People have died by being suffocated to death. That's barbaric.

    So what we're going to do is – we were given all these reasons on why we shouldn't propose the resolution. We were given all these reasons on why the timing was wrong. That is exactly why the timing is right. That is exactly why this resolution needs to happen. Whether people are going to veto it or not, you are either for chemical weapons or you're against it. People died because of this, and the United States isn't going to be quiet. Thank you.

    Let's unpack this head-scratcher of a statement. First off, "we need an investigative mechanism that would prove that these chemical weapons were being done by the Syrian regime." So she is stating that there must be an investigation to prove what she has pre-determined to be true before the investigation took place? Does that sound like "innocent until proven guilty"? Or does it sound like Hoxha-era revolutionary justice? "We must have a trial to prove comrade X guilty so we can execute him!"

    And this from Haley: "How much longer is Russia going to continue to babysit and make excuses for the Syrian regime?"

    Ms. Ambassador: Do you mean the regime that just liberated Aleppo from its murderous occupation by al-Qaeda? You know, those guys who attacked the US on 9/11?

    If Assad is using chemical weapons against his own people (Why? Presumably for fun?) then why once Aleppo was cleansed of the al-Qaeda occupiers have former residents flocked to return to an Aleppo under Assad's control? Do they enjoy being gassed?

    US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley is an absolute train wreck. She embodies the worst traits of her predecessors with a much lower level of understanding of foreign affairs or diplomacy. Will President Trump recognize his mistake in appointing her to represent the US at the UN and replace her with someone who will actually carry out his foreign policy? Or was he simply lying when he said he had an "opposite view" from the conventional Washington wisdom on Syria (and Russia as well)?


    Copyright © 2017 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
    Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute

    [Feb 26, 2017] He approves definition of neoliberalism as socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else.

    Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova February 26, 2017 at 10:46 AM

    NYT about Bannon "economic nationalism"

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/25/opinion/what-does-steve-bannon-want.html

    He approves definition of neoliberalism as "socialism for the wealthy but capitalism for everybody else."

    Looks like his views are not very comparable with Republican Party platform (or Clinton wing of Democratic Party platform, being "small republicans" in disguise)

    == quote ==

    "Think about it," he said in a talk hosted by the Institute for Human Dignity. "Not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis." He warned against "the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism," by which he meant "a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people." Capitalism, he said, ought to rest on a "Judeo-Christian" foundation.


    == quote ==

    If so, this was bad news for the Republican Party. By the time Mr. Bannon spoke, Ayn Rand-style capitalism was all that remained of its Reagan-era agenda. Free-market thinking had swallowed the party whole, and its Judeo-Christian preoccupations - "a nation with a culture" and "a reason for being" - along with it. A business orientation was what donors wanted.

    [Feb 26, 2017] The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock

    Notable quotes:
    "... The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article. ..."
    Feb 26, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
    The trend is to Deep State co-opt democracy, and use it overthrow legit goverment and replace it will neoliberal stooges what pray on the altor of democracy-killing Globalism that makes of all governments just enforces for wishes of multinationals. Corporatism does not involves any real democracy, not at all.
  • Sceptic , says: February 23, 2017 at 11:28 am
    Bacevich is one of our very few strategic thinkers. What Bacevich has disclosed here is something far more significant than merely the faults of Brooks' or of neoconservatism generally (and to be fair, where Brooks goes beyond neoconservatism/nationalism, he can be thoughtful).

    What he has disclosed in fact is that America's primary - I emphasize again, primary - strategic threat is not N. Korea, or radical Islam, or Russia, but its own revolutionary, messianic, expansionist ideology. That is the source of our woes, our growing insecurities and looming financial bankruptcy (to say nothing of the sufferings of millions of our victims).

    America's strategic problem is its own mental imprisonment: its self-worship, its inability to view itself - its destructive acts as well as its pet handful of ideas torn from the complex fabric of a truly vibrant culture - with any critical distance or objectivity.

    Joined to that, and as a logical consequence of it - the United States' persistent inability to view with any objectivity its endless, often manufactured enemies.

    Cornel Lencar , says: February 23, 2017 at 11:46 am
    Kudos Mr. Bacevich for an exceptional piece!

    Somehow the current situation in the U.S. reminds me of the end of a TV miniseries, "Merlin", where Sam Neil plays the role of Merlin. At the end, Merlin speaks to his archenemy, Morgana, that she will loose her grip on the people because they will just stop believing in her and her powers. And as he speaks, the group of countrymen surrounding Merlin turn their back one after another at Morgana and after the last one turns her back, Morgana simply vanishes

    The flip side of The Church of America the Redeemer, as with any other respectable church is that it needs the "hell", the fear, to better control its flock. The terrorists that want to kill us for our liberties You should have included this in your article.

    Also, mentioning Jerusalem, a place of madness and fervor, and pain, and strife, that has brought nothing civilizational to the world, as in par with Rome, Athens, Baghdad, Florence, and other cultural centres in Iran, China, India, Japan, is an overstretch

  • [Feb 25, 2017] The Conflictual Relationship Between Donald Trump And The US Deep State - Part 1 Zero Hedge

    Notable quotes:
    "... Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. ..."
    "... "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?" ..."
    "... What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God". ..."
    "... "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly. ..."
    "... If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy. ..."
    "... The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. ..."
    Feb 25, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    ... ... ...

    The first two weeks of the new presidency have already provided a few significant events. The operation that took place in Yemen, conducted by the American special forces and directed against Al Qaeda, has reprised the previous administration. Being a complex operation that required thorough preparation, the new administration thereby had to necessarily represent a continuation of the old one. Details are still vague, but looking at the outcome, the mission failed as a result of incompetence. The American special forces were spotted before arriving at al Qaeda's supposed base. This resulted in the shooting of anything that moved, causing more than 25 civilian deaths.

    The media that had been silent during the Obama administration was rightfully quick to condemn the killing of innocent people, and harsh criticism was directed at the administration for this operation. It is entirely possible that the operation was set up to fail, intended to delegitimize the operational capabilities of the new Trump team. Given the links between al Qaeda, the Saudis and the neoconservatives, something historically proven, it is not unthinkable that the failure of the operation was a consequence of an initial attempt at sabotaging Trump on a key aspect of his presidency, namely the successful execution of counter-terrorist efforts against Islamist terrorism.

    Another structural component in the attempts to undermine the Trump administration concern the deployment of NATO and US troops on the western border of the Russian Federation. This attempt is obvious and is one of the strategies aimed at preventing a rapprochement between Washington and Moscow. The EU persists in its self-defeating policy, focusing its attention on foreign policy instead of gaining strategic independence thanks to the new presidency. It is now even more clear that European Union leaders, and in particular the current political representatives in Germany and France, have every intention of continuing in the direction set by the Obama presidency, seeking a futile confrontation with the Russian Federation instead of a sensible rapprochement.

    Europe continues to insist on failed economic and social policies that will lead to bankruptcy, using foreign-policy issues as diversions and excuses. The consequences of these wrongheaded efforts will inevitably favor the election of nationalist and populist parties, as seen in the United States and other countries, which will end in the destruction of the EU. For the US deep state and their long-term objectives, this tactic has a dual effect: it prevents the proper functioning of the EU as well as significantly halts any rapprochement between the EU and the Russian Federation. The latter strategy looks more and more irreversible given the current European Union elites. In this sense, the UK, thanks to Brexit, seems to have broken free and started to slowly restructure its foreign- policy priorities, in close alignment to Trump's isolationism.

    Finally the most obvious attempt to sabotage the administration can be seen in the events in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, Senators Graham and McCain, two of the deep state's top emissaries, visited Ukraine at the beginning of the year, prompting Ukrainian troops to resume their destructive offensive against the Donbass. The intentions are clear and assorted. First is the constant attempt to sabotage any rapprochement between Moscow and Washington, hoping to engulf Trump in an American/NATO escalation of events in Ukraine. Second, given the critical situation in Europe, is the effort to push Berlin to assume the burden of economically supporting the failing administration in Kiev. Third is the increasing pressure applied to Russia and Putin, as was already seen in 2014, in an effort to actively involve the Russian Federation in the Ukrainian conflict so as to justify NATO's direct involvement or even that of the United States. The latter situation would be the dream of the neoconservatives, setting Trump and Putin on a direct collision course.

    The new American administration has thus far suffered at least three sabotage attempts, and it is the attitude Trump intends to have with the rest of the world that has spurred them. In an interview with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, Trump reiterated that his primary focus is not governed by the doctrine of American exceptionalism, a concept he does not subscribe to anyhow. The religion driving democratic evangelization looks more likely to be replaced with a pragmatic, realist geopolitical stance.

    This is how one could sum up Trump's words to Bill O'Reilly:

    "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers", Trump said. "Well, you think our country is so innocent?"

    What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy. The main actors of the deep state clearly understand the negative implications for them personally in economic and financial terms associated with the abandonment of the pursuit of global hegemony. For over a hundred years, no US president has ever placed their country on a par with others, has ever abandoned the concept of a nation (the US) "chosen by God".

    In an article a few weeks ago, I tried to lay the foundations for a future US administration, placing a strong focus on foreign policy and revealing a possible shift in US historic foreign relations. In a passage I wrote:

    "Donald Trump has emerged with in mind a precise foreign policy strategy, forged by various political thinkers of the realist world such as Waltz and Mearsheimer, trashing all recent neoconservative and neoliberal policies of foreign intervention (R2P - Right to Protect) and soft power campaigns in favor of human rights. No more UN resolutions, subtly used to bomb nations (Libya). Trump doesn't believe in the central role of the UN and reaffirmed this repeatedly.

    In general, the Trump administration intends to end the policy of regime change, interference in foreign governments, Arab springs and color revolutions. They just don't work. They cost too much in terms of political credibility, in Ukraine the US are allied with supporters of Bandera (historical figure who collaborated with the Nazis) and in Middle East they finance or indirectly support al Qaeda and al Nusra front".

    The recent meeting in Washington with Theresa May, the first official encounter with a prominent US ally, revealed, among other things, a possible dramatic change in US policy. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom expressed her desire to follow a new policy of non-intervention, in line with the isolationist strategy Trump has spoken about since running for office. In a joint press conference with the American president, May said: "The era of military intervention is over. London and Washington will not return to the failed policy in the past that has led to intervention in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya".

    During the election campaign, Trump made his intentions clear in different contexts, but always coming from the standpoint of non-interventionism inspired by the concept of isolationism. It is becoming apparent that these intentions are being put into action, though the rhetoric regarding Iran has become alarming. In typical Trump fashion (which contrasts with the Iran issue), the situation in Syria is normalizing and the initial threats directed at China appear to have been put aside. The case of Iran is a different and complex story, requiring a deeper analysis that deserves a separate article. What will gradually be important, as the Presidency progresses, is understanding the necessity to distinguish between words and actions, separating provocations from intentions.

    Conclusions and future questions

    There is a whole list of Trump statements that are seen as threats to other countries, primarily Iran. The next article will further explain the possible strategy to be employed by Donald Trump to fight these attempts to sabotage his administration, a strategy that seems to be based on silences, bluffs and admissions to counter the perpetual attempts to influence his presidency. If one wants to place weight on his words during the election campaign, it should be taken into consideration that Trump won the election thanks to the clear objectives of wanting to avoid a further spending spree on destructive wars. This priority was made clear and expressed in every possible way with the adoption of an America First policy, especially regarding domestic policy.

    The bottom line is always that Trump has the ability and willingness to be resilient to the pressures of the deep state, focusing on the needs of the average American citizen, rather than caving in to the interests of the deep state such as intelligence agencies, neocons, Israel lobby, Saudi lobby, the military-industrial complex, and many more. It is only in the next few months that we will come to understand if Trump will be willing to continue the fight against war or bend the knee and pay the price.

    Mustafa Kemal , Feb 21, 2017 11:21 PM

    " What the deep state refuses to accept is that they have lost the leading role in educating the rest of the world on humanitarian issues related to the concept of democracy."

    This was a strange article, but after reading the above quote I had to laugh and could not find the gumption to continue reading.

    Who could write something like that?

    BarnacleBill , Feb 21, 2017 11:29 PM

    The Deep State ought to have beaten Trump already - one way or another...! But somebody with brains has realised that it's not just Trump. It's the political movement that he heads***. Even if they killed DT tomorrow (and it's certain to have been on their agenda), the Trumpista Party would survive: it's too active and too popular to disappear. So the establishment pretty much has to wrap up the entire movement. They have left things dangerously late, from their point of view.

    *** I know he didn't start it; it's the old Pat Buchanan + Ron Paul gang, but Donald is twice as cunning as those chaps. I really don't think he'll win his war with the bad guys - the War Party - but his influence will be quite long-lasting. And of course he is our last hope to roll back the spectre of "1984".

    [Feb 23, 2017] The American Century Has Plunged the World Into Crisis. What Happens Now?

    Authors outlined important reasons of the inevitability of the dominance of chicken hawks and jingoistic foreign policy in the USA political establishment:
    .
    "...Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles. Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional."
    .
    "...leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz - who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned."
    .
    "...A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain. "
    .
    "...But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices."
    .
    "...The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders."
    .
    "...The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.
    .
    The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick "smash and grabs" like Panama and Grenada. Others are "shadow wars" waged by Special Forces, armed drones, and local proxies. If one defines the term "war" as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945."
    .
    "...The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report, most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised."
    .
    "...the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 "Carter Doctrine" - a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America - put that strategy in blunt terms vis-à-vis the Middle East:"
    .
    "...In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it.
    .
    It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.
    "
    Notable quotes:
    "... Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles . Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional. ..."
    "... leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz - who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned. ..."
    "... A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain . ..."
    "... But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices. ..."
    "... The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders. ..."
    "... As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply racism - the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth - continues to plague our homeland . ..."
    "... The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report , most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised. ..."
    "... the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. ..."
    "... In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it. It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy. ..."
    Jun 22, 2015 | fpif.org

    U.S. foreign policy is dangerous, undemocratic, and deeply out of sync with real global challenges. Is continuous war inevitable, or can we change course?

    There's something fundamentally wrong with U.S. foreign policy.

    Despite glimmers of hope - a tentative nuclear agreement with Iran, for one, and a long-overdue thaw with Cuba - we're locked into seemingly irresolvable conflicts in most regions of the world. They range from tensions with nuclear-armed powers like Russia and China to actual combat operations in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa.

    Why? Has a state of perpetual warfare and conflict become inescapable? Or are we in a self-replicating cycle that reflects an inability - or unwillingness - to see the world as it actually is?

    The United States is undergoing a historic transition in our relationship to the rest of the world, but this is neither acknowledged nor reflected in U.S. foreign policy. We still act as if our enormous military power, imperial alliances, and self-perceived moral superiority empower us to set the terms of "world order."

    While this illusion goes back to the end of World War II, it was the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union that signaled the beginning of a self-proclaimed "American Century." The idea that the United States had "won" the Cold War and now - as the world's lone superpower - had the right or responsibility to order the world's affairs led to a series of military adventures. It started with President Bill Clinton's intervention in the Yugoslav civil war, continued on with George W. Bush's disastrous invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and can still be seen in the Obama administration's own misadventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and beyond.

    In each case, Washington chose war as the answer to enormously complex issues, ignoring the profound consequences for both foreign and domestic policy. Yet the world is very different from the assumptions that drive this impulsive interventionism.

    It's this disconnect that defines the current crisis.

    Acknowledging New Realities

    So what is it about the world that requires a change in our outlook? A few observations come to mind.

    1. First, our preoccupation with conflicts in the Middle East - and to a significant extent, our tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe and with China in East Asia - distract us from the most compelling crises that threaten the future of humanity. Climate change and environmental perils have to be dealt with now and demand an unprecedented level of international collective action. That also holds for the resurgent danger of nuclear war.
    2. Second, superpower military interventionism and far-flung acts of war have only intensified conflict, terror, and human suffering. There's no short-term solution - especially by force - to the deep-seated problems that cause chaos, violence, and misery through much of the world.
    3. Third, while any hope of curbing violence and mitigating the most urgent problems depends on international cooperation, old and disastrous intrigues over spheres of influence dominate the behavior of the major powers. Our own relentless pursuit of military advantage on every continent, including through alliances and proxies like NATO, divides the world into "friend" and "foe" according to our perceived interests. That inevitably inflames aggressive imperial rivalries and overrides common interests in the 21st century.
    4. Fourth, while the United States remains a great economic power, economic and political influence is shifting and giving rise to national and regional centers no longer controlled by U.S.-dominated global financial structures. Away from Washington, London, and Berlin, alternative centers of economic power are taking hold in Beijing, New Delhi, Cape Town, and Brasilia. Independent formations and alliances are springing up: organizations like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa); the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (representing 2.8 billion people); the Union of South American Nations; the Latin American trade bloc, Mercosur; and others.

    Beyond the problems our delusions of grandeur have caused in the wider world, there are enormous domestic consequences of prolonged war and interventionism. We shell out over $1 trillion a year in military-related expenses even as our social safety net frays and our infrastructure crumbles. Democracy itself has become virtually dysfunctional.

    Short Memories and Persistent Delusions

    But instead of letting these changing circumstances and our repeated military failures give us pause, our government continues to act as if the United States has the power to dominate and dictate to the rest of the world.

    The responsibility of those who set us on this course fades into background. Indeed, in light of the ongoing meltdown in the Middle East, leading presidential candidates are tapping neoconservatives like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz - who still think the answer to any foreign policy quandary is military power - for advice. Our leaders seem to forget that following this lot's advice was exactly what caused the meltdown in the first place. War still excites them, risks and consequences be damned.

    While the Obama administration has sought, with limited success, to end the major wars it inherited, our government makes wide use of killer drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, and has put troops back into Iraq to confront the religious fanaticism and brutality of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) - itself a direct consequence of the last U.S. invasion of Iraq. Reluctant to find common ground in the fight against ISIS with designated "foes" like Iran and Syria, Washington clings to allies like Saudi Arabia, whose leaders are fueling the crisis of religious fanaticism and internecine barbarity. Elsewhere, the U.S. also continues to give massive support to the Israeli government, despite its expanding occupation of the West Bank and its horrific recurring assaults on Gaza.

    A "war first" policy in places like Iran and Syria is being strongly pushed by neoconservatives like former Vice President Dick Cheney and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain. Though it's attempted to distance itself from the neocons, the Obama administration adds to tensions with planned military realignments like the "Asia pivot" aimed at building up U.S. military forces in Asia to confront China. It's also taken a more aggressive position than even other NATO partners in fostering a new cold war with Russia.

    We seem to have missed the point: There is no such thing as an "American Century." International order cannot be enforced by a superpower alone. But never mind centuries - if we don't learn to take our common interests more seriously than those that divide nations and breed the chronic danger of war, there may well be no tomorrows.

    Unexceptionalism

    There's a powerful ideological delusion that any movement seeking to change U.S. foreign policy must confront: that U.S. culture is superior to anything else on the planet. Generally going by the name of "American exceptionalism," it's the deeply held belief that American politics (and medicine, technology, education, and so on) are better than those in other countries. Implicit in the belief is an evangelical urge to impose American ways of doing things on the rest of the world.

    Americans, for instance, believe they have the best education system in the world, when in fact they've dropped from 1st place to 14th place in the number of college graduates. We've made students of higher education the most indebted section of our population, while falling to 17th place in international education ratings. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation, the average American pays more than twice as much for his or her education than those in the rest of the world.

    Health care is an equally compelling example. In the World Health Organization's ranking of health care systems in 2000, the United States was ranked 37th. In a more recent Institute of Medicine report in 2013, the U.S. was ranked the lowest among 17 developed nations studied.

    The old anti-war slogan, "It will be a good day when schools get all the money they need and the Navy has to hold a bake sale to buy an aircraft carrier" is as appropriate today as it was in the 1960s. We prioritize corporate subsidies, tax cuts for the wealthy, and massive military budgets over education. The result is that Americans are no longer among the most educated in the world.

    But challenging the "exceptionalism" myth courts the danger of being labeled "unpatriotic" and "un-American," two powerful ideological sanctions that can effectively silence critical or questioning voices.

    The fact that Americans consider their culture or ideology "superior" is hardly unique. But no other country in the world has the same level of economic and military power to enforce its worldview on others.

    The United States did not simply support Kosovo's independence, for example. It bombed Serbia into de facto acceptance. When the U.S. decided to remove the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Muammar Gaddafi from power, it just did so. No other country is capable of projecting that kind of force in regions thousands of miles from its borders.

    The U.S. currently accounts for anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of the world's military spending. It has hundreds of overseas bases, ranging from huge sprawling affairs like Camp Bond Steel in Kosovo and unsinkable aircraft carriers around the islands of Okinawa, Wake, Diego Garcia, and Guam to tiny bases called "lily pads" of pre-positioned military supplies. The late political scientist Chalmers Johnson estimated that the U.S. has some 800 bases worldwide, about the same as the British Empire had at its height in 1895.

    The United States has long relied on a military arrow in its diplomatic quiver, and Americans have been at war almost continuously since the end of World War II. Some of these wars were major undertakings: Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq (twice), Libya. Some were quick "smash and grabs" like Panama and Grenada. Others are "shadow wars" waged by Special Forces, armed drones, and local proxies. If one defines the term "war" as the application of organized violence, the U.S. has engaged in close to 80 wars since 1945.

    The Home Front

    The coin of empire comes dear, as the old expression goes.

    According Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, the final butcher bill for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars - including the long-term health problems of veterans - will cost U.S. taxpayers around $6 trillion. One can add to that the over $1 trillion the U.S. spends each year on defense-related items. The "official" defense budget of some half a trillion dollars doesn't include such items as nuclear weapons, veterans' benefits or retirement, the CIA and Homeland Security, nor the billions a year in interest we'll be paying on the debt from the Afghan-Iraq wars. By 2013 the U.S. had already paid out $316 billion in interest.

    The domestic collateral damage from that set of priorities is numbing.

    We spend more on our "official" military budget than we do on Medicare, Medicaid, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development combined. Since 9/11, we've spent $70 million an hour on "security" compared to $62 million an hour on all domestic programs.

    As military expenditures dwarf funding for deteriorating social programs, they drive economic inequality. The poor and working millions are left further and further behind. Meanwhile the chronic problems highlighted at Ferguson, and reflected nationwide, are a horrific reminder of how deeply racism - the unequal economic and social divide and systemic abuse of black and Latino youth - continues to plague our homeland.

    The state of ceaseless war has deeply damaged our democracy, bringing our surveillance and security state to levels that many dictators would envy. The Senate torture report, most of it still classified, shatters the trust we are asked to place in the secret, unaccountable apparatus that runs the most extensive Big Brother spy system ever devised.

    Bombs and Business

    President Calvin Coolidge was said to have remarked that "the business of America is business." Unsurprisingly, U.S. corporate interests play a major role in American foreign policy.

    Out of the top 10 international arms producers, eight are American. The arms industry spends millions lobbying Congress and state legislatures, and it defends its turf with an efficiency and vigor that its products don't always emulate on the battlefield. The F-35 fighter-bomber, for example - the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history - will cost $1.5 trillion and doesn't work. It's over budget, dangerous to fly, and riddled with defects. And yet few lawmakers dare challenge the powerful corporations who have shoved this lemon down our throats.

    Corporate interests are woven into the fabric of long-term U.S. strategic interests and goals. Both combine to try to control energy supplies, command strategic choke points through which oil and gas supplies transit, and ensure access to markets.

    Many of these goals can be achieved with standard diplomacy or economic pressure, but the U.S. always reserves the right to use military force. The 1979 "Carter Doctrine" - a document that mirrors the 1823 Monroe Doctrine about American interests in Latin America - put that strategy in blunt terms vis-à-vis the Middle East:

    "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force."

    It's no less true in East Asia. The U.S. will certainly engage in peaceful economic competition with China. But if push comes to shove, the Third, Fifth, and Seventh fleets will back up the interests of Washington and its allies - Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Australia.

    Trying to change the course of American foreign policy is not only essential for reducing international tensions. It's critically important to shift the enormous wealth we expend in war and weapons toward alleviating growing inequality and social crises at home.

    As long as competition for markets and accumulation of capital characterize modern society, nations will vie for spheres of influence, and antagonistic interests will be a fundamental feature of international relations. Chauvinist reaction to incursions real or imagined - and the impulse to respond by military means - is characteristic to some degree of every significant nation-state. Yet the more that some governments, including our own, become subordinate to oligarchic control, the greater is the peril.

    Finding the Common Interest

    These, however, are not the only factors that will shape the future.

    There is nothing inevitable that rules out a significant change of direction, even if the demise or transformation of a capitalistic system of greed and exploitation is not at hand. The potential for change, especially in U.S. foreign policy, resides in how social movements here and abroad respond to the undeniable reality of: 1) the chronic failure, massive costs, and danger inherent in "American Century" exceptionalism; and 2) the urgency of international efforts to respond to climate change.

    There is, as well, the necessity to respond to health and natural disasters aggravated by poverty, to rising messianic violence, and above all, to prevent a descent into war. This includes not only the danger of a clash between the major nuclear powers, but between regional powers. A nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India, for example, would affect the whole world.

    Without underestimating the self-interest of forces that thrive on gambling with the future of humanity, historic experience and current reality elevate a powerful common interest in peace and survival. The need to change course is not something that can be recognized on only one side of an ideological divide. Nor does that recognition depend on national, ethnic, or religious identity. Rather, it demands acknowledging the enormous cost of plunging ahead as everything falls apart around us.

    After the latest U.S. midterm elections, the political outlook is certainly bleak. But experience shows that elections, important as they are, are not necessarily indicators of when and how significant change can come about in matters of policy. On issues of civil rights and social equality, advances have occurred because a dedicated and persistent minority movement helped change public opinion in a way the political establishment could not defy.

    The Vietnam War, for example, came to an end, despite the stubbornness of Democratic and Republican administrations, when a stalemate on the battlefield and growing international and domestic opposition could no longer be denied. Significant changes can come about even as the basic character of society is retained. Massive resistance and rejection of colonialism caused the British Empire and other colonial powers to adjust to a new reality after World War II. McCarthyism was eventually defeated in the United States. President Nixon was forced to resign. The use of landmines and cluster bombs has been greatly restricted because of the opposition of a small band of activists whose initial efforts were labeled "quixotic."

    There are diverse and growing political currents in our country that see the folly and danger of the course we're on. Many Republicans, Democrats, independents, and libertarians - and much of the public - are beginning to say "enough" to war and military intervention all over the globe, and the folly of basing foreign policy on dividing countries into "friend or foe."

    This is not to be Pollyannaish about anti-war sentiment, or how quickly people can be stampeded into supporting the use of force. In early 2014, some 57 percent of Americans agreed that "over-reliance on military force creates more hatred leading to increased terrorism." Only 37 percent believed military force was the way to go. But once the hysteria around the Islamic State began, those numbers shifted to pretty much an even split: 47 percent supported the use of military force, 46 percent opposed it.

    It will always be necessary in each new crisis to counter those who mislead and browbeat the public into acceptance of another military intervention. But in spite of the current hysterics about ISIS, disillusionment in war as an answer is probably greater now among Americans and worldwide than it has ever been. That sentiment may prove strong enough to produce a shift away from perpetual war, a shift toward some modesty and common-sense realism in U.S. foreign policy.

    Making Space for the Unexpected

    Given that there is a need for a new approach, how can American foreign policy be changed?

    Foremost, there is the need for a real debate on the thrust of a U.S. foreign policy that chooses negotiation, diplomacy, and international cooperation over the use of force.

    However, as we approach another presidential election, there is as yet no strong voice among the candidates to challenge U.S. foreign policy. Fear and questionable political calculation keep even most progressive politicians from daring to dissent as the crisis of foreign policy lurches further into perpetual militarism and war. That silence of political acquiescence has to be broken.

    Nor is it a matter of concern only on the left. There are many Americans - right, left, or neither - who sense the futility of the course we're on. These voices have to be represented or the election process will be even more of a sham than we've recently experienced.

    One can't predict just what initiatives may take hold, but the recent U.S.-China climate agreement suggests that necessity can override significant obstacles. That accord is an important step forward, although a limited bilateral pact cannot substitute for an essential international climate treaty. There is a glimmer of hope also in the U.S.-Russian joint action that removed chemical weapons from Syria, and in negotiations with Iran, which continue despite fierce opposition from U.S. hawks and the Israeli government. More recently, there is Obama's bold move - long overdue - to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba. Despite shifts in political fortunes, the unexpected can happen if there is a need and strong enough pressure to create an opportunity.

    We do not claim to have ready-made solutions to the worsening crisis in international relations. We are certain that there is much we've missed or underestimated. But if readers agree that U.S. foreign policy has a national and global impact, and that it is not carried out in the interests of the majority of the world's people, including our own, then we ask you to join this conversation.

    If we are to expand the ability of the people to influence foreign policy, we need to defend democracy, and encourage dissent and alternative ideas. The threats to the world and to ourselves are so great that finding common ground trumps any particular interest. We also know that we won't all agree with each other, and we believe that is as it should be. There are multiple paths to the future. No coalition around changing foreign policy will be successful if it tells people to conform to any one pattern of political action.

    So how does the call for changing course translate to something politically viable, and how do we consider the problem of power?

    The power to make significant changes in policy ranges from the persistence of peace activists to the potential influence of the general public. In some circumstances, it becomes possible - as well as necessary - to make significant changes in the power structure itself.

    Greece comes to mind. Greek left organizations came together to form Syriza, the political party that was successfully elected to power on a platform of ending austerity. Spain's anti-austerity Podemos Party - now the number-two party in the country - came out of massive demonstrations in 2011 and was organized from the grassroots up. We do not argue one approach over the over, but the experiences in both countries demonstrate that there are multiple paths to generating change.

    Certainly progressives and leftists grapple with the problems of power. But progress on issues, particularly in matters like war and peace and climate change, shouldn't be conceived of as dependent on first achieving general solutions to the problems of society, however desirable.

    ... ... ...

    Conn Hallinan is a journalist and a columnist for Foreign Policy In Focus. His writings appear online at Dispatches From the Edge. Leon Wofsy is a retired biology professor and long-time political activist. His comments on current affairs appear online at Leon's OpEd.

    [Feb 21, 2017] David Stockman provides one of the best commentaries on Flynn assassination by deep state and Trymp betrayal of Flynn

    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    David Stockman provides one of the best commentaries on Flynn assassination by deep state and Obama neocon holdovers in the administration. This is a really powerful astute, first class analysis of the situation:

    Flynn's Gone But They're Still Gunning For You, Donald

    http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/february/17/flynns-gone-but-theyre-still-gunning-for-you-donald/

    == quote ==
    ... ... ...
    This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging," albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at the center of the case.

    As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy:

    Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations. Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do, it comes as no surprise.

    Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.

    Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes:

    'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.'

    Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.

    But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy and the liberties of the American people.

    As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition research" during the campaign and the transition:

    According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping, listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee. What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future Trump appointee?

    Consider this little tidbit in The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'

    And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based on sheer political motivation.

    According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did day and night during the interregnum:
    Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries.

    So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.

    Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January 1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the outgoing Carter Administration.

    To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate, Dick Allen.

    As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:

    Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described 'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan, not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.

    The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser, Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).

    To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever of citizen diplomacy.

    So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA Director John Brennan.

    That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course, was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.

    Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies.

    Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed!

    But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.

    That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.

    The Donald has been warned.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Globalisation and Economic Nationalism naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
    "... From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto. ..."
    "... Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia. ..."
    "... Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past? ..."
    "... Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise? ..."
    "... Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else. ..."
    "... So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh? ..."
    "... America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work? ..."
    "... The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. ..."
    "... There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve. ..."
    "... When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues. ..."
    "... After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer. ..."
    "... In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control. ..."
    "... How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind. ..."
    "... The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved. ..."
    "... I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying ..."
    "... "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay." ..."
    "... I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. ..."
    "... First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk. ..."
    "... So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden? ..."
    "... One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past. ..."
    "... And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response. ..."
    "... During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders. ..."
    "... Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point. ..."
    "... China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on. ..."
    "... In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. ..."
    "... "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system." ..."
    "... The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao. ..."
    "... 80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country! ..."
    "... Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms. ..."
    "... Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction. ..."
    "... Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers' ..."
    "... and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. ..."
    "... The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation. ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    DanielDeParis , February 20, 2017 at 1:09 am

    Definitely a pleasant read but IMHO wrong conclusion: Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers', and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies. The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.

    From an energy point of view globalisation is a disaster. The insane level of fossil fuels that this current world requires for transportation of necessities (food and clothing) is making this world an unstable world. Ipso Facto.

    We need a world where goods move little as possible (yep!) when smart ideas and technology (medical, science, industry, yep that's essential) move as much as possible. Internet makes this possible. This is no dream but a XXIth century reality.

    Work – the big one – is required and done where and when it occurs. That is on all continents if not in every country. Not in an insanely remote suburbs of Asia.

    Those who believe that globalisation is bringing value to the world should reconsider their views. The current globalisation has created both monopolies on a geopolitical ground, ie TV make or shipbuilding in Asia.

    Do you seriously believe that these new geographical and corporate monopolies does not create the kind bad outcomes that traditional – country-centric ones – monopolies have in the past?

    Yves Smith can have nasty words when it comes to discussing massive trade surplus and policies that supports them. That's my single most important motivation for reading this challenging blog, by the way.

    Thanks for the blog:)

    tony , February 20, 2017 at 5:09 am

    Another thing is that reliance on complex supply chains is risky. The book 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed describes how the ancient Mediterranian civilization collapsed when the supply chains stopped working.

    Then there is the practical issue of workers having next to no bargaining power under globalization. Do people really suppose that Mexican workers would be willing to strike so that their US counterparts, already making ficew times as much money, would get a raise?

    Is Finland somehow supposed to force the US and China to adopt similar worker rights and environmental protections? No, globalization, no matter how you slice it,is a race to the bottom.

    digi_owl , February 20, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Sadly protectionism gets conflated with empire building, because protectionism was at its height right before WW1.

    Altandmain , February 20, 2017 at 1:35 am

    I do not agree with the article's conclusion either.

    Reshoring would have 1 of 2 outcomes:

    • Lots of manufacturing jobs and a solid middle class. We may be looking at more than 20 percent total employment in manufacturing and more than 30 percent of our GDP in manufacturing.
    • If the robots take over, we still have a lot of manufacturing jobs. Japan for example has the most robots per capita, yet they still maintain very large amounts of manufacturing employment. It does not mean the end of manufacturing at all, having worked in manufacturing before.

    Basically our elite sold us a bill of goods is why we lost manufacturing. Greed. Nothing else.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 3:07 am

    The conclusion is the least important thing. Conclusions are just interpretations, afterthoughts, divagations (which btw are often just sneaky ways to get your work published by TPTB, surreptitiously inserting radical stuff under the noses of the guardians of orthodoxy).

    The value of these reports is in providing hardcore statistical evidence and quantification for something for which so many people have a gut feeling but just cann't prove it (although many seem to think that just having a strong opinion is sufficient).

    Yves Smith Post author , February 20, 2017 at 3:27 am

    Yes, correct. Intuition is great for coming up with hypotheses, but it is important to test them. And while a correlation isn't causation, it at least says the hypothesis isn't nuts on its face.

    In addition, studies like this are helpful in challenging the oft-made claim, particularly in the US, that people who vote for nationalist policies are bigots of some stripe.

    KnotRP , February 20, 2017 at 10:02 am

    So proof is required to rollback globalization, but no proof was required to launch it or continue dishing it out? It's good to be the King, eh?

    WheresOurTeddy , February 20, 2017 at 1:05 pm

    KnotRP, as far as the Oligarchy is concerned, they don't need proof for anything #RememberTheHackedElectionOf2016

    /s

    Yves Smith Post author , February 20, 2017 at 6:48 am

    You are missing the transition costs, which will take ten years, maybe a generation.

    America hasn't just gotten rid of the low level jobs. It has also gotten rid of supervisors and factory managers. Those are skills you can't get back overnight. For US plants in Mexico, you might have US managers there or be able to get special visas to let those managers come to the US. But US companies have shifted a ton, and I meant a ton, to foreign subcontractors. Some would put operations in the US to preserve access to US customers, but their managers won't speak English. How do you make this work?

    The only culture with demonstrated success in working with supposedly hopeless US workers is the Japanese, who proved that with the NUMMI joint venture with GM in one of its very worst factories (in terms of the alleged caliber of the workforce, as in many would show up for work drunk). Toyota got the plant to function at better than average (as in lower) defect levels and comparable productivity to its plants in Japan, which was light years better than Big Three norms.

    I'm not sure any other foreign managers are as sensitive to detail and the fine points of working conditions as the Japanese (having worked with them extensively, the Japanese hear frequencies of power dynamics that are lost on Westerners. And the Chinese do not even begin to have that capability, as much as they have other valuable cultural attributes).

    Katharine , February 20, 2017 at 10:24 am

    That is really interesting about the Japanese sensitivity to detail and power dynamics. If anyone has managed to describe this in any detail, I would love to read more, though I suppose if their ability is alien to most Westerners the task of describing it might also be too much to handle.

    Left in Wisconsin , February 20, 2017 at 10:39 am

    I lean more to ten years than a generation. And in the grand scheme of things, 10 years is nothing.

    The real issue is commitment. Very little manufacturing will be re-shored unless companies are convinced that it is in their longterm interest to do so. Which means having a sense that the US government is serious, and will continue to be serious, about penalizing off-shoring.

    Regardless of Trump's bluster, which has so far only resulted in a handful of companies halting future offshoring decisions (all to the good), we are nowhere close to that yet.

    John Wright , February 20, 2017 at 10:52 am

    There is also what I've heard referred to as the "next bench" phenomenon, in which products arise because someone designs a new product/process to solve a manufacturing problem. Unless one has great foresight, the designer of the new product must be aware there is a problem to solve.

    When a country is involved in manufacturing, the citizens employed will have exposure to production problems and issues.

    Sometimes the solution to these problems can lead to new products outside of one's main business, for example the USA's Kingsford Charcoal arose from a scrap wood disposal problem that Henry Ford had.

    https://www.kingsford.com/country/about-us/

    If one googles for "patent applications by countries" one gets these numbers, which could be an indirect indication of some of the manufacturing shift from the USA to Asia.

    Patent applications for the top 10 offices, 2014

    1. China 928,177
    2. US 578,802
    3. Japan 325,989
    4. South Korea 210,292

    What is not captured in these numbers are manufacturing processes known as "trade secrets" that are not disclosed in a patent. The idea that the USA can move move much of its manufacturing overseas without long term harming its workforce and economy seems implausible to me.

    marku52 , February 20, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    While a design EE at HP, they brought in an author who had written about Toyota's lean design method, which was currently the management hot button du jour. After his speech he took questions. I asked "Would Toyota ever separate design from manufacturing?" as HP had done, shipping all manufacturing to Asia. "No" was his answer.

    In my experience, it is way too useful to have the line be able to easily call the designer in question and have him come take a look at what his design is doing. HP tried to get around that by sending part of the design team to Asia to watch the startup. Didn't work as well. And when problems emerged later, it was always difficult to debug by remote control.

    And BTW, after manufacturing went overseas, management told us for costing to assume "Labor is free". Some level playing field.

    The Rev Kev , February 20, 2017 at 2:00 am

    Oh gawd! The man talks about the effects of globalization and says that the solution is a "a more inclusive model of globalization"? Seriously? Furthermore he singles out Chinese imports as the cause of people being pushed to the right. Yeah, right.

    How about mass imports of cheap workers into western countries in the guise of emigrants to push down worker's pay and gut things like unions. That factor played a decisive factor in both the Brexit referendum and the US 2016 elections. Or the subsidized exportation of western countries industrial equipment to third world countries, leaving local workers swinging in the wind.

    This study is so incomplete it is almost useless. The only thing that comes to mind to say about this study is the phrase "Apart from that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And what form of appropriate compensation of its 'losers' would they suggest? Training for non-existent jobs? Free moving fees to the east or west coast for Americans in flyover country? Subsidized emigration fees to third world countries where life is cheaper for workers with no future where they are?

    Nice try fellas but time to redo your work again until it is fit for a passing grade.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 3:00 am

    How crazy of them to have used generalized linear mixed models with actual data carefully compiled and curated when they could just asked you right?

    The Rev Kev , February 20, 2017 at 4:19 am

    Aw jeez, mate – you've just hurt my feelings here. Take a look at the actual article again. The data sets do not capture some of the most important factors in what they are saying. It is like putting together a paper on how and why white men voted in the 2016 US elections as they did – and forgetting to mention the effect of the rest of the voters involved.

    Hey, here is an interesting thought experiment for you. How about we apply the scientific method to the past 40 years of economic theory since models with actual data strike your fancy. If we find that the empirical data does not support a theory such as the theory of economic neoliberalism, we can junk it then and replace it with something that actually works then. So far as I know, modern economics seems to be immune to scientific rigour in their methods unlike the real sciences.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 4:38 am

    I feel your pain Rev.

    Not all relevant factors need to be included for a statistical analysis to be valid, as long as relevant ignored factors are randomized amongst the sampling units, but you know that of course.

    Thanks for you kind words about the real sciences, we work hard to keep it real, but once again, in all fairness, between you and me mate, is not all rigour, it is a lot more Feyerabend than Popper.

    The Rev Kev , February 20, 2017 at 5:41 am

    What you say is entirely true. The trouble has always been to make sure that that statistical analysis actually reflects the real world enough to make it valid. An example of where it all falls apart can be seen in the political world when the pundits, media and all the pollsters assured America that Clinton had it in the bag. It was only after the dust had settled that it was revealed how bodgy the methodology used had been.

    By the way, Karl Popper and Paul Feyerabend sound very interesting so thanks for the heads up. Have you heard of some of the material of another bloke called Mark Blyth at all? He has some interesting observations to make on modern economic practices.

    susan the other , February 20, 2017 at 12:03 pm

    I had a similar reaction. This research was reinforcing info about everyone's resentment over really bad distribution of wealth, as far as it went, but it was so unsatisfying and I immediately thought of Blyth who laments the whole phylogeny of economics as more or less serving the rich.

    The one solution he offered up a while ago was (paraphrasing) 'don't sweat the deficit spending because it is all 6s in the end' which is true if distribution doesn't stagnate. So as it stands now, offshoring arms, legs and firstborns is like 'nothing to see here, please move on'. The suggestion that we need a more inclusive form of global trade kind of begs the question. Made me uneasy too.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 10:58 pm

    Please don't pool pundits and media with the authors of objective works like the one we are commenting :-)

    You are welcome, you might also be interested in Lakatos, these 3 are some of the most interesting philosophers of science of the 20th century, IMO.

    Blyth has been in some posts here at NC recently.

    relstprof , February 20, 2017 at 4:30 am

    "Gut things like unions." How so? In my recent interaction with my apartment agency's preferred contractors, random contractors not unionized, I experienced a 6 month-long disaster.

    These construction workers bragged that in 2 weeks they would have the complete job done - a reconstructed deck and sunroom. Verbatim quote: "Union workers complete the job and tear it down to keep everyone paying." Ha Ha! What a laugh!

    Only to have these same dudes keep saying "next week", "next week", "next week", "next week". The work began in August and only was finished (not completely!) in late January. Sloppy crap! Even the apartment agency head maintenance guy who I finally bitched at said "I guess good work is hard to come by these days."

    Of the non-union guys he hired.

    My state just elected a republican governor who promised "right to work." This was just signed into law.

    Immigrants and Mexicans had nothing to do with it. They're not an impact in my city. "Right to work" is nothing other than a way to undercut quality of work for "run-to-the-bottom competitive pay."

    Now I await whether my rent goes up to pay for this nonsense.

    bob , February 20, 2017 at 11:24 pm

    They look at the labor cost, assume someone can do it cheaper. They don't think it's that difficult. Maybe it's not. The hard part of any and all construction work is getting it finished. Getting started is easy. Getting it finished on time? Nah, you can't afford that.

    Karl Kolchak , February 20, 2017 at 10:22 am

    I've noticed that the only people in favor of globalization are those whose jobs are not under threat from it. Beyond that, I think the flood of cheap Chinese goods is actually helping suppress populist anger by allowing workers whose wages are dropping in real value terms to maintain the illusion of prosperity. To me, a more "inclusive" form of globalization would include replacing every economist with a Chinese immigrant earning minimum wage. That way they'd get to "experience" how awesome it is and the value of future economic analysis would be just as good.

    The Trumpening , February 20, 2017 at 2:27 am

    I'm going to question a few of the author's assumptions.

    First off, economic nationalism is not necessarily right wing. I would certainly classify Bernie Sanders as an economic nationalist (against open borders and against "free" trade). Syriza and Podemos could arguably be called rather ineffective economic nationalist parties. I would say the whole ideology of social democracy is based on the Swedish nationalist concept of a "folkhem", where the nation is the home and the citizens are the folk.

    Secondly, when discussing the concept of economic nationalism and the nation of China, it would be interesting to discuss how these two things go together. China has more billionaires than refugees accepted in the past 20 years. Also it is practically impossible for a non Han Chinese person to become a naturalized Chinese citizen. And when China buys Boeing aircraft, they wisely insist on the production being done in China. A close look at Japan would yield similar results.

    So China is Turmpism on steroids. Israel obviously is as well. Why do some nations get to be blatantly Trumpist while for others these policies are strictly forbidden?

    One way to look at Globalization is as an updated version of the post WW1 Versailles Treaty which imposed reparations on a defeated Germany for all the harm they caused during the Great War. The Globalized Versailles Treaty is aimed at the American and European working classes for the crimes of colonialism, racism, slavery and any other bad things the 1st world has done to the 3rd in the past.

    Of course during colonialism the costs were socialized within colonizing states and so it was the people of the colonial power who paid those costs that weren't borne by the colonial subjects themselves, who of course paid dearly, and it was the oligarchic class that privatized the colonial profits. But the 1st world oligarchs and their urban bourgeoisie are in strong agreement that the deplorable working classes are to blame for systems that hurt working classes but powerfully enriched the wealthy!

    And so with the recent rebellions against Globalization, the 1st and 3rd world oligarchs are convinced these are nothing more than the 1st world working classes attempting to shirk their historic guilt debt by refusing to pay the rightful reparations in terms of standard of living that workers deserve to pay for the crimes committed in the past by their wealthy co-nationals.

    And yes, this applies to Bernie Sanders as well. During that iconic interview where Sanders denounced open borders and pushed economic nationalism, the Neoliberal interviewer immediately played the global guilt card in response.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 3:23 am

    Interesting. Another way to look at it is from the point of view of entropy and closed vs open systems. Before globalisation the 1st world working classes enjoyed a high standard of living which was possible because their system was relatively closed to the rest of the world. It was a high entropy, strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world and 3rd world working classes. Once their system became more open by virtue (or vice) of globalisation, entropy increased as commanded by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics so the 1st world and 3rd world working classes became more equalised. The socio-economic arrangements became less structured. This means for the Trumpening kind of politicians it is a steep uphill battle, to increase entropy again.

    The Trumpening , February 20, 2017 at 3:56 am

    Yes, I agree, but if we step back in history a bit we can see the colonial period as a sort of reverse globalization which perhaps portends a bit of optimism for the Trumpening.

    I use the term open and closed borders but these are not precise. What I am really saying is that open borders does not allow a country to filter out negative flows across their border. Closed borders does allow a nation to impose a filter. So currently the US has more open borders (filters are frowned upon) and China has closed borders (they can filter out what they don't want) despite the fact that obviously China has plenty of things crossing its border.

    During colonialism the 3rd world had a form of open borders imposed on it by the colonial powers, where the 3rd world lost control of who what crossed their borders while the 1st world themselves maintained a closed border mercantilist regime of strict filters. So the anti-colonialist movement was a form of Trumpist economic nationalism where the evil foreigners were given the boot and the nascent nations applied filters to their borders.

    So the 3rd world to some extent (certainly in China at least) was able to overcome entropy and regain control of their borders. You are correct in that it will be an uphill struggle for the 1st world to repeat this trick. In the ideal world both forms of globalization (colonialism and the current form) would be sidelined and all nations would be allowed to use the border filters they think would best protect the prosperity of their citizens.

    Another good option would be a version of the current globalization but where the losers are the wealthy oligarchs themselves and the winners are the working classes. It's hard to imagine it's easy if you try!

    What's interesting about the concept of entropy is that it stands in contradiction to the concept of perpetual progress. I'm sure there is some sort of thesis, antithesis, synthesis solution to these conflicting concepts.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 6:07 am

    To overcome an entropy current requires superb skill commanding a large magnitude of work applied densely on a small substratum (think of the evolution of the DNA, the internal combustion engine). I believe the Trumpening laudable effort and persuasion would have a chance of success in a country the size of The Netherlands, or even France, but the USA, the largest State machinery in the world, hardly. When the entropy current flooded the Soviet system the solution came firstly in the form of shrinkage.

    We need to think more about it, a lot more, in order to succeed in this 1st world uphill struggle to repeat the trick. I am pretty sure that as Pierre de Fermat famously claimed about his alleged proof, the solution "is too large to fit in the margins of this book".

    susan the other , February 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm

    My little entropy epiphany goes like this: it's like boxes – containers, if you will, of energy or money, or trade goods, the flow of which is best slowed down so everybody can grab some. Break it all down, decentralize it and force it into containers which slow the pace and share the wealth.

    Nationalism (my opinion) can do this – economic nationalism. And of course other people think oh gawd, not that again – it's so inefficient for my investments- I can't get fast returns that way but that's just the point.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 10:51 pm

    I like your epiphany susan.

    John Wright , February 20, 2017 at 1:25 pm

    Don't you mean "It was a LOWER entropy (as in "more ordered"), strongly structured socio-economic arrangement, with a large difference in standard of living between 1st world"?

    The entropy increased as a consequence of human guided globalization.

    Of course, from a thermodynamic standpoint, the earth is not a closed system as it is continually flooded with new energy in the form of solar radiation.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    Yes, thank you, I made that mistake twice in the post you replying to.

    Hemang , February 20, 2017 at 4:54 am

    The Globalized Versailles Treaty -- Permit me a short laughter . The terms of the crippling treaty were dictated by the victors largely on insecurities of France.

    The crimes of the 1st against the 3rd go on even now- the only difference is that some of the South like China and India are major nuclear powers now.

    The racist crimes in the US are even more flagrant- the Blacks whose labour as slaves allowed for cotton revolution enabling US capitalists to ride the industrial horse are yet to be rehabilitated , Obama or no Obama. It is a matter of profound shame.

    The benefits of Globalization have gone only to the cartel of 1st and 3rd World Capitalists. And they are very happy as the lower classes keep fighting. Very happy indeed.

    DorDeDuca , February 20, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    That is solely class (crass) warfare. You can not project the inequalities of the past to the unsuspecting paying customers of today.

    Hemang , February 20, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    The gorgon cry of the past is all over the present , including in " unsuspecting" paying folks of today! Blacks being brought to US as slave agricultural labour was Globalisation. Their energy vibrated the machinery of Economics subsequently. What Nationalism and where is it hiding pray? Bogus analysis here , yes.

    dontknowitall , February 20, 2017 at 5:40 am

    The reigning social democratic parties in Europe today are not the Swedish traditional parties of yesteryear they have morphed into neoliberal austerians committed to globalization and export driven economic models at any cost (CETA vote recently) and most responsible for the economic collapse in the EU

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/02/15/austerity-was-a-bigger-disaster-than-we-thought/?utm_term=.e4b799b14d81

    disc_writes , February 20, 2017 at 4:22 am

    I wonder they chose Chinese imports as the cause of the right-wing shift, when they themselves admit that the shift started in the 1990s. At that time, there were few Chinese imports and China was not even part of the WHO.

    If they are thinking of movements like the Lega Nord and Vlaams Blok, the reasons are clearly not to be found in imports, but in immigration, the welfare state and lack of national homogeneity, perceived or not.

    And the beginnings of the precariat.

    So it is not really the globalization of commerce that did it, but the loss of relevance of national and local identities.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 4:41 am

    One cause does not exclude the other, they may have worked synergistically.

    disc_writes , February 20, 2017 at 5:34 am

    Correlation does not imply causation, but lack of correlation definitely excludes it.

    The Lega was formed in the 1980s, Vlaams Blok at the end of the '70s. They both had their best days in the 1990s. Chinese imports at the time were insignificant.

    I cannot find the breakdown of Chinese imports per EU country, but here are the total Chinese exports since 1983:

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/exports

    China was not a significant exporter until the 2001 inclusion in WTO: it cannot possibly have caused populist uprisings in Italy and Belgium in the 1990s. It was probably too early even for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands, who was killed in 2002, Le Pen's electoral success in the same year, Austria's FPOE in 1999, and so on.

    The timescales just do not match. Whatever was causing "populism", it was not Chinese imports, and I can think of half a dozen other, more likely causes.

    Furthermore, the 1980s and 1990s were something of an industrial renaissance for Lombardy and Flanders: hardly the time to worry about Chinese imports.

    And if you look at the map. the country least affected by the import shock (France) is the one with the strongest populist movement (Le Pen).

    People try to conflate Trump_vs_deep_state and Brexit with each other, then try to conflate this "anglo-saxon" populism with previous populisms in Europe, and try to deduce something from the whole exercise.

    That "something" is just not there and the exercise is pointless. IMHO at least.

    The Trumpening , February 20, 2017 at 5:05 am

    European regionalism is often the result of the rise of the EU as a new, alternative national government in the eyes of the disgruntled regions. Typically there are three levels of government, local, regional (states) and national. With the rise of the EU we have a fourth level, supra-national. But to the Flemish, Scottish, Catalans, etc, they see the EU as a potential replacement for the National-level governments they currently are unhappy being under the authority of.

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 4:28 am

    Why isn't it working? – Part 1

    Capitalism should be evolving but it went backwards. Keynesian capitalism evolved from the free market capitalism that preceded it. The absolute faith in markets had been laid low by 1929 and the Great Depression.

    After the Keynesian era we went back to the old free market capitalism of neoclassical economics. Instead of evolving, capitalism went backwards. We had another Wall Street Crash that has laid low the once vibrant global economy and we have entered into the new normal of secular stagnation. In the 1930s, Irving Fisher studied the debt deflation caused by debt saturated economies. Today only a few economists outside the mainstream realise this is the problem today.

    In the 1930s, Keynes realized only fiscal stimulus would pull the US out of the Great Depression, eventually the US implemented the New Deal and it started to recover. Today we use monetary policy that keeps asset prices up but cannot overcome the drag of all that debt in the system and its associated repayments.

    In the 1920s, they relied on debt based consumption, not realizing how consumers will eventually become saturated with debt and demand will fail. Today we rely on debt based consumption again, Greece consumed on debt. until it maxed out on debt and collapsed.

    In the 1930s Keynes realized, income was just as important as profit as this produced a sustainable system that does not rely on debt to maintain demand. Keynes was involved with the Bretton-Woods agreement after the Second World War and recycled the US surplus to Europe to restore trade when Europe lay in ruins. Europe could rebuild itself and consume US products, everyone benefitted.

    Today there are no direct fiscal transfers within the Euro-zone and it is polarizing. No one can see the benefits of rebuilding Greece, to allow it to carry on consuming the goods from surplus nations and it just sinks further and further into the mire. There is a lot to be said for capitalism going forwards rather than backwards and making the same old mistakes a second time.

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 5:25 am

    Someone who has worked in the Central Bank of New York and who Ben Bernanke listened to, ensuring the US didn't implement austerity, Richard Koo:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YTyJzmiHGk

    The ECB didn't listen and killed Greece with austerity and is laying low the Club-Med nations. Someone who knows what they are doing, after studying the Great Depression and Japan after 1989. Let's keep him out of the limelight; he has no place on the ship of fools running the show.

    sunny129 , February 20, 2017 at 6:42 pm

    DEBT on Debt with QEs+ ZRP ( borrowing from future) was the 'solution' by Bernanke to mask the 2008 crisis and NOT address the underlying structural reforms in the Banking and the Financial industry. He was part of the problem for housing problem and occurred under his watch! He just kicked the can with explosive credit growth ( but no corresponding growth in the productive Economy!)and easy money!

    We have a 'Mother of all bubbles' at our door step. Just matter of time when it will BLOW and NOT if! There is record levels of DEBT ( both sovereign, public and private) in the history of mankind, all over the World.

    DEBT has been used as a panacea for all the financial problems by CBers including Bernanke! Fed's balance sheet was than less 1 Trillion in 2008 ( for all the years of existence of our Country!) but now over 3.5 Trillions and climbing!

    Kicking the can down the road is like passing the buck to some one (future generations!). And you call that solution by Mr. Bernanke? Wow!

    Will they say again " No one saw this coming'? when next one descends?

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 4:31 am

    Why isn't it working? – Part 2

    The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their track record.

    The FED presided over the dot.com bust and 2008, unaware that they were happening and of their consequences. Alan Greenspan spots irrational exuberance in the markets in 1996 and passes comment. As the subsequent dot.com boom and housing booms run away with themselves he says nothing.

    This is the US money supply during this time:
    http://www.whichwayhome.com/skin/frontend/default/wwgcomcatalogarticles/images/articles/whichwayhomes/US-money-supply.jpg

    Everything is reflected in the money supply.

    The money supply is flat in the recession of the early 1990s.

    Then it really starts to take off as the dot.com boom gets going which rapidly morphs into the US housing boom, courtesy of Alan Greenspan's loose monetary policy.

    When M3 gets closer to the vertical, the black swan is coming and you have an out of control credit bubble on your hands (money = debt).

    We can only presume the FED wasn't looking at the US money supply, what on earth were they doing?

    The BoE is aware of how money is created from debt and destroyed by repayments of that debt.

    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneyc
    reation.pdf

    "Although commercial banks create money through lending, they cannot do so freely without limit. Banks are limited in how much they can lend if they are to remain profitable in a competitive banking system."

    The BoE's statement was true, but is not true now as banks can securitize bad loans and get them off their books. Before 2008, banks were securitising all the garbage sub-prime mortgages, e.g. NINJA mortgages, and getting them off their books. Money is being created freely and without limit, M3 is going exponential before 2008.

    Bad debt is entering the system and no one is taking any responsibility for it. The credit bubble is reflected in the money supply that should be obvious to anyone that cares to look.

    Ben Bernanke studied the Great Depression and doesn't appear to have learnt very much.

    Irving Fisher studied the Great Depression in the 1930s and comes up with a theory of debt deflation. A debt inflated asset bubble collapses and the debt saturated economy sinks into debt deflation. 2008 is the same as 1929 except a different asset class is involved.

    1929 – Margin lending into US stocks
    2008 – Mortgage lending into US housing

    Hyman Minsky carried on with his work and came up with the "Financial Instability Hypothesis" in 1974.

    Steve Keen carried on with their work and spotted 2008 coming in 2005. We can see what Steve Keen saw in 2005 in the US money supply graph above.

    The independent Central Banks that don't know what they are doing as can be seen from their track record.

    Jesper , February 20, 2017 at 4:51 am

    Good to see studies confirming what was already known.

    This apparently surprised:

    On the contrary, as globalisation threatens the success and survival of entire industrial districts, the affected communities seem to have voted in a homogeneous way, regardless of each voter's personal situation.

    It is only surprising for people not part of communities, those who are part of communities see how it affects people around them and solidarity with the so called 'losers' is then shown.

    Seems like radical right is the preferred term, it does make it more difficult to sympathize with someone branded as radical right . The difference seems to be between the radical liberals vs the conservative. The radical liberals are too cowardly to propose the laws they want, they prefer to selectively apply the laws as they see fit. Either enforce the laws or change the laws, anything else is plain wrong.

    Disturbed Voter , February 20, 2017 at 6:31 am

    Socialism for the upper classes, capitalism for the lower classes? That will turn out well. Debt slaves and wage slaves will revolt. That is all the analysis the OP requires. The upper class will respond with suppression, not policy reversal every time. Socialism = making everyone equally poor (obviously not for the upper classes who benefit from the arrangement).

    J7915 , February 20, 2017 at 11:15 am

    Regrettably today we have socialism for the wealthy, with all the benefits of gov regulations, sympathetic courts and legislatures etc. etc.

    Workers are supposed to take care for themselves and the devil take the hind most. How many workers get fired vs the 1%, when there is a failure in the company plan?

    Disturbed Voter , February 20, 2017 at 11:59 am

    The Romans are the basis. Patricians, Equites and Plebs. Most of us here are clearly plebeian. Time to go place some bets, watch the chariot races and gladiatorial fights, and get my bread subsidy. Ciao.

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 5:39 am

    Globalization created winners and losers throughout the world. The winners liked it, the losers didn't. Democracy is based on the support of the majority.

    The majority in the East were winners. The majority in the West were losers.

    The Left has maintained its support of neoliberal globalisation in the West. The Right has moved on. There has been a shift to the Right. Democracy is all about winners and losers and whether the majority are winning or losing. It hasn't changed.

    sunny129 , February 20, 2017 at 6:54 pm

    CAPITAL is mobile and the Labor is NOT!

    Globalization( along with communication -internet and transportation) made the Labor wage arbitration, easy in favor of capital ( Multi-Nationals). Most of the jobs gone overseas will NEVER come back. Robotic revolution will render the remaining jobs, less and less!

    The 'new' Economy by passed the majority of lower 80-90% and favored the top 10%. The Losers and the Winners!

    80-90% of Bonds and Equities ( at least in USA) are owned by top 10 %. 0.7% own 45% of global wealth. 8 billionaires own more than 50% of wealth than that of bottom 50% in our Country!

    The Rich became richer!

    The tension between Have and Have -Nots has just begun, as Marx predicted!

    Sound of the Suburbs , February 20, 2017 at 5:50 am

    In the West the rewards of globalisation have been concentrated at the top and rise exponentially within the 1%.

    How does this work in a democracy? It doesn't look as though anyone has even thought about it.

    David , February 20, 2017 at 6:33 am

    I think it's about time that we stopped referring to opposition to globalization as a product or policy of the "extreme right". It would be truer to say that globalization represents a temporary, and now fading, triumph of certain ideas about trade and movement of people and capital which have always existed, but were not dominant in the past. Fifty years ago, most mainstream political parties were "protectionist" in the sense the word is used today. Thirty years ago, protectionism was often seen as a left)wing idea, to preserve standards of living and conditions of employment (Wynne Godley and co). Today, all establishment political parties in the West have swallowed neoliberal dogma, so the voters turn elsewhere, to parties outside the mainstream. Often, it's convenient politically to label them "extreme right", although in Europe some left-wing parties take basically the same position. If you ignore peoples' interests, they won't vote for you. Quelle surprise! as Yves would say.

    financial matters , February 20, 2017 at 8:00 am

    Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical of too much globalization such as energy considerations. I think another interesting one is exchange rates.

    One of the important concepts of MMT is the importance of having a flexible exchange rate to have full power over your currency. This is fine as far as it goes but tends to put hard currencies against soft currencies where a hard currency can be defined as one that has international authority/acceptance. Having flexible exchange rates also opens up massive amounts of financial speculation relative to fluctuations of these currencies against each other and trying to protect against these fluctuations.

    ""Keynes' proposal of the bancor was to put a barrier between national currencies, that is to have a currency of account at the global level. Keynes warned that free trade, flexible exchange rates and free movement of capital globally were incompatible with maintaining full employment at the local level""

    ""Sufficiency provisioning also means that trade would be discouraged rather than encouraged.""

    Local currencies can work very well locally to promote employment but can have trouble when they reach out to get resources outside of their currency space especially if they have a soft currency. Global sustainability programs need to take a closer look at how to overcome this sort of social injustice. (Debt or Democracy)

    Gman , February 20, 2017 at 6:35 am

    As has already been pointed out so eloquently here in the comments section, economic nationalism is not necessarily the preserve of the right, nor is it necessarily the same thing as nationalism.

    In the UK the original, most vociferous objectors to EEC membership in the 70s (now the EU) were traditionally the Left, on the basis that it would gradually erode labour rights and devalue the cost of labour in the longer term. Got that completely wrong obviously .

    In the same way that global trade has become synonymous with globalisation, the immigration debate has been hijacked and cynically conflated with free movement of (mainly low cost, unskilled) labour and race when they are all VERY different divisive issues.

    The other point alluded to in the comments above is the nature of free trade generally. The accepted (neoliberal) wisdom being that 'collateral damage' is unfortunate but inevitable, but it is pretty much an unstoppable or uncontrollable force for the greater global good, and the false dichotomy persists that you either embrace it fully or pull up all the drawbridges with nothing in between.

    One of the primary reasons that some competing sectors of some Western economies have done so badly out of globalisation is that they have adhered to 'free market principles' whilst other countries, particularly China, clearly have not with currency controls, domestic barriers to trade, massive state subsidies, wage suppression etc

    The China aspect is also fascinating when developed nations look at the uncomfortable 'morality of global wealth distribution' often cited by proponents of globalisation as one of their wider philanthropic goals. Bless 'em. What is clear is that highly populated China and most of its people, from the bottom to the top, has been the primary beneficiaries of this global wealth redistribution, but the rest of the developing world's poor clearly not quite so much.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre , February 20, 2017 at 7:11 am

    The map on it's own, in terms of the English one time industrial Midlands & North West being shown as an almost black hole, is in itself a kind of " Nuff Said ".

    It is also apart from London, where the vast bulk of immigrants have settled.

    The upcoming bye-election in Stoke, which could lead to U-Kip taking a once traditionally always strong Labour seat, is right in the middle of that dark cloud.

    Anonymous2 , February 20, 2017 at 7:51 am

    The problem from the UK 's position, I suggest, is that autarky is not a viable proposition so economic nationalism becomes a two-edged sword. Yes, of course, the UK can place restrictions on imports and immigration but there will inevitably be retaliation and they will enter a game of beggar my neighbour. The current government talks of becoming a beacon for free trade. If we are heading to a more protectionist world, that can only end badly IMHO.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre , February 20, 2017 at 11:30 am

    Unless we get some meaningful change in thinking on a global scale, I think we are heading somewhere very dark whatever the relative tinkering with an essentially broken system.

    The horse is long gone, leaving a huge pile of shit in it's stable.

    As for what might happen, I do not know, but I have the impression that we are at the end of a cycle.

    sunny129 , February 20, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    That 'CYCLE" was dragged on ' unnaturally' with more DEBT on DEBT all over the World by criminal CBers.
    Now the end is approaching! Why surprise?

    Ignacio , February 20, 2017 at 8:15 am

    This is quite interesting, but only part of the story. Interestingly the districts/provinces suffering the most from the chinese import shock are usually densely populated industrial regions of Europe. The electoral systems in Europe (I think all, but I did not check) usually do not weight equally each district, favouring those less populated, more rural (which by the way tend to be very conservative but not so nationalistic). These differences in vote weigthing may have somehow masked the effect seen in this study if radical nationalistic rigth wing votes concentrate in areas with lower weigthed value of votes. For instance, in Spain, the province of Soria is mostly rural and certainly less impacted by chinese imports compared with, for instance, Madrid. But 1 vote in Soria weigths the same as 4 votes in Madrid in number of representatives in the congress. This migth, in part, explain why in Spain, the radical rigth does not have the same power as in Austria or the Netherlands. It intuitively fits the hypothesis of this study.

    Nevertheless, similar processes can occur in rural areas. For instance, when Spain entered the EU, french rural areas turned nationalistic against what they thougth could be a wave of agricultural imports from Spain. Ok, agricultural globalization may have less impact in terms of vote numbers in a given country but it still can be politically very influential. In fact spanish entry more that 30 years ago could still be one of the forces behind Le Penism.

    craazyman , February 20, 2017 at 8:44 am

    I dunno aboout this one.

    All this statistical math and yada yada to explain a rise in vote for radical right from 3% in 1985 to 5% now on average? And only a 0.7% marginal boost if your the place really getting hammmered by imports from China? If I'm reading it right, that is, while focusing on Figure 2.

    The real "shock" no pun intended, is the vote totals arent a lot higher everywhere.

    Then the Post concludes with reference to a "surge in support" - 3% to 5% or so over 30 years is a surge? The line looks like a pretty steady rise over 3 decades.

    Maybe I'm missing sommething here.

    Also what is this thing they're callling an "Open World" of the past 30 years? And why is that in danger from more balanced trade? It makes no sense. Even back in the 60s and 70s people could go alll over the world for vacations. Or at least most places they coould go. If theh spent their money they'd make friends. Greece even used to be a goood place people went and had fun on a beach.

    I think this one is a situation of math runing amuck. Math running like a thousand horses over a hill trampling every blade of grass into mud.

    I bet the China factor is just a referent for an entire constellatio of forces that probably don't lend themselves (no pun intended) partiicularly well to social science and principal component analysis - as interesting as that is for those who are interested in that kind of thing (which I am acctually).

    Also, I wouldn't call this "free trade". Not that the authors do either, but trade means reciprocity not having your livelihood smashed the like a pinata at Christmas with all your candy eaten by your "fellow countrymen". I wouldn't call that "trade". It's something else.

    Ruben , February 20, 2017 at 12:36 pm

    Regarding your first point, it is a small effect but it is all due to the China imports impact, you have to add the growth of these parties due to other reasons such as immigration to get the full picture of their growth. Also I think the recent USA election was decided by smaller percentage advantages in three States?

    Steve Ruis , February 20, 2017 at 9:00 am

    Globalisation is nothing but free trade extended to the entire world. Free trade is a tool used to prevent competition. By flooding countries with our cheaper exports, they do not develop the capacity to compete with us by making their own widgets. So, why are we shocked when those other countries return the favor and when they get the upper hand, we respond in a protectionist way? It looks to me that those countries who are now competing with us in electronics, automobiles, etc. only got to develop those industries in their countries because of protectionism.

    Why is this surprising to anyone?

    craazyman , February 20, 2017 at 10:41 am

    Frank would never have sung this, even drunk! . . . .even in Vegas . .

    Trade Be a Lady

    They say we'll make a buck
    But there is room for doubt
    At times you have a very unbalanced way of running out

    You say you're good for me
    Your pickins have been lush
    But before this year is over
    I might give you the brush

    Seems you've forgot your manners
    You don't know how to play
    Cause every time I turn around . . . I pay

    So trade get your balances right
    Trade get your balances right
    Trade if you've ever been in balance to begin with
    Trade get your balances right

    Trade let a citizen see
    How fair and humane you can be
    I see the way you've treated other guys you've been with
    Trade be a lady with me

    A lady doesn't dump her exports
    It isn't fair, and it's not nice
    A lady doesn't wander all over the world
    Putting whole communities on ice

    Let's keep this economy polite
    let's find a way to do it right
    Don't stick me baby or I'll wreck the world you win with
    Trade be a lady or we'll fight

    A lady keeps it fair with strangers
    She'd have a heart, she'd be nice
    A lady doesn't spread her junk, all over the world
    In your face, at any price

    Let's keep society polite
    Go find a way to do it right
    Don't screw me baby cause i know the clowns you sin with
    Trade be a lady tonight

    Gaylord , February 20, 2017 at 10:56 am

    Refugees in great numbers are a symptom of globalization, especially economic refugees but also political and environmental ones. This has strained the social order in many countries that have accepted them in and it's one of the central issues that the so-called "right" is highlighting.

    It is no surprise there has been an uproar over immigration policy in the US which is an issue of class as much as foreign policy because of the disenfranchisement of large numbers of workers on both sides of the equation - those who lost their jobs to outsourcing and those who emigrated due to the lack of decent employment opportunities in their own countries.

    We're seeing the tip of the iceberg. What will happen when the coming multiple environmental calamities cause mass starvation and dislocation of coastal populations? Walls and military forces can't deter hungry, desperate, and angry people.

    The total reliance and gorging on fossil energy by western countries, especially the US, has mandated military aggression to force compliance in many areas of the world. This has brought a backlash of perpetual terrorism. We are living under a dysfunctional system ruled by sociopaths whose extreme greed is leading to world war and environmental collapse.

    sunny129 , February 20, 2017 at 7:01 pm

    Who created the REFUGEE PROBLEMS in the ME – WEST including USA,UK++

    Obama's DRONE program kept BOMBING in SEVEN Countries killing innocents – children and women! All in the name of fighting Terrorism. Billions of arms to sale Saudi Arabia! Wow!

    Where were the Democrats and the Resistance and Women's march? Hypocrites!

    Anon , February 21, 2017 at 12:12 am

    "Our lifestyle is non-negotiable." - Dick Cheney.

    Ignacio , February 20, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    What happened with Denmark that suddenly dissapeared?

    fairleft , February 21, 2017 at 8:08 am

    Globalisation has caused a surge in support for nationalist and radical right political platforms.
    Just a reminder that nationalism doesn't have to be associated with the radical right. The left is not required to reject it, especially when it can be understood as basically patriotism, expressed as solidarity with all of your fellow citizens.

    Trump's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership seems to be a move in that direction.
    Well, that may be true as far as Trump's motivations are concerned, but a major component (the most important?) of the TPP was strong restraint of trade, a protectionist measure, by intellectual property owners.

    Yet, a return to protectionism is not likely to solve the problems of those who have lost ground due to globalisation without appropriate compensation of its 'losers'
    Japan has long been 'smart' protectionist, and this has helped prevent the 'loser' problem, in part because Japan, being nationalist, makes it a very high priority to create/maintain a society in which almost all Japanese are more or less middle class. So, it is a fact that protectionism has been and can be associated with more egalitarian societies, in which there are few 'losers' like we see in the West. But the U.S. and most Western countries have a long way to go if they decide to make the effort to be more egalitarian. And, of course, protectionism alone is not enough to make most of the losers into winners again. You'll need smart skills training, better education all around, fewer low-skill immigrants, time, and, most of all strong and long-term commitment to making full employment at good wages national priority number one.

    and is bound to harm growth especially in emerging economies.
    Growth has been week since the 2008, even though markets are as free as they've ever been. Growth requires a lot more consumers with willingness and cash to spend on expensive, high-value-added goods. So, besides the world finally escaping the effects of the 2008 financial crisis, exporting countries need prosperous consumers either at home or abroad, and greater economic security. And if a little bit of protectionism generates more consumer prosperity and economic stability, exporting countries might benefit overall.

    The world rather needs a more inclusive model of globalisation.
    Well, yes, the world needs more inclusivity, but globalization doesn't need to be part of the picture. Keep your eyes on the prize: inclusivity/equality, whether latched onto nationally, regionally, 'internationally' or globally, any which way is fine! But prioritization of globalization over those two is likely a victory for more inequality, for more shoveling of our wealth up to the ruling top 1%.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Former CIA Agent Explains Why He Resigned Because Of Trump

    Feb 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    But, as he details below in a letter published by The Washington Post, he has officially resigned "to be clear, my decision had nothing to do with politics," seemingly because the Trump Administration is "tuning out the intelligence professionals."

    Nearly 15 years ago, I informed my skeptical father that I was pursuing a job with the Central Intelligence Agency. Among his many concerns was that others would never believe I had resigned from the agency when I sought my next job. "Once CIA, always CIA," he said. But that didn't give me pause. This wouldn't be just my first real job, I thought then; it would be my career.

    That changed when I formally resigned last week. Despite working proudly for Republican and Democratic presidents, I reluctantly concluded that I cannot in good faith serve this administration as an intelligence professional.

    This was not a decision I made lightly. I sought out the CIA as a college student, convinced that it was the ideal place to serve my country and put an otherwise abstract international-relations degree to use. I wasn't disappointed.

    The CIA taught me new skills and exposed me to new cultures and countries. More important, it instilled in me a sense of mission and purpose. As an analyst, I became an expert in terrorist groups and traveled the world to help deter and disrupt attacks. The administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama took the CIA's input seriously. There was no greater reward than having my analysis presented to the president and seeing it shape events. Intelligence informing policy - this is how the system is supposed to work. I saw that up close for the past three years at the White House, where I worked on loan from the CIA until last month.

    As a candidate, Donald Trump's rhetoric suggested that he intended to take a different approach. I watched in disbelief when, during the third presidential debate , Trump casually cast doubt on the high-confidence conclusion of our 17 intelligence agencies , released that month, that Russia was behind the hacking and release of election-related emails. On the campaign trail and even as president-elect, Trump routinely referred to the flawed 2002 assessment of Iraq's weapons programs as proof that the CIA couldn't be trusted - even though the intelligence community had long ago held itself to account for those mistakes and Trump himself supported the invasion of Iraq.

    Trump's actions in office have been even more disturbing. His visit to CIA headquarters on his first full day in office, an overture designed to repair relations, was undone by his ego and bluster. Standing in front of a memorial to the CIA's fallen officers, he seemed to be addressing the cameras and reporters in the room, rather than the agency personnel in front of them, bragging about his inauguration crowd the previous day. Whether delusional or deceitful, these were not the remarks many of my former colleagues and I wanted to hear from our new commander in chief. I couldn't help but reflect on the stark contrast between the bombast of the new president and the quiet dedication of a mentor - a courageous, dedicated professional - who is memorialized on that wall. I know others at CIA felt similarly.

    The final straw came late last month, when the White House issued a directive reorganizing the National Security Council , on whose staff I served from 2014 until earlier this year. Missing from the NSC's principals committee were the CIA director and the director of national intelligence. Added to the roster: the president's chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, who cut his teeth as a media champion of white nationalism.

    The public outcry led the administration to reverse course and name the CIA director an NSC principal, but the White House's inclination was clear. It has little need for intelligence professionals who, in speaking truth to power, might challenge the so-called "America First" orthodoxy that sees Russia as an ally and Australia as a punching bag. That's why the president's trusted White House advisers , not career professionals, reportedly have final say over what intelligence reaches his desk.

    To be clear, my decision had nothing to do with politics, and I would have been proud to again work under a Republican administration open to intelligence analysis. I served with conviction under President George W. Bush, some of whose policies I also found troubling, and I took part in programs that the Obama administration criticized and ended. As intelligence professionals, we're taught to tune out politics. The river separating CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., from Washington might as well be a political moat. But this administration has flipped that dynamic on its head: The politicians are the ones tuning out the intelligence professionals.

    The CIA will continue to serve important functions - including undertaking covert action and sharing information with close allies and partners around the globe. If this administration is serious about building trust with the intelligence community, however, it will require more than rallies at CIA headquarters or press statements. What intelligence professionals want most is to know that the fruits of their labor -- sometimes at the risk of life or limb - are accorded due deference in the policymaking process.

    Until that happens, President Trump and his team are doing another disservice to these dedicated men and women and the nation they proudly, if quietly, serve.

    Has President Trump created an environment that cleanses itself? A self-'draining' swamp?

    smc1982 , Feb 21, 2017 9:32 AM

    presumably he's been ok with the all the CIA drug running for the last 50 years.

    Darktarra -> smc1982 , Feb 21, 2017 9:32 AM

    And that is why I love watching American Dad over Family Guy! :)

    FreezeThese -> Darktarra , Feb 21, 2017 9:36 AM

    Sound decision this ... distance thyself if you seek further employment ... any association with Drumpf is utter suicide atm

    Omni Consumer P... -> FreezeThese , Feb 21, 2017 9:38 AM

    "Central Intelligence Agency" is one of the classic oxymorons, right up there with "Paul Krugman".

    tmosley -> Omni Consumer Product , Feb 21, 2017 9:41 AM

    Trump is a big guy (for him).

    CheapBastard -> Omni Consumer Product , Feb 21, 2017 9:42 AM

    I hear his new vacation house down the road from Bernie is very nice compliments of The Foundation.

    Hilarious that suddenly these dopes feel "demoralized" or whatever after being there and watching Soweeto murder millions of muslims without a peep from them.

    he he he...total hypocrits who hope to find a high-paying job either with a soros NGO terror group or the new Klinton Krime Organization.

    Lone_Star -> CheapBastard , Feb 21, 2017 9:48 AM

    Notice how they're all doing the tell-all, heart-to-heart pieces at the same rags that are pushing VFN.

    Also, now that it's Trump in the WH, the dissenters are all the sudden the credible ones? I'd bet even money that if Wikileaks published something negative to the Trump admin, it would suddenly become the pinnacle of truth.

    Stackers -> Lone_Star , Feb 21, 2017 9:57 AM

    From the tone of the letter and examples used, namely mentioning the Russian hacking letter by "17 intelligence organizations", shows this most certainly was politically driven action on his part.

    SoDamnMad -> CheapBastard , Feb 21, 2017 9:49 AM

    This guy was selling girl scout cookies and thought the profits were shared with the CIA because they both did good work for humanity. After dark he was an assassin and they probably reduced his bonus per kill.

    mind reset -> SoDamnMad , Feb 21, 2017 9:55 AM

    I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... http://bit.ly/2jdTzrM

    Billy the Poet -> Omni Consumer Product , Feb 21, 2017 9:42 AM

    Sure. He quit the Deep State and he's moving to Canada.

    The Merovingian -> Omni Consumer Product , Feb 21, 2017 9:47 AM

    Fuck this guy. What about Obama's last minute butt-fucking of civilian's rights with the expansion of the wire tapping access to 16 agencies from just 1 (NSA). This guy is part of the problem.

    Fuck you dude!

    P.S. Would you trust that guy with your kid?

    wildbad -> The Merovingian , Feb 21, 2017 9:54 AM

    WHAT A CUCK!

    no refutation of the politicized lies of the CIA nothing about the political and anti constitutional methods and presidential abuses using the CIA.

    just whining.

    let the door hit you otwo

    VinceFostersGhost -> wildbad , Feb 21, 2017 9:57 AM

    P.S. Would you trust that guy with your kid?

    No......no I don't think so.

    NumNutt -> The Merovingian , Feb 21, 2017 9:57 AM

    I would say this guy is the "leak" that Trump is looking for. How convienent that they start to seriously rooting out the leak and all the sudden this guy resigns for personnal reasons.

    Keyser -> FreezeThese , Feb 21, 2017 9:39 AM

    Fuck the spooks, just like the MSM, they have dug their own grave... Just how many governments have they overthrown since 1945, is it 81 or 82?

    I woke up -> Keyser , Feb 21, 2017 9:49 AM

    Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself

    The_Juggernaut -> I woke up , Feb 21, 2017 9:53 AM

    I guess he feels lucky.

    SWRichmond -> Keyser , Feb 21, 2017 9:49 AM

    To be clear, my decision had nothing to do with politics,

    right...

    Joe Sichs Pach -> Darktarra , Feb 21, 2017 9:38 AM

    Thank you for leading the charge Mr Price. Now encourage your former coworkers to follow suit!

    DeadFred -> Joe Sichs Pach , Feb 21, 2017 9:48 AM

    Quitting before you're fired is always a good career move.

    Erek -> smc1982 , Feb 21, 2017 9:34 AM

    How intelligent are these so-called "intelligence officials" anyway?

    gmrpeabody -> Erek , Feb 21, 2017 9:35 AM

    The best defense is a good offense...

    Billy the Poet -> gmrpeabody , Feb 21, 2017 9:43 AM

    The CIA is about as offensive as it gets.

    Darktarra -> smc1982 , Feb 21, 2017 9:36 AM

    How the fuck does "so behind you" demoralize you effiminate Maxwell 86 mother fucker!?

    DontGive -> smc1982 , Feb 21, 2017 9:37 AM

    Sounds like he's done some nasty shit if you read between the lines.

    Lordflin -> smc1982 , Feb 21, 2017 9:39 AM

    One down, how many left to go...?

    detached.amusement -> smc1982 , Feb 21, 2017 9:52 AM

    this pile of shit needs a target painted on him

    Darktarra , Feb 21, 2017 9:32 AM

    Fake news! He is one of the leaks and he is getting out before his head gets cut off!

    davinci7_gis -> Darktarra , Feb 21, 2017 9:39 AM

    Get the f*ck out you spook...there is no need for a CIA just a very strong military.

    NoDebt , Feb 21, 2017 9:54 AM

    Bye! Have a beautiful time!

    gatorengineer , Feb 21, 2017 9:32 AM

    Awww look a melted snowflake....

    clade7 , Feb 21, 2017 9:35 AM

    Yeah? Fag alright...lookat that skinny head! Good luck making easy money in the Private sector buddy!...maybe you could get a job jimmying open a locked door? With your skinny head?

    HamFistedIdiot -> clade7 , Feb 21, 2017 9:36 AM

    Probably a "chickenhawk," too. Good riddance.

    Ignatius , Feb 21, 2017 9:32 AM

    There are no words...

    Billy the Poet -> Ignatius , Feb 21, 2017 9:45 AM

    Collaborator? Traitor? Turncoat? Scumbag?

    pine_marten , Feb 21, 2017 9:32 AM

    Stfu you little prick

    Colonel , Feb 21, 2017 9:33 AM

    GTFO!

    cowdiddly , Feb 21, 2017 9:33 AM

    Translation.

    They were going to fire my worthless traitor ass anyway soon, so I decided to go back to consulting.

    wally_12 , Feb 21, 2017 9:34 AM

    Did the door hit him on the way out?

    Winston Churchill , Feb 21, 2017 9:34 AM

    Shame he didn't use a shitgum.

    foodstampbarry , Feb 21, 2017 9:34 AM

    Very good. One less swamp creature.

    buzzsaw99 , Feb 21, 2017 9:35 AM

    fag

    I woke up , Feb 21, 2017 9:36 AM

    They have dirt on him with underage kids

    chunga , Feb 21, 2017 9:36 AM

    A weasel with principles. Pffft

    Evander , Feb 21, 2017 9:40 AM

    The headline should read "Former CIA Agent Tells Us Why He's a Pathetic Loser" He left the criminal underbelly of government so he could start a lucrative career in Fake News. I have to admit, he's off to a good start....

    skbull44 , Feb 21, 2017 9:37 AM

    Cognitive dissonance is a powerful, powerful phenomenon. We are, as author Robert Heinlen argued, rationalizing animals, not rational. We tell ourselves all sorts of stories to keep our egos intact...

    TheAnswerIs42 -> skbull44 , Feb 21, 2017 9:53 AM

    Actually, it looks more like a case of Doublethink .

    Doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts . [1] Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy and neutrality . Also related is cognitive dissonance , in which contradictory beliefs cause conflict in one's mind. Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance - thus the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.

    The melting snowflakes are more like a case of Cognitive Dissonance.

    Unwashed , Feb 21, 2017 9:37 AM

    CIA agents aren't loyal to the United States, they're loyal to the CIA.

    American Gorbachev -> Unwashed , Feb 21, 2017 9:47 AM

    very true

    but, in their minds, they ARE the United States

    (the rest of us are just visiting)

    [Feb 21, 2017] Sally Yates' warning may have set Flynn's resignation into motion

    Feb 21, 2017 | www.nydailynews.com
    Sally Yates was anything but treacherous in her final days as President Trump's acting Attorney General.

    Her role as a legal canary in the coal mine during a brief role heading the Justice Department may have poised the White House away from National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, and inspired his ousting.

    Yates tried insulating the White House from a series of looming controversies - the potentially illegal executive order banning travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries and the latest bombshell that Flynn misled several senior members of the Trump administration about his suspected pre-inauguration talks with a Russian diplomat.

    Despite Flynn's assurances to Vice President Mike Pence that he never discussed dissolving Obama's sanctions against Russia, Yates informed the Trump camp in late January that he lied and it was a violation of the Logan Act. The law prohibits private citizens from influencing foreign government.

    Additionally, Flynn was a prime target for Russian blackmail, the Washington Post reported Yates as saying.

    She wasn't alone in her thoughts. Both former CIA director John Brennan and James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence agreed with Yates, according to the Post.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Michael Flynn Resigns Sally Yates Played a Role in Showing Him Out Fortune.com

    Feb 21, 2017 | fortune.com

    The Post reports that Yates-along with former national intelligence director James Clapper Jr. and CIA director John Brennan-told the incoming administration that "Flynn had put himself in a compromising position" at the end of last year and was vulnerable to blackmail because of his potentially illegal discussions of U.S. sanctions with the diplomat. (At the time of his conversations with the Russian ambassador, he was not yet a member of the administration and so could be in violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from interfering in diplomatic disputes.)

    [Feb 21, 2017] A Look At Sally Yates's Role In The Mike Flynn Investigation WABE 90.1 FM

    Feb 21, 2017 | news.wabe.org

    Late on Monday, the Washington Post was the first to report that former Atlanta U.S. Attorney Sally Yates warned Trump administration officials that then-national security advisor Michael Flynn had not told the truth about the nature of his conversations with Russia's ambassador to the U.S. Yates, who at the time was the acting U.S. attorney general, told the White House general counsel that Flynn could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.

    [Feb 21, 2017] Red Hysteria Engulfs Washington

    Feb 21, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Eric Margolis via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

    President Dwight Eisenhower's warning about the dangers of the military-industrial complex made half a century ago ring as loud and clear today . The soft coup being mounted against the Trump government by America's 'deep state' reached a new intensity this week as special interests battled for control of Washington.

    The newly named national security advisor, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, was ousted by Trump over his chats with Russia's ambassador and what he may or may not have told Vice President Pence. The defenestration of Flynn appeared engineered by our national intelligence agencies in collaboration with the mainstream media and certain Democrats.

    Flynn's crime? Talking to the wicked Russians before and after the election. Big, big deal. That's what security advisors are supposed to do: keep an open back channel to other major powers and allies. This is also the job of our intelligence agencies.

    There is no good or bad in international affairs. The childish concept of 'good guys' and 'bad guys' comes from the Bush era when simple-minded voters had to be convinced that America was somehow in grave danger from a bunch of angry Mideast goat herds.

    The only nations that could threaten America's very existence are nuclear powers Russia, China, India, France, Britain and Israel (and maybe Pakistan) in that order.

    Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the US mainland. Any real war with Russia would invite doom for both nations. Two near misses are more than enough. Remember the 1962 Cuban missile confrontation and the terrifying 1983 Able Archer scare – near thermonuclear war caused by Ronald Reagan's anti-Russian hysteria and Moscow's panicked response.

    Margolis' #1 rule of international relations: make nice and keep on good terms with nations that have nuclear weapons pointed at you. Avoid squabbles over almost all matters. Intelligence agencies play a key role in maintaining the balance of nuclear terror and preventing misunderstandings that can cause war.

    Gen. Flynn was a fanatical anti-Islamic wing nut. He was, to use Trumpese, a bigly terrible choice. I'm glad he is gone. But Flynn's sin was being loopy, not talking on the phone to the Russian ambassador. The White House and national intelligence should be talking every day to Moscow, even 'hi Boris, what's new with you guys? 'Nothing much new here either besides the terrible traffic.'

    The current hue and cry in the US over Flynn's supposed infraction is entirely a fake political ambush to cripple the Trump administration. Trump caved in much too fast. The deep state is after his scalp: he has threatened to cut the $80 billion per annum intelligence budget – which alone, boys and girls, is larger than Russia's entire defense budget! He's talking about rooting waste out of the Pentagon's almost trillion-dollar budget, spending less on NATO, and ending some of America's imperial wars abroad.

    What's to like about Trump if you're a member of the war party and military-industrial-intelligence-Wall Street complex? The complex wants its golden girl Hilary Clinton in charge. She unleashed the current tsunami of anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin which shows, sadly, that many Americans have not grown beyond the days of Joe McCarthy.

    As a long-time student of Cold War intelligence, my conclusion is that both sides knew pretty much what the other was up to, though KGB and GRU were more professional and skilled than western special services. It would be so much easier and cheaper just to share information on a demand basis. But that would stop the Great Game.

    It's sickening watching the arrant hypocrisy and windbaggery in Washington over alleged Russian espionage and manipulation. The US has been buying and manipulating foreign governments since 1945. We even tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone. This week Wikileaks issued an intercept on CIA spying and manipulation of France's 2012 election. We live in a giant glass house.

    The Russians are not our pals. Nor are they the evil empire. We have to normalize our thinking about Russia, grow up and stop using Moscow as a political bogeyman to fight our own internal political battles.

    Right now, I'm more worried about the far right crazies in the Trump White House than I am about the Ruskis and Vlad the Bad.

    [Feb 21, 2017] The Did-You-Talk-to-Russians Witch Hunt

    Notable quotes:
    "... Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits – in their rush to take down President Trump – are pushing a New McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians, risking a new witch hunt. ..."
    "... As Democrats compete to become the new War Party – pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia – some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar. ..."
    Feb 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : February 20, 2017 at 05:29 AM , 2017 at 05:29 AM
    The Did-You-Talk-to-Russians Witch Hunt

    February 18, 2017

    Exclusive: Democrats, liberals and media pundits – in their rush to take down President Trump – are pushing a New McCarthyism aimed at Americans who have talked to Russians, risking a new witch hunt.

    By Robert Parry

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/18/the-did-you-talk-to-russians-witch-hunt/

    RGC -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 05:35 AM
    February 17, 2017

    France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface

    by Diana Johnstone

    As if the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign hadn't been horrendous enough, here comes another one: in France.

    The system in France is very different, with multiple candidates in two rounds, most of them highly articulate, who often even discuss real issues. Free television time reduces the influence of big money. The first round on April 23 will select the two finalists for the May 7 runoff, allowing for much greater choice than in the United States.

    But monkey see, monkey do, and the mainstream political class wants to mimic the ways of the Empire, even echoing the theme that dominated the 2016 show across the Atlantic: the evil Russians are messing with our wonderful democracy.

    The aping of the U.S. system began with "primaries" held by the two main governing parties which obviously aspire to establish themselves as the equivalent of American Democrats and Republicans in a two-party system. The right-wing party of former president Nicolas Sarkozy has already renamed itself Les Républicains and the so-called Socialist Party leaders are just waiting for the proper occasion to call themselves Les Démocrates. But as things are going, neither one of them may come out ahead this time.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/02/17/france-another-ghastly-presidential-election-campaign-the-deep-state-rises-to-the-surface/

    RGC -> RGC... , February 20, 2017 at 05:53 AM
    Challenging Klobuchar on Ukraine War

    February 19, 2017

    As Democrats compete to become the new War Party – pushing for a dangerous confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia – some constituents are objecting, as Mike Madden did in a letter to Sen. Amy Klobuchar.


    From Mike Madden (of St. Paul, Minnesota)

    Dear Senator Klobuchar, I write with concern over statements you have made recently regarding Russia.

    These statements have been made both at home and abroad, and they involve two issues; the alleged Russian hack of the presidential election and Russia's actions in the aftermath of the February 22, 2014 coup in Kiev.

    U.S. intelligence services allege that President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign to denigrate Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump. The campaign is purported to include the production of fake news, cyber-trolling, and propaganda from Russian state-owned media. It is also alleged that Russia hacked the email accounts of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, subsequently providing the emails to WikiLeaks.

    Despite calls from many quarters, the intelligence services have not provided the public with any proof. Instead, Americans are expected to blindly trust these services with a long history of failure. Additionally, the former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, have both been known to lie to the public and to Congress, Mr. Clapper doing so under oath.

    Meanwhile, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange maintains the emails did not come from Russia (or any other state actor) and his organization has an unblemished record of revealing accurate information in the public interest that would otherwise remain hidden. While responsible journalists continue to use the word 'alleged' to describe the accusations, Republicans with an ax to grind against Russia, and Democrats wishing to distract from their own failings in the campaign, refer to them as fact. Indeed, on the Amy in the News page of your own website, Jordain Carney of The Hill refers to the Russian meddling as "alleged".

    A congressional commission to investigate the alleged Russian hacking is not necessary. Even if all the allegations are true, they are altogether common occurrences, and they certainly don't rise to the level of "an act of aggression", "an existential threat to our way of life", or "an attack on the American people" as various Democratic officials have characterized them. Republican Senator John McCain went full monty and called the alleged meddling "an act of war".
    Joining War Hawks

    It is of concern that you would join Senator McCain and the equally belligerent Senator Lindsey Graham on a tour of Russian provocation through the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, and Montenegro. The announcement of your trip (December 28, 2016) on the News Releases page of your website renewed the unproven claim of "Russian interference in our recent election". It also claimed that the countries you were visiting were facing "Russian aggression" and that "Russia illegally annexed Crimea".

    It is unfortunate that these claims have become truisms by sheer repetition rather than careful examination of the facts. Russia has not invaded eastern Ukraine. There are no regular units of the Russian military in the breakaway provinces, nor has Russia launched any air strikes from its territory. It has sent weapons and other provisions to the Ukrainian forces seeking autonomy from Kiev, and there are most certainly Russian volunteers operating in Ukraine.

    However regrettable, it must be remembered that the unrest was precipitated by the February 22, 2014 overthrow of the democratically elected president Viktor Yanukovych which, speaking of meddling, was assisted by U.S. State Department, other American government agencies, and one Senator John McCain. The subsequent military and paramilitary operations launched by the coup government against the People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk were described by President Putin as "uncontrolled crime" spreading into the south and east of the country. In American parlance, both the interim coup government in Kiev and the current government of President Petro Poroshenko have engaged in "killing their own people".

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/19/challenging-klobuchar-on-ukraine-war/

    [Feb 21, 2017] How Sally Yates May Have Gotten The Ball Rolling On Michael Flynn's Resignation

    So the gang that ousted Flynn included Yates, Brennan and unknowm leakers in NSA.
    www.huffingtonpost.com

    Near the end of her short tenure at the head of the Justice Department, Yates reportedly informed the White House that Flynn may have misled senior officials about his calls with the Russian ambassador, according to reports from The Post, which cited unnamed officials:

    The acting attorney general informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States, and warned that the national security adviser was potentially vulnerable to Russian blackmail, current and former U.S. officials said.

    The message, delivered by Sally Q. Yates and a senior career national security official to the White House counsel, was prompted by concerns that Flynn, when asked about his calls and texts with the Russian diplomat, had told Vice ­President-elect Mike Pence and others that he had not discussed the Obama administration sanctions on Russia for its interference in the 2016 election, the officials said. It is unclear what the White House counsel, Donald McGahn, did with the information.

    Those concerns were later echoed by James Clapper, President Barack Obama's former director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the former director of the CIA

    Yates made headlines at the end of January after announcing the Justice Department would refuse to defend Trump's controversial executive order on immigration. She was fired within hours, and the White House released a strongly worded statement saying she had "betrayed" the administration.

    [Feb 20, 2017] Trump Chooses General McMaster as National Security Adviser

    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : , February 20, 2017 at 12:28 PM
    Trump Chooses H.R. McMaster as National
    Security Adviser https://nyti.ms/2lo3mNK
    NYT - PETER BAKER - February 20, 2017

    WASHINGTON - President Trump picked Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, a widely respected military strategist, as his new national security adviser on Monday, calling him "a man of tremendous talent and tremendous experience."

    Mr. Trump made the announcement at his Mar-a-Lago getaway in Palm Beach, Fla., where he has been interviewing candidates to replace Michael T. Flynn, who was forced out after withholding information from Vice President Mike Pence about a call with Russia's ambassador.

    The choice continued Mr. Trump's reliance on high-ranking military officers to advise him on national security. Mr. Flynn was a retired three-star general and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is a retired four-star general. His first choice to replace Mr. Flynn, who turned the job down, and two other finalists were current or former senior officers as well.

    Shortly before announcing his appointment, Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter: "Meeting with Generals at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. Very interesting!"

    General McMaster is seen as one of the Army's leading intellectuals, first making a name for himself with a searing critique of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for their performance during the Vietnam War and later criticizing the way President George W. Bush's administration went to war in Iraq.

    As a commander, he was credited with demonstrating how a different counterterrorism strategy could defeat insurgents in Iraq, providing the basis for the change in approach that Gen. David H. Petraeus adopted to shift momentum in a war that the United States was on the verge of losing.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 20, 2017 at 01:38 PM
    He is an armor guy with a Ranger tab!

    Passed over for Brigadier twice but made it by the board run by Petraeus who looked for "combat leaders".

    [Feb 20, 2017] Russia contacts insinuations by neocons as a ruse

    It was very apt definition. But the reality is that this is not just a trap, this is a multistage covert operation to regain neocon power in Washington...
    Feb 17, 2017 | www.merriam-webster.com
    Lookups for ruse ("a stratagem or trick usually intended to deceive") spiked after the President of the United States used the word while denying the reports of improper communication between his campaign and Russian intelligence. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

    "Russia is a ruse," Mr. Trump said. "I have nothing to do with Russia, haven't made a phone call to Russia in years."
    - cbsnews.com , 16 Feb. 2017

    Ruse comes to English from French, in which language it long ago had the meaning of both "trickery" and "a roundabout path taken by fleeing game." The second of these two definitions had a brief period of use in English during the 15th century, but is now quite obsolete.

    The word is now little used as a hunting term, and primarily is found to refer to some instance of subterfuge .

    [Feb 20, 2017] Russia contacts insinuations by neocons as a ruse

    It was very apt definition. But the reality is that this is not just a trap, this is a multistage covert operation to regain neocon power in Washington...
    Feb 17, 2017 | www.merriam-webster.com
    Lookups for ruse ("a stratagem or trick usually intended to deceive") spiked after the President of the United States used the word while denying the reports of improper communication between his campaign and Russian intelligence. The FBI is investigating whether the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government to affect the outcome of the presidential election.

    "Russia is a ruse," Mr. Trump said. "I have nothing to do with Russia, haven't made a phone call to Russia in years."
    - cbsnews.com , 16 Feb. 2017

    Ruse comes to English from French, in which language it long ago had the meaning of both "trickery" and "a roundabout path taken by fleeing game." The second of these two definitions had a brief period of use in English during the 15th century, but is now quite obsolete.

    The word is now little used as a hunting term, and primarily is found to refer to some instance of subterfuge .

    [Feb 20, 2017] After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russias GDP shrank by 50 percent

    Notable quotes:
    "... Give Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question. ..."
    "... After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent. No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian. ..."
    "... US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin! There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending. ..."
    "... Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives peddling F-35 job programs. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    kthomas : February 20, 2017 at 07:14 AM

    For all you Russian cocksuckers:

    http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-02-17/vladimir-putin-could-be-worlds-richest-man-with-200-billion-net-worth-report-says?int=news-rec

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to kthomas... , February 20, 2017 at 07:41 AM
    totally inappropriate. This is not a Teamsters meeting.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Tom aka Rusty... , February 20, 2017 at 08:37 AM
    :<)
    pgl -> Tom aka Rusty... , February 20, 2017 at 09:20 AM
    Agreed but the article missed the boat:

    "After 14 years in power of Russia, and the amount of money that the country has made, and the amount of money that hasn't been spent on schools and roads and hospitals and so on, all that money is in property, bank -- Swiss bank accounts -- shares, hedge funds, managed for Putin and his cronies," he added.

    Not that Putin couldn't be worth $200 billion. I bet he is. But how did he get this wealth? Oh yea - those Russian oil companies. That is where Russia's main source of wealth lies.

    Give Putin some credit - he ended the Yeltsin crony capitalism that allowed companies like Yukos to be seized by a small group of Yeltsin's buddies. Of course in ending this reign, it is open question who now owns these rights. These article sheds no light on the real question.

    Tom aka Rusty said in reply to pgl... , February 20, 2017 at 10:13 AM
    I do not have a single shred of respect for Putin. I do not have a single shred of respect for the Chinese leaders. But somehow we have to have diplomatic relationships with both.

    And we are tied at the hip with the Chinese economy. And somewhat with the Russians. And we agree some language does not belong here.

    Peter K. -> pgl... , February 20, 2017 at 10:15 AM
    After Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Summers, the Harvard boys and your neoliberal friends put the former Soviet Union through shock therapy in the early 1990s, Russia's GDP shrank by 50 percent. No wonder they turned to a strong man authoritarian.
    RGC -> Peter K.... , February 20, 2017 at 10:29 AM
    amen
    ilsm -> pgl... , February 20, 2017 at 01:09 PM
    US spends $5T breaking up Iraq and Afghanistan under the continuum war party and you pick on Putin! There are no differences among politicians when it comes to filling the pentagon trough, except with Trump wanting to back off war with Putin. Putin a dictator yeah but it is not better that the MIC is dictator for life over US spending.

    Stop finding strawmen to make war on and deal with the damage already done here, by executives peddling F-35 job programs.

    [Feb 20, 2017] Globalism is just a mirage to lead the weak minded into subservience to corporatism.

    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    rayward : February 20, 2017 at 05:29 AM , 2017 at 05:29 AM
    A problem with today's views about globalization is that they look backward rather than forward. The future's globalization is much different from the past's globalization. In particular, growing nationalism is the future in the places, such as China, that have benefited from globalization. By that I mean China is beginning to produce goods for China firms rather than for western firms to compete with goods produced for western (American) firms including goods produced in China for western firms.

    It's a much different dynamic than what we have experienced in the past 30 years. And the response to the new globalization should (and will) be much different.

    Ironically, Trump's views about globalization come closer to what will be the response as western firms adjust to the new globalization. Is Trump that smart? No, it's just that everybody else is that dumb.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> rayward... , February 20, 2017 at 08:36 AM
    China has never not had nationalism. Globalism is just a mirage to lead the weak minded into subservience to corporatism.

    [Feb 20, 2017] Globalisation and economic nationalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... The revival of nationalism in western Europe, which began in the 1990s, has been associated with increasing support for radical right parties. This column uses trade and election data to show that the radical right gets its biggest electoral boost in regions most exposed to Chinese exports. Within these regions communities vote homogenously, whether individuals work in affected industries or not. ..."
    "... "Chinese imports" is only an expression, or correlate, of something else - the neoliberal YOYO principle and breakdown/deliberate destruction of social cohesion ..."
    "... As a side effect, this removes the collective identity, and increased tribalism is the compensation - a large part it is an attempt to find/associate with a group identity, which of course gives a large boost to readily available old identities, which were in the past (ab)used by nationalist movements, largely for the same reasons. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron : February 20, 2017 at 04:15 AM , 2017 at 04:15 AM
    RE: Globalisation and economic nationalism - VoxEU

    [The abstract below:]

    The revival of nationalism in western Europe, which began in the 1990s, has been associated with increasing support for radical right parties. This column uses trade and election data to show that the radical right gets its biggest electoral boost in regions most exposed to Chinese exports. Within these regions communities vote homogenously, whether individuals work in affected industries or not.

    [I am shocked, shocked I say!]

    cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 20, 2017 at 11:55 AM
    "Chinese imports" is only an expression, or correlate, of something else - the neoliberal YOYO principle and breakdown/deliberate destruction of social cohesion.

    As a side effect, this removes the collective identity, and increased tribalism is the compensation - a large part it is an attempt to find/associate with a group identity, which of course gives a large boost to readily available old identities, which were in the past (ab)used by nationalist movements, largely for the same reasons.

    cm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , February 20, 2017 at 12:08 PM
    It seems to be quite apparent to me that the loss of national/local identity has not (initially?) promoted nationalist movements advocating a stronger national identity narrative, but a "rediscovery" of regional identities - often based on or similar to the geography of former kingdoms or principalities prior to national unification, or more local municipal structures (e.g. local administrations, business, or interest groups promoting a historical narrative of a municipal district as the village or small town that it descended from, etc. - with the associated idyllic elements).

    In many cases these historical identity narratives had always been undercurrents, even when the nation state was strong.

    cm -> cm... , February 20, 2017 at 12:12 PM
    And I mean strong not in the military or executive strength sense, but accepted as legitimate and representing the population and its interests.

    In these days, national goverments and institutions (state/parties) have been largely discredited, not least due to right wing/elite propaganda (and of course due to observed corruption promoted from the same side).

    ilsm -> cm... , February 20, 2017 at 12:56 PM
    Clinton and Obama have discredited the deep state.... using it for politics and adventuring.
    cm -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 01:36 PM
    I'm not aware that either have discredited any deep state (BTW which Clinton?). The first thing I would ask for is clarification what you mean by "deep state" - can you provide a usable definition?

    Obama has rejected calls for going after US torturers ("we want to move past this").

    ilsm -> cm... , February 20, 2017 at 05:03 PM
    Do not take treason lightly.

    And if you don't know where the 6 months of innuendo about the Russians comes from since Aug 16 you are reading the treasonous agitprop from the democrat wind machine centered in NY, Boston and LA.

    A background:

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/deep-state-trump-dangerous-washington/

    The most rabid tea partiers were correct about Obama and his placing the deep state attempting to ruin the US.

    cm -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 06:03 PM
    I'm not sure this answers my question, and it seems to accuse me of something I have not said or implied (taking treason lightly) - or perhaps cautioning me against such?

    Are you willing to define the terms you are discussing? (Redirecting me to a google search etc. will not address my question. How exactly do you define "deep state"? You can quote from the internet of course.)

    From a previous life I know a concept of "a state within the state" (concretely referring to the East German Stasi and similar services in other "communist" countries in concept but only vaguely in the details). That is probably related to this, but I don't want to base any of this on speculation and unclear terms.

    [Feb 20, 2017] Culprit Behind Flynn Leaks Could Face Onslaught of Legal Troubles

    Feb 20, 2017 | freebeacon.com


    Culprit Behind Flynn Leaks Could Face Onslaught of Legal Troubles


    Share


    Tweet


    Email

    Michael Flynn
    Michael Flynn / AP

    BY: Sam Dorman
    February 18, 2017 8:07 pm

    Whoever leaked intelligence about former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn's conversation with a Russian official could face decades of jail time if discovered.

    Flynn was asked to resign as President Trump's national security adviser after he did not provide complete information about a phone conversation he had in December with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. The retired three-star general spoke to the ambassador about U.S. sanctions shortly after former President Barack Obama announced them.

    Trump asked Flynn to step down from his post after it became public that he misled Vice President Mike Pence about what was discussed in the call.

    ADVERTISING


    U.S. intelligence officials had wiretapped the call, but the conversation did not become public until information on it was leaked to the Washington Post by "current and former U.S. officials," leading Trump to call the leakers the real wrongdoers in the situation.

    The people behind the leaks violated federal law by disclosing classified information about Flynn's conversation with the Russian ambassador. That violation alone could put someone in prison for 10 years, and force them to pay a fine, under the Espionage Act.

    Flynn's phone call to the ambassador, in particular, was a form of intelligence that was "highly classified" because it was wiretapped by U.S. intelligence officials, according to LawNewz.

    Federal law could add another 10 years and a fine if the culprit(s) gave away "files" or "physical materials"regarding the information in question. In such a situation, law 18 U.S.C. § 641 prohibits people from stealing or releasing "any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency."

    If discovered, those behind the leaks could also face five years in prison for lying about the incident, either through perjury, "false statements, or covering up material facts in a federal investigation."

    LawNewz noted, however, that prosecutions involving these types of laws are rare.

    [Feb 20, 2017] This press conference was not actually about Trump and his dealings with Russia, etc. It was, in a very subtle way, about the crisis of neoliberalism as an ideology

    Feb 20, 2017 | angrybearblog.com
    Joel ,

    February 18, 2017 9:51 am

    @EMichael,

    Well, the Trumpenproletariat is as incurious and narcissistic as their Dear Leader. When they bleat "What scares you, exactly?" it tells you how indifferent they are to facts and evidence.

    Warren , February 18, 2017 7:52 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

    sammy , February 19, 2017 11:19 pm

    Warren,

    I think that "Joel" is some sort of 'bot unleashed on the blog. He parrots the liberal meme of the hour or day relentlessly. And sprinkles in insults. Any IT pro worth his salt could easily create "Joel"

    likbez , February 20, 2017 12:23 am

    This press conference was not actually about Trump and his dealings with Russia, etc. It was, in a very subtle way, about the crisis of neoliberalism as an ideology.

    What is really important is that subservient to neoliberals presscorps are now viewed by large swats of the US population as traitors of the nation. Trump just reflected this sentiment, sensing it like any good politician. This is a completely new phenomenon and that spells troubles for neoliberals in the forthcoming elections.

    The attempt to stage a color revolution (called Purple revolution by some observers) against Trump by selective and coordinated leaking of damaging information, actually might backfire. Actually Flynn was probably a person who understood the mechanics involved in staging a color revolution and the role leaks and press play in discrediting selected targets pretty well. So in some way it is ironic that he fall as a victim of such a standard attack. Flynn downfall of course is a success for neoliberals, no question about it, but this might be Pyrrhic victory.

    When during the press-conference Trump said "How many times do I have to answer this question But Russia is a ruse." that was all over for the particular presstitute who asked " Not aware of any contact during the course of the election? "

    It is also unclear who will replace Flynn. It may be a person of very similar convictions, or even more hostile to excessive size, influence and the number of the Us intelligence agencies, and no less determined to cut them in size and reestablish the civilian control over those agencies.

    Because leakers broke the law, it is important for Trump now that they pay personal price for this act. If Trump worth to be a President, he now needs to pay very close attention to the finding of the source(s) of leaks and possible made out of one of them a good example of what can happen with others, who might entertain similar thoughts.

    [Feb 20, 2017] People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage

    Notable quotes:
    "... Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces. ..."
    "... As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith ..."
    "... Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way. ..."
    Feb 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... February 20, 2017 at 06:39 AM
    Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Spread by neolib propaganda organs claiming to be the "free" press.

    More dangerous than Obama's deep state wiretapping republicans and raping the Bill of Rights falsely screaming 'Trump the traitor'!

    There is no freedom to lie and to mislead 'we the people'.

    New Deal democrat -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 07:34 AM

    At risk of being flamed by everybody else with an opinion on this matter, I can see both sides of the issue:

    You are correct if Trump is not selling out to Russia.

    You are also correct if (1) Trump *is* selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters were aware that he is selling out to Russia, but voted for him with eyes wide open on that issue.

    In either of those two cases the Intelligence Community leakers are trying to subvert the democratic will of the people in elected Trump president.

    You are wrong if: (1) Trump is selling out to Russia, *AND* (2) his voters did not believe it when they voted for him. In this case the Intelligence Community leakers, in my opinion, are patriotic heroes.

    Just because the Intellligence Community is not laying the sources of its intelligence out in the open on the table does not mean that the leakers are wrong. My suspicion is that they are correct (see, e.g., Josh Marshall today. Google is your friend.) The deeper problem is that I suspect Trump's voters simply don't care, even if the Intelligence Community is correct.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> New Deal democrat... , February 20, 2017 at 08:07 AM
    No flames from me, Dude. Ya nailed it.
    ilsm -> New Deal democrat... , February 20, 2017 at 08:09 AM
    I did a mini max regret: More regret with Clinton sold out to neoliberal profiteering war mongers who care only for perpetual war, the max regret I see is unneeded nuclear war over a few hundred thousand Estonians who hate Russia since the Hanseatic league was suppressed by Ivan the Terrible.

    Lesser regret with Trump sold out to Russia* that would only bring China I against both US and Russia in about 50 years.

    *Trump sold to Russia is Clintonista/Stalinist fantasia sold by the yellow press.

    Julio -> New Deal democrat... , February 20, 2017 at 08:25 AM
    I disagree. It is not enough that Trump voters were aware of Trump selling out to Russia and didn't care; if there had been conclusive proof of that before the election, other people might have come out to vote against him.

    Besides, some of his voters might not care and some might.

    In any case, whether the leakers are patriots or traitors does not have to do with subverting "the will of the people". At the most extreme, leaks could lead to, say, impeachment, which is another way to express the will of the people. (Or actually, the will of the plutocrats and their Republican and Democratic running dogs, but that's another discussion).

    libezkova -> ilsm... , February 20, 2017 at 11:59 AM
    New Deal democrat and couple of other Hillary enthusiasts here used to sing quite a different song as for Hillary bathroom email server ;-).

    Russia bogeyman (or "ruse" as Trump aptly defined it) is now used to swipe under the carpet the crisis of neoliberal ideology and the collapse of Democratic Party which is still dominated by Clinton wing of soft neoliberals). Chickhawks like a couple of people here (for example, im1dc), are always want to fight another war, but using some other ("less valuable") peoples bodies as the target of enemy fire.

    Democratic Party now is playing an old and very dirty trick called "Catch the thief", when they are the thief.

    Why we are not discussing the key issue: how the redistribution of wealth up during the last two decades destabilized the country both economically and politically?

    Also it is unclear whether a simple, non-painful way out exists, or this is just something like a pre-collapse stage as happened with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR. The Damocles sword of "peak/plato oil" hangs over neoliberal globalization. That's an undeniable and a very important factor. Another ten (or twenty) years of the "secular stagnation", and then what? Can the current globalized economy function with oil prices above $100 without severe downsizing.

    The economic plunder of other countries like the plunder of xUSSR economic space (which helped to save and return to growth the USA economics in 90th, providing half a billion new customers and huge space for "dollarization") is no longer possible as there are no any new USSR that can disintegrate.

    Obama achievement of reinstalling neoliberal regimes in Brazil and Argentina ( https://nacla.org/news/2015/10/10/brazil%C2%B4s-sudden-neoliberal-u-turn ) was probably the "last hurrah" of neoliberalism, which is in retreat all over the globe.

    And "artificial disintegration" of the countries to open them to neoliberal globalization (aka "controlled chaos") like practiced in Libya and Syria proved to be quite costly and have unforeseen side effects.

    The forces that ensured Trump victory are forces that understood at least on intuitive level that huge problems with neoliberalism need something different that kicking the can down the road, and that Hillary might well means the subsequent economic collapse, or WWIII, or both.

    Trump might not have a solution, but he was at least courageous enough to ask uncomfortable questions.

    Blackmailing Russia can probably be viewed as just an attempt to avoid asking uncomfortable questions (Like who is guilty and who should go to jail ;-) , and to distract the attention from the real problems. As if the return us to the good old Obama days of universal deceit (aka "change we can believe in") , can solve the problems the country faces.

    And when neoliberal presstitutes in MSM now blackmail Trump and try to stage "purple" color revolution, this might well be a sign of desperation, not strength.

    They have no solution for the country problem, they just want to kick the can down the road and enjoy their privileges while the country burns.

    As Galbright put it: "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> JohnH... , February 20, 2017 at 08:16 AM
    If you are peddling developed land then you want low interest rates for your customers so that you can get the highest price for your developments. Still there might theoretically be a narrow channel that your deal might slip through if commercial real estate were for some reason assigned a lower risk premium than residential, but ordinarily the opposite is true.

    A higher percentage of new businesses fail than new households and if more new households fail then even more new businesses will fail right along with them.

    The one possibility for Trump to have it this way would be that he crashes the US economy and all new commercial development would be for Russian tourist to visit America while either deflation and depression or Weimar scale inflation was suppressing prices for US goods in real ruble terms.

    JohnH -> New Deal democrat... , February 20, 2017 at 07:31 AM
    I expect that if you look at the pre-bellum South, there will be plenty of examples of stagnant wages, low interest rates...

    In Mexico, wages never rose regardless of monetary policy.

    The point that I've been making for a while: despite a few progressive economists delusions for rapid economic growth to tighten wages, it won't happen for the following reasons.

    1) most employers will just say 'no,' probably encouraged centrally by the US Chamber of Commerce and other industry associations. Collusion? You bet.

    2) employers will just move jobs abroad, where there's plenty of slack. Flexible labor markets has been one of the big goals of globalization, promoted by the usual suspects including 'librul' economists like Krugman.

    3) immigration, which will be temporarily constrained as Trump deports people, but will ultimately be resumed as employers demand cheap, malleable labor.

    New Deal democrat -> JohnH... , February 20, 2017 at 07:35 AM
    If what we get is easy money, no inflation, and stagnant wages, then that is the Coolidge bubble. We know how that ends.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , February 20, 2017 at 07:36 AM
    I disagree. It happened in late 90s. The ideas you mention are factors, including the decline of unions.

    What has happened in recent decades is that asset bubbles - like the dot.com and housing bubbles - have popped sending a high pressure economy into a low pressure one with higher unemployment.

    Neoliberal economists often talk about "flexible labor markets" as desirable but I don't think Krugman ever has. Maybe he has in a roundabout, indirect way.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , February 20, 2017 at 07:58 AM
    Peter K still insists on propagating the myth that the 1990s was a period of easy money that led to increasing wages. Not so:
    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS

    Fed funds rates were consistently about double the rate of inflation.

    The fact that the economy boomed and wages increased was due to the tech boom--an unrepeatable anomaly. The Fed and Clinton administration unsuccessfully attempted to stifle it with high rates and budget balancing.

    To make sure that wages never rose again, Clinton signed China PNTR, granting China access to WTO, ushering in the great sucking sound of jobs going to China. Krugman cheered.

    libezkova -> JohnH... , February 20, 2017 at 12:02 PM
    If the neoliberal elite can't part with at least a small part of their privileges, the political destabilization will continue and they might lose everything.

    "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." -- John Kenneth Galbraith

    [Feb 19, 2017] Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by wet starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind

    Pretty interesting video...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal ..."
    "... Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice? ..."
    "... FakeStream Media ..."
    "... The very Fake Media has met their match ..."
    Feb 18, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Pete Hegseth and Jesse Watters discuss the bitter establishment's desperation to manufacture a Trump scandal

    TheBase1aransas 3 minutes ago

    Alvina I think people that believe in freedom is not only the Best thing, but what built it. We finally have Trump to speak for us.

    Christine Lesch 4 hours ago
    McCains a shumuck
    Herbert Stewart 11 minutes ago
    @Christine Lesch

    I feel sorry for Arizona they are stuck with this guy. he needs to change parties he had his turn and LOST1 america first!

    Geoffry Allan

    it appears quite apparent that you people are really sad. trump is above all else, a good american. so.... stop being a moron.

    hexencoff 3 hours ago
    no one gives a shit what John McCain says he's a scumbag!
    hexencoff 3 hours ago
    Jodi Boin i hope so too it's honestly very scary how far we have regressed as a country we are fighting about the same things from 50 years ago everyone has their own beliefs and opinions and some how adult conversation has been thrown away i mean we are still fighting over race relations for crying out loud
    Louis John 2 hours ago
    @hexencoff

    McCain is a trouble maker. supporter of the terrorist and warmonger Iraq Libya Syria he is behind all the trouble scumbag

    Gary M 3 hours ago
    McCain is a globalist
    belaghoulashi 2 hours ago
    (edited) McCain has always been full of horseshit. And he has always relied on people calling him a hero to get away with it. That schtick is old, the man is a monumental failure for this country, and he needs to have his sorry butt kicked.

    ryvr madduck 1 hour ago

    +belaghoulashi

    Most people don't know that after the 134 men died on the Forrestal fire in 1967 McCain was the ONLY person helicoptered off the ship. It was done for his own safety as many on the ship blamed him for causing the fire by "wet" starting his jet causing a plume of fire to shoot out his plane's exhaust and into the plane behind McCain causing the ordnance to cook off on that jet. McCain then panicked and dropped his own bombs onto the deck making matters much worse. McCain should have ended his career in jail. Oh, wait, he kinda did, maybe karma justice?

    Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
    When you start to drain the swamp, the swamp creatures start to show.
    Alexus Highfield 3 hours ago
    @Michael Cambo

    don't they...they do say shit floats.

    Geoffry Allan 41 minutes ago

    @Michael Cambo - Trump has not drained the swamp he has surrounded himself with billionaires in his cabinet who don't give a damn about the working middle class who struggle e eryday to make a living - explain to me how he is draining the swamp

    tim sparks 3 hours ago
    Trump is trying so fucking hard to do a good job for us.
    Integrity Truth-seeker 2 hours ago
    @tim sparks

    He is not trying... HE IS DOING IT... Like A Boss. Thank God Mark Taylor Prophecies 2017 the best is yet to come

    Jodi Boin 3 hours ago
    McCain is a traitor and is bought and paid for by Soros.
    Grant Davidson 4 hours ago
    Love him or hate him. The guy is a frikkin Genius...
    Patrick Reagan 4 hours ago
    FakeStream Media
    Michael Cambo 4 hours ago
    @Patrick Reagan

    Very FakeStream Media

    aspengold5 4 hours ago
    I am so disappointed in McCain.
    orlando pablo 4 hours ago
    my 401k is keep on going up....thank u mr trump....
    Dumbass Libtard 3 hours ago
    McCain is not a Republican. He is a loser. Yuge difference.1
    Mitchel Colvin 3 hours ago
    Shut up McCain! I can't stand this clown anymore! Unfortunately, Arizona re-elected him for six more years!
    robert barham 4 hours ago
    The very Fake Media has met their match
    H My ways of thinking! 3 hours ago
    Why does everyone feel that if they don't kiss McCain's ass, they are being un American? Mccain has sold out to George Soros. He is a piece of shit who is guilty of no less than treason! Look up the definition for treason if you're in doubt!
    Sam Nardo 3 hours ago
    (edited) Mc Cain and Graham are two of the best democrats in the GOP. They are called RINOS
    kazzicup 3 hours ago
    We love and support our President Donald Trump. The media is so dishonest. CNN = Criminal News Network.

    Geoffry Allan 34 minutes ago

    @kazzicup - yeah if you get rid of the media Trump becomes a dictator - is that what you want he will censor everything and tell you what he wants - Trump is still president and he is doing his job and fulfilling his promises even though the media is there and reporting - so what's the problem - I don't want a got damn dictator running this country - if you don't like the media then just listen to Trump - 2nd amendment free speech and the right to bear arms we have to respect it even if we may disagree

    [Feb 19, 2017] The swamp fights back

    The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American people. Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Barbara waters 2 days ago (edited)

    The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained.

    Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The people have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to go after our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to restore law and order.

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
    "... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
    "... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : February 18, 2017 at 05:32 PM
    This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for yourself

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/18/im-democrat-and-ex-cia-but-spies-plotting-against-trump-are-out-control.html

    "I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"

    By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com

    ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...

    Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 18, 2017 at 06:08 PM
    The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!

    Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!

    +40 years around the puzzlers.

    [Feb 19, 2017] How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other countrys Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?

    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm :

    , February 18, 2017 at 04:45 AM
    Vox, what about reporting from a crystal ball requires truth?
    Peter K. -> ilsm... , February 18, 2017 at 07:37 AM
    The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!

    Hide under your bed.

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , February 18, 2017 at 12:42 PM
    Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate", and he "could" be prosecuted under a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried bc a Bill of rights argument would win!

    How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?

    If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!

    [Feb 19, 2017] The deep state is running scared!

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government... ..."
    "... The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media! ..."
    "... Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection! ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : February 18, 2017 at 05:32 PM
    This is running now on FoxNews.com, total fabrication especially the last sentence but Trumpers believe this Fake News. I think this is where ilsm gets his intell insights from, phoney former intell officers, they sound exactly like him - check it out for yourself

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/18/im-democrat-and-ex-cia-but-spies-plotting-against-trump-are-out-control.html

    "I'm a Democrat (and ex-CIA) but the spies plotting against Trump are out of control"

    By Bryan Dean Wright...February 18, 2017...Foxnews.com

    ..."Multiple reports show that my former colleagues in the intelligence community have decided that they must leak or withhold classified information due to unsettling connections between President Trump and the Russian Government...

    Days ago, they delivered their verdict. According to one intelligence official, the president "will die in jail."..."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 18, 2017 at 06:08 PM
    The deep state is running scared! I never+ attribute to coincidence that which is the FBI trampling the bill of rights. It is coincidence the deep state (fbi, nsa, various CIA and DoD spooks) tapped Russia spies who talk to private citizens who have no opportunity at espionage. Then the innuendo is leaked to the Clinton media!

    Worse on Trump for calling them out for leaking rather than as a civil liberty trampling Gestapo. Ben Franklin was right, give the democrat run spooks the power to protect you and you lose liberty and protection!

    +40 years around the puzzlers.

    [Feb 19, 2017] Flynn's Head Rolls. Is Trump's Next

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Washington Post ..."
    "... Post ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.strategic-culture.org
    Finian CUNNINGHAM | 15.02.2017 | WORLD Flynn's Head Rolls. Is Trump's Next?

    Just three weeks into the Trump presidency, and his political enemies in the Washington establishment have scored big, with the forced resignation of Trump's National Security advisor Michael Flynn. The establishment includes state intelligence agencies and aligned corporate news media, who have been gunning for Trump ever since his shock election last November.

    It's a hugely damaging blow to the inner circle of the Trump White House. The US media reporting on Flynn's resignation this week had the unmistakable air of victory-crowing. Like sharks in a pool, they smell blood.

    Flynn had to go after the Washington Post and others reported that he wasn't telling the truth about phone calls he had been holding with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition to the Trump administration. Flynn hadn't denied the calls in late December, but he had maintained that the subject of US sanctions on Russia were not discussed.

    Persistently the US media did not give up on the charges against Flynn, which shows that their confidence on the subject was underwritten by intelligence sources. Or put another way, this was an intelligence-led witch-hunt which was based on the illegal disclosure of private information.

    Flynn had told the US Vice President Mike Pence that sanctions were not discussed and that the conversation with the Russian diplomat was only about seasonal pleasantries and making arrangements about a forthcoming phone call between President Trump and Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin – that call was finally made on January 28.

    Pence stood by Flynn initially, telling media outlets that there was nothing untoward in the phone calls.

    Legally, a private US citizen – which Flynn was at that stage before Trump became inaugurated on January 10 – is not permitted to talk about government policy with a foreign state in a presumptive official capacity.

    Apparently now, as it turns out, sanctions were discussed between Flynn and Kislyak, according to FBI investigators and US officials quoted by the Washington Post . Russia has refused to comment on the nature of the phone calls.

    What was Flynn thinking of? At one stage during the Obama administration, he had served as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency – one of the 16 US federal spy organizations. It seems incredible that given his expertise in matters of US state surveillance practice, Flynn could have been so reckless as to hold phone conversations with Russia's top diplomat in Washington on national security issues outside of his then remit.

    Especially considering too that Flynn was shortly about to assume office as a senior national security advisor to the new president, Donald Trump, who was already under intense media scrutiny over his alleged links to Russia.

    Not only hold phone conversations, but as seems likely, Flynn broached the subject of how US sanctions levied by Obama might be lifted under the Trump administration. For Flynn not to realize that every word would be tapped by US intelligence seems an incredible lapse of judgment on his part.

    The suspect phone contact occurred at the time Obama sanctioned several Russian diplomats over allegations that Russian hackers had interfered in the presidential elections. Those allegations of Russian state-sponsored hacking have never been proven.

    The way the Washington Post tells it, US intelligence officials were surprised when Russian President Vladimir Putin did not reciprocate with Obama's sanctions announced on December 29, instead choosing to respond by wishing Americans a Happy Christmas.

    According to the Post , US intelligence began searching for a possible explanation for Putin's unexpected response, and they found their putative answer in Flynn's call to the Russian ambassador. It is claimed that Flynn indicated to the Russian diplomat that the new sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration would be duly reversed by Trump.

    It seems more plausible, however, that the US intelligence agents did not engage in some retrospective random search for a mole, but rather they had Flynn in their sights all along, having listened into this phone call with the Russian ambassador.

    And as the Washington Post pointedly noted this week, Trump promptly praised Putin for not taking retaliatory action to Obama's sanctions.

    The inference here is that Flynn was acting as mediator with the Russians under instruction from Trump.

    "The current and former officials said that although they believed that [Vice President] Pence was misled about the contents of Flynn's communications with the Russian ambassador, they couldn't rule out that Flynn was acting with the knowledge of others in the transition", reports the Washington Post.

    Trump's administration had already caused deep consternation among the Washington establishment of State Department, foreign policy think-tanks, intelligence-military apparatus and aligned corporate news media. Trump's avowed intentions of normalizing relations with Russia before and after his election on November 8 have collided with Washington's long-term geo-strategic agenda of fomenting hostility with Moscow.

    The forced resignation of Michael Flynn, who was an influential advocate in the Trump White House for normalizing relations with Russia, can be seen as a much-desired blow against Trump over Russia – inflicted by the US Deep State operatives.

    There seems little doubt that Flynn was set up in a sting operation. The only wonder is that he seemed to walk right into the trap.

    It seems very likely that having procured Flynn's scalp, the political enemies of Trump will not stop there. The big prize is Trump himself and his ousting from the presidency through impeachment on charges of conspiring with an enemy state.

    All the hoopla over Flynn in the US media is just the beginning of a campaign to finger Trump as the person who gave him clearance to illicitly contact the Russians.

    A soft coup against Trump by the US Deep State has been speculated for some time now, especially over his "friendly" Russia policy being at odds with the powers-that-be who are hellbent on hostility towards Moscow. And it seems that incompetence within the Trump administration is playing straight into that agenda to oust him from the White House.

    [Feb 19, 2017] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/17/russian-spies-targeted-u-s-sanctions.html

    Feb 19, 2017 | www.thedailybeast.com

    "Russian Spies Targeted U.S. Sanctions"

    'Talking with Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn was one of many ways Moscow tried to get inside information about America's financial war against the Kremlin'

    by Katie Zavadski...02.17.17

    "The last major Russian spy arrested on U.S. soil was busted for seeking the kind of information retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has been accused of dishing out.

    During a White House press conference on Thursday, President Donald Trump defended Flynn, his former national security adviser, for talking about U.S. sanctions against Moscow with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak while Barack Obama was still in office. It's an act that may have put Flynn in legal jeopardy; The Washington Post reported Thursday that Flynn denied to the FBI having such conversations, despite evidence that he did.

    Recently filed court documents show just how important information about sanctions was to Russian intelligence.

    Those documents involve a two-year-old case against Evgeny Buryakov, a Russian bank employee who admitted to being an unregistered agent of Russian intelligence in the U.S. Buryakov pleaded out and the case never went to trial. But case filings show that the SVR, Russia's foreign intelligence service, was keenly interested in the U.S. government's attempts to use financial sanctions to retaliate against Russian military aggression.

    His handlers asked Buryakov to look for information on the "effects of economic sanctions on our country," according to court documents, and he complied. The FBI sent an undercover operative to keep him interested.

    In August 2014, an undercover agent showed Buryakov a document from the Treasury Department marked "Internal Treasury Use Only," that "contained information regarding Russian individuals subject to sanctions," according to court filings. (It's not clear whether the papers in question were actual internal Treasury Department memos.) Buryakov told the undercover that he wanted more information.

    A few weeks later, the undercover agent and a confidential source fed him another document, telling him that "the Treasury Department was using the document in connection with its deliberations regarding additional sanctions," which Buryakov promptly fed to his handlers at Russia's foreign intelligence service.

    That is exactly the kind of information that would be useful to foreign spies, said Zachary Goldman, a former Treasury and Department of Defense official who's now the executive director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University.

    The U.S. authorized sanctions against Russia relating to its annexation of Crimea in March of 2014 and began a crackdown against individuals and a Russian bank. In the period Buryakov was fishing, then, his overseers would have wanted to know which entities or people would be sanctioned next.

    "In that period, the first half of 2014, the Russian government was very interested in figuring out what we were going to do," Goldman said.

    When Flynn spoke to Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, in December 2016, the Russians would've been in much the same situation.

    The sanctions announced by the Obama administration that month exercised a relatively new authority enacted by the president in April 2015. Obama's order on cyberattacks was originally in response to Chinese attacks on the private sector, and later broadened to be applicable to the Russian attempts to interfere in U.S. elections.

    Finding out who was going to be targeted, and what the policy would be like under the next administration, would have been a top priority for all actors of Russian intelligence. They come in various categories: Some, like Buryakov, conduct espionage in secret while pretending to be an ordinary employee of a foreign company, while others construct alternate identities and lay in wait for years. The third category come here under diplomatic cover, having, in effect, a dual role as diplomats and spies.

    "It seems that the reports are that there was some kind of suggestion that Flynn gave Kislyak, along the lines of, don't worry about these sanctions, when we take office, things will improve significantly," Goldman said. "And undoubtedly, that's something they would want know."

    The point of sanctions is to change another country's behavior, Goldman added.

    "If you were the Russians, you would want to know what the trigger for new sanctions would be, and what the catalyst for the removal of sanctions would be," he said. "Whether that's what Flynn discussed with Kislyak, I have no idea."

    Details about the conversations, and whom Flynn misled about their content, are still emerging. But we know that when the Obama administration exiled 35 diplomats and shut down a Russian compound on Long Island, Russian officials announced they would not be following suit.

    At a press conference on Thursday, however, Trump backed Flynn's right to discuss that matter.

    "Very simple. Mike [Flynn] was doing his job," Trump said. "He was calling countries and his counterparts. So, it certainly would have been OK with me if he did it.

    "I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn't doing it," Trump added." Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 02:24 PM libezkova said in reply to im1dc... An alternative view on what Flynn resignation means:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIVrvihtKgE Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 03:39 PM ilsm said in reply to libezkova... libezkova, the US "press" has no more concern for truth than the Nazi papers under Goebbels! Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 05:07 PM im1dc said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Fred do not get caught up in libezkova's or ilsm's worldview, they do not play with our team USA. Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 10:48 AM libezkova said in reply to im1dc... I can only guess who are the members of your "team USA". With your jingoism and anti-Russian stance, I assume that they include such people:

    Charles Krauthammer
    David Frum
    Douglas Feith
    John McCain
    Lindsey Graham
    Michael Ledeen
    Paul Wolfowitz
    Richard Perle
    Robert Kagan
    Samantha Power
    Scooter Libby
    Susan Rice
    Victoria Nuland
    ... ... ...

    If so, you are in good company... Don't forget to buy M16, ammunition and tickets to Syria. We probably will be able to survive without your posts for some time. Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 02:58 PM ilsm said in reply to im1dc... im1dc, read your 4th amendment, and say wht the FBI etc did to republicans is okay!

    My team USA is not run by neoliberal neocons running an illicit deep state. Reply Sunday, February 19, 2017 at 04:50 PM

    [Feb 19, 2017] Youtube reaction on Flynn resignation

    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com

    [Feb 19, 2017] The Anti-Trump Deep State Color Revolution Coup Targets Flynn

    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Feb 15, 2017

    Russian Insider quotes an old joke goes like this: "Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States?

    Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States."

    Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the USA right now.

    It is a coup. That simple. It's not a leak. It's a coup. Direct from the Deep State. The naive Trump never saw it coming.

    Kucinich says it's a Deep State move to remove Flynn. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_Zf...

    The Anti-Flynn Deep State Coup
    http://thesaker.is/the-anti-flynn-dee...

    A 'Color Revolution' Is Now Underway in the United States
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics...

    Sign up for Lionel's Newsletter and Truth Warrior manifestos. http://lionelmedia.com/2015/05/04/inf...

    First Amendment3 days ago (edited)

    What Trump did was uncover the deep State by using Flynn as a soldier to ferret-out the deep dark places....what you are seeing is the enemy being uncovered. Trump made this happen and now you will see who is in charge....the deep State has now been exposed. We will now see the eradication of this foul 5th column.

    [Feb 19, 2017] The swamp fights back

    The "neoliberal establishment" (aka Washington Swamp) is deeply unpopular with American people. Trump is not that popular, but he definitely less unpopular. Such statements s of "the national media is the enemy" would be unthinkable a decade or two ago.
    Notable quotes:
    "... The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Barbara waters 2 days ago (edited)

    The National Media is the enemy. They are minor birds, repeaters of what the establishment wants parroted. They can no longer be considered American citizen friendly. They are indeed part of the Swamp to be drained.

    Like former, despise current president matters not. We are still a nation of laws. The people have spoken. We want the laws followed period. CNN, MSNBC, and others who continue to go after our president will be met with an unbridled wave of conservative determination to restore law and order.

    [Feb 19, 2017] David Brooks I Fear the Trump Administration Is Anarchy - Breitbart

    Notable quotes:
    "... Enemy of the people, I'm an enemy of the people. ..."
    Feb 19, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    As a neocon he really it ;-)

    Brooks said, " Enemy of the people, I'm an enemy of the people. You know what? My fear of the administration as it's shaken out so far is not that it's incipient fascism it is that it is anarchy. There are 696 appointed jobs that require senate confirmation and the Trump administration hasn't named 692 of them. So there is nobody home in the government."

    [Feb 19, 2017] Glenn Greenwald Dems 'Suddenly Love Leaks,' But Attacked Them Under Obama

    Feb 19, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
    Sunday on CNN's "Reliable Sources," Glenn Greenwald said Democrats who "suddenly love leaks" about President Donald Trump's administration thought people who leaked to the media during the Obama administration were "villains," "traitors," and "they ought to go to prison."

    Greenwald said, "The problem is if you look at the last eight years, there has been a very concerted war on not just sources and whistleblowers, but also journalists, implemented by not Donald Trump but by the Obama administration. More sources prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act than in all previous administrations combined. Journalists such as James Rosen at Fox News and Jim Risen at The New York Times and those of us who worked on the Snowden reporting constantly threatened with prosecution or having our phone records subpoenaed and the like."

    "And Democratic officeholders in D.C. were virtually unanimous in the idea that people who leak information that's classified are villains, they're traitors, they ought to go to prison," he continued. "This framework has been created both rhetorical and legal over the last eight years that says that people who leak classified information regardless of how important that information is ought to be punished. That's the rhetoric and framework that Donald Trump is seizing on. And it the reason it's been so damaging to have watched Democrats who suddenly love leaks now that it's helping them have wage such an aggressive war on journalism and investigate reporting over the last eight years."

    [Feb 18, 2017] The company of blackmail against Trump continues unabated

    Notable quotes:
    "... The neocons and neoliberals want war. The cia/fbi/nsa wants to take away my freedom. The fake news wants to spread lies. This military industrial complex wants to send hundreds of millions to their deaths. As a nation, we are fucked. I'm guessing lots of innocent people are going to be slaughtered in the name of freedom. ..."
    Feb 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    A Medical Theory for Donald Trump's Bizarre Behavior ... Many mental health professionals believe the president is ill. But what if the cause is an untreated STD? ... Al Franken recently raised a provocative question about Donald Trump: Is he mentally ill? On HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher last week, the Minnesota senator claimed that some of his Republican colleagues have "great concern about the president's temperament," adding that "there's a range in what they'll say, and some will say that he's not right mentally. And some are harsher." Two days later, he told CNN's Jake Tapper, "We all have this suspicion that-you know, that he's not-he lies a lot And, you know, that is not the norm for a president of the United States, or, actually, for a human being." - The New Republic

    So according to the The New Republic, President Donald Trump may have syphilis and should explore treatment option as necessary with his personal physician.

    He may have contracted it, according to the magazine, in the 1970s of 1980s when syphilis was on the rise. If he didn't get it treated, it would be far advanced by now. Advanced syphilis, neurosyphilis, and manifest itself in numerous ways, according to the article.

    "Commonly recognized symptoms include irritability, loss of ability to concentrate, delusional thinking, and grandiosity. Memory, insight, and judgment can become impaired. Insomnia may occur. Visual problems may develop, including the inability of pupils to react to the light. This, along other ocular pathology, can result in photophobia, dimming of vision, and squinting. All of these things have been observed in Trump. Dementia, headaches, gait disturbances. and patchy hair loss can also be seen in later stages of syphilis."

    DirtySanchez , Feb 18, 2017 7:01 PM

    The neocons and neoliberals want war. The cia/fbi/nsa wants to take away my freedom. The fake news wants to spread lies. This military industrial complex wants to send hundreds of millions to their deaths. As a nation, we are fucked. I'm guessing lots of innocent people are going to be slaughtered in the name of freedom.

    honest injun , Feb 18, 2017 6:42 PM

    Interesting. When Hillary was followed by an ambulance, had crazy eyes, needed to be carried to her car from time to time, had spasms, was delusional, was irritable, and had a dozen other symptoms of medical problems, the media whores told us that she had pneumonia for one day. Now they tell us that someone who puts them in their place is mentally ill. They are digging their own grave. Soon nobody will believe the retard media.

    Lost in translation , Feb 18, 2017 7:25 PM

    The "mentally ill" narrative was a trademark of the Soviet Regime, which used it to institutionalize its critics and domestic enemies.

    Now, the Neocons and their disciples are resorting to it.

    spooz , Feb 18, 2017 6:07 PM

    Hard to believe the New Republic wasn't being satirical with their "syphilis" theory.

    It seems that psychiatry wishes to make every personality type a disorder, in an effort to convince people that their specialty is based on science and perhaps to drum up business, so Trump has "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".

    Narcissim is pretty common in US presidents, and is seen as a positive trait in many respects.

    Research has estimated that the average US president's narcissism is about a standard deviation beyond the average citizen – and even higher than that of the average reality television star. We also know that narcissism in US presidents is linked to ratings of greatness. Highly narcissistic presidents like Lyndon Johnson are leaders who make big changes. Less narcissistic presidents like Jimmy Carter are rated as mediocre (but, in the case of Carter, also regarded as admired ex-presidents because they are seen as moral and caring).

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/don...

    [Feb 16, 2017] Hatchet job ordered by whom? - The New York Times neocons try to destrory Flynn

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Washington Post is complicit in a treasonous betrayal of trust by unelected, arrogant and truly dangerous intelligence agents. It is long past due to have a TOTAL house cleaning of these agencies with dire penalties imposed on such malevolent enemies of democracy. If that then includes the Post itself, let the Post clean up its act. ..."
    "... The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. ..."
    "... This Russian nonsense is not going to fly. Why should anyone believe a word of this story? So what if Flynn discussed sanctions anyway! Who are these traitors in the State Department, and why are they still on the payroll? The majority of the public is not going to buy this nonsense , you are still in denial that you lost the election. ..."
    "... This reminds me of Obama getting caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president, "I'll have more flexibility after the election." Signaling that the hardline against Russia would soften if he won reelection. (Clearly a national security issue.) ..."
    "... But of course, it's only when the perpetually-outraged left don't like somebody holding different views than them that it becomes a 'dire constitutional crisis.' ..."
    "... This is just another Left wing hit job with no real substance, that elevates innuendo and a passing brushed off question to the level of "negotiation". The article uses the requisite obscure language of "officials" who in turn offer little up. This is politics pure and simple. ..."
    Feb 16, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
    Note how skillfully NYT presstitutes present Russians as the next incarnation of Satan, contact with which is prohibited for Christians.
    Who are those nine officials... Looks like Jeff Bezos is just a puppet. Taking on Flynn is a serious game which is far above his head. I do not remember any fuss over Bill Clinton getting Russian money (really outrageous honorarium for the speech) which if you think about it is even more clear violation of Logan act.
    Didn't Obama do a similar thing before running for election?

    From the start, Michael Flynn, a retired army lieutenant general, was a disturbing choice as President Trump's national security adviser. He is a hothead with extremist views in a critical job that is supposed to build consensus through thoughtful, prudent decision-making. The choice is now growing more unnerving every day.

    A conspiracy theorist who has stoked dangerous fears about Islam, Mr. Flynn was fired by the Obama administration as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and led anti-Hillary Clinton chants of "lock her up" at the 2016 Republican Convention. He raised eyebrows by cultivating a mystifyingly cozy relationship with Russia, which the Pentagon considers a major threat.

    Now we have learned that in the weeks before the inauguration, Mr. Flynn discussed American sanctions on Russia, and areas of possible cooperation, with Moscow's ambassador to Washington, Sergey Kislyak. They spoke a day before President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for hacking the Democrats' computers, probably in an effort to sway the election in Mr. Trump's favor.

    Mr. Flynn's underhanded, possibly illegal message was that the Obama administration was Russia's adversary, and that would change under Mr. Trump and that any sanctions could be undone. The result seems to be that Russia decided not to retaliate with its own sanctions.

    We know this not from Mr. Flynn or the administration, but from accounts first provided to The Washington Post (aka CIA Pravda) by nine current and former government officials who had access to reports from American intelligence and law enforcement agencies that routinely monitor the communications of Russian diplomats. Bizarrely, Mr. Trump told reporters on Friday afternoon that he was unaware of the Post report, but would "look into that."

    jburack, 6:01 AM EST

    The Washington Post is complicit in a treasonous betrayal of trust by unelected, arrogant and truly dangerous intelligence agents. It is long past due to have a TOTAL house cleaning of these agencies with dire penalties imposed on such malevolent enemies of democracy. If that then includes the Post itself, let the Post clean up its act.

    ausmth, 2/14/2017 8:02 PM EST

    Who leaked classified telephone intercepts of a foreign diplomat to the Post? Why isn't that person in jail?

    Cecile Pham, 2/14/2017 1:34 PM EST

    Flynn would not dare to go ahead with telling Russia not having to worry about sanctions and that the future would be better with Trump without Trump direction.

    So Flynn's resignation is just an appeasement. The real story is Trump relationship with Russia.

    Mike Mitchell, 8:12 AM EST

    As though Flynn is just an idiot who would have never suspected the NSA was listening in on his phone call to ... a Russian Ambassador. Yeah right.

    SittingOnThePotty, 2/14/2017 12:29 AM EST

    People make reference to the Logan Act and brushing it off as nothing that will be used against Flynn. But the law is on the books, regardless. So I gather now we pick and chose which laws to apply and which not to apply? Am I a bit confused? It was placed as a law for a good reason, just because no one has ever been prosecuted under this law do we dismiss it as "old" and pretend it is not there?

    The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that details the fine and/or imprisonment of unauthorized citizens who negotiate with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. It was intended to prevent the undermining of the government's position.[2]

    The Act was passed following George Logan's unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, and violation of the Logan Act is a felony.

    To date, only one person has ever been indicted for violating the act's provisions.[2] However, no person has ever been prosecuted for alleged violations of the act.[2]

    Joe Smith, 2/13/2017 3:00 PM EST

    Yet ANOTHER fake news story based on "anonymous sources". The media is now nothing more than a means for distributing rumors, dressed up to look like "news" by labeling the rumor mongers as "anonymous sources".

    Stan Lippmann , 2/13/2017 2:27 PM EST

    This Russian nonsense is not going to fly. Why should anyone believe a word of this story? So what if Flynn discussed sanctions anyway! Who are these traitors in the State Department, and why are they still on the payroll? The majority of the public is not going to buy this nonsense , you are still in denial that you lost the election.

    moonshadow168, 2/13/2017 5:45 PM EST

    Looks like a preemptive set up so that Obama's historic legacy-building tough-guy sanctions, in response to imaginary "election hacking", will not be touched. If anyone dares question Obama's historic legacy-building tough-guy sanctions, in response to imaginary "election hacking", then they must be "in cahoots" with those darn Russians who "hacked the election".

    Meanwhile, President Trump continues to do good work for all Americans.

    Scott Cog, 2/13/2017 1:30 PM EST

    Americans want to know if kickbacks are/were being offered (by Russians) to Flynn and other Trump-team members in positions to push for rollback of trade sanctions against Russia.

    moonshadow168, 2/13/2017 1:34 PM EST

    "Americans want to know"... you mean like Bill C's "speaking fees" or "donations" (cough-cough) to the family foundation? LOL!

    moonshadow168, 2/13/2017 5:52 PM EST [Edited]

    Is that an attempt to get Hillary off the hook?

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-...

    Sure looks like a distraction!

    moonshadow168, 2/13/2017 12:16 PM EST

    Funny how the words of anonymous Obama administration "current and former U.S. officials", apparently fellow Hillary supporters, are treated as unbiased, indisputable and fact.

    Laugh out loud at this, it is revealing: "Those officials were already alarmed by what they saw as a Russian assault on the U.S. election." Just so so you know what planet they are coming from. Hillary lost. You can't blame it on Russia. Get over it.

    In addition to not questioning the words of anonymous Obama administration "current and former U.S. officials" there appears to be obvious discrimination and bias against the Trump administration.

    Typhon , 2/13/2017 3:02 AM EST

    This is going to turn out to be another nothing-burger. All Trump has to do is wait it out for any proof to come up, and if it is just unsubstantiated rumors, then to just write it off as more fake news by frothy Dems ... Regarding Russian "hacking" the election, all Trump has to do is get Brennan and Clapper on the hot seat, and have them talk for hours and hours about John Podesta's Gmail password. Then ask "What else?" only to find that Big Ed at RT TV is a Russian spy!! And so is Tucker Carlson. And probably Mel Gibson too, leading to the conclusion that the Dems are a bunch of loons. Then ask "Who taught you this?" only to find out that Obama ordered an in-depth sabotage of the incoming administration

    wesevans, 2/12/2017 9:33 PM EST

    Didn't Obama do a similar thing before running for election?

    NVCardinalfan , 2/12/2017 3:22 PM EST

    Typical Washington Post, running a story without confirmed sources to back up the story. Just speculation as usual.

    clewish09, 2/12/2017 11:42 AM EST

    Russia hacked the DNC with Iraq's WMDs...

    Tyler.Woods99, 2/11/2017 3:20 PM EST

    This reminds me of Obama getting caught on a hot mic telling the Russian president, "I'll have more flexibility after the election." Signaling that the hardline against Russia would soften if he won reelection. (Clearly a national security issue.)

    But of course, it's only when the perpetually-outraged left don't like somebody holding different views than them that it becomes a 'dire constitutional crisis.'

    JungleTrunks, 2/11/2017 11:17 AM EST

    Approach the logic of the accusation in reverse, any Russian official meeting an American official will be pressed to finding an opening to discuss sanctions. Any American official knows a Russian diplomat will bring sanctions up and have a deflection to handle it. This doesn't represent a "discussion" on a diplomatic level.

    This is just another Left wing hit job with no real substance, that elevates innuendo and a passing brushed off question to the level of "negotiation". The article uses the requisite obscure language of "officials" who in turn offer little up. This is politics pure and simple.

    KingMax, 2/11/2017 11:34 AM EST

    He spoke with Kislyak the same day the sanctions were announced and then lied about what was discussed (oh, right, suddenly "couldn't remember" because, you know, it was over a month ago). But good job rationalizing his deceit.

    JungleTrunks, 2/11/2017 11:50 AM EST

    And yours is the typical cry of left wing malcontents that create as much controversy as you can from what signifies nothing. No reporter ha disclosed what actually was said. It's a virtual certainty that expected overtures were made, and typical brush off language was reciprocated. You know nothing but innuendo backed by a desire of extreme prejudice to prosecute any opportunity to defame anyone in the administration, this much is certain, the only certainty frankly.

    [Feb 16, 2017] Flynn Is Said to Have Talked to Russians About Sanctions Before Trump Took Office by MATTHEW ROSENBERG and MATT APUZZO

    Feb 09, 2017 | nytimes.com

    Federal officials who have read the transcript of the call were surprised by Mr. Flynn's comments, since he would have known that American eavesdroppers closely monitor such calls. They were even more surprised that Mr. Trump's team publicly denied that the topics of conversation included sanctions.

    The call is the latest example of how Mr. Trump's advisers have come under scrutiny from American counterintelligence officials. The F.B.I. is also investigating Mr. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort; Carter Page, a businessman and former foreign policy adviser to the campaign; and Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative.

    Prosecutions in these types of cases are rare, and the law is murky, particularly around people involved in presidential transitions. The officials who had read the transcripts acknowledged that while the conversation warranted investigation, it was unlikely, by itself, to lead to charges against a sitting national security adviser.

    But, at the very least, openly engaging in policy discussions with a foreign government during a presidential transition is a remarkable breach of protocol. The norm has been for the president-elect's team to respect the sitting president, and to limit discussions with foreign governments to pleasantries. Any policy discussions, even with allies, would ordinarily be kept as vague as possible.

    "It's largely shunned, period. But one cannot rule it out with an ally like the U.K.," said Derek Chollet, who was part of the Obama transition in 2008 and then served in senior roles at the State Department, White House and Pentagon.

    "But it's way out of bounds when the said country is an adversary, and one that has been judged to have meddled in the election," he added. "It's just hard to imagine anyone having a substantive discussion with an adversary, particularly if it's about trying to be reassuring."

    Adam Goldman and Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting.

    [Feb 15, 2017] Flynn Resignation Is a Surveillance State Coup Nightmare

    The globalist mafia is trying to destroy Trump. There might be the same part of intelligence community which is still loyal to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
    Still Flynn discussing sanctions, which could have been a violation of an 18th century law, the Logan Act, that bars unauthorized citizens from brokering deals with foreign governments involved in disputes with the United States.
    Keith Kellogg links with Oracle my be as asset to Trump team.
    Feb 15, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    As far back as the passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11, civil libertarians worried about the surveillance state, the Panopticon, the erosion of privacy rights and due process in the name of national security.

    Paranoid fantasies were floated that President George W. Bush was monitoring the library cards of political dissidents. Civil libertarians hailed NSA contractor Edward Snowden as a hero, or at least accepted him as a necessary evil, for exposing the extent of Internet surveillance under President Barack Obama.

    Will civil libertarians now speak up for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, whose career has been destroyed with a barrage of leaked wiretaps? Does anyone care if those leaks were accurate or legal?

    Over the weekend, a few honest observers of the Flynn imbroglio noted that none of the strategically leaked intercepts of his conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak proved he actually did anything wrong .

    The media fielded accusations that Flynn discussed lifting the Obama administration's sanctions on Russia – a transgression that would have been a serious violation of pre-inauguration protocol at best, and a prosecutable offense at worst. Flynn ostensibly sealed his fate by falsely assuring Vice President Mike Pence he had no such discussions with Kislyak, prompting Pence to issue a robust defense of Flynn that severely embarrassed Pence in retrospect.

    On Tuesday, Eli Lake of Bloomberg News joined the chorus of skeptics who said the hive of anonymous leakers infesting the Trump administration never leaked anything that proved Flynn lied to Pence:

    He says in his resignation letter that he did not deliberately leave out elements of his conversations with Ambassador Sergey Kislyak when he recounted them to Vice President Mike Pence. The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the transcript of the phone call reviewed over the weekend by the White House could be read different ways. One White House official with knowledge of the conversations told me that the Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn and that Flynn responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions . That's neither illegal nor improper.

    Lake also noted that leaks of sensitive national security information, such as the transcripts of Flynn's phone calls to Kislyak, are extremely rare. In their rush to collect a scalp from the Trump administration, the media forgot to tell its readers how unusual and alarming the Flynn-quisition was:

    It's very rare that reporters are ever told about government-monitored communications of U.S. citizens, let alone senior U.S. officials. The last story like this to hit Washington was in 2009 when Jeff Stein, then of CQ, reported on intercepted phone calls between a senior Aipac lobbyist and Jane Harman, who at the time was a Democratic member of Congress.

    Normally intercepts of U.S. officials and citizens are some of the most tightly held government secrets. This is for good reason. Selectively disclosing details of private conversations monitored by the FBI or NSA gives the permanent state the power to destroy reputations from the cloak of anonymity. This is what police states do.

    In the past it was considered scandalous for senior U.S. officials to even request the identities of U.S. officials incidentally monitored by the government (normally they are redacted from intelligence reports). John Bolton's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations was derailed in 2006 after the NSA confirmed he had made 10 such requests when he was Undersecretary of State for Arms Control in George W. Bush's first term. The fact that the intercepts of Flynn's conversations with Kislyak appear to have been widely distributed inside the government is a red flag.

    While President Trump contemplated Flynn's fate on Monday evening, the Wall Street Journal suggested: "How about asking if the spooks listening to Mr. Flynn obeyed the law?" Among the questions the WSJ posed was whether intelligence agents secured proper FISA court orders for the surveillance of Flynn.

    That s the sort of question that convulsed the entire political spectrum, from liberals to libertarians, after the Snowden revelations. Not long ago, both Democrats and Republicans were deeply concerned about accountability and procedural integrity for the sprawling surveillance apparatus developed by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Those are among the most serious concerns of the Information Age, and they should not be cast aside in a mad dash to draw some partisan blood.

    There are several theories as to exactly who brought Flynn down and why. Was it an internal White House power struggle, the work of Obama administration holdovers, or the alligators of the "Deep State" lunging to take a bite from the president who promised to "drain the swamp?"

    The Washington Free Beacon has sources who say Flynn's resignation is "the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump's national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran."

    Flynn has prominently opposed that deal. According to the Free Beacon, this "small task force of Obama loyalists" are ready to waylay anyone in the Trump administration who threatens the Iran deal, their efforts coordinated by the sleazy Obama adviser who boasted of his ability to manipulate the press by feeding them lies, Ben Rhodes.

    Some observers are chucking at the folly of Michael Flynn daring to take on the intelligence community, and paying the price for his reckless impudence. That is not funny – it is terrifying. In fact, it is the nightmare of the rogue NSA come to life, the horror story that kept privacy advocates tossing in their sheets for years.

    Michael Flynn was appointed by the duly elected President of the United States. He certainly should not have been insulated from criticism, but if he was brought down by entrenched, unelected agency officials, it is nearly a coup – especially if, as Eli Lake worried on Twitter, Flynn's resignation inspires further attacks with even higher-ranking targets:

    This was a major error for @Reince & @mike_pence It's now open season on this administration from without and within. #FlynnResignation

    - Eli Lake (@EliLake) February 14, 2017

    Lake's article caught the eye of President Trump, who endorsed his point that intelligence and law enforcement agencies should not interfere in U.S. politics:

    Thank you to Eli Lake of The Bloomberg View – "The NSA & FBI should not interfere in our politics and is" Very serious situation for USA

    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 15, 2017

    On the other hand, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard openly endorsed the Deep State overthrowing the American electorate and overturning the results of the 2016 election:

    Obviously strongly prefer normal democratic and constitutional politics. But if it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state.

    - Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) February 14, 2017

    Among the many things hideously wrong with this sentiment is that the American people know absolutely nothing about the leakers who brought Flynn down, and might be lining up their next White House targets at this very moment. We have no way to evaluate their motives or credibility. We didn't vote for them, and we will have no opportunity to vote them out of office if we dissent from their agenda. As mentioned above, we do not know if the material they are leaking is accurate .

    Byron York of the Washington Examiner addressed the latter point by calling for full disclosure:

    Important that entire transcript of Flynn-Kislyak conversation be released. Leakers have already cherrypicked. Public needs to see it all.

    - Byron York (@ByronYork) February 14, 2017

    That is no less important with Flynn's resignation in hand. We still need to know the full story of his downfall. The American people deserve to know who is assaulting the government they voted for in 2016. They deserve protection from the next attempt to manipulate our government with cherry picked leaks.

    They also deserve some intellectual consistency from those who have long and loudly worried about the emergence of a surveillance state, and from conservatives who claim to value the rule of law. Unknown persons with a mysterious agenda just made strategic use of partial information from a surveillance program of uncertain legality to take out a presidential adviser.

    Whether it's an Obama shadow government staging a Beltway insurrection, or Deep State officials protecting their turf, this is the nightmare scenario of the post-Snowden era or are we not having that nightmare anymore, if we take partisan pleasure in the outcome?

    [Feb 15, 2017] Its Over Folks The Neocons The Deep State Have Neutered The Trump Presidency

    Trump wants to tell Russia to do what? ( https://www.rt.com/usa/377346-spicer-russia-return-crimea/ ) ? To return Crimea? Is this what opposition to neocons means in Trumpspeak ???
    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's Over Folks" The Neocons & The "Deep State" Have Neutered The Trump Presidency ..."
    "... For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council. ..."
    "... Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. ..."
    "... Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope. ..."
    "... It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him 'an idiot '. ..."
    "... The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight. ..."
    "... Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality. ..."
    "... I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine? ..."
    "... Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns. ..."
    Feb 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    "It's Over Folks" The Neocons & The "Deep State" Have Neutered The Trump Presidency

    Submitted and Authored by The Saker

    Less than a month ago I warned that a 'color revolution ' was taking place in the USA . My first element of proof was the so-called "investigation" which the CIA, FBI, NSA and others were conducting against President Trump's candidate to become National Security Advisor, General Flynn. Last night, the plot to get rid of Flynn has finally succeeded and General Flynn had to offer his resignation . Trump accepted it.

    Now let's immediately get one thing out of the way: Flynn was hardly a saint or a perfect wise man who would single handedly saved the world. That he was not.

    However, what Flynn was is the cornerstone of Trump's national security policy . For one thing, Flynn dared the unthinkable: he dared to declare that the bloated US intelligence community had to be reformed. Flynn also tried to subordinate the CIA and the Joint Chiefs to the President via the National Security Council.

    Put differently, Flynn tried to wrestle the ultimate power and authority from the CIA and the Pentagon and subordinate them back to the White House. Flynn also wanted to work with Russia. Not because he was a Russia lover, the notion of a Director of the DIA as a Putin-fan is ridiculous, but Flynn was rational, he understood that Russia was no threat to the USA or to Europe and that Russia had the West had common interests. That is another absolutely unforgivable crimethink in Washington DC.

    The Neocon run 'deep state' has now forced Flynn to resign under the idiotic pretext that he had a telephone conversation, on an open, insecure and clearly monitored, line with the Russian ambassador.

    And Trump accepted this resignation.

    Ever since Trump made it to the White House, he has taken blow after blow from the Neocon-run Ziomedia, from Congress, from all the Hollywood doubleplusgoodthinking "stars" and even from European politicians. And Trump took each blow without ever fighting back. Nowhere was his famous "you are fired!" to be seen. But I still had hope. I wanted to hope. I felt that it was my duty to hope.

    But now Trump has betrayed us all.

    Remember how Obama showed his true face when he hypocritically denounced his friend and pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. ? Today, Trump has shown us his true face. Instead of refusing Flynn's resignation and instead of firing those who dared cook up these ridiculous accusations against Flynn, Trump accepted the resignation. This is not only an act of abject cowardice, it is also an amazingly stupid and self-defeating betrayal because now Trump will be alone, completely alone, facing the likes of Mattis and Pence – hard Cold Warrior types, ideological to the core, folks who want war and simply don't care about reality.

    Again, Flynn was not my hero. But he was, by all accounts, Trump's hero. And Trump betrayed him.

    The consequences of this will be immense. For one thing, Trump is now clearly broken. It took the 'deep state' only weeks to castrate Trump and to make him bow to the powers that be . Those who would have stood behind Trump will now feel that he will not stand behind them and they will all move back away from him. The Neocons will feel elated by the elimination of their worst enemy and emboldened by this victory they will push on, doubling-down over and over and over again.

    It's over, folks, the deep state has won. From now on, Trump will become the proverbial shabbos-goy , the errand boy of the Israel lobby. Hassan Nasrallah was right when he called him 'an idiot '.

    The Chinese and Iranian will openly laugh. The Russians won't – they will be polite, they will smile, and try to see if some common sense policies can still be salvaged from this disaster. Some might. But any dream of a partnership between Russia and the United States has died tonight.

    The EU leaders will, of course, celebrate. Trump was nowhere the scary bogeyman they feared. Turns out that he is a doormat – very good for the EU.

    Where does all this leave us – the millions of anonymous 'deplorables' who try as best we can to resist imperialism, war, violence and injustice?

    I think that we were right in our hopes because that is all we had – hopes. No expectations, just hopes. But now we objectively have very little reasons left to hope. For one thing, the Washington 'swamp' will not be drained. If anything, the swamp has triumphed. We can only find some degree of solace in two undeniable facts:

    1. Hillary would have been far worse than any version of a Trump Presidency.
    2. In order to defeat Trump, the US deep state has had to terribly weaken the US and the AngloZionist Empire. Just like Erdogan' purges have left the Turkish military in shambles, the anti-Trump 'color revolution' has inflicted terrible damage on the reputation, authority and even credibility of the USA.

    The first one is obvious. So let me clarify the second one. In their hate-filled rage against Trump and the American people (aka "the basket of deplorables") the Neocons have had to show they true face. By their rejection of the outcome of the elections, by their riots, their demonization of Trump, the Neocons have shown two crucial things: first, that the US democracy is a sad joke and that they, the Neocons, are an occupation regime which rules against the will of the American people. In other words, just like Israel, the USA has no legitimacy left. And since, just like Israel, the USA are unable to frighten their enemies, they are basically left with nothing, no legitimacy, no ability to coerce. So yes, the Neocons have won. But their victory is removes the last chance for the US to avoid a collapse.

    Trump, for all his faults, did favor the US, as a country, over the global Empire. Trump was also acutely aware that 'more of the same' was not an option. He wanted policies commensurate with the actual capabilities of the USA. With Flynn gone and the Neocons back in full control – this is over. Now we are going to be right back to ideology over reality.

    Trump probably could have made America, well, maybe not "great again", but at least stronger, a major world power which could negotiate and use its leverage to get the best deal possible from the others. That's over now. With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at any level.

    I am quite sure that nobody today is celebrating in the Kremlin. Putin, Lavrov and the others surely understand exactly what happened. It is as if Khodorkovsy would have succeeded in breaking Putin in 2003. In fact, I have to credit Russian analysts who for several weeks already have been comparing Trump to Yanukovich, who also was elected by a majority of the people and who failed to show the resolve needed to stop the 'color revolution' started against him. But if Trump is the new Yanukovich, will the US become the next Ukraine?

    Flynn was very much the cornerstone of the hoped-for Trump foreign policy. There was a real chance that he would reign in the huge, bloated and all-powerful three letter agencies and that he would focus US power against the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis. With Flynn gone, this entire conceptual edifice has now come down. We are going to be left with the likes of Mattis and his anti-Iranian statements. Clowns who only impress other clowns.

    Today's Neocon victory is a huge event and it will probably be completely misrepresented by the official media. Ironically, Trump supporters will also try minimize it all. But the reality is that barring a most unlikely last-minute miracle, it's over for Trump and the hopes of millions of people in the USA and the rest of the world who had hoped that the Neocons could be booted out of power by means of a peaceful election. That is clearly not going to happen.

    I see very dark clouds on the horizon.

    * * *

  • UPDATE1 : Just to stress an important point: the disaster is not so much that Flynn is out but what Trump's caving in to the Neocon tells us about Trump's character (or lack thereof). Ask yourself – after what happened to Flynn, would you stick your neck out for Trump?
  • UPDATE2 : Just as predicted – the Neocons are celebrating and, of course, doubling-down:
  • Son of Captain Nemo , Feb 14, 2017 10:12 PM

    Trump wants to tell Russia to do what? ( https://www.rt.com/usa/377346-spicer-russia-return-crimea/ )

    Here is the REAL United States of America President ( https://www.israelrising.com/bibi-netanyahu-president-trump-see-eye-eye-... ) Booby!!!

    Smell the fetid gas coming out of this "Gluteal Cleft with horns" that owns the U.S. military!

    [Feb 15, 2017] The entirety of tRump's foreign policy doesn't revolve around Flynn's status

    Feb 15, 2017 | thesaker.is
    > Outlaw Historian on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:05 pm UTC
    The entirety of tRump's foreign policy doesn't revolve around Flynn's status. Has tRump decided to reinstate the TTP and TTIP as "trade" policy goals? Decided to not renegotiate/pull out of NAFTA and other so-called trade pacts? Pull back/reconsolidate the Empire of Bases? Attempt to totally disrupt China's OBOR or Russia's EEU through the use of terrorist proxies as HRC's Neocons planned? Then there's Flynn's illogical hatred of Iran and the complications that posed for reestablishing cordial relations with Russia. And those points are just a few of many.

    IMO, Saker and other commentators have reacted in knee-jerk fashion to Flynn's resignation, for he didn't represent the be-all/end-all of tRump's foreign policy agenda. I'm far more disturbed by many of tRump's cabinet choices plus the fact that they were confirmed despite their lies and criminal actions, which is what's provoked most of the resistance to the current national government–congress especially.

    [Feb 15, 2017] The Neocons and the deep state have neutered the Trump Presidency, its over folks! (UPDATED 2x) The Vineyard of the Saker

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It is difficult to avoid the impression that Flynn formed his ideas about Iran as a US intelligence officer during the George W. Bush administration's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both of those wars Iran and the US pursued parallel but often conflicting strategies, with both countries seeking the defeat of fundamentalist Sunni Jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq, but wanting to prevent the other country from emerging the undisputed victor. The result was what might be called 'duplicitous cooperation', with Iran and the US simultaneously working with and against each other in an often totally ruthless and treacherous way. ..."
    "... Flynn was as much a warmonger as other Neo-Cons, he was just more focused on Iran and friendlier towards Russia. The next goal in the US grand strategy in the mid-east is Iran though, and as such he was the choice Trump went for when picking him. I think the Saker is overreacting a bit here, maybe he was hoping for more of a change under D Trump, which I never expected, so this early ouster to me is not as shocking as to him. ..."
    "... To say the firing of Flynn alone was the breaking point for Trump's administration, vastly over-estimates the president's wilingness or ability to take on the US deep-state. Had he wanted to do so, why pick Pompeo as head of the CIA? Why cosy up to Saudi-Arabia? ..."
    "... Anyway, on the grand chess board of things a pawn just tumbled and fell, because the King would not protect him. But it was just a pawn and the pieces will have to keep on moving. ..."
    "... As i said it from the beginning, this so called trump hype was way over exaggerated and this wishful thinking of Trump-Putin duo saving the world was ridiculous. Putin's Russia is clearly rejecting the very foundation of what is the current USA, the petro $, so unless Putin was planning to return Russia to it's 90's era Zio-colony, there could never have been a common ground between the two. ..."
    "... Besides that there were also other signs like, an ex goldman sachs and soros fund management banker at the head of the secretary treasury, the constant hammering by the media about trump (as contrary to the complete black out on someone like Dr Ron Paul) ..."
    "... At last the truth. I was getting fed up with all the Trump fans. He never did anything to deserve the adulation. Since being in the whitehouse it has been a mess. He had not shown any foresight or strategic thinking. Whatever cards he had to play he wasted them l ..."
    "... He has employed a whole team of neocons and as for any Russian partnership with the USA this was never ever going to happen – I don't even know why anyone would think so, There are too many differences. As for Flynn he was extremely anti Iranian how is that good for Russia ..."
    "... Trump, like Nixon, has awoken the "silent majority" and has done us a great service by attacking political correctness. Trump, like Nixon, had to surround himself with members of the tribe that owns Congress, in order to have a fighting chance of success. Trump, like Nixon will not succeed, because the minefields were laid before he was sworn in. ..."
    "... The fact that outsider Trump has: exposed the internationalists, like Soros, for what they are; shown the "Antifa" hatefest to be ridiculously shallow; and, exposed the political activism of the courts; will pay long term dividends for those who oppose the current system. ..."
    "... I would not put too much significance to this - Trump was never some kind of knight in shining armor, but just the alternative to Clinton. He may still do a few good things here and there, but the general thrust of his ideology - and yes he not simply transactional, because US realism (realpolitik) in itself is an ideology (at the heart of capitalism and empire, in fact). ..."
    "... The deciding reason I voted for Trump is still holding - avoiding nuclear war, and it may yet hold for quite a while despite the neocons, since Clinton is not in the driver's seat. ..."
    "... It's a war and when you realize it really is a war, and there is no easy, quick "peace channel" to switch to, you may as well figure you more than likely won't live through this war, so you're already a dead man or woman walking.. ..."
    "... There is not a no-fly-zone in Syria, and we are not composed of radioactive ash. That's quite significant. The president is not all together but he is not the raging psychopath Clinton is. Let us be thankful for 'small blessings'. I don't recall anyone promising a rose garden. ..."
    "... For those of us with a HCIS (High Cynical Index Syndrome) Trump and his circus clowns were simply a lesser flop than Clinton and her criminal gang. ..."
    "... Flynn was already compromised by the very neocon elements of which you write: Michael Ledeen. ..."
    "... And I would add, the counter argument to your neutered Trump, although I agree reasonable, is the clear signal that "You're fired!" applies to all and everyone. I doubt Pence is 100% bullet proof, nor beyond sacrifice if needs be. ..."
    "... Nasrallah has it right. Trump is a limited character, a one term President at best. Most of us will be only too glad to be fooled again when Ms. Gabbard makes it to position 1 or 2 on the next Democratic Presidential ticket. ..."
    "... Trump is the periphery displacing the centre in a Corporate dictatorship, it is the same when the Grand Council of Fascism ousted Mussolini and arrested him, as Trump did to Hillary Clinton's turn, but the real power exerts itself to reverse the decision. ..."
    "... Trouble is when giants fight little people get squashed. The empire has been squashing people by the millions for half a century (and before that). So I have indifference as to who gets hurt, I just want it to stop. If the US people are the last victims, then so be it. ..."
    "... But we keep calm because we are sure that if amateur analysts could see through the fog of deception, the Russians saw it long before. Be sure that all counter-measures are in place. ..."
    "... Can we get some name recognition for the Russians who were comparing Trump to Yanukovich from the start? Who were they? ..."
    "... You mean Trump is "White People's Obama" ? ..."
    "... It is naive from the get go to think that Trump will undo the Neocons' agenda that started since 911! Trump from the beginning should have made sure the backings of the majority of the American people including the immigrants, remain neutral on Muslim issues, Russia, any policies that the fake liberals would have reason to antagonize him with, in order to minimize protests against him, like the fake Obama and Clintons. Once elected, he could then implement his policies. His administration and presidency campaign may have been sabotaged from the get go so that they have reason to blame him with afterwards. ..."
    "... Flynn's departure is probably a sign of things to come: more neo-conservativism, more empire building, and more neoliberalism: back to the Washington Consensus – which never really disappeared. ..."
    "... I essentially agree with the premise that the conflict between the Establishment and Trump is basically over Trump being elected as someone who didn't rise through, and was not acculturated in a conventional Establishment political milieu. I further agree that Flynn's resignation represents an important Establishment victory. However, the notion that Donald Trump represented the last chance to avert a major US meltdown, that he aspired to significantly change the path our capitalist system is pursuing, is quite frankly, hyperbole. You endow Donald Trump with undeserved importance. ..."
    "... Donald Trump does not represent now, nor did he ever, a challenge to the prevailing neo-liberal system. Even if he had parried Establishment's previous challenges, or goes to ultimately push back successfully against existing and future challenges to his policies, there will not be a historical, significant change to ruling class domestic policies. Any alteration in US foreign policies, would be selective, and would not persist in the long term. Donald Trump, for all his idiosyncrasies, is very much a ruling class individual, possessing ruling class ideology. ..."
    "... Folks, think about it, Trump's campaign had a hole in it from the beginning; the contradiction of Russia Vs Israel. The relationship between those two nations is paradox: Russia contradicts what Israel wants in the ME. Trump can't be pro Russia and pro Israel at the same time. ..."
    "... The trump regime really should be called the pence regime, since it is obvious now that pence manages it and trump is mostly the "showman" mouth and face. ..."
    "... The conversation of flynn and the Russian ambassador being the cause seems to me to be a phony reason. I speculate the real reason is something else. It could be about Russian relations, in which case, maybe flynn was actually more open to warming these, and pence/trump were not (trump having lied). They had a disagreement and flynn left. ..."
    "... It is also possible the israelis ordered flynn's resignation for reasons unknown by me. They've done this before, and this whole scenario has a strong deja vu feel. Remember Andrew Young? They got him fired in almost the exact same manner, hyping a conversation he had with a Palestinian in their zio-gay media and forcing carter to fire him. Only in Young's case, mossad spied on him and leaked info about Young's meeting with Palestinians to the zio-gay media. ..."
    "... It's just a dispute between 2 factions of the Zionist empire with Trump representing the more cautious faction. ..."
    "... I think Flynn was a Trojan horse planted by the neocons himself. His history shows a career full of anti-Iran sentiment and an excessive push for a harsher approach toward that country, I can't seem to see why his removal is necessarily a bad thing ..."
    "... What I don't understand is this. We see and read of the power exerted by the liberal/neocon "deep state" and their abilities to disrupt and damage Trump's presidency. But in order to get where he has gotten to today, Trump must have some powerful backers too. So where are these powerful Trump supporters and what are they doing if anything? ..."
    Feb 15, 2017 | thesaker.is
    bjo on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:36 am UTC
    I don't hold out much hope that enough people in this country will wake up under any circumstances. Essay by Caitlin Johnson (Feb 5) on the enjoyment of "liberals" participating in "fear porn" is interesting in this regard.

    http://www.newslogue.com/debate/323/CaitlinJohnstone

    Laika von old Monkshusen on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:33 pm UTC
    Yes well, these aren't people of course but sheeple. They do not count anyway, otherwise they wouldn't watch JM$M, nor even worry about their totally obvious pack of lies (Caitlin Johnson).

    II completely agree with Saker's point 2, which is all there is to it, anyway. I don't see what is the big deal about this Flynn. He's just a Nazi 'educated' general, not unlike all the rest of them (otherwise they wouldn't be generals). I only once saw him on RT's SophieCo and I didn't like him at all. It (the interview) was a meaningless catastrophe actually.

    As long as Trump isn't assassinated (or poisoned/disabled) things are going just fine. The Roth-child mob is certainly trying to do that. It's been these posonous rats' trademark for centuries. Givi was one of their latest victims.

    Othmar Regin on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:57 pm UTC
    Both Trump and AfD where (are, not so much anymore) possibly the last hope for a peaceful solution.. everything else means civil/war
    AriusArmenian on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:25 pm UTC
    Another round of suffering is in the near term and beyond which is a continuation of the trajectory the US has been on since the end of the Cold War. With the start of the previous three US administrations there was always hope for better but it always ended up worse.

    Why should we not expect more millions to suffer and more death and destruction? The US neocon/neolib ruled Deep State with Wall St and its intelligence agency jackals at it core want more and will kill and destroy to get it and will continue until they run up against a brick wall. It is up to the powers in the East, with Russia and China at its core, to stop the US and its Anglosphere and EU vassals.

    All my hopes for the future depend on the Eastern powers standing up to the US. There is nothing in the West to give me any hope that it can correct itself.

    T1 on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:20 am UTC
    Well said. Can anyone say "President Pence?"
    Mr Pindo on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:00 am UTC
    Indeed, If Trump did everything on Saker's list he would already be dead and Pence would be president in a manner that is more than figurative.
    nice try on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:31 pm UTC
    While the US neocon Deep State as revealed itself to intelligent observers (like Saker and his readers), the US general public is still as clueless as ever, caught in the MSM web of Bernays-ian duopoly identity politics. No, Pence is looking to be the new Dick Cheney, the power behind the buffoon. That way the US public will not see his hand manipulating the Trump-puppet.
    Veritas on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:01 pm UTC
    Dear The Saker,

    https://www.rt.com/news/377282-flynn-resignation-kremlin-usa/

    The end of this RT article states the following: "General Keith Kellogg was appointed as acting national security advisor after Flynn's resignation. "

    Who is Kellogg? Here is his background:

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201702141050662670-keith-kellogg-biography/

    Veritas on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:46 pm UTC
    Wikileaks have claimed the following:

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201702141050674796-wikileaks-flynn-resignation/

    "Former US National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has made a decision to step down as a result of a destabilization campaign by the media, intelligence community and the Democratic party, WikiLeaks said on Tuesday .."

    Another article which puts some perspective:

    http://theduran.com/first-defeat-donald-trump-michael-flynn-resigns/

    Ann on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:07 pm UTC
    well. Cynthia McKinney, on her FB page commented "Good, but for different reasons than they're stating" Flynn was a jerk .good riddance.
    Uncle Bob 1 on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:43 am UTC
    It seems that VP Pence, in league with the deep-state was the driving force behind the Flynn resignation. Trump made a fatal error in picking a Russophobe neo-con for his Vice President. It will most likely end destroying him. If you are going to have a "second in command" who isn't totally loyal to you. At least you pick one you can control. He made the mistake of not doing that. And unlike others in the regime. Even if Trump wanted to, he can't fire his Vice President. He was elected to office,at the same time as Trump. So he's stuck with him.
    AlfaAlfalfa on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:08 am UTC
    Trump did not select Pence anymore than Reagan selected Bush, who later tried to kill him very early in his Presidency. Pence was appointed as an overseer and guarantor of the Necon Deep State interests. If Trump does not play ball he will be eliminated quicker than you can say JFK. The calls for his assasination in MSM, couched as 'predictions,' were too frequent to ignore.
    Frankie on February 15, 2017 , · at 4:39 am UTC
    Trump is pathetic. I never trusted much on him. He's weak and has no idea of strategic play.
    Robert HARNEIS on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:44 am UTC
    Let us hope you are wrong. Perhaps his chief of staff Kellogg and possible sucessor will fulfill the same role as Flynn with less trumpets and drums.
    Kerjean on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:54 am UTC
    CNN and Fox say that they weigh for Petraeus. Yes, it's not a joke .
    Beijing Expat on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:19 pm UTC
    Whenever there is an opening the corporate media shills for a neocon
    Mr Darcy on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:59 pm UTC
    Oddly enough, when I heard about Flynn, the first thing to pop into my head was "Petraeus!" A real snake in the grass.
    albagen on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:47 am UTC
    @ saker: Why did Flynn lie about the content of the conversation?
    The Saker on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:54 am UTC
    I don't think that he did. He had to say that to protect Trump. He "took the bullet". Why would he lie about a totally benign conversation (had it been something important, an ex-Director of the DIA and a Russian Ambassador would not have used on open, insecure, line). No – Trump sacrificed him under political pressure. Disgusting.
    The Saker
    The Kulak on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:09 am UTC
    Dear Saker,

    My friend I do think this is an overreaction. I will be watching in the next few days to see if Flynn goes away quietly. Flynn may take a vacation for a while. But when he's back, probably by the end of March, I expect him to start acting as a Trump surrogate - and going after his Deep State adversaries with both barrels. Watch for leaks of memos warning John Brennan about the rise of ISIS in 2014 or that TOW missiles and other US arms sent to 'moderate rebels' in Syria were flowing to Al Nusra/Qaeda if not ISIS. If there is no pushback or punishment of the neocons in govmt through firings of WaPost/NYT sources and further exposure of neocon complicity in the rise of Daesh, and if all the talk of detente with Russia comes to nought by summer, then I'll agree with this analyses by the Saker.

    I do concur that none of this makes much sense unless Flynn was carrying out his boss's orders to see if he could basically cool off the confrontation Obama was deliberately creating with the Russians. It is hard to be a patriot who does the right thing and has his name dragged through the mud for it, but at least Flynn is still young enough to fight back - together with his son Mike Flynn Jr. who while not the most competent guy seems fiercely loyal to his dad.

    The war to root out the neocons is a long one, and requires patience. If Trump is going to fight back, he needs ammo and allies from within the Deep State prepared to nail some of their colleagues on their soft coup actions and arming of terrorists, among other things. Putin had a critical mass of 'siloviki' who were prepared to do what needed to be done. Does Trump?

    Greg Schofield on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:58 am UTC
    Remember when Varoufakis stepped aside and then what happened to Syriza. These people take no prisoners, obey no rule they just apply pressure, there will be no respite they will pick another and then another. This is the beginning of the final showdown between the corporate powers and the people, by proxy as a factional war, but the Saker is right they lose everything in winning the first battle.
    Greg Schofield on February 14, 2017 , · at 11:51 pm UTC
    Sorry Mr. Dacy I can be cryptic.

    Read it in reverse, that is this group the core of US imperialism has had a minor setback with Trump, they are correcting it, but their blunt force way in which they rule the world is now applied to the home state (the US). It is like using a sledge hammer to crack an egg, it works but the results aren't useful.

    Trump does not have an organisation behind him, he represents a set of interests larger than his associates, but together they form a small faction that orbits the core power group. So Trump has a small tight web which is being pulled apart, and a large popular tendrils from the base up to his group there is no coordinating centre that links these two.

    So Trump is vulnerable and was always vulnerable, he may occasionally act interdependently, but he does not have a powerful base so he looses, he must lose. That part is Obama part 2. However, what is incredible is the ineptness and weakness of the 'powerful hub' that has changed since 2008.

    Excessive hegemonic force spends itself by such complete mobilisation, it looses its coordinating ability by overusing it. People wise up very fast now, illusions simply fall away, The real fight is now on the schedule, between the people's public interest and cabal of private corporate interests.

    If instead of taming or eliminating Trump they used him as a proxy to paper over the big problem,es and patch up the small ones (Obama could not they owned him too well), then the regime would last longer, internally strengthen. Some, if not most of what Trump is saying is not directed at people but at the core power group, he actually is a reformer of their more daft policies - but they are too corrupt for that they only now know the course they are on and anything that suggests change is threat to their control - that is weakness and it is showing internationally.

    The empire is starting to deteriorate internally, the client states are floating away, Australia is so 'Hillary' bound that there has been a US troop increase in Darwin (doubling thew strength) and a continued partisanship against Trump politically and in the media -- we have always been so loyal to every US president until now, and that knot has been severed. This is happening all over.

    Internal to the US the last vestige of of connection between the people, which was the presidential office, and the state has been fatally eroded. Soros has loosed the dogs, and when the participants sober up, they will not go back to their kennels to be released again - forces are being spent recklessly. The media whose standing has been low fro a long time, has become a joke that it cannot recover from, being ridiculed by the public is the last connection (the mainline media was the church of the modern world - it is no longer).

    So regardless of anyone's theory or thoughts, desires or dreams, society, world wide, has divided into two camps.

    The fighting side, the side of apparent strength - "them" - have created "us". The accord that is civil society has been destroyed by them, we are already in a period of civil war. We are many but lack coherence, all our power is potential there is nothing that realises it. Anything they comes up now is new, virginal and can concentrate a lot of latent power. But this will only come about when the old discords that kept us at each other's throats are allowed to fade away.

    The irony is that Trump was their last best chance.

    Beijing Expat on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:41 am UTC
    I agree. Flynn did what all good soldiers do and fell on his sword for the boss. You have to remember, Flynn probably represented the faction of the elite that wanted to bring back reality. That elite is still there and Flynn can work with them behind the scenes. Look at Roger Stone who left the campaign in August and has been working hard behind the scenes, mostly behind the scenes with the alternative media (infowars) to great effect.

    Flynn is a huge loss to Trump and the country. But the battle is not over yet. There were several times during the campaign when I thought it was over but Trump just kept on winning against impossible odds.

    I don't think Trump is tired of winning yet. And don't forget, his support grows a little every day.

    pogohere on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:05 pm UTC
    It's not at all clear that Flynn's fall is such a great loss: Flynn and the colonels have a thing for Iran that will do no one any good:

    The colonels shaping Trump's Middle East policy

    2-9-17

    Underneath the drama and chaos of the Donald Trump White House - the rival power centers, combative press conferences mercilessly mocked on Saturday Night Live, leaked transcripts of Trump's phone calls to allied leaders, and the often inflammatory tweeter-in-chief, fuming over the latest perceived insult while watching "Morning Joe" - a cadre of deeply serious, tested military intellectuals at the National Security Council is shaping Trump's Middle East policies.

    http://tinyurl.com/zt6k4td

    Transcript: Michael Flynn on ISIL

    Read the full transcript of our discussion about the rise of ISIL, the War on Terror, torture and how to deal with Iran.

    13 Jan 2016

    http://tinyurl.com/hww2e4x

    Mr Darcy on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:08 pm UTC
    Most interesting. Thanks for posting. I hope you're right.
    pogohere on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:57 pm UTC
    Your ideas of what constitutes the Deep State have proven to be too shallow. See: http://breskin.com/Inquiramus/2017/01/18/the-deep-state/ There's a reason for Obama to have vacationed in Bariloche, Argentina in 2016. See: http://tinyurl.com/hrd3haw and http://tinyurl.com/zds85no

    Your hopes for the Trump administration were based on sentiment, not on political calculation. Trump is over his head.

    The IMF meets April 21-23 in Wash DC. Quotas are up for review. A fall in the US quota of 16.53% ( https://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/memdir/members.aspx ) below 15% would eliminate the US veto on major actions that requires an 85% majority. The shake up in confidence in the global monetary regime should not be underestimated. April may come in like a lamb, but it may not go out as one.

    The Reshetnikov interview is a gem. Thanks for that. Russia appears to be a civilization pulling itself together and searching for its cultural metaphors, as the man said:

    "An Idea is what always wins, and if we do not offer an Idea but are offering just material values instead, we will only achieve temporary solutions that are essentially failures.
    . . .
    Attempts at resolving the conflicts among the nations or the states using exclusively economic methods are doomed, that's is why we are losing."

    http://thesaker.is/general-reshetnikov-return-to-the-empire-superbly-controversial-interview/

    Avarachan on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:58 am UTC
    Regarding Gen. Flynn and Iran, I recommended this article from "The Duran": http://theduran.com/general-flynn-hate-iran/

    "It is difficult to avoid the impression that Flynn formed his ideas about Iran as a US intelligence officer during the George W. Bush administration's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both of those wars Iran and the US pursued parallel but often conflicting strategies, with both countries seeking the defeat of fundamentalist Sunni Jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq, but wanting to prevent the other country from emerging the undisputed victor. The result was what might be called 'duplicitous cooperation', with Iran and the US simultaneously working with and against each other in an often totally ruthless and treacherous way.

    It is not difficult to see why against this background General Flynn as a front line intelligence officer might come to see the Iranians as deceitful and treacherous, and conclude that they can't be trusted, and why he might develop an intense loathing for them. Thus his interview with Al-Jazeera is peppered with comments like this

    'I could go on and on all day about Iran and their behaviour, you know, and their lies, flat out lies, and then their spewing of constant hatred, no matter whenever they talk.'"

    Alexander P on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:46 am UTC
    Thank you for this summary Avarachan. Flynn was as much a warmonger as other Neo-Cons, he was just more focused on Iran and friendlier towards Russia. The next goal in the US grand strategy in the mid-east is Iran though, and as such he was the choice Trump went for when picking him. I think the Saker is overreacting a bit here, maybe he was hoping for more of a change under D Trump, which I never expected, so this early ouster to me is not as shocking as to him.

    This doesn't mean there wasn't any infighting in the deep state on organizational matters and raw power, but foreign policy wise, I doubt this move will much alter the very pre-determined course of history. Iran has been singled out, Ryan used the term 'You have been put on notice', after a completely legal missile launch by Teheran and Trump's rhetoric with his Tweets towards Teheran are saying as much. I don't get why anyone can't see that. To say the firing of Flynn alone was the breaking point for Trump's administration, vastly over-estimates the president's wilingness or ability to take on the US deep-state. Had he wanted to do so, why pick Pompeo as head of the CIA? Why cosy up to Saudi-Arabia?

    Anyway, on the grand chess board of things a pawn just tumbled and fell, because the King would not protect him. But it was just a pawn and the pieces will have to keep on moving.

    Riadh on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:11 pm UTC
    As i said it from the beginning, this so called trump hype was way over exaggerated and this wishful thinking of Trump-Putin duo saving the world was ridiculous. Putin's Russia is clearly rejecting the very foundation of what is the current USA, the petro $, so unless Putin was planning to return Russia to it's 90's era Zio-colony, there could never have been a common ground between the two.

    Besides that there were also other signs like, an ex goldman sachs and soros fund management banker at the head of the secretary treasury, the constant hammering by the media about trump (as contrary to the complete black out on someone like Dr Ron Paul)

    Clearly this is a "non événement" and just another nail in the US coffin.

    James lake on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:07 am UTC
    At last the truth. I was getting fed up with all the Trump fans. He never did anything to deserve the adulation. Since being in the whitehouse it has been a mess. He had not shown any foresight or strategic thinking. Whatever cards he had to play he wasted them l

    He has employed a whole team of neocons and as for any Russian partnership with the USA this was never ever going to happen – I don't even know why anyone would think so, There are too many differences. As for Flynn he was extremely anti Iranian how is that good for Russia

    Curmudgeon on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:53 pm UTC
    Trump, like Nixon, has awoken the "silent majority" and has done us a great service by attacking political correctness. Trump, like Nixon, had to surround himself with members of the tribe that owns Congress, in order to have a fighting chance of success. Trump, like Nixon will not succeed, because the minefields were laid before he was sworn in.

    The fact that outsider Trump has: exposed the internationalists, like Soros, for what they are; shown the "Antifa" hatefest to be ridiculously shallow; and, exposed the political activism of the courts; will pay long term dividends for those who oppose the current system.

    My late Vietnam vet cousin predicted another revolution, but not in his lifetime. More of this treachery will only build the pyre waiting for a spark.

    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:14 am UTC
    I would not put too much significance to this - Trump was never some kind of knight in shining armor, but just the alternative to Clinton. He may still do a few good things here and there, but the general thrust of his ideology - and yes he not simply transactional, because US realism (realpolitik) in itself is an ideology (at the heart of capitalism and empire, in fact).

    As for the neocons, one might recall the advice (Sun Tzu?) that one should never intervene when the enemy is making a mistake. The deciding reason I voted for Trump is still holding - avoiding nuclear war, and it may yet hold for quite a while despite the neocons, since Clinton is not in the driver's seat.

    As for the economy, Trump, overall, will still bring it down, if simply by not averting the previously scheduled meltdown, with further deregulation, corporate tax cuts, hand-outs to the rich, destruction of social welfare, and so on.

    It is not so much that it is over as that it was never really there, except as a very remote dream. This is just shifting another deck chair as we hit the iceberg, and all the great forces are still in play, albeit with the Clinton monster exorcised and sporting a necklace of garlic. The situation itself has improved, however, with Trump winning, and with more people more awake than ever in the last century. A lot more people can now see the iceberg.

    Bro 93 on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:45 am UTC
    Nice metaphors, blue! One after the other. And many cool under pressure comments I have read in this thread. That's comforting. I can turn in and sleep soundly. I'm not joking. It's a war and when you realize it really is a war, and there is no easy, quick "peace channel" to switch to, you may as well figure you more than likely won't live through this war, so you're already a dead man or woman walking..

    And just count your blessings if your grim assessment is wrong.

    James lake on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:16 am UTC
    Can we have some some sense analysis now based on what is happening not what people want to happen

    1. Ukraine escalation
    2. NATO on Russia's borders
    3. Exercises in the black sea
    4. Anti Iranian rhetoric and sanctions
    5. The smearing of Syrian govt by amnesty international
    6. Unrest in Iraq – what is going on geolpolitical impact
    7. Afghanistan – smearing or Russia

    There is a whole list of issues that will impact Russia now can we talk about them instead of Trump

    The environment around Russia has not improved and is set to get worse – Russia would be stupid to have relaxed its guard. They need to behave as if Hillary was elected

    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:54 am UTC
    There is not a no-fly-zone in Syria, and we are not composed of radioactive ash. That's quite significant. The president is not all together but he is not the raging psychopath Clinton is. Let us be thankful for 'small blessings'. I don't recall anyone promising a rose garden.
    E on February 15, 2017 , · at 12:05 am UTC
    Trump told Erdogan and the Saudis if they can pay for it the US will back a NFZ in Syria. That's my assumption.
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:38 am UTC
    Also add:
    8. Bling medals for the Saudi regime.
    9. Unlimited honey pot $$$ for the Israeli apartheid state.
    10. Media back out of Yemen crisis.
    Sam on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:54 pm UTC
    @ james

    Russia would be stupid to have relaxed its guard They need to behave as if Hillary was elected. Agreed, exactly right, James!

    bjo on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:45 am UTC
    So pleased to find this commentary here after having felt pretty sick about this development ever since it was reported tonight. Very grim. Have always thought that Trump did not pick the right close advisors in the beginning to protect him in what they had to know was going to get ugly. Agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. I got nowhere earlier tonight trying to explain my similar take to a few friends and family members. Nothing is going to save the US from its fate in the 11th hour. I find myself sometimes thinking that the collective psyche in this country actually years for its own destruction.
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:47 am UTC
    Saker,

    " the real enemy of the West: the Wahabis" ? these are the creation of the west. Saker, why not Israel? why not the "zionists"?

    Ann on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:58 am UTC
    the Wahhabis are from Saudi Arabia – although that regime was set up by England, I don't think the Wahhabis were made in the West
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:56 pm UTC
    That may be, but they were on the receiving of vast pots of excess USD courtesy of Kissingers' creation of the USD monopoly over oil pricing/sales. A cynic would suggest that the subsequent rise of extremist jihadis was forseen and deemed to be useful for the US/Anglo-Zionist Deep State.

    Just to give everyone a laugh. It seems that 250 of the most experienced Ukraine ATO forces have been sent to the Congo – to act as peacekeepers! Orwell is not only turning over in his grave, he is spinning sufficiently rapidly to give us free unlimited energy if we could only harness it.

    Rolf B on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:24 pm UTC
    "Orwell is not only turning over in his grave, he is spinning sufficiently rapidly to give us free unlimited energy if we could only harness it."
    Thank you sir, best comment of the year. :) Yes my friends, this is a war and it's gonna get ugly. Things are not moving in the right direction.
    E on February 15, 2017 , · at 12:12 am UTC
    Israel is also created by the west. The only enemy of the "west" is anybody that opposes them. See Iran, China, Russia, etc. Now enemies of the people, not crooked govs, is a different story. My enemy is NOT Russia, China, Iran but the Zionist and wahabis.
    Redford on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:56 am UTC
    From what I read Trump was mad at Flynn for two reasons. First he thinks in retrospect that the immigration ban he was pushed to sign by his advisors was a botched legal job. I guess that includes Flynn. Second it seems Flynn did lie to Trump about this, and I can't see this flyîg with Trump.

    Key Trump assets are hiring/firing and negociating. Maybe Flynn wasn't up for the job. I'll wait to see who he picks instead before making any call.

    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:46 am UTC
    "I'll wait to see who he picks instead before making any call." Exactly. The Saker is normally 'strategically' a few days/weeks late on response to tectonic shifts here he seems disappointed and early. For those of us with a HCIS (High Cynical Index Syndrome) Trump and his circus clowns were simply a lesser flop than Clinton and her criminal gang.

    Different finger puppets in the kid's burger: same business hand on the till(er), imo.

    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:04 pm UTC
    Happy to disagree with Saker this time – Trump is, thus far, a proven entity. He replaced his campaign director in his " hopeless " campaign with just 4 months left to election day with Bannon and Conway and they knocked it out of the park. Trump has a good eye for talent and I am almost sure he'll find someone like-minded as Kelly in relatively short order.

    The good captain is revealed in the storm. Trump will do what he can. It's up to us to set our jaws and move forward. OK – the deep state has declared war; Molon Labe.

    Peter AU on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:09 am UTC
    Watching the senate hearings for the Trump nominees – all nominees had to express aggression towards at least one country. The US has lived by the sword and will die by the sword.. Sooner the better.
    ioan on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:18 pm UTC
    Hi Peter, I'm glad to find you here again. Regarding the hearings, I have watched them also, my first impression was that they were like some Gestapo hearings in the Third Reich times. And as you said, everyone had to say something to satisfy the Committee in order to get their approval. Actually, all of them have been cornered.
    Cynthia McKinney on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:09 am UTC
    Flynn was already compromised by the very neocon elements of which you write: Michael Ledeen. Also, Flynn isn't the only one who can serve unflinchingly in this position. But, the Trump team will have to look beyond the tight circle of ideologues with no governance experience in order to find a suitable replacement. And yes, I do have some suggestions.
    Redford on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:23 am UTC
    If you're indeed Cynthia McKinney, it's an honor to read you here. Curious about your suggestions, although I'd probably know nothing about them initially.
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 11:04 am UTC
    Hey Cynthia !! Great and positive comment – I hope Trump can find his way – Saker's article is pretty convincing and sad.
    sarz on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:18 pm UTC
    I have a feeling all that anti-Iran rhetoric, like the anti-Russia rhetoric by all of Trump's candidates in their hearings (that Trump claimed was just them speaking their own mind, irrespective of his expressed core views), is for getting Trump's team in place without too much resistance by his own Republicans who are, after all, sworn to the neocon/Zionist order. (Who would know that better than you, Dr McKinney?}

    That means Flynn's participation in the book coauthored with Ledeen was perhaps a ruse. Sure, he could subscribe to the theoretical part that condemns Wahhabism in support of traditional Islam (as Ledeen, the neocon, would pretend to do, to look human). But the operative part took issue with not just Iran but also with Russia for their supposed support to 'terrorism'. So it looks like the whole thing was for show. Trump could have stuck it out with support for Flynn. I think there might have been other considerations. (Flynn's son was earlier an embarrassment with his pursuit of Pizzagate.) If the Saker has privileged knowledge about the critical and indispensable role of Flynn, now is the time to come out with it.

    Crosley Bendix on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:55 am UTC
    As usual, if someone wants to understand what is going on in the world, he should look up what Nasrallah has to say. Finkelstein knows the score: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpIYHXHQOzA
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:03 am UTC
    As I expressed under Redford (February 14, 2017 at 8:56 am UTC) I'll wait to see the next move.

    However, if as the Saker implies, Flynn was a key knight on Trump's board then perhaps he now has other 'duties' and freedoms to work across certain lines. Russians leaving the military to 'free lance' in the south east corners of the Ukraine come to mind.

    In any case, one step back is sometimes a strategic move for another day. And if such a screw up then why isn't John F. Tefft taking some heat for letting the trap be set?

    Trump is muddling along and his approach (so far) reminds me of Deng Xiaoping's "crossing the river by feeling the stones" analogy.

    The task of reforming the corrupt and evil saturated DC swamp can't be any less complicated than transforming China out of state communism.

    I suspect Putin et al are just shrugging their shoulders and knocking another green bottle of the wall.

    And I would add, the counter argument to your neutered Trump, although I agree reasonable, is the clear signal that "You're fired!" applies to all and everyone. I doubt Pence is 100% bullet proof, nor beyond sacrifice if needs be.

    juliania on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:22 pm UTC
    He can't be fired, but he can be assigned other duties. A certain vp Quail comes to mind. Agnew, anyone?
    Larchmonter445 on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:28 pm UTC
    Taking down Agnew was the beginning of the end of Nixon. That's how coups work. Carter: Hamilton Jordan. Reagan: Richard Allen

    JFK: His brother was always in the gunsights. Check your history and you'll see the Deep State patterns. Even Ike had ungodly pressure to drop Dulles.

    Then "mistakes" overseas. And "false flags" to get the wars going big time.

    Louis Robert on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:07 am UTC
    REMINDER "The dangerous deception called the Trump presidency."

    "I state clearly my conviction, and please recall this as Trump Presidency policies unfold after January 20, 2017 to see if I am correct or not: Donald Trump was put into office to prepare America for war, a war the banks of Wall Street and the US military industrial complex are not presently in a position economically or industrially or otherwise, geopolitically, to win. His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American Century put it in their September, 2000 report, "rebuild America's defenses." " (F. William Engdahl)

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/25/the-dangerous-deception-called-the-trump-presidency/

    ***

    In less than a month

    "With Trump broken, Russia and China will go right back to their pre-Trump stance: a firm resistance backed by a willingness and capability to confront and defeat the USA at any level."

    Empire is Empire is Empire

    Robert Ferrin on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:38 pm UTC
    No all empires fall from Rome to Spain to England and we are in the final days of the empire, bankrupt with a stagnant GDP and a 100,000,000 unemployed and poverty on the rise. For the first time since 1960 I didn't bother to vote for the country is not governed by those we elect, but those in the shadows that pull the string's as Chalmers Johnson said in his last book in the series" Dismantling The Empire" that it was "Americas Last Best Hope", and I agree with the Saker that hope is gone and its going to be a very long rough ride to the bottom with wars and rumors of war
    Srbenda Legenda on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:10 am UTC
    Thanks for the great post Mr Saker, insightful as always. Being of Serbian descent I never had a real interest in US politics as nothing would change when it came to our political interests, be they historically or morally correct.

    Naturally I despised the Bushes, especially the Clintons and like many supported Trump despite never truly believing he would succeed. We truly are in a historical moment in time and I share your thoughts regarding the "Color Revolution" currently under way in the US.

    It appears the powers that be are positioning themselves to remove him from office and I sadly predict that President Trump will lose out to the establishment who are hell bent to see his agenda destroyed!

    My optimism that President Trump would bring about true change has been shattered by his somewhat reluctance to challenge those enemies within his own "party" and administration.

    Sadly I only see this going one way and that is with President Trump walking away from this position in the foreseeable future as it is obvious the enemies abroad and within are determined to see him removed. He's clearly over his head and the establishment would happily see VP Pence and the Republican trash continue the neocon agenda and ultimately draw us that step closer to war and destruction.

    I never thought I would share the sympathies with the American people but the recent elections have demonstrated clearly to the world that despite all the posturing and illusions, the US is far from being a beacon of hope, freedom and prosperity. I truly believe President Trump genuinely wishes to "MAGA" but the opposition is too strong and with Flynn's resignation it's clear his team are working covertly to sabotage his presidency.

    For the sake of world peace I pray that President Trump succeeds but my heart tells me he will falter and step aside allowing the enemy to continue to policies of death, suffering and enslavement of the American people.

    In finishing I share your views regarding the unfolding developments and wish you and your family safety and continued success with the site. My apologies for the long post

    Il Discobolo on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:12 am UTC
    All ok what written but, if the stakes are so high, why were general Flynn and the Russian ambassador so naive?
    Nathan on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:22 am UTC
    Trump was brought in to trigger the world wide financial collapse and start war. Earlier Obama was brought in to the chant Hope and Change.
    I would give it a maximum of 4 months time before the earth caves in.
    AlfaAlfalfa on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:23 am UTC
    Well you're right about almost everything here Saker.

    One slight quibble, I suggest Trump has always been setup man for a long planned US colour revolution, though I am fairly certain he was personally unaware of it, just as he was unaware he would win the election.

    Nasrallah has it right. Trump is a limited character, a one term President at best. Most of us will be only too glad to be fooled again when Ms. Gabbard makes it to position 1 or 2 on the next Democratic Presidential ticket.

    Democracy has always been a cloak for the oligarchy.

    Always.

    Suzanne Majo De Kuyper on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:30 am UTC
    I hope that you may be wrong. it feels as if you are right. USA is over then for sure.
    Stalin on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:34 am UTC
    I always knew that hopes in Trump are baseless. I am actually happy about development, we already reach point where the war is the only escape, there's no other way around. It does NOT mean we gonna have a nuclear war, Hitler could use chemical warfare during battle for Stalingrad. He didn't use it., so neocons will not dare either, and if they do, well, a new beginning.
    ioan on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:37 pm UTC
    Well, Stalin, I confess I did have hope and still have some till Trump will meet Putin personally. (a few days ago, Putin said that he would meet Trump in Slovenia – that made to have some bad feelings) . If nothing positive comes out, then the war shall solve all the problems (as continuation of policy with other means )
    Stalin on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:49 pm UTC
    I guess you heard that picture of Russian ambassador's assassination won World Press Photo award. Disgrace!, they deserve the war. They are spoil brats, they will cry like little children. After all is done we send Chechen to clean the swamps.
    Greg Schofield on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:38 am UTC
    Another astute analysis from the Saker.

    Trump is the periphery displacing the centre in a Corporate dictatorship, it is the same when the Grand Council of Fascism ousted Mussolini and arrested him, as Trump did to Hillary Clinton's turn, but the real power exerts itself to reverse the decision.

    Trump appeases because that is all that is allowed him, his victory was measured in days, and so perhaps was Obama's. Probably there have been direct threats, this is common when anybody steps out of line with the empire, blackmail (based on real or fictitious evidence is also common), and bribes - these are not alternatives they come all at once. Being threatened, blackmailed and bribed is a common enough gangster's tactic. Then of course there are the favours, the often fake evidence of misdeeds done by the closet allies, who ride to the rescue their own fifth column having prepared the way for them. None of this excuses Trump, he uses similar but milder tactics.

    The weakness is leadership, relying on it, the saviour complex, that somehow someone will blaze the way forward and change things for us, the beaten and oppressed. It is not happening, either we take the initiative or we fix up the mess once the whole thing has exploded - we get all the danger and all the work no matter what.

    I am an Australian, my country has been run by yours since 1975 after we enjoyed three years of Independence from the US and Britain, after '75 we got US gangster-ism - no velvet glove. so my point of view is so-long as the empire collapses all is well. Trump was a faction, there is civil war in the US between the big and little barons. Let both destroy each other.

    Trouble is when giants fight little people get squashed. The empire has been squashing people by the millions for half a century (and before that). So I have indifference as to who gets hurt, I just want it to stop. If the US people are the last victims, then so be it.

    The alternative is that the people of the US do everyone a favour including themselves and take these fascists out. I use the term in its exact meaning as corporatism (where corporations and the state become a joint enterprise, fostering a class of managers in its wake). I also acknowledge something very few here have heard - this includes social fascists.

    Back in the thirties there were right wing fascists and also left wing 'social' fascists, you might recognise this in George Orwell's 1984. The fact is the liberals (social fascists par excellence) have buried this, while the militant right wing fascists have been distanced from brethren by being described as Nazis. Neo-Nazis are detestable, but strangely enough are not actually fascists so much as criminal gangs (there is a difference).

    Left and right don't make much sense when the enemy has its own left and right. So there are the corporatists (fascists ) and us, the people.

    So without leaders the people need to push and push hard, otherwise the next lot of cannon fodder will be you, not the client states, but the home state of ultra-imperialism. You do the world a favour by doing yourself a favour.

    My suggestion is open rebellion means unsuccessful slaughter, guns are not going to work. The common weapon sounds like a joke, and it is a joke as it now stands - the Law. Make the corporates subject to the law. And the first effort is not the corporates, but the judges - the judicial system needs to be purged first, and from the bottom up.

    Look for corruption, look for tax evasion, conflicts of interests anything that should qualify a judgement for acting in the people's interest and get rid of them. Never mind their sex lives, or opinions, just whether they would be fit to judge cases of corporate fraud, tax fraud, misappropriations of funds, running corporations against the interests of shareholder dividend payout, corruption etc.,

    Start the pressure locally, start with the local collaborators, ignore the higher ups, get to them later. If you are right work with lefties if you're a lefty work with right-wingers, work across the spectrum, but get the judges on the people's side by getting rid of the others - not issue based politics, but on facts, those that hobnob with the local bigwigs instead of the people, of belonging to a club where where business does private deals.

    Start doing the little things that will make local self-organisation possible and the key is not the police, not the politicians, but the judiciary. Gather evidence, and when it sufficient make it public and demand legal remedies, and if none come, then some direct action.

    RMM on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:37 pm UTC
    Your recommendations in the last para are wise. Unfortunately, Trump & team lack the required skill, and they thought they should go for the CIA first. So not, there they are: le bec dans l'eau as the French say
    Greg Schofield on February 15, 2017 , · at 12:00 am UTC
    RMM thanks. Trump could never provide what is needed. My view is that getting things right comes after getting rid of what is wrong. even if Trump was perfect with the perfect team and large coordinated popular support, he could not get things right, because of the attrition of the corrupt, and if these are 'fixed' politically rather than legally society suffers. New laws are basically a political fix.

    Redeploying existing laws, applying them to corporate entities and gaoling offenders is how a civil society works. First reform the lower judiciary, they will deal with rather small corporate misdeeds, but they will arrest criminals, who will be systematically let off by higher courts, which makes them the target for coordinated reform.

    The elimination of corrupt judiciary, the promotion of honest magistrates creates a dual power in the modern world, the old way was to organise force for a showdown, I am suggesting winning a war of attrition, not movement - they are weak there, anything else will be brutally suppressed.

    Kerjean on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:53 am UTC
    Once again, Saker was right
    And I was wrong.

    I feel terribly ill this morning. It's a disaster. Especially when I read, with horror, that Trump consider . PETRAEUS(!!!!!!!!) for the job!! It's amazing.
    Why not Nuland or Kagan as State Secretary and Breedlove as Defens Secretary?

    And what's about Bannon? I can't imagine that and Trump and Bannon are both totaly stupid and unaware.
    Engdhal and Brandon Smith, for month and month warn that Trump is a fake from head to toes. Are they right.
    If it is, we'll soon see new tension with Russia and especially in Donbass. And if it's true, we'll see mainstream medias becoming very nice indulgent with Trump. Then, all the "liberals" and "progressists" who are shouting everywere again "Trump the fascist" will soon realise they're cuckold, the medias batteries will now turn against them and they will very soon test what is the true fascism. It's a tragedy.
    If Trump is sincere, without Flynn to protect him against the services, he's dead. If Trump is a fake

    Franz on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:22 pm UTC
    Trump is the perfect President for America – ignorant, arrogant and lost – but sensing that something is not right. I am at peace since my father always told me: "Remember, even the best of them are snakes."
    WizOz on February 14, 2017 , · at 11:03 am UTC
    Saker's frustration is understandable. Seeing your hopes dashed is always painful. But the few Cassandras (yours truly among them) who had no hope whatsoever that anything good can possibly come out from making "America great again" kept their calm. We took the cold shower and puked in advance. 'We told you so' and in no uncertain terms:

    William Engdahl ("The Dangerous Deception Called The Trump Presidency"):
    "The project called the Trump Presidency has just two months before its formal beginning. Yet already the hopes and fantasies of much of the world are making him into something and someone Donald Trump most definitely is not. Donald Trump is yet another project of the same boring old patriarchs who try again and again to create a one world order that they control absolutely, a New World Order that one close Trump backer once referred to as universal fascism. Ignore the sometimes fine rhetoric in some of his speeches. Talk is cheap. If we consider rather the agenda that's taking form even in these very early days of cabinet naming, we can see that Donald Trump is the same agenda of war and global empire as Obama, as Bush before him, as Bill Clinton and Clinton's "tutor", George H.W. Bush before him. There is no good side to what the world is about to experience with President Trump."

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/25/the-dangerous-deception-called-the-trump-presidency/

    And people refuse to see the elephant trumping through the rooms of the Trump Tower (and now of the White House), blinded by the 'glamour' of Ivanka or the 'Sois belle et tais-toi' Melanie (excuse my French).

    But we keep calm because we are sure that if amateur analysts could see through the fog of deception, the Russians saw it long before. Be sure that all counter-measures are in place.

    Olli on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:23 pm UTC
    Remember that Trump has still plenty of options left. The fate of the US or, for that matter, of the world does not depend on mr Flynn whose judgement has shown so wanting that he would not have been the person to take down the bad elements among CIA et al anyhow. I trust in Trump's fighting spirit and resilience, and I expect general Flynn's resignation just to be a jump start to take on neocon elements in US governement and intelligence community seriously and, this time, hard and harsh. With whom in the lead, I don't know, but remember that the US is a vast country with lots of folk competent and willing to accept the job of draining the intelligence part of the swamp.
    Stavros Hadjiyiannis on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:47 pm UTC
    Even though I respect The Saker's opinion to a very high degree, I will have to disagree with some of the assertions made here.

    But first of all, allow me to begin with what I agree with. This is no doubt a major victory for the neocons, the Deep State and the EU. This is a loss for Russia and the USA.

    But, I'm not sure that Trump is done and dusted. From what I realize, Flynn did in fact breach protocol and the Deep State found a perfect opportunity to go on the offensive. It's still within Trump's power to appoint one of his own to replace Flynn. We'll see.

    But my main disagreement with The Saker is this. Trump (and his backers, themselves a minority within the Deep State) is not interested in cutting a deal with Russia due to any concerns about Wahabism, the neocons or any other such. Trump's reason for wanting to withdraw the US from the NATO-GCC-ISR attack on Russia, was because he wanted to divert US power and energies against China and Iran. Trump also believes that the US is not getting anything out of its unconditional support for the EU and wanted to rearrange America's posture.

    The neocons, neoliberals and Eurocrats who oppose Trump so vehemently, believe that the EU project is sacrosanct (because it weakens and undermines Russia) that Iran should be brought on their side and used against Russia (only the most Zio-fanatics are not find of this proposition) and that China can only be faced down after Russia has been annihilated. If Russia cannot be defeated, then China must only be militarily contained (so that the PRC does not turn towards Russia in a serious way) and the "Free World" can only hope that China may collapse under its own contradictions. For the US Deep State, Russia must be fought against to the most bitter end, and on this, the Europeans are in enthusiastic agreement.

    We'll see how this turns out, but this development is nothing but deeply worrying. It would be stupid to sugarcoat this.

    Baerlas on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:47 pm UTC
    I always thought that "The Empire was, is and will be the Empire" and the president is merely the figurehead of this very Empire. That was obvious president after president, "beautifully depicted" by president Obama. To really make any changes you'd need a revolution which is totally outside the mental conceptions of Western peoples today, last not least lacking leading figures who could organize the people. Similarly, dreaming about Trump changing the world for a better one was an illusion right from the start. These who have always driven this ship along will, of course, now drive Trump. So apart from a lot of shallow noise, what has changed? Nothing. And if that is correct it is still the better solution of whatever might be in the offing.
    _smr on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:56 pm UTC
    Trump is a trickster. His job is not to make America great again – an impossible task anyway, as the Masonic project 'America as the New Atlantis' was a con job from the get go and was, like any film set, built primary as an eye candy and for temporarily use only. The ZWO needed the USA as the launch pad, staging ground and propaganda central for almost resistance-less military-industrial subjection of the vast, still virgin goy-lands sprinkled all over planet Earth.

    Who cared about the enslavement of South America, Africa, South East Asia, Bolshevik Russia, Maoist China as long Hollywood kept spinning out blockbuster after blockbuster, as long as NASA made everybody proud with their staged moon landings, as long as CIA lifetime actors like Elvis Presley, Bob Dylan, Jack Nicholson, Ernest Hemingway, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk dazzled our eyes and minds with magic too good to be true.

    Now that the project is almost complete and the USA bankrupt beyond repair, the ZWO faces the tricky task of ushering in a rougher phase, while making sure the blame doesn't fall on them, but on conspiracy theorists!, Nazis!, White Supremacists!, Fake News bloggers!, sexists!, racists! and what not.

    That is where Trump comes in. All he has to do is to upset the apple cart. Saying some right words at wrong time. And some wrong things at the right time. Taking the wrong decisions at appropriate moments. Playing the joker not once, but again and again.

    This is the best we can hope for now. And Trump – Inshallah! – will deliver.

    Mairon on February 14, 2017 , · at 12:56 pm UTC
    I was always cautiously optimistic about Trump. My expectations of his were rather modest. Of course, the very first thing that recommended him was the simple fact he is not Hillary. The second, perhaps, was his unortodox approach and what seems (still in the present, I think) to be a genuine desire to shake the establishment currently pulling the string in Washington.
    He had some profound statements that were previously unthinkable from any US President (we'll stop toppling regimes).

    Taking all of that into consideration, and assuming that Trump has been sincere, there was always a huge problem for him: he is completely alone. He has no reliable allies to help him even start the battle with the power elite governing the US.
    From his first day in office, it was clear they were going to oppose him at every step and Trump has little or no means to fight back.

    I generally appreciate and agree with the Saker, but I think he is overly pessimistic here.
    In my view, Trump has already showed to be willing to fight, but the resistance is too great for one man to handle. And Trump is, more or less, alone.

    J.L.Seagull on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:00 pm UTC
    Can we get some name recognition for the Russians who were comparing Trump to Yanukovich from the start? Who were they?
    ALex on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:08 pm UTC
    You mean Trump is "White People's Obama" ?
    realist on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:10 pm UTC
    It is naive from the get go to think that Trump will undo the Neocons' agenda that started since 911! Trump from the beginning should have made sure the backings of the majority of the American people including the immigrants, remain neutral on Muslim issues, Russia, any policies that the fake liberals would have reason to antagonize him with, in order to minimize protests against him, like the fake Obama and Clintons. Once elected, he could then implement his policies. His administration and presidency campaign may have been sabotaged from the get go so that they have reason to blame him with afterwards.

    Flynn resigned during PM Abe's visit and when N Korea fired the missiles. Could these be the reason for his resignation instead of Russia?

    cortisol on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:31 pm UTC
    Look at the cuckold Trudeau and Trump meeting. Look at Trump when he is being forced to talk for the feminist agenda after 03:00. Just awful. This is total humiliation. He's finished.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqkb-sJ31S4

    Francisco Almeida on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:34 pm UTC
    I deeply admire and respect The Saker. But I think this time you rushed into final conclusions , while the game is just in its first few shots. Trump still has infinite ammo : he can replace the hell out of whoever he wants to. He won't behave as a loser and cower down.

    There'll be counter-attacks , plenty I believe. He's calling the shots, not the neo-cons. Mattis clearly states he hates wars, and he is not a traitor ; he was put there to shield Trump – and he obviously agreed – while "barking war" for domestic consumption towards keeping quiet the warmonger crowd. Smokes and mirrors game. I think the core plan is still in place.

    Gunnar Sivertsen on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:20 pm UTC
    I don't always agree with the Saker, but this time I do. The resignation of Flynn suggests that he was pushed out by the neocons and that Trump was unable – not unwilling – to prevent the push. Flynn's lie, or cover-up is neither here nor there; it's not the reason he had to resign. Trump has been left relatively isolated within his own administration. Unless he sacks some key figures, he will be politically vulnerable. So, Flynn's departure is probably a sign of things to come: more neo-conservativism, more empire building, and more neoliberalism: back to the Washington Consensus – which never really disappeared.
    Katherine on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:19 pm UTC
    "The resignation of Flynn suggests that he was pushed out by the neocons and that Trump was unable – not unwilling – to prevent the push. "

    I agree with this. I don't have evidence. But I think there must be more to the story. As for the telephone call, so what? What about the Iran-Contra meetings in Paris that sank Carter by getting a promise out of the Iranians not to free the hostages until Reagan was being sworn in? Same deal. Has anyone told Trump about that? Why not just say: Hey, there is no difference, guys! If that was OK, so was Flynn's call to Russia to say "hello, and we plan to be friends wijoo." What is, actually, wrong with that?

    There must be some other pressure on Trump. This is probably Trump's last chance to get a powerful loyalist near him. He has made it easy for his enemies on the left and right with the Bannon appointment, immigration ban, and wild words re Iran, etc.

    Katherine

    XL on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:46 pm UTC
    *puts on tinfoil hat

    Didnt Flynn accuse Hillary Clinton of being involved in chip trafficking around the time of the Pizzagate shooter? I've also read that the new media face of the Trump campaign, Stephen Miller is somehow involved with the nonsense going on behind the scenes in the WH. Is it possible these things are related?

    Astraea on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:49 pm UTC
    Trump's daughter Ivanka and his son in law Jared Kushner are apparently Lubavitch Jews. That seems even more relevant to Trump's weakness than Pence or anything much else. It was a group of Lubavitch rabbis who persuaded George Bush Junior to sign the so called "Noahide Laws" into American Law – which I find astounding, to put it mildly.

    These so called "laws" demand the beheading of all people who practice "idolatry" . According to them I think the only religion on Earth which does not allow any kind of idolatry is Islam (perhaps also the Jains). Christianity definitely, according to these sinister people, practices idolatry in the form of The Cross and pictures of Jesus and so forth.

    There have been rumors for years now about "fema camps", but there are also photographs and videos of long white painted trains with UN painted on the sides. They are three storied carriages or cabooses with flat beds in between every few of these. Someone got into these carriages, years ago, and said that there are metal benches in them with ankle irons fixed to the floors.

    On the flat beds guillotines were seen – "made in China".

    Which all makes my blood run cold. These Lubavitch really are as sinister as the original Levites!

    Talks-to-Cats on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:58 pm UTC
    A friend of mine who was in the Secret Service told me that, some years ago, they discovered a tank the "Jewish Defense League" had hidden in a warehouse in Philadelphia.
    WizOz on February 14, 2017 , · at 10:39 pm UTC
    @Ivanka and his son in law Jared Kushner are apparently Lubavitch Jews.

    They definitely are. That was a 'secret' only to the extent that nobody wanted to see it, although the sickening details were all over the place:

    "Trump was raised Presbyterian. Before her wedding, in July 2009, after studying for over a year with Rabbi Elie Weinstock from the Modern Orthodox Ramaz School, she converted to Orthodox Judaism and took the Hebrew name "Yael". She describes her conversion as an "amazing and beautiful journey" and that her father supported her studies from day one, due to his respect for the Jewish religion. She attests to keeping a kosher diet and observing the Jewish Sabbath, saying in 2015: "We're pretty observant It's been such a great life decision for me I really find that with Judaism, it creates an amazing blueprint for family connectivity. From Friday to Saturday we don't do anything but hang out with one another. We don't make phone calls."Trump sends her daughter to kindergarten at a Jewish school in New York City. She says that "It's such a blessing for me to have her come home every night and share with me the Hebrew that she's learned and sing songs for me around the holidays." (Wikipedia)

    "Trump vowed to be an advocate for women and Israel. Regarding her father's support for Israel, Trump said he would be "an unbelievable champion for Israel and for the Jewish people. You will not be disappointed."@http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/10/28/ivanka-trump-at-florida-synagogue-my-father-called-before-jewish-high-holidays-and-said-you-better-pray-hard-for-me/

    "The biblical story of Esther is an imperfect allegory for the Trump family, but as for Ivanka, the comparison isn't half bad. Esther is a Jewish woman who conceals her identity when she becomes the bride of a powerful king. It is only when she reveals who she is that she can save the Jewish people from an evil adviser plotting their destruction.

    Like Esther, Ivanka might appear to be nothing more than a pretty face until she shows that she's the savviest person in the room. Like Esther, Ivanka has a familial, almost accidental position of influence with a powerful gentile political figure. And like Esther, Ivanka's Jewishness is veiled: Something she describes as an important part of her identity and family life-she's an Orthodox convert, but she rarely agrees to talk about her faith-is essentially invisible to those who don't know it's there".She's the Orthodox daughter of David Duke's favorite candidate for president-and a perfect cipher for the anxiety of assimilation.@https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/what-should-american-jews-make-of-ivanka-trump/498476/ So much for David Duke!

    "Ynetnews reports: Businesswoman Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner have purchased a home in Washington DC in preparation for President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration. As a practicing Jewish couple, their impending move also necessitated joining a local synagogue. They Chose TheSHUL, a small synagogue run by international the Chabad Jewish community and outreach organization.
    Rabbi Levi Shemtov heads TheSHUL, which has a congregation of 40 – 60 members, among them former senator Joe Lieberman, current Secretary of Treasury Jack Lew as well as several former ambassadors and Israeli dignitaries".

    It was never so 'in your face'. Other overlooked detail: 'World's Largest Jewish Center in Dnepropetrovsk', 'Dnepropetrovsk could be renamed – Jerusalem-on-the-Dnieper'
    Would Trump abandon Ukraine?

    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 11:13 pm UTC
    And why do you explain that, for example, Scott, who is always researching about Chabad Lubavitch, have overlooked this? And, has been this information just discovered today, or the so much informed people here knew it in advance and, in spite, promoted Trump as if there was not tomorrow, you included?
    eric calderone on February 14, 2017 , · at 1:53 pm UTC
    I essentially agree with the premise that the conflict between the Establishment and Trump is basically over Trump being elected as someone who didn't rise through, and was not acculturated in a conventional Establishment political milieu. I further agree that Flynn's resignation represents an important Establishment victory. However, the notion that Donald Trump represented the last chance to avert a major US meltdown, that he aspired to significantly change the path our capitalist system is pursuing, is quite frankly, hyperbole. You endow Donald Trump with undeserved importance.

    Donald Trump does not represent now, nor did he ever, a challenge to the prevailing neo-liberal system. Even if he had parried Establishment's previous challenges, or goes to ultimately push back successfully against existing and future challenges to his policies, there will not be a historical, significant change to ruling class domestic policies. Any alteration in US foreign policies, would be selective, and would not persist in the long term. Donald Trump, for all his idiosyncrasies, is very much a ruling class individual, possessing ruling class ideology.

    Reorganization of the national security agencies, relegating the power of the CIA to the Executive, bringing some measure of common sense to America's foreign policies vis a vis the Russian Federation, pulling back on America's bloated and unsustainable military engagements, while welcome, would not amount to a material and long-term change to the nature of the American system and its empire.

    Working people would have lived, and will still live, in a society with inadequate and worsening healthcare, housing, education, and public infrastructure,;and with declining unionization rates and collective bargaining power in the workplace. They would and will still pay taxes to a government which would expend those funds on a gargantuan and growing military budget; and on assistance to giant corporations. They would and will continue to be indoctrinated by a government and mass media with neo-liberal and bourgeois ideology. Nothing critical would have, or will change, under a Donald Trump administration.

    Foreign policy is shaped by the economic nature of the beast. America under Donald Trump, or any other candidate of the "two" party system, in the long-term must pursue policies which continue to inject excess revenue into the system. That revenue represents value extracted from other countries. Otherwise, the economic engine of the US will not expand, and the system will soon collapse upon itself. Inevitably, the dynamic of the system engenders conflict with any foreign power or powers which stand in its way. That is why any lessening of conflict with Russia or China or any other major actor on the world stage would be purely temporary, and selective in nature.

    Donald Trump was no one's last hope. Don't bestow upon him a significance he does not deserve.

    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:04 pm UTC
    In other words, Trump is not of the crazies in the basement, but one the crazies on the main floor, as we had before GW Bush.

    The only solution looks to me to be distributed leadership (real anarchy - no chiefs) and not looking for 'leaders' and 'heroes' to save the day. It has parallels with using relational (table driven) databases instead of the older hierarchical databases - a different model of organization.

    Unfortunately, most people can't yet conceive of or understand how this works on large scale - although they use it all the time among a group of friends which do things by consensus, and some people do it in worker-run businesses (which often takes a lot of adjustment for people to get the hang of).

    Monty Pythons explains:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOOTKA0aGI0
    Dennis The Constitutional Peasant

    Texac in Donbass on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:01 pm UTC
    This is an excellent article. Very realistic and precise. The thin hopes on Trump just got "wafer thin", and it looks like we will all be in for a ride. So be it. Better to face the sad truth than fool ourselves. GREAT analysis, I will share.
    Anonymous on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:42 pm UTC
    Hi, Texac
    Please deliver kindest and warmest regards to people in Donbass.
    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:10 pm UTC
    Greetings, and thanks and for work,
    And perhaps it was never really about hope, but about many people just just keeping on working - and if one wants some hope one can find it in all those people who do.
    Robert Draco on February 15, 2017 , · at 1:40 am UTC
    In consolation to Mike Flynn leaving take a look at this: Why Mike Flynn leaving was actually good for Trump by ex-CIA Robert Steele ..(not just a paper pusher he was actually clandestine for 10 of his years in intelligence work) -Robert Steele: Dick Cheney, Not Donald Trump, Orchestrated Firing of Mike Flynn. Flynn Deserved to Be Fired, But Not for Talking to Russians--

    http://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/robert-steele-dick-cheney-not-donald-trump-orchestrated-firing-of-mike-flynn-flynn-deserved-to-be-fired-but-not-for-talking-to-russians/#more-123958

    apna on February 15, 2017 , · at 4:38 am UTC
    Duck Cheney is a known spy working for england. He is an English asset for serving interest of england and anglosaxon cabal of 5 evil eyes.
    Astraea on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:03 pm UTC
    I also want to mention the fantastic new book by the Legendary Dmitri Orlov – and an see why he is spoken of as legendary. It is called "Shrinking the Technocracy." Not to read this book would be a great loss.
    Il Discobolo on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:14 pm UTC
    Let me be clear. If it is true that It is illegal for private citizens to conduct US diplomacy (as BBC writes), then the past December Flynn-Russia's ambassador Kislyak phone conversation should not occur anyway before he was officially appointed National Security Adviser.

    Considering the hysterical activity and agitation of the neocons/deep state and their russophobia, they would not loss any minimal pretext to attack Trump and his collaborators. The question is: was the ambassador aware of that? With no clear benefits from such early talk, it should have appeared as a possible trap, planted for a "delayed" explosion. As indeed it has been. The results is that now Flynn had to resign And Kislyak?

    Lars on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:17 pm UTC
    The problem is that Flynn lied on the highest level. It's not a problem to have a phone conversation with the Russians or be Russian friendly. The problem is when you claim it hasn't happened. Flynn should've known better. His resignation is not a sign of the deep state taking over, but a logic consequence after breaking the trust.
    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:21 pm UTC
    He didn't claim it didn't happen, and he didn't break any trust. As said at the Duran, it's a concoction - a pretense. The main purpose of the call was apparently to start arrangements between Trump and Putin and get some conversation started, and there's nothing wrong with that - except for the 'neo'-crazies who insist on making Russia an enemy. This accusation is abut the same as accusing Russia of invading Crimea. There is a technical term for it in political science: horse-s**t.

    It isn't the deep state trying to take over, BTW, but one of the factions therein. The US is in a political (and cultural) civil war.

    Jeff Chiacchieri on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:20 pm UTC
    I have been saying to everyone I know and posting on FB since Hillary entered the race it looks to me like the globalists could get more of what they want faster with Trump in the Whitehouse than with Hillary because they would have a better chance at destroying/blaming the liberty movement for the fiscal/social collapse planned. The only way to prevent the new administration from avoiding its promise to return power to the people is pro-liberty Americans opposing elected officials that were never drained from the swamp when they embrace globalism for the globalist plan abandoning pro-liberty legislation. How long can President Trump, his administration and America continue to endure so much subversion? There are endless criminal corrupt globalist organizations behind endless subversion's openly against America/Trump

    • CFR & Foundations behind the U.N. Agenda's 21/2030/2050
    • EU parliament
    • Planned Parenthood
    • All population control organizations
    • George Soros and everything he funds
    • The leaders of the global warming/climate change movement
    • The mainstream media in the West that are controlled by global elites.
    • The LGBT/feminist movements backed by the U.N..
    • American public education institutions.
    • The Vatican using Pope Francis openly laying the groundwork for a moral and religious case in favor of population control, all for totalitarian world government control
    • The world's largest corporations and multi-billionaires
    • Militant Islam
    • All of Obama's Czars and thousands of other globalists like Obama working openly and not openly subverting America.

    realist on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:55 pm UTC
    Folks, think about it, Trump's campaign had a hole in it from the beginning; the contradiction of Russia Vs Israel. The relationship between those two nations is paradox: Russia contradicts what Israel wants in the ME. Trump can't be pro Russia and pro Israel at the same time. If he supports Israel fully, he has to oppose Russia's involvement in Syria and Iran. Besides, The encirclement of Russia by NATO also involves Zionists. The irony is that, most Jews in Israel come from Russia and yet, they antagonize Russia. Is being anti Russia from the beginning the work of Zionists or the West? Hope some here can answer this for me. Who benefits from being Anti Russia? I believe Zionists and the West may have huge benefit from elliminating Russia so that they can scramble Russia's resource and land.

    That being said, Trump's base is his supporters, unless they come out in full force to protect him and make neocons back off, he will further be controlled by the Neocons and Zionists. Already, Trump is backing on issues such as One China policy, not having US embassy in Jerusalem (probably a signal for Zionists to oust Trump) .

    Hmm on February 14, 2017 , · at 2:58 pm UTC
    The problem of firing/getting rid of someone for being "too pro-russian" is that this empowers anti-russian paranoia, Mccartism, and you never know who is next. This is a field day for those looking for russians under the beds.

    Trump is an idiot because he endangered himself, as he too can be seen as "too pro russian". He could be next. If Flynn lost his post for being too pro-russian, why not Trump too? He could be next.

    Bro 93 on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:17 pm UTC
    Wrong!

    The deplorables don't want war and on some level (sex, "Christian values") respect Putin as a straight shooter and despise all of our crooked arrows when they make any comparison. If Trump had not said what he said about Russia and Putin during the campaign, he never would have gotten 10% as far as he got. You can't be afraid of your shadow. If you are, you're just a dead man walking, and you may as well jump into your grave and pull the lid over your coffin.

    Keep pushing on "Russia is OK with me" the McCarthy record is already severely scratched and is even a broken record with a lot of Americans, and it's becoming a sad joke to many of them. They're sick of those pulling this mind control chain. It's ridiculous, and more and more Americans realize it every day. Escalate till the chains break on many millions more, whose minds have been weak enough to put up with this nonsense for far too many decades.

    vot tak on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:02 pm UTC
    Saker

    The trump regime really should be called the pence regime, since it is obvious now that pence manages it and trump is mostly the "showman" mouth and face.

    The conversation of flynn and the Russian ambassador being the cause seems to me to be a phony reason. I speculate the real reason is something else. It could be about Russian relations, in which case, maybe flynn was actually more open to warming these, and pence/trump were not (trump having lied). They had a disagreement and flynn left.

    It also could be about something else entirely, other policies flynn was tasked to work on, even a personality clash between flynn and pence.

    It is also possible the israelis ordered flynn's resignation for reasons unknown by me. They've done this before, and this whole scenario has a strong deja vu feel. Remember Andrew Young? They got him fired in almost the exact same manner, hyping a conversation he had with a Palestinian in their zio-gay media and forcing carter to fire him. Only in Young's case, mossad spied on him and leaked info about Young's meeting with Palestinians to the zio-gay media.

    Perhaps mossad has something on flynn, they certainly spied on him. Regardless, perhaps they found out something, not necessarily to do with Russia, they didn't like. With zionazis, pet goys have to be 100% unequivocally loyal or they're out.

    ioan on February 14, 2017 , · at 8:58 pm UTC
    You know where is Netanyahu right now ? in Washington, wanting to meet with Trump.
    Ann on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:35 pm UTC
    vt – didn't you ever see the video interviews of Kay Griggs ? Military Intelligence Wife Whistleblower – look it up –

    Flynn must be involved in some of that cult stuff – its really bad – no one wants to hear about it but there's so much pedophilia of young princes – Saudis – and then they are forever silenced – and Flynn being where he is in the Military Intelligence community – must have at least known it was going on

    He's a creep and we're fortunate he's gone.

    John on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:09 pm UTC
    It's just a dispute between 2 factions of the Zionist empire with Trump representing the more cautious faction. It is good he has been defeated this way so all the fools who think he could make any deals will have those illusions crushed. Even if his faction made deals they would be broken the second his faction is pushed out of power anyway, so such deals are worthless, just like the NATO pact not moving east.
    T.C. on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:10 pm UTC
    From Reuters:

    Michael Flynn resigned late on Monday after revelations he had discussed U.S. sanctions on Russia with the Russian ambassador to the United States before Trump took office and misled Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

    "It's obvious that Flynn was forced to write the letter of resignation under a certain amount of pressure," Leonid Slutsky, head of the lower house of parliament's foreign affairs committee, was quoted as saying by the RIA news agency.

    Flynn was a strong advocate for the need for softer foreign policy toward Russia and his departure could slow Trump's pledge to improve relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    "The target was Russia-U.S. relations, undermining confidence in the new U.S. administration," Slutsky said, without specifying who he thought was responsible. (MORE)

    https://goo.gl/8mJ1P0

    Peace loving Japanese on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:12 pm UTC
    With all respect, I think the Saker blogger had been little too much in his optimism for late few months. Trump is not gone tonight, but was gone when he turned his words, in admitting "Russians were meddling with the election" right after the brief conference of intelligence agency.
    That was the very moment he surrendered. Not tonight. I was giving up on him since then. Lately he did associate with our awful dictator Shinzo Abe, why? As long as he's "asked", not by Abe, but by the people who can tell what to do to Trump.
    Alan on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:15 pm UTC
    Quite opposing view to Saker at UNZ by Philip Giraldi (Article: Two Uninspiring Choices http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/two-uninspiring-choices/ ). He thinks of Flynn rather differently. He says that "Michael Flynn the National Security Advisor and Nikki Haley as U.N. Ambassador unfortunately did manage to squeak through and will presumably be well placed to wreak havoc over the next four years". Also the same day Elliott Abrams, the certified neocon is dismissed. This tells a lot. I tend to lean towards P.Giraldi. IMO it is NOT a "huge" victory for the neocon cabal but may be quite the contrary.
    juliania on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:39 pm UTC
    Yes, I agree. It is sometimes necessary to see the persons who have said they will support your policies in action. Not only shall I await further developments on the political scene, but also further analysis from Saker. He's not above correcting his assumptions when and if that is needed, and this sudden techtonic shift in the powers that be does need further analysis. The press is rushing to interpret it one way, which has me very leery of theirs. Not for the first time.
    Carmel by the Sea on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:34 pm UTC
    Alan,

    Thank you so much for link. Philip Giraldi has always been one of those I admire greatly. Again, thank you.

    Carmel by the Sea

    Mulk on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:23 pm UTC
    Good thing too. Trump is a efin' disaster. I despise a possible president Pence, but to have someone stable at the US rudder would make me feel just a bit better. Trump is a train wreck running through more and more houses. People think they can control him, but they can't. He wants to be in control, or look like he is, even though he has no idea of what he is doing. You can explain stuff to him, but he won't listen or just doesn't understand. He's no genious, not even a business one. He is heading for tragedy.
    Marek on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:26 pm UTC
    I think Flynn was a Trojan horse planted by the neocons himself. His history shows a career full of anti-Iran sentiment and an excessive push for a harsher approach toward that country, I can't seem to see why his removal is necessarily a bad thing
    Anonymous on February 15, 2017 , · at 12:46 am UTC
    All those with anti-Iran sentiment are working for Israel's interests firstly. Flynn is one of them. As soon as they start anti-Iran rhetoric, you can immediately conclude who is behind them.
    geoff on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:46 pm UTC
    Saker, I am afraid that the only way anything will change is if the PEOPLE rise up and DEMAND change, possibly in a not entirely peaceful manner.

    We cannot expect change from within the USG. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Trump is not powerful enough, he is no Putin or even a Kennedy. He is clueless and the only reason he rose to power was because he wasn't Hillary.

    Trump can still be worked with. But someone on "OUR" team must get an in with his administration.

    It is the PEOPLE who must stand and demand change, demand an end to the Neocon infestation, demand an end to Imperialism, and demand an end to all regime change wars. It is the people who must demand that all those who Betrayed Humanity in their disgusting quest for power and self-aggrandizement be Punished for their crimes.

    Do not worry. We will find a way to make it happen. And do not forget – You play a very important role in this process. Maybe you will find that one day, it was kind of like a self fulfilling prophesy.

    -geoff

    Robert Draco on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:48 pm UTC
    You are premature. It will all depend on who Trump replaces him with.

    In fact Flynn had already blundered by blaming Iran for attacking a US war ship, which they didn't and called Iran the world's biggest terror sponsor when it is Saudi Arabia. Flynn could have become a liability eventually and better for him to go now rather than later and I heard ex-CIA guy Philip Giraldi talk about this in this interesting read.
    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/iran-hawks-take-the-white-house/

    twilight on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:49 pm UTC
    Once again I'll state the biggest mistake here was Putin's. Instead of ignoring the mountain of demonising press against Russia and Putin during the election of Trump, Putin allowed it to get to him, and he backed away in the aftermath of Trump's election to 'prove' Trump was his own man.

    But Putin's decision created a vacuum (which was the entire idea behind the propaganda attacks), which Deep State agents all around Trump immediately filled. Putin should have moved heaven and Earth to craft a ***day one*** alliance to "fight ISIS to destruction". Yes I know this would have been just PR nonsense, but that was all Trump had asked for daily on his election trail. With a guy like Trump, you race toward him, grasp him firmly by the hand, and promise him whatever he wants to hear. Putin did not do this.

    Now Putin's chance is dead. Trump is actually being successfully coerced to do and say anti-Russian stuff now. Nothing major, butenough to kill any hope to Trump working with Russia. And worse, the instinct in Trump to put Humanity's greatest killing machine to immediate use is being successfully exploited.

    We know Iran is the real target- not bluster over North Korea. But the bluster sets a tone that "rogue states" should not be allowed to advance their systems of self-defense. And that, of course, is the consistant cry of America against Iran. And for those of you who claim Iran is too 'sneaky' and 'wily' to give the USA an 'excuse'- well sorry you are really clueless as to how this game is played.

    Let me explain. Saddam after Gulf War 1 got down on his knees and begged the Americans to be allowed to offer them whatever they wanted in exchange for resurrecting the alliance America had with Iraq before the 'invasion' of Kuwait. His supply of oil to the USA would have been an economic boon beyond belief, so he did not get what the actual issue was. But we now know. Even tho Iraq was the idea Empire slave state, there were bigger plans in motion. The ***secular*** sunni state had to be destroyed so the skilled civilised sunnis of Iraq could be turned into slaves of the depraved wahhabi state of Saudi Arabia, and made the commanders of SA's new extremist terror hoardes- butchers that we currently know as ISIS.

    Saddam couldn't imagine in a million years that his masters in the West wanted to Middle East to burn and fall to 'sunni' (actually wahhabi) extremist savages. After all the Deep State project, since the 19th century when Britain helped the Turkish Empire to fade away, was to encourage ***secular*** civilised Islamic rule. And those rulers of islamic heritage wanted to be as civilised as their brothers in the West- they didn't want to hark back to medieval values or encourage their people to do the same. Saddam didn't know that Tony Blair and the other demons had ripped up the rule book- and were determined to create hell on Earth within a lifetime.

    PNAC made it clear that the 9/11 false flag would be the road to Iran's ending. History shows their plans slipped- especially since the invaion of Iraq had no possible excuse, creating waves of revulsion amongst the general sheeple that became an anti-war sentiment. Obama was 'accidently' elected over Clinton slowing things down even more, and leading to the acceleration of the wahhabi terror play. Libya was taken out almost pointlessly (because Libya isn't a good source of ISIS cannon fodder) simply because old animosity between the USA and Libya made it too much of a testing ground for the latter use of the same animosity between Iran and the USA.

    For most Americans- Trump above all- Libya was the 'little brother' of Iran, and now the USA has finally 'beaten up' Libya, well it is 'obvious' it is time for Iran to go down as well.

    There is but one issue now. Those Deep State demons that really run the USA have a level of power players beneath them that mostly think attacking Iran is the stupidest move possible. They can now jerk Trump around like a perfect puppet, but anyone Trump tries to use to put together the Iran war plan will hit long standing, well argued resistance. For conventional right-wing hard men, Iran is all lose and no gain. Sure, the racist psychopaths that frequently rule the zionist terror state of Israel are all for war with Iran, but this very fact is used as evidence that such a war would be utterly moronic by the right-wing thinkers of the USA.

    Iran is the immovable object, but the demons are the irresistable force. And Iran only has to make one fatal slip- without even knowing it ***is*** a slip before successful demonising anti-Iranian propaganda takes hold. Of course, the BBC and every other zionist outlet has already tried attacking Iran every which way without success so far, but successful propaganda is as 'trendy' as a pop hit so you never know when a particular mud ball will stick.

    We have a sense of this with the foul Soros HRW attack against Syria today, stating that "Syria used chemical weapons to take Allepo". The Israeli controlled French government immediately demanded UN action against Assad. Of course, the demon play in Syria is done, but anti-Syrian rhetoric is just practise for Iran.

    HRW is Soros and the US State Dept. Amnesty International is MI6. Neither is now trusted to the slightest degree by the informed, but the actions of both show current thinking and strategy of the Deep State.

    Having lost Trump,Putin must now act ***immediately*** to save Iran. Giving weapons to Iran cannot do this. Having a public formal alliaince, with Russians working on the ground in Iran can. Of course the religious leaders who rule Iran distrust Russia, and Putin must do everything he can to point out that it is Russia protection or utter destruction for Iran- and to bluntly state the ***truth** – which is if the West does attack Iran, Russia will back off and leave Iran to its fate. It is prevention or disaster,

    Robert Draco on February 14, 2017 , · at 3:53 pm UTC
    I forgot to add this ex-CIA guy to the first. Robert David Steele ..on Mike Flynn. He thinks he deserved to be fired and he basically liked Flynn.

    http://phibetaiota.net/2017/02/robert-steele-dick-cheney-not-donald-trump-orchestrated-firing-of-mike-flynn-flynn-deserved-to-be-fired-but-not-for-talking-to-russians/#more-123958

    vot tak on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:03 pm UTC
    WikiLeaks chimes in: WikiLeaks Claims Flynn's Resignation Triggered by 'Destabilization Campaign'

    https://sputniknews.com/us/201702141050674796-wikileaks-flynn-resignation/

    "Trump's National Security Advisor Michael Flynn resigns after destabilization campaign by US spies, Democrats, press https://t.co/vKlX1Tqek1
    - WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) 14 февраля 2017 г."

    Just speculation, or do they have something solid?

    vot tak on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:20 pm UTC
    A Russian take: Flynn's Resignation 'Won't Have an Impact' on Russian-US Relations

    https://sputniknews.com/politics/201702141050673917-us-russia-flynn-resignation/

    "The resignation of the US President's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn won't affect Russian-American relations because they are not shaped yet and there is, in fact, nothing to have an impact on," Fyodor Lukyanov told Sputnik.

    The political analyst further explained that it still remains unclear whether Donald Trump wanted to reset the relations with Russia with the help of either Michael Flynn or new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. However, he again reiterated that it is impossible to have an impact on something that does not yet exist.

    The expert explained that the attacks on Trump's National Security Adviser for his alleged pro-Russian position were "something made out of thin air." However he had to resign because he was not careful enough.

    He further noted that there are still chaotic developments in the Trump administration and there might be more resignations coming."

    T.C. on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:23 pm UTC
    "The White House is under attack from elements inside the intelligence community" - Dennis Kucinich

    An important interview:

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/02/14/kucinich-pins-flynn-leak-on-intel-community-warns-another-cold-war.html

    erichwwk on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:42 pm UTC
    Kucinich: "Be VERY careful. That's my warning this morning. WAKE UP AMERICA "

    "This isn't about whether you're for or against Donald Trump. Hello! This is about whether the American people are bystanders in a power play inside the intelligence community . and whether we can be forced to go to war with any country. ,,,, A game is being played with the security of our country. I [Dennis Kucinich] don't often share the interviews I do, but ask that you watch and share this one because it's important.

    https://www.facebook.com/denniskucinich/posts/10154592754758218

    Greg on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:34 pm UTC
    What I don't understand is this. We see and read of the power exerted by the liberal/neocon "deep state" and their abilities to disrupt and damage Trump's presidency. But in order to get where he has gotten to today, Trump must have some powerful backers too. So where are these powerful Trump supporters and what are they doing if anything?
    JJ on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:30 pm UTC
    Yup am wondering about the 200 military people said to be having Trump any news of them? Maybe preparing a counter revolution on his behalf?
    Larchmonter445 on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:36 pm UTC
    Saker, as you know very well my warnings that Flynn was the keystone, the means through which reform could come to IC, MIC, Deep State-the wombs of Khazarian Russophobia and Hegemony-I agree with you completely that your analysis is correct. It is over.

    Trump will not be able to control Pompeo or Mattis.
    Trump will not be able to penetrate the Deep State and uproot the warmongers.
    Trump will not be able to end the Hegemony.

    What he presented as stiff opening arguments against Iran and Russia are now weaponized with his signature on them. Ukraine will be on some budget line and kept viable. Syria will be a target again per Wolfowitz-Perle and Bibi.

    Where ceasefire and peace was possible we will get more war and chaos.

    ISIS will not be defeated anywhere soon. Russia will be forced to supply regular troops soon if it intends to clean out ISIS and al Nusra while it can. Or it will be bogged down (US goal for certain.)

    Now, for what we must do: keep exposing the tools and persons who removed Flynn.
    This was all at the surface of the Deep State. Most of the players were visible. No subtle, covert operation this assassination. And from that careful documentation we can keep "outing" the enemy within.

    Trump, sadly, may have bought a one-term Presidency when he let this become a neocon issue.
    His daughter and son-in-law tamping down his instincts to fight have been a huge disservice.
    Bannon, a hegemonic ideologue in foreign policy, certainly would not protect Flynn. Bannon served the Naval Intel world in his career, and nothing good has ever come out of US Naval Intel. They plotted against their own man, JFK.

    We, have, a hard choice. Despair and gnash our teeth, or continue to expose the evil operators inside the US government. Spare the Trump-bashing. He erred hugely. But it was predictable. Flynn was a wild card warrior. He was fearless and reckless in behalf of his mission. Trump sent him to the Russians. They had to know the outcome would be intense heat.

    But what was unknown, the treachery in the inner circle. Pence is fully exposed now. Trump knows this clearly. He can't share that with anyone. His circle is filled with like-minded who would serve Pence more comfortably than Trump himself.

    Pence is Brutus. Watch him as he goes to the Munich meeting. He is pure Neo-Con and a treacherous liar himself.

    No greater threat exists to Peace than a traitor to the nation and the opportunity for Detente being thrown away.

    Trump failed to protect his warrior. But the Intel agencies were withholding approvals of deputies' clearances. They had denied Robin Townley, deputy for Africa a clearance for NSC. This signaled that they would undermine Flynn and Trump every day like the Dems have with the nominations and street riots. It was all Trump could do to try to get control of things. Messaging was scrambled, forward movement was stalled. He had to jettison Flynn. But it was all on him. He didn't control Pence and marginalize him. He faced Pence and blinked.

    Sad. Maybe Tragic. But, Trump has comeback potential. It just won't be with the Intel Community.
    He has to find leverage from elsewhere. Probably, why he's talking to Chris Christie. I suspect DOJ and Sessions is one weapon. Maybe they will bring Christie in to DOJ, if he has a huge role, and use him to prosecute the leakers in Deep State. It's only a guess.

    Listen to Pence, watch Mattis. And know that Pompeo is more of the same in CIA.

    Also, Kelly in DHS is weak and a go-along general. He'll test the wind.

    What has happened is Trump thought he had built a citadel using Flynn and the generals around him, with Mattis and Kelly. It has all been turned into a prison, and Trump is hostage.

    JJ on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:05 pm UTC
    http://theduran.com/these-8-neocons-are-gearing-up-to-destroy-president-trump-and-make-america-bomb-again/

    background to these people

    blue on February 14, 2017 , · at 9:49 pm UTC
    Ahh an article on demonology at the Duran. (Check out pictures of Abrams - clearly a creature from the netherworld.)
    Demons, vampires, goblins and orcs, the occasional ogre.
    Some crazies are made to live in the attic, while these prefer the basement and other underground abodes.
    About the same gang as always.
    (I see dead people. They are everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they are dead. - The living dead - all psychopaths, surviving on human blood, so to speak.)

    When Trump started loading up his cabinet with these ghouls and their associates or rivals it became obvious where it was going. As I said once before, the doctrine that states have no friends but rather interests this was saying the state is run by psychopaths, as that is precisely the mind set of psychopaths, individually or collectively.

    Traits:
    http://www.psych2go.net/10-traits-of-a-psychopath/
    http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html

    also Forbes article
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/#10c4eca52740
    The Disturbing Link Between Psychopathy And Leadership
    [but the percentages seem to be way too low, and the current system tends to weed out non-psychos: wolves like to hang out with other wolves, not with sheep, whom they munch on for snacks]

    Jean-David on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:36 pm UTC
    If Trump understands this, and its implications, I suppose he will resign in frustration. Does anyone think he will have the political and emotional stamina to persevere?
    anon21 on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:45 pm UTC
    If one follows the logic that the globalist cabal touting the female was bent to attack Russia in early 2017, then the Trump election may has interrupted the schedule, but not, evidently, the plan, the war-plan, itself. They never gave up power

    The implication is that the war was scheduled, and still is.

    Repeat. The implication is that the march to war is ongoing and deliberate.

    Ralph on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:52 pm UTC
    Well Saker, I'm going contrarian, which does not necessarily mean 180 degrees. I viewed Flynn's appointment as plus/negative, positive re Russia, negative re Iran. It's still potentially positive re Russia as Tillerson is still in. To write off Trump so early in his Presidency is really not very helpful, considering the monumental task he has of taking on the very corrupt establishment, did you think there would be no blowback? Also, clearly Trump is inexperienced politically and doesn't know all the ins and outs of the political establishment in DC, so has to find his feet.
    A big plus is that we have moved away from warfare and potentially a nuclear holocaust – if anybody thinks that mere radioactive fallout from exploding warheads is survivable hasn't taken into account something which is far more deadly, how about many more nuclear power reactor failures like Fukushima, or worse?

    Another point which has been overlooked is that he got rid of nuland – or at least she couldn't work under him – either way I see that as major (personally) together with the much less hostile if not almost indifference to the Donbass, with kiev in turmoil. It was reported that a US warship won't now visit Odessa – small but unmistakeable changes happening.

    simon wagstaff on February 14, 2017 , · at 4:54 pm UTC
    There is an old saying; "When you're up to your ass in alligators it's easy to forget your original intention was to drain the swamp."

    The single greatest lesson I learned in a decade of trying (and failing) to change national policy is that success is measured in inches, not miles. Bureaucratic inertia is a highly under-rated force in its own right. Real change can only be generational. Unless and until there is a "b" team of keenly aware and circumspect underlings who see the problems and understand the patience required to make incremental change, there will be no meaningful change.

    Success isn't home runs (although most who desire positive change would welcome the odd one). Real success is bases-on-balls, running out infield hits and bloop singles and advancing runners.

    Trump must remember business 101 under-promise and over-deliver. If he wants to keep the tens of millions who voted for him engaged and positive he must deliver on small promises. I am dismayed that so many here see the "beginning of the end" instead of "the end of the beginning".

    Flynn (more than most) knew the rules going in and he blew it. His sins are sins of over-reach and forgetting the basics of protocol. His sacrifice will encourage others to step up. The dream of untangling the web is not dead. Too many millions (arguably billions) demand meaningful, positive change those who have faith understand it will be a slow and sometimes painful process.

    Dear Saker, don't lose your faith

    Talks-to-Cats on February 14, 2017 , · at 6:22 pm UTC
    Real success is bases-on-balls, running out infield hits and bloop singles and advancing runners.

    @Simon Wagstaff -

    Allow me a moment of comedic relief in this tragic drama ?

    This is true as a general principle. But somebody PLEASE get through to Clint Hurdle (Pittsburgh Pirates Manager) that wasting outs by bunting runners from first to second predictably results in them being stranded at third.

    Small advances are potentially valuable, but when you run out of outs to achieve them they were mistakes.

    Marnie on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:03 pm UTC
    if there is any reason to save the Trump presidency, Pence needs to be isolated asap – w/removal of all Republican loyalists within WH including Priebus. More to come re Pence role on how this all unfolded. All politics is smoke and mirrors ie cabinet appointees – watch what we do; not what we say. Tillerson and Sessions esp forced to grovel by R's and Dems –

    One benefit to all this has been public revelation of Dems as partners with the Deep State parties. The true depth of their betrayal to the country is now undeniable as we already knew R's could not be trusted. ie payback coming re Lizzie Warren's vitriol on Sessions. her poll numbers for 2018 election not looking good.

    Cynthia – if those suggested names are viable, keep to yourself so as to avoid public exposure at this point perhaps best messenger may be Ivanka
    – .

    Outlaw Historian on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:05 pm UTC
    The entirety of tRump's foreign policy doesn't revolve around Flynn's status. Has tRump decided to reinstate the TTP and TTIP as "trade" policy goals? Decided to not renegotiate/pull out of NAFTA and other so-called trade pacts? Pull back/reconsolidate the Empire of Bases? Attempt to totally disrupt China's OBOR or Russia's EEU through the use of terrorist proxies as HRC's Neocons planned? Then there's Flynn's illogical hatred of Iran and the complications that posed for reestablishing cordial relations with Russia. And those points are just a few of many.

    IMO, Saker and other commentators have reacted in knee-jerk fashion to Flynn's resignation, for he didn't represent the be-all/end-all of tRump's foreign policy agenda. I'm far more disturbed by many of tRump's cabinet choices plus the fact that they were confirmed despite their lies and criminal actions, which is what's provoked most of the resistance to the current national government–congress especially.

    Dario on February 14, 2017 , · at 5:11 pm UTC
    yes, and there's more Apparently the media makes their bets on VP Mike Pence very similar to what happened in Brazil same method, anyway

    from Politico.com:

    "Pence molds the government in his own image

    Pence and his team bring an entirely different ethos and set of values to the administration."

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/how-does-mike-pence-view-government-234956

    JJ on February 14, 2017 , · at 7:35 pm UTC
    Alexander Mercouris posted article on the Duran believes Trump's nominations cabinet picks will be approved eventually

    [Feb 14, 2017] Deep state is way too strong and Trump rebellion , if such existed, can be squashed with the help of big guns of NYT, Wapo and Bloomberg charged with good old compromat

    Trump has no party behind him. And he is no FDR to hit establishment with the full force of Federal Administration
    Notable quotes:
    "... This not about "how easy to convict Trump". This is about who is the real boss in Washington, DC. ..."
    "... Today's Neocon victory might well as huge event as Trump victory. Now it is Trump defeat. I think it's over for Trump... He did not last long, did he ? From now on he might well be just "yet another puppet". Much like Obama, or Bush II, or Clinton. ..."
    "... Neocons are celebrating. That's for sure. Deep state is way too strong and "Trump rebellion", if such existed, in now squashed with the help of big guns of NYT, Wapo and Bloomberg charged with good old "compromat". ..."
    Feb 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : February 14, 2017 at 06:56 PM

    Margaret Carlson rips Trump not for lying but for covering up Flynn

    My point confirmed!

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/02/14/flynn-s-the-first-casualty-of-trump-s-unsustainable-disinformation-campaign.html

    "Flynn's the First Casualty of Trump's Unsustainable Disinformation Campaign"

    'In this White House, honesty is not the best policy but one to be considered among other possibilities"

    by Margaret Carlson...02.14.17...2:06 PM ET

    "General Michael Flynn didn't resign Monday night because he lied about his calls with the Russian ambassador and was vulnerable to blackmail. He resigned because the public found out about the lie and keeping him, at long last, became "unsustainable" for the Trump administration.

    Just a few hours earlier, it was sustainable. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said so. The president, she said Monday afternoon, had "full confidence" in Flynn. Another White House official confirmed this to Washington Post reporter Philip Rucker who reported, also on Monday, that Trump, knowing what he knew, wasn't going to decide about Flynn for a few more days.

    What changed? Throw out the old saw it's the cover-up that gets you. The White House ceded Tuesday that it knew about the cover-up for weeks. It's the dribbling out of the details of Flynn's mission to coddle Russia-in keeping with Trump's policy-that presented a clear and present danger that could only be staunched if Flynn were let go.

    But they want us to believe it was about the lying. At his daily briefing Tuesday, Sean Spicer said it was "plain and simple a matter of trust." But in this whole mess, lying is a lesser included offense, one which this White House is particularly unsuited to cast stones at. Honesty is not the best policy there but one to be considered among other possibilities.

    There would have been no resignation if what Flynn said in the taped calls, and White House knowledge of it, hadn't been exposed late Monday in a Washington Post piece. The White House counsel-and likely others in the Administration-had been told by then Acting Attorney General Sally Yates that Flynn had actually made multiple calls, during the transition and going back to the campaign, to the ambassador of a sworn adversary of the United States. Flynn's message to the ambassador was that President Vladimir Putin might want to hold off on retaliating for sanctions imposed by then President Barack Obama for hacking the U.S. elections. It wouldn't be that bad under the new president.

    Yates' information was reportedly weeks late getting to the White House because FBI Director James Comey, who seems to be everywhere these days, asked her to hold off because of his ongoing investigation into contacts between Trump associates and Russia. But after they'd been told, Spicer put out the opposite of what the Justice Department knew to be true: that Flynn had discussed Christmas greetings, among other things, not sanctions in his calls. With that disinformation (Spicer likely didn't know the truth), Comey's request fell by the wayside and Yates, since fired by Trump for not backing him up on his travel ban but perhaps for this, proceeded to inform Trump White House counsel Donald McGahn. (McGhan, Spicer said Tuesday, immediately informed Trump.)

    Whatever Flynn said, we know Putin took his outreach to heart and let the sanctions pass virtually unnoticed. Since the calls, we might ask who has done more to coddle Russia, Flynn or the president. Trump has kept praising Putin to the point of accusing the country he now leads of killing its own people as Putin has done to his internal enemies. The two countries, in Trump's telling, are morally equivalent.

    To the excuses for why Flynn was let go, add "leaks" which Trump blamed in a tweet for all that's wrong in Washington.

    On TV, Trump surrogates including former military officer Carl Higbee, who's been interviewed for a high level White House job, have dressed up the resignation in the usual nothing's-been-proven talk about how Flynn had become a "distraction" and that this is a "rough town for good people." Actually, that's true but not the case here as few people not on Trump's payroll thought Flynn was the right choice.

    The only reason Flynn got appointed to the most sensitive job in the Administration is that he is a crony of Trump who stuck by him during the campaign and who could be trusted to do his bidding without asking too many questions. If National Security Adviser were a post that required Senate confirmation, Republicans, who have acquiesced to about everything else, would have balked. By a margin even wider than those who dare to question the month-old presidency-that is Republican Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake-Flynn wouldn't have made it.

    With Flynn's ouster, the Wall Trump was actually been able to build around himself may crumble. Until now calls for an independent investigation into the Russian hacking have been rejected. Now, that investigation is likely to proceed, along with McCain's effort to codify Russian sanctions. Speaker Paul Ryan may eventually grow a spine. Amid a running joke at his Tuesday press conference wishing wives of the leadership a Happy Valentine's Day, Ryan was pinned down to admitting Flynn was rightly let go. Look for the heat to be turned up on the inquiry into the ties between Russia and Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

    Just maybe there may be less flagrant lying now from this administration. This last weekend, Trump's anointed wunderkind Stephen Miller was sent out on his first Sunday morning talk show appearances. He regurgitated Trump's insistence that there's rampant voter fraud in the country and a costly investigation should ensue. Miller brought up the fact-free claim that hordes of Massachusetts voters drove to New Hampshire to cast illegal ballots in November. Fresh denunciations of that claim came afterwards from former New Hampshire GOP chair Fergus Cullen and from current New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu, a scion of the multigeneration Republican loyalists, who said it was false. Don't think Miller was freelancing.

    The only praise for Miller came from Trump himself who lavished him with it. In this White House, lying is not a firing offense.

    Trump is having a hard time in his public effort to replace Spicer and perhaps his chief of staff in an effort to fine one single person with the experience and maturity to mind the store. That looks easy compared to replacing Flynn. Trump has made it clear he won't hire anyone who's criticized him. In filling the open national security adviser position, that leaves almost no one."

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 14, 2017 at 07:12 PM
    What "public"? Not the one which elected most of the state governments. Maybe the one which pushed Bernie aside for no convictions Clinton.

    How easy to convict Trump and his while HRC was always innocent and picked upon.....

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 14, 2017 at 07:12 PM
    What "public"? Not the one which elected most of the state governments. Maybe the one which pushed Bernie aside for no convictions Clinton.

    How easy to convict Trump and his while HRC was always innocent and picked upon.....

    libezkova said in reply to ilsm... , February 14, 2017 at 07:37 PM
    "How easy to convict Trump and his while HRC was always innocent and picked upon....."

    This not about "how easy to convict Trump". This is about who is the real boss in Washington, DC.

    Today's Neocon victory might well as huge event as Trump victory. Now it is Trump defeat. I think it's over for Trump... He did not last long, did he ? From now on he might well be just "yet another puppet". Much like Obama, or Bush II, or Clinton.

    There was a dream that with the election of Trump neocons will be booted from Washington, DC by peaceful means via electoral mechanisms or at least their influence will be cut. It was a high time to do this clean up, anyway. They outlived their usefulness long ago (if they were useful ever). This dream now is probably over. Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Robert Kagan and Co are back.

    For nationalists and "nationally oriented part of US capitalists" now the choice is very difficult.

    libezkova -> im1dc...
    Neocons are celebrating. That's for sure. Deep state is way too strong and "Trump rebellion", if such existed, in now squashed with the help of big guns of NYT, Wapo and Bloomberg charged with good old "compromat".

    After losing Flint Trump is done.

    The problem that Trump is facing is that now he does not have any viable support to counterbalance neocon dominated faction of intelligence services.

    Essentially Trump task was impossible from the very beginning. Most of the Washington DC neocon nests needed to be cleaned. And that is much more difficult than Hercules clean up of the Augean Stables

    http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/stables.html
    == quote ==
    For the fifth labor, Eurystheus ordered Hercules to clean up King Augeas' stables.

    Hercules knew this job would mean getting dirty and smelly, but sometimes even a hero has to do these things. Then Eurystheus made Hercules' task even harder: he had to clean up after the cattle of Augeas in a single day.

    Now King Augeas owned more cattle than anyone in Greece. Some say that he was a son of one of the great gods, and others that he was a son of a mortal; whosever son he was, Augeas was very rich, and he had many herds of cows, bulls, goats, sheep and horses.
    ... ... ...

    [Feb 14, 2017] Ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Flynn's sin was inferring to the Russian ambassador that senselessly pushing Russia into a corner for Vicky Nuland might end. ..."
    Feb 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    There's that notorious ancient Chinese curse: 'May you live in interesting times!'

    Sadly, according to Wikipedia:

    Despite being widely attributed as a Chinese curse, there is no equivalent expression in Chinese. The nearest related Chinese expression is "寧為太平犬,莫做亂離人" (nìng wéi tàipíng quǎn, mò zuò luàn lí rén), which is usually translated as "Better to be a dog in a peaceful time, than to be a human in a chaotic (warring) period."

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , February 14, 2017 at 07:00 PM
    It s reputed the Chinese kangji for crisis is: two words 'opportunity and danger'.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> im1dc... , February 14, 2017 at 04:41 PM
    "May you live in interesting times" is an English expression purporting to be a translation of a traditional Chinese curse. Despite being so common in English as to be known as "the Chinese curse", the saying is apocryphal and no actual Chinese source has ever been produced. ...

    Evidence that the phrase was in use as early as 1936 is provided in a memoir written by Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen, the British Ambassador to China in 1936 and 1937, and published in 1949. He mentions that before he left England for China in 1936 a friend told him of a Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times". ...

    http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/May_you_live_in_interesting_times

    (I'm sure all remember Sir
    Hughe Knatchbull-Hugessen.)

    ilsm -> im1dc... , February 14, 2017 at 07:06 PM
    There is a lot of pity party nitpicking going on.

    When Trump gets the peace prize and talks about starting wars to stop unjust peace and nation build with no success.....

    Flynn's sin was inferring to the Russian ambassador that senselessly pushing Russia into a corner for Vicky Nuland might end.

    Why the Russians are doing the new GLCMs is perfectly reasonable from their perspective. It is called looking out for your country, which US is doing with blood all over but US is the exceptional shining city on the hill.

    And if Trump is a war criminal W. and Obama better look out for the Haig coming after them.

    [Feb 12, 2017] Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three previous neoliberal administrations by three Deep State wholly-owned subsidiaries: Bloomberg, NYT and Wapo

    Notable quotes:
    "... Bloomberg, like WaPo and NYT, is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State" ..."
    "... Thank God they stopped their Putin-did-it nonsense. Now they have found something new along the lines Trump-did-it. Both those attempts to control the narrative are false and dishonest. ..."
    "... I understand that Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three previous neoliberal administrations. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc : February 12, 2017 at 07:44 PM

    The Tax stuff is maybe, this is happening now

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-12/america-s-biggest-creditors-dump-treasuries-in-warning-to-trump

    "America's Biggest Creditors Dump Treasuries in Warning to Trump"

    by Brian Chappatta...February 12, 2017...5:00 PM EST

    > Japanese investors cull U.S. government debt by most since '13

    > Currency-hedged returns were worst on record last quarter

    "In the age of Trump, America's biggest foreign creditors are suddenly having second thoughts about financing the U.S. government.

    In Japan, the largest holder of Treasuries, investors culled their stakes in December by the most in almost four years, the Ministry of Finance's most recent figures show. What's striking is the selling has persisted at a time when going abroad has rarely been so attractive. And it's not just the Japanese. Across the world, foreigners are pulling back from U.S. debt like never before.

    From Tokyo to Beijing and London, the consensus is clear: few overseas investors want to step into the $13.9 trillion U.S. Treasury market right now. Whether it's the prospect of bigger deficits and more inflation under President Donald Trump or higher interest rates from the Federal Reserve, the world's safest debt market seems less of a sure thing -- particularly after the upswing in yields since November. And then there is Trump's penchant for saber rattling, which has made staying home that much easier.

    "It may be more difficult than usual for Japanese to invest in Treasuries and the dollar this year because of political uncertainty," said Kenta Inoue, chief strategist for overseas bond investments at Mitsubishi UFJ Morgan Stanley Securities in Tokyo. "Treasury yields may rise rapidly again in the near future, which will continue to discourage them from buying aggressively."

    Nobody is saying that foreigners will abandon Treasuries altogether. After all, they still hold $5.94 trillion, or roughly 43 percent of the U.S. government debt market. (Though that's down from 56 percent in 2008.) A significant drawdown can harm major holders like Japan and China as much as it does the U.S.

    And, of course, homegrown demand has of late been able to absorb the pickup in overseas selling..."

    libezkova -> im1dc...
    im1dc,

    Here is the link https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2017-02-12/america-s-biggest-creditors-dump-treasuries-in-warning-to-trump )

    Bloomberg, like WaPo and NYT, is "a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State"

    Thank God they stopped their Putin-did-it nonsense. Now they have found something new along the lines Trump-did-it. Both those attempts to control the narrative are false and dishonest.

    I understand that Trump is now assigned to be as designated scapegoat for all blunders of three previous neoliberal administrations.

    But can you please ask yourself two very simple questions:

    1. Who and how accumulated that much debt?
    2. Who did run the wars of neoliberal empire expansion to the tune of five trillion dollars?

    Was it Trump?

    I would greatly appreciated if you can answer them in the reply to this post. Or, even better, make some pause in posting neoliberal propaganda.

    [Feb 12, 2017] America Versus the Deep State by James Howard Kunstler

    Notable quotes:
    "... Support James Howard Kunstler blog by visiting Jim's Patreon Page -- ..."
    "... The New York Times ..."
    "... Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds ..."
    "... Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself? The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases. Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was. ..."
    "... The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power. ..."
    "... This hulking security apparatus has become a menace to the Republic. ..."
    "... Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations. When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself. ..."
    "... perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction of clarity. ..."
    Feb 12, 2017 | kunstler.com

    Support James Howard Kunstler blog by visiting Jim's Patreon Page --

    The bamboozlement of the public is nearly complete. The Deep State has persuaded 80 percent of Americans that all news is propaganda, especially the news emanating from the Deep State's own intel department. They're still shooting for 100 percent. The fakest of all "fake news" stories turns out to be "Russia Hacks Election." It was reported conclusively Saturday on the front page of The New York Times , a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Deep State:

    Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds

    WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.

    You can be sure that this is now the "official" narrative aimed at the history books, sealing the illegitimacy of Trump's election. It was served up with no direct proof, only the repeated "assertions" that it was so. In fact, it's just this repetition of assertions-without-proof that defines propaganda. It can also be interpreted as a declaration of war against an incoming president. The second civil war now takes shape: It begins inside the groaning overgrown apparatus of the government itself. Perhaps after that it spreads to the WalMart parking lots that have become America's new town square. (WalMart sells pitchforks and patio torches.)

    Did the Russians make Hillary Clinton look bad? Or did Hillary Clinton manage to do that herself? The NSA propaganda was designed as a smokescreen to conceal the veracity of the Wikileaks releases. Whoever actually rooted out the DNC and Podesta emails for Wikileaks ought to get the Pulitizer Prize for the outstanding public service of disclosing exactly how dishonest the Hillary operation was.

    The story may have climaxed with Trump's Friday NSA briefing, the heads of the various top intel agencies all assembled in one room to emphasize the solemn authority of the Deep State's power. Trump worked a nice piece of ju-jitsu afterward, pretending to accept the finding as briefly and hollowly as possible and promising to "look into the matter" after January 20 th - when he can tear a new asshole in the NSA. I hope he does. This hulking security apparatus has become a menace to the Republic.

    Whether Trump himself is a menace to the Republic remains to be seen. Certainly he is the designated bag-holder for all the economic and financial depravity of several preceding administrations. When the markets blow, do you suppose the Russians will be blamed for that? Did Boris Yeltsin repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Was Ben Bernanke a puppet of Putin? No, these actions and actors were homegrown American. For more than thirty years, we've been borrowing too much money so we can pretend to afford living in a blue-light-special demolition derby. And now we can't do that anymore. The physics of capital will finally assert itself.

    What we're actually seeing in the current ceremonial between the incoming Trump and the outgoing Obama is the smoldering wreckage of the Democratic Party (which I'm still unhappily enrolled in), and flames spreading into the Republican party - as idiots such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain beat their war drums against Russia. The suave Mr. Obama is exiting the scene on a low wave of hysteria and the oafish Trump rolls in on the cloudscape above, tweeting his tweets from on high, and perhaps it's a good thing that the American people for the moment cannot tell exactly what the fuck is going on in this country, because from that dismal place there is nowhere to go but in the direction of clarity.

    ... ... ...

    [Feb 10, 2017] Ilargi The Media – Fake and False and Just Plain Nonsense naked capitalism

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
    "... British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords: "An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism. ..."
    "... The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless. ..."
    "... my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen. the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance is neocon. ..."
    "... In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact. ..."
    "... Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect: ..."
    "... Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say, ..."
    "... Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and ..."
    "... Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech. capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks of the public mass media. ..."
    "... It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2 ..."
    "... One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself: he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes. The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular. ..."
    "... . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is. We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination ..."
    Feb 10, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on February 9, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. In keeping with the spirit of this post, an Emerson College study found that the American public trusts Trump more than the media . And if I interpret him correctly, Ilargi's post has a small off-key note: a tomato is indeed a fruit.

    By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth

    Two and a half weeks after the inauguration, and yes it's only been that long, the media still don't seem to have learned a single thing. They help the Trump campaign on an almost hourly basis by parroting whatever things, invariably judged as crazy, he says. One day it's that negative polls are all fake news, the next it's some list of underreported terror events. All of it gets an avalanche of attention provided by the very people who claim to be against Trump, but greatly help his cause by doing so.

    Not a single thing learned. If Trump tweets tomorrow that tomatoes are really fruits and he's going to have someone draw up a law to make them so, or that Lego should be recognized as an official building material in order to have the Danes, too, pay for the wall, it will be on the front page of every paper and the opening item for every TV news show. The crazier he makes them, the more serious they are taken. The echo chamber is so eager to incessantly repeat to itself and all its inhabitants that he's a crazy dude, it's beyond embarrassing.

    And it takes us ever further away, and rapidly too, from any serious discussion about serious issues, the one very thing that the Trump empire desperately calls for. The press should simply ignore the crazy stuff and focus on what's real, but they can't bring themselves to do so for fear of losing ratings and ad revenues. All Trump needs to do, and that's not a joke, is to fart or burp into their echo chamber and they'll all be happy and giddy and all excited and self-satisfied. A spectacle to behold if ever there was one.

    British House of Commons Speaker John Bercow can play that game too. He has loudly advertized his refusal to let Trump address UK politicians in the House of Commons and the House of Lords: "An address by a foreign leader to both houses of Parliament is not an automatic right, it is an earned honor.." It's an honor recently gifted to the likes of China President Xi Jinping and the Emir of Kuwait. Fine and upstanding gentlemen in the tradition Britain so likes, nothing like the American President whom he accuses of racism and sexism.

    The racism part ostensibly is a reaction to Trump's Muslim ban, which, nutty though it is, is not a Muslim ban because most Muslims are not affected by it, and besides, 'Muslim' is not a race. So maybe Bercow would care to explain the 'racism' bit. Has anyone seen the British press pressuring him to do so? Or, alternatively, has anyone seen a thorough analysis of the British role, though its military and its weapons manufacturers, in the premature deaths in the Middle East and North Africa of many thousands of men, women and children belonging to the Muslim 'race'? Not me.

    The 'sexism' accusation refers to Trump's utterances on for instance the Billy Bush tape(s), and by all means let's get the Donald to comment on that. But this comes from a man who speaks as an official representative of the Queen of a country where child sex abuse is a national sport, from politics to churches to football, where literally thousands of children are trying to speak up and testify, after having been silenced, ignored and ridiculed for years, about the unspeakable experiences in their childhood. Surely someone who because of his job description gets to speak in the name of the Queen can be expected to address the behavior of her own subjects before that of strangers.

    Yeah, that Trump guy is a real terrible person. And he should not be allowed to speak to a chamber full of people directly responsible for the death of huge numbers of children in far away sandboxes, for or the abuse of them at home. After all, we're all good Christians and the good book teaches us about "the beam out of thine own eye". So we're good to go.

    What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the UK, along with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black hole from which any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly and relentlessly pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness' and political correctness, they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their voters and viewers, while at the same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the people of that they point to. For profit.

    Child sex abuse has been a staple of British society for a long time, we're talking at least decades. Only now is it starting, but only starting, to be recognized as the vile problem it is. But still many Britons feel entirely justified in demonizing a man who once talked about touching the genitals of grown women. If that did happen against their will, it's repulsive. But still, there's that beam, guys. Read your bible.

    The political/media black hole exists in many other countries too; we are truly entering a whole new phase in both domestic and global affairs. That is what allows for the Trumps and Le Pens of the world to appeal to people; there is nobody else left that people can have any faith in. The system(s) are broken beyond repair, and anyone perceived as belonging to them will be cast aside. Not all at the same time, but all of them nonetheless.

    Whether you call the menu the people have been fed, fake or false or just plain nonsense, it makes no difference. The British House of Commons Speaker may not be such a bad guy inside, he's probably just another victim of the falsehoods, denials and deceit spread 24/7. The difference between them and ordinary citizens is that Her Majesty's representatives in the political field MUST know. They get paid good salaries to represent the Queen's subjects, and looking the other way as children get assaulted and raped does not fit their job description.

    That goes for representatives of the church (i.e. Jesus) just as much of course, and for the execs at the BBC, but about as many of those people are behind bars as there are bankers. For anyone at all at any of these institutions to now speak with great indignation about Trump's alleged racism and sexism is the very core of all of their problems, the very reason why so many turn their backs on them. It shows that the very core or our societies is rotten, and the rot is spreading.

    We are facing a lot of problems, all of us, in many different ways, financially, politically, morally. But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is. We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination.

    The longer this braindead attitude prevails, the worse things will get, and the more Trumps will surface as leaders of their respective countries. And the longer the attitude prevails, the more anger we will spread in those parts of the world that do not belong to our 'chosen' societies. And for that we will have only ourselves to blame. Not Trump.

    Disturbed Voter , February 9, 2017 at 3:14 am

    Citizens and politicians are in a social compact, so it is said. Both sides may have defaulted on the agreement, something the Enlightenment didn't anticipate. In the modern era of triangulation, opposition parties, that used to keep each other relatively honest, no longer do that. In the modern era of media consolidation, opposition newspapers, that used to keep each other relatively honest, no longer do that. Be are being suffocated by de facto bi-partisanship, that is just a shadow play of its former partisanship. The status quo has gone stale.

    geoffrey gray , February 9, 2017 at 3:37 am

    my favorite dump on trump was the times article about the special ops raid in yemen. the obama team planned it, trump pulled the trigger. now we learn the yemen government is against special ops raid. (yemen has a government?) we also learn from the times that obama wouldn't have gone through with the raid because too risky! So saint obama is the good killer, trump the bad killer. it makes you sympathetic to trump. but i think alot of us thought trump would calm down some once in office. calling judiciary names, saying they can't even understand concepts that a "bad high school student" can, is not, what's the word, adult? and you can't ignore the sinister intent behind the muslim ban–it's based on propaganda and fear–it's provenance is neocon.

    RUKidding , February 9, 2017 at 10:43 am

    In complete agreement with you about the dump trump article praising saint obama to the skies because obama allegedly "refused" to OK the special ops raid on Yemen, but Trump did. LIke, THIS time obama "refused" to do it? Why? Speculation is futile, but my speculation is that Obama held off in order to have it fall on Trump. Then Obama could skippity do dah off into the sunset with his burnished halo in tact.

    Gah.

    Agree with the second part of your comment, too. I wish Trump would behave differently. The comment about the judiciary was incredibly wrong and also very stupid. His fervent fans may well clap and cheer for that, but Trump is painting himself into some corners by behaving that way. The Judiciary and lawyers – a powerful group in this nation, for better or worse – simply aren't going to take that laying down. Although I'm sure the judiciary will (mostly) strive for objective impartiality.

    The stupid media would serve themselves, their Oligarch owners, and the nation better if they ignored the bulk of Trump's dumb tweets and focus more closely on what he and his Admin are doing.

    Josh Stern , February 9, 2017 at 3:39 am

    Following Disturbed Voter's comment above – we can usefully distinguish 3 different levels of dishonesty by how hard they are to detect:

    • Level 1 – the everyday liar/hypocrite whose dishonesty we notice over time by observing that what they do is not consistent with what they say,
    • Level 2- the regular criminal who hides his honesty from public view, to profit from it, but can be caught by effective law enforcement, and
    • Level 3- the State Intelligence agency with extreme levels of funding, novel tech. capabilities, secrecy, & ability to ignore or even control law enforcement and large chunks of the public mass media.

    It's the Level 3 category that society has become relatively defenseless against. Alternative media carries report after report on how the Iraq War was phony, how the US created al Qaeda and ISIS, how Cheney planned to invade Iraq and 6 other Middle East nations on Sept. 20, 2001 – not because of any links to US created al Qaeda – and a big chunk of that plan is still being carried out today, 4 Presidential terms later.

    Disturbed Voter , February 9, 2017 at 7:10 am

    While we don't know much about what the intelligence agencies do, by design, we do know a few things. That in the conditions of the early Cold War, and given the mandate against all enemies foreign and domestic (the oath the military takes) that narrative control is a vital weapon. We know that journalists, clergy and even rock stars have been actual agents, so the number of fellow travelers must be considerable. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been necessary, so it was thought by some, to manufacture new enemies on a Vietnam scale. And the exercise and paranoia against domestic enemies has returned to 1960s levels as well. For the old men nostalgic for the 60s, from the neocon side, these last few decades have been sweet.

    Moneta , February 9, 2017 at 7:37 am

    Actually it's the level 1 that leads to level 3.

    Materially, all we really need is to cover and protect our body from the elements and food. Everything else is gravy.

    Psychologically, we need a lot more than what North American society offers most of us today but for some reasons we keep on lying to ourselves thinking that if we had a little more stuff we'd be happier.

    We all have to lie to ourselves thousands of times a day to keep our routines and lifestyles and all these lies make society.

    Jos Oskam , February 9, 2017 at 3:54 am

    Hey Yves, the tomato question does seem to have something to it: "Nix v. Hedden (1893) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that, under U.S. customs regulations, the tomato should be classified as a vegetable rather than a fruit". From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nix_v._Hedden .

    Note to Ilargi: re tomatoes, somebody got there before Trump :-)

    Gaylord , February 9, 2017 at 4:24 am

    I think a great number of people in the US and in Europe do not trust the MSM any more, even though they may continue to pay attention as a spectator sport (people do enjoy yelling at their TV sets). Activism is another ball game that is still being played, but in the US it has become nearly futile because of the restrictions and police tactics used to squelch them or shut them down. It can also be impossible to distinguish between genuine protesters, paid participants, and shit-disturbers or agents-provocateurs, which dilutes the message (questionable intent by those who want to promote or discredit the demonstration).

    Having read the comments here and on other independent sites for a long time, I've noticed the tremendous increase in articulate and aware commenters that can see through the tissues of lies from the MSM and take even a lot of the "serious" stuff with a grain of salt, knowing that some things don't change much and people tend to overreact based on shock-value news designed to stir resentment and "us vs. them" divisiveness. This is encouraging because it shows people are wising up, thinking more critically about who is really running the show (it is not Trump by-and-large), and not allowing their views to be manipulated.

    european , February 9, 2017 at 4:57 am

    I think Ukraine was a turning point, as the lying of the media was just way too obvious. That opened a lot of eyes. The reporting on Greece and Merkel/Schäuble's austerity terror was equally bad, but not many people understand that.

    Syria: The Media Coverage on Syria is the Biggest Media Lie of our Time

    KurtisMayfield , February 9, 2017 at 8:10 am

    I believe it was Iraq. When they named the 2003 invasion Operation Iraqi Liberation, or O.I.L. , all the pretense of it being for any legit reason was gone.

    Arizona Slim , February 9, 2017 at 8:35 am

    Ah, yes. The Iraq invasion. Wasn't it supposed to be about our freedom?

    RUKidding , February 9, 2017 at 10:45 am

    We citizens were also supposed to get our Iraqi oil dividend back, which allegedly would pay for that many trillion dollar exercise in futility.

    Guess that got syphoned right up into Dick Cheney's pockets. Ya snooze, ya lose.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , February 9, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    Huh? Iraq? Did I miss something?
    I heard about some thingy where we wasted trillions of dollars and killed millions of people. But all of the people who thought THAT was a good idea are gone now, hiding their heads in shame and hoping they don't get summoned to a war crimes tribunal. Right?

    polecat , February 9, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    No. They HAVE NO shame --

    BeliTsair , February 9, 2017 at 11:42 am

    I believe it was the Gnadenhutten massacre. The 96 Moravian Lenape, brained with mallets, by Washington's Virginia Militia were probably too busy clawing through their former frozen fields, looking for corn kernels to feed their children, to pose much of a threat as terrorists?

    VietnamVet , February 9, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    Yes, what got to me was the Western instigated coup in Ukraine. I voted for Barrack Obama twice but could not vote for Hillary Clinton. I rationalized that the Iraq Invasion was an isolated crazy GOP debacle. Denial is powerful defense mechanism. If the media lies, America is a not so innocent killer, and the Cold War 2.0 with Russia has reignited; we are screwed. Austerity, scapegoating Russia and the flood of millions of refugees into Europe are proof that this is the awful truth.

    running dog lackey , February 9, 2017 at 4:31 am

    It's about ratings people. The president of NBC himself said it during the campaign when someone asked why he was televising everything the Insane Clown was saying. You all need to watch Network again. Nothing's changed. Which means they brought him up and now they will take him down.

    Tom , February 9, 2017 at 6:03 am

    Ratings are to broadcast or print media as shareholder value is to corporation - the overriding metric that blots out any reponsibility to the commons.

    Chris G , February 9, 2017 at 5:45 am

    "The Speaker may not be such a bad guy inside". Ah, not so. Check out this Pat Lang post,

    http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/02/the-mother-of-all-parliaments.html

    and the long trenchant comment by LondonBob including these paras:

    "The Twitter-cheering for John Bercow, the transformation of him into a Love, Actually-style hero of British middle-class probity against a gruff, migrant-banning Yank, could be the most grotesque political spectacle of the year so far. Not because it's virtue-signalling, as claimed by the handful of brave critics who've raised their heads above the online orgy of brown-nosing to wonder if Bercow is really promoting himself rather than parliamentary decency. No, it's worse than that. It's the lowest species of cant, hypocrisy of epic, eye-watering proportions, an effort to erase Bercow's and Parliament's own bloody responsibility for the calamities in the Middle East that Trump is now merely responding to, albeit very badly.

    "Bercow, you see, this supposed hero of the refugees and Middle Eastern migrants temporarily banned from the US, voted for the bombing of Iraq. He green-lighted that horror that did so much to propel the Middle East into the pit of sorrow and savagery it currently finds itself. As his profile on the They Work For You website puts it, 'John Bercow consistently voted for the Iraq War'. On 18 March 2003, he voted against a motion saying the case for war hadn't been made, even though it hadn't. On the same day he voted for the government to 'use all means necessary' to ensure the destruction of Iraq's WMD.

    "As everyone knows now, and as many of us knew back then, Iraq's WMD capacity had been vastly exaggerated by the black propaganda of the New Labour government, by myth and misinformation cynically whipped up to the end of providing Britain's leaders with the thrill of an overseas moral crusade against evil. Bercow voted in favour of these lies. And he voted for the use of 'all means necessary' to tame Saddam's regime. We know what this involved: Britain joined the bombing campaign and courtesy of an ill-thought-through war by Western allies, Iraq was ripped apart and condemned to more than a decade of bloodshed. And refugee crises. Bercow was one of the authors of this calamity, one of the signatories to the Middle East's death warrant, and now we're going to let him posture and preen against Trump's three-month ban on certain Middle Eastern migrants? What is wrong with us?"

    But kudos to kind-hearted Ilargi for willingness to give the benefit of the doubt to one of these preening monsters!

    jackiebass , February 9, 2017 at 6:19 am

    Trump loves any kind of publicity. The media is playing right into his hand by printing all of the garbage he generates.I know many Trump voters and supporters. They all complain that the media is picking on Trump. None of them look seriously at what he says or does. There universal reaction is give him a chance and quit picking on him.The media would be better off focusing on his and congreses policy decisions and how that effect the average person. Turning he's presidency into a big soap opera is actually helping Trump keep his supporters. I have not heard a single Trump voter say they regret voting for Trump.

    Eustache de Saint Pierre , February 9, 2017 at 6:35 am

    Good to see some focus on Britain's version of the Augean stables. In terms of the so called Westminster paedophile ring – the last I heard on this it was that, Ooops .we appear to have lost a substantial amount of vital evidence. I imagine that MI6 have on record most if not all of the disgusting details, which I also imagine are useful assets that can be used to control certain people.

    In my opinion, this is a good explanation from 2015, of the behaviour of the BBC & the Guardian, from journalist Jonathon Cook.

    http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2015-03-03/hsbc-and-the-sham-of-guardians-scott-trust/

    The Trumpening , February 9, 2017 at 7:54 am

    So far Trump has only really accomplished two things: he shut down the TPP and he inspired Lena Dunham to lose some weight. Everything thing else has been more or less noise.

    I've always thought this first two years of Trump's reign will involve him in bringing to heal the establishment GOP (GOPe) Obviously during the confirmation process, Trump has to be on his best behavior. But I don't like the pattern of Trump issuing useless EO's, and then the Democrats going ballistic, and then Trump supporters being satiated by all the Dem whining. That's a recipe for two years of nothing.

    On the Muslim ban, there are two parts to it. The current NeoCon / NeoLib tag-team play is to kill a million Muslims in their nations and then to offer the survivors the weak reach around of letting a million Muslims emigrate to the West. Trump seems to be offering a different deal. The West stops killing Muslims in Muslim nations and in return Muslims stay in Muslim nations and stop coming to the West. We have yet to see if Trump can hold off the temptation to start slaughtering Muslims in their nations like the NeoCons do.

    I get the feeling from Trump's over-the-top reaction to the courts staying his Muslim ban that he actually doesn't want it reinstated. I read on a pro-Trump legal blog that the Justice Department lawyers were super weak in their arguments before the 9th Circuit court, in what should be a super easy case to argue. Activist judges halting the ban means when the inevitable next terrorist attack comes, Trump can blame it on the judges and make some sort of move to purge their power.

    On Iran, Trump has zero leverage and so I do not see how this is going to end well. The only thing we can hope for is this is a bit of Kabuki being regulated by Putin. In the end a US-Russian alliance, as Trump is proposing, means a closer relationship between the US and Iran. Israel will not be pleased.

    My theory on Trump's relationship to Israel is that he is giving them enough rope for them to hang themselves. In Europe particularly the Israeli brand is getting fatally interwoven with the Trump brand. So far the only thing saving Israel is diaspora Jews being able to shame their local populations away from the BDS movement. But the diaspora is 98% anti-Trump. There is currently a huge increase of oxygen being given to the BDS movement, which means it should soon spring back to life.

    Can Trump be allies with Israel and Russia (and Iran)? The only way I can see this happening is a deal where Iran gets to go nuclear and become fully integrated into the global community in exchange for allowing Hezbollah to be wiped out by Israel.

    Trump is at his anti-NeoLiberal best when he is in deep trouble. I was happy when that Access Hollywood tape came out because I knew he would have to double down on Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller and go full-on butch economic nationalist. And it won him the election. Hopefully the seas will get very rough soon and we can all enjoy the spectacle of full combat between Team Trump and the GOPe.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , February 9, 2017 at 3:31 pm

    I like the "offer the survivors a weak reacharound". Reminds me of Vietnam, where we would napalm a village and then fall over ourselves making sure the burn victims all got Band-Aids

    Fiver , February 9, 2017 at 5:09 pm

    The entire Trump military/security team is wildly anti-Muslim, so the thought they are not going to keep on killing Muslims all over the map is just plain silly.

    Bannon is just plain dangerous. Here's a piece on his favorite books. Not surprisingly, he hates Muslims. Also, he appears to imagine himself a brilliant strategist for the ages who just happens to be the right man for 'The Fourth Turning', one of those ideas and books that purports the existence of an historical pattern based on a cycle of generations, each generation of every group of 4 having its own 'character', taken together claiming to explain a long cycle of great crises and/or turning points of US history. He believes we are now in such a critical period. It's one of those notions that has superficial appeal but quickly falls apart when engaged critically:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/02/07/daily-202-five-books-to-understand-stephen-k-bannon/58991fd7e9b69b1406c75c93/

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Strauss_and_Neil_Howe

    Bannon is now running stuff via Briebart's network that will make your hair stand on end:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/06/the-left-hates-you-act-accordingly-n2281602?utm_source=TopBreakingNewsCarousel&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=BreakingNewsCarousel

    As for Israel, there is not the remotest chance Trump will do something Israel doesn't like – even if he doesn't appoint Elliot Abrams to #2 at State.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/elliott-abrams-state-department/

    Here's what Ron Paul thought of that idea:

    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/february/07/elliott-abrams-to-state-dept-you-cant-be-serious/

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/politics/elliott-abrams-state-department/

    Abrams would be an absolute disaster.

    TPP? Globalization? I see no evidence whatever that Trump has any intention of rolling back US-dominated corporate globalization, rather, he wants to create trade flows that are even more wildly skewed in favour of US financial/corporate power internationally even while effectively transferring wealth from the periphery to core of Empire to support some minor job creation – of course in the meantime granting outlandish tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy at large.

    I'm sorry, but Trump et al have played millions and millions of well-meaning Americans like a fiddle.

    UnhingedBecauseLucid , February 9, 2017 at 8:44 am

    The best description of the "Trump Situation" ever written was penned by 'Steve from Virginia' author of the blog Economic Undertow:

    One word that describes our precious country is incompetence. We have gone from being the 'we-can-do-it' nation that put a man on the Moon to the 'hire a Mexican to do it' nation that cannot find its ass with both hands. The fact of our dysfunction and the country's reliance on migrant labor are what gives form to the efforts of Donald Trump. Yet he acts against himself: he is the lazy-man of American politics who requires others to do his heavy lifting. This does not mean physical labor but instead the struggle to become clear in the mind, to craft out of disparate- and contradictory elements a policy outline or philosophy of governing. This is never attempted, it is too difficult, instead there is the recycling of old, bankrupt memes. The candidate's absence of effort leaves a residue of personality: Trump is a blank page upon which others paint in the sketch, an actor who aims to meet (diminished) public expectations and nothing more, sound and fury significant of nothing in particular.

    bbrawley , February 9, 2017 at 9:09 am

    I'm surprised no one seems to see a serious side to the reporting of Trump's antics. Is it not important to keep hammering home that the man is unhinged and that this is something pulling at the social frabric, something crying out to be dealt with? I seriously doubt that we'll be able to address the "real issues" adequately until we find ways come to terms with him not as a buffoon but as a deeply flawed human being.

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 9:37 am

    Another false note–"Muslim is not a race." True, but being Jewish is not a racial characteristic and yet it is obvious that antisemitism is very similar to racism in its irrationality and hatred. Antisemites a hundred years ago would in some cases point to radicals who were Jewish as their excuse, just as Islamophobes would point to Islamic extremism as theirs. Racists I grew around would point to Idi Amin's Uganda ( yes, I am old) and other African countries with horrible human rights records as proof that American blacks should be grateful to be here.

    This "Islam is not a race" is mainly a tiresome distraction used by bigots and not a prelude to a deeper discussion on the wide varieties of human bigotries. Bigots can use almost any category they wish and concoct pseudo- rational propositions to buttress their hatred. We even have lefties hating blue collar white males as a group for Trump support. We don't have to join the people who use nitpicking phrases not to analyze, but to justify their hatreds. I don't think the writer intends to do this, but he is using a standard Muslim blame cannon phrase.

    After all this, I actually liked the rest of this piece, but that part was nails on a chalkboard to me. I am glad the liberal mainstream is siding with Muslims against Trump. There are some liberals ( Maher, Sam Harris etc..) who have been pushing a Muslim bashing agenda. And yes, as usual the mainstream which is so solicitous of Muslim rights cared little when Obama bombed Muslim countries. But I would rather that liberals be right if hypocritical then consistently wrong.

    Optimader , February 9, 2017 at 10:50 am

    As far as the term Racism, i think https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism oretty well captures contemporary common use.

    You forgot to mention Zionist racism directed toward Palestinians. An equally equivalent contemporary application of the term

    On the subject of Trump i believe his executive order is directed toward travelers from seven countries that the previous Potus identified in an anti-terrorist executive order.
    If I have it correctly, Neither Trump or BHO e orders are directed against muslims or any other religion for thats matter.

    Optimader , February 9, 2017 at 10:56 am

    As well do we need to take a deerpath in the woods debate about the legitimacy of the term race?

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    I agree with you on Zionist racism towards Palestinians.

    On the deep path on the definition of racism, it depends. Given the prevalence of Islamophobia in the US, some of it on the left ( including the kneejerk supporters of Israel), I don't think it is helpful to use the "Islam is not a race" phrase as some sort of rebuttal. Islamophobia is a form of bigotry– whether one wants to nitpick about exactly what form should depend on the circumstances.

    Yves Smith Post author , February 9, 2017 at 1:42 pm

    I do not believe in the corruption of language. Confucius said that the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper names.

    Are you by the same sloppy logic going to cal bias against women and gays "racism"?

    Islamophobia is indeed not racist. Arabs, many American and African blacks, Persians (who are not Arabians) and Indonesians among others are followers of Islam.

    We already have perfectly good works, like "bigotry," "bias," and "discrimination".

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 2:50 pm

    I probably shouldn't have said anything, since the original poster clearly isn't a bigot, but it set me off because in most cases this "Islam is not a race" phrase is used by Islamophibes and they of course do not follow up by pointing out that it is a form of bigotry, like antisemitism. If the poster here only means we should call it bigotry and not racism, I agree.

    But that meme is used a lot and usually by Islamophobes who won't cop to being bigots either. They aren't trying to have a deep conversation about different forms of bigotry. They are trying to argue that it is rational to fear Muslims because Islam is, in their view, an inherently evil ideology. But in practice Islamophobes are not rational or necessarily even consistent. That's why I wrote my comment, pointing out that bigotry in any form is generally not some carefully thought out logical train of thought, but some pseudo- rational set of propositions often garbled together. This is why a Sikh can get beaten up by Islamophobes. It is also why antisemites are often so confused about whether they hate Jews as a religion, as an alleged race, or as some group of scary communist bankers. It's not like racism itself is usually based on a clear understanding of biology.

    So if we are going to push back on Islamophobia as racism, it should be so people see it as like antisemitism, which is what it most closely resembles.

    I have written enough today, so I am going to stop.

    optimader , February 9, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    Re Confucius, George Orwell had his thoughts along those lines. re: intentional corruption of language.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language

    The reality is language evolves, often for the worse making clarity of message a casualty, unless a tedious definition of terms is invoked which can easily end up being a form of deflection from the original point.. ..
    File under :Liberal/Conservative/Neoliberal/Progressive. I find all these Identity Labels can be very loosely applied for reasons other than clarity.

    In the case of the word Race, it is, some would correctly contend, archaic terminology while simultaneously being convenient shorthand for "red meat" identity invectives.

    River , February 9, 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Muslim isn't a race. If the ban had been about Arabs not being allowed in you'd have a point. However, a person from Indonesia is allowed in and that country is almost entirely Muslim.

    Plus, complaining about the US exercising boarder control is ridiculous. That is one the jobs of a nation. No one bat an eye when Japan stated we're not allowing anyone in wrt to any refugee problem. Yet when any Western nation does it, the sky falls and the charges of bigotry come out.

    No one has the right to move to another country.

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral right to come here. Yemen, for instance, is bombed by the US and much more heavily by the Saudis with our help and keeping refugees from Yemen out is an extreme form of ugly Americanism. If we don't want the refugees, then we should stop causing or contributing to the chaos and death in the countries which produce the refugees.

    Gorgar Laughed , February 9, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    >People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral right to come here.

    And where are these rights enumerated? I don't recognize "moral rights" beyond those associated with copyright (and I am not particularly fond of those, either).

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    So the fact that we are bombing civilians and helping the Saudis plunge Yemen into a famine is something you don't question, just the right of our victims to come here?

    Gorgar Laughed , February 9, 2017 at 1:58 pm

    Not fond of herring, either.

    "Our victims"?

    The legacy of Obama's incompetence in foreign policy does not obligate American citizens to accept - or to foist upon their posterity - changes in the demographic make-up of our populace.

    I'm still interested in learning where you discovered this moral right to move here

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Not fond of herring either?

    In other words, morality is a matter of preference and your number one moral value in this context is keeping out refugees, people who suffer precisely because of our foreign policy. Demographic balance is somewhere near the top of your own personal list of flavors. Anyway, my notion of moral right involves the crazy idea that if you help destroy a country you have moral obligations to the victims.

    And by the way, Trump is likely to escalate our support for the Saudi war on Yemen.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , February 9, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    LOL it certainly was a matter of preference for our recently departed Drone-Bomber-In-Chief, and for all of the people who (thought/think) he was a really moral and upstanding kind of guy. Just like our former Secretary of State, who threatened to cut off Sweden if they didn't accept Monsanto poison.
    "You're black!" said the pot to the kettle

    Optimader , February 9, 2017 at 1:22 pm

    "People who live in countries that are bombed by the US or its close allies have the moral right to come here."

    Bullsht.
    The US does have the moral obligation not to bomb countries that have not attacked the US and in that case only in a "just war" context if at all

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 1:57 pm

    Meaningless. The US frequently bombs innocent people or helps others like the Saudis or the Israelis do so. You say it is wrong, as do I, but apparently there are no consequences allowed in your moral universe which might inconvenience us. We really have no moral obligations at all– we can bomb people and if the survivors wish to come here to escape then we have the right to keep them out according to you. All this boils down to is that we have the strongest military. Your views regarding whether we should bomb someone are nothing more than your own idiosyncratic preference and that is using your own standard. The people who control the military want to use it to bomb other countries, so they do. Might makes Right.

    bob , February 9, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    " Your views regarding whether we should bomb someone are nothing more than your own idiosyncratic preference and that is using your own standard."

    "The US does have the moral obligation not to bomb countries that have not attacked the US and in that case only in a "just war" context if at all"

    Can't read, or don't want to?

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 2:14 pm

    I read it. So what? If we go ahead and bomb countries anyway, creating refugees, we have no obligation to help them. It is like saying that it was wrong for some Wall Street guys to steal people's money, but if they do, they have no obligation to give it back.

    bob , February 9, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    "I read it. So what? If we go ahead and bomb countries anyway"

    If we go ahead and assume that the earth is flat, why shouldn't "we" all relocate another planet?

    It's just that simple, and your keyboard strawmanning is making all the difference, for "we".

    Ground rules- am I arguing with "Donald" or the Royal We, or a heap of straw that you, pardon We(?), keep producing?

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    The US does bomb countries, so your flat earth analogy doesn't really work here. We aren't discussing hypotheticals. There are real refugees from real policies and Trump is likely to continue them or make them worse. We are directly responsible for the misery of vast numbers of people and the numbers are likely to grow. Set aside the internet squabble we are having, because you are so wrapped up in it you are losing touch with what we are arguing about.

    Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough.

    bob , February 9, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    "Anyway, as I just wrote upthread, I have written enough."

    That we'll agree on. Maybe another day you can elucidate on why you bother writing when you could find an airbase and stand on the runway, to stop the bombing.

    Anon , February 9, 2017 at 12:49 pm

    No one has the right to move to another country.

    Even after their homeland has been bombed, invaded, population tortured, social structure crushed?

    River , February 9, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    No they don't have that right. It falls under "that's your problem".

    Now, as harsh as that is I think from a humanitarian view and basic decency another nation should show some compassion and allow them succor. However, nations and the people of those nations are under no obligation to do so.

    Moral rights are meaningless. And yes, I do agree that another nation shouldn't create the refugees to begin with. As I find war to be a tool that is to be used as last resort. What has been occurring in the mid-East has been so far from a last resort that I can't even come up with a decent metaphor or simile.

    But that still doesn't change the fact that people do not have the right to enter another nation if the nation decides to say "No".

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    So if we go ahead and bomb Yemen or help the Saudis bomb Yemen, it really doesn't matter at all. We are responsible for war crimes, but we have zero obligation to help the victims.

    You switch back and forth between talk of morality and the law of the strongest. You say we shouldn't bomb other countries for no good reason, but that is as much a meaningless platitude as you say moral rights are in general. Basically you find it distasteful that we bomb other countries, but what really exercises you is the possibility that some refugees might come here. That will not stand.

    Gorgar Laughed , February 9, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Have you ever heard of the Melian Dialogue?

    There is a nice little re-enactment of it over at the Youtubes

    Donald , February 9, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    Yep. The strong do what they can and the weak do what they must. Nihilistic, but certainly a viewpoint I expect would be popular with the powerful.

    Gorgar Laughed , February 9, 2017 at 2:54 pm

    You miss the point. Realism is not nihilism.

    The Athenians had no good reason to suppose that the Gods would not favor them.

    There was nothing in their laws or beliefs to suggest otherwise.

    Similarly, there is nothing in our laws that requires us to accept population transfers because this or that President drops bombs in a far away country on people of whom we know nothing.

    Yves Smith Post author , February 9, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    Anon is correct. We can be obligated to bomb other countries by treaty. For instance, we bombed France to oust the Nazis as a result of treaty obligations. It is also correct to say that the US has been flagrantly ignoring what were considered to be international norms (pretty much no one notices here, but Russia has been making a stink on a regular basis in the UN).

    PKMKII , February 9, 2017 at 10:16 am

    Any day since 1/20, you could look at the front page of WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc., and see op-eds about how Trump is very very non-professional, sullying the good name of the office of the President. Denigrating the institution and the very very serious role it plays in American society, nay, the world! And yet the same front page will also cover, in-detail, whatever halfbaked Trump tweet or Spicer's performance-art-as-press-conference has been served up that day. They recognize that it's become a farce, but like someone who can't stop poking the tooth that hurts, they present the farce as being very very important news. The establishment press has become too enamored of the pomp and circumstance, the ceremonial of the White House media operation and their visible, although largely pointless, role in the whole thing. They're too scared of giving that up, lest they lose prominence or, le horror, have to do real reporting. So the Washington press corp prop up their end of the ceremony in the vain hopes of a return to the way things were, in denial of how their function is quickly becoming redundant. If all they're going to do is talk about Trump's latest tweet, we might as well just stop reading their sites and just read his tweets ourselves. Social media can just give us the press releases directly, we don't need the press to act as town criers, screeching out Trump's decree in the town squares.

    flora , February 9, 2017 at 10:24 am

    an aside re Yves intro:

    "Emerson College study found that the American public trusts Trump more than the media. "

    The WaPo's attempt to turn readers away from great sites like NC with their "fake news" story has backfired spectacularly. Thanks to NC and others furious initial pushback, including well crafted letters from NC's atty and the recipients responses published on NC, the term "fake news" has become a joke in the court of public opinion. It's become a subject for comedy skits. This is no small thing. Actually, it's a pretty big thing. McCarthist witch hunts live and die in the court of public opinion, imo. See: Joseph Welch, "Have you no sense of decency sir?"
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1eA5bUzVjA

    And with that exchange the court of public opinion turned against McCarthy and the witch hunt. Now where was I going with this ?

    john bougearel , February 9, 2017 at 10:51 am

    Ha! How dare ya attack my favorite cooking shows! LOL

    Gorgar Laughed , February 9, 2017 at 12:07 pm

    >After all, we're all good Christians

    Who's "We" Paleface? Bercow's not a Christian.

    And it looks as though we may finally be seeing the worm turn on the kiddie rape: the Rochdale rape gang is now set to be deported to Pakistan.

    Local MP Simon Danczuk: "Foreign-born criminals should not be able to hide behind human rights laws to avoid deportation."

    I suspect this line of thinking is going to be picked up in other countries on the Continent, and sooner rather than later.

    Once we start seeing child sex investigations target the English ruling class, we will know that we are getting somewhere

    Blurtman , February 9, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    Hispanic isn't a race, nor is Latino, but that has not stopped the MSM, bleeding hearts and SJW's from emoting.

    PKMKII , February 9, 2017 at 1:46 pm

    I was a census worker in 2010, and the forms didn't include Hispanic/Latino as a race; rather, it was put as a separate identity category with sub-answers for specific country of ancestral origin. However, 9 times out of 10 Hispanic responds would have me put "Hispanic" in the write-in box for the "Other" race option (the other 10% would have me write-in their ancestral country). The smarties with the degrees can say it's not a race, but if the people say that's their race, who are we to say otherwise?

    Blurtman , February 9, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    Ask Rachel Dolezal. Or perhaps Elizabeth Warren, an undocumented Native American (i.e., Indian). And yes, Pew Research would agree that folks who consider themselves to be Latino consider Latino to be a race. But most are Native American.

    But not anyone can be recognized as Native American in the USA unless they are on a tribal register, which is odd, as the USG seems to subject Native American citizens to a higher level of proof than Native Americans from south of the border.

    Anon y Mouse , February 9, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    " . But our problem is not called Donald Trump. And we need to stop pretending that it is. We are the problem. We allow our governments to tell our armies to bomb and drone innocent people while we watch cooking shows. We have believed, as long as we've been alive, whatever the media feed us, without any critical thought, which we reserve for choosing our next holiday destination." .

    Dear Raul,

    Yes, the media creates distortions in our perceptions. Yes, the orange one plays that terrain like a pro. Yes the British MP is hypocritical. I am with you there.

    "We are the problem." This kind of reasoning may be correct on a cosmic scale but it always seems to run to one of two conclusions. 1) Become a Buddhist and try to improve yourself. 2) Humans are too dumb to survive; wait until nature takes its course and humans kill themselves off playing Russian Roulette.

    I am not sure what your are recommending here. Do we let the orange sacred clown run this imperialist project into the ground? (To be replaced by what?) Or in opposing Trump do we clarify what we do want = i.e. a government that does not torture, a government that does not protect gotcha game mortgage lenders, a government that does not arm the world, a government that does not subsidize old suicidal fossil fuels, a government that is not run by a hysterical 3 AM tweeting 16 year old Marie Antoinette, your issue here .

    I don't know the answer here. The orange bull in the china shop is useful in so far as he reveals certain truths = ex: waterboarding is torture, congressmen are for sale, America has killed a lot of people, etc. If he stops the NeoCon project of invading other countries he might even be a benefit to world peace. But he's also likely to get people killed with his impulsive decisions and his ginning up the rubes.

    Irrational , February 9, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    Not reporting on tweets would free up a lot of time .

    Jeff N , February 9, 2017 at 5:12 pm

    a tomato is a fruit, but you can't use it in "fruit salad" :D

    Waking Up , February 9, 2017 at 5:52 pm

    What this really tells you is to what extent the political systems in the US and the UK, along with the media that serve them, have turned into a massive void, a vortex, a black hole from which any reflection, criticism or self-awareness can no longer escape. By endlessly and relentlessly pointing to someone, anyone, outside of their own circle of 'righteousness' and political correctness, they have all managed to implant one view of reality in their voters and viewers, while at the same time engaging in the very behavior they accuse the people of that they point to. For profit.

    On a recent interview with Donald Trump, Bill O'Reilly stated in regards to Vladimir Putin "But he's a killer". Donald Trump responds with a truth rarely heard in the media today, "There are a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?"

    I may not be a fan of Donald Trumps, but, how can we put down that level of honesty? Imagine if we actually had an honest nationwide discussion on what we are doing in the rest of the world .

    [Feb 06, 2017] Crazy propaganda from Fedbook, sorry Facebook about Russia oil transportation and discovery

    Notable quotes:
    "... US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes will not be sufficient to flood the market. ..."
    "... Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices. ..."
    "... The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without foreign participation (already producing oil). ..."
    "... In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s. ..."
    "... Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a big deal. ..."
    "... Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook. ..."
    "... From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's rather low on the probability meter. ..."
    "... Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now? ..."
    "... Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it. ..."
    "... At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth, they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil." ..."
    Feb 06, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
    Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 3:59 pm
    I saw this on Facebook. Can anyone respond?

    "Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine, who heavily tax the proceeds, and Ukraine was applying for admission into NATO at the time.

    Putin subsequently invaded Ukraine in 2014, secured the routes to export the oil tax-free by sea, and took control of the port where their Black Sea Naval Fleet is based, by taking the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine by force. This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international law in the free world.
    After Obama sanctioned Russia for the invasion, Exxon Mobil could only pump oil from approximately 3 of those 60+ million acres. But now Rex Tillerson is soon to be our Secretary of State, and as of today, there's information circulating that Donald Trump will likely unilaterally remove all sanctions against Russia in the coming days or weeks.

    The Russian government's oil company, Rosneft, will make half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars from that much untapped oil, all pumped tax-free through Crimea, stolen from Ukraine, now owned by Russia. Putin may have subverted our government just for this deal to go through."
    ______

    Now, a flood of oil on the market from Russia would likely keep US oil prices down, thus hurting US drillers right?

    If one is conspiracy-minded, could that be part of the deal, too? Russia uses low oil prices to take down US oil production, and then tries assert itself as one of the countries left standing.

    clueless says: 02/05/2017 at 4:53 pm
    In about 1780, Catherine the Great and the Ottoman Empire agreed that the Crimea was a part of Russia. [Yes, there was conflict for years prior (as with any other piece of land in the world).] In 1954, in honor of the 300th Anniversary of the Republic of Ukraine being a part of Russia, Nikita Krushchev "gave" the governance of the Crimea to the Republic of Ukraine. It was not constitutional under the Russian constitution. The UN said nothing about it, nor any other international law body. Krushchev later trumped up an approval without even a quorum.

    So the Republic of Ukraine seceded from Russia and took the Crimea with it. In the US, when states (republics) seceded [having been states for much less than 100 years, let alone over 300 years] the rest of the states killed as many people as they could until they "agreed to rejoin the union." People might not like it, but the vast majority of people living in the Crimea had ties to mother Russia, and they voted to go back to being governed by Russia. So, Putin accepted. And please, let's not get into an argument about the fairness of elections, unless your candidate wins.

    So, what would we do if Obama gave South Carolina to Florida, and then Florida seceded. I guess that the rest of the states would just say "shucks, we lost South Carolina too." Especially if South Carolina had the only warm water port in the US [the Crimea has the only warm water port in Russia]. The rest of the ports are in the North Sea, etc. And, yes, that is a critical military point.

    "This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international law in the free world." That is a pathetic joke! Okay – let's let the US South secede again, since the Cival War broke every international law in the free world and was exactly the same as Hitler's imperialism.

    AlexS says: 02/05/2017 at 6:12 pm
    clueless, thanks for the answer.

    Just one clarification: the ports in Crimea are not the only warm water ports in Russia.
    Russia has several other ports in the Black Sea and Azov Sea.
    Other ports are in the Baltic Sea, Arctic seas and the Pacific; not in the North Sea

    clueless says: 02/06/2017 at 1:59 am
    Perhaps I am wrong, but are those other ports large enough and deep enough for military use [which I failed to state clearly]? I beleive that Russia still operated their huge military port in the Crimea even after the Ukraine seceded and prior to Russia taking back the Crimea.
    AlexS says: 02/06/2017 at 6:17 am
    Sevastopol, the largest port in Crimea, was founded by Catherine the Great as Russia's main military port in the Black Sea.

    It had special status when Crimea was part of the Soviet Ukraine, and also when Ukraine became independent. Russia had a long-term arrangement with Ukraine for using Sevastopol.

    Russia also has a large military port in Novorossiisk (Russian part of Caucasus); but you are right, Sevastopol is deeper, bigger and more convenient.

    Duncan Idaho says: 02/06/2017 at 9:18 am
    Also, the Russian State originated in the Ukraine.
    See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik_dynasty

    Rurik set up rule in Novgorod, giving more provincial towns to his brothers. There is some ambiguity even in the Primary Chronicle about the specifics of the story, "hence their paradoxical statement 'the people of Novgorod are of Varangian stock, for formerly they were Slovenes.'" However, archaeological evidence such as "Frankish swords, a sword chape and a tortoiseshell brooch" in the area suggest that there was, in fact, a Scandinavian population during the tenth century at the latest.[3] The "Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project" of FamilyTreeDNA commercial genetic genealogy company reports that Y-DNA testing of the descendants of Rurikids suggests their non-Slavic origin.

    Kiev was the Capital of Russia when Moscow was still a hunting camp

    AlexS says: 02/05/2017 at 5:38 pm
    Boomer II,

    It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry, but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread.

    Exxon Mobil didn't lease any land in Russia. It is the operator of the Sakhalin-1 project in Russia' Far East (very far from Ukraine); and oil produced from this project is exported by sea (Pacific ocean).

    Exxon's JV with Rosneft has also found an oil field in Kara Sea (Russian Arctic), but this project was suspended due to the sanctions.

    In the past Russia was exporting a small part of its oil by the "Druzhba" ("Friendship") pipeline through Ukraine and was paying normal transporation fee, not taxes.

    Now all Russian oil is exported via Russian oil terminals near Novorossiisk (Black Sea) and Ust-Luga and Primorsk (on the Baltic Sea). New transporation routes include East-Siberia – Pacific Ocean (ESPO) oil pipeline linking Russian oil fields in Siberia with the ports on Pacific Ocean and with China's Daking; as well as oil terminals in the Arctic (Varandey).

    If US sanctions on Russia are lifted, Rosneft and Exxon will be able to develop their joint project in the Artcic, but oil found there certainly is not worth "half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars', and cannot seriously change the global supply-demand balance.

    clueless gave you a good answer on Crimea

    BTW, 1) there is no oil terminal in Crimea;
    2) Russian oil is taxed in Russia

    Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 5:59 pm
    "It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry, but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread."

    I never use Facebook as a source of information on the oil and gas industry. The topic never comes up among my Facebook friends or my news sources on Facebook. When I want gas and oil info, I use Google to look at legitimate news sources from industry observers.

    I just wanted some people's thoughts on that. Your reaction actually tells me a lot about how you think about it.

    We've had quite a few discussions here about how politics, both domestic and international, shapes oil production, so I was just inquiring about any insight. I'm rather surprised that you are telling me not to even post a question on the subject. Touchy, maybe?

    The relationship between Trump and Russia has triggered some questions, not just among Democrats, but also the GOP. And some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil.

    I just asked, that's all.

    AlexS says: 02/05/2017 at 6:31 pm
    "some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil."

    The only "tie in" is Exxon's frozen investments in the Pobeda (Victory) field in the Kara Sea. But that's no secret; you can find information on this project on Exxon's and Rosneft's websites and in international business media.

    The Sakhalin-1 project is not covered by the sanctions and is being successfully developed.

    Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 6:08 pm
    And basically what I was asking is this? Will a flood of Russian oil affect US oil prices?

    If you are playing US politics, do you want to put more foreign oil on the market?

    AlexS says: 02/05/2017 at 6:23 pm
    "Will a flood of Russian oil affect US oil prices?"

    US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes will not be sufficient to flood the market.

    Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices.

    Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 8:56 pm
    So is it possible that the time frame is so far in the future that it's dead to Exxon even if the sanctions are lifted?
    AlexS says: 02/06/2017 at 6:05 am
    I think Exxon could re-enter the project if the sanctions are lifted. If sanctions are not lifted for several years, Rosneft will likely develop this field independently, but it would take more time as Rosneft lacks experience in offshore projects.

    The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without foreign participation (already producing oil).

    In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s.

    Watcher says: 02/05/2017 at 5:53 pm
    Politics aside, it's just factually inaccurate.

    "Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine"

    Almost all pipelines through Ukraine are nat gas. Not oil. There is some minor oil flow. "All" is just profoundly absurd.

    Russia's oil output is going to Asia and northern Europe via Transneft lines to Poland and Belarus. Not through Ukraine. Haven't looked for where those Exxon leases are, but I'm pretty sure that's the Rosneft joint venture up around the Arctic.

    Nowhere near Ukraine. This is all just completely wrong.

    Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 6:10 pm
    Ok. This response is much more helpful.

    Now back to my question about prices. What happens when the sanctions are lifted?

    Duncan Idaho says: 02/05/2017 at 6:45 pm
    Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
    – Alice in Wonderland
    Survivalist says: 02/06/2017 at 12:56 am
    FedBook, er I mean Facebook, is a ghetto of sentimentality. I suggest deleting from it. I joined Facebook once for a very short time and the only thing I learnt from it was that most of my friends are idiots.
    Fred Magyar says: 02/06/2017 at 2:01 pm
    +10
    Duncan Idaho says: 02/06/2017 at 3:06 pm
    Also +10
    One has to be an idiot to be on Facebook
    Fernando Leanme says: 02/06/2017 at 9:36 am
    Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a big deal.

    Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook.

    GreenPeople's Media says: 02/06/2017 at 1:14 am
    From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's rather low on the probability meter.

    Again from what I've read (numerous sources) the Russian oil fields are being extracted just about as heavily as they can be at this time, as are the Saudi fields, again relying on a number of different sources.

    Without getting too "tinfoil-hatty" I'd say most of the stories about the global oil markets which promise big bursts of production from (heretofore undisclosed) big new oil fields are in the category of "fake news." These stories serve to boost U.S. consumer confidence and U.S. automobile and light truck sales, but contradict what people in the industry (such as Art Berman, Tadeusz Patzek et al.) are saying about future supply.

    VK says: 02/06/2017 at 7:20 am
    Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now?

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/jack-perry/?ptype=article

    "I've gotten a couple emails from people who have asked me what I think the "end game" is in regards to Russia. And, indeed, the government is going into extra innings with this whole Russia vilification project. This is worse than someone who has held on to a grudge for years. The government does that, too, but they haven't done it over ideology (as with Cuba) for quite some time now. What, then, is the motive?

    The motive is perfectly clear: Oil. You see, Russia has already eclipsed Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer. This means the big Saudi oil fields are drying up. And the government knows that, but they can't tell us this because it'll create a panic. One would think this would motivate the United States to get cozier with Russia. However, what the United States government fears is that if we do that, Russia will twig to the motive for it, and realize it has the United States over a barrel. An oil barrel. At which point the price goes up. Not to mention extracting concessions in the global sphere of influence.

    Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it.

    At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth, they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil."

    George Kaplan says: 02/06/2017 at 2:50 pm
    Saudi has had water injection for much longer than ten years on pretty well all it's fields and I don't think they are using nitrogen injection anywhere, there may be some small CO2 EOR projects though. Their production has been maintained by developing three old, heavy oil fields that were mostly dormant (Manifa, Khurais and Shaybah), by using a lot of in-fill drilling and intelligent wells (where water breakthrough can be controlled) on maturing fields and by extensively redeveloping offshore fields with new wellhead platforms and adding artificial lift. I don't think their fields are anywhere near drying up; they may be hitting some limits in surface facilities – probably to do with water injection or treatment of produced water which means they have to continually choke back so as not to damage the reservoirs.

    [Feb 04, 2017] A color revolution is under way in the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
    "... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
    "... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
    "... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
    "... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
    "... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
    "... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
    "... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
    "... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
    "... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
    "... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
    "... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
    "... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
    "... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
    "... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
    "... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
    Feb 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "

    Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the USA right now.

    Politico seems to feel the same way. See their recent cover :

    While I did predict that " The USA is about to face the worst crisis of its history " as far back as October of last year, a month before the elections, I have to admit that I am surprised and amazed at the magnitude of the struggle which we see taking place before our eyes. It is now clear that the Neocons did declare war on Trump and some, like Paul Craig Roberts, believe that Trump has now returned them the favor . I sure hope that he is right.

    Let's look at one telling example:

    US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk.

    According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former

    Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.

    He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing.

    Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).

    That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet Nomenklatura , roughly 3 million people (and even bigger mistake!).

    But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.

    By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin.

    Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon

    This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.

    In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the " pussyhat revolution " as explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists, you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image on the right shows.

    This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.

    This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".

    Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:

    Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not once, but twice.

    What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!

    How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for rebellion and sedition ?

    So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they were well covered by the media:

    Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example:

    Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children".

    Want even more proof?

    Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select just two:

    The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA and Trump is the ultimate Evil.

    This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.

    My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.

    One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.

    The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    Can he do that?

    Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card: General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces to ensure "collaboration".

    However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.

    Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way: while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis), the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash and burn into the scandal.

    9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).

    I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal: the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".

    You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.

    1. First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
    2. Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
    3. Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic?
    4. Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.

    There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.

    Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?

    I don't know.

    I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular" military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces). SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.

    Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough. Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.

    One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street" take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists, all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve their goals.

    The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.

    I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think of as "deplorables

    It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word " быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again in 2017.

    [Feb 04, 2017] A color revolution is under way in the United States

    Notable quotes:
    "... Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. ..."
    "... US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk. ..."
    "... In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing. ..."
    "... Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that). ..."
    "... But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently. ..."
    "... By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin. ..."
    "... This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President. ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... pussyhat revolution ..."
    "... Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example: ..."
    "... Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children". ..."
    "... Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable ..."
    "... My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump. ..."
    "... One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast. ..."
    "... The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective. ..."
    "... 9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia). ..."
    "... First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success. ..."
    "... Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program". ..."
    "... Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic? ..."
    "... Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof. ..."
    "... will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ..."
    Feb 04, 2017 | www.unz.com

    A Russian joke goes like this: " Question: why can there be no color revolution in the United States? Answer: because there are no US Embassies in the United States. "

    Funny, maybe, but factually wrong: I believe that a color revolution is being attempted in the USA right now.

    Politico seems to feel the same way. See their recent cover :

    While I did predict that " The USA is about to face the worst crisis of its history " as far back as October of last year, a month before the elections, I have to admit that I am surprised and amazed at the magnitude of the struggle which we see taking place before our eyes. It is now clear that the Neocons did declare war on Trump and some, like Paul Craig Roberts, believe that Trump has now returned them the favor . I sure hope that he is right.

    Let's look at one telling example:

    US intelligence agencies are now investigating their own boss! Yes, according to recent reports , the FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and Treasury Department are now investigating the telephone conversations between General Flynn and the Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyk.

    According to Wikipedia, General Flynn is the former

    Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Joint Functional Component Command for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Chair of the Military Intelligence Board Assistant Director of National Intelligence Senior intelligence officer for the Joint Special Operations Command.

    He is also Trump's National Security Advisor. In other words, his security clearance is stratospherically high and he will soon become the boss of all the US intelligence services. And yet, these very same intelligence services are investigating him for his contacts with the Russian Ambassador. That is absolutely amazing.

    Even in the bad old Soviet Union, the putatively almighty KGB did not have the right to investigate a member of the Communist Party Central Committee without a special authorization of the Politburo (a big mistake, in my opinion, but never mind that).

    That roughly means that the top 500 members of the Soviet state could not be investigated by the KGB at all. Furthermore, such was the subordination of the KGB to the Party that for common criminal matters the KGB was barred from investigating any member of the entire Soviet Nomenklatura , roughly 3 million people (and even bigger mistake!).

    But in the case of Flynn, several US security agencies can decide to investigate a man who by all standards ought to be considered at least in the top 5 US officials and who clearly has the trust of the new President. And that does not elicit any outrage, apparently.

    By the same logic, the three letter agencies might as well investigate Trump for his telephone conversations with Vladimir Putin.

    Which, come to think of it, they might well do it soon

    This is all absolutely crazy because this is evidence that the US intelligence community has gone rogue and is now taking its orders from the Neocons and their deep state and not from the President and that these agencies are now acting against the interests of the new President.

    In the meantime, the Soros crowd has already chosen a color: pink. We now are witnessing the " pussyhat revolution " as explained on this website. And if you think that this is just a small fringe of lunatic feminists, you would be quite wrong. For the truly lunatic feminists the "subtle" hint about their " pussyhat revolution " is too subtle, so they prefer making their statement less ambiguous as the image on the right shows.

    This would all be rather funny, in a nauseating way I suppose, if it wasn't for the fact that the media, Congress and Hollywood are fully behind this "100 days of Resistance to Trump" which began by a, quote, "queer dance party" at Mike Pence's house.

    This would be rather hilarious, if it was not for all gravitas with which the corporate media is treating these otherwise rather pathetic "protests".

    Watch how MCNBS's talking head blissfully reporting this event:

    Listen carefully to what Moore says at 2:00. He says that they will "celebrate the fact that Obama is still the President of the United States" and the presstitute replies to him, "yes he is" not once, but twice.

    What are they talking about?! The fact that Obama is still the President?!

    How is it that Homeland Security and the FBI are not investigating MCNBC and Moore for rebellion and sedition ?

    So far, the protests have not been too large, but they did occur in various US cities and they were well covered by the media:

    Make no mistake, such protests are no more spontaneous than the ones in the Ukraine. Somebody is paying for all this, somebody is organizing it all. And they are using their full bag of tricks. One more example:

    Remember the pretty face of Nayirah , the Kuwaiti nurse who told Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers tossing our babies from Kuwaiti incubators (and who later turned out to be the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States)? Do you remember the pretty face of Neda , who " died on TV " in Iran? Well, let me introduce you to Bana Alabe, who wrote a letter to President Trump and, of course, the media got hold of the latter and now she is the "face of the Syrian children".

    Want even more proof?

    Okay, click here and take a look at a sampling of anti-Trump caricatures and cartoons compiled by the excellent Colonel Cassad. Some of them are quite remarkable. From this nauseating collection, I will select just two:

    The first one clearly accuses Trump of being in the hands of Putin. The second one make Trump the heir to Adolf Hitler and strongly suggests that Trump might want to restart Auschwitz. Translated into plain English this sends a double message: Trump is not the legitimate President of the USA and Trump is the ultimate Evil.

    This goes far beyond the kind of satire previous Presidents have ever been subjected to.

    My purpose in listing all the examples above is to suggest the following: far from having accepted defeat, the Neocons and the US deep state have decided, as they always do, to double-down and they are now embarking on a full-scale "color revolution" which will only end with the impeachment, overthrowal or death of Donald Trump.

    One of the most amazing features of this color revolution against Trump is the fact that those behind it don't give a damn about the damage that their war against Trump does to the institution of the President of the United States and, really, to the United States as a whole. That damage is, indeed, immense and the bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    The other amazing thing is the ugly role Britain plays in this process: all the worst filth against Trump is always eventually traced back right to the UK. How come? Simple. Do you recall how, formally at least, the CIA and NSA did not have the right to spy on US nationals and the British MI6 and GCHQ had no right to spy on British nationals. Both sides found an easy way out: they simply traded services: the CIA and NSA spied on Brits, the MI6 and GCHQ spied on Americans, and then they simply traded the data between "partners" (it appears that since Obama came to power all these measures have now become outdated and everybody is free to spy on whomever the hell they want, including their own nationals). The US Neocons and the US deep state are now using the British special services to produce a stream of filth against Trump which they then report as "intelligence" and which then can be used by Congress as a basis for an investigation. Nice, simple and effective.

    The bottom line is this: President Trump is in immense danger of being overthrown and his only hope for survival is to strike back hard and fast.

    Can he do that?

    Until now I have suggested several times that Trump deal with the US Neocons the way Putin dealt with the oligarchs in Russia: get them on charges of tax evasion, corruption, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, etc. All that good stuff which the US deep state has been doing for years. The Pentagon and the Three Letter Agencies are probably the most corrupt entities on the planet and since they have never been challenged, never mind punished, for their corruption, they must have become fantastically complacent about how they were doing things, essentially counting on the White House to bail them out in case of problems. The main weapons used by these circles are the numerous secrecy laws which protect them from public and Congressional scrutiny. But here Trump can use his most powerful card: General Flynn who, as former director of the DIA and current National Security Advisor to the President will have total access. And if he doesn't – he can create it, if needed by sending special forces to ensure "collaboration".

    However, I am now beginning to think that this might not be enough. Trump has a much more powerful weapon he can unleash against the Neocon: 9/11.

    Whether Trump knew about it before or not, he is now advised by people like Flynn who must have known for years that 9/11 was in inside job. And if the actual number of people directly implicated in the 9/11 operation itself was relatively small, the number of people which put their full moral and political credibility behind the 9/11 official narrative is immense. Let me put it this way: while 9/11 was a US "deep state" operation (probably subcontracted for execution to the Israelis), the entire Washington "swamp" has been since "9/11 accomplice after the fact" by helping to maintain the cover-up. If this is brought into light, then thousands of political careers are going to crash and burn into the scandal.

    9/11 was a collective crime par excellence . A few men actually executed it, but then thousands, possibly tens of thousands, have used their position to execute the cover-up and to prevent any real investigation. They are ALL guilty of obstruction of justice. By opening a new investigation into 911, but one run by the Justice Department and NOT by Congress, Trump could literally place a "political handgun" next to the head of each politician and threaten to pull the trigger if he does not immediately give up on trying to overthrow Trump. What Trump needs for that is a 100% trusted and 100% faithful man as the director of the FBI, a man with " clean hands, a cool head and a burning heart " (to use the expression of the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Dzerzhinsky). This man will immediately find himself in physical danger so he will have to be a man of great personal courage and determination. And, of course, this "man" could be a woman (a US equivalent of the Russian prosecutor, Natalia Poklonskaia).

    I fully understand that danger of what I am suggesting as any use of the "9/11 weapon" will, of course, result in an immense counter-attack by the Neocons and the deep state. But here is the deal: the latter are already dead set in impeaching, overthrowing or murdering Donald Trump. And, as Putin once said in an interview, "if you know that a fight is inevitable, then strike first!".

    You think that all is this over the top? Consider what is at stake.

    1. First, at the very least, the Trump Presidency itself: the Neocons and the US deep state will not let Trump implement his campaign promises and program. Instead they will sabotage, ridicule and misrepresent everything he does, even if this is a big success.
    2. Second, it appears that Congress now has the pretext to open several different congressional investigations into Donald Trump. If that is the case, it will be easy for Congress to blackmail Trump and constantly threaten him with political retaliation if he does not "get with the program".
    3. Third, the rabid persecution of Trump by the Neocons and the deep state is weakening the institution of the Presidency. For example, the latest crazy notion floated by some politicians is to " prohibit the President of the United States from using nuclear weapons without congressional authorization except when the United States is under nuclear attack ." From a technical point of view, this is nonsense, but what it does is send the following signal to the rest of the planet: "we, in Congress, believe that our Commander in Chief cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons." Never mind that they would trust Hillary with the same nukes and never mind that Trump could use only conventional weapons to trigger a global nuclear war anyway (by, for example, a conventional attack on the Kremlin), what they are saying is that the US President is a lunatic that cannot be trusted. How can they then expect him to be take seriously on any topic?
    4. Fourth, can you just imagine what will happen if the anti-Trump forces are successful?! Not only will democracy be totally and terminally crushed inside the USA, but the risks of war, including nuclear, will simply go through the roof.

    There is much more at stake here than just petty US politics.

    Every time I think of Trump and every time I look at the news I always come back to the same anguished thought: will Trump have the intelligence to realize the fact that he is under attack and will he have the courage to strike back hard enough ?

    I don't know.

    I have a great deal of hopes for General Flynn. I am confident that he understands the picture perfectly and knows exactly what is going on. But I am not sure that he has enough pull with the rest of the armed forces to keep them on the right side should a crisis happen. Generally, "regular" military types don't like intelligence people. My hope is that Flynn has loyal allies at SOCOM and JSOC as, at the end of the day, they will have the last say as to who occupies the White House. The good news here is that unlike regular military types, special forces and intelligence people are usually very close and used to work together (regular military types also dislike special forces). SOCOM and JSOC will also know how to make sure that the CIA doesn't go rogue.

    Last but not least, my biggest hope is that Trump will use the same weapon Putin used against the Russian elites: the support of the people. But for that task, Twitter is simply not good enough. Trump needs to go the "RT route" and open his own TV channel. Of course, this will be very hard and time consuming, and he might have to begin with an Internet-based only channel, but as long as there is enough money there, he can make it happen. And, just like RT, it needs to be multi-national, politically diverse (including anti-Empire figures who do not support Trump) and include celebrities.

    One of the many mistakes made by Yanukovich in the Ukraine was that he did not dare to fully use the legal instruments of power to stop the neo-Nazis. And to the degree that he used them, it was a disaster (like when the riot cops beat up student demonstrators). After listening to a few interviews of Yanukovich and of people near him during those crucial hours, it appears that Yanukovich simply did not feel that he had a moral right to use violence to suppress the street. We will never now if what truly held him back are moral principles of basic cowardice, but what is certain is that he betrayed his people and his country when he refused to defend real democracy and let the "street" take over replacing democracy with ochlocracy (mob rule). Of course, real ochlocracy does not exists, all mobs are always controlled by behind-the-scenes forces who unleash them just long enough to achieve their goals.

    The forces which are currently trying to impeach, overthrow or murder President Trump are a clear and present danger to the United States as a country and to the US Federal Republic. They are, to use a Russian word, a type of "non-system" opposition which does not want to accept the outcome of the elections and which by rejecting this outcome essentially oppose the entire political system.

    I am not a US citizen (I could, but I refuse that citizenship on principle because I refuse to take the required oath of allegiance) and the only loyalty I owe the USA is the one of a guest: never to deliberately harm it in any way and to obey its laws. And yet it turns my stomach to see how easy it has been to turn millions of Americans against their own country. I write a lot about russophobia on this blog, but I also see a deep-seated "Americanophobia" or "USophobia" in the words and actions who today say that Trump is not their President. To them, they micro-identity as a "liberal" or as a "gay" or as "African-American" means more than the very basic fundamental principles upon which this country has been built. When I see these crowds of Trump-bashers I see pure, seething hatred not of the AngloZionist Empire, or of a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy, but a hatred of what I would call the "simple America" or the "daily America" – the simple people amongst whom I have now lived for many years and learned to respect and appreciate and whom the Clinton-bots only think of as "deplorables

    It amazes me to see that the US pseudo-elites have as much hatred, contempt and fear of the American masses as the Russian pseudo-elites have hatred, contempt and fear of the Russian masses (the Russian equivalent or Hillary's "deplorables" would be a hard to pronounce for English speakers word " быдло ", roughly "cattle", "lumpen" or "rabble"). It amazes me to see that the very same people which have demonized Putin for years are now demonizing Trump using exactly the same methods. And if their own country has to go down in their struggle against the common people – so be it! These self-declared elites will have no compunction whatsoever to destroy the nation their have been parasitizing and exploiting for their own class interest. They did just that to Russia exactly 100 years ago, in 1917. I sure hope that they will not get away with that again in 2017.

    [Feb 01, 2017] Neoliberal Hypocrite of the Month for February 2017: Former Clinton-era Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

    Feb 01, 2017 | blackagendareport.com
    Madeleine Albright got her start as the protégé of notorious cold warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was her dissertation advisor at Columbia. As Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor Z-big put Albright on as his special assistant. The next time a Democrat occupied the White House she was UN ambassador in Clinton's first term and secretary of state in his second. Madeleine Albright famously asserted in a 1996 60 Minutes interview that although the US blockade of Iraq which she vigorously championed killed a half million Iraqi children that "...it was a hard choice but it was worth it..."
    Enrique Ferro's insight: "Progressives" is the name Democrats call themselves when they need to draw attention away from the greedy and murderous one percenters who actually call the shots in their party. Lazy, hypocritical progressive followers protest the unconstitutional machinations of Republican administrations like those of George W. Bush and Donald Trump while they ignore excuse the same crimes when committed by Democrats like the Clintons or Barack Obama.

    [Jan 30, 2017] Former Obama adviser Rice calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel stone cold crazy

    Notable quotes:
    "... There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community ..."
    "... the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes. ..."
    "... In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative." ..."
    Jan 30, 2017 | www.cnn.com

    Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'

    President Donald Trump's decision to reorganize the National Security Council in a way that removes the director of intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "stone cold crazy," former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday.

    Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."

    Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order signed by Trump that said that the head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."

    "This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador."

    DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN confirmed.

    In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the Principals Committee. The committee is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989. Every version of it has included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the head of the DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.

    Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has in the Trump administration.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team writ large, but expressed concerns about Bannon.

    "I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think you could ask for a better one," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

    "I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the permanent members of it. The appointment of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern this quote reorganization."

    Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in Cabinet level principals meetings. And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"

    And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings if Trump isn't available.

    "Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."

    And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was "sidelined from Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."

    The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was asked to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.

    There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community , though during a January 22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I love you. I respect you."

    Before then, the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes.

    In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative."

    Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the defense secretary, the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the President and chief strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.

    [Jan 30, 2017] Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'

    Notable quotes:
    "... There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community ..."
    "... the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes. ..."
    "... In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative." ..."
    Jan 30, 2017 | www.cnn.com

    Former Obama adviser calls Trump decision on Nat Sec panel 'stone cold crazy'

    President Donald Trump's decision to reorganize the National Security Council in a way that removes the director of intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is "stone cold crazy," former National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Sunday.

    Rice retweeted another Twitter user, P.E. Juan, who said: "Trump loves and trusts the military so much he just kicked them out of the National Security Council and put a Nazi in their place."

    Rice, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, was reacting to an executive order signed by Trump that said that the head of DNI and the nation's most senior military officer would be invited to attend the security meetings "where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed."

    "This is stone cold crazy. After a week of crazy. Who needs military advice or intell to make policy on ISIL, Syria, Afghanistan, DPRK?" Rice tweeted, with DPRK referring to North Korea.

    White House press secretary Sean Spicer told ABC News Rice's comments were "clearly inappropriate language from a former ambassador."

    DNI James Clapper was always included in Obama administration's NSC principals' meetings, CNN confirmed.

    In contrast, Trump's order makes his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, a regular member of the Principals Committee. The committee is Cabinet-level group of agencies that deal with national security that was established by President George H. W. Bush in 1989. Every version of it has included the Joint Chiefs chairman and the director of the CIA or, once it was established, the head of the DNI. The President's chief of staff was typically included as well.

    Bannon's presence reinforces the notion he is, in essence, a co-chief of staff alongside Reince Priebus, and demonstrates the breadth of influence the former head of Breitbart News has in the Trump administration.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, offered praise for the administration's national security team writ large, but expressed concerns about Bannon.

    "I think the national security team around President Trump is very impressive. I don't think you could ask for a better one," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

    "I am worried about the national security council who are the members of it and who are the permanent members of it. The appointment of Mr. Bannon is something which is a radical departure from any national security council in history," he said. "It's of concern this quote reorganization."

    Rice continued her tweetstorm: "Chairman of Joint Chiefs and DNI treated as after thoughts in Cabinet level principals meetings. And where is CIA?? Cut out of everything?"

    And she noted a provision that would allow Vice President Michael Pence to chair NSC meetings if Trump isn't available.

    "Pence may chair NSC mtgs in lieu of POTUS," Rice tweeted. "Never happened w/Obama."

    And she added the observation that Trump's UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, was "sidelined from Cabinet and Sub Cab mtgs."

    The NSC is run by National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was asked to step down in 2014 by senior intelligence leaders.

    There has been running tension between the Trump administration and the intelligence community , though during a January 22 visit to the CIA Trump declared that "nobody feels stronger about the intelligence community than Donald Trump," adding that "I love you. I respect you."

    Before then, the President had argued that intelligence services were politically partisan, he dismissed their findings that Russia hacked Democratic targets during the campaign and referred slightingly to the intelligence community by tweeting with the word intelligence in quotes.

    In setting out the reorganization, Trump said that "security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries. Accordingly, the United States Government's decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative."

    Regular members of the Principals Committee will include the secretary of state, the treasury secretary, the defense secretary, the attorney general, the secretary of Homeland Security, the assistant to the President and chief of staff, the assistant to the President and chief strategist, the national security adviser and the Homeland Security adviser.

    [Jan 29, 2017] How Obama Framed Trump with Faux Mortgage Insurance Rate Decrease

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV ..."
    "... "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled"" ..."
    "... Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. ..."
    Jan 29, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on January 28, 2017 by Yves Smith By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV

    (This is my first issue-opinion video. With thanks especially to Adryenn Ashley and Jimmy Dore for the inspiration. All sources and supporting evidence is below.) Within hours of becoming the 45th President of the United States , one of Donald Trump's first orders of business was to sign an executive order to " raise mortgage insurance rates " on millions of homeowners , by around $500 a year.

    But while it is technically true that Trump did sign the order reversing the decrease, it is a misleading picture. This story is more a negative reflection on President Obama than it is on Trump.

    A Brief Tutorial From Someone Who Is Learning the Subject Right Along With You

    Generally speaking, if you are a first time homebuyer and purchase a house with a down payment of less than 20% of the home's worth, you are required to purchase mortgage insurance. This insurance is to protect the the lender in case you default on your payments.

    Let's use the example of a $200,000 home with a $10,000 (5%) down payment. So you need to borrow $190,000.

    $200,000 * .05 = $10,000
    
    $200,000 - $10,000 = $190,000
    

    Since January 2015 , the upfront MIP ( mortgage insurance premium ) has been 1.75%, with the annual premium at .8%. So when you sign the mortgage, you pay the upfront premium of $3,325.

    $190,000 * .0175 = $3,325
    

    And then every year, you pay the annual premium of $1,520.

    $190,000 * .008 = $1,520
    

    As you pay off your principal, this number goes down.

    The Obama administration's reduction of the annual premium rate is .25 points (the upfront premium remains unchanged). So with the same loan above, your annual premium would instead be $1,045.

    .008 - .0025 = .0055
    
    $190,000 * .0055 = $1,045
    

    That's a savings of $475 a year, or about $40 a month.

    $1,520 - $1,045 = $475
    
    $475 / 12 months = $39.59
    

    Backlash Against Trump

    The criticism of Trump for this move has been unrelenting and, at least in my internet bubble, unanimous. I have not seen any criticism of the Obama administration at all; including by, disappointingly, one of my primary sources of news, The Young Turks. (Can't find the video at the moment, but they briefly criticized Trump for the move, without looking further into the issue.)

    As reported by USA Today :

    Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday that Trump's words in his inaugural speech "ring hollow" following the mortgage premium action.

    "In one of his first acts as president, President Trump made it harder for Americans to afford a mortgage," he said. "What a terrible thing to do to homeowners. Actions speak louder than words."

    As reported by Bloomberg :

    "This action is completely out of alignment with President Trump's words about having the government work for the people," said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, through a spokesman. "Exactly how does raising the cost of buying a home help average people?"

    Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in an e-mail wrote, "On Day 1, the president has turned his back on middle-class families - this decision effectively takes $500 out of the pocketbooks of families that were planning to buy a home in 2017. This is not the way to build a strong economy."

    And one of the many strong criticisms as documented by Common Dreams :

    "Donald Trump's inaugural speech proclaimed he will govern for the people, instead of the political elite," [Liz Ryan Murray, policy director for national grassroots advocacy group People's Action] said. "But minutes after giving this speech, he gave Wall Street a big gift at the expense of everyday people. Trump may talk a populist game, but policies like this make life better for hedge fund managers and big bankers like his nominee for Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, not for everyday people."

    The Full Picture

    To say that Trump took savings away from the neediest of homebuyers is not true, because homebuyers never had the savings to begin with. The rate reduction was not announced until January 9 of this year–11 days before the end of Obama's eight year term–and was not set to take effect until January 27, a full week after Trump was sworn in.

    (Here's the PDF from the FHA, of Trump's suspension announcement .)

    In addition, Obama's reduction decision seems to have been made without any advance notice or even a projection document justifying the decrease. As I understand it , both of these things are unusual with a change of this magnitude.

    Finally, with the announcement made little more than a week before the new administration was to be sworn in, and despite Trump being entirely responsible for implementing this change, the incoming administration was not consulted.

    Now that the timing is clear, Time Magazine's coverage is particularly misleading:

    Trump, who claimed a populist mantle in his first speech as a president, signed the executive order less than an hour after leaving the inaugural stage. It reverses an Obama-era policy.

    "Obama-era policy" implies the reduction was made long ago, and has been in force for much of that time.


    (Rates can't be raised if they were never lowered.)

    Conclusion: It Was a Set Up

    Finally. After eight years of hard work and multiple requests, your boss approaches you on a Monday morning and says, "Good news! Starting in two weeks, I'm giving you a raise. Congratulations."

    Two days later, you find out that he decided to leave the company months ago, and his final day is Friday. Your raise doesn't start until a week after that.

    You ask him about your new boss. "Well, he's a pretty strict guy." He leans in, puts the back of his hand to the side of his mouth, lowers his voice, and continues, "Honesty, I hear he is a bit difficult to work with. Real penny pincher." He sits up, his voice back to its normal cadence, "But don't worry. I'm leaving a note on his desk telling him just how important this raise is to you and your family." He stands up and slaps you on the back as he walks away. "I'm sure he'll keep my word."

    If that were me, I would be upset at my new boss, but I would be furious at my old one. He had eight years to do something.

    This was nothing more than an opportunistic political maneuver by the outgoing president, to set the incoming president up for failure. All while pretending to care about American homeowners. If the President Obama really wanted to help Americans, he would've considered this move–or something similar–long ago. Instead, he told them he was giving them a gift and promised that it would be delivered by Trump, knowing full well that he would never follow through. Lower-income Americans were used as pawns in a cheap political game.

    Further confirming my theory, here is what was said when the reduction was originally announced :

    "The Trump administration would be accused on day one of raising mortgage costs for average Americans if it reverses the FHA move," analyst Jaret Seiberg, managing director at Cowen Group Inc., wrote in a note to clients. "Trump's career has been real estate. It would seem out of character for him to be aggressively negative on real estate in his first week in office." [ ]

    "I have no reason to believe this will be scaled back," [HUD Secretary Julian] Castro told reporters. The premium cut "offers a good benefit to hardworking American families out there at a time when interest rates might well continue to go up."

    It is not Trump's responsibility to keep the promises that Obama makes on his way out the door. It is Obama's responsibility to not promise what is not promiseable.

    There are so many things for progressives to criticize Trump about. This is not one of them.

    So Who Are We Fighting Anyway?

    To paraphrase Jimmy Dore , "The way to oppose Trump is to agree with him when he's right, and to fight him when he's wrong. Anything else delegitimizes you, especially in the eyes of his supporters."

    And again in another of his videos : "We don't need to unite against Trump. We need to unite against corruption and corporatism."

    If Democrats do something wrong, we need to fight them. If Trump does something wrong, we need to fight him. If Trump does something right, we need to stand with him.

    If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win.

    39 0 10 0 1 This entry was posted in Banana republic , Banking industry , Credit markets , Dubious statistics , Guest Post , Media watch , Real estate , Regulations and regulators on January 28, 2017 by Yves Smith . Subscribe to Post Comments 93 comments Lambert Strether , January 28, 2017 at 6:06 am

    "If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win."

    Let's get that tatooed on our foreheads.

    UserFriendly , January 28, 2017 at 7:21 am

    I agree with the sentiment but after watching the D party protest war under Bush, never talk about it under Obama, and then cheerlead for it with Hillary I don't think they actually stand for anything except identity politics.

    jgordon , January 28, 2017 at 7:47 am

    Right, they traded support for real issues for identity politics. Identity politics which is lovingly celebrated on TYT every day by the way. I'm not sure how or why anyone would go to that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation for news, but ok.

    Here is a litmus test: anyone who gave a pro forma endorsement of Hillary OK, understandable, and I can kind of tolerate that. But for the others who were in the tank for Hillary like TYT–all except for Jimmy Dore–those people are persona non grata from here out.

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:35 am

    Totally disagree that TYT was in the tank for Hillary. Have watched these guys every day since around May. They're all pro-Bernie. They clearly wanted Hillary over Trump during the general (and I did too, but that's waaaaaay not to say I'm pro-Hillary), but I don't think "in the tank for Hillary" is a fair characterization for any of them.

    To me, the best evidence is that I have not witnessed Jimmy Dore being forced to tone his admittedly louder and more vehement anti-Hillary ranting down on any show, including the main show. They even gave him his own show around the end of the primaries where he gleefully goes off (Aggressive Progressives).

    As an aside, The Jimmy Dore Show seems fresher than Aggressive Progressives, I believe because he rehearses the bits on own show first. On TJDS, he is frequently good, and consistently on fire.

    Naked Cap, the entire TYT network, Glenn Greenwald, Le Show, and of course, Bernie Sanders, are among my most important truth tellers.

    Jerry Denim , January 28, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Sorry for being so clueless, but "TYT", "TJDS" ?

    Anyone care to fill me in on this nomenclature?

    Thanks!

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:26 pm

    TYT – The Young Turks
    TJDS – The Jimmy Dore Show

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    The Young Turks and The Jimmy Dore Show. YouTube shows.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:27 pm

    If you voted for Hillary then you were in the tank for her. There's no such thing as the lesser of the two evils. Sorry! Same goes for TYT.

    dcrane , January 28, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    A relevant definition of "in the tank" from this NY Times Magazine article:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-safire-t.html

    "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled""

    Yves Smith Post author , January 28, 2017 at 4:59 pm

    It's not that clear cut. For instance, if you are a person of color, there was good reason to be plenty worried about Trump. Violence against immigrants picked up big time in the UK after Brexit, so there's a close parallel. And his appointment of Jeff Sessions as AG is hardly encouraging.

    Brian Daly , January 28, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    But if you're White, you have no good reason to be worried about Trump? That's a rather shabby way to think about folks of all colors.

    Sorry to be snarky. It's just exasperating reading these attempts to define and claim moral purity. In a complex and compromised world.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 10:17 pm

    Did you see their election day coverage? Here are the highlights: TYT meltdown .
    My favorite part starts at 14m50s, when Kasparian rants about how she has no respect for women who didn't vote for Clinton and calls them "f@#king dumb". Solidarity!

    skippy , January 28, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    What the – ????? – like the right wing is not all about Identity Politics from an ethnic and religious foundations .. errrrrrr .

    Now that the Democrats embraced free market neoliberalism and went off the reservation with non traditional views wrt whom could join the club, being the only thing separating the two, its a bit wobbly to make out like there is some massive schism between the two.

    Disheveled . you can't have a "dominate" economic purview running the ship for 50ish years and then devolve into polemic political warfare ..

    Teejay , January 28, 2017 at 4:42 pm

    jgordon– Identity politics lovingly celebrated on that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation every day. Wow, takes my breath away. I've watched the TYT evening news for ~10 months virtually ever day and I'd guesstimate that I viewed 60 of their You Tube clips. Seems to me you're projecting. Given your strident certitude you should have no trouble provide any links that convinced you of your opinion, buttress your argument. The daily recurrences of "identity politics" put it out there. What convinced you they were "in the tank for Hillary"? It'd be hard to come up with a more inaccurate phrase. They full throatedly endorsed Sanders in the primaries. Cenk announced on the Monday (IIRC) before that he would be voting for HRC so how do you arrive at using "in the tank"? I found your remarks a "rancid cesspool of biased disinformation" long on emotion and very short on facts and evidence. That's why it seems like projection.

    Donald , January 28, 2017 at 10:00 am

    The US support for the Saudi war in Yemen is the most clearcut example of the moral worthlessness of many liberals. Actually, to their credit many Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress have opposed it, but it isn't a big cause because Obama was the one doing it. I imagine Trump will continue the policy, but don't expect anything to change– Trump can be opposed on other issues, so there will be no incentive to criticize him on an issue when the Trump people can say they are just continuing what Obama started.

    It is infuriating to hear liberals mindlessly repeating how disgraceful it is to see Trump cozying up with a dictator who has blood on his hands. It is the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind with these people.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    This tweet (which I found @ActualFlatticus ) sums up the dynamic you are referring to perfectly imo.

    Jen , January 28, 2017 at 7:31 am

    Hear, hear! Thanks to NC that Common Dreams piece set off my bs detector immediately. There's a larger framing question we can add as well: who benefits from PMI?

    Using the example above, the home buyer pays an upfront premium of $3,300 which gives them no additional equity in their home, and somewhere between $1400 and $1500 a year for their premium, which also doesn't increase their equity. And, they continue to pay PMI until they achieve a loan to value ratio of 80%.

    So you buy your 200K house and dutifully pay your mortgage and PMI, which, btw, is also not tax deductible. You finally get to the point where through a combination of paying down your mortgage and increasing home prices, you have 80% equity in your home. Then the housing market tanks, and your 200K home is worth 170K. Your house is worth less than you paid for it and you're stuck paying $1500 a year in fees that don't reduce the amount of your mortgage, that you can't deduct from your taxes, and that you can't get rid of until you have 80% equity in your house.

    Sign me up!

    So who benefits? Certainly not the middle class would be homeowner, who not only gets screwed on the finances, but thanks to inflation of home prices, is getting screwed on the finances so that they can spend 200K on a crappy little ranch that's a 40 minute commute to their job one way on a good day.

    jgordon , January 28, 2017 at 7:56 am

    I also read about this on the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site for women and manginas Huffington Post, and I have to say that they were spinning really hard to make this look like something horrible Trump had done. But even in the extremely biased article I read they surreptitiously had to admit that this was a rule the Obama regime had put in place the midnight before Obama departed and that Trump was just reversing it. I read this before I knew anything else about t he subject and already had a pretty good idea of what was going on. But the above post helped a lot.

    Baby Gerald , January 28, 2017 at 8:45 am

    'the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site for women and manginas '

    Thank you, jgordon, for my first hearty laugh of the morning. I'm going to bookmark HuffPo just so I can re-title it this.

    Thanks again to NC for giving me a good link to use against the uninformed masses with whom I frequently have to deal.

    lyman alpha blob , January 28, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Finance benefits – they get to keep promoting unaffordable mortgages.

    We refused to pay this BS insurance when purchasing our house, since it wan't insuring us against anything but rather we'd be paying for the bank's insurance against ourselves. Seems a lot more like a scam when you frame it that way, considering that the bank is lending you money they just created in the first place.

    Instead we saved up for another year or two until we had the whole 20% down required to avoid the insurance. I do understand that not everyone can afford 20% down depending on their job and where they live however if enough people refused both PMI and to purchase because they couldn't afford 20% down on an overpriced house (and we are in another bubble already, at least in my area), prices would drop until people could really afford them.

    Finance pretends they are just trying to make the American Dream available to everybody and too many have taken the bait to the point where finance as a percentage of GDP is near or at an all time high. The reality is that it's mostly just a scam to benefit finance and turn the population into debt slaves.

    Marcer69 , January 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    The home owner was able to purchase a home with less than 20% down. The PMI protects the lender during default, which is considerably higher when borrower has no skin in the game. Also, there are other options such as lender paid mi.

    Marcer69 , January 28, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    Additionally, most of you are confusing PMI – Private Mortgage Insurance- with FHA Upfront and MIP. With the latter being required regardless of the down payment. Secondly, the author was wrong on his facts. MIP is .85 @ 96.5% and .80 @ 30 years. 15 YR.terns offer reduced

    koki , January 28, 2017 at 10:50 pm

    PMI is another insurance company rip-off. Requiring people to escrow taxes with no interest paid to them by the banks using those funds is another rip-off.

    Roger Smith , January 28, 2017 at 10:40 am

    Agreed! Great article Jeff!

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    Thank you, Roger.

    nonsense factory , January 28, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    Trying to condense this whole article into a tweet is a challenge. . .

    "Obama cuts mortg. ins. rate for <20% down by 25 pts ($500 on $200k home) 11days prior to exit in con artist act sure to be dropped by Trump resulting in bogus media claims about Dem support for working class homeowners."

    Sondra , January 28, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    I agree. If we Progressives are to make any fwd movement, we can't beat up on DJT on any and everything. I am also cautioning friends & family to do so too. If cry "foul" everyou time he acts, that delegitimizes us.

    One recent example is the Trumps' arrivall @ wh b4 the inauguration. A snapshot shows DJT entering WH before the Obamas and Mrs. DJT. Once posted, goes viral and the talk is how ill-mannered, selfish is and how gracious the Obamas are for escorting the Mrs. after her "oafish" husband

    What is not shown is that DJT stops, comes back, and ushers the trio ahead of him. (which you can see on CSPAN ).
    When I saw the truth of what happened, after reading the negative comments, that worried me.

    We REALLY need to be more dis corning and employ critical thinking.

    Have to be careful not to be swayed by bullshit, no matter where it comes from.

    Quiet , January 28, 2017 at 7:01 am

    This explanation, while nice, only serves to make Trump look dumb. He jumped into an obvious trap. Rather than focus on how Obama tricked him, I'm a bit more concerned with what this portends for the future. See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls like this, the odds of his success aren't very high.

    By the way, this reads like one more zing at Obama after he's already left the building. He earned most of the criticism he got, definitely from this site, but I feel like this is overdoing it. Criticizing him for not doing it sooner? Totally valid. Criticizing him for tripping up his successor? Petty.

    Pointing out the hypocrisy of Schumer and Kaine isn't part of that pettiness, though. That will be useful to remember as they cozy up to the Don and claim they're doing it to "help working families."

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:13 am

    I am admittedly a political newbie (Bernie woke me up never did anything before him but vote), and perhaps I am missing something, but I would be much less upset about it if he didn't screw middle class Americans in the process.

    That this is considered petty, by which I believe you mean normal politics, is exactly the problem.

    JTMcPhee , January 28, 2017 at 11:37 am

    "Screw middle class Americans" exactly how?

    The article makes it pretty clear, if I am reading it and the links and background right, that the screwing is principally in the form of requiring mortgage insurance to insure THE LENDER (or note holder or whoever MERS says gets paid on default). And that the "benefit" you may feel was (according to the spin) "taken away," was not even an "entitlement" because it would not have even been in effect until three weeks AFTER Obama (who has screwed the middle class and everyone else not in the Elite, nine ways from nowhere, for 8 years), and would not change the abuse that is PMI. And would not have "put dollars in the pockets of consumers" anyway for long after that. And how many homeowners are in the category?

    And banksters and mortgage brokers and the rest, gee whiz, we mopes are supposed to be concerned about THEM? About people whose paydays come from commissions on the dollar amount of the loans they write? Where all the "incentives," backed by the Real Economy that undergirds the ability of the US Government to do its fiat money forkovers to lenders that connived to change the policies against prudential lending to inflate the bubble that crashed and burned so many, are all once again being pointed in the direction of making Realtors ™(c)(BS) and lenders even richer on flips and flops and dumb transactions and churning?

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    He screwed the middle class by teasing them with a rate reduction, knowing that Trump was going to never let it happen.

    JTMcPhee , January 28, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    Just to clarify, and please anyone correct me, this was not any kind of "rate reduction." Rate reductions are what is supposed to happen under the various homeowner "they let you live in their house as long as you pay the rent mortgage" relief programs that never happened except to transfer more money to the Banksters. As in "reduce the unaffordable interest rate on oppressive mortgages." And "mark to market." And PRINCIPAL reductions as a result. And I do know the nominal difference between "title" states and "equitable interest" states - in either, the note holder effectively owns the house and property until the last nickel is paid, and as seen in the foreclosure racket, often not even the. And the "homeowner" gets to pay the taxes and maintain and maybe improve the place, to protect the note holder's equity "Fee simple absolute" is a comforting myth.

    As the article points out, the only potential reduction in money from borrower to lender/loan servicer (since the PMI underwriters seem to have such close financial ties to the insured note holder, there's but slim difference between the parts of the racket) might have been that tiny reduction in the insurance PREMIUM.

    Niggling over terms, maybe, but that's what "the law" is made up of.

    And apologies if I mistook the referent of "he" to be "Trump" rather than Obama and his clan - but nonetheless

    hemeantwell , January 28, 2017 at 8:54 am

    This excellent analytic walkthrough is a model for what must be done to ward off any form of "Obama 2!" as a political battle cry. It must be done relentlessly and without any consideration of being fair to that neoliberal schemer. The Clintonites will claw their way back from the edge of their political grave if they can draw on such sentiments.

    nonsense factory , January 28, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    Exactly, what we need is an FDR approach, which Bernie Sanders Democrats are far more likely to deliver. Instead of bailing out AIG and Goldman Sachs, FDR would have set up a Homeonwers Loan Corporation to buy up all the adjustable rate mortgages and convert them to fixed-rate mortgages, and instead of the zero-interest loans going to Wall Street from the Fed, they'd have gone to homeowners facing foreclosure, who could then stay in their homes and pay them off over time.

    But when Obama came in, he brought in Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who preached about "not returning to the failed policied of FDR." What a pack of con artists. I prefer your honest hustlers to those guys (i.e. Team Trump, American Hustle 2.0 at least you know what to expect.)

    a different chris , January 28, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    >See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls like this

    How is this a pitfall? Trump puts a hold on a "last minute Obama change", lets it sit for awhile, and then reinstates it or maybe even makes it better. Then Trump owns the reduction, not Obama.

    This isn't even one-dimensional chess.

    Jim Haygood , January 28, 2017 at 7:59 am

    This essay focuses on timing and tactics. Not analyzed is the essential question of What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?

    It's an actuarial question based on prior loss experience. Real estate moves in long cycles. Each trough is different in depth.

    Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans.

    Obama's action mirrors what's seen in other gov-sponsored insurance programs, such as pension benefit guarantee schemes which are chronically under-reserved. Cheap premiums look like a free benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout.

    What's so stupendously silly about Obama's diktat is that it was too late to provide any electoral benefit. Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis.

    Perhaps HUD secretary Ben Carson will ask a more fundamental question: what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business, anyway? Obama's ham-handed tampering with premiums for political purposes shows why government is not well placed to be in the insurance business - it has skewed incentives. Ditch it, Ben!

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 8:49 am

    In researching this story (I have no financial background, and have never owned anything beyond a car), I had a theory that the reduction made no fiscal sense because the Feds raised rates for the first time in 2016, after hovering above near zero for eight years, to .5%. My thinking was that the move was to discourage new borrowers by making loans more expensive, therefore increasing the cost of mortgages and ultimately threatening the solvency of the FHA. I was wrong, which is disappointing because it would have made for a more dramatic ending, in that Trump's revoking the decrease would have been the "correct" thing to do.

    Brian Lindholm , January 28, 2017 at 9:23 am

    Jim,

    Aye. You make an excellent point that essentially everybody in media has ignored. What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.

    I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately require a taxpayer bailout. Either way , Obama is incompetent.

    If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.

    Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.

    Jim Haygood , January 28, 2017 at 9:53 am

    An analogy could be made to municipal bond insurance, which like mortgage insurance is intended to protect the lender against loss of principal:

    Municipal bond insurance adds a layer of protection in the rare case of default. However, that protection is dependent on the insurance companies' credit quality.

    Municipal bond insurance used to be commonplace; now it's quite rare. Why is that? As of 2008, nearly half of all newly issued municipal bonds carried some form of insurance. Today, the share is less than 7%.

    The number of municipal bond insurers has also declined and their credit ratings have fallen.

    A number of bond insurers went bust during the Great Recession. Plus, a large default by Puerto Rico has caused many municipal market participants to question the ability of insurance companies to pay on the bonds they insure.

    http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-the-Municipal-Bond-Insurance-Market-Has-Changed-Since-the-Great-Recession

    Muni bond insurers were publicly traded, profit seeking companies. But they underpriced their insurance, probably because no one expected a 1930s-style crisis like 2008.

    Obama had no more concept about how to price mortgage insurance than I do about how to perform brain surgery. He was just mindlessly handing out bennies at public expense in the dark of night, before skulking away into well-deserved obscurity.

    shinola , January 28, 2017 at 1:35 pm

    I dunno Jim – perhaps Obama DID know (or was advised) that the rate cut was actuarially unsound thus setting up his successor for problems down the road or bad optics upfront if the cut was reversed.

    Cleverly devious?

    Brian Lindholm , January 28, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    Yep. To quote the White House press release, " Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. "

    That's not a valid reason to lower PMI rates. PMI rates must cover losses, and higher interest rates on mortgages may very well mean higher default rates. If so, PMI rates would need to go up as well.

    Now if the press release had talked about PMI overcharges by the FHA, then I might have have bought it. But they didn't. There was no mention of actuarial soundness at all .

    Jack , January 28, 2017 at 10:12 am

    For a good explanation of how mortgage insurance works and the impact of the discussed premium increase/decrease, check out David Dayen's (a frequent contributor to NC) article on the Intercept here . David goes more in depth on the actual numbers and what they mean.

    Optic7 , January 28, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    I did briefly hear some discussion in the news about the FHA mortgage insurance program having been underfunded in the recent past. This could have given an additional reason for Trump to block the lower rate until the numbers could be analyzed. I did a search and found a couple of articles from before either of these decisions that illustrate different perspectives on this issue:

    http://thehill.com/policy/finance/232492-castro-grilled-over-lowering-mortgage-insurance-premiums

    http://www.fhaloanpros.com/2009/01/is-the-fha-under-funded/

    The latter article is from 2009 but includes some interesting details about significant amounts of money being transferred from the fund to the treasury department.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    From the first link, as of 2015: " his recent decision to lower mortgage insurance premiums despite the FHA falling short of its capital reserve requirement." So the fund was out of compliance with the law, and this was a long-running point of contention between the administration and the Republicans in Congress.

    What we don't know yet is whether the fund reached its goal, which would justify lowing the premium. The Congress members were complaining about being lied to.

    DarkMatters , January 28, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    "What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?"

    "Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans."

    The argument here seems to be that what is typical is appropriate. By that argument, 0.55% which falls in that range would be ok. The argument that it's too low assumes that the range as it stands is somehow rationally defined, which is another assumption that itself bears scrutiny. To say that 0.5-1.0% is ok is an assumption, and should be examined in detail right along with the 0.55 and 0.8 HUD figures before firmer conclusions could be drawn. The results would give an informed answer to the rhetorical question " what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business, anyway?" Absent that, we're reduced to arguments, tainted on both sides by political inclinations. Jeff Epstein's clarification is exemplary.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    " Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis."

    Oh Boy! That would really hurt Obama, when he'd be long gone and dancing with the stars!

    Remember, whatever he did during his term he weighed and measured a thousand times.

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    "Cheap premiums look like a free benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout."

    +1.

    Domofdoom , January 28, 2017 at 8:18 am

    Well said. What do you think would be more effective: trying to change the dems or giving up on them and setting up another party?

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    option 2

    Vatch , January 28, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    One may be more effective, but if it's not feasible, it doesn't matter how effective it would be in theory. See this comment by Martin from Canada a few days ago:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/01/bernie-sanders-nails-trumps-pick-health-human-services-directly-wall.html#comment-2747290

    Here's the link that Martin pointed to:

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/bernie-sanders-democratic-labor-party-ackerman/

    Maybe a viable new progressive party can be created. But it sure won't be easy. If it weren't extremely difficult, don't you think that the Greens would have done it by now? For now, I think that people need to be actively looking for candidates to run in the 2018 Democratic primaries. In a few places, at the state level, this will be happening in 2017. See:

    https://ballotpedia.org/State_legislative_elections,_2017

    "Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia hold elections in odd-numbered years."

    rjs , January 28, 2017 at 8:36 am

    Obama came in off the golf course after Trump was elected and issued dozens of similar diktats i recall wondering at the time that if all those moves were so important, why didn't he make them in the 8 years he had

    oho , January 28, 2017 at 9:39 am

    EZ real issue for Democrats to embrace. Stop the sales tax of food at the state/muni level. Shift that burden (or as much as reasonably possible) to the top income brackets.

    Oh wait, the places where Democrats can do this, always solidly vote D and there's no incentive.

    J.P. Steele , January 28, 2017 at 9:51 am

    There is an art to politics. As anyone who studies the subject knows, one has to be both "Lion & Fox." Lion .for the strength to drive policies, but also a Fox in order to avoid "Snares and Traps." Bannon, who actually has been writing these executive orders, stepped right into this Trap. Rookie mistake. This is what happens when you have ideologues attempting to actually govern. They "step in it." I believe that Jeff is a bit naive and thin skinned here as to "The Game." Obama did indeed set a snare ..but I am a bit more concerned by Steve's arrogance for boldly stepping in it and allowing the opposition a fine platform to grandstand on the issue. Rookie mistake. Arrogance & Stupidity.

    integer , January 28, 2017 at 11:13 pm

    Afaics there are two ways in which this game can be played:

    A)
    1: 0bama sets the trap.
    2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates while simultaneously denouncing 0bama for setting the trap.
    3: MSMedia circus.

    B)
    1: 0bama sets the trap.
    2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates.
    3: D-party denounces Trump.
    4: MSMedia circus.
    5: Trump/Bannon denounces 0bama for setting the trap.
    6: MSMedia once again loses credibility, at least in the eyes of Trump supporters.

    Why is option A better than B? Am I missing something here?

    Yves Smith Post author , January 29, 2017 at 12:02 am

    Trump and Bannon will never do 5 and 6. They never fight on the level of detail and timetables.

    Horatio Parker , January 28, 2017 at 10:14 am

    Simple question: why did Trump reverse the cut?

    Craig , January 28, 2017 at 10:53 am

    Excellent question, it has not been answered yet:). Lotsa words tho.

    cm , January 28, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    1. It raised financial risk to the govt.
    2. As the article pointed out many times, it was a sleazy move on Obama's part

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 3:41 pm

    Same reason Bush 43 reversed the last-minute reductions to water regulations that Bill Clinton passed, and Obama had to deal with

    Clinton to Bush : President Clinton Signs Midnight Regulations

    Bush to Obama : Bush's Final FU: Last-Minute Regulations That Will Screw America for Years to Come

    Obama to Trump: Mortgage rate (non-)"reduction", likely more to come

    Wiki on "Midnight Regulations": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_regulations

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:07 pm

    Not a lot of archived stuff from 2001 and before on the nets, oddly. I regret posting the CNN link up there.

    I washed my hands twice afterward.

    ScottW , January 28, 2017 at 10:17 am

    If everyone with less than 20% equity has PMI, why didn't it pay off after the crash and lessen the need for a bailout? Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought most recently with less than 20% down. Did PMI pay any money during the crash and to whom and for what?

    If it didn't do any good during the last crash to lessen the public bailout, what's the point of requiring it?

    lyman alpha blob , January 28, 2017 at 1:00 pm

    That is a very good question and I don't remember hearing anything about PMI paying out during the crash (but that could just be my memory). In fact it never even crossed my mind but yeah you'd think that should have mitigated some of the losses. Maybe any payout would only benefit the mortgage holder directly and wouldn't carry through to the mortgage-based securities? That seems odd though and if true would be a strong case for severely curtailing if not eliminating at least the more exotic bets.

    Anybody know anything about this?

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    I often wondered about the same thing/

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Because it's another BS fee they tack on for no good reason other than greed.

    I was in the mortgage game in 2006-2008. Now matter how many showers I take I still don't feel clean.

    bob , January 28, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    "Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought most recently with less than 20% down."

    Not banker logic. They were foreclosing on houses with equity to steal. Those houses that were valued above what was mortgaged.

    Jim F , January 28, 2017 at 10:29 am

    What gets me is people who think "shame on Trump" for not recognizing and avoiding the trap. Every single one of those people I avoid like the plague.

    Joel , January 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

    Re: The Young Turks

    I watched a few times until what's his name, the main turk, interrupted and talked over the female co-host too many times for my stomach. There are too many good choices to give clicks to that type of behavior. Hey this is the 21st century.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    Cenk Uygur – the only actual Turk on the show. It IS his show and network, but I see your point.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 10:42 am

    I don't know . Obama made many policy changes after the election results came.

    It's not as if government is a fast moving engine. This could have been in the works for years and got expedited for obvious reasons. It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him.

    Unless the policy was itself a fraud, it's impossible to know whether it was implemented cynically.

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:01 pm

    I made this point below, once it escapes moderation, but basically: 1) the article fails to tell us whether the new rate made sense; and 2) Clinton did the same thing – a bunch of last-minute progressive moves, designed to stroke his legacy and punk his Republican successor. Let's hope the clemency actions are less reversible than the policy moves.

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    "It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him."

    It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences, also Chelsea Manning,*** BECAUSE*** there was no political gain in it for him.

    There, I fixed it for you.

    John , January 28, 2017 at 11:00 am

    So Trump/Bannon got punked by Obama the first week in office. Looks like to me th e Repubs are realizing Obamacare may be a similar punkjob.

    JamesG , January 28, 2017 at 11:02 am

    "Simple question: why did Trump reverse the cut?"

    To gain time.

    To evaluate the numbers and come up with an accurate rate?

    My simple question: Why did the Ds presume it was simply "to hurt the middle class?"

    Horatio Parker , January 28, 2017 at 12:06 pm

    Because it makes buying a house more expensive.

    It seems that Obama's motives may safely assumed to be deceitful and petty, but we can conclude nothing at all about Trump or his motives.

    I don't see how this "truth" advances any agenda.

    DarkMatters , January 28, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Maybe Mnuchin protecting his faction? Just another hypothesis.

    NotClairVoyant , January 28, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    The MIP rate reduction was either an ill-advised reaction to the recent spike in mortgage rates or a simple set-up for the incoming administration. I suspect is was a combination of both, and likely designed more for political gain than anything.

    It's hard to take a guy seriously when he professes to be concerned about home affordability when he spent the last 8 years "foaming the runway" for banks as millions of people were foreclosed on their homes, only to watch many of those same homes get gobbled up by Wall Street and rented back out to them.

    Fewer underwater borrowers will at least curtail the path to feudalism in this new echo housing bubble.

    winstonsmith , January 28, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    Another issue is who would have actually benefited from the Obama rate cut. We are supposed to believe it would have been home buyers, but a uniform increase in the spending power of home buyers as a group is to a large extent offset by a corresponding increase in home prices. To that extent it would be sellers (including private equity) and not low income buyers who would benefit.

    yan , January 28, 2017 at 1:14 pm

    Also, as far as I'm concerned, if Obamamometer was serious about helping homeowners there are many more better ways to do it than "foaming the runway" for banks, or preempting any meaningful action through his statewide get out of jail free card settlement, or actually trying to stop his buddies from blowing asset bubble after asset bubble.
    Moreover, if you can´t put up more than 20% up front to buy a house maybe the problem is that wages are shit compared to property prices and people can´t afford anything more than cheap meth or oxycontin to cope with their sorry lives.

    WheresOurTeddy , January 28, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    +1

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Pardon if this is a duplication, but: Isn't there a very large omission here? Was the premium decrease justified, or not? It's supposed to be government insurance, so the premium should cover the costs. Did it? Would the proposed lower premium cover them? (Yeah, I know, MMT. But apparently the idea here was to have a self-supporting program, so it should be self-supporting unless you announce otherwise.)

    That said: this is part of a pattern. Obama made a number of progressive policy moves at the very last minute, most of them reversible. This is nothing but legacy-stroking, as well as setting a trap for the next Pres. Clinton did the same thing, along with some questionable pardons.

    "So why'd you wait so long?"

    Oregoncharles , January 28, 2017 at 2:30 pm

    Well, Haygood was the only one to beat me to it.

    oh , January 28, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    I noticed the false headlines on yahoo news (the bastion of fake and worthless news) and I immediately checked it to find that O'Liar had planted this landmine so that it could blow up in Trump's face. Sure enough, when Trump canceled it, he was the bad guy (even though it had never had gone into effect as this article points out). What a cynical move by O'Liar and how cynical can his sycophants be?

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 3:11 pm

    Great post! I saw the headlines when the story came out and instantly thought there was something "off", something a little too pat about the stories. But I wasn't sure what was wrong with the stories, and was left confused. This post of investigative reporting and facts informs me what was actually happening. Thank you.

    aliteralmind , January 28, 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Nice to hear this. Thanks.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 4:29 pm

    The reaction here puzzles me to the point of confusion. Absent any argument that the policy didn't offer it's claimed benefits (cost savings for the middle-class), is the left so virtuous that it will reject and refuse to fight for any advance which isn't selflessly arrived at?

    Compare this to "conservatives" who successfully campaigned in 2010 against supposed Medicare cuts related to Obamacare implementation, when they'd love nothing more than to kill the program outright.

    We, by contrast, we won't even fight for what we claim to believe in, if it isn't wrapped in virtue.

    Yves Smith Post author , January 28, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    You are missing that this is insurance, and the cost of losses must be paid for somehow. From Bruce's comment above:

    What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.

    I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately require a taxpayer bailout. Either way, Obama is incompetent.

    If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.

    Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.

    jake , January 28, 2017 at 6:56 pm

    Granted, but nobody knows the facts. Bruce wants to damn Obama for not doing it before, or damn him now for doing it. But nothing he either did or didn't do will be deemed acceptable at this point, even if the reduction is fully warranted.

    Have we never heard politics? Process? Delay? Your net conclusion may still prove to be the correct one, though I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted, could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?

    flora , January 28, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted, could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?"

    A Presidential Directive, aka an executive order or executive action, can be laid at the feet of the President. So, yes, we do know. He could have taken the action anytime in the past 8 years. Note the date on this action – Jan 7th, 2017.
    http://www.housingwire.com/articles/32533-its-official-obama-to-direct-fha-to-cut-mortgage-insurance-premiums

    centaur , January 28, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    +1000, jake

    witters , January 28, 2017 at 6:10 pm

    So Obama almost nearly did something that might, maybe, have been a tiny bit useful, but then the US Constitution

    [Jan 28, 2017] Putin said for over two centuries Russia has supported the United States, was its ally during the two world wars, and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting international terrorism.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Both sides demonstrated a mood for active, joint work on stabilizing and developing Russian-American cooperation," the Kremlin said in a statement, saying Putin and Trump had agreed to work on finding a possible time and place for a meeting. ..."
    "... The Kremlin said the US President asked his Russian counterpart "to wish the Russian people happiness and prosperity" on his behalf, adding Americans "have warm feelings towards Russia and its citizens." Putin said the feeling was "mutual," stressing that historically, the Russians and the Americans were close allies on more than one occasion. ..."
    "... Putin said "for over two centuries Russia has supported the United States, was its ally during the two world wars, and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting international terrorism." ..."
    "... Moscow, for its part, has repeatedly suggested fostering closer cooperation between the Russian and US Air Forces in Syria, but blamed the previous Obama administration for failing to adequately respond to its entreaties. Relations between the two countries have been marred in recent years over various issues, including divisions on the Syrian crisis and allegations of Russian meddling into the US elections in November of 2016. US sanctions against Russia - imposed over the crisis in Ukraine - was one of the issues expected to be on the agenda of the Trump-Putin exchange. However, the issue was not mentioned in the Kremlin's statement summarizing the conversation. ..."
    "... Russia has been cautious about the prospects for a potential "reset" with the US under the new administration. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the country has no "naive expectations" and is under no "illusions." ..."
    Jan 28, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs January 28, 2017 at 01:06 PM

    Putin, Trump, in 'Positive' Call, Say Want to Cooperate in Syria: Kremlin https://nyti.ms/2jIzuKa
    NYT - REUTERS - January 28, 2017

    MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump said in a "positive" phone call on Saturday they favored their two countries cooperating in Syria to defeat Islamic State, the Kremlin said in a statement.

    In an eagerly awaited phone call, the first since Trump's inauguration, the two men stressed the importance of restoring economic ties between the two countries and of stabilizing relations, the Kremlin said.

    U.S.-Russia relations had hit a post-Cold War low under Barack Obama and Trump has made clear he wants a rapprochement with Moscow if he can get along with Putin.

    "Both sides demonstrated a mood for active, joint work on stabilizing and developing Russian-American cooperation," the Kremlin said in a statement, saying Putin and Trump had agreed to work on finding a possible time and place for a meeting.

    There was no mention in the statement that the possibility of Trump easing sanctions on Moscow imposed over the Ukraine conflict had been mentioned, a subject widely expected to be raised.

    The Kremlin said Trump and Putin had agreed to establish "partner-like cooperation" when it came to global issues such as Ukraine, Iran's nuclear program, tensions on the Korean peninsula and the Israeli-Arab conflict.

    Trump's stance on Russia has been under intense scrutiny from critics who say he was elected with help from Russian intelligence, an allegation he denies. His detractors have also accused him of being too eager to make an ally of Putin.

    For Putin, an easing of Western sanctions would be a major coup ahead of next year's presidential election as it would help the economy recover.

    libezkova -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 28, 2017 at 03:58 PM

    Compare the coverage with

    https://www.rt.com/news/375416-putin-trump-telephone-call/

    == quote ==

    In their first phone conversation that lasted nearly an hour, Russian President Vladimir Putin and the new US President Donald Trump have outlined their intent to cooperate on issues ranging from defeating Islamic State to mending bilateral economic ties.

    "Both sides expressed their readiness to make active joint efforts to stabilize and develop Russia-US cooperation on a constructive, equitable and mutually beneficial basis," as well as "build up partner cooperation" on a wide range of international issues, according to a Kremlin statement following their discussion.

    The White House said that the "positive" conversation was "a significant start to improving the relationship between the United States and Russia that is in need of repair."

    "Both President Trump and President Putin are hopeful that after today's call the two sides can move quickly to tackle terrorism and other important issues of mutual concern," the White House statement added.

    After speaking with Chancellor Merkel for 45 minutes @POTUS is now onto his 3rd of 5 head of government calls, speaking w Russian Pres Putin pic.twitter.com/RPAWIgcO2C
    - Sean Spicer (@PressSec) January 28, 2017Q

    "The Presidents have spoken in favor of establishing a real coordination between the US and Russian actions in order to defeat ISIS and other terrorist organizations in Syria," the Kremlin statement said.

    The two leaders also discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well as Iran's nuclear program. "Major aspects of the Ukrainian crisis have been also touched upon," the Kremlin announced.

    The leaders of Russia and the US have noted a need to restore economic ties "to stimulate" further development of the relationship between the nations. Putin and Trump also agreed to initiate a process to "work out possible dates and venue of their personal meeting."

    Telephone conversation with US President Donald Trump https://t.co/mjp9Tta1sE
    - President of Russia (@KremlinRussia_E) 28 января 2017 г.Q
    During the conversation the Presidents also expressed their desire to "maintain regular personal contacts," the Kremlin statement said.

    The Kremlin said the US President asked his Russian counterpart "to wish the Russian people happiness and prosperity" on his behalf, adding Americans "have warm feelings towards Russia and its citizens." Putin said the feeling was "mutual," stressing that historically, the Russians and the Americans were close allies on more than one occasion.

    Putin said "for over two centuries Russia has supported the United States, was its ally during the two world wars, and now sees the United States as a major partner in fighting international terrorism."

    U.S. President Donald Trump © Mark MakelaTrump hopes to get along with Russia, 'knock the hell out of ISIS together'

    On Friday, speaking at a joint briefing with British Prime Minister Theresa May, Trump said he hoped he would have a "fantastic relationship" with Russia's president, but understands that might not happen. Trump has said previously that he would welcome Moscow's involvement in a joint effort to battle Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

    "I don't know Putin, but if we can get along with Russia that's a great thing. It's good for Russia; it's good for us; we go out together and knock the hell out of ISIS, because that's a real sickness," he said in an interview with Fox News.

    Moscow, for its part, has repeatedly suggested fostering closer cooperation between the Russian and US Air Forces in Syria, but blamed the previous Obama administration for failing to adequately respond to its entreaties. Relations between the two countries have been marred in recent years over various issues, including divisions on the Syrian crisis and allegations of Russian meddling into the US elections in November of 2016. US sanctions against Russia - imposed over the crisis in Ukraine - was one of the issues expected to be on the agenda of the Trump-Putin exchange. However, the issue was not mentioned in the Kremlin's statement summarizing the conversation.

    Citing an unnamed source in the White House, a researcher at the Atlantic Council analytical center, Fabrice Pothier, wrote in a Twitter post on Thursday that the Trump administration "has an executive order ready" to lift the restrictions on Moscow, but Trump said on Friday that it is "very early to be talking about that."

    U.S. House of Representatives in Washington © Gary Cameron Top Dem to propose bill to hamstring Trump in relaxing sanctions on Russia with GOP wingmen

    However, earlier in January, Trump said that he would consider lifting restrictions if Moscow cooperates with Washington on certain issues, such as nuclear arms reduction.

    "They have sanctions on Russia - let's see if we can make some good deals with Russia. For one thing, I think nuclear weapons should be way down and reduced very substantially, that's part of it," Trump was quoted as saying by the Times.

    Trump also said in one of his Tweets that "having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing," warning only "fools" would think otherwise. However, several US Senators proposed a bill last week that would make it impossible for the US President to lift restrictions without congressional approval.

    Russia has been cautious about the prospects for a potential "reset" with the US under the new administration. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said the country has no "naive expectations" and is under no "illusions."

    [Jan 27, 2017] The Syrian People Desperately Want Peace

    Jan 27, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : January 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM , 2017 at 11:29 AM
    https://medium.com/@TulsiGabbard/the-syrian-people-desperately-want-peace-e308f1777a34#.7f55b27yb

    January 24, 2017

    The Syrian People Desperately Want Peace
    By Tulsi Gabbard

    As much of Washington prepared for the inauguration of President Donald Trump, I spent last week on a fact-finding mission in Syria and Lebanon to see and hear directly from the Syrian people. Their lives have been consumed by a horrific war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and forced millions to flee their homeland in search of peace.

    It is clear now more than ever: this regime change war does not serve America's interest, and it certainly isn't in the interest of the Syrian people.

    We met these children at a shelter in Aleppo, whose families fled the eastern part of the city. The only thing these kids want, the only thing everyone I came across wants, is peace. Many of these children have only known war. Their families want nothing more than to go home, and get back to the way things were before the war to overthrow the government started. This is all they want.

    I traveled throughout Damascus and Aleppo, listening to Syrians from different parts of the country. I met with displaced families from the eastern part of Aleppo, Raqqah, Zabadani, Latakia, and the outskirts of Damascus. I met Syrian opposition leaders who led protests in 2011, widows and children of men fighting for the government and widows of those fighting against the government. I met Lebanon's newly-elected President Aoun and Prime Minister Hariri, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Elizabeth Richard, Syrian President Assad, Grand Mufti Hassoun, Archbishop Denys Antoine Chahda of Syrian Catholic Church of Aleppo, Muslim and Christian religious leaders, humanitarian workers, academics, college students, small business owners, and more.

    Their message to the American people was powerful and consistent: There is no difference between "moderate" rebels and al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) or ISIS - they are all the same. This is a war between terrorists under the command of groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Syrian government. They cry out for the U.S. and other countries to stop supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.

    I heard this message over and over again from those who have suffered and survived unspeakable horrors. They asked that I share their voice with the world; frustrated voices which have not been heard due to the false, one-sided biased reports pushing a narrative that supports this regime change war at the expense of Syrian lives.

    I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters, occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them in their fight to overthrow the government.

    I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012, when she was just 14 years old, by "rebel groups" who were angry that her father, a sheep herder, would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.

    I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused to help the "rebels" - he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the "rebels" are treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable to them.

    Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.

    Originally, I had no intention of meeting with Assad, but when given the opportunity, I felt it was important to take it. I think we should be ready to meet with anyone if there's a chance it can help bring about an end to this war, which is causing the Syrian people so much suffering.

    I met these amazing women from Barzi, many of whom have husbands or family members who are fighting with al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, or with the Syrian army. When they come to this community center, all of that is left behind, as they spend time with new friends, learning different skills like sewing, making plans for their future. They were strangers before coming to this community center whose mission is empowering these women, and now they are " sisters" sharing laughter and tears together.

    I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists - directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S. and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to try to recover from this terrible war.

    Thank you,

    Tulsi

    [Jan 27, 2017] Just Back From Syria, Rep. Gabbard Brings Message There Are No Moderate Rebels

    Notable quotes:
    "... Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact," Gabbard said. ..."
    "... "The Syrian people recognize and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida -- or a group like al Qaida, that has been killing Christians, killing people simply because of their religion, or because they won't support their terror activities, they will take charge of all of Syria. ..."
    "... Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians. ..."
    "... I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS. ..."
    Jan 27, 2017 | www.informationclearinghouse.info
    "They asked me, why is the United States and its allies supporting these terrorist groups who are destroying Syria when it was al Qaida who attacked the United States on 9/11, not Syria. I didn't have an answer for them," Gabbard said.

    "The reality is... every place that I went, every person that I spoke to, I asked this question to them, and without hesitation, they said, there are no moderate rebels. Who are these moderate rebels that people keep speaking of?

    Regardless of the name of these groups, the strongest fighting force on the ground in Syria is al Nusra, or al Qaida and ISIS. That is a fact," Gabbard said.

    "There is a number of different, other groups -- all of them essentially are fighting alongside, with, or under the command of the strongest group on the ground that's trying to overthrow Assad.

    "The Syrian people recognize and they know that if President Assad is overthrown, then al Qaida -- or a group like al Qaida, that has been killing Christians, killing people simply because of their religion, or because they won't support their terror activities, they will take charge of all of Syria.

    "This is the reality that the people of Syria are facing on the ground, and why they are pleading with us here in the United States to stop supporting these terrorist groups. Let the Syrian people themselves determine their future, not the United States, not some foreign country."

    ... ... ...

    I heard testimony about how peaceful protests against the government that began in 2011 were quickly overtaken by Wahhabi jihadist groups like al-Qaeda (al-Nusra) who were funded and supported by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, the United States, and others. They exploited the peaceful protesters, occupied their communities, and killed and tortured Syrians who would not cooperate with them in their fight to overthrow the government.

    I met a Muslim girl from Zabadani who was kidnapped, beaten repeatedly, and raped in 2012, when she was just 14 years old, by "rebel groups" who were angry that her father, a sheep herder, would not give them his money. She watched in horror as masked men murdered her father in their living room, emptying their entire magazine of bullets into him.

    I met a boy who was kidnapped while walking down the street to buy bread for his family. He was tortured, waterboarded, electrocuted, placed on a cross and whipped, all because he refused to help the "rebels" - he told them he just wanted to go to school. This is how the "rebels" are treating the Syrian people who do not cooperate with them, or whose religion is not acceptable to them.

    Although opposed to the Assad government, the political opposition spoke strongly about their adamant rejection of the use of violence to bring about reforms. They argue that if the Wahhabi jihadists, fueled by foreign governments, are successful in overthrowing the Syrian state, it would destroy Syria and its long history of a secular, pluralist society where people of all religions have lived peacefully side by side. Although this political opposition continues to seek reforms, they are adamant that as long as foreign governments wage a proxy regime change war against Syria using jihadist terrorist groups, they will stand with the Syrian state as they work peacefully toward a stronger Syria for all Syrians.

    ... ... ...

    I return to Washington, DC with even greater resolve to end our illegal war to overthrow the Syrian government. From Iraq to Libya and now in Syria, the U.S. has waged wars of regime change, each resulting in unimaginable suffering, devastating loss of life, and the strengthening of groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    I call upon Congress and the new Administration to answer the pleas of the Syrian people immediately and support the Stop Arming Terrorists Act. We must stop directly and indirectly supporting terrorists - directly by providing weapons, training and logistical support to rebel groups affiliated with al-Qaeda and ISIS; and indirectly through Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey, who, in turn, support these terrorist groups. We must end our war to overthrow the Syrian government and focus our attention on defeating al-Qaeda and ISIS.

    The U.S. must stop supporting terrorists who are destroying Syria and her people. The U.S. and other countries fueling this war must stop immediately. We must allow the Syrian people to try to recover from this terrible war.

    Thank you,

    Tulsi

    [Jan 24, 2017] The Definitive Demise of the Debunked Dodgy Dossier on The Donald

    Notable quotes:
    "... of Corrente . ..."
    "... Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? ..."
    "... For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful. ..."
    "... Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued. ..."
    "... puts his name on stuff ..."
    "... transition ..."
    Jan 23, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    by Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    In the midst of the hysteria about Russian interference in the 2016 election - 52% of Democrat voters believe it's definitely or probably true that "Russia tampered with vote tallies" , a view for which there is no evidence whatever, and which is a depressing testimony to the power of propaganda to produce epistemic closure in liberals as well as conservatives - came Buzzfeed's 35-page "dodgy dossier" on Donald Trump, oppo that the researcher, Christopher Steele , peddled during the election proper, but was unable to sell, not even to an easy mark like Jebbie. (There's a useful debunking of Steele's report in the New York Review of Books , of all places.) Remember the piss jokes? So two-weeks ago Amazingly, or not, a two-page summary to Steele's product had been included in a briefing given to Trump (and Obama). A weary Obama was no doubt well accustomed to the intelligence community's little ways, but the briefing must have been quite a revelation to Trump. I mean, Trump is a man who knows shoddy when he sees it, right?

    In any case, a link to the following story in Hamburg's ridiculously sober-sided Die Zeit came over the transom: So schockiert von Trump wie alle anderen ("So shocked by Trump like everyone else"). The reporter is Alexej Kowaljow , a Russian journalist based in Moscow. Before anyone goes "ZOMG! The dude is Russian !", everything Kowaljow writes is based on open sources or common-sense information presumably available to citizens of any nation. The bottom line for me is that if the world is coming to believe that Americans are idiots, it's not necessarily because Americans elected Trump as President.

    I'm going to lay out two claims and two questions from Kowaljow's piece. In each case, I'll quote the conventional, Steele and intelligence community-derived wisdom in our famously free press, and then I'll quote Kowaljow. I think Kowaljow wins each time. Easily. I don't think Google Translate handles irony well, but I sense that Kowaljow is deploying it freely.

    (1) Trump's Supposed Business Dealings in Russia Are Commercial Puffery

    Here's the section on Russia in Time's article on Trump's business dealings; it's representative. I'm going to quote it all so you can savor it. Read it carefully.

    Donald Trump's Many, Many Business Dealings in 1 Map

    Russia

    "For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," Trump tweeted in July, one day before he called on the country to "find" a batch of emails deleted from Hillary Clinton's private server. Nonetheless, Russia's extraordinary meddling in the 2016 U.S. election-a declassified report released by U.S. intelligence agencies in January disclosed that intercepted conversations captured senior Russian officials celebrating Trump's win-as well as Trump's complimentary remarks about Russian President have stirred widespread questions about the President-elect's pursuit of closer ties with Moscow. Several members of Trump's inner circle have business links to Russia, including former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who consulted for pro-Russia politicians in the Ukraine. Former foreign policy adviser Carter Page worked in Russia and maintains ties there.

    Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser, has been a regular guest on Russia's English-language propaganda network, RT , and even dined with Putin at a banquet.

    During the presidential transition, former Georgia Congressman and Trump campaign surrogate Jack Kingston told a gathering of businessmen in Moscow that the President-elect could lift U.S. sanctions.

    According to his own son, Trump has long relied on Russian customers as a source of income. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Donald Trump Jr. told a Manhattan real estate conference in 2008 , according to an account posted on the website of trade publication eTurboNews. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia." Back to map .

    Read that again, if you can stand it. Do you see the name of an actual business, owned by Trump? Do you see the name of any businessperson who closed a deal with Trump? Do you, in fact, see any reporting at all? At most, you see commercial puffery by Trump the Younger: "Russians [in Russia?] make up a pretty [qualifier] disproportionate [whatever that means] cross-section [whatever that means] of a lot of [qualifier] our assets."

    Now Kowaljow (via Google Translate, so forgive any solecisms):

    For Donald Trump, all attempts to gain a foothold in the USSR and then in Russia in 30 years of travel and negotiations failed. Moscow did not have a Trump Tower of its own, although Trump boasted every time that he had met the most important people and was just about to invest hundreds of millions in a project that would undoubtedly be successful.

    Trumps' largest business success in Russia was the presentation of a Trump Vodka at the Millionaire Fair 2007 in Moscow. This project was also a cleansing; In 2009 the sale of Trump Vodka was discontinued.

    Because think about it: Trump puts his name on stuff . Towers in Manhattan, hotels, casinos, golf courses, steaks. Anything in Russia with Trump's name on it? Besides the failed vodka venture? No? Case closed, then.

    (2) Zhirinovsky Is The Very Last Person Putin Would Use For A Proxy

    From The Hill's summary of Russian "interference" in the 2016 election:

    Five reasons intel community believes Russia interfered in election

    The attacks dovetailed with other Russian disinformation campaigns

    The report covers more than just the hacking effort. It also contains a detailed list account of information warfare against the United States from Russia through other means.

    Political party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who the report lists as a "pro-Kremlin proxy," said before the election that, if Trump won, Russia would 'drink champagne' to celebrate their new ability to advance in Syria and Ukraine.

    Now Kowaljow:

    The report of the American intelligence services on the Russian interference in the US elections, published at the beginning of January, was notoriously neglected by Russians, because the name of Vladimir Zhirinovsky was mentioned among the "propaganda activities of Russia", which had announced that in the event of an election victory of Trump champagne to want to drink.

    Such a delicate plan – to reach the election of a President of the US by means of Zhirinovsky – ensures a skeptical smile for every Russian at best. He is already seventy and has been at the head of a party with a misleading name for nearly thirty years. The Liberal Democratic Party is neither liberal nor democratic. If their policies are somehow characterized, then as right-wing populism. Zhirinovsky is known for shrill statements; He threatened, for example, to destroy the US by means of "gravitational weapons".

    If, therefore, the Kremlin had indeed had the treacherous plan of helping Trump to power, it would scarcely have been made known about Zhirinovsky.

    The American equivalent would be . Give me a moment to think of an American politician who's both so delusional and such a laughingstock that no American President could possibly consider using them as a proxy in a devilishly complex informational warfare campaign Sara Palin? Anthony Weiner? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? Na ga happen.

    And now to the two questions.

    (3) Why Would Russian Intelligence Agencies Sources Have Talked to Steele?

    Kowaljow:

    But the report, published on the BuzzFeed Internet portal, is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. The problem is not even that there are a lot of false facts. Even the assumption that agents of the Russian secret services are discussing the details with a former secretary of a hostile secret service in the midst of a highly secret operation by which a future President of the US is to be discredited appears strange.

    Exactly. For the intelligence community and Democrat reliance on Steele's dossier to be plausible, you have to assume 10-foot tall Russkis (1) with incredibly sophisticated strategic, operational, and technical capabilities, who have (2) performed the greatest intelligence feat of the 21st and 20th centuries, suborning the President of the United States, and whose intelligence agencies are (3) leakly like a sieve. Does that make sense? (Of course, the devilish Russkis could have fed Steele bad data, knowing he'd then feed it to the American intelligence agencies, who would lap it up, but that's another narrative.)

    (4) How Do You Compromise the Uncompromisable?

    Funny how suddenly the word kompromat was everywhere, wasn't it? So sophisticated. Everybody loves to learn a new word! Regarding the "Golden Showers" - more sophistication! - Kowaljow writes:

    But even if such a compromise should exist, what sense should it have, since the most piquant details have long been publicly discussed in public, and had no effect on the votes of the elected president? Like all the other scandals trumps, which passed through the election campaign, they also remained unresolved, including those who were concerned about sex.

    This also includes what is known as a compromise, compromising material, that is, video shots of the unsightly nature, which can destroy both the political career and the life of a person. The word Kompromat shines today – as in the past Perestroika – in all headlines; It was not invented in Russia, of course. But in Russia in the Yeltsin era, when the great clans in the power gave bitter fights and intensively used the media, works of this kind have ended more than just a brilliant career. General Prosecutor Jurij Skuratov was dismissed after a video had been shown in the country-wide television channels: There, a person "who looks like the prosecutor's office" had sex with two prostitutes.

    Donald Trump went on Howard Stern for, like, decades. The stuff that's right out there for whoever wants to roll those tapes is just as "compromising" as anything in the dodgy dossier, or the "grab her by the pussy" tape, for that matter. As Kowaljow points out, none of it was mortally wounding to Trump; after all, if you're a volatility voter who wants to kick over the table in a rigged game, you don't care about the niceties.

    Conclusion

    It would be nice, wouldn't it, if our famously free press was actually covering the Trump transition , instead of acting like their newsrooms are mountain redoubts for an irrendentist Clinton campaign. It would be nice, for example, to know:

    1) The content and impact of Trump's Executive Orders.

    2) Ditto, regulations.

    3) Personnel decisions below the Cabinet level. Who are the Flexians?

    4) Obama policies that will remain in place, because both party establishments support them. Charters, for example.

    5) Republican inroads in Silicon Valley.

    6) The future of the IRS, since Republicans have an axe to grind with it.

    7) Mismatch between State expectations for infrastructure and Trump's implementation

    And that's before we get to ObamaCare, financial regulation, gutting or owning the CIA (which Trump needs to do, and fast), trade policy, NATO, China, and a myriad of other stories, all rich with human interest, powerful narratives, and plenty of potential for scandal. Any one of them worthy of A1 coverage, just like the Inaugural crowd size dogpile that's been going on for days.

    Instead, the press seems to be reproducing the last gasps of the Clinton campaign, which were all about the evils of Trump, the man. That tactic failed the Clinton campaign, again because volatility voters weren't concerned with the niceties. And the same tactic is failing the press now. Failing unless, of course, you're the sort of sleaze merchant who downsizes the newsroom because, hey, it's all about the clicks.

    [Jan 23, 2017] Karl Roves Prophecy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ..."
    "... "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
    "... Financial Times ..."
    "... Rush To Judgment ..."
    Jan 23, 2017 | www.unz.com
    by Karel van Wolferen Karl Rove. Credit: Jay Godwin/Wikimedia Commons [We're very pleased to run this provocative new piece by Karel van Wolferen , who has spent decades as one of Holland's most distinguished international journalists.]

    In a famous exchange between a high official at the court of George W. Bush and journalist Ron Suskind, the official – later acknowledged to have been Karl Rove – takes the journalist to task for working in "the reality-based community." He defined that as believing "that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." Rove then asserted that this was no longer the way in which the world worked:

    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004).

    This declaration became popular as an illustration of the hubris of the Bush-Cheney government. But we could also see it as fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled in a manner that no journalist at that time would have deemed possible. Yes, the neoconservatives brought disrepute upon themselves because of the disaster in Iraq. Sure, opposition to the reality Rove had helped create in that devastated country became a first rung on the ladder that could lead to the presidency, as it did for Barack Obama. But the neocons stayed put in the State Department and other positions closely linked to the Obama White House, where they became allies with the liberal hawks in continuing 'spreading democracy' by overthrowing regimes. America's mainstream news and opinion purveyors, without demurring, accommodated the architects of reality production overseen by Dick Cheney.

    This did not end when Obama became president, but in fact with seemingly ever greater eagerness they gradually made the CIA/neocon-neoliberal created reality appear unshakably substantial in the minds of most newspaper readers and among TV audiences in the Atlantic basin. This was most obvious when attention moved to an imagined existential threat posed by Russia supposedly aimed at the political and 'Enlightenment' achievements of the West. Neoconservatives and liberal hawks bent America's foreign-policy entirely to their ultimate purpose of eliminating a Vladimir Putin who had decided not to dance to Washington's tune so that he might save the Russian state, which had been disintegrating under his predecessor and Wall Street's robber barons.

    With President Obama as a mere spectator, the neocon/liberals could – without being ridiculed – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d'état they fomented in the Ukraine. And because of an unquestioned Atlanticist faith, which holds that without the policies of the United States the world cannot be safe for people of the Atlantic basin, the European elites that determine policy or comment on it joined their American counterparts in endorsing that reality.

    As blind vassals the Europeans have adopted Washington's enemies as their own. Hence the ease with which the European Union member states could be roped into a system of baseless economic sanctions against Russia, much to the detriment of their own economic interests. Layers upon layers of anti-Russian propaganda have piled up to bamboozle a largely unsuspecting public on both sides of the Ocean.

    In the Netherlands, from where I have been watching all this, Putin was held personally responsible in much of the media for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner flying over the Ukraine, which killed 298 people. No serious investigation was undertaken. The presentation of 'almost definitive' findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow's challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose agreed-upon rules included publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.

    As the fighting in Syria reached a phase when contradictions in the official Washington/NATO story demanded a stepping back for a fresh look, editors were forced into contortions to make sure that the baddies stayed bad, and that no matter how cruel and murderously they went about their occupation in Aleppo and elsewhere, the jihadi groups fighting to overthrow the secular Assad government in Damascus remained strictly labeled as moderate dissidents worthy of Western support, and the Russians as violators of Western values. Architects of an official reality that diverges widely from the facts you thought you knew must rely on faits accompli they achieve through military or police violence and intimidation, in combination with a fitting interpretation or a news blackout delivered by mainstream media.

    These conditions have been widely obtained in the Atlantic basin through a gradual loss of political accountability at top levels, and through government agencies protected by venerated secrecy that are allowed to live lives of their own. As a result American and European populations have been dropped into a fantasy world, one under constant threat from terrorists and an evil dictator in Moscow. For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe. For Europeans, at least those in the northern half, the numerous NATO tanks rolling up to the border of the Russian Federation and the massing of troops in that area are an extra guarantee, on top of the missiles that were already there, that Vladimir Putin will restrain his urges to grab a European country or two. On a smaller scale, when every May 4th the 1940-45 war dead are remembered in the Netherlands, we must now include the fallen in Afghanistan as if they were a sacrifice to defend us against the Taliban threat from behind the Hindu Kush.

    Ever since the start of this millennium there has been a chain of realities as prophesied by Karl Rove, enhanced by terrorist attacks, which may or may not have been the work of actual terrorists, but whose reality is not questioned without risking one's reputation. The geopolitical picture that they have helped build in most minds appears fairly consistent if one can keep one's curiosity on a leash and one's sense of contradiction sufficiently blunt. After all, the details of the official reality are filled in and smoothed out all the time by crafty campaigns produced in the PR world, with assistance from think tanks and academia.

    But the question does reappear in one's thoughts: do the politically prominent and the well-positioned editors, especially those known for having once possessed skeptical minds, actually believe it all? Do those members of the cabinet or parliament, who can get hot under their collar as they decry the latest revelation about one or other outrage committed by Putin, take seriously what they're saying? Not all of them are believers, I know that from off the record conversations. But there appears to be a marked difference between the elite in government, in the media, in prominent social positions, and ordinary people who in these recent times of anguish about populism are sometimes referred to as uneducated. Quite a few among the latter appear to think that something fishy is going on. This could be because in my experience the alert ones have educated themselves, something that is not generally understood by commentators who have made their way through the bureaucracy of standard higher education.

    A disadvantage of being part of the elite is that you must stick to the accepted story. If you deviate from it, and have your thoughts run rather far away from it, which is quite inevitable once you begin with your deviation, you can no longer be trusted by those around you. If you are a journalist and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship.

    Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were saying. Today greater loyalty to the reality created in Washington and Langley cannot be imagined. For much of northern Europe the official story that originates in the United States is amplified by the BBC and other once reliable purveyors of news and opinion like the Guardian , the Financial Times and the (always less reliable) Economist .

    Repetition lends an ever greater aura of truth to the nonsense that is relentlessly repeated on the pages of once serious publications. Detailed analyses of developments understood through strings of false clues give the fictions ever more weight in learned heads and debates in parliament. At the time of writing, the grave concern spread across the opinion pages on my side of the Atlantic is about how Putin's meddling in upcoming European elections can be prevented.

    The realities Rove predicted have infantilized parliamentary debates, current affairs discussion and lecture events, and anything of a supposedly serious nature on TV. These now conform to comic book simplicities of evil, heroes and baddies. They have produced a multitude of editorials with facts upside-down. They force even those who advise against provoking Moscow to include a remark or two about Putin being a murderer or tyrant, lest they could be mistaken for traitors to Enlightenment values or even as Russian puppets, as I have been. Layers of unreality have incapacitated learned and serious people to think clearly about the world and how it came to be that way.

    How could Rove's predictions so totally materialize? There's a simple answer: 'they' got away with momentous lies at an early stage. The more authorities lie successfully the more they are likely to lie again in a big way to serve the purposes of earlier lies. The 'they' stands for those individuals and groups in the power system who operate beyond legal limits as a hydra-headed entity, whose coordination depends on the project, campaign, mission, or operation at hand. Those with much power got away with excessive extralegal use of it since the beginning of this century because systems of holding the powerful to account have crumbled on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence, potential opposition to what the reality architects were doing dwindled to almost nothing. At the same time, people whose job or personal inclination leads them to ferret out truth were made to feel guilty for pursuing it.

    The best way, I think, to make sense of how this works is to study it as a type of intimidation. Sticking to the official story because you have to may not be quite as bad as forced religious conversion with a gun pointed at your head, but it belongs to the same category. It begins with the triggering of odd feelings of guilt. At least that is how I remember it. Living in Tokyo, I had just read Mark Lane's Rush To Judgment , the first major demolishing in book form of the Warren Report on the murder of John F. Kennedy, when I became aware that I had begun to belong to an undesirable category of people who were taking the existence of conspiracies seriously. We all owe thanks to writers of Internet-based samizdat literature who've recently reminded us that the pejorative use of the conspiracy label stems from one of the greatest misinformation successes of the CIA begun in 1967.

    So the campaign to make journalists feel guilty for their embarrassing questions dates from before Dick Cheney and Rove and Bush. But it has only reached a heavy duty phase after the moment that I see as having triggered the triumph of political untruth.

    We have experienced massive systemic intimidation since 9/11. For the wider public we have the absurdities of airport security – initially evidenced by mountains of nail-clippers – reminding everyone of the arbitrary coercive potential that rests with the authorities. Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control! For journalists unexamined guilt feelings still play a major role. The serious ones feel guilty for wanting to ask disturbing questions, and so they reaffirm that they still belong to 'sane' humanity rather than the segment with extraterrestrials in flying saucers in its belief system. But there is a confused interaction with another guilty feeling of not having pursued unanswered questions. Its remedy appears to be a doubling down on the official story. Why throw in fairly common lines like "I have no time for truthers" unless you feel that this is where the shoe pinches?

    You will have noticed a fairly common response when the 9/11 massacre enters a discussion. Smart people will say that they "will not go there", which brings to mind the "here be dragons" warning on uncharted bits of medieval maps. That response is not stupid. It hints at an understanding that there is no way back once you enter that realm. There is simply no denying that if you accept the essential conclusions of the official 9/11 report you must also concede that laws of nature stopped working on that particular day. And, true enough, if you do go there and bear witness publicly to what you see, you may well be devoured; your career in many government positions, the media and even academia is likely to come to an end.

    So, for the time being we are stuck with a considerable chunk of terra incognita relating to recognized political knowledge; which is an indispensable knowledge if you want to get current world affairs and the American role in it into proper perspective.

    Mapping the motives of those who decide "not to go there" may be a way to begin breaking through this disastrous deadlock. Holding onto your job is an honorable motivation when you have a family to maintain. The career motivation is not something to scorn. There is also an entirely reasonable expectation that once you go there you lose your voice publicly to address very important social abuse and political misdeeds. I think it is not difficult to detect authors active on internet samizdat sites who have that foremost in mind. Another possible reason for not going there is the more familiar one, akin to the denial that one has a dreadful disease. Also possible is an honorable position of wishing to preserve social order in the face of a prospect of very dramatic political upheaval caused by revelations about a crime so huge that hardly anything in America's history can be compared to it. Where could such a thing end – civil war? Martial law?

    What I find more difficult to stomach is the position of someone who is worshiped by what used to be the left, and who has been guiding that class of politically interested Americans as to where they can and cannot go. Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes. One can only hope that this overrated analyst of the establishment, who helps keep the most embarrassing questions out of the public sphere, trips over the contradictions and preposterousness of his own judgments and crumples in full view of his audience.

    The triumph of political untruth has brought into being a vast system of political intimidation. Remember then that the intimidater does not really care what you believe or not, but impresses you with the fact that you have no choice. That is the essence of the exercise of brute power. With false flag events the circumstantial evidence sometimes appears quite transparently false and, indeed could be interpreted as having been purposeful. Consider the finding of passports or identity papers accidentally left by terrorists, or their almost always having been known to and suspected by the police? What of their death through police shooting before they can be interrogated? Could these be taunting signals of ultimate power to a doubting public: Now you! Dare contradict us! Are the persons killed by the police the same who committed the crime? Follow-up questions once considered perfectly normal and necessary by news media editors are conspicuous by their absence.

    How can anyone quarrel with Rove's prophecy. He told Suskind that we will forever be studying newly created realities. This is what the mainstream media continue to do. His words made it very clear: you have no choice!

    A question that will be in the minds of perhaps many as they consider the newly sworn in president of the United States, who like John F. Kennedy appears to have understood that "Intelligence" leads a dangerously uncontrolled life of its own: At what point will he give in to the powers of an invisible government, as he is made to reckon that he also has no choice?

    Karel van Wolferen is a Dutch journalist and retired professor at the University of Amsterdam. Since 1969, he has published over twenty books on public policy issues, which have been translated into eleven languages and sold over a million copies worldwide. As a foreign correspondent for NRC Handelsblad , one of Holland's leading newspapers, he received the highest Dutch award for journalism, and over the years his articles have appeared in The New York Times , The Washington Post , The New Republic , The National Interest , Le Monde , and numerous other newspapers and magazines.

    [Jan 23, 2017] President Trump Kills TPP Once and for All with Executive Order Officially Withdrawing withdrawing from the trade deal negotiations

    Jan 23, 2017 | www.breitbart.com

    It came as a part of series of three separate executive actions that President Trump took on Monday.

    "The first is a withdrawal of the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership," White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said, explaining the first executive action President Trump was taking in the list of three. The other two were one freezing hiring of all federal employees except in the military, and one that restores the Mexico City policy.

    As President Trump signed the executive action killing the TPP, he announced for the cameras in the oval office that it was a "great thing for the American worker, what we just did."

    Trump campaigned heavily against TPP, so it's only fitting he'd crush it once and for all on his first business day as President of the United States. It's his efforts campaigning against it-and the efforts of failed presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)-that shook Washington's political establishment, and eventually forced failed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton to come out against the deal that was supposed to be a legacy achievement of now former President Barack Obama.

    Trump hammered TPP repeatedly throughout his campaign and even leading up to it in speeches and interviews, including many exclusive interviews with Breitbart News.

    [Jan 23, 2017] We need an alternative to Trumps nationalism. It isnt the status quo

    Notable quotes:
    "... The era of neoliberalism ended in the autumn of 2008 with the bonfire of financialisation's illusions. The fetishisation of unfettered markets that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought to the fore in the late 1970s had been the necessary ideological cover for the unleashing of financiers to enable the capital flows essential to a new phase of globalisation in which the United States deficits provided the aggregate demand for the world's factories (whose profits flowed back to Wall Street closing the loop nicely). ..."
    "... when the bottom fell out of this increasingly unstable feedback loop, neoliberalism's illusions burned down and the west's working class ended up too expensive and too indebted to be of interest to a panicking global establishment. ..."
    "... Thatcher's and Reagan's neoliberalism had sought to persuade that privatisation of everything would produce a fair and efficient society unimpeded by vested interests or bureaucratic fiat. That narrative, of course, hid from public view what was really happening: a tremendous buildup of super-state bureaucracies, unaccountable supra-state institutions (World Trade Organisation, Nafta, the European Central Bank), behemoth corporations, and a global financial sector heading for the rocks. ..."
    "... Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost its ambition to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to declare in writing that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika forced the Greek or Irish governments to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based bankers at the expense of their people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation. Similarly, in America the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the failed health system. ..."
    "... It was against this insurgency of a cornered establishment that had given up on persuasion that Donald Trump and his European allies rose up with their own populist insurgency. They proved that it is possible to go against the establishment and win. Alas, theirs will be a pyrrhic victory which will, eventually, harm those whom they inspired. The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot be the retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of "our" people against "others" fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences. ..."
    "... This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of working class jobs to emerging markets. ..."
    "... Until there is a viable alternative economic philosophy, nationalism is the future, whether we like it or not. ..."
    "... Enough is enough. Globalisation is now only working for the rich and powerful. The model is simple - globalisation lowers the cost for consumers of everything, because the lowest cost geography produces everything (China, India etc), which is great until nobody has a job any more, so nobody can afford anything. ..."
    "... The challenge is not to stick with the status quo, it's to find an alternative to nationalism that works for everyone. ..."
    "... Fine words, but we're along way from that right now. What's happening in Europe, and across the Atlantic, is really only just getting started. Our elites may well be suffering from a crisis of legitimacy, and yet they are still very much in control. ..."
    "... Neoliberalism is based on the acceptance that the rich elite are deserving of their wealth and privileges. The elite have used their mouthpieces, such as tabloids and think tanks, to ram this home; but the banking crisis of 2008 helped disabuse people of this myth that justifies rampant inequality in the US and the UK in particular. ..."
    "... Trump and Brexit are expressions of the paradigm shift that is underway; but up till now, rather ironically, a billionaire and a rich former stockbroker have been the voice of protest, because it is they who have the money, connections and vanity to ensure they are heard. ..."
    "... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
    "... Some of the gains of the top 5 percent could go toward alleviating the anger of the lower- and middle-class rich world's "losers." ..."
    "... the history of the last quarter century during which the top classes in the rich world have continually piled up larger and larger gains, all the while socially and mentally separating themselves from fellow citizens, does not bode well for that alternative ..."
    "... Social Neoliberals (mass immigration, family breakdown, individualism etc) combine with economic Neoliberals (profit maximisation, global capital movements etc) to get their way. ..."
    "... I'm fairly sure that in time it will be shown that thier is a cabal of think-tanks and supranationalists who have perverted everything to thier own benefit. How and why does a Labour Peer get free accomodation on Baron Rothschilds' estate? How and why does the royal bank Coutts get bailed out by the taxpayer with no strings attached? ..."
    Jan 23, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
    The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot be a retreat to barricaded nation-states and the pitting of 'our' people against 'others' fenced off by high walls

    A clash of two insurgencies is now shaping the west. Progressives on both sides of the Atlantic are on the sidelines, unable to comprehend what they are observing. Donald Trump's inauguration marks its pinnacle.

    1. One of the two insurgencies shaping our world today has been analysed ad nauseum. Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen and the broad Nationalist International that they are loosely connected to have received much attention, as has their success at impressing upon the multitudes that nation-states, borders, citizens and communities matter.
    2. However, the other insurgency that caused the rise of this Nationalist International has remained in the shadows: an insurrection by the global establishment's technocracy whose purpose is to retain control at all cost. Project Fear in the UK, the troika in continental Europe and the unholy alliance of Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the surveillance apparatus in the United States are its manifestations.

    The era of neoliberalism ended in the autumn of 2008 with the bonfire of financialisation's illusions. The fetishisation of unfettered markets that Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought to the fore in the late 1970s had been the necessary ideological cover for the unleashing of financiers to enable the capital flows essential to a new phase of globalisation in which the United States deficits provided the aggregate demand for the world's factories (whose profits flowed back to Wall Street closing the loop nicely).

    Meanwhile, billions of people in the "third" world were pulled out of poverty while hundreds of millions of western workers were slowly sidelined, pushed into more precarious jobs, and forced to financialise themselves either through their pension funds or their homes. And when the bottom fell out of this increasingly unstable feedback loop, neoliberalism's illusions burned down and the west's working class ended up too expensive and too indebted to be of interest to a panicking global establishment.

    Thatcher's and Reagan's neoliberalism had sought to persuade that privatisation of everything would produce a fair and efficient society unimpeded by vested interests or bureaucratic fiat. That narrative, of course, hid from public view what was really happening: a tremendous buildup of super-state bureaucracies, unaccountable supra-state institutions (World Trade Organisation, Nafta, the European Central Bank), behemoth corporations, and a global financial sector heading for the rocks.

    After the events of 2008 something remarkable happened. For the first time in modern times the establishment no longer cared to persuade the masses that its way was socially optimal. Overwhelmed by the collapsing financial pyramids, the inexorable buildup of unsustainable debt, a eurozone in an advanced state of disintegration and a China increasingly relying on an impossible credit boom, the establishment's functionaries set aside the aspiration to persuade or to represent. Instead, they concentrated on clamping down.

    In the UK, more than a million benefit applicants faced punitive sanctions. In the Eurozone, the troika ruthlessly sought to reduce the pensions of the poorest of the poor. In the United States, both parties promised drastic cuts to social security spending. During our deflationary times none of these policies helped stabilise capitalism at a national or at a global level. So, why were they pursued?

    Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost its ambition to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to declare in writing that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika forced the Greek or Irish governments to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based bankers at the expense of their people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation. Similarly, in America the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the failed health system.

    It was against this insurgency of a cornered establishment that had given up on persuasion that Donald Trump and his European allies rose up with their own populist insurgency. They proved that it is possible to go against the establishment and win. Alas, theirs will be a pyrrhic victory which will, eventually, harm those whom they inspired. The answer to neoliberalism's Waterloo cannot be the retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of "our" people against "others" fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences.

    The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both sides of the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by power. We need to aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope throughout Europe and America for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for social housing, for health and education.

    Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans can restore to a billion people living in the west sovereignty over their lives and communities.


    bag0shite

    This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of working class jobs to emerging markets.

    Liberalism has created so much wealth for the west and has dramatically reduced inequality over the last century, however it is no longer working for those on lower incomes in the west.

    Until there is a viable alternative economic philosophy, nationalism is the future, whether we like it or not.

    chantaspell -> bag0shite 1d ago

    nationalism is the future, whether we like it or not.

    No it's not. Because what we've got, although flawed, is far superior to Nationalism's false promises. Nationalism will, or perhaps already has, peaked.

    bag0shite -> chantaspell

    ... go and tell that to all the families who don't have a job because their roles were offshored to Eastern Europe or China. Got and tell that to truck drivers who earn a pittance because there is essentially an infinite supply of Poles willing to do it for peanuts.

    Enough is enough. Globalisation is now only working for the rich and powerful. The model is simple - globalisation lowers the cost for consumers of everything, because the lowest cost geography produces everything (China, India etc), which is great until nobody has a job any more, so nobody can afford anything.

    The challenge is not to stick with the status quo, it's to find an alternative to nationalism that works for everyone.

    MMGALIAS -> bag0shite 1d ago

    This is all about globalisation, specifically wage deflation for the working classes from competing with emerging markets and freedom of movement, and also from offshoring of working class jobs to emerging markets.

    The working classes have voted against their own interests in the last 3 decades, now we are all supposed to feel sorry for them when the neoliberal policies they have voted for have come back to bite them?

    Northman1

    "The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both sides of the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by power. We need to aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope throughout Europe and America for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for social housing, for health and education.

    Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives and communities".

    These are fine aspirations. You precede them by saying that we cannot:

    "...retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of 'our' people against 'others' fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences".

    This presumably refers to physical barriers to prevent illegal immigration and tariff barriers to prevent free trade.

    Tell me though how you can achieve the aspirations you set out whilst allowing millions of people from the third world to flood into Europe at an enormous economic and social cost and also trading freely with countries that don't trade fairly (e.g. China with its currency manipulation, government subsidies, product dumping and lack of environmental/ safety/ worker protection regulations)

    greenwichite -> Northman1

    He's brilliant on the problem...lame on the solution.

    And wrong.

    The answer is to only trade freely with countries that play by the same environmental, currency and labour-rights rules as we do.

    Otherwise, we are just allowing ourselves to be undercuts by cheats.

    That's not "barricading" oneself anywhere...it's basic common sense, which has unfortunately eluded our leaders for decades. In Thatcher's case, I think she was quite happy for mercantilist, protectionist Asian powers to destroy our industry, for her own party-political purposes.

    MMGALIAS -> Northman1

    and also trading freely with countries that don't trade fairly (e.g. China with its currency manipulation, government subsidies, product dumping and lack of environmental/ safety/ worker protection regulations)

    The West doesn't trade freely either, just ask the African farmers who are tariffed into poverty by the EU.

    Tiresius -> legalizefreedom

    I agree. It's a well argued piece and I agree with the conclusion that neither the neo liberal free trade consensus , nor its reaction , will provide an answer to the worsening economic condition of the blue collar west. I also am convinced that in the longer term the only real answer is a return to the principles of social democracy and equity of opportunity.

    This will however be a long march. Neo liberalism has been in the ascendant for over 30 years , it has brought some significant benefits to a few in the west , and many elsewhere , and of course a lot of Chinese billionaires , a large number of western voters have lost or are losing faith in a system that has failed to deliver rising living standards for them , incurred high levels of debt and reduced social mobility.

    It is a failure of the narrative of the centre left that those people are persuaded by increasing protectionism rather than social democracy. So now we will see where the reaction to free trade liberalism takes us , it has to run its course before the prescriptions of social democracy can be reformulated , hopefully with more inspiring leaders than at present.

    Andrew Skidmore

    'Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives and communities.'

    Fine words, but we're along way from that right now. What's happening in Europe, and across the Atlantic, is really only just getting started. Our elites may well be suffering from a crisis of legitimacy, and yet they are still very much in control.

    From the Trump administration Whitehouse website:

    'The Trump Administration will be a law and order administration. President Trump will honor our men and women in uniform and will support their mission of protecting the public. The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it.'

    Hmmmmmm....?

    thetowncrier -> Andrew Skidmore

    As ever, a master of subtlety. I expect the American Stasi to come into being by the end of next week, with a brand new special 'badge' to go with their black shirts.

    2bveryFrank

    Neoliberalism is based on the acceptance that the rich elite are deserving of their wealth and privileges. The elite have used their mouthpieces, such as tabloids and think tanks, to ram this home; but the banking crisis of 2008 helped disabuse people of this myth that justifies rampant inequality in the US and the UK in particular.

    Trump and Brexit are expressions of the paradigm shift that is underway; but up till now, rather ironically, a billionaire and a rich former stockbroker have been the voice of protest, because it is they who have the money, connections and vanity to ensure they are heard.

    They, however, are very unlikely to deliver and then true and genuine voices of the people will emerge - voices that will target the root causes of discontent rather than convenient, nationalistic scapegoats such as immigration.

    ReasonableSoul -> 2bveryFrank

    "and then true and genuine voices of the people will emerge - voices that will target the root causes of discontent rather than convenient, nationalistic scapegoats such as immigration."

    So working class people who struggle to compete for the low wage jobs and strained welfare services that are taken by migrants are not allowed to protest immigration policy?

    Recent mass migrations (of the last 30 years) are unprecedented.

    In Europe, whole towns have been transformed, particularly culturally.

    Imposing huge demographic changes on a people is a form of authoritarian social engineering.


    SeenItAlready

    This is covered by a report in YaleGlobal (and a similar one in the Harvard Business Review) from 2014 which adds a few stats showing how middle-class salaries in the 'Western World' were the only ones to stagnate in the period 1998 to 2008 (and obviously drop post 2008, but that isn't covered):
    http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/tale-two-middle-classes

    This is the last section of that report:

    The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past three decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition with workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and Africa. The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more.

    This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization.

    If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the immediate pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves and their countries, let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the interests and the political power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a direct conflict with the interests of the worldwide poor.

    These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization.

    Another solution, one that involves neither populism nor plutocracy, would require enormous effort at the understanding of one's own longer-term self-interest. It would imply more substantial redistribution policies in the rich world. Some of the gains of the top 5 percent could go toward alleviating the anger of the lower- and middle-class rich world's "losers." These need not nor should be mere transfers of money from one group to another.

    Instead, money should come in the form of investments in public education, local infrastructure, housing and preventive health care. But the history of the last quarter century during which the top classes in the rich world have continually piled up larger and larger gains, all the while socially and mentally separating themselves from fellow citizens, does not bode well for that alternative

    Personally I see the whole US election here... written a couple of years before it happened:

    • Hillary as Globalisation
    • Trump as Populism
    • And Bernie (who as the report suggests wasn't even allowed by the Globalist forces to - present himself) as Redistribution


    moranet -> Rusty Woods

    Just as in the 1920s early 30s, when centrist governments attempting mild redistributive banking reforms -MacDonald, Herriot, Van Zeeland, Azaña- came up against a "Wall of Money" when the financial markets reacted, and were overthrown in favour of orthodox liberal governments (the 'technocratic insugency' described by Prof. Varoufakis). And when public opinion inevitably lost its patience, propelling harder nosed reformers close to power... that's when political and financial elites discovered rule by executive decree and the adjournment of parliaments.

    So we know very well what happens next in Europe, when liberal capitalism and liberal-democracy find themselves on opposing teams.

    anewdawn

    There are two sorts of nationalism in my view. There is the nasty, evil, Nazi style that promotes the insane social darwinism, and superiority, but a hypocritical imperialism towards other states and countries.

    There is another type of nationalism that good decent people who really care about democracy would approve of however. It is the sort that seeks to protect the poor and the middle classes by stopping global corporations from off shoring their jobs to sweatshops in countries that have lower human rights records for the purpose of cheap labour and more profit. There is the sort of nationalism that promotes local democracy as opposed to tying countries up to TTIP and TPP which undermines the governments and laws of individual countries. There is a type of nationalism that seeks to protect their neighbors by insisting on fair trade and good treatment of workers in other countries.

    If you listen to Trumps speech, he seems to be the second type when he promises to bring back jobs to the rust belt, but only time will tell if he really is of the first type - it will surface soon in his attitude to invasions of the middle east and control of the global corporations.

    ID0118186 -> anewdawn

    But those same middle classes are part of the problem, they want their consumer goods, their iPods and iPhones and iPads, but they don't want to pay the real cost of them if they were made by well-paid and well-trained skilled workers in their own country.

    You have to address the whole issue: you can't have cheap prices and protectionism, unless you let wages fall to near the same level that they are in developing countries - also unpopular.

    So if you want nationalism as you describe it, be willing to pay 50 to 100% more for many goods and services; or buy a lot less, which kills your economy anyway.

    epidavros -> anewdawn

    And then there is also the phoney internationalism of the EU - which is really a turbo charged nationalism of what will soon be 27 countries bent on protectionism, technocratic rule and a firmly closed mindset with a firmly debunked ideology.

    toadalone -> anewdawn

    I like your description of the two nationalisms. I think Varoufakis' point is that that kind of nationalism can't survive on its own, as an island in a globalised world: nationalists of that kind have to work together with their neighbouring counterparts to make their respective benign nationalisms function. It's a very difficult proposal to bring to fruition, even though I think it's right.

    As for Trump: I think that seasoning campaign speeches with a flavour of benign nationalism is, sadly, little more than a well-established PR technique. I don't believe what Trump says for an instant (partly because he constantly breaks the fourth wall by saying the complete opposite a few days later).

    Other leaders who deploy this flavour of nationalism are more complicated. Viktor Orbán, for instance. It's very difficult to tell, with him, how much of his protectionist-nationalist rhetoric is genuine (but impossible to implement, given Hungary's membership of the EU), and how much of it is just more of the same dangle-shiny-things-in-front-of-the-voters-while-doing-what-you-want. And as with Trump, Orbán's "benign" nationalism comes as just one flavour in a dish also heavily flavoured with demented backward-looking authoritarian nationalism, with Kulturkampf and all the other trimmings.

    The weird thing about Trump is how he turns these contradictions into a kind of conscious performance art. It's possible to view Orbán as someone who's cracking up a bit under the pressure of believing six impossible things before breakfast. Trump is more healthy (from the Trump's own point of view, of course, not from ours). He's embraced the crazy completely, and revels in it. While probably reserving some quiet time for himself, in which he can privately drop the mask, or rather the 500 different masks.

    QuayBoredWarrior -> ReubenK1

    Perhaps you should read this bit again:

    The answer can only be a Progressive Internationalism that works in practice on both sides of the Atlantic. To bring it about we need more than fine principles unblemished by power. We need to aim for power on the basis of a pragmatic narrative imparting hope throughout Europe and America for jobs paying living wages to anyone who wants them, for social housing, for health and education.

    Only a third insurgency promoting a New Deal that works equally for Americans and Europeans can restore to a billion people living in the West sovereignty over their lives and communities.

    If you need to know what the New Deal involved, I suggest you Google it or buy a book about it. If there is a library still open near you, you might able to borrow a book for free.

    I think what is suggested is a new New Deal, an interventionist strategy to replace the laissez-faire, the-market-knows-best approaches of the 80s/90s/00s. The details of which will need to be hammered out as we progress. BTW, the New Deal was a haphazard and piecemeal programme that was often based on hope over accepted wisdom. The aim was stabilisation and an end to the mass impoverishment of American workers. If we have this aim, I'm sure we can work out what needs to be done. It won't only be professors who come up with suggestions but all those who coalesce behind these aims.

    The first thing necessary is to loosen the grip of those who bang on about deficit reduction above all else. This counter-productive approach needs to be crushed. It works for no one and it doesn't work for the future. The services being destroyed will have to be built up again and the deficit-above-all-else proselytisers have no strategy for this at all. It's as if their true aim is to see them destroyed forever.

    SeenItAlready

    Their purpose was to impose acquiescence to a clueless establishment that had lost its ambition to maintain its legitimacy. When the UK government forced benefit claimants to declare in writing that "my only limits are the ones I set myself", or when the troika forced the Greek or Irish governments to write letters "requesting" predatory loans from the European Central Bank that benefited Frankfurt-based bankers at the expense of their people, the idea was to maintain power via calculated humiliation. Similarly, in America the establishment habitually blamed the victims of predatory lending and the failed health system.

    Not only that...

    They also came out with the wheeze of getting the poor to fight amongst themselves

    I'm convinced that is what is behind the explosion in Identity Politics we have seen over the last few years - where different groups are encouraged to dislike each other on gender, gender-orientation and and racial lines. Of course social class is kept well out of any of these discussions... in spite of it being the source of most of the real repression

    SeenItAlready -> SeenItAlready

    different groups are encouraged to dislike each other on gender, gender-orientation and and racial lines. Of course social class is kept well out of any of these discussions... in spite of it being the source of most of the real repression

    Likewise immigration where the immigrants themselves are made an issue of and blamed or defended... of course in reality salary dumping and job losses have nothing to do with them

    The wealthy class who encouraged the immigration of cheap labour, who did not provide any protection for workers impacted by it and who then effectively sacked local workers in favour of cheaper labour have again pulled-off a very neat trick by shifting the terms of the debate to the innocent immigrants who were simply following opportunity and invitations. Likewise the immigrants feel that they are being persecuted by the locals...

    And so the rich sit back and rub their hands with glee... poor immigrants and poor locals fighting, poor men and poor women fighting, poor whites and poor non-whites fighting. No chance of the pitchforks arriving for quite a while, if ever...

    FreddySteadyGO -> SeenItAlready

    And so the rich sit back and rub their hands with glee... poor immigrants and poor locals fighting, poor men and poor women fighting, poor whites and poor non-whites fighting. No chance of the pitchforks arriving for quite a while, if ever...

    Absolutely, its all far too convenient.

    Social Neoliberals (mass immigration, family breakdown, individualism etc) combine with economic Neoliberals (profit maximisation, global capital movements etc) to get their way.

    I'm fairly sure that in time it will be shown that thier is a cabal of think-tanks and supranationalists who have perverted everything to thier own benefit. How and why does a Labour Peer get free accomodation on Baron Rothschilds' estate? How and why does the royal bank Coutts get bailed out by the taxpayer with no strings attached?

    SeenItAlready -> FreddySteadyGO

    My reply to you got totally deleted, it seems that saying to much about this subject is not acceptable to these people, which I guess is no surprise considering...

    I said in my removed message that I didn't think there was any 'conspiracy' and that it was the normal divide-and-conquer behaviour which people in power have applied since time immemorial to those they would wish to control

    Now I've changed my mind...

    mysterycalculator

    Could it be that Francis Fukuyama got it wrong with his historicist vision of liberal democracy as the final stage in a Hegelian dialectic? Should he have gone with Marx's interpretation of Hegel's dialectic instead, arguing that political freedom without economic freedom is not enough? If so, then the argument for a redistributive social justice has to be the way forward. Though as Karl Popper was keen to point out, Hegal and historicist visions are bunk. Though interestingly Popper had much more time for Marx. A redistributive social justice within the checks and balances of a liberal democratic internationalist social order - that might be a way forward!

    Sven Ringling

    As long as this problem is seen as a left vs right, we won't address it. Trump's ideas are in many cases very left. He wants to subsidise jobs through tarifs/trade wars/ anything that reduces imports and therefore benefits job creation in their large market with a large trade deficit in the short run.
    Corbyn wants to subsidise the poorer part of the population directly or through public services taking the money directly from businesses and the rich - though he is not disinclined to isolationism either.

    Both recipies work in the short run, both are likely to backfire in the long run the way they are currently pushed.

    It was Labour's big mistake to think UKIP is on the right and therefore a risk for the Tories only.

    And this Greek clown considered left is not far from that American clown. Clowny-ness is actually their mist defining feature.

    ReasonableSoul

    Maintaining funcional borders is not a "retreat to a barricaded nation-state and the pitting of 'our' people against 'others' fenced off by tall walls and electrified fences."

    Even liberal Sweden became so overwhelmed by the endless stream of migrants/refugees arriving that it had to shut the border.

    ID614534 1d ago

    2

    3

    Why does every debate about the nation state have to be economic? Peoples of the world are often tied to their places of birth by language religion and culture. Not every song has to be sung in an American accent and we don't all want to replace Nan's pie recipe with a Big Mac and fries.

    Share

    Facebook Twitter

    Report


    epidavros 1d ago

    6

    7

    Fine words, but the problem is that there is no progressive internationalism and there are no real progressives. The response to the EU referendum widely seen to have been a call to end unmanaged migration and undue interference of those very supra national, unaccountable elite bodies you mention has been to call for the UK to be punished, to pay the price, to be treated entirely differently from trade partners like Canada and dealt with as a pariah. Not progressive. Not international. And very much the problem, not the cure.

    The huge irony here is that with all this talk of populism and barricading behind borders the UK and USA are seeking to tear theirs down, while the EU is erecting ideological barricades to protect its elite and their project.

    One thing is for sure - the solution is not the status quo. Either in the USA or the EU.

    [Jan 22, 2017] CIA to be a single organization. It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own agenda and political goals, which drive the US foreign policy

    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    A Boy Named Sue : , January 21, 2017 at 12:50 AM
    >Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency.

    FFS, grow up. I take back my positive comments about you.

    Do you think he asked for it?

    Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba.

    ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 21, 2017 at 04:23 AM
    Yes, the day he became CinC he should have given the order: "mobilize the transports, evacuate the forces".

    That was too hard, it would have reduced the plunder his backers take. It was against his hidden neocon!

    Obama is responsible for as much evil, fraud, waste and murder as W and immensely more than Bill Clinton.

    The Old Testament warning: "Let them stand the judgement".

    libezkova -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 21, 2017 at 09:43 PM
    "Plus he tried normalize our relationships with Iran and Cuba."

    You are trying to change the subject. While in relations with Iran and Cube Obama did achieve some progress, this not the whole story and this is not a major story. The major story is as following: in relations with Russia Obama was a very dangerous neocon warmonger, who actually put even more dangerous warmonger Hillary in charge of his foreign policy for a long four years period. And who has a track record in Ukraine and Syria which is the track record of a typical neocon.

    Both Russia and the USA nuclear forces are now on high alert, while you typing your staff. That means that if something happens (and the sophistication of modern computers chances are higher then before) leaders of the country have less then 20 min to prevent nuclear war. Less for Russia as the USA got way too close and literally encircled Russia. Do you see the problem ? This Nobel Peace Price winner does not give Russia enough time for measured response. Is not his a warmonger with a typical neoconservative ambitions?

    This is what recently Professor Steven Cohen told us. He think that this the current situation is close or even worse then the Cuban Nuclear Crisis.

    He also told a very interesting thing: it is wrong to consider CIA to be a single organization. It is more like a loose association, conglomerate of several feuding groups each with its own agenda and political goals, which can be even in fight with each other and with Pentagon and FBI.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op6Qr7uuMy8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCMyHJJrdDw

    And they are really ready to put the world on fire for their narrow goals (such as neocon goal of world dominance; or deposing Assad in Syria).

    [Jan 22, 2017] Disruption of neoliberal status quo and sending Hillary and some other neocon warmongers packing is already an imporatn Trump achievement, not matter how successful he might be in domestic economic policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump's success of failure will be measured by one thing: number of factory jobs added or lost, series MANEMP at the St. Louis FRED website.* If he doesn't create at least about 100,000 a year, he's in trouble. ..."
    "... Disruption of neoliberal status quo and sending Hillary and some other neocon warmongers packing is already an achievement, not matter how you slice it. ..."
    "... And a hissy fit that some factions of CIA demonstrated just before inauguration (it should not be considered as a monolithic organization; more like feudal kingdom of competing and often hostile to each other and to Pentagon and FBI factions ) was a reaction to this setback to neoconservatives in Washington. ..."
    "... If Trump does what he promised in foreign policy: to end the wars for the expansion of neoliberal empire and to end of Cold War II with Russia it will be a huge achievement, even if the US economics not recover from Obama's secular stagnation (oil prices probably will go higher this year, representing an important headwind) . ..."
    "... While we are writing those posts nuclear forces of both the USA and Russia are on high alert, and if something happen (and proliferation of computers make this more rather then less likely), the leaders of both countries have less then 20 minutes to decide about launching a full scale nuclear war. Actually Russia now has less time because of forward movement of NATO forces. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    New Deal democrat -> Fred C. Dobbs...January 22, 2017 at 07:10 AM
    Trump's success of failure will be measured by one thing: number of factory jobs added or lost, series MANEMP at the St. Louis FRED website.* If he doesn't create at least about 100,000 a year, he's in trouble.

    *assuming the data continues to be reported if it goes south on him, or he doesn't insist that the method of measuring change. Something that is a real fear.

    Slightly OT, there is one well-known wonky government data site I am watching. I think there are better than 50/50 odds it disappears within the next two weeks.

    libezkova -> New Deal democrat... , January 22, 2017 at 09:04 AM
    Disruption of neoliberal status quo and sending Hillary and some other neocon warmongers packing is already an achievement, not matter how you slice it.

    And a hissy fit that some factions of CIA demonstrated just before inauguration (it should not be considered as a monolithic organization; more like feudal kingdom of competing and often hostile to each other and to Pentagon and FBI factions ) was a reaction to this setback to neoconservatives in Washington.

    If Trump does what he promised in foreign policy: to end the wars for the expansion of neoliberal empire and to end of Cold War II with Russia it will be a huge achievement, even if the US economics not recover from Obama's secular stagnation (oil prices probably will go higher this year, representing an important headwind) .

    No further escalation in geopolitical conflicts represents an important tailwind and might help.

    While we are writing those posts nuclear forces of both the USA and Russia are on high alert, and if something happen (and proliferation of computers make this more rather then less likely), the leaders of both countries have less then 20 minutes to decide about launching a full scale nuclear war. Actually Russia now has less time because of forward movement of NATO forces.

    Professor Stephen Cohen thinks that this is worse then Cuban Missile Crisis and he is an expert in this area.

    [Jan 22, 2017] Trumps inaugural speech – promises, hopes and opportunities by the Saker

    Am nteresting thought (replace imperialism with neoliberalism) : "I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. "
    Revival of far right in Europe also is connected with the crisis of neoliberalism.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to. ..."
    "... I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. ..."
    "... I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature. ..."
    "... Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe. ..."
    "... Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal ..."
    "... Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. ..."
    "... All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Just hours ago Donald Trump was finally sworn in as the President of the United States. Considering all the threats hanging over this event, this is good news because at least for the time being, the Neocons have lost their control over the Executive Branch and Trump is now finally in a position to take action. The other good news is Trump's inauguration speech which included this historical promise " We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow ". Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon? The mere fact of asking the question is already an immensely positive development as nobody would have asked it had Hillary Clinton been elected.

    The other interesting feature of Trump's speech is that it centered heavily on people power and on social justice. Again, the contrast with the ideological garbage from Clinton could not be greater. Still, this begs a much more puzzling question: how much can a multi-billionaire capitalist be trusted when he speaks of people power and social justice – not exactly what capitalists are known for, at least not amongst educated people. Furthermore, a Marxist reader would also remind us that " imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism " and that it makes no sense to expect a capitalist to suddenly renounce imperialism.

    But what was generally true in 1916 is not necessarily true in 2017.

    For one thing, let's begin by stressing that the Trump Presidency was only made possible by the immense financial, economic, political, military and social crisis facing the USA today. Eight years of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Jr and eight years of Obama have seen a massive and full-spectrum decline in the strength of the United States which were sacrificed for the sake of the AngloZionist Empire. This crisis is as much internal as it is external and the election of Trump is a direct consequence of this crisis. In fact, Trump is the first one to admit that it is the terrible situation in which the USA find themselves today that brought him to power with a mandate of the regular American people (Hillary's "deplorables") to "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy, "great again". This might be something crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do "more of the same" like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to.

    I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct, then this is by definition very good news for the entire planet because whatever Trump ends up doing (or not doing), he will at least not push his country into a nuclear confrontation with Russia. And yes, I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21 st Century Socialism , which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20 th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern "21st Century Socialism" is very pro-Christian. Could 21 st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.

    Furthermore, the Trump inaugural speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal, something which we did not hear from him during the campaign. You could also say that Trump sounded very much like Putin. The question is will he now also act like Putin too?

    There will be a great deal of expectations in Russia about how Trump will go about fulfilling his campaign promises to deal with other countries. Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words " We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first " he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a "friend" of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others.

    All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears.

    Then there are Trump's words about " forming new alliances " and uniting " the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth ". They will also be received with a great deal of hope by the Russian people. If the USA is finally serious about fighting terrorism and if they really wants to eradicate the likes of Daesh, then Russia will offer her full support to this effort, including her military, intelligence, police and diplomatic resources. After all, Russia has been advocating for " completely eradicating Radical Islamic Terrorism from the face of the Earth " for decades.

    There is no doubt in my mind at all that an alliance between Russia and the USA, even if limited only to specific areas of converging or mutual interests, would be immensely beneficial for the entire planet, and not for just these two countries: right now all the worst international crises are a direct result from the "tepid war" the USA and Russia have been waging against each other. And just like any other war, this war has been a fantastic waste of resources. Of course, this war was started by the USA and it was maintained and fed by the Neocon's messianic ideology. Now that a realist like Trump has come to power, we can finally hope for this dangerous and wasteful dynamic to be stopped.

    The good news is that neither Trump nor Putin can afford to fail. Trump, because he has made an alliance with Russia the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his campaign, and Putin because he realizes that it is in the objective interests of Russia for Trump to succeed, lest the Neocon crazies crawl back out from their basement. So both sides will enter into negotiations with a strong desire to get things done and a willingness to make compromises as long as they do not affect crucial national security objectives. I think that the number of issues on which the USA and Russia can agree upon is much, much longer than the number of issues were irreconcilable differences remain.

    So yes, today I am hopeful. More than anything else, I want to hope that Trump is "for real", and that he will have the wisdom and courage to take strong action against his internal enemies. Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump , I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?". What is certain is that in the near future one of us will soon become very disappointed. I just hope that this shall not be me.

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 21, 2017 at 10:15 am GMT \n

    100 Words

    Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon?

    Well, another author here, David Chibo, seems to think that the intent is exactly the opposite: for the US (the nation) to become World Hegemon. As opposed to what we have today, to multinational capital being World Hegemon

    Anonymous , January 21, 2017 at 2:17 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump

    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    alexander , January 21, 2017 at 4:10 pm GMT \n
    300 Words

    Yes Saker,

    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago .and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.

    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.

    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    bluedog , January 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm GMT \n
    200 Words @alexander Yes Saker,


    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.


    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.


    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    Guess you didn't watch the debate where Trump said there is a very large bubble over wall street, and its bigger than the housing bubble (my words not Trumps) and our GDP the figures the government puts out as David Stockman Reagan budget director said is very suspect to say the least, for I have seen it stated anywhere from $16 trillion to $18 trillion and change much like the BLS report I suspect.
    Not much wiggle room for Trump a crashing bubble on wall street almost 100,000,000 un-employed per the Lay-Off-List, no that fails to jibe with the figure the government puts out, much like the GDP I suspect, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the debt will grow under Trump as he re-builds the military, as more tax dollars are flushed down the drain to keep company with the trillions already there.
    Chalmers Johnson was right in his excellent books from Blowback to The Sorrows of Empire Militarism,Secrecy,and the End of the Republic and our 900+ bases around the globe, can Trump change that close at least half of those bases that cost us billions of dollars we don't have or will it be the status quo I suspect it will be the later

    Dan Hayes , January 21, 2017 at 8:08 pm GMT \n
    100 Words @Anonymous
    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    Anonymous:

    I can back up Horowitz being termed "a rapid maniac". Some time ago I met him at one of his book signings. At that time I would be regarded as one of his disciples, i.e. his camp followers. That changed once I actually met him. His eyes were those of a crazed man. Enough said!

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 21, 2017 at 8:40 pm GMT \n

    Fuck Horowitz, he certainly is a rabid maniac and a scumbag.

    As for the main topic, there's also this, the Masters of the Universe vs. the deep state:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/heres-how-the-trump-presidency-will-play-out/5570021

    Anon , January 22, 2017 at 2:29 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."

    But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
    And that's what it's all about.

    Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.

    Beckow , January 22, 2017 at 8:11 am GMT \n
    100 Words

    The problem is that the issues between Russia and US are not that easy to resolve. For example, will US keep the "anti-Iran" missile defense systems in East Europe? Will they continue to state that Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO? Will the recent NATO troops in Poland, Baltic states and Romania stay? There are a few others, like the Ukraine problem – Crimea, Donbass, economic collapse.

    None of those issues are suitable for a deal. A deal requires things that either side can let go. We don't have that here. Most likely the tensions will recede, some summits will be held, a few common policies will be attempted (e.g. Middle East), but none of the really big issues (missiles, NATO expansion, Crimea, Ukraine) will be addressed. US has gone too far down that road to backtrack now – it is all logistics at this point. And logistics don't change short of something like a war.

    So we are stuck. But at least we are no longer heading towards a catastrophe.

    Miro23 , January 22, 2017 at 8:41 am GMT \n
    200 Words @alexander Yes Saker,


    The United States is in a deep crisis which nobody except Trump had the courage to discuss.

    The United States Government has been overspending what is has been taking in by an average of 875 billion dollars, per year, for last decade and a half.

    Our national debt has ballooned to a hair under 20 trillion dollars in 16 years. from 5.7 trillion in 2000.

    Our Gross Domestic Product, on the other hand, is only 18.7 trillion having merely doubled from 9.3 trillion in 2000.

    A general crisis point for the solvency of a nation is when its national debt eclipses its GDP, which happened to us two years ago....and the spread is growing, not tightening.

    If this continues at its present course, the world will no longer wish to purchase our debt and begin selling off our treasury bonds. The credit worthiness of the United States will be in serious jeopardy...and the US dollar may be sacrificed as the worlds currency.


    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency ...and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    So one can be optimistic, the era of reckless war and obscene war spending is over...but its really almost ten years to late for this.

    Do not lose heart, however, there are many ways we can pay down our debt,quickly, without raising income taxes.

    And if we can GROW the economy at a healthy pace,without generating too much inflation, we should be able to dodge the bullet.


    I hope The Donald , and his cabinet, put their thinking caps on, and undertake policies which are highly successful.

    It is so important to us all.

    I am not sure how President Trump wishes to tackle this but it will be his number one job to save the United States from its ruinous policies of perpetual war and insolvency and chart a new course , hopefully one of peace and prosperity.

    There will be no more wars of choice because we simply cannot afford them.

    That's an interesting point, the US does have creditors and it has reached its credit limit, and hasn't exactly been making good investments with the money that was borrowed.

    The real issues seem to be making spending efficient (for example US healthcare that costs about 2x the Canadian rate per person for the same result), and rebasing production in the US (more US taxpayers).

    The Socialist UK government was in a similar position in the early 1970′s with a "welfare state" that it couldn't afford, general industrial strife and a "class war". When the UK's creditors saw that things weren't going to change they sold off government bonds and the country got the "Sterling Crisis" with Sterling losing what was left of its Reserve Currency status.

    At least Trump is indicating a political will for change, but he needs to act quickly.

    Realist , January 22, 2017 at 9:07 am GMT \n
    @Anonymous
    When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump
    Saying someone's a "rabid maniac" without giving any reason for one's statement is so... mainstream media like.
    So far as I know, the mature-age Horowitz has written some interesting books: I can recommend Hating Whitey , One party classrooms , Left illusion . His autobiography ( A point in time ot something like that) is a good book too.

    He is also a very active anti-crazy left activist, and runs a site with a list of leftist anti-white hate groups.

    I hope I said enough for you to understand why I am surprised and not particularly pleased by seeing him called a "rabid maniac".

    For one thing Horowitz is a goofy ass russophobe.

    Timur The Lame , January 22, 2017 at 1:26 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    I listened to Trump's speech live on headphones while power walking on a country road. Something about that scenario allowed me to give it a focus that I may not have had if I was watching it on the idiot box or reading a transcript.

    If I'm not mistaken, he literally called most of his esteemed guests ( ex-presidents especially) corrupt criminals, frauds and traitors. An unbelievable moment where the mob was reminded that politicians are not to be fawned over. They work for the people.

    The rest of the speech of course was lyrics for a remake of the song 'Dream the Impossible Dream'. But still, if the population wasn't attention deficit affected, that part of his speech could have been right up there with Ike's MIC moment.

    Anatoly Karlin , Website January 22, 2017 at 3:26 pm GMT \n
    200 Words NEW!

    This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.

    When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically zilch to do with imperialism?

    Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".

    David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike " renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country (the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of respect.

    Seamus Padraig , January 22, 2017 at 3:28 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    @Chet Roman "drain the DC swamp" and "make America", as opposed to the American plutocracy, "great again"

    While I am hopeful and will give Trump the chance to prove himself. Unfortunately, he like Obama before him, has appointed most the same plutocrats/neoliberal parasites in his administration that are part of what the Saker calls the "AngloZionist Empire". Will they, like the patrician FDR, promote policies against their own class interests? Time will tell but, after the same betrayal by "Hope and Change" Obama I would not bet on it.

    Not that I'm very sanguine about all the Goldman Sachs people in Trump's cabinet either, but if you're looking for reasons for optimism: At least Trump–unlike Clinton, Bush and Obama–hasn't appointed any retreads; i.e., people who've served in previous cabinets. That may indicate that some change is in the offing. Let's hope it's a change for the best.

    alexander , January 22, 2017 at 9:53 pm GMT \n
    400 Words

    Annamaria,

    The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP ..Our GDP should ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not . it's bad news.

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T) it is such bad news our big media has refused to discuss it ..The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.

    The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it makes them accountable.

    The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.

    Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in the plus column.

    Do you want to know how ?

    He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there .and he has chosen to recognize this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry and the values that make us who we are ..

    He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of deception , so that it may never happen again.

    Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .

    Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and seizes all their assets .If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .

    then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars

    If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt .then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio is right back in the" plus column" .

    Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same ..the new ratio is 17.1 T Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.

    Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".

    Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good people who would never "lie us into war".

    This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care of business at home, and clean house when necessary.

    This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.

    Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?

    Skeptikal , January 22, 2017 at 11:37 pm GMT \n
    300 Words @Anon "After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears."

    But it could mean NOT putting Zionist-Globalist interest first.
    And that's what it's all about.

    Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism.

    "Gentiles don't mind each nation putting its interest first. But that means gentiles putting their national interests above Jewish elitist interest.
    Since nationalism favors gentile interests, Jews have pushed globalism and Zionism. That way, all gentile nations are to favor globalism(that favors Jewish worldwide networking) over nationalism and favor Zionism(Jewish nationalism) over any gentile nationalism."

    That seems to be true.
    I was shocked to read a letter in the current London Review of Books, actually a rebuttal to another letter, by Adam Tooze. Tooze had written a review of a book by Wolfgang Streeck. In his rebuttal Tooze attacked Streeck as an anti-Semite because Streeck had *dared* to write a book that presents arguments for the primacy of the nation-state as opposed to globalist forces. Tooze's argument basically came down to: nation-state = chauvinism = anti-Semitism, where globalization = "Semitism," I suppose, and Tooze actually more or less accused Streeck of anti-Semitism on this basis: that you cannot defend the idea of the nation-state without being in effectively anti-Semitic. He didn't show any other evidence but just this supposed syllogism, all of it theoretical. Interestingly Tooze was the one making the equation of globalism and Jews-not Streeck! But still, Streeck was the guilty one. Tooze spent a lot of breath on the word "Volk" for "people." Of coure, Streeck in German, and that is the German word for "people." Any other overtones "Volk" has acquired in English are the fault of the English, as English has its own second word, "folk," which German does not, and so English speakers didn't have to take over the German word and demonize it. They could have demonized their own word . . . Tooze's pedantry and intellectual sloppiness were quite startling. I look forward to seeing a rebuttal and maybe counterattack from Streeck in the next LRB . . .

    SmoothieX12 , Website January 22, 2017 at 11:40 pm GMT \n
    100 Words

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)

    These are bad news, but the news which are even worse is the fact that of these 18.7 Trillion of nominal GDP, probably third (most likely more) is a virtual GDP–the result of cooking of books and of financial and real estate machinations. Trump knows this, I am almost 99% positive, even 99.9%, on that.

    Skeptikal , January 22, 2017 at 11:42 pm GMT \n
    @Anatoly Karlin

    This is a very good article. I agree with it almost entirely.

    Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes?... Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.
    When would it be possible for the anti-imperialist ideological system to dump its core belief that, Lenin's demented (and unoriginal) ramblings to the contrary, capitalism has intrinsically zilch to do with imperialism?
    Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see rabid maniacs like David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and I ask myself "what does Horowitz know which I am missing?".
    David Horowitz merely demonstrated that, unlike " renegade Jews " such as the Kristols and the Krauthammers, he is a patriot of his own country (the USA) first and a Jewish nationalist second. I consider that perfectly fine and worthy of respect.

    " one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. "

    True also of Kennedy and Khrushchev.

    Seraphim , January 23, 2017 at 12:39 am GMT \n
    100 Words @Diogenes

    "Make America Great Again"- is just an empty political slogan like bait on a fishing hook that only dumb fish would be attracted to.

    I suggest readers look at an article by Andrew Levine, a very insightful Jewish American political commentator and regular contributor to Counterpunch.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/20/when-was-america-great/

    "the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth".

    What has ISIS done to America or Trump that he should want to totally obliterate them? Before you denounce or pronounce me as dumb heretical dissenter, read on.

    Sunni Arabs in the Middle East have been exploited and controlled by racially arrogant European interlopers and colonists since the fall of the Ottomans. They have been especially mistreated and ravaged by vengeful Americans since 2001. They also facilitated a revival of Shia-Sunni sectarian conflict in Syria and Iraq. Now the displaced and persecuted Sunni minority want to form their own state, free from foreign interference to practice their chosen religion and way of life. I grant you that they are also vengeful and violent to those who persecuted them by using terrorist methods and that they practiced "ethnic cleansing" but that does not make them "uncivilized", the civilized Americans and Europeans did the same when conquering their settler colonies. So why not let them have their own land, just like the Jewish Europeans were given and make peace with time provided they renounce their goal of spreading Wahhabi Muslim empire by force?

    The Arab states which emerged after the dissolution of the Ottoman Caliphate were not meant to be replaced by an Arab Caliphate. The fight of the Sunnis is not the fight of a 'persecuted' minority, but of the former dominant minority for the re-establishment of their dominant position in the frame of the Caliphate, with wet dreams of world domination. ISIS is but the tip of the iceberg. Their eradication would cool down the overheated minds of the Caliphate dreamers.

    Cloak And Dagger , January 23, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT \n
    400 Words @alexander Annamaria,

    The key to US solvency and credit worthiness is the "ratio" of Debt to GDP.....Our GDP should ALWAYS be in the plus column, and when its not.... it's bad news.

    Like today, it is bad news (Debt 19.9 T / GDP 18.7 T)...it is such bad news our big media has refused to discuss it .....The only person to bring it up , ever, was the Donald.

    The big media does not want to say the wars they lied us into bankrupted our nation because it makes them accountable.

    The scaly truth is that they "are" accountable.


    Ironically,Donald Trump (who knows this too) now has the power as President to generate over two trillion dollars in revenues, literally overnight, and move our Debt to GDP ratio right back in the plus column.

    Do you want to know how ?


    He goes on record that the Iraq War "lies" constituted a defrauding of the American people , our country, and the brave men and women who fought and died there....and he has chosen to recognize this "defrauding " as a supreme terrorist act against the wellbeing of our nation ,our citizenry and the values that make us who we are.....

    He goes on to say that ALL the perpetrators will be held accountable for this despicable act of deception , so that it may never happen again.

    Then he proceeds with operation "Clean Sweep" and takes down all the back room billionaire oligarchs who jockeyed for the war and profited from it .

    Lets say by the time he is done he has arrested 700 belligerent oligarchs and media moguls and seizes all their assets....If they are each worth, on average, 4 billion dollars .......

    then 700 x 4 billion = 2.8 trillion dollars

    If this 2.8 trillion goes to paying down the national debt....then "bingo" our Debt to GDP ratio is right back in the" plus column" ....

    Our National debt is reduced by 2.8 T and the GDP stays the same .....the new ratio is 17.1 T Debt/ 18.7 T GDP.

    Our credit worthiness, as a nation, is now out of the" danger zone".

    Whatever assets the criminal oligarchs had, are auctioned off and redistributed to all the good people who would never "lie us into war".

    This sends an enormously reassuring message throughout the world that we are able to take care of business at home, and clean house when necessary.

    This would also serve as a much needed tonic within the entire "establishment" community, as they would be intensely fearful of ever defrauding the American people again.


    Would you do it ?.....If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability ?

    Would you do it ? ..If you were President, Anna, would you demand accountability

    Not to speak for Anna, but maybe I would – if blessed with balls of titanium, or perhaps by underestimating the capacity of the deep state to slice them off. Being human, one can only hope that Trump will do what I cannot, or could not in his shoes.

    One thing he cannot do is feign ignorance or pretend to be unaware of the critters festering in the swamp – after all, he campaigned on the promise of draining it. Where hope falters is in seeing the cabinet he is building with characters unlikely to do much in the swamp-draining department. Without a strong cadre of testicular fortitude surrounding him in his cabinet, his most sincere attempts at swamp-drainage will be quixotic at best.

    So, where does one place hope lest one becomes a blathering cynic or a nattering nabob of negativity?

    Ego -- That is where my chips are stacked. Nothing defines or motivates Trump more than his self-perception. I believe that it is much more than showmanship that propels his self-promotion, and nothing would be more devastating to the man than to be ridiculed or perceived as a failure. I doubt that Netanyahu could do to him what he did to Obama and survive the retaliatory deluge that would follow. I think Trump's hidden strength is his desire for vengeance against those that wrong him (I expect there to be tribulations in HRC's future). If the deep state doesn't do him in first, there is the strong possibility of damage on the deep state – one that they may never recover from in this world of instant information that wilts night-flowers.

    He may redefine victory on occasion for outcomes that are too difficult for him to accept, but in the end, he will "Make Trump Great Again," and if fortune favors us, help the US benefit in the process, if not the rest of the world.

    That does not rule out that his naiveté may cause him to stumble and fall, perhaps more than once, and he has not always succeeded in business, but it seems that he does build on his failures, and is unlikely to make the same mistake twice.

    Doesn't appear like a lot to cling to, but in this dystopic world, it is the best we have. Is it enough?

    [Jan 22, 2017] Bernie Sanders just said on CBS that he is ready to work with Trump on lowering drug price, infrastrcture projects and better trade deals

    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    BenIsNotYoda : , January 22, 2017 at 07:59 AM
    Bernie Sanders just said on CBS that he is ready to work with Trump on
    1) lowering drug prices by purchasing drugs from abroad and Medicare negotiate prices
    2) infrastructure projects
    3) better trade deals

    Lets see if entrenched interests in the GOP and Democrat party let them work together. My guess is NOT.
    What that would accomplish is lay bare the corruption that is part of both parties.

    Peter K. -> BenIsNotYoda... , January 22, 2017 at 08:31 AM
    Let's see if Trump actually wants to do any of those things Sanders wants. In other words will he "reach across the aisle."

    Let's see if Republicans in Congress cooperate.

    I think it's unlikely although not impossible (as Krugman etc do)

    Trump thinks of himself as a reality TV star. He likes the drama. But he seems to have no interest in the details of policy. He found the border tax his advisers were floating as too complicated.

    [Jan 22, 2017] The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations

    Notable quotes:
    "... Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers. ..."
    "... Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire. ..."
    "... That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs :

    How (When?) Boston fought the empire
    http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/01/22/how-boston-fought-empire/mWNyIXXDIdogeh9guKDnzN/story.html?event=event25
    via @BostonGlobe - Stephen Kinzer - January 22, 2017

    Where better to launch a patriotic uprising than Faneuil Hall in Boston? It is a lodestone of American liberty, a cathedral for freedom fighters. That is why a handful of eminent Bostonians chose it as the place to begin a new rebellion on the sunny afternoon of June 15, 1898.

    Like all Americans, they had been dizzied by the astonishing events of recent weeks. Their country had suddenly burst beyond its natural borders. American troops had landed in Cuba. American warships had bombarded Puerto Rico. An American expeditionary force was steaming toward the distant Philippine Islands. Hawaii seemed about to fall to American power. President William McKinley had called for 200,000 volunteers to fight in foreign wars. Fervor for the new idea of overseas expansion gripped the United States.

    This prospect thrilled some Americans. It horrified others. Their debate gripped the nation. The country's best-known political and intellectual leaders took sides. In the history of US foreign policy, this is truly the mother of all debates.

    When we argue over whether we should depose a government in Iraq or Syria or Libya, whether we should wage war in Afghanistan, whether we should encourage the bombing of Yemen, or whether we should seek to bend Russia to our will, we are arguing the same question that was at the center of this original debate. Every argument about foreign intervention that we make today - on both sides - was first made in the period around 1898. Today's debates are amazingly precise repetitions of that first one. The central question is the same: Should the United States project power into faraway lands? Yes, to guarantee our prosperity, save innocent lives, liberate the oppressed, and confront danger before it reaches our shores! No, intervention brings suffering and creates enemies!

    Boston was the epicenter of that original debate. Bostonians played such a large role in the national debate that one California newspaper called anti-imperialists "the kicking Bostonese." Several hundred of them turned out for the Faneuil Hall meeting. One speaker, the Rev. Charles Ames, a theologian and Unitarian pastor, warned that the moment the United States seized a foreign land, it would "sacrifice the principles on which the Republic was founded."

    The policy of imperialism threatens to change the temper of our people, and to put us into a permanent attitude of arrogance, testiness, and defiance towards other nations. ... Once we enter the field of international conflict as a great military and naval power, we shall be one more bully among bullies. We shall only add one more to the list of oppressors of mankind.

    At the end of that afternoon, one of the meeting's organizers came to the podium and read a resolution. "Resolved, that the mission of the United States is to help the world by an example of successful self-government, and that to abandon the principles and the policy under which we have prospered, and embrace the doctrine and practices now called imperial, is to enter the path which, with other great republics, has ended in the downfall of free institutions," it declared. "Resolved, that our first duty is to cure the evils in our own country." The resolution was adopted by acclamation.

    At the very moment these words were shaking Faneuil Hall, debate on the same question - overseas expansion - was reaching a climax in Congress. It is a marvelous coincidence: The first anti-imperialist rally in American history was held on the same day that Congress voted, also for the first time, on whether the United States should take an overseas colony. The colony in question was Hawaii, but all understood that the real question was immensely greater. It was nothing less than the future of the Republic: whether or not the United States should become a global military power and seek to shape the fate of faraway lands.

    On that day, as expected, the House of Representatives voted to annex Hawaii. Yet the great debate had only begun. Working from offices in Boston, anti-imperialists spent the summer and fall of 1898 writing letters to potential sympathizers across the country.

    Their work came to fruition on Nov. 18, when an eager crowd packed a law office on Milk Street to witness the founding of the Anti-Imperialist League. George Boutwell, who had been a passionate abolitionist as well as a congressman, US senator, and governor of Massachusetts, was chosen by acclimation as the league's first president. In his mind, every abolitionist was a natural anti-imperialist, since anyone who opposed keeping human beings as slaves must also oppose ruling other peoples against their will.

    At the end of 1898, American negotiators forced the defeated Spanish to sign the Treaty of Paris, in which they surrendered Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. On Jan. 4, 1899, President McKinley submitted the treaty for Senate ratification. That set off a monthlong debate over what one senator called "the greatest question that has ever been presented to the American people." The dominant figure on each side was a brilliantly articulate Republican senator from Massachusetts.

    George Frisbie Hoar of Worcester led the anti-imperialist charge. The United States, he insisted, must not "rush madly upon this new career," lest it become "a cheap-jack country raking after the cart for the leavings of European tyranny." He ended his speech in a crescendo: "The poor Malay, the poor African, the downtrodden workman of Europe will exclaim, as he reads this new doctrine: 'Good God! Is there not one place left on earth where, in right of my manhood, I can stand up and be a man?' "

    Hoar's sharpest opponent was Henry Cabot Lodge of Beacon Hill and Nahant. Lodge told the Senate that since many foreign peoples were unequipped to govern themselves wisely, they should submit to American guidance and trust "the American people, who have never failed in any great duty or feared to face any responsibility, to deal with them in that spirit of justice, humanity, and liberty which has made us all that we are today or can ever hope to be."

    From their bustling office on Kilby Street, leaders of the Anti-Imperialist League fed information to friendly senators and heavily lobbied the handful who remained undecided. The league also published a stream of pamphlets, called Liberty Tracts, aimed at bringing its arguments to a larger audience. Often their titles were questions. "Which shall it be, nation or empire?" asked one. Another: "Is it right for this country to kill the natives of a foreign land because they wish to govern themselves?"

    On Feb. 6, 1899, despite these intense efforts, senators ratified the Treaty of Paris - by just one vote more than the required two-thirds majority. Armed rebellion broke out immediately in the Philippines. Tens of thousands of American troops were sent to suppress it. President McKinley faced a difficult task: explain to a divided nation why taking foreign lands was no betrayal of the American idea. He decided to deliver a speech in Boston, home of the Anti-Imperialist League and thus the heart of enemy territory. To assure himself a friendly audience, however, he chose as his platform the Home Market Club, one of the country's most potent agglomerations of corporate power.

    A crowd led by Mayor Josiah Quincy cheered as McKinley emerged from South Station around midday on Feb. 15, 1899. The next night, nearly two thousand guests packed Mechanics Hall for the largest banquet ever staged in the United States. In his speech, McKinley asserted that the essential goodness of the American people is the supreme and sole necessary justification of whatever the United States chooses to do in the world. This goodness, he acknowledged, might not be clear to the "misguided Filipino," but soon the islands would prosper under the rule "not of their American masters, but of their American emancipators."

    "Did we need their consent to perform a great act for humanity?" he asked. "We had it in every aspiration of their minds, in every hope of their hearts."

    These words disgusted the philosopher William James. In an anguished letter to Boston newspapers, he called McKinley's speech a "shamefully evasive" attempt to obscure the central truth of the age: "We are cold-bloodedly, wantonly, and abominably destroying the soul of a people who never did us an atom of harm in their lives. It is bald, brutal piracy."

    Alarmed by the spread of anti-imperialist ideas, Lodge invited his closest friend, Governor Theodore Roosevelt of New York, to join him in Boston to launch a counterattack. On Oct. 31, 1899, both spoke to the Republican Club of Massachusetts at the cavernous Music Hall on Winter Street. "We have got to put down the insurrection!" Roosevelt cried. "If we are men, we can't do otherwise!" Lodge portrayed anti-imperialists as not only defeatist, but complicit in the killing of American soldiers.

    "I vote with the army that wears the uniform and carries the flag of my country," he said. "When the enemy has yielded and the war is over, we can discuss other matters!"

    Tides ran in favor of the expansionist idea. Prominent anti-imperialists lost elections. War in the Philippines slowly reached its bloody end. Americans began focusing on other problems. The United States had leaped from continental empire to overseas empire.

    "Well, we are defeated for the time," admitted the Cambridge anti-imperialist Charles Eliot Norton. "But the war is not ended, and we are enlisted for the war."

    That war - which is actually a war against war - has never ended. The debate over American intervention abroad, which began at Faneuil Hall in 1898, is still raging. It will shape the new administration in Washington and, through it, the world.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 22, 2017 at 07:23 AM
    Few want Manifest Destiny to stop short of an American world.
    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Splendid essay.

    [Jan 22, 2017] The rise of Trump and Isis have more in common than you might think by Patrick Cockburn

    Notable quotes:
    "... In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military intervention abroad. ..."
    "... Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated. ..."
    "... The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important example being the Kurds. ..."
    "... Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. ..."
    "... It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division. ..."
    "... Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist. ..."
    "... Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia ..."
    "... But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them real contenders for power. ..."
    "... One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | www.unz.com

    In the US, Europe and the Middle East there were many who saw themselves as the losers from globalisation, but the ideological vehicle for protest differed markedly from region to region. In Europe and the US it was right wing nationalist populism which opposes free trade, mass immigration and military intervention abroad. The latter theme is much more resonant in the US than in Europe because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump instinctively understood that he must keep pressing these three buttons, the importance of which Hillary Clinton and most of the Republican Party leaders, taking their cue from their donors rather than potential voters, never appreciated.

    The vehicle for protest and opposition to the status quo in the Middle East and North Africa is, by way of contrast, almost entirely religious and is only seldom nationalist, the most important example being the Kurds. This is a big change from 50 years ago when revolutionaries in the region were usually nationalists or socialists, but both beliefs were discredited by corrupt and authoritarian nationalist dictators and by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

    Secular nationalism was in any case something of a middle class creed in the Arab world, limited in its capacity to provide the glue to hold societies together in the face of crisis. When Isis forces were advancing on Baghdad after taking Mosul in June 2014, it was a fatwa from the Iraqi Shia religious leader Ali al-Sistani that rallied the resistance. No non-religious Iraqi leader could have successfully appealed to hundreds of thousands of people to volunteer to fight to the death against Isis. The Middle East differs also from Europe and the US because states are more fragile than they look and once destroyed prove impossible to recreate. This was a lesson that the foreign policy establishments in Washington, London and Paris failed to take on board after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, though the disastrous outcome of successful or attempted regime change has been bloodily demonstrated again and again. It was always absurdly simple-minded to blame all the troubles of Iraq, Syria and Libya on Saddam Hussein, Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi, authoritarian leaders whose regimes were more the symptom than the cause of division.

    But it is not only in the Middle East that divisions are deepening. Whatever happens in Britain because of the Brexit vote or in the US because of the election of Trump as president, both countries will be more divided and therefore weaker than before. Political divisions in the US are probably greater now than at any time since the American Civil War 150 years ago. Repeated calls for unity in both countries betray a deepening disunity and alarm as people sense that they are moving in the dark and old norms and landmarks are no longer visible and may no longer exist.

    The mainline mass media is finding it difficult to make sense of a new world order which may or may not be emerging. Journalists are generally more rooted in the established order of things than they pretend and are shocked by radical change. Only two big newspapers – the Florida Times-Union and the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Trump before the election and few of the American commentariat expected him to win, though this has not dented their confidence in their own judgement. Criticism of Trump in the media has lost all regard for truth and falsehood with the publication of patently concocted reports of his antics in Russia, but there is also genuine uncertainty about whether he will be a real force for change, be it good or ill.

    Crises in different parts of the world are beginning to cross-infect and exacerbate each other. Prior to 2014 European leaders, whatever their humanitarian protestations, did not care much what happened in Iraq and Syria. But the rise of Isis, the mass influx of Syrian refugees heading for Central Europe and the terror attacks in Paris and Brussels showed that the crises in the Middle East could not be contained. They helped give a powerful impulse to the anti-immigrant authoritarian nationalist right and made them real contenders for power.

    The Middle East is always a source of instability in the world and never more so than over the last six years. But winners and losers are emerging in Syria where Assad is succeeding with Russian and Iranian help, while in Iraq the Baghdad government backed by US airpower is slowly fighting its way into Mosul. Isis probably has more fight in it than its many enemies want to believe, but is surely on the road to ultimate defeat. One of the first real tests for Trump will be how far he succeeds in closing down these wars, something that is now at last becoming feasible.

    [Jan 22, 2017] Jack Ma said the poor plight of American economy was due to the costly wars waged by Washington and has nothing to do with trade ties with Beijing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Jack Ma said the poor plight of American economy was due to the costly wars waged by Washington and has nothing to do with trade ties with Beijing. The US adopted a strategy to control intellectual property rights and select brands three decades ago, leaving lower-level works to the rest of the world.... Microsoft and IBM have created hundreds of millions in profits through globalisation. ..."
    Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho -> ilsm... , January 22, 2017 at 09:41 AM
    FWIW from Jack Ma Aliba founder:

    Jack Ma said the poor plight of American economy was due to the costly wars waged by Washington and has nothing to do with trade ties with Beijing. The US adopted a strategy to control intellectual property rights and select brands three decades ago, leaving lower-level works to the rest of the world.... Microsoft and IBM have created hundreds of millions in profits through globalisation.

    This large sum could have been invested in infrastructure and employment, but was instead put towards 13 wars, he said. The US simply failed to allot the funds reasonably." , Ma said his meeting with Trump was much more productive than expected the discussions mainly focused on .... American enterprises selling in Asia through Alibaba's platform, which will provide about one million jobs for Americans in various ways.

    http://www.livemint.com/Politics/JrmTPAOTPEFwXT2xGujjQN/Blame-costly-wars-not-China-for-poor-state-of-US-economy.html

    ilsm -> jonny bakho... , January 22, 2017 at 10:34 AM
    What have we got for $4.6T since 2001? Security from Taliban!

    I agree, wars* are opportunity lost and should only be entered in to when society is in harm's way.

    US since Pearl Harbor has used the fake excuse+ that any attack on Osan or Estonia is a threat to its existence.

    +Unwarranted influence was paid at huge expense to the US at large.

    *Eternal vigilance and preparedness for wars is hugely profitable and wasteful to those not profiting.

    anne -> jonny bakho... , January 22, 2017 at 12:01 PM
    http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/Costs%20of%20War%20through%202016%20FINAL%20final%20v2.pdf

    September, 2016

    US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
    Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security

    By Neta C. Crawford

    Summary

    Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war - especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the major categories of spending.

    As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately $65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion....

    [Jan 22, 2017] Stephen Cohen about Fake News, Neo-McCarthyism, Aleppo, CIA hacking allegations and Rex Tillerson

    As Stephen Cohen noted Kremlin bating was adopted by Hillary campaign -- they wanted to fight again Trump and Putin, instead Trump and Pence. That did not them any good.
    Notable quotes:
    "... 2016 was the year of collapse of western mainstream media. No decent people must now on trust on our western mainstream media. ..."
    "... You have to dig the truth from independent sources. I found this thing much before Iraq War. Even Vietnam War was run by similar lies of media and ruling class (Tonkin Gulf plot). ..."
    www.youtube.com

    DieFlabbergast

    Whether you have a favorable or unfavorable view of Putin, or of Russia in general, it is people like Stephen Cohen - who has studied Russia all his life and actually knows what he's talking about - to whom you should listen. Compared to the media men who have Cohen on their shows, he is like an adult talking to children.

    I hate modern football

    As a Finn i have been forced to learn the history of Russia in perspective of Finland (and Sweden).

    And my conclusion has become more stable that Finland is for Russia nothing more than buffer: a country causing no problems but lots of good things IF THERE ARE NO MILITARY FORCES OF ENEMY GREAT POWER.

    After that basic geopolitical fact it's clear why Finland is not NATO country and hope will never come even there are lots of Finnish media pundits suggesting it.

    Pfirtzer -> I hate modern football

    Well older people have still the idea America liberated them and other uninformed people find Russia to bo the enemy because of MH17 plain that was shot down above Ukraine.

    But in fairness there are many dutch people who want to have a good relation with Russia and having trade with Russia, because it's good to trade, and talk , war is just good for the Rothschilds, Rockefeller, Bushes and co

    Look a booklet https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html War Is a Racket google it, your eyes will open what is going on in the world!

    Jason Roggasch

    No proof no facts JUST assertions from one of the most destructive forces the world has ever known THE CIA

    Patricia Leary

    "It's CLEAR that Russia is meddling in our election" Dude! Clarity without ANY facts? Zero evidence? Seriously??

    Here's what IS crystal clear and is backed by COPIOUS undisputed evidence, and nary a word from corporate neocon Obama or his MSM lapdogs - Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and the Superdelegates criminal, corrupt election fraud, defiling our election integrity, during the primaries, backed by huge corporate interests to ensure that an anti-corporatist like Bernie Sanders, DID NOT gain the nomination.

    Had Sanders been nominated, he would have won the presidency hands down! They knew that! The corporate billionaires ruling the world COULD NOT and WOULD NOT HAVE THAT! Yes. There was meddling but it wasn't a foreign entity. It was the United States of Corporations!

    Susan Joy Worker

    why should anyone believe Clinton and the Globalist-controlled media? They lie about everything.

    The Leaks have revealed extensive crimes - we now need a Full investigation of ALL of those crimes.

    Then Mrs Clinton can explain herself at a fair trial. If that leads to jail or execute, so be it.

    Let us move the discussion on to her crimes, and who conspired with her in those crimes.

    I am tired of the distractions

    Alex Trefall

    As a Polish national I have no great love for Russia. But in recent years I recognized that what I consider "my version of history" may not be the same for someone else.

    Meaning: history is not facts but rather its mostly political fiction mixed with some facts. I don't claim to know who has the proverbial answer, or who is right.

    All I see is that in the last 15 years, if not longer it's the US that invaded more countries and caused countless deaths in the name of their own self interest ( democracy - freedom/slavery to consume whatever we like in whatever quantity ).

    Trying to blame Russia for everything just seems pathetic regardless how good or bad Putin really is.

    B M

    USA governments have been in the pocket of the Globalist Arms Manufacturers because it is worth trillions of dollars to them.Its all about $$$$$$.People are expendable.

    We now have a chance for peace but Trump is in danger for attempting to break this evil establishment.

    ameighable

    Julian Assange has said that the leaks were not from state operatives and definitely not Russsia. A former UK ambassador says that he personally few to DC to personally receive the WikiLeaks material. Julian Assange suggested in an interview with Dutch TV that Seth Rich, a DNC employee who was murdered not long after the leaks, was the leaker.

    Furthermore, the ambassador said that all published information was legally obtained by disgruntled insiders.

    Vlasta Molak

    There are 4 totalitarian, supremacist, apartheid and imperialistic IDEOLOGIES, which had threatened advances of the Western civilization: Communism, Fascism, Nazism and Islam, of which Islam is the most current and dangerous, as it is worst than Nazism. Communism fell under its own weight, Fascism and Nazism were defeated in WWII (although it exists in small enclaves) but Islam is invading the West with the help of treasonous Western politicians, such as b. Hussein Obama, Angela Merkel, EC and even Pope.

    Trump recognizes this and his choice for Secretary of State, Rex Tillleson is a great one, as Mr. Tillerson is a problem solver, just as Trump is, who listens to everybody, including those who opposed him and defamed him. this is a characteristic of a GREAT leader. Putin has a PhD in Economics who lived in Dresden while working for KGB and Putin is aware of the danger of Islam to Western civilization.

    Vlasta Molak

    Wahbis RULE Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam in Mecca and therefore are just like the war lord Mohamed role models for ALL Muslim men who have to come for Hajj at least once in a lifetime. It is the IDEOLOGY of Islam that is the ROOT cause of terrorism and violence nowadays.

    444suse

    2016 was the year of collapse of western mainstream media. No decent people must now on trust on our western mainstream media.

    You have to dig the truth from independent sources. I found this thing much before Iraq War. Even Vietnam War was run by similar lies of media and ruling class (Tonkin Gulf plot).

    Russia Good

    World Disorder in the New Year, By Stephen F. Cohen https://player.fm/series/the-john-batchelor-show/1-year-ago-world-disorder-in-the-new-year-stephen-f-cohen-nyu-princeton-eastwestaccordcom

    Susan Joy Worker

    Brian on NYT: "There are other points of view, including the point of view of Donald Trump, that do get on their pages."
    LOL, This made me laugh aloud. "On their pages" - to be misreported and ridiculed. The NY Times is definitely part of the problem and is a key part of the spin machine. I was happy to hear that they will let enough employees go to free up 8 floors. May the shrinking continue in 2017. It will save the "good guys" from nuking the place and all who work there.


    [Jan 22, 2017] Obama Admits Gap in Russian Hack Case – Consortiumnews

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the U.S. intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with "high confidence" – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds. ..."
    "... "the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked ..."
    "... He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks." ..."
    "... Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would represent a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply presents the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make the leap. ..."
    "... Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, has made clear that the two separate batches of Democratic emails – one from the DNC and the other from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta – also were leaks from insiders, not hacks from outsiders. ..."
    "... "In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media. ..."
    "... "Most crucially of all Obama refers to 'The DNC emails that were leaked.' Note 'leaked' and not 'hacked.' I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense 'Russian hacking' story." ..."
    "... For whatever reason Obama finally decided to steer clear of the moronic "Russia Connection" BS. At least for the final record. ..."
    "... Very true. The stories of risks from other great powers are based upon absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, and the subsidy of wars of aggression for Israel and Saudi Arabia is insanity and corruption to the point of treason. The US has no interest in war at all except bribery from MIC/Israel/KSA. The warmongers should all be in Club Fed Guantanamo for good. ..."
    "... Perjury .Any president of the USA is continuously under oath from day one The only thing is USA citizens are cowards. They allow the elite money changers to sway the law ..."
    "... The oath thing is effectively a Hitlerian Big Lie. Presidents (and most people, good and bad) lie as naturally as breathing. ..."
    "... In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. ..."
    "... Obama has used his speaking skills to take us all down the long garden path, beginning as a campaigner who was apparently anti-war and becoming one of the worst of the pro-war presidents. He can claim he never promised he was anti-war during his 2008 campaign because is is "so rhetorically eloquent at . obfuscation" and he very carefully creates "his oratorical constructs." ..."
    "... Well, Donald Trump is our president. It is hard to imagine how he will rid the world of the Cold War and it's hard to miss his shift from talking about it directly to the war against Muslim extremism. While we hope it would, working with Russia on ISIS does not mean that the taunting by our Generals or by NATO will disappear. The President has bridled at the behavior of the CIA but will he be able to reduce its power. Ditto the military that he praises as all presidents do and speaks of making it even bigger. ..."
    "... His positions on trade will run up against the power of investors who want to freely move their money where the profits are. Arguments like the second world war was a result of our protectionists policies after the Depression hit will surface and the public will be reminded that advanced countries simply don't behave the way he proposes. ..."
    "... The choice of one word by Obama is not a strong argument, nor is there a case that "almost certainly" Russia hacked the DNC email, versus China or the US or a private hacker. The US certainly did so, as it has far greater resources and is known to have the ability. So the most likely government hacking source is a US agency like NSA. And the most likely source is the disaffected, resigned, and murdered DNC staffer Mr. Rich. ..."
    "... The issue s/n/b "who" leaked "what", it s/b =>why, should information<= about "salaried, elected 527 actor [and appointee] activities" be allowed any privilege of privacy or secrecy. Obviously, those who need to be best informed in a democracy, about the activities and exploits of those in or near to power, are those furtherest from the seats of power, the members of the voting public. Privilege of secret or privacy belongs to those furtherest from the seats of power. Seat occupants possess no privilege or secret to any aspect of their activities and exploits. ..."
    "... Hillary Clinton was not trusted. She was a weak candidate whose allegiance was to a tiny sliver of powerful wealthy people. everybody knew that. She cost herself the election. The argument her defenders are using trying to blame the Russians, the FBI, blah blah blah is that if only the truth could have been kept from the voters their candidate would have won. That is a very weak position and does not help their credibility. They play a dangerous game trying to inflame passions against Russia instead of cleaning their own house. ..."
    "... Sorry folks, this smacks of W. Bush maintaining "we have no direct evidence that Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" fully knowing that the majority of Americans had already been successfully programmed to the contrary. The big admission Obama is lacking here is the admission that the whole "Putin hacked" scenario was scripted in the bowels of the American security state otherwise known as the fourth branch of our government. ..."
    "... Thank Obama for "dispelling . . . obfuscation"? Obama called for a thorough investigation back in December then almost immediately made statements to the effect that "nothing much happens without Putin knowing it" and "the Russians are capable of doing this" (the essence of his remarks). Massaging the hysteria nicely, wasn't he? Now he states "conclusions are not conclusive." Once again here he is the spinmaster on his silver toe defending his ego. Too kind, Ray, much too kind and generous for this kind of behavior. ..."
    "... The NYT will preserve it's reputation as the "toilet paper of record" a remarkably accurate quip from that, All American, Gerald Celente of Trends Research. ..."
    "... The apocalyptic visions of George Orwell's warnings "Big Brother is Watching You," have now come to pass. Let us re-examine the classic works of that master of propaganda, Edward Bernays and his modern day student, Philip D. Zelikow. ..."
    Jan 20, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    The hole in the U.S. intelligence community's "high confidence" about Russia "hacking" Democratic emails has always been who gave the material to WikiLeaks, as President Obama admitted, notes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

    Oops. Did President Barack Obama acknowledge that the extraordinary propaganda campaign to blame Russia for helping Donald Trump become president has a very big hole in it, i.e., that the U.S. intelligence community has no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks? For weeks, eloquent obfuscation – expressed with "high confidence" – has been the name of the game, but inadvertent admissions now are dispelling some of the clouds.

    Does the Russian government hack, as many other governments do? Of course. Did it hack the emails of the Democratic National Committee? Almost certainly, though it was likely not alone in doing so. In the Internet age, hacking is the bread and butter of intelligence agencies. If Russian intelligence did not do so, this would constitute gross misfeasance, especially since the DNC was such easy pickings and the possibility of gaining important insights into the U.S. government was so high. But that is not the question.

    It was WikiLeaks that published the very damaging information, for example, on the DNC's dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remains to be demonstrated is that it was "the Russians" who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community doesn't know.

    At President Obama's Jan. 18 press conference, he admitted as much: "the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked ." [Emphasis added}

    It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical constructs. He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said: "based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks."

    Note the disconnect between the confidence about hacking and the stark declarative sentence about the information ending up at WikiLeaks. Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would represent a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply presents the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make the leap.

    WikiLeaks Account

    As I suggested to RT viewers right after the last press conference, the reason WikiLeaks might have been "not witting" could be that it was quite sure it was not a "conduit" for "hacking" by the Russians or anyone else. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has stated that the Russian government was not the source and it's significant that President Obama stopped short of contradicting him. It is also clear that WikiLeaks, in the past, has obtained LEAKED information from U.S. whistleblowers, such as Chelsea Manning.

    Former U.K. Ambassador Craig Murray, a close associate of Assange, has made clear that the two separate batches of Democratic emails – one from the DNC and the other from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta – also were leaks from insiders, not hacks from outsiders.

    After the Jan. 18 press conference - what Murray called the "Stunning Admission from Obama on Wikileaks" - Murray wrote:

    "In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material. This undermines the stream of completely evidence-free nonsense that has been emerging from the US intelligence services this last two months, in which a series of suppositions have been strung together to make unfounded assertions that have been repeated again and again in the mainstream media.

    "Most crucially of all Obama refers to 'The DNC emails that were leaked.' Note 'leaked' and not 'hacked.' I have been repeating that this was a leak, not a hack, until I am blue in the face. William Binney, former Technical Director of the NSA, has asserted that were it a hack the NSA would be able to give the precise details down to the second it occurred, and it is plain from the reports released they have no such information. Yet the media has persisted with this nonsense 'Russian hacking' story."

    So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation at which he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame "mainstream" media take steno and regurgitate ad nauseam .

    Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and CIA analyst for a total of 30 years and now servers on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

    Sally Snyder , January 20, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    Here is an interesting look at an essay written by Barack Obama when he was a student at Columbia University:

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/01/a-young-barack-obama-and-his-ironic.html

    It is so ironic that he is now the only POTUS to serve his full term in a state of war, yet another inconsistency in his persona.

    Bob Van Noy , January 20, 2017 at 8:05 pm

    Thanks for the link Sally Snyder. They can't be the same person. Can they?

    Zachary Smith , January 20, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    "So I suppose we should thank Barack Obama for dispelling at least some of the obfuscation at which he is so rhetorically eloquent, while our lame "mainstream" media take steno and regurgitate ad nauseam."

    Not me. In my opinion Obama has been "playing nice" for his final few days and hours in the hope citizens and historians will make that "leap" and conclude he was a nice guy at heart after all.

    The Moon of Alabama site had this viewpoint:

    The DNC emails "that were leaked" – not "hacked" or "stolen" but "leaked".

    One wonders if this is a parting shot is primarily aimed at the involved Intelligence Agencies led by James Clapper and John Brennan. Or is dissing Hillary Clinton and her narrative the main purpose?

    That blogger could be right and I might be wrong. For whatever reason Obama finally decided to steer clear of the moronic "Russia Connection" BS. At least for the final record.

    Robert E. Moran , January 20, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    William Binney was right. A leak, not a hacked was done to the DNC.

    Bob Van Noy , January 20, 2017 at 7:43 pm

    Thank you Ray McGovern and The VIPS for keeping us informed about this most important event. It has the potential to expose much wrongdoing affecting our fragile democracy. Watching it being "played out" in real time is a great asset of this remarkable site where truth and decent conversation are carried out on a daily basis

    backwardsevolution , January 20, 2017 at 7:51 pm

    Ray McGovern – another great article! Keep up the good work. Can't wait to find out what Trump says to the CIA tomorrow. Maybe Trump needs to take along Craig Murray.

    Bob Van Noy , January 21, 2017 at 12:59 pm

    backwardsevolution, please see my comment below about Craig Murray.

    Arby , January 21, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    That would be awesome! It won't happen of course. But it would be awesome.

    Dr. Ibrahim Soudy , January 20, 2017 at 8:37 pm

    what i find truly fascinating is that nobody is giving any attention to the FACT that the DNC cheated to make Hillary the nominee in the general elections!! That is not hacking or leaking, it is CHEATING which should be treated accordingly ..even B.S. himself, should have raised hell about that but he lined up like a sheep dog behind Hillary go figure

    Joe Tedesky , January 21, 2017 at 6:03 pm

    Ah Doctor now you are talking. The hacking, leaking , and anything else along those line keep us from talking about the real problem. That problem being Hillary's cheating. Good that you brought it up.

    Arby , January 21, 2017 at 6:13 pm

    The question then, is, Did those fools kill two birds with one stone? Or did they flub twice and have the contents of two eggs on each of their faces? They thought that they could count on the foundation of the doctrinal system, and people's having been marinated in it's bullcrap, when they tossed out the 'Putin did it line'. They did all the evil that Wikileaks revealed and only added to it with that nonsense that much (most?) of the public now disbelieves.

    Arby , January 21, 2017 at 6:21 pm

    I have not had the time to look into this the way I want to and I regret that. It's not just that I haven't had the time to examine something important and interesting. I have been misled by Craig Murray's own account, not intentionally I'm sure. Neverthless. I took from one of his blog posts the idea that he met the leaker, full stop. Then, as I perused comments by others (Off Guardian I believe), I realized that it wasn't that simple. Craig met someone acting as a courier for the leaker or leakers, apparently. The difference is not unimportant. Craig can say that he knows that the info that Wikileaks obtained here was not 'hacked', based on his having received it from the leaker or his or her courier. That's fair. But if that's how it went down, then I don't want to say that Murray 'met' the leaker. I wish people would be honest. It's important.

    Yes, l know all about the other stuff. William Binney's explanations for why it wasn't a hack etc.. That's all good. But it's not my focus here. I was misled and then I misled others and my credibility could be impacted by something like this. If my efforts to educate others is important, then that credibility problem is important.

    bob , January 20, 2017 at 8:40 pm

    It appears to me Barack and Hillary simply conspired to destroy Bernie's candidacy and populism. It is and always forever shall be about cash.

    Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia infinitum.

    Our military is an ocean of unaccounted, bloody cash. One Nation Under God. I can tell you this.

    I guarded B-52's, F-4 Phantoms, C-5 A's, the secret Black Sheep Squadron of C-130's with no external insignias jammed with electronics to spy on European nations etcetera. No one in their right mind can send these gigantic machines to bomb defenseless little girls who can't even see them they fly so high and be sane. Toys for the insatiably insane. Absolute lunacy and we glorify it because we're trained like rats.

    Sam F , January 21, 2017 at 7:33 am

    Very true. The stories of risks from other great powers are based upon absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, and the subsidy of wars of aggression for Israel and Saudi Arabia is insanity and corruption to the point of treason. The US has no interest in war at all except bribery from MIC/Israel/KSA. The warmongers should all be in Club Fed Guantanamo for good.

    Aristotle warned of these tyrants over democracy, causing foreign wars to create fear and to demand power as false protectors, and to accuse their opponents of disloyalty. Our Constitutional Convention failed to protect the tools of democracy, mass media and elections, from the economic concentrations that did not then exist. The US needs constitutional amendments to restrict funding of mass media and elections to limited registered individual contributions, and to improve checks and balances.

    John , January 20, 2017 at 8:45 pm

    Perjury .Any president of the USA is continuously under oath from day one The only thing is USA citizens are cowards. They allow the elite money changers to sway the law

    Arby , January 21, 2017 at 6:26 pm

    The oath thing is effectively a Hitlerian Big Lie. Presidents (and most people, good and bad) lie as naturally as breathing.

    Presidents' lies definitely do more damage than little people's lies, not to excuse any of it. (I don't lie, big or white)

    To get an idea how much of liar Barack Obama is (which was known early on; See the book "Hopeless – Barack Obama And The Politics Of Illusion" edited by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank) just give Seymour Hersh's book "The Killing Of Osama bin Laden" a read.

    The book is unbalanced, in that it's as much about Syria (and the lies told, and not told, about that) as it is about bin Laden. But it's very good, although Hersh, who isn't as independent of the establishment as some believe him to be, unfathomably believes that Obamacare was a plus for Obama's legacy.

    Bill , January 20, 2017 at 8:52 pm

    So you're almost certain that the Russian government hacked the DNC? Based on what, a guess? The whole story has had a bad smell to it from the beginning. Assumptions don't cut it, we need proof.

    Bill Bodden , January 20, 2017 at 10:07 pm

    In his final press conference, beginning around 8 minutes 30 seconds in, Obama admits that they have no evidence of how WikiLeaks got the DNC material.

    If "they" had practiced a daily habit of reading Consortium News "they" would have known how Wikileaks got the information.

    Call A Spade , January 21, 2017 at 4:11 am

    No US citizen would have taken that into account they are emotive they do not vote on evidence otherwise there would have been two different choices.

    Tom , January 20, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    Eh idk about this. There have been reports that the intel community already identified the russians who gave wikileaks the data. It just hasnt been disclosed in the unclassified reports. And what obama said there has to be looked at carefully. I dont think he's disspelling the narrative, i think he's just saying that Wikileaks might not have known they were being used by Russia as a conduit and means of getting the data published. Who knows though

    Charlie M. , January 20, 2017 at 11:11 pm

    Bro. Ray, thank you for giving us clarity. We will need more of it. Keep up the Good Fight.

    paul , January 21, 2017 at 12:47 am

    hi, the hack is easy to figure. mr. PODESTA used a soft easy password so that anyone could hack it. he wanted people to find the clinton email with DEPLORABLES in it. so that it would go viral. he regarded it as having racial tones & he was pissed off at hillary about it. sanders voters were blacks gays & hispanics etc. OBAMA & all the democrats know this but they wont mention it because it reflects on them. i-e therefor /ergo russia the scapegoat bogeyman.or the truth would make them look foolish.–beware the TALENT ACT /circa january 2017 .

    BART GRUZALSKI PROF. EMERITUS , January 21, 2017 at 1:34 am

    Great piece, Ray. What I especially appreciated were your comments on Obama's understated great skill in using language.

    For example, you write:

    "It is necessary to carefully parse Obama's words since he prides himself in his oratorical constructs."

    and later:

    "the obfuscation at which he is so rhetorically eloquent."

    Obama has used his speaking skills to take us all down the long garden path, beginning as a campaigner who was apparently anti-war and becoming one of the worst of the pro-war presidents. He can claim he never promised he was anti-war during his 2008 campaign because is is "so rhetorically eloquent at . obfuscation" and he very carefully creates "his oratorical constructs."

    Great job, Ray. Showing that Obama not only was screwing around with innuendo on the issue of Russian hacking, but that Obama's been screwing around with our minds beginning with his statements as a Senator and continuing right until his most recent statements as POTUS.

    Joe , January 21, 2017 at 3:28 am

    Thank god the election is over and it's time to change wall-hangings and furniture. Civilians also get a change in themes that have preoccupied journalists, such as the Democrats' acute case of McCarthyism.

    But now that there is a Republican in the WH, what are you guys going to write about? It's been getting a little old .

    Call A Spade , January 21, 2017 at 4:05 am

    How would the 2017 Australia of the year possibly be involved isn't he under house arrest in London?

    Herman , January 21, 2017 at 4:07 am

    Well, Donald Trump is our president. It is hard to imagine how he will rid the world of the Cold War and it's hard to miss his shift from talking about it directly to the war against Muslim extremism. While we hope it would, working with Russia on ISIS does not mean that the taunting by our Generals or by NATO will disappear. The President has bridled at the behavior of the CIA but will he be able to reduce its power. Ditto the military that he praises as all presidents do and speaks of making it even bigger.

    His positions on trade will run up against the power of investors who want to freely move their money where the profits are. Arguments like the second world war was a result of our protectionists policies after the Depression hit will surface and the public will be reminded that advanced countries simply don't behave the way he proposes.

    On education reform he will find himself pilloried for trying to destroy public education, and suggesting that parents should have choices will be derided as a violation of our Constitution and its freedom of religion First Amendment and other charges piled upon those.

    Touching preferential treatment because of race will be shouted out of the room.

    In addition to those barriers to getting anything done there is the calls for America first, which is fine except it must include a willingness to deal constructively with world problems. For example, it is disappointing when talking about borders and immigrants, he did not connect our role in the destruction of Middle East countries with the mass exodus from the region. Why not point to Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya, even on the borders of Russia and China as places where such extremism exists and changing our own behavior is important to combat it.

    On health care, good luck. Obama gave us something which setting the move toward universal coverage back years by creating a monster which helped those who see universal care as a threat to their profits and power. Announcing a plan for universal coverage is far removed from the vision Trump creates for our country of greater "freedom" and unleashing the constructive power of free enterprise. Universal health coverage and opening up the health system to innovation could work together but doubtful that Trump would have the power to make it happen even if he saw it as helping the people.

    So Trump, already pilloried, marginalized and boxed in, will have a hard time getting anything done, and the interests that oppose anything progressive will not hesitate to unite, scratching each others' back and help each other defeat whatever Trump proposes.

    Trump the maverick, Trump the reformer. Would it be so.

    Anon , January 21, 2017 at 7:20 am

    The choice of one word by Obama is not a strong argument, nor is there a case that "almost certainly" Russia hacked the DNC email, versus China or the US or a private hacker. The US certainly did so, as it has far greater resources and is known to have the ability. So the most likely government hacking source is a US agency like NSA. And the most likely source is the disaffected, resigned, and murdered DNC staffer Mr. Rich.

    Let's refuse to play the corrupt DNC game of distraction from the email contents. The story here is that the DNC is controlled by big money and foreign powers Israel and KSA.

    There is no other story on this subject, and this constant harping on the distraction story suggests complicity in the diversion of public attention from the DNC corruption.

    fudmier , January 21, 2017 at 9:56 am

    The issue s/n/b "who" leaked "what", it s/b =>why, should information<= about "salaried, elected 527 actor [and appointee] activities" be allowed any privilege of privacy or secrecy. Obviously, those who need to be best informed in a democracy, about the activities and exploits of those in or near to power, are those furtherest from the seats of power, the members of the voting public. Privilege of secret or privacy belongs to those furtherest from the seats of power. Seat occupants possess no privilege or secret to any aspect of their activities and exploits.

    Democracy demands an inverse relationship between government actors closet to "centralized power" and the "privilege" of secrecy or privacy.

    evelync , January 21, 2017 at 10:46 am

    you're absolutely correct, fudmier. Bernie was trusted by Dems, Independents and Republicans because he spoke the plain truth about our sorry state of affairs. He would've won.

    The DNC, corrupt, dishonest, did not serve the large majority of people in their own party.

    They conspired to disrupt Bernie's candidacy from the beginning starting with the first primary in the Southeast when they tried to discredit Bernie with that letter from the DNC chairs of the southern block.

    It is important for VIPS to demand the proof of the so called hack.

    Hillary Clinton was not trusted. She was a weak candidate whose allegiance was to a tiny sliver of powerful wealthy people. everybody knew that. She cost herself the election. The argument her defenders are using trying to blame the Russians, the FBI, blah blah blah is that if only the truth could have been kept from the voters their candidate would have won. That is a very weak position and does not help their credibility. They play a dangerous game trying to inflame passions against Russia instead of cleaning their own house.

    Joel Kabakov , January 21, 2017 at 11:31 am

    Sorry folks, this smacks of W. Bush maintaining "we have no direct evidence that Osama Bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11" fully knowing that the majority of Americans had already been successfully programmed to the contrary. The big admission Obama is lacking here is the admission that the whole "Putin hacked" scenario was scripted in the bowels of the American security state otherwise known as the fourth branch of our government.

    D5-5 , January 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    Thank Obama for "dispelling . . . obfuscation"? Obama called for a thorough investigation back in December then almost immediately made statements to the effect that "nothing much happens without Putin knowing it" and "the Russians are capable of doing this" (the essence of his remarks). Massaging the hysteria nicely, wasn't he? Now he states "conclusions are not conclusive." Once again here he is the spinmaster on his silver toe defending his ego. Too kind, Ray, much too kind and generous for this kind of behavior.

    Mark Thomason , January 21, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    Thank you. Good points well expressed. This has been buried by those who know better, as partisanship has overtaken truth.

    Trump bashing is an expression of the shock of 9:00 pm Election Night returns that were "impossible." It is the political expression of Hillary's drunken ravings that night.

    We see Stages of Grief in place of intelligence reports.

    Bob Van Noy , January 21, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    backwardsevolution, (Responding on Saturday). I thought you'd appreciate what Craig Murray had to say about President Trump today and note the commentary because it's primarily European

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk

    Bill Bodden , January 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm

    Thank you, Bob, for that excellent link.

    evelync , January 21, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    Yes, thank you Bob!

    Craig Murray's solid piece is very welcome!!
    So glad that there are well informed and honest writers determined to reveal the difference between our words and our actions as a country.

    elmerfudzie , January 21, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    Ray, the media propaganda that signaled another world war has now passed? I'd love to think so FDR was quoted as saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time" and IKE's, now famous or rather infamous (he did nothing to stop the momentum) warning about the size and growth of our military industrial congressional complex.

    Yet, politicians and citizen proles alike seem to dismiss these words of wisdom. Humanity continues to be dragged towards an inevitable disaster.

    Trump announced that he will INCREASE military spending while rebuilding our infrastructure?-already he's BS-ing us.

    The NYT will preserve it's reputation as the "toilet paper of record" a remarkably accurate quip from that, All American, Gerald Celente of Trends Research.

    The apocalyptic visions of George Orwell's warnings "Big Brother is Watching You," have now come to pass. Let us re-examine the classic works of that master of propaganda, Edward Bernays and his modern day student, Philip D. Zelikow.

    It is here we will find the current societal Mission of George Orwell's, Ministry of Truth(s), that is, all three branches of our federal government.

    Information gatekeepers of the new Ministry of Propaganda have assumed the shape of, and taken full control of, most of the Western Occident cable and newsprint media. These facts serve to amplify my WW III fears and warnings. In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote: "The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses." This same oratory is the "new" yet at the same time, terribly old, politic of the new POTUS.

    [Jan 22, 2017] Weepy Globalist To Be Replaced By Rumbustious Working Class Hero At Noon Friday by John Derbyshire

    An interesting quote: "So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority. "
    Notable quotes:
    "... the antecedent for "it" seems to be the danger to us from terrorism and foreign dictators–JD ..."
    "... Watch: 'You Have Made Me Proud' – President Obama's Farewell Speech Is a Powerful Road-Map for Upholding Democracy , ..."
    "... Donald Trump's News Conference: Full Transcript and Video, ..."
    "... On the suggestion that Vladimir Putin helped Trump get elected: ..."
    "... On the allegations in the BuzzFeed file about stuff he had paid those honey-trap hookers to do in Moscow: ..."
    "... On whether he thinks the American public is concerned about him not releasing his tax returns: ..."
    "... On Lindsey Graham proposing a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia: ..."
    "... That's the Trump we know and love. So was his reaction when a CNN reporter kept demanding to ask a question: "Don't be rude. No, I'm not going to give you a question You are fake news! " ..."
    "... One of the reasons low-income Americans admire rich people is that they are do-ers who seem to live gilded lives, and not on the backs of the poor. It's the professional classes they don't like-the lawyers and doctors and teachers, who invade their lives with bills and lectures. The people who look and sound like Hillary Clinton. Trump was showing that he, too, was under the cosh of the miserable lawyers-he even had one come to the podium. ..."
    "... Bad news, Trump haters: This bonkers show has made him even MORE popular, writes JUSTIN WEBB. He played to the gallery with something bordering on genius , ..."
    "... Watch your back, Mr. President-Elect. Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon . ..."
    "... BBC is still in nonstop 'take down Trump' mode, every other day the headline starts 'Donald Trump has provoked outrage' . ..."
    "... From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. ..."
    "... Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white. ..."
    "... All this talk of Russian hacking and Russian interference emanating from the Progs misses the point. I don't believe in most of it. But surely Russians did what they could to favor Trump. But what's wrong with that, at least from our perspective? ..."
    "... The fact is the US is not ruled by Americans but by the GLOB, or Globalist Tyranny. Though the GLOB is a diverse bunch of globalist-elites, the top dogs are Zionists, homos, and Anglo-Cuck-Collaborators. And these people have ZERO feeling for the historical white majority of the Americans. Anglo-Collaborators are too cucked out to have any white sentiments. They are like Joe Biden who will sell his ma down the river for his cookies and creams. These cucks are willing to turn all historically white nations into EU and US into non-white majority nations AS LONG AS they and their children are assure of privilege and power in the New Order. They are globo-quislings. ..."
    "... So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority. ..."
    "... Now, the Russian role in 2016 was nothing like French role in the War of Independence, but it may have tipped the balance. White Americans should rejoice and thank the Russians. ..."
    "... American Media are not American. It is mostly GLOB. And it means that as long as US is under Glob power, it is under alien tyranny. Indeed, even with Trump as president, the most powerful force in the US is Jewish-Glob power. ..."
    "... Trump's tweets are an act of genius. He has rocked the whole liberal establishment by stating his own opinions and speaking directly to those who have been ignored for years. ..."
    "... This is revolutionary, Trump could never have survived a Presidential run in the past, he would have been unable to fight back, no one would be able to hear him. ..."
    "... Who would have thought that a President could ignore and ridicule major media players in an age where careers are destroyed by the media because they disagree with gay marriage... ..."
    "... The Zionists, CIA and FBI could finish with Trump in no time at all, but the problem is that it's not just Trump, he's only riding a wave. Eliminate Trump and they could get something much worse, so they probably calculate that it's better to try to corrupt Trump ( he's a dealmaker) despite his connection to the thing that they fear the most i.e. Radical Anglo Nationalism. ..."
    "... Americans are generally aware of the founders of this country. However, immigrants like the Irish, Italians, and Slavs were considered to be "garbage" by nativists at various points in time. Millions of immigrants who came to the States had little money, but a strong work ethic and the willingness to embrace our customs and our political traditions. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Credit: VDare.com

    This is the Week of the Two Presidents- Donald Trump succeeds Barack Obama at noon on Friday January 20. Both men recently addressed major gatherings: Barack Obama made his official farewell to the nation, Donald Trump held his first formal press conference since being elected. Each event was highly characteristic. My take: I for one am glad we have heard the last of Obama. And Trump's rumbustiousness is thrilling .

    Obama stepped out in front of a huge audience in Chicago and delivered a long, gassy speech-51 minutes and 10 seconds. That's 10 minutes longer than the Farewell Addresses of George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan combined .

    Bush 41 did not technically give a farewell address, although his speech to West Point cadets, the last of his presidency, is sometimes cited as such. I don't know its duration, but the transcript runs to 3,300 words. The transcript of Obama's farewell address is just short of 5,000 words, so he left Poppy Bush in the dust, too. This is a guy who really likes the sound of his own voice.

    The gold standard in political speeches, so far as I'm concerned, was the one Calvin Coolidge delivered to the Massachusetts Senate 102 years ago, after being elected President of that body. It consisted of forty-four words, thus :

    Honorable Senators: My sincerest thanks I offer you. Conserve the firm foundations of our institutions. Do your work with the spirit of a soldier in the public service. Be loyal to the Commonwealth and to yourselves, and be brief; above all things, be brief.

    That makes the Gettysburg Address , at 272 words, look positively flabby. It makes Obama's farewell address look morbidly obese.

    What did Obama's speech actually contain? Well, there was lots of "hope" and "change": five "hopes" and sixteen "changes" by my count. I couldn't actually pin down anything declarative about "hope", but there was definitely a consistent theme on "change." Change is good! Don't be afraid of change! -

    Constant change has been America's hallmark; that it's not something to fear but something to embrace It [ the antecedent for "it" seems to be the danger to us from terrorism and foreign dictators–JD ] represents the fear of change; the fear of people who look or speak or pray differently

    If you fear change you are a bad person!

    I'm sorry, Mr. President, but that is inane. Some change is good, some isn't. Saying, "Change is good!" makes as much sense as saying, " Weather is good!" or "Vegetation is good!" If an asteroid were to strike the earth and wipe out the human race, that would be a major change, wouldn't it? Not many of us would consider it good, though.

    And just as change is not necessarily good, fear is not necessarily bad. We have the fear instinct for a very good reason: to preserve ourselves against dangers. We may argue about whether some one particular phenomenon is or is not dangerous, but fear itself is useful and valuable, not a failing or a weakness .

    Take for example that "fear of people who look or speak or pray differently." If people who look different from me in some one particular way have a homicide rate seven times that of people who look the same as me, and a robbery rate thirteen times, isn't fear of those people rational? If violent acts of terrorism against innocent civilians are almost exclusively committed by people who pray a certain way, is not fear of people who pray that way justified?

    And look at Obama's illogical assumptions:

    If we're unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don't look like us, we will diminish the prospects of our own children-because those brown kids will represent a larger and larger share of America's workforce.

    Note the patronizing conflation of "immigrants" with "brown kids." I'm an immigrant; my wife is an immigrant; neither of us is brown.

    Note also the meteorological approach to immigration. It's like the weather! Can't do anything about it! In fact immigration is just a policy, that we can change at will. We could, without any offense to the Constitution, stop all immigration and require all noncitizens to leave our territory.

    How would that be for "change"! To fear it would, of course, be weak and un-American.

    And then there are Obama's characteristic weaselly little half-truths:

    I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans who are just as patriotic as we are.

    I have no problem with the first half of that. I too reject discrimination against American citizens who are Muslims.

    At the same time, and without any inconsistency I can see, I think we have all the Muslims we need. Islam doesn't fit comfortably into non-Muslim nations. It creates problems that we'd be wise to avoid. Let's stop all further settlement of Muslims in the U.S.A.

    Again, I don't know of any constitutional reason why we can't do that.

    But the second half, Obama's assertion that Muslims are just as patriotic as we are, is open to question. It's true in the sense that some Muslims, like some non-Muslims, are patriotic, while others aren't. The proportions in each case bears examining. The non-patriotism of Muslim non-patriots is of a seriously different kind from the non-patriotism of Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, and Wiccan non-patriots.

    This slippery sleight of mouth is very Obamaesque. And personally, I could do without all the girlish emoting that Obama went in for towards the end of the speech. By the time he'd gotten through gushing over all the hope and change he'd generated, and over his wife and daughters, etc., there was, as several news outlets noted, not a dry eye in the house.[ Watch: 'You Have Made Me Proud' – President Obama's Farewell Speech Is a Powerful Road-Map for Upholding Democracy , Black Entertainment Television, January 11, 3017]

    From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. Then I recall that this is somewhat un-American of me, and feel a bit ashamed. My fellow Americans mostly like that kind of thing, and I ought to yield to their taste.

    I just can't, though. I'm from a nation and a time that admired reserve, fortitude, and the stiff upper lip. "I have lost my leg, by God!" Lord Uxbridge told the Duke of Wellington on the field of Waterloo, as cannonballs whizzed by. "By God, and have you!" replied the Duke.

    Those are my people. They're dead now, or old, even in the Mother Country. But they had something that's been lost, and the loss of which I regret very much.

    Trump's presser was comparable in wordage to Obama's speech.

    The questions and answers, not counting the nested presentation by Trump's lawyer, were seventy-four hundred words, of which by far the majority were Trump's. So chances are Trump spoke more words than Obama. And they were pure Trumplish: unfiltered, demotic, boastful, pugnacious in self-defense, hyperbolic in praise, brutal in scorn, sometimes contradictory, occasionally nonsensical.

    When he didn't want to answer a question he just blustered. Would Obamacare guarantee coverage for current beneficiaries? Trump:

      You're gonna be very, very proud of what we put forth having to do with health care We're going to be submitting, as soon as our secretary's approved, almost simultaneously, shortly thereafter, a plan. It'll be repeal and replace. It will be essentially, simultaneously. It will be various segments, you understand, but will most likely be on the same day or the same week, but probably, the same day, could be the same hour. So we're gonna do repeal and replace, very complicated stuff. And we're gonna get a health bill passed, we're gonna get health care taken care of in this country The plan will be repeal and replace Obamacare. We're going to have a health care that is far less expensive and far better.

    Donald Trump's News Conference: Full Transcript and Video, NYT, January 11, 2017

    The information content of that answer is, let's be frank, zero. You could in fact, in the spirit of Coolidge, you could make an economical translation of that 430-word answer from Trumplish into Coolidgean using just three words: "Wait and see."

    That's OK, though. Donald Trump is by no means the first President to answer a reporter's question with blustery evasion-by no means.

    It was Trump's style and demeanor at the presser that had us Trumpians clapping along with him. Those, and his one-liners. Four sample one-liners:

      On the suggestion that Vladimir Putin helped Trump get elected: "If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a liability." On the allegations in the BuzzFeed file about stuff he had paid those honey-trap hookers to do in Moscow: "I'm also very much of a germaphobe, by the way, believe me." On whether he thinks the American public is concerned about him not releasing his tax returns: "No, I don't think they care at all." On Lindsey Graham proposing a bill for tougher sanctions on Russia: "I hadn't heard Lindsey Graham was going to do that. Lindsey Graham. I've been competing with him for a long time. He is going to crack that one percent barrier one day."

    That's the Trump we know and love. So was his reaction when a CNN reporter kept demanding to ask a question: "Don't be rude. No, I'm not going to give you a question You are fake news! " Similarly with BuzzFeed, which Trump said is, quote, "a failing pile of garbage." Along the lines of the old joke about Harry Truman and the word "manure," I guess America should be glad he used the word "garbage."

    Of all the commentary on Trump's presser, I think the one that got to the heart of the matter was Justin Webb's in the Daily Mail , January 12th, pertaining to the point in the presser where Trump brought up his lawyer to explain about his business interests:

    One of the reasons low-income Americans admire rich people is that they are do-ers who seem to live gilded lives, and not on the backs of the poor. It's the professional classes they don't like-the lawyers and doctors and teachers, who invade their lives with bills and lectures. The people who look and sound like Hillary Clinton. Trump was showing that he, too, was under the cosh of the miserable lawyers-he even had one come to the podium.

    And he was demonstrating that, despite this, he had admirably emerged with his businesses intact. I am no psychology professor, but this seemed to me to be playing to the gallery-i.e. those "ordinary" Americans who are so fed up with the political class-with something bordering on genius.

    Bad news, Trump haters: This bonkers show has made him even MORE popular, writes JUSTIN WEBB. He played to the gallery with something bordering on genius , By Justin Webb, The Daily Mail, January 13, 2017

    Mail man Webb then goes on to warn that Trump might be too combative, too much the Alpha Male, for the suits in D.C. to put up with for long, so that they will find a way to force him out. Webb concludes:

    If they succeed, it would be a bitter blow to the millions of working-class Americans who voted for Trump, folk who felt he alone among politicians understood their aspirations, and who would have been thrilled by his extraordinary, rumbustious performance this week. It would again confirm their view that the political establishment looks after its own-while the "little people" are brushed aside.

    I don't think I count as working-class. My hands are rather soft , and I only wear boots for hiking or shoveling snow . I'll admit that I was thrilled by Trump's performance, though, just as much as Justin Webb's hypothetical working-class Americans.

    And yes, like Webb, I worry that Trump's don't-give-a-damn rumbustiousness may be too much for the seat-warmers and log-rollers of Washington, D.C.-among which category I would include our intelligence agencies -to the degree that they will find some way to unseat him. Watch your back, Mr. President-Elect. Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon .

    And in case you're wondering, listeners, "rumbustious" is indeed a word- I looked it up .

    John Derbyshire [ email him ] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books . He's had two books published by VDARE.com: FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT ( also available in Kindle ) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013 . His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com .

    (Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)

    jivilov , January 17, 2017 at 8:40 am GMT

    Another great article by El Derbo. BTW an alternate version of Wellington's reply to Uxbridge goes, "By Jove, so you have!" Whatever his merits the Duke was not strong on empathy. But if he was, w0uld he have been such a winning general?

    Anonymous Nephew , January 17, 2017 at 10:18 am GMT

    Justin Webb was the BBCs US correspondent for years ( as was his father ) . He's also one of the presenters of the R4 Today programme.

    ( BBC is still in nonstop 'take down Trump' mode, every other day the headline starts 'Donald Trump has provoked outrage' . Today on R4 we had the Observer's literary editor in conversation about Trump with Malcolm Gladwell – I wonder if that was positive or negative?)

    polistra , January 17, 2017 at 11:40 am GMT

    I'm somewhat less worried about Fort Marcy. Important difference between Trump and Nixon or Reagan: Trump has his own security forces, both physical and cyber. He doesn't have to rely on the Deepstate-owned Secret Service.

    He clearly understands how these things work, as demonstrated by his discussion of paper messages vs email. He's been 'controversial' for decades and he's been watching his back effectively for decades.

    TomSchmidt , January 17, 2017 at 2:01 pm GMT

    I reject discrimination against Muslim Americans who are just as patriotic as we are.

    Perhaps he accepts discrimination against Muslim Americans whose patriotism differs, or is less than, "us," whoever that is? It's a slimy, unctuous, political phrase.

    Randal , January 17, 2017 at 2:28 pm GMT

    Another good piece that ought to be gracing the pages of the Spectator and the Telegraph, if those publications were still traditionalist conservative and weren't firmly in the grip of pc censorship and neoconnery.

    From time to time I make a resolution never to vote for any person who has shed tears in public. Then I recall that this is somewhat un-American of me, and feel a bit ashamed. My fellow Americans mostly like that kind of thing, and I ought to yield to their taste

    I agree entirely, and I don't have the burden of having to try to assimilate to a foreign country's culture, so I can say so without qualification. I don't like men who openly display sentimentality and don't respect them as leaders.

    Women are a different matter, but with a few unusual exceptions they don't make good leaders anyway.

    By the way, here's a matter that affects both your country of origin and your adopted one: how remarkable is it that supposedly serious people ("Theresa May's advisers") are reported as putting David Cameron forward as a candidate for Secretary General of NATO? The man who repeatedly displayed his complete unsuitability for any role in strategic decision making by not only pushing the disastrous destruction of Libya's government in 2011 but, only two years later and with the costs of that earlier blunder in full view, actually wanted to do the same to Syria! Worse, not only did he evidently want to do it, but he lacked the competence to manage a compliant Parliament into giving him the required rubber stamp!

    Of course, it's not all that remarkable if one ditches the naïve idea that those "advising May" are not either incompetent themselves or acting out of ulterior motives that are incompatible with any genuine British national interest.

    An optimist might suggest that perhaps clever subversion rather than stupidity is the explanation here. What better way to further undermine an institution that has long outlived its original purpose and has become a vehicle for troublemaking and disorder, yet has such deep institutional roots and serves such a useful role for nefarious US deep state purposes that it cannot be rooted out, than to put at its helm an individual so patently unsuited to such a role?

    But that is surely hopelessly optimistic. Most likely the obvious explanation is correct, that it is just another instance of the trademarked mix of incompetence and evil that seems to have been running US sphere foreign policy since the 1990s.

    Anonymous , January 17, 2017 at 2:38 pm GMT

    Weepy Globalist to be Replaced By Rumbustious Working Class Hero At Noon Friday Can D.C. Suits Stand It?

    One of the best headers ever. (Answer: yes, but barely. "It could be the end of think tanks as we know them", they have been heard soughing.)

    Bragadocious , January 17, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

    If we're unwilling to invest in the children of immigrants, just because they don't look like us "

    This is precisely the error made by progressives immersed in the scuzzy identity politics bathtub. I don't want to "invest" in the children of Irish illegal immigrants either. And they look a lot like me. Their parents are likely to be moronic leftists who arrived here with disdain and contempt for rule of law, no different than the parents of MS-13 gangbangers in Brentwood. Very basically, if you can't stand in line like everyone else, you're not worth investing in.

    WorkingClass , January 17, 2017 at 4:52 pm GMT
    @polistra

    There will likely be gunplay at the Inaugural. At Maidan snipers shot people on both sides of the conflict. Maidan is the model for the coup against Trump. Either there will be an Erdogan style purge, or Trump will be impeached, imprisoned or martyred.

    Corvinus , January 17, 2017 at 6:36 pm GMT

    @War for Blair Mountain

    "Secession is just around the corner it's a comming."

    That is a pipe dream. Now, Derby "This is a guy who really likes the sound of his own voice." Pot, meet kettle.

    "Note the patronizing conflation of "immigrants" with "brown kids." I'm an immigrant; my wife is an immigrant; neither of us is brown."

    Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white.

    "At the same time, and without any inconsistency I can see, I think we have all the Muslims we need."

    Why should an Englishman and a Chinese woman (race mixing, I thought that was a big no-no) be allowed to enter the United States? We already have too many of your kind already!

    "But the second half, Obama's assertion that Muslims are just as patriotic as we are, is open to question. It's true in the sense that some Muslims, like some non-Muslims, are patriotic, while others aren't. The proportions in each case bears examining.

    Indeed, the proportions in each case bears examining. How many American Muslims committed acts of terrorism on American soil prior to 911?

    "The non-patriotism of Muslim non-patriots is of a seriously different kind from the non-patriotism of Episcopalian, Catholic, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, Jewish, agnostic, atheist, and Wiccan non-patriots."

    This is gooblygook. Either a person is loyal or disloyal. Now, using Derbs logic, the non-patriotism of Jew non-patriots is also noteworthy for being a "different kind". Because Jews cause all kinds of havoc, right?

    "Richard Nixon was way less rumbustious than you are; but they took down Nixon."

    Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate. Certainly, Woodward and Bernstein and others employed questionable means during their investigation, but the LARGER issue was to expose the lies of an administration. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden merely copied the strategies of these two reporters, yet somehow they are lionized for their uncovering despite their covert means to obtain information?

    rienzi , January 17, 2017 at 7:42 pm GMT

    Strangely enough, Trump has already done more to improve the lives of ordinary Americans by saving some jobs in Indianapolis, before he even takes office, than the last three presidents have accomplished in 24 years in office.

    Forbes , January 17, 2017 at 10:14 pm GMT

    The disgrace (conundrum?), as it were, is that plenty of 30- and 40- and 50-something Americans find Obama's shtick appealing, whether the self-referential I, me, my, or the weepiness–it's not just dopey Millennials without the experience of time. They've all been inculcated with the idea that it's the feelz that matters.

    Anon , January 17, 2017 at 11:00 pm GMT

    All this talk of Russian hacking and Russian interference emanating from the Progs misses the point. I don't believe in most of it. But surely Russians did what they could to favor Trump. But what's wrong with that, at least from our perspective?

    After all, didn't the French welcome the American role in driving out German Occupation during WWII? Didn't Philippines welcome the Americans in driving out the Japanese?

    The fact is the US is not ruled by Americans but by the GLOB, or Globalist Tyranny. Though the GLOB is a diverse bunch of globalist-elites, the top dogs are Zionists, homos, and Anglo-Cuck-Collaborators. And these people have ZERO feeling for the historical white majority of the Americans. Anglo-Collaborators are too cucked out to have any white sentiments. They are like Joe Biden who will sell his ma down the river for his cookies and creams. These cucks are willing to turn all historically white nations into EU and US into non-white majority nations AS LONG AS they and their children are assure of privilege and power in the New Order. They are globo-quislings.

    So, given that the US is under GLOB occupation, Americans should welcome ANY foreign interference that loosens this grip and empowers the historical white majority.

    Any people who are under alien tyranny should welcome other alien forces to counter-balance the alien force currently in power.
    It's like the American Revolution wouldn't have been possible without the crucial help of the French. The British were too powerful, and most of the major battles won by the Americans were actually fought by the French.

    Now, the Russian role in 2016 was nothing like French role in the War of Independence, but it may have tipped the balance. White Americans should rejoice and thank the Russians.

    After all, there are parallels. In the 90s, the globalists took over Russia and totally looted and plundered that country.

    It was nationalism that restored Russian sovereignty somewhat(though it still has long way to go).

    So, white Americans need to look to Russia and Russian-Americans. Indeed, just as Jewish-Americans feel closer to Russian-Jews and French Jews than to white gentile Americans(whom most Jews despise), white gentile Americans should feel closer to white gentiles all over the world than with Jews or other elements of the GLOB. White Americans and white Russians should regard one another as brothers. After all, white Russians don't want to destroy White America. It is the Jewish globalists who have that agenda.

    Pan-Zionism and Pan-Jewish-ism govern Jewish mindset and power. Jewish Americans feel closer to Israeli-Jews, Hungarian Jews, French Jews, and British Jews than with gentile Americans.

    So, white gentiles need a pan-white-ism. If Jewish-Americans and Russian Jews work together to plunder both Russian gentiles and American gentiles, then gentiles in both nations should work together to defend themselves from avaricious globalist Jewish power. Why should only Jews have the right to create tribal networks all over the world?

    I say white gentiles also need to create pan-white or pan-European networks all over. They need to bury the hatchet because they face similar threats in both US and EU.

    If someone is holding you hostage, and another person saves you from your captor, should you blame the other person for having saved you? No, of course not. You should thank him.

    So, if Russia played a role in helping white Americans liberate themselves from the tyranny of the Glob, white Americans should be grateful.

    Jewish GLOB would like us to believe that their power & control is 'American as bagel and cream cheese and lox', but their power is alien and anti-American. After all, globalism is a neo-imperialist war directed at ALL nations. So, if alien Russian influence was crucial in 2016, it was in helping knock out the alien Jewish influence. While there are good decent patriotic Jewish Americans, most of Jewish Power in the US is not patriotic or nationalist but GLOBO-IMPERIALIST and committed to destroying the national sovereignty of all white nations. Consider what Jews tried to do to Hungary and Poland.

    They tried to force those nations to surrender to non-stop Muslim and African invasions caused by wars fomented by Neocons and their cuck-whores.

    Besides, even now, Russian influence in the US is minuscule compared to the power of the GLOB. Glob elites are just a tiny percentage of US population, but they control 90% of media, Wall Street, Hollywood, academia, and much else. The fact that such a small minority controls so much of American Power should be the real scandal.

    American Media are not American. It is mostly GLOB. And it means that as long as US is under Glob power, it is under alien tyranny. Indeed, even with Trump as president, the most powerful force in the US is Jewish-Glob power.

    So, gentile Americans should welcome ANY foreign/alien help to weaken the power of the alien GLOB that controls most of the institutions in America. Look how the whores of Congress pledge their main loyalty to Israel, Israel, and Israel.

    Agree: Autochthon
    Svigor , January 18, 2017 at 1:19 am GMT

    And in case you're wondering, listeners, "rumbustious" is indeed a word-I looked it up.

    Ha! Now you know how it feels!

    Skeptikal , January 18, 2017 at 3:46 am GMT

    @Corvinus

    "Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate. "

    Don't be silly. Read Family of Secrets, by Russ Baker, for the real story. The relevant chapters are available online at WhoWhatWhy.

    Authenticjazzman , January 18, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT

    @Binyamin

    " His cabinet appointees are almost exclusively wealthy ( actually extremely wealthy) white men"

    So it would have made you feel better if he had appointed a cabinet made up exclusively of poor people of color, right.
    I am thinking that you are German because your viewpoints are identical with the german leftist " Gutmensch" SJW worldview, and you simply do not comprehend that average Americans are not jealous or spiteful of "Wealthy" folks, on the contrary, they respect them and congratulate them for their status.
    You guys have no problem with wealthy "Old white men" as long as they are leftists, such as BC or B Sanders or WB, or BG.
    Myself I am an "Old white man" and I am not ashamed to be an "Old white man", so put that in your "Gutmensch" pipe and smoke it.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.

    El Dato , January 18, 2017 at 11:45 pm GMT
    • 100 Words

    I do think the "the fear of change" is a healthy element to have in a world that looks like "The Shockwave Rider" come true.

    Master Soda , "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to statism. Statism leads to blank checks for politicians. Blank checks for politicians leads to welfare/warfare and micromanagement and control freakshows sold as progressivism."

    Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 1:10 am GMT
    • 300 Words

    Mr. Derbyshire writes that "Saying, "Change is good!" makes as much sense as saying, "Weather is good!" or "Vegetation is good!"

    I have made the same point, but about different, more contentious words, for decades.
    Two of the words I said were silly to regard as good or bad were " intolerance" and "discrimination", words that for at least 30 years have, in the minds of many politicians, educators, executives and the brainwashed, morphed into synonyms for "bad!", which is a truly dumb and gutless surrender of language, it's and meaning and power of independent thought.

    A society, any society, anywhere on earth, falls by what it chooses wisely to discriminate against and what it refuses to tolerate. Sometimes these choices are contentious and harder to justify against the slogans and sound-bites that we have been relentlessly force-fed for a half century.

    Just mooting, that discrimination or intolerance are, of themselves, not necessarily bad, prompts the Pavlovian reflex of sharp intakes of breath and dutiful frowns from many listeners. Dare moot that "racism", sexism or homophobia (a ridiculous word etymologically) of any of the other proscribed -isms and –obiahs are, in their milder degrees, sensible social phenomena, and vitriol flows from the mouths of PC believers as reason departs as readily as it does from believers of the ROP when their cult is challenged logically. One is labelled as irredeemably evil despite, and I repeat, ANY society, anywhere on earth, falls by what it chooses to discriminate against and what it refuses to tolerate just as much as it rises by what it encourages.

    What we choose to encourage or discriminate against is far too important to be treated as dogma.

    The rules that govern society should be open to rigorous debate and examination, not, as is the case here in the UK and most of Europe, "defended" by a cowed and complicit Fourth Estate, and enforces by imprisonment for so-called "hate speech."

    Good luck America, I hope that Trump grows into the job and proves a much better President than the tactically-weepy O'Bummer.

    Agree: dfordoom
    Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 1:18 am GMT
    @El Dato

    Never heard of "The Shockwave Rider" but it's true about how fear can be manipulated, although it's not just Lefty pols who exploit it.
    According to their creed, pols ramp up fears or damp down reasonable and prudent ones, according to their agenda.

    Jay Igaboo , January 19, 2017 at 3:45 am GMT

    @Anon

    That is indeed a well-informed comment, unsurprisingly made under anonimity. If I published the same comment under my own name here in the UK, it would be off to the gulag for me, as we do not have the admirable First Amendment of The US contitution.

    If you published this under your own name in America, it would "only" be punishable by a media hounding, career death and the sort of public vilification seen during The Cultural Revolution.

    Carlton Meyer , Website January 19, 2017 at 5:23 am GMT

    Obama, the master liar. Today, he stated:

    "And it is important for the United States to stand up for the basic principal that big countries don't go around and invade and bully smaller countries."

    That was so bizarre I had to laugh, but noted the corporate press softball pitchers at this "news" conference didn't even smile at that absurd statement. No need for a "fact check" news story. Hell, the USA don't just bully and invade, it destroys and lays waste to entire nations on a yearly basis. Obama had dozens of foreigners murdered via drones and snipers each week, but perhaps that's not considered a bully tactic.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/obama-final-press-conference.html?_r=0

    Agree: Mark Green , dfordoom
    Kyle McKenna , January 19, 2017 at 5:40 am GMT

    "fear of people who look or speak or pray differently."

    Typical SJW gobbledygook. First of all, no one looks, speaks, or prays like I do, so that's right out the window. It may look that way to you, but that's because you're ignorant, racist, jealous, and un-American.

    Second, and much more important: It's not fear that causes me to resist the trashing of my country. It's love. I'm not remotely fearful of third-world refuse, but I'm definitely disgusted with the way the country I love seems to be circling the drain, and I'll do just about anything I can to prevent it.

    That most definitely includes supporting a 'rumbustious' president who–despite offering genuine causes for concern–has made all the right enemies. Even if I agreed with him about nothing, I'd support him for that reason alone. What's that? They're threatening war? Nonsense. The war has been going on for half a century. But we have only begun to fight.

    larry lurker , January 19, 2017 at 5:42 am GMT

    On whether he thinks the American public is concerned about him not releasing his tax returns: "No, I don't think they care at all."

    My favorite part of the whole press conference came right before this:

    Reporter: But every president since the '70s has [released his tax returns] - Trump (sarcastically): Gee, I've never heard that. I've never heard that before.

    Mr. Anon , January 19, 2017 at 6:57 am GMT

    @Corvinus

    "Pot, meet kettle."

    Nonsense. Derb is an engaging and entertaining writer. You, on the other hand, are a tiresome bore.

    "Yes, but you and your wife are IMMIGRANTS. Unwanted. Undesired. Doesn't matter if you are white or non-white."

    Derb and his family are okay by me. You, however – I'd have no problem having you summarily deported.

    "Why should an Englishman and a Chinese woman (race mixing, I thought that was a big no-no) be allowed to enter the United States? We already have too many of your kind already!"

    No, we have too many of your kind, whatever your kind may be.

    "Indeed, the proportions in each case bears examining. How many American Muslims committed acts of terrorism on American soil prior to 911?"

    Prior to 911? What's so special about that day? Gosh, what might have happened on that particular date. How many countries did Hitler invade before Czechoslovakia?

    "This is gooblygook. Either a person is loyal or disloyal."

    No, they can simply be uninterested. I.e., America really isn't their country, it's just a place they happen to be.

    "Nixon took himself down by enabling his posse to spy on Democrats and use campaign money to buy the silence of those who were caught at Watergate."

    You are a fool – a contemptible and stupid fool. Nixon was no dirtier than either Johnson or Kennedy. He was taken down because the Washington Press Corps, the Democratic party (which he had humiliated), and elements of the Civil Service wanted him gone.

    Wizard of Oz , January 19, 2017 at 9:46 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer

    To be fair (why you might ask? But let me slide on) Obama did speak of not bullying small countries. I am not aware of any drone strikes on people who were government officials or otherwise representative of their small countries. Are you? Or of any other assassinations. Trade sanctions?

    Anon , January 19, 2017 at 9:49 am GMT

    One good thing about Trump presidency is the anti-war Left will be activated once again. Hopefully, they will prevent future wars.

    Autochthon , January 19, 2017 at 11:03 am GMT
    @Binyamin

    For the first time in history we will have a [sic] oligarch in the White House .

    Despite my having voted for him and supported his campaign, I have my suspicions and reservations about the man as well (I'm a cynic and a pessimist), but the statement above is complete horse-shit.

    Pat the rat , January 19, 2017 at 12:51 pm GMT

    Trump's tweets are an act of genius. He has rocked the whole liberal establishment by stating his own opinions and speaking directly to those who have been ignored for years.

    This is revolutionary, Trump could never have survived a Presidential run in the past, he would have been unable to fight back, no one would be able to hear him.

    Who would have thought that a President could ignore and ridicule major media players in an age where careers are destroyed by the media because they disagree with gay marriage...

    Agent76 , January 19, 2017 at 1:41 pm GMT

    Nov 21, 2016 Trump Is An Inside Job

    "Statists are always gonna state and absolute power always corrupts absolutely. Trump is merely the right's version of Obama. If you really thought the left-right paradigm was abandoned, that the powers-that-be would let an actual outsider not only run for president but win well, I suggest you spend more time researching the new world order and less time voting for some power-hungry individual who claims to make everything great again." – Dan Dicks

    https://youtu.be/VLHVikUN73s

    macilrae , January 19, 2017 at 3:02 pm GMT

    Thanks for a lively piece Mr Derbyshire. As we gain experience in life we realize that there are probably twenty 'good talkers' for every 'do-er' jockeying for acceptance in positions of power – and we still get taken in by the talkers, even though they almost invariably have an insignificant track-record for the desired position. They end up departing with little accomplished, still talking: Obama being a perfect text book example.

    You say:

    And just as change is not necessarily good, fear is not necessarily bad. We have the fear instinct for a very good reason: to preserve ourselves against dangers. We may argue about whether some one particular phenomenon is or is not dangerous, but fear itself is useful and valuable, not a failing or a weakness.

    I remember, when running a company, there came one of those fashionable (and short-lived) management crazes promoting the ideas of W. Edwards Deming, an American whose philosophy helped to bring about a massive change in Japanese industry. Deming asserted that 'quality' had to be instilled into everything in the workplace and he had fourteen points for management – mostly sound common sense except, I could never get along with point number eight "abolish fear in the workplace". Now, this sounds terrific and who could oppose it?

    Except that without a little bit of fear/uncertainty/insecurity, no organization can run well – people just get too comfortable and secure and discipline declines. But how the Hell can you ever admit to that in public? Or in a book? Of course you can't!

    Che Guava , January 19, 2017 at 4:33 pm GMT

    Congrats USA. Nice article as always Mr. Derb,, but I think you are too optimistic. We will have to wait and see. From what little I know of USA polititcs, Trump is great because so many of his attackers are arseholes. Myths floating about the pallets of cash to Iran:simply a retum of stolen money, Much more to say. Too tired.

    Rurik , January 19, 2017 at 5:13 pm GMT

    @Binyamin

    The dirt poor white middle Americans whose factories have closed and communities decimated, voted for him in droves and where are they now? . I expect the poor whites who voted for him will soon realize that they have been mugged.

    yea, we'd have been so much better off with Hillary, huh?

    but you're forgetting one thing about Trump's victory regardless of all of that-
    and that's how great it makes us deplorables all feel at watching Obama and Michelle and people like you going through your butt-hurt, existential crisis. Your angst and dread exhilarates us all and reminds us how wonderful the political process can be. How, in a word; satisfying .. it can be.

    so as your knickers are twisting over your equivocating gender bits, we're buoyed by your tears. In fact, I'd like to see a veritable ocean of your collective tears, and maybe sail a huge, obnoxious yacht from Texas to Kalingrad on it, flying a proud confederate, rebel battle flag. And I'll even name the ship The Deplorables, and when I've had my fill of Budweiser beer, Sherriff Joe and Vlad and I'll (I'd invite him too) relieve our white male piss into your ocean of tears, and watch as the salt mingles with the diversity. I'd be fun, no?

    Just watching Van Jones and Michelle and all those Hollywood snowflakes and SJW and castrating Maddow dykes and sodomites and race hustlers and La Raza pendejos and Kristol war pigs and entrenched ticks in DC- sucking the blood of the republic, and all the assorted butt-hurt losers and haters that have languished in smug certitude at the destruction of my kind, just seeing them all desolate and inconsolable, just that, makes the Donald Trump win a precious moment to savor and cherish.

    So please do keep posting, and telling us all how bad it's going to be. How indeed, calamitous and catastrophic! this all is. Where else can I relish such delicious and tasty morsels of sweet schadenfreude, than right here on the UR?

    Agree: woodNfish
    woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:16 pm GMT

    @Binyamin

    His cabinet appointees are almost exclusively wealthy (actually, extremely wealthy) white men.

    Obviously you are a dumbass racist or you would know that white people, especially white men are extremely smart and capable. Don't want to believe me? Pull your head out of your ass for a second and look around you – we created almost everything you see or use. Your modern world doesn't exist at all without us because WE created it from the constitutional laws you live by to the car you drive, cell phone you play Angry Birds on, to the computer and the software that runs it and lets you post to this site. Oh yeah – we also created the Internet. Yeah, that's right – White Men – the best thing that ever happened to this world and your shitty life. Get over yourself, racist!

    woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:17 pm GMT
    @attilathehen

    A white man who married a brownish-yellow Asian woman cannot tell his Asian offspring that they cannot date or associate with blacks.

    Many Asians, maybe even most, consider blacks to be sub-human.

    woodNfish , January 19, 2017 at 7:24 pm GMT

    @macilrae

    W. Edwards Deming, an American whose philosophy helped to bring about a massive change in Japanese industry.

    Deming went to Japan to sell his ideas because American manufacturing wouldn't listen to him. His quality ideas are now instituted in the ISO requirements which every manufacturer adheres to if they want to sell internationally.

    macilrae , January 20, 2017 at 12:40 am GMT
    @woodNfish

    Certainly – but at least you don't see fellow management saluting you in the corridor with fourteen fingers anymore – it came and went in US as a fad lasting approximately two years but required more than ten for full implementation.

    dfordoom , Website January 20, 2017 at 2:17 am GMT
    @Anon

    One good thing about Trump presidency is the anti-war Left will be activated once again.

    Hopefully, they will prevent future wars.

    One would like to think that. However the entity that calls itself the Left has become remarkably fond of war. They've discovered that war could be a useful tool for imposing transgender bathroom rights on the entire planet.

    If Trump (God forbid) looked like starting a war with Russia would there be any opposition from an anti-war Left?

    woodNfish , January 20, 2017 at 2:46 am GMT
    @macilrae

    I have no idea what you mean by "saluting with 14 fingers", but ISO is not a fad. Drive around any area with manufacturing and you will see companies touting their ISO 9000 certification because of Deming. His ideas were good and he has had a lasting effect on manufacturing across the globe.

    Agree: Dan Hayes
    Crawfurdmuir , January 20, 2017 at 5:06 am GMT

    @Corvinus

    It's the country of those immigrants who are naturalized, either recently or in the past. That fact is undeniable.

    It's quite deniable. The founding stock of this country were not "immigrants" – they were colonists. They never left the realms of the British monarch. They simply moved to his dominions beyond the seas. Thus they never had to be naturalized, since they were already his subjects. When they declared their independence, they made themselves citizens of their own country. Again, no act of naturalization was necessary.

    As Steve Sailer has often remarked, the story of these founders and patriots as colonists, frontiersmen, and pioneers has been allowed to fade from the public consciousness in favor of the narrative of the "wretched refuse of [the old world's] teeming shore " Yet immigrants past and present enjoy American liberty and prosperity only because of the efforts of the original settlers to win them, and their willingness to share those blessings with deserving newcomers.

    bunga , January 20, 2017 at 7:07 pm GMT

    Immigrant issue is the fig leaf under which certain brand of conservatives hide their frustration at the fact that the elite,the military-industrial complex , the colonizers of new age globalist and expansionist have not been to continue to provide them with the certainties and the beauties of creature comfort at a reduced affordable way as was the case until may be 1990 .

    Now they have to work like anyone else New age slavery has not exempted them from rigor of life and work as have been before. This current scenario also appeared during great depression They ,then did not have the fig leaf of blaming the immigrants to cover their naked butts that personify their mental make up and intellectual understanding of their current situation. . They went for Roosevelt's They supported New Deal. They still love free stuffs and goodies Just look at the demands for Federal emergency relief program to get their butt out of the natural disasters .

    Jeff77450 , January 20, 2017 at 7:22 pm GMT

    Mr. Derbyshire's finger-crossing aside, I predict that we haven't heard the last of Barack Hussein Obama.

    Miro23 , January 20, 2017 at 9:24 pm GMT

    Honorable Senators: My sincerest thanks I offer you. Conserve the firm foundations of our institutions. Do your work with the spirit of a soldier in the public service. Be loyal to the Commonwealth and to yourselves, and be brief; above all things, be brief.

    It's nice to see a reference to Calvin Coolidge, IMHO Americas finest post 1900 President.

    He was Progressive when it meant things like women's suffrage, opportunity for minorities and universal health care, but at the same time was a Conservative in the truest sense of the word with a great respect for the Constitution and the Founders of the US.

    He also had this really useful idea that most proposals for legislation derived from Special Interests (and needed to be excluded ), and that any legislation that did go forward had to have its downsides thoroughly checked beforehand.

    Thales the Milesian , January 20, 2017 at 10:57 pm GMT

    Barak Hussein Obama has not returned the Nobel Peace (Piss) Prize. This demonstrates he lacks decency and self-respect. The warmongers Obama and Hitlery are THE fascists!!! Bush II, Obama and Hitlery to Nuerenberg! Long live PRESIDENT TRUMP!

    Miro23 , January 20, 2017 at 11:11 pm GMT

    @polistra

    He clearly understands how these things work, as demonstrated by his discussion of paper messages vs email. He's been 'controversial' for decades and he's been watching his back effectively for decades.

    The Zionists, CIA and FBI could finish with Trump in no time at all, but the problem is that it's not just Trump, he's only riding a wave. Eliminate Trump and they could get something much worse, so they probably calculate that it's better to try to corrupt Trump ( he's a dealmaker) despite his connection to the thing that they fear the most i.e. Radical Anglo Nationalism.

    Wizard of Oz , January 20, 2017 at 11:58 pm GMT

    @Hibernian

    The trouble is Pascal's wager implies contradictions because it is simultaneously valid for any and every god or system that promises (infinite) rewards and most of those religions don't allow for the others to be true. Anyway the concept of one's sentient self without a body has surely been impossible to believe in for several generations at least.

    Wizard of Oz , January 21, 2017 at 12:13 am GMT

    @bunga

    Why hasn't Keynes's 1930 "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" worked out? With birth control and technologucal advances since 1930 all Americans could be living in great material comfort and with plenty of leisure time for most of their lives. Is it just the crude insatiability of most human beings untamed by the more ascetic traditions? Is it status seeking by too many? (That might include enjoying the greatest locations which can't be added to with more storeys). Is it widespread criminality and its costs? Or .?

    Corvinus , January 21, 2017 at 4:40 am GMT

    @Crawfurdmuir

    "It's quite deniable. The founding stock of this country were not "immigrants" – they were colonists."

    I wasn't debating nor disputing this point. Mr. Anon pointed out that there are immigrants by which "America really isn't their country, it's just a place they happen to be." He is other than accurate in his assessment. Those groups who emigrated here and are now citizens are part of this country. It is their country as well if they went through the process legally.

    "As Steve Sailer has often remarked, the story of these founders and patriots as colonists, frontiersmen, and pioneers has been allowed to fade from the public consciousness in favor of the narrative of the "wretched refuse of [the old world's] teeming shore "

    Americans are generally aware of the founders of this country. However, immigrants like the Irish, Italians, and Slavs were considered to be "garbage" by nativists at various points in time. Millions of immigrants who came to the States had little money, but a strong work ethic and the willingness to embrace our customs and our political traditions.

    "Yet immigrants past and present enjoy American liberty and prosperity only because of the efforts of the original settlers to win them, and their willingness to share those blessings with deserving newcomers."

    Those original settlers included the British, the Dutch, and the Spanish, among others, who also forcibly removed tribal groups from their settled areas, as well as invaded the world and invited the world by instituting slavery in the Thirteen Colonies.

    [Jan 21, 2017] James Mattis confirmed as secretary of defense

    Jan 20, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The Senate confirmed the appointment of retired general James Mattis as secretary of defense on Friday, making him the first member of Donald Trump's cabinet cleared to take office.

    The Senate vote was passed by 98-1 after Trump signed a waiver making Mattis exempt from a law that blocks senior officers from taking the defense secretary job within seven years of retirement. Mattis has been out of uniform for three years.

    The single vote against his confirmation was from Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat who argued the bar should remain in place on the grounds that civilian control of the military was a fundamental principle of US democracy.

    [Jan 21, 2017] The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relations

    Interesting thought: there is no intelligence community, there is not CIA, there are different groups within CIA unbrella with different, often conflicting interests and political agenda.
    Notable quotes:
    "... This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration. ..."
    "... In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | failedevolution.blogspot.gr

    The most dangerous moment in the US-Russia relations Leading scholar on US-Russia relations addresses the claim being trumpeted by politicians and media on both sides of the political spectrum that Russia is now the "number one" threat to the United States. Given the proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine, Dr. Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and New York University, tells host of 'The Empire Files', Abby Martin, that the real alarming danger today is "a new, multi-front Cuban missile crisis."

    This business that, Russia is the number one existential threat has been unfolding this false drama at the expense of US national security, maybe for a decade, but it certainly intensified under the Obama administration.

    Meanwhile, Russia was of course in the person of Putin, repeatedly, almost begging the US to join it in an alliance against terrorism, not only in Syria, but in a kind of global war. I don't know if the global war against terrorism is possible as a separate issue, but Russia wanted to partner with the US. Obama was inclined very briefly in Sep. 2016, but that was killed by the US department of defence when they attacked those Syrian troops.

    In the intelligence community, there are groups of different political impulses, different vested interest in these organizations, and often, they've been at war among themselves within, say the CIA We're seeing that now with the hacking allegations. And, all likelihood, later we will discover, this was a war within the CIA itself. The FBI tried not to get involved.

    There are very different views about Washington's policy toward Russia, inside the intelligence community. This may be the single most dangerous moment in American-Russian relations.

    The Cuban missile crisis is always said to have been the turning point in our awareness of how dangerous the Cold War was. And that, after we avoided nuclear Armageddon, both sides became wise, and the Cold War continued, but there was a code of contact. Everybody understood where the danger lines were. There was a code of conduct between the Soviet Union and the United States. It doesn't exist today. After the Cuban missile crisis in '62, the two sides began to develop interactive cooperation, student exchanges, scientific exchanges, hot lines, constant talks about nuclear weapons, nuclear reductions, trade agreements. That has come to an end along with communication.

    There are now three fronts in the new Cold War that are fought with the possibility of actual war. There's the Baltic region and Poland, where NATO unwisely building up its military presence. There is, of course, Ukraine which could exploded any moment, and, of course, there is Syria, where you got Russian and American aircraft. So, you got a multi-front potential Cuban missile crisis.

    Meanwhile, in the United States, this hysterical reaction to alleged - because there is no proof been produced - that somehow Putin put Trump in the White House, this combination of demented public discourse, engrave danger abroad, at least comparable to the Cuban missile crisis.

    It's been said that the European Union offered Ukraine a very benign economic relationship. That wasn't a benign agreement, about a thousand pages long. There is a section called 'military security issues' and it's very clear, that any country that signs this so-called eastern partnership agreement with the EU, is obliged to adhere to NATO security policies. By signing that, you become a de facto member of NATO. And this was just more of the attempt by Washington to get Ukraine in the NATO, if not openly, through the back door, and they're still at it.

    The decision to expand NATO, all the way, including Ukraine and Georgia, has created a situation in which none of us is safe. And they call that 'national security'?

    Full interview: watch-v=Op6Qr7uuMy8

    [Jan 21, 2017] For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East.

    Notable quotes:
    "... A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people. ..."
    "... I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing. ..."
    "... For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world. ..."
    "... I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you? ..."
    "... Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | crookedtimber.org

    b9n10nt 01.20.17 at 8:47 pm

    Nah, Reagan was tragedy, this one is farce. A farce wherein a capitalist aristocracy is dressed in the torn and soiled fabric of democracy, proclaiming its will to represent the people.
    Layman 01.20.17 at 9:24 pm ( 17 )

    Has anyone noticed the creepy banner CNN is using for their coverage? Two general's stars on a red ribbon? I was struck by it, so I went to CNN's archive to see what they did for the last two inaugurations. I couldn't find anything like it.

    And of course there is the story that his team wanted a military vehicle parade, e.g. Tanks, mobile missile launchers, etc. How long before the Don dons a uniform?

    Collin Street 01.20.17 at 11:51 pm ( 20 )
    Actually, second time as farce.

    I don't like farce. It's pointlessly cruel to the characters; that's not stuff I usually find amusing.

    kidneystones 01.21.17 at 12:23 am
    What I told my own first-year students yesterday:

    For the first time in the lives of just about all of you we are all less likely to see the most powerful nation on earth overthrow another government in the Middle East. From 1991 to 2016 the United States has been bombing nations in the Middle East as part of US foreign policy. Americans love bombing other countries – dropping bombs on people in the Middle East is one of America's favorite methods of bringing peace to the world.

    I reject all war. We are all extremely fortunate that Hillary Clinton will not be taking office this weekend. Had Hillary been elected we would be facing a crisis over Syria. Hillary wants to overthrow the Assad government by threatening to shoot down airplanes over Syria. Putin supports Assad. The only airplanes flying over Syria are Russian, or Syrian. Do any of you want a war with Russia? Does shooting down Russian airplanes sound like a good plan to you?

    Americans helped overthrow the elected government of the Ukraine. Americans have been bombing countries in the Middle East for decades. Under Obama the US has been at war for his entire presidency. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans elected a president who wants to trade with everyone. He wants to do deals with Kim, with Putin, with China.

    He's not interested in what goes on in other people's countries. He wants to mind his own business. He wants to get rich and become as famous as possible. We don't know what will happen, but for the first time in a very long time Americans have elected a president who does not want to attack other countries.

    We are not looking at a new US war in the Middle East for the first time in a very long time. That doesn't mean the war won't happen. Americans love bombing people. But I'm immensely pleased Hillary Clinton is not fighting more wars in the Middle East, and that for the first time in a very long time Americans seem to have decided to leave the rest of us live our lives in peace.

    God bless everyone.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a soft coup to block his inauguration

    Notable quotes:
    "... Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course. ..."
    "... Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria. ..."
    "... Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    What I found most impressive this time was the reaffirmation of America's dedication to the peaceful transfer of political power. This was the 45th time this miracle has happened. Saying this is perhaps banal, but the handover of power never fails to make me proud to be an American and thankful we had such brilliant founding fathers.

    This peaceful transfer sets the United States apart from many of the world's nations, even Britain and Canada, where leaders under the parliamentary system are chosen in a process resembling a knife fight in a dark room. The US has somehow managed to retain its three branches of government in spite of the best efforts of self-serving politicians to wreck it.

    Each new president inherits a sea of problems from his predecessor. Donald Trump's biggest legacy headaches and priority will be in the Mideast, a disaster area on its own but made far, far worse by the bungling of the Obama administration and its dimwitted attempts to put the US and Russia on a collision course.

    Thanks to George W. Bush – who dared show his face at the inauguration – and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Obama, Trump inherits America's longest war, Afghanistan, with our shameful support of mass drug dealing, endemic corruption and war crimes. Add the crazy mess in Iraq and now Syria.

    This week US B-2 heavy bombers attacked Libya. US forces are fighting in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan and parts of Africa. For what? No one is quite sure. America's foreign wars, fueled by its $1 trillion military budget, have assumed a life of their own. Once a great power goes to war, its proponents insist, 'we can't be seen to back down or our credibility will suffer.'

    Trump will struggle to find a face-saving retreat from these unnecessary conflicts and shut his ears to the siren songs of the war party and deep state which just failed to stage a 'soft' coup to block his inauguration. Waging little wars against weak nations is a multi-billion dollar national industry in the US. America has become as addicted to war as it has to debt.

    If President Trump truly wants to bring some sort of peace to the explosive Mideast, he will have to reject the advice of the hardline Zionists with whom he has chosen to surround himself. Their primary interest is Greater Israel, free of Arabs, not in a Greater America. Trump is too smart not to know this. But he may also listen to his blood and guts former generals who lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Trump appears to have been gulled into believing the canard that Mideast-origin violence is caused by what he called in his inaugural speech, radical Islamic terrorism. This is a favorite device promoted by the hard right and Israel to de-legitimize any resistance to Israel's expansion and ethnic cleansing. The label of 'terrorism' serves the same purpose.

    Trump should be reminded that the 9/11 attackers cited two reasons for their attack: 1. Occupation of Saudi Arabia by the US; 2. Continued US-backed occupation of Palestine. Persistent attacks on western targets that we call terrorism are, in most cases, acts of revenge for our neo-colonial actions in the Muslim world, the 'American Raj' as I term it.

    Unfortunately, President Trump is unlikely to get this useful advice from the men who now surround him, with the possibly exception of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Let's hope that Tillerson and not Goldman Sachs bank ends up steering US foreign policy.

    (Reprinted from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)

    [Jan 21, 2017] Transcript And Analysis President Trump's Inauguration Speech NPR

    Notable quotes:
    "... For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. ..."
    "... Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.npr.org
    Some clearly anti-establishment paragraphs.
    The following is the complete text of President Donald J. Trump's inaugural address delivered on January 20, 2017.

    Chief Justice Roberts, President Carter, President Clinton, President Bush, President Obama, fellow Americans, and people of the world: thank you.

    We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.

    Together, we will determine the course of America and the world for years to come.

    We will face challenges. We will confront hardships. But we will get the job done.

    Every four years, we gather on these steps to carry out the orderly and peaceful transfer of power, and we are grateful to President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama for their gracious aid throughout this transition. They have been magnificent.

    Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

    For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

    Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

    That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

    It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.

    This is your day. This is your celebration.

    And this, the United States of America, is your country.

    What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.

    January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

    The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

    Everyone is listening to you now.

    You came by the tens of millions to become part of a historic movement the likes of which the world has never seen before.

    At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction: that a nation exists to serve its citizens.

    Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families, and good jobs for themselves.

    These are the just and reasonable demands of a righteous public.

    But for too many of our citizens, a different reality exists: Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system, flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

    This American carnage stops right here and stops right now.

    We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams; and their success will be our success. We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny.

    The oath of office I take today is an oath of allegiance to all Americans.

    For many decades, we've enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry;

    Subsidized the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military;

    We've defended other nation's borders while refusing to defend our own;

    And spent trillions of dollars overseas while America's infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and decay.

    We've made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon.

    One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores, with not even a thought about the millions upon millions of American workers left behind.

    The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed across the entire world.

    But that is the past. And now we are looking only to the future.

    We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power.

    From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land.

    From this moment on, it's going to be America First.

    Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs, will be made to benefit American workers and American families.

    We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs. Protection will lead to great prosperity and strength.

    I will fight for you with every breath in my body – and I will never, ever let you down.

    America will start winning again, winning like never before.

    We will bring back our jobs. We will bring back our borders. We will bring back our wealth. And we will bring back our dreams.

    We will build new roads, and highways, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and railways all across our wonderful nation.

    We will get our people off of welfare and back to work – rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

    We will follow two simple rules: Buy American and Hire American.

    We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.

    We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow.

    We will reinforce old alliances and form new ones – and unite the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth.

    At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America, and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.

    When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice.

    The Bible tells us, "how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity."

    We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly, but always pursue solidarity.

    When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

    There should be no fear – we are protected, and we will always be protected.

    We will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and, most importantly, we are protected by God.

    Finally, we must think big and dream even bigger.

    In America, we understand that a nation is only living as long as it is striving.

    We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action – constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.

    The time for empty talk is over.

    Now arrives the hour of action.

    Do not let anyone tell you it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight and spirit of America.

    We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.

    We stand at the birth of a new millennium, ready to unlock the mysteries of space, to free the Earth from the miseries of disease, and to harness the energies, industries and technologies of tomorrow.

    A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights, and heal our divisions.

    It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: that whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

    And whether a child is born in the urban sprawl of Detroit or the windswept plains of Nebraska, they look up at the same night sky, they fill their heart with the same dreams, and they are infused with the breath of life by the same almighty Creator.

    So to all Americans, in every city near and far, small and large, from mountain to mountain, and from ocean to ocean, hear these words:

    You will never be ignored again.

    Your voice, your hopes, and your dreams, will define our American destiny. And your courage and goodness and love will forever guide us along the way.

    Together, We Will Make America Strong Again.

    We Will Make America Wealthy Again.

    We Will Make America Proud Again.

    We Will Make America Safe Again.

    And, Yes, Together, We Will Make America Great Again. Thank you, God Bless You, And God Bless America.

    [Jan 21, 2017] The billionaire Warren Buffett to Trump: "I feel that way no matter who is president, the CEO -- which I am -- should have the ability to pick people that help you run a place."

    Jan 21, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. : January 20, 2017 at 11:50 AM

    Billionaires have to stick together.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-20/buffett-says-he-supports-trump-s-cabinet-picks-overwhelmingly?bcomANews=true

    Buffett Supports Trump on Cabinet Picks 'Overwhelmingly'

    by Amanda L Gordon and Noah Buhayar

    January 19, 2017, 8:19 PM EST January 20, 2017, 10:12 AM EST

    Warren Buffett said he "overwhelmingly" supports President-elect Donald Trump's choices for cabinet positions as the incoming commander-in-chief's selections face confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate.

    "I feel that way no matter who is president," the billionaire Berkshire Hathaway Inc. chairman and chief executive officer said Thursday in New York at the premiere of a documentary about his life. "The CEO -- which I am -- should have the ability to pick people that help you run a place."

    "If they fail, then it's your fault and you got to get somebody new," Buffett said. "Maybe you change cabinet members or something."

    Buffett, 86, backed Hillary Clinton in the presidential election, stumping for her in Omaha, Nebraska, and headlining fundraisers. The billionaire frequently clashed with Trump and scolded him for not releasing income-tax returns, as major party presidential candidates have done for roughly four decades.

    Trump's cabinet picks include Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker; former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Rex Tillerson as secretary of state; and retired Marine Corps General James Mattis as Defense secretary.

    Since the election, Buffett has struck a more conciliatory tone toward Trump and called for unity. In an interview with CNN in November, he said that people could disagree with the president-elect, but ultimately he "deserves everybody's respect."

    Trump's Popularity

    That message hasn't resonated. Trump's popularity is the worst for an incoming president in at least four decades, with just 40 percent of Americans saying they have a favorable impression of him, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday. Buffett said on Thursday that the low approval ratings won't matter much.

    "It's what you go out with that counts -- 20, 50 years later what people feel you've achieved," Buffett said.

    The president-elect has continued his pugnacious style during the transition, picking fights on Twitter with news outlets, automakers, defense contractors, intelligence agencies, Hollywood actress Meryl Streep and civil rights hero-turned-U.S. Congressman John Lewis.

    ...

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 20, 2017 at 12:05 PM
    Class warfare at its finest...
    sanjait -> Peter K.... , January 20, 2017 at 12:54 PM
    I wondered how you'd synthesize a way to disagree with Krugman on this one, given how seemingly commonsense and obvious are Krugman's points.

    Here's the answer it seems: talk about something else.

    John M -> sanjait... , January 20, 2017 at 01:14 PM
    The Bush team went further than that, actively sabotaging FBI field agents' investigations of possible upcoming attacks.

    Need it be stated that 9/11 did wonders for the Bush Administration?

    John M -> pgl... , January 20, 2017 at 01:35 PM
    Wonders for the Bush Administration:

    * It solved the problem of Democrats beginning to get a spine and going after the Felonious Five (or at least the three with major conflict of interest).

    * It bumped Bush's approval rating from 40% to 80%.

    * It greatly lowered opposition to Bush's anti-civil-liberties policies, such as creating "1st Amendment Zones".

    * It made passage of the Patriot Act possible.

    * People were able to smear opposition to the Bush team policies as treasonous.

    * It rendered torture, aggressive war, and barbaric imprisonment without due process of law respectable.

    Bush Administration sabotaged investigation:

    Remember Coleen Rowley who claimed that an FBI superior back in DC rewrote her request for a warrant, to make it less likely that it would be approved? There was also the FBI agent in Arizona who wanted to investigate certain pilot students, but was prohibited.

    pgl -> sanjait... , January 20, 2017 at 01:20 PM
    Remember the DeLenda Plan? Once we knew the USS Cole was Al Qaeda, it should have been executed. As in the spring of 2001. Alas, it was deferred to after 9/11. Most incompetent crew ever and the Twin Towers fell down taking 3000 people with because of their utter incompetence.
    ilsm -> sanjait... , January 20, 2017 at 03:09 PM
    Obama presided over 8 more years of Bushco organized murder and good profits for the war mongers.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Donald Trump Introduced To The Audience At Swearing In Ceremony - YouTube

    Jan 21, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    David B 3 hours ago (edited) Alright Trump, you're in office now, drain the Swamp, you can start with the federal Reserve, and CIA, oh and the justice department as well.

    [Jan 21, 2017] The Trump Speech That No One Heard by Mike Whitney

    Notable quotes:
    "... Here's an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump's views on the topic: ..."
    "... "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will." ..."
    "... This is why none of the major media published Trump's comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as 'enemies of the state', like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media's agenda? ..."
    "... But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump's credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That's the plan, regime change in the USA. ..."
    "... This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. ..."
    "... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
    Jan 19, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Donald Trump wants to fundamentally change U.S. foreign policy. The President-elect wants to abandon the destabilizing wars and regime change operations that have characterized US policy in the past and work collaboratively with countries like Russia that have a mutual interest in fighting terrorism and establishing regional security. Here's an excerpt from the speech Trump delivered in Cincinnati on December 1, that presents Trump's views on the topic:

    "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."

    Trump's approach to foreign policy may seem commendable given the disastrous results in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Iraq, but it is also a dramatic departure from the last 70 years of activity during which time the United States has either overthrown or attempted to overthrow 57 foreign governments. (According to author William Blum) This is why the political class and their wealthy constituents are so worried about Trump, it's because they don't want the new president mucking-around in a process he doesn't understand, a process that has reshaped the world in a way that clearly benefits US mega-corporations while reinforcing Washington's iron grip on global power. The bottom line is that "violence works" and any deviation from the present policy represents a direct threat to the people whose continued power and prosperity depend on that violence.

    This is why none of the major media published Trump's comments. The corporate bosses who own the media have nothing to gain by promoting the views of a populist executive who wants to minimize the carnage by working cooperatively with foreign leaders the media has already designated as 'enemies of the state', like Vladimir Putin. How does that advance the media's agenda?

    It doesn't, which is why they'd rather the public remain in the dark about what Trump actually said.

    But the Washington power-elite know what Trump said, and they have acted accordingly. They have put together a plan that is designed to undermine Trump's credibility, back him into a corner and remove him from office. That's the plan, regime change in the USA.

    This is why CIA Director John Brennan took the unprecedented step of appearing on FOX News Sunday. Brennan and the other heads of the Intelligence Community have taken a leading role in the desperate character assassination campaign that is intended to obliterate public confidence in Trump in order to foil his attempts at resetting relations with Russia. The CIA's involvement in the coups in Ukraine and Honduras, as well as the agency's funding, arming and training of Sunni militants in Libya and Syria, attest to the fact that Brennan does not see peace and reconciliation as compatible with US foreign policy objectives. Like his elitist paymasters, Brennan is committed to perpetual war, regime change, and mass annihilation. Trump offers some relief from this 70 year-long nightmare policy. Check out this quote from Vice President-elect, Mike Pence on FOX News Sunday:

    "I think the president elect has made it very clear that we have a terrible relationship with Russia right now. And that's not all our own doing, but really is a failure of American diplomacy in successive administrations. And what the president elect has determined to do is to explore the possibility of better relations. We have a common enemy in ISIS, and the ability to work with Russia to confront, hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source represents an enormously important priority of this incoming administration. But what the American people like about Donald Trump is that he's someone who can sit down, roll his sleeves up and make a deal. And what you're hearing in his reflections whether it be with Russia, or China or other countries in the world, is that we're going to reengage. We're going to put America first, we're going to reengage in a way that advances America's interests in the world and that advances peace."

    Vice President-elect Mike Pence, FOX News Sunday

    "Better relations" with Russia?

    Not on your life. US elites and their think tank lackeys would never allow it, not in a million years. Even now, after six years of death and destruction in Syria, elites at the Council on Foreign Relations are still resolved to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. (Re: "Aleppo's Sobering Lessons," Project Syndicate, by Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations) The same is true at the Brookings Institute where chief strategist Michael O' Hanlon leads the charge for splitting up the battered country so Washington can control vital pipeline corridors, establish military bases in the east, and eliminate a potential threat to Israeli expansion. Here's a clip from a recent piece by O' Hanlon that appeared in the Wall Street Journal. The author admits that the US goal is to splinter to country into multiple parts transforming it into a failed state:

    "To achieve peace, Syria will need self-governance within a number of autonomous zones. One option is a confederal system by which the whole country is divided into such zones. A less desirable but minimally acceptable alternative could be several autonomous zones within an otherwise still-centralized state-similar to how Iraqi Kurdistan has functioned for a quarter-century .

    Many Syrians will not like the idea of a confederal nation, or even of a central government controlling half the country with the other half divided into three or four autonomous zones. But the broad vision should be developed soon." (Wall Street Journal)

    "Autonomous zones" in a "confederal system" is a sobriquet for a broken, Balkanized failed state run by tribal elders, disparate warlords and bloodthirsty jihadists. O' Hanlon's vision for Syria is a savage dysfunctional dystopia run by homicidal fanatics who rule with an iron fist. Is it any wonder why the Syrian people have fought tooth and nail to fend off the terrorist onslaught?

    The United States is entirely responsible for the bloody decimation of Syria. It is absurd to think that either the Saudis, the Qataris or the Turks would have launched a war on a strategically-critical nation like Syria without a green light from Washington. The conflict is just the latest hotspot in Washington's 15 year-long war of terror. The ultimate goal is to remove all secular Arab leaders who may pose a threat to US imperial ambitions, open up the region to US-dominated extractive industries, and foment enough extremism to legitimize a permanent military presence.

    Russia's intervention into the Syrian conflict in September 2015, has cast doubt on Washington's ability to prevail in the six year-long war. The election of Donald Trump has further complicated matters by affecting a seismic shift in policy that could end the fighting and lead to improved relations between the US and Russia. Naturally, that is not in the interests of the vicious neocons or their liberal interventionist counterparts who see the proxy war in Syria as a pivotal part of their plan to clip Russia's wings, discredit Putin in the eyes of the international community, and lay the groundwork for regime change in Moscow. Washington's ultimate plan for Russia hews closely to that of Zbigniew Brzezinski who– in an titled "A Geostrategy for Eurasia"– had this to say:

    "Given (Russia's) size and diversity, a decentralized political system and free-market economics would be most likely to unleash the creative potential of the Russian people and Russia's vast natural resources. A loosely confederated Russia - composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic - would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with its neighbors. Each of the confederated entitles would be able to tap its local creative potential, stifled for centuries by Moscow's heavy bureaucratic hand. In turn, a decentralized Russia would be less susceptible to imperial mobilization." (Zbigniew Brzezinski, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, 76:5, September/October 1997)

    Nice, eh? In other words, Washington's plan for Russia is no different than its plan for Syria. Both countries will be chopped up into smaller bite-size chunks eliminating the possibility of a strong nationalist government rising up and resisting Washington's relentless exploitation and repression. It's divide and conquer writ large.

    "A loosely confederated Russia" also fits perfectly with Washington's top priority to spread military bases across Asia, control crucial energy supplies, open up financial markets, impose Washington's neoliberal economic policies, and maintain a stranglehold on China's explosive growth. It's the Great Game all over again, and Washington is "In it to win it."

    Here's an excerpt from a speech Hillary Clinton gave in 2011 titled "America's Pacific Century". The speech underscores the importance that elites attach to the "rebalancing" plan contained in the term "pivot to Asia". The strategy relies on the opening up of new markets to US corporations and Wall Street, controlling critical resources, and "forging a broad-based military presence" across the continent. Washington intends to be the main player in the world's most prosperous region. Here's Clinton:

    "The future of politics will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be right at the center of the action . One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment - diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise - in the Asia-Pacific region

    Harnessing Asia's growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests and a key priority for President Obama. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology ..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia The region already generates more than half of global output and nearly half of global trade. As we strive to meet President Obama's goal of doubling exports by 2015, we are looking for opportunities to do even more business in Asia."

    ("America's Pacific Century", Secretary of State Hillary Clinton", Foreign Policy Magazine, 2011)

    Onward, to Asia, the next great US battlefield! The killing never ends.

    As we noted earlier, the pivot to Asia is Washington's top priority. Clinton merely confirms what geopolitical strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski laid out in his 1997 magnum opus The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. Here's a short excerpt from the book:

    "For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia (p.30) .. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. .About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

    For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible. The State Department's coup in Kiev as well as aggressive efforts to restrict the flow of Russian gas to the EU via Nord Stream and South Stream, have temporarily succeeded in undermining Moscow's plan for accelerated economic integration. Had Hillary won the election, the US would have stepped up its provocations, its sanctions, its military buildup on Russia's borders, its gas war, its attacks on Russia's markets and currency, and its proxy wars in Syria and Ukraine. But now that Trump has been thrown into the mix, anything is possible. Even a fundamental change in the policy.

    The question is whether the deep state powerbrokers –who have already launched a number of attacks on Trump in the media - will throw in the towel and allow Trump to develop his own independent foreign policy or take steps to have him removed from office.

    Early indications suggest that a coup is already underway.

    MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] .

    Diogenes , January 19, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 200

    Trump to date has been "all talk and no action" and as we know "actions speak louder than words".
    The voters who put their trust in Trump rather than Hillary now expect actions and Trump to deliver on his election "plank".
    Needless to say politicians tend to "talk the walk" but not "walk the walk". So unless he delivers he is going to be another big disappointment for his supporters. I and many other cynics have maintained he is not going to deliver.
    But, what do I know? However the American Establishment probably knows a lot more than me and if they are worried about Trump and want him out of power then they feel threatened by him and his supporters may have really voted for a change that challenges the status quo.
    A purge of the Neo -liberal Globalist Establishment is long over due and much to be desired BUT we don't know who and what will replace them. Trump may be an "existential threat" to the malevolent swamp creatures that dwell in Washington but he might also be a threat to the whole country. We hope for a benevolent outcome; "Time will tell".

    Beckow , January 19, 2017 at 4:39 pm GMT • 200

    But none of it has worked. Brzezinski, or whoever, can write books, can dream big, can play with maps after dinner at Georgetown parties – but it is has not worked. The 'divide and conquer' ended up dividing the world more, and conquering almost nothing. It is a mess, and the coming consequences were going to be dire.

    Results matter. Trump is not just an emotional reaction to the crazy globalist neocon-liberal idiocy, he is also a reaction to failure. If Clinton took over and doubled down on the same policies (she was going to), there simply would be a lot more failure. And there is no way to dress up failures as 'good for us'. Neo-cons/liberals have had everything on their side – power, academia, media, all institutions – except results.

    Trump might fail, or he might succeed, but by coming in at this time, he is in effect saving the failing policies – they don't have to answer for the obvious and accelerating failures that these interventions have caused. The authors will avoid consequences and will very quickly shift into 'we were betrayed', or 'if we just had 10 more years', the usual escapist nonsense that failed ideologues always use. (The communist ideologues still claim that the problem was that 'they should had tried harder, had 'purer' communism', blabla .and same is true about other failed ideologies).

    And they will be back. Whether in 'a year or two' as Kerry just said at Davos, or in 2020, 2024, they will be back. This mental state is incurable. (But if we get a few years break, well, let's be thankful for that.)

    TG , January 19, 2017 at 9:47 pm GMT • 200

    An interesting and well-reasoned post. Indeed, it's kind of shocking when you think about it just how much our government is doing running around the world messing in the affairs of nations that really shouldn't be our concern

    About whether Trump means what he said during the campaign, well yes, there is always the danger that he will 'pull an Obama' and stab his constituents in the back – talk is cheap. And yet, if that were the case then, as with Obama, we would expect the elites to make nice with him. Instead the elites are if anything ramping up their attacks.

    Now the enemy of my enemy is not always a friend – Trump could yet be a disaster. But the war that the deep state is waging on him is perhaps not a bad sign.

    And for those who find his tweets repellent, well, that's the only mechanism he has to avoid letting the corporate press completely shut him out and control the dialog. Trump's genius (or luck) is that by being outrageous he has, unlike Nader or Perot or Dean etc., been unable to be silenced by the corporate press. Although in the long run it can't be a sustainable system I would say that breaking up the big corporate industrial/press cartels should be a prime aim. No more news outlets owned by (for example) tech titans with a zillion dollars in CIA contracts and numerous other non-press business interests, you get the idea.

    Robert Magill , January 20, 2017 at 10:40 am GMT

    For Washington to achieve its foreign policy objectives, it must eliminate or defeat all emerging threats to its dominance. In practical terms, that means the Russo-Sino plan to transform Europe and Asia into a giant free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok– must be sabotaged by any means possible.

    Too late. In December the last remaining Sharia objections to trade in gold were resolved. One billion plus Muslims can now bypass paper money at will and trade in gold. (Gaddafi attempted to do that in Africa and it cost him his life) China has begun to purchase oil with gold all over the mideast. Bye bye petro dollars. Hello breadlines in the former empire.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    alexander , January 20, 2017 at 3:13 pm GMT • 300

    Mike,

    It is well worth considering the possibility that were our perpetual war making to finally end, our "deep state neocon warmongers " might find themselves on the receiving end of a very robust "reckoning" for the titanic criminal catastrophes they have inculcated.

    Please tell me where is it written that they shouldn't be ?

    The prodigious assault to disinherit President Trump may well reflect not only their contempt at the thought he might be ending their "evil" wars, but the very real fear in their hearts, they may be held to account, for starting them in the first place.

    One cannot overstate the level of absolute impunity our Neocons have enjoyed over the last decade, for committing some of the most horrific crimes the world has seen, since WWII.

    Nor can one discount their imperial need of a win for Queen Hillary as being, first and foremost, a lock on that very impunity.

    Her loss at the ballot box had very little to do with the voters rejection of her projected veneer of "progressive " values, but a frank realization by the electorate that Ms. Clinton was nothing more than a belligerent neocon warmonger in a phony "liberal" pantsuit.

    This "unraveling" has left them all twisting in the wind.

    How could it not ?

    After all, Donald Trump, is a billionaire oligarch who not only wants "peace", but has been highly articulate and cuttingly accurate as to how (and why) our wars have been total disasters.

    This presents quite an unsettling conundrum for all the back room billionaire oligarchs who have always been able to buy their wars as well as the Presidents ( and the Press ) willing to start them.

    The fact they might, now, find themselves out of their hegemonic "drivers seat" .and in the criminals "hot seat", as targets for "bone-crushing" war crimes tribunals, . could have them all frantically climbing the walls.

    Anonymous , January 20, 2017 at 9:36 pm GMT • 100

    Well, even if he does a little of what he promised – such as deport those illegals that have a criminal record – that alone will be good. If he could also do something for the Millennials to be able to move out of their parents' homes, that would be good too.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Truthdig - Chris Hedges on How the 'Deep State' Will Influence the Trump Presidency

    Notable quotes:
    "... "It's about shutting down the voices of the dissidents," Hedges says. He explains that America always needs an enemy and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "easier to demonize" than someone like FBI Director James Comey, who was initially seen as the enemy when Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election. ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.truthdig.com

    Chris Hedges on How the 'Deep State' Will Influence the Trump Presidency

    http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_the_deep_state_will_influence_the_trump_presidency_20170117/

    Posted on Jan 17, 2017


    By Chris Hedges

    In a new episode of his RT show "Redacted Tonight (https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-summary/373661-deep-state-trump-presidency/) ," host Lee Camp sits down with Truthdig columnist Chris Hedges (https://www.truthdig.com/staff/chris_hedges) to discuss the "collapse of the mainstream media and the continued rise of [the] deep state."

    The two examine recent headlines over alleged Russian hacks (http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/experts_arent_convinced_by_fbi_and_homeland_security_20161230) during the 2016 election. Hedges condemns the mainstream media for "hyperventilating" over the alleged hacks, adding that the media fervor about Russia has "insidious" roots.

    "It's about shutting down the voices of the dissidents," Hedges says. He explains that America always needs an enemy and that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "easier to demonize" than someone like FBI Director James Comey, who was initially seen as the enemy when Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election.

    Hedges notes that there are also economic factors at play. The "war machine," he says, needs to "demonize Russia" because it "is earning billions of dollars in Eastern Europe with the expansion of NATO."

    Camp asks how Donald Trump, who presented himself as a political outsider, will handle these economic and political forces when he becomes president. Hedges responds:


    I'm not sure Trump has any fixed beliefs. And it's clear that the deep state-the security and surveillance apparatus, the war machine-all sectors of the deep state, Democrat and Republican, are going to put the screws on him to ratchet up or continue this aggressive posture towards Russia. Partly because there are large sections of the U.S. economy, i.e., the defense industry, for whom this is a huge profit-making venture.

    The two also discuss how dissidents will be handled by the Trump administration and whether American society has anything to hope for.

    Watch the full video below.

    [Jan 21, 2017] James Mattis confirmed as secretary of defense

    Jan 20, 2017 | www.theguardian.com

    The Senate confirmed the appointment of retired general James Mattis as secretary of defense on Friday, making him the first member of Donald Trump's cabinet cleared to take office.

    The Senate vote was passed by 98-1 after Trump signed a waiver making Mattis exempt from a law that blocks senior officers from taking the defense secretary job within seven years of retirement. Mattis has been out of uniform for three years.

    The single vote against his confirmation was from Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, a Democrat who argued the bar should remain in place on the grounds that civilian control of the military was a fundamental principle of US democracy.

    [Jan 21, 2017] Political sciences Theory of Everything on the 2016 US Election - The Unz Review

    Notable quotes:
    "... "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come together to form the power elite of America." ..."
    "... He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today." ..."
    "... During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. ..."
    "... At the time this was the highest level internal US intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see the Islamic State as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The military faction began a steady stream of "one-sided" leaks to Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh who published one article after another that undermined the political (Obama administration) and corporate (CIA and intelligence) factions of the power elite, while painting the military faction in a positive light. ..."
    "... The first article entitled Whose Sarin? was published on 19 December, 2013 and concerned the East Ghouta sarin gas attack of August 21, 2013. Hersh documents a clear campaign within the power elite's military faction to "foot-drag" and hopefully block the planned US retaliation for crossing President Obama's "red line": "[S]ome members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were troubled by the prospect of a ground invasion of Syria as well as by Obama's professed desire to give rebel factions non-lethal support. In July, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, provided a gloomy assessment, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee in public testimony that 'thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces' would be needed to seize Syria's widely dispersed chemical warfare arsenal, along with 'hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines and other enablers'." ..."
    "... A cornered Obama welcomed a draft UN resolution calling on the Assad government to get rid of its chemical arsenal. The political faction's step-down pleased many senior military officers, explains Hersh: "One high-level special operations adviser told me that the ill-conceived American missile attack on Syrian military airfields and missile emplacements, as initially envisaged by the White House, would have been 'like providing close air support for al-Nusra'." ..."
    "... General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs had irritated many in the Obama administration by repeatedly warning Congress over the summer of the danger of American military involvement in Syria. The military faction also had the advantage of a British intelligence report of a sample of sarin, recovered by Russian military intelligence operatives, proving it was not from the Syrian army. Further suspicions were aroused within the military faction when more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with two kilograms of sarin. Hersh quotes his internal military source: "'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'" ..."
    "... Further revelations included how the Obama administration, through the CIA, had by early 2012 created a "rat line", a back channel highway into Syria, used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to jihadists, some of them affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
    "... Hersh's source explains how a Senate Intelligence Committee report on the assault by a local militia on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others in September 2012, revealed a secret agreement for the "rat line" reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations: "By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria." ..."
    "... After Washington abruptly ended the CIA's role in the transfer of arms from Libya the "rat line" continued and became more ominous: "'The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,' the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels." ..."
    Jan 21, 2017 | www.unz.com

    The corporate-deep-state theory

    In a recent UNZ article titled: Political science's "theory of everything" a concise map of the US establishment, both the visible and invisible government was mapped. Based on this map a theory emerged that showed how the visible government has been subverted by an invisible unelected government that was described as a corporate-deep-state. The levels of the US establishment were identified as a power elite conspiratorial leadership overseeing a corporatocracy and directing a deep state that has gradually subverted the visible US government and taken over the "levers of power."

    The power elite

    The invisible rulers of the US establishment were revealed by Professor C. Wright Mill in his article titled, The Structure of Power in American Society (The British Journal of Sociology, March 1958), in which he explains how, "the high military, the corporation executives, the political directorate have tended to come together to form the power elite of America."

    He describes how the power elite can be best described as a "triangle of power," linking the corporate, executive government, and military factions: "There is a political economy numerously linked with military order and decision. This triangle of power is now a structural fact, and it is the key to any understanding of the higher circles in America today."

    The 2016 US election, like all other US elections, featured a gallery of pre-selected candidates that represented the three factions and their interests within the power elite. The 2016 US election, however, was vastly different from previous elections. As the election dragged on the power elite became bitterly divided, with the majority supporting Hilary Clinton, the candidate pre-selected by the political and corporate factions, while the military faction rallied around their choice of Donald Trump.

    During the election campaign the power elite's military faction under Trump confounded all political pundits by outflanking and decisively defeating the power elite's political faction. In fact by capturing the Republican nomination and overwhelmingly defeating the Democratic establishment, Trump and the military faction not just shattered the power elites' political faction, within both the Democratic and Republican parties, but simultaneously ended both the Clinton and Bush dynasties.

    During the election campaign the power elite's corporate faction realised, far too late, that Trump was a direct threat to their power base, and turned the full force of their corporate media against Trump's military faction, while Trump using social media bypassed and eviscerated the corporate media causing them to lose all remaining credibility.

    As the election reached a crescendo this battle between the power elite's factions became visible within the US establishment's entities. A schism developed between the Defense Department and the highly politicized CIA This schism, which can be attributed to the corporate-deep-state's covert foreign policy, traces back to the CIA orchestrated "color revolutions" that had swept the Middle East and North Africa.

    The covert invasion of Syria

    A US Pentagon, DIA report, formerly classified "SECRET//NOFORN" and dated August 12, 2012, was circulated widely among various government agencies, including CENTCOM, the CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA, State Dept., and many others.

    Astoundingly, the declassified report states that for "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME ".

    The document shows that as early as 2012, US intelligence predicted the rise of the Salafist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a US strategic asset.

    At the time this was the highest level internal US intelligence confirmation of the theory that western governments fundamentally see the Islamic State as their own tool for regime change in Syria. The military faction began a steady stream of "one-sided" leaks to Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Seymour Hersh who published one article after another that undermined the political (Obama administration) and corporate (CIA and intelligence) factions of the power elite, while painting the military faction in a positive light.

    Whose sarin?

    The first article entitled Whose Sarin? was published on 19 December, 2013 and concerned the East Ghouta sarin gas attack of August 21, 2013. Hersh documents a clear campaign within the power elite's military faction to "foot-drag" and hopefully block the planned US retaliation for crossing President Obama's "red line": "[S]ome members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were troubled by the prospect of a ground invasion of Syria as well as by Obama's professed desire to give rebel factions non-lethal support. In July, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, provided a gloomy assessment, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee in public testimony that 'thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces' would be needed to seize Syria's widely dispersed chemical warfare arsenal, along with 'hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines and other enablers'."

    A cornered Obama welcomed a draft UN resolution calling on the Assad government to get rid of its chemical arsenal. The political faction's step-down pleased many senior military officers, explains Hersh: "One high-level special operations adviser told me that the ill-conceived American missile attack on Syrian military airfields and missile emplacements, as initially envisaged by the White House, would have been 'like providing close air support for al-Nusra'."

    The Red Line and the Rat Line

    The second article titled The Red Line and the Rat Line was published on 17 April, 2014 and explains why Obama delayed and then relented on Syria when he was not shy about rushing into Libya: "The answer lies in a clash between those in the administration (political faction) who were committed to enforcing the red line, and military leaders who thought that going to war was both unjustified and potentially disastrous."

    General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs had irritated many in the Obama administration by repeatedly warning Congress over the summer of the danger of American military involvement in Syria. The military faction also had the advantage of a British intelligence report of a sample of sarin, recovered by Russian military intelligence operatives, proving it was not from the Syrian army. Further suspicions were aroused within the military faction when more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with two kilograms of sarin. Hersh quotes his internal military source: "'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.'"

    Further revelations included how the Obama administration, through the CIA, had by early 2012 created a "rat line", a back channel highway into Syria, used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to jihadists, some of them affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

    Hersh's source explains how a Senate Intelligence Committee report on the assault by a local militia on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others in September 2012, revealed a secret agreement for the "rat line" reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations: "By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria."

    After Washington abruptly ended the CIA's role in the transfer of arms from Libya the "rat line" continued and became more ominous: "'The United States was no longer in control of what the Turks were relaying to the jihadists,' the former intelligence official said. Within weeks, as many as forty portable surface-to-air missile launchers, commonly known as manpads, were in the hands of Syrian rebels."

    The Killing of Osama bin Laden

    The third article titled The Killing of Osama bin Laden was published on 17 April, 2014. The Obama administration needed a public relations win on the eve of his second term election and according to Hersh's military source: "'the killing of bin Laden was political theatre designed to burnish Obama's military credentials.'"

    Hersh's article goes on to systematically debunk the Obama administration's entire clumsy cover story while implicating the Saudis and Pakistanis who financed and protected Osama bin Laden. He goes on to reveal that once he had outlived his usefulness, to the Pakistanis, he was traded to the Americans who murdered him in cold blood and tossed his mutilated body parts over the Hindu Kish mountains.

    The article further reveals how the Senate Intelligence Committee's long-delayed report on CIA torture, released in December 2013 concluded that the CIA lied systematically about the effectiveness of its torture programme in gaining intelligence that would stop future terrorist attacks in the US.

    Military to Military

    Hersh's fourth article titled Military to Military was published on 7 January 2016, and details how an exasperated military faction continued to repeat warnings that the fall of the Assad regime would lead to Libyan style chaos and, potentially, to Syria's takeover by jihadi extremists. They were continuously ignored by both the political faction and the intelligence services: "[A]lthough many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming General Dempsey and his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff kept their dissent out of bureaucratic channels, and survived in office. General Michael Flynn did not. 'Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria,' said Patrick Lang, a retired army colonel who served for nearly a decade as the chief Middle East civilian intelligence officer for the DIA. 'He thought truth was the best thing and they shoved him out. He wouldn't shut up.' Flynn told me his problems went beyond Syria. 'I was shaking things up at the DIA – and not just moving deckchairs on the Titanic. It was radical reform. I felt that the civilian leadership did not want to hear the truth. I suffered for it, but I'm OK with that.'"

    Hersh's paper further highlights a rebellion under the leadership of Joint Chiefs of Staff that was then led by General Martin Dempsey. He began to send a flow of US intelligence through allied militaries to the Syrian Arab Army and he orchestrated a deliberate plan to downgrade the quality of the arms being supplied to the rebels by the CIA The military's indirect pathway to Assad disappeared with Dempsey's retirement in September 2015. The political faction then replaced Dempsey, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs, with General Joseph Dunford who advocated a "hard line" on Russia.

    The power elite's military faction realised that radical reform could not begin until the military faction had full political support behind them.

    Rise of the Generals

    In the 2016 US election Trump with the full weight of the military faction behind him pulled off a stunning victory against the entire political faction – defeating both the Democratic and Republican Party machines – and the corporate media.

    The cornerstone of the corporatocracy, the Wall Street lobby, due to the sheer amount of fiat petrodollar based money it generates, and the influence it has over the US establishment was officially dethroned. The locus of power within the power elite had suddenly and dramatically shifted from Wall St to the Pentagon.

    Although the situation is very fluid on the eve of the Trump presidency a map highlighting the US establishment entities supporting either Trump or his defeated opponent Clinton can be arguably mapped below.

    Trump quickly named security hardliners including past and present generals and FBI officials, to key security and intelligence positions while the corporate media accused Trump of having a starry-eyed fascination with the brass of America's losing wars.

    Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, who was forced from his position as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014, will be President-elect Donald Trump's national security adviser. Army retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg will be serving in a supporting capacity to Flynn as chief of staff of the National Security Council (NSC).

    Trump selected retired General James Mattis to lead the Department of Defense. Mattis, a documented war criminal , had helped cover up the 2005 Haditha massacre of 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians by US soldiers. His soldiers also directly committed war crimes in the US sieges of Fallujah in 2004, when his forces not only used white phosphorus but fired on and killed up to 5,000 innocent civilians. General Mattis has called for a "new security architecture for the Mideast built on sound policy Iran is a special case that must be dealt with as a threat to regional stability, nuclear and otherwise." On a positive Mattis also got Trump to reconsider his stance on torture stating, "'I've never found it to be useful."

    General John Kelly, another long-serving Marine with a reputation for bluntness, has been picked to head the Department of Homeland Security. He is the most senior US officer to have lost a child in the "war on terror". His son Robert, a first lieutenant in the marines, was killed in combat in Afghanistan in 2010. He therefore strongly opposed efforts by the Obama administration to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, claiming that the remaining detainees were "all bad boys," both guilty and dangerous.

    And in selecting career military men like Flynn, Mattis and Kelly as his senior civilian advisers on military matters, Trump is in essence strengthening defense while creating rival intelligence entities that will remain loyal to his military faction.

    Meanwhile Big Oil's Rex Tillerson - the former CEO of world's largest oil company, ExxonMobil - is to be Secretary of State. He has a two-decade relationship with Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, who awarded Tillerson the Order of Friendship in 2013.

    Mindful of others who defied the US establishment, Trump's supporters delivered an ominous warning to rival power elite factions that should Trump be assassinated then a civil war would follow. In reality an assassination in today's climate, without the support of the corporatocracy's now discredited media, would usher in martial law and further ensconce the military faction within their seat of power.

    Playing chess like Putin

    Trump and his military faction appear to greatly admire Putin personally, and in September 2016 during the NBC Commander-in-Chief Forum Trump stated: "I will tell you that, in terms of leadership, he's getting an 'A' and our president is not doing so well." Trump's military faction, unlike the other two factions sees Russia as more of a partner than an adversary and he is deeply committed to reorienting American foreign policy in a pro-Russian direction.

    Trump knows Putin's history well and appears intent on following in his footsteps. Putin took office by striking a deal with Russia's political elite to protect former Russian President Yeltsin and his family from prosecution in exchange for Putin becoming Prime Minister and later President.

    Then on July 28, 2000, after they had funded his election campaign, Vladimir Putin gathered the 18 most powerful businessmen (corporatocracy) in Russia and denounced the corporate elite as creators of a corrupt state. During the transition from Communism in the 1990s these oligarchs – the majority Jewish – had taken control of every single lever of power in Russia including the central bank, the mass media and even the Kremlin.

    In a second meeting on January 24, 2001, Vladimir Putin met with 21 leading oligarchs and stressed that the Russian state had no plans to re-nationalize the economy, but added that they should have "a feeling of responsibility [to] the people and the country" and asked them to donate $2.6 million to a fund he was setting up to help families of soldiers wounded or killed in action.

    True to his word the oligarchs that complied were allowed to keep the money they had looted from the Russian people. Those that didn't comply, like Berezovsky and Gusinsky, Russia's two most infamous and hated oligarchs, were gradually pushed out, and in some cases even imprisoned.

    After defeating the oligarchs and gaining control of their media Putin then began to methodically cleanse the Russian government and the Kremlin of corporate influence.

    Corporatocracy

    Professor Jeffry Sachs calls the US corporate conspiracy The Rigged Game in which the political system has come to be controlled by powerful corporate interest groups – the "corporatocracy" – who dominate the policy agenda. Sachs explains how "[a] healthy economy is a mixed economy, in which government and the marketplace both play their role. Yet the federal government has neglected its role for three decades."

    President Trump appears to have taken a page from Sach's book and, even before taking office, is signalling that his government will not neglect its role.

    During an interview with Fortune on April 19, 2016, Donald Trump explicitly explained how he planned on taking back the economic "levers of power" from Wall Street's Federal Reserve by supporting: "proposals that would take power away from the Fed, and allow Congress to audit the U.S. central bank's decision making."

    On December, 6, 2016 it was the military industrial complex's Boeing that felt the brunt of his attack when President-elect Donald Trump called for the scrapping of multi-billion dollar plans for Boeing to build a new Air Force One, calling the costs "ridiculous and totally out of control." He then followed this up on December 12, 2016, when he took on the Lockheed Martin by attacking the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on Twitter, saying the cost of the next-generation stealth plane is "out of control," stating: "Billions of dollars can and will be saved on military (and other) purchases after January 20th."

    In an early December interview with TIME ahead of his selection as TIME's Person of the Year, Trump railed against the Healthcare lobby when he stated that he doesn't "like what's happened with drug prices" and that he will "bring down" the cost of prescription medication.

    Even earlier, on January 2016, at Liberty University, Trump had startled Silicon Valley when he promised to punish companies that offshore production by placing tariffs on their imports coming back to the US: "We're going to get Apple to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries."

    The Big Oil lobby, initially ambivalent, now appears to have put its weight behind Trump. There are signs that the Big Oil lobby may have fallen out with the corporatocracy over the economic sanctions on Russia and access to its vast untapped oil fields, as well as Saudi Arabia's two years of flooding the global market with cheap crude in order to drive oil prices down and economically damage the Russian economy. This policy had made both US shale oil and US energy independence unsustainable.

    While the corporatocracy will survive, the days of crony capitalism appear to be coming to an end.

    The death of neoliberalism

    The Trump election, much like Brexit before it, signals an entirely new development not witnessed since the shift towards neoliberalism under President Reagan over 40 years ago. Trump has promised to end the neoliberal, hyper-globalisation ideology in which the interests of the working class have been sacrificed in favour of the corporatocracy that has been encouraged to invest around the world depriving Americans of their jobs.

    The global financial crisis of 2008, the worst since the great depression of 1931, saw Wall Street bailed out by the taxpayers while the responsible bankers were not prosecuted for their crimes. Under the Obama administration this was further compounded by rejecting bailouts for homeowners, oversee growing inequality, militarisation, covert operations and the facilitating of overseas war crimes.

    Meanwhile, nine years on, the neoliberal practice of quantitative easing has failed to revive the economic patient who remains on "life support." This after effect of the global financial crisis has served to undermine the peoples' faith and trust in the competence of the power elite's political faction and the corporate media. Trump's ascendency thus signals the beginning of the end of the neoliberal era.

    Trumps promise to, "Put America first," pulls the plug on neoliberalism's economic life support and imposes a new era of economic nationalism. The military faction will abandon unfettered capitalism, free trade agreements and globalisation in favour of de-globalisation, economic nationalism, rebuilding of infrastructure, the middle class and manufacturing.

    The table below is fluid but is based on current policy details, revealed by Trump, and details how the current neoliberal policies may gradually shift to policies of economic nationalism.

    Government departments Masses' Policies Neo-Liberal Policies Economic nationalism Policies Corporatocracy lobbies
    Dept. of State Establishment of friendly relations with other nations. Maintenance of the petrodollar through the support of compliant authoritarian nations or covert funding of unstable extremists to overthrow non-compliant nations Maintenance of the petrodollar through the support of compliant authoritarian nations. Multilateral approach of working with Russia while continuing to isolate China and Iran Wall Street-Washington complex
    Dept. of the Treasury Lower and fairer tax system that incentivises workers and savers Financialisation, corporate subsidies, tax loopholes and overseas tax havens. nationalisation, cutting of corporate subsidies, closing of tax loopholes and overseas tax havens.
    Dept. of Commerce Open trade and protection of key industries "Free" trade Agreements (Inc. TTP & TTIP), Economic sanctions protectionism, tariffs, economic sanctions
    Dept. of Justice Universal human rights, equal justice and fair trials Non-prosecution of criminal bank leaders, with prosecution of deep state whistle blowers. Prosecution of corporate crime, Non-prosecution of military and police crimes, continued prosecution of deep state whistle blowers.
    Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Affordable and easily accessible housing. Financialisation, housing speculation and homelessness. Removal of "red tape", opening up of land for building
    Dept. of Defense Security and Defense of citizens against foreign enemies Maintenance of the petrodollar, full spectrum dominance, exceptionalism, war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy . Maintenance of the petrodollar, full spectrum dominance, multi-polarity, war on terrorism military-industrial complex
    Dept. of Veterans Affairs Support and subsidies for veterans Cheap outsourced care facilities and abandoned veterans. Renationalisation of care facilities and housing, medical and mental care for war veterans.
    Dept. of Transport Electric vehicles, subsidised transport and easily accessible transportation grid. Subsidised car-centric policies and urban planning. Subsidised car-centric policies and urban planning. Big Oil-transport-military complex
    Dept. of Energy Environmental protection, reliable and nationalised mostly renewable energy supply. Subsidised fossil fuel energy dependence and debunking of climate change. Subsidised fossil fuel energy dependence and debunking of climate change.
    Dept. of the Interior Management and conservation federal land and natural resources. Waiving of environmental protection, access for sea lanes, pipelines, mining and resource extraction. Waiving of environmental protection, access for sea lanes, pipelines, mining and resource extraction.
    Dept. of Health & Human Services Subsidised and universal Healthcare. mandatory healthcare and privatisation. privatised healthcare Healthcare industry
    Dept. of Homeland Security Security and Privacy. Mass Surveillance and copyright enforcement. Mass Surveillance Silicon Valley
    Dept. of Agriculture Healthy, nutritious and affordable food. Food monopolisation and dependence through patented GMOs. Breaking up of monopolies, increased competition. Big Ag (Monsanto)
    Dept. of Education Subsidised and universal education. Class-based privatisation and outsourcing. Increased investment in education. Organised Labor
    Dept. of Labor Jobs and decent wages. Outsourcing, mass immigration to lower wages, commodification of Labor, deregulation, deindustrialisation, under employment and unemployment. Reshoring, border controls to boost wages, return of skilled labor, reregulation, reindustrialisation, full employment, lower taxes All lobbies

    Monetary hegemony strategy

    The power elite's monetary hegemony petrodollar strategy will remain unchanged under Trumps' military faction. However, Trump's foreign policy signals the end of America's unipolar moment, the period that was called the "new world order" by George Bush after the collapse of the former USSR and the US's 1991 Gulf War victory.

    It took the actions of former rogue CIA operatives, called Al Qaeda, to give the US an excuse to invade and conquer key economic chokepoints and geopolitical pivot nations, in the heart of the world's oil reserves that would give the power elite global economic and military dominance. These power elite plans were given to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the time, and documented in a memo that a puzzled senior staff officer showed to General Wesley Clark:"[W]e're going to take out seven countries in five years , starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

    The Republican-led neoconservative "war on terror" phase, that took place from 2001 to 2011, symbolised the overt US invasion, occupation and destruction of primarily Afghanistan and Iraq. When worldwide condemnation combined with Iraqi military resistance proved too great, the power elite were forced to switch to more covert means.

    Under the new Obama administration, a Democratic-led, CIA-orchestrated "Arab Spring" took place from 2011-2016 and symbolised the covert invasion of Libya and Syria using reconstituted terrorist death squads. The power elite had not only used the 9/11 attack conducted by elements of their rogue terrorist death squads to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, but they were now going to reconstitute a compliant group of the same terrorists and use them to covertly invade Libya and Syria.

    With the Syrian government's capture of Aleppo in late 2016, it became apparent to all observers that both the overt and covert US invasions were soundly defeated primarily by heroic resistance forces in Iraq and Syria, respectively.

    With the barbaric US invasions blunted, the Trump administration now represents a rear-guard attempting to hold onto key nations in the heart of the world's global energy reserves and maintain the US's petrodollar monetary hegemony backing, while Trump transitions his economy from a financial to an industrial economy. Trump will thus continue to secure the GCC nations, especially Saudi Arabia, provided they reign in their terrorist death squads, plaguing the Middle East. Israel will also be fully supported and used to maintain the current Middle Eastern stalemate against Iran.

    It is however Trump's détente with Russia that is truly significant as it signals the end of the unipolar "new world order." Russia will once again be allowed its own "sphere of influence." This will most likely see Crimean reunification accepted the return of economically plundered Ukraine to Russian influence and the Russian presence in Syria acknowledged.

    In return the military faction wants to desperately break up the tripartite strategic Eurasian team of Russia-China-Iran. The military faction wants Russia to help block China's rise in the South China Sea and to contain Iran. The military faction appears to have been inspired by documented war criminal, Henry Kissinger, who at the Primakov lecture in February 2016 stated: "The long-term interests of both countries call for a world that transforms the contemporary turbulence and flux into a new equilibrium which is increasingly multipolar and globalized ..Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States." Draining the swamp?

    For the first time in memory the US establishment, consisting of the visible US Government and the invisible corporate-deep-state that has subverted it, have had a dramatic schism. Contrary to corporate media hand-wringing, the 2016 US election for the masses was never about a choice for Trump over Clinton, it was in reality a choice of, the same united power elite maintaining the same US establishment under President select Clinton, versus a divided power elite led by Trump's military faction.

    This seminal moment represents a change of both US strategy and tactics that have been used to maintain the US's economic and military power.

    Strategically, while the power elite have finally abandoned America's unipolar moment, they will now maintain the US as a multipolar global hegemon receiving its petrodollar tribute. Their plans are to finally grant Russia, but not China, its own "sphere of influence" and to cleave it away from its Eurasian and Middle Eastern allies.

    Economically and tactically neoliberalism, as an ideology, is now officially dead. The power elite's corporatocracy (corporate faction) will be tamed and replaced by a protectionist, localised, rebuilding of America's manufacturing base.

    While not exactly "draining the swamp," the new Trump administration plans on "fencing off some of the alligators" that have devoured so many innocents during 40 years of neoliberalism at home and militarism abroad.

    To listen to a podcast by the author explaining how the political science's "theory of everything" may help to predict the new Trump administration select the following link:

    https://www.patreon.com/posts/around-empire-5-7795251?utm_campaign=postshare&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

    [Jan 20, 2017] Transcript And Analysis President Trump's Inauguration Speech NPR

    Jan 20, 2017 | www.npr.org
    Some clearly anti-establishment paragraphs.

    For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left. And the factories closed.

    The establishment protected itself but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs. And while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land. That all changes starting right here and right now. Because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you.

    [Jan 20, 2017] I don't think much of Trump but it is kind of amusing to see the elites, who screwed over most of the population, now having nervous breakdowns.

    Jan 20, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Tom aka Rusty -> Fred C. Dobbs... The elites are wetting their pants.

    I don't think much of Trump but it is kind of amusing to see the elites, who screwed over most of the population, now having nervous breakdowns.

    Therapists in Manhattan and Hollywood will do a booming business. Reply Friday, January 20, 2017 at 07:05 AM Peter K. -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 20, 2017 at 07:14 AM

    yeah the elites are getting a taste of the fear regular folks get over losing a job and financial disaster.

    The thing is, Trump is very unpopular.

    EMichael -> Tom aka Rusty... , January 20, 2017 at 07:20 AM
    So, which elites are you talking about?

    Just give me an example or two.

    Y'know, it is possible to be successful and still spend a lot of time doing the right things for people not as successful as you.

    Peter K. -> EMichael... , January 20, 2017 at 07:36 AM
    Summers and Krugman. See their most recent columns. I think more of the level-headed elites are thinking/hoping that Trump will be 4 years and out and it will all blow over.
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 20, 2017 at 07:38 AM
    The really clever ones recognize that their is a populist upsurge worldwide against elite policymaking as Thoma discussed in his column on Davos man.
    Tom aka Rusty -> EMichael... , -1
    Yes, there are a few of those. I;ve been impressed by some of the things I have heard from the Steyer brothers.

    But then there is Bill and Hill, Soros, the Trump cabinet, Rubin/Corzine/Rattner/Summers and a whole unheavenly host.

    But not all that many impress me, particularly in Manhattan and California.

    [Jan 19, 2017] W ith Trump election the train just left the station .

    Notable quotes:
    "... What is called "Secular Stagnation" should be properly named "Secular Stagnation of societies which accepted neoliberalism as a polito-economical model". Very similar to what happened with Marxism: broken promised, impoverishment of the majority of population, filthy enrichment, corruption and all forms of degradation at the top. ..."
    "... In the USA the level of elite degradation became really visible despite attempt to mask it with jingoism as a smoke screen (look at the candidates of the last Presidential race - the choice was between horrible and terrible) ..."
    "... Speaking about the level of demoralization I understand why somebody might hate Trump, but Hillary as alternative ? Give me a break. In this sense wining about Trump inauguration just signify the inability to connect the dots and understand that the last election was what in chess was called Zugzwang. ..."
    "... The fact is that neoliberalism as a social system no longer is viewed favorably by the majority of the US population (like Bolshevism before them in the USSR ). In this sense I think that with Trump election "the train just left the station". ..."
    Jan 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    libezkova : January 19, 2017 at 07:27 PM , 2017 at 07:27 PM

    Summers is a card carrying neoliberal and a Rubin's boy,. And Rubin was former "Deregulator in chief". Actually Summers performed the role of hired gun for Wall Street ( http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/Financial_skeptic/Casino_capitalism/Corruption_of_regulators/silencing_brooksley_born.shtml ).

    So he organically can't state the main point: neoliberal ideology is bankrupt and neoliberalism as a social system is close, or may be entered the decline stage.

    That's why neoliberal MSM lost large part of their influence. Much like Soviet MSM during Brezhnev's rule.

    What is called "Secular Stagnation" should be properly named "Secular Stagnation of societies which accepted neoliberalism as a polito-economical model". Very similar to what happened with Marxism: broken promised, impoverishment of the majority of population, filthy enrichment, corruption and all forms of degradation at the top.

    Neoliberal elite ("masters of the universe") is split. The majority is still supporting "change we can believe in" (the slogan courtesy of master of "bait and switch") which means "kick the can down the road". While the other part is flirting with far right movements.

    In the USA the level of elite degradation became really visible despite attempt to mask it with jingoism as a smoke screen (look at the candidates of the last Presidential race - the choice was between horrible and terrible)

    Trump is just a symptom of a much larger problem. Look what happened when Marxist ideology was discredited and everybody understood that Marxism can't deliver its social promises. And look at the level of degradation of Soviet Politburo before the collapse which resulted is the election of this naïve, "not so bright", deeply provincial, inexperienced politician (Gorbachov). who was also determined "to make the USSR great again". The level of demoralization of the society was pretty acute. Nobody believed the government, the MSM, the Party.

    The system was unable to produce leaders of the caliber that can save it. That was one of the reasons why it was doomed (bankruptcy of ideology means among other things that there is nobody to defend it and nationalism works both ways). I think we see a very similar processes in the USA now.

    With CIA performing the role of KGB in their efforts to prevent or at least slow down the inevitable changes is the system (although at the end of the day KGB brass was simply bought and stepped aside allowing the Triumph of neoliberalism in the xUSSR space).

    Speaking about the level of demoralization I understand why somebody might hate Trump, but Hillary as alternative ? Give me a break. In this sense wining about Trump inauguration just signify the inability to connect the dots and understand that the last election was what in chess was called Zugzwang.

    The fact is that neoliberalism as a social system no longer is viewed favorably by the majority of the US population (like Bolshevism before them in the USSR ). In this sense I think that with Trump election "the train just left the station".

    [Jan 18, 2017] Better dead than bad: Status competition among German fighter pilots during World War II

    Jan 18, 2017 | voxeu.org

    January 14, 2017

    Better dead than bad: Status competition among German fighter pilots during World War II
    By Philipp Ager, Leonardo Bursztyn, and Joachim Voth

    During World War II, the German military publicly celebrated the performance of its flying aces to incentivise their peers. This column uses newly collected data to show that, when a former colleague got recognition, flying aces performed much better without taking more risks, while average pilots did only slightly better but got themselves killed much more often. Overall the incentives may have been detrimental, which serves as a caution to those offering incentives to today's financial risk-takers. Reply Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 12:16 PM

    anne said in reply to anne... Conceptually alone, this essay on the effects of competition is intriguing and possibly quite important and surely worth following up. Reply Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 01:48 PM ilsm said in reply to anne... A lot of externalities in the WW II air war! Reply Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 04:13 PM

    anne said in reply to ilsm... A lot of externalities in the WW II air war!

    [ I am reminded of the World War II air war as depicted in "Catch-22" by the essay. Of course I took Joseph Heller as knowing that air war, however maddening the depiction. ] Reply Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 04:38 PM anne said in reply to anne... http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Catch-22

    1961

    Yossarian came to him one mission later and pleaded again, without any real expectation of success, to be grounded. Doc Daneeka snickered once and was soon immersed in problems of his own, which included Chief White Halfoat, who had been challenging him all that morning to Indian wrestle, and Yossarian, who decided right then and there to go crazy.

    'You're wasting your time,' Doc Daneeka was forced to tell him.

    'Can't you ground someone who's crazy?'

    'Oh, sure. I have to. There's a rule saying I have to ground anyone who's crazy.'

    'Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger.'

    'Clevinger? Where is Clevinger? You find Clevinger and I'll ask him.'

    'Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I am.'

    'They're crazy.'

    'Then why don't you ground them?'

    'Why don't they ask me to ground them?'

    'Because they're crazy, that's why.'

    'Of course they're crazy,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'I just told you they're crazy, didn't I? And you can't let crazy people decide whether you're crazy or not, can you?'

    Yossarian looked at him soberly and tried another approach. 'Is Orr crazy?'

    'He sure is,' Doc Daneeka said.

    'Can you ground him?'

    'I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of the rule.'

    'Then why doesn't he ask you to?'

    'Because he's crazy,' Doc Daneeka said. 'He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to.'

    'That's all he has to do to be grounded?'

    'That's all. Let him ask me.'

    'And then you can ground him?' Yossarian asked.

    'No. Then I can't ground him.'

    'You mean there's a catch?'

    'Sure there's a catch,' Doc Daneeka replied. 'Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy.'

    There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

    'That's some catch, that Catch-22,' he observed.

    'It's the best there is,' Doc Daneeka agreed.

    -- Joseph Heller Reply Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 04:39 PM anne said in reply to anne... http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/15/home/heller-cadets.html

    October 6, 1986

    'Catch-22': Cadets Hail a Chronicler of the Absurd
    By ANDREW H. MALCOLM

    COLORADO SPRINGS

    It was love at first sight.

    The first time the cadets at the Air Force Academy saw Joseph Heller walk into the cavernous auditorium. they fell madly in love with him. Nearly 900 future officers stood as one to applaud the white-haired author as he arrived to begin a weekend-long celebration.

    The occasion was the 25th anniversary of the publication of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured the insanity of war and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English language.... Reply Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 05:39 PM

    [Jan 18, 2017] 25th anniversary of the publication of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured the insanity of war and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English language

    Oct 06, 1986 | www.nytimes.com

    'CATCH-22': CADETS HAIL A CHRONICLER OF THE ABSURD

    Section B; Page 10, Column 3; National Desk
    Byline: By ANDREW H. MALCOLM, Special to the New York Times COLORADO SPRINGS, Oct. 4 Lead:

    It was love at first sight.

    The first time the cadets at the Air Force Academy saw Joseph Heller walk into the cavernous auditorium. they fell madly in love with him. Nearly 900 future officers stood as one to applaud the white-haired author as he arrived to begin a weekend-long celebration.

    The occasion was the 25th anniversary of the publication of ''Catch-22,'' the novel that captured the insanity of war and the human condition while adding a phrase to the English language.

    Text:

    The audience in blue uniforms rose again to applaud and cheer when the author introduced the movie based on his book. The cadets applauded during the movie credits, after the movie and after he thought he was finished answering questions.

    Then they mobbed him down front with more questions, asked for autographs and followed him out to a waiting car for more talk about the evil Colonel Cathcart, who kept raising the number of bombing missions necessary for rotation home, Major Major, who would only see people in his office when he wasn't in, and Milo Minderbinder, the mess officer who could see a profit in almost anything. 'An Intoxicating Experience'

    ''For me,' said the 63-year-old author, ''this is an intoxicating experience unlike any other I've ever had. I don't want to take it in stride. I want to revel in it.''

    As part of the celebration, there was a 25th birthday cake for Yossarian, the book's puzzled protagonist. There were academic papers presented on the theological, cultural and social significance of ''Catch-22.'' And there were big smiles on the faces of the Air Force Academy's English department, which sought to introduce the man who made fun of an insane military bureaucracy to future members of a military bureaucracy.

    ''We want these men and women to be a thinking part of a large military bureaucracy,'' said Col. Jack Shuttleworth, head of the English department, ''We don't want them to be victims of the Colonel Cathcarts of the world. To put it bluntly, you don't want dumb officers out there protecting your country.''

    Since its publication, ''Catch-22'' has been an informal part of the military education of many soldiers. And it was occasionally used in some senior classes here. But in recent years it has become a staple taught by a self-confident staff of teachers whose military experiences included tours in Vietnam, where the historical distinctions between good guy and bad guy were fuzzed and, as Colonel Shuttleworth put it, ''The enemy was everywhere and nowhere.'' Mutual Admiration Builds

    ''We oversimplify our military,'' said Mr. Heller, who as a World War II bombardier lieutenant flew 60 missions in the Army Air Corps. ''We think they have one mind. But they are very educated today and they want their families and students to be well educated. The degree of acceptance here, maybe even love, for the book is very surprising, and gratifying.''

    Likewise, the cadets learned that an Olympian author can also be accessible. ''He seems like a nice guy,'' said Corey Keppler, a sophomore from Smithtown, L.I., ''I read parts of the book in high school. Now I'm going to finish it.''

    Mr. Heller also shared several confidences with his young admirers, none of whom was born when he wrote the book. They learned that the book was originally titled ''Catch-18,'' but the imminent publication of Leon Uris's ''Mila 18'' and the repetition of the number two in Mr. Heller's book suggested the change.

    The cadets also discovered that Milo's car in the movie really did belong to Mussolini. They laughed when the author told why he sold the movie rights: ''I wanted the money.'' A Catch That Defies Explanation

    And the author tried once again to explain why he can never define catch-22. ''It doesn't exist,'' he said, ''That's the catch. If it existed in writing or something, we could change it.''

    Then he sought to give an example. ''I understand the Air Force Academy has a catch-22,'' he said, ''To repair a uniform it must be freshly cleaned. But the cleaning staff has orders not to clean any uniform needing repairs.''

    ''That's some catch,'' says Yossarian in the movie.

    ''It's the best there is,'' replies the doctor.

    There were, of course, serious moments in the celebration, which the academy advertised with a sketch of a naked Yossarian in a tree looking out over the Air Force school. In one paper presented, Stuart James of Denver University praised the book's ''narrative knots and sheer fantasy'' as ''a mirror image of the madhouse world of lonely psyches that we all inhabit.'' Joan Robertson of the academy's faculty analyzed the author's depiction of women in ''Catch-22'' as undemanding, compliant, often not even worthy of a proper name, and thus adding a needed gritty edge to his portrayal of men.

    Frederick Kiley of the National Defense University even wrote another chapter to ''Catch-22'' in Mr. Heller's style about the brave young men who went off on the dangerous missions they did not have to fly but could not get out of. 'I'm Sure Milo Would'

    The author himself said he was surprised by the lasting impact of Milo Minderbinder, a product of the capitalist system. ''I don't understand the merger mania sweeping American business,'' said Mr. Heller. ''But I'm sure Milo would.''

    The author said he was not surprised, however, when catch-22's kept popping up in real life. In a speech tonight he quoted one United States Army briefing officer in Vietnam telling reporters, ''I'm happy to announce our casualties have increased greatly and are now on a level with those of our Marines.''

    Mr. Heller said he was stunned with the strength of continuing interest in his book. He confided plans to cancel the Friday evening showing of the movie if only a few teachers attended. Instead, it was the largest crowd he has ever addressed.

    All of which put the author in his own catch-22 - the more he enjoyed the weekend, the faster it went, and the less he could enjoy it.

    ''I'm as happy as a lark,'' said Mr. Heller, who expects to complete his next novel, ''Poetics,'' this winter. ''All my fantasies have been fulfilled. The sad part to me is that now I'll have to wait another 25 years to come back.''

    [Jan 18, 2017] War is a ... destructive suction tube.

    Jan 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    It is MLK weekend....

    A Boy Named Sue, January 15, 2017 at 12:22 AM

    It is MLK weekend....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rynxqdNMry4
    ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 15, 2017 at 05:12 AM
    Freedom is in the soul.

    Let us 'ally' with all the world, let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.

    I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's Vietnam Speech:

    Here it is:

    http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html

    War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor."

    Ike said the same thing in 1953 and 1961.

    Poverty is violence.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 05:17 AM
    I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured Doctor King would understand.
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 15, 2017 at 05:34 AM
    I have a buddy who refused to take the step. Repeatedly until the SS board sent him to the 'judge'.

    He got 3 years in Public Health Service...... it was late '70 maybe they got kinder or maybe it was his area of NYS.

    I took the ROTC route, became a cold warrior by accident.

    Thank God! I never had to do any of my jobs!

    Humans rarely see.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    "...maybe it was his area of NYS..."

    [I'd go with probably.]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 05:19 AM
    BTW, that is an awesome great MLK speech. THANKS for dragging it out.

    [Jan 18, 2017] The Insanity of a New Cold War: A Top Russian Scholar Sounds the Alarm

    Jan 18, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    RenoDino , January 15, 2017 at 9:16 am

    The Insanity of a New Cold War: A Top Russian Scholar Sounds the Alarm Truthdig

    At the conclusion of the article, the Russian Scholar disavows any fondness for Putin.
    "By the way, I've never voted for Putin as a Russian, and I'm not a Putin supporter."

    For those of you playing the home game, this is now a required loyalty oath for anyone opposed to nuclear war. More points are awarded for those willing to categorically state that "Putin is a War Criminal" and "I want to punch Putin in the face when I see him."

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 15, 2017 at 2:02 pm

    "I have never read War and Peace. I don't like those people at all."

    "Yeah, but you tried, only failing to read it because of its length."

    "No, seriously. I did not even get to page 1."

    Susan C , January 15, 2017 at 3:28 pm

    Really – taking out Tolstoy? Such broad strokes. That is the best book I ever read.

    witters , January 15, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    And Anna Karenina is the best novel ever written. Ever.

    [Jan 18, 2017] What happens if Trump and co decide to purge intelligence agencies of individuals they consider undesirable?

    Jan 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    jonny bakho -> reason ...

    Do allies refuse to share intel with the US due to Trump-Russia
    The Great Game has turned. Reply Monday, January 16, 2017 at 08:02 AM ilsm -> jonny bakho... , January 16, 2017 at 09:46 AM
    US could do with a little better assessments and a lot less from many "allies".

    Do you mistrust US allies?

    Like I do!

    Chris G -> jonny bakho... , -1
    $20 says "Yes."

    And what happens if Trump and co decide to purge intelligence agencies of individuals they consider undesirable? I have no idea but I'm guessing they won't go flip burgers at McDonalds. (See also disbanding the Iraqi army ca. 2003.) Will they exhibit an entrepreneurial spirit? If so then what form will it take?

    [Jan 18, 2017] M of A - It Cant Happen Here - Color Revolution By Force

    Jan 15, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    "It Can't Happen Here" - Color Revolution By Force

    The "Donald Trump likes Russia" and "Russia bad" strategy was propagated by the Clinton election campaign. It build on constant U.S. incitement against Russia after the U.S. coup in Ukraine partially failed and after the Russian intervention on the side of the government in Syria. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was the main force behind the original anti-Russian campaign. When Clinton lost the election to Trump the theme connecting Trump and Russia was continued and fanned by parts of the U.S. intelligence community.

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the FBI published a propaganda report claiming nefarious Russian cyber activities during the election without providing any evidence. The report came together with the expulsion of 35 Russian diplomats by the Obama administration. The DHS then planted a false story of Russian cyber-intrusion into a Vermont utility with the Washington Post.

    The Director of National Intelligence Clapper followed up with a "report" of alleged Russian interference with the election. Even the Putinphobe Masha Gessen found that to be a shoddy piece of implausible propaganda. The DNI then helped to publish an MI6 "report" of fakes asserting Russian influence on Trump. In an unprecedented threat escalation the Pentagon sends a whole brigade and other assets to the Russian border.

    Now the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, warns the President elect to " watch his tongue ". Is there any precedence of some "intelligence" flunky threatening a soon to be President?

    This has been, all together, a well though out propaganda campaign to reinforce the scheme Clinton and her overlords have been pushing for quite some time: Russia is bad and a danger. Trump is aligned with Russia. Something needs to be done against Trump but most importantly against Russia.

    Propaganda works. The campaign is having some effects :

    Americans are more concerned than they were before the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign began about the potential threat Russia poses to the country, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released on Friday. The Jan. 9-12 survey found that 82 percent of American adults, including 84 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans, described Russia as a general "threat" to the United States. That's up from 76 percent in March 2015 when the same questions were asked.

    Such extensive and expensive campaigns are not run by chance. They have a larger purpose.

    Originally the campaign was only directed against Russia with the apparent aim of reigniting a (quite profitable) cold war. Seen from some distance the campaign now looks more like the preparation for a typical CIA induced color-revolution :

    In most but not all cases, massive street protests followed disputed elections, or requests for fair elections, and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders considered by their opponents to be authoritarian.

    What is missing yet in the U.S. are the demonstrations and the large civilian strife.

    Unlike the earlier CIA launched color revolutions in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004) and elsewhere, all recent U.S. instigated "color-revolutions", i.e. putsch attempts, have been accompanied by the use of force from the side of the "peaceful protesters". Such color-revolutions by force were instigate in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

    A common denominator of these was the primary use of violence occurred from the "good side" against the "bad side" while the propagandists claimed that it was the "bad side" that started the shooting and strife. The "good site" is inevitably "demonstrating peacefully" even when many policemen or soldiers on the "bad side" die. Thus was the case in Libya where the U.S. and its Gulf proxies used al-Qeada aligned Jihadis from Benghazi as "peaceful demonstrators" against the government, in Syria where the NATO and Gulf supported Muslim Brotherhood killed policemen and soldiers during "peaceful demonstrations" in Deraa and in Ukraine where fascist sharpshooters killed demonstrators and policemen from a hotel roof in the hand of the opposition. All three happened while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

    There have been claims of an upcoming color-revolution in the U.S. from different extremist sides of the political spectrum. Before the election Neocon Jackson Diehl claimed that "Putin" was preparing a color-revolution against a President-elect Clinton to enthrone Donald Trump. But as Trump won fair and square and Clinton lost that plot did not make it to the stage. After the election the conspiracy peddler Wayne Madsen immediately " discovered " that Clinton and George Soros were launching a color-revolution against Trump.

    Remnants of the Clinton campaign have called for a large anti-Trump demonstration during the inauguration on January 20 in Washington DC.

    Mass shootings in the United States by this or that type of lunatics happen every other month. There are no wild conspiracy theories or nefarious plots necessary to consider some what-if questions around such an event.

    So what happens after some "Trump supporter" on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?

    What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing "massacre" was a "Russian plot"?

    Posted by b on January 15, 2017 at 12:28 PM | Permalink

    Comments next page " Anon | Jan 15, 2017 12:30:39 PM | 1
    Tyranny abroad leads to tyranny at home.

    The Greeks knew it and so do we.

    I am amazed and scared how easily propaganda works in democracies, while no one, NO ONE ever deal or mentions it! Western populations are truly naive and swallow anything. No wonder Hitler could amass millions of germans.

    Posted by: Test | Jan 15, 2017 12:42:17 PM | 2

    I am amazed and scared how easily propaganda works in democracies, while no one, NO ONE ever deal or mentions it! Western populations are truly naive and swallow anything. No wonder Hitler could amass millions of germans.

    Posted by: Test | Jan 15, 2017 12:42:17 PM | 2

    Yonatan | Jan 15, 2017 12:43:14 PM | 3
    What will happen? A good question?

    The signs are not good. The veteran journalist Claire Hollingworth has just died at 105. Finian Cunningham comments on her death and the current amnesia over the significance of the 1000's of NATO tanks massing in east Europe :

    "A measure of this apparent collective amnesia can be gleaned from the passing of veteran English newspaper journalist Clare Hollingworth, who died this week at the age of 105. Hollingworth published the "scoop of the century" in 1939 when she first reported Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland, which then sparked the Second World War. The headline of her original report in Britain's Daily Telegraph on August 29, 1939, read: "1,000 tanks massed on Polish frontier."

    Amid media tributes to the deceased journalist, reference to contemporary events was absent. In the same week that Clare Hollingworth passed away, tanks were again rolling into Poland from Germany, this time driven by American troops. But Western media outlets made no such connection."


    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 12:59:29 PM | 4
    Advice for the USA to simplify things: Cut out the middle man and inaugurate Putin on the 20th.

    Bob In Portland | Jan 15, 2017 1:08:57 PM | 5
    One thing to understand is that, since 1963, the President is no longer fully a President in the US. The CIA has constructed a system of control within Congress, the military, and the intelligence services to direct US policy. When Jimmy Carter's CIA Director Stansfield Turner tried to eliminate a lot of the ops side of intelligence (the agents and the plots that always seem to be nearby other course corrections (like Dallas, Watergate) the ops side created an oil crisis and a hostage crisis in Iran. Reagan had been a spokesman for the Congress For Freedom, a CIA operation that imported fascists, to include a large group of Ukrainian OUN-B residua. Those people and their children became the backbone of the US reinsertion of fascism in Eastern Europe and Russia.

    Since Reagan, all Presidents seem to have deep intelligence backgrounds. Of course, George Bush was former CIA Director (and undoubtedly an agent prior to his political career), and his son was his son. Some of Dubya's pre-Presidential failed business dealings appear to have been money laundering, likely for the CIA Since they burst upon the national scene there are hints that the Clintons probably were recruited for intelligence work in the late sixties, prior to even meeting each other.

    Obama, with SOS Clinton looking over his shoulder, was mostly a Deep State ally.

    Clinton was supposed to win. In fact, there are indications that Clinton and her Deep State allies worked to make Trump her opponent. She succeeded that far, but not enough to win the electoral college. Trump is certainly anathema to most working class Americans. His problem with the Deep State is that he wants friendly relations with Russia.

    What the world is witnessing is how the Deep State negotiates hardball with Trump.

    Krollchem | Jan 15, 2017 1:09:34 PM | 6
    Using techniques of her mentor, Hillary and her allies appear to be planning a purple revolution in the US:
    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/11/11/clintons-and-soros-launch-america-purple-revolution.html

    james | Jan 15, 2017 1:14:12 PM | 7
    valid speculation on your part b... the propaganda has gotten so thick, your scenario sounds like a ripe idea..

    the usa appears to be imploding in on itself... i didn't realize how bad the folks in power wanted clinton to be president.. relevant article..

    time2wakeupnow | Jan 15, 2017 1:15:05 PM | 8
    "Advice for the USA to simplify things: Cut out the middle man and inaugurate Putin on the 20th"

    Or, rephrased to correctly reflect the true nature of the who's really in charge in this country: Advise for the cosmetic US government and the corporate infotainment: cut out the middle man and inaugurate the head of the Deep State on the 20th.

    ProPeace | Jan 15, 2017 1:20:29 PM | 9
    It's astounding that Fecesbrook and other social media control outlets support calls for assassination of the President-elect, by not removing them. This is gonna be an explosive January, Spring and year.

    Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss Deep State War Vs. Trump, While Ex-Spook Hints At Assassination

    Mysterious snipers have been deadly present in many "peaceful revolutions":

    Land Destroyer: Color Revolution's Mystery Gunmen

    Unknown Snipers and Western backed "Regime Change"

    More 'Mysterious Snipers' Responsible For Latest Ukraine Escalation?

    The snipers of Black October

    "Yeltsin's 'Red October II'"- TiM GW Bulletin 98/3-10

    Anon | Jan 15, 2017 1:24:18 PM | 10
    5:

    I think there is a factional civil war going on in the deep state.

    Clinton who would have kept the party going was supported by the CIA, with many of their guys endorsing her.

    Trump seems to be the candidate of a less reckless faction. Remember, he was endorsed by a few hundred senior officers. It seems the army is tired of cleaning up the CIA messes.

    Recall the CIA and Army were fighting each other by proxy in Syria.

    Remember, Trump has Flynn on his side. And the army. And the FBI, and every patriot in the IC.

    In 5 days he will hold the reins of power.

    Trump wins.

    Curtis | Jan 15, 2017 1:26:39 PM | 11
    Anon 1
    "I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."
    Robert E Lee to Lord Acton, 1866

    CHRISTINNE RADU | Jan 15, 2017 1:29:06 PM | 12
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/what-is-the-reality-of-syrias-popular-revolution-which-sparked-six-years-of-violence/5568564

    ProPeace | Jan 15, 2017 1:29:45 PM | 13
    Ukraine: Israeli Special Forces Unit under Neo-Nazi Command Involved in Maidan Riots?

    Camouflaged Israeli soldiers on Maidan Square


    According to the Israeli website alyaexpress-news.com, a unit of 35 armed and masked men and women on Maidan square is commanded by four former Israeli Army officers, who wear a kippah under their helmets.

    The site claims that these former officers, who live today in Ukraine, joined the movement since the beginning of the events alongside the Freedom Party (Svoboda), although the latter has a reputation for being virulently anti-Semitic.

    With the help of the Israeli Embassy, this intervention force reportedly also handled the transfer of 17 seriously injured persons to Israel for treatment.

    The presence of Israeli units had been reported in a similar scenario in Georgia, both in during the "Rose Revolution" (2003) that in the war against South Ossetia (2008).


    john | Jan 15, 2017 1:35:08 PM | 14
    gosh b, the spectre of dread you raise is downright cinematographic!

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 1:40:34 PM | 15
    CIA chief warns Trump to watch what his words
    http://presstv.com/Detail/2017/01/15/506327/US-Trump-Nazis-Russia-Putin

    Where do these people come from? Here we have a intelligence chief that blast Trump but tell to Trump that he cant blast them!

    Have deep-state/CIA ever meddled in their own nation like this before? These people are nuts.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 1:46:01 PM | 16
    I think b describes well why a color revolution is plausible. But some traditional 'color revolution' tactics, like the use of snipers, may not be necessary because:
    (1) Pence appears to be much more friendly to the Clinton/CIA establishment; and

    (2) there are other means of removing Trump: impeachment or 25th Amendment

    Anti-Trump organizations have stated their intention to disrupt the inauguration. The likelihood of street violence seems high. This "resistance" and Russian tensions will weigh on the minds of Congressman and frighten the public.

    The de-legimization campaign seems likely to culminate with Trump's impeachment for violations of the Logan act (see below) and/or VP Pence invoking the 25th Amendment. As President, Pence would choose a VP. One possible choice is Hillary - winner of the popular vote - thereby creating a 'unity' government. Democrats have already labeled such unity as = PURPLE =. Republican Party RED combined with Democratic Party BLUE.

    This trajectory helps to explain the consternation with FBI Dir. Comey. Democrats believe that Comey helped Trump in the last days of the campaign. The FBI is said to be investigating the Clintons. And Comey refused to discuss with Congress (in closed hearing) details of any possible investigation into Russian interference into US elections. Comey is now himself under investigation by DOJ's Inspector General (an Obama appointee) .

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Team Trump: Flynn called Russia ambassador, no sanction talk 'plain and simple'

    It's not unusual for incoming administrations to have discussions with foreign governments before taking office. But repeated contacts just as Obama imposed sanctions raised questions about whether Trump's team discussed -- or even helped shape -- Russia's response .

    Reuters reports that Flynn and Kislyak talked several times on Dec. 29.

    Putin unexpectedly did not retaliate against the U.S. for the move, a decision Trump quickly praised.

    More broadly, Flynn's contact with the Russian ambassador suggests the incoming administration has already begun to lay the groundwork for its promised closer relationship with Moscow.

    That effort appears to be moving ahead, even as many in Washington, including Republicans, have expressed outrage over intelligence officials' assessment that Putin launched a hacking operation aimed at meddling in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump.

    . . .

    Trump has been willing to insert himself into major foreign policy issues during the transition, at times contradicting the current administration and diplomatic protocol.

    He accepted a call from Taiwan's president, ignoring the longstanding "One China" policy that does not recognize the island's sovereignty. Asked about that Friday by the Journal, he responded, "Everything is under negotiation."

    He also publicly urged the U.S. to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements , then slammed the Obama administration for abstaining and allowing the measure to pass.

    47 | Jan 15, 2017 1:58:11 PM | 17
    @2, Test

    It works everywhere the same way; that is, the method is not re-invented, just repeated. People only need a period of convincing that the enemy of the day is out there to get them. Here is a short note on landscapes of fear: http://www.zokpavlovic.com/conflict/the-landscape-of-fear-paranoia-and-galvanization-of-masses/

    AriusArmenian | Jan 15, 2017 2:11:36 PM | 18
    We are in a time as dangerous as the early 1960's.
    Then they wanted war in Vietnam and got rid of JFK to get it.
    Now they want a bigger war with Russia as the target.
    Anything can happen in the next few weeks.

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 2:27:33 PM | 19
    Its interesting too that the debate should be about why Democrats lost why Hillary didnt generate enough votes, no, instead they start a hysteria about Trump and Russia.

    NemesisCalling | Jan 15, 2017 2:31:38 PM | 20
    Well, if a color revolution does transpire to dethrone Trump, one thing is FOR certain: Circe and Chipnik will say, "see, I told you that Trump was at the center of the plot to give the government fully to our fascist-ponzi-overlords," without even a twinge of irony.

    jo6pac | Jan 15, 2017 2:49:18 PM | 21
    #5
    Nailed it and now they come out from behind behind the curtain to do the work under the propaganda arm the so-called liberal press own by the elite who really don't like change except when they win.

    #2, Amerika hasn't been a D in a long time if ever.

    Thanks b

    jayc | Jan 15, 2017 2:51:43 PM | 22
    Polling tends to reflect a wag-the-dog effect, i.e. the media runs a saturation campaign based on a particular premise, then polls are taken which generally support the premise. What is mildly surprising is that the alleged Russian threat perception has only increased six percentage points after all the crazy headlines of the past few weeks.

    The American public may be too polarized for a successful colour revolution. The Russia/Trump freak-out is localized in the Beltway establishment, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media - which, when united, represents a formidable force in concentrating and saturating a message across consensus reality, but the degree to which the message has actually been internalized by the public-at-large may be far less than it may appear. But the stakes are obviously very very high for the deep state faction which desires the confrontation with Russia, and therefore a dramatic false flag event is unfortunately extremely possible if it is determined that the impeachment gambit might not work. (the impeachment concept might not work, at least not immediately, because, like the electoral college, it would be too obviously a reversal of the election and a large portion of the public would reject it)

    likklemore | Jan 15, 2017 2:53:13 PM | 23
    Thanks b. One typo (it's Wayne Madsen)

    The Timeline is spot on. Right after the election, Soros held a meet-up in Washington said to be a planning session and to re-assess. Short weeks thereafter both Hill and Bill appeared sporting purple dress-up. Notice also in the ensuing weeks other Hill/Bill supporters sporting purple ties.
    Soros' underwriting revolutions is coming home to USA. He should be brought before the ICJ.

    Conspiracy theory becomes a fact.

    January 20 may ignite the spark. Bikers for Trump assembled; J20 gang; 5000 national guards and security people providing 360 barricade. What could go wrong?

    Some 4 years ago I read at the GEAB.eu LEAP's website, that they anticipated the USA would become ungovernable in year 2016.. Cue it up.
    (GEAB, France, a French Think-Tank most articles by subscription)

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    Death Threats:
    To a blind person?

    1. "Death Threats Force Opera Star Bocelli To Pull Out Of Inauguration Performance"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/death-threats-force-opera-star-bocelli-pull-out-inauguration-performance

    "Andrea is very sad to be missing the chance to sing at such a huge global event but he has been advised it is simply not worth the risk..." according to a source close to blind opera singer Bocelli who had been determined to 'press ahead' and sing at Donald Trump's inauguration.

    2. Will The CIA Assassinate Trump? Ron Paul Warns Of "More Powerful, Shadow Government"
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/will-cia-assassinate-trump-ron-paul-warns-more-powerful-shadow-government

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    RT had this piece from Clapper, not covered by lame-stream US media.

    Published time: 14 Jan, 2017 20:32
    Edited time: 15 Jan, 2017 16:31

    " Intelligence insiders call Russian dossier 'complete fraud' – Trump
    https://www.rt.com/usa/373708-trump-us-russian-dossier-fake/

    On Thursday, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a rare statement, saying that he met with Trump to express his "profound dismay" over the dossier.
    "This document is not a US intelligence community (IC) product and I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC," Clapper said.

    ~ ~ ~ ~
    You would think Clapper's statement would be covered by MSM, No?:

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 2:56:40 PM | 24
    'Mass shootings' is a bit of a specious reach. Americans are psychologically and emotionally 'bleached'. The 'mass shootings' are largely juveniles on Aderal and Prozac, mentally bleached by the State. The vast majority of 'mass' shootings are collectively in the gun states, as here: https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/50060317/police_shootings.0.0.png, and that's just the State shootings of citizens.

    You won't see the victorius Trumpeteers shooting into crowds, you'll see massive civil and union actions against each new Jesuit-Jew SCOTUS decision, but the Trump State will remain so opaque, and the poodled Fourth Estate so pandered and Java-Script clik-bait revenue-driven, only blogs like MoA will post the truth...if they can absent themselves fron the Two-Party Conspiracy-State Koolaid drinking.

    There is only the One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed, which survives and undermines every Administration, and metastasizes on every new law and every specious blog-post about post-inauguration 'mass-shootings'.

    SOW, my PC is now in the shop, after visiting a Breitbart Jerusalem article, and watching a proxy-script malware drop down, that froze out internet access, even after I bleached my cookies and did a Foxfire uninstall and re-install. We are far more likely to 'go dark' under Trump and his Breitbart Zook propaganda machine, than see any Red-on-Blue.

    Denis | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:15 PM | 25
    Just a couple of loose (meaning bordering on idiotic) thoughts:

    1. Mina says we need to drop this whole Trump thing. And she's right. Just b/c the world is going to end on Friday doesn't mean we should be preoccupied. Besides SNL has it covered, as usual.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V8TO6y0IR4

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"

    Bob | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:53 PM | 26
    The 2004 "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine and the 2000 overthrow of Milosevic didn't rely on the use of violence.

    The slick youth oriented campaigns from Otpor! and the Ukrainian follow up, along with heavy support from outside actors such as the US, were enough.

    I doubt there is a need for violence to get rid of Trump if this was the strategy they intended to use. Catchy slogans amd symbols along with the support of the media could be enough to instigate some kind of proceedings leading to his removal from office.

    Anonymous | Jan 15, 2017 3:03:55 PM | 27
    No need for a color revolution, the coup have already been made right in front of us, = Trump's image have been smeared and his policy on Russia wont work.

    laserlurk | Jan 15, 2017 3:05:28 PM | 28
    That is one good b.'s assumption and it is not far fetched at all.

    Some sort of an American Spring is looming, if things fall in place next week.
    Would it be a sort of Maidan's effect, unrest etc. remains to be seen, but I doubt it.
    What is lacking there is a critical mass. And that is people.
    Their psyche is right now not for Trump and against Clinton. It is a bit of schizophrenic situation atm. and ideals worth fighting and dying for are not too high. Or their conviction.

    What and how this is envisaged by IC might be as well a long and a painful processes of "legal" threading through various investigative hearings, commissions and panels followed by legislative votings on different issues that might come up, as impeachments, scandals and all the arsenal of "soft" torture where expected result is that Americans are kept enchanted, asleep and hypnotised, thus neutralised.
    Like the rest of us are supposed to be.

    Quickest way to jump into prevention of Trump's presidency would be to quickly build up a false flag set of events and start a big conflict with Russia or with one of their interest zones. That would set the spotlight away from Washington while fractions IC would have enough time to clear its ranks and prepare the actual coup.
    What they do not understand is that nobody ever goes to war with Russia. Ever.

    So, maybe better outcome for everybody would be wishful thinking scenario of a Designated Survivor Kiefer Sutherland's TV-series .

    rg the lg | Jan 15, 2017 3:07:00 PM | 29
    The fun thing about revolutions is that once they start it is hard to figure out where they are going to end up.

    Alas, the BEST we can hope for is a new set of oligarchs. Democracy will never happen ... it is a cover for what is now referred to as the deep state.

    In my (admittedly jaundiced) view ... a nuclear holocaust seems infinitely better than the status quo, or what might emerge from the looming conflict.

    With a nuclear Armageddon, maybe life can restart and NOT create something as vile as people: you, me and all the rest!

    Jan Sammer | Jan 15, 2017 3:11:53 PM | 30
    There is actually much more abundant evidence of British interference in the US election, than there is for Russian interference. The MI6 smear memo is a glaring example, but on top of that is the state-owned BBC constant stream of anti-Trump propaganda, the petition against allowing Trump to visit Britain, Foreign Minister Boris Johnson called Trump "clearly out of his mind", accused him of "quite stupefying ignorance" that makes him "unfit for office" and said he would not visit New York because of the "real risk of meeting Donald Trump". Where is the outrage, where is the congressional committee investigating this blatant foreign interference in our democratic process? By our ex-colonial masters to boot. Are they still nursing grudges from the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812?

    Bob | Jan 15, 2017 3:13:13 PM | 31
    @Myself 26

    For a start you could have a supposedly 200,000 strong women's march all wearing " pussy hats ".

    "The Pussy Revolution"

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 3:15:31 PM | 32
    16

    Purple is a reminder of the One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed, the Purple State Apparatchik that holds the reins of power, a 99.4% unappointed, unelected, civil and military unionized Purple Gog-Magog that just raised USArya's debt limit by $10 TRILLION, and uses Red-Blue Tinfoil the way the Jesuits and Jews always have since they first rose to power in 1917. That 100 Centeniary is Trump, the Orange Jesuit with the Jesuit-Jew SCOTUS at his Right Hand, Global Business Mafias at his Left Hand, and poodled Congress at his feet.

    We are all Purple Zeks now.

    Clueless Joe | Jan 15, 2017 3:16:19 PM | 33
    Well, thing is, in the US, the bulk of people with guns, knowing how to use them, and ready to use them, is on Trump's side, when it was more split on Ukraine, Syria or Libya. So this leaves the US Army to do most of the fighting on Clinton's (or the Borg's) behalf. Not sure the troopers would do it gladly. I mean, the Civil War traumatized the US way more than even WWII.
    At this point, one has to wonder if for such a coup to succeed, a cause uniting the people wouldn't be required, like, say, a significant foreign war that would need the support of US people coming together, which would both unite it to the point of reducing the will of NRA people to resist the takeover, and which would focus the attention somewhere else. Having some hot war on Russian border could maybe do the trick.
    Though in such a case, the Borg better make it work inside the US, because the military would be quite busy in Europe, so if Trump supporters still took arms to protest the coup, it just couldn't deal with all threats.
    Very speculative, of course. I still think they don't plan that well and will do a half-assed job that will backfire, and will try to undermine Trump in the long run rather than trying to take him down right now.

    Harry | Jan 15, 2017 3:18:10 PM | 34
    @ Denis | 25

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"

    Steele requested permission of high ranking officials to go through with this report and he got the green light. Also he has very influential friends in MI6 and was involved in MAJOR propaganda campaigns before, like Litvinenko's.

    Therefore it wasnt a "solo" campaign, and UK will have to do serious mea culpas to fix the relationship with Trump.

    Louis Proyect | Jan 15, 2017 3:21:56 PM | 35
    This is really funny stuff. A government that festooned with Goldman-Sachs bankers has to worry about being toppled in a coup?

    fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?

    s | Jan 15, 2017 3:26:39 PM | 37
    "So what happens after some 'Trump supporter' on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?"

    Trump has already made his own funeral arrangements: Pence is the gravedigger, not the media or color conspiracies. A massacre of protesters against Trump would just make Trumpists horny. If Trump really pisses of enough of his peers in the owner class, their minions will impeach him. Hell, picking Pence was like Trump handing in an undated resignation letter, just to set their minds at ease.

    "What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing 'massacre' was a 'Russian plot'?"

    If the police massacre protesters, then no conservative will believe it was a Russian plot. If a nobody massacres protesters, and the CIA etc. say it was a Russian plot, then Trump will get shirty with Putin. But then the whole point of this campaign is to force his hand on Russia policy, not this BS about a color revolution. If the CIA accuse the dead protesters of being part of a Russian plot, then and only then is when you'll know they're getting serious (about either an immediate war with Russia or forcing Trump to step down.)

    Gross misstatements in the OP? 1) Clinton was not the main driver of foreign policy for the conclusive reason no Secretary of State has been the main driver in foreign policy since John Foster Dulles. And that was only because Eisenhower was a general who treated his cabinet like a military staff. 2) Trump did not win the vote at all, he won the Electoral College, which isn't "fair and square," as everybody knew since the controversies over the actual Electoral College votes during the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers themselves. The Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it. There is a point when there's being stupid, and there's being a liar. Neither is a good place to be.

    When Trump tries to take Putin to the cleaners, which is what he means when talks about making a deal with Russia, either Putin crawls (my guess, but I'm not a mind reader, but Putin's got no principles, no plan and very little power,) or he signs on to the cold (or surface of the sun hot) war with China. At this point, these people are just bad cop to Trump's good cop. His tinpot Orthodox God had better help Putin if he thinks these anybody in this government is anything but an enemy.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 3:28:49 PM | 38
    Louis 'the clown' Proyect passes gas @35.

    Very funny indeed.

    s | Jan 15, 2017 3:40:50 PM | 39
    PS 1) Forgot to mention the belief that an official from the previous administration isn't allowed to criticize Trump really betrays something uncomfortably close to servility. Trump's a twitter-pated nitwit. He knew Godwin's Law means you lose if you mention Nazis. Turning Brennan's perfectly normal use of Trump's internet gaffe into a threat on Trump's life and/or the nation itself? Why not rant about the threat to motherhood and apple pie, too?

    2) Curtis@11 tells us Trumpery looks up to Robert E. Lee, a traitor and a slaver (literally, seizing blacks on the Gettysburg campaign as slaves,) and a wretched buffoon like Acton. So much the worse for Trumpists!

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 3:53:40 PM | 40
    ...
    So what happens after some "Trump supporter" on January 20 starts to shoot into the demonstrating masses (and also into the police cordons)?
    What if the CIA, DHS and DNI then detect and certify that the ensuing "massacre" was a "Russian plot"?
    b.

    Trump came into this election with his eyes wide open.
    During the campaign he once said "I know things most people don't know."

    If one of the things Trump knows is that CIA color revolutions are started by enhancing Gene Sharp's Non-violent Protest playbook with guns, then he'll have that possibility covered most likely by the 200 military officers whom he claims have offered their support for a Trump Presidency.

    I find it bizarre that the name Chuck Hagel (the man who never lies) hasn't been mentioned at all since campaigning began.

    DavidKNZ | Jan 15, 2017 4:03:26 PM | 41
    Behind these toxic allegations are deadly alligators.
    They just don't like having their swamp drained
    :-)

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 4:04:45 PM | 42
    Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 3:53:40 PM | 40

    Apologies for CIA typo. It should read State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions.

    VietnamVet | Jan 15, 2017 4:13:15 PM | 43
    The only mass movement is the one that elected Donald Trump stop the depredation of mid-America. The intelligence community coup attempt is strictly inside the Beltway. The death knell of the Democratic Party is their support of a war with Russia to hide their incompetence and corruption. We are watching one gang of oligarchs fight another for control of the pirate plunder; globalists verses nationalists. Government by and for the people was flushed down the toilet in 2000. The USA is not a sovereign state, it is an Empire in decline. If Mike Pence takes the reins, the purple Clinton/Obama/Bush corporate globalists won.

    Perimetr | Jan 15, 2017 4:43:20 PM | 44
    Russian Foreign Ministry: "Obama Still Has A Few Days Left To Destroy The World"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/russian-foreign-ministry-obama-administration-stil-has-few-days-left-destroy-world

    Michael McNulty | Jan 15, 2017 4:48:30 PM | 45
    The main difference between Hitler and today's America is Hitler built a police state at home to take war abroad while the US took war abroad to build a police state at home. The results will be the same; a fearful, murderous Nazism of "enemies" abroad and "undesirables" and at home.

    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 5:00:25 PM | 46
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?
    Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36

    Ever heard of Mike Pompeo?

    likklemore | Jan 15, 2017 5:14:39 PM | 47
    @ s 37
    1) Clinton was not the main driver of foreign policy for the conclusive reason no Secretary of State has been the main driver in foreign policy since John Foster Dulles. And that was only because Eisenhower was a general who treated his cabinet like a military staff. 2) Trump did not win the vote at all, he won the Electoral College, which isn't "fair and square," as everybody knew since the controversies over the actual Electoral College votes during the lifetimes of the Founding Fathers themselves. The Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it. There is a point when there's being stupid, and there's being a liar. Neither is a good place to be.

    1. Reminder since you may have missed the leaked emails and important events during Hillary Clinton's tenure as SoS: the force behind the push in Lybia

    (a) Lybia - Get the gold
    (b) "we came, we saw, he died." Cackles.
    (c) Ditto the lies surrounding Stevens – the arms smuggling to AQ in Syria

    2. Suggest some read up on the Constitution and structure of the Republic of The United States of America. The Electoral College is designed to balance small states vs large states; the same rationale for the Senate.
    3. On Election day, November 8, the voters selected the Electors to the Electoral College who then vote for the President and VP. Smart presidential candidates craft their campaign with the Electoral College's target, 270 votes. MSM polls showing Clinton having a 95% chance of winning, (Newsweek Madame President) so she disappeared during the last three weeks in October.
    4. Newsflash: Clinton's so-called national popular vote win by "millions" is a fraud. Millions of illegals voted in California, placing the so-called popular vote in her column. Never mind California. How about Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan's recount that was aborted? One example; a sealed ballot box had Clinton with 306 votes and when opened, the count was only 50. Other ballot boxes had similar anomalies.
    5. Trump won by a landslide; where it counts ---in the Counties --- 302 votes in the Electoral College for the final count.


    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    The Electoral College is unfair! Then so is the make-up of the Senate: regardless of population the 50 states x 2 senators each = 100. Get over it.
    Trump may be a skillful deal-maker but he won't be taking Putin to the Cleaners. Ask Rex Tillerson.

    juliania | Jan 15, 2017 5:24:46 PM | 48
    jayc@22:

    ". . . the degree to which the message has actually been internalized by the public-at-large may be far less than it may appear. . ."

    This sensible comment goes to the 'polls' taken - haven't we recently seen the worth of polls? These are the same polls that gave us Hillary as a sure bet.

    You have to have a trusting public somewhat unaware of the forces in play to work a color revolution, and even the one in Ukraine has not worked. People will know, enough people will know, what is happening. If it's tried there will most assuredly be support for anything Trump and his followers may do in response. There's no slam dunk here, CIA We don't love you; we don't even trust you. Try something at your own peril.

    If Americans want anything at this point, they do want an orderly change of government. They may not have high hopes for the incoming crowd but they don't want chaos. They do not want to be the next Syria. And even if they don't know precisely who's doing what in the days before the inauguration, they'll be suspicious of anyone who tries to start something.

    When 9/11 events were underway, remember the passengers on the plane in Pennsylvania? There'll be good citizens ready to put out any fire even at the cost of their own lives; I'm betting on them.

    karlof1 | Jan 15, 2017 5:34:54 PM | 49
    Hmmm.... The intrigue is fascinating!! BUT! We must recall the primary goal/motivation for the Deep State's Outlaw US Empire since 1990 has been to acquire Full Spectrum Domination of the planet and its people, to which it's had fairly solid success--except with Russia, China and their few allies, the numbers of which are growing slowly. It's said by Putin and Xi that there's no ideological battle akin to the Cold War, but I don't think that's true: Both Putin, Xi, and their nation's economic plans for Eurasian integration are based on Win/Win aims for all involved, whereas the stated ideological goal of the Outlaw US Empire is stated above--enslaving the Hydra (Hydra being the global masses). The current "strategy" was to attack both Russia and China simultaneously, with an emphasis on Russia; Trump and his crew, however, are proposing a different approach based on the tried and true Divide and Conquer concept that's worked so well to now, but is no longer effective thanks to Neoliberalcon behavior allowing an understanding--and thus countermoves--to be gained of their modus. Clearly, Neoliberalcons are miffed that the ball is being taken from them regarding Imperial policy--note there's very little (elite) bickering about what the Republican controlled congress is doing to domestic policy, where most Mass Resistance to Trump/Congress is occurring. From a domestic POV, it seems like Trump's most likely to alienate those who thought he'd improve their standing because of his unwillingness to confront the Republican Congress's destruction of critical social and ecological programs.

    Trump's election outcome seems to mimic what was predicted to occur if a Third Party won and had to confront an antithetical congress having its own plans/policies to implement, adding the assumption that the Deep State would oppose such a Party as a matter-of-course, doing everything it could to delegitimize the incoming administration. If a Color Revolution's planned, then I'd expect to see a big rise in Tea Party activity, as most Soros-sponsored US-ngos are already at odds with Congress, not Trump's as yet unknown Imperial policy direction.

    Banger | Jan 15, 2017 5:54:56 PM | 50
    We are seeing some deep divisions not just within the State but in the public. We are now seeing the healthy growth of "alternative" Narratives which are far more compelling and based more on objective truth than the mainstream Narratives which means, over the long haul, they should win out unless those Narratives are rigorously suppressed. The only chance the authorities have to suppress these competing points of view and a lurch towards reality is to create an external enemy. Now we see the Democrats and "moderate" Republicans joining forces with the National Security State and the mainstream media to create the utterly fictional Russian "threat" in the same way they've created all the phony threats of the past. Will it work? I don't know--what I do know is that the majority of the population "wants" to believe in scapegoats and an enemy because it radically simplifies life and allows people to join together in virtual "two minutes of hate." This kind of thing usually works when you have "progressvies" and "leftists" joining in along with the usual warmongers in howling for blood. What I call the "Stasi left" is now showing itself for the CIA minions (people don't really know how "liberal" most of the CIA actually is) they are and perhaps have been or at least wannabe.

    I had for some time wanted to dissociate myself from the left but am now ready to do so not because I'm no longer on the left but because "the left" seem no longer to be on the left. I know it's time to move away from those divisions which are mainly just part of the mind-control regime we've been under since 1917. We have to choose. Continue to research what is the truth as best we can or join in the tribal wars that may well end in mutual destruction and certainly a possible civil war.

    I know Trump is attempting to placate those who might murder him--we'll see how it works. From where I sit it seems unlikely that Trump will put a dent in the ongoing Imperial project and the criminals it harbors.

    ALberto | Jan 15, 2017 5:58:03 PM | 51
    @47

    "Electoral College is unfair and slanted, on purpose, and everybody who cares to know, knows it."

    Electoral College = United States

    Popular Vote = United State

    12th Amendment so simple a preteen can grasp its main thrust.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 5:59:46 PM | 52
    You forgot to include the green revolution in Iran instigated by CIA and Mossad operatives with the help of Jundallah and MEK. Since it could be attempted again during Trump's Presidency; let's not sweep it under the rug and out of the pages of infamous recent history. Although, I believe Trump and his cabal will take more hostile and aggressive measures against Iran than instigating a color revolution.

    That being said; permit me to change the title to: Planting the Bad Seed. I'm not sure if you did this intentionally or not, but the pen is a mighty sword that you use skilfully therefore I should assume it was deliberate.

    I don't think I've yet read such artful, crafty and not to overuse, Machiavellian false equivalency as I just did now with this piece first introducing it with an outline of nefarious machinations against Trump, followed by a synopsis of fake revolutions to get to the grain. So in other words you're saying that the CIA or present state enemies of Trump would use the unsuspecting, and I'm not being facetious-innocent- leftist masses for their end. This is not to say that Neolibs are not lurking in there to sabotage this Presidency exploiting legitimate and justified dissent and dissenters as tools to use against Trump.

    Moreover, the only one doing the sabotaging here ; no, I won't go that far. Maybe you'll re-evaluate how this piece comes off, so let me give you the benefit of doubt while I still condemn it and its author who has yet to reconsider and join the good fight instead. If there are nefarious machinations in the works to sabotage Trump, then you are similarly busy working the Trump side with equally nefarious propaganda by raising a conspiracy spectre intended as an influence manoeuvre to crush all LEGITIMATE DISSENT against Trump that includes, more importantly, dissent against the cabal that brought him to power, by smearing such dissenters with the same brush you're using against those who would use them. Therefore in my opinion you are just as exploitive as Trump, his enemies and the deep state cabal that surrounds him and that he fully, absolutely represents.

    So let's say Chipnik is right, that at some point in time, which may not be during the inauguration, the Trump fascist squad aggressively lean on protesters or as Chip writes, start shooting into the crowd. Your angle is to first plant the seed, that it won't necessarily be the Trump squad that is or would be responsible for such a heinous act, but other forces meant to make Trump look like the fascist; never mind, that this is who he REALly is.

    So you're trying to delegitimize the revolution before it even starts. This is pretty devious; if not ugly; I'm being kind. As a matter of fact, it feels kind of sinister to suppress with twisted assumption, before it even gets started, the inevitable uprising you know Trump will ignite with his repressive regime. Is this not resorting to goebbel hasbara for an end you imagine is justified; a highly questionable, even wicked means to what YOU imagine will be a beneficial end like perhaps détente with Russia? What an intangible, sorry excuse that would be to extinguish real and enduring change BY THE PEOPLE that might end up benefitting your cause as well.

    What the hell are you trying to pull with this piece? Are you trying to crush growing and overwhelming legitimate dissent by planting a conspiracy theory that whatever revolution Trump accelerates with his wrongful actions will be illegitimate and fraudulent because it isn't inspired by justified dissent against him or better yet against the system that spawned Trump , but instigated by nefarious forces conspiring to overthrow him?

    Let me tell you something; the Revolution has been a long time simmering BEFORE Trump appeared on the political scene. If Trump is the accelerant that will finally make it explode then that's too bad for your own 'justified' goal and Trump for continuing the deep state subornation and subversion of democracy! Your goal (if honourable) should regrettably be the necessary, hopefully, temporary casualty of the rebellion against Trump's dangerous deception to quote an Engdahl phrase that best describes him.

    Trump is an asterisk in the reasons for the Revolution that should have happened after 9/11; and that you would try to delegitimize it this way planting a seed that might spread like poison to kill it, is reprehensible. The Revolution, my friend, won't and shouldn't be strictly limited to Trump. The Revolution will be about the entire two-faced monopoly and the evil forces sustained by this monopoly that brought Trump to power and repeatedly suborn leadership and subvert the people's power. People deserve to have this long-awaited Revolution, and if you, with your grain of conspiracy, propagate a theory that delegitimizes this Revolution making it only about a coup against Trump, then you are no better than the cabal you pretend to expose.

    Propaganda works. Then stop using it to kill the Revolution.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:20:42 PM | 53
    @24 chipnik

    'Mass shootings' is a bit of a specious reach.

    True, but sarcastically, symbolically or not, you, yourself, did reference there would be 'shootings on crowds after Trump assumes office' in several previous posts.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:27 PM | 54
    Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles. How'd that work out?
    Posted by: fast freddy | Jan 15, 2017 3:23:11 PM | 36

    Ever heard of Mike Pompeo?

    Posted by: From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 5:00:25 PM | 46

    Yeah. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

    Circe, because there can only be one revolution at a time, Soros is Calvinistically the most righteous and therefore has priority? Get over this liberal conceit of righteous pitched battle. In the meantime, talk to my filter.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:55 PM | 55

    Circe, because there can only be one revolution at a time, Soros is Calvinistically the most righteous and therefore has priority? Get over this liberal conceit of righteous pitched battle. In the meantime, talk to my filter.

    Posted by: Jonathan | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:55 PM | 55

    Trump should order further investigation on Hillary and send her to jail where she belongs.
    No one plays with Donald Trump without bearing consequences

    Posted by: virgile | Jan 15, 2017 6:29:43 PM | 56

    Trump should order further investigation on Hillary and send her to jail where she belongs.
    No one plays with Donald Trump without bearing consequences

    Posted by: virgile | Jan 15, 2017 6:29:43 PM | 56

    From The Hague | Jan 15, 2017 6:39:27 PM | 57
    Yeah. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
    Posted by: Circe | Jan 15, 2017 6:25:27 PM | 54

    Meet the new boss: Circe, the man who kwows the past and the future.

    terry | Jan 15, 2017 6:49:43 PM | 58
    Looks like there is going to be a big turnout . I think that these people had mentioned that they would put themselves in between any protesters of Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1qlkIXja6U

    x | Jan 15, 2017 6:51:01 PM | 59
    ZH reports:

    "... CIA Director Brennan Warns Trump To "Watch What He Says"

    "There is no basis for Mr Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for 'leaking' information... "

    So the head of the Ministry for Dis-Information complains that there is 'no basis' (aka 'no facts') for this allegation. When did lack of evidence ever bother the CIA?

    And Brennan does not like comparison by his new boss (who's not like the old boss):

    "What I do find outrageous is equating intelligence community with Nazi Germany," Brennan said. "I do take great umbrage at that."

    This is the gangster-in-chief running the Afghan opium trade and any number of odious regime change programs that have killed and mained tens of millions now demanding 'evidence' when the finger is pointed his way.

    "Hypocrite" is the word for this type of odious person. And Trump had better watch his back. These types are worse than nazi Germans.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-15/scathing-attack-cia-director-brennan-warns-trump-watch-what-he-says

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 7:06:46 PM | 60
    @55

    Soros can kiss my ass; and Trump can kiss his.

    Mina | Jan 15, 2017 7:08:00 PM | 61
    If you watch Podesta speech on the n7ght of the election wgen he called the few remaining ppl in the room to go to sleep and wait for more in the morning it seems pretty clear they were already planning. Let s hope for some significant leaks.

    dh | Jan 15, 2017 7:14:29 PM | 62
    Trump made some interesting comments in an interview with the Times today. They seem to be aimed at disaffected Europeans and there are lots of those these days.

    "Merkel made a catastrophic mistake (letting a million refugees in)"

    "Countries want their own identity and the UK wanted its own identity,"

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38632485

    jfl | Jan 15, 2017 7:21:16 PM | 63
    @10 unnamed, 'In 5 days he will hold the reins of power'

    that's my expectation. despite the cinamatography @14 john

    @15 yet another unnamed, 'These people are nuts'

    i certainly hope you're right! that brennan and the rest are immediately shown the door and the deconstruction of the vile, 'unamerican' cia begins on saturday, in the pale afternoon.

    @19 ya unnamed, '... Hillary didnt generate enough votes ...'

    hillary won the popular vote ... if the elctronic tally system is to be believed. not

    @22 jayc, 'The Russia/Trump freak-out is localized in the Beltway establishment, Democratic Party, and the mainstream media ...'

    that's my feeling too. i think this is a media tempest in a media teapot. the good news is they are alienating ordinary americans, just as their choice of hillary for empress did. i hope the tnc msm go down along with republicrat/demoblican party ... and the vile cia.

    @23 likklemore, 'You would think Clapper's statement would be covered by MSM, No?'

    no. it's a perfunctory cover-the-ass-of-the-nsa/cia-combine statement. clapper put the more than 'dodgy dossier' in the obama/trump briefing in order for it to be leaked. now he's decrying others' - fully intended - use of his more than dodgy inclusion. the tnc msm know what he's done and what he's doing and are acting accordingly. his statement is a footnote for the history books.

    @35 lp, 'This is really funny stuff. A government that festooned with Goldman-Sachs bankers has to worry about being toppled in a coup?'

    even a blind pig can smell the acorns ... or g-sax truffles?

    @36 ff, 'Trump can fire Brennan just as JFK fired Allan Dulles'

    and he'd better. and he'd better finish the job: kill the cia. or the cia will certainly kill him. one way or another.

    @37, @39 s

    with the exception of your assessment of russia and china and their leadership - and your nasty, supercilious tone - i agree, think most of what you say is about right. why should anyone care what i think?

    @42 hw, 'State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions'

    yeah, but now State is a condominium of the cia/pentagon. mostly the cia.

    @45 mm, 'the difference between Hitler and today's America is Hitler built a police state at home to take war abroad while the US took war abroad to build a police state at home'

    well put.

    @47 likkelmore, 'The Electoral College is designed to balance small states vs large states; the same rationale for the Senate.'

    The Electoral College was designed to balance slave states vs non-slave states; the same rationale for the Senate.

    'so is [was] the make-up of the Senate'

    check.

    @48 juliana, 'If Americans want anything at this point, they do want an orderly change of government'

    i think that's the word.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:28:50 PM | 64
    juliania @48:
    haven't we recently seen the worth of polls?
    The're sinister when used to cement the reality that the propaganda is meant to create. In which case, most Americans believe .... could well be reworded as: most of your fellow citizens have accepted our disinformation - you should too!

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    karlof1 @49:

    Divide and Conquer
    No doubt Russia and China are aware of this possible strategy. It leads to the question of whether it is better for our globally-linked human society that Russia integrate with the West or join with China as counterweight.

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Banger @50:

    ... deep divisions not just within the State but in the public.
    Sadly, public divisions don't seem to mean much except when exploited by a powerful elite faction. Thus public divisions become a resource for elite maneuvering.

    Kudos: You were early in anticipating a leader like Trump who would exploit the discontent.

    Narratives which are far more compelling and based more on objective truth ...
    I think narratives that spin truth around accepted myths are most compelling (and what we see all-too-often).
    "moderate" Republicans
    I wouldn't call McCain, Graham, Rubio, and Company "moderates". William Banzai depicts them as American Jihadis!

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Circe @52

    WTF! b has previously spoken of the desireability of a real resistance to Trump, saying:

    Trump should and must be fought but that fight should be about important economic and social issues for which people care and of which there are plenty.... Every attempt to accuse Trump of this or that "Russia" outrage that has nothing to do with the average voter's life simply fails. These pseudo scandals waged within the "elite" media against him just makes him stronger.
    Please try to keep up.

    chipnik | Jan 15, 2017 7:37:59 PM | 65
    64

    To quote George Carlin, 'They (One Party of Mil.Gov.Fed) don't give a fuck about you! '

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:38:52 PM | 66
    x @59
    "Hypocrite" is the word for this type of odious person.
    No, the word is " sociopath " - a person with impaired conscience (aka "moral compass").

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 7:55:08 PM | 67
    @55

    Oh, and while I'll admit my conviction may come off as conceit; you, OTOH, are at the height of arrogant cynicism masking who knows what ideological Z-aberration known for its hubris.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 7:59:28 PM | 68
    @ b
    Bravo.

    Though we must not forget the same tactic used against Chavez in Venezuela, in ' The coup that failed, stillborn ? , or much more recently another unsuccessful rehash against Maduro.

    These are merely the newest, latest refined & distilled, incarnation of methods & technique, we have used against foreign governments since the 1800's!(two centuries of refinement). The latest methods are designed to maximize Plausible-Deniablility and maximize supposed credibility of the proxies, and create a foundation for continuing attempts should it not be successful (not - all or nothing), whilst always presenting Faux arguments/justifications in the latest 'methods', re Democracy, Rule of Law, Rights, Oppression, Dis=Enfranchised ... whilst launching a foreign State sponsored, instigated, financed, managed, resourced, Coup!

    From 1887 Samoa, 1893 Hawaii thru to 1953 Mossadegh (Iran), 1954 Guatemala, 1958 Lebanon, thru to 1973 Allende (Chile), 1991 Haiti and then thru to today.

    All our chickens have come home to roost. :(

    @ Posted by: Bob In Portland | Jan 15, 2017 1:08:57 PM | 5

    The CIA is not the 'entire' Deep State, nor is the CIA or the Deep State (think all aspects and scale and scope of GLADIO) the actual drivers/deciders. The CIA and other such entities 150 years before the CIA was legally born, are mercenaries acting upon the directions/instructions they receive , in actions such as these. YMMV

    mischi | Jan 15, 2017 8:02:51 PM | 69
    dh, not only did he say that Merkel had made a big mistake, Trump also told Bild that the EU was built to give the Germans primacy in Europe and for the EU to give the US a trading rival. He applauded Brexit, saying that everyone wanted to keep their identity and wanted a quick trading deal with the UK. Interesting times we live in.

    Peter AU | Jan 15, 2017 8:04:00 PM | 70
    The 9/11, WMD, MH17 crew are still out and about so it will be interesting to see what happens in the near future.
    I wouldn't like to be part of the cannon fodder brigade the US has moved to Russia's borders. They are starting to look like sacraficial goats for the good cause of geo-politics at this stage.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 8:11:40 PM | 71
    Color Revolutions are diplomacy by other means? If so, looking back a decade in Iran is just a start.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GG06Ak03.html
    Perhaps review of centuries is needed.
    England 1689 France 1789 1989 USSR...

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:12:56 PM | 72
    @ Posted by: Denis | Jan 15, 2017 3:02:15 PM | 25

    You jest assuredly ... who controls the ' Sole Remaining Superpower ', which spends more on its Military, let alone Intelligence/Proxy/NGO entities/forces, than the next largest 13 nations COMBINED, in a domestic US counter-election Coup is, ... not of significance ... everything re our rapacious actions on the people of Terra may be affected by these events, let alone domestically, for good of bad, or not.

    2. The "MI6 Report?" A bit of a misnomer isn't it? I haven't seen any allegations that MI6 itself was involved, making the term "MI6 Report" itself inferential propaganda fluff. Better name: "Steele Report"
    again, given the well documented & corroborated, FACTS, throughout these threads, you jest, yes ?

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 8:19:49 PM | 73
    Russia is still dominated by the Oligarchs- and who are they? Dual nationals of the same Little Horn as the dual nationals that run USA. And Iran. And China and Trump.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:21:38 PM | 74
    The only REAL, committed, passionate, mass united group of citizens is the 'Bag-of-Depplorables', most of the assets being burnt up in this Psyop campaign are 'False' or long ago 'Bought & Paid for'.

    Will those of the US citizenry who identify with or are misled/deceived by 'Identity Politics' and 'Fake Left' 'R2P', etc narratives be prepared to step up and put it all, 'On the Line'? Somewhat doubt it.

    Given what they openly say in comments and the twitts, etc, one doubts they, the 'Deplorables' who won the election for the Trumpster, will stand by passively should this continue to escalate beyond the 20th. No doubt at all.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:00 PM | 75
    @64

    Geez, I have to break my rule with you; this one time, 'coz you probably didn't read my comment (56) in response to the post you quote 'b' from where I compared him to Lt. Col. Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, (decent guy; but thoroughly misdirecting his genius to assisting the enemy). Here is the excerpt where I address that part of his post you quoted.:

    At times reading this; I thought I had entered the twilight zone of Breitbart, and only when I got to this disclaimer, was relieved to see that there is still a glimmer of hope that you will return to the side fighting the good fight.

    But the war against Trump is not over. In my view Trump should and must be fought [no kidding!] but that fight should be about important economic and social issues for which people care and of which there are plenty. Trump has his own cabal, libertarian billionaires like the Koch brothers, several generals in his cabinet and arch Zionists like Adelson. But that cabal's henchmen are not yet installed throughout the government. It is important to hinder such infestation.

    Yes, I do recognize a glimmer of hope, understated, but promising. You might yet blow up that bridge you've magnificently engineered, but I'd like to make these adjustments: the fight will and should not be restricted to economic and social issues. Do you really believe that the intended repression and exploitation will be limited to the U.S. alone???

    And allow me to correct this sentence by adding my two cents in square parenthesis:

    But that cabal's henchmen are not yet [ALL] installed throughout the government.

    Have you looked at his cabinet and entourage lately?

    Therefore, it is YOU, jr, that failed to keep up. Don't try to bait me; I'm so bored with your spin.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:28 PM | 76
    @ Posted by: VietnamVet | Jan 15, 2017 4:13:15 PM | 43

    Got it in one, VietnamVet.

    Interesting also is how the false narratives/dissembling is strong and responsive, in this thread, from particular posters, so quickly and in great quantity ...

    The simple question is: If Trump is not perceived as the greatest threat in at least ~71 years to the Military-Industrial-Corporate-Complex, and, more importantly their ultimate owners, the puppet-masters behind the curtain, the 0.01% owners thereof. Hence, why are we seeing these very events unfurl before our very eyes ?

    This is no charade or deceptive play to distract, amuse or entertain. That is bullshit.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:43:01 PM | 77
    @73

    Add UK and maybe France, Canada and Australia to the list and leave Iran and China out. They haven't been Z-infested yet; except maybe with spies and operatives.

    Kalen | Jan 15, 2017 8:43:48 PM | 78
    In every country under so called color revolution the underlying theme was imminent economic collapse that elites not only were unable to prevent but even actively pursuited and used the phony revolution to cover up their own theft and introduction global banking thieves into local economy under exigency of crisis, by selling land and state monopolies.
    If b is right preplaned economic crisis in the US is about to happen and a scape goat is about to be sworn in.
    That is the position of many independent economists recognizing that FED is covering up already ongoing depression that needs to be blamed on somebody but the establishment.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:46:16 PM | 79
    Posted by: Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:33:00 PM | 75

    Lt. Col. Nicholson in Bridge on the River Kwai, (decent guy; but thoroughly misdirecting his genius to assisting the enemy)

    An entirely false, fantasy, fiction, perpetrated in a movie FICTION!

    Veterans were and still are incensed. Let alone those who survived the industrialized torments/tortures, forced labor, starvation, neglect/disease and Death Marches, as well as their families who struggle with those survivors, to this very day .

    And it is used as a reference, for support ?! WTF! Have you ever personally met any of the survivors, and talked with them ?! A few still endure, many were only 17-20 at the time ...

    Have you no decency left, to try that one on, none at all ?

    Words fail me.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 8:51:39 PM | 80
    @71

    There was the real Revolution in Iran deposing the Shah and then there was an attempt at a fake one orchestrated by CIA and Mossad; the green revolution.

    Just want to emphasis that I was referring to the later fake one in my own post @52 above.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:58:46 PM | 81
    @ Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 7:38:52 PM | 66

    Sociopaths & psychopaths, sometimes both, in dedicated service to their Patrons, the ultimate Psychopathic Sociopaths, the soulless, inhuman, rapacious, 'Old Grey Men', of the 0.01%.

    The 0.01% who steered and enabled, incrementally, their tools, such as the NSA (created by Presidential Executive Order, Not thru an Act of Legislation), to ' Collect it all/Process it all '.

    Which is merely a reflection of the 0.01%s desires ... re Terra and all that is on it and populate it.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:19:38 PM | 82
    @Circe

    Well, I stand corrected! Your vitriol wasn't a lapse, it was vomiting on our host.

    You have yet to suggest anything constructive.

    Supporting Obama-Hillary's Democratic Party against Trump is a NON-STARTER. The Democratic Party has proven to be thoroughly corrupt, and is more 'Zionist' than you care to admit (because that is adverse to your mission) .

    I think most independent thinkers have decided that a better starting point for change is Trump's in-your-face MAGA tyranny because the MSM-fueled globalist stab-you-in-the-back tyranny is more dangerous. The sheep are too willing to sleepwalk into the latter.

    So we CHEER when Trump puts down MSM because they are a tool that is used against the people, but you GROAN because he's gaining ground.

    Its clear that you are not here to be constructive. Your mission is to De-legitimize Trump.

    guest77 | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:15 PM | 83
    Glad to see Louis Proyect still comes around like a little mouse, pooping in the corner and scurrying away.

    P Walker | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:33 PM | 84
    likklemore@47

    And where are the charges from the DoJ from all this illegal voting? Republicans have been screaming out this "problem" for sixteen years and yet can never offer up such evidence. How many cases were brought up during the Bush years? This is one of those far-right fake news stories like the Vince Foster murder or Pizzagate. There's as much evidence of this electoral fraud as there is of Russian hacking of the election.

    You get "insiders" speaking about things like same-day no-ID registrations allowing people to vote. They're being very, very deceptive. These people get provisional ballots, which basically are not ever counted in just about every state that has them. Same with absentee ballots. The problem with absentee ballots is that they so easily disqualified over trivialities (i.e., stray pencil marks) and voters are left with this idea that their vote was counted. Why is there an explosion in absentee ballots? Because minority communities, the same communities that have their names purged from voting roles by GOP state governments, not to mention reduce machines for voting day and limit open hours, but absentee ballot voters think that it's better to send in absentee votes than wait in crazy lines on voting day.

    Democrats lost because they couldn't muster the vote from the plurality and conservatives ALWAYS come out to vote; they are the only reliable voting group out there. That's why the win Congress and at the state level. They win because their opposition are a bunch of out-of-touch elitist morons more concerned about get the "firsts". The first woman president, the first black president, the first hispanic senator, and so on and that is purely a reflection on the Democratic Party establishment's cosmopolitan champagne socialism obsession. They *are* out of touch which is why 50% of the population no longer votes. There's no point voting Democrat anymore.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 9:22:48 PM | 85
    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:19:38 PM | 82

    No! Please, Say it is not so ? ;)

    And he/she ... is not alone ...

    Peace.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 9:23:14 PM | 86
    @79

    For crying out loud! I wasn't making any statement on whether or not the film fictionalized the actual events. I was using that character's role in the film to make an analogy here. Now go lecture and scream at someone else for a change.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:24:23 PM | 87
    Outraged @81

    I would think "sociopath!" every time Hillary spoke of "making tough choices".

    s | Jan 15, 2017 9:45:25 PM | 88
    likklemore@47 Illegals voting by the millions, like the hint about blacks somehow rigging the voting in urban areas, really is nothing but race baiting. OF course you talk about the Republic, that's practically a certificate of mad dog reaction. No, one man one vote is equal, the Electoral College is not. Even worse for you, if you really want to go the inequality route, you're the one who is inferior, being someone who upholds the equality of states rather than the equality of people, and mindlessly repeat lame slanders about the dark hordes somehow cheating at the polls and deranged irrelevancies instead of arguments. I suggest you more than most benefit from the proposition that all should have equal rights, because if they had to earn them, you lose.

    And lest I forget, your lame unthinking babble. You think the Senate is fair and square? No, you don't. When it's called the UN General Assembly, you know to the marrow of your bones it's not. Before you start ranting about what you think, you really need to have actual thoughts first.

    Trumpists are not the defenders of the people, Trumpists are the leaders in the attack on the people.

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 9:54:26 PM | 89
    @ Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 9:24:23 PM | 87

    One always saw and still, sees, the classical middle ages ' Grim Reaper' (image), standing and speaking in her stead, gesturing, enticingly ...

    Same same for Obama, Bush the Younger, too.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 9:55:33 PM | 90
    Circe: Even Islamic Revolution of 1979 was US backed. They wanted the Shah out. He had become "undependable" starting back around the time he threw his multi million $ celebration of 2500 Years of Persian Empire stuff- crowning himself Shah han Shah etc
    French were well aware he had cancer- they were treating him.
    Like the West has installed the MBros jihadis across the region to take down secular regimes of Gadaffi, Mubarak, Saddam, Assad. West had no hesitation installing an Islamic one to take out secular Shah. In Hegelian fashion, it began the Pike Program of "West vs Islam" phase of the Three World Wars. Or "Clash of Civilizations" or "War on Terror". The list above re: SNIPERS is interesting, as this motif also occurred in Tehran during the protests in Ferdowsi Sq w/ mysterious gunmen shooting into demos to incite the crowd.
    As for China not being dominated by the Zios? Afraid so. David Rockefeller had a vise grip via Chase Manhattan Bank very early on, and never forget that Trotsky "Lev Bronstein" was trained, equipped and prepped while living in in high style the Bronx on his way to Bolshevik Rev.

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 9:59:06 PM | 91
    Just to be clear; I'll repeat this for the literacy challenged and bald-faced liar who wrote I support Democrats.:

    The Revolution will be about the entire two-faced monopoly and the evil forces sustained by this monopoly that brought Trump to power and repeatedly suborn leadership and subvert the people's power.

    Where does this indicate affiliation with one party or another??? Trump and Hillary belong to the two-faced monopoly. I am an equal opportunity dissenter; I don't give a rat's ass about either party or their chosen change messiah-con, Trump being the latest, that the deep-state cabal use to lure the servitude into believing they live in a democracy with equal opportunity for all and things are gonna change.

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:33 PM | 92
    We're not buying it Circe. How many times do we need to tell you that? We've seen this before.

    Attacking Trump relentlessly while claiming that it is in the service of some super-high noble and unattainable rationale?

    What else ya got?

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:49 PM | 93
    @ Posted by: s | Jan 15, 2017 9:45:25 PM | 88

    Do you support the Constitution as it stands, the Laws of the United States, Federal & State or not ?

    Or only when it conveniently suits your argument/narrative/position ... regardless of facts ?

    This is why Intelligence Analysts (ultimately realists doing a job) for example, in the main, and most of the Military and a surprising number of citizens, are staying out of it, neutral, and incrementally ever so slowly pushing back against the screed and leaning towards the new POTUS/Administration. Why ?

    But, hey, he won the election, she lost! What is going on here ?

    Generations of belief in unreal myths re Democracy, etc, are, in effect, working against the Coup plotters Psyop campaign narrative.

    Denis | Jan 15, 2017 10:14:12 PM | 94
    Harry | Jan 15, 2017 3:18:10 PM | 34
    Steele requested permission of high ranking officials to go through with this report and he got the green light. Also he has very influential friends in MI6 and was involved in MAJOR propaganda campaigns before, like Litvinenko's.

    Sorry, Harry, but I can't decipher the above. Having a link to your source[s] might help.

    For instance, what do you mean by Steele got "permission" from "high ranking officials"?? Even if the assertion is factual, "high ranking officials" does not necessarily mean MI6. Officials where? US, UK, Ru ??? And having friends in MI6 has nothing to do with your assertion that Steele "requested permission" to do a dirty like this one.

    Let's presume you have a source that says Steele got "permission" from MI6. Do you see the implications of that? The report was initially commissioned by an as yet unidentified Republican candidate. But that person dropped out before the investigation really got started. So Steele shopped the project to Hillary's bunch of bums. And so what you are saying is that Steele went to some "high ranking official" I presume you mean in the UK, and further, within the context of the comment, you mean MI6 – and from that high ranking MI6 person came a green-light for Steele to do a hit-piece on a US presidential candidate. IOW, you are accusing the UK in precisely the same way the MSM and Obama are accusing Russia/Putin.

    Accepted wisdom has it that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and yet I see no proof here of any sort. Please pass me a link to a reliable source that says Steele asked for and rec'd permission from MI6. That would be very hot.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 8:12:56 PM | 72

    You jest assuredly ... who controls the 'Sole Remaining Superpower', which spends more on its Military, let alone Intelligence/Proxy/NGO entities/forces, than the next largest 13 nations COMBINED, in a domestic US counter-election Coup is, ... not of significance ... everything re our rapacious actions on the people of Terra may be affected by these events, let alone domestically, for good of bad, or not.

    I have absolutely no earthly idea what you are talking about. Is that "paragraph" supposed to be a response to my comment #25? Are we on the same page? Planet? What does the "Sole Remaining Superpower" have to do with any of this?

    To review: The topic is whether MI6 is eye-balls deep in the Steele Report. If it is, then calling it the "MI6 Report" makes sense. If not, then "MI6 Report" is a misleading misnomer and propaganda in its own right.

    again, given the well documented & corroborated, FACTS, throughout these threads, you jest, yes ?

    OK, that's better. I can understand that one. I noticed you capitalized "FACTS." Now we're talkin' the same language, dude.

    See my response to Harry, above. Same goes for you: Can you give me a link to a reliable source saying MI6 signed off on this attack on a US presidential candidate? Throw some FACTS my way. . .

    Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:15:27 PM | 95
    As long as the money flows, Democratic Party and sympathetic establishment operatives will try to derail Trump.

    At some point, a real resistance with some integrity will spring up once the Democratic Party and its lackeys have failed so miserably that they are a laughing stock.

    86'd | Jan 15, 2017 10:17:38 PM | 96
    Circe,
    Got it. Agree 100%. Until we take out the ventriloquists, we will be forever trapped in the fake left-right paradigm arguing over the Elite's puppet du jour- but never taking on the Deep State puppeteers. Seems we'd rather be manipulated by them, and persist in bickering w/ each other.

    Peter AU | Jan 15, 2017 10:19:57 PM | 97
    93 "Generations of belief in unreal myths re Democracy, etc, are, in effect, working against the Coup plotters Psyop campaign narrative."

    Spot on. The powers that be have to, over a very short period, try to turn this narrative around. It seems than now they will be impaled on their own democratic sword.

    Julian | Jan 15, 2017 10:25:23 PM | 98
    Hello Civil War!

    Although Pence-Clinton might be enough to mollify the population.

    This is exactly why Trump must go after the Clinton Foundation full throttle on January 20.

    There is no time to waste to neutralise this threat

    Circe | Jan 15, 2017 10:32:46 PM | 99
    What else ya got?

    Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15, 2017 10:05:33 PM | 92

    Oh gee, I dunno...how about this?!

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/05/3b/50/053b50e784c7bfc634dfac7f574adb06.jpg

    Outraged | Jan 15, 2017 10:44:53 PM | 100
    @ Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 15, 2017 4:04:45 PM | 42

    Apologies for CIA typo. It should read State Department color revolutions. State Dept runs US Ambassadors and, thereby, color revolutions.

    Respectfully, the CIA through the 'Local Station'(CIA), local Company technical/support sections & assets & agents, sources & proxies (NGOs/Associations/Union/Business elements), AND

    The State Department, through Diplomats/Officers and CIA under Official Cover(OC)(Diplomatic), also interacting with and managing the previous, though mostly focused on High level political, corporate entities/assets,

    ... simultaneously ... concurrently ... run the Coups and 'faux' revolutions/uprisings/'Arab Springs' ...

    To a varying lesser or greater degree there of, limited and/or competing co-operation/conflict.

    The Agency(CIA) and the State Department are not a monolithic entity ... there are common and partially overlapping interests and objectives, sometimes more, others less so ... yet they have never acted as one, as a 'Borg'.

    Phil Agee's published diary, to corroborate my brief explanation above in excruciating detail, is an accessible, open, unclassified insight re how this all actually works, for ant interested reader at MOA.

    Full text of 'Inside-the-Company-CIA-diary-Philip-aAgee.pdf" (Direct PDF doenload)

    There are no blanks in Philip Agee's Inside the Company: CIA Diary. This densely detailed expose names every CIA officer, every agent, every operation that ...

    ...

    Philip Agee discusses his experiences inside the CIA

    Philip Agee was a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who served in Latin America. After resigning from the CIA he lectured and wrote on the Agency's clandestine operations. His activities were not unnoticed. Ex-CIA Director and later President Bush the first called Agee "a traitor to our country." He is the author of Inside the Company: CIA Diary and On the Run. He died in Cuba in January 2008.

    Cheers.

    [Jan 18, 2017] War is a ... destructive suction tube.

    Jan 18, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    It is MLK weekend....

    A Boy Named Sue, January 15, 2017 at 12:22 AM

    It is MLK weekend....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rynxqdNMry4
    ilsm -> A Boy Named Sue... , January 15, 2017 at 05:12 AM
    Freedom is in the soul.

    Let us 'ally' with all the world, let us protect civilians, let us impose 'just peace', let us squander the environment. No plan is too bloody, no price too steep to prevent another 9/11. The evening news still needs bodies of "those people". Non violence is un American.

    I am not surprised the neoliberals do not post Dr King's Vietnam Speech:

    Here it is:

    http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/pacificaviet/riversidetranscript.html

    War is a ... "destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor."

    Ike said the same thing in 1953 and 1961.

    Poverty is violence.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 05:17 AM
    I was informed by MLK's awareness of the truth on the ground in 1967. That is why I protested the war in Viet Nam when protests began early in 1968 in Richmond VA, but not the draft. In April 1969 I had to decide whether to go to Canada and maybe never see my family again and take my wife far from her family as well, go to prison, or go to Viet Nam. MLK had already been murdered and I had already lost hope in the truth and social justice. So, I went to Viet Nam. I figured Doctor King would understand.
    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 15, 2017 at 05:34 AM
    I have a buddy who refused to take the step. Repeatedly until the SS board sent him to the 'judge'.

    He got 3 years in Public Health Service...... it was late '70 maybe they got kinder or maybe it was his area of NYS.

    I took the ROTC route, became a cold warrior by accident.

    Thank God! I never had to do any of my jobs!

    Humans rarely see.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 06:08 AM
    "...maybe it was his area of NYS..."

    [I'd go with probably.]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm... , January 15, 2017 at 05:19 AM
    BTW, that is an awesome great MLK speech. THANKS for dragging it out.

    [Jan 17, 2017] I'll sell myself out in a lot of different ways, but I will never sell myself out for a check from BuzzFeed

    Jan 17, 2017 | washingtonbabylon.com

    See, I'm not surprised that BuzzFeed would do something as shady and unethical as exposing this Trump dossier that alleges he paid Russian sex workers for a golden shower show. Nope, literally nothing this loathsome, pathetic excuse for a "news" site does could ever surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would take a site seriously that posts things they admit cannot be verified.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Lavrov US diplomats frequently took part in Russian opposition rallies - RT News

    Notable quotes:
    "... If we talk about recruitment techniques, we did not publicize the full statistics on that. But most recently, in the past few years, especially during the second term of Obama's administration, that unfriendly activity towards our diplomats has been growing in scale ..."
    "... In addition to spying, US Embassy diplomats have repeatedly been seen taking part in the rallies of opposition, anti-government forces, unauthorized rallies, including times when they wore disguise. Do the math yourselves ..."
    "... absolutely the opposite ..."
    "... They [the US diplomats] go to Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk, Voronezh regions. They were seen repeatedly in Novorossiysk, in the Chechen Republic, along the border with Donbas [Eastern Ukraine], traveled literally up and down the country, ..."
    "... We've curbed intelligence activities of US officials who were working under diplomatic cover. There was the famous episode when a disguised diplomat wearing a wig and false eyebrows penetrated the building of the US embassy, refusing to present identification to the security officer and hitting the officer," ..."
    "... "All these have been traced, ..."
    "... "agents of American security services. ..."
    "... We contacted the US State Department at once, ..."
    "... "When [Secretary] John Kerry learned about it, they were terrified. It was a frame-up of the State Department! ..."
    "... time was lost" ..."
    "... This information has not yet been made public ... It is not customary to do so, but if there is such an aggressive, unfriendly rhetoric from the outgoing US administration, of course, it would not be superfluous to remind the public that such incidents have occurred repeatedly – attempts to pressure our diplomats and attempts to recruit them for different reasons and in different situations," ..."
    "... this indicates that Russian missions abroad really are under constant pressure, that there is constant work to gather intelligence [against us], and often conducted very aggressively. ..."
    "... This shows quite a hostile line towards Russia. We regret that Washington resorted to such methods, and we hope that in our bilateral relations in the future we will still be able to establish a higher level of mutual trust and mutual respect," ..."
    Jan 17, 2017 | www.rt.com

    US intelligence agencies have been actively trying to recruit senior Russian diplomats over the past several years, according to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who also said that US diplomats in Russia have engaged in espionage and took part in opposition rallies. " If we talk about recruitment techniques, we did not publicize the full statistics on that. But most recently, in the past few years, especially during the second term of Obama's administration, that unfriendly activity towards our diplomats has been growing in scale ," Lavrov said at a news conference on Tuesday.

    #Lavrov : US has increased efforts to recruit Russian diplomats in recent years - LIVE NOW https://t.co/cOq6cPjwfB https://t.co/SPlTpHqxKY pic.twitter.com/nJoM5XGpep

    - RT (@RT_com) January 17, 2017

    According to the minister, US diplomats have also engaged in espionage in Russia and actively participated in the rallies staged by Russian opposition forces.

    " In addition to spying, US Embassy diplomats have repeatedly been seen taking part in the rallies of opposition, anti-government forces, unauthorized rallies, including times when they wore disguise. Do the math yourselves ," Lavrov stated.

    Lavrov dismissed allegations made by the Obama administration, which complained that the US Embassy in Russia was forced to work under allegedly intolerable conditions, with the US Ambassador " cut off " from all contacts, saying that evidence shows the situation was " absolutely the opposite " – that the diplomats' movements were never restricted.

    " They [the US diplomats] go to Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk, Voronezh regions. They were seen repeatedly in Novorossiysk, in the Chechen Republic, along the border with Donbas [Eastern Ukraine], traveled literally up and down the country, " he said.

    Lavrov also said that the authorities have been able to thwart US diplomats trying to spy on Russia on a number of occasions.

    Read more US intel may have contributed to Russian ex-Foreign Minister Primakov's death – Zakharova

    " We've curbed intelligence activities of US officials who were working under diplomatic cover. There was the famous episode when a disguised diplomat wearing a wig and false eyebrows penetrated the building of the US embassy, refusing to present identification to the security officer and hitting the officer," Lavrov noted, while mentioning several other episodes involving US diplomats wearing disguises, including some when men dressed as women.

    "All these have been traced, " the minister stressed.

    To illustrate the damage that can be caused by the spy-wars being waged by the US intelligence community, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova revealed a scandal that took place in 2015 which may have been among the causes of death of legendary Russian statesman Evgeny Primakov. In an interview with Rossiya 1 TV on Sunday, Zakharova described an alleged attempt by US intelligence services to recruit a Russian diplomat that resulted in a delay in the delivery of a rare American medicine needed for Primakov's treatment.

    According to Zakharova, as a favor to its former chief, the Russian Foreign Ministry organized the purchase of the drug through a practicing US doctor. An embassy employee was supposed to pick up the package and deliver it to Moscow through diplomatic channels. However, he was stopped by people whom Zakharova described as "agents of American security services. " The diplomat was detained, and then eventually let go, but the drug was confiscated. When the unnamed intelligence agency didn't even repay the cost of the drug, which was about $10,000, the Foreign Ministry decided to complain to US authorities.

    " We contacted the US State Department at once, " Zakharova said. "When [Secretary] John Kerry learned about it, they were terrified. It was a frame-up of the State Department! "

    Zakharova said that, although Primakov lived for some time following the incident, precious " time was lost" due to the gaffe.

    The spokeswoman said the story shows the disarray in the Obama administration, while noting that she believes the American security services have been deliberately trying to undermine all diplomatic ties between the US and Russia.

    According to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, the unfriendly rhetoric of the outgoing US authorities is to blame for Tuesday's disclosure of US pressure techniques on Russian diplomats.

    " This information has not yet been made public ... It is not customary to do so, but if there is such an aggressive, unfriendly rhetoric from the outgoing US administration, of course, it would not be superfluous to remind the public that such incidents have occurred repeatedly – attempts to pressure our diplomats and attempts to recruit them for different reasons and in different situations," Peskov told the press.

    He added that " this indicates that Russian missions abroad really are under constant pressure, that there is constant work to gather intelligence [against us], and often conducted very aggressively.

    " This shows quite a hostile line towards Russia. We regret that Washington resorted to such methods, and we hope that in our bilateral relations in the future we will still be able to establish a higher level of mutual trust and mutual respect," Peskov stated.

    [Jan 17, 2017] US F-16 Photographed In Mock Dogfight With Russian Su-27 Above Area 51

    Jan 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    King Tut , Jan 17, 2017 9:56 PM

    After the fall of the Soviet Union all kinds of their military hardware went "missing" - "Lord of War" (a great movie) showed the sleazier side of the international arms trade.

    [Jan 17, 2017] If we assume that Trump is a narcissist he might go not after China, but after national security parasites who tried to pull J. Edgar Hoover on him.

    Jan 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick : , January 16, 2017 at 07:08 PM
    Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance.
    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , January 16, 2017 at 07:28 PM
    He's got a lot of options for catastrophic failure - potential conflict with China coming to the forefront over the past week or so.* If he decides to have a go with them that will have an adverse effect on people's ability to buy cheap shit at WalMart. It could well adversely affect their ability to feed themselves. If that happens then I predict it will adversely affect his popularity.

    Trump is a narcissist. Popularity is of foremost importance to him. That noted, I'm skeptical that he's self-aware enough to recognize what actions he might take that people - as in essentially all of us, not just the ones who didn't vote for him - would hate him for. If given enough rope will he hang himself? Perhaps more significantly, how many of us will hang first?

    *Next week it'll be something new. Iran's probably due for a turn in the headlines before the winter is out. Perhaps a dust up with Putin in the spring?

    libezkova -> Chris G ... , January 16, 2017 at 08:30 PM
    If we assume that Trump is a narcissist, your analysis is all wrong. In this case he might go not after China, but after security parasites who tried to play J. Edgar Hoover on him. And try to destroy this scum.
    libezkova -> Dan Kervick... , -1
    Dan,

    "Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance."

    I am not so sure. People fought to block Hillary not to elect Trump. Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire.

    That means that Trump deserves the "Benefit of the Doubt" in evaluation of his performance -- most people understand that he will be fighting on two fronts, with the deep state being one.

    [Jan 17, 2017] I'll sell myself out in a lot of different ways, but I will never sell myself out for a check from BuzzFeed

    Jan 17, 2017 | washingtonbabylon.com

    See, I'm not surprised that BuzzFeed would do something as shady and unethical as exposing this Trump dossier that alleges he paid Russian sex workers for a golden shower show. Nope, literally nothing this loathsome, pathetic excuse for a "news" site does could ever surprise me. I can't understand why anyone would take a site seriously that posts things they admit cannot be verified.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire

    Jan 17, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick : January 16, 2017 at 07:08 PM

    Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance.

    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , January 16, 2017 at 07:28 PM

    He's got a lot of options for catastrophic failure - potential conflict with China coming to the forefront over the past week or so.* If he decides to have a go with them that will have an adverse effect on people's ability to buy cheap shit at WalMart.

    It could well adversely affect their ability to feed themselves. If that happens then I predict it will adversely affect his popularity.

    Trump is a narcissist. Popularity is of foremost importance to him. That noted, I'm skeptical that he's self-aware enough to recognize what actions he might take that people - as in essentially all of us, not just the ones who didn't vote for him - would hate him for. If given enough rope will he hang himself? Perhaps more significantly, how many of us will hang first?

    *Next week it'll be something new. Iran's probably due for a turn in the headlines before the winter is out. Perhaps a dust up with Putin in the spring?

    libezkova -> Dan Kervick... , -1
    Dan,

    "Whether Trump is seen by most of the public in the end as a "legitimate" president will be determined primarily by perceptions of his job performance."

    I am not so sure. People fought to block Hillary not to elect Trump. Hillary was the chosen candidate of the deep-state and international finance capital. They actually don't care if politician belong to 'D' or 'R' branch of the establishment party. They are only concerned how well they will serve the US led global neoliberal empire.

    That means that Trump deserves the "Benefit of the Doubt" in evaluation of his performance -- most people understand that he will be fighting on two fronts, with the deep state being one.

    Jas11 -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 08:40 PM
    The market reaction to Trumps surprise win pretty clearly indicates that Hillary was not the finance industries choice.

    If your that far off on this one, I'd bet your just as far off on the 'deep state', whatever that means.

    libezkova -> Jas11... , January 16, 2017 at 09:08 PM
    I agree that it is strange that we have "Trump rally" and that this rally somewhat contradicts my hypothesis (although not much if we analyze S&P 500 by sector, for example oil industry definitely should rally, no question about it).

    You forgot a very important nuance that S&P500 as a whole did much better that financial industry ETFs.

    People made a lot of money based on this recently.

    In any case, thank you for pointing this out.

    Ben Groves -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 09:35 PM
    Trumps ties to de Rothschild is where you don't get it. Oh, what did Donald do in 2008 that got him in bad trouble..............GS left the Morgans in 2009 and finally that truth is coming out of the closet. My guess when Democrats come back into the WH, GS gets hurt bad bad bad.
    sanjait -> libezkova... , January 16, 2017 at 11:14 PM
    "You forgot a very important nuance that S&P500 as a whole did much better that financial industry ETFs."

    This is the exact opposite of what actually happened.

    Seriously, go look it up. The finance sector has been *by far* the biggest beneficiary of Trump's election, in terms of stock price movement.

    Seriously, go look it up. XLF, for example, vs S&P 500.

    libezkova -> sanjait... , January 17, 2017 at 03:20 AM
    Yes, from election day I am deeply wrong. For 2017, I am right.
    Dan Kervick -> libezkova... , January 17, 2017 at 04:59 AM
    Trump will likely do something bold militarily, very early in his administration, most likely directed against ISIS and related jihadi groups. He will partner with Russia in doing this.

    If it goes reasonably well, Putin will be our new best buddy in the war on terror. The media herd, responding with the usual America at War televised info-frenzy, will ramble en masse away from it's current obsession with Russian spying and hacking, and will instead be covering the war theater with embedded journalists in flak jackets and helmets. They will be interviewing, among others, Russian pilots and generals, newly discovered to be likable and sturdy vodka-slugging war heroes, and our allies against terrorists, not diabolical villains. They will regale the public with background stories about heroic Russian deeds of the past, including how they stopped Hitler in the snows of western Russia. Nobody will care any more about the details of the 2016 election, and the sad dead-enders who can't let it go.

    On the other hand, if it goes poorly, this will give the public even more opportunity to indulge conspiracy theories about false flags, Russian and American "deep state" subversion, crony-capitalist bribery, election meddling and the illegitimacy of the 2016 outcome, Russian state television propaganda, left-wing fifth columnists and traitors, etc.

    So that's what I mean when I say that Trump's perceived legitimacy will depend on how things go.

    Chris G -> Dan Kervick... , -1
    That sounds about right.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Get Paid Fighting Against Trump - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators

    Standard color revolution methods came to the USA...
    Notable quotes:
    "... "Get Paid Fighting Against Trump" - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators ..."
    "... Creation Date: 2016-12-02T00 ..."
    Jan 17, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    "Get Paid Fighting Against Trump" - Ads Across American Cities Reportedly Offer Money To Inauguration Agitators

    President-elect Donald Trump has complained about paid activists both before and after the 2016 presidential campaign, and as The Washington Times reports, he may have a point.

    Job ads running in more than 20 cities offer $2,500 per month for agitators to demonstrate at this week's presidential inauguration events.

    Demand Protest, a San Francisco company that bills itself as the "largest private grassroots support organization in the United States," posted identical ads Jan. 12 in multiple cities on Backpage.com seeking "operatives."

    "Get paid fighting against Trump!" says the ad.

    "We pay people already politically motivated to fight for the things they believe. You were going to take action anyways, why not do so with us!" the ad continues. "We are currently seeking operatives to help send a strong message at upcoming inauguration protests."

    The job offers a monthly retainer of $2,500 plus "our standard per-event pay of $50/hr, as long as you participate in at least 6 events a year," as well as health, vision and dental insurance for full-time operatives.

    An example of one of the ads...

    Source: Tulsa.backpage.com

    While there have been "fake" ads in the past, as The Washington Times notes , if the Demand Protest ads are ruses, however, someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to sell the scam.

    The classifieds are running in at least two dozen cities, including Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Dallas and Houston, and the company operates a slick website that includes contact information.

    A San Francisco phone number listed on the website was answered with a voice-mail message identifying the company by name. A request for comment left Monday evening was not immediately returned.

    The website, which says that the company has provided 1,817 operatives for 48 campaigns, promises "deniability," assuring clients that "we can ensure that all actions will appear genuine to media and public observers."

    "We are strategists mobilizing millennials across the globe with seeded audiences and desirable messages," says the website. "With absolute discretion a top priority, our operatives create convincing scenes that become the building blocks of massive movements. When you need the appearance of outrage, we are able to deliver it at scale while keeping your reputation intact."

    A search by the Washington Times showed the Backpage.com ads also ran in Austin, Charlotte, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Denver, Detroit, El Paso, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Oakland, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tulsa, and Washington, D.C.

    Bollixed -> Captain Chlamydia , Jan 17, 2017 7:36 PM

    Looks like they're full...

    https://www.demandprotest.com/recruitment/

    Dormouse -> Bollixed , Jan 17, 2017 7:44 PM

    Sounds like these groups could be easily infiltrated. Unless there's a useful-idiot IQ test before hand.

    evoila -> Dormouse , Jan 17, 2017 7:46 PM

    Can't these people be busted under RICO or something?

    Ignatius -> evoila , Jan 17, 2017 7:59 PM

    "Hey, dad, I got a job!"

    Malaka -> Dormouse , Jan 17, 2017 7:50 PM

    https://www.demandprotest.com/

    Domain Name: demandprotest.com Registry Domain ID: Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.google.com Registrar URL: https://domains.google.com Updated Date: 2017-01-04T00:00:00Z

    Creation Date: 2016-12-02T00:00:00Z

    Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2017-12-02T00:00:00Z Registrar: Google Inc. Registrar IANA ID: 895 Registrar Abuse Contact Email: Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8772376466

    Domain Status: ok https://www.icann.org/epp#ok Registry Registrant ID: Registrant Name: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702 Registrant Organization: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124951702 Registrant Street: 96 Mowat Ave Registrant City: Toronto Registrant State/Province: ON Registrant Postal Code: M4K 3K1 Registrant Country: CA Registrant Phone: +1.4165385487 Registrant Phone Ext: Registrant Fax: Registrant Fax Ext: Registrant Email:

    http://www.disruptj20.org/

    Prank Time! A Deplorable Favorite Pasttime!

    J S Bach -> WTFMOFO , Jan 17, 2017 7:27 PM

    Trump needs to become his own George Soros (forgive the comparison, Donald) and fund his own "Get Paid For Fighting FOR Trump" campaign.

    bobbbny -> J S Bach , Jan 17, 2017 7:29 PM

    It appears thatDJT has never had to pay his supporters anything.

    nmewn -> bobbbny , Jan 17, 2017 7:38 PM

    lmao!!!..."All our operatives have access to our 24/7 phone help desk in addition to in-person support at events."

    HELLO? HELP! I GOT LOST I'M GETTING MY ASS MUGGED BY THREE BLACK DUDES ONLY FIVE BLOCKS FROM THE WH!

    "What? Who is this? How did you get this number? You sound like a racist Trump supporter!"

    (click)...lol.

    1980XLS d WTFMOFO •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM

    Fuck unemployment. Sue them for unjust termination after the Jig is Over.

    Mazzy d Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:27 PM

    For example:

    $17 per hour (makes it seem more real than a common number such as 15) for operative/protestor. Bus transportation will be provided. Paid half upon arrival at destination, half upon return.

    Bus will be located at address xxxx on yyyyy street (in front of local democrat councilman's house, or local university professor...be creative, make it hilarious).


    nmewn -> Mazzy •Jan 17, 2017 7:28 PM

    I like the way you think...lol.

    Mazzy -> nmewn •Jan 17, 2017 7:32 PM

    Or just tell them to meet on the Quad/Square/Commons of the local college/university. Say that they will be meeting some professor of 'whatever', just look it up and come up with something plausible.

    Say that the bus will transport them to the nearest city or nearest larger city or the state capitol or whatever. Again, be plausible and convincing. Be creative and cross check before you post. I think we can pull this off.

    Think of the hilarity when a bunch of Hilary fems/mancucks or hundreds of angry Obama's sons show up and there's no payment.....

    MASTER OF UNIVERSE •Jan 17, 2017 7:33 PM

    Participatory Democracy has improved with monetary inducements for those that demonstrate, but when demonstrators make the same pay grade as the Police Officers hired by the State we will have equality of opportunity without disparity between protagonists & antagonists which would likely be better than what we see now.

    Fake Capitalism ain't worth minimum wage, motherfuckers!

    Sinnycool •Jan 17, 2017 8:20 PM

    Just imagine if the situation was reversed and the Trump camp was advertising for paid goons to prevent President-Elect-Hillary's inauguration.

    The media outcry would be heard on Mars and the National Guard if not the army would be deployed to detain and charge them.

    Trump himself would be at least threatened with the crime of aiding and abetting treason and his close associates would be placed in preventative detention for six months.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that having now de-legitimised Trump's election win, the "powers that be" are working up to openly carry out a public coup against the president-elect of their own country. As their attempts have been failing they have been escalating their methodology.

    They have become so used to doing it to other countries and their rationalisation is the same: what we define as evil can and will be destroyed using whatever means are necessary.

    [Jan 17, 2017] Is Politically Correct or Jingoistic Reporting Fake News - The Unz Review

    Jan 17, 2017 | www.unz.com
    What Russia's crime consisted of, by the most damaging interpretation, was hacking into a private server belonging to a political party and possibly allowing the admittedly factual but embarrassing material obtained to make its way into the media. Excuse me, but that is what intelligence agencies do routinely to justify their multiple billion dollar budgets. The United States is the world leader in such activity as revealed by Jim Bamford's books on the subject and also through the revelations obtained in the Snowden papers. Now Russia is being condemned for possibly doing some of the same, though no evidence is being provided, and the story is being framed as if we are by definition the good guys and Vladimir Putin is the devil incarnate.

    What I am saying is that the United States mainstream media is the primary source of fake news due to its inbuilt biases on what is acceptable and what is not. It actually hurts black people by its attempts to be protective and its unwillingness to consider a news story through the eyes of the other party for chauvinistic reasons means that Americans are particularly uninformed about what is going on in the world. To suggest that all of this is particularly dangerous, both in terms of domestic tranquility and possible foreign threats, would be an understatement.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Who is blackmailing the president ? by Eric Zuesse

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia. ..."
    "... What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com
    Eric Zuesse 2 days ago

    This article caused me to lose respect for 'Gaius Publius', because of his statements so prejudicial and presumption-laden, so trusting in what liars (including especially Trump) have said, as, "As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history" -- which presumes that Trump will certainly turn out to have been even worse than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which means that 'Gaius Publius' doesn't understand what the competition for that title, "the worst in American history," really is and how vile and evil and harmful they were, such as Obama's having tried to push Russia to the very brink of war (and Hillary Clinton would have pushed it beyond the brink, by her insisting upon establishing a "no-fly zone" in Syria, shooting down Russian planes and forcing Russia to shoot down American planes there). 'Gaius Publius' is a Democratic Party sucker there, blind to Obama's (and especially Clinton's) evil. Then he says:

    "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia.

    What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? Would we feel safe from their missiles? How blind can Democrats be? It's why I quit the Party.

    'Gaius Publius' is just a fool, someone who can't get rid of his assumptions once they've become false. How is he any smarter than Republicans, who are long-infamous for being precisely such fools?

    This article has some true parts, but the person who wrote it is a fool. Lots of fools mix falsehoods in with truths, instead of believe only falsehoods. Those fools are harder to detect, but that also makes even more important the reader's being on guard against believing what such 'over-educated' fools say or write. 'Gaius Publius' hasn't absorbed the reality of the Clinton-Obama-led Democratic Party. It's disgusting.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Has the imperator surrounded himself with the wrong praetorians?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding? ..."
    "... In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint. ..."
    "... The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    reason : January 16, 2017 at 02:25 AM
    Just as an aside - not really economics, but I am really worrying about what the war between the future white house team and the CIA that seems to be brewing. I don't see good solutions to this. It is sort of unprecedented in a major western country. Can you think of a similar case (where the intelligence services - and perhaps the military as well regarded there own government head as an enemy agent)?
    reason -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 03:02 AM
    Perhaps MI5 and Wilson?
    Fang__z -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 04:03 AM
    Canaris and Hitler. :p
    ilsm -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 04:41 AM
    Henry VI Pt2

    dems playing Yorks

    put the CIA in

    the Tower

    CIA been the neocon

    payroll too long

    who told you Soviets

    were never going

    tp collapse

    ilsm -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 04:49 AM
    Define unprecedented. What are your standards for a "major western nation"? Any moral standard? Do they include blowing up countries, using militarized spooks with unlimited secret funding?

    If you side with the devil what are you?

    In tilting with the CIA, Trump is a saint.

    jonny bakho -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 05:03 AM
    Don't worry. Be happy. Nothing can be done now.The voters wanted someone to "shake things up"
    Trump will be applying creative destruction to government
    Obama failed to drive the NeoCons out of government. Trump may do so, but the replacement might be fundamentally more corrupt.

    As with Obamacare, the idea is to destroy it and replace it with something better.
    Most revolutions find it easy to destroy and very much harder to build
    Most sane leaders recognize this difficulty and modify the existing rather than destroy and never getting around to replacement or find the replacement to be worse than the existing.

    Looters on the other hand love destruction. The resulting chaos affords them more opportunity to get windfalls. Trump will give the voters the radical change they think they want. But Trump will use the destruction as an opportunity for personal gain. The public will be left with a gutted government that will need to be rebuilt before it will function again

    Chris G -> jonny bakho... , January 16, 2017 at 05:06 AM
    One quibble: The destruction he applies will not be creative. It will be thorough but entirely unimaginative.
    reason -> jonny bakho... , January 16, 2017 at 07:24 AM
    I don't believe in "creative destruction", I believe in "destructive creation" which is something quite different. But that is not the point. This is not about the government as such, it is about the security apparatus in itself. It could get very nasty if that ends up either totally alienated or politicized.
    Chris G -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 05:03 AM
    If I were President, provoking an organization whose specialty is covert operations and which has track record of bringing about the demise of insufficiently agreeable leaders would not be high on my to-do list.
    ilsm -> Chris G ... , January 16, 2017 at 05:20 AM
    Has the imperator surrounded himself with the wrong praetorians?
    Peter K. -> reason ... , January 16, 2017 at 05:37 AM
    Why do you think a war is brewing? What do you think is going to happen?

    They'll give him bad intel like they did with Bush?

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 16, 2017 at 05:44 AM
    The meme that Trump will "get US into war" is a Clinton loser-whiner meme! Delusional and misleading; the neocon Clinton would have done Putin first CIA fictional, regime change excuse the yellow press could spread.
    Peter K. -> ilsm... , January 16, 2017 at 05:54 AM
    Trump is an isolationist who repeatedly said the Iraq war was a disaster, which it was.

    If the CIA is going after Trump they're doing a bad job. The worst they could come up with is some unverified accounts that Trump likes pee-pee parties.

    reason -> Peter K.... , January 16, 2017 at 07:29 AM
    Because they are already reportedly telling some of their contacts not to trust the government with information in case it ends up with hostile governments. Maybe using the word "war" is misleading. Maybe "cold war" is more accurate, but in general I mean a state of mutual distrust.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius analysys of who is blackmailing the president is so prejudicial and presumption-laden that trusting it would be unwise by Eric Zuesse

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia. ..."
    "... What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com
    Eric Zuesse 2 days ago

    This article caused me to lose respect for 'Gaius Publius', because of his statements so prejudicial and presumption-laden, so trusting in what liars (including especially Trump) have said, as, "As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history" -- which presumes that Trump will certainly turn out to have been even worse than George W. Bush and Barack Obama, which means that 'Gaius Publius' doesn't understand what the competition for that title, "the worst in American history," really is and how vile and evil and harmful they were, such as Obama's having tried to push Russia to the very brink of war (and Hillary Clinton would have pushed it beyond the brink, by her insisting upon establishing a "no-fly zone" in Syria, shooting down Russian planes and forcing Russia to shoot down American planes there). 'Gaius Publius' is a Democratic Party sucker there, blind to Obama's (and especially Clinton's) evil. Then he says:

    "Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles." He yet again is a Democratic-Party sucker by his bald assumption that it wasn't "who they appeared to be," it's instead what they were and still are, which is disgusting and which was overwhelmingly supported by Democrats supporting Obama -- they even voted for his war against Russia, and backed almost 100% his bloody coup which overthrew the democratically elected President of Ukraine -- right next door to Russia.

    What would we Americans think if Russia had perpetrated a coup in Mexico? Would we feel safe from their missiles? How blind can Democrats be? It's why I quit the Party.

    'Gaius Publius' is just a fool, someone who can't get rid of his assumptions once they've become false. How is he any smarter than Republicans, who are long-infamous for being precisely such fools?

    This article has some true parts, but the person who wrote it is a fool. Lots of fools mix falsehoods in with truths, instead of believe only falsehoods. Those fools are harder to detect, but that also makes even more important the reader's being on guard against believing what such 'over-educated' fools say or write. 'Gaius Publius' hasn't absorbed the reality of the Clinton-Obama-led Democratic Party. It's disgusting.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Gaius Publius Who is Blackmailing the President Why Arent Democrats Upset About It by Gaius Publius,

    Highly recommended!
    Recommended !
    Notable quotes:
    "... The CIA and NSA (the largest part of the "national security state") were intruding politically in the other direction , by endorsing Clinton and demonizing Trump ..."
    "... For months , the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton's candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump. ..."
    "... It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA's proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war , while Trump denounced it . ..."
    "... This is not a game, even at the electoral level. It has nation-changing, anti-democratic consequences. Democratic voters fear a coup, or a kind of coup, led by the Trump administration, and for good reason. But there's another coup in the making as well, and Democrats are cheering it. ..."
    "... Yet the following actually did happen (Greenwald again, my emphasis): "Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being 'really dumb' by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them ." And yet there was no shock or fear, at least from Maddow or her viewers. ..."
    "... And Schumer really did use the phrase "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." The video is embedded here . Is that how Democrats plan to defeat Trump? Is it better, more comforting, if a Democrat makes that threat and appears to side with the security agencies' (the deep state's) strong-arm tactics? ..."
    "... A coup in the making - not the one we fear, which may also occur - but a coup nonetheless. This really is not a game, and both sides are playing for keeps. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.washingtonsblog.com

    The CIA and NSA (the largest part of the "national security state") were intruding politically in the other direction , by endorsing Clinton and demonizing Trump (my emphasis):

    For months , the CIA, with unprecedented clarity, overtly threw its weight behind Hillary Clinton's candidacy and sought to defeat Donald Trump.

    In August, former acting CIA Director Michael Morell announced his endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed that "Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." The CIA and NSA director under George W. Bush, Gen. Michael Hayden, also endorsed Clinton, and went to the Washington Post to warn , in the week before the election, that "Donald Trump really does sound a lot like Vladimir Putin," adding that Trump is "the useful fool, some naif, manipulated by Moscow, secretly held in contempt, but whose blind support is happily accepted and exploited."

    It is not hard to understand why the CIA preferred Clinton over Trump. Clinton was critical of Obama for restraining the CIA's proxy war in Syria and was eager to expand that war , while Trump denounced it .

    Now Trump is president and the pro-war national security forces are at it again, leaning again on Trump in yet another intrusion into the political process .

    So who again tried to tilt the field for or against Clinton or Trump? Including Russia, the administration, Comey, agents of the FBI and NY police, the CIA and national security forces, I count five groups. This is a lot of political intrusion, regardless of which candidate you favored - all within the last year - and we're still not done. I'm sure we're only halfway through this extended drama.

    The Selective Blindness of the Democratic Party

    Third, with all this political interference, where are the Democrats? Do they condemn it all, praise it all, or pick and choose?

    Bottom line: They see what they want to see, not what's in front of us all and in plain sight. Which is not only unprincipled, it's dangerous for them as well as us.

    Again, they did not see Obama's original declarations of Clinton's innocence as political intrusion. But they did see Comey's eventual "won't indict, but will condemn" speech, and his and other investigators' pre-election actions, as political intrusion. They did not see the "pro-war" security apparatus' endorsement of Clinton and trashing of Trump as intrusions. But they do see Russian interference as intrusion. And they absolutely don't see the security services' present blackmail threats against a duly elected president as political interference.

    They see what they want to see, what they think helps them politically and electorally, and they're blind to the rest. This is highly unprincipled. And again, it's dangerous as well.

    After all, one reason the institutional Democratic Party nearly lost to Sanders, a highly principled man - and did lose to Trump, a man who pretended to be principled - is that plenty of voters in key states were just tired of being taken for a ride by "say one thing, do another" Democrats. Tired, in other words, of unprincipled Democrats - tired of job-promising. job-killing trade deals pushed hard by both Democratic presidents, tired of the bank bailout that made every banker whole but rescued almost no mortgagees , tired of their reduced lives , their mountain of personal debt , tired of the overly complex, profit-infected, still-unsolved medical care system - tired of what 16 years of Democrats had done to them, not for them.

    If Democrats want to start winning again, not just the White House, but Congress and state houses, they can't continue to be these Democrats - unprincipled and self-serving. They must be those Democrats, Sanders Democrats, principled Democrats instead.

    Does the above litany of complaint about political interference when it suits them, and non-complaint when it doesn't, look like principled behavior to you?

    Which brings me to the end of this part of the discussion. If some people see this party behavior as self-serving hypocrisy, you can bet others do as well. Democrats can only turn this decade-long collapse around by not being who they appeared to be in the last three election cycles. They have to attract the Sanders voters who stood aside in the general election and see them very negatively. Yes, Democrats will continue to get votes - some people will always vote Democratic. But in the post-Sanders, post-Trump era, will they get enough votes to turn the current tide, which runs heavily against them?

    I'm not alone in thinking, not a chance.

    But this is the long form of what I wanted to say. For the elevator speech version, just read the three tweets at the top. I think they capture the main points very nicely.

    Glenn Greenwald: "The Deep State Goes to War with the President-Elect, and Democrats Cheer"

    Greenwald's take is very similar to mine, and there's much more research in his excellent piece . Writing at The Intercept , he says (emphasis in original):

    The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer

    In January, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction's power even further.

    This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as "Fake News."

    Their most valuable instrument is the U.S. media, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with hidden intelligence officials. And Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as well as a systemic collapse of their party , seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing - eager - to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging those behaviors might be.

    You can see where this is going. The "deep state," the CIA, NSA and the rest of the unelected national security apparatus of the U.S., is going to war with an elected president even before he takes office, and Democrats are so eager for a win that they're siding with them.

    Did Russia attempt to interfere in the U.S. election? Of course, and Democrats condemned it. Did the agents of the FBI et al attempt to interfere in the U.S. election? Of course, and Democrats condemned it. Is the national security state today interfering in the outcome of a U.S. election, by trying to destabilize and force its will on the incoming administration? Of course, and Democrats are cheering it.

    As horrible and as monstrous as this incoming administration is - and it will prove to be the worst in American history - who would aid the national security apparatus in undermining it?

    Apparently, the Democratic Party. Greenwald continues:

    The serious dangers posed by a Trump presidency are numerous and manifest. There are a wide array of legitimate and effective tactics for combatting those threats: from bipartisan congressional coalitions and constitutional legal challenges to citizen uprisings and sustained and aggressive civil disobedience. All of those strategies have periodically proven themselves effective in times of political crisis or authoritarian overreach.

    But cheering for the CIA and its shadowy allies to unilaterally subvert the U.S. election and impose its own policy dictates on the elected president is both warped and self-destructive. Empowering the very entities that have produced the most shameful atrocities and systemic deceit over the last six decades is desperation of the worst kind. Demanding that evidence-free, anonymous assertions be instantly venerated as Truth - despite emanating from the very precincts designed to propagandize and lie - is an assault on journalism, democracy, and basic human rationality. And casually branding domestic adversaries who refuse to go along as traitors and disloyal foreign operatives is morally bankrupt and certain to backfire on those doing it.

    And Greenwald agrees that this tactic is not just craven; it's also dangerous:

    Beyond all that, there is no bigger favor that Trump opponents can do for him than attacking him with such lowly, shabby, obvious shams, recruiting large media outlets to lead the way. When it comes time to expose actual Trump corruption and criminality, who is going to believe the people and institutions who have demonstrated they are willing to endorse any assertions no matter how factually baseless, who deploy any journalistic tactic no matter how unreliable and removed from basic means of ensuring accuracy?

    All of this, don't forget, rests on the one document mentioned above , the material summarized in an appendix to the classified version of the security services' report on Russia (emphasis mine):

    the Deep State unleashed its tawdriest and most aggressive assault yet on Trump: vesting credibility in and then causing the public disclosure of a completely unvetted and unverified document, compiled by a paid, anonymous operative while he was working for both GOP and Democratic opponents of Trump , accusing Trump of a wide range of crimes, corrupt acts and salacious private conduct. The reaction to all of this illustrates that while the Trump presidency poses grave dangers, so, too, do those who are increasingly unhinged in their flailing, slapdash, and destructive attempts to undermine it.

    I'll send you to the Greenwald piece for much more of this detail. As I said above, this story has seemed muddy until now, but it just came clear.

    A Coup in the Making

    This is not a game, even at the electoral level. It has nation-changing, anti-democratic consequences. Democratic voters fear a coup, or a kind of coup, led by the Trump administration, and for good reason. But there's another coup in the making as well, and Democrats are cheering it.

    If a Republican elected official had publicly warned Obama not oppose a policy the Republicans and the CIA/NSA favored because "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you," what would - what should - our response to that be? Mine would be horror and shock that a Republican had dared make that threat, followed by fear that he, and the agencies behind him, will make good on it. At which point, it's farewell democracy, likely for a long long time.

    Yet the following actually did happen (Greenwald again, my emphasis): "Just last week, Chuck Schumer issued a warning to Trump, telling Rachel Maddow that Trump was being 'really dumb' by challenging the unelected intelligence community because of all the ways they possess to destroy those who dare to stand up to them ." And yet there was no shock or fear, at least from Maddow or her viewers.

    And Schumer really did use the phrase "they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you." The video is embedded here . Is that how Democrats plan to defeat Trump? Is it better, more comforting, if a Democrat makes that threat and appears to side with the security agencies' (the deep state's) strong-arm tactics?

    A coup in the making - not the one we fear, which may also occur - but a coup nonetheless. This really is not a game, and both sides are playing for keeps.

    By Gaius Publius, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter @Gaius_Publius, Tumblr and Facebook. GP article archive here. Originally published at DownWithTyranny

    [Jan 16, 2017] If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated the very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products

    Notable quotes:
    "... The implication inherent in DNI Clapper's revelation is that the classified information relied upon by the Intelligence Community was so specific as to its nature, and so critical and central to the judgments made in the ICA, that it could not be worked around to the extent necessary to shield its specific source from the analysts in the INR. ..."
    "... If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated the very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products he proudly cited to underpin the credibility of the ICA. It also implies that the intelligence community was comfortable with excluding from one of the most important assessments of Russian intent in modern times the very agency, the Department of State, that deals with the Russians on a broad spectrum of issues on a daily basis, and as such would be ideally positioned to weigh in on issues such as Russian intent – especially that of its leader, Vladimir Putin. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    fresno dan , January 15, 2017 at 8:29 am

    Exposing The Man Behind The Curtain Scott Ritter, Huffington Post (Fiver). Important.

    "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election." This statement was false when it was made by Hillary Clinton, on October 9, 2016, referring to the aforementioned October 7 joint statement by DHS and the ODNI; as was the case for the Russian ICA, the joint statement drew upon only three of the 16 agencies (the 17th is the ODNI, which is a coordinating body, not a separate intelligence agency), the only intelligence agencies involved in crafting the underlying assessments and judgments were the FBI, CIA and NSA.

    When one dissects the nuts and bolts that hold the Russian ICA together, the framework is actually quite weak. The FBI, the sole agency responsible for intelligence derived from a domestic source (i.e., the DNC server and John Podesta) has acknowledged that it has had no direct access to the servers involved, and was compelled to carry out its investigation based upon the technical report of a private cyber security company, Crowdstrike, brought in by the DNC in April 2016***.
    ..
    It was interesting to note that DNI Clapper told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, in open session on January 10, 2016, that the State Department, in particular its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was excluded from participating in the preparation of the classified ICA because of "sensitivity of sources." This seems to be a unique circumstance, as the Senator who asked the question noted; INR analysts possess the highest level of security clearances that grant them access to a broad range of highly classified sources of intelligence.

    The implication inherent in DNI Clapper's revelation is that the classified information relied upon by the Intelligence Community was so specific as to its nature, and so critical and central to the judgments made in the ICA, that it could not be worked around to the extent necessary to shield its specific source from the analysts in the INR.

    This exclusion, however, would cut across the entire intelligence community, given the "need to know" caveats attached to most, if not all, sensitive information of this nature. If this was, indeed, the standard applied, then it would also exclude from participation in preparation of the ICA many of the CIA's own analysts, and most, if not all, of the academics recruited to fill positions within the National Intelligence Council, the arm of the ODNI responsible for overseeing the production of multi-agency assessments like the ICA on Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

    If DNI Clapper is telling the truth, then the ICA was prepared in a manner that violated the very tradecraft regarding the preparation of intelligence community analytical products he proudly cited to underpin the credibility of the ICA. It also implies that the intelligence community was comfortable with excluding from one of the most important assessments of Russian intent in modern times the very agency, the Department of State, that deals with the Russians on a broad spectrum of issues on a daily basis, and as such would be ideally positioned to weigh in on issues such as Russian intent – especially that of its leader, Vladimir Putin.

    ==================================================================
    It may seem like a small lie, 3 bureaucracies instead of 17, but it is is an innate characteristic of these institutions and individuals. They spread a lot of disinformation. And than of course, the lying by omission.

    Its a complete and thorough "assessment" .except for the fact that all those cynics, skeptics, and anyone with the expertise to refute the dubious assumptions and obvious biases of the CIA were excluded.

    So, the CIA says "WE ALL AGREE" – does anyone know of a MSM that has pointed out that the "intelligence report" is a consensus ONLY because anybody who disagreed was left off???

    ***
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.c9e570cc61fc

    One group, which CrowdStrike had dubbed Cozy Bear, had gained access last summer and was monitoring the DNC's email and chat communications, Alperovitch said.

    The other, which the firm had named Fancy Bear, broke into the network in late April and targeted the opposition research files. It was this breach that set off the alarm. The hackers stole two files, Henry said. And they had access to the computers of the entire research staff - an average of about several dozen on any given day.

    The computers contained research going back years on TRUMP. "It's a huge job" to dig into the dealings of somebody who has never run for office before, Dacey said.

    CrowdStrike is not sure how the hackers got in. The firm suspects they may have targeted DNC employees with "spearphishing" emails. These are communications that appear legitimate - often made to look like they came from a colleague or someone trusted - but that contain links or attachments that when clicked on deploy malicious software that enables a hacker to gain access to a computer. "But WE DON'T HAVE HARD EVIDENCE," Alperovitch said.

    ===================================
    Soooo .the DNC is mad that Russia got all their Trump Opo dirt for free?

    HBE , January 15, 2017 at 10:42 am

    Great detailed piece, and on huffpo no less.

    Then I checked the comments (only 12 in 3 days), of which all were of the "OMG Russians" or "the IC must be trusted" variety.

    It appears huffpo buried this affront to it's general narrative somewhere deep, so as not risk a distortion to it's well manicured bubble.

    Not that they needed to, as the few comments on the buried piece illustrate the bubble has become self sustaining.

    WJ , January 15, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Ritter's piece is unfortunately too detailed and informative–too accurate, in a word–for the vast majority of the screen-reading populace, the credentialed among whom are much dumber and less cultured than their working-class forebears. It's much less taxing to read Jeff Bezos's Blog while ordering your no-whip vanilla latte than trying to work through the far-reaching implications of Ritter's analysis.

    fresno dan , January 15, 2017 at 11:51 am

    WJ
    January 15, 2017 at 10:59 am

    Poor Ritter – doomed to be this era's Cassandra. Or maybe poor us (poor "US" as in USA) – doomed to ignore the truthful and listen to the liars ..

    and the population all composed of Hamilton Burgers*

    *Hamilton Burger was the rather obtuse District Attorney who charged the clients of Perry Mason with crimes, when week after ween, month after month, year after year the clients would be exonerated*** Most people would have long ago figured out not to charge people Perry Mason was defending, but this DA never learned .

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_(TV_series)
    ***When asked by a fan why Perry Mason won every case, Burr told her, "But madam, you see only the cases I try on Saturday."[61]:590
    Mason is known to have lost, in some form or manner, three cases-"The Case of the Terrified Typist", "The Case of the Witless Witness", and "The Case of the Deadly Verdict".[72]

    polecat , January 15, 2017 at 12:32 pm

    Why read Ritter . when you can just 'turn on' to Mara liasson ,or lachml Singh, or any of the assorted stenographic heathers on N P R ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    I don't see Scott tossing out tote bags to the rabble

    Montanamaven , January 15, 2017 at 5:07 pm

    Yeh, but Ritter also inserts this into the piece.

    These failures are furthered when one incorporates the shortcomings of American intelligence analysis behind the failure to accurately predict the Russian actions against Georgia in 2008, the annexation of the Crimea in 2014, and the intervention in Syria in 2015 – in short, the track record of the very intelligence community that produced the ICA addressing allegations of a Russian influence campaign targeting the 2016 US Presidential election is not impressive.

    lyman alpha blob , January 15, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    I took that to mean that the IC was too stupid to figure out that Russia would not just sit back and do nothing while the US interfered in their sphere of influence, not necessarily that Russia was the instigator.

    susan the other , January 15, 2017 at 10:56 am

    Why hasn't anybody demanded to see CrowdStrike's pedigree beyond its vague vetting (?) by the DNC? A private company that has remained anonymous except for its name – well that makes no sense. Or rather, it makes the DNC look even worse.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 11:13 am

    Not to mention that one thing that no one seems to be disputing is that DNC cyber security was terrible to non-existent, so their judgment in this area can be considered weak at best.

    Katniss Everdeen , January 15, 2017 at 11:30 am

    That would be the function of a "principled press," the position of which can be summarized as "Trump and Putin sittin' in a tree. K-I-S-S-I-N-G."

    Still, I can't help but wonder if the "principled" press and the "intelligence" community have not painted themselves into a corner. With Trump and Putin portrayed as locked in a loving embrace and isis seemingly dropped off the face of the earth, should Trump meet with a tragic "accident," whom will the public blame?

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 11:32 am

    Because Alperovitch is also on the Atlantic Council(neocons-NATO) and also has very close ties to Ukraine Nationals? Reaching across the aisle and bi-partisian support, methinks.

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 11:18 am

    CrowdStrike is fullokrap

    "spearphishing" – See Podesta dump for screenshots of phishing site asking for Podesta to enter his id and password.

    The so called "unique" Russian exploit techniques are old, and can be done by many other reasonably competent hackers.

    Surprising to me is that no one yet has mentioned that a real state hacker would hide her IP behind probably multiple large VPN networks. There might be some way of setting up "spoof servers" too, but I'm nowhere competent enough in this subject to say anything with much certainty. Other than CrowdStrike is full of crap.

    Katniss Everdeen , January 15, 2017 at 11:33 am

    Maybe "crowdstrike" is the hacking version of "correct" the record.

    Arizona Slim , January 15, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Spearphishing? Welcome to my e-mail in box!

    If I'm not getting e-mails urging me to update some password or the other, I'm getting tales of woe regarding package delivery or something going wrong with an account of a bank I've never used.

    Do I respond? Nope. Do I click on the links or open the attachments in these e-mails? Uh-uh.

    So, am I now in the running for a position at the DNC?

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 1:26 pm

    Possibly a DNC IT guru?

    Oregoncharles , January 15, 2017 at 4:57 pm

    No, you're specifically disqualified.

    How else are they going to lose to Trump, of all people, next time?

    cnchal , January 15, 2017 at 12:48 pm

    Here is the damning part, economics unwise.

    Errors have been made by the Intelligence Community in the past and, given the punishing reality of a fair and open society, and the scrutiny of a free press contained within, these failures have been exposed – sometimes ruthlessly so – for all the world to see. From the reversal of the Intelligence Community's stance on the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program, underestimating the scope and reach of the threat of the Islamic State, and the exaggeration of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the shortcomings of the intelligence assessments and estimates conducted by the IC over the past two decades – the period spanning the careers of those who continue to provide the analysis that underpinned these highlighted erroneous conclusions and findings – the public history of the failures of the judgment of the American intelligence community is extensive and uncomplimentary.

    This represents massive overhead that can't even be ditched as sunk costs. Keeping this "intelligence" enterprise going is embedded in the government's budget, and the results of these massive errors have caused thousands of untold lives to be destroyed, even the ones still alive, and wasted trillions of dollars, which is ongoing. Meanwhile the rest of the country crumbles.

    "You're fired", directed at upper management of the "intelligence" community can't come fast enough from President Trump's mouth.

    John Parks , January 15, 2017 at 2:46 pm

    "the shortcomings of the intelligence assessments and estimates conducted by the IC over the past two decades"

    This article comes awfully close to equating "assessment" with "wild ass guess" but doesn't quite go that far. (probably deemed unprofessional)
    The misplaced dedication shown by our IC goes further back ..probably even further back than when the FBI spent two years studying the lyrics of "Louie, Louie"

    Goyo Marquez , January 15, 2017 at 2:03 pm

    So the chain of evidence for Trump oppo is:
    DNC>Russians>MI6>John McCain>CIA>Buzzfeed?
    Wow well played.

    LT , January 15, 2017 at 2:33 pm

    Thinking back, the Democrats and Beltway insiders were still believing their computers' predictions of a Hillary at the time the "Russians are coming" mantra began.
    Something tells me this was expected to be the pretext for a Clinton administration led conflict with Russia they just didn't want to let Trump winning stop their plans.
    So it's coming off very clumsily. Lots lost in the improvisation.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    Campaign internals. The appearance schedule, reports of polls asking about opinions of Michelle, and Obama hitting the campaign trail when he would ideally like to make a grand gesture such as fraudulent peace talks was a sign the campaign was in trouble.

    There is a good chance the vaunted "data" people noticed the Republicans they expected to win weren't abandoning Trump and registration efforts over the Summer didn't pan out due to lack of effort.

    Russia is the new Nader, war President, and how Bush out spent Kerry on ads excuses from previous campaigns to excuse the same old Clinton ideas and people leading to the usual disaster. I believe the Green Party moved to recount mode so swiftly to blunt being turned into the villain.

    allan , January 15, 2017 at 8:31 am

    To ruin your Sunday morning, listen (if you have the stomach) to Council on Foreign Relations head Richard Haas
    on the Tavis Smiley show
    . Doubling down on the Washington consensus, and clearly trying to talk up
    an intervention in Venezuela. Because R2P can not fail – it can only be failed.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 9:50 am

    True believer, or cynic who knows it is hard to sell a book to people telling them their ideas and goals are bull, you decide.

    I realoy don't know anymore who is just delusional, and who wants their slice of other people's pie regardless of who they have to damage.

    fresno dan , January 15, 2017 at 8:42 am

    The Russian Dossier Reminds Me of the Row Over Saddam's WMDs Counterpunch

    "Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, [said that] the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP, for at least FIVE YEARS."

    ==========================================================
    Dang those guys are prescience .I wanna ask them what stocks to buy (Hot Octopuss? are masturbatoriums the coming thing???), or better yet, what lottery numbers to pick ..

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 15, 2017 at 11:22 am

    FIVE YEARS?

    Those Euro-Asians are patience and they think long term.

    In the 1963 movie, Bye Bye Birdie, Dick Van Dyke played Al Peterson, whose song, The Last Kiss, to by sung by the just-drafted Conrad (or was it Comrade) Birdie, on the Ed Sullivan Show, was going to make him rich enough to take care of his mother and marry his girl friend. The plan was spoiled by those scheming Russian ballet dancers whose number was going to run too long that Ed Sullivan had to eliminate the song. So, the attack on American freedom went way, way back.

    Moreover, Van Dyke, being a Ph.D. in biochemistry, had invented a pill to 'speed up' animals and humans as well. The girl friend, posing as a photo-journalist, was able to slip a speed-up pill into the conductor Borov's milk, in order to 'speed up' their show, and restore Birde's lost minutes. While this successful patriotic plan was unfolding, you can see a mad Russkie official clutching a shoe, as if he was ready to hit something with it.

    That, there, was the subliminal message to all future shoe-throwers who are now plaguing our world these days.

    And, comrades, that's long-range planning five years is nothing.

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    Initially, the devious rooskies were grooming Trump to take down Vince McMahon and totally flatten the Rosie Threat. When they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams is when things went to their heads and they got too big for their britches.

    Now they're coming after our super stars. Those rooskies need to be taken down a notch or two.

    integer , January 15, 2017 at 8:59 am

    Although I was aware of Schumer's recent comment to Maddow ("You take on the intelligence community? They have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you") I did not get around to watching the exchange until today.

    What struck me when watching it was that Schumer is saying, on the record, that establshment politicians are subservient to the intelligence agencies because it is considered an accepted fact that their careers will be at risk if they do not give these agencies the freedom to act however they see fit. That is an incredibly dangerous dynamic, and what's worse is that it has been normalized and accepted by cowardly and/or corrupt politicians who purport to serve their constituents.

    I for one am grateful that Trump has enough spine to stand firm wrt putting these agencies back in their place (especially the CIA ), which is, after all, to serve and protect the citizens of the US.

    fresno dan , January 15, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    integer
    January 15, 2017 at 8:59 am

    the fact that it did not elicit a firestorm tells you all you need to know about how the US government is really run .

    Nechaev , January 15, 2017 at 1:24 pm

    "their careers" – or given not-so-recent-yet-not-so-ancient USian history – indeed even their lives could/ would be at risk
    the schumer-maddow exchange can certainly be –chillingly– interpreted in a number of ways.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 15, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    That's Schumer's "My Struggle" moment – foretelling what is and what will be happening.

    It's all there, years before it becomes reality.

    "It's impossible. All of them? Too big to imagine. Too big to fail, check that, too big to apprehend. They don't dare."

    alex morfesis , January 15, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    The blob is all powerful ?? or people like Schumer are afraid of their own shadow sadly methinx it is the later The blob is able to function since characters sit in the seats of power instead of real men ( & not enough women).

    In much like how the mafia slowly brings someone to the dark side by having them do small indiscretions and crimes over a period of time until the victim becomes the victimizer, the blob will attempt to reel one in by burping out national security or just dumping natsec "non disclosures" or luring in someone close to you or finding someone close to you who they already have in their pockets

    If one resists too much, then the existing wimps in charge make sure you get stuck in some subcommittees handling bipartisan egg rolls on the whitehouse lawn

    Get along or get along now(scoot)

    It is getting near the end of the movie and toto has pulled back the curtain .

    shall we ignore the little men behind the curtain

    polecat , January 15, 2017 at 4:05 pm

    I guess this means Chucky won't be calling any .. uh .. 'plumbing contractors' .. to his house anytime soon, unless they're members of Conniving .. Instigators .. Associates --

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 15, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    Schumer is no lightweight, if he says/believes this then we have a whole lot to be worried about. Thank goodness for Trump.
    (For the record, I voted McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama)

    EndOfTheWorld , January 15, 2017 at 3:25 pm

    Schumer has never been accused of being overly intelligent. He is still miffed because HRC went down in flames. She was supposed to be his partner in crime for eight years.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 7:13 pm

    And he was supposed to be Senate Majority Leader and get a really cool office instead of the crummy basement one. Given the seats up for reelection in 2018, he will have to wait until January 2021.

    Susan C , January 15, 2017 at 7:47 pm

    When I watched that exchange the other evening in real time, it seemed ominous to me, very dark. I think he was trying to instill real fear into the heart of Trump. I wonder if someone like a Trump has ever felt fear. It makes you wonder. Or if Trump has ever dealt with anyone more powerful than he believes himself to be.

    neo-realist , January 15, 2017 at 3:52 pm

    What struck me when watching it was that Schumer is saying, on the record, that establshment politicians are subservient to the intelligence agencies because it is considered an accepted fact that their careers will be at risk if they do not give these agencies the freedom to act however they see fit. That is an incredibly dangerous dynamic, and what's worse is that it has been normalized and accepted by cowardly and/or corrupt politicians who purport to serve their constituents

    Well hasn't this been pretty much the case since the incident in Dallas 50 plus years ago?

    mad as hell. , January 15, 2017 at 9:38 am

    I hope Booker wears that pharmaceutical vote around his neck for the rest of his life or at least until 2020.

    Annotherone , January 15, 2017 at 10:29 am

    Yes, indeed! It'll go well with the mantle he appears to be taking over as the "more effective evil".

    craazyboy , January 15, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Leaked tapes from DNC Strategy Room meeting.

    DNC Chair – But Black worked?

    DNC Political Strategist – Yes

    DCN Chair – But Women failed

    DNC Political Strategist – As a strategy, Yes

    DCN Chair – So Black then?

    DNC Political Strategist – We could conclude that, yes

    Haiku politics

    John Wright , January 15, 2017 at 11:08 am

    I'm somewhat surprised Booker did not pull a Nancy Pelosi type vote on this bill.

    From what I remember, on the TPP Fast Track, Pelosi worked behind the scenes to get Fast Track through, and then, with enough votes to assure it would pass without her vote, voted against the very action she had promoted.

    Of course, Pelosi's constituents were opposed to the TPP and she "supported" them.

    Booker could have quietly, privately, assured his big Pharma funders he was in the tank for them while still voting in support of the drug importation bill, because if his vote had moved to the supporting side, the count would have been 47-51 and the bill would still fall the way the big Pharma wanted.

    Maybe other senators in the 46 "supporters" were playing the cynical Pelosi optics type of game and Booker had to fall on his sword to show both his loyalty to big Pharma and give them cover?

    Possibly Booker also priced in that there are about 4 years before the next presidential election and this vote could fall into the dustbin of history.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 11:19 am

    Dems have gotten away with a lot, hiding behind Obama or Hillary and using the rotating villain strategy, and now they don't have a leader to protect them. Booker doesn't have the cult of personality Obama had, and there won't be an echo chamber to shut down dissent. I don't believe Democrats have a handle on their status.

    mad as hell. , January 15, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    No it was Russia's fault. Now we must circle the wagons and destroy Russia. Ya better be with me cause we are soon going to war to protect democracy and if you ain't with me you are a ( fill in the blank). The Democratic party does not make mistakes. The rag tag voters make mistakes! Now send us some money so we can stop Trump!

    Will this b******t ever end. It is driving me nuts.

    uncle tungsten , January 15, 2017 at 5:20 pm

    Me too MaH. The imitation democracy that is the USA is just a pathetic sideshow and brutally overpriced.

    The only interesting aspect right now is how Trump responds to the unintelligence community for their transparent insubordination and abuse of power. Time will tell.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 12:31 pm

    Dems have had the delusional idea since they caught the car bumper and had both Houses of Congress and the Presidency that just one of those is good, and preferably the Presidency. Hence their lack of panic as they lost the House, the Senate and most of the state legislatures and Governorships in the nation.

    Having now lost the one thing they were determined to win, they are going to slowly find out that there is no place to hide when their constituents are going to expect them to use all the same levers the Republicans did to obstruct all that stuff Obama wanted to do. They can't do the rotating villain thing, they can't NOT block things AND when that doesn't work the myth that Obama was hamstrung by Republicans is going to fall apart. Oops.

    Mind you the Republicans are going to have the problem of needing to pass the things they promised and living with those consequences.

    It is going to be interesting. And terrifying especially with the IC and MIC having tantrums that would do two year olds proud.

    John Wright , January 15, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    One fear of the Democrats might be they could be now be viewed as a useless appendage to the political process and unworthy of financial support by TPTB.

    That could hit them hard as Democratic think tanks lose funding and the NPV of the future lobbying potential of a current Democratic politician drops off dramatically.

    The Dems might actually feel a personal recession as they lose the ability to place their friends and relatives in well-paid politically related jobs.

    TPTB can simply support a handful of Blue-dog Democrats to buy a voting cushion on legislation that matters to them.

    Why pay more than necessary for Democratic support when it is largely irrelevant?

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , January 15, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    And the Dem reaction, of course, will be to suck up even harder to their money masters they've already concluded from the election that they weren't far enough to the right, this should mesh quite nicely. We've had one party in the country for decades, Obama's populist words (while pushing neo-con corporo-fascist actions) bamboozled for two terms, now we will get absolute unity in pushing the 1% agenda. Then we can do 1776 redux and take back our country.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    People really are loathe to admit that Obama has been an utter freakin' disaster. I was telling someone about how close the ALEC owned state houses were to getting their Constitutional convention and blamed Obama. I was lectured about how he came into a mess and that he was obviously not the problem it was people like Wasserman Schultz. I had to explain about the President and the DNC and that both Kaine and DWS were Obama's hand picked heads, that he moved grass roots organizing to OFA AND that over the course of his leadership of the party they had gone from having the Presidency, the House, the Senate, a majority of Governorships and an almost equal number of state legislative houses to exactly the opposite. Suffice it to say I left them speechless.

    And none of that should have been all that revelatory to a supposed political junkie. But to recognize that he wasn't interested in Democrats winning who were not named Obama is to understand he didn't care that he would not be in a position to get anything Democratic voters want

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 7:09 pm

    In one sense, Obama's failure was not in our stars but in ourselves, not me personally. If the Obots who cared so much for Obama and politics had torn themselves away from the latest insipid episode of X and called their Congressman or Senator instead of "liking" a cool meme about Obama, he might have been under enough pressure to not be completely terrible. Obama's evolution on gay rights only came after public outrage.

    The Obama followers have to understand this and simply don't want to admit their own complicity preferring to blame their plumber who may or may not have voted.

    HotFlash , January 15, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    Obama's evolution on gay rights only came after public outrage gay big-dollar donors slammed their wallets shut.

    Fixed it for ya.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    Example 1: Krugthullu's recent craziness.
    Example 2: Greta Van Susteren and noted racist, Megan Kelly both scored gigs at NBC. Were no Dems available? Or at least someone who didn't have a meltdown over a black Santa?
    Example 3: the CGI shutting down despite all the good they do (snark)

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    Well that may be their strategy going ahead, but if you looked at the last couple of elections, they just were not interested in winning elections. Money was thrown at people who didn't really need it, token amounts to others. People were chosen to run who had lost in the past, or the usual suspects owed. There was little or no recruitment, the former Republicans they supported pretty much fell in their laps.
    No they are going to have to seriously attempt to win even on a limited manner, and I don't think they have clue how anymore.

    Pat , January 15, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    Both Schumer and Gillibrand voted against this the first two times it came up. They voted for it this time. Works for the rotating villain theory

    marym , January 15, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    Same for Durbin 2009 (N) 2012 (N) 2017 (Y)

    polecat , January 15, 2017 at 12:57 pm

    Who knows .. Maybe the Donald with bring about a presidential decree, thereby forcing our reps & senators to don 'advertizing' as per Nascar race cars --

    Then it would be apparent to all as to whose loyalties they actually cater to .

    Carla , January 15, 2017 at 10:58 am

    Don't hold your breath. They're Democrats.

    Arizona Slim , January 15, 2017 at 12:46 pm

    This Zonie was amazed to learn that Senators McCain and Flake voted FOR this bill.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 15, 2017 at 1:29 pm

    Flake's on the ballot in November, and McCain does do his rotating hero strategy, he's on the side of good when it doesn't matter. He does have a huge senior population who like that desert air.

    Vatch , January 15, 2017 at 12:04 pm

    There are two Senators scheduled to be at this event: Booker and Menendez, and they both voted against the Klobuchar/Sanders amendment to allow Americans to buy medicine from Canada! Clearly this event was scheduled before the vote occurred. I wonder what kinds of discussions about this have been occurring behind the scenes?

    Rhondda , January 15, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Speaking of Amy Klobuchar - I saw in the noooze that she was one of McCain's compatriots on that holiday jaunt to Ukraine

    Klobuchar, McCain, Graham in Ukraine, Baltic States, and Georgia to
    http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/ /klobuchar-mccain-graham-in-ukraine-baltic-states-and-.. .
    Dec 28, 2016 – WASHINGTON, DC – This week, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar is in Ukraine, the Baltic states, and Georgia to reinforce support for the North
    Minnesota Sen. Klobuchar Spends New Year's Eve in Ukraine – Amy
    http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/ /minnesota-sen-klobuchar-spends-new-year-s-eve-in-uk.. .
    Dec 31, 2016 – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar spent New Year's Eve day with the president of Ukraine and marines fighting Russian aggression in that country.

    Did you know that there is a Senate Ukraine Caucus? News to me.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Ukraine_Caucus
    The Senate Ukraine Caucus is a bipartisan caucus of the United States Senate that was Ron Johnson (R-WI); Amy Klobuchar (D-MN); Mark Kirk (R-IL); James Inhofe (R-OK); Chris Murphy (D-CT). Gary Peters (D-MI); Rob Portman (R-OH)

    OIFVet , January 15, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    It's OK when Ukraine manipulates US politics. The US has always found nazis to be useful in its anti-Russian efforts, from Reinhard Behlen to Wernher von Braun, with a few Ukie Banderites thrown in for the truly dirty work.

    UserFriendly , January 15, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    She's always been about as far right as she can get away with in this state.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Mainstream Medias Russian Bogeymen by Gareth Porter

    DHS security honchos want to justify their existence. There is not greater danger to national security then careerists in position of security professionals. Lying and exaggerating the treats to get this dollars is is what many security professionals do for living. They are essentially charlatans.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure. ..."
    "... Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. ..."
    "... Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack." ..."
    "... That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012. ..."
    "... Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE." ..."
    "... according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients. ..."
    "... "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives." ..."
    "... The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private. ..."
    "... Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say." ..."
    "... DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability." ..."
    "... The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed. ..."
    "... Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'" ..."
    "... The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication. ..."
    "... The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | original.antiwar.com

    The mainstream hysteria over Russia has led to dubious or downright false stories that have deepened the New Cold War

    In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the U.S. charge that Russia had interfered with the US election, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into US power infrastructure.

    DHS had initiated the now-discredited tale of a hacked computer at the Burlington, Vermont Electricity Department by sending the utility's managers misleading and alarming information, then leaked a story they certainly knew to be false and continued to put out a misleading line to the media.

    Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011.

    The story of how DHS twice circulated false stories of Russian efforts to sabotage US "critical infrastructure" is a cautionary tale of how senior leaders in a bureaucracy-on-the-make take advantage of every major political development to advance its own interests, with scant regard for the truth.

    The DHS had carried out a major public campaign to focus on an alleged Russian threat to US power infrastructure in early 2016. The campaign took advantage of a US accusation of a Russian cyber-attack against the Ukrainian power infrastructure in December 2015 to promote one of the agency's major functions - guarding against cyber-attacks on America's infrastructure.

    Beginning in late March 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of 12 unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities titled, "Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for US stakeholders." The DHS declared publicly, "These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack."

    That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against the United States, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012.

    Beginning in October 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA-in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec. 29, DHS and FBI distributed a "Joint Analysis Report" to US power utilities across the country with what it claimed were "indicators" of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise US computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called "GRIZZLY STEPPE."

    The report clearly conveyed to the utilities that the "tools and infrastructure" it said had been used by Russian intelligence agencies to affect the election were a direct threat to them as well. However, according to Robert M. Lee, the founder and CEO of the cyber-security company Dragos, who had developed one of the earliest US government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on US infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients.

    "Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations," said Lee. "We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives."

    Lee and his staff found only two of a long list of malware files that could be linked to Russian hackers without more specific data about timing. Similarly a large proportion of IP addresses listed could be linked to "GRIZZLY STEPPE" only for certain specific dates, which were not provided.

    The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42 percent of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others – including some military entities – to keep their Internet communications private.

    Lee said the DHS staff that worked on the technical information in the report is highly competent, but the document was rendered useless when officials classified and deleted some key parts of the report and added other material that shouldn't have been in it. He believes the DHS issued the report "for a political purpose," which was to "show that the DHS is protecting you."

    Planting the Story, Keeping it Alive

    Upon receiving the DHS-FBI report the Burlington Electric Company network security team immediately ran searches of its computer logs using the lists of IP addresses it had been provided. When one of IP addresses cited in the report as an indicator of Russian hacking was found on the logs, the utility immediately called DHS to inform it as it had been instructed to do by DHS.

    In fact, the IP address on the Burlington Electric Company's computer was simply the Yahoo e-mail server, according to Lee, so it could not have been a legitimate indicator of an attempted cyber-intrusion. That should have been the end of the story. But the utility did not track down the IP address before reporting it to DHS. It did, however, expect DHS to treat the matter confidentially until it had thoroughly investigated and resolved the issue.

    "DHS wasn't supposed to release the details," said Lee. "Everybody was supposed to keep their mouth shut."

    Instead, a DHS official called The Washington Post and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility's computer network. The Post failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post's sensational Dec. 30 story under the headline "Russian hackers penetrated US electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, US officials say."

    DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The Post story said the Russians "had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter," but then added, and that "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."

    The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The Post was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed.

    The day after the story was published, the DHS leadership continued to imply, without saying so explicitly, that the Burlington utility had been hacked by Russians. Assistant Secretary for Pubic Affairs J. Todd Breasseale gave CNN a statement that the "indicators" from the malicious software found on the computer at Burlington Electric were a "match" for those on the DNC computers.

    As soon as DHS checked the IP address, however, it knew that it was a Yahoo cloud server and therefore not an indicator that the same team that allegedly hacked the DNC had gotten into the Burlington utility's laptop. DHS also learned from the utility that the laptop in question had been infected by malware called "neutrino," which had never been used in "GRIZZLY STEPPE."

    Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from Post sources. The DHS official was arguing that it had "led to a discovery," he said. "The second is, 'See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.'"

    Original DHS False Hacking Story

    The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an "intrusion" into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication.

    Like the Burlington fiasco, the false report was preceded by a DHS claim that US infrastructure systems were already under attack. In October 2011, acting DHS deputy undersecretary Greg Schaffer was quoted by The Washington Post as warning that "our adversaries" are "knocking on the doors of these systems." And Schaffer added, "In some cases, there have been intrusions." He did not specify when, where or by whom, and no such prior intrusions have ever been documented.

    On Nov. 8, 2011, a water pump belonging to the Curran-Gardner township water district near Springfield, Illinois, burned out after sputtering several times in previous months. The repair team brought in to fix it found a Russian IP address on its log from five months earlier. That IP address was actually from a cell phone call from the contractor who had set up the control system for the pump and who was vacationing in Russia with his family, so his name was in the log by the address.

    Without investigating the IP address itself, the utility reported the IP address and the breakdown of the water pump to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn passed it on to the Illinois Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, also called a fusion center composed of Illinois State Police and representatives from the FBI, DHS and other government agencies.

    On Nov. 10 – just two days after the initial report to EPA – the fusion center produced a report titled "Public Water District Cyber Intrusion" suggesting a Russian hacker had stolen the identity of someone authorized to use the computer and had hacked into the control system causing the water pump to fail.

    The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack.

    The fusion center "intelligence report," circulated by DHS Office of Intelligence and Research, was picked up by a cyber-security blogger, who called The Washington Post and read the item to a reporter. Thus the Post published the first sensational story of a Russian hack into a US infrastructure on Nov. 18, 2011.

    After the real story came out, DHS disclaimed responsibility for the report, saying that it was the fusion center's responsibility. But a Senate subcommittee investigation revealed in a report a year later that even after the initial report had been discredited, DHS had not issued any retraction or correction to the report, nor had it notified the recipients about the truth.

    DHS officials responsible for the false report told Senate investigators such reports weren't intended to be "finished intelligence," implying that the bar for accuracy of the information didn't have to be very high. They even claimed that report was a "success" because it had done what "what it's supposed to do – generate interest."

    Both the Burlington and Curran-Gardner episodes underline a central reality of the political game of national security in the New Cold War era: major bureaucratic players like DHS have a huge political stake in public perceptions of a Russian threat, and whenever the opportunity arises to do so, they will exploit it.

    Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare . He can be contacted at [email protected] .

    Reprinted from Consortium News with the author's permission.

    [Jan 16, 2017] Putin undermines the myth of inevitability that has always been the chief psychological weapon of necons and neoliberals.

    Notable quotes:
    "... By exposing their corruption and incompetence, Trump has raised the stakes, which were already cosmic. The US Intelligence Community, a hermetic and self-governing authority in its own right, has decades of expertise in fomenting revolution, engineering regime change, and assassinating its opposition. They have taken down foreign leaders with some regularity. It is likely that they have done the same in our own country. ..."
    "... They see Putin's Russia as an existential threat to their interests, not because of his imagined persecution of "journalists" (who are really just enemy combatants and subversives in the employ of the occult world order). Not because of his natural territorial ambitions in Russia's traditional sphere of influence. Not because of "Muhleppo." And certainly not because of his alleged "hacking" of the DNC. Putin is an existential threat because he is living proof that the world could be ordered in a different way. He undermines what Michael Hoffman in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare described as the "myth of inevitability" that has always been the chief psychological weapon of progressives and globalists. ..."
    "... Obama's owners are trying to lay as many landmines in front of Trump as possible. ..."
    "... I think the "myth of inevitability" is a key component for Progressives. Take this away, and see that other choices are available, and soon enough people will realize that they do not like the Progressive choice at all. ..."
    "... Removal of the neocons comes next, part of which will be getting rid of the idea that a preemptive nuclear first srtike is a viable option and reverting to a "no first strike" policy. That will already make the world a much safer place. NATO and nuclear reductions can all come later. ..."
    "... Putin will dig in his heels but won't budge to retaliate at any provocation. He knows there's a lot at stake for Russia as well as the world at large. And he can stand on his head for 5 days, if necessary, until the Big O is firmly out. Mr. Obama has now finally sealed his legacy as a warmonger. ..."
    "... In 2013, the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) - one of the nine organizational units that make up the Unified Combatant Command - had special operations forces (SOFs) in 134 countries , where they were either involved in combat, special missions, or advising and training foreign forces. Russia? Aggressive? Read a book ..."
    "... For many years now I've felt that the "President" is merely a face for the sheep to identify with. ..."
    "... The sheep don't/can't understand that it's the MIC, big pharma, big oil, too big to fail banks, lobbyists that call the shots. Money rules. ..."
    "... One last move on the chess board before he leaves. Hoping to force his replacement into carrying on the theme by limiting his gameplay going forward. ..."
    Jan 16, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Lame duck presidents are not supposed to make risky moves like this once a new president has been elected. On Thursday, we learned that U.S. troops have been permanently deployed to Poland for the very first time

    American soldiers rolled into Poland on Thursday, fulfilling a dream some Poles have had since the fall of communism in 1989 to have U.S. troops on their soil as a deterrent against Russia.

    Some people waved and held up American flags as U.S. troops in tanks and other vehicles crossed into southwestern Poland from Germany and headed toward the town of Zagan, where they will be based. Poland's prime minister and defense minister will welcome them in an official ceremony Saturday.

    Poland was once a key member of the Warsaw Pact alliance, and the Russians are quite alarmed that U.S. troops will now be stationed so close to the Russian heartland. The following comes from ABC News

    Laddie -> Truther , Jan 15, 2017 7:53 PM

    I tend to think that Obama is merely a "showpiece" a puppet. The real POWER are NOT happy with The Donald: The Golden Shower and the Golden Bough

    I don't know whether Trump's #GoldenShowerGate presser was the "moneychanger moment" or not, but it had the feel of a major escalation in the contest. Certainly, his enemies believed that this was a potential decapitation stroke. That it failed-as all of their previous efforts have failed-will only serve to strengthen their resolve.

    By exposing their corruption and incompetence, Trump has raised the stakes, which were already cosmic. The US Intelligence Community, a hermetic and self-governing authority in its own right, has decades of expertise in fomenting revolution, engineering regime change, and assassinating its opposition. They have taken down foreign leaders with some regularity. It is likely that they have done the same in our own country.

    They see Putin's Russia as an existential threat to their interests, not because of his imagined persecution of "journalists" (who are really just enemy combatants and subversives in the employ of the occult world order). Not because of his natural territorial ambitions in Russia's traditional sphere of influence. Not because of "Muhleppo." And certainly not because of his alleged "hacking" of the DNC. Putin is an existential threat because he is living proof that the world could be ordered in a different way. He undermines what Michael Hoffman in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare described as the "myth of inevitability" that has always been the chief psychological weapon of progressives and globalists.

    MalteseFalcon -> Jeffersonian Liberal , Jan 15, 2017 9:42 PM

    " A new Cold War has begun, and the stakes are incredibly high "

    The "new cold war" will be noted in the history books as the 30 day cold war, because it will all be over by then.

    Obama's owners are trying to lay as many landmines in front of Trump as possible.

    They want this to be Trump's Bay of Pigs. It won't be, because Trump is wise to the game and he is not alone.

    IntercoursetheEU -> Laddie , Jan 15, 2017 8:05 PM

    'Pussygate' was an illegal broadcast of a private conversation, carried out to manipulate the election. It's still having an effect. Where are no charges being filed? (yet)

    Cynicles -> Laddie , Jan 15, 2017 8:22 PM

    That's what presidents have been for a very long time.

    Russia stands as the "principal threat" to the United States's security . He said this is because of its actions and efforts to "intimidate" other countries.

    "intimidate" other countries?

    who, the US?

    techpriest -> Laddie , Jan 15, 2017 10:13 PM

    He undermines what Michael Hoffman in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare described as the "myth of inevitability" that has always been the chief psychological weapon of progressives and globalists.

    I think the "myth of inevitability" is a key component for Progressives. Take this away, and see that other choices are available, and soon enough people will realize that they do not like the Progressive choice at all.

    philipat -> Truther , Jan 15, 2017 7:59 PM

    Right now, we are literally living from day to day only 10 minutes away from the complete nuclear obliteration of Western "civilization". And mistakes can happen. Trump's first order of business with Putin should be to get the alert levels pushed back down to lower levels so as to allow consultation and dialogue before anyone gets an itchy trigger finger.

    Removal of the neocons comes next, part of which will be getting rid of the idea that a preemptive nuclear first srtike is a viable option and reverting to a "no first strike" policy. That will already make the world a much safer place. NATO and nuclear reductions can all come later.

    bh2 -> billwilson2 , Jan 15, 2017 8:29 PM

    Putin will dig in his heels but won't budge to retaliate at any provocation. He knows there's a lot at stake for Russia as well as the world at large. And he can stand on his head for 5 days, if necessary, until the Big O is firmly out. Mr. Obama has now finally sealed his legacy as a warmonger.

    buckstopshere , Jan 15, 2017 7:50 PM

    I suspect that the Pentagon thought it would be best to demonstrate a show of force and solidarity with NATO members during the transition of power. This is to deter Russia from considering any aggressive moves during this time of relative weakness.

    shovelhead -> buckstopshere , Jan 15, 2017 8:24 PM

    Like walking around in their own country? Those BASTARDS.

    Vic Odd -> buckstopshere , Jan 16, 2017 12:01 AM

    In 2013, the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) - one of the nine organizational units that make up the Unified Combatant Command - had special operations forces (SOFs) in 134 countries , where they were either involved in combat, special missions, or advising and training foreign forces. Russia? Aggressive? Read a book

    DirtySanchez •Jan 15, 2017 8:05 PM

    1)The Polish are not stupid. They really don't want to start WWIII on their front yard.

    2)The Russians are not going to get outsmarted by anyfuckingbody in the current obama administration.

    3)POTUS Trump needs to put his boot down on the neocon/neoliberal/nato/un/globalists bankster/mic/establishment maniacs that want more war, up to and including WWIII.

    4)No One takes bozo,his cia apparatchik,brennan, or his state department seriously.

    5)Five more days, and the long national nightmare of clintonbushobama is over.

    Shed Boy -> DarkPurpleHaze •Jan 15, 2017 9:52 PM

    I agree. In fact, I believe Obama was never in charge. For many years now I've felt that the "President" is merely a face for the sheep to identify with.

    The sheep don't/can't understand that it's the MIC, big pharma, big oil, too big to fail banks, lobbyists that call the shots. Money rules.

    The "president" is just an empty suit placed before the people to give them something easy to identify with.

    techpriest -> Shed Boy •Jan 15, 2017 10:36 PM

    I remember learning about lobbying years ago, and got to interview a Congressman about the legislating process.

    The gem that's relevant to this thread, is that he admitted freely that it's not possible for Congressmen to know enough about every area you are legislating on. Einstein couldn't know enough - you know have to know everything about everything.

    So, industry-supplied (read: lobbyist-supplied) "experts" teach them what they need to know.

    StreetObserver •Jan 15, 2017 9:57 PM

    Thanks for wasting billions of dollars, mr. presidunce. You are a mediocrity. A shill and a sham serving various masters while you fool some of the people with your well earned skin color. I can't believe I worked my ass off for you in your first campaign against McCaine.

    I hope that human life can suvive your clumsy attemps at doing something big while trying to hand an Obama Sandwich to President Elect Trump.

    JPMorgan •Jan 16, 2017 12:09 AM

    One last move on the chess board before he leaves. Hoping to force his replacement into carrying on the theme by limiting his gameplay going forward.

    [Jan 15, 2017] United States sends 4000 troops to Poland, a fraction of a brigade. It is what some call a tripwire, in case of war a forlorn hope! When that forlorn hope is snuffed the nukes come out!

    Jan 15, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne : January 14, 2017 at 04:22 PM
    https://twitter.com/vijayprashad/status/819954419735334912

    Vijay Prashad‏ @vijayprashad

    United States sends troops to Poland. This is of course not to threaten Russia......imagine Russian troops being deployed to Mexico?

    9:09 AM - 13 Jan 2017

    im1dc -> anne... , January 14, 2017 at 05:16 PM
    Vijay Prashad, that is an Apples-Oranges comparison with no validity, not to mention sans geopolitical reality and treaty obligations to USA Allies in Europe.
    ilsm -> im1dc... , January 14, 2017 at 07:22 PM
    The radical right wing runs Poland.......

    Actually 4000 troop is a fraction of a brigade. It is what some call a tripwire, in case of war a forlorn hope! When that forlorn hope is snuffed the nukes come out!

    anne : , January 14, 2017 at 04:23 PM
    https://twitter.com/vijayprashad/status/820360129572913153

    Vijay Prashad‏ @vijayprashad

    US, which sent 4k troops to the Russian border, now sends the Vinson Carrier Group into the South China Sea.

    12:01 PM - 14 Jan 2017

    ilsm -> anne... , January 14, 2017 at 07:23 PM
    Dr. King would be raging!

    The money should make Flint's water good.

    [Jan 15, 2017] CIA careerists are likely upset at the prospect of being shipped abroad, hence their outrage at Trump and Michael Flynn.

    Notable quotes:
    "... I like the use of "careerist" ; it should be used more often, as it describes the motivation of a rather large number of decision-makers I've met. ..."
    "... I would hate to see it used more often. I have heard of its being applied to a grad student who–wait for it!–actually hoped to have an academic career and recognized the forms that had to be gone through to achieve that. There are places where it is an appropriate description, but it is one of those vogue words (like narcissistic) which become void of meaning through overuse. ..."
    Jan 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    nonsense factory , January 14, 2017 at 3:30 pm

    CIA careerists are likely upset at the prospect of being shipped abroad, hence their outrage at Trump and Michael Flynn.
    Foreign Policy Blogy 1/07 CIA restructuring proposed

    Team Trump is working on a plan "to restructure the Central Intelligence Agency, cutting back on staffing at its Virginia headquarters and pushing more people out into field posts around the world,"

    And the main reason Clinton Democrats are jumping on this bandwagon is that they want to blame their gross electoral failure on "external forces", not their own terrible record of sabotaging the middle class in favor of elite Wall Street interests. Their current fear is progressive Sanders Democrats kicking them out of the DNC and other party organization leadership positions (which just happened in California); hence their willingness to get behind bogus claims on DNC hacking and Russians running Trump.

    As far as the FBI's Comey, notably he acted to protect Clinton when the great fear was that she'd be defeated by Sanders; notably the FBI didn't access DNC servers to look for evidence of a hack (it was probably an internal leak), and Comey's refusal to recommend criminal charges for Clinton during the primary was a service to the Clinton Democrats.

    And the DNC was just so sleazy, no wonder they alienated all the Sanders supporters for the general election:

    It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.- DNC CFO Brad Marshall

    TedHunter , January 14, 2017 at 2:33 am

    The argument is convincing.

    I like the use of "careerist" ; it should be used more often, as it describes the motivation of a rather large number of decision-makers I've met.

    Katharine , January 14, 2017 at 10:37 am

    I would hate to see it used more often. I have heard of its being applied to a grad student who–wait for it!–actually hoped to have an academic career and recognized the forms that had to be gone through to achieve that. There are places where it is an appropriate description, but it is one of those vogue words (like narcissistic) which become void of meaning through overuse.

    [Jan 15, 2017] At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run the country

    Notable quotes:
    "... I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further empower the very worst interests operating in the US. ..."
    "... And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run riot. ..."
    "... Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more animosity toward the Deep State. ..."
    "... The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time will tell. ..."
    "... The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those whose eyes are open. ..."
    "... Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the reality of losing to Trump. ..."
    Jan 15, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Fiver , January 14, 2017 at 3:18 am

    Here's an account by Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector on the Iraq WMD investigation. It certainly appears to me from this and a number of sources that what we have is a scandal of mammoth proportions that would suck in the senior leadership of both Parties, the Intelligence Community, the State Department, the White House and of course all of the various surrogates throughout media, were this all subject to an independent, credible investigation.

    I very much doubt that will happen, even should Trump survive and demand it. Just as the 9/11 Commission was a farce, just as the craven non-investigations of global financial disaster-spawning Wall Street crimes or grotesque Bush war crimes utterly hollowed-out the rule of law, the gigantic stake through the heart of US democracy that was this disastrous political fiasco just happens to advance and further empower the very worst interests operating in the US.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/exposing-the-man-behind-the-curtain_us_5877887be4b05b7a465df6a4

    And as Snowden reports, Obama, on top of everything else gifted Trump (or Pence) in terms of Executive power has also given the entire US Intel Community access to NSA information. That's it. At that point the Deep State can set-up or take down anyone. They've presented the American people and world with the perfect lose-lose: instead of Trump and no showdown with Russia, it's Trump with a showdown with Russia, or Pence with a showdown with Russia. And not matter what, the consolidated IC now has legal authority to run riot.

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/13/obama-opens-nsas-vast-trove-of-warrantless-data-to-entire-intelligence-community-just-in-time-for-trump/

    olga , January 14, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Ritter's piece is quite exhaustive

    steelhead23 , January 14, 2017 at 2:00 pm

    Excellent post. Many of us are appropriately disinterested in the specific allegations made in that dossier. Yet this rather bizarre behavior by the Deep State is frightening. Given these circumstances, it is not too surprising the man has selected Gen. Mad Dog Mattis to run his defense. He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible. I don't much care for Mr. Trump, but carry much more animosity toward the Deep State.

    Jagger , January 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm

    He would be well-advised to clean house among the upper echelon of the nation's intelligence apparatus as quickly as possible

    The intelligence apparatus now has immense power and has developed it own objectives outside of political control. It needs to be broken up and reined in, ensuring it is tightly controlled. Particularly, the intelligence community cannot have the tools, such as mass internal NSA surveillance, allowing it to interfere in our internal political processes. I imagine Trump now has the incentive to take on the intelligence community. Whether he will be successful or not, only time will tell.

    Altandmain , January 14, 2017 at 3:53 am

    The gloves come off and the plutocracy shows its true self for all those whose eyes are open.

    We've got multiple wrongs here. The Democratic Establishment, the Intelligence agencies, and the Pravda-like media form the Deep State, which is really controlled by the very rich. They are trying to cling to power here and extract rent from society for the very rich. In return, its political servants are themselves rewarded with wealth.

    Then there's Trump. While I think he's a very unsavory person and he will do some very damaging things to society, making up accusations of Russian hacks is not the way to go. So far not a shred of evidence has been provided that Russia was hacking. I doubt we will get any. That does not, as the article notes mean that Russia is guiltless, but so fa the Democrats are pulling lies out of a hat and hoping desperately it sticks.

    Like falsifying evidence to wage war in Iraq and before that Vietnam, this is a mark against the US intelligence agencies. This is also a mark on the Democrats, who are trying to use these as a distraction for facing up to the reality of losing to Trump.

    The sad part is that America is going to continue its decline unless this whole mess stops. It is likely that anyone truly principled would have to clean house in both parties and in many senior leadership positions across the US government. Then there is the matter of corporate America and its agenda of rent seeking.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Reflections on a Post Election Soft Coup: Fake News , CIA Intervention, US-NATO Militarization on Russia s Doorstep

    Jan 13, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca
    All this brings to mind the report that Trump is considering a realignment of the intel agencies including staff reductions and reassignments as it compares with JFK's experience when he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles. Kennedy replaced Dulles for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs debacle with an inept outsider named John McCone who was easily snookered by CIA staff. Kennedy did not fully realize the depth of Dulles' betrayal as he continued to meet with senior CIA staff at his home on a regular basis where they discussed, debated and decided CIA policy.

    What Trump needs to understand is that certain cats, especially the neo-con variety, have more than nine lives and will hang on to their power base with every fiber of their being - and we know how that worked out for JFK.

    Enrique Ferro's insight: Observing the President since the November 8th election, his reactions reveal an aggressiveness rarely, if ever seen in an outgoing President's closing days, and has become a fascinating study in human dynamics.

    Obama is clearly experiencing more than a normal reluctance to hand over his @POTUS twitter account as perhaps the reality has only just hit home that it is far too late to create a new, improved legacy.

    One explanation may be that the President's carefully constructed veneer of personality, never convincing for those who have long sought the 'real' Barak Obama, has cracked under the pressure of the 2016 losses.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Pretty sure they call it deep state for a reason .... its the known unknowns you have to worry about

    Notable quotes:
    "... "With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place." ..."
    "... Assasinate, NO. Exposed, Setup, Patsy, Blamed, ABSOLUTELY ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:23 PM

    If Trump is worried about the existence of some "deep state" his first act in office should be to demand a complete list of every intelligence sector employee, and the budgets, and dig in and inform himself. They all work for him now.

    Croesus -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:41 PM

    Assassinating Trump would be a VERY bad idea:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/his-first-foreign-trip-presiden...

    Escrava Isaura -> Croesus , Jan 14, 2017 10:44 PM

    CIA for dummies:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXcL5o55q8s."#t=20s "

    remain calm -> Chris Dakota , Jan 14, 2017 10:59 PM

    The Bush family will have him killed.

    Chris Dakota -> remain calm , Jan 14, 2017 11:01 PM

    Those Pedo Bush's don't have the power to do this anymore.

    JFK was a lesson. Trump very well knows not to make the same mistakes.

    Chupacabra-322 -> Chris Dakota , Jan 14, 2017 11:04 PM

    The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says it all.

    The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question about the CIA's future in the US.

    Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long, that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes Against The American People.

    Arrest Hillary & Bill Clinton. Freeze their assets. RICO The Clinton Foundation & bring down the Satanic Global Crime Syndicate.

    This will de facto Drain the Swamp. Then, immediately End the Fed.

    These Scum Fuck Occultist have been "Illuminated" and forced out into the light. This opportunity to peacefully "Drain the Swamp" cannot be squandered.

    Scuba Steve -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    um, pretty sure they are deep state for a reason .... its the "known unknowns" you have to worry about

    GUS100CORRINA -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:53 PM

    I AGREE with complete audit of all intelligence personnel and the entire intelligence apparatus.

    This is really a question of FAITH versus FEAR. i choose FAITH over FEAR. Things will work out according to a divine plan.

    While I appreciate the patriotism and intelligence of the individuals WHO contributed to this article, this article is bordering on FEAR MONGERING.

    We need to be discerning when reading articles like this one because they create a spirit of FEAR. The DEEP STATE has been with us since GENESIS 3:15.

    Paul Kersey -> ml8ml8 , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    From the above article:

    "With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place."

    Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is both a Goldmanite and, like his convict father, a neocon. It is Jared Kushner who chose all the Goldmanites and Neocons in Trump's Cabinet, just as it was Kushner who got rid of Gov. Chris Christie, the former NJ Prosecutor who put Jared's dad, Charles Kushner, in Federal prison.

    Consequently, there will be no Trump assassination, because Kushner and his Goldmanites will not allow it. VP-Elect Mike Pence may be a lot of things, but a Goldmanite is not one of them. The Goldmanites, historically, were not his campaign contributors, and they do not want him in the Presidency. Trump will be protected BY Deep State and won't need to be protected FROM Deep State.

    NoWayJose , Jan 14, 2017 10:24 PM

    Didn't know the fired CIA guy ended up on the Warren 'coverup' Commission.

    socalbeach , Jan 14, 2017 10:31 PM

    The CIA has plenty of experience in overthrowing foreign governments. All they have to do is turn their expertise inwardly.

    Radical Marijuana -> socalbeach , Jan 14, 2017 10:55 PM

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-03/more-confessions-economic-hit-man-time-they're-coming-your-democracy

    More Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man: "This Time, They're Coming For Your Democracy"

    "...Perkins has just reissued his book with major updates. The basic premise of the book remains the same, but the update shows how the economic hit man approach has evolved in the last 12 years. Among other things, U.S. cities are now on the target list. The combination of debt, enforced austerity, underinvestment, privatization, and the undermining of democratically elected governments is now happening here" ... "Things have just gotten so much worse in the last 12 years since the first Confessions was written.

    Economic hit men and jackals have expanded tremendously, including the United States and Europe. Back in my day we were pretty much limited to what we called the third world, or economically developing countries, but now it's everywhere. And in fact, the cancer of the corporate empire has metastasized into what I would call a failed global death economy. This is an economy that's based on destroying the very resources upon which it depends, and upon the military. It's become totally global, and it's a failure."

    Son of Captain Nemo , Jan 14, 2017 10:40 PM

    Not with this announcement ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-14/his-first-foreign-trip-presiden... ) and a repeat for detente wiping the slate clean!...

    And if he is assassinated?...

    Plan on a "treasure hunt" that will result in the likes of POTUS "transvestitus" John "winter soldier" Kerry and John "demonic" Leprechaun Brennan being FOUND, SKINNED and put on display in front of their respective places of work!...

    SO HELP ME GOD!!! THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT!!!!!

    Scuba Steve -> Son of Captain Nemo , Jan 14, 2017 10:56 PM

    see, i agree with this.

    If something happens to Trump, I'm thinking there are going to be a lot of big names hanging from trees for all of Facebook to pass around.

    CC Lemon , Jan 14, 2017 10:35 PM

    What's frightening is that as the elites had NO IDEA hillary would lose so bad, they might have equally NO IDEA of the massive blowback should they go through with anything like this.

    JarMyMetric , Jan 14, 2017 10:36 PM

    Don't worry Trump will start magically singing in key very soon after inauguration or Pence will sing for him.

    dogismycopilot , Jan 14, 2017 10:37 PM

    A lot of US spooks are on the gravy train. Do you know how many Orlando McMansions and DC Colonials have been bought with black bag money? There are Billions flowing in a river through the Middle East.

    Also, these fuckers don't know how to do anything but destroy value and kill people. They know this is the only job they can get. They are incompetent in the private market. Look at the MI6 idiot who writes worse than a high school kid.

    CIA isn't going to give that up without a fight. They are cornered rats. When Putin is in Iceland I hope he can relate this survival story to President Trump:

    https://jppreston.com/2010/12/23/the-six-most-interesting-excerpts-from-...

    Following World War II, in which his father served with the Russian secret police, his parents move into a communal apartment in St. Petersburg where they eventually give birth to Putin (1952). Because Russia is facing major poverty and is still recovering from the war, the apartment is, in the words of Putin's school teacher, "horrid without any conveniences" (10). Although he goes on to explain his experiences with the other families in the commune, none of whom had any children, he briefly tells a story of the first time he learned "the meaning of the word cornered."

    There, on that stair landing, I got a quick and lasting lesson in the meaning of the word cornered. There were hordes of rats in the front entryway. My friends and I used to chase them around with sticks. Once I spotted a huge rat and pursued it down the hall until I drove it into a corner. It had nowhere to run. Suddenly it lashed around and threw itself at me. I was surprised and frightened. Now the rat was chasing me. It jumped across the landing and down the stairs. Luckily, I was a little faster and managed to slam the door shut in its nose. (10)

    matermaker , Jan 14, 2017 11:00 PM

    I call bullshit, Slavo. I feel certain Mr. T. fully understands the deep state and watched Ike's last address. There is an equally powerful 'state' in this nation and it is not born out of the government. Even the negroes will rally to his side if they feel he's a better populist alternative to the deep state.

    I'm sure that I would giggle to read who is getting interviewed for T's personal security. He's not going to go driving in chicago with the top down. Kennedy pissed off all sides of power.

    I do not see T having a really bad day while traveling or flying. Kennedy was arrogant in a much different way. This time 'round, it's more like Adolf choosing sides with Earnst Rhom and brown shirts over the Gestapo.

    And if 'they' are listening, as they usually are... safe drivers are rewarded with auto insurance. Getting yearly full on check ups should drop bucks on your insurance. No penalties for being unhealthy, but rewards for being healthy. It's called health care, not sick care. Get a camera shoved up your ass every ten years after 50? discount! oh... and that shouldn't cost 15k

    Rebel yell , Jan 14, 2017 10:49 PM

    If the central idiots assassinate Trump, there should be massive wildcat strikes and refusal to buy anything, and the military should refuse to follow all military commands! Don't fight the terrorists aka CIA war!

    kanoli , Jan 14, 2017 10:56 PM

    The fact that it is so plainly stated that the intelligence apparatus run the country and none dare stand against them is evidence that it is high time for a president and the people to take them down.

    Saul Alinsky's Rule #1 is to appear more powerful than you are in order to cultivate fear in your enemies. The American intelligence community and military-industrial complex are rotten and termite-eaten by corruption.

    Every successful revolution is merely the kicking in of a door that is already rotten. . I'm not sure Trump is the guy for it, but I'd sure like to see him try.

    NobodyNowhere , Jan 14, 2017 11:01 PM

    " military industrial complex base of ultimate power in the United States"

    MIC is NOT the ultimate power in the US. Certain Bankster dynasties are. MIC is just one of their profit centers.

    JailBanksters , Jan 14, 2017 11:06 PM

    Assasinate, NO. Exposed, Setup, Patsy, Blamed, ABSOLUTELY

    There's too many Eyes, and everybody will know who planned it and who did it, so he won't be Assassinated by physical means, just Politically Assassinated.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Will The CIA Assassinate Trump Ron Paul Warns Of More Powerful, Shadow Government

    Very questionable assessment.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia. ..."
    "... "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this." ..."
    "... No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment ..."
    "... Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder. ..."
    Jan 14, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com,

    It isn't just that Donald Trump routinely thumbs his nose at the establishment, insults media figures he sees as unfair and bucks conventional wisdom.

    It is that President-elect Trump is defying the will of the deep state, military industrial complex base of ultimate power in the United States. That is why he is treading dangerous waters, and risks the fate of JFK.

    Trump publicly dissed the intelligence community assessments on Russian hacking; they retaliated with a made up dossier about the alleged Trump-Putin 'golden shower' episode .

    Russians have compromising footage of Donald Trump paying prostitutes to piss on a bed ???? #GoldenShowerGate https://t.co/AdQGhE2y06

    - Loco Goose ???????????????? (@CrazyGoose) January 11, 2017

    While it may be a silly falsehood, it may also be serving as a final warning that they get to script reality, not him.

    Perhaps they want Trump to feel blackmailed and controlled by alluding to fake dirt, while reminding him of the real dirt they hold on his activities (whatever it may be).

    Insulting the credibility of the intelligence community in a public way – as the man elected to the highest office in the land – is liable to ruffle a few feathers, and it could provoke a serious response.

    Trump knows the power of the people he is taunting, but he may not be aware of where the line is between play in political rhetoric and actually irritating and setting off those who control policy.

    There is plenty of Trump misbehavior that can be simply written off, or trivialized, but cutting into the war and statecraft narrative of the shadow government steering this deep state is a deviation too far.

    It is one thing to play captain, but another to imagine that you steer the ship. They are happy for Trump to take all the prestige and privileges of the office; but not for him to cut into the big business of foreign conflict, the undercurrent of all American affairs, the dealings in death, drugs, oil and weapons, and the control of people through a manipulation of these affairs.

    If President Trump takes his rogue populism too far, he will suffer the wrath of the same people who took out Kennedy there are some things that are not tolerated by those who are really in charge. And now leaders in the Senate are warning President-elect Trump about the stupidity of going against the national-security establishment.

    As Jacob G. Hornberger warns :

    In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of "being really dumb." for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia.

    "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you . He's being really dumb to do this."

    [ ]

    No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment [ ] They knew that if they opposed the national-security establishment at a fundamental level, they would be subjected to retaliatory measures.

    Kennedy After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy's murder.

    Kennedy's antipathy toward the CIA gradually extended to what President Eisenhower had termed the military-industrial complex, especially when it proposed Operation Northwoods, which called for fraudulent terrorist attacks to serve as a pretext for invading Cuba, and when it suggested that Kennedy initiate a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.

    [ ]

    Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, [Kennedy] initiated secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro , both of whom, by this time, were on the same page as Kennedy.

    [ ]

    Kennedy was fully aware of the danger he faced by taking on such a formidable enemy.

    And to the extent that President Kennedy consciously stood up to the system, he paid the price for his attempt at independent wielding of power from the Oval Office.

    It is a shuddering thought. A sharp lesson in history that must not be misinterpreted.

    The implications for Trump are quite clear. If his refusal to take intelligence briefings, or follow CIA advice is serious, then serious consequences will follow. If Trump is serious about peace with Putin when they insist on war, there will be a problem.

    There are several powers behind the throne that have wanted to ensure that presidents don't let the power go to their head, or try to change course from the carefully arranged crisis-reaction-solution paradigm.

    True peace is not good for military industrial complex business; true peace, without the persistence of grave threats, and plenty of sparks of chaos to back it up, cannot be tolerated.

    As things have progressed today, making friendly with Putin, and calling off the war with Russia may simply be impermissible. If Trump is attempting to negotiate his own peace – and sing along with Frank Sinatra's "My Way" at the inauguration, then he is in for a very rude awakening.

    If, on the other hand, he is the Trump card being played by this very same establishment, then things may develop according to the same ultimate objectives, albeit through a 'wild card' path styled after the ego of President Trump.

    With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place.

    As SHTF has previously reported, the continuity of government "Doomsday" command-and-control planes were brought out after the election as a public show of power to Trump and the American people. The shadow government is real, and for now, maintains dominance.

    "Mysterious" plane circling over Denver was "just" an E-6B Mercury "doomsday" plane https://t.co/SqJlBkdIqg pic.twitter.com/oE0BBWrhFL

    - The Aviationist (@TheAviationist) November 17, 2016

    Former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul warned of the shadow government taking control of President Trump's administration before it was even formed:

    [Jan 14, 2017] Reflections on a Post Election Soft Coup: Fake News , CIA Intervention, US-NATO Militarization on Russia s Doorstep

    Jan 13, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca
    All this brings to mind the report that Trump is considering a realignment of the intel agencies including staff reductions and reassignments as it compares with JFK's experience when he fired CIA Director Allen Dulles. Kennedy replaced Dulles for lying to him about the Bay of Pigs debacle with an inept outsider named John McCone who was easily snookered by CIA staff. Kennedy did not fully realize the depth of Dulles' betrayal as he continued to meet with senior CIA staff at his home on a regular basis where they discussed, debated and decided CIA policy.

    What Trump needs to understand is that certain cats, especially the neo-con variety, have more than nine lives and will hang on to their power base with every fiber of their being - and we know how that worked out for JFK.

    Enrique Ferro's insight: Observing the President since the November 8th election, his reactions reveal an aggressiveness rarely, if ever seen in an outgoing President's closing days, and has become a fascinating study in human dynamics.

    Obama is clearly experiencing more than a normal reluctance to hand over his @POTUS twitter account as perhaps the reality has only just hit home that it is far too late to create a new, improved legacy.

    One explanation may be that the President's carefully constructed veneer of personality, never convincing for those who have long sought the 'real' Barak Obama, has cracked under the pressure of the 2016 losses.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Is Trump Already Finished - The Unz Review

    Jan 14, 2017 | www.unz.com
    It did not take long before we knew there was no hope of change from President Obama. But at least he went into his inauguration with an unprecedented number of Americans on the Mall showing their support for the President of Change. Hope was abundant.

    But with Trump, we are already losing faith, if not yet with him, at least with his choice of those who comprise his government even before Trump is inaugurated.

    Trump's choice for Secretary of State not only sounds like the neoconservatives in declaring Russia to be a threat to the United States and all of Europe, but also sounds like Hillary Clinton in declaring the South China Sea to be an area of US dominance. One would think that the chairman of Exxon was not an idiot, but I am no longer sure. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson said that China's access to its own South China Sea is "not going to be allowed."

    Here is Tillerson's statement: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."

    I mean, really, what is Tillerson going to do about it except get the world blown up. China's response was as pointed as a response can be:

    Tillerson "should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of threats. If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories."

    So Trump is not even inaugurated and his idiot nominee for Secretary of State has already created an animosity relationship with two nuclear powers capable of completely destroying all of the West for eternity. And this makes the US Senate comfortable with Tillerson. The imbeciles should be scared out of their wits, assuming they have any.

    One of the reasons that Russia rescued Syria from Washington's overthrow is that Russia understood that Washington's next target would be Iran and from a destroyed Iran terrorism would be exported into the Russian Federation. There is an axis of countries threatened by US supported terrorism-Syria, Iran, Russia, China.

    Trump says he wants to normalize relations with Russia and to open up business opportunities in the place of conflict. But to normalize relations with Russia requires also normalizing relations with Iran and China.

    Judging from their public statements, Trump's announced government has targeted Iran for destabilization. Trump's appointees as National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA all regard Iran incorrectly as a terrorist state that must be overthrown.

    But Russia cannot allow Washington to overthrow the stable government in Iran and will not allow it. China's investments in Iranian oil imply that China also will not permit Washington's overthrow of Iran. China has already suffered from its lost investments in Libyan oil as the result of the Obama regimes overthrow of the Libyan government.

    Realistically speaking, it looks like the Trump Presidency is already defeated by his own appointees independently of the ridiculous and completely unbelievable propaganda put out by the CIA and broadcast by the presstitute media in the US, UK, and Europe. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and BBC have lowered themselves below the National Enquirer.

    Possibly, as I wrote earlier today ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/13/the-establishment-is-trying-to-steal-the-presidency-from-trump-paul-craig-roberts/ ), these statements from Trump's appointees are nothing but what is required to be confirmed and are not operational in any sense. However, it is possible to stand up to the bastards in confirmation hearings. I stood up in my confirming hearing, and the embarrassed Democrats requested that the entire hearing be deleted from the record.

    If the Chairman of Exxon and a Lt. General are not capable of standing up to the imbecilic Congress, they are unfit for office. That they did not stand up is an indication that they lack the strength that Trump needs if he is to bring change from the top.

    If Trump is unable to change US foreign policy, thermonuclear war and the destruction of Earth are inevitable.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Unconvincing Forgery, The Alleged Donald Trump Manchurian Candidate : The Steele Dossier or the Hitler Diaries Mark II

    This was pretty dirty provocation by Hillary Clinton close circle, as we now know who paid money for it.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A private company had minute by minute intelligence on the Manchurian Candidate scheme and all the indictable illegal activity that was going on, which the CIA/NSA/GCHQ/MI6 did not have, despite their specific tasking and enormous technical, staff and financial resources amounting between them to over 150,000 staff and the availability of hundreds of billons of dollars to do nothing but this. ..."
    "... A private western company is able to run a state level intelligence operation in Russia for years, continually interviewing senior security sources and people personally close to Putin, without being caught by the Russian security services – despite the fact the latter are brilliant enough to install a Manchurian candidate as President of the USA. This private western company can for example secretly interview staff in top Moscow hotels – which they themselves say are Russian security service controlled – without the staff being too scared to speak to them or ending up dead. They can continually pump Putin's friends for information and get it. ..."
    "... The editors of the Washington Post and the Guardian are guilty of pushing as blazing front page news the most blatant forgery to serve their own political ends, without carrying out the absolutely basic journalistic checks which would easily prove the forgery. Those editors must resign. ..."
    "... The Guardian has published a hagiography in which it clarifies he cannot travel to Russia himself and that he depends on second party contacts to interview third parties. It also confirms that much of the "information" is bought. ..."
    "... Highly paid contacts, through also paid third parties, were inventing intelligence to sell. ..."
    "... There is of course an extra level of venial inaccuracy here because unlike an MI6 officer, Steele himself was then flogging the information for cash. Nobody in the mainstream media has asked the most important question of all. What was the charlatan Christopher Steele paid for this dossier? ..."
    Jan 13, 2017 | www.globalresearch.ca

    The mainstream media's extreme enthusiasm for the Hitler Diaries shows their rush to embrace any forgery if it is big and astonishing enough.

    For the Guardian to lead with such an obvious forgery as the Trump "commercial intelligence reports" is the final evidence of the demise of that newspaper's journalistic values.

    We are now told that the reports were written by Mr Christopher Steele, an ex-MI6 man, for Orbis Business Intelligence. Here are a short list of six impossible things we are asked to believe before breakfast:

    1) Vladimir Putin had a five year (later stated as eight year) plan to run Donald Trump as a "Manchurian candidate" for President and Trump was an active and knowing partner in Putin's scheme.

    2) Hillary Clinton is so stupid and unaware that she held compromising conversations over telephone lines whilst in Russia itself.

    3) Trump's lawyer/adviser Mr Cohen was so stupid he held meetings in Prague with the hacker/groups themselves in person to arrange payment, along with senior officials of the Russian security services. The NSA, CIA and FBI are so incompetent they did not monitor this meeting, and somehow the NSA failed to pick up on the electronic and telephone communications involved in organising it. Therefore Mr Cohen was never questioned over this alleged and improbable serious criminal activity.

    4) A private company had minute by minute intelligence on the Manchurian Candidate scheme and all the indictable illegal activity that was going on, which the CIA/NSA/GCHQ/MI6 did not have, despite their specific tasking and enormous technical, staff and financial resources amounting between them to over 150,000 staff and the availability of hundreds of billons of dollars to do nothing but this.

    5) A private western company is able to run a state level intelligence operation in Russia for years, continually interviewing senior security sources and people personally close to Putin, without being caught by the Russian security services – despite the fact the latter are brilliant enough to install a Manchurian candidate as President of the USA. This private western company can for example secretly interview staff in top Moscow hotels – which they themselves say are Russian security service controlled – without the staff being too scared to speak to them or ending up dead. They can continually pump Putin's friends for information and get it.

    6) Donald Trump's real interest is his vast financial commitment in China, and he has little investment in Russia, according to the reports. Yet he spent the entire election campaign advocating closer ties with Russia and demonizing and antagonizing China.

    Michael Cohen has now stated he has never been to Prague in his life. If that is true the extremely weak credibility of the entire forgery collapses in total. What is more, contrary to the claims of the Guardian and Washington Post that the material is "unverifiable", the veracity of it could be tested extremely easily by the most basic journalism, ie asking Mr Cohen who has produced his passport. The editors of the Washington Post and the Guardian are guilty of pushing as blazing front page news the most blatant forgery to serve their own political ends, without carrying out the absolutely basic journalistic checks which would easily prove the forgery. Those editors must resign.

    The Guardian has published a hagiography in which it clarifies he cannot travel to Russia himself and that he depends on second party contacts to interview third parties. It also confirms that much of the "information" is bought. Contacts who sell you information will of course invent the kind of thing you want to hear to increase their income. That was the fundamental problem with much of the intelligence on Iraqi WMD. Highly paid contacts, through also paid third parties, were inventing intelligence to sell.

    There is of course an extra level of venial inaccuracy here because unlike an MI6 officer, Steele himself was then flogging the information for cash. Nobody in the mainstream media has asked the most important question of all. What was the charlatan Christopher Steele paid for this dossier?

    As forgeries go, this is really not in the least convincing.

    It was very obviously not written seriatim on the dates stated but forged as a collection and with hindsight. I might add I do not include the golden showers among the impossible aspects. I have no idea if it is true and neither do I care. Given Trump's wealth and history,

    I think we can say with confidence that he has indulged whatever his sexual preferences might be all over the world and not just in Russia. It seems most improbable he would succumb to blackmail over it and not brazen it out. I suppose it could be taken as the sole example of trickledown theory actually working.

    [Jan 14, 2017] Is Trump Already Finished - The Unz Review

    Jan 14, 2017 | www.unz.com
    It did not take long before we knew there was no hope of change from President Obama. But at least he went into his inauguration with an unprecedented number of Americans on the Mall showing their support for the President of Change. Hope was abundant.

    But with Trump, we are already losing faith, if not yet with him, at least with his choice of those who comprise his government even before Trump is inaugurated.

    Trump's choice for Secretary of State not only sounds like the neoconservatives in declaring Russia to be a threat to the United States and all of Europe, but also sounds like Hillary Clinton in declaring the South China Sea to be an area of US dominance. One would think that the chairman of Exxon was not an idiot, but I am no longer sure. In his confirmation hearing, Rex Tillerson said that China's access to its own South China Sea is "not going to be allowed."

    Here is Tillerson's statement: "We're going to have to send China a clear signal that first, the island-building stops, and second, your access to those islands also not going to be allowed."

    I mean, really, what is Tillerson going to do about it except get the world blown up. China's response was as pointed as a response can be:

    Tillerson "should not be misled into thinking that Beijing will be fearful of threats. If Trump's diplomatic team shapes future Sino-US ties as it is doing now, the two sides had better prepare for a military clash. Tillerson had better bone up on nuclear power strategies if he wants to force a big nuclear power to withdraw from its own territories."

    So Trump is not even inaugurated and his idiot nominee for Secretary of State has already created an animosity relationship with two nuclear powers capable of completely destroying all of the West for eternity. And this makes the US Senate comfortable with Tillerson. The imbeciles should be scared out of their wits, assuming they have any.

    One of the reasons that Russia rescued Syria from Washington's overthrow is that Russia understood that Washington's next target would be Iran and from a destroyed Iran terrorism would be exported into the Russian Federation. There is an axis of countries threatened by US supported terrorism-Syria, Iran, Russia, China.

    Trump says he wants to normalize relations with Russia and to open up business opportunities in the place of conflict. But to normalize relations with Russia requires also normalizing relations with Iran and China.

    Judging from their public statements, Trump's announced government has targeted Iran for destabilization. Trump's appointees as National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA all regard Iran incorrectly as a terrorist state that must be overthrown.

    But Russia cannot allow Washington to overthrow the stable government in Iran and will not allow it. China's investments in Iranian oil imply that China also will not permit Washington's overthrow of Iran. China has already suffered from its lost investments in Libyan oil as the result of the Obama regimes overthrow of the Libyan government.

    Realistically speaking, it looks like the Trump Presidency is already defeated by his own appointees independently of the ridiculous and completely unbelievable propaganda put out by the CIA and broadcast by the presstitute media in the US, UK, and Europe. The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and BBC have lowered themselves below the National Enquirer.

    Possibly, as I wrote earlier today ( http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/13/the-establishment-is-trying-to-steal-the-presidency-from-trump-paul-craig-roberts/ ), these statements from Trump's appointees are nothing but what is required to be confirmed and are not operational in any sense. However, it is possible to stand up to the bastards in confirmation hearings. I stood up in my confirming hearing, and the embarrassed Democrats requested that the entire hearing be deleted from the record.

    If the Chairman of Exxon and a Lt. General are not capable of standing up to the imbecilic Congress, they are unfit for office. That they did not stand up is an indication that they lack the strength that Trump needs if he is to bring change from the top.

    If Trump is unable to change US foreign policy, thermonuclear war and the destruction of Earth are inevitable.

    [Jan 13, 2017] Mystery Hackers Blow Up Secret NSA Hacking Tools in 'Final F--k You'

    Notable quotes:
    "... The message was accompanied by a parting gift...an apparently complete NSA backdoor kit targeting the Windows operating system. The kit is comprised of 61 malicious Windows executables, only one of which was previously known to antivirus vendors... ..."
    Jan 13, 2017 | www.thedailybeast.com
    by Kevin Poulsen

    "A mysterious hacking group has been bedeviling the U.S. intelligence community for months, releasing a tranche of secret National Security Agency hacking tools to the public while offering to sell even more for the right price. Now with barely a week to go before Donald Trump's inauguration, the self-styled "Shadow Brokers" on Thursday announced that they were packing it in.

    "So long, farewell peoples. TheShadowBrokers is going dark, making exit," the group wrote on its darknet site... The message was accompanied by a parting gift...an apparently complete NSA backdoor kit targeting the Windows operating system. The kit is comprised of 61 malicious Windows executables, only one of which was previously known to antivirus vendors...

    ... ... ...

    The Shadow Brokers emerged in August with the announcement that they'd stolen the hacking tools used by a sophisticated computer-intrusion operation known as the Equation Group, and were putting them up for sale to the highest bidder. It was a remarkable claim, because the Equation Group is generally understood to be part of the NSA's elite Tailored Access Operations program and is virtually never detected, much less penetrated.

    ... ... ...

    Released along with the announcement was a huge cache of specialized malware, including dozens of backdoor programs and 10 exploits, two of them targeting previously unknown security holes in Cisco routers-a basic building block of the internet. While Cisco and other companies scrambled for a fix, security experts pored over the Shadow Brokers tranche like it was the Rosetta Stone. "It was the first time, as threat-intelligence professionals, that we've had access to what appears to be a relatively complete toolkit of a nation-state attacker," says Jake Williams, founder of Rendition Infosec. "It was excitement in some circles, dismay in other circles, and panic and a rush to patch if you're running vulnerable hardware."

    [Jan 12, 2017] The Neocons declaration of war against Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
    "... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
    "... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
    "... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
    "... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
    "... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
    "... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
    "... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
    "... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
    "... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
    "... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
    "... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
    "... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
    "... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
    "... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
    "... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
    "... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
    "... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
    "... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
    "... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
    "... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
    "... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
    "... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
    "... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
    "... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
    "... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
    "... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
    "... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump.

    It all began with CNN published an article entitled " Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him " which claimed that:

    Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

    The website Buzzfeed then published the full document . Here it is in full.

    When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly, there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example, such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.

    The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ."

    Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques. The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after "source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence agencies classify their sources.

    I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what they are talking about.

    This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.

    First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat.

    Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians, they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would make Trump a traitor, by the way.

    Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!

    Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him.

    Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump.

    All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.

    [Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]

    I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage. Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.

    As I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their values and their country.

    In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA.

    I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ".

    So please tell me I am wrong!

    (Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 11, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
    Seamus Padraig , January 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT

    Looks like CNN and Buzzfeed got trolled hard by 4Chan: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-11/archived-posts-prove-4chan-trolled-cia-trump-golden-shower-story-entire-russian-hack

    dearieme ,January 11, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT

    If the pis-en-lit putsch fails, there will be another along in a minute. "Lock 'em up" is going to have to be applied by the thousands.

    @pyrrhus
    Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
    Enrique Ferro , January 11, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic, and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.

    His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.

    I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake.

    @Mikhailovich
    Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and the nationalisation of everything.

    Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.

    After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World.

    Robert Magill , January 11, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT • 200 Words

    This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness make it almost a possibility.

    Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.

    One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer. Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll ..ForeverWar!

    Secret Plan: Your Eyes Only. Need-To-Know Established. Emergency use only! Not to be attempted until things are so bad nothing else is feasible.The basis of the Secret Plan is to use racism against racism. more https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/how-our-republic-was-finally-rescued-from-itself-or/

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    @Lemurmaniac
    Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated - one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the common interest.
    Forbes , January 12, 2017 at 2:54 am GMT • 100 Words

    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    @Kyle McKenna
    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    Anon , January 12, 2017 at 5:35 am GMT • 100 Words

    Does blackmail work?

    Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting women around, and acting like some rapper thug?

    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.

    And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.

    BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?

    Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans have been spilled.

    PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.

    @Eagle Eye
    Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
    Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
    @Dr. X
    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
    Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
    The Alarmist , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

    "There is no need to open Gulags ."

    There's still plenty of room at Gitmo, and it would only be fitting to bring the neocons face to face with their old friends and henchmen.

    Kyle McKenna , January 12, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Forbes
    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    @Anonymous
    "even a tad hysterical"

    it's anutha showa --

    Ned Resnikoff

    Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump

    Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.

    I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name is pretty WASP-y.

    But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."

    https://twitter.com/Thomasismyuncle/status/818117574466699264

    anon , January 12, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT • 100 Words

    I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen. The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.

    All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that. That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.

    Impeachment and Removal by CRS

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

    @Randal
    The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.

    There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.

    Miro23 , January 12, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT • 500 Words

    The Neocons' Declaration of War Against Trump,

    It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.

    So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.

    You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.

    Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity.

    Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive, since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives replaced.

    Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.

    Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests of the United States.

    Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.

    @alexander
    "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"


    "Exploited" Miro23 ?

    This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..

    Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......

    14,300,000 people.!

    That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.

    This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".

    Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...

    A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --

    This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.

    Its absolutely "mind -numbing"

    Its obscene.

    And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....

    BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
    TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
    WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".

    This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.

    Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.

    This cannot continue.

    The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.

    And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down on this....and they ain't gonna budge --

    Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --

    Enough is enough.

    Mikhailovich , January 12, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT

    I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    "this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
    @squf
    No, "by design" would refer to the original document being hoaxed, not that Trump has complete control over the Cathedral's media wing.
    n230099 , January 12, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"

    One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program. But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon squad may be in error.

    Ram , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    " one of the parties here will be crushed."

    I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with very aggressive racial grievance agitation.

    The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match

    @george strong
    I hope you are correct. All decent white men have many scores to settle.
    Quartermaster , January 12, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT • 100 Words

    It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The "intelligent" community's big shots showed themselves to be intellectual whimpers. ,
    @Eagle Eye
    Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and credibility to this threadbare effort.

    The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.

    Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.

    On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper (mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness during depressive phases.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Dear Saker

    The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.

    CK , January 12, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true.
    Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.

    Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.

    Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.

    That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?

    @annamaria
    McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
    Che Guava , January 12, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.

    Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence' agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying

    It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
    .
    Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.

    They are cleary sn.

    If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
    . . .

    Anonymous , January 12, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis . It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows how to make a mess of things but not much else.

    I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.

    @annamaria
    "...incompetent CIA.."
    Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent professionals.
    Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
    @Realist
    "I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case."

    Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.

    DaveE , January 12, 2017 at 3:06 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    @CanSpeccy
    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    alexander , January 12, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT • 400 Words
    Agent76 , January 12, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 100 Words

    They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!

    Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party

    Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?

    @Realist
    Jeremy is wrong at least one thing. McCain is a member in good standing with the deep state. Just too stupid to be elected.
    Mao Cheng Ji , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind

    @Mikhailovich
    The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
    @anonymous
    They'd probably bite on anything.

    I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply not very bright.

    There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation you kind of have to.

    CanSpeccy , • Website January 12, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @DaveE
    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    Abelard Lindsey , January 12, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

    I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.

    I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.

    @anonymous
    So many options. Take a page from the leftists and block highways and ports -- but on a grand scale.

    Simply stop paying taxes. Stop funding the entire machine -- the sports, shops, colleges. Just stop it all.

    If there is a coup, it'll more than past time for it all to be stopped. It will be time to implode the whole thing and hit the reset button.

    Thales the Milesian , January 12, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

    USA: numero uno!

    Every patriotic American should support president Trump, all the way.

    Long live President Trump!

    annamaria , January 12, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
    @Mikhailovich
    I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.

    @Mikhailovich
    The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.

    [Jan 12, 2017] The Neocons declaration of war against Trump

    Notable quotes:
    "... The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ." ..."
    "... this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat. ..."
    "... Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery! ..."
    "... Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him. ..."
    "... Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump. ..."
    "... In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. ..."
    "... just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ..."
    "... I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently. ..."
    "... Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives). ..."
    "... There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, ..."
    "... His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries. ..."
    "... I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake. ..."
    "... To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World. ..."
    "... The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness. ..."
    "... despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. ..."
    "... Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything. ..."
    "... The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion. ..."
    "... There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal. ..."
    "... It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general. ..."
    "... So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation. ..."
    "... Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity. ..."
    "... "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit" ..."
    "... I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison. ..."
    "... It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool. ..."
    "... The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true. Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature. ..."
    "... McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family. ..."
    "... I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months. ..."
    "... The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | www.unz.com

    After several rather lame false starts, the Neocons have now taken a step which can only be called a declaration of war against Donald Trump.

    It all began with CNN published an article entitled " Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him " which claimed that:

    Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN. The allegations were presented in a two-page synopsis that was appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. The allegations came, in part, from memos compiled by a former British intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials consider credible ( ) The two-page synopsis also included allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government, according to two national security officials.

    The website Buzzfeed then published the full document . Here it is in full.

    When I first read the document my intention was to debunk it sentence by sentence. However, I don't have the time for that and, frankly, there is no need for it. I will just provide you here with enough simple straightforward evidence that this is a fake. Here are just a few elements of proof: The document has no letterhead, no identification, no date, no nothing. For many good technical and even legal reasons, sensitive intelligence documents are created with plenty of tracking and identification information. For example, such a document would typically have a reference to the unit which produced it or an number-letter combination indicating the reliability of the source and of the information it contains. The classification CONFIDENTIAL/SENSITIVE SOURCE is a joke. If this was a true document its level of classification would be much, much higher than "confidential" and since most intelligence documents come from sensitive sources there is no need to specify that.

    The allegation that " The dossier is controlled by Kremlin spokesman, PESKOV, directly on PUTIN'S orders " is beyond laughable. Clearly the author of this fake has no idea how the Russian intelligence and security services work (hint: the Presidential spokesman has no involvement in that whatsoever) On page 2 there is this other hilarious sentence " exploit TRUMP's personal obsession and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable 'kompromat' (compromising material) on him ."

    Nobody in a real intelligence document would bother to clarify what the word "kompromat" means since both in Russian and in English it is obviously the combination of the words "compromising" and "materials". Any western intelligence officer, even a very junior one, would know that word, if only because of the many Cold War era espionage books written about the KGB entrapment techniques. The document speaks of "source A", "source B" and further down the alphabet. Now ask yourself a simple question: what happens after "source Z" is used? Can any intelligence agency work with a potential pool of sources limited to 26? Obviously, this is not how intelligence agencies classify their sources.

    I will stop here and submit that there is ample evidence that this is a crude fake produced by amateurs who have no idea of what they are talking about.

    This does not make this document any less dangerous, however.

    First, and this is the really crucial part, there is more than enough here to impeach Trump on numerous grounds both political and legal . Let me repeat again – this is an attempt at removing Donald Trump from the White House. This is a political coup d'etat.

    Second, this documents smears everybody involved: Trump himself, of course, but also the evil Russians and their ugly Machiavellian techniques. Trump is thereby "confirmed" as a sexual pervert who likes to hire prostitutes to urinate on him. As for the Russians, they are basically accused of trying to recruit the President of the United States as an agent of their security services. That would make Trump a traitor, by the way.

    Third, within one short week we went from allegations of "Russian hacking" to "having a traitor sitting in the White House". We can only expect a further Tsunami of such allegations to continue and get worse and worse every day. It is interesting that Buzzfeed has already preempted the accusation of this being a smear and demonization campaign against Trump by writing that " Now BuzzFeed News is publishing the full document so that Americans can make up their own minds about allegations about the president-elect that have circulated at the highest levels of the US government. " as if most Americans had the expertise to immediately detect that this document is a crude forgery!

    Fourth, unless all the officials who briefed Trump come out and deny that this fake was part of their briefing with Trump, it will appear that this document has the official imprimatur of the senior US intelligence officials and that would give them a legal, probatory, authority. This de-facto means that the "experts" have evaluated that document and have certified it as "credible" even before any legal proceedings in court or, worse, in Congress. I sure hope that Trump had the foresight to audio and video record his meeting with the intelligence chiefs and that he is now able to threaten them with legal action if they now act in a way contradicting their behavior before him.

    Fifth, the fact that CNN got involved in all this is a critical factor. Some of us, including yours truly, were shocked and disgusted when the WaPo posted a list of 200 websites denounced as "fake news" and "Russian propaganda", but what CNN did by posting this article is infinitely worse: it is a direct smear and political attack on the President Elect on a worldwide level (the BBC and others are already posting the same crap). This again confirms to be that the gloves are off and that the Ziomedia is in full state of war against Donald Trump.

    All of the above further confirms to me what I have been saying over the past weeks: if Trump ever makes it into the White House (I write 'if' because I think that the Neocons are perfectly capable of assassinating him), his first priority should be to ruthlessly crack down as hard as he legally can against those in the US "deep state" (which very much includes the media) who have now declared war on him. I am sorry to say that, but it will be either him or them – one of the parties here will be crushed.

    [Sidebar: to those who wonder what I mean by "crackdown" I will summarize here what I wrote elsewhere: the best way to do that is to nominate a hyper-loyal and determined FBI director and instruct him to go after all the enemies of Trump by investigating them on charge of corruption, abuse of power, conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and all the other types of behavior which have gone on forever in Congress, the intelligence community, the banking world and the media. Deal with the Neocons like Putin did with the Russian oligarchs or how the USA dealt with Al Capone – get them on tax evasion. There is no need to open Gulags or shoot people when you can get them all on what is their normal daily behavior :-)]

    I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and I admit that I might be, but I don't have the gut feeling that Trump has what it takes to hit hard enough at those who are using any and every ugly method imaginable to prevent him from ever making it into the White House or to have him impeached if he tries to deliver on his campaign promises. I cannot blame him for that either: the enemy has infiltrated all the level of power in the US polity and there are strong sign that they are even represented in Trump's immediate entourage. Putin could do what he did because he was an iron-willed and highly trained intelligence officer. Trump is just a businessman whose best "training" to deal with such people would probably be his exposure to the mob in New York. Will that be enough to allow him to prevail against the Neocons? I doubt it, but I sure hope so.

    As I predicted it before the election , the USA are about to enter the worst crisis in their history. We are entering extraordinarily dangerous times. If the danger of a thermonuclear war between Russia and the USA had dramatically receded with the election of Trump, the Neocon total war on Trump put the United States at very grave risk, including civil war (should the Neocon controlled Congress impeach Trump I believe that uprisings will spontaneously happen, especially in the South, and especially in Florida and Texas). At the risk of sounding over the top, I will say that what is happening now is putting the very existence of the United States in danger almost regardless of what Trump will personally do. Whatever we may think of Trump as a person and about his potential as a President, what is certain is that millions of American patriots have voted for him to "clear the swamp", give the boot to the Washington-based plutocracy and restore what they see as fundamental American values. If the Neocons now manage to stage a coup d'etat against Trump, I predict that these millions of American will turn to violence to protect what they see as their way of life, their values and their country.

    In spite of the image which Hollywood likes to give of them, most Americans are peaceful and non-violent people, but if they are pushed too far they will not hesitate and grab their guns to defend themselves, especially if they lose all hopes in their democracy. And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC. If a coup is staged against Trump and some wannabe President à la Hillary or McCain gives the order to the National Guard or even the US Army to put down a local insurrection, we could see what we saw in Russia in 1991: a categorical refusal of the security services to shoot at their own people. That is the biggest and ultimate danger for the Neocons: the risk that if they give the order to crack down on the population the police, security and military services might simply refuse to take action. If that could happen in the "KGB-controlled country" (to use a Cold War cliché) this can also happen in the USA.

    I sure hope that I am wrong and that this latest attack against Trump is the Neocon's last "hurray" before they finally give up and leave. I hope that all of the above is my paranoia speaking. But, as they say, " just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they are not after you ".

    So please tell me I am wrong!

    (Reprinted from The Vineyard of the Saker by permission of author or representative)

    Mao Cheng Ji , January 11, 2017 at 7:34 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?
    Seamus Padraig , January 11, 2017 at 9:05 pm GMT

    Looks like CNN and Buzzfeed got trolled hard by 4Chan: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-11/archived-posts-prove-4chan-trolled-cia-trump-golden-shower-story-entire-russian-hack

    dearieme ,January 11, 2017 at 9:44 pm GMT

    If the pis-en-lit putsch fails, there will be another along in a minute. "Lock 'em up" is going to have to be applied by the thousands.

    @pyrrhus
    Indeed. There needs to be a mass housecleaning at the CIA and other intelligence agencies, and, in a serious country, a number of people at the CIA would be shot for treason.
    Enrique Ferro , January 11, 2017 at 10:16 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Saker, Putin's crack down the oligarchs took him some years, the time to gather forces and get them in disarray. He was very clever and cautious, he didn't go after them overnight. And Putin had decisive connections. Besides it was never so dramatic, and his succession was smooth The problem with Trump, as you say, is that he is quite new in town, and a forlorn fighter.

    His enemies are like a pack, in both parties, in both chambers, in the economic and financial establishment, the media, Hollywood. He'll have to trad carefully. And yet, he is courageous and outspoken, as he has shown right away, by strongly denouncing the media and "intelligence community" for their forgeries.

    I'm afraid the conspiracy will get nastier and nastier, and sooner or later, they will remove him, even violently, very violently. I fear the Inauguration ceremony will be historic, and not for the best. Cross your fingers. The humanity's fate is at the stake.

    @Mikhailovich
    Russian oligarchs had about 5% support of Russian people. They needed Putin themselves. Alternative was the communists and the nationalisation of everything.

    Putin gave them choice: carry on with your business, but not interfere in the politics or leave the country. Khodorkovsky tried to resist and failed miserably. The regime change from the oligarchs to Putin took about four years.

    After election 2004, it was clear who control the country. In US, the establishment, in their struggle against Trump, has support of almost half of US people, including all minorities (Jews too). To finish the power of the oligarchs, Trump must separate the politics from the business and start a serious reform of CIA. If he will be able to do it, we all may enjoy much safer World.

    Robert Magill , January 11, 2017 at 10:59 pm GMT • 200 Words

    This is excerpted from a futurist short story that was never published and hopefully would never be acted upon. Today's madness make it almost a possibility.

    Rescuing the Republic From Itself /or How 50 Men, Women and Children Could Save our Bacon.

    One thing still trumps all others in America. It isn't wealth, nor power, it's not the myth of our uniqueness under Heaven no. It's a lot more basic and powerful than those. It even trumps celebrity which is a close second. No, fundamental as those are in the national psyche they pale in comparison to Number One racism. Added to this ancient plague is a relative newcomer. Only about a century old; it is a formidable competitor and looks like it's here to stay. (If the money holds out.) Big drum roll ..ForeverWar!

    Secret Plan: Your Eyes Only. Need-To-Know Established. Emergency use only! Not to be attempted until things are so bad nothing else is feasible.The basis of the Secret Plan is to use racism against racism. more https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/how-our-republic-was-finally-rescued-from-itself-or/

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    @Lemurmaniac
    Racism is in group preference based upon common descent. It's how you create a stable polity as De Tocqueville elaborated - one people and one culture settled the United States. Ethnic solidarity allows us to cooperate to produce public goods in the common interest.
    Forbes , January 12, 2017 at 2:54 am GMT • 100 Words

    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    @Kyle McKenna
    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative...When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    Anon , January 12, 2017 at 5:35 am GMT • 100 Words

    Does blackmail work?

    Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have all sorts of tapes of MLK acting like Fartin Poother Bling? Drunkeness, orgies, blasphemy, hitting women around, and acting like some rapper thug?

    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.

    And Monica's dress failed to topple Billy Boy Clinton.

    BBC reports that it was some British Intelligence that got this news. But I don't know if we should trust that stuff. Didn't British intelligence spread false rumors to drag the US into both WWI and WWII?

    Well, if Russia does have the incriminating tape and had planned to blackmail Trump, that possibility is gone since the beans have been spilled.

    PS. Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men? Now, that would explain a lot.

    @Eagle Eye
    Was there any truth to the rumor that Obama had 'gay' affairs with rich powerful men?
    Senator Frist was mentioned as a Barry worshiper. Barry loves humiliating and lying to white men, probably still acting out early childhood trauma over having been ditched by 3 parents (father - whoever he was, mother, and stepfather), perhaps a lot of other unpleasantness that tends to befall unprotected boys. ,
    @Dr. X
    Well, it didn't do any good, and MLK is now revered as some kind of god.
    Yeah, because a Federal judge sealed his FBI records from being FOILed for fifty years, so that TPTB could create a Magic Negro myth about him and make him more important than George Washington.
    The Alarmist , January 12, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

    "There is no need to open Gulags ."

    There's still plenty of room at Gitmo, and it would only be fitting to bring the neocons face to face with their old friends and henchmen.

    Kyle McKenna , January 12, 2017 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Forbes
    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. And such hyper-overreaction as this post represents suggests an instability of mind. That anyone took the document seriously per se speaks of utter unseriousness.

    What's been referred to as the mainstream media has effectively lost all credibility, as they play the role of the partisan opposition. There's no reason to believe their reporting beyond yesterday's high and low temperature.

    It's tempting to treat this analysis as paranoid and even a tad hysterical, but I fear it's nothing more than the unvarnished truth. Trump is a wrench in the works of the Establishment, and a bit of a loose cannon besides.

    However, despite the fact that Trump has lately wrapped himself in a prodigious portion of Establishment Mantle, the Powers That Be are terrified, and the brick bats have just begun. While it's a pleasure to see them on the run for once, it'd be a fatal error to underestimate them.

    Additionally: the accuracy, legitimacy, and/or professionalism of their attacks may prove irrelevant. Facts aren't really what it's about when you control the Narrative When you control the Production of Truth. It's no accident that the stranglehold on the MSM is guarded so viciously. Control of the Media is Control of Everything.

    @Anonymous
    "even a tad hysterical"

    it's anutha showa --

    Ned Resnikoff

    Nov 12 2016 -- 4 days after the election of Donald Trump

    Wanted to share an experience from earlier today. This afternoon, I had a plumber over to my apartment to fix a clogged drain. He was a perfectly nice guy and a consummate professional. But he was also a middle aged white man with a southern accent who seemed unperturbed by this week's news. And while I had him in the apartment, I couldn't stop thinking about whether he had voted for Trump, whether he knew my last name is Jewish, and how that knowledge might change the interaction we were having inside my own home. I have no real reason to believe he was a Trump support or an anti-Semite, but in my uncertainty I couldn't shake the sense of potential danger. I was rattled for some time after he left.

    I'm very privileged insofar as this sense of range is unfamiliar to me. And I know I feel it much less acutely than a lot of other people right now. I'm still a straight, white guy who can phenotypically pass for gentile. Plus my first name is pretty WASP-y.

    But today was a reminder that ambiguous social interactions now feel unsafe and unpredictable in a way that they never did before. And even if Trump is gone in four years, I don't expect to ever reclaim that feeling of security. That's just one more thing you voted for, if you voted for him."

    https://twitter.com/Thomasismyuncle/status/818117574466699264

    anon , January 12, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT • 100 Words

    I am of the opinion that the dossier, even if true, is at most embarrassing but not an impeachable offense. Impeachment is for offenses committed while in office, not for alleged misdeeds before the office starts when the person was a private citizen. The process of election, is a judgement on fitness to hold office. He can be impeached only for things he will do after Jan. 20.

    All voters who voted for him knew he is not strong on personal or business morality or ethics. He was elected in spite of that. That should take away all the sting out of the dossier allegations.

    Impeachment and Removal by CRS

    https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

    @Randal
    The point is not that these allegations can be used as direct grounds for impeachment, but that they create a climate in which Congressmen and Senators, especially Republicans, can block Trump's personnel and policies, especially on Russia, and if and when the opportunity arises, justify voting against party lines on an impeachment motion.

    There are plenty of establishment Republican who would vote to impeach in a heartbeat, regardless of the merits of the case, if they thought their careers would survive it, This kind of furore is designed to create political circumstances in which they might hope for their careers to survive such a betrayal.

    Miro23 , January 12, 2017 at 7:34 am GMT • 500 Words

    The Neocons' Declaration of War Against Trump,

    It's useful to understand who the Neocons are. They're mostly the Zionist section of US Jewry, but even this isn't so clear since US Jews have a problem defining themselves racially. They are ethnically more European than Semitic, and their cultural affinity is wholly European rather than Semitic Middle Eastern. Also, they are not so religious, with the decline in practicing Judaism mirroring the decline in Christian Church attendance among Europeans and Americans in general.

    So it could be more informative to see US Jewry as something more like a private corporation.

    You either belong to the corporation or you don't, and it's not essential to have a Jewish connection either (e.g. top executives Hillary Clinton and John McCain) with the general idea being to run the enterprise for the mutual benefit of its members.

    Like any other large corporation, it's transnational, sets up lobbying organizations to help client Congressmen get elected, guides their research, helps with their expenses and gets favourable legislation in return. This reality seems to build naturally out of the Jewish European background in international commerce (rather than national government administration) so a Neoliberal economic environment is much more congenial with very little input from a nominal national identity. The key is the corporate identity.

    Corporations are not too concerned if their competitors go bankrupt, it's just part of the business, and in fact it's positive, since it shows that your corporation can capture a market and exploit it more profitably. If your competitors are Gentile businesses then there are various ways to remove them, the most popular being to gain leadership positions in Gentile Corporation "G" while still holding loyalty to Jewish Corporation "J". Corporation "G" can them be incorporated in Corporation " J" and the top executives replaced.

    Trump's problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a Corporate "J" run "deep state", that sees the US in mostly economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit. Putin faced a similar problem when he came to power in Russia (also Corporation "J" ), and slowly resolved it by blocking their attempts to gain political power (arrest on tax charges of Khodorkovsky) and emphasizing national interests and identity over corporate interests.

    Trump could follow a similar line by blocking all special interest access to Congress, or more aggressively suspend all CIA and FBI non-disclosure agreements, giving past and present agents immunity to prosecution and inviting them to present documentation in confidence to a Presidential Commission regarding any activities that in their opinion were conducted against the interests of the United States.

    Alternatively he could accept the presidency of Corporation "J", take the tremendous benefits, and be hailed by the MSM as America's Greatest Leader, but as the article says, face a backlash from his base who will see that he has sold them out.

    @alexander
    "Trumps problem (if it is a problem for him) is that he is dealing with a ...corporate "deep state" that sees the US mostly in economic terms, as a market to be exploited for maximum profit"


    "Exploited" Miro23 ?

    This has got to be the "understatement" of the decade.... Lets just take a look at the numbers, shall we?..

    Let us say for a moment that I placed you (or myself ) on a street corner in New York City with the specific intention of handing out a $1,000,000 cashiers check to each and every person who walks by ........ Do you know how many people you would have to hand the check to...in order to EQUAL the amount of tax dollars this "deep state" VACUUM has "sucked" from the taxpayers pockets, in a mere decade and a half ?......

    14,300,000 people.!

    That's right !... the entire Population of Manhattan.. TIMES TWO.

    This is not the total in "spending" , mind you..No, No....this is the total in... "overspending".

    Our national debt has BALLOONED from 5.7 trillion in 2000 to a whopping 20 trillion in just sixteen years...

    A "bone crunching" $14.3 million, million dollars --

    This level of "assault" on our nations balance sheet is wholly unprecedented in history.

    Its absolutely "mind -numbing"

    Its obscene.

    And what can nearly all of this humongous debt, foisted on the backs of 320 million Americans, be attributed to ....

    BANKING FRAUD as in....triple A rating worthless subprime junk
    TERROR FRAUD as in ....it was "Saddam's Anthrax" in Senators Leahy's office
    WAR FRAUD as in.....imminent threat of "mushroom clouds" ,WMD's, and "Yellow Cake from Niger".

    This kind of behavior is simply unacceptable.

    Yet for some reason, there has been ZERO accountability......ZERO.

    This cannot continue.

    The people voted in the Donald to "Drain the Swamp"....because if he doesn't do something..we are all SUNK.

    And if the "swamp doesn't want to be drained"...well.... too bad......Because the American people have put their foot down on this....and they ain't gonna budge --

    Throw the whole lot in Guantanamo Bay, Mr. President, if need be.....Just get it done --

    Enough is enough.

    Mikhailovich , January 12, 2017 at 7:40 am GMT

    I tell you – you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit... clear signs of degradation.
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    I watched the press-conference just now, and I get the impression that this latest episode is the best thing (for Trump) recently.

    Apparently it was so inane that it was immediately refuted, and it's now accepted in all quarters that it was a fake accusation. Which gives Trump an opportunity to 1. claim victimhood, 2. attack the media and US 'intelligence' services, and 3. talk about it every time he's asked any question about his mythical 'Russian connections'. It's a huge win for him. In fact, it wouldn't have surprised me if this whole thing was his own design (well, of his operatives).

    "this whole thing was his own design" – you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case – why he would attack them? And other question – why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them -- in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it -- and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind... ,
    @squf
    No, "by design" would refer to the original document being hoaxed, not that Trump has complete control over the Cathedral's media wing.
    n230099 , January 12, 2017 at 12:20 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "And I am not talking only about gun-toting hillbillies here, I am talking about the local, state and county authorities, who often care much more about what their local constituents think and say than what the are up to in DC"

    One of the oft heard cliches of the gun control crowd is that the armed among the unwashed are silly to think they could stand against the might of the government. But as the writer here implies, this notion relies on the authorities staying with the program. But these folks are still family people for which their service is just a job. The notion that they're all part of a unified goon squad may be in error.

    Ram , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    " one of the parties here will be crushed."

    I sure hope it won't be Trump. However, his promise to drain the swamp has NOT happened, and the State Department is still completely controlled by the ZioCons and the foreign policy is controlled from Tel Aviv. The recent attempt to further subvert British politics by the Israeli embassy in London was exposed but what will the consequence be.? Not very much I guess.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:29 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The Civil War will be in fact an all-out-race-war. They didn't take this into account when the 1965 Immigration Reform Act was passed. We are already in a low-level .maybe not so low-level race war. Barack Obama will spend his time in retirement with very aggressive racial grievance agitation.

    The basement of the US has been filled to the brim with gasoline ..we are one match away .one match

    @george strong
    I hope you are correct. All decent white men have many scores to settle.
    Quartermaster , January 12, 2017 at 12:40 pm GMT • 100 Words

    It was a hoax. It also allowed Trump to find out where leaks are coming from. Anyone who understands the type of man Trump is would have placed such a report in the hoax category straightaway. That the "intelligence community" did not, says a lot about them. Under Obama, they have simply become a partisan tool.

    @annamaria
    Agree. The "intelligent" community's big shots showed themselves to be intellectual whimpers. ,
    @Eagle Eye
    Yep, the more lurid parts are definitely a hoax, with some other parts cobbled together from open sources to lend volume and credibility to this threadbare effort.

    The weird fascination with the person of Obama is a dead giveaway. Only an Obama worshiper would feel that the highest/lowest form of sexual perversion is to commit sacrilege against a BED that the Holy One and his consort had slept in.

    Whatever Trump's personal predilections, they are most unlikely to revolve around the person of Barry Obama.

    On the other hand, anyone with eyes to see will have encountered the type of fervid, manic, glassy-eyed Barry worshiper (mostly gay or female) with the characteristic combination of sexual arousal and religious fervor, leavened with vicious bitchiness during depressive phases.

    War for Blair Mountain , January 12, 2017 at 12:58 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Dear Saker

    The term "hillbillies" is a slur against the People of Appalachia. It is a slur that is used in comedy skits on SNL written by the East Coast Rootless Cosmopolitan SNL Comedy Writers. For the record Tina Fey is not Jewish niether is Samantha Bee -- but they are Rootless Cosmopolitan Filth.

    CK , January 12, 2017 at 1:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The McCains and Wilsons and the responsible editors at Buzzfeed and CNN all wanted to believe it to be true so they posted it as true.
    Collaborator McCain is a despicable creature.

    Rick Wilson is a moral degenerate as is his son whose web site is a storehouse of perversity.

    Imagine what kind of mental aberration you have to hold to believe that hiring prostitutes and having them urinate on new linen somehow invalidated or harms someone who might have slept in that room months previously.

    That is the level of aberration that runs from Pizzagate to the highest levels of American Journalism and the American Democratic party ( but I repeat myself). Sympathetic magic maybe?

    @annamaria
    McCain of "Tokyo rose" fame. The older McCain of the USSLiberty scandalous coverup and insult to the USSLiberty victims and veterans fame. Seems that there something that runs in the McCain family.
    Che Guava , January 12, 2017 at 1:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    I am amazed by the brazen nature of the attacks. The most interesting part is that at least the most lurid claims seem to have been spoonfed to the earlier idiot in the US as part of the flow by 4chan trolls, and this continued through the former MI6 loon, both the UK and US mnrons shopped the lies around for months.

    Hanoi Hilton collaborator and Lord Haw Haw of the US in Vietnam, John McCain decided to dash it out again. Having never logged on to 4chan, but been an admin on a site they invaded, I know and at times enjoy their troll style. That supposedly serious 'intelligence' agencies push that entertaining crap, as disinfo without a second thought is mystifying

    It also raises my estimation of the Donald, never heard his speaking voice before, but it is quite good,
    .
    Trump needs to clean their Augean stables.

    They are cleary sn.

    If the disinfo against hm iis so bad, he must be doing many things right.
    . . .

    Anonymous , January 12, 2017 at 2:36 pm GMT • 100 Words

    I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case. Like petulant children, the CIA tends to be present oriented in extremis . It discounts the future and is therefore constitutively unprepared for exposure, consequences, and blowback. The CIA knows how to make a mess of things but not much else.

    I would not trust any intelligence coming from the CIA It doesn't appear to be staffed with very intelligent people. The KGB (now the SFB/SVR) is running circles around them.

    @annamaria
    "...incompetent CIA.."
    Decades of selection in favor of opportunists and sycophants, while, at the same time, weeding out the principled and competent professionals.
    Is not the result grand? - CIA as a senescent, gossiping madame. ,
    @Realist
    "I'm amazed at how incompetent the CIA is in its war against Trump but, then, I look at its historical track record since its founding and note this has always been the case."

    Exactly right. The CIA has never done anything to better the US for the common man. From it's inception it was the muscle for the power elite. It's purpose was to manipulate foreign governments to provide wealth and power to the power elite/deep state, which ever you prefer. And occasionally to eliminate threats to it'self.

    DaveE , January 12, 2017 at 3:06 pm GMT • 100 Words

    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it .." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    @CanSpeccy
    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    alexander , January 12, 2017 at 3:37 pm GMT • 400 Words
    Agent76 , January 12, 2017 at 4:16 pm GMT • 100 Words

    They are the cancer that needs to be radiated and removed in both wings of the War party!

    Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, The War Party

    Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today's world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people's voice be heard?

    @Realist
    Jeremy is wrong at least one thing. McCain is a member in good standing with the deep state. Just too stupid to be elected.
    Mao Cheng Ji , January 12, 2017 at 4:27 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Mikhailovich
    "this whole thing was his own design" - you mean it is possible that Trump somehow has control over CNN, BBC etc. In such case - why he would attack them? And other question - why they worked so hard against him in time of the election campaign?

    No. What I meant is that, seeing how insane the MSM are these days, perhaps it would makes sense for the Trump team to secretly manufacture some juicy red-meat fake scandal for them - in hope that they mindlessly grab it and run with it - and then get burned when it's proven a ludicrous fake. But maybe it's just my devious mind

    @Mikhailovich
    The CNN man at the press-conference was really arrogant and aggressive. I think, if Trump will exclude CNN from his future press-conferences, people would accept it with understanding. Anyway we will have interesting times.
    @anonymous
    They'd probably bite on anything.

    I look at the CNN webpage once in a while, and I get the distinct impression that the people staffing the place are simply not very bright.

    There may be too many diversity hires? It seems like a group of actors and SJWs pretending to be journalists. They aren't serious people, and you'd like to not have to take them seriously but since they control the information flow of the nation you kind of have to.

    CanSpeccy , • Website January 12, 2017 at 4:31 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @DaveE
    The zionists have lost and they know it. BUT, they still have their"trump-card" (sorry!) left to play: a nuclear false flag attack on America, to be blamed on Russia.

    No-one could stop war at that point, regardless of belief of culpability. Although Saker is right, such a stunt would involve some SERIOUS repercussions for the Israelites.

    Are they crazy enough to risk self-annihilation to prove their superiority, once and for all?

    Trump certainly doesn't have the guts to say, "Hey folks, the zionists did it....." Hell, he won't even publicly admit they did 9/11, although there's plenty of evidence he knows they did. But Obama on the other hand would help them plant the nukes and take a train outa town.

    If I were a zionist contemplating such a stunt, I'd get it over with before next Friday.

    War between Russia and NATO would be the ultimate civil conflict among the European people, leading to the elimination of the white race as a significant component of the future world population and the end of Christendom.

    That, apparently, is what the NeoCons, President Obama, and their Treason Party allies, the likes of Senator McCain at home, and Canada's witless Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau abroad, want.

    Abelard Lindsey , January 12, 2017 at 4:35 pm GMT

    I can assure you that, if Trump is prevented from taking office, or is removed from office after being sworn in, millions of us WILL treat it as a coup d'etat and will respond appropriately, and this does not necessarily involve violence.

    I can also tell you our feelings are not limited to the South and Texas. Many of us in the Western U.S. feel the same way.

    @anonymous
    So many options. Take a page from the leftists and block highways and ports -- but on a grand scale.

    Simply stop paying taxes. Stop funding the entire machine -- the sports, shops, colleges. Just stop it all.

    If there is a coup, it'll more than past time for it all to be stopped. It will be time to implode the whole thing and hit the reset button.

    Thales the Milesian , January 12, 2017 at 5:08 pm GMT

    USA: numero uno!

    Every patriotic American should support president Trump, all the way.

    Long live President Trump!

    annamaria , January 12, 2017 at 5:12 pm GMT
    @Mikhailovich
    I tell you - you are right. The stakes are very high indeed. If the establishment will lose political power, many of them may finish their lives in prison.

    Agree. The establishment's hysterics and histrionics betray the fear of loosing money and power. But what a pitiful imagination, what a consistent incompetence the "deciders" have been showing: Nothing but banality and half-wit clear signs of degradation.

    @Mikhailovich
    The difference between the corporate interests of the financial-political elite and the interests of the nation became too obvious. So they are failing to persuade American Nation that they are acting in the national interest.

    [Jan 12, 2017] Chuck Todd Excoriates Buzzfeed's Editor in Chief 'YOU PUBLISHED FAKE NEWS'

    Jan 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Chuck Todd Excoriates Buzzfeed's Editor in Chief: 'YOU PUBLISHED FAKE NEWS'

    Rudolph Steiner Jan 12, 2017 3:17 PM

    You cannot make this up! As a NEWS purveyor today you say anything you like, from any credible or not credible person or organization on the planet, and then claim it is up to your readers to decide if it is true or not. Yikes. The American Fourth Estate is beginning to look like a one flight up gentleman's parlor on old Times Square.

    inosent Jan 12, 2017 12:17 PM

    a lot of homosexual practitioners like ben smith produce this kind of garbage. the aggressive promotion of homosexualized America, and Europe as well, has been very bad news indeed. That is a political agenda that needs to meet some serious resistance.

    dizzyfingers Jan 12, 2017 12:07 PM

    Isn't 99.99% of tv "news" fake? That's if you add in commercials... :-)

    worbsid Karl Marxist Jan 12, 2017 1:06 PM

    Chuck Todd is doing exactly was he is being paid to do. Just like you, me, and every one else. Not that he is especially good at what he is supposed to be doing though. Tucker is much better.

    chunga Jan 12, 2017 10:56 AM

    Carlson blowing up Mark Ingram last night was pretty funny too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7FZ6dJGoJ4

    [Jan 12, 2017] Kahn is completely clueless as for origin of rumors

    What a completely naive, completely pseudoscientific nonsense. The guy is completely clueless about driving forces of rumors.: it is the distrust to the official channels that drives them
    Notable quotes:
    "... Think of headlines such as "Elvis is Alive". This is an old example of fake news. ..."
    "... "Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic element. This is just Tiebout sorting in ideological space. For example, climate change deniers say the world isn't warming and climate deniers go to this website and read this and the echo continues. ..."
    "... What is it about the demanders that they don't recognize the "fake news" when they read it? Are they dumb? Are they eager to see stories that confirm their prior worldview? What is the source of this heterogeneity parameter related to their "susceptibility" to be infected? ..."
    "... Most of the time what people believes is not truth. Fake news is pervasive. ..."
    "... I choose to believe the fake news from WikiLeaks before I believe the fake news from Langley. It is all fake. Through the Looking Glass! Who are the traitors? ..."
    "... Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence. ..."
    "... For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA. ..."
    "... Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking." ..."
    "... However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony. ..."
    "... "Clapper's own credibility is suspect". Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me. How long did the national security state really think it could get away with their BS? ..."
    "... Well, they've owned every president since Reagan; they own all the think tanks; they own 90% of congress; they own all the major media; they endow all the "elite" private universities - why shouldn't they think they could get away with it? ..."
    "... Kahn is completely clueless. The main driving force behind the spread of rumors (which now are called "fake news") is the distrust of the official channels. Yes, it is a sign of sickness of the social organism, but only in a sense that fish rots from the top. And actually the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels: official channels are viewed too compromised. So nobody believe anything published in them, even if they publish truth. libezkova -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 06:59 AM Tamotsu Shibutani viewed rumors as a process of collective problem-solving in ambiguous situations. His old book "Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor"(1966) had received some press in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and it should be studied now too. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0672511487 It is a much deeper study than incoherent thoughts of Professor Kahn on the topic. You might be surprised by the relevance of his work to current neoliberal MSM crusade against rumors. They feel that they lost trust and now are losing relevance; and they are adamant to do something to reverse this process. But they are barking to the wrong tree. ilsm -> libezkova... Truth is a rare commodity. The "press" in the US has always been owned. In the 1830's it was owned by slave holders in one section and factory owners in another. One opposed to tariffs and the central government growing strong from manufactures. The other for tariffs and weakening the slave economy which funded the anti tariff regime. It is rarely 'news' it is indoctrination. ..."
    "... The press in the usa was always "owned" but at one time it was far more socialized/regulated than it was today: (1) Our government stopped trust-busting media conglomerates. (2) The fairness doctrine was gutted and repealed. (3) Right wing political appointees were placed in leadership roles at the CPB (PBS and NPR) and opened them to funding by large corporations. ..."
    "... Obvious propaganda and distortion should be illegal in much the same way financial fraud is (should be) illegal. ..."
    "... "Normal people" in a neoliberal society, like "normal people" in the USSR are those who are adapted to life in official "fake news" aquarium, created by neoliberal MSM. And resigned to this, because they value the society they live in and can't image any alternative. Remember Matrix. ..."
    "... Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together. ..."
    "... This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet Union shared more features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to admit. ..."
    "... The Soviet Union wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The Soviet system, despite its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical aspects to Soviet socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were still very important to people themselves in their lives. ..."
    "... These values were: solidarity, community, altruism, education, creativity, friendship and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important. ..."
    "... Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active resistance, while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality, education, friendship, community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population. ..."
    "... his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them." ..."
    "... People were expected to perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the ideological meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they might reject a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing to a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29) ..."
    "... The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards), Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief, which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning. ..."
    "... All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse. ..."
    "... "And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace." ..."
    "... Then review Orwell. See who decides what is "justice"! The US became prosecutor, lawyer, jury and executioner anywhere it pleased, to anybody who could not fight back. ..."
    "... Yes exactly, from the ashes into the fire. As bad as the official channels sometimes can be, the unofficial are much worse. The 30 years of Faux news and "think tanks" has done a lot more long-term harm to society than most people realize. ..."
    "... Just like trying to determine the lesser of two evils in political campaigns. Oh, I forgot! Most politicians' official positions are just lies anyway...as we know from Obama's 2008 campaign and his subsequent behavior. ..."
    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    The Economics of Fake News Environmental and Urban Economics

    I see that Paul Krugman is talking abou t the consequences of Fake News so I will enter this market and supply some thoughts. I will define fake news as stories that are "juicy" but not true.

    Think of headlines such as "Elvis is Alive". This is an old example of fake news.

    ... ... ...

    There are four cases to consider.

    • Case #1: Both the supplier and demander know that the story is false. Think of the National Enquirer stories stating that Elvis is on Mars.
    • Case #2: The supplier knows the story is false but the demander believes the story is true.
    • Case #3: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story is true.
    • Case #4: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story is false.

    "Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic element. This is just Tiebout sorting in ideological space. For example, climate change deniers say the world isn't warming and climate deniers go to this website and read this and the echo continues.

    I believe that Dr. K is mainly concerned with Case #2. What % of all suspect stories fall into this category? Dr. K has a cynical model in mind in which sophisticated agents (think of Trump and Putin) manipulate the gullible public with messages and then the Facebook and Internet accelerate this information throughout the system as it infects billions and influences real events.

    Case #2 raises some deep issues, I will state them as questions;

    1. What is it about the demanders that they don't recognize the "fake news" when they read it? Are they dumb? Are they eager to see stories that confirm their prior worldview? What is the source of this heterogeneity parameter related to their "susceptibility" to be infected?

    2. In public health, we quarantine those who may spread contagion. Is Dr. K. calling for a messaging quarantine of the "susceptible people" or is he proposing ending free speech for those who spread the contagion?

    3. If there is objective reality, do those who are susceptible to "fake news" update their beliefs as this reality changes over time?

    4. In a world featuring heterogeneous news consumers, and profit maximizing news sellers what are pareto improving government interventions? When I taught at the Fletcher School, one student suggested that there should be a constitutional amendment requiring people to watch the PBS News Hour each night.

    5. In a world featuring heterogeneous news consumers, and Russian propagandist news suppliers, what are pareto improving government interventions for the nations that Russia is targeting with this news? So, the U.S is fighting a war on terror ---- will we now open up a "second front" as we start a "war on foreign propaganda"?

    6. Why has "fake news" become an issue now? What is it about 2016? Has Facebook made communication "too cheap"? Has Russia recognized this opportunity and increased its supply of fake news? In the old days, Pravda was filled with such news.

    ... ... ...

    ilsm : January 08, 2017 at 04:30 AM

    On Kahn's analysis of fake news.

    Most of the time what people believes is not truth. Fake news is pervasive.

    ilsm -> ilsm... , January 08, 2017 at 04:54 AM
    On Assange:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/wikileaks-criticizes-obama-administration-in-rather-ironic-way-173523707.html

    The guys who leak documents for a living pointing out the establish leaks them to sway opinion!

    I choose to believe the fake news from WikiLeaks before I believe the fake news from Langley. It is all fake. Through the Looking Glass! Who are the traitors?

    RGC -> ilsm... , January 08, 2017 at 06:03 AM
    US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack' , January 7, 2017
    ................
    Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence.

    For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking."

    There is also the fact that both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and one of his associates, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, have denied that the purloined emails came from the Russian government. Going further, Murray has suggested that there were two separate sources, the DNC material coming from a disgruntled Democrat and the Podesta emails coming from possibly a U.S. intelligence source, since the Podesta Group represents Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.

    In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual assault allegations against Assange in Sweden.

    However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony.
    ....................
    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/07/us-report-still-lacks-proof-on-russia-hack/

    JohnH -> RGC...
    "Clapper's own credibility is suspect". Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me. How long did the national security state really think it could get away with their BS?

    Well, they've owned every president since Reagan; they own all the think tanks; they own 90% of congress; they own all the major media; they endow all the "elite" private universities - why shouldn't they think they could get away with it?

    libezkova -> ilsm... , January 08, 2017 at 06:20 AM

    Kahn is completely clueless. The main driving force behind the spread of rumors (which now are called "fake news") is the distrust of the official channels.

    Yes, it is a sign of sickness of the social organism, but only in a sense that fish rots from the top.

    And actually the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels: official channels are viewed too compromised. So nobody believe anything published in them, even if they publish truth.

    libezkova -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 06:59 AM

    Tamotsu Shibutani viewed rumors as a process of collective problem-solving in ambiguous situations.

    His old book "Improvised News: A Sociological Study of Rumor"(1966) had received some press in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and it should be studied now too.

    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0672511487

    It is a much deeper study than incoherent thoughts of Professor Kahn on the topic.

    You might be surprised by the relevance of his work to current neoliberal MSM crusade against rumors. They feel that they lost trust and now are losing relevance; and they are adamant to do something to reverse this process. But they are barking to the wrong tree.

    ilsm -> libezkova...
    Truth is a rare commodity. The "press" in the US has always been owned. In the 1830's it was owned by slave holders in one section and factory owners in another. One opposed to tariffs and the central government growing strong from manufactures. The other for tariffs and weakening the slave economy which funded the anti tariff regime. It is rarely 'news' it is indoctrination.

    Peace and freedom are not valued in the US or many other places.

    yuan -> ilsm.. .
    The press in the usa was always "owned" but at one time it was far more socialized/regulated than it was today: (1) Our government stopped trust-busting media conglomerates. (2) The fairness doctrine was gutted and repealed. (3) Right wing political appointees were placed in leadership roles at the CPB (PBS and NPR) and opened them to funding by large corporations.

    Obvious propaganda and distortion should be illegal in much the same way financial fraud is (should be) illegal.

    libezkova -> ilsm... January 08, 2017 at 11:09 AM
    "It is rarely 'news' it is indoctrination."

    Exactly. That's why those people who question MSM coverage, and who try to get the "second opinion" on the current events from blogs, and other alternative channels are considered to be traitors.

    Neoliberal MSMs are major producer of fake news as in foreign coverage they are guided by State Department talking points. What they are adamantly against is "somebody else" fake news. They want full monopoly on coverage.

    What they trying to tell us during this McCarthyism compaign is the following: "Unapproved, rogue fake news of questionable origin are evil, only State Department approved fakes are OK".

    This is another, slightly more interesting, variant of "political correctness" enforcement in a given society.

    "Normal people" in a neoliberal society, like "normal people" in the USSR are those who are adapted to life in official "fake news" aquarium, created by neoliberal MSM. And resigned to this, because they value the society they live in and can't image any alternative. Remember Matrix.

    There is a special term for the psychological condition of the large part of the USSR population who adapted to live such an "artificial, fake reality" and even may protest if they are provided with a more objective picture as this created a cognitive dissonance. It is Stockholm Syndrome. The condition common among the members of "high demand" cults.

    The same happened in the USA. This neoliberal ideological captivity with its own set of myths and falsehood reminds me USSR Bolshevism ideology, which was an official, dominant ideology for Soviet people. Indoctrination was obligatory.

    The net results was the same as now in the USA -- the dead ideology burdens, like a nightmare, the minds of the living.

    As Marx noted: "history repeats itself, the first as tragedy, then as farce"

    Alexei Yurchak's 2006 book "Everything was Forever, Until it was No More: The Last Soviet Generation" called this condition of ideological Stockholm syndrome "hypernormalization"

    https://www.amazon.com/Everything-Forever-Until-More-Formation/dp/0691121176

    He argues that during the last 20 or so years of the Soviet Union, everyone in the USSR knew the system wasn't working, but as no one has real alternative and both politicians and citizens were resigned to pretending that the can should be kicked down the road. A typical attitude of Hillary supporters.

    This "constant pretending" was accepted as normal behavior and the fake reality thus created was accepted as necessary evil, nessesary for normal functining of the society. The whole society reminded me large "high demand" cult from which members can't escape.

    While Yurchak called this effect "hypernormalisation." in reality this probably should be called "ideological Stockholm syndrome". Stockholm syndrome is a psychological condition that causes hostages to develop sympathetic sentiments towards their captors, often sharing their opinions and acquiring romantic feelings for them as a survival strategy during captivity.

    Looking at events over the past few years, one would notice that the neoliberal society is experiencing the same psychological condition.

    Here are a couple of insightful reviews of the book

    == quote ==

    Igor Biryukov on November 1, 2012

    A cautionary tale

    In America there was once a popular but simplistic image of the Soviet Russia as the Evil Empire destined to fall, precisely because it was unfree and therefore evil. Ronald Reagan who advocated it also once said that the Russian people do not have a word for "freedom". Not so fast -- says Alexei Yurchak.

    He was born in the Soviet Union and became a cultural anthropologist in California. He employs linguistic structural analysis in very interesting ways. For him, the Soviet Union was once a stable, entrenched, conservative state and the majority of Russian people -- actually myself included -- thought it would last forever. But the way people employ language and read ideologies can change. That change can be undetectable at first, and then unstoppable.

    Yurchak's Master-idea is that the Soviet system was an example of how a state can prepare its own demise in an invisible way. It happened in Russia through unraveling of authoritative discourse by Gorbachev's naive but well-meaning shillyshallying undermining the Soviet system and the master signifiers with which the Soviet society was "quilted" and held together.

    According to Yurchak "In its first three or four years, perestroika was not much more than a deconstruction of Soviet authoritative discourse".

    This could a cautionary tale for America as well because the Soviet Union shared more features with American modernity than the Americans themselves are willing to admit.

    The demise of the Soviet Union was not caused by anti-modernity or backwardness of Russian people.

    The Soviet experiment was a cousin of Western modernity and shared many features with the Western democracies, in particular its roots in the Enlightenment project.

    The Soviet Union wasn't "evil" in late stages 1950-1980s. The most people were decent. The Soviet system, despite its flaws, offered a set of collective values. There were many moral and ethical aspects to Soviet socialism, and even though those values have been betrayed by the state, they were still very important to people themselves in their lives.

    These values were: solidarity, community, altruism, education, creativity, friendship and safety. Perhaps they were incommensurable with the "Western values" such as the rule of law and freedom, but for Russians they were the most important.

    For many "socialism" was a system of human values and everyday realities which wasn't necessarily equivalent of the official interpretation provided by the state rhetoric.

    Yurchak starts with a general paradox within the ideology of modernity: the split between ideological enunciation, which reflects the theoretical ideals of the Enlightenment, and ideological rule, which are the practical concerns of the modern state's political authority. In Soviet Union the paradox was "solved" by means of dogmatic political closure and elevation of Master signifier [Lenin, Stalin, Party] but it doesn't mean the Western democracies are immune to totalitarian temptation to which the Soviet Union had succumbed.

    The vast governmental bureaucracy and Quango-state are waiting in the shadows here as well, may be ready to appropriate discourse.

    It is hard to agree with everything in his book. But it is an interesting perspective.

    ... ... ...

    Nils Gilmanon April 23, 2014

    A brilliant account of the interior meaning of everyday life for ordinary soviet citizens

    Just loved this -- a brilliant study of how everyday citizens (as opposed to active supporters or dissidents) cope with living in a decadent dictatorship, through strategies of ignoring the powerful, focusing on hyperlocal socialities, treating ritualized support for the regime as little more than an annoying chore, and withdrawal into subcultures.

    Yurchak demolishes the view that the only choices available to late Soviet citizens were either blind support (though his accounts of those figures who chose this path are deeply chilling) or active resistance, while at the same time showing how many of the purported values of Soviet socialism (equality, education, friendship, community, etc) were in fact deeply held by many in the population.

    While his entire account is a tacit meditation on the manifold unpleasantnesses of living under the Soviet system, Yurchak also makes clear that it was not all unpleasantness and that indeed for some people (such as theoretical physicists) life under Soviet socialism was in some ways freer than for their peers in the West. All of which makes the book function (sotto voce) as an explanation for the nostalgia that many in Russia today feel for Soviet times - something inexplicable to those who claim that Communism was simply and nothing but an evil.

    The theoretical vehicle for Yurchak's investigation is the divergence between the performative rather than the constative dimensions of the "authoritative discourse" of the late Soviet regime. One might say that his basic thesis is that, for most Soviet people, the attitude toward the authorities was "They pretend to make statements that corresponded to reality, and we pretend to believe them."

    Yurchak rightly observes that one can neither interpret the decision to vote in favor of an official resolution or to display a pro-government slogan at a rally as being an unambiguous statement of regime support, nor assume that these actions were directly coerced. People were expected to perform these rituals, but they developed "a complexly differentiating relationship to the ideological meanings, norms, and values" of the Soviet state. "Depending on the context, they might reject a certain meaning, norm or value, be apathetic about another, continue actively subscribing to a third, creatively reinterpret a fourth, and so on." (28-29)

    The result was that, as the discourse of the late Soviet period ossified into completely formalist incantations (a process that Yurchak demonstrates was increasingly routinized from the 1950s onwards), Soviet citizens participated in these more for ritualistic reasons than because of fervent belief, which in turn allowed citizens to fill their lives with other sources of identity and meaning.

    Soviet citizens would go to cafes and talk about music and literature, join a rock band or art collective, take silly jobs that required little effort and thus left room for them to pursue their "interests." The very drabness of the standardizations of Soviet life therefore created new sorts of (admittedly constrained) spaces within which people could define themselves and their (inter)subjective meanings. All of which is to say that the book consists of a dramatic refutation of the "totalitarianism" thesis, demonstrating that despite the totalitarian ambitions of the regime, citizens were continually able to carve out zones of autonomy and identification that transcended the ambitions of the Authoritative discourse.

    ilsm -> libezkova ... Sunday, January 08, 2017 at 12:20 PM

    You should read the whole of Obama's Nobel peace prize lecture:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize

    "And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace."

    Then review Orwell. See who decides what is "justice"! The US became prosecutor, lawyer, jury and executioner anywhere it pleased, to anybody who could not fight back.

    JohnH -> yuan... January 08, 2017 at 12:08 PM

    yuan never had the pleasure of watching the mainstream media promote the official Kool-Aid during the Vietnam War...until the lies finally became untenable.

    DeDude -> libezkova... January 08, 2017 at 11:38 AM

    "the same forces that facilitate spread of rumors push people to alternative news channels: official channels are viewed too compromised"

    Yes exactly, from the ashes into the fire. As bad as the official channels sometimes can be, the unofficial are much worse. The 30 years of Faux news and "think tanks" has done a lot more long-term harm to society than most people realize.

    Being a knowledgeable person who spend half a lifetime studying a subject, seems to be worse than being a regular ignorant guy confidently pulling stuff out of his ass. We are living in interesting times.

    JohnH -> DeDude...

    "As bad as the official channels sometimes can be, the unofficial are much worse." Wow! Trying to judge the more credible liar.

    Just like trying to determine the lesser of two evils in political campaigns. Oh, I forgot! Most politicians' official positions are just lies anyway...as we know from Obama's 2008 campaign and his subsequent behavior.

    [Jan 12, 2017] I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story

    The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke.
    Notable quotes:
    "... People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds. ..."
    "... People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it. ..."
    "... People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump. ..."
    "... "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit." ..."
    "... It's just partisan warfare. ..."
    "... "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy. ..."
    "... CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else? ..."
    "... Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data. https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/ ..."
    "... With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump. ..."
    "... "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man. ..."
    "... The long knives will come out during the next recession ..."
    "... This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger. ..."
    "... In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus. ..."
    "... In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach. ..."
    "... Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in. ..."
    "... Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security. ..."
    "... Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick. ..."
    "... There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific. ..."
    "... the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around. ..."
    "... Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news. ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 06:57 AM
    The thing about Trump is that people can imagine he's the kind of guy who would enjoy being urinated on by Russian prostitutes, even if the allegations are untrue. He is so into gold and into women.

    People who already dislike Trump will believe the allegations while people who like Trump will hate the press and intelligence agencies (?) even more for attacking him unfairly in their minds.

    jeff fisher -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 10:10 AM
    I know a lot of people who dislike Trump, and none of them seem to believe the buzzfeed story. People are making jokes about it, the puns are just too easy, but nobody seems to actually believe it.

    People don't talk about it like "did you hear trump did X" "oh yea" "yea there was a story". Its like "there was a very dubious story that trump did x" "". The way people talk about a Saturday Night Live sketch about Trump.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 06:59 AM
    "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit."

    Kind of like Comey was a huge embarrassment to Republicans? I don't think so. It's just partisan warfare.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:01 AM
    So leaks are good when Wikileaks do them but bad when intelligence officials do them?

    We know Trump will never be consistent, but you can try to have single standards.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:06 AM
    "Today Clapper denounced media leaks..." Is that the same Clapper who lied to Congress about how the NSA was spying on law-abiding citizens en mass? Yeah he's trustworthy.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:28 AM
    "This is a huge embarrassment to Democrats, the mainstream media and those intelligence officials who have all been piling on Trump. It hurts their credibility, which can ill afford to take yet another hit."

    CNN was the first to report what Buzzfeed revealed. Trump was mad at them. Who else?

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 07:44 AM
    Glenn Greenwald explains the whole vendetta against Trump based on sham data.
    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/11/the-deep-state-goes-to-war-with-president-elect-using-unverified-claims-as-dems-cheer/

    With release of the buzz feed data, they overplayed their hand, destroyed their narrative, embarrassed themselves, and ultimately strengthened Trump.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 07:50 AM
    Like Trump doesn't use "sham data" and innuendo. Who cares? Poetic justice. Trump is just going to waste his time pursuing vendettas against those who sullied his good name.

    Maybe that drama will "crowd out" some of his plans to enact Paul Ryan's agenda. Maybe it will cause a backlash among those Americans interested in a free press and democratic norms.

    Like I said some of your ideas are good, but they are tarnished by some of the really stupid things you say by association.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield. If the establishment is going to get him, they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables. Trumped up charges won't cut it.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:32 AM
    "We already know that Trump has a Teflon shield."

    via DeLong:

    http://www.bradford-delong.com/2017/01/should-read-josh-marshall-_what-you-didnt-see_-what-may-be-the-most-significant-news-of-the-day-barely-made-a-ri.html#more

    Should-Read: Josh Marshall: What You Didn't See: "What may be the most significant news of the day barely made a ripple...

    ...Donald Trump, ten days from becoming President, has an approval rating of 37%. Most presidents seldom get so low. Some never do. For ten days away from inauguration it's totally unprecedented.... Each of the last three presidents had approval ratings of at least 65% during their presidential transitions.... Curiously absent from press coverage [has been that] Trump, his agenda and his party are deeply unpopular... [and have] gotten steadily more unpopular over the last four weeks..."

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:34 AM
    "they damn well better have the goods...and the goods need to PO the deplorables." nothing will change their minds. They just see it as cynical attacks on their man.
    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 09:39 AM
    The long knives will come out during the next recession, when Trump will have proven his incompetence. Pretense for impeachment is unknowable, but it better be good!
    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 07:56 AM
    This reminds me of how the Bush campaign got Dan Rather to release some bogus information about Bush43 as a draft dodger.

    In that case, I think the narrative of Bush as a draft dodger was correct, but its usefulness for Democrats got destroyed the moment Rather's source was revealed as bogus.

    In this case, Hillary's assertions of Trump as a Putin stooge have been highly suspect, though she made a big deal of them in her campaign. Now that narrative has been crippled by the buzz feed overreach.

    Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative.

    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:08 AM
    There was an interesting movie about the Rather case staring Robert Redford and Cate Blanchette. Trump is engaging in the same thuggish behavior as Republicans used against Rather and his producer in that case. Or course CBS folded because they had regulatory changes about affiliate ownership before the Bush administration.

    We can expect the same cowardice from our corporate media regarding the Trump administration.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 08:19 AM
    It would be interesting to know if Trump had something to do with release of the buzz feed report. It would make Trump smarter than I think he really is. My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:40 AM
    "My understanding is that John McCain, who hates Trump, was behind circulation of the report before buzz feed released it." A lot of people knew about it. The eight leading congress people on the intelligence committees knew about it. David Corn reported about it in October in Mother Jones.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    "Democrats should have focused on voters' economic concerns, not the Trump-Putin narrative."

    I'll agree with you on this. Obama went more positive in 2008 and 2012 than Hillary did in 2016 and was successful at the polls. Negative campaigning works but seems like too much of it depresses turnout.

    Part of it is that establishment Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject.

    JohnH -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 09:06 AM
    Exactly! "Democrats don't want to do a post-mortem about why they lost. It may prove that Bernie Sanders was right. They'd rather change the subject," which is where the 'everything is Putin's fault' narrative comes in.

    Reminds me of the 'everything is Republicans fault' narrative that Democrats used to justify Obama's failure to jail bankers, his austerity, and his proposals to cut Social Security.

    Democrats are masters of denial and victimization...just like Republicans. It's all very sick.

    jeff fisher -> JohnH... , January 12, 2017 at 10:35 AM
    There is, and always was, a better Putin narrative. Trump is an FSB mole is both too far and too specific.

    The Republican's policy ideas are awful. Trump will be a terrible president. Putin wants us weak, and the Republican party will deliver just as it did during the Bush presidency.

    We will make little progress on our important problems, and make massive blunders that cost us for decades.

    Global warming will continue to improve the Russian Climate. Progress on renewable energy will be slowed, improving the market for Russian oil and gas. The US will worsen its healthcare problems. The US will exacerbate its inequality. The toxic republican attitude toward the institutions of democracy will come from all three branches of the federal government, and most state governments.

    Peter K. -> jeff fisher... , January 12, 2017 at 10:42 AM
    Putin doesn't like Hillary. At the time, she said Putin's election was rigged. And they were pushing Russia on all fronts. Trump is an isolationist who doesn't care about human rights or freedom of the press.

    Simple as that.

    jeff fisher -> Peter K.... , January 12, 2017 at 11:02 AM
    That's too specific. Not a good campaign narrative. It is reasonably true.

    But remember, Putin is supporting awful right wing parties in various nations. It wasn't just Clinton.

    JohnH -> jeff fisher... , January 12, 2017 at 12:08 PM
    Agreed. There were probably better Putin narratives, and the election should never been about Putin. It should have been about swing state voters' economic anxieties, something that Hillary could never wrap here head around.

    Now it looks like the Trump-Putin narrative is blowing up in their faces---purveyors of fake news should not accuse others of purveying fake news.

    [Jan 12, 2017] And now bottom feeders from BBC join the chorus

    This Paul Wood. is very funny "I understand the CIA believes it is credible..." The document reads like "the gang that couldn't shoot straight." It's a joke. But despite this Paul wood provided a good (albeit very dirty) hatchet job. Looks like neocons declared the open war on Trump. And as they are just a flavor of Trotskyites they are are capable of everything as they preach " the end justifies the means"... with their global neoliberal revolution under threat they can do as low as gangsters. Fake evidence is OK form in the best the "end justified the means" way.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele ..."
    "... As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information. ..."
    "... Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" ..."
    "... He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together". ..."
    "... The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries. ..."
    "... Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. ..."
    "... At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." ..."
    Jan 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc : January 12, 2017 at 09:06 AM , 2017 at 09:06 AM
    Adding the BBC's reporting on the compromising of Donald Trump to the above posts that got off-track, imo, from the issue

    "Theatre of the absurd"

    Took my breath away...

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38589427

    "Trump 'compromising' claims: How and why did we get here?"

    By Paul Wood...BBC News...Washington...1-12-2017...47 minutes ago

    "Donald Trump has described as "fake news" allegations published in some media that his election team colluded with Russia - and that Russia held compromising material about his private life. The BBC's Paul Wood saw the allegations before the election, and reports on the fallout now they have come to light.

    The significance of these allegations is that, if true, the president-elect of the United States would be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.

    I understand the CIA believes it is credible that the Kremlin has such kompromat - or compromising material - on the next US commander in chief. At the same time a joint taskforce, which includes the CIA and the FBI, has been investigating allegations that the Russians may have sent money to Mr Trump's organisation or his election campaign.

    Claims about a Russian blackmail tape were made in one of a series of reports written by a former British intelligence agent, understood to be Christopher Steele.

    As a member of MI6, he had been posted to the UK's embassy in Moscow and now runs a consultancy giving advice on doing business in Russia. He spoke to a number of his old contacts in the FSB, the successor to the KGB, paying some of them for information.

    They told him that Mr Trump had been filmed with a group of prostitutes in the presidential suite of Moscow's Ritz-Carlton hotel. I know this because the Washington political research company that commissioned his report showed it to me during the final week of the election campaign.

    The BBC decided not to use it then, for the very good reason that without seeing the tape - if it exists - we could not know if the claims were true. The detail of the allegations were certainly lurid. The entire series of reports has now been posted by BuzzFeed.

    [Image of Trump's Tweet]

    Mr Trump's supporters say this is a politically motivated attack. The president-elect himself, outraged, tweeted this morning: "Are we living in Nazi Germany?" Later, at his much-awaited news conference, he was unrestrained. "A thing like that should have never been written," he said, "and certainly should never have been released."

    He said the memo was written by "sick people [who] put that crap together".

    The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries.

    Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. But these are not political hacks - their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial risk assessment, similar to the former MI6 agent's consultancy. He, apparently, gave his dossier to the FBI against the firm's advice.

    [Photo of Trump in Moscow, 2013 w/beauty contestants]

    And the former MI6 agent is not the only source for the claim about Russian kompromat on the president-elect. Back in August, a retired spy told me he had been informed of its existence by "the head of an East European intelligence agency".

    Later, I used an intermediary to pass some questions to active duty CIA officers dealing with the case file - they would not speak to me directly. I got a message back that there was "more than one tape", "audio and video", on "more than one date", in "more than one place" - in the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow and also in St Petersburg - and that the material was "of a sexual nature".

    'Be very careful'

    The claims of Russian kompromat on Mr Trump were "credible", the CIA believed. That is why - according to the New York Times and Washington Post - these claims ended up on President Barack Obama's desk last week, a briefing document also given to Congressional leaders and to Mr Trump himself.

    Mr Trump did visit Moscow in November 2013, the date the main tape is supposed to have been made. There is TV footage of him at the Miss Universe contest. Any visitor to a grand hotel in Moscow would be wise to assume that their room comes equipped with hidden cameras and microphones as well as a mini-bar.

    At his news conference, Mr Trump said he warned his staff when they travelled: "Be very careful, because in your hotel rooms and no matter where you go you're going to probably have cameras." So the Russian security services have made obtaining kompromat an art form.

    One Russian specialist told me that Vladimir Putin himself sometimes says there is kompromat on him - though perhaps he is joking. The specialist went on to tell me that FSB officers are prone to boasting about having tapes on public figures, and to be careful of any statements they might make.

    A former CIA officer told me he had spoken by phone to a serving FSB officer who talked about the tapes. He concluded: "It's hokey as hell."

    Mr Trump and his supporters are right to point out that these are unsubstantiated allegations.

    But it is not just sex, it is money too. The former MI6 agent's report detailed alleged attempts by the Kremlin to offer Mr Trump lucrative "sweetheart deals" in Russia that would buy his loyalty.

    Mr Trump turned these down, and indeed has done little real business in Russia. But a joint intelligence and law enforcement taskforce has been looking at allegations that the Kremlin paid money to his campaign through his associates.

    Legal applications

    On 15 October, the US secret intelligence court issued a warrant to investigate two Russian banks. This news was given to me by several sources and corroborated by someone I will identify only as a senior member of the US intelligence community. He would never volunteer anything - giving up classified information would be illegal - but he would confirm or deny what I had heard from other sources.

    "I'm going to write a story that says " I would say. "I don't have a problem with that," he would reply, if my information was accurate. He confirmed the sequence of events below.

    Last April, the CIA director was shown intelligence that worried him. It was - allegedly - a tape recording of a conversation about money from the Kremlin going into the US presidential campaign.

    It was passed to the US by an intelligence agency of one of the Baltic States. The CIA cannot act domestically against American citizens so a joint counter-intelligence taskforce was created.

    The taskforce included six agencies or departments of government. Dealing with the domestic, US, side of the inquiry, were the FBI, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Justice. For the foreign and intelligence aspects of the investigation, there were another three agencies: the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Agency, responsible for electronic spying.

    Lawyers from the National Security Division in the Department of Justice then drew up an application. They took it to the secret US court that deals with intelligence, the Fisa court, named after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They wanted permission to intercept the electronic records from two Russian banks.

    Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

    Neither Mr Trump nor his associates are named in the Fisa order, which would only cover foreign citizens or foreign entities - in this case the Russian banks. But ultimately, the investigation is looking for transfers of money from Russia to the United States, each one, if proved, a felony offence.

    A lawyer- outside the Department of Justice but familiar with the case - told me that three of Mr Trump's associates were the subject of the inquiry. "But it's clear this is about Trump," he said.

    I spoke to all three of those identified by this source. All of them emphatically denied any wrongdoing. "Hogwash," said one. "Bullshit," said another. Of the two Russian banks, one denied any wrongdoing, while the other did not respond to a request for comment.

    The investigation was active going into the election. During that period, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, Harry Reid, wrote to the director of the FBI, accusing him of holding back "explosive information" about Mr Trump.

    Mr Reid sent his letter after getting an intelligence briefing, along with other senior figures in Congress. Only eight people were present: the chairs and ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, and the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress, the "gang of eight" as they are sometimes called. Normally, senior staff attend "gang of eight" intelligence briefings, but not this time. The Congressional leaders were not even allowed to take notes.

    'Puppet'

    In the letter to the FBI director, James Comey, Mr Reid said: "In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and co-ordination between Donald Trump, his top advisers, and the Russian government - a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Mr Trump praises at every opportunity.

    "The public has a right to know this information. I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public. There is no danger to American interests from releasing it. And yet, you continue to resist calls to inform the public of this critical information."

    The CIA, FBI, Justice and Treasury all refused to comment when I approached them after hearing about the Fisa warrant.

    It is not clear what will happen to the inter-agency investigation under President Trump - or even if the taskforce is continuing its work now. The Russians have denied any attempt to influence the president-elect - with either money or a blackmail tape.

    If a tape exists, the Russians would hardly give it up, though some hope to encourage a disloyal FSB officer who might want to make some serious money. Before the election, Larry Flynt, publisher of the pornographic magazine Hustler, put up a million dollars for incriminating tape of Mr Trump. Penthouse has now followed with its own offer of a million dollars for the Ritz-Carlton tape (if it exists).

    It is an extraordinary situation, 10 days before Mr Trump is sworn into office, but it was foreshadowed during the campaign.

    During the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a "puppet" of Russia's leader, Vladimir Putin. "No puppet. No puppet," Mr Trump interjected, talking over Mrs Clinton. "You're the puppet. No, you're the puppet."

    In a New York Times op-ed in August, the former director of the CIA, Michael Morell, wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr Putin had recruited Mr Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."

    Agent; puppet - both terms imply some measure of influence or control by Moscow.

    Michael Hayden, former head of both the CIA and the NSA, simply called Mr Trump a "polezni durak" - a useful fool.

    The background to those statements was information held - at the time - within the intelligence community. Now all Americans have heard the claims. Little more than a week before his inauguration, they will have to decide if their president-elect really was being blackmailed by Moscow."

    [Jan 11, 2017] Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

    See http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican
    Notable quotes:
    "... Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ." ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    anne -> Julio ... , January 10, 2017 at 10:20 AM
    Again, I know nothing about Steve Bannon but the column of David Brooks does not seem to be connected to the Vatican speech referred to:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican/

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , January 10, 2017 at 10:53 AM
    Putin and Trump could be on the same side in this troubling new world order https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/trump-putin-same-side-new-world-order
    The Guardian - Matthew d'Ancona - Dec 19

    Russian hacking, White House warnings, angry denials by Vladimir Putin's officials: we are edging towards a digital Cuban crisis. So it is as well to ask what is truly at stake in this e-conflict, and what underpins it.

    To which end, meet the most important intellectual you have (probably) never heard of. Alexander Dugin, the Russian political scientist and polemicist, may resemble Santa's evil younger brother and talk like a villain from an Austin Powers movie. But it is no accident that he has earned the nickname Putin's Rasputin. ...

    The purpose of operations like the hacking of the US election has been to destabilize the Atlantic order generally, and America specifically. And on this great struggle, Dugin is positively millenarian: "We must create strategic alliances to overthrow the present order of things, of which the core could be described as human rights, anti-hierarchy, and political correctness – everything that is the face of the Beast, the anti-Christ."

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 10, 2017 at 12:03 PM
    I do appreciate the reference, but the language of the column portion is too much for me. I stopped reading a few words after "Santa's."
    Julio -> anne... , January 10, 2017 at 11:27 AM
    At the end of your linked article there is a link to the full speech, including the Q&A. It takes you here:
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/this-is-how-steve-bannon-sees-the-entire-world?utm_term=.wn06r4OX5#.eqzLQEa5M

    In the Q&A he discusses Russia and Putin; his comments include this: "I'm not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. "

    John San Vant -> Julio ... , January 10, 2017 at 11:26 AM
    Bannon is a zionist shill and always will be. He has tried to blur that point away. But that kind of crap is pure zionism. Putin's ties with Ashkenazi jews is well well known. He has had much support from the extreme wings of the Lukud for years, yet the idiots don't pay attention. Putin sold himself and they bought it up. The myth he purged the Oligarchs from Russia cracks me up. He made sure the winners power was firmly planted.

    From a "conservative revolutionary" (Renee Guenon aka real traditionalism) pov, this is pure bunk. Nationalism is semitic by its very nature and collectivist. What they want is a global plutocracy with the bible as its whip. Now, not everybody agrees with that version of "plutocracy". Thus comes the adversaries, the Jesuits.

    anne -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 10, 2017 at 09:58 AM
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2016/11/18/remarks-of-stephen-bannon-at-a-conference-at-the-vatican/

    2014

    Remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Conference at the Vatican

    [Jan 11, 2017] Intelligence Agencies Ask Americans to Trust, Don t Verify in New Cold War

    Jan 11, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne : January 10, 2017 at 05:50 AM

    http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/intelligence-agencies-ask-americans-to-trust-don-t-verify-in-new-cold-war

    January 9, 2017

    Intelligence Agencies Ask Americans to "Trust, Don't Verify" in New Cold War
    By Mark Weisbrot

    Just as the first casualty of war is said to be the truth, the first casualty of the New Cold War is irony. Our most prominent journalists seem to have missed the Orwellian irony of Senator John McCain asking Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper at Friday's Senate hearings if Julian Assange has any credibility. Assange has maintained that the hacked or leaked emails of Democratic Party officials did not come from the Russian government, or any other government.

    As is well known, Clapper lied to Congress about a serious violation of the constitutional rights of tens of millions of Americans. This lie is a crime for which he actually could have been prosecuted.

    In March 2013, Clapper falsely answered, "No, sir" to the question, "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions, or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He later admitted that his answer was untrue.

    Clapper lied again in Friday's testimony, saying that Assange was "under indictment" for "a sexual crime." In fact, Assange has not been indicted for anything, and the government of Sweden has never even charged him with a crime. In reality, he is a political prisoner, and the United Nations Working Group on arbitrary detention has found that he has been arbitrarily detained since 2010 by the UK and Sweden, and ordered his release and compensation. He has offered from the beginning of his political persecution to co-operate with the Swedish authorities in any investigation, and to be interviewed at any time in London. He could not safely return to Sweden without guarantees that he would not be sent to the US, where he currently faces a high likelihood of imprisonment (even before any trial) for having published leaked documents that exposed US war crimes and other embarrassments. For years, neither Sweden nor the UK would agree to that because, it appears, their foreign ministries are collaborating with the US government to keep him imprisoned.

    For anyone on a jury who had to weigh the testimony of Clapper against that of Assange, it would be a no-brainer. Not only is Clapper a proven and serial liar, but in 10 years of WikiLeaks revelations, Assange has never been shown to have lied about anything.

    That said, it is entirely possible the Russian government was involved in the hacking of emails here, and that Assange and WikiLeaks would not necessarily be able to identify the original source of the leaks, which is very difficult to do. However, We the People have yet to be presented with evidence that Russian hacking is what actually happened.

    But the media has become so distracted with the festivities at America's new 1950's theme party, hating on Putin and Russia like there's no tomorrow, that the lack of evidence has become almost irrelevant to the big media conversation. The DNI report released on Friday, supposedly to provide the public with evidence that the Russian government had indeed hacked emails in order to influence the US elections, contained no actual evidence that they did so. There was a lot of evidence that Trump was the preferred candidate of Putin and his government. But we didn't need evidence for this; pure logic would have sufficed. What government wouldn't favor a candidate who promises better relations with them?

    About half of the report was littered with a long rant against Russian-sponsored media, including the television station Russia Today. Here is another deep irony: the media that swung the election for Trump was not Russian but American, despite the fact that most of these journalists and editors found the candidate repellent. Trump's huge advantage in free publicity not only won him the primary, but continued into the general election. It was the US media that made the Comey letter so important, because the broadcast media used it to displace Trump's scandals, including the allegations of sexual assaults, in the crucial last 11 days when millions of voters made up their minds.

    Another irony: The US has been hacking elections (and toppling governments) around the world for more than a century. How many hundreds of millions of people, from Indonesia to Chile and dozens of countries in between, wish that all the United States did to their elections was what Russia is accused of doing here in 2016? Of course that is no justification for any foreign intervention here, but it is part of the current story if we want to understand it. Washington's intervention in Ukraine, for example, helped push that country into a civil war that became the main cause of the current state of Cold War between the US and Russia....

    Fred C. Dobbs -> anne... , January 10, 2017 at 07:01 AM
    'The US has been hacking elections (and toppling governments) around the world for more than a century. How many hundreds of millions of people, from Indonesia to Chile and dozens of countries in between, wish that all the United States did to their elections was what Russia is accused of doing here in 2016?'

    Indeed. However, we may insist (feebly) that
    this is NOT something which Great Powers do
    to one another.

    JohnH -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 10, 2017 at 08:10 AM
    Russia is very familiar with foreign meddling in their elections: "President Bill Clinton meddled in Russian affairs in the 1990s and helped Boris Yeltsin get elected to a second term, political analyst Dick Morris told Newsmax TV."
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/bill-clinton-advise-boris-yeltsin-dick-morris/2016/09/08/id/747327/

    I don't like Dick Morris. But he was a top Clinton advisor at the time...he was an eye witness, so he is an excellent source.

    Payback is a bitch!

    kthomas -> JohnH... , January 10, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    Pink hands.
    Peter K. -> JohnH... , January 10, 2017 at 08:21 AM
    The US once invaded Russia, which our goo-goo liberals seem to forget.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

    "The Allied intervention was a multi-national military expedition launched during the Russian Civil War in 1918. The initial goals were to help the Czechoslovak Legion, secure supplies of munitions and armaments in Russian ports, and re-establish the Eastern Front. After winning World War I, the Allies militarily backed the anti-Bolshevik White forces in Russia. Allied efforts were hampered by divided objectives, war-weariness after they just finished greater conflict, and a lack of domestic support. These factors, together with the evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion, compelled the Allies to withdraw from North Russia and Siberia in 1920, though Japanese forces occupied parts of Siberia until 1922 and the northern half of Sakhalin until 1925.[3]"

    [Jan 11, 2017] Masha Gessen on the new McCarthyism

    Notable quotes:
    "... Agree that is the real reason they don't want to take responsibility. It would mean that the Establishment would be discredited. ..."
    "... It is easy to read the report and understand how the CIA concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction – you start with what you want to conclude and than you can find evidence. Likewise for Russian hacking . ..."
    "... If you like, see this link to Mish – a blogger sometimes in the NC links. Mish does the thought experiment of whether Israel undermined Hillary (and a whole lot more) – but it shows that Israel is just as plausible as Russia if you apply CIA type reasoning . ..."
    "... Masha Gessen is deeply antiputinitic. So if she finds the "Putin diddit" narrative unconvincing, it must be weak indeed. ..."
    Jan 11, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Masha Gessen hardly can be called a sympasizer of Putin;-). Actually the reverse is very true.
    The New McCarthyism

    "Russia, Trump & Flawed Intelligence" [Masha Gessen, New York Review of Books ]. "On Friday, when the report appeared, the major newspapers came out with virtually identical headlines highlighting the agencies' finding that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an "influence campaign" to help Donald Trump win the presidency-a finding the agencies say they hold 'with high confidence.'

    A close reading of the report shows that it barely supports such a conclusion. Indeed, it barely supports any conclusion."

    And: "That is the entirety of the evidence the report offers to support its estimation of Putin's motives for allegedly working to elect Trump: conjecture based on other politicians in other periods, on other continents-and also on misreported or mistranslated public statements." A massive takedown, from the heart of the Manhattan intelligentsia.

    Class Warfare

    [A study published late last month by the White House Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)] released Dec. 20, said the jobs of between 1.34 million and 1.67 million truck drivers would be at risk due to the growing utilization of heavy-duty vehicles operated via artificial intelligence. That would equal 80 to 100 percent of all driver jobs listed in the CEA report, which is based on May 2015 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the Department of Labor. There are about 3.4 million commercial truck drivers currently operating in the U.S., according to various estimates" [DC Velocity]. "The Council emphasized that its calculations excluded the number or types of new jobs that may be created as a result of this potential transition. It added that any changes could take years or decades to materialize because of a broad lag between what it called "technological possibility" and widespread adoption."

    Altandmain , January 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    The report on Friday in regards to the Russian hack:

    https://www.extremetech.com/internet/242370-governments-public-evidence-falls-short-proving-russian-involvement-dnc-hack

    The government has failed to provide the solid proof that is necessary to make such a bold accusation.

    For those who haven't read it, here's the Intercept's take as well (also in the article linked from ET):
    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/06/underwhelming-intel-report-shows-need-for-congressional-investigation-of-dnc-hack/

    What I'm disappointed in the DNC and the Party as a whole is rather than admit their failings, they want to conjure up Russia as a distraction. I'm not saying that Putin's a great guy (he seems to be an oligarch), but the Democrats need to take responsibility for 2016.

    If not, 2020 might end up like 2016 again. If they think Trump will fail no matter what, take a hard look at what happened to Kerry in 2004. Stop underestimating Trump. He's got a base and the Democrats screwed up big time.

    NotTimothyGeithner , January 10, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    If Democrats take "responsibility" for 2016, the courtesan class will be wiped out, and many elected Dems who dream of a spot on the ticket in 2020 will have to accept they are going no where. Andy Cuomo sees himself in 2020 running. He's like Hillary without the charisma.

    Altandmain , January 10, 2017 at 3:10 pm

    Agree that is the real reason they don't want to take responsibility. It would mean that the Establishment would be discredited.

    One question though, Clinton had charisma? Are we talking about the same candidate here? I though that Clinton was a wooden stump. You could tell that what she said was forced. Apparently one of the Wikileaks leaks said that she hated the American people.

    PottedFrog , January 10, 2017 at 3:34 pm

    http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2016/10/11/wikileaks-reveals-hillary-hates-everyday-americans/

    fresno dan , January 10, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    Altandmain
    January 10, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    It is easy to read the report and understand how the CIA concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction – you start with what you want to conclude and than you can find evidence. Likewise for Russian hacking .

    If you like, see this link to Mish – a blogger sometimes in the NC links. Mish does the thought experiment of whether Israel undermined Hillary (and a whole lot more) – but it shows that Israel is just as plausible as Russia if you apply CIA type reasoning .

    Waldenpond , January 10, 2017 at 3:05 pm

    The new McCarthyism . when the IC report came out it was noted the numbers on the RT/CNN comparison report were inaccurate. Someone looked and it turned out the numbers were from several years ago . and the person criticized the report for including a 4 to 5 year old criticism of RT to pad the length of the report.

    Rosario , January 10, 2017 at 3:12 pm

    I wonder how long the mainstream media (see CNN above) can sustain the left's jouissance WRT Bernie until it blows up in their face? It seems like the elite liberal class is finding his "voice" a far more useful resistance to Trump compared to the overly simplified identity narrative or pathetic "foreign" threat narrative, but how long can they play with that fire. The fact is, Bernie really does talk about issues and policy, in a concrete way, in a demonstrable way. Those perspectives with class consciousness, and a dash of populist passions and you have political nitro far more threatening to the establishment than anything Trump can dish out. I'm all for it though I am very suspicious. I'm wondering what they (liberal elites) are cooking up.

    different clue , January 10, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    Masha Gessen is deeply antiputinitic. So if she finds the "Putin diddit" narrative unconvincing, it must be weak indeed.

    3.14e-9 , January 10, 2017 at 4:06 pm

    Re: Obama's extraordinary, aimless presidency [The Week]

    Nope, it was Putin's fault. Although, in fairness, Linker doesn't claim it was Obama's fault, only that he "helped prepare the way for the anti-establishment, populist wave " Master propagandist Putin knows a good opportunity when he sees one:

    Moscow is pushing populist movements to bring 'real security threats to Europe,' new report says [McClatchy]

    "Moscow is encouraging a wave of populism that extends from the election of President-elect Donald Trump through Brexit and rise of nationalist politics in France and Germany to bring about 'real security threats to Europe,' " according to a report in a new NATO journal."

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article125396679.html

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , January 10, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    Populists are just proletarians in different clothing.

    alex morfesis , January 10, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Don trumpioni and his capos are gonna woyk on keepyn the nayburhood nice again kapeesh ??

    As to the new McCarthyism, despite the capacity of fartspace and garggle to have algorithms filter certain "thoughts", the problems for the death spiral media are not going away and the death of myspace is a perfect example of the capacity of the blob to choke on its own vomit same for the rise and fall of the aol reich it was everywhere and then it was nothing

    Some self stylized masters of the universe imagine their luck as genius Cuban andreesson

    when all they are good at(which is good for their own pocket) is selling as soon as the griddle gets hot and the sound of the searing begins

    The internet of no-things and self krashing kars are well designed pitches but the details

    getting a virus or giving a virus to your over inquisitive refrigerator should deal with the all seeing pinkman brigade

    last I checked, customer service was not exactly the top issue concerning wall street

    Money isnt being spent on the infrastructure that exists today all this big blobber nonsense will require a tenfold increase in maintenance

    or are the folks who could not or would not program a vcr to reset the time automaticaly when there was a power outage suddenly all qualify to be mensa members

    [Jan 11, 2017] Washington Invented Hacking and Interfering in Elections

    Jan 11, 2017 | www.unz.com

    Weaponized hacking all began with Stuxnet

    Is the United States the victim of an unprovoked cyber and media attack by Russia and China or are the chickens coming home to roost after Washington's own promotion of such activity worldwide? On Thursday Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asserted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that while no foreign government had been able to interfere with actual voting machines, "U.S. agencies are more confident than ever that Russia interfered in America's recent presidential election. And he called the former Cold War foe an 'existential threat' to the nation." Pressed by Senator John McCain whether the "attack" constituted an "act of war," Clapper demurred, saying that it would be a "very heavy policy call" to say so. He also said that he could not judge if the election outcome had been changed due to the claimed outside interference.

    Clapper also claimed that the Russian effort included including the creation and dissemination of fake stories, explaining that " While there has been a lot of focus on the hacking, this is actually part of a multifaceted campaign that the Russians mounted." Clapper singled out Russian state funded TV channel RT, previously called Russia Today. "Of course RT was very, very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system." [Full disclosure: I have been on RT numerous times.]

    Apart from the nonsense about foreign broadcasters being part of a conspiracy to "disparage our system" and destroy our democracy, I confess that I was willing to be convinced by what seemed to be the near-unanimous intelligence and law enforcement agency verdict but, any such expectations disappeared when the 17 page report on the hack was actually released on Friday. Entitled Declassified Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections , the report is an exercise in speculation minus evidence indicting alleged Russian interference in the recent election. It even came with a significant caveat, "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact."

    So I am still waiting to see the actual evidence for the Russian direct involvement and have to suspect that there is little to show, or possibly even nothing. Saying that Russian government agents were employed in passing the stolen emails from the DNC server to WikiLeaks raises more questions than it answers, particularly as it is now clear from media leaks that the parties involved were using what is referred to as cut-outs to break the chain of custody of the material being passed. Does the intelligence community actually know exactly who passed what to whom and when or is it engaged in reconstructing what it think happened? Does it really believe that intercepted unencrypted phone calls among Russian officials expressing pleasure over the election result equate to an actual a priori conspiracy to determine the outcome? And based on what evidence do they know that conspiracy was "ordered" by President Vladimir Putin as is now being alleged? Or are the only assuming that it must have been him because he is head of state?

    ... ... ...

    When I was in Europe with CIA the U.S. government regularly interfered with elections, particularly in Italy, Spain, France and Portugal, all of which had active communist parties. The Agency would fund opposition parties directly or indirectly and would manage media coverage of the relevant issues to favor the non-communists. The end result was that the communists were indeed in most cases kept out of government but the resulting democracy was frequently corrupted by the process. Italy in particular suffers from that corruption to this day.

    The United States has directly interfered in Russia, using proxies, IMF loans and a media controlled by the oligarchs to run the utterly incompetent Boris Yeltsin's successful campaign in 1996 and then continuing with more aggressive "democracy promotion" projects until Putin expelled many of the NGOs responsible in 2015. More recently there have been the pastel revolutions in Eastern Europe and the upheaval in Ukraine, which came about in part due to a $5 billion investment by the United States government in "democracy building" supplemented by regular visits from John McCain and the State Department's activist Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Amazon reviews of the book The Field of Fight How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies by Lieutenant General (Ret.) Michael T. Flinn

    Jan 09, 2017 | www.amazon.com
    William Struse TOP 500 REVIEWER on July 17, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
    The Crossroads of Our Republic

    " Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.

    We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.

    Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.

    The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:

    1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
    2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
    3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
    4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.

    In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

    I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists thrives.

    Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?

    As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.

    * * *

    In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject. stars better, get it at your local library By Jim Lobe on January 3, 2017 Format: Hardcover | Verified Purchase The book is remarkably poorly written and even more poorly argued. The constant use of the pronoun "I" suggests that Flynn wrote it, although most of its main themes and much of the language are ones that Ledeen has repeated endlessly in books, blogs, and op-eds since 9/11 (and even before). In fact, it seems that Ledeen was the main author, and one is forced to wonder whether Flynn even gave the manuscript a thorough read-through before it was published. If he did read and approve it, and if he retains his position as Trump's national security adviser, then the country could be in for some serious foreign-policy incoherence. While Trump has claimed he's against "regime change," the book comes out strongly in favor. While Trump has said he opposes nation-building, the book says we need to completely reconstruct whole societies. ("It's not just a matter of changing local leaders; we want to change the whole system as we used to do.") And remember, Bolivia and Nicaragua are part of the "enemy alliance," along with Al Qaeda and ISIS, of which Iran is the "centerpiece." If you can't get enough of Islamophobia, Iranophobia, conspiracy thinking, and what Flynn's colleagues at the Defense Intelligence Agency used to call "Flynn facts" (multiple highly questionable assertions lack footnotes or any credible attribution), then buy this book or, better, get it at your local library. Otherwise, just google Ledeen and head for the fever swamps.

    out of 5 stars A Disappointment By Ed on December 28, 2016 Format: Hardcover | Verified Purchase Responding to terrorism is an important topic and I was looking forward to reading about potential strategic visions and tactical approaches that could be employed. This book disappointed. The first half of the book was a written account of how great the author is. He even made being a juvenile delinquent a plus! As a veteran I have encountered many officers who are "legends in their own minds". These pages do nothing to advance the subject of winning against terrorism.

    The next section is a series of rants about how weak and worthless politicians are. Few are spared, although Lincoln and FDR were ok. Colin Powell is also served up for criticism. General Powell is one of my heroes, a perfect example of the citizen soldier. Gen. Flynn is the opposite whose view is that the USA's elected representatives are holding the military back from winning the war on terror. I believe General Powell is correct.

    Politicians are only responsible to the people who elect them. Carter, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama are judged at the voting poles. This is how free people govern themselves. Criticism from subordinates is not useful, advice is. One is insubordination and the other is duty and loyalty. If you cannot support the elected leaders of the USA you should resign your commission, not wait to get fired.

    The final section of the book deals with the plan to defeat the radical Muslims. Gen Flynn is now our NSA to President-elect Trump. We'll get to see if Gen. Flynn can effectively advise President Trump. Will his "maverick" streak help or hinder his efforts? Will past insubordination reemerge when he does not get everything he proposes? Will he be able to convince Congress to take the "handcuffs" the military to win the War on Terror? Elected representatives will stay true to the wishes of the voters and be judged by them accordingly. As a loyal veteran and citizen, I wish nothing but the best for our country and that means wishing nothing but "HUGE" successes for our new president and his administration, including Gen. Flynn. 2.0 out of 5 stars simnplistic By juelanne dalzell on December 16, 2016 Format: Hardcover | Verified Purchase The book scared me silly. I got the impression that the author may be insane and believes everything his paranoia is telling him. What is scary is that some of the information appears accurate and that provides enough 'proof' for the author to make conclusions that aren't based in analytical reasoning. Due to its lack of depth or complexity the book is an easy read. 3.0 out of 5 stars Lacking on specifics, and disappointing over all By Adam M. Donaldson on August 7, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition | Verified Purchase I would give the book a 2.5 stars out of 5 but I'm limited to a three. I think the chapters describing the links etc. between various nation states and terrorist networks was very informative and the best part of the book. I did find the book extremely lacking though when it came to how to defeat the enemy he describes, which disappointed me because that's what this book as billed as. The strategies given were nothing more then basic overviews of things many other people have already said. So in that end it was even more disappointing. I also think he pays to much credit to using the word radical Islam as a strategy for defeating the enemy since in reality it would do nothing to hurt or help our cause. But that I think was a part of a mild paranoia that I found in the book. So in the end it's not bad, but it's no where near good. I would not recommend the book personally. A Valuable, But Slight, Work By A. T. Yoshida on July 27, 2016 Format: Kindle Edition | Verified Purchase There are good pieces here, but the book just doesn't ever quite gel. I can't help but think it was largely-written to further Gen. Flynn's Vice Presidential ambitions as much as anything else.

    The problem is two-fold. First, much of what is written here is already widely-known to those with a deep interest in the subject. In particular I think that there is a distinct lack of insight from the General's time at the DIA. In a sense I suppose that probably can't be helped - much of what went down is probably covered by NDAs - but it leaves us with a work whose basic contents may be found daily on any number of other forums.

    On the other side, for those without a a strong grounding in this area, the book lacks enough information about the origins and underpinnings of the Islamist war against us to be thoroughly informative.

    Still, I do concur in the recommendations contained within this book and hope that the General's talents will be utilized by the next administration.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Who Will Donald Trump Turn Out To Be?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has ideas that he is not disclosing. He is new and the bureaucracy will run him instead of the other way around. Much will be half implemented because neither Trump nor GOP policies are popular. ..."
    "... MinWage increases is one of the most popular policies but one the GOP is least likely to pass ..."
    "... Domestic policy? Trump might act pseudo-magnanimous and come out for single payer, or something like that. The politically smartest next move would be to buy-off some progressive Berniecrats, while sticking it to Wall Street (in a phony, visual way). ..."
    "... But more likely it will be Reaganoid business as usual. Why? Because: ..."
    "... The system is complicated, and every thread you pull on, unravels something else. That's systems theory, folks! ..."
    "... The power of the Presidency is limited, and overrated by partisans on both sides. ..."
    "... A President's information is restricted to what comes in through his advisors, and this bunch are looking like, kwite a kwazy krew. ..."
    "... Trump's low cognition and narcissism will result in short-sighted moves and more foreign policy quagmires for the US: "Look at the black eye the US gave itself, with the Bush-Cheney War! -- Let's make America stupid again!" ..."
    "... On trade? Trump is setting up the conditions where the richest people can plunder what's remains of the U.S., before getting out of the country: ..."
    "... The new global slogan will be, "Trade with China -- We're the Crooks You Can TRUST!" ..."
    "... Meanwhile Trump will give big tax cuts to the richest Americans, because his knuckleheaded voters believe all the "makers vs. takers" baloney; they haven't been schtupped up the keister enough... ..."
    "... Then the rich will slowly start taking that money out of the U.S. to some other country that gets a higher global ROI under the new Chinese trade rules, because U.S. exporters under protectionism won't be nearly as profitable. ..."
    "... The bureaucracy is too massive for any one person to control. Change requires action from the top or its business as usual. Trump does not have enough trusted aids and insiders to manage the government ..."
    "... Right now it's hard to know if Trump's administration really wants to deliver change. Its cabinet-level staffing is hard to read. It is full of establishment types who could deliver change if that is really their mission. They are not beholden to anyone for their positions and they are not in need of lucrative employment after cabinet service that might otherwise make them tend to curry favor with interests they affect in office. ..."
    "... Tillerson became CEO of Exxon and has been successful there, nontrivial achievements both. He is not a professional foreign service officer, neither was HRC. For many oil-producing countries, their most important foreign patron is Exxon. Tillerson is very familiar with the inside game in the Middle East where all kinds of shit has been hitting the fan for the past 25 years without the US having much success there. HRC and Kerry have been particularly ineffective and had far less accomplishments in life before assuming SoS office than Tillerson. ..."
    "... Mnuchin got rich in Hollywood because he knew what people wanted from Hollywood. he was also chief of the NY bond desk for GS and was CIO for GS for five years. That is CIO of the most technologically sophisticated investment bank in the world. ..."
    "... Mnuchin knows the technology and how it can be used to execute or hide chicanery better than anyone else in the industry. If he aims to reform the TBTF banks, he is better equipped than anyone who has been Treasury secretary over the 25 years during which computer technology assumed a key role in skulduggery in the industry. ..."
    "... Marine nicknames are often ironic. "Mad Dog" Mattis probably reflects recognition of his intellect and coolness by his Marine colleagues. ..."
    "... Mattis has been well known to be a smart, tough, effective achiever. If pentagon reform is really the goal, he would be hard to beat. ..."
    "... These men have all been very successful at running large organizations. Let's see what direction they try to take the government and how they do at it. Should be interesting. ..."
    "... History without context is meaningless. ..."
    "... Wars play too great a role in history as taught. Neither of the Bushes, with their limited thinking, like the generals above, should have ever been allowed near hammers ..."
    "... Colonialism took a bit too long to die, but Archduke Ferdinand was indeed about the dying throws of monarchies. ..."
    Jan 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Brad DeLong:
    Who Will Donald Trump Turn Out To Be? :

    We have very little indication of what policies Donald Trump will try to follow or even what kind of president he will be. The U.S. press corps did an extraordinarily execrable job in covering the rise of Trump--even worse than it usually does. Even the most sophisticated of audiences--those interested in asset prices and how they are affected by government policies--have very little insight into Trump's views or those of his key associates.

    Will Donald Trump turn out to be the equivalent of Ronald Reagan -- someone who comes into office from the world of celebrity with a great many unfixed policy intuitions, but no consistent plan?

    Will he turn out to be the equivalent of Silvio Berlusconi, who regards the presidency as an opportunity to wreak his kleptocratic will on the country?

    Or will he turn out to be someone worse than Berlusconi?

    I would say that Trump could be any of four figures...
    jonny bakho -> pgl... January 09, 2017 at 03:20 AM , 2017 at 03:20 AM
    DeLong's guess is as good as anyones.

    Trump has ideas that he is not disclosing. He is new and the bureaucracy will run him instead of the other way around. Much will be half implemented because neither Trump nor GOP policies are popular.

    MinWage increases is one of the most popular policies but one the GOP is least likely to pass

    Congress has power but they must shift from opposition mode to governing mode. I expect much overreach and 'creative' destruction

    Lee A. Arnold -> jonny bakho... , January 09, 2017 at 03:43 AM

    Domestic policy? Trump might act pseudo-magnanimous and come out for single payer, or something like that. The politically smartest next move would be to buy-off some progressive Berniecrats, while sticking it to Wall Street (in a phony, visual way).

    But more likely it will be Reaganoid business as usual. Why? Because:

    1. The system is complicated, and every thread you pull on, unravels something else. That's systems theory, folks!
    2. The power of the Presidency is limited, and overrated by partisans on both sides.
    3. A President's information is restricted to what comes in through his advisors, and this bunch are looking like, kwite a kwazy krew. 4. There is a mid-term election less than 2 years from now.

    Foreign policy? Putin wanted Trump to win, but NOT to make the U.S. stronger. He wants a weaker US. Why? Because the Russians hate the US for screwing them economically after the Iron Curtain fell, with trying to impose a bunch of free-market fundamentalist ignorance...

    Were that not bad enough, the US slapped on oil sanctions recently, after Putin tried shoring-up his borders against NATO expansion and against Islamic terrorists.

    ... ... ...

    Whether you yourself think it's good or bad to oppose Russia -- and whatever you think of Putin's tactics in response -- is not the point here. Fact is, Putin hates the US. Therefore, Putin is not going to help anyone whom he thinks will make the US stronger or more respected in the world.

    Russian psych profiling may suggest that Trump's low cognition and narcissism will result in short-sighted moves and more foreign policy quagmires for the US: "Look at the black eye the US gave itself, with the Bush-Cheney War! -- Let's make America stupid again!"

    On trade? Trump is setting up the conditions where the richest people can plunder what's remains of the U.S., before getting out of the country: Trump wants to tear up the big trade deals and make every country go into bilateral negotiations with his trade team... BUT those countries are all going to say, "Forget it! We just spent 6 years negotiating, and we know we can't trust the US anymore!"...

    Then, they are going to turn around and join China's new global trade organization, which was suddenly announced the DAY AFTER Trump's election (funny, that, after years of planning, building forward military bases in the Pacific, etc.) The new global slogan will be, "Trade with China -- We're the Crooks You Can TRUST!"

    Meanwhile Trump will give big tax cuts to the richest Americans, because his knuckleheaded voters believe all the "makers vs. takers" baloney; they haven't been schtupped up the keister enough... Then the rich will slowly start taking that money out of the U.S. to some other country that gets a higher global ROI under the new Chinese trade rules, because U.S. exporters under protectionism won't be nearly as profitable.

    "...And golly, honey, there's plenty of pretty places over there to build new mansions, for both you, AND the mistress..." Meanwhile, back in the U.S., voters will continue walking around with their thumbs up their butts, & trying to prevent other Americans from getting healthcare, trying to prevent them from voting, etc... To get cash, the U.S. can join into a big flea market with the Brexiters, and we can all swap old Beatles vinyl...

    Get behind Bernie, NOW!!!

    JF -> jonny bakho... , January 09, 2017 at 04:24 AM
    The bureaucracy will run things? This is not going to happen, governance will stall or cease.

    Let me see, a party that says our form of govt is the problem. A party who has obstructed matters to cause dysfunction in govt on purpose, and who is entertaining nominees to head these agencies who do not care that they exist, bills introduced already to allow pay even to the individual to be cut , and to smooth firing processes, with an incoming group who surfaces transition-team surveys for the purposes of chilling efforts with the agencies even before they take control, on climate change for instance, well, the bureaucracy is demoralized, and threatened. The dysfunction of the American 'experiment' in self government will be harmed, perhaps accomplished finally.

    And when they get their legs about them with new judiciary appointments they then should thread cases via these courts so holdings they get won't be appealed, giving them full control, with still the purpose being dysfunction for what has been the generally applicable law before. Ok with them, it would seem.

    jonny bakho -> JF... , -1
    The bureaucracy is too massive for any one person to control. Change requires action from the top or its business as usual. Trump does not have enough trusted aids and insiders to manage the government
    anne -> pgl... , January 09, 2017 at 07:35 AM
    "Reagan did not campaign for and enter the presidency thinking that he was going to push the value of the dollar up by 70%..."

    -- Brad DeLong

    [ The real trade-weighted price of the dollar increased by about 45% between 1980 and March 1985 and then declined and finished the Reagan presidency about 5% below the level of 1980. ]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 07:56 AM
    [I set the Way-back machine to Links for 12-31-16 and copied what mrrunangun said to me then. From my experience mrrunangun is a more reliable source than the MSM, but then so is my wife and over half of the random strangers that I meet in Walmart.]

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/12/links-for-12-31-16.html

    mrrunangun -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Right now it's hard to know if Trump's administration really wants to deliver change. Its cabinet-level staffing is hard to read. It is full of establishment types who could deliver change if that is really their mission. They are not beholden to anyone for their positions and they are not in need of lucrative employment after cabinet service that might otherwise make them tend to curry favor with interests they affect in office.

    Tillerson became CEO of Exxon and has been successful there, nontrivial achievements both. He is not a professional foreign service officer, neither was HRC. For many oil-producing countries, their most important foreign patron is Exxon. Tillerson is very familiar with the inside game in the Middle East where all kinds of shit has been hitting the fan for the past 25 years without the US having much success there. HRC and Kerry have been particularly ineffective and had far less accomplishments in life before assuming SoS office than Tillerson.

    Mnuchin got rich in Hollywood because he knew what people wanted from Hollywood. he was also chief of the NY bond desk for GS and was CIO for GS for five years. That is CIO of the most technologically sophisticated investment bank in the world.

    Many of the big errors in banking over the past 20 years have been due to inadequate supervision of trading units. Traders learn to hide losses using the computer systems of the banks and clearing houses. The Barclay's Singapore disaster, the London whale, the UBS fiasco, the DB bond desk fiasco all got out of hand because traders' losing positions went undetected by the traders' supervisors who lacked the technical sophistication necessary to provide adequate supervision. Mnuchin knows the technology and how it can be used to execute or hide chicanery better than anyone else in the industry. If he aims to reform the TBTF banks, he is better equipped than anyone who has been Treasury secretary over the 25 years during which computer technology assumed a key role in skulduggery in the industry.

    Marine nicknames are often ironic. "Mad Dog" Mattis probably reflects recognition of his intellect and coolness by his Marine colleagues. In the movie Full Metal Jacket, a dark-skinned black man was named "snowball" and, after getting slapped around for smiling at the DI's jokes, the main character was named "Joker". Victor Krulak, a Marine general during the VietNam war, got the name Brute because of his diminutive size. He became probably the only five foot four-inch Marine general of the twentieth century. Mattis has been well known to be a smart, tough, effective achiever. If pentagon reform is really the goal, he would be hard to beat.

    These men have all been very successful at running large organizations. Let's see what direction they try to take the government and how they do at it. Should be interesting.

    Reply Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:18 PM

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 06:33 AM
    Suri never really makes his case against belligerent deterrence because his historical references are inconsistent with his thesis. As much as I agree with TR's "Walk soft and carry a big stick" even that is a superficial take on Teddy Roosevelt's approach to diplomatic engagement, which was a superior way to conduct foreign policy even compared to Taft's dollar diplomacy.

    Taft's way was more readily assessable to the mediocre men that would normally lead our country though, which is why Kissinger as Secretary of State held to it dearly. Buying peace is much cheaper than waging war.

    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 06:01 AM
    History without context is meaningless. War is but a consequence. Generals shouldn't be allowed hammers.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ken melvin... , January 09, 2017 at 06:58 AM
    Understood. Woodrow Wilson was a pacifist and the US during his administration was isolationist. That hardly sounds like a case of belligerent deterrence going wrong, but more like the opposite.

    Suri's point was that circumstances can dictate significant reversals from original intentions though. WW-II did not seem like our choice and certainly was reluctant more like WW-I rather than a case of belligerent deterrence going wrong.

    The US entered the Korean War because its presidents, first Truman and then Eisenhower were more afraid of Joe McCarthy than China, also not a case of belligerent deterrence, just domino theory.

    Kennedy and Johnson just feared the anti-communist Republican hawks that remained after McCarthy died more than they feared China, just more domino theory there too.

    When we finally got a POTUS that did the full court press on belligerent deterrence, Reagan, then peace broke out.

    By this time Suri's case is getting real weak. The first Bush war, the daddy Bush war, was just a reaction function and limited at that. The next two Bush wars, the baby Bush wars, were finally belligerent deterrence on steroids, but also a reaction function or an over-reaction function to 9/11.

    Suri stands empty handed on his history, but that does not mean that he is wrong on his prognostications, just unconvincing in his larger historical based argument aside from the notion of unintended consequences. That alone may however be Donald Trumps undoing, but just as easily so from domestic policy as foreign policy. Only time will tell. I prefer not to guess this one out too far myself, unintended consequences being what they are and all.

    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    Quite a lot; where to start? The world as it is vs. our wishful perceptions? I think remembering that most problems requiring governmental action are really quite complicated and often have more than one possible answer is essential. It's the simple arsed responses, so loved by the many, that get us into some of the worst messes. The urge to tear it down and start anew, another source of grief, again linked to the simple arsed, our most current response.

    See Reagan and Ike as being dependent to a fault on their advisers (in the case of Reagan, we really lucked out with Baker, Schultz, Deaver); Bush II as being dumb enough to think he was smart when, in fact, he was too dumb for the job; and Drumpf, I suspect/fear, being of the same ilk as Bush II.

    For WWI context, I see: the swell of the industrial age, the vying for raw materials and markets, all in a period when one saw the dying throes of colonialism and monarchies whilst no one seem to grasp the reality of what was going on (bout where we find ourselves). Wars play too great a role in history as taught. Neither of the Bushes, with their limited thinking, like the generals above, should have ever been allowed near hammers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ken melvin... , January 09, 2017 at 08:06 AM
    Colonialism took a bit too long to die, but Archduke Ferdinand was indeed about the dying throws of monarchies.

    Relative to Suri's argument there was nothing about US foreign policy activism that got us into WWI unless you want to consider the negative. Had the US been more involved in European diplomacy in a cogent and persuasive manner then it may have averted the Prussian brinksmanship that ignite WW-I. Theodore Roosevelt may have been capable of that, but not Taft nor Wilson.

    [Jan 09, 2017] Russian Interference in the Election is A Media Hoax

    Notable quotes:
    "... Referring to Putin and the Russian hackers, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson contends: "Their hacking - as interpreted by both the CIA and the FBI - qualifies as state-sponsored aggression. It does jeopardize our way of life. It undermines the integrity of our political institutions and popular faith in them. More than this, it warns us that our physical safety and security are at risk. Hostile hackers can hijack power grids, communication networks, transportation systems and much more." [17] Even criticizing the position of the CIA-an institution American liberals, not too long ago, looked upon as a force for evil–is now considered a threat to American democracy. As establishment liberal E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post pontificates: "That Trump would happily trash our own CIA to get Putin off the hook is disturbing enough . . . . That he would ignore the risks our intelligence agents take on so many fronts to protect us is outrageous ..."
    "... The Washington Post was enraged when, in 2015, Russia shut down the U.S. government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), relying on a law that "bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'" The Washington Post wrote: "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts." [20] Presumably, such things as "transparency in public affairs," fighting corruption, and "freedom of information," are vital for creating a "healthy democracy" in Russia when promoted by a foreign organization but are a grave danger to democracy if a foreign entity should try to do the same thing in the United States. ..."
    "... The mainstream media has acted as if Russian efforts to influence American policy are something novel, that this had never happened to the U.S. before. And "policy" is used here rather than "election" because affecting policy is apparently Putin's motive, not simply putting Trump in the White House with U.S. policy toward Russian unchanged. It is quite understandable that Putin would view Trump as a better President from the standpoint of Russian interests than Hillary Clinton since Trump advocated improving relations with Russia while Clinton was oriented toward exacerbating them. ..."
    "... In making major foreign policy decisions, Obama's modus operandi has often been one of reacting to pressure-usually, but not always, from elite opinion-which has caused him to take positions contrary to his own, often more non-interventionist and pacific, inclination. This seems to have been the case regarding Obama's policy toward Libya, Syria, Israel (his obeisance to the Israel Lobby until the very end of his presidency), and even Russia, where he initially sought a "reset" to achieve friendlier relations. ..."
    "... By penalizing Russia, Obama makes it difficult for President Trump to establish a more cordial relationship with Russia. There is extensive support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans for taking strong action against Russia. As the title of an article in Roll Call, which focuses on the activities of the U.S. Congress , puts it: "Obama's Russia Sanctions Put Trump, Hill GOP on Collision Course." The author of this article, John T. Bennett, opines that Trump's opposition to Obama's retaliation against Russia "will immediately pit him against the hawkish wing of the Republican party." [29] ..."
    "... While Trump could overturn Obama's anti-Russian measures, which are based on an executive order, his doing so would almost certainly be countered by legislation put forth by Democrats and some Republicans-the latter led by McCain and Graham, who have already said that they will introduce Russian sanction legislation. ..."
    "... To conclude, the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign relations as well, as America will drift further into Cold War II, which is something that Trump, if not facing obstruction, could have possibly prevented. ..."
    "... CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story ..."
    "... It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network! ..."
    "... Obama's petty and stupid response to the current unproven allegations against Russia will haunt his legacy and Hillary's bizarre contention that Putin personally "had it in for her" is yet another sign of her mental instability. ..."
    Jan 09, 2017 | www.unz.com
    The mainstream media's narrative that the Russian government interfered with the United States election, and that this interference invalidated, or at least tainted, Trump's election has culminated in President Obama taking a series of measures against Russia, which consist of: imposing sanctions on the GRU and the FSB (the two major Russian intelligence organizations), four officers of the GRU, and two Russian individuals who allegedly used "cyber-enabled means to cause misappropriation of funds and personal identifying information;" expelling 35 diplomats and intelligence officials; and closing two Russian compounds in Maryland's Eastern Shore and Long Island, New York. These actions were said to have been taken not only because of Russian interference in the election but for a number of other instances of Russian malfeasance that go back in time and are unrelated to alleged election interference. And there was no evidence provided that showed, or even claimed to show, that the particular individuals and entities covered by these measures had anything to do with the alleged election interference. [1]

    Like other common memes-such as anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism-used to silence debate, the exact meaning of Russian interference in the election is unclear-and Obama's inclusion of a number of extraneous issues in his explanation for taking retaliatory action against Russia muddles the issue even more. The reference to Russian interference in the election includes a composite of alleged Russian misdeeds-"fake news," computer hacking, and manipulating voting machines [2] –which are usually lumped together but are actually quite different and should be analyzed separately since the combination approach only serves to obfuscate the issue. Of course-and this probably would not be shocking to most readers of this essay-many of those who promote the idea of Russian culpability are not really concerned about pursuing a Socratic search for truth but instead want to anathematize Putin's Russia and/or delegitimize Trump's election victory.

    First, let me take care of the most extreme claim-that Russian hackers manipulated election results to make Trump president. This would be a nearly impossible task since voting machines are not attached to the Internet, and it was never pointed out how the Russians could do this on any significant scale. [3] Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton was urged by "a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" to demand a recount in three states-Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-in which Clinton seemed to be slightly ahead in pre-election polls but which were won by Trump by narrow margins. The group claimed to have statistical evidence that the vote had been altered. [4] The basis of this claim, however, was quite flimsy since it simply rested on an analysis that showed that in Wisconsin counties with electronic voting machines, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes than in counties with paper ballots or optical scanners. It was then assumed that the same thing could have occurred in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

    There was a recount in Wisconsin in which Trump increased his victory margin by 131 votes; a total of 2.976 million ballots were cast. The recount was requested by Green Party candidate Jill Stein who covered the estimated $3.5 million cost of the endeavor. [5] Similar efforts by Stein to get recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania were blocked in the state courts because of her lack of standing by the laws of those states-not having any chance of winning herself, she could not be considered an "aggrieved party." Hillary Clinton's campaign did not make official efforts to get recounts in any states. With Trump's victory in Wisconsin surviving the recount, he had garnered a majority of the electoral votes, which would make him President unless there were a far higher number of faithless electors than turned out to be the case. Nonetheless, half of Clinton's voters still think Russia hacked the election day voting. [6]

    Now to consider the ramifications of Russia's hacking the emails of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the reception and release to the public of this Russian-hacked information by WikiLeaks. While this is assumed to be incontestably true by the mainstream media, neither one of these allegations is rock solid at the moment. The alleged consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies is that there is sufficient evidence that Russia hacked the aforementioned emails, but the evidence for this has not been made available to the public nor is there proof that WikiLeaks relied on emails derived from Russian hacks. Given the fact that America's intelligence agencies are not noted for being honest with the public, one would think that the mainstream media would give some attention to the critics of the dominant narrative.

    Reacting to these allegations, WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, claims that his organization did not release any information provided to it by Russia or a Russian proxy. And Assange does have a vested interest in being truthful in order to maintain WikiLeaks' credibility, which has so far been impeccable. Confirming Assange's contention is Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Assange, though not an official member of the WikiLeaks staff. Murray stated: "As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks." He goes on to claim: "Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling." Murray alleges that the two sets of emails-from the DNC and from Podesta–came from American insiders but from different sources. [7]

    Obviously, the security agencies should provide the public with detailed evidence and describe the actual sources. As Pat Buchanan suggests: "The CIA director and his deputies should be made to testify under oath, not only as to what they know about Russia's role in the WikiLeaks email dumps but also about who inside the agency is behind the leaks to The Washington Post designed to put a cloud over the Trump presidency before it begins." [8]

    Now it should be pointed out that the actual content of the emails released by WikiLeaks, which the U.S. claims to have been obtained by Russian hacking, has not been falsified. The information harmful to Hillary Clinton included the DNC's behind-the-scenes support for her over Bernie Sanders (which included then DNC chair Donna Brazile's feeding answers to Clinton before the latter's debate with Bernie Sanders); Clinton's unpublicized paid speeches-on foreign policy and the economy– to wealthy business executives and bankers revealing views diametrically opposed to her campaign positions; the collusion of mainstream media reporters with the DNC. For example, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank requested and got the DNC to do the research for a negative column he wrote about Trump.

    ORDER IT NOW

    If the WikiLeaks information were completely fallacious, it would not have been derived from hacking or even from leaks, but simply fabricated. Nonetheless, this defense is being made. The logical form of this argument is that hacking took place but that the released emails were doctored to make them damaging. But this is based on the fact that it is possible to doctor emails, rather than any evidence that the WikiLeaks' emails were altered. The assumption being made was that Russia was capable of doctoring the emails, therefore, the emails must be doctored. For example, Jamie Winterton, director of strategy for Arizona State University's Global Security Initiative, was quoted as saying: "I would be shocked if the emails weren't altered," and went on to say that Russia was well-known to have used this technique in the past. ix Similarly, Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin asserted: "We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton." He referred to doctored emails that supposedly appeared on websites linked to Russian intelligence as proof that "documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign," although Caplin did not say that the emails concerning Clinton's speeches had been faked. x According to James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the spreading of false information by intelligence services "is a technique that goes back to Tsarist times." Among his examples, he referred to the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus. Needless to say, this, too, had nothing to do with WikiLeaks much less the emails it released on Clinton and the DNC. [11]

    MSNBC's terrorist analyst and a former intelligence officer, Malcolm Nance, tweeted a message, shortly after WikiLeaks' October release of some of Podesta's emails, that these emails were "riddled with obvious forgeries," without ever providing evidence. [12] If any emails released by WikiLeaks were "obvious forgeries," it would seem quite easy for U.S. intelligence agencies to point this out without using any secret, super-high tech methods, and thus substantiate the case being made.

    Interestingly, Nance was also quoted as taking the opposite position: "We have no way of knowing whether this is real or not unless Hillary Clinton goes through everything they've said and comes out and says it cross-correlates and this is true." [13] Here, Nance seems to be saying that WikiLeaks' could only be considered accurate if Hillary would show this to be the case. Since Hillary is not going to indict herself, this is not going to happen. However, the burden of proof should be on those who claim that the emails were altered to point out the discrepancies between the emails released by WikiLeaks and the DNC's and Podesta's actual emails. It would not be necessary to go through the whole tranche but simply focus on the detrimental emails. If this is not done, then claims that the WikiLeaks provides specious information should be dropped. So far, however, there seems to be little effort to show that the damaging information was untrue. [14]

    Actually, it seems that much of the hostility to the WikiLeaks' information has little to do with it being false but rather that the emails were pilfered and made public. Adam Schiff, a Democratic congressman from California, who serves as the ranking member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Jane Harman, who is currently the president of the Wilson Center and a former ranking Democratic member of the same House committee state: "Russia's theft and strategic leaking of emails and documents from the Democratic Party and other officials present a challenge to the U.S. political system unlike anything we've experienced." [15] Note that these writers charge Russia not only with illicitly obtaining the emails but also of "strategic leaking," which was obviously the work of WikiLeaks, and for which no evidence whatsoever exists that Russia determined when the materials would be leaked.

    The New York Times Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman writes that "[t]he pro-Putin tilt of Mr. Trump and his advisers was obvious months before the election . . . . By midsummer the close relationship between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence was also obvious, as was the site's growing alignment with white nationalists." Krugman goes on to blame the mainstream media for giving attention to WikiLeaks. "Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing more than the fact that Democrats are people." [16] However, if nothing harmful was revealed, it is hard to maintain that Russian hacking had a significant effect on the election. If harm were done to the Democrats, it was presumably caused by the media, which falsely implied that serious revelations were being made by WikiLeaks.

    Referring to Putin and the Russian hackers, Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson contends: "Their hacking - as interpreted by both the CIA and the FBI - qualifies as state-sponsored aggression. It does jeopardize our way of life. It undermines the integrity of our political institutions and popular faith in them. More than this, it warns us that our physical safety and security are at risk. Hostile hackers can hijack power grids, communication networks, transportation systems and much more." [17] Even criticizing the position of the CIA-an institution American liberals, not too long ago, looked upon as a force for evil–is now considered a threat to American democracy. As establishment liberal E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post pontificates: "That Trump would happily trash our own CIA to get Putin off the hook is disturbing enough . . . . That he would ignore the risks our intelligence agents take on so many fronts to protect us is outrageous . [18]

    Michael Daly of the liberal millennials–oriented "Daily Beast" writes: "Russians went from simply gathering our secrets to then making them public in such a way as to influence American public opinion and therefore the course of our democracy. Putin must marvel at the fervently patriotic, flag-waving Americans who shrug at the near certainty that a foreign power had subverted the electoral process that is at the heart of America's true greatness." [19]

    It is not apparent how receiving accurate information regarding political issues-which is what WikiLeaks seems to have provided-could really have a negative impact on American democracy; rather it would seem that it would actually improve democracy. The purpose of Voice of America is supposed to be to provide such information to foreign countries and especially to those where the governments prevent the facts from reaching their inhabitants. The idea is that people in foreign countries should know the truth about their own government and about other governments, as well.

    The Washington Post was enraged when, in 2015, Russia shut down the U.S. government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), relying on a law that "bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and its national security.'" The Washington Post wrote: "The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's grantees in Russia last year ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts." [20] Presumably, such things as "transparency in public affairs," fighting corruption, and "freedom of information," are vital for creating a "healthy democracy" in Russia when promoted by a foreign organization but are a grave danger to democracy if a foreign entity should try to do the same thing in the United States.

    The mainstream media has acted as if Russian efforts to influence American policy are something novel, that this had never happened to the U.S. before. And "policy" is used here rather than "election" because affecting policy is apparently Putin's motive, not simply putting Trump in the White House with U.S. policy toward Russian unchanged. It is quite understandable that Putin would view Trump as a better President from the standpoint of Russian interests than Hillary Clinton since Trump advocated improving relations with Russia while Clinton was oriented toward exacerbating them.

    While the mainstream media implies that what Russia was allegedly attempting to do had never happened before, foreign countries had actually tried to shape American policies since the George Washington administration [21] when the ambassador from revolutionary France, popularly known as Citizen Genet, came to the United States in 1793 and sought to generate popular support to get the United States to modify its strict neutrality policy to one that would be helpful to France in its war with Great Britain. Genet even commissioned privateers to attack British shipping. Ultimately, however, President Washington and his Cabinet, angered by Genet's activities that violated American sovereignty, demanded his recall. Genet simultaneously fell from favor in France as more radical Jacobins led by Robespierre took power and fearing he might face the guillotine if he returned to France, Genet requested and received asylum in the United States.

    In 1867-1868, the Russian ambassador to the U.S. resorted to bribing lobbyists, newspapers, and members of Congress in order to make sure that the U.S. Congress would provide the funds for the treaty already signed by Secretary of State Seward (and approved by the Senate) to purchase Alaska.

    In World War I both Germany and England were relying heavily on propaganda in the U.S.-the British goal to get the U.S. into the war on its side; the German goal to keep the U.S. out of the war. In 1917, Britain Illicitly intercepted and decoded what became known as the Zimmerman Telegram, which was a message from the German foreign ministry to its ambassador in Mexico instructing him to inform the Mexican government that Germany would, if the United States joined the war against it, support a Mexican effort to regain its former territory taken by the United States (though technically purchased) as a result of the Mexican-American War. [22] After Britain turned the information over to the U.S. government, the publication of the telegram in March 1917 may have played a supporting role in America's entrance into World War I in April 1917.

    In World War II, British intelligence closely cooperated with the Roosevelt administration and the American interventionists-actually setting up pro-interventionist front groups–and engaged in efforts to destroy the non-interventionists. [23] Soviet agents were also trying to shape American foreign policy during World War II and its aftermath in order to advance the interests of Stalinist Russia. [24] And Israel (and the Zionist agency before Israel's founding) and its American supporters have played a role in shaping America's policy in the Middle East policy since World War I. [25]

    Finally, let us explore the reasons for Obama's retaliation against the alleged Russian interference in the election, which included activities-mostly, but not only, involving spying-that had been going on for years. An obvious question is: why didn't Obama take action earlier?

    It should be pointed out that it is commonplace for spies to pose as diplomats. And it is likewise commonplace that a host country does nothing to stop the spying unless it goes too far or if the host country wants to send a message that it is concerned about some other matter and does so by expelling officials for spying who were not necessarily involved in the issue of concern. Obama's expulsion edict fit the second category and was meant to show the U.S. government's ire regarding the alleged Russian interference in the U.S. election. [26] Therefore, Obama's retaliation against individuals and entities not involved in the matter of concern was not unconventional and if there had not been any alleged interference in the U.S. election, they likely would have been left alone.

    Furthermore, it would appear that Obama chose to take action for political reasons: in order to appeal to the Democratic base and the mainstream media, afflicted as those two groups are by Trump Derangement Syndrome, [27] and also to hardline opponents of Russia who loom large in the Republican Party and have become a significant force among the Democratic elite (e.g. Brookings Institution).

    In making major foreign policy decisions, Obama's modus operandi has often been one of reacting to pressure-usually, but not always, from elite opinion-which has caused him to take positions contrary to his own, often more non-interventionist and pacific, inclination. This seems to have been the case regarding Obama's policy toward Libya, Syria, Israel (his obeisance to the Israel Lobby until the very end of his presidency), and even Russia, where he initially sought a "reset" to achieve friendlier relations.

    Although it has been claimed that Obama had entertained issuing punitive measures against Russia before the election, but opted against this to avoid possible Russian retaliation that could affect the voting, it is not apparent that Obama would have taken comparable retaliatory action if Clinton had won a clear-cut electoral victory. [28] While Republican hardliners, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, might have wanted such action, the Democrats would be satisfied with their victory, and Clinton and her foreign policy advisers, even though they might be anti-Putin, would not want their hands tied by such measures. While Obama is not a fan of Hillary Clinton, he did want her to be his successor, since that would have made him look good; there would have been no reason to antagonize her, her supporters, or the Democratic Party elite.

    By penalizing Russia, Obama makes it difficult for President Trump to establish a more cordial relationship with Russia. There is extensive support in Congress from both Democrats and Republicans for taking strong action against Russia. As the title of an article in Roll Call, which focuses on the activities of the U.S. Congress , puts it: "Obama's Russia Sanctions Put Trump, Hill GOP on Collision Course." The author of this article, John T. Bennett, opines that Trump's opposition to Obama's retaliation against Russia "will immediately pit him against the hawkish wing of the Republican party." [29]

    While Trump could overturn Obama's anti-Russian measures, which are based on an executive order, his doing so would almost certainly be countered by legislation put forth by Democrats and some Republicans-the latter led by McCain and Graham, who have already said that they will introduce Russian sanction legislation. In the past few years, an overwhelming majority in Congress has voted for sanctions legislation against Russia, which makes it likely that there would be a veto-proof majority to stymie Trump on this issue. [30]

    To conclude, the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign relations as well, as America will drift further into Cold War II, which is something that Trump, if not facing obstruction, could have possibly prevented.

    Beckow , < > January 6, 2017 at 7:08 pm GMT • 200 Words

    Great article, the key question remains: why is there an obsession for a large part of Washington bipartisan elite to have a horrible relationship with Russia?

    It is on its face self-defeating: Russia poses no real threat as a peaceful neighbor, it has lots of resources and the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is also generally secular, relative socially liberal, and shares many of the same policies as US, e,g. fighting Islamic terrorism, checking China's influence, etc

    So why the hostility? It makes West weaker, not stronger. It hurts global economy, it increases risks of a nuclear confrontation. It also cannot really achieve much beyond continued hostility and shouting at each other.

    Unless I am missing something, the hostility with Russia has no conceivable – and realistic – final outcome . Russia is not about to collapse, and it is not about to revert to a Western-run 90′s 'liberal' utopia. Any actual and realistic threat to Russia's existence could trigger a nuclear war – no winners there.

    The disputes – from Crimea to Syria, from 'hacking' to Pussy Rioters – are oversimplified and intentionally misrepresented by the West. All of these issues are more complex, less clear-cut, and there is a valid and rational point of view on Russia's side.

    So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?

    @dearieme
    "What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations win new markets. ,
    @CK
    Putin has reversed the Yeltsin era oligarchy that was bent on looting everything moveable in Russia. In doing so he pissed off some very connected Americans and Israelis. They want to get back to the loot trough. Sometimes it is as simple as evil men wanting to steal the wealth of others and hating those who stop them. ,
    @Harry107
    Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:

    - Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.

    - The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.

    - Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative as the US was in the 70's. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have inordinate control.

    - Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15's in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)

    - The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression. The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations. ,

    @Cato
    You ask the question I've been asking myself. I don't have an answer, but I've wondered if it could be any of these:

    * inertia (the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I)
    * anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
    * profits (the Military-Industrial Complex has settled on Russia as the threat that will justify the weapons systems they want to sell)
    * Europe (Russia is the only power that could draw away our European vassal states--the Germans were particularly cozy with Putin right before Ukraine blew up; the Gulenist coup happened just weeks after Erdogan got friendly with Russia)
    * petroleum (can't quite see how that fits here, but oil and gas are usually involved in Deep State machinations)

    But it could be all or none of these... ,

    @Bill Jones
    War, cold or hot, sells weapons
    The warmongers own the politicians.
    You've never figured this out? ,
    @NoseytheDuke
    The backers of HRC seek global domination and they know that time is against them. They have over-reached and now find themselves on the back foot. They are ruthless and desperate so this is why their actions make little sense if viewed through the lens of what is good for the ZUSA. ,
    @Fran Macadam
    Follow the money. ,
    @Connecticut Famer
    What's the point?

    There is a deep-seated, visceral need for an Enemy, that's the point. Any kind of an enemy. At present the Flavor of The Month is Russia, with China waiting in the wings.

    As a footnote--and I wish could remember his name-- but earlier this week O'Reilly had some guy on his show who was a retired USMC "intelligence expert" who said in one breath that the CIA had "proof" that the Rooshians hacked the emails then in the next breath said that the CIA can't release the information as it would compromise their operatives. Yeah, right! ,

    @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?"

    Many or perhaps most Washington elites, including Congressmen, US Supreme Court justices (Kagan, Sotormayor, and Roberts), and the former president are sodomites and pederasts. President Putin's refusal to celebrate their alternative deathstyle INFURIATES them.

    Period. ,

    @DES
    Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the M-I complex faced a big problem: how to maintain huge defense budgets when the main enemy had suddenly disappeared. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 provided them with a temporary solution, as did 9-11. What we are witnessing now is the latest chapter of this saga. Ross Perot was right: follow the money. ,
    @jacques sheete
    What's the point?
    It depends on your point of view. From we schmucks who have to pay for it all, it's worse than pointless. From the rulers' point of view, there are many of them as shown by the other replies.

    To understand their points, here are a few primers.

    Why, my fellow citizens, is there any man here or any woman, let me say is there any child here, who does not know that the seed of war in the modern world is industrial and commercial rivalry? The real reason that the war that we have just finished took place was that Germany was afraid her commercial rivals were going to get the better of her, and' the reason why some nations went into the war against Germany was that they thought Germany would get the commercial advantage of them. The seed of the jealousy, the seed of the deep-seated hatred was hot, successful commercial and industrial rivalry.

    -Woodrow Wilson, Speech at the Coliseum in St. Louis, Missouri, on the Peace Treaty and the League of Nations (5 September 1919)

    In an effort to PREVENT the war that Churchill called "unnecessary," (WW2,) this 2 time Medal of Honor recipient wrote...

    " I spent most of my [33 years in the Marine Corps] being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

    In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for [crony] capitalism."

    Major General Butler USMC, War is a Racket, 1935

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

    Randolph Bourne left an unfinished, unpaginated draft of The State when he died during the flu pandemic of 1918. The draft was published posthumously, with some material incorrectly ordered, in Untimely Papers (1919). Nevertheless, The State , answers your question in detail.
    With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government, with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country into war.

    For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a bigger role in the destiny of the world.

    -Randolph Bourne, The State, From Untimely Papers (1919).


    http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/

    ,
    @ZVD
    Same reason as for hostility toward Serbs! The Serbs did not pose any treat to the Washington "elite", yet they were demonized and destroyed. It was the thirst for Serb blood, and it is the thirst for Russian blood that is the driving force behind the polices of the Washington "elite". Simply put: RUSSOPHOBIA. ,
    @annamaria
    OffGuardian on participation of the Guardian in the anti-Russian folly: https://off-guardian.org/2017/01/06/34553/

    "The Guardian's anti-Putin propaganda has gotten into the bizarre. The editors have lost touch with sanity."

    Why the insanity? - Money.

    "The Guardian and Soros-connected New East Network run anti-Putin and anti-Russia propaganda daily. There is no shortage of pro-Ukraine propaganda either. That propaganda spills over onto the Guardian website. This is a sinister conflict of interest for the Guardian. It should make a full disclosure of the financial arrangements between itself and Soros.

    George Soros has made his fortune on currency speculation, regime change, coups and vulture capitalism. His current venture of destruction is Ukraine. Soros financed NGO's that fueled the US led coup against the elected government of Ukraine and installed a cabal of fascists. Soros is a major backer of anti-Putin NGO's in Russia. Soros constantly lobbies the US and the EU to bail out Ukraine with Billions of dollars, of which he would be a big beneficiary. Soros lobbies the US and the EU to destabilize Russia, which again would benefit him in Billions of dollars (here)."

    Peace is not profitable for the warmongers and financial speculators.

    @USAMNESIA
    Policy wonks reinforcing existing delusional ideology....for example....in September, the Atlantic Council, a mainstream US geopolitical think tank, published a report that predicted a Hobbesian world "marked by the breakdown of order, violent extremism [and] an era of perpetual war". The new enemies were a "resurgent" Russia and an "increasingly aggressive" China. Only heroic America can save us.

    Two highly recommended reads:

    The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government

    THE CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World

    dearieme , January 6, 2017 at 7:39 pm GMT
    @Beckow

    .... ... ...

    "What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations win new markets.

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    to let US corporations win new markets
    In the case of Russia, it's more like natural resources. Also, to weaken a potential geopolitical competitor, to force obedience.

    Also, they need a boogieman, always. The 'Osama bin Laden' character had expired, and so they needed a new face for their hate-weeks. ,

    @Sean
    The only part of the Washington elite that wants to treat Russia as no threat is the part that articulates the views of corporations who want to sell US shale gas technology to Russia, which will sell cheap and clean energy to China so they can destroy American manufacturing jobs. The time has come to try and slow China's growth down. ,
    @annamaria
    Agree. "...the usual point of US foreign policy" is thievery of mineral resources and gold reserves in the hapless countries that were selected to experience the US/NATO "humanitarian interventions" and "democracy on the march"
    Here is a great paper by Robert David Steele, "The Russians Did Not "Hack" the US Election – a Few Facts from a Former CIA Spy:" http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-russians-did-not-hack-the-us-election-a-few-facts-from-a-former-cia-spy/5567215
    Steele gives a well-deserved black eye to the "perfumed princess and princesses" at the State Dept and CIA He simply calls them traitors. Refreshing.
    "Steele served in the Marine Corps as an 0203 Ground Intelligence Officer. After serving 4 years he joined CIA where he served for 10 years (3 tours overseas focused on extremist and terrorist targets). He resigned CIA to accept an invitation from the Marine Corps to stand up the Marine Corps Intelligence Center...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_David_Steele
    Mao Cheng Ji , January 6, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @dearieme
    "What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations win new markets.

    In the case of Russia, it's more like natural resources. Also, to weaken a potential geopolitical competitor, to force obedience.

    Also, they need a boogieman, always. The 'Osama bin Laden' character had expired, and so they needed a new face for their hate-weeks.

    Sean , January 6, 2017 at 9:07 pm GMT
    @dearieme

    "What's the point?" I don't know but the usual point of US foreign policy is to let US corporations win new markets.

    The only part of the Washington elite that wants to treat Russia as no threat is the part that articulates the views of corporations who want to sell US shale gas technology to Russia, which will sell cheap and clean energy to China so they can destroy American manufacturing jobs. The time has come to try and slow China's growth down.

    CK , January 6, 2017 at 9:59 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @Beckow

    Great article, the key question remains: why is there an obsession for a large part of Washington bipartisan elite to have a horrible relationship with Russia?

    It is on its face self-defeating: Russia poses no real threat as a peaceful neighbor, it has lots of resources and the largest consumer market in Europe. Russia is also generally secular, relative socially liberal, and shares many of the same policies as US, e,g. fighting Islamic terrorism, checking China's influence, etc...

    So why the hostility? It makes West weaker, not stronger. It hurts global economy, it increases risks of a nuclear confrontation. It also cannot really achieve much beyond continued hostility and shouting at each other.

    Unless I am missing something, the hostility with Russia has no conceivable - and realistic - final outcome . Russia is not about to collapse, and it is not about to revert to a Western-run 90's 'liberal' utopia. Any actual and realistic threat to Russia's existence could trigger a nuclear war - no winners there.

    The disputes - from Crimea to Syria, from 'hacking' to Pussy Rioters - are oversimplified and intentionally misrepresented by the West. All of these issues are more complex, less clear-cut, and there is a valid and rational point of view on Russia's side.

    So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?

    Putin has reversed the Yeltsin era oligarchy that was bent on looting everything moveable in Russia. In doing so he pissed off some very connected Americans and Israelis. They want to get back to the loot trough. Sometimes it is as simple as evil men wanting to steal the wealth of others and hating those who stop them.

    @Wally
    Indeed, Putin actually prosecuted some Chosenites. An unforgivable sin for a goy to engage in. Then Putin put the kabosh on Israeli plans for Syria.

    Hence the absurd hacking claims promoted in the Zionist media.

    Harry107 , January 6, 2017 at 11:36 pm GMT • 300 Words
    @Beckow

    Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:

    - Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.

    - The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.

    - Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative as the US was in the 70′s. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have inordinate control.

    - Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15′s in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)

    - The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression. The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations.

    @Beckow
    I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points - and the points about resources, obedience and pure anger at losing the 90's opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?

    It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work - one cannot wish reality away and Russia is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)

    So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the sacred election - it is an act of war!!!!" - where would you even start a rational discussion on this?

    Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they don't much care for reality. ,

    @Abbybwood
    Also Russia has banned GMO's and they are giving safe haven to Edward Snowden.
    Beckow , January 7, 2017 at 2:20 am GMT • 200 Words
    @Harry107
    Are you kidding? Russia represents everything the Anglo-Zionist empire hates and fears:

    - Russia is sovereign and not under the control of financial interests. It is not possible to financially strip-mine Russia. For example, the Russian central band keeps real interest rates above 3%, allowing savers to keep the benefit of their savings, unlike in the West.

    - The Russian state under Putin has overthrown financial oligarch control, and the people know this. This accounts for his extraordinary popularity.

    - Russia is a Christian country which has built or reopened an astounding 30,000 churches in the last three years. They do not allow gay marriage and are about as socially conservative as the US was in the 70's. Jews are not allowed to dominate the national conversation or have inordinate control.

    - Russia manufactures their own armaments and is a strong arms export competitor. The Russian state gets much more bang for their armament buck than we do, being effectively equal to us with 1/10 the military spending. This is more evidence of the independence of the state from financial oligarchs. Currently, Russian jets and missiles are markedly superior to American ones. (Don't believe me? Google "F-15's in Syria" The Pentagon responded to Russia bringing advanced jets to Syria by transferring a squadron of F-15E's to Syria. The F-15 entered service in 1974. Each successive generation of US fighter jets since then has had inferior performance to its predecessor. This is disgraceful.)

    - The very existence of Russian independence is a mortal threat to the evil Anglo-Zionist empire. Look at Snowden, still walking and breathing and calling bullshit on American retrogression. The existence of one free country holds out a dangerous example to all other nations.

    I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points – and the points about resources, obedience and pure anger at losing the 90′s opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?

    It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work – one cannot wish reality away and Russia is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)

    So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the sacred election – it is an act of war!!!!" – where would you even start a rational discussion on this?

    Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they don't much care for reality.

    @RudyM
    But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me. ,
    @SmoothieX12
    But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control.
    1. LOL.
    2. What is so "advanced" about such shitholes as Marseilles or Malmo? ,
    @utu
    "But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?"

    I am glad you are persistent in asking these questions and being satisfied by answers being offered. I do not have answer either. But I may ask more questions.

    What was the true objective of 2009 Reset? Was it trap? Who really sabotaged it?

    Perhaps we must go back to 2009 and the Reset that Hillary and Obama started with Russia. In Sept. 2009 Obama cancelled the defensive shield in Poland and Czech Republic and then in April 2010 they signed START treaty in Prague. What Obama wanted to get from Russia in return? What else Russia wanted? Or was it trap? But the relations remained good even after Polish president and all Polish NATO generals got killed in Smolensk in April 2010 three days after signing the START treaty.

    There are various theories about the crash in Smolensk. One of them is that it was a false flag intending to implicate Russia and destroy the Reset and possibly it was a part of a coup against Putin.

    Who was behind it? The hawks and neocons (in cooperation with Russia's GRU elements) wanted to proceed with the operation against Iran while Obama and Putin were against it? After Smolensk the de facto no-fly zone was imposed over the whole Europe (Eyjafjallajökull volcano) when perhaps the fate of relationship with Russia and perhaps the fate of the world was being decided. Did Putin find out who was really behind the Smolensk crash? Anyway the Reset was then preserved. Who had to bend over backwards more: Obama or Putin? In later part of 2010 a major shake up in GRU took place and several generals ended up having accidents and some units of GRU were reassigned to FSB.

    Things started going sour in 2012 when the operation in Libya started. Medvedev who was then a president must have been asleep at the switch and did not veto it in UN. Putin watched the video of Qaddafi being murdered several times and allegedly vowed to never let anything like this happen again. He also became president that year, The US was meddling in the election process against him. In parallel with Libya the operation in Syria started. Fighters and weapons were moved between the two countries. It was happening as if against the will of Obama. In Sept. 2013 Putin kind of saved Obama's ass who clearly did not want to go ahead with bombing of Syria by having Assad giving up his chemical weapons. Neocons were furious.

    One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like Obama. And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons. But after that not much has changed. Money and support for rebels was flowing from the US and other countries. This tells you that the colossus like America has its momentum and policies that will not easily change regardless of will and beliefs of some people in power. Hersh wrote article on how gen. Dempsey and DIA was sabotaging CIA in Syria by sending defective weapon supplies to rebels supposedly to gain credibility in the eyes of Assad to keep the communication channels open with Damascus via Berlin, Tel Aviv and Moscow.

    Then in 2014 the anti-Russian coup was engineered in Ukraine (some thing it was neocon's revenge for Putin's meddling in their meddling in Syria) that forced Russia to annex Crimea. He had no choice. And this is how Putin became a new Stalin and Hitler. The war against Putin and Putin's Russia was in the open.

    In winter 2014/2015 a brand new project called IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was unveiled with saturated media campaign of their self-advertised atrocities. I think that many videos of executions were staged. And what was their purpose? It allowed the US to create a coalition to start bombing the ISIS also in Syria. Lots of countries joined it: Denmark, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and later Australia in 2015 and France. But their bombings were anemic at least as ISIS in Syria was concerned. Did they bomb Syrian forces? The coalition did not have a mandate for the no-fly zone as they had in Libya that if they had it, it would finish Assad off.

    I like to think that the next stage in attempt to escalate crisis in Syria was the refugee crisis in 2015. Somebody organized it. Somebody cut off UN funding to refugee camps in Turkey. Somebody took care of logistics. Lots of money. Maps to Germany in Arabic. It was not Germany doing it, was it? Was it to get the public opinion of Europe behind the final solution of Syrian crisis by destroying Assad? Would the escalation in Syria where Iranian troops were fighting destroy the deal Obama was working with Iran? Was Merkel's decision to embrace the invaders a way to diffuse the crisis and avert calls for no-fly zone? Did her decision give Putin extra few weeks to prepare Russia's engagement in Syria?

    Did Trump in June 2015 know about the impeding refugee crisis in Europe. His speech about illegals, border and wall preceded pictures of marching columns of young men approaching Hungarian and then Slovenian (Melania's home country) borders by about six weeks. Who was Trump's source? Our military or Netanyahu? Those who engineered that crisis?

    In all this it beats me what was Netanyahu's role. Surely he wanted to attack Iran. Surely he wanted to have Syria destroyed and destabilized. So why he was so nice to Putin? What took place between him and Putin in Moscow in summer 2015? Then he went there two more times. A bromance? Why Israel was so obliging to Russia engagement in Syria in which Russia used small and inferior force? Just four dozens of planes with one dozen of fighter planes while Israel itself has over 400 F-15 and F-16 and Turkey over 200?

    Why are they so afraid of Putin? What kind of goods Putin has on them? Certainly it is not because of Russia's military strength. ,

    @annamaria
    "What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today?"
    It is a vicious hatred of expropriators towards any resistance to their thieving-thuggish advances. They want these mineral resources now. They want this gold reserve now. The cognitive cacophony among the "deciders" is beyond comprehension: they are afraid of truth like vampires are afraid of light. This seems like a consequence of weeding out the principled and competent among the highest echelons of US government. Instead, as the propornot story shows, there is a triumph of DC career opportunists who would say anything and would do anything to get their money and to maintain their power. Rather scary.
    Cato , January 7, 2017 at 2:31 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Beckow

    You ask the question I've been asking myself. I don't have an answer, but I've wondered if it could be any of these:

    * inertia (the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I)
    * anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
    * profits (the Military-Industrial Complex has settled on Russia as the threat that will justify the weapons systems they want to sell)
    * Europe (Russia is the only power that could draw away our European vassal states–the Germans were particularly cozy with Putin right before Ukraine blew up; the Gulenist coup happened just weeks after Erdogan got friendly with Russia)
    * petroleum (can't quite see how that fits here, but oil and gas are usually involved in Deep State machinations)

    But it could be all or none of these

    RudyM , January 7, 2017 at 3:24 am GMT • 100 Words @Beckow
    I am not 'kidding', I am quite serious. You make good points - and the points about resources, obedience and pure anger at losing the 90's opportunity to steal, all of that is true. But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?

    It also clearly doesn't work, and it cannot work - one cannot wish reality away and Russia is not going to be defeated by these silly temper tantrums. I am assuming that we are dealing with grown-up, serious people in Washington (and Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London), they must know that the screaming and demonization do nothing to weaken Russia. If this is an infantile anger at recent setbacks, it will blow over. But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control. (Or do they?)

    So what if this is not just infantile screaming by people who lost their toys and want to show their anger. What if this is the way the Washington grown-ups are today? What if they genuinely lost it and truly believe all this insane stuff: "Putin wanted to influence the sacred election - it is an act of war!!!!" - where would you even start a rational discussion on this?

    Civilizations collapse when their rational core is replaced by ambitious morons who can no longer tell the difference between reality and their own "narrative", and even worse they don't much care for reality.

    But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?

    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.

    @Beckow
    "fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area"
    Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria - it doesn't matter that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?

    I agree about gays, that is a secondary driver for the hate campaign. They are a derivative ally.

    The problem with the Brzezinski explanation is that it only partially fits the facts: the early Obama administration genuinely tried to have better relations with Russia. And Brzezinski for all his Russo-phobic reputation is actually a realist and has spoken out against the excesses in the last few years. There is the usual 'neo-con grandkids of pogrom refugees' - yes, many are, but there are also many who are from the same background who are not obsessive Russia haters, often just the opposite.

    "the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I"
    There are some old Cold Warriors and some still angry at Vietcong (McCain), but the recent energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people - often millennials and recent Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?

    The military spending goes on and on - the need for an excuse is hard to document. There is almost no chance that some program would get cancelled because there are not "sufficient enemies" - so that explanation also seems secondary.

    It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is just stupidity - ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests, how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders. But they don't know or care about much else. It is an elevated form of shallowness and mental lazyness. But it remains a puzzle. How can an advanced society drop its intellectual standards so quickly? ,

    @Anonymous
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
    The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack staged by Turks and CIA). ,
    @Anonymous
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.
    The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack staged by Turks and CIA).
    RudyM , January 7, 2017 at 3:27 am GMT

    * anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)

    In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to whip up some popular liberal support for it.

    @Randal
    In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to whip up some popular liberal support for it.
    Cato's approach of looking for a range of reasons is clearly the right one, since there is no one authority driving policy, but rather a range of groups whose interests converge in one policy direction on a particular issue. This is true for any substantial state and for any sufficiently significant policy area, and especially so for US foreign policy. Looking for one single reason why any major policy direction is pursued is futile.

    As such, the homosexual lobby is clearly one of the forces driving anti-Russian policy in US sphere countries, if not necessarily the most powerful. I think it should not be too blithely underestimated, though, as a part of the general globalist/antinationalist/social radical ideological alliance that dominates the US sphere media and political high ground.

    That said, you are clearly also correct that US regime frustration with Russian involvement in defeating their regime change project in Syria is also clearly very significant, although anti-Russian sentiment in the US regime long predates that particular issue.

    RudyM , January 7, 2017 at 3:32 am GMT • 300 Words

    I think these remarks from Frances Boyle are worth considering, as well, although this sometimes sounds like it might have been translated from English into Russian and back again, or something of that sort:

    I regret to say what we are seeing here in the Unites States are the ascendancy of two factions in this country who are against Russia and the Russians. First is Brzezinski, who was Obama's mentor when Obama was a college student in Columbia, and Brzezinski in 2008 ran all the foreign affairs and defence policies of the Obama presidential campaign and has stacked his administration with advisor on Russia at the National Security Council comes from the Brzezinski's outpoll CSIS there in Washington D.C. I graduated from the same Ph.D. programme at Harvard that produced Brzezinski before me.

    He is a die-hard Russian hater, he hates Russia, he hates the Russian, and he wants to break Russia up into its constituent units, and, unfortunately, he has his people, his proteges in the Democratic Party and in this Administration. Second faction lining against Russia are the neo-conservatives, for e.g. this latest Brookings Institute report calling for arming the Ukrainian military in these Nazi formations which is now reflected in this latest bill just introduced into the Congress yesterday, and the neoconservatives feel exactly the same way against Russia and the Russians.

    I went to school with large numbers of these neoconservatives at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia and the Russians. So you have two very powerful factions here in the United States against Russia and the Russians who are driving this policy, and I regret to report there are very few voices opposing this.

    http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/16-02-2015/129834-brzezinski_russia-0/

    But again, to the question why now? I would point to Russia's interferene with attempts to overthrow Assad and shatter Syria.

    @Wally
    "Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia ... "

    What pogroms? Got proof or just Zionist talk?

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    Joe Franklin , January 7, 2017 at 3:41 am GMT

    Obama and his professional disinformation minions concocted a Russia-hacking-DNC BS story to rationalize to the public their desires to punish Russia for thwarting their evil plans in Ukraine and Syria.

    Fran Macadam , January 7, 2017 at 4:04 am GMT

    All I have to say about the liars who will say and do anything to ramp up war in the world, for fun and profit, is:

    Sad!

    SmoothieX12 , • Website January 7, 2017 at 4:24 am GMT
    @Beckow

    But I would think that advanced Western societies have their resident infantilism under control.

    1. LOL.
    2. What is so "advanced" about such shitholes as Marseilles or Malmo?

    Bill Jones , January 7, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT

    What sort of moron ever doubted it was a hoax?

    @Olorin
    Morons like these:

    http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

    Who comprise about half of those who voted on Nov. 8.

    I have found it hard to reserve even shallow attention for the hacking/interference allegations, never mind apply deep reasoning to it. So I appreciate pieces like this.

    I have assumed from the get-go that these narratives' sole purpose was for the Dems--or more specifically their funders/puppetmasters--to stay in the headlines by any means necessary. "Stay in the headlines" means "work the system to maintain the position to keep telling stories." As any PR or advertising or marketing specialist can tell you, the most important part of a PR or ad or marketing campaign is to stay on message. The message doesn't have to make sense or be true, because its mere repetition is the point, not its content.

    These stories serve to keep that voter base paying attention and emotionally mobilized. The stories don't have to make sense or be true. This isn't reason playing out, it's secular-religious hysteria.

    The Dems appeal to a chunk of the electorate that operates from emotionalism, messianic zeal that flips over to destructive rage, virtue signaling, and a desire to feel like heroes for rebelling against whatever whatever.

    Beckow , January 7, 2017 at 5:10 am GMT • 300 Words
    @RudyM
    But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.

    "fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area"

    Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria – it doesn't matter that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?

    I agree about gays, that is a secondary driver for the hate campaign. They are a derivative ally.

    The problem with the Brzezinski explanation is that it only partially fits the facts: the early Obama administration genuinely tried to have better relations with Russia. And Brzezinski for all his Russo-phobic reputation is actually a realist and has spoken out against the excesses in the last few years. There is the usual 'neo-con grandkids of pogrom refugees' – yes, many are, but there are also many who are from the same background who are not obsessive Russia haters, often just the opposite.

    "the old guys running things might still be stuck in Cold War I"

    There are some old Cold Warriors and some still angry at Vietcong (McCain), but the recent energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people – often millennials and recent Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?

    The military spending goes on and on – the need for an excuse is hard to document. There is almost no chance that some program would get cancelled because there are not "sufficient enemies" – so that explanation also seems secondary.

    It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is just stupidity – ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests, how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders. But they don't know or care about much else. It is an elevated form of shallowness and mental lazyness. But it remains a puzzle. How can an advanced society drop its intellectual standards so quickly?

    @RudyM
    Clearly that is the strategic goal. But it has already succeeded in Syria – it doesn't matter that Assad is staying, Syria is fragmented. Since the goal has been achieved, why would the symbolic defeat in Aleppo trigger this level of hostility?
    I was thinking of "now" in terms of a larger time-frame, going back at least to the Sochi olympics, which is when I started to especially take notice of the anti-Russia rhetoric. So I wasn't thinking of Aleppo specifically, but going back to Russia's negotiation to thwart an attack on Syria in response to the chemical attack which was being blamed on the Syrian government. That seems to be when things really started heating up.

    Syria is fragmented, but it's not over yet. I think it may be made more whole in the future. Additionally, it hasn't been fragmented to the extent originally desired.

    And there must be some anger that Russia would step in and intervene at all, even if much of what was desired has already been accomplished.

    Brzezinski has at times expressed more moderate opinions, but most of what I've seen, even in recent years, has been quite anti-Russian. Maybe I've missed some statements, but what I've seen from him has been pretty consistent in treating the situation in the Ukraine as a case of Russian aggression, deserving sanctions at least. And the "reset" under Obama I would need to go back and look at more closely. Is it possible it was a feint of some sort? I have to admit I wasn't following US-Russian policy very closely at the time.

    And I'm not sure about the bitter Jewish pogrom-survivor angle. I don't know enough about that history or what the average intellectual with Russian Jewish ancestry thinks about Russia.

    [B]ut the recent energy in the Attack-Russia crowd comes from the younger people – often millennials and recent Ivy League graduates in the media and in Washington. They are post Cold War and their hatred seems fresh and genuine. How does one explain that phenomenon?
    This may be lazy but I'd say that in many cases it's because it's the Zionist line right now. The LGBT angle also makes it easy to whip up opposition toward Russia. In general, Russia has come to represent in many westerners' minds the anti-liberal. ,
    @anonymous
    It is a puzzle, there doesn't seem to exist any adequate explanation. Maybe it really is just stupidity – ambitious people who are where they are because they know how to take tests, how to write 'memos', and how to please their elders.
    One interpretation might be that American capitalism is based upon the need for constant expansion and in the course of that expansion obstacles along the way must be overcome. If it can no longer grow and expand it'll implode upon itself. This is the inner dynamic forcing it's outward movement. Russia has risen from the wreckage of twenty-five years ago and is now ascendant and represents a barrier. It has sabotaged US schemes in Ukraine and Syria and is asserting it's own sphere of interest. An implosion of the US balloon would be disastrous since there is no ethnic, political or cultural cohesiveness within it to soften the impact.
    The leadership has become divorced from everyday reality. Most are theorists with no real-world experience and all come out of the same 3-4 universities. In late stage empires that crumble the leadership class are often absorbed in petty rivalries, become decadent hedonists and distrust their own population. Incompetent and uncaring, they're prone to rashness and taking the empire down with them. The US seems to be at that point.
    Bill Jones , January 7, 2017 at 5:11 am GMT
    @Sean
    The Russians are treating Trump like an imbecile, they're yet again announcing they're pulling out of Syria

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/russia-withdraw-armed-forces-syria-aircraft-carrier-group-civil-war-ceasefire-assad-regime-ally-a7512541.html

    Whatever they did or didn't do, Trump has been made to look small, and that is the one thing he cannot stand. Putin will soon be wishing that Hillary had won.

    FOAD, TROLL

    Bill Jones , January 7, 2017 at 5:13 am GMT
    @Beckow

    ... ... ...

    So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?

    War, cold or hot, sells weapons. The warmongers own the politicians. You've never figured this out?

    Carlton Meyer , • Website January 7, 2017 at 5:54 am GMT

    The insanity continues as "liberal" Senator Chuck Schumer (D-Israel) suggested that the Intelligence agencies will "get back" at President Trump, and that all Americans should praise their secret and mostly illegal, unconstitutional, and inhuman efforts. The few remaining true progressives/liberals in America must have gagged at his comments.

    @El Dato
    Wow.

    Did I just watch an eager underling and an oozing mobster discuss the next brilliant, brilliant hit to get back on top?

    "We need the Intelligence Community. Without them we wouldn't have discovered the Russian hacking".

    Really.

    NoseytheDuke , January 7, 2017 at 6:08 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Beckow

    The backers of HRC seek global domination and they know that time is against them. They have over-reached and now find themselves on the back foot. They are ruthless and desperate so this is why their actions make little sense if viewed through the lens of what is good for the ZUSA.

    Giuseppe , January 7, 2017 at 6:27 am GMT

    If Russian hackers did not exist, it would be necessary for the CIA to invent them. The Empire's geopolitical agenda of putting Russia in its place is thereby advanced, the truth of the allegations is irrelevent.

    WorkingClass , January 7, 2017 at 6:55 am GMT • 200 Words

    That Trump is a Russian agent is a big fat stupid naked lie riding on the back of an even bigger lie. The lie that Russia is a threat to the U.S. Its a pity that so many man hours must be devoted to refuting it. The lie is perpetrated by imperialists who intend to rule the world by force of arms. They are psychotic and extremely dangerous to the people of earth. Bubba, Dubya and Obama have been happy to serve them. Hillary was to be the fourth horseman.

    The fourth horseman is mentioned in Revelation 6:8, "I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. "

    Trump is not an imperialist. He is not one of them. He is his own man. He is a nationalist. He would be a player in a multi-polar world. He is a threat to their insane plans. They have tried and are trying to neutralize him with lies and slander and have failed. Now they must deal with him or martyr him. Which will it be?

    @El Dato
    I always thought the "Whore of Babylon" was a better fit for She Who Must Be Elected.
    Diversity Heretic , January 7, 2017 at 6:58 am GMT • 100 Words

    I have read with interest the various explanations about why the United States's foreign policy seems so pointlessly anti-Russian. There are a lot of reasons, ably articulated by the commenters. It seems to me that, to put it bluntly, the United States, or at least a good portion of its leadership, is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown, brought on by Donald Trump's unexpected election.

    I would counsel Russia and its leadership to be very careful in dealing with the U.S. -- you simply can't tell what an irrational person/nation might do.

    @Olorin
    Good point...though I'm guessing that the Russians got a whiff of your closing point sometime in 2008. :)
    Harry107 , January 7, 2017 at 7:16 am GMT • 200 Words

    Allow me to propose another cause for the mysterious Anglo-Zionist hostility toward Russia.

    That is, the instability of the empire. The huge military spending supports the Petrodollar system. The petrodollar system keeps the dollar as reserve currency. Then dollar creation by the federal reserve taxes all users of the dollar, or the world. This tax helps finance the military spending. And so on, ad infinitum. This positive feedback loop holds the status quo in the current state.

    But if the petrodollar system is broken, the US will have to pay its own way. The US tax cows would rebel, then bye bye to the empire. Imagine if Germany and Russia joined in a trade zone, let alone a gold standard union. The US standard of living would drop like a rock overnight. We'd have to relearn to produce stuff. Perhaps US oligarchs would lose control in the resulting social disruption.

    So to avoid this scenario, the US deep state whips up anti-Russian hysteria aimed at both US and European sheeple.

    @Bill
    Great comment. It's worth noting, though, that the US standard of living in the intermediate to long run would not drop for the middle and working classes. It's the looter class (and their clients in the underclass and the bureaucracies to serve them) which would lose out in a really big way.
    edNels , January 7, 2017 at 7:18 am GMT • 200 Words

    Well they couldn't put the Pantsuit into the President suite. Even when they got the best bunch of ducks in a row ever! Almost the perfect storm of idiots all in sink to force or cram the worst of the evils, two or more) even against unlikely DT, and with the PTB & company jumping ship from the Republicans enmasse, still they got beat.

    The Democrats almost had the thing, But they are myopic special issue, (needs) Identity politics people, and not of sufficient caliber to be involved in international diplomacy etc.

    I see several commenters have mentioned dumb and stupid, as reasons, I agree, these nitwits are way out of their element, and as to why they pick on Russia now, because they are naive enough to think they can snub, insult, push with impunity, and they seem to be getting away with it. But they hurt America, for having such low grade fools representing it. A bunch of cretinous egotists who are run secretly by puppeteers, and backed up by brute force.

    utu , January 7, 2017 at 7:23 am GMT • 1,000 Words
    @Beckow

    "But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?"

    I am glad you are persistent in asking these questions and being satisfied by answers being offered. I do not have answer either. But I may ask more questions.

    What was the true objective of 2009 Reset? Was it trap? Who really sabotaged it?

    Perhaps we must go back to 2009 and the Reset that Hillary and Obama started with Russia. In Sept. 2009 Obama cancelled the defensive shield in Poland and Czech Republic and then in April 2010 they signed START treaty in Prague. What Obama wanted to get from Russia in return? What else Russia wanted? Or was it trap? But the relations remained good even after Polish president and all Polish NATO generals got killed in Smolensk in April 2010 three days after signing the START treaty.

    There are various theories about the crash in Smolensk. One of them is that it was a false flag intending to implicate Russia and destroy the Reset and possibly it was a part of a coup against Putin.

    Who was behind it? The hawks and neocons (in cooperation with Russia's GRU elements) wanted to proceed with the operation against Iran while Obama and Putin were against it? After Smolensk the de facto no-fly zone was imposed over the whole Europe (Eyjafjallajökull volcano) when perhaps the fate of relationship with Russia and perhaps the fate of the world was being decided. Did Putin find out who was really behind the Smolensk crash? Anyway the Reset was then preserved. Who had to bend over backwards more: Obama or Putin? In later part of 2010 a major shake up in GRU took place and several generals ended up having accidents and some units of GRU were reassigned to FSB.

    Things started going sour in 2012 when the operation in Libya started. Medvedev who was then a president must have been asleep at the switch and did not veto it in UN. Putin watched the video of Qaddafi being murdered several times and allegedly vowed to never let anything like this happen again. He also became president that year, The US was meddling in the election process against him. In parallel with Libya the operation in Syria started. Fighters and weapons were moved between the two countries. It was happening as if against the will of Obama. In Sept. 2013 Putin kind of saved Obama's ass who clearly did not want to go ahead with bombing of Syria by having Assad giving up his chemical weapons. Neocons were furious.

    One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like Obama. And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons. But after that not much has changed. Money and support for rebels was flowing from the US and other countries. This tells you that the colossus like America has its momentum and policies that will not easily change regardless of will and beliefs of some people in power. Hersh wrote article on how gen. Dempsey and DIA was sabotaging CIA in Syria by sending defective weapon supplies to rebels supposedly to gain credibility in the eyes of Assad to keep the communication channels open with Damascus via Berlin, Tel Aviv and Moscow.

    Then in 2014 the anti-Russian coup was engineered in Ukraine (some thing it was neocon's revenge for Putin's meddling in their meddling in Syria) that forced Russia to annex Crimea. He had no choice. And this is how Putin became a new Stalin and Hitler. The war against Putin and Putin's Russia was in the open.

    In winter 2014/2015 a brand new project called IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh was unveiled with saturated media campaign of their self-advertised atrocities. I think that many videos of executions were staged. And what was their purpose? It allowed the US to create a coalition to start bombing the ISIS also in Syria. Lots of countries joined it: Denmark, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and later Australia in 2015 and France. But their bombings were anemic at least as ISIS in Syria was concerned. Did they bomb Syrian forces? The coalition did not have a mandate for the no-fly zone as they had in Libya that if they had it, it would finish Assad off.

    I like to think that the next stage in attempt to escalate crisis in Syria was the refugee crisis in 2015. Somebody organized it. Somebody cut off UN funding to refugee camps in Turkey. Somebody took care of logistics. Lots of money. Maps to Germany in Arabic. It was not Germany doing it, was it? Was it to get the public opinion of Europe behind the final solution of Syrian crisis by destroying Assad? Would the escalation in Syria where Iranian troops were fighting destroy the deal Obama was working with Iran? Was Merkel's decision to embrace the invaders a way to diffuse the crisis and avert calls for no-fly zone? Did her decision give Putin extra few weeks to prepare Russia's engagement in Syria?

    Did Trump in June 2015 know about the impeding refugee crisis in Europe. His speech about illegals, border and wall preceded pictures of marching columns of young men approaching Hungarian and then Slovenian (Melania's home country) borders by about six weeks. Who was Trump's source? Our military or Netanyahu? Those who engineered that crisis?

    In all this it beats me what was Netanyahu's role. Surely he wanted to attack Iran. Surely he wanted to have Syria destroyed and destabilized. So why he was so nice to Putin? What took place between him and Putin in Moscow in summer 2015? Then he went there two more times. A bromance? Why Israel was so obliging to Russia engagement in Syria in which Russia used small and inferior force? Just four dozens of planes with one dozen of fighter planes while Israel itself has over 400 F-15 and F-16 and Turkey over 200?

    Why are they so afraid of Putin? What kind of goods Putin has on them? Certainly it is not because of Russia's military strength.

    @Mao Cheng Ji
    some think it was neocon's revenge
    I'm not a fan of assigning human motivations (like revenge) to institutions (like the US establishment), but if I was trying to explain the recent escalations by the revenge motive, then I would probably put sheltering Snowden front and center.

    I don't think the crash in Smolensk is an issue; it has always been clear what happened there, and it's nothing sinister. ,

    @Randal
    One reason I am very interested in this is because I am looking for reasons to like Obama. And Syria in 2013 might be one of these reasons.
    I've never liked Obama, and I'm not looking for reasons to like him, but Syria 2013 is certainly a strongly arguable point in his favour.

    Apart from that, it's hard not to admire his glorious parting middle finger to the Israel lobby with the recent UN resolution. ,

    @Bill
    Good stuff. ,
    @RudyM
    In general outline, this is pretty close to how I see it. I remember realizing that ISIS/Daesh was being used as an excuse to go into Syria. I don't think I realized immediately that it was also just another proxy force used to overthrow Assad. So, typically, it was used for two purposes, just as Al Qaeda has been used to target governments the US wants to weaken, while also being blamed for attacks on western interests (9/11 being the most spectacular) and used as an excuse for war. It's an elegantly multi-purpose operation. ,
    @Capn Mike
    Maybe Bibi's affection for Russia has a domestic component. There is a huge influx of Russians into Israel and I presume they vote.
    Fran Macadam , January 7, 2017 at 8:00 am GMT
    @Beckow

    So why this unrelenting drive for more and more hostility? Can anyone explain this? Are there some deep emotional issues among the Washington elite? What's the point?

    Follow the money.

    Wally , • Website January 7, 2017 at 8:31 am GMT
    @RudyM

    I think these remarks from Frances Boyle are worth considering, as well, although this sometimes sounds like it might have been translated from English into Russian and back again, or something of that sort:

    I regret to say what we are seeing here in the Unites States are the ascendancy of two factions in this country who are against Russia and the Russians. First is Brzezinski, who was Obama's mentor when Obama was a college student in Columbia, and Brzezinski in 2008 ran all the foreign affairs and defence policies of the Obama presidential campaign and has stacked his administration with advisor on Russia at the National Security Council comes from the Brzezinski's outpoll CSIS there in Washington D.C. I graduated from the same Ph.D. programme at Harvard that produced Brzezinski before me.

    He is a die-hard Russian hater, he hates Russia, he hates the Russian, and he wants to break Russia up into its constituent units, and, unfortunately, he has his people, his proteges in the Democratic Party and in this Administration. Second faction lining against Russia are the neo-conservatives, for e.g. this latest Brookings Institute report calling for arming the Ukrainian military in these Nazi formations which is now reflected in this latest bill just introduced into the Congress yesterday, and the neoconservatives feel exactly the same way against Russia and the Russians.

    I went to school with large numbers of these neoconservatives at the University of Chicago, Wolfowitz and all the rest of them. Many of them are grandchildren of Jewish people, who fled the pogroms against Jews, and they have been brainwashed against Russia and the Russians. So you have two very powerful factions here in the United States against Russia and the Russians who are driving this policy, and I regret to report there are very few voices opposing this.

    http://www.pravdareport.com/news/world/16-02-2015/129834-brzezinski_russia-0/

    But again, to the question why now? I would point to Russia's interferene with attempts to overthrow Assad and shatter Syria.

    ... ... ...

    @RudyM
    Wally, I was just quoting what Francis Boyle had to say, not necessarily endorsing every part of it. I don't know that much about Russian history. (Sorry, I don't know much about anything.) As for the 6,000,000, yeah, it's very dubious, to put it mildly. I have serious doubts about the official Holocaust story, but I haven't dug into it enough to make a strong assertion about it one way or another. I'll just say the arguments against it are much stronger than I ever expected before I started looking.
    animalogic , January 7, 2017 at 8:55 am GMT • 100 Words

    Agree with most reasons given for the current hyped hostility to Russia. Two extra points:

    1. Trump publicly "aligned" himself with a more "open" policy towards Russia. When the leaks occurred it made sense to the DNC to link & tar BOTH Trump & Russia with every evil under the sun (two for price of one). And naturally the anti-trump forces continue with the farce.(Imagine charging a president-elect with treason as some in the msm have done : mind-boggling !)

    2. Hyping up the Russia-hate is handy for any future false flags, provocations etc to justify retaliation.

    Timur The Lame , January 7, 2017 at 10:01 am GMT • 200 Words

    There are many plausible reasons for the anti-Russian dialogue specifically the alleged vote hack scenario but one cannot discount a very obvious one and that is the destroyed credibility of the MSM in the mob's eyes.

    How else to explain that they all walked in lockstep and some major ones were predicting a Gorgon landslide and equally the statistical impossibility of a Trump win right up to election night only to have major ostrich egg on their collective faces the next morning. "Hell hath no fury like fake news outlets scorned" as Francis Bacon might say.

    So now the implication would be that they were right (as always) but some evil elf in the Kremlin changed the tally. Lame for sure but we are dealing with lamestream media. The top honchos know that their days of influence are numbered. Only a collective ignorance can delay their demise.

    A small point I wish to make taken from the body of the article is that whenever someone states that a controversial document ( perhaps The Protocols) are a forgery, it is incumbent for someone disagreeing to state "a forgery of what?" A forgery is not the same as a fake document created out of whole cloth.

    Cheers-

    Olorin , January 7, 2017 at 10:25 am GMT • 100 Words
    @Bill Jones
    What sort of moron ever doubted it was a hoax?

    Morons like these:

    http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

    Who comprise about half of those who voted on Nov. 8.

    I have found it hard to reserve even shallow attention for the hacking/interference allegations, never mind apply deep reasoning to it. So I appreciate pieces like this.

    I have assumed from the get-go that these narratives' sole purpose was for the Dems–or more specifically their funders/puppetmasters–to stay in the headlines by any means necessary. "Stay in the headlines" means "work the system to maintain the position to keep telling stories." As any PR or advertising or marketing specialist can tell you, the most important part of a PR or ad or marketing campaign is to stay on message. The message doesn't have to make sense or be true, because its mere repetition is the point, not its content.

    These stories serve to keep that voter base paying attention and emotionally mobilized. The stories don't have to make sense or be true. This isn't reason playing out, it's secular-religious hysteria.

    The Dems appeal to a chunk of the electorate that operates from emotionalism, messianic zeal that flips over to destructive rage, virtue signaling, and a desire to feel like heroes for rebelling against whatever whatever.

    Olorin , January 7, 2017 at 10:32 am GMT
    @Diversity Heretic
    I have read with interest the various explanations about why the United States's foreign policy seems so pointlessly anti-Russian. There are a lot of reasons, ably articulated by the commenters. It seems to me that, to put it bluntly, the United States, or at least a good portion of its leadership, is in the midst of a national nervous breakdown, brought on by Donald Trump's unexpected election. I would counsel Russia and its leadership to be very careful in dealing with the U.S.--you simply can't tell what an irrational person/nation might do.

    Good point though I'm guessing that the Russians got a whiff of your closing point sometime in 2008. :)

    Brás Cubas , January 7, 2017 at 11:34 am GMT • 100 Words

    Excellent piece. Congratulations to Ron Unz for hiring such a superb mind!

    As for what lays ahead, Trump's resourcefulness, which seemed endless during the campaign, may surprise us yet again during his term.

    However this turns out, it will be fun to watch (for me, anyway, from outside the U.S.A.)

    Robert Magill , January 7, 2017 at 11:46 am GMT • 100 Words

    Things are crawling out of the woodwork. This election cycle for no intended reason has become an accidental fumigator of creepy crawlies.

    It has also started a sort of political trench warfare between the two principal creeper nests.

    We've known of the existence of the so called 'deep state' but now, at last, we realize how shallow it really is.

    more https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2017/01/07/jeepers-creepers/

    Randal , January 7, 2017 at 11:52 am GMT • 300 Words

    What I am interested in is what will be the Trump regime's response to this comedic but open assault by the politicised US intelligence establishment. The Democrats are gloating that the US security elite are far too dangerous for any mere elected official to tangle with , but it seems to me Trump can't hope to rule effectively if he lets this pass.

    He will have to frame any action within loud support for protecting America's security, but it seems to me he must have ways of responding. It will be interesting to see if he uses them. I am not all that familiar with the ins and outs of the top levels of the US security bureaucracy, but here's the view of someone who is:

    I would think that the Trump Administration will go through the ranks of the SES/SIS position holders at CIA/DIA/NSA, etc. like a scythe. These folks, of whom I was one (SES-4) are not career protected like the lower members of the federal civil service. In return for their elevated rank (equivalent to military flag officers) they lack actual legal job security and can be much more easily removed. They are usually highly politicized schemers and enablers for their presidential appointee bosses at the very top of the food chain. But who will run things!? Well, pilgrims there are lots of eager beaver GS-15s awaiting their turn and eager to prove their loyally to the administration.

    Surely this will have to be the first item on Trump's action list once in office? I mean, the dangers to him of leaving these people in place are obvious.

    @Diversity Heretic
    Can SESes appeal adverse personnel actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board? I also think that SESes can be hired outside the normal civil service process -- one of the original purposes of the program was to draw on outside talent.

    GS-15s might not be all that useful -- they're more likely to be thinking of their careers in four years if Trump isn't re-elected (in the toilet). It's bureaucratic "inside baseball" things like this that Trump needs to be made aware of so that he can clean house in the intelligence establishment.

    It is obviously hostile to him.

    Randal , January 7, 2017 at 11:56 am GMT • 100 Words
    @utu

    I've never liked Obama, and I'm not looking for reasons to like him, but Syria 2013 is certainly a strongly arguable point in his favour.

    Apart from that, it's hard not to admire his glorious parting middle finger to the Israel lobby with the recent UN resolution.

    Randal , January 7, 2017 at 12:09 pm GMT • 200 Words
    @RudyM
    * anti-homophobia (gays have a big influence on public opinion, and they hate Putin)
    In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to whip up some popular liberal support for it.

    In my view, this is not the driving force for the anti-Russian policy. It is instead a way to whip up some popular liberal support for it.

    Cato's approach of looking for a range of reasons is clearly the right one, since there is no one authority driving policy, but rather a range of groups whose interests converge in one policy direction on a particular issue. This is true for any substantial state and for any sufficiently significant policy area, and especially so for US foreign policy. Looking for one single reason why any major policy direction is pursued is futile.

    As such, the homosexual lobby is clearly one of the forces driving anti-Russian policy in US sphere countries, if not necessarily the most powerful. I think it should not be too blithely underestimated, though, as a part of the general globalist/antinationalist/social radical ideological alliance that dominates the US sphere media and political high ground.

    That said, you are clearly also correct that US regime frustration with Russian involvement in defeating their regime change project in Syria is also clearly very significant, although anti-Russian sentiment in the US regime long predates that particular issue.

    @Bill
    Yes, the over-representation of gays in DC is not as striking as the over-representation of Jews, but it is striking nonetheless.
    Franks Batts , January 7, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Brilliant analysis revealing the sad state of affairs currently existing in America. The ongoing propaganda is having its intended effect influencing a good portion of the citizens (e.g.: over 50% of Americans during George Bush's second campaign still believed Iraq and Saddam were involved in 911!) What is one to do?

    @Agent76
    You are correct they are watching the CIA mockingbird media and do not read books or know how to research anything for the most part. So do please share this with them SIMPLE.

    September 07, 2016 - September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?

    WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives in an obvious controlled demolition.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414 ,

    @Agent76
    If those who were elected at the state level are real this would be my strategy.

    Dec 30, 2015 Nullification in One Lesson

    "When the federal government violates our rights, we're not just supposed to sit idly by and wait for the federal government to stop itself."

    https://youtu.be/k3L0U9EcP0Y

    "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." James Madison

    Anonymous , January 7, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @RudyM
    But it really doesn't explain the recent rapid escalation to an almost irrational hostility in Washington. Why escalate now? What has changed?
    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.

    Why now? Because in Syria, Russia got in the way of Zionist plans to fragment any countries in Israel's immediate area that posed a potential threat to Israel's regional domination (and perhaps an expanded greater Israel project). That looks like the best explanation to me.

    The foaming-at-the-mouth Russophobia and the Victoria Nuland & CIA-orchestrated coup in the Ukraine occurred after Russia intervened in Syria re: the red line issue (and chemical attack staged by Turks and CIA).

    Faraday's Bobcat , January 7, 2017 at 1:00 pm GMT

    No patriot wants any foreign power influencing a US election. Therefore, I'd like to see the actions of China, Israel, Mexico and the EU investigated with vigor equal to that brought to bear on Russia.

    Diversity Heretic , January 7, 2017 at 1:30 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Randal
    As I said, I've only a vague and general idea of how the US security bureaucracy works at the top levels. I don't know how the various SIS arrangements relate to the wider SES, or what the protections etc are, so I'm totally dependent on those who do know more for clues as to how things might play out when Trump takes office.

    Common sense alone, though, surely suggests some sort of thorough purge, doubtless dressed up as reform and improving fitness for purpose, must happen now, no? Presumably that might mean something of a turf war between the Executive and the Legislative branches, since the old establishment is still strong in the latter.

    Perhaps a few Executive Orders might be needed.

    GS-15s might not be all that useful–they're more likely to be thinking of their careers in four years if Trump isn't re-elected (in the toilet).
    That's a sensible point, but iirc there are limits on bringing in outsiders, at least as far as SES is concerned.
    It's bureaucratic "inside baseball" things like this that Trump needs to be made aware of so that he can clean house in the intelligence establishment. It is obviously hostile to him.
    Indeed. I'm sure there are plenty of people advising him in detail on all this. For the rest of us, it's a spectator sport, from a distance.
    Agent76 , January 7, 2017 at 2:10 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

    It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that's not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network!

    @El Dato
    But that's just one of the useless "filler photos" (aka "artist's impression"), it's not like someone claims having stood behind a Russian Hacker and photographed his screen.
    Agent76 , January 7, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Franks Batts

    Brilliant analysis revealing the sad state of affairs currently existing in America. The ongoing propaganda is having its intended effect influencing a good portion of the citizens (e.g.: over 50% of Americans during George Bush's second campaign still believed Iraq and Saddam were involved in 911!) What is one to do?

    You are correct they are watching the CIA mockingbird media and do not read books or know how to research anything for the most part. So do please share this with them SIMPLE.

    September 07, 2016 – September 11, 2001: The 15th Anniversary of the Crime and Cover-up of the Century "What Really Happened"?

    WTC Building exploding into fine dust (it is not burning down) by pre-planted explosives in an obvious controlled demolition.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/september-11-2001-the-15th-anniversary-of-the-crime-and-cover-up-of-the-century/5544414

    macilrae , January 7, 2017 at 2:16 pm GMT • 200 Words

    This whole business is so infantile and it is demeaning to the dignity of the United States.

    Of course, as we have clearly seen over the years, the intelligence agencies of all states attempt to covertly gather sensitive information about each other – indeed, even when they are not antagonists. Consider the US hacking of Angela Merkel's phone or Israel's spies Jonathan Pollard and Lawrence Franklin.

    Those in possession of state secrets have an obligation to secure them and, if they are penetrated, the blame is to them alone. The DNC and Podesta emails were not even state secret material either!

    Obama's petty and stupid response to the current unproven allegations against Russia will haunt his legacy and Hillary's bizarre contention that Putin personally "had it in for her" is yet another sign of her mental instability.

    I saw yesterday that the fact of the Russians celebrating Trump's victory was taken as further proof of their complicity in Hillary's downfall – how could they possibly be expected to behave otherwise? Give me a break!

    @MarkinLA
    This whole business is so infantile and it is demeaning to the dignity of the United States.

    But keeping with the kind of people the US has always had in positions of power.

    Bill , January 7, 2017 at 3:11 pm GMT
    @Mao Cheng Ji
    the Russian interference narrative did not serve to prevent Trump from becoming president but it does seem that it will cause serious problems for his presidency and for American foreign relations
    Not necessarily. He may be able to discredit their narrative, and to replace it with his own narrative. After all, he's done plenty of that during the campaign... And this time he'll have the 'bully pulpit', so it should be easier....

    Yes. The chutzpah patrol only knows how to double down / pick up nickels in front of a steamroller. That strategy looks fine right up until it blows up completely. It could easily happen that they beat Trump. It could also easily happen that they blow themselves up.

    @annamaria
    Another Guardian' presstitute, Nick Cohen, is going insane with Russophobia:

    https://off-guardian.org/2017/01/08/neo-liberal-paranoia-is-extreme-and-it-is-everywhere/#comments

    The ziocon is upset hysterically with "Russian treachery" https://www.theguardian.com/profile/nickcohen

    The same Nick Cohen on his Hebraic enlightenment: "Why I'm becoming a Jew and why you should, too"

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/19/why-i-am-becoming-a-jew-and-you-should-too

    Who owns the Guardian? - "The Guardian and its parent groups participate in Project Syndicate, established by George Soros"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian

    Che Guava , January 7, 2017 at 3:19 pm GMT • 400 Words

    Nonetheless, Hillary Clinton was urged by "a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" to demand a recount in three states-Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-in which Clinton seemed to be slightly ahead in pre-election polls but which were won by Trump by narrow margins.

    That is not quite true, Hillary pretended to be above it all, and used 'Green Party' candidate Jill Stein as a proxy.

    Which raises its own questions.

    who covered the estimated $3.5 million cost of the endeavor.

    Again, not true, she 'crowd-sourced' the money, perhaps a small portion of the cash was left over from Stein's own campaign.

    Raising so much so quickly indicates a plutocratic contribution.

    the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus.

    It was not a rumour, and has never been convincingly refuted. There was much scientific analysis behind the claim, connected to related viruses.

    The Americans came up with the 'African Green monkey' bullshit, claimed to have found earlier cases in Africa, there are many auto-immune-system collapse disorders, there has never been any convincing evidence for the claimed (and very few) earlier cases of auto-immune deficiency found in old colonial health records, and claimed to be evidence of an Africa origin of AIDs, having been related to HIV.

    The fact is, patient zero and all of the early cases were in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the Fire Island scene in Noo Yawk. Wikipedia even misidentifies the real patient zero, with some spreader of the disease that they say was patient O.

    I am never part of those scenes, often bullied as straight, as often treated nicely as accepting, although I have had good friends who were same-sex lovers, but the phenomenom of interpretation of HIV-AIDS, as opposed to other auto-immune syndromes, it has really become wild propaganda.

    Patient zero was certainly a homosexual Nord-Amerique man.

    Propaganda to divert people's attention from this is very strong, another example of the disconnection between pre-mass-'net paper info and now.

    I do not want to write at length on this, now, but am making a very good case.

    Your article is alright, but not very good, my comments before the AIDs-related ones may assist you to write a little better.

    the spreading of false information by intelligence services "is a technique that goes back to Tsarist times."

    No shit Sherlock? I goes way farther back than that, I read the rest of the article, wow, a dim bulb struggling to be bright. You may get there, writing is not all bad.

    @El Dato
    > the Soviet-spread rumor that the U.S. government developed the AIDS virus.

    It was not a rumour, and has never been convincingly refuted. There was much scientific analysis behind the claim, connected to related viruses.

    That made no sense in the 80s and makes no sense today.

    The only "development" of a virus that had happened at that time was the development of the spanish flu in the trenches of WWI (and we still don't know how that worked, really).

    Hell, most of the stuff related to retroviruses still had to be written. Gallo was checking out Leukemia-causing retrovirus. Remember the grainy, bad photos that the Institut Pasteur published of "LAV"? Yeah. Grainy. That was the kind of tech back then.

    At some point wrong structure diagrams appeared in Scientific American and Nature. PCR was in its infancy. Computers were basically useless for deep data crunching. "Developing a virus" was just not possible. Germans coming up with fully functional ICBMs in 1914 sounds more likely.

    Just no.

    @RobinG
    " but going back to Russia's negotiation to thwart an attack on Syria in response to the chemical attack which was being blamed on the Syrian government. That seems to be when things really started heating up."
    EXACTLY. That began with the frenzy over "Will gay Olympians be safe in Sochi?" nonsense in US Big Media. Also when Code Pink and progressive media (aka Big Media's little brother) got all hot and bothered about Pussy Riot. (Did Vice News even understand the reference to chickens at the end of this video?)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFrZfluKDrc
    Pussy Riot Gets Whipped in Sochi

    Plus the obligatory slandering of Sochi facilities construction. All spite and sour grapes over Syria.

    As for "...the bitter Jewish pogrom-survivor angle" that would be Fucktoria Nuland, et al. Plenty of them find it useful to nurse their Russia hatred.

    Connecticut Famer , January 7, 2017 at 3:53 pm GMT • 100 Words
    @Beckow

    As a footnote–and I wish could remember his name– but earlier this week O'Reilly had some guy on his show who was a retired USMC "intelligence expert" who said in one breath that the CIA had "proof" that the Rooshians hacked the emails then in the next breath said that the CIA can't release the information as it would compromise their operatives. Yeah, right!

    KA , January 7, 2017 at 4:01 pm GMT • 400 Words

    "Nonetheless, half of Clinton's voters still think Russia hacked the election day voting.[6]"

    There are so many things that are wrong with the country . Some are transients some are less important and some could be brushed aside as angry response from the loser but also a fundamental shift could be seen in the dogged persuasion of the stupidities and visceral attachment to the absurd despite the inconsistencies,contradictions,and presence of collectively motivated misrepresentation ,among both party's loyal supporters . These are loyal to party irrespective of the political social economic faiths and known behaviors of the candidates . Because they have sunk their own daily existential identities with that of a party, they find it difficult to move away from any party position . It is a religion and the arguments and the information are fixed and formatted to suit that unidirectional unyielding emotional intellectual existence . but it produces inertia , extinguishes curiosity, stifles the resistance ,reinforces the stagnation , and eventually reduces the power of the intellectual forces to guide the debate and the fate of the country. It does so by bringing out and giving prominence to the most vocal sentimental ignorant intellectually passive segment who dislike more intellectually inquisitive challenging neutral minded citizen and supporters with openness to new possibilities and ideas .

    Nuances don't matter . Blind belief becomes synonymous with resolve and steadfastness .

    Bush Cheney destroyed the GOP Now Clinton is doing same with ample help from those whose interests she would serve best .( It is doubtful if Bush or Cruz or Huckabee or Graham or Rubio were the winner, we would be seeing this remonstration . So basically people are being schooled to follow certain official positions and lines Those positions are also the positions of the elite irrespective of the party affiliation .Party works for the elite that roam across the aisle . In this situation , the presence of thinking and discerning minds pose a risk . The zeitgeist is best preserved by the vocal assertive and effective presence of the sheeple dyed in different colors who would fight for the preservation of the colors and for nothing else .

    Does it portend a decline of average IQ over times? If it does then the western civilization is digging its own grave . Even if it doesn't in this particular route , the route that is being offered through stifling of any logical rational openness ,suppression of any kind of questioning and insistence on one kind of idea,value, and analysis leads to the same fate .

    @RudyM
    If anyone has missed this, leaked audio of Kerry admitting Daesh was allowed to grow:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3KfmjdviHM

    (I think the US role was less passive than that, but it's still pretty damning.)

    (Oops, this was not @ anyone in particular.) ,

    @edNels
    Does it portend a decline of average IQ over times? If it does then the western civilization is digging its own grave .
    The new left vs right, or a new kind of opposition politics based less on ''issues'', and more on what kind of Bull shit you are vulnerable to. The various Catapulted Propogandar.

    Cartoon images, or more realistic stuff? Not that cartoons need to be less insightful than movies.

    But, what I am gett'n at: politics between the two sides of the Bell Curve, more and more.

    [Jan 09, 2017] State Department Says Presenting Evidence Of Russian Hacking Would Be Irresponsible

    Jan 09, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    Yellow cake story No.2 ? Probably he implies that the release of Stuxnet, Flame and similar worms was responsible. What they can hide after Snowden revelations? The fact that they collect all inbound and outbound traffic ?
    One recurring lament throughout the theatrically dramatic campaign involving reports and emotional appeals by US intelligence agencies such as the CIA (whose primary function is the creation of disinformation) to ordinary Americans, that Russia had "hacked the US presidential election" is that for all the bluster and "conviction", there has been zero evidence.

    And, as it turns out, there won't be any, because according to the US State Department, US intelligence agencies were right to not reveal evidence of their proof that Russia interfered in US elections, and comparisons with intelligence reports that Iraq had WMDs were not relevant in the current year.

    Asked by RT's Gayane Chichakyan if Friday's public intelligence report should have contained any proof of Russian intervention, State Department spokesman John Kirby said that no one should be surprised that US intelligence agencies were keeping evidence secret in order to protect sources and methods.

    "Most American people understand that they have the responsibility to protect their sources and methods," Kirby said, adding it would be "irresponsible" to do otherwise. Actually, with the Iraq WMD fiasco strill fresh in "American people's" minds, it is irresponsible to think most Americans are still naive idiots who will believe whatever the "intelligence agencies" will tell them.

    ... ... ...

    When Chichakyan brought up the 2003 intelligence assessment on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – invoked by the Bush administration to justify the US invasion and occupation of that country – Kirby said the comparison was irrelevant, since that was a long time ago. "We have moved on. We have learned a lot from those mistakes," he said. Ironically, somehow much of America ended up with the opposite conclusion.

    Bunghole -> 07564111 •Jan 9, 2017 9:59 PM

    Didn't State claim Ambassador Stevens was killed over a youtube video? ... ... ...

    Dame Ednas Possum -> 07564111 •Jan 9, 2017 10:14 PM

    I agree with Kirby unreservedly when he stated: 'I think, er... well, I don't think...' These blind fools cannot fathom that an increasing number of others don't simply regurgitate the narrative thoughtlessly. We apply rational thought, particularly in considering what the implications are to the innocents e.g. 500,000 dead civilians in Iraq. It's good in a way as it simply brings society closer to the demise of this evil sooner. Unfortunately this may require us passing through a period of intense turmoil, upheaval, pain and suffering. As Jim Morrison said: 'they've got the guns, but we got the numbers... TAKING OVER... C'MON'

    philipat -> BullyBearish •Jan 9, 2017 9:59 PM

    So let me see if I get this straight. Either, there IS no evidence, OR the US is doing precisely the same things that the Russians are accused of? Neither is an attractive admission by .gov if the propaganda is to be effective. Repeat after me, it was the Russians......

    07564111 -> philipat •Jan 9, 2017 10:12 PM

    OR the US is doing precisely the same things that the Russians are accused of?

    For your viewing pleasure http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21013087

    Zen Xenu •Jan 9, 2017 9:41 PM

    "Trust us, we know best." - Anonymous Intelligence Official (speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to make statements).

    Reaper •Jan 9, 2017 9:53 PM

    We ought thank Putin for revealing the corruption of Clinton, if he truly did it. Intel presents an argument for fools. If Putin likes chocolate, should we hate it? The logical fallacy: guilt by association.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/10/Ad_H ...

    [Jan 09, 2017] Who Will Donald Trump Turn Out To Be?

    Notable quotes:
    "... Trump has ideas that he is not disclosing. He is new and the bureaucracy will run him instead of the other way around. Much will be half implemented because neither Trump nor GOP policies are popular. ..."
    "... MinWage increases is one of the most popular policies but one the GOP is least likely to pass ..."
    "... Domestic policy? Trump might act pseudo-magnanimous and come out for single payer, or something like that. The politically smartest next move would be to buy-off some progressive Berniecrats, while sticking it to Wall Street (in a phony, visual way). ..."
    "... But more likely it will be Reaganoid business as usual. Why? Because: ..."
    "... The system is complicated, and every thread you pull on, unravels something else. That's systems theory, folks! ..."
    "... The power of the Presidency is limited, and overrated by partisans on both sides. ..."
    "... A President's information is restricted to what comes in through his advisors, and this bunch are looking like, kwite a kwazy krew. ..."
    "... Trump's low cognition and narcissism will result in short-sighted moves and more foreign policy quagmires for the US: "Look at the black eye the US gave itself, with the Bush-Cheney War! -- Let's make America stupid again!" ..."
    "... On trade? Trump is setting up the conditions where the richest people can plunder what's remains of the U.S., before getting out of the country: ..."
    "... The new global slogan will be, "Trade with China -- We're the Crooks You Can TRUST!" ..."
    "... Meanwhile Trump will give big tax cuts to the richest Americans, because his knuckleheaded voters believe all the "makers vs. takers" baloney; they haven't been schtupped up the keister enough... ..."
    "... Then the rich will slowly start taking that money out of the U.S. to some other country that gets a higher global ROI under the new Chinese trade rules, because U.S. exporters under protectionism won't be nearly as profitable. ..."
    "... The bureaucracy is too massive for any one person to control. Change requires action from the top or its business as usual. Trump does not have enough trusted aids and insiders to manage the government ..."
    "... Right now it's hard to know if Trump's administration really wants to deliver change. Its cabinet-level staffing is hard to read. It is full of establishment types who could deliver change if that is really their mission. They are not beholden to anyone for their positions and they are not in need of lucrative employment after cabinet service that might otherwise make them tend to curry favor with interests they affect in office. ..."
    "... Tillerson became CEO of Exxon and has been successful there, nontrivial achievements both. He is not a professional foreign service officer, neither was HRC. For many oil-producing countries, their most important foreign patron is Exxon. Tillerson is very familiar with the inside game in the Middle East where all kinds of shit has been hitting the fan for the past 25 years without the US having much success there. HRC and Kerry have been particularly ineffective and had far less accomplishments in life before assuming SoS office than Tillerson. ..."
    "... Mnuchin got rich in Hollywood because he knew what people wanted from Hollywood. he was also chief of the NY bond desk for GS and was CIO for GS for five years. That is CIO of the most technologically sophisticated investment bank in the world. ..."
    "... Mnuchin knows the technology and how it can be used to execute or hide chicanery better than anyone else in the industry. If he aims to reform the TBTF banks, he is better equipped than anyone who has been Treasury secretary over the 25 years during which computer technology assumed a key role in skulduggery in the industry. ..."
    "... Marine nicknames are often ironic. "Mad Dog" Mattis probably reflects recognition of his intellect and coolness by his Marine colleagues. ..."
    "... Mattis has been well known to be a smart, tough, effective achiever. If pentagon reform is really the goal, he would be hard to beat. ..."
    "... These men have all been very successful at running large organizations. Let's see what direction they try to take the government and how they do at it. Should be interesting. ..."
    "... History without context is meaningless. ..."
    "... Wars play too great a role in history as taught. Neither of the Bushes, with their limited thinking, like the generals above, should have ever been allowed near hammers ..."
    "... Colonialism took a bit too long to die, but Archduke Ferdinand was indeed about the dying throws of monarchies. ..."
    Jan 09, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Brad DeLong:
    Who Will Donald Trump Turn Out To Be? :

    We have very little indication of what policies Donald Trump will try to follow or even what kind of president he will be. The U.S. press corps did an extraordinarily execrable job in covering the rise of Trump--even worse than it usually does. Even the most sophisticated of audiences--those interested in asset prices and how they are affected by government policies--have very little insight into Trump's views or those of his key associates.

    Will Donald Trump turn out to be the equivalent of Ronald Reagan -- someone who comes into office from the world of celebrity with a great many unfixed policy intuitions, but no consistent plan?

    Will he turn out to be the equivalent of Silvio Berlusconi, who regards the presidency as an opportunity to wreak his kleptocratic will on the country?

    Or will he turn out to be someone worse than Berlusconi?

    I would say that Trump could be any of four figures...
    jonny bakho -> pgl... January 09, 2017 at 03:20 AM , 2017 at 03:20 AM
    DeLong's guess is as good as anyones.

    Trump has ideas that he is not disclosing. He is new and the bureaucracy will run him instead of the other way around. Much will be half implemented because neither Trump nor GOP policies are popular.

    MinWage increases is one of the most popular policies but one the GOP is least likely to pass

    Congress has power but they must shift from opposition mode to governing mode. I expect much overreach and 'creative' destruction

    Lee A. Arnold -> jonny bakho... , January 09, 2017 at 03:43 AM

    Domestic policy? Trump might act pseudo-magnanimous and come out for single payer, or something like that. The politically smartest next move would be to buy-off some progressive Berniecrats, while sticking it to Wall Street (in a phony, visual way).

    But more likely it will be Reaganoid business as usual. Why? Because:

    1. The system is complicated, and every thread you pull on, unravels something else. That's systems theory, folks!
    2. The power of the Presidency is limited, and overrated by partisans on both sides.
    3. A President's information is restricted to what comes in through his advisors, and this bunch are looking like, kwite a kwazy krew. 4. There is a mid-term election less than 2 years from now.

    Foreign policy? Putin wanted Trump to win, but NOT to make the U.S. stronger. He wants a weaker US. Why? Because the Russians hate the US for screwing them economically after the Iron Curtain fell, with trying to impose a bunch of free-market fundamentalist ignorance...

    Were that not bad enough, the US slapped on oil sanctions recently, after Putin tried shoring-up his borders against NATO expansion and against Islamic terrorists.

    ... ... ...

    Whether you yourself think it's good or bad to oppose Russia -- and whatever you think of Putin's tactics in response -- is not the point here. Fact is, Putin hates the US. Therefore, Putin is not going to help anyone whom he thinks will make the US stronger or more respected in the world.

    Russian psych profiling may suggest that Trump's low cognition and narcissism will result in short-sighted moves and more foreign policy quagmires for the US: "Look at the black eye the US gave itself, with the Bush-Cheney War! -- Let's make America stupid again!"

    On trade? Trump is setting up the conditions where the richest people can plunder what's remains of the U.S., before getting out of the country: Trump wants to tear up the big trade deals and make every country go into bilateral negotiations with his trade team... BUT those countries are all going to say, "Forget it! We just spent 6 years negotiating, and we know we can't trust the US anymore!"...

    Then, they are going to turn around and join China's new global trade organization, which was suddenly announced the DAY AFTER Trump's election (funny, that, after years of planning, building forward military bases in the Pacific, etc.) The new global slogan will be, "Trade with China -- We're the Crooks You Can TRUST!"

    Meanwhile Trump will give big tax cuts to the richest Americans, because his knuckleheaded voters believe all the "makers vs. takers" baloney; they haven't been schtupped up the keister enough... Then the rich will slowly start taking that money out of the U.S. to some other country that gets a higher global ROI under the new Chinese trade rules, because U.S. exporters under protectionism won't be nearly as profitable.

    "...And golly, honey, there's plenty of pretty places over there to build new mansions, for both you, AND the mistress..." Meanwhile, back in the U.S., voters will continue walking around with their thumbs up their butts, & trying to prevent other Americans from getting healthcare, trying to prevent them from voting, etc... To get cash, the U.S. can join into a big flea market with the Brexiters, and we can all swap old Beatles vinyl...

    Get behind Bernie, NOW!!!

    JF -> jonny bakho... , January 09, 2017 at 04:24 AM
    The bureaucracy will run things? This is not going to happen, governance will stall or cease.

    Let me see, a party that says our form of govt is the problem. A party who has obstructed matters to cause dysfunction in govt on purpose, and who is entertaining nominees to head these agencies who do not care that they exist, bills introduced already to allow pay even to the individual to be cut , and to smooth firing processes, with an incoming group who surfaces transition-team surveys for the purposes of chilling efforts with the agencies even before they take control, on climate change for instance, well, the bureaucracy is demoralized, and threatened. The dysfunction of the American 'experiment' in self government will be harmed, perhaps accomplished finally.

    And when they get their legs about them with new judiciary appointments they then should thread cases via these courts so holdings they get won't be appealed, giving them full control, with still the purpose being dysfunction for what has been the generally applicable law before. Ok with them, it would seem.

    jonny bakho -> JF... , -1
    The bureaucracy is too massive for any one person to control. Change requires action from the top or its business as usual. Trump does not have enough trusted aids and insiders to manage the government
    anne -> pgl... , January 09, 2017 at 07:35 AM
    "Reagan did not campaign for and enter the presidency thinking that he was going to push the value of the dollar up by 70%..."

    -- Brad DeLong

    [ The real trade-weighted price of the dollar increased by about 45% between 1980 and March 1985 and then declined and finished the Reagan presidency about 5% below the level of 1980. ]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 07:56 AM
    [I set the Way-back machine to Links for 12-31-16 and copied what mrrunangun said to me then. From my experience mrrunangun is a more reliable source than the MSM, but then so is my wife and over half of the random strangers that I meet in Walmart.]

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2016/12/links-for-12-31-16.html

    mrrunangun -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Right now it's hard to know if Trump's administration really wants to deliver change. Its cabinet-level staffing is hard to read. It is full of establishment types who could deliver change if that is really their mission. They are not beholden to anyone for their positions and they are not in need of lucrative employment after cabinet service that might otherwise make them tend to curry favor with interests they affect in office.

    Tillerson became CEO of Exxon and has been successful there, nontrivial achievements both. He is not a professional foreign service officer, neither was HRC. For many oil-producing countries, their most important foreign patron is Exxon. Tillerson is very familiar with the inside game in the Middle East where all kinds of shit has been hitting the fan for the past 25 years without the US having much success there. HRC and Kerry have been particularly ineffective and had far less accomplishments in life before assuming SoS office than Tillerson.

    Mnuchin got rich in Hollywood because he knew what people wanted from Hollywood. he was also chief of the NY bond desk for GS and was CIO for GS for five years. That is CIO of the most technologically sophisticated investment bank in the world.

    Many of the big errors in banking over the past 20 years have been due to inadequate supervision of trading units. Traders learn to hide losses using the computer systems of the banks and clearing houses. The Barclay's Singapore disaster, the London whale, the UBS fiasco, the DB bond desk fiasco all got out of hand because traders' losing positions went undetected by the traders' supervisors who lacked the technical sophistication necessary to provide adequate supervision. Mnuchin knows the technology and how it can be used to execute or hide chicanery better than anyone else in the industry. If he aims to reform the TBTF banks, he is better equipped than anyone who has been Treasury secretary over the 25 years during which computer technology assumed a key role in skulduggery in the industry.

    Marine nicknames are often ironic. "Mad Dog" Mattis probably reflects recognition of his intellect and coolness by his Marine colleagues. In the movie Full Metal Jacket, a dark-skinned black man was named "snowball" and, after getting slapped around for smiling at the DI's jokes, the main character was named "Joker". Victor Krulak, a Marine general during the VietNam war, got the name Brute because of his diminutive size. He became probably the only five foot four-inch Marine general of the twentieth century. Mattis has been well known to be a smart, tough, effective achiever. If pentagon reform is really the goal, he would be hard to beat.

    These men have all been very successful at running large organizations. Let's see what direction they try to take the government and how they do at it. Should be interesting.

    Reply Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:18 PM

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 06:33 AM
    Suri never really makes his case against belligerent deterrence because his historical references are inconsistent with his thesis. As much as I agree with TR's "Walk soft and carry a big stick" even that is a superficial take on Teddy Roosevelt's approach to diplomatic engagement, which was a superior way to conduct foreign policy even compared to Taft's dollar diplomacy.

    Taft's way was more readily assessable to the mediocre men that would normally lead our country though, which is why Kissinger as Secretary of State held to it dearly. Buying peace is much cheaper than waging war.

    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 06:01 AM
    History without context is meaningless. War is but a consequence. Generals shouldn't be allowed hammers.
    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ken melvin... , January 09, 2017 at 06:58 AM
    Understood. Woodrow Wilson was a pacifist and the US during his administration was isolationist. That hardly sounds like a case of belligerent deterrence going wrong, but more like the opposite.

    Suri's point was that circumstances can dictate significant reversals from original intentions though. WW-II did not seem like our choice and certainly was reluctant more like WW-I rather than a case of belligerent deterrence going wrong.

    The US entered the Korean War because its presidents, first Truman and then Eisenhower were more afraid of Joe McCarthy than China, also not a case of belligerent deterrence, just domino theory.

    Kennedy and Johnson just feared the anti-communist Republican hawks that remained after McCarthy died more than they feared China, just more domino theory there too.

    When we finally got a POTUS that did the full court press on belligerent deterrence, Reagan, then peace broke out.

    By this time Suri's case is getting real weak. The first Bush war, the daddy Bush war, was just a reaction function and limited at that. The next two Bush wars, the baby Bush wars, were finally belligerent deterrence on steroids, but also a reaction function or an over-reaction function to 9/11.

    Suri stands empty handed on his history, but that does not mean that he is wrong on his prognostications, just unconvincing in his larger historical based argument aside from the notion of unintended consequences. That alone may however be Donald Trumps undoing, but just as easily so from domestic policy as foreign policy. Only time will tell. I prefer not to guess this one out too far myself, unintended consequences being what they are and all.

    ken melvin -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron... , January 09, 2017 at 07:42 AM
    Quite a lot; where to start? The world as it is vs. our wishful perceptions? I think remembering that most problems requiring governmental action are really quite complicated and often have more than one possible answer is essential. It's the simple arsed responses, so loved by the many, that get us into some of the worst messes. The urge to tear it down and start anew, another source of grief, again linked to the simple arsed, our most current response.

    See Reagan and Ike as being dependent to a fault on their advisers (in the case of Reagan, we really lucked out with Baker, Schultz, Deaver); Bush II as being dumb enough to think he was smart when, in fact, he was too dumb for the job; and Drumpf, I suspect/fear, being of the same ilk as Bush II.

    For WWI context, I see: the swell of the industrial age, the vying for raw materials and markets, all in a period when one saw the dying throes of colonialism and monarchies whilst no one seem to grasp the reality of what was going on (bout where we find ourselves). Wars play too great a role in history as taught. Neither of the Bushes, with their limited thinking, like the generals above, should have ever been allowed near hammers

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ken melvin... , January 09, 2017 at 08:06 AM
    Colonialism took a bit too long to die, but Archduke Ferdinand was indeed about the dying throws of monarchies.

    Relative to Suri's argument there was nothing about US foreign policy activism that got us into WWI unless you want to consider the negative. Had the US been more involved in European diplomacy in a cogent and persuasive manner then it may have averted the Prussian brinksmanship that ignite WW-I. Theodore Roosevelt may have been capable of that, but not Taft nor Wilson.

    [Jan 08, 2017] Clappers own credibility is suspect. It looks like NSA does not possesses the evidence of Russian hacking

    Notable quotes:
    "... Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence. ..."
    "... Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking." ..."
    "... In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual assault allegations against Assange in Sweden. ..."
    "... However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony. ..."
    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC -> ilsm... January 08, 2017 at 06:03 AM

    US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack'
    January 7, 2017

    https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/07/us-report-still-lacks-proof-on-russia-hack/

    ... ... ...

    Though it's impossible for an average U.S. citizen to know precisely what the U.S. intelligence community may have in its secret files, some former NSA officials who are familiar with the agency's eavesdropping capabilities say Washington's lack of certainty suggests that the NSA does not possess such evidence.

    For instance, that's the view of William Binney, who retired as NSA's technical director of world military and geopolitical analysis and who created many of the collection systems still used by NSA.

    Binney, in an article co-written with former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, said, "With respect to the alleged interference by Russia and WikiLeaks in the U.S. election, it is a major mystery why U.S. intelligence feels it must rely on 'circumstantial evidence,' when it has NSA's vacuum cleaner sucking up hard evidence galore. What we know of NSA's capabilities shows that the email disclosures were from leaking, not hacking."

    There is also the fact that both WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and one of his associates, former British Ambassador Craig Murray, have denied that the purloined emails came from the Russian government. Going further, Murray has suggested that there were two separate sources, the DNC material coming from a disgruntled Democrat and the Podesta emails coming from possibly a U.S. intelligence source, since the Podesta Group represents Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments.

    In response, Clapper and other U.S. government officials have sought to disparage Assange's credibility, including Clapper's Senate testimony on Thursday gratuitously alluding to sexual assault allegations against Assange in Sweden.

    However, Clapper's own credibility is suspect in a more relevant way. In 2013, he gave false testimony to Congress regarding the extent of the NSA's collection of data on Americans. Clapper's deception was revealed only when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked details of the NSA program to the press, causing Clapper to apologize for his "clearly erroneous" testimony.

    [Jan 08, 2017] Once You Can Fake News, Youve Got It Made (A Walk Down Memory Lane)

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
    Jan 08, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Posted on January 8, 2017 by Lambert Strether By Lambert Strether of Corrente .

    "It took me a long time to discover that the key thing in acting is honesty. Once you know how to fake that, you've got it made." –Actor in Peyton Place, 1970

    So the news is like sincerity (and honesty) ? Or not? Interestingly, the epigraph comes from the start of the neoliberal dispensation, but let's not go down a rathole of meta. Or rather, let's go down another rathole of meta by quoting defeated Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who seems to have been the (self-infected) Patient Zero for the "fake news" moral panic when she spoke these words ( C-SPAN ) at the unveiling of Harry Reid's portrait, December 8, 2016:

    [CLINTON:] Let me just mention briefly one threat in particular that should concern all Americans, Democrats, Republicans and independents alike, especially those who serve in our Congress: the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year . It's now clear that so-called fake news can have real-world consequences . This isn't about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.

    IIt's a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly. Bipartisan legislation is making its way through Congress to boost the government's response to foreign propaganda , and Silicon Valley is starting to grapple with the challenge and threat of fake news . It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives."

    (Presumably that "bipartisan" - dread word - legislation was the "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act," discussed at NC in detail here .) Parsing this verbiage, we find it unusually sloppy and dishonest, even for Clinton. What, for example, is the distinction between "malicious fake news" and "so-called fake news"? Is sincerely meant (not "malicious") and/or genuine (not "so-called") fake news not really fake? And how is it that we start with "false propaganda" and end with "foreign propaganda"? Obviously, whatever "danger" is to be "addressed" can't be from "fake news" as such, since conceptually there's no there there. Democrat establishment lapdog Paul Krugman makes Clinton's agenda more clear:

    Still, none of this would work without the complicity of the news media. And I'm not talking about "fake news," as big a problem as that is becoming; I'm talking about respectable, mainstream news coverage.

    So, "fake news" just doesn't happen in "respectable, mainstream news" outlets (showing Yves was quite right to cite to independent, alternative media , like Naked Capitalism, as being under the blame cannons). But Krugman's vulgar institutionalism gets us no forrader on "fake news" conceptually, does it? Here's the best taxonomy of "fake news" that I've been able to find. From Matthew E. Kahn's blog, Environmental and Urban Economics, "The Economics of Fake News":

    There are four cases to consider.

    Case #1: Both the supplier and demander know that the story is false. Think of the National Enquirer stories stating that Elvis is on Mars.

    Case #2: The supplier knows the story is false but the demander believes the story is true.

    Case #3: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story is true.

    Case #4: The supplier believes the story is true and the demander believes the story is false.

    "Fake News" has no social consequences in cases #1 or case #4. Case #3 will feature no strategic element. This is just Tiebout sorting[1] in ideological space.

    Tellingly, the articles listed at the Snopes "fake news" tag (e.g., "Did a Man Lock His Daughter in a Cage for Overusing a Snapchat Filter?" [FALSE]) fall primarily into Case #1 (that is, no social consequence, since both supplier and demander know the fake news is fake). And the "malicious" "foreign" WikiLeaks, DCLeaks, and Guccifer Democrat email leaks are Case #3: The supplier believes the story is true, and the demander believes the story is true.[2]. Case #4 (the supplier believes the story is true, and the demander believes the story is false) may end up applying to us all, if current trends continue , but again, let's not go down the rathole.

    So the interesting case is Case #2: The supplier knows the story is false but the demander believes the story is true. And the nice thing about Kahn's taxonomy is that it abstracts away from institutions, so we don't have to accept Krugman's silly, and self-serving, notion that "mainstream publications" don't produce "fake news." Here's the definition of "fake" from my Oxford English Dictionary:

    fake [adjective & noun(2)] /feɪk/ Orig. slang. l18. [ORIGIN: Rel. to fake verb2.] A. adjective. Spurious, counterfeit, sham. l18. Glasgow Herald Fake whisky..the symptoms following consumption are similar to those of gastric poisoning.

    I mean, come on. Nobody ever said that alternative, independent, small distilleries are the only institutions that every produced fake whiskey, right?

    Before I dig more deeply into Case #2, I'd like to introduce an additional case:

    Case #5: The supplier knows the story is true, but the demander knows nothing about it at all

    (This introduces a pleasing element of informational asymmetry into Kahn's model, enabling it to conform more closely to the real world. The example I have in mind comes from Operative K's employer, the New York Times. From FAIR :

    By any standard, the New York Times ' story of December 16 was a blockbuster: Reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed that following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration initiated warrantless wiretaps on hundreds of people within the U.S.–including U.S. citizens–even though a federal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, expressly forbids the government from doing so. This program was legal only if one accepts the administration's contention that the executive branch has essentially unlimited powers during "wartime" (even though Congress has not declared war).

    The Times story would be an outstanding example of how the First Amendment works to protect liberty–were it not for the ninth paragraph:

    The White House asked The New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

    The reasoning is absurd on its face. As Times executive editor Bill Keller noted in a statement released on December 16 explaining his decision to publish the story, "The fact that the government eavesdrops on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known." But this was as obvious a year ago as it is today. As for the government's spying being "jeopardized," placing illegal and unconstitutional programs in jeopardy is the whole point of the First Amendment ( Extra! Update , 12/05 ).

    But Keller's statement revealed that the Times does not see itself as competent to watch out for illegal government activity. In explaining the delay, Keller stated that the administration had "assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." Keller went on to say that "it is not our place to pass judgment on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood."

    In other words, Keller believes it is the Times ' "place" to accept officials' own evaluation of the legality of their behavior.

    What FAIR delicately omits to mention is that the Times had and then spiked the story before election 2004 , and therefore suppressing it until Bush was safely elected might well have affected the (very close) Presidential race, which everybody is so concerned that fake news does, right?

    Now, is Case #5 - suppressed news - really news ? I would argue that is it is. The replaced pages in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia were surely part of that Encyclopedia, and in less well-regulated polities than our own, censored news is simply printed as blank columns:

    Back to Case #2, which I'd argue should be refined, again through the introduction of information asymmetry. On the supplier side, we need to introduce the possiblity of delusion as opposed to malevolence, and on the demander side, "Cassandras" (a minority) as opposed to believers (the great majority)[3]. The case study I have in mind is Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the case of the Iraq War.

    I remember the WMD case of fake news - news that is "spurious, counterfeit, sham" as the OED has it - well, because it happened in my very first year of blogging, in 2003. (Cue the "I'm so old, I remember ______" snowclone jokes.) The justifications for Saddam's WMDs came thick and fast: The aluminum tubes, the white powders, the yellowcake uranium, the mobile biological laboratories, the drones, the atropine, the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." As soon as one story was debunked - which foul-mouthed bloggers of the left using open sources could do quite easily, within hours - another story would pop up. Only later did we learn that it didn't just feel like playing whack-a-mole; it was playing whack-a-mole; The Bush White House was planting stories in the press (through a process, for those who came in late, very similar to what the Clinton campaign used, as shown in the Wikileaks Podesta email dump).

    The long-forgotten Sam Gardiner, Colonel, USAF (Retired)[4], interviewed by Kevin Zeese in Counterpunch , describes the supplier side:

    [GARDINER:]As the war unfolded, I became increasingly uneasy about what was being reported out of the White House, Pentagon and Central Command. I was hearing things that just did not make sense with what I knew and what my intuition was telling me. I began tracking some of the stories. It was just a matter of going over what we were told and connecting that with the truth as it emerged later.

    There is absolutely no question that the White House and the Pentagon participated in an effort to market the military option. The truth did not make any difference to that campaign. To call it fixing is to miss the more profound point. It was a campaign to influence. It involved creating false stories; it involved exaggerating; it involved manipulating the numbers of stories that were released; it involved a major campaign to attack those who disagreed with the military option. It included all the techniques those who ran the marketing effort had learned in political campaigns.

    We [know] the WMD story fairly well. We know the story of the uranium from Niger. We know about the aluminum tubes that were not for uranium enrichment. We know the biological labs Powell showed to the UN did not exist.

    [ZEESE:] Is the media being fooled by the Administration or is it complicit in this effort to misinform the public?

    [GARDINER:]The media have been fooled. They have been lazy. They have lost sight of the historic calling of journalism. Journalists have been replaced on television by cheerleaders.

    [ZEESE:] How much did this campaign of misinformation cost?

    [GARDINER:] Tough question, Kevin. I don't think it possible to get a total handle on the effort. I have read one estimate that put the marketing at $200 million. That cost is trivial, however, to the collateral damage that has been done to democracy.

    And on the demand side, some may actually have believed their own bullshit. Former White House insider Richard Clarke , interviewed in 2004:

    [GUARDIAN]: Do you believe the administration believed the intelligence on Iraqi WMD?

    [CLARKE]: We all believed Saddam had WMD.

    And Bush Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice in 2007 :

    [RICE:] We all believed the intelligence was strong. It wasn't just a problem with intelligence in the United States, it was an intelligence problem worldwide. Services across the world thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."

    So, give Rice and Clarke the benefit of the doubt, and put them in the delusional bucket on the supplier side, as opposed to the malevolent bucket. That said, those in the malevolent bucket were the drivers supporting policy, as we knew ( in 2005 ) from The Downing Street Memo. Quoting it :

    SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL – UK EYES ONLY

    DAVID MANNING

    From: Matthew Rycroft

    Date: 23 July 2002

    S 195 /02

    .C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy . The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

    Gardiner's estimate of $200 million would buy rather a lot of "fixed" facts, eh? Even at Beltway rates.

    * * *

    So that's my walk on memory lane on fake news. The utter effrontery of Clinton, and her lapdog, yammering about fake news from Macedonian teenagers on social media, after fake news from the mainstream press - very much including the Times' own infamous Judy Miller - helped foment the Iraq War just boggles the mind. And all those faraway brown people blown to pink mist make Clinton's "lives are at risk" especially nauseating. I'm gobsmacked by the "fake news" moral panic, hornswoggled, beyond flummoxed. Or I would be, if only Clinton blaming fake news for her loss weren't just another example of Democrats never holding themselves responsible for anything.

    Oh, and at some point I should propose some solutions. Obviously, the whole fact-checking paradigm is wrong; I'm so old I remember when we had editors and reporters to do that, so returning to those days would be a start, at least. So, whatever public policy it would take to get more local newspapers going again is something we should think about. We should also think about breaking up ginormous media monopolies; after all, epidemics spread more easily in a monoculture. And then there's Facebook; maybe they shouldn't be in the algorithmic newsfeed business at all; after all, the most reliable parts of a program are the ones that aren't there. And Facebook, too, is an enormous monopoly. Perhaps there should be more power centers in social media, as well. Just some thoughts.[5] Readers?

    NOTE

    Bud from legal insists that I say this post solely represents the views of "Lambert Strether," and does not represent the views of Naked Capitalism.

    NOTES

    [1] "Tiebout sorting refers to the sorting of households into neighborhoods and communities according to their willingness and ability to pay for local public goods," via Encyclopedia of Education Economics & Finance . Here is an NBER paper: "Tiebout Sorting and Neighborhood Stratification" (PDF).

    [2] The "demanders" in the Clinton campaign would disagree, but the Rice-Davies Rule applies. None of that mail has even debunked, despite false claims by the Clinton campaign . Whether the mail had no strategic consequence, especially at the margin, is another issue entirely.

    [3] Leaving aside, again, the dystopia where demanders believe all stories are false.

    [4] Gardiner's paper, "Truth from These Podia," suffers from serious link rot. And so we lose our history.

    [5] Also, some kind soul should fund deliberative debate in the schools and for adults at the rate of, oh, $10 million a year or so. It would't take much. I guarantee we'd see improvement in discourse in as little as three years, as varsity debaters came up and started to show the critical thinking skills they gained at the podium in public policy discussion. Incidentally, historically black colleges and universities have done very well recently in debate, so do let's make sure all the debate money doesn't go to the already credentialed burbclaves, mkay?

    0 0 0 0 0 This entry was posted in Guest Post , Media watch , Politics on January 8, 2017 by Lambert Strether . About Lambert Strether

    Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com

    View all posts by Lambert Strether →
    Trade now with TradeStation – Highest rated for frequent traders
    Subscribe to Post Comments 27 comments Synoia , January 8, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    The whole "fake news" narrative is not about "fake news," or propaganda, or agitprop.

    It is about taking control away from, and by implication devaluing the analysis, of these who debunk the propaganda, or agitprop from the "legitimate (aka: fake official)" news outlets. Examples of this are Naked Capitalism, Ian Welsh, Marcy Wheeler and Zero Hedge.

    It is both a monopolistic action of the "legitimate (aka: fake official)" news outlets, and the powers in Washington, enabling this monopolistic behavior for both parties self interest.

    This comment solely represents the views of "ME" and does not represent the views of anyone else. (OK Bud?)

    Waldenpond , January 8, 2017 at 2:34 pm

    The fake news chant is just an addition to the Russia, Russia, Russia bs. The goal is always delegitimizing any voice other than far right capitalists and war mongers. Media has collapsed/flipped. The media being promoted as legitimate is outright lies and never ending propaganda. They occasionally slip in facts but they are meaningless to the discussion. The alternative sites are the only ones attempting to distribute facts and discuss issues based on facts.

    I won't be surprised to see legitimate news sites blocked from accessing ad revenue and payment systems. No ads, no facebook, no twitter, no paypal for those deemed to be disseminating facts.

    Webstir , January 8, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    A friend of my mine stated the other day, "Don't mistake gaslighting for a genuine concern that you might, in fact, be crazy."

    To which I replied:

    "The age of modern advertisement (think Mad Men) was kicked off by behavioral psychology professor John B. Watson who is most popularly known for the "Baby Albert" experiments. What is not widely known is that he was kicked out of John Hopkins for having an affair with his research assistant shortly after said experiments. Where did he take his talents? You guessed it: Advertising - where he popularized the notion of selling "sex appeal" rather than a product. In mu opinion, the rest the western world's economic and political history, then, are all "gaslighting" footnotes to the recently discovered ability to psychologically manipulate people to create demand where there was none previously."

    My point being, it is worth considering the impact media creating ideological demand where there was none before.

    craazyman , January 8, 2017 at 2:38 pm

    This problem is so old it's ludicrous. They're talking about it like it was just discovered! LOL.

    I think these quotes are true, but I didn't know Thomas Jefferson and I did not carry on a literary correspondence with him. It would have been a pleasure! Despite his flaws. He was a man of his time, but a brilliant one.

    Here are some more Thomas Jefferson quotes about newspapers. I think he would have been in the peanut gallery railing at the mainstream media just like the rest of us.

    #2 below is my favorite "the violence and malignity of party spirit" Whoa!:

    1. "The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them, inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false." ~Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 1807. ME 11:225

    2. "I deplore the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them These ordure's are rapidly depraving the public taste and lessening its relish for sound food. As vehicles of information and a curb on our functionaries, they have rendered themselves useless by forfeiting all title to belief This has, in a great degree, been produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit." ~Thomas Jefferson to Walter Jones, 1814. ME 14:46

    3. "As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers." Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806. ME 11:118

    4."Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper." ~Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1819. ME 15:179

    5. "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."

    source: http://www.fourwinds.com (I Googled a string of words about Jefferson and newspapers, since I knew of his opinion there.)

    lyle , January 8, 2017 at 5:25 pm

    I grew up in Detroit during the Vietnam war. In Detroit you could listen to the news from Canada and hear the elements of Propaganda in the US news (or fake news to use the modern term). It was as if two different wars were happening depending on which side of the river the news was broadcast from. Back then from the US news perspective Pravda was one big sheet of fake news (propaganda) . Back then you could also buy a shortwave radio and listen to the BBC as well as Radio Moscow (which had strong signals in the US).
    So back then one had to learn to take all news with a very large grain of salt because the folks putting the news together influenced how news was reported. It is just now that it appears that younger generations have tumbled to the fact that news organizations pursue a point of view and report news skewed to support that point of view.
    For another example back then the Socialist workers party had a newspaper that to the US mainstream point of view was propaganda,but from their point of view was the truth.

    JF , January 8, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    In large part this is also why the Framers put together a United States Republic, "wherein the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

    Democracy was too susceptible so reliance was placed on the two-house, separately elected sources, to provide thoughtful discourse via indpendent legislators. Ideally these people were to be thoughtful people who tried.

    This too has become a department-of-thought (the others are judicial and executive) that is lacking thought, well at least in one party, the one that also denies scientific fact and believes we can not govern ourselves because we are the problem. But their richtung is clear, no need to think too much about how to vote.

    hunkerdown , January 8, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    The Framers were the very same class of idle oligarchs that we are attempting to do battle with today. Jeremy Belknap's famous Supplication, that we should submit to the "enlightened" (i.e. freed from having to actually work to the order of others) rule of liberal dispensationalist Rescuers, is a bipartisan stipulation.

    Surely you didn't forget Hamilton Electors so quickly? Or Becky Fischer interviewed in Jesus Camp : "excuse me, but we have the truth!" Or which class and which interests are in fact running the press, and at whose interests' expense? People who vend noble lies klike liberalism or Belknap's learned helplessness tend to be discredited rather quickly.

    susan the other , January 8, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    The disastrous world that Hillary built is coming apart. She said in the 90s that she saw no way to save labor and prevent offshoring and being killed by cheap imports: "There's just no way to stop it." She came from the left and became the biggest free marketeer there ever was. Yet, her behavior has been so pious. She, as much as any tool who ever graced the halls of Washington DC, is to blame for shamelessly securing her own position by destroying the country. While the rest of us were lamenting the disappearance of truth, the neoliberals were attacking that idealism with a term coined by Steve Colbert: "truthiness" and everybody had a good chuckle until the truthiness was on the other foot – now they demand an end to "fake news". What about just tolerating all the "fakiness" And the "newsiness" with a fake smile? C'mon Hill, I know you can do it.

    hunkerdown , January 8, 2017 at 7:08 pm

    Worse, Obama demanded "truthiness". That's code, to me. There is a malicious design afoot.

    BeliTsari , January 8, 2017 at 3:19 pm

    As one by one, well known lefty blog aggregators got all 'et up by David Brock's CTR, it was difficult to miss their trolls & sock-puppets were all using Rick Berman's playbook http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/24/1519540/-Paid-Clinton-Troll-Speaks-out-I-was-aghast-at-what-I-saw Dissidents were entitled, gullible. basement-dwelling millennial, or misogynistic, racist agents provocateurs, spreading discordant enemy agitprop. They used Hill + Knowlton Strategies' decades-old buzz-words from tobacco, asbestos, fracking & bio-engineering scams, to discredit anybody questioning Debbie, Robby and John's stomping down loyal, lifelong Keynesian Democrats and handing the presidency to Trump, the states to ALEC and Judiciary, regulatory agencies & Congress to leering, smirking, up-front drooling Fascists. http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/06/resistance-2/

    BeliTsari , January 8, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    Wow people still READ The Guardian? Bloomberg spews the same crap for FREE!

    Gaylord , January 8, 2017 at 3:33 pm

    Another aspect of this is the obfuscation of true news. An example of this is the news blackout and dismissal of any significance pertaining to the Fukushima nuclear meltdowns, fallout, and continuing emissions of dangerous radioactive isotopes into the environment. This is an institutionalized conspiracy borne of complacency and self interest.

    The worst part of this is there are typically no judgments or consequences against the perpetrators of false information that is explicitly used to gain support for and acquiescence to policies that result in criminal actions and grave harm - i.e. war, exploitation & impoverishment, mass displacement, confiscation of resources, deleterious pollution & ecocide, etc. The justice system is as irredeemably corrupt as the rest of the political system.

    Paul Tioxon , January 8, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    http://www.ucpress.edu/blog/23963/

    This lucky coincidence is from the UC Press. They have a blog about different books they put out. And this one's relevant and timely. There is a brief overview of Watergate and The Kennedy/Nixon TV debates of 1960 and the ongoing myths surrounding them.

    Debunking Media Myths, Those Prominent Cases of Fake News

    by W. Joseph Campbell, author of 'Getting It Wrong: Debunking the Greatest Myths in American Journalism'.

    "The mainstream media's recent angst and hand-wringing about a surge of "fake news" has tended to ignore that the media themselves have often been purveyors of bogus tales and dubious interpretations.

    "Fake news" has plenty of antecedents in mainstream media - several cases of which are documented in my book, Getting It Wrong, a new, expanded edition of which was published recently.

    The book examines and debunks media-driven myths, which are well-known stories about and/or by the news media that are widely believed and often retold but which, under scrutiny, dissolve as false or wildly exaggerated. Think of them as prominent cases of "fake news" that have masqueraded as a fact for years. Decades, even."

    oho , January 8, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Don't forget that the entertainment divisions all of MSM's parent companies rely on quid pro quo "fake reviews" to juice positive buzz for movies/TV series.

    And often those fake reviews are spun as real news.

    Steve H. , January 8, 2017 at 4:19 pm

    Just checking, since I took a crack at the Reuters disclaimer, is the Bud from legal thing irony? 'Cause I cain't tell no more.

    'Cause if that's the case, that's a Case-1. And that means NC is a purveyor of fake news.

    But Wait! Is it weasel-words to say 'does not represent the views of (institution)'? Where is the agency? The DNC has a platform with explicit, well what are they, the DNC says 'political rhetoric' as opposed to actual positions. Wouldn't it be better to say 'the views of the owners of' or 'the editors of'? But are you then saying that Yves does not share this view? Or are you an editor and don't agree with yourself? Well, you get the idea.

    Anyway, I'd say let's kill all the lawyers, but let's leave legal Bud alone.

    Edward , January 8, 2017 at 4:30 pm

    One comment I would make about the WMD reporting was that the international press, including some British papers, were debunking the propaganda. It was as if America and the rest of the world were in separate realities. Many Americans were reading the Guardian to obtain independent news. The WMD claims of the Bush administration were debunked in congressional speeches, but the pro-war lawmakers didn't seem to care.

    ambrit , January 8, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    That's what's scary now. The pro war legislators don't seem to care now as well. Last time, it was Iraq, no push over, but not "really" dangerous. Now, it's Russia, which is truly dangerous. There's a significant difference between IEDs and ICBMs.

    Edward , January 8, 2017 at 6:54 pm

    This is why I almost voted for Trump. I ended up voting for Stein, but I dithered for a while.

    ambrit , January 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm

    I know that dither feeling. Many of us, and I include myself, are going to be very upset when we're dithered.

    Bugs Bunny , January 8, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    Seems to me that enforcement of existing Anti-trust law would go a long way in remedying the blob opinion that characterizes MSM reporting. I'm no neoliberal but competition law forces competition and from competition comes diversity in media strategy, reporting and publishing.

    Sorry I said competition three times. I tend to harp on this subject since I was at the center of some pretty tough Anti-trust fights back in the day when the DOJ did its job.

    ekstase , January 8, 2017 at 5:04 pm

    Questions I'm asking myself:

    " put them in the delusional bucket on the supplier side, as opposed to the malevolent bucket."
    1) Could someone, theoretically, be put in both buckets?

    2) If Elvis is not on Mars, then where is he?

    H. Alexander Ivey , January 8, 2017 at 5:38 pm

    He has left the building, that's all I know.

    ambrit , January 8, 2017 at 6:18 pm

    The answer to question 1) is quantum based. Whichever bucket you look in, there "they" are. I suspect the answer to question 2) is also quantum based. Schrodingers Blue Suede Shoes anyone?

    Persona au gratin , January 8, 2017 at 5:04 pm

    "News" – aka storytelling/myth making about "real" recent events – has always been "fake" to some degree or another. The question is, to what degree? However, I doubt most of any political stripe would contest the fact that lately it's become simply out of control. Welcome to the "information age!"

    NotSoSure , January 8, 2017 at 5:04 pm

    Does the following scenario: "The supplier knows the story is true, but the demander wants to believe it's true/false" falls under the scenario of "The supplier knows the story is true, but the demander knows nothing about it at all"

    Or how about: "The supplier wants to believe the story is true, and the demander wants to believe it's true"? Sounds a bit like religion (probably not "fake news").

    nonsense factory , January 8, 2017 at 5:42 pm

    Was the 2013 Syrian gas attack stories blaming the Syrian government fake news?
    http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-12-06/anti-fraud-experts-launch-news-accuracy-site-find-us-probably-blamed-wrong-side-for-syria-chemical-attack

    Very likely so.

    But this is right in line with Hillary Clinton's "public vs. private" position claims. It's okay to be dishonest about it because intervening to overthrow Assad is obviously "the greater good" just as overthrowing Gaddafi "we came we saw he died ha ha ha!" was a good idea. Unintended consequences? We'll just cook up some more propaganda to make it look like it's all going well. Image matters, not substance. If we tell everyone we're going to win the election, then we're sure to win the election; we just have to believe, get everyone on message, tell the right story. . .

    Reminds me of a William Gibson quote from Neuromancer:
    "I mean, these guys are all batshit in here, like they got luminous messages scrawled across the inside of their foreheads or something."

    XonX , January 8, 2017 at 6:34 pm

    Bud from legal insists that I say this post solely represents the views of "Lambert Strether," and does not represent the views of Naked Capitalism.

    OK, but is Bud part of the problem or part of the solution? Does Naked Capitalism have a view? I thought NC was a forum of views, not a person or a corporation-"person" (and so what if it was).

    So why does Bud need you to say that? What good or bad thing does this enable or prevent because you have now followed Bud's advice?

    Just curious I guess. I took the time to read it, so now I'd like to know why I did.

    [Jan 08, 2017] Russians Mock, Ridicule Charge They Helped Trump Win Zero Hedge

    Jan 08, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Franz Klintsevich, the first deputy chairman of the Defense and Security Committee of the Russian parliament's upper house, added fuel to the fire, saying the U.S. intelligence community made unfounded allegations of Russia-sponsored hacker attacks, in favor of the outgoing US presidential administration and made a fool of itself.

    Speaking to RIA Novosti , the senator said that the allegations "simply make no sense. The main reason is that no one can interfere with the electoral process in such country as the United States," he pointed out. "Acting in favor of the outgoing presidential administration, the US intelligence community laid itself open to ridicule."

    Other Russians agreed such as Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's accusations. "Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote.

    Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United States intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by solid evidence. Alexey Kovalyov, a Russian journalist who has followed and frequently criticized RT, said he was aghast that the report had given so much attention to the television station. "I do have a beef with RT and their chief," Mr. Kovalyov wrote in a social media post, "But they are not your nemesis, America. Please chill."

    The Kremlin, which has in the past repeatedly denied any role in the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer system, had no immediate response to the declassified report. Putin instead made a show of business as usual, attending a church service to mark the start of Orthodox Christmas.

    His composure was understandable because as the NYT again remarkably notes, " The report provides no new evidence to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions to boost the electoral chances of Donald J. Trump and undermine his rival, Hillary Clinton, but rests instead on what it describes as Moscow's long record of trying to influence America's political system ."

    In other words, speculation and innuendo. Curiously, the NYT's bashing of the report continued:

    The public report did not include evidence on the sources and methods used to collect the information about Mr. Putin and his associates that intelligence officials said was in a classified version.

    The NYT also cited Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian intelligence agencies at the Institute of International Relations in Prague, who said he was skeptical of the accusation that Putin had ordered the hacking. All the same, he added, Russian spies, like their Soviet predecessors, "don't just collect information but try to assert influence." United States intelligence operatives, he said, have often done the same thing but the Russians, convinced that the United States orchestrated protests in Ukraine in 2014 that toppled the pro-Moscow president, Viktor F. Yanukovych, and other popular uprisings in former Soviet lands, "have a more aggressive approach to meddling in other people's politics."

    The NYT continued: "Galeotti, the intelligence expert in Prague, cautioned that this mission to influence foreign politics was not a uniquely Russian phenomenon but had also been embraced in the past by the CIA, which, in the 1950s, sought to shape and subvert politics in countries like Iran and Guatemala ."

    Actually, and this is the real punchline, there is an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to US involvement in overthrowing foreign regimes. Here are just the examples since World War II (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

  • China 1949 to early 1960s
  • Albania 1949-53
  • East Germany 1950s
  • Iran 1953 *
  • Guatemala 1954 *
  • Costa Rica mid-1950s
  • Syria 1956-7
  • Egypt 1957
  • Indonesia 1957-8
  • British Guiana 1953-64 *
  • Iraq 1963 *
  • North Vietnam 1945-73
  • Cambodia 1955-70 *
  • Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
  • Ecuador 1960-63 *
  • Congo 1960 *
  • France 1965
  • Brazil 1962-64 *
  • Dominican Republic 1963 *
  • Cuba 1959 to present
  • Bolivia 1964 *
  • Indonesia 1965 *
  • Ghana 1966 *
  • Chile 1964-73 *
  • Greece 1967 *
  • Costa Rica 1970-71
  • Bolivia 1971 *
  • Australia 1973-75 *
  • Angola 1975, 1980s
  • Zaire 1975
  • Portugal 1974-76 *
  • Jamaica 1976-80 *
  • Seychelles 1979-81
  • Chad 1981-82 *
  • Grenada 1983 *
  • South Yemen 1982-84
  • Suriname 1982-84
  • Fiji 1987 *
  • Libya 1980s
  • Nicaragua 1981-90 *
  • Panama 1989 *
  • Bulgaria 1990 *
  • Albania 1991 *
  • Iraq 1991
  • Afghanistan 1980s *
  • Somalia 1993
  • Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
  • Ecuador 2000 *
  • Afghanistan 2001 *
  • Venezuela 2002 *
  • Iraq 2003 *
  • Haiti 2004 *
  • Somalia 2007 to present
  • Honduras 2009
  • Libya 2011 *
  • Syria 2012
  • Ukraine 2014 *
  • Perhaps the reasons behind the rushed, and frankly humiliating, report is that US intelligence was scrambling to respond to the first ever case of someone doing to it what the US had done to the rest of the world for decades without any fear of retaliation.

    As for Galeotti, he said the United States intelligence report on Russian meddling in the November election had gone too far in projecting Cold War attitudes onto today's reality. He said it was a mistake to suppose that Mr. Putin had from the start conducted "a Machiavellian conspiracy" aimed at bringing Mr. Trump to power.

    More likely, he added, was that Mr. Putin was not involved or even informed about initial efforts to hack into the D.N.C. computer system but, informed after the fact about what had been done, "decided to act opportunistically" and make use of the hacker's harvest of emails to try to tilt the election.

    His conclusion: "I don't think the Russians believed for a minute that Trump could really be elected," Galeotti said. "They were convinced that U.S. elites would ensure that one of their own would win. They thought they had a chance to do a bit of mischief but I think they were amazed, even aghast, at what happened. "

    Why? Here is perhaps the biggest reason, also known as the real fake news courtesy of Reuters ...

    the New York Times ...

    And, of course, the Washington Post.

    So yeah, it was Putin's fault:

  • None
  • China
  • New York Times
  • Donald Trump
  • Germany
  • Iran
  • Twitter
  • Reuters
  • Bulgaria
  • Australia
  • Iraq
  • Obama Administration
  • Ukraine
  • Afghanistan
  • Greece
  • Somalia
  • Reality
  • France
  • Twitter
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Jan 7, 2017 6:26 PM
  • 171
  • Comment viewing options Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
    alexcojones Jan 7, 2017 6:34 PM

    Must be hundreds of reasons why we Americans preferred Trump.

    I can think of dozens right off the bat - Arkancide - the huge list of people who trusted the Clintons. And died

    Clinton Body Count - Zpub.com
    Ralph Spoilsport alexcojones Jan 7, 2017 6:41 PM

    The Russians are laughing! The Russians are laughing!

    (Better than The Russians are Coming!)

    Ignatius Ralph Spoilsport Jan 7, 2017 6:43 PM

    Good and timely title for a movie (comedy). Write it.

    Ralph Spoilsport Ignatius Jan 7, 2017 6:48 PM

    Surely you remember this little gem from 1966?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Russians_Are_Coming,_the_Russians_Are_...

    Ignatius Ralph Spoilsport Jan 7, 2017 6:51 PM

    Saw it in the theatre. I was 10.

    Ralph Spoilsport Ignatius Jan 7, 2017 6:58 PM

    Geez, I was 13 and also saw it with my parents at "the movies". You old fart. :-)

    BTW, if your handle has anything to do with the book, I've read Confederacy of Dunces 3 times. You seem like the kind of person who would like that book, if you don't mind me saying,er...just sayin' or whatever they fucking say these days.

    xythras Ralph Spoilsport Jan 7, 2017 6:59 PM

    Well, what do you expect when you base your accusations on FEELINGS. And old Russian TV/web shows :

    http://dailywesterner.com/intelligence-report-that-claims-russia-was-beh...

    MOAR LIBTARD TEARS. MOAR MOAR !!!

    Occident Mortal xythras Jan 7, 2017 7:23 PM

    The problem in the 2016 election was that the establishment had gotten so arrogant that it didn't even bother to hide the glaring across-the-board favouritism lavished on Hillary Clinton...

    The American people are the one who saw an opportunity to be mischievous and boy did they reach for it.

    Drink your own Koolaid you greedy bastards.

    beemasters Occident Mortal Jan 7, 2017 7:54 PM

    Putin/Russians would be better off suing WaPo for defamation! Two cases: the election hack and the electrical grid hack.

    monk27 Occident Mortal Jan 8, 2017 3:26 AM

    The problem with our "intelligence" ( really ??) agencies is the fact that their collective IQ has been reduced to match Obozo's IQ (which ain't too high...); hence, the recently witnessed Jerry Springer kind of shit show...

    Ralph Spoilsport Ralph Spoilsport Jan 7, 2017 7:06 PM

    Ignatius, I just looked at your profile. "Never mind".

    My current goal in life is to not become a montage of all the main characters in that book.

    xythras Ignatius Jan 7, 2017 6:59 PM

    ...

    SubjectivObject Ignatius Jan 7, 2017 7:16 PM

    Please to get off da strit

    Ralph Spoilsport SubjectivObject Jan 7, 2017 7:31 PM

    "I think you a communiss."

    -- Claude Robichaux

    Ignatius Ralph Spoilsport Jan 7, 2017 8:32 PM

    "Woo-hoo, I be callin' a po-lice office man a communiss my ass be in Angola." -- Jones

    Fathead Slim SubjectivObject Jan 7, 2017 8:46 PM

    "Egermancy. Evribuddy to clear from stritt".

    consider me gone Ralph Spoilsport Jan 7, 2017 8:47 PM

    I remember watching that movie was a big deal in our family. Did they come and leave without stopping in to say hello?

    Croesus Ralph Spoilsport Jan 7, 2017 6:55 PM

    Best quote:

    "Mountain gave birth to a mouse".....

    LMFAO.

    @ Russia:

    Keep ridiculing the American government, please! They deserve it.

    GUS100CORRINA alexcojones Jan 7, 2017 6:43 PM

    America is the laughing stock of the world!!! Looking forward to TRUMP/PENCE team taking charge to "FIX THE MESS".

    As a dide note, Damascus, Syria is a "ruinous heap" along with the rest of Syria. Who is to blame for this tragedy?

    AMERICA!!!!!! America dropped over 50,000 bombs under CLINTON/OBAMA leadership that destroyed Syrian infrastructure. UNBELIEVABLE!!!

    May the GOD of the Bible have mercy on America for Her SINs.

    are we there yet GUS100CORRINA Jan 7, 2017 7:02 PM

    Americas SIN's

    S - Stupid I - Idiot N - Neocons

    Robert Trip are we there yet Jan 7, 2017 7:14 PM

    Fuck you too.

    are we there yet are we there yet Jan 7, 2017 10:17 PM

    Ok N -Neocons and Neolibs

    RagaMuffin Jan 7, 2017 6:33 PM

    Yeah Putin is going to aid and abet the candidate who will pump oil until the US is one foot below sea level. Oil the life blood of Russia...

    Vageling RagaMuffin Jan 7, 2017 7:08 PM

    You can actually live below sealevel you knew that? You just need to keep the water "managed". You'll be fine ;)

    RagaMuffin Vageling Jan 7, 2017 7:12 PM

    According to garmin, lord of the satelites, much of eastern NC is below sea level already...

    Guderian Vageling Jan 8, 2017 12:38 AM

    A god part of the Netherlands (=lowlands) is below sea level. The windmills are actually groundwater pumps.

    The Dhanakil is also beow sea level -if not for very muc longer...

    Arnold Guderian Jan 8, 2017 8:29 AM

    Death Valley.

    http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_elevation_of_death_valley

    Most Cities with a population over 100,000 are underwater already, if that helps.

    francis soyer Jan 7, 2017 6:33 PM

    Good read Tyler

    Ignatius Jan 7, 2017 6:34 PM

    Hey, any of you younger guys, how many times did you see that list of US coups on the chalkboard in high school?

    peddling-fiction Ignatius Jan 7, 2017 6:53 PM

    In a U.S. college I was taught that conspiracy theories do not exist.

    Yes, Dear Leader, they do not exist. *zombie eyes*

    Implied Violins peddling-fiction Jan 7, 2017 8:47 PM

    I actually experienced the opposite, as my very first college class featured a history professor who told us the real meat behind the writing of the Constitution (language written to protect white male land owners, etc.). From then on I have had my eyes open...but of course, that was 1981. Another world entirely.

    peddling-fiction Implied Violins Jan 7, 2017 9:05 PM

    We all have had a great teacher or two in our lives that made a difference.

    I went to college in 1987 in Penn State, but out of main campus.

    Philly, no thank you.

    Vageling Ignatius Jan 7, 2017 7:11 PM

    Zero. Too busy parroting how zee Amerikansky decided to finally come. US history btw is not on the menu.

    Killdo Ignatius Jan 7, 2017 10:30 PM

    never in Yugoslavia back in 70s

    but they used to tell us Americans are stupid, socially disconnected, they don't care about their parents and are obsessed with money. Also that American education sucks

    FredFlintstone Jan 7, 2017 6:34 PM

    We have become a joke. Thanks Obama.

    runswithscissors FredFlintstone Jan 7, 2017 6:48 PM

    who is this "We"? The progressives and thier liberal media mouthpieces are the joke.

    anti-republocrat runswithscissors Jan 7, 2017 11:03 PM

    There's nothing "progressive" about Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, just as there was nothing "conservative" about George W Bush or Mitt Romney. Millions of "leftists" stayed home on Nov. 8, which is why Hillary lost. Why are you trying to divide the American people?

    BarkingCat FredFlintstone Jan 7, 2017 8:10 PM

    It is Obama that is a joke.

    A very bad joke.....and almost over.

    GreatUncle FredFlintstone Jan 7, 2017 9:42 PM

    American people are not the joke, their leaders sadly are.

    You cannot make an honest vote without the truth, you allowed the liars to rule you like we did in Britain.

    That is why we ended up in this fucking mess ... the lie? HELLLLL FUCKINGGGGGGG NOOOOOOOOOO!

    The liars that decieve and rule over us.

    Allow the liar to live you get a stream of lies just like you got, kill the liar it ends no mouth churning out more lies.

    anti-republocrat FredFlintstone Jan 7, 2017 11:07 PM

    It's been 70 years coming. The CIA was created in the Truman Administration, though it was Eisenhower who let it get truly out of control under Allen Dulles.

    TheBigCluB Jan 7, 2017 6:35 PM

    Trump cant win it is written in the stars!

    TheBigCluB Jan 7, 2017 6:36 PM

    More beatings bitchez

    moral improving yet?

    nmewn Jan 7, 2017 6:35 PM

    1. So, when will Hillary and Debbie Wassername-Schultz be charged with interfering in "our democracy"? The emails were not forged, they were authentic.

    2. Scott Foval & Robert Creamer hiring mentally deficient homeless people to incite riots...any charges forthcoming...LowRenta? ;-)

    shovelhead nmewn Jan 7, 2017 6:39 PM

    Can you prosecute a duck?

    peddling-fiction shovelhead Jan 7, 2017 6:43 PM

    I have heard that duck liver makes good pate.

    Ralph Spoilsport shovelhead Jan 7, 2017 6:44 PM

    I don't know about a duck but you can apparently prosecute a ham sandwich.

    https://qz.com/303017/the-bizarre-tale-of-the-indict-a-ham-sandwich-judg...

    Bay of Pigs nmewn Jan 7, 2017 6:44 PM

    Indeed. And where is Eric Braverman? The entire CF, HRC campaign and DNC narrative is complete bullshit.

    nmewn Bay of Pigs Jan 7, 2017 7:01 PM

    At a time when "federal law enforcement" (such as it is...lol) is investigating the Clinton Foundation for what can only be called BRIBERY & CORRUPTION ...the MSM Fake News agencies are oddly silent on the fate of Eric Braverman aren't they?

    No op-eds. No "journalistic curiosity" standing behind their shredded shield of "freedom of the press". Saying. Nothing. Seeing. Nothing. Leading to moar lack of their journalistic integrity which they bemoaningly write about...endlessly...in op-eds. No Bernsteins & Woodwards in sight. Not even one.

    Complete...utter...group-think...silence.

    Why, what could it all possibly mean? ;-)

    Ralph Spoilsport nmewn Jan 7, 2017 7:19 PM

    I started paying attention to TV news in the early 60s and remember Walter Cronkite going on about the Viet Nam War and the family was all ears because my brother got drafted and I would be up in a few years. What Cronkite said we agreed with because we literally had skin in the game and we were still hurting from losses from the Korean War. Now they are saying the newscasters back then were full of shit and were shaping people's opinions. You never heard about any victories, just a lot of negativity and hopelessness accompanied by grisly but expertly edited war footage. No wonder people took drugs.

    Having said that, what we got now is a hundred times worse and your opinion of today's press and media is pretty much what I think too. Well said.

    Hulk nmewn Jan 7, 2017 6:58 PM

    Exactly. This Clownshow of Obama and the CIA is making me sick. Illustrates why our country is in such bad shape. Morons and an affirmative action Whitehouse and every other shit ass who rode the shortbus are running the country.

    Prosecute the real interferers and then let the War Crimes trials begin !!!

    [Jan 08, 2017] In polemics neoliberals like Trotskyites typically restort to dirty tricks

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have some friends who seem to hold out the fantasy that these corporations will forbear from "normalizing" Trump, presumably by turning their news broadcasts into some version of America Held Hostage for the duration of the Trump presidency. But this is fairly ridiculous. The audience for that kind of treatment of the administration is relatively small, and so that's not the treatment major new organizations are likely to produce. ..."
    "... talking to the progressive neoliberals here is a waste of time. Their heads are fully up their behinds. ..."
    "... Their competent, knowledgeable establishment candidate lost to a laughable reality TV star clown. They're still in shock. Waste of time. ..."
    "... Other tilts include the ad hominem, the red herring, false equivalent, the halo, and so forth. ..."
    "... Does exhibiting several of the top ten logic fallacies qualify for HFUTB? ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Dan Kervick -> EMichael... January 05, 2017 at 10:02 AM
    Well, that's capitalism. NBC News is a a division of Comcast, a large capitalist firm. They are in the business of making money by attracting consumer/viewer eyeballs to their output and out-competing their competitors for market share. Therefore they can always be expected to continually modify and redesign that output in the direction of perceived changes in audience tastes.

    I have some friends who seem to hold out the fantasy that these corporations will forbear from "normalizing" Trump, presumably by turning their news broadcasts into some version of America Held Hostage for the duration of the Trump presidency. But this is fairly ridiculous. The audience for that kind of treatment of the administration is relatively small, and so that's not the treatment major new organizations are likely to produce.

    Peter K. said in reply to Dan Kervick... , January 05, 2017 at 11:33 AM

    NBC's The Apprentice made Trump well-known to a large public. They've already profited off of him.

    But talking to the progressive neoliberals here is a waste of time. Their heads are fully up their behinds.

    Their competent, knowledgeable establishment candidate lost to a laughable reality TV star clown. They're still in shock. Waste of time.

    ilsm -> Peter K.... , -1
    I rather observe we have a lot intent on sorting* the evidence to support their beliefs+.

    Other tilts include the ad hominem, the red herring, false equivalent, the halo, and so forth.

    Does exhibiting several of the top ten logic fallacies qualify for HFUTB?

    * deduction is not reasoning

    + they might use thumb screws....... on the non believer

    [Jan 08, 2017] The value of RT for critical thinking

    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs ...

    January 07, 2017 at 03:20 PM

    (In future, such analysis will be outsourced.)

    Russians Ridicule US Charge That Kremlin
    Meddled to Help Trump http://nyti.ms/2i4mL60
    NYT - ANDREW HIGGINS - January 7, 2017

    ... Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's accusations.

    "Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote.

    Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United States intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by solid evidence. ...

    EMichael -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 07, 2017 at 03:30 PM
    Yeah, I'll believe anything that appears in the Russian press.

    "Sitting next to Putin was RT's 36-year-old editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, a raven-haired former state television reporter who took over RT when she was 25. She is a feisty defender of her network, often lashing out against critics-and there are many-who say RT is little more than a weapon in a Russian information war against the West. Secretary of State John Kerry calls the network a "propaganda bullhorn" for Putin; it has been a subject at House and Senate foreign affairs hearings; and, in mid-March, two U.S. senators introduced the Countering Information Warfare Act, which is aimed in part at the network. Simonyan almost seems to enjoy battling RT's legions of critics. When a BuzzFeed reporter asked her in 2014 about alleged Kremlin influence, Simonyan unleashed a mocking reply. "[W]e just read the latest Kremlin press releases on camera. It is much more efficient that way," she wrote on RT's website, adding sardonically that the network "unleash[es] the KGB on anyone who dares to leave." And yet, Simonyan does in fact keep a yellow telephone with no dial pad on her desk, which Simonyan conceded to a Time reporter last year is a secure line to the Kremlin.

    In his remarks at the dinner, Putin showed obvious pride in the network, saying its efforts reminded him of the way hardworking Russian sailors tear the shirts off their backs. He most decidedly wasn't mentioning that hotline to the Kremlin on Simonyan's desk or Kerry's scathing dismissal of his "bullhorn." Far from it. "Your greatest strength is presenting information freely and independently," Putin told the crowd, who sipped wine in translucent chairs around white-clothed tables. "We do not control you. and we do not meddle," Putin said. He also boasted that RT has a reach of 700 million viewers, though he conceded they had no idea how many people actually watch; U.S. officials say the American viewership is much lower than RT's estimate of 8 million per week on cable systems like Comcast, Time Warner and Dish Network. (They are also skeptical of RT's claim to have a budget of only $250 million worldwide. In March, Republican Senator Rob Portman cited reports saying the cost of the network's Washington bureau alone could be $400 million, though RT adamantly denies that, and the original source of the report is unclear.)

    Putin did hint at RT's role in the political war Russia finds itself waging with the West, referring to the "complicated" state of global politics and "distortions of events," including in Ukraine and Syria, and saying that RT can describe "the true events" to a growing global audience yearning for unbiased facts.

    But Putin's comments are at odds with how the network operates in practice, according to interviews with people who closely watch or have worked at RT, and my own hours of monitoring the network and its website. One former RT staffer in Washington told me that she left her job, along with others who have also spoken to the media, after seeing the network's Moscow-based editors instruct journalists to make their coverage hew to the Moscow-approved political line. Such concerns erupted into full view a couple years ago when Russia marched into neighboring Ukraine to annex the Crimean Peninsula, leading a 28-year-old RT presenter named Liz Wahl to quit on-air, declaring, "I cannot be a part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin."

    Just under the surface is a bought-and-paid-for propaganda vehicle trying to nudge viewers toward Russia's side of the story at a time when Moscow has increasingly become an international pariah.

    Today, it's clear RT operates less as the free and independent news source Putin touted, and more as a vehicle that increasingly uses the available tools of the digital revolution-from viral videos ("Animated Genitals," "Lawnmower Explodes") to entertainingly snarky tweets-to promote Russia's message. It's positioning itself as a scrappy dissenter to the old Western media's monopoly on information, a theme Simonyan emphasized to me in a statement for this story. Americans, she said, watch RT for "stories, views and analysis they won't find in the mainstream media." As for criticism of RT's coverage of the United States and the 2016 campaign, she sounded a positively Trumpian theme, saying RT's critics are "mostly members of the U.S. political establishment, who are uncomfortable with losing the longtime monopoly on information."

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833

    libezkova

    Politico missed the point.

    RT has value in present circumstance similar (but less) to what BBC and Voice of America has for Soviet people before that.

    The fact that it is propaganda outlet of Russian government does not change this simple fact.

    Soviet people also understood very well that the BBC and Voice of America are far from impartial and propagate the point of view of corresponding governments. That understood all to well that some information will be lies and disinformation and it provided by people who escape and hold grudges against the USSR. Still they wanted "the second opinion" so badly that this consideration overweighs all others. Even if in some cases they will be taken for a ride.

    I think a very similar situation exists now in the USA. Neoliberal MSM were disgusting during Presidential complain. As Trump supporter I simply could not read them.

    And it is not surprising for them that now the US MSM are not trusted and people want a second opinion on the MSM coverage of foreign and (increasingly) domestic events.

    RT fills this niche and that's probably partially explains its popularity.

    I personally seldom use it (and find some of its shows are quite annoying) as blogs and alternative media such as therealnews.com unz.com, antiwar.com, counterpunch.org, etc can fill the same role. I would like them to give Snowden a role of an independent security commentator. He probably understands the current McCarthyism witch hunt better then others. And he has real technical knowledge necessary for covering those events.

    But some articles it published are good or even excellent and provide a decent insight into the events in question.

    [Jan 08, 2017] Will Trump presidency ever be considered legitimate?

    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : January 07, 2017 at 10:55 AM

    Paul Krugman✔ @paulkrugman

    Seriously: how will this presidency ever be considered
    legitimate? And what happens to America when it isn't?

    12:37 PM - 7 Jan 2017

    NYT headline, Jan 7

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1ldCgzUsAAftK0.jpg

    Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to
    Aid Trump, Report Finds http://nyti.ms/2jbXCV1
    NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR and DAVID E. SANGER - Jan 6

    WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.

    The officials presented their unanimous conclusions to Mr. Trump in a two-hour briefing at Trump Tower in New York that brought the leaders of America's intelligence agencies face to face with their most vocal skeptic, the president-elect, who has repeatedly cast doubt on Russia's role. The meeting came just two weeks before Mr. Trump's inauguration and was underway even as the electoral votes from his victory were being formally counted in a joint session of Congress.

    Soon after leaving the meeting, intelligence officials released the declassified, damning report that described the sophisticated cybercampaign as part of a continuing Russian effort to weaken the United States government and its democratic institutions. The report - a virtually unheard-of, real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about to direct them - made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored candidate of Mr. Putin.

    (Intelligence Report on Russian
    Hacking http://nyti.ms/2i1xVbI )

    The Russian leader, the report said, sought to denigrate Mrs. Clinton, and the report detailed what the officials had revealed to President Obama a day earlier: Mr. Trump's victory followed a complicated, multipart cyberinformation attack whose goal had evolved to help the Republican win.

    The 25-page report did not conclude that Russian involvement tipped the election to Mr. Trump.

    The public report lacked the evidence that intelligence officials said was included in a classified version, which they described as information on the sources and methods used to collect the information about Mr. Putin and his associates. Those would include intercepts of conversations and the harvesting of computer data from "implants" that the United States and its allies have put in Russian computer networks. ...

    Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump,
    Report Finds http://nyti.ms/2jbXCV1 Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 10:55 AM Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 07, 2017 at 11:09 AM

    Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman

    Remember, Trump's subservience
    to Putin has been obvious all along

    11:18 AM - 7 Jan 2017

    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/817767303911788544

    Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate http://nyti.ms/29PPyc2
    NYT - Paul Krugman - JULY 22, 2016

    If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in the White House? This should be a ludicrous, outrageous question. After all, he must be a patriot - he even wears hats promising to make America great again.

    But we're talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign's recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

    I'm not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin's performance - being impressed by the de facto dictator's "strength," and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America's allies and her own self-interest.

    That's not to deny that Mr. Trump does, indeed, admire Mr. Putin. On the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the Russian strongman, often in extravagant terms. For example, when Mr. Putin published an article attacking American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."

    But admiration for Putinism isn't unusual in Mr. Trump's party. Well before the Trump candidacy, Putin envy on the right was already widespread.

    For one thing, Mr. Putin is someone who doesn't worry about little things like international law when he decides to invade a country. He's "what you call a leader," declared Rudy Giuliani after Russia invaded Ukraine. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 07, 2017 at 11:14 AM
    'when Mr. Putin published an article attacking American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."'

    Vladimir Putin has a plan for destroying
    the West-and it looks a lot like Donald Trump
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top via @slate

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 07, 2017 at 11:21 AM
    Slate: Trump's devotion to the Russian president has been portrayed as buffoonish enthusiasm for a fellow macho strongman. But Trump's statements of praise amount to something closer to slavish devotion. In 2007, he praised Putin for "rebuilding Russia." A year later he added, "He does his work well. Much better than our Bush." When Putin ripped American exceptionalism in a New York Times op-ed in 2013, Trump called it "a masterpiece."

    What Putin Has to Say to Americans
    About Syria http://nyti.ms/1eFFMCQ
    NYT - VLADIMIR V. PUTIN - SEPT. 11, 2013

    Donald J. Trump✔ @realDonaldTrump

    Putin's letter is a masterpiece for Russia and a disaster for the U.S. He is lecturing to our President.Never has our Country looked to weak

    6:26 AM - 12 Sep 2013

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/378102285001576448

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 07, 2017 at 11:24 AM
    Not going to war with Putin might hurt all of their feelings! Maybe the pocketbook of war profiteers.

    Duality: Clinton had no animus in breaking the law concerning lost public records and mishandling security information, but Putin is evil!

    What they gave Trump is an 'assessment', appeal to authority all Krugman wants.

    Same kind of 'assessment' that gave you Iraq.

    The main plea coming from the media, war corporatists and the distraught is: we cannot ignore the spook's assessments.

    Neolibs are different than their equals in the GOP because they care about the feelings of war mongers and cannot keep them from their wars of profit.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> ilsm... , January 07, 2017 at 03:32 PM
    You may have been right in thinking that
    the need to seem hawkish when chasing the
    presidency is no longer essential, at least
    with regard to Russia.

    Now I have secretly believed all along that
    US and them have been 2 sides of the same coin,
    brash, arrogant, yada yada. Perhaps we can do
    some bizness together, yes?

    Maybe they could use a half-decent missile
    defense system, priced to sell.

    DeDude -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 07, 2017 at 11:43 AM
    I don't think that you will ever find that a broad consensus emerge that an elected candidate is legitimate.

    Bill Clinton was attacked from day one and considered illegitimate by the right because their (two) candidates had gotten more votes.

    Bush II was considered illegitimate by the left because he was appointed by a right wing supreme court that refused to wait and actually count the votes in Florida.

    Obama was considered illegitimate by the right because of birth certificates (yes sometimes they just make up shtuff to allow themselves to believe) - and later because he used and expanded the executive powers Bush had pushed at the end.

    Ultimately a substantial number of people from the opposite side of the political spectrum will question the legitimacy of the elected president, whether there are legitimate questions or not. The consequences for America is what we have lived with since 1992; a super-charged partisanship that is getting worse not better.

    Peter K. -> DeDude... , January 07, 2017 at 12:22 PM
    Obama has high approval ratings as he leaves office, unlike Hillary Clinton or Trump who were two of the most unpopular candidates in history.
    Fred C. Dobbs -> DeDude... , January 07, 2017 at 12:45 PM
    Legitimacy as suggested by election results:

    Obama - 2008:
    52.9% of the popular vote, 365 electoral votes
    whereas McCain got 45.7% & 173 ev; 58.2% turnout

    Bush Sr - 1988:
    53.4% & 426 ev vs. Dukakis with 45.6% & 111 ev;
    50.2% turnout

    Reagan, 2nd term - 1984:
    58.8% & 525 ev vs 40.6% & 13 ev for Mondale; 53.3% turnout

    Trump - 2016:
    46% of the popular vote, 304 electoral votes
    vs 48% & 227 ev for Clinton; 55.3% turnout.

    All were 'legitimate' - putative Russian influence
    aside, arguably. 'Mandates' can be asserted
    only for the first three, IMO. Possibly excepting
    Bush, due to low turnout.

    Winning the electoral vote while losing the
    popular vote makes this one a 'squeaker'.

    Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs... , January 07, 2017 at 03:20 PM
    (In future, such analysis will be outsourced.)

    Russians Ridicule US Charge That Kremlin
    Meddled to Help Trump http://nyti.ms/2i4mL60
    NYT - ANDREW HIGGINS - January 7, 2017

    ... Margarita Simonyan, the editor in chief of RT, a state-funded television network that broadcasts in English, who is cited repeatedly in the report, posted her own message on Twitter scoffing at the American intelligence community's accusations.

    "Aaa, the CIA report is out! Laughter of the year! Intro to my show from 6 years ago is the main evidence of Russia's influence at US elections. This is not a joke!" she wrote.

    Even Russians who have been critical of their government voiced dismay at the United States intelligence agencies' account of an elaborate Russian conspiracy unsupported by solid evidence. ...

    EMichael -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Yeah, I'll believe anything that appears in the Russian press.

    "Sitting next to Putin was RT's 36-year-old editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan, a raven-haired former state television reporter who took over RT when she was 25. She is a feisty defender of her network, often lashing out against critics-and there are many-who say RT is little more than a weapon in a Russian information war against the West. Secretary of State John Kerry calls the network a "propaganda bullhorn" for Putin; it has been a subject at House and Senate foreign affairs hearings; and, in mid-March, two U.S. senators introduced the Countering Information Warfare Act, which is aimed in part at the network. Simonyan almost seems to enjoy battling RT's legions of critics. When a BuzzFeed reporter asked her in 2014 about alleged Kremlin influence, Simonyan unleashed a mocking reply. "[W]e just read the latest Kremlin press releases on camera. It is much more efficient that way," she wrote on RT's website, adding sardonically that the network "unleash[es] the KGB on anyone who dares to leave." And yet, Simonyan does in fact keep a yellow telephone with no dial pad on her desk, which Simonyan conceded to a Time reporter last year is a secure line to the Kremlin.

    In his remarks at the dinner, Putin showed obvious pride in the network, saying its efforts reminded him of the way hardworking Russian sailors tear the shirts off their backs. He most decidedly wasn't mentioning that hotline to the Kremlin on Simonyan's desk or Kerry's scathing dismissal of his "bullhorn." Far from it. "Your greatest strength is presenting information freely and independently," Putin told the crowd, who sipped wine in translucent chairs around white-clothed tables. "We do not control you. and we do not meddle," Putin said. He also boasted that RT has a reach of 700 million viewers, though he conceded they had no idea how many people actually watch; U.S. officials say the American viewership is much lower than RT's estimate of 8 million per week on cable systems like Comcast, Time Warner and Dish Network. (They are also skeptical of RT's claim to have a budget of only $250 million worldwide. In March, Republican Senator Rob Portman cited reports saying the cost of the network's Washington bureau alone could be $400 million, though RT adamantly denies that, and the original source of the report is unclear.)

    Putin did hint at RT's role in the political war Russia finds itself waging with the West, referring to the "complicated" state of global politics and "distortions of events," including in Ukraine and Syria, and saying that RT can describe "the true events" to a growing global audience yearning for unbiased facts.

    But Putin's comments are at odds with how the network operates in practice, according to interviews with people who closely watch or have worked at RT, and my own hours of monitoring the network and its website. One former RT staffer in Washington told me that she left her job, along with others who have also spoken to the media, after seeing the network's Moscow-based editors instruct journalists to make their coverage hew to the Moscow-approved political line. Such concerns erupted into full view a couple years ago when Russia marched into neighboring Ukraine to annex the Crimean Peninsula, leading a 28-year-old RT presenter named Liz Wahl to quit on-air, declaring, "I cannot be a part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin."

    Just under the surface is a bought-and-paid-for propaganda vehicle trying to nudge viewers toward Russia's side of the story at a time when Moscow has increasingly become an international pariah.

    Today, it's clear RT operates less as the free and independent news source Putin touted, and more as a vehicle that increasingly uses the available tools of the digital revolution-from viral videos ("Animated Genitals," "Lawnmower Explodes") to entertainingly snarky tweets-to promote Russia's message. It's positioning itself as a scrappy dissenter to the old Western media's monopoly on information, a theme Simonyan emphasized to me in a statement for this story. Americans, she said, watch RT for "stories, views and analysis they won't find in the mainstream media." As for criticism of RT's coverage of the United States and the 2016 campaign, she sounded a positively Trumpian theme, saying RT's critics are "mostly members of the U.S. political establishment, who are uncomfortable with losing the longtime monopoly on information."

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-russia-today-rt-kremlin-media-vladimir-putin-213833

    [Jan 08, 2017] The Intercept has been very good on this whole Russian hacking issue.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Intercept has been very good on this whole Russian hacking issue. They are not denying the claims of the intelligence agencies (in fact, their opinion is that they are probably right). But they keep pointing out that the agencies' unclassified reports keep reaching the same conclusions but provide flimsy or no evidence. ..."
    "... Their attack on the Post on the PropOrNot misinformation is similar. They argue that many papers and journalists echo someone's opinion without any corroborating facts. As they point out, this is particularly insidious when the perpetrator is a widely quoted source like the Post; soon, the misinformation becomes a "fact" that "everyone knows". Retractions are usually late, small, and cannot undo the damage. ..."
    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Julio -> JF... , January 07, 2017 at 03:43 PM
    The Intercept has been very good on this whole Russian hacking issue. They are not denying the claims of the intelligence agencies (in fact, their opinion is that they are probably right). But they keep pointing out that the agencies' unclassified reports keep reaching the same conclusions but provide flimsy or no evidence.

    So, the public is being asked to take the agencies on faith. The Intercept says that given the agencies' record, journalists should at least point this out, and not treat these allegations as settled fact.

    Their attack on the Post on the PropOrNot misinformation is similar. They argue that many papers and journalists echo someone's opinion without any corroborating facts. As they point out, this is particularly insidious when the perpetrator is a widely quoted source like the Post; soon, the misinformation becomes a "fact" that "everyone knows". Retractions are usually late, small, and cannot undo the damage.

    EMichael -> Julio ... , January 07, 2017 at 04:15 PM
    I do not disagree with this at all. We both realize there is a limit to the info that can be released, but that should not make us comfortable at this point.

    I will point out two things.

    First, the FBI is on line with the consensus. Comey's actions from this summer, when he went way off the reservation to scold Clinton, to the clusterf!ck before the election ( I believe that is a clear violation of the Hatch Act) shows clearly that the FBI was no impartial.

    Second, the "agencies' record" that is oft mentioned, seems to place the blame on the Iraq war on those agencies. As I remember (and I fought against people thinking bush's actions were justified back then), there was no such consensus among the intelligence community on the existence of WMDs. Rather, there was strong doubts in some of the groups.

    None of that means this consensus is correct, but it does seem to be totally agreed to by all of the community.

    This attack on the Intel community itself, with absolutely no contra info from outside the community (which certainly existed regarding WMD info before Iraq) reminds me of people laying blame on Clinton for invading Iraq. That was not her call, but somehow she bears the blame with some people.

    Most importantly, this is not about who the POTUS will be. That is a fact. ANd I have seen no calls at all to cancel the results of the election(nor should there be).

    At the same time, this issue needs to be investigated thoroughly, and if the allegations are true, Russia needs to be punished for their actions.(oh, and I am not talking about military actions).

    If true, Putin should be sanctioned for another ten years(or until he leaves) and we should take actions against those who do not take actions against him. I mean, it is not like there is not prior offenses by him in this area. He is a threat to the stability of countries in eastern europe, the middle east, europe, and now the US.


    ilsm -> EMichael... , January 07, 2017 at 01:00 PM
    Shorter: lined up your fallacies to support what? Regime change, war in Europe, nuclear holocaust....

    longer:

    Blood on Putin's hands! He is a pacifist compared to Obama, even considering his military spends less than 7% what the US wastes to kill people all over the world.

    It is only in the past 8 years that the neocon, faux democrat, neolibs have used NATO to threaten regime change on Russia.

    Poland and Hungary "joined" NATO when?*

    All the blood on Obama's hands with the instigation of the neocon Clinton's gang! Who is evil, certainly not the exceptional Obama, the fascists in Ukraine nor the [neocons of the] CIA trained jihadi proxies.

    Putin rich, same as the Clintons rising from taking White House flat wear in 2001. Besides CIA says Putin is a dot com genius running hacks and all.......

    *1997 Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary, 1999 was the Baltic states and several other "eastern" nations, the last "enlargement" #6 Albania [got their county of Kosovo from NATO in 1997] and Croatia was 2009.

    So much for you.

    [Jan 08, 2017] Krugman and Haffintonpost are blowing the DNC hack all out of proportion. The FBI warned the incompetents at the DNC about the hackers months before and they did nothing about it.

    Jan 08, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Jay : January 07, 2017 at 08:19 AM , 2017 at 08:19 AM
    An accurate description...

    https://theintercept.com/2017/01/06/underwhelming-intel-report-shows-need-for-congressional-investigation-of-dnc-hack/

    Pure propaganda...
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intelligence-report-russia-hack-election_us_586fed0fe4b02b5f8588b94a

    Jay -> Jay... , January 07, 2017 at 08:37 AM
    We can see why the left wanted Clinton elected. A Clinton presidency could lead to their desired war with Russia (Putin). The left is inflamed that Trump won't act so quick on such war-mongering, although there is other war-mongering he will likely engage in (Middle East).

    If we are going to engage in regime change could we at least pick a dictator that is economically starving their population (Maduro)?

    Pinkybum -> Jay... , January 07, 2017 at 11:25 AM
    "A Clinton presidency could lead to their desired war with Russia (Putin)."

    And how would that happen exactly?

    EMichael -> Pinkybum... , January 07, 2017 at 11:38 AM
    That wasn't my question.

    Mine was, who on the left wants a war with Russia?

    Peter K. -> EMichael... , -1
    The people who are blowing the DNC hack all out of proportion.

    The FBI warned the incompetents at the DNC about the hackers months before and they did nothing about it.

    Hillary's private email server was another classic f up.

    In 2008 Krugman was all down on Obama and said Hillary was the better candidate.

    Obama got through 8 years without a major scandal. Hillary couldn't get through the election without one.

    Funny how wrong Krugman is when it comes to politics.

    [Jan 08, 2017] How worse than the neocon neolib of the past 8 years can Trump be?

    Jan 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , -1
    How worse than the neocon neolib of the past 8 years can Trump be?

    If the US president has done well the past 30 the standards need adjustment.

    How many dead for the prosperity of the empire and its satellites?

    Libezkova -> ilsm... , January 03, 2017 at 10:08 PM
    Exactly --

    Brainwashed part of commentariat here does not understand that the fact the USA escaped the danger to be ruled by Clinton mafia is a blessing, not a curse. Trump does not matter in this respect. The fact of escape matters a lot.

    None of them would ever agree that the benefits to be ruled by a 69 years old health handicapped (probably Parkinson stage II) neocon warmonger for the USA population might be highly questionable.

    More so then for Trump, who also represents some dangers. That's for sure.

    And there are quite a few such people here who uncritically repeat neoliberal propaganda: The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed ( if not plain vanilla evil ) they might be in political issues. Probably a side effect of overspecialization.

    Take for example a group of people here who claim that Putin is a kleptocrat. If so he obviously should put his money in Western banks like any self-respecting kleptocrat ;-). But nobody has found such a bank. And that includes a dozen of the USA intelligence agencies, which so easily determined that government connected Russian hackers penetrated DNC stole emails and submitted them to Wikileaks to influence the USA presidential election.

    The fact that bank with his billions was never found, makes it more plausible that he is just a moderate Russian nationalist (with some neoliberal tendencies -- he brought Russia into WTO) and not a kleptocrat like neoliberal propaganda machine in the USA and GB proclaim.

    But tell them that Hillary is a classic kleptocrat (and she clearly is taking bribes, sorry donations and speaking fees, left and right) and they will do such a hissy fit that you will regret that you touched this theme.

    As for hacking hysteria tell them that it looks more and more plausible that some part of US elite now is definitely interested in reviving "Red scare" to improve manageability and social stability of neoliberal society, which with the election of Trump got into the second crisis after 2008, with the population no longer believing neoliberal myths and you will be declared Putin stooge (Putin stooge for some commenters here is any person with whom they disagree; how convenient).

    They are also very sensitive to political correctness rules. Just mention Building 7 and your instantly become 9/11 truther. But, at the same time, most of them never watched 30 sec video of building 7 collapse ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU ) and do not understand elementary physics.

    [Jan 07, 2017] Can Trump and Putin Avert Cold War II

    Notable quotes:
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." ..."
    "... It is salutary that Buchanan, the cofounder of the American Conservative magazine, is in essential agreement with Steve Cohen, a senior editor of The Nation magazine, for the necessity for a Trump/Putin political approachment! ..."
    "... This is another excellent article. Obviously, survival beats absurd confrontation on behalf of jihadi thugs, which has become the democratic program since they jumped the shark a few years ago. Even the ACLU has been publishing material from that proven islamofascist Khizr Khan, Clinton's pet jihadi, defending the Iraq war as based on the defense of the concept of the rule of law. As Buchanan indicates, the Russians are supporting the civilized element in Syria, for instance, and it was "western" influence which broke up the Ukraine and the Russians are only defending their own people in Ukraine, South Ossetia and elsewhere. Meanwhile, even the Washington Post has had to admit that the rumors of Russian influence on the election voting are false. Soon the canard that the Russians released DNC and Podesta documents will also be revealed as false. This should totally discredit all of those involved, and their motives should be fully investigated. ..."
    "... Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics? ..."
    "... We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first. ..."
    "... "When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda. ..."
    "... The real bad guy is borderless Rothschild monetarism. Those greedy thugs have no loyalty to any place on the Earth. They are working to make a cashless world where all transactions must flow through them. They want to skim every human interaction that involves money. It will be a world were dollars and pounds are meaningless. Everyone will be churned into an indebted zombie. ..."
    "... The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They constitute the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it face the uphill battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually it is done not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being truly deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose (like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts to nil. ..."
    Jan 04, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Pat Buchanan In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland's Eastern shore.

    Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that 35 U.S. diplomats would be expelled. But Vladimir Putin stepped in, declined to retaliate at all, and invited the U.S. diplomats in Moscow and their children to the Christmas and New Year's party at the Kremlin.

    "A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger," reads Proverbs 15:1. "Great move," tweeted President-elect Trump, "I always knew he was very smart!"

    Among our Russophobes, one can almost hear the gnashing of teeth.

    Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being "Putin's puppet," lost.

    Is then a Cold War II between Russia and the U.S. avoidable?

    That question raises several others.

    Who is more responsible for both great powers having reached this level of animosity and acrimony, 25 years after Ronald Reagan walked arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev through Red Square? And what are the causes of the emerging Cold War II?

    Comes the retort: Putin has put nuclear-capable missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania.

    True, but who began this escalation?

    George W. Bush was the one who trashed Richard Nixon's ABM Treaty and Obama put anti-missile missiles in Poland. After invading Iraq, George W. Bush moved NATO into the Baltic States in violation of a commitment given to Gorbachev by his father to not move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army withdrew.

    Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, says John McCain.

    Russia did, after Georgia invaded its breakaway province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers. Putin threw the Georgians out, occupied part of Georgia, and then withdrew.

    Russia, it is said, has supported Syria's Bashar Assad, bombed U.S.-backed rebels and participated in the Aleppo slaughter.

    But who started this horrific civil war in Syria?

    Was it not our Gulf allies, Turkey, and ourselves by backing an insurgency against a regime that had been Russia's ally for decades and hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean?

    Did we not exercise the same right of assisting a beleaguered ally when we sent 500,000 troops to aid South Vietnam against a Viet Cong insurgency supported by Hanoi, Beijing and Moscow?

    That's what allies do.

    The unanswered question: Why did we support the overthrow of Assad when the likely successor regime would have been Islamist and murderously hostile toward Syria's Christians?

    Russia, we are told, committed aggression against Ukraine by invading Crimea.

    But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed a bloodless coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government in Kiev.

    Crimea had belonged to Moscow from the time of Catherine the Great in the 18th century, and the Russia-Ukraine relationship dates back to before the Crusades. When did this become a vital interest of the USA?

    As for Putin's backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk left behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

    Has Putin no right to be concerned about his lost countrymen?

    Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

    Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?

    We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.

    Moreover, the populist, nationalist, anti-EU and secessionist parties in Europe have arisen on their own and are advancing through free elections.

    Sovereignty, independence, a restoration of national identity, all appear to be more important to these parties than what they regard as an excessively supervised existence in the soft-dictatorship of the EU.

    In the Cold War between Communism and capitalism, the single-party dictatorship and the free society, we prevailed.

    But in the new struggle we are in, the ethnonational state seems ascendant over the multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual "universal nation" whose avatar is Barack Obama.

    Putin does not seek to destroy or conquer us or Europe. He wants Russia, and her interests, and her rights as a great power to be respected.

    He is not mucking around in our front yard; we are in his.

    The worst mistake President Trump could make would be to let the Russophobes grab the wheel and steer us into another Cold War that could be as costly as the first, and might not end as peacefully.

    Reagan's outstretched hand to Gorbachev worked. Trump has nothing to lose by extending his to Vladimir Putin, and much perhaps to win.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."

    Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

    Carlton Meyer says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 5:37 am GMT • 200 Words

    Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji , Realist , Randal , Che Guava , jacques sheete • Replies:

    @Mao Cheng Ji

    For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement
    But what it was a verbal agreement - how is that a reason for breaking it? ,

    @MEexpert

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
    That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of international studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX news. They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning things from the "For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent. ,

    @Cagey Beast Re: Putin being a "thug".

    I wonder too how people can believe Putin is a thug and tyrant when we can all view dozens of hours of Putin interacting with the Russia public and press, anytime we choose to, via the web? Just look at his marathon press conferences and ask oneself if this is a room full of cowed and frightened people and whether Putin acts like a bully or a good sport throughout? ,

    @CanSpeccy Re: Educated Americans who think Putin is a thug.

    Higher Education:

    [A] political racket whereby Democrats fork endless cash to tuition extortionists, and lousy scholars impart insane ideas to debt-strapped students who are made dysfunctional citizens in the process.

    Source: Reply

    Pat Buchanan is wise and prophetic like few other political observers. He deserves a special place among Trump's inner circle. If not as Secretary of State, Pat should be given the position of National Security Advisor.

    Trump's team would benefit greatly by Buchanan's judgement and experience, as would our nation.

    • Agree: Realist • Replies: @sturbain Agree wholeheartedly. Trump should take advantage of Pat's remarkable historical knowledge and wisdom.
    Dan Hayes says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 6:41 am GMT

    It is salutary that Buchanan, the cofounder of the American Conservative magazine, is in essential agreement with Steve Cohen, a senior editor of The Nation magazine, for the necessity for a Trump/Putin political approachment!

    exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT • 200 Words

    This is another excellent article. Obviously, survival beats absurd confrontation on behalf of jihadi thugs, which has become the democratic program since they jumped the shark a few years ago. Even the ACLU has been publishing material from that proven islamofascist Khizr Khan, Clinton's pet jihadi, defending the Iraq war as based on the defense of the concept of the rule of law. As Buchanan indicates, the Russians are supporting the civilized element in Syria, for instance, and it was "western" influence which broke up the Ukraine and the Russians are only defending their own people in Ukraine, South Ossetia and elsewhere. Meanwhile, even the Washington Post has had to admit that the rumors of Russian influence on the election voting are false. Soon the canard that the Russians released DNC and Podesta documents will also be revealed as false. This should totally discredit all of those involved, and their motives should be fully investigated.

    Mao Cheng Ji says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:11 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement

    But what it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?

    • Replies: @Avery {But what (if) it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?}

    Agree.

    At that State level of actors, a verbal agreement is also a contract.
    But the link to a written contract provided by [Carlton Meyer] should shut down any illogical arguments or objections about the verbal contract that Neocon warmongers throw out to justify their aggression against Russia.

    MEexpert says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:45 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of international studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX news. They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning things from the "For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    That is the key word "educated."
    I agree with your comments as well as the original one and would like to emphasize that the key word is not only "educated," but that the word is in quotes.

    They are not one bit educated in the true sense. They are morons; blockhead adolescents at best. Spoiled, petulant, supercilious, self absorbed one-trick ponies with no ability to think outside the box if they have any ability to think at all.

    They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge.
    Indeed. Too lazy and too arrogant. Typical brats.

    Thank goodness Putin consistently acts like an adult.

    Randal says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 9:22 am GMT • 400 Words

    Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?

    We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.

    Indeed, though comparing Russia's trivial efforts in this direction with the untold billions poured into "democracy promotion" (ie subversion) by the US and its various proxies, to say nothing of direct and indirect military action, is inherently absurd.

    The irony is that US sphere policy created the very political climate in Russia that ultimately ensured the democratic mandate and imperative for the Russian resistance we have seen in the past decade.

    In the words of Solzhenitsyn in 2007:

    "When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda.

    This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.

    So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals."

    SPIEGEL Interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    And here is what Kissinger said about the Kosovo war:

    "The rejection of long-range strategy explains how it was possible to slide into the Kosovo conflict without adequate consideration of its implications

    The transformation of the NATO alliance from a defensive military grouping to an institution prepared to impose its values by force undercut repeated American and allied assurances that Russia had nothing to fear from NATO expansion."

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:24 am GMT

    Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast That may be fair in the case of the Baltic states but what about Ukraine? The ethnic Russians of the south and east were included in modern Ukraine thanks to lines drawn on the map by Lenin and Stalin. If anything, the militant Ukrainian nationalist regions of the far west should go ahead and separate from the rest of what's now Ukraine and let the rest of the country can get along with Russia. , @Verymuchalive When the USSR broke up, it broke up along the borders decided by the Bolsheviks mainly in the period 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly non-Russian ( Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky etc ) and anti-Russian. As punishment, they put many millions of ethnic Russians into the administrative areas of other ethnic groups in a policy of internal divide and rule. As late as 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine. Crimea had been Russian since 1783.

    As a result of this malicious carve-up, many millions of ethnic Russians find themselves outside the borders of Russia. Many of these areas were regarded as integral parts of Mother Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution. Many have been overwhelmingly Russian for hundreds of years, long before the upstart American republic was founded.

    These people - please note, I do not include recent Russian immigrants to parts of the former USSR not historically Russian - have a right to secede from the country they are now in and join Russia. In several instances ( the border areas of the Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan ) this is what is likely to happen long term.

    It should be emphasized that secession movements in the Ukraine were entirely peaceful until the West helped overthrow the legitimate government and enabled the new regime to physically attack and kill ethnic Russians.

    The North Ossetia war of 2008 was also incited by the West and used their local proxies in Georgia.

    Ethnic Russians in the other former Republics of the Soviet Union live overwhelmingly in historic Russian lands, which will over time be returned to Russia for the most part. , @Ondrej

    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.
    Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?

    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.

    Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+ ethnicties and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are just called those Russians.. :-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia

    alexander says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 11:12 am GMT • 100 Words

    Excellent article Mr Buchanan.

    Not only is it absolutely clear that nearly ALL Americans want peace and prosperity over the continued debacle of war and insolvency .we are also quite perturbed by our dishonest leaders who have robbed us blind by initiating them.

    You might find yourself speaking for over 300 million Americans who not only wish our leaders to cease and desist from this grotesque escapade of perpetual, belligerent war making, but we ALL want our 14.3 trillion in obscene war debt clawed back to US , for having been "deceived" into these conflicts in the first place.

    Americans do not ENJOY being defrauded out of all their dough to go murder people that never attacked us.

    We don't like it AT ALL.

    Tell President Trump what Americans really want ..is OUR MONEY BACK --

    He should make it his TOP priority to go get it --

    Cagey Beast says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    Re: Putin being a "thug".

    I wonder too how people can believe Putin is a thug and tyrant when we can all view dozens of hours of Putin interacting with the Russia public and press, anytime we choose to, via the web?

    Just look at his marathon press conferences and ask oneself if this is a room full of cowed and frightened people and whether Putin acts like a bully or a good sport throughout?

    jacques sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:04 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Off topic a bit, but I think I may have just become a Trump fan.
    I don't mean to be critical, but I think it would have been even sweeter for him to have "escort" the dude out in person instead of using security.

    Trump kicks biographer off golf course
    Harry Hurt, who was golfing with David Koch, had written a critical book about the president-elect.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-biographer-golf-course-233092

    Cagey Beast says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Mr. Buchanan has consistently done a great job covering this topic. I'd reinforce his arguments by pointing out Crimea had a unique status within Ukraine as an Autonomous Republic with its own parliament, unlike the other regions. Crimea always had one foot out the door; it was Vicky Nuland and the colour revolution gang who pushed them all the way out.

    I'd also add that it's well worth watching the hours of video footage collected during and after the Euromaidan revolution and available at YouTube under the title "Roses Have Thorns".

    Che Guava says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT • 300 Words

    and let us not forget the extremely violent events in Mariupol and Odessa, clearly coordinated by the coup leaders who assembled the 'Euromaidan' under Obama regime direction.

    In itself, the coup d'etat against the elected pres. was extremely violent, almost all from the side of the US- and EU-supported coup makers, along with a contingency of mercenaries who just shot people to ramp it up (an idea strongly supported by mainstream press reports at the time).

    However, everyone is supposed to having the attention span of a gnat, in the face of celeb. bullshit, everybody is supposed to forget all in the glory of Kim Kardashian's gigantic plastic-surgery-augmented bum, and her stepfather's strangely late decision to fake being a woman, we can all be sure that Bruce Jenner has demonstrated his lack of belief in the 'I am really a woman' narrative by only having silicone tits inserted, and facial surgery to grind away part of his jaw bones.

    The primary sexual characteristics remain intact, not a bad idea on the part of Bruce.

    I am not saying the above two paras. represent part of a conspiracy, but it was surely a useful distraction in the mass-media at the time of the Obama regime making trouble in the Ukraine. Not that I think that was his idea, From what we know of his record, he was rather a dim bulb, benefitting from affirmative action, and never acknowledging the fact that he was dumped on his white grandparents by his slut mother, and his impregnate-and-abandon father.

    Dreams of My Father indeed, his father dumped him, as cuckoo birds do, in the nests of other birds.

    • Replies: @Alden Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.

    I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites was obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been instructed to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.

    He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the 1930s. The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black men. The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.

    They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head of the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.

    Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.

    jacques sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @MEexpert
    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
    That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of international studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX news. They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning things from the "For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent.

    That is the key word "educated."

    I agree with your comments as well as the original one and would like to emphasize that the key word is not only "educated," but that the word is in quotes.

    They are not one bit educated in the true sense. They are morons; blockhead adolescents at best. Spoiled, petulant, supercilious, self absorbed one-trick ponies with no ability to think outside the box if they have any ability to think at all.

    They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge.

    Indeed. Too lazy and too arrogant. Typical brats.

    Thank goodness Putin consistently acts like an adult.

    Cagey Beast says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:25 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anonymous
    Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    That may be fair in the case of the Baltic states but what about Ukraine? The ethnic Russians of the south and east were included in modern Ukraine thanks to lines drawn on the map by Lenin and Stalin. If anything, the militant Ukrainian nationalist regions of the far west should go ahead and separate from the rest of what's now Ukraine and let the rest of the country can get along with Russia.

    Renoman says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:26 pm GMT

    Vlad Putin is the leader of the free World we should respect and deal fairly with him.
    Another great article!

    Verymuchalive says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT • 300 Words @Anonymous
    Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    When the USSR broke up, it broke up along the borders decided by the Bolsheviks mainly in the period 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly non-Russian ( Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky etc ) and anti-Russian. As punishment, they put many millions of ethnic Russians into the administrative areas of other ethnic groups in a policy of internal divide and rule. As late as 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine. Crimea had been Russian since 1783.

    As a result of this malicious carve-up, many millions of ethnic Russians find themselves outside the borders of Russia. Many of these areas were regarded as integral parts of Mother Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution. Many have been overwhelmingly Russian for hundreds of years, long before the upstart American republic was founded.

    These people – please note, I do not include recent Russian immigrants to parts of the former USSR not historically Russian – have a right to secede from the country they are now in and join Russia. In several instances ( the border areas of the Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan ) this is what is likely to happen long term.

    It should be emphasized that secession movements in the Ukraine were entirely peaceful until the West helped overthrow the legitimate government and enabled the new regime to physically attack and kill ethnic Russians.

    The North Ossetia war of 2008 was also incited by the West and used their local proxies in Georgia.

    Ethnic Russians in the other former Republics of the Soviet Union live overwhelmingly in historic Russian lands, which will over time be returned to Russia for the most part.

    Quartermaster says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT • 200 Words

    But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed a bloodless coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government in Kiev.

    This is risible. There was no coup in Ukraine. Yanukovich decided to order the Berkut to open fire on the protesters on the Maidan, and he ran to escape justice. He was removed from office, constitutionally when he abandoned the office and ran for Russia.

    By the Pat, I was part of the "Brigades" when you ran for President, but you're getting senile. Russia did invade Crimea. That there were already troops there is irrelevant. They left their posts and took over the peninsula. That constitutes an invasion in any book. The "no invasion" business is pure manure.

    As for Putin's backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk left behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

    Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine weren't able to get any further.

    Che Guava says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT • 300 Words

    @jacques sheete Off topic a bit, but I think I may have just become a Trump fan.
    I don't mean to be critical, but I think it would have been even sweeter for him to have "escort" the dude out in person instead of using security.

    Trump kicks biographer off golf course
    Harry Hurt, who was golfing with David Koch, had written a critical book about the president-elect.


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-biographer-golf-course-233092

    Saw that too, it was funny, the Koch bro. connection made it doubly so!

    You are right, personal escort off the course with a security guard in tow would have been better, but it would not be possible at this point, with only such a small time before the inaugaration.

    Imagine the hysteria if it had been!

    Even funnier if surveillance camera footage of the reaction appears.

    Suspect the Donald would stop short of allowing that. OTOH, a rogue security guard in the monitoring room

    The 'fine, we'll play golf at a superior course nearby' talk was also a laugh. If the nearby course was so superior, why did they not go there first?

    Trump should really get Ted Nugent to do a grinding guitar solo on your anthem, even if brief, but I would guess his advisors already advised against it.

    It would be the best since Jimi Hendrix.

    I don't participate on any 'social media', but if those who do would be interested, a Nugent solo would be brilliant, start the support tags up!

    Hope Trump will do will do well by the US and by its wider influence, still having serious doubts, and only as a non-US person, but for sure, at worst the lesser of two evils.

    Hillary would have been leading the rush to WWIV, I am counting the Cold War and its outlying conflicts as WWIII, as we should.

    Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now, no time of peace, except in some places, at some times, I think the UK and USA definitions of 'WWI' and 'WWII' are useless as definitions.

    WWIII has already happened, if we are to accepting those terms.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now

    Not a shred of doubt about that.

    Quartermaster says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT • 200 Words

    @Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup.

    It certainly wasn't a "silent coup" by anyone's imagination. It was an invasion, then a referendum was held under the guns of an occupying power. Almost no one recognizes the referendum as legit.

    That it wasn't silent is about all you got right.

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug".

    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.

    They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda. He's as bad at it as any KGB thug. But they still get the ear of stupid people who won't think for themselves.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
    Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many US allies.
    Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine weren't able to get any further.
    He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among other places) , @Avery { It was an invasion, }

    No it wasn't: one cannot invade one's own land.
    Crimea was part of Russia for a couple of centuries.
    Part of Russia SSR during USSR.
    Khrushchev, an un-elected Soviet dictator, on a whim, without asking the people of Crimea, transferred the administration of Crimea to Ukriane SSR.
    An illegal act.
    In 1991, as USSR was crumbling, people of Crimea ran a referendum on sovereignty. It passed by 94%. Kiev ignored it.
    Since USSR no longer existed, Ukraine SSR had no legal claim to Crimea, even _if_ for a moment we consider Khrushchev's illegal act 'legal' (sic).

    When neo-Nazis overthrew the legally and democratically elected administration of Yanukovych, a coup financed by Soros (he admitted as much to Fareed Zakaria of CNN), and aided&abetted by anti-American US Neocons (Nuland), and started pogroms of ethnic Russians (e.g. Massacre of Odessa), ethnic Russians of Crimea saw what was coming and wisely chose not to get massacred.
    Done.


    {Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime.}

    The label 'thug' is used by the real thugs in US, anti-American agents of foreign interests, to smear a leader whose allegiance is to his own country.

    Unlike the thugs and gangsters in US Gov who serve foreign interests.
    Who are eager to expend American blood and treasure to advance the interests of anti-American globalists.

    Putin must be demonized, because Putin is a bad example for these reptilian foreign organisms which have infested the US body politic, because suddenly American people might see the light and elect someone whose first allegiance is to America First - imagine that.



    {Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda.}

    No, you have been.
    Or more likely, you are the purveyor of anti-American propaganda.

    {But they still get the ear of stupid people who won't think for themselves.}
    Stop gloating about yourself: it is impolite. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Ondrej says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anonymous
    Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?

    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.

    Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+ ethnicties and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are just called those Russians.. :-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.
    Not in the Baltic states. Some of the Russian migrants came as late as the 1980s, so just 5 years before the independence. In the pre-WWII Baltic states there were less than 10% ethnic Russians, some of them Old Believers.

    Russia has been attempting to destablize these countries for years through their 5th column. Not gonna work, there will be no uprising there. But if something bigger happens, and Pat Buchanan and Trump start harping about how Russia has some mystical "rights" to defend its "countrymen", that will turn the US into an official enemy of the Baltic states.

    Marcus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT • 100 Words @Quartermaster
    Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup.
    It certainly wasn't a "silent coup" by anyone's imagination. It was an invasion, then a referendum was held under the guns of an occupying power. Almost no one recognizes the referendum as legit.

    That it wasn't silent is about all you got right.

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug".
    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
    They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
    Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda. He's as bad at it as any KGB thug. But they still get the ear of stupid people who won't think for themselves.

    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.

    Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many US allies.

    Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine weren't able to get any further.

    He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among other places)

    • Replies: @Corvinus Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-corruption-five-things-we-learned-about-the-russian-presidents-secret-wealth-a6834171.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2016/03/30/how-vladimir-putins-son-in-law-became-russias-youngest-billionaire/#59accd0b4bc3 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Agent76 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

    Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA – Mike Maloney

    Agent76 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT • 100 Words

    October 29, 2016 Video: US-NATO are Beating the Drums of War. "The US is Threatening Every Country on Planet Earth"

    The Debate: Michel Chossudovsky and Ian Williams By Press TV and Prof Michel Chossudovsky Press TV 27 October 2016

    NATO says it is going ahead with its plans to deploy thousands of troops and military hardware to three Baltic States and Poland that all border Russia. The military alliance claims that the measure is a response to a Russia's military build-up and increased activity around NATO's borders. The Russian president, however, has denounced NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe. President Putin has blamed the military alliance for global instability. NATO's latest venture to encircle Russia & its repercussions, in this edition of the Debate.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-us-nato-are-beating-the-drums-of-war-the-us-is-threatening-every-country-on-planet-earth-michel-chossudovsky/5553678

    WorkingClass says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT

    In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland's Eastern shore.

    It wasn't a hack. It was a leak.

    Avery says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT • 100 Words @Mao Cheng Ji
    For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement
    But what it was a verbal agreement - how is that a reason for breaking it?

    {But what (if) it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?}

    Agree.

    At that State level of actors, a verbal agreement is also a contract.
    But the link to a written contract provided by [Carlton Meyer] should shut down any illogical arguments or objections about the verbal contract that Neocon warmongers throw out to justify their aggression against Russia.

    sturbain says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

    @Mark Green Pat Buchanan is wise and prophetic like few other political observers. He deserves a special place among Trump's inner circle. If not as Secretary of State, Pat should be given the position of National Security Advisor.

    Trump's team would benefit greatly by Buchanan's judgement and experience, as would our nation.

    Agree wholeheartedly. Trump should take advantage of Pat's remarkable historical knowledge and wisdom.

    Agent76 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT • 100 Words

    January 01, 2017 52,369 Killed in Iraq during 2016; 3,174 Killed During December

    In December, at least 3,174 people were killed and 1,939 were wounded. Of these, 798 were civilians killed. Another 1,658 civilians were injured. Security forces lost 154 personnel, while another 177 were wounded. At least 2,181 militants were killed, and 104 were injured. Also, at least 41 Kurdistan Workers Party (P.K.K.) members were killed in Turkish airstrikes within Iraqi territory. These figures are likely to be low estimates.

    http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2017/01/01/52369-killed-in-iraq-during-2016-3174-killed-during-december/

    Corvinus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT @Marcus
    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
    Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many US allies.
    Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine weren't able to get any further.
    He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among other places)

    Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-corruption-five-things-we-learned-about-the-russian-presidents-secret-wealth-a6834171.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2016/03/30/how-vladimir-putins-son-in-law-became-russias-youngest-billionaire/#59accd0b4bc3

    • Replies: @Marcus No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this, though the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge. , @bluedog My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes, both noted for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time, perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted...
    Marcus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

    @Corvinus Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-corruption-five-things-we-learned-about-the-russian-presidents-secret-wealth-a6834171.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2016/03/30/how-vladimir-putins-son-in-law-became-russias-youngest-billionaire/#59accd0b4bc3

    No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this, though the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge.

    • Replies: @Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."

    Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    jacques sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 5:56 pm GMT

    @Che Guava Saw that too, it was funny, the Koch bro. connection made it doubly so!

    You are right, personal escort off the course with a security guard in tow would have been better, but it would not be possible at this point, with only such a small time before the inaugaration.

    Imagine the hysteria if it had been!

    Even funnier if surveillance camera footage of the reaction appears.

    Suspect the Donald would stop short of allowing that. OTOH, a rogue security guard in the monitoring room ...

    The 'fine, we'll play golf at a superior course nearby' talk was also a laugh. If the nearby course was so superior, why did they not go there first?

    Trump should really get Ted Nugent to do a grinding guitar solo on your anthem, even if brief, but I would guess his advisors already advised against it.

    It would be the best since Jimi Hendrix.

    I don't participate on any 'social media', but if those who do would be interested, a Nugent solo would be brilliant, start the support tags up!

    Hope Trump will do will do well by the US and by its wider influence, still having serious doubts, and only as a non-US person, but for sure, at worst the lesser of two evils.

    Hillary would have been leading the rush to WWIV, I am counting the Cold War and its outlying conflicts as WWIII, as we should.

    Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now, no time of peace, except in some places, at some times, I think the UK and USA definitions of 'WWI' and 'WWII' are useless as definitions.

    WWIII has already happened, if we are to accepting those terms.

    Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now

    Not a shred of doubt about that.

    anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 5:58 pm GMT • 200 Words

    We have no inherent conflicts with Russia. The USSR was a godless, communist imperial state with expansionist aspirations. We beat them. Over. We WON.

    Russia is our natural ally against China. In terms of the bigger picture, NATO is disturbing, and we needlessly provoked Russia by mindless expansion. However, NATO has led to European nations 'cheating' on their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on their military. This cheating has effectively disarmed Europe. And, in fact - we have kept Germany on a short leash. Which is hugely advantageous to Russia.

    But aside from all that - there simply isn't a serious reason to mix it up with Russia. Does anyone in the West really care about the Black Sea?

    As far as the notion that Russia wants go Imperial and start taking territory - get real. Russia invading Ukraine and annexing the entire country makes as much sense as the US invading and annexing Mexico. Ukraine was (is) a customer for its natural gas. A profit center, if you will. After an invasion, it would simply be an expense. Ukraine is poorer, and it would be expensive to integrate the into Russia. And as far as the 'breadbasket' of Eurasia, Russia now exports grain.

    So - why shouldn't Trump and Putin chill out?

    The biggest problem is that the US can't seem to take YES for an answer. Or Victory as sufficient. We see it over and over and over. And then take the wasted resources and pass them out to US citizens. Give us our peace dividend.

    Agent76 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT • 100 Words

    01.01.2017 How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World – For the Better

    The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/01/how-united-iran-russia-china-changing-world-better.html

    • Replies: @Sean Multi polar has more permutations, and more things to go wrong.
    Sean says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT • 100 Words

    If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the US shown iftself unable to act coherently.

    What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator, an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would be wise to emulate Ford.

    • Replies: @Realist Why should the US be involved in Syria?

    "What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm."

    This is a stupid post even by your standards. , @Marcus The US support for the rebels, plus that contributed by its allies (Turkey, Saudi, etc.) was more than adequate. Erdogan has even said that the US aided IS.

    Sean says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT

    @Agent76 01.01.2017 How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World - For the Better

    The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/01/how-united-iran-russia-china-changing-world-better.html

    Multi polar has more permutations, and more things to go wrong.

    Realist says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:46 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "Putin does not seek to destroy or conquer us or Europe. He wants Russia, and her interests, and her rights as a great power to be respected.

    He is not mucking around in our front yard; we are in his."

    Excellent points. Great article.

    Trump could do no better than to put you in a position of power and advice in his administration.

    Realist says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @Sean If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the US shown iftself unable to act coherently.

    What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator, an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would be wise to emulate Ford.

    Why should the US be involved in Syria?

    "What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm."

    This is a stupid post even by your standards.

    utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 200 Words

    "If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the US shown iftself unable to act coherently."

    I think you might be correct. There was no unity of purpose. DOD was not on the same wavelength as CIA Gen. Dempsey of DIA even sabotaged weapon delivery by CIA to rebels and kept open channels to Assad via Tel Aviv, Berlin and Moscow (Seymour Hersh):

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military#onepass

    Obama was dragging his feet. In 2013 he allowed to defuse the crisis with the help of Putin and avoided introducing the no-fly zone, though Putin paid for it dearly with Ukraine in 2014.

    Whatever was Obama motive (Wanted to have clean hands?, Earn that Peace Nobel Price?), I reluctantly give him a credit for not escalating Syria though still I blame him for letting the civil war in Syria happen on his watch in the first place. After all it was a part of Libyan operation when weapons and rebels were moved between the two countries. Still Obama even among his critics is presented that he reacted only to Libya while the proactive part was done by Hillary, CIA, French and British.

    Jason Liu says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 8:28 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Cold War II will be with China, not Russia, sadly. Western neo-nationalists fail to recognize that China is just as tribalistic and anti-SJWism as Russia, if not more - and is in a better position to undermine postmodernist bullshit on a global scale.

    The South China Sea issue is less of an affront to the west geographically than Russia's actions in Ukraine, which leads me to believe that western nationalists who use this excuse are not ideological nationalists, they're just acting out tribalism in the simplest ways, using China as the next archrival.

    A more sensible thing to do is for the nationalists of the world to turn their collective energies on the egalitarian left, and root out their beliefs in every society. Infighting between nationalists always gives the left the advantage.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Cold War II will be with China, not Russia
    Yes, the only question is whether to (a) smash Russia and install US military bases in the various stans around China's Northern border, while the latter are looted by Soros and co. with the aid of Poroshenkite puppets, or (b) play the traditional balance of power game, abandoning the Kissinger-inspired tilt toward China of the Nixon era, which served to counter a dominant Soviet Union, for a Kissinger-inspired tilt toward an intact but much weakened Russia to counter today's rapidly rising China.
    Seamus Padraig says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

    Putin may be a national sovereigntist –i.e., against the new world order–but he really doesn't strike me as much of an "ethnonationalist". He has never opposed all the immigration into Russia from the Caucasus or Central Asia, nor has he annexed any ethnic-Russian enclaves in the former SSRs, apart from Crimea, of course.

    bluedog says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT

    @Corvinus Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-corruption-five-things-we-learned-about-the-russian-presidents-secret-wealth-a6834171.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2016/03/30/how-vladimir-putins-son-in-law-became-russias-youngest-billionaire/#59accd0b4bc3

    My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes, both noted for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time, perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted

    • Replies: @Corvinus "My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes..."

    You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources entirely.

    "both noted for their propaganda..." "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted "

    As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?

    "I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time..."

    That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Corvinus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @bluedog My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes, both noted for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time, perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted...

    "My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes "

    You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources entirely.

    "both noted for their propaganda " "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted "

    As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?

    "I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time "

    That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money.

    • Replies: @bluedog That would be a False News Story.There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money.

    List them please so we can all check them, out otherwise your simply spreading some more propaganda about how Putin is worth a few more stolen billions..

    Marcus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 9:17 pm GMT @Sean

    If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the US shown iftself unable to act coherently.

    What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator, an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would be wise to emulate Ford.

    The US support for the rebels, plus that contributed by its allies (Turkey, Saudi, etc.) was more than adequate. Erdogan has even said that the US aided IS.

    Art says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

    Sorry – Tribalism and transnationalism are both bad for humanity.

    The real bad guy is borderless Rothschild monetarism. Those greedy thugs have no loyalty to any place on the Earth. They are working to make a cashless world where all transactions must flow through them. They want to skim every human interaction that involves money. It will be a world were dollars and pounds are meaningless. Everyone will be churned into an indebted zombie.

    Heaven knows that national tribalism is also bad for humanity. We must return to local ownership and identity. America started out as individual local states where things were voted on by local people. Local people owned the land and the businesses. Localism is the heart of a stable society.

    CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT @Carlton Meyer

    Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    Re: Educated Americans who think Putin is a thug.

    Higher Education:

    [A] political racket whereby Democrats fork endless cash to tuition extortionists, and lousy scholars impart insane ideas to debt-strapped students who are made dysfunctional citizens in the process.

    Source:

    • Agree: jacques sheete Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jason Liu Cold War II will be with China, not Russia, sadly. Western neo-nationalists fail to recognize that China is just as tribalistic and anti-SJWism as Russia, if not more -- and is in a better position to undermine postmodernist bullshit on a global scale.

    The South China Sea issue is less of an affront to the west geographically than Russia's actions in Ukraine, which leads me to believe that western nationalists who use this excuse are not ideological nationalists, they're just acting out tribalism in the simplest ways, using China as the next archrival.

    A more sensible thing to do is for the nationalists of the world to turn their collective energies on the egalitarian left, and root out their beliefs in every society. Infighting between nationalists always gives the left the advantage.

    Cold War II will be with China, not Russia

    Yes, the only question is whether to (a) smash Russia and install US military bases in the various stans around China's Northern border, while the latter are looted by Soros and co. with the aid of Poroshenkite puppets, or (b) play the traditional balance of power game, abandoning the Kissinger-inspired tilt toward China of the Nixon era, which served to counter a dominant Soviet Union, for a Kissinger-inspired tilt toward an intact but much weakened Russia to counter today's rapidly rising China.

    Je Suis Omar Mateen says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:35 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Everybody relax.

    Now that America again has a real man of normal sexuality at the helm, relations with Russia will normalize. President Putin reminds the former president, little Barry Sotero, that he's a sissy, and it infuriates little Barry and the Democrats that President Putin will not genuflect to the GayKK. Buchanan's masterly geopolitical analysis aside, refusal to celebrate LGBTQWERTY is the wellspring of the Left's Russophobia.

    The fakestream media will continue demonizing President Putin, but President Trump will drop all sanctions against Russia and individual Russians, and Cold War II will be handily averted.

    Bank.

    lavoisier says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Pat Buchanan is truly a great man. Look at how he has made so many accurate predictions of what was to come. He is a scholar, a realist, and a genuine patriot–unlike Bush, McCain, and Romney. He was an unusually talented man in our corrupted world.

    He was and is a far better man than Donald Trump, although Trump at least has an inkling of what it means to be patriotic. It was a tremendous tragedy that the majority of the American people failed to recognize his greatness when he ran for president. I recognized it, but I knew he was doomed because he was considered to be anti-semitic. His cause faltered, and we suffered as a people.

    We are in a far more precarious state today because we failed him. I believe that if we had the good sense to elect him president at the time, our world today would be far better than it is now.


    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @Marcus No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this, though the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge.

    "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge "

    Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.
    It is certainly true that the United States "is even less free than what it was in the late 1980s." , @Marcus There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 11:24 pm GMT • 100 Words

    So last night I was watching one of the Russian political talk shows and one of the separatists from Ukraine was saying things like "We're waiting for you, for your help" and a few Moscovite Russians from the audience (expert and the moderator) were like "Er, you should be able to take care of your own self, we don't wanna pay for you!". So there's that. So much for the "countrymen".

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT

    @Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."

    Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    It is certainly true that the United States "is even less free than what it was in the late 1980s."

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 12:03 am GMT • 100 Words @Ondrej
    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.
    Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?

    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.

    Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+ ethnicties and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are just called those Russians.. :-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia

    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.

    Not in the Baltic states. Some of the Russian migrants came as late as the 1980s, so just 5 years before the independence. In the pre-WWII Baltic states there were less than 10% ethnic Russians, some of them Old Believers.

    Russia has been attempting to destablize these countries for years through their 5th column. Not gonna work, there will be no uprising there. But if something bigger happens, and Pat Buchanan and Trump start harping about how Russia has some mystical "rights" to defend its "countrymen", that will turn the US into an official enemy of the Baltic states.

    Marcus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 12:43 am GMT

    @Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."

    Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Wait, you're saying that Russia is the only post-Soviet state where life has improved since 2000? You are simply delusional. Living standards have improved in several post-Soviet states. Just look at Kazakhstan, as I said. How has Nazarbayev done less of a splendid job than Putin?

    Even Ukraine has seen an increase in birth rates, in particular in the Western parts. , @Anonymous

    There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.
    I just don't think people like Artemy Troitsky, who spoke freely in the late 80s, should have criminal cases opened against them and be forced out of the country just because they openly expressed their dislike of Putin. A leader who has the support of 80% of the population can't handle a little bit of criticism?
    Alden says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 1:37 am GMT • 200 Words

    @Che Guava ... and let us not forget the extremely violent events in Mariupol and Odessa, clearly coordinated by the coup leaders who assembled the 'Euromaidan' under Obama regime direction.

    In itself, the coup d'etat against the elected pres. was extremely violent, almost all from the side of the US- and EU-supported coup makers, along with a contingency of mercenaries who just shot people to ramp it up (an idea strongly supported by mainstream press reports at the time).

    However, everyone is supposed to having the attention span of a gnat, in the face of celeb. bullshit, everybody is supposed to forget all in the glory of Kim Kardashian's gigantic plastic-surgery-augmented bum, and her stepfather's strangely late decision to fake being a woman, we can all be sure that Bruce Jenner has demonstrated his lack of belief in the 'I am really a woman' narrative by only having silicone tits inserted, and facial surgery to grind away part of his jaw bones.

    The primary sexual characteristics remain intact, not a bad idea on the part of Bruce.

    I am not saying the above two paras. represent part of a conspiracy, but it was surely a useful distraction in the mass-media at the time of the Obama regime making trouble in the Ukraine. Not that I think that was his idea, From what we know of his record, he was rather a dim bulb, benefitting from affirmative action, and never acknowledging the fact that he was dumped on his white grandparents by his slut mother, and his impregnate-and-abandon father.

    Dreams of My Father indeed, his father dumped him, as cuckoo birds do, in the nests of other birds.

    Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.
    I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites was obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been instructed to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.

    He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the 1930s. The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black men. The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.

    They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head of the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.

    Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.

    • Replies: @utu "The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are." -

    Revolutionaries were aware of this. Bolsheviks hated peasants because they were impregnable to their propaganda and they had often had property that was making them self sufficient and most of all because they were Christian. To get peasants to act you had to give them tangible rewards like participation in the loot from houses of aristocracy or to deprave them and bring the most animalistic nature to surface. The Protestant revolution in 16 century went along the same lines. It was looting the property of Catholic Church that sustained it but when the peasants organized themselves (Thomas Muntzer) because they wanted power from the new Protestant masters they were mercilessly massacred. Revolutions proceed to educate masses and start with eradicating illiteracy because this makes indoctrination easier. Tocqueville observed that Americans already in 1830s were exceptionally proud of America and of being Americans and believed in American exceptionalism and superiority. He attributed it to indoctrination carried out in schools.

    The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They constitute the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it face the uphill battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually it is done not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being truly deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose (like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts to nil. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 1:59 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Marcus There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.

    Wait, you're saying that Russia is the only post-Soviet state where life has improved since 2000? You are simply delusional. Living standards have improved in several post-Soviet states. Just look at Kazakhstan, as I said. How has Nazarbayev done less of a splendid job than Putin?

    Even Ukraine has seen an increase in birth rates, in particular in the Western parts.

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Marcus There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.

    There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.

    I just don't think people like Artemy Troitsky, who spoke freely in the late 80s, should have criminal cases opened against them and be forced out of the country just because they openly expressed their dislike of Putin. A leader who has the support of 80% of the population can't handle a little bit of criticism?

    jacques sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 2:55 am GMT • 100 Words

    The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.

    That's because they're not educated; only brainwashed.

    It's even worse with the rich, pampered, bored, simple minded, punks who jump onto every perverse bandwagon that comes along for the thrills of momentarily appearing "hip," "cool" "defiant" and "fashionable."

    bluedog says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:03 am GMT

    @Corvinus "My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes..."

    You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources entirely.

    "both noted for their propaganda..." "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted "

    As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?

    "I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time..."

    That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money.

    That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money.

    List them please so we can all check them, out otherwise your simply spreading some more propaganda about how Putin is worth a few more stolen billions..

    utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:51 am GMT • 300 Words

    @Alden Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.

    I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites was obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been instructed to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.

    He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the 1930s. The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black men. The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.

    They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head of the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.

    Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.

    "The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are." –

    Revolutionaries were aware of this. Bolsheviks hated peasants because they were impregnable to their propaganda and they had often had property that was making them self sufficient and most of all because they were Christian. To get peasants to act you had to give them tangible rewards like participation in the loot from houses of aristocracy or to deprave them and bring the most animalistic nature to surface. The Protestant revolution in 16 century went along the same lines. It was looting the property of Catholic Church that sustained it but when the peasants organized themselves (Thomas Muntzer) because they wanted power from the new Protestant masters they were mercilessly massacred. Revolutions proceed to educate masses and start with eradicating illiteracy because this makes indoctrination easier. Tocqueville observed that Americans already in 1830s were exceptionally proud of America and of being Americans and believed in American exceptionalism and superiority. He attributed it to indoctrination carried out in schools.

    The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They constitute the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it face the uphill battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually it is done not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being truly deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose (like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts to nil.

    [Jan 07, 2017] Can Trump and Putin Avert Cold War II

    Notable quotes:
    "... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority." ..."
    "... It is salutary that Buchanan, the cofounder of the American Conservative magazine, is in essential agreement with Steve Cohen, a senior editor of The Nation magazine, for the necessity for a Trump/Putin political approachment! ..."
    "... This is another excellent article. Obviously, survival beats absurd confrontation on behalf of jihadi thugs, which has become the democratic program since they jumped the shark a few years ago. Even the ACLU has been publishing material from that proven islamofascist Khizr Khan, Clinton's pet jihadi, defending the Iraq war as based on the defense of the concept of the rule of law. As Buchanan indicates, the Russians are supporting the civilized element in Syria, for instance, and it was "western" influence which broke up the Ukraine and the Russians are only defending their own people in Ukraine, South Ossetia and elsewhere. Meanwhile, even the Washington Post has had to admit that the rumors of Russian influence on the election voting are false. Soon the canard that the Russians released DNC and Podesta documents will also be revealed as false. This should totally discredit all of those involved, and their motives should be fully investigated. ..."
    "... Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics? ..."
    "... We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first. ..."
    "... "When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda. ..."
    "... The real bad guy is borderless Rothschild monetarism. Those greedy thugs have no loyalty to any place on the Earth. They are working to make a cashless world where all transactions must flow through them. They want to skim every human interaction that involves money. It will be a world were dollars and pounds are meaningless. Everyone will be churned into an indebted zombie. ..."
    "... The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They constitute the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it face the uphill battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually it is done not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being truly deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose (like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts to nil. ..."
    Jan 04, 2017 | www.unz.com
    Pat Buchanan In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland's Eastern shore.

    Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that 35 U.S. diplomats would be expelled. But Vladimir Putin stepped in, declined to retaliate at all, and invited the U.S. diplomats in Moscow and their children to the Christmas and New Year's party at the Kremlin.

    "A soft answer turneth away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger," reads Proverbs 15:1. "Great move," tweeted President-elect Trump, "I always knew he was very smart!"

    Among our Russophobes, one can almost hear the gnashing of teeth.

    Clearly, Putin believes the Trump presidency offers Russia the prospect of a better relationship with the United States. He appears to want this, and most Americans seem to want the same. After all, Hillary Clinton, who accused Trump of being "Putin's puppet," lost.

    Is then a Cold War II between Russia and the U.S. avoidable?

    That question raises several others.

    Who is more responsible for both great powers having reached this level of animosity and acrimony, 25 years after Ronald Reagan walked arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev through Red Square? And what are the causes of the emerging Cold War II?

    Comes the retort: Putin has put nuclear-capable missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave between Poland and Lithuania.

    True, but who began this escalation?

    George W. Bush was the one who trashed Richard Nixon's ABM Treaty and Obama put anti-missile missiles in Poland. After invading Iraq, George W. Bush moved NATO into the Baltic States in violation of a commitment given to Gorbachev by his father to not move NATO into Eastern Europe if the Red Army withdrew.

    Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, says John McCain.

    Russia did, after Georgia invaded its breakaway province of South Ossetia and killed Russian peacekeepers. Putin threw the Georgians out, occupied part of Georgia, and then withdrew.

    Russia, it is said, has supported Syria's Bashar Assad, bombed U.S.-backed rebels and participated in the Aleppo slaughter.

    But who started this horrific civil war in Syria?

    Was it not our Gulf allies, Turkey, and ourselves by backing an insurgency against a regime that had been Russia's ally for decades and hosts Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean?

    Did we not exercise the same right of assisting a beleaguered ally when we sent 500,000 troops to aid South Vietnam against a Viet Cong insurgency supported by Hanoi, Beijing and Moscow?

    That's what allies do.

    The unanswered question: Why did we support the overthrow of Assad when the likely successor regime would have been Islamist and murderously hostile toward Syria's Christians?

    Russia, we are told, committed aggression against Ukraine by invading Crimea.

    But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed a bloodless coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government in Kiev.

    Crimea had belonged to Moscow from the time of Catherine the Great in the 18th century, and the Russia-Ukraine relationship dates back to before the Crusades. When did this become a vital interest of the USA?

    As for Putin's backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk left behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

    Has Putin no right to be concerned about his lost countrymen?

    Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

    Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?

    We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.

    Moreover, the populist, nationalist, anti-EU and secessionist parties in Europe have arisen on their own and are advancing through free elections.

    Sovereignty, independence, a restoration of national identity, all appear to be more important to these parties than what they regard as an excessively supervised existence in the soft-dictatorship of the EU.

    In the Cold War between Communism and capitalism, the single-party dictatorship and the free society, we prevailed.

    But in the new struggle we are in, the ethnonational state seems ascendant over the multicultural, multiethnic, multiracial, multilingual "universal nation" whose avatar is Barack Obama.

    Putin does not seek to destroy or conquer us or Europe. He wants Russia, and her interests, and her rights as a great power to be respected.

    He is not mucking around in our front yard; we are in his.

    The worst mistake President Trump could make would be to let the Russophobes grab the wheel and steer us into another Cold War that could be as costly as the first, and might not end as peacefully.

    Reagan's outstretched hand to Gorbachev worked. Trump has nothing to lose by extending his to Vladimir Putin, and much perhaps to win.

    Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."

    Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

    Carlton Meyer says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 5:37 am GMT • 200 Words

    Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    • Agree: Mao Cheng Ji , Realist , Randal , Che Guava , jacques sheete • Replies:

    @Mao Cheng Ji

    For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement
    But what it was a verbal agreement - how is that a reason for breaking it? ,

    @MEexpert

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
    That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of international studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX news. They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning things from the "For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent. ,

    @Cagey Beast Re: Putin being a "thug".

    I wonder too how people can believe Putin is a thug and tyrant when we can all view dozens of hours of Putin interacting with the Russia public and press, anytime we choose to, via the web? Just look at his marathon press conferences and ask oneself if this is a room full of cowed and frightened people and whether Putin acts like a bully or a good sport throughout? ,

    @CanSpeccy Re: Educated Americans who think Putin is a thug.

    Higher Education:

    [A] political racket whereby Democrats fork endless cash to tuition extortionists, and lousy scholars impart insane ideas to debt-strapped students who are made dysfunctional citizens in the process.

    Source: Reply

    Pat Buchanan is wise and prophetic like few other political observers. He deserves a special place among Trump's inner circle. If not as Secretary of State, Pat should be given the position of National Security Advisor.

    Trump's team would benefit greatly by Buchanan's judgement and experience, as would our nation.

    • Agree: Realist • Replies: @sturbain Agree wholeheartedly. Trump should take advantage of Pat's remarkable historical knowledge and wisdom.
    Dan Hayes says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 6:41 am GMT

    It is salutary that Buchanan, the cofounder of the American Conservative magazine, is in essential agreement with Steve Cohen, a senior editor of The Nation magazine, for the necessity for a Trump/Putin political approachment!

    exiled off mainstreet says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 6:46 am GMT • 200 Words

    This is another excellent article. Obviously, survival beats absurd confrontation on behalf of jihadi thugs, which has become the democratic program since they jumped the shark a few years ago. Even the ACLU has been publishing material from that proven islamofascist Khizr Khan, Clinton's pet jihadi, defending the Iraq war as based on the defense of the concept of the rule of law. As Buchanan indicates, the Russians are supporting the civilized element in Syria, for instance, and it was "western" influence which broke up the Ukraine and the Russians are only defending their own people in Ukraine, South Ossetia and elsewhere. Meanwhile, even the Washington Post has had to admit that the rumors of Russian influence on the election voting are false. Soon the canard that the Russians released DNC and Podesta documents will also be revealed as false. This should totally discredit all of those involved, and their motives should be fully investigated.

    Mao Cheng Ji says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:11 am GMT

    @Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement

    But what it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?

    • Replies: @Avery {But what (if) it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?}

    Agree.

    At that State level of actors, a verbal agreement is also a contract.
    But the link to a written contract provided by [Carlton Meyer] should shut down any illogical arguments or objections about the verbal contract that Neocon warmongers throw out to justify their aggression against Russia.

    MEexpert says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:45 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of international studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX news. They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning things from the "For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    That is the key word "educated."
    I agree with your comments as well as the original one and would like to emphasize that the key word is not only "educated," but that the word is in quotes.

    They are not one bit educated in the true sense. They are morons; blockhead adolescents at best. Spoiled, petulant, supercilious, self absorbed one-trick ponies with no ability to think outside the box if they have any ability to think at all.

    They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge.
    Indeed. Too lazy and too arrogant. Typical brats.

    Thank goodness Putin consistently acts like an adult.

    Randal says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 9:22 am GMT • 400 Words

    Russia, it is said, is supporting right-wing and anti-EU parties. But has not our National Endowment for Democracy backed regime change in the Balkans as well as in former Soviet republics?

    We appear to be denouncing Putin for what we did first.

    Indeed, though comparing Russia's trivial efforts in this direction with the untold billions poured into "democracy promotion" (ie subversion) by the US and its various proxies, to say nothing of direct and indirect military action, is inherently absurd.

    The irony is that US sphere policy created the very political climate in Russia that ultimately ensured the democratic mandate and imperative for the Russian resistance we have seen in the past decade.

    In the words of Solzhenitsyn in 2007:

    "When I returned to Russia in 1994, the Western world and its states were practically being worshipped. Admittedly, this was caused not so much by real knowledge or a conscious choice, but by the natural disgust with the Bolshevik regime and its anti-Western propaganda.

    This mood started changing with the cruel NATO bombings of Serbia. It's fair to say that all layers of Russian society were deeply and indelibly shocked by those bombings. The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.

    So, the perception of the West as mostly a "knight of democracy" has been replaced with the disappointed belief that pragmatism, often cynical and selfish, lies at the core of Western policies. For many Russians it was a grave disillusion, a crushing of ideals."

    SPIEGEL Interview with Alexander Solzhenitsyn

    And here is what Kissinger said about the Kosovo war:

    "The rejection of long-range strategy explains how it was possible to slide into the Kosovo conflict without adequate consideration of its implications

    The transformation of the NATO alliance from a defensive military grouping to an institution prepared to impose its values by force undercut repeated American and allied assurances that Russia had nothing to fear from NATO expansion."

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:24 am GMT

    Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast That may be fair in the case of the Baltic states but what about Ukraine? The ethnic Russians of the south and east were included in modern Ukraine thanks to lines drawn on the map by Lenin and Stalin. If anything, the militant Ukrainian nationalist regions of the far west should go ahead and separate from the rest of what's now Ukraine and let the rest of the country can get along with Russia. , @Verymuchalive When the USSR broke up, it broke up along the borders decided by the Bolsheviks mainly in the period 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly non-Russian ( Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky etc ) and anti-Russian. As punishment, they put many millions of ethnic Russians into the administrative areas of other ethnic groups in a policy of internal divide and rule. As late as 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine. Crimea had been Russian since 1783.

    As a result of this malicious carve-up, many millions of ethnic Russians find themselves outside the borders of Russia. Many of these areas were regarded as integral parts of Mother Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution. Many have been overwhelmingly Russian for hundreds of years, long before the upstart American republic was founded.

    These people - please note, I do not include recent Russian immigrants to parts of the former USSR not historically Russian - have a right to secede from the country they are now in and join Russia. In several instances ( the border areas of the Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan ) this is what is likely to happen long term.

    It should be emphasized that secession movements in the Ukraine were entirely peaceful until the West helped overthrow the legitimate government and enabled the new regime to physically attack and kill ethnic Russians.

    The North Ossetia war of 2008 was also incited by the West and used their local proxies in Georgia.

    Ethnic Russians in the other former Republics of the Soviet Union live overwhelmingly in historic Russian lands, which will over time be returned to Russia for the most part. , @Ondrej

    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.
    Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?

    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.

    Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+ ethnicties and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are just called those Russians.. :-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia

    alexander says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 11:12 am GMT • 100 Words

    Excellent article Mr Buchanan.

    Not only is it absolutely clear that nearly ALL Americans want peace and prosperity over the continued debacle of war and insolvency .we are also quite perturbed by our dishonest leaders who have robbed us blind by initiating them.

    You might find yourself speaking for over 300 million Americans who not only wish our leaders to cease and desist from this grotesque escapade of perpetual, belligerent war making, but we ALL want our 14.3 trillion in obscene war debt clawed back to US , for having been "deceived" into these conflicts in the first place.

    Americans do not ENJOY being defrauded out of all their dough to go murder people that never attacked us.

    We don't like it AT ALL.

    Tell President Trump what Americans really want ..is OUR MONEY BACK --

    He should make it his TOP priority to go get it --

    Cagey Beast says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 11:30 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    Re: Putin being a "thug".

    I wonder too how people can believe Putin is a thug and tyrant when we can all view dozens of hours of Putin interacting with the Russia public and press, anytime we choose to, via the web?

    Just look at his marathon press conferences and ask oneself if this is a room full of cowed and frightened people and whether Putin acts like a bully or a good sport throughout?

    jacques sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:04 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Off topic a bit, but I think I may have just become a Trump fan.
    I don't mean to be critical, but I think it would have been even sweeter for him to have "escort" the dude out in person instead of using security.

    Trump kicks biographer off golf course
    Harry Hurt, who was golfing with David Koch, had written a critical book about the president-elect.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-biographer-golf-course-233092

    Cagey Beast says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:05 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Mr. Buchanan has consistently done a great job covering this topic. I'd reinforce his arguments by pointing out Crimea had a unique status within Ukraine as an Autonomous Republic with its own parliament, unlike the other regions. Crimea always had one foot out the door; it was Vicky Nuland and the colour revolution gang who pushed them all the way out.

    I'd also add that it's well worth watching the hours of video footage collected during and after the Euromaidan revolution and available at YouTube under the title "Roses Have Thorns".

    Che Guava says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:08 pm GMT • 300 Words

    and let us not forget the extremely violent events in Mariupol and Odessa, clearly coordinated by the coup leaders who assembled the 'Euromaidan' under Obama regime direction.

    In itself, the coup d'etat against the elected pres. was extremely violent, almost all from the side of the US- and EU-supported coup makers, along with a contingency of mercenaries who just shot people to ramp it up (an idea strongly supported by mainstream press reports at the time).

    However, everyone is supposed to having the attention span of a gnat, in the face of celeb. bullshit, everybody is supposed to forget all in the glory of Kim Kardashian's gigantic plastic-surgery-augmented bum, and her stepfather's strangely late decision to fake being a woman, we can all be sure that Bruce Jenner has demonstrated his lack of belief in the 'I am really a woman' narrative by only having silicone tits inserted, and facial surgery to grind away part of his jaw bones.

    The primary sexual characteristics remain intact, not a bad idea on the part of Bruce.

    I am not saying the above two paras. represent part of a conspiracy, but it was surely a useful distraction in the mass-media at the time of the Obama regime making trouble in the Ukraine. Not that I think that was his idea, From what we know of his record, he was rather a dim bulb, benefitting from affirmative action, and never acknowledging the fact that he was dumped on his white grandparents by his slut mother, and his impregnate-and-abandon father.

    Dreams of My Father indeed, his father dumped him, as cuckoo birds do, in the nests of other birds.

    • Replies: @Alden Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.

    I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites was obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been instructed to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.

    He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the 1930s. The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black men. The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.

    They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head of the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.

    Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.

    jacques sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:15 pm GMT • 100 Words @MEexpert
    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
    That is the key word "educated." These people have been educated from the neocon school of international studies. They get daily lessons from New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, and FOX news. They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge. They are used to learning things from the "For Dummies" series of books which the above publication represent.

    That is the key word "educated."

    I agree with your comments as well as the original one and would like to emphasize that the key word is not only "educated," but that the word is in quotes.

    They are not one bit educated in the true sense. They are morons; blockhead adolescents at best. Spoiled, petulant, supercilious, self absorbed one-trick ponies with no ability to think outside the box if they have any ability to think at all.

    They are too lazy to do some research and broaden their knowledge.

    Indeed. Too lazy and too arrogant. Typical brats.

    Thank goodness Putin consistently acts like an adult.

    Cagey Beast says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:25 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anonymous
    Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    That may be fair in the case of the Baltic states but what about Ukraine? The ethnic Russians of the south and east were included in modern Ukraine thanks to lines drawn on the map by Lenin and Stalin. If anything, the militant Ukrainian nationalist regions of the far west should go ahead and separate from the rest of what's now Ukraine and let the rest of the country can get along with Russia.

    Renoman says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 12:26 pm GMT

    Vlad Putin is the leader of the free World we should respect and deal fairly with him.
    Another great article!

    Verymuchalive says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:13 pm GMT • 300 Words @Anonymous
    Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    When the USSR broke up, it broke up along the borders decided by the Bolsheviks mainly in the period 1922-24. The top Bolsheviks were overwhelmingly non-Russian ( Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Dzerzhinsky etc ) and anti-Russian. As punishment, they put many millions of ethnic Russians into the administrative areas of other ethnic groups in a policy of internal divide and rule. As late as 1954, Nikita Khrushchev, an ethnic Ukrainian, arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to the Ukraine. Crimea had been Russian since 1783.

    As a result of this malicious carve-up, many millions of ethnic Russians find themselves outside the borders of Russia. Many of these areas were regarded as integral parts of Mother Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution. Many have been overwhelmingly Russian for hundreds of years, long before the upstart American republic was founded.

    These people – please note, I do not include recent Russian immigrants to parts of the former USSR not historically Russian – have a right to secede from the country they are now in and join Russia. In several instances ( the border areas of the Ukraine, Georgia and Kazakhstan ) this is what is likely to happen long term.

    It should be emphasized that secession movements in the Ukraine were entirely peaceful until the West helped overthrow the legitimate government and enabled the new regime to physically attack and kill ethnic Russians.

    The North Ossetia war of 2008 was also incited by the West and used their local proxies in Georgia.

    Ethnic Russians in the other former Republics of the Soviet Union live overwhelmingly in historic Russian lands, which will over time be returned to Russia for the most part.

    Quartermaster says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:36 pm GMT • 200 Words

    But Russia did not invade Crimea. To secure their Black Sea naval base, Russia executed a bloodless coup, but only after the U.S. backed the overthrow of the pro-Russian elected government in Kiev.

    This is risible. There was no coup in Ukraine. Yanukovich decided to order the Berkut to open fire on the protesters on the Maidan, and he ran to escape justice. He was removed from office, constitutionally when he abandoned the office and ran for Russia.

    By the Pat, I was part of the "Brigades" when you ran for President, but you're getting senile. Russia did invade Crimea. That there were already troops there is irrelevant. They left their posts and took over the peninsula. That constitutes an invasion in any book. The "no invasion" business is pure manure.

    As for Putin's backing of secessionists in Donetsk and Luhansk, he is standing by kinfolk left behind when his country broke apart. Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.

    Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine weren't able to get any further.

    Che Guava says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:38 pm GMT • 300 Words

    @jacques sheete Off topic a bit, but I think I may have just become a Trump fan.
    I don't mean to be critical, but I think it would have been even sweeter for him to have "escort" the dude out in person instead of using security.

    Trump kicks biographer off golf course
    Harry Hurt, who was golfing with David Koch, had written a critical book about the president-elect.


    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/trump-biographer-golf-course-233092

    Saw that too, it was funny, the Koch bro. connection made it doubly so!

    You are right, personal escort off the course with a security guard in tow would have been better, but it would not be possible at this point, with only such a small time before the inaugaration.

    Imagine the hysteria if it had been!

    Even funnier if surveillance camera footage of the reaction appears.

    Suspect the Donald would stop short of allowing that. OTOH, a rogue security guard in the monitoring room

    The 'fine, we'll play golf at a superior course nearby' talk was also a laugh. If the nearby course was so superior, why did they not go there first?

    Trump should really get Ted Nugent to do a grinding guitar solo on your anthem, even if brief, but I would guess his advisors already advised against it.

    It would be the best since Jimi Hendrix.

    I don't participate on any 'social media', but if those who do would be interested, a Nugent solo would be brilliant, start the support tags up!

    Hope Trump will do will do well by the US and by its wider influence, still having serious doubts, and only as a non-US person, but for sure, at worst the lesser of two evils.

    Hillary would have been leading the rush to WWIV, I am counting the Cold War and its outlying conflicts as WWIII, as we should.

    Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now, no time of peace, except in some places, at some times, I think the UK and USA definitions of 'WWI' and 'WWII' are useless as definitions.

    WWIII has already happened, if we are to accepting those terms.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now

    Not a shred of doubt about that.

    Quartermaster says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 1:42 pm GMT • 200 Words

    @Carlton Meyer Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup.

    It certainly wasn't a "silent coup" by anyone's imagination. It was an invasion, then a referendum was held under the guns of an occupying power. Almost no one recognizes the referendum as legit.

    That it wasn't silent is about all you got right.

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug".

    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.

    They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda. He's as bad at it as any KGB thug. But they still get the ear of stupid people who won't think for themselves.

    • Replies: @Marcus
    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
    Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many US allies.
    Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine weren't able to get any further.
    He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among other places) , @Avery { It was an invasion, }

    No it wasn't: one cannot invade one's own land.
    Crimea was part of Russia for a couple of centuries.
    Part of Russia SSR during USSR.
    Khrushchev, an un-elected Soviet dictator, on a whim, without asking the people of Crimea, transferred the administration of Crimea to Ukriane SSR.
    An illegal act.
    In 1991, as USSR was crumbling, people of Crimea ran a referendum on sovereignty. It passed by 94%. Kiev ignored it.
    Since USSR no longer existed, Ukraine SSR had no legal claim to Crimea, even _if_ for a moment we consider Khrushchev's illegal act 'legal' (sic).

    When neo-Nazis overthrew the legally and democratically elected administration of Yanukovych, a coup financed by Soros (he admitted as much to Fareed Zakaria of CNN), and aided&abetted by anti-American US Neocons (Nuland), and started pogroms of ethnic Russians (e.g. Massacre of Odessa), ethnic Russians of Crimea saw what was coming and wisely chose not to get massacred.
    Done.


    {Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime.}

    The label 'thug' is used by the real thugs in US, anti-American agents of foreign interests, to smear a leader whose allegiance is to his own country.

    Unlike the thugs and gangsters in US Gov who serve foreign interests.
    Who are eager to expend American blood and treasure to advance the interests of anti-American globalists.

    Putin must be demonized, because Putin is a bad example for these reptilian foreign organisms which have infested the US body politic, because suddenly American people might see the light and elect someone whose first allegiance is to America First - imagine that.



    {Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda.}

    No, you have been.
    Or more likely, you are the purveyor of anti-American propaganda.

    {But they still get the ear of stupid people who won't think for themselves.}
    Stop gloating about yourself: it is impolite. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Ondrej says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 2:06 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anonymous
    Russians live in many of the 14 former Soviet republics that are now independent nations.
    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.

    Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?

    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.

    Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+ ethnicties and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are just called those Russians.. :-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.
    Not in the Baltic states. Some of the Russian migrants came as late as the 1980s, so just 5 years before the independence. In the pre-WWII Baltic states there were less than 10% ethnic Russians, some of them Old Believers.

    Russia has been attempting to destablize these countries for years through their 5th column. Not gonna work, there will be no uprising there. But if something bigger happens, and Pat Buchanan and Trump start harping about how Russia has some mystical "rights" to defend its "countrymen", that will turn the US into an official enemy of the Baltic states.

    Marcus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 2:29 pm GMT • 100 Words @Quartermaster
    Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup.
    It certainly wasn't a "silent coup" by anyone's imagination. It was an invasion, then a referendum was held under the guns of an occupying power. Almost no one recognizes the referendum as legit.

    That it wasn't silent is about all you got right.

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug".
    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
    They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."
    Yes, you've been fooled by Putin's propaganda. He's as bad at it as any KGB thug. But they still get the ear of stupid people who won't think for themselves.

    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.

    Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many US allies.

    Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine weren't able to get any further.

    He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among other places)

    • Replies: @Corvinus Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-corruption-five-things-we-learned-about-the-russian-presidents-secret-wealth-a6834171.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2016/03/30/how-vladimir-putins-son-in-law-became-russias-youngest-billionaire/#59accd0b4bc3 Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Agent76 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 2:33 pm GMT

    Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA – Mike Maloney

    Agent76 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT • 100 Words

    October 29, 2016 Video: US-NATO are Beating the Drums of War. "The US is Threatening Every Country on Planet Earth"

    The Debate: Michel Chossudovsky and Ian Williams By Press TV and Prof Michel Chossudovsky Press TV 27 October 2016

    NATO says it is going ahead with its plans to deploy thousands of troops and military hardware to three Baltic States and Poland that all border Russia. The military alliance claims that the measure is a response to a Russia's military build-up and increased activity around NATO's borders. The Russian president, however, has denounced NATO's expansion in Eastern Europe. President Putin has blamed the military alliance for global instability. NATO's latest venture to encircle Russia & its repercussions, in this edition of the Debate.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-us-nato-are-beating-the-drums-of-war-the-us-is-threatening-every-country-on-planet-earth-michel-chossudovsky/5553678

    WorkingClass says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 3:25 pm GMT

    In retaliation for the hacking of John Podesta and the DNC, Barack Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats and ordered closure of their country houses on Long Island and Maryland's Eastern shore.

    It wasn't a hack. It was a leak.

    Avery says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 3:30 pm GMT • 100 Words @Mao Cheng Ji
    For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement
    But what it was a verbal agreement - how is that a reason for breaking it?

    {But what (if) it was a verbal agreement – how is that a reason for breaking it?}

    Agree.

    At that State level of actors, a verbal agreement is also a contract.
    But the link to a written contract provided by [Carlton Meyer] should shut down any illogical arguments or objections about the verbal contract that Neocon warmongers throw out to justify their aggression against Russia.

    sturbain says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 3:54 pm GMT

    @Mark Green Pat Buchanan is wise and prophetic like few other political observers. He deserves a special place among Trump's inner circle. If not as Secretary of State, Pat should be given the position of National Security Advisor.

    Trump's team would benefit greatly by Buchanan's judgement and experience, as would our nation.

    Agree wholeheartedly. Trump should take advantage of Pat's remarkable historical knowledge and wisdom.

    Agent76 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 4:28 pm GMT • 100 Words

    January 01, 2017 52,369 Killed in Iraq during 2016; 3,174 Killed During December

    In December, at least 3,174 people were killed and 1,939 were wounded. Of these, 798 were civilians killed. Another 1,658 civilians were injured. Security forces lost 154 personnel, while another 177 were wounded. At least 2,181 militants were killed, and 104 were injured. Also, at least 41 Kurdistan Workers Party (P.K.K.) members were killed in Turkish airstrikes within Iraqi territory. These figures are likely to be low estimates.

    http://original.antiwar.com/updates/2017/01/01/52369-killed-in-iraq-during-2016-3174-killed-during-december/

    Corvinus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 4:51 pm GMT @Marcus
    Putin is a thug. He has jailed or killed anyone that he sees as a threat to his regime. The man is a KGB product, and it tells in the way he conducts himself. One does not have to meet him to be able to judge what he is from his actions.
    Sources please. Russia has opposition parties and orgs aplenty, more than you can say for many US allies.
    Putin is not standing by anyone. He tried to steal a "land bridge" to Crimea across southeastern Ukraine. No one was being persecuted for speaking Russian, nor was anyone threatened. The majority of the Russian speakers have no desire to be ruled from Moscow, and that fact is testified to by the fact that even with the addition of Russian Army regulars, the quislings in SE Ukraine weren't able to get any further.
    He chose not to support the separatists (earning the ire of many of them), the Ukrainian oligarch army had no desire to fight, with thousands deserting or fleeing conscription (to Russia among other places)

    Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-corruption-five-things-we-learned-about-the-russian-presidents-secret-wealth-a6834171.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2016/03/30/how-vladimir-putins-son-in-law-became-russias-youngest-billionaire/#59accd0b4bc3

    • Replies: @Marcus No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this, though the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge. , @bluedog My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes, both noted for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time, perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted...
    Marcus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 5:16 pm GMT

    @Corvinus Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-corruption-five-things-we-learned-about-the-russian-presidents-secret-wealth-a6834171.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2016/03/30/how-vladimir-putins-son-in-law-became-russias-youngest-billionaire/#59accd0b4bc3

    No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this, though the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge.

    • Replies: @Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."

    Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    jacques sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 5:56 pm GMT

    @Che Guava Saw that too, it was funny, the Koch bro. connection made it doubly so!

    You are right, personal escort off the course with a security guard in tow would have been better, but it would not be possible at this point, with only such a small time before the inaugaration.

    Imagine the hysteria if it had been!

    Even funnier if surveillance camera footage of the reaction appears.

    Suspect the Donald would stop short of allowing that. OTOH, a rogue security guard in the monitoring room ...

    The 'fine, we'll play golf at a superior course nearby' talk was also a laugh. If the nearby course was so superior, why did they not go there first?

    Trump should really get Ted Nugent to do a grinding guitar solo on your anthem, even if brief, but I would guess his advisors already advised against it.

    It would be the best since Jimi Hendrix.

    I don't participate on any 'social media', but if those who do would be interested, a Nugent solo would be brilliant, start the support tags up!

    Hope Trump will do will do well by the US and by its wider influence, still having serious doubts, and only as a non-US person, but for sure, at worst the lesser of two evils.

    Hillary would have been leading the rush to WWIV, I am counting the Cold War and its outlying conflicts as WWIII, as we should.

    Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now, no time of peace, except in some places, at some times, I think the UK and USA definitions of 'WWI' and 'WWII' are useless as definitions.

    WWIII has already happened, if we are to accepting those terms.

    Really, there is an absolute continuum from WWI to now

    Not a shred of doubt about that.

    anon says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 5:58 pm GMT • 200 Words

    We have no inherent conflicts with Russia. The USSR was a godless, communist imperial state with expansionist aspirations. We beat them. Over. We WON.

    Russia is our natural ally against China. In terms of the bigger picture, NATO is disturbing, and we needlessly provoked Russia by mindless expansion. However, NATO has led to European nations 'cheating' on their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on their military. This cheating has effectively disarmed Europe. And, in fact - we have kept Germany on a short leash. Which is hugely advantageous to Russia.

    But aside from all that - there simply isn't a serious reason to mix it up with Russia. Does anyone in the West really care about the Black Sea?

    As far as the notion that Russia wants go Imperial and start taking territory - get real. Russia invading Ukraine and annexing the entire country makes as much sense as the US invading and annexing Mexico. Ukraine was (is) a customer for its natural gas. A profit center, if you will. After an invasion, it would simply be an expense. Ukraine is poorer, and it would be expensive to integrate the into Russia. And as far as the 'breadbasket' of Eurasia, Russia now exports grain.

    So - why shouldn't Trump and Putin chill out?

    The biggest problem is that the US can't seem to take YES for an answer. Or Victory as sufficient. We see it over and over and over. And then take the wasted resources and pass them out to US citizens. Give us our peace dividend.

    Agent76 says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 6:35 pm GMT • 100 Words

    01.01.2017 How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World – For the Better

    The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/01/how-united-iran-russia-china-changing-world-better.html

    • Replies: @Sean Multi polar has more permutations, and more things to go wrong.
    Sean says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:02 pm GMT • 100 Words

    If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the US shown iftself unable to act coherently.

    What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator, an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would be wise to emulate Ford.

    • Replies: @Realist Why should the US be involved in Syria?

    "What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm."

    This is a stupid post even by your standards. , @Marcus The US support for the rebels, plus that contributed by its allies (Turkey, Saudi, etc.) was more than adequate. Erdogan has even said that the US aided IS.

    Sean says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:09 pm GMT

    @Agent76 01.01.2017 How a United Iran, Russia and China are Changing The World - For the Better

    The two previous articles have focused on the various geopolitical theories, their translations into modern concepts, and practical actions that the United States has taken in recent decades to aspire to global dominance. This segment will describe how Iran, China and Russia have over the years adopted a variety of economic and military actions to repel the continual assault on their sovereignty by the West; in particular, how the American drive for global hegemony has actually accelerated the end of the 'unipolar moment' thanks to the emergence of a multipolar world.

    http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/01/01/how-united-iran-russia-china-changing-world-better.html

    Multi polar has more permutations, and more things to go wrong.

    Realist says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:46 pm GMT • 100 Words

    "Putin does not seek to destroy or conquer us or Europe. He wants Russia, and her interests, and her rights as a great power to be respected.

    He is not mucking around in our front yard; we are in his."

    Excellent points. Great article.

    Trump could do no better than to put you in a position of power and advice in his administration.

    Realist says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 7:53 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @Sean If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the US shown iftself unable to act coherently.

    What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator, an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would be wise to emulate Ford.

    Why should the US be involved in Syria?

    "What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm."

    This is a stupid post even by your standards.

    utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 8:10 pm GMT • 200 Words

    "If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the US shown iftself unable to act coherently."

    I think you might be correct. There was no unity of purpose. DOD was not on the same wavelength as CIA Gen. Dempsey of DIA even sabotaged weapon delivery by CIA to rebels and kept open channels to Assad via Tel Aviv, Berlin and Moscow (Seymour Hersh):

    http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-military#onepass

    Obama was dragging his feet. In 2013 he allowed to defuse the crisis with the help of Putin and avoided introducing the no-fly zone, though Putin paid for it dearly with Ukraine in 2014.

    Whatever was Obama motive (Wanted to have clean hands?, Earn that Peace Nobel Price?), I reluctantly give him a credit for not escalating Syria though still I blame him for letting the civil war in Syria happen on his watch in the first place. After all it was a part of Libyan operation when weapons and rebels were moved between the two countries. Still Obama even among his critics is presented that he reacted only to Libya while the proactive part was done by Hillary, CIA, French and British.

    Jason Liu says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 8:28 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Cold War II will be with China, not Russia, sadly. Western neo-nationalists fail to recognize that China is just as tribalistic and anti-SJWism as Russia, if not more - and is in a better position to undermine postmodernist bullshit on a global scale.

    The South China Sea issue is less of an affront to the west geographically than Russia's actions in Ukraine, which leads me to believe that western nationalists who use this excuse are not ideological nationalists, they're just acting out tribalism in the simplest ways, using China as the next archrival.

    A more sensible thing to do is for the nationalists of the world to turn their collective energies on the egalitarian left, and root out their beliefs in every society. Infighting between nationalists always gives the left the advantage.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Cold War II will be with China, not Russia
    Yes, the only question is whether to (a) smash Russia and install US military bases in the various stans around China's Northern border, while the latter are looted by Soros and co. with the aid of Poroshenkite puppets, or (b) play the traditional balance of power game, abandoning the Kissinger-inspired tilt toward China of the Nixon era, which served to counter a dominant Soviet Union, for a Kissinger-inspired tilt toward an intact but much weakened Russia to counter today's rapidly rising China.
    Seamus Padraig says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 8:32 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

    Putin may be a national sovereigntist –i.e., against the new world order–but he really doesn't strike me as much of an "ethnonationalist". He has never opposed all the immigration into Russia from the Caucasus or Central Asia, nor has he annexed any ethnic-Russian enclaves in the former SSRs, apart from Crimea, of course.

    bluedog says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 8:35 pm GMT

    @Corvinus Putin, like Hillary, benefitted from the public till for his personal enjoyment.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/vladimir-putin-corruption-five-things-we-learned-about-the-russian-presidents-secret-wealth-a6834171.html

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2016/03/30/how-vladimir-putins-son-in-law-became-russias-youngest-billionaire/#59accd0b4bc3

    My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes, both noted for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time, perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted

    • Replies: @Corvinus "My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes..."

    You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources entirely.

    "both noted for their propaganda..." "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted "

    As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?

    "I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time..."

    That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Corvinus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 9:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @bluedog My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes, both noted for their propaganda I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time, perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted...

    "My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes "

    You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources entirely.

    "both noted for their propaganda " "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted "

    As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?

    "I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time "

    That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money.

    • Replies: @bluedog That would be a False News Story.There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money.

    List them please so we can all check them, out otherwise your simply spreading some more propaganda about how Putin is worth a few more stolen billions..

    Marcus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 9:17 pm GMT @Sean

    If the US had given meaningful support to the rebels, then the Assads would have fallen. The Assads may think they have defeated the US plot against them, but Russia only came in after the US shown iftself unable to act coherently.

    What Trump has to lose by not confronting Putin is only his most valuable asset: his power to make others start worrying about what US powe might do with him at the helm. Trump is an intimidator, an enforcer , he has already shown his true colours to the motor industry and Russia would be wise to emulate Ford.

    The US support for the rebels, plus that contributed by its allies (Turkey, Saudi, etc.) was more than adequate. Erdogan has even said that the US aided IS.

    Art says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 9:19 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Unlike America's elites, Putin is an ethnonationalist in a time when tribalism is shoving aside transnationalism as the force of the future.

    Sorry – Tribalism and transnationalism are both bad for humanity.

    The real bad guy is borderless Rothschild monetarism. Those greedy thugs have no loyalty to any place on the Earth. They are working to make a cashless world where all transactions must flow through them. They want to skim every human interaction that involves money. It will be a world were dollars and pounds are meaningless. Everyone will be churned into an indebted zombie.

    Heaven knows that national tribalism is also bad for humanity. We must return to local ownership and identity. America started out as individual local states where things were voted on by local people. Local people owned the land and the businesses. Localism is the heart of a stable society.

    CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:23 pm GMT @Carlton Meyer

    Since 97% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia in 2014 when Kiev was in chaos after a CIA funded coup, I would not refer to its Russian reannexation as a silent coup. The vote was watched by international observers and nearly all ethnic Russians, who are the majority in Crimea voted to rejoin, as well as most ethnic Ukrainians there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_status_referendum,_2014

    Russian forces didn't invade Crimea since 20,000 troops were based there as they had been for a century. For those who think NATO's promise not to expand and move forces eastward was just a verbal agreement, read about the 2009 "Founding Act" that Obama's warmongers trashed.

    http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm

    I often hear Americans say that "Putin is a thug". I ask if they've ever met him, or read any of his articles. I ask if they speak Russian or have lived there recently. They are stunned at such questions, and are unable to explain why they think he is a "thug". They cannot understand they have been fooled by propaganda, especially if they consider themselves "educated."

    Re: Educated Americans who think Putin is a thug.

    Higher Education:

    [A] political racket whereby Democrats fork endless cash to tuition extortionists, and lousy scholars impart insane ideas to debt-strapped students who are made dysfunctional citizens in the process.

    Source:

    • Agree: jacques sheete Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
    CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:33 pm GMT • 100 Words @Jason Liu Cold War II will be with China, not Russia, sadly. Western neo-nationalists fail to recognize that China is just as tribalistic and anti-SJWism as Russia, if not more -- and is in a better position to undermine postmodernist bullshit on a global scale.

    The South China Sea issue is less of an affront to the west geographically than Russia's actions in Ukraine, which leads me to believe that western nationalists who use this excuse are not ideological nationalists, they're just acting out tribalism in the simplest ways, using China as the next archrival.

    A more sensible thing to do is for the nationalists of the world to turn their collective energies on the egalitarian left, and root out their beliefs in every society. Infighting between nationalists always gives the left the advantage.

    Cold War II will be with China, not Russia

    Yes, the only question is whether to (a) smash Russia and install US military bases in the various stans around China's Northern border, while the latter are looted by Soros and co. with the aid of Poroshenkite puppets, or (b) play the traditional balance of power game, abandoning the Kissinger-inspired tilt toward China of the Nixon era, which served to counter a dominant Soviet Union, for a Kissinger-inspired tilt toward an intact but much weakened Russia to counter today's rapidly rising China.

    Je Suis Omar Mateen says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:35 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Everybody relax.

    Now that America again has a real man of normal sexuality at the helm, relations with Russia will normalize. President Putin reminds the former president, little Barry Sotero, that he's a sissy, and it infuriates little Barry and the Democrats that President Putin will not genuflect to the GayKK. Buchanan's masterly geopolitical analysis aside, refusal to celebrate LGBTQWERTY is the wellspring of the Left's Russophobia.

    The fakestream media will continue demonizing President Putin, but President Trump will drop all sanctions against Russia and individual Russians, and Cold War II will be handily averted.

    Bank.

    lavoisier says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 10:47 pm GMT • 100 Words

    Pat Buchanan is truly a great man. Look at how he has made so many accurate predictions of what was to come. He is a scholar, a realist, and a genuine patriot–unlike Bush, McCain, and Romney. He was an unusually talented man in our corrupted world.

    He was and is a far better man than Donald Trump, although Trump at least has an inkling of what it means to be patriotic. It was a tremendous tragedy that the majority of the American people failed to recognize his greatness when he ran for president. I recognized it, but I knew he was doomed because he was considered to be anti-semitic. His cause faltered, and we suffered as a people.

    We are in a far more precarious state today because we failed him. I believe that if we had the good sense to elect him president at the time, our world today would be far better than it is now.


    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 11:13 pm GMT • 100 Words

    @Marcus No doubt, Russia is still corrupt to the core, Putin hasn't done much to change this, though the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge.

    "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge "

    Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    • Replies: @CanSpeccy
    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.
    It is certainly true that the United States "is even less free than what it was in the late 1980s." , @Marcus There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 3, 2017 at 11:24 pm GMT • 100 Words

    So last night I was watching one of the Russian political talk shows and one of the separatists from Ukraine was saying things like "We're waiting for you, for your help" and a few Moscovite Russians from the audience (expert and the moderator) were like "Er, you should be able to take care of your own self, we don't wanna pay for you!". So there's that. So much for the "countrymen".

    Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
    CanSpeccy says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 12:02 am GMT

    @Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."

    Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    It is certainly true that the United States "is even less free than what it was in the late 1980s."

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 12:03 am GMT • 100 Words @Ondrej
    They should go back to Russia, like when the French left Algeria. Instead of using these Russians to destabilize non-Russian countries.
    Well, do you really mean ethnic Russians (Slavic)?

    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.

    Or you just speaking about those Russians without actually knowing you should speak-of 100+ ethnicties and nationalities. Which are usually not recognized by Western observer and they are just called those Russians.. :-)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Russia

    They actually they lived there for centuries, former soviet republics where established what was originally part of different gubernias of Russian Empire.

    Not in the Baltic states. Some of the Russian migrants came as late as the 1980s, so just 5 years before the independence. In the pre-WWII Baltic states there were less than 10% ethnic Russians, some of them Old Believers.

    Russia has been attempting to destablize these countries for years through their 5th column. Not gonna work, there will be no uprising there. But if something bigger happens, and Pat Buchanan and Trump start harping about how Russia has some mystical "rights" to defend its "countrymen", that will turn the US into an official enemy of the Baltic states.

    Marcus says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 12:43 am GMT

    @Anonymous "..the lot of the average Russian has undoubtedly improved since he took charge..."

    Life has improved all over the former Soviet space since the late 1990s. It could only go up from there. Life has improved in places like Belarus and the Baltics were longevity, income per capita, birth rates are rising (1.7 per woman which is above the European average), in Kazakhstan which is now flourishing and has built fantastic modern cities such as Astana. Putin has good qualities but the improvement of life in former USSR is an objective, historic process.

    Russia is not a free country, however. It's possible that it's even less free than what it was in the late 1980s.

    There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.

    • Replies: @Anonymous Wait, you're saying that Russia is the only post-Soviet state where life has improved since 2000? You are simply delusional. Living standards have improved in several post-Soviet states. Just look at Kazakhstan, as I said. How has Nazarbayev done less of a splendid job than Putin?

    Even Ukraine has seen an increase in birth rates, in particular in the Western parts. , @Anonymous

    There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.
    I just don't think people like Artemy Troitsky, who spoke freely in the late 80s, should have criminal cases opened against them and be forced out of the country just because they openly expressed their dislike of Putin. A leader who has the support of 80% of the population can't handle a little bit of criticism?
    Alden says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 1:37 am GMT • 200 Words

    @Che Guava ... and let us not forget the extremely violent events in Mariupol and Odessa, clearly coordinated by the coup leaders who assembled the 'Euromaidan' under Obama regime direction.

    In itself, the coup d'etat against the elected pres. was extremely violent, almost all from the side of the US- and EU-supported coup makers, along with a contingency of mercenaries who just shot people to ramp it up (an idea strongly supported by mainstream press reports at the time).

    However, everyone is supposed to having the attention span of a gnat, in the face of celeb. bullshit, everybody is supposed to forget all in the glory of Kim Kardashian's gigantic plastic-surgery-augmented bum, and her stepfather's strangely late decision to fake being a woman, we can all be sure that Bruce Jenner has demonstrated his lack of belief in the 'I am really a woman' narrative by only having silicone tits inserted, and facial surgery to grind away part of his jaw bones.

    The primary sexual characteristics remain intact, not a bad idea on the part of Bruce.

    I am not saying the above two paras. represent part of a conspiracy, but it was surely a useful distraction in the mass-media at the time of the Obama regime making trouble in the Ukraine. Not that I think that was his idea, From what we know of his record, he was rather a dim bulb, benefitting from affirmative action, and never acknowledging the fact that he was dumped on his white grandparents by his slut mother, and his impregnate-and-abandon father.

    Dreams of My Father indeed, his father dumped him, as cuckoo birds do, in the nests of other birds.

    Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.
    I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites was obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been instructed to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.

    He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the 1930s. The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black men. The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.

    They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head of the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.

    Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.

    • Replies: @utu "The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are." -

    Revolutionaries were aware of this. Bolsheviks hated peasants because they were impregnable to their propaganda and they had often had property that was making them self sufficient and most of all because they were Christian. To get peasants to act you had to give them tangible rewards like participation in the loot from houses of aristocracy or to deprave them and bring the most animalistic nature to surface. The Protestant revolution in 16 century went along the same lines. It was looting the property of Catholic Church that sustained it but when the peasants organized themselves (Thomas Muntzer) because they wanted power from the new Protestant masters they were mercilessly massacred. Revolutions proceed to educate masses and start with eradicating illiteracy because this makes indoctrination easier. Tocqueville observed that Americans already in 1830s were exceptionally proud of America and of being Americans and believed in American exceptionalism and superiority. He attributed it to indoctrination carried out in schools.

    The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They constitute the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it face the uphill battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually it is done not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being truly deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose (like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts to nil. Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 1:59 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Marcus There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.

    Wait, you're saying that Russia is the only post-Soviet state where life has improved since 2000? You are simply delusional. Living standards have improved in several post-Soviet states. Just look at Kazakhstan, as I said. How has Nazarbayev done less of a splendid job than Putin?

    Even Ukraine has seen an increase in birth rates, in particular in the Western parts.

    Anonymous says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 2:22 am GMT • 100 Words

    @Marcus There was nothing inevitable about it: how is Ukraine doing? There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.

    There was only one legal party in the USSR, so your comparison can't even be entertained.

    I just don't think people like Artemy Troitsky, who spoke freely in the late 80s, should have criminal cases opened against them and be forced out of the country just because they openly expressed their dislike of Putin. A leader who has the support of 80% of the population can't handle a little bit of criticism?

    jacques sheete says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 2:55 am GMT • 100 Words

    The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.

    That's because they're not educated; only brainwashed.

    It's even worse with the rich, pampered, bored, simple minded, punks who jump onto every perverse bandwagon that comes along for the thrills of momentarily appearing "hip," "cool" "defiant" and "fashionable."

    bluedog says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:03 am GMT

    @Corvinus "My God is that the best you can do parroting items from the Independent and Forbes..."

    You have to refute their findings with counter evidence rather than disqualify the sources entirely.

    "both noted for their propaganda..." "perhaps you can post a creditable site rather than the two you posted "

    As is this website. As is Vox Day. As in all sites have an element of propaganda. Your point?

    "I have done many search's on Putin's billions and came up empty every time..."

    That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money.

    That would be a False News Story. There are a number of sources that discuss how he "earned" his money.

    List them please so we can all check them, out otherwise your simply spreading some more propaganda about how Putin is worth a few more stolen billions..

    utu says: Show Comment Next New Comment January 4, 2017 at 3:51 am GMT • 300 Words

    @Alden Squirt and scram is what I call impregnate and abandon.

    I read Dreams of My Father a couple years before he ran for President. His hatred of Whites was obvious. But all the useful idiots I know read it and gushed and worshipped as they had been instructed to by The Atlantic, New Republic, etc.

    He was the triumph of a breeding program begun by the communist party of the USA back in the 1930s. The idea was to encourage the young women of the far left to marry and have kids with black men. The children would be raised far left and brought along to high public office.

    They finally got Obama. I'm pretty sure his father was Frank Marshall Davis, married, head of the communist party of Hawaii and best friend of grandpa Dunham.

    Sometimes I feel like the little kid in the Emperor's New Clothes story. The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are.

    "The more educated they are, the more gullible and brainwashed people are." –

    Revolutionaries were aware of this. Bolsheviks hated peasants because they were impregnable to their propaganda and they had often had property that was making them self sufficient and most of all because they were Christian. To get peasants to act you had to give them tangible rewards like participation in the loot from houses of aristocracy or to deprave them and bring the most animalistic nature to surface. The Protestant revolution in 16 century went along the same lines. It was looting the property of Catholic Church that sustained it but when the peasants organized themselves (Thomas Muntzer) because they wanted power from the new Protestant masters they were mercilessly massacred. Revolutions proceed to educate masses and start with eradicating illiteracy because this makes indoctrination easier. Tocqueville observed that Americans already in 1830s were exceptionally proud of America and of being Americans and believed in American exceptionalism and superiority. He attributed it to indoctrination carried out in schools.

    The merely educated (the obrazovanshchina) are the perfect product of indoctrination. They constitute the majority of the so-called educated people. The ones who manage to transcend it face the uphill battle because at first they must to unlearn what they were taught and since usually it is done not in a formal setting they are often a prey of silly ideas that may end up with being truly deplorable. I do not exclude the possibility that the silly ideas are planted there on purpose (like Cass Sustein infiltration) to distract them and send them astray, so their awakening amounts to nil.

    [Jan 07, 2017] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1ldCgzUsAAftK0.jpg

    Jan 07, 2017 | pbs.twimg.com

    Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to
    Aid Trump, Report Finds http://nyti.ms/2jbXCV1
    NYT - MICHAEL D. SHEAR and DAVID E. SANGER - Jan 6

    WASHINGTON - President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directed a vast cyberattack aimed at denying Hillary Clinton the presidency and installing Donald J. Trump in the Oval Office, the nation's top intelligence agencies said in an extraordinary report they delivered on Friday to Mr. Trump.

    The officials presented their unanimous conclusions to Mr. Trump in a two-hour briefing at Trump Tower in New York that brought the leaders of America's intelligence agencies face to face with their most vocal skeptic, the president-elect, who has repeatedly cast doubt on Russia's role. The meeting came just two weeks before Mr. Trump's inauguration and was underway even as the electoral votes from his victory were being formally counted in a joint session of Congress.

    Soon after leaving the meeting, intelligence officials released the declassified, damning report that described the sophisticated cybercampaign as part of a continuing Russian effort to weaken the United States government and its democratic institutions. The report - a virtually unheard-of, real-time revelation by the American intelligence agencies that undermined the legitimacy of the president who is about to direct them - made the case that Mr. Trump was the favored candidate of Mr. Putin.

    (Intelligence Report on Russian
    Hacking http://nyti.ms/2i1xVbI )

    The Russian leader, the report said, sought to denigrate Mrs. Clinton, and the report detailed what the officials had revealed to President Obama a day earlier: Mr. Trump's victory followed a complicated, multipart cyberinformation attack whose goal had evolved to help the Republican win.

    The 25-page report did not conclude that Russian involvement tipped the election to Mr. Trump.

    The public report lacked the evidence that intelligence officials said was included in a classified version, which they described as information on the sources and methods used to collect the information about Mr. Putin and his associates. Those would include intercepts of conversations and the harvesting of computer data from "implants" that the United States and its allies have put in Russian computer networks. ...

    Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump,
    Report Finds http://nyti.ms/2jbXCV1 Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 10:55 AM Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Paul Krugman ✔ @paulkrugman

    Remember, Trump's subservience
    to Putin has been obvious all along

    11:18 AM - 7 Jan 2017

    https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/817767303911788544

    Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate http://nyti.ms/29PPyc2
    NYT - Paul Krugman - JULY 22, 2016

    If elected, would Donald Trump be Vladimir Putin's man in the White House? This should be a ludicrous, outrageous question. After all, he must be a patriot - he even wears hats promising to make America great again.

    But we're talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign's recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

    I'm not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin's performance - being impressed by the de facto dictator's "strength," and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America's allies and her own self-interest.

    That's not to deny that Mr. Trump does, indeed, admire Mr. Putin. On the contrary, he has repeatedly praised the Russian strongman, often in extravagant terms. For example, when Mr. Putin published an article attacking American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."

    But admiration for Putinism isn't unusual in Mr. Trump's party. Well before the Trump candidacy, Putin envy on the right was already widespread.

    For one thing, Mr. Putin is someone who doesn't worry about little things like international law when he decides to invade a country. He's "what you call a leader," declared Rudy Giuliani after Russia invaded Ukraine. ...
    Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 11:09 AM Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... 'when Mr. Putin published an article attacking American exceptionalism, Mr. Trump called it a "masterpiece."'

    Vladimir Putin has a plan for destroying
    the West-and it looks a lot like Donald Trump
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2016/07/vladimir_putin_has_a_plan_for_destroying_the_west_and_it_looks_a_lot_like.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top via @slate Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 11:14 AM Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Slate: Trump's devotion to the Russian president has been portrayed as buffoonish enthusiasm for a fellow macho strongman. But Trump's statements of praise amount to something closer to slavish devotion. In 2007, he praised Putin for "rebuilding Russia." A year later he added, "He does his work well. Much better than our Bush." When Putin ripped American exceptionalism in a New York Times op-ed in 2013, Trump called it "a masterpiece."

    What Putin Has to Say to Americans
    About Syria http://nyti.ms/1eFFMCQ
    NYT - VLADIMIR V. PUTIN - SEPT. 11, 2013

    Donald J. Trump✔ @realDonaldTrump

    Putin's letter is a masterpiece for Russia and a disaster for the U.S. He is lecturing to our President.Never has our Country looked to weak

    6:26 AM - 12 Sep 2013

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/378102285001576448 Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 11:21 AM ilsm said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Not going to war with Putin might hurt all of their feelings! Maybe the pocketbook of war profiteers.

    Duality: Clinton had no animus in breaking the law concerning lost public records and mishandling security information, but Putin is evil!

    What they gave Trump is an 'assessment', appeal to authority all Krugman wants.

    Same kind of 'assessment' that gave you Iraq.

    The main plea coming from the media, war corporatists and the distraught is: we cannot ignore the spook's assessments.

    Neolibs are different than their equals in the GOP because they care about the feelings of war mongers and cannot keep them from their wars of profit. Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 11:24 AM Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to ilsm... You may have been right in thinking that
    the need to seem hawkish when chasing the
    presidency is no longer essential, at least
    with regard to Russia.

    Now I have secretly believed all along that
    US and them have been 2 sides of the same coin,
    brash, arrogant, yada yada. Perhaps we can do
    some bizness together, yes?

    Maybe they could use a half-decent missile
    defense system, priced to sell. Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 03:32 PM libezkova said in reply to ilsm... Neocons just dusted off Senator McCarthy play book and changed "communists" into "Russian agents."

    The fact that Krugman would eventually join neo-McCarthyism witch hunt was given. What else would you expect? Working for NYT carries certain obligations. Add to this his former cheerleading for Hillary. So Krugman's behavior as a political commentator is far from surprising. He just carries water for the US neocons.

    "Russians are coming" is now the rallying cry of the neocons/neolibs in Washington. Who are concerned not about the country and it security against foreign intelligence efforts (many of then are "Israel first" types), but about losing their lucrative sinecures.

    Some suggested that McCarthy witch hunt (the crusade against communist subversives) which started in February 9, 1950, was a smoke screen to suppress questions about large influx of former Nazi specialists into the USA, and also the way to prepare the US population to possible war with the USSR, which was on the drawing boards since 1945.

    The plans to bomb with A-bombs key Soviet sites while Soviets do not have nuclear bombs to retaliate were created even the end of WWII.

    == quote ==
    Interestingly enough, then British Prime Minister Winston Churchill had ordered the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff to develop a strategy targeting the USSR months before the end of the Second World War. The first edition of the plan was prepared on May 22, 1945. In accordance with the plan the invasion of Russia-held Europe by the Allied forces was scheduled on July 1, 1945.

    ...The plan, dubbed Operation Unthinkable, stated that its primary goal was "to impose upon Russia the will of the United States and the British Empire.

    ... ... ...

    The British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff underscored that the Allied Forces would win in the event of

    1) the occupation of such metropolitan areas of Russia so that the war making capacity of the country would be reduced to a point to which further resistance would become impossible";

    2) "such a decisive defeat of the Russian forces in the field as to render it impossible for the USSR to continue the war."

    ... ... ...

    ...after the United States "tested" its nuclear arsenal in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Churchill and right-wing American policy makers started to persuade the White House to bomb the USSR.

    A nuclear strike against Soviet Russia, exhausted by the war with Germany, would have led to the defeat of the Kremlin at the same time allowing the Allied Forces to avoid US and British military casualties, Churchill insisted.

    Needless to say, the former British Prime Minister did not care about the death of tens of thousands of Russian peaceful civilians which were already hit severely by the four-year war nightmare.

    "He [Churchill] pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be dropped on the Kremlin, wiping it out, it would be a very easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be without direction," an unclassified note from the FBI archive read.
    ... ... ...
    Unthinkable as it may seem, Churchill's plan literally won the hearts and minds of US policy makers and military officials. Between 1945 and the USSR's first detonation of a nuclear device in 1949, the Pentagon developed at least nine nuclear war plans targeting Soviet Russia, according to US researchers Dr. Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod.

    In their book "To Win a Nuclear War: the Pentagon's Secret War Plans," based on declassified top secret documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the researchers exposed the US military's strategies to initiate a nuclear war with Russia.

    "The names given to these plans graphically portray their offensive purpose: Bushwhacker, Broiler, Sizzle, Shakedown, Offtackle, Dropshot, Trojan, Pincher, and Frolic. The US military knew the offensive nature of the job President Truman had ordered them to prepare for and had named their war plans accordingly," remarked American scholar J.W. Smith ("The World's Wasted Wealth 2").

    These "first-strike" plans developed by the Pentagon were aimed at destroying the USSR without any damage to the United States.

    The 1949 Dropshot plan envisaged that the US would attack Soviet Russia and drop at least 300 nuclear bombs and 20,000 tons of conventional bombs on 200 targets in 100 urban areas, including Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg). In addition, the planners offered to kick off a major land campaign against the USSR to win a "complete victory" over the Soviet Union together with the European allies. According to the plan Washington would start the war on January 1, 1957.
    http://russia-insider.com/en/history/1945-49-us-and-uk-planned-bomb-russia-stone-age/ri9530

    == end of the quote ===

    I think neocons are extremely worried about possible changes in foreign policy, Trump administration might implement. And they have quite a lot to hide, which might come into clear after Trump enters White House. And this time much more is in stake, then Obama birth certificate. So they want some kind of "immunity deal." similar to what Trump already (and probably prematurely) promised to Clintons.

    That's why they now work overtime to delegitimize Trump. Obama action with the expulsion of Russian diplomats belongs to the same category. He was trying to force Trump hand and protect his neoliberal "legacy" (and associated skeletons in the closet) in very Machiavellian way.

    What is also not surprising is that those intelligence agencies conveniently forget the USA behavior in Russian Presidential elections of 2011-2012 when they tried to stage a color revolution (called "While revolution").

    Ambassador McFaul was involved as well as all major US NGO such as NED. McFaul left the country soon after elections, NED was kicked out.

    Of course, neither NYT, nor WaPo would ever mention this skeleton in the closet.
    Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 05:19 PM

    [Jan 07, 2017] https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewarded-for-false-news-about-russia-threat-while-public-is-deceived/

    Jan 07, 2017 | theintercept.com

    January 4, 2007

    WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived
    By Glenn Greenwald

    IN THE PAST six weeks, the Washington Post published two blockbuster stories about the Russian threat that went viral: one on how Russia is behind a massive explosion of "fake news," the other on how it invaded the U.S. electric grid. Both articles were fundamentally false. Each now bears a humiliating editor's note grudgingly acknowledging that the core claims of the story were fiction: The first note was posted a full two weeks later to the top of the original article; the other was buried the following day at the bottom.

    The second story on the electric grid turned out to be far worse than I realized when I wrote about it on Saturday, when it became clear that there was no "penetration of the U.S. electricity grid" as the Post had claimed. In addition to the editor's note, the Russia-hacked-our-electric-grid story now has a full-scale retraction in the form of a separate article admitting that "the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility" and there may not even have been malware at all on this laptop.

    But while these debacles are embarrassing for the paper, they are also richly rewarding. That's because journalists - including those at the Post - aggressively hype and promote the original, sensationalistic false stories, ensuring that they go viral, generating massive traffic for the Post (the paper's executive editor, Marty Baron, recently boasted about how profitable the paper has become).

    After spreading the falsehoods far and wide, raising fear levels and manipulating U.S. political discourse in the process (both Russia stories were widely hyped on cable news), journalists who spread the false claims subsequently note the retraction or corrections only in the most muted way possible, and often not at all. As a result, only a tiny fraction of people who were exposed to the original false story end up learning of the retractions.... Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 07:40 AM Peter K. said in reply to anne... Since the Washington Post was bought by Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, it's nice to see that the quality of their journalism hasn't improved.

    In fact they fired Harold Meyerson who used to be a good quality lefty.

    Apparently he criticized progressive neoliberalism too much and had to go.
    Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 07:46 AM ilsm said in reply to anne... Putin has to be evil, all the phony evidence* points to it!

    The Russia run by Putin have to be evil because if they are not then the CIA is lying, US cannot have the spooks who run up jihadis against nations and see yellow cake seen as less than crusaders for the empire.

    Worse if Putin is not evil the US should not run NATO up to Moscow!

    The MSM is building a case to do Putin like the one to do Assad.

    Nothing to see here!

    *Smart sounding fallacies (deduction with prejudice) of logic are the basis of propaganda. Reply Saturday, January 07, 2017 at 10:49 AM

    [Jan 07, 2017] The fake image is what the neocons want us to believe about the dire threat from Putin!

    Jan 07, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    ilsm : January 07, 2017 at 06:40 AM , 2017 at 06:40 AM
    Barry Ritholtz does a service linking us to a propaganda piece in politico:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/putins-real-long-game-214589

    The service is an example of propaganda using "deductive reasoning"; a journalist interviewing lots of propagandists and using their spin to support an hypothesis that is Clinton Mrs Kagan/Nuland neocon bat crazy!

    The fake image is what the neocons want us to believe about the dire threat from Putin!

    At least once a year Barry posts the cheat sheet, then he sets out hundreds of examples in his reads.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump and Hegel concept of the Irony of History.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction. ..."
    "... But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again. ..."
    "... Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that. ..."
    "... "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism." ..."
    "... Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : January 05, 2017 at 07:40 AM , 2017 at 07:40 AM
    (Harding redux?)

    The Trump Administration
    http://tws.io/2iFd3rC
    via @WeeklyStandard
    Nov 28, 2016 - William Kristol

    Who now gives much thought to the presidency of Warren G. Harding? Who ever did? Not us.

    But let us briefly turn our thoughts to our 29th president (while stipulating that we're certainly no experts on his life or times). Here's our summary notion: Warren G. Harding may have been a problematic president. But the Harding administration was in some ways an impressive one, which served the country reasonably well.

    It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction.

    Andrew Mellon was a successful Treasury secretary whose tax reforms and deregulatory efforts spurred years of economic growth. Charles Dawes, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget, reduced government expenditures and, helped by Mellon's economic policies, brought the budget into balance. Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of state dealt responsibly with a very difficult world situation his administration had inherited-though in light of what followed in the next decade, one wishes in retrospect for bolder assertions of American leadership, though in those years just after World War I, they would have been contrary to the national mood.

    In addition, President Harding's first two Supreme Court appointments -- William Howard Taft and George Sutherland -- were distinguished ones. And Harding personally did some admirable things: He made pronouncements, impressive in the context of that era, in favor of racial equality; he commuted the wartime prison sentence of the Socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. In these ways, he contributed to an atmosphere of national healing and civility.

    The brief Harding administration-and for that matter the eight years constituting his administration and that of his vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge-may not have been times of surpassing national greatness. But there were real achievements, especially in the economic sphere; those years were not disastrous; they were not dark times.

    President-elect Donald J. Trump probably doesn't intend to model his administration on that of President Warren G. Harding. But he could do worse than reflect on that administration's successes-and also on its failures, particularly the scandals that exploded into public view after Harding's sudden death. These were produced by cronies appointed by Harding to important positions, where they betrayed his trust and tarnished his historical reputation.

    Donald Trump manifestly cares about his reputation. He surely knows that reputation ultimately depends on performance. If a Trump hotel and casino is successful, it's not because of the Trump brand-that may get people through the door the first time-but because it provides a worthwhile experience thanks to a good management team, fine restaurants, deft croupiers, and fun shows. If a Trump golf course succeeds, it's because it has been built and is run by people who know something about golf. The failed Trump efforts-from the university to the steaks-seem to have in common the assumption that the Trump name by itself would be enough to carry mediocre or worse enterprises across the finish line.

    To succeed in business, the brand only gets you so far. Quality matters. To succeed in the presidency, getting elected only gets you so far. Governing matters.

    It would be ironic if Trump's very personal electoral achievement were followed by a mode of governance that restored greater responsibility to the cabinet agencies formally entrusted with the duties of governance. It would be ironic if a Trump presidency also featured a return of authority to Congress, the states, and to other civic institutions. It would be ironic if Trump's victory led not to a kind of American Caesarism but to a strengthening of republican institutions and forms. It would be ironic if the election of Donald J. Trump heralded a return to a kind of constitutional normalcy.

    If we are not mistaken, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (though sadly unaware of the phenomena of either Warren G. Harding or Donald J. Trump) who made much of the Irony of History.

    But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again.

    (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were a disastrous triumvirate that ascended to power after the Taft & Wilson administrations, as the GOP - then the embodiment of progressivism - split apart due to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt.)

    Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 03:35 PM
    It is the neocon's taking a back seat!

    Kristol is co-founder of PNAC along with a Clinton mob long time foggy bottom associate's husband..

    Trump is somewhat less thrilled with tilting with Russia for the American empire which is as moral as Nero's Rome.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Prescient: dumping Kristol's PNAC will strengthen the republic.
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."

    Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?

    Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump to revamp intelligence agencies: report

    I am actually surprised by the amount of Trump hating comments to this article.... What is so criminal in trying to reorganize two of 12 Us intelligence agencies. Which might become too bloated and deviate from their original purposes. Is not how restructuring is used in business world ? And the number of commenters blaclmpousing Putin and Russia create great alarm. Looks like the US MSM managed to brainwash the US population like in 50th during "Red Scare". Some comments looks like hate sessions from 1984.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. ..."
    "... This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. ..."
    "... The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public. ..."
    "... They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this. ..."
    "... This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people. ..."
    "... Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia? ..."
    "... This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | thehill.com

    "The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized," an individual close to Trump's transition operation said. "They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring agencies and how they interact."
    Trump is targeting the CIA and the ODNI as he publicly wars with the U.S. intelligence community over its conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

    Trump wants to shrink the ODNI, as he believes the agency established in 2004 as a response to the 9/11 terror attacks has become bloated and politicized.

    Guest sikaniska 2 hours ago
    Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors.

    The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 passed Congress as part of the NDAA 2013 on December 28, 2012.

    The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public http://www.businessinsider.com...

    This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.

    The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public.

    But the US public learned quickly and they are not buying the misinformation anymore.

    hmg, Jr. 4 hours ago
    is this the revelation due early this week that he promised us?
    JacksonEuler 4 hours ago
    Trump knows better:

    1) Renewables:
    "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." - April 2016

    2) Social media
    "I understand social media. I understand the power
    of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost
    anybody, based on my results, right?" - November 2015

    3) Debt
    "Nobody knows more about debt. I'm like the king. I love debt." - May 2016

    4) Taxes, again
    "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe
    in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes." - May 2016

    I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has
    ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes
    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016

    don Jody 4 hours ago
    They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this.
    Guest 2 hours ago

    This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people.

    Trump University 5 hours ago
    OBL caused 9/11 -- and it happened on Dubya's watch. He was expressly warned OBL wanted to do it -- and he laughed and let it happen.
    Vegas DB Pro Alex Cross 4 hours ago
    Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia?
    DoILookAmused2u ? Vegas DB Pro 4 hours ago
    No, we haven't. Putin, United Russia, and his buddies in organized crime sure have though.
    Vegas DB Pro DoILookAmused2u ? 4 hours ago
    Really? We've been interfering in theirs, and many other countries, affairs for decades, same as they've done to us. Learn some history, dummy.
    DoILookAmused2u ? Vegas DB Pro 3 hours ago
    No, we haven't, and we didn't. In fact, his former boss -- Yeltsin -- hired Republican political consultants to help his campaign.

    Putin would like the world to believe that Russians fed up with bribery, extortion, the fall of the ruble, and the fact that their votes don't count rising up and protesting was about outside meddling, but it was internal.

    And he responded by making protests illegal, getting rid of the election of governors (he appoints them now), closing down critical reporting outlets, and some journalists were murdered.

    Uncle Keef Vegas DB Pro 4 hours ago
    So? whose side are you on?
    Don't be like Trump. Stand with the U.S.
    Vegas DB Pro Uncle Keef 4 hours ago
    You moron, I served the US for 20 years in the military, but facts are facts and we need to butt the he!! out of other countries business, and until we do, they will continue to come after us. How long were you in?
    Mohammad Izzaterd 4 hours ago
    This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump Splits With 'Senior Advisor' Former CIA Chief Woolsey Zero Hedge

    Jan 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Trouble in paradise? Following his comments earlier in the week that it was not just the Russians (but China and Iran maybe) that hacked US and that Trump "may be playing us ," former CIA Director James Woolsey has parted ways with the president-elect and will no longer be a Senior Advisor .

    Woolsey did not appear to be toeing the company-line completely...

    Former CIA director James Woolsey: Possibility that more than one country is involved in hacking is there. https://t.co/cxZqeyNvOI

    - New Day (@NewDay) January 3, 2017

    As we noted previously, The Hill reports , Woolsey, who was a senior advisor to President-elect Donald Trump , said:

    "I don't think people ought to say they know for sure there's only one. I don't think they're likely to be proven correct. It shouldn't be portrayed as one guilty party,"

    "It's much more complicated than that. This is not an organized operation that is hacking into a target. It's more like a bunch of jackals at the carcass of an antelope ."

    Woolsey suggested China and Iran could be behind cyber breaches in the U.S.

    "Is it Russian? Probably some," he said. "Is it Chinese and Iranian? Maybe. We may find out more from Mr. Trump coming up today."

    This follows Trump's comments on Sunday hinting he would reveal new information about alleged Russian hacking during a New Year's Eve celebration at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla.

    "[I know] things that other people don't know," he said. "I just want them to be sure because it's a pretty serious charge. I think it's unfair if they don't know."

    To which Woolsey contentiously also commented:

    "There's a possibility that he is [playing us] a little bit."

    But as is clear, Woolsey's belief that the Russians "were in there" still goes further than what Trump has said about the hacks ... which may be why Woolsey has announced in a formal statement

    "Effective immediately, Ambassador Woolsey is no longer a Senior Adviser to President-elect Trump or the transition," Woolsey's spokesman, Jonathan Franks, wrote in a statement that was first reported by CNN's Jeremy Diamond.

    "He wishes the President-elect and his Administration great success in their time in office."

    Furthermore, The Washington Post's Philip Rucker reports, Woolsey resigned after being cut out of intelligence talks with Trump and his national security adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

    nmewn PT Jan 5, 2017 8:51 PM

    So yeah, Russian hackers.

    Here we go, this is from Buzzfeed so according to the NYT's and Washington Post this source would qualify as "fake news"...lol...but!...

    "The DNC had several meetings with representatives of the FBI's Cyber Division and its Washington (DC) Field Office, the Department of Justice's National Security Division, and U.S. Attorney's Offices, and it responded to a variety of requests for cooperation, but the FBI never requested access to the DNC's computer servers," Eric Walker, the DNC's deputy communications director, told BuzzFeed News in an email."

    ...but!...just looky here...we've got an actual non-anonymous, real life, people-type person who is not speaking from the shadows in an underground parking garage its, Eric Walker, the DNC's deputy communications director.

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/the-fbi-never-asked-for-access-to-h...

    Oh my ;-)

    847328_3527 xythras Jan 5, 2017 9:42 PM

    I still think it is independent patriots assited by patriotic insiders who exposed the DNC's criminal activity.

    Anyway, when do we get the criminal investigation into the contents of the leaks? That's where the meat is. Not that someone exposed the crimes; they deserve a medal.

    fleur de lis ElTerco Jan 5, 2017 8:44 PM

    Shit on Woolsey.

    He went out of his way to get that traitorous vermin Jonathan Pollard out of jail.

    He accused the whole country of anti-semitism just because Pollard got busted giving secrets away to the Israelis for years.

    As if the Israelis don't get enough as it is.

    http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Former-CIA-director-accuses-...

    Why didn't someone on Trump's team ask him about that.

    And they had better start doing some real due dilligence on these remora types.

    Where there's one Israeli mole there's ten.

    Woolsey thinks Pollard's release is overdue.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/James-Woolsey-Jonathan-Pollard-release...

    A very, very close look at Woolsey is overdue.

    And his associations, bank books, phone calls, etc.

    How dare he advise any of us about security after that.

    Woolsey is a Mossad crack ho.

    He needs a major smackdown.

    Paul Kersey localsavage Jan 5, 2017 8:25 PM

    Former CIA Director James Woolsey, was a vocal advocate of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq who promoted allegations that Saddam Hussein harbored illegal weapons of mass destruction.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump and Hegel concept of the Irony of History.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction. ..."
    "... But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again. ..."
    "... Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that. ..."
    "... "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism." ..."
    "... Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : January 05, 2017 at 07:40 AM , 2017 at 07:40 AM
    (Harding redux?)

    The Trump Administration
    http://tws.io/2iFd3rC
    via @WeeklyStandard
    Nov 28, 2016 - William Kristol

    Who now gives much thought to the presidency of Warren G. Harding? Who ever did? Not us.

    But let us briefly turn our thoughts to our 29th president (while stipulating that we're certainly no experts on his life or times). Here's our summary notion: Warren G. Harding may have been a problematic president. But the Harding administration was in some ways an impressive one, which served the country reasonably well.

    It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction.

    Andrew Mellon was a successful Treasury secretary whose tax reforms and deregulatory efforts spurred years of economic growth. Charles Dawes, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget, reduced government expenditures and, helped by Mellon's economic policies, brought the budget into balance. Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of state dealt responsibly with a very difficult world situation his administration had inherited-though in light of what followed in the next decade, one wishes in retrospect for bolder assertions of American leadership, though in those years just after World War I, they would have been contrary to the national mood.

    In addition, President Harding's first two Supreme Court appointments -- William Howard Taft and George Sutherland -- were distinguished ones. And Harding personally did some admirable things: He made pronouncements, impressive in the context of that era, in favor of racial equality; he commuted the wartime prison sentence of the Socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. In these ways, he contributed to an atmosphere of national healing and civility.

    The brief Harding administration-and for that matter the eight years constituting his administration and that of his vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge-may not have been times of surpassing national greatness. But there were real achievements, especially in the economic sphere; those years were not disastrous; they were not dark times.

    President-elect Donald J. Trump probably doesn't intend to model his administration on that of President Warren G. Harding. But he could do worse than reflect on that administration's successes-and also on its failures, particularly the scandals that exploded into public view after Harding's sudden death. These were produced by cronies appointed by Harding to important positions, where they betrayed his trust and tarnished his historical reputation.

    Donald Trump manifestly cares about his reputation. He surely knows that reputation ultimately depends on performance. If a Trump hotel and casino is successful, it's not because of the Trump brand-that may get people through the door the first time-but because it provides a worthwhile experience thanks to a good management team, fine restaurants, deft croupiers, and fun shows. If a Trump golf course succeeds, it's because it has been built and is run by people who know something about golf. The failed Trump efforts-from the university to the steaks-seem to have in common the assumption that the Trump name by itself would be enough to carry mediocre or worse enterprises across the finish line.

    To succeed in business, the brand only gets you so far. Quality matters. To succeed in the presidency, getting elected only gets you so far. Governing matters.

    It would be ironic if Trump's very personal electoral achievement were followed by a mode of governance that restored greater responsibility to the cabinet agencies formally entrusted with the duties of governance. It would be ironic if a Trump presidency also featured a return of authority to Congress, the states, and to other civic institutions. It would be ironic if Trump's victory led not to a kind of American Caesarism but to a strengthening of republican institutions and forms. It would be ironic if the election of Donald J. Trump heralded a return to a kind of constitutional normalcy.

    If we are not mistaken, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (though sadly unaware of the phenomena of either Warren G. Harding or Donald J. Trump) who made much of the Irony of History.

    But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again.

    (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were a disastrous triumvirate that ascended to power after the Taft & Wilson administrations, as the GOP - then the embodiment of progressivism - split apart due to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt.)

    Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 03:35 PM
    It is the neocon's taking a back seat!

    Kristol is co-founder of PNAC along with a Clinton mob long time foggy bottom associate's husband..

    Trump is somewhat less thrilled with tilting with Russia for the American empire which is as moral as Nero's Rome.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Prescient: dumping Kristol's PNAC will strengthen the republic.
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."

    Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?

    Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump Aims To Cut The Neocon Deep State Off At The Knees

    Jan 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    I have long held that America's Deep State --the unelected National Security State often referred to as the Shadow Government-- is not a unified monolith but a deeply divided ecosystem in which the dominant Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchy is being challenged by elements which view the Neocon-Neoliberal agenda as a threat to national security and the interests of the United States.

    I call these anti-Neocon-Neoliberal elements the progressive Deep State.

    If you want a working definition of the Neocon-Neoliberal Deep State, Hillary Clinton's quip-- we came, we saw, he died --is a good summary: a bullying, arrogance-soaked state-within-a-state pursuing an agenda of ceaseless intervention while operating a global Murder, Inc., supremely confident that no one in the elected government can touch them.

    Until Trump unexpectedly wrenched the presidency from the Neocon's candidate. The Neocon Deep State's response was to manufacture a mass-media hysteria that Russia had wrongfully deprived the Neocon's candidate (Hillary Clinton) of what was rightfully hers: the presidency. (The Neocons operate their own version of the divine right of Political Nobility .)

    The Neocon-Neoliberals' strategy was to delegitimize Trump's victory by ascribing it to "Russian Hacking," a claim that remains entirely unsubstantiated. Now that this grasping-at-straws Hail Mary coup attempt by a politicized CIA and its corporate media mouthpiece has failed, the Neocon Deep State is about to find out the Progressive Deep State finally has a president who is willing and able to cut the Neocon-Neoliberals off at the knees.

    Trump Is Working On A Plan To Restructure, Pare Back The CIA And America's Top Spy Agency .

    If you want documented evidence of this split in the Deep State--sorry, it doesn't work that way. Nobody in the higher echelons of the Deep State is going to leak anything about the low-intensity war being waged because the one thing everyone agrees on is the Deep State's dirty laundry must be kept private.

    As a result, the split is visible only by carefully reading between the lines, by examining who is being placed in positions of control in the Trump Administration, and reading the tea leaves of who is "retiring" (i.e. being fired) or quitting, which agencies are suddenly being reorganized, and the appearance of dissenting views in journals that serve as public conduits for Deep State narratives.

    I have also long held that Wall Street's political dominance is part and parcel of the Neocon-Neoliberal ideology , and the progressive elements in the Deep State also want to (finally) limit the power of the big banks and the rest of the Wall Street crowd.

    Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14, 2014)

    The split in the Deep State is a reflection of the profound political disunity that is occurring in the U.S. In other words, it isn't just disunity in the masses or the political elites--it's a division in all levels of our society.

    The cause is not difficult to discern: the concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the few is generating levels of inequality that threaten democracy, the social order and the vitality of the economy:

    As someone who has studied the Deep State for 40 years, I find it ironic that so many self-identified "progressives" do not understand that the U.S. military is now the Progressive element and it's the civilian leadership--the Neocon-Neoliberals-- who are responsible for leading the nation into quagmires and handing the keys to the chicken coop to the wolves of Wall Street.

    When military leaders such as Eric Shinseki questioned the Neocon's insane "strategy" in Iraq--essentially a civilian fantasy of magical-thinking--the Neocons quickly cashiered him (Shinseki was a wounded combat veteran of Vietnam who rose through the ranks--the exact opposite of the coddled never-get-my-hands-dirty Elites in the civilian Neocon-Neoliberal leadership.)

    To the degree that the U.S. has become a Third World Oligarchy owned and controlled by a financial-political Elite, then the U.S. military is one of the few national institutions that hasn't been corrupted by top-down politicization and worship of Wall Street.

    Shinseki et al. did not amass a fortune from Wall Street like Bill and Hillary Clinton. The simple dictum-- follow the money --maps the lay of the land rather neatly.

    The Neocon-Neoliberals have run the nation into the ground. They must be fired and put out to pasture before they do any more harm. That includes the Fake-"Progressives" and the fake-"Conservatives" alike who have enriched themselves within the Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchy.

    If you are surprised that the Democratic Party, the CIA and Wall Street are all hugging each other in the same cozy Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchic embrace, you shouldn't be. Open your eyes.

    Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8, 2016)

    stizazz Jan 5, 2017 10:39 PM

    W Bush: "Dad, what's a neocon?" HW Bush: "You want names or description?" W: "Description." HW: "Israel."

    Chopping down the neocon deep state is to cut down Israel. Trump won't, though he should.

    techies-r-us stizazz Jan 5, 2017 10:42 PM

    All of America's problems in the MidEast is because of these Israel-first neocons.

    Mano-A-Mano bamawatson Jan 5, 2017 10:56 PM

    Why is it that no one wants to describe who the neocons are?

    Which lends credence to the fact that in the Israeli-occupied West you can't criticize Israel, no matter the evil they inflict on the Middle East.

    fleur de lis J S Bach Jan 5, 2017 10:56 PM

    The problem is that the deep state owns most if not all the wet workers.

    They will do whatever the DS says since their paychecks depend upon it.

    Best thing would be to ID the wet workers and give them X amount of time to come in from the cold, then give them the choice of taking a payoff and staying out of trouble or getting their wings clipped for violating parole, or turning state's evidence in exchange for a job or getting their spawn into good schools/jobs.

    If they miss the deadline they default into "problems" and get dealt with accordingly.

    Rebel yell Jan 5, 2017 10:53 PM

    If Trump can cut the neo-fascist deep-state off at the knees, America can be great again!

    The Spanish-American Inquisition : Mexican propaganda was the reason that people voted for Hillary Clinton. NYT largest shareholder is Carlos Slim who has lost 40% of his net worth in the last 2 years as a result of the peso. Trump would diminish his own personal empire by further devaluation of the peso and by reducing Mexican manufacturing.

    The Mexican propaganda was not merely limited to the NYT. Telemundo also played a large part in this. The infiltration of Mexican spies and propagandists through telemundo owned by Comcast, the country's largest media organization has completely compromised Comcast! All of their companies endorsed Hillary in order to benefit the Mexican economy!

    Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in order to spread Cuban propaganda. His adopted father was from Cuba. Since Jeff Bezos purchased WaPo, Obama has restored relations with Cuba. Coincidence?! We think not!!!

    CNN is Chilean propaganda -- What lengths will they go to in order to mislead the public as the Chilean president owns Chilevisian which is a Time Warner subsidiary and Time Warner owns CNN?! Trump's plan of rewriting NAFTA would be less favorable to Chile than it is in its current form! CNN is trying to get people to put the needs of the Chilean people above the needs of American people!

    Congress has the right to declare war, but the president is the commander in chief. Let congress declare war on Russia and go and fight the Russians themselves. They can declare war, but there will be nobody to fight it, unless they do it themselves!

    Paul Kersey Jan 5, 2017 10:53 PM

    The Fed and the TBTF banks run Deep State, and according to the latest article in the WSJ, Trump is beyond indebted to the TBTF banks. If true, this is scary and gives Trump a pretty serious reason for putting so many Goldmanites in positions of power in his Administration.

    (Wall Street Journal)

    "More than 150 financial institutions hold debt from President-elect Donald Trump's businesses or businesses in which he is at least a 30 percent stakeholder, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

    That amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in potential conflicts of interest as Trump prepares to begin his presidency.

    When Trump submitted a required financial disclosure form with the Federal Election Commission in May 2015, he listed 16 loans, collectively worth $315 million in debt, that his businesses had received from 10 companies, according to the newspaper.

    The Journal's analysis goes beyond those loans and includes debt held by companies in which Trump is at least a 30 percent stakeholder, including, for example, the companies which control 1290 Avenue of the Americas.

    That building, owned by a partnership of companies that is 30 percent owned by Trump, received $950 million in loans in 2012 from UBS Group AG, Bank of China, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Deutsche Bank, according to the report.

    Deutsche Bank, a German institution, is currently under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for its equity trading with wealthy Russian clients.

    In the case of Goldman Sachs, the bank now counts several its former employees among the highest levels of the incoming Trump administration, including former bank president Gary Cohn, who was appointed director of Trump's National Economic Council."

    DirtySanchez Jan 5, 2017 10:56 PM

    "The Neocon-Neoliberals have run the nation into the ground. They must be fired and put out to pasture before they do any more harm. That includes the Fake-"Progressives" and the fake-"Conservatives" alike who have enriched themselves within the Neocon-Neoliberal Oligarchy."

    My ass!!!!! Mr Trump is the right man at the right time to send these war criminals to hell where they belong! HW, W, Bozo,Their globalists war cabinets,Their corrupt underlings, #MAGA #Drain the Swamp

    cheech_wizard Jan 5, 2017 11:20 PM

    Trump needs to distract them quickly. So I have given this a few quick moments of thought and came up with what should be Trump's first executive order. Congress and all Federal employees are now required to use Obamacare as their health plan.

    Standard Disclaimer: Aside from watching Congressional critter's heads explode, the disaster known as Obamacare would be either repealed or fixed in a NY minute.

    [Jan 06, 2017] If we consider two possibilities: GOP establishment chew up Trump and Trump chew up GOP establishment it is clear that possibility is more probable.

    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Peter K. -> Chris G ... , January 05, 2017 at 11:59 AM
    I've heard otherwise. The progressive neoliberals are just putting out disinformation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/upshot/how-the-obama-coalition-crumbled-leaving-an-opening-for-trump.html

    "At every point of the race, Mr. Trump was doing better among white voters without a college degree than Mitt Romney did in 2012 - by a wide margin. Mrs. Clinton was also not matching Mr. Obama's support among black voters."

    "Mrs. Clinton's gains were concentrated among the most affluent and best-educated white voters, much as Mr. Trump's gains were concentrated among the lowest-income and least-educated white voters."

    Peter K. -> Chris Lowery ... , January 05, 2017 at 07:30 AM
    Trump won the Republican primary and general election.

    ""Trump dominated - in the primary and general elections - those districts represented by Congress's most conservative members," Tim Alberta wrote in National Review (he is now at Politico):

    They once believed they were elected to advance a narrowly ideological agenda, but Trump's success has given them reason to question that belief.

    Among these archconservatives, who in the past had been fanatical in their pursuit of ideological purity, the realization that they can no longer depend on unfailing support from their constituents has provoked deep anxiety."

    These archconservatives who say that Trump's flimsy mandate is just based on just 80,000 votes in the rustbelt are in for a rude awakening. He won the primary. In Northern States. In Southern States. Everywhere.

    It's hilarious that the progressive neoliberals like DeLong, Krugman, Drum, Yglesias etc have said exactly nothing about Trump's tweets at Congressional Republicans over the independent ethics committee.

    Silence.

    JF -> Chris Lowery ... , January 05, 2017 at 09:02 AM
    There is a propaganda technique where you describe straw-person characterizations then undermine them. When in fact the whole longwinded campaign depends on readers and listeners not bothering or too tired to focus and see the mischaracterizations in the straw.

    This whole thing is an apologia, for propaganda purposes, as I see it.

    We all need to take care. It takes a lot of money and effort to organize such propaganda exercises. Please take care in using and reusing these type things.

    Libezkova -> Chris Lowery ... , January 05, 2017 at 09:49 AM
    "Trump has converted the G.O.P. into a populist, America First party" is an overstatement. He definitely made some efforts in this direction, but it is premature to declare this "fait accompli".

    If we consider two possibilities: "GOP establishment chew up Trump" and "Trump chew up GOP establishment" it is clear that possibility is more probable.

    Theoretically that might give Democrats a chance, but I think the Clintonized Party is too corrupt to take this chance. "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." ;-)

    In any case, 2018 elections will be very interesting as I think that the process of a slow collapse of neoliberal ideology and the rise of the US nationalist movements ("far right") will continue unabated.

    This is the same process that we see in full force in EU.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump and Hegel concept of the Irony of History.

    Notable quotes:
    "... It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction. ..."
    "... But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again. ..."
    "... Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that. ..."
    "... "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism." ..."
    "... Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Fred C. Dobbs : January 05, 2017 at 07:40 AM , 2017 at 07:40 AM
    (Harding redux?)

    The Trump Administration
    http://tws.io/2iFd3rC
    via @WeeklyStandard
    Nov 28, 2016 - William Kristol

    Who now gives much thought to the presidency of Warren G. Harding? Who ever did? Not us.

    But let us briefly turn our thoughts to our 29th president (while stipulating that we're certainly no experts on his life or times). Here's our summary notion: Warren G. Harding may have been a problematic president. But the Harding administration was in some ways an impressive one, which served the country reasonably well.

    It was possible to say, before Warren G. Harding was elected, that he wasn't particularly well-qualified to be president. And he did turn out as president to have, as we say nowadays, some issues. But his administration was stocked with (mostly) well-qualified men who served with considerable distinction.

    Andrew Mellon was a successful Treasury secretary whose tax reforms and deregulatory efforts spurred years of economic growth. Charles Dawes, the first director of the Bureau of the Budget, reduced government expenditures and, helped by Mellon's economic policies, brought the budget into balance. Charles Evans Hughes as secretary of state dealt responsibly with a very difficult world situation his administration had inherited-though in light of what followed in the next decade, one wishes in retrospect for bolder assertions of American leadership, though in those years just after World War I, they would have been contrary to the national mood.

    In addition, President Harding's first two Supreme Court appointments -- William Howard Taft and George Sutherland -- were distinguished ones. And Harding personally did some admirable things: He made pronouncements, impressive in the context of that era, in favor of racial equality; he commuted the wartime prison sentence of the Socialist leader, Eugene V. Debs. In these ways, he contributed to an atmosphere of national healing and civility.

    The brief Harding administration-and for that matter the eight years constituting his administration and that of his vice president and successor, Calvin Coolidge-may not have been times of surpassing national greatness. But there were real achievements, especially in the economic sphere; those years were not disastrous; they were not dark times.

    President-elect Donald J. Trump probably doesn't intend to model his administration on that of President Warren G. Harding. But he could do worse than reflect on that administration's successes-and also on its failures, particularly the scandals that exploded into public view after Harding's sudden death. These were produced by cronies appointed by Harding to important positions, where they betrayed his trust and tarnished his historical reputation.

    Donald Trump manifestly cares about his reputation. He surely knows that reputation ultimately depends on performance. If a Trump hotel and casino is successful, it's not because of the Trump brand-that may get people through the door the first time-but because it provides a worthwhile experience thanks to a good management team, fine restaurants, deft croupiers, and fun shows. If a Trump golf course succeeds, it's because it has been built and is run by people who know something about golf. The failed Trump efforts-from the university to the steaks-seem to have in common the assumption that the Trump name by itself would be enough to carry mediocre or worse enterprises across the finish line.

    To succeed in business, the brand only gets you so far. Quality matters. To succeed in the presidency, getting elected only gets you so far. Governing matters.

    It would be ironic if Trump's very personal electoral achievement were followed by a mode of governance that restored greater responsibility to the cabinet agencies formally entrusted with the duties of governance. It would be ironic if a Trump presidency also featured a return of authority to Congress, the states, and to other civic institutions. It would be ironic if Trump's victory led not to a kind of American Caesarism but to a strengthening of republican institutions and forms. It would be ironic if the election of Donald J. Trump heralded a return to a kind of constitutional normalcy.

    If we are not mistaken, it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (though sadly unaware of the phenomena of either Warren G. Harding or Donald J. Trump) who made much of the Irony of History.

    But how Hegelian it would be if the thesis of the Bush and Clinton dynasties, followed by the antithesis of a Trump victory over first a Bush and then a Clinton in 2016, were to produce an unanticipated synthesis: a Trump administration marked by the reconstruction of republican normalcy in America. In its own way, that would be a genuine contribution to making America great again.

    (Harding-Coolidge-Hoover were a disastrous triumvirate that ascended to power after the Taft & Wilson administrations, as the GOP - then the embodiment of progressivism - split apart due to the efforts of Teddy Roosevelt.)

    Peter K. -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Kristol is mad Trump lambasted the Iraq war. Was Putin against the Iraq war? I think the whole world was except for the "Coalition of the Willing." You'll never see the UK back another war like that.
    ilsm -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 03:35 PM
    It is the neocon's taking a back seat!

    Kristol is co-founder of PNAC along with a Clinton mob long time foggy bottom associate's husband..

    Trump is somewhat less thrilled with tilting with Russia for the American empire which is as moral as Nero's Rome.

    ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
    Prescient: dumping Kristol's PNAC will strengthen the republic.
    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 07:52 AM
    "Socialist feminist Liza Featherstone and others have denounced Clinton's uncritical praise of the "opportunity" and "freedom" of American capitalism vis-à-vis other developed nations. "With this bit of frankness," Featherstone explains, referring to the former Secretary of State's "Denmark" comments, "Clinton helpfully explained why no socialist-indeed, no non-millionaire-should support her. She is smart enough to know that women in the United States endure far more poverty, unemployment, and food insecurity than women in Denmark-yet she shamelessly made clear that she was happy to keep it that way." Indeed, Clinton's denunciation of the idea that the United States should look more like Denmark betrayed one of the glaring the fault lines within the Democratic Party, and between Clintonian liberalism and Sandersite leftism."

    Is it better to ignore this fault line and try to paper it over or is it better to debate the issues in a polite and congenial manner?

    Of course the progressive neoliberals in this forum regularly resort to ad hominem to any ideas or facts that don't line up with the agreed-upon party line.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Trump to revamp intelligence agencies: report

    I am actually surprised by the amount of Trump hating comments to this article.... What is so criminal in trying to reorganize two of 12 Us intelligence agencies. Which might become too bloated and deviate from their original purposes. Is not how restructuring is used in business world ? And the number of commenters blaclmpousing Putin and Russia create great alarm. Looks like the US MSM managed to brainwash the US population like in 50th during "Red Scare". Some comments looks like hate sessions from 1984.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. ..."
    "... This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion. ..."
    "... The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public. ..."
    "... They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this. ..."
    "... This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people. ..."
    "... Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia? ..."
    "... This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es. ..."
    Jan 06, 2017 | thehill.com

    "The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized," an individual close to Trump's transition operation said. "They all need to be slimmed down. The focus will be on restructuring agencies and how they interact."
    Trump is targeting the CIA and the ODNI as he publicly wars with the U.S. intelligence community over its conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

    Trump wants to shrink the ODNI, as he believes the agency established in 2004 as a response to the 9/11 terror attacks has become bloated and politicized.

    Guest sikaniska 2 hours ago
    Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors.

    The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 passed Congress as part of the NDAA 2013 on December 28, 2012.

    The NDAA Legalizes The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public http://www.businessinsider.com...

    This use of propaganda on the American public effectively nullified the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.

    The NDAA in its current form allows the State Department and Pentagon to go beyond manipulating mainstream media outlets to directly disseminate campaigns of misinformation to the U.S. public.

    But the US public learned quickly and they are not buying the misinformation anymore.

    hmg, Jr. 4 hours ago
    is this the revelation due early this week that he promised us?
    JacksonEuler 4 hours ago
    Trump knows better:

    1) Renewables:
    "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." - April 2016

    2) Social media
    "I understand social media. I understand the power
    of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost
    anybody, based on my results, right?" - November 2015

    3) Debt
    "Nobody knows more about debt. I'm like the king. I love debt." - May 2016

    4) Taxes, again
    "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe
    in the history of the world. Nobody knows more about taxes." - May 2016

    I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has
    ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes
    - Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2016

    don Jody 4 hours ago
    They refused to brief Congress. They were never allowed to release their findings publicly, because they still haven't. They leaked their conclusions. All to attempt to undermine the stability of their own country. And you don't see this.
    Guest 2 hours ago

    This is why Wikileaks exists. What the MSM can no longer deliver (the TRUTH and credible news), Wikileaks can deliver to the American people.

    Trump University 5 hours ago
    OBL caused 9/11 -- and it happened on Dubya's watch. He was expressly warned OBL wanted to do it -- and he laughed and let it happen.
    Vegas DB Pro Alex Cross 4 hours ago
    Are you claiming the US hasn't done all it can to destabilize and destroy Russia?
    DoILookAmused2u ? Vegas DB Pro 4 hours ago
    No, we haven't. Putin, United Russia, and his buddies in organized crime sure have though.
    Vegas DB Pro DoILookAmused2u ? 4 hours ago
    Really? We've been interfering in theirs, and many other countries, affairs for decades, same as they've done to us. Learn some history, dummy.
    DoILookAmused2u ? Vegas DB Pro 3 hours ago
    No, we haven't, and we didn't. In fact, his former boss -- Yeltsin -- hired Republican political consultants to help his campaign.

    Putin would like the world to believe that Russians fed up with bribery, extortion, the fall of the ruble, and the fact that their votes don't count rising up and protesting was about outside meddling, but it was internal.

    And he responded by making protests illegal, getting rid of the election of governors (he appoints them now), closing down critical reporting outlets, and some journalists were murdered.

    Uncle Keef Vegas DB Pro 4 hours ago
    So? whose side are you on?
    Don't be like Trump. Stand with the U.S.
    Vegas DB Pro Uncle Keef 4 hours ago
    You moron, I served the US for 20 years in the military, but facts are facts and we need to butt the he!! out of other countries business, and until we do, they will continue to come after us. How long were you in?
    Mohammad Izzaterd 4 hours ago
    This blame Russia frenzy is a loser strategy. The sole purpose is to deligitimize Trump's victory. Can't wait for Trump to start firing a**es.

    [Jan 06, 2017] Hannity Julian Assange Interview

    Jan 06, 2017 | www.youtube.com
    Published on Jan 3, 2017

    Tonight we were presented with the one-on-one interview between Sean Hannity and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. In the first segment that Hannity showed, Assange stated that Rushua was not involved in providing WikiLeaks with the hacked emails from the DNC or John Podesta, and neither was a state party. Assange, who is confined to the Ecuadorean embassy in London due to a warrant for sexual assault in Sweden, was asked if President Barack Obama was lying when claiming Rushuaans were behind the hacks since Assange is saying Rushua wasn't involved. "Well, he is acting like a lawyer," he noted. "If you look at most of his statements he doesn't say that. He doesn't say WikiLeaks obtained its information from Rushua, worked with Rushua." Later on, when describing why Obama had a dramatic response to Rushua via sanctions, Assange says he is "trying to delegitimize the Trump Administration as it goes into the White House."Hannity Julian Assange FULL Interview 1/3/17. Sean Hannity gave us a preview of his revealing exclusive interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, which will air on Fox News Channel tonight at 10pm ET. Assange spoke for about 90 minutes at the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he has remained for four-and-a-half years under threat of arrest. Hannity said they discussed "the state of journalism" in the United States and what was not covered by the media when it came to the contents of the hacked emails. Spc Garza 19 hours ago This guy is way to smart for the government lol!!! Stay safe Jakareh75 17 hours ago Julian Assange has more integrity in one fingernail than does the entire mainstream media. And that is why he's under a bogus indictment for rape by Sweden, the same country that allows Muslim subhumans scores of their women every day with impunity. The rotten liberals who run Sweden go after Julian Assange but not their Muslim pets. Alex Phillips 16 hours ago as a fellow Australian i find it absolutely fucking disgraceful that our government isn't fighting tooth and nail to clear Julian's name. .....stand strong Julian. ....walk with your head held high. ....keep on doing what you are doing. ....god bless you and keep you safe. Arisen Hemloc 21 minutes ago Alex: I wouldn't call us Fascist. Fascist governments are hard to fully achieve because they require so many attributes in comparison to other extremes like Communism. It needs to be Nationalistic (which, let's face, we're not at the moment), a dictatorship (which, we're not yet), Authoritarian to the extreme (we're VERY close to that), and quite a few other qualities. But regardless, Australia is clamped down by regulations and laws which choke business, a moron who wants a Carbon Tax (useless. Doesn't even help Climate Change if you believe in it), Emissions Trading Scheme (Again, worthless) and has the political sense of a rock, stupid Socialist departments that aren't working (Centrelink) because the economy is so blotto, we've got gun laws that will probably lead to us all getting machine gunned down by some Islamic with an AK and slowly our borders are becoming less and less secure. We're at the point of America at the moment, not Germany or France yet, but getting there. Only our Ocean protects us from that. Under Rudd and Gillard, we were moving heavily Socialist. Under Abbot, in an attempt to fix the damage they did, he shoved us too far the other way. We need a Trump now and I get a feeling it'll come from a coalition between Hansen and Bernardi. Bernardi is considering, if he hasn't already, leaving the Liberals and starting a real Conservative Party for the people, but to get into power he'll need a coalition. Either that or someone in the Liberals will need to get rid of Turnbull and fix our system. We can't trust Labor because they have that Union boss creep Shorten as their leader and he's nuttier than Rudd. It's sad, but Assange will not be allowed back into Australia or helped by Australia while our current cycle of nut job politics keep on going. We need Howard or Menzies back. Also, for you Americans, our politicians aren't as corrupt as yours (the Labor maybe), but ours are just incompetent 75% of the time. Stacey Johnson 21 hours ago This was a great interview. Hopefully now that Assange has established for the millionth time that Russia did not hack, we (as in all truth media outlets like RT, Hannity, etc) need to stop focusing on and talking about who did the hacking. Its time to start investigating, talking about and exposing the actual content of the emails, all of them not just the ones that expose the media and campaign corruption. Yet RT, Hannity, etc are not talking about it or asking the questions that need to be asked or investigating it. Why isn't anyone asking about the Clinton foundation and its link to human trafficking or why Monica Peterson was found dead while investigating it?? Why isn't anyone asking Podesta to explain all the strange and suspicious code talk that is factual signs, symbols and code words for pedophilia used over and over in these emails? Why aren't they asking about the ties and connections to occult rituals? Why aren't they asking about the sickening art collections? Why aren't they asking about the strange and inappropriate happenings that go on at Ping Pong Pizza? The flight logs of the Lolita express, which is owned by a convicted sex offender, to "orgy island"? Clinton's reasons for going there without secret service detail on numerous occasions? The deaths of so many people connected to the Clinton's?? I still don't understand why these things are still not being talked about?!?! PopTartsAndCinemax 7 hours ago Saudi Arabia bankrolled HRC's campaign but please, tell us how the Russians are interfering in the election... lol... John S 5 hours ago SA is using US $$ and weapons via Hillary's state department to bankroll ISIS. But please, more Russia!! Paul X 11 hours ago Hannity worries about where Assange draws the line, and whether his releases might endanger human lives (those of spies, I suppose). The problem with that line is that human lives are endangered no matter what! If Assange releases information, some lives are endangered. If he doesn't, other lives are endangered. Let's face it, Madeleine Albright said that it was "worth it" if half a million Iraqi people were killed in the pursuit of American imperialist ambitions. And let's face it, if spies' lives are endangered, well they signed up for that danger. It's part of their job to deal with it. If the release of truth endangers them, then maybe they are doing something they shouldn't be doing. I don't for a second believe the American (or any other) ruling class gives a rat's ass about the lives of ordinary peons being endangered. Cam Smith 1 hour ago Great interview by Mr. Hannity! And thank you Mr. Assange for your dedication to the truth! Jolly Froster 2 hours ago Assange created wikileaks to give more info to voters to stop wars. Hillary and the neocons wanted war with Russia through her no fly zone so the Saudis could get their pipeline in Syria. Hilary was stopped. So now they are using wikileaks to try and start the war. Gary McAleer 1 hour ago Everyone in the msm calls Julian Assange a liar when he emphatically said that Russia was not the source of the Clinton or Podesta emails. I'll take Julian's impartial word over the politically selfish interests here in America. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of all the disinformation Americans have been fed. Deliberate liars will be met with fire on "the resurrection of damnation." "The wicked shall perish: and shall be as the fat of lambs: into smoke shall they consume away." Ps.37. So many in this country lie as easily as they breathe. Their lies will be their ruin. Michael Snow 2 hours ago Tonight, on PBS Nightly Business Report (NBR) produced by CNBC, the reference to 'Russian hacking' smeared Julian Assange as a 'fugitve from criminal justice' in the USA. Rod Ruger 11 hours ago True, proven information is anathema to governments that seeks tyranny. The goal of such governments is to befuddle, misinform, instill fear, and otherwise keep citizens in a fog. George G 19 hours ago WOW Assange is so much more credible than Obama and his cooked up Intel narrative. The only facts that truly point to a crime is that WIKILEAKS revealed crimes committed by the democrate which included Obama and it needs to be prosecuted AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE! AntonBatey 11 hours ago I have always supported Julian Assange. I do not like Sean Hannity and disagree with him roughly 90 percent of the time. If Julian Assange attempted to sabotage Donald Trump (and by default helping Hillary Clinton) and continued to expose the war crimes and internal emails exposing America's imperialist interests, Hannity would brush him off as a traitor and would claim that nothing he said should be trusted or believed. But he helped Trump and (appropriately) exposed Hillary Clinton was a warmongering corporate shill who helped sabotage Bernie Sanders, so Hannity lends his words as credible. Barbara Mowrey 20 hours ago Like a lawyer, means, double talk . To seem legit through actions and talk, alone, with no evidence, hoping the action, or subpoena to make act, (send diplomats out of the country) is that "tangible" evidence when it is not even close! Double talk. Keep em guessing to stay legit, again. Make evidence when none exists. Laine Gordon 15 hours ago (edited) podesta's own email said the clinton foundation leak was eric braverman, missing for months now. and in podesta's own words, he fingered braverman as the leak. you really have to be willfully blind at this point to think otherwise Laine Gordon 15 hours ago he looks good..healthy considering what TPTB are doing to him, for providing a legitimate platform for whistleblowers ,...how much clearer could he have been? a LEAK, not a HACK,...an individual unrelated to russian state. and since he hinted during a netherlands interview last year that the source ( which he has always refused to name , to protect the integrity and safety of the source) was seth rich, not to mention the ex ambassador admitting he received material from the whistleblower in a park near AU, the Dems' trying to start WW3 with russia seems like theatre of the absurd Gamer Boy 5 hours ago HOLD UP HOLD UP HOLD UP Will someone look at the first question Julian answers about "did he think Trump would win" He says someone hacked/leaked it who wanted to get more donations for her to win, because if the people thought she was losing that more money would come in upwards of 5 Billion and she had only gotten 1.5 billion so far!!! So she needed that push to put her down in the polls for more money to come in. so it could have been someone in the Media industry as he says who wanted more for money, the DNC... I don't know but someone smart please look into this. Did Russia need money from her? who wanted to get her donations up to 5 billion. Watch his very first answer over and over it's right there! lets figure it out!!

    [Jan 05, 2017] The Democratic Party nomenklatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign.

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform. ..."
    "... At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky decisions. ..."
    "... I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson. ..."
    Jan 05, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    RGC : Reply Thursday, January 05, 2017 at 08:16 AM
    The US nomenclatura is embarked on a massive media campaign to divert and reframe the election issues away from the economic and inequality concerns expressed by the Sanders campaign. No "break up the banks", no "free public college", no "medicare for all", no campaign funding reform.

    For a while we had the Russian hacking accusations, which have suddenly gone dormant (will we ever get proof?). Now we have divide and conquer identity issues. But no proposed alternatives to Trump for curing our economic malaise along the lines suggested by Sanders.

    We are headed back to business as usual, with the right fighting the so-called center left (our two neoliberal factions) for dominance. Apparently conditions have not deteriorated enough yet for a populist uprising. How much more does it take before we reach a critical mass?

    Dan Kervick -> RGC... , January 05, 2017 at 10:07 AM
    Some change is happening. Even Cuomo is now seeking the seal of approval from Bernie for supporting a new college tuition plan for families making less than $125,000.

    It's going to be a slow process though. There is a group within the Democratic Party that is on the way out historically, and they want to do nothing other than turn the Party's politics into nothing but vendettas, distraction and obstruction.

    pgl -> Dan Kervick... , January 05, 2017 at 10:14 AM
    This is classic Cuomo. Give a bit to the right - then a bit to the left. Of course the ultra-rich Uppity East Siders are whining we can't afford this while the Green Party is upset it does not also cover food and rent. You can't win in NYC politics no matter what you do.
    Peter K. : , January 05, 2017 at 08:20 AM
    From Thomas Edsall's NYTimes column:

    " At the moment, the Democratic Party is structurally fragile and its members have shied away from the kind of radical upheaval Republicans have been forced to embrace. Nonetheless, Democrats will soon face enormously risky decisions.

    Does the party move left, as a choice of Keith Ellison for D.N.C. chairman would suggest? Does it wait for internecine conflict to emerge among Republicans as Trump and his allies fulfill campaign promises - repealing Obamacare, enacting tax reform and deporting millions of undocumented aliens?"

    It's funny how there has been no discussion of the DNC chair contest, and yet the progressive neoliberals here still whine that the forum isn't an echo chamber which reflects their views. And then they fantasize about banning people with whom they disagree.

    Denis Drew : , January 05, 2017 at 08:27 AM
    State governments famously (or infamously) give away billions in tax breaks to lure in firms that make jobs. 19 Republican governors -- by rejecting Medicaid expansion -- have rejected TAKING IN federal tax money to generate good medical jobs, not to mention the multiplier effect of new spending ...

    .. and it's the states' own money that they sent to the federal government that they don't want to TAKE BACK ...

    ... oh, almost forgot; it's good for uninsured poor people too (almost forgot about that).

    pgl -> Denis Drew ... , January 05, 2017 at 09:05 AM
    Nice point. My DINO governor (Cuomo) was smart enough to take the Medicaid funding but he gives all sorts of stupid supply-side breaks to businesses.
    im1dc -> pgl... , January 05, 2017 at 09:30 AM
    I am under the belief that Gov. Cuomo and NY Governers generally give those tax breaks to keep businesses from moving to lower tax States.

    Am I wrong to believe that NY State is a High Tax State compared to those in the South?

    pgl -> im1dc... , January 05, 2017 at 09:38 AM
    Yes but he is given them a complete tax holiday.
    JF -> pgl... , January 05, 2017 at 09:38 AM
    There was a reason why the Annapolis Convention that led almost directly to the Constitutional convention was organized on the need to stop interjurisdictional competition in the favoring of commercial interests so as to favor uniform commerce rules across the US, should the national legislature exercise on the matter.

    I sure like competition, recognize the federal system as a having great socio-political value, even appreciate non-uniformity until it grabs the attention of more thoughtful view (experimentation), but more and more I think Congress should enact the law to proscribe these crony actions by States. Many politicians, and I've worked with many at the State level would appreciate it if these pandering and favoring pleadings just went away.

    Peter K. : , January 05, 2017 at 08:39 AM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/04/business/economy/federal-reserve-minutes-interest-rates.html

    Fed Officials See Faster Economic Growth Under Trump, but No Boom

    By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
    JAN. 4, 2017

    "Ms. Yellen has warned that fiscal stimulus, like a tax cut or a spending increase, could increase economic growth to an unsustainable pace in the near term, resulting in increased inflation. The Fed quite likely would seek to offset such policies by raising interest rates more quickly."

    Progressive neoliberalism...

    And Alan Blinder said Hillary's fiscal plans wouldn't be large enough to cause the Fed to alter its path of rate hikes.

    And Trump promised more better infrastructure like clean airports.

    And Trump won.

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 08:41 AM
    I'm now thinking that Trump will have conflict with the Fed.

    He lives for conflict and drama.

    pgl : , January 05, 2017 at 09:04 AM
    An update on the Chevy Cruze controversy. US consumption was 194,500 vehicles with 190,000 made here in the US. That's 97.7% of them being produced locally. Tweet that.
    Peter K. : , January 05, 2017 at 09:30 AM
    http://www.eschatonblog.com/2017/01/the-early-days.html

    THURSDAY, JANUARY 05, 2017

    The Early Days

    I do wonder how years went by with no one in the Obama administration wavering from their belief that they couldn't prosecute any of the banksters. These didn't just make bad loans. They stole homes. If you're going to steal, steal big, has long been the lesson.

    by Atrios at 09:30

    Peter K. -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 09:31 AM
    who paid for Hillary Clinton's speeches?
    JF -> Peter K.... , January 05, 2017 at 09:45 AM
    Can you spend time on the republicans too? Just asking for a little balance. You and I both share a dismay about the last eight years and the presidential campaign. Your energy focused on the party in power now, even a bit, would probably be helpful.

    [Jan 04, 2017] False Prophets and False News - The Unz Review

    Jan 04, 2017 | www.unz.com
    shutterstock_543410059 Introduction: There are deep flaws in the blogs, media reports, and official statements, which purport to describe world historic events and changes.

    These so-called 'up-to-date' reports of major world events undergo repeated revisions in hours, days or weeks as the story is being 'played out'. What might start out as a 'scoop' for the upwardly mobile journalist is transformed into a by-word for a 'critical blogger' rewriting mainstream reports by simply substituting negatives for pluses (or vice versa).

    'Immediacy' trumps historical context and structural understanding. Protagonist or antagonists of the moment are demonized , slandered and scandalized, or lauded , praised and iconized.

    The practice of deep falsification involves magnifying transient trivia and glossing over world-historic change. The false prophets substitute superficiality for deep understanding.

    Soon after proclaiming a 'major systemic transformation', which fail to occur, a series of modifications or reversals take over, and the initial 'great prophesy' is forgotten – as if the readers of news were afflicted with an epidemic of dementia.

    Most political parties, left, right and center, have their own unchanging warped world view to frame everyday minutiae.

    For example, on the Left, it is the 'imminent collapse of capitalism' or the 'perpetual stagnation of the capitalist state', 'the collapse of democracy' or 'the emergence of fascism'. In the absence of any real empirical or historical findings to support their hypotheses, they add escape clauses about 'tendencies'.

    The Center has its own historic narrative, which includes 'threats from the Left and Right', and the 'dangers posed by populists to democratic values'. They cite the overwhelming responsibility to 'defend Western values' everywhere, from threats, past, present and future and especially from independent nations, like Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran and other 'emerging' powers, as a pretext to escalate militarism and to bolster support for vassal states.

    The Center repeatedly point to the 'resilience of Western liberal democratic institutions' even as police state edicts are dictated to counter dissenting voices, while false prophets predict that China's robust economy is on the verge of collapse; that democratic Russia is an unstable autocracy; and that the Ukraine is an emerging democracy – while its 'Right Sector' and 'Azov Battalions' runs amok amidst a kleptocratic, neo-fascist regime

    The Right frames its world-historic ideology by stressing the need to (1) revive the Cold War to counter the US global decline; (2) confront the world-wide wave of 'populism' threatening 'liberal' democracies; (3) portray Brexit as a sign of the European Union's collapse; (4) equate Trump's victory with the rise of fascism in the US; (5) emphasize the ascent of bigotry, racism and anti-Semitism, based on the result of a single election ; (6) denounce Leftists 'conspiracy' writers who 'falsely' blame rising class inequalities to free-market monopolies; and (7) explain that cuts in social expenditures, tax cuts to big capital, increased work hours and decreased pensions are ultimately rewarding the masses.

    These mega- narratives lead 'prophetic academics' to insist on their infallible insight into the future direction of the world economy, global politics and class relations.

    False prophets maintain a veneer of authenticity, by presenting the future in unspecified, ambiguous, general and distant terms, to allow for any or all outcomes – like professional fortune tellers.

    Academic and media prophets are enveloped in a mystique of expertise, which allows them to rehash yesterday's news as deep strategic insights.

    False Prophets: Trump

    Contrary to the wailings of the Right, Center and Left, Donald Trump is not a fascist, or a nationalist or a populist. An objective assessment of his most recent policies and cabinet appointments show that he is a free-market politician with a propensity to appoint militarists to security positions.

    Trump's populist demagogy most closely resembles President Obama – although the appeal is to a different audience. Trump speaks to impoverished, displaced, skilled workers in the rust belt with campaign promises of a renaissance in manufacturing, upscale suburbanites, and downwardly mobile working women, while appointing billionaire bankers and global business executives to run the economy and set policy. Obama appealed to poor minorities, middle class urbanites and the same business elite.

    Like Obama, Trump is an imperialist committed to protecting and projecting US global power. He differs from Obama in emphasis. Obama and his predecessors pursued a primarily military-driven imperialism while Trump will shift the emphasis to economic imperialism.

    Trump's 'double discourse', of talking to the masses during the campaign while working for the elite once in office, reflects a long-standing American Presidential tradition.

    Editorial writers' descriptions of Donald Trump lack historical and empirical depth.

    Powerful systemic constraints define the rate and scope of any long-term, large-scale changes that Trump might propose. Trump can only introduce minor incremental changes in the behavior of the biggest banks and five hundred most powerful global multi-nationals. Trump might re-negotiate around the edges of some bilateral trade agreements, but he cannot convert the US into a closed self-sufficient economy.

    Contrary to the 'end of the world' hysteria, promoted by the mass media, Trump has never made any pact with white racists and anti-Semites. There are no major Jewish organizations currently engaged in a struggle against Trump's 'fascist hordes'. The KKK is not preparing to burn Goldman Sachs. Since Trump's election the stock market has jump over a thousand points. Like all of his predecessors from both parties, Trump appointed prominent Jews to key economic and policy positions, including Treasury Secretary. Many editorialists, who rely on selected excerpts of campaign rhetoric and gossip, have presented an unrealistic picture of the trajectory of the US state and economy.

    ORDER IT NOW

    False Prophets: China

    The US prophets and self-described 'experts' describe China in inflated terms of either its impending doom or its relentless drive toward world supremacy. They rely on the minutiae of the moment or distorted extrapolations, uncertainties and contingent systemic changes. Rigorous analytical accounts are in short supply.

    China, according to the free-market financial prophets of doom, suffers from a declining growth rate, shrinking work force, massive capital flight, deep-seated corruption and an impending intra-elite war. According to the prophets of doom, this sets the stage for an economic collapse and a military confrontation with the US empire.

    Many of these pronouncements are easily dismissed. For the last 30 years, China's economy has exceeded 6% and it is steadily developing its high technological work force and scientific innovations. China's emphasis is on diversifying its production and consumption to domestic and overseas markets. The challenge of its aging work force is met by the increasing development of robotics and computerized productive systems.

    China has applied capital controls and limits on capital flight. The national campaign against corruption and real estate speculation in real estate has led to the arrest of over 200,000 officials and executives for fraud, bribery and money laundering via overseas banks.

    In other words, the false prophets, parading about as 'China experts', have consistently made nonsensical predictions of doom and collapse. Faced with factual refutations, they merely repeat and recycle their prophecies by projecting longer time frames, up to infinity, for the coming of the inevitable catastrophe.

    On the other hand, some progressive writers peddle prophesies of China's endless progress predicting its inevitable emergence as a supreme global power. They convert China's 30-year pattern of economic growth into a formula guaranteeing 'harmonious development', which they claim is based on China's correct handling of emerging challenges and contradictions. Their predictions of stable future growth assume ever-expanding markets while ignoring the threat of military confrontations with rival imperial powers.

    China's prophets of global power ignore contingencies: Skilled and innovative workers, who are necessary for economic growth, have their own vision of the social structure in which they play a leading role in advancing society.

    While robots can substitute for human labor power, it is worker knowledge and initiative that design, produce and adjust the robotic manufacturing system.

    Harmony, free markets and mutually beneficial trade alliances are relations that are always changing; only interests remain constant. As China moves from investing in commodities to manufacturing and technology, customers can turn into competitors.

    As China emerges as a global power, the outflow of capital and arms and technology increases, and the risks of global rivalry and domestic instability, challenging the Chinese ruling class likewise increase.

    Prophecies or predictions depend on (1) the stability of incremental changes in the structure of power; (2) the uncertainty of elite outcomes in world markets and (3) the volatility of domestic class relations.

    False Prophets: Latin America

    Latin America is almost universally regarded as unstable – a region, where revolutions and counter-revolutions alternate, and electoral regimes rise and fall among neo-liberal, populist and nationalist leaders.

    The long-term reality is actually quite different. Latin America has been one of global capitalism's most stable regions. With few exceptions, property-ownership has remained stable for decades, with entrenched oligarchical elite families enjoying wealth, multiple-luxury properties throughout the world and their own perpetuation.

    Electoral regimes may frequently change but the underlying state structures endure for decades. Bureaucratic, military and financial institutions set the margins of change. Neo-liberal, post-neo-liberal and anti-neo-liberal policies come and go, but large-scale mining, export agricultural and banking structures ultimately set the conditions for the growth of economies and demise of governments.

    There is a tendency for some academic prophets and writers to use metaphors from astronomy and geology to divide the world. They describe a 'world-system' composed of 'a core, a semi-periphery and a periphery'. Adding and subtracting, multiplying and dividing quantities of productive resources, the false prophets solemnly predict how the entire world system will function 'ad infinitum'.

    While data, derived from observations in space, provide scientists with insights into the movements of distant galaxies and the fate of planets, extrapolation to socio-economic and political 'bodies' is risky.

    On the real planet Earth, the so-called 'periphery' of the 'world system' subsumes countries, economies, social structures, states and inter-state relations with entirely distinct composition, behavior and histories. Cuba, a 'peripheral state', differs in every respect from Haiti, Guatemala and scores of other likewise categorized nations. And among the 'core' countries, the US invades, occupies and plunders dozens of countries every decade, while China engages in 'trade'. Iran, among the 'semi-peripherals', has not invaded any neighbor for two centuries, while Israel, a fellow 'semi-peripheral', has ravaged a dozen countries in the past 50 years.

    ORDER IT NOW

    False Prophets: Russia

    Western prophets on the right and left predicted that the break-up of the USSR would augur a period of harmony, democracy and widespread prosperity. The true believers claimed 'anything was better than Stalinism' while ignoring the fact that Stalin was dead for a half-century.

    Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev oversaw the transformation of the USSR's allied nations into pillaged satellites of the Western imperial powers. He blindly accepted US Presidents Bush and Ronald Reagan's promises that the US would not expand NATO and would not transform the newly emerging post-Soviet nations into military bases. What emerged was a crippled and encircled Russia, which had been converted into a Beggar-State of oligarchs and swindlers who seized over a trillion dollars of public property, wealth, land and resources in less than ten years. Gangsters murdered their way into public office through US-manipulated sham elections, celebrated by the Western press. Living standards for millions of post-Soviet citizens collapsed, resulting in the greatest decline of life expectancy, health, culture, science and education in peacetime history.

    Contrary to the predictions of Western prophets Russia rebuilt its state and economy. The new political leadership, headed by Vladimir Putin, replaced the dipsomaniac puppet President and mobsters favored by Washington. Living and health standards have vastly improved; production, agriculture, exports, national security, science and culture have recovered.

    The angry false prophets, then promoted a new pseudo-scientific assertion that the re-emergence of the Russian state and its recovering economy led inexorably to autocratic rule by a former KGB official, who violated 'Western values' by . jailing swindler billionaires and self-made oil mobsters and re-appropriating vital national assets.

    Western editorialists ceaselessly denounce the popularly elected President Putin for his crime of refuting the bankruptcy of their prophecies.

    Despite reams of reports by the 'experts', despite their wide circulation in the mass media and their citations by top Western officials, the Russian state and economy, just like the Chinese, are not on the verge of collapse nor are they declining or facing popular revolts.

    False Prophets: The Left

    The shallow, self-serving Left prophets of progressive governments in Latin America, as well as admirers of Putin's Russia and Xi Jinping's China, fail to recognize the structural, historical and class constraints that determine and limit policies.

    First and foremost, they fail to recognize the socio-economic continuities within these states. In all three regions, elites and oligarchs continue to control the commanding heights of the economies, despite occasional expropriations and sporadic reforms.

    Secondly, even the most 'progressive' regimes rely on Western markets and investors limiting their long-term growth.

    Thirdly, the long-term dependence on extractive exports, global demand and fragile mono-culture economies weakens the long-term stability of Russia and Latin America.

    The absence of a socialist democratic alternative to the brutal capitalist restoration in China undermines the optimistic perspective of progressive prophets.

    Conclusion

    The debate among experts, regarding the rise or decline of the Imperial West or the progressive forces in China, Russia and Latin America, fails to consider their 'hidden resources and liabilities'. These include the untapped scientific discoveries, the failure to develop alternative resources and innovations, as well as the ongoing repression of skilled workers. The Western prophets underestimate how the reliance on the paper economy has squandered immense social and productive value.

    The ongoing cultural deformations, perversions and falsifications of information and analysis at the behest of established power centers, has clouded any real understanding of everyday life and greatly reduced our chances for a future without barbaric wars and social exploitation.

    Culture is an everyday phenomenon determining how economies and states, rulers and ruled see the world, exercise power or are forced to submit.

    We have witnessed the spread of cultural squalor into language and life, with only an occasional respite, when people overcome their everyday stupor and create a momentary burst of creative political, economic, social and cultural energy, which can lead to transformations.

    Humdrum incremental changes, left and right, and the reality of continuities, limit and ultimately reverse social reforms and corrupt language to serve the ruling powers. We must move forward against the flatulence of everyday life by rejecting the false prophets and by writing, speaking and acting against crackpot sages. Our progress toward a new order must be firmly rooted in our everyday struggles writ large.

    (Reprinted from The James Petras Website by permission of author or representative)

    [Jan 04, 2017] The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash

    Jan 04, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com

    anne -> Dan Kervick... January 04, 2017 at 11:14 AM

    https://theintercept.com/2016/01/21/the-seven-stages-of-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition/

    January 21, 2016

    The Seven Stages of Establishment Backlash: Corbyn/Sanders Edition
    By Glenn Greenwald

    The British political and media establishment incrementally lost its collective mind over the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the country's Labour Party, and its unraveling and implosion show no signs of receding yet. Bernie Sanders is nowhere near as radical as Corbyn; they are not even in the same universe. But, especially on economic issues, Sanders is a more fundamental, systemic critic than the oligarchical power centers are willing to tolerate, and his rejection of corporate dominance over politics, and corporate support for his campaigns, is particularly menacing. He is thus regarded as America's version of a far-left extremist, threatening establishment power.

    For those who observed the unfolding of the British reaction to Corbyn's victory, it's been fascinating to watch the D.C./Democratic establishment's reaction to Sanders' emergence replicate that, reading from the same script. I personally think Clinton's nomination is extremely likely, but evidence of a growing Sanders movement is unmistakable. Because of the broader trends driving it, this is clearly unsettling to establishment Democrats - as it should be.

    A poll last week found that Sanders has a large lead with millennial voters, including young women; as Rolling Stone put it: "Young female voters support Bernie Sanders by an expansive margin." The New York Times yesterday trumpeted that, in New Hampshire, Sanders "has jumped out to a 27 percentage point lead," which is "stunning by New Hampshire standards." The Wall Street Journal yesterday, in an editorial titled "Taking Sanders Seriously," declared it is "no longer impossible to imagine the 74-year-old socialist as the Democratic nominee."

    Just as was true for Corbyn, there is a direct correlation between the strength of Sanders and the intensity of the bitter and ugly attacks unleashed at him by the D.C. and Democratic political and media establishment. There were, roughly speaking, seven stages to this establishment revolt in the U.K. against Corbyn, and the U.S. reaction to Sanders is closely following the same script:

    • STAGE 1 : Polite condescension toward what is perceived to be harmless (we think it's really wonderful that your views are being aired).
    • STAGE 2 : Light, casual mockery as the self-belief among supporters grows (no, dears, a left-wing extremist will not win, but it's nice to see you excited).
    • STAGE 3 : Self-pity and angry etiquette lectures directed at supporters upon realization that they are not performing their duty of meek surrender, flavored with heavy doses of concern trolling (nobody but nobody is as rude and gauche online to journalists as these crusaders, and it's unfortunately hurting their candidate's cause!).
    • STAGE 4 : Smear the candidate and his supporters with innuendos of sexism and racism by falsely claiming only white men support them (you like this candidate because he's white and male like you, not because of ideology or policy or contempt for the party establishment's corporatist, pro-war approach).
    • STAGE 5 : Brazen invocation of right-wing attacks to marginalize and demonize, as polls prove the candidate is a credible threat (he's weak on terrorism, will surrender to ISIS, has crazy associations, and is a clone of Mao and Stalin).
    • STAGE 6 : Issuance of grave and hysterical warnings about the pending apocalypse if the establishment candidate is rejected, as the possibility of losing becomes imminent (you are destined for decades, perhaps even generations, of powerlessness if you disobey our decrees about who to select).
    • STAGE 7 : Full-scale and unrestrained meltdown, panic, lashing-out, threats, recriminations, self-important foot-stomping, overt union with the Right, complete fury (I can no longer in good conscience support this party of misfits, terrorist-lovers, communists, and heathens).

    Britain is well into Stage 7, and may even invent a whole new level (anonymous British military officials expressly threatened a "mutiny" if Corbyn were democratically elected as prime minister). The Democratic media and political establishment has been in the heart of Stage 5 for weeks and is now entering Stage 6. The arrival of Stage 7 is guaranteed if Sanders wins Iowa.

    It's both expected and legitimate in elections for the campaigns to harshly criticize one another. There's nothing wrong with that; we should all want contrasts drawn, and it's hardly surprising that this will be done with aggression and acrimony. People go to extremes to acquire power: That's just human nature.

    But that doesn't mean one can't find meaning in the specific attacks that are chosen, nor does it mean that the attacks invoked are immune from critique (the crass, cynical exploitation of gender issues by Clinton supporters to imply Sanders support is grounded in sexism was particularly slimy and dishonest given that the same left-wing factions that support Sanders spent months literally pleading with Elizabeth Warren to challenge Clinton, to say nothing of the large numbers of female Sanders supporters whose existence was nullified by those attacks).

    People in both parties, and across the political spectrum, are disgusted by the bipartisan D.C. establishment. It's hardly mysterious why large numbers of adults in the U.S. want to find an alternative to a candidate like Clinton who is drowning both politically and personally in Wall Street money, who seems unable to find a war she dislikes, and whose only political conviction seems to be that anything is justifiably said or done to secure her empowerment - just as it was hardly a mystery why adults in the U.K. were desperate to find an alternative to the craven, war-loving, left-hating Blairites who have enormous amounts of blood stained indelibly on their hands.

    But the nature of "establishments" is that they cling desperately to power, and will attack anyone who defies or challenges that power with unrestrained fervor. That's what we saw in the U.K. with the emergence of Corbyn, and what we're seeing now with the threat posed by Sanders. It's not surprising that the attacks in both cases are similar - the dynamic of establishment prerogative is the same - but it's nonetheless striking how identical is the script used in both cases.

    Reply Wednesday, January 04, 2017 at 11:14 AM anne -> Dan Kervick... , January 04, 2017 at 11:31 AM
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bill-clinton-jeremy-corbyn-maddest-person-speech-wikileaks-hack-a7404641.html

    November 8, 2016

    Bill Clinton branded Jeremy Corbyn 'maddest person in the room', leaked speech reveals
    By Joe Watts

    Bill Clinton branded Labour's Jeremy Corbyn the "maddest person in the room" in a speech he gave explaining the resurgence of left-wing politics in Europe and America.

    Documents released by Wikileaks show the former President joked that when Mr Corbyn won his leadership contest, it appeared Labour had just "got a guy off the street" to run the party.

    He compared Mr Corbyn's rise to the success of Alexis Tsipras in Greece and Bernie Sanders in US primaries.

    In one section of the speech, Mr Clinton said Labour had disposed of one potentially successful leader, David Miliband, because they were "mad at him for being part of Tony Blair's government in the Iraq War".

    He went on: "They moved to the left and put his brother in as leader because the British labor movement wanted it.

    "When David Cameron thumped him in the election, they reached the interesting conclusion that they lost because they hadn't moved far left enough, and so they went out and practically got a guy off the street to be the leader of the British Labor Party [sic]."

    Mr Clinton added: "But what that is reflective of – the same thing happened in the Greek election – when people feel they've been shafted and they don't expect anything to happen anyway, they just want the maddest person in the room to represent them." ...

    [Jan 03, 2017] Propaganda and Disinformation on Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Aleppo, a city of about 3 million people, was once the financial heart of Syria. As it continues to deteriorate, many civilians here are losing patience with the increasingly violent and unrecognizable opposition - one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure, and deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups. The rebels in Aleppo are predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad." ..."
    "... The Snopes' investigation criticizing Bartlett was superficial and ignored the broader issues of accuracy and integrity in the Western media's depiction of the Syrian conflict. Instead the article appeared to be an effort to discredit the eyewitness observations and analysis of a journalist who dared challenge the mainstream narrative. ..."
    "... The enactment of HR5181, "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation," suggests that the ruling powers seek to escalate suppression of news and analyses that run counter to the official narrative. Backed by a new infusion of $160 million, the plan is to further squelch skeptical voices with operation for "countering" and "refuting" what the U.S. government deems to be propaganda and disinformation. ..."
    Jan 03, 2017 | consortiumnews.com

    Syria is a good case study in the modern application of information warfare. In her memoir Hard Choices , former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote that the U.S. provided "support for (Syrian) civilian opposition groups, including satellite-linked computers, telephones, cameras, and training for more than a thousand activists, students and independent journalists."

    A heart-rending propaganda image designed to justify a major U.S. military operation inside Syria against the Syrian military.

    Indeed, a huge amount of money has gone to "activists" and "civil society" groups in Syria and other countries that have been targeted for "regime change." A lot of the money also goes to parent organizations that are based in the United States and Europe, so these efforts do not only support on-the-ground efforts to undermine the targeted countries, but perhaps even more importantly, the money influences and manipulates public opinion in the West.

    In North America, representatives from the Syrian "Local Coordination Committees" (LCC) were frequent guests on popular media programs such as "DemocracyNow." The message was clear: there is a "revolution" in Syria against a "brutal regime" personified in Bashar al-Assad. It was not mentioned that the "Local Coordination Committees" have been primarily funded by the West, specifically the Office for Syrian Opposition Support, which was founded by the U.S. State Department and the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

    More recently, news and analysis about Syria has been conveyed through the filter of the White Helmets, also known as Syrian Civil Defense. In the Western news media, the White Helmets are described as neutral, non-partisan, civilian volunteers courageously carrying out rescue work in the war zone. In fact, the group is none of the above. It was initiated by the U.S. and U.K. using a British military contractor and Brooklyn-based marketing company.

    While they may have performed some genuine rescue operations, the White Helmets are primarily a media organization with a political goal: to promote NATO intervention in Syria. (The manipulation of public opinion using the White Helmets and promoted by the New York Times and Avaaz petition for a "No Fly Zone" in Syria is documented here. )

    The White Helmets hoax continues to be widely believed and receives uncritical promotion though it has increasingly been exposed at alternative media outlets as the creation of a "shady PR firm ." During critical times in the conflict in Aleppo, White Helmet individuals have been used as the source for important news stories despite a track record of deception.

    Recent Propaganda: Blatant Lies?

    As the armed groups in east Aleppo recently lost ground and then collapsed, Western governments and allied media went into a frenzy of accusations against Syria and Russia based on reports from sources connected with the armed opposition. CNN host Wolf Blitzer described Aleppo as "falling" in a "slaughter of these women and children" while CNN host Jake Tapper referred to "genocide by another name."

    War damage in the once-thriving Syrian city of Aleppo.

    The Daily Beast published the claims of the Aleppo Siege Media Center under the title "Doomsday is held in Aleppo" and amid accusations that the Syrian army was executing civilians, burning them alive and "20 women committed suicide in order not to be raped." These sensational claims were widely broadcast without verification. However, this "news" on CNN and throughout Western media came from highly biased sources and many of the claims – lacking anything approaching independent corroboration – could be accurately described as propaganda and disinformation.

    Ironically, some of the supposedly "Russian propaganda" sites, such as RT, have provided first-hand on-the-ground reporting from the war zones with verifiable information that contradicts the Western narrative and thus has received almost no attention in the U.S. news media. For instance, some of these non-Western outlets have shown videos of popular celebrations over the "liberation of Aleppo."

    There has been further corroboration of these realities from peace activists, such as Jan Oberg of Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research who published a photo essay of his eyewitness observations in Aleppo including the happiness of civilians from east Aleppo reaching the government-controlled areas of west Aleppo, finally freed from areas that had been controlled by Al Qaeda's Syrian affiliate and its jihadist allies in Ahrar al-Sham.

    Dr. Nabil Antaki, a medical doctor from Aleppo, described the liberation of Aleppo in an interview titled "Aleppo is Celebrating, Free from Terrorists, the Western Media Misinformed." The first Christmas celebrations in Aleppo in four years are shown here, replete with marching band members in Santa Claus outfits. Journalist Vanessa Beeley has published testimonies of civilians from east Aleppo. The happiness of civilians at their liberation is clear.

    Whether or not you wish to accept these depictions of the reality in Aleppo, at a minimum, they reflect another side of the story that you have been denied while being persistently force-fed the version favored by the U.S. State Department. The goal of the new Global Engagement Center to counter "foreign propaganda" is to ensure that you never get to hear this alternative narrative to the Western propaganda line.

    Even much earlier, contrary to the Western mythology of rebel "liberated zones," there was strong evidence that the armed groups were never popular in Aleppo. American journalist James Foley described the situation in 2012 like this :

    Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative.

    "Aleppo, a city of about 3 million people, was once the financial heart of Syria. As it continues to deteriorate, many civilians here are losing patience with the increasingly violent and unrecognizable opposition - one that is hampered by infighting and a lack of structure, and deeply infiltrated by both foreign fighters and terrorist groups. The rebels in Aleppo are predominantly from the countryside, further alienating them from the urban crowd that once lived here peacefully, in relative economic comfort and with little interference from the authoritarian government of President Bashar al-Assad."

    On Nov. 22, 2012, Foley was kidnapped in northwestern Syria and held by Islamic State terrorists before his beheading in August 2014.

    The Overall Narrative on Syria

    Analysis of the Syrian conflict boils down to two competing narratives. One narrative is that the conflict is a fight for freedom and democracy against a brutal regime, a storyline promoted in the West and the Gulf states, which have been fueling the conflict from the start . This narrative is also favored by some self-styled "anti-imperialists" who want a "Syrian revolution."

    The other narrative is that the conflict is essentially a war of aggression against a sovereign state, with the aggressors including NATO countries, Gulf monarchies, Israel and Jordan. Domination of the Western media by these powerful interests is so thorough that one almost never gets access to this second narrative, which is essentially banned from not only the mainstream but also much of the liberal and progressive media.

    For example, listeners and viewers of the generally progressive TV and radio program "DemocracyNow" have rarely if ever heard the second narrative described in any detail. Instead, the program frequently broadcasts the statements of Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power and others associated with the U.S. position. Rarely do you hear the viewpoint of the Syrian Ambassador to the United Nations, the Syrian Foreign Minister or analysts inside Syria and around the world who have written about and follow events there closely.

    "DemocracyNow" also has done repeated interviews with proponents of the "Syrian revolution" while ignoring analysts who call the conflict a war of aggression sponsored by the West and the Gulf monarchies. This blackout of the second narrative continues despite the fact that many prominent international figures see it as such. For example, the former Foreign Minister of Nicaragua and former President of the UN General Assembly, Father Miguel D'Escoto, has said, "What the U.S. government is doing in Syria is tantamount to a war of aggression, which, according to the Nuremberg Tribunal, is the worst possible crime a State can commit against another State."

    In many areas of politics, "DemocracyNow" is excellent and challenges mainstream media. However in this area, coverage of the Syrian conflict, the broadcast is biased, one-sided and echoes the news and analysis of mainstream Western corporate media, showing the extent of control over foreign policy news that already exists in the United States and Europe.

    Suppressing and Censoring Challenges

    Despite the widespread censorship of alternative analyses on Syria and other foreign hotspots that already exists in the West, the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center" will seek to ensure that the censorship is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation." We can expect even more aggressive and better-financed assaults on the few voices daring to challenge the West's "group thinks" – smear campaigns that are already quite extensive.

    The "White Helmets" symbol, expropriating the name of "Syria Civil Defense."

    In an article titled "Controlling the Narrative on Syria" , Louis Allday describes the criticisms and attacks on journalists Rania Khalek and Max Blumenthal for straying from the "approved" Western narrative on Syria. Some of the bullying and abuse has come from precisely those people, such as Robin Yassin-Kassab, who have been frequent guests in liberal Western media.

    Reporters who have returned from Syria with accounts that challenge the propaganda themes that have permeated the Western media also have come under attack. For instance, Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett recently returned to North America after being in Syria and Aleppo, conveying a very different image and critical of the West's biased media coverage. Bartlett appeared at a United Nations press conference and then did numerous interviews across the country during a speaking tour. During the course of her talks and presentation, Bartlett criticized the White Helmets and questioned whether it was true that Al Quds Hospital in opposition-held East Aleppo was attacked and destroyed as claimed.

    Bartlett's recounting of this information made her a target of Snopes, which has been a mostly useful website exposing urban legends and false rumors but has come under criticism itself for some internal challenges and has been inconsistent in its investigations. In one report entitled " White Helmet Hearsay," Snopes' writer Bethania Palmer says claims the White Helmets are "linked to terrorists" is "unproven," but she overlooks numerous videos , photos, and other reports showing White Helmet members celebrating a Nusra/Al Qaeda battle victory, picking up the bodies of civilians executed by a Nusra executioner, and having a member who alternatively appears as a rebel/terrorist fighter with a weapon and later wearing a White Helmet uniform. The "fact check" barely scrapes the surface of public evidence.

    The same writer did another shallow "investigation" titled "victim blaming" regarding Bartlett's critique of White Helmet videos and what happened at the Al Quds Hospital in Aleppo. Bartlett suggests that some White Helmet videos may be fabricated and may feature the same child at different times, i.e., photographs that appear to show the same girl being rescued by White Helmet workers at different places and times. While it is uncertain whether this is the same girl, the similarity is clear.

    The Snopes writer goes on to criticize Bartlett for her comments about the reported bombing of Al Quds Hospital in east Aleppo in April 2016. A statement at the website of Doctors Without Borders says the building was "destroyed and reduced to rubble," but this was clearly false since photos show the building with unclear damage. Five months later, the September 2016 report by Doctors Without Borders says the top two floors of the building were destroyed and the ground floor Emergency Room damaged yet they re-opened in two weeks.

    The many inconsistencies and contradictions in the statements of Doctors Without Borders resulted in an open letter to them. In their last report, Doctors Without Borders (known by its French initials, MSF) acknowledges that "MSF staff did not directly witness the attack and has not visited Al Quds Hospital since 2014."

    Bartlett referenced satellite images taken before and after the reported attack on the hospital. The images do not show severe damage and it is unclear whether or not there is any damage to the roof, the basis for Bartlett's statement. In the past week, independent journalists have visited the scene of Al Quds Hospital and report that that the top floors of the building are still there and damage is unclear.

    The Snopes' investigation criticizing Bartlett was superficial and ignored the broader issues of accuracy and integrity in the Western media's depiction of the Syrian conflict. Instead the article appeared to be an effort to discredit the eyewitness observations and analysis of a journalist who dared challenge the mainstream narrative.

    U.S. propaganda and disinformation on Syria has been extremely effective in misleading much of the American population. Thus, most Americans are unaware how many billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on yet another "regime change" project. The propaganda campaign – having learned from the successful demonizations of Iraq's Saddam Hussein, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and other targeted leaders – has been so masterful regarding Syria that many liberal and progressive news outlets were pulled in. It has been left to RT and some Internet outlets to challenge the U.S. government and the mainstream media.

    But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough. Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.

    The enactment of HR5181, "Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation," suggests that the ruling powers seek to escalate suppression of news and analyses that run counter to the official narrative. Backed by a new infusion of $160 million, the plan is to further squelch skeptical voices with operation for "countering" and "refuting" what the U.S. government deems to be propaganda and disinformation.

    As part of the $160 million package, funds can be used to hire or reward "civil society groups, media content providers, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions."

    Among the tasks that these private entities can be hired to perform is to identify and investigate both print and online sources of news that are deemed to be distributing "disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda directed at the United States and its allies and partners."

    In other words, we are about to see an escalation of the information war.

    Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and can be reached at [email protected]

    [Jan 02, 2017] The Same Idiots Who Pushed the Iraq War Are Now Stirring Up Hysteria About Russia

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    The propaganda about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was one of the most blatant examples of "fake news" in American history.

    Now, many of the same idiots who pushed the Iraq war lies are stirring up hysteria about Russia.

    For example, the Washington Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt cheerleaded for the Iraq war. Now, the Washington Post under Hiatt's leadership has been the main source of the most breathless anti-Russian hysteria .

    ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd – chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential campaign – was a big booster for the Iraq war. Now, Dowd Tweets that you're only a patriot if you blindly accept what President Obama and the intelligence services claim without any proof.

    George W. Bush's speechwriter David Frum – who pushed many of the biggest lies about the Iraq war – is now trying to ridicule anyone who doesn't accept the evidence-less claims that Russia hacked the Democratic party as a Kremlin stooge.

    Similarly, Jonathan Chait championed the Iraq war. And now he's ridiculing those asking for evidence before jumping headlong into anti-Russia hysteria.

    These guys all have a track record of pushing false stories which get us into disastrous wars why should we listen to them now?

    CRM114 •Jan 2, 2017 12:27 PM

    I was at the sharp end of the Cold War, defending against a REAL Soviet threat. I am well acquainted with psyops and insidious means of destabilizing a state.

    The idea that Russia is behind this is just total BS.

    Any attack on this supposed scale produces evidence, and whilst much of it cannot be directly revealed (to protect sources), there would be quite sufficient to be presented, if it existed. It doesn't.

    And whilst we are at it, the arguments for the Invasion of Iraq were BS also, and that was clear to many in the military despite being cheerled by the MSM.

    ronaldwilsonreagan , Jan 2, 2017 12:09 PM
    There is much at stake for the Neo-cons, they will not give up easy. I would consider them armed and dangerous.
    scraping_by ronaldwilsonreagan , Jan 2, 2017 12:58 PM
    There's no cost involved. They are advisors and propagandists nputting ideas into the heads of people with real authority. If they had to repay the price others paid for their slogans, or even more, had to put on BDUs and go put them into action, we'd hear a lot less of them.
    Xena fobe , Jan 2, 2017 11:37 AM
    Almost all comments on MSM are anti Russia. These comments are at a higher level of writing and intellect than the typical SJW post. Someone is financing this social media campaign. People aren't stupid but we do have a herd mentality. If everyone around me believes X, they must be correct, right. Thank God for ZH.
    Northern Flicker , Jan 2, 2017 11:15 AM
    The ziocons are pissed, they had Russia all wrapped for the NWO 10 years ago and blew it. Now they want it back to finish their plans and are willing to sacrifice the rest of us for it.
    iAmerican3 Northern Flicker , Jan 2, 2017 11:18 AM
    Ziocons are just fronting the Roman Anti-Christ, just as their Khazar ancestors were doing the actual hammering of the impalement stake up through the Body of Our Lord on Golgotha.

    The "good cop/bad cop" satanic psychopathy's got it going on for thousands of years: the Seventh Head of the Beast.

    Time for the Beast to be cast down as the Apocalypse is already upon True Israel, America, but to Satan's liars and pedophile homosexuals. #Pizzagate

    pine_marten , Jan 2, 2017 10:39 AM
    Let's compile a list of Hillary supporting, MIC shill, G.O.P. turncoats:

    Paul Ryan

    John McCain

    Lindsey Graham

    scraping_by , Jan 2, 2017 10:33 AM
    Ah, yes. Stupid, crazy, or evil.

    Stupid is the usual fallback position, as in How Could We Have Been So Wrong? Good-hearted by soft-headed. We all make mistakes, don't we?

    Crazy is out there, even after all these years, seeing Commies under every bed. Spy movies tell the honest truth.

    Evil is pretty much everything else. Simply taking it as a position to be promoted is, in the end, the same thing as thinking up the lies. Thinking of it as just a move in a game. Enjoying chaos for its own sake.

    Stupid, crazy, or evil.

    YHC-FTSE , Jan 2, 2017 9:57 AM
    There's a website called "Right Web" that purports to track militarists' efforts to influence US foreign policy and it's another resource to do research on individuals ( http://rightweb.irc-online.org )

    The Council on Foreign Relations, with notable exceptions, is a who's who of neocon zionist warmongers, a list of movers and shakers of every war and crime against humanity. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations )

    So, let's see who these liars, psychopaths and criminals mentioned are:

  • Fred Hiatt - Ashkenazi Jew - Member of the Council on Foreign Relations
  • Matthew Dowd - divorced Catholic - Useful minion of both neocons, neolibs, anyone in power. CFR guest speaker. Pundit on supporting Israel.
  • David Frum - Jewish - Editor of Atlantic, contributor to CFR, Board member of Republican Jewish Coalition, coined the term "Axis of Evil" for G.W.Bush
  • Jonathan Chait - Jewish - Writer for New York Magazine, on CFR website "Must read list", recently called for the assassination of Donald Trump.

  • ~ DC v4.0
    MrBoompi DuneCreature , Jan 2, 2017 11:43 AM
    They use the same old lies because they work.

    ====

    They do work. Most of the population ignores all of this. Many who attempt to pay attention believe the government lies. That leaves the rest of us who believe the government and their media mouthpieces are full of shit. The lies work on us too, in the sense that even if they know we know they're full of shit, what the fuck can we do about it? They are at the point where they truly believe they can get away with anything.

    Reaper , Jan 2, 2017 9:14 AM
    The Russian hacking is a fallacious argument appealing to an authority. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ Worse, the specific person of the authority is not identified. Worse, the authority is known as a purveyor of lies.

    The Exceptionals believe an exceptionally fallacious argument?

    SmallerGovNow2 , Jan 2, 2017 8:33 AM
    Why indeed? Like John McStain and Lefty Lindsey who were out this weekend calling for even tougher sanctions on Russia. War mongering neocons...
    HowdyDoody SmallerGovNow2 , Jan 2, 2017 9:41 AM
    Dont forget (((Adam Schiff))). He's up for more sanctions as well.
    overmedicatedun... , Jan 2, 2017 8:28 AM
    thanks GW..these idiots (clever and smart as they are)..see a NWO bankster run one world .gov..and Trump USA with Russia..is a big threat to that..Putin and Trump can see this as well as anyone of us..what they do about it? in the old days hang em high..traitors to the constitution deserve harsh ends. Justice has been denied far far too long..
    VideoEng_NC , Jan 2, 2017 7:52 AM
    Let me see if I have this visual correct, A bunch of former W staff folks are promoting fake news so that 0bama can maintain his "...it's the Russians!" narrative. All I need to see now is 0bama pointing at their propaganda for one more, "...see?!...but Bush!" to close out his "legacy" as president.
    Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 7:48 AM

    I'm perplexed about all the focus on the hacked / leaked emails by the "Russians" but not a peep about what's in the emails. Not one word (that I know of) about how the information is not true, faked or doctored. So, the only thing the email leak did was expose the truth about a group.

    Just can't make this shit up. That is like being outraged because a pedophile has been exposed by some email leak. What is wrong with exposing the truth? This isn't a group that that is entitled to privacy and no scrutiny like a regular citizen if anything they should be subject to scrutiny with all their public affairs; what they do in private is a different story.

    Ask yourself why are they so upset – for exposing their real colors and the truth? Too funny.

    SmallerGovNow2 Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 8:41 AM
    Blatant cover up of the democratic parties manipulation of the primary process...
    jeff montanye Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 8:08 AM
    well one reason the legacy media is outraged is it makes even more apparent how little investigative journalism is being done by them on their slowly clocking out watch.

    they are just better at stenography done in really nice restaurants and at taking sides: it pays better and it's more fun.

    scraping_by jeff montanye , Jan 2, 2017 12:11 PM
    And don't forget covering up real stories. Their silence is golden.
    Bay Area Guy nah , Jan 2, 2017 9:50 AM
    I can't quite recall. Was it Russia that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and replaced it with a government led, in large part, by NAZIS?

    Oh, now I remember. No. No, it wasn't Russia that did that. That was the good old USA.

    InTylerWeTrust , Jan 1, 2017 8:39 PM
    Let's not forget John "Bombs Away" Bolton. That bimbo eruption and his moustache can't wait to start the next war for the glory of Pax Americana.
    Mandel Bot InTylerWeTrust , Jan 2, 2017 8:22 AM
    Calling these people 'idiots' is being too kind.

    They are traitorous warmongers.

    xavi1951 Mandel Bot , Jan 2, 2017 10:35 AM
    You left out the CIA It was the CIA that started both lies.
    jeff montanye InTylerWeTrust , Jan 2, 2017 8:01 AM
    it is not for pax americana it is for Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah, greater or entire israel.

    [Jan 02, 2017] The Same Idiots Who Pushed the Iraq War Are Now Stirring Up Hysteria About Russia

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com

    The propaganda about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was one of the most blatant examples of "fake news" in American history.

    Now, many of the same idiots who pushed the Iraq war lies are stirring up hysteria about Russia.

    For example, the Washington Post's editorial page editor Fred Hiatt cheerleaded for the Iraq war. Now, the Washington Post under Hiatt's leadership has been the main source of the most breathless anti-Russian hysteria .

    ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd – chief strategist for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential campaign – was a big booster for the Iraq war. Now, Dowd Tweets that you're only a patriot if you blindly accept what President Obama and the intelligence services claim without any proof.

    George W. Bush's speechwriter David Frum – who pushed many of the biggest lies about the Iraq war – is now trying to ridicule anyone who doesn't accept the evidence-less claims that Russia hacked the Democratic party as a Kremlin stooge.

    Similarly, Jonathan Chait championed the Iraq war. And now he's ridiculing those asking for evidence before jumping headlong into anti-Russia hysteria.

    These guys all have a track record of pushing false stories which get us into disastrous wars why should we listen to them now?

    CRM114 •Jan 2, 2017 12:27 PM

    I was at the sharp end of the Cold War, defending against a REAL Soviet threat. I am well acquainted with psyops and insidious means of destabilizing a state.

    The idea that Russia is behind this is just total BS.

    Any attack on this supposed scale produces evidence, and whilst much of it cannot be directly revealed (to protect sources), there would be quite sufficient to be presented, if it existed. It doesn't.

    And whilst we are at it, the arguments for the Invasion of Iraq were BS also, and that was clear to many in the military despite being cheerled by the MSM.

    ronaldwilsonreagan , Jan 2, 2017 12:09 PM
    There is much at stake for the Neo-cons, they will not give up easy. I would consider them armed and dangerous.
    scraping_by ronaldwilsonreagan , Jan 2, 2017 12:58 PM
    There's no cost involved. They are advisors and propagandists nputting ideas into the heads of people with real authority. If they had to repay the price others paid for their slogans, or even more, had to put on BDUs and go put them into action, we'd hear a lot less of them.
    Xena fobe , Jan 2, 2017 11:37 AM
    Almost all comments on MSM are anti Russia. These comments are at a higher level of writing and intellect than the typical SJW post. Someone is financing this social media campaign. People aren't stupid but we do have a herd mentality. If everyone around me believes X, they must be correct, right. Thank God for ZH.
    Northern Flicker , Jan 2, 2017 11:15 AM
    The ziocons are pissed, they had Russia all wrapped for the NWO 10 years ago and blew it. Now they want it back to finish their plans and are willing to sacrifice the rest of us for it.
    iAmerican3 Northern Flicker , Jan 2, 2017 11:18 AM
    Ziocons are just fronting the Roman Anti-Christ, just as their Khazar ancestors were doing the actual hammering of the impalement stake up through the Body of Our Lord on Golgotha.

    The "good cop/bad cop" satanic psychopathy's got it going on for thousands of years: the Seventh Head of the Beast.

    Time for the Beast to be cast down as the Apocalypse is already upon True Israel, America, but to Satan's liars and pedophile homosexuals. #Pizzagate

    pine_marten , Jan 2, 2017 10:39 AM
    Let's compile a list of Hillary supporting, MIC shill, G.O.P. turncoats:

    Paul Ryan

    John McCain

    Lindsey Graham

    scraping_by , Jan 2, 2017 10:33 AM
    Ah, yes. Stupid, crazy, or evil.

    Stupid is the usual fallback position, as in How Could We Have Been So Wrong? Good-hearted by soft-headed. We all make mistakes, don't we?

    Crazy is out there, even after all these years, seeing Commies under every bed. Spy movies tell the honest truth.

    Evil is pretty much everything else. Simply taking it as a position to be promoted is, in the end, the same thing as thinking up the lies. Thinking of it as just a move in a game. Enjoying chaos for its own sake.

    Stupid, crazy, or evil.

    YHC-FTSE , Jan 2, 2017 9:57 AM
    There's a website called "Right Web" that purports to track militarists' efforts to influence US foreign policy and it's another resource to do research on individuals ( http://rightweb.irc-online.org )

    The Council on Foreign Relations, with notable exceptions, is a who's who of neocon zionist warmongers, a list of movers and shakers of every war and crime against humanity. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations )

    So, let's see who these liars, psychopaths and criminals mentioned are:

  • Fred Hiatt - Ashkenazi Jew - Member of the Council on Foreign Relations
  • Matthew Dowd - divorced Catholic - Useful minion of both neocons, neolibs, anyone in power. CFR guest speaker. Pundit on supporting Israel.
  • David Frum - Jewish - Editor of Atlantic, contributor to CFR, Board member of Republican Jewish Coalition, coined the term "Axis of Evil" for G.W.Bush
  • Jonathan Chait - Jewish - Writer for New York Magazine, on CFR website "Must read list", recently called for the assassination of Donald Trump.

  • ~ DC v4.0
    MrBoompi DuneCreature , Jan 2, 2017 11:43 AM
    They use the same old lies because they work.

    ====

    They do work. Most of the population ignores all of this. Many who attempt to pay attention believe the government lies. That leaves the rest of us who believe the government and their media mouthpieces are full of shit. The lies work on us too, in the sense that even if they know we know they're full of shit, what the fuck can we do about it? They are at the point where they truly believe they can get away with anything.

    Reaper , Jan 2, 2017 9:14 AM
    The Russian hacking is a fallacious argument appealing to an authority. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/ Worse, the specific person of the authority is not identified. Worse, the authority is known as a purveyor of lies.

    The Exceptionals believe an exceptionally fallacious argument?

    SmallerGovNow2 , Jan 2, 2017 8:33 AM
    Why indeed? Like John McStain and Lefty Lindsey who were out this weekend calling for even tougher sanctions on Russia. War mongering neocons...
    HowdyDoody SmallerGovNow2 , Jan 2, 2017 9:41 AM
    Dont forget (((Adam Schiff))). He's up for more sanctions as well.
    overmedicatedun... , Jan 2, 2017 8:28 AM
    thanks GW..these idiots (clever and smart as they are)..see a NWO bankster run one world .gov..and Trump USA with Russia..is a big threat to that..Putin and Trump can see this as well as anyone of us..what they do about it? in the old days hang em high..traitors to the constitution deserve harsh ends. Justice has been denied far far too long..
    VideoEng_NC , Jan 2, 2017 7:52 AM
    Let me see if I have this visual correct, A bunch of former W staff folks are promoting fake news so that 0bama can maintain his "...it's the Russians!" narrative. All I need to see now is 0bama pointing at their propaganda for one more, "...see?!...but Bush!" to close out his "legacy" as president.
    Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 7:48 AM

    I'm perplexed about all the focus on the hacked / leaked emails by the "Russians" but not a peep about what's in the emails. Not one word (that I know of) about how the information is not true, faked or doctored. So, the only thing the email leak did was expose the truth about a group.

    Just can't make this shit up. That is like being outraged because a pedophile has been exposed by some email leak. What is wrong with exposing the truth? This isn't a group that that is entitled to privacy and no scrutiny like a regular citizen if anything they should be subject to scrutiny with all their public affairs; what they do in private is a different story.

    Ask yourself why are they so upset – for exposing their real colors and the truth? Too funny.

    SmallerGovNow2 Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 8:41 AM
    Blatant cover up of the democratic parties manipulation of the primary process...
    jeff montanye Taint Boil , Jan 2, 2017 8:08 AM
    well one reason the legacy media is outraged is it makes even more apparent how little investigative journalism is being done by them on their slowly clocking out watch.

    they are just better at stenography done in really nice restaurants and at taking sides: it pays better and it's more fun.

    scraping_by jeff montanye , Jan 2, 2017 12:11 PM
    And don't forget covering up real stories. Their silence is golden.
    Bay Area Guy nah , Jan 2, 2017 9:50 AM
    I can't quite recall. Was it Russia that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and replaced it with a government led, in large part, by NAZIS?

    Oh, now I remember. No. No, it wasn't Russia that did that. That was the good old USA.

    InTylerWeTrust , Jan 1, 2017 8:39 PM
    Let's not forget John "Bombs Away" Bolton. That bimbo eruption and his moustache can't wait to start the next war for the glory of Pax Americana.
    Mandel Bot InTylerWeTrust , Jan 2, 2017 8:22 AM
    Calling these people 'idiots' is being too kind.

    They are traitorous warmongers.

    xavi1951 Mandel Bot , Jan 2, 2017 10:35 AM
    You left out the CIA It was the CIA that started both lies.
    jeff montanye InTylerWeTrust , Jan 2, 2017 8:01 AM
    it is not for pax americana it is for Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah, greater or entire israel.

    [Jan 02, 2017] After releasing to the surprised world Flame and Stuxnet the USA should not be shy to disclose how they trace Russian hackers

    Slightly edited for clarity....
    Notable quotes:
    "... This kind of stuff has been going on for YEARS. Multiple countries, multiple blogs, news sites, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The US does it too. Corporations do it; political parties do it; David Brock does it; and people in other countries do it. It may or may not be state coordinated, in any given case. And it's probably not actually illegal in most of these cases. Yes, of course people in other countries have preferences about who wins our elections. We live in a big new internet-connected world, where all kinds of folks are constantly trying to influence outcomes of various kinds in other countries. Grow up. ..."
    "... After releasing to the surprised world Flame ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_%28malware%29 ) and Stuxnet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) not much was left to disclose. ..."
    "... Add to this Snowden revelations and you have the situation when you can be almost completely open about methods you use (the most interesting part is how multiple levels of indirection are traced -- Snowden used this NSA program against Chinese hackers -- so it's existence is no longer secret staff. Simplifying you need something like traceroute via VPN channels ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute ). But there can be proxies in the middle so the whole thing is very complex. ..."
    "... Yeah, sounds a whole lot like that Nigerian uranium and Saddam's weapons. I was told back then also that the intelligence was just too sensitive to reveal. Sources and methods and all that. ..."
    "... Good to see Matt Bruenig, Noah Smith and few others keeping their heads on their shoulders and trying to put the focus on policy. ..."
    "... Do you really assume that the amount of "compromat" that Russia has on Clintons (and especially Clinton Foundation, which is a real ticking bomb) is less valuable that Trump fuzzy desire to normalize relations, which can change any time (and may be dictated by the desire to drive a wedge in Russia relations with China). ..."
    "... Clinton is "the devil that we know" for Russia. Trump is "the devil that we don't". ..."
    "... It is also unclear to what extent Presidents, being now to a certain extent just ceremonial figureheads legitimizing the existence of "deep state" can change the foreign policy course, which remains remarkably consistent for the last six US administrations (Clinton+Bush+Obama x 2 ). ..."
    Jan 02, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Now everybody can study them and learn from the masters of Cyberwarfare

    sanjait -> Dan Kervick...

    The US isn't going to release intelligence sources but it's really really easy to see who Russia favored in the election and evidence of their efforts to influence it.

    DeDude -> sanjait... , January 02, 2017 at 02:02 PM

    Exactly - even a moron (without a political agenda) will look at the publicly available information and concluded that we are already past any "reasonable doubt".

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/politics/russia-hack-election-dnc.html?_r=0

    Then there is all the additional material that simply cannot be released because it would help the adversaries plug certain channels of counter intelligence.

    It is a fact that the hackers were Russian. It is a fact that the only viable motive to release that material the way it was (timed to inflict maximum damage on HRC) would be to lower the chances of Hilary being elected. It is a fact that nobody in Russia would dare to challenge Putin's authority and release this material without his knowledge.

    However, tomorrow the great Orange will be informed about the facts and it will not make him change his conclusion that the facts are wrong and he the great Trump and his great inside (from Kremlin) sources have proven that it was not Russia. The Trump bobbleheads and associated clowns will agree not because Trump had any evidence but because he told them what they wanted to hear.

    sanjait -> DeDude... , January 02, 2017 at 02:37 PM
    True.

    Though for me the most compelling evidence was the simple observation that paid commenters (with only moderate English speaking capability and no comment history, often from brand new Facebook accounts) appeared with such frequency in comment sections of sites like WAPO and other major news organizations, and the associated reporting with first person non-anonymous accounts of how Russia ran farms for such paid comments.

    The strangest part of this is how many useful idiots (in the classic sense) like Kervick exist out there with various forms of apologetics for these actions.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to sanjait... , January 02, 2017 at 03:52 PM
    This kind of stuff has been going on for YEARS. Multiple countries, multiple blogs, news sites, Facebook and Twitter accounts. The US does it too. Corporations do it; political parties do it; David Brock does it; and people in other countries do it. It may or may not be state coordinated, in any given case. And it's probably not actually illegal in most of these cases. Yes, of course people in other countries have preferences about who wins our elections. We live in a big new internet-connected world, where all kinds of folks are constantly trying to influence outcomes of various kinds in other countries. Grow up.
    cal -> Dan Kervick... , January 02, 2017 at 06:55 PM
    "Grow up."

    Not that one is short and just needs to plow into those Cheerios, but this is a parent speaking to their child(ren), yes?

    Deplorable(s).

    This too, is part of the same exchange: not merely commander to commanded, but deaf to any other view that might be characterized as a dialog between adults who are interested in the best path.

    As if any dialog could take place between one person with a microphone and public relations team on the command side and a flock of fans on the other, but I digress.

    My favorite is "Suck it up Buttercup" at the sign of any resistance, or reluctance, or indifference that might indicate you are nothin but a fading flower...sorta blows air in your face twice.

    So Dan, I hear you and read most of your posts. And Sanjait's too. And both worth reading among still others...my standards aren't terribly high.

    Your note that the US does it too, might be the understatement of the year. And Sanjait's suggestion that just as there is an adult-age limit there should be a senility limit too. As close as this election was, the less capable adults (MCI is easily more than the 3M difference.) explains the poor polls and the worse outcome.

    ilsm -> DeDude... , January 02, 2017 at 04:52 PM
    Aside from how crooked the DNC and Clinton are what did the CIA WMD screamers say the Russians released?

    You all should stop whining!

    It is getting unseemly.

    like poor pk.

    likbez -> DeDude... , January 02, 2017 at 08:05 PM
    You are funny.

    After releasing to the surprised world Flame ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_%28malware%29 ) and Stuxnet ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet ) not much was left to disclose.

    Now everybody can study them and learn from the masters of Cyberwarfare ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare )

    Add to this Snowden revelations and you have the situation when you can be almost completely open about methods you use (the most interesting part is how multiple levels of indirection are traced -- Snowden used this NSA program against Chinese hackers -- so it's existence is no longer secret staff. Simplifying you need something like traceroute via VPN channels ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traceroute ). But there can be proxies in the middle so the whole thing is very complex.

    So when they suggest that certain IPs signify Russian hacking they are insulting average computer literate person intelligence.

    There are some posters in this group who really understand this staff. I don't.

    They can probably comment further.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to sanjait... , January 02, 2017 at 03:46 PM
    Yeah, sounds a whole lot like that Nigerian uranium and Saddam's weapons. I was told back then also that the intelligence was just too sensitive to reveal. Sources and methods and all that.

    And at the end of the day, the only credible charge is not that Russia hacked "the election", but that they hacked John Podesta's email.

    Anyway, it's water under the bridge. Meanwhile, Donald Trump and the radical Republican Congress have a reactionary legislative agenda all lined up, and Democrats have done close to squat to build and articulate a clear, unified and compelling counter-agenda. They are off on a crazy Russian goose chase. So the Republicans are probably going to pass a lot of their agenda, because Democrats are putting nothing on the table.

    Good to see Matt Bruenig, Noah Smith and few others keeping their heads on their shoulders and trying to put the focus on policy.

    anne -> Dan Kervick... , January 02, 2017 at 03:59 PM
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html

    July 6, 2003

    What I Didn't Find in Africa
    By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th

    WASHINGTON -- Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

    Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

    For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

    It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

    In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

    After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the CIA paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

    In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

    The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

    I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

    Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired....

    Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995.

    likbez -> sanjait... , January 02, 2017 at 07:01 PM
    If you have Ph.D you should really be ashamed writing such nonsense.

    Do you really assume that the amount of "compromat" that Russia has on Clintons (and especially Clinton Foundation, which is a real ticking bomb) is less valuable that Trump fuzzy desire to normalize relations, which can change any time (and may be dictated by the desire to drive a wedge in Russia relations with China).

    Clinton is "the devil that we know" for Russia. Trump is "the devil that we don't".

    It is also unclear to what extent Presidents, being now to a certain extent just ceremonial figureheads legitimizing the existence of "deep state" can change the foreign policy course, which remains remarkably consistent for the last six US administrations (Clinton+Bush+Obama x 2 ).

    Or do you really think that Bolton in State Department is different from Victoria Nuland?

    [Jan 02, 2017] The War Against Alternative Information

    Notable quotes:
    "... The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly "fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives." ..."
    "... The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." ..."
    "... The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election. ..."
    "... Despite these accusations - leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the mainstream U.S. news media - there is little or no public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new "Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed. ..."
    "... In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot. ..."
    "... There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly disappointed in the end. ..."
    "... Putin obviously has something on Trump ..."
    "... I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale. ..."
    "... The Police State requires each person to believe their lies. Paraphrasing a comment attributed to a former CIA operative: "When the only narrative available is ours, we will have done our job". ..."
    "... While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" ..."
    "... this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | consortiumnews.com
    The U.S. government is creating a new $160 million bureaucracy to shut down information that doesn't conform to U.S. propaganda narratives, building on the strategy that sold the bloody Syrian "regime change" war, writes Rick Sterling.

    The U.S. establishment is not content simply to have domination over the media narratives on critical foreign policy issues, such as Syria, Ukraine and Russia. It wants total domination. Thus we now have the " Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act " that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017 , setting aside $160 million to combat any "propaganda" that challenges Official Washington's version of reality.

    ... ... ...

    The new law mandates the U.S. Secretary of State to collaborate with the Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence and other federal agencies to create a Global Engagement Center "to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests." The law directs the Center to be formed in 180 days and to share expertise among agencies and to "coordinate with allied nations."

    The legislation was initiated in March 2016, as the demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia was already underway and was enacted amid the allegations of "Russian hacking" around the U.S. presidential election and the mainstream media's furor over supposedly "fake news." Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives."

    The new law is remarkable for a number of reasons, not the least because it merges a new McCarthyism about purported dissemination of Russian "propaganda" on the Internet with a new Orwellianism by creating a kind of Ministry of Truth – or Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation."

    As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google, Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news." )

    Justifying this new bureaucracy, the bill's sponsors argued that the existing agencies for " strategic communications " and " public diplomacy " were not enough, that the information threat required "a whole-of-government approach leveraging all elements of national power."

    The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election.

    Despite these accusations - leaked by the Obama administration and embraced as true by the mainstream U.S. news media - there is little or no public evidence to support the charges. There is also a contradictory analysis by veteran U.S. intelligence professionals as well as statements by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and an associate, former British Ambassador Craig Murray , that the Russians were not the source of the leaks. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has virtually ignored this counter-evidence, appearing eager to collaborate with the new "Global Engagement Center" even before it is officially formed.

    Of course, there is a long history of U.S. disinformation and propaganda. Former CIA agents Philip Agee and John Stockwell documented how it was done decades ago, secretly planting "black propaganda" and covertly funding media outlets to influence events around the world, with much of the fake news blowing back into the American media.

    In more recent decades, the U.S. government has adopted an Internet-era version of that formula with an emphasis on having the State Department or the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy supply, train and pay "activists" and "citizen journalists" to create and distribute propaganda and false stories via "social media" and via contacts with the mainstream media. The U.S. government's strategy also seeks to undermine and discredit journalists who challenge this orthodoxy. The new legislation escalates this information war by tossing another $160 million into the pot.

    ... ... ...

    Rick Sterling is an independent investigative journalist. He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and can be reached at [email protected]

    Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 12:55 pm

    Here comes the Ministry of truth.

    War is Peace
    Freedom is Slavery
    Ignorance is Strength

    Big Brother is watching us.

    Abe , January 1, 2017 at 10:21 pm

    The information war against reputable independent investigative journalism has been in full swing for years. $160 million is just the latest shake of piddle.

    In addition to the army of paid journalists in mainstream media, "pro-democracy" and "human rights" NGOs, and assorted limited hangouts we are all too familiar with, there is the new Propaganda 3.0 species of "open source intelligence" scammers, bogus "independent researchers", and corporate-funded fake "citizen investigative journalists" like Eliot Higgins and Bellingcat, all busily churning out fake news.

    Uncritical journalists have ignored the deeper layer of deception underlying the Washington Post / PropOrNot imbroglio.

    Some "useful idiots" have gone so far as to actively promote the illusion that Bellingcat and other PropOrNot "Related Projects" are "professional" information sources.

    In reality, Google-funded Bellingcat is directly allied with the Washington Post and New York Times, the two principal mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the Google's new Ministry of Truth: The First Draft Coalition "partner network".

    Note that it was the Washington Post that catapulted PropOrNot to prominence.

    True independent investigative journalism is the declared enemy of Google's new Minitrue.

    In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Propaganda 3.0 coalition has already demonstrated its ability to "work together to tackle common issues, including ways to streamline the verification process" of Western propaganda narratives.

    The devil's hands are very busy.

    Peter Loeb , January 2, 2017 at 6:44 am

    MUST READ .

    Tom Anderson: THE DIRTY WAR ON SYRIA

    (Global Research, 2016)

    (Available at Amazon and probably elsewhere.)

    This well documented book explores the arguments presented in
    Rick Sterling's excellent article above in detail. The book is in defense
    of Syria.It includes many references (in English), most available on line.

    ---------

    NOTE: See requests elsewhere in the Defense Appropriation Act of 2017.
    As always, an APPROPRIATION of amounts is required.

    -------

    A basic issue can be raised involving any commitment of the
    next President of the United States to policies of this
    Administration and Congress. It is well-known that Donald
    Trump has not previously shared many of the views on which this
    legislation is based.

    Senator John McCain, primary sponsor, D-Ariz, does share
    these views. It needs reminding that that being said, much
    of this GOP interest was under the assumption that
    Hillary Clinton's election was a foregone conclusion.

    Though Senator McCain is the sole sponsor of the entire
    bill in his role as Chairman of the Armed Services
    Committee of the Senate, many Democrats joined in the
    many amendments. were co-sponsored by Democratic
    Senators.

    Regarding Syria, many of the issues are dealt with
    in Tom Anderson's book noted above.

    --Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

    Linda Doucett , January 1, 2017 at 11:28 pm

    a lot of Soros schills on this thread :)

    exiled off mainstreet , January 2, 2017 at 2:13 pm

    That is it exactly. The yankee regime has gone over into fascist control of the narrative. Erstwhile "leftists" like Amy Goodman have jumped the shark and joined the imperialist propaganda push. Even the ACLU is sponsoring islamofascists like Khisr Khan, who is an apologist for el qaeda spouting that the Iraq war, a war crime by any objective definition, was 'in defense of constitutional values. Since courts no longer hold the regime accountable, the fact this is blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the rule of law does not seem to mean much. Hopefully, the new administration, despite the reputation of its leadership, will be less autocratic in practice. As far as I'm concerned, they all have jumped the shark and the last shreds of legitimacy have disappeared. The entire existing regime and its acolytes are war criminals and traitors to the rule of law.

    Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    You don't watch Democracy Now much. I've seen all points of view presented there. Perhaps you should examine with a more open mind.
    I never supported getting involved in Syria but there was a lot of pressure to do so. It was a big mistake. The history I know says that climate change had much to do with what happened there. A severe drought made conditions untenable for the farmers and they started to revolt. Assad handled what was happening very badly. It was a terrible situation. Assad wan't going to help them but he generally had the support of the rest of the people. Getting involved there was stupid. There was no way for intervention to be successful unless it was humanitarian like helping them to help the farmers Of course intervention is seldom humanitarian and when it is, it's seen as weak an ineffective by the powerful forces that oppose it.

    There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly disappointed in the end. Putin obviously has something on Trump and you should be shouting for his tax returns so we can understand that relationship. We know he's received a lot of money from Russia.
    Everyone, including you discount David Corn's research about that relationship. No one wants to hear it.

    David Ecklein , January 1, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    Bill Cash- "We know he's [Trump} received a lot of money from Russia."

    There is possibly a malicious insinuation here. Was that to support Trump's political campaign, or was that from business deals – which Trump has in any number of countries?

    Bill Cash- "Everyone, including you discount David Corn's research about that relationship [Trump/Russia]."

    Include me in your "everyone". If you mean Corn's article in Mother Jones, it is not "research" but forwarded innuendos.

    As to whether anyone will be "bitterly disappointed" with Trump, that is beside the point – many of us are deeply concerned with other possible aspects of the coming administration. I am just glad to see Trump or any prominent US political commentator buck the knee-jerk attempt to blame Russia for our own troubles. Jerks like that can be hazardous to our health and possibly our continued existence.

    Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    You think climate change is a problem? Trump thinks it's a hoax. Will climate change provoke many Syria's around the world?
    Is Trump building a government of, by and for the very rich?
    Putin obviously has something on Trump which all of you are ignoring. Now Trump is saying he knows more about hacking than everyone else. There's too much in that relationship to be ignored but you are ignoring it and it will come back to bite us.
    Trump wants to dismantle the epa, medicare and social security. That should really help the country.
    Enjoy Trump while you can. Keep protecting him.

    Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 2:44 pm

    What proof do you have that Putin has "something" on Trump? It could be that Trump sees opportunities for business with Russia if there are improved relations. Russia has a lot of natural resources waiting to be exploited. The military/security/industrial complex is at odds with that idea because they need their boogeyman.

    And why does it always have to be one or the other between Hillary and the Donald? I think they both suck. My only hope is that he disrupts the power of the deep state warmongers and cleans house at the CIA And even there, it is only a hope. I am not blindly optimistic.

    I doubt there are many of us here at Consortium news that are enjoying or protecting Trump, but Hillary would have been a disaster as well. Bill Cash is blind not to see that. There was no lesser of two evils in this election, just two different evils.

    Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    Get Trump to release his tax returns. Why is he afraid to do that? There is something there h doesn't want us to see.
    We know he's received a lot of money from Russia, That's well documented and Putin doesn't allow that without strings. We know he's had dealings with both the mafia and the Russian mob.
    You should be screaming for his tax returns but instead you assume his innocence.
    You know nothing about me. I do believe Hillary would be better because she believes in global warming but I was a Bernie supporter.
    If you know anything about Trump, you know he only acts to help himself, for his own enrichment. If you don't know that, I can't talk to you. You'd have to give me examples of him ever thinking outside himself. There has to be something in the Putin relationship that's good for Trump.
    Get his tax returns!!!!!

    Blahblahblah , January 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Heh, I'm Russian from Russia. 1. Russia is not building any ministry of truth, many western channels like France 24, BBC, EuroNews and Fox News are part of standard cable TV package here (at least in Moscow and other major cities). 2. Not sure what image you have of our president, but blackmailing leaders of other states is America's thing, that's not what Russians do (we send tanks, threaten or negotiate) – you should stop thinking the whole world acts the same way America does. 3. I doubt Trump got money from Russia, at least not more than Clinton got from Saudi Arabia and others, including Ukraine (the latter donated about US$30 million, the former could have donated up to US$500 million // could you name the amount given by Russia to Trump, which you speak about?). Anyway, is it really okay that future American president are for sale internationally, regardless if it's Trump or Clinton? 4. I doubt Russians hacked you since there's still no single proof (What CIA says and "everyone knows" is not a proof. If you like this type of justice, I suggest you abolish your whole legal system and replace it with Lynch courts). 5. Lastly, you suggest that the U.S. s almost uninvolve din Syria. Is it really so? Who are you supplying weapons to then? Turkish president (Turkey is still NATO member, ally of the U.S.) said he has proof U.S. is supporting terrorists, mainly ISIL and Al Quaida. Al Quaida were the guys who organized 9/11. I hope you're proud to be American and of Obama and Clinton.

    ????????, ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ??? 8 ??? ?????, ?? ?????????? ????? ?????.

    ? ??????? ?? ?????? :-)

    Jessejean , January 2, 2017 at 12:56 am

    Blah x3: that was beautiful. It makes me so sick to my stomach that these things can be said about my country and that I know they are true. For years I blamed the FBI. Or Nixon. Or Ronnie, or Col. North and Iran Countra, or the Rethugs. Or the CIA Or DIck and Bush. But when Hillary tried to force herself down our throats in a kind of female felacio (sorry, don't know how to spell that) and Thomas Frank went after Slick Willy with a cleaver and Matt Taibbi exposed Obama's financial machinations and Little Debbie Shitz kneecapped the progressives, I finally saw what the world has been seeing for decades. I love my country, and all I was taught she stood for, and I know you love your country and her amazing history. I don't like Trump, but if he's the poison it takes to heal my country so we can get along with yours, here's to poison. Dos vee donya. ( terrible speller. Sorry)

    Zachary Smith , January 1, 2017 at 11:57 pm

    Trump and climate change = Trump an ignoramus.
    Hillary and Obama on climate change equaled lots of grand speech-making, no effective actions.
    I don't see a significant difference here. And at least in theory, ignorance can be corrected more easily than cynical indifference chasing the easy money..

    Trump building a government of, by and for the very rich? That's right.
    Hillary and the TPP meant government would be handed to corporations.

    Trump wants to dismantle the epa, medicare and social security. Probably.
    Obama was itching for 8 years to strike a Grand Bargain with the Republicans to dismantle Social Security. If I was to waste time looking at Hillary and Social Security, I'd expect to find weasel lawyer talk giving her the same leeway.

    Putin obviously had something on Trump. Is this in the same class of "reality" as the Russians obviously stealing the 2016 election and preparing to destroy the electrical systems in Vermont?

    David Corn: I looked at his archives at Mother Jones. He was always frothing at the mouth against whoever it was who was in the lead in the Republican primary. Mention of Hillary was always a side factor except in one piece which had this title.

    You Go to War With the Hillary Clinton You Have

    I examined the piece, and found it summarizes as 'the woman isn't worth a crap, but she's all we've got.' Corn was a little more explicit about Hillary's faults in 2008. From one of his pieces then:

    I, too, have huffed about Obama's staffing decisions. It remains a mystery to me why Obama would want to bring into his Big Tent the Clinton circus, which frequently features excessive spin, backstabbing, leaking and messy melodrama. Sen. Clinton is a smart woman who has stature and globetrotting experience. But as health-care czar in her husband's administration, she set back that cause, which is near and dear to the hearts of progressives, by nearly two decades.

    That's right – Hillary wasn't worth a crap back in 2008 either, only back then Corn was a bit more truthful. I've seen that with others – in their 2008 blog posts they were doing to Hillary what they're doing to Trump now – making an all-out assault. How those people convinced themselves that 2008 totally evil Hillary was transformed into 2016 Saint Hillary still confounds me.

    exiled off mainstreet , January 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    Trump, if he proves as bad on climate change as feared, can be reversed. If the harpy had gotten in, she would have said the right words on climate change, but put policies via the "trade pacts" under extra-legal corrupt corporate arbitration courts who would have been able to sideline the rule of law in this area and would have established an irreversible corporate regime on climate change. Since courts long ago ceased to hold to rule of law standards basing their decisions on extra-legal state secrets and anti-free-speech considerations, and since such extra-legal "trade pacts" have not even been questioned in US courts, the reality is that this would have meant the end of serious climate change work. This seems to me to be much more concerning than Trump's rhetoric on climate change issues, since, whatever the talk, the factual result of the policy would have been far more odious.

    Lin Cleveland , January 1, 2017 at 2:21 pm

    " There's a real love fest for Trump on this site "

    Me thinks you infer what we do not imply!

    D5-5 , January 1, 2017 at 3:07 pm

    I watched Democracy Now for over a decade–until recently. I tried to tolerate its bias on Syria and wrote to the site several times to no avail. Coverage of Syria was consistently a fairy tale of Assad the evil Hitler versus the good rebels–essentially a Washington Post view. This program has declined. I'm sorry to say it. It is now so unreliable I can no longer watch it. I believe the writer here is accurate and fair on this evaluation.

    Gregory Kruse , January 2, 2017 at 11:02 am

    That's what happens when a site has "Democracy" in its name. The term no longer has any coherent meaning.

    JohnMMorgan , January 2, 2017 at 12:28 pm

    I agree, the role Democracy Now played in paving the way for the destruction of Libya and now Syria is shameful. Given how divided the left is on Syria, the least DN could and should have done is have weekly debates between top advocates of the different narratives to expose their listeners to both sides. Instead they gave constant repetition of the official propaganda line with only very rarely a little of the other side.

    On U.S., Russia and Ukraine it has been more like DN has been MIA.

    I think it is entirely appropriate for Rick Sterling to challenge DN in this excellent article.

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:32 pm

    There's a real love fest for Trump on this site and I believe you are all going to be bitterly disappointed in the end.

    I read Consortium News practically every day, but somehow I missed the "love fest" comments. Can you share an example or two. There were several articles clearly exposing Hillary Clinton's defects, but it would take lots of stretching of points to interpret them as pro-Trump. I and others have made comments along the lines of "when it comes to Clinton and Trump there is no lesser evil." I don't recall anyone challenging comments like that.

    Similarly, I and others have made the point that we might escape Hillary Clinton's frying pan but we will land in Donald Trump's fire. Or, another version, we might have dodged Hillary Clinton's bullet but Donald Trump will be the price we will have to pay.

    Putin obviously has something on Trump

    In this bizarre era of world politics that may or may not be true. It is, however, unlikely to be obvious either way to many visitors to this site. Can you share what causes you to believe it is obvious?

    Gregory Herr , January 1, 2017 at 4:08 pm

    Severe drought and sanctions that go back to the Bush Administration certainly created some economic hardships. But the conflict in Syria is hardly the outgrowth of a farmers' revolt. The people of Syria are generally educated and politically astute. Naturally occurring political activity not unlike what we sometimes see here in the States (with "movements" such as Occupy) did not have an insurrectionist flavor and few Syrian citizens had armed revolt in mind. Many were simply keen for Assad to step up the pace of the political reform he was a part of. The armed "revolt" that you somehow think Assad handled badly was managed by foreign provocateurs. Assad and the Syrian Arab Army and the Russian Air Force have been protecting the citizens of Syria from vile terrorist mercenaries.

    John P , January 1, 2017 at 6:54 pm

    In support of some your comments Bill Cash, see – Putin's friendly response to the expulsion of his US diplomats – shown on the British Independent newspaper site. In it they state:
    "The President-elect's nomination of Rex Tillerson, chief of ExxonMobil, as Secretary of State, will if confirmed mean that Putin has someone whom he knows well, and has personally awarded the Russian Order of Friendship, in charge of US foreign policy. As for his own business interests, he signed an agreement last summer (just one, it should be said, of several attempts to do so) to build a Trump Tower in Moscow."

    Also interesting to read is Mondoweiss: "Why Obama waited 8 years to take on Netanyahu"

    Happy New year everybody and lets hope we don't get Trumped --

    John P , January 1, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    The web address for the first article above is :

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/putin-trump-obama-russia-us-new-cold-war-two-diplomacy-editorial-a7502631.html

    I'm with you Bill Cash

    Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    I find this idea that better relationships between the US and Russia would be bad for Central and Western Europe very strange. Of course, there are a few neocon hawks in Europe, as well, but mostly, Europeans are very sceptical about strongly anti-Russian US policies in recent years (in many European countries US power and influence is seen as a similar or bigger threat than Russia, see http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/13/europeans-see-isis-climate-change-as-most-serious-threats/epw-russia-china-u-s-threats-web-version/ ). US pressure was needed for the EU to pass sanctions against Russia (of course, Poland and Angela Merkel were in favor, but since there is little popular support for these sanctions outside Poland and the Baltic states, that would hardly have sufficed without US pressure). In Europe, the simplified, dumbed-down presentations of conflicts like the one in Ukraine that are meant to use such complex situations for a one-sided demonization of Russia are less widely accepted. I think there are far more Europeans who saw the constant US pressure for worsening relationships with Russia as a significant threat than people who think that a rapprochement of the US and Russia would be dangerous.
    Of course, there are a few very vocal European journalists who belong to "Atlantic" neocon associations who will scream when someone threatens to ease tensions with Russia, but they only represent a very small part of Europeans.

    Vera , January 1, 2017 at 1:08 pm

    Now we will really get a "taste" of fake news

    Zachary Smith , January 1, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    As part of the effort to detect and defeat these unwanted narratives, the law authorizes the Center to: "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices ." (This section is an apparent reference to proposals that Google, Facebook and other technology companies find ways to block or brand certain Internet sites as purveyors of "Russian propaganda" or "fake news.")

    I suspect "best practices" will include more than simply blocking the alternative information sites like this and Naked Capitalism and the others on the BS PROPORNOT list. Expect other schemes to be tried, each one with effectively unlimited funding.

    They're going to do what the murderous twit George "dumbya" Bush spoke of:

    "See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

    I and many others voted for Obama in 2008 because of our utter disgust with the Texas Torturer. The master psychologists who selected Obama knew that would happen, and his fancy talking along with his black skin caused some people I KNEW were racists to vote for him too – just to prove to themselves they weren't. ( a task eased by the alternative of McCain and Palin)

    Obama has his fingerprints all over the endless crap discussed in this splendid essay, and the sooner people recognize he is a Bush-Level President the better.

    Here is a good introduction to that theme.

    http://www strategic-culture.org/news/2016/12/31/obama-failed-presidency.html

    My main complaint about the essay at the link is that at the end of it author Eric Zuesse was still in a "defense" mode for the disaster which has been the Obama years.

    doray , January 1, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    The cartoon that should result from this action would be to show Obama and every member of Congress who voted for this insanity taking a giant steaming dump on the First Amendment. We have arrived at the Fourth Reich.
    Will they just block the alternative news, or criminalize those who try and post it?

    J'hon Doe II , January 1, 2017 at 1:53 pm

    Alt-Info vs. this Letter to America.

    http://www.terrain.org/2016/guest-editorial/letter-to-america-golden/

    ::
    wherefore does your sincerity
    lie?
    sincerity in heart is truth.

    stan , January 1, 2017 at 2:16 pm

    You can read chapter 6 of Mein Kampf to learn the power and techniques of war propaganda. I started watching the propaganda in 1989 when George Bush Sr. invaded panama to capture his buddy Noriega. There was a story about how the U.S. military had found womens panties and cocaine in Noriegas hideout. After he was captured and reporters asked for proof of this, the U.S. military said they could not find the underwear in question and the cocaine turned out to be baking soda. Of course it was all fabrication.

    During the leadup to the bombing of Iraq in 1991, the story was that the Iraqi soldiers had gone in a hospital and thrown babies out of their incubators "onto the cold hard floor". Of course, this was a total lie also. Even our president kept repeating it, so he was either stupid or lying. Guess which.

    But these are the stories to incite the murderous rage of a people, and prevent people from questioning the attack. When you hear of the smear – someone hiding in a "spider-hole", or someone caught trying to sneak away wearing women's clothing, then you know it is part of the smear campaign and a total lie. It is just a smear, which psychologically makes you not protest the attack, because, well, it could be true, and who wants to stand up in public to protect a sex pervert or a coward.

    But the real power of propaganda is in controlling the narrative. Here is the true narrative of our murderous rampage in the middle east.

    The wars of the U.S. are the empires fighting over control of territory, with all of the benefits and privileges thereof – take the resources, collect taxes, and control terms of commerce and trade to benefit yourself. Big wars begin when empires fall. This also happens when an elephant falls in the jungle. The lions, hyenas, vultures, etc. all try to grab a piece. Governments do this too, as do crime syndicates and mobsters. Mobsters are always trying to muscle in on the territory of other gangs, and police know that when a powerful mobster falls, there will be wars between the gangs fighting for turf and control of territory and markets.

    The U.S. began the destruction of Iraq with the murderous bombing of that country as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. This attack was planned and prepared for during the Regan military buildup of the 1980s. The U.S. knew the soviet union was going to fall, and they prepared for it. It was decided to "pivot" from the U.S. military defeat in southeast asia to begin an invasion of southwest asia. Zbigniew Brezinsky was the architect of the plan to destablize Afghanistan. The U.S. military would not have done that without a follow up plan, and it takes years to plan and prepare an armada for an invasion. In the time since, we have basically invaded and militarily conquered the middle east, africa, southwestern asia and parts of the old soviet union in eastern europe. It is a war between empires (very large business syndicates). All the day-to-day happenings are trivial irrelavancies in terms of reasons for U.S. foreign policy and military actions. Our future foreign policy to again invade asia was decided before 1980. Think of the president as the CEO, and the board of directors tells him what to do. The board of directors has not changed.

    backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 5:46 pm

    stan – very good post!

    Dwight , January 1, 2017 at 9:32 pm

    Amnesty International lent its name to the incubator baby propaganda, playing an important role in helping Bush Sr. get Senate approval for the 1991 Gulf War. Amnesty International along with Human Rights Watch also played an important role in legitimizing the 1999 Kosovo war by timely, uncritical, and grossly irresponsible parroting of claims about killings at the village of Racak.

    Fritz , January 1, 2017 at 11:17 pm

    I hate to say: 'well said', generally, because it implies that I am in a position to give you a grade, like a teacher would.

    But here I must say "well said" to your post --

    Lin Cleveland , January 1, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    "the Ministry of Truth!" Yes indeed, Mr. Sterling, that's what we're seeing here. The stench of hypocrisy wafting from the East is overwhelming, isn't it? To boot Obama signed this bit of government overreach on my birthday claiming this legislation is to protect "national security interests" and "to protect the American people from 'foreign propaganda' and disinformation." Most U.S. citizens know that politicians tell whoppers on the campaign trail. Remember in 2008 when heroic Hillary told about arriving in Bosnia "under a hail of bullets"? That never happened!

    No surprise she supports the bill. "Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives." Let's understand what the lady means by "our democracy." She refers to the democracy of the few, the political elites in cahoots with Wall Street who meet behind a curtain to decide U.S. policy. Anyway, as long as we look to "leaders" we'll continue to live in a hierarchy based in money and power–and that is not a democracy! Innocent lives? No, this bill protects the guilty from public scrutiny.

    The law also is rife with irony since the U.S. government and related agencies are among the world's biggest purveyors of propaganda and disinformation – or what you might call evidence-free claims, such as the recent accusations of Russia hacking into Democratic emails to "influence" the U.S. election.

    O yea! the irony is palpable. One section of the bill stipulates that information "experts" appointed by the government will train prospective journalists. Gee, you mean we don't already have that with ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC? The term "The Fourth Estate" for a free and open press dates back to Edmond Burke in 1875. Of course all along those in power have worked overtime to propagate our own citizens, but the idea of government-trained journalists is a slap in the face to "freedom of the press." All of us who post our fact-based opinions qualify as press. From now on, however, a journalist must have a stamp of approval from the government!

    On another not-so "fake news" site I found an article by a retired professor well versed in computer language. Dr. Spring challenges the Russian hacking story, but I don't know enough to understand it all Some of you might.


    Was Claim by Department of Homeland Security and FBI About Russian Hacking Fake News?
    by David Spring

    Bart in Virginia , January 2, 2017 at 9:30 am

    "One section of the bill stipulates that information "experts" appointed by the government will train prospective journalists."

    Maybe Palin's 'FEMA Camps' could be used for this purpose.

    Kent , January 1, 2017 at 2:36 pm

    Funny how they never mention the plans for competing pipelines, re: Syria.

    http://wordpress.redirectingat.com/?id=725X1342&site=willyloman.wordpress.com&xs=1&isjs=1&url=https%3A%2F%2Fi0.wp.com%2Fwww.strategic-culture.org%2Fimages%2Fmyfls%2Foct2016%2Fzuss24101604.jpg&xguid=2e57ce35a8601dd695623b4d3e3dfa17&xuuid=8c1d9d73fc5e8f18a3ea1dbf15a2f510&xsessid=922426a0b3f7b6513a1608d74aa1b9b8&xcreo=0&xed=0&sref=https%3A%2F%2Fwillyloman.wordpress.com%2Fpage%2F4%2F&xtz=300&abp=1

    backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Kent – re competing pipelines. I used to think that was the main reason for the war in Syria. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wrote an article entitled "Syria: Another Pipeline War". I'm sure the pipeline from Qatar up through Syria is part of the reason, but another poster commented that he didn't buy this, mainly because the pipeline could have gone up through Iraq and then across Turkey. I looked at a map and, yes, he was correct. It would cost more money, but could easily have been done. No, he contended that there was a much greater reason for the war: Israel.

    Joe Tedesky , January 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm

    I'm leaving you something to read see link below, where the author talks about an energy alliance between Turkey, Israel, and Russia is being discussed between these three countries. The U.S. is not included in these discussions.

    Personally I have thought for quite awhile now that this Middle East American NATO driven war has been more about destabilizing Israel's neighbors (Yinon Plan, Clean Break), as opposed to routing energy pipelines.

    Read this .

    http://journal-neo.org/2016/10/25/russia-turkey-israel-and-a-new-balance-of-power/

    Kent , January 2, 2017 at 10:42 am

    Excellent info there,Joe. Demonstrating once again that Putin is a far better, more creative, and less deluded strategic thinker than our best and brightest. I suspect that Turkey's turn toward a Russian alliance on the energy front is sparked the CIA's (failed) Gulenist coup attempt last summer.

    And of course Israel is always Israel.

    The recent bizarre assassination of the Russian ambassador in Turkey by the 'security' guy yelling 'this is for Aleppo' was also a tell regarding the US's support, arming, and funding of the proxy mercenaries Daesh/Isis/al Nusra/al Quaeda.

    Losing's a bitch, especially when it requires treason and you STILL lose. The Masters of the Universe take a hit and I actually see a small glimmer of hope in that.

    Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 12:41 pm

    Yes the deception and intrigue makes one get dizzy trying to figure out who is really behind all of it. The U.S. needs a new strategy, but it fails to acknowledge it, and with that nothing will change for the good.

    Kent , January 2, 2017 at 10:51 am

    BWE- True enough about the alternate route, through the new and improved 'Kurdistan' but that would have still left the Syrian/Russian legal alliance in place as a competitor for EU business.

    I also think that since Syria was 'on the list' from the get/go, our 'thinkers' in the MI$S complex Mafia weren't creative enough to pivot and adapt. Plus, it would have still left competition noted above.

    CitizenOne , January 1, 2017 at 2:39 pm

    I was watching the news. It is all about the Russians. The Expulsions, the sanctions, the democrats and the republicans are united against their common enemy the Russians. More sanctions are on the way. If a family member recently passed away you can be assured the Russians murdered them! Why don't they just declare war with Russia and get all the niceties over and done so we can get right down to the war?

    Nowhere in this uni-polar single topic narrative of how Russia and Russia alone rigged the election is there a mention of any possible other source of influence on the election. What about the glacially paced multi year investigation into Benghazi? What about Comey's October Surprise with Anthony Wiener's Laptop? What about any other foreign power? What about voter ID laws? What about gerrymandering? What about black box voting? What about Citizens United vs. FEC and McCutcheon vs. FEC and dark money in politics?

    These are just some of the things that have dominated all the previous narratives before now on how elections might be rigged minus the foreign hacks by the Russians which was never a concern. Now, all those things are forgotten. Never happened, not a problem. All washed away in an instant with an entirely new theory out of a clear blue sky. The one single question posed by the politicians and the media might just as well be why are we not loading weapons on boats and planes, dropping them off all along Russia's borders and reinstating the draft right now?

    There is a word for this. This is Propaganda. The law is a perversion of its alleged purpose of defense of the truth by claiming it will weed out lies. It actually seeks to preserve complete control of the narrative a.k.a., propaganda by shutting out anyone else with a different opinion. They need to go after foreign sources because obviously, there is no need for worry or concern that our domestic media might actually do its job. It is clearly already deep inside the belly of the beast.

    Mr. Obama has 20 days left and they cannot possibly go by fast enough as he salts the political landscape in order to tie the incoming administrations hands.

    This has to be one of the scariest and damnable things Obama signed into law. Hopefully, it will shortly be rescinded but it seems even the republicans like Mitch McConnell are all on board with preserving the military industrial complex at all costs. War is their stock and trade and there are trillions of dollars at stake here. The Defense Industry needs enemies not friends.

    What we are seeing is the Neo-Con Cabal wringing their hands with anxiety that the next war with Russia might be on hold and doing everything they can to make that happen. This is what Eisenhower warned us about. But it is an old problem.

    Here are some quotes:

    I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.

    Abraham Lincoln – In a letter written to William Elkin less than five months before he was assassinated.

    The money power preys on the nation in times of peace, and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces, as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw light upon its crimes.

    Abraham Lincoln

    A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world – no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men .

    Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

    Woodrow Wilson – In The New Freedom (1913)

    The fact is that there is a serious danger of this country becoming a pluto-democracy; that is, a sham republic with the real government in the hands of a small clique of enormously wealth men, who speak through their money, and whose influence, even today, radiates to every corner of the United States.

    William McAdoo – President Wilson's national campaign vice-chairman, wrote in Crowded Years (1974)

    When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

    Frederic Bastiat – (1801-1850) in Economic Sophisms

    The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.

    Prof. Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope

    In a small Swiss city sits an international organization so obscure and secretive .Control of the institution, the Bank for International Settlements, lies with some of the world's most powerful and least visible men: the heads of 32 central banks, officials able to shift billions of dollars and alter the course of economies at the stroke of a pen.

    Keith Bradsher of the New York Times, August 5, 1995

    The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank for International Settlements .The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe and America, setting up a world financial power independent of and above the Government of the United States .The United States under present conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming and importing nation with a balance of trade against it.

    Rep. Louis McFadden – Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency quoted in the New York Times (June 1930)

    backwardsevolution , January 1, 2017 at 9:53 pm

    CitizenOne – great post!

    D5-5 , January 1, 2017 at 3:18 pm

    Thank you for this excellent analysis. Particularly disturbing to me is the success of the propaganda in places I wouldn't expect it, as with Democracy Now, and my neighbors, who seem decent, intelligent people, but entirely done in by the false impressions. I have the feeling the critical views expressed here and in this excellent Consortium site, plus similar sites, represent a small minority of the American public? Or is an awakening in progress causing this newest repressive move, a growing skepticism threatening "national security"? I did read a comment somewhere that fifty percent of the American public is not taken in by the current Russia blaming, but I don't know if this is true.

    junius , January 2, 2017 at 12:38 pm

    How about Rolling Stone's October article praising Hillary Clinton as a champion of feminism? I just cancelled my subscription to the New Yorker because the quality of its great cartoons no longer outweighs the ugly rightward shift in its editorial policy.

    We seem to be witnessing the completion of the project begun a century ago this year, in 1917, with the establishment of the Committee on Public Information. Also known as the Creel Commission, it was the government agency tasked with convincing the American people that it was a good idea to support one faction in Europe's Great War and to take arms against the other. As laughably naive as that propaganda effort seems now, it was the beginning of the end of independent journalism, which in truth had always been on shaky ground in this country. The Founders were among the most cynical of men. It's not hard to picture them laughing in their sleeves over the farcical First Amendment for well they knew from colonial experience that the "freedom" to publish belongs only to those who can afford the price of a printing press, ink, and paper, and who, most importantly, curry favor from government and business. It remains to be seen what effect the internet will have – and how easily it can be silenced

    Bill Cash , January 1, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale. As Bernie said, he's a pathological liar.

    Whatever benefits Trump determines what he will say. Look under the covers and you find Steve Bannon who runs the trump campaign. If you think the propaganda is bad now, wait until he's in control.

    Trump isn't the answer and we need his tax returns. I can see him creating an alliance with Putin and undermining Western Europe.

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:49 pm

    I'm well aware of the propaganda from our government but if you believe it will be better under Trump, you are living in a fairy tale.

    Bill Cash: I'm with you on this point, but your reasoning above in other posts was very sloppy making facts out of speculation. Speculation, even if it is plausible, does not qualify as fact. I also agree with other commentators suggesting Trump will probably make Obama look good despite negative opinions of Obama.

    Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 4:23 pm

    How would creating an alliance with Putin undermine western Europe? You are right that I don't know much about you, but I am with Bill Bodden that you are guilty of shoddy reasoning. As for Global warming, I am sure that it is a serious problem. But Hillary's foreign policy would have had me concerned about nuclear winter. And Hillary is a pathological liar who thinks only of herself and talks out both sides of her mouth. And she is a slave to the deep state and wall street. I think you are dead right about Trump's character, but I think you may be underestimating much of the horrors of the Clintons. How about foreign alliances via the Clinton Foundation- it's pay to play scenario, and the possible impacts on foreign policy? Look at the utter mayhem in the Middle East and the refugee crisis in Europe. Hillary would have promised us more of the same as president.

    I was a Bernie supporter as well, but he lost me when he gave up the fight.

    Jessejean , January 2, 2017 at 1:20 am

    Skip–Bernie didn't give up the fight. He did what he had promised to do and supported the nominee. In other words, he kept his word, even tho it clearly cost him. You abandoned him when the fight became tough, when it wasn't so glamorous, when it shifted over to the hard slog of grassroots organizing and door to door work for some school board member–you know, the kind of work Stokley Charmicheal did for years to help build the Panthers. Don't blame Bernie for your lacking of true heart. It's you.

    Skip Scott , January 2, 2017 at 9:00 am

    When Bernie discovered proof thru wikileaks that the DNC was actively working against him, he should have fought for the nomination at the convention, instead of caving to all the corruption (super delegates, etc etc.) If he had failed there, he could have topped the green party ticket with Jill Stein to run as VP. Then he would have succeeded in blowing up the entirely corrupt two party system, if nothing else. He would have had the 15% to make the national debates. He may have even won. Where was the slog of grassroots organizing after he quit the fight? It's come to naught. I had the true heart to stay with him if he hadn't caved. Bernie even supported some faux democrats against genuine
    progressive greens in down ballot races. This is not a game, it's real life. It is time for people to stand strong for the issues they care about.

    Brad Owen , January 2, 2017 at 10:44 am

    I agree Skip. Bernie was the man of the hour. He had the perfect tool to smash the two-party/Wall Street/deep state Establishment: millions of independent citizen donors. Then he threw it all away to actively campaign for the queen of chaos and the Establishment War Party. I was so disgusted and mad that I went Green and never looked back. I now donate 10$ a month, every month, to the Greens hoping to see recreated the Tool that Bernie threw away (and still trying to lasso to the D-side of the Establishment War Party): millions of independent citizens donating 10$ or 20$ a month to the Green Party to build up a war chest to challenge both wings of the Establishment War Party.

    Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 6:59 pm

    Certainly Trump should not be trusted, among the two very bad (in my view) candidates, I considered Trump the greated evil for domestic US policy, but probably the lesser evil in foreign policy compared to Hillary Clinton's more aggressive neocon policies.

    In what ways should a good collaboration of Trump and Putin undermine Western Europe? According to surveys (e.g. http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/13/europeans-see-isis-climate-change-as-most-serious-threats/epw-russia-china-u-s-threats-web-version/ ), apart from Poland, relatively few Europeans see Russia as a big threat, and in many countries, US power and influence is actually seen as a similar or even bigger threat than Russia.

    I think the demonization of Russia and the presentation of the Russian government as a big threat also has to do with the goal of keeping a strong US influence in Western Europe – and for supporting the influence of US-linked European interest groups. But I doubt that this is going to work. It might work on the US public, but apart from Poland and the Baltic states, demonizing Russia is much more difficult in Europe, and the percentage of people who know more about the conflicts in which Russia is involved than the simplified depictions that are popular in the US is probably much bigger.

    John P , January 1, 2017 at 7:05 pm

    In support Bill, see:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/putin-trump-obama-russia-us-new-cold-war-two-diplomacy-editorial-a7502631.html

    James lake , January 1, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    You do realise who owns that news paper you are quoting. It's owned by the Ledbedev family who are oligarchs in the fine tradition. Stole money ran to the west claiming persecution by Putin. It's an anti Putin paper. They are purely online now as the print version of the paper ceased to make a profit.

    The only writers worth reading are Robert Fisk and Patrick Cockburn

    Kalen , January 1, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    Just a note for DN lovers. Since before 2008 the Pacifica Fundation running DN was taken over by Goldman Sachs. Many local stations rebelled and were cut off from money, forcing them into turmoil and like KPFA and KPFK throwed the management off, cut the fat and went fully listener funded. All that while GS bought Amy Goodman a new TV studio with audience who after the show for $2000 had a chance to go to dinner with Amy.

    All in the midst of 2008 ensuing collapse. When DN subsequently ignored Puerto Rico general strike and a quarter million street demonstration. I stopped watching and listening DN on radio after 15 years.

    I guess they are not doing better now.

    ger , January 1, 2017 at 3:24 pm

    The Police State requires each person to believe their lies. Paraphrasing a comment attributed to a former CIA operative: "When the only narrative available is ours, we will have done our job". The problem for the Police State is even if there is only one person left to speak truth to their lies. that truth will need to be snuffed out. It will take a lot more than $160,000,000.

    Tristan , January 1, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    This article does well to point out the impending doom of our intellectual discourse regarding the nature of the U.S. gov't and its relationship with the citizenry. Already the citizens of the U.S. are more commonly referred to as consumers, thus it follows that the more equal of the equal should control what the consumers are fed.

    The dystopian nature of free market globalized capitalism is now finding, or is near to, the apex of what capitalism unfettered can accomplish. Resulting in the frantic "marketing" that this form of capitalism relies on to "sell" itself as the only way to survive this ugly planet. War is the product, propaganda is the marketing, we fools, consumers, are forced to buy the product from afar and those who receive the product pay a price that no human ought to bear.

    Since we must recognize the complete corruption of such a condition, those that wish to continue to profit from this are forced to act in ways which protect this profit. If this includes an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, as the CFPDA intends, then that's the remedy that is needed because profit, you know, money, power, ad nauseum. That's it. If there were some greater underpinning to the destruction of whole societies and nations and regions that made some sense in the fabric of improving the well being of the planet's humans, perhaps we could accede to the years of long sacrifice and struggle. But no, this is only about wealth and the accumulation of power that this now provides in our modern world.

    The narratives which counter the prevailing religion in the West, the religion of Capitalism unfettered and rapacious, are not given voice. Many don't even understand that there a different ways of organizing a society or a nation that serves the need and well being of its citizens.

    This bullshit machine being funded by "our own" government is ensuring just that, that people are not even provided an opportunity to discuss an alternative to the present state of things. Try not to buy the products that this machine produces, as even if we dream of something else, this too is contrary to the designs of the machine. Next is the Ministry of Thought, or perhaps it was first. And the Ministry of Truth is just now only the second to appear manifest.

    Brian , January 1, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)

    It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984.

    https://youtu.be/A7_kD2D-eaU

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 3:55 pm

    John McCain has long been recognized as a warmonger eager to attack foreign nations. Many Americans will be surprised to learn he is now waging war on the American people. Many other Americans won't have a clue of what this bill means – or even of its existence.

    Liam , January 1, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    Regarding all the major propaganda narrative relating to the Syrian War, I put together a massive compendium of photos, videos and linked evidence related to the White Helmets and other ruses. Links here:

    Extensive links to important JPR posts exposing the White Helmet terrorists .

    Please bookmark and save this large amount of info related to the US/UK backed White Helmets as it is extensive proof that the officials of the aforementioned countries are supporting a fake group that is directly linked to terrorism. The White Helmets killed the real Syrian Civil Defense in east Aleppo, Syria in 2013. The videos and research throughout these posts, which is primarily conducted by UK investigative reporting outfit 21st Century Wire and Venessa Beeley, exposes one of the greatest war lies over told, a massive propaganda effort meant to deceive and coerce the populations of western countries into believing that al-Qaeda linked terrorists are civil humanitarians that save little children.

    Bob Van Noy , January 2, 2017 at 3:31 pm

    Thank you Liam, wonderful

    J'hon Doe II , January 1, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    depth of depraved indifference revealed in the below regarding the US hired interrogator of the captured Saddam.

    the segment ought to inform you of critical justice. And Truth.

    https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/part_2_cia_interrogator_reveals_saddam

    Michael Rohde , January 1, 2017 at 4:58 pm

    So we have our own Pravda now. Way to go obama. I voted for him twice and this is how he leaves us? Not the ending I envisaged.

    Skip Scott , January 1, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    I voted for Obama twice as well. I believe in both those cases, he was the lesser of two evils. McCain knows of no problem that sufficient bombing can't fix, and Romney thought the entire American public should become vulture capitalists like himself. Who knows what kind of pressure Obama was under from the deep state. They may well have taken him to the woodshed and told him what he needed to do if he loved living, and loved his wife and daughters.

    Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 2:34 am

    Michael, Skip, don't beat yourself so up to bad, it wasn't as though our choices of candidates are ever that good. I blame that on a money driven media system, and a public controlled by a constant narravative void of any critical thinking. This past years election was nothing but immature on zingers and never about having an intelligent debate. So, don't be to hard on yourself, you and I never stood a chance with what we had, or rather didn't have to work with. Our candidate never runs nor do they win. Have a great New Years, I mean that.

    F. G. Sanford , January 1, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    "Defeated Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton voiced strong support for the bill: "It's imperative that leaders in both the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy, and innocent lives.""

    "Facilitate the use of a wide range of technologies and techniques by sharing expertise among Federal departments and agencies, seeking expertise from external sources, and implementing best practices."

    " the U.S. government's new "Global Engagement Center" will seek to ensure that the censorship is even more complete with its goal to "counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation.""

    So Hillary supports the bill, but people still think she's a progressive, let alone a Democrat? This should solidify the concept that both parties are beholden to a deeper agenda which has decidedly fascist overtones. When they implement those "best practices", I wonder where book-burning and smashing printing presses will shake out in that "wide range of techniques". I can already imagine where they'll go to get that "external expertise". Probably the same place where they're currently getting "expert training" for our police forces.

    These developments contain hallmarks of an empire in decline, clutching at any figment of its imagination to control the narrative and retain its legitimacy. But on the bright side, I'm curious to know how far $160 million could really go to prop up failing entities like the NYT, WaPo, CNN and MSNBC. Wolf Blitzer, Christianne Amanpour, Jill Dogherty, Rachel Maddow, Jake Tapper, Michael Smerconish, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Ben Wedeman, John King, Gloria Borger and Dana Bash are just a few of the faces that can make me instantly change the channel. I used to think Phyllis Bennis, Amy Goodman and Paul Jay were on the level, but they too frequently pull their punches when the truth REALLY needs to be told. Fox news is just totally hopeless. Most of these people are shameless liars, and I don't think I'm the only person who notices. They have "phony" written all over their faces. In the end, free market economics may go a long way to hamper any benefit a mere $160 million transfusion can pump into the dying corpse of mainstream media. And, if they try to shut down Black Agenda Report, I wonder whose side the ACLU will pick? Lots of Ph.D theses and Supreme Court cases are on the horizon from this one! It's still pretty hard to sell a horse with a wooden leg even with skillful marketing.

    In the meantime though, the U.S. Government's "Goebbels Engagement Center" is definitely a scary thought. Giddayup, Nellybell, here comes the lynch mob!

    Regina Schulte , January 1, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    The enormity of our government's hypocrisy in all of this defies a sane person's ability to comprehend the current stance we are now placing before the rest of the world. The long list of our spying, regime changes, executions, unwarranted secret operations, destruction of national economies, and the myriad of ongoing other secrecies is a measure of our hubris in thinking that the rest of the world is our oyster. Despite all of our own sins, we dare to accuse other leaders of invading our empirical rights!!!

    Josh Stern , January 1, 2017 at 5:34 pm

    It would be very interesting to learn more about some of the main mechanisms through which current day US propaganda is scheduled to lead, with nothing bleeding – or even interesting – at mainstream media outlets. Are those decisions coming from the executive editors or from the media owners? I'm not going to hold my breath for the media to report on itself in that capacity, but perhaps some investigative journalists on those staffs will put their anonymously sourced mouths where their sourced mouths usually go and act as informants to allow independent reporters to get the scoop on how this works. Who at NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. decided to make no true evidence, probably a false story, missing the big picture, no-harm Russian hacking a main story almost every day, giving support fir bloviating idiots in US Congress to declare that Russia must be punished for the things they have previously declared "every nation does".

    Gary Hare , January 1, 2017 at 5:45 pm

    It is quite possible that MSM is sometimes accurate in its reporting, and objective in its analysis. But it has been shown too often to be purveyors of pure propaganda, ignorant of facts that counter such propaganda and cheerleaders for US/NATO aggression, that it has lost all credibility, and so we must question virtually everything it says regarding world affairs. The actions of lawmakers regarding "fake news", and the Obama, Clinton, DMC "we woz robbed" by Putin storyline, is kindergarden stuff, farcical and petulant, and should be treated as such by objective journalists.
    Will Trump be any better? I believe there is reason to expect he and his administration to be even worse, but I wait in hope that I am wrong. The world's only "superpower" has become the world's leading laughing stock. Are there any grown-ups in US/NATO politics?

    F. G. Sanford , January 1, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    I just gotta say something about that "love fest for Trump" comment. Here's how I see it. Trump says stuff, and it may not be true. But he really believes it. Hillary tells lies, but she knows she's lying. She tells them anyway, and insists they're true. I don't have anything but hope. Deep down, I'm relatively optimistic. Hillary's lies could start WWIII. Trump's blustering probably wont. If there's even a shred of a chance he'll listen to reason, he has the coglioni to make some needed changes. Hillary was the puppet. Trump, admittedly, is a bull in a china shop, but with him, I think we still have a future. And, it could be a very bright one if he plays his cards right. It's that simple.

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 6:31 pm

    The War Against Alternative Information

    In a war there are two sides – the aggressors and their targets.

    There are two sides to the targets – those who surrender and collaborate and those who resist to defend their homeland.

    Pick a side.

    W Hajicek , January 1, 2017 at 6:43 pm

    Seriously? Defending Mideast dictatorships because things were orderly?

    I am dismayed at the prospect of more propaganda coming from the government. However, a more pertinent and enlightening critique of this development would be to inform readers of the history of our government's use of propaganda, and how this new funding, etc., impacts what the government is already doing. That is wholly missing from this article. Instead there is an inexplicable defense of authoritarian regimes, in particular going on for paragraph after paragraph about Syria.

    And what was your point? Are you actually just debating recent U.S. focus on regime change, a la Bush? I don't agree with that, but I wouldn't defend Assad or Putin, nor dismiss their use of propaganda.

    Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 7:44 pm

    Who claims that everything was alright in the dictatorships like Iraq and Libya? It is just very likely that there would have been much less violence and suffering if these governments had not been toppled by force. Claiming that there were allegedly good intentions certainly does not justify the suffering and violence that was caused by these interventions.

    Likewise, of course, those who arm and finance jihadist militias in Syria can claim that their goal is improving the human rights situation. But is there any credibility of the claim that human rights will improve when the Syrian government is toppled and Islamist extremist groups like the Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda), Al Zenki and Ashrar Al Sham take power in the parts of Syria that are not already under the control of Daesh? Or should we believe some fairytales like that, after taking power in Syria, Wahhabi militias would step aside and hand over power to some liberal pro-democratic intellectual who had been in exile? The point is that it is certainly not good enough to point out human rights violations of the Assad government to justify policies that would, if they were successful, probably bring to power forces that have even less respect for human rights.

    Furthermore, if the fact that the government of a country can be called a dictatorship should be a sufficient reason for overthrowing it (whichever forces come to power afterwards), what should be the criteria? After all, dictatorships are not really rare in many parts of the world, especially the Middle East. Why has the US turned on one secular dictatorship after the other, but never attacked theocratic Sunni regimes like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states that have an abysmal human rights record? Obviously, the criteria are not based on whether a government is an autocracy or how much it violates human rights, but something else (probably some geostrategic interests).

    I think the main points of criticism of the idea that the fact that a government is autocratic gives an outside country like the US the right to topple it are:

    1. "Humanitarian" justifications of interventions are worthless when they are likely to lead to more violence and suffering than if the intervention had not been made.

    2. Toppling a dictator in a country without a long democratic tradition is not likely to lead to a functioning democracy afterwards. In Western countries, democracy has also taken a long time to develop, it can hardly be brought about by some bombs. In many cases, toppling a dictator either leads to long-term armed fights between competing groups and/or a new dictatorship sooner or later.

    3. When we look at autocracies that were toppled and others that were not toppled by the US, it is hardly plausible that the criterion was how autocratic the government was, how much it violated human rights or how low the standard of living was. Since the "humanitarian" arguments are not the real criteria for the decision about which autocracy should be attacked (otherwise, it would be hard to explain why, for instance, Saudi Arabia has not been attacked), it would make more sense to discuss the real reasons for the attacks, whatever they are, than the justifications that are brought forward when the decision to topple a country has been taken.

    4. If the idea of the illegality of wars of aggression in international law (except extraordinary circumstances authorized by the UN Security Council) is given up, this could lead to dangerous wars in many regions. Which countries should have the right to attack countries that are determined to be autocracies by the attacker? Would the US tolerate it if India or Russia decided to topple pro-Western autocracies that violate himan rights (e.g. Saudi Arabia)?

    Sam F , January 1, 2017 at 8:49 pm

    Yes, the same US propaganda reasoning applied to the US oligarchy, which is a set of autocrats, would require that the US use subversion and military force to remove the Republicans, Democrats, warmongers, AIPAC, imperialist financiers etc..

    Starting with drone attacks on mass media, party operatives, bank HQ etc. Then some "shock and awe" and an invasion to subdue its military forces, greeted by the people of the US dancing in the streets. Then denial of employment to all who worked for the US regime, followed by founding a true democracy where money does not buy mass media or elections.

    Something tells me that the dark state will not reach that conclusion. So I guess that democracy was never the objective of regime change by the US.

    Blahblahblah , January 1, 2017 at 9:48 pm

    Judging by your name, you have Czech origin. Why are you supporting democracy all over the world from the U.S.? Shouldn' t you be saving the Czech Reublic from bad Zeman? There's no communism there anymore

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 10:56 pm

    One of the problems with regime change whether practices by an outside agency such as the United States and Iraq, Libya, etc. or through an internal revolution is the risk of the cure being worse than the disease.

    Oleg , January 1, 2017 at 8:23 pm

    It is funny and indeed troubling that the US is busy copycatting the practices of the recent foe that went down exactly because these practices were grossly inefficient. I of course mean the Cold War 1.0 and the former Soviet Union. I remember listening to Voice of America in my youth in search for truth. I never imagined that only a few years later during my lifetime Americans will be looking for truth in Russian news outlets and the US will create "the Global Engagement Center – to protect the American people from "foreign propaganda and disinformation." In fact, resorting to such practices is a huge sign of weakness and decline. It is a pity really that the US are getting that weak that fast. I am not really pro-American but I still remember things that America used to champion around the world (yes, the Freedom of Speech too!), and we all still need these things as much as ever. Too bad they are under threat in the US themselves now. Hopefully Trump will indeed be able to make America great again and stop all this nonsense.

    Blahblahblah , January 1, 2017 at 9:46 pm

    What is most sad is that many American rally for this "the Global Engagement Center". See Bill Cash here.
    I see it the same way you do, sinc eI was also born in the USSR.

    Joe Tedesky , January 1, 2017 at 10:33 pm

    Oleg read this link I'm providing, and see if you feel as does the Russian who wrote this magnificent article .

    https://slavyangrad.org/2014/09/24/the-russia-they-lost/

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 11:05 pm

    Great link, Joe. Thank you for sharing.

    John , January 1, 2017 at 8:36 pm

    these are just semi clever diversions leading the average away from the Prime Agenda ..Lol ..ask Merkel she knows

    Adrian Engler , January 1, 2017 at 8:46 pm

    What I find scary is how much the dominance of the propaganda discourse has increased. Before the Iraq war, there was widespread dissent, and in most of Europe, support for the war was a minority position. But in the case of Libya and, even more Syria, dissent is tolerated less and almost all media strictly follow the official propaganda line. I find this even more striking because, after all, this is a position that should be rather hard to sell to the public. One should think that it should not be so easy to spread the idea that mostly jihadist militias that were (and mostly still are) allied with Al Qaeda are the good guys that should be supported with money and arms. That even such a difficult position could reach such a dominant position in the Western media discourse shows how effective the propaganda is. I am beginning to think that if the line that Sweden is the biggest threat to world peace was spread, people would sign petitions on change.org for finally occupying Sweden, and there would be talking points about the inaction of the US president because Sweden still has not been occupied by US troops although everyone recognizes that it is an enormous threat to humanity. I am probably exaggerating a bit, but if the relevant interest groups are successful in making many people believe that anyone who does not support jihadist allies of Al Qaeda who behead "traitors" and bombing anti-air defences all over the country is heartless towards Syrians, there are probably many other things that seem absurd and extreme now that could be promoted in a way that soon anyone who does not agree with it is depicted as a bad person.

    I find the role of Snopes particularly worrying. Of course, I cannot judge whether everything Eva Bartlett says is true. But her reports are detailed and connected to evidence, while the Snopes texts that dismiss her are written in a sloppy and superficial way. This would not be a problem if Snopes was just one more website where a point of view is expressed (accidentally or not so accidentally one that is very close to the position of the US government). But since it is planned that Snopes should be one of the arbiters with a higher authority that should decide what is true and what is not, this is worrysome. It is not too hard to predict that Snopes would hardly ever flag articles from the Washington Post or the New York Times that are close to the US government as "disputed" even if they are speculative and based on flimsy evidence, but other texts contradicting them will probably regularly be flagged as "disputed". The only question is whether this will be effective or if people will just ignore the "disputed" flags if they are biased in a way that is too obvious (which also means that the flags would be ineffective against real fake news) and, if Facebook starts hiding such "disputed" stories, just move over to other networks.

    Oleg , January 1, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    Regarding Sweden and propaganda: Wag the Dog. 1997 movie. All said then. Sadly, still more true than ever.

    Stefan , January 1, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    Democracy Later is more dangerous than the other big propaganda organs.

    While the latter ones require very little scrutiny by the observant to recognize as the warmongers that they are

    the former (democracy now[sic] ) tries to lure the the careful reader and critic into its well crafted trap of deception – to gather your trust where it matters the least, and couches it's warmongering where it matters the most, most recently in regards to Syria.

    Kent , January 2, 2017 at 11:33 am

    Stefan,

    'Democracy Later' I like that.

    Look at DN's funding structure it's not hard to figure out.

    http://www.newsofinterest.tv/_sam_noitv/politics/media_issues/bias/left_gatekeepers_smaller.jpg

    Eddie , January 2, 2017 at 2:19 pm

    Kent – The link to a supposed 'flow chart' looks suspicious, since there's no links/attributions to sources, and the 'newsofinteterest' website (apparently inactive for ~5 yrs?) didn't appear to be particularly credible in my experience (ie; links to 911 truthers, Laetrile cancer proponents, etc). And to regard Noam Chomsky's political views as somehow significantly influenced by corporate money/government coercion (as the diagram does at the bottom) is laughable - the guy has been a strong, vocal, prolific critic of US imperialism, condemning it since the c1960.

    Decades ago he stopped paying a portion of his taxes as a protest against military spending, and subsequently has had his wages garnished by the government. While I don't necessarily agree with all of Chomsky's prescriptions of what to do (e.g.; his judgement that it was best to vote for HC), his descriptions of what HAS happened have been accurate, nuanced, and documented.

    David F., N.A. , January 1, 2017 at 10:49 pm

    This says it all:

    But the U.S. government's near total control of the message doesn't appear to be enough. Apparently even a few voices of dissent are a few voices too many.

    The illusions of "freedom" hates us for our First Amendment. Isn't this the true premise behind our bought-and-paid-for government's multinational oligarchs' enactment of all these new Patriot Acts (NDAAs and other laws)?

    For over a year and a half prior to the election several liberal websites started mimicking the msm with their Trump bashing. To me, all these bashings were backhanded endorsements for Clinton. I swear, most, if not all, of the liberal topics, talking points and phrases were exactly identical to the msm's. As apparent as it was this election, this showed that the bluedogs in-charge had been influencing the liberals for quite some time. This is probably why the duopoly issue wasn't strongly addressed back when Nader spoiled Gore's chances in 2000 (hold on, hold on, I have a legitimate excuse: a foundation paid me to say that).

    Bill Bodden , January 1, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    Obama did promise hope and change, but it is highly unlikely anyone outside the neocon and proto-fascist cabals hoped for this change setting up a Ministry of Truth. What a legacy!!!

    Elizabeth Hanson , January 2, 2017 at 12:14 am

    What a great essay. Thank you to the writer. So many links to explore. I agree wholeheartedly in the analysis. I wrote a very simple essay for my own website which comes to the same conclusions. I include a list of headlines from main stream media regarding the "Russian hacking" and then the headlines from independent media. It was quite stark. Someone is lying.

    https://turningpointnews.org/exposing-political-corruption/why-we-need-independent-media

    Keep up the great work Consortium news!

    Joe Tedesky , January 2, 2017 at 2:16 am

    I agree Elizabeth we do need Independent Media. I wish our news was more International Independent, and I think that maybe coming. I see people posting comments on this site from International Countries, so it's already happening. I read some foreign sites myself, but I hope that if allowed to continue that this average person may be able to interact with other peoples of the world, and make some sense of all of this. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but a person can dream can't they?

    This 2017 New Years Americans are permitted to blame Vladimir Putin for they're getting obnoxiously drunk while bringing in the New Year with a couple a bottles of Stolichnaya .this maybe void in Vermont, considering.

    This Russian hacking scare is scaring some Americans for real, and that ain't good, because with the hysteria comes the loss of more freedoms. Each episode of terror or security related troubled matters comes America's way, means the end of a Right. Our grandchildren of this new century will assume there always was a Homeland Security, because it's always been there as long as they can remember. The most pathetic part of all of this is that it all began to be set in motion over Hillary's loss. I'll end it here, but your essay was spot on and intelligent on top of that.

    Brian , January 2, 2017 at 9:37 am

    "Who controls the issuance of money controls the government!" Nathan Meyer Rothschild

    June 13, 2016 Which Corporations Control The World?

    A surprisingly small number of corporations control massive global market shares. How many of the brands below do you use?

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44864.htm

    jo6pac , January 2, 2017 at 11:51 am

    Then there's this.

    http://variety.com/2016/film/news/george-clooney-white-helmets-rescuers-syria-1201945608/

    The great noise machine never sleeps.

    Zachary Smith , January 2, 2017 at 1:09 pm

    I just ran into a little essay which suggests to me that The War Against Alternative Information is actually one of many campaigns in a much larger conflict. Regarding the link, the author is somebody I've never heard of, and I hope and pray he doesn't turn out to be a neo-nazi or some similar kind of nut.

    Trump sensing Obama's resort to violent retaliation against Russia, and the likelihood he would turn the gun to 'Putin's accomplice', the President-elect decided to take precautionary measures, he replaced Obama's secret service by his private security guards.

    ... ... ...
    There is little doubt that the murder of the Russian Ambassador will be the beginning of a cycle of violent assassinations. It is certain that Putin and Trump will take the appropriate defensive measures.

    I don't follow Roman Catholic affairs, but last I heard the current Pope hadn't moved into the Vatican. It's my opinion that's the only reason the man is still alive. Still an opinion, but his hyper-caution is something other people ought to imitate.

    http://www ..unz.com/jpetras/portrait-of-an-assassin-obamas-revenge/

    Brian , January 2, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Jan 1, 2017 2017: TRUTH RISING - Melissa & Aaron Dykes

    Aaron and Melissa Dykes are truth researchers, truth journalists and truth filmmakers. Their excellent website Truthstreammedia com and You Tube channel by the same name are two must visit destination for anyone who wants to be informed about the REAL issues we face. Truthstreammedia is the antithesis to the "fake news" you'll get from CNN and mainstream media outlets.

    https://youtu.be/jFwyxR7oh3I

    Stephen , January 2, 2017 at 2:57 pm

    I believe the war criminals past and present are terrified that the sleeping masses might finally wake up. Therefore, they are attempting to shut down alternative voices, and continuing their propaganda via their corporate hand maidens.

    "There is overwhelming evidence that wars on a number of countries were planned. Yet, this evidence is censored and covered up by many of the so-called "searchers for truth," in the "investigative media." The TV "news" parrots propaganda daily and the "newspapers" do likewise "
    [read more at link below]
    http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/12/the-propaganda-peddlers-war-criminals.html

    [Jan 02, 2017] How George Soros Destroyed The Democratic Party

    Notable quotes:
    "... George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable, the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his fellow elitists. ..."
    "... Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist nationalist. ..."
    "... Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it. ..."
    "... They sold their souls for campaign dollars and look what it got them. lmfao. ..."
    "... I wouldn't give Soros that much credit. Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights. ..."
    "... The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties. ..."
    "... I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck 'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged Democrat Party ..."
    "... Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became increasingly subdued by identity politics. ..."
    "... It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy. Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism & ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable. ..."
    "... Neoliberals control by divide and conquer tactics. ..."
    "... I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society, and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings to mind the following quote, actually: ..."
    "... " Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. " - Hermann Goering ..."
    "... It makes one wonder what else neoliberals and the far-right might have in common beyond the mutual adoration for corporate welfare & racial hierarchy. ..."
    "... Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior". ..."
    "... And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski, Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. ..."
    "... yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" - G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014 ..."
    "... Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit. ..."
    "... The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and large. The same ist true for the republicans. ..."
    "... Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either. He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own personal enrichment no matter what. ..."
    "... His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people. ..."
    "... His only "principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not! ..."
    "... Soros did a great job helping Oblivio and Hillary obliterate the Democratic Party. ..."
    "... And nobody seems to discuss how Putin became Public Enemy Number One in the minds of the Dems after Russia put out a warrant on Soros. Coincidence? ..."
    "... Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious. ..."
    "... "They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon. They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are. ..."
    "... The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that was needed to complete the complete destruction. ..."
    "... I can think of no finer display of corrupt pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell. ..."
    "... Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same. ..."
    "... Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party. They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around. ..."
    "... Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. ..."
    "... The neoliberals needs demons as they don't have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies. ..."
    "... The Washington Post is now referred to as Bezos' Blog. Get with the program, man. ..."
    "... If Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens. ..."
    "... The neocons can easily move over to the Democratic Party. Some of them already are. The Democrats would welcome them. ..."
    "... Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war was bad for business. ..."
    "... Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor. ..."
    Jan 02, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by Daniel Greenfield via FrontPageMag.com,

    It was the end of the big year with three zeroes. The first X-Men movie had broken box office records. You couldn't set foot in a supermarket without listening to Brittney Spears caterwauling, "Oops, I Did It Again." And Republicans and Democrats had total control of both chambers of legislatures in the same amount of states. That was the way it was back in the distant days of the year 2000.

    In 2016, Republicans control both legislative chambers in 32 states. That's up from 16 in 2000.

    What happened to the big donkey? Among other things, the Democrats decided to sell their base and their soul to a very bad billionaire and they got a very bad deal for both.

    ... ... ...

    Obama's wins concealed the scale and scope of the disaster. Then the party woke up after Obama to realize that it had lost its old bases in the South and the Rust Belt. the neoliberals had hollowed it out and transformed it into a party of coastal urban elites, angry college crybullies and minority coalitions.

    Republicans control twice as many state legislative chambers as the Democrats. They boast 25 trifectas , controlling both legislative chambers and the governor's mansion. Trifectas had gone from being something that wasn't seen much outside of a few hard red states like Texas to covering much of the South, the Midwest and the West.

    The Democrats have a solid lock on the West Coast and a narrow corridor of the Northeast, and little else. The vast majority of the country's legislatures are in Republican hands. The Democrat Governor's Association has a membership in the teens. In former strongholds like Arkansas, Dems are going extinct. The party has gone from holding national legislative majorities to becoming a marginal movement.

    ... Much of this disaster had been funded with Soros money. Like many a theatrical villain, the old monster had been undone by his own hubris. Had Soros aided the Democrats without trying to control them, he would have gained a seat at the table in a national party. Instead he spent a fortune destroying the very thing he was trying to control.

    George Soros saw America in terms of its centers of economic and political power. He didn't care about the vast stretches of small towns and villages, of the more modest cities that he might fly over in his jet but never visit, and the people who lived in them. Like so many globalists who believe that borders shouldn't exist because the luxury hotels and airports they pass through are interchangeable, the parts of America that mattered to him were in the glittering left-wing bubble inhabited by his fellow elitists.

    Trump's victory, like Brexit, came because the neoliberals had left the white working class behind. Its vision of the future as glamorous multicultural city states was overturned in a single night. The idea that Soros had committed so much power and wealth to was of a struggle between populist nationalists and responsible internationalists. But, in a great irony, Bush was hardly the nationalist that Soros believed. Instead Soros spent a great deal of time and wealth to unintentionally elect a populist nationalist.

    ... ... ...

    Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it.

    "I don't believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," Soros complained of the Republican wave in 2010.

    But he has been trying to do just that. And failing.

    "There should be consequences for the outrageous statements and proposals that we've regularly heard from candidates Trump and Cruz," Soros threatened this time around. He predicted a Hillary landslide.

    He was wrong.

    ... ... ...

    The_Juggernaut -> Normalcy Bias , Jan 1, 2017 5:56 PM

    They sold their souls for campaign dollars and look what it got them. lmfao.
    AlaricBalth -> Croesus , Jan 1, 2017 6:31 PM
    Where is the outrage concerning Soros' attempted hack of the 2016 election?
    Perimetr -> AlaricBalth , Jan 1, 2017 6:34 PM
    I wouldn't give Soros that much credit. Sure, he helped, but face it, mainstream corporate media is now the Ministry of Truth. And both the Democrat and Republican elites have been working overtime in the last 16 years to dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    The Deplorables at least understand they have been betrayed by BOTH parties.

    Paul Kersey -> two hoots , Jan 1, 2017 7:11 PM
    I'm guessing that even without the billionaire polarizing meddler Soros, the limousine liberal group, made up of the crooked Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Washerwoman-Schitz, Chuck 'the fuck' Schumer and the Obamas, was more than enough to sink a very divided, primary election-rigged Democrat Party
    tazs -> For Ages We Shall Reign , Jan 1, 2017 9:17 PM
    Soros also financed the entire conflict with Russia.

    http://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-truth-about-the-c...

    weburke -> tazs , Jan 1, 2017 9:26 PM
    he is under the control of others

    also, the clinton group is and has been regular murderers.

    cheka -> weburke , Jan 1, 2017 10:04 PM
    a few decades ago the dims were viewed as the party of the working man

    they ditched the working man to court the various hate groups - nyc skype, gay, black, illegal, globalist warmers, etc

    apparently the hate groups don't have the time to vote their dim masters into office

    Eirik Magnus Larssen -> cheka , Jan 2, 2017 4:27 AM
    " they ditched the working man to court the various hate groups - nyc skype, gay, black, illegal, globalist warmers, etc "

    Inclusive politics are not at the root of the crisis which the center-left is now experiencing on both sides of the Atlantic. Neoliberalism is.

    Neoliberal lobbyists have successfully co-opted the policies & talking points of the center-left over the last two decades, and in so doing, poisoned progressive politics with a deep affinity for Wall Street, financialization, and free trade. Under neoliberalism, equality for all took a back seat to representational diversity within Western popular culture, redistribution was repurposed to include corporate welfare programs & taxpayer funded bail-outs for banks, and tolerance became increasingly subdued by identity politics.

    Today, we witness this phenomenon across all major center-left parties & their associated media pundits. A prominent example would be the vocal support that mainstream neoliberal outlets, such as the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and The Economist, are consistently offering to the Social Democratic parties & candidates. These neoliberal platforms take on a public profile of social radicalism on key social issues, while they relentlessly advocate for unfettered free trade and a form of laissez faire capitalism at the same time.

    It was the takeover by neoliberalism that heralded the beginning of the end for Social Democracy. Nothing else. The consequences of this neoliberal-sized myopia, stupidity & hubris include historically low levels of trust in public institutions, and a rapidly rising tide of right-wing populism & ethnic nationalism across the West. Neoliberal policy is responsible for the current state of affairs in our societies; ergo, its advocates & pundits are to be held accountable for such events as Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. This fully includes legally accountable.

    Paul Kersey -> Eirik Magnus Larssen , Jan 2, 2017 5:37 AM
    Erik, when haven't England and the US been governed by neoliberals? Neoliberals control by divide and conquer tactics. In the US, elections have always been rural vs city, young vs old, white vs non-white. Even when Obama won, he didn't win the white vote, the rural vote or the old vote. Brexit, too, was about young vs old, rural vs city and white vs non-white.

    In the big national elections, it comes down to which sides get out the vote. In the case of the Presidential election, the Democrats, who couldn't have picked a more entitled, crooked and repulsive candidate, just couldn't get out enough of their own vote out her. In the case of the Brexit election, it was the fear of the non-urban whites being over run by immigrants, that made the difference.

    Eirik Magnus Larssen -> fleur de lis , Jan 2, 2017 8:09 AM
    How much do your corporate sponsors pay for each attempt at disrupting public criticism of neoliberalism?
    Eirik Magnus Larssen -> fleur de lis , Jan 2, 2017 9:22 AM
    I make a salient point about the detrimental influence of neoliberal & corporate lobbying on society, and soon after a troll appears to try divert attention away from the class struggle, and channel it right back to identity politics and the scapegoating of ethnic/religious minorities. It brings to mind the following quote, actually:

    " Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacificsts for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. " - Hermann Goering

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%B6ring

    It makes one wonder what else neoliberals and the far-right might have in common beyond the mutual adoration for corporate welfare & racial hierarchy.

    Eirik Magnus Larssen -> fleur de lis , Jan 2, 2017 9:24 AM
    The irony is thick:

    1) https://www2.stetson.edu/library/green/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/prize_...

    2) https://intercontinentalcry.org/colonialism-genocide-and-gender-violence...

    Your corporate & neoliberal sponsors are the inheritors & beneficiaries of these " American legacies". And judging by the events of the 2008 financial crisis, they are far from being done with destroying the lives of people they somehow deem inherently "inferior".

    Perhaps the legacies of class warfare & racial hierarchy should end.

    Paul Kersey -> Eirik Magnus Larssen , Jan 2, 2017 10:10 AM
    EML, would it kill you to be a bit more balanced in your comments? You always end up with a rant about the "far-right" and "identity politics". Do you deny that the far left constantly disparages Jews and working class whites, who these leftists refer to as "white trash" and "trailer trash"?

    And, if you were to give any kind of balance to your comments, you'd refer to "leftists" like Brzezinski, Carter, Rubin, Billary Clinton, Summers and Jay Rockefeller as neoliberals. Try not being such a polarizing one-trick pony, or at least save yourself time by using the term, 'ditto' for your posts, since most of your posts appear to be redundant pleas for negative attention.

    Hermann Goering, please. Now you are resorting to Godwin's Law. How pathetic.

    Eirik Magnus Larssen -> shovelhead , Jan 2, 2017 9:40 AM
    "I would suggest, rather than a take-over by this shadowy "Neo-Liberals", that the facts are that normal people don't want to be associated with..."

    Are these the "normal people" you are referring to?

    https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/15/dakota-access-pipeline-fake-twitte...

    American Gorbachev -> cheka , Jan 2, 2017 8:40 AM
    yep, soros is finishing the job begun by Scoop Jackson and the DLC. "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties" - G. Wallace 1968. He was right then, even more correct in 2014

    in 2017 ??? time will tell

    JungleCat -> tazs , Jan 2, 2017 9:54 AM
    "...former Nazi collaborator" ??

    Please. He was 14 and a half when the Nazis surrendered in Budapest (where he lived). Soros may be pernicious, but drop this "Nazi collaborator" bullshit.

    fx -> For Ages We Shall Reign , Jan 2, 2017 4:02 AM
    The Dems a party of "radical leftists"?? Are you kidding me? they are a bunch of corrupt liars at every party level that has even a slight real influence on state or national policies, by and large. The same ist true for the republicans.

    Oh, and Soros is no leftist billionaire either. He is a globalist, elitist NWO world government crook who wants to enslave mankind for his own personal enrichment no matter what.

    His "open society" and "reflexivity" bullsh!t is just some empty talk and blabbering to fool and deceive people.

    He sold out his fellow jews to the Nazis back in the dark times of the 1930s/1940s; he virtually delivered them to the Nazio slaughterhouse and never ever regretted it. He is doing and always will do the same to everybody else.

    His only "principle" and "ideology" is "Soros first". he has more money than he can ever spend in his remaining life span, yet he still cannot grab enough $$. Leftist? Not!

    JRobby -> Paul Kersey , Jan 1, 2017 7:31 PM
    Soros did a great job helping Oblivio and Hillary obliterate the Democratic Party.

    Oblivio - Obliterate - Oblivion

    WestVillageIdiot -> JRobby , Jan 1, 2017 7:38 PM
    And nobody seems to discuss how Putin became Public Enemy Number One in the minds of the Dems after Russia put out a warrant on Soros. Coincidence?
    strannick -> WestVillageIdiot , Jan 1, 2017 7:42 PM
    Putin showed the world that you could aspire towards Christian nationhood, and take yourselves out from under the debt enslaved thumb of Zoinist Rothchild Bankers. For that he must be stopped.
    cheka -> strannick , Jan 1, 2017 10:05 PM
    if Russia would start taking 3rd world 'refugees' they could get back in skype good graces
    buttmint -> cheka , Jan 2, 2017 2:21 AM
    cheka...good point, you forgot the:

    /sarc

    strannick -> Paul Kersey , Jan 1, 2017 7:39 PM
    Dear Democrats;

    Next time, dont sell your soul to a very bad billionaire. Instead, listen to Putins Christmas speech

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-26/vladimir-putin%E2%80%99s-christ...

    OneEyedJack -> Perimetr , Jan 1, 2017 7:01 PM
    Soros was only part of the problem for the democrats, Mostly the blame falls on the ones that let it go into ruin. So blinded by the money, couldn't see the obvious.
    Amun -> Blankone , Jan 1, 2017 8:51 PM
    "They have financed both sides of every war since Napoleon. They own your news, the media, your oil and your government. Yet most of you don't even know who they are."

    http://www.infowars.com/mr-burns-declares-war/

    RiverRoad -> OneEyedJack , Jan 1, 2017 8:44 PM
    The Clinton Machine took them all down, riding over anything and anyone who got in their way.
    Theosebes Goodfellow -> Perimetr , Jan 2, 2017 12:19 AM
    ~"I wouldn't give Soros that much credit."~

    Actually, I find this post to be a very accurate summation of what the 2016 election turned out to be. It is true that it was not Soros alone who created the evil that was done, but he was the money bags behind it.

    The corrupt avarice of the Clintons and the Chicago Mafia were all that was needed to complete the complete destruction. What is disturbing is how incapable those whose guilt is writ in this fiasco are of coming to terms with their very own failures. All you see them do is try to blame others for their iniquities.

    I can think of no finer display of corrupt pettiness than how they have acted since the election. And to think they almost ended up running this country. It does appear as if the Fortunes shine upon us. Time will tell.

    greenskeeper carl -> AlaricBalth , Jan 1, 2017 6:57 PM
    Since it came from Soros, Its "good" influence. Its only bad when such things hurt democrats. Kinda like all the "russian hacking" nonsense. The neoliberals bitches and moans about foreign interference in our election, but their entire national strategy relies upon same.

    They import millions of foreigners who overwhelmingly vote democrat. They wouldn't stand a chance in a national election without a shitload of non americans voting. How exactly that isn't defined as 'foreign interference in our elections' is beyond me.

    Also funny how the democrat party has allowed itself to become the big money, corporate party. They rely on billionaire money to operate. All that money spend and they still couldn't get killery her crown. I never thought Id say this, but it looks like we all owe old georgie a big thank you for what he did. I doubt the germans would feel the same, but him destroying the neoliberals trying to remake it in his imagine did us a big favor this time around.

    New World Chaos -> greenskeeper carl , Jan 1, 2017 8:14 PM
    Also have to thank Soros for Black Lives Matter. When the revolution comes, there will be a bunch of cops on our side, and most of the angry nutbags who kill random cops will be black, which means there will be even more cops on our side.

    Within a few years maybe we will thank Soros for a fascist Europe and the giant enema which will follow. And the Farce will come full circle for this devil who got his start betraying his own people to the Nazis so he could steal their shit.

    Amun -> New World Chaos , Jan 1, 2017 9:01 PM
    "Zionists Sacrificed Jews to the Holocaust

    The word "Holocaust" is a Biblical term for "burnt sacrifice." Why refer to genocide as "a sacrifice"? - See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Zionists-Sacrificed-Jews-in-Holocaust...

    "Excerpts from Perfidy are printed below. We begin with Adolf Eichmann's testimonial to Kastner's activities, which Hecht quoted from "Eichmann's Confessions" published in the November 28 and December 5, 1960 editions of LIFE magazine.

    In Hungary my basic orders were to ship all the Jews out of Hungary in as short a time as possible. . . . In obedience to Himmler's directive, I now concentrated on negotiations with the Jewish political officials in Budapest . . . among them Dr. Rudolf Kastner, authorized representative of the Zionist Movement. This Dr. Kastner was a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation -- and even keep order in the collection camps -- if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine.

    It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price . . . was not too high for me ....We trusted each other perfectly. When he was with me, Kastner smoked cigarets as though he were in a coffeehouse. While we talked he would smoke one aromatic cigaret after another, taking them from a silver case and lighting them with a silver lighter. With his great polish and reserve he would have made an ideal Gestapo officer himself.Dr. Kastner's main concern was to make it possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel. . . .

    As a matter of fact, there was a very strong similarity between our attitudes in the S.S. and the viewpoint of these immensely idealistic Zionist leaders . . . . I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. . . . "You can have the others," he would say, "but let me have this group here." And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping to keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his group escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. . . . That was the "gentleman's agreement" I had with the Jews. (p.261) - See more at: https://www.henrymakow.com/2013/11/Zionists-Sacrificed-Jews-in-Holocaust...

    SoDamnMad -> Croesus , Jan 2, 2017 3:18 AM
    I would love for him to get "snatched" and dropped into the land of hackers. I am sure he would find the justice he deserves.

    I wonder why the Simon Weisenthal Center never went after him.

    Dennisen -> Normalcy Bias , Jan 1, 2017 5:57 PM
    Sadly, everyone has a price. And he has the checkbook.
    Oldwood -> Dennisen , Jan 1, 2017 6:31 PM
    And he ain't done yet. The question is...how desperate will they become?
    SWRichmond -> Oldwood , Jan 1, 2017 8:06 PM
    Everyone, especially politicians. Destroying political parties is the easiest thing on the world, as they are completely populated by greedy sociopaths. As long as they are getting rich they are "winning".
    Moe Hamhead -> NoWayJose , Jan 1, 2017 7:25 PM
    I think Obama deserves a share of the credit. And Hillary, yes, of course Hillary deserves to take a bow as well.

    And...., well Soros certainly was Executive Producer though.

    insanelysane -> dogfish , Jan 1, 2017 6:51 PM
    The Koch brothers stayed out of the fray as they do not like Trump. The neoliberals tried to make the Kochs a demon but no one was buying the bullshit. The neoliberals needs demons as they don't have an actual platform that is economically feasible. Unfettered immigrants coming in coupled with jobs leaving isn't sustainable. The old saying "we make it up in volume" applies.
    dexter_morgan -> VWAndy , Jan 1, 2017 8:05 PM
    Not this year really. They were not behind Trump, supported HRC if I am not mistaken, after Trump won the nomination.

    Thing about the Krotch brothers that is different from Soros is they try to influence thing to benefit themselves financially, not necessarily to destroy the country, where Soros is flat out anti traditional American values and US constitution. The constitution is the only thing that has kept us from being a full blown totalitarian state run by global government so far, so it has to be destroyed in his mind.

    I could be wrong, but don't think the Krotch brothers are out to destroy the constitution, just obscenely enrich themselves bordering on illegally.

    WestVillageIdiot -> uncle_disgusting , Jan 1, 2017 7:40 PM
    The Washington Post is now referred to as Bezos' Blog. Get with the program, man.
    Yog Soggoth -> Midas , Jan 1, 2017 6:49 PM
    Russians put the weeds in your lawn ... at night. Soros has always been a major problem for the entire world, and that is why the news will be very interesting this year, because everyone knows. Happy new year.
    stant , Jan 1, 2017 5:58 PM
    And now the Dems big donors want a audit of the 1.5 bill lost on the election. Looking at the carnage they won't be so generous in the future
    Jacksons Ghost , Jan 1, 2017 6:00 PM
    Hell has a special spot for this vermin, may he go there soon.
    chosen , Jan 1, 2017 6:01 PM
    Goodbye, Democratic Party. See you maybe in 16 years, but I doubt it. My guess is a different party will be formed to challenge the Republicans in 2032, and the Democrats will go the way of the Bull Moose Party, as in extinction.
    dexter_morgan -> chosen , Jan 1, 2017 7:58 PM
    The status of the national part of the Republican party seems a little up in the air to me. If Trump is moderately successful in draining the swamp I think that bodes poorly for the neocon warmongering old guard wing of the party. And that is a good thing if it happens.
    chosen -> dexter_morgan , Jan 1, 2017 9:13 PM
    The neocons can easily move over to the Democratic Party. Some of them already are. The Democrats would welcome them.
    dexter_morgan -> chosen , Jan 1, 2017 11:17 PM
    Actually, that is where they came from. Bill Kristol sr., Perle, etc. were democrats until democrats became the anti war party in the 60's of George McGovern, they couldn't abide with that so they moved to the republican party which was historically more isolationist and anti war, because war was bad for business.

    Then the self perpetuating MIC that Eisenhower warned of became ascendant and then war was even more of a racket than it always was. Their influence came to the fore with Bush Sr.

    Reagan had some in his administration, but he fired many or moved them out of positions of power when it came to his attention they were following their own agenda. And yet, he had enough to convince him of the Iran contra stuff.

    red1chief -> ILIKEMITTENS , Jan 1, 2017 7:02 PM
    Funny how you forgot the military-industrial complex, wall street, healthcare scam etc. That's where most of it goes, but they keep the sheeple blaming the poor.

    [Jan 02, 2017] Angela Merkel, Russia's Next Target by Jochen Bittner

    Looks like panic among German neocons. Merkel might lose, being wounded by refugees fiasco.
    www.nytimes.com

    Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ms. Merkel has been the most consequential voice for punishing Russia. The next year, she welcomed a million refugees into Germany, and pushed the rest of Europe to do the same - thus, in the view of Russian ethno-nationalists, diluting European culture. And she still believes in a united, integrated European Union, a bastion of liberal values and, at least implicitly, a political and economic bulwark against Russia.

    ... ... ...

    Here, we can draw valuable lessons from the Cold War. What Russia does today is very much the digital version of what we Germans, before 1989, termed "Zersetzung." The term is hard to translate, but it's best described as the political equivalent of what happens when you pour acid on organic material: dissolution and disintegration.

    The methods of Zersetzung are to cast doubt on the basic norms of the Western liberal order and its institutions; to distort and thereby discredit the purposes of the European Union, NATO and the free-market economy; to erode the credibility of the free press and free elections. The means of Zersetzung include character assassination and, through the spreading of lies and fake news, the creation of a gray zone of doubt in which facts struggle to survive.

    ... ... ...

    Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing opinion writer.

    [Jan 02, 2017] If There Really Was Evidence Of Russian Hacking, The NSA Would Have It Zero Hedge

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Submitted by David Spring via TurningPointNews.org,

    On December 29, 2016, the Hill posted an article discussing a 13 page report by the FBI and DHS claiming that their 13 page report was "evidence" of Russian hacking in US elections.
    http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

    Wikileaks has repeatedly stated that the source of its leaks was a disgruntled Democratic Party insider.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

    However, President Obama issued a press release on December 29 2016 using the DHS-FBI report to justify increasing sanctions against Russia.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/29/statement-president-actions-response-russian-malicious-cyber-activity

    I therefore decided to see what the evidence was of Russian involvement in US Elections. The Hill article linked to this 13 page government press release as its proof of Russian hacking.
    https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296.pdf

    The government press release written by DHS-FBI did not mention Wikileaks in its report. Nor did the report provide any evidence of Russian hacking in the US elections. Instead, the press release stated that "technical indicators" of Russian hacking were in the "CSV file and XML file attached with the PDF." However, there was no CSV or XML file or link attached with the PDF. I was eventually able to find these two files at this link.
    https://www.us-cert.gov/security-publications/GRIZZLY-STEPPE-Russian-Malicious-Cyber-Activity

    To see the evidence of Russian hacking first hand, I downloaded the CSV file and converted it into a spreadsheet. The CSV file and the XML file both contained the same data. Here is the XML link to this data which can be viewed online in a web browser.
    https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR-16-20296.xml

    Both files provide a list of 895 "indicators" of Russian Hacking. Unfortunately, nearly all of these indicators are simply IP addresses. In other words, it is a list of 895 servers from from more than 40 countries around the world. But the list also includes a few website domain names. (Domain names are simply the name of the website such as Youtube.com). I looked up these website domain names with the the following tool which tells us who owns the domain names and where they are located:
    https://www.whois.net/

    My review of these domain names confirmed that none of these domain names have any relationship to Russian government hackers. Here are the results for four of the domain names provided by the DHS and the FBI as evidence of Russian hacking:

    ritsoperrol.ru is not in use. It is registered to a private person. The named server hosting the domain is nserver: ns0.xtremeweb.de. This is a German web hosting and consulting company whose address and phone number are publicly listed on their website. It is highly unlikely that Russian hackers would use a public German web host to register and host their domain names.

    littlejohnwilhap.ru is not in use and is available to be purchased. It is unlikely that Russian hackers would use a domain name like this to launch a cyber attack on the US.

    wilcarobbe.com is taken and is not in use. It is registered to Arsen Ramanov in Groznenskaya Russia. His address, phone number and email address are all publicly listed. It is highly unlikely that Russian hackers would use a domain name that was publicly listed. Hackers are not idiots.

    one2shoppee.com is taken and is registered with GoDaddy.com. It is not currently in use. But it is highly unlikely that Russian Hackers would register their domain names with GoDaddy – which is a US server. In fact, it is very unlikely that Russian hackers would ever use any US servers. They would only use their own servers.

    How did these four domain names get on a list of Russian hackers? It is possible that some unknown agents took over these domain names and may have used them for some kind of hacking activity. However, the agents could have just as easily been from the US as from Russia. In fact, it is not likely that these domain names were taken over by Russian hackers for the simple reason that Russian hackers are way to smart to be using these silly tactics.

    None of the 885 IP addresses have any confirmed relationship to Russian Government Hackers

    An IP address is simply a numerical designation for a server. The 885 IP addresses listed in the DHS – FBI CSV file were even more interesting. The IP addresses were located on servers from the US and more than 40 nations around the world including more than 30 IP addresses supposedly located in China. Here are a few of the IP addresses

  • 167.114.35.70
  • 185.12.46.178
  • 46.102.152.132
  • 178.20.55.16
  • I looked up several of these IP addresses using the following tool:
    http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip-lookup

    Here are a four examples of IP addresses in the DHS-FBI report:

    167.114.35.70 is a Canadian Corporate server specializing in the promotion of Bitcoin. They are within a few miles of the US border.

    185.12.46.178 is a Swiss corporate server associated with the domain name leavesorus.com. The domain name leavesorus.com is currently available to be purchased. This indicates that this is a fake domain name and likely a fake corporation.

    46.102.152.132 is another Swiss corporate server this one specializing in emails and associated with the domain name maxsultan.xyz which is a fake domain name. This also indicates that this is another fake corporation.

    178.20.55.16 is a proxy server with no known location but has been used as a TOR router exit node. A proxy server is another name for a mirror or server used to bounce information from one server to another in order to hide the true location of the original server. This proxy server is associated with the domain name nos-oignons.net. This domain name was registered on December 31 2012 and is valid until December 31 2017. In other words, whoever got this domain name paid for its use for 5 years. But they did registered the domain name anonymously. The website associated with this server appears to be a group in France promoting the TOR router. They became an association in May 2013 – 5 months after getting the domain name. The group currently has 5 members and it costs one Euro to join this group. Their website was reported 9 days ago as having been infected with the Zues virus. This infection does not leave tracks on server logs. So it is difficult to tell where it came from. Removal of this virus requires a complete rebuild of the server. In short, some agency decided to take out this server and then use it to make a cyber attack on some US government agency and thus have the IP address listed on the DHS-FBI list as one of 895 indicators of Russian hacking.

    Many of the IP addresses yielded the same dead end or otherwise highly suspicious result - meaning that some very large agency is using hundreds of servers in various countries around the world as a front for hacking attacks. I recently researched a series of attacks on my personal websites from hundreds of IP addresses using hundreds of servers that were supposedly located in the Ukraine. I was able to confirm the exact location in the Ukraine that was supposedly being used to launch literally thousands of attacks on my websites. However, it is not credible that anyone in the Ukraine has the millions of dollars needed to be running hundreds of servers in a remote Ukrainian location. Nor is it likely that anyone in rural Ukraine would even have the knowledge to take care of hundreds of servers even if they did have the millions of dollars needed to plow into buying these servers. Nor are they likely to have the knowledge needed to be running very complex cyber attacks. Ukraine is just not a good location for servers. This experience convinced me that attacks were being launched from other locations and were merely being routed through Ukraine in order to mislead people about where the attacks were really coming from.

    Next, the CSV file provided by DHS-FBI listed the physical location of all 885 IP addresses. What is most ironic is that, only two of the 885 IP addresses were from servers in Russia. The most common location of the hacking servers was the United States. Over 30 of the servers were supposedly located in China. But it is known that the NSA has the ability to use satellite mirrors to hide the locations of their servers – making folks believe that the attacks are coming from China (or Ukraine or Mongolia) when in fact they are coming from servers located in the US.

    ... ... ...

    Actually, there were two Russian servers located on lines 259 and 261. Here are the IP addresses.

  • 93.171.203.244
  • 95.105.72.78
  • Here is more information about each of these:

    93.171.203.244 This is a clean broadband server located near Ufa which is a city in Russia with one million people. It is associated with an organization called Miragroup Ltd. The website is rxbrothers.ru. Naturally, this is a fake domain name which is available to be purchased. Miragroup is actually a corporation located in Great Britain.

    95.105.72.78 is another clean broadband server located near Ufa. The organization is JSC Ufanet and the website is ufanet.ru which is a public broadband service started in 1997. Someone apparently is using this broadband service to hack the US government. Could this be the smoking gun that the Russian government is attacking the US? Think about it. If you were a Russian hacker, would you really use a public server located in some Russian town? I don't think so. This is more like evidence that some hacker was using the local public library.

    Imagine someone launching a cyber attack from the Seattle Public library – and then our government declaring that they have evident that the mayor of the City of Seattle was responsible for the attack because "nothing happens in Seattle without the approval of the Mayor!". This is worse than a silly accusation. It is ridiculous. It is irresponsible.

    Real Russian Hackers do not use Windows Servers

    Only three of the servers provided in the DHS/FBI report included detailed information (despite the fact that the IP addresses provided information on all 895 servers and that DHS/FBI certainly have detailed information on all of the servers). All three servers listed in the report were Windows servers. It is highly unlikely that Russian hackers or Chinese hackers would be using Windows servers. Instead, all real hackers use Linux servers because Linux servers are much more secure than Windows servers.
    https://techlog360.com/top-15-favourite-operating-systems-of-hackers/

    If there really was evidence of Russian hacking, the NSA would have it

    Former NSA leader turned whistleblower William Binney recently stated that if the Russians really did hack the Democratic Party servers, the NSA would certainly have real evidence (not the nonsense put out in the DHS-FBI CSV file). Here is his quote from a December 29 2016 article by Glenn Greenwald: "The bottom line is that the NSA would know where and how any "hacked" emails from the DNC, HRC or any other servers were routed through the network. This process can sometimes require a closer look into the routing to sort out intermediate clients, but in the end sender and recipient can be traced across the network."
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/top-secret-snowden-document-reveals-what-the-nsa-knew-about-previous-russian-hacking/

    Edward Snowden has not only confirmed that the NSA has this ability – but that he himself used an NSA program called XKEYSCORE to monitor such attacks.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/07/26/russian-intelligence-hack-dnc-nsa-know-snowden-says/

    Anyone with any kind of technical background in defending against hacker attacks would understand that what Binney, Snowden and Greenwald are saying is true. The evidence of their truth – most of which was supplied by Snowden from NSA documents – is overwhelming.

    Conclusion

    An important research principle is to follow the money. People around the world need to ask themselves who has the money and technical ability to be running hundreds and perhaps thousands of real servers and real IP addresses from fake corporations using fake websites in fake locations in more than 40 nations around the world?

    What agency has already been proven to be running mass surveillance on billions of people in more than 40 nations all around the world? Whose military cyber budget is more than 10 times larger than the cyber warfare budget of the rest of the world combined? There is certainly an elephant in the room – but it is not a Russian elephant.

    At a televised press conference on April 2016, former NSA agent, Edward Snowden asked the Russian leader Vladimir Putin if the Russian government engaged in mass surveillance of millions of people in a manner similar to the NSA. Putin replied that Russian law prohibited the Russian government from engaging in mass surveillance. Putin then pointed out that the Russian military budget was less than 10% of the US military budget. So even if they wanted to engage in mass surveillance, they simply did not have the money.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/apr/17/snowden-putin-russia-surveillance-phone-in-video

    People also need to ask themselves why the FBI DHS chose to place their evidence in a CSV file and XML file rather than a normal document or spreadsheet. If this were real evidence, it would have been placed directly in the PDF report for everyone to read – not hidden away in a file the general public has little ability to read.

    Finally, for the FBI or the DHS to claim that the XML-CSV file contains evidence or even indicators of Russian hacking is simply a false statement. It is a perfect example of fake news. Any news agency promoting this claim without doing even the most basic of research that would easily confirm it is false, should be listed as a fake news agency.

    The real question that we should all be asking is why the DHS and FBI would destroy their reputation by posting such a fake report?

    Several years ago, our CIA claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction – meaning that we went to war and spent over a trillion dollars on a fake report. Is this new fake report a pretext for launching a cyber war against Russia? Is it intended to justify increasing US military spending?

    It is hard to say what the real purpose of this fake DHS-FBI report is. But the fact that this silly list of IP addresses was the best evidence they could provide should be a strong indication that there really is no evidence of Russian hacking. Instead, it is more likely that Wikileaks is telling the truth in stating that they got the emails from a disgruntled Democratic Party insider. J S Bach bamawatson , Jan 1, 2017 8:47 PM

    The DHS and FBI have no reputation to destroy. They are part of the cancerous system and thus infamously corrupt. Look at the way they handled the Hillary emails. Total proof of treason and they chose to ignore it. Do we expect any more honesty or competency from such a den of snakes?
    tazs Draybin Deffercon III , Jan 1, 2017 9:12 PM
    Russian Hacking is a politically-correct way of saying Trump stole the election.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#presidenttrump

    TBT or not TBT bamawatson , Jan 1, 2017 8:44 PM
    John Podesta fell for a phishing attack. So they got all of his emails. Which were embarrassing. And Huma stupidly used Carlos Danger's perving PC for government business. Shit like that. Oh, and SecState email was kept on an unsecure server in some guy's bathroom and places like that. And could not be FOIAed. Or secured. And got copied around to non-cleared persons pretty heavily and carelessly.
    Crash Overide TBT or not TBT , Jan 1, 2017 9:03 PM
    This shit's getting ridiculously ridiculous.
    TBT or not TBT Crash Overide , Jan 1, 2017 9:24 PM
    And who fucking cares whether the hacker who hit the jackpot happened to be Russian or to know Russians or to have even seen Dr Zhivago or admired Baryshnykov's dancing crotch meat back in the day?

    Everyone with an email account has received phishing emails. This is not sophisticated cloak and dagger or supercomputers or signal intercepts.

    Its a typical old mean white guy Dem grandee who let ALL his email fly into the wind. His real thoughts and feelings and plans and reactions thereto by other old mean lefties. Which were embarrassiing.

    DuneCreature Crash Overide , Jan 1, 2017 10:08 PM
    From Planet Ridiculo

    Barry started the hacking wars:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of...

    The NSA may have hacked the DNC with a bot released and intended for someone else. ...... That can happen very easily. ..... Just ask Barry and The Israelites

    Live Hard, STUXNET Is Still In The Wild Doing Mischief To This Day, Die Free

    ~ DC v4.0

    Dr. Bonzo , Jan 1, 2017 8:32 PM
    Great write-up. While I never had any doubt the DNC-hacks were 100% an inside job, simple deductive reasoning leads to very few other conclusions, it's nice to see a thorough parsing of the gubmint's smoke and mirrors job.
    uhland62 Dr. Bonzo , Jan 1, 2017 8:44 PM
    It's all about incompetence.

    Iraq - fail. Libya - fail. Syria - fail. Constructing war against Russia using this tool - fail. I like the glass ceiling, for another little while.

    dwboston , Jan 1, 2017 8:34 PM
    "If this were real evidence, it would have been placed directly in the PDF report for everyone to read – not hidden away in a file the general public has little ability to read."

    Anyone with Excel (which is basically anyone with a Windows PC) can open a CSV file. Of course the "hacking" claims are BS, but there's no need for hyperbole when the facts are so obvious.

    SantaClaws , Jan 1, 2017 8:36 PM
    " The real question that we should all be asking is why the DHS and FBI would destroy their reputation by posting such a fake report?"

    Why? Because the most important thing to Obama is to spread his lies and other propaganda by whatever means necessary. No one should take any DHS or FBI report seriously after 8 years of Obama (and James Comey, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and dozens of other agency chiefs).

    uhland62 , Jan 1, 2017 8:41 PM
    My respect for this work - totally impressive, even though It's mostly beyond me. If the NSA has every keystroke that anyone makes, then they'd have everything, of course.

    The Dems and all the McCain's men are just rattled that their war against Russia could be slipping away. Their next tool will be to turn Trump or impeach him.

    Don't enlist or you could find yourself in a war against Russia, dead, or a damaged veteran. Don't let them use you.

    Kirk2NCC1701 , Jan 1, 2017 8:46 PM
    As I wrote on Dec. 12, 2016: "Riddle me this, CIA..

    1. Is it possible to hack into a computer, and not leave a trail or unique fingerprint that leads back to You? Especially if the hack is physically initiated from outside the location (country, company or building) from where the attack is shown to originate? E.g. initiate hack from Macao or US. Is it possible? YES or NO?

    2. Do you think that the Russian government, any other major Power or "Mr. Robot" hacker have the ability to do #1? YES or NO?

    If the answers are Yes to both these critical questions, then you got Nothing, Zip, Zilch, Zero, Nada, Babkuss on "the Russians". At best, all you have is Conjecture or a Staged Trail.

    Next "Fake Issue"?"

    Reference: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-12/fbi-disputes-cias-fuzzy-and-amb...

    Kirk2NCC1701 LetThemEatRand Dec 12, 2016 3:51 PM

    p.s. As I wrote some days later, if it were me, I'd take a fresh "Burner Laptop" and initiate a hack attack from some Asian country, or even from within the US. The CIA, DNC and Obama are so full of shit, that it reeks to the moon.

    TBT or not TBT Kirk2NCC1701 , Jan 1, 2017 9:28 PM
    The Podesta emails were obtained from a simple phishing attack that the evil old fuck fell for. This is the "hacking" that made any difference.
    deja , Jan 1, 2017 8:50 PM
    "However, it is not credible that anyone in the Ukraine has the millions of dollars needed to be running hundreds of servers in a remote Ukrainian location."

    I guess the author has never heard of botnets...

    any_mouse , Jan 1, 2017 8:59 PM
    Smart hackers use bots to hide behind.

    That is the point of the bot networks.

    I still fail to see the logic where by the release of actual emails indicating unethical, criminal actions of a group (DNC) results in accusations that "Russians hacked the election".

    "Russian hackers" is the new "because 9/11" mantra.

    A cyber-TSA will be soon groping you as you surf the web.

    You will need a gov approved identification device to connect.

    Randomly your connection will be paused while a cyber-LEO avatar pops up and asks for your id and some questions about what you are doing.

    Because ... you know why.

    captain-nemo , Jan 1, 2017 9:30 PM

    Finally a proper analyzes of the report. Thanks a lot. I am still wondering why nobody has done the same. Having read this article it's obvious they got nothing.

    I bet that Obama and the deep state are gambling on that the fakestream media will do their job and misinform the sheeple and that decades of old mistrust and fake propaganda against the Russians will do the rest.

    It does not matter if the evidence are fake, when most people already has bought it, and the fakestream media keeps backing it up. Hell. Even republicans have swallowed the bate.

    So why did they do it?. Perhaps Obama, the deep state and the FBI and all those other agencies already knows that their days are numbered. They might as well producing just another fake report before it's over.

    If Trump wants to stop and reverse this, it's not enough to clean out the FBI and all those other agencies, he has to do something with the fakestream media too, because what they are doing is strait out criminal.

    Yen Cross , Jan 1, 2017 9:38 PM
    Lot's of Chinese IP addresses on those lists.

    WE gotta find the ISP's <sarc>

    If the NSA is so good, they should have MAC numbers on those machines, and trace the serial numbers.

    monad Yen Cross , Jan 1, 2017 10:19 PM
    What you do son, is block the Chinese IP blocks at your firewall. Blook 'em all. Some hackers will complain and give you their addresses when they do. Then you show up at their house with 6 football players and they never, ever do that again.

    To anybody. Ever.

    DuneCreature , Jan 1, 2017 9:39 PM
    The NSA has the to and from metadata for sure and copies of the data content going in both directions as a bonus. This is a false flag dog and pony show to use as an excuse to expel Russian diplomats and maybe start WW III if 'somebody somewhere' deems it necessary.

    Consider it magic 'yellow cake' or a Polish radio station. ... It won't go away because you have iron clad evidence that it was never there to begin with.

    This is the New World Odor where things are what you are told they are and if it kills a few million people then just get over it and be Dog Blamed glad it didn't eat your homework and kill you too.

    Live Hard, It Is Hard To Argue With Rock Solid Reasoning Like That, Die Free

    ~ DC v4.0

    TruthBeforeAll , Jan 1, 2017 9:43 PM
    Speaking of the NSA, somebody has a sense of humor in my neighborhood. I've never noticed it before tonight.

    http://i.imgur.com/2IgHRsX.png

    I tried logging in with "Password" but it didn't work. Go figure.

    Bay Area Guy , Jan 1, 2017 9:52 PM
    If the Russian hackers are so damn good at what they do, it seems ludicrous that they would leave great big arrows pointing towards themselves. Why, it's almost like a guy that drives a truck into a crowd leaving his identity card in the cab of the truck. Or it's like a bunch of guys that hijacked planes and flew them into buildings using their real names and their indestructible passpoorts to board the planes. ZH had an article yesterday quoting that hard-hitting political publication Rolling Stone magazine saying that this entire Russian hacking report has all the earmarks of a repeat of Bush the Lesser's WMD in Iraq report. I gotta agree with Rolling Stone. If a hacker is really good, and we keep getting force-fed how good the Russians are, they AIN'T going to leave their calling card in the server(s) they've hacked.
    Dilluminati , Jan 1, 2017 10:14 PM
    yep!

    Similar to spy satellites there is a level of clarity and transparency that many advanced nations have.

    That is why Hillary is such a ridiculous cunt for using a private server to perform her clinton foundation and day to day operations upon and why the US government "explicitly prohibits it."

    The leaks originated and were targeted at that ridiculous cunt Hillary and she made us all less safe by being corrupt, stupid, and unethical in her office of trust.

    NSA also has all.. ALLLL the emails that that criminal cunt Hillary sent.

    I really do think we need a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of all of this.

    a C&C command and control server could be anywhere, often these servers are used by cyber squating

    http://www.thewindowsclub.com/cybersquatting-and-typosquatting

    The domain at that point in time might be different than it is now.

    That is why MD5 and chain of custody is required to illsutrate what the conditions were.

    petroglyph , Jan 1, 2017 10:12 PM
    Somewhere in this monster bureaucracy imitating a government "for the people" is somebody[s] collecting a fat paycheck and bennies to make damn sure our election didn't get hacked by Russians. Could somebody please fire the fucker if we were actually hacked.

    I am suffering from bullshit burnout. I just want the election to be over for awhile, my god what an inept bunch of hacks running the country, [into the ground].

    Phillyguy , Jan 1, 2017 10:29 PM
    The entire Russian "hacking" saga was nonsense from day 1 and indicative of severe structural problems confronting US capitalism and raging battles going on between competing factions within the financial elite controlling US foreign policy. These divisions have become more pronounced following: 1) Trump's upset victory in November and 2) the military debacle for the US/NATO in Syria. Trumps victory notwithstanding, expect these divisions to become increasingly ferocious as the economic vice continues tightening. Very dangerous times ahead.
    Dutch1 , Jan 1, 2017 11:01 PM
    Any hacker good enough to work for a big government agency would be good enough to not get caught. All big governments spy and hack eachother. They may know they've been hacked and even speculate who may have done it, but there is no so called definitive "evidence" at that level.Evidence of a hack probably, evidence of who.... no fucking way. Here the government goes again trying to create a boogeyman to promote some rich people's agenda. Pretty sure the NSA spys and hacks eeeevverryyybody.... hypocrites.

    [Jan 02, 2017] Trump Hints At Russian Hacking Revelations In Coming Days I Know Things Other People Dont

    www.zerohedge.com
    Asked what that information included, the Republican President-elect said, " You will find out on Tuesday or Wednesday ." He did not elaborate.

    Trump also reiterated his belief that others might be responsible for the cyberattacks: "I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don't know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation."

    "I think it's unfair if we don't know. It could be somebody else," Reuters cited Trump as telling the media.

    He also added that computers are a risky form of communication. "It's very important, if you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old fashioned way because I'll tell you what, no computer is safe," Mr. Trump added. "I don't care what they say, no computer is safe. I have a boy who's 10 years old, he can do anything with a computer. You want something to really go without detection, write it out and have it sent by courier."

    HoserF16 , Jan 1, 2017 9:51 AM
    Yeah like "The Russians Didn't Do It!"
    chunga HoserF16 , Jan 1, 2017 9:54 AM
    His name was Seth Rich.
    CuttingEdge chunga , Jan 1, 2017 10:02 AM
    Methinks Langley is in for a bit of Trump bulldozing if he has an inkling they are trying to fuck him over.
    Looney CuttingEdge , Jan 1, 2017 10:04 AM

    0bama's predecessors, at least, used to put some effort into False Flags and Spook-Ops.

    0bama comes up with a lie, without any evidence , and just keeps repeating it like a broken Jukebox.

    What a lazy-ass squirrel-bitch!

    Looney

    [Jan 01, 2017] Washington Post Caught Spreading More Fake News About Russian Hackers Zero Hedge

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
    Readers of the Washington Post received some alarming news yesterday when the paper published a story alleging that those pesky "Russian hackers" were up to their no good tricks again and had managed to "penetrate the U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont." The full headline read as follows:

    The opening paragraph of WaPo's story directly linked the "hack" of the Vermont utility to the same "Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe" that the Obama administration has blamed for the DNC and John Podesta email hacks . Vermont's Governor, Peter Shumlin, told WaPo that " Americans should be both alarmed and outraged" by these actions perpetrated by " one of the world's leading thugs, Vladimir Putin," before seemingly calling for further retaliatory actions from the Obama administration.

    Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world's leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality-of-life, economy, health, and safety. This episode should highlight the urgent need for our federal government to vigorously pursue and put an end to this sort of Russian meddling.

    Moreover, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy took the rhetoric to a whole new level by asserting a diabolical Russian plot to shut down the U.S. electrical grid in the middle of winter ...a move that would most certainly kill off half the state's population in an instant.

    Of course, it didn't take long for the New York Times and ABC to latch on to the story since it fits their "2016 election hacking" narrative so perfectly.

    Our Russian "friend" Putin attacked the U.S. power grid. https://t.co/iAneRgbuhF

    - Brent Staples (@BrentNYT) December 31, 2016

    NEW: "One of the world's leading thugs, [Putin] has been attempting to hack our electric grid," says VT Gov. Shumlin https://t.co/YgdtT4JrlX pic.twitter.com/AU0ZQjT3aO

    - ABC News (@ABC) December 31, 2016

    Alas, there was just one minor problem, namely that the entire article was completely fabricated. Apparently the esteemed "journalists" of the Washington Post didn't even bother to contact the Burlington Electric Department to confirm their bogus story...and why should they...it fit the "Russian hacking" narrative so perfectly therefore it must be true, right?

    Well, apparently not. The quick spread of WaPo's "fake news" story forced the Burlington Electric Department to issue a clarifying statement assuring worried residents that, indeed, their electricity grid had not been hacked, but rather a single "laptop not connected" to the grid had been found to have a malware virus.

    Which forced the embarrassed Washington Post to quickly tone down their provocative headline...

    ...and supplement their original article with the following "Editor's Note" admitting the entire premise of their original story was nothing more than "fake news."

    Editor's Note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid.

    Which drew quick reactions from twitter...

    1) Not an infiltration of the power grid.
    2) "Russian" malware can be purchased online by anyone.
    3) See 1 & 2. https://t.co/bVIG8zQBsk

    - Dell Cameron (@dellcam) December 31, 2016

    Pretty amazing how badly the Post appears to have mangled this one. You didn't call the Vermont utility regulator before publishing?

    - Eric Geller (@ericgeller) December 31, 2016

    ...and Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept , who blasted WaPo for their " irresponsible and sensationalist tabloid behavior."

    THIS MATTERS not only because one of the nation's major newspaper once again published a wildly misleading, fear-mongering story about Russia. It matters even more because it reflects the deeply irrational and ever-spiraling fever that is being cultivated in U.S. political discourse and culture about the threat posed by Moscow.

    The Post has many excellent reporters and smart editors. They have produced many great stories this year. But this kind of blatantly irresponsible and sensationalist tabloid behavior – which tracks what they did when promoting that grotesque PropOrNot blacklist of U.S. news outlets accused of being Kremlin tools – is a by-product of the Anything Goes mentality that now shapes mainstream discussion of Russia, Putin and the Grave Threat to All Things Decent in America that they pose.

    Ironically, a few weeks ago we noted that The Washington Post was all too happy to promote an anonymous website that described Zerohedge as "'dark gray' propaganda, systematically deceiving its civilian audiences for foreign political gain" (see " Washington Post Names Drudge, Zero Hedge, & Ron Paul As Anti-Clinton 'Sophisticated Russian Propaganda Tools' "), all while presenting exactly zero evidence to support their preposterous claim. Perhaps it's time for WaPo to dedicate a bit more of its time to self-reflection.

    dlweld , Dec 31, 2016 9:32 PM
    If WAPO is a business they're going to be having major problems - the CEO should be on the case.

    Reality:

    an older, out of date, commercially available virus was discovered on an employee's laptop. A single laptop, not connected to anything. Similar situation to many older computers around the world. A total non-event.

    Headline:

    Russian Hackers penetrated US electricity grid! Not an iota of reality here, but which then led to folks who still trust the WAPO, to all get in a tizzy and propose that the US blast the evil Russian ogres! What we used to call highly irresponsible reporting.

    So it was all a self-generated fantasy - why should we trust the WAPO on anything? If credibility is their capital, they're burning through it at a great rate.

    tazs SWRichmond , Dec 31, 2016 11:24 PM
    "Russian Hackers" is a more palatable way of saying TRUMP STOLE the election.

    https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/views-of-news/#presidenttrump

    J S Bach peddling-fiction , Dec 31, 2016 8:35 PM
    The Washington Post IS the new National Inquirer. The difference is... the original NI used to have obviously laughable headlines. There is absolutely NOTHING funny about the lies spewed from the WaPo sewer pipe. Their absurd headlines are a brazen attempt to lure the <80 IQ readership into senseless rage over make-believe effronteries of a potential Russian adversary. It is criminal and all of those responsible for the evil propaganda should be tried and executed. Their time is over... no more crying "fire" in our theaters... no more screaming as they stab US in the back. They must be overtly called out without fear of ostracism.
    Mr Pink peddling-fiction , Dec 31, 2016 9:11 PM
    That cuck Bezos got his orders at the Bilderberg meeting years ago.

    Time to put this blimp warehouse, drone army fuckwad out of business

    #BOYCOTTAMAZON

    css1971 , Dec 31, 2016 8:27 PM
    It occurs to me that by creating the "Fake News" meme, they've just given us a stick to beat them with.

    Recommend we do exactly that. Hard and repeatedly, to the point that the first thing anyone thinks of when the words Washington Post, and New York Times are mentioned is "Fake News".

    nmewn css1971 , Dec 31, 2016 8:31 PM
    Repeatedly and with gusto ;-)
    auricle nmewn , Dec 31, 2016 8:36 PM
    All of this narrative building, when does the false flag hit?
    Socratic Dog auricle , Dec 31, 2016 9:16 PM
    It just did, in Instanbul. CIA/Mossad has gone to war. Trying to drive wedge beween new Turkey/Russia relationship, new since the <<failed>> CIA/Mossad coup attempt.

    Don't think I'll be partying anywhere public tonight. One is way overdue in the US.

    I was reading Freddie's link, Dave McGowan's work on the Laurel Canyon music and murder scene, last night. It really got me thinking....has the CIA really been a Mossad operation since the 60's? Who benefitted from the 60's flowerchild bullshit? I'd say, jews. Israel. That shit really took traditional western values off the rails.

    Akzed Socratic Dog , Dec 31, 2016 9:31 PM
    Dave McGowan (RIP) pretty much nails it in Weird Scenes from the Canyon.
    DeadFred auricle , Dec 31, 2016 11:20 PM
    I have dibs on the 6th... just because.
    grunk nmewn , Dec 31, 2016 8:42 PM
    'til they bleed.
    Nobodys Home grunk , Dec 31, 2016 9:13 PM
    Hard and repeatedly with gusto til they bleed laughing maniacally! MWaHahaHAhahhahhhh!!!!
    Akzed nmewn , Dec 31, 2016 9:28 PM
    ¡Con mucho gusto!
    Stu Elsample , Dec 31, 2016 8:26 PM
    What difference does it make now?? DNC 'journalism' at its finest...no shame, no sense of guilt.
    balz , Dec 31, 2016 8:25 PM
    Are people still buying the Washington Post? I mean: why would you pay for an old lying dinosaur?
    refill6times balz , Dec 31, 2016 11:15 PM
    Regardless of the paper, I remember being a "paperboy" in the early 70's

    I delivered the Quincy Patriot Ledger, and proudly. There were many malcontents on my route, but I gave them top service regardless. The paper had to be folded only trice, never quad, and had to be laid with the banner up. Quad folding was easier, and banner up meant placing by hand, I never understand the idea of throwing a newspaper., like, how do get it to show the customer the name/title?

    Every customer had a passion, never this, always that, I remembered it all and still do.

    The older shut in's wold love to catch me, talk my head off, I swear they doubled my route time, but to this day I recall it and it taught me empathy.

    Another year passes, and yes balz, why would anyone pay for an old dino.

    nmewn , Dec 31, 2016 8:30 PM
    ABC News ? @ABC

    NEW: "One of the world's leading thugs, [Putin] has been attempting to hack our electric grid," says VT Gov. Shumlin http:// abcn.ws/2ihEeZu

    12:01 AM - 31 Dec 2016

    ...sooo, ummm...some "official" who finally wished to NOT remain anonymous, managed to throw himself under the bus along with a fake nuuuz organization...lol.

    Oh, well done ;-)

    Holy hand grena... nmewn , Dec 31, 2016 8:34 PM
    Shumlin's father, George J. Shumlin, a third-generation American, was Jewish and descended from Russian immigrants

    same shit, different day

    Reaper nmewn , Dec 31, 2016 8:53 PM
    Schumlin is a lame duck being replaced by a Republican. Calling Putin a thug signals his toughness.
    refill6times Reaper , Dec 31, 2016 10:52 PM
    It will be a tough job being Gov of that state.

    Half the youth are strung out on heroin, as are more than half of the adults, there are no industry but tourisim, and ski resorts, The infrasructure gets destroyed every three years by storms that create what is called "freshetts", little streams that go wild with all the water and wipe out anything in its way. I've seen that up close, no where to hide. when the mountain gives up it's water, watch out.

    Its a beutiful place. The west has its skyline far away, you survay it from a distance. Vermont makes you hold it close, you can drive up a canyon with towering trees inches beside you, a cliff wall pouring water just feet from a major roadway, and if you find a vista, it just shows row upon row of more hills.

    But what do you do with it?

    The new Governor has his work cut out for him.

    Bay of Pigs , Dec 31, 2016 8:31 PM
    It's hard to believe how bad the WaPo, NYT, CNN, MSNBC, and the BlowHorn [CNBC] have all become. They have all hit new all time lows 2016.
    Holy hand grena... , Dec 31, 2016 8:32 PM
    Bezos should have just bought the National Enquirer (oh wait, did I get the 2 mixed up)?
    Pigeon Holy hand grenade of Antioch , Dec 31, 2016 8:51 PM
    The Enquirer is the honest publication. That should help you.
    peddling-fiction Pigeon , Dec 31, 2016 9:27 PM
    Imagine waking from a 30 year coma and then this crap?
    refill6times Holy hand grenade of Antioch , Dec 31, 2016 10:10 PM
    Interesting. You know, if the Enquirer could score a few authentic true news storys, I might just be liken to buy a copy, you know, for the articles and such.

    But the Rothchild would move in and fix it back for the fake shit. Fuckers.

    Cherubim , Dec 31, 2016 8:35 PM
    We truly live in an era that we had visited once before. There is a boogeyman Russian spy under every bed. Familiar?

    Google "McCarthyism" if you don't know what it means. The Democratic establishment and their media along with a good number of misguided Republicans in Congress are on a witch hunt.

    Some day in the future they will look back at this time in history and wonder at the anti-Russian hysteria.

    Intelligence_In... Cherubim , Dec 31, 2016 8:40 PM
    misguided republicans? Missy Grahm and john mcsame?
    Akzed Cherubim , Dec 31, 2016 9:32 PM
    Yeah but McCarthy was right.
    refill6times Cherubim , Dec 31, 2016 10:00 PM
    The hysteria began in Sept 1945.
    flaminratzazz , Dec 31, 2016 8:37 PM
    now i am wondering.. is this shit going to keep up after Trump is in office, or is he going to tell them to stifle?
    refill6times flaminratzazz , Dec 31, 2016 9:57 PM
    Great comment.

    but is it he, or who?

    If it continues, then the NWO is pissed and has lost control.

    If it stops, or lessons, then we will know who is in control.

    The FED/Rothchilds must end

    grunk , Dec 31, 2016 8:37 PM
    Somebody was surfing porn on Burlington Electric Department's laptop.
    Zarbo , Dec 31, 2016 8:41 PM
    I want to know the affiliation of the person owning (using) the utility's laptop. That would be very interesting -- how did that malware get on the laptop with such effective timing?
    dogsandhoney2 , Dec 31, 2016 9:05 PM
    bezos = bilderberg = western capitalism on the verge of collapse. economists and bankers are not the most creative folks. but they can be vile and abusive.
    New_Meat , Dec 31, 2016 10:15 PM
    Y'know, Bezos has been taking a (well deserved) beating for the WaPo's positions and "authentic" news, etc. But, puleeze, let us not forget dear old Marty Barron. Last seen driving the Boston Globe on a trajectory that cost the NY Times 95% of their "investment". Marty is the "proximate cause" of this crap and is skating under the radar, cuz Bezos doesn't have a clue as to fucking up the paper that badly. Marty, on the other hand, has experience in spades.

    Happy New Year,

    - Ned

    nevertheless , Dec 31, 2016 11:42 PM
    My only point of contention is calling the Washington Post "liberal", since when was pushing for war liberal, or Wall Street. FYI. Clinton and Obama are not and were not liberals, they are globalists, Zionists.

    It shocks me at the generalization placed in organisations and individuals who could not be further from the population.

    Historically liberals were progressives, but the Zionist media does a little trick: They call people like Obama and Clinton "left or liberal", thus everything they then do is considered liberal or of the left. Like open borders, war on Syria/Libya, Russia, and supporting wall street.

    We all need to be smarter than the WaPo, and not put everything into neat little boxes. These are globalists!

    Wild E Coyote , Jan 1, 2017 12:24 AM
    The MSM continue to this methods of instigating panic, hate, war. Nothing is done to stop them.

    Are they completely free to continue their acts of terrorism?

    I hope Trump remembers the MSM and do something.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Russias response to Obama is frankly the most damaging and embarrassing answer we could receive

    Notable quotes:
    "... The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans. ..."
    "... They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's home through intimidation of the landlord. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Andrew Watts , December 31, 2016 at 2:42 pm

    RE: Russia's response to Obama 'is frankly the most damaging and embarrassing answer we could receive' Business Insider

    I don't think Putin and Lavrov are playing good cop/bad cop. As per the rules of diplomacy Lavrov expects to answer every tit with a retaliatory tat. Putin is different. His professional experience is formerly of counter-intelligence. Which means he probably realizes what's happening and Russia isn't the actual target in this propaganda war.

    Consider the following

    RE: Something About This Russia Story Stinks Rolling Stone. Matt Taibbi

    Taibbi and his friends in the media are right. They have every reason to be worried. After all they're the primary target in this propaganda war. It took me awhile to figure out what was happening even though something seemed familiar after the Washington Post story about fake news and the slandering of Naked Capitalism. I finally figured out why and the reason the CIA was taking the lead in promoting the "Russia election hacks!" story. But then I remembered the stories about the British Security Coordination (BSC)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Security_Coordination

    The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans.

    They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's home through intimidation of the landlord.

    What the CIA is doing now reeks of the BSC. Up to and including inciting the country into a war. After all the CIA's predecessor agency the OSS learned everything they knew at their feet.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Putin's Real Long Game by Molly K. McKew

    How low Politico fall by publishing this neocon trash. Which probably belongs to some major neocon publications which publish Kagan and like.
    As Robert Parry noted "Neocons want a new Cold War – all the better to pick the U.S. taxpayers' pockets – but this reckless talk and war profiteering could spark a nuclear war and leave the world to the cockroaches" Trading Places Neocons and Cockroaches – Consortiumnews
    This "bloodthirsty Molly" is not a vampire. She is yet another female warmonger, a neocon of the mold of Hillary Clinton, who lost her plush job with the ousting of Saakashvili in Georgia and desperately wants it back even if American start ding for this "noble purpose".
    Her article might be considered a classic in neocon demonization of Putin. Complete detachment from the reality of collapsing neoliberal ideology and inability of the USA to maintain its global neoliberal empire despite recent success in Ukraine (as well as Brazil and Argentina), the success which pushed the majority of Ukrainian population on Central African standard of living with income less then two dollars a day. And pensioners dying from hunger in cities, and lack of medical care in rural areas, just to satisfy the US imperial ambitions. And they replaced corrupt and criminal neoliberal government of Yanukovich with even more corrupt and more neoliberal Provisional Government first (which literally was ready to privatize Ukraine state access to Western companies for pennies on the dollar) and then Poroshenko which drive the economy even lower breaking all ties with its former major market -- Russia -- for the ideological reasons, of course. The country became the debt salve of the West, another neo-colony.
    The author is right the the West in now at war -- Cold War II, but he is lying that it sinot recognized by Western government. It was launched by Western government to colonize Russia as neoliberalism needs market expansion and cheap oil to sustain neoliberal globalization, and Russian is one of the few countries on the Earth which not fully colonized (it was under Yeltsin).
    Notable quotes:
    "... Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It's a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones ..."
    "... Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not "propaganda" as we've come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as " active measures " and " reflexive control " . Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests. ..."
    www.politico.com

    Increasingly, people in Russia's sphere of influence were deciding that the values that were supposed to bind the West together could no longer hold. That the world order Americans depend on had already come apart.

    ... ... ...

    What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants to be or not. It may not be a war we recognize, but it is a war. This war seeks, at home and abroad, to erode our values, our democracy, and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own best interests.

    ... ... ...

    Those on the Russian frontier, like my friends from Ukraine and Estonia, have already seen the Kremlin's new toolkit at work. The most visible example may be "green men," the unlabeled Russian-backed forces that suddenly popped up to seize the Crimean peninsula and occupy eastern Ukraine. But the wider battle is more subtle, a war of subversion rather than domination. The recent interference in the American elections means that these shadow tactics have now been deployed – with surprising effectiveness – not just against American allies, but against America itself. And the only way forward for America and the West is to embrace the spirit of the age that Putin has created, plow through the chaos, and focus on building what comes next.

    ... ... ...

    First, it is a war. A thing to be won, decisively - not a thing to be negotiated or bargained. It's all one war: Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, the Baltics, Georgia. It's what Vladislav Surkov, Putin's 'grey cardinal' and lead propagandist, dubbed "non-linear war" in his science fiction story "Without Sky," in 2014.

    Second, it's all one war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives.

    This is the Gerasimov doctrine, penned by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of the General Staff, in 2013.

    Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It's a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.

    Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not "propaganda" as we've come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as "active measures" and "reflexive control". Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.

    Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn't a foreign policy aimed at building a new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it's what the Kremlin calls a "multi-vector" foreign policy, undermining the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate - ideally temporary and limited - centers of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S. and its allies, the goal is an unstable new world order of "all against all." The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe, and the war in eastern Ukraine) and by showing superiority in 'solving' crises the West could not (for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability in the Middle East when the West cannot).

    This leads to the final point: hard power matters. Russia maintains the second most powerful military in the world, and spends more than 5 percent of its weakened GDP on defense. Russia used military force to invade and occupy Georgian territory in 2008 to disrupt the expansion of NATO, and in 2013 in Ukraine to disrupt the expansion of the EU. They have invested heavily in military reform, new generations of hardware and weapons, and expansive special operations training, much of which debuted in the wars in Ukraine and Syria. There is no denying that Russia is willing to back up its rhetoric and policy with deployed force, and that the rest of the world notices.

    How did we reach this point? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western security and political alliances expanded to fill the zone of instability left behind. The emerging Russian security state could only define this as the strategic advance of an enemy. The 9/11 attacks shattered Western concepts of security and conflict and expanded NATO's new mission of projecting security. When Putin offered his assistance, we effectively responded "no thanks," thinking in particular of his bloody, ongoing, scorched-earth war against the Chechens. We did it for the right reasons. Nonetheless, it infuriated Putin. This was the last moment when any real rapprochement with Putin's Russia was possible.

    ... ... ...

    Molly K. McKew (@MollyMcKew) advises governments and political parties on foreign policy and strategic communications. She was an adviser to Georgian President Saakashvili's government from 2009-2013, and to former Moldovan Prime Minister Filat in 2014-2015.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Two views on Syrian war

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/i-am-a-syrian-living-in-syria-it-was-never-a-revolution-nor-a-civil-war-the-terrorists-are-sent-by-your-government/5544450

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-elections-2016-us-natos-failed-attempt-to-deny-the-will-of-the-syrian-people/5520087

    [Jan 01, 2017] NHS surgeon David Nott recounts harrowing story from a Syrian field hospital

    Notable quotes:
    "... Its a shame our government supported al Nusra and other anti Assad organisations in this region, even ISIL were present (the capture of the Turkish soldiers from E Aleppo who were subsequently murdered). ..."
    "... If we had not supported these anti Assad groups many not even Syrian, there would have been many less murdered children. ..."
    "... Its like when we air lifted poor Ali Abbas from Iraq who had him arms blown off and other children then we gave ourselves a pat on the back, yet we were responsible for Ali's injuries and thousands others. ..."
    dailymail.co.uk

    I have made numerous trips to Syria to treat the casualties of this war, but none was as sorrowful as the week I spent with Aleppo's children.

    Bone-weary and drained emotionally, I returned to London on Christmas Eve and couldn't wait to hold my 17-month-old daughter and see my wife and family. Christmas was a joy.

    Yet Maram was never far from my mind's eye: a haunting, residual memory that I could not have shaken even if I had wished; I find myself waking in the early hours worrying about her.

    I first saw Maram on December 20, a few days after she was evacuated from Aleppo in an ambulance.

    Her legs and left arm had been shattered in a bomb attack that killed her parents and injured her brother and sister.

    Pieces of ordnance shell were embedded in her infected wounds but, because the Aleppo doctors had run out of dressings, disinfectant and saline, they had no choice but to operate on her dirty body tissue.

    John, Auckland, New Zealand, about 12 hours ago

    Fake news

    Scotsgrey, Hong Kong, about 12 hours ago

    Didn't a canadian journalist said in U.N. conference with video evidence, they recycle victims for their photoshoot?

    Emmaz, wild west, United States, about 20 hours ago

    I wonder how all these families- knowing they are in a war Torn country are deciding to have babies now. I don't think i could bring a new baby into the world knowing what immediate impact it could have on them. So sad. Poor babies.

    janiceK, manchester, United Kingdom, about 23 hours ago

    Its a shame our government supported al Nusra and other anti Assad organisations in this region, even ISIL were present (the capture of the Turkish soldiers from E Aleppo who were subsequently murdered).

    If we had not supported these anti Assad groups many not even Syrian, there would have been many less murdered children.

    Its like when we air lifted poor Ali Abbas from Iraq who had him arms blown off and other children then we gave ourselves a pat on the back, yet we were responsible for Ali's injuries and thousands others.


    [Jan 01, 2017] Washington Post Retracts Story About Russian Hackers Penetrating US Electricity Grid

    Notable quotes:
    "... Those anonymous U.S. officials who reported Russian hacking code had been found "within the system" of a Vermont power utility must've been surprised to learn the code was on a laptop that wasn't actually connected to the grid . ..."
    "... [Was "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."] ..."
    "... [was "penetration"] ..."
    "... Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've been getting their asses kicked for so long. ..."
    "... The U.S. government has killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations. ..."
    "... Exactly, bullshit. It sounds to me like an employee used his laptop to visit an infected website, or answered a general phishing mail. Hardly an attack aimed at the grid, and volume cranked up to 11 by WP as a part of the general current panic to glorify Obama and what his administration has done, and undermine the incoming administration. ..."
    "... In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it. ..."
    "... Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades . But why this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she transmitted classified information [politifact.com]? ..."
    "... Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information wouldn't have helped her. ..."
    "... But publishing it now helps support the false narrative [theintercept.com] that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not disgruntled Democratic Party staffers [washingtontimes.com], and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's the entire reason the story is being written and published now. ..."
    "... NSA has failed us again. Instead protecting America, they are wasting their and our time by mass collecting data on citizens. Instead of making sure exploits are fixed to keep our systems secure, they hold onto them so they can use them against us and other countries. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | yro.slashdot.org
    (washingtonpost.com) 388

    Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday January 01, 2017 @05:12PM from the power-play dept.

    Those anonymous U.S. officials who reported Russian hacking code had been found "within the system" of a Vermont power utility must've been surprised to learn the code was on a laptop that wasn't actually connected to the grid .

    The Washington Post has updated their original story, which now reports that "authorities" say there's no indication that Russian hackers have penetrated the U.S. electric grid. The Post's newly-edited version appears below (with their original, now-deleted text preseved inside brackets).

    A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility , according to U.S. officials. While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation's electrical grid... [Was "the penetration of the nation's electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability."] American officials, including one senior administration official, said they are not yet sure what the intentions of the Russians might have been. The incursion [was "penetration"] may have been designed to disrupt the utility's operations or as a test by the Russians to see whether they could penetrate a portion of the grid... According to the report by the FBI and DHS, the hackers involved in the Russian operation used fraudulent emails that tricked their recipients into revealing passwords. The Vermont utility does report that they'd "detected suspicious Internet traffic" on the laptop, but they believe subsequent news coverage got the story wrong. "It's unfortunate that an official or officials improperly shared inaccurate information with one media outlet, leading to multiple inaccurate reports around the country."

    king neckbeard ( 1801738 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @12:14PM ( #53584935 )

    Re:Tit for tat ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've been getting their asses kicked for so long.

    As it stands right now, the best thing that could happen for world peace is for the US to go down in flames. I would rather that not happen, but if we listen to people like you instead of behaving like adults, the rational choice for the world at large is to get rid of us.

    Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) December 31, 2016 @12:27PM ( #53585001 ) Homepage
    Evaluate the U.S. government? No, too many secrets ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    "... the US's general posture in the world is wildly preferable..."

    The U.S. government has many secret and semi-secret agencies. No one, literally no one, knows all of them, or which are badly managed. As we've seen, the secret and semi-secret U.S. government agencies often hire outside consulting companies that often have areas of sloppy management. The U.S. government is, by some measures, such as money spent, the most violent in the world.

    The U.S. government has killed, or caused the death of, an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war. War is extremely profitable for some corporations.

    See the book, House of Bush, House of Saud [amazon.com], by Craig Unger.

    Bush and Cheney started a war that was profitable for them. The U.S. has the largest percentage of its citizens in prison, of any country, in any century. The prison system is hugely profitable for prison corporations.

    Two of the many articles: ACLU:

    dilvish_the_damned ( 167205 ) December 31, 2016 @11:28AM ( #53584771 ) Journal
    Re:Tit for tat ( Score: 4 , Interesting)

    While the phishing attack may have originated in Russia, I find it disingenious to portray everything as state sponsored when the evidence is weak at best. To me its something akin to suggesting we need to retaliate against Australia every time Julian Assange takes a leak.

    LTIfox ( 4701003 ), December 31, 2016 @10:43AM ( #53584561 )
    Countermeasures ( Score: 3 , Interesting)

    Some organizations started to inject fake phishing emails into their communication systems. All employees who clicked get their heads bashed with a rock.

    Anonymous Coward, December 31, 2016 @10:44AM ( #53584563 )
    Bullshit ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    One laptop not on the network had malware. Fuck the washington post.

    http://boingboing.net/2016/12/31/no-russia-didnt-hack-vermon.html

    Velox_SwiftFox ( 57902 ), December 31, 2016 @11:23AM ( #53584745 )
    Re:Bullshit ( Score: 5 , Interesting)

    Exactly, bullshit. It sounds to me like an employee used his laptop to visit an infected website, or answered a general phishing mail. Hardly an attack aimed at the grid, and volume cranked up to 11 by WP as a part of the general current panic to glorify Obama and what his administration has done, and undermine the incoming administration.

    Or the WP feels it is simply unimportant to get proper attribution and any of the details right. Reply to This Parent Share

    Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @01:08PM ( #53585217 )
    Re:Bullshit ( Score: 2 )

    In some ways it is a success story. The Government put out a warning for a specific malware and how to detect it. The company appropriately scanned based on that warning, found the malware on a isolated laptop (which was isolated from grid systems), and appropriately reported it.

    Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @01:05PM ( #53585199 )
    Re:Bullshit ( Score: 2 )

    It should be deeply concerning, but that's effectively the result of the complete lack of care regarding OpSec and vital infrastructure. We've had reasons to be deeply concerned about that for years, if not decades, but now seems like an awfully convenient time to trot out a fact that would likely have applied at just about any point in time if we did an audit of our power grid.

    What is deeply concerning? The bullshit false headline?

    mattwarden ( 699984 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @10:56AM ( #53584631 ) Homepage
    Re:1 laptop, not connected to the grid ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    I'm very happy to come to the comments section and find mostly mocking and people who looked beyond the headline. Would have been nice if the editors did that.

    Here is the full takedown on The Intercept of this BS-vending from WaPo: https://theintercept.com/2016/... [theintercept.com]

    Streetlight ( 1102081 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @11:17AM ( #53584721 ) Journal
    Re:has to be asked ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    According to an earlier post the laptop that was allegedly infected was not connected to the electric company's grid control system. That conclusion answered my first question. Any vital utility system should absolutely never have it's control system of computers connected to the Internet. If somehow that's the case, those responsible need a very long prison sentence. There also needs to be other security measures to prevent folks having direct access to these control systems from sabotaging them.

    HornWumpus ( 783565 ) writes: on Saturday December 31, 2016 @01:05PM ( #53585195 )
    Re:has to be asked ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    Worked in the industry for a decade. Wrote simulation shells that did short term forecasts based on on system conditions, did data reductions etc (e.g. This unit IS going down for unscheduled maintenance, how much will it cost to shut it down RTF now vs after afternoon peak?) Went on to 'tech lead' for significant energy trading/risk management platform. Ran on many traders and grid operators desks...don't ask, won't tell. Did once see a bug because grand total on printable VAR only had room for 10 digits plus sign. Assigned to Brahmin coder, week later I fixed it myself, I digress.

    What you say isn't really possible. What they typically do have is a secure network, which runs operations, staffed with lots of ex-military actual Engineering school grads. That network is being monitored by redundant data integrators which present integrated (by some time interval, usually hours/half hours or minutes, back when I was up to my nose in it) system data to a second less secure (but still as secure as any corporate) network where routine operations run. That server is usually locked down tight, read only from the less secure network; but that is only software. They also like to run diverse OSs, lots of 'big iron' and Unixes and home brewed binary data formats. These things were mostly architected before Windows was common, particularly on the secure side it's still loaded with 'legacy', likely to remain so until they have a complete staff turnover. Old Dilbert with neckbeard flipping a nickle at Wally and telling him to get a better computer, that's the dude.

    Routine operations need access to internet based facilities. To schedule transmission line capacity, trade power, get closing prices from grid operators, weather forecasts and unit availability from neighbors (lots of VPNs). But that part of the operations could more or less crash and burn and it will only cost money (and extra CO2). Operations, more or less, ignores trading at the minute by minute level. Trading gives them trade schedules and operations will try their best. But if 'shit happens' they keep the lights on and let the accountants worry about reconciling to 'what should have happened'. Which is sometimes a bitch of a computational problem, fortunately most everybody involved are engineers and close enough is close enough. Pennies aren't statistically significant; try and explain that to an accountant. Don't recommend it, just say 'not a material difference' and get on with your life, I'm digressing again.

    Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ), on Saturday December 31, 2016 @12:42PM ( #53585053 ) Homepage
    One example of U.S. government mismanagement: ( Score: 2 )

    Confirmed: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it [arstechnica.com].

    Nova Express ( 100383 ) , Saturday December 31, 2016 @11:20AM ( #53584729 ) Homepage Journal
    Hey look! It's another MSM Russian Hacking Story! ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    Security experts have been warning of possible foreign hacking for decades . But why this sudden spate of "Russia hacked X" stories now? Why not back when our Secretary of State was running an illegal, private, unsecured email server through which she transmitted classified information [politifact.com]?

    Simple: The Washington Post wanted Hillary to win the Presidential election, and reminding people how her action made it easier for Russian hackers to gain access to classified information wouldn't have helped her.

    But publishing it now helps support the false narrative [theintercept.com] that the Russians were behind the DNC leaks, not disgruntled Democratic Party staffers [washingtontimes.com], and thus supposedly harms President-elect Donald Trump, whom the Washington Post and it's employees almost universally loath. That's the entire reason the story is being written and published now.

    Further reading here [battleswarmblog.com] and here [battleswarmblog.com].

    What do you think the under/over is for MSM "Russian Hacking" stories between now and January 20?

    Nyder ( 754090 ), December 31, 2016 @11:21AM ( #53584731 ) Journal
    NSA has failed us again ( Score: 2 , Interesting)

    NSA has failed us again. Instead protecting America, they are wasting their and our time by mass collecting data on citizens. Instead of making sure exploits are fixed to keep our systems secure, they hold onto them so they can use them against us and other countries.

    If am I to believe this Russian hacking our systems like the Government is pushing, then the blame goes straight on the NSA and those who backed them.

    Mr D from 63 ( 3395377 ), December 31, 2016 @12:43PM ( #53585055 )
    No Grid Penetration ( Score: 5 , Informative)

    The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated, hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.

    "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization's grid systems."

    Billly Gates ( 198444 ) writes:
    Re: ( Score: 2 )
    The headline is complete bullshit. Can the author not even read? The grid was not penetrated, hacked, or comprimised. No report says it was. This is totally a fabrication from the reporters.

    "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop not connected to our organization's grid systems."

    So other sources [cnn.com] say more than just a laptop and last I checked a power station is part of the grid

    colin_faber ( 1083673 ), December 31, 2016 @05:00PM ( #53586147 )
    Re:No Grid Penetration ( Score: 5 , Insightful)

    CNN ceased being a credible news organization after the wikileaks revolutions

    NotAPK ( 4529127 ), December 31, 2016 @12:44PM ( #53585061 )
    Re:An avalanche of bullshit... ( Score: 2 )

    And what can we do? Hope it doesn't degrade into WW3?

    Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ), December 31, 2016 @01:00PM ( #53585159 ) Homepage
    Amazon's CEO owns the Washington Post. ( Score: 3 )

    Amazon's Jeff Bezos Explains Why He Bought The Washington Post [nytimes.com].

    In my opinion, a good indication of Jeff Bezos's management ability is any Amazon web page. Amazon web pages distract you from buying something by trying to sell other things.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Vladimir Putin: I am inviting all children of the US diplomats in Russia to the NewYear's and Christmas celebration in the Kremlin

    Notable quotes:
    "... In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians. ..."
    "... Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics. ..."
    "... But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal. ..."
    "... A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s. ..."
    "... At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit. ..."
    "... "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor." ..."
    "... If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. ..."
    "... I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday. ..."
    "... Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is 4.1.1b. ..."
    "... s committed to stabilising its CO2 emissions "around 2030 ". ..."
    "... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
    "... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
    "... *I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to yesterday's hastily written comment on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment can be attributed to my gullibility. ..."
    "... The Good Spy (2014) ..."
    "... Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) ..."
    "... "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find." "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything." ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Jim Haygood , December 31, 2016 at 8:18 am

    Vladimir #Putin: I am inviting all children of the #US diplomats in #Russia to the #NewYear's and #Christmas celebration in the #Kremlin

    When Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, he stood 6 ft 1 in tall. As he exits, his stature has diminished to about 6 inches.

    Google adds that his daughter Malia has the same 6 ft 1 in height as her dad. If she ends up following the unwritten but almost universally observed rule that a woman's partner should at least equal her height, it's going to really restrict the candidate pool. Only 11 percent of males 20-29 years old are 6 ft 1 in or more, according to the Census Bureau.

    Katniss Everdeen , December 31, 2016 at 8:24 am

    Maybe that's why obama "pals" around with a lot of basketball players. Might be one of his more shrewd moves–who knew?

    Emma , December 31, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    With regards to parenting, Barack and Michelle Obama are doing the right thing ie. ensuring a supportive learning environment at home so their kids develop their own critical thinking skills and are better equipped to make their own way in the world as they mature (similar to the Deutschers with their daughter Alma, likewise those of two other child music prodigies, Emily Bear and Jay Greenberg.)
    So, Malia will know as and when required to run hoops around any basketballer (!), on the other hand, the young girl in the following family may well, in some instances, actually require a few basketballers run hoops around her father and his misplaced parenting priorities/concerns! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/31/girl-9-faces-shunned-ultra-orthodox-jewish-group-eating-mcdonalds/

    Plenue , December 31, 2016 at 4:11 pm

    What a gray, joyless life Orthodox men must lead, prevented from socializing with girls and women, with only their dusty old tomes of Judaic law for company.

    Tom Bradford , December 31, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    Well they must occasionally socialize with girls or women, or the breed would go extinct.

    Oregoncharles , December 31, 2016 at 11:11 pm

    Arranged marriages, probably.

    ProNewerDeal , December 31, 2016 at 8:32 am

    Now that 0bama is about to exit as US Pres, perhaps it is time to revisit the Who Is Worse: Bush43 v 0bama question.

    Conventional wisdom among "Progressive" pundits, even good ones like SecularTalk, seems to be "yes, 0bama is better than Bush43, but that is a very low bar, & not a real accomplishment. 0bama still sucks".

    IMHO, 0bama's relentless pursue of 1 Grand "Bargain" Ripoff & 2 TPP, may alone make him Even Worse than Bush43, as far as to damage inflicted on USians had 0bama been successful in getting these 2 policies. 0bama tried for years getting these 2 policies enacted, whereas Bush43 tried quickly to privatize SS but then forgot it, & IIRC enacted small trade deals (DR-CAFTA ?). Bush43 focus seemed to be on neocon regime change & War On Terra TM, & even then IIRC around ~2006 Bush43 rejected some of Darth Cheney's even more extremish neocon policy preferences, with Bush43 rejecting Cheney's desired Iran War.

    IMHO both policies would've incrementally killed thousands of USians annually, far more than 1S1S or the Designated Foreign Boogeyman Du Jour TM could ever dream of. Grand Ripoff raising Medicare eligibility age (IIRC 67 to 69+ ?) would kill many GenX & younger USians in the future. TPP's pharma patent extensions would kill many USians, especially seniors. These incremental killings might exceed the incremental life savings from the ACA (mainly ACA Adult Medicaid expansion). Furthemore, 0bama could've potentially achieved MedicareForAll or Medicare Pt O – Public Option in ~2010 with Sen & House D majorities, & 0bama deliberately killed these policies, as reported by FDL's Jane Hamsher & others.

    Bush43 indirectly killed USians in multiple ways, including Iraq War, War On Terra, & failing to regulate fin svcs leading to the 2008 GFC; however it would seem that 0bama's Death Toll would have been worse.

    "What do you think?!" (c) Ed Schultz

    How do Bush43 & 0bama compare to recent Presidents including Reagan & Clinton? What do you expect of Trump? I'd guesstimate that if Trump implements P Ryan-style crapification of Medicare into an ACA-like voucher system, that alone could render Trump Even Worse than 0bama & the other 1981-now Reganesque Presidents.

    It does seem like each President is getting Even Worse than the prior guy in this 21st Century. #AmericanExceptionalism (exceptionally Crappy)

    timbers , December 31, 2016 at 9:14 am

    You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few bad things Obamanation did:

    1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared by Congress.

    2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.

    3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 9:18 am

    HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it the norm.
    Deporting more people than Presidents before him.
    Passing the Korea and Columbia free trade pacts, even lying about what the pact did to get the Columbian one passed. KORUS alone made our trade deficit with Korea soar and lost an estimated 100,000 jobs in the US (and not those part time ones being created).
    Had the chance to pass a real infrastructure repair/stimulus package, didn't.
    Had the chance to put the Post Office in the black and even start a Postal Bank, didn't. Didn't even work to get rid of the Post Office killing requirement to fund its pension 75 years out.
    Furthering the erosion of our civil rights by making it legal to assassinate American citizens without trial.
    Instead of kneecapping the move to kill public education by requiring any charter school that receives federal funding to be non-profit with real limits on allowable administrative costs, expanded them AND expanded the testing boondoggle with Common Core.
    Libya.
    Expansion of our droning program.

    While I do give him some credit for both the Iran deal and the attempt to rein in the Syria mistake, I also have to take points away for not firing Carter and demoting or even bringing Votel before a military court after their insubordination killing the ceasefire.

    Should I continue. Bush was evil, Obama the more effective one.

    John Wright , December 31, 2016 at 10:15 am

    Bush's Iraq war will cost an estimated $3 trillion per Joseph Stiglitz.

    That does not count all the damage done to Iraq/Afghanistan people and property and American's reputation.

    Iraq's excess deaths due to the war were estimated at 500K to 655K.

    On a population adjusted basis, this would be equivalent to the USA losing 5 to 6.55 million people to a foreign, unprovoked, power.

    Bush scores quite high on being an effective evil, especially when viewed from outside the USA

    I score him the winner vs Obama on total damage done to the USA and the world

    j84ustin , December 31, 2016 at 10:52 am

    Absolutely.

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 12:02 pm

    Was that a disastrous choice? Certainly and it is a big one, but it also ignores how much of the disastrous choices attached to that decision Barack H. Obama has either continued or expanded upon. It also ignores how that war continues under Obama. Remember when we left Iraq? Oh, wait we haven't we just aren't there in the previous numbers.

    http://time.com/4298318/iraq-us-troops-barack-obama-mosul-isis/

    And what about Libya? You remember that little misadventure. Which added to our continued Saudi/Israeli determined obsession with Syria has led to a massive refugee crisis in Europe. How many were killed there. How much will that cost us fifteen years on?

    https://www.ft.com/content/c2b6329a-9287-11e4-b213-00144feabdc0

    I get that the quagmire was there before Obama. I also get that he began to get a clue late in his administration to stop listening to the usual subjects in order to make it better. But see that thing above about not firing people who undermined that new direction in Syria, and are probably now some of the most pressing secret voices behind this disastrous Russia Hacked US bull.

    But I think only focusing on the original decision also ignores how effective Obama has been at normalize crime, corruption, torture and even assassination attached to those original choices – something that Bush didn't manage (and that doesn't even consider the same decriminalization and normalization done for and by the financial industry). Bush may have started the wheel down the bumpy road, but Obama put rubber on the wheel and paved the road so now it is almost impossible to stop the wheel.

    TedWa , December 31, 2016 at 12:50 pm

    Pat – don't forget about him putting banks above the law – unconstitutional and e v i l

    JCC , December 31, 2016 at 12:40 pm

    As mentioned, Bush is a very low bar for comparison, and if that's the best presidential comparison that can be made with Obama, then that says it all.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL , December 31, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Mr. O long ago received my coveted Worst_President_Ever Award (and yes the judging included Millard Fillmore and Andrew Johnson).
    Handed the golden platter opportunity to repudiate the myriad policy disasters of Bush (which as cited above cost trillions of dollars and millions of lives) he chose instead to continue them absolutely unchanged, usually with the same personnel. Whether it was unprosecuted bank crime in the tens of billions, foreign policy by drone bomb, health care mega-bezzle, hyper-spy tricks on everyday Americans, and corporo-fascist globalist "trade" deals, Mr. O never disappointed his Big Wall St, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, and Big Surveillance-Industrial Complex constituents. Along the way he reversed the polarity of American politics, paving the way for a true corporo-fascist to say the slightest thing that might be good for actual workers and get into the White House. History will remember him as the president who lost Turkey and The Philippines, destroyed any remaining shreds of credibility with utterly specious hacking claims and war crime accusations of other nations, and presided over an era of hyper-concentration of billionaire wealth in a nation where 70% of citizens would need to borrow to fund a $400 emergency. Those failures are now permanently branded as "Democrat" failures. The jury is unanimous: Obama wins the award.

    crittermom , December 31, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    "HAMP. And not just ignoring bank mortgage fraud, but essentially enabling it and making it the norm."
    Exactly. That is #1 on my list making him worst president ever.

    Katharine , December 31, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    I would question "ever" simply because I know I don't know enough about the history of previous presidents, and I doubt any of us do; even historians who focus on this kind of thing, supposing we had any in our midst, might be hard put to it to review all 44 thoroughly.

    witters , December 31, 2016 at 7:47 pm

    I like your epistemology! You don't know, but you do know others don't know either, even historians who clearly know a lot more on this than you.

    Ed , December 31, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Declining empires tend to get entire series of bad kings.

    Tom Bradford , December 31, 2016 at 8:08 pm

    Cause or effect?

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 12:54 pm

    I vote the mortgage fraud situation (see Chain of Title by David Dayen -not really a plug for the book) as the worst aspect of the Obama Administration. What to say about it? Regular readers of this site are well versed in the details but one aspect of it needs to be expounded upon; stand on the housetops and shout it kind of exposition: the mortgage fraud worked on millions (3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million) shows that rule of law is now destroyed in the land. Dictionary .com says this about the phrase

    Rule of Law: the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.

    The World Justice Project has several pages on the topic and starts off with this:

    * The government and its officials and agents as well as individuals and private entities are accountable under the law.
    * The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and just; are applied evenly; and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property and certain core human rights.
    * The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
    * Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

    I would invite the reader to take a moment and apply those principles to what is known about the situation concerning mortgage fraud worked on millions of homeowners during the past two decades.

    The Justice Department's infamous attempts to cover up horribly harmful schemes worked by the mortgage industry perpetrators involved the cruel irony of aiding and abetting systemic racism. Not a lot was said in the popular press about the subject of reverse redlining but I'm convinced by the preponderance of evidence that overly complicated mortgage products were taken into the neighborhoods of Detroit (90% Black or Latin American, Hispanic) and foisted off on unsuspecting homeowners. Those homeowners did not take accountants and lawyers with them to the signing but that's how those schemes should have been approached; then most of those schemes would have hit the trashcan. Many a charming snake oil salesman deserves innumerable nights of uncomfortable rest for the work they did to destroy the neighborhoods of Detroit and of course many other neighborhoods in many other cities. For this discussion I am making this a separate topic but I realize it is connected to the overall financial skulduggery worked on us all by the FIRE sector.

    However, let me return to the last principle promulgated by the World Justice Project pertaining to Rule Of Law and focus on that: "Justice is delivered timely by competent, ethical, and independent representatives and neutrals who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve." Now hear this: "are of sufficient number" for there, and gentle reader, please take this to bed with you at the end of your day: we fail as a nation. But look to the 'competent, ethical and independent' clause; we must vow to not sink into despair. This subject is a constant struggle. Google has my back on this: Obama, during both campaigns of '08 and '12, took millions from the very financial sector that he planned to not dismay and then was in turn very busy directing the Attorney General of The United States, the highest law officer in the country, to not prosecute. These very institutions that were in turn very busy taking property worth billions. 12 million stolen homes multiplied times the average home value = Trillions?

    Finally, my main point here (I am really busy sharpening this ax, but it's a worthy ax) is the issue of systemic racism- that the financial institutions in this country work long hours to shackle members of minority neighborhoods into monetarily oppressive schemes in the form of mortgages, car loans, credit cards and personal loans (think pay day scammers) and these same makers of the shackles have the protection of the highest officials in the land. Remember the pitchforks Obama inveighed? Irony of cruel ironies, two black men, both of whom appear to be of honorable bearing, (Holder moved his chair right directly into the financiers, rent takers of Covington & Burling ) work to cement the arrangements of racist, oppressive scammers who of course also work their playbooks on other folks.

    To finalize, the subject of rule of law that I have worked so assiduously to sharpen, applies to all of the other topics we can consider as failures of the Obama Presidency. So besides racism and systemic financial fraud we can turn to some top subjects that make '09 to '17 the nadir of the political culture of the United States of America. Drone wars, unending war in the Middle East, attempts to place a cloak of secrecy on the workings of the Federal Government, the reader will have their own axes to sharpen but I maintain if the reader will fervently apply and dig into the four principles outlined above, she, he, will agree that the principles outlining Rule of Law have been replaced by Rule of the Person.

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    (3, 5, 7. 12 million) should be 3, 5, 7, maybe 12 million

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:22 pm

    Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance and mortgage industries.
    Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
    Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
    Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
    Office of Population Research, Princeton University

    Ray Phenicie , December 31, 2016 at 1:24 pm

    Arghhh, the server is apparently napping-more caffeine please for the cables.
    Here's one of many scholarly articles that reviews the subject of systemic racism in the finance and mortgage industries.
    Am Sociol Rev. 2010 October 1; 75(5): 629–651. doi:10.1177/0003122410380868
    Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis
    Jacob S. Rugh and Douglas S. Massey
    Office of Population Research, Princeton University

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    The book deserves to be plugged. I thought it was great. A fast and infuriating read. And very well written.

    Yves Smith , December 31, 2016 at 6:58 pm

    I have to tell you it is inaccurate in material respects, and many of the people who played important roles in the fight were written out entirely or marginalized.

    Christopher Fay , December 31, 2016 at 7:35 pm

    This one's a keeper. I have to take notes including writer's name, post title, dates. Good summary.

    Ed , December 31, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    GW Bush sort of had two administrations. The first two years and the last two years was sort of a generic Republican but sane administration, sort of like his father's, and was OK. The crazy stuff happened in the middle four years, which maybe not coincidentally the Republicans had majorities in both house of Congress.

    Obama signed off on the Big Bailout (as did GW Bush, but my impression is that the worst features of the Big Bailout were on Obama's watch(), and that defined his administration. Sometimes you get governments defined by one big thing, and that was it. But I suspect he may have prevented the neocons from starting World War III, but that is the sort of thing we won't know about until decades have passed, if we make it that long.

    tongorad , December 31, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Obama promised hope and change and delivered the exact opposite – despair and decline. Obama should be remembered as the Great Normalizer. All of the shitty things that were around when he was inaugurated are now normalized. TINA to the max, in other words.
    It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics.

    Jess , December 31, 2016 at 3:09 pm

    "It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics."

    Bingo. Hit that one dead solid perfect, right in the ten-ring.

    Jess , December 31, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    "It should be no shock to anyone that Trump was elected after what Obama did to American politics."

    Bingo. You can say that again. Right in the ten-ring, dead solid perfect.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 4:14 pm

    You got it. Obama was hired to employ "The Shock Doctrine" and he did. He was and is "a Chicago Boy"; the term Naomi Klein used for the neoliberals who slithered out of the basements of U of Chicago to visit austerity on the masses for the enhancement of the feudal lords. It is laughable that he said last week that he could have beaten Trump. As always, He implied that it was the "message" not the policy. And that he could "sell" that message better than Hilary. For him it was always about pitching that Hopey Changey "One America" spleel that suckered so many. The Archdruid calls this "the warm fuzzies". But the Donald went right into the John Edwards land of "The Two Americas". He said he came from the 1%; but was here to work for the 99% who had been screwed over by bad deals. We will see if the Barons will stand in his way or figure out that it might be time to avoid those pitchforks by giving a little to small businesses and workers in general. Like FDR, will they try to save capitalism?

    The Donald has the bad trade deals right, but looks like he doesn't know what havoc Reagan wreaked on working people's household incomes and pension plans by breaking any power unions had and by coming up with the 401K scam; plus the Reagan interest rates that devastated farmers and ranchers and the idea of rewarding a CEO who put stock price above research and development and workers' salaries. But again, I believe it was a Democratic congress and a Democratic president Carter who eliminated the Usury law in 1979. From then on with stagnating wages, people began the descent into debt slavery. And Jimmy started the Shock Doctrine by deregulating the airlines and trucking. But he did penance. Can't see Obama doing that.

    LT , December 31, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    And once usary laws went away, credit cards were handed out to college students, with no co-sign, even if students had no work or credit history and were unemployed.
    It took until just a few years ago before they revisted that credit card policy to students.

    alex morfesis , December 31, 2016 at 6:22 pm

    dont want to burst your bubble(or anyone elses) but obama is not and was not the power to the throne it was michelle and val jar (aka beria) it was a long series of luck that got that krewe anywhere near any real power mostly, it comes from the Univ of Chicago hopey changee thingee was a nice piece of marketing by david axelrod..

    the grey lady

    5-11-2008

    In August 1999, Barack Obama strolled amid the floats and bands making their way down Martin Luther King Drive on Chicago's South Side. Billed as the largest African-American parade in the country, the summer rite was a draw over the years to boxing heroes like Muhammad Ali and jazz greats like Duke Ellington. It was also a must-stop for the city's top politicians.

    Back then, Mr. Obama, a state senator who was contemplating a run for Congress, was so little-known in the community's black neighborhoods that it was hard to find more than a few dozen people to walk with him, recalled Al Kindle, one of his advisers at the time. Mr. Obama was trounced a year later in the Congressional race - branded as an aloof outsider more at home in the halls of Harvard than in the rough wards of Chicago politics.

    But by 2006, Mr. Obama had remade his political fortunes. He was a freshman United States senator on the cusp of deciding to take on the formidable Hillary Rodham Clinton and embark on a long-shot White House run. When the parade wound its way through the South Side that summer, Mr. Obama was its grand marshal.

    but to capture the arrogance of hyde park (read the last line)

    A tight-knit community that runs through the South Side, Hyde Park is a liberal bastion of integration in what is otherwise one of the nation's most segregated cities. Mayor Washington had called it home, as did whites who marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and wealthy black entrepreneurs a generation removed from the civil rights battles of the 1960s.

    At its heart is the University of Chicago; at its borders are poor, predominately black neighborhoods blighted by rundown buildings and vacant lots. For Mr. Obama, who was born in Hawaii to a white Kansan mother and an African father and who spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, it was a perfect fit.

    "He felt completely comfortable in Hyde Park," said Martha Minow, his former law professor and a mentor. "It's a place where you don't have to wear a label on your forehead. You can go to a bookstore and there's the homeless person and there's the professor."

    also note how the lib racist grey lady can not bring themselves to name the parade it is the

    bud billiken parade

    peaceful, fun, successful

    heaven forbid the world should see a giant event run by black folk that does not end in violence might confuse the closet racists

    RudyM , January 1, 2017 at 12:17 am

    There are enough examples of such things for it to be a reasonable expectation.

    The parade also hasn't always gone without a hitch:

    The 2003 parade featured B2K.[9] The concert was free with virtually unlimited space in the park for viewing. However, the crowd became unruly causing the concert to be curtailed. Over 40 attendees were taken to hospitals as a result of injuries in the violence, including two teenagers who were shot.[38] At the 2014 parade, Two teenagers were shot after an altercation involving a group of youths along the parade route near the 4200 block of King Drive around 12:30 pm.[39][40]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Billiken_Parade_and_Picnic#Violence

    dcrane , December 31, 2016 at 10:43 pm

    On balance this one should go on the "Good" list for Bush 43:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President's_Emergency_Plan_for_AIDS_Relief

    Yes, the abstinence-education dimension probably wasn't worth much, but that took up only a minority share of the funds.

    Oregoncharles , December 31, 2016 at 11:14 pm

    Yes, they've been getting steadily worse (more right-wing) since Carter, without regard to party. That's at least 30 years now.,

    Cry Shop , December 31, 2016 at 8:49 am

    Jerri-Lynn, do all these last minute moves by Obama fit the pattern you observed Obie-the-wan perform at Harvard?

    Oregoncharles , December 31, 2016 at 11:15 pm

    Clinton did it, too. I think it's a general pattern resulting from term limits – but in the case of sole executives, term limits do make sense.

    jgordon , December 31, 2016 at 8:49 am

    From the "self-drive get cars will exacerbate organ shortages" article, my first thought was that it surely is a shame that fewer healthy vehicle drivers/passengers will end up as accident victims, thus denying their delicious organs to the deathly ill. There must be something we can do to rectify this impending catastrophe.

    Jim Haygood , December 31, 2016 at 9:03 am

    Use Microsoft Windows as the self-drive operating system. Problem solved. :-)

    Mel , December 31, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    A few other ways out:
    1) Flying cars will bring the injury rate back up.
    2) Breeding program to make up the shortfall.
    3) Proliferating superbugs will make surgery dangerous again, so that people won't want organ transplants.

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:17 pm

    Just raise a clone for parts (IMDB). All the really important people do! ;)

    RenoDino , December 31, 2016 at 8:50 am

    I agree, Tabbi in his Rolling Stone piece is now, finally, after his Trump induced psychosis, back on form. Something about the Russian Story does stink. Summing up, if the Russians did steal the election why the weak response now? Or is it just a good excuse for losing to Trump and/or is Obama is trying to protect his legacy by delegitimizing Trump? Either way, Obama looks to be underplaying or overplaying his hand.

    I wonder if this is really Obama, who is out the door, talking or is the national security state, who is not going anywhere? If it's the latter, then things start to make sense. It says to me, they are not happy with the new direction in foreign policy that Trump represents. In fact, they refuse to accept it and him.

    How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.

    Arizona Slim , December 31, 2016 at 9:30 am

    And let's just say that the Russian Story isn't ringing true with the IT community. Data point:

    https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/

    Key point from the conclusion of this article:

    "The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

    "The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website."

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 11:58 am

    http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2013/03/how-many-cyberattacks-hit-united-states-last-year/61775/

    'll leave you with some additional recent numbers on cyberintrusions, as reported by various actors:

    The energy company BP says it suffers 50,000 attempts cyberintrusion a day.

    The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.

    The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records 10 million hacks a day.

    The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.

    That's almost as many as the state of Michigan deals with.

    Utah says it faces 20 million attempts a day - up from 1 million a day two years ago.
    =============================================================
    WOW!!!! Seems like a really big F*cking deal!!!!
    Kinda makes me wonder how many laws and regulations have been enacted forcing internet companies and software companies to make their stuff more secure .

    Long story short – not too many
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-security_regulation

    {{{{{{ In July 2012, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins.[15] The bill would have required creating voluntary "best practice standards" for protection of key infrastructure from cyber attacks, which businesses would be encouraged to adopt through incentives such as liability protection.[16] The bill was put to a vote in the Senate but failed to pass.[17]}}}}}}

    And of course (I don't want to over link so you have to look it up yourself) there are the laws that ALLOW intrusion by the US government into your computer, of course makes computer systems LESS SECURE .

    So, almost makes me think Trump, OF ALL PEOPLE, was actually CORRECT when he said:
    "I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I'm not sure we have the kind the security we need. But I have not spoken with the senators and I will certainly will be over a period of time."
    And how much the above is being mocked, by people without the presence of mind to ask, "how long, and how many hacks have already occurred, and WHAT WAS DONE ABOUT IT?"

    Hacking, that happens millions upon millions of times a year now for near a decade, but apparently only a BIG F*CKING DEAL when an incompetent dem SAYS she has LOST the presidency due to hacking .

    Grebo , December 31, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Over 40 million 'attacks' a day, on just three entities.
    Bollocks. 'Attack' is far too dramatic a word for a port probe.

    Vatch , December 31, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Did you say probe? I guess that settles it. The election tamperers were the four foot tall gray space aliens with big eyes.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 4:00 pm

    Vatch
    December 31, 2016 at 3:39 pm

    Probes? I have never heard that used without being preceded by alien anal .
    So .a lot of anuses are going to have to be checked???

    RenoDino , December 31, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Craig Murray asks why is there no evidence from the NSA:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/exit-obama-cloud-disillusion-delusion-deceit/

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 31, 2016 at 9:56 am

    The Russia hacking story goes back to early October with wiki leaks. Who is at fault for Trump? Sherrod Brown, Senator of a state where Hillary lost and prominent Clinton supporter despite his previous support for good policy, DWS, Tim Kaine, Donna Brazille, or Russians? Plenty of people are invested in not being held accountable for 2000. The front runner for DNC chair is a Muslim, Sanders supporter because even Democrats are growing upset, but one of the perks of Washington is celebrity. My guess is going forward Dems will be under greater scrutiny and will find significantly less brown nosers. Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside, she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career. This was obvious to any sane and decent human being. The lesson of 2016 is even the "good Democrats" such as Sherrod Brown and Liz Warren need short leashes. In 2020, all these people have to go to Iowa (very close), New Hampshire (a blowout), and Nevada (openly rigged by former Senator Reid). How does a candidate push their "progressive" credentials after throwing in with Hillary? Hillary primary voters have the unfortunate age issue.

    Then of course, there are people who don't want to believe they bought this bs when Hillary should have been dumped ages ago.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.

    And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"? Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was not something they got her to do.

    I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler. I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things blow up in our faces.
    All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say. Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers mediocre.

    timbers , December 31, 2016 at 10:25 am

    How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.

    Sometimes the simplest "solutions" are the ones we never think of – Assassination of Trump by the Deep State, the Blob, whatever you call it. But this may take more that just weeks ahead to materialize if at all.

    If you believe President Kennedy was killed by the Deep State (I'm agnostic on that due to never researching it), and if Trump does deal with the bi-partisan War Party Deep State Blob elements by standing them down as he did his Republican primary challengers and Apprentice guests . then this may be the logical way to put an end to the threat Trump represents to the establishment. And there is so much that is threaten by Trump of the established order.

    Trillions of war armament purchase orders from NATO and the US military hinge in the balance by continued US and NATO belligerence towards Russia. Add to that the gas pipeline thru Syria that will be less likely to happen under Trump. The lost looting if no regime change in Russia like we did in Ukraine – all that lost oil and natural resource the global elites will be denied. All the lost military spending. The lost boogyman to instill fear for more surveillance of the citizenry. The Deep State, Blob, War Party will be furious.

    That's a lot of trillions.

    tgs , December 31, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Re Taibbi:

    Yes, it is positive that he openly expresses skepticism in the current environment. But why this?

    If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes.

    Leaking emails would require a 'massive response'? Has he seen Zero Days? What kind of response would be appropriate for hacking a nuclear plant? Assassinating nuclear scientists? Is he aware that we have 'hacked' elections for years? Not to mention overthrown legal governments.

    And this:

    I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything.

    Would Taibbi ever use similar language to describe Obama? So many in the media and other elite circles are suffering from Putin Derangement Syndrome.

    Bugs Bunny , December 31, 2016 at 9:27 am

    IIRC, the US helped elect Boris Yeltsin when it looked like he was going to lose?

    Eureka Springs , December 31, 2016 at 9:50 am

    How many countries have Obama /Clinton attempted regime change to covert/direct interference in elections/leadership? I would imagine the answer is far more than my quick list below. We couldn't hack/leak internal emails among the players because our bloody hypocritical hands would be all over them.

    As for Russia if all they did was expose truths via party emails, well I thank them for that. And considering what Clinton said and did to Russia over the years it would be irresponsible for a Russian leader to sit by idly and do nothing. Even though we seem to be destroying ourselves quite well enough on our own, we have and continue to threaten the rest of the world, beginning with Russia with nuclear holocaust.

    If Taibbi can call Putin all those things, then what the heck are Obama Clinton?

    Ukraine
    Russia
    Syria
    Venezuela
    Honduras
    Egypt
    Yemen
    Iraq
    Palestinians
    Libya
    Paraguay
    Turkey?
    Brazil?
    Argentina?
    Thailand?
    Hong Kong?

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Taibbi has some personal journalistic history with previous Putin governments. It's understandable that he'd cast side-eye Putin's way, though none too healthy in this deranged environment (just wait until some corporate Dem tries to use him as a Surprising Validator). Let's keep Taibbi on turn watch though.

    It seems the need to celebrate some leader is less conntected to said leader's performance than to some perceived need to be led, to believe that the very concept of hierarchy is just.

    annie , December 31, 2016 at 9:57 am

    I used to read and respect articles from Matt Taibbi.

    This one is a revelation and what it reveals is that I have been mistaken.

    I will skip his contributions in the future.

    UserFriendly , December 31, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    I do not understand this attitude at all. A writer who generally does good work says something that I disagree with so I will never read them again. It's tantamount to saying I refuse to read critically. I don't want to see anything I don't agree with 100%. It's petty.

    annie x , December 31, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    interesting! someone has hijacked my user name to post an inane comment.

    the real 'annie' says.

    Outis Philalithopoulos , December 31, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Hi, new annie.

    It's true that the other annie has been posting comments on the site for a while, so it would be less confusing if you were to modify your handle so that people can tell you two apart.

    On the other hand, don't take any of the comments from people who were concerned personally – obviously it's easy enough for two people to share the same name, and the software doesn't flag when you are using a name that has been used before.

    Steve H. , December 31, 2016 at 10:14 am

    – Putin Derangement Syndrome.

    I heard a report that Lindsey McCain et al have armstwisted Trump into hearing the CIA report on the Russian hack. What are they going to say? 'You won the election because of teh Russians!'

    "Good gracious me! You're the CIA, find me out what his favorite liquor is so I can send him a bottle!"

    So they'll tell him to his face he wasn't competent to win the election himself? My guess is says brief me again when I'm President, they walk in the door and he properly fires them. And his face will be like this .

    Cry Shop , December 31, 2016 at 11:31 am

    "warrant" and "executing/capable of carrying out" are two different things.

    As Putin has shown, Obama's capability threshold so low that it's rather moot to discuss warrant. It's now up to Congress to do something magnificently stupid, violent and utterly worthless, or rather worthy of the great American tradition.

    witters , December 31, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    And what on earth is the journalistic point of saying "I have no problem in believing something for which there seems to be no credible evidence and which is being pushed by obvious partisan interests?" I think Taibbi is 'normalising' fast.

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 9:09 am

    I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop. Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough.

    Your position is obviously different.

    And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.

    Lost in OR , December 31, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.

    The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.

    In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed to be. Feint left, drive right.

    With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 9:32 am

    Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
    Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them.
    Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum; "Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
    So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it. You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."

    craazyboy , December 31, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1 to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.

    It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players and too many styles. It's just not possible.

    Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of course.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    America will be lucky if it avoids something similar to the earlier Russian people's ranking of Tsar Nicholas versus Karensky and subsequent events.

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    I like your response. Thanks.

    I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive. He's far from progressive.

    I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.

    My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.

    Vatch , December 31, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Sorry if I came across as harsh. I enjoy your arguments, so, I tried to encourage you to hang in there.
    Happy New Year

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    In other words, Obama's a Kissingerian realist, or a businessperson (but I repeat myself): only permanent interests.

    Happy New Year, and try to don't run off so easy. :)

    Yves Smith , December 31, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    The ACA was not badly thought out. It was written by insurance industry lobbyists. And Obama thought that was just ducky.

    wtf , December 31, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Agreed.

    Putin's such a sweetheart to invite those children to the Kremlin. /s

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Well, it is a real recruiting opportunity.

    wtf , December 31, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Agreed.

    Putin's such a sweetheart to invite those children to the Kremlin.

    Steve C , December 31, 2016 at 10:51 am

    The liberals have so much invested in Obama they can't bear to admit he's a backstabbing failure. There is no sugar coating Bush's awfulness. There also is no denying things now are worse than they were in 2007, before the Great Recession began. The liberals like to say things are better than they were when Obama took office. But that's a comically low bar. Rock bottom of the Great Recession. We have not recovered.

    Obama isn't gaudy bad like Bush. Obama's pathologies are smoother, like his desperation for establishment approval.

    Arizona Slim , December 31, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    The liberals like to say that things are better than they were when Obama took office. Sorry to share this tidbit, but I must:

    On Friday, March 18, I was among the 7,000 people who heard Bernie Sanders speak at the Tucson Convention Center Arena. Guess what he said.

    And, to my utter and total amazement, the audience burst into applause. I couldn't believe it. Much of Sanders' appeal was based on how lousy the economy still was for so many people. Including Yours Truly.

    My response to Sanders' praise of Obama's handling of the economy was a slow clap. A few minutes later, I left the rally.

    polecat , December 31, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    "Obama's pathologies are smoother"

    Like a glass of fine bourbon downed with a shot of arsenic.

    Jeff , December 31, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    So criticism of Obama isn't acceptable? Would it be better to let his poor decisions/actions just go unnoticed?

    Or are you referring to something else?

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    Of course it's acceptable. It's even important, vitally. But his height? I know I know it was not really an ad hom, but why even mention it?

    He fetishized making nice w the rethugs to our and the country's detriment. He had 2 years to get something done. And honestly I have no idea if it would have been different w a less hostile congress. My complaint is he didn't really try. Everything was half measures, pablum.

    Plenue , December 31, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Far too generous. He did try to get Republican policies enacted. He wasn't a weak Democrat, he was a driven Republican who was only thwarted by a comically, stupidly hostile GOP that sabotaged things like the Grand Bargain/Great Betrayal because they had such a virulent hatred of the black guy.

    reslez , December 31, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    If Obama had enacted the agenda he ran on– even in part - the Democrats would not have lost Congress in 2010. Obama's "only having two years" is thoroughly on himself and his party.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    hreik
    December 31, 2016 at 9:09 am

    The site would be poorer and I would be sadder for the loss of your comments.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-30/can-this-political-union-be-saved
    Shortly before I got married, I received a piece of sterling advice that I have been mulling a lot over the last year: "You have a big decision to make: Do you want to be married, or do you want to be right?"
    .
    The more determined you are to win every battle, the more likely you are to lose what's important: the person you love so much that you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with them. And so every time you have a real disagreement - the kind that cannot be finessed by agreeing that tonight you'll order Indian, and next time you'll get Chinese - you have to think carefully before you decide to have that fight. Is this really the hill that you're willing to let your marriage die on?
    ..
    While traveling a few months back, I ended up chatting with a divorce attorney, who observed that what we're seeing in America right now bears a startling resemblance to what he sees happen with many of his clients. They've lost sight of what they ever liked about each other; in fact, they've even lost sight of their own self-interest. All they can see is their grievances, from annoying habits to serious wrongs. The other party, of course, generally has their own set of grievances. There is a sort of geometric progression of outrage, where whatever you do to the other side is justified by whatever they did last. They, of course, offer similar justifications for their own behavior.

    ======================================================
    Every friend, every association we make, every relationship with a relative, every political entity can be dissolved. One can insist one is correct on every matter, and live a long life with ever fewer associations until maybe one has none at all.

    As to which president is worse, your all wrong. Supposedly , 99 senators believe Russia hacked us. Our country apparently is composed entirely of imbeciles without regard to race, creed, sex, or party .

    reslez , December 31, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.

    Whether you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the articles at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested in pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true. I believe we have a duty as citizens to seek out the best sources of information. NC is on that list.

    reslez , December 31, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.

    I believe we have a duty as citizens to seek out the best sources of information, even if that results in encountering opinions that are uncomfortable to us. NC is one of those sources. Whether you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the articles at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested in pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.

    And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"? Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was not something they got her to do.

    I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler. I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things blow up in our faces.
    All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say. Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers mediocre.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    bye bye!

    timbers , December 31, 2016 at 9:16 am

    You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few things Obamanation did:

    1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared by Congress.

    2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.

    3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.

    polecat , December 31, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    "Obama's pathologies are smoother"

    Like a glass of fine bourbon downed with a shot of arsenic.

    Bugs Bunny , December 31, 2016 at 9:22 am

    Facts on the ground in Mumbai re demonitization and how the poor are coping.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demonetization-survey-k-west-ward-slums-mumbai-how-urban-krishnan?trk=prof-post

    beth , December 31, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    I think the following quote summarizes the article and the writer's attitude toward those experiencing this tragedy:

    Conclusion:

    For the group as a whole, there was only a 10% loss in income in November. However, the impact on certain types of occupations was high, with income loss up to 44% among the self-employed.

    Dita , December 31, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Re Something About This Russia Story Stinks, I feel like Obama's weak response is a passive aggressive way of telegraphing that he doesnt believe The Russians Did It either.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 31, 2016 at 9:41 am

    Since the NSA not the CIA would be the main actor involved with cyber security and Obama has instructed the CIA to take action and noted his CIA reports, it's clear "OMG Russia" was always red meat to help Hillary with Republicans. The problem is the Dems told such an incredulous lie in early October many of their own voters and donors believed it because "Obama wouldn't make something up."

    Obama needs to do enough to soothe Democrats who believe this nonsense while not gaining the ire of the sane. Obama will never utter the truth or do the right thing. Polling indicates his Russian story isn't catching on. When Congressmen go home to their districts, they might not be so eager to discuss Russia when they find the voters don't care Podesta's emails were leaked.

    Certain Dems especially Clinton connected ones who swore Hillary was a tolerable candidate and the msm after being in the tank for Hillary for so long are desperate to regain credibility. Admitting the Russian story was an obvious sham means acknowledging complicity or being a mark. See how easy it is. It's not my fault. It's the foreign leader you have no control over who was at fault.

    Rhondda , December 31, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!

    LT , December 31, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Obama knows he beat Hillary in 2008, when she was also expected to be crowned.
    And he knows he beat her for the same reason Trump did: people wanted anyone who wasn't perceived (emphasis on perceived) to be if the long time political establishment.

    It's funny that no reporter, if they really nelieve this, has asked Obama how far back the intelligence committe was investigating "Putin's interference". Russia knew both Clinton and McCain had their hawkish sites set. The Clinton campaign was a leaky mess back then and no one once cried "hacking."
    Imagine the hilarity if it were true and Russia helped elect Obama.

    Lemmy , December 31, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    I think you're right.
    On the one hand, we are told to believe our intelligence agencies' assertions that Russia directly influenced the results of our Presidential election - in other words, that they intentionally subverted our democratic process (such as it is) in order to ensure the election of their preferred candidate. That's pretty heavy stuff.

    So what is the official U.S. response? We're gonna send some Russian folks home right before Christmas really screw up their holiday plans!

    Well played Obama - that will totally make them think twice before installing the next puppet president.

    Rhondda , December 31, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!

    Rhondda , December 31, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    Sorry for the doublepost. Comment system is acting strange.

    tgs , December 31, 2016 at 9:28 am

    The Russians are at it again. The Washington Post

    Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say

    And Rt:

    Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday.

    Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is 4.1.1b.

    The Report by Wordfence

    The Washington Post seems to have a fake news problem.

    Mariah , December 31, 2016 at 10:01 am

    I can't read the Washington Post story because of the paywall, but here is what VTDigger has to say about this story. While I didn't read the Post story, the difference in headlines is interesting. VTDigger's headline is "Russians Penetrated Burlington Electric Department Computer" which seems less alarmist than the Post's "Russian Operation Hacked a Vermont Utility, Showing Risk to U.S. Electrical Grid Security, Officials Say."

    https://vtdigger.org/2016/12/30/russians-penetrated-computer-burlington-electric-dept/

    Aside from the hysterical quote by our outgoing governor Peter Shumlin, the Vermont officials seem fairly calm about the incident. I would also note that Shumlin's failure to keep his promise on universal health care probably endangers more Vermont lives than the Russian hack attempt.

    Cry Shop , December 31, 2016 at 10:39 am

    the Russian hack attempt.

    at this point, any claim of agency by this administration is almost proof of the opposite.

    marym , December 31, 2016 at 10:56 am

    The govt released a report of "evidence" for the alleged DNC hacks. Arizona Slim at 9:30 am here posted a link to a critique of this "evidence." Meanwhile, utilities and other entities started checking their systems for similar "evidence." Burlington found an instance on a laptop unconnected to the grid.

    Here's a summary from emptywheel – she's actually somewhat of a believer in a Russian DNC hack, but not in this grid story.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    The problem with the DNC hack story is "who cares?" The Democrats are a private organization* with very poor cyber security as evidenced by Hillary's basement server.

    Podesta was not a government official conducting government business. Hacking and releasing his emails is simply not interfering with the election.

    *They made this claim in the primaries. The Democratic Party is in no way part of the U.S, government. They warrant as much attention as a local business as they don't receive defense contracts.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 11:13 am

    NotTimothyGeithner
    December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-hack-of-government-network-compromises-security-clearance-files/2015/06/12/9f91f146-1135-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html?utm_term=.4b8cea31c097

    Do you remember the Chinese hack of USA! USA! USA! SECURITY CLEARANCES!!!!!!! TOP SECRET STUFF!!!!

    Do you remember the uproar and all the consequences to China?
    All the trade sanctions???
    The Chinese import restrictions???
    DEF CON superduper ONE or what ever number they use for top DEF CONS now a days
    How the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war and total global annihilation because of this ACT OF WAR????

    Yeah ..neither do I.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 31, 2016 at 11:49 am

    Arms manufacturers have an interest. The Russia is too small and too distant to overwhelm most countries outside of the Baltics and the Caucuses. The Chinese if they are let in can overwhelm most countries through soft power. Why change U.S. shackles for Chinese ones? The Russians offer many of the same weapon and tech options as the U.S. and China without the soft power threat of being overwhelmed.

    Part of the neoconservative rationale back in the day was the state of defense tech advancement would neutralize our wunder weapons and soldiers on the ground would matter again. We needed to block the Chinese and Russians by destroying or assimilating anyone who wasn't 100% loyal or could move into the Moscow sphere or cut into profit margins. The neoliberals pushed the U.S. would dominate free trade because the US. would run defense, tech, and finance. Russia and China are threats to every neoliberal promise.

    marym , December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Another summary from Greenwald.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 11:26 am

    marym
    December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    There was no "penetration of the U.S. electricity grid." The truth was undramatic and banal. Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.

    Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic claims, so they had to issue their own statement to the Burlington Free Press which debunked the Post's central claim (emphasis in original): "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop NOT connected to our organization's grid systems."

    So the key scary claim of the Post story – that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid – was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed the Post's claim were based on fiction.
    ========================================
    Thanks for that marym!
    I guess – no, I now KNOW it was just idiotic of me and a naive and foolish belief in "progress" that I thought people could no longer be manipulated, like Americans in the 50's with the Red Scare. If anything, it seems the mechanism for ginning up mass hysteria is more effective now than it was than .

    Arizona Slim , December 31, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    If I may be permitted to comment on my comment, permit me to say this about my article link's origin:

    The writer of said article runs a company called WordFence. Its flagship product is a WordPress plugin that protects websites against hacking.

    If you ever get the opportunity to manage a WordPress-powered website that has WordFence among its plugins, be forewarned. You are going to be a very busy site manager.

    Why? Because you'll get frequent e-mailed admonitions from WordFence. Better update this plugin, your WordPress installation, your website theme, or some combination of these things. Yeah, it's annoying at times, but the good news is that WordFence is a very vigilant plugin.

    So, heed those admonitions and do those updates. Now!

    Carl , December 31, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Wow that Putin guy is smart. Brokering a cease-fire in Syria and brushing off Obama in one week. Forget the 11th dimensional chess, this guy's the real chess player. Really knows how to make a countermove. His exposing our failed policies is really what's driving the heated anti-Russian rhetoric by the political establishment, imo.

    dcblogger , December 31, 2016 at 10:00 am

    French workers win legal right to avoid checking work email out-of-hours

    lyman alpha blob , December 31, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Yesterday I mentioned having taken a class in Assyrian archaeology. Turns out the city I studied, Nimrud, has been turned to rubble by the Islamic state .

    Katniss responded with a comment about it being harder to rewrite history if people were actually aware of it. Really at a loss for words as to how people could do something like this. You'd think these ISIS ass***es would revere the Assyrians, being fellow head choppers and all but instead they raze the place.

    The city of Nimrud in northern Iraq is in pieces, victim of the Islamic State group's fervor to erase history. The remains of its palaces and temples, once lined in brilliant reliefs of gods and kings, have been blown up. The statues of winged bulls that once guarded the site are hacked to bits. Its towering ziggurat, or step pyramid, has been bulldozed.

    Funny thing is most of the good stuff from these sites was pillaged by the Brits 150 years ago and a lot of the best reliefs can be found scattered through small New England liberal arts colleges. Always thought they should be repatriated. Love to see these slabs lowered back into place in Iraq someday especially if there are some Bush era neocons and ISIS types underneath them when it happens.

    ewmayer , December 31, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Remember the "bridge of death" scene near the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where after seeing Knight #1 walk safely across the bridge after getting 3 really easy questions from the bridge troll, Knight #2 excalims "that's easy!", rushes to the front of the queue, and after getting 2 easy questions, is stumped by "what is the capital of Assyria?" Funnily enough, I actually knew that one – Nineveh. Or thought I did, because doing a quick lookup just now I see Nineveh was the oldest city in Assyria and its ancient capital until its destruction in 612 BC, but Nimrud was an earlier capital, from 879–722 BC. So the correct answer is in fact, "it depends."

    Very sad what IS did to Nimrud, though.

    Jeff , December 31, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Hi,

    Is there an update on the demands from NC towards WP and associated liars about the fake news stories?
    Just saw a tweet mentioning the editorial WP added to their original stuff, but couldn't see an update in any of the ~posts here on NC.

    Thanks,

    Paid Minion , December 31, 2016 at 10:42 am

    2016 Post Mortem

    Can somebody please kill this fantasy that Clinton I was "eight years of peace and prosperity"?

    For many of us, it was the beginning of 25 years of working harder and making less. And of hacked government stats to make the economy look better than it actually was.

    Lupemax , December 31, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Clinton 1, the best repug in the dem party, gave us
    1) Haiti – a failed state
    2) telecommunications bill that has given us the 5 corporations that offer the worst lamestream media in the industrial world that lies endlessly.
    3) end of the safety net (welfare as we know it) for those with the least increase in corporate welfare
    4) Glass-Steagall and corruption on Wall Street and all white collar crime actually that goes completely unpunished
    5) continuation of massive, runaway inequality
    6) Hillary Clinton
    7) NAFTA
    8) increase in childhood poverty
    9) sick care insurance that doesn't cover anyone for healthcare at all
    10) and he also provided privatized social security with Newt Gingrich but Monica (good for her) intervened.

    Webstir , December 31, 2016 at 10:59 am

    While making no excuses for the ineptitude of our current establishmentarian politicos, I think many of the commenters on here who seem in awe of Putin's political savvy forget an important point: He's an autocrat. Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a generally effective system of checks and balances. Putin, as an autocrat, does not face these challenges. He is free to shape his statecraft as he pleases and to implement tactics at the drop of a hat. Our political system does not (and lord help us under the trump regime - should not) enjoy this luxury. Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations.

    "11 dimensional chess" give me a break.

    HBE , December 31, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    "Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."

    But what about about an oligarchy?

    Our "democracy" has been dead for awhile for anyone not in the top 10%. You can't really be an "existential threat" to something that doesn't exist.

    Webstir , December 31, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Thus my statement: "Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a GENERALLY effective system of checks and balances." And yes, it can (and most likely will) get worse, before it gets better. I'm not blind to the US's frailties. However, I feel there is still a "chance" that we can step back from the brink of utterly destroying this 200 year experiment in representative democracy. The closer we step to abiding autocracy as a matter of course, though, the closer we step to the brink of not being able to reverse the considerable mistakes we have made.

    alex morfesis , December 31, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    No one anywhere ever is an autocrat no king, no dictator, no president, no fearless leader and certainly not raz-putin and no one has ever been that is a pedestrian image of what it takes to run an enterprise not castro, not saddam, not mao, not stalin .no one

    Webstir , December 31, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Fine. I'll play the semantic game.

    Your statement does not; however, negate my assertion. Putin's ability to maneuver politically (within whatever system you'd like to call it) is substantially less hampered by checks and balances than ours. Our absolute polarization in this country has opened the door for "autocraticish" world leaders to seriously undermine our "admittedly weakened by oligarchic influences" system of representative democracy.

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    Our checks and balances were designed to serve the oligarchy. For some reason, you don't seem to have a problem with things that are unfit for purpose as long as they demand attention.

    Webstir , December 31, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    I address the first sentence of your reply alone, because the second makes no sense.

    So great, it's always been an oligarchy. I've read Zinn. But since you append no solution, am I left to believe that the solution is let Putin destroy said oligarchy and replace it with autocracy? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. But I get it. Some people just want to see the world burn.

    hunkerdown , January 1, 2017 at 12:27 am

    The world is not debate club and it is not a business. You are not entitled to a solution. I believe it's arrogant of you to believe that you are.

    What's more, you're not ready to overlap your solution space with that of the people. Like I said, the world is not debate club. This is an attempt to meet minds, not to pray like a Pharisee.

    Let's start with this principle: does human welfare "net out"?

    hunkerdown , January 1, 2017 at 12:33 am

    Adding, I understand that "world burm" stuff is on today's meme list, as I've seen it in plenty of comment boxes around the Web, so you can stop pretending you're not on assignment. I want to watch liberals' world burn for their arrogance, and I defy you to tell me why they don't deserve that or worse.

    witters , December 31, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    Forgive me Webstir, but isn't Russia a capitalist democracy? Doesn't the UN etc get to monitor their elections? Putin gets voted in in the usual way. If that is a problem, then it is a problem for 'Democracy' generally. And remind me, these "checks and balances" – is that the CIA versus the FBI? Is it the the DOJ and financial crime? What is it?

    Carl , December 31, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    I guess that comment was directed to one of mine. Sorry, but I was just trying to express how inept Putin makes our war-mongering political establishment look (probably because they are) just by making a few strategic moves. If that came across as "cozying up" to the man, well, you might be reading too much into it. And the 11th dimensional chess remark was /sarc.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 31, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    "Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations." Huh!????? Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat to ALL nations of the world.

    And how is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security Industrial Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?

    Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 31, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    "Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations." Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat to ALL nations of the world.

    How is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security Industrial Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?

    Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 31, 2016 at 11:01 am

    The Aurochs, back from the dead.

    Now, we can feel better about finishing of those bees, because we can bring always bring them back later.

    More enabling of Nature-abusing, should it become a part of cost-benefit analysis – the cost of preserving a species, versus letting it die now and bringing it back 50 years later – because we humans know exactly what we're doing. Having more options is always better.

    In the mean time, get the award ready for another display of superior intelligence.

    flora , December 31, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    I don't disagree.
    For me, teading the story brought up this segue:

    The general appearance of the auroch bull is similar to the smaller Spanish fighting bull. Which reminds me, there are several kinds of bull fighting. Portuguese bull fighting isn't featured in movies but wow is it something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS4bGwA0QSc

    There's the ancient /modern sport of bull-leaping. Sport in some form goes back at least 3500 years judging from Minoan frescos.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AukHt8_N1zs

    jhallc , December 31, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    Look on the bright side. They might be developing a superior supply of rodeo bulls to ride. However, the clowns may need some extra padding.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Is Obama using Russia to force a wedge between Trump and his party? Guardian

    Having compromised national security in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Republican leadership may now see Trump as expendable. After all, he chose a standard rightwing Republican, the Indiana governor, Mike Pence, as his running mate, which means McConnell and Ryan can always arrange to have Trump impeached if he becomes too much trouble.

    For Obama, Russia is thus a uniquely effective wedge issue, with the potential to divide the president-elect from his party. If Trump tries to remove the new sanctions, he could face blowback from Congress; if he doesn't, his friendly relationship with Putin could be damaged.
    ===================================================================
    If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs soon enough. As I commented yesterday, to me the issue is Trump strong enough to resist the many and varied forms of persuasion that will be marshaled by the MIC and associated hangers on to continue the very lucrative cold war funding.

    I saw a retrospective on the Trump campaign, and the part where Trump got sat down and questioned on abortion. Trump finally answered the question, "do you think women who have abortions should be punished?"
    Trump's answer of yes reveals two things to me:
    1. Yes, of course he is a politician and gives an answer that he believes his base wants to hear. It took him a while to learn the standard inconsistent but repub politically correct answer.
    2. I doubt very much, to the extent Trump has "core beliefs" that Trump was against abortion. But Trump, maybe more than most, will change to mollify the base.

    Now, I don't think the repub base actually gives a rat's as* about spending money to contain Russia, but I think the modern elites can sure make it seem like they do. I am hoping, but I doubt Trump, has the backbone, skill, and intellect to really counter a sustained effort to keep us at the status quo ante (i.e., keep us knee jerk anti Russian).

    The question is: are there REALLY 99 senators who believe Russia hacked the election or same difference, 99 who will vote that Russia hacked us?
    And you know what that means? It means that we are governed in mass, by seriously incompetent people with ideological blinders on – Trump is the least of our problems .

    Foppe , December 31, 2016 at 11:53 am

    Fancy that, Harvard still has a "cold war center" with nitwits who sell this as "analysis"?

    Mark Kramer, the program director for the Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, told Business Insider in an email Friday that Putin's "conspicuous announcement today was intended in part to give the impression that Obama's measure are weak and inconsequential (as indeed they largely are) and do not deserve a response."

    "Putin can thus depict himself as taking the high road," Kramer added, "and undoubtedly will be praised in European and Third World countries that are always eager to condemn the United States."

    HotFlash , December 31, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs soon enough.
    ========================================

    I dunno. Mr. Trump, excuse me, President-Elect Trump, has a real gift for knowing what the people want, or at least what they want to hear. And the R's are conditioned (by the Tea Part et al) to fear their base. May it be that the Repubs (elites) will have problems with Trump? As for the Demos, Demo-friendly pundits and the vast "left wing conspiracy", I keep having the feeling that all this Putin-blaming stuff is because "Empress Hillary said so" and the DC/Demo-apparatus does not dare (yet) pile on the Trump wagon. See what happens on Jan 21.

    petal , December 31, 2016 at 11:15 am

    A correction to the OvaScience story-Jon Tilly is not at BU, he's been at Northeastern since leaving MGH. I was in the little Center when that work was done(by colleagues/friends). There were 3 groups that shared space.

    petal , December 31, 2016 at 11:20 am

    A correction to the OvaScience story-Jon Tilly is not at BU, he's been at Northeastern since leaving MGH . I was in the little Center when that work was done(by colleagues/friends). There were 3 groups that shared space.

    Cry Shop , December 31, 2016 at 11:35 am

    It's going to be a hot time in the hard town tonight.

    capacity by an estimated 250 million tonnes this year and to reduce the share of coal in its energy mix to 62.6 percent by 2016. The country also intends to modernise its coal-fired power plants by 2020 to reduce emissions of "major pollutants" by 60 percent and i s committed to stabilising its CO2 emissions "around 2030 ". Environmental NGOs are nonetheless cautious, worried in particular about the unbridled construction of new coal-fired power plants in China, at the rate of almost two new projects per week in 2015 alone – even though there may ultimately be little need for the extra capacity. (AFP)

    Say Goodnight, Gracie.

    Brian , December 31, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Hacking and leaking; something one does when the flu is in town?
    The government claims the Russians hacked something not connected to the internet and expect everyone to believe it. All that is waiting now is the 200,000 IT specialists that could read the code and would disagree.
    this time, the big lie is going to be dispelled in every coffee shop, workplace and wifi hotspot in the land. The IT folks are going to be asked by their friends and customers if it is true or not, and it will all unravel.
    Why would our government make claims so easy to demolish?

    knowbuddhau , December 31, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Why? Because they work. And once people act on them, it becomes almost impossible to get them to admit they were hugely and publicly wrong. Propaganda and advertising are similar in that the message doesn't have to make sense, it just has to achieve the intended result.

    I don't share your faith in the power of facts to dispel beliefs that confirm cherished myths. ISTM that beliefs, world views, come first, and "facts" are noticed, selected, and accepted relative to their support thereof.

    It's a fact that genocide of native Americans was official US policy. "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It's a fact that treaties were "negotiated" at gunpoint. It's a fact that we broke them anyway. It's a fact that we stole millions of acres. It's a fact that we have no intention of returning stolen property.

    It's a fact that freedmen were promised "40 acres and a mule." It's a fact that that promise is still unfulfilled.

    It's a fact that the Tonkin Gulf "incident" did not happen as reported. Still, many, maybe even most Americans believe we were attacked, and further, that we had to stop the dreaded "domino effect."

    It's a fact that the invasion of Iraq was based on lies. It was an illegal war of aggression. And still is. Nevertheless, anyone who participates in uniform is a "hero." And anyone who reveals exactly how effed up was our prosecution of that illegal war is, in "fact," a most scurrilous villain. Just try defending Manning or Snowden to diehard American Exceptionalists.

    It's a fact that US forces tortured people in black sites all over the world. It's a fact that the Convention Against Torture demands investigation and prosecution. It's a fact that our constitutional scholar-president looked "forward, not backward," putting our government in breach of the CAT. Where are the impeachment proceedings for this high crime?

    I could go on and on. It'd be nice if facts controlled politics. Fact is, beliefs do.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 1:38 pm

    knowbuddhau
    December 31, 2016 at 12:58 pm

    Unfortunately, you are exactly right. It seems humans are just hard wired to be cheerleaders for their own team, tribe, country .beliefs come first, and than cherry picked facts, or facts too good to check that support the beliefs.

    I have said it a million times, I believe the most difficult thing for a human to do is admit they were wrong about something.

    knowbuddhau , December 31, 2016 at 8:12 pm

    Thanks, fd, glad you agree. I (almost ;) always enjoy your comments.

    I'm not so sure "unfortunately" is the word I'd use, though. More like "naturally." I don't regret being more belief-driven than data-driven. I think it's only natural. I think if people were honest, they'd admit they are, too. Or am I supposed to think they're Mr. Data? That's what makes us human, right? I think the mythological is a realm of human experience just as natural as is the psychological.

    It'd be nice if facts controlled politics. But first we'll have to come to a more universal agreement as to exactly what world/universe/multiverse we're living in. I think it'd behoove us to take into consideration the world views of those we oppose. We can't assume we're living in the same world. ISTM we're often bringing facts to faith-based arguments. And that even we, who have faith in the scientific method, make them, too.

    All the data in the world won't move people unless it's in a narrative and/or symbolic form that speaks to people directly, no thought required, like art does. Ask climate change scientists.

    The scary thing is, as Red Scare 2.0 shows, or Trump's entire campaign, the opposite is true, too. If you hit the right notes, it doesn't even have to make sense. Works almost as well as the flashy thing (neuralizer) in Men In Black. Not because we're stupid "sheeple" (how I hate that phrase!), but because we're "human, all too human."

    Men In Black in 5 seconds
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymSEibHKOgo

    PS: Regarding admitting mistakes. You won't mind, then, if I point out that you often use "than" when I think you mean "then." I like it when others kindly point out my mistakes, so in that spirit.

    annie , December 31, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    there is an 'annie' commenting above on the taibbi piece who is not me! and does not express my sentiments at all.
    i'd thought that one's user name was sacrosanct here. i've been using 'annie' for many years on n.c.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    annie
    December 31, 2016 at 12:26 pm

    I was spoofed ONCE on this site – I was gonna change my moniker to the "realfresnodan" but through sheer laziness, I never got around to it and it ?never? happened again. I don't know, but I imagine software that verifies your address has to allow a different address or computer at least once, otherwise one would have to change your moniker every time you bought a new computer or changed your internet provider, etc.
    Plus, when the new secret police come to get me, I will always have the defense, "its documented that I am being spoofed!!!" I LOVE OBAMA/TRUMP/BUSH!!! – I can't decide who I love more!!!! (need I say sarc?)

    ProNewerDeal , December 31, 2016 at 1:27 pm

    HillaryB0ts & 0bamabots would say Putin is falsely impersonating you.

    Sorry, some gallows humor. Hopefully the impostor gets banned

    Outis Philalithopoulos , December 31, 2016 at 1:33 pm

    We'll look into the general issue. Of course deliberately impersonating another commenter isn't okay, but sometimes two people take the same user name simply by accident.

    ewmayer , December 31, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    Outis, is it possible to tweak the registration/post-processing setup so each commenter's profile is stored as a unique UID/email-address pair, and someone attempting to use a UID already linked to a different e-mail gets a "sorry, this userid is already taken" error message? Seems like a pretty basic anti-spoofing measure for any halfway-decent comments system to support.

    JTMcPhee , December 31, 2016 at 8:36 pm

    That will cause me problems, since my personal situation has me using three different devices, no, five counting computers where I now only occasionally work, to participate here. But it's not my space, so it goes. Protect the discourse. Besides, no one seems to think it worth spoofing me .

    Outis Philalithopoulos , December 31, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    If the proposed system included information about the device, it would be unworkable for precisely the reason you mention. I can imagine a way to work around that, but it may or may not be feasible - it will depend on the flexibility of the back end. I'll try to look into it.

    JTMcPhee , December 31, 2016 at 9:07 pm

    From the multiple posts of the same msg by several people, I get the feeling that others are having the same experience I am: I scribble, click "post comment," and then get a white screen rather than a return to a posted, moderated or disappeared comment in the thread. I refresh the page, which then warns me that "this comment has already been posted" on a white screen. I re-load NC, search out my insert point, and maybe the note is there, maybe not. And if I pick the option offered in a text box when refreshing from the white screen, to 're-send the form,' it usually results in a multiple post of the same text. I have tried refreshing the screen and even re-booting, same thing happens. Just offering my experience with the site lately. This started a couple of days ago.

    Mel , December 31, 2016 at 9:30 pm

    I saw the same thing this morning:
    December 31, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    Browser is Firefox on a Raspberry Pi..
    In case this helps.

    Outis Philalithopoulos , December 31, 2016 at 10:15 pm

    Thanks for letting us know, I'll forward on this information.

    Katharine , December 31, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Whoa! Good luck getting that straightened out! I should think it would feel really creepy to see alien sentiments under your local identity.

    jo6pac , December 31, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    I guess we know were Putin's comment on I won't get into kitchen politics came from.

    http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/12/30/alleged-russian-spies-told-to-leave-sf-include-consulates-chef/

    The is truly evil but maybe di-fi and dick will invite everyone from the Russian Embassy to the mac-mansion for the holiday cheer;)

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    Even though I have weighed in, the truth is that who was worse for the country Obama or Bush really won't be decided until more time has passed after Obama has left office. Think of it this way, we didn't have a clear view of how many disastrous choices/decisions/terrible legislation was part of the Clinton administration until years after he left. The full force of NAFTA hadn't been felt, the devastation of Welfare Reform would only get deeper and deeper, and then there was the repeal of Glass Steagall and the Gramm Bliley Leach atrocity that in reality has been a leading component in the world wide Depression we are still dealing with (and with no FDR unfortunately some of us are waiting for crash pt. 2). Just think how much worse it would have been if he hadn't been impeached and got his entitlement reform. I have to give the Tea Party the Monica Lewinsky Earned Benefit Savior Award for managing to derail Obama's multiple attempts at the same, but similar to Bill it will merely be a "and it could have been worse foot note" to his history. But whatever else the last three Presidents do have one thing in common all have ended their terms with a lot of Americans, probably even most demanding change.

    Hope is the thing with feathers that perches in the soul, and while it is more likely that Trump will just accelerate the descent this country has been on for over three decades that part of me still sings that it might not be that way and sees chance for sanity and humanity to triumph over greed, selfishness and corruption. Unlike Dickinson's my version was abashed for most of the last six years, and it could become dormant and silent in even less time for Trump. But it still exists, still beats and still sings and will again for Americans do not give up on change, someday we will get it in the manner we really want.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Pat
    December 31, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    " give the Tea Party the Monica Lewinsky Earned Benefit Savior Award "

    THAT IS RICH!!!
    hmmmmm .was the sloppiness of the fore mentioned young lady uh, hiding the evidencedue to her being a repub "undercover" agent? Hmmmmmm ..

    OIFVet , December 31, 2016 at 5:55 pm

    There but for a sloppy BJ and a cigar Says a lot about the precariousness of what was once called the "Third Rail" of politics.

    JTMcPhee , December 31, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Seems to me it doesn't matter, except as a debating point or for bragging rights or tribal supremacy, or other inconsequentialisms, which figurehead was "worse for the country. " Seems to me there's not much of a "country" remaining. And from the standpoint of this one ordinary person, GWB/BHO are just file tabs in the Rulers' great cabinet of horrors.

    But may I offer the obligatory and mostly sincere traditional wishes to all here, that you have a peaceful and kindly New Year!

    hunkerdown , January 1, 2017 at 12:38 am

    Indeed, isn't the obsession with ranking a major driver of the emptiness of liberalism as the game is played? It's learned, I'm certain; I'm as certain it can be unlearned, given stern enough measures.

    aab , December 31, 2016 at 11:50 pm

    Coming back hours after I read it to say I love this comment, and I love the extention of the Dickinson metaphor. Let us sing and beat our wings until the vibration cracks the bars on our cage.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 1:15 pm

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/312307-washington-post-raises-dark-suspicions-about-trumps-russia

    "Why is Mr. Trump so dismissive of Russia's dangerous behavior? Some say it is his lack of experience in foreign policy, or an oft-stated admiration for strongmen, or naivete about Russian intentions. But darker suspicions persist."

    The editorial concluded by connecting the president-elect's "odd behavior" toward Russia with his lack of transparency when it comes to his business empire.

    "Are there loans or deals with Russian businesses or the state that were concealed during the campaign? Are there hidden communications with Mr. Putin or his representatives?" The newspaper speculated.

    "We would be thrilled to see all the doubts dispelled, but Mr. Trump's odd behavior in the face of a clear threat from Russia, matched by Mr. Putin's evident enthusiasm for the president-elect, cannot be easily explained."

    ==========================================================
    SO it begins ..

    I was thinking my impeachment hypothesis was premature, given Trump hasn't even been sworn in ..but now I don't think so.

    DJG , December 31, 2016 at 1:25 pm

    The recording of the chant in the virtual Ayia Sofia embedded in the American Conservative story is indeed beautiful. There has also been considerable speculation about the acoustics in San Marco in Venice, which is also a modified Byzantine layout. One writer points out that more than one choir was stationed in San Marco, so as to enhance the polyphony. I wonder if this was the case in Ayia Sophia, with its gigantic galleries.

    I was reminded of the importance of the tradition of chanting (no musical instruments) among the Orthodox Christians and the Churches of the East. It is a distinctive tradition not much known in the U S of A, where people like to make claims that unimportant splinter groups like the Seventh Day Adventists have universal appeal. (But so much of "American religion" is so thoroughly parochial–and we are sure to be treated to much much much more of its certainties in the Trump cabinet.) Ayia Sofia, the church of the holy and divine wisdom is a cautionary tale about universal appeals, as is its new, thoroughly iconoclatic decor.

    Ayia Sofia is indeed a contraditory place, as the article notes. It is suffused with the Istanbul melancholy that Orhan Pamuk describes. Not so far away, in the Fatih neighborhood, and higher up, the Suleimaniye mosque (built by the Sinan the convert) also glows in contradictory splendor.

    Jay M , December 31, 2016 at 1:50 pm

    Taibbi making his serious journo bones?
    "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find."
    "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."
    I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
    And 0bama to Chamberlain? Oh wait!

    Jay M , December 31, 2016 at 1:52 pm

    Taibbi making his serious journo bones?
    "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find."
    "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."

    I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
    And 0bama to Chamberlain? Oh wait!

    Jay M , December 31, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    Taibbi making his serious journo bones?
    "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find."
    "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."

    I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
    And 0bama to be Chamberlain? Oh wait!

    Pespi , December 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    I have a question for anyone who's been around a little while. Has political/media rhetoric always been as inflated and over the top as it is now? ie Washpost calling Russian hacking "cyber pearl harbor."

    Is this old hat or something caused by the attention economy?

    Katharine , December 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    This is way worse than it used to be. There was something to be said for stodgy journalism. Even when it misrepresented reality, it did so in terms that sounded comparatively measured and adult, not like hysterical kids on a playground.

    Susan C , December 31, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    I agree – I have never seen journalism like this before. Have been watching a lot of MSNBC and CNN during the past few weeks and I can't believe how over the top they are about the Russian hacking story – it goes on for hours. And the papers too. Is it that it is a slow news period and they have to keep their audiences shocked and awed all the time? I have no idea why this is going on about the Russian hacking unless the media is trying very hard to change people's opinions about Russia, and if they are, why? What's the objective? And the 99 senators too are in on this? They make it sound very serious and yet it seems everyone is being hacked all the time anyway.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 3:38 pm

    Pespi
    December 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    Good question Pespi. I don't know, but it seems worse to me. But its kinda like asking a fish if its drier than it used to be – we live in a media world, and its not so much the answers they give, but the questions they ask. I'm so old I remember when Obama MOCKED Ronmey for asserting the Russians were a threat ..But no one asks Obama how the harmless Russkies became a threat on his watch .

    AND I am old enough to remember when the the press was considered leftish because of Vietnam and cynicism about government pronouncements. So this belief by the press in the virtue of the CIA is something that I have a tough time processing .

    Aumua , December 31, 2016 at 3:43 pm

    I offer my subjective opinion, not backed up by anything other than that I've been around for 4+ decades.

    The level of brazenly open propagandizing is unprecedented. It was over the top through much of the election cycle, and now it's gone completely off the rails. The credibility of a) the politicians, b) the news agencies, and c) the 3 letter agencies behind the current balls-to-the-wall effort is at risk of being completely destroyed. Apparently they think the stakes are that high that they are all in on this.

    Waldenpond , December 31, 2016 at 5:30 pm

    I think it has to do with repealing the law that put some limits on the ability of the govt to propagandize it's own people. Journalists now print whatever bs some anonymous official sends them, no questions ask, or alternately sit on twitter.

    JTMcPhee , December 31, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    You folks need to go back in time to the 18th and 19th and early 20th Centuries in America, when political invective was both more colorful, vicious, and inventive than the fairly bland Bernaysian sauce and tribal butt-baring and chest-thumping that's au courant.

    Andrew Watts , December 31, 2016 at 2:13 pm

    RE: Russia Reaches Syria Cease-Fire Pact With Turkey- and the U.S. Had Nothing to Do With It

    Why would Iran and Hezbollah go along with it? The only plausible answer I can think of is that neither believe this cease fire will last. Already there are unconfirmed reports of renewed jihadi-rebel in-fighting and hostilities between pro-government forces and the not-so-moderate rebels.

    Tom , December 31, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    Re: Brexit vote sparks rush of British Jews seeking Portuguese passports

    Amusingly, Jews in Britain actually voted as a majority in favor of Brexit. Perhaps the press is furthering anti-semitic stereotypes which claim that Jews seek internationalism and consolidation of power at the expense of local governance? You might consider posting articles on this sensitive subject which are more than just a description of an event followed by pointing and sputtering.

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    Linkage is not endorsement. It may be difficult for those that prize bourgeois loyalty and tribal exceptionalism - you know, Americans - to understand, but there it is.

    It's a big Internet, paid Democrat troII. There are many places for you to ply your trade where you would be welcome.

    Andrew Watts , December 31, 2016 at 2:42 pm


    RE: Russia's response to Obama 'is frankly the most damaging and embarrassing answer we could receive'

    I don't think Putin and Lavrov are playing good cop/bad cop. As per the rules of diplomacy Lavrov expects to answer every tit with a retaliatory tat. Putin is different. His professional experience is formerly of counter-intelligence. Which means he probably realizes what's happening and Russia isn't the actual target in this propaganda war.

    Consider the following

    RE: Something About This Russia Story Stinks

    Taibbi and his friends in the media are right. They have every reason to be worried. After all they're the primary target in this propaganda war. It took me awhile to figure out what was happening even though something seemed familiar after the Washington Post story about fake news and the slandering of Naked Capitalism. I finally figured out why and the reason the CIA was taking the lead in promoting the "Russia election hacks!" story. But then I remembered the stories about the British Security Coordination (BSC)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Security_Coordination

    The BSC didn't just recruit journalists or influence newspapers in it's operation to tilt public opinion towards the Allied cause. They engaged in misinformation/disinformation campaigns against people they perceived as their enemies; anti-New Dealers, isolationists, and right-wing Republicans. They had sympathetic journalists plant false new stories in their papers that attempted to incite legal action, death threats, and in at least one instance an eviction notice from the target's home through intimidation of the landlord.

    What the CIA is doing now reeks of the BSC. Up to and including inciting the country into a war. After all the CIA's predecessor agency the OSS learned everything they knew at their feet.

    Bernard , December 31, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    inverted totalitarianism, or a police state, whatever you call America today, America is run by the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Checks and Balances designed to "safeguard" Government are working to insure the Rich keep their control.

    Naivete/Willful Ignorance is such a frightening mindset. Watching others, who have no clue, speak about how much better our Banana Republic (America) is, say, compared to Mother Russia's version proves how well American have been "trained." American Exceptionalism! Because America!!!

    scary, absolutely scary to see the endless displays of ignorance; no matter the cause, watching the fruits of Fascism/Inverted Totalitarianism flow unchecked and unchallenged is not something I can stomach. a wince here and an "oh no" there. the descent into Fascism is really awful. no matter what you call it.

    Waldenpond , December 31, 2016 at 5:32 pm

    It isn't just apparent the parties have morphed, the base of the parties have also. It looks like about the same number of Rs believed at one time O was born in Kenya as Ds believe Russia, Russia, Russia took the win from their beloved oligarch Clinton (52%).

    Trixie from Dixie , December 31, 2016 at 5:33 pm

    the future we leave for our children. Will they forgive us? Can we forgive ourselves? How'd that hope and change work out? No worry, rump to the rescue! Happy New Year everyone! And thanks to NC for all you do!

    Andrew Watts , December 31, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    *I was in a rush yesterday so this is a follow-up to yesterday's hastily written comment on the torture report. Any fault or errors in that comment can be attributed to my gullibility.

    Most of the information about the specific instance of the CIA torturing an individual in Lebanon came from a biography on Bob Ames titled The Good Spy (2014) by Kai Bird. Which was a pretty good book. Ames has an interesting history. He forged a relationship which the author characterized as a friendship with high ranking individuals in the Palestinian Liberation Organization at a time when the PLO was labeled as a terrorist organization. It was this back channel connection that formed the basis of American diplomacy for peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. He died in the 1983 embassy bombing.

    -The individual who was tortured and died soon afterward was Elias Nimr . A Christian intelligence chieftain who appears to have played every side and angle he could during the Lebanon Civil War.

    -The name of the CIA contractor who tortured Nimr was identified as Keith "Captain Crunch" Hall . He was originally identified by Mark Bowden in his book Road Work: Among Tyrants, Heroes, Rogues, and Beasts. (2007) A former Marine before he joined the CIA and was later a cop in California.

    Similar methods that resulted in the death of prisoners during CIA's systemic torture program during the Bush Administration were used. They'd dump cold water on'em and leave them in a cold cell. Nimr was left in a cell with a fan blowing cold air on them. Hall wasn't present at the time Nimr died.

    -Bob Baer neglects to mention this specific incident of torture in See No Evil but doesn't blame Nimr for the bombing of the embassy. *cough* Appropriately titled book if you ask me. *cough* A part of his theory on the masterminds behind the '83 embassy bombings involves a former PLO turned Hezbollah operative named Imad Mughniyeh . Baer claims that Mughniyeh is was still in contact with his old Fatah contacts when the embassy was bombed.

    Besides the embassy bombing Mughniyeh was blamed for a lot of other terrorist acts that I think are based on nothing more than circumstantial evidence. Contemporary analysis suggests it's basically the "Blame Putin!" trope in action.

    -The name of the alleged defector from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was actually a deputy defense minister and former brigadier general named Ali Reza Asgari . There was and still probably is controversy whether he was kidnapped or defected. The Iranians wouldn't want it known that such a high ranking defector went over to the West hence the kidnapping story.

    Hah! Guess not posting much for a few months finally caught up with me.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 3:42 pm

    Andrew Watts
    December 31, 2016 at 3:03 pm

    Thanks for the comments – very elucidating!

    megamie , December 31, 2016 at 3:12 pm

    Fascinating:
    When Finnish Teachers Work in America's Public Schools
    There are more restrictions to professional freedom in the United States, and the educators find the school day overly rigid.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/11/when-finnish-teachers-work-in-americas-public-schools/508685/?utm_source=atlfb&single_page=true

    JEHR , December 31, 2016 at 3:17 pm

    Re: Canadian Hemisphere: I have always been ashamed of Canadian mining and resources extractors who work in other countries, especially Latin America. Most Canadians think of themselves as fair and judicious but that is not always true when it comes to mining in foreign countries. Canadian mining companies have despoiled land, water and air while exploiting workers' human rights. It is a depressing aspect of Canadian resource imperialism which is every bit as destructive as any other "imperial" adventure.

    Here is one description of such despicable Canadian behaviour.

    Bernard , December 31, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    inverted totalitarianism, or a police state, whatever you call America today, America is run by the rich, for the rich and by the rich. Thanks to Congress, Republican and Democrats, Partners in Crime. All those "Checks and Balances" designed to "safeguard" Government are working,for sure, but now working to insure the Rich keep their control. The Republican and the Vichy Party/Democrats make sure "Government" does whatever Business wants. Who need competition when you own The US Government! not Capitalism!, that's for sure. or as i've heard, Capitalism can only be failed. Like Conservatism. The age old scam of stealing from the Poor to give to the Rich.

    Watching others, who offer platitudes, speak about how much better our Banana Republic (America) is, say, compared to Mother Russia's version, proves how well Americans have been "trained." American Exceptionalism! Because America!!! I know very little about Russia, but i know a lot more about how we/Americans are being scammed. That is what Congress is for.

    scary, absolutely scary to see the endless displays of ignorance; no matter the cause, watching the fruits of Fascism/Inverted Totalitarianism flow unchecked and unchallenged is not something I can stomach. a wince here and an "oh no" there. the descent into Fascism is really awful. no matter what you call it.
    of course, then again, i can see who is stealing what from whom, and it ain't pretty to watch it go on, year after year. Thanks to Congress and the American Voter, we have reaped the whirlwind.

    Trixie from Dixie , December 31, 2016 at 8:10 pm

    it makes one physically ill Not to mention psychologically ill.
    Maybe lots of red wine is needed . I heard it is good for health?

    Plenue , December 31, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    >The Virtual Hagia Sophia The American Conservative

    "The sense of tragedy over the fate of the great cathedral is unlike anything I've ever felt."

    Hahaha. Ahhhhh, Christians. "This giant Church being converted into a Mosque dedicated to the same Abrahamic God is a great tragedy." Get over yourselves. It's a poncy over-enginereed shrine.

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 6:05 pm

    Abrahamic Exceptionalism is insufferable. How do we do it every day.

    Vatch , December 31, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    I'm rather partial to the Bagan Hindu temple complex in Myanmar/Burma, to the Buddhist temples in Borobudur, Java,and to the Abu Simbel temples in southern Egypt. It's a pity the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan, Afghanistan, are gone.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    https://theoutline.com/post/351/valley-of-the-dolts

    Let us state the obvious: None of these men are Roman Emperors, and they haven't got the wherewithal to "blow up" anything but a stock market bubble. They are not Lex Luthors or Gandalfs or Stalins. Their products do not bring about revolutions. They are simply robber barons, JP Morgans and Andrew Mellons in mediocre T-shirts. I have no doubt that many are preternaturally intelligent, hardworking people, and it is a shame that they have dedicated these talents to the mundane accumulation of capital. But there is nothing remarkable about these men. The Pirates of Silicon Valley do not have imperial ambitions. They have financial ones.
    The vast majority of Silicon Valley startups, the sort that project lofty missions and managed improbably lucrative IPOs despite never having graced the cover of The Economist or the frontal cortex of the president, work precisely like any other kind of mundane sales operation in search of a product: Underpaid cold-callers receive low wages and less job security in exchange for a foosball table and the burden of growing a company as quickly as possible so that it can reach a liquidation event. Owners and investors get rich. Managers stay comfortable. The employees get hosed. None of this is particularly original. At least the real robber barons built the railroads.
    ==============================
    Why IS Facebook, a not nearly as crappy email system, worth so much money?
    Thats like asking why do intestinal parasites want to eat your sh*t? No, they want to eat YOU .

    cnchal , December 31, 2016 at 8:43 pm

    The Fed works in mysterious ways.

    Elizabeth Burton , December 31, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Considering part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the fact the US was importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons, not to mention allowing them to slip into hiding without any real effort made to find them, one does have to wonder at the coincidence that we are now engaging in neo-Cold War rhetoric just as the "alt-right" neo-Nazis have been granted dispensation to go public.

    Of course, one could believe the idea that all those former Nazis were really just poor souls who only worked for the Third Reich out of fear for their families and were, therefore, only too happy to embrace the joys of American freedom. One could, were it not for the other coincidence that similar fascist organizations have arisen almost simultaneously to public attention throughout Europe.

    But never mind. That's tinfoil-hat stuff. We trounced all that Nazi scum, and besides most of the people weren't really Nazis and didn't believe all that stuff. Right?

    Jay M , December 31, 2016 at 4:38 pm

    (to beat this dead horse a little more)
    Taibbi making his serious journo bones?
    "Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll find."
    "He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything."

    I realize the Crimea/Sudetenland parallel makes Putin out to be Hitler . . .
    And 0bama to be Chamberlain? Oh wait!

    Jay M , December 31, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    sorry about multiple posts, I kept getting a screen that NC page wasn't working, and remembered about the site update finally
    don't think my comment was that wonderful, and happy new year

    petal , December 31, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    Same thing happened to me but I didn't think it was during the time window. My apologies for the double post!

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    Me two!

    sd , December 31, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Over at Jesses Cafe Americaine, a radio interview with Thomas Frank.

    How the Democratic Party Failed By Repudiating Their Legacy as 'The Party of the People'
    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2016/12/how-democratic-party-failed-by.html

    ewmayer , December 31, 2016 at 5:37 pm

    o "Why Google co-founder Larry Page is pouring millions into flying cars | Vox" - Because haedlines about such squillionaire "thought leader" pipe dreams keep his name in the news and help to goose Google's share price? Nah, that couldn't be it

    o "Self-Driving Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse | Slashdot (Chuck L)" - Because they'll kill off all the bicyclists in Year 1, leading to a donor-organ boom/bust?

    o "Scientists edge closer to bringing back from the dead the fabled aurochs, giant wild cattle that once roamed Europe's forests | Telegraph" - Without a roamable forest for the critters to live in, what's the point - more animal cruelty?

    Waldenpond , December 31, 2016 at 5:52 pm

    AVs and people will have to be kept separate once the market has benefited from the needed short term boom in organs. AVs can't even handle fixed red lights let alone moving objects. Perhaps pedestrian overpasses or simply ban cars on every fourth street and designate to bikes and pedestrians.

    Profit! There will be a market for aurochs . canned hunting expeditions on private property and niche meat like they do with bison provided they don't carry brucellosis
    .

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    They gotta foam the roadway, man. Set quotas and stuff like that. And, hey, when it's time for David Rockefeller to get heart #11, he can just Uber it.

    AdelleChattre , December 31, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    Happy New Year's Eve, and better luck next year, folks! I'll just leave this here
    Seeing Wetiko: On Capitalism, Mind Viruses, and Antidotes for a World in Transition . By Alnoor Ladha, Martin Kirk.

    Jay M , December 31, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    I see the chef at the Russian consulate in SF was sacked by the 0bama credo.
    No doubt the microfiche was secreted in the crab in season.

    [Jan 01, 2017] New Russian Hacks ? No, Old Ukrainian Malware Found.

    Notable quotes:
    "... For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable - even if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was anticipated. ..."
    "... Pearl Harbor was followed by the U.S. entry into a world war. Do the editors want to repeat that when alluding to it? ..."
    "... I suspect that the pushing of the Vermont hack was also an attempted hit against Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont who was scammed out of the Democratic candidacy by the Clinton aligned Democratic National Council. He would now either have to jump on the "Russian hacking->bad Putin->bad-Trump" train or could be blamed of pro-Russian, pro-Putin and pro-Trump tendencies. All such tendencies are of course bad in the view of the pseudo-liberal Washington establishment which is busy promoting the New Red Scare . ..."
    "... But back to that malware. DHS and FBI had published a " report " (pdf) which again attempted to blame Russia of hacking the Democratic National Council while again providing zero actual evidence of such a hack (hint: there is none). The 13 pages include 2 with amateur graphics of a trivial hack architecture and 7 with amateur advice on how to protect a network. Of interest in it were samples and checksums of moduls of the hacking software it attributed to Russia and a list of IP addresses through which it claims the DNC hack was made. Of special interest is also what it does not say . ..."
    "... The whole bogus "Russian hacking" and "Putin did it" claims are issued to lock the coming President Trump into an anti-Russian position. Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. That again would mean lower advertisement income for the Washington Post and less money for its staff, editors and owner. ..."
    "... These people would rather have Word War III than to endure that. ..."
    "... b, 'Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. ...' ..."
    "... so they have decided to preemptively make their own 'imminent threat' claims less plausible by endlessly crying 'wolf! wolf!' themselves when there is no wolf. the neo-con brain trust ... idiots and fools. this all goes hand in hand with obama's childish dismissal of the russians in new york and maryland, and appears as foolish as did obama himself in the light of putin's disdain for the lamest of lame ducks who cannot simply learn to lose. ..."
    "... tee-rump's reply to putin's exercise of restraint together with his previous allusion ... these are the same guys who brought us wmds and the shocking, awful wars in afghanistan, iraq, libya, ukraine and syria ... have shown that he is not affected by their bluff ... that he knows he has the support of the fossil-fuelers, at least, probably of the financiers as well ..."
    "... the neo-con hyperventilation ... including that of bibi netanyahoo ... betrays their recognition of their own collapse. the thousand year reich lasted 9 years, the plan for a new american century lasted 15 ... good riddance to bad rubbish, as we used to say in the schoolyard as children, for that's the level the bezos' blog and the neo-cons shrieking behind the curtain. ..."
    "... while just 14% of their self-identifying republicrats - the new, majority party in the us federal government - take the overall 'the russians are coming' scam seriously, fully 50% of those self-identifying as demoblicans - the new, minority party in the us federal government - do so. ..."
    "... VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi. ..."
    "... that certainly paints a target on tee-rump's back, doesn't it? tee-rump really needs to kill the cia in the pale afternoon of 20 january 2017, or they'll surely kill him! ..."
    "... "It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows . . ." ..."
    "... It must be a job to continue debunking the childish lies of Barack Obama and his gang of ineptitude officials. It is unfortunately that human beings are dumb, otherwise there would have been no need to respond to the stream of idiotic pronouncements of the White House and the Anglo American mainstream media. ..."
    "... I predict that Barack Obama and his wife will check into therapy as soon as they remove their baggage from the White House. Crooked Clintons seem to have got a lock on them, so they are ready to leave office in disgrace just to please the disgraceful Clinton family. ..."
    "... Now let's have some more holier-than-thou talk from WaPo and NYT about "fake news" on the internet. The WaPo has become a cess-pool of lies and misinformation ever since Bezos took it over and started turning it into a tabloid. ..."
    "... Sen. John McCain said Friday that Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election amounted to an "act of war." The Arizona Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also has scheduled a hearing for next week on foreign cyberthreats to the US, which will also focus on Russian cyberhacking, a committee aide told CNN earlier Friday. McCain, who is one of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hardliners, has criticized the recent sanctions and expulsions announced by the Obama administration this week as insufficient and belated. He made his latest comments in Ukraine, a nation threatened by a resurgent Russia, after meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko. ..."
    "... Obama isn't a dingbat. He is devious. ..."
    "... I kept insisting that the DNC hacking was a False Flag, and idem on this one; but keep on guessing who's behind it. I expect there will be yet more False Flags to move the U.S. in the right direction. ..."
    "... Obama went berserk, he went insane showed himself as a puny vindictive partisan weasel not worthy presidency in the first place regardless of his murderous and imperial policies and utter submission to Wall Street thieves, with despicable character that shows itself in his childlike temper tantrum rants unworthy of any federal employee not to mention POTUS. ..."
    "... Once, in less insane times, had some government been found to have tampered with elections, the heads of the agencies responsible for protecting against that would now be testifying before Congress and trying to explain how they let that happen. ..."
    "... Some of the officials would resign in disgrace, some would no doubt have been found to have lied and to have tried to cover up their incompetence, and probably at least someone would have gone to jail. ..."
    "... These stories reflect the demonize Russia as the latest enemy and throw as much "evidence" at the wall that will stick. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org

    All recent claims of "Russian hacking" are either outright false or are based on "evidence" that only shows run-of-the-mill attacks by some anonymous basement hacker.

    The year 2016 saw the person elected U.S. president who Jeff Bezos' propaganda rag, the Washington Post, hated most. To celebrate the end of this very bad year its writers and editors decided to put more egg on their faces. It first published the piece promoted on the left and some three hours later the fundamentally "corrected" one on the right .

    The claim in the first piece, based on anonymous "officials", was that Russia hacked into the U.S. electricity grid through a utility company in Vermont. But then the utility companies in question, Burlington Electric, issued a statement that a recent scan of its IT systems had found only one laptop with some malware and that the laptop in questions was not connected to its networks at all. There was nothing found on any net-connected system. It had reported the find to the federal U.S. government. (Some very shortsighted "officials" immediately abused the confidential company information to miss-inform the Washington Post.) The utility company found the malware by scanning for a malware signature published in a lame recent assessment by Homeland Security and the FBI.

    Dubious claims of foreign hacking of the electricity grid have already been made in 2009 . Its an old trick of the Obama administration to achieve some political aims. The Washington Post was obviously so eager to publish another of its daily "Russian hacking" fakes that it did not even ask the two Vermont utilities in question before pushing the stenographed piece out of the door. That may well have been because the lead editorial of that day was warning of Putin hacking the U.S. electricity network and (again) hitting at Trump:

    For any American leader, an attempt to subvert U.S. democracy ought to be unforgivable - even if he is the intended beneficiary. Some years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned of a "cyber-Pearl Harbor," and the fear at the time was of a cyberattack collapsing electric grids or crashing financial markets. Now we have a real cyber-Pearl Harbor, though not one that was anticipated.

    Pearl Harbor was followed by the U.S. entry into a world war. Do the editors want to repeat that when alluding to it?

    The editorial also pushed a bunch of wholly invented conspiracy theories:

    Why is Mr. Trump so dismissive of Russia's dangerous behavior? Some say it is his lack of experience in foreign policy, or an oft-stated admiration for strongmen, or naivete about Russian intentions. But darker suspicions persist. Mr. Trump has steadfastly refused to be transparent about his multibillion-dollar business empire. Are there loans or deals with Russian businesses or the state that were concealed during the campaign? Are there hidden communications with Mr. Putin or his representatives? We would be thrilled to see all the doubts dispelled, but Mr. Trump's odd behavior in the face of a clear threat from Russia , matched by Mr. Putin's evident enthusiasm for the president-elect, cannot be easily explained .

    During the election campaign WaPo was the news paper with the most anti-Trump screeds on its neoconned editorial page. That actually helped Trump by making him the obvious anti-Neocon candidate. But "Pearl Harbor" comparisons and "darker suspicions" beat even the most stupid earlier pieces on him.

    I suspect that the pushing of the Vermont hack was also an attempted hit against Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont who was scammed out of the Democratic candidacy by the Clinton aligned Democratic National Council. He would now either have to jump on the "Russian hacking->bad Putin->bad-Trump" train or could be blamed of pro-Russian, pro-Putin and pro-Trump tendencies. All such tendencies are of course bad in the view of the pseudo-liberal Washington establishment which is busy promoting the New Red Scare .

    But back to that malware. DHS and FBI had published a " report " (pdf) which again attempted to blame Russia of hacking the Democratic National Council while again providing zero actual evidence of such a hack (hint: there is none). The 13 pages include 2 with amateur graphics of a trivial hack architecture and 7 with amateur advice on how to protect a network. Of interest in it were samples and checksums of moduls of the hacking software it attributed to Russia and a list of IP addresses through which it claims the DNC hack was made. Of special interest is also what it does not say .

    Several well known IT security experts have said earlier , like me , that such "reports" and claims are bullshit. A few more add to that:

    • Jonathon Zdziarski :

      Any antivirus company doing any amount of threat intelligence would be able to come up with more solid indicators than FBI released.

    • John McAfee (now often nutty but right in this):

      If it looks like the Russians did it I can guarantee you it wasn't the Russians.

    • Matt Tait :

      My money's on this all turns out to be commodity malware and not even APT28/APT29 and everyone jumping on the bandwagon will look v silly

    All, and especially Matt Tait, are right.

    Wordfence, also a reputed IT security company, took a detailed look at the samples and tables in the new DHS/FBI "report" and concludes:

    The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors , especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

    The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian . It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website.

    There is your "Russian hack" the DHS and FBI claim hit the DNC servers and WaPo falsely claimed hit the U.S. electricity grid. A run-of-the-mill hack through freely available servers with old Ukrainian malware just like the hundred-thousand others that happen each day.

    ... ... ...

    But if you, like me, believe the word of former British ambassador Craig Murray who works with Wikileaks, there was no hack at all. The DNC data came via an insider who had direct access to them. They were handed to Craig for publishing by Wikileaks.

    The whole bogus "Russian hacking" and "Putin did it" claims are issued to lock the coming President Trump into an anti-Russian position. Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. That again would mean lower advertisement income for the Washington Post and less money for its staff, editors and owner.

    These people would rather have Word War III than to endure that.

    Oui | Dec 31, 2016 11:27:04 AM | 1
    The old con-man McCain calling in from the Ukraine:

    Russian cyberattacks 'an act of war'

    Ghostship | Dec 31, 2016 11:51:44 AM | 2
    rather have Word War III
    The current version of Microsoft Word (365 or whatever) is so shite, I'd nuke Redmond if I was Trump.
    WorldBLee | Dec 31, 2016 11:54:10 AM | 3
    There really are no words for the stupidity, small-mindedness, and mendacity of the Washington Post, NYT, and CNN (to name but three of the hacks that report on behalf of the powers-that-be) these days. I mean, they were always bad but they are continually striking new lows as if they were the inverse of the US stock market.
    kraus | Dec 31, 2016 12:18:38 PM | 6

    ...For those who missed the REAL hacking story: not covered by the lying fake news msm!
    "US government hackers attacked russian electric grid"
    https://www.rt.com/usa/372347-russian-hackers-power-grid/

    kraus | Dec 31, 2016 12:28:16 PM | 7
    Soon a laptop will appear in the white house, sigh this crazy desinformation is getting ugly.

    Last month US actually hacked russian grid systems!
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-government-military-hackers-dnc-homeland-security-nsa-clinton-election-day-a7398881.html

    mauisurfer | Dec 31, 2016 12:47:57 PM | 8
    Exit Obama in a Cloud of Disillusion, Delusion and Deceit 100
    31 Dec, 2016 in Uncategorized by craig

    I had promised myself and my family that on this holiday I would do nothing but relax. However events have overtaken my good intentions. I find myself in the unusual position of having twice been in a position to know directly that governments were lying in globe-shaking events, firstly Iraqi WMD and now the "Russian hacks".

    Anybody who believes the latest report issued by Obama as "proof" provides anything of the sort is very easily impressed by some entirely meaningless diagrams. William Binney, who was Technical Director at the NSA and actually designed their surveillance capabilities, has advised me by email. It is plain from the report itself that the Russian groups discussed have been under targeted NSA surveillance for a period longer than the timeframe for the DNC and Podesta leaks. It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows and they would be saved. In other words, the NSA would have the actual hack on record, would be able to recognise the emails themselves and tell you exactly the second the transmission or transmissions took place and how they were routed. They would be able to give you date, time and IP addresses. In fact, not only do they produce no evidence of this kind, they do not even claim to have this kind of definite evidence.

    Secondly, Bill points out that WikiLeaks is in itself a top priority target and any transmission to WikiLeaks or any of its major operatives would be tracked, captured and saved by NSA as a matter of routine. The exact route and date of the transmission or transmissions of the particular emails to WikiLeaks would be available. In fact, not only does the report not make this information available, it makes no claim at all to know anything about how the information was got to WikiLeaks.

    Of course Russian hackers exist. They attack this blog pretty well continually – as do hackers from the USA and many other countries. Of course there have been attempted Russian hacks of the DNC. But the report gives no evidence at all of the alleged successful hack that transmitted these particular emails, nor any evidence of the connection between the hackers and the Russian government, let alone Putin.

    There could be no evidence because in reality these were leaks, not hacks. The report is, frankly, a pile of complete and utter dross. To base grave accusations of election hacking on this report is ludicrous. Obama has been a severe disappointment to all progressive thinkers in virtually every possible way. He now goes out of power with absolutely no grace and in a storm of delusion and deceit. His purpose is apparently to weaken Trump politically, but to achieve that at the expense of heightening tensions with Russia to Cold War levels, is shameful. The very pettiness of Obama's tongue out to Putin – minor sanctions and expelling some diplomatic families – itself shows that Obama is lying about the pretext. If he really believed that Russia had "hacked the election", surely that would require a much less feeble response. By refusing to retaliate, Russia has shown the kind of polish that eludes Obama as he takes his empty charisma and presentational skills into a no doubt lucrative future in the private sector.
    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/exit-obama-cloud-disillusion-delusion-deceit/comment-page-1/#comments

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:01:29 PM | 9
    b, 'Peace with Russia means less plausible "imminent threat" claims and thereby lower budgets and management prestige for the defense and cybersecurity industry and government organizations. ...'

    so they have decided to preemptively make their own 'imminent threat' claims less plausible by endlessly crying 'wolf! wolf!' themselves when there is no wolf. the neo-con brain trust ... idiots and fools. this all goes hand in hand with obama's childish dismissal of the russians in new york and maryland, and appears as foolish as did obama himself in the light of putin's disdain for the lamest of lame ducks who cannot simply learn to lose.

    tee-rump's reply to putin's exercise of restraint together with his previous allusion ... these are the same guys who brought us wmds and the shocking, awful wars in afghanistan, iraq, libya, ukraine and syria ... have shown that he is not affected by their bluff ... that he knows he has the support of the fossil-fuelers, at least, probably of the financiers as well, two out of three of the f*ked up f's, against the fusiliers.

    the neo-con hyperventilation ... including that of bibi netanyahoo ... betrays their recognition of their own collapse. the thousand year reich lasted 9 years, the plan for a new american century lasted 15 ... good riddance to bad rubbish, as we used to say in the schoolyard as children, for that's the level the bezos' blog and the neo-cons shrieking behind the curtain.

    may 2017 be the year of their abject collapse and may they all, including especially their nobel peace prize laureate, live forever in infamy.

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:03:14 PM | 10
    @8 mauisurfer

    thanks for sharing the insights of william blinney ... please ask him if you may share his email with the moon and the world!

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:25:11 PM | 11
    b, 'Of special interest is also what it does not say .'

    the vermont utility scam is just that. the last link within that quoted above points to a graphic from politico that is very informative : while just 14% of their self-identifying republicrats - the new, majority party in the us federal government - take the overall 'the russians are coming' scam seriously, fully 50% of those self-identifying as demoblicans - the new, minority party in the us federal government - do so. in other words, only the scammers themselves claim to 'believe' their own scam.

    the tnc msm : sound and fury signifying nothing. officially.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 31, 2016 2:26:22 PM | 12
    What's behind the anti-Russia hysteria?
    1) Cover for Democratic Party failure?

    2) Cover for fall of Aleppo / Russian success?

    3) "Boxing in" the Trump Administration? (spoiling the supposed Trump-Putin love fest)

    4) Another ploy to unseat Trump? Does trumped-up conflict with Russia mean that the supposed Trump-Putin love fest causes an inability to discharge office of President as per the 25th Amendment ?

    5) All of the above?

    6) Something else?

    <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

    Note: VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi.

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:35:15 PM | 13
    @11 jr, 'VP Pence is a friend of McCain's, supports Syrian 'no-fly' zones, and supports the TPP (aka "Obamatrade"). He voted for the Iraq War and agreed with Hillary's deposing Qaddafi.'

    that certainly paints a target on tee-rump's back, doesn't it? tee-rump really needs to kill the cia in the pale afternoon of 20 january 2017, or they'll surely kill him!

    let us hope that we can all soon stand over the cia's collective graves till we're sure that they're dead.

    may the cia not reach their three score and ten.

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:41:40 PM | 14
    b,

    great graphic in the last link from ' what it does not say '

    the demoblicans and the tnc msm : the new minority making great sounds and demonstrating great fury yet eating their own dog food and signifying nothing.

    boilo | Dec 31, 2016 2:49:13 PM | 16
    at #8 thank you for this post plus highlight/emphasizing:

    "It is therefore inconceivable that the NSA would not have detected and traced those particular data flows . . ."

    jfl | Dec 31, 2016 2:54:01 PM | 17
    @10, maui wowee

    sorry, due to your unconventional posting style i had thought it was yourself and not craig murray who was in contact with william blinney. i see my error now.

    stumpy | Dec 31, 2016 2:55:51 PM | 18
    The faked news phenom is IMO the result of the US higher education culture finally producing the critical mass of self-entitled narcissistic punks to flood the airwaves with "useful" tripe. Put profit before performance and this is what you get. The only thing I use print media for is lining rabbit cages.

    May the new year be safe and prosperous for fellow bar-dwellers and friends. Bottoms up.

    ToivoS | Dec 31, 2016 3:05:46 PM | 19
    The Guardian is continuing with the claims that Russia is responsible for the malware found in that laptop by adding a little detail that the malware contained code used by the Russians. They do at least tell the reader that the laptop was not connected to the grid.

    This anti-Russian propaganda is getting more extreme by the day. greenwald is collecting many examples on his twitter feed.

    Steve | Dec 31, 2016 3:13:52 PM | 20
    Happy New Year to all. It must be a job to continue debunking the childish lies of Barack Obama and his gang of ineptitude officials. It is unfortunately that human beings are dumb, otherwise there would have been no need to respond to the stream of idiotic pronouncements of the White House and the Anglo American mainstream media.

    I predict that Barack Obama and his wife will check into therapy as soon as they remove their baggage from the White House. Crooked Clintons seem to have got a lock on them, so they are ready to leave office in disgrace just to please the disgraceful Clinton family.

    Denis | Dec 31, 2016 3:38:47 PM | 22
    The WaPo's deceit on this story can't be over-emphasized. The original report by Juliet Eilperin and Adam Entous was dated Dec30. Then their lies about hacking the grid were exposed and they re-wrote the article.

    The WaPo did not just publish a correction with an update date, they republished the article under the new headline and under a new date, Dec31. At the bottom of the current article there is an editor's note referring to an "earlier version" of the article and acknowledging the lie about penetrating the grid. But the significance of the re-write is not obvious from the editor's note or the new headline. Compare the second paragraphs of each version, for instance.

    Now let's have some more holier-than-thou talk from WaPo and NYT about "fake news" on the internet. The WaPo has become a cess-pool of lies and misinformation ever since Bezos took it over and started turning it into a tabloid.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 31, 2016 3:53:57 PM | 23
    followup @11:

    Pence's friend McCain: Russian cyberintrusions an 'act of war'

    Sen. John McCain said Friday that Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election amounted to an "act of war."

    The Arizona Republican, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also has scheduled a hearing for next week on foreign cyberthreats to the US, which will also focus on Russian cyberhacking, a committee aide told CNN earlier Friday.

    McCain, who is one of Washington's most prominent foreign policy hardliners, has criticized the recent sanctions and expulsions announced by the Obama administration this week as insufficient and belated. He made his latest comments in Ukraine, a nation threatened by a resurgent Russia, after meeting with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

    Jackrabbit | Dec 31, 2016 3:57:25 PM | 24
    Steve @18

    Obama isn't a dingbat. He is devious. When I see him acting like a dingbat, I ask: what's he really up to?

    Circe | Dec 31, 2016 4:04:11 PM | 25
    I kept insisting that the DNC hacking was a False Flag, and idem on this one; but keep on guessing who's behind it. I expect there will be yet more False Flags to move the U.S. in the right direction.
    Jackrabbit | Dec 31, 2016 4:33:01 PM | 27
    How John McCain and Mike Pence created a high value target
    rg the lg | Dec 31, 2016 4:37:29 PM | 28
    Back door to war ... the way Roosevelt got us into WWII ... along with a whole string of alleged attacks on the most aggressive and hate filled empire the world has ever known. The Kahns of central Asia, the Romans at their most vicious, could have learned a lot of pure nastiness from the long string of American 'wars for empire' going from the New England and Virginia plantations to the present.

    We hack, that is good. They (might have) hacked, that is bad. Sick ...

    Jennifer | Dec 31, 2016 4:40:57 PM | 29
    The chaos is cover for deep criminality that includes dems, repugs, dictators, respectable people, and criminals on many levels.

    This guy seems to be on the right track as to what's really going on.

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrQ-wHKVi0JDWjQGcuoYnew

    Here are some key videos, it is a complicated puzzle.

    DAY 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1, The Crime
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UVkkLCrj3w
    DAY 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2, Coverup
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjhfXhTVjJ4
    Day 65 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 3, Researcher Version
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvW4k3hDfLQ

    I urge all of you to take a look at this ongoing expose and judge for yourself.

    You will probably be shocked and disgusted at the ugliness of it all.

    Download key videos, just in case it is taken down, and share.

    Here are the latest video.
    Day 68 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUvoOVYjNuE
    Day 68 - Where is Eric Braverman? Part 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTNPN0snwEU

    Earlier Videos

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfEgn8oXojIJQHhokupVf9w

    How to investigate – lots of tips in these two

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBqX5FiinYM

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K0k84CXkRM

    We must confront these criminals if we are to have a future.

    Happy New Year

    Kalen | Dec 31, 2016 5:58:33 PM | 30
    Obama went berserk, he went insane showed himself as a puny vindictive partisan weasel not worthy presidency in the first place regardless of his murderous and imperial policies and utter submission to Wall Street thieves, with despicable character that shows itself in his childlike temper tantrum rants unworthy of any federal employee not to mention POTUS.

    I, as a harsh critic of Trump incoherent style must admit that Obama's abhorrent behavior made Trump look like statesman.

    Obama unnecessarily, senselessly, horribly embarrassed the office of POTUS and destroyed any chance for another African American to be near the WH for another century. And what for?

    For sore looser claims that elections were rigged against Hillary because of Podesta email hack? That's the nonsense, the only document rigging attempt was DHS in few states.

    People must understand that any information could influence a voter but as long it is true it is legal and acceptable element of electoral process. It is an act of due influence performed by all candidates themselves, their campaigns as well as supporting special interests, investigative journalists and independent bloggers who work to reveal true picture of a candidate in relation to their qualifications, skills, experience and moral values that would inform his/her choices in office.

    Only proliferated lies may be construed as "unduly" influencing public but only if not countered by the publishing the truth and evidence for it.

    Podesta emails told the truth about Hillary and her insidious or even illegal manipulation of the primaries and her attitude of entitlement informed by her imperial hubris and likely illegal money manipulation. So told the truth disclosed of Trump scandals with Trump University or sexual harassment or bankruptcies.

    And for that reason alone [the truth in Podesta emails] there could be no connection between elections outcome and alleged Russia hacks.

    Hacks themselves even if true but no evidence presented as of yet, would have been a minor episode, worth of a brief headline especially when it is US and Israel who are real cyber aggressors.

    Ken Nari | Dec 31, 2016 5:58:40 PM | 31
    Once, in less insane times, had some government been found to have tampered with elections, the heads of the agencies responsible for protecting against that would now be testifying before Congress and trying to explain how they let that happen.

    Some of the officials would resign in disgrace, some would no doubt have been found to have lied and to have tried to cover up their incompetence, and probably at least someone would have gone to jail.

    That the U.S. is helpless in the face for foreign technology that information would be kept top secret while a huge effort would be initiated to catch up. The vulnerability would not be broadcast, you can be sure.

    Probably nowhere has critical thinking been more effectively stamped out than in the American public. Gradually, however -- I think -- people in the U.S. are slowly beginning to awake from their comfortable stupor.

    rm | Dec 31, 2016 10:04:40 PM | 33
    Proviso to the 'intelligence' report : (DHS) "does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
    contained within" (JAR_16-20296)
    Peter AU | Dec 31, 2016 10:14:56 PM | 34
    RM 31
    The disclaimer shows straight away it was written up as a political report. Nothing to do with intelligence in either sense of the word.
    ALberto | Dec 31, 2016 10:47:00 PM | 35
    The alleged Russian US hack is plainly a straw man distraction designed to divert the inquiring public.s attention away from the actual contents of the KKKLinton, DNC, Podesta, et al, emails. Same goes for the alleged Russian hacking of the US Presidential Election. Another childish misdirection play.

    Alternate medias have taken the bait hook, line unt sinker. Rather than concentrate on the actual contents of the emails which reveal immense crimes including war crimes, crimes against humanity and Treason the so called independent medias waste their time like dogs chasing their own tails pursing information that to a computer literate audience would find laughable. THERE WAS NO HACK OF THE GRID.

    Get on to the publishing and dissemination of these emails rather than dancing for the self appointed 'Chess Masters' of the Great Game.

    Just me opinion

    MadMax2 | Dec 31, 2016 11:02:01 PM | 36
    Great post B. MSM born #Fakenews is the gift that just keeps on giving. So much mileage left. Viewing decay has never been so enjoyable.

    @8 mauisurfer
    Fantastic reading. Indeed, if Trump wants to win back public faith in the NSA, he'll get on his hands and knees and grovel to bring back a true yank patriot in Binney

    Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 1, 2017 12:00:11 AM | 37
    Amid the cornucopia of persuasive evidence that the barking mad neocons are barking up the wrong tree, this one pushes all the right buttons for me (given that only idiots allow themselves to think that Russians are incompetent fools).

    John McAfee (now often nutty but right in this):

    "If it looks like the Russians did it I can guarantee you it wasn't the Russians".

    Q.E.D.
    In 16 words.

    kraus | Jan 1, 2017 4:09:02 AM | 38
    Trump says he knows something..

    Trump questions claim of Russia hacking DNC, says he 'knows things other people don't'
    https://www.rt.com/usa/372400-trump-doubts-russia-hacking/

    A5 | Jan 1, 2017 7:29:31 AM | 39
    They want and must have war with Russia.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlC0vM0QvHo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvj0v0W6yjk
    Ghostship | Jan 1, 2017 9:43:19 AM | 40
    >>>> CHRISTINNE RADU | Dec 31, 2016 6:12:33 PM | 32
    The Daily Mail featured on the World at One on the BBC today starting at about 23:28 in.
    There is also a snippet at 16:10 about ISIS's avowed aim the break up the EU. Which is more important to the US? A stable EU or pushing regime change in Moscow. Putin has made it very clear that he wants a stable EU. So what's the problem?
    Curtis | Jan 1, 2017 10:59:07 AM | 41
    These stories reflect the demonize Russia as the latest enemy and throw as much "evidence" at the wall that will stick.

    However, it is obvious that the operating systems are not secure and cybersecurity efforts are not working.

    While it looks like the DNC/email thing is the result of leaks not hacks and that Seth Rich may have been murdered for this, the reality is that govt/banking/businesses have endangered us by making our information vulnerable and then blaming those who get in when they leave the door open.

    After the OPM data thefts, I asked my congressmen why such important data was put on the internet when they know they cannot protect it. I received form letters saying they took cybersecurity seriously and they believe the Chinese did it.

    A non-answer if ever there was one. Back then I didn't care if a govt went after Microsoft as a monopoly when it should go after it for providing vulnerable systems to the govt (and the rest of us) in the first place.

    In the internet's startups and non-profits, security was not taken as seriously as just getting some kind of system to work.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/10/the_dyn_ddos_attack_shows_how_vulnerable_we_ve_made_ourselves.html

    "In the late 1990s, when the utilities' vulnerabilities first came to light, Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, proposed imposing mandatory cybersecurity requirements on all industries connected to critical infrastructure. The companies lobbied against his plan, as did President Bill Clinton's economic advisers, who warned that the measures would cripple these companies' competitiveness in the global market. Clarke also suggested putting the government and critical-infrastructure industries on a parallel internet, which would be wired to certain agencies that could detect intrusions. This plan was leaked and denounced as 'Orwellian.'"

    This current accusation of Russians hacking US utilities may be so much BS and propaganda. But the US/Israeli STUXNET attack on Iran proved that some things should be protected.

    anon | Jan 1, 2017 1:38:41 PM | 42
    wow, friendly relations with other countries and potential business interests are bad? and would lead to a flaky electric grid in Vermont... because... ??
    our electric grids suck because of the friendly f-ing relations with our own bloodthirsty companies right here in the US. same for our lousy failing healthcare that only feeds the fat faces of the private owners...

    our freeways in Silicon Valley are lined with homeless people right now who are freezing at night, in a city that would shut off the outdoor outlets near city hall so that homeless disabled people will push their wheelchairs someplace else. the Bezos bozos are so out of touch. we know who to blame.

    Yonatan | Jan 1, 2017 2:14:22 PM | 43
    The report is clearly a fake. The authors are totally incompetent. They claim that CHOPSTICK is a Russian Intelligence Service Actor. It is so blatanly clear to anyone with any knowledge of international security threats that CHOPSTICK is Chinese.

    /sarc

    Yonatan | Jan 1, 2017 2:18:01 PM | 44
    Christinne Radu @32, Ghostship @40

    Nott has form. His wife was highly placed in the Institute of Strategic Studies (a connected thinktank), and she now runs the Nott Foundation, a charity which finances and organises training in disaster medicine. I wonder if they get a good deal on bulk purchases of white helmets?

    fredjc | Jan 1, 2017 2:41:10 PM | 46
    Is Obama dumb enough to attempt an executive order, which might, for example, claim that Russia had significantly affected the presidential elections and falsely maintain his own presidency?
    Yonatan | Jan 1, 2017 3:03:12 PM | 47
    fredjc @46

    So an actual coup? Everything the US does abroad works its way back home eventually, so I would not put it past his handlers to try it. The alternative would be to murder Trump. Either way, the US could then go into Ukraine-style meltdown.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Has political/media rhetoric always been as inflated and over the top when for example Washpost calling Russian hacking "cyber Pearl Harbor."

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Release of Flame and Stuxnet against Iran was probably the real cyber Perl Habor. In this case the USA and allied played the role of Imperial Japan. Stuxnet Computer worm opens new era of warfare - CBS News

    Pespi , December 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    I have a question for anyone who's been around a little while.

    Has political/media rhetoric always been as inflated and over the top as it is now? ie Washpost calling Russian hacking "cyber pearl harbor."

    Is this old hat or something caused by the attention economy?

    Katharine , December 31, 2016 at 2:52 pm

    This is way worse than it used to be. There was something to be said for stodgy journalism. Even when it misrepresented reality, it did so in terms that sounded comparatively measured and adult, not like hysterical kids on a playground.

    Susan C , December 31, 2016 at 8:24 pm

    I agree – I have never seen journalism like this before. Have been watching a lot of MSNBC and CNN during the past few weeks and I can't believe how over the top they are about the Russian hacking story – it goes on for hours. And the papers too. Is it that it is a slow news period and they have to keep their audiences shocked and awed all the time? I have no idea why this is going on about the Russian hacking unless the media is trying very hard to change people's opinions about Russia, and if they are, why? What's the objective? And the 99 senators too are in on this? They make it sound very serious and yet it seems everyone is being hacked all the time anyway.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the fact the US was importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons

    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
    Elizabeth Burton , December 31, 2016 at 4:20 pm

    Considering part of the original Cold War mania was devised to cover up the fact the US was importing a slew of former Nazis for varied and sundry reasons, not to mention allowing them to slip into hiding without any real effort made to find them, one does have to wonder at the coincidence that we are now engaging in neo-Cold War rhetoric just as the "alt-right" neo-Nazis have been granted dispensation to go public.

    Of course, one could believe the idea that all those former Nazis were really just poor souls who only worked for the Third Reich out of fear for their families and were, therefore, only too happy to embrace the joys of American freedom. One could, were it not for the other coincidence that similar fascist organizations have arisen almost simultaneously to public attention throughout Europe.

    But never mind. That's tinfoil-hat stuff. We trounced all that Nazi scum, and besides most of the people weren't really Nazis and didn't believe all that stuff. Right?

    [Jan 01, 2017] FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking TheHill

    Jan 01, 2017 | thehill.com

    From thehill .com - December 29, 2016 10:07 PM Enrique Ferro's insight: Who can believe them? Why is NSA silent? Their "evidence" is flimsy, based on hearsay. Obama's cybernetic false flag has been created to sway over Trump's future foreign policy at best, seeking to perpetuate the neocons' Russophobic approach. Or worse to delegitimize Trump's election. Obama/Clinton's game is to reverse one way or another the electoral result. With this stratagem now they intend to rally the die-hard warmongers in the Republican party, and set the frame for an impeachment. Disgusting.

    [Jan 01, 2017] Obama is trying to protect his legacy by delegitimizing Trump

    Re: Something About This Russia Story Stinks by Matt Taibbi Rolling Stone. Looks like Tabbi is on something. Obama has a lot to hide to the fact that Trump will enter White house in 2017 is really disconcerting for him. So attempt to tie Trump into anti-Russian hysteria might be kind of Hail Mary pass.
    Notable quotes:
    "... "The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes. ..."
    "... "The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website." ..."
    "... Over 40 million 'attacks' a day, on just three entities. Bollocks. 'Attack' is far too dramatic a word for a port probe. ..."
    "... Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside, she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career. ..."
    "... The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it. ..."
    "... And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"? Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was not something they got her to do. ..."
    "... I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler. I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things blow up in our faces. All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say. Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers mediocre. ..."
    "... If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes. ..."
    "... I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday. ..."
    "... Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is 4.1.1b. ..."
    Jan 01, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    RenoDino , December 31, 2016 at 8:50 am

    I agree, Tabbi in his Rolling Stone piece is now, finally, after his Trump induced psychosis, back on form. Something about the Russian Story does stink. Summing up, if the Russians did steal the election why the weak response now? Or is it just a good excuse for losing to Trump and/or is Obama is trying to protect his legacy by delegitimizing Trump? Either way, Obama looks to be underplaying or overplaying his hand.

    I wonder if this is really Obama, who is out the door, talking or is the national security state, who is not going anywhere? If it's the latter, then things start to make sense. It says to me, they are not happy with the new direction in foreign policy that Trump represents. In fact, they refuse to accept it and him.

    How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.

    Arizona Slim , December 31, 2016 at 9:30 am

    And let's just say that the Russian Story isn't ringing true with the IT community. Data point:

    https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2016/12/russia-malware-ip-hack/

    Key point from the conclusion of this article:

    "The IP addresses that DHS provided may have been used for an attack by a state actor like Russia. But they don't appear to provide any association with Russia. They are probably used by a wide range of other malicious actors, especially the 15% of IP addresses that are Tor exit nodes.

    "The malware sample is old, widely used and appears to be Ukrainian. It has no apparent relationship with Russian intelligence and it would be an indicator of compromise for any website."

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 11:58 am

    http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2013/03/how-many-cyberattacks-hit-united-states-last-year/61775/

    'll leave you with some additional recent numbers on cyberintrusions, as reported by various actors:

    • The energy company BP says it suffers 50,000 attempts cyberintrusion a day.
    • The Pentagon reports getting 10 million attempts a day.
    • The National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Energy Department, also records 10 million hacks a day.
    • The United Kingdom reports 120,000 cyberincidents a day.
    • That's almost as many as the state of Michigan deals with.

    Utah says it faces 20 million attempts a day - up from 1 million a day two years ago.
    =============================================================
    WOW!!!! Seems like a really big F*cking deal!!!!
    Kinda makes me wonder how many laws and regulations have been enacted forcing internet companies and software companies to make their stuff more secure .

    Long story short – not too many

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-security_regulation

    {{{{{{ In July 2012, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was proposed by Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins.[15] The bill would have required creating voluntary "best practice standards" for protection of key infrastructure from cyber attacks, which businesses would be encouraged to adopt through incentives such as liability protection.[16] The bill was put to a vote in the Senate but failed to pass.[17]}}}}}}

    And of course (I don't want to over link so you have to look it up yourself) there are the laws that ALLOW intrusion by the US government into your computer, of course makes computer systems LESS SECURE .

    So, almost makes me think Trump, OF ALL PEOPLE, was actually CORRECT when he said:

    "I think that computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what is going on. We have speed, we have a lot of other things, but I'm not sure we have the kind the security we need. But I have not spoken with the senators and I will certainly will be over a period of time."

    And how much the above is being mocked, by people without the presence of mind to ask, "how long, and how many hacks have already occurred, and WHAT WAS DONE ABOUT IT?"

    Hacking, that happens millions upon millions of times a year now for near a decade, but apparently only a BIG F*CKING DEAL when an incompetent dem SAYS she has LOST the presidency due to hacking .

    Grebo , December 31, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Over 40 million 'attacks' a day, on just three entities. Bollocks. 'Attack' is far too dramatic a word for a port probe.

    RenoDino , December 31, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Craig Murray asks why is there no evidence from the NSA:

    https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/exit-obama-cloud-disillusion-delusion-deceit/

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 31, 2016 at 9:56 am

    The Russia hacking story goes back to early October with wiki leaks. Who is at fault for Trump?

    Sherrod Brown, Senator of a state where Hillary lost and prominent Clinton supporter despite his previous support for good policy, DWS, Tim Kaine, Donna Brazille, or Russians?

    Plenty of people are invested in not being held accountable for 2000. The front runner for DNC chair is a Muslim, Sanders supporter because even Democrats are growing upset, but one of the perks of Washington is celebrity.

    My guess is going forward Dems will be under greater scrutiny and will find significantly less brown nosers.

    Hillary is possibly the worst serious candidate ever. Emails and speeches aside, she was a disaster with no business running for President after her prominent national career.

    This was obvious to any sane and decent human being. The lesson of 2016 is even the "good Democrats" such as Sherrod Brown and Liz Warren need short leashes. In 2020, all these people have to go to Iowa (very close), New Hampshire (a blowout), and Nevada (openly rigged by former Senator Reid). How does a candidate push their "progressive" credentials after throwing in with Hillary? Hillary primary voters have the unfortunate age issue.

    Then of course, there are people who don't want to believe they bought this bs when Hillary should have been dumped ages ago.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.

    And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"? Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was not something they got her to do.

    I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler. I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things blow up in our faces.
    All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say. Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers mediocre.

    timbers , December 31, 2016 at 10:25 am

    How is this tension is resolved is the single most important question in the weeks ahead.

    Sometimes the simplest "solutions" are the ones we never think of – Assassination of Trump by the Deep State, the Blob, whatever you call it. But this may take more that just weeks ahead to materialize if at all.

    If you believe President Kennedy was killed by the Deep State (I'm agnostic on that due to never researching it), and if Trump does deal with the bi-partisan War Party Deep State Blob elements by standing them down as he did his Republican primary challengers and Apprentice guests . then this may be the logical way to put an end to the threat Trump represents to the establishment. And there is so much that is threaten by Trump of the established order.

    Trillions of war armament purchase orders from NATO and the US military hinge in the balance by continued US and NATO belligerence towards Russia. Add to that the gas pipeline thru Syria that will be less likely to happen under Trump. The lost looting if no regime change in Russia like we did in Ukraine – all that lost oil and natural resource the global elites will be denied. All the lost military spending. The lost boogyman to instill fear for more surveillance of the citizenry. The Deep State, Blob, War Party will be furious.

    That's a lot of trillions.

    tgs , December 31, 2016 at 9:05 am

    Re Taibbi:

    Yes, it is positive that he openly expresses skepticism in the current environment. But why this?

    If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to warrant a massive response miles worse – than heavy-handed responses to ordinary spying episodes.

    Leaking emails would require a 'massive response'? Has he seen Zero Days? What kind of response would be appropriate for hacking a nuclear plant? Assassinating nuclear scientists? Is he aware that we have 'hacked' elections for years? Not to mention overthrown legal governments.

    And this:

    I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable of anything.

    Would Taibbi ever use similar language to describe Obama? So many in the media and other elite circles are suffering from Putin Derangement Syndrome.

    Bugs Bunny , December 31, 2016 at 9:27 am

    IIRC, the US helped elect Boris Yeltsin when it looked like he was going to lose?

    Eureka Springs , December 31, 2016 at 9:50 am

    How many countries have Obama /Clinton attempted regime change to covert/direct interference in elections/leadership? I would imagine the answer is far more than my quick list below. We couldn't hack/leak internal emails among the players because our bloody hypocritical hands would be all over them.

    As for Russia if all they did was expose truths via party emails, well I thank them for that. And considering what Clinton said and did to Russia over the years it would be irresponsible for a Russian leader to sit by idly and do nothing. Even though we seem to be destroying ourselves quite well enough on our own, we have and continue to threaten the rest of the world, beginning with Russia with nuclear holocaust.

    If Taibbi can call Putin all those things, then what the heck are Obama Clinton?

    Ukraine
    Russia
    Syria
    Venezuela
    Honduras
    Egypt
    Yemen
    Iraq
    Palestinians
    Libya
    Paraguay
    Turkey?
    Brazil?
    Argentina?
    Thailand?
    Hong Kong?

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:36 pm

    Taibbi has some personal journalistic history with previous Putin governments. It's understandable that he'd cast side-eye Putin's way, though none too healthy in this deranged environment (just wait until some corporate Dem tries to use him as a Surprising Validator). Let's keep Taibbi on turn watch though.

    It seems the need to celebrate some leader is less conntected to said leader's performance than to some perceived need to be led, to believe that the very concept of hierarchy is just.

    annie , December 31, 2016 at 9:57 am

    I used to read and respect articles from Matt Taibbi.

    This one is a revelation and what it reveals is that I have been mistaken.

    I will skip his contributions in the future.

    UserFriendly , December 31, 2016 at 12:00 pm

    I do not understand this attitude at all. A writer who generally does good work says something that I disagree with so I will never read them again. It's tantamount to saying I refuse to read critically. I don't want to see anything I don't agree with 100%. It's petty.

    annie x , December 31, 2016 at 1:08 pm

    interesting! someone has hijacked my user name to post an inane comment.

    the real 'annie' says.

    Outis Philalithopoulos , December 31, 2016 at 2:22 pm

    Hi, new annie.

    It's true that the other annie has been posting comments on the site for a while, so it would be less confusing if you were to modify your handle so that people can tell you two apart.

    On the other hand, don't take any of the comments from people who were concerned personally – obviously it's easy enough for two people to share the same name, and the software doesn't flag when you are using a name that has been used before.

    Steve H. , December 31, 2016 at 10:14 am

    – Putin Derangement Syndrome.

    I heard a report that Lindsey McCain et al have armstwisted Trump into hearing the CIA report on the Russian hack. What are they going to say? 'You won the election because of teh Russians!'

    "Good gracious me! You're the CIA, find me out what his favorite liquor is so I can send him a bottle!"

    So they'll tell him to his face he wasn't competent to win the election himself? My guess is says brief me again when I'm President, they walk in the door and he properly fires them. And his face will be like this .

    Cry Shop , December 31, 2016 at 11:31 am

    "warrant" and "executing/capable of carrying out" are two different things.

    As Putin has shown, Obama's capability threshold so low that it's rather moot to discuss warrant. It's now up to Congress to do something magnificently stupid, violent and utterly worthless, or rather worthy of the great American tradition.

    witters , December 31, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    And what on earth is the journalistic point of saying "I have no problem in believing something for which there seems to be no credible evidence and which is being pushed by obvious partisan interests?" I think Taibbi is 'normalising' fast.

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 9:09 am

    I dunno. President Obama is not great but the comments here make me feel like it's time for me to skedaddle. Thinking he might be worse than Shrub? 6″ tall, smh

    Pat , December 31, 2016 at 9:31 am

    Oh I admit it can be a tough choice, but you might really want to add up the good and the bad for both. Not surprisingly there is little good and a whole lot of long ongoing damage inflicted by the policies that both either embraced, adapted to or did little or nothing to stop. Even if the list of bad was equal, I have to give Obama for the edge for two reasons. First because Bush pretty much told us what he was going to do, Obama campaigned on change and vague promises, but still change. Instead he normalized atrocities that most of us had been screaming about in the Bush administration AND he didn't just squander the opportunities he had to change our course domestically because of the crash and the majorities in Congress, no he couldn't throw those away fast enough.

    Your position is obviously different.

    And I don't give a damn what height either of them are, both are small people.

    Lost in OR , December 31, 2016 at 11:14 am

    Indeed. Bush was a known quantity. "Compassionate conservatism" was was blatantly hollow jingoism. My only surprise under W was how virulently evil Cheney was.

    The big O, though, was handed the opportunity to change the course of history. He took power with Wall Street on its knees. The whole world hungered for a change in course. Remember "never let a crisis go to waste". O turned Hope into blatantly hollow jingoism.

    In the end, the black activist constitutional lawyer turned his back on all that he seemed to be. Feint left, drive right.

    With W we got what we expected. With O we got hoodwinked. What a waste.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 9:32 am

    Look, if you don't like some of the comments you see, say so. We have some thick skinned people here. A little rancorous debate is fine. If some reasoned argumentation is thrown in, the comments section is doing it's job. (I know, I know, "agency" issues.)
    Obama can be legitimately described as worse than Bush 43 because Obama ran as a "progressive" and flagrantly broke almost all of his promises and governed like a "Moderate" Republican. At the least, Bush, Sr. and Jr. ran as right wing politicos. The people basically got what they voted for with them.
    Finally, " it's time for me to skedaddle." WTF? I'm assuming, yes, I do do that, that you are a responsible and thoughtful person. That needs must include the tolerance of and engagement with opposing points of view. Where do you want to run to; an "echo chamber" site? You only encourage conformation bias with that move. The site administrators have occasionally mentioned the dictum; "Embrace the churn." The site, indeed, almost any site, will live on long after any of we commenters bite the dust. If, however, one can shift the world view of other readers with good argumentation and anecdotes, our work will be worthwhile.
    So, as I was once admonished by my ex D.I. middle school gym teacher; "Stand up and face it. You may get beat, but you'll know you did your best. That's a good feeling."

    craazyboy , December 31, 2016 at 11:47 am

    Picking the #1 Worst Prez is a fallacy inherent in our desire to put things on a scale of 1 to 10. It's so we can say, in this case, #1 was the WORST, and then forget about #2 thru #10.

    It's like picking the #1 Greatest Rock Guitar Player. There are too many great guitar players and too many styles. It's just not possible.

    Even so, I'd like to see the Russian citizen ranking of Putin vs. Yeltsin. Secret ballot, of course.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    America will be lucky if it avoids something similar to the earlier Russian people's ranking of Tsar Nicholas versus Karensky and subsequent events.

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 1:16 pm

    I like your response. Thanks.

    I don't think he's worse than Bush but I agree he was horribly dishonest to run as a progressive. He's far from progressive.

    I think the ACA, deeply flawed as it is, was/is a good thing. It wasn't enough and it was badly brought out. I hope many thousands don't get tossed off health insurance.

    My major criticism of him and most politicians is that he has no center. There is nothing for which he truly stands and he has a horrible tendency to try to make nice w the republicans. He's not progressive. Bernie, flawed also stands for something always has, always will.

    Vatch , December 31, 2016 at 3:46 pm

    Obama is highly deceptive, but I think that Bush (43) was worse. I doubt that Obama would have performed many of his worst deeds if Bush hadn't first paved the way. But we'll never know for sure, so it's possible to argue on behalf of either side of the dispute.

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    Sorry if I came across as harsh. I enjoy your arguments, so, I tried to encourage you to hang in there.
    Happy New Year

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:40 pm

    In other words, Obama's a Kissingerian realist, or a businessperson (but I repeat myself): only permanent interests.

    Happy New Year, and try to don't run off so easy. :)

    Yves Smith , December 31, 2016 at 7:11 pm

    The ACA was not badly thought out. It was written by insurance industry lobbyists. And Obama thought that was just ducky.

    wtf , December 31, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Agreed.

    Putin's such a sweetheart to invite those children to the Kremlin. /s

    ambrit , December 31, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Well, it is a real recruiting opportunity.

    wtf , December 31, 2016 at 10:03 am

    Agreed.

    Putin's such a sweetheart to invite those children to the Kremlin.

    Steve C , December 31, 2016 at 10:51 am

    The liberals have so much invested in Obama they can't bear to admit he's a backstabbing failure. There is no sugar coating Bush's awfulness. There also is no denying things now are worse than they were in 2007, before the Great Recession began. The liberals like to say things are better than they were when Obama took office. But that's a comically low bar. Rock bottom of the Great Recession. We have not recovered.

    Obama isn't gaudy bad like Bush. Obama's pathologies are smoother, like his desperation for establishment approval.

    Arizona Slim , December 31, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    The liberals like to say that things are better than they were when Obama took office. Sorry to share this tidbit, but I must:

    On Friday, March 18, I was among the 7,000 people who heard Bernie Sanders speak at the Tucson Convention Center Arena. Guess what he said.

    And, to my utter and total amazement, the audience burst into applause. I couldn't believe it. Much of Sanders' appeal was based on how lousy the economy still was for so many people. Including Yours Truly.

    My response to Sanders' praise of Obama's handling of the economy was a slow clap. A few minutes later, I left the rally.

    polecat , December 31, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    "Obama's pathologies are smoother"

    Like a glass of fine bourbon downed with a shot of arsenic.

    Jeff , December 31, 2016 at 12:49 pm

    So criticism of Obama isn't acceptable? Would it be better to let his poor decisions/actions just go unnoticed?

    Or are you referring to something else?

    hreik , December 31, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    Of course it's acceptable. It's even important, vitally. But his height? I know I know it was not really an ad hom, but why even mention it?

    He fetishized making nice w the rethugs to our and the country's detriment. He had 2 years to get something done. And honestly I have no idea if it would have been different w a less hostile congress. My complaint is he didn't really try. Everything was half measures, pablum.

    Plenue , December 31, 2016 at 3:47 pm

    Far too generous. He did try to get Republican policies enacted. He wasn't a weak Democrat, he was a driven Republican who was only thwarted by a comically, stupidly hostile GOP that sabotaged things like the Grand Bargain/Great Betrayal because they had such a virulent hatred of the black guy.

    reslez , December 31, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    If Obama had enacted the agenda he ran on– even in part - the Democrats would not have lost Congress in 2010. Obama's "only having two years" is thoroughly on himself and his party.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 4:49 pm

    hreik
    December 31, 2016 at 9:09 am

    The site would be poorer and I would be sadder for the loss of your comments.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-30/can-this-political-union-be-saved
    Shortly before I got married, I received a piece of sterling advice that I have been mulling a lot over the last year: "You have a big decision to make: Do you want to be married, or do you want to be right?"
    .
    The more determined you are to win every battle, the more likely you are to lose what's important: the person you love so much that you have chosen to spend the rest of your life with them. And so every time you have a real disagreement - the kind that cannot be finessed by agreeing that tonight you'll order Indian, and next time you'll get Chinese - you have to think carefully before you decide to have that fight. Is this really the hill that you're willing to let your marriage die on?
    ..
    While traveling a few months back, I ended up chatting with a divorce attorney, who observed that what we're seeing in America right now bears a startling resemblance to what he sees happen with many of his clients. They've lost sight of what they ever liked about each other; in fact, they've even lost sight of their own self-interest. All they can see is their grievances, from annoying habits to serious wrongs. The other party, of course, generally has their own set of grievances. There is a sort of geometric progression of outrage, where whatever you do to the other side is justified by whatever they did last. They, of course, offer similar justifications for their own behavior.

    ======================================================
    Every friend, every association we make, every relationship with a relative, every political entity can be dissolved. One can insist one is correct on every matter, and live a long life with ever fewer associations until maybe one has none at all.

    As to which president is worse, your all wrong. Supposedly , 99 senators believe Russia hacked us. Our country apparently is composed entirely of imbeciles without regard to race, creed, sex, or party .

    reslez , December 31, 2016 at 7:06 pm

    If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.

    Whether you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the articles at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested in pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true. I believe we have a duty as citizens to seek out the best sources of information. NC is on that list.

    reslez , December 31, 2016 at 7:08 pm

    If you can't bear to encounter comments that contradict your political opinion then you should probably also skip Thanksgiving dinner and other family get-togethers.

    I believe we have a duty as citizens to seek out the best sources of information, even if that results in encountering opinions that are uncomfortable to us. NC is one of those sources. Whether you read the comments here is up to you, but I'd suggest continuing to visit for the articles at least. You won't find the same level of analysis elsewhere. The MSM is heavily invested in pushing their "narrative" whether or not it's true.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 10:21 pm

    The DNC is not the government. It's a private entity called a political party. Phishing or hacking it is not interfering with our government whoever does it.

    And will somebody explain to me how Putin and his henchmen made Hillary say "basket of deplorables"? Was it an earwig they snuck in her ear? Did they sneak into her room and hypnotize her to say that horrible statement? Did they plan for Obamacare to become a major f**k up in October? I'm pretty sure Russia and China were really pissed at her adventure in Libya; so that escapade was not something they got her to do.

    I negotiate for a living. I would not call the person I'm dealing with a thug like Hitler. I would not poke the guy/bear with pompous statements. That's just stupid. Maybe we do need people in charge who actually know how to negotiate to get the best possible deal without having things blow up in our faces.
    All those Dems you named are mediocre managers without anything interesting or innovative to say. Even if the Russians did expose the DNC and Podesta emails, The Russians did not make these courtiers mediocre.

    Montanamaven , December 31, 2016 at 10:23 pm

    bye bye!

    timbers , December 31, 2016 at 9:16 am

    You hit the right priority of issues IMO, and would add a few things Obamanation did:

    1). Bombing more nations than anyone in human history and being at war longer than any US President ever, having never requested an end but in fact a continuation of a permanent state of war declared by Congress.

    2). The massive destruction of legal and constitutional rights from habeas corpus, illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of all people, to asserting the right to imprison, torture, and assassinate anyone anytime even America children just because Obama feels like doing it.

    3). Austerity. This tanked any robust recovery from the 2008 recession and millions suffered because of it, we are living with the affects even now. In fact Obamanation's deep mystical belief in austerity helped defeat Clinton 2016.

    polecat , December 31, 2016 at 12:31 pm

    "Obama's pathologies are smoother"

    Like a glass of fine bourbon downed with a shot of arsenic.

    Bugs Bunny , December 31, 2016 at 9:22 am

    Facts on the ground in Mumbai re demonitization and how the poor are coping.

    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/demonetization-survey-k-west-ward-slums-mumbai-how-urban-krishnan?trk=prof-post

    beth , December 31, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    I think the following quote summarizes the article and the writer's attitude toward those experiencing this tragedy:

    Conclusion:

    For the group as a whole, there was only a 10% loss in income in November. However, the impact on certain types of occupations was high, with income loss up to 44% among the self-employed.

    Dita , December 31, 2016 at 9:25 am

    Re Something About This Russia Story Stinks, I feel like Obama's weak response is a passive aggressive way of telegraphing that he doesnt believe The Russians Did It either.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 31, 2016 at 9:41 am

    Since the NSA not the CIA would be the main actor involved with cyber security and Obama has instructed the CIA to take action and noted his CIA reports, it's clear "OMG Russia" was always red meat to help Hillary with Republicans. The problem is the Dems told such an incredulous lie in early October many of their own voters and donors believed it because "Obama wouldn't make something up."

    Obama needs to do enough to soothe Democrats who believe this nonsense while not gaining the ire of the sane. Obama will never utter the truth or do the right thing. Polling indicates his Russian story isn't catching on. When Congressmen go home to their districts, they might not be so eager to discuss Russia when they find the voters don't care Podesta's emails were leaked.

    Certain Dems especially Clinton connected ones who swore Hillary was a tolerable candidate and the msm after being in the tank for Hillary for so long are desperate to regain credibility. Admitting the Russian story was an obvious sham means acknowledging complicity or being a mark. See how easy it is. It's not my fault. It's the foreign leader you have no control over who was at fault.

    Rhondda , December 31, 2016 at 7:19 pm

    I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!

    LT , December 31, 2016 at 1:30 pm

    Obama knows he beat Hillary in 2008, when she was also expected to be crowned.
    And he knows he beat her for the same reason Trump did: people wanted anyone who wasn't perceived (emphasis on perceived) to be if the long time political establishment.

    It's funny that no reporter, if they really nelieve this, has asked Obama how far back the intelligence committe was investigating "Putin's interference". Russia knew both Clinton and McCain had their hawkish sites set. The Clinton campaign was a leaky mess back then and no one once cried "hacking."
    Imagine the hilarity if it were true and Russia helped elect Obama.

    Lemmy , December 31, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    I think you're right.
    On the one hand, we are told to believe our intelligence agencies' assertions that Russia directly influenced the results of our Presidential election - in other words, that they intentionally subverted our democratic process (such as it is) in order to ensure the election of their preferred candidate. That's pretty heavy stuff.

    So what is the official U.S. response? We're gonna send some Russian folks home right before Christmas really screw up their holiday plans!

    Well played Obama - that will totally make them think twice before installing the next puppet president.

    Rhondda , December 31, 2016 at 6:59 pm

    I think "Russia hacked the election" is a (seemingly pretty successful) psyop to inoculate as many as they can against being willing to hear anything about charges for Hillary's basement server State Dept. They're sweeping hacks and leaks of different types and kinds into one big dust bunny and stuffing it under a rug misleadingly called "Russia hacked the election" - rather than "Russia hacked Hillary's illegal basement server" which would of course be a big legal problem for some people. Those people and their cadre don't want anyone saying that or even able to think it. Squirrel!! FakeNews!! Resist!!

    Rhondda , December 31, 2016 at 7:20 pm

    Sorry for the doublepost. Comment system is acting strange.

    tgs , December 31, 2016 at 9:28 am

    The Russians are at it again. The Washington Post

    Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say

    And Rt:

    Meanwhile, a number of IT specialists that have analyzed the code and other evidence published by the US government are questioning whether it really proves a Russian connection, let alone a connection to the Russian government. Wordfence, a cybersecurity firm that specializes in protecting websites running WordPress, a PHP-based platform, published a report on the issue on Friday.

    Wordfence said they had traced the malware code to a tool available online, which is apparently funded by donations, called P.A.S. that claims to be "made in Ukraine." The version tested by the FBI/DHS report is 3.1.7, while the most current version available on the tool's website is 4.1.1b.

    The Report by Wordfence

    The Washington Post seems to have a fake news problem.

    Mariah , December 31, 2016 at 10:01 am

    I can't read the Washington Post story because of the paywall, but here is what VTDigger has to say about this story. While I didn't read the Post story, the difference in headlines is interesting. VTDigger's headline is "Russians Penetrated Burlington Electric Department Computer" which seems less alarmist than the Post's "Russian Operation Hacked a Vermont Utility, Showing Risk to U.S. Electrical Grid Security, Officials Say."

    https://vtdigger.org/2016/12/30/russians-penetrated-computer-burlington-electric-dept/

    Aside from the hysterical quote by our outgoing governor Peter Shumlin, the Vermont officials seem fairly calm about the incident. I would also note that Shumlin's failure to keep his promise on universal health care probably endangers more Vermont lives than the Russian hack attempt.

    Cry Shop , December 31, 2016 at 10:39 am

    the Russian hack attempt.

    at this point, any claim of agency by this administration is almost proof of the opposite.

    marym , December 31, 2016 at 10:56 am

    The govt released a report of "evidence" for the alleged DNC hacks. Arizona Slim at 9:30 am here posted a link to a critique of this "evidence." Meanwhile, utilities and other entities started checking their systems for similar "evidence." Burlington found an instance on a laptop unconnected to the grid.

    Here's a summary from emptywheel – she's actually somewhat of a believer in a Russian DNC hack, but not in this grid story.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    The problem with the DNC hack story is "who cares?" The Democrats are a private organization* with very poor cyber security as evidenced by Hillary's basement server.

    Podesta was not a government official conducting government business. Hacking and releasing his emails is simply not interfering with the election.

    *They made this claim in the primaries. The Democratic Party is in no way part of the U.S, government. They warrant as much attention as a local business as they don't receive defense contracts.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 11:13 am

    NotTimothyGeithner
    December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinese-hack-of-government-network-compromises-security-clearance-files/2015/06/12/9f91f146-1135-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html?utm_term=.4b8cea31c097

    Do you remember the Chinese hack of USA! USA! USA! SECURITY CLEARANCES!!!!!!! TOP SECRET STUFF!!!!

    Do you remember the uproar and all the consequences to China?
    All the trade sanctions???
    The Chinese import restrictions???
    DEF CON superduper ONE or what ever number they use for top DEF CONS now a days
    How the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war and total global annihilation because of this ACT OF WAR????

    Yeah ..neither do I.

    NotTimothyGeithner , December 31, 2016 at 11:49 am

    Arms manufacturers have an interest. The Russia is too small and too distant to overwhelm most countries outside of the Baltics and the Caucuses. The Chinese if they are let in can overwhelm most countries through soft power. Why change U.S. shackles for Chinese ones? The Russians offer many of the same weapon and tech options as the U.S. and China without the soft power threat of being overwhelmed.

    Part of the neoconservative rationale back in the day was the state of defense tech advancement would neutralize our wunder weapons and soldiers on the ground would matter again. We needed to block the Chinese and Russians by destroying or assimilating anyone who wasn't 100% loyal or could move into the Moscow sphere or cut into profit margins. The neoliberals pushed the U.S. would dominate free trade because the US. would run defense, tech, and finance. Russia and China are threats to every neoliberal promise.

    marym , December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Another summary from Greenwald.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 11:26 am

    marym
    December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    There was no "penetration of the U.S. electricity grid." The truth was undramatic and banal. Burlington Electric, after receiving a Homeland Security notice sent to all U.S. utility companies about the malware code found in the DNC system, searched all their computers and found the code in a single laptop that was not connected to the electric grid.

    Apparently, the Post did not even bother to contact the company before running its wildly sensationalistic claims, so they had to issue their own statement to the Burlington Free Press which debunked the Post's central claim (emphasis in original): "We detected the malware in a single Burlington Electric Department laptop NOT connected to our organization's grid systems."

    So the key scary claim of the Post story – that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid – was false. All the alarmist tough-guy statements issued by political officials who believed the Post's claim were based on fiction.
    ========================================
    Thanks for that marym!
    I guess – no, I now KNOW it was just idiotic of me and a naive and foolish belief in "progress" that I thought people could no longer be manipulated, like Americans in the 50's with the Red Scare. If anything, it seems the mechanism for ginning up mass hysteria is more effective now than it was than .

    Arizona Slim , December 31, 2016 at 12:14 pm

    If I may be permitted to comment on my comment, permit me to say this about my article link's origin:

    The writer of said article runs a company called WordFence. Its flagship product is a WordPress plugin that protects websites against hacking.

    If you ever get the opportunity to manage a WordPress-powered website that has WordFence among its plugins, be forewarned. You are going to be a very busy site manager.

    Why? Because you'll get frequent e-mailed admonitions from WordFence. Better update this plugin, your WordPress installation, your website theme, or some combination of these things. Yeah, it's annoying at times, but the good news is that WordFence is a very vigilant plugin.

    So, heed those admonitions and do those updates. Now!

    Carl , December 31, 2016 at 9:56 am

    Wow that Putin guy is smart. Brokering a cease-fire in Syria and brushing off Obama in one week. Forget the 11th dimensional chess, this guy's the real chess player. Really knows how to make a countermove. His exposing our failed policies is really what's driving the heated anti-Russian rhetoric by the political establishment, imo.

    dcblogger , December 31, 2016 at 10:00 am

    French workers win legal right to avoid checking work email out-of-hours

    lyman alpha blob , December 31, 2016 at 10:34 am

    Yesterday I mentioned having taken a class in Assyrian archaeology. Turns out the city I studied, Nimrud, has been turned to rubble by the Islamic state .

    Katniss responded with a comment about it being harder to rewrite history if people were actually aware of it. Really at a loss for words as to how people could do something like this. You'd think these ISIS ass***es would revere the Assyrians, being fellow head choppers and all but instead they raze the place.

    The city of Nimrud in northern Iraq is in pieces, victim of the Islamic State group's fervor to erase history. The remains of its palaces and temples, once lined in brilliant reliefs of gods and kings, have been blown up. The statues of winged bulls that once guarded the site are hacked to bits. Its towering ziggurat, or step pyramid, has been bulldozed.

    Funny thing is most of the good stuff from these sites was pillaged by the Brits 150 years ago and a lot of the best reliefs can be found scattered through small New England liberal arts colleges. Always thought they should be repatriated. Love to see these slabs lowered back into place in Iraq someday especially if there are some Bush era neocons and ISIS types underneath them when it happens.

    ewmayer , December 31, 2016 at 6:07 pm

    Remember the "bridge of death" scene near the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where after seeing Knight #1 walk safely across the bridge after getting 3 really easy questions from the bridge troll, Knight #2 excalims "that's easy!", rushes to the front of the queue, and after getting 2 easy questions, is stumped by "what is the capital of Assyria?" Funnily enough, I actually knew that one – Nineveh. Or thought I did, because doing a quick lookup just now I see Nineveh was the oldest city in Assyria and its ancient capital until its destruction in 612 BC, but Nimrud was an earlier capital, from 879–722 BC. So the correct answer is in fact, "it depends."

    Very sad what IS did to Nimrud, though.

    Jeff , December 31, 2016 at 10:39 am

    Hi,

    Is there an update on the demands from NC towards WP and associated liars about the fake news stories?
    Just saw a tweet mentioning the editorial WP added to their original stuff, but couldn't see an update in any of the ~posts here on NC.

    Thanks,

    Paid Minion , December 31, 2016 at 10:42 am

    2016 Post Mortem

    Can somebody please kill this fantasy that Clinton I was "eight years of peace and prosperity"?

    For many of us, it was the beginning of 25 years of working harder and making less. And of hacked government stats to make the economy look better than it actually was.

    Lupemax , December 31, 2016 at 3:29 pm

    Clinton 1, the best repug in the dem party, gave us
    1) Haiti – a failed state
    2) telecommunications bill that has given us the 5 corporations that offer the worst lamestream media in the industrial world that lies endlessly.
    3) end of the safety net (welfare as we know it) for those with the least increase in corporate welfare
    4) Glass-Steagall and corruption on Wall Street and all white collar crime actually that goes completely unpunished
    5) continuation of massive, runaway inequality
    6) Hillary Clinton
    7) NAFTA
    8) increase in childhood poverty
    9) sick care insurance that doesn't cover anyone for healthcare at all
    10) and he also provided privatized social security with Newt Gingrich but Monica (good for her) intervened.

    Webstir , December 31, 2016 at 10:59 am

    While making no excuses for the ineptitude of our current establishmentarian politicos, I think many of the commenters on here who seem in awe of Putin's political savvy forget an important point: He's an autocrat. Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a generally effective system of checks and balances. Putin, as an autocrat, does not face these challenges. He is free to shape his statecraft as he pleases and to implement tactics at the drop of a hat. Our political system does not (and lord help us under the trump regime - should not) enjoy this luxury. Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations.

    "11 dimensional chess" give me a break.

    HBE , December 31, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    "Whether you feel like the hacking is a ginned up conspiracy or not, cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations."

    But what about about an oligarchy?

    Our "democracy" has been dead for awhile for anyone not in the top 10%. You can't really be an "existential threat" to something that doesn't exist.

    Webstir , December 31, 2016 at 2:38 pm

    Thus my statement: "Whatever the U.S.'s current political failings, there is still a GENERALLY effective system of checks and balances." And yes, it can (and most likely will) get worse, before it gets better. I'm not blind to the US's frailties. However, I feel there is still a "chance" that we can step back from the brink of utterly destroying this 200 year experiment in representative democracy. The closer we step to abiding autocracy as a matter of course, though, the closer we step to the brink of not being able to reverse the considerable mistakes we have made.

    alex morfesis , December 31, 2016 at 2:00 pm

    No one anywhere ever is an autocrat no king, no dictator, no president, no fearless leader and certainly not raz-putin and no one has ever been that is a pedestrian image of what it takes to run an enterprise not castro, not saddam, not mao, not stalin .no one

    Webstir , December 31, 2016 at 2:47 pm

    Fine. I'll play the semantic game.

    Your statement does not; however, negate my assertion. Putin's ability to maneuver politically (within whatever system you'd like to call it) is substantially less hampered by checks and balances than ours. Our absolute polarization in this country has opened the door for "autocraticish" world leaders to seriously undermine our "admittedly weakened by oligarchic influences" system of representative democracy.

    hunkerdown , December 31, 2016 at 5:50 pm

    Our checks and balances were designed to serve the oligarchy. For some reason, you don't seem to have a problem with things that are unfit for purpose as long as they demand attention.

    Webstir , December 31, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    I address the first sentence of your reply alone, because the second makes no sense.

    So great, it's always been an oligarchy. I've read Zinn. But since you append no solution, am I left to believe that the solution is let Putin destroy said oligarchy and replace it with autocracy? Seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me. But I get it. Some people just want to see the world burn.

    hunkerdown , January 1, 2017 at 12:27 am

    The world is not debate club and it is not a business. You are not entitled to a solution. I believe it's arrogant of you to believe that you are.

    What's more, you're not ready to overlap your solution space with that of the people. Like I said, the world is not debate club. This is an attempt to meet minds, not to pray like a Pharisee.

    Let's start with this principle: does human welfare "net out"?

    hunkerdown , January 1, 2017 at 12:33 am

    Adding, I understand that "world burm" stuff is on today's meme list, as I've seen it in plenty of comment boxes around the Web, so you can stop pretending you're not on assignment. I want to watch liberals' world burn for their arrogance, and I defy you to tell me why they don't deserve that or worse.

    witters , December 31, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    Forgive me Webstir, but isn't Russia a capitalist democracy? Doesn't the UN etc get to monitor their elections? Putin gets voted in in the usual way. If that is a problem, then it is a problem for 'Democracy' generally. And remind me, these "checks and balances" – is that the CIA versus the FBI? Is it the the DOJ and financial crime? What is it?

    Carl , December 31, 2016 at 6:55 pm

    I guess that comment was directed to one of mine. Sorry, but I was just trying to express how inept Putin makes our war-mongering political establishment look (probably because they are) just by making a few strategic moves. If that came across as "cozying up" to the man, well, you might be reading too much into it. And the 11th dimensional chess remark was /sarc.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 31, 2016 at 7:28 pm

    "Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations." Huh!????? Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat to ALL nations of the world.

    And how is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security Industrial Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?

    Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.

    Jeremy Grimm , December 31, 2016 at 7:34 pm

    "Cozying up to an autocrat like Putin is an existential threat to all democratic nations." Not maintaining "amicable relations" with Putin and Russia is an existential threat to ALL nations of the world.

    How is it cozying up to Putin to question the plainly false assertions by our Security Industrial Complex or admire some clever but relatively straightforward responses to Obama's "retaliations"?

    Do you believe the President of United States has no capacity to control and direct the actions of the Executive Branch? The President has considerable autocratic power - little or not mitigated by "checks and balances" - as the head of the Executive Branch of the United States.

    MyLessThanPrimeBeef , December 31, 2016 at 11:01 am

    The Aurochs, back from the dead.

    Now, we can feel better about finishing of those bees, because we can bring always bring them back later.

    More enabling of Nature-abusing, should it become a part of cost-benefit analysis – the cost of preserving a species, versus letting it die now and bringing it back 50 years later – because we humans know exactly what we're doing. Having more options is always better.

    In the mean time, get the award ready for another display of superior intelligence.

    flora , December 31, 2016 at 1:49 pm

    I don't disagree.
    For me, teading the story brought up this segue:

    The general appearance of the auroch bull is similar to the smaller Spanish fighting bull. Which reminds me, there are several kinds of bull fighting. Portuguese bull fighting isn't featured in movies but wow is it something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS4bGwA0QSc

    There's the ancient /modern sport of bull-leaping. Sport in some form goes back at least 3500 years judging from Minoan frescos.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AukHt8_N1zs

    jhallc , December 31, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    Look on the bright side. They might be developing a superior supply of rodeo bulls to ride. However, the clowns may need some extra padding.

    fresno dan , December 31, 2016 at 11:02 am

    Is Obama using Russia to force a wedge between Trump and his party? Guardian

    Having compromised national security in order to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Republican leadership may now see Trump as expendable. After all, he chose a standard rightwing Republican, the Indiana governor, Mike Pence, as his running mate, which means McConnell and Ryan can always arrange to have Trump impeached if he becomes too much trouble.

    For Obama, Russia is thus a uniquely effective wedge issue, with the potential to divide the president-elect from his party. If Trump tries to remove the new sanctions, he could face blowback from Congress; if he doesn't, his friendly relationship with Putin could be damaged.
    ===================================================================
    If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs soon enough. As I commented yesterday, to me the issue is Trump strong enough to resist the many and varied forms of persuasion that will be marshaled by the MIC and associated hangers on to continue the very lucrative cold war funding.

    I saw a retrospective on the Trump campaign, and the part where Trump got sat down and questioned on abortion. Trump finally answered the question, "do you think women who have abortions should be punished?"
    Trump's answer of yes reveals two things to me:
    1. Yes, of course he is a politician and gives an answer that he believes his base wants to hear. It took him a while to learn the standard inconsistent but repub politically correct answer.
    2. I doubt very much, to the extent Trump has "core beliefs" that Trump was against abortion. But Trump, maybe more than most, will change to mollify the base.

    Now, I don't think the repub base actually gives a rat's as* about spending money to contain Russia, but I think the modern elites can sure make it seem like they do. I am hoping, but I doubt Trump, has the backbone, skill, and intellect to really counter a sustained effort to keep us at the status quo ante (i.e., keep us knee jerk anti Russian).

    The question is: are there REALLY 99 senators who believe Russia hacked the election or same difference, 99 who will vote that Russia hacked us?
    And you know what that means? It means that we are governed in mass, by seriously incompetent people with ideological blinders on – Trump is the least of our problems .

    Foppe , December 31, 2016 at 11:53 am

    Fancy that, Harvard still has a "cold war center" with nitwits who sell this as "analysis"?

    Mark Kramer, the program director for the Project on Cold War Studies at Harvard's Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, told Business Insider in an email Friday that Putin's "conspicuous announcement today was intended in part to give the impression that Obama's measure are weak and inconsequential (as indeed they largely are) and do not deserve a response."

    "Putin can thus depict himself as taking the high road," Kramer added, "and undoubtedly will be praised in European and Third World countries that are always eager to condemn the United States."

    HotFlash , December 31, 2016 at 4:50 pm

    If Trump is truly not fervently anti Russian, than he was gonna have problems with the repubs soon enough.
    ========================================

    I dunno. Mr. Trump, excuse me, President-Elect Trump, has a real gift for knowing what the people want, or at least what they want to hear. And the R's are conditioned (by the Tea Part et al) to fear their base. May it be that the Repubs (elites) will have problems with Trump? As for the Demos, Demo-friendly pundits and the vast "left wing conspiracy", I keep having the feeling that all this Putin-blaming stuff is because "Empress Hillary said so" and the DC/Demo-apparatus does not dare (yet) pile on the Trump wagon. See what happens on Jan 21.

    [Dec 20, 2016] ClubOrlov Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!

    Dec 16, 2016 | cluborlov.blogspot.com
    Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha! I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from any and all levity and mirth.

    You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.

    There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way, because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder. This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor, I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for schizophrenia first?

    And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.

    Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.

    My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and wish to become part of Russia again.

    So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted, turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents, it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon, whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians, kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they downloaded from their friends on Facebook.

    From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about "Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.

    This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced, let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain? Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.

    But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .

    The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes Sir, Tovarishch Putin!

    Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation, depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and on But who can stop them?

    And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.

    Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.

    The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.

    Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays, and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.

    And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed, under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance, sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?

    Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now? Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the "Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison, let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.

    1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.

    2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall. And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements. For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.

    3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.

    4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest, possibly escalating into a civil war.

    The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!

    There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals, because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead try to coax them into learning to control it.

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
    "... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
    "... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
    "... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
    "... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
    "... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
    "... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
    "... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
    "... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
    "... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
    "... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
    "... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
    "... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
    "... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
    "... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
    "... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
    "... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election Spncer Ackerman in New York and David Smith in Washington

    Geoff Smythe , 24m ago

    Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's involvement in US politics?

    The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.

    The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.

    As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.

    Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016

    Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion that is being suggested.

    And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    HollyOldDog -> Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016 01:4
    Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments that could fuckup ARM based computers.
    smellycat -> waltercarl67, 11 Dec 2016 00:0
    Time to stop attempting regime change in other countries then, if you condemn it in your own. What goes around comes around.
    caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    European governments tried to elect Hillary Clinton. Latin American and Asian allies of the US tried to elect Clinton.

    Top leaders of France, the UK, Germany, all leaked to US newspapers, with dire warnings of how Trump's election would lead to bad outcomes.

    Many countries made as clear as possible, without coming out officially for a candidate, that they were for the election of Clinton.

    Mexico tried to get Clinton elected. Believe me, they did. Not officially, of course, but almost.

    But all we hear about is Russia.

    Wonder why???

    uyCybershy -> caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
    imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:0
    Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
    Flugler -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped Putin wiped the terrorists out...
    smellycat -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:4
    Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege

    Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates' in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.

    Geoff Smythe -> smellycat , 11 Dec 2016 01:3
    Or the 50,000 that have been evacuated out of Aleppo by the Russian military. https://www.rt.com/news/369869-syria-evacuation-civilians-aleppo /
    Merseysidefella , 10 Dec 2016 21:5
    I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves. I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
    Cheers!
    GuyCybershy -> confettifoot , 10 Dec 2016 21:0
    The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," Karl Rove.
    caveOfShadows -> dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Don't use quotes when you are doing a fake attribution.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail.
    joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    Fake news....No news.....None sense news?

    Uncle Sam has been doing it for years and the degree of incestuousness between MSM and the "Agencies" is all right here (just one example)

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeyerM.htm

    smellycat -> joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    That's some serious shit
    '"The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
    stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:2
    No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.

    Hmmm....

    Flugler -> stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:3
    Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new... Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing are getting interesting...
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 19:2
    Meanwhile the good guys with their Smart bombs indulge in a spot of collateral damage. (Or war crimes as it's described when Russians do it).

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-90-iraqi-soldiers-killed-in-mosul-from-us-airstrikes/

    This article is jiberish, as are the ones trying to say that the Russians caused Brexit.

    GuyCybershy -> sunflowerxyz , 10 Dec 2016 19:3
    The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda.
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 19:1
    Spreading lies about the very real Podesta emails and their importance seems to be a fake news stock in trade. Since Hillary was responsible I'm not sure where Putin comes into the picture.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs /
    GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 19:0
    So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical!
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 18:3
    "If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is based on sheer lies. "
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
    Powerspike -> KassandraTroy , 10 Dec 2016 18:5
    They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
    James7 , 10 Dec 2016 17:2
    "Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
    "This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."

    We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C. pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.

    And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.

    "It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."

    (Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)

    Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise and completely unprovoked .

    To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")

    This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right under their noses.

    Laissez Faire Today

    James7 -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 17:3
    and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.

    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me.

    So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.

    Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.

    I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
    Happy Christmas, Vlad.

    Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political parties with one fell swoop that way.

    GuyCybershy -> BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul
    greyford14 -> GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Be careful there, Ron Paul is an FSB agent of Putin, according to the Washington Post.
    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
    GuyCybershy -> elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Dems are so out to lunch that they make FOX pundits seem sane. I would say the Democratic party is beyond hope of saving.
    sblejo , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
    Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    Note that most supporters of the Russian hacks never (and cannot) present rational arguments, just dubious talking points--AKA Fake News.

    But it is fun to spot the gaps in their logic, and the holes in their stories.

    Great sport--rather like hunting hares.

    GuyCybershy -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    We need to trust the CIA, they'd never fix evidence to manipulate the American public.
    BaronVonAmericano -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    Where's the gap in this logic:
    A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
    B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
    C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
    D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time -- unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
    foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
    GuyCybershy -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    The US public has a right to know what CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post want them to know.
    sblejo -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank you Democratic party.
    aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?

    I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.

    GuyCybershy -> aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    They expected Russia to fall apart like the USSR and then they could march in and pick up the pieces. Putin prevented this and this why they hate him.
    NickinHalifaxNS , 10 Dec 2016 16:2
    If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.

    If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 15:5
    First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence" officials. In other words, fake news at this point.

    Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen. Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.

    This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts about our ruling class.

    This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:5
    >> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.

    What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the BS and voted for trump. Good for them.

    And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.

    MrIncredlous , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Obama is a disgrace to his office.

    Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
    Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

    This is very telling:
    "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."

    Alleged:
    adjective [attributive]
    said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

    Consistent:
    adjective
    acting or done in the same way over time

    Method:
    noun
    a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something

    Motivation:
    noun
    a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way

    So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?

    Well what we can tell is:
    the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations (and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.

    There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
    Flugler , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
    Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies working against humanity for very many years.
    Susanna246 , 10 Dec 2016 13:1
    Beware --

    This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.

    The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping away from them.

    This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.

    What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame the Russians for it.

    The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.

    American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes is one small incident from either side.

    And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.

    They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.

    God help us all.

    MacTavi5h , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in 2020.

    I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!

    I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.

    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.

    http://yournewswire.com/snowden-claims-russia-can-expose-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections /

    nishville , 10 Dec 2016 12:3
    A reader's comment from the Independent:

    Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."

    zulugroove -> nishville , 10 Dec 2016 13:4
    Fake news!! ...That would be a Clinton / Obama , reply!!
    CTG2016 , 10 Dec 2016 12:0
    Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
    Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
    We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
    Gallicdweller , 10 Dec 2016 11:1
    The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups etc. etc. etc
    Dave Harries , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
    Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their billions of funding.
    So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA are going to publish then think again.
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy alliance after the election
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Instead of trying to blame the Russians how about reflecting on why the Democrats picked such a dreadful candidate.
    ana ruiz , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson ..
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    "We are Not calling into question the election results"
    next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF

    What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep. who almost managed to have his tie done up..

    I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)

    Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!

    His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --

    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
    Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:0
    Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
    Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
    So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.

    Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..

    blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
    jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..

    Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just over month ago.. whoosh!

    It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!

    And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..

    Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
    ********
    Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
    after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.

    As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
    Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!

    Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama continues to resist, or loose face completely..

    Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!

    Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
    & Obama is guilty!

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 09:4
    President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/trump-team-same-people-who-say-russia-meddled-in-election-said-iraq-had-wmds/#ixzz4SQWsDXpZ
    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:1
    It's getting funny as Biden promised cyber attack on Russia weeks before Trump was elected .. due to Russian hackers?
    uptonogoode -> alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    Link?
    alexfoxy28 -> uptonogoode , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721851/russia-joe-biden-obama-cyber-attack-war-clinton-putin-US-moscow

    or just google about it.

    ArtherOhm , 10 Dec 2016 08:5
    Is the USA, as author of windows software, really unable to prevent foreign hacking?

    Do the CIA never do anything like this?

    Do we actually have any evidence rather than just a lot of allegations?

    Shotcricket -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 09:0
    'Russia like to surprise' ?

    The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration, they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom Cobbly.

    In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.

    The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still, in truth, all is never fair in love or war

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 08:4
    .....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's position in those upcoming policy battles.
    At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels, and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
    The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected /
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:

    Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.

    This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian "Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.

    Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.

    Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.

    Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.

    IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about knowing vulnerabilities.

    That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.

    The standard sequence of events is thus:

    Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
    In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.

    If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.

    The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
    In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.

    The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
    In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document what got damaged.

    The correct IT manager response is thus:
    Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
    Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
    Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
    Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without exposing the innards of the system.
    Lock down misconfigured network systems.
    Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
    Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
    Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions are controlled via capabilities.
    Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential service.
    If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
    Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
    Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
    Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
    Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password control system to ban bad passwords.

    It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.

    GraemeHarrison , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections, perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
    SamSamson , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US soldiers could never be caught doing!!!

    They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the the cat out of the bag!!!

    LordTomnoddy , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Just another attempt to distract from realities, like:-

    From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2015-05-28 12:12 Subject: Fwd: POLITICO Playbook

    cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo > Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ... Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons." http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE

    Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..

    Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!

    She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.

    Can we move on?

    Polly123456 , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have hacked their security regularly.
    AlexPeace , 10 Dec 2016 08:0

    In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."

    Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise. Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
    FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I had leading or potentially leading my country.

    Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting flesh.

    Robert Stokes -> FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    You rig electronic voting machines by reflashing the firmware or switching out the sd cards. Can't be done remotely.
    Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 07:5
    And the CIA has never intervened in a foreign election?
    VibePit -> Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Oh heaven forbid!! The Shah of Iran was democratically elected but of course. . .
    HeathCardwell , 10 Dec 2016 07:2
    Don't believe any of this at all.
    American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:1
    What's the point of this?

    The American people don't want Clinton because she is a liar and a dangerous psychopath who also ignored the working people.

    If you want to change that, get her treatment. Don't try to undermine the election result.

    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    How can you not respect Putin?

    He's spent the last few years making fools out of Clinton, Kerry and the obomber.

    If you didn't want him to let Crimea rejoin Russia, then you shouldn't have initiated the coup that broke up Ukraine.

    Peter Turner , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
    LondonLungs , 10 Dec 2016 06:5

    "CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "

    You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.

    Ted Reading Reading 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment, including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost. But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
    righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    It's possible the Russians hacked and released the documents. However the report is not saying the Russians created them.

    So whatever was so deplorable about them was all Democrat

    Nataliefreeman -> righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling the playing field a bit
    12inchPianist , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    CIA finds Russia had covertly influenced election. CIA finds FBI had overtly influenced election. Fancy that!
    ashleigh2 , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources' are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    How about a Presidential review covering US interference in the elections of countries around the world?
    Paulare -> Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    But where to start?

    UK, Australia, Chile, Nicoragua, Cuba, Philippines, Malaysia, Germany...?

    such choice..

    Bosula -> Paulare , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Yes. Maybe do it on a regional basis across the globe.
    Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
    Nataliefreeman -> Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    When certain members of the public would believe one man over those who have more intelligence in a follicle than he will ever have floating in his cranium is when you realise that a place like Guantanamo should exist, exclusively for them.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/surprise-cost-of-ammo-for-us-navy-destroyers-new-guns-800000-a-shot-161114?news=859762
    Newmacfan , 10 Dec 2016 05:3
    Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
    StephenO , 10 Dec 2016 04:3

    Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...

    Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political shenanigans.

    Dom Michaels -> pureist , 10 Dec 2016 04:3
    Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
    MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.

    This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.

    Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.

    Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.

    GuyCybershy -> MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Agreed. Another reason why the Democratic party is not worth saving. 13 million voted for Sanders in the primary, that is enough to start a new party.
    Fabr1s , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is a real mess in this case.

    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    Read and research further...
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
    GeoffP -> Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?

    Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical, vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too? Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.

    sejong -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Russia's competence with computer hacking and cyber espionage is a given

    So what? What about Chinese or Israeli competence in these areas?

    This is Fake News that exists only because Clinton lost.

    The real news is about in competence by HRC, DWS, and the DNC in foisting a sure loser on American voters.

    naomh -> sejong , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Thank you for speaking the truth!!!!
    GeoffP -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes... and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
    third_eye , 10 Dec 2016 03:3
    It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections, but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
    Longleveler , 10 Dec 2016 03:2
    If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep the demonstrators off the streets.
    If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal hygiene.
    Will D , 10 Dec 2016 03:1
    The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.

    Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).

    The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.

    Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

    madeiranlotuseater , 10 Dec 2016 02:4
    Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
    onofabeach , 10 Dec 2016 02:3
    I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.

    I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.

    It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.

    The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables, the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.

    It was Hillary Clinton.

    Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting, behave like an adult.

    As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for you.

    BoBiel , 10 Dec 2016 02:2
    Georgia Says Someone in U.S. Government Tried to Hack State's Computers Housing Voter Data

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960

    http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-us-of-trying-to-hack-its-election-systems

    123Akava , 10 Dec 2016 02:1
    What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande, Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha! - you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
    poppetmaster , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    The Democrats still don't understand that the problem in American politics is everything that happened BEFORE election day.

    How can you worry about the ballot boxes when the entire process from beginning to end is utterly corrupt.

    CarlHansen , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
    phobeophobe , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.

    I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your side of politics.

    It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities. Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.

    You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the other side to your one-sided argument.

    Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.

    There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians taking over our institutions.

    Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.

    Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.

    Trump won the election! Get over it!

    Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.

    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 01:5
    News flash for all the obamabots:

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 01:3
    Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
    For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
    Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
    It's just a sad situation
    GuyCybershy -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline, but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
    SomersetApples , 10 Dec 2016 01:1
    If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.

    Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.

    Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.

    ID3053875 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
    The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet, Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
    Viva China , is far from Latin America
    nbk46zh , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is no industry.
    ID5151903 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited this man child is to public office.
    PullingTheStrings , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Good to see alot of Americans on here back into Mccarthyism/Paranoia/scapegoating/Witch hunting/Propaganda.
    smellycat , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Clinton's 'Russia did it' cop-out
    https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/09/clintons-russia-did-it-cop-out /
    prairdog , 10 Dec 2016 00:4
    Why should we trust US intelligence which is essentially US propaganda?
    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
    PostTrotskyite -> DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations. Are they wrong too?
    DanielDee -> PostTrotskyite , 10 Dec 2016 00:5
    I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists, particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated that did not result from Russian hacks
    sejong , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    Fake News is mass gaslighting, removing any sense of what is real. Biggest psy-op ever.
    gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:1
    Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election


    FAKE NEWS ALERT

    JCDavis -> gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    They already stated their conclusions, now they have to find evidence.
    Yodasyodel , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
    Wilderloo , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
    SUNLITE , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the "public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
    GuyCybershy -> SUNLITE , 10 Dec 2016 00:0
    I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
    Alexander Bach , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Did he also order to investigate the Clinton's deeds revealed by the 'hackers'?
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
    This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
    If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
    USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
    GuyCybershy -> USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    We're supposed to condemn "white nationalism" in The US and UK while supporting it in Ukraine.
    GeeDeeSea -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 23:4
    That's not all. We in US and UK are supposed to condemn jihadists in Iraq while supporting them Syria.
    James7 -> Eddy Cannella , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Hillary? Although I would lean to more "Grey."

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    So it's anti-Russia propaganda today again, all over the Guardian as well as everywhere else.

    I daresay they have a few things (perhaps a tad more important than football and athletics) to say about us as well..

    smellycat -> raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
    I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
    Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
    stegordon21 , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama (7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders. We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors, we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes? But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
    GuyCybershy -> nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    There wasn't a lot of outrage about the use of the "stuxnet" virus against Iran. You see, when we do it is always for a good cause.

    Paulare , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Take the long view folks.

    The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
    The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
    The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
    The British and French circa 200 years.
    The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting

    This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.

    DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    5 articles abut Russia, again. This is the Russia interference in the Guardian. Putin must be stopped.
    Earl_Grey -> DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    NATO has bought a subscription to the Guardian
    TonyBlunt , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Is all this hoohaa the BBC and the Guardian trying to get some revenge for the Russian liberating East Aleppo?
    TheIPAResistance , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart, Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
    Anthony1152 , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
    TheCharacteristicEquation 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK. Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.

    I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!

    dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
    Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
    GuyCybershy -> dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    Podesta's password was "p@ssword". Inexcusable carelessness.
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Nothing wrong with a bit of regime change now and then, so we've been told. No good crying when the Russians do it to you.
    sammy3110 , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    It's instructive to see the Guardian drag up Reagan's "Evil Empire" spiel, but only after Hillary lost.
    GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback seems fully justified.
    theenko -> GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Yanukovych is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Putin puppet should be in jail.

    GeeDeeSea -> theenko , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Porshenko is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Obama puppet should be in jail.

    Earl_Grey , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.

    How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none whatsoever).

    bcnteacher , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Good call! Something is fishy about the US electoral system.
    COReilly , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked. You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    Survivor of Bosnian sniper fire Hillary Clinton decries fake news in speech yesterday
    Aaron Aarons , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.

    BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under the new POtuS.

    Sund Fornuft , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction! Oh wait, that was already used.
    kalander , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power.

    The fight goes on.

    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve to come up with the term 'fake news'.
    Hypocrisy at its finest
    John Urquhart , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops, warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Why fake the news when you can just strong the media companies into muzzling their criticism?

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/mika-brzezinski-says-clinton-camp-tried-to-pull-her-off-the-air /

    mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
    'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
    I do Holiday cards too.
    garenmel -> mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    My hat off to you sir/madam. This was great!
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer network, including the voter registration database.
    In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack

    Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....

    feliciafarrel , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:

    The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

    https://www.gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

    Are they going to conveniently forget all decency and morality? Is the white supremacist agenda in the GOP finally in the ascendant?

    Russian Troll (Number 254) 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    I as a Russian Troll do not like this investigation and will do or say anything in order to change your mind. Putin is not a problem, the EU is.
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    ..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity, not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite undisturbed.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news /
    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    "The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying".

    http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and

    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Clinton lost even though she outspent Trump two to one. She was just a lousy candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
    fimbulvinter -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
    emilyadam , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe population!Lol
    I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
    Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.

    The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.

    One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.

    It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.

    freeandfair -> Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    "Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."

    The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.

    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3

    possible Russian hacking in US election

    Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.

    Texas_Sotol , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!

    Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!

    Fencewalker -> Bluebird101 , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating that the order came from the Kremlin.
    It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering 'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
    Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand, I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
    jamese07uk -> Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore 100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
    spiridonovich , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.

    Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.

    None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian, et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.

    ImmortalTao , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating, resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom. Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
    MJMaguire , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them have anything to do with Russia.
    slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    another pathetic attempt to delegitimize Trump. wanna know why he won? look in the mirror, Barry.
    oldsunshine -> slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:2
    Will Obama see Clinton if he looks in the mirror??
    Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to bed, it should be done.
    CurtBrown -> Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Why stop at the last three?
    Karl Marks -> CurtBrown , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Because the US is more concerned about money than democratic integrity.
    dicksonator , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?

    If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just better at this? I doubt it.

    I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually, I could'nt care less.

    gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0

    Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election


    US interference:

    COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
    VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    142 more rows

    Shall I go on with anoter 142? US lying scumbags

    yeCarumba -> gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
    they practically destroyed the country
    KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.

    This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.

    The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.

    freeandfair -> KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved on and nobody cared.
    mismeasure , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
    SergeyL , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors" so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
    Shaemus Gruagain , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    Oh how wonderful it is to watch them smart and the bonus? no more Obamas.
    uest88888 -> PeteCW , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting so increasingly shrill.
    Mattster101 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
    nolongersilent , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption. after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
    eldudeabides , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    Should Hillary have been disqualified (and prosecuted) for having access to debate questions beforehand?
    Nete75 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    "Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear to President Putin that this is unacceptable."

    Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.

    Boghaunter , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:

    9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News on Tuesday.

    Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,

    On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.

    5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.

    June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department of Defense's network last June.


    1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)

    5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data

    Omoikani , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
    johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:1
    Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration - they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did it" was a convenient distraction.
    Omoikani -> johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet, but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
    peterward881 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0
    YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES it is our duty.
    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles pumped out on today's rag alone.

    The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election" they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another illegal war for profit.

    Chirographer , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?

    And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing, " A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."

    Karega , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
    Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.

    However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.

    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral process, as reported in the NYT :

    The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."

    The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."

    Was Obama lying then or is he lying now?
    imperfetto , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
    Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.

    What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream media against the Russians.
    Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.

    brothersgrimm , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
    Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
    Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain its Empire.
    RoachAmerican , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Examine something real, Nuclear Hillary. It must be time for Spring Planting??
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html?_r=0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEjkPyqRew
    Minutes 20 to 25
    Uranium One Wyoming
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    http://www.npr.org/2015/04/23/401781313/clinton-foundation-linked-to-russian-effort-to-buy-uranium-company
    https://youtu.be/jkfE10g8xbc
    at 25 minutes et seq
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc&feature=youtu.be


    Below, first paragraphs are the most important
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

    The 1 2 3 Step of Acquisition of Uranium One
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

    Going Private Part Public Company Disappears
    http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucscr.html

    http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/22-01-2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0 /
    Coward Comey needs to go.

    Joelbanks , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.

    America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market, money printing by another means.

    hardlyeverclever , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed doors while we are clear to do so publically.

    The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no one felt it a big deal at the time.

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well, use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
    Alun Jones , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
    palindrome , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Obama earlier this year: Russia is not a world power, only a regional power.

    Obama now: Russia has the power to manipulate the USA election.

    Which one is it then?

    Of course it's all bull...Obama is another establishment puppet who cannot accept that people have figured out their modus operandi.

    diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"

    The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.

    ..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological know-how and research."

    The internet and precious information...

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are right because it's not what's going on.

    It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.

    alexfoxy28 -> imipak , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
    alexfoxy28 -> alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 21:1 0 1
    simulacra27 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    The fake news channel brought to you by Obama and co.
    p.s. I mean that people cannot be manipulated by others at this basic level when some higher level manipulative tools are used.
    Kasem3000 , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered. How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    How can you on the one hand crusade against "fake news" and on the other promote this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/08/artist-alison-jackson-self-publishes-spoof-trump-photos-despite-fear-of-being-sued#comments

    Sutir Comed , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
    MayorHoberMallow , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.
    I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S. intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
    Timothy Everton , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have, as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is quite possibly "fake news".
    dreylon , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia did this, Russia did that
    its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
    you have cried wolf to many times
    stop trying to manipulate us
    Johnny Kent , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
    Catonaboat , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Well Guardian I do believe you hit a nerve, I don't think I've ever seen a more one sided BTL. Me thinks some people do protest too much.
    Iaorana , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied " Wiki

    Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.

    Lafcadio1944 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!

    Mike5000 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it. Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?

    If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary would have lost by a landslide.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    We never investigated this tho did we Former President Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Time to put on your big girl pants, accept defeat and leave gracefully.

    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
    Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
    Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
    Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
    etc
    Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
    Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!

    I love the smell of gibberish in the morning!

    geofffrey , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    ***Newsflash***

    Reads:

    "..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.

    dahsab , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating if the other team does it.

    Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!

    [Dec 10, 2016] Why the US elite loves so much to demonise Russia

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this. ..."
    "... In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in. ..."
    "... Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran. ..."
    "... Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts ..."
    "... Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege ..."
    "... I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves ..."
    "... "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda. ..."
    "... New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail. ..."
    "... No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken. ..."
    "... The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda. ..."
    "... So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical! ..."
    "... Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote. ..."
    "... So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me. ..."
    "... "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul ..."
    "... At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg ..."
    "... President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. ..."
    "... The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power. The fight goes on. ..."
    "... Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis. ..."
    "... Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it! ..."
    Dec 09, 2016 | www.theguardian.com

    From: Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election Spncer Ackerman in New York and David Smith in Washington

    Geoff Smythe , 24m ago

    Well, if Rupert Mudroach, an American citizen, can influence the Australian elections, who gives a stuff about anyone else's involvement in US politics?

    The US loves demonising Russia, even supporting ISIS to fight against them.

    The United States of Amnesia just can't understand that they are run by the military machine.

    As Frank Zappa once correctly stated: The US government is just the entertainment unit of the Military.

    Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016

    Altogether the only thing people are accusing the Russians of is the WikiLeaks scandal. And in hindsight of the enormous media bias toward Trump it really comes of as little more than leveling the playing field. Hardly the sort of democratic subversion that is being suggested.

    And of course there is another problem and that is in principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The US even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    HollyOldDog -> Nataliefreeman, 11 Dec 2016 01:4
    Don't know about Russians, but in the early 2000's the Ukrainian hackers had some nasty viruses embedded in email attachments that could fuckup ARM based computers.
    smellycat -> waltercarl67, 11 Dec 2016 00:0
    Time to stop attempting regime change in other countries then, if you condemn it in your own. What goes around comes around.
    caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    European governments tried to elect Hillary Clinton. Latin American and Asian allies of the US tried to elect Clinton.

    Top leaders of France, the UK, Germany, all leaked to US newspapers, with dire warnings of how Trump's election would lead to bad outcomes.

    Many countries made as clear as possible, without coming out officially for a candidate, that they were for the election of Clinton.

    Mexico tried to get Clinton elected. Believe me, they did. Not officially, of course, but almost.

    But all we hear about is Russia.

    Wonder why???

    uyCybershy -> caveOfShadows , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Russia has an independent foreign policy and acts in what it perceives as it's own best interests. It has refused to become a vassal state of the West and is a threat to the Empire's full-spectrum dominance. Worst of all it has begun trading outside the $US in energy and other resources with China and Iran.
    imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:0
    Mainstream media are now busy repressing any news and any questioning about facts, as the last battle in their support to jidaists fighting the Syrian Army. This is the dark pit where our so called free press has fallen into.
    Flugler -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Yep had a chat with an army mate yesterday asked him what the fcuk the supposed head of MI6 was on about regarding Russian support for Syrian govt suggesting Russian actions made terrorism more likely here in UK. He shrugged his shoulders and said he hoped Putin wiped the terrorists out...
    smellycat -> imperfetto , 10 Dec 2016 23:4
    Western media are in full panic as Aleppo falls with all sorts of gruesome tales about the mistreatment of their favorite terrorists in Aleppo and a strange silence on the whereabouts of their '250K civilians' under siege

    Of course no news on the danger to the civilians of W,Aleppo, who have been bombarded indiscriminately for months by the 'moderates' in the east of the city or the danger to the civilians of Palmyra, Mosul or al Bab.

    Geoff Smythe -> smellycat , 11 Dec 2016 01:3
    Or the 50,000 that have been evacuated out of Aleppo by the Russian military. https://www.rt.com/news/369869-syria-evacuation-civilians-aleppo /
    Merseysidefella , 10 Dec 2016 21:5
    I cant believe the Fake News outlets are still making a big deal about this issue. Obomber is leaving in a cloud of failure as he deserves. I´ll still look for the Guardian articles on football which are excellent.
    Cheers!
    GuyCybershy -> confettifoot , 10 Dec 2016 21:0
    The Sanders movement inside the Democratic party did offer some hope but this was snuffed out by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in collusion with the media. This is what likely caused her defeat in November and not some Kremlin intrigue.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." ― Noam Chomsky, Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality," Karl Rove.
    caveOfShadows -> dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 23:1
    Don't use quotes when you are doing a fake attribution.
    dopamineboy , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    New Canadian documentary - All Governments Lie. "It lucidly argues that powerful interests have been creating supercharged fake stories for decades to advance their own nefarious interests. And the institutional media have too often blithely played along." The Globe and Mail.
    joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:4
    Fake news....No news.....None sense news?

    Uncle Sam has been doing it for years and the degree of incestuousness between MSM and the "Agencies" is all right here (just one example)

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmeyerM.htm

    smellycat -> joinupthedots , 10 Dec 2016 20:5
    That's some serious shit
    '"The same sons of bitches," he hissed, "that killed John F. Kennedy."
    stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:2
    No comments about Seth Rich the DNC staffer Assange hinted had leaked the Podesta emails to Wikileaks and was subsequently shot multiple times and died at 04:20 on a Washington DC street in a 'motiveless' crime in which none of his possessions were taken.

    Hmmm....

    Flugler -> stoneshepherd , 10 Dec 2016 20:3
    Distract the masses with bullsh*t , nothing new... Trump needs to double up on his personal security, he has doubled down on the CIA tonight bringing upmtheir bullsh*t on WMD. Thing are getting interesting...
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 19:2
    Meanwhile the good guys with their Smart bombs indulge in a spot of collateral damage. (Or war crimes as it's described when Russians do it).

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-90-iraqi-soldiers-killed-in-mosul-from-us-airstrikes/

    This article is jiberish, as are the ones trying to say that the Russians caused Brexit.

    GuyCybershy -> sunflowerxyz , 10 Dec 2016 19:3
    The rise of the right wing in Europe is due to the fact that Social Democratic parties have completely sold out to neo-liberal agenda.
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 19:1
    Spreading lies about the very real Podesta emails and their importance seems to be a fake news stock in trade. Since Hillary was responsible I'm not sure where Putin comes into the picture.
    https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs /
    GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 19:0
    So Putin's plan to undermine U.S. voter confidence was to simply show what actually happens behind the scenes at the DNC, how diabolical!
    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 18:3
    "If we can revert to the truth, then a great deal of one's suffering can be erased, because a great deal of one's suffering is based on sheer lies. "
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    US politicians and the MSM depend on sheer lies.....
    Powerspike -> KassandraTroy , 10 Dec 2016 18:5
    They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game.
    R. D. Laing
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I'm sick of jumping through their hoops - how about you?
    James7 , 10 Dec 2016 17:2
    "Tin Foil Hat" Hillary--
    "This is not about politics or partisanship," she went on. "Lives are at risk, lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days to do their jobs, contribute to their communities. It is a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly."

    We fail to see how Russian propaganda has put people's lives directly at risk. Unless, of course, Hillary is suggesting that the increasingly-bizarre #Pizzagate swarm journalism campaign (which apparently caused a man to shoot up a floor tile in a D.C. pizza shop) was conjured up by a bunch of Russian trolls.

    And this is about as absurd as saying Russian trolls were why Trump got elected.

    "It needs to be said," former counterintelligence agent John R. Schindler (who, by the way, believes Assange and Snowden are both Russian plants), writes in the Observer, "that nearly all of the liberals eagerly pontificating about how Putin put Trump in office know nothing about 21st century espionage, much less Russia's unique spy model and how it works. Indeed, some of the most ardent advocates of this Kremlin-did-it conspiracy theory were big fans of Snowden and Wikileaks -- right until clandestine Russian shenanigans started to hurt Democrats. Now, they're panicking."

    (Nonetheless, #Pizzagate and Trump, IMHO, are manifestations of a population which deeply deeply distrusts the handlers and gatekeepers of the status quo. Justified or not. And with or without Putin's shadowy fingers strumming its magic hypno-harp across the Land of the Free. This runs deeper than just Putin.)

    Fake news has always been around, from the fake news which led Americans to believe the Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise and completely unprovoked .

    To the fake news campaigns put out by Edward Bernays tricking women into believing cigarettes were empowering little phallics of feminism. (AKA "Torches of Freedom.")

    This War on Fake News has more to do with the elites finally realizing how little control they have over the minds of the unwashed masses. Rather, this is a war on the freaks, geeks and weirdos who've formed a decentralized and massively-influential media right under their noses.

    Laissez Faire Today

    James7 -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 17:3
    and there may be some truth to that. An article says has delved into financial matters in Russia.

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.

    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    So it's true because the CIA said so. That's the gold standard for me.

    So let me be the first to thank Russia for providing us with their research.

    Instead of assassination, coup or invasion, they simply showed us our leaders' own words when written behind the public's backs.

    I'm no fan of Putin, but this was a useful bit of intelligence you've shared with us.
    Happy Christmas, Vlad.

    Next time why not provide us with the email of all our banks and fossil fuel companies; you can help us clean up both political parties with one fell swoop that way.

    GuyCybershy -> BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    "Truth is Treason in the Empire of Lies" - Ron Paul
    greyford14 -> GuyCybershy , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Be careful there, Ron Paul is an FSB agent of Putin, according to the Washington Post.
    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:0
    At least Tucker Carlson is able to see through the BS and asks searching question.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkeGkCjdHg
    GuyCybershy -> elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 17:1
    Dems are so out to lunch that they make FOX pundits seem sane. I would say the Democratic party is beyond hope of saving.
    sblejo , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    The U.S. is getting what it deserves, IF Russia was even dumb enough to meddle. The government in this country has been meddling in other countries' affairs sixty years, in the Middle East, in South America and other places we don't even know about. The result is mayhem, all in the 'interests' of the U.S., as it is described.
    Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    Note that most supporters of the Russian hacks never (and cannot) present rational arguments, just dubious talking points--AKA Fake News.

    But it is fun to spot the gaps in their logic, and the holes in their stories.

    Great sport--rather like hunting hares.

    GuyCybershy -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    We need to trust the CIA, they'd never fix evidence to manipulate the American public.
    BaronVonAmericano -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    Where's the gap in this logic:
    A) The American public has been offered ZERO proof of hacking by the Russian government to alter our election.
    B) Even if true, no one has disputed the authenticity of the emails hacked.
    C) Therefore, the WORST Russia could have done is show us who are own leader are when they don't think we're listening.
    D) Taken together, this article is pretty close to fake news, and gives us nothing that should outrage us much at this time -- unless we are trying to foment war with Russia or call for a military coup against the baboon about to take the oath of office.
    foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    Hacking by unnamed individuals. No direct involvement of the Russian government, only implied, alleged, etc. Seems to me that if Hillary had obeyed the law and not schemed behind the scenes to sabotage Bernie S. there would have been nothing to leak! Really this is all about being caught with fer fingers in the cookie jar. Does it matter who leaked it? Did the US public not have a right to know what the people they were voting for had been up to? It's a bit like the governor of a province being filmed burgling someone's house and then complaining that someone had leaked the film to the media, just when he was trying to get re-elected!
    GuyCybershy -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    The US public has a right to know what CNN, New York Times and the Washington Post want them to know.
    sblejo -> foolisholdman , 10 Dec 2016 16:4
    It is called passing the buck, and because of the underhanded undermining of Bernie Sanders, who was winning, we have Trump. Thank you Democratic party.
    aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:3
    I am disappointed that the Guardian gives so much prominence to such speculation which is almost totally irrelevant. Why would we necessarily (a) believe what the superspies tell us and (b) even if it is true why should we care?

    I am also very disappointed at the Guardians attitude to Putin, the elected leader of Russia, who was so badly treated by the US from the moment he took over from Yeltsin. I was in Russia as a visitor around that time and it was obvious that Putin restored some dignity to the Russian people after the disastrous Yeltsin term of office. If the US had been willing to deal with him with respect the world could be a much better place today. Instead the US insisted in trying to subvert his rule with the support of its supine NATO allies in order to satisfy its corporate rulers.

    GuyCybershy -> aidanfahey , 10 Dec 2016 16:5
    They expected Russia to fall apart like the USSR and then they could march in and pick up the pieces. Putin prevented this and this why they hate him.
    NickinHalifaxNS , 10 Dec 2016 16:2
    If this is true, the US can hardly complain. After all, the US has a long record of interfering in other countries' elections--including CIA overthrow of elected governments and their replacement with murderous, oppressive, right-wing dictatorships.

    If the worst that Russia did was reveal the truth about what Democratic Party figures were saying behind closed doors, I'd say it helped correct the unbalanced media focus on preventing Trump from becoming President. Call it the globalization of elections.

    BaronVonAmericano , 10 Dec 2016 15:5
    First, the government has yet to present any persuasive evidence that Russia hacked the DNC or anyone else. All we have is that there is Russian code (meaningless according to cyber-security experts) and seemingly baseless "conclusions" by "intelligence" officials. In other words, fake news at this point.

    Second, even if true, the allegation amounts to an argument that Russia presented us with facts that we shouldn't have seen. Think about that for a while. We are seeing demands that we self-censor ourselves from facts that seem unfair. What utter idiocy.

    This is particularly outrageous given that the U.S. directly intervenes in the governance of any number of nations all the time. We can support coups, arm insurgencies, or directly invade, but god forbid that someone present us with unsettling facts about our ruling class.

    This nation has jumped the shark. The fact that Trump is our president is merely confirmation of this long evident fact. That fighting REAL NEWS of emails whose content has not been disputed is part of our war on "fake news," and the top priority for some so-called liberals, promises only worse to come.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:5
    >> Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said Russia had "succeeded" in "sow[ing] discord" in the election, and urged as much public disclosure as is possible.

    What utter bullshit. The DNC's own dirty tricks did that. Donna Brasille stealing debate questions and handing them to Hillary so that she could cheat did that. The FBIs investigation into Hillary did that. Podesta's emails did that. The totally one-sided press coverage (apart from Fox) of the election did that. But it seems the american people were smart enough to see through the BS and voted for trump. Good for them.

    And we're gonna need a lot more than the word of a few politicised so-called intelligence agencies to believe this russo-hacking story. These are the same people who lied about Iraqi WMDs so they are proven fakers/liars. These are also the same people who hack EVERYONE else so I, quite frankly, have no sympathy even of the story turns out to be true.

    MrIncredlous , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Obama is a disgrace to his office.

    Announce "consensus" (not unanimous) "conclusion" based in circumstantial evidence now, before the Electoral College vote, then write a report with actual details due by Jan 20.
    Put a proven liar in charge of writing the report on Russian hacking.
    Fail to mention that not one of the leaked DNC or Podesta emails has been shown to be inauthentic. So the supposed Russian hacking simply revealed truth about Hillary, DNC, and MSM collusion and corruption.
    Fail to mention that if hacking was done by or for US government to stop Hillary, blaming the Russians would be the most likely disinformation used by US agencies.
    Expect every pro-Hillary lapdog journalist - which is virtually all of them - in America will hyperventilate (Twitter is currently on fire) about this latest fact-free, anti-Trump political stunt for the next nine days.
    Or, as a reader put it, this is a soft coup attempt by leaders of Intel community and Obama Admin to influence the Electoral College vote, similar to the 1960s novel "Seven Days in May."

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    When the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security release a joint statement it is not without very careful consideration to the wording.
    Therefore, to understand what is known by the US intelligence services one must analyse the language used.

    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

    This is very telling:
    "The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."

    Alleged:
    adjective [attributive]
    said, without proof, to have taken place or to have a specified illegal or undesirable quality

    Consistent:
    adjective
    acting or done in the same way over time

    Method:
    noun
    a particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something

    Motivation:
    noun
    a reason or reasons for acting or behaving in a particular way

    So, what exactly is known by the US intelligence services?

    Well what we can tell is:
    the alleged (without proof) hacks were consistent (done in the same way) with the methods (using a particular procedure) and motivations (and having reason for doing so) with Russian State actions.

    There is absolutely no certainty about this whatsoever.

    elias_ , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Thank God Obama will be out of office soon. He is the biggest disappointment ever. He has ordered the death of THOUSANDS via drone strikes in other people's countries and most of the deaths were innocent bystanders. If President Xi of China or Putin were to do that we would all be calling them tyrannical dictators and accusing them of a back door invasions. But somehow people are brainwashed into thinking its ok of the US president to do such things. Truly sickening.
    Flugler , 10 Dec 2016 14:4
    Says the CIA the organisation set up to destabilise governments all over the world. Lol.....
    Congratulations for keeping a straight face I hope Trump makes urgently needed personnel changes in the alphabet soup agencies working against humanity for very many years.
    Susanna246 , 10 Dec 2016 13:1
    Beware --

    This is an extremely dangerous game that Obama and the political elites are playing.

    The American political elites - including senetors, bankers, investors, multinationals et al, can feel power and control slipping away from them.

    This makes them very dangerous people indeed - as self-preservation and holding onto power is their number one priority.

    What they're aiming to do ( a child can see what's coming ), is to call into question the validity of Trump's victory and blame the Russians for it.

    The elites are looking to create chaos and insurrection, to have the result nullified and to vilify Putin and Russia.

    American and Russian troops are already lined up and facing each other along the Eastern European borders and all it takes is one small incident from either side.

    And all because those that have ruled the roost for so many decades ( in the White house, the 2 houses of Congress and Wall St ), simply cannot face losing their positions of power, wealth and political influence.

    They're out to get Trump, the populists and President Putin.

    God help us all.

    MacTavi5h , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    This is starting to feel like an attempt to make the Trump presidency appear illegitimate. The problem is that it could actually make the democrats look like sore losers instead. We've had the recount, now it's foreign interference. This might harm them in 2020.

    I don't like that Trump won, but he did. The electoral college system is clearly in the constitution and all sides understood and agreed to it at the campaign commencement. Also some, by no means all, of commenters saying that the popular vote should win have also been on referendum BTL saying the result isn't a legitimate leave vote, make your minds up!

    I don't want Trump and I wanted to remain but, by the rules, my sides lost.

    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 12:5
    Yet in August, Snowden warned that the recent hack of NSA tied cyber spies was not designed to expose Hillary Clinton, but rather a display of strength by the hackers, showing they could eventually unmask the NSA's own international cyber espionage and prove the U.S. meddles in elections around the world.

    http://yournewswire.com/snowden-claims-russia-can-expose-u-s-meddling-in-foreign-elections /

    nishville , 10 Dec 2016 12:3
    A reader's comment from the Independent:

    Will the CIA be providing evidence to support these allegations or is it a case of "just trust us guys"? In any event, hypocrisy is a national sport for the Yanks. According to a Reuters article 9 August 2016 "NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won that election and is now Mexico's president.

    The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process.

    The eavesdroppers also succeeded in intercepting 85,489 text messages, a Der Spiegel article noted.

    Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account."

    At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America."

    zulugroove -> nishville , 10 Dec 2016 13:4
    Fake news!! ...That would be a Clinton / Obama , reply!!
    CTG2016 , 10 Dec 2016 12:0
    Breaking news! CIA admits people in USA aren't smart enough to vote for the person right person. Why blame Russians now?
    Come on. Let's move on and enjoy the mess Trump will start. This is going to be worse than GWB.
    We should all just enjoy the political comedy programs.
    Gallicdweller , 10 Dec 2016 11:1
    The CIA accusing a foreign power of interfering in the election of a showman for president - it would take me all day top cite the times that this evil criminal organisation has interfered in the affairs of other countries, ordered assassinations, coups etc. etc. etc
    Dave Harries , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Yes like the "help" the CIA gave to the Taliban, Bin Laden and Co. when the Russians were in Afghanistan.
    Then these dimwits from the CIA who taught Bin Laden and Co guerrilla warfare totally "missed" 9/11 and Twin Towers with all their billions of funding.
    So basically this is a total load of crap and if you think we are going to believe any reports vs. Russia these fools at the CIA are going to publish then think again.
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    During the election our media was exposed as in essence a propaganda tool for the Democrat campaign and they continue the unholy alliance after the election
    Liesandstats , 10 Dec 2016 10:4
    Instead of trying to blame the Russians how about reflecting on why the Democrats picked such a dreadful candidate.
    ana ruiz , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    Pathetic move from an organisation that created ISIS and is single handling every single conflict in the world. Here we have a muppet president that for once wants to look after USA affairs internally and here we have a so alleged independent organisation that wants to keep bombing and destabilising the world. Didn't Trump said he wanted to shake the FBI and CIA ? Who is going to stop this machine of treachery ? : south America, middle east ...Asia ... they put their fingers on to create a problem- solution caveat wereas is to create weapons contracts /farma or construction and sovereign debt . But it never tricles down to the layperson ..
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    "We are Not calling into question the election results"
    next White House sentence - "Just the integrity.. " WTF

    What more do you need to know - Bullshit Fake News.. propaganda, spoken by the youngest possible puppet boy White House Rep. who almost managed to have his tie done up..

    I am bookmarking this guy, for a laugh! White House Fake Newscaster ..:)

    Worth watching the sides of his mouth onto his attempt to engage you with the eyes, but blinking way too much before, during and after the word "Integrity".. FAKE!

    His hand signals.. lmfao, so measured, how sweet.. now sack the sycophants --

    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:2
    People should know that these Breaking News stories we see in Western media on BBC, Guardian etc, about Russian interference are in fact from Wash Post and NY Times quoting mysterious sources within the CIA
    Of course we know that Wash Post and NY Times were completely objective during the election and didn't favor any party
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 10:0
    Russia made Hillary run the most expensive campaign ever, spending 1.2 billion dollars.
    Russia stole Hillary's message to the working people and gave her lousy slogans
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    My real comment is below, but work with me, for a moment.
    So, since 2008, eh? Barack has thought carefully, with a legal mind.

    Can't we somehow blame the Russians for the whole Economic collapse.. coming soon, Wall Street Cyber Crash, screwed up sKewed up systems of Ponzi virus spiraling out of control..

    blame the Russians , logic, the KGB held the FED at gunpoint and said "create $16.2 Trillion in 5 working days"
    jeez, blame anything and anybody except peace prize guy Obama, the Pope, Bankers & Israel..

    Now can we discuss the Security of the Pound against Cyber Attack.. what was it 6% in 2 minutes, early on Sunday morning, just over month ago.. whoosh!

    It seems more important than discussing an election where the result was always OBVIOUS!

    And we called it, just like Kellyanne Conway..

    Who is Huma Abedin? I wish to know and hear her talking to Kellyanne Conway, graciously in defeat.. is that so unreasonable?
    ********
    Obama wishes to distract from exceedingly poor judgement, at the very minimum....
    after his Greek Affair with Goldman Sachs.. surely.

    As for his other Foreign Policy: Eternal Shame, founded on Fake News!
    Obama the Fake News Founder to flounder over the Russians, who can prove that he, Obama supports & supported Terrorism!

    Thus this article exists, to create doubt over the veracity of evidence to be presented over NATO's involvement in SYRIA! Obama continues to resist, or loose face completely..

    Just ask Can Dundar.... what he knows now and ask Obama to secure the release of Can Dundar's wife's passport, held for no legitimate reason in Turkey! This outrageous stand off, from Erdogan & Obama to address their failures and arrogant disrespect of Woman and her Legal Human Rights is Criminal.. & a Sickness of Mind that promotes Dictatorship!

    Mainstream Media - Fake News.. for quite some time!
    & Obama is guilty!

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 09:4
    President-elect Donald Trump's transition team said in a statement Friday afternoon that the same people who claim Russia interfered in the presidential election had previously claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/09/trump-team-same-people-who-say-russia-meddled-in-election-said-iraq-had-wmds/#ixzz4SQWsDXpZ
    alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:1
    It's getting funny as Biden promised cyber attack on Russia weeks before Trump was elected .. due to Russian hackers?
    uptonogoode -> alexfoxy28 , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    Link?
    alexfoxy28 -> uptonogoode , 10 Dec 2016 09:5
    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721851/russia-joe-biden-obama-cyber-attack-war-clinton-putin-US-moscow

    or just google about it.

    ArtherOhm , 10 Dec 2016 08:5
    Is the USA, as author of windows software, really unable to prevent foreign hacking?

    Do the CIA never do anything like this?

    Do we actually have any evidence rather than just a lot of allegations?

    Shotcricket -> Burnaby1000 , 10 Dec 2016 09:0
    'Russia like to surprise' ?

    The one certainty of the US/EU led drive to remove an elected leader just in their 2nd year after an election that saw them gain 47% of the popular vote was the Russki response, its borders were immediately at open 'threat' from any alliance. NATO or otherwise, the deep sea ports of eastern Ukraine which had always been accessed by the Russki fleets would lose guaranteed access etc....to believe the West was surprised by this action, would be to assume the US Generals were as stupid as the US administration, they knew exactly the response of the Russkis & would have made no difference if their leader had been named Putin or Uncle Tom Cobbly.

    In some ways the Russkis partitioning of the East of Ukraine could well minimise the possibility of a world conflict as the perceived threat is neutralised by the buffer.

    The Russkis cyber doodah is no different to our own the US etc, they're all 'at it' & all attempt to inveigle the others in terms of making life difficult.....not too sure Putin will be quite as comfortable with the Pres Elects 3 Trumpeteers though as the new Pressie looks likely to open channels of communications but those negotiations might well see a far tougher stance......still, in truth, all is never fair in love or war

    Powerspike , 10 Dec 2016 08:4
    .....that the CIA is not only suddenly involved, but suddenly at the forefront, may well reflect President-elect Trump's stated policy intentions being far removed from those that the CIA has endorsed, and might be done with an eye toward undermining Trump's position in those upcoming policy battles.
    At the center of those Trump vs. CIA battles is Syria, as the CIA has for years pushed to move away from the ISIS war and toward imposing regime change in Syria. Trump, by contrast, has said he intends to end the CIA-Saudi program arming the Syrian rebels, and focus on fighting ISIS. Trump was even said to be seeking to coordinate anti-ISIS operations with Russia.
    The CIA allegations could easily imperil that plan, as so long as the allegations remain part of the public discourse, evidence or not, anything Trump does with respect to Russia is going to have a black cloud hanging over it.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/12/09/cia-claims-russia-intervened-to-get-trump-elected /
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    Oh dear Obama trolls? Food for your starved thoughts:

    Your degree of understanding IT is disturbing, especially given how dependent we are on it.

    This is all very simple. The process by which you find out if and how a machine was hacked was clearly documented in the Russian "Internet Audit", run by a group of Grey Hats.

    Grey Hats: People concerned about security who perform unauthorized hacks for relatively benign purposes, often just notifying people of how their system is flawed. IT staff have mixed reactions(!), the illegality is not disputed but the benefit of not being hit by a Black Hat first can be considerable at times. Differentiation is rare, especially as some hacktivist groups belong here, causing no damage beyond reputational by flagging activity that is not acceptable to the hacktivists.

    Black Hats: These are the guys to worry about. These include actually destructive hacktivists. These are the ones who steal data for malicious purposes, disrupt for malicious purposes and just generally act maliciously.

    Nothing in reports indicates if the DNC hack was Grey Hat or Black Hat, but it should be obvious that there is a difference.

    IP addresses and hangouts - worthless as evidence. Anyone can spoof the former, happens all the time (NMap used to provide the option, probably still does), Grey Hats and Black Hats alike have the latter and may break into other people's. It's all about knowing vulnerabilities.

    That voting machines were even on the Internet is disturbing. That they and the DNC server were improperly configured for such an environment is frightening - and possibly illegal.

    The standard sequence of events is thus:

    Network intrusion detector system identifies crafted packet attacking known vulnerability.
    In a good system, the firewall is set to block the attack at that instant.

    If the attacker scans the network, the only machine responding to such knocks should be a virtual machine running a honeypot on attractive-looking port numbers. The other machines in the zone should technically violate the RFCs by not responding to ICMP or generating recognized error codes on unused/blocked ports.

    The system logger picks up an event that creates a process that shouldn't be happening.
    In a good system, this either can't happen because the combination of permissions needed doesn't exist, or it doesn't matter because the process is root jailed and hasn't the privileges to actually do any harm.

    The file alteration logger (possibly Tripwire, though the Linux kernel can do this itself) detects that a process with escalated privileges is trying to create, delete or alter a file that it isn't supposed to be able to change.
    In a good system with mandatory access controls, this really is impossible. In a good system with logging file systems, it doesn't matter as you can instruct the filesystem to revert those specific alterations. Even in adequate but feeble systems, checkpoints will exist. No use in a voting system, but perfectly adequate for a campaign server. In all cases, the system logs will document what got damaged.

    The correct IT manager response is thus:
    Find out why the firewall wasn't defaulting to deny for all unknown sources and for unnecessary ports.
    Find out why the public-facing system wasn't isolated in the firewall's DMZ.
    Find out why NIDS didn't stop the attack.
    Non-public user mobility should be via IPSec using certificates. That deals with connecting from unknown IP addresses without exposing the innards of the system.
    Lock down misconfigured network systems.
    Backup files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt for forensic purposes.
    Revert files identified by file alteration detection as corrupt to last good version.
    Close permission loopholes. Everything should run with the fewest privileges necessary, OS included. On Linux, kernel permissions are controlled via capabilities.
    Establish from the logs if the intruder came through a public-facing application, an essential LAN service or a non-essential service.
    If it's a LAN service, block access to that service outside the LAN on the host firewall.
    Run network and host vulnerability scanners to detect potential attack vectors.
    Update any essential software that is detected as flawed, then rerun the scanners. Repeat until fixed.
    Now the system is locked down against general attacks, you examine the logs to find out exactly what failed and how. If that line of attack got fixed, good. If it didn't, then fix it.
    Password policy should prevent rainbow attacks, not users. Edit as necessary, lock accounts that aren't secure and set the password control system to ban bad passwords.

    It is impossible from system logs to track where an intruder came from, unsecured routers are common and that means a skilled attacker can divert packets to anywhere. You can't trust brags, in security nobody is honest. The sensible thing is to not allow such events in the first place, but when (not if) they happen, learn from them.

    GraemeHarrison , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    If the USA is to investigate the effect of foreign governments 'corrupting' the free decisions of the American people in elections, perhaps they could look into the fact that for the past three decades every Republican candidate for president, after they have won the nomination of their party, has gone to just one foreign country to pledge their firm commitment/allegiance to that foreign power, for the purpose of shoring up large blocks of donors prior to the actual presidential election. The effect is probably more 'corrupting' than any leak of emails!
    SamSamson , 10 Dec 2016 08:2
    Obama should confess to creating ISIS, sustaining ISIS & utilising ISIS as a proxy army to have them do things that he knew US soldiers could never be caught doing!!!

    They then spoon fed you bullshit propaganda about who the bad guys were, without ever being to properly explain why the US armed forces were prevented from taking any hostile action against ISIS, until they were FORCED TO, that is, when Putin let the the cat out of the bag!!!

    LordTomnoddy , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Hilarious. One would've thought Obama of all presidents would be reluctant to delve too deeply into this particular midden. As the author of the weakest and most incompetent American foreign policy agenda since Carter's, it's much the likeliest that if China or Russia have been hacking US elections, then by far the biggest beneficiary will have been himself.
    Tim Jenkins , 10 Dec 2016 08:1
    Just another attempt to distract from realities, like:-

    From:[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected] Date: 2015-05-28 12:12 Subject: Fwd: POLITICO Playbook

    cdm Begin forwarded message: > From: Lynn Forester de Rothschild <[email protected]> > Date: May 28, 2015 at 9:44:12 AM EDT > To: Nick Merrill <[email protected]>, "Cheryl Mills ([email protected])" <[email protected]> > Subject: FW: POLITICO Playbook > > Morning, > I am sure you are working on this, but clearly, the opposition is trying to undercut Hillary's reputation for honesty (the number one characteristic people look for in a President according to most polls) ..and also to benefit from an attack on wealth that Dems did the most to start I am sure we need to fight back against both of these attacks. > Xoxo > Lynn > > By Mike Allen (@mikeallen; [email protected]), and Daniel Lippman (@dlippman; [email protected]) > > > > QUINNIPIAC POLL, out at 6 a.m., "Rubio, Paul are only Republicans even close to Clinton": "In a general election, ... Clinton gets 46 percent of American voters to 42 percent for Paul and 45 percent of voters to 41 percent for Rubio." Clinton leads Christie 46-37 ... Huckabee 47-40 ... Jeb 47-37 ... Walker 46-38 ... Cruz 48-37 ... Trump 50-32. > > --"[V]oters say 53-39 percent that Clinton is NOT honest and trustworthy, but say 60-37 ... that she has strong leadership qualities. Voters are divided 48-47 ... over whether Clinton cares about their needs and problems." > > --RNC's new chart - "'Dead Broke' Clintons vs. Everyday Americans": "Check out the chart below to see how many households in each state it would take to equal the 'Dead Broke' Clintons." http://bit.ly/1Avg8iE

    Blind leading the Blind.. & Obama knows that very well after it was clear that Clinton was NEVER trusted by the Voters, which makes Debbie and the DNC look like a complete bunch of..

    Idiots?!?! STILL BLAMING The RUSSIANS.... instead of themselves!

    She was and always will be unelectable due to exceedingly poor judgement, across the board.

    Can we move on?

    Polly123456 , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Who is in charge of Internet security in the US government? Because it seems full of holes. Last time it was the Chinese and this time it's the Russians, yet not one piece of evidence to say where hacks have come from. How much are these world class Internet security people paid? And why do they still have a job? People sitting in their bedrooms on a pc from stores like staples have hacked their security regularly.
    AlexPeace , 10 Dec 2016 08:0

    In 2016, he said, the government did not detect any increased cyber activity on election day itself but the FBI made public specific acts in the summer and fall, tied to the highest levels of the Russian government. "This is going to put that activity in a greater context ... dating all the way back to 2008."

    Extremely vague. Seems like there is no evidence at all to suggest any Russian involvement, but they need to pretend otherwise. Blah, blah, blah, Weapons of mass destruction... Apollo mission, etc
    FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Ole, Russians exposed the DNC emails, we knew about that. I though this should investigate Russians vote rigging, but I guess not. I for once welcome anyone who hacks my government and exposes their skeletons, so I can see what kind of dirty garbage I had leading or potentially leading my country.

    Maybe the DNC should play fair and not dirty next time and put a candidate forward without skeletons that still reek of rotting flesh.

    Robert Stokes -> FMinus , 10 Dec 2016 08:3
    You rig electronic voting machines by reflashing the firmware or switching out the sd cards. Can't be done remotely.
    Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 07:5
    And the CIA has never intervened in a foreign election?
    VibePit -> Baldrick Daacat , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Oh heaven forbid!! The Shah of Iran was democratically elected but of course. . .
    HeathCardwell , 10 Dec 2016 07:2
    Don't believe any of this at all.
    American has been thee most corrupt and disgusting western nation for decades, run by people who are now being shown for who they really are and they're shitting themselves big time. The stakes don't get higher than this.
    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:1
    What's the point of this?

    The American people don't want Clinton because she is a liar and a dangerous psychopath who also ignored the working people.

    If you want to change that, get her treatment. Don't try to undermine the election result.

    theonetruepainter , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    How can you not respect Putin?

    He's spent the last few years making fools out of Clinton, Kerry and the obomber.

    If you didn't want him to let Crimea rejoin Russia, then you shouldn't have initiated the coup that broke up Ukraine.

    Peter Turner , 10 Dec 2016 07:0
    What a total load of double talk. There is zero integrity in anything CIA says or does since the weapons of mass destruction deal or before that it was the Iran Contra deal and before that it was the Bay of Pigs. Now we have this rigging os the election results based on zero evidence. The whole thing is just idiocy. What is Obama trying to achieve?The end game will be for Obama to go down in history as ... let's just say he is not the smartest tool in the shed when it comes to being a so called world leader. Well done Obama you have now completely trashed what is left of your legacy.
    LondonLungs , 10 Dec 2016 06:5

    "CIA concludes Russia interfered to help Trump win election – report "

    You might as well ask accountants to do a study on wether it's worthwhile to use an accountant. Part of the CIAs job is to influence elections around the world to get US-Corporation friendly gov'ts in to power. So yes of course they are going to say that a gov't can influence elections, if they said otherwise then they'd be admitting they're wasting money.

    Ted Reading Reading 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    So, it was the Russians! I knew it must've been them, they're so sneaky. All HFC had was the total backing of the entire establishment, including prominent Republican figures, the total fawning support of the entire main-stream media machine which carefully controlled the "she's got a comfortable 3 point lead maybe even double-digit lead" narrative and the "boo and hiss" pantomime slagging of her opponent. Plus the endless funds from the crooked foundation and murderous fanatics from the compliant Gulf states, and lost. But hey, do keep this going please, it'll help the Trumpster get a second term! Trump/Nugent 2020.
    righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    It's possible the Russians hacked and released the documents. However the report is not saying the Russians created them.

    So whatever was so deplorable about them was all Democrat

    Nataliefreeman -> righteousfist01 , 10 Dec 2016 06:3
    Good point. Add that the whole election was dogged is the most glaring media bias and suddenly Russia comes off as simply leveling the playing field a bit
    12inchPianist , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    CIA finds Russia had covertly influenced election. CIA finds FBI had overtly influenced election. Fancy that!
    ashleigh2 , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    The 'secret' enquiry reported to Congress that the CIA concludes etc, etc, etc. Then yet more revelations from 'anonymous sources' are quoted in the Washington Post and The New York Times reaching the same conclusions.....talk about paranoia, or are the Democrats guilty of news fakery of the highest order to deny the US voters....
    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    Ooh Obama...there's a little snag about this investigation.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 05:5
    How about a Presidential review covering US interference in the elections of countries around the world?
    Paulare -> Bosula , 10 Dec 2016 06:2
    But where to start?

    UK, Australia, Chile, Nicoragua, Cuba, Philippines, Malaysia, Germany...?

    such choice..

    Bosula -> Paulare , 10 Dec 2016 08:0
    Yes. Maybe do it on a regional basis across the globe.
    Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    Of course the Americans would never interfere in other people's elections would they?...........I imagine the Russians wanted to avoid a nuclear war with war monger Hilary & who can blame them?
    Nataliefreeman -> Anarchy4theUK , 10 Dec 2016 06:1
    Y'know really all they seem to be looking possibly guilty of is the wikileaks scandal. Compare that to the enormous media bias regarding Trump and suddenly the Russians at worst come off as evening the playing field so as to help an election be less biased...
    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 05:4
    When certain members of the public would believe one man over those who have more intelligence in a follicle than he will ever have floating in his cranium is when you realise that a place like Guantanamo should exist, exclusively for them.
    http://www.allgov.com/news/where-is-the-money-going/surprise-cost-of-ammo-for-us-navy-destroyers-new-guns-800000-a-shot-161114?news=859762
    Newmacfan , 10 Dec 2016 05:3
    Paranoia about Russia has arrived at the laughable, almost like the fable of the boy who cried wolf! Even the way the CIA statement is worded makes you smile. "silk purse sows ear"? Everyone is clutching at straws rather than looking down the barrel at the truth......that folks is what is missing from Western Politics......"The Truth" --
    StephenO , 10 Dec 2016 04:3

    Obama expected the review to be completed before he leaves office...

    Really?? Obama wants a "deep review" of internet activities surrounding the elections of 2008, 2012, and 2016; and he wants this done in less than 40 days? And it encompasses voting stations throughout the 50 states? That's the definition of political shenanigans.

    Dom Michaels -> pureist , 10 Dec 2016 04:3
    Seeing as how the CIA interfered with Ukraine before and during the overthrow of Yanukovich, and with Moscow protests a few years ago...... seems like everyone is always trying to interfere with each-other. Hypocrisy abounds
    MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    This is not really a fight against Trump. That is lost. This is an intramural fight among Democrats.

    This is desperate efforts by the corporate Democrats to hang on to power after Hillary (again) lost.

    Excuses. Allegations without sources given, anonymous.

    Remember that the same people used the same media contacts to spread fake news that the Podesta leaks were faked, and tried to shift attention from what was revealed to who revealed it.

    GuyCybershy -> MarkThomason , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Agreed. Another reason why the Democratic party is not worth saving. 13 million voted for Sanders in the primary, that is enough to start a new party.
    Fabr1s , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    if the Ruskies did it, there's something funny: they did it on Obama's watch and her protege, Hillary, lost it. The system is a real mess in this case.

    Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 03:4
    Read and research further...
    https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national
    GeoffP -> Kris Penny , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Interesting link. It raises a particularly salient question: assuming the Russians did indeed do it - and after the whole CIA yellow cake thing in Iraq, no one could possibly doubt national intelligence agencies any more - does it particularly matter?

    Did the Russians write the emails? The betrayal of Sanders, the poor protection on classified materials, the cynical, vicious nonsense spewed out by the HRC campaign, the media collusion with the DNC and HRC: did the Russians do these things too? Or was that Clinton and the DNC? Silly question, I'm sure.

    sejong -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Russia's competence with computer hacking and cyber espionage is a given

    So what? What about Chinese or Israeli competence in these areas?

    This is Fake News that exists only because Clinton lost.

    The real news is about in competence by HRC, DWS, and the DNC in foisting a sure loser on American voters.

    naomh -> sejong , 10 Dec 2016 03:5
    Thank you for speaking the truth!!!!
    GeoffP -> jcadams , 10 Dec 2016 04:0
    Well, chief, the Wisconsin recount is in and the results are staggering: after the recount, Clinton has gained on Trump by 3 votes... and Trump gained on Clinton by a heady six votes. One begins to wonder at the 'Manchurian candidate' claim.
    third_eye , 10 Dec 2016 03:3
    It is precisely charades like this that millions in the US and around the world have given up on the establishment. Business as usual or rather lying as usual will only alienate more not-so-stupid citizens. It speaks volumes about their desperation that they're are actually employing such obviously infantile tactics on the Russia even as they continue to paper over Hillary's tattered past. The result of the investigation is totally predictable..................Yes, the Russians were involved in hacking the elections, but..........for reasons of national security, details of the investigative process and evidence cannot be revealed.
    Longleveler , 10 Dec 2016 03:2
    If the Russians really wanted Trump to win that means they helped Hillary win the Democratic primaries because Bernie would have beat Trump.. There was a mess of hanky-panky going on to defeat Bernie, and deflecting the blame to a foreign actor should keep the demonstrators off the streets.
    If someone is gullible enough to believe the Russians did it they'd also believe that Elvis made Bigfoot hack the DNC. That's even more plausible since bigfoot is just a guy who spends so much time sitting at his computer he lost all interest in personal hygiene.
    Will D , 10 Dec 2016 03:1
    The Democrats are really desperate to find anything they can use to challenge the results of the election.

    Either way they look foolish - openly investigating the possibility of Russian hacking which acknowledges that their electoral systems aren't well secured, OR look really foolish if they find anything (whether real or faked).

    The big question now is if, and how much, they will fake the findings of the investigation so that they can declare the election results wrong, and put Clinton into the White House.

    Clearly, it is a case of desperate times calling for desperate measures. It is incredible that one man can make the largest Western nation look so ridiculous in the eyes of the world.

    madeiranlotuseater , 10 Dec 2016 02:4
    Pot calling the kettle black. Reveal fully what the CIA get up to all over the planet. The phoney intel America has used to go to war causing countries to implode. The selective way they release information to project the picture they want. I am not convinced that Russia is any better or any worse than the USA.
    onofabeach , 10 Dec 2016 02:3
    I can understand the Russians wanting Obama in 2008 and 2012 because he is a weak leader and totally incompetent.

    I can also understand Putin preferring DJT to HRC.

    It's about time the planet settled down a little bit, Trump and Putin will do more for world peace in the next year than Obama achieved in his 8 wasted years in charge.

    The Democrats have yet to realise the reason for their demise was not the racists, the homophobes, the KKK, the Deplorables, the misogynists, the xenophobes etc etc etc.

    It was Hillary Clinton.

    Get over it, move on, stop whining, get out of your safe room, put the puppy down, throw the play dough away, stop protesting, behave like an adult.

    As much as I am enjoying the monumental meltdown of the left, it is getting sad now and I am starting to feel very sorry for you.

    BoBiel , 10 Dec 2016 02:2
    Georgia Says Someone in U.S. Government Tried to Hack State's Computers Housing Voter Data

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-reports-attempt-to-hack-states-election-database-via-ip-address-linked-to-homeland-security-1481229960

    http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-12-08/georgia-accuses-us-of-trying-to-hack-its-election-systems

    123Akava , 10 Dec 2016 02:1
    What a sad bunch of clowns. But the time is ripe. You and your sort are done Obama, Hillary Clinton, Juncker, Merkel, Hollande, Mogherini, Kerry, Tusk, Nuland, Albright, Breedlove, SaManThe Power and the rest of the reptiles. With all respect - mwuahahaha! - you will soon sink into the darkness of the darkest places of history, but you won't be forgotten, no you won't!
    poppetmaster , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    The Democrats still don't understand that the problem in American politics is everything that happened BEFORE election day.

    How can you worry about the ballot boxes when the entire process from beginning to end is utterly corrupt.

    CarlHansen , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    As for the Podesta email. John Podesta was so stupid that he gave out his password in a simple email scam that any 8 year old kid could have conducted. I wouldn't be surprised if Assange did it himself. Assange will be celebrating at the demise of Hillary.
    phobeophobe , 10 Dec 2016 02:0
    Guys! Your side lost the election. Get over it & stop looking for excuses.

    I don't think it was the Russians, it was just a lot of people got sick of being told what to think & how to behave by your side of politics.

    It is because people who disagree with you are either ignored, shut-down or called names with weaponised words such as "racist, bigot, xenophobe, homophobe, islamophobe, you name it. You go out onto the streets chanting mindless slogans aimed at shutting down debate. You have infiltrated academia and no journalism graduate comes out of a western univerity without a 60 degree lean to the left. People of alternative views to what is now the dominant social paradigm are not permitted to speak at universities. Once they were the vanguard of dangerous ideas. Now they are just sheep pens.

    You have infiltrated the mainstream media so of course people need to go to Info Wars, Breitbart & Project Veritas to get the other side to your one-sided argument.

    Your side of politics has regulated the very words we speak so that we can't even express a thought anymore without being chanted down, or shut down, prosecuted or sued.

    There was once a time when it was the left who spoke up for freedom of speech. It was the left who demanded that a man be judged by the content of his character & not the color of his skin & it was once the right who used to be worried about the Russians taking over our institutions.

    Have a look at yourselves. Look at what you've become. You've stopped being the guardians of freedom & now you have become the very anti-freedom totalitarians you thought you were campaigning against.

    Bleating about the "popular vote" doesn't cut it either. That's like saying, the other side scored more goals than us but we had possession of the ball more times. It is sad for you but it is irrelevant.

    Trump won the election! Get over it!

    Let's see what sort of job he does before deciding what to do next.

    Nataliefreeman , 10 Dec 2016 01:5
    News flash for all the obamabots:

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that set up a NAT entry that made the connecting computer appear somewhere else, with the entry deleted afterwards. Typically, IP table modifications aren't logged, so this would not be detectable.

    In principle, the DNC server could have had malware in an e-mail that ran a SED script at a specific time that changed any occurrence of one IP address with another. Not sure anyone would bother with this, but it's why good system admins place so much emphasis on securing logs. However, it's obvious we're not talking about good admins.

    In principle, every router between the DNC server and Russia has the potential to be hacked, with a tunnel added to send the traffic somewhere else in the world with new source and destination addresses. This is known as router table poisoning. It is preventable but the mechanisms are rarely ever used because the security services want to be able to do this themselves. There are some nice logs of the NSA using this.

    In principle, someone along the way could tap into the fibre, spoofing IP addresses and injecting/sniffing packets. The U.S. even has a submarine designed for this, but optics aren't complex and any number of neo-phone phreaks could have the hardware.

    In principle, someone at an ISP or backbone service could have had a laptop plugged into a switch or router to do the same thing, or lit up a strand of dark fibre to let some uber-wealthy business do this. And there's no shortage of uber-wealthy businesses who aren't keen on Democrats. This technique is used for local and remote network diagnostics, no reason it can't be used nefarious, it's not like the hardware cares why a wire is plugged in.

    In principle, the supposed destination machine could have been hacked to relay the packets in encrypted form to the South Pole or a college campus in Texas. There are many examples of client machines being hacked to do this. It's basically what zombie machines are in botnets.

    In practice, it is flat-out guaranteed that none of the security agencies could distinguish this from a Russian attack. Nothing in the area monitored could tell the difference. We know, for a fact, that college kids spoofing a scan from China have fooled the DoD and NSA on previous occasions, it has caused international incidents.

    So we have known forms of attack that are known to exist, aren't complex and in some cases are already used for attacks. They are 100% untraceable.

    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 01:3
    Joe Biden unwittingly gave the game up when he spoke to the press with indignation of the Russian hacks. The US would respond in kind with a covert cyber operation run by the CIA First of all it would be the NSA, not the CIA Secondly, it's not covert when you tell the press! Oh Joe, you really let the Obama administration down with that gaffe! Who would believe them now? A lot of people it would seem. Mainly those still reeling from an election they were so vested in
    fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Unfortunately our media has lost all credibility.
    For years we were told it was necessary to remove the dictator Assad in Syria. The result, a country destroyed, migrant crisis that fuelled Brexit and brought EU to its knees.
    Now they are going to sell the 'foreign entities decided the US election'.
    It's just a sad situation
    GuyCybershy -> fedback , 10 Dec 2016 01:2
    Syria has been destroyed because Western client states in the Middle East wanted this to happen. Assad had a reasonably successful secular government and our medieval gulf state allies felt. threatened by his regime. there was the little business of a pipeline, but of course that would be called a "conspiracy theory".
    SomersetApples , 10 Dec 2016 01:1
    If Obama has resources to spend on investigations, he should be investigating why the US is providing guided missiles to the terrorist in Syria. We had such great hopes for him, and he has proved to be totally useless as a president. Rather than giving us leadership and guidance he is looking under his bed for spooks. Just another example of his incompetence at a time when we needed leadership.

    Looking for proof of espionage will be like trying to prove a negative and only result in a possible or at best a likely type of result for no purpose. It would just be another case of an unsupported accusation being thrown about.

    Facing up to the question of who is supplying weapons to terrorist would require the courage to take on the Military Industrial Complex and he hasn't got it. Trump will be different.

    ID3053875 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    If the russians did interfere in the USA elections perhaps is a bit of poetic justice.
    The USA has interfere in Latin America for over hundred years and they have given us Batista, Somoza, Trujillo, Noriega, Pinochet, Duvaliers , military juntas in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Streener in Paraguay to name a few. They all were narcissists, racists and insecure. The american people love this type of leader now they got him in the white house may be from Russia with love. Empires get destroyed from within, look at Little Britain now, maybe the same will happen soon in the USA.
    Viva China , is far from Latin America
    nbk46zh , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    So if the US managed to somehow get rid of Russia and China, what would they do then? How would it justify hundreds of billions in defense spending? Just remember, the US military industry desperately needs an external enemy to exist. Without it, there is no industry.
    ID5151903 , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    No I disagree. I don't think it was a conpriscy. It was just decades of misinformation, lies, usually perpertrated by our esteemed foreign minister. The man is a buffoon , liar and incompetent. It is quite amusing to see how inept, Incompotent and totally unsuited this man child is to public office.
    PullingTheStrings , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Good to see alot of Americans on here back into Mccarthyism/Paranoia/scapegoating/Witch hunting/Propaganda.
    smellycat , 10 Dec 2016 01:0
    Clinton's 'Russia did it' cop-out
    https://off-guardian.org/2016/12/09/clintons-russia-did-it-cop-out /
    prairdog , 10 Dec 2016 00:4
    Why should we trust US intelligence which is essentially US propaganda?
    DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    Another red herring that smacks of desperation. The final death throes of a failed administration. These carefully chosen words reveal a lot. The email leaks were "consistent with the methods and motivations" of Russian hackers. In layman's terms its the equivalent of saying "we haven't got a clue who it was but it's the kind of thing they would probably do". Don't expect a smoking gun because it doesn't exist, otherwise we would have known about it by now.
    PostTrotskyite -> DanielDee , 10 Dec 2016 00:3
    It's not just the US who has accused Putin of meddling in their domestic affairs. Germany and the UK have made the same allegations. Are they wrong too?
    DanielDee -> PostTrotskyite , 10 Dec 2016 00:5
    I think anyone with reasonable intelligence would take each accusation on a case by case basis. There is no doubt that Russia conducts cyber operations, as the US and UK and Germany does. There is also little doubt that significant Russophobia exists, particularly since the failed foreign attempt of regime change in Syria that was thwarted by Russia. On that last point many citizens of the West are coming to the realisation that a secular government in Syria is preferable to one run by jihadists installing crude sharia law (Libya was certainly a lesson). Furthermore, if Hillary Clinton had succeeded one dreads to think of the consequences of her no-fly-zone plans. Thankfully she didn't succeed, no doubt in part to wikileaks revelations, who for the record stated that did not result from Russian hacks
    sejong , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    Fake News is mass gaslighting, removing any sense of what is real. Biggest psy-op ever.
    gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:1
    Barack Obama orders 'full review' of possible Russian hacking in US election


    FAKE NEWS ALERT

    JCDavis -> gondwanaboy , 10 Dec 2016 00:2
    They already stated their conclusions, now they have to find evidence.
    Yodasyodel , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Hows the election recount going? You know the one this paper kept going on about a few weeks ago in Wisconsin that was supposed to be motivated by "Russian Hacking" in the election? Not very well but you have gone quiet. Also I see the Washington Post has been forced to backtrack for implying news outlets like Breitbart are Russian controlled on the advice of their own lawyers....after all calling someone a Russian agent without a shred of evidence is seriously libellous and they know it. Russian agents to blame yeah ok Obama no doubt the Easter Bunny will be next in your sights you fraud.
    Wilderloo , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Look no further than Hillarys private server. Classified information sent and received and Obam was part of it. Obama is a liar and a fraud who is now blaming the Russians for crooked Hillarys loss.
    SUNLITE , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Feed the flames of the war mongers that want Russia and Putin to be our bogeyman.Feed the military industrial complex more billions.The U.S. Defense budget is already 10 times that of Russia ,feed NATO already on Russia's boarder with tanks ,troops and heavy weapons.i did expect more from this pres,... The lies ,mis information and propaganda has worked so well since the end of WW2,upon a public who has been fed those lies {and is to busy with sports ,gadgets,games, alcohol and other drugs }for 70 yrs by a compliant,for profit lap dog media more interested in producing infotainment and profits than supplying information..If you don't think the "public" isn't very poorly informed and will believe anything ,..just look at who the next prez will be..
    GuyCybershy -> SUNLITE , 10 Dec 2016 00:0
    I don't think it's true that Trump voters were less informed than Clinton voters. The public knows that they all lie, they simply choose the one who's lies most appeal to them.
    Alexander Bach , 9 Dec 2016 23:5
    Did he also order to investigate the Clinton's deeds revealed by the 'hackers'?
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    Unfortunately Obama is not leaving office with dignity.
    This action is another attempt to delegitimize the election of Trump. We already have the recount farce going on.
    If Republicans had tried to delegitimize the election of Obama we know what the reaction from media would have been. An outcry against antidemocratic and racist behaviour
    USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    The corporate media is so predictable at this point. The news cranks up the anti-Russia hysteria while the guys over in entertainment roll out a slick fantasy about anti-Nazi resistance. It all adds up to a big steaming pile of crap but you hope it will push enough buttons to keep the citizens chained to their their desks for another quarter. Don't bet on it. As a great American said at another time of upheaval, you can't fool everyone forever...
    GuyCybershy -> USApatriot12 , 9 Dec 2016 23:3
    We're supposed to condemn "white nationalism" in The US and UK while supporting it in Ukraine.
    GeeDeeSea -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 23:4
    That's not all. We in US and UK are supposed to condemn jihadists in Iraq while supporting them Syria.
    James7 -> Eddy Cannella , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Hillary? Although I would lean to more "Grey."

    Kremlin Connection? The TRUTH About Hillary's Shady Ties To Russia REVEALED
    Find out why insiders say Clinton has some explaining to do.

    Americans have no idea just how closely Hillary Clinton is tied to the Kremlin! That's the shocking claim of a new report that alleges the Democratic nominee is secretly pals with Vladimir Putin and his countrymen.

    Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash, has published a report that claims that that Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was on the executive board of a foreign company that received $35 million from the Kremlin. "The company was a transparent Russian front, and how much Podesta was compensated - and for what - is unclear. In addition, Podesta failed to disclose his position on that board to the Federal government, as required by law," John Schindler of the Observer wrote.

    As Radar previously reported, when Clinton was secretary of state, she profited from the "Russian Reset," a failed attempt to improve relations between the U.S. and Russia.
    chweizer wrote, "Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo process - on both the Russian and U.S. sides - had major financial ties to the Clintons. During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties." Schweizer also details "Skolkovo," a Silicon Valley-like campus that both the U.S. and Russia worked on for developing biomed, space, nuclear and IT technologies. He told the New York Post that there was a "pattern that shows a high percentage of participants in Skolkovo who happen to be Clinton Foundation donors."

    raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    So it's anti-Russia propaganda today again, all over the Guardian as well as everywhere else.

    I daresay they have a few things (perhaps a tad more important than football and athletics) to say about us as well..

    smellycat -> raymondffoulkes , 9 Dec 2016 23:2
    Sour grapes at the liberation of Aleppo and their loss of face.
    I'm surprised they haven't started asking about the missing 250K civilians,who must even now be languishing in Assad's dungeons.
    Keeping that one for tomorrow probably.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    When Cheney used the terror alert levels to keep the US population in the constant state of fear, the Democrats denounced it as fear mongering. Now they're embracing the same tactics in the constant demonization of Russia. Look, it's raining today! Russia must be trying to control the weather in the US! Get them! Utterly ridiculous.
    stegordon21 , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    The US has been the most bloodthirsty, aggressive nation in my lifetime. Where the US goes we obediently follow. Yet as Obama (7 countries he's bombed in his presidency, not bad for a Nobel Prize Winner) continues to circle Russia with NATO on their borders. We're continually spun headline news that Russia is the aggressor and is continually meddling in foreign affairs. We are the aggressors, we are the danger to ourselves and it's we who are run by megalomaniac elites who pump us full of fear and propaganda.
    nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    Malicious cyberactivity... has no place in international community... No? When West does it, then it's for democratic purposes? But invading countries on a humanitarian pretense does? So Democrats are still looking to blame Russia for everything not going their way I see. This rhetoric didn't work for Clinton in the election and it won't now. Stop with this nonsense
    GuyCybershy -> nbk46zh , 9 Dec 2016 23:1
    There wasn't a lot of outrage about the use of the "stuxnet" virus against Iran. You see, when we do it is always for a good cause.

    Paulare , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Take the long view folks.

    The Egyptian Empire lasted millenum,
    The Greek and Roman Empires a thousand years, give or take.
    The Holy Roman Empire centuries.
    The British and French circa 200 years.
    The USSR about 70, the USA 70 and counting

    This is just the cyclical death throes of empires played out at ever increasing speed before our very eyes.

    DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    5 articles abut Russia, again. This is the Russia interference in the Guardian. Putin must be stopped.
    Earl_Grey -> DexDex , 9 Dec 2016 23:0
    NATO has bought a subscription to the Guardian
    TonyBlunt , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    Is all this hoohaa the BBC and the Guardian trying to get some revenge for the Russian liberating East Aleppo?
    TheIPAResistance , 9 Dec 2016 22:5
    This is exactly why we should never move to electronic voting. Can you imagine the lengths the IPA would go to ensure their men security the power they need to roll out their neoliberal agenda? As a tax-free right wing think tank composed of rich like Rinehart, Murdoch, Forrest, et al. the sky's the limit.
    Anthony1152 , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    The five stages of dealing with psychological trauma: Anger, Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. Hillary and the Democrats are still at stage one and two. Obama is only beginning stage one as events dawn on him.
    TheCharacteristicEquation 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    I really do feel the established media and its elite hierarchy are vexed by both the Trump victory and Brexit here in the UK. Now the media attention turns to a report on another of its perpetual campaigns, namely Russia, and corruption in sport.

    I'm not going to doubt the 'findings', but I know humans are corrupt ALL over the world, but it does strike me that no Western outlet, ever prints anything positive about Russia. I mean - nothing, zero!

    dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    If, indeed, the Russian government gathered the DNC and Podesta info released by Wikileaks, the Russians did the American people a favor by pulling back the curtain on behind the scenes scheming by Clinton campaign potentates.
    Of course, I don't believe the Democratic claim that Clinton lost the election because of the Russians and the FBI.
    GuyCybershy -> dallasdunlap , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    Podesta's password was "p@ssword". Inexcusable carelessness.
    smellycat , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Nothing wrong with a bit of regime change now and then, so we've been told. No good crying when the Russians do it to you.
    sammy3110 , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    It's instructive to see the Guardian drag up Reagan's "Evil Empire" spiel, but only after Hillary lost.
    GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    US backed a coup, or set up a coup, to overthrow the democratically elected government in Ukraine which led to war. Putin's payback seems fully justified.
    theenko -> GeeDeeSea , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Yanukovych is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Putin puppet should be in jail.

    GeeDeeSea -> theenko , 9 Dec 2016 22:4
    sweet fucking jesus

    Porshenko is a disgrace to Ukrainian's everywhere and a traitor to his country. Fucking Obama puppet should be in jail.

    Earl_Grey , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Oh my, a foreign country may have had a tiny influence on a US Election.

    How about investigating the overthrow of the Democratically elected Govt in Ukraine, or the influence the US has had on the Syrian Govt, or even in Australia, where the Chinese Govt donates massive amounts of money to Political Parties (note, there's no link of course between Chinese Govt donations and Chinese Companies being able to buy most of Australia and employ Chinese Nationals in Australia on Chinese conditions and 500,000 Chinese Nationals being able to buy Real Estate in Sydney alone... none whatsoever).

    bcnteacher , 9 Dec 2016 22:3
    Good call! Something is fishy about the US electoral system.
    COReilly , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    I'm not a policy or think tank wonk, but isn't Russia just a euphemism for China. Aren't their geopolitical interests linked. You just say Russia because China has us by the financial balls (I'm sure the Guardian would prefer to NOT be censored on the mainland) right? Package it that way and I'm on board. My love of Dostoevsky goes out the window. Albeit I still think Demons one of the best novels ever written. Woke me up.
    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    Survivor of Bosnian sniper fire Hillary Clinton decries fake news in speech yesterday
    Aaron Aarons , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I'm all in favor of delegitimizing the incoming semi-fascist Trump/Pence regime, and find Obama's talk of a smooth transition disgusting. However, I reject the appeal to Russophobia or other Xenophobia.

    BTW, Obama and his collaborators like Diane Feinstein have done a lot to prepare the legal basis for fascistic repression under the new POtuS.

    Sund Fornuft , 9 Dec 2016 22:1
    I already know what the comission will find. They will find evidences that Iraq holds vast ammonúnt of weapons of mass destruction! Oh wait, that was already used.
    kalander , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    Obama has been as useless as his predecessor young Bush. His policies generally are in tatters and the US neo cons evil fantasy of full spectrum dominance has met its death in Syria. Bravo.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 22:0
    The neoliberal corporate machine is wounded but not dead. They will use every trick, ploy and opportunity to try to regain power.

    The fight goes on.

    fedback , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    After an election cycle with proven collusion between the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign and our media, our media has the nerve to come up with the term 'fake news'.
    Hypocrisy at its finest
    John Urquhart , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Nobody does paranoia like the yanks. To the rest of the world, the unedifying spectacle of the world's biggest bullies, snoops, warmongers, liars and hypocrites complaining about how unfair life is, is pretty nauseating. Most of America's problems are home-grown.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Why fake the news when you can just strong the media companies into muzzling their criticism?

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/09/mika-brzezinski-says-clinton-camp-tried-to-pull-her-off-the-air /

    mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    And the final report will conclude with something along the lines of:
    'After a thorough, exhaustive investigation of all relevant evidence concerning the potential of foreign interference in the United States electoral process, the results of the investigation have shown that, although there remain troubling questions about the integrity of U.S. cyber-security which should prompt immediate Congressional review, there has been uncovered no conclusive evidence to support the conjecture that cyber attacks originating with any foreign actor, state or individual had any significant effect on the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election, and that there is no cause or justification for the American People to question the fairness of or lose faith in the electoral process and laid out by and carried out according to the Constitution.'
    I do Holiday cards too.
    garenmel -> mjp3470 , 9 Dec 2016 22:2
    My hat off to you sir/madam. This was great!
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Georgia's Secretary of State is accusing someone at the Department of Homeland Security of illegally trying to hack its computer network, including the voter registration database.
    In a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, copied to the full Georgia congressional delegation, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp alleges that a computer with a DHS internet address attempted to breach its systems.
    http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/309530-state-of-georgia-allegedly-accusing-homeland-security-of-attempted-hack

    Wake up and smell the BS, the hacking is being done by people a lot nearer home.....

    feliciafarrel , 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    Oh dear, the GOP seem to have forgotten what they were saying about Putin and the Kremlin a short while back:

    The continuing erosion of personal liberty and fundamental rights under the current officials in the Kremlin. Repressive at home and reckless abroad, their policies imperil the nations which regained their self-determination upon the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will meet the return of Russian belligerence with the same resolve that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We will not accept any territorial change in Eastern Europe imposed by force, in Ukraine, Georgia, or elsewhere, and will use all appropriate constitutional measures to bring to justice the practitioners of aggression and assassination.

    https://www.gop.com/platform/american-exceptionalism/

    Are they going to conveniently forget all decency and morality? Is the white supremacist agenda in the GOP finally in the ascendant?

    Russian Troll (Number 254) 9 Dec 2016 21:5
    I as a Russian Troll do not like this investigation and will do or say anything in order to change your mind. Putin is not a problem, the EU is.
    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    ..... prohibiting "fake" or "false" news would be a cure worse than the disease, i.e., censorship by other means. The government cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because it has ulterior motives. News the government dislikes would be conflated with fakery, and news the government approved would be conflated with truthfulness. Private businesses like Facebook cannot be trusted with distinguishing fake from genuine news because its overriding mission is to make money and to win popularity, not to spread truth. It would suppress news that risked injury to its reputation or profits but leave news that did the opposite undisturbed.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/5/reflections-fake-news /
    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    "The Anonymous Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying".

    http://www.alternet.org/media/anonymous-blacklist-promoted-washington-post-has-shocking-roots-ukrainian-fascism-eugenics-and

    GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Clinton lost even though she outspent Trump two to one. She was just a lousy candidate who ran a terrible campaign.
    fimbulvinter -> GuyCybershy , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Uh excuse me but that sort of introspection doesn't fly. She was flawless and the blame rests solely on Russia/alt-right/Sanders/Third Parties/Racism/Misogyny/Alignment of the stars/etc/etc
    emilyadam , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I thnk the idea that russia has world domination is quite laughable, what else they gonna be blamed for next, reduction of giraffe population!Lol
    I think a teeny wee paranoia is setting in, or outright deliberate propaganda, too obvious
    Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around.

    The CIA hacks have been destabalisuping Government for a at least seventy years.

    One thing is pretty obvious paper ballots and a different ballot for each is much harder to rig.

    It is ironic it takes a despot life key Trump to bring the issue to a head AFTER unexpectedly won.

    freeandfair -> Jim Moodie , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    "Is this worse than when the two CIA operatives were caught searching through files in the Offices of the British Labour Party about thirty years ago. What goes around comes around."

    The CIA were caught hacking into the US Congressional computers just 6 or so months ago. Nothing came out of it.

    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3

    possible Russian hacking in US election

    Based on the fact that the US 2000 (and possibly 2004) election was outright stolen by George Bush Jr., perhaps the propagandists in the White House and media ought to be looking for a "Russian connection" in regards to our illustrious former president.

    Texas_Sotol , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I'm shocked--shocked--to hear that our close Russian allies have done anything to influence and undermine the stability of other countries. Preposterous accusation! And to try to become huge winners in the Western Hemisphere, by cheating? Vitriolic nonsense!

    Many posters here actually believe that Good Old Russia should just stick with what they do best. That's poison!

    Fencewalker -> Bluebird101 , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Rather like the Litvenenko inquiry...full of maybe's and possibilities, with not a shred of hard, factual proof shown - demonstrating that the order came from the Kremlin.
    It's just a total accident that Putin's most vocal opponents keep getting shot in the head, gunned down on bridges, suffering 'accidents' or strange miscarriages of (sometimes post-mortem) 'justice' and fall victim to radiological state-enacted terrorism in foreign countries. No pattern there, whatsoever.
    Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I am at a loss. On the one hand, I hear about Russian economy in tatters, gas station posing as a country, deep crisis, economy the size of Italy, rusty old military toys, aircraft carrier smoking out the whole Northern hemisphere, etc. On the other hand, I hear about Russian threat all the time, which must be countered by massive build up of the US and EU military, Russia successfully interfering in the elections in the beacon of democracy, the US, with 20 times greater economy, with powerful allies, the best armed forces in the world, etc. Are we talking about two different Russias, or is this schizophrenia, pure and simple?
    jamese07uk -> Informed17 , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    It's always easy to find reasons to fear something, added to that the psychology of the unknown, and we have the makings of very powerful propaganda. Whatever Russia's level of corruption, and general society, I feel I cannot trust the Western media anymore 100%. There seems to be a equally sinister hidden agenda deep within Western Elites - accessing Russia's land, political and potential wealthly resources must surely be one of them!? The longterm Western agenda/mission?
    spiridonovich , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    The Democratic Party's problem is Russia, which the President is rightly putting front and center. All Russians are the summit of eviality, and must be endlessly scapegoated in order for Democrats to regain power for the nation's greater good.

    Democrats' problems have nothing to do with corruption, glaring conflicts of interest, favoritism, ass-licking editors, crappy data, lacking enthusiasm, and horribly poor judgement.

    None of these issues need to be publicly addressed, being of no consequence to independent voters, and the President, Guardian, et al. must continue their silent -- and "independent" -- vigil on such silly topics, if Democrats are to have any hope of cultivating enough mindless, enraged, and abandoned sheep to bring them future victories.

    ImmortalTao , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    I admire Trump, Putin & Farage. Don't agree with them but I have admiration for them. They show all the cunning, calculating, resourcefulness that put the European race on top. Liberals don't like that and want to see the own people fall to the bottom. Thankfuly the neoliberal elite are finishedm
    MJMaguire , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Absurd nonsense - the third anti-Russian story of the day. Very little of this has much traction because of the sheer volume of misinformation coming out about Russia. there are very good cogent reasons why the Democrats lost the US election - none of them have anything to do with Russia.
    slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    another pathetic attempt to delegitimize Trump. wanna know why he won? look in the mirror, Barry.
    oldsunshine -> slats7 , 9 Dec 2016 21:2
    Will Obama see Clinton if he looks in the mirror??
    Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    I can't see a thing wrong with reviewing the last three election cycles, if there is any doubt at all and to put speculation to bed, it should be done.
    CurtBrown -> Bluejil , 9 Dec 2016 21:1
    Why stop at the last three?
    Karl Marks -> CurtBrown , 9 Dec 2016 21:4
    Because the US is more concerned about money than democratic integrity.
    dicksonator , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    So the US intelligence servies aren't doing similar operations?

    If they werent, heads would roll as they have a considerable budget. Did we learn nothing from Edward Snowden? Are Russia just better at this? I doubt it.

    I think both sides conduct themselves in a despicable manner so please dont call me a Putin apologist. Well, feel free actually, I could'nt care less.

    gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0

    Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election


    US interference:

    COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Comments
    VIETNAM l960-75 Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    142 more rows

    Shall I go on with anoter 142? US lying scumbags

    yeCarumba -> gray2016 , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    the vietnam fiasco alone is enough to disqualify america from any criticism about interference in internal affairs
    they practically destroyed the country
    KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    The pathetic way the media are pushing this big-bad-Russians meme is a little depressing.

    This "hack" is totally fictional, the wikileaks e-mails were almost certainly that...leaks. As most o their output has been over the years. For 95% of the Wikileaks existence there have been absolutely zero connections with "the Kremlin", in fact they have leaked stuff damaging to Russia before now.

    The Russian's did not hack the DNC, or rig the election, this is yet another example of the political establishment hysterically pointing fingers and making up lies when their chosen side loses an election.

    freeandfair -> KitKnightly , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    I remember how North Korea was blamed for Sony hack. I think they were even cut from the internet for a day and there was all this talk of punishing them. And then later it came out that very likely wasn't North Korea. Only the news cycle already moved on and nobody cared.
    mismeasure , 9 Dec 2016 20:5
    Traditionally, the best Cold Warriors have been right-wing liberals. In the absence of policies that concretely benefit the people they engage in threat inflation and demagoguery.
    SergeyL , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    In 90s US set all figures in Russia - from president to news program anchor. Elections of 96 were ripped by American "advisors" so that Eltsyn with 3% rating "won" them. It's payback time.
    Shaemus Gruagain , 9 Dec 2016 20:4
    Oh how wonderful it is to watch them smart and the bonus? no more Obamas.
    uest88888 -> PeteCW , 9 Dec 2016 21:3
    And yet the so-called "Russian trolls" (which is apparently anyone who exercise a modicum of skepticism) seem to be winning here at CiF based on the number of likes per comment, which is likely why the NSA sponsored propagandists and clueless dopes are getting so increasingly shrill.
    Mattster101 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    If you take a wider view, this is all really about keeping the Dems in the game, trying to undo the Trump validity and give them another go in 4 or so years. Really, seems quite desperate that a man that allowed 270000 wild horses to be sold for horsemeat this year across the border to Mexico, brought HC in to his own cabinet having said 'she will say anything and do nothing', knowing what a nightmare that would make, and is going to watch his healthcare get ripped to shreds, needs more accomplishments in his last year, aka Obama, ergo, let's investigate the evil russians and their female athletes with male DNA ( you would think I am making this stuff up, but I am not ) ... Come on Grandma, where are you when we need you most
    nolongersilent , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    we must somehow, subvert the despicable populace that elected trump. we must erase from history the conceding of president elect clinton - newpeak from the ministry of truth. we'll get her into the white house if it takes more cash, lies, and corruption. after all, who needs democracy in the democratic party when we have big brother. democracy just confuses the members. we'll send the despicables through the ministry of love to re-educate them, of course, this IS 1984 after all....we will vote for you, the intelligentsia of the left knows what is best for you.
    eldudeabides , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    Should Hillary have been disqualified (and prosecuted) for having access to debate questions beforehand?
    Nete75 , 9 Dec 2016 20:3
    "Malicious cyber activity, specifically malicious cyber activity tied to our elections , has no place in the international community. Unfortunately this activity is not new to Moscow. We've seen them do this for years ... The president has made it clear to President Putin that this is unacceptable."

    Note how carefully it specifies that it is cyber activity tied to the american elections that is inappropriate. I presume that is simply to avoid openly saying that mass-surveillance by the US government of everyone's private email, and social network accounts doesn't come under that "no place in the international community" phrase. You know, one does wonder how these people's faces don't come off in shame when whinning about potential interference by foreign governemnts after a full 8 years or so of constant revelations of permanent spying and mass-surveillance by the US government of international leaders and ordinary citizens worldwide.

    Boghaunter , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    So the DNC was hacked - so what. Hacking is so common these days as to be expected. A quick perusal of the internet provides some SIGNIFICANT hacks that deserved some consternation:

    9/4/07 The Chinese government hacked a noncritical Defense Department computer system in June, a Pentagon source told FOX News on Tuesday.

    Spring 2011 Foreign hackers broke into the Pentagon computer system this spring and stole 24,000 files - one of the biggest cyber-attacks ever on the U.S. military,

    On the 12th of July 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton the largest U.S. military defence contractor admitted that they had just suffered a very serious security breach, at the hands of hacktivist group AntiSec.

    5/28/13 The confidential version of a Defense Science Board report compiled earlier this year reportedly says Chinese hackers accessed designs for more than two dozen of the U.S. military's most important and expensive weapon systems.

    June 2014 The UK's National Crime Agency has arrested an unnamed young man over allegations that he breached the Department of Defense's network last June.


    1/12/15 The Twitter account for U.S. Central Command was suspended Monday after it was hacked by ISIS sympathizers (OK twitter accounts shouldn't be a big deal. Why does US CentCom even HAVE a twitter account???)

    5/6/15 OPM hack: China blamed for massive breach of US government data

    Omoikani , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    And so the neocon propaganda machine trundles on, churning out this interesting material day after day. The elephant in the room is that if you get hacked you have no knowledge of this until your private stuff is all over the internet, and the chances of finding out who did it are zilch. Everyone in IT security knows this.
    johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:1
    Another "fake news" story. Does anybody with a pulse really believe that Russia hacked the DNC? The US Security Services admitted that it was NOT Russia; the likelihood is that the leaks were provided to Wikileaks by insiders within the US Administration - they wanted to ensure that Hillary did not win. None of the actual revelations were covered by the MSM, and "the Russians did it" was a convenient distraction.
    Omoikani -> johhnybgood , 9 Dec 2016 20:2
    All people that on earth do dwell have no clue who hacked the DNC to the amusing end that Podesta's e-mails ended up on the internet, but it suits a dangerous political narrative to demonise Russia until it becomes plain logical to attack them.
    peterward881 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0
    YES YES let attack Russia, YES YES YES, Russia Russia we should carry on attacking Russia. We the journalists are well paid by the man from Australia. YES YES we must to carry on attacking Russia and forget the shit happening in other countries. YES YES it is our duty.
    guest88888 , 9 Dec 2016 20:0

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    And I guess Obama has also ordered the Guardian to do a full court press of anti-Russian propaganda, just judging by the articles pumped out on today's rag alone.

    The US government is seemingly attempting the "Big Lie" tactic of Joseph Goebbels and instigating support in the public for war against Russia. By repeating the completely unsubstantiated allegations that Russia has somehow "interfered with the election" they hope, without any genuine basis, to strong arm the public into accepting a further ramping of tensions and starting yet another illegal war for profit.

    Chirographer , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    There's nothing wrong with conducting the investigation, but shouldn't it have been done before accusing Russia?

    And aren't all the people cited in the article political appointees, Democrats or avowed Trump enemies, and then there's closing, " A spokesman for the director of national intelligence declined to comment."

    Karega , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Surely of all the Orders Obama might issue during his last weeks in office, why does he choose to give a stupid Order that effectively makes US some sort of Banana Republic? This man was/is more hype than real! At a stroke of a pen he seriously undermines the integrity of the US Electoral System. Whatever credibility was left has now been eroded by these constant and silly claims that somehow Russians installed Trump as President. Doesn't that make Trump some sort of Russian Agent?
    Meanwhile MSM keeps on streaming some fake news and theories and then Obama Orders US intelligence to dig deeper. This is lunacy!
    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Obama certainly understands that Russia is not the reason why Trump was elected. However, he wants to create new obstacles on the way of normalization of relations between the US and Russia and make it more difficult for Trump.

    However, Trump is not a weak man, not a skinny worm; and he can hit these opponents back so hard that international court for them (for invasions into sovereign countries) will lead to their life sentences.

    Ginen , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Only two weeks ago the Obama Administration publicly stated there was no evidence of cybersecurity breaches affecting the electoral process, as reported in the NYT :

    The administration, in its statement, confirmed reports from the Department of Homeland Security and intelligence officials that they did not see "any increased level of malicious cyberactivity aimed at disrupting our electoral process on Election Day."

    The administration said it remained "confident in the overall integrity of electoral infrastructure, a confidence that was borne out." It added: "As a result, we believe our elections were free and fair from a cybersecurity perspective."

    Was Obama lying then or is he lying now?
    imperfetto , 9 Dec 2016 19:5
    Is there any limit to the ridicolous, Mr. Obama? what is this? a tragicomic play of the inept?
    Here we are with the most childish fabrication that it must be the Russians' fault if Trump won the election. I'll be laughing for an entire cosmic era! And all this after US publically announced that they were going to launch a devastating acher attack against the badies: the Russians, which of course didn't work out. Come on, this is more comedy that a serious play.

    What probably is going on, the readers can gather by having a look at the numberless articles that are being published by maistream media against the Russians.
    Why this histeric insurgence of Russofobia? Couldn't it be that it is intolerable for the US and their allies to see the Russians winning in Aleppo, and most of all restoring peace and tollerance among the population returning to their abbandoned homes.

    brothersgrimm , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I think Hillary, in part, lost the election due to all the fake news being pumped out by the mainstream corporate media, doing her bidding. People are tired of it, along with all the corruption and lies that came to the surface through the likes of Wikileaks.
    Trump is a terrible alternative, but the only alternative people were given, so many went with it.
    Now we see fake news making out the Russians to be the bad guys again, pumping out story after story, trying to propagandize the population into sucking up these new memes. Russia has its problems, and will always act in its own self-interest, but it's nothing compared to the tactics the US uses, bullying countries around the world to pander to its own will, desperately trying to maintain its Empire.
    RoachAmerican , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Examine something real, Nuclear Hillary. It must be time for Spring Planting??
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html?_r=0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syEjkPyqRew
    Minutes 20 to 25
    Uranium One Wyoming
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

    http://www.npr.org/2015/04/23/401781313/clinton-foundation-linked-to-russian-effort-to-buy-uranium-company
    https://youtu.be/jkfE10g8xbc
    at 25 minutes et seq
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc&feature=youtu.be


    Below, first paragraphs are the most important
    http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company

    The 1 2 3 Step of Acquisition of Uranium One
    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-clintons-putin-and-uranium-2015-4

    Going Private Part Public Company Disappears
    http://www.wise-uranium.org/ucscr.html

    http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/economics/22-01-2013/123551-russia_nuclear_energy-0 /
    Coward Comey needs to go.

    Joelbanks , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    The scripture tells us those who live by the sword will perish by it.

    America was in the interference of other countries' elections before its ugly 2016 presidential election. Remember Ukraine and Secretary Hillary Clinton's employee Victoria F****the EU Nuland in Ukraine. Now we have the makings of some kind of conflict with Russia over its alleged meddling in America's elections. More global tension= More cash flowing into the US equity market, money printing by another means.

    hardlyeverclever , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    I'd be surprised if the Russians weren't trying to affect the outcome of the election. The Brits had a debate in Parliament on Trump, Obama made threats to the UK on the Brexit vote, so who knows what we're all doing in each others elections behind closed doors while we are clear to do so publically.

    The MSM's absolute refusal to address the leaks in a meaningful way (other than the stuff about recipes) suggests to be no one felt it a big deal at the time.

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:3
    Obama could realise that Hillary's viewes on Putin and Russia did not help her at all. People are not that stupid, they see well, use own brains and not so easily impressed by whatever CNN says to them.
    Alun Jones , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    John McAfee said that any organization sophisticated enough to do these hacks is also sophisticated enough to make it look as though any country they want did it. So it could have been anyone.
    palindrome , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Obama earlier this year: Russia is not a world power, only a regional power.

    Obama now: Russia has the power to manipulate the USA election.

    Which one is it then?

    Of course it's all bull...Obama is another establishment puppet who cannot accept that people have figured out their modus operandi.

    diddoit , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    It's reported today on Ars Technica : ThyssenKrupp suffered a "professional attack"

    The steelmaker, which makes military subs, says it was targeted from south-east Asia.

    ..the design of its plants were penetrated by a "massive," coordinated attack which made off with an unknown amount of "technological know-how and research."

    The internet and precious information...

    alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    Neoliberals are just desperately losing ideological competition at home and abroad. They cannot convince people that they are right because it's not what's going on.

    It does not matter what some others say, it's what really goes on matters.

    alexfoxy28 -> imipak , 9 Dec 2016 21:0
    But there is innate, basic self-interest in all people (that does not depend on education, ethnicity, race) and people know it instinctively well. They will not go against it even if all around will tell otherwise.
    alexfoxy28 -> alexfoxy28 , 9 Dec 2016 21:1 0 1
    simulacra27 , 9 Dec 2016 19:2
    The fake news channel brought to you by Obama and co.
    p.s. I mean that people cannot be manipulated by others at this basic level when some higher level manipulative tools are used.
    Kasem3000 , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    I love how this has now become solid fact. No confirmation, nothing official but it is no common fact that the Russians interfered. How many reports do we hear about US interference with foreign countries infastructure through covert means.
    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Meh. Seems like tampering happens all the time. How many elections in South America did the USA fix? How many in the middle east and Africa? I think this "russian's did it" rhetoric is counterproductive as it is stopping Democrats from doing the introspective needed to really understand why HRC lost the election.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 19:1
    How can you on the one hand crusade against "fake news" and on the other promote this:

    https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/08/artist-alison-jackson-self-publishes-spoof-trump-photos-despite-fear-of-being-sued#comments

    Sutir Comed , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot and there was credible evidence that the Russians had rigged the election in favor of the Democrat. The right-wing echo chamber would be having seizures! These people are UTTER HYPOCRITES. And they would obviously rather win with the help of a hostile foreign power than try to preserve the integrity of our elections.
    MayorHoberMallow , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia may or may not have hacked the DNC. I'd like to find out. I hope the DNC aren't enough of doofusses to assume this wouldn't be in the realm of possibility.
    I presume that the U.S. has its own group of hackers doing the same Worldwide. This is not a criticism; I would expect the U.S. intelligence community to learn what our rivals, and even some of our friends, are up to.
    Timothy Everton , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    This is getting to be pretty lame. I have doubts that "Russia" could interfere to any great extent with our elections any more than we could with theirs. Sure, individuals or organizations, and more than likely in THIS country, could do so. And they have, as we saw with the DNC and Sanders campaign (and vice versa). Let's not go into an almost inevitable nuclear war over what is quite possibly "fake news".
    dreylon , 9 Dec 2016 19:0
    Russia did this, Russia did that
    its getting very boring now, you have lost all credibility
    you have cried wolf to many times
    stop trying to manipulate us
    Johnny Kent , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    When will the Democrats get it? It wasn't the Russians, who are blamed for everything, including the weather, by desperate Western failed leaders, but an unsuitable candidate in Clinton, which lost them the Election. Bernie Sanders would have walked it.
    Catonaboat , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Well Guardian I do believe you hit a nerve, I don't think I've ever seen a more one sided BTL. Me thinks some people do protest too much.
    Iaorana , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Regarding the notorious "fuck the EU " on the part of the US "diplomat" Victoria Nuland "the State Department and the White House suggested that an assistant to the deputy prime minister of Russia Dmitry Rogozin was the source of the leak, which he denied " Wiki

    Good occasion to substantiate the accusation which ,substantiated or not,will remind the "useful idiots" of the "change of regime " US policy and who started the Ukrainian crisis.

    Lafcadio1944 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Boy, oh boy, fake news is everywhere just read this headline!

    Election hacking: Obama orders 'full review' of Russia interference

    Which states as fact there was interference by Russia and that the investigation is to determine how bad it was. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER has been offered by anyone that Russia interfered in any way. FAKE NEWS!!

    Mike5000 , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    Voting machine hacking is a very serious problem but you generally need physical access to a voting machine to hack it. Anyone notice thousands of Russians hanging around in Detriot, Los Angeles, etc election HQs? How about Clinton drones?

    If the DNC hadn't rigged the primary we'd be celebrating president-elect Bernie. If they hadn't rigged the general Hillary would have lost by a landslide.

    ShoppingKingLouie , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    We never investigated this tho did we Former President Obama?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/08/vladimir-putin-hillary-clinton-russia

    Time to put on your big girl pants, accept defeat and leave gracefully.

    Powerspike , 9 Dec 2016 18:5
    1000 Russian athletes were doping in the 2012 Olympics - but it's taken until now to realise it?!
    Russia influenced the 2016 US election?!
    Russia is presently "influencing" the German elections?!
    Russia is killing civilians and destroying hospitals with impunity in Syria?!
    etc
    Wow! Russia is taking over the world, it must be stopped, can anyone save us? Obama? Trump? NATO?
    Look out! Russian armies are massing on the border ready to sweep into Europe.......arrhhh!

    I love the smell of gibberish in the morning!

    geofffrey , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    ***Newsflash***

    Reads:

    "..ex-prime minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair of the United Kingdom, and Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States of America, have formally announced a new transatlantic political party to be named: The Neoliberal Elite Party for bitter anti-Brexiters and sore anti-Trumpettes.

    dahsab , 9 Dec 2016 18:4
    Rather rich coming from my country which has interfered in elections around the world for decades. I suppose it's only cheating if the other team does it.

    Not that they'll find any evidence. Just another chapter in the sad saga of the Democrats unwillingness to admit they ran the worst candidate & the worst campaign in recent memory. It's not our fault! Them dirty Russkies did it!

    [Dec 07, 2016] In view of listing on PropOrNot should

    Notable quotes:
    "... I was thinking Natasha Fatale .. ..."
    "... it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. ..."
    "... I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up. ..."
    "... Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :) ..."
    "... Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ! ..."
    Dec 07, 2016 | www.nakedcapitalism.com

    charles leseau November 26, 2016 at 5:36 am

    So are you changing your name to Eva Smithova any time soon? Or maybe change the page header to Голый Капитализм for a bit?

    a different chris November 26, 2016 at 10:37 am

    Oh, I don't ask for much but please, please consider that! :) :) :)

    fresno dan November 26, 2016 at 11:22 am

    Re: charles leseau, November 26, 2016 at 5:36 am

    I was thinking Natasha Fatale ..

    petal November 26, 2016 at 1:02 pm

    ... Anyway, concerned by number of supposedly educated friends(Clinton supporters) being taken in by this fake news/Russian ties thing. They've lost their heads and there's no discussing it with them, they are convinced. Where does it end? Na zdorovie!

    pretzelattack November 26, 2016 at 1:29 pm

    it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. somebody referred to invasion of the body snatchers on nc the other day, that's the only logical explanation.

    OIFVet November 26, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up.

    Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :)

    ambrit November 26, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ!

    [Nov 19, 2016] Syrian child disappointed she won't get to be drone-striked by the first female president by Duffel Blog

    Nov 13, 2016 | duffelblog.com

    ALEPPO, Syria - In the midst of sectarian violence that has overtaken Syria for more than five years, nine-year-old Asil Kassab is shocked by the defeat of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

    "I am so unhappy that a woman was not elected President," Asil said, briefly ducking as a bomb from an American MQ-1 Predator drone leveled the hospital behind her. "Hillary Clinton is truly a role model for young girls like me. I was so hoping that she'd be the one to order the drone strike that would inevitably end my life."

    Despite Clinton's support for regime change in Syria, leading to what is arguably one of the greatest humanitarian crises of the early century, Kassab surprisingly says she holds no ill will.

    "I don't put much stock in the misogynist agenda of American politics," said Kassab, who, like many children, cannot remember a time before the war that has killed 400,000 people, including her family, and created over 4.7 million refugees. "People will always criticize her because she is a woman in a man's world; One who has the audacity to run for President."

    "It is sexism that motivates her critics, plain and simple," she added. "It is sexism, and racism, that caused her to lose the election!"

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

    Highly recommended!
    Notable quotes:
    "... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
    "... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
    Sep 24, 2016 | www.antiwar.com
    A good friend passed along an article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible - even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.

    Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from the sales of weaponry to the army.

    As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.

    But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia? North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:

    #1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler all learned that lesson the hard way).

    #2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract the people from their parlous existence.

    #3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America, at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria

    Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.

    We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion on the shiny new and under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy, yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.

    The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.

    Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy.

    William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing Views with the author's permission.

    [Jul 28, 2016] Russians take performance enhancing drugs: Americans dont!!!

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    Moscow Exile , July 26, 2016 at 9:17 am

    Russians take performance enhancing drugs: Americans don't!!!